14:49:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:49:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/02-ag-irc
14:49:18 <Rachael> zakim, start meeting
14:49:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:49:20 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:49:30 <Rachael> rrsagent, make logs world
14:49:41 <Rachael> Agenda+ new members and topics
14:49:47 <Rachael> Agenda+ Queue management reminder
14:49:54 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 3 Process
14:50:12 <Rachael> agenda?
14:50:20 <Rachael> agenda- 3
14:50:30 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 3 Process discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach_nov_2/results
14:50:36 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance (1 new question added) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
14:50:43 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Visible controls (questions added) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results
14:50:49 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results
14:50:56 <Rachael> agenda?
14:55:31 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:56:53 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
14:56:56 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:56:58 <Jennie> present+
14:57:01 <Jennie> Scribe: Jennie
14:57:23 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
14:57:42 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
14:57:44 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:57:58 <shadi> present+
14:58:07 <Jennie> Rachael: We will need a scribe for hour 2
14:58:10 <Rachael> present+
14:58:11 <ShawnT> present+
14:58:51 <sajkaj> sajkaj has joined #ag
14:58:55 <sajkaj> present+
14:59:13 <Aimee_U> Aimee_U has joined #ag
14:59:19 <Aimee_U> present+
14:59:20 <Jennie> Rachael: Welcome. If you are just joining, please add yourself using present plus. And we are still looking for a scribe for hour 2 today.
14:59:23 <Jen_G> Present+
14:59:41 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
14:59:44 <Lauriat> Present+
14:59:47 <jeanne> present+
14:59:55 <Jennie> *I wish I heard the snoring!
15:00:32 <Fazio> present+
15:00:37 <kirkwood> present+
15:00:52 <Jennie> Rachael: We still need a scribe for the 2nd half of the meeting
15:00:54 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
15:00:54 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- new members and topics -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:01:02 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:01:04 <Jennie> Rachael: Welcome. Glad everyone made it!
15:01:10 <Detlev> present+
15:01:13 <Jennie> ...New members, and topics people want us to address.
15:01:17 <alastairc> present+
15:01:27 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:01:29 <Jennie> Rachael: Has anyone here not been here in a while or is new and would like to introduce yourself?
15:01:34 <Breixo> Breixo has joined #ag
15:01:35 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:01:45 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:01:54 <Jennie> Rachael: Does anyone have something we need to talk about that should be added to the schedule?
15:01:57 <JF> Present+
15:01:59 <Breixo> present+
15:02:00 <GreggVan> present+
15:02:19 <Jennie> Mike G: Do we have any kind of discussion on an update on timing for 2.2?
15:02:24 <AWK> +AWK
15:02:33 <Jennie> Rachael: It is not on the agenda. Alastair - talk about it today or next week?
15:02:40 <garrison> garrison has joined #ag
15:02:56 <Jennie> Alastair: Next week. We are trying to arrange an all day meeting (3 sessions). If you have interest in this, please respond to the survey in the list.
15:02:59 <garrison> present+
15:03:13 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:03:14 <GreggVan> q+
15:03:16 <Jennie> ...We will get to CR around Christmas, which puts publication probably around March.
15:03:20 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:03:20 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:03:27 <Jennie> Michael C: From a process standpoint that sounds correct.
15:03:33 <MelanieP> present+
15:03:34 <mbgower> present+
15:03:49 <Jennie> GreggVan: There is an Amazon Advisory committee all week, so most of the week I will be tied up.
15:03:56 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-all-day-issues-meeting/
15:03:58 <laura_> laura_ has joined #ag
15:03:59 <Jennie> Rachael: When you cannot make meetings, please send regrets.
15:04:20 <laura_> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:04:21 <Jennie> ...And when you are unavailable, please continue to respond to surveys, and you can participate asynchronously
15:04:24 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:04:24 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Queue management reminder -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:04:39 <Jennie> Rachael: This is a reminder on how we are managing the cue.
15:04:44 <Jennie> ...We are relying on surveys more.
15:04:54 <Jennie> ...Thanks to everyone that is using the surveys.
15:05:10 <Jennie> ...We will summarize the results, talk about comments that are supporting, then go through each comment individually
15:05:18 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:05:20 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:05:22 <Jennie> ...We will then go through comments 1 by 1, ...then open topics
15:05:23 <Rain> present+
15:05:36 <Jennie> ...We want to be sure we do not miss people that participate asynchronously
15:05:43 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:05:43 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- WCAG 3 Process discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach_nov_2/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:05:44 <Jennie> ...If you have feedback on that process, please email the chairs.
15:05:53 <Jennie> Rachael: Next item is for 60 minutes
15:06:03 <Jennie> ...We are discussing the WCAG 3 process, a proposal
15:06:14 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process
15:06:14 <Jennie> ...In addition to this document, there is also a visual version of it
15:06:21 <Jennie> ...That's the processs
15:06:21 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:06:24 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #Ag
15:06:32 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process
15:06:33 <JakeAbma> Present+
15:06:39 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZZ8hD56XqGS0u3Rn2o1ows6ZrKRAwnAjllkXknp2bR8/edit#slide=id.gfb6a5a59bb_0_131
15:06:40 <Jennie> ...This is the workflow diagram in case visuals work better for you
15:06:43 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:07:06 <Jennie> Rachael: Survey results - whether or not to maintain a 3rd formal document within the process
15:07:20 <Jennie> ...2 options in the survey: I don't feel the need for a 3rd, and the opposite
15:07:26 <Jennie> ...Starting with the 6 that did
15:07:42 <Jennie> ...Rain stated "I'm concerned that 3 versions will lead to mistakes because there is more to track."
15:07:43 <Rain> I can't find unmute
15:07:50 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:07:56 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:08:20 <Jennie> Rain: I think that is my only concern. The more versions we have if a 3rd version is added, but if there is a way to easily move between the 3, and really clear delineation
15:08:26 <kirkwood> +1 to Rain
15:08:27 <Jennie> ...Otherwise it might get really confusing
15:08:50 <Jennie> Rachael: Sean also supported not having a 3rd document. Greg said to clear up ambiguities
15:09:05 <Jennie> ...All levels 2-5 need to include pros and cons and items needed to make it to maturity
15:09:33 <Jennie> GreggVan: 1. Please substitute pros and cons with needs and issues. I think it should be all of the levels, including level 1.
15:09:50 <Jennie> ...there should be the needs to why it should be in there. Having the issues will allow us to get placeholders in easier.
15:10:09 <Jennie> ...If we all agree on the needs and issues, it will be ok to put it in.
15:10:20 <alastairc> q+ to say that we should link to github issues for the details / conversation, have a brief summary in the main document notes.
15:10:29 <Jennie> ...Some reference to what is needed to get to the next layer. If we did that, I think we can get by with the 2 documents.
15:10:47 <Jennie> ...2. If we have the ability to collapse things down, I think we can get by with 2.
15:11:01 <Jennie> Rachael: We will make sure we come back to those comments in the next conversation.
15:11:29 <Jennie> ...Jeanne, you also felt we did not need a 3rd document. In the W3C general use of tools it is intended to be the sandbox. (continues reading from comment).
15:12:01 <jenniferS> jenniferS has joined #ag
15:12:09 <Jennie> ...Jeanne (you are muted) if you would like to talk, please let me know.
15:12:21 <Jennie> Jeanne: I do not have more to add.
15:12:29 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
15:12:34 <Nicaise> present+
15:12:35 <jenniferS> present+
15:12:36 <Jennie> Rachael: David M did not vote 1 way or another, but I spoke to him.
15:12:49 <Jennie> ...(reads from David's response)
15:13:01 <JF> +1 to David's observation - the key is "public to the world"
15:13:02 <Jennie> ...Is David here?
15:13:06 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #ag
15:13:08 <Jaunita_George> Present+
15:13:13 <GreggVan> Summary of my comments:   would review my comments in the survey as follows:     substitute Needs and Issues for my Pro and Con.   I used the wrong words.     It was needs and issues that needed to be included at each stage.
15:13:13 <GreggVan>  In fact I would amend my comments to say — they should even be there for placeholder text.  What good  is placeholder if the need is not expressed - and issues can help focus work for the next stage.   No need for a placeholder if there is no known need.   And adding issues can help make placeholders more acceptable - and get them in sooner.
15:13:20 <Jennie> Rachael: He does not have a strong opinion one way or another as long as we address that concern.
15:13:36 <Jennie> ...2 people do feel we need a new draft: Laura C
15:13:54 <Jennie> ...Laura's response (reads Laura's response)
15:14:33 <JF> Q+
15:14:41 <Jennie> Laura: I have the same concern as David has about getting consenus on what goes into the draft.
15:14:41 <alastairc> qv?
15:14:42 <JF> +1 to Laura
15:14:58 <Jennie> Rachael: Melanie had the other support for the 3rd version. (Reads Melanie's comment)
15:16:04 <Jennie> Melanie: I do not have anything more to add.
15:16:17 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:16:50 <AWK> q+
15:16:52 <Jennie> Rachael: I just refreshed the survey results. Andrew has added that he does not feel a 3rd version is needed
15:16:59 <GreggVan> q+  to say  "I don't think we should have 3 GitHub docs -- but we should encourage the use of separate sandboxes for topics  (in a wiki for example)  that allow discussion and working out of ideas before we try to do them in our working group meetings.  The overhead to add each new thought or option would be too great. "
15:17:03 <Jennie> ...Cybele adds that Github is not accessible for everyone
15:17:22 <Jennie> Rachael: I am not opening the cue until we go through survey results.
15:17:25 <Rachael> ack AWK
15:17:36 <Jennie> Andrew: I am sensitive to the concern about the increase in effort for the editors and chairs
15:17:51 <Jennie> ...But we already work with includes so a document can be created and pulled in through a drafat
15:18:02 <Jennie> ...draft. So if there is proposal 1 in a written form somewhere
15:18:10 <david-macdonald> present+
15:18:21 <Jennie> ...And proposal 2 that is relatively easy way for documents to be generated, which then pulls in additional items
15:18:37 <Jennie> ...Each item gets edited independently, but there is a simple way for that document to be generative.
15:18:44 <Jennie> ...This would reduce error and effort.
15:18:59 <Jennie> ...My concern is in line with Laura's, and there should be a way to reference proposals, and to make them visible
15:19:09 <JF> +1 to AWK
15:19:19 <Jennie> ...But I think there is a way to do so without them going into the editor's draft because I feel that removing them later would be more difficult
15:19:34 <Jennie> Rachael: Topics based on those survey results - where is the sandbox?
15:19:53 <Jennie> ...Is it in the very documents or pull requests people create, or is it it's own document.
15:20:06 <Rachael> Topics: Where is the sandbox
15:20:07 <JF> I think you are asking the wrong question - it's not how many, but rather who can see it
15:20:10 <Jennie> ...Are there other specific topics people want to talk about in order to make a decision as to whether we need another document or not?
15:20:26 <Jennie> Rachael: John points out that the 2nd topic is who can see the sandbox
15:20:38 <GreggVan> and how hard is it for someone to put something in
15:20:40 <Jennie> ...2nd topic: how visible to we make it?
15:20:49 <Rachael> Topics: Where is the sandbox, How visible/how much access, how hard is it to use
15:20:52 <GreggVan> to the sandbox
15:20:53 <Jennie> Rachael: 3rd topic: how hard is it to put something in?
15:21:04 <Rachael> q?
15:21:07 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:21:07 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that we should link to github issues for the details / conversation, have a brief summary in the main document notes.
15:21:23 <Jennie> Alastairc: On Greg's point on having the needs and issues in the document
15:21:37 <Jennie> ...I think we should have a summary and link through to github issues, or those tagged for that topic
15:21:53 <Jennie> ...That balances between showing that there is work going on about that thing, and here is where you can comment
15:22:10 <Jennie> ...How visible things are: there is no such thing as non-public, just how obvious we make it.
15:22:32 <Jennie> ...The subgroups can prototype things separately, I haven't really seen a reason in people's comments about what the document would achieve
15:22:39 <Jennie> ...The working draft is what the working group is approving
15:22:43 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:22:49 <Jennie> ...Is the one before that an editor's draft or a sandbox
15:23:02 <Jennie> ...If the editor's draft term gives too much weighting, maybe we don't call it that
15:23:02 <Rachael> q?
15:23:08 <Rachael> ack JF
15:23:22 <Jennie> JF: Personally I think we are asking the wrong question. We should be asking who has access to what.
15:23:41 <Jennie> ...We have a bunch of subgroups working on content, and they have a desire to integrate it into the document we have
15:24:00 <Jennie> ...If I understand Laura and David M, and me: it is hard to get things out of the working draft.
15:24:15 <Rachael> q+ to speak to ask if marking up content does not meet the need
15:24:19 <Jennie> ...How do we integrate content that came from 3-4 members, to the place of building consensus
15:24:32 <Jennie> ...I struggle with making it so public that those unfamiliar with the weekly group happening with this group
15:24:38 <Jennie> ...It telegraphs the wrong message
15:25:14 <Jennie> ...I see that members of the working group seeing, but those checking in every 6 weeks or so - at what point do we expose things to a larger group (public) that is not part of the other conversations
15:25:15 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:25:15 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "I don't think we should have 3 GitHub docs -- but we should encourage the use of separate sandboxes for topics  (in a wiki for example)  that allow
15:25:18 <Zakim> ... discussion and working out of ideas before we try to do them in our working group meetings.  The overhead to add each new thought or option would be too great. "
15:25:25 <Jennie> GreggVan: First, I share John's view
15:25:39 <Jennie> ...The renaming the draft is an interesting thought that we had not talked about
15:25:59 <Jennie> ...Editor's draft does sound like it is editorially different from what is coming out - that is how it is in other standards groups
15:26:16 <Joshue108> present+
15:26:22 <Jennie> ...Linking to the GitHub - whatever this document is, if we put information in, and the information is in GitHub
15:26:33 <Jennie> ...Cognitively and other ways it is not accessible
15:26:35 <alastairc> My suggestion was to summarize it in the document, a link to more (in github).
15:26:38 <KarenHerr> KarenHerr has joined #ag
15:26:44 <KarenHerr> present+
15:26:52 <Jennie> ...We can link to information there, but it can be hard to find what is the consensus of this is
15:27:16 <Jennie> ...I think it is not available to many due to the accessibility issues
15:27:28 <Jennie> ...I think the issues and needs must be right with the item
15:27:37 <Jennie> ...I don't like the idea of another Github document
15:27:38 <AWK> Q+ to say that "Editor's Draft" is the name in the Process document but it is optional, so renaming would address the concern better than integrating sandbox content into editor's draft. Also to speak about GitHub versions.
15:27:56 <Jennie> ...Part of my concern of the editor's draft (or renamed sandbox) - how do they get it in there?
15:28:04 <Jennie> ...Do we give everyone access to the editor's draft?
15:28:08 <jenniferS> For example, for screen reader users Github is unusable unless they are command line users. That is the blocker, imho.
15:28:10 <alastairc> We should clarify, the "github document" is the fully rendered spec version. The complexity is putting it in, not reading it.
15:28:18 <Jennie> ...When a new issue needs to be added, we don't want a long process
15:28:29 <Jennie> ...The purpose of a sandbox is to have something that is more flexible, dynamic
15:28:39 <Jennie> ...Then once it is in a better shape, it can go to the outside world
15:29:01 <Jennie> ...Then we have additional layers. That is when I think it should go in the document that goes out, instead of each week having a new block.
15:29:20 <Rachael> ack: Rachael
15:29:24 <Jennie> Rachael: Alastair pointed out that his suggestion was to summarize the issues and needs, then link out.
15:29:27 <ShawnT> Q+ to say "Could we use the Github API to list issues related to certain topics"
15:29:28 <Jennie> GreggVan: That's find
15:29:32 <Jennie> ...fine
15:29:53 <Jennie> Rachael: Part of the markup was to address the concerns - give visibility to those following along, but make it clear that it is not finalized
15:30:02 <Jennie> ...What I am hearing the group say is that this is not enough
15:30:09 <JF> Q+
15:30:14 <Jennie> ...If we called it sandbox, and clearly marked it up - is that sufficient?
15:30:15 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:30:15 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to ask if marking up content does not meet the need
15:30:19 <Rachael> ack AWK
15:30:19 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that "Editor's Draft" is the name in the Process document but it is optional, so renaming would address the concern better than integrating sandbox content
15:30:22 <Zakim> ... into editor's draft. Also to speak about GitHub versions.
15:30:32 <GreggVan> that addresses most things but not access to the doc
15:30:43 <Jennie> AWK: The Process document does refer to an editor's document, but it says the working group "may provide"
15:30:58 <Jennie> ...If we don't call it the Editor's document, I think that still follows this
15:31:04 <laura_> Need to give a warning too: something like: "WARNING: This document has been renamed Sandbox as it is not an Editor's Draft in the same respect as previous WCAG Editor's Drafts. In the past, the Working Group had consensus of what went into the Editor's Draft. This new Sandbox only not does not have Working Group consensus, the sand in the sandbox is shifting at varying rates."
15:31:09 <Jennie> ...I want to also speak to Github versions
15:31:28 <Jennie> ...The document that someone reads, that is created through Github, still looks like an HTML version of the spec
15:31:33 <jenniferS> q+
15:31:38 <Jennie> ...If you want to edit it, there is the complexity of learning how to do that
15:31:42 <david-macdonald> q+
15:31:49 <Rachael> Topics: Where is the sandbox, How visible/how much access, how hard is it to use
15:31:56 <Jennie> ...It should be straightforward on how to read it, depending on the content
15:32:01 <Rachael> ack ShawnT
15:32:01 <Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to say "Could we use the Github API to list issues related to certain topics"
15:32:03 <Jennie> ...But the pull requests involve that complexity
15:32:34 <Jennie> Shawn: Using the Github APIs in our document to point to issues that are open to make it more readable? I agree with Greg that Github is not accessible for working with it
15:32:43 <Jennie> ...Linking the document to what is going on in Github
15:32:52 <Jennie> ...There is an API that can list all the labels in the document
15:33:06 <Jennie> Rachael: In the process document on the wiki I have a list of things to work out
15:33:20 <Jennie> ...Does anyone object to this going on that list?
15:33:30 <Jennie> Jennifer S: Because of the audience we have here
15:33:42 <Jennie> ...Github is not accessible to people who use screenreaders unless they use the command line
15:33:52 <Rachael> ack: jenniferS
15:33:53 <Jennie> ...The desktop app, the UI..
15:34:08 <Jennie> ...Unless we configure truly accessible processes for early version, then an able bodied team works on the next part
15:34:18 <Jennie> ...It is not just the cognitive load, or the learning of the tools
15:34:30 <Jennie> ...The Github tool itself is so inaccessible, this is a barrier
15:34:53 <Jennie> ...We are not focusing on the needs of those with disabilities in order to be sure they can participate
15:35:00 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask for more clarification on GitHub inaccessiblity
15:35:03 <jenniferS> Q-
15:35:06 <jeanne> +1 Jennifer
15:35:11 <Jennie> Rachael: You are not objecting as long as we take that into account, is that true?
15:35:19 <Jennie> Jennifer S: That's correct.
15:35:28 <Fazio> COGA got chastized during a TPAC session because we missed a Github issue due to us having difficulty with git
15:35:37 <Rachael> Action: Rachael, work out how best to clearly state issues, needs, etc and link to github
15:35:37 <Jennie> Rachael: Any objections to moving that conversation off?
15:35:38 <trackbot> Error finding 'Rachael,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
15:35:46 <Rachael> q?
15:35:49 <Rachael> ack JF
15:35:51 <Jennie> Rachael: I have captured that for the wiki, and you will see it next week
15:36:05 <Jennie> JF: Again, to my mind, it is not how many documents we have
15:36:17 <Jennie> ...It is about who has access to the versions we are working on
15:36:47 <Jennie> ...There were issues when one group tried to merge some information into the document, without the larger group had difficulty reviewing before it goes into the public component
15:36:57 <Fazio> There's a lot of small silver groups working on content
15:36:59 <Jennie> ...Every week I have to log in to view the call information
15:37:09 <Jennie> ...We can restrict aspect to the working group
15:37:26 <Jennie> ...It is important that before something is visible to someone that is not a member of this working group, it has to have consenus
15:37:35 <MichaelC> q+ to note we are chartered public
15:37:42 <Jennie> ...All these task forces want pieces so we can see it along with the wider whole
15:37:51 <jeanne> q+ to say there is a difference between security restrictions on Zoom to hiding our work from the public.
15:37:54 <Jennie> ...It is the process of getting it exposed to a larger audience
15:37:54 <Fazio> Silver is wide open to the community which makes it more complicated
15:38:02 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
15:38:02 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note we are chartered public
15:38:03 <MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter#communication
15:38:16 <jeanne> q-
15:38:18 <Jennie> MichaelC: The charter specifies that we do our work in public
15:38:32 <Jennie> ...We can request a charter that allows us to use the member wall, but this is against the trend
15:38:38 <Jennie> ...I'm not sure this would be granted
15:38:38 <Rachael> ack david-macdonald
15:38:56 <Jennie> David-Macdonald: The big thing for me as a person using the drafts for years and years
15:39:10 <Jennie> ...When I go to a W3C version that says latest editor's draft
15:39:26 <Jennie> ...If we relabel the editor's draft, but the biggest thing that exposes it to the public
15:39:41 <Jennie> ...If this link goes to the sandbox, it would be the same exposure
15:39:54 <Jennie> ...I'm not against the relabeling, but we wouldn't want it to be the first link at the top of the page
15:39:55 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:39:55 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask for more clarification on GitHub inaccessiblity
15:39:55 <bruce_bailey> i agree that GitHub is barrier to contributing to work , but i understood the barrier to be as more about useabilty than accessibility
15:39:57 <laura_> rrsagent, make minutes
15:39:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/02-ag-minutes.html laura_
15:39:59 <GreggVan> good point - we need to relabel it there too  and not call it "latest version"
15:40:17 <Jennie> Bruce: I want to check in with what Jennifer said about Github accessibility - I agree it is a barrier to contributing
15:40:20 <GreggVan> q+
15:40:34 <Jennie> ...I also understand that some that use screen reading software prefer the command interface
15:40:34 <sajkaj> q+
15:40:46 <Jennie> ...I did not realize it was due to Github needing this
15:41:10 <jeanne> Bruce, it's a big learning hurdle to learn the command line interface if a screenreader user doesn't already know it.
15:41:10 <Jennie> ...We use Github for the work we have been doing, but we may need to pay more attention to that
15:41:13 <david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ landing page has "Latest Editor's draft"
15:41:28 <Jennie> ...What we are doing is more simple than what the working group is doing
15:41:49 <Jennie> Rachael: This is an important topic, but I am struggling to be sure that go through the agenda
15:41:54 <Rachael> ack sajkaj
15:42:03 <Jennie> Janina: I am aware that some people have trouble with Github - so did I when I started
15:42:13 <Jennie> ...I use both the web interface, the command interface (heavily)
15:42:20 <Jennie> ...I have done things in Github branches
15:42:27 <Jennie> ...I find it as accessible as editing HTML
15:42:35 <Jennie> ...There is a learning curve - it is not obvious
15:42:36 <david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag3/   "latest editor's draft" is top content.
15:42:48 <Jennie> ...Just like learning to use a word processor there are things you need to know
15:43:00 <Jennie> ...Are there multiple avenues into it? Absolutely
15:43:19 <Jennie> ...The web interface is just a snapshot of some of the features in the command line
15:43:35 <Jennie> Rachael: Thank you Janina. I would like to move this part of the conversation to a separate meeting - Github as accessible
15:43:38 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:43:40 <Jennie> ...We do have to reach concensus
15:44:05 <bruce_bailey> @Jeanne , yes I agree that CLI is big learning hurdle -- and that expecting a screen reader user to use CLI is not acceptable
15:44:05 <Jennie> GreggVan: Janina's description of what she had to do to access information in Github is exactly why we should assume this is not accessible information to the public
15:44:15 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
15:44:18 <JF> Q+ to note that the same could be said about Google Docs
15:44:24 <Fazio> She is a rockstar
15:44:31 <alastairc> tanget alert...
15:44:38 <alastairc> tangent even
15:44:42 <Jennie> ....2. Janina is at the high end of digital (missed word) - If we are trying to make this accessible we need to provide things that work better
15:44:58 <Jennie> Rachael: This is an important tangent
15:45:07 <JF> ack me
15:45:07 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that the same could be said about Google Docs
15:45:11 <Jennie> ...We have spent meetings just on tool problems - this is not that meeting
15:45:17 <Jennie> Rachael: I am requesting we come back to topic
15:45:23 <Jennie> ...We don't have that time
15:45:29 <Jennie> ...I will put a straw poll out
15:45:30 <JF> Q+ to note the issue is consensus
15:45:34 <Rachael> straw poll (all options include marking): Option 1) Three documents, Option 2) Two documents but rename with warning, Option 3) Two documents with warning on editors draft
15:45:50 <Jennie> GreggVan: Don't we have to look at the next survey question to answer this one?
15:45:57 <Jennie> Rachael: We can, I was just trying to see where we were
15:45:58 <JF> ack me
15:45:58 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note the issue is consensus
15:46:06 <Jennie> GreggVan: As long it is just a straw poll
15:46:09 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:46:12 <JakeAbma> present+
15:46:15 <Jennie> Rachael: All 3 questions are related, I am just trying to bring us back
15:46:19 <Jennie> GreggVan: OK, proceed
15:46:35 <jeanne> OPtion 3
15:46:36 <Jennie> Rachael: From a straw poll perspective, not a final decision
15:46:49 <Jennie> ...Not everyone speaks, and I want to be sure everyone has a chance
15:46:54 <Jennie> ...Option 1: 3 documents
15:47:08 <Rachael> straw poll (all options include marking): Option 1) Three documents, Option 2) Two documents but rename with warning, Option 3) Two documents with warning on editors draft
15:47:17 <Jennie> *Thank you for pasting that in!
15:47:17 <Fazio> no change?
15:47:22 <JF> Option 1: 3 documents, with differing levels of consensus
15:47:35 <Jennie> DM: I would suggest the ammendment: if you change the name of the editor's draft
15:47:56 <Jennie> ...All the things pointing to it in the TR, we need to pay attention to this
15:47:57 <Rachael> straw poll (all options include marking): Option 1) Three documents with differing levels of consensus, Option 2) Two documents but rename both document and link with warning, Option 3) Two documents with warning on editors draft 4) no change
15:48:04 <bruce_bailey> s/We use Github for work we have been doing/We use Github for web work we have been doing at my agency/
15:48:04 <david-macdonald> OK with 2 documents as long as there is a high profile, easy to access way for entire group to vet and comment.
15:48:05 <mbgower> 1-3, I have no strong feelings on this
15:48:08 <alastairc> 2, could live with 3
15:48:13 <jeanne> 3
15:48:15 <shadi> q+
15:48:19 <Jennie> Rachael: Did I miss anything else?
15:48:44 <kirkwood> 3
15:48:48 <Jennie> GreggVan: When you click on the link in the working doc it would show you a filtered version of the document with just the latest things which had consensus
15:48:59 <shadi> q-
15:49:00 <Jennie> ...To the public, it would look like 3 documents
15:49:11 <Jennie> ...The last 2 documents would technically be in the same document
15:49:18 <JF> +1 to Gregg
15:49:24 <Jennie> Rachael: I am not sure they would look like too documents
15:49:30 <Jennie> GreggVan: filtered.
15:49:34 <Fazio> This is getting way too overcomplivated. We're going to have mass confusion
15:49:41 <Jennie> ...A realtime compilation
15:49:46 <Jennie> Rachael: OK, I will add it to the list
15:50:09 <Jennie> GreggVan: then you would only have 2 documents to maintain
15:50:15 <Jennie> ...But would also allow for a sandbox
15:50:21 <Jennie> ...You would like as editors to the full sandbox
15:50:29 <Jennie> Rachael: I am not sure how we would do that, but ok
15:50:50 <Fazio> "sandbox" term gives me the impression that it is an editable document
15:50:55 <Jennie> MichaelC: We can make it happen, but my reaction right now is that how we achieve this should not be the focus of the conversation
15:51:08 <alastairc> q?
15:51:12 <Rachael> straw poll (all options include marking): Option 1) Three documents with differing levels of consensus, Option 2) Two documents but rename both document and link with warning, Option 3) Two documents with warning on editors draft 4) no change 5) Three documents with filtered content
15:51:12 <Jennie> GreggVan: One of the arguments earlier was how much work it would be to maintain
15:51:45 <Fazio> 4
15:51:46 <Wilco> Options 2, 3, or 4
15:51:47 <sajkaj> +1 to option 4
15:51:47 <alastairc> 2, could live with 3 or 5
15:51:48 <jeanne> 3 or 4
15:51:50 <mbgower> 1-5
15:51:53 <JF> In preferred order, 1, 5
15:51:56 <david-macdonald> Gregg's filtered
15:51:58 <garrison> 3 or 4
15:52:04 <AWK> 1, 5, 4 in order
15:52:05 <ShawnT> 2,3 or 5
15:52:08 <Jaunita_George> 2, 3 or 5
15:52:09 <Lauriat> 3 or 4, could live with 2
15:52:12 <JakeAbma> 1 5 4 also
15:52:14 <Detlev> can live with any - want to move beyond meta discussion
15:52:15 <kirkwood> 3 or 5
15:52:16 <jenniferS> 3
15:52:17 <GreggVan> option 5 --  only one document to maintian -- but public sees   Editors and Sandbox  versions
15:52:25 <laura_> Prefer option #1, Can live with option #2,
15:52:25 <Rain> 3 or 4
15:52:31 <bruce_bailey> 3 , but 2 or 5 good too
15:52:36 <Breixo> all ok for me
15:52:48 <MelanieP> 1 5
15:53:06 <Rachael> TOPIC: Process approval
15:53:15 <Jennie> Rachael: The process approval - these questions are all interrelated
15:53:21 <Jennie> ...Going to the survey
15:53:32 <bruce_bailey> 4 or 1 also akay with me , just not my preference
15:53:35 <Jennie> ...4 agree, 4 agree with changes, 2 disagree
15:54:09 <Jennie> ...People with agreement with changes: Rain said it would be helpful to see how those accommodations will be managed.
15:54:19 <Jennie> Rain: no need to add anything further.
15:54:27 <Jennie> Rachael: (reads Laura's comment)
15:54:32 <Jennie> Laura: that's it, thanks.
15:54:56 <Jennie> Rachael: (reads Cybele's comment)
15:56:04 <Jennie> ...Cybele is not here to comment further
15:56:14 <Fazio> MM?
15:56:15 <Jennie> Rachael: The maturity model is in the schedule
15:56:24 <Jennie> ...There are 2 people who disagreed
15:56:39 <Jennie> ...Greg, but then said it can work with changes made to make it clear what is going on
15:56:47 <Fazio> What about the Maturity Model?
15:56:52 <Jennie> ...(reads from Gregg's comment)
15:58:11 <Jennie> GreggVan: I think this coupled with the idea of having the split between the sandbox and others as a path going forward
15:58:15 <alastairc> q+ to speak (later) about including placeholders in the WD
15:58:38 <Jennie> ...Key point: things show up in the working draft when things are getting more mature, to help people identify them (to distinguish from acceptable)
15:58:46 <Jennie> Rachael: Did I miss anyone's comments?
15:58:59 <Jennie> AWK: this question is very related to the previous one
15:59:02 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Gregg comment wrt to word choice of "mature"
15:59:20 <Jennie> ...I would say if the process is adopted I certainly will use it, whether or not it is the one I want
15:59:35 <Jennie> ...I think we need to carefully define the process for removing something from the editor's document
15:59:42 <Jennie> ...Otherwise it will be a very heavy document
15:59:45 <JF> +1 to AWK
15:59:51 <alastairc> From the process page: "In order to be included in the final Candidate Recommendation (CR), content must be at the Stable level. By default, anything else that has not reached Stable will be removed before moving on to CR."
15:59:52 <GreggVan> q+
16:00:06 <Jennie> ...We should remove the things that are unneeded and get back to something more manageable in size
16:00:11 <Jennie> *Scribe change?
16:00:33 <Jennie> Rachael: I have 4 topics for discussion
16:00:41 <Rachael> Topics for discussion: How do we remove content, relabeling levels, Changing Editor's Notes, When does content go into the editor's or working draft
16:00:49 <GreggVan> q+ to say things should have to progress at some point or they are referred back to subgroup for further work
16:00:50 <Jennie> Rachael: We have 5 more minutes for these conversations
16:01:02 <Jennie> ...Let's talk about relabeling levels
16:01:02 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:01:02 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak (later) about including placeholders in the WD
16:01:16 <Jennie> Alastairc: Speaking to Gregg's comments about placeholders in the working draft
16:01:28 <Jennie> ...We have lots of guidelines showing those as placeholders
16:01:39 <Jennie> ...That is very useful for showing the shape of the document as a whole
16:01:49 <JF> Q+
16:01:52 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:01:52 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say things should have to progress at some point or they are referred back to subgroup for further work
16:01:53 <Jennie> ...There is a good reason, but for that part of the process we would have to agree to put those placeholders in
16:02:29 <Jennie> GreggVan: We should probably have something in there to say that if something is in the sandbox and it doesn't progress over a long time, it naturally comes out without requiring a vote
16:02:39 <alastairc> We did include that anything not stable does not make it to CR
16:02:42 <Jennie> ...Then it could be referred back ot the working group
16:03:02 <Jennie> ...It would allow things to get in easier, but without the worry that it would not get out
16:03:04 <Rachael> ack JF
16:03:18 <Jennie> JF: I think Alastair identified the problem for me - we need to agree to get the placeholders in
16:03:34 <Jennie> ...I see content coming in from subgroups, then it comes to the larger group and we get pushback
16:03:50 <Jennie> ...At what point will it go into the document without broad consensus from the larger group?
16:03:53 <Rachael> q=
16:03:53 <alastairc> q+
16:03:55 <Rachael> q+
16:03:59 <Rachael> ack Rachael
16:04:14 <Jennie> ...It is not how many documents it is when does something get added? When and where do we measure consensus for what can be publicly read
16:04:56 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:04:57 <JF> The general public does not know or care about W3C process, they go look to see what
16:04:58 <Jennie> Alastairc: we do say that if something does not reach stable, it will be dropped. We could add that in terms of things not going through - about it automatically getting dropped after a period of time
16:05:01 <JF> s happening
16:05:11 <Jennie> * Rachael Scribe change?
16:05:33 <Jennie> Alastairc: we can lower the bar. We could have a shared version we do not send out for public feedback
16:05:45 <Jennie> ...We should be more confident as a group that we could put things in it.
16:05:55 <Jennie> ...If it doesn't at least get to mature, it is going to come out anyway.
16:05:57 <JF> which is why I asked about restricting a view to the WG - the pre-concensus stage
16:06:03 <Jennie> *Rachael on mute?
16:06:16 <GreggVan> +q  if we have the 3 public doc format   (working,  editors, sandbox)  then I think that things can stay in sandbox and proceed as alistair suggests
16:06:27 <GreggVan> ok
16:06:28 <Rachael> zakim, close q
16:06:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close q', Rachael
16:06:44 <jeanne> zakim, close the queue
16:06:44 <Zakim> ok, jeanne, the speaker queue is closed
16:07:36 <mbgower> sorry, my RSI just can't handle today, and I've lost my SR technology
16:08:16 <alastairc> zakim, pick a victim
16:08:16 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jaunita_George
16:08:36 <Wilco> scribe: Wilco
16:08:43 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
16:08:43 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance (1 new question added) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:09:10 <Wilco> TOPIC: Focus appearance
16:09:15 <Rachael> TOPIC: Use of the word “state” is not sufficiently consistent #2049
16:09:25 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2049
16:09:52 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:09:55 <Wilco> Rachael: Bruce raised this issue, regarding how the word "state" works with 4.1.2. The question whether to update the text should avoid the word state, or leave it as is.
16:10:17 <Wilco> ... [reading comments]
16:10:53 <bruce_bailey> i agree with rain
16:11:41 <bruce_bailey> i agree with that comment too !
16:12:09 <bruce_bailey> m.gower
16:12:39 <alastairc> I think the lack of link to the definition of state was just the editorial style of only linking the first instance, although it's before my time
16:12:40 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:13:37 <Wilco> ... Don't know if I'll raise an objection. Will to share this is the sort of thing, why Access Board should take its time adopting 2.2.
16:13:56 <JF> +1 to Bruce
16:14:00 <Wilco> ... Shifting defined terms is a problem. In my reading this is more about presentation.
16:14:18 <Wilco> ... I don't understand why we'd take the risk.
16:14:24 <GreggVan> q+
16:14:40 <Rachael> Topics: Concern of ambiguity, risk of shifting definitions
16:14:45 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:15:06 <alastairc> q+ to say that focus is a state
16:15:20 <Wilco> Gregg: Agree with Bruce, between states is a very technical term. In this case I don't see a need for using the term.
16:15:59 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:15:59 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that focus is a state
16:15:59 <Wilco> ... I think it's a good change, and a non-technical wording of a non-technical issue.
16:16:35 <mbgower> q+ to say I'm not sure unfocused is a state
16:16:35 <Wilco> Alastair: Don't understand why it's redefining things. State has a dictionary definition, so I don't see the problem.
16:16:41 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:16:41 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'm not sure unfocused is a state
16:16:52 <Fazio> objection to reading level = plain language
16:17:33 <Wilco> Mike: I'm not sure that "unfocused" is actually a state, maybe everything has an explicit unfocused state. There is no "focus equals false" state.
16:17:56 <Wilco> ... It's a non-trivial task. We've had 2.1 with this kind of problem as well.
16:17:56 <Fazio> If an ordinary dictionary meaning works than it should be ok
16:18:08 <Wilco> ... I don't think changing the wording will address the problems I see with it.
16:18:22 <mbgower> s/explicit/implicit
16:18:40 <Wilco> Rachael: Let start with a straw poll.
16:18:46 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) updating the wording to avoid state 2) option 2 leaving it alone 3) deep dive into the term "state"
16:18:47 <GreggVan> 1 -   Contrast: The area has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 between the colors when the component is focused and when it is not focused.
16:18:52 <Fazio> 2
16:18:53 <david-macdonald> +1 (I think we need to listen to access board
16:18:58 <alastairc> 2
16:18:58 <ShawnT> 2
16:18:59 <bruce_bailey> 1
16:19:04 <Rain> 2
16:19:14 <JF> 1
16:19:22 <OliverK> OliverK has joined #ag
16:19:22 <Francis_Storr> 1
16:19:23 <mbgower> s/"focus equals false"/focus="false"
16:19:23 <Breixo> 2
16:19:23 <Wilco> 1
16:19:24 <JakeAbma> 1
16:19:35 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:19:36 <mbgower> 2
16:19:39 <Fazio> Access Board is just 1 of many entities in the world
16:19:49 <mbgower> or 3 (but post-wcag 2.2)
16:20:03 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
16:20:11 <StefanS> present+
16:20:13 <Wilco> Rachael: We may have an even split
16:20:31 <Francis_Storr> (I'd also be happy with 3)
16:20:38 <JF> @Fazio, true, but without broad adoption it becomes fiction of the worst kind
16:20:57 <bruce_bailey> i do regret not being able to articulate my deeply felt concern in the GitHub issue
16:20:57 <mbgower> q+
16:21:14 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:21:27 <Wilco> Mike: We have something in the editors draft now. Unless we have consensus to change it, leaving it as is is the default action?
16:21:32 <Rachael> Who can not live with leaving it as it is?
16:21:35 <Wilco> Rachael: Yes
16:22:28 <mbgower> q+ to say can we send it for another draft?
16:23:04 <alastairc> Contrast: The area has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 between the colors when the component is focused and when not focused.
16:23:09 <Wilco> Mike: My suggestion would be, Bruce to take away what he's heard and come up with a proposal.
16:23:14 <Fazio> paste it?
16:23:17 <kirkwood> can we put the exact proposed language of Aliatairs  in IRC?
16:23:25 <alastairc> it was, just above
16:23:35 <Wilco> Bruce: Alastair has a proposed version, it's a little more awkward, but I don't think it's that big of a change.
16:23:56 <mbgower> Sure, i can live with that.
16:24:00 <GreggVan> Q+ to say -- isnt the normal process is to ask the  "can live with"  to the opposite direction?
16:24:07 <GreggVan> q-
16:24:10 <mbgower> q-
16:24:17 <Wilco> Rachael: Anyone who can not live with that wording?
16:24:34 <GreggVan> right
16:24:41 <Fazio> I feel like it makes the same point
16:25:14 <Wilco> Alastair: 4.1.2 doesn't link to "state" as a definition, was that an editorial decision?
16:25:42 <mbgower> Sure, that's fine. I can live with it.
16:25:46 <alastairc> I can live with it.
16:26:17 <Wilco> Gregg: If it's the first instance, it should have been linked. That's an editorial oversight.
16:26:32 <david-macdonald> I can live with it
16:26:44 <Wilco> Rachael: Can anyone not live with the revised wording?
16:27:04 <bruce_bailey> as noted on GitHub issues , i agree use of "state" in 4.1.2 should be linked to defined term
16:27:15 <Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Adopt the revised wording "Contrast: The area has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 between the colors when the component is focused and when not focused."
16:27:20 <GreggVan> +1
16:27:24 <Wilco> 0
16:27:24 <jenniferS> +1
16:27:27 <mbgower> +1
16:27:27 <JF> +1
16:27:28 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:27:34 <Fazio> I can live with it
16:27:37 <ShawnT> +1
16:27:45 <kirkwood> +1
16:27:47 <Rain> 0 I can live with it
16:27:49 <Rachael> 0
16:27:52 <JakeAbma> 0
16:28:32 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
16:28:49 <alastairc> +1 to make progress.
16:29:18 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION: Adopt the revised wording "Contrast: The area has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 between the colors when the component is focused and when not focused
16:29:30 <Rachael> TOPIC: Focus indicators for large editing areas #2017
16:29:50 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2081/
16:29:50 <bruce_bailey> See PR link
16:30:08 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Discussed earlier
16:30:43 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  A few week ago, we talked about situation with something like Google Doc where there is a very large editing pane...
16:31:26 <bruce_bailey> ... we did not want to add an exception, since that complicates a longer SC
16:32:06 <bruce_bailey> ... we had further discussion and decided we could better address by a little different scoping in the phrasing
16:32:43 <Rachael> q?
16:32:45 <bruce_bailey> ... link provide in earlier version of survey was corrected Friday.
16:33:16 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads one editorial comment regarding "insertion point"
16:33:22 <GreggVan> insertion indicator
16:33:43 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower:  I am happy to take action item, propose a new PR.
16:33:59 <bruce_bailey> ... insertion point is hard to replace, but i can add a bit more description
16:34:20 <Rachael> Propsed RESOLUTION: Adopt PR with slight addition to be made by Mike to explain insertion point
16:34:32 <mbgower> +1
16:34:33 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  I would like to vote as-is, and an editorial improvement can be accepted later
16:34:40 <alastairc> +1
16:34:40 <Breixo> +1
16:34:41 <Rain> +1
16:34:45 <jenniferS> +1
16:34:48 <JakeAbma> +1
16:34:48 <Rachael> +1
16:34:51 <kirkwood> +1
16:34:53 <ShawnT> +1
16:34:57 <JF> +1
16:35:12 <david-macdonald> +1
16:35:19 <GreggVan> + 0   not fully grasping to abstaining
16:35:35 <GreggVan> so abstaining
16:35:39 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION: Adopt PR with slight addition to be made by Mike to explain insertion point
16:35:48 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Visible controls (questions added) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results
16:35:54 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
16:35:54 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- WCAG 2.2 Visible controls (questions added) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:35:58 <GreggVan> that is what happens when you keep focus ....
16:36:11 <Rachael> TOPIC: Exception may not align with understanding text #1980
16:36:13 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  this Visible Controls..
16:36:27 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1990
16:36:40 <bruce_bailey> ...1st topic is that exception may not align with other content, pls see PR which addresses
16:36:56 <bruce_bailey> ... 13 agree, 3 requests for adjustment
16:37:29 <bruce_bailey> ... bruce has reply to Gudalu which we might com back too
16:38:00 <bruce_bailey> ... JF had accept with adjustment
16:38:05 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Please see comment.
16:38:48 <bruce_bailey> s/Gudalu/Gundula/
16:39:07 <david-macdonald> There is an exception for skip links
16:39:10 <bruce_bailey> JF:  It is not clear how to provide cues to UI which is hidden
16:39:33 <alastairc> q+ to speak to skip links
16:39:47 <david-macdonald> q+
16:39:58 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  reads Oliver comment verbatim, paraphrase is that this is not a best practice
16:40:41 <bruce_bailey> Oliver:  as a signted keyboard user, a common approach with web pages is to make an estimate how many tabs to press to get to content...
16:40:59 <bruce_bailey> with an invisible skip nav link, that can really throw a user off
16:41:47 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Gundula comment:  <li>If the control is to enhance keyboard navigation. For example, a link that skips from the top of the page to the navigation could become visible only on focus.</li>
16:41:57 <JF> Q+
16:42:12 <Rachael> Topics: Remove/replace skip link example, difficulty with hidden controls
16:42:23 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Bruce comment was to Gundula, and a skip nav link being invisible is common pattern
16:42:28 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:42:28 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to skip links
16:42:31 <GreggVan> q+
16:43:22 <bruce_bailey> AlastairC:  I agree that invisible skip nav links are somewhat problematic, and we have discussed that before, but is a bit OT for this SC...
16:43:36 <OliverK> q+
16:43:40 <Rachael> ack david-macdonald
16:44:11 <bruce_bailey> ... this SC is oriented to mouse-over hover behavior.  So the exception is important and would not be appropriate to just not include it.
16:44:53 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  removing exception threatens this SC, because of its long history and appreciation by screen reader community
16:45:29 <alastairc> If people wish to ban skip-links, please raise a separate issue...
16:45:39 <bruce_bailey> ... some of the large companies I have worked with are very reluctant to include visible "skip to main content" link at the very top of the page
16:46:14 <Rachael> ack JF
16:46:28 <bruce_bailey> ... between these two audience, and threat to skip nav, this is a risk
16:47:27 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Gundula is not on the call at the moment, so I will reach out to her, see if she want to raise a new issue.
16:47:41 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:48:04 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1990/files
16:48:35 <mbgower> This is the Understanding document.
16:48:36 <bruce_bailey> JF:  I appreciate Oliver's lived experience as a sighted keyboard user, but I can't understand how you might accurately routinely estimate the number of tabs stops
16:49:00 <bruce_bailey> Gregg:  Is this SC text or Understanding change?
16:49:41 <bruce_bailey> AlastairC:  PR is just for Understanding -- but that is because issue was raised that there was conflict with SC text.
16:49:43 <Rachael> q?
16:49:50 <Rachael> ack OliverK
16:50:13 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Please submit PR for SC text if you can.
16:50:24 <alastairc> q+
16:50:34 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:50:58 <bruce_bailey> Oliver:  I am not proposing that we change SC text, I am just asking that we not include SkipLink as example.
16:51:35 <Rachael> q?
16:51:43 <bruce_bailey> AlastairC:  We had people reading this new SC as banning hidden skip nav links, so without example, readers are left with that impression.
16:52:13 <bruce_bailey> ... we need to have Skip Nav example in Understanding, else we can expect much confussion.
16:52:44 <Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1990 and adjust other areas as needed
16:52:47 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I think we have addressed all comments, less JF comment on hidden controls, which is a different topic.
16:52:54 <ShawnT> +1
16:52:54 <OliverK> +1
16:52:58 <Rain> +1
16:52:59 <GreggVan> +1
16:53:03 <alastairc> +1
16:53:03 <Breixo> +1
16:53:05 <Rachael> +1
16:53:13 <JakeAbma> +1
16:53:18 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:53:26 <jenniferS> +1
16:53:29 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1990 and adjust other areas as needed
16:53:41 <Rachael> TOPIC: The first exception is difficult to understand #1760
16:54:22 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  suggestion in issue is for rewrite
16:54:27 <Rachael> Proposed response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1760#issuecomment-831552189
16:54:45 <bruce_bailey> AlastairC:  There is a proposed response, but that is only to this example.
16:55:08 <bruce_bailey> ... There is movement to rewrite , just not this exact suggestion.
16:55:31 <bruce_bailey> ...The rewrite is open.
16:55:43 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads comments from survey.
16:56:05 <JF> Q+ to note I pointed out a concern as well in my response
16:56:25 <Rachael> ack JF
16:56:25 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note I pointed out a concern as well in my response
16:56:32 <bruce_bailey> 12 agree, 4 with adjustment
16:56:55 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Please see that I include discprency, see my final comment survey
16:57:32 <bruce_bailey> JF:  But information needed to identify controls must be visible when the controls are needed >>without hover interaction or keyboard focus.<<
16:57:46 <Rachael> q?
16:57:47 <bruce_bailey> ... that says one cannot use hidden skip nav !
16:58:17 <GreggVan> q+ to say  "the exception does not need to start with same words.  -- I think the exception should be  "Unless the controls are just a shortcut and are also available in an accessible manner that the user will encounter
16:58:28 <Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept the response and address the issues raised in issue #1840
16:58:54 <bruce_bailey> Gregg:  I think we can say in a simplier way
16:59:31 <bruce_bailey> ... the shortcut we want to expose are exposed.  Hover exposes shortcut.  Command-Option-G could be a shortcut...
17:00:07 <bruce_bailey> ... command keys are not visible.  Some short cuts are not visually obvious, and that is okay.
17:00:24 <bruce_bailey> ... double click is another example we would not prohibit
17:00:29 <OliverK> present
17:00:32 <OliverK> present+
17:00:48 <Rachael> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:00:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/02-ag-minutes.html Rachael
17:01:09 <bruce_bailey> we will tackle this question at the top of the next call
17:01:44 <sajkaj> sajkaj has left #ag
17:01:56 <Rachael> trackbot end meeting
17:01:56 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:01:56 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Jennie, shadi, Rachael, ShawnT, sajkaj, Aimee_U, Jen_G, Lauriat, jeanne, Fazio, kirkwood, Detlev, alastairc, bruce_bailey, JF, Breixo,
17:01:59 <Zakim> ... GreggVan, AWK, garrison, MelanieP, mbgower, Laura_Carlson, Rain, JakeAbma, Francis_Storr, jon_avila, Nicaise, jenniferS, Jaunita_George, david-macdonald, Joshue, KarenHerr,
17:01:59 <Zakim> ... StefanS, OliverK
17:02:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/02-ag-minutes.html trackbot
17:02:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:02:05 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2021/11/02-ag-actions.rdf :
17:02:05 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Rachael, work out how best to clearly state issues, needs, etc and link to github [1]
17:02:05 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2021/11/02-ag-irc#T15-35-37