ACT Rules Community Group Teleconference

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

Call for review

Carlos: We don't have any calls for review. We do have a few approved PRs
... The definition elements is still waiting for JS review. I'll try to get to that tomorrow.

Wilco: I'll review 1744

Jean-Yves; I'm waiting for input aspects note to be updated

Daniel: I thought we wanted to wait until we decided what to do with the missing input aspects

Wilco: It's a fair bit of work to publish, so if we have more changes lined up I'd like to get those done first to avoid two updates
... Regarding Karen's PR, we'll get it handled on TF

Assigned issues

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

Carlos: I have 6 PRs awaiting review; 1764, 1773, 1765, 1655, 1775, and 1444
... Also progressed on 1661, live streaming example. I used the stream API to get an example of the tester's microphone.
... Jean-Yves asked if the expectation can be met. Turns out I need to update the expectation.

Jean-Yves: Is it possible?

Carlos: Yes, it's possible.
... I'll need to investigate this further.

<CarlosD> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/assigned/Jym77

Jean-Yves: We decided on issue 1784 to update the title
... I want to figure out 1777 how to show shared assets inside the rule page. We'll probably build a prototype and figure out if it can be automated.
... There are a few PRs waiting for review.

https://github.com/act-rules/act-tools

Wilco: This is where we'd need to make that change
... If you want to create a prototype, best place to do would be a PR into https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/

Jean-Yves: I'll do something about that

Helen: I've fixed PR 1747. I had taken out the link to 1.3.1.
... That's open to review, had 1 reviewer.

Wilco: If you made non-editorial changes, you should dismiss the review.

Helen: Had a bug around deprecating a few rules, 1786.
... That one has requesting reviews.

Carlos: You don't need to close the issue, it's closed automatically when the PR is merged

Daniel: Only if it's linked correctly

Carlos: Don't need to reopen it.

Jean-Yves: It's in the template how to link issues.

Carlos: When you work on an issue, assign yourself, that makes it easier to find what you're working on.

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

Daniel: 1670 was closed, PR was merged. I've spent time on publishing the input aspect note. Took a while.
... Issue 932. I'll need to find some time for that.

Update from the ACT Task Force

Wilco: Two things to show

https://wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/

Wilco: Updates to the rules page. I think this is almost almost done.
... Changes since last time, there is "This page contents" in the side. It no longer has metadata of the rule on the side
... Second is that the rules now have accessibility requirements and input aspect headings
... Pretty much the same as in the CG website, however it is now positioned in a different place on the page, underneath the background
... The top of the page already mentions that, no need for duplicating
... Shawn requested to not have these things collapse by default, but that is not a requirement for the first version. I'd like to ask the group what they think about not having a collapsible section here at all

Carlos: Expanded and not collapsible?

Helen: I think we should have an expand/collapse at the starting stage

Wilco: That's possible, there's some drawbacks ... These produce clean markup. If we add code like that that can only be used on the WAI website
... There are issues with how WAI expand/collapse is designed

Helen: Sometimes having it all expanded is good for some people but not for others. We should give choice. I can see Shawn's point. I prefer condensed in first view though.
... Space is taken up by these extra points especially when you are zoomed in

Carlos: I would agree to that. Not taking the expand/collapse option

Jean-Yves: Also prefer to have it collapsed by default
... Good to have info on SC, not so with outcomes, which tend to be pretty much the same

Wilco: I am hearing: Leave it as is, go live with this now, and try to add collapse/expand/collapse all/collapse in the future

Carlos: Not sure if we need expand collapse all here

Wilco: Would make it conditional so that only shows up if there is several of those

Jean-Yves: Hard to read code snippets

Wilco: There is an open issue for that, not just an ACT Rules issue
... Does anyone have any issues with changing the position of things as we are doing?

Carlos: I like how the input aspects are, not having issues with how the accessibility requirements are now

Wilco: I have been asked to change the order of the rule identifier, Also I need to add the email address

Helen: No objections. It shows up in the URL

Wilco: I am assuming the group is OK with this going public

Carlos: Are we OK with a rule that does not have an accessibility requirements mapping?
... That reads weird. Probably having what we also have in the accessibility requirements mapping. "This is an atomic rule. That is not required for conformance".

Jean-Yves: Not required for WCAG conformance. Otherwise people may ask why we are doing this if it is not required for conformance
... This is not required for ARIA but other ones are

Wilco: Fair point. These should say "Not conformance to WCAG". Is this a blocker?

Carlos: No.

Jean-Yves:No

Wilco: Will add to the "To do" list for future changes.
... Probably we need to also cross link in the background

Jean-Yves: Implementation links are not going to the correct report

Wilco: These were done by hand

Jean-Yves: It might just be the id what is incorrect

Carlos: We no longer have a URL for each test case

Wilco: We will, as soon as we have the content live I will try to look for a solution to this.
... I see the HTML files in the place there should be but links break

Jean-Yves: We will need to fetch the examples from the WAI website

Wilco: At some point we may want to move the implementation examples from the CG to the WAI website

Daniel: Minor typo "an composite"

Wilco: Add this to my "to do" list

Wilco: I have started looking at how to migrate implementation data to the WAI website

<dmontalvo> [Screen sharing]

Wilco: Instead of just having the masive tables I wanted to show at the top of the page summary views where we can have an idea of consistency levels
... Table with 3 columns: WCAG SC, test rule, coverage
... I am looking at a detailed breakdown

... I am thinking of putting the examples in the columns and the implementation procedures in the rows

Helen: Seems to be very complex data tables. I am not happy about it

Carlos: Looks good in a desktop browser. What about mobile browsers?

Wilco: Two dimensional scrolling maybe

Jean-Yves: I like how compact this is. How we are indicating if there is a mismatch between different outcomes
... Do we want to get to that level of details?

Wilco: Probably, just not sure how to do this at the moment an seeking for first impressions

Jean-Yves: Maybe making a stronger visual reference between the passed and failed examples

Wilco: Also makes scan a bit difficult.

Helen: Is there a sort option?

Wilco: No.

... I don't want to make this very complex

Helen: A compromise could be instead of having one more complex table, having three simpler tables

Wilco: That would disconenct that from the rules

Helen: Ability to export the data?
... Just trying to thikn of ways to make this editable

Wilco: I will look into that

Helen: I prefer the older format even if this is hard to digest
... Not just screen readers, it's also iconography which I find hard

Wilco: Does the group prefer a table more like this with the implementation procedures as columns and the test cases as rows?

Helen: Yes

Carlos: Sounds good but we need to consider also mobile screens. I would agree with Jean-Yves suggestions to trying to make these more distinct