IRC log of ag on 2017-05-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:46:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-ag-irc
14:46:02 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:46:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:46:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:46:05 [trackbot]
Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:46:05 [trackbot]
Date: 09 May 2017
14:46:23 [interaccess]
zakim, agenda?
14:46:23 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:46:24 [Zakim]
6. Single Key Shortcut Alternative: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/#wbssc [from AWK]
14:46:33 [interaccess]
zakim, clear agenda
14:46:33 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:47:04 [interaccess]
agenda+ New EO Tutorials
14:47:13 [interaccess]
agenda+ Dealing with comments - process update.
14:47:24 [interaccess]
agenda+ Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: ===
14:47:33 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
14:47:39 [interaccess]
agenda+ finish
14:47:39 [interaccess]
Timeouts
14:47:39 [interaccess]
Minimize User errors
14:47:39 [interaccess]
Single Key shortcut alternative
14:47:51 [interaccess]
agenda+ Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC.
14:47:52 [AWK]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:47:53 [Zakim]
Present: AWK, Melanie_Philipp, Wilco, Rachael, LisaSeeman, jasonjgw, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, MikeGower, kirkwood, Laura, Kathy, KimD, Katie_Haritos-Shea, shwetank, Davidmacdonald,
14:47:53 [Zakim]
... MichaelC, Joshue108, david-macdonald, Jatin
14:48:01 [interaccess]
agenda+ [COGA] Plain Language https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30
14:48:01 [AWK]
present: AWK
14:48:08 [AWK]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:48:08 [Zakim]
Present: AWK
14:48:13 [interaccess]
agenda+ [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/
14:48:25 [interaccess]
agenda+ MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/)
14:48:38 [AWK]
+Joshue
14:49:16 [AWK]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:49:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-ag-minutes.html AWK
14:49:36 [AWK]
rrsagent, set logs public
14:51:38 [AWK]
regrets+ Denis_Boudreau, bruce_bailey, mike_pluke, Lauriat
14:53:11 [AWK]
agenda?
14:53:38 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #ag
14:55:01 [JakeAbma]
JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:55:14 [JakeAbma]
present+ JakeAbma
14:55:27 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #ag
14:55:37 [Greg]
Greg has joined #ag
14:57:47 [MelanieP]
MelanieP has joined #ag
14:58:00 [Joshue108]
agenda+ Minimize User errors
14:58:36 [Joshue108]
zakim, drop item 4
14:58:36 [Zakim]
agendum 4, finish, dropped
14:58:45 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
14:58:45 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
14:58:46 [Zakim]
8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess]
14:58:46 [Zakim]
7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess]
14:58:46 [Zakim]
6. [COGA] Plain Language https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30 [from interaccess]
14:58:46 [Zakim]
1. New EO Tutorials [from interaccess]
14:58:47 [Zakim]
2. Dealing with comments - process update. [from interaccess]
14:58:47 [Zakim]
3. Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: === [from interaccess]
14:58:48 [Zakim]
5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess]
14:58:48 [Zakim]
9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108]
14:58:49 [AWK]
zakim, close item 4
14:58:51 [Zakim]
agendum 4, finish, closed
14:58:51 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:58:51 [Zakim]
8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess]
14:59:06 [Rachael]
Rachael has joined #ag
14:59:58 [Detlev]
present+ Detlev
15:00:24 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:00:28 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda order is 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 8, 6
15:00:28 [Zakim]
ok, Joshue108
15:00:38 [AWK]
agenda?
15:00:49 [AWK]
agenda+ single key shortcuts
15:00:58 [EA]
EA has joined #ag
15:01:14 [AWK]
zakim, agenda order is 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 8, 6
15:01:14 [Zakim]
ok, AWK
15:01:22 [alastairc]
alastairc has joined #ag
15:01:28 [Mike_Elledge]
Present+ Mike Elledge
15:01:53 [shwetank]
shwetank has joined #ag
15:02:00 [kirkwood]
present+
15:02:27 [ChrisLoiselle_]
ChrisLoiselle_ has joined #ag
15:02:48 [AWK]
Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
15:02:53 [steverep]
steverep has joined #ag
15:02:54 [alastairc]
present+ alastairc
15:03:06 [steverep]
present+steverep
15:03:17 [Alex_Li]
Alex_Li has joined #ag
15:03:43 [Detlev]
I can try to scribe
15:04:21 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
15:04:28 [Alex_Li]
I thought the webex pw is "ag", is it not?
15:04:54 [Detlev]
ok - not sure I am around on that call
15:05:28 [gowerm]
gowerm has joined #ag
15:05:34 [Detlev]
put me down for 30 may then
15:06:04 [Mike_Elledge]
I'll do june 13th
15:06:14 [ChrisLoiselle_]
AWK: are meeting minutes public?
15:06:15 [kirkwood]
I can do the 20th
15:06:34 [gowerm]
present+ MikeGower
15:06:39 [marcjohlic]
marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:06:54 [ChrisLoiselle_]
zakim, next item
15:06:54 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "New EO Tutorials" taken up [from interaccess]
15:07:16 [laura]
laura has joined #ag
15:07:34 [shwetank]
present+ shwetank
15:07:53 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #ag
15:08:07 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: surveys will be going group soon on EO Tutorials
15:08:09 [laura]
present+ Laura
15:08:15 [ChrisLoiselle_]
zakim, next item
15:08:15 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Dealing with comments - process update." taken up [from interaccess]
15:08:21 [Makoto]
present+ Makoto
15:09:38 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: Comments and public comments vs. member comments. Responding to comments. Some SC managers are engaging with commentor.
15:09:53 [ChrisLoiselle_]
More formal commenting will follow later on down the road.
15:09:54 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #ag
15:10:04 [Alex_Li]
q+
15:10:11 [Ryladog]
Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:10:24 [AWK]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:10:24 [Zakim]
Present: AWK, Joshue, JakeAbma, Detlev, Mike, Elledge, kirkwood, alastairc, steverep, MikeGower, shwetank, Laura, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:10:45 [Alex_Li]
i will call back
15:10:49 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Alex L: on queue, can't hear him though. will wait on Alex
15:11:04 [alastairc]
q
15:11:10 [alastairc]
q+
15:11:18 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: any comments on SC managers and commenting?
15:11:19 [Joshue108]
ack alas
15:12:03 [JF]
JF has joined #ag
15:12:30 [ChrisLoiselle_]
AlastairC: need agreement on our response before responding to public / external commentors
15:12:41 [Alex_Li]
i'm back
15:12:56 [AWK]
ack alex
15:12:58 [Joshue108]
ack alex
15:13:24 [KimD]
KimD has joined #ag
15:13:27 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Alex L: not all comments need to be responded to, is there a general standard?
15:13:39 [KimD]
Present+ KimD
15:13:43 [MelanieP]
present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:13:47 [david-macdonald]
david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:13:50 [AWK]
q+
15:13:52 [david-macdonald]
Present+ David-macdonald
15:14:07 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: all will need responses, but SC managers can engage with OPs and make responses they believe are appropriate. Official responses need surveys and plus ones for working group stance
15:14:23 [AWK]
ack AWK
15:14:37 [Pietro]
Pietro has joined #ag
15:14:47 [Pietro]
Present+ Pietro
15:14:56 [Jan]
Jan has joined #ag
15:15:11 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
15:15:11 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
15:15:13 [Zakim]
2. Dealing with comments - process update. [from interaccess]
15:15:13 [Zakim]
3. Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: === [from interaccess]
15:15:13 [Zakim]
7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess]
15:15:14 [Zakim]
9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108]
15:15:14 [Zakim]
10. single key shortcuts [from AWK]
15:15:14 [Zakim]
8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess]
15:15:16 [Jan]
present+ JanMcSorley
15:15:16 [Zakim]
5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess]
15:15:38 [ChrisLoiselle_]
AWK: working group responses vs. working draft - SC manager has the ability to respond saying we have a new way of resolving your issues.
15:16:12 [Greg]
present+ Greg_Lowney
15:16:19 [ChrisLoiselle_]
zakim, next item
15:16:19 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: ===" taken up [from interaccess]
15:16:55 [Lisa]
Lisa has joined #Ag
15:17:29 [ChrisLoiselle_]
zakim, next item
15:17:29 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "[COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/" taken up [from interaccess]
15:17:53 [david-macdonald]
Lisa you may be muted
15:18:02 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: Lisa on phone?
15:18:50 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: there was issue with calling in.
15:18:51 [AWK]
Updated wording proposal (from AWK): For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of inactivity that generates a timeout unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the timeout.
15:19:15 [shwetank]
shwetank has joined #ag
15:19:55 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
15:19:55 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:19:56 [Zakim]
7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess]
15:19:56 [Zakim]
9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108]
15:19:56 [Zakim]
10. single key shortcuts [from AWK]
15:19:56 [Zakim]
8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess]
15:19:56 [Zakim]
5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess]
15:20:10 [ChrisLoiselle_]
James: Use internet connection to have computer call you.
15:20:46 [KimD]
* Me (Kim?)
15:20:48 [Joshue108]
zakim, take up item 8
15:20:48 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/)" taken up [from interaccess]
15:21:28 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: biggest concern with embedded links, it is a user concern. pose significant challenges on interacting with content
15:21:38 [Lisa]
I am on the call but no one can hear me
15:21:46 [Lisa]
Will try to call in
15:21:48 [AWK]
https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html
15:22:06 [AWK]
you are muted Lisa
15:22:27 [Joshue108]
GH summary https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
15:22:34 [Joshue108]
q?
15:22:40 [ChrisLoiselle_]
if content reflows and links overlap, that is ok. You'd need touch target
15:22:50 [jasonjgw]
present+ jasonjgw
15:24:33 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Michael C: Content reflows can overlap...link wrapping...don't understand what is referencing.
15:24:36 [Joshue108]
zakim, ping me in 10 mins
15:24:36 [Zakim]
ok, Joshue108
15:24:58 [Detlev]
is an "in" missing? i.e. "A 44x44 CSS pixel target can overlap if it is *in* an element where the links can wrap."
15:25:13 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: touch target can overlap. Sentence before and after, now touch target is overlapping. That is the exception.
15:25:17 [JF_]
JF_ has joined #ag
15:25:22 [Greg]
q+ to ask for examples
15:25:22 [Detlev]
q+
15:25:53 [AWK]
q+ to say that requiring a size that causes known problems (overlapping interactive elements, which will create confusion) is not a good idea.
15:26:02 [david-macdonald]
Target: Region of the display that will accept a touch action. If a portion of a touch target that does not perform the same action or go to the same page is overlapped by another touch target such that it cannot receive touch actions, then that portion is not considered a touch target for purposes of touch target measurements unless the content can be reflowed so that the touch targets to do overlap.
15:26:02 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Michael C: wording "where links can wrap" , touch targets can overlap...wording needs to be addressed
15:26:33 [Joshue108]
ack greg
15:26:33 [Zakim]
Greg, you wanted to ask for examples
15:27:06 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Greg L: is there a live example on this regarding touch targets?
15:27:21 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: Link to Patrick's example
15:27:23 [laura]
Patrick’s: example: http://codepen.io/patrickhlauke/pen/aBNREe
15:27:23 [Joshue108]
http://codepen.io/patrickhlauke/pen/aBNREe
15:27:24 [JF_]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:27:38 [Joshue108]
ack detlev
15:27:42 [Detlev]
ack me
15:27:44 [Alex_Li]
q+
15:27:48 [Joshue108]
q+ James
15:28:28 [JF_]
Q+
15:29:18 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Detlev: Overlap would address this exception where there is inline text links. Where they are immediately next to each other. Would be better to have it overlap.
15:29:32 [lisa]
lisa has joined #ag
15:29:54 [david-macdonald]
q+
15:30:01 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Text content wraps vs. just links, real issue is two different links which overlap. Text of SC needs to be addressed.
15:30:14 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: Agree wording needs to be addressed
15:30:14 [Joshue108]
ack awk
15:30:14 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to say that requiring a size that causes known problems (overlapping interactive elements, which will create confusion) is not a good idea.
15:30:15 [AWK]
ack AWK
15:31:03 [Detlev]
doesnt need script for that padding!
15:31:25 [JF_]
+1 to AWK
15:31:33 [gowerm]
+1 still don't understand why we don't just exempt links in blocks of text
15:31:48 [ChrisLoiselle_]
AWK: 44 x 44 is a problem when it comes to links like this. Most links would need this. This may be creating additional confusion. Clicking on one link when it is the target for another link.
15:32:54 [Mike_Elledge]
q
15:32:57 [Mike_Elledge]
q+
15:33:00 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: push back from user says this is a major issue. can't resolve both sides of this argument.
15:33:07 [kirkwood]
“when touch targets overlap due to reflow”. I think setting a size 44 pixels is an issue with zooming now on most devices. I think the pixel size shoud be dropped
15:33:11 [gowerm]
q+
15:33:16 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: targets are close together is the issue here.
15:33:19 [Joshue108]
zakim, close queue
15:33:19 [Zakim]
ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
15:33:35 [Detlev]
I think to address Andrew's (and others') concerns we can lower the vertical value for inline targets to 22px
15:34:06 [Joshue108]
ack alex
15:34:15 [KimD]
+1 to AWK - potentially cannot ever support this because of text links, footnotes, etc.
15:34:29 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Alex L: last exception can't be modified, what does that mean?
15:34:36 [Zakim]
Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:35:06 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: this was a concern based on comments
15:35:09 [Joshue108]
ack jame
15:35:33 [AWK]
=== question about what the "cannot be modified" exemption is actually for and what an example would be
15:35:43 [Greg]
q+ to ask whether the technique in the demonstration page could also make non-link controls near the text unreachable; and the Content Reflows item should not apply only to targets of an exact size; and "cannot be modified" should be "its size cannot be modified".
15:36:20 [ChrisLoiselle_]
James N: Patrick came up with this technique to have larger click area than target itself. Has any testing been completed with VoiceOver? Link vs. target testing.
15:36:32 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: will double check that
15:36:59 [ChrisLoiselle_]
James N: I could test (Patrick's demo).
15:37:19 [Joshue108]
ack JF_
15:37:21 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: you can supress the notification vs. the focuc
15:38:16 [ChrisLoiselle_]
JF: This seems like a user agent requirement. Patrick's script would have to be used everywhere. Can't mandate this script be integrated by user agent
15:38:29 [kirkwood]
+1 to JF on not mandating a fixed size
15:39:36 [Joshue108]
q?
15:40:12 [ChrisLoiselle_]
JF: I would need to do some testing too, but one of the problems is that we are defining a 44 x 44 box, and touch target is more a circle. Linear line...square vs. circle. Box model vs. push target
15:40:48 [Detlev]
q+
15:40:59 [jasonjgw]
q+
15:41:02 [Ryladog]
q+
15:41:07 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: we might have to drop this, or have someone contribute to the solution.
15:41:09 [Joshue108]
ack dav
15:41:10 [AWK]
=== AWK volunteers to look hard at this one before Thursday
15:41:56 [Detlev]
q-
15:42:08 [ChrisLoiselle_]
David M: in agreement, we don't know what user is using to control the link. inline links will get some pushback. suggestion would be 44 x 16
15:42:53 [Wilco]
q+ to say that zoom with reflow won't fix this problem
15:42:58 [ChrisLoiselle_]
bigger target , pinching and zooming in to click on link
15:43:39 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: Interdependency of SC
15:44:32 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Kathy W: think we are losing the end user perspective. relying on zoom is probably not the way to go. People who are not "touching" screen, i.e. people with tremors.
15:44:33 [EA]
+1 t what Kathy is saying
15:44:38 [Joshue108]
ack mike
15:45:00 [Joshue108]
+1 to Kathy also - lets not forget
15:45:30 [Wilco]
+1 with katy
15:45:31 [Joshue108]
q?
15:45:35 [Wilco]
q-
15:45:40 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Mike : triple A would be applied to links, give people ability to improve links, but wouldn't require them to in AA
15:45:46 [Joshue108]
ack gow
15:45:52 [Wilco]
s/katy/Kathy
15:45:54 [david-macdonald]
David responds that 44px may not be big enough for users with tremours. So we may not meet the needs of those with severe tremours only
15:46:07 [ChrisLoiselle_]
who is speakking , Mike ?
15:47:01 [Detlev]
+1 to what Mike Gower says
15:47:13 [david-macdonald]
+1
15:47:19 [steverep]
q+ to comment that the focus indicator uses the overlap as well
15:48:11 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Mike G: exempting text links does not wipe out benefit of this. In people with tremors, user agents and operating systems can help and we don't have to get all items in to the SC by default
15:48:31 [marcjohlic]
present+ marcjohlic
15:48:35 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Staggering criteria over a couple of levels, AA, vs AAA
15:49:37 [ChrisLoiselle_]
zakim, next item
15:49:37 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "[COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/" taken up [from interaccess]
15:49:40 [Joshue108]
=== Continue on Thurs
15:49:46 [AWK]
q+
15:50:22 [AWK]
I suggested a version that seems to address people's stated issues:
15:50:24 [AWK]
For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of inactivity that generates a timeout unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the timeout.
15:50:48 [Joshue108]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/results
15:51:13 [Joshue108]
q?
15:51:25 [Ryladog]
q+
15:51:31 [JF_]
Q+
15:51:39 [AWK]
ack AWK
15:51:40 [Joshue108]
ack awk
15:51:59 [Joshue108]
zakim, ping me in 15
15:51:59 [Zakim]
ok, Joshue108
15:52:23 [AWK]
ack r
15:52:28 [ChrisLoiselle_]
AWK: SC lets the user know what is coming. Doesn't go into sensitive information
15:52:40 [Alex_Li]
q+
15:52:49 [Joshue108]
ack jf
15:52:57 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Katie H-S: User should be notified "in advance" , that text needs to be re-introduced into SC
15:52:58 [AWK]
For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised in advance about the length of inactivity that generates a timeout unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the timeout.
15:53:40 [AWK]
q+ to encourage people to not view a survey as "a vote"
15:53:40 [ChrisLoiselle_]
JF: concerned that language on what we voted on vs. what the language we are discussing is not matching. "In advance" should be in the SC.
15:53:47 [Joshue108]
ack alex
15:54:28 [Joshue108]
q+
15:54:31 [gowerm]
q+
15:54:39 [AWK]
ack AWK
15:54:39 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to encourage people to not view a survey as "a vote"
15:54:42 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Alex L: Purchase an airline ticket, and then the airline ticket is no longer there because someone else bought it? What is the time limit vs. time out?
15:55:08 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Lisa : The user should be aware of the time limit they have to complete a task.
15:55:12 [david-macdonald]
We could say "predetermined timeout..."
15:55:20 [david-macdonald]
q+
15:55:31 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Alex L: how do you know when the tickets will be sold?
15:56:10 [ChrisLoiselle_]
I.e. real time event vs. time out?
15:56:52 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Lisa : Preference is user is aware that price of ticket can change , i.e. this is an estimate
15:57:24 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Exceptions are welcome to be discussed and included.
15:57:36 [Greg]
q+ to discuss (a) length of time as well as inactivity; and (b) we postponed deciding on defining what counts as data preservation; and (c) respond to Alex that loss of labor and point in process does not necessarily cause loss of data, which is all that the SC addresses.
15:57:59 [gowerm]
"Where data can be lost due to transaction time limits or inactivity timeouts"
15:58:01 [steverep]
q+ to ask how different implementations of time limits would pass and also suggest removing "inactivity"
15:58:27 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Alex L: it seems it is unclear on what definition of "time out" is vs. time limit. I will follow up when proposal is drafted.
15:58:52 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
15:59:02 [jamesn]
q?
15:59:06 [jamesn]
q+
15:59:09 [gowerm]
Where data can be lost due to transaction time limits or inactivity timeouts, users are warned at the start of the process about the time limitations, unless...
15:59:23 [ChrisLoiselle_]
AWK: intepreting this as a time out, systematic aspect. Trying to do something, then you are out of time. Can't proceed. I.e. phone automatically hangs up on you in quue. Vs. interacting with a form for limited number of tickets for a baseball game.
15:59:31 [Joshue108]
ack Josh
16:00:09 [Ryladog]
q+ to ask why we are not calling it a "time limit"?
16:00:20 [ChrisLoiselle_]
AWK: Voting is not being completed right now, discussion and surveys evolve.
16:00:23 [AWK]
q+ lisa
16:00:52 [Lisa]
Lisa has joined #Ag
16:01:32 [Lisa]
Lisa has joined #ag
16:01:39 [gowerm]
Time Limits: Where data can be lost due to transaction time limits or inactivity timeouts, users are warned at the start of the process about the time limitations, unless...
16:02:03 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: airline systems are complex, timeouts will need to be clearly defined. especially for this criteria. Define as time limit and generalize it vs. using the word "time out".
16:02:12 [kirkwood]
+1 to changing to ‘time limits’
16:02:18 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Inform the user they may be bumped out.
16:02:25 [Joshue108]
ack gower
16:02:32 [AWK]
For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached.
16:03:11 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Mike : plus one on time limits
16:03:15 [Joshue108]
ack dav
16:03:20 [Ryladog]
AWK ....still missing 'in advance'
16:03:24 [Rachael]
+1 focusing on time limits
16:03:25 [Greg]
+1 for changing to "time limits"
16:03:30 [Joshue108]
+1 to focus on time limits vs time outs.
16:03:49 [Joshue108]
+1 to in advance
16:03:56 [Lisa]
Andrew wording does not have time outs
16:04:08 [Joshue108]
q?
16:04:14 [Lisa]
So I think this is a red hearing
16:04:14 [ChrisLoiselle_]
David M: wording of time limits is a concern. I agree with Alex. Use "pre-determined" timeouts. Let them know 15 minutes is time limit upfront.
16:04:25 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Real time exception is also a possibility.
16:05:01 [AWK]
For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data entered can be lost, the user is advised at the start of the process about the time limits unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached.
16:05:22 [Joshue108]
ack greg
16:05:22 [Zakim]
Greg, you wanted to discuss (a) length of time as well as inactivity; and (b) we postponed deciding on defining what counts as data preservation; and (c) respond to Alex that loss
16:05:25 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Katie H-S: there are other SC that address advanced notice etc.
16:05:26 [Zakim]
... of labor and point in process does not necessarily cause loss of data, which is all that the SC addresses.
16:07:00 [Zakim]
Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:07:10 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Greg L: first comment: time outs vs. time limits wording needs to be addressed. Second comment, the word "Preserve" , third thing was responding to Alex: Point in process of ordering tickets. Data loss may not be lost even if you were timed out.
16:07:15 [Joshue108]
ack steve
16:07:15 [Zakim]
steverep, you wanted to ask how different implementations of time limits would pass and also suggest removing "inactivity"
16:08:04 [AWK]
q+
16:08:11 [Joshue108]
+1 to removing or rewording inactivity as on mobile a user can be active but not interacting with the server
16:08:15 [Ryladog]
I would like to see the wording we had agreed upon last week - when we were deciding to add or not sensetive data
16:08:30 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Stephen R: "process" wording needs to be in SC. Also, "inactivity" should be removed. I.e. you have 5 minutes to do this. Is not "inactivity", it is a time limit.
16:08:37 [Ryladog]
+1 to removing or rewording inactivity
16:08:53 [jasonjgw]
q+
16:08:58 [Joshue108]
zakim, close queue
16:08:58 [Zakim]
ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
16:09:01 [Joshue108]
q?
16:09:05 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
16:09:05 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:09:06 [Zakim]
7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess]
16:09:06 [Zakim]
9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108]
16:09:06 [Zakim]
10. single key shortcuts [from AWK]
16:09:06 [Zakim]
5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess]
16:09:30 [ChrisLoiselle_]
does hitting next cause the user to be re-advised of time limit to complete in a process (5 step process), does it reset each step? or 5 minutes for whole process?
16:10:35 [Greg]
q+ to say the title of the SC should be changed to something like "Time Limit Warnings", because the SC does not affect the time limits, only the warnings
16:10:40 [Joshue108]
ack james
16:11:35 [ChrisLoiselle_]
James N: airline ticket (broad example). End of a process , and user can't do what they wanted to do. I..e no longer available (finite resource).
16:12:20 [ChrisLoiselle_]
persistence storage vs. non storage, which session is open for 24 hours? What are the consquences of small shops vs. large companies?
16:12:41 [Joshue108]
ack ryla
16:12:41 [Zakim]
Ryladog, you wanted to ask why we are not calling it a "time limit"?
16:12:56 [gowerm]
don't forget the security exemption discussed last time
16:13:35 [AWK]
Last week: "Where data can be lost due to timeouts, users are warned at the start of a process about the length of inactivity that generates the timeout, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of a 24 hours of user inactivity."
16:13:37 [marcjohlic]
+1 to Katie - this seems like it's getting too convoluted to me
16:13:38 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Katie H-S: may be making this to hard. Need to go back to the language from last week. This is not about inactivity. It is about warning user about time limit.
16:13:44 [Joshue108]
+1 to Katie
16:13:49 [Joshue108]
great idea IMO
16:13:54 [ChrisLoiselle_]
The other items can be another Success Criteria.
16:14:04 [gowerm]
+1 to Katie. Focus on time limits, drop 24 hours.
16:14:11 [laura]
+1 to Katie
16:14:12 [AWK]
My edits based on comments: For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached.
16:14:12 [Joshue108]
ack lisa
16:14:13 [Greg]
+1 to simplifying per Katie
16:14:26 [Makoto]
+1 to Katie
16:15:02 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Lisa : find things to include in main use case.
16:15:58 [ChrisLoiselle_]
all we are asking people to do is warn the users.
16:16:14 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Lisa is breaking up on phone call.
16:17:55 [Ryladog]
My suggestion, lets have this one be about being wanred in advance how much time you have. Short name is: Identify Time Limit. The let have another SC if you want that is (short name) Data Saved 24 Hours. An test the outcome of that one. Then have another SC called (shoer name) Inactivity Time Limit.
16:18:08 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Lisa: do we have enough for August deadline? We know main use cases are testable. Whatever needs to be excluded can go into an exclusion list
16:18:33 [david-macdonald]
+1
16:18:54 [gowerm]
How about we get a new version that incorporates feedback.
16:18:55 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: we have to try to get as robust of a SC as we can.
16:19:20 [JF_]
+1 to Josh.
16:19:31 [JF_]
Q+
16:19:55 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: agreeds to Katie's points. Three simple SC that can be parsed that way
16:19:57 [JF_]
+1 to breaking this into 3 SC
16:20:07 [Joshue108]
ack awk
16:20:08 [AWK]
ack AWK
16:20:50 [Joshue108]
q?
16:20:58 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
16:20:58 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:20:59 [Zakim]
7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess]
16:20:59 [Zakim]
9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108]
16:20:59 [Zakim]
10. single key shortcuts [from AWK]
16:20:59 [Zakim]
5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess]
16:21:10 [AWK]
For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached.
16:22:00 [AWK]
For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit at the start of the process unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached.
16:22:02 [Ryladog]
q+
16:23:21 [ChrisLoiselle_]
need to figure out on how to message time limits
16:23:31 [Joshue108]
ack jason
16:24:18 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Jason W: AWK raised the key issue. The relationship isn't clear between time limits under discussion and 2.2.1 , this may be very confusing.
16:24:31 [marcjohlic]
+1 didn't we have discussions and agree that 2.2.1 and this one should match - whether that is 24 or 20 - but for both
16:24:41 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Time limit set by content...
16:25:04 [AWK]
I think that we discussed that the 24 and the 20 are for different things and didn't need to match.
16:25:50 [AWK]
q+
16:26:25 [marcjohlic]
Agree that we covered they were for separate items, but I thought folks felt it would be less confusing if they both had the same time (the preference being changing 2.2.1 to 24)
16:26:25 [ChrisLoiselle_]
relationship needs to be addressed between these to SC
16:26:26 [gowerm]
How about: "Where data entered by the user can be lost due to timeouts, the user is advised in advance about the length of the time limit at the start of the process. "
16:26:52 [steverep]
How about this simplified version: "If a process has a time limit set by the content, the user is notified at the start of the process about the length and nature of the time limit."
16:27:11 [gowerm]
Same idea as Steve: Where data entered by the user can be lost due to timeouts, the user is advised in advance about the length of the time limit.
16:27:14 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Lisa : It is really important , as it is a big improvement. We want the user to understand they can't finish the task. I.e. can't do online, call the agent in order to complete the task.
16:27:23 [Ryladog]
Yes to Steve, simplify this, seperate into seperate SCs
16:28:11 [david-macdonald]
Ideally we could amend 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable: For each time limit that is set by the content, users are advised in advance and at least one of the following is true: (Level A)
16:28:25 [ChrisLoiselle_]
it is like the submit button not working after you have been working on a task for an hour
16:28:51 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Josh O: to Lisa, am I misreading your interpretation? No response from Lisa
16:28:51 [gowerm]
It's complementary to 2.2.1. There is nothing in 2.2.1 that tells the user there IS a time limit until just before they reach it
16:29:26 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Katie H-S: Let us simplify this. Have implementable SC, separate it out. It is overly complex as written currently.
16:29:37 [ChrisLoiselle_]
it is a mistake
16:29:38 [marcjohlic]
+1
16:30:29 [ChrisLoiselle_]
Lisa : we have more criteria than we do time. so it woudln't go into 2.1 , timing is not possible.
16:31:08 [Joshue108]
TOPIC: Resize content #77 CFC
16:31:54 [ChrisLoiselle_]
RESOLUTION: Removing Resize Content #77
16:31:55 [ChrisLoiselle_]
yes
16:31:58 [ChrisLoiselle_]
I'll push minutes
16:32:02 [laura]
bye
16:32:07 [ChrisLoiselle_]
rrsagent make minutes
16:32:15 [Mike_Elledge]
bye all
16:32:26 [ChrisLoiselle_]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:32:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-ag-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle_
16:32:58 [ChrisLoiselle_]
trackbot, end meeting
16:32:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:32:58 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Joshue, JakeAbma, Detlev, Mike, Elledge, kirkwood, alastairc, steverep, MikeGower, shwetank, Laura, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD,
16:33:02 [Zakim]
... Melanie_Philipp, David-macdonald, Pietro, JanMcSorley, Greg_Lowney, jasonjgw, marcjohlic
16:33:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:33:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:33:07 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:33:07 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items