wilco: Had a meeting with AG on tuesday and presented what we said about our process for publishing ACT rules
... Not a lot of discussion. Main takeaway was that they want to be involved fairly soon.
... Beyond that, people seemed pretty okay about what he had put together.
... Next step is AG will take a survey to see if there is any further feedback or if we can continue to see if any of these rules should be published.
shadi: What they implied, is that they are the opportunity to draft out the process a bit more. I think there is a lean towards a task force that takes care of the tasks we described
... Then only the approvals go to the AG
... There may be a chance we could publish a first set of rules around october.
wilco: There was a brief discussion about needing a charter. We may or may not want ACT rules mentioned specifically in the charter.
shadi: They are going to decide what to put in the charter document. But it will show we are looking to have such a group.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/356
wilco: There were a bunch of editorials from carlos. I don't think there is much that needs a lot of discussion.
... I am ready to just accept it and make the changes.
... We will make those changes.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/357
trevor: I think he wanted a bit more logical seperation, instead of having a optional items under the MUST.
wilco: I like the suggestion.
... will make that change
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/358
wilco: The main issue is the scope of the unique identifier is not defined. This is something I was considering as part of the ACT-R community group rules.
... Should the rules between different organizations have similar identifiers.
alistair: what we could do, I wonder if it is just part of the ACT TF to make sure it has a unique id when it is put in the process to be accepted by the W3C
wilco: We used a random assortment of letters and numbers to almost guarantee uniqueness.
... The question is more about where is it unique
alistair: Yes, it has to be unique within its test suite.
wilco: Unique within a set of rules?
anne: One question is what if in our organization we write a rule and have it published through w3c, should the identified hold through all of those places.
wilco: I think so
anne: Then it can't be a url
wilco: The reason to have a unique identifier is that as the rule changes the identifier will stay the same.
... We could take out the unique bit? Can we take that out?
anne: So we still need it to be unique, just have to define in which context.
shadi: Removing might indeed raise some questions. I think that providing a definition for unique and perhaps highlighting some examples
... Unique within ACT-R, within an organization, or W3C, but not universally unique.
wilco: We cannot remove unique, so we need to redefine it. I will look into and come up with a proposal.
<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/359
wilco: Not sure if that is true, not sure if I know an example either way
agarrison: There is a confusion between expectation and there being multiple of them and outcomes
wilco: In theory, you can write everything in one expectation.
anne: If we allow multiple expectations of atomic rules then I think the same should be true for composite rules
wilco: Alright, so the proposal on the table is to not make this change. We will keep it that there can be multiple expectations
anne: We should see if there is anything that suggests we only have one expectation
agarrison: I think most people would see it as expecting. I think there is some confusion between expectation and outcomes
anne: I don't think carlos has that confusion.
agarrison: With my software hat you wouldn't want to expectations within a unit test
wilco: I will reach out to carlos for some more details.
agarrison: Its just bad practice, it isn't illegal.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/360
wilco: its true it is not part of the rule structure.
... Its a bit of an oddly placed requirement under changelog
... The way we were going to do this in ACT-R, we were gonna have some identifier in the changelog section that identifies that version.
shadi: Could we move that into the rule charter section
wilco: That still doessn't say where to put it in the rule structure.
shadi: Can we put it in a separate paragraph after it must be accessible, that it must also have a date and version number
anne: Wouldn't it make more sense to have a list
wilco: Yes, I think that is what he is implying
anne: I think it is interesting there is no date on the ACT-R rules
shadi: Could it be a sub section of the identifier.
... I am trying to avoid making such a prominent change.
agarrison: It could be in the identifier, or we could just put it in the EARL example.
wilco: I like the idea about having it in the identifier. The EARL is non-normative
... We are updating the identifier anyways
agarrison: Pretty much happy with it, want to make sure it does not become included in the identifier
wilco: I can do that, not a big deal
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/361
wilco: So one of our examples references the Vue components. I thought that would be fine, I don't know if its something we should be avoiding.
... Do we need to make it vendor agnostic
shadi: Yeah we should. For vendor neutrality, but also for longevity, because in a year or two it may not exist or be widely used anymore
wilco: I think we could just say something like a web component.
... Making the change to web component.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#appendix-data-example
wilco: I think someone will need to go and fix it.
shadi: Next week I am pretty full, but I will try to get to it. Assign it to me so I don't forget.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#input-aspects
*Looking at Input Aspects*
wilco: This is a hard section that is kind of unique.
... maryjom, would you be willing to take a look and see if we can clear up the language a little bit.
anne: I am thinking that when I look at the example it is clear. Perhaps moving the examples up a bit and having the details underneath them
wilco: We could definitely do that
... Going to assign this to maryjom and label as editorial.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/364
wilco: We pushed this down to a note as a "If you really want to you can do this", does this warrant more of an explanation. Because right now it is pretty minimal
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#expectations-atomic
wilco: We might be able to add a sentence to clarify
anne: I think we are missing context here. If we mention silver here and what it might be used for. But not a great idea since we are not sure where silver will end.
wilco: I don't know of any other comparable situations.
anne: We could say something about accommodating future standards or something like that.
shadi: Maybe use something like future guidelines, but don't mention silver specifically.
wilco: Let me take this one on then.
*Viewing second bullet point of issue*
wilco: I am not sure where something like that would fit in the document. Is there anything we could link out to for automated and manual testing.
anne: I think at least semi-automated is a term noone seems to understand.
wilco: Yeah its a term we are intentionally avoiding. We are using the term guided-testing
shadi: Should we remove it? I usually say automated tools or manual testing methodologies.
wilco: Semi-automated is also not in the intro. It is in the abstract.
shadi: This is all considered editorial so we can make the change.
wilco: We can just take it out
anne: It is wierd that it is in the abstract, but not in the document.
wilco: Assigning to myself and shadi