<CarlosD> scribe+ Jean-Yves
<scribe> scribe: Jean-Yves
Carlos: several 1 week CfR, 1 from Giacomo with changes requested
Giacomo: Wilco has some changes requested, but I have concern about one: removing one example which came from a real case scenario on a real site.
Wilco: this example has an accessibility problem and shouldn't pass.
Giacomo: the specs are clear about that and we had confirmation from other groups
<CarlosD> scribe+ CarlosD
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: This is an example that goes against the accessibility support note
Jean-Yves: this is an example that goes against AS note because it is good on some UA/AT but bad on others.
Wilco: It is valid to fail such
an example because this is not supported everywhere, it is also
valid to pass it because it is supported in some UA/AT
... we haven't decided these scenario
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: I agree with that, but I support having it and try to enforce the specs
Carlos: but it is indeed a browser bug, not an implementation.
Wilco: we cannot always say that the browser must follow specs because often is goes the other way around.
Jean-Yves: there is a difference between "all browsers agree but go against specs" and "browsers disagree, we need to take a stance".
Wilco: this can be an example of handling AS breaking examples
Carlos: we are also considering optional SC, this could be extended to optional examples?
Wilco: need some coding to handle that.
Carlos: need to update the rules format.
<giacomo-petri> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1939
Giacomo: we also need better storage of the AS data so we can revisit it in the future.
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: having the optional exemple clearly stated would allow us to collect data from implementations and understand how it evolves
Wilco: I agree. We need to make sure it is not counted for consistency
Carlos: do we need optionally passing and optionally failing example? Maybe not if they are not used for consistency…
Jean-Yves: keeping the recommanded outcome help tools vendors to adapt to it.
Carlos: agreed. But automation for implementation reports probably does not need to care.
Jean-Yves: what is the resolution for this precise PR?
Wilco, Carlos: we should take out the example so that the AS note gets in; and keep an issue for handling the optional example.
Carlos: Giacomo: can you do the update + open the issue?
Giacomo: Yes.
Carlos: the other 3 CfC are in their 1 week period, closing soon
Carlos: no progress. Productive meeting but not for my issues ;-)
Wilco: Productive on ARIA 1.2 :-D
Helen: one open issue, we'll talk about it later.
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: Some progress on the text spacing rewrite
Jean-Yves: progress on the text spacing rules.
Wilco: progress on defining
secondary requirements. Finally able to move on that.
... 5 rules approved by AG.
... CfC on removing the "under dev" banner on the new
site.
... should go live today + WAI announcement coming soon + ask
tools to report
Carlos: Thank you to every one,
especially Helen for organising. Productive meeting, great
progress on ARIA 1.2 issues.
... remember to look into the main ARIA 1.2 pull request that
contains everything.
Helen: the focus on the group has
been on automation. Manual tests often have exception, need to
think about how to test.
... the rules should end up in WCAG 3 in we have large gaps in
the testing rules.
... I want to start writing manual rules; I feel I can do it
better than the technicalities of some automatic rules.
... we can make a start until we get a first draft
Carlos: this can help get
traction
... having a first rule published can bring other people
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: There was already some work on this started during the WAI-Tools project, but we really need to fill the huge gap
Helen: 2.4.3 looks like a good candidate to start
<CarlosD> Jean-Yves: it would be important to have people from different organizations doing manual testing reviewing these rules
Carlos: you mentioned monthly
meetings. Maybe for the next CG meeting we should keep the
topic to have updates.
... we can create a "manual rule" label to help create
focus
Wilco: feel free to reach
directly to people
... You may consider creating a Google doc template to start
with.
... once you start having a direction, you can do some outreach
to people out of ACT rules CG.
Helen: if I get stuck, I'll ask
Giacomo for help :-)
... will be looking at what is needed and trying to get
started.
Carlos: this was waiting for WCAG 2.2 to get ready, maybe now is the time to start talking about it.
Wilco: I'm looking on rules for
target size and focus appearance.
... started on WCAG 2.1 target size. This is very
complicated.
<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1919
Wilco: focus appearance might end
up being easier.
... the manual rules group might specifically pick WCAG 2.2
stuff
Jean-Yves: maybe input without autocomplete would fail Accessible Authentication?
Wilco: not sure…
Carlos: not sure either.
Wilco: Not Obscured can also be tested automatically
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/CfC/CfR/ Default Present: CarlosD, Jean-Yves, giacomo-petri, Wilco_, Helen_, Luca_ Present: CarlosD, Jean-Yves, giacomo-petri, Wilco_, Helen_, Luca_ Found Scribe: Jean-Yves Inferring ScribeNick: Jean-Yves WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]