wilco: 3 +1 votes, none against, so acceptance
shadi: json part still working on it, approval was for visual, raised to Chairs for 14 July.
wilco: I will attend 14 July meeting
wilco: 5 responses, good
... comment from me - split up expectation
... not sure of Charu's comment also maps to 1.4.4
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#reflow
wilco: this rule was written before 2.1
... agree with Maryjo's comment to split
... don't feel too strongly
... next, missing assumption
... charu's comment - Technically if the tag is ignored in the newer browsers than it is not a failure so can be obsolete at some point, can we state that?
... do we need to state this in a rule?
trevor: think we discussed this before. a review process to clean up rules
wilco: kathy's comment - group decided to not specify versions to avoid conflicts
kathy: just to give a reader an idea of how old the mobile browser is that may have a problem
wilco: do your own research for accessibility support
... this was an issue 3-4 years ago, but maybe not anymore
... will leave as is
... readiness for publishing, rule needs update to mapping
trevor: do we have a process for updating rules?
wilco: not yet
... assigning trevor as liaison
wilco: one reviewer
... maryjo's comment, references to techniques
... mapping to SCs and techniques are allowed in accessibility requirements
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#mapping-outside-wcag
wilco: mark techniques as not required
... maryjo's comment Issue 1165
... don't think it's relevant for this rule
... next mj comment about size of glossary
... there is an open issue to put examples on a separate page
trevor: agree
... including glossary terms in rule supports rule must be self-explanatory. if glossary term changes, then rule updates when they are on the same page.
... Issue is to move just the glossary examples to a different page
... extend this survey to next week
wilco: 2 responses
... open until end of today, maybe extend another week
... kathy's comment on implementations - Would be better if the 3 incomplete implementations had fewer "untested" results.
... will nudge others to update their implementations
... not a blocker
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae#failed-example-3
wilco: some AT will pass the failed example 3
... firefox gives it an accname
... the accname is not empty
trevor: is this an edge case?
wilco: not an edge case. it passes the rule but it's not accessible. rule to check that accname is descriptive would fail this.
kathy: trusted tester tool shows this has no accname
wilco: extend this survey another week
wilco: we talked about this 2 weeks ago
trevor: not clear on issue
wilco: atomic rule failing may not fail SC.
... need to update mapping system
trevor: be careful of failed examples in atomic rules
wilco: IDs of rules are different so same example in atomic and composite rule have different IDs