Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: trevor

Meeting cancellations December 23, 30, January 6

wilco: agenda items speaks for itself, going to have no meetings for a few weeks

Update common input aspects

wilco: quick update on common input aspects. The change was approved by AG. We looked at an editorial update and I think we are ready to publish the update.

ACT rules sheet and Surveys

trevor: i think just need some reviewers for line height

kathyeng: pr on aria-hidden just needs some more approval.

daniel: No updates on making updates to the headers attribute on a cell.

wilco: We have two new surveys this week. iframe with negative tabindex rule and heading is non-empty accessible name. Both are due next week. Please get to them by next week

Update from AG

wilco: AG went through the remainder of the surveyed rules. All of them were approved. There was one that was approved with changes, some editorial changes on form field has accessible name.
... will migrate these over and we will have 6 more published rules.
... we keep having rules brought up in AG about assumptions. Specific example was failing autocomplete for fields that don't need it. Not everyone was entirely comfortable.
... is fundamental to many rules that we have.

kathyeng: was the issue with having an assumption field or was it just specific assumptions

wilco: was a hot topic at this AG.
... example was having favorite color in an autocomplete field, because its not an autocomplete. But its on a field that does not need the autocomplete, it fails the rule but not the S.C.

helen: So they want us to stay away from normative assumptions?

wilco: More about unease with potential false positives. Currently we have implementers improving rules as they find false positives in practice with them

helen: what did AG propose?

wilco: They accepted the rule, just with some reluctance

helen: is there any action for us?

wilco: Not really, just that a hesitance exists.
... without them, some validation like checks would not be possible without the assumptions

trevor: Don't really have a problem with it

wilco: One thing that came up was to make a more obvious mechanism to report issue with the rule
... we might highlight our reliance on publicly reported false positives and adding a banner or something might be a good addition
... helen to open an issue with ideas about how we can implement this

Open ACT pull requests

wilco: elm marked as decorative, helen to review
... element-lang-valid rule, kathy to finish review
... #1738 name valid language tag, awaiting wcag approved rules to be on the website
... #1729 on CR for 2 weeks
... #1725 fully approved, to be merged soon
... line-height rule still needs one change.

Mapping rules to fewer success criteria

wilco: going to go through all of the rules that helen opened reducing the number of SC mapped to the rules, going to review those now

helen: removed the AAA, but felt that if it fails the A, the AAA will fail automatically.

wilco: still apply, proposal to leave as is

RESOLUTION: Task force decided not to adopt PR 1759

wilco: PR #1758, removes enhanced, same case as before

kathyeng: need some clarification on how our passed examples do not pass the stricter versions of the rules. have some language in the background

wilco: we have talked about this in the past, may be a different conversation

kathyeng: possibly have test cases specific to the more strict rules

wilco: kind of like the way that we are currently doing it.
... propose that if we want to discuss this in more details we create a separate issue for it.

RESOLUTION: Task force decided not to adopt PR 1758

helen: #1757, same case

RESOLUTION: Task force decided not to adopt PR 1757

helen: #1756, took out reflow
... this rule is more about resize text. it is more of 1.4.4 check than a reflow check.

wilco: #1755, removed 3.2.5 AAA, dropped change on request

helen: took it out since cases were for automated refresh not for a user
... thought i needed to remove all doubles, think both could be valid here.

wilco: problem trying to determine difference between change of context and interruption
... #1754, takes meta refresh and removes AAA requirements. might be impacted by our decision on #1755, leaving for now
... #1753, removes AAA link purpose, closing for same reason as above.

RESOLUTION: Task force decided not to adopt PR 1753

helen: #1752, removed 2.4.9 since its about link on its own vs in content (2.4.4).

wilco: if link in context not descriptive then it isn't descriptive on its own
... think we should keep this since if a link doesn't have a clear name with context then it definitely will not without context

RESOLUTION: Task force decided not to adopt PR 1752

wilco: #1751, removed link purpose 2.4.4, 2.4.9.

helen: I think link purpose is different from the name

daniel: what other ways could we give link purpose without name?

wilco: reluctant about this once since it is about link text and not link name
... not sure 2.4.4 is about the accessible name.
... proposal to leave it as is.

helen: think it needs some more review

wilco: #1750, removed 1.1.1 from image button
... is a no from me, since it is used in rules format

helen: fine with this one not being merged.

RESOLUTION: Task force decided not to adopt PR 1750