<Cyborg> if I missed any links, please repost

WCAG to Silver Migration

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/concurrent-input-mechanisms

<scribe> scribe: JF

JS: will be editing in real time in the docucment

<Cyborg> just got on audio

Not much more to add here: it stands by itself

<Cyborg> if someone can scribe, that would be great

JS: This whole section seems

CH: questioning if there is an overlap with multiple input modes

Chuck: hard to wrap head around this

JS: Will note that we need to further investigate

CH: asking about this and sufficient techniques

JS: Noted and we'll return to this later

[the above is in relationship to SC 2.5.6]

JS: any other thoughts?

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/language-of-page

JS: Principle 3 - Understandable. Start with 3.1.1 Language of The Page

we've already worked on this a fair bit - one of our sample SC

CH: think is reasonable to combine with section level

JF: suggests language related to programmatically determinable"

Chuck: so for or against combining the two?

JS: probably going to combine as a Guideline, and then the seperation happens at the Methods level
... when we looked ant information architecture, we looked at multiple methods

for this SC

CH: do we still have cases where the page doesn't have the meaning that it used to?
... questioning the use of term "page"

<Cyborg> i thought we were steering away from "programmatically determined" in guidance, for plain language purposes. Methods are ok.

CH: exactly , do we continue to use that term?

JS: probably can't

CH: at some point yes, we will need to look at using taht specific term "Page" as is seen in the existing SC

BB: where will that note be?

JS: in the comment section

BB: remember that Shawn does not agree with current definition of "page"

JS: any other comments or thoughts here?
... next is Unusual words

<Rachael> Unusual words will have a relationship with Clear Words, a proposed SC from the COGA group

JF: verifying that SCs 3.1.3 - 3.1.6 are all from WCAG 2.0

RAchel: asking about whether we should be looking at 2.2 proposals as well - specifically "Clear words'

JF: just thinking about merging 3.1.3 and 3.1.4

Cyborg: concren from UX perspective - different needs from different groups may conflict - want to ensure we don't lose taht

concern around COGA issues

want to ensure taht all the needs are not lost - mcan be nuanced

<Cyborg> diversity of need

<CharlesHall> tangent note: I hope the pronunciation task force is aware of ML projects like Project Euphonia.

<Cyborg> not losing literal meaning from these language SC too - leaving room open in what we write for that

[discussion around pronunciation - pronunciation as a mode of input]

JS: this is mostly about "Understanding", not input

CH: that was why I was asking about input

[discussion about input versus output w.r.t. pronunciation]

JS: returning to SC 3.1.6 it's about making the difference between Read (reed) and Read (red)
... just a reminder - the CfC for Silver - please vote if you can

so far it seems to have an overwhelming number of positive votes

trackbot, end meeting

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: JF, shari, CharlesHall, jeanne, Cyborg, Chuck, bruce_bailey, Jan, Rachael, KimD
Present: JF shari CharlesHall jeanne Cyborg Chuck bruce_bailey Jan Rachael KimD
Regrets: Amy Chris Makoto Denis Shawn
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
Found Date: 10 May 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.)