<scribe> scribe : ChrisLoiselle
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_act
Wilco: Talks to Rule Tracker. Meta should be updated and will send out tomorrow.
Helen: Iframe is being reviewed , work in progress.
Wilco: Role attribute status ?
Trevor: Waiting on secondary rule conversation to work out . Placing on hold is fine for status.
Chris: Talks to html graphics contain no text. Merge is needed
Kathy: Menuitem is 1898 in github, should be ready for merge
Wilco: Editorial, Merging and ready for CfC.
Kathy: I will send the CfC
Wilco: Moving on to pull requests
Wilco: talks to PR 1904 , CSS update , asks for reviewers.
Talks to 1903, no other reviewers needed
Talks to PR 1902 , reviews editorial work, approved on call.
Talks to PR 1894 , questions why in draft.
Kathy: I think she was talking to Tom on this as well.
Wilco: On iframes, Jym77 is discussing per Helen, gone to community group for discussion
PR 1854, can we close this ?
Trevor: I think it is being superseded.
Wilco: closing issue .
... reviews 1873 PR
Kathy: talks to 1810 , and NVDA and tree item. Also talks to Daniel and screen reader aspect
Talks to incorrect structure and causing confusion , I think it is related to 1.3.1 info and relationships.
Kathy: Tom, we were mentioning comment on aria owns ...
Tom: talks to group does not require menuitem. And it is not clearly defined.
Kathy: if information isn't provided in menu that should, it could be a 1.3.1 mapping
Wilco: Are we all onboard with this being a failure so this issue is moot?
Kathy: I think the information that the AT provides is the same with or without the links.
Wilco: We may update the examples, is that a blocking issue?
Kathy: I don't think so.
Wilco: Resolution can be adding more real world examples vs. abstract
<Wilco> draft RESOLUTION: Keep failed example 7 as a failure of 1.3.1, leave the issue open to improve the example
<kathy> +1
<trevor> +1
+1
<Helen> +1
<Wilco> +1
<thbrunet> +1
RESOLUTION: Keep failed example 7 as a failure of 1.3.1, leave the issue open to improve the example
Kathy: I will write up note that we have come to resolution.
Kathy: talks act-rules-format.md
for mapping secondary accessibility requirements updates
... Trevor did add a comment to Wilco's about explaining
scenarios ...opens it up to Trevor
Trevor: first comment was on how do we word this , regarding what is allowable in regard to secondary mappings.
second comment , is there anything that we should be saying for rules that are only secondary mappings, i.e. mapping to aria on role attribute...does that do anything to this structure ? If both are secondary, they may not be followed per se.
Wilco: We need to have that scenario , what came to mind for me is the keyboard trap rule , standard and non standard , both have the SC secondary and composing rule would have as primary
the atomic rules that are using composite rule would have secondary requirements....
Kathy: under mapping for atomic rules...rewriting conformance requirements and then relating to that would be composite rules.
It may be that I need to add in secondary rules from atomic rules can be considered accessibility requirements
Trevor: We could have two atomic rules, 1.3.1 , as a secondary, but then in composite rule, then this would be were it has to map. Talks to elevation status.
Kathy: Talks to composite keyboard trap rule, SC is conformance requirement, then atomic rules , we talk to keyboard standard nav , listing SC as secondary ...in other keyboard trap non standard, we list as secondary.
Secondary may not be the word to use in this example terminology wise.
Kathy talks to Trevor's comment on formalizing reasoning behind secondary requirement scenarios
Trevor: I think we talk to this in the background. Wilco and Kathy are in agreement.
Wilco: Explaining why something is secondary is important
Kathy: We discussed this last week, any questions let me know.
Wilco: This impacts the implementation mappings. Axe core and Trusted Tester and rules format. At what point are moving this forward? Editors draft?
Trevor: I would be in favor to
testing this out , marking as editors as it may be temporary
solution
... Do we have to go to AG ?
Wilco: No, we can update in editor's draft.
Trevor: Ok.
Kathy: I'd like to agree to a term.
Helen: Additional may be a term
Kathy: talks to PR suggested
terms.
... How about related?
Wilco: I lean toward situational
Kathy: Trevor talked to update the situations without updating requirements
Trevor: I was thinking about a living document and how we can do this.
Wilco: I think as we explore, we will find the cases.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_overview&levels=aaa
On how they reference situations.
Wilco: We will revisit next week.
Kathy: We talked up to Q3 on this survey
Wilco: I want to get a sense from group, my impression is auto-updating content, it almost 50 percent essential...
Helen: One it can be essential, one can annoyance , i.e. notifications of a chat
essential and programmatically aspect
Wilco: the rule is hoping that nothing is essential, don't think you can presume that
Helen: Does the image alt make sense ? It is a manual review and hard to document sometimes. Same type of scenario.
Kathy: talks to the image of text updates and what is essential and what is not
Wilco: References essential terminology
fundamentally change the information phrasing is ambiguous ... might need to solve that meaning.
Wilco: something needs to be done
on expectations , perhaps better meaning of essential
... Do people agree?
Kathy: I agree.
If we figure out here, we can use same format moving forward on essential
Wilco: Talks to example and color change and stopping. Doesn't necessarily fail the criteria
Kathy: I'd be happy with changing
example.
... maybe changing color is the distraction issue.