Meeting minutes
Call for review https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: two 1-week calls from Wilco. Ready to go.
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: more coming today, some PR have been approved.
Update from the ACT Task Force
Wilco: TF will start revisiting older rules. Commit to review every rule at least once a year.
<Todd_> I'll have to mute halfway through the meeting to hop onto another meeting for work but will stay in IRC.
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: We are updating the common input aspects. One from Carlos on CSS has been approved. One from JY needs discussion.
Jean-Yves: PR is copying existing assumption. Review request to remove one bit. Not comfortable with changing the assumption as part of moving it.
Wilco: the discussed bit is the part about language being sufficiently understood.
Jean-Yves: Rule asking if something is descriptive requires to understand the language.
Carlos: some rules may be enough with just knowing what the language is.
Jean-Yves: we could remove that bit from the input aspects and keep it in individual rules if needed.
Wilco: so distinction between "I understand the language" and "I know what the language is".
Wilco: We should expand on this sentence and explain a bit why "sufficiently understood" is here.
Carlos: we can take the opportunity to clarify that not all rules need that.
Jean-Yves: I'll give a try.
Carlos: is "rule being *processed*" the word we use elsewhere?
Jean-Yves: I'll ping our Slack channel once done so we can all look at it.
Assigned issues: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen
Wilco: working on migrating content to the redesign. Going a bit slowly.
Wilco: also been working on the name-paced elements.
Carlos: not much progress. Actually took more issues…
Helen: finished mine!
Wilco: some changes are requested on the PR.
Jean-Yves: looks like things are moving. Haven't done much progress.
Equivalent resource definition seems ambiguous https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1622
Wilco: the definition of "equivalent resource" seems ambiguous due to the use of "user expectations".
Wilco: sounds similar to "same purpose"
Carlos: I disagree.
<Todd_> I have to get to a work meeting but will remain on the call and in irc
Wilco: author set an expectation by link text. Where user comes from is an expectation.
https://
Wilco: do you think this is ambiguous?
Daniel: yes. User may not be aware that resources fulfill or not their expectations.
Wilco: if visible text is different from accessible name, expectations are different for both kind of users.
Carlos: for this rule (link with same name), I think the user is the same. So we should compare expectations of the same user.
Carlos: for me the expectation part is more ambiguous than the user part.
Helen: would it relate more to someone sighted but using speech recognition?
Wilco: no, 2.5.3 would fail. But here, there might be potential difference of result if testing expectations of different users.
Wilco: A sighted users expectation might be met, but a screen reader users' one aren't.
Carlos: on this rule (link with same name), the expectation is only set by the accessible name. We compare two resources linked with the same name.
Carlos: it can be ambiguous to check if one resource matches one expectation, but maybe less if two resources match the same expectation.
Helen: I think the definition is very open ended, and open to interpretation.
Wilco: could we expand on this
Wilco: e.g. saying the expectation are set by the link's name?
Jean-Yves: this won't work for all rules using the definition.
Wilco: does it sounds good to try and define expectation based on the info provided?
Carlos: not sure. For me "user expectation" is not the ambiguous part; the scope of the rule defines what should be used to form the expectation. For me the ambiguous bit is deciding if the expectation are equally well met.
Wilco: it is somewhat similar that saying that an image and its description should be equivalent.
Helen: expectation can be based on surrounding information.
Wilco: can be completely different resources, but still equivalent. Does "play new game" contains the expectation of which game to play, or does two different "new game" fulfill the same expectation.
Carlos: Same with "read more" link. They lead you to leading more stuff.
Wilco: I think I have an idea to work on that. I'll try something.
Wrap defined term in dfn elements https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1664
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: when we have a definition we use the underscore in the markdown file
<CarlosD> ... but we could use semantic markup to do it
<CarlosD> ... additionally we could use an id attribute in the <dfn> element and link to it if needed
<CarlosD> Wilco: makes sense, who's going to do that?
Jean-Yves: Definitions use underscore to italicise the defined term. HTML dfn element has this semantic.
Wilco: let's do it, at least slowly when updating existing file.
Jean-Yves: I'll update the design document. Plus make one example.
Wilco: markdown processing should handle it fine.
Add explanation on designing inapplicable test cases https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1689
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: a good inapplicable example should look like its bad, but in fact it's not a problem
<CarlosD> ... because that helps separate tools
<CarlosD> ... but it's counter intuitive because it seems to be failing some SC
Wilco: not every inapplicable example has to be "look bad. e.g. "page is titled" has IE of titled SVG.
Helen: is this about rule being technology specific, and technologies working differently rules also have to work differently.
Wilco: Final thoughts?