14:44:42 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:44:42 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/06/01-ag-irc 14:44:49 rrsagent, make logs world 14:44:56 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:44:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/01-ag-minutes.html Chuck 14:45:02 chair: Chuck 14:45:08 Zakim, start meeting 14:45:09 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:45:09 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:45:22 meeting: AGWG-2021-06-01 14:45:55 regrets: Jake Abma, Steve Lee, Makoto Ueki, Bruce Bailey 14:46:06 agenda+ Silver heartbeat publication 14:46:13 agenda+ AGWG member participation in the errors subgroup 14:46:24 agenda+ Error prevention https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-error-prevention/ 14:46:32 agenda+ WCAG 2.x issue resolutions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/ 14:51:24 mgarrish has joined #ag 14:52:41 Rain has joined #ag 14:53:20 scribe: ChrisLoiselle 14:53:45 JF has joined #ag 14:53:50 agenda? 14:53:57 Present+ 14:54:09 present+ 14:54:17 present+ 14:54:40 Present+ 14:54:57 present+ 14:56:02 present+ 14:56:50 MarcJohlic has joined #ag 14:57:14 Detlev has joined #ag 14:58:20 GN015 has joined #ag 14:59:29 Wilco has joined #ag 14:59:33 present+ 14:59:42 agenda? 14:59:44 OliverK has joined #ag 14:59:46 sajkaj has joined #ag 14:59:50 present+ 14:59:59 Lauriat has joined #ag 15:00:21 Present+ 15:00:32 Ben has joined #ag 15:00:34 present+ 15:01:01 morr4 has joined #ag 15:01:29 Chuck: We have a scribe for first hour 15:01:39 MelanieP has joined #ag 15:01:42 scribe: ChrisLoiselle 15:01:44 present+ 15:01:46 Azlan has joined #ag 15:01:50 sarahhorton has joined #ag 15:02:16 juliette_alexandria has joined #ag 15:02:23 present+ 15:02:23 present+ 15:02:25 present+ 15:02:31 Chuck: We haven't turned on transcripts, so we proceed without for this call. We will turn on next meeting and apologize . 15:02:51 present+ 15:02:54 ... Jake talked to WCAG 2. maintenance and we will talking that in second hour. 15:02:54 present+ 15:03:03 ... do we have any new topics ? 15:03:05 present+ 15:03:05 agenda? 15:03:10 zakim, take up item 1 15:03:10 agendum 1 -- Silver heartbeat publication -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:03:38 ... discussion on Silver heartbeat. 15:03:39 JustineP has joined #ag 15:03:50 present+ 15:04:01 present+ 15:04:04 ... explainer is under development. 15:04:08 ToddLibby has joined #ag 15:04:14 rrsagent, make minutes 15:04:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/01-ag-minutes.html jeanne 15:04:16 q+ 15:04:19 present+ 15:04:25 q? 15:04:26 ack MelanieP 15:04:29 present+ 15:04:44 KarenHerr has joined #ag 15:04:56 q+ to answer Melanie 15:05:01 laura has joined #ag 15:05:03 present+ 15:05:06 ack jeanne 15:05:06 jeanne, you wanted to answer Melanie 15:05:10 Melanie: Are you adding any editors note on status and what is a heartbeat publication ? What is covered and that it doesn't cover all comments raised in FPWD. 15:05:41 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:05:47 Jeanne: This is part of status of document . I have seen a draft and it covers the points you raised. 15:05:59 q? 15:06:16 MelissaD has joined #ag 15:06:18 Jeanne: It states it is a working draft, and that we have not addressed all comments, and that we are working on those comments as well as others, on the next draft. 15:06:20 This is a Working Draft of W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group together with the Silver Task Force and Silver Community Group. WCAG 3 was published on 21 January 2021. This version moves much of the introduction to the Explainer for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0, adds a new proposed guideline, error prevention, and addresses editorial fixes from comments received on that draft. Not all comments 15:06:25 on the previous draft have been processed yet. In particular, testing and conformance have received many comments which are being actively explored, but the group has not yet adopted updated content for those sections. The group will continue processing comments from the previous draft as well as on this draft. 15:06:31 Melanie: Thank you. 15:06:32 +AWK 15:06:54 MichaelC: places in IRC the text for the status update text. 15:07:01 Jaunita_George has joined #ag 15:07:02 present+ 15:07:11 Jeanne: Reads off the text MichaelC pasted in to IRC. 15:07:50 Chuck: Any other questions on this topic? 15:07:50 zakim, take up next item 15:07:50 agendum 2 -- AGWG member participation in the errors subgroup -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:08:04 Jemma has joined #ag 15:08:26 KimD has joined #ag 15:08:31 present+ 15:08:32 Chuck: Call to participation in errors subgroup to advance the work, (same issue is for headings content group as well). 15:08:35 Present+ 15:08:46 If you are interested, please let the chairs or task force leaders know. 15:08:57 zakim, take up next item 15:08:57 agendum 3 -- Error prevention https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-error-prevention/ -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:09:10 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-error-prevention/results 15:09:22 TOPIC: Include Error Prevention in the Heartbeat publication 15:09:25 Chuck: Error prevention survey responses around WCAG 3 work. 15:09:41 Chuck has changed the topic to: Include Error Prevention in the Heartbeat publication 15:09:57 rrsagent, make minutes 15:09:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/01-ag-minutes.html Jemma 15:10:29 q? 15:10:32 Chuck: Editors wish to include error prevention in heartbeat publication. Talks to responses of survey. 15:10:45 q? 15:10:47 q+ 15:10:54 q+ to ask if immature conformance makes this gl worse than the other ones already in the draft 15:10:56 mbgower has joined #ag 15:11:16 +1 to AWK 15:11:18 rrsagent, make minutes 15:11:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/01-ag-minutes.html mbgower 15:11:38 AWK: The evaluation of criterion, methods and outcomes, is difficult. It is an active effort we are all working on. We should focus on this first, before adding more guidelines. 15:11:40 q+ to say we need gl to show the plans in context, especially with what´s in flux 15:11:45 q+ to AWK 15:11:46 ack Ch 15:11:48 q? 15:12:32 Chuck: I recall that we spoke to this prior in a conversation, regarding guidelines and conformance model. I believe the conversation was around craft guidelines to help test out conformance model. 15:12:40 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 15:12:45 present+ 15:13:35 ... more data on where conformance model is falling short is the key, and more guidelines would help us understand with the data points. Both simultaneously being worked on was a key take away. 15:13:43 q? 15:13:48 ack Mich 15:13:48 MichaelC, you wanted to ask if immature conformance makes this gl worse than the other ones already in the draft and to say we need gl to show the plans in context, especially with 15:13:51 ... what´s in flux 15:14:20 q+ to say that additional guidelines can be in the editor's draft, but shouldn't be in the heartbeat 15:14:23 MichaelC: I think we need some guidelines on the document to be able to see the structure and context , to be able to see we can offer guidance within this structure. 15:14:39 Q+ 15:14:45 ack Jea 15:14:45 jeanne, you wanted to AWK 15:14:52 ... question on this guideline is whether or not we include it on this publication. 15:15:34 +1 to Jeanne 15:15:40 q? 15:15:43 Jeanne: We have tried working on just guidelines and just conformance. From a project management stance, we need to move both together , as they validate each other. We need to migrate existing wcag 2.2 to silver to show that conformance works. 15:15:43 ack AWK 15:15:43 AWK, you wanted to say that additional guidelines can be in the editor's draft, but shouldn't be in the heartbeat 15:16:08 ack me 15:16:16 Ryladog has joined #ag 15:16:28 q+ 15:16:33 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:16:55 ack Wil 15:17:06 AWK: I get that. I don't think it is at a point of maturity to say it should be included in a public working draft. Issues were raised on conformance model, but not a lot has been made on addressing those. Our published work should showcase progress around issues raised. 15:17:18 q+ 15:17:29 +1 to Wilco 15:17:39 q+ to say heartbeats are part of not getting shut down 15:17:41 Wilco: We have editor's drafts. When we publish a new draft, it should have new answers. Public should have another review. 15:18:15 Q+ 15:18:29 ack chuck 15:18:36 ack Mich 15:18:36 MichaelC, you wanted to say heartbeats are part of not getting shut down 15:18:40 Chuck: My thought was that even though it wasn't an editor's draft version, it was a chance to get feedback on conformance model. I don't think I hear objection to add errors to heartbeat, but not in a heartbeat. 15:19:26 MichaelC : I think publishing heartbeats is important. What is in them for content, is less critical. Progress is important to showcase. 15:19:42 q? 15:19:44 why can editors drafts not show progress? 15:19:46 ack JF 15:19:50 ... drafts are drafts and may change due to being a draft. Better to showcase progress than not. 15:20:26 JF: Plus 1 to AWK and Wilco. It is introducing another scoring feature, of credits. That is a concern. 15:20:42 q+ 15:20:57 +1 to Michael and Jeanne 15:21:03 q? 15:21:04 ...To AWK's point, migration to WCAG 3 and conformance model with not knowing full picture, leads to issue around timing . 15:21:05 ack Ch 15:21:07 q? 15:21:42 Chuck: To JF's point, better set of activity is to migrate wcag 2.2 content into the structure of work? 15:22:15 q+ to say that we also need to include new material to see that Conformance works 15:22:27 JF: I think it is a requirement we want to include in the specification, but I'm struggling how to score it. What is a credit, and how that impacts final score? How do we put that under same structure within current conformance model , etc. 15:22:47 ack Jea 15:22:47 jeanne, you wanted to say that we also need to include new material to see that Conformance works 15:23:06 JF: Perhaps migration of current SCs is simpler approach. 15:23:23 q+ to say having a singular focus for the heartbeat has value 15:23:30 q? 15:23:34 ack Mich 15:23:34 MichaelC, you wanted to say having a singular focus for the heartbeat has value 15:23:37 The question is, will the conformance model support the *existing* requirements 15:24:00 q+ 15:24:01 MichaelC: A primary reason to publish the heartbeat is important, I agree with JF's point. 15:24:03 q+ to say that resources are leaning toward new guidelines 15:24:03 q? 15:24:05 ack Sarah 15:24:55 SarahH: This isn't a new requirement, it is a reframing of a requirement, i.e. labels and instructions. It is grouped in a different guideline, speaking specifically to error prevention. The requirement is very much based on labels and instructions. 15:25:23 q- 15:25:55 ... it builds on it , i.e. grey areas of placeholder text and does it qualify as a label or instruction. The method attempts to improve the grey area of placeholder and testing within new methodology. This is a migration project, with enhancements. 15:26:14 ... I can speak to the scoring. This is a prototype of using credits. 15:26:15 q? 15:26:17 Q+ 15:26:22 q? 15:26:25 ack Laura 15:26:40 q? 15:26:57 q+ 15:27:07 q+ to deconfound strategic and content reasons 15:27:15 Wondering if we could publish without the Scoring piece? 15:27:19 Chuck: Talks to LauraC's comment in response of survey. 15:27:25 ack Mich 15:27:25 MichaelC, you wanted to deconfound strategic and content reasons 15:27:34 ... Laura agrees with AWK's comment. 15:28:23 MichaelC: Mix of strategic and content reasons on publishing errors in heartbeat...do we have a priority of content or strategy? 15:28:25 q+ 15:28:37 ack Wil 15:28:38 Chuck: I agree with your comments raised. 15:28:55 Wilco: What is the advantage of a heartbeat over the editors draft? 15:28:56 Wondering if we could publish errors without the errors scoring piece? 15:29:10 MichaelC: Format matters to some. 15:29:22 proposed poll: Is our priority to focus on "strategic" or focus on "content"? 15:29:33 Jeanne: Talks to Laura's comments in IRC around publishing errors without scoring? 15:29:44 yes 15:29:54 Chuck: Is our priority to focus on strategic or focus on content? 15:29:56 q? 15:30:06 content 15:30:08 Define "strategic?" 15:30:23 Strategic means publishing content. We have to make the project move forward. 15:30:26 Chuck: Can you place in either content or strategic in your IRC response? 15:30:56 content - as it will hopefully bring in more comments from the public 15:31:02 q+ 15:31:13 MichaelC: Content = actual things that people might review, whether it is mature or not. Strategy = longevity of project, organizational progress being made. 15:31:16 ack Ry 15:31:49 q+ 15:32:41 KatieH: I believe strategy is what silver is working on. Whether or not we have scoring , errors is important and should be talked about. A lot is missing from WCAG 2 and we want to handle those pieces in WCAG 3. Strategy in my mind, is clear conformance model. 15:32:45 ack Ch 15:32:47 Q+ to ask whether this new requirement could also fit into the existing WCAZG 2.x structure? 15:32:48 q+ that the long term strategy is publish content as it is developed 15:33:10 q+ to say that the long term strategy is publish content as it is developed 15:33:26 Chuck: We are reviewing this guidance for this particular heartbeat, we aren't losing any of the work by not including it in the current heartbeat. 15:33:40 q? 15:33:44 ack JF 15:33:44 JF, you wanted to ask whether this new requirement could also fit into the existing WCAZG 2.x structure? 15:34:41 JF: I think both Sarah and Katie make very interesting points. We want to include it in big picture. Could this work also be included in a WCAG 2.x structure? 15:34:54 ack Jea 15:34:54 jeanne, you wanted to say that the long term strategy is publish content as it is developed 15:35:05 I've been wondering that too lately JF 15:35:05 JF: I think that would advance the work , but not under the WCAG 3 framework, which has the conformance questions around scoring. 15:36:06 Jeanne: Dividing into strategic and content is not the way to look at this. Publishing shows progress. It would be helpful to be included, so we can keep working drafts and editors draft in sync. 15:36:12 rrsagent, make minutes 15:36:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/01-ag-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle 15:36:57 q? 15:37:00 Jeanne: I feel that whatever work gets done, we need to have it included. We need work in guidelines and working WCAG 2.2 over to WCAG 3 framework. 15:37:16 q+ 15:37:21 Jeanne: Please let us move forward and receive feedback. 15:37:33 https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#error-prevention 15:37:36 https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/ 15:37:47 ack Laura 15:38:35 q? 15:38:41 Laura: Can't unmute, we will get back to her when we can. 15:38:46 Michael has joined #ag 15:38:58 q+ to answer DmD 15:39:18 Chuck: Talks to DavidMcD's comments: This is a global issues: We have at least 7 categories of Cognitive functionality. Have we provided the same level of granularity for the other categories of disability. 15:39:22 ... There are multiple types of vision loss, multiple types of color blindness, and dexterity disabilities. I think we have to review the functional categories and provide a comparable level of granularity for each category. 15:39:38 q? 15:39:41 ack Jea 15:39:41 jeanne, you wanted to answer DmD 15:39:44 There might be some more critical errors to provide such as: -Failure to provide error messages in tex 15:40:00 The plain language description of atomic tests says "like the way we test today" And then for the holistic tests they say "test with a screen reader" 15:40:04 I think that most professional testers today are constantly checking things with various screen readers, at least I am. If we are going to add "like we do today" to atomic and think we'd have to say the same thing in the holistic tests regarding checking with AT. 15:41:18 agenda? 15:41:31 Jeanne: There are 5 top level categories, essential , sensory have 15 needs, etc. 15:41:47 q? 15:41:50 q+ 15:41:56 ack Sarah 15:41:58 Jeanne: I don't think it will be able to be done the way David is proposing to address all users with disabilities. 15:42:38 zakim, make logs public 15:42:38 I don't understand 'make logs public', Jemma 15:42:41 SarahH: This is error prevention, so before user is making an error. This is related but separate from error messaging and notification. 15:42:42 q+ 15:42:46 q? 15:42:49 Ack Melan 15:43:01 rrsagent, make logs public 15:43:07 Statistics on Functional Needs: 15:43:10 Essential - 1 15:43:10 Sensory - 15 15:43:10 Vision & Visual - 8 15:43:10 Hearing & Auditory - 4 15:43:11 Sensory Intersectional - 3 15:43:11 Physical - 14 15:43:11 Mobility - 3 15:43:11 Motor - 6 15:43:11 Intersections - 3 15:43:12 Speech -2 15:43:12 Cognitive - 23 15:43:12 Attention - 3 15:43:13 Language & Communication - 8 15:43:13 Language - 3 15:43:13 Memory - 3 15:43:14 Executive - 3 15:43:14 Mental Health - 1 15:43:14 Cognitive & Sensory - 2 15:43:15 Independence - 2 15:43:18 q? 15:43:20 Melanie: I agree with DavidMcD. on cognitive areas. Voicing support of David. 15:43:23 q? 15:43:47 Chuck : Talks to editorial changes on Stefan's comments 15:44:11 Chuck: Talks to Oliver's comments, more editorial of nature. 15:44:43 Oliver: Listing of examples , if lists should be complete, or just examples was the main comment. Also talked to data validation, but around content, yes. 15:44:57 Chuck: Rain, you agreed but have a comment? 15:45:49 Top level categories of Functional needs and the number of specific needs in each Top Level Category: Essential - 1 15:45:49 Sensory - 15 15:45:49 Physical - 14 15:45:49 Cognitive - 23 15:45:49 Independence - 2 15:45:56 Rain: Comment is around date formats, there is a better way around date formats and error prevention. Flexible formatting would be beneficial. Separating dates without the word format in phrasing. 15:46:00 q+ 15:46:01 Jennie has joined #ag 15:46:06 present+ 15:46:07 ack Chuck 15:46:07 q? 15:46:53 q+ 15:46:59 Chuck: Comment inspired me. Seems you looked at error prevention and took a fresh approach, which was helpful. 15:47:22 ack Sarah 15:47:25 Rain: Error prevention could also include clearer input fields. 15:47:37 +1 to Rain 15:48:02 SarahH: I think that is a great comment, Rain. Moderated form submission is another topic. I.e. keeping people from making mistakes. 15:48:09 q? 15:48:14 q? 15:48:54 Chuck: Makoto, agreed that it should be included. Concrete examples are presented and allow for comments from people in future. 15:49:13 Chuck: Regarding Gundula's comments, do you want to talk to specifics? 15:49:19 q? 15:50:20 Gundula: Documents are mentioned twice. Platform vs. technology. Mentioning that once, perhaps in technology. Also talks to examples being used. Web is not a technology, rather mention HTLM and ARIA right away. 15:50:44 JakeAbma has joined #ag 15:50:47 present+ 15:51:11 Gundula: Is automatic validation being looked at? Telephone numbers ? Grouping of numbers of accounts vs. comparing to their source related to input mask. I.e. cut and paste and removing due to formatting. 15:51:42 Capitalization vs. non capitalization of letters used. 15:51:52 q? 15:52:05 ... instructions that disappear are not consistent , should that be dropped ? 15:52:08 q? 15:52:27 q? 15:52:34 proposed RESOLUTION: Include Error Prevention in the June heartbeat 15:53:00 +1 15:53:01 +1 15:53:02 +1 15:53:03 0 15:53:03 +1 15:53:04 -1 15:53:04 +1 15:53:05 +1 to including 15:53:05 +1 15:53:06 +1 15:53:07 +1 15:53:07 0 15:53:07 +1 15:53:08 -1 15:53:11 0 15:53:13 0 15:53:17 0 15:53:26 0 15:53:27 -1 Could agree if we publish Errors without the Current Scoring. Add: "Scoring under development." 15:53:29 jg has joined #ag 15:54:00 yes 15:54:04 Chuck: We've already discussed the points, but specific to JF and AWK and objecting to CfC? 15:54:14 Chuck: To Laura? 15:55:00 Chuck: If we were to remove scoring section, does that change your position, AWK and JF? 15:55:44 JF: concern is around the guideline , would be opposed to CfC at this point. 15:56:32 AWK: I think it helps prevent compounding of problem. Core issue is around current state and work of conformance model. 15:56:45 yes 15:57:09 Chuck: In removing scoring and stating "Scoring under development" could you live with it? 15:57:30 q+ 15:58:37 ack Wilco 15:58:45 JF: I see the value of the work. Strategy should gain more focus and newer content to specification is not as much as a focus. 15:59:14 Wilco: There doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm, there is reluctance. 15:59:45 need to drop for another call 16:00:52 scribe: mbgower 16:01:17 thanks, Mike. 16:01:36 q+ to ask about how to move forward to avoid similar lack of enthusiasm in publishing future drafts 16:01:57 Michael: If we want to capture some concerns, we don't need a CFC to do that. 16:02:18 ack Lau 16:02:18 Lauriat, you wanted to ask about how to move forward to avoid similar lack of enthusiasm in publishing future drafts 16:02:21 Chuck: Is there something you think we'd get out of it with a CFC more than captured in this call? 16:03:00 Lauriat: This is existing guidance. We are going to have this same situation. They are going to look different as we migrate them. 16:03:06 +100 to SL 16:03:30 q? 16:03:32 q+ 16:03:42 Lauriat: I'm concerned we're getting into philosophical debates. We have to build it up and validate things -- change them as they don't work. This is not carved in stone. I want to avoid this hesitation in the future. 16:04:28 Chuck: We have individuals who express concerns about publishing the migrating effort. 16:04:30 ack Ch 16:04:32 q? 16:04:33 q+ to say that we get asymc 16:04:39 ack Jea 16:04:39 jeanne, you wanted to say that we get asymc 16:04:45 Chuck: How to we handle this when we hit the same stumbling block? 16:05:10 Jeanne: I believe it would be valuable to have a CFC since we get non-synchronous participation -- from folks other than on this call. 16:05:13 q+ 16:05:14 +1 to the async point, definitely 16:05:18 ack Chu 16:05:56 Michael: I'm not going to object if you want to do it. Even with the objections we have, it's a foregone conclusion. 16:05:58 +1 to Michael 16:06:03 +1 to Michael 16:06:11 +1 16:06:21 Micahel: I'm not sure the CFC approach is how we get asynchronous participation. 16:06:49 q+ 16:06:52 q+ 16:06:57 ack Wil 16:07:14 Chuck: I don't think Shawn's concerns were addressed. 16:07:44 Wilco: I think Silver is doing work, and by the time it gets to the WG there is a sense it is ready to be published. 16:07:46 q+ to say that bringing the groups together would help with that 16:07:55 ack Melan 16:08:03 Wilco: By the WG does not view it this way. 16:08:26 +1 to Melanie 16:08:32