<scribe> scribe: kathy
wilco: object element needs
reviewers
... iframe - I have change requests
... scrollable element - no activity yet
daniel: will send to TF group
wilco: met with will on image accname is descriptive
wilco: daniel's #1912 call for
review for 1 week
... #1852 needs reviews
... the rest look like cg work
wilco: looked into presentation
role conflict does not work on iframe.
... role=none with aria-label is still role none
... #1875 related to secondary requirements
wilco: I will send it out
... taking rules to AGWG after TPAC
wilco: 5 responses
... kathy's comment
tom: applicability is to 2 or more elements
wilco: can raise with AG to update understanding article
kathy: no that's ok
wilco: open issue #1599 should be
closed if no change is needed
... rule expectation says any pixel changes color, then rule is
pass
... #1599 says adding a border doesn't change the color
... can understand why expectation is unclear
tom: it is technically accurate
wilco: will add survey note to
clarify expectation
... Q7 comment from wilco on HSL color value phrasing and inapplicable
ex 4
... Expectation HSL language used because wcag includes
luminance in color
tom: if just hue changes is it a valid focus indicator
wilco: about a year ago, color of
link and color of text discussion separated hue from
luminance
... rules were updated to be more explicit for hue and HSL
color values
... instead of HSL color value, just color value and link to
HSL color value to improve readability
... all other rules use HSL color value
kathy: ok with leaving it since all other rules use HSL color value
tom: ok, maybe add a note to explain
wilco: let's leave as is
... inapplicable ex 4 single focusable control has a visible focus so
implementer would pass this example
tom: still consistent
wilco: inapplicable examples should fail if they aren't inapplicable
tom: same of inapplicable ex 2
wilco: in rule writing guidance,
inapplicable exs should be failures if they weren't inapplicable
... examples are good examples of the applicability
kathy: removing visible focus on inapplicable ex 2, it would still be inapplicable
wilco: would you pass if there is one focusable element without a visible focus?
trevor and jenn: no
kathy: no
wilco: me either
... suggest going to AGWG to remove exception of one focusable
element in understanding
tom: common redirect page has only one link, would expect to be able to tab and see focus on link
wilco: I will raise an issue with
AG about the one focusable element exception
... mark this as "on hold" in rule sheet
trevor: will take over one of wilco's liaison rules
wilco: 6 responses, 1
reject
... Q2 comment from wilco - 2 rules in 1
... 2 expectations and 2 things in applicability
... structures complicated
... don't worry about headings with aria-hidden which is
already in another rule
... applicability could be just headings in accessibility
tree
... with first expectation only
tom: my Q7 comment for inapplicable exs 3 and 4 are in accessibility tree. not visible because they are empty
wilco: lots of comments on those examples
kathy: the "or" in Applicability is unusual and not in other rules.
wilco: anyone disagree to simplify this rule?
jenn: no
wilco: add note in survey to
simplify
... Q5 wilco comment - passed ex 2 same as pass ex 3, no
default aria-level in ARIA 1.2
... failed ex 3 needs an aria-level
... Q7 comments. already have a rule for empty headings.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/531/files
link to PR for secondary requirements