wilco: Last I checked we had 4 approvals. Did that change?
maryjom: I think we have 5 now.
wilco: Moving on. This is running until the 20th of March.
<Wilco> Work needed to exit CR (implementers, where & how to document, etc.)
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT-RF_CR/
<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/
wilco: The next steps for ACT is to start collecting the rules that the Auto-WCAG is writing and potentially other groups as well.
wilco: The last thing we did was set up this website. The thinking was that we would have one repository where groups like Auto-WCAG can submit their rules and we would publish these as W3C resources.
... The original thinking was the we would have a 3 step process from the community to the ACT task force.
... I think that was were we left. I wanted to see where everybody's thinking is with some of the rules that are being developed.
maryjom: I think that we can at least get references to them from the WCAG resources as part of sufficient techniques and stuff like that. I think it would be most useful if they can be directly linked from some of the resources.
kathy_eng: Is there a plan to review the ones that are already written to make sure all the requirements are included?
wilco: There's two things to this. I wanna get a sense of where different people think this work should end and from there work backwards. I think reviewing would part of that process. I'm thinking what you think we should do with the collection of rules that Auto-WCAG is building.
kathy_eng: I think that if they meet the requirements that were approved, I think we should provide them as examples. Isn't there already a place where we can see them as ACT rules?
... Not sure if I'm answering your question.
wilco: Auto-WCGA has their own website. That is one way to do this. Every group publish their own rules and leave them on their website. Or we could make a new website where groups could publish rules. Or integrate the rules with WCAG resources like the quickref or the understanding documents.
<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/review-process.html
MoeKraft: Would it help if we look at the ACT review process draft document?
wilco: I think that is presuming some things that I don't know if we have agreement on.
cpandhi: My understanding was that the ACT rules would be complementary to the ACT task force.
... It validates the ACT work that we have implemented.
tiphanie_walters: I am still trying to understand how we're aligned with the working group and how we work in the task force. Still trying to undertstand what we're doing and what we're trying to accomplish.
shadi: There are two reasons why I think linking is not the best approach. First of all is consistency. Let's say we approve that yes, this is good rule that matches WCAG and then the rule id changed by the community and then we have inconsistency. If we want to embed these rules in different resources like the quickref or understanding documents then we need to have them in the same structure. These are two arguments that speak to creating a snapshot of [CUT]
... Of course then we have inconsistency once the rule in the community group changes.
... I definitely support a snapshotting approach. We still need to work out the process with the parent AG group. I definitely think we want to approve best practice rules that aren't really conformance requirements. We probably need some kind of markup for that as well.
... If somebody flags an issue with a rule this also needs to be coordinated with the community group that wrote the rule, if the community group is still alive at that point.
wilco: I want to dig deeper into what it is we're going to ask. Are rules part of techniques or are they part of success criteria? In answering that we will also answer if we're asking for rules to be referenced from the understanding documents or from techniques.
... What are peoples thoughts on that difference?
shadi: Doesn't that depend on the accessibility requirements mapping of the rule?
wilco: It might.
shadi: I think it's both.
maryjom: I also think it's a little bit of both. It would depend on how small or large a piece the rule is checking for. Some might be at the technique level, but it doesn't alone check for a success criteria.
... When you're testing for the whole success criteria it's more about aggregation.
<redacted>
maryjom: For me it makes sense to have it as part of the "how to meet" document.
wilco: I do think the two are related. The techniques are also linked from the understanding document.
... How do we envision that the AG will use our work?
maryjom: I think it would fit in with the whole future of Silver as well.
shadi: I tink the different rules would fit differently. Sometimes they would fit success criteria, sometimes they would techniques or even several techniques.
kathy_eng: There is a test evaluate page. Is that under the AG umbrella that we could ask them to provide links to the ACT rules there?
<kathy_eng> https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/
<shadi> +1 kathy
tiphanie_walters: Are we trying to determine the best place to add the ACT rules? I would think that embedeed links would be more helpful.
anne_thyme: Would it be possible to do both? Have our own website with rules so that it's not just the finally approved rules that are visible both also the ones that are in the process of being approved. For techniques it's so difficult to figure out what the process is for getting them approved.
wilco: Is there anybody who disagrees with any of the places we want to add links?
shadi: Yes. I agree that the test evalaute page is a good, but I want to leave room for reorganising the information architecture that we have.
... To maybe clarify, that last page wouldn't be for the AG to decide on. These aren't resources that they "own".
wilco: I will see about spec'ing this out.
wilco: The way I've been thinking this might work is that the group that proposed a rule would do the heavy lifting.
... A group for EPUB might have their own process.
... Within the current process document, it's not clear what would be done by whom.
shadi: All of these steps 1-5 are actually in the community group. The only one that is outside the CG, which is not specified in detail, is step 6.
... We could actually even drop the first 5 steps as it could be up to the CG how to organise themselves. The Auto-WCAG already has such a process. We would want to say what we want the CG to give us, which is all implicitly in step 6 and needs to be spelled out.
anne_thyme: Sounds less like a process and more like a definition of done.
shadi: [lists out ideas for possible steps in the review process]
wilco: I do see Anne's point. What the AG might want is a definition of done as a list of requirements that must be met.
shadi: I agree that that definition needs to be spelled out.
... The question is whether the AG wants to delegate a subgroup to look at pull requests.
wilco: Two ways this could work: Either the CG goes directly to the AG or there's an ACT group that does the initial review for the AG.
... Do these seem like viable options?
shadi: Let me clarify. I think in both cases it's submitted to the AG. The question is who's responsible to act on that and do a validation of the rule.
... This work of organising could be delegated to a smaller group.
... In both cases, the working group will have the final say. It's a matter of who does the footwork.
wilco: So we have got a high level idea of what this might look like. Anything else?
tiphanie_walters: I think a subgroup would be helpful so we're aware of what goes on.
shadi: Good point and I think that approving a rule is maybe the trivial task. The more complex one is when an objection comes in. A subgroup could preprocess that.
... I think now is a good time to talk to the chairs about this along with the charter discussions.
wilco: No call next week as all the chairs are at CSUN.
maryjom: The time is changing to DST so after CSUN the call will be an hour later in the US. Make sure to change your calendar!