14:35:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:35:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/24-ag-irc
14:35:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:35:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
14:35:26 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:35:26 <trackbot> Date: 24 October 2017
14:35:29 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:35:29 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
14:35:31 <AWK> +AWK
14:35:36 <AWK> agenda?
14:36:05 <AWK> agenda+ Finishing survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/ (#’s 6, 7, & 8, and possibly 3)
14:36:15 <AWK> agenda+ CR Exit Criteria
14:37:07 <lisa_> lisa_ has joined #ag
14:37:54 <AWK> agenda+ Notice: Review of Draft Understanding content
14:38:33 <AWK> agenda+ Review of current techniques needed for SC https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Proposed_WCAG_2.1_SC_Techniques
14:38:46 <AWK> 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
14:47:02 <AWK> Chair: AWK
14:47:10 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:48:31 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:54:26 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:54:53 <AWK> regrets+ Andy_heath Kathy_Wahlbin, Jake EA_draffan, David_MacDonald
14:55:02 <AWK> reagent, draft minutes
14:55:19 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
14:58:31 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce_bailey
14:58:31 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
14:58:46 <KimD> Present+ KimD
14:58:59 <AWK> Zaki, ping me us in 62 minutes to get a new scribe
14:59:11 <AWK> Zakim, ping us in 62 minutes to get a new scribe
14:59:11 <Zakim> ok, AWK
14:59:31 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
14:59:40 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
14:59:57 <jasonjgw> present+
15:00:05 <AWK> agenda?
15:00:17 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:02:04 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:04 <Zakim> Present: AWK, bruce_bailey, KimD, jasonjgw, Makoto
15:02:28 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:02:28 <laura> present+ Laura
15:02:39 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike_Elledge
15:03:10 <Crystal> Crystal has joined #ag
15:03:30 <MichaelC> present+
15:03:51 <lisa> present+
15:04:00 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:04:07 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:04:09 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:04:11 <Alex_> Alex_ has joined #ag
15:04:14 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:04:26 <Mike_Elledge> Welcome back!
15:04:34 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #ag
15:05:01 <Brooks> present+ Brooks
15:05:29 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:05:29 <bruce_bailey> scribe:bruce_bailey
15:05:37 <JF> present+ JF
15:06:07 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 1
15:06:07 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Finishing survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/ (#’s 6, 7, & 8, and possibly 3)" taken up [from AWK]
15:06:19 <JF> agenda?
15:06:33 <bruce_bailey> scribe : bruce_bailey
15:06:36 <MichaelC> s/scribe:bruce_bailey/scribe: bruce_bailey/
15:07:21 <bruce_bailey> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/results#xnew4
15:07:34 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:Response to 327
15:07:36 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
15:07:39 <jnurthen> jnurthen has joined #ag
15:07:59 <lisa_> lisa_ has joined #ag
15:08:00 <bruce_bailey> Response to comment on 3.2.7 Change of Content #482
15:08:10 <lisa_> the volume is cuting out
15:08:14 <bruce_bailey> This was in response to David MacDonald
15:08:37 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  we have the pull request wrt changing second bullet
15:08:58 <bruce_bailey> 9 access and others with comments and suggestion
15:09:19 <bruce_bailey> AWK call on Alistair to respond
15:09:32 <bruce_bailey> Alastairc: thinks response covers it
15:09:51 <bruce_bailey> it seems a bit odd that change in focus might exempt
15:09:57 <bruce_bailey> could be 50/50 chance
15:10:12 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  similar comments / concerns
15:10:33 <bruce_bailey> it can be a slippery slow with "after" since that could be 10 pages down
15:10:40 <bruce_bailey> does it help?  does it hurt?
15:10:54 <interaccess> q?
15:10:54 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  we need to think more about user need
15:11:02 <bruce_bailey> calls on Jason
15:11:20 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:11:28 <david-macdonald> monitoring for a few nmoments while on break from teahing
15:11:35 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  changes may immediately follow focus might not be where the change is
15:11:40 <bruce_bailey> this is not always the case
15:11:43 <steverep> present+steverep
15:11:43 <AWK> s/AKW/AWK
15:12:01 <bruce_bailey> example is a form where the content changes as data is put into form
15:12:31 <bruce_bailey> when one selects one field, the fields and options change
15:12:42 <bruce_bailey> user might not know to look
15:12:51 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:13:26 <JF> Q+
15:13:31 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  2nd point is magnificant does not have to cover all the content that was changed
15:13:41 <bruce_bailey> might just be live area
15:14:06 <JF> Q+ to ask about "what kind of notification?" is there a minimum notice required?
15:14:22 <bruce_bailey> 3rd point was concern that proposal might not be exactly right thing for the user
15:14:26 <AWK> ack jf
15:14:26 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about "what kind of notification?" is there a minimum notice required?
15:14:29 <bruce_bailey> conclusion is we should consider more.
15:14:56 <bruce_bailey> John F:  To notification issue, do we need to define or clarify?
15:15:17 <bruce_bailey> JF: FaceBook example is just a ping on a page.  Is that enough?
15:15:21 <Alex__> Alex__ has joined #ag
15:15:23 <jasonjgw> q+
15:15:27 <AWK> ack ja
15:15:39 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:15:40 <bruce_bailey> JF:  We kind of envisioned an aria live region, but that might not be necessary
15:15:55 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:16:04 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  We specify something like an aria live region
15:16:05 <gowerm> q+
15:16:22 <bruce_bailey> If we want to allow other approaches, we need to dicuss further
15:16:31 <bruce_bailey> that technology needs to be developed
15:16:52 <bruce_bailey> Users are likely to expect an aria live region
15:16:55 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
15:17:07 <bruce_bailey> the form example might be a bit missleading
15:17:23 <bruce_bailey> things might not work as well as commenter things.
15:17:36 <AWK> ack gower
15:17:48 <bruce_bailey> AWK: to summarize, core of requirement is notification and could be a chime or something
15:18:07 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Asks if we have that documented in draft understanding?
15:18:15 <Pietro> Present+
15:18:27 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  I was okay with comment, but draft has undefinded terms
15:18:43 <JF> +1 Mike
15:18:46 <bruce_bailey> There are a lot of details and undefined terms that we do not have clear enough
15:19:10 <bruce_bailey> The part about "programatic notification" is okay but not fleshed out enough
15:19:32 <jasonjgw> q+
15:19:43 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  Programmatic notification is made by the author, because of something the author did, but the AT response is not known.
15:20:06 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  are there other issues beyond programmatic notification?
15:20:27 <AWK> ack jas
15:20:29 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  PN is the main issues but even it is vague.
15:20:37 <jnurthen> +1 to vagueness here
15:20:45 <bruce_bailey> MikeG gives other quick examples of vagues.
15:21:12 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  agree significant definitial issues
15:21:33 <bruce_bailey> Thinks we may be able to address those with other current open issues.
15:22:08 <bruce_bailey> HTML5 techniques will cause user agents to be alerted in at least some sense
15:22:33 <bruce_bailey> We should think in our clarifications about how programmatic notification works
15:23:03 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  I am hearing some real significant doubts about PN but also this SC in particular.
15:23:41 <bruce_bailey> People like this idea, for a requirement about alerting to changes on the page that does not have immediate focus.
15:23:58 <bruce_bailey> Downstream in the page and sequential reading order are tied into this as well.
15:24:16 <steverep> q+ to disagree specifically with the exception
15:24:18 <bruce_bailey> In the survey, 9 of us said we should allow the downstream exception
15:24:32 <AWK> ack steve
15:24:32 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to disagree specifically with the exception
15:24:33 <bruce_bailey> Asks for speaking up to agree.
15:25:09 <bruce_bailey> Steve concures with concern.  Agrees that exception that exception is a problem.
15:25:32 <Brooks> q+ to ask about intent of SC - Is this about ultimate discoverability of added content, or is this about immediate discoverability of new content?
15:25:39 <bruce_bailey> Steve:  Exception assumes that a blind individual only needs to get one read of the page
15:25:50 <bruce_bailey> Steve does not like the change.
15:26:08 <bruce_bailey> AKW asks for reasons to keep the change.
15:26:21 <JF> Q+
15:26:42 <bruce_bailey> MikeG says that if the change is right after the other control, then it really might not be a problem.
15:27:10 <jasonjgw> q+
15:27:14 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  If it immediately follows, not something much further down the page, the new information should be readily available.
15:27:15 <AWK> Ack brooks
15:27:15 <Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask about intent of SC - Is this about ultimate discoverability of added content, or is this about immediate discoverability of new content?
15:27:16 <jnurthen> q+
15:28:02 <bruce_bailey> Brooks:  idea is to let user immediately know about new content
15:28:30 <bruce_bailey> Alternative is just that users find out because something is in their way
15:28:55 <bruce_bailey> AKW asks for clarification for concern, back to drop-down example of picking country.
15:29:14 <lisa> just stepping aay for a moment
15:29:25 <gowerm> q+
15:29:40 <bruce_bailey> If user selects US, then drop down is state.  If user selects Canada, then drop down is provices [sp]
15:30:18 <AWK> ack JF
15:30:30 <AWK> s/provices [sp]/provinces
15:30:34 <bruce_bailey> Brook:  Issue is simplier than we might be making.  Agrees that user does not need to hear that second group of choices changes.
15:30:53 <bruce_bailey> JohnF:  The key issue really seems to be around proximity.
15:31:20 <bruce_bailey> So changing the the very next field change is fine.  Most forms and fillout is a linear process.
15:31:53 <bruce_bailey> Question about what happens when going backward?  Going back to country field from bottom of form?
15:31:58 <AWK> ack jason
15:32:01 <bruce_bailey> How close is close enough?
15:32:45 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  Example is survey is similar to what JF described, so picking a different country might delete what the user put into address field.
15:33:27 <bruce_bailey> User would be okay with states changing to providences, and expect that proximate change.
15:33:46 <bruce_bailey> Other changes, like the address line being lost, would need programmatic notification.
15:34:13 <bruce_bailey> If we want to restrict this based on kind of changes, we need some clarification about that.
15:34:32 <AWK> ack jn
15:34:40 <bruce_bailey> General assumptions about linear reading order might not hold.  So we need to re-evaluation.
15:35:21 <lisa> q+
15:35:26 <Brooks> q+
15:35:29 <bruce_bailey> James:  We need to think more about proximity.  If any user makes a choice that changes the (form) page three screens away, no one knows.
15:35:36 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Asks about page.
15:35:42 <AWK> q+
15:35:52 <Alex__> good point
15:36:02 <steverep> q+ to say talking about proximity is a non-starter for me - visual and DOM can be very different
15:36:05 <bruce_bailey> Jason clarifies about long page.  There are ways to think about proximity and flow.
15:36:23 <lisa> ack l
15:36:33 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Flow term is interesting, different than proximity.  Is issue really about change of flow?
15:36:35 <lisa> putting my comments n irc.
15:36:45 <lisa> emphasis is also imporant
15:36:50 <AWK> s/Jason clarifies/JF clarifies
15:37:00 <lisa> people think you will know or see something becuse it is in bold
15:37:09 <bruce_bailey> If the change is in the experience space of "not yet heard" then changes there are not important.
15:37:12 <lisa> but proximity is not relivent
15:37:27 <bruce_bailey> Shopping cart experience is a good example.
15:37:38 <AWK> ack gower
15:38:00 <bruce_bailey> Example with lots of simultaneous data (ex., sports scores) need consideration as well.
15:38:34 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  Context was experience of screen reader users and aria live and what programmatic notification could be for different people
15:38:45 <AWK> q-
15:39:06 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  Change of context for the user remains an important concern.
15:39:23 <bruce_bailey> I reasonable technic is to notify the user.
15:39:45 <jasonjgw> q+
15:39:54 <bruce_bailey> The user could be notified in advance, but only when the technology does not support the live notification.
15:40:27 <bruce_bailey> Exception for advance notification is too broad as currently written.
15:40:48 <AWK> zakim, close the queue
15:40:48 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed
15:40:51 <AWK> ack br
15:41:00 <bruce_bailey> MikeG gave the example of the fast keyboard user moving away from focus, missing the screenreader update.
15:41:11 <bruce_bailey> Programmatic notification could have solved that.
15:41:53 <bruce_bailey> Brooks:  It is not about options for question 2 changing is not so important as understanding the relation from question 1.
15:42:10 <bruce_bailey> Example of country and then subdivision is okay.
15:42:26 <AWK> ack ste
15:42:26 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say talking about proximity is a non-starter for me - visual and DOM can be very different
15:42:38 <bruce_bailey> Example of favorite color changing options in next question is must less obvious.
15:43:11 <bruce_bailey> Steve:  Talking about proximity is a non-starter since DOM proximity and visual proximity might not be strict enough.
15:43:46 <bruce_bailey> Proximity in terms of cognitive is even more problematic.  States coming from country is intuitive.
15:43:51 <gowerm> q+
15:44:21 <bruce_bailey> No end user wants an aria alert about changes down the page when those changes are natural and not needed.
15:44:38 <AWK> ack jason
15:44:38 <bruce_bailey> As a full-time screen reader user, I am concerned with current phrasing.
15:44:52 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  So we want this funtional and not overly verbose.
15:45:32 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  The important changes relevant to the task and how the content is designed.
15:45:54 <bruce_bailey> Change should fall into the scope of what is being effected by the notification.
15:46:10 <JF> There seems to be a distinct dividing line here: forms versus other content that updates (i.e. sport scores, etc.)
15:46:16 <bruce_bailey> So some examples we discussed meet that threshhold
15:46:36 <bruce_bailey> We might also scope this down to UI elements that are added or deleted.
15:47:05 <bruce_bailey> Example of sports results page would be compatible with this, since updates are expected, but not newly added.
15:47:09 <AWK> Current issues logged on "Change of Content" SC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%7Ecomment-change-of-content
15:47:18 <bruce_bailey> Agree that current phrasing is not sufficient.
15:47:44 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  We have a log of significant comments and concerns [as pasted in].
15:48:12 <bruce_bailey> Just one public comment, but it seems we cannot answer it without collectively digesting member concerns.
15:48:28 <bruce_bailey> Looking for volunteer to scrub through issues?
15:48:33 <steverep> +1 to volunteer (fear is a wonderful motivator)
15:48:46 <gowerm> +1
15:48:54 <bruce_bailey> Are there themes?  Is is all just different aspects of one issue?
15:49:26 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  Wants to check that COGA group did not initate this?
15:49:45 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  Thinks this is of issue to COGA group, but came from mobile task force
15:50:01 <alastairc> This one came from DavidM, one of the few 'misc' SCs.
15:50:02 <lisa> if you want to suggest or cc the coga group that would be fantastic
15:50:05 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  Report back in a week?  Asking for more time is okay.
15:50:34 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION:  Leave open.  SteveR and MikeG will review and report back.
15:51:09 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  survey item 7, proposed response to changing handles on SC
15:51:38 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/results#xnew6
15:52:16 <bruce_bailey> Br
15:53:06 <bruce_bailey> See SteveR:The premise for closing issues like this should be that we must concentrate on 2.1 SC and only talk about 2.0 changes for serious conflicts instead of cosmetics. The group was far from unanimous on making zero changes to 2.0 criteria (and there was no formal decision recorded on it unless I missed it), so there's no need for such a response.
15:53:24 <bruce_bailey> Bruce is okay with respond as ammended
15:53:26 <AWK> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 SC, in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC."
15:53:48 <bruce_bailey> AKW has response from Micheal.
15:54:00 <bruce_bailey> Bruce is okay with MC response
15:54:02 <AWK> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 SC, in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC for WCAG 2.1 but will defer this issue for future consideration."
15:54:09 <gowerm> +1 "future consideration"
15:54:12 <Ryladog> +1 to AWK
15:54:28 <bruce_bailey> SteveR:  Okay.  There may be lots of these.
15:54:30 <laura> +1
15:54:44 <KimD> +1
15:54:45 <bruce_bailey> Just because we cannot handle for 2.1, we should not have harsh response.
15:55:14 <bruce_bailey> AKW ask for objections.
15:55:16 <JF> Q+
15:55:25 <bruce_bailey> MikeG thinks it needs word smithing.
15:56:22 <AWK> Zakim, open the queue
15:56:22 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is open
15:56:55 <gowerm> Teh WG has ruled out editorial or substantive changes to WCAG 2.0... compatibility while creating WCAG 2.1. Therefore...
15:57:06 <bruce_bailey> JF:  To what SteveR asks.  Did we not decide not to change anything in 2.1 that is coming over from 2.0?
15:57:36 <jasonjgw> q+
15:57:42 <bruce_bailey> We decided to create new SC for 2.1 so we avoided need to edit 2.0 SC.
15:58:06 <gowerm> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 normative language while updating WCAG 2.1 SC , in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC for WCAG 2.1 but will defer this issue for future consideration."
15:58:10 <bruce_bailey> MikeCooper:  We made decision NOT to change 2.0 SC but reserved option to come back to 2.0 SC.
15:58:34 <bruce_bailey> Not in favor of deciding not to decide, but that is what the WG settled upon.
15:58:52 <bruce_bailey> AWK concurs w/ MC assessment.
15:58:58 <jasonjgw> q-
15:59:09 <gowerm> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 normative language while drafting WCAG 2.1 SC , in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility.
15:59:22 <JF> +1 to draft response
15:59:32 <alastairc> +1
15:59:39 <laura> +1
15:59:40 <bruce_bailey> AKW asks for objections.
15:59:47 <Makoto> +1
15:59:50 <gowerm> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 normative language while drafting WCAG 2.1 SC, in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC for WCAG 2.1 but will defer this issue for future consideration."
15:59:51 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
15:59:57 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION:  accept response as ammended
16:00:43 <JF> From our Charter: The WCAG 2.1 update will be an incremental update to WCAG 2.0 rather than a major revision. WCAG 2.1 is designed to build on the WCAG 2.0 recommendation to ensure testability and technology independence, and will also ensure backward compatibility with WCAG 2.0.
16:00:49 <lisa> q+
16:01:07 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  question 8 from survey, proposed response
16:01:11 <Zakim> AWK, you asked to be pinged at this time to get a new scribe
16:01:21 <bruce_bailey> 8. Proposed response to Learning Disabilities of America - Technology Committee Comments: WCAG 2.1 For Learning Disabilities and Cognitive Disabilities #211
16:01:25 <AWK> ack lisa
16:02:18 <bruce_bailey> Lisa S:  The response was polite, said what we are doing, but does not address concerns
16:02:41 <bruce_bailey> Commenter suggested changing levels, some AAA they asked to be Single A
16:02:54 <bruce_bailey> We have not explained why we are not making changing
16:03:04 <JF> Q+
16:03:09 <bruce_bailey> s/making changing/making changes/
16:03:32 <MichaelC> q+
16:03:33 <bruce_bailey> Lisa thinks our response should offer more explaination
16:03:57 <bruce_bailey> characterization of suggested SC not being mature should be more specific
16:04:01 <MichaelC> q+ to say difficult to respond substantively to this comment before we have finished other issues affecting those SC
16:04:12 <bruce_bailey> For example, if suggestions are not testable, we should say so
16:04:31 <bruce_bailey> If there are other issues, we should explain more
16:05:01 <bruce_bailey> We do have aspirations to pull more into a road map, so we should explain that
16:05:21 <bruce_bailey> We should explain more why we are not accepting their request now
16:05:30 <gowerm> +1 to Lisa drafting a response for WG review
16:05:44 <bruce_bailey> We know something won't get into 2.2 so we could say that, but say what we are working on
16:05:59 <AWK> ack jf
16:06:00 <bruce_bailey> We could also talk about Silver and non-normative supporting documents
16:06:30 <lisa> q+
16:06:31 <bruce_bailey> JF:  As the author of the response, I wanted to keep it short
16:06:43 <bruce_bailey> factual, accurate, concise in response
16:06:54 <bruce_bailey> commenter made on comment for 10 SCs
16:07:21 <bruce_bailey> If they want forensics, the links to research materials is there
16:07:29 <alastairc> I think there is a point to add about why some things won't make A/AA, and one point to make about the other (non SC) means of improvements.
16:07:49 <bruce_bailey> JF disagrees that response is patronizing
16:07:59 <AWK> ack michaelc
16:07:59 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say difficult to respond substantively to this comment before we have finished other issues affecting those SC
16:08:09 <interaccess> q?
16:08:15 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Commenter response is to older draft.  Shorter response is better than writting a book.
16:08:57 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Seems like the kind of thing where we cannot respond until we have addressed larger issues affecting SCs.
16:09:11 <alastairc> q+
16:09:16 <bruce_bailey> MC agrees with JF observation that comment is on earlier draft.
16:09:27 <AWK> ack lisa
16:10:11 <bruce_bailey> LisaS:  yes, they have taken 10 comments and merged them into 1, but issue could be addressed better.
16:10:20 <JF> Q+
16:10:35 <bruce_bailey> Commenter deserves more serious response.
16:11:26 <bruce_bailey> If they had asked 10 separate questions, would we not have 10 responses?
16:12:05 <bruce_bailey> Do we have a good explaination why personalization is at AA and not single A?
16:12:30 <bruce_bailey> Commenter is new to WCAG, so they are familar with our process.
16:12:55 <bruce_bailey> Commenter is raising significant issues that deserve more in depth response.
16:13:04 <AWK> AWK: to clarify, they didn't look at the wrong version, the comment is older and based on an earlier version.
16:13:27 <AWK> ack jF
16:13:58 <bruce_bailey> JF:  The answer to why SC are A and AA is link provided.
16:14:04 <lisa> q+
16:14:34 <bruce_bailey> Lisa is asking us for more justification, but commenter has not described why they think SC should be at different levels.
16:15:02 <lisa> actulay i am asking us to discuss if they are right and if we can do anything they asked for
16:15:14 <lisa> rather then just explain why not
16:15:20 <bruce_bailey> There are a several SC that we have moved along, and have settled on AA v AAA or A
16:15:29 <steverep> q+ to say this can be a dialogue not a final answer
16:15:37 <AWK> ack ala
16:15:46 <lisa> +1 o steve
16:15:47 <bruce_bailey> JF:  We have lots of background and a document trail.  Response provides that.
16:16:33 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Understands Lisa's point, but there is too much ground to cover to go over all the history that Lisa is asking for.
16:16:42 <JF> Points to: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria#Initial_Suggestion_for_Priority_Level
16:16:47 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Ther
16:17:17 <bruce_bailey> There is also the ongoing compromise we have been making all along to balance importance and adoption.
16:17:40 <JF> Current version: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-levels-head
16:17:45 <bruce_bailey> Alastair has started to draft that up.
16:18:27 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Agrees that working out response via github is challenging when commenters are tracking the work-in-progress draft proposed response
16:19:11 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Github proposed responses have been good about putting work-in-progress caveats
16:19:21 <bruce_bailey> but we might want to respond on list too.
16:19:27 <AWK> ack lisa
16:20:10 <bruce_bailey> LisaS:  We had said we might consider changing levels based on feedback towards end.
16:20:11 <AWK> AWK: Think that we should focus on the non-deferred SC in the response and link to the details on the deferred ones
16:21:11 <bruce_bailey> LisaS:  So we should send interim responsed.  We should ask if commenter can give us more information and documentation supporting their reasoning.
16:21:55 <bruce_bailey> It is true that there some kind of balance, but should solict them for more information regarding the importance of adjusting SC.
16:22:30 <bruce_bailey> LisaS:  Especially for a commenter that might not only be new to our process but new to WCAG.
16:22:38 <AWK> q?
16:22:41 <AWK> ack ste
16:22:41 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say this can be a dialogue not a final answer
16:22:42 <bruce_bailey> LisaS disagrees with closing the response.
16:23:21 <AWK> q+
16:23:36 <bruce_bailey> SteveR:  Agrees with LisaS, and that traditional one comment / one response approach might not be best in this case.
16:24:14 <bruce_bailey> SteveR:  We could ask "You say this should be A when we said AA.  Why?"
16:24:25 <AWK> ack AWK
16:24:32 <JF> Q+
16:24:38 <bruce_bailey> SteveR:  We should not be so eager to close this out, just leave as a dialog.
16:25:16 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  I agree with SteveR, LisaS, and JF concerns.  But it is 10 issues.
16:25:49 <bruce_bailey> AWK maybe use JF response as invitation to open dialog?
16:26:17 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  We could still say which are closed, current state of others, and which are defered to Silver.
16:26:27 <lisa> q+
16:26:31 <AWK> ack jf
16:26:37 <bruce_bailey> So we ask to close this issue, then open new issues as needed.
16:27:10 <AWK> ack lisa
16:27:22 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Concurs with proposed approach, but may not to continue to steer this particular response.
16:27:42 <alastairc> I'm afraid I have to drop off now, I've just emailed Lisa and the list with a starting point, if Lisa updates that, I'm happy to put the whole response together.
16:27:57 <bruce_bailey> LisaS:  Can we offer someone to followup with with explaination of process and how best to contribute?
16:28:04 <bruce_bailey> Maybe do that by phone?
16:29:07 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Talks with LisaS about proposed followup.  Agrees that we have to leave open.
16:29:43 <bruce_bailey> Alastair has volunteered to work on drafting response.
16:29:58 <bruce_bailey> AWK also volunteers to work on response.
16:30:17 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION:  leave open, AKW and AC will work
16:30:25 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
16:30:25 <Zakim> agendum 2. "CR Exit Criteria" taken up [from AWK]
16:31:03 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  No survey for now
16:31:13 <bruce_bailey> We discussed a couple weeks ago
16:31:28 <bruce_bailey> Remaining issues was accessiblity support documentation
16:31:29 <AWK> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0244.html
16:31:55 <bruce_bailey> AWK and SteveR have discussed and see not to list [above].
16:32:24 <bruce_bailey> Okay with having 5 conforming websites, one at AAA
16:32:34 <bruce_bailey> Two implementations for each new SC
16:33:01 <bruce_bailey> Sufficient Techniques updated in response to comments
16:33:28 <bruce_bailey> We have several new SC for authors doing something, example purpose of controls
16:33:55 <bruce_bailey> Techniques could be title or aria, and is already covered by techniques for 2.0
16:34:09 <lisa> it does not need browser support
16:34:20 <jasonjgw> q+
16:34:25 <bruce_bailey> There are questions about context that need significant accessiblity support documentation
16:34:42 <bruce_bailey> So that is a couple examples of browsers and AT
16:34:49 <AWK> ack jas
16:34:54 <bruce_bailey> Show our work as we say
16:35:43 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  Agree with AWK approach as outlined, but some techniques rely on technology that are only readay as we get close to CR
16:36:07 <AWK> AWK: The line in the exit criteria current suggested says 'Accessibility support documentation for SC with platform/user agent/assistive technology dependencies is available for at least two technologies with at least four platforms (operating system/user agent/assistive technology combinations);'
16:36:18 <bruce_bailey> So we need to have some caveats around techniques that coming down to the wire timing wise
16:36:40 <steverep> q+ to agree in concept with AWK, but disagree on some SC
16:37:04 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  Working group responsible for intepreting that line.
16:37:09 <Brooks> q+
16:37:28 <bruce_bailey> If we do not have consenses, we may have to drop SC near deadline
16:37:39 <AWK> ack steve
16:37:39 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to agree in concept with AWK, but disagree on some SC
16:37:46 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  Needs a bit more clarification.
16:37:52 <bruce_bailey> AWK agrees.
16:38:02 <lisa> q+
16:38:03 <david-macdonald_> david-macdonald_ has joined #ag
16:38:16 <david-macdonald_> zakim, make minutes
16:38:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', david-macdonald_
16:38:22 <bruce_bailey> SteveR:  Might have concern with status of some SC.
16:38:35 <bruce_bailey> When do we have to have techniques for every SC?
16:38:48 <bruce_bailey> Is it before or after SC is met?
16:38:58 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  We have to have it before.
16:39:10 <bruce_bailey> SteveR is okay with that.
16:39:30 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  This makes things like "purpose of control" to be clear.
16:39:44 <AWK> ack br
16:39:49 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  List does not itself have to be in exit criteria.
16:39:57 <david-macdonald_> rrsagent, make minutes
16:39:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/24-ag-minutes.html david-macdonald_
16:40:28 <bruce_bailey> Brooks:  No reason to exclude "purpose of control" and important not to exclude it.
16:40:51 <JF> Q+
16:41:00 <bruce_bailey> AWK notes that some new SC might turn out to have already written techniques for 2.0.
16:41:06 <AWK> ack lisa
16:41:42 <AWK> q+ to say that it isn't enough for the "data" to be in the HTML, there needs to be AT/UA that support it
16:41:43 <bruce_bailey> LisaS:  Sufficient technique might just be in the page HTML and just noted.
16:42:01 <laura> q+ to ask: Does "Accessibility support documentation is available for at least two technologies" mean that SCs must currently work in 2 technologies such as PDF and HTML? Or does it mean that it can fail in 1 of the 2 technologies but we merely need to document the pass and failure?
16:42:07 <bruce_bailey> Lisa requests more guidence, for example if a plug-in needs to work in four browsers.
16:42:56 <bruce_bailey> LisaS is concerned that SC could be dropped just because of misunderstanding about what work needed to go into exit criteria.
16:43:23 <bruce_bailey> AWK clarifies that exit criteria is coming from requirements for CR process.
16:43:47 <bruce_bailey> MC:  We need to know what our exit criteria are in order to go to CR.
16:44:08 <AWK> ack JF
16:44:18 <MichaelC> q+ to say implementation doesn´t mean just browser but has to mean *something*
16:44:27 <bruce_bailey> LisaS:  Maybe we have a separate discussion about what we expect to provide?
16:45:07 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Yes, we need to have examples of purpose of control, but before that we need at least one technique for each new SC.
16:45:40 <AWK> ack AWK
16:45:40 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it isn't enough for the "data" to be in the HTML, there needs to be AT/UA that support it
16:45:50 <bruce_bailey> JF:  We need to show that new SC are doable.  Lets get away from individual SC and focus on exit criteria.
16:46:33 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  The purpose of the accessibility support documentation is to show that users benefit from the work that authors do.
16:46:44 <jasonjgw> q+
16:47:23 <bruce_bailey> AKW gives example with ALT tags, that the technique is not sufficient if AT does not do something with the ALT tag.
16:47:51 <bruce_bailey> The exit criteria requires demonstration of actual function.
16:48:00 <AWK> ack lau
16:48:00 <Zakim> laura, you wanted to ask: Does "Accessibility support documentation is available for at least two technologies" mean that SCs must currently work in 2 technologies such as PDF and
16:48:03 <Zakim> ... HTML? Or does it mean that it can fail in 1 of the 2 technologies but we merely need to document the pass and failure?
16:48:17 <JF> Q+ to ask about dependencies on "AT" - is that a criteria?
16:48:20 <bruce_bailey> The four platform requirement is somewhat flexible in that multiple OS count.
16:48:45 <bruce_bailey> Laura:  How much do we have do document?
16:49:15 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
16:49:17 <bruce_bailey> Laura:  Do we need multiple technologies for each SC?
16:49:44 <AWK> ack michael
16:49:44 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say implementation doesn´t mean just browser but has to mean *something*
16:49:47 <bruce_bailey> The adapting text SC is an example where we might only have support in HTML
16:50:19 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  For WCAG 2.0 we looked at PDF, Silverlight, and other technologies.
16:50:44 <bruce_bailey> MC: For WCAG 2.0, we did not require that every technique be available for PDF.
16:51:04 <bruce_bailey> MC clarifies that the presence of markup only is not enough.
16:51:27 <AWK> ack jas
16:51:29 <bruce_bailey> We need an implementation does something useful with some combination of browser + AT.
16:51:55 <bruce_bailey> MC agrees with JF that if cannot write a technique, then that is blocking.
16:52:21 <bruce_bailey> Jason:  It is difficult to argue for a requirement that does not help users in actual practice.
16:53:00 <bruce_bailey> As far as adoption is concerned, we really need experience to know that what is in the SC and a technique is what is actually needed.
16:53:14 <bruce_bailey> What we ask for is what is the user needed.
16:53:25 <AWK> ack JF
16:53:25 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about dependencies on "AT" - is that a criteria?
16:53:35 <bruce_bailey> Otherwise we would speculating on non-exiting technology.
16:53:58 <AWK> q+
16:54:38 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Ask about ALT tag example, since not every PWD uses AT, but might still be useful.
16:55:16 <bruce_bailey> Another example is schema.org meta data which is tremenously useful and in actual use, but not exposed to AT at the moment.
16:55:40 <steverep> q+ to ask how schema.org is consumed by users?
16:55:41 <AWK> ack AWK
16:55:57 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Autocomplete is an example of something that is tremendously useful, and useful for PWD.  Does that pass?
16:56:00 <MichaelC> q+
16:56:36 <MichaelC> q+ to say AT vs user benefit; use impact user interaction modulo a11y metadata conformance bit
16:56:45 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Alt tag example was just a nominal example, but if nothing used it, alt tags would not be suffiicient.
16:57:26 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Some 2.1 SC might not be available to AT because the browser is not making the data available.
16:57:56 <Ryladog> q+
16:58:03 <AWK> zakim, close the queue
16:58:03 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed
16:58:07 <bruce_bailey> Purpose of control is pretty broad, and our exit criteria does not require that it work everywhere, just that we can demonstrate a couple good examples.
16:58:33 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Some of new SC transcend AT, so don't want to be trapped by that.
16:58:34 <AWK> ack steve
16:58:34 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask how schema.org is consumed by users?
16:59:01 <bruce_bailey> SteveR:  The whole point is that we cannot claim conformance without accessilbilty support.
16:59:10 <bruce_bailey> That requirement is in WCAG 2.0 now.
16:59:38 <kirkwood> present+
16:59:42 <AWK> ack michaelc
16:59:42 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say AT vs user benefit; use impact user interaction modulo a11y metadata conformance bit
16:59:50 <bruce_bailey> If the only AT for purpose of control uses micro data or schema.org, that would not be accessibilty support.
17:00:15 <bruce_bailey> MC:  To simplify, we require benefit to user.
17:00:25 <JF> +1 to mcooper
17:00:45 <bruce_bailey> Accessibility support is a bit of misnomber because we actually prefere for the benefit to come from the browser, not AT.
17:01:08 <AWK> ack ry
17:01:13 <lisa> q+
17:01:18 <bruce_bailey> WRT schema.org, we have not extended support to PWD to be outside the direct user experience.
17:01:33 <lisa> so autocomplete, which helps the use, is one technology
17:01:42 <lisa> and a plug in is a second
17:02:34 <AWK> zakim, next item
17:02:34 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Notice: Review of Draft Understanding content" taken up [from AWK]
17:02:36 <bruce_bailey> Katie:  If any new SC that gets in under Principle 4 still requires user agent support
17:02:52 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Heads up, expect survey for Understanding
17:02:59 <AWK> zakim, next item
17:02:59 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, AWK
17:03:01 <AWK> zakim, next item
17:03:02 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, AWK
17:03:13 <bruce_bailey> TPAC just a couple weeks away, read the Understanding doc ahead of time!
17:03:16 <MichaelC> zakim, close this item
17:03:16 <Zakim> agendum 3 closed
17:03:17 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:03:17 <Zakim> 4. Review of current techniques needed for SC https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Proposed_WCAG_2.1_SC_Techniques [from AWK]
17:03:19 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
17:03:19 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Review of current techniques needed for SC https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Proposed_WCAG_2.1_SC_Techniques" taken up [from AWK]
17:03:35 <david-macdonald_> present+ david-macdonald
17:03:46 <bruce_bailey> Please feel free to brainstorm and add new techniques to that wiki
17:04:01 <bruce_bailey> Katie asks JF if dinner date set?
17:04:16 <bruce_bailey> JF working on it, should have date by Friday,
17:04:41 <bruce_bailey> trackbot, end meeting
17:04:41 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:04:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, bruce_bailey, KimD, jasonjgw, Makoto, Laura, Mike_Elledge, MichaelC, lisa, alastairc, MikeGower, Brooks, JF, steverep,
17:04:44 <Zakim> ... Katie_Haritos-Shea, Pietro, kirkwood, david-macdonald
17:04:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/24-ag-minutes.html trackbot
17:04:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:04:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items