<chuck_> meeting: AGWG-2021-02-16
<Rain> I'm new (my 2nd meeting) but forgot to ask to introduce myself last week
<chuck_> scribe: kirkwood
Chuck: new introductions
<Detlev> have problems connecting to zoom on Mac...
Rain: interaction designer with google on project dedicated to cognitive accessibility, and desing
CA: other introductions?
... captions of meetings not able to attend, zoom is able to do
live captioning, not perfiect but. don’t have formal procedures
and plan around it. wnat to get a sense of how to integrtate in
our process
... we will always have a human scribe
<JF> s/scrige/scribe
CA: anyone object to live captioning?
JF: one questions there are times want to discuss off the record discussions
AK: not so much about captions be turning off, question is whether it is preserved or not
CA: don’t know if we can turn on
or off
... no formal procedures on what we do with these yet
<JF> I'm up for giving it a try, but would like to see a firmer "policy and process" around this
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say we should NOT be turning live captioning on/off
<AWK> So if the captions aren't preserved then it is just as ephemeral as the speech itself.
CA: want to see how it works, then next step about preservation, no plan at moment, but not the minutes
<Ryladog> +1 to Bruce
BB: strongly argue that don’t have expectgation of tunring on and off
CA: let not have expectations
BB: don’t have expectatoin.
<jon_avila> How will those who are deaf or hard of hearing know what is said if we turn it off.
<AWK> +1 to Bruce
<jon_avila> I agree with you Bruce!
BB: stronly not have cationed turning on and off during meeting
JF: leaving captions turn off, we
almost need a policy we will not be in transcript
... want open conversation without all bening minuted
GN: remark similar to Bruce. to make meetings more accessible.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that it isn't a replacement for human captioning
AC: this isn’t a replacement for
humn captions
... even if no one require captions more question
RM: think there is value, don’t think we should turn off
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention that the slash me
RM: needs to be a thought how to use if choose to save
<Fazio> I don't think saving should be allowed. That's whaat we have minutes for
BB: what type in still in irc log to JF questions of comment
<alastairc> Fazio - that isn't an option with the current feature, it's on or off.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is this related to the code of ethics?
no objections
MG: does ethics of recording guidance to be consider?
<Fazio> +1
<AWK> FYI, the /me comments in IRC re not recorded in the IRC log. I thought that they were...
<AWK> +AWK
CA: will be discussing not sure
<alastairc> There is also a bullet that starts "Respect confidentiality and privacy. " which is relevent
<chuck_> kirkwood: Also lots of questions, when would they be deleted? That might be a possibility. We can't hold them over a certain amount of time.
<bruce_bailey> JohnK: places I have worked have policy on deleting as well
<chuck_> kirkwood: That might free some people about talking in session too.
<bruce_bailey> ... that might make some people more comfortable
CA: as far as this call goes, any objections to turning on captions?
<Ryladog> No objections
CA: no objections heard, transcribing turned on
CA: github branch renaming, Michael?
<alastairc> NB: The captions have 'user-agent' settings, e.g. if you find it distracting you can turn off the pop-over style.
MC: reneme all ‘master’ branches
the defaurlt name, beleive ‘main’ is better now
... three line commnd to enter git client to make change in
tour github client from master to main
... the question is when is it least dsiruptive for people?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say I don't mind, just need warning
AC: thinking like friday afternoon or something
MC: we did friday afternoon with silver
CA: this friday?
MS: no conserns
=CA: this friday afternoon it is
CA: desire to push but at moment
doesn’t have a leader
... i think we need a leader, but happy to be a participant
;)
... if interested let us know
... it seems need a team lead
BB: i volunteer will follow closely
<alastairc> Chairs email if interested: group-ag-chairs@w3.org
BB: vn 302 549 floks should have
done, but ship has sailed, should en501 activities?
... have we affirmed this is what WG want to do
AK: en501 is not a prerequeset for this, have intial language for WCAG ICT update but don’t know if done for everything, if yes 2.1 SC and need for 2.2
AC: in turns of status Davicc M took a pass at 2.1. but 2.2 simple version. need to do WCAG ICT group or pub process as well
AK: wether part of ICT or WCAG doesn’t matter so much, when started down path determined not to add to problem of 2.1
CA: is this something we are
going to take up per Bruce?
... any further questions, interested in leading, feel free to
let chairs know
<bruce_bailey> i am interesting in participating
<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
CA: code of ethics an professinal
conduct, please review
... govenr behaviors and interactions, this is a new updated
version published last year, may be differnent then what you
are used to
<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results
CA: thise are surveys
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq1
CA: reading usrvey results 7 agree , 2 want somehting else
<AWK> This isn't AA, is it?
GN: the two requirments are not in sync concwerning wording and order, and in one solid border measured. other solid is not mentioned. adjacent color 3 to 1 which is covfered 4.1.11. only logicla to have 4.5 to one contrast
AC: word solid not mentioned a
level up from AA version which has many more caveats to it.
slight differnce can take word out
... goes to all points as well, neither require a type of
color, did try to match up with AA version
... because minimum requirm3ent has thickness was dropped
GN: mimum contrast focus appearance its either the size or the contrast is that correct?
<alastairc> "The pixels in the minimum focus indicator area achieve at least a 3:1 against adjacent colors in the focused component or the minimum focus indicator area has a thickness of at least 2 CSS pixels."
AC: either 3 to 1 in forcus or focus in pixels
GN: maybe should be clear either
or rather than and
... need to understand AA correctly
MG: my comments echo gundula and
oliver
... AA agree with them. mimimum version looking at minum error
‘at least as large as one pixel thik” we pbut a lot of time
inot it. it was equivlent to it. along lines of second durvey
quesiton. greater than or equl to 2 pixel solid border.
... where it makes sense should be changed doesn’t look
consistent
CA: conversation about solid
AC: it should look similar to
text at top of survey but pull request seemed to be an
issue
... i put side by side ikeep AAA simplified, thought was done
but confused
CA: perhaps we could go past this one figure out whats going ojn with PR and discuss next week
AC: we have a couple we could
take out
... worth checking agians latest version
CA: now?
... like to resolve today
MG: looking at latest published “as large as area” not showing up in language posted in survey
AC: less emphasis on area then outline need to further align not a problem
CA: there are a few changes,
hopefully incorporate changes we discussed
... no resolution on this one
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq2
CA: google feedback
... there is issue 1451, 6 agreed one wnated somehting else
MG: think response is
through
... wanted to note changes
AC: we have had some reviews, don’t worry about repsone beingout of date will see response soon
CA: do we need to look at 16.24 or
AC: minor edit change, if more will repsond
<Nicaise> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<mbgower> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<Rain> +1
<Detlev_> +1
+1
<laura> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
<OliverKeim> +1
<MarcJohlic> +1
<morr4> +1
<jon_avila> -1
<Ryladog> +1
<JF> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that's the AA version
JA: maybe related can be taken separte, since changing definition of mimum area we are allowing a 2 pixe3l wide focus indicator without requirming contrast. before mimum area it would be around the whole thing. Conserned could be used dificult to perceive if just at bottom
AC: think thats AA version
<jon_avila> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept amended draft response and PR 1624 to address issue 1451.
JA: objection resolved then
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq3
CA: suggest concerning first note. PR 1625 adds suggested note. seems everyone agrees no disagreement
<Nicaise> +1
<laura_> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
+1
<Rain> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Detlev_> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Raf> +1
<MarcJohlic> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<JF> +1
<morr4> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1625 to address issue 1405
<david-macdonald> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq4
CA: Michael Gower wnated somehting else
MG: its ok taking a look now
CA: taking a look
MG: I have confidence in it
<sarahhorton> +1
<Nicaise> +1
<Rain> +1
<mbgower> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
+1
<laura_> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<Detlev_> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Raf> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1626 to address issue 1306
<MelanieP> +1
CA: final question
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq5
CA: 8 people agreed with change
<Ryladog> +1
<Nicaise> +1
<JustineP> +1
<Rain> +1
+1
<sarahhorton> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Raf> +1
<laura> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<mbgower> +1
BB: does this mean plain language changes and url remains the same?
AC: don’t think it does change
BB: a few keyboard differnces
<Ryladog> yes
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1627 to update technique G195
CA: any concerns Bruce addressed?
BB: yes
<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-updates/results
CA: the term minimum focus qrea is confusing, david m created it. We have a number of responses all over the board
WF: don’t think its clear minimum area needs contrast. think it flipped around need to start off with 3 to 1 contrast then number of pixels don’t think changes are making it better
AC: still need adjacent contrast,
did try changing it around completely but didn’t seem to
help
... then wondering about focus area is when put to beginning
but didn’t seem to help, this update here may not help
either
... if people oon’t hink its an issue that is reasonable as
well
CA: other “somehting elses"
... reade says leave out miminum in his comments
SS: exatly what saying in comment
SC: say all pixels not just some
<Ryladog> Adding info about the term in the SCs would be helpful for the translation versions as well
CA: MG prefers current version plus comments
MG: wasn’t sure, focus indicator is defined right now. prefer how it is right now
CA: suggesting we don’t presently
have consensus
... proposing this see hwer we are at
SS: we already have a definition
AC: problem David is having…
<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
AC: problem David is describing
is where focus indicator goes beyond minimum
... so has good change of contrast, but has shadow or yellow
highlight
... that extra can interfere with our definition, maybe not ALL
of focus indictor meets our requirement
... we don't want people to fail because they are going beyond
minimum
... so how can we say that better?
... Davids idea was to add note, but I added some prosed
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say figure 7 and figure 8 address. Perhaps add a subheading?
AC: with having focus indicator a defined term
Mike Gower: We do have illustrations in Understading for this case which Alastair describes
scribe: but I remain concerned
with having these details in the SC text
... MG but maybe I take that back?
Chuck: lets have a straw
poll
... answer as-is or change
<david-macdonald> change
<mbgower> As is SC (but consider changes to Understanding)
<JF> some version of change
AC: could be some version of change
DavidM: I would say this SC is up there with most complicated and referenced SC
<chuck_> POLL: Keep SC as is in it's current state by responding "as-is", or modify the SC with "change"
DavidM: if it is clean and make it quick, i am all for edits
<Rain> change
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think the Understanding doc could match the bullets in its headings
MikeG: this could potentially be clarified by having Understanding document match bullets
<jon_avila> change or change with amendments
<Wilco> change
Chuck: some edits being proposed
<chuck_> +1 to matchings bullets
<Ryladog> +1 to matching bullets
Chuck: i like the the matching bullets
<mbgower> Matching headings to bullets
Chuck: this is not a quick edit though
Alastair: Heading mostly match AFTER first heading
Chuck: so can this be a quick edit?
<mbgower> Alastair is correct; the rest of the H2s match
Alastair to Stefen, do these admendment make you more comfortable?
Stefan Schnabel: Yes, but we have discussed several things here.
Alastair: would not characterize these edits as dramatic
<Ryladog> +1
Chuck straw polls the PR
<StefanS> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
<Rain> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<laura> +1
<alastairc> Old: "The pixels making up the minimum focus indicator area achieve..." vs New: "The pixels in the minimum area of the focus indicator achieve..."
<JakeAbma> +1
<Detlev_> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<Sukriti> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<MarcJohlic> +1
<morr4> +1
<mbgower> -1
Wilco Fiers: I am not sure this addresses concerns raised in survey
scribe: yeah, i do not like it
Mike Gower: PR remove focus indicator as a defined term, so it ends up harder to tell what is being talked about
scribe: it does not match the literal SC text
David M: What is the general opinon of first proposal?
<GN015_> 'the minimum area of the focus indicator' is more easily mistaken as the area enclosed by the focus indicator that the old wording.
MG: First bullet is about hte
minimum focus area
... i don't feel like we need to define term when whole
paragrah is about that
<Ryladog> better to not have definition elsewhere if the meaning is unclear in context
Chuck: To clarify, if we don't have concensus, we just leave things as is
<AWK> David, I don't like putting things that need to be evaluated into the definition
Chuck: from all this discussion, there clearly are concerns
<Detlev_> Mike has a point!
<JF> /me I'm with MG
Andrew Kirkpatrick: One thing I was concerned with is use of "minimum" which feels like something that belongs in SC rather than Understanding
scribe: just seems hard to parse
Chuck: We have a number of concerns, so no concensus, so leave open
<Ryladog> +1
<mbgower> 0 can't we alter the Understanding doc?
<chuck_> Bruce: What about changing the first heading?
Alastair: changing first heading has some complexity for chaning first heading to bullets
Wilco: should we not keep pull request open
Chuck: strong support for doing
something
... but default position is to do something
<chuck_> bruce: There does seem to be group consensus to keep working on it.
Mike G: these are largish documents, when they were not so big, it was easier to not to touch SC text. Maybe a table of contents
Alastair: Might want to take this
up with Michael Cooper because there is some interest with
updating templates
... so sub headings might want to pulled into TOC
Chuck: This is complicated, so we
table the larger issues for now.
... Need volunteer for next pass if that is what the group
wants
Rain askes about deadline.
Alastair: Deadline is soon, but
maybe not for 2.2 publishing since Understanding can be updated
as we go along
... but that is only true if SC text is stable
<Rain> I will volunteer to work on the understanding document
<sarahhorton> +1
<Detlev_> +1
Chuck: No consensus for updating SC text, but we could work on Understanding more
MikeG: survey is about adopting PR or not
Chuck, straw poll to clean up PR
<Wilco> +1, assuming the SC will still be updated
<mbgower> +1
<Nicaise> +1
<Rain> +1
<Detlev_> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<david-macdonald> +
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<JustineP> +1
<GN015_> +1
<AWK> +1
<morr4> +1
<OliverKeim> +1
RESOLUTION: Reject PR 1628, leave SC and modify the understanding document, to be reviewed in call later.
<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/results
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/results#xq9
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/results#xq8
Chuck: single word alteration can
cause confusion
... mixing swipe left from swipe right has tap alternative, not
really dragging
Oliver Keim: achived as a replacement for operated seems like a simplification,
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to Oliver's comment
scribe: but even simplier would be to take the word out
Alastair: Agree that there would not be a drag movement that is not for operation, but don't think this changes the phrasing
<david-macdonald> comes from pointer operation langugae
<david-macdonald> "...path-based gestures for operation can be operated with a single pointer..."
Wilco: Is there a difference
between use of Operates here and with 2.5.1 pointer
gestures?
... if we do mean the same thing, we should not make a
change
DavidM: We might not have gotten it exactly right the first time.
Wilco: Then that implies an
errata might be needed.
... If there is a difference between this and use in 2.5.1,
then we need errata or a new word.
MikeG: 2.5.1 can be read as if you need to provide for a single pointer.
MG: but i like most recent wording
MikeG: This SC started with language from 2.5.1
<Wilco> +1
MikeG: as part of that I realized that new SC using onld phrasing implied using single pointer operation was a requirement
<david-macdonald> Operation = a method or manner of functioning https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operation
MikeG: so I would propose we get it right for this new SC, but we probably need to discusss errata for 2.5.1
<Wilco> +1
Alastair: Agree with both of MikeG points.
<mbgower> erratum? :)
Chuck gives straw poll for Operated versus Achieved
<JF> +1 to David (& Mike) - consistency is important
DavidM: People who have made effort to understand 2.5.1 will have no trouble with this new SC
Chuck asks David to clarify
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we haven't answered Oliver's question
DavidM: Reminds that 2.0 took ten years and still there is a lot of iteration, so need for errata on 2.1 is not as urgent
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say make that a different issue
<alastairc> agree 3 different issues
Alastair: We have not answered all of the commenter questions. Is there a difference between pointer operation and pointer operation for functionality
MikeG: We can quite easily answer
the two word edit.
... the thinking cap question we can come back to later.
DavidM: Please see link from
Merriam Webster
... changing pharasing of SC is likely to cause some
consternation
<david-macdonald> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operation
Chuck: I am seeing two clear choices here
MikeG: Survey question is for word change on new SC, but I disagree this boxes us into doing an erratta
Chuck: Okay, focus on survey question, and no commitment for errata
<mbgower> +1
Chuck gives straw poll
<Wilco> +1
<OliverKeim> +1
<Raf> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Rain> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<JF> +.75
<david-macdonald> 0
<Sukriti> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<laura__> +1
<MelanieP> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept Michael Gower's recommended change of "Operated" to "Achieved", and create issue that requests erratum for 2.5.1.
<alastairc> ok, we'll come back to that if Oliver wants to create an issue...
DavidM: likes the "for operation" focus
<Wilco> +1, taking it out sounds odd
DavidM: makes it clear that it is not REQUIREd
<JF> +1 to Wilco
MikeG: There is not an issue open
for removing "for operation"
... not part of this survey question
Chuck: on to next survey question
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/results#xq9
Sarah Horton: concepts are good, but needs editorial work
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to point to Detlev's update
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1638/files
scribe: so in current state would cause more confusion than help
Alastair: Detlev also had
editorial concerns
... there is an update to David's update
<mbgower> This is in the Understanding document.
Sarah: Agree that most recent edit is an improvement, but it still needs more work
Chuck asks Sarah to help edit
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say it can get refined more later
MikeG: This is an Understanding
doc, so we can keep working on it
... suggest keeping this edit and ask for another issue and PR
as people like
Sarah: Reluctant to add something new, and this seems pretty substantive and new, so we should work on it more before its first publication
DavidM: Outlines history, would not characterize as "new"
Alastair clarifies that all changes in PR 1636
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1636/files
<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1636/files
<david-macdonald> +1
<mbgower> +1
<OliverKeim> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<Rain> +1
<laura> +1
<JF> +1
<alastairc> +1 (and Sarah can ask for help!)
<Sukriti> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
Chuck asks for straw poll on ammened resolution
<kirkwood> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Detlev_> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept draft response and PR 1636 to address issue 1225, and Sarah Horton will provide new PR with additional improvements.
Chuck: clarifies that Detlevs edit has been incorporated
<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results#xq9
Chuck: This would address five issues, 5 agrees and 3 "something else", calls on Wilco
<Wilco> https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/pen/abZxPow
Wilco: have example of nested
issue, G2 and G3 and M3
... i think there is straightforward fix, in the offset bit
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1645/files
Alastair: agreed with Wilco and
pulled in Wilco edits with new PR
... asking if everyone agrees with new edits, but wants to hear
MikeG's comments
<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#pointer-target-spacing
<alastairc> sorry, that was the old one
MikeG: Writing has has preamble and then bullets, just does not read quite cleanly
<alastairc> Latest: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/scha14-pointer-target-spacing/understanding/22/pointer-target-spacing.html
Chuck: So are you asking for additional edits to 1645?
Mike reads was he has as existing text.
Chuck: This might be a quick
win.
... okay leave open
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 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/googld/google/ Succeeded: s/scrige/scribe/ FAILED: s/scrige/scribe/ Succeeded: s/disruptive3/dsiruptive/ Succeeded: s/somehting/something/ Succeeded: s/use3d/used/ Succeeded: s/vershion/version/ Succeeded: s/confersation/conversation/ Succeeded: s/todqya/today/ Succeeded: s/incoproate/incorporate/ Succeeded: s/coudl/could/ Succeeded: s/reolved/resolved/ Succeeded: s/first not./first note./ Succeeded: s/contract/contrast/ Succeeded: s/pople/people/ Succeeded: s/contrase/contrast/ Succeeded: s/chagne/change/ Succeeded: s/?me I'm with MG/ /me I'm with MG/ Succeeded: s/rainbreaw// Default Present: Rain, alastairc, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Raf, Matt, Orr, Fazio, JF, MelanieP, kirkwood, Nicaise, juliette_mcshane, sarahhorton, MarcJohlic, Caryn, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, Detlev_, JakeAbma, AWK, StefanS, stevelee, JustineP, david-macdonald, GN015_, bruce_bailey, Sukriti, .75, OliverKeim Present: Rain, alastairc, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Raf, Matt, Orr, Fazio, JF, MelanieP, kirkwood, Nicaise, juliette_mcshane, sarahhorton, MarcJohlic, Caryn, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, Detlev_, JakeAbma, AWK, StefanS, stevelee, JustineP, david-macdonald, GN015_, bruce_bailey, Sukriti, .75, OliverKeim, Matt Orr Regrets: Charles Hall, Sukriti Chadha Found Scribe: kirkwood Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood Found Scribe: bruce_bailey Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey Scribes: kirkwood, bruce_bailey ScribeNicks: kirkwood, bruce_bailey WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]