<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/
<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/rules/ACT-R1.html
<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/rules.html
Wilco: We have rules, but what we do not
have is rule groups
... we need to build the implementation of rule groups, what we need and
asign it to someone
Anne: we can close the old one as we have a new one for aggregation
Wilco: i have 3 bullets to show what we
need, rules group should be contained in own pages, should have rules
table and should have navigation to make it easy to navigate between
rules
... we all agree we need rule groups?
Anne: Yes
Kasper: yes
<rdeltour> +1
Wilco: We need to demo so should probably
build it here, the other group will need it
... Auto-WCAG group can then use it
Anne: They should have aggregation logic on pages
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/198
Anne: Rule format states any rule in the
rule group passes then the rule group passes, so we need to change that
in the format
... we found 2 examples in WCAG that will need that
Wilco: You are right, i would be in favor of
it
... Rule groups should allow custom aggregation to pass
Roman: it will be nice to have that
Kasper: We have found WCAG SCs which does
not meet the current format, signle rule pass may not meet it but 2 or
more have to pass
... the aggregation logic when the rule group passes have to change
Roman: sounds good
Trevor: makes sense
Marry Jo: yes i agree
Shadi: i am wondering if section 7 should
define what the rule group should look like
... since now we are including the aggregation part, it will be clear if
we define that
Trevor: Do we allow rule groups in rule groups?
Wilco: No we do not want that
Trevor: Every time you create a rule, it will be in a rule group?
Wilco: Not sure on that?
Kasper: any ideas on it
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/205
Kasper: yeah there is comment to that extent
Wilco: SC are one way of grouping, it is not the same as putting every rule in a group
Trevor: do not see the need to do that
Wilco: rule groups are used to support non
standard aggregation
... May be change the name to aggregation groups
Anne: or name it Non standard rule
aggregation
... since it is more about aggregation not about groups
Trevor: is there any rule dependency?
Kasper: it is not so much of dependency, they can still pass on their own
Anne: One term is meter rules
Kasper: It is not really rule it is term to define aggregation logic
Wilco: i like aggrgation group, it defines it better, scopes it better
Shadi: aggregation is type of grouping, not to be picky
Trevor: i think since it is defined clearly, the name is OK
Wilco: So Ann and Kasper, would you want to take a stab at updating the rule format?
Anne, Kasper: yes
Wilco: Rule groups are about aggregation so not every rule does not have to be in rule groups
+1
Wilco: will respond to the comment
<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/algorithms/
Wilco: basic idea is to list out different
terms we have defined
... we have a separate section with links to pages where things are
defined
... suggestion by Siteimprove
Anne: Separate pages might be easier
Shadi: does have to have test cases
Anne: If we have deinations then we need test cases for the implementation
Wilco: test cases might be difficult, we may need framework
Anne: we just discussed on having that, have not agreed
Shadi: i have difficulty understanding how
that would look like
... it will helpful to document the agreement on the implementation and
if we build on that
Wilco: lets do it in 2 steps, build the glossary and then build the test cases
Shadi: ok i see, splitting might be good
Anne: agree
Wilco: Jey took the first one
Jey: i can take this one as well, may be we can automate it
Shadi: So whats the process? the key terms are defined and create separate pages for each and link them
Wilco: yes create separate pages and link them
Shadi: I am thinking about instruction on how to write a rule, it is in Auto-WCAG
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/195
Shadi: We need guidance on how a rule developer would include the existing terms or include new terms and also define how the rule package is created
Wilco: I think what you are asking is to add glossary terms
Shadi: yes that is one but we also need guidance on how to author rules
<shadi> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/design/rule-design.html
Shadi: we have a page that talks about how
to create a test rule
... How to include an existing term or create new terms
Anne: We can include that in the template to guide folks to use existing terms or create a new one if needed
Wilco: ACT should do that or Auto-WCAG?
Shadi: There is implicit knowledge but it
should be documented as well
... Any other community wants to start writing rules, would they know
how to do that
... include in some in the rules format and more in the Auto-WCAG
Wilco: we can include that in the rules repository
Shadi: agree with Wilco to come back to the post to document
<shadi> +1 to consistent language
Anthony: We have different terms in different places, tools in some place, in other place we refer to it as products
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/199/files?diff=split
Wilco: we need to go through it more closely
Anthony: Are we referring to other standards other then WCAG?
Wilco: there are definitely other standards
Shadi: do we want to promote that?
Wilco: Totally, our rules can work with other standards
Shadi: it should work but do we want to
promote that
... most other standards are derivatives of WCAG
... this is what i spend my time harmonizing all so not a good idea of
promoting
<shadi> RGAA
Anne: If we conform to that we do conform to WCAG but does not go the other way
Wilco: i do not thing it should be tied to a
standard, this document can live beyond WCAG 2.0
... ACT rules should capture best practices
Shadi: lets move forward, the initial wording had WCAG 2.0, we can leave 2.0
Wilco: ok we do want WCAG in the document
Anthony: agree