14:51:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:51:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-ag-irc
14:51:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:51:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
14:51:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:51:39 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:51:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:51:40 <trackbot> Date: 14 March 2017
14:51:45 <AWk> Chair: AWK
14:51:49 <AWk> zakim, agenda?
14:51:49 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:52:15 <AWk> agenda+ ACTF FPWD Reminder
14:52:27 <AWk> agenda+ Thursday call option
14:52:50 <AWk> agenda+ GitHub document structure and process proposal (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/tree/structure_proposal/guidelines) (10 min)
14:53:10 <AWk> agenda+ Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/results (15 minutes each maximum)
14:53:16 <AWk> +AWK
14:53:28 <AWk> regrets+ Bruce, EA_Draffan
14:53:33 <AWk> Zakim, agenda?
14:53:33 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:53:34 <Zakim> 1. ACTF FPWD Reminder [from AWk]
14:53:34 <Zakim> 2. Thursday call option [from AWk]
14:53:34 <Zakim> 3. GitHub document structure and process proposal (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/tree/structure_proposal/guidelines) (10 min) [from AWk]
14:53:34 <Zakim> 4. Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/results (15 minutes each maximum) [from AWk]
14:53:48 <Kirkwood_> Kirkwood_ has joined #AG
14:54:03 <AWk> Scribe: Lisa Seeman
14:55:51 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
14:57:01 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
14:57:46 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #ag
14:58:39 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
14:59:06 <JF> JF has joined #ag
14:59:17 <JF> Present+ JF
14:59:19 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
14:59:24 <JF> agenda?
14:59:44 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:00:54 <mhakkinen> mhakkinen has joined #ag
15:00:55 <Jim_S> Jim_S has joined #ag
15:01:06 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:01:07 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:01:20 <AWk> Zakim, AWk is AWK
15:01:20 <Zakim> sorry, AWk, I do not recognize a party named 'AWk'
15:01:33 <kirkwood> present+ kirkwood
15:01:39 <Jim_S> present+ Jim_S
15:01:40 <alastairc> +alastairc
15:01:46 <dboudreau> dboudreau has joined #ag
15:02:12 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
15:02:14 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:02:20 <Lauriat> Present+ Lauriat
15:02:23 <laura> +Laura
15:02:30 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:02:34 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #ag
15:02:36 <KimD> +KimD
15:02:36 <laura> Present+ Laura
15:02:45 <Wilco> present+ wilco
15:02:46 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:02:48 <KimD> Present+
15:02:54 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:02:57 <dboudreau> present+ dboudreau
15:03:00 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:03:23 <mhakkinen> present+ mhakkinen
15:04:02 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:04:08 <MichaelC> present+
15:04:15 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:04:23 <Lisa_Seeman> Lisa_Seeman has joined #ag
15:04:26 <steverep> present+steverep
15:04:32 <shwetank> present+ shwetank
15:04:38 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:04:42 <Lisa_Seeman> present +lisaseeman
15:04:51 <neilmilliken> neilmilliken has joined #ag
15:05:00 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:05:06 <neilmilliken> what is the webex password please
15:05:10 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
15:05:21 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:06:23 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:06:38 <Jan> Jan has joined #ag
15:06:46 <Rachael> present+ Rachael
15:06:54 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:07:03 <Jan> present+ JanMcSorley
15:07:11 <AWk> Zakim, agenda?
15:07:11 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:07:12 <Zakim> 1. ACTF FPWD Reminder [from AWk]
15:07:12 <Zakim> 2. Thursday call option [from AWk]
15:07:12 <Zakim> 3. GitHub document structure and process proposal (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/tree/structure_proposal/guidelines) (10 min) [from AWk]
15:07:12 <Zakim> 4. Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/results (15 minutes each maximum) [from AWk]
15:07:19 <AWk> Zakim, take up item 1
15:07:19 <Zakim> agendum 1. "ACTF FPWD Reminder" taken up [from AWk]
15:07:31 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: lisa_seeman
15:07:34 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:07:53 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
15:08:01 <Lisa_Seeman> first public working draf for the testing framework
15:08:11 <Lisa_Seeman> we need to approve it
15:08:31 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #ag
15:08:48 <marcjohlic> Does anyone have the ACTF FPWD link available to paste in here?
15:08:58 <Wilco> link: https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html
15:09:04 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:09:15 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce-bailey
15:09:16 <marcjohlic> Thanks Wilco!
15:09:36 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTFrameworkFPWD/?login
15:10:13 <AWk> regrets- Bruce
15:10:25 <Lisa_Seeman> undoing bruces regrets (all is forgiven)
15:10:25 <Wayne> present+ Wayne
15:10:29 <jamesn> present+ JamesNurthen
15:10:39 <Lisa_Seeman> any questions on the acf survey?
15:10:41 <AWk> Zakim, next item
15:10:41 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Thursday call option" taken up [from AWk]
15:11:46 <Lisa_Seeman> this is an optional call to work out proposals
15:11:52 <Lisa_Seeman> adress wording etc
15:11:55 <Lisa_Seeman> Q+
15:12:28 <AWk> ack l
15:14:49 <Rachael> Lisa: I'm for adding a call time. Two things we need (maybe seperately). 1. We need a working session to work on wording, but this isnt' the best forum for it. This is getting on top of the user case and addressing the needs. Maybe invite people outside the task force. 2. Review categories of user needs with the working group. Discuss it and provide context. Examples (Perssonalization).
15:15:40 <Rachael> Lisa cont: Maybe more educational. There would be an advantage in doing that. Not a technical converstaion. This is a seperate track to help people understand the user. There is a lot of learning to do around user needs.
15:16:10 <Rachael> AWK: Do you think that can't happen within the call? What if we dedicate the first half hour of the call to understanding? Is that not enough?
15:16:14 <MichaelC> q+
15:16:16 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
15:16:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-ag-minutes.html laura
15:16:47 <AWk> ack mi
15:16:50 <Rachael> Lisa: We could. Maybe we should do that in an hour but there are so many topic that I'm concerned that once a week isn't enough.
15:17:09 <Lisa_Seeman> michael:  we are already asking a lot
15:17:12 <JF> +1 to MC
15:17:18 <Wayne> q+
15:17:36 <Wayne> q-
15:17:39 <jamesn> +1 to MC - there is already a lot of other non WCAG things to look at the first half of this year
15:17:58 <Rachael> Lisa: I'm concerned about timeframe. If people want to work on the topic, than they can go to one call but if they want to know about the topic then they could go to that call.
15:18:16 <MichaelC> q+
15:18:29 <AWk> ack mi
15:18:33 <Rachael> The task force is responsible for helping the working group understand the topic. People on this call want the expertise as well. I'm not sure we can do that in a call once a week.
15:18:43 <AWk> q+
15:18:56 <Lisa_Seeman> we can ask what people prefer
15:19:02 <Ryladog> q+
15:19:17 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: lisa_seeman
15:19:30 <Rachael> Michael: I hear that point. I'm not sure people will attend a call that is only an education session. I want to be sensitive to how much we ask of people. We could also ask people to read a paper.
15:19:37 <AWk> ack AWK
15:20:06 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew: we are probebly asking as much time as we can
15:20:09 <alastairc> q+
15:20:13 <Wayne> +1
15:20:18 <Wayne> q+
15:20:58 <AWk> ack ry
15:21:05 <Lisa_Seeman> katie agrees
15:21:13 <Lisa_Seeman> let us see how it goes
15:21:18 <AWk> ack al
15:21:44 <Lisa_Seeman> alister: have smaller group setions in parlel
15:21:59 <MichaelC> q+
15:22:10 <AWk> ack way
15:22:22 <Lisa_Seeman> we dont need everyne to attend everything
15:22:29 <shwetank> +1 to alastair's suggestion
15:22:39 <Lisa_Seeman> but we can have subgroups working on an issue
15:22:50 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:22:51 <AWk> s/parlel/parallel
15:22:54 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:23:08 <AWk> s/setions/sections
15:23:21 <AWk> s/alister/alastair
15:23:32 <Lisa_Seeman> wayne simpathises but agrees with michael . what lisa is saying is that with wcag 2 we new the matirial and how it fits together
15:24:21 <AWk> ack mi
15:24:23 <Lisa_Seeman> but now we just look at the sc's and how it all works is not understood by the group
15:24:39 <Lisa_Seeman> I can also support alister
15:24:48 <Lisa_Seeman> (it is what I had in mind)
15:25:01 <Lisa_Seeman> michale is ok with alisters
15:25:34 <Lisa_Seeman> add hock when more is needed by the working group when called in by the sc manager
15:25:55 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew: we will identify this thursdays call in the last ten minets today
15:26:15 <Lisa_Seeman> please pencil in the time
15:26:19 <MichaelC> s/support alister/support alastair´s version of the suggestion/
15:26:31 <Lisa_Seeman> (I think it is 11 est)
15:26:41 <Lisa_Seeman> same password as this call
15:26:53 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:26:54 <AWk> s/(I think it is 11 est)/11:30-12:30 ET
15:27:01 <AWk> Zakim, next item
15:27:01 <Zakim> agendum 3. "GitHub document structure and process proposal (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/tree/structure_proposal/guidelines) (10 min)" taken up [from AWk]
15:27:03 <Lisa_Seeman> :)
15:27:30 <EA> EA has joined #ag
15:27:44 <Makoto> Present+ Makoto
15:27:58 <Lisa_Seeman> This has an sc directory and terms diretory
15:28:30 <Lisa_Seeman> index is the main file with include files for each sc and glosary
15:28:50 <Lisa_Seeman> in each of thought there is a sub drectory for wcag 2.0 and wcag 2.1
15:28:55 <Lisa_Seeman> labled 20 and 21
15:29:09 <Lisa_Seeman> in ech on is the section element and included pagraphes
15:29:45 <Lisa_Seeman> and there is a raw git page for each one
15:29:52 <alastairc> +1  to this, but would like SC managers to open a new issue before the next public draft.
15:30:02 <Lisa_Seeman> we may need a document to link to the raw git for each of these
15:30:46 <JF> Q+
15:30:47 <Lisa_Seeman> but we have discusions on the issue on github
15:30:53 <gowerm> q+
15:31:01 <AWk> ack JF
15:31:03 <Lisa_Seeman> Michael: and they link to the github version of the sc
15:31:30 <Lisa_Seeman> john f. many sc in the directory - is this als for post 2.1
15:31:37 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew: maybe
15:32:32 <Lisa_Seeman> john f. likes having them all in pone place
15:32:35 <Ryladog> q+
15:32:36 <AWk> ack g
15:32:56 <Lisa_Seeman> mike: good process but langage on proposed
15:32:58 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
15:33:43 <Lisa_Seeman> mike: sperate out proposed and other stuff
15:33:54 <AWk> ack ry
15:33:59 <Lisa_Seeman> michael: hard to do stile on snippits
15:34:07 <Lisa_Seeman> katie: all i can do is 2.1
15:34:22 <Lisa_Seeman> all i can see is 2.0
15:34:34 <Lisa_Seeman> michael: i see them both
15:35:23 <Lisa_Seeman> Q+
15:35:30 <AWk> ack lisa
15:35:33 <Rachael> scribe: rachael
15:36:31 <Rachael> Lisa: If at the top of each issue, include the latest proposal in bold and another link to the original proposal. I suggest an ask to the COGA list that this is workable and if not discuss it on the call.
15:36:59 <Rachael> Michael: I've already asked the entire working group. I'm willing to give it some time. I Can ask the task forces seperately if people feel its needed but the longer review cycle, the longer this takes.
15:37:31 <marcjohlic> +1
15:37:34 <AWk> Michael's email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/1166.html
15:37:39 <Rachael> Lisa: I will take an action to follow up with the task force. I think a lot of the COGA members are a bit quiet. Can people put a +1 since many are on this call?
15:37:51 <neilmilliken> Well you know I have real issues with the platform
15:37:52 <Rachael> Lisa: Lets see if we can get COGA people to participate.
15:38:01 <AWk> regrets- EA_draffan
15:38:03 <Rachael> Michael: What is the timing? I  can't do anything more until I get an approval.
15:38:35 <neilmilliken> the approach is fine the platform is not
15:38:42 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: lisa_seeman
15:38:46 <Rachael> Michael: I know this is still not perfect but I believe its much better than what we've been doing. If you object, what would be better and achievable?
15:38:50 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
15:39:05 <Wayne> q+
15:39:09 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
15:39:56 <AWk> ack l
15:40:02 <neilmilliken> sorry lost connectivety
15:40:06 <Rachael> Lisa: Suggestion - I spoke to the guys from Google about Google Docs accessibility issues. They wondered if people were aware of accessibility mode. I'm not sure if using that mode if Docs is usable, but that would be the better way for the COGA taskforce. Each issue as a Google doc.
15:40:30 <Mike_Pluke> q+
15:40:43 <kirkwood> +1 to Google Docs
15:40:44 <AWk> ack w
15:40:49 <Rachael> Michael: Google Docs won't let us maintain source code.  We still have to deal with GitHub. We'd have to duplicate. We can do that but we'll still need a version in GitHub but if people prefer taht we can do that.
15:40:59 <Rachael> Lisa: IT woudl then fall on the editors vs the task force members.
15:41:03 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: lisa_seeman
15:41:13 <alastairc> q+ to ask The comments aspect is what's needed, I don't think Google docs supports public comments well?
15:41:31 <Lisa_Seeman> wayne" cna we strip off the sc without the code
15:41:39 <Lisa_Seeman> michael: yes via rawgit
15:41:39 <EA> I have made it - We would prefer to have text being accessible in Google doc or a wiki that we could then transfer into Github where the experts can cope with the code?
15:41:54 <Lisa_Seeman> wayne: at 200% magnification it cuts off
15:42:07 <marcjohlic> RAWGIT LINK  https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/structure_proposal/guidelines/sc/21/accidental-activation.html
15:42:09 <AWk> for example: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/structure_proposal/guidelines/sc/21/accidental-activation.html
15:42:16 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew: check the url is rawgit
15:42:44 <AWk> ack m
15:42:56 <Lisa_Seeman> wayne will figuer out the links
15:43:07 <Lisa_Seeman> mike: some companies miught not let google docs
15:43:14 <Lisa_Seeman> not sure if that is commen
15:43:18 <AWk> ack ala
15:43:18 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask The comments aspect is what's needed, I don't think Google docs supports public comments well?
15:43:21 <Lisa_Seeman> or relivent
15:43:36 <Lisa_Seeman> alister: how do people coment
15:43:43 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
15:43:49 <AWk> ack lis
15:43:54 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
15:43:55 <kirkwood> q+
15:44:24 <Lauriat> q+
15:44:29 <Rachael> Lisa: When we did the rewrite of the success criteria, each one went through multiple rewrites. We created headers and people added comments under each header.
15:44:37 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: lisa_seeman
15:44:44 <Lisa_Seeman> ea: there is a coment system
15:44:58 <Lisa_Seeman> and the coga group would use wiki
15:45:10 <Lisa_Seeman> michael: one of the problems is the multiple places
15:45:14 <Lisa_Seeman> it needs to be one
15:45:25 <Lisa_Seeman> ea: she was not suggesting all three
15:45:34 <marcjohlic> q+
15:45:34 <Lisa_Seeman> michael: we will need some github
15:45:47 <Lisa_Seeman> ea: some people will have to ask for help
15:45:55 <Lisa_Seeman> and we wll need a two tear system
15:45:58 <Jan> The problem with the GitHub comment system seems to be that it's not easy to track final wording, so it's difficult to know what you're actually supposed to review.
15:46:10 <Lisa_Seeman> michael: the comment system is not cuseing issue
15:46:21 <Lisa_Seeman> but yes this may lead to a two tear system
15:46:28 <Lisa_Seeman> ea: we lost a lost of comments
15:46:31 <AWk> ack kirkw
15:46:44 <Wayne> q+
15:47:08 <neilmilliken> q+
15:47:33 <Lisa_Seeman> john k.: i have ben playing and working with this a lot with my disability and my work. the good thing with google docs, it is colabritve, the history is recorded and can be done pre any uploading and forking on github
15:47:54 <AWk> ack lau
15:48:01 <Lisa_Seeman> it will make things much easier , but at least using it at the begining pof the proces will be hugely helpfyl
15:48:45 <AWk> ack mar
15:48:54 <Lisa_Seeman> john: google docs is very helpful  - you can see the origial version and threads, and i would be happy to explain how to use it
15:49:34 <Lisa_Seeman> marc: the main issue was reading the code, and this is solved via raw git, so please check that you see how much easier it is
15:49:43 <AWk> ack way
15:49:47 <Lisa_Seeman> (lisa thinks people know that)
15:50:04 <Lisa_Seeman> wayn: raw mode loses indentation
15:50:12 <Lisa_Seeman> lq+
15:50:15 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
15:50:21 <marcjohlic> q+
15:50:27 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew: rawgit might be ok on this
15:50:39 <marcjohlic> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/structure_proposal/guidelines/sc/21/accidental-activation.html
15:51:20 <AWk> ack ni
15:51:21 <Lisa_Seeman> marc: raw is just the name of the company it is not the raw button on the code page
15:51:22 <AWk> ack nei
15:51:46 <Lisa_Seeman> neil: it is better but the manigmanet and so on is a problem
15:52:05 <AWk> ack lis
15:52:11 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew: no more pull requests - just review the rendered version and issue
15:52:16 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
15:52:17 <marcjohlic> q-  was going to talk about rawgit
15:52:21 <marcjohlic> q-
15:53:14 <MichaelC> q+
15:53:26 <Rachael> Lisa: The issue people had in GitHub Issues is that the comments are hard to follow. People make a comment and then there is a new draft of the wording so the comment isn't relevant any more. There is no way to know which comments relate to what version, what comments were applied and what comments people agreed with.
15:54:22 <marcjohlic> q+
15:54:45 <Rachael> Lisa: It is harder to add a comment. Following and tracking is difficult.  Its hard to manage the threads that are going to get even longer than they are now. Difficult to tell what is outstanding.  If we want COGA experts to review it, we are buying into a format that doesn't support them.
15:55:01 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: lisa_seeman
15:55:07 <MichaelC> ack me
15:55:09 <AWk> ack mi
15:55:27 <Lisa_Seeman> michael: you can do it, but it is hard
15:55:50 <AWk> ack mac
15:55:54 <AWk> ack ma
15:56:05 <Lisa_Seeman> marc: maybe all the fetures are not being used
15:56:24 <Lisa_Seeman> emogies and labelings and assining
15:56:48 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew : we do not have consnsus
15:57:24 <Lisa_Seeman> lisa will mock somthing up
15:57:50 <AWk> zakim, next item
15:57:50 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/results (15 minutes each maximum)" taken up [from AWk]
15:58:14 <Lisa_Seeman> TOPIC: clear controls
15:58:41 <Lisa_Seeman> neil is here
15:58:48 <JF> Q+
15:59:22 <Lisa_Seeman> neil is happy to use the word unabigues
15:59:37 <Lisa_Seeman> inplace of clear
16:01:41 <Lisa_Seeman> mike: things should be normalized for ovelap before tit comes to survey
16:02:02 <Lisa_Seeman> very hard to deside what is standard
16:02:21 <Lisa_Seeman> see his comment in github
16:02:51 <Lisa_Seeman> and it is all about people using something enough to learn
16:02:59 <Lisa_Seeman> that meens use afordences
16:03:12 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
16:03:41 <Lisa_Seeman> athers just need to be constacting role and the rest is personlization
16:04:05 <Lisa_Seeman> not author responcibilty
16:04:37 <Lisa_Seeman> auther: should be contrast for the first one
16:04:48 <Glenda> +1 to removing color contrast fromt his SC (because it will covered by 1.4.14 User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum))
16:04:51 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew:
16:04:56 <Lisa_Seeman> standard stypleing
16:05:31 <Lisa_Seeman> and what ius standard 5 years ago is not standard today
16:05:52 <AWk> ack jf
16:06:04 <Lisa_Seeman> neil do you want to take this?
16:06:32 <Glenda> +1 need more time to answer survey
16:06:38 <jamesn> +1 to that
16:06:40 <Lisa_Seeman> john f. to hard to respond to all the feedback
16:06:57 <Lisa_Seeman> we need more then 48 hours
16:07:01 <Rachael> +1 to difficult to get through all of it
16:07:31 <Lisa_Seeman> anrew: also finds it hard
16:07:51 <AWk> ack lisa
16:08:03 <AWk> s/anrew/Andrew
16:08:03 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
16:08:52 <AWk> q?
16:09:44 <Rachael> Lisa: We need to get personalization off the ground. That will be the preferred way. We are trying to have 5 tested values for personalization structure. If you've marked things as a role and the personalization architecture is off the ground (which it should be), then you are good to go.
16:10:08 <AWk> q+
16:10:15 <Wayne> q+
16:10:17 <Rachael> Lisa: If it doesn't work with the 5 recommended values for personalization then you mayhave failed, because there is a standard for making it work.
16:11:24 <gowerm> q+
16:11:29 <Rachael> Lisa: We will be making templates. So that is the preferred way. The other option is to use the standard visual pattern. If you are using standard HTML, then you don't need personalization. But if you want to use your own designs, we aren't blocking you but you need to use personalization.
16:11:43 <Rachael> Lisa: The timeline for personalization is in line with WCAG 2.1
16:11:49 <AWk> ack AW
16:11:56 <Rachael> Lisa: That should be ready to go.
16:12:47 <Rachael> AWK: You are talking about the personalization support in ARIA which is still under development. If you have a technology that doesn't support ARIA such as a native mobile app, the success criteria would be saying you have to use standard controls.
16:13:15 <Rachael> Lisa: Or support personalization as well. We will need to define standard controls very well. It has to be patterns. Like the ARIA working group author techniques.
16:13:31 <Rachael> AWK: But this is not the personalization success criteria. This is the clear controls succes criteria.
16:14:01 <Rachael> AWK: Should this be bundled with the personalization success criteria? We need to make sure the criteria is technology independent.
16:14:27 <AWk> ack wayne
16:14:38 <Rachael> Lisa: You can check it works. That is one aspect. Even if you have done personalization. If you are on a platform that doesn't support personalization, then the controls need to be clear.
16:15:13 <Lisa_Seeman> wayne: if you go far out enoguh then you have to take responcibilty as an ather to make sure it is supported
16:15:14 <AWk> ack gower
16:16:03 <Lisa_Seeman> mike: current success crteria cover what you are asking for
16:17:40 <Lisa_Seeman> TOPIC: tsarget size
16:17:46 <Lisa_Seeman> TOPIC: target size
16:18:30 <JF> I have not submitted my survey results, but there are concerns here, so "6" have issues (and perhaps more)
16:18:41 <Lisa_Seeman> andrew: problem with implementability
16:19:07 <Lisa_Seeman> percribin a size would make the permer links to fail in wcag 2.0
16:19:08 <JF> Q+
16:20:04 <Lisa_Seeman> kathy: there are exceptions
16:20:41 <jamesn> q+
16:21:06 <gowerm> q+
16:21:33 <Lisa_Seeman> there were two alterntives, including having one dimentions
16:22:06 <Lisa_Seeman> also we are saying there is one way to do the key functions
16:22:37 <Lisa_Seeman> andrw: unless there was a way to represent wcag 2.0 it would fail
16:23:00 <Lisa_Seeman> kathie: there are ways you can dress that unless there are two links next to each other
16:23:16 <AWk> ack jf
16:24:04 <Lisa_Seeman> john f: is this grafics only?
16:24:12 <Wayne> q+
16:24:34 <Lisa_Seeman> how does an evalutor know whet the pointer input will be of the user
16:24:43 <Lisa_Seeman> what about a rubber tip pen
16:25:06 <AWk> ack james
16:25:28 <Lisa_Seeman> james: how do your define primary functions
16:26:01 <Lisa_Seeman> also sees conflicts
16:26:02 <AWk> ack gower
16:26:15 <Lisa_Seeman> mike: this is aimed at touch affordences
16:26:35 <Lisa_Seeman> what about mobile?
16:27:01 <Lisa_Seeman> and trying to apply it to desktop
16:27:16 <Lisa_Seeman> when it is about apps for mobile or at least mobile
16:27:33 <AWk> ack way
16:27:33 <Rachael> +1 to finding a way to specify interface that support touch
16:27:35 <Wayne> 44/16= 2.75 em, 22/16= 1.375 em
16:27:36 <Lisa_Seeman> maybe strip it down to represtn thea
16:28:04 <Lisa_Seeman> wayn: we are just asking a minumm size and desgn around it
16:28:09 <Lisa_Seeman> why is it so har
16:28:25 <Lisa_Seeman> mike: what about a foot note as a superscript
16:28:35 <Lisa_Seeman> wayn - well i can not hit them
16:28:54 <Lisa_Seeman> unless i mignafy them
16:29:11 <Lisa_Seeman> james: and we need to balance them
16:29:14 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
16:29:23 <AWk> ack lisa
16:29:26 <alastairc> s/mignafy/magnify
16:29:39 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
16:30:43 <Rachael> Lisa: People with dimensia or who are older are fantastic on their topics but learning new tools isn't going to happen. Even if Wayne is savvy enough to know he can tab to it or zoom it, there are still people who that will be a barrier to. Its a barrier because of a disability - the ability to learn has slowed down.
16:30:49 <EA> +1 to Lisa comments - it is a nightmare when trying to train us oldies on new things!
16:31:05 <Wayne> +1
16:31:11 <Rachael> Lisa: You can't always assume people will be managing to learn new tools.
16:31:26 <Rachael> AWK: Are we OK to talk about these two on Thursdays?
16:31:50 <Rachael> Lisa: Encourage people to read Neil's issue paper on clear controls. He isn't available on Thursday. Can we discuss personalization?
16:31:58 <Rachael> Its a crux issue.
16:32:03 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
16:32:07 <alastairc> Seem orthogonal to target size though.
16:32:10 <Pietro> Present+ Pietro
16:32:17 <Rachael> Andrew: We'll talk about personalization and target size on Thursday
16:32:27 <dboudreau> thanks all!
16:32:28 <gowerm> +1 "	Seem orthogonal to target size though."
16:32:33 <laura> bye
16:32:35 <AWk> trackbot, end meeting
16:32:35 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:32:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, Jim_S, alastairc, Lauriat, Laura, Melanie_Philipp, KimD, wilco, MikeGower, dboudreau, mhakkinen, MichaelC,
16:32:38 <Zakim> ... steverep, shwetank, marcjohlic, jeanne, Rachael, JanMcSorley, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Glenda, bruce-bailey, Wayne, JamesNurthen, Kathy, Makoto, Pietro
16:32:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:32:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:32:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:32:44 <RRSAgent> I see no action items