<Wilco> clear agenda
<crazybat> hi all.
<scribe> scribe: Jey
introductions from Marco
Welcome to the team :)
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/768
introductions from Sailesh, welcome to the team :)
<crazybat> Thank you for having me :)
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/255
above PR has entered final call, after a long time....yay!
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1000
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/989
for agenda 2, requesting new comers to look at PR's that need reviews
for agendum #3, we need to meet 3 implementations per rule & this is a blocker for the task force
checking if the group will be ok for 2 implementations instead of 3 implementations?
Jym: do not have an opinion on the count of implementations, as long as task force is happy with this
<scribe> Unknown: Question on what is a tool/ implementation, and where the count came from?
Wilco: Explains what is an
implementation, more documentation can be found here - https://act-rules.github.io/pages/implementations/overview/
... the number 3 was arrived at arbitarily
Sailesh: agrees that 2 should be ok, instead of 3
Marco: agrees
Jey: just a concern that may be there is no incentive for organisations to publish implementations
Wilco: Hopes if we remove the threshold on the number and get things published, it will garner more interest from organisations to submit implementations
Emma: Make it a percentage against a number
Wilco: Agrees, and thinks we should not over complicate
Daniel: Agrees with the above
Emma: on PR 989, more explanation on the comment
Wilco: action -> to open a new issue for it
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/400#issuecomment-551060000
Jym: has a new proposal for the
rule
... provides an overview of the current rule & explains
ambiguity with whitespace, and the reasoning for the new
proposal
... Has 2 proposals and requests the CG to provide their
opinions.
Wilco: seems to me if AT
consistently ignore heading with whitespace, then it is not
actually a problem
... I have left a comment on the PR
Emma: we should not be not creating rules because AT's have a common workaround. The rules should be resonating WCAG & encouraging good practice.
Marco & Wilco: agrees
Dagfinn: agrees
Wilco: Dagfinn, do you think this is a failure of WCAG?
Dagfinn, Wilco & Emma: delve deeper into WCAG interpretation in terms of heading...
Sailesh: empty headings should be flagged in my opinion
Wilco: we have a majority here for Proposal 1, but do not think I will be happy to implement it.
Jym: Siteimprove will implement it
Wilco: we may implement it too, but it will be best practice
Jym: explains the above rule & refers to WCAG and notes that this is a best practice rule. Feels like this is a kind of a stretch that we want to conform to WCAG where as WCAG suggests that this is a best practice
Wilco: is the argument about both iframe & link?
Jym: Not too sure of the iframe rule, but for the link yes...
Wilco: not too worried about understanding documents, because they are not normative
Wilco & Jym: agree that the rule checks something that is an accessibility issue, but given the understanding document says 'best practice', I am a bit worried that we may be suggesting something other than what WCAG recommends
Dagfinn: Agrees with Jym & disputes the assumption
Wilco: would you say if there are 2 'click here' links on a page, is that an accessibility issue?
Dagfinn: requirements say links have to be descriptive, it does not argue otherwise...
Wilco: a lot of rules are heuristics, we can discuss the variability in each of the heuristic.
Dagfinn: A failure of this rule does not fail the requirements
Wilco: that is true for any rule with an assumption
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/b20e66#test-cases
Emma: scanning through the examples & poses different possibilities
Daniel: I agree that if 2 links with same text that resolve different resource, should be most of the time an accessibility issue
Wilco: It is hard to find
exceptions to this rule
... I do agree that there are exceptions, and is not testing
something that is explicitly required by WCAG.
Daniel: I would not put a percentage, but most of the times this rule would be valid
Jym: I am wondering now, if may
be the rule can test another SC?
... specifically, is there another SC other than 2.4.9 that
this rule can refer to?
Wilco: could you find an example of this rule failing something that should not be failed
Jym: I completely agree, that when this rule fails it will be an accessibility issue. But wondering if there is a better SC mapping
Wilco: 2.4.9 is the right one here is my belief
Dagfinn: 3.1.4? consistent identification..
Sailesh: Delves into whether it
will based on surrounding context, and cites examples for level
(AA or AAA)
... The other example is consistent identification
Emma: Added comments/ examples to the ticket/ PR
Wilco: summarises: quite a people
on the call want this rule to stay around...
... Send an email to AG, to clarify if this is 'best
practice'
Dagfinn: giving more examples to party :)
<crazybat> in the interest of time, agreed
Wilco: this is no guarantee that
the SC is satisfied, we need more examples.
... cites the assumption on the rule
<EmmaJPR> Also agree 2.4.9 is a good fit, and 2.4.4
<crazybat> agreed
Wilco: Given this is a published rule, we should take this to AG (I will) & see if they are willing to publish this or not
Sailesh: TOPIC: Empty heading, if the screen reader detects empty heading, the user may wonder if the reader could not get to the content. Thus the user is at a loss.
<EmmaJPR> A heading with an image and no alt text is a very good example of something that should flag up an accessibility fail.
Sailesh: Which is why such things should be flagged, and not rely on corrections/ workarounds from screen readers
Wrap up & final thoughts
<EmmaJPR> +1
<crazybat> Thank all :)
<crazybat> *thanks
<EmmaJPR> BTW - I've challenged my colleague who is taking over bbc-a11y to consider implementing some ACT Rules
<EmmaJPR> Well done Jey
<Wilco> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 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: Wilco, Jey, Jean-Yves, shadi, Kasper, Dagfinn, crazybat Present: Wilco Jey Jean-Yves shadi Kasper Dagfinn crazybat Found Scribe: Jey Inferring ScribeNick: Jey WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 14 Nov 2019 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]