– DRAFT –
AGWG Teleconference

<ShawnT> Hello all, this is my first meeting

<ShawnT> Thanks Rachael

<ShawnT> Not yet

<ShawnT> sorry

<ChrisLoiselle> I will be introducing Bhoomika on the call, she is person that is interested in learning more about this work and working possibly within AGWG and Low Vision. She reached out to us through the call for participation on the LVTF emails.

<ChrisLoiselle> ok.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2021_Scribe_History

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2021_Scribe_History

<Rachael> We need a scribe before we can start

<ChrisLoiselle> Unable to scribe today, been on calls for 6 straight hours. Apologies.

Introductions and new topics

ShawnT: [Introduces self, overview of work in the space]

ChrisLoiselle: Also introducing someone, joining soon.

BB: Recent grad, background in research, interested in digital inclusion

Welcome, all!

Rachael: Any new topics to add to agendas?

david-macdonald: Suggests a topic on evaluating passing conditions, percentage of things passing or not.

Rachael: On the agenda later in August, if that works?

Error Prevention guideline and associated methods https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/error-prevention-July-21/results

<jeanne> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/Explainer_edits-js/explainer/index.html#structure-of-these-guidelines

jeanne: Working on the explainer, which we looked at in June. Thought it helpful to look at for this section to explain the structure.

jeanne: Each guideline has one or more outcomes, which are testable statements so you can tell whether the guideline has been met.

jeanne: For the second topic, ACT it helping us work on this.

jeanne: For the methods, those are kind of reworking techniques, non-normative and technology-specific.

jeanne: Ex: HTML, iOS app. As technology changes, you could have a different method. Experimenting with the ACT group on that.

jeanne: For this survey, using the older structure.

Question 1 - Approval to move to CFC

Rachael: We have two survey questions:

Error Methods Prevention Guideline

<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#error-prevention

sarahhorton: We've reviewed a couple of times, so happy to answer questions. This guideline focuses on preventing errors (rather than responding to).

sarahhorton: It takes some SCs from WCAG 2.x, reworks them into WCAG 3 structure. Work through flows, from there to user needs, to methods that address those needs.

sarahhorton: Ended up with 3 methods associated with one outcome.

sarahhorton: Questions on those, as you've reviewed those?

AWK: Having a hard time separating guideline from methods. What specifically is the guideline text?

sarahhorton: "Provide features that help people avoid errors" (please paste in if quoting?)

sarahhorton: From there, the methods provide ways of providing input instructions.

sarahhorton: We have not yet provided the error-prevention how to, which would provide more information.

AWK: Where it says "3.6 Error prevention Guideline: Provide features that help users avoid errors."

AWK: "Provides instructions for inputs that have requirements (for example, required, date format, password) so users know how to provide valid information."

https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#error-prevention

AWK: Functional categories, Critical errors, Rating as well?

sarahhorton: A question of "ready enough" for sending out for public feedback.

AWK: The guideline looks fine. Not a normative item right now, right? Conformance would happen with methods.

<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#error-prevention

Rachael: Looking at content on that page. The link on that page is incorrect, no how to written yet, the link needs fixing.

<sajkaj> To AWK: I'm unclear that conformance is on the method, as I expect methods are not normative. Maybe I'm confused?

GN015: Also have confusion about normative vs. methods, since difficult to test except at the method level.

sarahhorton: It's not complete, we're rolling this out in front of us while we build the content.

sarahhorton: Working on other aspects of this, small group working on it (would love more to join!).

GN015: Maybe placeholder for missing pieces?

<johnkirkwood> +1 to Gundula regarding placeholders

GN015: It currently looks like only instructions and nothing else, so good to note other things likely to come.

david-macdonald: I agree with that. If putting out a sketch for the world to look at, we should note the full structure coming so they have that context.

david-macdonald: We haven't had the discussion about Rating, yet. I'd rather have that discussion before we put it out to the world.

<sajkaj> Concerned this is general UX goodness, and wondering what's a11y specific?

Rachael: Catch 22 where we need to have the discussion to have more content, but need more content to have that discussion.

Rachael: Moving forward as we can, but we need to go back and forth to have an ability to make progress.

david-macdonald: Traditionally, we wouldn't put something in a draft unless we broadly agreed on things.

Rachael: Lots of editor's notes pointing to these.

AWK: This guideline has one outcome currently. Really, the guideline is that one line of text. Whether we feel like this is a reasonable outcome to fit within it.

AWK: Including the outcome in the survey where it asks if you like this guideline?

jeanne: The testable statements, the outcomes, are organized into guidelines. In order to put in new methods, we need to associate them with an outcome. In order to have an outcome, we need the guideline.

jeanne: Actively working in a different group to make changes based on comments from FPWD. Need the whole package there to work through more content.

jeanne: Whole "package" calls itself a guideline, the outcome is part of that package so we can start working on methods.

AWK: Question 2: move guideline to CFC? Q3: related methods to CFC?

Rachael: We can also change how we survey if that'd help.

<mbgower> yeah, I get lost in the layout of this. any hand holds would help

AWK: It'd help to prefix with things like "Outcome: " to better see this hierarchy in order to evaluate.

Rachael: Outcome & methods as a separate part, then.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about Credits https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/methods/instruction-for-completing-task/#tests-button

<laura> +1 to awk

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/methods/instruction-for-completing-task/#tests-button

Rachael: Focusing mainly on guideline at this point.

<AWK> AWK: Also, what is the outcome image showing? Doesn't convey any meaning to me

JF: When I go to the method, tests tab. [reads from tab] I understand what it asks for, but I could do this as a tooltip, which would fail other things.

JF: Test for clear words, we haven't defined what that means. Expected results include a credit of 1 - what does that mean?

Rachael: All in the methods test tab?

JF: Correct.

Rachael: We'll come back to that when we get to methods, if good?

JF: Yes.

<Rachael> Proposed RESOLUTION: Move the Guideline to CFC after the link is fixed, placeholders are added, and "Outcome:" is added to template.

Rachael: Anything else to discuss at the guideline level? [crickets]

<JF> +.5

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jeanne> +1

<mbgower> 0

<david-macdonald> please repeat

+1

<karen_herr> 0

<sarahhorton> +

<Chuck> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<GN015> would like to see the placeholders before voting

<sajkaj> +0 because the a11y distinction from general UX design is unclear to me

<Fazio> 0

<johnkirkwood> +1

<StefanS> 0

AWK: Approving outcome as well?

<david-macdonald> 0

Rachael: No, just guideline.

<MelanieP> 0

<AWK> +1

<laura> +1

<jon_avila> +0

<ShawnT> 0

Resolution: Move the Guideline to CFC after the link is fixed, placeholders are added, and "Outcome:" is added to template.

Outcome text and methods

Rachael: This goes back to JF's point on testability, we have feedback in survey.

<Rachael> We are looking at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/outcomes/input-instructions-provided

GN015: We discussed methods normative (no), yet by reading I feel they are normative as they form aspects of how they should be achieved.

GN015: If you a specific context, you may need to use specific terms users would be familiar with.

GN015: In many contexts, an example is not necessarily needed.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/error-prevention-July-21/results

GN015: Last example doesn't explain what it (*) means, fully.

GN015: Also seems to have some overlap between things.

laura: Wondering, under instructions, [reads]. Others have a credit: 1, this one didn't. What does that mean?

<JF> +1, what is a Credit?

laura: Under tests, what is a standard location? Possible to define?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to speak to a credit

sarahhorton: About credits, we reviewed credits at the previous meeting. Intention is to remove all of that for this round, since a prototype we had tried out for scoring. Will remove for next working draft.

sarahhorton: Predictable location: we have some things provided, can add more detail.

Rachael: Covered everything?

laura: Yes, thank you.

JF: You mentioned it'll get taken out for the working draft. This conversation is about adding it to the draft? Concerned that as we drill in, we have editorial changes to make. Possible to remove those for this?

<GN015> sorry, I have to drop

sarahhorton: Absolutely, and intended. Didn't get to it before the meeting.

<JF> Check that the page or view provides details about the required format.

Rachael: Getting a sense that we'll need to make more changes before we get into resolution to go to CFC, so now looking for any other feedback for Sarah & Co. to take into account before next meeting to review.

JF: For line pasted in, definitely need more details on this and what's acceptable.

AWK: For the outcome, I have concerns that it asked for things not defined anywhere ("sensitive information").

<JF> as a thought, the "details about the required format" likely also needs to be programmatically linked to the input

AWK: Questions about the rating scale, but ack that we'll need to do more there.

AWK: Looking at methods, wondering how we'll deal with things like tests for the method on required inputs indicated. Contrast of indicators, etc.

AWK: Will tests include checks like this to pass other methods?

+1 to AWK on that last point from me

<JF> -1 to assuming anything AWK

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we are going to re-review the content before deciding to go to CFC?

<Rachael> Chuck, yes we will re-review the outcome and method level content before moving to CFC

AWK: There are things we can assume users know. "Email:", input purpose. Do we have to have that information, like "joe@example.com", or do people know about entering email well enough?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer AWK

mbgower: Looking at critical errors, relating to methods. [reads]

mbgower: Names can be sensitive in some contexts, so we need more details on that.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I have a question about the critical error information and how the instruction method aligns

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about ATomic tests and ACT format

JF: "Test instructions are present" - I'd like to see these written more in ACT-type format.

+1, we'll get there.

JF: I'd like to see that the information is programmatically linked to the input, for instance.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to comment on "sensitive information"

Chuck: mbgower suggested a list, but I think we should provide examples, rather than exhaustive.

david-macdonald: Not as up on the structure as I'd like, I get confused on what's normative or not normative.

david-macdonald: Link takes me out somewhere else with a lot of information, I don't know what's normative or not.

<mbgower> Chuck, 'sensitive information' is a critical error. An author can totally fail this Guideline, so if we can't provide a list of sensitive information, it becomes pretty problematic

+1, we also want to get more design help on this! Please send suggestions of UX folks who can help.

<mbgower> I'd literally suggest some user testing on the format with new users

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to make suggestion for functional categories section

<bruce_bailey> really appreciate the comment from people looking at wcag3 fresh, thank you

Updated ACT-Silver proposal https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT-method-proposal/results

Rachael: ACT Silver proposal

jeanne: What we've been saying about error prevention, while Sarah's group moves forward, we also have another group looking at how we can make methods more testable (to points raised today).

jeanne: This is a proposal for how we could change the structure of the methods. Look at this thinking about how this structure can be applied to all of the guidelines we've already developed.

jeanne: If you like it, we can migrate those over and write new ones within this structure.

Approval to move ACT/Silver Method Proposal to CFC

Wilco: Reviewed in depth, so proposal to dive in.

Rachael__: Gundula's (sp?) point seems like it compares things with others rather than evaluating the structure.

laura: Structure looks fine, if you don't use decorative images.

Rachael__: So comfortable with structure, just not content?

<Zakim> Jemma, you wanted to ask minor details on glossary terms

laura: Yes.

Jemma: Test has lots of links to glossary terms, including old definition of ARIA. Links can use unified glossary instead? Overall linking to glossary seems helpful.

Rachael__: Still separate from structure, but noted.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve moving ACT/Silver Method Proposal to CFC

<laura> Lost audio

<david-macdonald> Wilco: Can you explain your comment Laura?

<Rachael__> Proposed Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure (not content)

<Rachael__> Proposed Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure (not content) to CFC for use going forward

<laura> In WCAG 2.x pure decoration is "serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality". Don't know why we would change it.

<laura> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Wilco> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<mbgower> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<ShawnT> 0

<laura> +1

<Rachael__> +1

<Fazio> 0

<Francis_Storr> +1

Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure (not content) to CFC for use going forward [12:01]

Resolution: Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure (not content) to CFC for use going forward [12:01]

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the proposed ACT structure (not content) to CFC for use going forward

WCAG 2.2 Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results

"the value of spacing" confusing wording #1852

<Rachael__> The PR to resolve the confusion is at: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1853/files

<Chuck> is it just me that lost audio?

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1853 to address issue #1852

<ShawnT> I didn't vote but I +1 on github

<Rachael__> Proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1853

<mbgower> another solid from Patrick

<mbgower> +1

<AWK> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<JF> +1

<Rachael__> +1

<Wilco> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<david-macdonald> 0

Resolution: Accept PR 1853

Question 2 - Adobe Comment #1889

Adobe Comment #1889

<Rachael__> PR 1995 adds a new exception for legal requirements https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1955/files

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1955 to address issue 1889

<david-macdonald> Mike Gower: Why not legal be essential?

<david-macdonald> Jon: clarification... confusing to have an issue, and proposed response and the OR is a new idea, and voting on...

<david-macdonald> AWK: Resoonse to Mike G. Not covered by essential because the definition of format doesn't really cover these legal issues

<david-macdonald> s/resoonse/response

<david-macdonald> AWK: problem when there is a paper form that needs to be provided online.

<david-macdonald> Mike G. OK I get that. Wish we could include it in exception definition, because don't want to add this to all of the SC

<johnkirkwood> +1 to Andrew

<david-macdonald> AWK: OR allow governments to add their own exceptions. It is a potential problem for some situations.

<johnkirkwood> they can add in exception (legal/gov’t)

<JF> +1 to AWK

<david-macdonald> Mike G. Worried this could be an many SCs.

<Rachael__> Straw Poll: Option 1: Accept PR 1995 adding exception Option 2: Accept proposed response encouraging local exceptions Option 3: Adjust meaning of essential

<AWK> NO TO OPTION 3!!

<jon_avila> Option 2

<Wilco> 2, can live with 1, strong objection to 3

<JF> +1 to NO TO #3

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say how about adjusting Essential wording?

<david-macdonald> Mike: can we just change the essetial definition to add "legally required"

<AWK> MBGower's suggestion might be better if the bullet was titled "necessary" instead of essential

<mbgower> <li><strong>Essential:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is legally required or essential to the information being conveyed;</li>

<david-macdonald> Bruce: if WG believes definition of essential covers it... is that in any option we're voted on or is that option 5

<Chuck> sound like option 5

<AWK> <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is legally required or essential to the information being conveyed;</li>

<johnkirkwood> agree with Bruce

<david-macdonald> Bruce: it is unsettling to me because I think it is included in definition of essential

<mbgower> essential if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform

<bruce_bailey> +1 to discussion as to what essential means

<david-macdonald> JF: Andrew was clear about option 3, could we put "for example" in the definition, which could add clarity

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that I thought it was included, but AWK and MBGower changed my minds.

<mbgower> potential mod to glossary term: essential if removed, would fundamentally change the information, legality or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform

<david-macdonald> Chuck: I thought it was included in the definition. But I'm convinced its not covered.

<jon_avila> I agree it's not covered and adding examples would not make it fit and is problematic.

<david-macdonald> AWK: in general, allowing feature creep in definition of essential is dangerous. Is security, legal part of essential.

<mbgower> I agree I'm leery of modifying the definition, but did post in a possible change. I can live with AWK's rewording of bullet to Necessary

<david-macdonald> AWK: essential is narrowly defined, any change that is proposed for a11y if changing it is not doing the same thing, then that is the "out".

<Rachael__> Straw Poll: Does essential cover the scenario of a legal form's presentation? Yes / No

<AWK> No

<mbgower> No

<Wilco> No

<Chuck> No

<Rachael__> No

<david-macdonald> No

<bruce_bailey> yes

<JF> It's unclear

<jon_avila> No

<MelanieP> No

<ShawnT> no

<jon_avila> only if it's related to functionality/information

<david-macdonald> Bruce: I defer to consensus

<johnkirkwood> good point bruce

<david-macdonald> JF: I'm like Bruce will go with consensus. Seems unclear to give yes/no, subjective... I lean with group,

<mbgower> <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is legally required or essential to the information being conveyed;</li>

<david-macdonald> Mike: I tried to mash legal into essential, would like to pursue that

<Chuck> +1 to the bullet

<AWK> yes, that's right, David.

<mbgower> LOL

<Rachael__> david-macdonald: I think andrew's response is that when we updated the definition, buried in the changes it makes it hard to track what we've done differently. I think Andrew's suggestion is that its better to add the extra language. Not stealthily included.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to use of the word "necessary" -- avoids the "essiential" question

<david-macdonald> ShawnT: With GovCanada with forms there could be confusing, so support the proposal

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to suggest reversing legal / essential

<david-macdonald> WILCO: lets put essential befor elegal in the sentence, because essential is more common

<david-macdonald> Mike G: awkward that way.., any suggestions

<david-macdonald> Wilco, will try

<Wilco> <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or legally required to the information being conveyed;</li>

<mbgower> it just seems a bit awkward to me

<AWK> legally required _for_

<Rachael__> DRAFT Resolution: Update the exception text to <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential, or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<Rachael__> DRAFT Resolution: Update the exception text to <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<jon_avila> who determines legality?

<Rachael__> DRAFT Resolution: Update the exception text to <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<mbgower> sure

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<jon_avila> -1

<AWK> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<JF> +1

<mbgower> +0.9

<david-macdonald> Jon: who determines legality?

<jon_avila> We will have to start doing this for other criteria.

<jon_avila> yes

<david-macdonald> Chuck: It doesn't require us to revisit every other instance of this.

<jon_avila> It doesn't change my concern.

<mbgower> Yeah, my thnking too, David

<david-macdonald> Mike: Non, Andrew, does it matter if we call the bullet "Essential" rather than "necessary"

<david-macdonald> strong>Essential:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<Chuck> +1 to DM

<Rachael__> david-macdonald: Response to Jon. If we say legally required we mean the jurisitiction with authority

<jon_avila> I don't want to hold this up.

<mbgower> I prefer going back to Essential

<jon_avila> No but, but I can remove my objection.

<Rachael__> Proposed RESOLUTION: <strong>Essential:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<Wilco> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Chuck> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<AWK> +.38

<johnkirkwood> +1

<JF> +.75

<MelanieP> -0.5

<mbgower> right

<mbgower> HA!

<jon_avila> +0

<mbgower> we got .5 closer :)

<Chuck> I'm ok with "necessary"

<Rachael__> Proposed RESOLUTION: <strong>Neceessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<JF> +1

<mbgower> +0.9

<Chuck> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Wilco> +1.1

<AWK> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<david-macdonald> 0

<StefanS> +1

<jon_avila> +0

Resolution: Accept as amended

<Chuck> +3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459

User-agent components that can't be styled #1904

<david-macdonald> RESULUTION: Accept as amended<strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<Rachael__> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1956/files

Resolution: Accept as amended<strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>

<david-macdonald> Mike: We intentional didn't have UA exceotions. Its an interesting question, but would like to see data, on which elements by UAs would fail

<jon_avila> spinner perhaps

<jon_avila> html input type number is spinner.

<david-macdonald> s/exeotions/exceptions

<jon_avila> date is a picker in some browsers.

<johnkirkwood> there is a date element implemenation

<jon_avila> Spinner for input type number: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/input/number

<david-macdonald> AWK: if browsers don't let us adjust them, the choice of the author is to accept the issue or select a different control type

<Rachael__> User Agent Control: The size of the target is determined by the user agent and cannot be modified by the author;

<david-macdonald> Rachel: Should it apply to components that CANNOT be styled, vs things that are by default too small but can be modified.

<JF> +1 to Wilco

<ShawnT> I had the same comment as Wilco

<david-macdonald> WILCO: you can always make an accessible component

<david-macdonald> AWK: you could fix it with huge text, but design depts won't accept

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that spinbutton doesn't look stock

<david-macdonald> AWK: does each square of colour picker be large enough

<david-macdonald> Mike: Its doable to customize, we have exception for color picker

<david-macdonald> SHAWN: it confusing and we need to clarify

<Chuck> +1 to Gundula's modification: If authors did not style a native control so that" or "If authors did not style a native control, specifically if they cannot style it, so that

<Rachael__> User Agent Control: The size of the target is determined by the user agent and is not modified by the author;

<david-macdonald> Rachel: I think we want to get rid of "cannot"

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask clarity on Wilco's comment

<david-macdonald> WILCO: People can make components accessibly, we shouldn't allow default styles.

<david-macdonald> CHUCK: do you suggest we don;t change text

<mbgower> Current PR reads: User Agent Control: The size of the target is determined by the user agent and cannot be modified by the author

<david-macdonald> WILCO: I can live with the proposal but not with the idea that if the author chooses a defa

<Rachael__> straw poll: Do we require authors to fix the target size when the user agent doesn't conform when possible yes / no

<ShawnT> no

<Wilco> Yes

<MelanieP> no

<Chuck> no

<johnkirkwood> yes

<david-macdonald> no

<jon_avila> I'm confused.

<mbgower> Jon, we currently have no user agent control exception

<jon_avila> yes

<jon_avila> I agree with Chuck. That's why I asked.

<david-macdonald> Chuck: the question is about, the UA doesn't provide in its default state, ? but allows it to be fixed...yes

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say maybe you can have the question SHOULD we have a user agent exception

<Rachael__> Straw poll: Should we have a user agent exception?

<ShawnT> Yes

<MelanieP> yes

<mbgower> 0

<jon_avila> Yes - only when it's not possible to change.

<david-macdonald> Yes - only when it's not possible to change.

<Chuck> yes

<Rachael__> no

<JF> +1 to Mike

<david-macdonald> Michel: like Wilco, I don't think we should have get out of jail free card for those who use a vanilla HTML component

<david-macdonald> SHAWNT: We see a lot of vanilla HTML

<david-macdonald> in GOv of Canada

<JF> I just wanted to note that beyond form inputs, there is also the @controls attribute in <video>

<david-macdonald> MelanieP: concerned with overak direction. We are trying ti force devs to spend a lot of time and energy from default ... i think we shpuld lean on browsers

<david-macdonald> applies to focus visible and other things we've been talking about

<ShawnT> I agree with MelanieP

<david-macdonald> RACHEL: Will add to chairs meeting agenda to discuss

<jon_avila> Thanks all!

<ShawnT> Thank you very much

<mbgower> oh, there is no exception for the text input