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
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
<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
<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
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