Wilco: I think this one is accepted. One of those aria-rules that is not really wcag
... We jave a separate rule to check roles
Shadi: There is on-going discussions between Aria practice and EOWG to integrate ARIA practice with the rest of WCAG guidance
scribe: These may need to be reviewed also in the ARIA working group as they have to do with ARIA interpretation
... Not immediate neither high priority
Wilco: We really want to focus on things WCAG for now.
Wilco: We have some suggestions on updating our process.
... A couple of questions
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/471/files
Wilco: Kathy says Should we notify the person who submitted the rule for review?
... That makes sense
MaryJom: When the survey is done we will put comments to a new issue. In the issue that submitted the rules for review, a link to the new issue will be added, so that the old one can be closed.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/471/commits/2fa7dac5c105aacb15616bc07fade6b6699235ae
[Some wording suggestions on the pull request itself]
Kathy: Should we update appendix one as well?
MaryJom: I am trying to reference the labels "new rule" and "resolve feedback"
Wilco: Conclusion, needs a little bit more work. Shall we put this in CFC once it is done?
... Seems we will.
Wilco: My feedback for question 3 of the assumptions. I don't think they should be written as a list.
MaryJom: It is listed as a bullet in the sufficient techniques. For me it means it is a sufficient technique.
Kathy: Not sure about that. To me it doesn't mean it is going to fix an orientation issue, rather, it sounds like showing and hiding.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G214
Wilco: This technique seems to say you have to provide a control for this.
... Kathy, do you have a suggestion? Maybe you want to open an issue with AG for this technique?
Kathy: OK for now, I need more time to think this through
Wilco: I don't like the way this is listed out. We could use a paragraph for what we are trying to say here.
MaryJom: I think it is good as is.
Wilco: Don't feel strongly.
... Other questions and concerns, There are two questions
... Applicability: Include the first note in the applicability statement instead of a note
MaryJom: I think you made a different suggestion, but I think it is OK in that section
Wilco: The reason for this to be a note is, you can give somebody the list or you can tell the to get the transformation list
... The links are in the Transforms Modules, level 2
MaryJom: I am concerned to put draft material in a rule.
Wilco: Most CSS is in draft
MaryJom: Some of them are at least candidate recommendation, but this one is a draft. I don't know how well implemented that is
Wilco: Reasonably well as I understand
Daniel: I guess if we make sure it is well implemented/used/supported, we can go ahead
MaryJom: Yes, we need to be sure about the details
Shadi: W3C policy is not to reference draft specs. Somebody can come along with another rule and how we could argument that one is stable, and the other is not?
Wilco: CG group does the following: If there is a public spec we use it, but if there is not, we take the drafts and we put a date on it so that it marks that it was taken at a particular date
Shadi: Maybe we could wait for a few weeks and then it won't be a draft anymore
Wilco: I really think this should be included, otherwise, it can lead to accessibility problems.
<Wilco> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-transforms-2/
Wilco: There are more. Do we need to figure out which draft specs we are using?
Shadi: They are pretty clear that this is a draft and can change at any moment
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-transforms-2/
Wilco: I will look into how many draft specs we are using and will open an issue
... Conclusion about the notes?
Trevor: I still favor having the note in the applicability, it is more declarative, but if we are not mentioning the Transforms I wonder if it will impact any user
Wilco: If we are all in agreement to leave it this way, we would need another review
MaryJom: There is a link that goes to the main W3C page. Maybe we should name the spec and give pointers, I don't think a W3C generic link is helpful here
Wilco: We need another week for this one
Wilco: Another week for this one as well. Please take time to fill in the survey.
Wilco: Another week for this one as well. Please take time to fill in the survey.
... I have concerns with this one, if there is no data there is no data, it doesn't need to be a failure
... Also I have concerns with unnecessary things in the applicability. I don't think this one is ready for publication