15:10:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:10:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/04-ag-irc
15:11:10 <Chuck> rrsagent, make logs world
15:11:18 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:11:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/04-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:11:25 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:11:32 <Chuck> Zakim, start meeting
15:11:32 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:11:33 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:11:44 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2022-01-04
15:12:47 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 3 Issues - Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3/
15:13:39 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/
15:13:49 <Chuck> agenda+  WCAG 2.2 Misc https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/
15:39:47 <alastairc> agenda?
15:55:41 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:58:46 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
15:59:54 <Chuck> regrets: Gundula Niemann, Alastair Garrison, Sarah Horton, Wilco Fiers
16:00:47 <kirkwood> present+
16:00:51 <Jennie> present+
16:00:55 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
16:01:00 <Lauriat> Present+
16:01:04 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:01:08 <JakeAbma> present+
16:01:13 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:01:15 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:01:18 <laura> Scribe: Laura
16:01:22 <ToddL> present+
16:01:24 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:01:25 <Jen_G> Present+
16:01:33 <jeanne> present+
16:01:34 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:01:35 <tink> present+ Léonie (tink)
16:01:35 <Jen_G> Present+
16:01:35 <alastairc> present+
16:01:36 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:01:50 <ShawnT> present+
16:02:41 <JF> JF has joined #ag
16:02:46 <JF> Present+
16:02:50 <JF> agenda?
16:02:54 <laura>  Chuck: Any introductions?
16:03:06 <laura> (None)
16:03:14 <laura> ... Any new topics?
16:03:17 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:03:22 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
16:03:25 <laura> (None)
16:03:26 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:03:26 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:03:26 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 3 Issues - Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:03:26 <Nicaise> present+
16:03:35 <Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3/results
16:03:46 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
16:03:46 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:03:53 <AWK> +AWK
16:04:01 <laura> Chuck: number of responses not on topic.
16:04:11 <LisaSeemanKest> LisaSeemanKest has joined #ag
16:04:17 <laura> ... want to stay on topic.
16:04:20 <JF> Q+
16:04:21 <LisaSeemanKest> present+
16:04:30 <laura> ... file a GH comment.
16:04:55 <laura> AC: comments around prematurity and direction.
16:05:28 <laura> ... these will all be marked as exploritoy.
16:05:52 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:05:56 <laura> ... yes, we are trying to work though the comments.
16:05:59 <MelanieP> present+
16:06:16 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 1 - 256 - Clear Words vs Plain Language
16:06:24 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - 256 - Clear Words vs Plain Language
16:06:41 <laura> ... Should be straight forward.
16:06:45 <laura> present+ Laura
16:07:03 <Rachael> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/status-indicators-new/guidelines/index.html
16:07:13 <bruce_bailey> q?
16:07:24 <laura> Rm: week after next we will be talking about exploratory.
16:07:42 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask q from last week
16:07:48 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:07:49 <laura> ... will make it clear to the public.
16:07:51 <Chuck> ack JF
16:07:53 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:08:19 <Judy> Judy has joined #ag
16:08:37 <Chuck> ack bruce
16:08:37 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask q from last week
16:08:43 <laura> Jf: all of survey questions are in posed as approval. Need a disagree option.
16:09:03 <janina> janina has joined #ag
16:09:07 <janina> present+
16:09:28 <laura> Chuck: may have lost previous minutes.
16:09:54 <laura> chuck: 256 - Clear Words vs Plain Language
16:09:56 <LisaSeemanKest> can I have the link
16:10:06 <laura> ... gregrgay requested we change the guideline title from "clear words" to "plain language." The subgroup responded that there was the potential for confusion based on already existing standards by that name
16:10:10 <bruce_bailey> minutes from last meeting are not correctly formated
16:10:10 <bruce_bailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2021OctDec/0172.html
16:10:23 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2021/12/21-ag-minutes.html
16:10:27 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
16:10:38 <laura> ... proposed response:  This was originally considered, but the decision was made that Plain Language is comprised of a comprehensive set of writing requirements that would be too large to include in one guideline. We were also concerned about causing confusion where there are laws and regulations that refer to plain language. For example in the United States, there's the Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 and plainlanguage.gov serves as a resource for[CUT]
16:11:02 <laura> ... 5 Agree with the response
16:11:21 <laura> ... 3 Agree with some adjustments
16:11:25 <bruce_bailey> @alastairc -- zakim did not see me as scribe -- so what i typed is not formatted as would be expected
16:11:50 <laura> Ac: Given the usage of the term "plain language" in other parts of the guideline documentation, it would help if the "Get started" page had a line about the difference and what is meant by it in relation to Clear words.
16:12:08 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #AG
16:12:08 <laura> ... I suggest updating the response to say that will be included.
16:12:11 <Jaunita_George> Present+
16:12:39 <laura> Chuck: bruce wanted active voice.
16:13:17 <laura> JF: it is premature to be having this conversation.
16:14:13 <laura> Chuck: Laura said "t seems premature to begin processing outside comments on the content of WCAG 3 that the AG working group itself hasn't reviewed and commented on yet. "
16:14:31 <Chuck> q+
16:14:36 <laura> awk: Agree with other comments that this seems premature - I'll agree that we can change the name now but only if we also agree not to use this change as a reason that it can't be changed again after further work on the guideline.
16:14:45 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:14:57 <laura> Lisa: agree that it is premature.
16:15:25 <laura> ... in yoga we use easy to understand language.
16:15:40 <JF> s/in yoga/in COGA/
16:15:55 <alastairc> q+ to talk about dealing with issues
16:16:15 <laura> ... will run into conflict in different jurisdictions.
16:17:05 <laura> ... don't want to use either  Clear Words vs Plain Language.
16:17:20 <jeanne> q+ to say that we have been requested to close issues.  We are attempting to close simple issues.
16:17:44 <laura> Chuck: anything we decide here can be changed. Not set in stone.
16:17:46 <AWK> Great, thanks Chuck.
16:17:47 <Chuck> ack Chuck
16:18:18 <laura> ac: we have an agreed first public working draft.
16:18:40 <laura> ... plain language may not be a good name.
16:19:07 <laura> ... it is a work in progress.
16:19:13 <Chuck> ack ala
16:19:13 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about dealing with issues
16:19:14 <Lauriat> +1 to Alastair
16:19:19 <laura> ... want to close issues.
16:19:21 <Chuck> ack jeanne
16:19:21 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we have been requested to close issues.  We are attempting to close simple issues.
16:19:22 <JF> -1 to Alastair
16:19:28 <Rachael> q+
16:19:34 <LisaSeemanKest> Easy to Understand Language
16:19:34 <LisaSeemanKest> Sometimes called: “easy reading”, “easy to read”, “plain language”, “easy to understand”.
16:19:34 <LisaSeemanKest> Easy to Understand Language refers to text content that is in an accessible, easy to understand, form. It is often useful for people with learning disabilities, and is easier for many other people as well.
16:19:42 <JF> Q+
16:19:42 <Chuck> ack Rachael
16:20:07 <laura> rm: not committing to plain language
16:20:21 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:20:22 <laura> ... want to close issues.
16:20:26 <Chuck> ack JF
16:20:59 <alastairc> And that it is unlikely it would be called 'plain language'.
16:21:04 <laura> Jf:  maybe respond that this is being reviewed.
16:21:13 <Rachael> q
16:21:29 <laura> Js: then we can't  close it.
16:21:33 <AWK> q+
16:22:05 <laura> rm: don't to be responsive to issues.
16:22:19 <Chuck> ack awk
16:22:32 <LisaSeemanKest> +1 to rachael
16:22:41 <kirkwood> +1 to Rachael
16:22:43 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:22:57 <JF> +1 to AWK
16:23:01 <Jaunita_George> +1 to Rachael
16:23:05 <Chuck> q+
16:23:23 <Lauriat> +1 to AWK & Rachael
16:23:24 <laura> Awk: thank them you for feedback. Record in another place. And then close.
16:23:47 <laura> s/responsive/unresponsive/
16:24:02 <laura> s/them you/them/
16:24:56 <JF> +1 to AWK, but record where?
16:25:18 <Chuck> q?
16:25:21 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:25:22 <laura>  Awk: thank you for feedback. We will record your comment and revisit it. And then close the issue.
16:25:37 <laura> ... can use a wiki page or google doc.
16:25:49 <alastairc> Err, the github issue? Closed is not deleted
16:25:58 <laura> Mc: link to the place where it is recorded.
16:26:16 <Chuck> q?
16:26:21 <alastairc> "The working group is planning further review of this guideline and expects that it will be revisiting the name as party of that process. We will recorded your comment so it is taken into consideration when the guideline is refined."
16:26:22 <Rachael> q+
16:26:27 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:26:47 <alastairc> github label?
16:26:47 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:26:54 <Regina> Regina has joined #ag
16:27:06 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
16:27:16 <laura> rm: concerned about maintenance and transparency.
16:27:20 <alastairc> q+_
16:27:25 <alastairc> q-_
16:27:26 <alastairc> q+
16:27:32 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:27:36 <kirkwood> +1 to Rachael
16:27:41 <Chuck> who just tried to q plus?
16:27:49 <laura> Lisa: we have had this conversation before.
16:27:54 <Chuck> verbally?
16:28:02 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Rachael and plan to close rather than try to figure out how to revisit
16:28:14 <mbgower> present+
16:28:20 <laura> ... add a cross reference to previous coga conversation.
16:28:27 <janina> +1 that documenting where this has been discussed could be helpful
16:28:27 <laura> ... then close it.
16:28:41 <JF> Q+
16:28:45 <MichaelC> q+
16:28:46 <Chuck> q+
16:28:50 <Chuck> ack ala
16:29:11 <laura> Ac: label it input for refinement.
16:29:40 <LisaSeemanKest> +1 good idea
16:29:45 <Chuck> ack JF
16:29:50 <laura> ... subgroup would have it for future reference.
16:31:08 <Chuck> ack Mich
16:31:17 <laura> Jf: GH may not be the answer. larger problem. Could have a links to COGA.
16:31:52 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:32:11 <laura> Mc: shouldn't be a usual practice.
16:32:53 <Rachael> q+
16:32:56 <laura> Lisa: would add a comment on GH issue and link to coga respoitory.
16:33:06 <laura> ... Then close it.
16:33:19 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:33:26 <Rachael> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/PpIQEnmF/
16:34:07 <laura> Rm: Draft comment: "Thank you for your comment. We originally considered using Plain Language, but decided that that Plain Language is comprised of a comprehensive set of writing requirements that would be too large to include in one guideline. We were also concerned about causing confusion where there are laws and regulations that refer to plain language. The working group is planning further review of this guideline and we will revisit the name as pa[CUT]
16:34:14 <kirkwood> +1 to Rachael
16:34:18 <Chuck> +1
16:34:26 <Chuck> q?
16:34:40 <AWK> +1 to that - we are going to need a reproducible way to do this sort of thing MANY times in the next few years
16:34:43 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended response to address issue 256
16:34:58 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:35:02 <kirkwood> +1
16:35:03 <Rachael> If we are comfortable with this approach we can start using it for these situations
16:35:03 <Chuck> ack Br
16:35:07 <alastairc> draft: "Thank you for your comment. We originally considered using Plain Language, but decided that that Plain Language is comprised of a comprehensive set of writing requirements that would be too large to include in one guideline. We were also concerned about causing confusion where there are laws and regulations that refer to plain language.
16:35:07 <alastairc> The working group is planning further review of this guideline and we will revisit the name as part of that process. We are closing this issue but are adding a label input-for-refinement to ensure the group considers your point as we move forward."
16:35:18 <AWK> +1
16:35:24 <LisaSeemanKest> +1
16:35:24 <Chuck> +1
16:35:25 <kirkwood> +1
16:35:31 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:35:32 <alastairc> +1
16:35:33 <ToddL> +1
16:35:34 <Detlev> +1
16:35:36 <JF> 0
16:35:41 <Jennie> +1
16:35:42 <janina> +1
16:35:53 <laura> Laura: +1
16:35:53 <Ryladog> +1
16:35:55 <Raf> +1
16:36:00 <Rachael> +1
16:36:08 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:36:11 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:36:21 <janina> Intolerable!
16:36:33 <Ryladog> * says it is tolerable
16:36:41 <laura> RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended response to address issue 256
16:36:44 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 2 - 359 - Measuring words question
16:36:51 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 2 - 359 - Measuring words question
16:37:25 <laura> Chuck: In issue 359, paulairy asks "Is it feasible to test using a readability feature, like the one included with Grammarly?"
16:37:37 <laura> ...  The Clear Words subgroup agrees with John Rochford. The current state of readability tools are not supported by current research. There are new tools being developed that the group is looking into and hope to include in a future draft. We are not opposed to readability tools per se, but current tools, such as Flesch-Kincaid are not designed to meet the needs we’re targeting.
16:37:59 <laura> ... 7 Agree with the response
16:38:27 <laura> RM: I would add a link to John Rochford's comment in github to help it be clear what this response is referring to or remove the second sentence.
16:38:55 <laura> Ac: This guideline is still in early development, how it is going to be tested is not yet agreed. In general the Clear Words subgroup agrees with John Rochford. The current state of readability tools @@may not be sufficient. There are new tools being developed that the group is looking into and hope to include in a future draft. We are not opposed to readability tools per-se, but current tools, such as Flesch-Kincaid are not designed to meet the needs [CUT]
16:39:12 <JF> Q+
16:39:20 <laura> mg: I think it is feasible to test with tools.
16:39:22 <LisaSeemanKest> +1 to mike
16:39:53 <laura> Jf: what is it they are trying to do?
16:40:09 <laura> ... need to know what to goal is.
16:40:32 <laura> ... goes back to being premature.
16:40:34 <Chuck> q?
16:40:37 <Chuck> ack JF
16:40:55 <janina> q+
16:41:07 <Chuck> ack jan
16:41:29 <JF> +1 to Janina
16:41:31 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
16:41:56 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:42:02 <laura> js:  feasible- yes. But not a clear path to tooling.
16:43:17 <laura> Lisa: what we are working on in sub group has tools or techniques.
16:43:38 <Chuck> q+
16:44:02 <JF> Q+
16:44:10 <laura> ... tools are available. database is available. Needs to put them together.
16:44:11 <Chuck> ack JF
16:44:48 <laura> Jf: in guideline it has 3 methods.
16:45:06 <laura> ... can handoff first to tooling.
16:45:26 <laura> ... feels premature.
16:46:00 <alastairc> draft: "Thank you for your comment. This guideline is still in early development, how it is going to be tested is not yet agreed. In general the Clear Words subgroup [agrees with John Rochford.](https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/359#issuecomment-825205091) The current state of readability tools @@may not be sufficient. There are new tools being developed that the group is looking into and hope to include in a future draft. We are not
16:46:00 <alastairc> opposed to readability tools, but current tools such as Flesch-Kincaid are not designed to meet the needs we’re targeting."
16:46:25 <laura> Chuck:  focus on ac's language.
16:46:31 <JF> Q: what are "the needs we’re targeting"?
16:46:56 <laura> jf: what are "the needs we’re targeting"?
16:47:01 <Rachael> q+
16:47:06 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:47:07 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:47:22 <jeanne> jeanne: Suggests that JF read the HowTo for the user needs analysis.
16:47:25 <laura> Rm: that question is secondary.
16:47:33 <LisaSeemanKest>  readability tools do not typicaly adress it, understandability tools do
16:47:40 <laura> ... just trying to close small issues.
16:47:47 <alastairc> from the how-to, it is "to improve the experience of individuals with cognitive and learning disabilities"
16:48:14 <LisaSeemanKest> dont use the words "current tools" and I am ok
16:48:28 <laura> Jf: no evidence that tooling is there.
16:48:28 <Rachael> q+
16:48:33 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
16:48:37 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:48:48 <laura> rm: question for next week.
16:48:59 <tink> q+
16:49:08 <laura> ... we have to trust the subgroups.
16:49:23 <laura> ... can't function otherwise.
16:49:27 <tink> ack me
16:49:30 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:49:33 <laura> ... there is a tension there.
16:49:33 <tink> +1 to Rachel
16:49:41 <kirkwood> +1 to Rachel
16:50:28 <jeanne> +1 to Rachael
16:50:30 <alastairc> Adjust to this? "We are not opposed to using tools, but tools such as Flesch-Kincaid are not designed to meet the needs we’re targeting."
16:50:33 <laura> Lisa: if we say readability tools are not sufficient. But we are looking at others.
16:50:46 <LisaSeemanKest> perfect
16:50:48 <Chuck> q?
16:51:17 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/359#issuecomment-1004990301
16:51:45 <alastairc> Thank you for your comment. This guideline is still in early development, how it is going to be tested is not yet agreed. In general the Clear Words subgroup agrees with John Rochford. The current state of readability tools may not be sufficient. There are new tools being developed that the group is looking into and hope to include in a future draft. We are not opposed to using tools, but tools such as Flesch-Kincaid are not designed to meet
16:51:45 <alastairc> the needs we’re targeting.
16:51:57 <LisaSeemanKest> +1
16:51:58 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended response to address issue 359
16:52:02 <LisaSeemanKest> +1
16:52:08 <jeanne> +1
16:52:08 <JF> -1
16:52:13 <Rachael> +1
16:52:14 <Ryladog> +1
16:52:16 <ShawnT> +1
16:52:18 <kirkwood> +1
16:52:18 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:52:24 <Jennie> +1
16:52:37 <Detlev> +1
16:52:52 <JakeAbma> 0
16:52:57 <tink> +1
16:53:06 <ToddL> +1
16:53:22 <laura> Jf: objecting because we don't know the needs of the audience.
16:53:25 <Raf> +1
16:53:31 <tink> q+
16:53:41 <Ryladog> Understandability for people with cognitive disability
16:53:48 <laura> ... need clear definition of the needs.
16:53:49 <janina> q+
16:53:50 <Chuck> ack tink
16:53:53 <janina> q-
16:53:55 <Jennie> All the identified needs?
16:53:55 <janina> +1
16:54:31 <Chuck> q+
16:54:50 <laura> Lw: we have a subgroup that has recommened this. Accept the recommendation, JF.
16:55:24 <laura> chuck: the -1 will not hold up the resolution.
16:55:32 <JF> Q+
16:55:33 <jeanne> User Needs Analysis on Clear and Understandable Content  -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiU58yc0mLEwRL-bos_03h5Zql7PNCpi9o43bNUa6gE/edit
16:55:39 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:55:53 <laura> Lw: if you don't understand, how can you push back?
16:55:57 <kirkwood> +1 to Leonie
16:56:13 <jeanne> q+
16:56:18 <Chuck> ack JF
16:56:20 <laura> jf: can any one define what the needs are?
16:56:29 <Ryladog> Understandability for people with cognitive disability
16:56:49 <laura> Js: it is at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiU58yc0mLEwRL-bos_03h5Zql7PNCpi9o43bNUa6gE/edit#heading=h.n4dn1ix27i11
16:56:58 <laura> jf: I have read that.
16:57:01 <jeanne> ack jean
16:57:08 <LisaSeemanKest> LOL we have been working on it all year
16:57:23 <laura> RESOLUTION:  Accept the amended response to address issue 359
16:57:29 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:57:35 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 3 - 380 - Question on Clear Words
16:57:42 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 3 - 380 - Question on Clear Words
16:58:01 <laura> Chuck: melaniephillip asks "Will a tool like dictionary lookup provided at the OS or browser level be a sufficient technique for Method: Use Clear Words?".
16:58:09 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3/results#xq4
16:58:25 <laura> ... proposed response: The group discussed this and we do not think a browser lookup function is sufficient to meet user needs. First, these tools are available today and they do not solve the overall issue of the necessity of writing with clear words.
16:58:30 <JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/how-tos/clear-words/#develop-button
16:58:36 <laura> ...If we were to say that using browser lookup functions was a sufficient technique, there would be no incentive for authors to provide clear language. The lookup function definition often does not provide the correct context for the content.
16:58:45 <laura> ... Also, the number of steps required to use a browser lookup function can be too complex for people who need to look up multiple words. The fatigue factor for people with certain types of disabilities can be too great.
16:59:04 <laura> ... 7 Agree with the response
16:59:08 <Chuck> q?
17:00:01 <Chuck> zakim, pick a victim
17:00:01 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bruce_bailey
17:00:20 <Chuck> zakim, pick a victim
17:00:20 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Nicaise
17:00:44 <Chuck> zakim, pick a victim
17:00:44 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LisaSeemanKest
17:01:00 <Detlev> I'll scribe then
17:01:05 <Jaunita_George> scribe: Jaunita
17:01:06 <Detlev> OK
17:02:08 <kirkwood> Agree with question on user agent side or author side. Therefore the response is difficult
17:02:19 <alastairc> scribe: Jaunita_George
17:02:25 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: Agree with some comments. It was confusing to me if it was user agent side or another side. I ended up agreeing with the response, but want to change group to su-group
17:02:51 <Jaunita_George> s/su-group/sub-group
17:03:06 <alastairc> q+ to respond to JF
17:03:09 <JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/how-tos/clear-words/#develop-button
17:03:17 <Chuck> ack ala
17:03:17 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to JF
17:03:25 <Jaunita_George> JF: it feels contradictory according to the link
17:03:47 <MelanieP> q+
17:03:52 <JF> Q+
17:03:54 <AWK> q+
17:03:56 <Chuck> ack mel
17:04:02 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: There are two different roles that need clarifying
17:04:22 <JF> +1 Melanie
17:04:32 <Chuck> ack JF
17:04:41 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
17:05:07 <Rachael> q+
17:05:40 <Chuck> ack AWK
17:05:48 <Jaunita_George> JF: We don't have a mechanism in browsers that can do this. The User Agent might be able to do this in the future.
17:06:52 <Jaunita_George> AWK: I agree with John. There used to be requirements for authors that became obsolete because of browser updates
17:07:17 <Jaunita_George> ...we should look at the requirements and see if the user agent handles it and if that would meet the requirement
17:07:26 <Chuck> ack Lisa
17:07:41 <Jaunita_George> ...we have to accept that there may be a possibility that the developer might not have to do anything
17:07:49 <JF> Q+
17:08:40 <Jaunita_George> Lisa: The issue with the tools is that you never had a guarantee that the definition is correct, which could be even more confusing
17:09:18 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:09:41 <LisaSeemanKest> for john ...https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002AprJun/0271.html
17:09:49 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
17:09:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/04-ag-minutes.html laura
17:10:20 <Jaunita_George> Rachael: We should say something like, "Thank you for the comment...." This brings up to a larger issue: If the user agent already does it, do we need a guideline?
17:10:28 <Chuck> q?
17:10:32 <Chuck> q+
17:10:34 <Chuck> ack JF
17:11:39 <laura> s/exploritoy/exploratory/
17:11:40 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:11:45 <Jaunita_George> JF: There's a fatigue factor and there's an issue with potentially incorrect definitions. There's no obvious answer to the fatigue issue, but the dictionary issue depends on what's used.
17:11:55 <Rachael> draft: Thank you for your comment. Most tools available today do not solve the overall issue of the necessity of writing with clear words so can’t be a sufficient technique. It may be a partial technique. Currently, the browser lookup function definition often does not provide the correct context for the content. We are closing this issue but are adding a label input-for-refinement to ensure the group considers your point as we move forward
17:11:55 <Rachael> and look at techniques.
17:12:05 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: We have two options: amending and deferring
17:12:18 <Chuck> q?
17:12:50 <mbgower> -1
17:12:58 <JF> -1
17:12:59 <MelanieP> -1
17:13:07 <ToddL> -1
17:13:12 <mbgower> q+
17:13:17 <Chuck> ack mbg
17:13:38 <MelanieP> q+
17:14:15 <laura> s/coga respoitory./COGA repository./
17:14:23 <Jaunita_George> mbgower: I think a better way to respond is to say the user agent mechanism doesn't meet the requirement
17:14:43 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: I think we should defer and continue working on this
17:14:50 <Chuck> ack Melan
17:15:39 <Jaunita_George> MelanieP: I think providing this technique doesn't require folks to use unclear words, just to define them.
17:15:46 <mbgower> The Design responsibilities cover the desired outcome; the dev responsibilities are 'back fill'
17:15:49 <LisaSeemanKest> john, you can see the latest drafts at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XdI8vuEunDOcIJ0kY2eKGpCKxndEvflEDp737Q148IQ/edit#heading=h.g226sbxfxfhp
17:16:50 <Jaunita_George> Zakim: next item
17:17:07 <bruce_bailey> q+
17:17:10 <Chuck> ack bru
17:17:34 <Jaunita_George> Zakim, next topic
17:17:34 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next topic', Jaunita_George
17:17:35 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
17:17:36 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 2.2 Misc https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:18:14 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: Deferring focus appearance discussion due to absent members
17:18:15 <Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/results
17:18:32 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 1 - “Conformance Criterion” instead of “Conformance Requirement” used in the WCAG 2.1 Glossary #1758
17:18:38 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: question 1 - “Conformance Criterion” instead of “Conformance Requirement” used in the WCAG 2.1 Glossary #1758
17:18:40 <Jaunita_George> ...reviewing survey results
17:20:03 <JF> @Lisa, thank you for that link, which also suggests "...the user has access to an explanation within one click or event." and "Related Methods:  * Using a popup glossary"
17:21:12 <Jaunita_George> AWK: I'm in favor of the errata
17:22:35 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: *reads Stephan's comments*
17:22:55 <alastairc> q+
17:23:12 <Jaunita_George> mbgower: The last two words of the sentence don't make sense
17:23:19 <bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK that this seems to be a 2.0 era shift in terminology
17:23:31 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: This sounds like an amendment
17:23:46 <Jaunita_George> mbgower: If we're doing an errata anyway, we can add this
17:23:59 <Chuck> ack ala
17:24:05 <mbgower> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs
17:24:33 <Chuck> q?
17:24:45 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: We're in the conformance section and we're not talking about success criteria. We changed success criteria to requirement to avoid confusion
17:25:05 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Address issue 1758 by amending and updating PR for in WCAG 2.2 and include an errata on 2.1
17:25:08 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: Any concerns adding Mbgower's change?
17:25:16 <AWK> q+ to agree that it only comes up in the note that is just in WCAG 2.1 (and 2.2)
17:25:17 <mbgower> or lease toss "that" before Conformance Requirement
17:25:34 <mbgower> q+
17:25:43 <Chuck> ack AWK
17:25:43 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to agree that it only comes up in the note that is just in WCAG 2.1 (and 2.2)
17:25:58 <Chuck> ack mb
17:26:25 <Jaunita_George> mbgower: I can live with this, if it's been like this for a long time
17:26:29 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1777/files
17:26:38 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: I've removed the last two words just in case
17:26:41 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Address issue 1758 by amending and updating PR for in WCAG 2.2 and include an errata on 2.1
17:27:14 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Address issue 1758 by amending and updating PR for WCAG 2.2 and include an errata on 2.1
17:27:41 <Jaunita_George> +1
17:27:42 <AWK> +1
17:27:45 <janina> janina has left #ag
17:27:49 <mbgower> +1
17:27:50 <Detlev> +1
17:27:50 <ToddL> +1
17:27:52 <alastairc> +1
17:27:53 <ShawnT> +1
17:27:54 <kirkwood> +1
17:27:54 <bruce_bailey> +1
17:27:55 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Address issue 1758 by amending and updating PR for WCAG 2.2 and include an errata in 2.1
17:27:57 <JakeAbma> +1
17:27:58 <MelanieP> +1
17:28:02 <Chuck> +1
17:28:02 <laura> +1
17:28:21 <Jaunita_George> RESOLUTION:  Address issue 1758 by amending and updating PR for WCAG 2.2 and include an errata in 2.1
17:28:25 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Incomplete/no techniques #1813
17:28:35 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: question 2 - Incomplete/no techniques #1813
17:29:23 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: Reviewed #1813
17:30:54 <alastairc> q+ to respond to gregg
17:31:07 <MelanieP> +1 to Gregg
17:31:10 <Chuck> ack gregg
17:31:13 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: Greg do you want to comment?
17:31:21 <Chuck> ack ala
17:31:21 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to gregg
17:32:00 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2131 to address issue 1813
17:32:02 <Chuck> q+
17:32:14 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: So to respond to Gregg, this change does not change anything except how it's presented. We should be okay to move ahead with this updates.
17:32:24 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:32:28 <Jaunita_George> s/updates/update
17:32:37 <mbgower> +1
17:32:42 <bruce_bailey> +1
17:32:43 <Chuck> +1
17:32:46 <Jaunita_George> +1
17:32:48 <ShawnT> +1
17:32:50 <laura> +1
17:32:50 <ToddL> +1
17:32:50 <alastairc> +1
17:32:59 <MelanieP> =1
17:33:03 <kirkwood> +1
17:33:04 <MelanieP> +1
17:33:11 <Jaunita_George> RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2131 to address issue 1813
17:33:18 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 3 - Problems with WCAG 2.0 Flash Definition #553
17:33:27 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: question 3 - Problems with WCAG 2.0 Flash Definition #553
17:33:59 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: Reviews survey
17:34:08 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
17:36:59 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #ag
17:37:01 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: To be honest, I'm not sure about the PR for #553. I have a feeling it's about one side of this update. I don't think we'd be doing any harm by transitioning to CSS
17:37:29 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: *reads Gregg's comment*
17:37:34 <kirkwood> +1 to changing to CSS pixels per Alastair
17:39:08 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: Gregg wanted something else, but the other comments wanted to tweak. Have you made those tweaks Mike?
17:39:17 <Jaunita_George> mbgower: I'm making them now.
17:39:26 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2127 to address issue 553 and 585
17:39:35 <Jaunita_George> +1
17:40:17 <Chuck> +1
17:40:29 <kirkwood> +1
17:40:31 <ToddL> +1
17:40:32 <alastairc> +1
17:40:40 <Ryladog> +1
17:40:49 <laura> +1
17:40:49 <ShawnT> 0
17:40:53 <Rachael> +1
17:40:55 <bruce_bailey> 0
17:41:03 <Jaunita_George> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2127 to address issue 553 and 585
17:41:09 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 4 - Problems with WCAG 2.0 Flash Definition - max luminance #553
17:41:17 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: question 4 - Problems with WCAG 2.0 Flash Definition - max luminance #553
17:42:25 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: *Reviews Q4*
17:42:33 <mbgower> pushed minor changes to #2127 to meet survey responses
17:43:47 <alastairc> q+
17:44:35 <bruce_bailey> I think this is Andy Sommers comment that Chuck mentioned:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/553#issuecomment-996157667
17:46:24 <Jaunita_George> AWK: Basically my comment says that the luminance of white is one and black is zero, so you have to have a luminance difference of .1 (10 percent of max value). You're not measuring contrast, just luminance. You can have the colors flash because the difference between the colors is not enough
17:46:56 <Jaunita_George> AWK: If you have two bright colors flashing, that would not count as a "flash" either
17:47:13 <kirkwood> q+
17:47:33 <kirkwood> q-
17:48:04 <Jaunita_George> bruce_bailey: Mostly I think we need to rewrite this from scratch so that we all understand it.
17:48:09 <AWK> This should be an update to the understanding document for this SC
17:48:36 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: *reads detlev's comment*
17:49:15 <mbgower> +1 to Detlev
17:49:39 <Chuck> q?
17:49:43 <Chuck> ack ala
17:50:25 <bruce_bailey> wrt my comment just now, we do seem to be consistent with *writing* "relative luminance" and not "luminance"
17:50:38 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-relative-luminance
17:50:47 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-general-flash-and-red-flash-thresholds
17:51:02 <AWK> q+
17:51:04 <laura> laura has joined #ag
17:51:06 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: So it sounds like we have two levels of things here. What is relative luminance: Maximum white in SRGB. It sounds like we could take on a rewrite.
17:51:37 <Chuck> ack AWK
17:51:56 <Jaunita_George> AWK: So Alastair, are you saying we need a change to the document or response?
17:52:06 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: Change to the document.
17:53:48 <Jaunita_George> AWK: This would change general flash and red flash thresholds. We would add clarification. The more difficult alternative is to make it an errata
17:54:16 <bruce_bailey> from the URL i most recently pasted:  A general flash is defined as a pair of opposing changes in relative luminance of 10% or more of the maximum relative luminance where the relative luminance of the darker image is below 0.80; and where "a pair of opposing changes" is an increase followed by a decrease, or a decrease followed by an increase, and
17:54:54 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: Should we go the errata or understanding document update route?
17:55:14 <Jaunita_George> alastairc: We'll have to come back to it
17:55:24 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: No resolution today
17:55:30 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 5 - Recommended viewport size for testing? #1829
17:55:36 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: question 5 - Recommended viewport size for testing? #1829
17:55:56 <Jaunita_George> Chuck: *Reviewed #1829*
17:57:02 <Chuck> q?
17:57:39 <mbgower> q+
17:57:51 <Chuck> ack mbgower
17:58:10 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/results#xq6
17:58:19 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1829
17:58:33 <Jaunita_George> mbgower: The question was about recommended size for testing. A better response besides "all" would be to say you need to meet the requirement in all.
17:59:28 <mbgower> 'should be met across page variations'
17:59:29 <Detlev> present+
17:59:30 <Raf> present+
17:59:34 <kirkwood> present+
17:59:37 <Rachael> present+
17:59:46 <Jaunita_George> rssAgent, make minutes
17:59:49 <shadi> present+
17:59:57 <JF> bye all
17:59:58 <ToddL> present+
18:00:06 <Jaunita_George> rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/04-ag-minutes.html Jaunita_George
18:00:40 <mbgower> Happy New Year everyone!
18:01:32 <mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2127/files
18:10:16 <laura> laura has joined #ag
19:37:49 <chaals> chaals has joined #ag
21:03:47 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #ag
22:45:19 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag