<scribe> scribe: KarenHerr
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/521/files
Wilco: Minor update submitted to common aspects document
<Wilco> Rules with a Language input aspect can only be evaluated if the language can be determined (either programatically or by analysing content), and sufficiently understood.
Karen: what does "analysing content" mean?
Wilco: analysing in broadest
possible terms
... lang attribute or read it
dmontalvo: Is it the rules that are evaluated or the test cases
wilco: not just about test cases.
need some way to do it.
... where this matters. on an image with a text alternative.
need to understand the language of the text alternative.
dmontalvo: will evaluate/think on
it
... suggest changing evaluate to process
kathyeng: clarify "and sufficiently understood"
Wilco: some situations you cannot determine the language. that's all you need to know about that.
<Wilco> Rules with a Language input aspect can only be processed if the language can be determined either programatically or by analysing content.
Wilco: will take out text
<Wilco> Rules with a Language input aspect can only be processed if the language can be determined, either programatically or by analyzing content.
<Wilco> Rules with a Language input aspect can only be processed if the language can be determined, either programatically or by reading the content.
<Wilco> Rules with a _language_ input aspect can only be processed if the language can be determined, either programatically or by reading the content.
<Wilco> Rules with a language input aspect can only be processed if the language can be determined, either programatically or by reading the content.
Wilco: will put this in as a
suggestion. will message john eaves to make sure ok. if so,
want to send out as a cfc next week
... any objections: great
RESOLUTION: put the pull request 521 into cfc
<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSkPFocXk4K3zYLnwS78WLsWO4PvE5yRcsauyefuIUI/edit#gid=0
daniel: Wilco 6751775 and 73f2c2 are ready to be merges
Wilco: how do we decide this is
ready for AG now? process question
... does a cfc seem reasonable
... on kathy and wilco to send out
trevor: 78fd32 John and I have
reached agreement on expectation
... added an example where we wrapped multiple lines - can see
line height in play
... should we do for all examples?
... wilco mentioned using padding. would there be a way to test
that?
... would be a bigger change
Wilco: only applicable to multi-line text
trevor: that mind shifts me. this
all grew out of a small editorial change
... will update expectations
... go and dig up a couple of things
kathyeng: how to decide last approved and last update date
wilco: will eventually grab with
json
... need to review every year
kathyeng: last approved is last AG approval
wilco: 46ca7f one pull request
since been merged. another we have. rule doesn't map to
wcag
... propose to AG "related rules" of opinion can go to cfc as
well
... anyone disagree
kathyeng: there's a pull request
that has to be resolved before I can do mine. 1444 has a lot of
conversation between a few people
... should I wait for that to get resolved
... also 1386 blocker
wilco: suggest ping carlos to find out what status is for 1444
kathyeng: remove "work in background" does that involve changing text
wilco: that was karen's update - editorial changes
Wilco: I got a message from daniel today that we are on hold until all wcag 2 content is migrated to new design
dmontalvo: this redesign project
involves rules, techniques, understanding documents
... take opportunity to plug all rules into wai website
... happy to followup offline
Wilco: significant - can't update rules pages anymore. stuck until redesign is fully complete
dmontalvo: did we settle that we were going to move over?
Wilco: plan to migrate over by
EOY
... that's the latest on that. any questions
... for context trying to migrate all content of act rules
website over to wai website.
... trying to publish content into new design
kathyeng: we can still update rule on our side, we just can't update rules on w3c?
Wilco: that's right
... scripts to update are now outdated
... could use old scripts to update
dmontalvo: expect not months for migration
Wilco: person working on
techniques has left
... or by end of October
... all needs to be approved by AG
... will need to adopt the old content again. need to update
current documents.
wilco: 1730 can be merged
... kathy will merge
... 1727 karen will merge
... accept cla too
... 1727, 1723 look ready
... 1719 daniel should review
... 1715 put in review this week
wilco: form field has non-empty accessible name
trevor: need more convincing that 3.3.2 couldn't be included in this rule
Wilco: can the accessible name be
the label? the answer we came to was "no" because the label
needs to at least be a visible thing
... labels can be used as part of the accessible name
kathyeng: additional explanation in understanding 3.3.2
<kathyeng> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/labels-or-instructions.html#dfn-label
kathyeng: under the intent
section, fourth para down
... accessible name requirement under 4.1.2
wilco: agree explanation could be better
trevor: will take action item to rewrite next bit
wilco: two open issues that don't
make much of a difference
... kathy identified pull request 1716
... already merged!
<kathyeng> I need to go too
wilco: explained why doesn't map
to 1.3.1.
... are we good with this?
... needs updating
... thanks