Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: dmontalvo

language input aspect update

Wilco: CFC delayed until CG talks about it

ACT rules sheet

Wilco: ?Daniel and my rules are on CFC
... Trevor wants to talk about line-height

Trevor: If it applies to multi line text, there are other ways to line up text
... There might be two rules in here, one inside elements and another between elements
... Let's do the inside element rule first and then the between elements one

Wilco: I suggested to put such comments in the background, but we were not accounting it in this rule. I very much agree, but not sure if that second rule makes sense

Trevor: Rewriting the applicability for only multi line text, you can have a one line text but if you zoom it become multi line, so that is hard to define
... Hard for me to say the rule only applies to multi line text

Wilco: Agree
... We just test the page in the state it is in, we could do the same for resolution
... I don't think we can say "because it might be multi line, let's test it and fail it"

Trevor: That is fair, you could add new styles when text wraps in responsive web pages, for example
... For the second case then that is a really tough question, not sure what spacing is required and there are many ways to achieve that desired spacing
... It is possible that you have element 1 with 20px and element 2 15px. With these placed one above the other, which font size do you use to calculate that distance?

Wilco: Presumably all of them, or the largest

Trevor: For second case, what kind of test cases we might include in this? You could just use absolute positioning

Wilco: That is probably out of scope. I would rather focus on the first rule.

Trevor: Should we say the applicability is multi line and get rid of padding and margin?

Wilco: I think we need some background information, because that element might still fail

Trevor: We can add that in the background, but not part of expectation

Wilco: We could add something like: "We can't guarantee that the entire element passes because there might be things below the element that we are not checking"
... I think we should start re-reviewing some of the old rules
... Many of these have not been reviewed in more than a year and we have a policy to review rules on a year basis

Open ACT pull requests

Wilco: I have changes requested in 1731 1nd 1759
... 1728 is for Karen
... I think we just need a conversation here
... 1726 looks ready for merge
... 1723 and 1721 from Kathy look ready

Surveying proposed rules

Wilco: "Presentational children" is in progress

Trevor: "Form field has non-empty accessible name" I no longer feel that bad about it

Karen: We did not talk about this last week, that would address my concern

RESOLUTION: Wilco will put "Form field has non-empty accessible name" into CFC

Wilco: "Element with lang attribute has valid language tag" not enough approvals

Daniel: I should take a look at this today/tomorrow if possible

Wilco: First comment from Kathy about sentence in the assumption. Grand father link is not helpful
... Not particularly useful about what grand father tags are
... I think we could address this by putting some information about this
... Grand father tags are the ones starting with x. Those are now replaced by a three letter codes in the IANA register, but technologies don't seem to support them
... The ISO three letter codes are lists of tags before IANA. Then these codes were dropped as they were duplicates
... We could probably find some information that explain this better. Is this OK?

Karen: We are digging far to explain it to everybody

Wilco: I think it is interesting. And we are referencing, in case anybody wants to know the rationale for these decisions
... Is this a blocker? This affects other rules too

Karen: I don't think so

Trevor: I agree

Daniel: I agree

Wilco: 1713 editorial updates, 1719 as well
... Do we want to look at 1693?
... Should ignore white space only text?
... In the example, invalid is only applied to white space. I don't think we should be worrying about this for now

Karen: The word "valid" was not part of the description. There is a mismatch with the expectation
... We are just looking for a specific piece of text, just the non-empty

Wilco: I agree this is redundant, it repeats what we say in the applicability

Karen: When you are forming your rule, are you basing the rule on the expectation or on the applicability?

Wilco: Both.

Karen: I was looking at this singularly instead of looking at it as a whole

Wilco: Karen, are you OK with the rest?

Karen: Yes

Wilco: Revisiting next week when there are more reviews