W3C

Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

17 Sep 2020

Attendees

Present
Shadi, Trevor, Wilco, Charu, Levon, KathyEng, MaryJo
Regrets

Chair
Wilco, MaryJo
Scribe
Shadi

Contents


CfC for image has non-empty accessible name

WF: all +1, ready to go to AG!

MJM: think we're now up to 8 rules for AG

WF: let's get them to AG for approval
... thanks everybody, awesome

ID attribute value is unique: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTIDValueUnique/results

WF: lots of agreement
... Q7, Trevor and Charu
... I opened Pull Request to fix that
... actually no, I confused with another rule

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/3ea0c8#expectation

TB: don't usually say why further testing is needed but do that here
... not big issue for me

WF: good point
... think good to keep consistent
... will put Pull Request

CP: agree, does not add much
... confuses more, had to read twice

TB: yes, had to read full text first to understand

WF: can remove
... anything else?
... otherwise will put onto CFC next

Visible label is part of accessible name: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTVisibleLabel/handler

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTVisibleLabel/results

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/2ee8b8#passed-example-2

TB: ingore whitespace missing in other example

WF: seems to be unnecessary
... you're right
... but hopefully not a blocker
... maybe can get removed before others review
... to avoid re-review

Image filename is accessible name for image: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTImageFileName/handler

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTImageFileName/results

WF: everything seems good with this

TB: yes, looks good but may need to take a closer look
... seemed a little more complex

WF: what about others?

MJM: seems unusual to me
... few cases when filename qualifies as accessible name

KE: agree, had to think of why it was needed
... could be a sub-rule for another
... something on "descriptive"
... and this be one particular way to meet it
... not even a recommended way

WF: seems more like a Failure?
... not seeing quite as much of it these days

TB: haven't seen it either

WF: WSYWYG editos had been doing that
... seems less recently

TB: definitely anti-pattern to what we usually do

WF: 3 people in CG want it published
... but people here seem more reserved

TB: not sure we should be the ones to say if this rules goes out

<Levon> I seem to have read-only permissions on this survey.

SAZ: wonder if we should express our concerns to AG
... run it by chairs at least
... to park until have more such rules

WF: sounds good

MJM: agree

Issue 474 - Can we streamline the rule update process? https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/474

WF: concluded it is fine for chairs to put PRs before reviews
... still need to update the process document accordingly

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/blob/master/wcag-ruleset-review-process.md#annual-review

WF: proposal, Liaison reviews the rule and decides if update is needed
... if so, open issue with the CG
... how do we track that?

MJM: maybe update "Status Date" and add comment

WF: think still need "last reviewed"

MJM: add another column

WF: unless we update the status date in such a way we can see the last reviewed date

CP: does the rule itself have last published date?
... could we use that?

WF: doesn't tell us when it was last checked

CP: maybe separate column is the better way then

WF: maybe add check to survey for up-to-date of rule
... then last survey is also last check

MJM: but then need to open lots of surveys?

WF: isn't that status date?

MJM: status date is last time it was worked on

KE: why not review based on published date?

MJM: may have more than a year between

+1 to both "last reviewed" column and up-to-date check in surveys

<Levon> +1

WF: suggest "last reviewed" column and up-to-date check in surveys
... add question to survey
... and if more than a year passed without changes than liaison reviews

MJM: for title rule, CFC was limited to specific point
... not sure everyone reviewed everything

WF: yes, should keep a record of that

MJM: so this an example of a recent change but not a recent check for up-to-date

<Levon> What does CFC stand for?

MJM: would still need liaison assessment

CFC = "Call for Consensus" = last chance to speak up :-)

WF: visible labels, button accessible name
... MJM taking contrast

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/09/17 17:02:46 $