14:30:13 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:30:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-ag-irc 14:30:15 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:30:18 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:30:18 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:30:18 Date: 20 June 2017 14:30:18 ok, trackbot 14:30:28 Chair: Joshue108 14:30:36 zakim, agenda? 14:30:36 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 14:30:37 3. User interface Component Contrast: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/results#xlvt [from AWK] 14:30:45 zakim, clear agenda 14:30:45 agenda cleared 14:31:05 agenda+ TPAC schedule – Meetings are Mon/Tue (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/1137.html) 14:31:20 agenda+ Device Sensors/User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/results 14:31:30 agenda+ Accessible Authentication: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Auth/results 14:31:38 agenda+ EOWG 'Accessible Media Tutorial' (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017-06_wai-media-intro/results) 14:44:52 laura has joined #ag 14:45:03 JakeAbma has joined #ag 14:45:15 present+ JakeAbma 14:49:10 marcjohlic has joined #ag 14:52:56 present+ jasonjgw 14:53:14 alastairc has joined #ag 14:55:20 ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag 14:55:43 JF has joined #ag 14:56:07 link for webex? (The one in Andrews email says the meeting has already ended...) 14:56:43 same here. 14:57:16 Same with me. 14:57:59 me too 14:58:29 I've emailed Josh about that, assuming he isn't looking at this yet... 14:58:44 Wilco has joined #ag 14:59:12 Hi all 14:59:18 I've pinged Michael. 14:59:28 About the Webex issue. 14:59:31 Hang in there. 14:59:38 Kathy has joined #ag 14:59:40 Detlev has joined #ag 14:59:43 present+ Kathy 14:59:45 Greg has joined #ag 14:59:49 Glenda has joined #ag 14:59:54 present+ 14:59:59 Present+ JF 15:00:00 present+ 15:00:13 present+ 15:00:19 The Webex link is not working - says "The meeting has been cancelled or ended!" 15:00:27 can you tell me the webex link? 15:00:35 any idea what's going on? 15:00:36 Its busted. 15:00:45 present+ alastairc 15:00:53 https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m2c6416ba23424cf61cbea8b2300fcc9e 15:01:12 Dial-in didn't work either. 15:01:24 present+ Detlev 15:01:30 Normal service will be resumed shortly.. 15:01:38 heres Tom with the weather.. 15:02:10 gowerm has joined #ag 15:02:18 the good new is it is not just me this time who can not log in... 15:03:31 Makoto has joined #ag 15:03:45 present+ Joshue108 15:04:23 present+ Laura 15:04:31 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:04:39 zakim, who is here? 15:04:39 Present: AWK, JF, ChrisLoiselle, Detlev, Rachael, Greg_Lowney, Joshue108, Glenda, MikeGower, steverep, Laura, jasonjgw, alastairc, allanj, Kathy, shadi, lisa, Kim, JakeAbma, Wilco, 15:04:42 present+ lisa 15:04:43 ... kirkwood 15:04:43 On IRC I see Makoto, gowerm, Glenda, Greg, Detlev, Kathy, Wilco, JF, ChrisLoiselle, alastairc, marcjohlic, JakeAbma, laura, RRSAgent, Joshue108, jeanne, lisa, kirkwood, MichaelC, 15:04:43 ... Zakim, csarven, jasonjgw, yatil-away, trackbot 15:04:44 present+ MikeGower 15:04:51 present+ Glenda 15:04:53 present+ Makoto 15:04:55 Josh you sound like you are speaking through a wet rag 15:05:02 present+ jeanne 15:05:17 just guessed.. 15:05:33 KimDirks has joined #ag 15:06:22 Present+ 15:06:25 MichaelC has changed the topic to: temp webex: https://mit.webex.com/meet/mnc or +1-617-324-0000 number 646 098 501 15:06:28 present+ 15:07:04 steverep has joined #ag 15:07:09 present+steverep 15:08:07 zakim, takeup first item 15:08:07 I don't understand 'takeup first item', kirkwood 15:08:27 zakim, next item 15:08:27 agendum 1. "TPAC schedule – Meetings are Mon/Tue (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/1137.html)" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:08:43 thanks 15:08:48 wayne has joined #ag 15:09:38 alex has joined #ag 15:10:00 MC: meet monday and tuesday, if going for this group just monday tuesday, but stick around for ther 15:10:05 present+ Laura 15:10:07 MC: technical plenary 15:10:12 Register here https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2017 15:10:20 MC: Wednesday is tech plenary 15:10:30 Shedule here https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/schedule.html 15:10:33 MC: make travel hotel reservation as soon as possible 15:10:46 MC: travel agents suggest flight costws will be going up 15:11:03 Josh: any questi9ons? 15:11:13 zakim: nextitem 15:11:18 zakim, next item 15:11:18 agendum 2. "Device Sensors/User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/results" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:11:29 s/questi9ons/questions 15:11:47 Josh: user interface component 15:11:58 Summary is that people feel this is already covered by 2.1.1 keyboard. However the exceptions for 2.1.1 don’t have exceptions that are needed. Also we really want to seek access with not just a keyboard but also with a non-device sensor control like an on-screen accessible button so the sensory actions can be used without requiring a keyboard interface 15:12:03 Kathy: give update in IRC 15:12:11 (to avoid limitations on mobile with bringing a physical keyboard as on-screen keyboards can’t be brought up in some situations and may not even pass keys through.). 15:12:37 Kathy: wanted to get group together most feel coverecd under 2.1.1. There is some things that don’t quite fit under excetions 15:12:50 Kathy: do we retire or go into silver 15:12:57 Kathy: or in 2.1.1 15:13:43 Josh: interesting discussion, all for covering. if we feel primarily covered 2.1.1 or defined for silver or put in as an exception 15:13:51 q+ 15:14:21 Kathy: i think it adds clarity, its prett simple but could go either way 15:14:45 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 15:14:45 ok, Joshue108 15:15:24 Mike_Pluke has joined #ag 15:15:43 Detlev: some of cases might be difficult to bring up virtual keyboard and anthintg triggered by device sensors such as shaking device. don’t know what extent device sensor input for alternative fallback. in case of shaking device. think its fairly straight forware 15:15:51 allanj has joined #ag 15:15:57 ack jason 15:15:58 detlev: in favor of excluding 15:16:48 Jason: does fall under 2.1.1 if not keyboard operable than does fall under 2.1.1 secondly put appropriate example in understanding document to tillustrate solution 15:16:50 q+ 15:17:20 q+ 15:17:58 we also have one for pointers 15:18:07 Jason: someone suggested what really want keyboard operable but touch or pointer issue. So desire to have SC requires operation to be availabel via pointing and keyboard. I think proposal doesn’t have anything to do with device sensors 15:18:16 Jason: i’d be saying -1 15:18:18 s/in favor of excluding/in favor of including 15:18:29 ack detlev 15:20:28 Detlev: implicit assumption that everything would be pointer accessible which is not necesssarily the case now. May work with virtual keyboard but do think particular use case for mobile device where difine a certain class of devices such as kiosk or mobile. Could be cases with specific device want to meet WCAG so I do think there is a scase for it 15:20:30 De6tlev, keep in mind that keyboard interface includes emulators such as speech recognition. 15:21:12 ack alex 15:21:12 Josh: think this device sensors is filling the gap for that seems what people getting at. I would be in favor of including this 15:21:53 Alex: i want to make the case this really overlaps with 2.1.1 except for the path of users movement 15:21:54 q? 15:22:21 Alex: largely the path is about the pointing device, now that is different 15:22:29 q+ 15:22:47 Alex: there is a lot of options we want to expand beyond user movement 15:23:07 Alex: could be about voice or ambient noise 15:23:30 Alex; all we have to do is incorpoorate that so not just pointing device scenerio 15:23:35 q+ 15:23:37 Josh: are you in favor? 15:23:56 +1 to keep just 2.1.1 but expand exceptions 15:24:00 Alex; i think it would be inelegent and too clunky best to edit 2.1.1 to incorporate other scenerios 15:24:08 ack jas 15:24:37 Jason: it there needs to be an expasion of excemption in 2.1.1 15:25:05 q+ to give sample revised 2.1.1 15:25:24 Pietro has joined #ag 15:26:03 Present+ Pietro 15:26:11 OK, fair point, Jason 15:26:35 Jason: can’t reley on keyboard interface. intended to encompass speech recognition and varios input devices. even though argued keyboard input. I’m cautiously interested in proposal in exception to 2.1.1 don’t requite additional SC 15:26:36 ack gowerm 15:26:49 MG: looking for guidance 15:27:13 In addition to its predominant mode of operation, all functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where either the underlying function requires input that cannot reasonably be controlled or approximated by a keyboard, or providing a keyboard alternative would invalidate the input. 15:27:23 MG: understood support incorpporated in 2.1.1 I support based on what pasting into thread now 15:27:40 MG: looking for guidance. release as draft SC? 15:28:15 q+ 15:28:18 Josh: we may decide to modify 2.1.1 rahter than having two competing ones and potential for confusion 15:28:37 ack greg 15:28:37 Greg, you wanted to give sample revised 2.1.1 15:28:39 Josh: if reasonable case for editinng 2.1.1 will consider 15:28:41 In the main 2.1.1 still applies in full, but does need an a broader or additional exception: (on mobile devices and elsewhere) software should (still) support full operation via attached keyboards and keyboard emulators, and therefore should not require other forms of input except *where they are fundamental to the purpose of the application* (e.g. an electronic level, a biometric key, or a... 15:28:42 ...GPS-focused application). 15:29:51 Greg: an electronic level would therefore fit under expanded exceptions. That would take care of it. As a whole offering support expanded exception 15:30:02 I accept it will be better to modify 2.1.1 15:30:22 Greg: not in favor. the proposed SC is entirely redundant and should not be added 15:31:20 Greg: however it was valuable that pointed oout flaw is expetoinss are too narrow causing some papolication to fail. should correct 2.1.1 along lines of my wording tha incoroporated excetion 15:31:27 ack kathy 15:31:33 Greg: modify 2.1.1 with exceptions 15:31:45 q+ to say the declared path is to not modify existing SC right now, but to put in new SC and later decide whether to harmonize 15:32:11 +1 to Kathy - no changes to existing SC 15:32:11 Kathy: do want to make sure all clear change 2.1.1 that we will not be changing any of existing SC. this ould be going against that 15:32:13 q 15:32:18 q+ 15:32:27 +1, no changes to existing SCs 15:32:29 q+ 15:32:43 Q+ 15:32:48 Q++++ 15:32:53 q+ 15:33:02 Josh: where we sit where there is somehting to change rather than intorducing more ocnfusion. it makes more sense to modify WCAG if only slightly 15:33:08 q- 15:33:12 ack +++ 15:33:23 Josh: rather have simpler rather than not makeing a change 15:33:34 ack michaelC 15:33:34 MichaelC, you wanted to say the declared path is to not modify existing SC right now, but to put in new SC and later decide whether to harmonize 15:34:05 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/67#issuecomment-280167748 15:34:20 MC: we will not modify for not. put everything as new SC now. Then in august will do a pass and considre coming new SC with existing if possible 15:34:46 MC: path accept this SC with not as modification, but to do it now would introduce confusion 15:34:46 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time 15:34:47 https://getpocket.com/a/read/1334449404 15:34:56 q+ to note that adding the new SC will not allow applications failing 2.1.1 due to the too-narrow exception to pass. The expanded exception to 2.1.1 is thus orthogonal to the question of adding a new SC. 15:34:59 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline 15:35:20 MC: we will consider when time comes but now is not tiem 15:36:06 +1 Josh 15:36:11 Josh: do appreciate creates certian cognitive dissonance this creat more confusion 15:36:12 ack jason 15:36:24 BTW please not the time 15:36:28 q+ to say device sensors is not specific at all and needs to become a positive condition 15:36:45 Jason: along those lines, think best would be to put text under 2.1.1 to thos excetptions 15:38:14 ack jf 15:38:16 Jason: along those lines, think best would be to put text under 2.1.1 to those exceptions. Is this the right place to do it could belong in multiple places. probably an issue under 2.1.1 may require us to boraden scope to include biometirci devices 15:38:35 q+ to say not modifying existing SC means not modifying existing SC; proposed modifications should be stored as an ednote in the new SC 15:38:51 Jason, my suggestion about biometric sensors was that they'd be allowed without keyboard interface equivalent only when it was the primary purpose of the application. Thus a dedicated retinal key application would be allowed, but a general-purpose application would have to provide other alternatives. 15:39:00 JF: echo concerns that Michael raised with changing existing SC. Is adding exceptions the path forward. Now is not time to have discussion 15:39:25 q+ 15:39:38 I think the key was that a site passing 2.1 should also pass 2.0. Adjusting SCs is possible so long as nothing is dropped into a new gap. 15:39:39 ack lisa 15:39:40 Josh: slight changes do see need frankly ot potentially modify it 15:40:02 q+ to repeat repetitively that the decision is not to never modify existing SC, it´s to not do so at this stage of the process 15:40:10 LS: small changes in existing SC such as timed events maybe changing it would be simpler way of doing it 15:40:47 LS: the SC if we are open to changing things some of the COGA things could be done 15:41:00 A VERY STRONG +1 to Michael 15:41:08 Alistair, I disagree: we should be allowed to loosen requirements in 2.1 such that applications pass even though they fail 2.0. The proposed expanded exception to SC 2.1.1 would be an example. 15:41:31 q- 15:41:34 agenda? 15:41:41 +1 to Editor's note. Can we vote on that? 15:41:48 ack me 15:41:48 MichaelC, you wanted to say not modifying existing SC means not modifying existing SC; proposed modifications should be stored as an ednote in the new SC and to repeat repetitively 15:41:51 ... that the decision is not to never modify existing SC, it´s to not do so at this stage of the process 15:41:56 MC: if things that warrant it we should do it, but we can put an end note as a candidate 2.1.1 discussing modifying SC takes off track 15:42:04 +1 to Michael 15:42:17 ack greg 15:42:17 Greg, you wanted to note that adding the new SC will not allow applications failing 2.1.1 due to the too-narrow exception to pass. The expanded exception to 2.1.1 is thus 15:42:18 Josh: look at SC on own merit 15:42:21 ... orthogonal to the question of adding a new SC. 15:43:06 ack steve 15:43:06 steverep, you wanted to say device sensors is not specific at all and needs to become a positive condition 15:43:10 Greg: the qustion of adding a new SC shoud be independent. Adding a new SC would not epanding what would pass. we should modify 2.1.1 15:43:18 Josh: lets keep to SC 15:44:22 q+ to say we can use ednotes to talk about potential impact on existing SC 15:44:57 ack mich 15:44:58 MichaelC, you wanted to say we can use ednotes to talk about potential impact on existing SC 15:45:02 SR: need to make merge obvisous. if this is covered inexception would like to see rewritten. I’m confused about device sensor to begin with. doesn’t say addtional to what. this is not looking forward. turn arond to poistive to tell authors what to do 15:45:28 +1 to michael it is to late now to say rewrit it from scartch . 15:45:33 +1 15:45:39 MC: rather than rewriting the SC should 15:45:39 +1 15:45:39 +1 15:45:40 +1 to MC and ed note 15:45:43 +1 15:45:45 +1 15:45:46 +1 15:45:48 +1 to MC and ed note 15:45:49 -1 15:45:49 +1 15:45:51 +1 15:45:51 MC: look at SC on own merit 15:45:51 +1 15:45:55 +1 15:45:56 +1 Editor's note. i made a slight editorial suggestion. 15:46:04 +1 I can live with that 15:46:07 +1 15:46:19 present+ Mike_Pluke 15:46:22 +0 I'm on the fnece but won't stop forward movement at this time 15:46:22 +1 15:46:53 RESOLUTION: Device Sensors - Accept this SC into editors draft and include an Editor note to say that the preference of the group is to alter an existing SC rather than add a new one. 15:47:15 0 - I'm think the SC would change significantly if editing 2.1.1 were possible. Just needs to be a bookmark at the moment. 15:47:18 Josh: i will put SC after call 15:47:29 sorry, +1 to that resolution, modified from my previous +0... 15:47:34 Josh: going to look at user interface 15:47:43 TOPIC: User Interface Component Contrast 15:48:20 https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/user-interface-component-contrast-minimum_ISSUE-10/guidelines/sc/21/user-interface-component-contrast-minimum.html 15:48:28 zakim, ping me in 15 minutes 15:48:28 ok, Joshue108 15:48:45 q+ 15:48:47 Glenda: had great discussion last week I sipmolified wording and made reference in notes. have under consideration to mimize color contrast. I think i have addressed everyones’’ concerns. Jason had somehting in survey are you comfortatble? 15:48:51 ack jas 15:49:14 s/sipmolified/simplified 15:50:36 q? 15:50:42 Examples of what isn't clear? 15:50:50 Jason: clarity about what it covers would be valuable. what the indicators are tthat need to meet contrast requirments. if this is to be merged into graphic contrast requirments are formulated.weither need to refine this further depends on plans to merge into something else not in position to speculate. clearer deliniation of what is covered is a core part of proposl. reviewer might find it will ocer things it should cover other items. like to see greater c[CUT] 15:51:03 I have added this note, and ask that we allow this to move to the draft: 15:51:07 Examples of essential visual indicators of user interface components may include (a border, edge, or icon), current value (such as non-text visual indication of aria-valuenow on a slider) and current state (such as selection indicator, focus indicator) or other essential visual indication (which do not rely on color alone). 15:51:13 q+ 15:51:44 Jason: issue raise it sufficient if visula identifiers indicate there is a user interface component it would be sufficient 15:51:54 q+ to say that rollover states etc should be included? 15:51:56 q+ to say that state information cannot be included here because that's about much more than contrast 15:52:07 present+ marcjohlic 15:52:18 q+ 15:52:29 Jason: state and roll using language of 4.1.2 being a bit clearer about what is to be covered here. it should be visually clear about state and control. wnat clarity of exatly what they are covering 15:53:07 q- 15:53:19 https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/user-interface-component-contrast-minimum_ISSUE-10/guidelines/sc/21/user-interface-component-contrast-minimum.html 15:53:21 Glenda; based on your great feedback make very clear on visual indicator of states or even a valus if essential for understanding. have addressed since thursday of last week 15:53:31 q+ 15:53:46 Jason: it depends what you want to do when merging with graphics requirements 15:54:22 Kathy: that is why it is a note for understanding trather than clossary term. Under consideration to combine and happy to add that note. 15:54:29 glenda - you have a few notes, I'll add that to issue 9's 15:54:41 Jason: if that is done, thats a good thing 15:54:56 Kathy: that is the one descion and will do it rithgt now 15:55:35 Josh: to be clear, it seems to be fairly clear 15:55:35 q- 15:55:48 Kathy: Jsons comments were very helpful 15:55:54 ack lisa 15:56:34 Lisa: if people want to see as a glossary instead of note, those should be discussed after this. That kind of detail i think we can do after august 15:56:51 ack steve 15:56:51 steverep, you wanted to say that state information cannot be included here because that's about much more than contrast 15:57:20 q+ to say ednotes ednotes ednotes! 15:58:01 ack alast 15:58:07 Steverep: doesn’t cover contrast between differnet staters. agree with Glenda does cover all states. Can’t cover contrast between different states. checkbox with check and without as an example. in any state control needs to have good contreat 15:58:11 +1 steve 15:58:43 AC: regarding the SC, i will have another go, through expternal feedback, i will have a look 15:58:48 ack mich 15:58:48 MichaelC, you wanted to say ednotes ednotes ednotes! 15:59:07 Alastair, you could just make another editor's note about potential for combination is under consideration 15:59:10 MC: regarding what Lisa clarity can be addressed with editorial notes 15:59:44 MC: same might apply to proposal combibne tow propspo 16:00:09 q+ 16:00:09 Just added this note: Under consideration: will review to see if it is possible to combine with proposed WCAG 2.1 SC 1.4.11 Graphics Contrast. 16:00:28 ack gower 16:00:30 Josh: this a good SC and happy way we are going 16:00:55 MG: don’t think s3edcond bullet is necessary minor editorial 16:00:56 I’ll make that change, thanks 16:01:04 +1 16:01:05 +1 16:01:05 +1 16:01:05 +1 16:01:08 +1 16:01:08 +1 16:01:09 +1 16:01:09 +1 16:01:10 +1 16:01:12 +1 16:01:14 +1 16:01:14 +1 16:01:14 +1 16:01:15 (or +2) 16:01:31 +1 16:01:33 Josh: we have a resolution 16:01:48 +1 16:01:55 +1 16:01:58 RESOLUTION: Accepted User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum) #10 into editors draft. 16:02:03 +1 16:02:22 ZAKIM, nextitiem 16:02:22 I don't understand 'nextitiem', kirkwood 16:02:29 zakim, next item 16:02:29 agendum 4. "EOWG 'Accessible Media Tutorial' (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017-06_wai-media-intro/results)" taken up [from Joshue108] 16:02:43 zakim, close this item 16:02:43 agendum 4 closed 16:02:44 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 16:02:53 zakim, take up item 5 16:02:53 I only see 4 items on the agenda 16:02:57 zakim, take up item 3 16:02:57 agendum 3. "Accessible Authentication: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Auth/results" taken up [from Joshue108] 16:03:04 thanks! 16:03:28 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time 16:03:36 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 16:03:36 ok, Joshue108 16:03:53 LS: there’s some small changes to wording added exceptions from JF if there is a legal requirment 16:04:36 LS: we also with word of amiguity, did a bit of rewrite that you can reset your password that would do it 16:05:57 LS: the other big topic was input from security issue and got input from people with dsecurity and wbe authentification unit, and cyber rimes unit in australie (?). very aware will write to Web authentification group. authors =were opinged, if Josh and Andrew want to pick on up 16:06:28 q+ 16:06:32 LS: aksed if there is any security issue. lets move forward pending seeing outstanding concerns 16:07:08 LS: people may not have been aware of how many were consulted. for exmaple remembering passwords was not included 16:07:41 q+ to ask about what are the example of positive patterns or techniques that satisfy this? 16:07:47 q+ to ask Lisa whether the legal requirements exception means that a page/app would conform with 2.1 in some countries but not in others. Is that already true? Do/will conformance claims wil to list the legal jurisdictions under which the claim applies? 16:07:49 LS: assuming we get feedback we shold be able to get more input 16:08:00 ack alasta 16:08:03 Josh: great on feedback 16:08:03 q+ to say including in draft for public review best way to get review - as long as we clear the clangers 16:09:12 Alastair: there is only one option abstraction biometircs and usb keys concerns was from w website owner =what are the oponts 16:09:20 Q+ 16:09:35 s/cyber rimes unit in australie/cyber-crimes unit in Isreal 16:09:47 FIDO = Fast Identiy Online https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDO_Alliance 16:10:30 Alastair: something built into or attached to device lika a usb key with button public private encryption system. rather than remembering a password. does mean for puropse of SC than people would have to use it 16:11:07 Q+ 16:11:16 LS: diffent soltions for different site. could choose to login with facebook as an laternative which is a simpe way of dealing with it 16:11:39 LS: whats wrong with saying send an SMS that is a two factor system 16:12:12 AC: i’d be surporised about a link and SMS can be bad too 16:12:38 LS: smartcard, credentials, buy a smartcard from bank if you prefer 16:12:56 AC: from Website view is all the same thing 16:13:21 But are we saying this SC requires hardware? 16:13:40 AC: not objecting where you don’t need two factor, that case third party or email loop fine. but for more s3ecurity apart from dvide based way of doing it 16:14:02 LS: sending a token is more reliable 16:14:41 AC: google has google authenticator system 16:14:46 q+ 16:14:58 ack me 16:14:58 Joshue, you wanted to ask about what are the example of positive patterns or techniques that satisfy this? 16:15:30 q- 16:15:31 LS: the APE is going very soon before we are, we’d be blocking authentication more advanced than ours 16:16:13 Josh: one we can’t say we need hardware to satisfy a criteria. Two example positive patern matching techniques would that satisfy this? 16:16:15 q+ to say ¨mom and pop¨ shops also have to be able to realistically conform 16:16:17 LS: yes it would 16:16:56 q+ to say hardware could be an allowed technique, but I wouldn´t want to rely on that technique for determining viability of SC 16:16:58 LS: this APE puts responsibility on user 16:17:11 q+ 16:17:35 Josh: is there a user requirment for this? 16:17:51 q+ 16:17:52 LS: through the API the webist can select 16:18:01 ack greg 16:18:01 Greg, you wanted to ask Lisa whether the legal requirements exception means that a page/app would conform with 2.1 in some countries but not in others. Is that already true? 16:18:01 Note, the user's key can be used across multiple sites. Not that expensive, e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/5fn/Yubico-Y-123-FIDO-U2F-Security-Key/B00NLKA0D8/ is < $25 16:18:03 webist/website 16:18:05 ... Do/will conformance claims wil to list the legal jurisdictions under which the claim applies? 16:18:15 Lisa, would the legal requirements exception means that a page/app would conform with 2.1 in some countries but not in others. Is that already true? Do/will conformance claims wil to list the legal jurisdictions under which the claim applies? 16:18:48 Greg: if you are adding excetions for location. Conformace in one country or another? 16:19:15 LS: you had to conform within each country, a very good point need to tweek wording 16:19:48 LS: it was an exception John asked for 16:20:40 JF: i didn’t request an exception. specificlly i put link in github about multifactor authintication. in those cased must meet law about two fact 16:20:51 I do consider it problematic if WCAG 2.1 can be significantly changed world-wide by any one country changing their internal legislation. 16:20:52 fact/factor 16:20:55 ack lisa 16:21:05 ack jf 16:22:19 JF: we are all struggling with passords, regarding choosing its not really a choice. Want to be really careful about requirments 16:22:44 Josh: does tie into the whole captcha isue 16:23:01 q+ 16:23:08 JF: there is low hanging fruit in low securty might be helpful. 16:23:26