W3C

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

03 Aug 2021

Attendees

Present
Chuck, sajkaj, Ben, agarrison, Jennie, PeterKorn, JF, ShawnT, bruce_bailey, Nicaise, kirkwood, Lauriat, MarcJohlic, Francis_Storr, ToddLibby, MichaelC, MelanieP, mgarrish, Rain, david-macdonald, Laura_Carlson, KarenHerr, Fazio, stevelee_, mbgower, OliverK
Regrets
Jake Abma, Andrew Kirckpatrick, Detlev Fischer, Sarah Horton
Chair
Chuck
Scribe
ChrisLoiselle, mbgower

Contents


<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2021-08-03

<ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle

<scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle

Chuck: Asks if there are any introductions . There are no new introductions.

User-generated content proposal https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-07-User-Generated-Content/

Chuck: Any new topics for conversation? No new topics or announcements.

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-07-User-Generated-Content/results

Chuck: Text alternative for user generated content discussion

Question is , can we move this to CfC for next update of WCAG 3?

Chuck: Talks to AWK's comment. AWK is not present. Opens to Janina for discussion.

Janina: I believe we would not have a problem with AWK's re-title suggestion. Highly unlikely that one is sufficient.

Jeanne: Ongoing project that is happening, no expecting to require all of them. People would get points for doing them, not penalized for not doing.
... became inaudible on other points , phone dropped off call.

Bruce: Talks to editorial points . Repair vs. requiring or prompting word use. There is a difference vs. flagging or warning.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for PK "review" much better than "repair"

Peter: Review and edit vs. repair may be a better phrase to use. Talks to system offering alt text . I.e. this was chosen once before, suggesting , do you like this as the alt text and have the ability to edit alt text.

Janina: Peter talked to the point. Yes, we want feedback, even early on. We don't have one set of expectations. Similar things will happen with outcomes and guidelines outside of alternative text too.
... Review and edit , wordsmithing will make it a better statement.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say "repair" is an ATAG word

<JF> also need/want to note that it will likely include more than just 'alt text'

<JF> i.e. captions, audio description

Jeanne: Repair is an ATAG word. Makoto's group was working and adapted for user generated. Concept comes from ATAG. I'd rather stay with standard today .

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say Repair Assistance is a separate additional EU requirement for Authoring Tools (on top of 508R)

<mbgower> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/03.01.01_60/en_301549v030101p.pdf#page=80https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/03.01.01_60/en_301549v030101p.pdf#page=80

<bruce_bailey> Guideline B.3.2: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. [Implementing B.2.3]

MikeG: Talks to EU specific repair assistance on authoring tool, above 508 refresh . I think it is a different concept .

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we are ok to change the word

Chuck: Sounds like comfort in changing the word. Are we ok with changing that Jeanne?

Bruce: I agree with Jeanne, ATAG 2.0 assist authors with repairing is the phrase and I'm comfortable with the string of text mentioned. Author repairs vs. system repairs.

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#gl_b32

<bruce_bailey> Also: https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#sc_b321

Gundula: I don't think it would be fixed with just a couple of changes. My comments in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-07-User-Generated-Content/results are detailed regarding why. Talks to "if" statements. Talks to grammar errors . Talks to further statements , etc.

<bruce_bailey> B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG)

Chuck: Gundula , do you feel that you'd object to the CfC due to the concerns?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'm concerned about the overhead

Gundula: Yes, I would currently.

MikeG: Overhead of step 1 of conform . I see it as a lot of additional effort and updated document on where that all moves. Counter intuitive to an enterprise outlook.

Janina: Vague on purpose due to ways it shows up for user generated content. Talks to social media platforms vs. each and every instance. General description set on that purpose.

<JF> +1 to Janina

Janina: On use of grammar , to Gundula , may be a difference on adopted tense of WCAG 2 vs. WCAG 3 . Opens it up to Jeanne on styling on plain language and COGA requirements. Talks to modality on verbs . We do have a WCAG 3 style sheet we are gearing toward.

Gundula: Talks to non text content and "if" statements missing on context of phrasing

JF: It is more than alt text, talks to multimedia as well, so not just alt text for images.

<jeanne> +1 to JF, but alt text is the example we have based on the guidelines we have developedd.

<jeanne> ... especially with an ATAG component that is easy to adapt

<JF> @Jeanne, sure, but "alt text" is also an over-simplification of the problem statement, is all

DavidMcD: We had discussion on WCAG 2 on user generated content. WCAG is a measure on how accessible information is to people to disabilities. If user generated doesn't meet the criteria, it doesn't meet it. I understand the conversation around WCAG 3 and how we are progressing. We should perhaps inform user on how to write alt text , so that it would tell user what to do.

Chuck, is Wilco on call?

Chuck: Reads Wilco's comment While I like the idea of having ATAG be part of WCAG 3, the AG charter seems fairly clear that the intent is for us not to do so. Doing it despite that doesn't sit right with me.

Secondly, I'm concerned with how different this outcome is from what we have as outcomes in the current draft. If we intend to write this into some kind of plain language requirement that has a scoring model with it, then we should do that. As it is, this seems rushed.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that ATAG is a part of the charter

Melanie: I think it is clear on charter, that Silver can provide non normative context in. So what do we do about that topic?

Jeanne: ATAG is part of charter for non normative content. That is what we are trying to work out for outcomes and methods. Possibly enough momentum on including ATAG as normative in the future.

Melanie: If it is intended to be published, are you looking to add an editor's note?

Jeanne: I'd be happy to do that. I think it is a good example to use.

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to note that rechartering is next year, 2022

Melanie: Thank you.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say that we included authoring tools in the scope as a requirement for WCAG 3, without specifying normative or non-:

Janina: Talks to charter expiring on Halloween next year and what would be possible to include during that time. I.e. content and inability to add alt text (in various ways) then you are partially conforming .

ShawnL: Talks to https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#scope

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the modified example of a text alternative outcome for user generated content to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG 3

Jeanne: I think we have good suggestions to consider and come back to resolution.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest we update and come back

Peter: I'd like to have reactions to 2nd and 3rd parts and addressing all of it at once.

Jeanne: Given the timeboxing, I'd like to read through the answers that are detailed and we can come back , as we are out of time . We have a lot to work with.

Chuck: Opens to Gundula on user generated content question 2 .

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about the responsibility of an employee

Gundula: Talks to employee vs. a visitor of a platform. Talks to example provided in results .

<JF> @jeanne: governance / maturity model realm

Jeanne: We want people to contribute as role of employee and end user. We want employees to follow rules.

<laura> +1 to Jeanne. Employee's need to follow the rules.

<JF> employee role of "Social media marketing manager"

Jeanne: Social media platform that hosts you , the social media company needs to meet WCAG 3. We don't want to have the social media held responsible for end users that aren't posting correctly. If the employee represents the company, you'd be responsible. If you post on behalf of your company on your platform, you need to meet the WCAG 3 guidelines.
... General member of public outside of company, company is not responsible for my posts on other platforms.

Gundula: Discussion is around user generated content. If user is the end user, it is a different question.

Explainer note https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-07-Explainer-Note/

Chuck: Let us discuss this more in list .

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-07-Explainer-Note/results

Chuck: Talks to explainer survey.

<PeterKorn> I need to drop; thanks.

<mbgower> Jeanne, this can be taken off line, but I'm trying to figure out why we care about who posts it. Is there MORE scrutiny of content that is not user generated (i.e., employe generated)? I'm not seeing wording about that.

Chuck: Can we move the WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note?

<GN015> I said, the discussion is on th term definition, not on the responsibility to actually exploit the functionalities to create accessible content.

Chuck, reads through Cybele's comment around section clarification

<GN015> Ib the term definition, it makes no difference, whether an end user is an employee of the publisher.

<mbgower> present_

<GN015> Concerning the social repsonsibility to actually comply, it makes a difference, but not in the definition of the term user generated content.

Chuck: I don't see anybody in queue to discuss her points.

Gundula: On explainer, it is more the structure itself around outcomes and guidelines.

Chuck: Reads the detail of Gundula's comments

<jeanne> The diagram was not intended to be a flowchart with a start point. I can look at revising it.

Jeanne: The How To is the understanding.

JF: I struggle that WCAG is seeking to limit manual testing. Enterprise testing is impacted by various factors, time , scope , etc. Any claim that WCAG 3 is seeking to limit user testing is a false assertion.

Jeanne: Manual testing topic - I'm glad to hear pushback on this topic. I am very in favor of removing that string of text around manual testing.

DavidMcD: is that in bullet number 3.2 ? JF?

<MelanieP> +1 to David

DavidMcD: I think we were discussing that WCAG 3 is easier to test. One of the goals of WCAG 3. is at least not harder to test than WCAG 2 . We are looking to improve WCAG and testing for it.

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to note the conditioning phrase: "where possible"

Janina: I wanted to talk to "where possible" is the right goal. Mindful of the more we automate, the more we have the ability to get done, but is not possible in entirety , which leads to manual testing.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to express an opinion on "easier"

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to David

<kirkwood> +1 to Janina

Chuck: I'm thinking in terms on phrasing changes need to be made. It improves on original draft.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for "tension" vs "conflict"

JF: On comment on manual testing , there may be a conflict on end user testing. The the word conflict and phrasing around topic and perception of the bulleted item and overly mandating manual testing.

Chuck: Talks to LauraC's comments.
... For the conformance model focus more on helping users instead of big corporations. Add that exemptions for 3rd party content are not the Working Group's intention. And that we will be using ATAG.
... Continues to read her comments on call.
... To Jeanne, on authoring of explainer, there is suggestion around removing the impact. Do we want to poll the group or resurvey next week?
... Asks for Jeanne's comment on subject.

?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this still feels very draft-ish to me. For instance "This is the basics of the proposal from Q2 2020 that was approved to go into the FPWD. There are

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer MIke

MikeG: talks to many details that need to be worked out , rather NOT what we are expected to published. Seems internal notes are present.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the modified WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note.

<mbgower> Can we have some kind of annotation to show where something is a comment?

Jeanne: Individual moving pieces all moving together. We moved the general info to the explainer rather getting directly into detail. Editors notes are in there, in that we will be changing, but haven't changed yet. That was my approach to that topic in particualr.

Chuck: Can we have something that showcases that they are editor notes?

Jeanne: Unless I didn't code it as such.

<MelanieP> I don't have any formatting either

<mbgower> Okay, looked at it in a different browser and they are formatted.

<mbgower> Safari issue

Chuck: Mike acknowledges it is a safari issue.

I need to stop scribing and attend another call.

Apologies.

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the modified WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note.

+1

<jeanne> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to change scribe

<GN015> -1

<Lauriat> +1

David: The explainer just moves things out of the main document here. I guess I'm interested in the outcomes. They say they are testable statements.

Jeanne: We are in the process of redoing the outcomes. I'm not sure where it will go. The intention is that they remain testable.

David: I'd like to suggest going forward we focus on the condition of the content. Instead of saying "users can do this" we would say "The content provides this quality"

<Lauriat> -1

David: If we have the right outcomes, it will be easier.

JF: I agree with David's point. The moment we start talking about users, we don't who they are, what their capabilities are. We need to focus on the content.

<Lauriat> +1 to jeanne

Chuck: Jeanne points out we are supposed to be broader than content.

Bruce: I have never been formally involved in user testing, but I know many have.
... When you do usability testing you say "The user will be able to..." I'm comfortable with wcag 2...

Chuck: I'd like to focus on Gundula's -1. Would you object?

Gundula: I feel deciding on the explainer before the draft has the status of being published is a problem.

Chuck: Given we have moving parts, that's one of the challenges we face.
... So I think we would have an objection to going to CFC. What changes would need to be made, Gundula.

Gundula: Change the structure in the silver document and explain that structure in the explainer. They should match.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if we could add or adjust an existing editors note to address the iterative process

<jeanne> +1 Rachael

<Chuck> +1 to Rachael

Rachael: Looking at the editor's notes, is there something we can do to articulate this is iterative. These are moving parts. We're trying to get feedback.

<GN015> Sorry, I have to drop for another meeting.

Chuck: Chair hat off. If our team waits for a final version of some state, we would be holding ourselves up.
... I'm a fan of calling that process out and calling attention to it.
... Would calling that challenge out in an editor's note satisfy you?

Oliver: Gundula had to leave for a different meeting. If the explainer clarified the various moving parts, that would help.

Rachael: I suggest we move this conversation to email to help us move forward.

Chuck: It sounds like the note may let us move forward.

Rachael: Assuming we can get agreement.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the modified WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note, including a yet to be agreed upon note calling out the various moving parts.

David: Looking in the draft, it says the functional needs came out of En 301 549. I don't see anything about mental health. Is that something that was added?
... The bulleted list of functional categories, i'm seeing one on mental health. Is that EN, or has that been added?
... Is that from the European standard?
... It's not in there. Did we add it?

Rachael: Michael Cooper might be the best person to answer. I don't belive it's in the EN. I think it's additional. We'd have to track down where the cross references were.

Bruce: Where's the assertion these are only from EN 301 549, David?

David: There's a sentence saying they are "similar". I'm just wondering where mental health comes from. I guess I have some concerns. The whole topic of "triggering" can be very individual. Almost anything can trigger an event. So we want to tread very carefully with that funcational category. I want to know if it was vetted by other groups.

Bruce: Can you suggest wording?

David: I would like to draw from the standard and clarify where we are considering new things. It has wide ramifications. The public needs to undrstand where we are introducing something.
... There was a lot of vetting for the EU work.

Jeanne: I agree the functional criteria need more work. They are not prepared yet. I've asked if they can have it ready for the fourth quarter draft.

<Fazio> We are also putting together a mental health research module

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the modified WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note, including a yet to be agreed upon note calling out the various moving parts.

<Fazio> in COGA

David: I would prefer that we would at least divide them up to the ones that came from 508 and EN. Then something like "The following are also proposed". That way it is clear which are established and which ones are new.

Bruce: I've worked with FPC (Functional performance criteria). What you're asking for is not grammatically possible.

<Fazio> medical researchers have vetted some WCAG SC's and their effect on mental health

<JF> +1 to Bruce

Bruce: They are two big buckets. They overlap. There isn't enough language. It's kind of a venn diagram.

David F: We have people vetting publications for mental health categories.

<Jennie> Diagnostics and Statistics Manual

David F: We don't correlate with the DSM -- the medical standards. There is applicability and we have medical researchers working on it.

David: I'm not sure Bruce understood what I was suggesting.

<Chuck> ack proposed RESOLUTION: Move the modified WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note, including a yet to be agreed upon note calling out the various moving parts.

David: All I'm thinking is that is there is not something that is in either of those, we have an editor's note saying "We are considering adding the following". If it's in either, 508 or EN it would be in the first list.

<Rain> David is referring to DSM-5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5) - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to end the conversation and test the resolution

<jeanne> This group already agreed to the list as part of the FPWD, it will be back to the group for the Q4 draft. Please let it wait until tthen

0

RESOLUTION: Move the modified WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note, including a yet to be agreed upon note calling out the various moving parts.

<JF> +1 to resolution

Chuck: if there are any concerns or objections, please speak up.

User-generated content proposal https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-07-User-Generated-Content/

The first survey is about Dragging movements

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results

<JF> agenda

Question 1 - Adobe Comment on 2.5.7 Dragging Movements

Chuck: AWK raises an issue about text input
... Rachael, I'm hoping you can do updates.

[ Chuck reads out survey responses ]

Chuck: I had never interpreted "alternate version" as being a totally separate page and version.

Oliver: I was a little confused by the sentence about an alternate version. To me it seems like it would be different software.
... When would I judge it as an alternative version?

Chuck: What would your adjustment be?

Oliver: I would try to avoid an alternative version. If there is another option on the same page...
... The same component could have a second option.

<Chuck> mbgower: Maybe this will help clarify Oliver how I'm interpreting that. The wording of this SC is that it must have a single pointer method that does not involve dragging.

<Chuck> mbgower: If you have an input, that's actually an alternative to input the same data, but doesn't necessarily use a single pointer. You have to click into it and then type into it.

<Chuck> mbgower: We can't just say it's on the same page, this is talking about how dragging movements must have a single pointer method. I'd have to pull up the SC to get the precise word.

<Rachael> Existing wording: Where functionality can be executed via dragging movements and an equivalent option exists that does not rely on dragging and meets all other WCAG Success Criteria, this option counts as a <a>conforming alternate version</a> on the same page. An example is a color wheel where a color can be changed by dragging an indicator. In addition, text fields for the numerical input of color values allow the definition of a color without

<Rachael> requiring dragging movements.

<Chuck> mbgower: My comment is "on the same page", and I'd like it to be "from the same page". When you think about a color swatch, there's a color wheel and text inputs. Is it another page?

<Chuck> mbgower: If there's another method from the same page, there's a softer way of saying it.

<scribe> scribe: mbgower

Chuck: The result will be the user is able to change the color value.
... That is where I struggle with the idea of the alternative.

<Chuck> mbgower: the actual wording of dragging "all functionality of..." reads verbatim. The question is, is a text input that can get activated by a single pointer, being achieved by single pointer?

<Chuck> mbgower: Is that considered a single pointer method or a text input method?

<Chuck> oliver: It explains my problem.

<Chuck> oliver: Maybe that was the problem, that I didn't understand.

<Chuck> mbgower: We could have a real debate, and I think I have to.

<Chuck> poll: Does a text input which requires activation considered to satisfy the single pointer requirement?

<OliverK> +1

<Chuck> +1

David: If I understand correctly, we're saying everything that can be done by a single pointer. You can click into it and type. That's more of a keyboard. That would meet 2.1.1.
... I'm interested in other people's opinions.

Rachael: We can mean single pointer with more than one actions?

John K: Yes, fantastic.

<JF> +1 to Rachael

David: Yes, moving multiple points is fine. It's just working with one pointer.

<Chuck> mbgower: We have the same discussion going on in regards to target size. If you have a tiny button that you can't activate, but you have a text input that meets target size, is the input the single point solution? Or is the adding of the value...

<Chuck> mbgower: I'm comfortable saying that text input supports pointer.

<Chuck> mbgower: The way the world works, you will either use on screen keyboard with mouse, or you will use a physical keyboard. There is no way of entering by keyboard w/o using a keyboard.

David: I agree, it's an odd situation.

Chuck: My opinion is that a text input does satisfy, if it meets the other criteria.

<Wilco> Can't speak up, but it then sounds like if it is always sufficient to use keyboard as an alternative, then as long as you pas 2.1.1, would you ever fail this SC?

<Chuck> mbgower: There are lots of situations where you can have a keyboard alternative to dragging, that does not involve data input.

<Chuck> mbgower: If you offer a text input to allow the user to do that, I argue that a text input provides an alternative to more elaborate functionality.

<JF> an example of drag (and drop) that is keyboard accessible that has no 'text input': https://pauljadam.com/demos/drag-drop.html

<Wilco> That's how I figured it too. Is that clear enough in the understanding doc?

<Chuck> mbgower: That's the difference to me, in one situation you can manipulate with arrows, but in a text input it's actionable with single click and keyboard.

Yes

<scribe> scribe: mbgower

Rachael: What we have to do is have alternative wording to make sure it covers it.

mbgower: I will try rewording.

Question 2 - Dragging Movements needs some attention #1917

Rachael: I wanted a typo fixed.

Chuck: Gundula wanted some changes, to cover specific values. She prefers adding a numeric input

<Chuck> mbgower: I wouldn't mind flagging the 5th paragraph of my response. Where do we place the author burden on this?

<Chuck> mbgower: If I as a user have difficulty with a dragging action, I'm likely to get some AT that helps, like a trackball with a button that mimics press and hold.

<Chuck> mbgower: The solution we offer isn't different from press and hold.

<Chuck> mbgower: If the problem of physically holding down is taken care of, I don't think there's much difference in the user burden. That's what I'm asking. We have no data showing where the pain point is that dragging is addressing.

<Chuck> mbgower: I'm not disputing it's an improvement, just wondering where author responsibility lies.

<scribe> scribe: mbgower

<kirkwood> +1 g00d question

<Chuck> mbgower: The gist is that there are things in our understanding doc that isn't dragging, and used as an example. Path based would fail other criteria. There's a large statement that some users can't do dragging, I'm wondering what % of users are invoking an AT solution to handle this.

<Chuck> mbgower: This does not feel mature yet.

<kirkwood> very good question / point

<Chuck> dm: Is your proposal that we put in editor's note on this that we are evaluating if this is a helpful sc?

<Chuck> mbgower: yes. If we can't supply the data, let's get it somewhere else. I don't think some of the statements are supported by data.

<Chuck> dm: We've been trying to address dragging for ever. There was an option in 1.0 that wasn't successful. Been all kinds of examples of trying to create an accessible mechanism.

<Chuck> dm: We've kind of given up, we are trying to do what we do on motion, allow for a simple way to allow the users to bypass dragging. I appreciate the comment.

Dragging: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/

Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results

Question 1 - Minimum Area clarification #1806

Chuck: 6 people agreed, 1 person wanted an adjustment.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1966 to address issue 1806

Chuck: Gundula had a preference but 'would not die on this hill'

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1966 to address issue 1806

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1966 to address issue 1806

<Rachael> +1

Question 2 - Browser default focus indicators #1854

Chuck: Everyone agreed with the response.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept Alastair's response to address issue 1854

RESOLUTION: Accept Alastair's response to address issue 1854

Question 3 - Gradient Backgrounds #1862

Chuck: Everyone agreed with the update to the Understanding document.

Ben: I've discussed this with a couple of colleagues. We're happy with the response.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept update to PR 1967 and response to address issue 1862

Chuck: We have acceptance first hand.

RESOLUTION: Accept update to PR 1967 and response to address issue 1862

Question 4 - Explain why authors are better enabled than UA at solving this #1911

Chuck: We had 5 agreed, and 1 make an adjustment

<Chuck> mgower: I thought that the actual specific thing that was called out about tbi, Alastair talked about that including asking about specific scenarios. Coga was aware.

<Chuck> mbgower: maybe we should check with the task force on their specific thoughts on this question.

Rachael: I'm cross checking that note.

Rain: I think I need to look into this. This passed me. I'll look into it.

<kirkwood> unsure myself

<Chuck> mbgower: I think we can have a good response. It would be worth including it in this response.

Consistent help https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/22_consistent_help/

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/22_consistent_help/results

Question 1 - Consistent Help note doesn't make sense to me #1924

Chuck: the last survey has a couple of questions.
... Oliver do you want to add some context?

Oliver: I thought it would shorten.

<Rachael> Proposed resolution: Leave the note and update the understanding document

RESOLUTION: Leave the note and update the understanding document

Chuck: we are not going to get to the second item, but I'm going to read it out for next week.

Rain: I'm opening a can of worms, but I feel uncomfortable with the idea that we can imply it is okay to have a link to help with no indication that help is unavailable.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Move the modified WCAG3 Explainer to CFC for addition to the next update of WCAG3 as a first draft of what will be a Working Group Note, including a yet to be agreed upon note calling out the various moving parts.
  2. Accept PR 1966 to address issue 1806
  3. Accept Alastair's response to address issue 1854
  4. Accept update to PR 1967 and response to address issue 1862
  5. Leave the note and update the understanding document
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/08/03 17:01:08 $

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/it it/if it/
Default Present: Chuck, sajkaj, Ben, agarrison, Jennie, PeterKorn, JF, ShawnT, bruce_bailey, Nicaise, kirkwood, Lauriat, MarcJohlic, Francis_Storr, ToddLibby, MichaelC, MelanieP, mgarrish, Rain, david-macdonald, Laura_Carlson, KarenHerr, Fazio, stevelee_, mbgower, OliverK
Present: Chuck, sajkaj, Ben, agarrison, Jennie, PeterKorn, JF, ShawnT, bruce_bailey, Nicaise, kirkwood, Lauriat, MarcJohlic, Francis_Storr, ToddLibby, MichaelC, MelanieP, mgarrish, Rain, david-macdonald, Laura_Carlson, KarenHerr, Fazio, stevelee_, mbgower, OliverK
Regrets: Jake Abma, Andrew Kirckpatrick, Detlev Fischer, Sarah Horton
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Scribes: ChrisLoiselle, mbgower
ScribeNicks: ChrisLoiselle, mbgower

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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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]