IRC log of wai-wcag on 2016-05-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:51 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag

14:53:51 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-wai-wcag-irc

14:53:53 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

14:53:55 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG

14:53:55 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot

14:53:56 [trackbot]

Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

14:53:56 [trackbot]

Date: 17 May 2016

14:53:58 [Joshue108]

zakim, agenda?

14:53:58 [Zakim]

I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:

14:53:59 [Zakim]

1. Discussion of proposal for WCAG moving forward [from Joshue108]

14:53:59 [Zakim]

2. Github issues [from AWK_]

14:54:14 [Joshue108]

zakim, clear agenda

14:54:14 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

14:54:19 [Joshue108]

Chair: Joshue

14:54:32 [Joshue108]

14:54:32 [Joshue108]

(Length: up to 90 minutes)

14:54:32 [Joshue108]

14:54:33 [Joshue108]

Attendance survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG

14:54:36 [Joshue108]

Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

14:54:37 [yatil]

regrets+ EricE

14:54:59 [alastairc]

alastairc has joined #wai-wcag

14:55:27 [Joshue108]

agenda+ TPAC Registration https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/

14:55:33 [AWK]

AWK has joined #wai-wcag

14:55:37 [Joshue108]

agenda+ WCAG.next

14:55:49 [Joshue108]

agenda+ Discussion topic: Please look at the Github issue "Add a "Date Approved" field to Techniques and Failures #183" and comment https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/183

14:56:07 [Joshue108]

Github issues questions (Survey) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/17thMay2016/

14:56:29 [Joshue108]

agenda+ Github issues questions (Survey) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/17thMay2016/

14:58:18 [WCAG]

WCAG has joined #wai-wcag

14:59:58 [AWK]

+AWK

15:00:16 [alastairc]

+alastairc

15:00:24 [Joshue108]

+Joshue108

15:00:36 [Greg]

Greg has joined #wai-wcag

15:00:38 [Kathy]

Kathy has joined #wai-wcag

15:00:43 [Kathy]

present+ Kathy

15:00:47 [Makoto]

Makoto has joined #wai-wcag

15:02:24 [Rachael]

Rachael has joined #wai-wcag

15:02:52 [AWK]

zakim, agenda?

15:02:52 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:

15:02:53 [Zakim]

1. TPAC Registration https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/ [from Joshue108]

15:02:53 [Zakim]

2. WCAG.next [from Joshue108]

15:02:53 [Zakim]

3. Discussion topic: Please look at the Github issue "Add a "Date Approved" field to Techniques and Failures #183" and comment https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/183 [from

15:02:54 [Zakim]

... Joshue108]

15:02:54 [Zakim]

4. Github issues questions (Survey) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/17thMay2016/ [from Joshue108]

15:02:55 [steverep]

steverep has joined #wai-wcag

15:02:55 [SarahHorton]

SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag

15:04:12 [KimD]

KimD has joined #wai-wcag

15:05:17 [Mike_Elledge]

Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag

15:05:30 [kirkwood]

kirkwood has joined #WAI-WCAG

15:05:34 [AWK]

Scribe: Mike_Elledge

15:05:43 [AWK]

Chair: Joshue

15:05:45 [Joshue108]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:45 [Zakim]

Present: AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea,

15:05:48 [Zakim]

... patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila, marcjohlic

15:05:54 [Greg]

Present+ Greg_Lowney

15:06:02 [Makoto]

present+ Makoto

15:06:06 [KimD]

+KimD

15:06:09 [yatil]

present- EricE

15:06:13 [AWK]

agenda+ new introductions

15:06:22 [Rachael]

Present+ Rachael BM

15:06:41 [MichaelC]

present+ MichaelC

15:06:50 [AWK]

zakim, take up item 5

15:06:50 [Zakim]

agendum 5. "new introductions" taken up [from AWK]

15:06:55 [adam_solomon]

adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag

15:07:17 [marcjohlic]

marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag

15:07:24 [Mike_Elledge]

AK: Sean new person, welcome, instructions to signon

15:07:30 [marcjohlic]

present+ marcjohlic

15:07:32 [Mike_Elledge]

present+ Mike Elledge

15:07:41 [WCAG]

Present+ Shawn Lauriat

15:08:29 [jeanne]

present+ jeanne

15:09:01 [Mike_Elledge]

sean: Run accessibility meetup in New York. Work on Google docs as engineer.

15:09:26 [Mike_Elledge]

Rochelle: From Mitre.

15:10:33 [Mike_Elledge]

SteveRep: Work for Boeing. Engineer, do programming. Understand accessibility as person who is vision impaired.

15:10:34 [laura]

laura has joined #wai-wcag

15:11:06 [Joshue108]

zakim, close item

15:11:06 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'close item', Joshue108

15:11:20 [adam_solomon]

present+ adam_solomon

15:11:21 [Joshue108]

zakim, take up item 1

15:11:21 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "TPAC Registration https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/" taken up [from Joshue108]

15:11:54 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: TPAC registration is open. Get hotel rez soon, books fast.

15:12:08 [laura]

present+ Laura

15:12:12 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Remove extra "

15:12:18 [Mike_Elledge]

zakim, take up item 2

15:12:18 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "WCAG.next" taken up [from Joshue108]

15:13:30 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: Last week shared proposal for moving ahead. Chartered to do taskforces and work toward extensions. Also future guidelines. Shift from publishing extensions separately to those that will become part of wcag 2.1.

15:13:32 [SarahHorton]

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/WCAG_future_proposal

15:14:00 [Joshue108]

https://www..w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/WCAG_future_proposal

15:14:45 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: put this out to list, had on last week call, so far agreement. No objections. Now need to build add'l support for re-chartering. Member process for review. Socialize the idea widely, also proceed on our work. Work will prove our point.

15:15:17 [Joshue108]

s/https://www..w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/WCAG_future_proposal/

15:15:35 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: Doesn't mean much different today. Need to think about 2.1 success criteria. Task forces will continue (mobile, low vision) but also need to coordinate, so no overlap.

15:16:20 [Kathy]

what are the dates again for that?

15:16:29 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: TFs should harmonize their work. Around September will have more info to work on, conveniently in Portugal at TPAC. Our mtg there will be busy. Come if you can, phone connection as well, but more difficult.

15:16:52 [SarahHorton]

q+

15:16:52 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: Josh and I have been collecting feedback, will start to chart out more specific actions to do with group to proceedd.

15:17:01 [Joshue108]

ack mike

15:17:21 [Joshue108]

ack Mike

15:17:29 [Joshue108]

ack dav

15:17:48 [Joshue108]

ack sarah

15:18:04 [AWK]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:18:04 [Zakim]

Present: AWK, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea,

15:18:07 [Zakim]

... patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila, marcjohlic, Rachael, BM, Shawn, Lauriat, adam_solomon

15:18:19 [davidmacdonald]

davidmacdonald has joined #wai-wcag

15:18:30 [Mike_Elledge]

Sarah: Proposal sounds good. How to do harmonization. One of biggest challenges is ensuring that what we pub is coherent.

15:18:33 [AWK]

-BM

15:18:37 [davidmacdonald]

Present+ Davidmacdonald

15:18:40 [AWK]

-Shawn

15:18:46 [AWK]

-Lauriat

15:18:53 [AWK]

+Shawn_Lauriat

15:19:06 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Far greater coordination between TF: Bi-weekly meetings, sharing docs, so we don't duplicate.

15:19:56 [Mike_Elledge]

Sarah: Each focused on own area. As a design activity may be another group that's not attached that is mutual that can coordiate.

15:20:22 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Some coordination will be done by working group. Yep, agree, but conscious of the challenge.

15:20:34 [laura]

Aren’t all working group members in a TF?

15:20:48 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: won't set up separate entity to coordiate. Chairs and WG will do.

15:20:53 [AWK]

Laura, no not necessarily

15:20:56 [Joshue108]

q?

15:20:59 [Rachael]

q+

15:21:04 [Joshue108]

ack rach

15:21:20 [davidmacdonald]

q+

15:21:36 [Mike_Elledge]

Rachael: How is coordination handled logistically? How will we see everything.

15:22:30 [Joshue108]

ack dav

15:22:30 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Facilitators will give show and tell, presentations to larger group. Calls on the list, questions, feedback solicited, surveys as usual. TFs will handle work separately, but what's important is that their work will be shared.

15:23:06 [jon_avila]

jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag

15:23:11 [jon_avila]

present+jon_avila

15:23:14 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Been pretty close to SC task force, looking over low vision and cognitition; don't see collisions.

15:23:30 [Joshue108]

q?

15:23:36 [AWK]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:23:36 [Zakim]

Present: AWK, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea,

15:23:39 [Zakim]

... patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila, marcjohlic, Rachael, adam_solomon, Davidmacdonald, Shawn_Lauriat

15:23:46 [Mike_Elledge]

zakim, take up next item

15:23:46 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "TPAC Registration https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/" taken up [from Joshue108]

15:23:57 [Mike_Elledge]

zakim, take up item 3

15:23:57 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Discussion topic: Please look at the Github issue "Add a "Date Approved" field to Techniques and Failures #183" and comment https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/183"

15:23:59 [AWK]

-Davidmacdonald

15:24:01 [Zakim]

... taken up [from Joshue108]

15:24:30 [AWK]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/183

15:25:04 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Issue 183. General discussion, not in survey. Get feedback from group about date approved field. David added originally.

15:25:29 [Joshue108]

q?

15:25:53 [Joshue108]

q+ to say I'd be concerned that this may cause more problems than it fixes.

15:26:13 [AWK]

q+

15:26:20 [Joshue108]

ack me

15:26:20 [Zakim]

Joshue, you wanted to say I'd be concerned that this may cause more problems than it fixes.

15:26:22 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Originally introduced so that we'd know when item was added. Helps to identify old stuff, what needs new work.

15:27:12 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Tending toward not a good idea. Would it create more problems than it would solve. Positives. Some things are classic still work, doesnt mean not relevant. Is there another way to do it?

15:27:15 [Joshue108]

ack awk

15:28:35 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: I'm in agreement with you. Would like to keep wcag focused on technical side, not for policy purposes. Worry that this is the intent. Giving you tool to allow wcag to be something different. Part of frustration with 7 year old spec, agree that it's a challenge

15:29:00 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: but that's why we're looking at wcag next. Find myself wondering if it's the best idea.

15:29:02 [Joshue108]

q?

15:29:25 [jon_avila]

my recommendation was to have it say "date documented"

15:29:33 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Agree with most of it. One of issues is question of so few failures, and how hard it is to add them. Thinking went from there.

15:30:09 [steverep]

present+ [Steve Repsher]

15:30:12 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: To what degree is to address relevancy?

15:31:32 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Trying to address that site in 2008 wouldn't pass today because of new technologies. Wcag is made to be evergreen, but pwd aren't getting things out in the space that they should. Looked at it another way, offline with others,

15:31:50 [steverep]

zakim present+ [Steve Repsher]

15:32:02 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Failure is always a failure, but haven't treated them as such.

15:32:56 [jamesn]

jamesn has joined #wai-wcag

15:33:06 [Joshue108]

q?

15:33:07 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: In terms of failure, don't look at failures so much, but come up with new techniques. To what extant should we be looking for new failures? If we decide it is important to look at failures, maybe form a failure tf.

15:33:07 [jamesn]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:33:07 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn

15:33:46 [Mike_Elledge]

josh: Closure: should this be something we should have or not do? Great idea for date approved fields, or not?

15:34:02 [Joshue108]

q?

15:34:31 [jon_avila]

q?

15:34:36 [jon_avila]

q+

15:34:37 [Mike_Elledge]

jk: Personal opinion date is dangerous. Having to track when certain rules came into place. How to resolve when they were applied or not.

15:34:48 [SarahHorton]

Is it possible to determine date approved on the existing techniques and failures?

15:34:50 [Joshue108]

ack jon

15:35:27 [Mike_Elledge]

Jon: My reco is to say date documented. Wouldn't imply if it is valid or not. Would be able for people to know when. How it is applied is crucial.

15:35:28 [davidmacdonald]

+1

15:35:31 [Kathy]

q+

15:35:36 [jon_avila]

q?

15:35:37 [jamesn]

q+

15:35:54 [AWK]

q+

15:35:56 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Makes things seem more evergreen, but watch out for unintended consequences.

15:35:59 [Mike_Elledge]

q+

15:35:59 [AWK]

q-

15:36:08 [Joshue108]

ack kathy

15:36:12 [AWK]

q+ to say that this is all wrapped up in the accessibility support issue

15:36:38 [Kathy]

ack me

15:37:09 [Mike_Elledge]

Kathy: Not against, but worry about how ppl will use it. Will have similar issues. Is this still a failure, or is it obsolete. Would be good if could update failures, based on how ppl will use them. Avoid complexity and confusion. Also dates for techniques.

15:37:12 [Joshue108]

ack james

15:37:51 [Mike_Elledge]

James: I like having a date. But not published date. Rather less reviewed date. "No one has reviewed this in ten years, should I ask about it?"

15:37:57 [AWK]

ack mike

15:37:58 [Joshue108]

ack mike

15:38:01 [steverep]

Zakim,present+ [Steve Repsher]

15:38:18 [Joshue108]

ME: It seems like people are concerned about how this is applied.

15:38:19 [jamesn]

present+ JamesNurthen

15:38:25 [AWK]

+Steve_Repsher

15:38:48 [AWK]

brb

15:38:50 [Joshue108]

ME: Might people say my site was compliant till date x.

15:38:54 [MichaelC]

q+ to remind conformance is always as of a specific date

15:38:59 [AWK]

q-

15:39:04 [Joshue108]

ack Michae

15:39:04 [Zakim]

MichaelC, you wanted to remind conformance is always as of a specific date

15:39:44 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: Conformance claims are always up to a certain date. So ppl can't claim up to a certain date.

15:39:59 [jeanne]

+1 for last reviewed date because it is useful for knowing the relevance of the information.

15:40:37 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: One gain is that it's useful for ppl to know how stale something is, both failures and techniques. Just because old doesn't mean it's bad. Don't htink it will affect their conformance review.

15:40:44 [Rachael]

q+

15:40:59 [Makoto]

+1 to MichaelC Japan is taking the same approach

15:41:08 [Joshue108]

ack rachae

15:41:11 [MichaelC]

q+ to note techniques don´t have to come from us, so people wanting to finesse conformance can document their own techniques and failures

15:41:14 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Last reviewed would be how I would want to produce it. My concern is what ppl would do with black hat dates.

15:41:26 [MichaelC]

q+ to point out administrative burden of maintaining dates

15:41:41 [Joshue108]

ack michael

15:41:41 [Zakim]

MichaelC, you wanted to note techniques don´t have to come from us, so people wanting to finesse conformance can document their own techniques and failures and to point out

15:41:44 [Mike_Elledge]

Racheal: Wonder if would help ppl to understand that it is an evolving document. Think it would be useful.

15:41:45 [Zakim]

... administrative burden of maintaining dates

15:42:39 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: First of all, more general techniques don't have to come from working group. Can document own. Ppl don't, but can. So if someone is concerned about our technique, would do their own. So from that perspective doesn't matter.

15:43:41 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: Date could be helpful, but administrative cost. Have several hundred techniques. Publish date could be automated, but review date would be problematic. Who would update 600?

15:43:45 [Joshue108]

q?

15:44:23 [laura]

+q

15:44:26 [davidmacdonald]

q+

15:44:43 [Mike_Elledge]

josh: Date reviewed seems to have some traction. DK if I have horse in race, but date reviewed would be my favorite, admin cost not withstanding. Could make case for doing this in 2.1 or 3.0. Think about for future.

15:45:09 [Joshue108]

ack laura

15:45:12 [Mike_Elledge]

Alastair: Put review date that would reduce overhead.

15:45:42 [Mike_Elledge]

Laura: Don't we already do that. Just have a call for consensus. Couldn't we use that.

15:46:13 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: Not meaningful on technique basis. Looking at mast head not helpful.

15:46:14 [Joshue108]

ack dav

15:46:34 [Mike_Elledge]

David: What would be easiest for you. Why not date last changed.

15:46:52 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: Hopeful could do this in future, adding date field.

15:47:52 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: Automatd should be date of last commit into github. That said, couldn't pull out from before github. Wouldn't be able to filter important from unimportant commits: change of letter cap, for example.

15:48:21 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Need to ask the list. Come back to next week. Post a question to the list.

15:49:01 [jon_avila]

date reviewed is fine

15:49:17 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Date reviewed unless some way to do automatically.

15:49:32 [Mike_Elledge]

David: DAte reviewed is okay.

15:50:01 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: See if we can get tacit approval. Then look into logistics.

15:50:14 [Joshue108]

RESOLUTION: Josh to ping the list to ask the group if it likes the idea of using Date reviewed.

15:50:34 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Objections (post post)?

15:50:43 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: none

15:50:49 [Joshue108]

zakim, agenda?

15:50:49 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:

15:50:50 [Zakim]

1. TPAC Registration https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/ [from Joshue108]

15:50:50 [Zakim]

3. Discussion topic: Please look at the Github issue "Add a "Date Approved" field to Techniques and Failures #183" and comment https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/183 [from

15:50:50 [Zakim]

... Joshue108]

15:50:51 [Zakim]

4. Github issues questions (Survey) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/17thMay2016/ [from Joshue108]

15:50:51 [Zakim]

5. new introductions [from AWK]

15:51:05 [Mike_Elledge]

zakim, take up item 4

15:51:05 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Github issues questions (Survey) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/17thMay2016/" taken up [from Joshue108]

15:51:43 [Joshue108]

TOPIC: Proposal Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2

15:51:54 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: will go through one by one.

15:52:13 [Joshue108]

Original proposal https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/164#issuecomment-205374107

15:52:23 [Joshue108]

Rational https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/164#issuecomment-213075041

15:52:33 [Joshue108]

Last survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewWCAGEditRec/results

15:52:42 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Proposal that came from Sailesh. Surveyed previously. Left open from las tmeeting

15:53:42 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: One thumbs up. Most didn't understand or said no.

15:55:12 [steverep]

Zakim, present+ Steve Repsher

15:55:13 [Mike_Elledge]

Jon: I think I understand it. Right now SC332 refers to isntructions that take place of label. Doesn't reguire you provide instructions for form fields. Some ppl thought required fields had to be indicated, doesn't say taht.

15:55:34 [Joshue108]

q?

15:56:03 [Mike_Elledge]

Jon: Would not have brought change. But would support. If better to be ambiguous, then don't change it. For consistency should consider it.

15:56:20 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Not sure change will be what's required.

15:56:29 [Mike_Elledge]

Jon: Fine if we don't make change.

15:57:19 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: Not rejecting with prejudice. Instead, not sure I understnad it. Not in acceptance ready form. Not necessarily wrong. Would need to be worked up more clearly.

15:58:14 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Good point. Even though consensus not to accept it, it is not with prejudice. Some confusion. Will reject, but suggest that Sailesh comes back with clearer proposal.

15:58:34 [Joshue108]

q?

15:59:44 [Mike_Elledge]

ak: Resolution: Do not accept on basis of unclear proposal. I know that he's spent time on it. Seems to be going nowhere.

16:00:06 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Can explain.

16:00:20 [Mike_Elledge]

AK: Even with explanation, wont' have something to vote on.

16:01:25 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Problem is word "or" ppl have label don't need instructions. Instructions can be helpful. Would rather see and/or in success criteria.

16:01:50 [Joshue108]

q?

16:01:52 [Mike_Elledge]

Ak: In that case would not accept. "or" is there to address form control.

16:02:06 [Mike_Elledge]

Jon: Thinking that he's saying that that is not the case.

16:02:25 [Makoto_]

Makoto_ has joined #wai-wcag

16:02:43 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Overall, not sufficiently clear what is being proposed.

16:03:15 [Mike_Elledge]

Resolution: Do not accept for being unclear.

16:03:23 [jnurthen]

jnurthen has joined #wai-wcag

16:03:35 [Mike_Elledge]

RESOLUTION: Do not accept for being unclear.

16:03:56 [Mike_Elledge]

TOPIC:

16:04:00 [Joshue108]

TOPIC: F38 and 4.1.1 conflict ? #186

16:04:49 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Conflict between f38 and 4.1.1. Thumbs up from group. David comment.

16:05:06 [MoeKraft]

MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag

16:05:28 [Mike_Elledge]

RESOLUTION: Proposed response is accepted.

16:06:09 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Large text using pixels.

16:06:16 [alastairc]

q+

16:06:18 [Joshue108]

TOPIC: "Large text" - using px rather than pt as unit #181

16:06:28 [jnurthen]

q+

16:07:09 [Joshue108]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/181

16:07:10 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Thanks for patrick for bringing up. Great to see the expertise with alistair and patrick on this. Are pixels more natural than points.

16:07:21 [Joshue108]

ack alas

16:07:55 [AWK]

q+ to say that everything in WCAG 2.0 is normative.

16:08:29 [Mike_Elledge]

A: Kind of a step one. Under the definiotn, 5 paragraphs of notes. Where change would be. Definition would remain same 14 or 18 Bold. Patrick long explanation, I did a concise version.

16:08:30 [Joshue108]

Definition https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef

16:08:43 [Joshue108]

ack jnur

16:08:47 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Even those notes are part of normative document, can't touch them.

16:08:55 [MichaelC]

q+ to say I think it´s better to address in Understanding

16:09:02 [Mike_Elledge]

James: Why can't if we're clarifyiing.

16:09:10 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Would go into errata.

16:09:26 [Mike_Elledge]

James: Errata get published.

16:10:19 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: Do not change base document. Two scenarios, squeeze in before publish, but opens up the process.

16:10:24 [Joshue108]

q?

16:10:42 [Mike_Elledge]

James: Don't mind if it takes two weeks or two months.

16:10:46 [davidmacdonald]

e tat hole=errata

16:10:49 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: How about 8 years?

16:11:02 [davidmacdonald]

e rat hole=errata

16:11:12 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Is this more substantive or editorial? More substantive.

16:11:18 [Joshue108]

ack awk

16:11:18 [Zakim]

AWK, you wanted to say that everything in WCAG 2.0 is normative.

16:12:21 [Mike_Elledge]

AK: First question is does this make the success critier clearer, or a correction? If it's for clairty, then change understanding document. More straightforward. Perhaps this section is normative except for notes.

16:12:30 [MichaelC]

ack me

16:12:30 [Zakim]

MichaelC, you wanted to say I think it´s better to address in Understanding

16:13:05 [steverep]

/me Zakim, who is here?

16:13:05 [jnurthen]

q+

16:13:12 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: If it's important to publish errat for note, then begs question if it's normative. Ppl want to clarify based on change of definition since Wcag 2.0 was published. Makes me nervous.

16:13:16 [Joshue108]

ack jnur

16:13:31 [Mike_Elledge]

James: Not sure it's a change in defition, just not defined before.

16:13:36 [alastairc]

Comparing https://alastairc.ac/tmp/large-text-definition-ac.html">https://alastairc.ac/tmp/large-text-definition-ac.html to https://alastairc.ac/tmp/large-text-definition-ac.html

16:13:47 [Rachael]

q+

16:13:48 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: At least a de facto definition that was different from current definition.

16:14:16 [MichaelC]

q+ to say designers *used* to think in points very much

16:15:02 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Original suggestion from Patrick...designers don't think in pts. Think in px. Whole issue brings up need for clarification. Original question is whether it was editorial or subastantial. Should address, but dont' see getting this into current wcag.

16:15:06 [alastairc]

q+

16:15:10 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: perhaps Wcag 2.1.

16:15:13 [Joshue108]

ack roch

16:15:29 [Joshue108]

ack mich

16:15:29 [Zakim]

MichaelC, you wanted to say designers *used* to think in points very much

16:15:30 [Mike_Elledge]

R: hve this conversation many times with develoerps. But is substantial.

16:15:31 [MichaelC]

q+ to say pixels *used* to be a specific property of a device, whose size *used* to roughly map to points, but devices always were variable and now literal pixels tend to be smaller, which is why a virtual pixel def was created

16:15:35 [SarahHorton]

Agree that it's substantive

16:15:39 [MichaelC]

ack me

16:15:39 [Zakim]

MichaelC, you wanted to say pixels *used* to be a specific property of a device, whose size *used* to roughly map to points, but devices always were variable and now literal pixels

16:15:39 [Joshue108]

ack ra

16:15:42 [Zakim]

... tend to be smaller, which is why a virtual pixel def was created

16:17:20 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: Pts were basic for print publishing, But has changed since. So not an erratum. Always understood taht pixels were thing on your device, but it is relative based on size of device. When wcag 2 published they were basically the same.

16:17:41 [Mike_Elledge]

MC: But not anymore since devices come in many sizes.

16:18:22 [Joshue108]

q?

16:18:24 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Working group did not make an error. It was based on print design. What we fold-in should be errata.

16:18:27 [Joshue108]

ack alas

16:19:30 [Joshue108]

+1 to Alastair

16:19:33 [Joshue108]

q?

16:19:34 [Mike_Elledge]

A: In agreement that it's a change since wcag 2 was published. Work with designers who never worked in print, so not aware of difference. If we can't add something to the definition notes, then happy to come up with something for Understanding section.

16:19:58 [jnurthen]

q+

16:19:59 [SarahHorton]

+1 Alastair

16:20:11 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Suggest we augment the Understanding document. Flag this for a TF to work on or 2.1.

16:20:43 [Mike_Elledge]

James: Can make better changes than in discussion.

16:20:58 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Absolutely.

16:21:00 [MoeKraft]

+1

16:21:31 [Rachael]

+1

16:21:37 [jeanne]

+1

16:21:37 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Agree or disagree with Josh?

16:21:40 [Mike_Elledge]

+1

16:21:41 [Makoto]

+1

16:21:41 [marcjohlic]

+1

16:21:42 [laura]

+1

16:21:43 [AWK]

+1

16:21:46 [Greg]

+1

16:22:20 [Mike_Elledge]

RESOLUTION: Work on this will continue in the understanding document and be flagged for 2.1.

16:22:22 [KimD]

KimD has joined #wai-wcag

16:22:59 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Dont' think we'll get through 4 this week.

16:23:05 [Joshue108]

TOPIC: Does WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1 mean that headings areas, footer areas are required to be identified programatically or in text

16:23:05 [Mike_Elledge]

Ak: Why not discuss.

16:23:52 [SarahHorton]

Request clarification on "heading areas" versus "header areas"

16:23:53 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Before we get into it. Need to clarify editorial vs. non-editorial changes in wcag.

16:24:05 [davidmacdonald]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173

16:24:23 [AWK]

q+ to ask if 1.3.1 requires that the main area of a page be identified

16:24:31 [jnurthen]

q-

16:24:36 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: General feeling is not sure. one yes, three no.

16:25:25 [davidmacdonald]

q+

16:25:29 [Joshue108]

ack awk

16:25:29 [Zakim]

AWK, you wanted to ask if 1.3.1 requires that the main area of a page be identified

16:25:31 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Content vs. navigation. In terms of requiring that we always markup, have reservations.

16:26:54 [Mike_Elledge]

A: Without hat: 1.3.1 has a lot of ambiguity. Worry that there are a lot of things that would be part of the page visually, that must be marked up. Like when have a set of tabs before aria. Could make the argument that it should be marked up now.

16:27:22 [Joshue108]

q?

16:27:56 [Joshue108]

ack dav

16:27:58 [Mike_Elledge]

A: But required? No. Either markup programmtically or in text. Not a good way to do this. Would be a headache for ppl. Will make only one way to meet success criteria.

16:29:25 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Disagree with comparison with tabs. Vigorous discussion among ppl. Would like a settled situation here. There are multiple ways to establish markup. Lots of exceptions if don't want to do it.

16:29:37 [Joshue108]

q?

16:29:59 [Mike_Elledge]

David: Very reasonable failure. Many reviewers failing organizations.

16:30:26 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Actually called this out separate from failures, because it was getting caught up in other issues.

16:31:24 [Mike_Elledge]

Josh: Ak's comment is relevant, not as clear cut as may have thought. Will continue on list. Group leaning toward no.

16:31:40 [laura]

bye

16:31:42 [Mike_Elledge]

RESOLUTION: Will be addressed next week.

16:31:58 [Mike_Elledge]

rrsagent, draft minutes

16:31:58 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-wai-wcag-minutes.html Mike_Elledge

16:32:30 [Mike_Elledge]

trackbot, end meeting.

16:32:30 [trackbot]

Zakim, list attendees

16:32:30 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, John_Kirkpwood, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge,

16:32:33 [Zakim]

... John_Kirkwood, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila, marcjohlic, Rachael, BM, Shawn,

16:32:33 [Zakim]

... Lauriat, adam_solomon, Davidmacdonald, Shawn_Lauriat, [Steve, Repsher], JamesNurthen, Steve_Repsher, steverep

16:32:38 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:32:38 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot

16:32:39 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, bye

16:32:39 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items