<scribe> scribe: anne_thyme
<Wilco> https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/issues/365
<Bryn> Meeting link?
<EmmaJPR> Second email Wilco sent
<Wilco> https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/issues/365#issuecomment-453154912
Wilco: There is a proposal to
split up the WAI-ARIA state and property has valid value into
different rules that map to different success criteria
... Who wants to work on this?
Anne: I worked on it already in
https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/pull/441
... The rule as a non-WCAG rule: https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/pull/464
... We have discussed it already, and don't find that the
original rule can be reliably mapped to any WCAG success
criterion. Therefore we have talked about having it as a
WAI-ARIA, not WCAG, rule...
Wilco: Our implementation has many more required states and properties
Anne: Yes, but they all have
fallback values
... Link to scrollbar role spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#scrollbar
Wilco: And you think because they have these fallback roles, this is enough?
Kasper: Yes, we have already discussed this with the WAI-ARIA working group last year. You raised the issue yourself.
Wilco: Well, nothing really came
out of that
... But we already have an implemented rule for this
Anne: But if the rule fails
something for 4.1.2 that is not a failure for 4.1.2, that is a
problem
... e.g. a heading that does not have an aria-level, that is
not a failure under 4.1.2, since that is for user interface
controls, and headings do not fall into this category
Emma: I am a bit confused as to
why we are writing rules to test for valid WAI-ARIA, we don't
write HTML validation rules
... I would assume there is a WAI-ARIA validator out
there
... When I write my rules, I assume that people write valid
HTML
Bryn: There is a WAI-ARIA validator on its way
Kasper: And it is slowly being integrated into the NU Validator as well
Wilco: Anne, please continue work on these rules. And we will have a discussion about how to remove or deprecate rules later.
https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/pull/454
Anne: above rule suggestion was me trying to split things out like suggested in the issue that was on the agenda
Emma: Yes, maybe it should be making it more specific to 4.1.2 instead of more general to WAI-ARIA
Wilco: This was on the agenda last week, and I did not see it in the notes
Shadi: We did not discuss it last
week
... I think it is relevant to discuss if some rules are more
indications of failures, not actual failures
... We are addressing this along the way
Wilco: Jey has been working on an updated website. I just want to remind everyone about it
<Wilco> https://gracious-goodall-6ccd8e.netlify.com/pages/about
Wilco: This relates to the
community group renaming, that I want to start next week
... there is also a proposal for the "About" section. It's
agenda item 7. If you have any comments, please leave them
before end og next week, so I can incorporate them
Shadi: Can you tell more about the time line and what everyone needs to do?
Wilco: For a new community group,
we need a description, so that is why I have written the
"About". Then I would like to open the new community group on
Monday
... Then we have a week to transition, and then we can launch
the website
Shadi: I would like to check this timeline with my colleagues, and find out if W3C wants to do some kind of communication/announcements
Wilco: I would like to have this in place before the ACT Rules Format goes into Candidate Recommendation
<Wilco> https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/pull/437
Bryn: I have noticed a problem with zoom on the website. How would you like these accessibility issues reported in?
Wilco: Just on the pull request: ttps://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/pull/437
Shadi: I was wondering about the logo. I would like to brand it under the W3C, rather than have its own, specific branding.
Wilco: Can you write it on the PR?
Shadi: I have already contacted Jey about the licensing etc.
<Wilco> https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/issues/466
Wilco: I hope you have had time
to look at it, though it came a bit last minute
... Shadi, you had some concerns
Shadi: Yes, I emailed them
... My primary concern was to get words like "harmonization"
and "alignment" in there, so it doesn't sound like anyone can
just come in and propose anything
... I think we do more in the group than documenting each
others' things, we also discuss and align
... I think the goal is to suggest rules in hope to have them
W3C vetted
... And then we are mentioning Trusted Testers, but no one
else. Usually that raises a flag with the W3C.
Emma: I don't think we are documenting first and then aligning afterwards. We are not documenting them, but trying to find common ground and documenting the commonalities
Wilco: I have been talking to different vendors, and the concern is that we are trying to tell them how to build their tools
Emma: No, we are trying to tell them how to interpret WCAG, what outcomes to get
Wilco: I would rather know what
different organisations are doing, than having them not show us
because they are afraid of pushback
... I haven't seen a group be successful at telling everyone
how to do
Emma: My point is that we are not
telling them how to built the tools or write the tests, but
which results to come up with
... If I am testing with two tools, I expect them to come up
with the same results for the things they both test
Wilco: The question is: If you get involved in this community group, does that mean that you now have to start changing your product?
I think Kasper and I got kicked off. We can't hear anything...
Shadi: I disagree with Wilco's
characterisation of why projects in the past failed. I don't
think the commonality was that we were trying to tell people
what to do, but that we did not have involvement from tool
vendors in W3C
... Tool vendors saw their interpretations as intellectual
property
... The movement is now that we want to contribute to a more
harmonized interpretation
... Tool vendors don't have to implement wha WCAG says
either
... We might end up with the competing rules because WCAG
requirements are ambiguous, but this should be the
exception.
... My concern is that if we don't have discussion or alignment
in the community group, we might as well not have it.
... Vendors - or anyone - could just document their own stuff
in the ACT Rules Format
Wilco: But how will we know what the consensus is, if we don't have the vendors here?
Emma: I have heard vendors express concern that someone could steal their ideas if they got involved here
Anne: Siteimprove has joined Auto-WCAG to improve our rules, not to document what we already have
Wilco: So probably more emphasis on finding a common understanding rather than document
Shadi: We should maybe stress that we are not trying to tell people how to implement things, but working to find a common understanding of the WCAG
Wilco: That approach requires
changes to what we are doing. We will have to go out and
collect information
... We will have to go out and hunt for commonalities
Emma: At what point do you think we have been documenting someone else's way of testing?
Wilco: Both Deque and Siteimprove have contributed rules based on what we already have
Emma: Yes, maybe as a draft, but then it is reworked into a common understanding
Shadi: My hope is that there will be a pull when rules are adopted by W3C and published as official W3C rules, for tool vendors to get more of their rules in
Wilco: I will rework the "About us", taking in these comments, hopefully by end of this week
<Wilco> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: anne_thyme, Wilco, Kasper, audrey, EmmaJPR, Dagfinn Present: anne_thyme Wilco Kasper audrey EmmaJPR Dagfinn Found Scribe: anne_thyme Inferring ScribeNick: anne_thyme WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 28 Mar 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <scribe> Anne: Siteimprove has joined Auto-WCAG to improve our rules, not to document what we already have WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <scribe> Anne: Siteimprove has joined Auto-WCAG to improve our rules, not to document what we already have WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]