wilco: first comment from kathy on question 3, have discussed that second assumption is unnecessary
... maryjo's comment
maryjo: the way it is written is complex
wilco: the rule is only applicable to input elements, if it's disabled, it's removed from focus. is it still an input?
... a disabled form control would not fail this rule because it doesn't take user input
trevor: it appears that form is disabled because of aria-disabled, but it's not actually disabled
wilco: I will take another try at it
... next comment from kathy was discussed before
... wilco comment on passed example 8
... only passed example with a role
... don't like role=banner
... input elements that don't have a widget role is invalid aria
levon: what is the purpose of having a landmark role on an input?
... it's improper use of aria
wilco: it fails 4.1.2 but not this rule. it would pass this rule and this SC
... such a niche scenario that it's ok to leave it out
... will remove
... readiness to publish - not yet but minor stuff
maryjo: changes are small so it can go directly to CFC
RESOLUTION: autocomplete rule needs editorial changes, can go to CFC as soon as those are made
wilco: assumptions comment from kathy - add "this rule assumes" the object is not rendered for presentational purposes
... maryjo's comment - I will wordsmith
... trevor's comment on 7
trevor: passed ex 4 autoplays in firefox
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/8fc3b6#background
wilco: kathy's comment on background - existing background sentence will be removed. adding comment will be not necessary
trevor: what change will be made for autoplay?
wilco: description and add buttons if possible
RESOLUTION: Object name rule can go to CFC after editorial changes as suggested in survey
wilco: 5 responses
... assumptions comment 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 both have exceptions
... implementation data comment: wilco comment that there's not enough
maryjo: kathy's comment - combining of 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 in one rule, some of the pass examples don't pass 1.4.6 - add a note on which don't pass 1.4.6?
wilco: ok adding note
maryjo: mj comment not enough implementations
... shadow dom testable with automated tools?
wilco: yes will add axe
trevor: inapp ex 3, reference assumption more or add dev intent to hide text
... reference to third assumption would make more sense
wilco: agree intent isn't clear
maryjo: next kathy comment, separate rule for 1.4.6
wilco: if fail 1.4.3, also fail 1.4.6. Rules format has to include 1.4.6
... tried to address by adding in background section
maryjo: add assumption that another rule will be written for 1.4.6?
wilco: that wouldn't be an assumption
maryjo: are any issues blockers? what would AG think?
kathy: ok with moving to AG
maryjo: small changes needed, can go to CFC
RESOLUTION: Once small edits are made and an implementation is documented, the Text has minimum contrast rule goes out for CfC to the TF.