15:26:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:26:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/13-ag-irc
15:26:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:26:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
15:26:28 <AWK> +AWK
15:26:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:26:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:26:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:26:31 <trackbot> Date: 13 July 2017
15:26:40 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:26:40 <Zakim> Present: AWK
15:26:47 <AWK> agenda+ Undo : https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_undo/results
15:26:49 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:27:00 <AWK> agenda+ Personalisation:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6
15:27:05 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
15:27:06 <chriscm> chriscm has joined #ag
15:27:08 <AWK> Chair: AWK
15:27:33 <ChrisLoiselle> that better?
15:27:37 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:27:43 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:27:59 <JF> please advise the webex password, it is NOT the same as the one we used on Tuesday
15:28:00 <JF> thanks
15:28:37 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:30:37 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
15:30:43 <JF> Present+ JF
15:30:58 <KimD> Present+ KimD
15:31:31 <lisa> present+ lisa
15:31:43 <lisa> (trying to sign in..)
15:31:52 <Alex> Alex has joined #ag
15:31:55 <MichaelC> present+
15:32:29 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:33:10 <chriscm> present+ chriscm
15:33:21 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:34:30 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:35:13 <lisa> +1 shoot the passwords
15:35:30 <AWK> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:35:37 <ChrisLoiselle> I'll do next Tuesday , but need to sign off for 1pm sharp for another meeting
15:35:58 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
15:36:05 <MichaelC> present+
15:36:10 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
15:36:10 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Undo : https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_undo/results" taken up [from AWK]
15:36:48 <lisa> wording has changed!!
15:37:07 <AWK> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/undo_ISSUE-38/guidelines/#undo
15:37:11 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:37:15 <Pietro> Present+ Pietro
15:38:07 <gowerm> present+ MikeG
15:38:13 <JF> Q+
15:38:38 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: To Lisa, what would you like to do? Lisa, What changed?
15:38:39 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:39:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Scope is now part of SC. New language and exceptions added to address concerns
15:39:02 <david-macdonald> Is there a post to the list with the link to get in to webex?
15:39:23 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:39:35 <AWK> David:  https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md222811081e24ba7da9d428c5b5516e3
15:39:44 <david-macdonald> Presetn+ David-MacDonald
15:39:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Are there outstanding concerns?
15:39:56 <david-macdonald> Present+ David-MacDonald
15:40:03 <AWK> Users are provided with the ability to undo an action and to correct mistakes such that:  The user can return to the location they were at, prior to the change in context, via labeled controls without unwanted loss of data unless the data loss is part of the correction; or the user can repair information entered, via labeled controls, and without unwanted loss of data unless the data loss is part of the correction.
15:40:12 <AWK> Exceptions: Where allowing the user to undo an action or maintaining data may cause harm such as adding risk to the user privacy or security. Where the user has confirmed an action it does not have to be reversible. Where allowing the user to undo an action may interfere with the essential function of the content. Where the action can no longer be controlled by the site.
15:40:24 <gowerm> q+
15:40:37 <lisa> Users are provided with the ability to undo an action and to correct mistakes such that:
15:40:39 <lisa> -    The user can return to the location they were at, prior to the change in context, via labeled controls without unwanted loss of data unless the data loss is part of the correction; or
15:40:40 <lisa>  -   the user can repair information entered, via labeled controls, and without unwanted loss of data unless the data loss is part of the correction.
15:40:42 <lisa> Exceptions:
15:40:43 <lisa>   -  Where allowing the user to undo an action or maintaining data may cause harm such as adding risk to the user privacy or security.
15:40:45 <lisa>  -   Where the user has confirmed an action it does not have to be reversible.
15:40:46 <lisa>  -   Where allowing the user to undo an action may interfere with the essential function of the content.
15:40:48 <lisa>  -   Where the action can no longer be controlled by the site.
15:40:48 <AWK> ack jf
15:41:33 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: complex data form applications, some of the answers are in state, when you are trying to go back , you go back to the start of process rather than back one step.
15:41:53 <ChrisLoiselle> Is this use case being addressed?
15:42:18 <chriscm> I don't see the addition of "User Agent Back Button" being used in place of/addition to "labeled controls". Are we relying on some definitions that I'm not privy to?
15:42:21 <chriscm> Can hop on queue if I need to, but thought this question was pretty simple.
15:42:28 <Greg> (The latest wording is also at https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/undo_ISSUE-38/guidelines/#undo, the link in the survey.)
15:42:40 <AWK> q+ Chriscm
15:42:48 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Where use case is due to privacy, it is part of exception.
15:43:06 <Alex> q+
15:43:16 <david-macdonald> this pwd doesn't seem to work??? w3c-wai-gl
15:44:07 <AWK> s/this pwd doesn't seem to work??? w3c-wai-gl/
15:44:56 <gowerm> the other pwd is for Tuesday. Its w3c for Thursday
15:45:15 <AWK> *** concern about fully covering state changes in applications
15:45:16 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Doesn't seem to be addressing scenario where going backwards destroys state. Maybe we can address this in the privacy editorial section.
15:45:26 <AWK> ack gower
15:45:40 <marcjohlic> s/the other pwd is for Tuesday. Its w3c for Thursday/
15:45:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike Gower: Seems to be overlap on what Rachel is working on.
15:46:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: We merged them.
15:47:11 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike Gower: chance to confirm information was main point, thought that when they were separated , that they were easier to understand. I.e. confirmation screen.
15:47:48 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: We haven't merged them, we are trying to make them consistent with each other.
15:48:22 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: They are separated.
15:49:36 <chriscm> I am not sure what is meant by "Access key" as it pertains to going back on a mobile device...
15:49:42 <AWK> *** concern about explicitly requiring "labeled controls" - isn't this covered by other SC
15:50:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Access key or gesture is labeled to screen reader, but visually you won't know it is there.
15:51:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa, are you talking about voicemail or something else? Sorry. didn't catch word.
15:51:32 <JF> s/Its w3c for Thursday/
15:51:50 <ChrisLoiselle> MikeGower: What happens with real-time transactions?
15:52:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Thought exception "Where the action can no longer be controlled by the site" would cover that scenario
15:52:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: That exception was meant to include it.
15:52:41 <AWK> ack c
15:54:07 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisCM: User agent back button action to suffice for "labeled control". I.e. mobile device buttons and access keys with built in functions actually trigger same action
15:54:13 <jasonjgw> present+
15:54:14 <AWK> *** concern - would the back button be sufficient?
15:54:49 <lisa> q+
15:54:54 <ChrisLoiselle> We should embrace this "back button action".
15:55:03 <Greg> q+ to say I thought that other SC can be conformed with by providing keyboard-only commands. If that is correct, why make this one be different by requiring labeled controls only for Undo?
15:55:19 <lisa> +1
15:55:33 <JF> +1
15:55:37 <Detlev> +1 back button is well known even if not labelled
15:55:48 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: Would back button be sufficient?
15:55:59 <AWK> ack alex
15:55:59 <lisa> so we will take out labled controled as well
15:56:10 <KimD> +1
15:56:12 <Alex> is there audio?
15:56:23 <lisa> we cant here alex
15:56:24 <Alex> or is it just me?
15:56:28 <lisa> just u
15:56:30 <AWK> my audio cut out
15:56:35 <ChrisLoiselle> yes
15:56:58 <Alex> i'll call back
15:57:02 <gowerm> my audio cut. redialing
15:57:09 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: dropping to call back in.
15:57:13 <lisa> ack l
15:57:13 <JF> Q?
15:57:25 <KimD> *My audio dropped
15:57:38 <MichaelC> q+ alex
15:57:41 <MichaelC> ack gre
15:57:41 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say I thought that other SC can be conformed with by providing keyboard-only commands. If that is correct, why make this one be different by requiring labeled
15:57:44 <Zakim> ... controls only for Undo?
15:58:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Michael: to Greg, no audio. Greg has dropped.
15:58:15 <Greg> No audio at the moment; trying to reconnect.
15:58:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: We will get rid of "labeled controls" in SC
15:58:29 <MichaelC> ack alex
15:58:35 <MichaelC> q+ greg
15:58:39 <gowerm> unable to dial back in.
15:59:04 <alastairc> q+ to ask if there is a simpler way of wording it (with suggestion)
15:59:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Alex: clarifying question on what do you mean by a "a new context", i.e. prior location?
15:59:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: the location they were at before they pressed the wrong thing.
15:59:56 <ChrisLoiselle> Alex: Is this same as change of context vs. change in context?
16:00:19 <ChrisLoiselle> We need this to be clearly defined.
16:00:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: Will work on wording of this portion of text
16:01:29 <chriscm> q+
16:01:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Alex: Timing as an issue, i.e. allowing undo in perpetuity is not something we should endorse. Some sort of time /session boundary needs to be addressed.
16:01:35 <chriscm> q-
16:02:01 <chriscm> +1 to "unwanted" comments.
16:02:08 <ChrisLoiselle> The text "Unwanted" is still there. How is this defined?
16:02:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Alex, what was the last comment you made? I was typing the other.
16:03:36 <lisa> we agreed to remove the labled controls
16:03:38 <lisa> it is done
16:03:59 <ChrisLoiselle> Alex: You can undo a typing error by hitting backspace. I.e. regular typing would not be counted as an action. Or you wouldn't have to label those instructions. I.e backspace or shift + tab or control + Z
16:04:02 <AWK> *** concern about undoing typing with backspace.
16:04:13 <AWK> ack greg
16:04:34 <gowerm> q+
16:04:41 <AWK> q+ greg
16:04:44 <lisa> time reminder
16:04:45 <AWK> ack ala
16:04:45 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if there is a simpler way of wording it (with suggestion)
16:04:59 <AWK> zakim, close the queue
16:04:59 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed
16:05:07 <Pietro> Audio in WebEx by browser dropped, now audio works by desktop application
16:05:09 <alastairc> Users can undo an action by returning to the action, and correct data entry by repairing the information entered without unwanted loss of data except when:
16:05:15 <Detlev> scoping: "applies to actions that call up new page or change page content"?
16:05:17 <david-macdonald> is there a link to latest text?
16:05:30 <david-macdonald> is it here? https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/undo_ISSUE-38/guidelines/sc/21/undo.html
16:05:38 <ChrisLoiselle> AlastairC: what is missing to what I pasted in IRC?
16:06:08 <ChrisLoiselle> One is undoing action and the other is correcting input?
16:06:35 <gowerm> so 'remove "returning to the action'
16:06:58 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: going back is going to be difficult. I.e. filling shopping cart , you can edit shopping cart at end rather than updating amount of lemons on lemon's add page.
16:07:40 <Greg> David, the text at that link does not reflect removing the labeling requirement or any other changes from this call.
16:07:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Is it data or action? Needs clarification.
16:08:02 <david-macdonald> Is there a working text we are looking at?
16:08:11 <AWK> ack gower
16:08:44 <ChrisLoiselle> MikeGower: What is difference between correct mistakes and repairing information?
16:08:54 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: correct mistakes is a wider scope
16:09:15 <gowerm> 	Users are provided with the ability to undo an action or correct mistakes such that the user can return to the location they were at without unwanted loss of data unless the data loss is part of the correction.
16:09:45 <chriscm> Can we changed "without unwanted loss" to "without required loss"
16:10:11 <chriscm> required being defined as: security/password, etc... many of the things listed in the Exceptions.
16:10:22 <david-macdonald> "Users are provided with the ability to... could be "A mechanism is available to..."
16:10:25 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: Talks to scenario where you are booking a course. Choose location first, then course is not available in another location.
16:10:29 <alastairc> I thought that  data loss that is part of the correction would "wanted".
16:10:45 <Greg> That new, simplified wording does not address privacy/security concerns, or things that are no longer mutable, etc., etc.
16:10:48 <lisa> Users can undo an action by returning to the action, and correct data entry by repairing the information entered without unwanted loss of data except when:
16:11:32 <gowerm> q+
16:12:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike Gower, did you want me to note that concern here?
16:13:07 <ChrisLoiselle> RESOLUTION: Leave open for further edits from Lisa, Mike and Alastair
16:13:16 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, next item
16:13:16 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisLoiselle
16:13:20 <gowerm> I'm concerned we are not looking at more 'ready' SCs.
16:13:27 <AWK> ack gre
16:13:32 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, next item
16:13:32 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Personalisation:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6" taken up [from AWK]
16:13:33 <gowerm> Such as Confirm Importnat Information
16:13:38 <Greg> q-
16:14:02 <lisa> gregg can you wemail me your issue?
16:14:49 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: Greg, do you want to speak to Programmatically Available to the forum?
16:15:03 <JF> Q+
16:15:47 <david-macdonald> q+
16:15:49 <ChrisLoiselle> GregL: In User Agent guidelines, we have developed a definition that is much more specific for Programmatically Available
16:16:11 <AWK> Programmatically available: Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g. through the use of WAI-ARIA). Something is programmatically available
16:16:13 <ChrisLoiselle> It is in part for the AT to be able to work correctly
16:16:19 <AWK> ...if the entity presenting the information does so in a way that is explicit and unambiguous, in a way that can be understood without reverse-engineering or complex (and thus potentially fallible) heuristics, and only relying on methods that are published, and officially supported by the developers of the software being evaluated.
16:16:43 <david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html
16:16:52 <lisa> q+
16:17:08 <david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head
16:17:27 <ChrisLoiselle> AWK: One of the challenges about personalization is : what items / bits of data are we talking about specifically? COGA talks to things that are in draft form.
16:17:46 <david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef
16:17:51 <ChrisLoiselle> If there is not support for tooling to take advantage of this data, then there is testing concerns related to this.
16:18:04 <lisa> i am on mute
16:18:26 <jasonjgw> q+
16:18:35 <david-macdonald> programmatically determined (programmatically determinable) determined by software from author-supplied data provided in a way that different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract and present this information to users in different modalities
16:18:48 <david-macdonald> From WCAG
16:18:48 <lisa> lol, easly confused...
16:19:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Authors are putting work into a page and can't demonstrate what it does, we may have to require a hook to meet it half way.
16:19:29 <AWK> ack JF
16:20:16 <chriscm> +1
16:20:19 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: The way this is being structured now, the title attribute would satisfy this success criteria per normative...
16:20:31 <alastairc> So why isn't that a problem for 4.1.2?
16:20:43 <lisa> exactly alister
16:20:50 <ChrisLoiselle> We are creating a loophole via the title attribute
16:20:50 <JF> The title attribute represents advisory information for the element, such as would be appropriate for a tooltip. On a link, this could be the title or a description of the target resource; on an image, it could be the image credit or a description of the image; on a paragraph, it could be a footnote or commentary on the text; on a citation, it could be further information about the source; on interactive content, it could be a label for, or instructions for, use of
16:20:51 <lisa> it iis the samw
16:21:01 <AWK> ack dav
16:21:22 <alastairc> q+
16:21:26 <ChrisLoiselle> DavidM: Programmatically determined vs. available...introducing a new term may add more confusion
16:21:26 <JF> +1 to David
16:22:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa: asks for clarification
16:22:16 <ChrisLoiselle> David, did you mean that this causes ambiguity?
16:23:02 <gowerm> +1 fixed taxonomy
16:23:04 <AndroUser2> AndroUser2 has joined #ag
16:23:10 <alastairc> JF but 4.1.2 doesn't specify the taxonomy either
16:23:20 <david-macdonald> q+
16:23:26 <AndroUser2> +q to speak to John's example
16:23:43 <chriscm> +1 taxonomy
16:23:53 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Working from a fixed taxonomy currently. The introduction of title=button , which is legitimate is not useful
16:24:14 <chriscm> Getting a bit heated...
16:24:28 <Greg> q+ to say The key question we need to answer first is: do we want to require the page to provide info that is human-understandable (WCAG's "programmatically determined"), or that is computer-understandable (UAAG's "programmatically available")? That is, do we only intend for AT to pass it on to the user, or to use it to make decisions, carry out actions, and alter the content? Info in TITLE...
16:24:29 <Greg> ...would be the former, but not the latter.
16:25:10 <ChrisLoiselle> I'm losing the conversation. sorry.
16:25:22 <lisa> me to  chriss
16:26:02 <chriscm> q+
16:26:12 <ChrisLoiselle> The way it is written, contextual information is available, what does that mean?
16:26:30 <lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6 has these terms defined
16:27:21 <AWK> contextual information: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/terms/21/contextual-information.html
16:27:30 <gowerm> contextual information
16:27:32 <gowerm>     Proposed
16:27:33 <gowerm>     The concept; role; importance for simplification; information that clarifies the meaning; relationships to other elements; position in a process; process of which this element is a part
16:27:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Lisa and JF, Could you please provide your comments in text within IRC, I lost the point trying to keep track. I just want to list what you said correctly.
16:27:55 <AWK> q?
16:28:11 <AWK> ack l
16:28:15 <gowerm> That definition is a mess, IMO
16:28:19 <Greg> Is the wording at the top of the Issue 6 page still the currently proposed wording?
16:29:21 <alastairc> @Greg from the link at the top, not the text under SC text.
16:29:36 <AWK> ack jason
16:29:48 <marcjohlic> Trying to understand if the things listed in this definition are AND statements or OR statements..  It's not clear to me
16:30:55 <AWK> ack ala
16:31:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Jason: I don't think specifying it in WCAG unless you are sure of the scope, I don't think it should be included at the moment. These may be met within the schedule, but I don't think they are there yet
16:31:04 <david-macdonald> q-
16:31:05 <alastairc> Common navigation elements, common form elements and common interactive controls can be personalised by:
16:31:05 <alastairc> - a mechanism that enables the user to add symbols OR
16:31:05 <alastairc> - contextual information that can be programmatically determined.
16:31:19 <AWK> Scribe: AWK
16:31:50 <AWK> Alastair: not sure how this is different from 4.1.2 specifying N/R/V
16:31:56 <ChrisLoiselle> Thanks, AWK. I'm ok to drop?
16:32:06 <AWK> ack andro
16:32:06 <Zakim> AndroUser, you wanted to speak to John's example
16:32:21 <ChrisLoiselle> thanks.
16:32:34 <AWK> Josh: John's title example is important
16:32:53 <AWK> ... in the past AT didn't have a way to support some information and the title attribute was used
16:33:16 <AWK> ... but now with the HTML5 spec the title attribute is better, but still broadly defined.
16:33:25 <JF> +1 to Josh
16:33:54 <JF> As in this example: <a href="" title="The history of the ACME Company">About</a>
16:33:57 <lisa> josh did you read the definition of context?
16:34:00 <alastairc> Lisa: The last gap from my point of view is there there doesn't appear to be any user-side technology, even in development, that would use the meta-data part of it.
16:34:13 <AWK_> AWK_ has joined #ag
16:34:18 <lisa> there is a few things happnign alister
16:34:22 <AWK_> ack greg
16:34:22 <Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say The key question we need to answer first is: do we want to require the page to provide info that is human-understandable (WCAG's "programmatically
16:34:25 <Zakim> ... determined"), or that is computer-understandable (UAAG's "programmatically available")? That is, do we only intend for AT to pass it on to the user, or to use it to make
16:34:25 <Zakim> ... decisions, carry out actions, and alter the content? Info in TITLE...
16:34:57 <AWK_> Greg: is the goal to have human-usable or computer-usable information here?
16:35:26 <AWK_> ... this definition for contextual info starts to sound like computer-usable, but then it gets confusing
16:35:26 <lisa> i am happy to add a deffiniton for computer-understandable
16:36:16 <AWK_> *** concern that the computer-usable focus needs to be addressed, per Greg's comment
16:36:19 <AWK_> ack c
16:36:23 <AWK_> zakim, close the queue
16:36:23 <Zakim> ok, AWK_, the speaker queue is closed
16:36:56 <gowerm> +1 to effect on ecosystem
16:37:03 <Greg> My point was that the key question we need to answer first is: do we want to require the page to provide info that is human-understandable (WCAG's "programmatically determined"), or that is computer-understandable (UAAG's "programmatically available")? That is, do we only intend for AT to pass it on to the user, or to use it to make decisions, carry out actions, and alter the content? Info...
16:37:04 <Greg> ...in TITLE would be the former, but not the latter. I feel the definition of "contextual information" starts by implying it's the latter, but is not rigorous enough about it as it only gives examples of such.
16:37:17 <lisa> the ecco system wont mature becuse there is not enough content
16:37:29 <lisa> and now with aria the blind can use web apps
16:37:29 <AWK_> Chris: there are issues that remain from undefined use of semantics for role, we might be headed that way here too
16:37:35 <lisa> a lot of the time
16:37:38 <lisa> but coga cant
16:37:56 <alastairc> Hmm, I think there is a hangover of perceptions from previous versions of the SC + info. I'll try and clarify on list.
16:38:15 <Joshue108> I'm here 2..
16:38:32 <david-macdonald> q+
16:38:37 <Joshue108> +1 to continuing
16:38:51 <lisa> do we see a point in trying to work this out
16:39:32 <JF> +1 to David - ask for whart you really want, and don't try to widen the circle so wide that it gets us nothing
16:39:35 <chriscm> q+
16:40:14 <JF> For this to really work, it needs a fixed taxonomy.
16:40:34 <lisa> mike you have seen the working draft
16:40:40 <lisa> ?
16:40:54 <chriscm> q-
16:40:55 <gowerm> Yes, I have. I've been commenting on it in the issue thread for the last 6 months.
16:41:07 <Joshue108> John, what is the difference between your suggestions of a taxonomy and Lisa's COGA semantics?
16:41:50 <Joshue108> Are both not effectively APIs?
16:42:10 <JF> None... that's the point. I stated in my email that I'd much rather make this a AAA today, and 'demand' coga-semantics, rather than try and make this a single A with such a broad scope that using @title *DOES* meet the technical requirement but in practice doesn;t address the real need
16:42:29 <Joshue108> Ok, I get you.
16:42:44 <Joshue108> I see the sense in that point, also made by David..
16:43:14 <Joshue108> So go all in.
16:43:21 <JF> As I noted, if we as a group *do* accept that using @title meets the functional requirement today, then carry on. Just understand the consequences of that decision
16:43:23 <chriscm> @Joshue108 and @JF I don't think he's saying they are different. I believe he's suggesting they aren't mature enough, or widely adopted enough to provide a real solution. It's like trying to hammer in a nail, but you only have the handle of the hammer.  And it's a pretty flimsy handle at that.
16:43:38 <Joshue108> They would need to mature..
16:43:50 <Joshue108> Right Chris
16:44:08 <JF> exactly. I mean, wiht no offense to that TF, the draft spec has all kinds of incomplete gaps in it now
16:44:19 <gowerm> And I have argued that we can include coga techniques to bring them to enhance adoption and help improve maturity without this being a requirement, just like we did with ARIA.
16:44:30 <chriscm> q+
16:44:41 <Joshue108> Right, then that needs to be water tight to strengthen the case for adoption
16:45:05 <Joshue108> +1 to Mike
16:45:14 <Joshue108> I'd be happy to support that..
16:45:21 <gowerm> There is STILL not requirement to use ARIA, a much more mature spec, and yet we have lots of adoption, etc. Why can that not be the approach?
16:45:37 <Joshue108> Just don't want to require an insubstantial API
16:45:42 <Joshue108> Or immature..
16:45:54 <Joshue108> It would weaken the whole project
16:46:24 <gowerm> And no infrastructure to support it
16:46:31 <Joshue108> Unless we define user requirements that can be supported by independent APIs if devs want
16:46:48 <Joshue108> But they would need a steer..
16:50:30 <AWK_> trackbot, end meeting
16:50:30 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:50:30 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, ChrisLoiselle, JF, KimD, lisa, MichaelC, chriscm, alastairc, Greg_Lowney, Detlev, Pietro, MikeG, David-MacDonald, jasonjgw
16:50:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:50:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/13-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:50:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:50:39 <RRSAgent> I see no action items