wilco: CFC for non empty title rule, got positive responses
<Wilco> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2020Aug/
wilco: this is accepted
<Wilco> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2020Aug/0015.html
Wilco: 6 reviewers, thats good
... comment from Kathy, the 1.4.6 requirement should not be included, as it needs 7:1
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#accessibility-requirements-mapping
wilco: if you fail 1.4.6 you also fail 1.4.3
Kathy: the passing examples do not meet 1.4.6
Wilco: Kathy, would it be acceptable to add a note on the passed example meet only 1.4.3
... yes we could do that
Ann: it is odd to have a requirement and have expectation not meet that would make it hard for anyone not spending their life in accessibility to understand
Wilco: yeah agree
... this is a separate issue
Trevor: what would be an ideal scenario? should we split the rule
Wilco: not sure
... there must be something in the rule format to allow this
... we will hold up on this conversation and revisit later
... moving on, another comment from Kathy
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/afw4f7#passed-example-7
Wilco: we have had this conversation and did not come to a conclusion, so lets do this
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration
Wilco: the text is decorative, changing the letters does not change the purpose
... the note does not agree
Kathy: aria-hidden doe not apply, i think
... screen readers would miss the example
Wilco: if it is not decorative, it should fail
Daniel: we now agree that text is not purely decorative, so may be put some random characters to pass
Wilco: Would that be sufficient?
... should we remove the example 7?
Kathy: yes, example 1 satisfies the decorative criteria
Wilco: or remove aria-hidden and fail it
Kathy: agree
Ann: Some text in human language, is that a criteria?
Wilco: yes language is context sensitive
... comment on example 8 to add a note
... is it non-text content?
cpandhi: non-text does not have to meet the contrast criteria?
Wilco: yes, it does not need a note, agree?
Kathy: yes
Wilco: comment from me, not a blocker, not a widget seems unnecessary
... basically means text on buttons or inputs does not apply
... we should have a separate rule to catch that
... we add it here even if we decide to add it in other rules
Trevor; we will need some examples
Ann: what about different states?
Wilco: good point, that is why we did not add it in the first place
... ok you convince me to not do that, it would add lot of complexity
... still needs to be updated and resolved
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/23a2a8#failed-example-1
Wilco: 6 responses, looking good
... will make some quick updates and put that into a CFC
+1
Wilco: hearing no objections
Wilco: on the website, we are including the definitions into the rules, meaning hard coding
... that is not what the AG does, ensures that definitions are not outdated
... we approve rules and don't review definitions, so if we do that, our review process should change
... So the definitions can be included but have a separate definitions
... so we have consistent definitions in all rules
Trevor: do we have an example of inconsistent definitions?
Wilco: not sure
... the newer rules will have a link to the examples
Kathy: would a definition change cause a change a rule version?
Wilco: any updates to definition can affect the rules that use the definition
Trevor: would be nice to have a list to trace it back
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/glossary/
Wilco: i think we have that in the glossary
Ann: is it the rules published through the TF or all the rules from the CG
Wilco: that is a bunch of work, we need to automate that
... will talk to Marry Jo to add a question to the survey,