Meeting minutes
ACT stand-up
Giacomo: I have looked at some PRs and updated issues - but not much progress
Kathy: I reopened a PR for the summary element rule approval for the WG to review
<giacomo-petri> act-rules/
Kathy: and it relates to an issue Giacomo raised about empty headings and I don't know how to proceed
Helen: It has been discussed in the TF meetings
Kathy: We have a note in the issue to address the screen readers as an accessibility support note
… that would be nice to get Giacomo's thoughts so we can get the rule reviewed
Kathy: It is assigned to Sage
Sage: I think it relates to a PR I was working on? But I will look into it
Giacomo: I think when you have an empty heading, Chrome is exposing the element but JAWS and NVDA ignore it doesn't mean the heading is not exposed? So how can we say 2.4.6 is not failing as it is exposed and the screen readers might do the same?
… unless we have documentation saying they should be ignored how can we assume this is the case?
… I think it is a violation regardless.
Carlos: I think Wilco could not replicate the issue?
… so I don't know if anyone else could replicate it? Daniel could.
Kathy: We had a long discussion and it is not a heading on the page, as not clear if it applies to visual and programmatic headings - please add a comment.
Carlos: Wait a bit Sage!
Shunguo: This is addressed by ARIA too as the heading must be populated
Giacomo: Who defines what a heading is?
… VoiceOver does expose the heading?
Carlos: Just because one does expose it doesn't make it a heading either?
… add a comment please Giacomo, thanks everyone!
Sage: I haven't done anything in the interim but I did some work on PR 2345
Shunguo: I reviewed the PR for supported attributes, and 3 of our rules proposed with the keyboard trap
… the definition is not clear what is not the standard keyboard commands as hard to work this definition out
Todd: I have not had much time
Carlos: I have attended meetings
Helen: I attended a meeting on how the W3C are planning to improve the CG experience and website
[bc4a75] ARIA required owned elements - Passed Example 6 is not accurate and should fail - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2247
Carlos: We have ongoing work on this issue from Jan that you raised Giacomo
… the AG are discussing it more.
Giacomo: Yes we can remove the "Agenda" label, I created it to remind me to update the specs and it is a passed example that will pass in the future.
… it took a bit of time to work it out but it is sorted by the ARIA WG.
Carlos: mutters as he does the above
Passed Example 3 in Headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element [a25f45] should be edited/removed - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2233
Carlos: This is one of yours again Giacomo?
Giacomo: The "Agenda" item label can be removed
[NEW RULES] - Define author's responsibility when presentational roles conflict arises #2195 - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2195
Carlos: This was last discussed when?
Giacomo: July 2024!!!
Carlos: What can we discuss here?
Giacomo: Wilco raised some concerns about repetitive rules
Carlos: We did discuss this a few meetings ago
<CarlosD> act-rules/
Giacomo: This cares about the role set by the user agent and there are 2 examples I listed like the button with the link inside, and the list item that are not covered in our rules
… it is similar to accessible name one but more specific to the presentational rules conflict resolution
Carlos: Please repeat what you did for the accessible name one as it helped Wilco understand the reasoning
Giacomo: It is harder to understand the rules if we split the semantic elements as harder to follow the logic and more ambiguous
Carlos: The one getting Wilco concerned is the element marked as decorative
… as it is explicit rule of presentation or an image with an empty alt with no explicit rule.
Giacomo: The examples I gave do not have presentational roles
… I tried the second example again and it is not exposed in Chrome but it causes a failure as an author violation due to the list items in the children
Carlos: Yes that is true
… is there anything in the current rule that catches ones this doesn't catch?
… Like the images with an empty alt.
Giacomo: Yes it is not causing a conflict so not relevant.
Carlos: We will discuss this with Wilco again
Giacomo: I think we need 2 examples to illustrate it, but it is hard without the repetitions
Carlos: It is nice to avoid the repetitions but not a must.
Giacomo: As the element is not exposed is not the same as the rule mentioned
Carlos: We will wait for Wilco to return to move this forward
[NEW RULE] - ARIA required accessible names - aria-required-accessible-name-gp8n89 - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2190 CarlosD]
Giacomo: Nothing to report on this one yet sorry
Carlos: That is expected as was only discussed 2 weeks ago