<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/2021-05-ACT-Joint-Meeting-Prep/
wilco: tomorrow and next Friday Joint meeting all of AG invited to figure out ACT with wcag3
... forwarded invitation from Jeanne
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/ACT_-_Silver_Joint_Meeting_May_2021#Session_1
wilco: please fill out survey to help prepare
trevor: can we push rule reviews a week out?
wilco: will change due dates of 5/29 to 6/3
<trevor> kathy: passed examples 1,2, and 3, didn't think the name of the link "contact us" was correct for the content that it linked to
<trevor> kathy: it was just a link to content but no contact information
<trevor> wilco: agree, think that is a good suggestion, does it prevent publishing
<trevor> kathy: I think so. it would fail the s.c. it is trying to pass
<trevor> wilco: So just change contact us to about us. Will make PR to fix this and then we can publish as proposal
wilco: will review again with Susan
trevor: for next, don't like publishing two rules that are nearly identical
wilco: different Expectation - one has 20 hr exception, other does not
trevor: also assumption difference
... maybe just add a description to background on differences
wilco: yes the no exception one should have something in the background
... I think this is editorial. open an issue or PR?
trevor: yes
wilco: mark as accepted ok
... no keyboard shortcut has issues
<trevor> kathy: for passed example had trouble getting it to work as it should
<trevor> kathy: for the expectation, missing a mechanism to disable the shortcut
<trevor> kathy: unsure if the example not working as expected should stop. it provides two methods, but only one works. description says both should work
<trevor> kathy: the expectation needs a third bullet that it can be disabled
<trevor> wilco: what can be disabled
<trevor> kathy: definition required that the shortcut can be disabled
wilco: mark as blocked
... next rule orientation
... kathy's issue - doesn't need to support rotating device, only when opened
<trevor> kathy: in the understanding document, it includes 2 failure techniques. both of them only check when the application is opened
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F97
<trevor> kathy: the scenario they describe, is when a certain orientation is required that is available
<trevor> kathy: nothing about having it opened and having it reorient correctly
<trevor> wilco: Agree the failure tehniques, but unsure if the S.C. doesn't cover it. The S.C. doesn't limit it, so unsure why it wouldn't be true after rotating the device
<trevor> wilco: I think at the very least there is a missing assumption. Would think the current rule is a reasonable interpretation, don't think it directly contradicts WCAG. Clarification would be useful though
<trevor> wilco: May need to ask AG for clarification.
<trevor> kathy: I think the examples would pass either scenario. Its just a matter of getting the right interpretation
<trevor> wilco: I think we would add an assumption and open an issue w/ AG
wilco: since we don't have assignments for next week, should we have a meeting?
trevor: we might have a couple rules to discuss next week
wilco: so we'll have the meeting
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls
wilco: talking to Daniel. TF should get more involved in community work
... lots of open PR that needed reviewing
susan: when we review rules, should we be checking if open PRs?
wilco: yes
trevor: do we just leave comments or being one of the approvers?
wilco: our role is changing. we will also create PRs and should review PRs. maybe need a TF label? especially for unblocking rules that are blocked
... these will be fairly lightweight reviews.
... maybe a TF label to create visibility
susan: we have time so yes
wilco: there's 3 PRs. will need 3 reviewers
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1611
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1610
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1609
kathy: should we open a PR when reviewing rules?
wilco: for smaller changes, yes that would be helpful. In rule, use "propose a change" link to create a PR