<scribe> scribe: ToddL

ACT Standup

WIlco: not much from him this week.
... not much from him this week

trevor: looked at feedback and pull request stuff

ChrisLoiselle: implementation of ACT ruleset for Oracle

thbrunet: question about ARIA

Catherine: Looked at Helen's call for review

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22ready+for+review%22

kathy: Addressed AGWG feedback. https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/226

ToddL: out last week

Responses to AGWG feedback

Feedback from AGWG https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/226

Wilco: had prevented us from publishing. AGWG sent 4 back w/comments

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/226

Wilco: put two contrast issues in one

All AGWG feedback here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22ready+for+review%22

Wilco: comments were made, editorial comments from trevor and kathy

kathy: if we wnat to respond to gregg's concern that he listed in feedback, we do have an example. part passes and part fails and we do cover it.
... maybe we can point it out to him

Wilco: comments about rule not being strict enough.
... are we okay with this as our response to AGWG?

<kathy> +1

<trevor> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

+1

<thbrunet> +1

<Catherine> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response to AG on issue #226 with editorial changes

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/224

Wilco: On to issue #224 https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/224
... 2 thumbs up, editorial comment from trevor, editorial comments from kathy as well

+1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<trevor> +1

<kathy> +1

<Catherine> +1

<thbrunet> So the sequential focus bit would ignore active-descendant, right?

Wilco: if you can get to it with the tab key, it is applicable

<thbrunet> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response to AG on issue #224 with editorial changes

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/223

Wilco: last item https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/223
... 2 thumbs up, 2 comments.

trevor: the answer to this rule is about ACT specs and not answer gregg's comment.

kathy: suggest pointing to the background. we do mention using the arrow keys in the Background section.

Wilco: gregg's argument that event handlers could block arrow keys from working in scrollable content

thbrunet: you're not testing up and down you're testing whether you can get to the thing.

Wilco: make a change to the rule title?

<dmontalvo> +1 to that change

trevor: agrees

+1 to the change as well

Wilco: we will update the rule title change

+1 to "reachable"

<thbrunet> Scrollable element is included in the sequential focus navigation

<dmontalvo> +1 to "included in sequential focus navigation"

No objections

kathy: yes, it addresses comment

trevor: comment covers

+1

<trevor> +1

<Catherine> +1

<kathy> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<thbrunet> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response to AG on issue #223 with updated rule title and editorial changes

Subjective exceptions in the applicability

trevor: consensus was happy, make edits to format and start having conversation?
... need a week or two to throw together

Check-in on annual reviews

Wilco: start on catherine and kathy's rule reviews
... couple changes requested from kathy
... knows rule is being updated

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2002

Wilco: line height in style reviewed

meta viewport allows for zoom

Catherine: we should be good. "and later" is fine.

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1982

jym has updated the issue and this needs review

kathy: no, not a blocker

Wilco: ready to mark as resolved/reviewed?

yes

svg element w/explicit role has non-empty accessible name

Catherine: link because it is still open? https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1939

Wilco: not a TF item. CG item
... topic for TPAC perhaps.
... can move on
... typo needs to be fixed. anyone open a PR real quick

dmontalvo: can open PR to fix typo.

Wilco: marked as reviewed

headers attribute is next

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1910

Wilco: was this meant for under "open issues"?

reason it was under implementation data?

kathy: passed example #5 and failed example #4

Wilco: not finding if this needs an urgent update but seems like a significant problem
... this may be right from a conversation
... this needs to be resolved
... someone needs to pick this up, this is a year old.

<ChrisLoiselle> Did Helen do that with https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2074?

<ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2074

Wilco: assigned to tom
... it was a different rule
... marked as reviewed

two more marked reviewed

form field and letter-spacing

#1688 #1687 are still open.

Wilco: both will get resolved

Catherine: looks good

kathy: looks good

Wilco: marked as reviewed

image has empty non-accessible name

image has non-empty accessible name

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2062

Wilco: response was don't think we need to do anything here

jym has mixed feelings and wants to discuss in CG

Wilco: do we let CG take it on or do we discuss this?
... tom could you look and we can bring this back next week?

thbrunet: yes

<ChrisLoiselle> I won't be on next week's call, I have vacation :) Enjoy !

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/in focus/in sequential focus/
Default Present: ChrisLoiselle, ToddL, Wilco, kathy, trevor, Catherine, thbrunet
Present: ChrisLoiselle, ToddL, Wilco, kathy, trevor, Catherine, thbrunet
Found Scribe: ToddL
Inferring ScribeNick: ToddL

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.)