Tobias Griner - from a small startup.Works mostly in the visual field. Researching subtle solutions for persons with low vision who have no AT
Tobias: Head of dev. Nice to meet everybody
<kathy> scribe: Will_C
Wilco- Deque product manager, cofacilitator of the task force
Kathy Eng - in the US, usaccessboard.
WIll - i am me
Todd Libby - Sr. Acc engineer at restaurant store in phoenix
trevor - Software engineer at mitre corp, works with feds
Tom Brunet - IBM, tech side for accessibility
zai=kim, take up next
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/
Wilco - w3c announced availability of the implementations list
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/9764
Wilco - many years in the making, official availability of different tools and testing methodologies
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/implementations/
<ToddL> I shared it too early, but I'll share it again.
Wilco - images of text rule is updated and in a call for review
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1986
Wilco - helped Kathy, lastly created a survey for working group
WIllc - on vacation
Kathy - worked on secondary requirements. Had a question for rule 'visible label is part of accessible name' was there a survey with that?
Wilco - no, don't think so
Trevor - Not too much. FOcus was on Secondary acc. requirements. Will try to add a couple more things
Trevor - I will try and make broad descriptions more distinct.
Tom - Going on vacation soon. Caught up on things
Todd - Did not get to anything so far this week, going back to pull req.
Todd- will need a call with Wilco to resolve
Wilco - availability didn't make it to the agenda
we are returning jan 5th, none before
wilco - extended the two surveys into january
Kathy - We are meeting next thursday
Wilco - almost done with this one
Wilco - Trying to get things ready for official publication on W3c, this is the process. We left off at Q7
Wilco - Kathy's questions
Kathy - I'm ok
Wilco - Page Title, why would it be added?
Kathy - just wondering why the rule purposely omitted adding lang and title
WIlco - will put in the background that title doesn't support it
Wilco - looking at bullet relevance
Wilco - HTML bullet. In the past we were worried about xml:lang. This bullet is out of date because any HTML page works now
Wilco - I'ma gonna do it
Wilco - Phrasing. In the background we need an editorial tweak
Wilco - Need to make editorial change
Wilco - Q8 - pretty close to done.
Willc- I'll take this one
WIll takes off6ek
Wilco - These new rules won't go to AGWG but aria working group
Kathy - Here we are again. we have a current effort to add secondary requirements. We are updating the rules format document. To insert the option for ACT rule authors
Kathy - We have made edits earlier this week. Carlos didn't understand the 'may' part. ACT rules MUST list conformance requirements but MAY list secondary requirements
Kathy - We must identify which is which
Kathy - no real changes to conf reqs since last week
Trevor - reference 185 to make it clear that the passed conditions are related to the satisfied tests
Kathy - Carlos is asking why are satisfying tests under conformance requirements section
Kathy - line 185 goes back to the rules format. We added it to give more description. But we can remove it if it's not helpful
Wilco - do we need these three conditions at all? The first one is a fail-fail relationship. We can probably wrap that up into the paragraph above it
Kathy - just take out the bullet and make it the next sentence?
Wilco - Line 183, do we still have need for it?
Kathy - what 182,183 does is make 175 more readable
Trevor - I prefer it as is. Bring the condition at the bottom up into 185
Kathy - sounds good. ANy other questions?
WIlco - we want to write this to meet JYMs feeling it wasnt clear enough
Kathy - Maybe the second sentence might be saying the same as the first
Wilco - don't want to remove but would be open to editing it down
Wilco - Can we see if this can go into an editor's draft
Kathy - new JYM comment - adding more description. Old JYM comment might be invalid but there is a little bit of new stuff. JYM begrudgingly agreed it was ok
Trevor - what do we do with a rule with no conformance requirements?
Kathy - For that scenario it addresses that, line 225 - scenario 2
Trevor - I think it is ready for editor's drafts. don't love the fact that we are relying on author's intentions
Wilco - How about an editor's note in about that
Wilco - We seem to be stuck on this problem, and an editor's draft allows for feedback
Wilco - this is also blocking to some of our implementations, and we can start using it if its out there
Kathy - we tried to be objective with the conditions, but it seemed to break and we couldn't get there
Kathy - what's the next steps for editor's draft?
Wilco - We can decide on this call to put out an editor's draft.
Wilco - we kep the pull req open but we should vote here for an editor's draft
Wilco - we should keep the commenting alive inside the PR by keeping it open.
WIll - a bunch of stuff that resolved itself
Kathy - I lost a comment and had to reinsert it. When I updated text on someone's suggestion and wilco suggested on a suggestion and wilco's suggestion was lost
Wilco - it's still there, you can find it on the history for the comments thread
Wilco - We need an editor's draft explaining the difficulty of defining secondary requirements. And why we needed to be more subjective.
Wilco - put the note line 177
Wilco - make it 173
Wilco - let's bring it back next week and vote for editor's draft next thursday. Does that work for everyone?
VOte to vote for next week?
Wilco - if we add an editor's note, do we need to do more?
Tom - i think we are ready for editor's note
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1986/
Will - I agree
Wilco - I think we should be using this to point to implementation problems. Please have a look at 1886
1986
WIlco - three minutes left so lets call it here
Tobias G - One question - text has minimum contrast rule. DOes it already include hover or focus states. Or is it a separate rule
Wilco - COmmunity rules meeting is good for thT
Wrapping up meeting
see y'all next week!