Meeting minutes
ACT Standup
Wilco: I have been doing stuff and working with AG on the rules put forward to them
Tom: Worked on the surveys and the results are not behaving in the 2nd rule - I want to chat to you about it Wilco
… I have a todo on one of the rules
Kathy: I did the surveys and I reached out to Jean-Yves on one of the rules I am working on and will share it
… I also sent an email to ACT-Rules and it seems we have more people in it than we want
<ToddL> https://
Todd: I have to work on my PR and I will ping you Wilco on my questions - making the examples work - 1926
Trevor: I have 2 PR open and I got approvals on the captions and I have one on the text change and I need to hash it out but been busy, and I did the surveys
… I have a long list
Will: I did the 2 surveys and I made a PR for a typo and I asked a question and feel proud. I also need to catch up on my PR
Wilco: Or ask Trevor?
Helen: Working with Jean-Yves on templates
… Worked on a new rule, but didn't get far.
… Changed jobs, and filled in the survey
secondary requirements & Editors draft
Kathy: I can share the PR but no changes since last year (last week)
… We are looking at the notes and Wilco has added a few best he explains
Wilco: It is missing a comment!
… Ok so last time we talked about this, it needs more work, and we need to get comments from the public and I must fix that typo"
… Typo is fixed, lets add a note we need feedback and Jean-Yves also left a note we are trying to encapsulate in the editors' notes
… I want previous contributors to give this a read and some suggestions please
… How do you feel about this note?
Kathy: I think this will help people to understand the document better
Wilco: Yes we can point AG to it to prevent questions so an editors draft would be good
Tom: Looks good to me
Wilco: Yes - we want to capture what feedback we want from contributors
… But it has been a while - are we all happy to do this with this note?
+1
… Looks to be good to action
<thbrunet> +1
<Will_C> +1
<trevor> +1
+1
<ToddL> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept editors note, and put out editors draft for ACT rules format 1.1
Role attribute has valid value
Wilco: first batch of rules to bring to aria wg
… 7 responses
… PR 1986 comment correction in note
… assumption should be removed
Trevor: can they be moved to Background section?
… still relevant to the secondary requirements
Wilco: In PR #1986 for this rule, text added in Background to explain the invalid role
Trevor: Assumptions 2 and 3 are secondary requirement description, hesitant to delete them entirely
Wilco: next comment Q5 from Tom, 1.3.1 added as secondary
… Q6 open PR 1986 should be closed soon
… Q8 Will fix typo
… other Q8 comments reviewed, conclusions updated in spreadsheet
… liaison for rule is Wilco
ARIA state or property has valid value
Wilco: also related to PR 1986
… Q2 comment from Trevor
Trevor: explainer from Rules Format 4.4.3 Rules without Accessibility Requirements not in the rule
… sounds like we don't know what this rule is for
Wilco: yes, use the standard text instead from 4.4.3.
Trevor: will open a PR
Wilco: BBailey comment on applicability, white space allowed for token list in this rule
… my comment for assumptions can be better, not sure it's needed
… no requirement mapping so no false positives
Trevor: update background like previous rule
Wilco: Q4 from Kathy about Inapp Ex
Kathy: has a default value so it's not empty
Trevor: tested and it returns empty. maybe a support problem?
Wilco and Tom: getAttribute discussion
Wilco: ARIA spec says it should be undefined, but it's empty in testing
… DOM spec has different term for property
… Tom's Q4 comment: Passed Ex 4 says valid ID reference but reference not there
Trevor: there's an open issue
Wilco: Expectation should not include existing ID
Tom: our implementation results failed but the report shows it passed.
… not sure results are showing correctly
… we fail Pass Ex 4 because the reference isn't there
Wilco: think it should pass
Trevor: this example borders on stateful stuff
Wilco: when error occurs the ID is added
Tom: if AT ignores, it's ok. But, Example description is wrong
Wilco: change rule to allow ID refs that aren't on page
… Q5 Tom comment for 4.1.2, PR 1986 adds it as secondary
… open PR 1849 about ID references
… my comment URI not used in ARIA 1.2
… can remove URI from Expectation
… Q7 comments Kathy editorial
… Conclusions section updated in spreadsheet. Liaison open for now.