Meeting minutes
ACT stand-up
Jean-Yves: did some reviews.
sashanichols: add some example to autoplay rules.
Wilco: final redesign of the "all rules" page.
CarlosD: I will be stepping down as co-chair due to lack of time. Will still take part of the CG.
all rules page w3c/wcag-act-rules#330
Preview at https://
Wilco: still some tweaks on the page. W3C doesn't like that the SC text is shortened (not all subitems, …)
Wilco: should we have only the SC number, title and level, with no description?
sashanichols: we could remove the text.
CarlosD: same.
sashanichols: is one sentence that helpful, one still need to open the link to see everything.
CarlosD: I am not really in favour of removing the text, but I do not oppose.
Helen: might be easier to not duplicate text.
Wilco: it is auto-updated.
Jean-Yves: same as CarlosD.
CarlosD: why did Rémi want to remove it?
Wilco: he think it would be clearer without it.
sashanichols: I would need to open the link anyway, so it's fine without text.
Wilco: I'll forward our preference, but we'll remove the text if pushed against.
ACT stand-up
[b49b2e] Heading is descriptive - VO on macOS exposes empty headings in the rotor navigation #2361 - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2361
CarlosD: Accessibility support question. Daniel created this after a PR from Giacomo.
PR with the accessibility support note: act-rules/
Wilco: we decided to track AS issues to be able to track them later.
Wilco: #2351 can go in Call for Review.
ACT stand-up
aria-description and the rule "ARIA attribute is defined in WAI-ARIA" (5f99a7) #2366 - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2366 CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: Some people start using ARIA 1.3 attributes, but our rule still target 1.2. Should we accept these new constructions.
Wilco: nothing prohibits usage of ARIA 1.3, axe-core allows it.
CarlosD: how strongly do we want to harmonize tools?
Wilco: on other rules we chose to not add examples that fail the letter but we think are OK.
Wilco: ARIA 1.3 is not ready, but it's not harmful to allow the attributes.
CarlosD: if aria-description is the only provided description, it may be failing with some UA/AT combinations.
Jean-Yves: we should make it explicit if we want to leave the choice to implementors.
Wilco: we need to look at impact of this in other ARIA rules.
Wilco: can we put a note on the definition of "WAI ARIA specifications"
Element in sequential focus order has visible focus [oj04fd] expectation allows common scenarios to pass even when failing #2368 - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2368
CarlosD: the "focus visible" rule passes even in cases where the SC doesn't. Example is a menu where all items open the same fly-out menu. So pixels changes (rule OK), but not in a distinguishable way (SC KO).
Jean-Yves: the rule was tricky to write. Not sure we can improve it to catch this without creating false positives.
Jean-Yves: the new Failed Example 3 has 3 menu items opening the exact same fly-out menu. So they essentially have the same focus indicator (the fly-out menu), and this fails the SC, but the rule passes because it does not compare the indicators.
Wilco: we already have a note stating the identical focus indicators are not WCAG good, but pass this rule nonetheless.
Should rule classification be applied anymore? #2370 - act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2370
CarlosD: We never had an official manual/auto classification of rules, so this may just be a misunderstanding.
Helen: maybe we could speak about "subjective/objective" rules internally to avoid confusion.
CarlosD: not all manual rules are subjective. We can remove the "manual" Github label.
Helen: OK with removing the label.
<CarlosD> s/is not really/is not ready