<scribe> scribe: kathy
wilco: new content for W3C website. CRC 1.5 weeks ago. Need TF approval to publish content
<Wilco_> https://wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/implementations/#see-also
wilco: 4 pages copied from CG
site for easier reference so CG site can be taken down
... 1 response but no +1s
... CFC sent Oct 18
... will send reminder. please respond
<Wilco_> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1964
wilco: got all +1s but also
created a PR to add an example
... to address a comment
... let's accept for AG and PR will go to call for review
RESOLUTION: Accept title descriptive rule, pending PR #1964
helen: iframes ready for AG
kathy: call for review, then merge scrollable elements
will: image descriptive is good
trevor: text content 2 PRs. 1916 needs 1 more review. 1959 is changing applicability so working on it more
tom: contrast needs another review
chris: orientation comments from
jean yves
... email to kathy about a survey comment, addressed other
comments
will: can't find PR for menuitem
wilco: 1964 reviewers assigned
daniel: will look at it
wilco: 1962 approved for Chris,
will merge
... CSS orientation status changed to waiting
... 1955 image accessible name ready.
will: I will send call for review
wilco: 1950 aria 1.2 in call for
review
... 1945 accessibility support needs reviews
... 1925 approved
... 1917 will go to call for review
... 1855 iframe went to call for review
wilco: 1958 meta refresh needs reviews
wilco: our regular updates takes
a long time, suggest a small standup at start of meetings,
everyone says what they're doing/will be doing next week
... on facilitator calls discuss open issues
trevor: sounds good
wilco: before the meetings, plan
what you want to discuss and ask for help on
... we'll start this next week
trevor: how to include state in
applicability and expectation
... wilco mentioned bringing into input aspects
... expand states and transitions as a subsection
... may need a glossary entry with examples
... modification will be to update input aspects for atomic
rules
<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1953
wilco: i think focus on focus can be defined so it can be in applicability
trevor: a rule looking at
something that went from collapsed to expanded, transition is
left to implementor to define
... hard for us to cover every case and be objective
... failed ones won't have false to true so hard to test if
transition is defined in rule
wilco: most difficult is transition like animated in, scrolled in
trevor: and also error state to non-error state in a form
wilco: transition can be input
aspect. Ex: contrast rule exclude text notes in
transition
... or scrolling text that fades in as it scrolls
trevor: this input aspect would be scroll-based rendering?
wilco: not sure how to define that objectively
trevor: list known examples under
input aspects but there are more than what's listed
... rules are getting too technical and trying to add state get
very technical
wilco: what about input aspect includes human language
trevor: sibling input aspect more roughly defined that requires human interpretation?
wilco: with essential, definition has a list of known things that are essential
trevor: disabled can be in applicability. might be a transition from disabled to enabled
chris: transition could be entered data enables a button that was disabled
trevor: don't think there's a requirement to make it known button is enabled
wilco: next step identify use cases we want addressed in 1.1?
tom: definition of input aspect is non-user interaction, but we're talking about user driven
trevor: will try more work on input aspect