<scribe> Scribe: dmontalvo
Wilco: 2 1-week and 2 2-weeks
final calls
... Anything else we need to do in the auto-complete rule?
Aron: The type attriute is now
covered in the assumption, we may add something with
auto-comoplete="off"
... Will create another pull request
Wilco: Updates to test case
design, and new rule to check the default language's markup in
HTML elements
... Any questions?
Helen: It is not clear what the actual purpose is?
Emma: 461 has two links on it.
Wilco: Working on the "non-empty title", waiting for TF
JYM: id is unique looks like I have done it
Wilco: Will hand it back to the TF
Daniel: Audio - video should probably be taken by somebody who has actually written rules
[Updated dates in the different issue sections]
Wilco: I will take "Scrollable elements are keyboard accessible"
Wilco: If you add up all the
different specs, comobox doesn't really have a required role,
the only one is aria-expanded
... ARIA 1.2 is getting close to publishing
JYM: Would it make sense to change that example to something else as the combobox pattern seems to change a lot?
Wilco: The only role with
required attributes is the scrollbar
... Anything else either has default values or is
changing
... ARIA 1.2 does not have default value for aria-level
Aron: if aria-level is not going to have value of 2, it may not be announced by ATs
Wilco: It may happen.
Aron: aria-controls is required in ARIA 1.2, I know the confusion is around 1.1
Emma: Think should be going with the latest version
Wilco: Latest is 1.1, and is also
requiring to support 1.0
... Conformance checkers should continue to support 1.0
... If we are supposed to follow 1.1 and 1.0, we cannot say
aria-controls is required
Adil: Probably the example should be passing, and we can add anote that the example will be updated once ARIA 1.2 is published
Wilco: The only thing we could
use to replace the example is scrolbar
... We could start using ARIA 1.2 in this rule
JYM: If there are only two examples we can test in this rule with ARIA 1.1, this might look like a weak rule, it might be useful for 1.2
Emma: Implementers may need to take a decission as to whether to implement it or not
Helen: To future-proof it, you have the rule now so it covers you for the eventuality that it might change
Wilco: My preference is to wait,
if anybody wants to take it to migrate it to 1.2...
... Anybody disagree with that?
RESOLUTION: Leave this rule as is until ARIA 1.2 comes out.
Wilco: Our link rules use the accessible name. Mark is arguing that it is not about the accessible name but the visible text.
Emma: Should be about both. Visually you get the visible text, but screen readers are getting the accessible name.
JYM: Agree with Emma
Adil: This is for the links that contain text, links that do not contain text, images should be assessed under 1.1.1
Aron: You can have accessible name with some other text and still pass the criteria, those types of rules still apply to visual content only. I see WCAG is not requiring that accessible names, but visual text
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/aria/ARIA8
Anne: I wrote the rule, I remember having this discussion before. There is a lot of ARIA under techniques for 2.4.9
Emma: Techniques for 2.4.4 talk about alternative texts, so they are getting into the accessible name
Wilco: Link text mean accessible
name. Otherwise linked images would not apply, which seems odd
to me.
... Also this is about the programmatically determined context,
not visible text.
Anne: In the definition of mechanism, it refers to assistive technologies
Emma: Where is the requirement for visible name and accessible name to do or be the same?
Wilco: 2.5.3
Aron: There are some caviots to it, it does not need to be the same, if it is preceeded by some words
JYM: We had a lot of discussion,
we decided to add an assumption not to use homonyms. There are
a few border-line cases
... WCAG doesn't say this, but it is a reasonable assumption
that needs to be made
Helen: Some of this is down to the application of it when using assistive technology. Maybe you go to the first one and you wanted to go to the second one
Aron: Some highlight the two links and ask for numbers
Wilco: Proposal -- leave the rule as is and provide Mark the feedback from this meeting.
Adil: This rule is better related to the programmatical context. The other aspect of the sc to check the link text, we may want to have another rule for that.
Emma: The visible link text will always be used in context, you would only need one extra rule.
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/6cfa84#passed-example-3
Wilco: -1 makes it not part of
the sequence of focus, but you can tap on it using screen
... I was looking at fixing it, but if you have an overlay on
top of it, there is no way for you to tap on it
... It checks avoiding AT to get to something that does not
need to be announced
Aron: What is the purpose of this example?
Emma: Modals, to make sure AT do not get to things behind it as it is open
Wilco: You need to apply -1 to
everything, there was a proposal for an attribute that could be
added to the background content but did not make it
through
... setting aria-hidden and role="none" is something people
use, but creates problems
Emma: I see valid cases for aria-hidden to be used even in visible content
Wilco: Should we change the passed example?
Adil: No, but maybe have an assumption that it may be possible to get to this element using touch screens
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/6cfa84#passed-example-3
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#dfn-hidden
Wilco: There is an issue opened about the definition of hidden
JYM: We are using sequential focus navigationbut we are checking just a subset. We are passing this because we don't have a good enough definition of focusable. I am in favor of removing it, because it is failing what the rule was supposed to test
Aron: In favor of removing the example
Emma: Also reconsider passed examples 5 and 6
Wilco: I am personally inclined to fix this. Maybe adding a requirement for it not to be clickable or tappable
Adil: Is aria-hidden related to interactive or non-interactive content?
Wilco: Both.
<adil> https://www.w3.org/TR/using-aria/#fourth
Wilco: Any objections?
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|2 1-week and 2 2-weeks final calls /Wilco: 2 1-week and 2 2-weeks final calls|| Succeeded: s/2 1-week and 2 2-weeks final calls/Wilco: 2 1-week and 2 2-weeks final calls/ Succeeded: s/Anything else we need to do in the auto-complete rule?/... Anything else we need to do in the auto-complete rule?/ Succeeded: s/... .../.../ Succeeded: s/takend by/taken by/ Succeeded: s/may not be announced/may not be announced by ATs/ Succeeded: s/passing,a nd /passing, and / Succeeded: s/assumption that it needs to be/assumption that needs to be made/ Succeeded: s/tihs meeting/this meeting/ Succeeded: s/makes it no part of /makes it not part of / Succeeded: s/was one proposal but did ont make it/there was a proposal for an attribute that could be added to the background content but did not make it through/ Succeeded: s/navigatoin /navigation/ Succeeded: s/don'thave/don't have/ Succeeded: s/elase/else/ Present: adil Helen Daniel Wilco EmmaJ_PR Jean-Yves Anne Found Scribe: dmontalvo Inferring ScribeNick: dmontalvo 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]