Wilco, Outreach has not been particularly successful so far. Review closes on 28th of May. So far seen 0 comments in the public forum. Two personally messages. Else, not a whole lot of progress
AG: We'll send three or four comments shortly. Mostly clarifying around a couple of sections
Wilco, I imagine there will be other last minute comments to.
AG: One of the biggest problem of implementing it is the output format - expectation is people have some understanding of EARL. Siteimprove and Deque use slightly different formats
Wilco, EARL is not a part of the rules format, but maybe a community group task. Wilco working on documentation.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/353#issue-428734105
Wilco, Not had a chance to update the post. Get rid of community group etc…Are there other things that need to happen?
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/353#issuecomment-492577332
Wilco, only other recent feedback is from Anne.
SES: We are concerned whether there is any value in being a part of the TF if tasks are primarily administrative
Wilco, could the TF take over some tasks from CG or AG?
MAryJo: Silver would like help with test cases
SES: Concerned about the readiness of the Silver work. Might be challenging for the TF to work with since it is still under work
MaryJo: Impression is that they are progressing, and they really are wanting to focus on the testability of things
... There is also work going on in completing test techniques for WCAG 2.1. If we could contribute to the test parts of those. They have a goal of finishing all those techniques by TPAC 2019. Somehow we could contribute to that work
MAryJo, those are the types of things I see
AG: What is the three step model Anne refers to?
Wilco, taken out in an update
AG: the way we view it is that our CAO would be reviewing the test that are contributed to the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.
Wilco, going through the documentation to ensure consistency would require knowledge
AG: We will definitely be interested in being in an ACT TF
Wilco, AG gets the final say anyway.
AG: This group pre-filters it.
SES: We need to keep people interested in the ACT work
Wilco, should we share the proposal with the AG or are further changes needed?
Ag: We we want people also to provide a technique as well as a rule if it doesn't exist already
SES: failure techniques or sufficient techniques
AG: Mostly sufficient techniques.
... when talking to e.g. companies we can show them techniques to use in replacing the code we flag as issues
AG, somebody can claim conformance using sufficient techniques to cover a full SC, and we would test for those techniques
AG: What we find historically is that we rewrite custom solutions, but should instead use sufficient techniques
Wilco, Deque have internal technique-like documents to show how things work
Wilco, no major concerns, so will share with AG chairs
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/355
Wilco, An unintentional should is found in the background section.
SES: the section is still optional, so it only means that if you include section, you SHOULD include a relationship to the relevant reading
Wilco, an explainer is lacking. We can add more context about it
MaryJo: We can include an editorial note
AG: What level of editorials can we make?
Wilco, Things that doesn't change meaning of the requirement.
Wilco, if you could send comments before Tuesday, that would be great, and we'll put it on the agenda next week
MaryJo, would you take a stab at adding an explainer around that SHOULD