15:30:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:30:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-irc
15:31:05 <Chuck_> rrsagent, make logs world
15:31:16 <Chuck_> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:31:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-minutes.html Chuck_
15:31:30 <Chuck_> meeting:  AGWG-2021-01-05
15:31:37 <Chuck_> chair:  Chuck_
15:31:45 <Chuck_> Zakim, start meeting
15:31:45 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:31:46 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Chuck_
15:31:58 <Chuck_> meeting:  AGWG-2021-01-05
15:32:31 <Chuck_> agenda+ Working effectively together for 2021
15:32:41 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 3.0 objection update Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/
15:33:12 <Chuck_> 	○ agenda+ Color issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/
15:33:21 <Chuck_> agenda+ Color issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/
15:33:35 <Chuck_> agenda+ Findable help issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/
15:40:34 <Chuck_> regrets:  Matt Orr, Charles Hall
15:41:13 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:45:10 <Chuck_> agenda+ Hidden controls update (question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/
15:49:12 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
15:57:22 <Ben> Ben has joined #AG
15:58:15 <JF> Present+
15:58:41 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
15:59:18 <chrisloiselle_> chrisloiselle_ has joined #ag
15:59:29 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:59:36 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
15:59:59 <ChrisLoiselle__> ChrisLoiselle__ has joined #ag
16:00:03 <Raf> present+
16:00:07 <Fazio> Present+
16:00:08 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
16:00:08 <Jennie> present+
16:00:16 <JustineP> present+
16:00:18 <ChrisLoiselle__> present+
16:00:26 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:00:34 <Ben> present+
16:00:39 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:00:52 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:01:10 <bruce_bailey> scribe:bruce_bailey
16:01:24 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:01:37 <Rachael> present+
16:01:51 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 1
16:01:52 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Working effectively together for 2021 -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:02:09 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Editors' note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion
16:02:09 <AWK> +AWK
16:02:10 <bruce_bailey> Chuck invites any new people to introduce themselves, but no takerrs
16:02:18 <JakeAbma> present+
16:02:19 <Sukriti> Sukriti has joined #ag
16:02:26 <Sukriti> present+
16:02:27 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/results
16:02:40 <juliette_mcshane> juliette_mcshane has joined #ag
16:02:42 <juliette_mcshane> present+
16:02:42 <bruce_bailey> The chairs propose an editor's note in the Background on WCAG 3 section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to improve inclusion, with the following text...
16:03:00 <Caryn> Caryn has joined #ag
16:03:01 <alastairc> TOPIC: Working effectively together for 2021
16:03:07 <bruce_bailey> Agenda Item:  Working effectively together for 2021
16:03:09 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:03:20 <MelanieP> present+
16:03:20 <Caryn> present+
16:03:38 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  WG is taking up some policies and practices to facilitate coordination and work
16:04:11 <bruce_bailey> ... asking sub groups to identify near term activities and goals and action items
16:04:13 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:04:26 <sarahhorton> present+
16:04:42 <bruce_bailey> ... also please remember to be civil, and approach chair if you have any developing concerns
16:04:52 <Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
16:05:03 <bruce_bailey> ... better to be considering and discussing sooner than later
16:05:09 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:05:09 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 3.0 objection update Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:05:14 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:05:17 <bruce_bailey> ... and we bid 2020 so long
16:05:34 <bruce_bailey> The chairs propose an editor's note in the Background on WCAG 3 section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to improve inclusion, with the following text...
16:05:46 <bruce_bailey> W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or inclusion within the process of creating this standard. [CUT]
16:06:00 <bruce_bailey> We welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.
16:06:09 <bruce_bailey> [bruce copy/paste from survey]
16:06:32 <bruce_bailey> 13 responses on survey, 11 approves, 2 ask for edits
16:06:57 <bruce_bailey> Chuck calls on Jake Abma
16:06:59 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
16:07:20 <bruce_bailey> [Jake reads from survey]
16:07:59 <bruce_bailey> The phrasing is awkward.
16:08:03 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
16:08:11 <Nicaise> present+
16:08:13 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:08:25 <Chuck_> q?
16:08:28 <bruce_bailey> it's not about supporting the review, but act upon review comments; it's not about support the feedback, but act upon the feedback
16:08:33 <AWK> Q+ to speak to my selection
16:08:40 <laura> present+ Laura
16:09:00 <bruce_bailey> Micheal Cooper:  all these ways ARE the ways we support review
16:09:35 <Fazio> That does sound awkward
16:09:49 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  JF suggest participation instead of inclusion
16:10:13 <bruce_bailey> MC:  This is meant to encompass feedback from people who are not members of working group
16:10:49 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  As I heard your feedback, you say you have a clear idea, but think it can be misinterpreted?
16:10:57 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:11:12 <mbgower> present+
16:11:12 <alastairc> q+ to say that is the intent...
16:11:26 <bruce_bailey> Jake:  I read it as people evaluating document is good, but ways WG should better support feedback is not clear
16:11:36 <bruce_bailey> ... what is supporting inclusion?
16:11:37 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:11:37 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that is the intent...
16:11:48 <jon_avila> We support reviews by helping point people to materials and resources
16:12:03 <Rachael> With John's suggestion: W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or participation within the process of
16:12:03 <Rachael> creating this standard. We welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.
16:12:28 <bruce_bailey> Alastair C:  An example is if someone had difficultly going through a long document, we could facilate breaking up what is needed for digesting the document
16:13:01 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  We have a process that facilitates feedback and review so we are including mechanisms for feedback and inclusion.
16:13:26 <JF> Q+
16:13:40 <Fazio> Inclusion to me means minority groups
16:13:40 <Chuck_> ack JF
16:13:41 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Rachael has parsed out some feedback from John Foliot, asks MC for response.
16:13:56 <bruce_bailey> MC:  The word "inclusion" is closer to our intent.
16:14:24 <Fazio> like including diversity
16:14:26 <bruce_bailey> John Foliot:  When we use word inclusion to be inclusive, it just seems circular.
16:15:06 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I am hearing suggestion for word smithing but not strong objections.  Andrew ?
16:15:23 <alastairc> (We jumped ahead a bit and had already put it in, but circled back to the group.)
16:15:57 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  I could not suggest changes because I was not clear on what text is in current draft.  I withdraw my request for a change.
16:16:08 <Nicaise> +1
16:16:09 <AWK> +1
16:16:10 <laura> +1
16:16:10 <JustineP> +1
16:16:10 <JakeAbma> +1\
16:16:10 <alastairc> +1
16:16:11 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Please +1 if you accept the proposed editors note
16:16:12 <Sukriti> +1
16:16:12 <juliette_mcshane> +1
16:16:13 <Ben> +1
16:16:13 <Rachael> +1
16:16:14 <sarahhorton> +1
16:16:14 <Fazio> 0
16:16:15 <david-macdonald> +1
16:16:15 <jon_avila> +1
16:16:15 <JF> +1
16:16:19 <bruce_bailey> -1 if anything you cannot live with
16:16:21 <mbgower> +1
16:16:44 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept the proposed Editor's note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion
16:16:51 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note
16:17:22 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/results#xq2
16:17:31 <bruce_bailey> The chairs propose adding a section to to the Acknowledgment appendix of WCAG 3 FPWD recognizing Participants who made notable contributions to the creation of this document section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to objectively identify key contributers, with the following text:
16:17:38 <bruce_bailey> This section will document key contributors. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft. This list will be updated for each subsequent draft.
16:17:52 <bruce_bailey> [bruce copy/paste from survey]
16:17:53 <david-macdonald> refresh
16:18:03 <jeanne> q+ to say that I like Andy's ideas, but I don't want to put it in the FPWD
16:18:08 <AWK> q-
16:18:12 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  13 replies, 10 approved as-is
16:18:20 <Chuck_> q?
16:18:29 <Chuck_> ack jeanne
16:18:29 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I like Andy's ideas, but I don't want to put it in the FPWD
16:18:56 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  I like Andy's ideas, but it is a starting point for next draft, so don't use for now
16:19:01 <JF> Q: if we like Andy's ideas, how do we capture them for future work?
16:19:14 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Andy did not object, so that is fine.
16:19:41 <bruce_bailey> Justine Pascalides has editorial nit
16:20:14 <JF> Q+
16:20:16 <bruce_bailey> Bruce has editoria suggestion to remove word "key"
16:20:16 <Chuck_> q?
16:20:31 <Rachael> q+
16:20:38 <Chuck_> ack JF
16:20:57 <bruce_bailey> Alasstair:  We already have contributors section, so the idea is space for a little bit more.
16:21:23 <bruce_bailey> John Foliot:  Question is how we are going use Andrews suggestion going forward?
16:21:33 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Adding to wiki
16:21:44 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Could be a pull request after publication.
16:22:04 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Good suggestion
16:22:11 <david-macdonald> q+
16:22:12 <Chuck_> q?
16:22:15 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:22:19 <kirkwood> present+
16:22:23 <Rachael> This section will document contributors who made notable contributions and it will be updated for each subsequent draft. The process of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft.
16:22:33 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Bruce do you have heartache with going forward with this using "key"
16:22:40 <bruce_bailey> Bruce:  that is okay
16:23:13 <Chuck_> ack Davi
16:23:35 <bruce_bailey> Rachael proposes an edit using wording previously approved.  Bruce likes Rachels edit.
16:23:56 <Chuck_> q+
16:24:03 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  David McDonald answered survey that we should skip this new section for now.
16:24:18 <Fazio> I kinda agree
16:24:33 <bruce_bailey> David McDonald:  This is something that is really tricky to do, and is something we struggled with this for 1.0 and 2.0.
16:24:38 <Fazio> Q+
16:24:48 <bruce_bailey> ... we can always add this later.
16:25:07 <alastairc> q+
16:25:09 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  This is to address an objection that was raised
16:25:13 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:25:31 <Chuck_> ack Faz
16:25:35 <bruce_bailey> David McDonald:  We can always add this latter, just seems premature at this moment in time
16:26:15 <bruce_bailey> David Fazio:  Agree with David McDonald, as there are so many people did work, seems like it could be more trouble than it is worth...
16:26:20 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:26:26 <bruce_bailey> on other hand, might be a motivator.
16:27:10 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Agree that this is a hard thing to do well.  WCAG 3 is a bit of clean slate, so while it is a difficult thing to do well, it is probably better to start from beginning.
16:27:24 <Chuck_> q+ to ask that it's worth the effort to try
16:27:26 <Chuck_> ack ack
16:27:33 <bruce_bailey> ... Overall, I would rather have a flat list of contributors, but I don't feel strongly about it.
16:28:04 <Rachael> q+ to suggest that Mike Gower's suggestion may be a middle ground
16:28:07 <Chuck_> q?
16:28:11 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:28:11 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask that it's worth the effort to try
16:28:14 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  There are a lot of individuals who went above and beyond, so it does seems fair to me to review and come up with a process and so keep it it.
16:28:17 <Chuck_> ach Rach
16:28:21 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:28:21 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest that Mike Gower's suggestion may be a middle ground
16:28:55 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I don't have a strong feeling, but I want to acknowleges MG softer phrasing
16:29:17 <bruce_bailey> MG:  This section is intended to document key contributors...a list should be included... [from survey]
16:29:42 <Chuck_> +1 to Michael
16:29:49 <bruce_bailey> MG:  I just used softer phrasing to get at intention, but not promissing something that might fall through
16:30:03 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I will propose something in minutes
16:30:14 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  likes this approach
16:30:44 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  David, if we were to soften the language, is that okay with you?
16:30:57 <jeanne> q+ to say that it helps us when people after publication make false claims of the contribution
16:31:06 <bruce_bailey> David M:  Yes, the softer proposal is better.
16:31:09 <Chuck_> ack jeanne
16:31:09 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that it helps us when people after publication make false claims of the contribution
16:31:10 <Rachael> Proposed rewording:  This section is intended to document participants who made notable contributions. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list should be included in the next draft and updated for each subsequent draft.
16:31:41 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  I started as Alastair expresse, not wanting to address this issue.
16:32:26 <JustineP> Consider "With special thanks, this section acknowledges the following individuals' notable contributions. The method..."
16:32:52 <JF> +1 to Jeanne
16:32:55 <bruce_bailey> ... this comes somewhat from some people having their names in wcag 2.0 listed as contibutors, and getting business from that, they trade on that acknowledgment without being a really significant contributor
16:33:23 <Chuck_> q?
16:33:25 <bruce_bailey> ... it is a way of noting people that really did the work.  I think this is worth doing.
16:33:32 <Rachael> Proposed rewording:  This section is intended to document participants who made notable contributions. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list should be included in the next draft and updated for each subsequent draft.
16:33:33 <morr4> morr4 has joined #ag
16:34:42 <bruce_bailey> Justine:  My edit is so be a little clearer.
16:34:45 <Rachael> q+
16:34:54 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:35:08 <Chuck_> Consider "With special thanks, this section acknowledges the following individuals' notable contributions. The method..."
16:35:25 <jeanne> +1 to "special thanks"
16:35:25 <Chuck_> q?
16:35:40 <bruce_bailey> Racheal:  I would prefere to capture Justines and AWK comment for introduction or maybe later, but not this editors notes
16:35:53 <Nicaise> +1
16:35:53 <jeanne> +1
16:35:53 <Raf> +1
16:35:54 <JustineP> +1
16:35:55 <Wilco> +1
16:35:55 <juliette_mcshane> +1
16:35:56 <Rachael> +1
16:35:56 <sarahhorton> +1
16:35:56 <Ben> +1
16:35:56 <bruce_bailey> [11:35]  Chuck_ proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended "Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note"
16:35:56 <mbgower> +1
16:35:56 <jon_avila> +1
16:35:59 <Jennie> +1
16:36:01 <Fazio> 0
16:36:02 <laura> +1
16:36:02 <JF> +1
16:36:04 <Sukriti> +!
16:36:08 <alastairc> +1, with assumption that if we don't agree criteria, we can leave it.
16:36:18 <Sukriti> haha
16:36:33 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended "Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note"
16:36:46 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:36:46 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Color issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:36:59 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/results#xq5
16:37:06 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 1 - Updates to G183 remove the focus step in the procedure
16:37:37 <bruce_bailey> In a previous survey question we agreed that contrast can be used as an extra visual indicator.
16:37:43 <bruce_bailey> G183 tests for both contrast and having hover/focus with extra indicators. This is ok for a technique which can go beyond the SC requirements, however, it does cause confusion when people compare to F73, or consider that touch devices don't have hover/focus states.
16:37:45 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
16:37:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-minutes.html jeanne
16:37:50 <bruce_bailey> Note that G182 is a more general technique that requires an extra indicator.
16:37:58 <bruce_bailey> PR 1553 removes the 'focus' aspect (covered in other techniques) and clarifies what is required by the SC and what is required by the technique.
16:38:06 <bruce_bailey> This would provide closure to issue 1118 and issue 1272 with a response:
16:38:14 <bruce_bailey> The working group considered this issue and applied some updates in PRs 1500 and 1553 to clarify what passes the success criteria and what is needed for the technique.
16:38:43 <bruce_bailey> 9 respones, 3 people want some adjustments
16:39:24 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Agree with the changes with some adjustment, please see pull request
16:39:30 <bruce_bailey> ... title shoudl be shorter
16:39:38 <Chuck_> q?
16:39:42 <bruce_bailey> s/shoudl/should
16:40:24 <bruce_bailey> ... with more recent techniques, we try to set up the procedure.  So I suggested "for each instance..."
16:40:59 <bruce_bailey> ... you need to (1) look where color is used, then (2) color is used alone
16:41:29 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  I have line item edits within the PR
16:41:41 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  I am making the edits on github
16:42:38 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  I have missed the earlier the call, but contrast as the only visual distinction is problematic for many people with certain visual impairments
16:42:45 <alastairc> q+
16:43:21 <bruce_bailey> ... relying only upon contrast, makes it very difficult for some people with low vision who need to work in darkeded room with generally very little contrast
16:43:44 <Chuck_> q?
16:44:06 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower:  I have no problems with edits proposed, but now we have lost mention of focus indicator
16:44:22 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:45:04 <bruce_bailey> ... I would like for us to note that including focus indictor (which could just be underline on hover) is very helpful to convey the focus state
16:45:52 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  These edits have been under development for quite a while and really this is a kind of tidying up because it has been a bit of a fudge...
16:46:33 <bruce_bailey> as to when we allow contrast to stand alone or not.  It is a narrow hole, especially because there are only a few color combinations that are strong enough,
16:46:35 <Wilco> Thanks for the clarification Alastair. I figured it was something like that.
16:47:28 <bruce_bailey> so relying upon high contrast color contrast only (without the visual focus indicator) makes this a compromise and is a middle ground bridging other techniques...
16:48:13 <AWK> q+ to ask Alastair about going beyond the SC
16:48:19 <bruce_bailey> This technique is asking for more than the literal requirements of the success criteria.  It is a compromise, because the alternative is have a high-contrast-only techniques
16:48:38 <bruce_bailey> and then a advisory technique that goes beyond the bare minium.
16:49:13 <MelanieP> +1 to two separate techniques: sufficient and advisory
16:49:27 <bruce_bailey> Mike G:  We have lost focus or hover from title, so the emphasis could should call that out.  I will add an edit to the PR.  I can live with changes though.
16:49:28 <AWK> ack AWK
16:49:28 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask Alastair about going beyond the SC
16:49:36 <kirkwood> present+
16:50:02 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  To clarify, this technique goes beyond the SC (before and after the edit)?
16:50:43 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Yes, and edits have gone back and forth.  Left the hover indicator in.
16:51:03 <Wilco> q+
16:51:20 <Chuck_> ack Wil
16:51:28 <bruce_bailey> ... Erik Egger advocated for pulling both focus and hover out, but current draft has lef hover indicator in place.
16:51:45 <AWK> I don't think that this is advisory
16:51:48 <AWK> this is sufficient
16:51:54 <mbgower> q+ to say I don't like this being an advisory
16:51:59 <morr4> present +
16:52:00 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  There is already a failure technique, so does it make sense for this to be an advisory technique.
16:52:22 <mbgower> q-
16:52:32 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  F73 is the mirror failure technique, but we do need a sufficient technique along these lines.
16:53:04 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  We have gone through comments and talked through pull requests
16:53:14 <AWK> +1
16:53:17 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  plse vote Accept the response and amended PR and close issues 1118 and 1272 ?
16:53:19 <Rachael> +1
16:53:21 <laura> +1
16:53:23 <Chuck_> +1
16:53:26 <juliette_mcshane> +1
16:53:32 <kirkwood> +1
16:53:35 <mbgower> +1
16:53:38 <bruce_bailey> s/plse/please/
16:54:15 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  adjust procedure with 1st paragraph in front
16:54:33 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  I may have missed that focus was already removed from title
16:55:14 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  My last item, in procedure, "where color alone conveys information" does not feel exactly right...
16:55:35 <bruce_bailey> maybe should be "in each instance where color is used to convey information"...
16:55:53 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I may want to leave this open for one more week...
16:56:18 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Only new change from survey is edit to last part of procedure.
16:56:32 <bruce_bailey> ... change is editorial
16:56:44 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  please vote again
16:56:46 <laura> +1
16:56:47 <AWK> +1
16:56:50 <mbgower> +1
16:56:50 <JakeAbma> +1
16:56:51 <Wilco> 0
16:56:54 <Chuck_> +1
16:56:55 <JF> 0
16:57:01 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:57:05 <MelanieP> +1
16:57:14 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept the response and amended PR and close issues 1118 and 1272
16:57:17 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:57:19 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  No objections
16:57:20 <Ryladog> +1
16:57:22 <alastairc> Alastair - will also reply  to @yatil.
16:57:23 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Clarity for 1.3.3: Sensory Characteristics needed #1532
16:57:48 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Does this SC really apply to "single page" web applications? #1427
16:57:54 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/results#xq4
16:58:15 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
16:58:21 <Sukriti> I'll scribe
16:58:24 <AWK> Sorry, one more thing on G183
16:58:27 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Clarity for 1.3.3: Sensory Characteristics needed #1532
16:58:36 <Sukriti> scribe:Sukriti
16:59:52 <Sukriti> Jake: was commenting on another issue, this one not applicable
17:00:19 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
17:00:51 <Sukriti> AWK: Was trying to determine what we were trying to accomplish with this example
17:01:14 <Sukriti> ...seemed to be saying position and color were things you couldn't rely on
17:01:20 <Chuck__> Chuck__ has joined #ag
17:01:23 <Sukriti> ...trying to reconcile with example 1
17:01:25 <JakeAbma> q+
17:01:34 <Sukriti> ...and SC 1.4.1
17:01:43 <Chuck__> ack Jake
17:02:20 <alastairc> q+
17:02:22 <Sukriti> Jake: is this about instructions, why are we talking about sensory characteristics
17:02:36 <Sukriti> ...example 1 is not an instruction
17:02:48 <Chuck__> ack ala
17:03:17 <Chuck__> Chuck__ has changed the topic to:  Question 2 - Clarity for 1.3.3: Sensory Characteristics needed #1532
17:03:42 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
17:03:45 <Sukriti> Alastair: if the example has a label, it would pass
17:04:03 <Sukriti> ...because you are not relying on position or color
17:04:08 <Detlev> present+ (sorry, got delayed)
17:04:16 <Sukriti> ...but it was unclear why the example passed. That was the change
17:04:23 <mbgower> q+ to say The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon; it does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also refers to the label of the icon.
17:04:35 <Sukriti> Charles: Does that address the questions?
17:04:44 <Chuck__> ack mb
17:04:44 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon; it does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also refers to the label
17:04:48 <Zakim> ... of the icon.
17:04:53 <Sukriti> MikeG: Just posted slightly updated wording to address
17:05:28 <Chuck__> +1 mbgower's suggestion
17:05:54 <alastairc> visually labels?
17:06:03 <AWK> q+
17:06:26 <AWK> q+ to remind people to read the errata
17:06:37 <Sukriti> Jake: are we saying this is an instruction but doesn't count because there is a label
17:06:57 <Chuck__> ack AWK
17:06:57 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to remind people to read the errata
17:07:02 <Sukriti> MikeG: taking another crack at rewording to clarify
17:07:39 <Chuck__> q?
17:07:42 <Sukriti> AWK: SC text for 1.3.3 errata for 2.0, color doesn't show up. Helps having it in there. Mike's formulation helps address my concern
17:07:48 <alastairc> How about: "The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon;
17:07:48 <alastairc>                   it does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also has a visual label for the icon."
17:08:24 <AWK> labels in WCAG are visual
17:08:24 <Sukriti> Alastair: It also has a visual label as opposed to a programmatic label.
17:09:19 <Sukriti> Jake: Instructions part still unclear
17:09:21 <Chuck__> q+
17:09:37 <mbgower> The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon; it does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also refers to the label, so it passes this criterion..
17:09:51 <Sukriti> Alastair : this is a success example
17:10:09 <Sukriti> Charles : Recommend focusing narrowly on addressing the survey question
17:10:15 <Chuck__> q?
17:10:18 <Chuck__> ack Chu
17:10:49 <bruce_bailey> q+
17:10:53 <Chuck__> ack Br
17:11:05 <Sukriti> Bruce: instruction instead of it
17:11:14 <AWK> +1 to MBG's text and BB's edit
17:11:18 <Chuck__> The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon; the instruction does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also refers to the label, so it passes this criterion.
17:11:40 <bruce_bailey> looks good
17:11:43 <AWK> q+
17:11:52 <Chuck__> ack AWK
17:12:09 <Sukriti> AWK: Comment about online
17:12:29 <Sukriti> ...editorial change from on-line to online
17:12:56 <Sukriti> +1
17:12:57 <Ben> +1
17:13:00 <AWK> +1
17:13:02 <alastairc> +1
17:13:04 <david-macdonald> +1
17:13:04 <Ryladog> +1
17:13:04 <JakeAbma> +1
17:13:05 <Wilco> 0
17:13:06 <bruce_bailey> +1
17:13:07 <laura> +1
17:13:08 <mbgower> +1
17:13:09 <morr4> +1
17:13:10 <Fazio> 0
17:13:11 <MelanieP> +1
17:13:13 <juliette_mcshane> +1
17:13:14 <JF> 0
17:13:26 <Chuck__> RESOLUTION:  Accept Alastair's amended update to second example in PR 1571
17:13:27 <Raf> 0
17:13:42 <Chuck__> zakim, take up next item
17:13:42 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Findable help issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
17:13:51 <Chuck__> TOPIC:  Question 1 - Some suggested editorial changes for clarity Issue #1462
17:13:59 <Chuck__> Chuck__ has changed the topic to:  Question 1 - Some suggested editorial changes for clarity Issue #1462
17:15:12 <Sukriti> Alastair: Summary of some of the suggestions discussed previously
17:15:20 <Sukriti> ...supported vs included
17:16:34 <david-macdonald> q+
17:16:42 <Sukriti> MikeG: Single web page vs set of web pages clarification
17:16:51 <Rachael> +1
17:17:10 <david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef
17:17:10 <Jennie> q+
17:17:13 <Chuck__> ack
17:17:16 <Chuck__> q?
17:17:58 <Chuck__> ack david
17:18:10 <Sukriti> Alastair: Making sweeping changes might have unintended consequences
17:18:44 <Sukriti> DavidM: If content changes but the url stays the same
17:19:22 <alastairc> q+ to point out the 2 definitions & 3 scenarios aspect https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1427#issuecomment-753001851
17:19:37 <Chuck__> ack Jennie
17:19:51 <Ryladog> +1 to David's memory
17:20:01 <Sukriti> Jennie: Is Mike suggesting to do the definition of web pages just for this SC?
17:20:30 <Chuck__> ack ala
17:20:30 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to point out the 2 definitions & 3 scenarios aspect https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1427#issuecomment-753001851
17:20:32 <Sukriti> MikeG: Intending to change the definition of set of web pages overall. Don't see anything totally scary
17:21:23 <Sukriti> Alastair : traditional web page without massive changes, set for same purpose
17:21:37 <Sukriti> ...complication from SPA definitions
17:21:52 <Sukriti> ...tricky bit was the single page old fashioned applications that don't change urls
17:22:09 <Sukriti> ...even when new content
17:22:17 <Chuck__> q?
17:22:25 <Sukriti> ...in that case fits both web page and set of web pages definition
17:22:43 <Sukriti> ...would mean old fashioned SPAs would fit both a web page and a set of pages
17:22:46 <Chuck__> q+
17:23:09 <Chuck__> ack Ch
17:23:52 <mbgower> q+
17:23:59 <Chuck__> ack mbg
17:24:16 <Chuck__> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1427#issuecomment-753001851
17:24:26 <Sukriti> Alaistar : Web pages, set of web pages and SPAs
17:24:36 <Sukriti> ...two types of SPAs - routing and not
17:25:08 <Sukriti> MikeG: SPAs that change the URI wouldn't be included
17:25:29 <Sukriti> Alastair : the ones that do routing fit web page and set of web pages
17:26:01 <Sukriti> ...reason to call out SPAs was that if the content changes with the same URIs without being caught in that text
17:26:07 <JakeAbma> q+
17:26:26 <david-macdonald> q+
17:26:32 <Chuck__> q?
17:26:34 <Sukriti> MikeG : Anything stopping us from making set of web pages definition specific enough
17:26:34 <Chuck__> ack Jake
17:27:20 <Sukriti> Jake : question, there is a fourth variation applicable, where a big part of the pages have two different URIs within the same website
17:27:29 <Sukriti> ...the SC applies to all of them
17:27:36 <Fazio> My LMS has that characteristic
17:27:36 <Sukriti> ...do you judge view by view
17:27:54 <Sukriti> ...hybrid SPAs that sometimes change URIs
17:28:11 <Sukriti> Alastair : That would cover both
17:28:16 <Chuck__> ack Dav
17:28:44 <Sukriti> DavidM: I like the current wording. SPA is a subset of a web page if my understanding is correct
17:29:27 <alastairc> Current definition of SPA: Pages obtained from a single URI that provide navigation which changes the meaning of the Web page
17:29:34 <Sukriti> ...it is URI based and so fundamental to the definition of a web page
17:30:22 <mbgower> I'm fine to retract my suggestion. i just wanted to explore it. thanks
17:30:25 <Wilco> -1 to updating the definition from my part too
17:33:20 <Jennie> +1
17:33:23 <Ryladog> +1
17:33:25 <mbgower> +1
17:33:27 <Sukriti> +1
17:33:29 <Wilco> +1
17:33:29 <Detlev> +1
17:33:29 <Raf> +1
17:33:31 <laura> +1
17:33:32 <JakeAbma> +1
17:33:37 <Ben> +1
17:33:38 <JF> 0
17:33:40 <juliette_mcshane> +1
17:33:44 <Chuck__> +1
17:33:45 <MelanieP> +1
17:33:46 <david-macdonald> +1
17:33:51 <Rachael> 0
17:33:54 <Chuck__> RESOLUTION:  Accept Alastair's proposed response to issue #1462
17:33:55 <bruce_bailey> +1
17:34:04 <Chuck__> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Does this SC really apply to "single page" web applications? #1427
17:34:12 <Chuck__> Chuck__ has changed the topic to:  Question 2 - Does this SC really apply to "single page" web applications? #1427
17:34:17 <david-macdonald> looking at spa definition I can live with it... it finishes with "... meaning of the web page" which addresses my concern
17:36:48 <Sukriti> Alastair : the issues goes through the confusion that people face
17:37:16 <Sukriti> Charles: Mike, is your concern addressed?
17:37:38 <Sukriti> MikeG: my comment about the original draft is not about Alaistar's response
17:38:22 <bruce_bailey> +1
17:38:23 <laura> +1
17:38:24 <sarahhorton> +1
17:38:24 <Detlev> +1
17:38:25 <Wilco> +1
17:38:25 <Ryladog> +1
17:38:25 <Sukriti> +1
17:38:26 <juliette_mcshane> +1
17:38:28 <morr4> +1
17:38:30 <Jennie> +1
17:38:31 <JF> +1
17:38:36 <mbgower> +1
17:38:41 <Rachael> +1
17:38:44 <Chuck__> RESOLUTION:  Accept Alastair's proposed response to issue #1427
17:38:46 <david-macdonald> +1
17:39:00 <david-macdonald> q+
17:39:15 <Chuck__> ack dav
17:39:42 <Sukriti> DavidM: maybe mention 3.2.6 language of the SC
17:40:10 <Sukriti> ...on each page - is it each view?
17:41:19 <Ryladog> q+
17:42:00 <Chuck__> ack Ryl
17:42:02 <Sukriti> Alastair : definitions part of WCAG 3.0 discussions
17:42:27 <Sukriti> Katie : screen was covered many times, means being able to see visually vs a page
17:42:31 <david-macdonald> "... on each page or view inside a single page web application"
17:42:37 <Sukriti> Charles : closing loop
17:42:40 <Chuck__> zakim, take up next item
17:42:40 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Hidden controls update (question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
17:42:57 <Sukriti> Charles: hidden controls rewording
17:43:10 <alastairc> q+
17:43:27 <Sukriti> John: the document was both the SC and the understanding document
17:43:37 <Sukriti> ...concerned about benefits, not SC
17:43:51 <Sukriti> ...seems to be focused on people with cognitive disabilities
17:43:54 <JF> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2020OctDec/0185.html
17:44:06 <Sukriti> ...will also benefit people with low vision
17:44:10 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/results#xq5
17:44:12 <alastairc> David - for the 'a page' bit, we're basically jamming the SPA definition into the web-page defintion, so I think we can consider it in scope.
17:44:27 <Sukriti> ...concerned with focus on single groups of users
17:44:52 <kirkwood> low vision users should be included
17:44:54 <Chuck__> ack ala
17:44:56 <kirkwood> +1 to JF
17:45:00 <Fazio> And visual field cuts like mine
17:45:24 <kirkwood> low vision + limited vision
17:45:26 <JF> Q+
17:45:52 <Sukriti> Alastair: can add some more context to understanding document, needs to be based in logic or research
17:46:24 <Sukriti> ...we completely rewrote hidden controls. Are we happy with that SC text/
17:46:24 <Chuck__> ack JF
17:47:35 <Sukriti> John: got at least two members who believe there is solid justification for the low vision use case
17:47:45 <Rachael> q+
17:47:51 <alastairc> q+
17:47:57 <Sukriti> ...not necessarily objecting, find it incomplete
17:48:06 <JF> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/master/understanding/22/visible-controls.html
17:48:06 <Chuck__> ack Rach
17:48:26 <Sukriti> Rachael: happy to add that use case and work with John to do so. Outstanding question: are we happy with the SC?
17:48:30 <Chuck__> ack ala
17:49:14 <Rachael> q+
17:49:31 <kirkwood> yes but put intent low or limeted vision
17:49:34 <Chuck__> q+
17:49:36 <kirkwood> +1 to JF
17:49:41 <alastairc> JF - if you read the background material, those are not the issues raised.
17:49:54 <alastairc> JF - then write it up!
17:49:59 <Chuck__> ack Rachael
17:50:14 <Sukriti> Rachael : the broader question, how would you like to proceed overall?
17:50:41 <kirkwood> would assist with rewording to include “limited vision”
17:50:50 <Sukriti> ...4 options, move forward with survey, with revisions, defer or other
17:51:13 <Sukriti> li
17:51:16 <kirkwood> agree with JF concerns
17:51:18 <alastairc> JF - normative first, then informative
17:51:54 <kirkwood> not a wasted effort to make the changes
17:52:20 <Sukriti> s/li//
17:52:29 <alastairc> kirkwood - we had significant changes based on not relying on 'process', so if we don't continue with the SC, then no point updating understanding text.
17:52:53 <Sukriti> Charles : would those who deferred or chose other like to speak?
17:53:35 <Sukriti> AWK: concern that this winds up being too broad
17:53:53 <Sukriti> ...have we sufficiently narrowed down
17:54:30 <david-macdonald> q+
17:55:39 <Sukriti> AWK: there might be situations where this might not apply
17:55:53 <Sukriti> John: what about the 4th bullet point to address that
17:56:01 <Sukriti> ...a mechanism is available
17:56:15 <Chuck__> ack Dav
17:56:19 <Chuck__> ack Ch
17:56:30 <kirkwood> alastair - fair enough
17:56:56 <Sukriti> DavidM: there's more squishiness in this SC than most others, agree
17:57:34 <Sukriti> ...but think we have addressed many concerns. Exception list is pretty comprehensive, and essential
17:57:46 <alastairc> q+ to ask - if there is 'information needed to ID components', does that catch any of the negative examples?
17:57:46 <Sukriti> ...that gives developers and authors flexibility
17:58:02 <Chuck__> ack ala
17:58:02 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask - if there is 'information needed to ID components', does that catch any of the negative examples?
17:58:13 <JF> Wordsmithing: Information needed to identify user interface components needed to progress or complete a process is visible without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus, except when:
17:59:03 <Sukriti> Alastair: trouble I have is, information needed to ID components good for menus etc. What about examples such as tables, where for each there are actions available on hover
17:59:03 <david-macdonald> q+
17:59:12 <Chuck__> ack dav
18:00:29 <Sukriti> zakim, generate minutes
18:00:29 <Zakim> I don't understand 'generate minutes', Sukriti
18:00:36 <Sukriti> rrsagent generate minutes
18:00:49 <Sukriti> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:00:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-minutes.html Sukriti
18:00:49 <alastairc> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:00:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-minutes.html alastairc
18:02:02 <Ben> Ben has left #ag
18:07:47 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
19:41:17 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
21:03:32 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:58:16 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
23:56:10 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag