<ajanec> Hi all
<ajanec> Do you know what's the password for Zoom?
<scribe> scribe:Daniel
Wilco: Updates to test cases for "link has accessible name" Please take a look if you have not already
Daniel: Will review update to the "iframe has accessible name" rule.
<ajanec> I could't get act-rules to work
Jean-Yves: 'image filename is accessible name for image' is valid for a second round of implementations not valid.
Wilco: We have progressed on these rules. Could somebody take anything from this list?
<EmmaJ_PR> +present
Wilco: Carlos will take "element with aria-hidden has non-focusable content"
Aron: [Introduces himself]
Wilco: Comment about duplicate links rule, the example he pointed out (7), there is two links that go to content pages on different URLs with different layouts but still have the same content. He is arguing that might be a failure. What do people think?
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/b20e66#passed-example-7
Carlos: I would say it does not fail. The only difference here is presentation, which seems not to be relevant for those resources.
Wilco: I would agree.
Aron: It is ambiguous, technically it is a fail. Link text in context should be unambiguous.
Emma: These examples are doing pretty much the same, they take you to different resources but with the same content. Maybe we need to warn people.
Carlos and Jean-Yves: If we fail #7, we should be also failing #4
Emma: there might be metadata that people might not be seen. It is more complicated than what the exampes are saying.
Adeil: I don't think it would fail, the link purpose would be ambiguous to users in general
Carlos: If we move examples 4 and 7 from passed to failed, we need to have an assumption that every page that is not the same page does not have the same purpose. That is what the success criteria is checking.
Ema: How are passed example 4 and failed example 2 different?
Jean-Yves: the main content is the same i passed example 4, and is different in failed example 2
Shadi: I think there are
assumptions relating to the websites, you need to know the
website. I would fail passed example 4 under consistent
navigation, but not under link purpose
... For passed example 2 I do agree that the link text would
need to change and specify the type of contact us that it
points to
Wilco: It needs some mor work. There seems to be an agreement that passed 7 is indeed passed, but there are issues with passed example 4 and failed example 2.
Wilco: A suggestion for how to
write lists in applicability and expetation.
... "for which all of the following" or "for which one of the
following"
... Conditions can also be labelled, and they would be bold
Jean-Yves: Agree. I have started using it already.
Carlos: I'm fine moving to this format.
Wilco: The primary piece of that needs to be in the line before the list.
Jean-Yves: I am not clear if it needs to be in the first item of the list or in the line prior to the list.
Wilco: I can see the point there.
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/36b590
Carlos: I see the point, probably we would need to put this into the applicability, but that would be problematic
Wilco: A form field error indicator could be practically anything.
Emma: But we have a definition for it.
Wilco: Should we hand this back to the Task Force?
Emma: If you can define a form field error indicator, why can't you use this in the applicability?
Wilco: Because it is not allowed.
Carlos: Kasper comment may not solve the whole problem but at least tells you what to do with those form fields that do not have form field error indicators.
Wilco: I will take that back to
the Task Force.
... I think we could work on Kasper's suggestion in the
meantime.
<EmmaJ_PR> Thanks Daniel
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ahve/have/ Succeeded: s/clera/clear/ Succeeded: s/Topic: Final thoughts// Default Present: Adil, Carlos, Daniel, Jean-Yves, EmmaJ_PR, present Present: Adil Carlos Daniel Jean-Yves EmmaJ_PR present Found Scribe: Daniel Inferring ScribeNick: Daniel WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: 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]