Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

22 Aug 2017

See also: IRC log


AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Joshue108, JF, shawn, shadi, MichaelC, MikeGower, Laura, Detlev, Mike_Pluke, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Katie_Haritos-Shea, marcjohlic, Kathy, jasonjgw, Mike, Elledge, dboudreau, chriscm, jon_avila, kirkwood, JanMcSorley


<interaccess> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 22 August 2017

<interaccess> Chair: Joshue108

<MichaelC> present_

Brief update on W3C/ESO standards coordination EN 301 549 v 2.1.1 with WCAG 2.1

<gowerm> Shadi: WCAG 2 adopted in Europe as EN 301549. The work to revise this will begin soon. Revision due May 31, 2018 and Dec 31, 2019

<gowerm> Shadi: Objective is to continue to harmonize. Both specs are being developed in tandem, but are slightly out of alignment - this creates potential conflict

<gowerm> Shadi: Call for Proposal by ETSI. W3C in process of responding, and getting feedback.

<gowerm> Shadi: We are planning to submit a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). ETSI has not seen this proposal. Deadline is this Friday.

<gowerm> Shadi: Trying to make use of ETSI development process to ensure straight up alignment of 2.1 be an attachment.

<gowerm> Shadi: You should be hearing about this in next few weeks. Let Shadi know if you have questions or concerns.

<gowerm> Shadi: The MOU does not place constraints on AGWG, but is to improve organization.

<gowerm> John Foliot: Are you the person coordinating this work?

<Detlev> have mic problems, trying to reconnect

<gowerm> Shadi: I am doing the work from w3c side, with involvement from others.

<gowerm> JohnF: Is it happening inside a working group? You mentioned advising AC reps. this is the first I've heard about it.

<lisa> can this weight to next week?

<gowerm> Shadi: We have a group of liaisons. What you will see as an AC rep is the MOU after we have had initial discussion with ETSI.

<gowerm> Mike: We will try to keep things in alignment. Ultimately the final draft should automatically be aligned because it will reference WCAG 2.1

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if ETSI call for experts is posted

<gowerm> Mike: I'm hopefully optomistic

<shadi> https://portal.etsi.org/stf/OpenCallForExperts

<JF> Curious to understand what happens when we start working on WCAG 2.2?

<gowerm> BruceBailey: I'm a little surprised this is so new to me too. is the call for feedback public facing? I don't see it on the ETSI page.

<gowerm> Shadi: This came up in the last few weeks, the end of July.

<shadi> 25th August

<gowerm> Mike: The closing date on that is this Friday, to reiterate

Printing – Issue 76 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extra_sc/results#xmatf1

<gowerm> Josh: We're going to try to keep things efficient today.

<gowerm> Josh: Seems to be split about whether this is ready for editor's draft.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask what is the official SC proposal language

<gowerm> AWK: My concern is that we don't know what the survey is covering.

<AWK> Jim's suggestion in the survey: "Where a page can be printed, essential information can be printed with no loss of content and or adapted text properties."

<gowerm> Shawn: There has been discussion of additional wording.

<alastairc> Jim added a new proposal: "Where a page can be printed, essential information can be printed with no loss of content and or adapted text properties."

Jim Allan’s 21 Aug email: “ Printing will be on the agenda. This is someting in authors control. It should go in and see what the wider world of reviewers says.” https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2017Aug/0027.html

<gowerm> AWK: The survey table of responses contains comments.

<gowerm> Josh: Has the group had sufficient time to review?

<gowerm> Josh: Can people live with this text?

<Joshue108> Where a page can be printed, essential information can be printed with no loss of content and or adapted text properties.

<Ryladog> Yes


<Ryladog> +1

<gowerm> DavidM: At the end of last meeting, as I understand it the direction was to take it up on the list and bring it up if there was a lot of momentum. I'm not seeing that momentum.

<gowerm> DavidM: How do you override the browser?

<gowerm> Josh: I don't know what an adapted text property is

<gowerm> DavidM" The adapted text property is about the Adapted Text success criterion.

<gowerm> DavidM: the problem is that the user has their own style sheet. I'm feeling like we don't have momentum.

<gowerm> John: My concern is that this strays into user agent territory.

<gowerm> John: I haven't done any testing with a print style sheet, but I don't know if we'll get text reflow.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that there has been no discussion since last week. Missing definition also? and to also say that there is a need for exceptions or clarity for paged media

<gowerm> AWK: I'm concerned there hasn't been any discussion since last week.

<gowerm> Alastair: Jake's comments drove a lot of the changes that Jim was making.

Jim’s examples in the Wiki: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Printing_Customized_Text#Examples

<gowerm> Alastair: Jim's testing established that his adapted text properties (i.e. line height) do impact the printout.

<gowerm> Alastair: You don't need print style sheets. The easiest way to fulfill this is to target the CSS at screen, then it doesn't affect the printout.

<gowerm> Alastair: It should have the same caveats as the Adapted Text properties.

<gowerm> Josh: Is it ready for prime time?

<gowerm> Alastair: I'd like it to go for wider review, and expect it will be changed.

<Glenda> +1 to include in public draft (to get wider review)

+1 to include in public draft (to get wider review)

<gowerm> Jason: It doesn't say what needs to be preserved. I think this is underdeveloped and should be shelved.

<JF> +1 to Jason, this isn't fully baked yet

<bruce_bailey> +1 to wait, not yet baked

<Ryladog_> test

<gowerm> Jake: I have lots of experience with printing web pages and adjust the print style sheets. Just as much we can control html with CSS, we can control the print itself. I have extensive work totally changing the print output.

<gowerm> Jake: You can override it with the printmedia query.

<gowerm> Jake: I can make sure that what I want you to print as a user, I have control over.

<AWK> We can also include this in the "supplemental guidance" document

<JF> @Jake... so what happens when the author uses 'page-break-before' (CSS), but the end user needs to increase the page font size?

<gowerm> Josh: What I'm hearing is that it may not be ready, but there are voices saying going out for wider review would be good.

<Ryladog_> I would like to see it go out for wider review

<gowerm> Josh: I can see if this was mapped to a magnification level that that be printed, but not seeing that specified.

<alastairc> NB: Zoom isn't brought to the print version by the browser, so that was removed.

<gowerm> Shawn: It is not to a zoom level, because that had problems. But it is to adapted text.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to agree that printing effects is importatnt to PWD and low vision in particular

<gowerm> Josh: There seems to be an interdependence with Adapted Text. I'm on the fence about this.

<gowerm> AWK: I've got my own concerns; I'm also not hearing substantial concensus.

<gowerm> Josh: Me too, but I'm not hearing substantial objections either.

<chriscm> +1 No specific objections, but also do echo concerns. Seems to me like "wider review" is really appropriate.

<gowerm> Kati: I think this is important and worthwhile to put it out for review.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to argue that it is out of scope

<gowerm> Bruce: I think it is out of scope. We need to figure out if we're covering printing. it is a huge issue for people with low vision, but it seems adhoc.

<JF> +1 to Bruce - I have concerns about bringing forward half-baked SC "for review"

<gowerm> Bruce: We are already adapting WCAG to PDF. it just seems out of scope.

<KimD> +1 to Bruce

<AWK> AWK: With the current lack of updated text for the SC, the lack of a definition to review, the concerns about paged media, and user agent concerns, I can't live with this.

<Glenda> @Bruce, this is to fill in the gaps for LV, and that is why it is proposed for WCAG 2.1. Jim Allan has detailed research that this is in author control.

<dboudreau> Come to think of it, +1 to what Bruce said as well

<gowerm> Kathy: I have similar concerns. I was wondering if we should change it to AAA and put it out for comment.

<lisa> +1 to AAA

<lisa> then education will look at it

<bruce_bailey> +1 that printing issue should not rushed

<gowerm> Kati: I agree with that. I think it is fine as AAA

<Glenda> @Kathy - if Jim Allan was hear he could answer many of your quesitons. +1 to open for public comment

<Ryladog_> yes AAA

<KimD> Not sure it's ok at AAA if not at AA

<Joshue108> 0

<gowerm> Josh: could anyone not live with it?

<bruce_bailey> IMHO we should first decide if print-fill-mail web page forms are covered

<jon_avila> Agree with Shawn that it is more than just a user agent issue

<gowerm> Denis: if we put it to triple A and change our minds, can we remove it at some piont?

<gowerm> Josh: Yes, anything that goes into the editor's draft is not a golden ticket to making it to final.

<david-macdonald> -1 We have 4 months til CR and ***29*** SCs to get in shape

<alastairc> Joshue108, There are things that the author can do that make printing a page unreadable, e.g. fixed height blocks.

<gowerm> Crystal: I have concerns with how this works. I don't understand at what point it gets adapted and how to test it. There are alot of things that can be modified. At what point should it be tested to see if it can print?

<david-macdonald> I could live with AAA

<bruce_bailey> +1 to david m concern with priorities\

<lisa> can we have a cfc at AAA

<gowerm> John: I'm concerned about the matuirty. Nothing close to consensus. As we roll this out later on, if amongst the strong SC we have some that are weak, it weakens the draft overall. I don't see why this can';t be deferred.

<gowerm> Josh: Even simple things like the language and use cases are not sufficient right now, to be frank.

<gowerm> Josh: does nayone object to deferring?

<shawn> Shawn uncomfortable with deferring

<JF> +1 to deferring

<gowerm> Kati: I would like a different option.

<gowerm> Kati: I wish Wayne was here.

<gowerm> Josh: This has had a lukewarm reception at best.

<KimD> -1 for AAA too because same issues as at AA

I wish Jim and Wayne were here too.

<gowerm> Michael: I'm hearing a lukewarm reception, but I'm not hearing large concerns.

<Ryladog_> +1 to Micheal

<Glenda> I can live with it waiting for WCAG 2.2 (sadly)

<gowerm> Michael: I prefer to err on the side of adding, if we can.

<gowerm> Josh: does anyone object to putting in as AAA?

<lisa> +1

<Kathy> +1

<JF> -1

<jon_avila> +1 to AAA

<dboudreau> +1 to giving it a shot at AAA

<chriscm> +1 to tripple a

<Glenda> +1 to AAA

<Detlev> +1 (for adding to draft)

<bruce_bailey> okay (0)

<marcjohlic> +1 to draft as AAA


<JakeAbma> 0

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Joshue108> o

<Ryladog_> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<david-macdonald> +1 AAA

<Makoto> +1 to AAA

<Joshue108> Where a page can be printed, essential information can be printed with no loss of content and or adapted text properties.

<alastairc> +1, suggest note about needing to define the techniques before it is finally accepted.

<Jan> +1 to adding it

<gowerm> AWK: Do we have the text for the definition?

<bruce_bailey> Should be rewritten to get rid of and/or phrasing.

<Detlev> I note that "with no loss of content and or adapted text properties" is hard to parse

<Joshue108> we need any missing definitions.

<gowerm> -1 I don't want last week's abberation to become common practice.

<Detlev> josh, hard to understand you (sounds muffled)

<Joshue108> +1 to MikeGower

<lisa> it is the last chance mike, there is no commen practicw

<Makoto> +1 to Bruce about "and/or phrasing"

Style Properties: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/adapting-text_ISSUE-74-78-79/guidelines/terms/21/style-properties.html

<gowerm> AWK: So this is text size but not zoom?

<alastairc> Adapted text size is taken on by the browser, but I'm not sure Jim was suggesting it be included?

<KimD> Seriously, is this ready?

from Adapting Text SC: 1. line height (line spacing) to at least 1.5 times the font size

2. spacing underneath paragraphs to at least 2 times the font size

3. letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 times the font size

4. word spacing to at least 0.16 times the font size

<david-macdonald> definition: adapted text: changes made to the style properties by the user as per SC # 1.4.13

RESOLUTION: SC to be tided up and definition written and CFC to follow

<david-macdonald> You can use my definition as a place holder if you want.

Animation – Issue 18 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extra_sc/results#xanim

<gowerm> Josh: this one has reasonably positive feedback

<alastairc> I can

a main use case is parallax scrolling

<gowerm> Alastair: started out as AA equivalent to animation. It has been simplified quite a bit.

<gowerm> Alastair: It is designed to address parallax.

<gowerm> Alastair: a drop-down menu is essential so excluded, in example.

<AWK> This one is AAA currently

<gowerm> Alastair: This is AAA.

<gowerm> "For non-essential animations triggered by a user action, there is a mechanism to disable the animations yet still perform the action."

<Joshue108> MG: I've put in rewording.

<AWK> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/animation-from-interactions_ISSUE-18/guidelines/sc/21/animation-from-interactions.html

<Joshue108> MG: To simplify the language.

<jon_avila> it's not about performing the actino

<lisa> +1

<gowerm> Jon: I support this at AAA. It's about beingn able to complete the action without the side-effects of the animation.

<lisa> very important for photophobia

<gowerm> Alastair: Scrolling would be essential part of animation. Parallax would be non-existential

<lisa> cnn is an example

<gowerm> Alastair: Came from vestibular disorder perspective. The MAC Pro page is an example .

<Detlev> ta

<lisa> it is compeletly essential for photophobia

<gowerm> Josh: Michael Cooper, do you understand the issue a bit better?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to argue for AA instead of AAA, if we use phrasing that is closer to 2.2.2

<gowerm> For non-essential motion animations triggered by a user action, there is a mechanism to disable the animations yet still perform the action.

<Detlev> get rid of plural?

<gowerm> For non-essential animation triggered by a user action, there is a mechanism to disable the animation yet still perform the action.

<Joshue108> +1 to need for definition

<lisa> ww can tweek it after today

<gowerm> Alastair: scrolling is under your control. parallax isn't. So if movement occurs based on something you've done but is beyond your control

<gowerm> John: There are workarounds without disabling.

<gowerm> Michael: I guess it's clearer. The wording seems weird to me.

<gowerm> Michael: I'm mixing it up with something else.... It is clearer.

<bruce_bailey> For any moving, blinking or scrolling information that are activated by the user, there is a mechanism for the user to pause, stop, or hide it unless the movement, blinking, or scrolling is part of an activity where it is essential.

<gowerm> Bruce: I'm hearing people arguing for a new AAA. If we reword we can make it AA. I'm pasting it in.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to suggest that we need a definition for animation

<scribe> Scribe: Laura

<KimD> +1 to Bruce. It seems so close to 2.2.2

jason: essential and nonessential is subjective

AC: external feedback that we need more research.

<Detlev> +1 for inclusion

josh: anyone object to it going in?

<gowerm> +1 for inclusion at AAA.

<jon_avila> +1

<AWK> +1 for inclusion

<david-macdonald> +1 at AAA

<alastairc> Can you +1 your own SC?

<Kathy> +1 for inclusion at AAA

<Joshue108> +1

josh: at AAA

<lisa> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Glenda> +1 at AAA

Laura: +1

<Makoto> +1 at AAA

<dboudreau> +1

RESOLUTION: Accepted to editors draft at AAA

<Detlev> can be drop the plural in animations?

Device sensors - Issue 67 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Final_prelockdown_set/results#xSC10

josh: positively received but has substantive comments.

detlev: came out of mobile TF
... should be covered by 2.1.1
... take it up in 2.2

<JF> +1 to deferring to 2.2

<dboudreau> +1 to defer as well

<gowerm> +1 to defer

David: had an amendment.
... “All functionality requiring specific device sensor information can be operated with pointer, unless the device sensor is essential for the function and not using it would invalidate the activity."
... big requirement. but not redundant.
... happy to defer.

josh: long discussion. common issues.

Alex: seem like it is a little more ready than some of the others.
... we have a gap.

<jon_avila> The exceptions in 2.1.1 aren't specific enough either -- so I agree there is a gap

Alex: additional mobile sensors. we need to plug the gap.

2.1.1 is all about pointer.

scribe: so many other sensors now.

<jon_avila> exactly

David: I don’t agree.

<jon_avila> agree with Alex

<JF> +1 to Alex - I agree with him as well

<jon_avila> we need to address the exceptions in 2.1.1 or address this SC

alex: 2.0 came out after iphone.

<david-macdonald> ALL Functionality in 2.1.1 includes shake, tilt etc

josh: has use cases.

MG: if we defer, want to make sure we do not defer 2.1.1

<david-macdonald> 2.1.1 Note 1: This exception relates to the underlying function, not the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input technique (handwriting) requires path-dependent input but the underlying function (text input) does not.

kathy: SC comes from use cases
... maybe change SC level
... could change it to pointer.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask that this not be combined with 2.1.1

<Detlev> Alex made me think - I think now that we should hang on to it

Bruce: happy to have it in at AA or AAA not happy to modifying 2.1.1

<Joshue108> +1

<david-macdonald> +0

<jon_avila> +1

<lisa> +1

Josh: anyone object?

<gowerm> +1 if we aren't talking about 2.1.1, this needs to go in the draft

<Kathy> +1 to put into the draft

<Ryladog_> +1

<JF> +0

<Glenda> +1 to include in draft

<dboudreau> +0

<Detlev> +1 for inclusion in draft

<Makoto> +1

<Alex> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

Laura: +1

<marcjohlic> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<chriscm> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: Device sensors accepted to editors draft

Undo - Issue 38 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Final_prelockdown_set/results#xSC3

<lisa> small changs to adress comments https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/undo_ISSUE-38/guidelines/sc/21/undo.html

josh: This SC has positive comments some comments that it needs more discussion.

lisa: we have tried to address comments.
... it is now simpler.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask what undo means, last step or any error in a chain of error

lisa: think objectives have now been addressed. It is now at AAA.

Josh: question on undo

lisa: means a person can get back to things.

JF: how is it not a UA issue?

lisa: could be an ajax issue
... we simplfied the wording to address issues.

alex: not sure what previous context means

lisa: means the last context

<Alex> where is context defined? it is not in WCAG 2.0

JF: struggling with SC.

<jon_avila> the back button often does not work

JF: does a back button qualify success?

lisa: yes if it works.

<jon_avila> I've seen a number of apps where the site appears in window where the back button is hidden

<jon_avila> that's not pratical

josh: how about don’t disable the back button?

lisa: more complicated that that. would have to work on the wording.

<JakeAbma> forms with more than 1 step in a modal have no unique URL, back button doesn't work

josh: would be good to call out the cases.
... what can an author do to pass?

lisa: make sure the back button or another mechanism is working.

alex: the word context is not defined.

<alastairc> There is 'changes of context' https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/undo_ISSUE-38/guidelines/#dfn-changes-of-context

<jon_avila> changes of context major changes in the content of the Web page that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously

lisa: based on “changes of context”

<JF> The fact taht Alex and Lisa cannot agree on the definition of

<jon_avila> change in context is not changing the entire screen

<JF> Context" is, to me, ample evidence this isn't ready yet...

alex: not sure what the word means.

lisa: 'changes of context' definition is what we are using.

<alastairc> Lisa: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/undo_ISSUE-38/guidelines/#dfn-changes-of-context

<jon_avila> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-changes-of-context

<gowerm> changes of contextmajor changes in the content of the Web page that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneouslyChanges in context include changes of:user agent;viewport;focus;content that changes the meaning of the Web page.A change of content is not always a change of context. Changes in content, such as an expanding outline,...

<gowerm> ...dynamic menu, or a tab control do not necessarily change the context, unless they also change one of the above (e.g., focus).Opening a new window, moving focus to a different component, going to a new page (including anything that would look to a user as if they had moved to a new page) or significantly re-arranging the content of a page are examples of changes of context.

lisa: user agent is out of scope

alex: only bullet applicable is user #4?

lisa: no
... normaly things will work. but they can blow up.

josh: maybe narrow the scope of this SC.

<bruce_bailey> * Bruce shudders too

<lisa> josh we can see if we are close, if not we could move on to plain language

MP: in pervious discussions difficult to define interaction context
... not clear what the author has to do.
... spirit of the SC is important.

josh: not sure what the author can do.

MG: typo in the last bullet.
... if back button is diabled it affects all users.

<jon_avila> pressing the wrong thing affects people with disabilities more

josh: any objections at AAA?

<Alex> object

<david-macdonald> +0

<gowerm> 0 I don't see it having any measurable effect

<Joshue108> -1 I think this is too broad and primarily a user agent issue

<Kathy> 0

<AWK> I share the concerns that Alex raised

<Makoto> 0

<JF> -1

<JakeAbma> 0

<dboudreau> -1 as well

<Detlev> 0 - not sure

<jon_avila> 0

<marcjohlic> -1

RESOLUTION: Undo not accepted into editors draft.

<lisa> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Final_prelockdown_set/results#xSC4

Lisa: would like to discuss other COGA proposals

<lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-enhanced_ISSUE-41/guidelines/sc/21/plain-language-enhanced.html

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Final_prelockdown_set/results#xSC4

Issue 41 Plain Language

lisa: this is AAA

<marcjohlic> Link to current wording?

lisa: but gives us a chance to add techniques

<marcjohlic> I *think* this is it? https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-enhanced_ISSUE-41/guidelines/sc/21/plain-language-enhanced.html

<AWK> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-enhanced_ISSUE-41/guidelines/#plain-language-(minimum-error-messages,-labels,-navigational-elements)

<lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-enhanced_ISSUE-41/guidelines/sc/21/plain-language-enhanced.html


alex: would like to see the SC in but doesn’t see how it it tesable?

lisa: 100% testable
... core vocabularies are available
... happy to have a call to explain.

<lisa> thanks Alister

<lisa> important clarification

ac: needs to be stated in conformace claim if people what to test for it.

james: can’t we hang this off of 315?

lisa: don’t think so.

james: could hang advisory techniques of 315.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask how a site author is intended to "Provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form"?

JF: how do I "Provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form"?

<lisa> for the identified context.

JF: how do content others do this?

lisa: can generate your own vocab.

<marcjohlic> I'm not sure how anything would ever fail this then - given that explanation about identified context

JF: mandating a conformance claim.

<alastairc> James has a point, there is a future advisory technique in 3.1.5 for "Using sentences that do not contain complex words or phrases that could be replaced with more commonly used words without changing the meaning of the sentence" https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/meaning-supplements.html

lisa: it is AAA

<alastairc> However, having an SC with that as a core technique might change the situation.

<marcjohlic> If an author uses horrible, confusing wording in their error msgs, then it affects everyone equally (imo) - not just PwDs

JF: in practice not sure how to do this with metadata.

<alastairc> marcjohlic - some might use 'horrible', but I see more 'delightful' but odd terms used (e.g. for marketing purposes).

JF: huge gap. Concerned even at AAA.

<JF> Coomon where?

alex: what is stopping any one for putting all words in the vocab?

<JF> Common how?

lisa: bit of a loophole.

alex: huge loophole.

<JF> "Non-literal language is not used, or can be automatically replaced, via an easy-to-set user setting." - which easy-to-set user setting are we talking about here? How does a content author impact that?

lisa: even with loopholes it would still enable AT to do something useful with it.
... AAA is voluntary.

<Detlev> The sentence "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." isn't very clear - as it doesn't clearly mandated th eexistence and the link to that frequency list.

mg: coorelation between readablity and this SC

lisa: disagree.

JF: is there an “easy to set user setting”

Lisa: yes open source script.

<AWK> does the script support across technologies?

<alastairc> I have to go, but I've come around to this one (at AAA, and assuming a small update to conformance to support vocab lists), so a careful +1

Lisa: easy way. can be used right now.
... supported in markup languages.

<Detlev> bye Alastair

JF: it will change the screen.

josh: good discussion. can see the need. not no is wcag is the place for it.
... anyone object th the SC?

<Alex> -1

<JF> -1

<jnurthen> -1

<Detlev> -1 language quite unclear

<AWK> -1 too many issues

<marcjohlic> -1

<KimD> -1 as with many of the language-base restrictions

<Makoto> -1

<JakeAbma> -1

RESOLUTION: Undo not accept plain language into editors draft.

<Detlev> have to go

<dboudreau> i have to drop as well

josh: we have worked had. Thank you all very much.
... considering not having a call on thusday.

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. SC to be tided up and definition written and CFC to follow
  2. Accepted to editors draft at AAA
  3. Device sensors accepted to editors draft
  4. Undo not accepted into editors draft.
  5. Undo not accept plain language into editors draft.
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/08/22 17:08:59 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/31, 018/31, 2018/
Succeeded: s/Since both specs are being developed in tandem, creates potential conflict./Both specs are being developed in tandem, but are slightly out of alignment - this creates potential conflict/
Succeeded: s/Glenda?/Kathy/
Succeeded: s/Kathy/Shawn/
Succeeded: s/Joshue108: There are/Joshue108, There are/
Default Present: AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Joshue108, JF, shawn, shadi, MichaelC, MikeGower, Laura, Detlev, Mike_Pluke, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Katie_Haritos-Shea, marcjohlic, Kathy, alastairc, Glenda, david-macdonald, jasonjgw, Mike, Elledge, dboudreau, chriscm, jon_avila, kirkwood, JanMcSorley

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, KimD, George, Glenda, Detlev, Romain_Deltour, kirkwood, MichaelC, chriscm, steverep, shawn, Makoto, JF, Kahty, Kathy, alastairc, Avneesh, Pietro, jasonjgw, Kim)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Joshue108, JF, shawn, shadi, MichaelC, MikeGower, Laura, Detlev, Mike_Pluke, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Katie_Haritos-Shea, marcjohlic, Kathy, alastairc, Glenda, david-macdonald)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Joshue108, JF, shawn, shadi, MichaelC, MikeGower, Laura, Detlev, Mike_Pluke, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Katie_Haritos-Shea, marcjohlic, Kathy

Present: AWK KimD JakeAbma Joshue108 JF shawn shadi MichaelC MikeGower Laura Detlev Mike_Pluke Makoto Melanie_Philipp Katie_Haritos-Shea marcjohlic Kathy jasonjgw Mike Elledge dboudreau chriscm jon_avila kirkwood JanMcSorley
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Date: 22 Aug 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/08/22-ag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]