SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 26 Jun 2017

<lisa> agenda: this

<lisa> instuctions: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1,

<lisa> issues: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ACOGA

proposed new wording

<lisa> proposed new wording for personlization. See https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6. (the wording is at https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/sc/21/support-personalization-minimum.html)

<lisa> not quarum but worth ploding on

<lisa> core: the mimimum functionality and content that is needed for users to identify the topic and fulfill the purpose of the content

<lisa> For example, core content is generally identified by the page title. Core functionality is that which is needed to fulfill the purpose described by the page title.

<lisa> http://www.bbc.com/

<lisa> john: top navigation is very important

<lisa> we need to include top navigation

<lisa> mike example: going on bookign.com, might just be intersted in checking iteninary, but if i came to book then that would be core

<lisa> Lisa: I would say they are both core

<lisa> has to have direct link to page titile

<lisa> scribe: kirkwood

<lisa> criss do you know how to add the audio?

discussing core content

Lisa: what is core content, lets start with BBC news as en example
... one issue we have to keep main navigation open consistent

MC: think those are sepaparate issues with core content. simply to be identified
... at user request rather than user preferences

MP; no body would want to lose top level navigation

MC: might prefer naviation to be rmoved if i can get it back
... larger screen and smaller screen. Doesn't like need to learn about how to use hamburger menu
... personlzation can in theory would play in context of another criteria to get to SC

MP: if start adding additional words would be an issue

LS: do we want to say remove some core content, we need a tight definition on non core functionlity

MC: don't think page title should be too baked into SC
... better to be as general as we can be
... meant to navigate headings and follow links. prefer to leave wiggle room and clarify understand and leave room to do in different ways

Lisa: issn't that a problem with testability?

MC: often different evaluators report different results. each have valid interpretation and one way testers and authors differentiate themselves

LS: but won't go through i think

MC: trying to go for generic success criteria. need to get it through

LS: my take is it will fail for that. maybe michael reply to Alastair and see if thats ok with him
... anything that people had gone to site to find it would be core

MC: arguably that is contextual. don't see how address that personalization requirment without living with some vagueness

MP: doubt he is the only one with question. trying to get it close is tricky

LS: if user is going to page to find content than it is core. unless we make it more vague like you can remove some content
... if don't relate to page title some content can be removed
... some lesser used or non core content can be removed
... that way they have ocnformed
... the first bullet point is the way we can get people into personlization without adding RDs or something else

MC: in general, a SC we don't go as far as we hoped is something we lived with in 2.1

LS: the first is way to get perosnlization in we'd prefer the second but realize it is an issue
... the BBC example to remove some core content as a good example

MC: if it will pass under that expection yes. we are mainly setting up future work but we are getting some stuff in
... via education material there is a site called the before after demo. here is what we mean by it even at mimimal compliance its a low bar. we're setting the floor not the ceiling

LS: fany other isssues with this support perosnliaztion SC
... i can respond or Miichael can respond to Alistair

<lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html

LS: look at status link page. we've got groups that we thought most important. interrupiton, task completion didn't get through, mimize 3errors didn't get through, reminders, help
... we can try and push through high prioriy ones

LS; go through list of things [audio dropping out]

LS: the others are important, chunks, undo might be able to get in
... timed events didnt get through
... critical reature, erro prevention, change upon reequest that one maybe try and get through
... slightly lower retunr clear text voice
... not seeing things hit me as likely to get in
... lets look sat issue 38 undo
... that one might get through

MC: that might be relatively straight forward and benefit various user groups

LS: another i thought was important was task completion
... a lot laike the authtication one just for any task acnc could include dialogues could borrow some wording and work on that
... do people think thats important?
... one important to me is the press 3, with issue of processing language you can't do both

MC: foreign language happens all the time

<lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/21

LS: issue 21 we are talking

MP: task completion imbedded in authitecation

MC: we have asked to submit duplications all the time we need to remind over an over

LS: what is more important task completion of undo?

MC: i feel undo is clearer and easier to get through id focus on thath

LS: i'll pull up undo
... doesn't have links on top of it

MC: i can add but have to remind me

LS: jake has some edits there we can put in on a short call, like clearly labeled actions
... i say the next one is undo
... maybe end now
... we got a lot done even though not a big call

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

26 Jun 2017

Attendees

Contents

proposed new wording

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output