<scribe> scribe: Wilco
<Will_C> I scribed (scrobe?) last week
Daniel: I'll regenerate the minutes from last week manually. Bots did not work
Will: Meta-element, I think we
needed to clear up an issue. Needed to get confirmation.
... needs a little help.
<Chuck> wilco: I didn't get a response, maybe shoot him an email.
Will: I'll e-mail Jean-Yves
Wilco: No progress on object-element
Helen: Two open queries from Jean-Yves. Need to discuss with him.
Kathy: I met with Jenn last week to go over scrollable elements. She'll get in touch with Tom for clarification on a survey comment.
Chris: Created a PR, Jean-Yves wanted to update the expectation wording. That's outstanding.
<Chuck> I can scribe for wilco if he speaks.
Daniel: PR 1890, i'll look at it tomorrow
Helen: I put a change request on 1886
Kathy: 1884 has been approved
Chris: 1873 has change requests. JY put a suggestion.
Kathy: I'm assigned to that one, as is Wilco
Will: I'll review it
<Chuck> wilco: I'll merge it right now (1831)
Wilco: I'll merge 1831
<Chuck> wilco: We should either decide now to put it out for CfC or survey it again. It's all editorial, we can go to CfC
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3APriority
<Chuck> wilco: That's related to deciding whether or not we have secondary accessibility requirements.
<Chuck> wilco: No progress on these
Kathy: 1810, I've looked into it.
Am trying to figure out if it's a failure
... It's mapped to 1.3.1. I did some screen reader testing. I
do hear a difference in what's announced between a menuitem
group, but I still get the information for the treeitem.
... Assigning to Daniel and Tom to help review
Kathy: This is on how we can add additional accessibility requirements to the rules.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/531
Kathy: This is PR 531, it's in a
different repo. Anyone's welcome to comment on it.
... There are some changes to different sections of the rule
format. When I added the new section, it seemed a little too
close to the existing section.
... That's why I made the change to the existing section.
... I think keeping the original section as it was is okay. In
taking out "further testing is needed" for satisfied, that made
it clearer why we had that difference.
... That would take a lot of SC of our current rules out.
... This first section had one outcome mapping section. I tried
to separate the two different acc requirement levels to what's
required for conformance.
... The new section is Mapping secondary requirements.
... Please comment on the draft, and if you have comments on
how to make that clearer add it to the PR.
<Chuck> wilco: One thing I didn't put in feedback, worth keeping in mind. We are doing 1.1. We have to keep it backward compatible. Whatever we write should be additive.
<Chuck> wilco: We should not make current rules invalid. We should keep that in mind when updating the rules.
Kathy: The change I made to the
outcome mapping section is detailed. There is no change to when
the outcome is failed.
... The mapped requirement is not satisfied.
... From our discussion last week we found it's difficult to
determine if something is satisfied.
... It sounds like this will have to be reverted.
Tom: Is this to distinguish
between passed and cantTell.
... Pass is passing with respect to the rule.
... I'll open an issue to discuss how to maybe say that a test
target satisfies part of, the requirement, with respect to the
rule.
Kathy: We'll have to come back
and rethink how to handle the AAA SC scenario
... ... reading comment.
... The further testing is needed phrase bothered me the most
about this case. I'll take another look.
... What does the group think about "secondary" as a term?
Helen: I think Additional might
be a better word. Secondary to me means "lesser".
... Additional doesn't mean it must be there.
Wilco: I think secondary works for now, as we refine the wording I think we'll get a better understanding of what we'd want from a good term.
Daniel: We were considering "situational", I feel better about that now. I agree with Wilco that as we write this we'll come up with a better name for this
Kathy: OK so we'll refer to them as secondary for now.
Wilco: We have a definition of web page (HTML), and in the heading descriptive rule we have an example of how to talk about "next" items
Kathy: Next comments is from Chris.
Wilco: We should us "satisfied" rather than "living up to" That's the term WCAG uses.
<thbrunet> Issue regarding the pass/cantTell/fail bit of the outcome mapping: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/532
Kathy: Maybe the 2.4.2 reference needs to be removed from assumptions
Wilco: You don't get a false positive from this rule if that technique isn't applied, so it's not an assumption.
Kathy: So we'll remove that bullet from the assumptions.
Wilco: On the implementations, there is one cantTell, I don't think there's a reason to worry about interpretation differences on the cantTell so I think that's alright.
Daniel: 1883 is already merged. Comment's not relevant
<dmontalvo> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1883 -> My merged pr
Kathy: So there are two things that need to be updated. We'll need to assign someone.
Daniel: I'll take on this one.
Wilco: Failed example 2 doesn't mention the element is hidden.
Kathy: I'll assign it to myself