<AWK_> +AWK

<Chuck> Me? Joining early?

<Chuck> Excitement!

<Chuck> Enthusiasm!

<Detlev> Alastair = cystal clear over here

<alastairc> WebEx issue - please everyone hang up and dial in again ,sorry :/-

<alastairc> one mo, trying my phone

<alastairc> do we have a scribe yet?

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce

<bruce_bailey> AWK: tpac june 21

<bruce_bailey> also, get hotel

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/TPAC/

<bruce_bailey> AKW: early bird rate ends 6/21, not registration

planning https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Charter Review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2019charterreview/results

<bruce_bailey> AWK: we have to get charter for review by managment, then advisory committee

<bruce_bailey> AWK: then approval by AGWG

<bruce_bailey> AWK: please take a look at draft, thanks to people working on it

<bruce_bailey> AWK: chuck has notices some bad links

<bruce_bailey> MC has made some edits in last hour

<bruce_bailey> David MacDonald would like some more allowances and formating for people new to the process

<bruce_bailey> AWK: may need some wordsmithing, but seems noncontroversal

<bruce_bailey> DM: canadian organization may be following more closely

<bruce_bailey> MC: would not be a formal liaison

<bruce_bailey> MC: but these groups may be ones we want to circle in with

<david-macdonald> Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization which may administer C-81 the Accessible Canada Act.

<AWK_> https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-81/third-reading

<bruce_bailey> John: confused a little about 2.2 and 2.3

<bruce_bailey> JF: silver has editor draft targets too early

<bruce_bailey> JF: dates for Silver do not seem realistic

<bruce_bailey> JF: Editor draft realistic, but dates seem contradictory

<bruce_bailey> AWK: Not a contradiction

<bruce_bailey> AWK outlines a bit how to read and why milestones are sequential and fit from 2.2 to 2.3

<bruce_bailey> AWK: still we should discuss if timelines are realistic

<bruce_bailey> JF: migration of 2.1 material to Silver is not happening quickly

<bruce_bailey> JF: conformance model is very rough

<bruce_bailey> JF: working CR version in three years does not seem realistic

<bruce_bailey> JF: dates in draft charter are too aspirational

<bruce_bailey> AWK: dates in charter are already at end of charter period

<bruce_bailey> AWK: dates came from earlier discussion, and we thought silver was going to take longer

<bruce_bailey> AWK: still going off last briefing from Jeanne and Shawn

<bruce_bailey> AWK: would also like to hear from Silver regulars (Bruce, Chuck, others)

<bruce_bailey> John Kirkword: Agrees with JF concern

<bruce_bailey> Bruce is +1

<bruce_bailey> Chuck is +1 with timing concerns

<bruce_bailey> AWK: if exepection is Silver is complete, timeline is not realistic

<bruce_bailey> AWK: But Silver does not have to be complete, does not need to solve backlog of problems

<johnkirkwood> the latter.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that in WCAG 2.0, it took close to a calendar year just to address public feedback

<bruce_bailey> JF: When first round of WCAG 2.0 came in, it took a year

<bruce_bailey> JF: Change from WCAG 2x to Silver is radical, will take a long time to process

<bruce_bailey> MC: different perspective, I agree that timeline is ambitious, but newer trend in W3C is to not hold off publication until complete

<bruce_bailey> MC: idea is be more iterative

<bruce_bailey> MC: Silver group is following that, so first draft would not need to be complete, because update is planned for 18 months

<bruce_bailey> MC: next update would be after charter period anyway

<bruce_bailey> Katie: We are going to have to do 2.3 unless this group focusses only on Silver

<bruce_bailey> Katie: suggetion from me is to do what we have to do for 2.2 then move to Silver asap, give up on 2.3

<bruce_bailey> Katie: otherwise, we will back at same point with 2.3 as we are with 2.2 now

<bruce_bailey> DM: reminder about 1200 comments on 2.0, took a year and half

<bruce_bailey> DM: we may have better processes now, but that is what it took then

<bruce_bailey> JF: nov 2019 is fpwd of silver

<bruce_bailey> JF: we do not have editors draft, have not migrated even a single full SC from 2.1

<bruce_bailey> JF: racing to get out the door in april 22 is not realistic

<bruce_bailey> JF: the move from 2.x to Silver is not realistic for 2-1/2 years

<bruce_bailey> JF: 2.1 took us close to two years and felt rushed

<bruce_bailey> JF: fear is that we are setting WG up to fail

<bruce_bailey> JF: is okay for fpwd to have lots of "to be completed" sections?

<bruce_bailey> AWK: so noted, thank you

<bruce_bailey> MC: hear concerns. FPWD only needs to show what Silver should look like.

<bruce_bailey> MC: We could press for editors working draft (with to be completed sections) for use in crafting charter

<bruce_bailey> MC: it is not 2.5 years, it is 5 years from when we started

<bruce_bailey> JF: it is 2.5 years from now and from last TPAC and AccessU we still do not know what conformance model will look like

<bruce_bailey> JF: MVP needs conformance model

<bruce_bailey> JF: timeline is overly aggressive

<bruce_bailey> Alastair: we want to get through requirements first

<bruce_bailey> AC: those are done, so now Jeanned is ready to start work on conformance

<bruce_bailey> AC: Silver WG has had significant discussion around conformance

<bruce_bailey> AC: Charter allows for some interative milestones

<bruce_bailey> MC: Under process, we have lots of options

<bruce_bailey> MC: we can have some objectives that go beyond charter period

<bruce_bailey> MC: we could have a shorter charter

<bruce_bailey> MC: we already used shorter recharter option for 2.1

<bruce_bailey> MC: allowed just to publishing schedule does not lead to formal review

<bruce_bailey> MC: but not having docs for formal review is a concern too

<bruce_bailey> AWK: option is to have shorter charter, so can be updated realistically

<bruce_bailey> AWK: or we could less ambitious formal publication, but with dates for working drafts

<bruce_bailey> AWK: question to MC, what if progress works well?

<bruce_bailey> MC: affirms we could go to rec early

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: likes option 2 better

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that Silver is not working on conformance now, they are working on SC migration

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: looks for clarification from Jeanne on how mature conformance model is

<bruce_bailey> JF: Jeanne asked me to write up my concerns

<bruce_bailey> JF: being realistic, the Silver WG has not worked on conformance model

<bruce_bailey> JF: Silver WG has been focused on migrating SC / Guidelines

<bruce_bailey> JF: Candidate Recommendation by 2022 could be realistics

<bruce_bailey> JF: CR questions and public feedback for 18 months corresponds to 2.0 work

<bruce_bailey> AWK: don't want this as major conversation without Jeanne on the call

<bruce_bailey> AWK: I am hearing Silver participants all concerned with timeline

<bruce_bailey> AWK: having worked on 2.0 and 2.1, it is important to meet peoples expectations

<JF> +1 to under-promise and over-deliver

<bruce_bailey> AWK: Alastair and I will share feedback with Jeanne and Shawn

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> AWK: moving to non-Silver part of charter...

<bruce_bailey> AWK: Q4 2020 for 2.2 out

<bruce_bailey> AWK: we will have some new SC to add

<bruce_bailey> AWK: questions or concerns with that part of charter?

<bruce_bailey> Katie: Again, so long as finish 2.2 then shift WG focus to Silver

<bruce_bailey> Katie: Or could drop Silver altogether of course, but no one wants that

<bruce_bailey> Katie: We need to move to Silver ASAP and only be working on Silver

<bruce_bailey> AWK: The approach we are taking is that we want updated guidance every 18 months

<bruce_bailey> AWK: We all recognize difficulty with two parallel tracks

<bruce_bailey> AWK: But having a very long game, like 5 years, is not acceptable

<bruce_bailey> AWK: If we are working on Silver for six years, that could be okay, because it is iteratively updated every 18 months

<bruce_bailey> Katie: we could get there faster if focus only on Silver. We have been waiting for them to hand it to us.

<bruce_bailey> AWK: Disagree that we have been waiting, because we have been providing feedback all along

<bruce_bailey> AWK: Also, Silver work does not seem to be at a point where more people means faster work

<bruce_bailey> AWK: we may be at that point soon

<bruce_bailey> Katie respectfully disagrees

<bruce_bailey> AWK leaves for other meeting.

<JF> https://w3c.github.io/silver/

<bruce_bailey> JF: In the draft charter, Silver reference is here

<bruce_bailey> JF: 3 line paragraph and 5 bullet points

<MichaelC> updated link: https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

<bruce_bailey> JF: That seems to be the office state

<bruce_bailey> MC shares updated URL

<bruce_bailey> MC this is a draft of Silver

<Detlev> I can take over scribing

<bruce_bailey> MC: updated draft describes community group

<bruce_bailey> Mike Gower: are we on 2.2, if so Katie, did you want to change timeline

<bruce_bailey> AC and Katie: Just want us focussing on Silver after 2.2 published

<bruce_bailey> MG: I am not seeing conflict

<bruce_bailey> MG: 2.2 supporting docs could (and would) still be updated

<bruce_bailey> Kaite: My suggestion is to remove 2.3 option

<JF> -1 to taking *anything* off the table

<Detlev> Scribe: Detlev

<bruce_bailey> Alastair: we do not want to mix 2.3 into charter at this stage

<alastairc> ak mb

WCAG 2.2 requirements survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/22requirements/results

alastairc: Introducing 2.2 requirements - most on the survey think it looks good
... Some confusion over 2.1 and 2.0 - do we need both?

<JF> +1 to Alastair

David: Explains his view on need to reference both 2.0 and 2.1

alastairc: 2.1 has added to, but not changed 2.0

David: Explains whil people might misunderstnad

JF: 2.2 might be additive but also subtractive - we might remove 4.1.1
... But people would still conform if something like 4.1.1 is removed

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if dropping 4.11 can say 2.2 meets 2.1

alastairc: For removing 4.1.1 we would need to demonstrate that by other SCs you cover the substance of 4.1.1

Bruce: We need to show that 2.2 might be easier to meet than 2.1 (by removing 4.1.1)

alastairc: Would the outcome change anyone's view on requirements (backwards compatibility)?

<JF> <q>Existing success criteria may be modified or removed in a dot.x release, but the resulting change must still satisfy core WCAG 2.0 success criteria.</q>

alastairc: Bruce's point: should we remove SC 4.1.1 form WCAG 2.2

JF: Is removal on the cards?

alastairc: Yes if it still meets 2.0
... If all methods o fdpassing 4.1.1 are either relevant or are covered elesewhere, there should not be a problem

JF: If it's overcome by change in browsers what is the value of removing 4.1.1?

David: Feels it is that the removal of 4.1.1 is not going to pass

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to request that charter phrasing allow for dropping 1.2.3

<bruce_bailey> http://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/782

Bruce: We cannot remove 4.1.1 and claim it is not a normative change
... we should have a discussion to drom 1.3.2
... drop 1.2.3 sorry

<JF> Bruce just made my point

Bruce: The SC 1.2.3 is redundant and confusing - if the charter language is not changed we cannot have that discussion

<JF> why drop something that others are working past (better)

alastairc: would people consider that change?

David: Some Canadian jurisdictions still reference 1.2.3 transcriptions

Bruce: Just wants to have rather than decide the discussion

alastairc: The change would be "broadly backwards compatible", not literally
... Will initiate surves / wider review of that

MichaelC: From a W3C process perspective, there are no objections, probably most members would not mind but it would be good to notify that in advance

alastairc: Comes down to compatibility, relaxing requirements slightly
... Would people object to that?

David: In discussions with polic makers it helps to say that 2.1 also covers 2.0 - they are relieved
... So that is a concern

<JF> Agree with David: meeting 2.x = meeting 2.0 + (this aka the new 2.1 SC) and (that aka the new 2.2 SC)

alastairc: Dropping some things would make many breath a sigh of releif
... Will include the possibility of making small changes to backwards compatibility

WCAG 2.1 Techniques survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Techniques-June-2019/results

TOPIC 1: pointer gestures

alastairc: Most people happy with changes to Understanding text of pointer gestures
... David makes some wording suggestions (see survey)
... Explains behaviour of horizontal slider on a mobile device not reacting to up/down movement
... but rather triggering scrolling
... if thumb of slider can be moved in any direction it is not a path-based gesture

David: Found it hard to understand

alastairc: It's whether tzhe browser interprets the movement as UA gesture or content gesture

David: Still finds the description difficult

alastairc: On a desktop scrollign is separate from dragging with mouse, so not a path-based gesture

David: suggests two bullet points for path-based gesture y/n

alastairc: Can make it more focused on difference between mouse and touch screen scenarios
... tried different implementations - some take over immediately by overriding the browser functionality, others go for scroll first

David: maybe it's clear for other people

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that that javascript method alastair mentioned should be in a technique

mike: If we know a JS technique that works we might go for it - failure technique might be more useful

alastairc: It would be more an example of being out of scope
... Will amend paragraph to note that result for mouse users might be different

<alastairc> Detlev: Not sure the 'mid-point' is clear.

<alastairc> Detlev: people might think you have to stop there.

<alastairc> "A path-based gesture involves an interaction where the user engages a pointer (starting point) and carries out a movement which is (at least initially) directional before disengaging the pointer (end point)."

Detlev: Explaining that midpoint may be hard to understand

alastairc: (reading Detlev's alternative definition) - we went through 'directional' initially but dropped it at some point - so prefers to leave it as it is
... Any objections to publishing as amended?

Bruce: Would like to see one more pass
... never mind (was the wrong point)

alastairc: Take sthat as no objectionsd

RESOLUTION: Approve PR 714 as amended

<mbgower> I will add them. Fine

Two color focus indicator #583

<alastairc> https://cdn.staticaly.com/gh/w3c/wcag/tech-focus-visible/techniques/css/C40.html?update=1

alastairc: David's technique
... Links to examples did not work - did they use to work?

<david-macdonald> https://www.davidmacd.com/widgets/focus-ring/focus-ring-contrast4.html

David: We changed the way we do examples - there is a top-level folder "Working examples" so if you do a technique put it into right directory (like CSS) but don't give it a number - that will be determined later

alastairc: For examples create a new folder in the working examples directory with idex.html and possibly CSS JS subfolders
... Can be amended to work across browsers
... Some editorial suggestions

David: Editing on the fly to come to consensus

alastairc: reads comment - would need to be tested everywhere

Detlev: Technique may not be used everywhere - so Technique might accomodate that

alastairc: No other comments?
... reading Mike's comment about manual check

<alastairc> I'd worry it's easy to override/miss on some elements.

David: Responding that check may be amended

alastairc: Manual test would verify that style is used throughout
... Example links will be corrected

Any objections to accept this Technique with amendments?

Mike: alt Tech for images checks that alt text exist -there should be a way of describing a procedure that does not require a prescriptive manual check

alastairc: Reading out the alt for images Tech text - is that what ypu mean?

Mike: The test does not prescribe to do the check one by one
... The technique might not apply to all parts of the page

David: Suggest text that describes that parts may be exempt

alastairc: Suggest that David makes changes and we resolve later

RESOLUTION: Leave open

alastairc: Please add changes to PR request, will check examples come through

patrick did the hard stuff (the code example)

alastairc: Some updates / suggestions in comment
... Mike's comment is that the example should be broader - this could surface best practices even if the example would pass anyway

<alastairc> Detlev: historical, that's how we started working on it. It fitted the single-point activation model. Changed in discussion, agree it could have move examples. Drag-to-reveal, carousels, drag & drop.

<alastairc> MG: Doesn't have to be rectricted to our SC scope

alastairc: The useful scope would suggest one that is more in scope of swipe type movement

Mike: Shows single point but it is showing best practices, but it should not infer that this is the only way to do it
... So other examples would be useful

alastairc: We may not need code examples

may linkle to MDN even

alastair: There are new things like accessible authentication and tocuh target next week
... slightly behind regarding 2.2 SCs

alastairc: Please look at 2.2 stuff

Trackbot end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/"Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization which may administer C-81 the Accessible Canada Act."//
Succeeded: s/@thanks//
Succeeded: s/WCAG 1.0 came in/WCAG 2.0 came in/
Succeeded: s/on 1.0/on 2.0/
Default Present: Chuck, AWK, alastairc, Rachael, JakeAbma, Raf, Jennie, JF, stevelee, MarcJohlic, Detlev, Laura, MichaelC, Fazio, SteveRepsher, Katie_Haritos-Shea, johnkirkwood, bruce_bailey, mbgower, david-macdonald
Present: Chuck alastairc Rachael JakeAbma Raf Jennie JF stevelee MarcJohlic Detlev Laura MichaelC Fazio SteveRepsher Katie_Haritos-Shea johnkirkwood bruce_bailey mbgower david-macdonald
Found Scribe: bruce
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Scribes: bruce, Detlev
Found Date: 11 Jun 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)