<daniel-montalvo> scribe: dmontalvo

ACT Standup

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Worked on deprecated rules, 2 open PRs on ARIA, one is resolved and needs reviews, and the other one I am talking to the CG about that

<daniel-montalvo> Will: Not much to report this week. I need to meet with one of you to go through my issues

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Reach out on slack

<daniel-montalvo> Chris: Agenda item 6 is my item, hopefully I'll get some input today and I will take some action items

<daniel-montalvo> ... Could we use slack above adn beyond IRC?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Not really

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: Worked on the two ARIA rules I picked last week, nothing relevant to report

<daniel-montalvo> Kathy: I had a PR approved, so I need to update Trusted Tester's implementation for that, let's discuss agenda item 8 as well

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: Not much since last meeting due to child care

<daniel-montalvo> Trevor: Started work on my two ARIA rules, and then worked on agenda item 9

<daniel-montalvo> ... HEadings are descriptive rule, good conversation with Todd, there is still more to do on that one, maybe an assumption is needed, we may need to bring it to this group later

<daniel-montalvo> Daniel: Getting some more context on the headings rule I have assigned, working on NEtlify previews, will come soon

ARIA required owned elements

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: One more survey that we did not go through last week

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: With required own elements -- Does it apply to the element of to the role?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Your proposal makes sense

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Kathy on question 4 Kathy suggested an edit for failed example 7

<daniel-montalvo> Kathy: I did not understand the need for "the same no longer"

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Fair enough.

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Should the rule map to WAI-ARIA? Similar to whawt we discussed on the context rule

<daniel-montalvo> ... This rule seems fairly related to ARIA, I think for the last one we said we'd make the change

<daniel-montalvo> ... I think we can just put it in for this one as well

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: I agree

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Resolve 1985. I think that is true, it is also true for the other one as well, I am thinking we can do the same here

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Question 7 -- menu and separator are exceptions for this

<daniel-montalvo> ... Would be good to add examples that show the generic rule, pass and fail based on the attributes

<daniel-montalvo> ... The first one, maybe we just need to list exceptions

<daniel-montalvo> Will: The screen reader is not going to read the separator

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I think so

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: There aer som APG examples that show this

<daniel-montalvo> Will: Since you are allowed to do it, why does it not say it?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I have open issues for these exceptions

<daniel-montalvo> Will: MAybe the fix should not come from us

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Ideally it should be on the spec, but ideally we do have a rule that is actively implemented and that people is getting WCAG violations from

<daniel-montalvo> ... I would propose to include these exceptions in the rule

<daniel-montalvo> ... Or we can wait for the ARIA group to solve these problems and not send the rule in the meantime

<daniel-montalvo> Trevor: Would this be something that we can put in the accessibility support section?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I am not sure

<daniel-montalvo> ... Our implementation has the exceptions built into it

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: I'd have to dig into it for our implementation

<daniel-montalvo> ... But I'd say we have examples

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: Could we add annotations?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I think the spec is written in a way that the rule would work with ARIA 1.3

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: Could we reach out to the ARIA working group?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: We could try

<daniel-montalvo> ... They use to respond and they are actively reviewing other rules from us

<daniel-montalvo> WJilco: If we make adjustments and they fix them we'd need to readjust. Could we be OK with a section in the background?

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: Best to write it up so that it works

<Will_C> scribe: Will_C

<Helen> +1

+1

wilco: add infor to the background that there are exceptions to the rule being worked on in ARIA 1.3

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Tom it may be good to work on my PR that the ARIA groups is working on

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: OK

Wilco: PR 1454 has been open for a year, but might be worth looking at

Wilc: anybody want to pick up ffd0e9?

Rule author list

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Every rule has acknowledgments: authors and previous autohrs. If you are making significant changes to the rules, feel free to put your name in the authors section

<daniel-montalvo> ... I've ont seen anybody from the Task Force doing that, so feel free to do it

<daniel-montalvo> ... IF the rule changes dramatically, it is good to put the person who wrote the rule in the previous authors section

Deprecating SC 4.1.1 rules

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Discussed on the last CG call. I am bringing this back here

<daniel-montalvo> ... WCAG 2.2 will remove 4.1.1, it is in CR now. This is pretty much a done deal

<daniel-montalvo> ... We have two rules on duplicate ids and attributes that are mapped to 4.1.1

<daniel-montalvo> ... The proposal from the CG is to deprecate these rules and I would support that

<daniel-montalvo> ... This makes it easier for tool vendors to stop testing for 4.1.1

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: What about backward compatibility?

<daniel-montalvo> ... Is it just for WCAG 2.2 or this is going backward through 2.1?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: My understanding is that is the plan. It has not been approved though

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: I'd say it is not worth doing yet until there is more formal evidence that this is how they plan to do it

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: I'd say the unique id they would keep it

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/faq/#parsing411

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I am in favor of deprecating this

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: But it is ont official yet

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: It is for 2..2

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: But not for the previous ones

<daniel-montalvo> Chris: It is still not official as it is not been approved yet

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: This way we would allow implementors to stop testing for this as soon as possible

<daniel-montalvo> ... If not we would keep an incentive to fail this SC

<daniel-montalvo> Chris: Sometimes content that needs to meet 2.0 and 2.1 still need to meet 4.1.1

<ChrisLoiselle> 0

<Helen> -1

<trevor> 0

+1

<kathy> 0

<daniel-montalvo> 0

<thbrunet> +1

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: Can't we just make it secondary?

<Wilco> +1

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: It's not what we created secondary for

<daniel-montalvo> Kathy: t would allow to still map to the SC if need be

<daniel-montalvo> Will: Can we change "must" to "should"

<daniel-montalvo> ... Like a deprecated best practice. They would still be able to report it but it would not need to get fixed

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: We had the duplicate id reviewed by WCAG and it did ont get approved

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: The key thing is we no longer count deprecated rules for implementations

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I am not seing a clear majority

<daniel-montalvo> ... Would tihs change once 2.2 makes it into Rec?

<daniel-montalvo> Daniel: Yes

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: Yes

<daniel-montalvo> Chris: I am fine with that if it is just a timing thing

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Will bring this back in a couple of months, or we can make a decision now

<daniel-montalvo> Helen: I'd say I am fine once they et a formal approach of what they are going to do with 2.1 and 2.0

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I am not expecting that any time soon

<daniel-montalvo> Kathy: Is there a way to indicate the WCAG version in the rules?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Yes, and we do that in the accessibility requirements

<daniel-montalvo> ... If we want to specify 2.1 or 2.2 I'd need to do a bit of programming

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: It sounds like we want to wwait until AGWG decides what to do with 2.0 and 2.1

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I will discuss with the AGWG Chairs

Displaying deprecated ACT rules list

<Wilco> https://deploy-preview-185--wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/#deprecated-act-rules

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I worked on a PR that separates the deprecated rules

<daniel-montalvo> ... Now they should have their own list

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: Is everyone happy with the change?

<daniel-montalvo> Kathy: Looks good to me

<daniel-montalvo> Trevor: No problem

<daniel-montalvo> Will: Same

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: We will stick with "Are deprecated"

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: We had an implementation of one of these rules. Implementation section is no longer on this rule

RESOLUTION: Accept PR #185 to separate the list of deprecated rules

CSS orientation rule

<daniel-montalvo> Chris: I would appreciate guidance on what needs to be done

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I think this is already done, as of a couple of days ago

<daniel-montalvo> Chris: I was ont sure if that belonged here

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: We may want to survey it again

Iframe has name rule discussion

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: Isseus with firefox making iframes tabbable

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: In Firefox iframes are always focusable, so you always need and accessible name

<daniel-montalvo> ... Do we want to have a rule because only one browser does it?

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: We scope the rule for things with tabindex, then we know if it is tabbable or not because of the tabindex

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: That would create other problems. I will ask the group whether or not you fail iframes when they do not have an accessible name

<daniel-montalvo> Kathy: Yes we do

<daniel-montalvo> ... The keyboard access to it is a separate test

<daniel-montalvo> Tom: Does JAWS not use the accessible name whether or not it is tabbable?

<daniel-montalvo> Wilco: I am ont sure. I wonder if the frames list requires that they have an accessible name

<daniel-montalvo> ... Similarly to tables, where you need to have a caption for it to be displayed in the list of tables

<Github> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/185: Consistent linking / highlighting of defined terms in rules format

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)

Default Present: Will_C, thbrunet, trevor, kathy, ChrisLoiselle, Helen, Wilco, ToddL
Present: Will_C, thbrunet, trevor, kathy, ChrisLoiselle, Helen, Wilco, ToddL
Found Scribe: dmontalvo
Found Scribe: Will_C
Inferring ScribeNick: Will_C
Scribes: dmontalvo, Will_C

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.)