15:44:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:44:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/26-ag-irc
15:44:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:44:25 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:44:25 <trackbot> Date: 26 October 2017
15:44:31 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:44:31 <Zakim> Present: AWK, bruce_bailey, KimD, jasonjgw, Makoto, Laura, Mike_Elledge, MichaelC, lisa, alastairc, MikeGower, Brooks, JF, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Pietro, kirkwood,
15:44:34 <Zakim> ... david-macdonald
15:44:36 <AWK> Present: AWK
15:44:38 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:44:38 <Zakim> Present: AWK
15:44:41 <AWK> agenda?
15:46:40 <AWK> zakim, clear agenda
15:46:40 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:46:46 <AWK> agenda+ Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_31_2017/results
15:47:03 <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
15:47:16 <lisa> i seem to have the wrong link
15:47:18 <lisa> for webex
15:48:06 <AWK> agenda+ Review of current techniques needed for SC https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Proposed_WCAG_2.1_SC_Techniques
15:48:23 <AWK> agenda+ TPAC dinner
15:48:51 <AWK> agenda+ AOB
15:48:54 <AWK> Chair: AWK
15:49:49 <lisa> i am following that link on the top but only john kickwood is in the webex
15:50:03 <lisa> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag2
15:58:21 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:58:45 <jasonjgw> present+
15:59:37 <allanj> present+
16:01:57 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
16:02:14 <MichaelC> present+
16:02:32 <AWK> We do need a scribe for today
16:02:56 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:03:33 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
16:03:36 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
16:03:40 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:03:48 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
16:04:14 <Alex_> Alex_ has joined #ag
16:04:18 <AWK> Scribe:Gowerm
16:04:23 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #ag
16:04:28 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 4
16:04:28 <Zakim> agendum 4. "TPAC dinner" taken up [from AWK]
16:04:30 <Brooks> present+ Brooks
16:04:33 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
16:04:41 <AWK> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG
16:04:43 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
16:05:00 <david-macdonald> present+ david-macdonald
16:05:08 <gowerm> Closing the details on the dinner tomorrow.
16:05:32 <gowerm> John Foliot: Ideally like a response today, so we can decide tomorrow. Considering sushi restaurant
16:05:36 <laura> present+ Laura
16:06:05 <gowerm> zakim, take up item 1
16:06:05 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_31_2017/results" taken up [from AWK]
16:06:15 <kirkwood> present+
16:06:27 <Roy> present+
16:06:56 <AWK> TOPIC: The rewrite of label in name needs images of text #484
16:07:35 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce_bailey
16:07:44 <gowerm> SC for Label in Name has request to include images of text
16:08:17 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
16:08:18 <chriscm> chriscm has joined #ag
16:08:29 <steverep> present+steverep
16:08:33 <gowerm> AWK: My concern is not around the intent, but that labels by defintion are based on text or text alternatives.
16:08:55 <bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK edit
16:09:03 <david-macdonald> q+
16:09:07 <AWK> ack david
16:09:08 <gowerm> AWK: It would rely on the actual definitionn of label
16:09:22 <gowerm> David Macdonald: I'm fine with that, but it's kind of wordy
16:09:44 <gowerm> David: Lots of use of "include"
16:09:57 <gowerm> AWK: "INclude" is in multiple times in the proposal
16:10:06 <steverep> q+ to say that's much more of a requirement
16:10:09 <gowerm> s/INclude/Include
16:10:15 <AWK> ack steve
16:10:15 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say that's much more of a requirement
16:10:18 <JF> Q+
16:11:13 <gowerm> Steve: That seems like much more of a requirement. The target user group are speech users, not someone who is going to see the alternative text. So they are going to speak the image of text.
16:11:49 <AWK> options: "For active user interface components with labels that include text or images of text, the name includes the text of the label." or "For active user interface components with labels, the name includes the text of the label, including any text alternatives"
16:12:08 <gowerm> John Foliot: I don't understand why you want to delete the snippet that speaks to 'including text'
16:12:57 <AWK> ack jf
16:12:59 <gowerm> JF: A key part of this is there is a visible textual label on screen. What we are saying is that if the visible label is on screen, its programmatic label includes this label so they are invoking the label
16:13:33 <gowerm> AWK: This isn't requiring that there be a label on screen. That exists as an SC. The reason I put in to remove that text is because labels are going to include...
16:13:38 <bruce_bailey> +1 to what JF is saying about that we need a qualifier
16:14:35 <gowerm> AWK: If I have a user interface component that has a label but no text, does that image-only user interface component alway pass this SC?
16:14:39 <jasonjgw> q+
16:14:42 <Brooks> q+ to ask about how symbols in the label should be represented in the name
16:14:49 <steverep> Yes, it will pas
16:14:54 <steverep>  pass
16:15:49 <gowerm> JF: So an icon of a magnifying glass? If the alt text was "find what you're looking for" then the speech user would not be able to trigger it by saying 'search'
16:16:24 <JF> <button aria-label="Find what you are looking for" class="magnifying glass"></button>
16:16:25 <gowerm> AWK: Most people would say that passes 1.1.1 (even if not optimal), but does it fail this SC?
16:17:05 <gowerm> JF: I've pasted in with what I would consider a failure. That would pass 1.1.1, but would not pass this.
16:17:10 <david-macdonald> q+
16:17:23 <AWK> ack jas
16:17:50 <david-macdonald> +1
16:18:10 <gowerm> Jason: Perhaps this points to an ambiguity. I would read this such that if there is an icon and it doesn't have text, then it can't fail this SC, since the assumption is there needs to be visible text.
16:18:10 <david-macdonald> If lael is not in words, can't fail this SC
16:18:43 <david-macdonald>  If visible label is not in words, can't fail this SC
16:19:07 <AWK> ack brooks
16:19:07 <Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask about how symbols in the label should be represented in the name
16:19:43 <gowerm> Brooks: Thanks JF for the concrete example. I don't infer from the SC, the same thing as Jason did. I thought of anything that is a visual cue.
16:20:51 <david-macdonald> Old language: Where an active control has a visible label, the accessible name for the control includes the text string used for its visible label.
16:21:07 <AWK> ack dav
16:21:17 <gowerm> Brooks: I like the gist of what you're saying Andrew. I think it may be a little awkward. I think the language needs to be more inclusive.
16:21:35 <gowerm> David: I agree with Jason. If there is no visible text, this wouldn't fail.
16:22:19 <gowerm> David: I dont' think we can map icons to agreed on words. The original language was where an active control has a visual label.
16:22:30 <AWK> "For active user interface components with labels, the name includes the text of the label, including any text alternatives for images of text."
16:22:44 <gowerm> AWK: I think what I had is becoming too expensive.
16:23:05 <JF> Q+
16:23:13 <gowerm> AWK: We are trying to make sure that anything that appears as text or an image of text is included.
16:23:17 <AWK> ack jf
16:23:37 <david-macdonald> Good point John
16:23:41 <gowerm> JF: Are we saying that inacitve user components arent' covered.
16:23:48 <gowerm> q+
16:23:49 <david-macdonald> q+
16:23:54 <lisa> q+
16:24:03 <AWK> ack gower
16:25:35 <gowerm> JF: IF we removed the "active" criteria, it would make it easier to test.
16:26:11 <Brooks> q+ to ask what about icon fonts or glyphs?
16:26:17 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
16:26:19 <gowerm> AWK: It makes sense that we shouldn't care about state.
16:26:35 <AWK> ack david
16:27:32 <AWK> ack lisa
16:27:39 <gowerm> David: I have to understand what we mean by "active". If it means with focus, that wouldn't' solve the issue the SC is trying to address, since a speech user can choose any control on the page.
16:28:00 <AWK> ack brooks
16:28:00 <Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask what about icon fonts or glyphs?
16:28:02 <steverep> q+ to say that "inactive" is used in several other SC to mean disabled
16:28:56 <gowerm> Lisa: There is a compatibility issue with personalization. Should it be 'a mechanism is available'?
16:29:27 <Greg> David, we use "active" (non-disabled) and/or "inactive" (disabled) in 1.4.3 Contrast (minimum), 1.4.6 Contrast (enhanced), and 1.4.12 User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum), as well as 2.4.12 Label in Name.
16:29:44 <gowerm> Lisa: Sometimes it's what the user wants to say. Maybe we want the ability to tailor it to waht the user understands.
16:29:49 <jasonjgw> q+
16:30:28 <AWK> s/waht/what
16:30:59 <gowerm> Brooks: I want to lobby for the opportunity to be a bit more inclusive for the intent of this SC -- that the user has the ability to call out what they see as the onscreen interface. that can be more than text.
16:31:23 <AWK> q+
16:31:43 <AWK> ack ste
16:31:43 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say that "inactive" is used in several other SC to mean disabled
16:31:46 <gowerm> Brooks: I brought up the topic of glyphs. So things other than ALT text and images may be relevant. If it's not intended to cover that broader, we need to be more clear in language.
16:32:35 <gowerm> Steve: "Inactive" is used in the contrast SC as a synonym for "disabled".
16:32:36 <AWK> ack jas
16:33:10 <gowerm> Jason: I don't think we need to look at the broader questions to resolve this specific issue.
16:33:49 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
16:34:59 <gowerm> Jason: Can the author supply additional terms to get picked up as synonyms for the control? That's something we'd need to discuss. I have colleagues who specialize int hat area. But I think that is a separate question.
16:36:22 <lisa> q+
16:36:37 <gowerm> AWK: We can get benefits from personalization, but if we focus on this SC for speech usage, then we isolate that requirement here, and focus on the personalization requirements in the other SC.
16:36:39 <AWK> ack AWK
16:36:39 <lisa> the problem is it conflicts with the personlization
16:36:43 <AWK> ack lisa
16:37:22 <gowerm> Lisa: My issue was whether it conflicts. That's why I suggested "a mechanism is available"
16:38:08 <gowerm> AWK: I don't think this conflicts with the personalization items. This one is about providing parity for speech users.
16:38:18 <Brooks> Burying the concept of including alternative text for non-text label components in the definition of "labels" seems confusing to me.  Lets call it "Text Label in Name", if that's really what we mean.
16:38:40 <gowerm> Lisa: What happens if the name changes due to personalization?
16:38:43 <gowerm> q+
16:39:21 <AWK> ack gower
16:40:36 <AWK> Do people prefer: David's suggested text or AWK's? (+1 for David's, +2 for AWK's)
16:40:47 <steverep> In most cases, changing the label will automatically change the name
16:40:53 <gowerm> Mike: If the text label changes, this SC would require that label to then be selectable by speech using that label.
16:41:02 <allanj> can we see them again
16:41:09 <lisa> we need to clarfy that in the understanding
16:41:30 <AWK> AWK's: For active user interface components with labels, the name includes the text of the label, including any text alternatives for images of text.
16:41:32 <steverep> Proposed: http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/images-of-text-for-label-in-name/guidelines/#label-in-name
16:41:36 <bruce_bailey> +2 for AWK edit
16:41:49 <AWK> David's: For active user interface components with labels that include text, the name includes the text of the label.
16:41:52 <Brooks> +2
16:42:10 <gowerm> +1 for David's
16:42:20 <JF> +2 in support of AWK's intent, but with the removal of the word "active"
16:42:39 <steverep> +1
16:42:57 <allanj> +2
16:43:12 <david-macdonald> +1
16:44:02 <marcjohlic> +1 with text added "of the visible label"
16:44:09 <laura> For user interface components with labels that include text or images of text, the name includes the text of the visible label.
16:44:42 <Greg> Aren't labels by definition visible? Also it should be "includes the text or alternative text of the [visible] label"
16:44:57 <KimD> +1 - leaning toward David
16:45:04 <steverep> q+ to object to "visible" label
16:45:08 <Greg> Names are the equivalent of labels that don't need to be visible.
16:45:10 <jasonjgw> q+
16:46:10 <david-macdonald> For active user interface components with labels that include text, or images of text the name includes the text or the text in the image.
16:46:14 <AWK> ack ste
16:46:14 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to object to "visible" label
16:47:01 <gowerm> ...the name includes the label"
16:48:32 <gowerm> JF: Concerned with disambiguity with use of word "name"
16:48:37 <AWK> "For user interface components with labels, the name includes the text of the label, including any text alternatives for images of text."
16:48:43 <AWK> ack jas
16:49:02 <gowerm> +1 for AWK's latest
16:49:20 <david-macdonald> I can live with Andrew's
16:49:21 <laura> +1 for AWK's latest
16:49:29 <gowerm> Jason: Does anyone object to Andrew's latest?
16:49:31 <JF> +1 for AWK's latest
16:49:36 <allanj> +1
16:49:37 <steverep> Ehhhh...
16:49:44 <marcjohlic> +1 for AWK's
16:50:54 <gowerm> q+
16:51:51 <AWK> ack gower
16:51:58 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
16:51:59 <lisa> what happens if the user runs google translate on the page
16:52:07 <lisa> does then name have to change\
16:52:14 <david-macdonald> q+
16:52:33 <AWK> ack dav
16:53:26 <steverep> For user interface components with labels that include text or images of text, the name includes the presented text of the label?
16:55:27 <jasonjgw> q+
16:55:52 <gowerm> RESOLUTION: Leave open
16:56:31 <gowerm> TOPIC: Response to Comment on 2.4.12 Accessible Name #477
16:57:22 <gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/477
16:57:49 <AWK> ack jas
16:58:23 <gowerm> RESOLUTION: Accept items 2 and 4 as proposed
16:58:47 <gowerm> TOPIC: 3. Suggested Grammar fix on User Interface components SC #513
16:59:08 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/514/files
16:59:55 <david-macdonald> have to drop off... my answers are in line...
16:59:58 <gowerm> AWK: It removes "essential". As a visual identifier, it is essential by its very nature.
17:00:45 <gowerm> RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed.
17:01:04 <Pietro> Present+
17:01:28 <gowerm> trackbot, end meeting
17:01:28 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:01:28 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, jasonjgw, allanj, MichaelC, MikeGower, Greg_Lowney, Brooks, Melanie_Philipp, david-macdonald, Laura, kirkwood, Roy, bruce_bailey,
17:01:32 <Zakim> ... steverep, Pietro
17:01:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:01:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/26-ag-minutes.html trackbot
17:01:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:01:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items