Meeting minutes
ACT rules sheet and Surveys
wilco: messaged AG chairs that we have work ready for their review
… no response yet
… TF is trying to get 2.x rules published on W3 website. We have proposed and approved rules
… need at least 1 implementation to approve a rule
… currently 8 approved published rules
… 6 ready for AG to approve
… many proposed rules that need implementations
trevor: line height rule - will add assumption then ready to go
wilco: will look tomorrow
… aria-hidden PR - wilco left a suggestion on Carlos PR
wilco: annual review of published rules
… image has non-empty accessible name is good
… HTML lang is valid language tag has some changes for it
… PR #1738 needs to merge
trevor: add me as a reviewer
will: also add me as reviewer
wilco: leave this one open until PR resolved
… PR #1737 editorial
daniel and trevor: will review
wilco: leave open until PR approved
Open ACT pull requests
wilco: PR 1739 - 2 examples to review
… add kathy and daniel as reviewers
… other PRs for CG
Rules format update
<Wilco_> https://
wilco: PR to add definition of implementation to ACT Rules format
… what a consistent or partial implementation is
wilco: try to match terminology up with VPATs?
… added more plain language descriptions
will: how do we verify complete?
wilco: what a tool report for rule test cases. do all passed report as passed, failed report as failed
… partially consistent - a failed example reports as pass
… added SC mapping under Complete
trevor: add reasoning and example would be helpful
wilco: of concern is for example, reporting a AA failure and AAA failure
kathy: if not claiming AAA would reporting the AAA failure be necessary?
wilco: drafted statement seems too strict
trevor: how about can report either SC but not more
wilco: or, report only by conformance level
trevor: if we don't have the SC requirement, implementers only need to pass/fail the examples. not sure that is enough
wilco: IBM reports only 1 SC per rule
… picking the SC they prefer. is that a problem?
karen: some only report the highest severity
… affects scoring
wilco: it is correct that multiple SCs are applicable
kathy: TT would fail all SCs
karen: let IBM pick the SC. they would need to defend it
wilco: if statement left in, ACT is removing that choice
daniel: see both sides
wilco: if an implementation tests image buttons and text buttons in one procedure, will only report 4.1.2. Need a separate procedures for image buttons
… SC mapping would constrain implementations
<Will_C> 0
<trevor> -1 - think something is needed but this isn't quite right
+1
karen: with trevor
trevor: wants people to show their work, just passing/failing isn't enough
wilco: poll to move forward without SC mapping (line 533)
… currently not tracking any SC now
trevor: can it be optional?
kathy: without SC mappings we aren't establishing conformance testing consistency
wilco (chair hat off): agree, feel it's important to have for improving consistency
wilco: will try to add more on conformance levels, different standards, example