MJM: only positive responses
... will be added to the Queue, have 3 rules now
WF: 3 need PRs, 2 other ones
MJM: Getting close to enough for AG
WF: should talk to AG chairs about when to send them another batch
MJM: Next leads meeting on August 5th. Could send then a notice that we've got rules. Will do that
MJM: 6 responses, only comment is on implementation data
... Charu said rule does not check if the attributes are valid.
WF: Handled in another rule. We can link between rules. There is an open issue for this in the CG.
... no composite rule for this needed, IMO
... Open PR / issue has been closed.
MJM: There are no other concerns. It is done. I don't think the link between rules should block this rule publication.
... We can send this out for CFC.
WF: This doesn't map to WCAG, we may not want to include this rule for AG.
... Suggest we acknowledge it is accepted and then park it
MJM: Maybe we can make a tracking table for non-WCAG rules that are complete
... I don't want it to muddy the water. I can create this table.
SAZ: I think that would be helpful. There are some talks with Matt King about integrating ARIA rules with some other thing they are working on.
MJM: Agreed, there will be a place to publish them associated with ARIA. We may have to come up with a proposal on how to do that.
SAZ: This is a discussion happening between EO and ARIA WG. I'll keep ACT in mind with that.
SAZ: Might be that these ARAI rules could go to the ARIA WG instead of AG
MJM: Might make sense for other specs like for EPUB
... Next one is iframe. There are 4 responses. No new responses. Nothing new to talk about here.
... Will have to prompt people to fill out the survey.
MJM: New responses from Kathy.
KE: When I read the SC, the SC does not state anything about a control. I don't think that assumption is necessary.
... Even if there is a control, it's not a method to meet the SC
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G214
WF: This probably comes from the technique
... This techniques allows it
MJM: Looks like it is a technique, this rule doesn't take it into account, which is why it is in the assumptions.
... if it fails this rule, it may not fail the SC, unless there is a control
... The sufficient techniques have no links. They are not written.
KE: Trying to read through the understanding. I don't see anything there that mentions a control
MJM: Should we open an issue with AG, there seems to be a mismatch
WF: Think so
MJM: We'll ask Charu to open an issue with AG. She's the liaison
... Don't see any other comments.
... I'll have to reopen the survey to get more responses.
MJM: Need to get this into survey. Give everyone a chance to read it.
... Would be nice to have this in a PR to reference in a survey.
WF: I'll get a PR open today.
... would go into the review process
KE: For step 3, how would that be, is that a checkbox?
WF: Yes
KE: I think that's fine. Maybe add some way to indicate that someone else would likely get the same result.
... a documented procedure?
MJM: Could we ask to see it?
WF: I don't think we would get it for some of them.
... I've updated, better?
KE: Yes, I like it
MJM: Not sure what "previous is true" would be?
KE: How about "previous requirement"
<kathyeng> If the test mode of the implementation was manual or semi-automated, a declaration of the implementor that *these* outcomes are the result of a documented step by step test procedure included in the implementation.
WF: That looks good, I've updated it.
... Want to point out that I've adjusted what is semi-automated. It is based on test cases, which are either automated or manual, and if an implementation has both manual and automated that is what makes it semi-automated
MJM: iframe survey is closed
... Will update this as we're talking