14:13:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:13:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-ag-irc
14:13:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:13:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
14:13:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:13:53 <trackbot> Date: 10 October 2017
14:13:59 <AWK> Chair: AWK
14:14:05 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:14:05 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
14:14:07 <AWK> +AWK
14:14:08 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:14:08 <Zakim> Present: AWK
14:14:12 <AWK> agenda?
14:15:28 <AWK> Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/results (only respond to 6, 8, and 10)
14:15:46 <AWK> Implementation process (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/results) - this was already surveyed but people wanted more time.
14:15:55 <AWK> Github practices (linking and replying)
14:16:08 <AWK> Discussion on Failure techniques
14:16:22 <AWK> 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
14:42:22 <Roy> Roy has joined #ag
14:50:58 <jeanne2> jeanne2 has joined #ag
14:52:14 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
14:53:05 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:53:12 <JakeAbma> present+ JakeAbma
14:53:53 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:54:08 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
14:56:47 <interaccess> trackbot, start meeting
14:56:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:56:53 <trackbot> Date: 10 October 2017
14:57:01 <interaccess> zakim, agenda?
14:57:01 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:57:27 <interaccess> agenda+     Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ (only respond to 6, 8, and 10)
14:57:37 <interaccess> agenda+ Implementation process (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/) - this was already surveyed but people wanted more time.
14:57:42 <AndyHeath> AndyHeath has joined #ag
14:57:45 <interaccess> agenda+ Github practices (linking and replying)
14:57:53 <interaccess> agenda+ Discussion on Failure techniques
14:58:03 <interaccess> 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
14:58:09 <interaccess> Chair: AWK
15:00:26 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:01:18 <lisa> present +
15:01:24 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:01:35 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:35 <Zakim> Present: AWK, JakeAbma
15:01:42 <lisa> present+
15:01:47 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:02:03 <jasonjgw> present+
15:02:21 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:02:27 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:02:28 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:02:37 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:02:40 <steverep> present+steverep
15:02:47 <AndyHeath> present+
15:02:51 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #ag
15:02:57 <Joshue108> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:57 <Zakim> Present: AWK, JakeAbma, lisa, jasonjgw, Joshue108, alastairc, steverep, AndyHeath
15:03:05 <Roy> present+
15:03:05 <Brooks> present+ Brooks
15:03:09 <Alex> Alex has joined #ag
15:03:24 <allanj> present+
15:03:36 <Alex> present +
15:03:39 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:03:44 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
15:03:53 <Alex> present+
15:03:53 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:04:45 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:05:06 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:05:34 <MichaelC> present+
15:06:15 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:06:53 <melledge> melledge has joined #ag
15:07:03 <AWK> Scribe:melledge
15:07:06 <AWK> Agenda?
15:07:34 <melledge> Present+ Mike_Elledge
15:07:58 <AWK> TOPIC: Professional expectations
15:08:12 <melledge> Agenda?
15:09:03 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:09:07 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:09:10 <melledge> AK: Addition topic. Lots of emails. Everyone is dedicated and passionate. Sometimes we don't agree. Generally good about staying on topic and being civil.
15:09:22 <david-macdonald> present+ david-macdonald
15:09:44 <david-macdonald> monitoring this meeting while at a conference
15:09:46 <melledge> awk: Some people will read late and have to be deliberate about focusing on technical details and driving the discussion forward.
15:10:41 <melledge> awk: If it isn't going that way, chairs may not have noticed, reach out to the chairs. Remember we're all doing this for the right reasons.
15:11:09 <melledge> awk: Ask "is this what you mean?"  All want best standards. :^)
15:11:19 <melledge> zakim, next item
15:11:19 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ (only respond to 6, 8, and 10)" taken up [from interaccess]
15:12:01 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:12:16 <melledge> awk: Could spend multiple calls if we let us do that. Time restriction: 10 minutes for each. To see if we're near or at consensus. Keep comments brief, don't need to restate.
15:12:31 <melledge> awk: keep comments to a minute, pls.
15:12:52 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:12:58 <melledge> TOPIC: In content on hover or focus
15:13:07 <MichaelC> zakim, time speakers at 1 minutes
15:13:07 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC
15:13:51 <melledge> awk: Change is proposed for SC uses the term essential. Essential content will not be obscured. Proposal to add "other than pure decoration" and remove "essential".
15:14:35 <melledge> awk: Do have a definition of "pure decoration." Concern about that and "essential". Alister concern about restricitions on placement and Mark as well.
15:14:50 <melledge> awk: Should include tool tips as well.
15:15:01 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
15:15:43 <allanj> In WCAG20 def pure decoration -serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality. Note: Text is only purely decorative if the words can be rearranged or substituted without changing their purpose.
15:15:48 <AWK> q?
15:16:17 <jasonjgw> q+
15:16:18 <Pietro> Present+
15:16:45 <melledge> sr: I guess my thought that we'er not using, changing "essential" doesn't makes sense with current definition. Would have to re-phrase as an exception.
15:16:49 <AWK> ack jas
15:16:51 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:16:55 <alastairc> q+
15:18:08 <melledge> jason: Wondering when triggering is partially obscured that don't lose functionality. Should we focus on functionality of component? Agree that essential is not right term. Could do better.
15:18:16 <Makoto> Present+ Makoto
15:18:23 <steverep> q+ to say loss of visibility is the issue - if the border is what makes it clear, then don't block it or let me close it
15:18:28 <melledge> awk: Instead of obscuring content, remove "access to functionality".
15:18:51 <melledge> sr: Not talking about content here. Need to characterize what we don't want to obscure.
15:18:54 <AWK> ack ala
15:19:35 <AWK> ack steve
15:19:35 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say loss of visibility is the issue - if the border is what makes it clear, then don't block it or let me close it
15:19:36 <melledge> alastair: Lots of things are triggers. Have to talk about things within the triggering mechansim. Is this in scope?
15:19:47 <marcjohlic> q+
15:20:27 <melledge> sr: We can't really talk about functionality. Trying to see the trigger. In the case of border, if pure decoration, then block it. If not, then don't block it.
15:20:43 <AWK> ack marc
15:20:53 <melledge> sr: Two options: to put on side or ....very easy to solve.
15:21:29 <alastairc> s/Lots of things are triggers. Have to talk about things within the triggering mechansim. Is this in scope?/It is quite narrow in scope, has to be triggered by hover or focus, non-decorative content within the trigger. What examples are there?
15:21:58 <melledge> ? Missing some pattern that's being used. If you look away from it should go away. Something that pops up and goes away.
15:22:25 <Ryladog> +1 to Marc and Steve
15:22:32 <melledge> awk: When a keyboard trigger causes content to disappear, have to make sure it can be repositioned.
15:22:36 <marcjohlic> "Either the additional content does not obscure any content within the triggering user interface component, or the additional content can be closed or repositioned by the user;"
15:23:17 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:23:33 <steverep> May I respond to that???
15:23:37 <melledge> alex: location, location, location. This is about what is covered where there is no room. Can't go on other side of the screen. Different types of triggers need flexibility.
15:23:43 <AWK> ack Steve
15:24:08 <melledge> sr: Yes have to put it somewhere. If you have to obscure some part of trigger than give me option 2 to close it.
15:24:15 <marcjohlic> +1
15:25:02 <melledge> awk: Need to identify if there are any examples to show where it would be a problem. Then is there a possibility to satisfy the visible bullet aspect bec content can't be closed.
15:25:03 <AWK> ack katie
15:25:50 <melledge> katie: Happened to me this morning. Form, popup obscured part of form.
15:26:00 <steverep> Probably not.... imagine you were magnified
15:26:01 <marcjohlic> +1 hard for everyone - horrible design
15:26:15 <melledge> Katie: Could see as problem for low vision person.
15:26:41 <alastairc> I don't think it would be covered unless it was triggered by hover/focus, and covered the trigger.
15:26:48 <Detlev> I accept whatever solution gets us out of this hole quickly...
15:26:55 <melledge> awk: Over our ten minutes. Think we've got core question: not hearing support for pure decoration aspect. Seems to be whether essential should be there.
15:27:02 <melledge> awk: Need some examples.
15:27:09 <melledge> Katie: I'll put in url
15:27:35 <steverep> q+ to say I don't think we should be deciding if there is consensus the world if flat, not round
15:27:52 <alastairc> Still can't see what is wrong with: "Either the additional content does not obscure  content within the triggering user interface component, or the additional content can be closed or repositioned by the user;"
15:27:54 <Ryladog> Is this an example of this: www.trainingcentertechnologies.com/MedicResponse/studentSignUp.aspx?PKID=-1&CTYID=302&PKORD=-19804
15:28:47 <melledge> ? there is an exception where user agent controls presentation. We're only talking about author here. If browser tool tip obscures, it's a browser issue or operating system. Need to consider whether it's an author issue. OS doesn't count.
15:29:06 <melledge> awk: Need to find some realistic concerns.
15:29:09 <allanj> s/? /ja:
15:29:17 <alastairc> Ryladog: no, that is persistent rather than triggered by hover/focus.
15:29:18 <AWK> ack st
15:29:18 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say I don't think we should be deciding if there is consensus the world if flat, not round
15:29:21 <melledge> awk: real word examples.
15:29:47 <melledge> zakim, next item
15:29:47 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Implementation process (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/) - this was already surveyed but people wanted more time." taken up [from interaccess]
15:29:48 <Ryladog> The example aboce requires the user to either scroll or resize the page
15:29:59 <AWK> RESOULTION: Leave open
15:30:12 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open
15:30:36 <Ryladog> Thanks Alistair
15:30:46 <melledge> TOPIC: in graphics contrast
15:31:44 <melledge> awk: Started out with graphical contrast in content at 4.5:1. Replace "essential" with "necessary." 3 likes, 7 add'l discussion.
15:32:27 <melledge> awk: Kathy: necessary seems to have same problem as essential. Couple of requests to explain why essential is wrong.
15:33:22 <melledge> steve: So for this one, really difficult to substitute definition, because describing a graphical object. First part also doesn't seem to make sense. already saying essential for content.
15:33:41 <melledge> Steve: Then second part hard to see how it applies.
15:33:49 <Alex> q+
15:34:22 <AWK> ack alex
15:34:32 <melledge> steve: Not sure it makes sense. Need a synonym, a carry over from defining a graphical object. Necessary first came. up.
15:34:45 <alastairc> As SC manager, happy with either "necessary" or "required".
15:34:46 <alastairc> q+
15:34:59 <melledge> alastair: More concrete examples? Icons that describe to us how does essential not work.
15:35:21 <AWK> ack steve
15:35:32 <AWK> ack alex
15:35:40 <melledge> steve: don't want to discuss SC, but point is that you try to substitute essential how does it fit. "Can't be achieved in any other way."
15:35:59 <melledge> alex: What part does not apply?
15:36:20 <melledge> alex: Can't replace head part of icon? Put on some hair?
15:36:21 <alastairc> Please see the understanding doc, temp location here: https://alastairc.ac/tmp/graphics-contrast.html
15:36:30 <melledge> steve: No, not saying that.
15:36:43 <melledge> alex: No other way to draw figure? Don't understand?
15:36:44 <Detlev> replace term 'essential' with the definition in WCAG 2.0 - that concept is not clear to all right now
15:37:00 <AWK> ack ala
15:37:02 <allanj> WCAG20 Def - essential - 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
15:37:53 <melledge> alastair: Essential is defined if another way to meet than not essential. Doesn't apply in this case. Happy with acquired, necessary have the right meaning.
15:38:09 <melledge> Alex: Another way to replace it?
15:38:36 <melledge> Alastair: Can replace graphic with text. But probably wouldn't want to do that.
15:38:47 <melledge> awk: Examples?
15:38:58 <jasonjgw> q+
15:39:26 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
15:39:27 <interaccess> q?
15:39:33 <interaccess> q+
15:39:45 <AWK> ack jas
15:39:49 <Joshue108> q-
15:39:50 <melledge> alastair: Include text as well, then graphic isn't required for understanding. for example want would be required for magnet icon. Would have to have contrast. don't think we need essential.
15:39:53 <Joshue108> q+
15:39:57 <Joshue108> ack inter
15:40:22 <AWK> ack jason
15:40:38 <steverep> q+ to agree with Jason, but an issue for another day
15:40:58 <melledge> alex: acquired or necessary could be used. Do we want to be specific? Where pure decoration wouldn't need to have contrast ratio. Are there other categories where it wouldn't apply as well?
15:41:08 <AWK> ack josh
15:41:12 <melledge> alex: more complex objects, not sure how it would work.
15:41:18 <AWK> zakim, close the queue
15:41:18 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed
15:41:44 <melledge> josh: Question about definition. A graphic that can be replaced by something else is not essential.
15:41:58 <AWK> ack steve
15:41:58 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to agree with Jason, but an issue for another day
15:42:03 <melledge> alastair: Required for understanding works just as well.
15:42:34 <alastairc> Current: "graphical objects that are essential for understanding the content or functionality..." works with required.
15:42:48 <Joshue108> thanks Alastair and Steve..
15:43:01 <alastairc> separate issue
15:43:06 <melledge> steve: your point is direct. If we use essential, we have to talk about somehting that can only be replaced in a certain way.
15:43:17 <melledge> awk: essential at the beginning?
15:43:39 <melledge> steve: exception just adds a link. Essential for understanding is what we're discussing.
15:43:56 <Ryladog> +1 to Steve
15:44:16 <melledge> awk: you're proposing adding link, that essential is the problem.
15:44:29 <melledge> alex: current wording is "necessary."
15:44:34 <alastairc> Is anyone objecting?
15:44:36 <melledge> alastair: I changed it.
15:44:54 <melledge> awk: Were others misunderstanding as well?
15:45:12 <kirkwood> really oops yes
15:45:29 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:45:30 <kirkwood> sorry
15:45:36 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:45:47 <gowerm> q+
15:45:51 <kirkwood> present+
15:45:55 <jasonjgw> q+
15:45:57 <kirkwood> ;)
15:46:00 <melledge> awk: In looking at this, compare this to 1.4.3 with exceptions that apply. So, this seems more palatable.
15:46:01 <AWK> ack go
15:46:12 <AWK> q+ jason
15:46:23 <AWK> zakim, open the queue
15:46:23 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is open
15:46:27 <AWK> q+ jason
15:46:44 <melledge> mg: Question of clarity. Confirm whether or not essential used in wcag 2.0, only use is going to be according to our definition.
15:47:07 <melledge> mg: Can we use essential without it being our definition?
15:47:17 <Roy_> Roy_ has joined #ag
15:47:42 <steverep> +1 to AWK... no reason to take the risk
15:47:44 <melledge> awk: Not sure. Up to lawyers. Shouldn't use it in two different ways and link to only one definition. Use a different word.
15:48:27 <steverep> Straw poss on "necessary" vs. "required"?
15:48:30 <melledge> jason: Replace essential with required.
15:48:34 <Detlev> +1 for required
15:49:03 <Ryladog> +1 to required
15:49:06 <melledge> awk: If changing in front have, would anyone have trouble replacing essential with required.
15:49:09 <alastairc> +1 for required, 1st part only.
15:49:40 <melledge> alex: If decoration covers our needs, should use it. Otherwise be more precise than "required."
15:49:45 <Rachael> +1 for required as long as we use it as a consistent alternative
15:49:54 <melledge> awk: Some subjectivity, but...
15:50:27 <melledge> alastair: Understanding doc makes it hard to define(?)
15:50:57 <melledge> awk: Put forward to the list. Not a lot of objections to change "essential" to "required." Objections to moving to call for consensus.
15:51:04 <Detlev> we HAVE a word
15:51:15 <melledge> mike gower: Alastair should find word.
15:52:01 <melledge> alex: My proposal to use decoration as criteria also objection to required. Excluding graphical object that doesn't fall into category.
15:52:26 <gowerm> +1. Jason's wording sounds fine to me
15:52:43 <melledge> awk: Graphical objects that are not pure decoration. Don't feel strongly, but wanting to be more precise. Want to do analysis first.
15:52:58 <melledge> awk: Wordsmithing...over target time.
15:53:24 <melledge> awk: Jason and Alastair take on wording and sent out for comment. Headign in right direction.
15:53:35 <melledge> alastair: Will do.
15:53:36 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Alastair and Jason to wordsmith and send to list
15:53:49 <melledge> awk: Number ten
15:54:06 <alastairc> q+
15:54:16 <lisa_> lisa_ has joined #ag
15:55:00 <melledge> awk: User interface contrast. Replacing essential. Most on board. One more discussion.
15:55:47 <jasonjgw> q+
15:56:17 <AWK> ack jason
15:56:25 <AWK> ack jas
15:56:29 <melledge> awk: Seems wide open if don't ahve soem aspects that aren't critical. Is there something that gives this wiggle room? If we have UI control that doesn't have more than 3 colors in it, virutally impossible to meet requirements.
15:57:02 <steverep> q+ to say if it's identifying then it's essential (that's already being covered in Understanding)
15:57:08 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:57:25 <melledge> alex: My issues i that the visual identifier is not being defined. Take out essential. Then apply definition to visual identifier. Need one so people will know what it covers.
15:57:32 <AWK> ack ala
15:58:02 <AWK> ack steve
15:58:02 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say if it's identifying then it's essential (that's already being covered in Understanding)
15:58:06 <melledge> alastair: Taking out essential okay. Can add definition.
15:58:42 <allanj> 1.4.12 NOTE Examples of visual identifiers of user interface components may include (a border, edge, or icon), current value (such as non-text visual indication of aria-value now on a slider) and current state (such as selection indicator, focus indicator) or other visual indication (which do not rely on color alone).  <-- could be used as a start for definition
15:58:51 <melledge> steve: Think Jason's point has merit. My logic for removing it was if use "identifier", already is essential.
15:58:55 <alastairc> Create a new github issue for making the note into a definition?
15:59:45 <melledge> awk: Similar to last one, except hinging on identifiers. If something is used to identify that control than needs to meet color contrast ratio.
16:00:09 <melledge> awk: Does anyone think essential is essential, and why?
16:00:14 <allanj> Glenda is happy to not use word essential
16:00:40 <steverep> None - the proposal is to take it away
16:00:40 <alastairc> Worth noting that 'flat design' which has no visual identifiers will pass this.
16:00:41 <melledge> ? If we remove it?
16:00:52 <gowerm> q+
16:00:58 <lisa> q+
16:02:04 <melledge> awk: are there visual aspects that identify a "blue" button as a distinction?
16:02:12 <alastairc> q+
16:02:19 <melledge> steve: needs to be  4.5:1. not just a part.
16:02:56 <jasonjgw> q+
16:03:00 <melledge> awk: Printer icon for example. A bunch of colors involved, then question is which parts are the visual identifiers.
16:03:13 <AWK> ack gow
16:03:20 <steverep> q+ to ask how removing essential changes that question?
16:03:44 <melledge> Mike Gower: For clarity there is no use of essential here. Don't think we need it. Visual indentifier needs to meet contrast.
16:03:59 <AWK> ack lisa
16:04:07 <alastairc> Current (with essential): https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum
16:04:53 <melledge> lisa: Don't want to make it harder for other groups to know what to design.
16:04:55 <AWK> ack ala
16:05:35 <melledge> alastair: Issue: 1) if tehre are visual indentifiers, then 2) how to meet SC. Intentionally saying if you have them.
16:05:41 <AWK> ack jason
16:06:16 <lisa> concern that people will get rid of borders now making it harder to use
16:06:35 <alastairc> s/ Issue: 1) if tehre are visual indentifiers, then 2) how to meet SC. Intentionally saying if you have them./ Issue: 1) whether there are visual identifiers, then 2) Whether it has contrast. Intentionally saying if you have them, they should have contrast.
16:06:52 <AWK> q?
16:06:56 <AWK> ack steve
16:06:56 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask how removing essential changes that question?
16:07:04 <melledge> jason: Note that follows the text. Does provide examples, does describe identifiers. Best to say visual identifiers without essential then link to defintion.]
16:07:28 <lisa> i think borders should have a minimum contrast. you shouldnt get out of them by removing them altogher
16:07:39 <Rachael> +1 to jason's suggestion
16:07:51 <melledge> steve: What is a "visual identifier"? is the key question. Essential doesn't clarify.
16:08:09 <alastairc> lisa: then we would be heading into AAA territory as it impacts the design choices.
16:08:14 <Alex> q+
16:08:39 <AWK> ack alex
16:08:43 <melledge> awk: I'm hearing that the confusion is on both. Agree doesn't matter if we say essential. Visual identifier si what we have to think about.
16:09:23 <Joshue108> q?
16:09:34 <melledge> alex: MS Word. Ribbon where you decide how to highlight. Whatever color it is, it is essential. A user's choice. But the color is essential and a user decision. In that case
16:09:54 <melledge> alex: might have to say 4.5:1 is the decision, but will ahve to meet it.
16:09:58 <steverep> No, it's not "essential" per the WCAG definition - that's the point.
16:10:10 <melledge> awk: Highlights or text font?
16:10:34 <alastairc> but the indicator would be the line around the button, not the icon itself
16:10:35 <melledge> alex: Yes. color is important, critical. other stuff not so much.
16:11:15 <melledge> awk: Steve is saying that the color that the highlighter show is not critical it's the ?
16:11:20 <steverep> q+ to offer a ribbon opinion
16:11:28 <alastairc> q+
16:11:42 <melledge> awk: color is important in other way. Waht color you'll get when you click on it. So is down arrow that gives you color choices.
16:11:52 <AWK> ack steve
16:11:52 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to offer a ribbon opinion
16:12:28 <melledge> steve: Slipping bakc into dictionary definition, not WCAG defnition. Doesn't make sense with WCAG definition.
16:12:46 <melledge> alex: How else to meet SC criteria.
16:12:53 <AWK> ack ala
16:13:26 <melledge> alastair: If we're looking at ribbon, line around is what we're talking about for visual indicator and contrast.
16:13:33 <melledge> alex: No contrast there.
16:14:19 <melledge> awk: Need a battery of different images that are out there to see what this SC is talking about. There is a core problem with understandability and therefore implementability of SC.
16:14:26 <kirkwood> would this SC eliminate “flat design”
16:14:34 <alastairc> Glenda has already done that, at least to some extent
16:14:38 <melledge> awk: Who would like to take this and find examples so we can grapple with it.
16:14:53 <melledge> crickets
16:14:55 <alastairc> I've been gathering icons & examples for graphics contrast.
16:15:07 <melledge> alex: Will do that.
16:15:08 <gowerm> +1 there's already an Understanding doc
16:15:37 <melledge> awk: Will enable us to make sure we agree with SC.
16:16:05 <melledge> awk: Who's been working on understanding part of doc.
16:16:11 <melledge> alastair: Glenda
16:16:21 <melledge> awk: Alex and Alastair look into it?
16:16:37 <melledge> alex: Send a bunch of graphics to Glenda.
16:16:45 <melledge> awk: And engage with her. lol
16:17:18 <allanj> scribe: allanj
16:17:29 <melledge> RESOLUTION: Leave open Alex and Alastair to clarify.
16:17:45 <allanj> RESOLUTION: Leave open Alex and Alastair to clarify.
16:17:56 <gowerm> +1 Get rid of essential
16:17:57 <melledge> thanks allan. Didn't realize we were switching.
16:18:09 <allanj> awk: are there residual concerns about removing 'essential;
16:18:29 <allanj> al: no comment till resolve image issue
16:18:40 <Brooks> q+
16:19:00 <AWK> ack br
16:19:00 <allanj> RESOLUTION: leave open, discuss 'essential' later
16:19:03 <steverep> AWK, was there a resolution on Adapting Text?
16:19:05 <allanj> brooks:
16:19:57 <allanj> brooks: graphic of ! with text of form error. this ! is not essential. how to parse 'essential' to rule out !
16:20:13 <AWK> zakim, next item
16:20:13 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Github practices (linking and replying)" taken up [from interaccess]
16:20:35 <allanj> zakim, open item 2
16:20:35 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Implementation process (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/) - this was already surveyed but people wanted more time." taken up [from interaccess]
16:20:36 <AWK> zakim, take up item 2
16:20:39 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Implementation process (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/) - this was already surveyed but people wanted more time." taken up [from interaccess]
16:21:02 <allanj> awk: surveyed in Aug. reviewing now
16:21:58 <allanj> ... as part of process, need 2 independent implementations of each SC
16:22:04 <AWK> Implementation process for WCAG 2.0: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/
16:22:05 <Joshue108> Implementation process
16:22:34 <allanj> awk: do we want to adopt this... or do something else
16:23:07 <allanj> sr:
16:23:15 <allanj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/results
16:23:28 <lisa_> lisa_ has joined #ag
16:23:56 <allanj> mc: 2 is minimum. more is better. if we test 5 and only get 2, then need to see where the problem is
16:24:05 <steverep> I don't think that's what I meant.... checking my comments now
16:24:06 <Brooks> One context to consider when discussing color contrast for user interface controls and/or graphics, is when you have an exclamation mark icon with low color contrast paired with form validation error text.  The icon is critical to some users to recognize the error, but it might not be considered "essential" when there is error text close by to supplement the meaning of the exclmation icon itself.
16:24:43 <allanj> awk: in 2.0 we had 2 implementations and 10 illustrative websites with positive implementations
16:25:18 <jamesn> q+
16:25:28 <jasonjgw> q+
16:25:32 <allanj> mc: only need to consider the new SC
16:26:38 <AWK> ack james
16:26:40 <allanj> mc: in CR conformance, we may need to consider that meeting a 2.1 SC makes it harder to meet a 2.0 SC
16:26:41 <AWK> ack jason
16:27:59 <allanj> jason: in 2.1, use 2.0 content and test against 2.1. shouldn't be hard. need to be rigorous. ne
16:28:00 <MichaelC> q+
16:28:06 <Ryladog> q+
16:28:14 <AWK> ack micha
16:29:08 <AWK> ack ryla
16:29:11 <allanj> mc: agree, mostly. have a timeline. exercise the new SC as much as we can. need to get to REC. focus on CR 2 implementation bar.
16:29:32 <allanj> khs: agree
16:30:00 <allanj> awk: will discuss this on Thursday.
16:30:03 <steverep> q+ to say we have no mechanism to change if there are problems beyond CR, do we?
16:30:29 <allanj> ... other suggestions... remove 10 sites. focus on just 2 implementations.
16:30:57 <allanj> ... are other proposals for CR
16:31:17 <allanj> Thursday will be 1 hr call from Noon eastern to 1 pm
16:31:20 <Joshue108> thanks all
16:31:41 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:31:41 <Zakim> Present: AWK, JakeAbma, lisa, jasonjgw, Joshue108, alastairc, steverep, AndyHeath, Roy, Brooks, allanj, Melanie_Philipp, Detlev, Alex, Kathy, MichaelC, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic,
16:31:44 <Zakim> ... david-macdonald, Pietro, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Makoto, MikeGower, kirkwood
16:31:47 <Roy_> Roy_ has left #ag
16:31:55 <allanj> trackbot, end meeting
16:31:55 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:31:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JakeAbma, lisa, jasonjgw, Joshue108, alastairc, steverep, AndyHeath, Roy, Brooks, allanj, Melanie_Philipp, Detlev, Alex, Kathy,
16:31:58 <Zakim> ... MichaelC, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic, david-macdonald, Pietro, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Makoto, MikeGower, kirkwood
16:32:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:32:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:32:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:32:04 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:32:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
16:32:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-ag-irc
16:32:41 <allanj> rrsagent, set logs public
16:33:01 <allanj> rrsagent, leave
16:33:01 <RRSAgent> I see no action items