<catherine> scribe+
scribe+
,take up next
wilco: templates for ACT rules
Chris: re-evaluating ACT for oracle and evaluation current rules
daniel: cleanup on WCAG on publishing editors drafts
Kathy: github guidance cleanup
<kathy> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VF5LB09CDwtJ9iRFGJuYL4i8atqvBpA8JnYuGMWfcqo/edit#
<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1458
Kathy: act cg discussing accessible name/label. issue that summarizes groups' discussion. second item in url provided by kathy
Helen: at accessU
Tom: starting to look at ARIA rules. reviewing iframes
Catherine: evaluation current rules
Suji: reviewing current rules
Trevor: subjective applicability
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2034
Wilco: need reviews on 2 pull requests. Kathy and Helen will help
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2041
Wilco: Tom can help, too. Daniel, too. req 2041
Wilco - Add composed rules to mapping of atomic rules. added "Its outcome is used in the following composite rule". all in agreement and Wilco will get implemented.
<Wilco> Because this rule allows no exceptions, it is stricter than this success criterion. Failing this rule often results in this success criterion being not satisfied.
<Wilco> Because this success criterion has a higher minimum contrast, it is stricter than the rule. This is also why some passed examples do not satisfy this success criterion.
Wilco: secondary requirements - more clear distinction. added a section.
group agrees
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/pull/205
Wilco - common assets used in test cases into a rule.
Trevor - not sure he wants double nesting. can get lengthy. other than that, it's nice to have.
kathy - looks good
wilco - open with + button
chris - downloadable link or open in new tab?? might make for easier formatting
wilco - will ask for link to open in new page and expand button to be formatted
zakin, take up next
<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2061
Trevor - subjective applicability discussion opened up on github
what we get and what we done with subjective applicability.
what we lose - doesn't give testers solid direction
rules can be too broad
<trevor> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/36b590
any questions on "some rules use a hack to get around the objective applicability"
chris - the fact that "or" is a trigger between objective and subjective
chris - second example is tighter and probably more understandable.
Steven B - link to glossary definition
Steven B - link to glossary definition
Suji - likes second option better
trevor - exception example - "each test target must be a descendant of the semantic role of 'heading'"
at time. need to wrap
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: thbrunet, Helen, kathy, catherine, trevor, Wilco, Suji, ChrisLoiselle, sbassett, Daniel Present: thbrunet, Helen, kathy, catherine, trevor, Wilco, Suji, ChrisLoiselle, sbassett, Daniel No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Catherine_ Inferring Scribes: Catherine_ 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]