14:31:34 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:31:34 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/18-ag-irc 14:31:55 rrsagent, make logs world 14:32:05 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:32:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/18-ag-minutes.html Chuck 14:34:40 chair: Chuck 14:34:47 Zakim, start meeting 14:34:47 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:34:48 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:34:55 meeting: AGWG-2021-05-18 14:36:55 MarcJohlic has joined #ag 14:39:30 agenda+ TPAC is Oct 2021, breakout sessions? https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/GroupMeetings (5-10 min) 14:39:49 agenda+ WCAG 3.0 Explainer survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer/ (20min) 14:40:00 agenda+ New Errors Guideline https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/srayos/error-prev-index-2/guidelines/index.html#error-prevention 14:40:13 agenda+ Introduce the new group homepage (5 min) 14:40:28 agenda+ WCAG 2.x issue resolutions (Q1-4) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/ (30 min) 14:41:10 agenda? 14:52:41 bruce_bailey has joined #ag 14:54:36 sajkaj has joined #ag 14:55:08 JF has joined #ag 14:55:40 agenda? 14:55:50 Present+ 14:56:24 New web page is at: https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/ag 14:56:56 present+ 14:58:28 present+ 14:58:30 JakeAbma has joined #ag 14:59:01 https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/ag 14:59:13 johnkirkwood has joined #AG 14:59:13 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag 14:59:20 Rain has joined #ag 14:59:35 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag 15:00:28 present+ 15:00:56 Makoto has joined #ag 15:01:15 present+ 15:01:19 present+ 15:01:45 juliette_mcshane has joined #ag 15:01:48 present+ 15:01:49 present+ 15:01:57 Jaunita_George has joined #ag 15:02:05 Ben has joined #ag 15:02:12 present+ 15:02:15 Nicaise has joined #ag 15:02:17 Scribe: Jaunita_George 15:02:20 morr4 has joined #ag 15:02:22 present+ 15:02:25 MelanieP has joined #ag 15:02:31 present+ 15:02:32 present+ 15:02:37 present+ 15:02:37 present+ 15:02:43 present+ 15:02:46 I can help whenever needed on scribing. 15:03:15 Chuck: We have two individuals who can scribe 15:03:26 MelissaD has joined #ag 15:03:39 sarahhorton has joined #ag 15:03:44 present+ 15:03:53 mbgower has joined #ag 15:03:58 ...New topics? 15:03:59 present+ 15:04:16 +AWK 15:05:25 JakeAbma: I have been working with people who have been learning WCAG. It might be good to spend time on Github issues/incomplete Success Criteria or Techniques 15:05:38 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 15:05:41 Regina has joined #ag 15:05:44 q+ 15:05:51 present+ 15:06:16 q+ 15:06:20 ...When it is time to do something about these issues? There are hundreds of issues/pull requests. It helps people understand the criteria better if we address them. 15:06:32 q- 15:06:37 q+ to say I put a comment in the review of the Explainer, but it's really a 'new topic' for 3.0: Reporting transparency 15:06:49 present+ 15:07:02 Chuck: I don't want us to delve into that topic right now, but we'll address it in tomorrow's call 15:07:11 laura has joined #ag 15:07:30 zakim, take up item 1 15:07:30 agendum 1 -- TPAC is Oct 2021, breakout sessions? https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/GroupMeetings (5-10 min) -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:07:30 ...Clarification -- in our planning call 15:08:01 q? 15:08:03 ack Ch 15:08:07 ack mb 15:08:07 mbgower, you wanted to say I put a comment in the review of the Explainer, but it's really a 'new topic' for 3.0: Reporting transparency 15:08:08 ack mb 15:08:25 a HUGE +1 to Mike 15:08:33 q+ to ask about my request (to chairs) for gut check on timing for 3 15:08:42 mbgower: This is a new topic. There's a new area of that should be covered in 3.0 15:09:00 ToddLibby has joined #ag 15:09:10 present+ 15:09:19 q- 15:09:20 Bruce - we'll discuss at the planning meeting tomorrow, not much more to say now 15:09:37 Chuck: Technical Plenary Advisory Committee (TPAC) has announced that this year's event is remote 15:09:49 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:10:15 q+ to say APA will likely ask for joint 15:10:26 q? 15:10:27 ...Do we want to host any breakout sessions? Do we want to join any other groups' breakout sessions. 15:10:28 ack sajkaj 15:10:28 sajkaj, you wanted to say APA will likely ask for joint 15:10:54 q+ 15:11:36 sajkaj: There are Accessible Platform Architecture working group will likely want a joint session. 15:11:38 q+ 2.2? 15:11:46 q? 15:11:50 ack Ch 15:11:54 Chuck: Do we as a group want to meet with the other teams and host a breakout? 15:11:56 ack 2.2 15:12:02 Q+ to ask about EO? 15:12:05 q+ to say WCAG3 and Immersive Captions 15:12:33 ack JF 15:12:33 JF, you wanted to ask about EO? 15:12:37 q+ 15:12:39 mbgower: Should we be thinking about anything related to 2.2 release? 15:12:59 ack Jeanne 15:12:59 jeanne, you wanted to say WCAG3 and Immersive Captions 15:13:15 @Ben Education and Outreach - another work group under the WAI umbrella 15:13:20 q? 15:13:23 ack ala 15:13:28 +1 to meeting with EO 15:14:31 q? 15:15:14 alastairc: Not anticipating much to do on 2.2 at TPAC, it is more backlog-type work. 15:15:25 q+ 15:15:25 q? 15:15:32 ack Justine 15:16:08 q? 15:16:13 JustineP: Should we work with COGA? They have a subgroup on mental health. 15:16:21 Chuck: Other suggestions? 15:16:21 +1 to meeting with COGA mental health group 15:17:24 alastairc: Are there any groups or individuals that are experts on how audio affects individuals? 15:17:28 q? 15:17:33 zakim, take up next item 15:17:33 agendum 2 -- WCAG 3.0 Explainer survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer/ (20min) -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:17:35 You may want to ask about musicogenic seizure 15:17:36 Chuck: Any other ideas? Moving on 15:18:01 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer/results 15:18:07 TOPIC: WCAG 3.0 Explainer survey 15:18:13 Chuck has changed the topic to: WCAG 3.0 Explainer survey 15:18:23 Getting "Not allowed" for link 15:18:40 Any one else having trouble opening results link? 15:18:40 https://w3c.github.io/silver/explainer/index.html 15:19:16 PeterKorn has joined #ag 15:19:20 ...Explainer for WCAG was drafted. Please review the editor's draft of the WCAG 3.0 explainer. Let's review recommended changes 15:19:28 q? 15:19:38 I'm getting "You're not allowed to see the results of this questionnaire." 15:19:51 Also getting a "Not Allowed" page here. 15:20:18 +1 to Justine's comments 15:20:30 I believe Explainer would be entirely informative by definition. 15:20:36 JustineP: One point of feedback is something we don't need to review at this time. Content is informative explanation added. 15:21:12 WFM 15:21:12 Works now thanks! 15:21:16 it is working 15:21:20 Chuck: I granted access to everyone to view results. 15:21:29 Yes, thank you Chuck. 15:22:05 q? 15:23:11 q? 15:23:15 Chuck: Anything you want to call out Bruce? 15:23:47 bruce_bailey: When I make edits, I see that I may not be aligned. 15:24:07 KarenHerr has joined #ag 15:24:13 Chuck: How can we help you understand? 15:24:18 present+ 15:24:28 q+ to comment on Bruce's edits 15:24:34 ...Is there anything here you wanted to call out specifically, Bruce? 15:24:37 I would not call Bruce's changes 'editorial' in the sense of being typos. They are substantive 15:24:38 q? 15:24:40 ack jeanne 15:24:40 jeanne, you wanted to comment on Bruce's edits 15:25:48 jeanne: My understanding of what Bruce is saying is that the outcomes are not in passive voice because of recommendation from COGA to use plain language. Bruce wanted to add passive language to make things more testables. 15:25:56 q+ to ask whether it "explains" the current status 15:25:56 q? 15:26:00 ack ala 15:26:00 alastairc, you wanted to ask whether it "explains" the current status 15:26:06 Are we sure about "passive?" Do we maybe mean "modal?" 15:26:11 i agree with avoiding passive voice 15:26:21 alastairc: They strike me as questions for the spec and not explainer. 15:26:25 q? 15:26:30 e.g. modal "can, would should, etc" 15:26:50 Chuck: I think the comments you made have been addressed. Did you want to discuss anything else? 15:27:16 q? 15:27:21 bruce_bailey: It's still less clear than it would be in passive voice 15:27:32 Chuck: You had some suggestions 15:27:51 alastairc: We have some broken links, definitions that need to be fixed etc. 15:28:47 mbgower: I tried to make a separate branch. I couldn't find this branch when I was editing. Other than that, my comments are self-explanatory 15:29:18 Chuck: Would it be faster for you to make changes, Jeanne? 15:29:36 jeanne: Mike should be granted editor access. 15:29:42 I don't think that's the issue, Jeanne. I can create a branch in that repo 15:30:05 q? 15:30:13 zakim, take up next item 15:30:13 agendum 3 -- New Errors Guideline https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/srayos/error-prev-index-2/guidelines/index.html#error-prevention -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:30:52 MelissaD_ has joined #ag 15:31:19 Chuck: New Errors Guideline: Sarah -- what we're hoping to do is get an introduction to the process used to get the new guideline. We'll put out a survey to have team review new guideline. 15:31:50 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZsIC7pXqQS8L15GQnkXnV5RHHqpUmnAYaPiEGU2kQ9g/edit#heading=h.6fpoz5rvjdal 15:32:47 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZsIC7pXqQS8L15GQnkXnV5RHHqpUmnAYaPiEGU2kQ9g/edit#heading=h.w7pcllurieuk - with the correct heading 15:33:41 sarahhorton: How we got here is a little bit of a complex process. This is the first formal errors document shared by the Silver Task Force. This is the content that will go in the next working draft. It has a guideline and outcome. Chuck has the pull request. We'd love to have suggestions and feedback. 15:33:44 q+ 15:34:16 Juanita: Could you send a non google docs version? Google docs is blocked by my company. 15:34:29 ack Juan 15:34:41 ack ja 15:37:55 sarahhorton: Happy to explain how we got here later. There's a method we followed. We were able to base it off of previous guidelines. Text alternative guideline has an outcome with methods. So now if I go back to the Google doc, we have the same sections we're working on with several sections, following a template. We're looking at web technologies and to summarize the method, we have a list of ways this method is actuated. 15:38:33 ...In the section about user needs, we describe how this solves user needs. 15:39:08 ...So those are some bits of content from that initial tab panel. In the description tab panel, we talk in more detail about what's needed. 15:39:57 ...And then the third tab in that tab panel component, we provide examples. 15:40:20 ...The next component is tests, where we break down the method into specific tests. 15:40:37 q+ 15:41:14 ...With this method there are four tests. And then the last section is scoring-- 15:41:36 Link to the MS Word document version that I mailed to the AG list. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2021AprJun/0199.html 15:41:59 Chuck: I had a question. I remember our last TPAC where we were talking this. 15:42:19 ack Ch 15:42:19 sarahhorton: This isn't clearly defined in WCAG 2x 15:42:21 q+ to say can Sarah comment on challenges of precision versus understandability? e.g., "Instructions available at the source of input" 15:42:41 ack mb 15:42:41 mbgower, you wanted to say can Sarah comment on challenges of precision versus understandability? e.g., "Instructions available at the source of input" 15:42:41 Chuck: Mike has a question 15:43:27 mbgower: This is interesting work. Question about the challenges of precision versus understandability? e.g., "Instructions available at the source of input." Did you find this to be a challenge? 15:43:55 sarahhorton: I think we went with what made sense. Striking a blance. 15:44:05 q? 15:44:06 s/blance/balance 15:44:14 q? 15:44:23 Chuck: Let's get into scoring 15:44:49 sarahhorton: We have identified many user needs and will work on them in addition to the one shown. 15:45:49 david-macdonald has joined #ag 15:45:55 present+ 15:46:38 ...Scoring is a calculation of total possible credits. 15:47:08 ...Score is a calculation of total credits/total possible credits 15:47:33 q? 15:47:42 q+ to ask about adjacent requirement 15:47:49 ack AWK 15:47:49 AWK, you wanted to ask about adjacent requirement 15:49:08 q? 15:49:13 Andrew: Question about adjacent requirement -- How did we come to the conclusion that the error has to be adjacent vs. sufficiently linked? 15:50:09 sarahhorton: The reason that adjacency became what we addressed is because adjacency is a user need that needs to be met. 15:50:20 Andrew: Do we have research on this? 15:51:13 q+ 15:51:15 sarahhorton: I would say yes. We have people who have completed research and testing. These are the conclusions we came to based on that research. We haven't tested every pattern. 15:51:20 q? 15:51:22 ack ala 15:52:05 alastairc: From Andrew's comment, I think we need to provide evidence for new content. We should keep that in mind. 15:52:06 q+ 15:52:32 ack Ch 15:52:43 Chuck: Point of order: Bruce pointed out a concern with something being reviewed next week. Alastair to respond. 15:54:43 sarahhorton: You can have multiple outcomes in a guideline. There's a link that will go to that method, and information about errors. There are two for this requirement. 15:55:25 Q+ to ask about "Purpose of Inputs" 15:55:33 ...We also have instructions regarding sensitive information. This is where the scoring comes in. The rating is for the outcome and there are different ranges of scores for different ratings. 15:55:36 ack JF 15:55:36 JF, you wanted to ask about "Purpose of Inputs" 15:56:41 JF: Question about "Purpose of Inputs": The techniques we have for this also may apply, so can we integrate that with this? 15:57:00 sarahhorton: Yes, but we haven't incorporated them yet. 15:57:06 q+ 15:57:24 JF: That could have an impact on your score. 15:57:34 q+ 15:57:36 sarahhorton: Yes, this score is just for the one method. 15:57:40 ack Ch 15:58:19 JF: When we talk about it being an additional method, is that added to the total score? How would this work? 15:58:19 q+ 15:59:00 sarahhorton: As we build out the content, do all of the methods need to be enacted or could a developer pick one and cover them all? 15:59:26 ...There are 52-53 user needs. 16:00:00 scribe: mbgower 16:00:06 too fast, thanks Mike 16:00:11 ack dav 16:00:38 David MacDonald: I want to confirm our current process. Right now, we are examining an example of how we could proceed? 16:00:58 Makoto has joined #ag 16:01:01 Sarah: We're not thinking about success criterion. We're doing guidelines, outcomes and methods. The structure is quite different. 16:01:44 Sarah: The way the silver group has presented this work is also a departure from 2.x. It's not looking at 2 and figuring out how to rejig. It's going back to user needs and flows, and building from there. 16:01:54 ack Ch 16:02:37 Chuck: What you said is true plus... We are trying to make it work. The goal is that this particular guidance will make it into the next draft. It is both an experience in doing the process and producing content for 3 16:03:48 David MacDonald: I get there are new ways we're doing this. I'm just wondering: what is on the table to explore in terms of changing. Is it everything? Has the train left? 16:04:37 David MacDonald: As an evaluator, if I'm spending time documenting what they've done properly, then I'm using a lot of my time and their money that doesn't improve things. 16:04:41 q+ 16:04:41 q+ to talk about ships sailing 16:04:55 ack Jea 16:04:55 jeanne, you wanted to talk about ships sailing 16:05:09 +1 to jeanne 16:05:10 Jeanne: Particularly on scoring and counting, the ship (or train) has not sailed. 16:05:34 Jeanne: We're spending time building up the value of 3, so it isn't just opinions, it is data. 16:05:46 Jeanne: This also helps us identify flaws. 16:06:42 Jeanne: We are using 5 metrics to evaluate the scoring, taken from research symposium, one of which is complexity (how difficult is this to test). But we need more data to assess. 16:07:17 Jeanne: We need more SCs migrated over so we have more data to evaluate the scoring. That's why i've wanted to work more on actual content. 16:07:59 q? 16:08:00 q+ 16:08:02 ack Chu 16:08:04 q+ to highlight next week's exercise 16:08:10 ack dav 16:08:27 q+ 16:08:43 David MacDonald: This is a proposal and we're evaluating it. is there a secondary? What would be great would be 'here are 3 ways of doing it': count, not count, a third way. 16:08:47 q+ to answer the question of different proposals 16:08:52 q+ to answer David about proposals 16:09:00 David MacDonald: The more we talk about exploratory, the more those become hardened. 16:09:29 David MacDonald: I love a lot about 3, including tagging. I am just worried about the testing. 16:09:31 ack ala 16:09:31 alastairc, you wanted to highlight next week's exercise 16:10:03 Alastair: We have a meeting next week on headings. That is proposed as a critique of that. 16:10:59 Alastair: The one aspect that is there to be iterated on is a 0-4 rating as what this guideline comes up to. 16:11:12 q- 16:11:19 Alastair: We can review multiple proposals to get there. 16:12:10 q+ 16:12:16 Chuck: Silver examined a number of scoring methods. We are trying to emphasize that any past decisions get honoured, and we not open those up again. 16:12:18 s/as what this guideline comes up to/as what a guideline wraps up to, however under that it could be quite different. 16:12:23 ack Ch 16:12:23 Chuck, you wanted to answer the question of different proposals 16:12:25 ack dav 16:12:30 q+ to say is a list of those decisions somewhere? 16:13:01 David MacDonald: Can you clarify on that? 16:13:07 Jeanne: We're talking about from last summer. 16:13:08 ack mb 16:13:08 mbgower, you wanted to say is a list of those decisions somewhere? 16:13:17 q+ to say that until we finalize the conformance model and scoring I wouldn't regard anything as carved in stone. 16:13:29 MG: Is there a list of decisions , regarding context of feedback? 16:13:40 ack awk 16:13:40 AWK, you wanted to say that until we finalize the conformance model and scoring I wouldn't regard anything as carved in stone. 16:13:56 AWK: Those are good questions. David I have the same. 16:14:35 q? 16:14:44 Silver Decisions page -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Decisions 16:14:53 AWK: There was a lot of work done. I would say until we have the conformance model at the point where we're all in agreement of how it works and the scoring works, just about everything in the standard is going to cascade. 16:15:04 AWK: I wouldn't worry about things that can't be commented on. 16:15:19 Chuck: Sarah, anything else you want to discuss? 16:15:47 Sarah: I'm glad we made it through all the components. It is in more ways more understandable through the web interface, and Chuck was going to share that? 16:15:51 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/srayos/error-prev-index-2/guidelines/index.html#error-prevention 16:16:12 Chuck: This is what is in the PR in the same format. 16:16:44 Chuck: Since time is short, we will be putting out a survey seeking feedback. 16:16:48 Is the Outcome link supposed to work? I get a 404 16:17:26 Chuck: I came to Sarah yesterday about this. I appreciate what you put together on short notice. 16:17:46 zakim, take up next item 16:17:46 agendum 4 -- Introduce the new group homepage (5 min) -- taken up [from Chuck] 16:17:47 Chuck: We are working on addressing the links that don't work. 16:17:49 thanks! 16:17:56 https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/ag 16:18:19 Chuck: Michael had an emergency and is unable to attend. 16:18:37 Alastair: I think the idea was that rather than the WAI homepage, this is essentially an automatically updated version. 16:19:22 Alastair: I've asked if we can get our wiki home page more prominent. 16:19:49 q? 16:19:50 q+ 16:20:07 mike: I don't see it stating when we meet. Needs to include that information. 16:20:14 very nice, seems to be pulling photos etc from github 16:20:15 q+ about the calendar 16:20:23 ack Jean 16:20:28 ack mb 16:20:53 Jeanne: The calendar tab is where we would have our meetings. i think there's a new w3c calendaring tool, and this is an automated way of pulling that. 16:21:30 q+ 16:21:32 q+ to note Calendaring includes agenda 16:21:36 q+ would the tools section , which has the wiki be a fallback until calendar is up to date? Agree with MG that the communication would be in tool for time being 16:21:55 MG: Silver has idea of highlighting participation , is there any plans for AGWG? 16:21:57 mg: Silver has this idea of highlighting participation in a more granular fashion. Any plans on that for our group? 16:22:15 mg: We have chairs, staff... any notation of active participation? 16:22:16 MG: I.e. chairs, staff, participants vs. active participants ? 16:22:21 q? 16:22:23 ack mb 16:22:30 ack saj 16:22:30 sajkaj, you wanted to note Calendaring includes agenda 16:22:50 Sajkaj: Calendaring also includes agenda planning. You may want to make sure you can look ahead. 16:23:14 Alastair: It appeared it would email everyone in the group, even for testing. 16:23:29 Sajkaj: There should be a test mechanism. This is all beta. It's worth commenting on. 16:23:29 q? 16:23:29 calendaring issue tracker https://github.com/w3c/calendar/issues 16:24:09 Cheers, all! 16:24:13 zakim, take up next item 16:24:13 agendum 5 -- WCAG 2.x issue resolutions (Q1-4) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/ (30 min) -- taken up [from Chuck] 16:24:33 Chuck: there are four questions 16:24:37 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/results 16:24:45 TOPIC: Question 1 - Does the adjacent color clause of SC 1.4.11 apply inside components? #1775 16:24:54 Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - Does the adjacent color clause of SC 1.4.11 apply inside components? #1775 16:25:24 Alastair: We didn't get too many people replying, which I think suggests not too many got through the issues. 16:25:36 sarahhorton_ has joined #ag 16:25:37 Alastair: Jon Avila raised an issue about non-text contrast 16:25:44 MichaelC2 has joined #ag 16:26:15 Alastair: We went through a lot of discussion, and nearing publication, we came to a decision that a button with a light background shouldn't fail. 16:27:16 Alastair: We don't distinguish contrast between states, because they aren't adjacent to each other. 16:27:43 Alastair: Jon brought up an interesting case... [sharing screen] 16:28:30 q? 16:28:45 Alastair: We haven't covered a situation where inside the component there is a change in appearance with adjacency which can be measured. 16:29:31 Alastair: I came up with examples where people can agree whether it fails. 16:29:59 Alastair: Another one came up on 1.4.1 Use of Color 16:30:02 q+ 16:30:39 Chuck: I've never identified use of color and focus visible in the same context. it's not one I've been failing. 16:30:50 Chuck: That's one opinion. 16:31:29 1.4.11 if they are adjacent to the background of the component. 16:31:30 Alastair: Because people haven't survey, maybe we can have a couple of quick polls? 16:32:02 +1 if it is covered, -1 if not, 0 if not sure 16:32:02 Yes 16:32:06 +1 16:32:07 +1 16:32:08 1 16:32:12 +1 16:32:22 +1 16:32:24 1 16:32:25 1 16:32:28 +1 16:32:30 Alastair: These are all about the focus indicator 16:32:34 0 16:32:35 +1 16:32:35 1 16:32:39 0 16:32:44 .me no we haven;t Alastair ;) 16:32:50 0 16:32:58 s/.me no we haven;t Alastair ;)/ 16:33:04 Is the focus indicator covered by 1.4.11 if the change provides an adjacent color to compare inside the component. 16:33:26 +1 16:33:35 no, because the Focus indicator becomes part of the button 16:33:36 +1 16:33:40 +1 16:33:41 +1 16:33:49 -1 16:33:51 -1 16:34:03 0 16:34:08 0 16:34:08 0 16:34:19 Alastair: We have a mix of results. David, can you expand on your comment? 16:34:32 0 16:34:34