12:51:49 RRSAgent has joined #ag 12:51:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-ag-irc 12:51:51 RRSAgent, make logs Public 12:51:52 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 13:07:44 Meeting: AGWG WCAG 2.2 Issues 13:07:48 chair:alastairc 13:07:55 present: alastairc 13:08:32 agenda+ Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results 13:08:51 agenda+ Dragging https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results 13:09:03 agenda+ Accessible authentication https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-accesssible-auth-updates/results 13:09:16 agenda+ Page break navigation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/results 13:09:31 agenda+ Visible controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results 13:09:38 agenda? 13:09:51 zakim, clear agenda 13:09:51 agenda cleared 13:09:55 agenda+ Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results 13:10:00 agenda+ Dragging https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results 13:10:04 agenda+ Accessible authentication https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-accesssible-auth-updates/results 13:10:08 agenda+ Page break navigation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/results 13:10:15 agenda+ Visible controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results 13:10:28 agenda+ Redundant entry https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry/results 13:10:37 agenda+ Consistent help https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/22_consistent_help/ 13:13:31 agenda+ Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results 13:13:45 agenda+ Misc issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/results 13:14:26 agenda? 13:14:50 zakim, cluse item 1 13:14:50 I don't understand 'cluse item 1', alastairc 13:14:56 zakim, close item 1 13:14:56 agendum 1, Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results, closed 13:14:58 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 13:14:58 2. Dragging https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results [from alastairc] 13:57:28 Chuck has joined #ag 13:57:31 agenda? 13:57:57 Wilco has joined #ag 14:01:13 ShawnT has joined #ag 14:01:22 scribe: Chuck 14:01:31 laura_ has joined #ag 14:01:32 present+ 14:01:39 present+ 14:01:51 Alastair: giving a few minutes for more arrivals, we'll start soon. 14:02:12 laura_ has joined #ag 14:03:26 Alastair: Welcome attendees! 14:03:31 present+ 14:04:05 Alastair: Hoping for 10 for a quorum to start. 14:04:15 Alastair: WCAG-athon! 14:05:20 Jaunita_George has joined #ag 14:05:26 Chuck: Recommend we start with the participants we currently have. 14:05:31 zakim, take up next item 14:05:31 agendum 2 -- Dragging https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results -- taken up [from alastairc] 14:05:40 Present+ 14:05:41 Detlev has joined #ag 14:05:46 Alastair: Dragging was one we started last meeting, didn't get too far. 14:05:49 TOPIC: Dragging Movements needs some attention #1917 14:05:52 Alastair: Starting with question 2. 14:05:54 present+ 14:06:04 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1917 14:06:04 Alastair: Issue 1917 from MG. 14:06:28 Alastair: We merged PR, as it did improve things, but there are other aspects to MG's feedback. 14:06:54 mbgower has joined #ag 14:06:56 present+ 14:07:01 MelanieP has joined #ag 14:07:06 Alastair: Share screen for those who can perceive, and I'll verbalize. 14:07:12 present+ 14:07:23 Alastair: Want to start with some of the basis for the guideline in general. 14:07:48 Alastair: We discussed in WCAG 2.1, for which we got pointer gestures in, it seemed like a logical extension. If gestures are an issue, dragging will be an issue. 14:08:15 Alastair: This came back for 2.2. A couple of things that made me pause while reviewing thread, comment on user agents or assistive devices. Click-lock... 14:08:44 Alastair: And whether it's a better solution than we would be asking of authors. Drag-and-drop, and implement buttons on side to move things up and down, or arrow access. 14:09:10 Alastair: Are the solutions we are asking from authors no better than solutions provided by AT? That's where we got to. 14:09:31 Alastair: Detlev has done lots of work on this, and has done some research. Please correct me, it didn't seem that applicable. 14:09:52 q+ 14:09:56 Alastair: ...to what the sc is trying to achieve. I want to start with open question: Is this is something we should tackle or put on hold and look through more evidence? 14:09:59 ack detlev 14:10:32 detlev: Not wedded to this. It's a fair question. I haven't been able to find things to substantiate the need. May be out there, but I haven't found such research. I could live with shelving. 14:11:03 q+ 14:11:06 detlev: I can do more work if group desires, but not sure if the rest of the group wants to go ahead with this. We aren't sure if this meets a need, and if we want to impose this. 14:11:28 ack mbgower 14:11:50 mbgower: I'm not campaigning to drop this, just want to have the conversation. Applies to pointer gestures we have in place. 14:12:15 present+ Laura_Carlson 14:12:20 mbgower: There is no way to... the only way I know of to scroll a page by pointer is to use finger and drag. If you take that as a starting point, if I can't do that... 14:12:35 AbiJ has joined #ag 14:12:50 mbgower: We don't provide a solution to that. That's where I think the first warning sign comes from. I completely understand that some people will have challenges dragging and directional gestures. 14:13:03 q+ to say about scrutiny 14:13:14 mbgower: where is the responsibility line for the author? I know that there are solutions that can be provided by authors. We need research to guide us. 14:13:19 q+ 14:13:49 mbgower: I haven't seen studies. Here we get into dragging. The 2nd point, the fundamental way you move with a pointer is re-orienting the pointer, either with mouse or touch. 14:14:09 mbgower: There is less motor requirements for tap than touch. You must orient the pointer to where you want to contact. 14:14:13 Regina has joined #ag 14:14:23 mbgower: If I have a trackball, every one has an assigned "drag" control. 14:14:56 mbgower: From user perspective, only difference in re-orienting pointer and dragging is difference between clicking a button and not clicking a button. 14:15:14 mbgower: It's in AT, not in O/S. I know not all the O/S's have given an assistive touch equivelent. 14:15:28 mbgower: Most O/S's provide some mechanism. 14:15:37 ack me 14:15:37 alastairc, you wanted to say about scrutiny 14:15:39 mbgower: I don't want to over-burden the author w/o research. 14:15:57 Alastair: We do get a lot of scrutiny from W3C members throughout the process, and they will ask for research. 14:16:18 Alastair: For some SC you can point to available research to support the motive. 14:16:39 Alastair: My concern with this is that we don't know that the author'd solutions are better than the platform or AT provided solutions. 14:16:56 Alastair: The solutions we mandate may not be better. If we aren't certain, I'm inclined to put it on hold. 14:17:03 Alastair: This could slot into 3. 14:17:07 ack Wilco 14:17:38 Wilco: I'm surprised that this sc got this far w/o research. There's an argument for situational disabilities are not uncommon. 14:18:13 Wilco: I don't think this is difficult to meet, I don't know that it's a bad thing to say it needs to be supported without AT. Contrast is an example, style sheets have to have sufficient contrast. 14:18:34 Alastair: Pointer gestures, there were circumstances where even with AT you couldn't access some capability. 14:19:14 Alastair: It seemed logical to take the same approach to dragging. My point on the... I'm agreeing that yes with situational, mobility impairments, dragging is difficult. But are buttons more usable? I'm struggling. 14:19:26 q? 14:19:27 Alastair: If we aren't certain, I'm inclined to not push this onto people. 14:19:32 q+ 14:19:41 ack Chuck 14:19:45 scribe: mbgower 14:20:12 Chuck: We have well intentioned thoughts. If we don't have research to back up a clear conclusion, I'm supportive of a more cautious approach. 14:20:29 Chuck: I'm hearing good intentions, but I'm also hearing presumptions and no research. 14:20:56 Poll: 1) Put on hold, 2) have reasonable answers for raised question on effectiveness... 14:21:12 Alastair: We have short time on getting those answers. 14:21:25 Poll: 1) Put the SC on hold for post WCAG 2.2 (2) Try to find answers (quickly) 14:21:38 3) Leave it as is 14:21:58 q+ 14:22:12 ack mbgower 14:22:16 Alastair: Situational is tricky, we are set up more for permanent disabilities. 14:22:33 mbgower: We had inside a charting application, there was a range control, a 2 point slider. 14:23:01 mbgower: I think the solution we found is not bad, and meets the criteria. We came up with a slider, 2 points at either end, if people can reduce data they can slide those. 14:23:33 mbgower: You can grab and define a range. We did by proximity. If someone clicks in slider, works very well from going from large range to small range. 14:24:02 mbgower: Get's tricky getting to small range, you can only get halfway between. Same thing going out, it's easy to go out, but fine tune the range is combersome. 14:24:21 mbgower: Meets the guideline, but probably frustrating to use. You can still use dragging, and still use keyboard. 14:24:47 mbgower: We didn't have any guidance on other ways to do it. People make stuff that meets the letter of the law, but may not be usable. 14:25:09 q+ 14:25:09 mbgower: I do wonder, most mobile interactions require dragging. When are we making the assumption on situational disabilities. Valid question. 14:25:27 ack AbiJ 14:25:27 mbgower: There may be sutiational where you can't use mobile. 14:26:10 AbiJ: Having watched this SC evolve, when it started, trying to encorporate it into existing practice, when you look into mobile there was a need, but now there is better keyboard access. 14:26:38 AbiJ: Now mobile O/S supports keyboard. a 3rd option is making sure understanding covers keyboard operable will cover most likely scenarios. 14:26:46 Alastair: Keyboard operables we have in 2.1.1 14:26:46 q+ 14:27:23 AbiJ: More that there were, where we encountered it is native app and web app on mobile which required a dragging action, were not possible to make keyboard accessible, and now they are more so. 14:27:25 ack Wilco 14:27:42 Wilco: I think that argument goes for pointer gestures too. If we think keyboards are available and sufficient. 14:28:07 Wilco: The other thing I was wondering. Seems that there are no major objections. There are questions. Is that a reason for us to hold it? 14:28:23 Alastair: We didn't get a lot of issues raised externally. But that doesn't mean we won't in future. 14:29:07 Alastair: My concern with Abi's point, landscape is changing. Hard to tell if it's still an issue. where does keyboard accessibility overlap, what's the gap. It doesn't feel like we have a solid understanding how they inter-relate. 14:29:17 Alastair: Other sc not as much of an issue. 14:29:50 q+ to say I can live with any of the options, but I would love to try to find some research 14:29:50 Alastair: With dragging it's a bit more complex. I'm struggling with... if we don't have a solid answer for when an author should provide a solution, it's difficult to justify. 14:30:11 Wilco: I don't find it hard. I hear "just use a keyboard for phone", that's a big change for a lot of people. 14:30:20 q+ 14:30:31 Alastair: If you have underlying o/s support, voice access... 14:30:35 ack AbiJ 14:31:09 Abi: Clarify - Carousel on mobile device, would there be support with screen reader to navigate? Yes, but would current SC consider gestures part of... 14:31:49 Abij: If you are considering keyboard access, you need single point of control. Therefore we have covered dragging requirement as well. I'm not saying you are making it keyboard accessible, I'm saying that to make it keyboard accessible you need single point of action. 14:31:54 the requirement here has always been separate from keyboard accessibility. 14:32:02 ack mbgower 14:32:02 mbgower, you wanted to say I can live with any of the options, but I would love to try to find some research 14:32:04 Alastair: I'll need to think on that. 14:32:26 mbgower: If we are focusing on situational, there is some acknowledgement that with a permantent disability there are inexpensive ways to solve. 14:32:44 mbgower: I would like research, how many o/s's provide an equivalent for press and hold. 14:33:04 mbgower: Is that considered sufficient? If all major o/s's do that, would we still having this conversation? 14:33:12 mbgower: I don't know we have that research. 14:33:35 q/ 14:33:36 q? 14:33:36 mbgower: If somebody has the cycles to research this, that would be valuable. I'm fine with all 3 options, but I'd like to have a more informed decision. 14:33:37 q+ 14:34:25 q+ 14:34:28 Chuck: I don't know that I could defend and support his. 14:34:29 ack ch 14:35:04 Alastair: One of the issues that I still need to respond to is from Google, asking how have we delt with the issues raised with WCAG 2.1, including having solid research to justify sc coming through. We will come under that scrutiny. 14:35:23 ack Wilco 14:35:25 Alastair: People from google have been from accessibility point of view. We do get some negative feedback later. 14:35:52 q+ 14:35:53 q+ 14:35:54 Wilco: I'd like to ask how the availability of AT matters for this. It seems to me that yes AT exists, why does it matter how many there are for this sc? 14:35:58 ack mbgower 14:36:29 mbgower: I've always understood that its part of the formula. How much does author do, o/s do, at do. Name Roll Value comes into play. 14:36:42 mbgower: O/S supports as well as common AT's available. 14:36:50 ack Jaunita_George 14:37:18 q+ 14:37:26 Juanita: Also, I'm aligned with what you are saying as well. I think the standards have used the O/S features as a model. If the O/S is trying to solve for this issue, it might make sense to follow their lead rather than find an alternative solution. 14:37:37 q+ 14:37:39 Juanita: We don't want to create conflict and force users to learn 2 systems. 14:37:40 ack Wilco 14:38:14 Wilco: This line of thinking makes me nervous. Our other SC we are working on, this could be applied to. AT helps with target size. Focus appearance. We don't use it or rely on it. 14:38:21 present+ 14:38:25 Wilco: Why is this different? Should we reconsider others? 14:38:30 ack alastairc 14:38:31 q+ 14:39:05 Alastair: No chair hat. It does tend to be part of the formula. One part is how much change to the intended design of an interface do authors have to make? 14:39:18 Alastair: Contrast does make a change to the design, but benefited many people. 14:39:26 Alastair: That was a reasonable ask of authors. 14:39:51 Alastair: Some of them are required for AT to work (name role value), and straddling middle ground asking authors to do things but allowing for personalization. 14:40:15 Alastair: If it impacts intended design, we ask for a higher bar. The thing I'm struggling with, would the solution that people come up with be better? 14:40:46 Alastair: If you are dropping onto 2 dimensions, and having to tap little buttons to travel, is that any easier than drag and drop? Is it easier when you've got assistive touch turned on? 14:40:57 Alastair: We can't answer the question, and that's my worry. 14:41:16 Wilco: Why are they not applicable with target size? 14:41:19 Alastair: They are. 14:41:40 Alastair: Hitting button compared to on mobile device, is that easier? 14:41:42 ack Detlev 14:42:04 Detlev: To last point, that would need to be the only way of doing things. We had other examples where you could select an item and choose something from a select control. 14:42:35 Detlev: that may not need to be the only option. I have 2 points. I would really like to get input from orgs with individuals with multiple disabilities. 14:43:00 Detlev: I haven't heard back from people who may struggle with dragging. That would be interesting to see if people perceive as a real problem and barrier. 14:43:23 Detlev: Both in mobile and desktop. The other thing is it's a good suggestion to review current O/S and see if there are drag and hold options and how they work. 14:43:37 q? 14:43:41 Detlev: I can take that up if we need to research and report on current state. 14:43:51 Q+ 14:44:02 Alastair: We need to come to some decision about this. Our time is limited for 2.2. 14:44:11 ack mbgower 14:44:36 mbgower: The SC exists. If detlev can dig and get some people to help, the effective decision on this will be that it goes through as is. 14:45:26 mbgower: Adding clarity would be helpful, there was clearly a mis-undersanding that needs to be cleaned up. If detlev is willing to look into it, then we don't have to take it out. 14:45:42 Alastair: Poll. 14:45:51 Poll: 1) Put dragging on hold, for post 2.2 14:45:51 (2) Update understanding doc & quickly find justifications 14:45:54 q+ 14:45:59 ack Chuck 14:46:05 2 14:46:11 2 14:46:12 2 14:46:12 2 14:46:21 q+ 14:46:48 Alastair: If we can make the decision soon, we can still pull this if required. 14:46:56 Chuck: If Detlev does the research, and it isn't positive, is it an easy decision 14:47:15 q+ 14:47:20 Wilco: I have strong concern taking out. I'm not sure what research would show this is not relevant. It's about how many are out there are the unknown, and I don't see how this changes the SC. 14:47:29 Alastair: There would be an argument for making AAA if there was good support. 14:47:33 ack Wil 14:47:41 q+ 14:47:41 ack mbgower 14:47:44 Alastair: The unknown is how effective the mobile equivalents are at the moment. 14:48:02 mbgower: If we found that all major o/s have a press and hold equivalent, would your position change? 14:48:04 jeanne has joined #ag 14:48:25 q+ 14:48:29 wilco: I don't think so, doesn't change the need. WCAG isn't a thing that just changes as AT changes. This should be universal. 14:48:31 ack Wilco 14:48:33 ack mbgower 14:49:18 mbgower: There are o/s features like keypress equivalents. It's unusual to find a website that offers resize text. You could say authors are responsible for providing things like speed of mouse operation, but o/s's provide that. 14:49:42 mbgower: I thought that if every o/s offers a dragging equivalent with some personalization, there wouldn't be a need. 14:50:11 q+ 14:50:22 Wilco: My position differs. If support for focus appearance improves for browser, chrome has such, if that featuer is more available, does that make focus appearance obsolete? 14:50:51 available does not mean users know about it 14:50:54 Alastair: It doesn't make it obsolete... bugs opened on some user agents for last 10 years. Even with better focus styles, there are still circumstances where it doesn't work. 14:51:35 Alastair: It's a universal focus indicator. There are things author can do to disrupt a good default browser focus indicator. If there were good options across systems for focus indicators, I wouldn't pursue that one. 14:51:38 rrsagent, make minutes 14:51:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-ag-minutes.html laura_ 14:52:14 Alastair: We wrote it in such a way that if browsers meet it, author doesn't need to do anything. For dragging, it's a case for how feasible it is for authors to implement something. We don't know if author generated approaches are better. 14:52:19 Alastair: I can't find an answer. 14:52:20 q+ 14:52:26 ack Jaunita_George 14:53:21 Juanita: There are far more browsers than O/S's. If the O/S were to fix focus indicators and do effective, then that would be more robust. I think generally O/S solutions that allow for using technology are better than browser solutions. 14:53:22 ack Chuck 14:53:51 q+ 14:53:54 Chuck: Key question - does an author provided solution offer substantive improvements? 14:53:58 ack Wilco 14:54:13 Wilco: That depends on solution. how can we prove that? 14:54:42 Alastair: We have examples of solutions that have been created. I don't know the answer if they are easier than actual drag and drop? 14:54:46 Wilco: So about the examples? 14:55:14 Alastair: Typical cases. If its a reordering, there are up and down arrows, drop downs that do with a single pointer. If these are the examples that we do, are those better? Do we know? 14:55:37 q+ 14:55:45 Alastair: We didn't tackle in 2.1 because we couldn't find any good examples that were pointer usable and keyboard operable. Resizing a box was very difficult to do. 14:55:55 ack mbgower 14:56:01 Alastair: We need some evidence. 14:56:43 mbgower: Kahnban example, moving across boards. A suggested solution is a menu where you can choose where it's oriented. You've got a 20 item board... 14:57:19 mbgower: User will click on menu, drag the menu to get the item they want to find, press and hold. That solution users a gesture. Even that simple and reasonable solution, we don't have data for X users, is this an improvement. 14:57:39 mbgower: I take the point its just different solutions, but are the solutions we recommend a real improvement? 14:57:45 q? 14:57:48 mbgower: If they don't really improve, why are we making the sc? 14:58:04 Alastair: Been on this one for an hour, need to come to conclusion. 14:58:10 option 2 had support. 14:58:24 Alastair: Is that a dead end for WCAG 2.2? 14:58:50 shadi has joined #ag 14:58:56 Poll: 1) Put dragging on hold, for post 2.2 14:58:56 (2) Update understanding doc & quickly find justifications 14:58:59 2 14:59:00 Rachael: re-poll, only had a few answers. 14:59:01 2 14:59:04 2 14:59:04 2 14:59:06 2 14:59:13 2 14:59:16 2 14:59:20 2 14:59:28 Alastair: I do think user agents are a factor. 14:59:32 Scribe change? 14:59:48 Alastair: If there's reasonable support, this question comes up again. 14:59:50 2 15:00:03 scribe: Jaunita_George 15:00:05 q+ 15:00:16 ack Detlev 15:00:52 RESOLUTION: Carry on with SC 15:01:19 Detlev: Would it be helpful if we worked with some organizations that can assist? 15:01:43 TOPIC: Adobe Comment on 2.5.7 Dragging Movements #1886 15:01:44 alastairc: Please let us know if you know an organization that can help 15:02:12 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1886 15:02:42 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1961/files 15:02:53 alastairc: So Detlev has created a PR and I was going to propose was a little change 15:02:58 My memory is that there were some other changes that had to be made from a prior survey question and we needed those before we could move forward 15:02:59 "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 conforming alternate version from the same page." 15:03:10 ...the sentence at issue was "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 conforming alternate version from the same page." 15:03:54 Where functionality can be executed via dragging movements and an equivalent option exists that allows for single-pointer pointer access without dragging, the success criterion is passed. It does not have to be the same component, so long as the functionality is equivalent. 15:04:03 ...what I was going to suggest was that we say something like: " Where functionality can be executed via dragging movements and an equivalent option exists that allows for single-pointer pointer access without dragging, the success criterion is passed. It does not have to be the same component, so long as the functionality is equivalent." 15:04:15 +1 15:04:31 jeanne2 has joined #ag 15:04:50 +1 15:04:57 +1 15:05:03 ...I think that tackles both commnets 15:05:06 +1 15:05:12 +1 (I believe - I am not that fast...) 15:06:03 ...any concerns? 15:06:17 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1961/files 15:07:15 +1 happy with this 15:07:41 ...David was suggesting a change to the linear slider control 15:07:43 +q 15:07:59 ...The change is on line 84 15:08:04 David suggested, on line 84, "+/- buttons for minor adjustments to where the use clicked." 15:08:40 Detlev: You may need increment buttons, but in other cases that might not be the best solution 15:08:54 laura_ has joined #ag 15:08:54 alastairc: That's a reasonable point 15:09:07 draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1961 as amended by the text above 15:09:13 +1 15:09:15 +1 15:09:15 +1 15:09:18 +1 15:09:18 +1 15:09:20 +1 15:09:23 +1 15:09:32 RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1961 as amended by the text above 15:09:48 TOPIC: Is keyboard functionality acceptable if an on-screen keyboard can be used. #1978 15:09:55 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1978 15:10:25 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2009/files 15:10:34 "A radial control widget (color wheel) where the value can be set by dragging the marker for the currently selected color to another position, also allows picking another color value simply by tapping or clicking on another place in the color wheel." 15:10:38 ...so John had a small change to update the example 15:11:05 someone wanted to get rid of "simply" 15:13:16 ...some of the comments discussed adding +/- buttons, removing the word "simply"... 15:14:36 q+ to say I'm concerned about taking out the input 15:14:53 ack Detlev 15:14:54 ack mbgower 15:14:54 mbgower, you wanted to say I'm concerned about taking out the input 15:14:59 ...can an onscreen keyboard be used as an alternative to dragging? 15:16:28 mbgower: My sense here is that John was asking that allowing someone to enter a color value was equivalent to dragging? 15:16:48 ...I don't know why we wouldn't say it's an alternative 15:17:16 q+ 15:17:22 alastairc: In the thread, I think where we got to was that the keyboard would fulfill the SC, but we don't want to recommend that. 15:17:28 ack Detlev 15:18:04 I'd add both 15:18:20 +1 Detlev 15:18:21 Detlev: Many color wheels do provide color input and that helps, but the experience is different from those using the dragging motion 15:18:31 q+ 15:18:34 ack mbgower 15:21:11 alastairc: We're taking out the reference to keyboard to address Detlev's concern. Detlev has responded to David's comment. We do not want to be as proscriptive. 15:22:32 draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2009 15:22:38 +1 15:22:39 +1 15:22:40 +1 15:22:41 +1 15:22:45 +! 15:22:47 +1 15:22:49 +1 15:22:59 RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2009 15:23:11 TOPIC: Exception for web content used by the author but generated by the user agent? #1977 15:24:57 alastairc: *reads through survey responses* 15:28:25 Poll: 1) User-agent controls are in scope of the SC 15:28:25 2) user-agent controls are not in scope of the SC 15:29:04 q+ 15:29:09 1 15:29:17 2 - I would keept to to things that authors can influence 15:29:24 mbgower: Wasn't there some language about this at some point in the SC? 15:30:04 alastairc: I can't think of any native user controls that would require a gesture 15:30:30 q+ 15:30:48 ack mbgower 15:33:00 mbgower: We should at least have some language that it's not in scope. 15:33:17 NOTE: I have other calls to prepare for and participate in for the next 2 hours. I will depart and return later. 15:33:23 q+ 15:33:44 ...A video player is a user agent 15:34:00 ack Detlev 15:35:09 Detlev: Maybe there's a good distinction to be made between a native video element and something like the YouTube player. 15:35:41 alastairc: reconvening in 30 minutes 15:36:19 rrsagent, make minutes 15:36:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-ag-minutes.html alastairc 16:02:47 q+ 16:09:40 alastairc: We're still looking at dragging and browser-based video controls 16:11:48 I'm back 16:13:05 mbgower: We haven't found any standard HTML component that fails. If we do not provide an exclusion for native browser behavior, people will have to test quite a bit and might create a custom solution. It's better to raise the issue with browsers themselves rather than developers creating their own video component 16:13:17 ack alastairc 16:14:18 +q 16:14:24 ack ShawnT 16:14:38 alastairc: This is exactly the same for keyboard accessibility where there isn't an exception and there are cases where native browser implementations are not accessible -- an example being Opera's date picker 16:16:00 q+ 16:16:04 ack mbgower 16:18:15 mbgower: What happens if there's an issue? 16:18:36 q+ 16:20:02 LeMC has joined #ag 16:21:05 q+ to say that this idea could potentially fit in the Conformance section after Non-interference 16:21:11 ack ShawnT 16:22:05 ShawnT: I remember having a discussion with Wilco. There are so many things a developer can override, so they should be responsible, but I'm not sure I agree. 16:24:59 alastairc: Do we try to define whether authors are expected to override basic behaviors or remain silent 16:25:46 Wilco: I think we can leave it as is? It's the gray area I was not keen on. If we want an exception for user agents then we should make that explicit. 16:26:43 But you wouldn't be 'off the hook' with something like the Youtube Player, right? 16:28:04 All functionality that uses a dragging movement for operation can be achieved by a single pointer without dragging, unless dragging is essential, or defined by the user agent and not modified by the author. 16:29:08 +1 16:29:18 +1 16:29:23 +1 16:30:35 mbgower: Maybe we should add boilerplate language that adds a provision for non-interference with browser behavior 16:30:49 q+ 16:31:16 ack mbgower 16:31:16 mbgower, you wanted to say that this idea could potentially fit in the Conformance section after Non-interference 16:31:18 ack Wilco 16:31:35