<Wilco> scribe+
pesent+
scribe+
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/pull/330
Wilco: first item for today is New all rules page
<Wilco> https://deploy-preview-330--wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/
Wilco: has been working for couple months, you all seen before. I just want to get all those agin
Sage: iterates
Wilco: redesign of the all rules
page with three list: Aria, SC, . Many people thinkk it's more
helpful with SC.
... break the guidelines and SC. but not principles in t
complicate the structure. FOr the different SC, use paragraphs
with proposed rules. Let me share the links. For composite
rules, use sublist, it was not clear. Want to give some insight
on how rules are organized. Other thing to know is how rules
are filtered, for example, how many
approved rules
Wilco: yo can look at rules are
automatically tested. The botum of the page is a section for
each ARIA requirements. Last thing added recently is an
implementation section.
... another little thing is I added a secrete little "Back to
TP", it's only there is you tab to it.
Sage: thank you, that's important
Wilco: there are couple depreacted rules. One thing of note we do have more deprecated rules. I figured just mentione it.
Sage: just 2.2 is deprecated?.
Wilco: working group has different versions for this.
Wilco: another thing is URL generated. If you type the url for all aotomated rules, you can do it
Wico: any comments? thoughts?
Sage: we don't have to, but
just
... I think Shunguo accidentially added Hellen's comment to me.
(Shunguo: very sorry)
Wilco: any other comments?
<Helen> +1
<Kathy> +1
+1
<Sage> +1
Zakim: do we need to mention the ARIA rules are approved?
Wilco: this was in the document
in the past
... I can put that in
... <editing the rule page>
... the rules approved by the working group.
Kathy: I am 50-50. Would be great if we have those.
Kelen: separte the info from summary
Helen: the relevant info
Kathy: edit the section headings or?
Wilco: we already have the info
Kathy: we don't have the info
Wilco: generalize the summary with it, anything else?
Zakim: take up next
Wilco: we have quite a lot rules
proposed. <screen sharing>
... a lot of rules on caption, audio description, being waiting
for us to implement.
... we used to have a large group, we decided the work on the
call, and on hold till the work is done. But we haven't done it
almost for a year
... we haven't done new rule review for a year. The group is
smaller, but we do need to get this, but depend on people's
time to do it.
... we also have many rules that need to update. That's where
we land.
Helen: we ned to do things for people when they have time.
Kathy: do we review the approved rules yearly?
Wilco: real issue here is do we
have people to do this?
... if people can commit a couple hours a week, we can do most
of. But if only just one or two weeks, we can get Pull Requests
reviewed.
Zakim: because of my paid work, I am not sure if I can commit on
HeleN; paid work coming first. I we can get pid to do this, it can be done fast
Helen: I will do one of those.
Kathy: if we calima rule and make it a task, I don't know w time frame for a rule to ready for approval. I can certainly take on multiple roles
Helen: It will depend how many items are needed, we might get more done, never know
Kathy: question on the rules, if we can ge CG folks help if we cannot get done
Wilco: CG don't comment and
feedback on a rule. But CG can get rule to process either. I
can get some work, maintenance, with my own time doing reviews.
Outside of that, I don't see I have bandwidth to do that.
... if our employer doesn't give us enough time, this cannot
get done
Sage: this could become a paid opportunity?
Wilco: in the past this similar things get done by members spending their own time.
Helen: I might get some items, UX,
Kathy: I don't see I will get more time in the future.
Wilco: another thing is we use meeting to do this, working sessions.
Sage: I like it if I can
Helen: I can do the thing more achievable.
Wilco: Next meeting, we will pick
up tasks.
... If we can get approved every two weeks, that's going
Sage: it's better than nothing
Wilco: anything else?
Kathy: question on the rule: PR
2345?
... question related to Wilco's comment: if we need a separate
rule for this. I separate the accuracy part to created this
rule. The previous rule has both
Wilco: Caption is only required only ....
Helen: SC does say
Kathy: accurate caption is provided for audio information.
Helen: 1.2.2 has a section
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: Sage, Kathy, Wilco, Helen, Shunguo Present: Sage, Kathy, Wilco, Helen, Shunguo No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Shunguo Inferring Scribes: Shunguo 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]