W3C

Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

19 May 2022

Attendees

Present
Will_C, thbrunet, trevor, kathy_, JennC, Daniel, ToddL, Helen, Wilco, kathy, Todd
Regrets
Chair
Wilco
Scribe
Helen

Contents


<Wilco> scribe: Helen

ACT rules sheet and Survey Results https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSkPFocXk4K3zYLnwS78WLsWO4PvE5yRcsauyefuIUI/edit#gid=0

Wilco: Shares screen

Kathy: I am revising the items and soon will be finished

Wilco: I will look at mine soon

Helen: I had a question for Tom - about the image failure for the object

<dmontalvo> <object>

<dmontalvo> <img alt="hello world">

<dmontalvo> </object>

Tom: Did you see my nested item example?

Wilco: This could be an assumption that if it is not loaded correctly then it will not have the correct MIME type so it is not applicable

Tom: I will send my examples to Helen to help her out

Helen: Thanks everyone!

Wilco: I will add a note to add to the background

<thbrunet> Object nesting examples: https://codesandbox.io/s/object-nesting-i3v33u

Open ACT pull requests https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls/

Wilco: #1850: I do not know how others have implemented this rule successfully as you cannot put a span inside a table row it must be in a cell
... #1848: 2 approvals can I get a third? Todd
... #1846 is on me to update
... #1845 - I will review that. Kathy too.
... #1844 - it is approved but there are failing checks so I don't know how to fix it?

Daniel: If someone can take a look that would help

<kathy> Wilco: #1841 is a big one to remove back ticks and capitalization

Daniel: #1835 - how is this going?

Tom: Yeah - I need to check a few bits and make it cleaner if ok?

Wilco: #1778 - been updated and needs reviews
... #1820: There are change requests here?

Tom: Yes I addressed Helen's and need to look at Kathy's

Wilco: #1819 looks ready to go Tom - sending an email for a 2 week review
... and another one I can send out to review
... I have updated the summary and title of the page
... I kept the length down and Daniel you were the reason for this - does it help your concerns?

Daniel: yes thanks

Wilco: We could remove the word "Accessibility" as well?

Daniel: Yes as the context being in the W3C site makes it redundant

Kathy: +1

Wilco: "For understanding consistency, see understanding ACT consistency" - is this overkill?

Daniel: Yes I think so!

Wilco: How about automatic and semi-automatic? Thoughts?

Daniel: I will have a look as seen both listed before

Wilco: I will also tweak the disclaimer as have redundant text in it too
... I wanted to have a feedback section as we are not checking the results

Helen: I agree

Wilco: I might look at how to reorganise the implemented rules table
... I need to look at a few more ideas on how to show the rules, and look at Kathy and Tom's suggestions of how to make it easier to see if there is more than 1 rule at fault
... I would like to merge this - as then I can look at automatically filling these out
... We have a deadline of the 31st to get this to AGWG to get this out of the draft status

Tom: The bullets are not clear under the consistency section

Wilco: I am glossing over we do not make a distinction between the 2
... I could refine the 2nd one to be more explicit?

Tom: I thought the first was fine until I read the second and then I was not sure

Wilco: We could say passed examples should not fail and vice versa?

Tom: So the first bullet is about SC and the 2nd about the examples in the rules?
... not sure of a clear way to say that?

Wilco: It is something I need to look at as I understand what you mean, and could reword this

Daniel: I also think "vice" should not have an s

Kathy: The underlines for the consistent rules is not clear what it means?

Wilco: This is V1 and I want to look at the table and have the largest of that type to be 100% and the rest less than 100%. So when Axe-core has 9 proposed rules so that is 100% and the other lines are fractions of that 9

Helen: If you have to explain it - then is it necessary?

Wilco: I will remove them then - any other comments?
... none so I will update this and then merge this pull request - if no-one objects?
... I will do this shortly and then will add minor new pull requests for the less urgent items
... I am asking for updated test results by the first week of June as I want more than just my work on here

Kathy: Since you will have more automated test tools - will it be better to list the tools first and the methodology last?

Wilco: We already have this idea it is all about the automation and not the methodologies I think it is better the shorter ones are first
... and in theory I think this is better as the methodologies are more complete

RESOLUTION: merge implementation matrix after editorial changes & progress bar removed

iframe with negative tabindex has no interactive elements (akn7bn) https://act-rules.github.io/rules/akn7bn

role attribute has valid value (674b10) https://act-rules.github.io/rules/674b10

<dmontalvo> editorial changes & progress bar removed/addressing editorial changes & removing progress bar

Helen: Please amend my incorrect answer!

Wilco: Kathy have you looked at the bibliography? It is in the definition

Kathy: I did not - but the link does not take you to the correct role

Wilco: You are right! We need to update this

<thbrunet> https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aria-1.0/

Wilco: I will update the link in Passed Example 2 and it needs to include a link to DPUB role list
... Anything else? Oh yes is it 4.1.2 not 1.3.1 from Kathy - we have had this discussion in the past, and we map to 1.3.1, as everything with a particular role has a specific mapping. But that is only relevant in 4.1.2 to user interface components

Kathy: But I think these are all user interface components?

Wilco: True - all of these examples are all user interface components - maybe we need some examples for non-user interface components?

Kathy: It also has a link to a technique that is 4.1.2 specific

Wilco: Yes maybe we should take out those 4.1.2 techniques instead

Kathy: Wouldn't it be easier to map it to 4.1.2?

Wilco: Yes but that would be wrong - so if I misspelled heading that is not a user interface component and it fails this rule
... We could split the rule between focusable elements for 4.1.2 and non-focusable elements for 1.3.1?
... to be continued

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. merge implementation matrix after editorial changes & progress bar removed
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2022/06/07 10:18:15 $