14:29:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:29:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-ag-irc
14:29:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:29:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:29:59 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:29:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:29:59 <trackbot> Date: 28 March 2017
14:30:01 <interaccess> zakim, agenda?
14:30:01 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
14:30:02 <Zakim> 1. ACTF: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTFrameworkFPWD/ [from AWK]
14:30:02 <Zakim> 2. Reminder about GitHub issue updating for SC managers [from AWK]
14:30:02 <Zakim> 3. Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/results (15 minutes each maximum) [from AWK]
14:30:03 <Zakim> 4. Thursday call agenda items [from AWK]
14:30:03 <Zakim> 5. COGA FPWD [from AWK]
14:33:03 <Joshue108> zakim, clear agenda
14:33:03 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:33:15 <Joshue108> agenda+ Reminder about GitHub issue updating for SC
14:33:23 <Joshue108> agenda+ Timeline/publishing plan
14:33:32 <Joshue108> agenda+ (Continued) Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/ (15 minutes each maximum)
14:33:42 <Joshue108> agenda+ Thursday call agenda items
14:40:38 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue
14:45:51 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
14:46:10 <KimD> KimD has left #ag
14:47:32 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
14:47:53 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
14:47:53 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:47:54 <Zakim> 1. Reminder about GitHub issue updating for SC [from Joshue108]
14:47:54 <Zakim> 2. Timeline/publishing plan [from Joshue108]
14:47:54 <Zakim> 3. (Continued) Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/ (15 minutes each maximum) [from Joshue108]
14:47:54 <Zakim> 4. Thursday call agenda items [from Joshue108]
14:48:18 <AWK> agenda+ ACT FPWD
14:48:43 <AWK> zakim, agenda order is 1, 5, 2, 3, 4
14:48:43 <Zakim> ok, AWK
14:49:01 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:49:01 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
14:49:04 <AWK> +AWK
14:49:05 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:49:05 <Zakim> Present: AWK
14:49:13 <AWK> Chair: Joshue
14:49:13 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:49:45 <AWK> Scribe: Wayne
14:50:58 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:50:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-ag-minutes.html AWK
14:51:15 <AWK> rrsagent, set logs public
14:52:19 <AWK> regrets+ EA_Draffan, Jim_Smith, Bruce_Bailey, Denis_Boudreau, Mike_Pluke
14:55:19 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
14:56:04 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
14:56:29 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
14:56:53 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
14:57:03 <AWK> regrets+ Mark_Hakkinen
14:57:20 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
14:58:20 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
14:59:07 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
14:59:29 <Lisa_Seeman> Lisa_Seeman has joined #ag
14:59:41 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:00:19 <shwetank> present+ shwetank
15:00:23 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:00:46 <Jan> Jan has joined #ag
15:00:49 <Lisa_Seeman> present+ Lisa
15:01:21 <adam_lund> adam_lund has joined #ag
15:01:43 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #ag
15:01:50 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:02:07 <adam_lund> present+ adam_lund
15:02:36 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:02:47 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #AG
15:03:23 <MichaelC> present+
15:04:01 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:04:28 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:04:29 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:04:58 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki
15:05:12 <laura> present+ Laura
15:05:15 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki/Proposals-for-new-Success-Criteria
15:05:31 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki/Tending-to-SC-Proposals
15:06:03 <alastairc> scribe: alastairc
15:06:11 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:06:24 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:06:35 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
15:08:43 <alastairc> AWK: Notes the instructions for current SC managers who are tending to the issues: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki/Tending-to-SC-Proposals
15:10:46 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
15:10:48 <alastairc> Zakim, take up item 1
15:10:48 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Reminder about GitHub issue updating for SC" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:10:59 <Wilco> present+
15:11:02 <kirkwood> present+
15:11:07 <Wayne> present+ Wayne
15:11:14 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:11:30 <Jan> present+ Jan
15:11:32 <David-MacDonald> David-MacDonald has joined #ag
15:12:30 <jnurthen> jnurthen has joined #ag
15:12:32 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki/Tending-to-SC-Proposals
15:13:03 <jnurthen> present+
15:13:15 <alastairc> Joshue108: Just a reminder to try and update your SCs please. And read through to the end, there are a few little things that can catch people out.
15:13:27 <Joshue108> q?
15:13:41 <alastairc> AWK: Please drop us a note when you've updated it.
15:14:17 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:14:24 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:14:31 <alastairc> Zakim, take up next item
15:14:31 <Zakim> agendum 5. "ACT FPWD" taken up [from AWK]
15:15:23 <AWK> regrets+ lauriat, Pietro
15:15:29 <alastairc> Wilco: 2 weeks ago we sent in the framework for review. We've had a couple of comments, we've addressed those. No major issues.
15:15:54 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTFrameworkFPWD/results
15:16:04 <alastairc> ... We did decide to change the name on the document, so it is now ACT Rules Formats. Changed to remove confusion with term 'framework'.
15:16:16 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
15:16:36 <alastairc> ... this is a format, so we went with 'format' for the new name. Apart from that we think it's ready for 1st draft, just need approval form the WG.
15:16:38 <AWK> ack lisa
15:17:28 <alastairc> Lisa_Seeman: Wondering if there's a proposal to also formulate to test against a baseline of technologies. People are asking for testing in 10 different places, how to manage where you should manage for the human side of testing?
15:17:45 <Joshue108> q+ to ask about the human side of testing? Do you mean manual testing?
15:18:10 <alastairc> ... e.g. a way of helping people to define what is a good way of testing with particular user agents, NVDA & JAWs in 2 browsers etc. How do we quantify this?
15:18:20 <Joshue108> q-
15:18:38 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:18:38 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:18:39 <Zakim> 5. ACT FPWD [from AWK]
15:18:39 <Zakim> 2. Timeline/publishing plan [from Joshue108]
15:18:39 <Zakim> 3. (Continued) Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/ (15 minutes each maximum) [from Joshue108]
15:18:39 <Zakim> 4. Thursday call agenda items [from Joshue108]
15:19:11 <alastairc> Wilco: We don't directly address that, I would suggest organisations have to decide their baseline for their scenario. What we do consider is taking accessibility support information into the testing processs. E.g. define the features required, and then work out if those features are available in the ATs.
15:20:30 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:20:42 <MichaelC> q+
15:20:52 <steverep> present+steverep
15:21:06 <Joshue108> ack mich
15:21:31 <alastairc> Joshua108: We'll have a CFC going out soon, please reply when you see it.
15:21:52 <alastairc> s/Joshua108/Joshue108
15:22:07 <alastairc> Zakim, take up next item
15:22:07 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Timeline/publishing plan" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:22:25 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline
15:22:28 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:22:41 <alastairc> Joshue108: A little update whilst we work on this. We have comments open until the end of March.
15:22:42 <KimD> Present+
15:22:57 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:22:57 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Kathy, Greg_Lowney, shwetank, alastairc, Lisa, Melanie_Philipp, adam_lund, Joshue108, MichaelC, Makoto, Laura, marcjohlic, Mike, Elledge, Glenda, Wilco, kirkwood,
15:23:00 <Zakim> ... Wayne, jeanne, Jan, jnurthen, jon_avila, steverep, KimD
15:23:36 <AWK> q+ to say that August 22 doesn't mean no further changes but no further additions
15:23:47 <alastairc> ... we're looking at publishing 5 working drafts over the next few months, then tools down at August 22nd. Then after TPAC (Nov) we'll have a wider review document before the new year.
15:23:52 <jnurthen> q+
15:24:01 <AWK> ack AWK
15:24:01 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that August 22 doesn't mean no further changes but no further additions
15:24:04 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:24:45 <alastairc> AWK: August 22 doesn't mean no further changes but no further additions, we'll be looking at refining things after that point.
15:24:48 <Lisa_Seeman> Q+
15:25:09 <alastairc> AWK: all the dates are on that wiki page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline
15:25:17 <AWK> ack jn
15:25:19 <Joshue108> ack jn
15:25:52 <alastairc> jamesn: One Working Draft a month, how will we address the comments between them? It seems strange.
15:26:19 <alastairc> AWK: Some groups are updating the drafts regularly, weekly or daily even. We're going a lot slower than that.
15:26:53 <alastairc> MichaelC: We may not be explicit about addressing comments until the later phases, and we can use the change-log to highlight changes.
15:27:17 <alastairc> jamesn: It's the feasibility, we'll have a ton of comments coming in, how do we address them on that schedule?
15:28:37 <alastairc> AWK: Need the WG to be comfortable with a couple of things - getting used to coming to consensus on new SCs. There being automatic turning the editors draft into the working draft, that will be what goes out.
15:29:28 <alastairc> AWK: Then comments will be coming in, if we can't address it that month, we'll have the change log, they can see what has changed (or not). We'll also need to indicate when comments are done and addressed.
15:29:51 <MichaelC> q+
15:29:57 <alastairc> ... in github.
15:30:03 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:30:09 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:32:48 <alastairc> Lisa_Seeman: I've been asking to bring back the TF co-ordination meeting for things like this. I've assumed we'll have a year to get things to a certain level, but now it is 5 months? E.g. getting people to buy in AT. Plus we haven't worked out a process to get the thornier SCs through, how to we build the consensus? That isn't in place, we need to work on the process of finding solutions and resolving issues first. What are the priorities in terms of
15:32:48 <alastairc>  balancing the user vs backwards compatibility.
15:33:15 <Lisa_Seeman> Q+
15:34:19 <Joshue108> ack michae
15:34:24 <alastairc> Joshue108: We've had a fairly clear timeline for 2.1, that shouldn't be a surprise. We've 3 task forces, and we're still planning to have the spec ready for June 2018. 2.1 will be within the 2.0 framework, so those parameters aren't changing much.
15:34:44 <AWK> q+
15:34:45 <laura> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:34:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-ag-minutes.html laura
15:35:31 <AWK> q+ to talk about the importance of making the timeline and whether all proposed SC will make it
15:35:32 <alastairc> MichaelC: On throughput of comments, only things which get into 2.1 will be ready, there is still 2.2 at a later date. We are not going to cram un-reviewed things into it. Balancing the previous comments.
15:35:39 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:36:17 <alastairc> Lisa_Seeman: There's a big difference between stopping putting in new SC in Aug vs Dec, that's a shock. It's a high impact decision.
15:37:15 <alastairc> Joshue108: If there are SCs that need more time, the WG can consider that, especially if there are good reasons for it taking more time. But, it is not pushing the schedule ahead, we're just drawing a line between drafting and refining, what goes into the final CR.
15:37:17 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:37:17 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about the importance of making the timeline and whether all proposed SC will make it
15:37:39 <Lisa_Seeman> Absolutely shocked
15:39:08 <alastairc> AWK: To underscore, WCAG 2.1 needs to get out on the charter timeline. We have had a great deal of scrutiny on this point, it was the largest sticking point. If we have to put out CR in Jan 2018, we have to stop putting in new stuff and refine what goes in there. That is v. important.
15:39:57 <alastairc> ... There are challenges, and we shouldn't count the number going it to 2.1 yet. No one is saying the new SCs are bad ideas, but there are many challenges to new SCs. Deciding the schedule is a WG decision, changing is also a WG decision. We are not serving our users or our sanity to keep adding things in at the last minute.
15:40:15 <alastairc> ... this is all part of the schedule in the charter.
15:41:14 <AWK> q+ to say that the timeline isn't a TF coordination issue
15:41:16 <Glenda> Q+
15:41:38 <alastairc> Lisa_Seeman: I think this needs a TF call with the TF chairs, there are other ways we can address the deadline issues. I don't agree with this.
15:41:41 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:41:41 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the timeline isn't a TF coordination issue
15:42:07 <Glenda> my mantra is…2.1, 2.2, 2.3.  All will be well.
15:42:18 <JF> +1 to AWK - the timeline is a Working Group discussion and decision
15:43:13 <Joshue108> ack glenda
15:43:16 <alastairc> AWK: The timeline isn't a TF call issue, we can have that call, but it isn't a TF co-ord issue. How we work within the TFs, that is. The WG is the body that decides on timeline. Three questions: comments on timeline, whether people agree with additions to Ed Draft to go through CFC, and whether we're confortable for those drafts to be published now for the upcoming drafts.
15:43:43 <jeanne> +1 Glenda
15:43:52 <alastairc> Glenda: Have no problems with the proposed timeline, as 2.1 isn't the end. Could go to 2.2 / sliver.
15:44:11 <Makoto> +1 to Glenda
15:44:13 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
15:44:18 <alastairc> Joshue108: Urge everyone to consider the bigger picture of publishing WCAG 2.1
15:44:28 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:44:33 <JF> s/sliver/silver
15:45:33 <alastairc> Lisa_Seeman: With August (no further SCs), the change (today) of cut-off date, people aren't going to see them all.
15:45:37 <David-MacDonald> q+
15:46:46 <alastairc> AWK: That may be true, it is not specifically for COGA, we've got a lot in and most have received a review. It isn't fair to say they won't get looked at, perhaps if they were looked at more it might help, but we do have a timeline to keep to. There has to be a cut off point.
15:47:35 <alastairc> Joshue108: These dates come from consideration of W3C process and experience of people doing this before. If there are SCs that fit into WCAG 2.0 framework more easily, front-load those in the queu.
15:47:36 <Joshue108> ack david
15:47:55 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:47:55 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:47:56 <Zakim> 2. Timeline/publishing plan [from Joshue108]
15:47:56 <Zakim> 3. (Continued) Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/ (15 minutes each maximum) [from Joshue108]
15:47:56 <Zakim> 4. Thursday call agenda items [from Joshue108]
15:48:35 <Lisa_Seeman> this august date has just been thown at us. no discusion before
15:48:41 <alastairc> David-MacDonald: I was one of the people who wanted a longer timeline, but the group spoke, and I've learned over the years that when we make a decision, I go with it. I think August is reasonable for the deadline we have.
15:49:38 <alastairc> AWK: Just want to make sure we get from the group, are there concerns about our 'automatic' generation of the working drafts from the editors draft? Propose a CFC.
15:49:49 <alastairc> I had assumed we would do that anyway...
15:49:59 <alastairc> Zakim, take up item 3
15:49:59 <Zakim> agendum 3. "(Continued) Survey of SC Proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/March14SCReviews/ (15 minutes each maximum)" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:50:37 <alastairc> Joshue108: One of the SCs close to consensus was User Interface Component Contrast, would like to start there.
15:50:40 <Joshue108> TOPIC: User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum)
15:50:44 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10
15:51:20 <alastairc> Joshue108: Had you updated it Glenda? What come out.
15:52:21 <alastairc> Glenda: Great feedback last week, working with the suggestions, updated the text. Removed 'thereof'. Tried to add a definition.
15:53:12 <Joshue108> q?
15:53:27 <David-MacDonald> q+
15:53:48 <Joshue108> ack davi
15:53:51 <alastairc> Joshue108: Pretty close to being ready? Can people please have a look at the updated SC and let us know if you can live with it.
15:54:38 <Wayne> q+
15:54:53 <alastairc> David-MacDonald: Would it be better to have just one ratio for all graphical objects? Is the higher ratio needed for objects compared to text?
15:54:54 <Glenda> Failure examples http://glendathegood.com/a11y/lvtf/submitbuttonbordernota11y.html
15:56:22 <alastairc> Glenda: we don't have consensus on that yet, would be good for the group to look at those. These demo borders show items with under-contrasting graphics.
15:56:44 <Joshue108> q?
15:56:47 <alastairc> Glenda: Without having low-vision it is hard for me to say. Can any one chime in?
15:56:53 <jon_avila> I would be fine with 3:1 for borders -- just personal opinion
15:57:03 <Joshue108> ack wayn
15:57:28 <AWK> q+
15:57:29 <Joshue108> q+ to say I'd rather push for the highest possible
15:57:33 <Greg> q+ to say the "Thicker" list item needs to say "at least" rather than an absolute ratio
15:57:35 <marcjohlic> q+
15:57:39 <alastairc> Wayne: I could look through it, I really have a hard time finding focus indicators. I'll look at it. Previously we made a mistake with 3:1 previously.
15:57:51 <jon_avila> for focus indicators I would want 4.5:1
15:57:55 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:58:53 <alastairc> AWK: In the examples (very helpful), it is borders, but what about other examples? E.g. it has a pencil graphic inside that has good contrast?
15:59:32 <alastairc> Glenda: Then we get down to 'essential', is that the visual indicator? If that meets contrast is it enough?
16:00:39 <alastairc> Glenda: Had a question about combo-boxes without borders, but there are little visual indicators, so those would pass.
16:01:35 <Kathy_> Kathy_ has joined #ag
16:01:38 <Wayne> q+
16:01:45 <alastairc> AWK: depends what graphical object is defined as?
16:02:09 <alastairc> alastairc: My go at graphical object: https://alastairc.ac/2017/03/graphics-contrast/#graphical-object
16:02:46 <David-MacDonald> This is what I would suggest to simplify "The visual presentation of all essential graphical objects for user interface components has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding color(s), it is disabled or otherwise inactive user interface components are exempt from this requirement."
16:02:47 <alastairc> Glenda: A keyboard focus indicator is covered, but what makes that a keyboard focus is flexible.
16:03:23 <AWK> Information in graphical objects used for user interface components which is essential for comprehension has a contrast ratio of ...
16:03:54 <alastairc> Joshue108: If someone wants a visual focus indicator, is that covered?
16:04:00 <Joshue108> ack me
16:04:00 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say I'd rather push for the highest possible
16:04:05 <Joshue108> ack greg
16:04:05 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say the "Thicker" list item needs to say "at least" rather than an absolute ratio
16:04:09 <David-MacDonald> oops   >The visual presentation of all essential graphical objects for user interface components has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding color(s), unless it is disabled or otherwise inactive.
16:04:15 <alastairc> Glenda: This one covered interface components and focus indicator.
16:04:42 <alastairc> Greg: Have a problem with a figure thing
16:05:16 <Greg> The phrase “or (one of) their border line(s)” is potentially problematic: if a rectangle is drawn with only one side being thick, the 3:1 would apply to the entire border, including the thin lines, and that does not seem to meet the goal.
16:05:40 <alastairc> ... it needs to say 'at least' rather than an absolute ratio. also, what about having a rectangle where the border isn't uniform.
16:05:47 <Greg> "A contrast ratio of *at least* 3:1 is required where either the graphical object or *its border has* a minimum width and height of at least 3 CSS pixels."
16:06:02 <Glenda> Proposal…we drop back to 3 to 1 and loose thicker
16:06:27 <jnurthen> q+ to say I strongly disagree with not allowing the default focus indicator - I much prefer my chrome focus indicator to site-specific ones. I don't want that to go away.
16:06:30 <alastairc> Glenda: And all of this is moot if we move to 3:1 only.
16:06:36 <Kathy_> What about multi colored essential graphics.
16:06:49 <AWK> q+ to ask Greg if he feels that a control must have a border all the way around
16:06:55 <alastairc> Greg: yep, keep that around if that exception comes back.
16:07:44 <alastairc> Glenda: Will change the 'at least'. The partial borderline what me being minimalist, trying not to dictate design, and overlaps with essential.
16:07:50 <Joshue108> q?
16:07:59 <alastairc> Glenda: we need to step back and keep it minimal.
16:08:03 <David-MacDonald> q+
16:08:31 <Lisa_Seeman> +1 to josh
16:08:33 <alastairc> Joshue108: Is minimal being under-specifying? Would rather start stronger then step back from it.
16:08:48 <Joshue108> ack marc
16:09:23 <Joshue108> +1 to having one measurement that was strong.
16:09:45 <Joshue108> -1 to the 3 pixels thing - I don't know how people would measure that.
16:09:54 <alastairc> marcjohlic: would we keep the thicker? If we go to 3:1 we lose that exception, sounds like this is covered, like having just one ratio. Although, what if the example with the down-triangle is very small?
16:10:34 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:11:40 <alastairc> Wayne: Two things: when a person is looking at a page, they have to determine that it is a control, then understand it. With just text without a border you couldn't tell, with a clear icon that would be understandable.
16:12:08 <alastairc> .. there is a cognitive process involved.
16:12:14 <kirkwood> agreed
16:12:34 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:12:34 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask Greg if he feels that a control must have a border all the way around
16:12:45 <AWK> https://goo.gl/forms/Af0E6ElBFKPaAWGe2
16:13:37 <alastairc> AWK: Does the border need to go all the way around? I'd say this should fail in initial view, it has one very light line. If the focus style was there it might be ok?
16:14:26 <alastairc> Greg: I'd say a border is required all the way around depends on usage. I can probably find examples, e.g. a list of words which are actually buttons, a line appears between them, and you can't tell if it is the word either side.
16:14:45 <alastairc> ... in this case, having the thick underline underneath is probably sufficient.
16:15:10 <Wayne> What if we devised a test with a page that embeds controls in more or less obvious ways and ask out LV members to find and evaluate the controls.
16:15:17 <alastairc> AWK: In which case we wouldn't require it for all the way around?
16:15:19 <Glenda> Greg, I think we are dancing near the line of poor design / bad usability for all.
16:16:37 <jon_avila> standard controls can be modified with CSS
16:16:46 <AWK> +1 Jon Avila
16:17:08 <alastairc> Greg: I agree that would be a problem, we'd be requiring that. In cases where the built in things fails, we'd be failing everything on certain browsers. Another approach would be to apply it to custom controls.  So default controls work, but if you customise them then you need to meet the contrast requirements.
16:17:22 <Mike_Elledge_> Mike_Elledge_ has joined #ag
16:17:39 <Joshue108> ack jnur
16:17:39 <Greg> Thus, I would recommend that this type of SC only apply to custom or customized controls.
16:17:39 <Zakim> jnurthen, you wanted to say I strongly disagree with not allowing the default focus indicator - I much prefer my chrome focus indicator to site-specific ones. I don't want that to
16:17:42 <Zakim> ... go away.
16:17:47 <jon_avila> Bad design affect people with disabilities differently
16:18:06 <kirkwood> agree with James on focus indicator through browser
16:18:27 <kirkwood> +1 to james
16:18:28 <jon_avila> Some authors hide the focus indicator with outline:none
16:18:34 <alastairc> jnurthen: I don't like it preventing my default indicator, would rather not have it fail. It's a fail of the browser, not the content.
16:19:02 <alastairc> jnurthen: outline none is a fail, agree.
16:19:05 <marcjohlic> +1 to jamesn - should only apply when dev uses a custom focus indicator.  Using default UA focus indicator should be allowed.
16:19:19 <kirkwood> Browser focus indicators through user agent are very good for COGA
16:19:29 <jon_avila> Some people use only background colors changes to indicator focus -- background goes away in high contrast.  But high contrast mode seems to put focus indicator back even if outline: none was set.
16:19:33 <Glenda> How do I raise this to the User Agents?  UAAG?
16:19:42 <steverep> q+ to comment on focus indicators
16:19:44 <alastairc> Joshue108: This is one that is due to poor UA implementation, but I hear there is still a requirement for contrast.
16:19:48 <Joshue108> ack davi
16:20:23 <alastairc> David-MacDonald: I'm not sure this language requires us to have sufficient contrast on focus indicators. do we want that?
16:20:31 <Glenda> see proposed definition…y’all made me take out the reference to visual focus indicators (out of the SC)…based on last week.  (sad face)
16:21:01 <jnurthen> but you would fail the "color alone" standard
16:21:04 <Joshue108> Glenda, could you speak about that nextt?
16:21:10 <alastairc> ... there is the contrast between the interface components, and their background, then the focus indicator and the background elements.
16:21:26 <David-MacDonald> The visual presentation of all essential graphical objects for user interface components and their focus indicators, has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding color(s), unless it is disabled or otherwise inactive.
16:21:42 <Joshue108> ack steve
16:21:42 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to comment on focus indicators
16:22:49 <alastairc> Steverep: Wanted to comment on focus indicators form LV point of view. The default indicators on several browsers would fail, there is a reason AT changes that. The AT options I have are things like frames, blocks of colour, underline and more.
16:23:20 <kirkwood> Steve, the focus indicators “indeed fail”? If that is true then my comment is not correct.
16:23:57 <alastairc> ... Difference between focus indicator and meeting it in all states of the page, whether it's in focus or not. I view it as, if you change a button it still needs to meet colour contrast.
16:24:11 <Wayne> +1 all browsers fail
16:24:20 <marcjohlic> q+
16:24:22 <laura> Some people with low vision don’t use AT.
16:25:05 <Wayne> q+
16:25:14 <alastairc> Glenda: The entire time the SC had three separate things, which was taken out last week, and it has caused more confusion. There should be no question that it applies.
16:25:25 <alastairc> ... will put it back.
16:25:28 <Joshue108> ack marc
16:26:26 <kirkwood> +1 to Marc
16:26:28 <alastairc> marcjohlic: Is there room to say that it applies once you've messed with the focus indidator? Then put the default off to Silver. Big issue to tell people they have to style it when they have relied on the default.
16:26:29 <steverep> Could we just say "in all states of the page" or imply it another way?
16:26:46 <jnurthen> q+
16:27:22 <alastairc> Joshue108: Does bring up that question, if you need higher contrast. If that can be done in the AT...
16:28:00 <alastairc> Glenda: It is so confusing to deal with user-agents doing it wrong, and say that's ok, but then say the developers have to do it right. I don't think the burden is that great.
16:28:16 <Greg> q+ to point out that UAAG 2.0 defines and uses a number of terms relating to focus indication, which we should use if and where we discuss those concepts.
16:28:18 <alastairc> ... The oreo method allows you to do it ones in your CSS.
16:28:23 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:29:54 <jon_avila> We need a minimum level of support without having to apply AT or extensions to every website.
16:30:02 <alastairc> Wayne: You assume people use AT, many of us think the approved AT (magnifiers) is bogus, I've proved it costs people 40 times the work. It was very difficult based on WCAG 2.0.
16:30:18 <laura> +1 to wayne
16:30:41 <alastairc> Joshue108: We're trying to improve things, it does impact the SCs. Not intention
16:30:42 <Joshue108> ack jame
16:31:27 <Wayne> +1 on familiariy
16:31:45 <Joshue108> ack jn
16:31:48 <kirkwood> agree that being different focus indicator on every site will increase cognitive load and therefore less accessible
16:31:56 <alastairc> jnurthen: Ideal would be if the browsers met the contrast requirement, that's the end game. If we get every website to do it, they will do it differently, that will make things harder. You'd make it unfamiliar. you can do that in firefox, Chrome's is ok, could be better. that has to be the way to go.
16:31:58 <marcjohlic> +1
16:32:23 <shwetank> +1
16:32:23 <Joshue108> ack greg
16:32:23 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to point out that UAAG 2.0 defines and uses a number of terms relating to focus indication, which we should use if and where we discuss those concepts.
16:32:27 <kirkwood> +1 to James
16:32:37 <Joshue108> ack greg
16:32:44 <marcjohlic> +1 to Greg
16:32:49 <alastairc> Greg: UAAG defines terms related to focus and indicators, please reference.
16:32:55 <alastairc> +1
16:32:56 <laura> +1
16:33:04 <David-MacDonald> + to the amended 1 contrast ratio one
16:33:05 <AWK> +.75
16:33:09 <Wayne> +1
16:33:16 <Glenda> +1
16:33:20 <Joshue108> +1
16:33:25 <JF> +1
16:33:26 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:33:28 <MelanieP> +1
16:33:29 <KimD> +1 to "going the right direction" but -1 because we don't have the final yet
16:33:32 <Makoto> +1
16:33:42 <Greg> I'd like to see the updated wording before voting on it.
16:33:55 <Glenda> (I’m out of town on Thursday…I won’t be able to make the Thursday meeting)
16:34:12 <marcjohlic> +1 going in right direction (one 3:1 min) - but would rather not force change of default indicator reqs - follow uaag - and if you customize it then this applies
16:34:12 <Jan> +1 to seeing the updated wording
16:34:32 <KimD> +1 to revisiting
16:34:44 <Joshue108> q?
16:34:45 <shwetank> +1 to revisting
16:34:45 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Leave open, with final contrast ratio to be determined next week.
16:35:23 <alastairc> Lisa_Seeman: This is where we needed a process that doesn't take up as much time as this. Perhaps we can use the thursday call to resolve it.
16:35:35 <alastairc> Joshue108: We need to discuss topics for thursday on email.
16:36:02 <laura> Bye all.
16:36:04 <alastairc> trackbot, end meeting
16:36:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:36:04 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Kathy, Greg_Lowney, shwetank, alastairc, Lisa, Melanie_Philipp, adam_lund, Joshue108, MichaelC, Makoto, Laura, marcjohlic, Mike,
16:36:06 <Mike_Elledge> bye
16:36:07 <Zakim> ... Elledge, Glenda, Wilco, kirkwood, Wayne, jeanne, Jan, jnurthen, jon_avila, steverep, KimD, .75
16:36:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:36:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:36:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:36:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items