<scribe> Scribe: Helen

Call for review https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461

CarlosD: We have items from Yves, but we have no comments on those and I guess they will be merged today or tomorrow. " with 1 week call for reviews and none with no call for reviews
... all items should be merged as soon as possible

Update from the ACT Task Force

CarlosD: Update from the TF please Wilco?

Wilco: We have been working on all of the rules and checked that there was nothing out of place. They are all accepted now. So we are one step closer to migrating them.
... There is a shortlist of rules that have at least one complete implementation, and 2 of them have now been accepted. And we are serving some more
... accepted by TF by the AG and building up a bit of a list to take to AG and ask for an update. That is happening
... also just approved the CFC - the Input styling aspect. And have to take them to the AG as well. But want Yves' language update. And will chase for that so we do not go through it twice
... Going through the document part of the website and it is more involved

Assigned issues: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen

<CarlosD> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/assigned/carlosapaduarte

CarlosD: Mine grew in number last Tuesday as I have not been addressing them as much as I would like. I have 1346, suggested by Wilco and 1446 is being updated
... There is the issue that gave birth to the change of 1445 and we will close that one.
... I will start working on 1449

<CarlosD> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/assigned/HelenBurge

HelenB: I need to clarify that is it Emma's suggestion being done.

Wilco: Yes - and use what I suggested below it

<CarlosD> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/assigned/WilcoFiers

Wilco: Has 12 open, I have the final forecast for SVG elements. I have lots of failing tests
... I have a fix in the works for #1165 that do not have an HTML or DOC type
... They should be embedded into a page as they are an issue that is part of the migration. Once they are on the WAI website they will have the fix
... I am working on a definition of implementations, I am working on the rules format. I have since migrated the code.
... There is another issue I am fixing as part of this
... 1482 has an issue with no pass or fail examples. I am still sort of deciding on... Oh that would be a good topic!
... If you have a list of all the past pass and fail examples, for instance, checking if there is a video on the page is all we can do there
... It is partially consistent and applicability only or something like that.

Anne: There is a portion of them and they will be camped out for the rest

Wilco: Yes it can be considered as an implementation of sorts

CarlosD: I do not think it is a consistency issue but a completeness issue right?

Wilco: Complete to mean you have test results for all of the test cases right?

CarlosD: Calling it incomplete is not the same as one or 2 test cases with not many checks or tests

Wilco: We could call it a partial implementation

Anne: SiteImprove have potential issues you can go through manually, but this is not for the tool but the checker engine. If it cannot tell then it is partial

Wilco: Yes, I will pitch that to the TF

Anne: It is only if it has some can't tells not all

Wilco: So if that partial implementation will become when both have some failed test cases wrong, or passed test cases have failed

Anne: If it is actually wrong then it is partial. It is a diverse puddle of things so I would like it split up or inconsistent and partial instead?

Wilco: Inconsistent means you have a false positive, not a false negative. But we could do 4 categories?

CarlosD: I would not mind calling it an incorrect implementation

Anne: But we could add if it is afalse negative/false positive rather than second guessing what it means

Wilco: I think I can close 1593
... and I am meeting with a colleague to discuss 1621
... I am making progress on lots of things in a small way

Zakim. take up next

Should rules support all combobox patterns? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rule.github.io/issues/1282

CarlosD: Support for the combobox role right?
... We have several examples that use the combobox role but not what the combobox requires
... We all agree with what is being proposed for which version of ARIA we are supporting

Wilco: We should know how do we want to test this? Do we stick with the latest, or support all patterns?
... How do the 2 parts link together?
... From the textbox where you type things, or the select list you open to select items

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.0/roles#combobox

Wilco: And then for ARIA 1.0 we have as above
... Where you are required to own the text box and the list box. It is all a bit different is slight ways.

CarlosD: How can we support all versions?

Wilco: In axe core we checked if you owned the listbox or have the control... You just need to check the pattern used to test against
... We would need its own comboboxrule

Anne: Where we find out what is a good practice combobox not what version they use?

CarlosD: We could add those to the examples and we do not need to fix anything else in the rule as you said
... If they use a different version of ARIA that is in the examples it could produce incorrect results

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/4e8ab6

Wilco: Even if it has aria-expanded="false" on the textbox it would fail on all versions if not implemented with a listbox. And we could say nothing about what we support

CarlosD: It is not required on all of the elements. We should include the required states and properties

Wilco: That is the tricky part
... in 1.1 it does still require ARIA controls so the text box must be owned in 1.0 and 1.1 it is aria-expanded. So if just supporting 1.0 then the failed example will not fail.
... no default value

Anne: If the failed examples remove aria-expanded and use aria-control then it fails all ARIA version right?

CarlosD: Yes that is right

Wilco: We can fix the examples but what do we want to do for supporting the different patterns?
... The 1.0 and 1.1 patterns do not work quite as well so they were updated

Anne: We could add a note in the accessibility notes?

Wilco: We could add that to have it supported across browsers and AT we would use the latest version?

Anne: We would want to go above and beyond and make sure it doesn't fail

Helen: We should stick to the latest

Anne: We can have the tests covering the latest 1.1 and and a note to the accessibility support notes the tests are for the latest version

CarlosD: So the current version is 1.1 but 1.2 is coming out soon so do we focus on 1.2?

Wilco: There are items in the 1.2 set is less default values that there are in 1.1. So what do we do there?

Anne: We should update the whole rule for 1.2 as it will cause confusion and delay

Wilco: Do we fail items where the defaults are set in 1.2. but not enforced elsewhere, like the heading role had the default of 2

CarlosD: I am trying to formalise a resolution for this one. We should update this to ARIA 1.2 and then drop combobox examples?

Anne: Fine and I hated putting them in

Wilco: I think it is pretty strict, as should we be using updated and not current versions as 1.2 is not released yet?

Anne: We could gradually update as we go and add the ARIA version supported in each test

CarlosD: Should this be decided by the TF?

Anne: It would be interesting to see what they think

CarlosD: and we should get a timeline for doing this

Wilco: Yes we do need to only look at what is broken as a lot to update. And it is hard to support multiple versions

Anne: In a perfect World we would have a list of all the rules we must update for 1.2 and have a plan and release dates

CarlosD: The resolution is to take this to the TF?

Wilco: I am not sure what everyone's view here is?

Carlos: I would like a timeline for it and then decide like when will 1.2 be released?
... So if we have say 3 or 6 months to update it then we can organise and decide better
... if we do not have everything supporting the same versions of ARIA it creates inconsistency

Wilco: I feel like there are 2 questions, when do we support ARIA 1.2? and when do we stop supporting 1.1?
... They are closely related

Anne: It would be worth asking the implementers what their plans are for their support and do they support 1.2?

CarlosD: We are still supporting 1.1

Wilco: We support 1.2 but it is tricky

<Wilco> s/Caesar/CSS

<Wilco> s/them to the HE/them to AG

<Wilco> s/final forecast SVG/finally resolved namespaced SVG

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/ rules/rule/
Succeeded: s/rules/rule/
Succeeded: s/Caesar/Input/
Succeeded: s/HE/AG/
Succeeded: s/implemtation/implementation/
Succeeded: s/normalise/formalise/
Succeeded: s/accepted/accepted by TF/
FAILED: s/Caesar/CSS/
FAILED: s/them to the HE/them to AG/
Succeeded: s/do what I said/use what I suggested/
FAILED: s/final forecast SVG/finally resolved namespaced SVG/
Default Present: CarlosD, anne_thyme, Helen, Wilco
Present: CarlosD, anne_thyme, Helen, Wilco
Found Scribe: Helen
Inferring ScribeNick: Helen

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: 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.)