15:45:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:45:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-wai-wcag-irc
15:45:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:45:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:45:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:45:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:45:19 <trackbot> Date: 01 December 2015
15:45:48 <Kenny> zakim, agenda?
15:45:48 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:45:49 <Zakim> 1. Public review of 'Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions' (FPWD) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ExtensionsFPWD/ [from Kenny]
15:46:23 <Kenny> zakim, clear agenda？
15:46:23 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:46:23 <Kenny> zakim, clear agenda?
15:46:24 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:46:54 <Kenny> agenda+ Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122
15:47:03 <Kenny> agenda+ Walkthru and status update of current issues
15:47:09 <Kenny> agenda+ AOB from last week
15:47:37 <yatil> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:47:37 <Zakim> Present: Joshue108, MichaelC, kenny, EricE, Sarah_Swierenga, marcjohlic, Katie, Haritos-Shea
15:47:40 <yatil> present:
15:51:55 <yatil> agenda+ Quickref Public Review reminder and overview on the issues.
15:52:32 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
15:53:17 <Joshue108> trackbot, start meeting
15:53:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:53:21 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:53:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:53:22 <trackbot> Date: 01 December 2015
15:53:28 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:53:28 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:53:29 <Zakim> 1. Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122 [from Kenny]
15:53:29 <Zakim> 2. Walkthru and status update of current issues [from Kenny]
15:53:29 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
15:53:30 <Zakim> 4. Quickref Public Review reminder and overview on the issues. [from yatil]
15:54:17 <Joshue108> Chair: AWK
15:54:29 <Joshue108> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:54:29 <Joshue108> 
15:54:49 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:29 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:56:29 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:56:30 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:31 <Zakim> 1. Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122 [from Kenny]
15:56:31 <Zakim> 2. Walkthru and status update of current issues [from Kenny]
15:56:31 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
15:56:31 <Zakim> 4. Quickref Public Review reminder and overview on the issues. [from yatil]
15:57:09 <AWK> trackbot, draft minutes
15:57:09 <trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
15:57:15 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
15:57:30 <Mike_Elledge> Hi--what is the password for Webex?
15:57:36 <AWK> rrsagent, set logs public
15:58:15 <AWK> +AWK
15:58:54 <yatil> zakim, code?
15:58:54 <Zakim> I have been told this is WCAG https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mf2aaeee7cfba75b6e38fe4f173844e0c code 642 418 206 password wcag
15:59:15 <Srini> Srini has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:38 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:41 <Mike_Elledge> I am getting an out of service recording for the bridge, as well. :^(
16:01:10 <Jan> Jan has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:52 <Mike_Elledge> Sorry--old calendar notice.
16:02:25 <Srini> }Srini
16:02:33 <Srini> +Srini
16:02:35 <JF> Present+ JF
16:02:39 <laura> present+ Laura
16:02:46 <yatil> present+ EricE
16:03:00 <yatil> s/}Srini//
16:03:15 <Jan> Present+ Jan
16:03:21 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
16:03:26 <Kenny> present+ Kenny
16:03:33 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:45 <Joshue108>  https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
16:04:46 <Joshue108> 
16:05:40 <marcjohlic> scribe:  marcjohlic
16:05:45 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:07:04 <JF> ?me who me?
16:07:23 <marcjohlic> zakim, take up item 4
16:07:23 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Quickref Public Review reminder and overview on the issues." taken up [from yatil]
16:07:32 <JF> s/?me who me?/
16:07:54 <yatil> -> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/wiki/Public-Review-Results
16:08:00 <marcjohlic> Eric:  Public review is coming to an end.  Steady flow of comments - mostly minor
16:08:44 <marcjohlic> EE:  One major obstacle around data inconsistencies - but that is being worked on
16:09:54 <AWK> AWK: What date does the review officially end? Today?
16:10:02 <marcjohlic> EE:  If anyone has any comments, please fee free to post them - can still submit them through EOD today and they will count toward Public Review
16:10:29 <marcjohlic> EE:  Yes, Public review ends today  12/1/2015
16:10:37 <Joshue108> q?
16:11:06 <laura> Thanks , Eric.
16:11:07 <yatil> present+ DavidMacDonald
16:11:26 <marcjohlic> zakim, take up item 1
16:11:26 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122" taken up [from Kenny]
16:12:36 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Still some discussion and debate.  Given that this was just before US Thanksgiving holiday we held off on CfC.  Might be worth talking about on today's call and some hashing out on the list.  Take a few mins and let everyone take a look at this issue.
16:12:38 <david> david has joined #wai-wcag
16:13:27 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Basic content of issue is that there is a request that WCAG WG make clear that 1.3.1 SC requires that checkboxes and radio buttons have labels that are clickable via programmatic relationship between checkbox / radio button and visual label
16:13:36 <JF> Q+
16:13:48 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Not sure if this is how WG has interpreted this in the past, but it is an interesting point
16:14:09 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
16:14:23 <marcjohlic> AWK:  An example could be a user that has difficulty clicking on a small checkbox, but it's easier to click the associated label.
16:14:40 <Joshue108> q+ to talk about to what degree WCAG should define the user experience
16:14:42 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Need to differentiate between what is "helpful" vs what is "required" for WCAG 2.0
16:14:43 <AWK> ack jf
16:16:15 <marcjohlic> JF:  My concern is that for the past 7 years this SC has been interpreted as "as long as a form has an accessible name .. "   if we redefine what this SC means then there are sites our there that conform today via aria-label, aria-labelledby, or title would no longer be conforming
16:16:18 <Jan> +1
16:16:21 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:16:29 <Joshue108> ack me
16:16:29 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about to what degree WCAG should define the user experience
16:16:30 <AWK> ack j
16:16:32 <marcjohlic> JF:  While it would be helpful, don't think we should shoehorn it in as a requirement
16:16:34 <Joshue108> +1
16:16:48 <Srini> q+
16:16:55 <Jan> q+
16:17:05 <marcjohlic> JOC:  I agree.  To what point should WCAG be defining user experience?
16:17:11 <JF> Q+
16:17:52 <marcjohlic> JOC:  User experience is really important, but maybe that is something for a next version of WCAG
16:17:55 <AWK> ack mi
16:19:00 <AWK> Q+ to ask what constitutes a "relationship"?
16:19:05 <marcjohlic> ME:  Two thoughts:  we don't want to do anything to confuse matters.  I'm not sure that being more explicit about relationships being programmatic determinable would cause any issues
16:19:07 <AWK> ack sr
16:22:30 <marcjohlic> SR:  Agree w/ John and others on this.  If we were to change WCAG it could cause problems - issues around folks that use custom checkboxes rather than native HTML.
16:22:39 <Joshue108> ack jan
16:23:21 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
16:23:27 <AWK> ack jf
16:23:29 <Joshue108> ack JF
16:23:41 <JF> Programmatically Determined Several success criteria require that content (or certain aspects of content) can be "programmatically determined." This means that the content is delivered in such a way that user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract and present this information to users in different modalities. For more information, see Understanding Programmatically Determined.
16:23:56 <marcjohlic> JF:  WCAG has a definition for programmatic association
16:24:21 <marcjohlic> JF:  Only talks about "extract and present" - not "interact"
16:25:12 <Joshue108> Good idea John
16:25:20 <Joshue108> q?
16:25:22 <yatil> +1
16:25:24 <marcjohlic> JF:  Is this something we should maybe take to the Low Vision or Mobile TF to get something written into an extension?
16:25:27 <Srini> a+
16:25:33 <Srini> q+
16:25:34 <marcjohlic> +1
16:25:44 <AWK> ack me
16:25:44 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask what constitutes a "relationship"?
16:26:30 <marcjohlic> AWK:  We will fwd this on to Cognitive, Low Vision, and Mobile TF's to see if they are looking at this as part of extensions
16:26:34 <david> not yet, but we will add it to the discussion in Mobile...
16:27:06 <Joshue108> q?
16:27:23 <Joshue108> q+ to talk about the nexus between this issue and SC 4.1.2
16:27:33 <JF> Q+
16:28:12 <Joshue108> Good input AWK
16:29:04 <Wayne> q+
16:29:09 <marcjohlic> JF:  I asked Paul if aria-labelledy met his definition of success and he said yes because the association was there.
16:29:50 <marcjohlic> JF:  For complex tables it would seem to be the same using aria-labelledby or aria-label on td tr
16:30:07 <Srini> +1. Thanks John for bringing up low vision etc., groups into picture. In fact, if it's clickable and shows up symbol like link, it would become a problem
16:30:13 <Joshue108> ack srin
16:30:16 <AWK> ack sr
16:30:40 <JF> ack JF
16:30:42 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Important to call out that they are implied as well as explicit
16:30:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
16:31:13 <Joshue108> ack me
16:31:13 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about the nexus between this issue and SC 4.1.2
16:31:14 <AWK> ack jo
16:31:21 <marcjohlic> SR:  Some problems as well around tab and focus
16:31:26 <JF> s/because the association was there./because the association was there because it was pointing to an IDREF.
16:32:13 <AWK> regrets+ Kathy, Sarah, Katie
16:32:33 <JF> s/For complex tables it would seem to be the same using aria-labelledby or aria-label on td tr/Example, in complex tables we can use scope or headers and id to create associations, but we can also use <tr><th><td> and that creates a simple association
16:32:44 <JF> +1 to Josh 'seeing space'
16:32:48 <Wayne> wayne present+
16:32:50 <AWK> ack JF
16:32:52 <marcjohlic> JF:  Wonder if there is a nexus there with SC 4.1.2 and this issue - seeing a space with new interaction models and components and potentially we will need new requirements
16:33:07 <AWK> +Wayne
16:33:16 <marcjohlic> s/JF: Wonder/JOC: Wonder/
16:33:18 <AWK> ack wayne
16:33:43 <Joshue108> s/JF:  Wonder if there is a nexus there with SC 4.1.2 and this issue - seeing a space with new interaction models and components and potentially we will need new requirements/JOC:  Wonder if there is a nexus there with SC 4.1.2 and this issue - seeing a space with new interaction models and components and potentially we will need new requirements
16:34:30 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  Like aria-labelledby and aria-lable, but when you mix in different browsers, systems, and screen readers etc you don't always get reliable consistent results.
16:35:33 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  This this issue of forms and communicating labels all we need to do is establish programmatic relations and I think our techniques do that well.
16:35:56 <JF> Q+
16:35:59 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:36:47 <david> q+
16:36:55 <JF> ack JF
16:36:59 <marcjohlic> AWK:  There are definite areas where there is some wiggle room built into WCAG.  One case that comes up more than others is programmatic determined link text - and it ostensibly talks to what browsers and AT could support, but more often is about what is a "reasonable" area around a link that a user could find.
16:37:16 <AWK> ack david
16:37:37 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Different that proper aria markup and how it responds in different env - but for users ends up being the same.
16:37:51 <Mike_Elledge> ROAR!
16:38:38 <JF> Q+
16:38:46 <marcjohlic> DM:  Opens the conversation wider, think we could provide some wiggle room in WCAG - as technology improves, do we have wiggle room in our interpretation of WCAG?
16:40:23 <jamesn> q+
16:40:26 <marcjohlic> DM:  Pet peeve is on current interpretation of programmatically determined link text - wonder what others think?
16:40:26 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:40:28 <AWK> ack JF
16:40:48 <marcjohlic> DM:  Seems that with aria-label and labelledby we could make that more defined
16:41:54 <AWK> q+
16:42:09 <AWK> ack jamesn
16:42:21 <marcjohlic> JF:  Have to be careful with wiggle room - we provide conformance statements to clients and we have to be careful that clients don't end up exposed to litigation.  WCAG is locked down - we can't redefine it now 7 years later.   I get that's a lousy position - would like to do things for the end user - but need to be careful that we don't cause legal issues.
16:42:24 <MichaelC> +1, that´s a critical principle for WCAG WG interpretation
16:42:25 <Wayne> q+
16:42:52 <AWK> ack me
16:42:59 <Wayne> q-
16:43:04 <david> q+
16:43:05 <marcjohlic> JN:  Agree because we have conformance statements that say this is OK now, so what happens if we pull that out from under folks now.
16:43:06 <Joshue108> q?
16:43:16 <JF> Q+
16:43:45 <AWK> ack wayne
16:44:02 <marcjohlic> AWK:  I brought up that term of wiggle room - but I have the same thought as John and James - was speaking more about the ambiguity and interpretation that happens - but not my intention to introduce MORE wiggle room.
16:44:07 <AWK> ack dav
16:44:30 <AWK> ack JF
16:44:31 <marcjohlic> DM:  I agree, but I think we can mitigate some of this by updating some of our examples or adding new ones
16:44:59 <marcjohlic> JF:  Two thoughts - agree w/ David that offering more guidance would be helpful - showing the best of available options
16:45:46 <laura> q+
16:45:48 <marcjohlic> JF:  The ability to click on a label to select a checkbox - is that something that is helpful to the Low Vis community - and is that should be explored in the Low Vis TF?
16:46:11 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  I would say Yes, from a Low Vis standpoint it is helpful, saves time, and helps avoid lots of errors
16:46:27 <Srini> q+
16:46:30 <marcjohlic> JF:  So do we ask that this is something specific that we ask Low Vis to address?
16:46:50 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  Also is helpful to motor skills community as well - so not just low vis
16:47:00 <jamesn> q+ to ask what is the success criteria we are talking about?
16:47:36 <AWK> ack laura
16:47:38 <marcjohlic> JF:  I agree, but we don't have a motor skills based TF today, but if we can find a way to get this in to the Low Vis TF to tackle this, it will benefit the larger community.
16:48:07 <Srini> While it's helpful, to users with low vision, still check boxes needs to be visible.
16:48:07 <marcjohlic> Laura:  I think that's a great idea John.  I think we should tackle this in the Low Vis TF
16:48:22 <Srini> else we need to have differentiation between text and check box label
16:48:28 <AWK> James, the question for the TFs is to review this issue and determine if a new SC is needed, and if so what it might be.
16:48:29 <Joshue108> q?
16:48:57 <JF> msg AWK I think my work here is done :)
16:49:10 <JF> s/msg AWK I think my work here is done :)/
16:49:30 <JF> +1 Josh
16:49:32 <AWK> ack sr
16:49:34 <Srini> AWK, your work will start at LV task force:-)
16:49:37 <marcjohlic> JOC:  While it's good that we have for example one use case for this - I agree with Wayne that this helps many other users groups (motor skills etc) and I think also the more we can back up use cases in one domain with groups in another the stronger it would make our extensions.
16:50:18 <marcjohlic> Srini:  Maybe we can start in Low Vis and expand from there
16:50:31 <AWK> ack james
16:50:31 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask what is the success criteria we are talking about?
16:51:09 <Joshue108> +1 to James.
16:51:14 <david> I think it helps all three user groups.
16:51:19 <Joshue108> It does
16:51:29 <marcjohlic> JN:  I'd like to propose that Mobile is the place to start this.  Sounds like it's not necessarily that we need a label associated - that's helpful - but it's really more about having an accessible target size,
16:51:32 <david> cognitive, mobile and low vision....
16:52:03 <JF> +1 to AWK's idea of shopping this to all 3 of the TFs
16:52:18 <marcjohlic> AWK:  We could send this to all of the TF's - is this a fit? not a fit?  do you have SC planned around this?  This might address whether this is more mobile than low vis etc
16:52:33 <Joshue108> q?
16:52:42 <marcjohlic> JN:  I think it might be all - and hopefully there will be info that comes out that could be used in multiple extension specs
16:53:01 <marcjohlic> JF:  I don't think we could have it repeated 3x's though - in multiple extension specs.
16:53:19 <Joshue108> Correct JF, but there is a co-ordination effort that will be going on.
16:53:21 <AWK> We don't need to get into where a putative SC might live at this time
16:53:25 <marcjohlic> JF:  We could say something like "this applies here - and is covered in this other extension"
16:54:21 <marcjohlic> AWK:  At this point we don't know if we'll have 3 extensions - or one that pulls in from all groups.  We can wait to see how that pans out and then see where this lives.
16:54:27 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122#issuecomment-161004582
16:54:39 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Detlev proposed a formulation for the response
16:55:17 <JF> Q+
16:55:18 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122#issuecomment-158676010
16:55:32 <jamesn> q+
16:55:33 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Think I agree with Detlev's response - had some additional to add to it
16:56:44 <AWK> ack JF
16:56:53 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Sounds like people agree that WCAG 2.0's success criteria 1.3.1 does not require that the relationship between the label text and the checkbox or radio button be determined only using the explicit mechanisms where the label element contains the input element or where the label and the input are associated using the 'for' and 'id' attributes.
16:57:41 <marcjohlic> JF:  Comes back to the definition of "programmatically determined" does not include 'interaction'
16:58:30 <AWK> ack james
16:58:38 <JF> Q+
16:59:16 <marcjohlic> JN:  Uncomfortable with the bit in parenthesis in Detlev's response.
16:59:34 <AWK> ack JF
16:59:45 <marcjohlic> AWK:  What if it just said "see 3.3.2 for info about visible labels and checkboxes"
16:59:49 <marcjohlic> JN:  Think that's better
17:01:00 <marcjohlic> JF:  Asked Paul if an aria-labelledby would meet his def because it pointed to an ID - he said yes.  But I'm not sure I agree because an aria-label works just as well.   We have to be very specific that "programmatically determinable' is not A pointing to B.  There are other ways to do it.
17:01:33 <Joshue108> q?
17:01:37 <Joshue108> q+
17:01:46 <Joshue108> ack
17:01:47 <jamesn> +1 to JF
17:01:53 <marcjohlic> JF:  If we don't get that definition cleared up - there will be continued confusion as to what that means.
17:02:16 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Maybe we need 2 categories for programmatic determined:   explicit vs implicit
17:03:10 <marcjohlic> JF:  My concern is backwards compatibility and as James mentioned the thousands and thousands of conformance statements that are already out there
17:03:26 <Wayne> q+
17:03:34 <marcjohlic> JF:  Programmatically determined is already defined for WCAG 2, so maybe we need a new term and definition
17:04:15 <Joshue108> q?
17:04:18 <Joshue108> ack me
17:04:19 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Not sure if I agree.   I think going forward maybe working this out and fleshing out what these mean and how programmatic determined can evolve in WCAG
17:04:55 <marcjohlic> JF:  Would have a problem in redefining existing definition..  risk with current conformance statements.
17:05:02 <AWK> ack Wayne
17:05:21 <Joshue108> right
17:05:28 <Joshue108> +1 to Wayne
17:05:30 <Joshue108> exactly
17:05:53 <Joshue108> q?
17:05:59 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  I think what Josh is talkign about is concepts that would be ways to meet programmatic determinism.  We can say "yes you will succeed if you do one of these things"
17:06:33 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Think we're in general agreement.  Will have to write up a new response and circulate that around for questions / comments and drive toward a CfC.
17:06:57 <AWK> Zakim, Agenda?
17:06:57 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
17:06:58 <Zakim> 1. Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122 [from Kenny]
17:06:58 <Zakim> 2. Walkthru and status update of current issues [from Kenny]
17:06:58 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
17:06:59 <Zakim> 4. Quickref Public Review reminder and overview on the issues. [from yatil]
17:07:43 <marcjohlic> zakim, take up item 2
17:07:43 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Walkthru and status update of current issues" taken up [from Kenny]
17:07:54 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/
17:08:03 <marcjohlic> Current list of issues
17:08:21 <marcjohlic> AWK:  26 that are currently open now
17:09:32 <marcjohlic> 121 failure for not identify required fields and input format before submit https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/121
17:10:05 <marcjohlic> JN:  Have a few more concerns about it - need to have a carve out in it for the form not know what is required and knowing formats until it is submitted
17:10:17 <marcjohlic> JN:  Info may only be available on the server - not the client
17:10:37 <marcjohlic> JN:  Will add the comment in for the issue
17:11:28 <marcjohlic> AWK:  #114 surveyed and accepted - needs a CfC
17:12:11 <marcjohlic> AWK:  112 was surveyed and left open  Incorrect ARIA Landmark Example (role=search)   https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/113
17:12:39 <marcjohlic> AWK:  MC suggested running past PF
17:12:51 <yatil> zakim, drop item 4
17:12:51 <Zakim> agendum 4, Quickref Public Review reminder and overview on the issues., dropped
17:13:16 <marcjohlic> MC:  Correct working group now would be ARIA (no longer PF)
17:14:11 <marcjohlic> Action:  MichaelC to send a quick pointer to ARIA to take a look at this https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/113
17:14:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-316 - Send a quick pointer to aria to take a look at this https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/113 [on Michael Cooper - due 2015-12-08].
17:15:21 <marcjohlic> AWK:  109 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/109  need to send this one back to Sailesh for update
17:15:53 <MichaelC> action-316: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2015Dec/0002.html
17:15:53 <trackbot> Notes added to action-316 Send a quick pointer to aria to take a look at this https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/113.
17:16:23 <marcjohlic> AWK:  108 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/108   Josh take a look at 109 and 108 and see what needs to be done
17:17:00 <marcjohlic> AWK:  106 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/106  Louis to weigh in on this one
17:17:35 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  Could use some help on 103  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/103
17:17:57 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Anyone willing to jump in as a second reviewer before sending to Survey?
17:18:17 <jamesn> q+
17:18:51 <marcjohlic> JN:  Some of these may need to be removed - for example landmarks could possibly be trimmed out
17:19:36 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  Will go back and look at this in the context of 1.1
17:19:46 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  wouldn't be ready for a couple of weeks
17:20:19 <marcjohlic> AWK:  102 if auto-redirect despite WCAG but UA blocks, tell user where to go  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/102
17:21:25 <marcjohlic> ME:  A call was proposed for 9/15 - but did not make that call.  Believe we all felt this was a general usability issue - not necessarily an a11y problem
17:21:39 <marcjohlic> ME:  If others agree - can we just close this out?
17:21:57 <Joshue108> q?
17:22:46 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Mike - can you look through the comments and then raise via the WG list?  See what discussion ensues and then do a CfC on it
17:22:51 <marcjohlic> ME:  Sure
17:23:27 <jamesn> ack me
17:23:31 <marcjohlic> Action Mike_Elledge send note to list on 102 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/102 for comments and see if this can just be closed
17:23:31 <trackbot> Error finding 'Mike_Elledge'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
17:24:24 <marcjohlic> AWK:  I'll take 101
17:24:44 <marcjohlic> AWK:  100 - relates to other H65 issue - so I'll take this one also
17:25:43 <marcjohlic> DM:  Issue 99 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/99  tackling this along w/ the other issue on PDF footnotes
17:26:14 <yatil> Action: Mike_Elledge send note to list on 102 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/102 for comments and see if this can just be closed
17:26:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-317 - Send note to list on 102 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/102 for comments and see if this can just be closed [on Michael Elledge - due 2015-12-08].
17:26:34 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Issue 98  [LowVis] Can text shadowing be used to meet minimum contrast requirements?   https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/98
17:27:09 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  Suggest sending this off to the Low Vis TF - we can get use cases written up
17:27:22 <marcjohlic> Wayne:  Will do this for all of these Low Vis ones
17:28:10 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Issue 95  [Low Vis] Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 due to using background color that do not provide sufficient contrast with foreground text color  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/95
17:28:43 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Looks to be ready for survey
17:29:33 <Mike_Elledge> bye all
17:29:36 <laura> bye
17:29:40 <marcjohlic> trackbot, end meeting
17:29:40 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:29:40 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Srini, JF, Laura, EricE, Jan, Joshue108, Kenny, marcjohlic, DavidMacDonald, MichaelC, Wayne
17:29:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:29:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:29:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:29:49 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-wai-wcag-actions.rdf :
17:29:49 <RRSAgent> ACTION: MichaelC to send a quick pointer to ARIA to take a look at this https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/113 [1]
17:29:49 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-wai-wcag-irc#T17-14-11
17:29:49 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mike_Elledge send note to list on 102 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/102 for comments and see if this can just be closed [2]
17:29:49 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-wai-wcag-irc#T17-26-14