See also: IRC log
last week's survey:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF15Feb2017/results
wilco: we were on the agenda AG WG
yesterday, but we didn't reach that part of the call
... alistair, anything you wanted to add?
ag: no, probably not
wilco: 0 comments on this, approved?
[crickets]
wilco: there were a couple updates since
the last time we looked
... any objections to merging?
[none heard]
+1
<Kathy> +1
<maryjom_> +1
<agarrison> +1
wilco: no comments on last week's minutes. minutes approved!
wilco: no comments
moe: I incorpororated the feedback
wilco: could you briefly describe the changes?
moe: [bad audio]
... wilco had some feedback into the issue of the PR, I added his
feedback
... the comment was if 1 test passes, then the test passes
wilco: I don't see the comment on the PR
<maryjom_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/54/files
wilco: did you start a review and not
finish it?
... PSA: don't forget to submit your reviews!
maryjom: the comment was "1'test cases',
'test case' - since elsewhere the document we don't mash them together.
Note this happens on & off throughout this addition :)"
... it's editorial stuff, we should harmonize with other instances
... next comment: "Would the description of the error need to point out
the failing criteria, if applicable?"
wilco: do you mean the SC?
maryjom: yes
wilco: I would think that when you're
reporting you'd want to do that, but it's not be part of the error
message itself
... we're including the SC info in the metadata itself
maryjom: at what point is that done then?
wilco: we have a section on a11y
requirements, where you indicate the SC the rule is applicable to
... you can do it when you're aggregating or add that to metadata
... it's up to whoever is implementing the rule, doesn't need to be part
of the rule itself
maryjom: some people interpret things
differently
... for example, I was going through a test scenario looking for
multimedia; SC 1.1.1 saying you need short descriptions
... need accessible alternative, or caption, audio desc, etc
... they were failing multiple criteria, munging everything together
wilco: right, I think we got that covered,
by stating which rules goes with which criteria
... any other comments on PR #54?
... agree to merge?
+1
<maryjom_> +1
<shadi> +1
<Kathy> +1
wilco: moe, please go ahead and merge it!
wilco: about the CSUN meeting, did I see correctly that we're not gonna have a suite?
alistair: yes, unfortunately it's double booked
wilco: we're a fairly large group...
kathy: we can try a restaurant?
wilco: who's gonna be there first?
shadi: I'll be on a meeting on Monday
... I'm wondering about maybe the Redfields downstair, it quiets down
after lunch time
wilco: let's try that, and do something else if it doesn't work
shadi: the bar area also have large tables
... I'll try to make a booking at Redfields around 1:00 / 1:30
wilco: we're looking at around 8 people
alistair: what day again?
shadi: tuesday afternoon
rdeltour: I suppose it means there won't be a remote option?
wilco: correct
... just to clarify, it's not an official meeting, I just want to come
up with a proposal for a plan to publish the draft
... and talk about the test case suite
... put some things in place for prototyping, very practical
get-some-work-done things
wilco: I just created an abstract in a new
PR
... we can get that on the agenda for tomorrow
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/58
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/57
wilco: if you don't mind reviewing the
above PR for tomorrow, please do
... these are the last 2 things that we need to go through before having
a draft ready
... no need for a survey, we can do an email
third issue on the list is Benchmark, issue #38
wilco: let's look at that tomorrow as well
... issue #35 "Managing exception" I think we merged that
maryjom: I think it was on last week's survey
wilco: can be closed
... issue #34 "Rule aggregation" has moved to Benchmarking
... issue #39, #27, #26 were all resolved, we can close theses
... moe, an update on the Contributors' document?
moe: yes, I made some updates
... I sent out an email to the group to see if there any objections
... just recevied an email from Wilco saying he's approving the PR
wilco: the Copyright issue #14 is still open
shadi: it's on me
wilco: how is it gonna work for us when we move the FPWD?
shadi: the copyrtight stuff is just
boilerplate
... the status of the doc is typically done by staff with input from
chair or facilitators, it explains what's new and what to look for
... maybe you should come up with 2/3 questions we'd like to have
covered
... what do you expect from reviewers?
... all the rest, the admin stuff, is all done by me but we'll need WG
approval first
... right now may not be best time
<MoeKraft> I have to drop. See everyone next week.
shadi: rigth after CSUN, we should get on the meeting and talk to the chairs to ask what the want
wilco: I really want to make sure that the doc is ready for review after CSUN
alistair: can I ask how we can access the HTML of the built document?
wilco: moe just made that yesterday
shadi: you can get that on github.io
<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework-FPWD-proposed-2017-02-20.html
wilco: we have a build sitting at the URL
above
... I will update it today
... and send the link to everyone, with the abstract and all the stuff
we discussed today
... we should be ready with our 1st draft tomorrow!
shadi: great work everybody!
wilco: then meeting closed! talk to you tomorrow