*Thanks for the transcript Rachael - makes it easier to scribe!
Chuck: Thanks for joining.
Chuck: We will wait until 2 after the hour to start
Chuck: OK we will start
… We have scribes for the entire meeting - thank you
… Is anyone new or has a new role and would like to introduce themselves?
… Are there any new topics?
… I added 1 topic which is Jennifer in a different called proposed a virtual happy hour.
Chuck: I have added it to discuss
Chuck: A less formal time to get people together to chat
Bruce_bailey: The Access Board has new members! I am very excited
Bruce_bailey: All of our public board members have expired appointment terms. So this is very nice
Chuck: Any other topics?
Rachael: Chuck and I will both be at CSUN this year. We are planning a restaurant dinner Tuesday or Wednesday night
… It is a pay your own way. If anyone is interested - it would be great to get together.
WCAG 3 Introduction to Status Level Marking https://
rawgit.com/ (5 minutes) Chuck_] w3c/ silver/ status-indicators-new/ guidelines/ index.html#text-alternatives
Rachael: I can start if people would like to jump in
(she is sharing screen)
Rachael: We wanted to mark up the document to make it clearer to the public that the content is not finalized - still in draft
… There are sections that say exploratory
… We also talked about that in the working document we wanted to hide exploratory sections
… That is there
… We want you to look at this. Next week we plan to survey.
… This week is for looking through, looking at the mark up process
… It stays visible as you move through the content
… We also want the opportunity to start "the clock"
… Stuff that doesn't come back for review within 6 months gets removed from this draft
… We are starting that 6 month clock today
… Questions on that?
Alastair C: For each success criteria we are trying to standardize the notes
… the length
… We will try to reduce to current main issues
… Github would provide a list
Wilco: I implemented this just so that everyone has seen and is aware
… This causes the numbers of sections to jump
… It might go from section 3 to 7 without others in between
… We could have also done it in a different way without numbers disappearing
<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?
<kirkwood> Wilco’s comment regarding sections jumping would be a useful note in the document
Rachael: We will have to work out and how we track it, but I think that is useful
Chuck: I agree
… one month may be too short but it is a good idea and we will discuss it
Chuck: Any other questions?
Sarah H: It looks great
… Is the status assigned to a guideline is the right level of granularity for the status? Apologies if you have had this conversation
… There may be outcomes within a guideline that are mature
… Then there is an introduction of an exploratory outcome, tests
… If that exploratory outcome isn't refined, matured
… The whole guideline will be taken down in the 6 month period
Rachael: I am not unsure that this will always be at this level - just this first time
… It can be more granular as we create more content
Chuck: Sarah did that address your question?
WCAG 3 Requirements (30 minutes) https://
www.w3.org/ 2002/ 09/ wbs/ 35422/ WCAG3_requirements/
Sarah H: Yes. Thank you
Chuck: Next - survey results on WCAG 3 requirements
Question 1 - 2.1 Readable
Chuck: Current wording (reads)
… Rachael proposed (reads Rachael's response)
… We had a number of responses
… We will go through the agreements first
… Bruce had commentary
… (reads Bruce's comment)
… I think yours is editorial
<bruce_bailey> yes, just editorial
Chuck: The agree with some adjustments
… Jake? Are you on the call?
Jake: You can read my comments. I only wanted to add 1 thing to the comments
… If I am correct, the response from Rachael - I do not think we have proven that rewriting 1 of the success criteria
… In a more simple and plain language way, makes it consistent and reliable
… I think we aim to write it as simple as possible
… But I do not think we have proof we can do that
… And please read my comment also
<wilco> +1 to Jake
Chuck: I will get to the cue after comments
… (reads Jake's comments)
… Detlev agreed with some adjustments
… (reads Detlev's comments)
Chuck: Mary Jo Mueller agrees with adjustments.
… (reads Mary Jo's comments)
Chuck: David M agreed with some comments
… (reads David M's comments)
Chuck: Laura C agreed with some changes
… (reads Laura C's comments)
… she was +1 for David
… We had 1 person who wanted something different
Sarah H: This is a bullet on readable.
… I believe the concern raised has to do with the testable/readable dichotomoy
(sorry for the spelling!)
Sarah H: My something else has to do with the response
… The response is saying in a different way what I am agreeing with, but perhaps we want to avoid reinforcing the readability/testability
… and perhaps revisit the Requirements of readable
… and be sure we have the simple and objective we are hoping for WCAG 3
… I think David M's addition speaks to that as well
… but perhaps we want to be more explicit
… Add a bullet and add a testable, main bullet under usability
Chuck: Did I miss anyone that had commented in the survey?
Rachael: Just to point out, and it may be my misunderstanding - this was about the readability of the guideline level
… I was under the impression that the guideline level was to be as readable as possible
… I was trying to capture that in a response
Alastair G: There may not be a guideline for clear writing in WCAG 3 but if there is, the document itself should pass that
… Should we make a statement that says the document will ulimately pass its own requirements
… 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
… like doctors and others
Chuck: Sarah H - you highlighted concern about readability and testability; and you had some support for David M's suggestion
… Did that satisfy the dichotomy issue, or is there more work to be done?
Sarah H: There is the response to the github issue 41
… Maybe David M's response is adding something to Rachael's response in the survey that talks about readability without compromising accuracy
… I think we have an opportunity to address some of what Wilco raised? In the issue
… And speak to the juggling we need to do
… And make it a priority to use clear and objective language
… in WCAG 3 overal
<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 Requirements section once the Conformance section is completed and we determine a specific measurement of compliance."
Lauriat_: A quick response to Alastair G's response
… We do have a note about that in the Design Principle
… It will move once completed
Chuck: I am not sure what to propose as alternatives. Rachael - do you have thoughts?
Rachael: It may be worth a straw poll to put the clarification in or not?
<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.
<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.
Wilco: I want to ask Rachael - I think a clarification would be helpful
… I don't understand the response
… Are you saying there is guidance for testers, and guidance for non testers?
… If so, which would be required/normative?
Rachael: My understanding (may not be everyone's)
… Like text alternatives
… This is not much different than WCAG 2.2
… Beneath it, there is all kinds of other information that is technical, aimed at certain audiences
… Those other audiences have different content requirements
… I was under the impression that this content could be different
… If that is not your understanding, that would be good to understand
Wilco: It suggests more to me like that would be the whole document
… 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
Chuck: I am not sure how to craft the full question
… the poll question
Rachael: Maybe the answer is we move passed this one, review outside the meeting, then reapproach this question
<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Discuss the intent, and revisit a response later.
Chuck: The resolution just documents the decision for those reviewing the notes later on
… It does not close it
<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."
Chuck: I'm happy to go with that proposal
… Any objections?
RESOLUTION: Discuss the intent, and revisit a response later.
Question 2 - 2.2 Measurable Guidance
Chuck: The current wording (reads)
Chuck: Options are agree, or update the wording
… We had 1 person that agreed - Bruce
… I will go through cue after comments
Bruce: My comment was just editorial
Chuck: Jake - you agreed.
Jake: I agreed with Wilco. Please read my response
Chuck: (reads response)
Chuck: Mary Jo Mueller agreed with some updates
… (reads Mary Jo's comments)
Chuck: Did I miss any?
GreggVan: 1st I want to separate requirements and guidance
… We are crossing them over.
<jaunita_george> +1 to a lot of what Wilco wrote
<jaunita_george> +1 to Gregg
GreggVan: Part of our solution path will say if you are going to have a requirement it needs to be reliably tested
… But, if we talk about beyond the requirements we want to provide guidance, then we have something else
… I think we need to clarify if we mean requirements or guidance
… Let's be clear
… The last comment is: the reason things work in Europe differently is that they have a different legal system than the United States
… There is not the law suits
… They have have guidelines we cannot have in the U.S. because they would end up in court
JakeAbma: To add to my comments
… I have suggested before, will do so again
… I don't have a problem or issue with the pass/fail like we have in WCAG 2
… It might just be a proper id or solution to keep that as a basis, but on top of it open up other possibilities
… Call it a second currency
JakeAbma: Because of effor or maturity
… Built on top of WCAG 2
… That is the same for the previous issues with clear words or wording
… Why not also build on top of WCAG 2
… To provide like an extra layer on top
… We have had this conversation for 3 or 4 years
… We are talking in circles for a long time
… Once it needs to be settled that maybe there is a base set
… then we open our requirements to add more for the things we do not cover right now
… And in response to Greg
… We try to follow WCAG 2.1 but then what happens after
… You may get sued because you don't do anything
… I think it works pretty much the same here - if you are doing your best you get rewarded for doing more than
… Trying to figure out the pass/fail statements
… That maybe a way to try to gain interest from people
… And to have them grow in their expertise
Rachael: I think we could explore a potential disconnect between how it was written and what was intended
… It could be the approach
… We have a way to write success criteria in WCAG 2 that is a limiting factor that perhaps needs more flexibility for WCAG 3
… I am proposing rewording so we don't focus on pass/fail, but focus on the approach
<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.
Rachael: That WCAG 3 will potentially take advantage of a wider approach
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say my understanding is that Jake's idea is included in draft
Chuck: Jake - one of your suggestions was to build on pass/fail - or at least may interpretation
… My understanding is that this draft did exactly that
… It mentions alternatives that we are exploring
<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"
GreggVan: Perhaps we could use working like
(from scribe: sorry didn't catch the proposed wording)
GreggVan: it says let's figure out how to do both
GreggVan's suggestion: "In addition to requirements (that require reliable pass-fail) WCAG 3 also include guidance that does not require pass-fail"
<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.
* thanks alastairc! Hard to parse language, type, etc...
Shadi: Just a clarification question
… What does it mean: other ways of approaching measurement. Can you give an example?
Rachael: It probably needs wordsmithing
… We can create pass/fail statements that rely on internally set measures, or protocols
… It will be "did you do it, yes or no?"
… I am suggesting we focus on providing flexibility not into the pass/fail point of view
… doing it a different way than in WCAG 2.2
GreggVan: I want more clarification because I am not sure what that means
… If there are other ways to measure, they need to be reliable
… If it is repeatable and reliable, then it is testable by definition
… If it is not repeatable, or reliable
… Then it is not a way of measurement
<Rachael> maybe, "measure different things" instead of "approach to measurement"
GreggVan: Can you say a bit more about an alternate way?
… Are you saying that you can have kind of pass, pass better? pass best? Then we cannot require it
… Then it has to be between zero and 100 feet long, but it can be anything in between
… You have to have at least a minimum
<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.
Rachael: I was trying to focus on the approach to measurement. Maybe it is measuring different things
… We are expanding the types of things we are measuring
GreggVan: You can have different types of things, but they need to be testable
Rachael: I think we need to take another look at this
Chuck: I have made a minor tweak, but agree with Rachael that we need to take another look at it
… I have updated the suggestion to:
… 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.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask for more and to
Chuck: That is my effort to combine GreggVan and Rachael's together
GreggVan: I like it, but instead of guideance use requirements
… This means we can go beyond tests and provide additional guidance
… Then we don't have an additional word
… Maybe even say something about have WCAG 3 provide additional guidance
… I hope we can provide more guidance
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to disambiguate terminology
Rachael: I understand your point Gregg - I am not sure requirements is the correct word. Maybe guidelines? I hear your concern about
… broader, non testable
… Maybe this goes back to Silver
GreggVan: Someone is taking it back so all of it gets back to Silver? The intent to not get stuck on testable.
<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Suggest update as drafted in IRC and bring proposal back to Silver for discussion.
Chuck: Somebody will.
Chuck: My proposed resolution will not close the issue
… any objections?
JakeAbma: I was wondering what does "going back to Silver" mean?
Rachael: I mean that we will take all of this content, go back to the Silver task force meeting, wordsmith there
… It is an efficiency goal since we have limited time with everyone
<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Suggest update as drafted in IRC and bring proposal back to Silver for wordsmithing in that taskforce.
Chuck: I have updated the proposed resolution to reflect that
… I am hearing no objections
RESOLUTION: Suggest update as drafted in IRC and bring proposal back to Silver for wordsmithing in that taskforce.
WCAG 2.2 Misc Issues https://
www.w3.org/ 2002/ 09/ wbs/ 35422/ wcag22-misc/
Chuck: We have concluded the WCAG 3 conversations
Question 1 - Change of context definition
Chuck: If you are here just for that, thank you for your participation
Chuck: Jake raised (reads from the survey)
… (reading the 5 options)
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to provide overview of results (the table is complex)
AlastairC: From the results, option 2 has the best support.
… The others all have at least 1 no
… And not as much positivity
… Apologies for the complex way to ask the question
<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 ...."
GreggVan: I wonder if part of it seems to be the word at the top - change is to the content
… When you go to a new page it is actually changing to a new page
… What if we use "Change in what is present to the user that..."
GreggVan: I was suggesting a change in the front so it gets rid of the problem that was highlighted
… The 1st 2 words seem to conflict
… We should say "by the website"
mbgower: 1st, I think I actually did the 2nd half of last week so maybe someone actually signed me up accidentally
… I have an option 6 which may have more traction
… Building on what Gregg is saying
… I think we have to move 3 words from the preamble
… I think it is safe to put in as errata
Chuck: Any volunteers to scribe?
<mbgower> Current definition https://
Wilco: like to propose not making any changes
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that we'll need to keep this update minimal
Alastair: in response to Mike’s change odd implication such as opening user agent, view port, why i thought triggered
Alastair: no objections notedin survey to 2
… we should resolve, make small errata
<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 say "changes to what is presented to the user"
Gregg: jumping to a new page should be addressed, we mean pages to page, where you are, and fliying off to a new page
… they are all things not supposed to happen
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say there's definitely a "bug" that we might be able to address
Gregg: change what is presented to user, but can’t think of anything better. examples ar non normative have to examples work with it
Charles: not a proponent of doing nothing, there is a bug in text
Gower: look at definition in context and consider what happens when we remove the three words
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
<alastairc> "major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously"
AWK: major changes wording would not be enough without defining what changes we are talking. can avoid by not talking about a web page
<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
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
Gregg: suggest surgical changes, changes to web pages presented at end add ‘including the following’
Gregg: those two edits would cause it to work
<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.
<mbgower> ^ That's the defn of user agent
Wilco: user agent is the rendering of page
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say does AWK's and Alastair's proposal not satisfy?
Charles: you are suggesting a differnt set of word changes
Gregg: user agent is not part of web content
<AWK> Gregg - "major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously"
<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"
Gregg: author has no control over user agent
<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:
Gregg: just add to the end, “including the following” because last four items are critical
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that user agent can also mean opening new user agents, e.g. PDF
Alastair: I would be happy with that, things i interpreted was like opening a pdf
… evaluated a page its opening of user agent not what happens in user agent
AWK: i did not add to end because changes of context its already there. discussing the survey which in more concise
Gregg: ok you’re correct andrew
<Chuck_> current proposal: major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously:
Gregg: no need from my suggested at end
<alastairc> PR now doesn't remove 'major': https://
<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.
Gower: I put major word back in
<AWK> +1 to modified PR
Charles: take a look at pul request 1765
Wilco: think this changes meaning of multiple SC don’t think that is appropriate
… don’t think we should change the defintion
AC: don’t think it changes meaning
… putting in as an errata with option for 2.2 onward
Wilco: anything outside of web page is now in scope
<mbgower> which SC are you speaking directly to?
Wilco: by taking out in content part, changes scope
<bruce_bailey> @wilco i don't understand your "outside the webpage" concern
AC: in context of SC, you are still evaluating within context of page
Wilco: if opens new window, current defintion would not be a failure
<mbgower> say again?
Wilco: a link that is focused open a new window
AC: not activted?
Bruce: silent tab that opens a new page? is that what we are talking about
Wilco: browser behavior impacts that
<mbgower> +1 absolutely clear. how could it be otherwise!
Bruce: going to new page has always been change of context
AWK: if counts as expected i’d agree
<GreggVan> yes it is and "clicking on link is always expected)
AWK: tab to a link it pops a new window and opens a link you would not fail?
<mbgower> Clearly an On Focus error
Wilco: don’t think it current fails SC
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to agree with bruce
talk about changing focus
<bruce_bailey> tabbing (only) changing webpage is a change of context
Charles: in that case we say its a failure on our side
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say you have to ignore one part of the definition to interpret that way
Gower: changes in context includes changes in focus
<AWK> The case we are describing fails F55: https://
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "that was always intended to be a failure
AC: you need to ignore examples then, content of web page triggers change but given two differnt intrepetation let’s remove that confusion
<bruce_bailey> i am happy that we have figured out the root cause of the concern
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say I empathize with wilco
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
CA: if that is the interpretation i see the problems that would cause. would everyone else fail it, would that alter your perspective Wilco?
Wilco: struggle between original intent and what the wording is, basing on examples i guess i can live with it
<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1765 to alter the "Change of Context" definition
<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1765 as an errata to alter the "Change of Context" definition
<bruce_bailey> +1 it is errata
<bruce_bailey> i agree that being cautious about changing a definition is warrented
<alastairc> The SCs are quite tight: https://
AWK: don’t see what is changing here, just user is forced to moved somewhere else
Wilco: stating obvious, a firework outside house is now in definition
<GreggVan> that is not part of the web page
Wilco: now anything can be a change in context
<GreggVan> and WCAG is only the web page
<alastairc> Our definition of "emergency" does not reference web pages.
Mike: our entire conformance model is based on web page. i’m flabbergasted that we specify that we are taling about we pages
<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.
<alastairc> We need to move on, let's CFC and move on
CA: Wilco’s perceptions are valid becasue its a change in defintion it is fair to be cautious
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that wilco's opinions are valid
Gregg: there are dozens of provisions that don’t use the word web pages
… we don’t need to put web pages into every sentence
<alastairc> It would only be covered on-focus / on-input
<mbgower> Every conformance level specifies "web page"
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1765 as an errata to alter the "Change of Context" definition
Question 2 - Visible Controls clarifications and a user-agent example #1905
CA: everybody agreed detlev wanted adjustments
<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended response to address issue 1905
CA: anyone with concerns about suggestion
<mbgower> double negative
AC: there was an extra ‘not’ that created a double negative
RESOLUTION: Accept amended response to address issue 1905
Question 3 - Avoiding must/should in understanding docs
CA: reading through Rachael’s response
<alastairc> + Suggest, Advise, Ideally, Recommended * 3, At best, optimally
Rachael: don’t have a strong prefernce on either direction
CA: Gundula says prefered recommend reading her response
CA: reading Andrews response
<bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK survey response, that "must" can be okay when used carefully
Andrew: my response pretty much says it. Must is a word that conveys important meeting
… can’t do it saying should in some cases
… which speaks to wether techniques are required not sure how to not use must
Bruce: echoing Andrews concerns must is a trigger but have it correct in this case
MG: comment stands should be first
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say I've made the adjustment and to
CA: seems you think recommend is most applciable
<mbgower> This was specific to one situation. See https://
<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."
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
AC: we can wrap that up. sometimes can help if separtly say this thing has a good impact, recommended ideally etc
<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" "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 this technique you need to do yyyy"
<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..."
<AWK> I'm fine with the use of "recommendation" in Understanding docs
Gregg: good practice is to and technique is to meet SC.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask if we are changing for all existing doc, or just going forward?
Gregg: that whats do in must or shall. as pasted above
AC: I put in a suggested poll to use recommended
<Chuck_> POLL: Rather than use must/should in understanding docs, new approach will be to use "recommended"
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say "recommended" seems potentially problematic
AC: not must just should in understanding documnet
Bruce: I don’t think recommended is good. Think we should stick to facts based statement that is why i was voting for usability
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this wasn't in discussion on normative text nor on the use of "must"
<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.
Mike: for context this is the actual sentence
… discussion around ‘it is best if’ for understanding documents not normative language
Mike: in our language we use the word should
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "also recommend that you" and to say "it is also good to"
Gregg: if recommended is synonym for should then recommended shouldn’t be used either
… is there another way to get across that idea?
… the sentence ‘it is best if you do’ don’t see a prblem and ‘best’ doesn’t seem to be a problem
<bruce_bailey> i am okay with sentence as-is which mike posted in irc
<mbgower> Here's the language https://
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say do we need to make a change?
CA: do we need to make change, maybe we don’t
<mbgower> In NORMATIVE wording, Gregg.
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
… its confusing what we mean by recommend
<Chuck_> ack \
CA: it is not normative doesn’t apply to understanding documents
Gregg: you shall not use should or shall in non normative way
CA: don’t think we are at a resolution here
Gregg: think we clrified but didn’t get it close