Meeting minutes
Call for review https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461
Carlos: 4 1-week review calls. Two is ending today/tomorrow. Two just opened.
Carlos: 2 two weeks calls, both from today.
Assigned issues + help wanted https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen
Carlos: some Issue are labelled as "help wanted" or "beginner issue". They are good places to start.
Carlos: several PR waiting for review: #1845, #1560
Carlos: still stucked with the "non-streaming" problem, need to find a streaming video we can use.
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: Need feedback on #1804 so that we can move the other rules
Jean-Yves: Draft #1804 could get some more reviews before generalising the solution. Focus was on benchmarking.
Wilco: focus been on implementation reports. Several issues has been addressed. Will close them.
Helen: Issues are closed by PR on call for review. PR on iframe with negative tabindex needs to be reworked.
Helen: need some reviews on #1852
Daniel: update on website gets closed to be resolved.
<thbrunet> Sorry - audio not working. Nothing to bring up
Trevor: just having the agenda item 6.
Update from the ACT Task Force https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/522/files
Wilco: making progress on implementation content on WAI website.
<Wilco_> https://
Face to face ACT-Rules meeting https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1847
Carlos: we consider having a face-to-face ACT rules CG meeting. Maybe a couple of days.
Carlos: probably in October or November (to avoid conflicts with TPAC). Probably close to week-end so people can stay ;-)
Carlos: for location, we currently consider Dublin, Lisbon, Copenhagen.
Carlos: meeting will be in hybrid format.
Carlos: we will send a survey to find dates and locations.
How to write rules that do not map to WCAG SC in a way that relates to WCAG? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1854
<trevor> https://
Trevor: in TF we had a rule originally mapping to 1.3.1, but might sometimes map to 4.1.2. Couldn't find a way to split it. Ended up removing WCAG mapping and only have it map to ARIA.
Trevor: but removing the WCAG mapping feels bad since the rule often cause problem in practice.
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: Agree that the rule does not always fail 1.3.1. But as tool vendor I see that our customers would stop using it if it does not map to WCAG.
<thbrunet> Have to drop
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: Maybe we can split the rule to make the mapping possible, but it's not easy. Maybe we can add assumptions to make the mapping possible.
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: Maybe we can update the rule format.
Trevor: Are there thoughts on how to update the rule format?
Jean-Yves: not really.
Wilco: I'm not sure taking the SC off the rule is the correct thing to do. In the large majority of cases, mispelled role attribute does create a WCAG issue. (same for some other rules)
Wilco: I see two at least directions: we could introduce a "warning" category; or we add additional expectation (that cannot be automated) but would cover the edge cases where the failure doesn't fail WCAG.
Wilco: could be part of the Applicability, e.g. "things that should have widget role".
Carlos: What is the motivation of TF for taking the mappings out?
Carlos: I don't think warning category will address the issue, they are likely to be ignored.
Wilco: TF is not sure how to correctly map the rule. The invalid role cannot tell which was the intended role… We couldn't get agreement on other solutions. But it is not anybody's preference either.
Wilco: we have no feedback from AG on these.
Helen: Taking SC out was also the easiest to implement way to go.
Helen: not sure what the best way forward is.
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: Both Wilco's suggestions could work. I'm not a fan of the warning. But it can be an ACT warning, and we can flag it as an error in the tool.
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: The "additional expectation" solution is interesting. The automated tool could ignore it, and perhaps flag some issues that would need manual validation.
Wilco: this is blocking some work on TF. Solutions do involve a change on the format. Can we accept it for now and explore alternative for later version that are in progress?
Carlos: adding an extra expectation doesn't require a change to the rule format.
Wilco: requires a subjective Applicability.
Jean-Yves: could be in expectation ("either element is not a widget or role is correctly spelled"). Will try to do so.
Migrating rules for ARIA 1.2
Wilco: can we set up an ARIA 1.2 group to migrate rules?
Wilco: I volunteer.
Akhil: I volunteer.
Carlos: can't before September.
Harris: I can join.
Wilco: I will send a mail and organise meetings.
<Wilco_> https://
Carlos: we might need the same thing about inert attribute or new CSS properties…
Carlos: Final words.
<CarlosD> s/Are there been thoughts/Are there throughts
<CarlosD> s/Are there been throughts/Are there thoughts