15:23:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:23:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/06-ag-irc
15:23:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:23:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:23:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:23:42 <trackbot> Date: 06 July 2017
15:23:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:24:15 <Joshue108> agenda+ Resolving Issues 62/63/71: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues64-67-68/
15:24:21 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:24:21 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:24:22 <Zakim> 2. Support personalisation (minimum)  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_new/results [from AWK_]
15:24:22 <Zakim> 3. Resolving Issues 62/63/71: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues64-67-68/ [from Joshue108]
15:24:29 <Joshue108> zakim, clear agenda
15:24:29 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:24:41 <Joshue108> agenda+ Undo: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_undo/
15:24:50 <Joshue108> agenda+ Adapting Text: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextJuly6/
15:25:05 <Joshue108> agenda+ Resolving Issues 62/63/71: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues64-67-68/
15:26:27 <chriscm> chriscm has joined #ag
15:26:32 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:27:52 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:27:59 <AWK> +AWK
15:28:04 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
15:28:04 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:28:05 <Zakim> 1. Undo: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_undo/ [from Joshue108]
15:28:05 <Zakim> 2. Adapting Text: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextJuly6/ [from Joshue108]
15:28:05 <Zakim> 3. Resolving Issues 62/63/71: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues64-67-68/ [from Joshue108]
15:28:11 <KimDirks> KimDirks has joined #ag
15:28:22 <KimDirks> Present+ KimDirks
15:28:30 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:28:48 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:29:10 <erich> erich has joined #ag
15:30:07 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
15:30:15 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:30:32 <KimDirks> *w3c worked for me
15:30:37 <steverep> present+steverep
15:30:42 <MichaelC> present+
15:30:47 <Joshue108> present+
15:31:07 <allanj> present+
15:31:48 <WayneD> WayneD has joined #ag
15:31:59 <alastairc> present+
15:32:31 <Detlev> present+
15:32:43 <shadi> present+
15:33:10 <lisa> sorry I am getting the password wrong for the webex
15:33:36 <kirkwood> present+
15:34:02 <lisa> thank u t
15:34:38 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:35:18 <laura> present+ Laura
15:35:25 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:35:30 <lisa> the capture and passwords are horrid
15:35:55 <lisa> when you get the password wrong
15:36:24 <lisa> ie - every time
15:36:47 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:36:53 <allanj> srcibe: allanj
15:36:54 <Rachael> present+ Rachael
15:37:11 <allanj> scribe: allanj
15:37:22 <Alex> Alex has joined #ag
15:37:26 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:37:34 <allanj> zakim, open item 1
15:37:34 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Undo: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_undo/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:37:48 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 20 minutes
15:37:48 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:39:00 <chriscm> chriscm has joined #ag
15:39:11 <allanj> 3 responses, 2 having issues
15:39:13 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_undo/results
15:40:20 <chriscm> present+ chriscm
15:40:26 <Rachael> Where users are required to enter data to complete a transaction, a mechanism is provided to undo an action or correct an error and return to the place where they identified the error through at least one clearly labeled action without data loss, except when the data loss is part of the correction.
15:40:30 <chriscm> Is anyone else getting digital noise???
15:40:53 <allanj> RM: hope above addresses concerns
15:41:24 <allanj> JOC: what is difference between current and your version.
15:41:50 <allanj> rm: reduce the number of interactions. rest is clarification to questions
15:42:08 <Joshue108> q?
15:42:24 <allanj> ls: scope for proposed is very limited.
15:43:09 <allanj> ... make sure 33 and 38 are covered, with the exception. they came from different use cases
15:43:43 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:43:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/06-ag-minutes.html AWK
15:44:01 <allanj> ... want back always working
15:44:14 <AWK> rrsagent, set logs public
15:44:19 <alastairc> q?
15:44:21 <allanj> joc: is LS ok with RM draft?
15:44:33 <AWK> Chair: Joshue
15:44:52 <allanj> ls: no, if we go with proposed we loose too many use cases. perhaps can add an exception
15:45:03 <allanj> rm: ok with adding exception
15:45:27 <allanj> ls: explains exception,
15:46:05 <allanj> joc: related to unwanted loss of data
15:46:17 <chriscm> q+
15:46:24 <alastairc> The structure seems a bit odd, I think this says the same thing without as many clauses: "Undo: a user can go back steps in a process or repair information via a clearly labeled action without unwanted loss of data."
15:46:25 <allanj> joc: adding exception to rm proposal.
15:46:28 <Joshue108> ack chris
15:46:31 <AWK> regrets+ Pietro, EA_Draffan, Glenda, Shari_Butler, David_MacDonald, Mpluke, Chris_Loiselle, Crystal_Jones
15:46:44 <Joshue108> +1 to Alastair
15:47:24 <allanj> cm: why no have BACK button listed instead of "clearly labeled action". or add in BACK to SC
15:47:51 <allanj> cm: add bullet point - BACK button
15:47:53 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:48:09 <Joshue108> +1 to Chris
15:48:27 <AWK> q+ to say that we need to be able to evaluate the SC on a page by page basis. Which page would fail if the back button wasn't working?
15:48:42 <allanj> cm: better implementation. need to know when data will be lost and not
15:48:46 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:48:46 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we need to be able to evaluate the SC on a page by page basis. Which page would fail if the back button wasn't working?
15:48:53 <allanj> ls: ok with the BACK addition.
15:49:15 <allanj> awk: we need to be able to evaluate the SC on a page by page basis. Which page would fail if the back button wasn't working?
15:49:44 <lisa> q+
15:49:49 <allanj> joc: would failure be on output page.
15:49:51 <chriscm> q+
15:50:29 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:50:31 <allanj> awk: not sure what is involved with making the back work in all cases
15:51:13 <allanj> ls: user can go back, if they have the wrong browser, its a user issue. support back button... name the browser
15:51:26 <Greg> q+ to say that "preserving data on return", "provide undo", and "auto-correct data" are independent features, so combining them into a single SC is needlessly complex and potentially confusing.
15:51:28 <allanj> ... during testing
15:51:42 <allanj> ls: awk? ok?
15:51:55 <allanj> awk: yes, theoretically
15:51:55 <Joshue108> ack chris
15:52:39 <allanj> cm: implementation wise... a little UA dependent. want consistent functioning. there are callbacks for the BACK button.
15:53:39 <kirkwood> The page would fail that doesn’t allow you to return to the previous filled out page, no?
15:53:46 <kirkwood> +1 to chris
15:53:47 <allanj> .... with new applications... BACK is now dependent on context in the application. app is in charge of doing something sensible with the back button... do something special or let the browser do its thing
15:54:11 <chriscm> @kirkwood yes.
15:55:07 <Joshue108> q?
15:55:39 <allanj> jw: when can user do an undo. the proposal does not address this scenario. there are some actions that are non-reversible. no provisions for which actions are reversible and which are not.
15:56:00 <allanj> ... should be restricted to current session (privacy, security issues)
15:56:17 <alastairc> "except where an action has been confirmed by a second action..." or something like that?
15:56:35 <allanj> ... all irreversible issues are clearly identified by the author, help user make appropriate actions
15:56:45 <WayneD> * That looks good.
15:57:24 <lisa> q+
15:57:30 <allanj> jw: need to create list of criteria for what is and is not reversible, based on context. need definition and qualification
15:57:49 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:57:59 <allanj> joc: a scope issue. current wording is very broad. may need to restrict.
15:58:06 <WayneD> Maybe the formal term 'commit' should be used.
15:58:14 <Joshue108> q?
15:58:22 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
15:58:22 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
15:58:27 <allanj> ls: agree. could jw propose some wording.
15:59:00 <lisa> q+
15:59:03 <chriscm> Can we define that in terms of "Changes of Context" which is wording used throughout WCAG already...?
15:59:04 <WayneD> q+
15:59:28 <allanj> jw: this is hard. put it on the list to see what group comes up with. needs some work
15:59:48 <Joshue108> ack greg
15:59:48 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say that "preserving data on return", "provide undo", and "auto-correct data" are independent features, so combining them into a single SC is needlessly complex
15:59:51 <Zakim> ... and potentially confusing.
15:59:55 <allanj> ... pointed out issues, don;t have solutions.
16:00:58 <Joshue108> +1 to Makoto comment on Error Prevention
16:01:00 <allanj> gl: issues with auto-correct, and repair, and incomplete process. too many in 1 sc. perhaps 3 sc
16:01:39 <Joshue108> q?
16:01:41 <Joshue108> ack lisa
16:02:02 <allanj> ls: time is short. may have to leave a loophole
16:02:21 <Greg> My comment was that I think "preserving data on return" is independent from "provide undo" and combining them into a single SC is needlessly complex and potentially confusing.
16:02:21 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/minimize-error-reversible-all.html
16:02:27 <allanj> joc: ls explain difference between this and 3.3.6 error prevention.
16:02:43 <Greg> Also, that my survey comments were submitted late so would require refresh to see.
16:03:33 <allanj> ls: 3.3.6 is about submitting information. hit something by accident, how do I get back. that is not is 3.3.6
16:03:34 <Joshue108> zakim, next item
16:03:34 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Adapting Text: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextJuly6/" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:03:48 <allanj> RESOLUTION: leave open UNDO
16:03:51 <lisa> also problem is if a submission is reversable
16:04:10 <lisa> this offent includeds using small print return people which coga groups can not do
16:04:19 <lisa> so 3.3.6 is not helpful for coga
16:04:28 <lisa> even for finacial transaction
16:04:41 <allanj> joc: 12 ready to go, 2 with issues
16:04:58 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 15 minutes
16:04:58 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
16:05:33 <allanj> wd: had bullet for font family. done lots of research. little impact on developer.
16:06:03 <allanj> ... no deterministic way to change font family. issues with font-icon.s, etc.
16:06:37 <laura> @alastc  has filed Issue 297: [Add technique for identifying CSS
16:06:37 <allanj> ... lost ability to change font, no font attached to <i>
16:06:37 <laura> generated content-images https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/297
16:07:00 <laura> I have drafted several techniques for icon fonts one of which is: Providing a Semantically Identified Icon Font with
16:07:00 <laura> role=img
16:07:08 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Providing_a_Semantically_Identified_Icon_Font_with_role%3Dimg
16:07:22 <laura> The objective of this technique is to show how to provide a semantically identified icon font that does not disappear if a user  overrides font-family via user stylesheet.
16:07:22 <allanj> wd: we may loose ability to change fonts. need to put in the GL to ensure ability to change fonts
16:07:55 <allanj> wd: combine font spacing, letter and word spacing and limit to 400%
16:08:02 <laura> WCAG also has  related failures: F87 F3
16:08:22 <alastairc> It came up repeatedly, we still can't see how it is a content issue. See Laura's extensive comments.
16:08:23 <Joshue108> q?
16:08:36 <alastairc> q+
16:08:49 <Joshue108> ack alas
16:08:57 <allanj> joc: was this discussed in LVTF. merged many SC. was font removed for a good reason.
16:09:15 <WayneD> q+
16:09:26 <steverep> q+
16:09:43 <allanj> ac: users can change fonts. don't need to add that ability. mitigate the impact of font changes.
16:10:08 <allanj> ... have techniques about font-icons. lots of research on font changes.
16:10:52 <laura>  LVTF RESOLUTION: "removing font family from Adapting Text SC text, because font width is very similar to letter spacing. we will address spacing and font family in the understanding document: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-lvtf-minutes.html#resolution01
16:10:56 <allanj> ... impact of font change was incorporated into letter spacing, word spaicing
16:11:39 <allanj> ac: not talking about font family, addressing the impact not a user agent issue.
16:11:46 <Greg> q+ to support Wayne: I believe (and have stated before) that I believe the concerns about font family can be addressed, and that it is important, and that making sure pages remain usable is separate from the issue of whether user agents support overriding.
16:11:54 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:11:56 <lisa> q+
16:11:57 <allanj> ac: added lots of information in the Understanding document.
16:13:01 <allanj> wd: there are many fonts that are more readable. they also need spacing. conflict with fonts and letter recognition.
16:13:22 <allanj> ac: there is nothing to limit the users ability to change font
16:14:21 <allanj> ac: we are talking about buffering around characters. preventing the layout falling apart.
16:15:09 <allanj> ... give the author information about how to buffer the content to not break the layout.
16:15:29 <Kim> Kim has joined #ag
16:15:38 <allanj> wd: if you change the font, then you can read. this is not about size.
16:16:08 <allanj> joc: issue of changing font family, is not crucial to this SC. this SC is about spacing.
16:16:22 <Joshue108> ack steve
16:16:31 <allanj> wd: I will file an objection on this SC
16:16:47 <WayneD> I file a formal objection to adapting text based on omission of font family
16:16:51 <alastairc> Wayne: Given that users can change font, what are you asking authors to do regarding fonts?
16:17:41 <laura> Wayne had mentioned Web Components may be a blocker for overriding font family. So I left the editors note in the SC to give him time to research and test that aspect.
16:17:50 <Joshue108> ack greg
16:17:50 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to support Wayne: I believe (and have stated before) that I believe the concerns about font family can be addressed, and that it is important, and that making sure
16:17:53 <Zakim> ... pages remain usable is separate from the issue of whether user agents support overriding.
16:18:00 <allanj> sr: AC covered all of my issues and comments. may need a bit of info in the Understanding about fonts
16:18:10 <WayneD> Ok I'll romove my objection.  Grr
16:18:20 <laura> q+
16:18:23 <allanj> gl: concerns - units on line spacing.
16:18:54 <allanj> ... wording has reintroduced
16:18:57 <allanj> This draft has brought back the problem that it inadvertently requires pages to provide their own means to override author styling, rather than merely requiring content to still work when the formatting is overridden at the client. Specifically, it says that if the technologies being used allow the user agent to "adapt style properties of text"--*ANY* style properties--then it has to support...
16:18:58 <allanj> ..."all" of those listed. It should instead only apply when the *corresponding* styles are adapted; that is, when the technologies (format and user agent) support adapting line spacing, then the content has to remain usable when line spacing is adapted. I still think my wording was cleaner, but understand the desire to start with more explicit scoping, so perhaps reword as "If the technologies bei
16:19:00 <allanj> ng used allow the user agent to adapt any of the following style properties of text, then no loss of essential content or functionality occurs by adapting those properties, as follows: * if line spacing (leading) is adapted, it can be adapted to at least 1.5 lines without the loss of essential content or functionality * if letter spacing (tracking) is adapted, it can be adapted to at least...
16:19:01 <allanj> ...0.12 em without the loss of essential content or functionality * if words spacing is adapted, it can be adapted to at least 0.16 em without the loss of essential content or functionality
16:19:18 <steverep> q+ to try to address Greg's concerns
16:19:34 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
16:19:34 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
16:19:36 <allanj> gl: first sentence says all styling is over-rideable
16:19:52 <allanj> ... need definition for adaptable
16:19:58 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:20:37 <allanj> gl: support WD about font family, I think.  agree with AC. user should be able to change all fonts.
16:21:09 <allanj> joc: need to iterate SC, if potentially good, get it to the public for comment.
16:21:28 <Joshue108> ack lisa
16:21:31 <allanj> wd: withdraw objection
16:21:48 <WayneD> q+
16:21:59 <Greg> I made four points, 3 from the survey, plus that Wayne and Alastair both have valid points but I think it'll be possible to come up with a solution that addresses Wayne's concern.
16:22:21 <Joshue108> ack laura
16:22:24 <allanj> ls: thought COGA asked for increased paragraph spacing.
16:23:26 <allanj> AC: LVTF reviewed. this is text level. para changes have layout complications.
16:23:39 <lisa> could we at least alow people to set phragh specing to 1.5?
16:23:46 <Joshue108> ack steve
16:23:46 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to try to address Greg's concerns
16:23:57 <allanj> lc: see survey for additional comments about GL and WD concerns.
16:24:10 <alastairc> Lisa: LVTF (mostly coming from me) didn't want to add in a layout-level change, it takes the complexity of the testing up a level.
16:24:58 <allanj> sr: spacing... any style property. changed wording. "following" can be added.
16:25:24 <allanj> ... don't need def for "adapting" just a synonym for "changing"
16:26:02 <allanj> joc: are we happy for this to go into the draft? public review?
16:26:06 <lisa> -1
16:26:08 <allanj> +1
16:26:10 <steverep> +1
16:26:10 <alastairc> +1 for this to go in
16:26:11 <laura> +1
16:26:11 <WayneD> +1
16:26:11 <Detlev> +1
16:26:12 <chriscm> +1
16:26:13 <marcjohlic> +1
16:26:13 <Rachael> +1
16:26:14 <KimDirks> +1
16:26:17 <Kathy> +1
16:26:20 <Joshue108> +1
16:26:37 <Greg> +1 for inclusion in draft, although not as written in a final version
16:26:42 <lisa> q+
16:27:03 <allanj> RESOLUTION: Adapting Text accepted into editors draft
16:27:21 <allanj> zakim, close item 2
16:27:21 <Zakim> agendum 2, Adapting Text: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextJuly6/, closed
16:27:23 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
16:27:23 <Zakim> 3. Resolving Issues 62/63/71: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues64-67-68/ [from Joshue108]
16:27:27 <lisa> josh, if there is an objection it should have some discusion time
16:27:36 <lisa> IRE that we can see if it can be addressed
16:27:37 <allanj> open item 3
16:27:53 <allanj> kw: addressing issues
16:28:36 <lisa> need to go to aria call now. leaving the call
16:28:44 <Joshue108>  We will acknowledge objection
16:29:06 <allanj> #62 keyboard, #63 touch functions, #71 non-interference with AT, #46 standard API
16:29:18 <WayneD> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues64-67-68/
16:29:49 <allanj> kw: should these be clarifications to conformance claim?
16:30:08 <allanj> ... please add comments, let's have a discussion
16:30:38 <allanj> rrsagent, make minutes
16:30:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/06-ag-minutes.html allanj
16:30:54 <Detlev> she took it back, Jossh!
16:32:34 <laura> Thanks.
16:34:23 <Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting
16:34:23 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:34:23 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AK, AWK, jasonjgw, david-macdonald, MichaelC, shadi, Detlev, MikeGower, KimDirks, steverep, Pietro, alastairc, Joshue, allanj, kirkwood,
16:34:26 <Zakim> ... Laura, Makoto, Rachael, chriscm, marcjohlic
16:34:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:34:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/06-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:34:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:34:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items