wilco: shadi and I went through this and had some questions, 3 rules ready for AG
... Question is when we want to move those over, AG getting ready for 2.2 soon, so we could try to get them in soon
shadi: Facilitators meeting yesterday said they would appreciate in april, after the 2.2 and COGA publication
kathy: I heard wilco mention, EU funding, how does that affect things
wilco: Think it will slow some rule development, but that we can continue publication course.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/about/projects/wai-coop/
shadi: Hoping to build more community engagement
wilco: we need to shift our focus a bit towards getting more implementations. will help move and publish some of the rules that have been sitting for awhile
wilco: Carlos and I met this week to discuss how to reorganize ourselves. One option is to open this meeting to the community group
... I think we need more people in this call
trevor: Was the barrier with being an invited expert or not
wilco: Proposal is just a joint meeting, so no need for that
daniel: how will the survey process be handled
wilco: Hoping to have 1 meeting a week dedicated just to the survey results, which is the joint meeting
... Could consider using github instead of surveys for review
shadi: two practical issues, i think surveys makes people more accountable. can have accessibility issues to track inline comments.
... if someone creates a rule, its gets commented or edited on TF side?
wilco: First step is to set up joint meetings, second step to figure out tooling for the meeting
... problem with expectations on effort, similar expectation for joint meeting
levon: sounds good
kathy: Is there any expectation for the community group?
wilco: Nope, no expectation. don't like to do that since much of the group doesn't have that dedicated time. more on the scale of a couple hours a month
... I think its fine to have that requirement for the joint meeting though
... How should we go about organizing that? email asking people if they are interested
kathy: I think in previous meetings, we mentioned just inviting certain people
wilco: I would like to see who would be up for it, inviting was more for other AG members
... Shadi, any restrictions we should know about
shadi: Unsure, basically following silver, but will need to look more into it
... May need to negotiate hours
trevor: will admit I don't spend the full 4 hours regularly, usually 2 to 3 as well
daniel: Usually 2-3 for me as well
wilco: Do we need to communicate this to AG some way?
shadi: Yes, first check who is interested. Then I will check with michael and we can proceed
wilco: we can open the surveys up right?
shadi: For silver, the CG also has access to surveys and edit wikis
wilco: could also just make the surveys public
shadi: that doesn't need any permissions either
RESOLUTION: wilco to reach out to CG to see who is interesting to join TF/CG joint meeting
wilco: problem with objective applicability. in the case of the error message, struggled to define an error in an objective way
... due to the objective requirement, we have moved things that sound like applicability into the expectation
... had a similar problem with font-icons in an earlier rule, dealt with font-icons in expectation
trevor: unsure what they will look like if they don't have the objective requirement, what things will it allow
wilco: I do like objective applicability, one of my favorite parts, but it can be confusing
kathy: is the problem for the rule the detection on the error message, that causing the problem with objectivity
wilco: Yes, for the rule its not an objective thing, or something that we can make objective. Its context sensitive
... in the text minimum contrast, defining decorative text objectively in applicability
... can test if its ignored by assistive tech, but can't determine if it should be
... bits like that, that are inherently subjective, which we have been putting in the expectation
kathy: so can we not identify messages?
wilco: nope, there are many possibilities of icons, colors, etc.
kathy: from applicability only, is there a way to determine if validation exists
wilco: can only do that if its done programatically, this isn't required by WCAG, so can't rely on it
shadi: could fix this by changing the applicability?
wilco: Could allow subjective exceptions
trevor: like current solution better than making all of applicability subjective, would be interested in an exceptions section to applicability
daniel: agree as well
wilco: The objective applicability should always be super set of exceptions. Question if we are okay with this or want to change the rules format
shadi: So is the proposal to come up with a list that people would reference as exceptions
wilco: Unsure if we can create the list, worth lookign at, think allowing subjective applicability may still be beneficial
kathy: how much does it affect implementers
wilco: Not much I expect, they can report cantTell if its unclear
kathy: Looking at the contrast example, we are trying to rule out decorative text
<wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/afw4f7#passed-example-7
wilco: what would really change, is that example would become inapplicable
shadi: Is it possible some tools would make it semi-automated?
trevor: introducing more subjectiveness to hurt tool harmonization or already there and just making more explicit
wilco: Think just making it more explicit
... Sounds like we are gravitating towards a possible solution
trevor: this may affect decisions about how we did state, since we relied on very objective state definitions
wilco: Next week is axecon and csun, so I won't be able to attend the full meeting
daniel: think we will be busy
wilco: for 18th, US folks will be moving an hour later or earlier, noone is sure
shadi: should be 10am on 18th and 25th for US people