IRC log of ag on 2017-07-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:35:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:35:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:35:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:35:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:35:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:35:20 [trackbot]
Date: 18 July 2017
14:35:20 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:35:23 [AWK]
14:35:26 [AWK]
Chair: AWK
14:35:40 [AWK]
regrets+ Mike_Elledge, EA_Draffan, Kathy_Wahlbin
14:35:47 [AWK]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:35:47 [Zakim]
Present: AWK, ChrisLoiselle, JF, KimD, lisa, MichaelC, chriscm, alastairc, Greg_Lowney, Detlev, Pietro, MikeG, David-MacDonald, jasonjgw
14:35:54 [AWK]
Present: AWK
14:35:56 [AWK]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:35:56 [Zakim]
Present: AWK
14:36:08 [AWK]
agenda+ Adapting Text:
14:36:14 [AWK]
agenda+ Conformance changes:
14:36:22 [AWK]
agenda+ Personalization:
14:36:30 [AWK]
agenda+ Undo:
14:37:08 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
14:37:14 [AWK]
agenda+ scribes
14:37:20 [AWK]
zakim, agenda?
14:37:20 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
14:37:21 [Zakim]
2. Personalisation: [from AWK]
14:37:21 [Zakim]
3. Adapting Text: [from AWK]
14:37:21 [Zakim]
4. Conformance changes: [from AWK]
14:37:21 [Zakim]
5. Personalization: [from AWK]
14:37:22 [Zakim]
6. Undo: [from AWK]
14:37:23 [Zakim]
7. scribes [from AWK]
14:37:33 [AWK]
zakim, close item 2
14:37:33 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Personalisation:, closed
14:37:35 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:37:35 [Zakim]
3. Adapting Text: [from AWK]
14:41:16 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
14:43:09 [ChrisLoiselle]
ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
14:54:42 [laura]
laura has joined #ag
14:55:19 [david-macdonald]
david-macdonald has joined #ag
14:55:39 [david-macdonald]
Present +David-MacDonald
14:56:53 [KimD]
Present+ KimD
14:57:16 [marcjohlic]
marcjohlic has joined #ag
14:57:26 [JakeAbma]
JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:57:27 [WayneDick]
WayneDick has joined #ag
14:57:30 [JakeAbma]
present+ JakeAbma
14:58:06 [WayneDick]
Did the password change?
14:58:53 [ChrisLoiselle]
scribe: ChrisLoiselle
14:59:01 [laura]
present+ Laura
14:59:14 [ChrisLoiselle]
present+ ChrisLoiselle
14:59:40 [JF]
JF has joined #AG
14:59:49 [JF]
Present+ JF
14:59:56 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #ag
15:00:21 [kirkwood_]
kirkwood_ has joined #AG
15:01:02 [steverep]
steverep has joined #ag
15:01:06 [MelanieP]
MelanieP has joined #ag
15:01:17 [steverep]
15:01:49 [jasonjgw]
15:02:16 [JF]
zakim, who is here?
15:02:16 [Zakim]
Present: AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Laura, ChrisLoiselle, JF, steverep, jasonjgw
15:02:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MelanieP, steverep, kirkwood_, Detlev, JF, WayneDick, JakeAbma, marcjohlic, david-macdonald, laura, ChrisLoiselle, MichaelC, RRSAgent, AWK, KimD, allanj, lisa,
15:02:19 [Zakim]
... csarven, Zakim, trackbot, yatil, jasonjgw
15:02:20 [Greg]
Greg has joined #ag
15:02:31 [lisa]
i am getting tht this meeiting is canceled
15:02:35 [gowerm]
gowerm has joined #ag
15:02:38 [gowerm]
present+ MikeGower
15:02:44 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #ag
15:03:08 [Alex_]
Alex_ has joined #ag
15:03:12 [Greg]
present+ Greg_Lowney
15:03:17 [MelanieP]
present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:03:17 [Makoto]
present+ Makoto
15:03:32 [dboudreau]
dboudreau has joined #ag
15:03:57 [lisa]
15:04:00 [AWK]
Zakim, take up item 2
15:04:01 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Personalisation:" taken up [from AWK]
15:04:02 [lisa]
looking better
15:04:09 [AWK]
Zakim, take up item 3
15:04:09 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Adapting Text:" taken up [from AWK]
15:04:11 [dboudreau]
present+ dboudreau
15:04:16 [Detlev]
present+ Detlev
15:04:27 [WayneDick]
present+ wayne
15:04:36 [laura]
The current language in the full draft guideline is at:
15:04:36 [AWK]
15:04:36 [laura]
15:04:40 [chriscm]
chriscm has joined #ag
15:04:52 [WayneDick]
present+ WayneDick
15:05:12 [chriscm]
present+ chriscm
15:05:34 [laura]
15:05:37 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: Survey has old text, apologies. Correct version is always version in github
15:05:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
I can hear you.
15:06:07 [KimD]
*fine for me
15:06:18 [Detlev]
voice fine for me (DE)
15:06:20 [Alex_]
sounds ok to me
15:06:36 [lisa]
15:06:45 [AWK]
ack la
15:06:45 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK, to Laura: Summarize changes.
15:06:57 [laura]
15:07:20 [laura]
15:07:33 [JF]
15:07:39 [AWK]
ack JF
15:07:51 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
15:08:05 [WayneDick]
15:08:11 [AWK]
q+ to ask why "underneath paragraphs" instead of "between paragraphs"?
15:08:27 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: comfortable with this. In documentation, like more explanation on font size, for less engaged clientele. Ems is a width measurement
15:08:34 [lisa]
+1 from me
15:08:37 [Alex_]
15:08:38 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:08:38 [ChrisLoiselle]
Laura: Agrees we need to explain in understanding
15:08:39 [AWK]
ack way
15:08:39 [steverep]
em is not a width measurement
15:08:48 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wayne: Agrees with John F.
15:08:51 [bruce_bailey]
present+ bruce_bailey
15:09:16 [lisa]
Just want to say thanks to Laura for all this work
15:09:24 [bruce_bailey]
* I had great difficulty w/ webex this time, had to dial in.
15:09:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wayne: Terminology needs to be explained. Language seems correct, however we need to make sure techniques and understanding needs to be clear.
15:09:28 [lisa]
(and eveyone else involved)
15:09:38 [MichaelC]
15:09:49 [AWK]
ack AWK
15:09:49 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to ask why "underneath paragraphs" instead of "between paragraphs"?
15:10:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
Laura: It is easier to test "the bottom" i.e. underneath, unless it is hard to test. Steve, can you confirm?
15:10:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
Steve: If you specify between, ambiguity arises. It is not a within element measurement.
15:11:13 [WayneDick]
15:11:19 [AWK]
ack Ale
15:11:39 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alex: Asking clarity on style property definition.
15:12:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
Laura: Taken from UAG. We will publish definitions in next round...
15:12:17 [ChrisLoiselle]
Laura: I have pull requests for both
15:12:30 [laura]
15:12:46 [laura]
15:12:47 [JakeAbma]
15:12:52 [AWK]
ack W
15:12:54 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: All you need to do is go into index file and uncomment. AWK to see if he can do that to edit...
15:13:10 [steverep]
15:13:13 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wayne: Do we consider headings to be paragraphs?
15:13:23 [Rachael]
Rachael has joined #ag
15:13:31 [Rachael]
present+ Rachael
15:13:39 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: They are block level elements, but aren't considered paragraphs.
15:13:40 [kirkwood_]
present+ kirkwood
15:13:53 [lisa]
15:14:21 [Alex_]
15:14:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
Steve: Have to rely on people using <p> element for paragraphs. Headings is another issue, but it is not testing what you need to do. Same thing can be said for tables, embedded lists. Scope needs to be present to be testeable
15:14:29 [AWK]
ack Jake
15:14:57 [lisa]
we wanted to have sections in as wele, but we backed down on that for testability - same issue
15:15:06 [lisa]
ack lis
15:15:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
Jake: Regarding "underneath" it the same zoom? Is different wording needed?
15:15:12 [alastairc]
alastairc has joined #ag
15:15:27 [WayneDick]
15:15:38 [ChrisLoiselle]
Laura: That has not be brought up, it is a good question.
15:15:52 [lisa]
not an issue for left to right
15:15:55 [Greg]
q+ to say disagree with the contention that saying "paragraphs" limits testing to blocks marked up with P elements. As the spec is technology independent, we cannot rely on the author marking up "paragraphs" as such.
15:15:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
Jake: We need to look at this from all languages
15:15:56 [AWK]
ack steve
15:16:09 [ChrisLoiselle]
Steve: defers to Wayne.
15:16:18 [lisa]
wording is fine for hebrew
15:16:37 [steverep]
Ah I remember...
15:16:52 [steverep]
15:17:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wayne: In top to bottom languages, letter spacing has different significance. It would need to be a technique level thing where we specify. I don't see an issue, we have looked at it.
15:17:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: We can ask for input from internationalization group.
15:18:07 [Detlev]
15:18:09 [AWK]
ack alex
15:18:25 [marcjohlic]
present+ marcjohlic
15:19:00 [Pietro]
Pietro has joined #ag
15:19:14 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alex: I want to confirm on testing. On WCAG 2.0, we test SC. We don't try to overlap. It seems that this SC compounds scrolling. Is it common understanding that we are not expecting people to test SC simultaneously
15:19:15 [WayneDick]
15:19:27 [Pietro]
Present+ Pietro
15:20:19 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alex: Makes it harder to meet SC if we are creating SC that compounds together and resulting compliance.
15:20:23 [Pietro]
I'm connected only by IRC because of I'm travelling by train
15:20:33 [JF]
+1 to Mike
15:21:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
MikeGower: For 1.4.12, we'd note all tests in one place. We wouldn't compound other SC.
15:22:34 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alex: Are we combining multiple SC to meet testing requirements? I.e. its proper to test SC individually of each SC
15:22:44 [laura]
Draft Technique:
15:22:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: Page has to usable at end of day, that needs to be considered.
15:23:48 [lisa]
+1 to diffrent discussion
15:23:49 [AWK]
@@@ issue - do we test SC individually or in combination? Do SC like this compound testing challenges?
15:24:02 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alex: We need to look at testing SC to SC vs. SC + SC to test appropriately and whether or not this causes issues.
15:24:06 [laura]
+1 to diffrent discussion
15:24:12 [gowerm]
+1 to look at after August
15:24:28 [lisa]
Can we get back to sc for before august?
15:24:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: There are instances where testing for one might show you that you broke another SC.
15:24:42 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
15:25:28 [laura]
Think we are off track for this agenda topic.
15:25:44 [david-macdonald]
15:25:52 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
15:26:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alex: Regarding Spacing and SC, looking at SC independently they pass. I've never seen a test or a technique to meet multiple SC simultaneously.
15:26:24 [AWK]
ack w
15:26:29 [AWK]
ack greg
15:26:29 [Zakim]
Greg, you wanted to say disagree with the contention that saying "paragraphs" limits testing to blocks marked up with P elements. As the spec is technology independent, we cannot
15:26:30 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: Let's view the Queue.
15:26:31 [Greg]
I’m concerned about the assumtion that saying "paragraphs" limits testing to blocks marked up with P elements. As the spec is technology independent, we cannot rely on the author marking up "paragraphs" as such, or even being able to, nor should we allow a loophole where the author can avoid this SC by using DIV instead of P. If you want to say that it applies only to something programmatically
15:26:32 [Zakim]
... rely on the author marking up "paragraphs" as such.
15:26:33 [Greg]
15:26:34 [Greg]
terminable to be a paragraph, we could say that, but I don’t think it’s implied. I would lean towards referring to block level elements, although I’m not entirely sure how that term would apply to other technologies.
15:27:31 [jon_avila]
jon_avila has joined #ag
15:27:49 [lisa]
i think it is a technolgy agnostic thing , techniques are diffrent
15:28:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
Greg: Loophole of using divs rather than p's . Perhaps change to block level elements , which makes it broader.
15:28:30 [ChrisLoiselle]
Laura: It would be harder to test.
15:28:33 [lisa]
15:28:40 [AWK]
ack steve
15:29:01 [AWK]
@@@ issue - should we reference block-level elements instead of just paragraphs?
15:29:32 [gowerm]
+1 to Steve. This is just testing malleability
15:29:39 [ChrisLoiselle]
Steve: your volume is low, would you mind putting your thought in IRC? Sorry.
15:29:55 [lisa]
agree with greg
15:30:02 [lisa]
that it is agnostic
15:30:06 [Greg]
I actually would expect that a lot of users would add space to block level elements rather than P, so we'd help them more if we tested that configuration.
15:30:08 [lisa]
but worth putting it in
15:30:26 [laura]
block-level elements instead of just paragraphs would be a nightmare to test.
15:30:54 [ChrisLoiselle]
Style definition, I thought we were going to drop it for adapting. We could substitute the word "change" and it is the same SC
15:30:56 [alastairc]
This SC applies to all text on the page, so adding padding to block level elements (including layout) would again blow-apart most websites.
15:30:56 [AWK]
@@@ do we need the adapted def?
15:30:59 [Detlev]
ack me
15:31:01 [AWK]
ack de
15:31:16 [KimD]
+1 to "change" replacing "adapt"
15:31:35 [WayneDick]
15:31:42 [laura]
15:31:45 [Greg]
My concern with the word adapt does not apply to this draft; it was about the earlier wording where it was broad enough to include adaptation at the server level.
15:32:02 [AWK]
adapted definition:
15:32:10 [gowerm]
15:32:19 [ChrisLoiselle]
Detlev: One issue on paragraph. In fictional text, typography might change.
15:32:23 [AWK]
style properties def:
15:33:30 [ChrisLoiselle]
Lisa: Learning increases if breaks are expected or available. Spacing between paragraphs should be able to override it. A mechanism could be available.
15:34:06 [ChrisLoiselle]
Detlev: Different lines in a dialog , there should be sufficient lines, which would be closer to each other, vs. narration which would be having a larger spacing between the text
15:34:33 [alastairc]
in HTML / ePub, you can't stop people from overriding the margins, that isn't the issue.
15:35:02 [laura]
SC text starts: If the technologies being used allow the user agent to adapt style properties of text, then no loss of essential content or functionality occurs by adapting all of the following:
15:35:15 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wayne: The helpful semantic device is a harmful device. We want the ability to change that.
15:35:35 [AWK]
People should think about whether we need to continue to discuss this today and put off other items, pass it and allow public comment, or stop now and take it up on Thursday.
15:35:38 [ChrisLoiselle]
Laura: Person needs to be able to read it. The ability to override what the author provides.
15:35:49 [jon_avila]
15:35:59 [alastairc]
present+ alastairc
15:36:10 [gowerm]
public comment +1
15:36:18 [gowerm]
15:36:23 [lisa]
i think it is ready to go
15:36:27 [JF]
+1 to "let's put this out as it is now"
15:36:31 [laura]
+1 for pubilc comment
15:36:43 [alastairc]
+1 to "let's put this out as it is now"
15:36:47 [allanj]
+1 public comment
15:36:48 [lisa]
ack l
15:36:54 [WayneDick]
15:36:56 [lisa]
ack lisa
15:36:59 [Makoto]
+1 for public comment
15:37:01 [laura]
ack laura
15:37:07 [david-macdonald]
15:37:11 [WayneDick]
Put it out
15:37:19 [steverep]
+1 please please put this through
15:37:22 [bruce_bailey]
+1 for public comment
15:37:30 [Detlev]
fine for public comment
15:37:33 [jon_avila]
public comment now
15:37:40 [JakeAbma]
+1 for public comment
15:37:42 [chriscm]
15:37:48 [ChrisLoiselle]
15:38:07 [Pietro]
15:38:22 [kirkwood_]
15:38:40 [Rachael]
15:38:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
RESOLUTION: Accept to editor's draft. CFC to follow
15:38:47 [WayneDick]
15:38:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
thanks :)"
15:38:55 [david-macdonald]
I'm in queue to support public comment now... Regarding Alex's concern of interoperability of all the new SCs, I think we need to see what's going to be in the 2.1 and then do an interoperability pass after August, and either drop of change conflicts at that point.
15:40:19 [ChrisLoiselle]
s/ RESOLUTION: Accepting current github version of SC.
15:40:20 [gowerm]
And my point was going to be that the wording on paragraph is to test for an ability to control block-level spacing. If it passes paragraph, it should allow for malleable block spacing on other elements.
15:40:35 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
15:41:01 [laura]
Deep thanks to everyone.
15:41:06 [ChrisLoiselle]
s/ RESOLUTION: Accept to editor's draft. CFC to follow s/ RESOLUTION: Accepting current github version of SC.
15:41:11 [ChrisLoiselle]
Zakim, next item
15:41:11 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Conformance changes:" taken up [from AWK]
15:41:23 [Jan]
Jan has joined #ag
15:41:29 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:41:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MichaelC
15:42:44 [gowerm]
+1 to Bruce's edit suggestion
15:42:53 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: I believe my note addresses James' concern. I.e. if the note is changed.
15:43:14 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: There are already two notes, I don't believe they are reflected in rawgit
15:43:16 [Detlev]
AWK: link above doesn't work (for me) - not because of " at the end
15:44:41 [bruce_bailey]
Here is the note w/ my suggested edit:
15:45:04 [bruce_bailey]
A full page includes versions of the page that are automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes. Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform.
15:45:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
Makoto: Is testing with various screen sizes necessary?
15:45:19 [alastairc]
If they don't have variations, what's the problem?
15:45:35 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: Are we talking about developing a webpage that has different breakpoints, in an university setting?
15:46:02 [alastairc]
15:46:11 [chriscm]
Delta flights have websites hosted locally on flights that allow access to movie content on your tablets or screens on the backs of chairs.
15:46:15 [alastairc]
15:46:34 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: Delivery company , where you sign the document on a tablet, is web person's tablet is where you'd interact with the content , exclusively for a particular form factor
15:46:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
Makoto : Agrees with JF's example
15:46:47 [AWK]
ack ala
15:47:11 [kirkwood_]
would kiosks be an issue?
15:47:40 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alastair: If they don't have the variations, what is the problem?
15:48:04 [bruce_bailey]
I think internal-only pages where the screen size is known and fixed meets the CR.
15:48:12 [alastairc]
Perhaps start the note: "If a full page includes variations of the page that are automatically..."
15:48:46 [WayneDick]
15:48:58 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: Accessibility Supported , where you can't reflow text, form factor doesn't allow it. Application is meant to be run on a closed environment.
15:49:00 [bruce_bailey]
The understanding document could also talk about intranet vs Internet.
15:49:17 [gowerm]
15:49:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: We should address the issue. Makoto identified a potential gap.
15:49:36 [gowerm]
q+ "A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes."
15:49:39 [AWK]
@@@ Issue - what about a page that is viewed in a closed environment, etc.
15:49:49 [laura]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:49:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate laura
15:49:57 [gowerm]
q+ to discuss "generated by the page"
15:50:23 [AWK]
ack way
15:50:56 [alastairc]
Perhaps start the note: "If a full page includes variations of the page that are automatically..."
15:51:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
Thanks, Alastair
15:51:20 [AWK]
ack gow
15:51:20 [Zakim]
gowerm, you wanted to discuss "generated by the page"
15:51:56 [david-macdonald]
15:52:01 [AWK]
ack dav
15:52:14 [ChrisLoiselle]
MikeG: Isn't this addressed by the wording generated by the page?
15:52:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
David: Trying to plug issue of breakpoints
15:52:50 [MichaelC]
s/RESOLUTION: Accept to editor's draft. CFC to follow/RESOLUTION: Accepting current github version of SC./
15:52:51 [gowerm]
"generated by the page" covers authoring that introduces breakpoints
15:53:03 [MichaelC]
s|s/ RESOLUTION: Accepting current github version of SC.||
15:53:12 [MichaelC]
s|s/ RESOLUTION: Accept to editor's draft. CFC to follow s/ RESOLUTION: Accepting current github version of SC.||
15:53:24 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:53:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MichaelC
15:53:39 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: Do we have to test all the breakpoints if we aren't using them?
15:54:07 [AWK]
15:54:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
David: Introduction of language for specific use cases can be introduced if necessary.
15:54:34 [WayneDick]
+1 to next draft
15:54:35 [ChrisLoiselle]
Would like to open to public comment
15:55:07 [alastairc]
+1 to Bruce's comments, then pub draft.
15:55:44 [ChrisLoiselle]
David: had a twitter poll in regard to the issue, wants to formalize the issue.
15:56:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: The understanding language would need to be looked at. Where the use scenario can be addressed.
15:56:29 [lisa]
+1 to i cant find the text we are agreeing on
15:56:48 [lisa]
15:57:14 [ChrisLoiselle]
Makoto: Accepts the direction we have been talking about. Add this note to the conformance section. Open issue to explain text in understanding.
15:57:21 [KimD]
*Lisa, look at
15:57:23 [AWK]
15:57:37 [ChrisLoiselle]
Lisa: Question on old vs. new text.
15:58:18 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: Look for the green note.
15:58:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
Lisa: Asks about Browser extensions.
15:58:45 [laura]
The text is…“Note: A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes. Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform.”
15:59:03 [ChrisLoiselle]
David : That is a different issue. Lisa states "Ok".
15:59:44 [alastairc]
Suggest: "If a page includes variations that are automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes, then each variation needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform."
16:00:45 [bruce_bailey]
A full page includes versions of the page that are automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes. Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform.
16:01:11 [chriscm]
@alastairc: Why is the "automatically" distinction required?
16:02:08 [jon_avila]
recommend not use the word "Version" as that could imply a separate page
16:02:37 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wayne: Makoto's use case would be excluded as it doesn't meet the "if" clause
16:02:46 [AWK]
A full page includes alternate rendered variations of the page that are automatically generated for various screen sizes. Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform.
16:03:05 [lisa]
time reminder
16:03:21 [alastairc]
@chriscm: well, partly because it was in there to start with, and I guess to imply that it is the site creating the variations, rather than by user-override.
16:03:47 [chriscm]
@alastairc: Does that suggest that specifically designed variations would not apply for some reason?
16:04:17 [steverep]
How about talking about user agent dependence? "If a page's content depends on the user agent, then each possible delivery must conform."
16:04:27 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: Editorial recommendations are taking place. Are there objections? Should we send this to CFC for Andrew's version at 12:02 and information related to understanding
16:04:31 [WayneDick]
+1 to inclusion granting discresion to editors
16:04:42 [dboudreau]
+1 as well
16:04:47 [JF]
16:05:11 [laura]
16:05:28 [JakeAbma]
16:05:30 [alastairc]
@chriscm: no, but I think that they would be considered separate pages?
16:05:31 [alastairc]
16:05:33 [Makoto]
16:05:48 [jon_avila]
+1 although I think we may need to expand past screen size in case their are other variations for other factors
16:05:49 [ChrisLoiselle]
RESOLUTION: Accept version posted by AWK at 12:02. With clarifications made in understanding document.
16:06:20 [MelanieP]
MelanieP has joined #ag
16:06:21 [chriscm]
@alastairc: Hmm, interesting. I agree... is there a clarification doc on this?
16:06:21 [AWK]
s/With clarifications/Also create an issue for clarifications to be
16:06:30 [ChrisLoiselle]
Zakim, next item
16:06:30 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisLoiselle
16:06:35 [AWK]
16:06:39 [AWK]
ack l
16:06:49 [ChrisLoiselle]
Zakim, next item
16:06:50 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Personalization:" taken up [from AWK]
16:06:54 [alastairc]
@chriscm: I don't think so, we've all been running under the assumption that everything applies!
16:06:57 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
16:07:00 [JF]
16:07:06 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:07:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jamesn
16:07:35 [chriscm]
@alastairc: Do you agree that this is confusing? What is the best way to clarify? Or is this just me being overly development minded...
16:08:38 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
16:08:39 [lisa]
16:09:17 [lisa]
16:09:20 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: Changes in techniques and understanding. There would be a piece for supplementary documentation. COGA is interested in something be introduced as AA vs. AAA
16:09:24 [AWK]
ack JF
16:10:00 [bruce_bailey]
Can someone post the coga listserv URL?
16:10:10 [AWK]
16:10:26 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: The key to transformation , i.e. text links to iconography, we need a fixed taxonomy. The lookup list needs to address internationalization as well.
16:10:59 [chriscm]
@alastairc: absolutely.
16:11:06 [bruce_bailey]
q+ to offer clarification for what it means in 2.0 for an SC to apply to all content
16:11:27 [KimD]
*sorry, is this the current and correct language?
16:11:40 [WayneDick]
16:11:42 [lisa]
look at the email
16:11:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: Look at two SC. One at AA and one at AAA. Which would use User Agent tools. We need to need is loose enough to use etc. for fixed taxonomy .
16:11:55 [AWK]
Current version:
16:12:15 [ChrisLoiselle]
AA won't reference Metadata. AAA would reference metadata.
16:12:15 [lisa]
i hope not
16:12:50 [lisa]
i did not agree to this
16:13:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
Fixed number of controls. Create a list of navigational buttons. Provide supplemental info on those controls, at AA level, you'd meet that requirement of explaining to the user.
16:13:21 [AWK]
Lisa, no one has agreed to anything, john is making a suggestion
16:13:22 [lisa]
this is a new proposal that has not been discjussed
16:13:29 [ChrisLoiselle]
Same for multi-part forms, page 2 of 5...can be provided as prose info.
16:13:35 [lisa]
ok, i though he siad we are on the same page
16:13:46 [chriscm]
lisa: it is being discussed right now...
16:13:50 [AWK]
16:14:04 [AWK]
ack lisa
16:14:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
AAA is where we'd add metadata
16:15:20 [lisa]
16:15:43 [ChrisLoiselle]
Lisa: I do agree with limited scope at AA. And something specific at AAA. I think what we have to do now is have another call without COGA. Single A wording needs to be entered.
16:16:14 [MichaelC]
q+ to ask about priorities for remaining time
16:16:21 [ChrisLoiselle]
We need to speak to people with issues.
16:17:27 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: I don't think the absence of comments and objections should be looked at yet due to when the questionairre went out and time to respond.
16:17:28 [david-macdonald]
3.3.2 Labels or Instructions: Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input. (Level A) ...may cover part of it and could be combined after august
16:17:35 [david-macdonald]
16:17:41 [lisa]
16:18:26 [lisa]
not asking you to mike, we are asking if there is any way forward
16:18:31 [WayneDick]
16:18:31 [JF]
Q+ to say I am in favor of trying for a AA SC as well as the AAA, and offer to help get there
16:18:33 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: I have concerns at AA. We don't have much time to discuss details. We need to understand how we need to properly scope this. AAA may be better option.
16:18:44 [lisa]
thanks john
16:18:51 [AWK]
ack bru
16:18:51 [Zakim]
bruce_bailey, you wanted to offer clarification for what it means in 2.0 for an SC to apply to all content
16:20:01 [bruce_bailey]
16:20:08 [ChrisLoiselle]
Bruce: AA vs. AAA , we know AAA where the SC is not supported by Technology. I.e. spreadsheets and presentations. Not appropriate for AA: Bruce to paste in URL
16:20:23 [jasonjgw]
16:20:51 [AWK]
ack wa
16:21:23 [ChrisLoiselle]
Wayne: If we get this to one testable issue, we should have a AA criteria. Personalization works for people with low vision disabilities.
16:21:45 [bruce_bailey]
16:21:55 [AWK]
ack m
16:21:55 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to ask about priorities for remaining time
16:21:58 [bruce_bailey]
whether it is possible to satisfy the Success Criterion for all Web sites and types of content that the Success Criteria would apply to (e.g., different topics, types of content, types of Web technology)
16:22:36 [alastairc]
q+ to ask about John's point on metadata vs 4.1.2
16:22:51 [bruce_bailey]
My point is that personalization is not possible to satisfy the SC for all web site and types of content
16:23:00 [ChrisLoiselle]
MichaelC: Would love to see Personalization at AA. I don't have a wording that will get it in at AA. AAA seems more appropriate. Strategically, what is most important? If we attempt at AAA it may get in vs. trying at AA.
16:23:21 [AWK]
ack dav
16:23:25 [ChrisLoiselle]
AWK: If we receive public comments that this should be moved to AA, that may be worthwhile after the August date.
16:23:25 [AWK]
ack lisa
16:23:43 [alastairc]
@bruce_bailey I think it can, with a closed taxonomy.
16:24:49 [AWK]
ack jf
16:24:49 [Zakim]
JF, you wanted to say I am in favor of trying for a AA SC as well as the AAA, and offer to help get there
16:24:54 [chriscm]
+1 Lisa was next!
16:25:17 [chriscm]
16:25:57 [ChrisLoiselle]
Lisa: If we get a sub-group to look at it, I don't think we should waste call time. MikeGower, JF, etc. may want to address this off the phone.
16:26:45 [WayneDick]
16:27:01 [ChrisLoiselle]
JF: I agree with Lisa and will help. We do have tools (native semantics in HTML) or ARIA (i.e. landmarks).
16:27:32 [AWK]
ack jas
16:27:37 [ChrisLoiselle]
example: iFrames have titles, then AAA gets really granular for modification of page.
16:28:21 [lisa]
the term we are using is context
16:29:24 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #ag
16:29:45 [MichaelC_temp]
MichaelC_temp has joined #ag
16:29:47 [MichaelC_temp]
q+ to say every week now is 20% of the remaining SC processing time; better to accept AAA version now, work on other SC, and look further during the rationalization phase
16:30:16 [ChrisLoiselle]
Jason: Clarity on defining function of controls. Taxonomy would be needed to be used. Accessibility Supported taxonomy use taxonomy once available.
16:30:50 [lisa]
who could join us in a call to recraft the language
16:31:05 [AWK]
ack ala
16:31:05 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to ask about John's point on metadata vs 4.1.2
16:31:11 [AWK]
zakim, close the queue
16:31:11 [Zakim]
ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed
16:31:49 [alastairc]
For navigation, form elements and interactive controls _conventional_elements_ can be programmatically determined.
16:32:07 [Detlev]
+1 to "conventional elements" instead of context
16:32:16 [lisa]
16:32:38 [AWK]
Scribe: AWK
16:32:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
Alastair: Question to JF: Struggling to see how to referenced shared vocabulary ? How to reference an external spec?, COGA, taxonomies, etc.
16:33:05 [lisa]
some techneques are in the issue in github
16:33:18 [AWK]
JF: The way I'm thinking about it is that AAA is a fixed taxonomy
16:33:22 [lisa]
16:33:32 [AWK]
... and at the AA there is some sort of programmatic determination
16:33:51 [lisa]
john can the proce use a controled vocablery?
16:33:56 [lisa]
16:33:57 [AWK]
... I keep thinking about the title attribute being spec'd to provide additional information
16:34:21 [AWK]
... left open into prose rather than requiring a specific taxa
16:34:26 [lisa]
16:34:35 [AWK]
AC: Fixed list is most useful
16:34:54 [AWK]
JF: agreed, but we don't have the robust ecosystem available at this time
16:35:18 [chriscm]
@JF: I'm hungry... come on man! :P
16:35:24 [AWK]
ack chriscm
16:35:38 [gowerm]
JF: The COGA spec may be ideal for COGA, but remember that we're discussing personalization here. There are a lot of other personalization considerations beyond COGA.
16:36:01 [AWK]
Chris: thinking about the AA req, not entirely opposed but need to see the wording
16:36:34 [AWK]
... do feel strongly that leaving a AAA req that says what is needed should be done with or without the AA SC
16:36:46 [AWK]
... that will bring about more discussion and development
16:36:47 [JF]
@MIkeG - no disagreement here, which is why I want to leave it as "fixed taxonomy" as opposed to "Coga Semantics"
16:37:07 [AWK]
ack way
16:37:08 [JF]
+1 - do both
16:37:15 [AWK]
ack mi
16:37:15 [Zakim]
MichaelC_temp, you wanted to say every week now is 20% of the remaining SC processing time; better to accept AAA version now, work on other SC, and look further during the
16:37:16 [marcjohlic]
marcjohlic has joined #ag
16:37:19 [Zakim]
... rationalization phase
16:38:18 [KimD]
*I would have far fewer concerns at AAA
16:38:19 [AndroUser2]
AndroUser2 has joined #ag
16:38:20 [gowerm]
I do not have cycles to do it this week.
16:38:22 [chriscm]
Add me pls.
16:38:39 [kirkwood_]
please add me
16:38:48 [lisa]
please send me your email
16:39:01 [chriscm]
16:39:21 [bruce_bailey]
Per Understanding, at AA, any SC should apply to “all types of Web technology”.
16:39:36 [Jan]
present+ JMcSorley
16:40:07 [laura]
laura has left #ag
16:40:08 [david-macdonald]
{Present+ David-macdonald
16:40:12 [Greg]
present+ Greg_Lowney
16:40:18 [AWK]
RRSAgent, set logs public
16:40:24 [AWK]
trackbot, end meeting
16:40:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:40:24 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Laura, ChrisLoiselle, JF, steverep, jasonjgw, MikeGower, Greg_Lowney, Melanie_Philipp, Makoto, dboudreau, Detlev,
16:40:27 [Zakim]
... wayne, WayneDick, chriscm, lisa, bruce_bailey, MichaelC, Rachael, kirkwood, marcjohlic, Pietro, jon_avila, alastairc, JMcSorley
16:40:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:40:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:40:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:40:33 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items