W3C

Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

01 Sep 2022

Attendees

Present
ChrisLoiselle, ToddL, kathy, trevor, thbrunet, Daniel
Regrets
Chair
Kathy
Scribe
ToddL

Contents


<scribe> scribe: ToddL

CFC: Line height in style attributes is not !important

2 +1 and no negatives. rule should be ready for AG

five rules ready for AG

ChrisLoiselle: Raised editorial issues, wanted to clarify

ACT rules sheet

kathy: a few rules on hold for different reasons.
... Scrollable element is keyboard accessible rule. needs to get together with Tom

dmontalvo: Title doesn't need to be empty, there needs to be discussion on that one.

trevor: no real updates. Wilco told trevor to email him, will ping Wilco again

Open ACT pull requests

dmontalvo: #1912 still open

#1894 was Jennifer's, kathy will take over, hasn't done anything with that yet.

ChrisLoiselle: #1873 needs re-reviews by approvers, more editorial, nothing should hang this up.

<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1873/files

ChrisLoiselle: Will get back to group about #1873

Priority issues

kathy: priority issues are mostly kathy and Wilco
... #1875 nothing to report here today

Heading is descriptive (b49b2e)

<ChrisLoiselle> I responded to Wilco's comment with a comment on https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1873/files, he talks to including and excluding the wording around essential, so we can bring up next week on decision to exclude or include in expectations.

heading description, Tom, kathy, Todd have similar comments on applicability and expectations

Wilco wanted to discuss aria-hidden if needed in the heading case

group is currently looking at Heading is descriptive rule

ChrisLoiselle: points out the "or" in the Applicability

question is do we need the aria-hidden example.

dmontalvo: Not sure practice of aria-hidden in a heading is these days.
... looks to be a edge case. This has value leaving the passed example 7 there.

group discussing failed example 4

trevor: Does that example Passed Example 7 not fail 1.3.1?

kathy: I think it would fail 1.3.1

dmontalvo: agrees

trevor: Wilco wanted to split this into two rules, split the applicability in half.

kathy: Heading descriptive looks like it is not ready to go.

Text has enhanced contrast

Todd will take up Heading descriptive as liaison

kathy: re: text has enhanced contrast, some failed examples would fail 1.4.3
... Passed example 3 has been changed already, retest if necessary

#1791 is still open.

#1763 is still open

improve the definition of highest possible contrast to include where colors are from and select highest possible contrast added to TF conclusions

trevor: feels like this needs a short algorithm to do this

kathy: looks like we needs some updates before publishing

trevor: this may need to wait for the secondary requirements, right?

kathy: this is only for the enhanced.

trevor: think we have a separate rule for AA

kathy: will put text has enhanced contrast for update needed.

Tom will be liaison for text has enhanced contrast

Secondary accessibility requirements

<kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/531

kathy: will go over most recent updates

group discussion about PR 531

may need to look for another word or phrase for "conformance" and suggestions are welcome

group is discussing comments on PR 531

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2022/09/05 16:25:38 $