scribe+

ACT stand-up

Jean-Yves: reviewed composite rule discussion

Kathy: added comment to autoplay PR

giacomo: sent two call for reviews

Helen: work priorities

Sage: work priorities

Jean-Yves: also chairs working on CSUN proposal, deadline is Tuesday

ACT TF update

Kathy: TF met to plan annual reviews of rules, Wilco contacting other TF members for availability to review

ACT F2F meeting

<Jean-Yves> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2201

Jean-Yves: Mark proposed Edinburgh
... survey results show availability in February
... chairs will discuss further

Removal of "Iframe elements with identical accessible names have equivalent purpose" rule

<Jean-Yves> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2165

Jean-Yves: currently maps to 4.1.2, Tom suggests wrong name is not 4.1.2
... discussed 4.1.2 as a secondary requirement

<Jean-Yves> scribe+

<Jean-Yves> giacomo-petri: what do we do for links?

<Jean-Yves> Jean-Yves: for links, 2.4.4/2.4.9 require a "good" name. 4.1.2 has nothing like that.

Jean-Yves: link description is part of SC; 4.1.2 does not include descriptive name

<Jean-Yves> scribe: Kathy

giacomo: if 2 iframes have same name, like privacy policy, but each privacy policy in the iframes is different,
... combine with page title SC
... and accname

Jean-Yves: how would a user know which iframe to try

giacomo: at least there is a hint about the iframe content

Jean-Yves: if links, it would not pass if 2 links have same name but different destination
... update to Understanding 4.1.2 for accurate name is not normative

giacomo: is there real case of this?

Kathy: there was an example of 2 iframes for different ads, both have accname of "advertisement"

Helen: what about label in name?
... depends on the context

giacomo: might not have a visible name

Jean-Yves: leaving as is, 4.1.2 must be reported for implementation consistency

Helen: it's not a failure of 4.1.2. Not a direct failure of an SC
... is a best practice

<giacomo-petri> +1 ot best practice

<giacomo-petri> to*

Jean-Yves: agree not a normative failure. May make 4.1.2 secondary

<Helen> +1

Jean-Yves: poll to remove 4.1.2?

+1

Jean-Yves: added decision

Applicability of composite rules

<Jean-Yves> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2214

Jean-Yves: Wilco started a discussion with proposal
... WCAG has many exceptions for target size
... I wrote the rule with all these exceptions as atomic rules
... many feel these should be not applicable, not pass
... media composite rules has applicability exceptions as well but did not raise these issues
... there is atomic rule for media alternative for text
... current proposal: atomic rule for each exception - confusion of inapplicable and passing
... another proposal is create a definition for each exception - can get complex and hard to read
... third proposal is put applicability exception only in composite rule, which is only to use the results of atomic rule. Least liked.
... option four use atomic rule outcome
... like option four
... would require update to Rules Format
... option 1 creates confusion. option 2 too complex. option 4 needs format change. option 3 is bad.
... keep on agenda for next time. read over.

giacomo: like option 4

Helen: all option are valid in different ways
... as a manual tester, I can use common sense
... more difficult for automated tools

Jean-Yves: option 3 is hard for automated tools

Kathy: in TF discussion, option 2 seemed doable, and didn't think complex reading of rules. Would be good to have Wilco in discussion next time.

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/complext/complex/
Default Present: Kathy, Jean-Yves, Helen, giacomo-petri
Present: Kathy, Jean-Yves, Helen, giacomo-petri
Found Scribe: Kathy
Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy

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.)