AGWG Teleconference -- 07 Sep 2021

<Jennie> Scribe: Jennie

Rachael: Before formal agenda - is anyone new and want to introduce yourself?
... You can unmute or use IRC
... Waiting one more minute for new members
... Are there other items you would like added to the agenda in the future?

Bruce: I am not clear on the plans for TPAC

Rachael: We don't have anything formal, but have some things drafted. I will bring this to the group next week.
... Any other new topics?

Janina: User generated CFC?

Rachael: We are a-go to the best of my knowledge but I will double check.
... Any new members that want to introduce themselves?

Julie: I am at Understood.
... I am thrilled to join this group.

Breixo: I work in local quality solutions - web accessibility company in Spain
... in the finance and treasury departments. I am changing to digital accessibility and honoured to be in this group.

GreggVan: I am a new/old member.
... I was Chair of WCAG 1 and WCAG 2. This is my 50th year in technology and disability. I am rejoining this working group
... I hope to provide some historical context as we chart our way into the future.

Need WCAG 2.2 AAA volunteer testers

GreggVan: The Trace Center has moved to Maryland, College park.

Rachael: The first agenda item is WCAG 2.2

We need to test to show what meets each level

Rachael: We need volunteers to help test for AAA - example sites, provide feedback.
... This will start now, go through November.

AlastairC: There is a particular tool that Michael will set up, that we enter results into.
... There will be a couple of examples for each, websites and documents.
... We will have to gather testing materials.
... This is testing sites for a particular success criteria or all of WCAG.

Rachael: We have some sites, Michael will be getting the tool set up.

Breixo: I volunteer

Rachael: We will reach out to everyone that volunteers.
... Are others willing to help?

<Ben> I might be able to help!

<bruce_bailey> 2.1 links to its implementation report at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/implementation-report/

Rachael: It is ok for people that are not very technical, or struggle with git
... Thank you Ben

<julierawe> I'd like to help test as well

David M: You can assign something to me.

Rachael: Julie, thank you
... That is a fantastic group to get started.

<bruce_bailey> 2.0 implementation report was linked from CR at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/

Rachael: If others decide to join, please let us know
... Any questions or other comments?

<alastairc> Also, if anyone wants to put their site up as an example, it's good PR.

Mobile taskforce needs members

Rachael: The mobile task force is picking up new work on development and different platforms.
... They are actively seeking individuals working in the accessibility mobile space to join them.
... If you are working in this space, or know someone, please reach out.
... Any questions?

AlastairC: If interested, you can start with the chairs, and we will get you connected.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/

Rachael: That is the task force page.

Protocols, introduction and discuss sub-group

Rachael: Beginning the work on conformance for WCAG 3
... The chairs are drafting a plan that we intend to bring to this group next week or the week after for review
... Some things need to start either way
... Protocols comes out of the work John Foliot did
... Instead of treating them exactly as a standard, they would be like a checkpoint
... We wanted to come back to this topic, and see who would be interested in participating in a subgroup

JF: The concept I had proposed was to look at the protocols. For those new to the calls, 2 that I pointed out were
... Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive Disabilities
... It has goals, but it is difficult to determine if you have achieved them
... Another example: US Government's Plain Language Requirements from plainlanguage.gov
... This is what I was referencing in that concept

GreggVan: This is an interesting topic.

<bruce_bailey> https://www.plainlanguage.gov

GreggVan: I understand the goal - areas where we know what you should do, but have difficulty drawing lines
... Are you exploring a level 3 success criteria?
... I love what you are trying to do.

Rachael: We are not assuming we have A, AA, AAA
... We have a lot of interlocking parts
... We are trying to have different subgroups start to topic about concepts that have been proposed
... Then bring them back to the larger group to have that conversation
... John F presented a few weeks ago, and we want a group to explore it more, then have a richer conversation as a larger group

<alastairc> Minutes (and links) for previous pres: https://www.w3.org/2021/08/10-ag-minutes.html#t04

<jeanne> JF Proposal https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAQSPv1bGuUAlhO41rPkkfrlijF2uzmF/view

JF: What I had proposed is that moving from a pass/fail to a graduated score
... Because of that we need a mechanism to make this distinction between those levels
... You can gain some points towards your score by making an asssertion that your organization has adopted certain goals
... If your group makes a public declaration, and the protocol is publicly available
... Anyone could read the protocol, read the content, then make an evaluation
... Rather than trying to measure subjectivity, if the entity makes the public declaration of a protocol, is worthy of some acknlwledgement
... At least now if you find yourself in front of a judge, the judge would have a 3rd party reference and can see what you have pr
... produced

Ryladog: I think this is a good idea
... I'm wondering if this could also be listed as additional stuff for protocols adopted in a VPAT
... The US Government's 508 adopts 7 or 8 other standards.

<JF_> yes, similar in application

Ryladog: This is sort of like that. I think considering how it would be incorporated into a VPAT would be important.

<bruce_bailey> @katie, not sure what you mean by "other stuff" in 508

Ryladog: I think the amount of plain language in WCAG 3 is great

<bruce_bailey> incorporation by reference

<bruce_bailey> will provide url

Ryladog: The PDF, the human factors, the various other standards, incorporated by reference

Rachael: These are all the different pieces the subgroup would need to explore
... Thinking about what they are and how to integrate them

JakeAbma: That's exactly what the maturity model subgroup does
... If you could reword it for this - it is almost the same concept
... It might be interesting to see it next to the maturity model
... That would be a proof point

JF: Actually Jake, yes. The work that the maturity subgroup has been working on influenced some of my proposal
... I have pointed to the maturity group as a protocol

<bruce_bailey> IBR from 508 reg: https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#702-incorporation-by-reference

JF: My concern is the measuring mechanism in that work will be difficult to apply at scale
... But the concept is the same

Rachael: Thank you for this good discussion
... We should have at least one person from the maturity model also working on the subgroup
... Who is willing to work on this subgroup?

GreggVan: What is the workspan of this group?

<JF_> happy to volunteer Rachael

GreggVan: I could start in October

<jeanne> +1 to volunteer

Rachael: I am guessing 6-8 weeks of conversation
... And when this comes back to the larger group we will have lots of conversation around it

<JakeAbma> +1 volunteer

<GreggVan> +1 to volunteer as I can later starting october

Rachael: Anyone else?

<SuzanneT> +1 volunteer

Rachael: We will send emails out to kick this off, then you can set up times
... Thank you everyone
... Is there anyone interested in leading the group?

JF: I am fairly invested, I would be happy to

Rachael: Thank you John

Paths/Process, introduction and discuss sub-group

Rachael: One of the other big areas to explore and bring back is paths and processes
... How do we talk about a process in an SC view
... In WCAG 3 we are looking at a series of screens, or views, to accomplish a task
... There are pros, cons, complexities
... If we can solve the problem of how to define a process, it would help for testing for consistency
... Does anyone have any questions?
... Michael Gower - I'm hoping you will be interested

JakeAbma: I have been trying to work out error validation and error correction, and finishing errors
... A flow chart with a multistep form - as an experiment
... The conclusion is: if you have such a process, there are so many possibilities where certain methods or outcomes, or combinations apply
... to a thing like that. It gets really complication to come up with just one definition
... Completing a 3 step form with 8 form fields - there is so much to do with headings, labels, instructions, etc. etc.
... You take a whole bunch of success criteria at once, that might be applicable or not in a process
... I'm questioning if we even want that
... It is so much easier to break it up in very clear steps
... you can define, and judge
... to apply certain outcomes and methods - you break them up into small parts
... It has too many variables to test or work with to be objective
... It didn't work out for me

Rachael: I think you have articulated the challenges we have all been running into with this
... We may not be able to work it out, but it is something we would like a group to explore

<alastairc> Still good to explore and try to define, even if it doesn't work out. But include someone positive (e.g. ShawnL?)

JF: I kind of agree with Jake's observations, but assuming we move forward with processes and the protocols suggestions
... Both activities will still need: today we don't do well is conformance reporting
... We don't have a real mechanism for reporting conformance
... We received feedback that this would be useful
... For dashboards, or for the protocols to make that work - there will need to be a way to make public assertions
... Having a subgroup look at conformance reporting may be useful

Rachael: I have taken note of this and we can figure out where that subgroup fits
... And, we don't know if we are going forward with both those paths

JF: Even if we don't adopt those 2 proposals, even the bronze, silver, gold - we still need a mechanism for making that declation
... declaration

Ryladog: There is a tool on the W3C that does guide you through testing

<jeanne> EARL

<ChrisLoiselle> wcag em and reporting

Ryladog: The actual working group is em, yes

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/#!/#%2F

<JF_> +1

Ryladog: Those individuals should be involved, as well as ACT
... both the group and the community group

<Wilco> EARL falls under AG, does it not?

<ChrisLoiselle> footer of link I provided has names and groups

Rachael: I have made a note

Ryladog: It is still functioning because they are updating it

Rachael: We will come back to that at a future meeting
... We still need people to volunteer regarding the paths
... I will volunteer. Is anyone else willing to volunteer? Lead?
... OK, we will send an email out looking for others

<JF_> @wilco I believe that EARL falls under WAI

Error Prevention https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/error_cfc_2/results

Rachael: We have a survey on the error prevention changes - we are trying to move to CFC for the September publication
... We agreed to publish what we have in the September WCAG 3 publication
... Then we will look at conformance until we get to a model we are all comfortable with
... We have 7 willing to publish, 1 who disagrees
... Some saw the pull request but that was added later

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/548/files

JakeAbma: I joined the error prevention subgroup 8 weeks ago
... I have to catch up on the work they have done - which has been very thorough

<alastairc> Is there an updated link for the rawgit preview? Getting a 404 at the moment.

JakeAbma: I am not sure if I saw the latest publication
... When I follow the links I don't think there are a lot of changes made
... The name for the guideline and what is underneath - 1 outcome for that guideline with 3 methods
... This doesn't reflect the work they have done from the last year
... It is not complete
... There is a subdivision underneath
... They need to be separated into clear outcomes, proper instructions, format instructions, conditional instructions
... identifiable attributes
... We did not discuss in the last weeks, but instructions presented as needed
... In general - input instructions provided is not an outcome
... Outcomes should have an end relationship
... You need to say something is required, you need to have input purpose attributes available
... Then there are the methods
... For a year we have discussed that methods need to have an or relationship
... It doesn't matter which method you do
... There are methods, but they are for different outcomes
... This is not what we want when we talk about error prevention, and doesn't talk about all the work the group has been doing

<alastairc> Ah, it was merged and the branch deleted, so I think main is it: https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/main/guidelines/index.html#error-prevention

JakeAbma: It raises more questions than answers because it is just not mature enough to be out there. This is only part of the story

Rachael: Alastairc has pasted in a link, that was merged, in case you want to see the preview

JakeAbma: it is the same

Jeanne: I think that Jake has raised a lot of good structural questions that we need data to actually evaluate
... how we are going to proceed
... This is another prototype of the guideline
... We started with 5, this is the first one we have done since then, incorporating a lot of what we have learned since the original one
... This is not final - this is early protocols to give us data about the structure
... We need it to keep refining, testing, the structure we are building
... We want to make it clear to people that this is not mature work
... I think this is very needed

Rachael: The group has done a great of work, we are in agreement with that
... The majority of individuals are comfortable going forward with this according to the survey
... We know it is not perfect, but it is to get comments on the content as it is, and the structure
... Jake, do you want to articulate your other concern for the group?

JakeAbma: I hear what you and Jeanne are saying, and in general I agree with that
... But for this one, they did this very deliberately
... And adopt without doing the whole thing, only instructions
... For me, it is a step back even from other guidelines
... If we say we have a structure, and methods for an outcome, you cannot see that in this one
... It is not the work that has been done - that is 20 steps forward
... What is in there is steps back
... The methods and the outcome are not a continuation of what we have been doing - my interpretation
... It would have been different if the 6 outcomes I proposed, which is part of their work
... It is confusing to have methods for an outcome without an or relationship
... Instead of showing our improvements

Rachael: Sarah noted that we resolved with the group on August 17 to go to CFC - so we may have already agreed to that
... Michael if you could check that, I would appreciate that

Janina: I don't have much to add to what Jeanne said
... I would suggest that it is important for us to get feedback, even when we know things aren't finished
... I thought we were looking at this a few weeks ago

Rachael: Michael Gower - you had some suggestions?

<michael> Sorry.

Rachael: (reads Michael's comments)

"INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING TASKS I'm concerned with the method 'Instructions for completing tasks' including the following example: "Providing simple instructions within labels". Typically labels that include instructions are wordy and often counterproductive. "

"The example you give "(required)" is not so much an instruction as an indicator. If this is specifically meant to address required inputs, why not make it something like "Identifying inputs that must be completed""

"I'm not sure the User need section is really addressing in the way intended? I thought they were supposed to align with Functional needs? I don't think your test procedure really captures checking for Required fields."

"REQUIRED INPUTS INDICATED Okay, so given there is a separate method for required inputs, why is that appearing in the prior input? Removing references to required inputs from instructions resolves most of my prior concerns."

" think there are 2 scenarios that are legitimate ways to meet this which don't align with some of your guidance. They are: 1) Scenario: all fields are required. Solution: "All questions must be answered" is stated once at the start of the form."

"Fields are still programmatically marked as required, but no additional visual indicator is provided. 2) Almost all fields are required.Solution: "Responses are required, except where noted." appears at top of form. Fields that are not required are marked "(optional)""

"INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE... "Instructions provided using the placeholder attribute are not persistent and therefore do not meet this requirement." I was a little surprised by this, which appears in the Detailed description section, because I didn't think a Method was considered a "requirement"."

"It also seemed a little technology specific. Finally, I think it needs the word "only" as in "Instructions provided using only the placeholder...""

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2021/08/17-ag-minutes.html#t01

Rachael: If we did vote on this previously, we can capture these changes and move forward

<michael> Fine

Alastairc: I think we can consider it ok for CFC. We have people that have commented, and it is worth tackling survey comments if we can

Rachael: Jeanne - can these be integrated in?
... We may have lost Jeanne
... Is anyone else here active on the error prevention guideline group?

JakeAbma: A lot of other people left the group

Rachael: Jake, you are in the group, and you are concerned about moving this forward
... With Mike's changes integrated, are there small changes that would make you comfortable to move this forward?

JakeAbma: I think we should not do it, but this is my opinion
... It doesn't reflect the work done

<JF_> +1 to Jake

Rachael: If we put in an editor's note indicating this work is only partial, would that address your concerns?

JakeAbma: That's a hard question
... Let's not have that discussion here. We had some discussions in the Error Prevention group - they did what they knew was best
... But some concepts were not clear to them that were in other guidelines
... That was some of my concern
... If that does not align, then it just raises questions
... We should try to prevent raising questions
... At least not concensus on definitions - that might be interesting for the next release
... Adding a bunch of notes - but we still say this is a new one. This must be an improvement after months of work, and that is not what I see

AWK: 1. A suggestion for the chair: can you live with it - this can be useful
... 2. I agree with a lot of what Jake has shared. The discussion on the 17th reflected the concerns Jake and some others had
... About pushing out material, requirements

<JF_> +1 to AWK

AWK: Worrying about potentially it being throw away work
... I think what we decided was fine, let's put this in now, but they we really need to figure the conformance model out

<Detlev> +1 to AWK

<Zakim> JF_, you wanted to also to note that the testing and scoring piece is... confusing

AWK: I am not rejecting it with this recollectionin mind

JF: I am a big +1 to Andrew's comment about scoring
... When I look at the testing tab, it says scoring will be figured out

<alastairc> Agree with AWK, and also think it will help us to have it there when working on conformance

JF: Then under rating for instructions provided, there is a scoring method that is unclear
... We are putting forward information without a back end to it
... We don't know what we are scoring or how to get that score in the 1st place
... My concern is why are we continuing to add to this spec when there is a huge question we have not resolved yet?

*Scribe change?

GreggVan: My concern, and it has been for a while, what you are really doing is we don't want to face the implications

<JF_> +1 Gregg

GreggVan: We don't want to talk about if it is testable
... If we don't have restrictions on what we can do
... But in the end we will be in a horrible position that we have been in before
... We create a whole bunch of advice, but there is no way to fit it into a conformance model that can live in the outside world
... WCAG has existed in the regulatory world, and it has had a huge impact
... Anything that doesn't fit into that conformance model - the really good ideas...
... We need to stop putting more and more things in because we don't want to just have to take it out again

Rachael: We have been going back and forth between then
... It has been iterative

<Ryladog> I remember those Face-2-Faces for WCAG 2.0

<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Continue to move Error Preventions forward to CFC with Mike Gower's edits and any edits that come out of the Error Prevention group discussion but recognizing that this is a live with decision and we will be pivot to focus on conformance next

Rachael: We hear loud and clear
... I will propose a resolution

<KimD> +1

Rachael: Can we all live with moving this forward to CFC, using Mike Gower's edits, and recognize it is a lived with decision

<alastairc> +1

<sajkaj> +1

Rachael: Then at CFC we will call out that there have been changes that are coming

<ShawnT> +1

<AUbbink> +1

GreggVan: are we agreeing it is just in our internal documentation?

Rachael: CFC is to publish

<mbgower> +1 feels like we already voted on this, so don't see how we can't now :)

Rachael: It would not be widely publicized in the draft

GreggVan: it is not part of a call for public comment?

Rachael: No

Janina: It would show as the latest working draft

<JenniferS> +1

*Scribe change please?

<Wilco> 0

<JF_> -1

<Detlev> 0

<JakeAbma> 0 I'll try to stay alive, (but -1 for the guideline)

<AWK> 0

<Ben> 0

<david-macdonald> 0/-1

<laura> 0

<bruce_bailey> 0 can live with but would rather we resolve

<ToddLibby> 0

<Ryladog> -1

<kirkwood> 0

<GreggVan> -1 at this point

Rachael: We do not have enough to move this forward

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<Jennie> *Thank you mbgower!

Rachael: Are there small changes we can do to make this workable?
... Or is the objection larger?

<JF_> the latter Rachael

<GreggVan> not publish if not ready.

Ryladog: I understand that the w3c wants something publishable, but this is a very different kind of thing. People either respect what we put out or they don't

Jake: How much time do we have?

Rachael: We might be able to bring it back next week. We are trying to wrap up these conversations.

Jake: That's a shame. i have a middling solution. I've proposed 6 outcomes. maybe we don't have enough methods... I don't think we need them. Sarah is not there the next 2 weeks. Maybe it is too late to iterate to get it out there.

<alastairc> Suggest: Just keep it in the editors draft, and we will need to update it before going out to the public working draft, at the same time / after the conformance milestone

GreggVan: I'm worried that if we... This can wait until after we get through a conformance model. I'm worried about lists rather than concepts.
... If we lose our reputation it takes forever to get it back.

JF: This is a heartbeat publication. There are enough folks on this call who have these concerns, that I don't know why we want to formalize.

<Ryladog> +1 to JF, GV, JA

Rachael: We'll circle back to discuss next steps.

WCAG 2.2 focus-appearance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results

Rachael: we're moving to WCAG 2.2

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xYriil533EW5DfOTDedG1g25JiVNqt0FJcQECys5n0o/edit

Alastair: This first one isn't on Focus Appearance, but it is overlapping.
... It is about how Focus Indicators overlap with Non-text Contrast.
... We had a discussion last week. The question is whether these updates help clarify.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer Gundula's comments

Alastair: I think there is some confusion here. She talks about Figure 3, but that isn't a focus indicator. I don't think that's relevant (the first 2 paragraphs)
... The rest seems to be about Focus Appearance.

Rachael: Does anyone want to speak to this?

Francis: If Figure 3 isn't a focus indicator, then it is a little confusing to say "the external indicator"

Alastair: it was a whole other example.

Rachael: Have you had a chance to look at Michael's comments?

<alastairc> If the focus indicator changes the border of the component within the visible boundary it must contrast with the component. Typically an outline goes around (outside) the visible boundary of the component, in this case changing the border is just inside the visible edge of the component.

Alastair: Yes, I think so. I added a slightly better explanation.

David: I'm a little confused by the example just below figure 4. [reads same section]
... I believe that when the focus indicator is on a component that it becomes part of the component, therefore the contrast must be with the component itself.

Alastair: That's how we had thought about it going back...3 years? The difficulty comes with comparing completely internal focus indicators. That's not an example we had nor one we had considered. Compare to the toggle button. It seems difficult to say that the toggle button, as a state indicator, has to have internal contrast but the focus state doesn't.
... As you can see from the 8 examples we are proposing, there are variations. The key text we discussed last week is in yellow
... We're not changing the previous examples, but we are fleshing out.

David: What I've been doing with my clients has been to say 'it doesn't cover all needs'. 'We're trying to plug that hole in 2.2'
... Do I now say 'we consider it part of the focus indicator, but when it is inside the component, we do something else'?

Alastair: Have they been using internal focus indicators?

David: They've been asking about scenarios.

Alastair: The broad brush you're saying is correct.

David: So you're saying we hadn't thought of the internals, but we are now.

Alastairs: Examples 4, 5, 6 and 7 are variations on examples we hadn't done previously.

David: It feels like we're changing the rationale. it feels like we can't explain it that way anymore. Change in a future version.

Alastair: It is open to make this an update to WCAG 2.2.

david: Yeah, we could do it in a 2.2. It's just going back and reinterpreting is problematic.

Alastair: I'll just give you the background: people outside the group have been interpreting it this way. The Understanding document doesn't give you anything to go on.

GreggVan: You can't use the Understanding document to introduce anythign that is not in the original standard.
... If you intended to do something in the standard, what you said applies. Not what you intended.
... It sorta sounds like the standard wasn't thought out fully, so now we have a provision.
... The only way is to revise it.
... You have to treat it as a component. I even put in a comment at the time.
... These examples are very clear. There are things that pass that shouldn't pass. That means we have a bad provision.
... The way we fix it is to go back and examine the original provision carefully.

Alastair: We are not trying to reinterpret the standard. There are lots of broad criteria in 2.0. David was talking about how the group interpretted it.
... I had a look for your comment on the success criteria. I couldn't find any relevant to this discussion.
... At the moment, this is very much a case of 'does the group agree with this update?' We've made the decision several times to proceed with this strategy.

Feel free to add.

David: I think there's something Gregg said that is important: our intentions, if it's not in the text, we don't consider it. it's what we say.
... Alastair is saying it's not very well articulated, so we are trying to make it clearer. And we have leverage because we haven't addressed this specific example.

Alastair: Yeah, think of all the discussion around Headings from 1.3.1. We have to talk in the Understanding document about how the normative text should be interpretted.

<alastairc> My point was that people outside the group often think they are required...

GreggVan: A couple of comments. Headings are not required, and we talk about something being a good idea to do. It's not required.
... An understanding document can be used to discuss.

<alastairc> user-interface components are defined

GreggVan: If one were to say 'adjacent components need to contrast'. Then we should define what adjacent is.
... if the highlight is a component of the interface, then we would just clarify that people didn't even notice that there was a highlight, then it would clearly fail because of the component contrast.
... I think there is a path out of this that doesn't require rewriting a success criteria.

<Rachael> user interface component: a part of the content that is perceived by users as a single control for a distinct function

Alastair: We are not at a stage where we can go back and redefine things. We can't go back and redefine in retrospect that states are different than that.
... We are doing what Gregg is suggesting with focus appearance. That is already in process. But how people interpret Non-text contrast is important, because we don't want to overlap any more than we need to.

<Detlev> @GreggVan: I think it would be strange to think of a focus indicator as a component, doesn't work throughout. Think of color inversion for focus, very visible, but not a component...

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say UICs are defined

Gregg: I think that's exactly correct. The way to go forward is, as you suggest, to handle it in the focus appearances SC. We need to make sure the new one does address the new accessibility concerns?
... We should not say 'how have people been interpretting it?'

<ChrisLoiselle> I didn't want to interrupt the conversation here, If it is helpful, here is the process https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#update-reqs there is also https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#revised-rec-substantive, not sure if worthwhile in this context, but wanted to share . Open to whatever way makes it more accessible for users.

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

<alastairc> We need to separate our thinking on the old and new SCs.

DmD: Leave conversation off the table, should focus be part of the component - may interest only a few

Alastair: we haven't tried to explain it publicly
... we need to work out how we can add to WCAG 2.2. - haven't hear much opposition

Rachael lets not whether these can be accepted allowing clarification and updates later

GreggVan: Looking at the ones that pass or fail - fig e doesn't ay it?

Alastair: passes

Gregg: would disagree with that one, passes based on size

GreggVan: :but that is an issue

Alastair: We agree there are gaps, there is no size reuirements

GreggVan: Should cal outfit 3 is a technical pass, but not good, that's why we are working on a new SC to cover that - that

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: to accept the proposed updates with suggested edits and address substantive issues in new SC

<Ben> +1

<Detlev> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<JenniferS> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<david-macdonald> +1 (holding nose)

<AUbbink> +1

<Rachael> +1

<laura> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Breixo> +1

RESOLUTION: to accept the proposed updates with suggested edits and address substantive issues in new SC

<JF_> +.75 (I'm with DMD)

Confusing wording due to unconventional state requirement #1859

Rachael: I'm going to skip to things we had agreement on.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1859

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1859#issuecomment-859155244

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2000

Alastair: Is Ben on call.

Ben: I read the response and it's fine.

<Ben> There is another question that I've agreed with too, nothing further to add on that one either

Alastair: Switching from Focus Appearance from Non-text Contrast. I've tried to avoid the word "background". it's very easy to confuse people, including yourself.
... That's one of the things that caused confusion.

<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response

<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response and PR

<Ben> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Breixo> +1

<AUbbink> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<Raf> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response and PR

4. Gradient Focus Indicators #1861

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1861#issuecomment-898635943

Rachael: This is also an issue Ben raised. He has accepted the proposed response.
... This was universally agreed on in the survey. Any questions?

Alastair: It meant "metric" in terms of numeric ways to say whether it passes or fails.

GreggVan: If it says whether it passes or fails, how it that different?

<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response to #1861

<Detlev> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<AUbbink> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Breixo> 0

<GreggVan> 0

<kirkwood> +1

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response to #1861

<Ben> +1

2. Understanding document updates

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2000/files

Rachael: While we don't have time to get through it, I'm hopping back to topic 2.

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/wcag22-focus-appearance-understanding/understanding/22/focus-appearance-minimum.html

<GreggVan> I am voting 0 on things I don't understand or have not been around enough to understand and don't want to hold up meeting for long catchup descriptions

Rachael: 2 agreed and 2 agreed with updates

Alastair: I accepted all but one of Mike's
... In regard to Gundula's comment, it could be a result of the screen shot resolutions and browsers. So that makes sense to say what exactly is being shown.

<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR2000

<alastairc> +1

<julierawe> 0

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Breixo> 0

<laura> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Detlev> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<AUbbink> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR2000

<GreggVan> 0

<ShawnT> Thanks

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

07 Sep 2021

Attendees

Contents

Need WCAG 2.2 AAA volunteer testers

Mobile taskforce needs members

Protocols, introduction and discuss sub-group

Paths/Process, introduction and discuss sub-group

Error Prevention https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/error_cfc_2/results

WCAG 2.2 focus-appearance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results

Confusing wording due to unconventional state requirement #1859

4. Gradient Focus Indicators #1861

2. Understanding document updates

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output