<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/233
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT27AUG2018/results#xQ4
MJM: start with Shadi's comment
SAZ: changes only editorial ... re-ordered sentences for better flow
RDT: comment not directly on the pull request
... just realized that the sentence is vague
... and that combined with MUST requirement raises concern
... not sure how the sentences constitutes a conformance criteria
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT27AUG2018/results
[[Each aspect MUST identify a distinct part of a test subject, which does not overlap with another aspect of the same rule.]]
RDT: not only wording issue but more conceptual
... what does "no overlap" mean?
... DOM tree could overlap with the Accessibility tree (eg. accessible name in the DOM could come from an Accessibility tree)
AG: aspect is badly defined
... also that definition does not mean anything ti me
[[An aspect is a distinct part of the [Test Subject](#output-test-subject) or its underlying implementation.]]
AG: don't understand that definition
... we have definitions built on definitions that are vague and convoluted
RDT: agree, definition is a little loose
... have to think about what we want to say a little clearer
... maybe say that only one aspect of the test subject is tested
... but not sure what that means
AG: to me the test subject should be the aspect
RDT: think test subject could be a page
... but that can be built using several resources
AG: but at the end of the day you are testing the trees
... when you test a car, doesn't make sense to say testing the engine
RDT: issue comes with more complex tests, where you have to look at several parts/trees
ATN: in several rules looking at DOM tree and CSS styling
AG: i'm ok with the concept, just needs better defining
MK: we have multiple issues here
... #257 aspects under test
... just want to point out that we are discussing a different section
<romain> +1, the previous discussion is independent from #257/#242
MJM: agree, separate issue
... suggest we open an issue on that
<MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/257
MK: we already have #257 on that
SES: discussions seems abstract to me, and can't follow it
... want some suggestions
... suggestions should help move the discussions along
MK: this topic is about moving the sub-sections to an external WG Note
... #257 discusses the definition of aspects
... can have it there
MJM: can move on, RDT agrees to discuss it in #257
ATN: there is disagreement on the content of the example
... if that will really make it as an ACT Rule
... not getting sufficient agreement
... but there is a Failure technique for that
AG: but can still write a rule on that
ATN: just want to flag that there is disagreement on that example
AG: I feel confident about that
... we have a test for that already
MK: after moving the sub-sections out of the document
... think the examples may actually need cleaning up
ATN: i'll take a look if I can fix those
MK: maybe the styling or formatting
... i'll take a closer look
MJM: after that fix, we can then merge
<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/241
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT27AUG2018/results#xQ1
SAZ: not objecting, agree with the content and intent
... just some sentences and definitions need to be better stated, I think
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/241#issuecomment-420722141
CP: duplicate list item
MJM: editorial and can be simply removed
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/247#issuecomment-420816040
KE: suggestion to add clarity
MJM: makes sense
KE: not sure how we want to refer to rule IDs
... made a proposed edit to refer to rule IDs
MJM: makes sense
MK: many conflicts now between the different pull requests
... suggest to accept this pull request, then open new ones for Shadi's and Kathy's edits
... this way keep the code clean
MJM: Kathy can you open a new issue?
KE: do you want one for each or one for both?
MK: one for both
MJM: an issue, not a pull request
MJM: anyone have specific suggestions now?
... otherwise we'll defer
SAZ: if Alistair wants this removed, need to clearly explain why
AG: is the document available in its entirety
MK: will marge the changes and provide a link
AG: find GitHub very difficult
... can read document and respond to email
SAZ: several steps needed for CR publication
... review by WG is expected to be more stringent
... also need to negotaite exit criteria
... will be difficult to publish before TPAC if we don't have the final draft by the first week of october