Wilco: just got started on the publication table
... First one HTML page has title, is this ready
Issue opened by Thomas has not been resolved
Wilco: Meta viewport, wait for Trevor to pick that up
... Aria state property, Kathy volunteered to pick that up
... 'role' attribute has valid value, Charu to pick that up
Wilco: 2 things need to happen, WCAG mapping and the assumption, both are in and the rule is ready to go
MJ: will that need a new survey?
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1364/files
MJ: once the PR is merged
Wilco: The PR addresses it all, does everyone agree?
+1
<Daniel> +1 to CFC
Wilco: good to send it to CFC
Wilco: Talked about the techniques last week
... Techniques are not a conformance type of requirement, but the rule can test a technique and also the SC
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aam/#details-id-54
Wilco: The alt="" does not get an implicit role of none assigned
... HTML to aria API mapping does mention that it does have an implicit role of none which the correct documentation to refer
... Browsers are also inconsistent
Charu: the Expectation has some redundant
Wilco: OK maybe it needs to be addressed and clarified
... From Kathy - This img element has an explicit role of presentation because of the value of the role attribute - shouldn't this be inapplicable since it's not in accessibility tree due to role=presentation?
... Yes that is a fair question
... From MJ about open issue
... Per CG the conclusion was that the issue does not have to be addressed for this rule
... Ok to skip on that?
MJ: Yes
Wilco: MJ about typos and glossary, have been addressed
... ready to be published? i think no, we have to address the applicability
... caused by an oversite due to changes in the definations to include the accessibility change
Kathy: does all the roles get changed
Wilco: yes, and i am on it
Wilco: comment from Kathy on implemented results
... yes, don't think that is a blocker
... from Charu, there is a PR open
... From MJ same comment on PR
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1360
Wilco: If someone can approve the PR, this can be ready to go
MJ: OK i can approve it
Wilco: OK then ready for last call
... There is an issue and 2 PRs
... will need to go into final call
MJ: OK once done by CG we can do a CFC
Wilco: When reviewing a composite rule before reviewing the atomic rules and the atomic rules did not have impplimentations
... it all comes down to mapping
... And the atomic rules do not have SCs
... For the solution, the CG has added a requirement to the ACT rules format that says all inapplicable examples must satisfy the things in the accessibility requirements mapping. We can do a similar thing here
... The only thing to do in the atomic rules test case pass in composite rules
Kathy: If the composite rule has 2 or more atomic rules to pass?
Wilco: We do not have rules like that so we can move on
Wilco: this is maybe a more complicated conversation
... where two inapplicable results were consistent, and all other results reported as cantTell
Shadi: If the implementation can differentiate the and determine applicability, may be some tools can and some can't
... so maybe we should not have default as can't tell but also have not tested
Wilco: Some tools don't have data that do the split or distinction
Shadi: So the testing could be partial by the tool with a procedure to follow
... something about inapplicable, if you cannot determine the applicability then it can be an implementation
Kathy: What is the diff between can't run and not tested
Shadi: usually when there is no implementing, there is no results
... in earl we have cases the tool can output and say not tested, and cannot tell is it ran the test and it cannot tell the results
Kathy: Can't tell is better then not tested
Wilco: Test case added after the tool was run
Shadi: we invalidate that
... For test cases that are not inapplicable, would there be a can't tell?
Wilco: Video that don't have auto play would be not applicable
Kathy: The implementation data does not get published with the rule
<shadi> https://act-rules.github.io/pages/implementations/overview/
Wilco: yes