14:29:40 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:29:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-irc 14:29:42 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:29:45 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:29:45 Date: 03 October 2017 14:29:50 zakim, agenda? 14:29:50 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 14:29:51 1. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108] 14:29:51 2. Use of the term 'easily available' https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/373 (with Lisa) [from Joshue108] 14:29:51 3. Assigning AGWG read work issues [from Joshue108] 14:32:34 zakim, clear agenda 14:32:34 agenda cleared 14:33:49 agenda+ Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0 14:34:46 agenda+ New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ 14:34:55 agenda+ Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ 14:35:03 agenda+ AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 14:37:03 agenda+ Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG) 14:48:36 Chair: Joshue108 14:56:49 JakeAbma has joined #ag 14:57:02 present+ JakeAbma 14:57:52 steverep has joined #ag 14:58:12 JF has joined #AG 14:58:27 agenda? 14:58:30 allanj has joined #ag 14:58:51 present+ JF 14:59:03 zakim, who is here? 14:59:03 Present: AWK, brooks, Detlev_, Roy, Joshue, KimD, Glenda, Melanie_Philipp, Greg_Lowney, steverep, JF, David-MacDonald, Laura, MichaelC, lisa, Pietro, AndyHeath, Katie_Haritos-Shea, 14:59:07 ... jasonjgw, MikeGower, kirkwood, JakeAbma 14:59:07 On IRC I see allanj, JF, steverep, JakeAbma, RRSAgent, Joshue108, lisa, MichaelC, jamesn, Zakim, jasonjgw, yatil-away, trackbot 14:59:43 KimD has joined #ag 14:59:53 Present+ KimD 15:00:10 present+ Joshue108 15:00:28 present+steverep 15:00:48 present+ 15:01:01 Brooks has joined #ag 15:01:21 present+ Brooks 15:01:24 present+ 15:02:15 AndyHeath has joined #ag 15:02:23 alastairc has joined #ag 15:03:26 jamesn has joined #ag 15:03:45 Glenda has joined #ag 15:05:03 MelanieP has joined #ag 15:05:08 bruce_bailey has joined #ag 15:05:17 present+ bruce_bailey 15:05:28 Scribenick: BruceB 15:05:38 zakim, agenda? 15:05:38 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 15:05:39 1. Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0 [from Joshue108] 15:05:39 2. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108] 15:05:39 3. Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ [from Joshue108] 15:05:39 4. AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 [from Joshue108] 15:05:40 5. Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG) [from Joshue108] 15:05:44 zakim, take up item 5 15:05:44 agendum 5. "Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG)" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:05:50 present+ alastairc 15:06:08 Josh, introduce ivy 15:06:36 Andy Heath 15:06:38 s/ivy/ Andy 15:06:42 present+ Glenda 15:06:50 david-macdonald has joined #ag 15:06:53 makes introductions, background in personalization long time 15:06:58 present+ Jim 15:07:04 present+ Melanie_Philipp 15:07:10 worked with dave ragett and indepent ui 15:07:18 present+ david-macdonald 15:07:43 long ago starting with POUR now have 120+ items 15:08:01 AndyyHeath also has been working with Lisa on Coga 15:08:07 david2 has joined #ag 15:08:49 Unofficial TPAC get together, John F posted to list and invites folks to drink and dinner 15:09:10 survey monkey in survey 15:09:10 https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG 15:09:19 *thanks 15:09:47 If JF gets good feedback, he will try to organize something 15:10:08 especially if he gets some consistent responses on survey wrt costs, etc 15:10:16 zakim, take up item 1 15:10:16 agendum 1. "Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:10:50 hopefully brief, Josh and AWK discuss and want to be clear 15:11:08 AWK has joined #ag 15:11:08 Reiterating: there will not be any normative changes to WCAG 2.0 15:11:35 We are focusing our time and attention on 2.1 and latter 2.2 and silver 15:11:36 Besides, changes to WCAG 2.0 is out of scoper per our Charter: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/ag-charter#deliverables 15:11:45 s/scoper/scope 15:12:00 zakim, next item 15:12:00 agendum 2. "New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:12:38 David MacDonald asks if we are allowed to make things harder 15:12:47 Josh affirms, that is within scope for 2.1 15:12:56 We cannot change 2.0 15:12:58 Q+ 15:13:42 james comments that techniques that do not work for 2.0 might be a problem 15:13:48 ack JF 15:13:48 Ryladog has joined #ag 15:13:54 Josh affirms that we are drawing line on 2.0 15:14:03 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:14:11 JF raises question that techniques do not have versioning 15:14:46 A new technique that has the effect of making requirements (from 2.1, as compared to 2.) could be problematic 15:14:52 q+ 15:15:06 JF open to versioning, but we do not have that in process 15:15:14 q+ 15:15:25 Michael Cooper points out that technics point to SC 15:15:26 zakim, take up item 1 15:15:26 agendum 1. "Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:15:44 MC say quick ref will make that most obvious view of that 15:16:13 JF (and MC) agree that this is a work in progress, so we are all curious as to what this will look like in end 15:16:35 The URL is 'versioned': w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/, could we transplant over to w3.org/TR/WCAG21-TECHS/ and modify from there? 15:16:44 MC says that QuickRef will have 2.1/2.0 filter, so that will be part of the solution 15:16:55 JF reminds us that techniques are non-normative 15:17:09 It will be interesting to see how this all plays out 15:17:10 ack jason 15:17:17 marcjohlic has joined #ag 15:17:30 Jason thinks it will be conceptialy clear 15:17:54 Certain techniques will only be mapped to SC from 2.1 15:18:37 There may be an issue where the technique at least on its surface seems to apply to the text of a 2.0 SC 15:18:40 ack ryla 15:19:02 There was also a comment that we may end up rephrasing some 2.0 SC 15:19:22 Rachael has joined #ag 15:19:24 Pietro has joined #ag 15:19:24 Kathy says new techniques for 2.1 should not be a problem 15:19:32 Why do new SC for 2.0 need to be seperate? 15:19:34 Present+ 15:19:47 There will be additional new techniques, so those might need additional care 15:19:57 MC resists idea of version 15:19:59 presen+ 15:20:04 present+ 15:20:13 Katie asks about new techniques have distinct lables 15:20:20 s/Kathy says new/Katie says new 15:20:21 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:20:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html AWK 15:20:43 q? 15:20:44 MC versioning even new technique would be problematic and confusing 15:21:13 Katie: it seems like all the new techniques should have promenant note about being only applicable to 2.1 15:21:25 RRSAGent, set logs public 15:21:29 Josh, asks to wrap the techniques discussion 15:21:29 @Josh - perhaps a topic for TPAC? 15:21:57 Can be a future meeting item, perhaps at TPAC per JF suggestion 15:22:11 zakim, take up item 2 15:22:11 agendum 2. "New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:22:14 Very interesting of course, but OT for now 15:22:29 We will start with 3, issue 175 15:22:31 TOPIC: Requirement for PDF forms to be Interactive #175 15:22:53 regrets+ Detlev, Mike_Elledge, Kathy, GregLowney, EA_Draffan, Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson 15:22:58 TOPIC: Requirement for PDF to Interactive 15:23:08 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/175 15:23:31 present+ 15:23:31 Please see survey, thanks for David MacDonald for writing up. 15:23:58 Contrarary response from SteveRep 15:24:23 Josh characterizes survey as most people accepting David's proposed response. 15:24:48 Josh ask David to see if OP accepts response. 15:25:09 q+ to basically say we should defer not reject at this stage - it's an important point 15:25:15 Josh points out that GitHub process is so transparent that response is developed on the fly 15:25:28 ack st 15:25:28 steverep, you wanted to basically say we should defer not reject at this stage - it's an important point 15:25:30 Josh asks for objections. 15:26:10 SteveRep agrees with closing for 2.1 but keep the issue open 15:26:29 MC points out that open issues are open for 2.1 only 15:26:31 Then that would be "defer to silver" 15:26:39 MC asks SteveRep to add to wiki 15:26:51 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Potential_Accessibility_Guidelines 15:27:14 Link back to this issue, keep on radar for future work 15:27:24 kirkwood has joined #ag 15:27:33 SteveRep asks for "defer to silver" label 15:27:33 Defer to silver? Perhaps instead we state "defer to future work" as we may actually release a 2.2 before Silver comes out 15:27:38 q? 15:27:42 MikeGower 15:28:05 MG asks about changing a definition of 2.1 as compared to 2.0 15:28:31 Definitions are normative, so this may need more discussion 15:28:45 SteveRep agrees to followup 15:28:52 Would make sense to change "defer to silver" label in github to "defer to future work" or just "defer" and then we can put a link to the closed issues with that label on the wiki page 15:29:06 RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed in github survey 15:29:12 +! AWK 15:29:18 s/+!/+1 15:29:55 TOPIC: 4. And/or in SC2.2.7 Accessible Authentication #325 15:30:17 q+ 15:30:20 Josh agrees w/ AWK that "defer to silver" is really "defer to future work" 15:30:32 ack michae 15:30:39 Josh discuss "or" versus "and" 15:30:49 MC says it is not editorial 15:31:01 MC proposes changing header to match the bullets 15:31:17 This fixes the problem without changing meaning 15:31:26 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/325 15:31:29 Issue 325 15:31:50 Issue 325: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/325 15:31:50 We are discussing issue 325 15:31:57 q+ 15:32:24 David M has a counter possition from MC that it is not merely editiorial 15:32:24 q+ 15:33:01 Issue of recalling and transcribing versus recalling information or transcribing information 15:33:05 ack mich 15:33:23 MC says intent of SC is to cover either use case 15:33:25 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 15:33:25 ok, Joshue108 15:33:40 Q+ 15:33:40 MC agrees that preamble is confusing 15:33:43 Shouldn't the first instance be the same then? The top line is "OR" 15:34:14 MC asserts that changing heading without changing bullets keeps intent 15:34:37 gowerm has joined #ag 15:34:40 present+ MikeGower 15:34:58 DavidM says it might be the sequence of recall THEN transcribe is actually the problem 15:35:08 MC proposes deferfing 15:35:18 s/deferfing/defering/ 15:35:24 ack jason 15:35:40 Jason remembers discussions from meeting 15:36:37 Jason recollect was that Coga folks that problem use case of transcribe text from a different device (say a security key) was one of the issues 15:37:02 @jasonjgw the meant and. And they need the ability to copy and paste. They are not talking about writing it down by hand. They are talking about the ability to copy and paste digital content. 15:37:08 Copy from two-factor security code is transcribing but not recalling, but is a problem 15:37:10 rrsagent, make minutes 15:37:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html gowerm 15:38:10 Josh reports from email from Lisa that SC was meant to apply to either or 15:38:12 ack jf 15:38:27 Lisa email was not about sequence 15:38:47 JF remembers that copy number from a phone from a web page is not the issue 15:38:51 holding in mamory was the issue as i recall too 15:39:02 mamory/memory 15:39:08 JF, it could be a mobility issue, but not a coga issue 15:39:25 q+ to say that transcribing by itself is a cognitive issue 15:39:52 JF says the bullet points as correcting in the survey is correct 15:39:53 q+ 15:39:57 q- 15:40:02 ack steve 15:40:02 steverep, you wanted to say that transcribing by itself is a cognitive issue 15:40:05 Josh wants to leave open because Lisa is not on call 15:40:06 think lisa should be on the call 15:40:25 SteveRep also says that transcribing by itself is an issue 15:41:12 RESOLUTION: Leave open until Lisa S available for discussion 15:41:28 Josh adding to Thursday call 15:41:32 allanj has joined #ag 15:42:17 TOPIC: Success Criterion 3.2.7 Change of Content #365 15:42:44 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/365 15:42:56 This was from Gregg V 15:43:08 David M has a proposed response 15:43:58 Gregg comment was that he does not know what this does and need an Understanding document so he could better understand the SC 15:44:23 proposed definition for prog notification https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/b5c68e17f82feb0cdbbafc273f245b136a7445c4 15:44:29 David has the draft page from Understanding linked up, including pull request to definitions 15:44:55 q? 15:44:58 Second bullet is merely advanced warning, which might be instruction 15:45:20 Dave thinks he has written up all that GV is looking for 15:45:47 David affirms that some text in Understanding has not been reviewed during any calls 15:46:06 Josh asks MC to weigh in on proposed definition 15:46:07 >notification set by the content which can be announced to the user without virtual or actual focus, using methods that are supported by user agents, including assistive technologies

Example: a screen reader announces to a user that their shopping cart has been updated after they select an item for purchase.

15:46:30 AKW thinks we probably needs CFC on proposed definition 15:46:53 Josh proposed CFC for definition 15:47:03 +1 15:47:11 MC felt that is not strictly necessary 15:47:13 definition of programmatic notification above 15:47:39 RESOLUTION: Proposed definition for Programatic Notification to go to CFC 15:48:00 +1 15:48:19 zakim, agenda? 15:48:19 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 15:48:20 2. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108] 15:48:20 3. Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ [from Joshue108] 15:48:20 4. AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 [from Joshue108] 15:48:22 5. Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG) [from Joshue108] 15:48:23 Josh, other items on this survey discussed last week 15:48:37 zakim, take up item 3 15:48:37 agendum 3. "Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:49:35 Josh: this is a list of possibly inconsistant references to "essential" 15:49:44 9, 7, 5,4,2,1 - Unanimous 15:49:47 This was discussed some last week 15:49:53 rrsagent, make minutes 15:49:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html allanj 15:50:24 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/results 15:50:34 For this week the collective items (single survey item) broken into a survey item each 15:51:02 Josh asks the folks to double check the items that are anoymous 15:51:16 David M missed the survey and had feedback from last week 15:51:22 q+ to say the survey is a bit wrong for Animation from Interactions 15:51:28 David's feedback is on GitHub 15:51:55 Q+ 15:51:56 David asks that we check with coga folks that might have concern 15:52:06 ack steve 15:52:06 steverep, you wanted to say the survey is a bit wrong for Animation from Interactions 15:52:19 MC thinks we will catch those with the new survey and the ones that are not anonymous 15:52:27 SteveRep: 12 SC total 15:52:40 five are just links to glossary 15:52:48 one missed in survey, from AAA 15:53:25 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time 15:53:27 question on animations is a bit mixed up, but no actually substantive change 15:53:42 survey question 4 is a bit miss-phrased 15:53:53 SteveRep walking through that one verbatim 15:54:07 ack JF 15:54:14 Josh agrees to double chek on 4 15:54:30 I'm SC manager on the animations one, no objection to that change for number 4. 15:54:33 JF raises issue with #9 and timelyness of survey 15:54:40 +1 JF 15:54:50 Survey has not been open long and is still open now until the 19th 15:55:09 JF asks to have more time, even on unanimous items 15:55:45 Josh reminds everyone that we are on a tight shedule 15:55:56 JF asks for more time for 9 at least 15:56:18 David M asks if we can at least clear ones where we just added links 15:56:28 specifically pushing back on #9 15:56:50 Josh agrees, we can just knock out the lowest hanging fruit 15:57:23 David M still looking 15:57:53 David sees no problem with changing a few essential to required 15:58:04 q? 15:58:30 The adding links of course is no problem, but will double check that 2.0 glossary meaning is the one that was intended 15:58:52 David reports that Lisa S agree with the changes 15:59:16 +1 to more time 15:59:17 There may be an inconsistant use of essential within the "steps" language 15:59:40 David asks Alastair C about adapting text 15:59:52 q+ to explain once again why we need these changes - can only use essential to describe an exception 16:00:22 Alastair refers to survey, but is somewhat concerned that removing word essential changes meaning 16:00:46 Alastair does not know why word essential was added 16:00:46 Q? 16:01:09 David M points out that recent proposal was to remove essential 16:01:27 q+ 16:01:34 Question as phrased in survey uses a new notation 16:01:50 @@ for adding, -- for deletion 16:02:20 Josh is going to walk through SC edits where we had anonymous responses 16:02:47 q+ 16:02:52 +1 16:03:16 David M still has not able to answer survey, has been focussed on pull requests on GitHub 16:03:41 SteveRep reports that edits are netted up in a single pull request 16:04:46 Josh and David M discussing accidental activation 16:04:53 change is just link 16:05:12 q- 16:05:15 +1 Jason. More time = more time 16:05:23 David M is okay with any links to glossary definition being added 16:05:29 +1 jason 16:05:57 Jason suggest instead that for this call we just discuss the controversial ones 16:06:23 Josh, we will deal with more on survey 16:06:43 Discussion shifting to issues, rather than easy ones 16:07:11 Jason has suggestions for improving a few in survey 16:07:14 q+ to offer to address some comments now 16:08:35 Jason asks that we focus on the ones where there is disagreement 16:08:54 Josh asks Jason about Q8 with contrast ratio in graphic elements 16:09:00 TOPIC: In Graphics Contrast 16:09:04 In Graphics Contrast 16:09:11 http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/correct-use-of-essential/guidelines/index.html#graphics-contrast 16:09:43 q+ 16:09:47 Some people liked okay, but a few issues raised with reference to pure decoration and hover focus 16:10:18 Jason would like clarification about what is covered and what is not in scope 16:10:51 Jason's suggest phrasing aligns this SC with the one on Hover 16:10:57 ack steve 16:10:57 steverep, you wanted to explain once again why we need these changes - can only use essential to describe an exception and to offer to address some comments now 16:11:16 SteveRep explains why changes are needed 16:11:26 all these use the word essential 16:11:59 some of the uses are not using the word essential consistent with 2.0 uses of essential 16:12:10 wcag 2.0 definition very specific 16:12:22 DFN - http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/correct-use-of-essential/guidelines/index.html#dfn-essential 16:12:41 "if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform" 16:12:44 q+ 16:12:45 refers to something that if removed, changes the function of the page 16:13:36 Josh confirms with SteveRep that people are mixing the common dictionary meaning with the glossary meaning 16:13:41 q+ to say, pure decoration is defined in glossary 16:14:05 Example is understanding essential meaning of a graphic is not using the word essential like 2.0 16:14:30 SteveRep: comments on graphic contrast in particular needs more careful consideration 16:15:10 a graphic that is pure decoration is not essential, for example, so we might address that by adding an exception 16:15:26 ack alast 16:15:37 Jason thanks SteveRep analysis and agrees with it 16:15:54 present+ 16:16:06 Alastair agrees and understands better why SteveReps suggustions are what they are 16:16:09 ack gower 16:16:09 gowerm, you wanted to say, pure decoration is defined in glossary 16:16:30 MG: Pure decoration is a defined term. 16:16:49 MG: Thats different from essential. 16:16:54 q+ 16:16:58 Mike G agrees that reference to pure decoration is different but better 16:17:01 ack jason 16:17:14 pure decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality. 16:17:37 Proposal is for "unless pure decoration" 16:17:54 That is different than essential 16:18:18 That is essential is not opposite of pure decoration 16:18:24 *I need more time to go through the survey 16:18:44 q+ 16:18:55 Josh asks if people need more time, know that we have clarified some of the issues 16:19:01 ack michael 16:19:13 +1 to mcooper 16:19:22 MC discussion is not really progressing 16:19:42 MC asks if we need to survey competing pull requests 16:20:02 If people see two competing approaches, it might help folks with responses 16:20:12 Josh asks people to review answers 16:20:29 q+ to say I can put together a proposal for Graphics Contrast, but I'd like to keep these changes focused.= 16:20:31 Josh asks people to review definitions for essential and pure decoration 16:20:46 ack steve 16:20:46 steverep, you wanted to say I can put together a proposal for Graphics Contrast, but I'd like to keep these changes focused.= 16:21:02 SteveRep will send his rational and summary to list 16:21:34 *me thanks MikeG 16:22:01 Scribenick: Mike G 16:22:25 *me waves goodbye, thanks all 16:22:47 *me afk but leaving window open so I can read the end when I get back 16:23:16 RESOLUTION: Leave open and come back on Thursday 16:23:53 q? 16:24:01 zakim, agenda? 16:24:01 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 16:24:02 2. New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/ [from Joshue108] 16:24:02 3. Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/ [from Joshue108] 16:24:02 4. AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 [from Joshue108] 16:24:04 5. Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG) [from Joshue108] 16:24:13 zakim, take up item 4 16:24:13 agendum 4. "AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22" taken up [from Joshue108] 16:24:42 Josh: We need people to take ownership of these 16:25:03 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22+no%3Aassignee 16:25:15 Michael: This URI shows the 5 that are not assigned 16:25:26 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/405 16:25:58 Relates to Purpose of Controls https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#purpose-of-controls 16:27:20 JF: I support the editorial change to put in bullets 16:27:30 -1 16:27:33 q+ 16:27:36 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/405 16:27:52 ack michael 16:28:15 Michael: I don't think breaking out into bullets works as proposed. 16:28:28 JF: They are all controls essentially 16:28:59