IRC log of ag on 2017-07-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:46:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:46:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:46:57 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:46:57 [trackbot]
Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:46:57 [trackbot]
Date: 25 July 2017
14:46:57 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:47:02 [MichaelC]
14:47:15 [MichaelC]
agenda+ Personalization
14:47:32 [MichaelC]
agenda+ Target size
14:48:06 [MichaelC]
agenda+ Confirm Important Information
14:48:14 [MichaelC]
14:48:28 [MichaelC]
zakim, clear agenda
14:48:28 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:48:33 [MichaelC]
agenda+ Personalization
14:48:38 [MichaelC]
agenda+ Target size
14:48:48 [MichaelC]
agenda+ Confirm Important Information
14:50:19 [MichaelC]
chair: MichaelC
14:52:44 [MichaelC]
regrets: Denis_Boudreau, Glenda_Sims, Jake_Abma, EA_Draffan, Bruce_Bailey, Mike_Elledge
14:53:04 [MichaelC]
regrets+ Chris_Loiselle, Kim_Patch
14:53:11 [MichaelC]
scribeOptions: -final
14:57:47 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #ag
14:58:36 [david-macdonald]
david-macdonald has joined #ag
14:58:56 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #ag
14:59:52 [Detlev]
present+ Detlev
14:59:58 [Kathy]
present+ Kathy
15:00:14 [david-macdonald]
Present+ david-macdonald
15:00:22 [MichaelC]
agenda+ Announcements
15:00:24 [MichaelC]
15:00:27 [kirkwood]
15:00:38 [Pietro]
Pietro has joined #ag
15:00:46 [MelanieP]
MelanieP has joined #ag
15:00:47 [MichaelC]
regrets+ AWK, Joshue
15:00:59 [Pietro]
Present+ Pietro
15:01:56 [alastairc]
alastairc has joined #ag
15:01:58 [david-macdonald]
In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional name of conventional user interface components can be programmatically determined. (AA)
15:02:04 [Alex_]
Alex_ has joined #ag
15:02:09 [alastairc]
present+ alastairc
15:02:21 [david-macdonald]
s/In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional name of conventional user interface components can be programmatically determined. (AA)/
15:02:21 [MichaelC]
s/In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional name of conventional user interface components can be programmatically determined. (AA)//
15:02:29 [lisa]
15:02:37 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #ag
15:02:49 [laura]
laura has joined #ag
15:03:29 [Jan_]
Jan_ has joined #ag
15:03:42 [alastairc]
15:04:12 [MichaelC]
zakim, next item
15:04:12 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Target size" taken up [from MichaelC]
15:04:22 [MichaelC]
zakim, take up item 4
15:04:22 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Announcements" taken up [from MichaelC]
15:04:42 [jasonjgw]
15:04:47 [MichaelC]
-> Silver meetup
15:05:01 [Makoto]
present+ Makoto
15:05:29 [alastairc]
MiichaelC: When at TPAC in Nov, there will be a bay area meetup on the Silver work. Expect people would like to participate, details closer to the date, it is on Thursday evening.
15:05:35 [gowerm]
gowerm has joined #ag
15:05:38 [gowerm]
present+ MIkeGower
15:05:47 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Any other announcements? Nope.
15:05:51 [alastairc]
zakim, next item
15:05:51 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Target size" taken up [from MichaelC]
15:06:00 [MichaelC]
zakim, ping me in 30 minutes
15:06:00 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC
15:06:02 [Jan_]
present+ JanMcSorley
15:06:16 [david-macdonald]
In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional name of conventional user interface components can be programmatically determined. (AA)
15:06:18 [MelanieP]
present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:06:47 [Detlev]
15:07:04 [MichaelC]
15:07:07 [Detlev]
15:07:20 [MichaelC]
zakim, take up item 1
15:07:20 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Personalization" taken up [from MichaelC]
15:07:44 [david-macdonald]
s/In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional name of conventional user interface components can be programmatically determined. (AA)//
15:07:52 [marcjohlic]
marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:07:57 [david-macdonald]
In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional name of conventional user interface components can be programmatically determined. (AA)
15:07:59 [alastairc]
MichaelC: 8 comments, 4 supporting. A few against, comments?
15:08:12 [KimD]
KimD has joined #ag
15:08:24 [KimD]
15:08:40 [lisa]
15:09:06 [alastairc]
Jason: The viability depends on the definitions, there's a lot of work there. The acceptability / effectiveness will depend on detailed work that hasn't been done. A good horizontal review would be desirable soon, get it into the draft would be a good way to do that. Still has issues that won't be resolved for a few weeks.
15:09:08 [steverep]
steverep has joined #ag
15:09:18 [steverep]
15:10:02 [laura]
present+ Laura
15:10:17 [alastairc]
Jason: For example, 'conventional ui components', then compare to the HTML5 spec equivalent (auto-completion), there's a more rigorous approach. That's a good example to use.
15:11:32 [lisa]
new titile is Purpose of controls:
15:11:45 [MichaelC]
ack l
15:12:02 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Bruce suggested a title change, Marc has issues with the words listed as definitions and whether they are examples or not?
15:12:19 [alastairc]
Lisa: The title was meant to be "Purpose of controls".
15:12:36 [david-macdonald]
hit refresh for latest version of answers
15:12:45 [alastairc]
Lisa: It will help to achieve personalisation, support the title change.
15:13:20 [alastairc]
Lisa: We do need to harmonise, we know about the HTML5 and ePub examples.
15:13:41 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Bruce isn't here, but there is a proposed title change.
15:13:54 [lisa]
15:14:02 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Does anyone object to putting it into the draft?
15:14:44 [alastairc]
MichaelC: i think Marc Johlic's comment was similar to Jason's, but do people present object to putting it out for review?
15:15:07 [lisa]
15:15:17 [david-macdonald]
15:15:39 [alastairc]
15:15:52 [alastairc]
gowerm: I don't think we should put this out for review, it seems like we're just putting it out.
15:15:53 [MichaelC]
ack l
15:15:57 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #ag
15:16:16 [Ryladog]
Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:16:24 [Alex_]
is the audio dead or just me?
15:16:39 [MichaelC]
15:16:41 [david-macdonald]
my audio is fine
15:16:42 [Kathy]
15:16:47 [MichaelC]
q+ to ask how much time to clean up defs
15:17:20 [jasonjgw]
15:17:31 [alastairc]
Lisa: We had a call to try and address everyones concerns. The thing under scrutiny is the definitions now. We had some quite different opinions on the call, and everyone was happy with the core SC text. The definition is there form the last couple of years, it isn't new.
15:17:32 [Detlev]
is it going to be purpose of controls of personalisation?
15:17:32 [MichaelC]
q+ to say defs are new from SC perspective
15:17:48 [MichaelC]
ack d
15:17:48 [Detlev]
15:17:50 [Pietro]
* audio on WebEx by browser is good
15:18:08 [gowerm]
15:18:11 [alastairc]
David: Echo Lisa, there was quite a bit of scrutiny, understanding the definitions need work.
15:18:13 [MichaelC]
ack a
15:18:54 [MichaelC]
ac: definitions were to address JF objections
15:19:02 [MichaelC]
list things in use today
15:19:08 [MichaelC]
the subgroup liked, just needs cleanup
15:19:10 [MichaelC]
ack me
15:19:10 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to ask how much time to clean up defs and to say defs are new from SC perspective
15:19:38 [Detlev]
"Purpose of controls" won't reflect the personalisation issue if this is core
15:19:39 [lisa]
from 2 weeks ago
15:20:02 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Whilst the terms in the definitions have been used elsewhere, they are new to the SC. How long will it take to clean them up? If it's a week lets come back to it then?
15:20:07 [MichaelC]
ack ka
15:20:29 [alastairc]
15:20:35 [Alex_]
15:20:37 [lisa]
15:20:51 [MichaelC]
ack ja
15:20:51 [alastairc]
Kathy: how does this support personalisation? We have a list of these in English, will that be for all of the languages?
15:21:01 [MichaelC]
15:21:25 [Alex_]
15:21:59 [MichaelC]
q+ to test ¨We´re almost there but need improved definition wording to approve¨
15:22:13 [alastairc]
Jason: To answer Michael's question, not sure how long it would take, but I think it would take a while, several weeks of work probably? Needs to be specified closely. Also, on the public review side, the reason here is we need more (external) review to progress.
15:22:33 [alastairc]
... we can include notes to indicate the issues. This is on the side of external expertise.
15:22:41 [MichaelC]
ack gow
15:23:16 [alastairc]
gowerm: I really believe that this is a new version, it should have the same scrutiny as everything else. To early for a CFC.
15:23:18 [MichaelC]
ack al
15:23:30 [MichaelC]
ack ala
15:23:48 [MichaelC]
ac: would like to put out with ednotes
15:23:58 [Alex_]
Michael, you dropped me off the queue
15:24:00 [MichaelC]
worth getting feedback on concepts
15:24:28 [marcjohlic]
15:24:42 [david-macdonald]
can't hear you Alex
15:24:42 [MichaelC]
q+ Alex
15:24:50 [Alex_]
i'll have to dial back in
15:25:53 [MichaelC]
ack li
15:26:24 [alastairc]
Lisa: In terms of list being new, it was in the last draft as well, in the definitions available from the SC. It was the same list. It's not so new. It was similar to the second bullet in the earlier draft. It was tweaked to address everyone's concerns.
15:27:06 [alastairc]
... alastair spoke ot how it was addressing personalisation, so just asking for part of it, just one section of it.
15:27:08 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #ag
15:27:19 [alastairc]
s/spoke ot how/spoke to how/
15:27:19 [Detlev]
15:27:27 [MichaelC]
ack me
15:27:27 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to test ¨We´re almost there but need improved definition wording to approve¨
15:27:28 [Kathy]
15:27:40 [Alex_]
15:27:56 [Detlev]
15:28:01 [marcjohlic]
15:28:39 [Alex_]
15:28:55 [alastairc]
MichaelC: we have 5 min left on this topic, can we consider another approach to next steps? Not sure we have solid consensus for this yet, and it wouldn't be published this week in any case. Let's clean up on the definitions we know need work already, give it a chance to be socialised a bit more.
15:28:59 [Alex_]
ack Alex
15:29:07 [marcjohlic]
15:29:55 [alastairc]
Alex_: I don't think this is ready, we need some more time, we need a new survey to look at carefully. Let's wait.
15:29:56 [MichaelC]
ack k
15:30:14 [lisa]
15:30:22 [alastairc]
Kathy: Clarification, we have conventional names for three different categories, or is it English based?
15:30:25 [MichaelC]
ack ma
15:30:52 [alastairc]
markjohlic: Are we saying that these are the only words that could be used?
15:30:58 [MichaelC]
ack l
15:31:22 [alastairc]
Lisa: We'll need to harmonise them with HTML5 spec, but we wanted a very clear scope so people knew what to do.
15:31:39 [MichaelC]
zakim, close queue
15:31:39 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC, the speaker queue is closed
15:32:09 [alastairc]
.. these are programatic names, can use coga-semenatics, or through controlled vocabulary, or other ways of meeting them. Could do it in any language right now. Could be in the text label as well.
15:32:24 [alastairc]
Kathy: There are other conventional names, this is a US-English based list.
15:33:34 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Encourage people to address comments on i18n and clarity, and get people to look at it in the next week, go for a decision next week. Is that a plan for the moment?
15:34:20 [alastairc]
RESOLUTION: Partially clean up definitions and bring back next week.
15:34:35 [alastairc]
zakim, next item
15:34:35 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Target size" taken up [from MichaelC]
15:34:41 [MichaelC]
zakim, reopen queue
15:34:41 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC, the speaker queue is open
15:34:42 [Detlev]
15:34:44 [steverep]
Can we please make sure to get the version desired to be reviewed in GithHub? Thanks.
15:34:45 [lisa]
thanks :)
15:35:52 [alastairc]
Detlev: Wanted to clarify, Andrew is SC manager and we had comments from Greg about links in lists, where they get very long. It's a trade off between target size & usability. Thought we should allow for lists to be closer together.
15:36:01 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:36:12 [MichaelC]
zakim, ping me in 30 minutes
15:36:12 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC
15:36:28 [alastairc]
... the text in the survey doesn't take that into account. My comment in the survey includes some text for that, maybe not good text but initial idea.
15:37:15 [alastairc]
... another thing addressed in the response was about the CSS hack technique which extended inline target sizes. That lead to the proposal to remove the AAA SC.
15:38:06 [alastairc]
Detlev: There were concerns about older pages which wouldn't meet it, so there are exceptions, including for blocks of text.
15:38:32 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Does addressing that affect your view on the AAA SC?
15:38:53 [Kathy]
15:39:00 [alastairc]
Detlev: I'm not sure we should keep it. I'd like to keep it, but removing it addresses StephenR's comment.
15:39:17 [AndroUser2]
AndroUser2 has joined #ag
15:39:18 [alastairc]
MichaelC: 3 people didn't want to remove the AAA sc.
15:39:22 [MichaelC]
ack d
15:39:23 [MichaelC]
ack k
15:39:38 [jasonjgw]
15:39:56 [lisa]
+1 to cathy
15:40:15 [steverep]
q+ to say that if we keep it, then acknowledge not using CSS negative margin technique
15:40:25 [alastairc]
Kathy: A lot of people would prefer to keep it, but could live with removing. Concern that at AAA you don't have links in paragraphs. But isn't AAA's purpose to show things that are desirable, but may not always be achievable? Yes, there is extra work, but that was the point.
15:40:38 [marcjohlic1]
marcjohlic1 has joined #ag
15:40:56 [alastairc]
... that said, if it helps to get the AA SC in, then people would prefer that.
15:41:06 [alastairc]
McihaelC: So the AA version isn't accepted?
15:41:11 [david-macdonald]
15:41:14 [alastairc]
Kathy: No, was removed previously.
15:41:25 [MichaelC]
ack ja
15:42:07 [alastairc]
jasonjgw: I think my comment has been covered: AAA is for things that are not always possible but desirable, so I don't think the objection is reasonable.
15:42:07 [MichaelC]
ack s
15:42:07 [Zakim]
steverep, you wanted to say that if we keep it, then acknowledge not using CSS negative margin technique
15:43:18 [Detlev]
15:43:30 [alastairc]
steverep: I'm ok with leaving the AAA version in, I'm just not happy with the CSS negative margin technique being in, that has issues. Two big issues: can't guarantee it wouldn't overlap, and messes with focus indicators.
15:43:36 [Kathy]
15:43:40 [MichaelC]
ack dav
15:44:09 [alastairc]
david: There's an exception for blocks of text, so the negative CSS example isn't needed.
15:44:19 [Kathy]
15:44:37 [alastairc]
Kathy: It wasn't a technique, it was an example to show it is possible. Not required, no technique coming for that.
15:45:20 [alastairc]
David: The missing thing is about the stacks & menus, left-nav bars. I think we need to go to 22px for stacked/grouped links in that scenario. (at AA).
15:45:43 [MichaelC]
ack det
15:45:52 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Can we resolve the AAA SC?
15:45:59 [gowerm]
15:46:08 [alastairc]
Detlev: Happy to keep the AAA if others are not objecting.
15:46:52 [MichaelC]
15:47:04 [alastairc]
... for the stacked links, there are concerns around i18n and different text directions, so need to be careful of language.
15:47:11 [MichaelC]
q+ to ask who can´t live with keeping AAA version
15:47:34 [alastairc]
gowerm: I assume we are focusing on the draft SC language, aren't the techniques the focus?
15:47:46 [Detlev]
+1 to keep AAA
15:47:56 [MichaelC]
ack go
15:47:59 [steverep]
+1 to Michael on implementability means there must be viable techniques
15:48:11 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Yes, so long as there are techniques to fulfil it. We shouldn't block SC due to techniques, so long as we're happy they are feasible.
15:48:38 [MichaelC]
ack me
15:48:38 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to ask who can´t live with keeping AAA version
15:48:44 [alastairc]
... a number of people have said they're happy to keep the AAA. Would anyone object to keeping the AAA version?
15:49:13 [gowerm]
15:49:20 [lisa]
15:49:20 [alastairc]
... ok, so we have a tentative decision to not drop the AAA version. I think we can circle back to the AA version and it's exceptions.
15:49:21 [Detlev]
15:49:27 [alastairc]
15:49:56 [alastairc]
MichaelC: we have a new exception from Detlev, what's the summary of that?
15:50:09 [Kathy]
15:50:44 [alastairc]
David: When you have a stacked set of links, like a left hand menu, increasing to 44px tall will create a lot of scrolling, so want to make an exception for that, 22px x 44px minimum.
15:50:50 [MichaelC]
ack k
15:51:53 [Detlev]
15:52:28 [alastairc]
Kathy: One of the things we need to add, addressing Detlev's comments, and the i18n aspect: When there are groups of controls that will cause an increase in scrolling... if we had something to quantify the scrolling, we could then drop the size to 22/44px. There are situations with 44px across and horizontal scrolling we need to be careful of.
15:52:37 [david-macdonald]
15:52:44 [MichaelC]
ack de
15:53:28 [kirkwood]
+1 to Kathy
15:53:38 [alastairc]
Detlev: We have discussed the figure +10 controls, but it's problematic. There are different screensizes, content management systems with varying numbers of items in each menu, it's quite difficult to put in a fixed figure.
15:53:40 [kirkwood]
+1 to DetLev
15:53:42 [Kathy]
15:53:46 [MichaelC]
ack da
15:53:56 [alastairc]
... need to define a stack grouping, rather than a number of items.
15:54:21 [MichaelC]
15:54:24 [MichaelC]
ack ka
15:54:24 [steverep]
15:54:27 [alastairc]
David: Just don't know how you could evaluate it against a set screen size. Would love to get to it that way, just not sure how.
15:54:56 [MichaelC]
q+ to say need to circle back on refined def for new exception?
15:54:58 [MichaelC]
q- later
15:54:58 [david-macdonald]
15:55:03 [alastairc]
Kathy: Don't want to have something with 22/44, when could be 44/22. How about at least 44px on one side?
15:55:22 [MichaelC]
ack s
15:55:22 [kirkwood]
15:55:27 [Kathy]
targets in stacked lists have at least one dimension that is 44 pixels and the other is at least 22 pixels
15:55:49 [alastairc]
steverep: We could use a cap on the total number of pixels in a list? E.g. 320px.
15:55:53 [MichaelC]
ack me
15:55:53 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to say need to circle back on refined def for new exception?
15:56:44 [Detlev]
+1 Fine with me
15:56:49 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Does someone have a wording ready for today? Kathy's at xx.55:27.
15:56:57 [david-macdonald]
15:56:59 [Kathy]
+1 fine with me
15:57:09 [Alex_]
15:57:11 [marcjohlic1]
15:57:11 [steverep]
15:57:13 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Any objections?
15:57:20 [MichaelC]
ack al
15:57:25 [Pietro]
15:57:39 [alastairc]
Alex_: I think 'stack' means up/down, rather than horizontal?
15:57:51 [alastairc]
... in that case stack isn't the right word.
15:58:12 [alastairc]
MichaelC: That's an open issue.
15:58:14 [david-macdonald]
targets in grouped lists have at least one dimension that is 44 pixels and the other is at least 22 pixels
15:58:37 [MichaelC]
ack st
15:58:40 [Kathy]
targets in horizontal or vertical lists have at least one dimension that is 44 pixels and the other is at least 22 pixels
15:59:00 [alastairc]
steverep: Is the goal to not impede the authors ability to layout stacks?
15:59:09 [gowerm]
How about just "targets in lists have at least..."
15:59:48 [kirkwood]
if concern is to limit scrolling maybe we should just say that?
15:59:54 [alastairc]
Kathy: don't want the user to have to scroll a menu. E.g. 10 links at 44px high is 440px, very high. We see it in vertical situations, but applies in both directions.
16:00:07 [Kathy]
targets in a list have at least one dimension that is 44 pixels and the other is at least 22
16:00:24 [gowerm]
16:00:40 [Detlev]
@steve: It's too prescriptive
16:00:46 [alastairc]
steverep: Need to define a total pixel dimension that doesn't impede it, and then tell author to maximise the dimensions within the list. cutting in half may not be necessary, it could be 32px high.
16:00:46 [MichaelC]
ack go
16:01:37 [david-macdonald]
16:01:40 [alastairc]
gowerm: I'd prefer not to have this exception because, for menus, it is a vital control. We have mechanisms for people to make things larger. Many of the exceptions are not for critical controls, whereas a menu is a critical control.
16:01:42 [MichaelC]
ack da
16:02:40 [Kathy]
grouped targets with more than 5 items have at least one dimension that is 44 pixels and the other is at least 22 pixels
16:02:41 [alastairc]
david: I think we need to explicitly say this is an exception. Making groups of links min of 44px is difficult. Language around the size of items could be different across evaluated. It's on every page, on every website.
16:03:31 [alastairc]
MichaelC: I think we've agreed to keep the AAA version, and most people are happy with the AA version. But some work on wording needed for everyone to be happy.
16:03:43 [david-macdonald]
Are we close enough for consensus in a draft? Only 3 meetings left before cutoff?
16:04:08 [gowerm]
16:04:09 [Detlev]
16:04:31 [david-macdonald]
16:04:33 [gowerm]
+1 to note in editor's draft
16:04:35 [alastairc]
Kathy: as we have to get outside feedback, and passed it once, can we include it with a note in the draft?
16:05:08 [marcjohlic1]
+1 to editor's draft w note
16:05:09 [david-macdonald]
grouped targets with more than 5 items have at least one dimension that is 44 pixels and the other is at least 22 pixels
16:05:09 [alastairc]
MichaelC: For the public draft it wouldn't appear for a while anyway. Do people want to add it to the editors draft?
16:05:11 [david-macdonald]
16:05:17 [alastairc]
16:05:23 [Detlev]
16:05:29 [alastairc]
RESOLUTION: Keep the AAA version of target size
16:05:44 [Alex_]
16:06:01 [alastairc]
Alex_: How do you mean open for exception.
16:06:12 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:06:19 [lisa]
+1 to keeping the tripple a
16:06:46 [david-macdonald]
grouped targets with more than 5 items have at least one dimension that is 44 pixels and the other is at least 22 pixels
16:07:42 [gowerm]
16:07:59 [alastairc]
RESOLUTION: Accept AA version with editors note about exception for groups of links
16:08:19 [alastairc]
zakim, next item
16:08:19 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, alastairc
16:08:24 [MichaelC]
16:08:26 [MichaelC]
ack a
16:08:28 [alastairc]
zakim, next item
16:08:28 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Confirm Important Information" taken up [from MichaelC]
16:09:51 [gowerm]
16:09:52 [alastairc]
Lisa: this started as a modification of 3.3.4, so there does appear to be overlap. However, some of the choices in there don't help people with cognitive issues.
16:10:02 [allanj]
allanj has joined #ag
16:10:27 [alastairc]
... there were three items that seemed acceptable, and Mike suggested the basis for the current wording.
16:10:34 [MichaelC]
ack g
16:10:42 [lisa]
16:11:03 [jasonjgw]
16:11:21 [alastairc]
gowerm: The existing error wording has: this is one of the three possible ways of doing things. Anytime you are entering data to complete a transation, you get a read-only view to confirm.
16:11:58 [alastairc]
... normally you can cancel and go back and edit it. This is to enable people to have a simple read-only version to understand before submitting.
16:12:18 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Is this intended to be merged during normalisation?
16:12:34 [alastairc]
gowerm: could stay separate, allows for a different scenario.
16:12:37 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
16:12:57 [steverep_]
steverep_ has joined #ag
16:13:06 [alastairc]
Lisa: but then 3.3.4 becomes redundant, think it could be merged.
16:13:25 [MichaelC]
ack ja
16:14:11 [Mike_Elledge]
Present+ Mike Elledge
16:14:40 [MichaelC]
16:14:43 [alastairc]
jason: my comments are in the survey, but want to focus on definition of transaction, and what is required in providing a read-only summary, and one of the way to implement would be a confirmation step users have to proceed through. That's a sig advantage to some people, but disadvantage in real-time situations for other people with AT.
16:15:27 [alastairc]
... allowing people to review the submission is an important principle, but the proposal doesn't spec the circumstance it is appropriate for.
16:15:27 [MichaelC]
ack me
16:16:33 [alastairc]
MichaelC: I think Jason's comments circle around defining a transaction, if that were clear then concerns about being too broad might be addressed. I thought it was clear, but seeing that it's fairly generic now.
16:17:31 [gowerm]
16:17:44 [alastairc]
Jason: that's about half of them, the others are what needs to be provided. E.g. could a tick-box undermine the read-only aspect? Also, imposing a confirmation step (one way of implementing it), will slow some people down in time-sensitive situations.
16:18:15 [MichaelC]
ack go
16:19:09 [alastairc]
gowerm: some (a lot of) of that can be addressed in understanding. For example, github gives you a preview (read only) version, so that's a way to implement it. The transaction definition is a good idea, but we do have quite a few SCs that use it already.
16:19:31 [Mike_Elledge]
16:20:06 [alastairc]
Rachael: Can we setup a separate call for that definition?
16:20:10 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Noted.
16:20:14 [MichaelC]
ack mi
16:20:50 [alastairc]
Mike_Ellege: please talk about the read-only aspect?
16:21:25 [alastairc]
gowerm: The intent is that it's read-only, approve/cancel, final review with minimal complications.
16:21:25 [david-macdonald]
16:21:35 [MichaelC]
ack d
16:21:37 [MichaelC]
16:22:07 [alastairc]
david: This could be a huge ask, we want to balance benefit with change, as all forms are affected.
16:22:16 [MichaelC]
ack me
16:22:28 [alastairc]
MichaelC: That ask depends on the definition of 'transaction', we need to work that out.
16:23:07 [alastairc]
... Alex mentioned this is an unrealistic change to an established SC. If it were to merge into an SC, then it does raise the alarm for Alex's comment.
16:23:58 [alastairc]
gowerm: I don't have a problem with taking the wording from 3.3.4, and if you had a single-A version, you could meet this without meeting 3.3.4. So this is a more specific verison.
16:24:03 [Alex_]
16:24:18 [MichaelC]
ack al
16:24:28 [alastairc]
MichaelC: If we're clear it is separate that affects the evaluation.
16:25:08 [alastairc]
Alex_: Agree with moving 3.3.4 to single A, but not sure how you define a transaction that doesn't make it a huge requirement.
16:25:32 [lisa]
16:25:37 [alastairc]
... 3.3.4 is established, that can move to single A. Having this as a separate thing on top of 3.3.4 just isn't doable, except perhaps a triple-A.
16:25:39 [MichaelC]
ack l
16:25:57 [alastairc]
Lisa: It might be more useful to go to other topic?
16:26:40 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Who shares Alex's concern this is too big of an ask?
16:26:58 [KimD]
+1 to David's comments
16:27:01 [alastairc]
David: There's a trade-off, not a clear win.
16:27:08 [Detlev]
I thought some new SCs might be merged anyway ?
16:27:08 [laura]
+1 to David.
16:27:38 [alastairc]
Rachael: If it were scoped to multi-page forms, would that change the answer?
16:27:46 [marcjohlic1]
That sounds more reasonable - multi-page req
16:27:50 [lisa]
good idea
16:27:52 [david-macdonald]
16:27:54 [Detlev]
Multiple steps rather than pages?
16:27:55 [gowerm]
16:28:05 [laura]
single page would help.
16:28:09 [MichaelC]
ack d
16:28:35 [MichaelC]
16:28:46 [MichaelC]
ack gow
16:28:50 [alastairc]
david: wouldn't you end up with a lot of content for review?
16:28:56 [kirkwood]
Multipage into one page would be helpful because it wouldn’t itme out on each page, david
16:29:14 [Alex_]
has anybody used ERP system
16:29:19 [lisa]
david, it is often, for example your tichet and hotel . o
16:29:25 [Alex_]
everything is a transaction
16:29:30 [alastairc]
gowerm: I see this as common practice now, for things which have legal implications, or deleting data. E.g. buying things from Amazon.
16:29:32 [kirkwood]
+1 MikeGower aying not unusual, agreed
16:29:39 [Alex_]
16:29:50 [alastairc]
david: didn't realise it was limited to legal things, is that the case?
16:29:52 [MichaelC]
ack me
16:30:42 [MichaelC]
ack al
16:30:43 [alastairc]
MichaelC: I heard that people were more or less favourable, but clearly the definition of 'transaction' needs refining. Also need to make sure the scope is clear, so it isn't every form. Is that ok?
16:31:17 [alastairc]
Alex_: In enterprise areas, every action is a transaction, e.g. moving goods and materials.
16:32:11 [alastairc]
RESOLUTION: Continue work on transaction definition and scope
16:32:30 [alastairc]
MichaelC: There was a question about AAA proposals...
16:32:33 [MichaelC]
topic: Consider some AAA?
16:32:35 [laura]
laura has left #ag
16:33:13 [Alex_]
sorry have to run
16:33:31 [alastairc]
Lisa: Some SCs from COGA were rejected at AA, we were hoping they could be considered at AAA, then the information would be available in the spec.
16:33:41 [jasonjgw]
16:33:59 [MichaelC]
ack j
16:34:01 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Any reactions? Question for chairs soon.
16:34:30 [lisa]
not problems with testability
16:34:40 [alastairc]
jasonjgw: It is question for chairs, but it is question of what the issues were. If it's about scope to content that is ok, but testability is a problem regardless of level.
16:35:21 [Mike_Elledge]
16:35:22 [alastairc]
MichaelC: Chairs will need to look at this, but not hearing objections, so let's figure out how it could work.
16:35:42 [alastairc]
... hopefully a chair will be hear Thursday, thanks for approving one and reviewing others.
16:35:52 [kirkwood]
16:35:58 [david-macdonald]
Present+ David-macdonald
16:36:14 [alastairc]
trackbot, end meeting
16:36:14 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:36:14 [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,
16:36:17 [Zakim]
... wayne, WayneDick, chriscm, lisa, bruce_bailey, MichaelC, Rachael, kirkwood, marcjohlic, Pietro, jon_avila, alastairc, JMcSorley, David-MacDonald, Kathy, JanMcSorley,
16:36:17 [Zakim]
... Katie_Haritos-Shea, Elledge
16:36:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:36:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:36:23 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:36:23 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items