Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

Update CSS Styling input aspect

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/520

<Wilco> The test cases of ACT Rules interested in the CSS styling must be viewed without [user style sheets](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-user), and with no changes to the [user agent default style sheet](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-ua). Otherwise the test cases might have different outcomes of the expected ones.

trevor: some more work to do?

Wilco: There is more work to do on this matter

dmontalvo: In agreement on what was discussed

Wilco: Does this need a CFC?
... Does need a CFC and will put a CFC out to address that.

kathyeng: What's the rule to decide whether or not something needs a CFC?

Wilco: Any time we update something that needs to be approved.
... Document in TR space, needs to be recorded
... Need to go through AG to do that

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/blob/master/ACT-Task-Force-Decision-Policy.md

Wilco: Still has draft status, needs to be signed off by AG
... Need to revisit decision-making policy, remind on Monday

ACT rules sheet

<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSkPFocXk4K3zYLnwS78WLsWO4PvE5yRcsauyefuIUI/edit#gid=0

trevor: started looking through issues and commented on them

<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1686

trevor: issue #1686 needs response to that
... progress being made, nothing concrete

Wilco: Will respond to that
... Added more things for survey. Open this week and please fill out for next week
... Can line-height survey be removed?

trevor: Yes, results put in GH issue

Update website migration

<Wilco> https://deploy-preview-51--wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/

Wilco: A few more changes made, editorial tweaks
... Title needs to be updated, PR is open for that.
... Waiting for Shawn to confirm

dmontalvo: try to pull in some open things, some items may need discussion

Wilco: Impression was clear to merge without changes, things needed to do later.

dmontalvo: See what Shawn says

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/57#issuecomment-920875061

Wilco: Appears Shawn wants these things added, expand/collapse
... Sounds like more work, meet next week.

Open ACT pull requests

Wilco: Tweaked HTML page has lang issue

trevor: can take a look

Wilco: Kathy, trevor autocomplete issues approved and can be merged

kathyeng: Carlos has a comment on the bottom wait for something else to merge
... can make change. Will take care of.

Wilco: Karen review #1684

trevor: Waiting for response on line-height issue

dmontalvo: Working on #1510 would be a mess, will close the issue.

Surveying proposed rules

Wilco: wait for open PR to be merged

trevor: #1683 shouldn't be tagged in this issue
... word spacing issue has already been merged

<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1697

trevor: #1697 was for word spacing
... similar accessibility support issue as in line-height issue will need to be changed as well

Wilco: Propose we mark this as ready for AG
... Resolution already done. Sheet deleted.
... 1702 is resolved

kathyeng: Discussed rule tracker

Wilco: added standards column, want to automate it.
... Karen was going to come up with list understanding documents and links, will meet on that

kathyeng: will fill out sheet again

KarenHerr: does fall under Focus Order

dmontalvo: Does fall under Focus Order
... Could go either way

kathyeng: Doesn't think it fails Focus Order

KarenHerr: Falls between checkpoints, people categorize it differently

Wilco: Not convinced it falls under Focus Order
... Reading just order in this case
... Believes 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value applies

Todd: Believes it falls under 4.1.2

kathyeng: Focus Order shouldn't be affected by aria-hidden
... Expect it to change for SR user and it doesn't

karen

KarenHerr:

kathyeng: statement we worked on does remain in accessibility tree
... you should be able to tab to it?

KarenHerr: regardless, yes

Wilco: SR don't affect that
... browser decides what order focus is
... Take a vote

<Wilco> -1

<trevor> -1

<kathyeng> -1

-1

<KarenHerr> -1

kathyeng: Do we need to get Aron's vote?

dmontalvo: good to have Aron's agreement on this
... 1.3.1 is contradictory

kathyeng: an explanation would be helpful

Wilco: 4.1.2 is obvious place to put this

KarenHerr: 1.1.1 perhaps?

Wilco: Should not map to 1.3.1
... Remove 1.3.1

I am agreement to remove 1.3.1

dmontalvo: argues that 1.3.1 can still apply

Wilco: Should we add explanation?

dmontalvo: aria-hidden can be

Wilco: Should go into the assumption

kathyeng: clearly more 4.1.2

Wilco: taking 1.3.1 out