15:23:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:23:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/08-ag-irc
15:23:52 <Chuck_> rrsagent, make logs world
15:24:04 <Chuck_> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:24:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/08-ag-minutes.html Chuck_
15:24:15 <Chuck_> chair:  Chuck_
15:24:34 <Chuck_> Zakim, start meeting
15:24:34 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:24:35 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:24:51 <Chuck_> meeting:  AGWG-2022-02-08
15:26:15 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 3 Introduction to Status Level Marking https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/status-indicators-new/guidelines/index.html#text-alternatives (5 minutes)
15:26:49 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 3 Requirements (30 minutes) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG3_requirements/
15:27:16 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Misc Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/
15:27:35 <Chuck_> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/
15:49:14 <Chuck_> present+
15:55:51 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
15:56:11 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:56:15 <Jennie> present+
15:56:19 <Jennie> scribe: Jennie
15:56:21 <Chuck_> regrets:  Todd Libby, Rain Michaels
15:57:33 <Guest65> Guest65 has joined #ag
15:57:37 <Judy> Judy has joined #ag
15:58:47 <Guest65> present+
15:59:11 <Thompson> present+
15:59:43 <garrison> garrison has joined #ag
15:59:52 <Rachael> present+
16:00:02 <Rachael> present- Guest65
16:00:09 <wilco> wilco has joined #ag
16:00:10 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:00:16 <Jennie> *Thanks for the transcript Rachael - makes it easier to scribe!
16:00:30 <Jennie> Chuck: Thanks for joining.
16:00:32 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:00:33 <Lauriat_> Lauriat_ has joined #ag
16:00:33 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:00:35 <JakeAbma> present+
16:00:51 <wilco> present+
16:00:52 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:01:08 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:01:15 <ToddL> present+
16:01:21 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
16:01:26 <Jennie> Chuck: We will wait until 2 after the hour to start
16:01:29 <sarahhorton> present+
16:01:35 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
16:01:40 <kirkwood> present+
16:02:12 <Jennie> Chuck: OK we will start
16:02:22 <Jennie> ...We have scribes for the entire meeting - thank you
16:02:31 <MarcJohlic> present+
16:02:32 <Jennie> ...Is anyone new or has a new role and would like to introduce themselves?
16:02:45 <Jennie> ...Are there any new topics?
16:02:49 <Raf> present+
16:02:54 <garrison> present+
16:03:02 <Jennie> ...I added 1 topic which is Jennifer in a different called proposed a virtual happy hour.
16:03:09 <Thompson> +1
16:03:09 <Jennie> ...I have added it to discuss
16:03:10 <kirkwood> +1
16:03:19 <Jennie> ...A less formal time to get people together to chat
16:03:20 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:03:27 <Chuck_> ack bru
16:03:37 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:03:46 <bruce_bailey> https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/07/president-biden-announces-key-appointees/
16:03:49 <Jennie> Bruce_bailey: The Access Board has new members! I am very excited
16:03:59 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:04:06 <MelanieP> present+
16:04:17 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:04:26 <Jennie> Bruce_bailey: All of our public board members have been overdue. So this is very nice
16:04:33 <Jennie> Chuck: Any other topics?
16:04:34 <Rachael> q+
16:04:59 <Jennie> Rachael: Chuck and I will both be at CSUN this year. We are planning a restaurant dinner Tuesday or Wednesday night
16:05:11 <Jennie> ...It is a pay your own way. If anyone is interested - it would be great to get together.
16:05:19 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 1
16:05:19 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 3 Introduction to Status Level Marking https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/status-indicators-new/guidelines/index.html#text-alternatives (5 minutes) -- taken up [from
16:05:22 <Zakim> ... Chuck_]
16:05:52 <Jennie> Rachael: I can start if people would like to jump in
16:06:10 <Jennie> (she is sharing screen)
16:06:11 <bruce_bailey> s/have been overdue/have expired appointment terms/
16:06:34 <Jennie> Rachael: We wanted to mark up the document to make it clearer to the public that the content is not finalized - still in draft
16:06:40 <Jennie> ...There are sections that say exploratory
16:06:55 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
16:06:59 <Jennie> ...We also talked about that in the working document we wanted to hide exploratory sections
16:06:59 <Nicaise> present+
16:07:01 <Jennie> ...That is there
16:07:11 <Jennie> ...We want you to look at this. Next week we plan to survey.
16:07:13 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:07:14 <Chuck_> q?
16:07:17 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:07:21 <GreggVan> present+
16:07:22 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:07:23 <Jennie> ...This week is for looking through, looking at the mark up process
16:07:30 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:07:32 <Jennie> ...It stays visible as you move through the content
16:07:32 <mbgower> present+
16:07:43 <Jennie> ...We also want the opportunity to start "the clock"
16:07:45 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
16:07:51 <jaunita_george> Present+
16:07:55 <shadi> present+
16:07:57 <Jennie> ...Stuff that doesn't come back for review within 6 months gets removed from this draft
16:08:07 <Jennie> ...We are starting that 6 month clock today
16:08:10 <Jennie> ...Questions on that?
16:08:31 <Jennie> Alastair C: For each success criteria we are trying to standardize the notes
16:08:32 <wilco> q+
16:08:35 <Jennie> ...the length
16:08:43 <Jennie> ...We will try to reduce to current main issues
16:08:51 <Jennie> ...Github would provide a list
16:08:53 <Jennie> q+
16:08:53 <Chuck_> ack wilco
16:09:04 <Jennie> Wilco: I implemented this just so that everyone has seen and is aware
16:09:11 <Jennie> ...This causes the numbers of sections to jump
16:09:22 <Jennie> ...It might go from section 3 to 7 without others in between
16:09:34 <Jennie> ...We could have also done it in a different way without numbers disappearing
16:09:44 <Chuck_> ack Jennie
16:09:53 <Regina> Regina has joined #ag
16:10:11 <alastairc> Jennie: Because you are starting a clock, which is sound, is there a way at month 5 that a notification could go to the group that it will be removed?
16:10:14 <Chuck_> q+
16:10:22 <kirkwood> Wilco’s comment regarding sections jumping would be a useful note in the document
16:10:25 <Jennie> Rachael: We will have to work out and how we track it, but I think that is useful
16:10:31 <Jennie> Chuck: I agree
16:10:38 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:10:43 <Jennie> ...one month may be too short but it is a good idea and we will discuss it
16:10:47 <Chuck_> q?
16:10:49 <sarahhorton> q+
16:10:49 <Jennie> Chuck: Any other questions?
16:10:57 <Jennie> Sarah H: It looks great
16:11:21 <Jennie> ...Is the status assigned to a guideline is the right level of granularity for the status? Apologies if you have had this conversation
16:11:28 <Jennie> ...There may be outcomes within a guideline that are mature
16:11:39 <Jennie> ...Then there is an introduction of an exploratory outcome, tests
16:11:48 <Jennie> ...If that exploratory outcome isn't refined, matured
16:11:57 <Chuck_> q?
16:11:58 <Jennie> ...The whole guideline will be taken down in the 6 month period
16:12:00 <Chuck_> ack sarah
16:12:09 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:12:12 <Jennie> Rachael: I am not unsure that this will always be at this level - just this first time
16:12:16 <Chuck_> q?
16:12:20 <Jennie> ...It can be more granular as we create more content
16:12:28 <Jennie> Chuck: Sarah did that address your question?
16:12:32 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 2
16:12:32 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 3 Requirements (30 minutes) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG3_requirements/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:12:34 <Jennie> Sarah H: Yes. Thank you
16:12:48 <Jennie> Chuck: Next - survey results on WCAG 3 requirements
16:12:51 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 1 - 2.1 Readable
16:12:56 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 1 - 2.1 Readable
16:13:16 <Jennie> Chuck: Current wording (reads)
16:13:47 <Jennie> ...Rachael proposed (reads Rachael's response)
16:14:18 <Jennie> ...We had a number of responses
16:14:28 <Jennie> ...We will go through the agreements first
16:14:32 <Jennie> ...Bruce had commentary
16:14:38 <Jennie> ...(reads Bruce's comment)
16:14:50 <Jennie> ...I think yours is editorial
16:14:51 <bruce_bailey> yes, just editorial
16:15:01 <Jennie> Chuck: The agree with some adjustments
16:15:06 <Jennie> ...Jake? Are you on the call?
16:15:27 <Jennie> Jake: You can read my comments. I only wanted to add 1 thing to the comments
16:15:43 <Jennie> ...If I am correct, the response from Rachael - I do not think we have proven that rewriting 1 of the success criteria
16:15:55 <Jennie> ...In a more simple and plain language way, makes it consistent and reliable
16:16:04 <Jennie> ...I think we aim to write it as simple as possible
16:16:09 <Rachael> q+
16:16:13 <Jennie> ...But I do not think we have proof we can do that
16:16:18 <Jennie> ...And please read my comment also
16:16:19 <wilco> +1 to Jake
16:16:26 <Jennie> Chuck: I will get to the cue after comments
16:16:32 <Jennie> ...(reads Jake's comments)
16:17:04 <Jennie> ...Detlev agreed with some adjustments
16:17:15 <Jennie> ...(reads Detlev's comments)
16:17:43 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:17:50 <AWK> +AWK
16:18:18 <alastairc> present+
16:18:29 <Jennie> Chuck: Mary Jo Mueller agrees with adjustments.
16:18:35 <Jennie> ...(reads Mary Jo's comments)
16:19:01 <Jennie> Chuck: David M agreed with some comments
16:19:07 <Jennie> ...(reads David M's comments)
16:19:16 <stevelee> present+
16:19:16 <Jennie> Chuck: Laura C agreed with some changes
16:19:22 <Jennie> ...(reads Laura C's comments)
16:19:31 <Jennie> ...she was +1 for David
16:19:42 <Jennie> ...We had 1 person who wanted something different
16:19:51 <Jennie> Sarah H: This is a bullet on readable.
16:20:09 <Jennie> ...I believe the concern raised has to do with the testable/readable dichotomoy
16:20:15 <Jennie> (sorry for the spelling!)
16:20:30 <Jennie> Sarah H: My something else has to do with the response
16:20:55 <Jennie> ...The response is saying in a different way what I am agreeing with, but perhaps we want to avoid reinforcing the readability/testability
16:21:06 <Jennie> ...and perhaps revisit the Requirements of readable
16:21:22 <Jennie> ...and be sure we have the simple and objective we are hoping for WCAG 3
16:21:29 <Jennie> ...I think David M's addition speaks to that as well
16:21:38 <Jennie> ...but perhaps we want to be more explicit
16:21:51 <Jennie> ...Add a bullet and add a testable, main bullet under usability
16:21:57 <Chuck_> q?
16:21:59 <Jennie> Chuck: Did I miss anyone that had commented in the survey?
16:22:01 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:22:10 <garrison> q+
16:22:21 <Jennie> Rachael: Just to point out, and it may be my misunderstanding - this was about the readability of the guideline level
16:22:34 <Jennie> ...I was under the impression that the guideline level was to be as readable as possible
16:22:49 <Chuck_> q?
16:22:56 <Jennie> ...I was trying to capture that in a response
16:22:56 <Chuck_> ack garr
16:23:19 <Jennie> Alastair G: There may not be a guideline for clear writing in WCAG 3 but if there is, the document itself should pass that
16:23:36 <Jennie> ...Should we make a statement that says the document will ulimately pass its own requirements
16:24:01 <Jennie> ...The problem now is we are saying that this can't be met - then the entire world will feel that they can't be clear and simple either
16:24:06 <Chuck_> q?
16:24:10 <Jennie> ...like doctors and others
16:24:38 <Jennie> Chuck: Sarah H - you highlighted concern about readability and testability; and you had some support for David M's suggestion
16:25:01 <Jennie> ...Did that satisfy the dichotomy issue, or is there more work to be done?
16:25:06 <Lauriat_> q+ to note that we do say what garrison proposed in the Requirements: "Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines. Note: This design principle will move to the Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance."
16:25:09 <Jennie> Sarah H: There is the response to the github issue 41
16:25:36 <Jennie> ...Maybe David M's response is adding something to Rachael's response in the survey that talks about readability without compromising accuracy
16:25:49 <Jennie> ...I think we have an opportunity to address some of what Wilco raised? In the issue
16:25:55 <Jennie> ...And speak to the juggling we need to do
16:26:06 <Jennie> ...And make it a priority to use clear and objective language
16:26:11 <Jennie> ...in WCAG 3 overal
16:26:12 <Chuck_> q?
16:26:17 <Chuck_> ack Lau
16:26:17 <Zakim> Lauriat_, you wanted to note that we do say what garrison proposed in the Requirements: "Be accessible and conform to the Guidelines. Note: This design principle will move to the
16:26:20 <Zakim> ... Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance."
16:26:28 <Jennie> Lauriat_: A quick response to Alastair G's response
16:26:39 <Jennie> ...We do have a note about that in the Design Principle
16:26:40 <Chuck_> q?
16:26:48 <Jennie> ...It will move once completed
16:27:03 <Jennie> Chuck: I am not sure what to propose as alternatives. Rachael - do you have thoughts?
16:27:18 <Jennie> Rachael: It may be worth a straw poll to put the clarification in or not?
16:27:19 <Jennie> q+
16:28:04 <alastairc> Jennie: Could we add ShawnL's comment to the response, to remind people that is present. Agree with AlistairG that it is important for all readers.
16:28:05 <Chuck_> Jennie:  Wondering if adding Shawn's comment to the response is being drafted to remind people that it will be moved.  Would be helpful for all readers to have this information.
16:28:10 <Chuck_> q?
16:28:12 <wilco> q+
16:28:13 <Chuck_> ack Jennie
16:28:19 <Chuck_> ack wilco
16:28:26 <Jennie> Wilco: I want to ask Rachael - I think a clarification would be helpful
16:28:33 <Jennie> ...I don't understand the response
16:28:44 <Jennie> ...Are you saying there is guidance for testers, and guidance for non testers?
16:28:50 <Chuck_> q?
16:28:51 <Jennie> ...If so, which would be required/normative?
16:29:04 <Jennie> Rachael: My understanding (may not be everyone's)
16:29:08 <Jennie> ...Like text alternatives
16:29:19 <Jennie> ...This is not much different than WCAG 2.2
16:29:33 <Jennie> ...Beneath it, there is all kinds of other information that is technical, aimed at certain audiences
16:29:43 <Jennie> ...Those other audiences have different content requirements
16:29:53 <Jennie> ...I was under the impression that this content could be different
16:30:04 <Jennie> ...If that is not your understanding, that would be good to understand
16:30:13 <Chuck_> q?
16:30:17 <Jennie> Wilco: It suggests more to me like that would be the whole document
16:30:39 <Jennie> ...If it is limited to just the guidelines, I understand. But the text in the requirements document reads different from what I am hearing here
16:30:50 <Jennie> Chuck: I am not sure how to craft the full question
16:31:01 <Jennie> ...the poll question
16:31:21 <Jennie> Rachael: Maybe the answer is we move passed this one, review outside the meeting, then reapproach this question
16:31:39 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Discuss the intent, and revisit a response later.
16:31:54 <Jennie> Chuck: The resolution just documents the decision for those reviewing the notes later on
16:31:59 <Jennie> ...It does not close it
16:32:03 <Rachael> Just to note the requirement states "The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of plain language, structure, and design."
16:32:06 <Jennie> ...I'm happy to go with that proposal
16:32:10 <Jennie> ...Any objections?
16:32:27 <Rachael> q+
16:32:41 <Jennie> RESOLUTION:  Discuss the intent, and revisit a response later.
16:32:44 <Rachael> q-
16:32:46 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 2 - 2.2 Measurable Guidance
16:32:47 <JakeAbma> q+
16:32:53 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 2 - 2.2 Measurable Guidance
16:33:03 <JakeAbma> q-\
16:33:07 <Jennie> Chuck: The current wording (reads)
16:33:08 <JakeAbma> q-
16:33:25 <GreggVan> q+
16:34:28 <Jennie> Chuck: Options are agree, or update the wording
16:34:35 <Jennie> ...We had 1 person that agreed - Bruce
16:34:39 <Chuck_> q?
16:34:41 <Jennie> ...I will go through cue after comments
16:34:59 <Jennie> Bruce: My comment was just editorial but I think the concluding detail should be at the top instead of the bottom
16:35:00 <Chuck_> q?
16:35:04 <Jennie> Chuck: Jake - you agreed.
16:35:21 <Jennie> Jake: I agreed with Wilco. Please read my response
16:35:25 <Jennie> Chuck: (reads response)
16:36:10 <bruce_bailey> s/My comment was just editorial but I think the concluding detail should be at the top instead of the bottom/My comment was just editorial/
16:36:45 <Jennie> Chuck: Mary Jo Mueller agreed with some updates
16:36:51 <JakeAbma> q+
16:36:51 <Jennie> ...(reads Mary Jo's comments)
16:37:09 <Chuck_> q?
16:37:11 <Jennie> Chuck: Did I miss any?
16:37:16 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
16:37:24 <Jennie> GreggVan: 1st I want to separate requirements and guidance
16:37:29 <Jennie> ...We are crossing them over.
16:37:39 <jaunita_george> +1 to a lot of what Wilco wrote
16:37:50 <jaunita_george> +1 to Gregg
16:37:50 <Jennie> ...Part of our solution path will say if you are going to have a requirement it needs to be reliably tested
16:37:56 <Rachael> q+
16:38:08 <Jennie> ...But, if we talk about beyond the requirements we want to provide guidance, then we have something else
16:38:21 <Jennie> ...I think we need to clarify if we mean requirements or guidance
16:38:31 <Jennie> ...Let's be clear
16:38:49 <Jennie> ...The last comment is: the reason things work in Europe differently is that they have a different legal system than the United States
16:38:56 <Jennie> ...There is not the law suits
16:39:10 <Jennie> ...They have have guidelines we cannot have in the U.S. because they would end up in court
16:39:11 <Chuck_> q?
16:39:13 <Chuck_> ack Jake
16:39:23 <Jennie> JakeAbma: To add to my comments
16:39:29 <Jennie> ...I have suggested before, will do so again
16:39:39 <Jennie> ...I don't have a problem or issue with the pass/fail like we have in WCAG 2
16:40:03 <Jennie> ...It might just be a proper id or solution to keep that as a basis, but on top of it open up other possibilities
16:40:08 <Jennie> ...Call it a second currency
16:40:13 <jaunita_george> +1
16:40:17 <Jennie> ...Because of effor or maturity
16:40:19 <Chuck_> q+ to say my understanding is that Jake's idea is included in draft
16:40:21 <Jennie> ...Built on top of WCAG 2
16:40:33 <Jennie> ...That is the same for the previous issues with clear words or wording
16:40:41 <Jennie> ...Why not also build on top of WCAG 2
16:40:50 <Jennie> ...To provide like an extra layer on top
16:40:59 <Jennie> ...We have had this conversation for 3 or 4 years
16:41:05 <Jennie> ...We are talking in circles for a long time
16:41:14 <Jennie> ...Once it needs to be settled that maybe there is a base set
16:41:27 <Jennie> ...then we open our requirements to add more for the things we do not cover right now
16:41:33 <Jennie> ...And in response to Greg
16:41:45 <Jennie> ...We try to follow WCAG 2.1 but then what happens after
16:41:54 <Jennie> ...You may get sued because you don't do anything
16:42:12 <Jennie> ...I think it works pretty  much the same here - if you are doing your best you get rewarded for doing more than
16:42:20 <Jennie> ...Trying to figure out the pass/fail statements
16:42:29 <Chuck_> q?
16:42:29 <Jennie> ...That maybe a way to try to gain interest from people
16:42:33 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:42:36 <Jennie> ...And to have them grow in their expertise
16:42:51 <Jennie> Rachael: I think we could explore a potential disconnect between how it was written and what was intended
16:42:56 <Jennie> ...It could be the approach
16:43:15 <Jennie> ...We have a way to write success criteria in WCAG 2 that is a limiting factor that perhaps needs more flexibility for WCAG 3
16:43:30 <Jennie> ...I am proposing rewording so we don't focus on pass/fail, but focus on the approach
16:43:32 <OliverK> OliverK has joined #ag
16:43:41 <Rachael> All WCAG 3.0 guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current approach to measurement used in WCAG 2.x, other ways of approaching measurement can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.
16:43:41 <Jennie> ...That WCAG 3 will potentially take advantage of a wider approach
16:44:10 <Chuck_> q?
16:44:12 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:44:12 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say my understanding is that Jake's idea is included in draft
16:44:16 <GreggVan> q+  to suggest    "In addition to requirements (that require reliable pass-fail)  WCAG 3 also include guidance that does not require pass-fail"
16:44:27 <Jennie> Chuck: Jake - one of your suggestions was to build on pass/fail - or at least may interpretation
16:44:40 <Jennie> ...My understanding is that this draft did exactly that
16:44:46 <Chuck_> q?
16:44:47 <Jennie> ...It mentions alternatives that we are exploring
16:44:50 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
16:44:50 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest    "In addition to requirements (that require reliable pass-fail)  WCAG 3 also include guidance that does not require pass-fail"
16:45:04 <Jennie> GreggVan: Perhaps we could use working like
16:45:20 <Jennie> (from scribe: sorry didn't catch the proposed wording)
16:45:29 <Jennie> GreggVan: it says let's figure out how to do both
16:45:43 <Chuck_> q?
16:46:24 <Jennie> GreggVan's suggestion: "In addition to requirements (that require reliable pass-fail)  WCAG 3 also include guidance that does not require pass-fail"
16:46:31 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
16:46:37 <StefanS> present+
16:46:52 <Chuck_> rachael's earlier proposal:  All WCAG 3.0 guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current approach to measurement used in WCAG 2.x, other ways of approaching measurement can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.
16:46:57 <Jennie> * thanks alastairc! Hard to parse language, type, etc...
16:46:59 <shadi> q+
16:47:05 <Chuck_> ack Shadi
16:47:09 <Jennie> Shadi: Just a clarification question
16:47:21 <Jennie> ...What does it mean: other ways of approaching measurement. Can you give an example?
16:47:30 <Jennie> Rachael: It probably needs wordsmithing
16:47:45 <Jennie> ...We can create pass/fail statements that rely on internally set measures, or protocols
16:47:53 <Jennie> ...It will be "did you do it, yes or no?"
16:48:06 <Jennie> ...I am suggesting we focus on providing flexibility not into the pass/fail point of view
16:48:17 <Jennie> ...doing it a different way than in WCAG 2.2
16:48:21 <Chuck_> q+
16:48:23 <Jennie> Shadi: Thanks
16:48:23 <GreggVan> q+  to ask for more
16:48:25 <Chuck_> ack Chu
16:48:40 <Jennie> GreggVan: I want more clarification because I am not sure what that means
16:48:50 <Jennie> ...If there are other ways to measure, they need to be reliable
16:49:01 <Jennie> ...If it is repeatable and reliable, then it is testable by definition
16:49:07 <Jennie> ...If it is not repeatable, or reliable
16:49:14 <Jennie> ...Then it is not a way of measurement
16:49:19 <Rachael> maybe, "measure different things" instead of "approach to measurement"
16:49:26 <Jennie> ...Can you say a bit more about an alternate way?
16:49:55 <Jennie> ...Are you saying that you can have kind of pass, pass better? pass best? Then we cannot require it
16:50:10 <Jennie> ...Then it has to be between zero and 100 feet long, but it can be anything in between
16:50:16 <Jennie> ...You have to have at least a minimum
16:50:16 <Chuck_> updated suggested text:  All WCAG 3.0 guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be reliably and consistently verified. In addition to the current approach to measurement used in WCAG 2.x, other ways of approaching measurement can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.
16:50:42 <Jennie> Rachael: I was trying to focus on the approach to measurement. Maybe it is measuring different things
16:50:49 <Jennie> ...We are expanding the types of things we are measuring
16:51:01 <Jennie> GreggVan: You can have different types of things, but they need to be testable
16:51:07 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:51:13 <Jennie> Rachael: I think we need to take another look at this
16:51:20 <Jen_G> Present+
16:51:22 <Jen_G> Present+
16:51:28 <Jennie> Chuck: I have made a minor tweak, but agree with Rachael that we need to take another look at it
16:51:28 <Jen_G> Present+
16:51:34 <Jennie> ...I have updated the suggestion to:
16:51:47 <Jennie> ...All WCAG 3.0 guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be reliably and consistently verified. In addition to the current approach to measurement used in WCAG 2.x, other ways of approaching measurement can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.
16:51:54 <GreggVan> q+
16:52:02 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
16:52:02 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask for more and to
16:52:07 <Jennie> ...That is my effort to combine GreggVan and Rachael's together
16:52:19 <Jennie> GreggVan: I like it, but instead of guideance use requirements
16:52:32 <Jennie> ...This means we can go beyond tests and provide additional guidance
16:52:34 <Rachael> q+ to disambiguate terminology
16:52:39 <Jennie> ...Then we don't have an additional word
16:52:55 <Jennie> ...Maybe even say something about have WCAG 3 provide additional guidance
16:52:59 <Jennie> ...I hope we can provide more guidance
16:53:02 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:53:02 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to disambiguate terminology
16:53:21 <Jennie> Rachael: I understand your point Gregg - I am not sure requirements is the correct word. Maybe guidelines? I hear your concern about
16:53:26 <Jennie> ...broader, non testable
16:53:33 <Jennie> ...Maybe this goes back to Silver
16:54:00 <Chuck_> q?
16:54:04 <Jennie> GreggVan: Someone is taking it back so all of it gets back to Silver? The intent to not get stuck on testable.
16:54:10 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Suggest update as drafted in IRC and bring proposal back to Silver for discussion.
16:54:10 <Jennie> Chuck: Somebody will.
16:54:30 <Jennie> Chuck: My proposed resolution will not close the issue
16:54:33 <JakeAbma> q+
16:54:34 <Jennie> ...any objections?
16:54:37 <Chuck_> ack Jake
16:54:50 <Jennie> JakeAbma: I was wondering what does "going back to Silver" mean?
16:55:07 <Jennie> Rachael: I mean that we will take all of this content, go back to the Silver task force meeting, wordsmith there
16:55:18 <Jennie> ...It is an efficiency goal since we have limited time with everyone
16:55:19 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Suggest update as drafted in IRC and bring proposal back to Silver for wordsmithing in that taskforce.
16:55:40 <Jennie> Chuck: I have updated the proposed resolution to reflect that
16:55:46 <Jennie> ...I am hearing no objections
16:55:46 <Jennie> RESOLUTION:  Suggest update as drafted in IRC and bring proposal back to Silver for wordsmithing in that taskforce.
16:55:51 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 3
16:55:51 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 2.2 Misc Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:56:02 <Jennie> Chuck: We have concluded the WCAG 3 conversations
16:56:12 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 1 - Change of context definition
16:56:14 <Jennie> ...If you are here just for that, thank you for your participation
16:56:23 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 1 - Change of context definition
16:56:46 <Jennie> Chuck: Jake raised (reads from the survey)
16:57:02 <alastairc> q+ to provide overview of results (the table is complex)
16:58:13 <Jennie> ...(reading the 5 options)
16:58:39 <GreggVan> q+   to suggest    "Changes in what is presented to the user that ...."
16:59:11 <GreggVan> q+   to suggest    "Changes in what is presented to the user by the website that ...."
16:59:15 <lisas> lisas has joined #ag
16:59:23 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:59:23 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to provide overview of results (the table is complex)
16:59:24 <Jennie> Chuck: AlastairC?
16:59:35 <Jennie> AlastairC: From the results, option 2 has the best support.
16:59:42 <Jennie> ...The others all have at least 1 no
16:59:47 <Jennie> ...And not as much positivity
16:59:49 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:59:50 <mbgower> q+
17:00:02 <Jennie> ...Apologies for the complex way to ask the question
17:00:12 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:00:12 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest    "Changes in what is presented to the user that ...." and to suggest    "Changes in what is presented to the user by the website that ...."
17:00:26 <Jennie> GreggVan: I wonder if part of it seems to be the word at the top - change is to the content
17:00:37 <wilco> q+
17:00:40 <Jennie> ...When you go to a new page it is actually changing to a new page
17:00:51 <alastairc> q+ to say that we'll need to keep this update minimal
17:00:56 <Jennie> ...What if we use "Change in what is present to the user that..."
17:01:12 <Jennie> *Yes!
17:01:42 <Jennie> GreggVan: I was suggesting a change in the front so it gets rid of the problem that was highlighted
17:01:48 <Jennie> ...The 1st 2 words seem to conflict
17:01:55 <Jennie> ...We should say "by the website"
17:02:04 <Chuck_> ack mbgower
17:02:22 <Jennie> mbgower: 1st, I think I actually did the 2nd half of last week so maybe someone actually signed me up accidentally
17:02:33 <Jennie> ...I have an option 6 which may have more traction
17:02:39 <Jennie> ...Building on what Gregg is saying
17:02:48 <Jennie> ...I think we have to move 3 words from the preamble
17:02:56 <janina> janina has joined #ag
17:03:05 <janina> present+
17:03:16 <Jennie> ...I think it is safe to put in as errata
17:04:01 <GreggVan> q+  to say   this should also include unexpected jumps to new page -- so we can't  just say
17:04:08 <Jennie> Chuck: Any volunteers to scribe?
17:04:11 <Chuck_> zakim, pick a scribe
17:04:11 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose stevelee
17:04:37 <Chuck_> zakim, pick a scribe
17:04:37 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kirkwood
17:04:52 <Chuck_> scribe:  kirkwood
17:04:59 <GreggVan> q+ to say  " just say changes to the web page.   I think we need to say  "changes to what is presented to the user"
17:05:01 <Chuck_> q?
17:05:03 <mbgower> Current definition https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-change-of-context
17:05:10 <Chuck_> ack wilco
17:05:21 <kirkwood> Wico: like to propose not making any changes
17:05:28 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:05:28 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that we'll need to keep this update minimal
17:05:33 <kirkwood> s/Wico/Wilco
17:06:23 <Chuck_> q+ to say there's definitely a "bug" that we might be able to address
17:06:26 <mbgower> q+
17:06:32 <kirkwood> Alastair:  in response to Mike’s change odd implication such as opening user agent, view port, why i thought triggered
17:06:44 <kirkwood> Alastair: no objections notedin survey to 2
17:07:10 <Chuck_> q?
17:07:11 <kirkwood> … we should resolve, make small errata
17:07:13 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:07:13 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   this should also include unexpected jumps to new page -- so we can't  just say and to say  " just say changes to the web page.   I think we need to
17:07:16 <Zakim> ... say  "changes to what is presented to the user"
17:07:55 <kirkwood> Gregg: jumping to a new page should be addressed, we mean pages to page, where you are, and fliying off to a new page
17:08:13 <kirkwood> … they are all things not supposed to happen
17:08:53 <AWK> q+
17:08:56 <Chuck_> q?
17:08:56 <mbgower> q+
17:08:59 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:08:59 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say there's definitely a "bug" that we might be able to address
17:09:02 <kirkwood> … change what is presented to user, but can’t think of anything better. examples ar non normative have to examples work with it
17:09:23 <kirkwood> Charles: not a proponent of doing nothing, there is a bug in text
17:09:25 <alastairc> q+
17:09:29 <Chuck_> ack mbg
17:09:54 <kirkwood> Gower: look at definition in context and consider what happens when we remove the three words
17:10:49 <Chuck_> q?
17:11:11 <Chuck_> ack AWK
17:11:23 <kirkwood> Gower: we have content covered in definition, the web page is a measurement of conformance. so don’t think we need to say anything beyond web page. i think this is clearest way to make an errata. they are in changes of context definition
17:11:51 <GreggVan> q+  to say  Great comment Kirkwood   -- two minimal  edits     Add  "presented"  after "web page" and  add "including the following""  to the end
17:12:02 <alastairc> "major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously"
17:12:05 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:12:10 <kirkwood> AWK: major changes wording would not be enough without defining what changes we are talking. can avoid by not talking about a web page
17:12:30 <wilco> q+
17:12:50 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-change-of-context
17:13:07 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:13:07 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  Great comment Kirkwood   -- two minimal  edits     Add  "presented"  after "web page" and  add "including the following""  to the end
17:13:14 <kirkwood> Alaistar: agree with andrew’s suggestion. On Gregg’s point examples are part of definition not separate. assuming that those examples are insluded so option 2 seams to make sense
17:13:56 <kirkwood> Gregg: suggest surgical changes, changes to web pages presented at end add ‘including the following’
17:14:14 <Chuck_> q+ to say does AWK's and Alastair's proposal not satisfy?
17:14:17 <Chuck_> ack wil
17:14:23 <kirkwood> Gregg: those two edits would cause it to work
17:14:43 <GreggVan> q+
17:14:50 <mbgower> any software that retrieves and presents Web content for users  Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs — including assistive technologies — that help in retrieving, rendering, and interacting with Web content.
17:14:58 <mbgower> ^ That's the defn of user agent
17:15:06 <kirkwood> Wilco: user agent is the rendering of page
17:15:10 <alastairc> q+ to say that user agent can also mean opening new user agents, e.g. PDF
17:15:23 <laura> laura has joined #ag
17:15:30 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:15:30 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say does AWK's and Alastair's proposal not satisfy?
17:15:38 <kirkwood> Charles: you are suggesting a differnt set of word changes
17:15:55 <kirkwood> Gregg: user agent is not part of web content
17:16:02 <AWK> Gregg - "major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously"
17:16:18 <Chuck_> option 2 tweak:  "major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously"
17:16:25 <kirkwood> Gregg: author has no control over user agent
17:17:17 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
17:17:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/08-ag-minutes.html laura
17:17:26 <Chuck_> major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously, including the following:
17:17:28 <AWK> q+
17:17:29 <kirkwood> Gregg: just add to the end, “including the following” because last four items are critical
17:17:33 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:17:42 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:17:42 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that user agent can also mean opening new user agents, e.g. PDF
17:18:09 <kirkwood> Alastair: I would be happy with that, things i interpreted was like opening a pdf
17:18:26 <Chuck_> ack AWK
17:18:30 <mbgower> q+ to say I don't see the need to alter the bullets. They are part of the definition as is, IMO. The less we change the better.
17:18:32 <kirkwood> … evaluated a page its opening of user agent not what happens in user agent
17:19:05 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-change-of-context
17:19:31 <Chuck_> q?
17:19:35 <kirkwood> AWK: i did not add to end because changes of context its already there. discussing the survey which in more concise
17:19:52 <kirkwood> Gregg: ok you’re correct andrew
17:20:01 <Chuck_> current proposal:  major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously:
17:20:05 <Chuck_> q?
17:20:12 <kirkwood> Gregg: no need from my suggested at end
17:20:16 <alastairc> PR now doesn't remove 'major': https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1765/files
17:20:25 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:20:25 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I don't see the need to alter the bullets. They are part of the definition as is, IMO. The less we change the better.
17:20:48 <kirkwood> Gower: I put major word back in
17:20:51 <AWK> +1 to modified PR
17:21:06 <kirkwood> Charles: take a look at pul request 1765
17:21:07 <mbgower> +1
17:21:10 <wilco> -1
17:21:50 <mbgower> examples?
17:21:52 <kirkwood> Wilco: think this changes meaning of multiple SC don’t think that is appropriate
17:22:04 <Chuck_> q?
17:22:07 <alastairc> q+
17:22:13 <kirkwood> … don’t think we should change the defintion
17:22:37 <Chuck_> q?
17:22:41 <Chuck_> ack alas
17:22:48 <kirkwood> AC: don’t think it changes meaning
17:22:55 <wilco> q+
17:23:06 <kirkwood> … putting in as an errata with option for 2.2 onward
17:23:07 <Chuck_> ack wil
17:23:28 <kirkwood> Wilco: anything outside of web page is now in scope
17:23:39 <mbgower> which SC are you speaking directly to?
17:23:46 <kirkwood> … by taking out in content part, changes scope
17:23:59 <bruce_bailey> @wilco i don't understand your "outside the webpage" concern
17:24:24 <kirkwood> AC: in context of SC, you are still evaluating within context of page
17:24:41 <kirkwood> Wilco: if opens new window, current defintion would not be a failure
17:24:44 <bruce_bailey> q+
17:24:48 <mbgower> say again?
17:25:08 <kirkwood> Wilco: a link that is focused open a new window
17:25:11 <AWK> q+
17:25:11 <Chuck_> ack br
17:25:15 <kirkwood> AC: not activted?
17:25:40 <kirkwood> Bruce: silent tab that opens a new page? is that what we are talking about
17:25:56 <kirkwood> Wilco: browser behavior impacts that
17:25:58 <Chuck_> q+ to agree with bruce
17:26:03 <Chuck_> ack AWK
17:26:05 <mbgower> +1 absolutely clear. how could it be otherwise!
17:26:14 <kirkwood> Bruce: going to new page has always been change of context
17:26:24 <kirkwood> AWK: if counts as expected i’d agree
17:26:27 <GreggVan> yes    it is    and  "clicking on link is always expected)
17:26:57 <kirkwood> AWK: tab to a link it pops a new window and opens a link you would not fail?
17:26:58 <Chuck_> q?
17:27:00 <mbgower> Clearly an On Focus error
17:27:11 <kirkwood> Wilco: don’t think it current fails SC
17:27:11 <mbgower> q+
17:27:24 <alastairc> q+ to say you have to ignore one part of the definition to interpret that way
17:27:34 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:27:34 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to agree with bruce
17:27:34 <kirkwood> talk about changing focus
17:27:35 <bruce_bailey> tabbing (only) changing webpage is a change of focus
17:27:59 <bruce_bailey> s/is a change of focus/is a change of context/
17:28:01 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:28:03 <kirkwood> Charles: in that case we say its a failure on our side
17:28:18 <GreggVan> q+ to say   "that was always intended to be a failure
17:28:22 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:28:22 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say you have to ignore one part of the definition to interpret that way
17:28:33 <kirkwood> Gower: changes in context includes changes in focus
17:28:37 <AWK> The case we are describing fails F55: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F55.html
17:29:11 <Chuck_> q+ to say I empathize with wilco
17:29:15 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:29:15 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "that was always intended to be a failure
17:29:16 <kirkwood> AC: you need to ignore examples then, content of web page triggers change but given two differnt intrepetation let’s remove that confusion
17:30:14 <bruce_bailey> i am happy that we have figured out the root cause of the concern
17:30:17 <Chuck_> q?
17:30:19 <Chuck_> ack Chu
17:30:19 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say I empathize with wilco
17:30:32 <kirkwood> Gregg: jumping to a new page was always intended to cover this, tabbing to a link shouldn’t trigger a link, that was always intentded to be a failure, if not clear should fix it
17:31:09 <Chuck_> q?
17:31:17 <kirkwood> CA: if that is the interpretation i see the problems that would cause. would everyone else fail it, would that alter your perspective Wilco?
17:32:01 <kirkwood> Wilco: struggle between original intent and what the wording is, basing on examples i guess i can live with it
17:32:10 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 1765 to alter the "Change of Context" definition
17:32:32 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 1765 as an errata to alter the "Change of Context" definition
17:32:54 <mbgower> +1
17:32:55 <kirkwood> +1
17:32:56 <Chuck_> +1
17:32:57 <alastairc> +1
17:32:57 <Rachael> +1
17:32:58 <laura> +1
17:33:02 <AWK> +1
17:33:04 <jaunita_george> +1
17:33:06 <bruce_bailey> +1 it is errata
17:33:07 <JakeAbma> +1
17:33:07 <wilco> -.9
17:33:14 <Thompson> +1
17:33:16 <wilco> q+
17:33:21 <Chuck_> ack wil
17:33:24 <Francis_Storr> +1
17:33:39 <mbgower> q+
17:33:47 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:34:08 <AWK> q+
17:34:30 <Chuck_> ack AWK
17:35:09 <bruce_bailey> i agree that being cautious about changing a definition is warrented
17:35:14 <alastairc> The SCs are quite tight: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#on-focus
17:35:45 <wilco> q+
17:35:48 <kirkwood> AWK: don’t see what is changing here, just user is forced to moved somewhere else
17:36:15 <mbgower> q+
17:36:33 <kirkwood> Wilco: stating obvious, a firework outside house is now in definition
17:36:37 <GreggVan> that is not part of the web page
17:36:48 <Chuck_> q?
17:36:50 <kirkwood> Wilco: now anything can be a change in context
17:36:52 <Chuck_> ack wilco
17:36:52 <GreggVan> and WCAG is only the web page
17:36:57 <GreggVan> q+
17:37:11 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:37:46 <alastairc> Our definition of "emergency" does not reference web pages.
17:37:58 <kirkwood> Mike: our entire conformance model is based on web page. i’m flabbergasted that we specify that we are taling about we pages
17:38:08 <AWK> This will need to go to a CFC anyway, so accepting with Wilco's objections being noted doesn't affect his ability to raise his concern more broadly.
17:38:19 <AWK> q+
17:38:23 <Chuck_> q+ to say that wilco's opinions are valid
17:38:44 <alastairc> We need to move on, let's CFC and move on
17:39:00 <AWK> q-
17:39:01 <kirkwood> CA: Wilco’s perceptions are valid becasue its a change in defintion it is fair to be cautious
17:39:05 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:39:05 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that wilco's opinions are valid
17:39:09 <Chuck_> ack Greg
17:39:45 <kirkwood> Gregg: there are dozens of provisions that don’t use the word web pages
17:40:05 <kirkwood> … we don’t need to put web pages into every sentence
17:40:09 <Chuck_> q?
17:40:18 <alastairc> It would only be covered on-focus / on-input
17:40:30 <mbgower> Every conformance level specifies "web page"
17:40:36 <kirkwood> RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 1765 as an errata to alter the "Change of Context" definition
17:40:40 <mbgower> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/conformance
17:40:50 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Visible Controls clarifications and a user-agent example #1905
17:40:57 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 2 - Visible Controls clarifications and a user-agent example #1905
17:41:40 <alastairc> q+ to say I've made the adjustment
17:41:48 <kirkwood> CA: everybody agreed detlev wanted adjustments
17:42:03 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended response to address issue 1905
17:42:12 <kirkwood> CA: anyone with concerns about suggestion
17:42:14 <mbgower> double negative
17:42:31 <kirkwood> AC: there was an extra ‘not’ that created a double negative
17:42:40 <Chuck_> +1
17:42:43 <alastairc> +1
17:42:45 <mbgower> +1
17:42:46 <laura> +1
17:42:47 <kirkwood> +1
17:42:50 <jaunita_george> +1
17:42:52 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
17:42:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/08-ag-minutes.html alastairc
17:43:00 <Thompson> +1
17:43:03 <GreggVan> +1
17:43:09 <kirkwood> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended response to address issue 1905
17:43:20 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 3 - Avoiding must/should in understanding docs
17:43:27 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 3 - Avoiding must/should in understanding docs
17:45:41 <kirkwood> CA: reading through Rachael’s response
17:45:43 <alastairc> + Suggest, Advise, Ideally, Recommended * 3, At best, optimally
17:46:06 <alastairc> q+
17:46:06 <kirkwood> Rachael: don’t have a strong prefernce on either direction
17:46:39 <kirkwood> CA: Gundula says prefered recommend reading her response
17:46:48 <GreggVan> q+   to say     "standards do not all the use of   Should  Shall   in informative text.  So agree with that.   Suggested term  is   "good practice is to"
17:46:54 <kirkwood> CA: reading Andrews response
17:47:26 <GreggVan> q-
17:47:34 <bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK survey response, that "must" can be okay when used carefully
17:47:34 <kirkwood> Andrew: my response pretty much says it. Must is a word that conveys important meeting
17:47:49 <kirkwood> … can’t do it saying should in some cases
17:48:12 <kirkwood> … which speaks to wether techniques are required not sure how to not use must
17:48:20 <GreggVan> q+    to say     "standards do not allow the use of   "Should"  or  "Shall"   in informative text.  So agree with that.   Some suggestions --  "good practice is to"      "People often "
17:48:42 <kirkwood> Bruce: echoing Andrews concerns must is a trigger but have it correct in this case
17:48:53 <kirkwood> MG: comment stands should be first
17:48:57 <Chuck_> q?
17:49:00 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:49:00 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say I've made the adjustment and to
17:49:00 <AWK> q+
17:49:12 <kirkwood> CA: seems you think recommend is most applciable
17:49:21 <mbgower> This was specific to one situation. See https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2148
17:49:43 <mbgower> Sentence was "The location in a smaller viewport may be different than in a larger viewport but it is best if the mechanism or link is consistent across a set of web pages."
17:50:06 <Chuck_> q+ to ask if we are changing for all existing doc, or just going forward?
17:50:28 <GreggVan> q+    to say   " Techniques are to meet an SC.   and sometimes in a  technique you need to do something.  In that case it should say  "To satisfy Scxxx with this technique you need to do yyyy"
17:50:38 <kirkwood> AC: do have dicotemy sometimes things are desirable but some don’t go quite as far as we want, words like ideally doesn’t match. most thining a particualr word reocmmend was seemingly best one for understanding docments
17:51:12 <Chuck_> q?
17:51:15 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say "recommended" seems potentially problematic
17:51:17 <kirkwood> AC: we can wrap that up. sometimes can help if separtly say this thing has a good impact, recommended ideally etc
17:51:18 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:51:18 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say     "standards do not allow the use of   "Should"  or  "Shall"   in informative text.  So agree with that.   Some suggestions --  "good practice is to"
17:51:21 <Zakim> ...     "People often " and to say   " Techniques are to meet an SC.   and sometimes in a  technique you need to do something.  In that case it should say  "To satisfy Scxxx with
17:51:21 <Zakim> ... this technique you need to do yyyy"
17:51:22 <MelanieP> At least within technique docs a good model was recently implemented in Technique G183: "This technique goes beyond the success criterion and asks for visual highlights when the user hovers over each link..."
17:51:49 <mbgower> q+ to say this wasn't in discussion on normative text nor on the use of "must"
17:51:55 <AWK> q-
17:52:10 <AWK> I'm fine with the use of "recommendation" in Understanding docs
17:52:17 <kirkwood> Gregg: good practice is to and technique is to meet SC.
17:52:50 <Chuck_> q?
17:52:54 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:52:54 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask if we are changing for all existing doc, or just going forward?
17:52:57 <kirkwood> Gregg: that whats do in must or shall. as pasted above
17:53:08 <Chuck_> q?
17:53:28 <kirkwood> AC: I put in a suggested poll to use recommended
17:53:33 <Chuck_> POLL:  Rather than use must/should in understanding docs, new approach will be to use "recommended"
17:53:50 <Chuck_> ack Bru
17:53:50 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say "recommended" seems potentially problematic
17:53:50 <GreggVan> q+ to say   "also recommend that you"
17:54:01 <kirkwood> AC: not must just should in understanding documnet
17:54:35 <Chuck_> q?
17:54:36 <kirkwood> Bruce: I don’t think recommended is good. Think we should stick to facts based statement that is why i was voting for usability
17:54:38 <Chuck_> ack mbg
17:54:38 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this wasn't in discussion on normative text nor on the use of "must"
17:54:39 <GreggVan> q+  to say   "it is also good to"
17:54:45 <mbgower> The location in a smaller viewport may be different than in a larger viewport but it is best if the mechanism or link is consistent across a set of web pages. A consistent location, both visually and programmatically, is the most usable.
17:54:55 <kirkwood> Mike: for context this is the actual sentence
17:55:35 <kirkwood> … discussion around ‘it is best if’ for understanding documents not normative language
17:55:46 <Chuck_> q?
17:55:48 <kirkwood> Mike: in our language we use the word should
17:55:56 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:55:56 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "also recommend that you" and to say   "it is also good to"
17:56:17 <kirkwood> Gregg: if recommended is synonym for should then recommended shouldn’t be used either
17:56:39 <kirkwood> … is there another way to get across that idea?
17:56:45 <Chuck_> q?
17:56:58 <Chuck_> q+ to say do we need to make a change?
17:57:05 <kirkwood> … the sentence ‘it is best if you do’ don’t see a prblem and ‘best’ doesn’t seem to be a proble
17:57:08 <bruce_bailey> i am okay with sentence as-is which mike posted in irc
17:57:10 <mbgower> Here's the language https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#interpreting-normative-requirements
17:57:17 <kirkwood> s/proble/problem
17:57:34 <Chuck_> q?
17:57:37 <Chuck_> ack Chuck
17:57:37 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say do we need to make a change?
17:57:38 <GreggVan> q+
17:57:41 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:57:45 <kirkwood> CA: do we need to make change, maybe we don’t
17:58:09 <mbgower> In NORMATIVE wording, Gregg.
17:58:23 <Chuck_> q+
17:58:47 <kirkwood> Gregg: you shouldn’t use the word ‘should’ in standards and recommended. The whole thing is called a recommendation therefore confusing to say recommendation is not required
17:59:01 <kirkwood> … its confusing what we mean by recommend
17:59:19 <GreggVan> q+\
17:59:21 <Chuck_> q?
17:59:23 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:59:27 <Chuck_> ack \
17:59:28 <kirkwood> CA: it is not normative doesn’t apply to understanding documents
17:59:52 <kirkwood> Gregg: you shall not use should or shall in non normative way
17:59:55 <Francis_Storr> present+
18:00:11 <kirkwood> CA: don’t think we are at a resolution here
18:00:51 <kirkwood> Gregg: think we clrified but didn’t get it close
18:01:04 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
18:01:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/08-ag-minutes.html alastairc
18:15:55 <laura_> laura_ has joined #ag
19:32:03 <myasonik> myasonik has joined #ag
19:33:12 <myasonik> myasonik has left #ag
19:33:34 <myasonik> myasonik has joined #ag
20:03:52 <shawn9> shawn9 has joined #ag
20:09:22 <chaals> chaals has joined #ag
20:33:56 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:46:48 <shawn> shawn has joined #ag
21:18:42 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
21:40:53 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
22:04:33 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:51:22 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag