trevor: We took a cursory glance at this last week.
wf: We don't have an understanding document. Shadi was going to talk to Michael Cooper about how to set this up.
... We'll need help getting this set up from him.
wf: We have not gotten 5 votes on this. The results we have look like it's good to go, no major issues.
mm: I can extend the survey.
wf: There's nothing in our process that says we need 5 approvals. So it's fine to call this approved. There are no major issues from any of the reviewers.
... Mary Jo, send a CFC and once approved we'll hold on to it until we have a batch.
mm: I will do that.
wf: There's a couple of outstanding things on the tracking list.
tb: I went and posted the issue for "image file name is accessible name for image". Put a comment in there that Charu was working on some proposed changes.
mm: Charu sent an email with the proposal.
wf: I forgot to open an issue for mine.
mm: I said I would open the issue for Kasper, but I haven't done it yet. I'll get that done.
... The table needs updating with the completed surveys.
wf: The table needs updating with the changes to the published rule. We need to mark that we're surveying somehow.
wf: This is a year old issue, and Ann asked us whether we should mention the community group in the rule in the acknowledgements.
... Right now we put in the authors in the acknowledgement but not the community group itself.
tb: If not all rules will be going through the community group, then it is a good idea.
ke: I don't have any objection to that.
mm: I don't object either.
wf: So let's do that.
... So we can close this issue.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/understanding-techniques
wf: For WCAG techniques there are understanding the technique documents. Do we need such a thing for ACT rules?
... If so, what should go into them?
... Who uses these could be: testers, tool developers.
... Kathy, what kind of questions do people ask about Trusted Tester?
ke: People ask how it applies or aligns with their test tool or test process.
... Using test cases will be one way to make sure your testing is consistent.
... Will there be a mapping of all of the rules to check an SC?
wf: Not in this document but I think that all of the rules that list a SC in its mapping will be listed in the WCAG understanding docs.
... Specifically, the understanding for the SC. There will be a heading for the rules.
... Our act rules understanding would be explaining what is the rule and how you would use it.
... One of the things in our work statement is to come up with an implementation tracker so we can keep track of who implemented what rule. We haven't looked into this yet.
... We'll get to it after we've published more rules. Maybe later this year.
ke: It would be nice to have a way to effectively test SCs and a way for tools to check that they correctly check the SCs and if they're successful.
dm: There are manual tests, so we have to make sure that those things are tied in to give the complete test.
tb: I agree Kathy's ideas would be good. I've been looking at what Shadi wrote and don't have anything to add.
wf: This is useful input and I'll put together a draft proposal hopefully by next week.
wf: This came up a while ago in the ACT rules community group.
... It's an issue with the definition of an accessibility requirement. A requirement has to be satisfied to conform to the statement.
... We had the intent in the rules format to be applicable to best practices, but this definition doesn't seem to allow for it.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#mapping-outside-wcag
wf: We even explicitly say in the rules format we can use this for best practices. It's a fairly minor thing but we need to figure out how to do it.
dm: We don't want to lower what "requirement" means in this context.
wf: Yes, that's the issue. It's inconsistent usage.
tb: What is the proposed change? Changing the definition of accessibility requirement or changing the mapping portion of it?
wf: I lean toward tweaking the definition.
tb: I'm in favor of changing the definition a bit.
mm: Aren't definitions normative?
wf: They are.
... Sounds like the group agrees there's something we need to address here.
... We'll take this to Shadi to see if we can create an errata to make a change.
ke: I sent an email a few weeks ago about the ACT Rules Format and when I have to do manual testing of a testcase it would be nice if there was a working example in the rule so I can quickly evaluate it.
... That may be a major change to the rules, but when I test I have to have the testcase in a browser.
wf: The community group used to have that - both a link to the page with the test case in it and an iframe in it. It was difficult to maintain and there were cases where you didn't want to implement it live like auto-playing audio.
ke: It would be very useful for me.
wf: Do you need it for published rules too?
... We could potentially do it, but it's much more involved.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues
ke: If someone has a different manual test process they may want it to validate their test process.
wf: Open an issue in the community group.