AGWG Teleconference

13 Jul 2021


KimD, ToddLibby, alastairc, jeanne, sajkaj, Laura, JustineP, Rachael, PeterKorn, Fazio, mgarrish, Ben, Rain_, Jennie, Francis_Storr, sarahhorton, JakeAbma, Nicaise, Jaunita_George, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, AWK, Lauriat, MichaelC, MelanieP, Cyborg_, jon_avila, StefanS, LuisG, SuzanneTaylor, .5, bruce_bailey, JenniferC, aubbink
Azlan, Chuck, Detlev, John K, Bruce
Laura, sarahhorton


<Rachael> /me it means that Michael's zoom is being used elsewhere. It should resolve as soon as the other meeting ends.

<laura> Scribe: Laura

Introductions and new topics

<Rachael> call in: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/fdbff191-ae2e-48ee-87d7-37b2b20c653a/20210702T110000

RM: friday meeting is at 11 eastern

ac: good meeting last week.
... tackling the backlog.

rm: any new people or new topics?

Updates and changes to Third Party proposal

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/3rdparty2/results


timeboxed 60 minutes.

Like to start with background.

ag has a lot of work.

we survey and discuss.

then circle back.

scribe: in this case a subgroup of silver.
... how do we make work more visible.
... feel free to jump into that work.
... people can join at any time.
... assume good intentions.
... we have differing viewpoints.

Clarifying that exemptions are not the intention

scribe: should we be taking about 3rd party.

<sajkaj> +q

Concerns about 3rd party

sajkaj: may be useful to say something about user content.
... we have documentation.
... trying to figure out the framing.
... may need to look at guideline by guideline.

peter: appreciate this intro.
... don’t think certain things are achievable.
... how can we improve things given that reality?


dm: we opened discussion in a course way.
... we have improved accessibility by putting pressure on 3rd party companies.
... fear that would not have happened without that pressure.
... Problems were fixed.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to putting pressure on 3rd party originators

jeanne: people who are not able to influence 3rd party appeal to small businesses.
... trying to put pressure on the originator of 3rd party content.

<JF> +1 to Jeanne - i.e. sites that cannot afford to employ an accessibility expert to help them identify and craft "issues" for those entities

<Cyborg_> the originator of the third party content can be exempt from accessibility legislation if very small - in some jurisdictions

jeanne: reference the steps in the proposal.
... example school systems.
... it is a problem that we have to address.
... have to look at real world outcomes.
... if they had a statement on thier home page it would halt the driveby lawyers.

,,, think this is a good way forward.

<jon_avila> ADA and 504 don't require WCAG - so this would not have made a difference in the suit Jeanne is mentioning. Under ADA title II people still have responsibility.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say I have seen both ways it can work (pressure / give up) and procurement was key

ac: seem both ways it can work.
... can provide positive pressure.
... can also be a nonstarter.
... missing the procurement step.
... sticky situation.
... don’t want negative consequences.

Jaunita: have seen the power of pressure
... we should not exempt large companies and organizations.

<alastairc> So many variables (e.g. size of organisation), this seems to be a silver/gold level rather than bronze conformance.

Jaunita: legal aspect would help

Cyborg: address incentivitization .
... if a lawyer can go after a bigger fish can help.
... concered about using third party exemptions.
... think about secondary repercussions.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to comment on Jeanne's point

jf: we are not talking about exceptions.

<alastairc> Less legitous in the UK, cases do happen but they have to be started by the person affected, i.e. with a disability.

<JF> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility

jf: we have bronze, silver, gold.
... we already have mechanisms .
... pressuring organizations takes time.

<Cyborg_> I asked about the concern about incentivitization to use 3rd parties to reduce accountability to accessibility. If orgs are small, they may be exempt from accessibility accountability by size (depending on the jurisdiction, according to legislation that names WCAG). For lawyers, reducing claims against larger organizations for third party issues could reduce legal claims a whole (which could reduce the capacity of people to sue for accessibility).

<Cyborg_> We need to think about these secondary impacts of third party language in WCAG.

jf: how do we bridge the gap?

df: doing expert work.

<alastairc> Cyborg_ the small org aspect doesn't figure in the EU, so not helpful for this purpose.

df: focus is on small businesses.

<Cyborg_> Alastair_ I'm in Canada.

<jon_avila> Small business are indeed at risk.

<JenniferC> Here is the EU Directive (section 30): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L2102

df: really need to be sure small businesses are not harmed.

<alastairc> Cyborg_ the point being that it needs to be universal, not just US, or Canada, or EU

peter: may need to separate content from services.
... explore the content side of this. to get more comments.

<alastairc> JenniferC the key bit from that doc would be: "third-party content, provided that it is neither funded nor developed by the public sector body concerned nor under its control, should be excluded from the scope of this Directive."

<Cyborg_> Alastair_ I understand that. But if we know that in some jurisdictions, smaller orgs aren't as accountable for accessibility, and that it is harder to sue smaller orgs for accessibility (because of reduced size of claim), then it is true that we need to ensure that larger orgs don't offload responsibility for accessibility to smaller ones as a way out of that accountability.

peter: way to apply wcag to services.
... need to close the delivery chain of responsibilities.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask clarifying question about exemptions

rm: hear Cyborg_ say risk of overlapping WCAG and local laws.

<JenniferC> Thanks, @alaister, I was going to cut and paste way too much from the document. :)

Cyborg_: would need to talk to lawyers about this.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say dividing user-generated from services is a good approach but I'm concerned ATAG diligence of the owner isn't allowed to weaken

Cyborg_: harder to hold people accountable.

mg: good idea to separate. But let's do it cautiously.

<Cyborg_> +1 to Mike Gower

mg: don’t want to reduce the impetus on authors.

<Jaunita_George> Should we define what we mean by "user generated content" and limit it to social media or platforms like Medium?

jf: +1 to mg.

<Cyborg_> Mike Gower: we need to have authoring tool prompts in place. +1 to that.

jf: google map example

<jon_avila> We have alternative conforming pages today already.

jf: it will never be accessible.

<alastairc> Jaunita_George - we couldn't (as part of WCAG) limit to a type of site, it's a grey area, but you could distinguish user-generated content from other types of content.

jf: how much better can we make it?

<Jaunita_George> @jon Can I talk to you offline about that?

jf: directions are an option.

<KimD> +1 tp NOT an exception

jf: upset when I hear exemption.

<Rachael> DRAFT Proposal: For next heartbeat publication, concentrate on user generated content only. Discuss how authoring tools can prompt or fix. Save paid content and services for further discussion.

<mbgower> +1 to that approach

<jon_avila> definition of exemption - the process of freeing or state of being free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.

peter: don’t have scoring proposal.

<Cyborg_> Given that paid content and services has been brought up, is there a way to catalogue that there is specific concern about this, in a way that doesn't get lost when this comes up again?

peter: we have technology that is shy of the mark.
... could AI captioning score at some minimum level.

<JF> +1 "the reality of where we are today"

peter: can do things like that through our guidelines.

<Cyborg_> How to make user generated content more accessible is a worthwhile discussion - does it need to be called third party at all? Could we not just call it USER GENERATED CONTENT?

<jon_avila> That's what I would require today of sites to have ability to add captions for user generated content, etc.

<GN015> If video platforms which provide automated captioning also provide a method to manually edit them, it is even better.

<Cyborg_> +1 to Ben Tillyer. Feedback loops like this are a problem.

<KimD> +1 - we wouldn't reference 3rd parties by name - thanks to Ben for bringing that up

ben: worry if large co. had to reference others by name that it may cause a problem

dm: agree with ben.

<jeanne> +1 good point, Ben. Unanticipated consequences are a challenge to predict.

<GN015> I agree to separate user generated content from third party content.

dm: large corp. are not going to put a disclaimer on their home page

<Jaunita_George> The problem is that many third parties claim they're conformant, but are not and could try to cause issues because they're being represented as possibly not compliant publicly

dm: not sure of conformance claim.
... how is it an exemption?

<Jaunita_George> +1 to Davidmacdonald

<Cyborg_> +1 to David MacDonald - it still sounds like an exemption to me too.

<sarahhorton> +1 to David MacDonald

peter: make a claim for a page, collection, or a service.
... everything has bugs.

<Jennie> yes

peter: 1st party content conforms with this score. 3rd party content conforms with this score.

<JF> +1 to Peter

<jon_avila> We are talking about 2 different issues - 3rd party content and separate 3rd party services.

<Jennie> sorry will fix mic

<Fazio> Isn’t user generated content 3rd party also

<Jennie> Will type - please come back to me

ja: big diff between content and services.

<Fazio> a business can be a user and upload content also

ja: If we can add captions we should.

<Jennie> In regards to user content, I would like to have the use case of users with cognitive disabilities to be considered (part 1)

<Fazio> that adds a nuance

<Jennie> (part 2) Example public comment in the legislative process, in the future could be audio, video, images, text...

<Jaunita_George> +1 to Jon

<sarahhorton> +1 to Jon

<Cyborg_> +1 to Jon Avila - it is an exemption

<alastairc> Fazio - there is a difference where you pay for a 3rd party to provide something, or it is a user adding their content to your site.

<JenniferC> +1 to Jon

<Jennie> (part 3) small city councils may need to take the public comments, so could larger state agencies or federal goverments

<Jennie> (part 4) end of message

ja: not holding sige responsible is an exemption.

<Fazio> Knees pages post content on social media

<Fazio> does it have to conform

rm: reads jennie’s comment

<Jennie> yes, thank you

jf: caught up on word exemption.

<jon_avila> no

jf: Claiming silver is claiming it is not perfect.

<jon_avila> no

Cyborg: particle conformance is a concern
... issue of transparency.
... buried in numbers,
... premature to add expedition. It is amplifying the problem
... slippery slope. Division between user generated and 3rd party.
... if we shift don’t call it 3rd party.

<Jennie> @cybele - if calling it user content, then what happens if we have "users" enter content inside another application as part of work tasks, like creating documents? Wouldn't they then be excluded from being required to make something accessible?

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to that proposal for clarity scoping the discussion to user-generated content

sajkaj: slippage in what is accessible.

<JF> +1 to Janina

sajkaj: going to allow some flexibility. But no critical errors.
... any reason to expect anything different.
... framings that we know so far. Only have 5 guidelines.

<AWK> User generated content could include content created by employees of the site (e.g. a product support forum where responses to support questions can be provided by staff) - perhaps UGC doesn't need to be 3rd party?

<Jaunita_George> +1 to David

df: need to be careful how we define user generated content.

<Rachael> close the queue

<Cyborg_> +1 to David Fazio - this kind of complexity is why we need to focus on user-generated content.

<Jaunita_George> Maybe business users should be still responsible for their own content?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is there any intention in wcag 3 to report more granularly?

df: make sure that it is an individual and not an individual of a company.

mg: Need to tackle granularity and process.

<Cyborg_> i think it's ok to talk about exemptions. if it's what people want to avoid, then we need to know when it happens.

mg: not enough information yet.

<Rachael> Proposal: For next heartbeat publication, concentrate on user generated content only. Discuss how authoring tools can prompt or fix. Save paid content and services for further discussion.

<Cyborg_> -1

<Cyborg_> would like to speak to proposal

<mbgower> +1 to focus on User generated

<jeanne> +1 to focus on user generated

<jon_avila> +1 to focus user generated.

<Jaunita_George> +1

<KimD> +1 to starting (focus for now) on user-generated content

Cyborg: don’t lose concerns that have been raised.

<Ben> +1

<GN015> +1 to focus user generated.

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Fazio> -1

<JF> +1

<PeterKorn> +1

<alastairc> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<JenniferC> 0

<JakeAbma> +1

<Rachael> +1

<aubbink> +1

<Cyborg_> +1 with caveats (as discussed) - call it UGC and saving concerns elsewhere

<sajkaj> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Wilco> 0

<david-macdonald> +0

<Nicaise> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<JustineP> 0

<sarahhorton> +1 to change proposal to focus on user-generated content

<AWK> +1

<Jennie> +1 with qualification that COGA gets to review language

<LuisG> +1

laura: 0

<Ryladog> +1

<Rain_> 0

<Cyborg_> +1 to David Fazio

<Cyborg_> -1 to Focus on UGC - actually rename

fd: don’t think it is ready for heartbeat.

<Cyborg_> can we rename???

<Rain_> +1 (changing vote) due to clarification

<david-macdonald> end user generate

<jeanne> Yes, we will rename

fd: I’m fine with it.

Cyborg_: call it end user generate

<Fazio> Defining user is critical

<Rain_> +1 to the clarification of "end user generated" in order to avoid conflicts with content management systems

peter: I have a concern.

<Cyborg_> +1 to David Fazio and to David MacDonald

peter: problem with a definition.

<JF> +1 to Peter

<jeanne> +1 to Peter

<AWK> +1 to Peter's concern

<jon_avila> +1 to Peter on this.

<alastairc> Leave it to the group working on it to come back with a name

<mbgower> we're going to have to define 'user generated' anyway, so this will have to be tackled

peter: when is a user an end user?

<Cyborg_> I think the concern is that third party content could sneak in to this so it is no longer user generated content as intended

<Lauriat> +1 to Peter

dm: some way to distinguish between an employee and lay user.

RESOLUTION: For next heartbeat publication, concentrate on user generated content only. Discuss how authoring tools can prompt or fix. Save paid content and services for further discussion. Name "User generated" vs "End user generated" to be decided in the future.

<Cyborg_> +1 to Laura and David

<PeterKorn> +1

<KimD> +1

<Cyborg_> -1

<JF> +.5

<AWK> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<jeanne> Positive Work Envirnment: "Treat everyone with respect. We are a large companymmunity of people who are passionate about our work, sometimes holding strong opinions and beliefs. We are committed to dealing with each other with courtesy, respect, and dignity at all times. Misunderstandings and disagreements do happen. When conflicts arise, we are expected to resolve them maintaining that courtesy,

<jeanne> respect, and dignity, even when emotions are heightened. "

<Cyborg_> with caveat

<JenniferC> +1

<Rain_> +1 with caveat: instead of deciding on the name, deciding what constitutes "user generated"

<jon_avila> arranged is a better term than paid.

<jeanne> +1

<Lauriat> +1 to Rain

Cyborg_: Nature of the definition.

<Jennie> +1 to distinction between employee and public user

<Fazio> Did Lainey’s like opinions are my own used to be common

<Fazio> to address peters concern

<Cyborg_> +1 to distinction between employee and public user

RESOLUTION: For next heartbeat publication, concentrate on user generated content only. Discuss how authoring tools can prompt or fix. Save paid content and services for further discussion. Name "User generated" vs "End user generated" to be decided in the future. Reference IRC chat for conversation.

<alastairc> The key is the relationship between the entity claiming conformance and the content-provider.

<PeterKorn> Regrets, I need to head to another meeting.

<jeanne> +1 alastair

<sarahhorton> I can scribe

<Rachael> scribe: sarahhorton

<Cyborg_> can i raise one more concern?

<Cyborg_> my concern is about the need to diversify who is looking at this topic of UGC.

WCAG 2.x issue resolutions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/results

<Cyborg_> I think it's important to have more voices on this.

<Cyborg_> even in constructing the proposal.

<Cyborg_> sure thanks

Rachael: Email chairs, might be good future topic

"single pointer" definition not quite accurate? #749

<Rachael> issue: • https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/749

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-55 - • https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/749. Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/55/edit>.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/809/files

alastairc: Definition implied about devices, weighted toward touch, PL updated definition, objected to including as errata
... moved explanation to understanding
... update to definition, editorial
... PL responded about updating definition, Bruce responded too
... suggested single CSS pixel
... not size of component, input device

<bruce_bailey> thats fine

Rachael: Addressed concerns

<Rachael> Proposal: Accept PR 809

<Ben> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Wilco> +1


<aubbink> +1

<Rain_> +1

<laura> +1

<JF> +1

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 809


'Headings' are enough to pass 2.4.1: Bypass Blocks #1712

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1712

<Rachael> • https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1946/files

Rachael: Discussed whether heading was sufficient, not going to change to not sufficient

alastairc: WCAG 2.0 headings was deemed sufficient (also landmarks), skip links weren't required

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to the difference in perspectives

alastairc: because sufficient ever since, now looking at making it accessible for people with different devices
... some browsers had navigating by heading by keyboard but none now

<mbgower> headingsMap on chrome works okay

alastairc: change in perception of what is sufficient

Rachael: Bruce asked for stronger note defining when headings are sufficient, never for public facing

alastairc: No caveats currently

david-macdonald: Historically, skip link was how came into it, headings came in later
... doesn't remember discussion of internal/outward facing

<Rachael> Proposal: Accept PR 1946

<david-macdonald> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<JenniferC> +1

<Regina> +1

<laura> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Ben> +1

<Wilco> +1

<alastairc> +1, we may want to increase that requirement in future

<Nicaise> +1

<mbgower> +.5

<Rachael> +.5 would still like to address the gap in the future

<Ryladog> +1

<JF> +1 (and another +1 to Alastair)

+.5 would like to address gap

<Rain_> 0, concerned about adding the words "at that can access headings"

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about 2.1 vs 2.2

<david-macdonald> I could live with it

alastairc: Applying to 2.1, if increase in future, soon would be good to consider for 2.2, would be easier to move to advisory, support for that?

<Rachael> proposal: Revising 2.2 only

alastairc: make change for 2.2 that would bring inline with external perceptions, aimed at more than screen readers and AT

david-macdonald: Requiring skip link?

Wilco: Didn't we agree that we would leave as is? Why would we make change in 2.2

alastairc: Backwards compatibility, anything in 2.2 would pass 2.1, clarify understanding to clarify why headings is sufficient, doesn't pull rug from anyone relying on that technique
... 2.2 opportunity to increase requirement

david-macdonald: Don't have sufficient technique for landmarks, would say yes if we had technique for landmarks

alastairc: Yes, we have one

Wilco: Don't see how to increase requirement without changing normative text
... would be opposed

<MelanieP> +1 to Wilco - I would opposed as well

Rachael: Can we note this, have conversation in how to make changes in 2.2

alastairc: Wiki page

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1946

Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885

WCAG 2.2 Accessible Authentication https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-accessibile-auth/results

Adobe Comment on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication #1885

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1885

Rachael: Adobe raised concern, small orgs don't understand security requirements

<Rachael> Proposed response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1885#issuecomment-866381495

<david-macdonald> is jake around

alastairc: Not sure what to do with WebAuthn, can someone take a look at it?

Rain_: COGA, looking at this

Rachael: Defer to COGA, anyone else who can attend?

alastairc: Interpretation of timeouts and how apply to WebAuthn authentication

<Rain_> +1 that this isn't a COGA issue. Just letting you know that we are looking at it, and would welcome additional expertise!

Rachael: Need extra help, email is good way to provide input
... email Rain
... anyone?

alastairc: Will send email
... see if anyone can answer question

is it acceptable to only support niche, propriety, OS specific, and potentially inaccessible methods? #1899

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1899

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1899#issuecomment-866716764

alastairc: Discussed, response needed improvement, not sure how, hoping someone can post alternative response

<laura> s/a some /at some /

Rachael: Agree that answer is no?

alastairc: Caveat, constrained environment answer might be yes
... general use case, no

Wilco: Why is answer a no, get that it's not great, but up to site owner?

alastairc: Accessibility supported, unique tech that no one has installed, no user agent, doesn't work

Wilco: Out of scope, web pages, if it's not on a web page how can we say anything

<jon_avila> Apple pay uses face id on iphone

alastairc: Looking at web page, if you have hardware, could create custom script, webcam and facial recognition, could implement, but if there's a lack of support with user agents, then accessibility supported

Wilco: WCAG doesn't tell whether accessibility supported, up to website creator, we don't have yes/no

alastairc: Technology supported widely in user agents

<mbgower> it's a hypothetical question.

Wilco: Applies to relied upon, only claim conformance if techniques are relied upon,

alastairc: JS with API access to webcam, shouldn't be accessibility supported?

Wilco: Browser APIs, still not for WCAG

alastairc: Propriety device, only this website, login key device, how to consider?

<JF_> +1

<JF_> Q

Wilco: Up to individual site, if that's provided to every user doesn't seem unreasonable

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that the constraints of the use case are not our concern

mbgower: Worked on server farm, hard to use device, changed schema, everyone capable of using, works, but reliance on device and using device, so hypothetical

JF_: Lived through that scenario, concerned about security, dongle, not accessible to non-sighted users, had second device supplied to customers on demand
... not hypothetical

<jon_avila> I remember those talking RSA key fob tokens. Nowdays that have been replaced by mobile apps.

<JF_> @jon exactly

mbgower: Not talking about being asked to say yes/no, list of possible things, hard to say yes/no given that, scenario had alternative, on broad web basis can't require all users to have expensive device

JF_: Yes, if user has to pay, if entity wants to spend that, not a problem

alastairc: Latest Android phone, isn't our problem, what is web interface to that
... proprietary device (login key) could create scripts that have access to that
... would you consider that accessibility supported?

<Rachael> While technically, a specialized technique would pass we do not recommend that approach in most situations. Providing a commonly used, widely available approach better supports use.

Rachael: Specialized technique would pass but we don't recommend

<Wilco> +1

Rachael: enough exceptions that we can't say hard no

<JF_> +1 to Rachael

alastairc: Constrained environment, might be cases when niche device could be used

Wilco: Stay away from mentioning niche device, what makes it niche

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1899#issuecomment-866716764

Wilco: yes, you can do it in theory, keep in mind accessibility of technologies and devices

alastairc: Bank gives LCD dongle, low contrast numbers, fails SC

Rachael: Yes or No, not hearing agreement yet

<Rachael> Proposal: Accept revised response

<Wilco> 0

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<alastairc> +1

<laura> +1

<Rachael> +1

<JF_> 0

<david-macdonald> 0

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Rain_> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept revised response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1899#issuecomment-866716764

Are system-level tests out of scope? Are PINs and Passwords synonymous? #1900

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1900

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1900#issuecomment-861909232

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1909/files

Rachael: Calling out site-specific password

alastairc: Confusion because webauth offloads authentication to device, touchID, facial, change to reduce confusion, something set by website, not device

<mbgower> +1 to the PR to make it "site-specific password"

alastairc: it's dealt with by device rather than website
... Original commenter agrees with change

<Rachael> proposal: Accept the response and change

<mbgower> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Rachael> +1

<alastairc> +1

<JenniferC> +1

<laura> +1

<Ben> +1

<Rain_> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1900#issuecomment-861909232 and https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1909/files

supporting copy-paste, example with memorable information, and specific characters #1901

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1901

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1901#issuecomment-862527471

Rachael: Should auth features count as cognitive function test

alastairc: Question, allow password managers, user agent with memorable answers, different scenario, not something to cover, underlines intent of SC
... if thing did in future, yes, but don't now, wouldn't currently count as mechanism

<Rachael> Proposal: Accept response

<Ben> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<StefanS> +1

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1901#issuecomment-868693998

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1901#issuecomment-868693998

<Rain_> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Jennie> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

mbgower: Rephrase, would pass without requiring author effort

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1901#issuecomment-868693998

RESOLUTION: accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1901#issuecomment-868693998

Clarification on USB-based 2FA #1903

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1903#issuecomment-868707632

Rachael: Clarifying examples

<Rachael> Proposal: Accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1903#issuecomment-868707632

<Rachael> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<StefanS> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Ben> +1

<mbgower> fyi, I don't see the survey this is from

<Rain_> +1

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-accessibile-auth/results

<Francis_Storr> +1

<mbgower> doh!

<aubbink> +1

<Jennie> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1903#issuecomment-868707632

Add requirement / control to "show password" for end-users #1912

<Rachael> Changes at https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1940/files

<Rachael> change "functional" to "function" and add a new paragraph

<mbgower> isn't it an advisory technique?

alastairc: Add requirement to include show password, makes it easier to transcribe password, new requirement that doesn't fit, mitigation, not meeting requirement
... put in short para that says, good thing to do

Rain_: COGA reviewed proposal, struggling with wording, would like more time to adjust wording
... framed now, doesn't do justice to fact that exceptional blocker

alastairc: Would help to understand, requirement is that don't have to type in password
... put in for now, COGA provides update and agree in future meeting

Rachael: How uncomfortable is COGA?

mbgower: Could be advisory technique, assists user in completing CFT

<Rachael> +1 to advisory technique in addition to some text in the understanding

mbgower: having mechanism, confirm, looks good

Rachael: COGA work on advisory technique?
... or hold

Rain_: As COGA facilitator, COGA not comfortable as it stands

Rachael: Action to Rain to refine language
... other comments?

<alastairc> Please update this branch: "Issue1912-accessible-auth-understanding"

<JF_> bye all

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<jon_avila> Thank you everyone

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. For next heartbeat publication, concentrate on user generated content only. Discuss how authoring tools can prompt or fix. Save paid content and services for further discussion. Name "User generated" vs "End user generated" to be decided in the future.
  2. For next heartbeat publication, concentrate on user generated content only. Discuss how authoring tools can prompt or fix. Save paid content and services for further discussion. Name "User generated" vs "End user generated" to be decided in the future. Reference IRC chat for conversation.
  3. Accept PR 809
  4. Accept PR 1946
  5. Accept revised response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1899#issuecomment-866716764
  6. Accept https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1900#issuecomment-861909232 and https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1909/files
  7. accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1901#issuecomment-868693998
  8. Accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1903#issuecomment-868707632
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/07/13 17:03:27 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/visable./visible./
Succeeded: s/differning /differing /
Succeeded: s/somehing/something/
Succeeded: s/trying yo /trying to /
Succeeded: s/guidline /guideline /
Succeeded: s/achivable/achievable/
Succeeded: s/dicussion /discussion /
Succeeded: s/accessibilty by puttong preasure /accessibility by putting pressure /
Succeeded: s/compnaies./companies./
Succeeded: s/hapened without thart /happened without that /
Succeeded: s/avle to infulence /able to influence /
Succeeded: s/apeal /appeal /
Succeeded: s/tryin g to put preasre /trying to put pressure /
Succeeded: s/layers./lawyers./
Succeeded: s/forwward/forward/
Succeeded: s/preasure./pressure./
Succeeded: s/prucurement/procurement/
Succeeded: s/don’;t want necagive consiqunces./don’t want negative consequences./
Succeeded: s/exemopt/exempt/
Succeeded: s/leagle aspct /legal aspect /
Succeeded: s/instnivisation/incentivitization /
Succeeded: s/laywer /lawyer /
Succeeded: s/thrid /third /
Succeeded: s/repercusions./repercussions./
Succeeded: s/mechanims ./mechanisms ./
Succeeded: s/separtate/separate/
Succeeded: s/delvery /delivery /
Succeeded: s/layyers /lawyers /
Succeeded: s/dilligence/diligence/
Succeeded: s/hader to hold peopel acountable./harder to hold people accountable./
Succeeded: s/separte. but cautiously./separte. But lets do it cautiously./
Succeeded: s/imutise /impetus /
FAILED: s/a some  /at some  /
Succeeded: s/minimumn/minimum/
Succeeded: s/thike that throught our guidlines./like that through our guidelines./
Succeeded: s/large co/large company/
Succeeded: s/refernce by name others/reference others by name/
Succeeded: s/. it may / that it may /
Succeeded: s/thier/their/
Succeeded: s/claime./claim./
Succeeded: s/pake a /make a /
Succeeded: s/colletion, /collection, /
Succeeded: s/claininf/Claiming/
Succeeded: s/partile confomace /particle conformance /
Succeeded: s/buryed /buried /
Succeeded: s/expemtion. amplfying /expedition. It is amplifying /
Succeeded: s/gernerated and3rd /generated  and 3rd /
Succeeded: s/a indivisual /an individual /
Succeeded: s/tackle granualrity. process/Need to tackle granularity and  process/
Succeeded: s/distingusied beteen /distinguish between /
Succeeded: s/probems /Problems /
Succeeded: s/excemmptions./exceptions./
Succeeded: s/separte. /separate. /
Succeeded: s/lets do /let's do /
Succeeded: s/score a some //
Succeeded: s/loose concerns /lose concerns /
Default Present: KimD, ToddLibby, alastairc, jeanne, sajkaj, Laura, JustineP, Rachael, PeterKorn, Fazio, mgarrish, Ben, Rain_, Jennie, Francis_Storr, sarahhorton, JakeAbma, Nicaise, Jaunita_George, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, AWK, Lauriat, MichaelC, MelanieP, Cyborg_, jon_avila, StefanS, LuisG, SuzanneTaylor, .5, bruce_bailey, JenniferC
Present: KimD, ToddLibby, alastairc, jeanne, sajkaj, Laura, JustineP, Rachael, PeterKorn, Fazio, mgarrish, Ben, Rain_, Jennie, Francis_Storr, sarahhorton, JakeAbma, Nicaise, Jaunita_George, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, AWK, Lauriat, MichaelC, MelanieP, Cyborg_, jon_avila, StefanS, LuisG, SuzanneTaylor, .5, bruce_bailey, JenniferC, aubbink
Regrets: Azlan, Chuck, Detlev, John K, Bruce
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: sarahhorton
Inferring ScribeNick: sarahhorton
Scribes: Laura, sarahhorton
ScribeNicks: laura, sarahhorton

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: 

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]