wf: Eric set up our rule on the WAI resources website.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules
WF: Shadi, have you been able to do anything with this site yet?
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/<blablabla>
SA: We need to use this to have a list our rules. The suggested URL for putting our rules was just put in IRC by Shadi.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wai-intro-act/pull/2/files
SA: If you go to the WAI/standards-guidelines/act/ page my suggestion is to update that overview page.
... I have created a pull request for suggested changes to the page to rewrite anticipate the Recommendation publication and the rules being linked to from there.
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/tree/master/content
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/
SA: So the rules that are done will have a pull request to the GitHub master content link (see links above) and then when the pull request is approved it will be merged and W3C will capture that page and publish on the WAI website link above.
WF: We already had a repo and so now we have two.
SA: Eric really broke things up so that all of the pages are a different repo.
... I think the intro page is really the ACT intro page for the website and will only change if things change on a project level - new work, a new standard.
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/tree/master/content
SA: I propose we keep the GitHub repository wcag-act-rules/tree/master/content as the rule repository. We could eventually have an overview page once we get a lot of rules and link to that from the overview page.
... We can think about who has control and editing rights. We only want to put things in there that are agreed upon by the working group.
AS: The pull request updates the intro page, and we'll link to the published rule from that page.
... The first time to get a rule to appear on the W3 WAI website will take a little time, but it will get quicker over time.
... On the day of the publication of the spec as a recommendation, I will make sure the intro page gets published.
WF: HTML Page has a title rule is the only rule we will publish at that time.
<Wilco> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/page-title-rule/rules/html-page-has-title-2779a5.html
WF: I need to figure out how to get the rule in place so that the AG WG can preview it.
MJ: I sent an email to the AG WG chairs with the details about this rule and the reviews and issue resolutions with links to the surveys, meeting minutes, and the link to the rule.
WF: I think we want to send only the link to the rule they should review. Will send that later today.
MJ: I also asked to be on the agenda for next week.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/
SA: The link to this statement if on the ACT TF home page.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/work-statement
SA: This is the link to the work statement. It is out of date with what we're doing.
WF: We have pretty much done what we set up to do here. We don't have a benchmark per se, but we have test cases for validation. We need to update this, especially with the work changing after publication of the spec.
... We need to put in what we should be focusing on as a task force.
Trevor: What was the benchmarking tool?
WF: It was going to be a website with errors and good examples to run the tools against. We decided against that because implementers do that kind of thing already.
... Implementers are submitting issues to the community group to provide feedback on rules.
... Thoughts on what should go into the work statement?
Trevor: Pruning out what is done or no longer relevant. We still have the rule suite is the main thing.
... Change the language toward more of the rule review/approval
WF: Some new things that come to mind are: Coordination with Silver TF on new rule requirements. Possibly if rules need to be expressed in some sort of schema.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about silver relationship
WF: We had a proposal about that months ago.
SA: What do you have in mind for Silver coordination?
WF: They are talking about a new conformance model and there may be something we can do to help facilitate testing meeting that.
... The third thing brought up to make a 1.1 or 2.0 ACT Rules Format. There are open issues that still need to be resolved and there may be point-based types of tests in Silver that the ACT Rules Format hasn't addressed.
... Another idea floating around was a benchmark for implementation to see which implementers have implemented which rules and treat it as a benchmark for test tools.
... We absolutely know we need to review and get rules published.
AS: We need to grow and maintain the repository of tests. Keep discussing potential updates to the spec (maintenance mode, what is working well, not working well, documenting errata).
... We need to keep working with Silver too coordinate.
WF: I think the benchmark of implementers is a separate item from the repository, so I think we should do that.
CP: I agree those four things cover what we should be doing. Another thing comes to mind - once that gets into AG WG then we will know whether there are any more issues that come out to address.
Trevor: Do we have good materials and tutorials for using the rules? Should we have a short video? Like walk through a simple rule as an example.
WF: Like something educational.
... I would hope the rules are self-explanatory.
MM: I don't necessarily think we need to be doing an education video, as the ACT Rules Format isn't that complicated and we will soon have approved, completed rules to look at for examples of using the format.
WF: I'm on the fence about having a benchmark overview. It could cause some pushback from tool developers.
AS: Technically, the AG wg makes the work list. However, we can make a proposal and coordinate with the AG WG chairs. An update to the spec cannot be included in our work, but spec maintenance can be done (errata, etc.) The rest of the work isn't out of scope with the AG WG charter being worked on.
WF: How do we go forward with the list of work? Should we put together a survey?
AS: Yes, that's a good idea.
WF: OK, we'll send out a survey for that and see if there's any additional work input from the responders.