<ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
<Rachael> Diversity and Inclusion at W3C: Inclusion Fund and Fellowships for TPAC 2021 https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/06/diversity-and-inclusion-at-w3c-inclusion-fund-and-fellowships-for-tpac-2021/
Rachael: Is there anybody new
that wants to introduce themselves?
... Shares TPAC 2021 link for fellowship
... Any new topics that should be placed on agenda?
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask if TPAC is F2f?
Jeanne: Is TPAC face to face or in person?
Janina: Virtual
<Chuck> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<jeanne> +1
<Ben> +1
<alastairc> +1 can attend
<GN015> +1
<MattOrr> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<laura> +1
<Rachael> +1 if you can attend next week, -1 if not
<PeterKorn> -1
Rachael: July 4th holiday in US. If you can attend next week, could you add in plus 1 if you can, negative one if you can't
<Rain_> 0
+1
<AWK> -1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<sajkaj> -1 probably
Rachael: We will hold meeting ,
thank you.
... Clarification on 3rd party content. It is complex. Thought
was that we can break it down into topics.
... definition of what third party content is would be used to
move forward into more difficult topics
... Today, we should focus on comments around the definitions.
Chairs can come back with new survey on other points after
we've worked through that.
<mbgower> present_
Rachael: Alastair is helping
Cybele with irc, she may want to add comments in after being
logged in.
... I don't think anyone has pros or cons .
<Rain_> +1 to Rachael's proposed path
<Cyborg> hello
PeterK: Makes sense , Rachael.
<Cyborg> -1
Cybele: Myself and other comments I saw that were similar, were around framing of conversation. Whether we frame by definition is key. It seems to be technical.
Rachael: What area do you want to frame it around if not around definitions.
Cybele: I feel like I outlined that in comments in survey. I defer to those comments around framing conversation.
Rachael: Option 1 is to start with definitions. Worth noting Cybele's point on how we are framing.
<Cyborg> Cybele suggested an alternative framing the conversation based on suggested questions in the survey
<Cyborg> because this is not only a technical matter
Chuck: I am still to understand the framing.
I agree with those above who suggested that the framing of this questionnaire is missing a first question. As a result, this could be interpreted as a leading questionnaire.
There are fundamental questions that need to be asked first:
1 - Who benefits from 3rd party exemptions and why do they want them?
1b - Who proposed 3rd party exemptions to WCAG 3.0?
2 - If those proposing/lobbying for 3rd party exemptions get this added to 3.0, how will their company's users be impacted?
2b - If these exemptions are added to 3.0, how could this also impact users of other organizations' sites and services?
2c - How could limitations to accessibility from 3rd party exemptions increase existing social barriers for people with disabilities (such as barriers to employment and education)?
3 - Are there alternative solutions that increase rather than decreasing accessibility and accountability? What are they?
3b - Are we giving enough room to develop those alternatives that increase rather than decreasing accessibility and accountability for users with disabilities and their communities? If we did provide more time and space for this work, who ought to lead and participate, to ensure those users needs are well-represented?
4 - How would baking 3rd party exemptions into WCAG 3.0's conformance model lead to incentivizing the use of 3rd parties and reduced transparency?
We know some answers to these questions, don't we?
My understanding is that the answer to 1a is Amazon and the answer to 1b is Peter Korn.
Can these questions please be answered in the 3rd party proposal documentation, for greater transparency of process and development?
The above is from Cyble's comments on survey
Cybele: Reads aloud her questions as stated above.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we've been through this in the "Conformance Challenges" doc, and the accessibility aspects are the same as 1st party content.
AlastairC: I think we've talked to this during the conformance challenges doc. Third party content sometimes need to be included and you have no control over it, dealing with it in terms of conformance in WCAG 3 is important.
It is a discussion around conformance claims. Basic point , we need to define what we are talking about to talk toward them.
<Cyborg> I haven't seen those answers. Would appreciate them if there is documentation about this, please.
<jeanne> +1
JF: I object to the characterization it is Amazon driven. Peter and his group have done a lot of work, so have others. Content producers need some level of clarity on what necessary. It isn't unique to Amazon.
<alastairc> Also a big problem for smaller sites, more dependant on 3rd parties.
Chuck: I think that everyone benefits to clarity as to what the third party is and how it integrates into conformance. If we do have clarity, then we all , content providers included , would know what their risks are if they are posting content.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the proposal was developed in a group of 7-10 people from use cases.
<Cyborg> I'm aware that the proposal was put forward by Peter Korn from Amazon in the fall of 2019
<Cyborg> August/September 2019 to be exact
Jeanne: This was developed in 7
to 10 people , including people with disabilities. The purpose
was to develop use cases and to close the gap or loopholes that
we currently have. Right now, third party content is a big
problem with little incentive to do something.
... we are trying to close loopholes and give incentives to
orgs to make things more accessible.
<JF> +1 to Jeanne
<Cyborg> It would be helpful if we could name the 7-10 people and the organizations they represent, who were involved in crafting this. I know the proposal was put forward by Peter in 2019.
Jeanne: use cases where content
can't be made accessible for legal reasons. We want to people
to be able to access the content that they can't currently
access.
... we are interested in where the loopholes are and where we
can add more context around those issues.
<Cyborg> I know of the history in fall 2019 and the objections I raised at the time and since.
<Cyborg> Silver conformance subgroup also with Amazon?
Rachael: Consensus review process was completed around third party content note. The broader conversation was around the Silver subgroup's work on conformance and third party conformance.
<jeanne> The subgroup was not based on the COnformance Challenges. It is independent of that effort
<JF> all of the meeting minutes of the 3rd Party sub-group are also posted at public-silver@w3.org
Rachael: To queue, then back to definitions question.
<Cyborg> @Wilco - there has been a significant conversation before you arrived.
Gundula: If we take Amazon as example and what type content would third party exception be present?
Peter: Should I talk to this in queue ?
<johnkirkwood> please put definition of 3rd party conent here please
<jeanne> I agree that we should not be demonizing one company.
<JF> A HUGE +1
Rachael: The purpose is not around Amazon, but rather on definitions so that we can look at 3rd party content as a broader question and not one company
<AWK> +AWK
<Cyborg> I saw discussions in the list-serve about language similar to "might" instead of "shall" around third party exemptions. These kinds of small changes in language can cut whole populations out.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I had difficulty tackling just the definitions
Janina: We are aware that writing a proposal in conformance is not all encompassing of where 3rd party is being mentioned . I.e social media and alternative text, third party involvement on millions of user posts as an example. Visual contrast example , i.e. first party that hosts the content , should understand that it meets the proper contrast.
MichaelG: When attempting to talking to definitions, use cases talk to authoring tools, but definitions don't talk to it. I can talk to how IBM try to handle it. Some of it is just scoping . I am happy to comment, based on conversation flow.
JohnK: I reiterate what Michael G states, exact same feeling on how we can look at and talk to it.
PeterK: What is the context of the definitions ? It isn't about the 3rd party exemption. It is not black and white , yes or no. We have a scoring system in WCAG 3.
<Cyborg> Questions remain about the scoring system and transparency of results. Given that these questions haven't been answered in a way that has received widespread acceptance yet, how can we jump to 3rd party exemptions being baked in?
PeterK: looking at 3rd party content , are their nuances ? Should we score differently ?
<alastairc> @Cyborg - this is not about an exception. It is about how we deal with things that are not the responsibility of the claimant.
<Cyborg> @Alastair - it is about both. Let's frame it in a way that it achieves increasing accessibility rather than reducing it.
PeterK: We are adding audio descriptions now to content we don't own, but to content that our licensing agreement allows to do. We are attempting to the do the right thing.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to object to demonizing Amazon here
JF: Amazon is doing what they can
and then some , it should not be viewed as Amazon is doing "x"
conversation.
... Please let us focus on the issue.
Rachael: This is broader issue and we are attempting to focus on this broader topic.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about PWE
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/#unacceptablebehavior
Jeanne: We should move forward with conversation around definitions.
<Cyborg> 2
<Rachael> Options: 1) focus on definitions 2) pick up from last week about how to address 3rd party content
<Cyborg> 2
<Ryladog> 1
<alastairc> 1
<Ben> 1
<Rachael> 1
<laura> 2
<Chuck> 2
<AWK> 1, then 2
<johnkirkwood> 1
<AUbbink> 1
Please vote on options of proceeding.
<jeanne> 1
<Rain_> 1, then 2
<JF> 1
<KarenHerr> 1
<mbgower> starting with 1 (and good luck)
scribe: we will get to both , just a matter of starting point.
<Raf> +1 for 1
<Detlev> 1
<PeterKorn> Mild preference for 1 for today; we need to discuss both, but we have less well developed material in front of us to be as effectiveve today on 2
<Chuck> 13 for 1, 3 for 2
Rachael: Majority is around starting with definitions.
<JakeAbma> 1
<jeanne> +1 on needing to be easier to read
Rachael: JF comment around editing.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask whether there are alternatives to the category of responsibility?
Rachael: DavidMcD , option was around 3rd party definition being broad.
<sajkaj> +1 to Alastair, it's a fair summary
AlastairC: What are the categories we are using? Author arranged ? Person who is arranging . User generated , is platform , where no legal arrangement for user to provide content. I.e. advertising , twitter feed, form builders, author arranged may be too wide of a category.
<SuzanneT> +1 to too wide to facilitate discussion
AlastairC: have we explored other categorization areas ?
<alastairc> Author arranged seems very wide.
PeterK: To question on fitting into definition. We tried to capture in question three.
<JF> +1 to the scale issue
PeterK: Advertising may be different. Author arranged vs. user generated . Scale of third party content can be overwhelming. Example, 500 hours of video being uploaded every minute. Not necessarily in author arranged, but should be mentioned somewhere if not in definition.
Janina: Talks to content management systems being part of the guidelines and outcomes. Accessibility as a service is another topic. BruceB talked to this in some fashion as well.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to also remind on nuance and solutions
<PeterKorn> +1 to addressing specific cases in Guidelines
Suzanne: I agree that it is rather wide. Talks to conversations around separating bulk vs. permissions.
<PeterKorn> That is where the rubber meets the road, and where you can maximize the realized a11y result
Suzanne: you could have a case where you have one of these things but you don't have permissions to edit. Vs. you have permissions , but can't edit due to size or bulk or scale.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say authoring tools should be a separate category, and ask how it would be used per guideline?
Suzanne: talks to legal issue of copyright exemption being a potential legal issue.
<Chuck> CMS = Content Management Systems?
<jeanne> +1 that authoring tools are a separate category that is not included in this proposal.
AlastairC: I think it depends how these are going to be used. Are the defintions good enough to to look at how the guidelines would use them?
<Lauriat> +1 to Alastair, I think we can move forward and revise as we test things
JF: There are situations where we don't have a scalable solution. Peter's example on uploading and captioning videos. Talks to issues around captioning quality vs. number of captioned videos.
<jeanne> +1 JF
JF: Nuanced discussion as how can we go today for content creators to do what they need to do, but also the end user's need.
Rachael: The intent is for these to go into the August draft to start the conversation.
<alastairc> Jeanne / Rachael - are these definitions used by methods/outcomes, so that the scoring could differentiate types of content? I assume it is not a blank thing in the conformance statement.
Janina: Yes.
<Zakim> Rain_, you wanted to say that I might need better understanding of all the types of definitions we will create before assessing just two isolated definitions
Rachael: Presuming that there will be editors notes defined in this publication?
Janina: Yes.
<Cyborg> +1 to Rain
Rain: On author arranged, we are looking at two isolated definitions without categories. I.e. author produced vs. author contracted , etc. Maybe take a step back to define categories first.
<AWK> Author-produced wouldn't be 3rd party, would it?
Janina: The contracted = something that the party hiring does have control .
<Cyborg> +1 to Rain
Janina: We should try to make that more explicit.
<jeanne> AWK, many people have commented that author produced was included in 3rd party, which we didn't intend to have a part of this proposal.
<JF> @rain part of the problem is also, what is a site owner to do if there are NO fully accessible solutions? Or solutions that are good for many users with disabilities, but not ALL users?
JohnK: One of the things that concerned is the aspect of hosting isn't coming into play, from a legal perspective. I.e. insurance buyer for putting information online, the host tends to take the legal responsibility. The third party definitions should be including hosting.
<Rachael> Proposal: focus on list of 3rd party content type and subgroup take comments back and create smaller subdivisions within a category set to help move this conversation forward.
<Rain_> +1
Thanks, Rachael!
<sajkaj> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<JF> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<Cyborg> sorry, what is the proposal again
<Ben> +1
<Detlev> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
Proposal: focus on list of 3rd party content type and subgroup take comments back and create smaller subdivisions within a category set to help move this conversation forward.
<Ryladog> +1
<AUbbink> +1
<alastairc> +1. and please do add examples, I thought of a few but I'm sure there are many more!
<Wilco_> +1
<PeterKorn> +1. Also would like to see a more concrete example of treating this in a guideline
<jeanne> +1
<MattOrr> +1
Chuck: You answered the question on discussing the content types, yes.
<mbgower> I can live with that, but thought there was still value in looking at defns
<Jaunita_George> +1
<ToddLibby> +1
<Cyborg> will there still be an extension of conversation 2 option 2....or does this move the conversation on a different trajectory?
<mbgower> consider dividing 'Author arranged' into at least 2 things: functional (a shopping cart widget) and content-based (existing content 'rehosted')
<SuzanneT> +1 if resulting defintions keep the challenges seperate
<Rachael> yes, we will still discuss conversation 2 option 2 in the future.
MikeG: Author arranged, just considering of turning into functional vs. content based, I'm happy to go that way.
Rachael: If people want to go
back to their comments and parse them out that way, you are
welcome to do that.
... 3rd party , is there a special list out of exemptions ?
Janina: No.
<johnkirkwood> great, Jeanne
Janina: We may look at frameworks
that support, creating websites or apps.
... Peter talked to advertising , could be accessible, could be
not .
<JF> +1 to Janina - ad networks likely host both accessible and inaccessible ads
Rachael: Suzanne, did you want to talk to your comments?
Suzanne: Users who have their own users. I.e. discord for example. You get your own server, etc. Someone who doesn't have their own company, but they are hosting their own "world".
<PeterKorn> +1 - a very interesting case. Especially when the user has no idea they have just become a host/server
Suzanne: Another example is Google reviews. I.e. local reviews process and code of conduct. A lot of platforms have similar onboarding on sign up. Local guides , set example for other users.
Cybele: Third party exemption and
trying to define language around exemption. Possibly using word
of exemption vs. inclusion .
... Interplay on conformance model and exemptions and 3rd party
exemptions , perhaps we push this out a bit in terms of knowing
conformance model and how to fit within it.
<alastairc> User-centred in this regard would be site owners and possibly lawyers?!
Cybele: Around User participation , perhaps there is a place for it where we can look at it there or in parallel.
Rachael: Subgroup does talk to these issues, but welcome to participate in parallel.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
Go ahead, I'll keep going until someone volunteers
<Cyborg> Concerns I raised were: 1 - if intent is to bring more 3rd party content in, then perhaps language like application or inclusion is more appropriate than exemption. 2 - user-centred perspective (PWD who use sites) - is there a subgroup that can address this vs the conformance subgroup, to focus on representation of people impacted by this? 3 - conformance model hasn't received widespread support yet for what is baked in and how transparent results are
<Jaunita_George> Scribe: Jaunita
Thanks, Jaunita!
<Cyborg> continued...so perhaps 3rd party discussion could wait for conformance model to have more review for those concerns.
<alastairc> For the record: We didn't have any further volunteers for the WCAG 2.3 / New requirements sub-group.
<Jaunita_George> Peter: I can't be here next week.
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: We'll take your absence into account
<alastairc> @Cyborg - these are all parts of a whole, they work together, so we have to keep drafting and adapting the whole.
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1775
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1775#issuecomment-839351638
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to outline
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: We're sort of coming back to it with a general question about what people have considered as in-scope vs out-of-scope. We have discussed some examples.
<Jaunita_George> ...Some examples were covered and some were not
<Jaunita_George> ...We have tried to cover it in the understanding document. There is some confusion about what's in-scope.
<Jaunita_George> ...What we're saying is yes to previous understanding, and internal focus is covered as well as use of color.
<JF> +1
<mbgower> me
<Jaunita_George> ...Does anyone disagree with the results of of the survey?
<Chuck> +1
<Rachael> proposal: Non-text contrast covers internal (as well external) focus indicators as long they have something adjacent to compare it against
<Wilco_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1775#issuecomment-830134235
<alastairc> https://alastairc.uk/tests/wcag22-examples/focus-more-visible-2.html
<Jaunita_George> JF: Contrast will always be against two things.
<alastairc> Example 3, Example 5
<Jaunita_George> michael: I'm okay rethinking 1.4.1 to match what we come up with.
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: The change is important, not what it's adjacent to
<Rachael> Example 5 I think
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: Non-text contrast covers internal (as well external) focus indicators as long they have something adjacent to compare it against.
<JF> Definition of contrast: the state of being strikingly different from something else in juxtaposition or close association.
<alastairc> MichaelG - where it says " the visual focus indicator for a component must have sufficient contrast against the adjacent background when the component is focused" they thought that meant adjacent to the focus indicator
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1775#issuecomment-839351638
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: We're trying to address the internal color change vs. the external
<AWK> example 5 would just need to meet the text contrast SC, wouldn't it?
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: Are we going to get into any danger that things will fail with the current language that weren't intended to (were previously acceptable becoming not acceptable)
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: I don't think that will happen, but that the opposite should happen.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to look at "juxtaposition" as an important term of art
<alastairc> AWK - Example 5 is black and white?
<AWK> yes
<Jaunita_George> Wilco_: Have we fully thought this through? Still feels odd that we're focusing on the state of an element rather than the element itself
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: We do treat focus a little differently. It's where you do have a focus indicator, it's covered and in cases where you have an adjacency it could be covered inside the component
<Jaunita_George> jon_avila: I'm concerned that this will change client test results
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: Should we adjust this in 2.2 and leave it alone in 2.1?
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say as Wilco says, it's actually OTHER than focus which is at risk
<alastairc> Jon - the first example? or the "TEst" one from 30 apr?
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: This will add quite a bit more to what will fail 1.4.11
<mbgower> Agreed, reinforce it. I think it's the use of "adjacent" in its 2 different contexts which is making this so 'ugly'
<Rachael> 1) reinforce historical interpretation and update non text contrast to reinforce it 2) shift interpretation in 2.1 3) shift the intpretation in 2.2
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: We have a few options here: 1. reinforce historical interpretation and update non-text contrast 2. Shift the interpretation in 2.1 3. Shift it in 2.2
<AWK> 1
<JF> 3
<mbgower> 1
<Chuck> 1
<Wilco_> 1
<Rachael> 1
<Jaunita_George> 1
<AUbbink> 1
<Ben_> 1
<johnkirkwood> 1
<alastairc> 3, can live with 1
<laura> 1
<Ryladog> 1
<ToddLibby> 3
<Francis_Storr> 1
<JakeAbma> 3
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say it is the word "adjacent" which is killing us
<Chuck> 4 for option 3, 11 for option 1, 0 for option 2.
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: The word adjacent is causing the issue
Adjacent in 1.4.11 For user interface components 'adjacent colors' means the colors adjacent to the component.
<jon_avila> 3
<AWK> "against colors adjacent to the component"
This Success Criterion does not require that changes in color that differentiate between states of an individual component meet the 3:1 contrast ratio when they do not appear next to each other.
Can't talk sorry.
<JF> the state of being strikingly different from something else in juxtaposition or close association.
<alastairc> Good for WCAG 3 :-)
<Jaunita_George> JF: Pasting in dictionary definition of "contrast." They use juxtaposition, which might help us. Maybe we should revise the criteria to use that language
<mbgower> I like AWK's change to 1.4.11 normative "of at least 3:1 against colors adjacent to the component"
<Ben_> I would like to be involved
<mbgower> I can do that
<Jaunita_George> I can help
<Ben_> Yep :)
<mbgower> I can help short-term
<mbgower> Sure
<Rachael> ACTION: mbgower, Ben, Alastair, and Juanita to work on this
<trackbot> Error finding 'mbgower,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
<Rachael> Pull request: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1555/files
<Jaunita_George> Wilco_: These changes are very significant and could have impacts, we should update the understanding document instead
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the note is non-normative, right?
<Jaunita_George> Wilco_: No
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: Do we as a group accept making this change and accept removing the double negative
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: Accept the proposed update (assuming the removal of the double negative)
<alastairc> The non-double-negative version would be: Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring or opacity, unless used to change the perceived size, shape, or position of the element.
<Rachael> Pull request: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1555/files
<Jaunita_George> AWK: Have we gotten clarification that these are non-normative.
<Chuck> Proposed alternative resolution: Accept the amended PR 1555 (removing of the double negative) to address issue 1535
<Jaunita_George> Wilco_: Diagrams, examples and notes are informative
<Wilco_> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#interpreting-normative-requirements
<Chuck> +1 it's informative
<Jaunita_George> +1
<AUbbink> +1
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1555/files
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: Accept the proposed update (assuming the removal of the double negative)
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say wording
<laura> +1 if it is informative.
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: I'm slightly concerned how it reads now
<alastairc> Michaels: "Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring or opacity, where the change does not alter the perceived size, shape, or position of the object."
<Rachael> Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring or opacity, unless used to change the perceived size, shape, or position of the element.
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask Michael how this is updated in the spec
<mbgower> +1 I can live with it, thanks!
<Jaunita_George> AWK: I don't have a problem with the change, but if we make this change, we have the problem if people see the change. Should we make an errata for that reason
<Chuck> my understanding was that this would not include any errata.
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: This would be a 2.1 errata, but not 2.2
<Jaunita_George> ...but it would be in both
<Chuck> +1 to deciding wording
<Rachael> Option 1: Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring or opacity, where the change does not alter the perceived size, shape, or position of the object.
<Rachael> Option 2: Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring or opacity, unless used to change the perceived size, shape, or position of the element.
<Chuck> 1
<Ben_> 1
<Jaunita_George> 1
<JakeAbma> 1
<mbgower> 1 is fine
<GN015> 2
<ToddLibby> 1
<alastairc> either is fine
<AUbbink> 1
<MattOrr> 2
<JF> leaning towards 1, but not fully there
<Wilco_> 1
<Ryladog> 2
<AWK> either is fine, but needs the serial comma
<johnkirkwood> either
<jon_avila> 2
<Chuck> 9 for 1, 4 for 2
<AWK> more commas or more sentences...
RESOLUTION: Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring or opacity, where the change does not alter the perceived size, shape, or position of the object.
<alastairc> where would the serial comma go?
<AWK> after blurring
<mbgower> Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring, or opacity where the change does not alter the perceived size, shape, or position of the object.
<Rachael> 2.1 or both
RESOLUTION: Motion animation does not include changes in an element's color, blurring, or opacity where the change does not alter the perceived size, shape, or position of the object.
<Rachael> 2.2 or both
<alastairc> both
<AWK> both
<Jaunita_George> both
<Chuck> both
<Wilco_> both
<Rachael> both
<JakeAbma> both
<Ryladog> both
<ToddLibby> both
<AUbbink> both
<jon_avila> both
<laura> both
RESOLUTION: Update both
<Rachael> issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1658
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-54 - Https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1658. Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/54/edit>.
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1688/files
<Rachael> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/WrWNgSlW/
<Chuck> MG comments: I have some problems with this. The normative text seems to have been conceived with a literal 'expiry' timing scenario. The inclusion of the wording "before encountering it" implies this, and also makes it highly problematic trying to apply this SC to some other updating text scenarios. I think we have to distinguish between this and things covered by 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide. A carousel arguably scrolls, so it should be covered by 2.2.2.,,
<Chuck> MG comments: There _is_ a gap where content updates but doesn't scroll, move or blink. I think we should restrict this PR only to that scenario.
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: Is Sarah's change enough to address the concerns?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1688 to address Issue 1658
<Ben_> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Wilco_> +1
<alastairc> +1
<GN015> -1
<Ryladog> +1
<AUbbink> 0
<johnkirkwood> +1
<laura> +1
<ToddLibby> +1
RESOLUTION: Amended PR 1688 to address Issue 1658.
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/I object to the fact it is Amazon driven/I object to the characterization it is Amazon driven/ Succeeded: s/I think definition is how these are going to be used. Are they good enough to create guidelines off of them as currently defined./I think it depends how these are going to be used. Are the defintions good enough to to look at how the guidelines would use them?/ Succeeded: s/too/to/ Succeeded: s/is its/in its/ Default Present: Chuck, Rachael, sajkaj, ToddLibby, Ben, ChrisLoiselle, jeanne, PeterKorn, JakeAbma, Francis_Storr, Raf, SuzanneT, MattOrr, MichaelC, Laura_Carlson, Rain_, Lauriat, Detlev, johnkirkwood, mgarrish, mbgower, alastairc, stevelee, Cyborg, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KarenHerr, Wilco_, Joshue, Jennie, AWK, AUbbink, Nicaise, Fazio, jon_avila, Jaunita_George Present: Chuck, Rachael, sajkaj, ToddLibby, Ben, ChrisLoiselle, jeanne, PeterKorn, JakeAbma, Francis_Storr, Raf, SuzanneT, MattOrr, MichaelC, Laura_Carlson, Rain_, Lauriat, Detlev, johnkirkwood, mgarrish, mbgower, alastairc, stevelee, Cyborg, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KarenHerr, Wilco_, Joshue, Jennie, AWK, AUbbink, Nicaise, Fazio, jon_avila, Jaunita_George, Joshue108 Regrets: Makoto U, Melanie P, Bruce B, Sarah H, Azlan C, Justine Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle Found Scribe: Jaunita Scribes: ChrisLoiselle, Jaunita WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: alastair ben juanita mbgower WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]