Meeting minutes
Update from the ACT Task Force https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSkPFocXk4K3zYLnwS78WLsWO4PvE5yRcsauyefuIUI/edit?usp=sharing
Wilco: provides update on what the TF has been doing
… there has been a bit of a slowdown because of the meetings with the Silver TF
… but there is been good progress with a large number of issues being opened
ACT/Silver workshop Feedback
Wilco: there have been 2 calls with the WCAG 3 TF and AG
… what were your thoughts on the meetings?
anne_thyme: enjoyed the second meeting better than the first
… pleased with the way things seemed to be going now
Wilco: The firs takeaway is that outcomes need to better defined
… the second takeaway is that methods can be aligned with ACT rules
CarlosD: I agree with anne_thyme
… need to try to make sure that methods and outcomes are objective as possible
Daniel: I also agree with anne_thyme and CarlosD
Wilco: the next steps will be to have more joint meetings
… there is a subgroup from Silver that will work on taking an method and making it more like an ACT rule
… hopefully people from ACT can join
… I will join
anne_thyme: I'm intrigued by the idea of participating
… will have to check my calendar
Wilco: the subgroups meets once a week for an hour
… and there should be some homework
anne_thyme: Would it be more productive to produce something and then hand them and follow the work into the subgroup?
Wilco: I believe Jeanne worked on a proposal of something to bring to the TF today and I'll keep you informed
CarlosD: I should be available from September
Assigned issues: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen
Wilco: Made progress on the HTML element definition
… found a definition
… could not find one for SVG element
… we will need to create one
… should I make the change in one PR (that will impact almost all the rules)?
… leaving the SVG for another PR
… will create first the SVG one, and then the HTML only after merging the first one, to avoid conflicts
anne_thyme: No assigned issues
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: there is one!
Jean-Yves: that rule is deprecated
<Wilco> https://
CarlosD: I couldn't handle them this week... will do it next week
<Wilco> https://
Daniel: attribute is not duplicated is work in progress
… need reviewers for PR 1575
<Wilco> https://
Jean-Yves: Need reviewers for PR 1547
… going over the list of assigned issues
… some may be closed
… 1502 seems to have been taken over by the TF
… should I still work on it
Wilco: yes, the TF is not doing rule update
Change "element with a semantic role of X" to "semantic X"? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1593
Wilco: there is a lot of "element with a semantic role of X" in our rules
… should we simplify it "semantic X" and link to the definition?
Jean-Yves: I like the simplification
… the semantic role of link also considers inheriting from link
… should we do that for all roles?
… or only for some of the roles?
Wilco: we could that for each definition
Jean-Yves: it could create some confusion
Wilco: yes, it can be weird
anne_thyme: agree that it might be confusing, or people might miss a definition and misinterpret a rule
Wilco: is there a problem with the semantic link definition because the name does not imply that it applies to inheriting roles?
<Wilco> https://
Jean-Yves: Will there be cases where we want to target a role and not inheriting roles?
anne_thyme: is this a case where we start with a specific case and move up the the generic case?
Jean-Yves: having the definition considering inheriting roles would make the rules more comprehensive
Wilco: the problem is role list
Jean-Yves: do we have any rule targeting that role?
anne_thyme: yes, in the required context [and another]
Wilco: so for that, we would go with the old style of identifying the semantic role
Wilco: we need to try it
… the proposal is to consider inheritance
… we try and check the edge cases
anne_thyme: do we change the semantic role to include inheritance
… and skip the semantic link defiinition?
Jean-Yves: we should change the semantic link definition
Wilco: agree
anne_thyme: having a distinction between "semantic link" and "semantic role of link" would be confusing
Wilco: we could have "non-inheriting semantic X" or "inheriting semantic X"
anne_thyme: which one are we using the most?
Wilco: the non-inheriting
… using "inheriting semantic link" over "semantic link" is more explicit
<Daniel> +1
+1
decision: https://
Replace the "Each test target" phrase in expectations? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1594
Wilco: we use a lot of "each test target" and "each target element"
… we got that from EARL
… it makes no sense if you don't know that
… why would the applicable element be the test target
… should we clearly spell it out the in the expectation
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: like "Each applicable button ..."
anne_thyme: do you have an example
anne_thyme: can it be that people would ignore the applicability because it is in the expectation?
… and then people would look at all buttons instead of only the applicable buttons
Jean-Yves: I like the test target in the expectation because it emphasises that applicability and expectations are independent things
… we might have a definition of "test target" if people are not getting what it is
anne_thyme: I don't like "test target"... can we "applicable element"
Jean-Yves: sometimes the target are attributes
CarlosD: or pages
Jean-Yves: or sets of elements
Wilco: this needs more discussion... lets keep this on the agenda
Wilco: final thoughts