14:28:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:28:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-ag-irc
14:29:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:29:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
14:29:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:29:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:29:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:29:04 <trackbot> Date: 27 June 2017
14:29:08 <AWK> ZAkim, who is on the phone?
14:29:08 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
14:29:11 <AWK> +AWK
14:29:14 <AWK> Chair: AWK
14:29:25 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
14:29:25 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:30:00 <AWK> agenda+ Concurrent Input Mechanisms https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/MATFSC_june/results#xnew1
14:30:38 <AWK> agenda+ Support personalization (minimum) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_new/results#xq4
14:32:54 <KimDirks> KimDirks has joined #ag
14:46:15 <allanj> allanj has joined #ag
14:49:47 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
14:55:35 <jasonjgw> present+
14:56:23 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
14:58:56 <KimDirks> KimDirks has joined #ag
14:59:12 <KimDirks> Present+ KimDirks
14:59:12 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:59:53 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:01:09 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:01:40 <Ali_Hammoud> Ali_Hammoud has joined #ag
15:01:48 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:01:58 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:02:07 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
15:02:13 <JF> present+ JF
15:02:16 <MichaelC> present+
15:02:19 <kirkwood_> present+
15:02:21 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:21 <Zakim> Present: AWK, jasonjgw, KimDirks, JF, MichaelC, kirkwood_
15:02:30 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:02:32 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:02:43 <JF> Agenda?
15:02:51 <lisa> can someone ping me the pass word on the private chat
15:02:53 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
15:02:53 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:03:08 <Joshue108> zakim, code?
15:03:08 <Zakim> I have been told this is WAI_WCAG
15:03:19 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:03:31 <lisa> thanks got it
15:03:47 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:03:49 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:03:50 <Rachael> present+ Rachael
15:04:28 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:04:37 <steverep> present+steverep
15:04:46 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce-bailey
15:04:49 <David-MacDonald> David-MacDonald has joined #ag
15:05:17 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
15:05:25 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:05:26 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
15:05:26 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Concurrent Input Mechanisms https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/MATFSC_june/results#xnew1" taken up [from AWK]
15:06:33 <David-MacDonald> present+ David-MacDonald
15:06:37 <laura> present+ Laura
15:07:00 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #ag
15:07:23 <JF> Q+
15:07:34 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: Opens discussion on Concurrent input mechanisms. Feeling that per survey responses, may not be ready. Should we push out to Silver?
15:07:42 <AWK> ack JF
15:08:27 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:08:45 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/64
15:09:15 <Joshue108> q+
15:09:17 <jasonjgw> q+
15:09:22 <Joshue108> ack me
15:09:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Joshue O: Kathy may have comments as SC manager on this.
15:10:02 <AWK> ack j
15:10:19 <Joshue108> JOC: We should defer until she is here.
15:10:52 <steverep> Should we be discussing Greg L's alternate more specific proposal instead?
15:11:07 <ChrisLoiselle> JasonWhite: Scope and requirements need to be made clearer.
15:11:13 <kirkwood_> sorry i haven’t been able to webex in. others may be having problems fyi
15:11:19 <David-MacDonald> q+
15:11:26 <ChrisLoiselle> JasonWhite: Please see my survey response
15:11:54 <David-MacDonald> q-
15:13:10 <ChrisLoiselle> JasonWhite: definition of input mechanism needs to be addressed, tied to the types of events.
15:13:13 <alastairc> I like the direction GregL went in with his survey response, that seems possible. "The presence of one input device or modality on the system, or the user having used that device, does not prevent the use of any other device for performing subsequent actions".
15:13:20 <Greg> q+ to ask if for feedback on the revised wording that I'd proposed, and whether anyone prefers the original
15:13:29 <AWK> ack g
15:13:29 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to ask if for feedback on the revised wording that I'd proposed, and whether anyone prefers the original
15:14:14 <Greg>  "The ability to perform an action using a given input device or modality is not restricted due to either of the following: (a) the presence of a different input device or modality on the system; (b) the user having used a different input device or modality at a previous time." That does not require that a touchscreen be supported, but it cannot be disabled merely because a mouse is present...
15:14:15 <Greg> ...or has been used. Alternate wording might be "The presence of one input device or modality on the system, or the user having used that device, does not prevent the use of any other device for performing subsequent actions"
15:14:19 <AWK> Greg's proposed changed wording
15:14:23 <ChrisLoiselle> GregLowney: raises question on alternative wording
15:14:32 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
15:15:16 <David-MacDonald> q+
15:15:39 <AWK> ack dav
15:16:32 <AWK> q+
15:16:33 <ChrisLoiselle> David-MacDonald: Greg's proposal is helpful. I.e. don't get in the way of other "stuff". Question is how would we test this ?
15:16:40 <AWK> ack AWK
15:16:58 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: What are the types of problems we are attempting to solve with this ?
15:17:00 <Joshue108> q+
15:17:03 <Joshue108> ack me
15:17:04 <AWK> ack j
15:17:08 <laura> Agree with David. Would be difficult to test.
15:17:40 <alastairc> Patrick's explanation: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/64#issuecomment-273880125
15:17:55 <David-MacDonald> q+
15:18:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Joshue O: If user was to switch input devices that the flow would not disrupt the user.
15:18:08 <AWK> ack da
15:18:19 <steverep> q+ to ask how this can be done?  Isn't this a privacy issue for most input devices?
15:18:37 <Joshue108> I think this is more of a user agent issue,
15:18:38 <laura> Is it an A11Y problem or a usabity problem?
15:19:02 <Joshue108> But I'd prefer to have Kathy here to comment..
15:19:03 <jasonjgw> q+
15:19:23 <ChrisLoiselle> David-MacDonald: I was on mobile calls, Kathy may have more input in terms of this issue.
15:19:23 <AWK> ack ste
15:19:23 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask how this can be done?  Isn't this a privacy issue for most input devices?
15:19:37 <alastairc> Suggest we defer to when Kathy is back. Doesn't seem like it will be missed for now.
15:19:47 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
15:20:04 <marcjohlic> q+
15:20:14 <AWK> ack jas
15:20:20 <Pietro> Present+ Pietro
15:20:24 <ChrisLoiselle> Steve R: Back to AWK's question, how can it be accomplished in code? Goes into mouse vs. keyboard device privacy issue.
15:21:16 <ChrisLoiselle> JasonWhite: We need a strong accessibility case for this to be introduced. Needs clarity in terms of whether it belongs here as currently written.
15:21:17 <AWK> ack marc
15:22:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Marc J: When using different AT, web page or content may be set up to handle ...more about devices rather than input.
15:22:37 <steverep> Content has no way of knowing I'm using a screen reader or magnifier though
15:24:52 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK : Kathy may have better answers on this. Per Josh's thoughts, we should have Kathy talk to the points as to benefits of the issues.
15:25:03 <ChrisLoiselle> RESOLUTION: Leave Open
15:25:07 <AWK> Zakim, next item
15:25:07 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Support personalization (minimum) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_new/results#xq4" taken up [from AWK]
15:25:34 <Joshue108> q?
15:26:32 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:26:49 <AWK> Current version: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/#support-personalization
15:26:49 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: Is the text on branch of rawgit the latest?
15:26:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: yes.
15:27:17 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:28:13 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: Critical features, core, essential...question is on how would we do this? I.e. page shows only what is "core" OR aspects of the page that are "core" are indicated programatically
15:28:15 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:28:15 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:28:16 <Zakim> 2. Support personalization (minimum) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_new/results#xq4 [from AWK]
15:28:42 <AWK> Current wording: For pages that contains interactive controls or content that is not core, one of the following is true:  a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content, and enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality, or core functionality and content, and contextual information for core functionality and content, is programmatically determined.
15:28:57 <jasonjgw> q+
15:30:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: contextual information vs  role : Button functionality sends..how do I know this is the send button? It has text that say's its a send button. Undue , Reset. You need to know what they button is programatically.
15:30:52 <Greg> Ah! You meant "programmatically determinable", or "can be" programmatically determined, not "is" programmatically determined! Completely misled me.
15:31:35 <Joshue108> q+ to ask about single page or dynamic applications where core is mutable
15:31:47 <alastairc> Yes, I think it means "can be programmatically determined" at the end of the SC.
15:32:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Some users have issues with language, but understand symbols. The correct symbol for the user can be loaded. Can open communication for people who struggle with this.
15:32:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Core functionality can be mapped to something they can understand.
15:33:06 <Joshue108> -q
15:33:23 <JF> Q+ to ask who determinw shat is "core" and how is that determination made?
15:33:45 <Joshue108> q+ can existing semantics like main be used?
15:33:51 <Joshue108> q+ to ask can existing semantics like main be used?
15:34:16 <ChrisLoiselle> First bullet point of proposed criteria, allows the site to do it. Done in any technology. Not dependent on any existing techniques.
15:35:00 <AWK> ack jason
15:36:00 <AWK> ack JF
15:36:00 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask who determinw shat is "core" and how is that determination made?
15:36:07 <ChrisLoiselle> JasonWhite: Asks editors and chairs to make sure we have correct text in surveys so comments can be made appropriately to latest text.
15:36:11 <kirkwood__> kirkwood__ has joined #AG
15:36:41 <KimDirks> +1 to making sure the survey reflects the right language
15:36:42 <Greg> +1 to Jason's comment that we need to improve our processes to avoid having people review the wrong draft
15:36:55 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Core vs. non-core: How is this measurable? This tends to be subjective on user.
15:37:30 <lisa> q+
15:37:48 <AWK> ack j
15:37:48 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask can existing semantics like main be used?
15:37:49 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: In context, this is hard for author or tester to understand what "core" is. It is the user that decides that on personalization.
15:38:17 <MichaelC> q+ to say I´d like to leave some wiggle room and be ok with it
15:38:32 <AWK> q+ to ask JF whether he has the same concerns about "essential" and feels that it is evaluated by the user vs. author
15:39:00 <AWK> ack lisa
15:39:03 <ChrisLoiselle> Joshue O: Semantics of this, do you see bespoke COGA semantics being used to support this or other type of semantics?
15:40:13 <laura> +q to say 1.) Maybe instead of using the word “core” use the word “essential” as that is aready defined? 2.) To me personalization may work better as techniques for SCs. This would be similar to how ARIA was added to WCAG as techniques.
15:40:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: We based definition of "core" on page title. We are depending on that. Does page title fulfill its purpose? Core is equally testable between core content and page title.
15:40:43 <alastairc> Page title: "My account" (page includes your info, list of services you use, adverts, etc etc.)
15:40:59 <JF> Q+
15:41:19 <Joshue108> Yeah - a title may not reflect core.
15:41:54 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Non-core: has nothing to do with page title. If content is non-core, some of it at least, is removed. Don't worry about edge cases. Remove only what is not directly related.
15:42:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Joshue O: Page title may give you an architectural review of page : See Alastair's example on "My Account".
15:43:36 <JF> What is "core"? For many users, it could be argued that "footer" content isn't core. Yet the General counsel of the XYZ Widget company may disagree - that the Copyright notice on the site/page is "Core" and critical
15:43:37 <AWK> regrets+ Wilco, Jake, Detlev, KathyW, Glenda, Denis_Boudreau, Jeanne
15:43:51 <alastairc> Core issue with "core": It cannot apply to all web pages.
15:44:26 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Page title is meant to describe purpose of page. Page title could be considered subjective.
15:45:50 <AWK> ack AWK
15:45:50 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask JF whether he has the same concerns about "essential" and feels that it is evaluated by the user vs. author
15:45:50 <ChrisLoiselle> This SC helps with cognitive noise.
15:45:58 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:46:43 <MichaelC> q+ to say the page title thing is ¨for example¨
15:46:49 <bruce_bailey> q+ to disagree that page title describing topic or purpose is ambiguous in a way compareable to core or essential
15:46:57 <MichaelC> q+ to say avoided ¨essential¨ because already used by other SC in a different way
15:47:21 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: There are pieces of WCAG 2.0 that are "subjective". I.e. page title , alt text for an image. Focused on a specific item. Page title is going to generalize what page is about.
15:47:29 <lisa> q+
15:48:07 <MichaelC> ack me
15:48:07 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I´d like to leave some wiggle room and be ok with it and to say the page title thing is ¨for example¨ and to say avoided ¨essential¨ because
15:48:07 <AWK> ack mi
15:48:10 <Zakim> ... already used by other SC in a different way
15:48:12 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: What constitutes core content and who makes that decision?
15:49:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Michael C: Core was introduced as to avoid using "essential".
15:49:36 <AWK> ack lau
15:49:36 <Zakim> laura, you wanted to say 1.) Maybe instead of using the word “core” use the word “essential” as that is aready defined? 2.) To me personalization may work better as
15:49:40 <Zakim> ... techniques for SCs. This would be similar to how ARIA was added to WCAG as techniques.
15:50:19 <alastairc> q+
15:51:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Laura, I missed your point, could you recap in text? Sorry!
15:51:19 <laura> Maybe instead of using the word “core” use the word “essential” as that is aready defined?
15:51:19 <laura> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#essentialdef
15:51:26 <laura> The basic test is “can you remove it?”. Authors (site owners / designers etc) get that.
15:51:31 <laura> To me personalization may work better as techniques for SCs. This would be similar to how ARIA was added to WCAG as techniques.
15:51:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Thank you!
15:52:44 <Joshue108> q?
15:52:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: The method is that we put this in, then we perhaps merge it with 4.1.2. To tweak the SC, we have to put this in and then tweak.
15:53:28 <Joshue108> q+ to say is it not better that non-core stuff just doesn't get in the way?
15:53:28 <alastairc> How about "Non essential controls or content can be programmatically determined."
15:53:42 <ChrisLoiselle> * 4.2.1...
15:54:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Define context, with what we need.
15:54:31 <AWK> ack JF
15:54:55 <alastairc> Sounds like: the adjustment would be: Context would be added to 4.1.2, and / or remove 'or available in text' from 1.3.1.
15:55:50 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Alternative text, subjectivity is at client's level.
15:56:06 <lisa> This could do it ---4.1.2 Name, Role, Context, Value: For all user interface components (including but not limited to: form elements, links and components generated by scripts), the name, role and context can be programmatically determined; states, properties, and values that can be set by the user can be programmatically set; and notification of changes to these items is available to user...
15:56:07 <lisa> ...agents, including assistive technologies.
15:56:48 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Add blockers , are they core to the page? Without the ads, the website is not able to be kept up. We need this for revenue, who's right? Accountant or end user?
15:56:56 <AWK> ack bru
15:56:56 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to disagree that page title describing topic or purpose is ambiguous in a way compareable to core or essential
15:59:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce B: "core" vs. "describe topic or purpose" , seems world apart in ambiguity.
15:59:46 <JF> Q+
16:01:10 <jasonjgw> q+
16:01:36 <ChrisLoiselle> Take a paragraph rather than a the whole page, what is considered "core" in a paragraph? Core functionality of a web page and removing that is a much larger question. Hard to evaluated.
16:02:24 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
16:03:38 <Joshue108> +1
16:03:54 <Joshue108> Much better IMO
16:04:49 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:04:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-ag-minutes.html jamesn
16:05:05 <JF> Are page ads "core" to a page?
16:05:20 <Joshue108> only if you are sellin something..
16:05:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: What if we got rid of "core" ?
16:05:32 <JF> precisely Josh
16:05:47 <kirkwood_> if the button said “click here"
16:06:40 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: send button the same thing as submit ?
16:07:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Contextual information related to button is needed.
16:07:08 <Joshue108> Actually John Kirkw point is interesting, would click here buttons etc be good for COGA users, even though they are not good for VIPs?
16:07:19 <Joshue108> q?
16:07:25 <Greg> Can we have Lisa's new wording in IRC?
16:07:44 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask that this SC be drafted in a way that be applied element by element rather than the whole page
16:08:32 <Joshue108> but we dont want specialist semantics to describe generic controls!
16:08:53 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: does ARIA allow for describing submit button vs. regular button? Lisa: Microdata is available. JF: Aria-Label. Michael C: not a semantic mapping in aria specifically to Andrew's question.
16:08:59 <AWK> ack lisa
16:09:02 <AWK> ack ala
16:09:03 <bruce_bailey> I do not think it is constructive to try and write this up from scratch on the call
16:10:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: Page title can describe my account, but different content on page would be confusing on what would be considered "core".
16:10:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: Brings up wording of non-essential ...
16:10:38 <alastairc> "Non essential controls or content can be programmatically determined" was one
16:11:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Two separate SCs.
16:11:23 <Joshue108> ack me
16:11:23 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say is it not better that non-core stuff just doesn't get in the way?
16:11:25 <AWK> ack josh
16:11:49 <JF> +1 to Josh
16:12:08 <AWK> +1 to josh's point about requiring solid semantics
16:12:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Joshue O: Are we taking wrong approach to this? We need strong semantics
16:12:40 <KimDirks> +1 (good semantics)
16:13:00 <laura> +1 to strong semantics
16:13:01 <AWK> ack JF
16:13:03 <lisa>  For pages that contains interactive controls, or more then one region one of the following is true:
16:13:04 <lisa>  - a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality,
16:13:06 <lisa>  - contextual information for regions and  essential controls is programmatically determined.
16:13:33 <alastairc> JF - we have a defintion, and it is essential to the page, not the user
16:13:37 <Joshue108> I'd be happier to see more of a focus on symbols and interactive controls for core than anything else in this SC.
16:14:53 <lisa>  For pages that contains interactive controls, or more then one region one of the following is true:
16:14:55 <lisa>    - a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls
16:14:56 <lisa>       - contextual information for regions and  essential controls is programmatically determined.
16:15:19 <AWK> ack jas
16:15:31 <lisa> do people prefer this?
16:16:45 <steverep> q+ to ask how "core" is different from the ARIA main landmark, and why that simple definition is okay if the one for core is not
16:16:57 <ChrisLoiselle> JasonWhite: Identify things for what they are. But "essential" should be out of the author's hands.
16:17:47 <lisa> question: can we leav in  contextual information for regions and  essential controls is programmatically determined.
16:18:19 <alastairc> For those who haven't seen it, these are the contextual roles being proposed: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#adding-context
16:18:30 <ChrisLoiselle> What happens when authors get ARIA semantics wrong?
16:19:01 <lisa> q+
16:19:07 <bruce_bailey> WCAG2 uses web page as the unit of conformance, but SC apply element-by-element
16:19:07 <AWK> ack bru
16:19:07 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask that this SC be drafted in a way that be applied element by element rather than the whole page
16:19:17 <lisa> question: can we leav in  contextual information for regions and  essential controls is programmatically determined.
16:19:54 <AWK> Some SC refer to the whole page - e.g. "all functionality is available from the keyboard"
16:20:30 <AWK> ack steve
16:20:30 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask how "core" is different from the ARIA main landmark, and why that simple definition is okay if the one for core is not
16:20:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce B: easy to point to the items that are failing, but not sure we are there for this SC.
16:20:56 <alastairc> Lisa, I think this would take on Bruce's comment: For interactive controls one of the following is true:
16:20:57 <alastairc> - a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols
16:20:57 <alastairc> - contextual information essential controls can be programmatically determined.
16:21:01 <jamesn> q+
16:21:25 <AWK> ack lisa
16:21:26 <ChrisLoiselle> Steve R: Core content may not be as subjective as some people are stating. I.e. ARIA main landmark? Is that any different.
16:22:52 <AWK> Main is defined as "The main content of a document"
16:23:40 <alastairc> The concept of 'main task of a page' is not universally applicable.
16:23:57 <lisa>  For pages that contains interactive controls, or more then one region one of the following is true:
16:23:58 <lisa>    - a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls
16:24:00 <lisa>    - contextual information for regions and  essential controls is programmatically determined.
16:24:13 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: What do you prefer?
16:25:13 <AWK> ack james
16:25:40 <ChrisLoiselle> James N: What is an essential control in web applications? Different users use different controls.
16:25:51 <lisa> essential controls: controls that are nessisary for  completion of the main porpose of the web page
16:26:12 <JF> Q+ to ask if using <menu>...</menu> provides enough contextual information?
16:27:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Main purpose of page is to send an email. Label of button says "send". That would be an essential control.  (Lisa hope I summarized your idea correctly).
16:28:05 <alastairc> This has to apply to *all* pages, we don't get to pick and choose.
16:29:26 <bruce_bailey> sorry, have to go
16:29:47 <ChrisLoiselle> +q : If a page had an aside element, which could be considered separate from main content, should all asides be removed from "core"?
16:29:55 <steverep> q+
16:31:43 <alastairc> For the essential controls, can we work in reverse, where anything given a role (from  ARIA or
16:31:43 <alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#adding-context), is known, and unknown controls are not essential unless marked as essential?
16:32:56 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: As content authors or evaluating websites: If all buttons are in menu element, which do we remove?
16:34:16 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: We took essential controls out, except for second bullet point.
16:34:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Reduces author's burden.
16:36:18 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Adding symbols or changing text to something user understands.
16:36:32 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: We need to do this without using COGA semantics.
16:36:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Many different ways of doing this without using COGA semantics. RDF, etc.
16:38:29 <laura> Contextual information:
16:38:29 <laura>     semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process
16:38:30 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6
16:38:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Contextual information needs to be included. Link inside a menu is not what we mean. We mean a concept.
16:39:04 <KimDirks> * where is definition for "contextual information" Do you have a link?
16:39:29 <laura> contextual information
16:39:30 <laura> Proposed
16:39:31 <laura> The concept; role; relevance for simplification; information that clarifies the meaning; relationships to other elements; position in a process; process of which this element is a part
16:39:31 <laura> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/terms/21/contextual-information.html
16:39:35 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: should we leave open?
16:39:47 <lisa> essential cntrols  are controls taht are nessisary for the task that a user may have come to the page for
16:39:49 <ChrisLoiselle> RESOLUTION: Leave open
16:40:08 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
16:40:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-ag-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
16:40:11 <JF> contextual information Proposed  The concept; role; relevance for simplification; information that clarifies the meaning; relationships to other elements; position in a process; process of which this element is a part
16:40:19 <laura> laura has left #ag
16:40:54 <ChrisLoiselle> trackbot, end meeting
16:40:54 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:40:54 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, jasonjgw, KimDirks, JF, MichaelC, kirkwood_, Greg_Lowney, ChrisLoiselle, Melanie_Philipp, Makoto, Rachael, steverep, bruce-bailey,
16:40:57 <Zakim> ... alastairc, David-MacDonald, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Pietro, Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:41:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:41:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:41:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:41:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items