15:23:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:23:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-ag-irc
15:23:27 <Chuck_> rrsagent, make logs world
15:23:35 <Chuck_> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:23:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-ag-minutes.html Chuck_
15:23:44 <Chuck_> chair:  Chuck_
15:23:56 <Chuck_> Zakim, start meeting
15:23:56 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:23:57 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:24:07 <Chuck_> meeting:  AGWG-2021-01-26
15:24:23 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 3.0 First Public Working Draft Published https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/01/wcag-3-fpwd/
15:24:30 <Chuck_> agenda?
15:24:44 <Chuck_> agenda+ Editorial update to Silver Task Force Decision Policy https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1601
15:25:03 <Chuck_> agenda+ Survey for "Resources on Alternative Text for Images - Change in Redirected Link https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/alt-update2021-01/
15:25:13 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Redundant Entry https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/
15:25:32 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Hidden Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/
15:25:43 <Chuck_> agenda+ Miscellaneous Issues
15:25:47 <Chuck_> agenda?
15:50:07 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
15:50:50 <Chuck_> regrets:  Bruce Bailey, Charles Hall, Andrew Kirkpatrick
15:51:43 <Levon> Levon has joined #ag
15:57:37 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
15:57:45 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:58:13 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
15:58:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-ag-minutes.html alastairc
15:58:28 <alastairc> meeting: AGWG meeting
16:00:26 <Sukriti> Sukriti has joined #ag
16:00:27 <nicaise> nicaise has joined #ag
16:00:31 <nicaise> present+
16:00:49 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:00:54 <JakeAbma> present+
16:01:01 <Rachael> present+
16:01:05 <Jemma> Jemma has joined #ag
16:01:22 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:01:22 <Sukriti> present+
16:01:30 <Jemma> scribe: Jemma
16:01:33 <Jemma> present+
16:01:35 <Jemma> agenda?
16:01:35 <kirkwood> present+
16:01:45 <GN015> present+
16:02:01 <Chuck_> zakim, take up first item
16:02:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take up first item', Chuck_
16:02:10 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:02:10 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 5
16:02:10 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- WCAG 3.0 First Public Working Draft Published https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/01/wcag-3-fpwd/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:02:22 <Chuck_> TOPIC: WCAG 3.0 First Public Working Draft Published
16:02:29 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: WCAG 3.0 First Public Working Draft Published
16:02:34 <Fazio> present+
16:02:43 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:02:49 <MelanieP> present+
16:02:53 <Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/01/wcag-3-fpwd/
16:03:20 <Jemma> you can review it and we are open to comments
16:03:24 <Chuck_> q?
16:03:25 <alastairc> present+
16:03:29 <kherr> present +1
16:03:31 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:03:31 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Editorial update to Silver Task Force Decision Policy https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1601 -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:03:36 <Jemma> congratulations, everyone.
16:03:39 <kherr> present+
16:03:40 <Detlev> present+
16:03:44 <Jemma> zakim, next
16:03:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next', Jemma
16:03:47 <morr4> morr4 has joined #ag
16:03:55 <morr4> present+ Matt Orr
16:04:08 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:04:13 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
16:04:18 <Jemma> zakim, take up next
16:04:18 <Zakim> agendum 6 was just opened, Jemma
16:04:20 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
16:04:22 <sarahhorton> present+
16:04:26 <kirkwood> present+
16:04:27 <Jemma> agenda?
16:04:30 <david-macdonald> present+
16:05:08 <Rachael> old text: For decisions being considered in asynchronous communication tools, or decisions made during a meeting at which the participant was not present, objections must be raised within two business days of the call for objections.
16:05:10 <JustineP> present+
16:05:24 <Rachael> new text: For decisions being considered in asynchronous communication tools, such as Calls for Consensus, objections must be raised by the deadline, which will be no shorter than 2 business days after the call for objections.
16:05:26 <Chuck_> q?
16:05:32 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:05:32 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Survey for "Resources on Alternative Text for Images - Change in Redirected Link https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/alt-update2021-01/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:06:10 <oliverkeim> oliverkeim has joined #ag
16:06:18 <Jemma> please participate in the survey and looking for the result by thursday.
16:06:19 <Chuck_> q?
16:06:20 <JF> JF has joined #AG
16:06:24 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:06:24 <Zakim> agendum 7 was just opened, Chuck_
16:06:32 <JF> Present+
16:06:32 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 8
16:06:32 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- WCAG 2.2 Redundant Entry https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:06:56 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 1 - Redundant entry, term "step" is ambiguous #1345
16:07:04 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 1 - Redundant entry, term "step" is ambiguous #1345
16:07:53 <Chuck_> q?
16:08:28 <Jemma> chuck: Chuck is reading Gundula's comment
16:08:34 <Chuck_> q?
16:08:41 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:08:44 <Jemma> gundula: change is more confusing.
16:09:21 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:09:29 <Jemma> chuck: Chuck is reading Andrew's comment
16:09:41 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:09:44 <michael> Q+
16:09:49 <Fazio> -1
16:09:50 <Chuck_> q?
16:09:58 <Chuck_> ack mic
16:10:24 <Jemma> mikegower: there may be a specific reason for this.
16:10:35 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:10:36 <Chuck_> current proposed:  For steps in a process, information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required on subsequent steps is either:
16:10:38 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:10:48 <Chuck_> AWK suggestion:  Information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required to be entered again in the same process and in the same user session is either:
16:11:15 <Fazio> I say remove session
16:11:18 <alastairc> Seems ok to me, is there anyone here who remembers why step was there to start with?
16:11:27 <Chuck_> q?
16:11:31 <Jemma> mikegower: I reworded my PR and please read my last comment.
16:11:43 <Jemma> ...I am fine for now.
16:12:19 <alastairc> q+
16:12:36 <Jemma> sarah: if we leave step in as it is, it need some tweak, editing to the understadning document
16:12:39 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:12:54 <Jemma> alastairc: dont think a reason to remove the steps.
16:13:38 <michael> Q+
16:13:46 <Chuck_> ach Mic
16:13:50 <Chuck_> ack Mic
16:13:58 <Jemma> the scope is kind of neat I am find with that change basically.
16:14:23 <Fazio> I agree its not restricted to page
16:14:26 <Fazio> q+
16:14:32 <Chuck_> ack Faz
16:14:45 <Jemma> mikegower: definition of process is not covering multiple pages. we need to make it more clear in understanding doc
16:15:10 <alastairc> q+
16:15:24 <kirkwood> q+
16:15:27 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:15:30 <Jemma> faz: I suggest we can remove session but keep the step. step is very common, self sufficient language.
16:16:36 <Jemma> alastairc: regaridn Wilco's comment, step can be various sense of concept. ex: various input under accordion and so on
16:17:01 <michael> I agree. Steps doesn't seem needed. Can clarify in understand ing
16:17:02 <Fazio> good point Alastaair. It just seems to flow better with step
16:17:04 <Chuck_> ack kirk
16:17:12 <Fazio> but not a hill for me
16:17:27 <Jemma> ... as far as we keep the same process, the scope can be taken care of.
16:17:35 <kirkwood> q-
16:17:39 <Jemma> s/regardn/regarding
16:18:03 <kirkwood> think aliatari covered it as long as process is in there
16:18:14 <Chuck_> q?
16:18:39 <kirkwood> think we should keep step
16:18:47 <kirkwood> but can remove
16:18:50 <Jemma> summary: gundula- do not make change, andrew- change the concept of step
16:18:51 <laura_> laura_ has joined #ag
16:19:01 <alastairc> Suggest: Update the SC text as per AWK's, and update the understanding to make the 'step' aspect clear.
16:19:19 <Chuck_> AWK suggestion:  Information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required to be entered again in the same process and in the same user session is either:
16:19:19 <JF> +0
16:19:22 <Jemma> s/summary/comment summary
16:19:31 <kirkwood> do we need to define prcess?
16:19:34 <JF> Q+
16:19:39 <michael> +1 remove step
16:19:40 <alastairc> process is already defined
16:19:47 <kirkwood> ok
16:19:50 <Chuck_> ack JF
16:20:08 <Jemma> jf: I am concerned that removing step and keeping process can be problematic in some cases.
16:20:13 <michael> Q+
16:20:13 <Fazio> that is the definition of process
16:20:14 <alastairc> q+ to say process is defined, and we have an essetnail exception
16:20:21 <Chuck_> q+
16:20:26 <Chuck_> ack mich
16:20:49 <alastairc> Current: "Exception: When re-entering the information is essential. "
16:20:58 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:20:58 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say process is defined, and we have an essetnail exception
16:21:09 <Jemma> mikegower: next PR will may help Jf's concern.
16:21:28 <Jemma> jf: process is vague.
16:21:34 <Jemma> conccept
16:21:46 <Rachael> From 2.2 glossary: process - series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete an activity
16:22:02 <Chuck_> q?
16:22:10 <Chuck_> ack Chu
16:22:18 <Rachael> q+ to ask where it is best to address the "not on the same page" point
16:22:47 <Chuck_> q?
16:22:48 <Jemma> chuck: what is your standing, Jf?
16:23:17 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:23:17 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask where it is best to address the "not on the same page" point
16:23:20 <Chuck_> q?
16:23:39 <Jemma> jf: I prefer clear languge like Andrew's and leaning to Andrew's suggestion - removing ambuguity but add some ambguity for future
16:24:08 <kirkwood> kirkwood has left #ag
16:24:26 <Jemma> rachael: copied the meaning  of "process" above. I am wondering whether we can add its definition to glossary.
16:24:36 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:24:37 <Chuck_> q?
16:24:48 <Jemma> jf: can or must?
16:24:54 <Jemma> rachael: can
16:25:13 <Rachael> example: Successful use of a series of Web pages on a shopping site requires users to view alternative products, prices and offers, select products, submit an order, provide shipping information and provide payment information.
16:25:18 <michael> Q+
16:25:28 <Chuck_> ack Mich
16:25:53 <Rachael> I am fine with not tackling it and I will create an issue to discuss the definition.
16:26:05 <Chuck_> +1 michael
16:26:11 <Jemma> mikegower: this does not need to be tackled and I propose to add separate issue for the definition of "process"
16:26:15 <Chuck_> q?
16:26:30 <Jemma> chuck: agree that it can become distinctive issue.
16:26:54 <sarahhorton> q+
16:26:58 <nicaise> +1
16:26:59 <Chuck_> AWK:  Information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required to be entered again in the same process and in the same user session is either:
16:27:03 <Chuck_> ack sarah
16:27:08 <Sukriti> +1 to Rachael also applicable to findable help and difference between 'process' and 'set of web pages'
16:27:19 <Jemma> sarah: whether this part of proposal update understadning documentn or not
16:27:57 <Jemma> s/whether/ wondering whether
16:28:11 <Jemma> alastair: the change is limited to proposal for now.
16:28:14 <Fazio> 0
16:28:16 <GN015> +1 fully agree to removing 'step'
16:28:20 <michael> +1
16:28:27 <david-macdonald> +1/0
16:28:27 <Detlev> +1 remove step
16:28:34 <Sukriti> +1
16:28:38 <sarahhorton> +1
16:28:43 <Rachael> +1
16:28:44 <laura_> +1
16:28:45 <MelanieP> +1
16:28:48 <oliverkeim> present+
16:28:50 <oliverkeim> +1
16:28:54 <jon_avila> +1
16:29:00 <JF> +1
16:29:03 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Update PR 1597 and update draft response to remove "step" to address issue #1345
16:29:13 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Comment from IBM: Redundant Entry needs to be more tightly scoped in the SC language
16:29:19 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 2 - Comment from IBM: Redundant Entry needs to be more tightly scoped in the SC language
16:29:37 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:29:40 <Jemma> issue 1420
16:29:47 <Jemma> s/1420/1410
16:29:53 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:30:04 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
16:30:09 <Fazio> Q+
16:30:22 <Jemma> we have mixed opinion for the issue 1420
16:30:41 <Jemma> s/opinion/opinions
16:30:57 <Jemma> Chuck is reading each opinions from the issue
16:31:16 <michael> Q+
16:31:33 <Chuck_> q?
16:31:41 <Jemma> gundula: change request does not match the response so I prefer to leave this to understanding doc.
16:31:47 <Chuck_> ack mich
16:31:52 <Jemma> mikegower: ?
16:32:14 <Chuck_> q?
16:32:17 <Chuck_> ack faz
16:32:30 <Jemma> faz: suggest to remove "sesssion"
16:32:48 <Chuck_> q?
16:33:32 <Glenda> present+
16:34:05 <Fazio> I agree
16:34:07 <Fazio> sorry
16:34:21 <Jemma> alastairc: I was not certain which of two options proposed and I am fine with either. but I am was not sure what david is suggesting.
16:35:44 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1487/files
16:36:49 <Jemma> alastairc:  creating new PR and addition to the exception(ex: essential info) will satisfy david's needs - see https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1487/files
16:37:14 <Jemma> chuck: does this satisfy andrew's needs?
16:37:31 <Fazio> we did
16:37:44 <Fazio> exactly
16:37:56 <Jemma> mikegower: the note what David is pointing and the note in PR is different.
16:38:15 <JF> Q+
16:38:48 <Chuck_> ack JF
16:38:53 <Jemma> alastairc: reading the changes.
16:39:25 <michael> Q+
16:40:14 <Jemma> jf: there will be time that  this step/process will problematic in terms of security and testing scenario.
16:40:22 <Fazio> q+
16:40:28 <Chuck_> ack Mich
16:40:35 <Jemma> alastairc: we added security to essential info.
16:41:14 <Chuck_> q?
16:41:17 <alastairc> q+ to say that most cases (apart from password) make the input available.
16:41:20 <Chuck_> ack faz
16:41:33 <Jemma> mg: we can add security/essential info as the separate note or understanding doc. need to consider the nature of work regarding essential info and so on.
16:41:55 <Jemma> ...password example
16:42:04 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:42:04 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that most cases (apart from password) make the input available.
16:42:32 <Jemma> faz: we should not use this excuse for redundant entry
16:42:41 <Chuck_> q?
16:43:28 <Jemma> alastair: we needs exception for pw - some field can be coped and pasted but may not pw.
16:44:11 <Jemma> chuck summarize all the points.
16:44:31 <Jemma> alastairc: new PR will satisfy everyone's feedback.
16:44:37 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1487/files
16:45:08 <Chuck_> q?
16:45:30 <Jemma> gundula: I am fine with the PR. but do we have an use case?
16:45:51 <Jemma> mg: airline ticketing use case
16:46:12 <nicaise> +1
16:46:14 <Jemma> ...choosing changed travel dates
16:46:15 <alastairc> +
16:46:16 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:46:17 <alastairc> +1
16:46:18 <Rachael> 0
16:46:18 <Detlev> +1
16:46:20 <sarahhorton> +1
16:46:21 <michael> +1
16:46:23 <JustineP> +1
16:46:24 <morr4> +1
16:46:24 <Jemma> +1
16:46:24 <Sukriti> +1
16:46:24 <JF> =1
16:46:26 <david-macdonald> +1
16:46:30 <JF> +1
16:46:31 <laura> +1
16:46:31 <kirkwood> +1
16:46:45 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 1487 to address issue #1410
16:46:57 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 3 - 3.3.8: Redundant entry - session term #1335
16:47:06 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 3 - 3.3.8: Redundant entry - session term #1335
16:47:56 <Jemma> chuck reads the comment, request on clarification on "session"
16:48:32 <Chuck_> q?
16:48:44 <JF> Q+
16:49:15 <kirkwood> +1 to Gundula - session is a well understood technical term
16:49:25 <Fazio> q+
16:49:32 <Chuck_> ack JF
16:49:40 <Jemma> gundula: session is understand differently to web developer and IT - more technical concept, 'session time out' . it is confusing concept
16:50:10 <Jemma> jf: agree with gundula - session is also related to authentification
16:50:11 <kirkwood> q+
16:50:19 <Chuck_> ack Faz
16:50:45 <Jemma> ...dictionary defintion in English can be problematic for international org like w3c
16:51:02 <alastairc> q+ to talk about the original question
16:51:06 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #ag
16:51:11 <Chuck_> ack kirk
16:51:17 <Ryladog_> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:51:23 <Jemma> faz: I dont' see the conflict for session concept here with differen use cases.
16:51:28 <michael> Q+
16:51:33 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:51:33 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about the original question
16:51:38 <Chuck_> q+ kirkwood
16:51:39 <Ryladog_> but the W3Cs official language for specs id English
16:52:41 <alastairc> "For example, purchasing a product might be a process, but there is no requirement to save the information to then complete a separate purchase."
16:52:42 <Chuck_> q+ to ask about Katie's comment
16:52:56 <Fazio> It's almost irrelevant though
16:53:11 <Chuck_> ack mich
16:53:34 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:53:35 <Fazio> q+
16:53:40 <Jemma> alastairc: in discussion of process and session - via versioning disucssion - I would like to suggest to original comments. (he also added session of puchasing the product example)
16:53:46 <Wilco> present+
16:54:07 <Chuck_> ack kirk
16:54:24 <Jemma> mg: the suggested new pr will satisfy this issue.
16:54:55 <Jemma> jk: I would want to make sure that session can be tricky term and stay way from it if possible.
16:55:05 <Jemma> s/jk/johnkirkwood
16:55:16 <Ryladog_> +1
16:55:44 <alastairc> q+ about the session confusion
16:55:49 <Jemma> s/suggest to/suggest to stay on
16:55:49 <Chuck_> q?
16:55:51 <alastairc> q+ to talk about the session confusion
16:55:54 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:55:54 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about Katie's comment
16:56:08 <Chuck_> ack faz
16:56:39 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:56:39 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about the session confusion
16:56:50 <Jemma> faz: we are not adding any requirement - session if you close browse, you close session, I dont think we need to go further more than definition
16:57:00 <Jemma> s/any/any new
16:57:02 <Fazio> thank you Alastair
16:57:32 <Fazio> +1 Alastair
16:57:34 <kirkwood> +1
16:57:34 <Jemma> alastair: agree with mike gower's suggestion, new PR will clarify issues.
16:57:38 <Jemma> +1
16:57:42 <michael> +1
16:57:46 <Fazio> +1
16:57:50 <Sukriti> +1
16:57:54 <sarahhorton> +1
16:57:56 <MelanieP> +1
16:58:10 <JF> +1
16:58:13 <Rachael> +1
16:58:13 <david-macdonald> +1
16:58:13 <Ryladog_> +1
16:58:15 <Fazio> +1
16:58:21 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept Alastair's response to address issue #1335
16:58:37 <alastairc> Response added: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1335#issuecomment-767681976
16:58:48 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 4 - Redundant entry -- problem scenario is not inherently blocking, should be AA or AAA #1446
16:58:55 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 4 - Redundant entry -- problem scenario is not inherently blocking, should be AA or AAA #1446
16:59:35 <Detlev> I can do it
16:59:37 <Sukriti> I can do it but need to leave 5 mins early
16:59:44 <Detlev> scribe: Detlev
17:00:09 <Detlev> Question 4. Redundant entry
17:00:23 <Detlev> TOPIC: Question 4. Redundant entry
17:01:10 <Detlev> Chuck reading response
17:01:19 <Chuck_> q?
17:01:22 <alastairc> q+ to add some context
17:02:02 <Fazio> It only takes a second of distraction for this to happen
17:02:17 <Fazio> q+
17:02:18 <JF> Q+ to note that A, AA is something of a moot point
17:02:34 <Detlev> Gundula: Affected users have high impact, cannot complete task, like HCM users - but requirement is AAA. We have to consider number of people affected and availability of work-arounds. Should be AA but not single A
17:02:37 <Chuck_> q?
17:02:43 <Chuck_> ack alast
17:02:43 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to add some context
17:02:44 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.x_Priority_levels_discussion
17:03:13 <Fazio> There's a lot of research in our Making Content Usable for People With Learning and Cognitive Disabilities Doc
17:03:29 <Fazio> comparing disabilities isn't appropriate
17:04:00 <Detlev> alastair: Info on how levels were set originally - is it essential, can it be satisfied for all contexts, are there work-arounds etc. David tackles first aspect
17:04:13 <Fazio> q+
17:04:58 <Detlev> ...2.X structure does not account for small things builduing up - First aspect is 'essential' - fo rredundant entry it is easy to make the case it is essential.
17:05:14 <Detlev> ...so good cause for level A or AA
17:05:45 <Detlev> ...David uses words like 'often' so i tis not as b/w as with captions
17:05:46 <Chuck_> ack Faz
17:06:26 <Chuck_> q+ to ask everyone if issue is just with response
17:06:49 <michael> Q+
17:07:13 <Detlev> DavidF: There is also a scale from hard-of-hearing to deaf  - that's why I used term 'often'. There is research to back that up. People with cognitive issues can quickly have absolutely blocking contexts - research backs that up.
17:07:24 <Chuck_> ack JF
17:07:24 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that A, AA is something of a moot point
17:07:57 <Detlev> JF: at some level, difference between A and AA is moot in most legal contexts
17:08:22 <Fazio> It is is always what I'm saying
17:08:43 <Detlev> ...not uncomfortable with placing it at level AA - see the difference between captions (on A) and AD (on AA)
17:08:44 <Chuck_> q?
17:08:47 <Chuck_> ack Chu
17:08:47 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask everyone if issue is just with response
17:09:02 <laura> laura has joined #ag
17:09:29 <Fazio> How many people have actually read research on short term memory barriers?
17:09:30 <Detlev> Chuck: Question to all: Do you have an issue with the response, is the wording the issue or do you want it at AAA?
17:09:35 <Chuck_> q?
17:09:38 <Chuck_> ack Mich
17:11:11 <Detlev> MikeG: Normally we tackles responses in reviews, but no we do not go through all the responses - there is no big difference between AA and A - but all points should be tackled. For an official response, we should reflect the reasons why we pick A or AA
17:11:15 <JF> +1 to Mike G
17:11:26 <Detlev> Chuck: So you want a different response, correct?
17:11:30 <Detlev> MikeG: yes
17:11:50 <alastairc> Two issues here: What is the appropriate level A or AA? And updating the response.
17:12:27 <Detlev> Sarah: agree with MikeG that we need a more complete rationale
17:12:40 <Chuck_> q?
17:12:50 <alastairc> "Other factors taken into consideration are ease of implementation, whether it is invisible to other users, and applies across all relevant web content. See this wiki page of a discussion of the history during WCAG 2.0 - 2.2."
17:13:23 <Detlev> Alastair: Put a suggestion to add reference to the Wiki page and other factors tasken into consideration, agree with MikeG - WG has not focused on the level
17:13:47 <sarahhorton> q+
17:14:32 <Detlev> Chuck: To issues: A or AA, nominal difference - agrees it should not be AAA. Let's draft a response that takes rationale into account
17:15:09 <Chuck_> ack Sarah
17:15:10 <Detlev> Alastair: Reading out Andrew's reformulation of DavidF's response
17:15:36 <Fazio> We discussed this early on too
17:15:50 <Fazio> Q+
17:15:52 <Chuck_> q?
17:15:53 <JF> I've not seen that in practice
17:15:57 <Chuck_> ack fazio
17:15:57 <Glenda> q+
17:16:01 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
17:16:01 <Detlev> Sarah: As to the nominal difference between A and AA: There is a significant difference in the way backlogs / issues are handled / addressed in practice
17:16:50 <Chuck_> ack Glenda
17:16:50 <Detlev> DavidF: We discussed this earlier and put it on A - one reason was also that could be addressed quite easily. We need to look at individual cases
17:17:01 <alastairc> Fair point, thank you David.
17:17:09 <Ryladog_> +1 to David
17:17:18 <Chuck_> q+ to ask about A and AA
17:17:21 <JF> +1 to Glenda - A & AA are usually treated as equal
17:17:48 <michael> Mine too
17:17:54 <Chuck_> q?
17:17:56 <Chuck_> ack Chu
17:17:56 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about A and AA
17:18:06 <Detlev> Glenda: Clients look at AAA - they easily ignore it. A and AA get done. So disagree with Sarah.
17:18:06 <kirkwood> +1 to Glenda
17:18:19 <Fazio> good point chuck
17:18:21 <Glenda> Good point Chuck :)
17:18:32 <Fazio> hallelujah
17:18:39 <kirkwood> agree Chuck
17:18:58 <Fazio> read it please
17:19:15 <alastairc> AWKs Suggested response: A-level Success Criteria should be reserved for scenarios that are inherently blocking for some users in all cases." The Working Group has not clarified specific criteria to indicate which Level Success Criteria need to be a part of, and elected to place the Redundant Entry SC into Level A because it poses a significant barrier to individuals with short term memory impairments. Users with short term memory impairments
17:19:15 <alastairc> are often unable to complete tasks due to the amount of information that needs to be entered, and this SC places limits on information that needs to be entered more than once that are readily addressed and help reduce the barrier for these users.
17:19:18 <Detlev> Chuck: It seems if SC stays A both camps are satisfied - so regarding the response - Andrew has changed it - reactions?
17:20:24 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
17:20:26 <mbgower> present+
17:20:34 <Detlev> Alastair: Reading Andrew's survey response
17:20:42 <Detlev> Sory Chuck read it.
17:21:21 <Detlev> DavidF: It is not just the aggregate, spoon, thing - it can be a single instance.
17:22:10 <Detlev> Alastair: Andrew suggests level A because it is easly to do - there is no requirement that all A's need to be gard blockers
17:22:14 <Rachael> q+
17:22:32 <Chuck_> ack Rach
17:22:40 <Detlev> Chuck: So the end result is leaving at at A
17:22:48 <mbgower> yes
17:23:11 <Detlev> Chuck: Becomes an amended response
17:23:43 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1446#issuecomment-767698161
17:23:48 <JF> +1
17:23:50 <mbgower> +1
17:23:51 <laura> +1
17:23:55 <Detlev> +1
17:23:59 <kherr> +1
17:23:59 <Ryladog_> +1
17:24:00 <sarahhorton> +1
17:24:00 <Sukriti> +1
17:24:02 <kirkwood> +1
17:24:09 <Wilco> 0
17:24:12 <Rachael> +1
17:24:13 <morr4> +1
17:24:17 <JakeAbma> +1
17:24:18 <Glenda> +1
17:24:28 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended response to address issue #1446
17:24:34 <Chuck_> agenda?
17:24:40 <Fazio_> Fazio_ has joined #ag
17:24:43 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 9
17:24:43 <Zakim> agendum 9 -- WCAG 2.2 Hidden Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
17:24:58 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 1 - New version: Visible Controls
17:25:06 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 1 - New version: Visible Controls
17:25:16 <sarahhorton_> sarahhorton_ has joined #ag
17:25:54 <Detlev> Chuck: (Reading the survey question - linking to issues)
17:26:16 <Detlev> Chuck: Little consensus here
17:26:30 <Chuck_> q?
17:27:33 <Detlev> Sarah: In the SC text, out control in parentheses - be consistent about pointer and KB focus - examples and benefits seems redundant
17:27:55 <Detlev> Chuck: Gundala wants to defer - why?
17:28:17 <Detlev> Gundula: The requirement does not seem to be mature
17:28:42 <david-macdonald> q+
17:28:45 <Detlev> ...given the discussion that has happened and the time pressure, we should defer this
17:29:02 <Chuck_> q?
17:29:03 <Detlev> Oliver: Prefer the old version of text
17:29:37 <Detlev> ...what does 'information' mean in the context of the SC? Seems to mic affordance with visibility issues, these are not the same
17:30:12 <Detlev> Alastair: Agree with Sarah's comment - it has significantly changed and therefore needs to be put out for review again
17:30:15 <Chuck_> q?
17:30:18 <Chuck_> dav
17:30:22 <Chuck_> ack dav
17:30:37 <mbgower> +1 to Sarah's comment on adding "control" parenthetically after 'user interface component' in the SC.
17:30:50 <alastairc> q+ to speak to Use of controls vs UICs, and affordance / info to ID controls;
17:30:56 <Detlev> DMD: We could not move forward with previous language, no way back to there
17:31:43 <Detlev> ...IN most cases the info to identify the component is the component itself, but not in all cases - examples are tool tip with close button
17:32:43 <Detlev> ...the info tooltip might be sufficient context for the close button. Another example would be things like Yourtube videos, it is a strong ask to require the way these videos are presented
17:32:55 <mbgower> q+ to say I missed the survey (looked like I'd already answered). I support, and amenable to mod
17:32:58 <Chuck_> q?
17:32:59 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:32:59 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to Use of controls vs UICs, and affordance / info to ID controls;
17:33:07 <Detlev> ...mostly info is the component itself, though
17:33:29 <kherr> q+ to say controls shown on hover are always an issue on mobile web
17:33:43 <Detlev> Alastair: user interface components vs. Controls needs to be clarified (perhaps with brackets)
17:34:11 <Detlev> ...affordance formulation is very similar to other SCs
17:34:28 <Chuck_> q?
17:34:31 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:34:31 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I missed the survey (looked like I'd already answered). I support, and amenable to mod
17:34:42 <Detlev> ...explanation is far down in the doc, should perhaps be moved up
17:35:21 <Detlev> MikeG: We use controls in other SCs but it is a good idea to out it in brackets after "user interface components"
17:35:34 <Chuck_> ack kherr
17:35:34 <Zakim> kherr, you wanted to say controls shown on hover are always an issue on mobile web
17:35:54 <alastairc> q+
17:35:56 <Chuck_> q+ to ask on what non-consensus means
17:35:59 <mbgower> Mobile meets it
17:36:02 <david-macdonald> q+
17:36:03 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:36:12 <Detlev> Kerr: Agree it is a bit immature - how does it apply to mobile web where hover is not available
17:36:48 <david-macdonald> q- Alastair covered my points
17:36:49 <Detlev> Alastair: it is good for mobile because then things cannot rely on things popping up on hover.
17:36:59 <Chuck_> q?
17:37:07 <david-macdonald> q-
17:37:24 <Jemma> rrsagent, make minutes
17:37:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-ag-minutes.html Jemma
17:37:25 <kherr> +q thx
17:37:28 <Detlev> ..formulation has changed a lot, but not the intent and scope - those who worry about the maturity, we will go through another public review with it
17:37:56 <Chuck_> q?
17:37:59 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:37:59 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask on what non-consensus means
17:38:01 <Detlev> Chuck: Not clear what 'lack of consensus' means here - is it back to original, or deferral - what is the end state?
17:39:01 <Detlev> Alastair: decision tree is: issues raised on prev version - either acceopt new version (with mods) and put up for review OR come up with alternative options (likely to be a dead end) OR defer
17:39:41 <Detlev> ...so it is: accept (possibly amend) OR defer - it migh tthen go to 2.3 or WCAG 3.0
17:39:56 <Chuck_> q?
17:40:16 <Detlev> Chuck: We discussed Sarah's revisions - does that make you more comfortable? (For Gundula and Oliver)
17:40:17 <alastairc> q- thx
17:40:26 <Detlev> Oliver: Also suggest to defer
17:40:50 <david-macdonald> q+
17:40:57 <Chuck_> ack dav
17:41:02 <Detlev> Oliver: Video case where an initial tab is needed to bring up control, should be discussed mire generally
17:41:27 <mbgower> video is directly addressed in the Understanding doc
17:41:30 <Detlev> DMD: Visible entry point that launches other controls would address that
17:41:41 <mbgower> -1
17:41:44 <sarahhorton_> -1
17:41:44 <david-macdonald> -1
17:41:46 <Detlev> Chuck: What is the temperature of the group?
17:41:50 <Ryladog_> -1
17:41:52 <alastairc> -1
17:41:53 <Detlev> -1
17:41:56 <Rachael> -1
17:41:58 <Sukriti> -1
17:41:58 <GN015> +1
17:41:58 <JakeAbma> -1
17:42:25 <oliverkeim> oliverkeim has joined #ag
17:42:33 <Detlev> Chuck: Consensus is not to defer, but to incorporate changes to modify
17:42:37 <alastairc> q+
17:42:47 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:42:48 <Detlev> ..like Sarah's suggestions
17:43:29 <Detlev> Alastair: We cannot remove either Examples or Benefits from Understanding, but tacke overlapping
17:43:35 <mbgower> q+ to say Understanding doc changes don't need to hold up the process; let's focus on Sarah's SC change.
17:43:35 <Detlev> tackle
17:43:42 <david-macdonald> We could probably add visual examples from the previous committee document that has examples screen shotes.
17:43:43 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:43:43 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say Understanding doc changes don't need to hold up the process; let's focus on Sarah's SC change.
17:44:03 <Rachael> +1 to Mike
17:44:08 <Detlev> MikeG: The main thing to incorporate the SC change, Understanding can change later
17:44:27 <david-macdonald> +1
17:44:43 <Rachael> q+
17:44:54 <Detlev> Alastair: So there is agreement to continue and review again
17:45:02 <alastairc> +1
17:45:04 <Chuck_> ack Rach
17:45:52 <Wilco> +1 lets please not use those terms interchangeably
17:45:59 <Detlev> Rachael: Prefers picking User interface element OR Control and make that consistent, to keep it simpler
17:46:08 <Rachael> q+
17:46:33 <Detlev> Alastair: Will also change Focus appearance SC where that change happens
17:46:35 <Chuck_> ack Rach
17:46:37 <oliverkeim> +1 for "controls" or "UI elements"
17:46:55 <mbgower> +1 to just changing "control" to "component"
17:47:05 <david-macdonald> q+
17:47:06 <Wilco> +1, that's how ACT rules work too
17:47:07 <Detlev> Rachael: using component
17:47:33 <Detlev> Wilco: Suggests components
17:47:46 <Detlev> Alastair: That firs better with rest of language
17:47:53 <david-macdonald> Agree component has more historical usage in WCAG
17:48:15 <Rachael> I think the full text would then be: Information needed to identify each user interface component is visible without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus, except when: A component with equivalent function is identifiable without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus, either on the same page or on a different step in a multi-step process; The component is provided specifically to enhance the experience for keyboard navigation; A
17:48:15 <Rachael> mechanism is available to make the information persistently visible; Hiding the information needed to identify the component is essential.
17:48:50 <Detlev> Chuck (reads proposed changed SC text)
17:49:16 <mbgower> And the note too
17:49:28 <mbgower> Components can be available through a visible entry point...
17:49:33 <Rachael> Note: Compontents can be available through a visible entry point such as a submenu.
17:49:48 <mbgower> +1
17:49:49 <laura> laura has joined #ag
17:49:51 <Detlev> +1
17:49:53 <Rachael> +1
17:49:54 <JakeAbma> +1
17:49:55 <david-macdonald> +1
17:49:55 <alastairc> +1
17:49:58 <sarahhorton_> +1
17:50:04 <Wilco> q+
17:50:18 <GN015> -0.5 'component' is ambiguous to technical unity (in the backend)
17:50:18 <Chuck_> ack Wilco
17:50:28 <Chuck_> ack dav
17:50:28 <Detlev> Wilco: Would like more time to think about it - it is a complicated thing
17:50:46 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
17:50:52 <Detlev> DMD: There is a historical precedent of component over control
17:51:11 <Detlev> Chuck: We can make th echange and re-survey again...
17:51:33 <Detlev> Alastair: Wiclo can you comment before we CfC it?
17:51:36 <Detlev> Wlco: OK
17:51:38 <Chuck_> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended SC change and note using the word "component" uniformly.
17:51:42 <Chuck_> agenda?
17:51:57 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Survey+-+Added%22
17:51:59 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 10
17:51:59 <Zakim> agendum 10 -- Miscellaneous Issues -- taken up [from Chuck_]
17:52:50 <Detlev> Alastair: Request is to tackle a bunch of items that have been surveyed but not actioned - some came round again - some 20 are open
17:53:27 <Detlev> ...what can we do to bring these back to the group - can you look at these to see what we can tidy up to close tidying up of 2.2
17:53:54 <Sukriti> q+
17:53:57 <Detlev> ...(to Rachael: Some, yes, but mostly not
17:54:15 <Chuck_> ack Suk
17:54:15 <Detlev> Alastair: Some on target spacing, others
17:54:39 <Detlev> Sukriti: What is the course of action for Pointer Target Spacing?
17:55:00 <Detlev> Alastair: case by case basis - will have a look
17:55:14 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas
17:55:22 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas_2020
17:55:38 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/minutes-history.php
17:55:46 <Detlev> ...if you have time to look but not sure what happened previously, it is worth looking to the past minutes where SCs were discussed
17:55:55 <Detlev> ...volume too much for one person
17:56:21 <Detlev> ...Please change label to "Ready for survey" if possible
17:56:48 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
17:56:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-ag-minutes.html alastairc
17:57:13 <Levon> present+
17:59:07 <Jemma> zakim, part
17:59:07 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been Rachael, alastairc, Chuck_, Fazio_, Gundula, Ben, Jemma, Laura, Francis_Storr, MelanieP, JakeAbma, juliette_mcshane, Nicaise, JF,
17:59:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:59:10 <Zakim> ... Detlev, JustineP, Sukriti, sarahhorton, morr, Glenda, mbgower, jon_avila, AWK, david-macdonald, Jennie, kirkwood, Raf, ChrisLoiselle, GN, Fazio, kherr, Matt, Orr,
17:59:11 <Zakim> ... Katie_Haritos-Shea, oliverkeim, Wilco, Levon
17:59:21 <Chuck_> Zakim, end meeting
18:11:56 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag