14:29:40 RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:29:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-irc
14:29:42 RRSAgent, make logs public
14:29:45 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:29:45 Date: 03 October 2017
14:29:50 zakim, agenda?
14:29:50 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:29:51 1. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108]
14:29:51 2. Use of the term 'easily available' https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/373 (with Lisa) [from Joshue108]
14:29:51 3. Assigning AGWG read work issues [from Joshue108]
14:32:34 zakim, clear agenda
14:32:34 agenda cleared
14:33:49 agenda+ Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0
14:34:46 agenda+ New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/
14:34:55 agenda+ Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/
14:35:03 agenda+ AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22
14:37:03 agenda+ Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG)
14:48:36 Chair: Joshue108
14:56:49 JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:57:02 present+ JakeAbma
14:57:52 steverep has joined #ag
14:58:12 JF has joined #AG
14:58:27 agenda?
14:58:30 allanj has joined #ag
14:58:51 present+ JF
14:59:03 zakim, who is here?
14:59:03 Present: AWK, brooks, Detlev_, Roy, Joshue, KimD, Glenda, Melanie_Philipp, Greg_Lowney, steverep, JF, David-MacDonald, Laura, MichaelC, lisa, Pietro, AndyHeath, Katie_Haritos-Shea,
14:59:07 ... jasonjgw, MikeGower, kirkwood, JakeAbma
14:59:07 On IRC I see allanj, JF, steverep, JakeAbma, RRSAgent, Joshue108, lisa, MichaelC, jamesn, Zakim, jasonjgw, yatil-away, trackbot
14:59:43 KimD has joined #ag
14:59:53 Present+ KimD
15:00:10 present+ Joshue108
15:00:28 present+steverep
15:00:48 present+
15:01:01 Brooks has joined #ag
15:01:21 present+ Brooks
15:01:24 present+
15:02:15 AndyHeath has joined #ag
15:02:23 alastairc has joined #ag
15:03:26 jamesn has joined #ag
15:03:45 Glenda has joined #ag
15:05:03 MelanieP has joined #ag
15:05:08 bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:05:17 present+ bruce_bailey
15:05:28 Scribenick: BruceB
15:05:38 zakim, agenda?
15:05:38 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:05:39 1. Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0 [from Joshue108]
15:05:39 2. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108]
15:05:39 3. Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ [from Joshue108]
15:05:39 4. AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 [from Joshue108]
15:05:40 5. Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG) [from Joshue108]
15:05:44 zakim, take up item 5
15:05:44 agendum 5. "Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG)" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:05:50 present+ alastairc
15:06:08 Josh, introduce ivy
15:06:36 Andy Heath
15:06:38 s/ivy/ Andy
15:06:42 present+ Glenda
15:06:50 david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:06:53 makes introductions, background in personalization long time
15:06:58 present+ Jim
15:07:04 present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:07:10 worked with dave ragett and indepent ui
15:07:18 present+ david-macdonald
15:07:43 long ago starting with POUR now have 120+ items
15:08:01 AndyyHeath also has been working with Lisa on Coga
15:08:07 david2 has joined #ag
15:08:49 Unofficial TPAC get together, John F posted to list and invites folks to drink and dinner
15:09:10 survey monkey in survey
15:09:10 https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG
15:09:19 *thanks
15:09:47 If JF gets good feedback, he will try to organize something
15:10:08 especially if he gets some consistent responses on survey wrt costs, etc
15:10:16 zakim, take up item 1
15:10:16 agendum 1. "Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:10:50 hopefully brief, Josh and AWK discuss and want to be clear
15:11:08 AWK has joined #ag
15:11:08 Reiterating: there will not be any normative changes to WCAG 2.0
15:11:35 We are focusing our time and attention on 2.1 and latter 2.2 and silver
15:11:36 Besides, changes to WCAG 2.0 is out of scoper per our Charter: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/ag-charter#deliverables
15:11:45 s/scoper/scope
15:12:00 zakim, next item
15:12:00 agendum 2. "New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:12:38 David MacDonald asks if we are allowed to make things harder
15:12:47 Josh affirms, that is within scope for 2.1
15:12:56 We cannot change 2.0
15:12:58 Q+
15:13:42 james comments that techniques that do not work for 2.0 might be a problem
15:13:48 ack JF
15:13:48 Ryladog has joined #ag
15:13:54 Josh affirms that we are drawing line on 2.0
15:14:03 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:14:11 JF raises question that techniques do not have versioning
15:14:46 A new technique that has the effect of making requirements (from 2.1, as compared to 2.) could be problematic
15:14:52 q+
15:15:06 JF open to versioning, but we do not have that in process
15:15:14 q+
15:15:25 Michael Cooper points out that technics point to SC
15:15:26 zakim, take up item 1
15:15:26 agendum 1. "Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:15:44 MC say quick ref will make that most obvious view of that
15:16:13 JF (and MC) agree that this is a work in progress, so we are all curious as to what this will look like in end
15:16:35 The URL is 'versioned': w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/, could we transplant over to w3.org/TR/WCAG21-TECHS/ and modify from there?
15:16:44 MC says that QuickRef will have 2.1/2.0 filter, so that will be part of the solution
15:16:55 JF reminds us that techniques are non-normative
15:17:09 It will be interesting to see how this all plays out
15:17:10 ack jason
15:17:17 marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:17:30 Jason thinks it will be conceptialy clear
15:17:54 Certain techniques will only be mapped to SC from 2.1
15:18:37 There may be an issue where the technique at least on its surface seems to apply to the text of a 2.0 SC
15:18:40 ack ryla
15:19:02 There was also a comment that we may end up rephrasing some 2.0 SC
15:19:22 Rachael has joined #ag
15:19:24 Pietro has joined #ag
15:19:24 Kathy says new techniques for 2.1 should not be a problem
15:19:32 Why do new SC for 2.0 need to be seperate?
15:19:34 Present+
15:19:47 There will be additional new techniques, so those might need additional care
15:19:57 MC resists idea of version
15:19:59 presen+
15:20:04 present+
15:20:13 Katie asks about new techniques have distinct lables
15:20:20 s/Kathy says new/Katie says new
15:20:21 RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:20:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html AWK
15:20:43 q?
15:20:44 MC versioning even new technique would be problematic and confusing
15:21:13 Katie: it seems like all the new techniques should have promenant note about being only applicable to 2.1
15:21:25 RRSAGent, set logs public
15:21:29 Josh, asks to wrap the techniques discussion
15:21:29 @Josh - perhaps a topic for TPAC?
15:21:57 Can be a future meeting item, perhaps at TPAC per JF suggestion
15:22:11 zakim, take up item 2
15:22:11 agendum 2. "New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:22:14 Very interesting of course, but OT for now
15:22:29 We will start with 3, issue 175
15:22:31 TOPIC: Requirement for PDF forms to be Interactive #175
15:22:53 regrets+ Detlev, Mike_Elledge, Kathy, GregLowney, EA_Draffan, Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson
15:22:58 TOPIC: Requirement for PDF to Interactive
15:23:08 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/175
15:23:31 present+
15:23:31 Please see survey, thanks for David MacDonald for writing up.
15:23:58 Contrarary response from SteveRep
15:24:23 Josh characterizes survey as most people accepting David's proposed response.
15:24:48 Josh ask David to see if OP accepts response.
15:25:09 q+ to basically say we should defer not reject at this stage - it's an important point
15:25:15 Josh points out that GitHub process is so transparent that response is developed on the fly
15:25:28 ack st
15:25:28 steverep, you wanted to basically say we should defer not reject at this stage - it's an important point
15:25:30 Josh asks for objections.
15:26:10 SteveRep agrees with closing for 2.1 but keep the issue open
15:26:29 MC points out that open issues are open for 2.1 only
15:26:31 Then that would be "defer to silver"
15:26:39 MC asks SteveRep to add to wiki
15:26:51 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Potential_Accessibility_Guidelines
15:27:14 Link back to this issue, keep on radar for future work
15:27:24 kirkwood has joined #ag
15:27:33 SteveRep asks for "defer to silver" label
15:27:33 Defer to silver? Perhaps instead we state "defer to future work" as we may actually release a 2.2 before Silver comes out
15:27:38 q?
15:27:42 MikeGower
15:28:05 MG asks about changing a definition of 2.1 as compared to 2.0
15:28:31 Definitions are normative, so this may need more discussion
15:28:45 SteveRep agrees to followup
15:28:52 Would make sense to change "defer to silver" label in github to "defer to future work" or just "defer" and then we can put a link to the closed issues with that label on the wiki page
15:29:06 RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed in github survey
15:29:12 +! AWK
15:29:18 s/+!/+1
15:29:55 TOPIC: 4. And/or in SC2.2.7 Accessible Authentication #325
15:30:17 q+
15:30:20 Josh agrees w/ AWK that "defer to silver" is really "defer to future work"
15:30:32 ack michae
15:30:39 Josh discuss "or" versus "and"
15:30:49 MC says it is not editorial
15:31:01 MC proposes changing header to match the bullets
15:31:17 This fixes the problem without changing meaning
15:31:26 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/325
15:31:29 Issue 325
15:31:50 Issue 325: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/325
15:31:50 We are discussing issue 325
15:31:57 q+
15:32:24 David M has a counter possition from MC that it is not merely editiorial
15:32:24 q+
15:33:01 Issue of recalling and transcribing versus recalling information or transcribing information
15:33:05 ack mich
15:33:23 MC says intent of SC is to cover either use case
15:33:25 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes
15:33:25 ok, Joshue108
15:33:40 Q+
15:33:40 MC agrees that preamble is confusing
15:33:43 Shouldn't the first instance be the same then? The top line is "OR"
15:34:14 MC asserts that changing heading without changing bullets keeps intent
15:34:37 gowerm has joined #ag
15:34:40 present+ MikeGower
15:34:58 DavidM says it might be the sequence of recall THEN transcribe is actually the problem
15:35:08 MC proposes deferfing
15:35:18 s/deferfing/defering/
15:35:24 ack jason
15:35:40 Jason remembers discussions from meeting
15:36:37 Jason recollect was that Coga folks that problem use case of transcribe text from a different device (say a security key) was one of the issues
15:37:02 @jasonjgw the meant and. And they need the ability to copy and paste. They are not talking about writing it down by hand. They are talking about the ability to copy and paste digital content.
15:37:08 Copy from two-factor security code is transcribing but not recalling, but is a problem
15:37:10 rrsagent, make minutes
15:37:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html gowerm
15:38:10 Josh reports from email from Lisa that SC was meant to apply to either or
15:38:12 ack jf
15:38:27 Lisa email was not about sequence
15:38:47 JF remembers that copy number from a phone from a web page is not the issue
15:38:51 holding in mamory was the issue as i recall too
15:39:02 mamory/memory
15:39:08 JF, it could be a mobility issue, but not a coga issue
15:39:25 q+ to say that transcribing by itself is a cognitive issue
15:39:52 JF says the bullet points as correcting in the survey is correct
15:39:53 q+
15:39:57 q-
15:40:02 ack steve
15:40:02 steverep, you wanted to say that transcribing by itself is a cognitive issue
15:40:05 Josh wants to leave open because Lisa is not on call
15:40:06 think lisa should be on the call
15:40:25 SteveRep also says that transcribing by itself is an issue
15:41:12 RESOLUTION: Leave open until Lisa S available for discussion
15:41:28 Josh adding to Thursday call
15:41:32 allanj has joined #ag
15:42:17 TOPIC: Success Criterion 3.2.7 Change of Content #365
15:42:44 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/365
15:42:56 This was from Gregg V
15:43:08 David M has a proposed response
15:43:58 Gregg comment was that he does not know what this does and need an Understanding document so he could better understand the SC
15:44:23 proposed definition for prog notification https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/b5c68e17f82feb0cdbbafc273f245b136a7445c4
15:44:29 David has the draft page from Understanding linked up, including pull request to definitions
15:44:55 q?
15:44:58 Second bullet is merely advanced warning, which might be instruction
15:45:20 Dave thinks he has written up all that GV is looking for
15:45:47 David affirms that some text in Understanding has not been reviewed during any calls
15:46:06 Josh asks MC to weigh in on proposed definition
15:46:07 >notification set by the content which can be announced to the user without virtual or actual focus, using methods that are supported by user agents, including assistive technologies
+ Example: a screen reader announces to a user that their shopping cart has been updated after they select an item for purchase.
15:46:30 AKW thinks we probably needs CFC on proposed definition
15:46:53 Josh proposed CFC for definition
15:47:03 +1
15:47:11 MC felt that is not strictly necessary
15:47:13 definition of programmatic notification above
15:47:39 RESOLUTION: Proposed definition for Programatic Notification to go to CFC
15:48:00 +1
15:48:19 zakim, agenda?
15:48:19 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:48:20 2. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108]
15:48:20 3. Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ [from Joshue108]
15:48:20 4. AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 [from Joshue108]
15:48:22 5. Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG) [from Joshue108]
15:48:23 Josh, other items on this survey discussed last week
15:48:37 zakim, take up item 3
15:48:37 agendum 3. "Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:49:35 Josh: this is a list of possibly inconsistant references to "essential"
15:49:44 9, 7, 5,4,2,1 - Unanimous
15:49:47 This was discussed some last week
15:49:53 rrsagent, make minutes
15:49:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html allanj
15:50:24 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/results
15:50:34 For this week the collective items (single survey item) broken into a survey item each
15:51:02 Josh asks the folks to double check the items that are anoymous
15:51:16 David M missed the survey and had feedback from last week
15:51:22 q+ to say the survey is a bit wrong for Animation from Interactions
15:51:28 David's feedback is on GitHub
15:51:55 Q+
15:51:56 David asks that we check with coga folks that might have concern
15:52:06 ack steve
15:52:06 steverep, you wanted to say the survey is a bit wrong for Animation from Interactions
15:52:19 MC thinks we will catch those with the new survey and the ones that are not anonymous
15:52:27 SteveRep: 12 SC total
15:52:40 five are just links to glossary
15:52:48 one missed in survey, from AAA
15:53:25 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:53:27 question on animations is a bit mixed up, but no actually substantive change
15:53:42 survey question 4 is a bit miss-phrased
15:53:53 SteveRep walking through that one verbatim
15:54:07 ack JF
15:54:14 Josh agrees to double chek on 4
15:54:30 I'm SC manager on the animations one, no objection to that change for number 4.
15:54:33 JF raises issue with #9 and timelyness of survey
15:54:40 +1 JF
15:54:50 Survey has not been open long and is still open now until the 19th
15:55:09 JF asks to have more time, even on unanimous items
15:55:45 Josh reminds everyone that we are on a tight shedule
15:55:56 JF asks for more time for 9 at least
15:56:18 David M asks if we can at least clear ones where we just added links
15:56:28 specifically pushing back on #9
15:56:50 Josh agrees, we can just knock out the lowest hanging fruit
15:57:23 David M still looking
15:57:53 David sees no problem with changing a few essential to required
15:58:04 q?
15:58:30 The adding links of course is no problem, but will double check that 2.0 glossary meaning is the one that was intended
15:58:52 David reports that Lisa S agree with the changes
15:59:16 +1 to more time
15:59:17 There may be an inconsistant use of essential within the "steps" language
15:59:40 David asks Alastair C about adapting text
15:59:52 q+ to explain once again why we need these changes - can only use essential to describe an exception
16:00:22 Alastair refers to survey, but is somewhat concerned that removing word essential changes meaning
16:00:46 Alastair does not know why word essential was added
16:00:46 Q?
16:01:09 David M points out that recent proposal was to remove essential
16:01:27 q+
16:01:34 Question as phrased in survey uses a new notation
16:01:50 @@ for adding, -- for deletion
16:02:20 Josh is going to walk through SC edits where we had anonymous responses
16:02:47 q+
16:02:52 +1
16:03:16 David M still has not able to answer survey, has been focussed on pull requests on GitHub
16:03:41 SteveRep reports that edits are netted up in a single pull request
16:04:46 Josh and David M discussing accidental activation
16:04:53 change is just link
16:05:12 q-
16:05:15 +1 Jason. More time = more time
16:05:23 David M is okay with any links to glossary definition being added
16:05:29 +1 jason
16:05:57 Jason suggest instead that for this call we just discuss the controversial ones
16:06:23 Josh, we will deal with more on survey
16:06:43 Discussion shifting to issues, rather than easy ones
16:07:11 Jason has suggestions for improving a few in survey
16:07:14 q+ to offer to address some comments now
16:08:35 Jason asks that we focus on the ones where there is disagreement
16:08:54 Josh asks Jason about Q8 with contrast ratio in graphic elements
16:09:00 TOPIC: In Graphics Contrast
16:09:04 In Graphics Contrast
16:09:11 http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/correct-use-of-essential/guidelines/index.html#graphics-contrast
16:09:43 q+
16:09:47 Some people liked okay, but a few issues raised with reference to pure decoration and hover focus
16:10:18 Jason would like clarification about what is covered and what is not in scope
16:10:51 Jason's suggest phrasing aligns this SC with the one on Hover
16:10:57 ack steve
16:10:57 steverep, you wanted to explain once again why we need these changes - can only use essential to describe an exception and to offer to address some comments now
16:11:16 SteveRep explains why changes are needed
16:11:26 all these use the word essential
16:11:59 some of the uses are not using the word essential consistent with 2.0 uses of essential
16:12:10 wcag 2.0 definition very specific
16:12:22 DFN - http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/correct-use-of-essential/guidelines/index.html#dfn-essential
16:12:41 "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"
16:12:44 q+
16:12:45 refers to something that if removed, changes the function of the page
16:13:36 Josh confirms with SteveRep that people are mixing the common dictionary meaning with the glossary meaning
16:13:41 q+ to say, pure decoration is defined in glossary
16:14:05 Example is understanding essential meaning of a graphic is not using the word essential like 2.0
16:14:30 SteveRep: comments on graphic contrast in particular needs more careful consideration
16:15:10 a graphic that is pure decoration is not essential, for example, so we might address that by adding an exception
16:15:26 ack alast
16:15:37 Jason thanks SteveRep analysis and agrees with it
16:15:54 present+
16:16:06 Alastair agrees and understands better why SteveReps suggustions are what they are
16:16:09 ack gower
16:16:09 gowerm, you wanted to say, pure decoration is defined in glossary
16:16:30 MG: Pure decoration is a defined term.
16:16:49 MG: Thats different from essential.
16:16:54 q+
16:16:58 Mike G agrees that reference to pure decoration is different but better
16:17:01 ack jason
16:17:14 pure decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality.
16:17:37 Proposal is for "unless pure decoration"
16:17:54 That is different than essential
16:18:18 That is essential is not opposite of pure decoration
16:18:24 *I need more time to go through the survey
16:18:44 q+
16:18:55 Josh asks if people need more time, know that we have clarified some of the issues
16:19:01 ack michael
16:19:13 +1 to mcooper
16:19:22 MC discussion is not really progressing
16:19:42 MC asks if we need to survey competing pull requests
16:20:02 If people see two competing approaches, it might help folks with responses
16:20:12 Josh asks people to review answers
16:20:29 q+ to say I can put together a proposal for Graphics Contrast, but I'd like to keep these changes focused.=
16:20:31 Josh asks people to review definitions for essential and pure decoration
16:20:46 ack steve
16:20:46 steverep, you wanted to say I can put together a proposal for Graphics Contrast, but I'd like to keep these changes focused.=
16:21:02 SteveRep will send his rational and summary to list
16:21:34 *me thanks MikeG
16:22:01 Scribenick: Mike G
16:22:25 *me waves goodbye, thanks all
16:22:47 *me afk but leaving window open so I can read the end when I get back
16:23:16 RESOLUTION: Leave open and come back on Thursday
16:23:53 q?
16:24:01 zakim, agenda?
16:24:01 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:24:02 2. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108]
16:24:02 3. Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ [from Joshue108]
16:24:02 4. AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 [from Joshue108]
16:24:04 5. Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG) [from Joshue108]
16:24:13 zakim, take up item 4
16:24:13 agendum 4. "AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:24:42 Josh: We need people to take ownership of these
16:25:03 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22+no%3Aassignee
16:25:15 Michael: This URI shows the 5 that are not assigned
16:25:26 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/405
16:25:58 Relates to Purpose of Controls https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#purpose-of-controls
16:27:20 JF: I support the editorial change to put in bullets
16:27:30 -1
16:27:33 q+
16:27:36 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/405
16:27:52 ack michael
16:28:15 Michael: I don't think breaking out into bullets works as proposed.
16:28:28 JF: They are all controls essentially
16:28:59 JF: We are looking that conventional controls have some meta data attached. it was to include all three.
16:29:14 s/looking that/looking at
16:29:39 Completely agree it is AND
16:29:45 MichaelC_ has joined #ag
16:30:01 David: added bullets while adding the AND conjunction
16:30:16 q?
16:30:22 David: They are the same solutions, one with bullets, one without
16:30:40 JF: I prefer the three bullets, but I could go either way.
16:30:56 JF: It definitely is an "and".
16:31:20 Michael: I agree an "and" was meant. i can live with either, but prefer non-bullet
16:33:39 Success Criterion 2.2.8 Timeouts - Split into two criterion? #403
16:33:43 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/403
16:34:50 RESOLUTION: John Foliot to update the pull request
16:36:58 RESOLUTION: Rachael to take on issue 403
16:37:14 Problem with Technique G131 #307
16:37:53 RESOLUTION: Jake Abma to take on issue 307
16:37:55 SUPPORT PERSONALIZATION -- no user setability is specified #302
16:37:59 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/302
16:39:24 Learning Disabilities of America - Technology Committee Comments: WCAG 2.1 For Learning Disabilities and Cognitive Disabilities #211
16:39:27 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/211
16:41:12 JF: Is there an action item from this? It just looks like voicing support
16:41:34 Rachael: There is a question in here, near the top
16:41:34 I have not studied their coments
16:41:35 q+
16:41:38 q+
16:41:45 ack michae
16:42:25 ack andy
16:42:27 Michael: I think their questions are rhetorical. We can maybe defer until the end.
16:42:42 Andy: I'll take a look, but may need some handholding.
16:42:48 JF: Will hold Andy's hand.
16:43:48 Michael: I suggest we assign 211 to both Andy and John.
16:45:15 Josh: I know this is messy but we just need to find assignees
16:47:12 RESOLUTION: Assign both 211 and 302 to John Foliot, with Andy Heath assisting on 302 and John Kirkwood assisting with 211
16:48:02 KimD has left #ag
16:48:11 present+ marcjohlic
16:48:24 present+
16:48:30 trackbot, end meeting
16:48:30 Zakim, list attendees
16:48:30 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,
16:48:33 ... Pietro, AndyHeath, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jasonjgw, MikeGower, kirkwood, JakeAbma, Joshue108, bruce_bailey, alastairc, Jim, jamesn, marcjohlic
16:48:38 RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:48:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:48:39 RRSAgent, bye
16:48:39 I see no action items