scribe+

ACT Standup

Kathy: Re-review of rules

Daniel: PR for Github templates to be specific, publication work

Trevor: Reviewing the discussions and comments for stateful rules, manual test cases, subjective applicability

Helen: Created an issue for discussion 2064

Chris: Met Kathy, heading has non-empty heading name, implementation for Oracle

<kathy> Suji: completed re-reviews

Suji: Completed re-review of rules

Helen: Aaron is going to take sometime getting back to PR 1971

Kathy: Bring Wilco in next week

Tom: Dealing with Aria, HTML and API

Subjective exceptions in the applicability

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2061

<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2061

Trevor: John Eames comments gave some good comments
... parse the differences in subjective and objective
... Johnny has mentioned 3 different types of solutions
... not going to focus on automated, semi-automated... we can bin the rules into one of the 3 classes listed by Johnny

Kathy: question on last category of manual testing

Helen: having something prescriptive rather than saying how to do it

Trevor: consistent with what I discussed with Jyms

Daniel: Potential solution working on manual process

<ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2050

Trevor: trying to prevent folks from writing very vague rules

<Helen> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2022

Chris: Helen and Chris's manual process proposal - granular aspect of writing the rule. Different talking points.

Trevor: Definition need not be perfect. Clearly marking what we are doing. Not allow vague stuff.

Helen: Shared PR with Jyms comments. We need to connect both.

Kathy: Instrument term was created for pause/hide rule. We need to think of managing/monitoring tweaking.

Daniel: We need more discussion for other folks to get feedback

<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to suggest broadening level of scrutiny outside TF

Disconnect of communication between CG and TF

<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2071

Helen: Wilco chairs both the groups. He has taken a step back from CG, so there has be a disconnect. Example 2064. Lack of information, discussion notes. Need to think of a more formal process.

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/blob/main/wcag-ruleset-review-process.md -> ACT Ruleset Review Process document may be useful to have a look at as well

Trevor: Provide meeting summary at the top. Frequently make changes in the code with comments. PR is the easiest way to communicate. Provide context while making changes.

Helen: Relates to the work Kathy is doing. Not everyone provides same level of information. Should we update a part of Github documentation? for consistency and to get people to add more details.

Daniel: I like that. Include specific guidance/ rule set. We need to revise the document to ensure CG and TF are on same page.

Kathy: In CG meeting, we have TF update. So, should we invite CG to TF meeting?

Helen: Maybe we invite CG chairs once a month for the big discussion items?

Daniel: There is a w3c process. We can setup joint meetings with CG, occasionally.

Kathy: Link to the spreadsheet with summary comments. Create some guidance on including background in PR. Establish some guidance on why changes were made.

Helen: Regular attendee with CG

Kathy: Discuss with Wilco

Trevor: Can come to CG meetings occasionally. Ensure that the topics are on the agenda.

Helen: Email me

Heading has non-empty accessible name

Kathy: Chris and I discussed, the survey had to be dug up. This may not be a WCAG violation. Check with AG on their thoughts on that. No TF conclusion. If it not a WCAG violation, we can list it as secondary violation and wouldn't be a conformance requirement.
... Thoughts?

Helen: Wouldn't it become a best practice?

Kathy: Secondary requirements can be considered as best practice. We haven't thought much on this.

Daniel: If it is no longer an Accessibility problem, we shouldn't be failing it.

Chris: It still has an impact. Going back and forth between warning and failure.

Tom: doesn't ARIA require a name for a heading?
... violation of spec

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)

Succeeded: s/zakin, take up next//
Default Present: kathy, Helen, Suji, trevor, ChrisLoiselle, thbrunet, Daniel
Present: kathy, Helen, Suji, trevor, ChrisLoiselle, thbrunet, Daniel
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Suji
Inferring Scribes: Suji

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: 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.)