15:34:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:34:29 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-irc
15:34:38 <Chuck_> rrsagent, make logs world
15:34:52 <Chuck_> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:34:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html Chuck_
15:34:59 <Chuck_> meeting:  AGWG-2020-12-01
15:35:06 <Chuck_> chair:  Chuck_
15:35:32 <Chuck_> agenda+ Findable Help (Question 1-7) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help-issues/
15:35:47 <Chuck_> agenda+ Target Spacing (Question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/
15:35:59 <Chuck_> agenda+ Redundant Entry (Question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/
15:48:39 <Chuck_> present+
15:52:30 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:57:21 <Rachael> present+
15:58:13 <laura> present+ Laura
15:58:20 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
15:58:22 <laura> Scribe: Laura
15:59:12 <alastairc> present+
15:59:19 <alastairc> agenda?
15:59:22 <stevelee> present+
16:00:33 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
16:01:01 <OliverKeim> OliverKeim has joined #ag
16:01:04 <Fazio> present+
16:01:38 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:01:39 <Caryn-Pagel> Caryn-Pagel has joined #ag
16:01:46 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 1
16:01:46 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Findable Help (Question 1-7) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help-issues/" taken up [from Chuck_]
16:01:47 <kirkwood> present+
16:01:51 <Caryn-Pagel> present+
16:01:54 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
16:01:54 <Chuck_> TOPIC: Response to #1437
16:01:55 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:02:00 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Response to #1437
16:02:03 <Morr4> Morr4 has joined #ag
16:02:08 <JakeAbma_> JakeAbma_ has joined #ag
16:02:13 <sarahhorton> present+
16:02:17 <JakeAbma_> present+
16:02:20 <Morr4> present+ Matt Orr
16:02:20 <laura> chuck: I'm going to read the question.
16:02:44 <MarcJohlic> present+
16:02:47 <laura> ... "Thomas Reuters asked if content authors need to clearly state that human contact details will be provided once the process of the automated contact mechanism is complete in issue 1437."
16:03:00 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:03:01 <laura> ... Scha14 has put together a draft response.
16:03:13 <MelanieP> present+
16:03:19 <laura> ... everyone on the survey agrees.
16:03:46 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:04:02 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:04:04 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:04:06 <mbgower> present+
16:04:07 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:04:25 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:04:35 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
16:04:35 <alastairc> "Clearly stating that human contact details will be provided once the process is complete would be good practice but is not a requirement of the success criterion"
16:04:42 <laura> Bruce: I would like the proposed response pasted in.
16:04:57 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:05:03 <kirkwood> +1
16:05:33 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept the suggested response from Scha14 to address issue #1437
16:05:42 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Response to #1367 about "Set of Web Pages"
16:05:50 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to:  Response to #1367 about "Set of Web Pages"
16:06:04 <laura> chuck: "guyhickling raised a question about what makes up "a set of webpages" in issue 1367."
16:06:12 <laura> ... Alastair has put together a draft response.
16:06:14 <MichaelC> present+
16:06:33 <laura> Chuck: 3 people want something else.
16:06:38 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:06:41 <Wilco> present+
16:06:56 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:06:56 <alastairc> q+
16:06:57 <laura> bruce: I agree with the response, and find it complete and sufficient, but already Guy Hickling says he wants more. So could/should we say that the WG declines to get more specific? As Alastair notes, the definition has been good enough for a dozen years!
16:07:11 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:07:11 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:07:19 <Chuck_> ack bru
16:07:34 <laura> AC: Guy raised a good point (in a follow up)
16:07:41 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help-issues/results#xq9
16:07:49 <laura> ... "in all those other [WCAG 2.0] SCs there is no requirement for one page to be identified as part of a particular set (a page could even be part of more than one set). Those SCs simply required that if some content showed on multiple pages, then it had to be shown consistently on all those pages where it showed."
16:07:54 <juliette_mcshane> juliette_mcshane has joined #ag
16:07:58 <juliette_mcshane> present+
16:08:06 <laura> ... So "Consistent Navigation" doesn't require that navigation be shown on all pages in the set, only that where it does show it must show consistently.
16:08:17 <laura> ...  think this does put us under a burden of proof to show, either through examples or a definition update, how people can consistently identify whether any page is part of a set.
16:08:53 <laura> ... bit of an onus on us.
16:09:04 <Chuck_> q?
16:09:04 <laura> ... maybe provide more examples.
16:09:51 <laura> Sarah: I agree that the wording is problematic, given that you typically don’t evaluate a set of pages but rather individual pages or components
16:10:19 <laura> ... a bit confusing
16:11:25 <laura> GN: "I agree with Guyhickling a more precise clarification is needed to determine how and where 'Finding help' applies. Does the definition lie with the author, yet each page needs to belong to one set? Can a page belong to more than one set?"
16:11:37 <Chuck_> q+
16:12:11 <laura> Chuck: chair hat off.
16:12:41 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:12:41 <laura> ... may want more examples and crafting a new response.
16:12:54 <laura> GN: yes.
16:13:09 <alastairc> "Help mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user."
16:13:49 <laura> ac: see above proposal.
16:14:32 <sarahhorton> q+
16:14:39 <Chuck_> ack sarah
16:14:41 <laura> ac: understanding would have to be adjusted.
16:15:05 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
16:15:09 <JustineP> present+
16:15:15 <alastairc> q+ to talk difference between help & navigation
16:15:21 <laura> Sarah: what is the difference between this and consistent navigation?
16:15:28 <Chuck_> q?
16:15:41 <laura> ...we have a lack of clarity.
16:15:43 <Chuck_> q+
16:16:12 <jon_avila> Even within a set you don't have to the same type of help - just that it's in the same order.
16:16:13 <laura> Clarify whether help is provided.
16:16:14 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:16:14 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk difference between help & navigation
16:16:29 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:16:29 <jon_avila> The reason this is different than navigation is that contact details might not be navigation - for example a phone number.
16:16:43 <laura> ac: history: The desire human is ideal. But not possible.
16:17:17 <laura> ... help mechanism could be a phone number.
16:17:37 <kirkwood> “findable help” is how its often referred.
16:17:38 <laura> ... need examples.
16:18:19 <laura> Chuck: workshop the SC here or offline it.
16:19:47 <laura> Wilco: slightly reductant.
16:20:17 <laura> s/reductant/reluctant/
16:21:12 <laura> ... do we have an example where it would be difficult to gauge if a page is in a set of web pages?
16:21:26 <laura> AC: would be easy to find.
16:21:38 <Chuck_> q?
16:22:07 <jon_avila> q+
16:22:12 <laura> Wilco: doesn't sound like it is a new problem.
16:22:25 <Chuck_> ack jon
16:22:56 <sarahhorton> q+
16:23:05 <Chuck_> ack sara
16:23:07 <laura> ja: if any pages that are part of a set has help they have to be in the same relative order?
16:23:11 <laura> Ac: yes.
16:24:25 <laura> Sarah: If I am on a page that doesn't have help, but others in the set do, does that fail?
16:24:35 <laura> Ac: yes.
16:24:38 <jon_avila> If any page in a set has a help mechanism - then each page in the set of web pages needs to have a help mechanism from the list below and needs to appear in the same relative order.
16:25:05 <laura> ... it is complicated
16:25:08 <Chuck_> q?
16:25:11 <laura> Ac: yes.
16:26:08 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
16:26:17 <david-macdonald> present+
16:26:35 <laura> ...suggest that someone update the understanding doc.
16:27:17 <laura> ... think we will be getting GitHub issues about this.
16:27:55 <laura> Chuck: volunteers?
16:28:53 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Update response to issue #1367 and include additional examples in understanding docs, and review in a subsequent meeting.
16:29:05 <alastairc> AC: I will email around about this issue and needing the examples being worked on.
16:29:07 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 3 - Response to #1436
16:29:18 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to:  Question 3 - Response to #1436
16:29:37 <laura> ac: basically the same as the last question.
16:29:44 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 4 - Response to #1434
16:29:50 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to:   Question 4 - Response to #1434
16:30:06 <laura> Chuck: Thomas Reuters asked about prioritizing the help options within Findable Help in issue 1434.
16:30:16 <laura> ... Scha14 has put together a draft response.
16:30:49 <laura> AC:  don't think the response covered the whole question
16:30:54 <alastairc> The success criterion does put the ways of help in a rough prioritisation order, but it does not cover prioritisation when the site provides multiple ways. There are too many variables to provide direction for this aspect, for example, the "Human contact mechanism" (messaging) might be better supported by the organisation than the "Human contact details" (phone). The group believes this aspect should be up to the site/organisation.
16:31:12 <laura> ... I suggest: The success criterion does put the ways of help in a rough prioritisation order, but it does not cover prioritisation when the site provides multiple ways. There are too many variables to provide direction for this aspect, for example, the "Human contact mechanism" (messaging) might be better supported by the organisation than the "Human contact details" (phone). The group believes this aspect should be up to the site/organisation."
16:32:17 <laura> GN: I understand the priority lies with the author(s). If this is right, it might be useful to clarify it in the understanding document as well.
16:33:01 <stevelee> lol
16:33:40 <laura> Chuck: GN seems to be going an additional step.
16:34:18 <laura> ac: useful as a second task.
16:34:35 <laura> Gn: agreed
16:34:59 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended suggested response from Alastair to address issue #1434
16:35:40 <laura> Chuck: Gundula, would you like to take this on?
16:35:54 <laura> GN: yse
16:36:01 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 5 - Response to #1394
16:36:07 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 5 - Response to #1394
16:36:10 <laura> s/yse/yes/
16:36:32 <laura> Chuck: jpascalides raised 4 questions about Findable Help in issue 1394.
16:36:39 <laura> ... Scha14 has put together a draft response.
16:36:51 <laura> Ac: following adjustements (comment) 	For item 3, we could add that we've been through this discussion before, e.g:
16:37:05 <laura> ... Examples of self help options are stated in the understanding document in more detail. The group has been through an iteration of the SC that included all the examples. However, it is inconsistent with other success criteria, and makes the SC harder to read. Since there are several examples for each of the options and it would be inconsistent to only include examples for one, the examples went in the understanding document for readability.
16:37:20 <Chuck_> q?
16:38:12 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended suggested response from Alastair to address issue #1394
16:38:28 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 6 - Understanding update to address #1347 and #1368
16:38:35 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 6 - Understanding update to address #1347 and #1368
16:38:52 <laura> Chuck: Issue 1347 and Issue 1368 ask for clarification for findable help in single web applications.
16:39:01 <laura> ... Sukriti put together a pull request to update the Understanding document: PR #1538 that adds the text:
16:39:07 <Chuck_> proposed text For a single page Web application, if the same URI routes to pages or views with different layouts or content, then each of those pages or views, have the supported ways of finding help in the same relative order.
16:39:09 <laura> ... For a single page Web application, if the same URI routes to pages or views with different layouts or content, then each of those pages or views, have the supported ways of finding help in the same relative order.
16:39:46 <laura> Chuck: I'm not certain what this sentence is trying to tell me. I need additional details on the "intent" before I can offer suggestions.
16:40:37 <laura> GN:  	Using the term 'URI' sound clear, but might make things more complicated.
16:41:00 <alastairc> q+
16:41:04 <laura> ... this level of detail is not needed.
16:41:54 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:42:26 <laura> AC: has caused confusion.
16:43:06 <laura> ... as you click around it can update the uri.
16:43:42 <laura> ... useful to have some clarifying statement around it,
16:44:09 <laura> ... missing an in-between state.
16:44:10 <Chuck_> alastair's alternate proposal:  A single page Web application (compared to a _Web_Page"_) shows multiple "pages" or views of content at the same URI. If a web application uses routing and shows different URIs for each view, that is considered multiple _web_pages_ because the URI changes.
16:45:07 <laura> Ac: need to explain somewhere.
16:45:14 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1538/files
16:45:19 <stevelee> q+
16:45:33 <Chuck_> ack steve
16:45:35 <jon_avila> We might want to consider something like this which we use else where "content that changes the meaning of the Web page"
16:46:05 <laura> SL: Don't think it is quite good enough.
16:46:16 <alastairc> Current definition: https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/findable-help.html#dfn-single-page-web-application
16:46:17 <jon_avila> q+
16:46:20 <alastairc> q+
16:46:28 <Chuck_> ack jon
16:46:55 <laura> JA: we have some wording in the change of context that we could use.
16:46:58 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:47:05 <alastairc> "Pages obtained from a single URI that provide navigation which changes the meaning of the Web page"
16:47:27 <laura> Ac: we do have defined SPA. "Pages obtained from a single URI that provide navigation which changes the meaning of the Web page"
16:47:47 <laura> ... some folks were confused.
16:48:09 <jon_avila> Then we should remove definition of single page app
16:48:20 <laura> Sl: boils down to restful
16:48:42 <jon_avila> q+
16:48:48 <laura> ... breaking the basis of the Web
16:48:58 <Chuck_> ack Jon
16:49:11 <Chuck_> q+ Jake
16:49:22 <laura> JA: maybe remove the SPA definition?
16:49:34 <alastairc> q+ to say that it was added to cover some (odd) situations
16:49:45 <Chuck_> ack Jake
16:49:56 <laura> Jake: +1 ing Jon's comment
16:50:43 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:51:00 <laura> ... multiple versions of how you implement SPAs.
16:51:11 <Chuck_> q?
16:51:14 <laura> ... better to remove it.
16:51:29 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:51:29 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that it was added to cover some (odd) situations
16:52:05 <laura> Ac: struggling to remember why SPA was added.
16:52:38 <laura> sl: SPA is causing problems
16:52:52 <shadi_> shadi_ has joined #ag
16:53:22 <Rachael> q+
16:53:23 <laura> Ac: Maybeclear if we swapped it around.
16:53:28 <Detlev> present+ (sorry to be late, held up by a meeting)
16:53:32 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:53:41 <laura> s/Maybeclear/Maybe clearer/
16:54:32 <jon_avila> The word variations could be an issue with responsive variations
16:54:33 <laura> AC: maybe simplify the SC text and explain in the understanding doc.
16:54:38 <stevelee> q+
16:54:48 <Chuck_> ack stevelee
16:55:03 <laura> Sl: yes it was tied up on PDFs.
16:55:18 <Chuck_> q?
16:55:23 <laura> ... put the SPA part later.
16:55:50 <laura> Chuck: tracking various responses.
16:56:20 <laura> ... 3 options.
16:57:01 <Ryladog> +1
16:57:52 <laura> Ac: small mod to swap things around.
16:58:15 <Ryladog> I dont like the idea of removing SPAs as a def
16:59:11 <Chuck_> q?
16:59:22 <laura> katie: not opposed.
16:59:32 <alastairc> q+ to say we can agree the update now, and look at the SC text later.
16:59:39 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:59:39 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we can agree the update now, and look at the SC text later.
16:59:39 <laura> ... would like to future proof.
16:59:42 <Chuck_> q+ to change scribe
17:00:18 <laura> Ac: if we agreed to the mod version now we could close these issues off.
17:01:22 <laura> scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
17:01:27 <alastairc> zakim, pick a victim
17:01:27 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose david-macdonald
17:02:48 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
17:03:00 <Rachael> Alastair: suggest update PR #1538 to address issues #1347 and #1368
17:03:09 <Rachael> Chuck: Suggesting that to narrowly address the issue that was raised.
17:03:11 <Rachael> alastairc: yes
17:03:37 <laura> laura has joined #ag
17:03:47 <alastairc> A <a>single page Web application</a> (compared to a <a>Web_Page</a>) shows multiple "pages" or views of content at the same URI. If a web application different URIs for each view of the content, that is considered multiple _web_pages_ because the URI changes.
17:03:48 <Rachael> Chuck: We had concerns that brought us to the other resolutions but to narrowly address these issues, does anyone have any concerns about Alastair's amended response?
17:03:57 <Rachael> ...and updating the pull request (see above)
17:04:09 <ChrisLoiselle_> ChrisLoiselle_ has joined #ag
17:04:12 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html laura
17:04:28 <Rachael> alastairc: Read post at 12:03
17:04:34 <Rachael> Chuck: Does anyone object to that?
17:04:42 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended suggested response from Alastair, and update PR #1538 to address issues #1347 and #1368
17:04:46 <Detlev> uses is missing but I guess you know that
17:05:15 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 7 - Group of changes together #1242
17:05:24 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 7 - Group of changes together #1242
17:06:22 <GN015> q+
17:06:27 <Rachael> Chuck:  Guy H raised seveal issues. Sukriti put together a PR. Andrew wanted something else. Are you on the call?
17:06:33 <alastairc> q+
17:06:36 <Rachael> ...AWK was probably regretes.
17:06:52 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:06:52 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to change scribe
17:07:05 <Rachael> ...Read AWK's comment.
17:07:34 <Rachael> Alastair: I think this was an older issue. There was very little difference when comparing. I think this may be removing information we added. I Think this has become null and void.
17:07:36 <Chuck_> ack GN
17:07:38 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:07:38 <alastairc> ack ala
17:07:40 <laura> Nothing seems to be  scribed  to the minutes document https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html
17:07:59 <Rachael> GN: When I Read this I answered very shortly before the meeting. I was very confused by the wording.
17:08:42 <Chuck_> proposed text For _single page Web applications_ or any _set of Web pages_, if one or more of the following ways of finding help is provided, then access to at least one way of finding help is included in the same relative order on each page
17:09:13 <laura> Nothing seems to be  scribed  to the minutes document https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html
17:09:21 <ChrisLoiselle_> I can scribe, one second
17:10:02 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
17:10:05 <ChrisLoiselle_> scribe:ChrisLoiselle_
17:10:50 <alastairc> Latest text: "For single page Web applications or any set of Web pages, if one or more of the following ways of finding help is supported, then access to at least one way of finding help is included in the same relative order on each page:"
17:10:56 <alastairc> Logging is ok: https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-irc
17:11:05 <Chuck_> q?
17:11:06 <ChrisLoiselle_> I only have from 12:10 on , as I had to add myself back in FYI.
17:12:05 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlaistairC: asks Gundula follow up
17:12:33 <ChrisLoiselle_> Yes, multiple within each category.
17:12:49 <ChrisLoiselle_> Gundula: I see, yes. Seems good to me.
17:13:50 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlaistairC: We are disregarding the pull request, as other things are met. We can follow up with Guy H. on issue and proposed text.
17:13:56 <mbgower> q+ to say consider incorporating single-page into set of pages defn?
17:15:10 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Follow up with Guy Hickling on the amended proposed text, and disregard PR.
17:15:44 <david-macdonald_> david-macdonald_ has joined #ag
17:15:53 <david-macdonald> q+
17:16:02 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: Proposes possibly adding SPAs into definition of web page , to simplify SC
17:16:09 <Chuck_> ack mbgower
17:16:09 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say consider incorporating single-page into set of pages defn?
17:16:20 <Chuck_> ack david
17:16:57 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: On set of web pages, we wanted to have site wide conformance model, but couldn't agree on sub domain, etc. We were trying to capture "across the website"
17:17:27 <ChrisLoiselle_> I.e. what is happening on one page is happening on another. For example, left hand navigation order display.
17:18:12 <ChrisLoiselle_> The definition of the web page or web application was with the same URL.
17:18:55 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: Talks to web application intent within SCs and how this could be incorporated into set of web pages and normative text examples.
17:19:25 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 2
17:19:25 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Target Spacing (Question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/" taken up [from Chuck_]
17:19:30 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM , Chuck: We can review further later.
17:19:36 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  New formulation of the SC text
17:19:43 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: New formulation of the SC text
17:20:20 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: Pointer Target discussion. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues
17:21:26 <Chuck_> q?
17:21:28 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck : Talks to text write up and current feedback. Opens it up to BruceB.
17:21:47 <alastairc> q+ to say the last condition was an error
17:22:08 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:22:08 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say the last condition was an error
17:22:09 <ChrisLoiselle_> BruceB: The condition at end, would make more sense at front of the text in the description to explain it better. It then goes into targets in targets.
17:22:43 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: Talks to redundant bullet. The last sentence above the note can be disregarded.
17:23:54 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: Likes how it is shaping up. Asks about nested and overlapping. If something is overlapping, 24 pixels is still valid. It is an issue when nested, thus the exception.
17:24:10 <ChrisLoiselle_> Nested: Where one target is entirely enclosed within another target, each provides a unique target area of at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels;
17:24:16 <david-macdonald> ++1 on that recommendation
17:24:17 <ChrisLoiselle_> :)
17:24:55 <ChrisLoiselle_> Wilco: I think the previous suggestion does the same as what I was suggesting. I have examples of overlap that I can share.
17:25:13 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q9zWT1OjdCrts2xuadVEaJ2wpyLzxnysFQCSTs72L2o/edit#
17:25:21 <Chuck_> q?
17:25:24 <Wilco> https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/pen/abZxPow
17:25:29 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: pastes in shared editing space.
17:25:44 <ChrisLoiselle_> Wilco: Shares different examples in codepen.
17:26:40 <ChrisLoiselle_> Wilco: I1 through I4, Example I1 and I2 pass, I3 and I4 fail.
17:28:56 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
17:28:57 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: Describes H3 and H4 failing  , when a square target is in a rectangle target. That fails nested. H4 is two square targets in a rectangle, thus failing as nested.
17:29:06 <Fazio> q+
17:29:43 <Chuck_> ack fazio
17:29:45 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: I believe Michael G.'s recommendation meets what Andrew K. was talking to earlier.
17:30:09 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidF: I have never came across this , in a nested , real world example.
17:30:36 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: An example would be links within labels. Also map pins on a map , both interactive.
17:30:42 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidF: Thanks, that makes sense.
17:30:51 <Detlev> and tiny x close buttons in ads...
17:31:09 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: To Gundula, has this information changed your mind?
17:31:33 <mbgower> q+
17:31:49 <ChrisLoiselle_> Gundula: Not fundamentally. There is still the pain point of the 24 pixel.
17:32:17 <ChrisLoiselle_> I feel that it is not mature, but I do like the alternative wording.
17:32:42 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:33:18 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: This has to also apply to a non touch paradigm. I.e. where they are embedded in another target.
17:33:47 <david-macdonald_> q+
17:33:52 <Chuck_> ack dav
17:34:19 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: I think we may have lost the word "visually enclosed". I think we need to add that in, for nested...
17:34:52 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: To all, adding visually to the text, is that ok?
17:35:09 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: To David, do you have an example?
17:35:10 <jon_avila> Target area doesn't have to be visual
17:35:35 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: Button inside an anchor. We want to make sure.
17:35:47 <alastairc> Definition of target: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-target
17:36:07 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: We can have a target that is smaller, AlastairC and Wilco have talked to this more than I have.
17:36:41 <ChrisLoiselle_> Wilco: It is problematic with text with background and padding.
17:37:27 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: Putting in visually, may add confusion. Target is a region of the display that accepts pointer action. Presentation may vary.
17:37:44 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: Maybe a note underneath it to describe it where it clarifies?
17:38:06 <Wilco> suggestion: Entirely overlayed on another
17:38:17 <Chuck_> q+ to ask what is it a failure of?
17:38:31 <jon_avila> Cards?
17:38:32 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: It is a failure to put a anchor in a button. Product tile, buy now is a button, but whole anchor is a target for landing page. Button is inside anchor.
17:38:42 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:38:42 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask what is it a failure of?
17:38:49 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: What SC is failed?
17:38:59 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: 4.1.1. nested properly
17:39:51 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: Entirely Positioned?
17:39:58 <jon_avila> enclosed?
17:40:08 <Chuck_> dm:  Targets in the dom.
17:40:16 <alastairc> Note: This criterion is about how targets are arranged on screen, not how the code is nested.
17:40:16 <ChrisLoiselle_> scribe note, I need to step away, can someone cover for two minutes?
17:40:54 <Rachael> scribe: rachael
17:41:05 <Rachael> david and mbgower: general agreement
17:41:19 <david-macdonald_> +1
17:41:21 <mbgower> +1
17:41:21 <alastairc> q+ to speak to Gundula's points
17:41:24 <ChrisLoiselle_> scribe:ChrisLoiselle_
17:41:30 <Rachael> Chuck: Proposed resolution to accept Michael G's resolution.
17:41:40 <ChrisLoiselle_> Rachael, I'm back. thank you.
17:42:13 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: A note is not normative in WCAG 2. model.
17:42:32 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: Does anybody object to the resolution?
17:42:40 <Detlev> +1 to amended text
17:42:47 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlaistairC: I would like to speak to Gundula's points.
17:43:55 <ChrisLoiselle_> On user agent exception, companies are more of a should than a must, and some companies don't meet their own guidelines regarding pixel size.
17:44:17 <david-macdonald_> +1 on the exception
17:44:39 <sarahhorton> q+
17:44:44 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:44:44 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to Gundula's points
17:44:51 <david-macdonald_> q+
17:44:59 <Chuck_> ack sarah
17:45:32 <ChrisLoiselle_> SarahH: On Gundula's points on size. Size requirements are not just for mobile.
17:45:50 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: They are different for mobile, 48 pixels...
17:46:10 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: 16 pixels is the smallest for Microsoft, Apple has its own, etc.
17:46:25 <Chuck_> ack dav
17:46:30 <ChrisLoiselle_> SarahH: We could derive system minimums and possibly apply that to web site
17:47:11 <Wilco> q+
17:47:25 <Chuck_> q+ to suggest we shoudn't work too hard to game proof.
17:47:27 <Chuck_> ack wil
17:47:36 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:47:36 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to suggest we shoudn't work too hard to game proof.
17:47:40 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: Talks to diagonal measurement and how that may become best measurement practice. I.e. one would pass, one would fail. Explaining how to measure should looked at.
17:47:56 <jon_avila> We mean horizonal or vertical line rather than diagonal?
17:48:46 <ChrisLoiselle_> Wilco: You wouldn't take the diagonal.
17:48:50 <GN015> would you mind giving the resulting text for "Accept Michael Gower's amended update to the SC text, with additional note per David MacDonald" ?
17:49:48 <ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelG: Talks to measurement explanation. on The google doc shared in the zoom call.
17:49:52 <jon_avila> I agree we need to make the closest point more clear and not anywhere on the closest edge
17:49:59 <alastairc> "Nested: Where one target is entirely enclosed within another target, each provides a unique target area of at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels;"
17:50:06 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidM: agrees. Suggests we explain this further in understanding documents.
17:50:09 <alastairc> "Note: This criterion is about how targets are arranged on screen, not how the code is nested."
17:50:54 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept Michael Gower's amended update to the SC text, with additional note per David MacDonald
17:51:00 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 3
17:51:00 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Redundant Entry (Question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/" taken up [from Chuck_]
17:51:13 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Redundant Entry and User Frustration #1431
17:51:15 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: presents third survey question
17:51:21 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Redundant Entry and User Frustration #1431
17:51:37 <ChrisLoiselle_> results can be found here https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/results
17:52:09 <Fazio> It depends
17:52:11 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: Gundula From my point of view, double entry to prevent errors when giving email address or setting a password is essential. So I see it as already covered. Nevertheless I can live with the suggested change.
17:52:18 <Fazio> q+
17:52:32 <Chuck_> ack Faz
17:52:32 <ChrisLoiselle_> Gundula : Yes, that is what I meant by that.
17:52:56 <alastairc> q+ to mention essential definition
17:53:04 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidF: Intent was to leave those as exception. If we went five fields down and we asked for an email again for confirmation, that will be exception.
17:53:15 <ChrisLoiselle_> If it asks again separate from that, that would be the fail.
17:53:20 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:53:20 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to mention essential definition
17:53:56 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: Essential definition is vague , where essential could be possibly met in another way. I wasn't opposed to it.
17:54:20 <alastairc> s/Essential definition is vague ,/Essential definition is a bit too specific,
17:54:27 <ChrisLoiselle_> Thanks , sorry !
17:54:57 <Chuck_> Re-entry of an e-mail address for the purpose of preventing error is considered to be part of the exception of 3.3.8 Redundant entry. To clarify, we can make the following change:
17:55:05 <Chuck_> Exception: When re-entering the information is essential.
17:55:12 <Chuck_> Exception: When re-entering the information is essential, or unless re-entry is used to prevent user error, such as re-entry of a new password.
17:55:51 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidF: I think that creates a loophole.
17:56:18 <ChrisLoiselle_> They are doing that for error purposes , which impacts the entire SC.
17:56:50 <Chuck_> q+
17:56:55 <Chuck_> ack Chuck
17:56:58 <ChrisLoiselle_> User entering twice, interference with user's brain and cognitive issues occur.
17:57:25 <alastairc> q+
17:57:38 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:57:39 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidF: I give you my phone number. Later you ask for my address. The numbers get mixed up in the brain for people with cognitive disabilities.
17:59:05 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: If it is something like an email address, it would be available to address. If its visible to you on screen it would be on same step. No argument there.
17:59:13 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: Is the original exception ok?
17:59:28 <Wilco> q+
17:59:28 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: The exception is not needed, since it is within the same step.
17:59:38 <alastairc> Current start: "For steps in a process, information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required on subsequent steps is either:"
17:59:59 <Chuck_> ack wilco
18:00:10 <Chuck_> q+ to end meeting
18:00:11 <ChrisLoiselle_> Wilco: Are you arguing that step is an entirely new page?
18:00:28 <ChrisLoiselle_> We would then need to define step.
18:00:48 <ChrisLoiselle_> AlastairC: it was helpful not to define that when we reviewed it. One control next to each other...
18:01:29 <ChrisLoiselle_> DavidF: Enter and confirm email address...Step 2...
18:01:41 <ChrisLoiselle_> Chuck: No resolution on this, we will defer to next time.
18:02:10 <alastairc> rssagent, make minutes
18:02:13 <ChrisLoiselle_> rssagent , make minutes
18:04:03 <alastairc> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:04:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html alastairc
18:04:05 <ChrisLoiselle_> rrsagent, make minutes
18:04:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle_
18:04:41 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-irc
18:07:37 <GN015> present+
18:11:43 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
18:16:25 <alastairc> regrets+ AWK
18:16:33 <alastairc> regrets+ Nicaise
19:04:45 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
19:04:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html MichaelC
19:27:43 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
19:27:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-ag-minutes.html MichaelC
21:24:40 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:06:20 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
23:55:19 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag