MJ: 5 responses, looks like it is complete, clear, and understandable, nobody had editorial changes
... Ready to get approved as-is.
Shadi: I will take another look but it should be fine.
Wilco: Let's put a CFC on Monday
Kathy: I need to have a look at it too
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/492
Kathy: Opened issue with my comments
Wilco: Comment in Q5
Kathy: Similar to using G108 that we discussed
MJ: G ones are general, it does talk about HTML, but it is a general thing about using mark-up features
Wilco: If it maps to G108 it requires an assumption that the rule does not have, since it was pulled out
... The assumption was about the role attribute being necessary
... I think you are right
... Comment in q7, glossary terms not linked in the rule
Kathy: In other rules we have a link within the content to the definition. In this one they are not there. Definitions are quite good to explain the rule. Perhaps the terms could be added within the rule.
... If we have the glossary in other external document, then the terms won't be seen in the rule page, right?
Wilco: Where would you like to see those mentioned?
Kathy: Are we still talking about the glossary being separated from the rule?
Wilco: We pull them out into separate files for writing purposes, but they still show up dynamically in the rule page
Kathy: If they're still going to be in the rule page, I'm OK
Wilco: We will send this one back. It needs to map either to WCAG or to ARIA for us to publish it
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTControlForAutoplay/
Wilco: This is one of three rules (the composite). There will be two more for the atomic. Would it make sense for us to start with the other ones?
... One implementer has a complete implementation for the composite but not so for the two atomic ones
... They have confirmed that this is a fully automated rule. I think this meets our requirements, even if we don't have them listed in the atomic rules
Trevor: Can we be sure that they are comprehensive for the atomic rule?
Wilco: Not really. There is some work that needs to happen for us to see these implementation in the CG website
... It is a considerable amount of work
Trevor: I would not consider it a blocker, then.
Wilco: I am not worried about potentially one or the other test case not having a complete implementation
Trevor: I think I can agree
Wilco: Not every rule should be treated the same way, but this one could
MJ: I am a process person.
Shadi: Me too, sounds awkward to me.
Wilco: Not all of the test cases in the atomic rule are in the composite, but the ones they are much
... We would have to make an exception for this rule to pass, I think it would be OK
Daniel: IF we are not missing out on anything and we are sure test cases in the composite cover all the spectrum, it won't be too serious, but we also need to pay attention to the process
Wilco: I can make sure if the use cases are different in the atomic and composite
Shadi: OK if we are able to have it documented
Trevor: Passed example 3, when you open it and the video starts playing, the toggel still has "play" in its text
... It does not initialize in its current state
... You have to change browser settings to have it autoplay
Wilco: This can be updated, good point
Trevor: 1.4.2 - Why is it not in the accessibility mapping for the atomic rule?
Wilco: Because it is the atomic rule. They can have it, but only in specific cases
Trevor: Does the applicability cover this?
Wilco: No, you could have video that is longer that the sound on it, with just silence
Trevor: Trying to picture scenarios for multimedia with audio longer than 3 seconds that does not have a control and that did not violate 1.4.2
... The background section has a lot os 1.4.2 materials, it may be a bit confusing. Maybe we could be clearer about why it is not there and why it is covered by the composite
Wilco: I see the point in the duration. That's two conditions in one sentence. We would not need three rules, we could do it in one.
Trevor: For the other ones we need to strip out the duration thing
Wilco: We could have exceptions to the rule for these short passages of audio that are less than 3 seconds
... I think I will update my review. Anyway, are you clear why 1.4.2 is mentioned here?
Trevor: I was just unclear what the atomic rule relationship was causing us not to mention the SC here
Wilco: We can fix the applicability
... Comment: [example descriptions that are too generic] Easy to fix.
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTAudioLessThan3Sec/
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTAudioPlaysAuto/results
Wilco: Need to fix the "less than 3 seconds" bit as discussed before
Trevor: Either remove duration or clarify applicability
Wilco: Please have a look at these 3 surveys, it may take more time than usual
Wilco: Rule does not account for different types of disabled elements
... You can disable a thing in the element itself or with one of its ancestors
... Not a huge deal but something that needs to be fixed
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/73f2c2#passed-example-8
Wilco: input banner -- I think we can come up with a better one
Wilco: This is an update, due next week.
... Could we push one of these back? We have many for next week.
Trevor: Maybe we need to go with the two composites and atomic and then take another one
Wilco: We could extend the autocomplete rule. For next wee we would have the audio and video ones and the object
Kathy: It is helpful to have both composite and atomic rules to review at the same time. Could the CG group these together?
Wilco: Yes.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/pull/27
Wilco: This updates almost all of our rules and adds the new ones that have been approved by AG
MJ: Is is the actual publication? If so, go ahead
Shadi: Sounds good.