14:48:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:48:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/11-ag-irc
14:49:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:49:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:49:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:49:03 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:49:03 <trackbot> Date: 11 April 2017
14:49:16 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
14:49:16 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
14:49:17 <Zakim> 3. Adapting Text [from Joshue108]
14:49:17 <Zakim> 4. Accidental activation [from Joshue108]
14:49:55 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
14:50:00 <AWK> zakim, clear agenda
14:50:00 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:50:05 <interaccess> trackbot, start meeting
14:50:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:50:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:50:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:50:11 <trackbot> Date: 11 April 2017
14:50:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:50:12 <AWK> agenda+ WCAG 2.1 progress/expectation/pace - brief discussion
14:50:18 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
14:50:23 <AWK> agenda+ New techniques work
14:50:30 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
14:50:33 <AWK> agenda+  Three new SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/
14:50:45 <AWK> agenda+ Thursday call agenda items
14:50:58 <AWK> agenda+ TPAC F2F
14:51:12 <interaccess> Chair: Joshue
14:51:13 <AWK> zakim, agenda order is 5,1,2,3,4
14:51:13 <Zakim> ok, AWK
14:52:51 <AWK> regrets+ Mike_Elledge, EA_draffan, Rachael, Neil_Milliken, Denis_Boudreau, Jim_Smith
14:53:15 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:53:18 <AWK> Scribe: Kathy
14:53:43 <AWK> Next week's Scribe is Laura.
14:53:48 <jasonjgw> present+
14:54:07 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:54:07 <Zakim> Present: Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Glenda, Laura, jasonjgw, david-macdonald, Joshue108, steverep, ScottM, JF, erich, Shawn, Katie_Haritos-Shea, kirkwood, KimD
14:54:30 <AWK> Present: jasonjgw
14:54:35 <AWK> +AWK
14:54:37 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:54:37 <Zakim> Present: jasonjgw, AWK
14:55:36 <Jake> Jake has joined #ag
14:55:57 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
14:57:28 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
14:57:41 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
14:58:12 <allanj> present+
14:58:51 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
14:59:02 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:00:26 <Kathy> scribe: Kathy
15:00:43 <adaml> adaml has joined #ag
15:01:06 <KimD> Present+ KimD
15:01:19 <kirkwood> prsent+ kirkwood
15:01:33 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:01:39 <laura> present+ Laura
15:01:41 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:01:48 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
15:01:52 <JF> present+ JF
15:01:55 <kirkwood> present+ kirkwood
15:01:55 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:01:56 <Lauriat> Present+ Lauriat
15:02:07 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:02:11 <adaml> present+ adam_lund
15:02:20 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:02:33 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce-bailey
15:02:38 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:02:39 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:02:39 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:02:40 <Zakim> 5. TPAC F2F [from AWK]
15:02:40 <Zakim> 1. WCAG 2.1 progress/expectation/pace - brief discussion [from AWK]
15:02:40 <Zakim> 2. New techniques work [from AWK]
15:02:40 <Zakim> 3. Three new SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/ [from AWK]
15:02:40 <Zakim> 4. Thursday call agenda items [from AWK]
15:03:00 <jasonjgw> present+ jasonjgw
15:03:19 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:04:12 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:12 <Zakim> Present: jasonjgw, AWK, Kathy, allanj, Joshue108, KimD, Laura, JF, kirkwood, Makoto, Lauriat, adam_lund, Melanie_Philipp, bruce-bailey
15:04:33 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:04:53 <Kathy> Josh - new member Chris
15:04:59 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:05:04 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:05:18 <steverep> present+steverep
15:05:19 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
15:05:50 <MichaelC> present+
15:05:54 <Jake> Jake has joined #ag
15:06:11 <david-macdonald> present +david-macdonald
15:06:30 <david-macdonald> zakim, who's here?
15:06:30 <Zakim> Present: jasonjgw, AWK, Kathy, allanj, Joshue108, KimD, Laura, JF, kirkwood, Makoto, Lauriat, adam_lund, Melanie_Philipp, bruce-bailey, MikeGower, steverep, Glenda, MichaelC
15:06:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see Jake, steverep, david-macdonald, gowerm, Glenda, bruce_bailey, Lauriat, JF, Makoto, adaml, KimD, Kathy, MelanieP, laura, marcjohlic, Joshue108, RRSAgent, AWK, jeanne,
15:06:33 <Zakim> ... allanj, kirkwood, MichaelC, jasonjgw, Zakim, yatil, csarven, trackbot
15:06:37 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:07:01 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
15:07:12 <Glenda> Can you post a link on how to sign up for scribing?
15:07:26 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:07:40 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:07:43 <laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
15:07:50 <Kathy> another new member Jake
15:08:13 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #AG
15:08:20 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:09:30 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:10:19 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:10:19 <Zakim> agendum 5. "TPAC F2F" taken up [from AWK]
15:10:33 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AGWG_TPAC2017/
15:10:33 <AWK> q+
15:10:37 <Kathy> Josh: we will have a meeting at TPAC
15:10:45 <Kathy> held in November
15:11:02 <Kathy> in California
15:11:09 <Jake> JF => http://www.pepemilan.com/resize.php?imagen=galeria/articulos/modelo-z614-horma-cuba-toga-snake-metal-azul-par_180_5.jpg&ancho=1500&alto=1065
15:11:13 <Kathy> there will also be remote participation
15:11:25 <Kathy> we need to figure out the preference for days
15:12:30 <AWK> q+
15:12:33 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #ag
15:12:41 <Kathy> alot of people said they only want 2 days - then we need to figure out the days
15:12:42 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:12:55 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:12:57 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:13:10 <Kathy> Andrew - we have taskforces that want to meet
15:13:15 <Wayne> Present+ Wayne
15:13:26 <Kathy> Michael - there can be separate meetings for the taskforces
15:14:23 <Kathy> Michael - there will be conflicts so we should schedule what is needed
15:14:43 <Ryladog> q+
15:14:50 <Kathy> Andrew - we may not have control over what days we will have
15:15:42 <AWK> ack r
15:16:21 <Kathy> Katie - the other groups have not decided on the days, should not use the Wed for meetings
15:16:39 <Kathy> Michael - Wed is a good day to learn more about what is happening
15:16:51 <AWK> Proposed resolution: WCAG will meet at TPAC, days TBD.
15:17:41 <Kathy> Resolution: AG meeting will be happening at TPAC
15:18:05 <Glenda> What is the host hotel?
15:18:14 <Kathy> Michael - recommend booking hotels nwo
15:18:24 <MichaelC> -> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/ TPAC 2017
15:19:24 <Kathy> link is not working
15:20:30 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
15:20:48 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:20:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/11-ag-minutes.html jamesn
15:20:53 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:20:53 <Zakim> agendum 1. "WCAG 2.1 progress/expectation/pace - brief discussion" taken up [from AWK]
15:21:22 <jamesn> present+
15:22:10 <Kathy> Josh - been through a lot and wanted to talk through peoples concerns
15:23:00 <Kathy> wanted to talk about managing expectations
15:23:29 <Ryladog> q+
15:24:07 <Joshue108> q+
15:25:05 <Kathy> Andrew - know there are concerns about the pace and how we are going to get through all 55 SC.  The work we are doing is ongoing.  It is challenging to find solutions for all good ideas.  We need to be practical and identify the failings in the language.  If we put it out without the appropriate language it will get a lot of comments and potential of being rejected.  This is hard
15:25:19 <JF> Q+
15:25:47 <Kathy> we don't know how many we will get completed.  Good to have a few that are implementable and testable
15:25:57 <AWK> ack ry
15:26:59 <Wayne> q+
15:27:13 <Joshue108> ack me
15:27:16 <Kathy> Katie - keep in mind there is a monthly release.  Not surprised that we got comments.  We will experience burn out if we are releasing too frequently.  What ever that means... 4, 5, 6 months to get good comments
15:27:31 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask where outsider comments are posted
15:27:44 <jamesn> big +1 to Katie
15:28:07 <Kathy> Josh - want us to all manage the work at a good sustainable pace.  People are feeling pressure and we need to work at what we can do
15:28:21 <Kathy> this is a .1 release and there may be another version
15:28:24 <bruce_bailey> nominally, 2.1 comment are here:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agwg-comments/
15:28:30 <Joshue108> ack Jf
15:28:31 <bruce_bailey> but that is not the full set...
15:28:49 <Ryladog> +1 to watching our own nervous systems and mental health
15:29:01 <KimD> +1 to taking a reasonable pace and quality being "job 1"
15:29:01 <Kathy> John - earlier this year at CSUN there were conversations that we may want to publish what we have at the readiness of where we are at
15:29:28 <Kathy> we have a lot of good proposals and research.  There is alot of documentation that is scattered about
15:29:45 <Kathy> we may want to publish it but state where it is at
15:29:57 <kirkwood> +1 to John on publishing as is
15:30:20 <Kathy> Josh - there was a thread about this.  W3C looks for cutting edge.  We could publish as non-normative
15:30:22 <Joshue108> ack wayne
15:31:10 <AWK> q+ to say that WCAG is not setting national law
15:31:10 <Kathy> Wayne - I am worried about legal responsibility.  We become national law.  The impression we give is that we meet the needs of people with disabilities.  People do not have any legal recourse
15:31:50 <Kathy> ... barriers for  a user with low vision to be a programmer
15:32:05 <Kathy> ... we are putting people at risk - we should be doing no harm
15:32:52 <Kathy> Josh - github is the platform that was chosen and we could use other tools but that will take research
15:33:03 <Ryladog> Clarifying that my comment was also mostly about getting other to take commenting on our work seriously - like it has to this point. We need to make it do-able for the important orgnizations and individuals who commented on the FPWD, to be able to assign experinced staff to provide the thoughtful comments that they have. We cannot expect them to do that every month.
15:33:22 <Kathy> Wayne - in the research we found that this was not sustainable.  This is a barrier for users with low vision but meets wcag 2.0
15:33:43 <Kathy> Josh- we need to bridge the gaps and looking for guideance in the low vision
15:33:47 <Glenda> q?
15:33:59 <AWK> q-
15:34:36 <Joshue108> ack bruce
15:34:36 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask where outsider comments are posted
15:34:37 <Kathy> ... we have a lot of competing needs and we are listening to the requirements and balancing these needs
15:34:55 <Kathy> Bruce - there were comments that we are not responding to yet
15:34:56 <AWK> My only point is that we need to be clear that WCAG 2.x doesn't result in full accessibility and ideally we will signal rolling updates to continually bridge the gap.
15:35:15 <david-macdonald> tinyurl.com/jmo9st4
15:35:17 <Kathy> ... are those github numbers
15:35:17 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/
15:35:30 <Kathy> David - there is a list of all the comments
15:35:47 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
15:36:01 <Pietro> Present+ Pietro
15:36:09 <Kathy> Josh - that is useful.  To speak briefly on the comments.  SC managers will be the responder for the comment and to suggest the response
15:36:10 <Joshue108> q?
15:36:47 <Kathy> Josh - we need to keep focused and on quality
15:36:49 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:36:49 <Zakim> agendum 2. "New techniques work" taken up [from AWK]
15:37:10 <Kathy> Josh - SC work is good but we need to back up this with techniques
15:37:24 <Kathy> we need to start thinking about the techniques
15:37:33 <Kathy> q+
15:37:48 <Kathy> ... we need to figure out how this will work and the TF
15:38:01 <Joshue108> ack kathy
15:38:17 <Joshue108> KW: There is already a lot of work done.
15:38:26 <Joshue108> KW: We will need to go back to that and review etc
15:38:49 <Kathy> Josh - there will be expertise in the TF
15:39:00 <Joshue108> KW: And make sure none of this is lost.
15:39:28 <Kathy> Wayne - we have been working on collecting the difficult pages when we try to implement the SC and the techniques
15:39:55 <Kathy> bad page is where we can identify what is going on to discuss techniques on how to remedy this
15:39:59 <Kathy> that is where we are at
15:40:06 <laura> It also has info on Testability:
15:40:07 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Testabilty
15:40:13 <Kathy> Laura - for issues 78 we are thinking of a strategy for this
15:40:57 <Joshue108> q?
15:41:03 <Kathy> Josh - keep this in the back of your mind.  we will put formal structure for this in the coming weeks
15:41:07 <Kathy> Josh - keep this in the back of your mind.  we will put formal structure for this in the coming weeks
15:41:13 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:41:13 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Thursday call agenda items" taken up [from AWK]
15:41:22 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:41:22 <Zakim> agendum 4 was just opened, Kathy
15:41:48 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:41:48 <Zakim> agendum 4 was just opened, Kathy
15:42:02 <MichaelC> zakim, close item 4
15:42:02 <Zakim> agendum 4, Thursday call agenda items, closed
15:42:03 <Zakim> I see nothing remaining on the agenda
15:42:03 <Kathy> zakim, take up agenda item 5
15:42:03 <Zakim> 'item\ 5' does not match any agenda item, Kathy
15:42:06 <MichaelC> agenda?
15:42:18 <Kathy> TOPIC: SC Review
15:42:24 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017April5_top3/results
15:42:41 <Kathy> Josh - kick off Accidental Activation
15:42:54 <Kathy> it is a SC from mobile taskforce
15:43:01 <Pietro_> Pietro_ has joined #ag
15:43:12 <Kathy> there were a few comments
15:43:38 <marcjohlic> believe so - the options
15:43:50 <marcjohlic> but threw me off with the link
15:44:20 <Kathy> there were comments on the accessbility support
15:44:24 <laura> s/It also has info on Testability:/The Issue 78 Options Wiki page for the survey has info on Testability/
15:44:29 <Kathy> are there any objections
15:45:05 <Kathy> Resolution: accept Accidental Activation
15:45:24 <Kathy> RESOLUTION: Accept Accidental Activation SC
15:46:46 <Kathy> Josh - Support Personalization
15:46:47 <Kathy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results
15:47:06 <Kathy> TOPIC: Support Personalization
15:47:11 <Joshue108> Support Personalization / Issue 6
15:47:15 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6
15:47:29 <Joshue108> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/#support-personalization-minimum
15:48:04 <Kathy> there were no thumbs up for this SC
15:48:05 <Joshue108> q?
15:48:50 <Joshue108> KW: It is not clear what is being asked to be done beyond what is done in 1.3.1. or 4.1.2
15:49:00 <Joshue108> KW: It seems like a lot of this is already covered.
15:49:19 <Joshue108> KW: Not sure about diff between control and screen.
15:49:26 <gowerm> q+
15:49:55 <Joshue108> ack gow
15:50:06 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 15 minutes
15:50:06 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:50:12 <Kathy> Mike: is there someone from Coga on the phone?
15:50:30 <Kathy> John: I am on the call and will relay to Lisa
15:51:20 <Kathy> Wayne: there are classifications and was wondering if essential term is good enough
15:51:34 <JF> Q+
15:52:00 <Kathy> could also be tightened up... I don't understand what the techniques would be for this
15:52:04 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:52:31 <Kathy> JohnF: concerned about the wording of the SC.  It seems to suggest a separate version
15:52:48 <Kathy> ... history has shown us that we should not have a parallel version
15:53:26 <Kathy> James: 5 controls per screen is not enough to do anything
15:53:43 <Greg> John, would it be okay if it make it clearer that it means a version or presentation option is available?
15:53:54 <Kathy> how do you know what is essential functionality.  People could be using the system differently
15:54:03 <Wayne> q+
15:54:15 <AWK> +1 to james
15:54:16 <Glenda> q+
15:54:16 <Joshue108> ack wayne
15:54:39 <Kathy> Wayne: WCAG 2.0 answered that by if you can throw this out of the page then it is not essential
15:54:51 <Kathy> James: then everything is essential
15:55:07 <Kathy> JohnF: there is a difference between applications and webpages
15:55:26 <KimD> +1 to James N - "we don't put anything on the page that isn't essential" for a customer to use it.
15:55:40 <Joshue108> ack glenda
15:56:57 <Kathy> Glenda: context is important on the number; change to number for each chunk.  In the future you could have an overlay through personalization
15:57:02 <jasonjgw> q+
15:57:21 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:58:16 <Joshue108> q+
15:58:20 <Kathy> Jason: you can limit the number of controls by having control at a deeper level; that may not make it easier for the user.  Now harder to find controls.  Understand the rational but having a number is not the right way to achieve it
15:58:33 <Wayne> +1
15:59:17 <JF> Question: would a five-button "fly-out" menu, with each of those five top-level buttons containing 5 more navigation choices... would that meet the "Maximum of 5" criteria?
15:59:27 <Joshue108> I also dont think we can restrict authors in that way as they design content for users in a way that they hope supports their needs in the first place.
15:59:34 <Joshue108> q-
15:59:39 <Glenda> If we could have an ability to semantically identify what is absolutely essential for the “chunk” you are focused on now.  Rather than setting a number of only 5 controls, an ability to only see the absolute essential controls.  Could even later add the semantic ability to prioritize controls (just like heading levels).  So…future semantic thinking here…but it could lead to overlays that let you filter out anything extra.
16:00:00 <Kathy> ... we don't know what is required to satisfy the proposal and it is not testable.  We need to develop the AT before we start putting SC in place
16:00:28 <Kathy> ... it is too early to determine what is required
16:01:21 <Kathy> David: Jason covered my comments.  I can see require authors do something to help users for cognitive impariments
16:01:56 <Kathy> Josh: is there any comments that have not been addressed?
16:02:09 <Kathy> ... needs a lot of work right now
16:02:36 <gowerm> q+
16:03:03 <Kathy> Greg: what is comes down is that there is comments but needs to be address by the COGA TF
16:03:22 <Joshue108> ack gower
16:03:24 <Kathy> ... should take in account all of the comments raised
16:03:53 <Kathy> Mike: my comments from January, there is lot of potential and we need to implement techniques
16:04:09 <Kathy> ... as it matures we can bring it back as SC
16:04:56 <Kathy> RESOLUTION: go back to COGA for reviewing comments and further work
16:05:07 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:05:43 <Kathy> TOPIC: Adapting text options
16:06:13 <Kathy> Josh: proposal C and D got comments
16:06:39 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results#xsc
16:06:42 <Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options
16:06:50 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options
16:07:08 <Ryladog> q+
16:07:11 <laura> It also has info on Testability:
16:07:12 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Testabilty
16:07:17 <Kathy> Laura: James comment on testability and there is some info on the WIKI page
16:07:23 <Wayne> q+
16:07:51 <Kathy> ... it is for adapting text to override author settings
16:07:57 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-291918379
16:08:54 <Kathy> do we need to have a definition of minimum - the term at least
16:09:46 <david-macdonald> q+
16:10:06 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 10 minutes
16:10:06 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
16:10:41 <Kathy> Greg: the problem is where you are allowing support overwriting the minimum.  it needs to compatible for all fonts.  If there is a function on the page then you can set a minimum number of fonts
16:10:42 <Wayne> q?
16:11:16 <david-macdonald> -1 on that.
16:11:51 <Wayne> scribe, wayne
16:11:59 <Wayne> scribe: wayne
16:12:54 <Wayne> There was no specification on splitting: Level A formatting overide, Level AA, AAA page doesn't supply it.
16:13:08 <steverep> q+ to suggest we stick to the AA proposal as the AAA is not necessarilty suported by the LVTF
16:13:09 <Joshue108> ack ryla
16:13:34 <Wayne> Katie: Ok with splitting in two.
16:13:44 <Joshue108> ack davi
16:15:04 <Wayne> David: When the user agent gets overridden.  Only need to test for one override. Can you need to override. Responsible for all then you can go wrong. That creates non testability.
16:15:22 <Glenda> +1 to David (and use a sufficient technique with that one font that is best for testing)
16:15:26 <Joshue108> ack waye
16:16:08 <Joshue108> q?
16:16:13 <Joshue108> ack way
16:16:16 <Kathy> Wayne: I think we can compromise on the fonts.  There are rules for typography for legibility.  We need to think about other languages.  Then we can specifically test for these
16:16:31 <Kathy> ... have a list of accessible fonts
16:16:34 <Joshue108> ack steve
16:16:34 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to suggest we stick to the AA proposal as the AAA is not necessarilty suported by the LVTF
16:16:36 <Ryladog> What about the most common legible font in each language?
16:16:53 <Kathy> Steve: can we just talk about AA proposal
16:16:54 <Joshue108> +1 to that.
16:17:13 <Kathy> are all of these proposals are trying to do the same thing
16:17:36 <Wayne> +1
16:17:45 <Ryladog> What about using the wording the say "2 (or 3) most common legible fonts" in each language?
16:17:56 <Kathy> Against the AAA requirement, better to let the user do this and doesn't gain anything.  What is needed is AA
16:18:00 <Joshue108> +1
16:18:07 <jamesn> q+
16:18:10 <Greg> Steve, that would be for closed systems.
16:18:18 <Kathy> Josh: comes down to scoping the change
16:18:36 <Kathy> Can we say that this is going in the right direction
16:19:09 <Joshue108> ack james
16:19:10 <Kathy> David: can we ask if people can get consensus
16:19:33 <Kathy> James: when we talk about overriding something.. is it anything or a specific method
16:19:53 <Kathy> Laura: talking about a number of different options
16:20:04 <Kathy> David: it is just one
16:20:06 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:20:11 <Ryladog> +1 to just one
16:20:27 <Kathy> James: if I tell you this is how you can change it, does this meet the SC
16:20:33 <Kathy> Answer is yes
16:20:35 <AWK> q+
16:20:50 <Kathy> should be "a mechanism"
16:21:10 <steverep> +1 to David's comments
16:21:11 <Glenda> I like Proposal E
16:21:27 <steverep> q+
16:21:28 <Kathy> James: it needs to be up to the author to decide what method is used
16:21:33 <Ryladog> I also like proposal E...:-)
16:21:35 <Kathy> not the user
16:21:41 <Wayne> q+
16:21:59 <Greg> I agree that the conformance claim has to specify at least one mechanism that allows overriding author formatting while keeping the page completely functional.
16:22:03 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:22:05 <Kathy> Josh: mechanism implies a thing
16:22:16 <jasonjgw> q+
16:22:50 <Kathy> Andrew: it is one thing for a user to create a stylesheet and a different thing for user to change about this list of things
16:23:01 <Ryladog> I am not a fan of mechanism
16:23:24 <Kathy> Laura: mechanism language is the problem
16:24:34 <Kathy> Andrew: if an author says that we meet the SC since told the user that they can change this by setting a list of things.  On a small website this may be a short list but could be more on a larger site.  This would not be acceptable
16:24:57 <Kathy> James: we would want to exclude somethings such as icon fonts
16:25:09 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:25:16 <Kathy> Wayne: i have thought about this for a long time
16:25:39 <Kathy> you have tokens that are user defined
16:25:59 <Kathy> we need to identify the things that the user can change it
16:26:29 <Kathy> want the author to verify that the content can be changed
16:27:07 <Kathy> Josh: isn't this just talking about passing if using CSS
16:27:11 <Kathy> Wayne: no sometimes blocks
16:27:41 <Joshue108> ack steve
16:27:49 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
16:27:49 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
16:28:18 <Ryladog> This SC is inherently about a premier a11y tenet - the separating the content from its presentation  .....
16:28:47 <Kathy> Steve: the main comment from the user perspective the mechanism to do this is a few and when it breaks it really breaks.  If there were a finite list of things that the author was doing to prevent this then it could be scoped that way
16:28:49 <Glenda> +1 ryladog
16:29:01 <Kathy> ... have given up trying to figure out the list of things
16:29:10 <david-macdonald> q+
16:29:16 <Kathy> Josh: may be approaching this the wrong way
16:29:32 <Kathy> it is a handshake between the the developer and the user
16:30:17 <Kathy> Laura: we should leave out mechanism to narrow it some
16:30:27 <Kathy> E may be better
16:31:22 <gowerm> q+
16:31:34 <Kathy> Josh: basically saying don't get in the way of user stylesheets
16:32:46 <Joshue108> q?
16:32:50 <Joshue108> ack jason
16:33:36 <Joshue108> JW: The assumption around this language is that the mechanism succeeds.
16:34:20 <Joshue108> JW: James question is interesting, and raises the issue that no mechanism is required but is assuming there is one that works and is limiting the consequese.
16:34:40 <Joshue108> JW: This does raise the question - that when this falls down to AT in the end.
16:34:56 <Joshue108> JW: Do we assume they can make the changes - it is all about consquence.
16:35:04 <Joshue108> JW: and what the author can do etc.
16:35:06 <Wayne> Jason: There is not a lot of functionality is the assumtion succeeds and when it suceeds then we want to limit the consequences. If I understand the language correctly. It assums that one exists and it limits the consequences.  The issue goes away but it assums that assistive technology exists. It succeeds on making the canges. What the author could or could not do.
16:35:11 <Joshue108> LC: Whats your fave Jason?
16:36:07 <gowerm> refresh the vote results
16:36:18 <Joshue108> RESOLUTION: Needs more discussion.
16:36:27 <Ryladog> Suggest including some CSS language to it
16:36:41 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has left #ag
16:36:46 <Ryladog> +1 to MC
16:37:32 <laura> bye
16:37:38 <Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting
16:37:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:37:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jasonjgw, AWK, Kathy, allanj, Joshue108, KimD, Laura, JF, kirkwood, Makoto, Lauriat, adam_lund, Melanie_Philipp, bruce-bailey, MikeGower,
16:37:42 <Zakim> ... steverep, Glenda, MichaelC, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, jeanne, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Wayne, jamesn, Pietro
16:37:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:37:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/11-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:37:46 <Wayne> Wayne has left #ag
16:37:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:37:47 <RRSAgent> I see no action items