14:43:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:43:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/17-ag-irc
14:43:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:43:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
14:43:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:43:36 <trackbot> Date: 17 October 2017
14:43:51 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue108
14:43:52 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:43:52 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:44:14 <Joshue108> agenda+ Changes to Understanding document structure?
14:44:26 <Joshue108> agenda+ Survey  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/
14:44:53 <jallan> jallan has joined #ag
14:45:05 <jallan> present+
14:45:21 <Joshue108> 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
14:46:22 <JakeAbma> present+ JakeAbma
14:47:06 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
14:52:12 <Roy> Roy has joined #ag
14:54:55 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:54:59 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
14:56:49 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
14:57:16 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:57:55 <interaccess> present+
14:58:05 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
14:58:10 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
14:58:55 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce_bailey
14:59:48 <Roy> present+
14:59:52 <laura> present+ Laura
15:00:20 <jamesn> present+
15:00:39 <jasonjgw> present+
15:00:41 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:00:47 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:01:17 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:01:20 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:01:30 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:01:37 <kirkwood> present+
15:02:18 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:02:33 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:02:35 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:02:40 <KimD> Present+
15:02:44 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:02:55 <Mike_Elledge> present+ Mike_Elledge
15:02:56 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #ag
15:03:09 <Brooks> present+ Brooks
15:03:15 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:03:20 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:03:24 <steverep> present+steverep
15:03:29 <JF> Present+ JF
15:03:33 <JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma
15:03:43 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:04:43 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:05:32 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:06:00 <jasonjgw> q+
15:06:35 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:06:47 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say AWK email went out
15:08:14 <Mike_Elledge> I may be user 4...
15:08:17 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:08:36 <JF> agenda?
15:08:42 <MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0138.html
15:09:16 <JakeAbma> Zakim, next item
15:09:16 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Changes to Understanding document structure?" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:10:59 <bruce_bailey> AWK email wrt exit criteria:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0138.html
15:11:29 <bruce_bailey> subject line was:  Update on Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria
15:11:53 <JF> +1 to preserving Benefits, and promoting them to sibling of Intent
15:11:55 <Joshue108> Scribenick: JakeAbma
15:12:04 <JakeAbma> MC: 1. benefit promoted as sibling to intent. 2.Other option: benefit to be deleted as separate section
15:12:27 <JF> Q+
15:12:30 <bruce_bailey> q-
15:12:42 <laura> +1 to preserving Benefits, and promoting them to sibling of Intent
15:12:48 <Joshue108> ack JF
15:13:04 <jasonjgw> q+
15:13:42 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:13:46 <bruce_bailey> +1 to what JF is saying about benefit being important to note
15:13:46 <JakeAbma> JF: strongly in favour for sibling of intent. This is what we want vs this is why we want it
15:13:56 <Joshue108> q+ to ask what is different from whats already there?
15:14:02 <Glenda> +1 benefits are critical to understanding why
15:14:18 <JF> s/This is what we want vs this is why we want it/This is what we want and this is why we want it
15:14:26 <Joshue108> q?
15:14:28 <JakeAbma> Jason White: Benefits fundamental for SC
15:14:28 <Joshue108> ack me
15:14:28 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask what is different from whats already there?
15:15:08 <JakeAbma> Bruce: Looking at 2.0 / 2.0, looks like benefit is already a child, so what’s the difference?
15:15:26 <JakeAbma> JF: make it siblings instead of child
15:15:53 <Joshue108> q?
15:15:55 <JakeAbma> MC: doesn’t look very different but does for editing. Make it complementary
15:16:12 <JF> Q+
15:16:18 <JakeAbma> MC: part is to not know what difference between intent and benefit is
15:16:35 <steverep> q+ to say that I usually read the Benefits more as Beneficiaries
15:16:45 <Joshue108> ack JF
15:17:34 <JakeAbma> JF: intent is, what do we want of you? Why do we want it? That’s the benefit. The order for presenting and relationship is clear
15:17:38 <Joshue108> ack steve
15:17:38 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say that I usually read the Benefits more as Beneficiaries
15:18:08 <Joshue108> q+ to talk about the benefits of putting benefits first
15:18:16 <david-macdonald> q+
15:18:21 <Joshue108> ack me
15:18:21 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about the benefits of putting benefits first
15:18:26 <JakeAbma> Steve: same as JF, to expand SC, whether is goes before or after intent
15:19:08 <gowerm> q+
15:19:23 <Joshue108> ack david
15:19:25 <JakeAbma> Josh: Sees benefit as maybe better to add first, than intent. Makes it easier to parse
15:19:34 <gowerm> q+ to say Let's not make more work by causing a rewrite of all existing SCs.
15:19:37 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 5 minutes
15:19:37 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:19:57 <JakeAbma> David: likes intent + bullets because reads faster. intent = what, benefits = why.
15:20:39 <MichaelC> q+ to comment editorial style
15:20:47 <JakeAbma> David: benefits like a hit-list, easy focus
15:20:50 <Joshue108> ack gow
15:20:50 <Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say Let's not make more work by causing a rewrite of all existing SCs.
15:21:04 <JF> +1 to Mike G
15:21:16 <JakeAbma> Mike Gower: concerns with re-ordering, doesn’t see the benefit
15:21:39 <MichaelC> ack me
15:21:39 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to comment editorial style
15:21:50 <JakeAbma> Josh: WE HAVE THE POWER!!!
15:22:07 <JF> we may have the power, but do we have the time and human resources?
15:22:19 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:22:33 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:22:53 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
15:22:56 <JF> +1 to M. Cooper's proposal.
15:23:02 <laura> +1 to Micheal
15:23:10 <Ryladog> +1 to MC
15:23:11 <JakeAbma> MC: promoting it to higher level and conceptually see where it goes
15:23:41 <Ryladog> q+
15:23:47 <Glenda> Zakim, who is here?
15:23:47 <Zakim> Present: jallan, JakeAbma, interaccess, bruce_bailey, Roy, Laura, jamesn, jasonjgw, Kathy, MikeGower, kirkwood, Makoto, KimD, Greg_Lowney, Mike_Elledge, Brooks, steverep, JF,
15:23:51 <Zakim> ... Katie_Haritos-Shea, Glenda
15:23:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see Ryladog, Glenda, david-macdonald, MelanieP, marcjohlic, JF, steverep, Brooks, Mike_Elledge, KimD, Makoto, gowerm, Kathy, jamesn, Detlev, bruce_bailey, kirkwood, Greg,
15:23:51 <Zakim> ... laura, Roy, Joshue108, jallan, Zakim, RRSAgent, JakeAbma, lisa, MichaelC, jasonjgw, yatil, trackbot
15:24:02 <Kathy> +1 to MC
15:24:19 <Glenda> rrsagent, make minutes
15:24:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/17-ag-minutes.html Glenda
15:24:25 <JakeAbma> +1
15:24:36 <Glenda> +1 to MC
15:24:37 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:24:40 <Detlev> +1
15:24:44 <jallan> +1
15:24:54 <marcjohlic> +1
15:24:57 <david-macdonald> present+ david-macdonald
15:25:02 <david-macdonald> +1
15:25:07 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:25:19 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
15:25:29 <Joshue108> RESOLUTION: Benefits to now be a sibling of Intent
15:25:46 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask question about implementation process survey (before we go to next topic)
15:25:53 <JakeAbma> zakim, next item
15:25:53 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JakeAbma
15:25:59 <Joshue108> ack ryla
15:26:31 <JF> Q+ to ask if we have asked EO to join us at TPAC for a chat
15:26:32 <bruce_bailey> Survey asked to get a head start on identifying potential implementation candidates.
15:26:37 <Joshue108> ack bru
15:26:37 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask question about implementation process survey (before we go to next topic)
15:27:38 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:27:38 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if we have asked EO to join us at TPAC for a chat
15:30:07 <JakeAbma> zakim, next item
15:30:07 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Survey  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:30:15 <Joshue108> TOPIC: SC Orientation Text: Locking is not the accessibility problem #509
15:30:40 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/509
15:31:41 <Joshue108> q?
15:31:54 <jamesn> q+
15:32:31 <steverep> The text in the survey does not reflect the possible limitations of the user agent as discussed in the GitHub thread. The 2 options should be:  Content is operable in all display orientations supported by the user agent, except where display orientation is essential.  or  A mechanism is available to view and operate content in all display orientations except where the display orientation is essential or not supported by the user agent.  I prefer the latter,[CUT]
15:32:38 <JakeAbma> Steve Repsher: there needs to be clarification when not supported by UA. Other thing, want totally consistent…?
15:32:42 <jasonjgw> q+
15:33:13 <Greg> q+
15:33:33 <Joshue108> ack james
15:33:45 <JakeAbma> jameson: what benefit are we trying to solve?
15:34:18 <JakeAbma> jameson: is there an accessibility need I miss here?
15:35:18 <JakeAbma> steverep: the user had mobility issues, have fixed device, can’t rotate. so orientation is forced
15:35:21 <david-macdonald> q+
15:36:04 <Brooks> q+ to say orientation flexibility, for example, gives mobile (iOS) device users the opportunity to switch to landscape mode where the keyboard is larger/easier to type on
15:36:06 <Kathy> here is the understanding: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/orientation/understanding/21/orientation.html
15:36:18 <JakeAbma> jamesnur: what ever it starts in it needs to stay, or support where it started, not the change to rotate
15:36:35 <jallan> browser orientation must override author intended orientation
15:37:04 <laura> From Understanding doc: “Benefits: Users with dexterity impairments, who have a mounted mobile device will be able to use the content in their fixed orientation” https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/orientation/understanding/21/orientation.html
15:37:35 <JakeAbma> jamesnur: we’re tackling low hanging fruit instead of the meat
15:37:40 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:37:52 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 15
15:37:52 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:38:51 <JakeAbma> jasonwhite: was an issue about whether content should stay in orientation. we have to adres this as well
15:39:18 <steverep> q+ to interpret in a way that addressses the on load issue
15:39:54 <Brooks> q-
15:40:00 <Greg> How about "Content is operable in all display orientations supported by the user agent, except where restricting the orientation is essential."?
15:40:00 <JakeAbma> jasonwhite: I think the question is what requirement should be. we’re using same terms as APIs which may cause confusion
15:40:01 <Greg> I liked the steverep's wording "Content is operable in all display orientations supported by the user agent, except where display orientation is essential", but I agree with others that we need something between "where" and "display". However, we shouldn't say "one orientation" or because an app could limit itself to a range of angles or several orientations. (We cannot assume the semantics...
15:40:03 <Greg> ...of the HTML5 Screen Orientation API, in which "portrait-primary" and "portrait" (which includes both "portrait-primary" and "portrait-secondary") are each counted as single orientation value.)
15:40:05 <Joshue108> ack greg
15:40:53 <JakeAbma> GregL: proposal a single / a specific not exactly correct
15:41:28 <JakeAbma> GregL: put a more general restriction on it
15:41:32 <Joshue108> q+ to ask if the term 'not locked' will just use the default on an UA
15:42:00 <Joshue108> ack
15:42:02 <Joshue108> ack dav
15:43:02 <JakeAbma> David: do it on page load, but there was rejection, not hard rejection but a … let’s see one…
15:43:28 <Joshue108> q?
15:44:28 <JakeAbma> MarcJohlic: have seen locking when wanted to switch orientation but could’t
15:44:54 <JakeAbma> MarcJohlic: for bigger fonts
15:45:11 <Joshue108> ack steve
15:45:11 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to interpret in a way that addressses the on load issue
15:46:00 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:46:05 <KimD> Present+
15:46:08 <JakeAbma> SteveRep: refresh button could be seen as “mechanism”
15:47:46 <Joshue108> ack me
15:47:46 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask if the term 'not locked' will just use the default on an UA
15:47:49 <kirkwood> are we not really talking about responsive design here?
15:48:20 <JakeAbma> Josh: first one didn’t says how, when using the “mechanism” it does
15:48:35 <JakeAbma> Josh: prefers the former
15:52:53 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:55:16 <steverep> Content is operable in all display orientations supported by the user agent, except where display orientation is essential.
15:55:22 <steverep> or
15:55:38 <steverep> A mechanism is available to view and operate content in all display orientations except where the display orientation is essential or not supported by the user agent.
15:55:58 <steverep> straw poll?  I'm happy with either
15:56:15 <Joshue108> +1 to content
15:56:17 <laura> +1 content
15:56:19 <Ryladog> +1 to content
15:56:21 <JakeAbma> +1 to content
15:56:25 <Mike_Elledge> +1 to content
15:56:27 <Ryladog> +1 to mechanism
15:56:38 <david-macdonald> +1 to mechanism, but wat to visit on page load at some point...
15:56:38 <Brooks> +1 to content
15:56:41 <gowerm> either
15:56:53 <jamesn> of these +1 to mechanism
15:57:48 <marcjohlic> +1 to either of these
15:57:59 <Ryladog> point to definition
15:58:09 <Brooks> q+
15:58:21 <KimD> +1 to mechanism, but the wording is clunky and probably unclear to those outside our group
15:58:28 <Ryladog> +1 to David's suggestion
15:58:43 <JakeAbma> Josh: mechanism causes confusion often
15:58:46 <kirkwood> “mechanism” iss too confusing to approve
15:58:51 <gowerm> +1 to content; changed my mind
15:58:55 <Joshue108> ack brooks
16:00:24 <laura> “mechanism" has been very problematic in explaining SCs. we removed it from adapting text just for that reason.
16:00:45 <gowerm> q+
16:01:26 <david-macdonald> Ask people what they can live with
16:01:34 <laura> can anyone not live with using the content wording?
16:01:39 <steverep> Solving the actual problem is more important... anyone who can't live with one or the other?
16:01:54 <KimD> I can live with "content"
16:01:54 <Detlev> I would opt for content and treat it as implicit that the SC migh be met via a mechanism (and explain that in the Understanding)
16:03:09 <Ryladog> I can live with either
16:04:27 <bruce_bailey> I can live with either
16:04:28 <Ryladog> I can live with content
16:04:52 <bruce_bailey> I appreciate breaking up the  questions though!
16:05:16 <Mike_Elledge> Yay!
16:05:19 <Joshue108> RESOLUTION: Accepted Content is operable in all display orientations supported by the user agent, except where display orientation is essential.
16:05:35 <laura> Scribe: Laura
16:05:44 <steverep> I will create a pull request.
16:05:55 <Joshue108> TOPIC: Response to comment on Mitsue-Links Accessibility Dept. C 3.2.7 Change of Content: Avoid using the term "control" #506
16:06:11 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/506
16:06:19 <laura> Josh: proposed response to 506.
16:06:49 <laura> …SC 3.2.7
16:07:05 <laura> …8 Accept response as proposed
16:07:20 <laura> 2: Accept response with the following changes
16:07:31 <laura> 3: Do not accept response / needs more discussion
16:07:37 <Ryladog> +1 to this change
16:07:56 <laura> David: people didn’t like the word “control”.
16:08:07 <laura> …FROM:
16:08:07 <laura> There is a programmatically determined relationship between the new content and the control that triggers it;
16:08:19 <laura> …To There is a programmatically determined relationship between the new content and the triggering mechanism;
16:08:24 <bruce_bailey> I think “triggering mechanism” is not as hard to parse as “a mechanism is available”
16:09:16 <bruce_bailey> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/results#xnew1
16:09:41 <laura> detlev:  Not sure whether the the change of language from "control" to "triggering mechanism" really solves the problem. Not happy with change.
16:09:54 <Joshue108> q?
16:10:02 <gowerm> q-
16:10:09 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 15 minutes
16:10:09 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
16:10:09 <laura> …control means activated by user.
16:10:25 <jamesn> q+
16:10:41 <laura> …would be bad design.
16:10:50 <Joshue108> ack james
16:11:32 <laura> James: rotation shouldn’t be covered. Needs to be made clear in understanding doc.
16:12:02 <laura> …considered edit to be a minor tilt.
16:12:43 <Joshue108> q?
16:13:00 <laura> …see need triggering mechanism. need to clarify in understanding
16:13:49 <david-macdonald> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/506
16:13:57 <laura> David: proposal should be adjusted to read triggering mechanism.
16:14:05 <Detlev> I have no fundamental objection to make this change..
16:14:28 <laura> …probably larger issues on this SC.
16:14:45 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:15:05 <laura> …Should apply to next bullet.
16:15:39 <laura> …if people are confused we can come back to this,
16:16:15 <laura> …comment is that they don’t like the word “control”.
16:17:02 <Ryladog> I am fine with either, but I like triggering mechanism
16:17:03 <laura> …I am fine either way.
16:17:09 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:17:26 <laura> josh: maybe come back to this.
16:17:47 <laura> david: maybe reassign to detlev.
16:18:14 <Joshue108> ack Mike
16:18:20 <laura> josh: we have an objection form lisa
16:18:51 <laura> Mike E.: maybe explain in the undertanding doc.
16:19:43 <laura> …provide an explanation where it does and  doesn't apply
16:20:03 <gowerm> q+
16:20:23 <laura> david: not attached to either
16:20:40 <Ryladog> +1 to this change
16:20:54 <laura> …maybe reach out to lisa. Close to consensus.
16:21:27 <laura> JF:  could defer to thursday.
16:21:32 <david-macdonald> are you hear lisa?
16:21:46 <laura> Josh: wish lisa had left a reason.
16:21:49 <Joshue108> ack gower
16:22:13 <Detlev> agree with Mike
16:22:16 <laura> WG: put it to a CFC and lisa can speak up
16:22:17 <steverep> q+ to offer using "action" instead
16:22:23 <gowerm> q-
16:22:28 <Joshue108> ack steve
16:22:28 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to offer using "action" instead
16:23:01 <laura> steve: maybe slightly adjust 1st sentence of the SC
16:24:00 <laura> Josh: can you update your proposal?
16:24:06 <Ryladog> +1 to action
16:24:21 <laura> …triggering action or mechanism?
16:24:33 <Ryladog> +1 to triggering action
16:24:37 <Joshue108> We have created a pull request to replace "control that triggers it" with "triggering action"
16:25:10 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:25:26 <laura> David and Steve: wordsmithing new wording
16:26:04 <Detlev> Do you really "take" actions when you trigger something?
16:26:25 <david-macdonald> The user has been advised of the change of content before, or as a result of the user action
16:27:05 <david-macdonald> The user has been advised of the change of content before, or as a result of taking the action
16:27:34 <laura> Josh: overhead for CFC. Do we have to do that?
16:27:49 <steverep> I think we decided anytime there is an SC change we need a CFC?
16:28:08 <laura> MC: we had talked about bulk call for objections once a week
16:29:07 <laura> Josh doesn’t want us to do CFC for non normative changes.
16:30:28 <laura> steve: maybe take this to GitHub to work on wording.
16:30:56 <laura> david: we are close.
16:31:08 <Glenda> +1 I can live with triggering mechanism
16:31:11 <Ryladog> I can live with either
16:31:16 <david-macdonald> There is a programmatically determined relationship between the new content and triggering mechanism
16:31:26 <laura> Josh: Do we have text ?
16:31:43 <david-macdonald> The user has been advised of the change of content before, or as a result using the triggering mechnaism
16:32:24 <laura> Josh: what about using action?
16:32:48 <david-macdonald> The user has been advised of the change of content before, or as a result of taking the action
16:33:19 <laura> David: this last one takes in Steve’s suggestion.
16:33:47 <laura> Josh: we can ask the requestor.
16:33:57 <laura> David: they are okay with it?
16:35:23 <laura> RESOLUTION: Accept David’s 2 edits.
16:35:43 <laura> Josh: will put out CFC
16:36:02 <laura> …for normative changes.
16:37:22 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
16:37:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/17-ag-minutes.html laura
16:37:54 <laura> trackbot, end meeting
16:37:54 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:37:54 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jallan, JakeAbma, interaccess, bruce_bailey, Roy, Laura, jamesn, jasonjgw, Kathy, MikeGower, kirkwood, Makoto, KimD, Greg_Lowney,
16:37:57 <Zakim> ... Mike_Elledge, Brooks, steverep, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Glenda, david-macdonald, marcjohlic, Detlev
16:38:01 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:38:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:38:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/17-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:38:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:38:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items