14:29:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:29:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-irc
14:29:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:29:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
14:29:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:29:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:29:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:29:12 <trackbot> Date: 23 May 2017
14:29:34 <interaccess> zakim, agenda?
14:29:34 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:29:52 <interaccess> agenda+ ACT TF Update
14:30:02 <interaccess> agenda+ Supplementary document(s) survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_supp/
14:30:24 <interaccess> Agenda+ Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1
14:30:40 <interaccess> agenda+ Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4
14:30:46 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
14:30:51 <interaccess> agenda+ Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/
14:30:59 <interaccess> agenda+ Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/
14:32:23 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
14:35:41 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue
14:46:09 <david-macdonald> test
14:46:34 <allanj> allanj has joined #ag
14:57:57 <JF> JF has joined #ag
14:58:07 <JF> present+ JF
14:58:16 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
14:59:24 <allanj> present+
14:59:44 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:59:57 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:00:11 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:00:16 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:00:20 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:00:27 <laura> present+ Laura
15:00:28 <Joshue108> present+ JamesN
15:00:28 <JakeAbma> present+ JakeAbma
15:00:29 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:00:32 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
15:00:53 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:01:04 <david-macdonald>  present+ David-MacDonald
15:01:09 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:01:14 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:01:28 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
15:01:31 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:01:36 <Glenda> scribe: Glenda
15:01:39 <dboudreau> dboudreau has joined #ag
15:01:58 <Glenda> agenda?
15:01:59 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:02:02 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:02:02 <Zakim> 1. ACT TF Update [from interaccess]
15:02:02 <Zakim> 2. Supplementary document(s) survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_supp/ [from interaccess]
15:02:02 <Zakim> 3. Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1 [from interaccess]
15:02:03 <Zakim> 4. Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4 [from interaccess]
15:02:03 <Zakim> 5. Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/ [from interaccess]
15:02:03 <Zakim> 6. Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/ [from interaccess]
15:02:30 <dboudreau> present+ dboudreau
15:02:31 <ChrisLoiselle> I am
15:02:40 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
15:02:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Not sure, Wilco was not on call
15:02:56 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:03:46 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:04:00 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:04:03 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:04:11 <wayne> present+ Wayne
15:04:14 <kirkwood_> kirkwood_ has joined #AG
15:04:25 <jasonjgw> present+ jasonjgw
15:04:26 <Glenda> zakim, take up tiem 2
15:04:26 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take up tiem 2', Glenda
15:04:27 <KimDirks> KimDirks has joined #ag
15:04:31 <kirkwood_> present+
15:04:32 <Glenda> zakim, take up item 2
15:04:32 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Supplementary document(s) survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_supp/" taken up [from interaccess]
15:05:13 <KimDirks> Present+ KimDirks
15:05:31 <Detlev> You sound very muffled Jodh
15:06:22 <wayne> + 1
15:06:25 <Glenda> Joshue: asked the group if supplementary docs to document user needs that are not yet met in WCAG 2.1.  Is it a good idea.  Should we do it?  And most people say yes.
15:07:43 <JF> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:07:55 <Glenda> Joshue:  next question.  one doc or many? Currently the favorite is option 2 (one large doc with info in one place)
15:08:02 <Crystal_Jones> Crystal_Jones has joined #ag
15:08:19 <lisa> q+
15:08:41 <Glenda> JF: can live with option 2.  Thought option 1 might be easier for release.
15:09:06 <Joshue108> q?
15:09:08 <Glenda> David: can absolutely live with option 2.  I was thinking we could get Eric to do a filter so you could see just what you wanted to see.
15:09:27 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:09:48 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:10:05 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:11:07 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:11:21 <Glenda> Lisa: some situations may need to filter on pieces of coga, for example, some complex policy may need to be selective on coga, while an emergency alert should include all coga needs
15:12:03 <Awk> Awk has joined #ag
15:12:26 <MichaelC> q+
15:12:51 <Glenda> Lisa:  concerned if we blur the coga research needs with the well known coga users needs.  May be too easy for people to just dismiss known coga user needs on crtiical things like emergency alerts.
15:13:21 <Joshue108> ack mic
15:13:56 <Rachael> q+
15:14:02 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:14:14 <lisa> q+
15:14:41 <Glenda> MicahelC: concerned if we separate the docs, it will be harder for people to understand.  This supplemental doc is not intended for policy yet.
15:14:47 <Joshue108> ack rac
15:15:05 <Joshue108> ack lis
15:15:07 <Glenda> Rachel: I prefer a single document with a filter.
15:15:57 <Joshue108> q?
15:16:31 <Glenda> Lisa:  matrix of how ready some coga things may be for consideration in policy making.  We could move faster with this supplemental doc, because it is not normative.  And we could get closer and closer to something people can use, including for policy. Huge disservice to coummunity of we lump everything into one doc.
15:17:02 <lisa> note that they had not heard the issues yet
15:17:17 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:17:34 <Glenda> Joshue:  majority prefer one doc.  if we find it isn’t working as one doc, we could split it out.
15:17:43 <JF> Q+
15:17:50 <Glenda> James:  what is the difference between this suppliemental doc?
15:18:02 <Glenda> Joshue:  will not include any normative success criteria
15:18:15 <Ryladog> +1 to being able to change/update/improve supplementary Non-Normative support docs
15:18:39 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:18:52 <Glenda> Glenda agrees with Katie  and adds her +1 to being able to change/update/improve supplementary Non-Normative support docs
15:19:46 <lisa> q+
15:19:48 <Glenda> James:  AAA SC are better for policy makers, because you have to have normative
15:19:50 <Detlev> +1 to James
15:19:52 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:20:15 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 5 mins
15:20:15 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:20:29 <Joshue108> zakim, queue
15:20:29 <Zakim> I don't understand 'queue', Joshue108
15:20:38 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:20:38 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:20:40 <Zakim> 1. ACT TF Update [from interaccess]
15:20:40 <Zakim> 2. Supplementary document(s) survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_supp/ [from interaccess]
15:20:40 <Zakim> 3. Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1 [from interaccess]
15:20:41 <Zakim> 4. Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4 [from interaccess]
15:20:41 <Zakim> 5. Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/ [from interaccess]
15:20:41 <Zakim> 6. Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/ [from interaccess]
15:21:03 <Glenda> JF: value of getting research on low vision and coga published at the W3C is really important.
15:21:35 <Glenda> JF:  also getting a list of things that need additional research (to inspire people who want to dive in and explore something that we need more data on)
15:22:49 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:23:12 <lisa> q+
15:23:35 <Glenda> Joshue: should the supplemental docs be normative or non-normative.  2 voted normative. 10 voted non-normative, 7 voted no preference or not sure.
15:23:54 <ChrisLoiselle> I had the same reasoning
15:24:06 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:24:09 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:24:21 <Glenda> Raquel and Chris voted normative because it could have value for policy makers.
15:25:16 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:25:19 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
15:25:19 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
15:25:59 <jasonjgw> q+
15:26:35 <Glenda> Lisa:  impossible to put these as AAA in WCAG, not enough time.  We know they are important, but we don’t have enough time or SC managers.  The research is published to show that these are needed.  As long as we mark what is normative and what is not normative.  I’m hesitatant to call it normative because it will slow down the approval process.  But I suggest we start with non-normative in the 1st draft, but to add some normative sections in future relea[CUT]
15:26:35 <Glenda> appropriate.
15:26:45 <Joshue108> ack mike
15:27:13 <Glenda> Mike_Elledge: you shouldn’t have something as SC without examples of how to do it.  I vote for it being instructional at this point.
15:27:14 <lisa> every singlal proposal has ways you can do it
15:27:31 <lisa> jason: judy said it can
15:28:03 <lisa> we need to look into it but apparently it is possible
15:28:12 <lisa> i might have suggested the wrong spec
15:28:32 <Glenda> Jason:  resist the claim that you can put normative content in a working group note when it has not been through the normative review process.  dangerous concept.  I don’t think it is a good idea to do that.
15:28:50 <Glenda> James: If it is normative, we would have to recharter.
15:29:21 <AWK_> AWK_ has joined #ag
15:29:27 <JF> "A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group or Interest Group to provide a stable reference for a useful document that is not intended to be a formal standard, or to document work that was abandoned without producing a Recommendation."
15:29:28 <JF> https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#recs-and-notes
15:29:31 <AWK_> +AWK
15:29:35 <EA> EA has joined #ag
15:30:23 <lisa> i object
15:30:44 <Glenda> Joshue: proposal “Group prefers having 1 supplimental document that is non-normative.”
15:30:54 <AWK_> (Lisa's objection is to having a single document)
15:30:56 <Glenda> Lisa:  I object to this being 1 document.
15:31:09 <AWK_> s/(Lisa's objection is to having a single document)/
15:31:17 <Alex> Alex has joined #ag
15:31:28 <Glenda> Joshue:  Lisa can you live with us starting with 1 document with flexibilty to change in the future.
15:31:40 <JF> +1 to MCooper
15:32:03 <Glenda> MichaelC:  I don’t think we should allow editorial considerations to weigh in to this decision.
15:32:41 <KimDirks> +! to MC - I'd rather have it move forward and refine later as needed. It should be out there.
15:33:32 <Ryladog> +1 to getting it out there, determine format later
15:33:33 <AWK_> -1 to the idea that the needs of the other TF's are less than that of COGA. The other TF's have trimmed their proposals substantially.
15:34:39 <david-macdonald> q+
15:35:02 <wayne> q+
15:35:21 <wayne> q-
15:35:58 <JF> Q?
15:36:13 <Glenda> MichaelC: we can revisit the supplemental doc structure if we see needs in the future.
15:36:28 <ChrisLoiselle> To Joshue's non-normative content : +1 to the non-normative question # 4 on survey after hearing discussion. Wasn't aware of the re-charter component.
15:37:22 <Glenda> Joshue: proposal “Group prefers having 1 supplimental document that is non-normative. with a recorded objection by Lisa (who is not comfortable with it being 1 document)
15:38:28 <Glenda> RESOLUTION: the working group has agreed to publisihing supplemental  guidedance in 1 document that is non-normative
15:39:05 <Glenda> zakim, tak up item 3
15:39:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'tak up item 3', Glenda
15:39:17 <Glenda> Zakim, next item
15:39:17 <Zakim> agendum 1. "ACT TF Update" taken up [from interaccess]
15:39:27 <Joshue108> zakim, close item
15:39:27 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', Joshue108
15:39:31 <Joshue108> zakim, close item 1
15:39:31 <Zakim> agendum 1, ACT TF Update, closed
15:39:32 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:39:32 <Zakim> 3. Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1 [from interaccess]
15:39:33 <Glenda> zakim, close item 2
15:39:33 <Zakim> agendum 2, Supplementary document(s) survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_supp/, closed
15:39:35 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:39:35 <Zakim> 3. Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1 [from interaccess]
15:39:49 <Glenda> zakim, take up item 3
15:39:49 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1" taken up [from interaccess]
15:39:49 <Joshue108> zakim, take up item 3
15:39:51 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1" taken up [from interaccess]
15:40:56 <AWK_> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:40:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html AWK_
15:41:12 <david-macdonald_> david-macdonald_ has joined #ag
15:41:17 <Detlev> q+
15:41:24 <AWK_> Zakim, nic is AWK
15:41:24 <Zakim> sorry, AWK_, I do not recognize a party named 'nic'
15:41:29 <Joshue108> ack det
15:41:30 <AWK_> Zakim, nick is AWK
15:41:31 <Zakim> sorry, AWK_, I do not recognize a party named 'nick'
15:41:40 <AWK_> Zakim, AWK_ is AWK
15:41:40 <Zakim> sorry, AWK_, I do not recognize a party named 'AWK_'
15:41:49 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 10
15:41:50 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:42:19 <AWK_> rrsagent, set logs public
15:42:49 <JF> @Detlev, thanks for the research and clarification
15:43:12 <Joshue108> q?
15:43:23 <Glenda> Detlev: the UK does not require the use of the latest standard, so we do not have to worry that WCAG 2.1 will instantly be a legal requirement in the UK.  We can make old content meet WCAG 2.0 and new content meet WCAG 2.1.
15:43:47 <jasonjgw> q+
15:44:13 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:44:55 <Joshue108> s/RESOLUTION: the working group has agreed to publisihing supplemental  guidedance in 1 document that is non-normative/ RESOLUTION: the working group has agreed to publishing supplemental  guidance in 1 document that is non-normative
15:45:15 <Glenda> jason: when we determine how hard it is to meet a proposed SC, we should be thinking about WCAG 2.1 applying to new content (not existing content).
15:45:36 <EA> Government requirements for some countries with regard to WCAG 2.0 https://www.powermapper.com/blog/government-accessibility-standards/
15:46:02 <Ryladog> q+
15:46:04 <lisa> q+
15:46:11 <Joshue108> ack rya
15:46:15 <JF> Q+
15:46:43 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:46:46 <Glenda> Katie:  that is what new 508 standard does for legacy content does as well.
15:46:49 <Joshue108> ack ry
15:48:02 <Glenda> Lisa: we are not policy makers.  we write standards on how to make content accessible.  not our job to worry about requirement dates and legacy content, that is up to the policy makers.
15:48:25 <Joshue108> ack JF
15:49:01 <dboudreau> 44px seems awfully unreasonable to me as well
15:49:11 <Detlev> John, this was not about links but about controls like selectm checkboxes etc...
15:49:16 <david-macdonald> isn't inline links exempted
15:49:31 <Glenda> JF: I continue to struggle with a mandate that all links need to meet this target size.  Concerned abuut the pushback from the community at large.  I suggest we look at a surface area, not a mandated height and width.
15:49:52 <AWK_> +1 to David's point that inline links are currently exempted
15:50:34 <Ryladog> q+
15:50:50 <Joshue108> ack ryl
15:50:59 <Kathy> q+
15:51:11 <AWK_> Current issues listed at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status#Issue_60_-_Target_Size
15:51:16 <Glenda> Katie: let’s put it out there and see what the community at large has to say
15:51:48 <Joshue108> ack kathy
15:51:51 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:51:59 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
15:51:59 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
15:52:05 <Alex> q+
15:52:17 <Alex> q-
15:52:37 <gowerm> Can a link be "an unstyled native control"?
15:53:01 <Glenda> Kathy: let’s put it out there, and get user feedback.  Publish it with an editor’s note.
15:53:28 <AWK_> "Unstyled native user interface control"?
15:53:35 <david-macdonald> q+
15:53:38 <Glenda> Alex: there is cost to putting a lot of things out there that are not solid.
15:53:43 <JF> +1 to Alex I won't block advances here, but remains sceptical and concerned
15:55:19 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:55:19 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:55:20 <Zakim> 3. Target size discussion/legacy content and WCAG 2.1 [from interaccess]
15:55:20 <Zakim> 4. Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4 [from interaccess]
15:55:20 <Zakim> 5. Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/ [from interaccess]
15:55:20 <Zakim> 6. Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/ [from interaccess]
15:56:09 <Detlev> I thik the text on the survey doesn't yet reflect the latest version of target size
15:56:18 <Glenda> David: there is an exception for inline links. People’s concerns have been considered.  Got good feedback from a recent presentation to people outside W3C.
15:56:31 <AWK_> What is needed to be changed, Detlev?
15:56:44 <Glenda> zakim, take up next item
15:56:44 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4" taken up [from interaccess]
15:57:08 <lisa> note josh i had aranged to not be avilible this thrsday
15:57:20 <Joshue108> np Lisa
15:57:21 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #ag
15:57:29 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 10 mins
15:57:29 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:57:31 <lisa> (as agreed on a call with michael and andrew last week)
15:57:35 <Glenda> Kathy:  added exception for targets in a block of text, including links, buttons, and other things.  A block of text is already a WCAG definition in 2.0.  We would use the same definition.
15:57:36 <Detlev> sorry AWK I see you have even put in my suggestion...
15:57:51 <gowerm> +1 to "form control"
15:58:17 <Glenda> Kathy:  detlev also asked for an excpetion of an unstyled native form control, so that would deal with things like radio buttons unstyled.
15:58:53 <Joshue108> q?
15:59:12 <jasonjgw> q+
15:59:28 <Glenda> Joshue:  great Kathy, you’ve done a lot to address people’s concerns.  Time to bring it to the group and ask “can you live with it”
15:59:36 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:59:39 <Wayne> q+
15:59:42 <Detlev> agree to change "native control" to "native form control"
15:59:43 <AWK_> -1 to "form control" but "user interface component"
15:59:49 <AWK_> could be ok
15:59:59 <Wayne> q-
16:00:44 <Glenda> Jason: worried about all the exceptions, some are more justifiable than others.  Don’t want to exclude things that will really be a problem to users.
16:01:38 <Joshue108> q?
16:01:39 <AWK_> q+ to suggest the removal of the Unstyled exception due to redundancy
16:01:56 <Detlev> I think the In-Page exception can go because it seems covered by the inline exception
16:02:03 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
16:02:15 <steverep> present+steverep
16:02:36 <lisa> q+
16:02:43 <Detlev> q+
16:03:17 <Glenda> Kathy: trying to balance user needs, research, usability studies, with what is possible and reasonable.  I’m also concerned with all the exceptions.  So we would need to include a note about why all the exceptions are there (due to burdens on developers or legacy code).
16:03:45 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:03:45 <Zakim> AWK_, you wanted to suggest the removal of the Unstyled exception due to redundancy
16:05:09 <Glenda> AWK: in spirit of trying to reduce exceptoins, I think we can get rid of the unstyled user interface component .  We can address this in a note.
16:06:08 <Glenda> Kathy:  but this can be modified by css, so this is a difference type of exception
16:06:32 <gowerm> The target is unstyled and controlled by the user agent
16:06:45 <AWK_> User agent control: the appearance of the target is determined by the user agent and is not modified by the author.
16:07:20 <Detlev> +1
16:07:26 <Joshue108> +1
16:07:30 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:07:40 <gowerm> All the links exceptions can be removed then, I think
16:07:49 <Wayne> q+
16:07:51 <gowerm> q+
16:08:22 <Glenda> @awk - isn’t the definition for “user interface component” not “control”
16:08:30 <Joshue108> ack lisa
16:08:41 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
16:08:41 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
16:09:26 <Joshue108> ack detlev
16:09:29 <Glenda> Lisa: caution about not meeting user needs, if there is a way to solve this.  The worst for the user is to object to letting any SC through.
16:09:57 <Joshue108> +1 to detlev
16:10:00 <AWK_> @glenda, yes, but that term gets removed from the exception as a result of this change
16:10:14 <Glenda> detlev: I like awk’s suggested text
16:10:31 <gowerm> q-
16:10:56 <gowerm> q+
16:11:33 <steverep> q+ to ask where the styling line is drawn - what if I only specify a font?
16:11:42 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:12:16 <Joshue108> q?
16:12:36 <Glenda> gowerm: I think you can take inpage out.
16:12:45 <AWK_> Current version at this point: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html
16:13:17 <gowerm> +1
16:13:20 <Ryladog> +1
16:13:20 <Detlev> +1
16:13:22 <Joshue108> +1
16:13:23 <AWK_> -1
16:13:23 <JF> 0
16:13:27 <david-macdonald> -1
16:13:29 <Glenda> 0
16:13:32 <JakeAbma> 0
16:13:34 <dboudreau> 0
16:13:35 <alastairc> +1 suggest you keep a list of things taken out with reasons - otherwise they'll come back again.
16:13:42 <AWK_> (my -1 is close to 0)
16:13:44 <laura> 0
16:13:46 <steverep> +1
16:13:52 <Glenda> 0 = neutral
16:13:55 <jnurthen> jnurthen has joined #ag
16:13:57 <KimDirks> 0 - not sure about footnotes
16:13:59 <Rachael> 0
16:14:02 <Alex> 0 please explain it in note
16:14:09 <Makoto> 0
16:14:13 <AWK_> q+ to ask if this is AA or AAA or both?
16:14:19 <Kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
16:14:20 <Detlev> AA
16:14:40 <AWK_> The current version has both AA and AAA right now
16:14:48 <gowerm> Footnotes are in blocks of text
16:14:48 <Wayne> q+
16:15:13 <AWK_> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html
16:15:22 <Mike_Elledge> 0j
16:17:10 <Glenda> wayne: history has a lot of things that exclude people.  What we need to do is start changing that by making things going forward accessible to all.  We have a lot of conventions that exclude people.  When the user agents are making some things inaccessible to people, we need to note that.
16:17:23 <Joshue108> q?
16:17:51 <Glenda> awk: we need to resolve if this is AA or AA A or both.
16:18:08 <Glenda> Joshue:  it would be handier if it was just AA or AAA.
16:18:25 <Detlev> +1 to Kathy
16:18:25 <JF> split this into two
16:18:33 <Glenda> Kathy:  the AAA was to have the AA version but with no exceptions
16:18:39 <JF> +1 to AWK for "seperatte thing"
16:18:46 <Glenda> split into two
16:19:06 <Detlev> yes split into two CfC
16:19:28 <steverep> q
16:19:35 <laura> +1 to spliting into 2 SCs.
16:19:49 <Wayne> +1 laura
16:20:04 <gowerm> +1
16:20:06 <Ryladog> +1 to 2 cfcs
16:20:09 <Kathy> +1 to having both AA and AAA but in separate SCs
16:20:09 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to two
16:20:10 <JakeAbma> +1
16:20:12 <Glenda> Joshue:  please put a +1 if you want to split this into two SC
16:20:15 <Glenda> +1
16:20:16 <Detlev> +1 for two versions: AAA Target size (no exceptions)
16:20:18 <dboudreau> +1
16:20:21 <Wayne> +1
16:20:23 <MelanieP> +1
16:20:24 <david-macdonald_> +1
16:20:24 <JF> +1
16:20:27 <AWK_> +1 to AA and AAA in draft
16:20:29 <Makoto> +1
16:20:30 <alastairc> +1 (I think they are two SCs, but need two CFCs?)
16:20:30 <Mike_Elledge> +1 for two versions
16:20:41 <Kathy> LEVEL AAA The size of the target is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels for pointer inputs.
16:21:21 <jasonjgw> +1
16:21:43 <Rachael> +1
16:22:17 <Glenda> Any objection to putting this out as a CFC for Target Size being two separate SCs (one for AA and one for AAA)
16:23:28 <Glenda> RESOLUTION:  Target Size proposal accepted
16:23:47 <Glenda> zakim, take up next
16:23:47 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/" taken up [from interaccess]
16:25:15 <lisa> Provide words, phrases  or abbreviations that are the most-common form to refer to the concept in a public word frequency list for the identified context.
16:25:24 <Glenda> Lisa:  I think what we need to do is agree on direction.  I can’t tell from the list if this is a direction, that we need to work on the defined terms.  Would people support this.
16:25:29 <Wayne> q+
16:25:47 <JF> Q+
16:25:55 <jnurthen> q+
16:26:27 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
16:26:29 <KimDirks> Is the Rawgit right? (I need to *see* the final language.)
16:26:57 <Joshue_108> q?
16:27:36 <Joshue_108> ack wayne
16:28:09 <Glenda> wayne: what always confuses me about plain language, what if you have something important, but you are in a content domain, where the language is specialized.
16:28:59 <Glenda> Lisa:  we’ve put in the wording “public word frequency list for the identified context.” to handle the needs of specific domains
16:29:14 <Joshue_108> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-minimum_ISSUE-30/guidelines/sc/21/plain-language-minimum.html
16:29:26 <jasonjgw> q+
16:29:34 <Glenda> Lisa:  we have a script that can run across sites to develop word frequency lists (for specific topic domains)
16:29:58 <Joshue_108> ack jf
16:30:14 <jnurthen> q-
16:30:16 <Joshue_108> zakim, close queue
16:30:16 <Zakim> ok, Joshue_108, the speaker queue is closed
16:31:01 <Wayne> q+
16:31:08 <gowerm> q+
16:31:35 <Glenda> JF: unclear to me what I’m supposed to do with the list of words. what are we trying to achieve.  Is it a glossary list, is it a thesaurus.
16:31:57 <KimDirks> Is the "common words" gone or not?
16:31:57 <alastairc> Presumably "Provide words or phrases from a public core vocabulary" should start "Use words..."?
16:31:58 <Wayne> q-
16:32:55 <Glenda> Lisa:  these are the words that are the most common words for this context.  So instead of caling in “hypertext markup language” you refer to it as “html”.  Test against your word list.
16:33:11 <KimDirks> I do not support "common words"
16:34:33 <gowerm> I have a suggestion
16:34:39 <gowerm> Sending to the group
16:35:08 <Wayne> Why does the dictionary have to be technology agnostic
16:36:06 <AWK_> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:36:06 <Zakim> Present: JF, allanj, ChrisLoiselle, Joshue108, Laura, JamesN, JakeAbma, Detlev, Kathy, David-MacDonald, Mike, Elledge, dboudreau, Glenda, MikeGower, Melanie_Philipp, Makoto, Wayne,
16:36:09 <Zakim> ... jasonjgw, kirkwood_, KimDirks,  1, Katie_Haritos-Shea, alastairc, AWK, steverep
16:36:09 <gowerm> q+
16:36:11 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
16:36:17 <lisa> q+
16:36:24 <Joshue_108> q?
16:36:25 <Glenda> Glenda has left #ag
16:36:29 <lisa> Q+
16:36:32 <EA> How does it work when people refer to the law for plain language? http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plLaw/index.cfm
16:36:32 <Rachael> Joshue:  People are unsure of how thi swill be implemented.
16:36:35 <Joshue_108> ack jas
16:36:38 <JF> Here is a public list: button label html wcag ws3c
16:37:08 <lisa> present+
16:38:55 <Rachael> Jason: Two problems that we have not addressed. Its entirely testable whether a word being used in content or not but difficult to determine which list. If you don't constrain the word list contents, then you can satisfy the requirement by generating a word list that meets your desired language. The second is the use of context. What are the restraints and criteria of adequacy for context and contents? Then how much will this help anyway?
16:39:11 <alastairc> +1 to Jason's comments, I'm struggling to see how the "common words" aspect would improve things in practice.
16:39:23 <Rachael> I think there are serious testability issues before we get to efficacy.
16:39:28 <KimDirks> So if 1500 common words for doctors is different than for financial professionals than for a psychology grad course -- I'm not sure it gives us anything - how does it help anyone?
16:39:47 <Rachael> Lisa: I would like EA to respond as she's the expert.
16:40:01 <dboudreau> Getting to a common agreement as to what those 1500 words is also puzzling to me.
16:40:19 <Rachael> I've tried to explain it so perhaps we should arrange a seperate call where the experts can discuss why this is so important.
16:40:23 <Wayne> +1 to off line call
16:41:00 <Wayne> q+
16:41:52 <alastairc> It's a "a public word frequency list for the identified context.", but don't understand how that helps for niche topics.
16:42:11 <Rachael> Lisa: I thought I'd updated the inormation about how big the corpous has to be. How to build it . What are the contraints -- we can discuss this more if this is the right direction. How do we define context: its in the definition. We could make that definition clearer if you feel that is too weak. Neither of these are show stoppers but we have to first agree on the directoin.
16:42:24 <AWK_> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:42:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html AWK_
16:42:36 <Rachael> Lisa: I suggest we have an extra call to discuss how we would do this.
16:43:07 <Rachael> Lisa: There are multiple techniques to address this.
16:43:28 <Mike_Elledge> Have to go...have same concerns as others. Thank you Lisa for more info and offer for call.
16:43:39 <laura> Updated SC text no longer has “1500”: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-minimum_ISSUE-30/guidelines/sc/21/plain-language-minimum.html
16:43:49 <EA> Sorry I had my hand up and was going to support you Lisa. +1 to Lisa's suggestion
16:44:15 <lisa> do people like the direction of the common words :Provide words, phrases  or abbreviations that are the most-common form to refer to the concept in a public word frequency list for the identified context.
16:46:14 <Rachael> Mike: We have an SC that says headers and labels descri topic or purpose. We have 3.3.2 that says you have to provide lables and instructions. So we have an SC that says you have to have labels and thy have to be dsecribe something. We do not have an SC that says the instructions have ot say sometihng useful. Would  a solution be to mimic the headings SC for instructions.
16:46:34 <dboudreau> @lisa - I feel your idea has merit, but it’s implementation appears to be completely unmanageable & unrealistic in the wild… :/
16:46:45 <Rachael> Lisa: I'm not sure how that would address the user need.
16:47:49 <Rachael> Mike: It won't address everything but would fill a clear hole.
16:48:02 <Rachael> Lisa: They need to navigate to the content.
16:48:06 <dboudreau> Also, how will that list translate in different languages?
16:48:23 <Rachael> Lisa: People use termiology in labels nad buttons that can't be understood.
16:48:49 <EA> Yes this is a problem as Lisa has just said.
16:48:54 <Rachael> Mike: I regulalry fail people for bad labels but I can't for instructions.
16:49:00 <Detlev> @goverm: draft that?
16:49:17 <gowerm> Yes, I will draft.
16:49:30 <lisa> do people like the direction of the common words :Provide words, phrases  or abbreviations that are the most-common form to refer to the concept in a public word frequency list for the identified context.
16:50:53 <Detlev> -1 due to unclear scope and applicability of the public word frequency list and doubt that it will cover different cases well
16:51:05 <alastairc> I think the public word frequency list is really problematic, either it is common & public in which case it can't apply to all content, or it is specific to a site and worthless for this SC.
16:51:13 <Rachael> John: The current wording doesn't say what to do with the words.
16:51:20 <Makoto> I'm still not sure if we could do this for Japanese language.
16:51:38 <Rachael> I think the word list is really difficult as well.
16:51:58 <Rachael> John: The wording needs to state that the words used must be taken from the list.
16:52:02 <dboudreau> @makoto - my point Makoto, how could we ever guarantee the internationalization of this idea?
16:52:09 <EA> Japanese can have its own list of characters representing their version of simple language as done with all AAC users and those who have cognitive difficulties
16:53:06 <Rachael> Lisa: The word frequency list is built using a tool across sites. The point is that it is a context wide list. What are common words used in programming?
16:53:26 <Rachael> Lisa: Then from there the words need to be the most common terms. That is how you use it.
16:53:30 <KimDirks> This seems like  "best practice" non-normative idea. I could support that.
16:53:39 <alastairc> Building this word list sounds like it would take more time than doing an accessibility audit of the site...
16:54:00 <Rachael> John: Does every site need to create a word list?
16:54:03 <EA> John Rochford has been working on this and I think we need to have a discussion on how he managed this issue with Watson and IBM
16:54:16 <Rachael> Lisa: I've offered to create lists for 10 industries.
16:54:37 <Rachael> John: Will the list for a florist be the same for a coffee shop?
16:54:48 <alastairc> NB: There isn't an exception for names in the SC text yet.
16:54:59 <Rachael> Lisa: The lists should be the same unless you are getting into a really obscure topic.
16:55:20 <EA> You have a fringe vocabulary that are the specific  names etc - Core vocabularies are the most frequently used words
16:56:00 <KimDirks> agree with Alastair - nothing in language exempts names of things...
16:56:10 <Rachael> John: Which word list is used to test and where do we get it from?
16:56:59 <Rachael> Lisa: If you are talking about conformance, the tester can select a word list.
16:57:07 <Rachael> * I do as well.
16:57:35 <Makoto> @EA - I've never seen the list for Japanese. I'd like to know who can create the list. How about Korean, Chinese and any other languages? That's my concern.
16:57:54 <KimDirks> Good point Makoto
16:58:02 <Rachael> Joshue: We will have to wrap this up. We can take it up again on Thursday. Chair hat off, I understand John's concerns.
16:58:04 <dboudreau> +1 to Makoto’s concern
16:58:23 <Rachael> Lisa: Can someone float an alternative?
16:58:37 <EA> Speech and Language therapists have to use core vocabularies in all their own languages on a regular basis - teachers, NLP, etc  all have lists
16:58:44 <Rachael> AWK: These are at the techniques as well .
16:59:37 <Wayne> q+
16:59:41 <Rachael> Joshue: I think Mike Gower was write that these may be addressed using techniques. Its not my  job to say how to do that for a domain I'm not an expert in.  I understand where you are coming from too.
16:59:45 <EA> Sorry I can not do Thursday but hope I can help later.
17:00:31 <JF> I am asking for a measurable Success Criteria, and the current wording doesn't provide this.
17:00:45 <EA> Can we not leave it a week?
17:00:51 <laura> How about hanging the techniques off of existing SCs?
17:00:54 <Makoto> +1 to JF
17:01:02 <KimDirks> If a "best practice" or has an exception for specialized professions/language - could possibly support.
17:01:08 <Rachael> Joshue: Lets give this a bit more time. Lisa is out so lets mark this for another week. Give people a chance to think about it.
17:01:50 <laura> bye.
17:02:01 <laura> laura has left #ag
17:02:09 <Rachael> zakim, end meeting
17:02:09 <Zakim> I don't understand 'end meeting', Rachael
17:02:27 <Joshue_108> trackbot, end meeting
17:02:27 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:02:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been JF, allanj, ChrisLoiselle, Joshue108, Laura, JamesN, JakeAbma, Detlev, Kathy, David-MacDonald, Mike, Elledge, dboudreau, Glenda, MikeGower,
17:02:30 <Zakim> ... Melanie_Philipp, Makoto, Wayne, jasonjgw, kirkwood_, KimDirks,  1, Katie_Haritos-Shea, alastairc, AWK, steverep, lisa
17:02:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html trackbot
17:02:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:02:36 <RRSAgent> I see no action items