See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Wayne
<LiangchengLI-ZJU> what‘s the password
<LiangchengLI-ZJU> of webex
<AWK> +AWK
<AWK> +john_kirkwood
AWK: TPAC We will meet 19-20 (Mon Tues)
<MichaelC> 2016 WCAG TPAC meeting page
Kathy: I will scribe next week.
<Lisa_Seeman> password?
AWK: This has been requested many times. People should be paying attention to tag order and not the ? order. Claim we could test using the refow panel. Whyle using reflow can give the reflow order is the difference.
s/sifference/diffeent/
s/differeent/diferent/
AWK: We want to make sure that the tag order does determine order, but content stream is important. These changes are needed and aprotriate.
Josh: It sounds good. The issue of tage order being different from content order. Needs to call that our.
AWK: This needs to be kept simple, how to test ...
RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed
AWK: This follows through with early dissussion with resize.
Josh: The term user agent does not appear exact. Suggest remove user agent part.
AWK: The only concern is it is the same as in the Understanding Document.
Josh: User agents don't evaluat success criteria.
AWK: This can be fixes with an editorial change.
<Joshue108> +1 to Greg
Greg: Suggestion: The size in points from the UA...
<AWK> AWK: We can add a comma after "does"
<Greg> "The size in points should be obtained from the user agent ..."
<Joshue108> thanks for that Greg
<AWK> AWK: will change first sentence to "The size in points should be obtained from the user agent, or calculated based on font metrics as the user agent does, when evaluating this success criterion."
RESOLUTION: Accept this change as amended.
AWK: This incorrectly states that 3.2.1 fails because of this. F52 does not 3.2.1. The full request the process removed 3.2.1 and then a few editorial changes.
<MoeKraft> Pull request includes wcag20/sources/understanding/visual-audio-contrast7.xml
MichaelC: There is a reference to different item that needs to be pulled.
<davidmacdonald> can you heaar me
<davidmacdonald> akkk
<davidmacdonald> coming
Katie: I agree that it looked like it was being deleted.
David: I just being removed from 3.2.1 we really remove it. If we are slow at adding failures we should be slow at removing them.
<AWK> The WG discussed on April 6 and decided to remove it: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item06
JonA: Perhaps this is not exactly what we want. We don't have anything to claim. I'm on the fence.
AWK: If it is wrong then it is still wrong.
David: Is it a good mapping. We all agree that failures. We can't add failures. We have a double standard: easy to remove, hard to add.
<AWK> Summary of arguments for 3.2.1 and F52
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/170
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/170
AWK: Take a look at initial comment.
Rydadog. I have an issue to have something to fail. Grabs the focus is a
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2015/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20150106/F55
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say is change of focus wanted or not
AWK: Failure F55 would that do it.
Josh: Whats at the core here is what the user wants. Er on the side of fear on removal. There is a question mark about how the group describes focus. What to do. while this may be a little wrong it may not be utterly wrong and does indicate a genuine user issue albeit in an imperfect way..
Rchael: I can see how this does not apply sometimes.
Katie: This should not be failure. We should not change what people have been doing for a long time, but focus change WCAG\
James: The imediate popup, maybe there should be exceptions? Maybe there be clarification.
<Greg> Setting aside questions of value to the user, my reading is that this case is covered by the wording of 3.2.1 because (a) actions that take place when a page first loads would count as happening when “a component receives focus”, as the document in the viewport is getting focus when the page is loaded, and in UAWG at least the document counted as a component, and (b) opening a new window...
<Greg> ...can...
<Greg> ...be a change of context can if the user agent does not allow the user to specify that new top-level viewports should not take focus.
Greg: Looking over the notes I didn't find anything that refuted my reading the wording implies that this would be covered. Opening a new can be changing context. There was a good argument but it is not clear from the meeting.
<Ryladog> Katie: We should NOT remove this FAILURE at this point in time. We have been accepting this failure for 10 years, we need coverage to fail unexpected chanages of context and focus whne new pages open - where focus get highjacked. Keep this failure as is. Make sure we make this clear for WCAG 2.1
AWK: When the page does not receive focus because the change happens before focus.
<jon_avila> After loading a page, the page is focused by the browser. You can see this by using inspect. However, a component is not focused unless # or autofocus, or JS
David: The code is part of the address. So, I cannot see the interruption this failure.
<jon_avila> Agree with David
David: The popup (like collect your email) does not seem to be a failure.
<Joshue108> WD: Yes, thats not so bad
<Joshue108> WD: There are worse examples.
<Joshue108> WD: You may not have an idea of where you are at, but you do have an expectation.
<Joshue108> WD: There can be a marked change of context.
<Joshue108> WD: We may just need more clarification on techniques.
<Joshue108> ack me.
Josh: David kind of won me around.
AWK: We don't have a consensus.
David: Will write a reply and identify that the group will look at this issue.
Steve: It sounds like more detailed description. I can see how some cases can be acceptable. It could go either way if we changed the context of the failure.
RESOLUTION: No concensus
<Joshue108> ACTION: DavidMac D to write response to Chaals on F52 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'DavidMac'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
AWK: Had unanamous response.
RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed.
AWK: There was enough question of how this would look. Show the change table for 91
<AWK> http://awkawk.github.io/h91.html
...: Look at the githup h91 wording adding new types to the
table.
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H91.html
...: If we don't here comment we will sent out a CfC.
John: Why would you disable ffieldset?
AWK: Disable regions conditionally.
<AWK> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/fieldset
<davidmacdonald> I wrote a response to 170 here. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/170
<davidmacdonald> pls drop in link
<AWK> Gap analysis: https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/
LisaS: We would like feedback: First Working Draft of gap analysis and roadmap. There are more gaps than roadmap we want format comment.
Lisa: Gap summary all issues we have found of what is requierd
<Joshue108> WD: So is the roadmap also the gap analysis?
<Joshue108> Lisa: Its in one doc, yes.
Lisa: Gaps looks issues, the
second is looking forward.
... People don't have to like content, but we'd like
feedback.
... The second document is (section) Issue Papers.
... Email references links to each issue. Personalization,
safety
<AWK> Proposed semantics: https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/semantics.html
Lisa: The final document is a
proposal for additinal semantics.
...: This may go in aria, html we don't know. That they would
enable to simplify. We know we don't have th answers, but we
need feedback.
... Publishing will enable moving it along.
AWK: We will send out a survey. Look for show stopper issues.
Lisa: Emphasize this is a first working draft, not a final draft.
<JF> +1 to Lisa and the COGA Team - woot woot!
<laura> Thanks to Lisa and COGA.
<Ryladog_> +1 to publish the First Working Draft
MichaelC: Multi documents with many subsections.
AWK: We need all changes by end of June for September review; We will comment until August
<AWK> June 28 - final changes
approved
...: In next few weeks you must get in all comments.
<MichaelC> Timelines for this round
AWK: For a wcag 2.1 out in two
years. June 2018, Proposed Rec, Candidate Rec, Pseudo final
call,
...: We work back we need SCs, from TFs. Target FPW in March
2017 time frame.
... Start in in October, with an Editors Draft.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if we've settled on June 2018, or if we have flexibility on that date
AWK; Timeline will be given in wiki.
JF: How did we get the June 2018
AWK: This is a strawmam timeline
JF: Align it wih an important
date.
... Don't lose sight of this possible
Lisa: What is the date you need success criteria.
+1
Lisa: Dates for SC and supporting materials. It will be easier to do with a clear definition of what is an success creiteria.
AWK: There are details that TFs need. It is hard to land if you don't know the ocean.
Lisa: It we start with a working draft can we submit successive criteria.
MichaelC: Refining yes, adding no.
<Joshue108> WD: If we do have ideas of what SCs should be we can define that now.
<Joshue108> WD: Have we built in time to co-ordinate what the various TFs are doing/giving?
AWK: We've started meeting with TF Co-Chairs and are identifying common issues to remove cotractions. That is on the RADAR.
<Mike_Elledge> Bye all!
<jamesn> bye
Lisa: We definitely will have. personalization.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say will there be a TF co ordination call this Thurs?
JF: Can SCs come from
anywhere?
... SCs are not restricted to TFs.
AWK: That is the chairs idea. They may get pushed off to 3.0
MichaelC: We may want a call before the December date.
JF: There might be some fine tuning. Go through the process MAUR.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask for confirmation that newly proposed SC can come from 'anywhere' and are not restricted to current Task Forces.
<laura> bye!
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/TPAC2016/TPAC 2016/ FAILED: s/sifference/diffeent/ FAILED: s/differeent/diferent/ Succeeded: s/This is the core is user wanted/Whats at the core here is what the user wants/ Succeeded: s/This not utteterly wrong/while this may be a little wrong it may not be utterly wrong and does indicate a genuine user issue albeit in an imperfect way./ Succeeded: s/that refuted my reading/I didn't find anything that refuted my reading/ Succeeded: s/redmaps/roadmap/ Succeeded: s/March 17 time frame/March 2017 time frame/ Succeeded: s/Allign/Align/ Succeeded: s/acceptance/success/ Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Default Present: AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, John_Kirkpwood, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, John_Kirkwood, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila, marcjohlic, Rachael, BM, Shawn, Lauriat, adam_solomon, Davidmacdonald, Shawn_Lauriat, [Steve, Repsher], JamesNurthen, Steve_Repsher, steverep, Sarah_Swierenga, Steve, Andrew, John Present: AWK Kathy Laura jeanne KimD alastairc JF Joshue108 SarahH Makoto David_MacDonald Mike_Elledge Greg_Lowney kirkwood MichaelC Katie Haritos-Shea Davidmacdonald marcjohlic steverep jon_avila Found Date: 07 Jun 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: d davidmac WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]