15:39:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:39:46 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/30-ag-irc
15:39:53 <Rachael> zakim, start meeting
15:39:53 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:39:54 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:39:59 <Rachael> rrsagent, make logs world
15:40:15 <Rachael> Agenda+ new members and topics
15:40:23 <Rachael> Agenda+ Tip of the Week
15:40:31 <Rachael> Agenda+ Reminders
15:40:48 <Rachael> Agenda+ Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes (Wilco 30 min)
15:40:56 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 3.0 Requirements https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG3_requirements/results
15:42:10 <Rachael> agenda+ ACT New Rules https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act_nov_10/results
15:42:27 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results
15:44:11 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Dragging https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results
15:44:14 <Rachael> agenda?
15:51:46 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has joined #ag
15:53:34 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
15:54:55 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
15:55:04 <Chuck> present+
15:55:16 <Rachael> present+
15:55:39 <Chuck> agenda?
15:55:41 <ToddLibby> present+
15:56:14 <alastairc> present+
15:56:54 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:57:27 <laura_> laura_ has joined #ag
15:58:20 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #ag
15:58:26 <Wilco_> present+
15:58:56 <laura_> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:59:07 <Fazio> present+
15:59:09 <laura_> Scribe: Laura
15:59:09 <janina_> janina_ has joined #ag
15:59:12 <janina_> present+
15:59:20 <ShawnT> present+
16:00:06 <laura_> laura_ has left #ag
16:00:16 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:00:23 <Jen_G> Present+
16:00:45 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
16:00:50 <Rain> present+
16:01:07 <JF> JF has joined #ag
16:01:11 <JF> agenda?
16:01:15 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
16:01:16 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- new members and topics -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:01:19 <JF> Present+
16:01:35 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:01:36 <ToddLibby> q+
16:01:37 <laura> RM: Any new members?
16:01:38 <JakeAbma> present+
16:01:42 <Rachael> ack ToddLibby
16:02:02 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
16:02:08 <Lauriat> Present+
16:02:16 <laura> Todd: I left knowability.
16:02:28 <garrison> garrison has joined #ag
16:02:28 <Rachael> q?
16:02:39 <laura> RM: Any new topics?
16:02:41 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas
16:02:48 <garrison> present+
16:02:50 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:02:54 <MelanieP> present+
16:03:01 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
16:03:04 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:03:07 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 2
16:03:07 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Tip of the Week -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:03:09 <Caryn> Caryn has joined #ag
16:03:18 <shadi> present+
16:03:33 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:03:40 <sarahhorton> present+
16:03:48 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:04:04 <laura> Ac: tip of the week. If in zoom,  you can create a global shortcut to mute and to unmute.
16:05:01 <laura> ... can toggle it. And pick your own keyboard shortcut.
16:05:02 <Rachael> q?
16:05:10 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:05:14 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
16:05:17 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:05:32 <laura> JS: Command shift A on Mac does the same thing.
16:05:47 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 3
16:05:47 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Reminders -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:06:10 <Rachael> group-ag-plan@w3.org
16:06:18 <kirkwood> present+
16:06:19 <GreggVan> present+
16:06:25 <laura> RM: if any subgroup is ready to present,  let the chairs know.
16:06:46 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:06:48 <laura> ... subgroups need members,  ask chairs.
16:07:16 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/fdb72858-31c8-4507-b12b-c72a3fcafdaa
16:07:18 <laura> ... this Friday, special meeting on 2.2. Please complete the survey.
16:07:24 <laura> ... https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/fdb72858-31c8-4507-b12b-c72a3fcafdaa
16:07:26 <jeanne> present+
16:07:30 <ToddLibby> q+
16:07:37 <Judy> Judy has joined #ag
16:07:49 <Rachael> surveys at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas#December_3rd_-_WCAG_2.2_issues
16:08:02 <Rachael> ack ToddLibby
16:08:06 <laura> AC: More surveys  at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2021OctDec/0130.html
16:08:37 <laura> Tl: can't access the surveys because of  status.
16:08:49 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 4
16:08:49 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes (Wilco 30 min) -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:08:52 <laura> rm: we will take care of it.
16:09:01 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sugAtqie_x1XqHDZo1Im7ftDNllWeRV_ty4PULeoTV0/edit#heading=h.q6kvhdps0qv4
16:09:53 <laura> Wilco: silver reliability TF was formed to write methods and outcomes consistently.
16:10:14 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #ag
16:10:14 <laura> ... methods to become ACT rules.
16:10:17 <Jaunita_George> Present+
16:10:42 <laura> ... document for the process that we can follow.
16:11:19 <laura> ... begins with a Brief outline
16:11:41 <laura> ... It addresses a clear user need. There is little to no room for interpretation. It is quick and inexpensive to test (possibly using tools). It is easy to learn.
16:12:42 <laura> ... Why Testability Matters.  Many roads just have a speed limit.
16:12:52 <AUbbink> AUbbink has joined #ag
16:12:57 <laura> ... WCAG 2's strong emphasis on testability is part of what made it so appealing for organizations to adopt.
16:13:05 <AUbbink> present+
16:13:13 <laura> ... Writing testable outcomes is a highly iterative process.
16:13:34 <laura> ... takes dozens of iterations before an outcome is good enough.
16:13:40 <Judy> present+
16:14:03 <laura> ... Come up with examples and edge cases
16:14:22 <laura> ... Step 2 is to create a rough outline of the outcome
16:14:52 <laura> ... Step 3 is to  define the terms used in the rough outline.
16:15:34 <laura> ... Step 4 is to simplify where you can.  There are several things that can be done to make an outcome easier to learn, and easier to test.
16:15:59 <laura> Step 5 is to complete the How to & methods
16:16:16 <laura> Step 6 is to get feedback, and iterate
16:16:28 <Rachael> q?
16:16:46 <laura> ... Additional examples / edge cases.  Change categorization of particular examples. Requests to adjust any ambiguity, subjectiveness, or nuance.
16:16:54 <GreggVan> q+ to ask  "should there be a step that checks for inter-evaluator agreement?"
16:17:08 <JakeAbma> q+
16:17:49 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:17:49 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask  "should there be a step that checks for inter-evaluator agreement?"
16:18:03 <laura> Gv: this is really good.
16:18:46 <laura> ... Is it missing a step on inter-evaluator agreement?
16:19:20 <jeanne> q+ to say qualitative and subjective and identifying user needs
16:19:30 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma
16:19:32 <laura> Wilco: that is part of the definitions in step 3. Leave a comment in the doc.
16:19:57 <laura> jake: question on testability.
16:20:26 <laura> ... for WCAG 3 coga needs more subjectivity.
16:20:26 <JF> Q+
16:20:40 <Fazio> I like that quote. Nice Jake
16:20:57 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:21:04 <AWK> +AWK
16:21:12 <laura> ... how to cope with things that can't be counted objectively?
16:21:29 <Rachael> ack jeanne
16:21:29 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say qualitative and subjective and identifying user needs
16:21:35 <laura> Wilco: will answer that soon.'
16:22:30 <laura> JS: this doc is about how to write guidelines. User needs must be identified first.
16:22:36 <Rachael> q?
16:22:53 <laura> ... continue to iterate.
16:23:26 <Rachael> ack JF
16:23:52 <laura> Jf: protocols will try to address some of that.
16:24:15 <Fazio> There are some official COGA SC's too though
16:24:24 <laura> ... protocols reinforces best practice. Looking for help.
16:24:32 <Fazio> those wouldn't be protocols
16:24:59 <laura> wilco: Testing Qualitative Aspects. WCAG3 tries to take the qualitative question of “How accessible is it?” and turns it into the quantitative measurement. In doing that, it takes an unbound quality like “accessibility” and constrains it in a way that can be quantified.
16:25:35 <Fazio> visual contrast now :)
16:25:39 <laura> ... what text to be legible by measuring contrast.
16:26:17 <laura> ... look for indicators that we can measure as part of the requirements.
16:26:47 <laura> ... Handling Ambiguity and Subjectivity.
16:27:06 <laura> ... An outcome is ambiguous when there is more than one way to explain what it means. An example of ambiguity is the word “heading”.
16:27:10 <Fazio> ambiguity typically favors a plaintiff that wasn't involved in drafting the language
16:27:25 <laura> ... Someone might take that to mean anything that is visually presented as a heading. Another person might decide that something is a heading because of its markup, or because of the function.
16:28:14 <laura> ... Subjectivity is different from ambiguity, in that an ambiguous outcome is one where the meaning can be disputed, a subjective outcome is one where the degree to which is met can be a matter of opinion.
16:28:53 <laura> ... Soundness of Outcomes: want outcomes that work.
16:29:07 <laura> ... images need a text alternative.
16:29:27 <laura> ... need to document.
16:29:45 <jeanne> q+ to say that rubrics are included as a possible solution to subjective
16:29:58 <laura> ... plain language is an example.
16:30:16 <laura> ... count words or letters.
16:30:28 <laura> .. count common words.
16:30:39 <laura> ... different metrics that you can use.
16:31:06 <Rachael> ack jeanne
16:31:06 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that rubrics are included as a possible solution to subjective
16:31:08 <JF> Q+
16:32:04 <laura> JS: In the subjectivity section is alternatives for binary  tests.
16:33:06 <laura> ... narrow down subjectivity by good better best, rubric solutions.
16:33:20 <JF> ack me
16:33:25 <laura> Wilco: How Nuanced Should Outcomes Be?
16:33:54 <laura> ... example on contrast. 4.5 or 3 in WCAG 2X
16:33:55 <JF> and 7:1 @ AAA
16:34:35 <laura> ... will be a challenge. It will be negotiated.
16:34:44 <Rachael> q?
16:34:46 <GreggVan> q+ to say "I think you might also include a step that says --  demonstrate how that the provision can be successfully applied across a spectrum of the pages on the web (that the provision would be applieed to) covering a wide variety of page types and content  (from children’s to scientific, from information to e-commerce, from verbal to visual, from functional to artistic).  RATIONALE: Before we create a guideline that could be applied across
16:34:46 <GreggVan>  all web content - we should be sure the WE know how to apply it across the spectrum of pages on the web
16:35:08 <laura> Rm: will survey this next week.
16:35:14 <JF> Q+
16:35:37 <laura> wilco: will work with other groups to try this out. Survey would be great.
16:35:53 <laura> ... this is an internal doc.
16:36:04 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:36:04 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "I think you might also include a step that says --  demonstrate how that the provision can be successfully applied across a spectrum of the pages on
16:36:07 <Zakim> ... the web (that the provision would be applieed to) covering a wide variety of page types and content  (from children’s to scientific, from information to e-commerce, from
16:36:07 <Zakim> ... verbal to visual, from functional to artistic).  RATIONALE: Before we create a guideline that could be applied across
16:36:44 <laura> Gv:  think you might also include a step that says --  demonstrate how that the provision can be successfully applied across a spectrum of the pages on the web (that the provision would be applieed to) covering a wide variety of page types and content  (from children’s to scientific, from information to e-commerce, from verbal to visual, from functional to artistic).
16:37:06 <laura> Wilco: agree.
16:37:33 <laura> Gv: could be in the simplify section.
16:37:56 <Rachael> ack JF
16:37:58 <laura> wilco: that is section 4.
16:38:24 <laura> Jf: rubrics have not been agreed to by the WG.
16:38:41 <laura> ... it is an open question.
16:39:00 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 5
16:39:00 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- WCAG 3.0 Requirements https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG3_requirements/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:39:42 <laura> RM: Issue 242 suggests changing the word web to the word digital to align the scope in the abstract.
16:39:45 <GreggVan> Q+
16:39:45 <Rachael> TOPIC: Request to change web to digital in Abstract
16:39:55 <laura> : RM: Issue 242 suggests changing the word web to the word digital to align the scope in the abstract.
16:39:57 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/243/files
16:40:08 <laura> ... The suggester drafted PR 243.
16:40:33 <laura> ... 8 Agreed with the change.
16:41:06 <laura> ... wilco agree with change with some adjustments.
16:41:22 <laura> ... 7 Something else.
16:41:35 <laura> ( reads comments)
16:43:22 <laura> Gv: should have a disagree option. And a way to comment.
16:43:46 <Judy> q+
16:43:58 <Wilco_> q+
16:44:02 <laura> ... Judy made a comment  "not quite". Getting fuzzier.
16:44:42 <laura> ... turn to Judy  to get her thoughts. Can't walk outside of our charter.
16:44:53 <laura> ... Need to understand.
16:45:40 <Judy> q?
16:46:19 <GreggVan> q-
16:46:38 <laura> MP: changing to digital not in lie with out charter.
16:47:27 <Jaunita_George> q+
16:47:33 <laura> s/in lie/in line/
16:48:13 <laura> awk: will cause charter challenges.
16:49:12 <Rachael> themes: charter concerns, alternative is to leave as is and use response
16:49:14 <Rachael> q?
16:50:06 <Rachael> ack Judy
16:50:16 <laura> Judy: need to not claim outside of charter. Concerned with just web content. We are doing far more than that.
16:50:51 <laura> ... there were objections to a broad scope.
16:51:19 <laura> ... but we are working on many kinds of technologies.
16:51:38 <laura> .. we should be careful.
16:51:48 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
16:52:03 <laura> ... history form the charter. Don't be broader or narrower.
16:52:11 <Judy> q+
16:52:19 <Judy> qq+
16:52:34 <laura> wilco: are things like emulators in scope?
16:52:40 <GreggVan> q+
16:52:51 <Rachael> ack Judy
16:52:51 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to react to Wilco_
16:53:25 <laura> Judy: Dom did a interesting thing with web in mobile.
16:53:58 <laura> ... there is a whole continuum of things. It is all relevant.
16:54:20 <Rachael> ack juan
16:54:26 <Rachael> ack Jaunita_George
16:54:27 <laura> ... discourage mixing platform and content.
16:54:28 <Judy> q-
16:55:19 <laura> Jg: we not making laws for governments. But it is applied to other things.
16:56:00 <laura> ... harder for organizations to adopt if not expanded.
16:56:19 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:56:28 <Fazio> Wow. This conversation is so confusing I'm getting dizzy
16:56:28 <laura> ... definition may need to evolve.
16:56:55 <laura> Gv: used to be defined by a web page rendered in a browser.
16:57:04 <Wilco_> q+
16:57:06 <alastairc> q+ to try to resolve the issue raised.
16:57:26 <Fazio> That would be great, but yeah complicated
16:57:29 <AWK> +1 to Gregg.
16:57:30 <laura> ... all digital apple to my watch, washing machine, car.
16:57:55 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
16:57:56 <laura> s/apple to/apply to/
16:57:58 <Fazio> If you think in terms of the Boeing crashes, perhaps it would be best if we applied wcag
16:58:53 <laura> Wilco: native apps can render web. Could consider the opposite.
16:59:29 <Fazio> Can't we publish Notes on how to apply to non web digital?
16:59:41 <laura> ac: follow are charter. But allow to use it to be used for native.
16:59:44 <Fazio> Notes aren't official standards
16:59:59 <Rachael> straw poll: Option 1) Leave it as is and respond per Alastair's suggestion 2) Change it to web technologies throughout and create new response 3) Something else
17:00:11 <laura> ... better define web technologies.
17:00:11 <JF> Q+
17:00:18 <Rachael> ack alastairc
17:00:18 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to try to resolve the issue raised.
17:00:22 <alastairc> ack me
17:01:06 <Rachael> ack JF
17:01:35 <Rachael> straw poll: Option 1) Leave it as is and respond per Alastair's suggestion 2) Change it to web technologies throughout, create definition of this, and create new response 3) Something else
17:01:40 <GreggVan> q+
17:01:44 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
17:01:46 <laura> Jf: +1 to getting a definition of web technologies
17:02:04 <Rachael> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/ja0oF8g8/
17:02:18 <Rachael> straw poll: Option 1) Leave it as is and respond per Alastair's suggestion 2) Change it to web technologies throughout, create definition of this, and create new response 3) Something else
17:02:23 <Wilco_> 2
17:02:25 <Fazio> 0
17:02:26 <GreggVan> 1
17:02:27 <Judy> 2
17:02:28 <ShawnT> 2
17:02:33 <Chuck> 2
17:02:34 <jeanne> option 1, can live with 2
17:02:34 <MelanieP> 1
17:02:34 <alastairc> 1 then 2
17:02:37 <Rain> 2
17:02:41 <janina_> +2
17:02:43 <JakeAbma> 2
17:02:44 <michael> michael has joined #ag
17:02:47 <kirkwood> 1
17:02:47 <ToddLibby> 2
17:02:49 <Jaunita_George> 2
17:02:50 <Lauriat> 2 or 1
17:02:50 <GreggVan> 2
17:02:50 <Rachael> 2
17:02:50 <sarahhorton> 2 but may need to revise wording
17:02:50 <laura> laura: 2
17:03:01 <JF> 2
17:03:10 <AWK> 2
17:03:12 <Fazio> 0
17:03:14 <Raf> 2
17:03:18 <michael> 1 or 2
17:03:25 <Jaunita_George> q+
17:03:26 <alastairc> q+
17:03:34 <Francis_Storr> 2
17:03:50 <Rachael> ack Judy
17:03:53 <Rachael> ack Jaunita_George
17:03:59 <Fazio> +1 Gregg
17:04:11 <Fazio> I think that was Gregg
17:04:13 <Chuck> scribe change?
17:04:31 <laura> GV: definition would be a W3C scope not WG scope.
17:04:53 <Fazio> q+
17:05:00 <laura> Jg: concerned about defining too narrowly.
17:05:06 <michael> Wcag2ict
17:05:18 <laura> ... emerging technologies need to be considered.
17:05:33 <Judy> q+
17:06:06 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
17:06:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/30-ag-minutes.html laura
17:06:10 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
17:06:10 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JF
17:06:31 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
17:06:31 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Fazio
17:06:42 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
17:06:42 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Francis_Storr
17:07:01 <Rachael> scribe: Francis_Storr
17:07:14 <Rachael> ack alastairc
17:07:41 <laura> s/knowability/knowbility/
17:07:50 <GreggVan> +1 to alistair's suggestion
17:07:56 <Rachael> ack Fazio
17:08:09 <kirkwood> +1 to Alistairs suggestion
17:08:27 <Francis_Storr> ac: can we do option 1 then option 2? can we answer the question - we shouldn't delay answering it if we know the answer.
17:08:32 <janina_> q+ to support not defining web technologies even though we can use the term
17:08:57 <Francis_Storr> df: this seems like we're potentially creating a back door for more issues and we need to be very aware of this.
17:09:12 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION:  Reject PR and send response; then work on defining web based technology (possibly with W3C) and apply it throughout
17:09:21 <Rachael> ack Judy
17:09:30 <alastairc> I've added my survey suggested response to the thread as a draft: https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/242#issuecomment-982839687
17:10:01 <Francis_Storr> jb: responding to david's comment - it sounds like it has to be exclusively web-based, and I'd like to talk about this later to understand your concern
17:10:01 <Fazio> seems that way, yes, Judy
17:10:18 <Fazio> I feel like it's a loophole that can be exploited
17:10:41 <Rachael> q?
17:10:42 <Francis_Storr> ... I think it's very common for working groups to clarify the terms used in their working documents. It would be typical for a group to provide clarification.
17:10:44 <Rachael> ack janina_
17:10:44 <Zakim> janina_, you wanted to support not defining web technologies even though we can use the term
17:10:48 <KarenHerr> KarenHerr has joined #ag
17:10:51 <KarenHerr> present+
17:10:55 <laura> s/form the/from the/
17:10:56 <Rachael> q+ to suggested edit to response. Change  "digital products that are stand-alone" to  "digital products that include more than web based technology"
17:11:25 <laura> s/did a /did an /
17:11:37 <Francis_Storr> JSa: we might not need to define web technologies unless we want to define something in or out.
17:11:39 <Fazio> iphot can be another example. If you access it via cloud it's web based. If you download photos to internal memory an open via a downloaded app. Technically it's no longer web based
17:11:52 <Fazio> iphoto I mean
17:11:58 <Francis_Storr> RM: should we reject the PR?
17:12:06 <Rachael> q?
17:12:08 <Jaunita_George> +1 keeping it broad will give folks more room to apply it to other technologies and not feel limited -- and give wiggle room to those that are using WCAG as a legal standard
17:12:33 <laura> s/are charter/our charter/
17:12:37 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) Reject PR and send response; then work on defining web based technology (possibly with W3C) and apply it throughout 2) Reject the PR and send a response
17:12:40 <Chuck> 2
17:12:41 <janina_> +2
17:12:45 <Fazio> 0
17:12:48 <Wilco_> 1
17:12:49 <jeanne> 2
17:12:50 <Jaunita_George> 2
17:12:53 <sarahhorton> 1
17:12:54 <GreggVan> I was going to 1
17:12:55 <JF> 1
17:12:59 <Chuck> q+
17:13:00 <ShawnT> 2
17:13:01 <Rain> 1, can live with 2
17:13:02 <GreggVan> 1
17:13:03 <kirkwood> 2
17:13:06 <AWK> 1
17:13:06 <michael> I think you will end up discussing on any event so either
17:13:07 <JakeAbma> 1
17:13:08 <alastairc> 1, could live with 2 (would need someone(s) to work on it)
17:13:09 <Rachael> 0
17:13:10 <laura> 1
17:13:11 <Lauriat> 1, can live with 2
17:13:12 <Judy> 1-ish -- work on *clarifying* web based technologies in the context of WCAG
17:13:13 <Francis_Storr> 1
17:13:20 <ToddLibby> 1, can live with 2
17:13:24 <Raf> 1
17:13:27 <Rachael> ack chuck
17:13:30 <MelanieP> 2, can live with 1
17:13:31 <GreggVan> +1  o judy's comment
17:14:05 <Fazio> Chuck makes a good point
17:14:37 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Reject PR and send response; then explore defining web based technology (possibly with W3C) and apply it throughout
17:14:46 <GreggVan> +1 to exploring -- with W3c
17:14:53 <michael> +1
17:14:58 <alastairc> +1
17:14:58 <janina_> Just concerned it would take us into tangents
17:14:59 <Chuck> +1
17:15:01 <ShawnT> +1
17:15:03 <Wilco_> +1
17:15:04 <Jaunita_George> +1 and willing to volunteer
17:15:06 <sarahhorton> 1 to clarifying
17:15:10 <Francis_Storr> +1
17:15:10 <ToddLibby> +1
17:15:13 <AWK> +1
17:15:14 <Lauriat> +1
17:15:16 <Rain> +1 and +1 to "clarifying"
17:15:18 <Chuck> and +1 to changing to clarifying
17:15:20 <Judy> q+
17:15:21 <jeanne> +1 to clarifying
17:15:25 <JF> .75 (ref: Judy's concern)
17:15:26 <MelanieP> +1
17:15:26 <kirkwood> +1 clarifying
17:15:28 <Fazio> 0
17:15:29 <Chuck> q+
17:15:33 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Reject PR and send response; then explore clarifying web based technology (possibly with W3C) and apply it throughout
17:15:36 <Judy> q-
17:15:42 <Chuck> q-
17:15:44 <janina_> ack janina
17:15:50 <GreggVan> +1
17:15:51 <JF> +1 to the latest revision
17:15:59 <Judy> +1
17:16:03 <MelanieP> +1
17:16:07 <kirkwood> +1
17:16:09 <Rachael> +1
17:16:12 <jeanne> +1
17:16:13 <Jaunita_George> +1
17:16:13 <laura> +1
17:16:21 <Rachael> ack Rachael
17:16:21 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggested edit to response. Change  "digital products that are stand-alone" to  "digital products that include more than web based technology"
17:16:27 <ToddLibby> +1
17:16:43 <michael> Yep
17:16:59 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/242#issuecomment-982839687
17:17:04 <jeanne> +1 to edit
17:17:06 <GreggVan> +1 to your additional comment   / change to response
17:17:16 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Reject PR and send response as ammended; then explore clarifying web based technology (possibly with W3C) and apply it throughout
17:17:37 <Francis_Storr> RESOLUTION: Reject PR and send response as amended; then explore clarifying web based technology (possibly with W3C) and apply it throughout
17:17:40 <Rachael> agenda?
17:17:49 <Wilco_> q+
17:17:49 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 6
17:17:50 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- ACT New Rules https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act_nov_10/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
17:18:07 <Chuck> no concerns
17:18:52 <Francis_Storr> rm: we'll skip ACT rules and move to WCAG 2.2 as that's more time sensitive.
17:18:57 <Judy> Judy has left #ag
17:18:57 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 7
17:18:57 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- WCAG 2.2 Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
17:19:18 <Rachael> TOPIC: Name Change #1871
17:19:28 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1871#issuecomment-873135394
17:19:35 <Francis_Storr> rm: received a request to change the name back to pointer target spacing.
17:20:08 <alastairc> +1, I couldn't work on the numbers alone.
17:20:14 <Francis_Storr> ac: david's response was good.
17:20:53 <Francis_Storr> mg: it would be a good idea to explicitly state that the SC has been re-written to address target size.
17:21:21 <alastairc> I read Pat's comment as 'can live with'
17:21:38 <Rachael> q?
17:21:43 <mbgower> s/to address target/to emphasize target
17:21:50 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
17:21:55 <alastairc> I added this to David's response: "We re-wrote the SC text to emphasise the size, and spacing is now an exception."
17:22:12 <mbgower> +1
17:22:14 <Wilco_> +1
17:22:17 <ShawnT> +1
17:22:26 <Francis_Storr> rm: how do people feel about accepting mike gower's response to emphasize the target size?
17:22:30 <sarahhorton> +1
17:22:33 <GreggVan> +1
17:22:36 <alastairc> +1
17:22:36 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept response with Mike Gower's amendment
17:22:40 <MelanieP> +1
17:22:47 <ToddLibby> +1
17:22:54 <laura> +1
17:22:56 <JF> +1
17:23:08 <kirkwood> +1
17:23:14 <Francis_Storr> RESOLUTION: Accept response with Mike Gower's amendment
17:23:19 <Rachael> TOPIC: Using "should" in the Understanding doc is confusing #1874
17:23:36 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2021/files
17:23:52 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
17:24:41 <Rachael> q?
17:25:10 <Francis_Storr> jf: suggests some alternative word-smithing.
17:25:59 <Rachael> Strawpoll: Best if, Prefer, Recommended, Suggest
17:26:00 <Francis_Storr> rm: let's do a quick straw poll on the wording.
17:26:15 <laura> laura has joined #ag
17:26:22 <mbgower> q+
17:26:39 <Rachael> ack mbgower
17:27:11 <Francis_Storr> mg: it might be useful to come up with some examples so that there are some examples that people can see
17:27:14 <Chuck> I prefer we recommend the suggestion of best if (he said sarcastically)
17:27:35 <Francis_Storr> rm: can we do that for Friday?
17:27:37 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR and discuss wording choices further on Friday
17:27:43 <Chuck> +1
17:27:44 <ShawnT> +1
17:27:44 <Wilco_> q+
17:27:47 <ToddLibby> +1
17:27:47 <mbgower> +1
17:27:52 <laura> +1
17:27:52 <kirkwood> +1
17:27:53 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
17:27:54 <sarahhorton> +1
17:28:00 <GreggVan> +1
17:28:19 <Rachael> Word option: Best if, Prefer, Recommended, Suggest, Advise
17:28:38 <Francis_Storr> rm: can someone create some examples so that we can discuss them on Friday?
17:29:18 <mbgower> I'll make an issue for it
17:29:20 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR and discuss wording choices further in a future meeting
17:29:29 <Chuck> +1
17:29:31 <ShawnT> +1
17:29:36 <ToddLibby> +1
17:29:39 <kirkwood> +1
17:29:42 <Rachael> +1
17:29:44 <sarahhorton> +1
17:29:51 <JF> +1
17:29:52 <laura> +1
17:29:53 <MelanieP> +1
17:29:58 <Francis_Storr> RESOLUTION: Accept PR and discuss wording choices further in a future meeting.
17:29:59 <Wilco_> +1
17:30:07 <Rachael> TOPIC: Google feedback #1894
17:30:19 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2122/files
17:30:34 <Rachael> Response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1894#issuecomment-960323246
17:31:53 <Francis_Storr> rm: david mcdonald had a long response for this; I'd like to defer to alastair on this.
17:32:01 <mbgower> q+ to say just change the preamble
17:32:15 <Rachael> ack mbgower
17:32:15 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say just change the preamble
17:32:25 <Francis_Storr> ac: I think this is content we've discussed before.
17:32:41 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR and response as amended
17:32:54 <ShawnT> +1
17:33:00 <sarahhorton> +1
17:33:04 <laura> +1
17:33:13 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1894#issuecomment-981477882
17:33:22 <Rachael> +1
17:33:33 <ToddLibby> +1
17:33:35 <GreggVan> +1
17:33:47 <Wilco_> +1
17:33:48 <Francis_Storr> RESOLUTION: Accept PR and response as amended.
17:33:55 <Rachael> TOPIC: Minimum Component Size #1870
17:34:11 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1870#issuecomment-907356155
17:34:46 <Rachael> TOPIC: Adding diagrams that make the reality/consequences of target offset clearer #1848
17:34:59 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2108/files
17:35:48 <alastairc> Preview link: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/dbce3c6320e5f0838ce1da6dff0271332de2fcf3/understanding/22/target-size-minimum.html
17:36:17 <JF> Q+
17:36:27 <JF> ack me
17:36:42 <JF> Q+
17:37:12 <Francis_Storr> mg: there's really nice use of figcaptions in the document, but the alt text repeats some of that content. If we can cut down on some of the complexity of the alt attributes and leave the figcaption content, that might make the content easier to consume.
17:37:17 <Rachael> ack jf
17:37:42 <alastairc> JF - have a look at the page, we have alt and figcaptions.
17:37:56 <laura> +1 to JF
17:37:58 <Francis_Storr> jf: figcaption isn't really adding an accessible name. I want to be really careful about mixing alt and figcaption content.
17:39:16 <ToddLibby> q+
17:39:20 <Francis_Storr> ac: would this mean adjusting the alt attributes to make them shorter?
17:39:33 <Rachael> ack ToddLibby
17:39:57 <Francis_Storr> mg: if folks think the content is fine then I can live with this.
17:40:16 <Francis_Storr> tl: I can make changes if needed.
17:40:33 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTiON: Accept the PR with the removal of last part of 103 (see survey) and Todd will take a last look at optimizing the experience between alt text and fig caption content
17:41:10 <Chuck> +1
17:41:12 <ShawnT> +1
17:41:13 <ToddLibby> +1
17:41:17 <GreggVan> +1
17:41:22 <Francis_Storr> rm: this is a little more space than we usually give resolutions. are people comfortable with that?
17:41:25 <JF> +1
17:41:28 <laura> +1
17:41:30 <kirkwood> +1
17:41:49 <Francis_Storr> RESOLUTiON: Accept the PR with the removal of last part of 103 (see survey) and Todd will take a last look at optimizing the experience between alt text and fig caption content.
17:41:54 <Rachael> +1
17:42:20 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 8
17:42:20 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- WCAG 2.2 Dragging https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
17:42:30 <Rachael> TOPIC: Adobe Comment on 2.5.7 Dragging Movements
17:42:40 <alastairc> Todd - I've merge your PR, but you can update the branch to adjust the alt text.
17:42:49 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1961/files
17:43:13 <Francis_Storr> rm: a slider example was asked to be added.
17:43:21 <Rachael> q?
17:44:28 <Chuck> q+
17:46:32 <Francis_Storr> mg: this depends on what you define as a page, whether something is opening in a new window, a dialogue. etc. I wonder if this has to be on the same page or if the mechanism is on the same page.
17:47:14 <Rachael> ack Chuck
17:48:10 <Francis_Storr> ca: I think gundala is too narrowly defining what color alternative means.
17:49:05 <Francis_Storr> ac: I don't think gundala's and oliver's assertion holds up. Having an alternative input to something like a color picker is a fairly common approach.
17:49:56 <Chuck> s/color alternative/conforming alternate version/
17:50:16 <Rachael> q?
17:50:38 <Rachael> TOPIC: Dragging Movements needs some attention #1917
17:50:52 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1954/files
17:51:05 <Francis_Storr> rm: there have been edits since last week to address some of the comments made.
17:52:14 <alastairc> Note - MichaelG's PR has been merged into Detlev's version.
17:53:45 <Francis_Storr> mg: I'm concerned that this SC is a little immature in its current state.
17:54:00 <Wilco_> +1
17:54:08 <Francis_Storr> ... one of the examples given isn't dragging, it's a pointer-based gesture.
17:54:32 <kirkwood> +1
17:54:41 <Francis_Storr> ... I'm concerned that we don't have research to back this up, we only have assertions. This is a non-trivial change for authors.
17:55:09 <Francis_Storr> ac: I think there's too many changes for this right now.
17:55:46 <Francis_Storr> mg: I think the PR can be accepted, but it doesn't address the underlying problems.
17:55:59 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR but add issue to give this PR more attention including the challenges that Mgower raises
17:56:06 <Francis_Storr> ... I think it's important not to confuse people
17:56:27 <JF> Q+
17:56:33 <kirkwood> agree that path based gestures and dragging issue needs clarity
17:56:40 <Rachael> ack JF
17:57:09 <Francis_Storr> jf: I'm concerned with accepting a PR when this needs a lot more work
17:57:11 <Chuck> +.5 to john
17:57:35 <Francis_Storr> rm: we're discussing accepting the PR but not closing the issue.
17:57:43 <mbgower> q+
17:57:51 <Francis_Storr> jf: don't we wait until we've discussed this more?
17:58:15 <Rachael> ack mbgower
17:58:34 <Francis_Storr> ac: it will help when detlev, the primary author, has updated the document.
17:58:56 <Francis_Storr> mg: I think this improves some of the current wording issues, but I take John's point.
17:59:07 <ToddLibby> alastairc: Just saw your comment. Thank you.
17:59:14 <Chuck> I can live with it.
17:59:30 <Chuck> I agree with John, but I can live with accepting PR.
17:59:33 <alastairc> This is all 'understanding' informative changes.
17:59:35 <Francis_Storr> rm: can the group accept accepting the PR but not closing the issue?
17:59:42 <mbgower> +1
17:59:43 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR but add issue to give this PR more attention including the challenges that Mgower raises
17:59:52 <ShawnT> +1
17:59:54 <Chuck> +1
17:59:55 <ToddLibby> +1
17:59:56 <alastairc> +1
18:00:00 <laura> +1
18:00:13 <kirkwood> +1
18:00:18 <GreggVan> +1
18:00:19 <Wilco_> +1
18:00:40 <Raf> +1
18:00:51 <Raf> present+
18:01:12 <Francis_Storr> RESOLUTION: Accept PR but add issue to give this PR more attention including the challenges that Mgower raises.
18:01:57 <Rachael> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:01:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/30-ag-minutes.html Rachael
18:02:11 <Rachael> trackbot, end meeting
18:02:11 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:02:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Chuck, Rachael, ToddLibby, alastairc, Wilco_, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, janina_, ShawnT, Jen_G, Rain, JF, JakeAbma, Lauriat, garrison,
18:02:14 <Zakim> ... MelanieP, shadi, sarahhorton, Francis_Storr, kirkwood, GreggVan, jeanne, Jaunita_George, AUbbink, Judy, AWK, KarenHerr, Raf
18:02:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:02:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/30-ag-minutes.html trackbot
18:02:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:02:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items