<scribe> scribe: Jean-Yves

Final call https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Final+Call+1+week%22

Reviewers wanted https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/462

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22reviewers+wanted%22

Many PR are waiting for reviews. Some having already changes requested.

about minimal contrast rule

Emma: same bg and fg color is 1. bad practice and 2. not really inapplicable.
... only "good" excption should be decorative text.

<Wilco_> serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality

Wilco: same bg+fg has no info and no functionality, but is not aesthetic, so not decorative.

Emma: the current example is available for AT, so not really out of everything
... there are better ways to hide text from sighted user. We shouldn't show that as an example.
... colors can also be changed, eg by high contrast mode, and would make such text appear accidentally.

Wilco: this is a failure of 1.3.1 but not of 1.4.3
... test can happen in different ways. eg, screenshot without looking at the DOM tree. Hence the rule that way.
... we can create a rule that check specifically for same bg+fg and fails 1.3.1

Emma: if it's meaningful test, I think it fails 1.4.3. If not, it should be done another fail.

Sailesh: "visible to all user" means *visible*, not *perceivable*.

Emma: what about keeping the example and adding a warning?

Wilco: will ask question to AG

Descriptive page title: another example for consideration (c4a8a4) https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1006

Jey+Sailesh: will work on this.

Do rules having language as input aspect need a way to tell the actual language? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1015

Jean-Yves: trying to sum up issue.

Wilco: there is an applied assumption that language can be determined
... it is not an assumption because it makes the rule not usable rather than false positive

Jean-Yves: adding the assumption is not harmful

Emma, Dagfinn: adding an assumption seems reasonable.

Jean-Yves: will do.

One element relevant for multiple success criteria https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1049

Emma: 2 rules for "button has accessible name", one for button, one for image button. doing same thing but separate because image button has an extra SC.
... should it be one rule for the common SC and one rule for the other SC instead?

Wilco: we want to minimize the number of issues raised, hence the split button/image button. this avoid image button failing 2 rules for a single reason.

Emma: we can also have the common rule being atomic in a composite rule for image button.

Wilco: we're out of time...

<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: Wilco_, Jean-Yves, Dagfinn, Adil, Jey
Present: Wilco_ Jean-Yves Dagfinn Adil Jey
Found Scribe: Jean-Yves
Inferring ScribeNick: Jean-Yves

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

Found Date: 09 Jan 2020
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.)