WF: no objections, so CFCs supported
... 3 now ready for AGWG
... queuing up with a bunch more coming up
WF: approval from AGWG to incorporate in WCAG supporting documents
... with WCAG 2.2
... good for messaging
https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/2020-07-15-prototype.html
SAZ: heads up on redesign work here
... may be format we want to use too
https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/2020-07-15-prototype.html
WF: our speed seems kind of slow
... think some of the delay is due to handover between this and community group
... maybe should reach out to rule authors in addition to raising GitHub issue
... sometimes takes weeks until they pick up opened issues
TB: sounds good
MJM: agree
SAZ: agree
TB: how to reach out? use @ in the issue?
WF: may not be enough
... email or slack?
... we know the people
... can just ask if needed
... make sure you reach out to the rule authors/submitters
MJM: maybe rule submitters can provide their email and slack handle?
WF: yes, can update template accordingly
... also to add message of closing date
... will also update process documentation
... come back with proposal for next week
TB: went over comment last week, can ignore it
KE: seems to contradict
WF: maybe turn around the order?
KE: that work for me
MJM: for me too
KE: example with <div> exists but an element with a role such as <img> would make it clearer for me
CP: for me too
KE: broken links
WF: will take that back to the community group
... may have missed something else
... 4.1.2 is about user interface components
... and this rule covers any element
... so mapping may be wrong because broader scope
SAZ: what are possible situations?
WF: wrongly marked list
... that would fall under 1.3.1
... would need two separate rules, one for widgets under 4.1.2 and one for non-widgets that falls under 1.3.1
MJM: like that
CP: like it too
WF: Charu please take this back to the rule submitter
WF: need another response
CP: how does this relate to the other rule?
WF: maybe add related rules in Background section?
SAZ: especially such closely related rules
WF: 1 more week, 1 more review!
KE: will do
WF: issue re-raised in AGWG, whether iframes really really need an accessible name
TB: notes in examples?
... thought removing these?
WF: not complete ban, just reducing where possible
... can actually be put in the description
KE: inconsistency in assumption
... should be "or" instead of "and"?
WF: not sure, contacted Mark about it
... lots more issues to resolve, here and in the community group
... different behavior around accessibility tree and focus
... 1 more week, Mary Jo and Charu please review
WF: needs reviews
... this was written before policy on less notes
... so probably needs some editorial work
... new write-up
... for discussion next week