15:06:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:06:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/28-ag-irc
15:06:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:06:29 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
15:06:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:06:31 <trackbot> Date: 28 September 2017
15:06:37 <AWK_> hakim who is on the phone?
15:06:43 <AWK_> zakim who is on the phone?
15:06:49 <AWK_> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:06:49 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
15:06:52 <AWK_> +AWK
15:06:57 <AWK_> Chair: Joshue
15:07:01 <AWK_> agedna?
15:07:03 <AWK_> agenda?
15:08:04 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:09:41 <Roy> Roy has joined #ag
15:22:16 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:27:31 <Detlev_> Detlev_ has joined #ag
15:28:01 <brooks> brooks has joined #ag
15:28:18 <brooks> present+ brooks
15:28:25 <Detlev_> present+ Detlev_
15:28:34 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:29:07 <Roy> present+
15:29:28 <Joshue108> present+
15:29:34 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:30:10 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
15:30:13 <KimD> Present+
15:30:15 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:30:15 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:30:52 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:30:57 <Joshue108> agenda+ New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/
15:31:06 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
15:31:07 <Joshue108> agenda+ Use of the term 'easily available' https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/373  (with Lisa)
15:31:23 <Joshue108> agenda+ Assigning AGWG read work issues
15:31:28 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:32:31 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:32:33 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:32:35 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:32:39 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:32:41 <steverep> present+steverep
15:32:42 <JF> present+ JF
15:33:12 <david-macdonald> Present+ David-MacDonald
15:33:13 <AWK_> regrets+ laura
15:33:23 <AWK_> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:33:23 <Zakim> Present: AWK, brooks, Detlev_, Roy, Joshue, KimD, Glenda, Melanie_Philipp, Greg_Lowney, steverep, JF, David-MacDonald
15:34:50 <brooks> Scribenick: brooks
15:35:40 <laura> regrets- Laura
15:35:45 <laura> present+ Laura
15:36:57 <brooks> zakim, next item
15:36:57 <Zakim> agendum 1. "New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:37:12 <Joshue108> TOPIC: PR for: Sync Accessible Name SC language with existing WCAG terminology #371
15:38:23 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/377
15:38:30 <MichaelC> present+
15:38:40 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/371
15:39:26 <brooks> Josh: We have a few items to go over today, such as a pull request for accessible names.  Accessible names terminology are not synced between 2.1 and 2.0.  There are a couple of suggested changes.
15:39:27 <david2> david2 has joined #ag
15:39:50 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 30 mins
15:39:50 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:40:17 <brooks> MichaelC: One question about removing a note about removing a best practice.  It should be removed from this pull request.  It blocks processing the changes this issue is focused on.
15:40:20 <lisa> present+
15:40:35 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
15:40:41 <Pietro> Present+
15:41:12 <brooks> Steve: No problem with Michael's suggestion.  We need a cohesive document that uses the same language.
15:42:05 <brooks> MichaelC:  I agree with Steve.  But, it should be considered separately.  It should be put back in as it is now, then in a future edit process proposed change.
15:42:20 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #ag
15:42:41 <brooks> Steve: It should say "Make sure that whatever the text of the label is, should be at the beginning of the accessible name."
15:42:48 <AndyHeath> AndyHeath has joined #ag
15:43:05 <AndyHeath> present+
15:43:06 <brooks> Josh: We may have to pick out some of these things and submit them as individual issues.
15:43:22 <Ryladog_> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:43:31 <brooks> Steve: Not sure how to individualize the issues.
15:44:04 <Joshue108> q?
15:44:06 <brooks> MichaelC: Support all that Steve mentioned, except the note regarding labels with accessible name.
15:44:41 <brooks> Steve: If I add it back in to include with the same language, would that be OK?
15:45:08 <brooks> MichaelC: Put it back in with original text, and submit a separate pull request.
15:45:20 <jasonjgw> present+
15:45:41 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:45:42 <brooks> AWK: Take back active UI controls comment.  I like the idea of using "Name," because that's whats in 4.1.2.
15:45:44 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:45:54 <Detlev_> q+
15:46:11 <lisa> (I love that aim - consistent confusion :)
15:46:27 <brooks> ...warming up to the new title of the relevant SC.  "Label in name" may be a good approach.
15:46:35 <Joshue108> q?
15:46:44 <JF> Q+
15:46:46 <brooks> Steve: Want to put label in name as the suggestion.
15:46:51 <Joshue108> ack det
15:47:23 <brooks> Detlev: Was there a survey on this?
15:47:29 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/
15:47:36 <Detlev_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20170920_survey/
15:47:47 <brooks> Josh: Are you talking about a previous survey?
15:48:21 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20170920_survey/results#xq3
15:48:23 <Ryladog_> +1 to suggext changing the name of the SC Accessible Name to something that will not confuse it with accessible name in AAPIs
15:48:51 <brooks> Josh: I can't recall the details of the survey you referenced by URL.  What date was this?
15:48:59 <brooks> AWK: I think this survey is old.
15:49:20 <brooks> Detlev: It was linked to the MATF email.
15:50:04 <Joshue108> ack JF
15:50:36 <AWK_> q+
15:51:24 <brooks> JF: Current definition of name is already defined.  Name just needs to be exposed to assistive technology.  Let's be consistent and crosslink current definition to create a learning opportunity.
15:51:40 <steverep> q+ I agree with John
15:51:52 <brooks> Josh: Are there bits of it you don't like?
15:52:07 <Joshue108> q?
15:52:10 <david2> q+
15:52:14 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:52:16 <AWK_> ack AWK
15:52:19 <brooks> JF: At the end of the day, I'll move for consensus - but, it seems like we should just call it what it is.
15:52:40 <JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-name
15:52:47 <brooks> AWK: Does the definition of "name" in WCAG 2.0 match what we've use in the APIs?
15:53:15 <brooks> JF: Yes, what's currently defined matches what is in APIs.
15:54:12 <brooks> AWK: In many cases, the name and the label are the same.  At times, there's more text available in the name versus the visual label.  We seek parity between label and name.
15:54:33 <Joshue108> q?
15:54:42 <brooks> ...What Steve is saying is let's have one definition of name.  Let's get rid of the new definition and stick with the old one.
15:55:53 <brooks> Katie: We need further clarification.
15:56:29 <Ryladog_> q+
15:56:33 <brooks> Josh: In 2.1 it is important to sync up on its own, syncing up with 2.0 is another thing.
15:56:48 <Joshue108> ack david
15:56:51 <steverep> Would it help if we took some of the "accessible name" definition and put it in as a note in "name"?
15:57:13 <AWK_> q+ to say that people understand that "name" in WCAG 2.0 = "accessible name" in accessibility APIs. The thing that would make that confusing is if we offer a separate def for "accessible name" in WCAG
15:57:43 <Joshue108> +1 to AWK
15:57:45 <brooks> David: Steve's point is good one.  Consistency is what we need.  There should be parity.  My preference is to update the word "name" to "accessible name" througout 2.1 - make a note that it corresponds to "name" in 2.0
15:57:59 <Joshue108> ack Ryla
15:58:01 <JF> either that, or improve the definition of "name" in WCAG, to directly connect it to the accessible name concept
15:58:05 <AWK_> -1 to the suggestion to change "name" to "accessible name". Slippery slope on changing existing SC when we don't need to.
15:58:24 <brooks> Katie: I agree with David and point out in this
15:59:04 <brooks> ...we should change "name" to "accessible name" throughout 2.1, and identify that we mean that in relationship to accessibility APIs
15:59:05 <gowerm> q+
15:59:16 <Joshue108> awk
15:59:24 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:59:24 <Zakim> AWK_, you wanted to say that people understand that "name" in WCAG 2.0 = "accessible name" in accessibility APIs. The thing that would make that confusing is if we offer a separate
15:59:28 <Zakim> ... def for "accessible name" in WCAG
15:59:44 <JF> Q+
16:00:06 <MichaelC> q+ to -1 for redefining WCAG 2.0 name
16:00:14 <JF> suggestion: NAME (aka Accessible Name)
16:00:48 <brooks> AWK: We have made it clear that this is not the same as the HTML name attribute.  I don't agree that we should change the text of the current SC.  It's a slippery slope for changing more SCs.
16:01:35 <Joshue108> ack gower
16:01:45 <brooks> Katie: We should make it clear the differences in the meaning of the name attribute from what we mean by accessible name.
16:02:09 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:02:15 <brooks> Gower: I think we are going to run into hot water if we try to change the meaning of name across the board.
16:02:44 <david2> +1
16:02:53 <Joshue108> +1 to that
16:03:12 <Joshue108> I'd rather see the definition made made more explicit also
16:03:13 <brooks> JF: We have two terms that have nearly identical definitions.  Let's remove that redundancy.  Let's expand on the definition of the term "Name" by saying it maps the accessible name in accessibility APIs.  Let's remove one definition and move to an expanded definition.
16:03:16 <Joshue108> ack michae
16:03:16 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to -1 for redefining WCAG 2.0 name
16:03:35 <brooks> MichaelC: I would want to see a proposal on.  I'm not sure that's the solution.
16:03:43 <AWK_> Could be clarified in Understanding very easily
16:03:48 <brooks> JF: Just looking to better clarify what we have in place.
16:03:53 <steverep> q+ to say then it should be errata on 2.0 and a separate issue
16:04:14 <brooks> MichaelC: Would not want to see "name" changed across the board to "accessible name."
16:04:24 <JF> +1 to STeve's idea (errata)
16:04:29 <Joshue108> ack steve
16:04:29 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say then it should be errata on 2.0 and a separate issue
16:05:02 <AWK_> q+ to say that name to accessible name is not an errata.
16:05:11 <Joshue108> q+ to say the definition addendum to clarify name == accessible name would be good
16:05:11 <brooks> Steve: I will be happy to just add back in the note, and bring this up as a separate issue.  I don't want to change the definition of name as part of this issue.
16:05:17 <AWK_> ack AWK
16:05:17 <Zakim> AWK_, you wanted to say that name to accessible name is not an errata.
16:05:18 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:06:00 <Joshue108> ack me
16:06:00 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say the definition addendum to clarify name == accessible name would be good
16:06:06 <steverep> I meant the note, not changing the term
16:06:08 <brooks> AWK: We could also address this clarification in Understanding.  Errata are for the things we made a mistake - calling it "name" in WCAG 2.0 was not a mistake.  Errata isn't appropriate for this clarification.
16:06:21 <brooks> ...I agree that we need one definition, and it should be "name"
16:06:29 <brooks> Josh:  I agree with that.
16:06:46 <Ryladog_> +1 to Josh add clarification
16:07:12 <brooks> Josh: Steve, do you have something you can work with to come back with the group?
16:07:57 <brooks> Steve: If you want that stuff in there, we could add it as a note to the existing definition of "name" - could be confusion between what's in 2.0 and 2.1
16:08:25 <brooks> AWK: we should be able to accept the update as accepted as amended
16:08:51 <brooks> Josh: Is there any objections to the pull request, with regard to opinions on the call?
16:08:58 <steverep> Amended means to me adding back in a translated version of the note, and nothing else.
16:09:21 <brooks> Katie: I can accept this if there is a connection between our use of name and accessible name as definied in accessible APIs
16:09:50 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:09:54 <AWK_> amendments are: re-adding note in accessible-name.html
16:10:00 <brooks> AWK: Someone will have to come up with a proposal
16:10:16 <brooks> Josh: Any objections to Steve's pull request as amended.
16:10:38 <brooks> RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended
16:11:04 <brooks> Josh: I don't think that clarifying name will hurt anything
16:11:10 <Joshue108> TOPIC: PR for:Use of "essential" #372 and comment #333
16:11:48 <brooks> Josh: This next item is from Steve and relates to word "essential"
16:12:57 <brooks> ...do you want to frame up the suggested pull request, then we'll go through your comments.
16:13:43 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
16:13:44 <brooks> Steve: There are two pull requests, trying to get "essential" back to the way it was in 2.0, the other is correcting incorrect uses of the word "essential" in 2.1
16:14:01 <Joshue108> Apologies that these got conflated - my bad..
16:14:23 <Detlev_> Can someone put in a link to the pull request?
16:14:36 <brooks> ...The first pull request has to do with the change in the definition of "essential" when we added Orientation into.  This pull request removes the definition from SC and adds it as a note.
16:14:40 <lisa> fry next week i will miss both calls
16:14:45 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/393
16:15:21 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/393/files?diff=split
16:16:05 <brooks> Josh: Thumbs up to the first part of this.  Any objections to accepting this pull request?
16:16:11 <Detlev_> +1 to PR
16:16:15 <Joshue108> RESOLUTION: Accepted #393
16:16:26 <laura> “Examples wwhere”
16:16:38 <brooks> AWK: Steve, change "where" so that is spelled with one "w" - In orientation.html
16:17:20 <lisa> I am a but confuced here
16:17:20 <brooks> Josh: Andrew, your comment is related to 3.3.3? Right?
16:17:20 <brooks> MichaelC: Yes
16:17:20 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
16:17:23 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #ag
16:17:53 <brooks> AWK: Pull request 398 is the one my comments are based on.
16:18:09 <lisa> the link to 393 is opening an irc channel for me
16:18:18 <lisa> so i have no idea what we are talking about
16:18:42 <brooks> Josh: Can we take up number 6 now?
16:18:43 <Joshue108> TOPIC: PR for: Correct all uses of Essential
16:19:03 <lisa> q+
16:19:06 <brooks> Josh: Steve, was this one you again?
16:19:10 <brooks> Steve: Yes
16:19:33 <lisa> does this issue affect the coga scs?
16:19:34 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/398
16:20:54 <Glenda> q+
16:20:54 <brooks> AWK: There are few of these where we need something else in the language.  We need to consider each instance where we want to remove "essential" and thoughtfully replace the word with an appropriate or phrase.
16:21:31 <steverep> q+ to ask if those concerns regarding Adapting Text are nullified by the current wording
16:22:22 <Glenda> We have a problem with the way “essential” is defined in WCAG 2.0.  It only applies to things that CANNOT CONFORM.
16:22:24 <Glenda> essential
16:22:25 <Glenda> if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
16:22:26 <brooks> ...Like with graphics contrast, if there are a large number of colored buttons, you don't have the ability to provide adequate contrast between all of the choices.  This is an instance where we need to choose the right language to replace essential.
16:22:48 <AWK_> q?
16:22:55 <AWK_> ack lisa
16:22:56 <brooks> AWK: The privacy interest group wants to visit with one of the chairs, and that's going to be Josh.  So I will be taking over now.
16:23:05 <Glenda> So…I’m willing to replace “essential” with “necessary”
16:23:57 <brooks> Lisa: I'm confused on where the last topic was effecting the COGA Success Criteria.
16:24:16 <brooks> AWK: We haven't talked about this item yet.  No conclusion on this yet.
16:24:19 <AWK_> ack gl
16:25:22 <brooks> Glenda: I got what Steve was trying to convey what he meant about clearing up the way we use "essential."  We can only use "essential" for exceptions, based on the way we have defined "essential."
16:25:40 <jasonjgw> q+
16:25:44 <brooks> ...I just replaced the word "essential" with "necessary."
16:26:24 <brooks> AWK: The current pull request suggestion is to make the language read "required steps" in the authentication process.
16:27:02 <AWK_> ack steve
16:27:02 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask if those concerns regarding Adapting Text are nullified by the current wording
16:27:16 <brooks> Glenda: The definition of "essential" in 2.0 makes it so we can use it in a negative way, not positive.  When we need to use "essential" in a positive way, we need to use a synonym for "essential."
16:28:11 <laura> I'm okay with removing essential modifier in the adapting text SC. What kind of text would not be considered essential? Are ads the only example?
16:28:22 <brooks> Steve: I tried to do what Glenda has suggested.  I tried to replace postive uses of "essential" with synonyms.
16:28:32 <kirkwood> present+
16:28:42 <brooks> ...I wonder if previous concerns are now moot?
16:29:22 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
16:29:35 <brooks> AWK: If use absolute language, we may not yield the best result.  Agree that "essential" may not be the right word, but we need to figure out what the right word is.
16:29:59 <brooks> Steve: It feels like this another issue separate.
16:30:31 <Glenda> agreed.  We don’t always drop the word essential.  Pardon the pun, but if “essential” is essential…we replace the positive use of the word “essential” with “necessary” or “required”.
16:31:06 <AWK_> ack jason
16:31:06 <brooks> AWK: I wouldn't want to take up removal of text as a separate issue.
16:31:52 <brooks> Jason: I am concerned about these concepts of things like "essential" and "required."
16:32:56 <brooks> ...In relation to adapting text, I would remove qualifications, unless there are clear examples that are meaningful.  Good concrete case are needed, then we use those to try to general language we can use.
16:33:13 <laura> +1 to Jason.
16:33:30 <brooks> ...If we aren't careful, we may wind up with unintended interpretations.
16:33:58 <steverep> q+ to say how subjective it is really depends on the SC
16:34:14 <Ryladog_> +1 to AWK
16:34:36 <brooks> AWK: From my part, I need more than an hour to come up with specific examples.  If this goes through a CfC, process that's OK.  If it is going through a comment, I'm not OK with that.
16:34:39 <AWK_> q+ alex
16:34:41 <AWK_> ack st
16:34:41 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say how subjective it is really depends on the SC
16:35:20 <jasonjgw> q+
16:35:21 <brooks> Steve: Let's take a look at each SC and determine the context to figure out the appropriate language.
16:35:30 <AWK_> ack al
16:35:34 <Glenda> crazy idea - could we use the WCAG 2.0 “essential” definition as “essential” when used in an exception.  And add a clause for when “essential” is used as a positive requirement.
16:36:41 <brooks> Alex: If the function is already there, and you can't achieve it any other way, it is essential.
16:36:44 <AWK_> ack jason
16:37:48 <brooks> Jason: Greg V.'s point was unless the criteria for determining essentiality is carefully define, and the use of it is constrained, then you can open up interpretation of the standard to problems.
16:37:57 <JF> +1 to needing clear definitions: critical for testability
16:38:50 <brooks> ...It depends upon the use of the term "essential" in the context in which it used.
16:39:15 <brooks> Alex: It depends on the use case.
16:40:37 <AndyHeath> +1 for Jason’s point
16:40:42 <brooks> Jason: "Essential" depends on what you interpret the purpose of the content is.  If you open up those kinds of judgments on the part of standards users, it will create problems.
16:41:19 <brooks> ...Steve's right when he asked us to consider each use of "essential" on a case-by-case basis.  We need reliablly testable grounds.
16:41:22 <Detlev_> I think we are moving in circles - is anyone disputing Steve's point?
16:41:59 <brooks> Alex: In which success criteria would removing "essential" have an impact?
16:42:23 <brooks> AWK: What we should do is to give people some more time to look at these instances of "essential" and discuss individually.
16:43:09 <steverep> No, because I need to go :)
16:43:15 <JF> +1 to resuming this discussion on our next call
16:43:22 <brooks> ...Do we want to spend more time on this now, or should we ask people to consider this carefully later?
16:43:56 <brooks> Alex: If you find any disagreeable use of essential exceptions, let's talk about it.
16:44:15 <gowerm> q+
16:44:26 <brooks> AWK: Let's leave this one open, and we'll pick up back again when people have had more time to review.
16:45:02 <brooks> Gowerm: Let's break it into different items for each instance where we consider the word "essential"
16:45:10 <brooks> RESOLUTION: Leave open
16:45:30 <brooks> zakim, take up item 5
16:45:30 <Zakim> I only see 3 items on the agenda
16:45:48 <brooks> zakim, take up item 4
16:45:48 <Zakim> I only see 3 items on the agenda
16:46:03 <AWK_> agenda?
16:46:35 <brooks> Lisa: Is the issue you wanted to be on the call for was the use of the word "easily?"
16:46:44 <brooks> zakim, take up item 2
16:46:44 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Use of the term 'easily available' https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/373  (with Lisa)" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:47:49 <brooks> Lisa: The word easily was objected to, but the phrase "easily available" was actually used.  It is linked to a definition.  There should not be a problem with this.
16:47:54 <MichaelC> q+
16:48:02 <gowerm> q-
16:48:16 <brooks> ...If you take out the word "easily," you are probably not helping people with cognitive disabilities.
16:48:27 <laura> easily available definition: https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-WCAG21-20170912/#dfn-easily-available
16:48:32 <AWK_> Based on https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#interruptions-minimum
16:48:41 <Detlev_> q+
16:48:51 <AWK_> ack michael
16:48:54 <brooks> ...We can tweak the definition, but taking out the word "easily" has a huge negative impact.
16:48:56 <MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/373
16:49:00 <MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/375
16:49:36 <jasonjgw> q+
16:49:38 <Glenda> +1 I agree.  The word “easily” is not objective.
16:50:02 <brooks> MichaelC: I filed two issues related to this.  There was an instance where we found a mechanism was "easily available".  Found no difference in meaning when we remove "easily".  Need to clean up definition.
16:50:20 <AWK_> q+ Alex
16:50:52 <lisa> agreed - the definition needs cleen up
16:51:21 <AWK_> ack det
16:51:22 <brooks> Detlev: I could not easily understand the definition - to be honest, it's not clear.  I don't think the current definition works as something that's understandable.  It needs to be very simple and clear
16:51:26 <AWK_> ack jas
16:52:11 <brooks> Jason: I commented on the mailing. I'm not going to repeat those details, but basically I agree with what Detlev is saying.  There are problems with the definition we have.
16:52:28 <lisa> +1 t editing the definiton to meet these concerns
16:52:44 <brooks> ...Given the way that it is worded, it is not reliably testable.
16:53:00 <lisa> q+
16:54:39 <brooks> ...one option is to change the definition.  The other option is to drop both the term and the definition.   Let's solve it in a different way, such as to provide meta data or some other mechanism that users can employ to get to controls quickly/easily.
16:55:13 <KimD> *For me, "easily" is a problem because it's a such a commonly used word already, with its own meaning already.
16:55:16 <AWK_> ack alex
16:55:56 <laura> Maybe change the term?
16:56:26 <brooks> Alex: I have serious problems with the definition of "easily available".  The term "easily" brings into a play a higher degree of subjectivity than we can accept.  We should change the term to make it more concrete.
16:56:34 <AWK_> ack lisa
16:58:00 <brooks> Lisa: We all agree that we should tidy up and change the definition.  There's another option: Put language in the SC to help define the specific context of "easily" for each SC.
16:58:21 <brooks> ...We can include globally available as a definition, or handle it in the Understanding text.
16:58:25 <Detlev_> q+
16:58:43 <AWK_> ack dev
16:58:56 <JF> perhaps use the term "readily" instead? and then as Lisa suggests define that more explicitly?
16:59:08 <MichaelC> q+
16:59:14 <brooks> Detlev: Question to Lisa: What do you think if we dropped "easily."
17:00:33 <brooks> Lisa: It is difficult to go into application-specific settings to change preferences.  It is hard to manage.  It makes the "availability" actually useless.
17:01:10 <brooks> ...Direct link from the current application to turn off notifications would work.
17:01:25 <AWK_> ack micha
17:01:39 <AWK_> ack d
17:01:54 <lisa> q+
17:01:57 <gowerm> Use Examples and Intent in the Understandings doc
17:01:58 <Detlev_> +1 to Michael
17:02:00 <JF> Q+
17:02:05 <brooks> MichaelC: I prefer to keep "mechanism is available" and drop "easily".  Tacking on clarification to provide further definition of "easily" is OK.
17:02:18 <gowerm> +1 remove "easily"
17:02:23 <AWK_> RESOLUTION: leave open
17:02:51 <brooks> AWK: If we want to have an alternative way, then someone's going to need to do that.  Any volunteers to implement this in a different way on a different branch, that would be helpful.
17:03:03 <JF> ack JF
17:03:13 <JF> ack lisa
17:03:15 <laura> Bye.
17:03:24 <lisa> mihael do you want to work on a draft with me?
17:03:25 <brooks> trackbot, end meeting
17:03:25 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:03:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, brooks, Detlev_, Roy, Joshue, KimD, Glenda, Melanie_Philipp, Greg_Lowney, steverep, JF, David-MacDonald, Laura, MichaelC, lisa,
17:03:28 <Zakim> ... Pietro, AndyHeath, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jasonjgw, MikeGower, kirkwood
17:03:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/28-ag-minutes.html trackbot
17:03:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:03:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items