W3C

- DRAFT -

ACT Rules Community Group Teleconference

14 Nov 2019

Attendees

Present
Wilco, Jey, Jean-Yves, Sailesh, Emma, Dagfinn, Daniel, Marco
Regrets
Shadi, Kasper
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
Jey

Contents


<Wilco> clear agenda

<crazybat> hi all.

<scribe> scribe: Jey

introductions from Marco

Welcome to the team :)

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/768

introductions from Sailesh, welcome to the team :)

<crazybat> Thank you for having me :)

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/255

above PR has entered final call, after a long time....yay!

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1000

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/989

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/blob/1037bf4b82b603ceabf334bee912db39a3214d08/_rules/html-page-title-descriptive-c4a8a4.md

AGENDA ITEM, Reviewers wanted https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+review%3Arequired+;

Sharing ACT rules with ACT TF after 2 implementations https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1017;

for agenda 2, requesting new comers to look at PR's that need reviews

for agendum #3, we need to meet 3 implementations per rule & this is a blocker for the task force

checking if the group will be ok for 2 implementations instead of 3 implementations?

Jym: do not have an opinion on the count of implementations, as long as task force is happy with this

<scribe> Unknown: Question on what is a tool/ implementation, and where the count came from?

Wilco: Explains what is an implementation, more documentation can be found here - https://act-rules.github.io/pages/implementations/overview/
... the number 3 was arrived at arbitarily

Sailesh: agrees that 2 should be ok, instead of 3

Marco: agrees

Jey: just a concern that may be there is no incentive for organisations to publish implementations

Wilco: Hopes if we remove the threshold on the number and get things published, it will garner more interest from organisations to submit implementations

Emma: Make it a percentage against a number

Wilco: Agrees, and thinks we should not over complicate

Daniel: Agrees with the above

[WIP] New rule: Heading name is not only whitespace (ffd0e9) https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/400;

Emma: on PR 989, more explanation on the comment

Wilco: action -> to open a new issue for it

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/400#issuecomment-551060000

Jym: has a new proposal for the rule
... provides an overview of the current rule & explains ambiguity with whitespace, and the reasoning for the new proposal
... Has 2 proposals and requests the CG to provide their opinions.

Wilco: seems to me if AT consistently ignore heading with whitespace, then it is not actually a problem
... I have left a comment on the PR

Emma: we should not be not creating rules because AT's have a common workaround. The rules should be resonating WCAG & encouraging good practice.

Marco & Wilco: agrees

Dagfinn: agrees

Wilco: Dagfinn, do you think this is a failure of WCAG?

Dagfinn, Wilco & Emma: delve deeper into WCAG interpretation in terms of heading...

Sailesh: empty headings should be flagged in my opinion

Wilco: we have a majority here for Proposal 1, but do not think I will be happy to implement it.

Jym: Siteimprove will implement it

Wilco: we may implement it too, but it will be best practice

Implementors quickly get outdated https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/983;

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/968

Jym: explains the above rule & refers to WCAG and notes that this is a best practice rule. Feels like this is a kind of a stretch that we want to conform to WCAG where as WCAG suggests that this is a best practice

Wilco: is the argument about both iframe & link?

Jym: Not too sure of the iframe rule, but for the link yes...

Wilco: not too worried about understanding documents, because they are not normative

Wilco & Jym: agree that the rule checks something that is an accessibility issue, but given the understanding document says 'best practice', I am a bit worried that we may be suggesting something other than what WCAG recommends

Dagfinn: Agrees with Jym & disputes the assumption

Wilco: would you say if there are 2 'click here' links on a page, is that an accessibility issue?

Dagfinn: requirements say links have to be descriptive, it does not argue otherwise...

Wilco: a lot of rules are heuristics, we can discuss the variability in each of the heuristic.

Dagfinn: A failure of this rule does not fail the requirements

Wilco: that is true for any rule with an assumption

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/b20e66#test-cases

Emma: scanning through the examples & poses different possibilities

Daniel: I agree that if 2 links with same text that resolve different resource, should be most of the time an accessibility issue

Wilco: It is hard to find exceptions to this rule
... I do agree that there are exceptions, and is not testing something that is explicitly required by WCAG.

Daniel: I would not put a percentage, but most of the times this rule would be valid

Jym: I am wondering now, if may be the rule can test another SC?
... specifically, is there another SC other than 2.4.9 that this rule can refer to?

Wilco: could you find an example of this rule failing something that should not be failed

Jym: I completely agree, that when this rule fails it will be an accessibility issue. But wondering if there is a better SC mapping

Wilco: 2.4.9 is the right one here is my belief

Dagfinn: 3.1.4? consistent identification..

Sailesh: Delves into whether it will based on surrounding context, and cites examples for level (AA or AAA)
... The other example is consistent identification

Emma: Added comments/ examples to the ticket/ PR

Wilco: summarises: quite a people on the call want this rule to stay around...
... Send an email to AG, to clarify if this is 'best practice'

Dagfinn: giving more examples to party :)

<crazybat> in the interest of time, agreed

Wilco: this is no guarantee that the SC is satisfied, we need more examples.
... cites the assumption on the rule

<EmmaJPR> Also agree 2.4.9 is a good fit, and 2.4.4

<crazybat> agreed

Wilco: Given this is a published rule, we should take this to AG (I will) & see if they are willing to publish this or not

Sailesh: TOPIC: Empty heading, if the screen reader detects empty heading, the user may wonder if the reader could not get to the content. Thus the user is at a loss.

<EmmaJPR> A heading with an image and no alt text is a very good example of something that should flag up an accessibility fail.

Sailesh: Which is why such things should be flagged, and not rely on corrections/ workarounds from screen readers

Wrap up & final thoughts

<EmmaJPR> +1

<crazybat> Thank all :)

<crazybat> *thanks

<EmmaJPR> BTW - I've challenged my colleague who is taking over bbc-a11y to consider implementing some ACT Rules

<EmmaJPR> Well done Jey

<Wilco> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/11/17 17:20:42 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: Wilco, Jey, Jean-Yves, shadi, Kasper, Dagfinn, crazybat
Present: Wilco Jey Jean-Yves shadi Kasper Dagfinn crazybat
Found Scribe: Jey
Inferring ScribeNick: Jey

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 14 Nov 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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]