Wilco: AG had a survey, we got all approvals to publish the next draft, we are good to go
Shadi: we are in the publishing pipeline
Wilco: we are on schedule
Moe: Do you need me to generate a new draft?
Shadi: No, i have the latest
Wilco: We looked at whats in WCAG and created a list on what we need
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/381
Wilco: I have been looking at what we need
to publish the rules as techniques
... i took the WCAG 2.1 template and modified into our rules template
and most things fit quite well.
... Should the CG write rules, publish them as failure techniques
SteinErik: Can you clarify
Wilco: WCAG as techniques and rules could
become failure techniques
... ACT rules can be published as failure techniques
Eric: ACT rules can link to failure techniques
Wilco: There is more things in rules then in failure techniques
Shadi: I like the idea, there are 3
questions, how to format or present the rule that we need to sort out
... other question is if the AG WG will accept, does the rules cover
everything, it does i think but we should have a discussion
... the third question is how are they maintained? will be maintained in
2 separate repositories
Wilco: so in this meeting i would like to know what we want and create a proposal
Shadi: good examples of rules to demonstrate how that could replace failures
<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/rules.html
Shadi: do we have such examples?
Wilco: i am not sure
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F77.html
<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC4-1-1-unique-id.html
Wilco: F77 is a failure technique and can be replaced by this rule in the link above
Shadi: yes this is more human like, i see SteinErik's point
Wilco: It is reasonable to say the ACT rules has better description and format and will be helpful to create the rule
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/381
Wilco: I have a list that will make the ACT
rule in better format to replace
... Do we need better description?
SteinErik: we need better description not longer
Wilco: These rules are just not for people
who write rules but also for people who use the results
... So Eric do suggest that we keep it separate
SteinErik: We should link it
... open to other solutions
Wilco: what are your concerns about adding it in the background information
SteinErik: i would like to put interpretation and background separate
Anne: The rules and background may be written by different people
<Wilco> An ACT Rule MUST have a description that is in plain language and provides a brief explanation of what the rule does.
Wilco: Auto WCAG rules does address that
Shadi: I see Anne's point
... Can we automate to pull in background
... from existing failures or developed by someone
Wilco: Do we want every rule to be submitted as techniques
SteinErik: thats cant be the only way.. why we should keep them separate
Wilco: so other then the description or background could be replace by the rules
SteinErik: what about rules that can not be techniques, like composed rules
Wilco: sufficient techniques have structure that rely on other techniques
SteinErik: could we open this to AG for input
Wilco: yes
... Idea of what rules are implemented in what tools are not part of
techniques currently
... ACT rules track that, with 2 independent implementation, so we will
need some staging of rules independent of the technique
Shadi: not sure i follow
<Skotkjerra> Have to sneak out, guys. Thank you!
Wilco: We will have community write rules and then it becomes ready to be picked up
Shadi: This goes back to the process of a technique becoming a published version
Wilco: We will need a separate rules repository
Shadi: Rules come ready to be implemented
Wilco: We can clarify that, don't send rules
without implementation
... would like a direct flow from community writing rules to flow
directly into AG
... as techniques
... 2 ways to do this, CG writes rules, ACT monitors quality / support
and submit as a failure technique or CG is responsible for quality
control and comes to ACT to publish rules
Shadi: so 2 things, acceptance requirements,
on the other side there still needs to be a approval process
... we can have a task group to do that
... Our goal is to reduce overhead on the CG
... Change can obsolete a rule so there is some maintenance, they
looking for someone to take over that work
Wilco: 2 options, i am happy to write them
and propose to AG
... maybe 3 options
... CG write rules, AG to provide the background
Anne: how to make sure the right person contributes
Shadi: Techniques moved out from TR space,
it is ongoing discussion
... The background and understanding docs are non normative but
important
Wilco: this is down to couple questions, which of the 2 options would AG prefer, 2 step or 3 step process and what do we do with background
Shadi: talk to the chairs and give them heads up what we want to discuss, maybe a week later
Wilco: ok we will have a meeting with them
in 2 weeks
... Next week we will look at meta data