<Wilco_> scribe: Adil
zakim next
Wilco - couple of number in week 1
scribe: have open an issue in ARIA working group
using text does not provide acc. name
scribe: wilco request everyone to
look at it
... Shadi might be interesting in it
... on how to deal it
Wilco - only look at thinks that need to do and need to decide
scribe: element within body has valid lang attribute
Jey: waiting for review
Wiclo: JYM review?
WF: couple of rules in list are
near to done or in final calls
... alot of stuff to do in W3C changes request
... looks like missing autocomlete rule, need to update
list
... Carlos join the meeting
... any progress on all table header ... status
Carlos: Need new date for three
weeks
... 29 oct.
WF: works
... No status from Kasper on orientation of the page is not
restricted using...
... any one else want to take this rule?
JYM: heading do not have
accessible name
... we have added accessibility support
... issues solved
... Required context role.. have add small PR
WF: ready for W3C and need to put date
JYM: Should be in final call because of small change
WF: ok
JYM: it should be ready in two weeks
WF: anything else?
... would like to move element markes as decorative is not
exposed...
... there is not any work done on that and need to open an
issue
Carlos: took it
WF: we already talk about it
before
... but could not finish it
... the idea is to link the closely related links to the
background section
... based on that discussed stopped on keywords and ....
... both are good idea
... which should be best? manually put link in background
section or keywords?
JYM: manual take efforts but it
might be good start
... manual maintenance might take it wrong way
WF: only closely related role
such as that function together
... applicability define them together
JYM: it is going to be wear connection between them, almost no maintenance
WF: button has accessible name and image has accessible name does not connect them with each other
Carlos: Keyword is another
solution
... manual put the rules is good
... if it the scope is that then it is not alot of work
JYM: the related rules will be in
another section and might not background
... if we put more things in background it will be more
populated.
Daniel: We might need kind of
subsectioning
... if put everything together it will be confusing for many
people
WF: we might find something
necessary
... assigned this issue self
WF: do we need the no implicit requirement in the rule
<Wilco_> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/bc4a75#applicability
WF: in the applicability there
are different section
... exception can be take out without changing the rule
... the reason is to avoid the duplicate issue with JEY is
working on
... related semantic of list
... ARIA required own element and ARIA to the native
element
... there is duplicatoin there
... the main driver is to writing rule is to avoid duplication
is siteimprove
JYM: duplication is not problem
but in this case it is a bit different
... on that very special case, we have implemented that rule
without it
... not going to oppose deleting this exception
WF: other opinions?
Carlos: No problem with removing it
WF: implementation - reporting
duplication
... we should try to make the rules as simple as possible
... got solution
... opened issue and self assigned
... rule does not consider default names and all failed
examples are actually passing
... a bit surprising
JYM: when there is one document
on calcuating acc. name and there is another document saying
different
... such as HTML AM
<Wilco_> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/59796f#failed
WF: let's look at the failed
examples
... have implemented this in axe-core, trying to remember
... the reason axe-core still fail this is because default name
submit query is exteremly unlikely describe the image
JYM: it is actually not
empty
... may be we can update the rule the acc. name about default
name
WF: right
... any other opnion?
... ?
... NO
... it is better to assume that this acc. name does not
describe the name
JYM: it need to be in the rule
WF: OK
Carlos: we used default name in acc. name computation
WF: same here
... but left this one out
... got solution
JYM: can take this one
WF: assigned this issue to JYM
WF: over the pass where I don't
want to put rules in final call
... but the process required it
... PR1465
<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1465/files
WF: example
... removing the one example and adding another one
... just for this small chaning
... need this rule in the final call
... I don't think anybody does that
... not sure if we need to continue doing stuff like that
... PROPOSAL:
... chaning an example, we can skip the final call phase
... just reviewer need to approve it but not need to be in
final call
... any thoughts on it?
Carlos: one more thing, we don't
need to define what the previuos changes was
... review need to look at what are the changes
... if it is a new example or removal of example then I will as
a reviewer will ask for final call.
Daniel: Do speficy the review always have possible to ask for final call
JYM: Like the idea as we have
many small PR that do not require final call
... we need to be aware about to check the changes
... in case of conflict we need to put in final call
... or in worst case where it actuallyr require final call
JEY: change affect the
implement
... final call help that something need to be change
... if not consider it the implement might be outdated
WF: No
... it might be done with a notification
JYM: we are merging PR every
other day
... it would like to be always up to date
... we are updating examples possibily everyday and don't thing
that affect implementation
WF: alright this is
accepted
... going to update PR template
... Carlos want to take it?
Carlos: will take it
JYM: notification might be
usefull
... for the reviewers
... possible in the description
WF: sharing screen
... in the PR template in the bottom there is approve
section
JYM: make sure always look at the
final call
... it is already here but not sure how much people consider
it
... we need to add some kind of message in the description
which give the habit of doing this.
Daniel: I got more attention with
the message.
... such as something you need to check there.
WF: not sure we can do it for reviewers
Daniel: I cannot be in PR
JYM: we can start as a reviewers,
whenever we review, we can add a message "I am agree with
it"ยจ
... in the approval message
WF: how to do the review in the
description
... when reviewing keep in mind to check the description
... all agree
... final thoughts
Shadi: good progress
... non WAI-Tools participation today :-D
Daniel: interesting discussion, luckly gone through the whole agenda
Carlos: first for me to go through all agenda items :-D
WF: there are very few issues
JYM: Happy
<scribe> ... completed all agenda items
WF: same for me
Jey: Happy
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) Default Present: Wilco_, Jean-Yves, adil, Jey, Carlos, Daniel Present: Wilco_ Jean-Yves adil Jey Carlos Daniel Found Scribe: Adil Inferring ScribeNick: adil WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth 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]