Meeting minutes
ACT rules sheet
Wilco: meta element 1831 may be ready
<Wilco> https://
1831 - needing one approval
Wilco - 1831 can be merged when we have approval
Wilco: I will ping JYM
Wilco - after merge it can go into CFC (1831)
Wilco: Helen needs help with Object and iFrame.
Helen: trying to determine when ALT is ok.
Helen: part of the feedback is about defining data type defining accessible name
Helen: I moved the bit about objects and Alts into 'accessibility supports' section
Helen: JYM said to remove it, but I moved it and added a note. I have a bit more work to do.
Helen: Adding examples is a bit out of my wheelhouse
Wilco: We need volunteers
wilco: I'll take it.
Helen: akn7bn - iframe - asked for a new PR with feedback
Helen: JYM has put two comments on it we need other reviews of
Jenn: Scrollable elements will be reviewed tomorrow
Open ACT pull requests
Wilco: mumbling...
Wilco: 1890 - assigned to wilco, helen and daniel
Wilco: 1886 - svg, need a third
Wilco: will respond to question in it
Wilco: 1884 - JYM already approved. many people will review
Wilco: 1869 - JYM already approved. many people will review
Wilco: Todd is getting a PR
Wilco: 1804 to Todd
Wilco: Should be all the pull requests.
zakim take up next
Priority issues
Wilco: This is a new agenda item
<Wilco> https://
Wilco: may need to recur
Wilco: Last week, talked about an implementer skipping certain test cases
Wilco: don't want that for the future
Wilco: Some of these issues have been open for 2 years
Wilco: in addition to other work. It's important that we don't have known issues
Will: what's the level of expertise?
Wilco: most are fairly technical
Helen: I would like to take one - volunteering for 1810
Wilco: This one is more of a discussion
Wilco: lets have it now
Wilco: issue with treeitems. ARIA isn't the rule, it's 1.3.1 and should be a failure. Semantically it's wrong. and leads to unpredictable results
Wilco: when you have different roles under a menu, the styling will look very weird
Will: wouldn't this fail 'certain children'?
Wilco: Yes and no, and you can argue that. But you could change treeitem to button
Helen: this is an inferred rule. So this is assumed knowledge. B/c it's not within the spec, it's ok. That's what he's saying.
Wilco: double problem of a bad thing to put in a menu and also missing parent
Wilco: Do we think this fails 1.3.1?
WIll: fails
Kathy: not familiar enough, but in the behavior between menu item and tree item.
<Helen> My search for the definition got this: https://
Wilco: Think there is a major potential for 1.3.1 issue
Helen: some properties may not trickle down when there is a missing parent. Lacking tree role may mean that expand/collapse is not inherited
Kathy: Would putting a tree inside a menu affect the expand/collapse?
Wilco: Assign this to Kathy for a little bit of testing.
Helen: picking up my marbles and leaving
Wilco: #1172 - can someone do a little testing?
Wilco: if you have a lang attribute and an xm lang is empty, what scenarios might cause a problem?
Wilco: need to make sure that it defaults back to HTML lang if there is xml that is missing a lang
Wilco: just need some testing. Anyone?
WIll: I will heroically take it on
"Optional" accessibility requirements
WIlco: This is kathy's
Kathy: We talked about last week how we can allow implementers to map to SCs in certain situations when the rule might not be a primary rule. Like a AAA rule written for a AA criterion
Kathy: Our rules format requires that we must list the SCs that fail in our rules.
Kathy: Atomic rules might not fail because there are separate conditions that need to be checked and it's only checking one condition in this SC
Kathy: Here is an example where I've tried to make some edits
Kathy: Header section, no changes, but under there, I have changed it to 'mapping conformance requirement' which is a mapping of SCs that may apply. adding bits about when the outcomes have passed
Kathy: Making the listing of an SC in a rule narrower in scope, to satisfy the conditions when it has passed. THis removes the AAA SCs, and moves them to a new section called 'Requirements (optional)'
Kathy: 4.4.2 is for supplemental, related, etc...
Kathy: 4.4.2 allows for further testing when the outcome is failed. But also allows AA SCs to pass, and creating a section for further testing
Wilco: Has opinions
Helen: One Q - the more that can be picked up programmatically vs, manual, should the further testing be for manual? Since machines don't get nuance
Helen: Is this more for the black and white rules?
Kathy: 'Further testing is needed' is for times when there's going to be another rule that really determines whether the SC should be considered not satisfied
Wilco: THe reason we put that in there was the thought that rules are tech specific. We can't prove we tested everything.
Wilco: There are always ways rules can fail. Pretty much never happens that rules can tell you it passed
Kathy: I see that. I originally had left 'or further testing is needed' in. but it gets more wordy.
Wilco: Britney joined early.
Wilco: let's wrap this up? Should we put this into a PR
Kathy: I can do that
WIlco: next week, Surveys are due today. Please look at the rule sheet and fill out where your name isn't
WIlco: I'm out next weekend but you know I'll join anyway
Helen: I am bad
Wilco: wrapping.