15:28:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:28:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/18-ag-irc
15:28:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:28:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:28:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:28:11 <trackbot> Date: 18 May 2017
15:28:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:28:12 <AWK> agenda?
15:28:23 <AWK> Zakim, close item 4
15:28:23 <Zakim> agendum 4, ACT TF Update, closed
15:28:24 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:28:24 <Zakim> 3. Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4 [from AWK]
15:28:45 <AWK> agenda+ Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/results
15:29:44 <AWK> agenda+ 1.3.3/1.4.1
15:30:24 <AWK> zakim, agenda order is 6, 3, 5
15:30:24 <Zakim> ok, AWK
15:30:28 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:31:28 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
15:31:59 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:32:16 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
15:33:13 <Alex> Alex has joined #ag
15:33:37 <Detlev> I can scribe
15:33:38 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
15:33:57 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:34:05 <Detlev> scribe: Deltev
15:34:11 <Detlev> scribe: Detlev
15:34:12 <AWK> Zakim, next item
15:34:12 <Zakim> agendum 6. "1.3.3/1.4.1" taken up [from AWK]
15:34:19 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:34:27 <steverep> present+steverep
15:34:47 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:34:55 <Detlev> AWK: worked through issues with straightforward solution
15:35:56 <alastairc> happy to +1, seemed straightforward
15:36:00 <Detlev> 1.3.1 and 1.4.1 clarification on color seems gernerally accepted
15:36:09 <JF> +1 from
15:36:19 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/280
15:36:37 <AWK> in WCAG 2.0 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/267
15:36:50 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:37:09 <Detlev> Will likely be implemented sent out as CfC
15:37:13 <ChrisLoiselle> yes
15:37:16 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:37:16 <AWK> RESOLUTION: go for CFC
15:37:17 <Detlev> 1+
15:37:28 <Detlev> zakim, take up next
15:37:28 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/results" taken up [from AWK]
15:38:05 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77
15:38:23 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status#Issue_77_-_Resize_content
15:38:27 <Detlev> AWK: new section on open issues and surveys on github page
15:38:32 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:39:14 <Detlev> eight items fro comments and call minutes in there now
15:39:55 <Detlev> Alastair: has tacked issues that were most difficult
15:40:04 <Detlev> First relatino to resize text SC
15:40:16 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:40:28 <Detlev> Alastair: suggestion was to rais 1.4.4 to level A and have the new one on AA
15:40:32 <AWK> q?
15:41:36 <Detlev> AWK: thinks should be split and discussed separately, having two SCs
15:41:37 <Alex> a+
15:41:47 <Detlev> AWK: then later talk about integration steps
15:42:08 <AWK> s/a+/
15:42:19 <Detlev> Alex: If they are goig to be combined what will it look like?
15:42:51 <Detlev> ...will it apply to text or other content too? Because that seems to fall into the exception for spatial layout
15:43:23 <Detlev> Alastair: not just text - with RWD browser zoom zooms everything
15:43:50 <Detlev> Alex: But nearly everything would be excemted
15:44:43 <Detlev> ...will anything but text fall into the exemption (e.g. the ribbon of a web app)
15:44:48 <steverep> q+ to say that fixed layout elements still need to "minimize" scrolling
15:44:56 <AWK> q+
15:45:06 <Detlev> Alex: graphics, video, table - all exempt?
15:45:08 <Greg> Why would a ribbon be exempt?
15:45:13 <Detlev> ..anything else?
15:45:16 <AWK> q+ to say that the exemption is not for the full SC, just the scrolling/reflow aspect
15:45:49 <Detlev> Alastair: ribbon shouldn't be exempt - only if it needs a particular layout
15:46:19 <Detlev> Alex: conventio nis horizontal for controls, vertical for content
15:46:53 <Detlev> Alex: so what do you do with a ribbon in constrained width? Remove functionalities?
15:47:17 <Detlev> Alex: at 400% ribbon would crowd out content
15:47:25 <AWK> ack ste
15:47:25 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say that fixed layout elements still need to "minimize" scrolling
15:47:55 <Greg> Ribbons may be horizontal yet can wrap or use progressive disclosure, and can scroll out of view when its height is great compared with the display.
15:48:15 <AWK> ack awk
15:48:15 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the exemption is not for the full SC, just the scrolling/reflow aspect
15:48:17 <Detlev> Steve: even when content canot be fully flown the requirement should be to minimise scrolling wherever possible (?)
15:48:47 <alastairc> I took as a to-do item to define "fixed spacial layout" on tuesday, just haven't had a chance
15:49:09 <Detlev> AWK: understanding that the exemption for content zooming i.e. content should get bigger, just an exemption for reflow
15:49:10 <alastairc> q+ to say that image are better constrained to viewport width.
15:49:15 <steverep> I had the exact opposite interpretation as AWK - I think it needs clarity obviously
15:49:30 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:49:34 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:49:42 <Detlev> AWK: hor scrolling would be OK for a table but not text
15:50:16 <Detlev> AWK: explains how ribbon type controls should collaps into a menu button (but stil be available)
15:50:34 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:50:40 <laura> present+ Laura
15:50:42 <Greg> I've noted before that the document suffers from ambiguous, dangling clauses that should be restructured.
15:51:28 <AWK> q?
15:51:29 <Detlev> Kathy asks for target size tzo be on tues agenda
15:51:32 <AWK> ack al
15:51:32 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that image are better constrained to viewport width.
15:52:25 <Detlev> Alastair: RWD sites often resizes images to viewport width
15:52:55 <Detlev> ...distinction between individual items and grouped items (like data tables)
15:53:18 <Detlev> ...unordered list not a 2D item
15:53:48 <Greg> Labels
15:53:54 <Detlev> ...other example would be Canvas games
15:54:21 <AWK> q?
15:54:26 <Detlev> AWK: cannot pin down exact object types but talk about it generally (where reflow would lose meaning)
15:54:39 <AWK> Current: Content can be resized to 400% without loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in the direction of text except for parts of the content where fixed spatial layout is necessary to use or meaning.
15:55:32 <Detlev> AWK: need to address definition of fixed spatial layout
15:56:20 <Detlev> Alex: Did 400% on word - ribbon fills entire screen - would that fail?
15:56:57 <Detlev> Alex: Ribbon already quite big
15:57:18 <Detlev> Bu this falls into " necessary to use "?
15:57:41 <Greg> Alex, ribbons may be horizontal yet can wrap or use progressive disclosure, and can scroll out of view when its height is great compared with the display.
15:58:20 <Detlev> AWK: another question was about the role of the UA (mobile UA do not resize the same way)
15:58:31 <alastairc> q+ to say that it isn't a content requirment
15:58:41 <AWK> ack al
15:58:41 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that it isn't a content requirment
15:58:57 <Detlev> ...link to target size, where an exception exists for UA
15:59:38 <Detlev> Alastair: exception was taken out because it is not an author-controlled issue - it's all down to the UA
16:00:10 <Greg> q+ to review survey comments
16:00:28 <Detlev> AWK: Does it male sens if things are not meant to be used on mobile?
16:00:35 <AWK> ack g
16:00:35 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to review survey comments
16:01:03 <Detlev> Alastair: yes because zooming 400% dioes effectively display at 320 CSS pixels
16:01:52 <Detlev> Greg: Ribbon might adapt dynamically (?)
16:02:22 <Detlev> Alastair: question oabout UA - definition
16:02:54 <Detlev> Greg: concept of host UA and inside a more particular UA e.g. for email
16:03:04 <AWK> s/male sens/make sense
16:03:34 <Detlev> Greg: UA inside UA not under author's control
16:04:21 <Detlev> certain content features like non-breaking white space could trigger horizontal scrolling - how do we handle that?
16:04:59 <Detlev> Alastair: seems to come under translation aspects of ATAG
16:05:34 <Detlev> ..interested in examples causing problems
16:06:06 <Detlev> Greg: certain content wll eithe rcause truncating or hor scrollbars - will that cause Gmail to fail the new SC?
16:07:02 <Detlev> AWK: the author of Gmail would either have to honour email author'as intent, or cnformance to new SC.
16:07:07 <gowerm> It's not 3rd party. it's authoring tool
16:07:23 <AWK> q?
16:08:05 <Detlev> GregL: it is not an authoring tool but would have to decide whether it strips out bits
16:08:22 <alastairc> It does seem like a general issue that affects many SCs, not just this one!
16:08:27 <Detlev> Gregg: authoring tool would have responsibibility to conform
16:08:32 <alastairc> e.g. target size...
16:09:12 <Detlev> GregL: user use another tool that does not respect formatting in line with new SC
16:09:27 <Detlev> Gregg: then it should fall under the exception
16:09:47 <Detlev> mike: UA responsibility is to wrap stuff
16:09:57 <Detlev> (sorry I did not get all of this (phew
16:10:15 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open
16:10:19 <Greg> Those are all Gre, not Gregg
16:10:24 <Detlev> zakim, take up next
16:10:24 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, Detlev
16:10:30 <gowerm> Detlev: I've talked too fast my whole life. sorry
16:10:39 <Greg> s/Gre,/Greg/g
16:10:54 <Detlev> sorry for the Greg Gregg
16:11:15 <Detlev> where is the item?
16:11:18 <AWK> ZAkim, take up item 3
16:11:18 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4" taken up [from AWK]
16:11:21 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
16:11:32 <AWK> Current version: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html
16:11:59 <JF> Q+
16:12:01 <AWK> Status: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status#Issue_60_-_Target_Size
16:12:37 <gowerm> covered by "cannot be modified"
16:12:44 <Detlev> JF: the way this is written now, a native unstyled control will fail the SC
16:13:00 <Detlev> JF: wil get huge pushback
16:13:01 <gowerm> JT: that's covered by last exception
16:13:17 <gowerm> q+
16:13:18 <Detlev> JT: same for selects
16:13:48 <Detlev> JF: SC as phrased now can't fly
16:14:11 <Detlev> AWK: falls under exception target
16:14:40 <Detlev> Mike: dropdown size of the native control can't been modified (so not under author's control)
16:15:09 <alastairc> q+
16:15:11 <Detlev> JF: native link: meeting SC will call for CSS to meet SC
16:15:43 <AWK> ack jf
16:15:43 <JF> ack jf
16:15:46 <AWK> ack gow
16:16:04 <Detlev> Mike: interesting point - the go link should fail
16:16:30 <Detlev> JF: could be any short link - demand for 44 px square not realistic
16:16:38 <AWK> ack al
16:17:08 <JF> easy isn't the concern, backward compatibility is the issue
16:17:29 <Detlev> Alastair: It's easy to add padding to buttons and things - rare to see ustyled buttons on commercial sites - with select, the  whole select is the target
16:17:45 <gowerm> so now a pure html form with no mods can fail? That IS a little nutty.
16:18:13 <Detlev> JF: 20 years old web content would automatically fail the new version
16:18:26 <Detlev> Why do they have to meet 2.1 - let them meet 2.0!
16:19:00 <Detlev> JF: SC will depend on additional technologies
16:19:00 <gowerm> dropdown box target is the whole select area, FYI
16:19:11 <Detlev> Alastair: That logic would rule out all new SCs
16:19:55 <Detlev> JF: select will never be 44 px high
16:20:20 <Detlev> JF: one proposal was to take total surface area instead of 44x44
16:20:22 <gowerm> yes/no radio buttons may fail
16:20:40 <Detlev> JF: How would this work in PDF?
16:20:56 <Detlev> AWK: It can work when you can make controls bigger
16:21:38 <gowerm> q+
16:21:47 <AWK> ack gow
16:21:53 <Detlev> Alastair: CSS is part of the stack of a11y-supported technologies - if it is not you couldn't meet 2.1
16:22:01 <Detlev> q+
16:22:25 <Detlev> Mike: checkbox with yes or no lables would fail the SC
16:22:56 <JF> correct
16:23:32 <Detlev> Mike: seems a bit nutty that you would have to add padding to yes / now checkboxes
16:23:40 <Detlev> JF: doesn't scale
16:23:48 <alastairc> it scales fine for new content, find an 'enterprise' that doesn't style things!
16:23:54 <david-macdonald> q=
16:23:58 <david-macdonald> q+
16:24:06 <AWK> ack d
16:24:47 <AWK> Detlev: question question - why is it necessary for legacy content to meet WCAG 2.1 right away? Why shouldn't they have to do something to meet the new standard.
16:25:28 <Detlev> JF: UK references the most recent spec, that's why this is significant
16:25:37 <alastairc> The UK law doens't reference any particular guidellines.
16:25:54 <Detlev> JF: People will not accept requirement to restyle legacy content
16:26:27 <AWK> ack Da
16:26:29 <AWK> q+
16:26:41 <Detlev> JF: Even taking out inline text links, the SC would mandate buttons and form controls to be min 44x44!
16:26:44 <AWK> ack d
16:27:43 <Detlev> DmD: SC were initially developed with mobile UA in mind - not initially thought to be applicable to desktop
16:28:22 <Detlev> DmD: distinction could not be maintained (due to hybrid devices etc)
16:28:39 <JF> Q+
16:28:40 <Detlev> q+
16:28:49 <Greg> John, target size is as useful on desktop as on mobile.
16:28:51 <AWK> ack a
16:29:00 <Detlev> DmD: put it out with exceptions and see comments
16:29:31 <Detlev> AWK: if this was restricted to small form factor devices would we have the same issues with unstyled controls?
16:30:02 <AWK> ack jf
16:30:21 <Detlev> DmD: too rigid in not being able to define mobie devices
16:30:47 <Detlev> JF: Doesn't zooming meet the target size requirement?
16:30:54 <alastairc> Overall, I cautiously think it would be feasible, but given the cycles burned on this, I go back to suggesting that we put it in with no-exceptions at AAA.
16:30:55 <marcjohlic> +1 wish there was a way to say this is applicable only to mobile / small factor only.  Not sure how to get there though.
16:31:19 <AWK> ack det
16:31:57 <AWK> Detlev: Wonder what would happen if we did exclude unsettled native controls?
16:32:12 <Detlev> JF: feels we are asking too much
16:32:22 <JF> s/unsettled native/unstyled native
16:32:25 <steverep> q+ to propose a possible alternative to maximize targets to their containers
16:32:37 <Detlev> maybe adding native controls as excepton would still have benefits for site that DO style controls
16:33:01 <Alex> depends on how many features (buttons) is needed
16:33:02 <AWK> ack st
16:33:02 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to propose a possible alternative to maximize targets to their containers
16:33:18 <Detlev> AWK: will be picked up again in next call
16:33:47 <JF> every tabel cell then would need to be 44 X 44?
16:33:56 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open
16:33:57 <Detlev> Steve: techniqhes to maximise control sizes (like make whole table cell clickable)
16:34:32 <Detlev> rrsagent, make minutes
16:34:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/18-ag-minutes.html Detlev
16:34:58 <MichaelC> chair: AWK
16:35:03 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
16:35:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/18-ag-minutes.html MichaelC
16:35:31 <MichaelC> rrsagent, bye
16:35:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items