WF: comment from Charu
... maybe add inapplicable example?
... is that a blocker?
CP: not a blocker but clarifies
WF: current support for title attribute?
... pretty confident it works in most modern ATs
CP: do we have an example?
WF: in one of the recent ones approved by AGWG
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/59796f#accessibility-support
WF: can use the same approach for the accessibility support note
... actually in all the accessible name rules
CP: yes
... also not a blocker
WF: comment from Kasper
... think we discussed that
... if I remember correctly, said it is not a blocker
... being worked on
... Kathy points out the issue
MJM: think it should be fixed
SAZ: I agree with MJM
... concerned about losing credibility
... would prefer to be a little slower and more accurate at this initial stage
WF: think such issues will always crop up
... think more differences will come from differences in AT support
... or other aspects
TB: think this hardly occurs in the wild
SAZ: ok if really super edge case
... but generally strongly urge to credibility
TB: think it generally falls under the category "someone wants to break the rule"
WF: have another blocker
... examples with broken images
... should not be the case
... need proper images
... talked about Kathy's comment last week
... agreed it is under 4.1.1, even though the prefered one is 2.4.4
... conclusion, at least images issue needs to be addressed
TB: sentence structure too complex
WF: see your point, was a difficult one to write
... may be a way to split it out
TB: simple fix to include the code in the example
WF: agree, can do that
TB: need to include code from external stylesheet
... or add an explanation
WF: comment from Patrick
... rule still not wrong, just doesn't catch everything
SAZ: if any value that is not-null would be WCAG violation
WF: but if 85%, something odd is going on
... by using 90% we are reducing the uncertainty
... resulting from the assumption
SAZ: makes sense
... maybe explain that in the assumption?
WF: yes, can do that
... second comment from Patrick
... makes sense, can add that example
... conclusion, potentially some more work on this one too
... survey open for another week
... just though of an issue
... an example of a page forcing content to be viewed in a specific orientation
... Charu, can you take the orientation rule?
CP: yes but need more guidance
WF: relay back the comments as issue
MJM: you can see examples of other such issues raised
CP: ok
WF: pull request ready
SAZ: in my court
... preparing announcements
... will forward here as soon as published
MJM: there were some comments from AGWG
WF: all resolved
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1220
MJM: will cleanup tracking table
WF: talked about this two weeks ago
... conclusion was that Silver/WCAG 3.0 may be too high-level for ACT work to be relevant
... big gap where they are right now and our work
... need that gap bridged
MJM: normative and non-normative discussion also relevant here
... design lets many doors wide open in my view