<Wilco_> scribe: Aron

Final call https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1497

Wilco- four final calls

Jean- old mistake, I just needed to put something back

Wilco- alt attribute from Jay

Carlos- we should remove it from final call

Wilco- changes are editorial so we'll remove it

Wilco- next one- non-visual locations and bypass blocks from Jean Yves

Rules ready for W3C publication https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1120

Wilco- we need someone to take over the orientation thing

Wilco: the iframe is stuck so I'm moving it to awaiting resolution
... object element has been approved but needs small editorial changes. I'll do it
... text and color a similar scenario
... autocomplete is almost done as well
... Image with accessible name may need to be a separate agenda item

Jean-Yves: I would agree

Wilco: The TF is not too keen on publishing this rule
... is a subset of another rule that we already have
... If that's ok with everybody I will hold off with that one until I have a solution
... Ready for W3C- nothing's progressed

Jean-Yves: Required context rule can be moved to ready for publication

I believe that a table that is positioned off screen is a failure of 1.3.1

Carlos: I don't think it's a failure
... 1.3.1 requires that for anything presented to have programmatic structure
... the table is not presented visually so it is not a failure
... THE TABLE IS NOT PRESENTED VISUALLY BUT IS PRESENTED IN AUDITORY WAY SO IT IS NOT A FAILURE OF 1.3.1

Wilco: We're not going to do anything with the inapplicable example but it is worth making the tables bigger

Background section in (out?) of definitions https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1472

Jan-Yves- does it make sense to have background section in the definition?

Jean-Yves: I have example with two bullet points which are decorative and two paragraphs which are a bit more descriptive

Wilco: I don't think it is urgent

Carlos: It would be good to have a clear separation on what is definition and what is broad description

Jean-Yves: the easiets way would be to have background information and definition

Wilco: should we have, instead of having something like link to example, something on the bottom of a rule

Jean-Yves: a seperate section that may include the definition might be the good idea

Shadi: WCAG seems to have the same issue- definitions with some examples and some without them
... Threshold for adding notes and examples

Jean-Yves: we have cleaned notes and put the in the background but we haven't done them for the definitions
... it should probably be grouped in the background section

Jean-Yves- I agree with Wilco, the easiest way is to group them

Wilco: we can automate that
... Jean-Yves are you ok with writing a proposal for the TF

Jean-Yves: yes

Should implementation descriptions be required? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1484

Wilco: this is what was added a few months back

Wiclo: in our implementation page there is a way to specify how the data was gathered

Wilco: the TF wants to know who this is done
... what would you say if we asked all implementors to do it? It would be mandatory

Jean-Yves: I think it should be ok

Carlos: In principle I would agree

Wilco: maybe we need to ask to describe which screen reader and browser is used

<Carlos> scribe: Carlos

Wilco: to announce that implementors need to a description

Info: Work on the CG website

<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules-web/issues/created_by/hidde

Wilco: Hidde is going to be updating the CG website

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: Carlos, Jean-Yves, Wilco_
Present: Carlos Jean-Yves Wilco_
Found Scribe: Aron
Inferring ScribeNick: Aron
Found Scribe: Carlos
Inferring ScribeNick: Carlos
Scribes: Aron, Carlos
ScribeNicks: Aron, Carlos

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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)