Janina prefers to respond to the substantive comments as though the formal rules apply (which they may).
Janina notes the various URIs referring to working drafts.
Janina suspects we may not receive further comments in significant numbers.
Four specific comments: editorial; another CAPTCHA alternative;
Michael suggests creating a new branch for editorial changes, and separate branches for substantive changes.
Michael suggests a strategy of not making changes directly in the master branch.
Replying to Scott's question: Janina notes that it isn't clear whether the proprietary solution cited in the comment is a browser extension/plug-in or not.
Janina: third comment - ReCAPTCHA v3 does not fall back necessarily to a conventional CAPTCHA.
It is agreed that Google should be consulted.
Judy and Janina: discussion of heuristic analysis and the citations relevant to it that are or could be in the Note.
Janina: fourth comment - also on ReCAPTCHA, in detail.
Replying to Judy's question about the procedure for addressing public comments, Janina would like agreement on how to address public comments.
Michael suggests that we should process the comments sooner, if possible, rahter than waiting for the close of the comment period.
Michael suggests responding to the ReCAPTCHA/WCAG comments by determining whether to state in general terms that CAPTCHA implementations need to follow accessibility guidelines.
Janina: notes the deadline for comments is 24 March, allowing for discussion at CSUN.
<scott_h> www.Google's reCATPCHA v2 and v3 FAQ: https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/faq
In discussion with Michael and Janina: it is agreed that we should clarify the general point regarding hte need for CAPTCHA implementations to follow accessibility guidelines without undermining their purpose.
Michael suggests connecting the Git branch made in response to each comment meriting changes to a pull request.
Judy recommends adding a note to commentors indicating that subsequent comments may introduce further hcanges.
Michael suggests withholding the pull requests until the end of the comment period.
Scott volunteers to investigate the in-browser CAPTCHA comment.
Janina: notes the need to liaise with Google regarding discussion of their implementation in the draft Note; and clarification of the fall-back arrangements in ReCAPTCHA v3.
Judy notes Digital Publishing Interest Group's chemistry accessibility discussions.
Jason is also attending those meetings.
Judy inquires on the state of the community group.
Janina clarifies that there hasn't been a meeting, and activity hasn't been seen; more recruitment is justified.
Janina hopes that a draft document currently under preparation will help to initiate discussion and frame questions for the community group.
Judy suggests that we communicate informally with those who should be aware of the community group; chemistry and mathematics-related groups should also be inofmred.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: jasonjgw Present: jasonjgw WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jasonjgw Inferring Scribes: jasonjgw Found Date: 20 Feb 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]