15:13:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:13:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/01-ag-irc
15:13:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:13:24 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:13:30 <alastairc> chair: alastairc
15:13:35 <alastairc> present: alastairc
15:13:52 <alastairc> regrets: JakeA
15:15:48 <alastairc> agenda+ Introduction for WAI groups to a proposed Legal Entity for W3C https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022JanMar/0116.html
15:16:18 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG 3 Protocols and Scoping Next Steps https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/
15:16:42 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Visual Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/
15:47:18 <alastairc> agenda?
15:53:23 <alastairc> agenda+ Timezone warning
15:53:33 <alastairc> zakim, order 4,1,2,3
15:53:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'order 4,1,2,3', alastairc
15:53:40 <alastairc> zakim, reorder 4,1,2,3
15:53:40 <Zakim> I don't understand 'reorder 4,1,2,3', alastairc
15:53:46 <alastairc> zakim, make the order 4,1,2,3
15:53:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make the order 4,1,2,3', alastairc
15:54:17 <alastairc> zakim, agenda order 4,1,2,3
15:54:17 <Zakim> ok, alastairc
15:54:23 <alastairc> agenda?
15:56:24 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
15:56:45 <Chuck> present+
15:57:03 <janina> janina has joined #ag
15:57:13 <janina> present+
15:57:19 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:57:43 <Chuck> agenda?
15:58:39 <alastairc> agenda+ Misc https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/results
15:58:46 <ShawnT> present+
15:59:46 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
15:59:53 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
16:00:16 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:00:23 <Jennie> present+
16:00:31 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:00:33 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:00:35 <shadi> present+
16:00:41 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:00:43 <Jen_G> Present+
16:00:53 <myasonik> myasonik has joined #ag
16:01:30 <garrison> garrison has joined #ag
16:01:45 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:02:16 <Azlan> present+
16:02:38 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:38 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jen_G
16:03:05 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
16:03:13 <michael> michael has joined #ag
16:03:19 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
16:03:19 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose alastairc
16:03:22 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
16:03:27 <Nicaise> present+
16:03:32 <Lauriat> Present+
16:03:35 <Jem> present+ JaeunJemmaKu
16:03:35 <michael> Present+
16:03:42 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
16:03:43 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bruce_bailey
16:03:53 <Jem> agenda?
16:03:59 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
16:03:59 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose alastairc
16:04:01 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
16:04:01 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose shadi
16:04:29 <shadi> scribe: shadi
16:04:41 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:04:41 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:04:41 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Timezone warning -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:04:42 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:04:44 <myasonik> present+
16:04:55 <AWK> +AWK
16:04:58 <garrison> present+
16:04:59 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:05:10 <AWK> March 14 is US time change
16:05:11 <shadi> AC: coming up to time changes
16:05:26 <shadi> ...US changing first
16:05:26 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #ag
16:05:30 <janina> q?
16:05:43 <shadi> ...meeting on US time, so no change for US folks
16:05:50 <shadi> ...but for everyone else
16:06:02 <shadi> ...no meeting on 15 March
16:06:04 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:06:18 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
16:06:38 <KimD> Present+
16:06:58 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:06:58 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduction for WAI groups to a proposed Legal Entity for W3C https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022JanMar/0116.html -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:07:56 <shadi> AC: W3C aiming to transition to a single Legal Entity
16:07:57 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:08:05 <sarahhorton> present+
16:08:19 <shadi> ...session coming up with the Advisory Board member Leonie
16:08:33 <shadi> ...during an upcoming APA WG meeting
16:08:40 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:08:43 <shadi> ...everyone in this group also welcome
16:08:48 <MelanieP> present+
16:08:49 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:08:49 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 3 Protocols and Scoping Next Steps https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:08:58 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:09:28 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:09:47 <GreggVan> https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/original-1920s-cappiello-king-liquor-poster-veuve-44-c-b7630c45a5
16:09:54 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:09:56 <shadi> RMB: [slide 2] a way to frame conversation
16:09:59 <GreggVan> present+
16:10:06 <alastairc> s/https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/original-1920s-cappiello-king-liquor-poster-veuve-44-c-b7630c45a5/
16:10:55 <shadi> [Rachael talks through slide 2]
16:11:22 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
16:12:01 <Jem> +1 to the way managing presentation session.
16:12:22 <shadi> RMB: [slide 3] learning from both WCAG 2 and WCAG 3, no perfect start
16:12:54 <shadi> RMB: [slide 4] different sub-groups working on different aspects
16:12:54 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:12:58 <Wilco> present+
16:13:19 <shadi> RMB: [slide 5] work to be seen in the context of the active work of the sub-groups
16:13:26 <SuzanneTaylor> present+
16:13:34 <shadi> ...how these different aspects fit together
16:14:59 <shadi> RMB: [slide 6] looking at what it is that we are testing
16:15:44 <Regina> Regina has joined #ag
16:15:46 <alastairc> q?
16:16:27 <shadi> RMB: [slide 7] think there are 4 types of tests
16:17:22 <shadi> ...first is constant (objective) test
16:17:59 <shadi> RMB: [slide 8] second is a condition (subjective) test
16:18:26 <shadi> RMB: [slide 9] third is a new type of test, not yet in WCAG
16:18:40 <shadi> ...not set by WCAG, it is set internally
16:20:09 <shadi> RMB: [slide 10] fourth level of testing is protocols
16:20:19 <shadi> ...even more abstract than test case
16:20:36 <shadi> ...more ambiguous and difficult to define
16:21:44 <shadi> RMB: [slide 11] mapping the 4 types of things we tested and the 4 types of tests
16:22:21 <shadi> ...matrix where automation moves expectations to the left over time
16:23:04 <shadi> RMB: [slide 12] explored with alt-text as a specific example
16:23:50 <shadi> RMB: [slide 13] possible next steps if we decide to work in this direction
16:25:19 <shadi> ...trying to create framework for a shared approach
16:25:26 <Ryladog> Brilliant!!
16:25:40 <GreggVan> q+
16:25:44 <michael> Nice summary
16:25:58 <Lauriat> +1, thank you for running through that, Rachael!
16:26:13 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:26:52 <alastairc> q+ to ask about "approved protocols", and comment about org-internal testing in "test cases".
16:26:52 <shadi> GV: not sure I fully understood all 4 types of tests
16:27:09 <shadi> ...first two OK
16:27:22 <shadi> ...third is like ISO 9000 approach?
16:27:36 <alastairc> qv/
16:27:37 <shadi> ...provide your own standard and test it?
16:27:38 <alastairc> qv?
16:27:55 <shadi> RMB: yes
16:28:07 <shadi> GV: so they can set whatever bar they want?
16:28:44 <shadi> RMB: could take plain language as an example
16:29:19 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:29:19 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about "approved protocols", and comment about org-internal testing in "test cases".
16:29:22 <kirkwood> present+
16:29:23 <shadi> GV: think it is an intriguing example to reach some areas we haven't yet reached
16:30:08 <shadi> AC: could this be accessibility-related?
16:30:29 <bruce_bailey> q?
16:30:36 <shadi> ...for example, someone sets own test to fail missing landmarks
16:30:46 <shadi> ...would that be in scope?
16:30:55 <shadi> RMB: think it would
16:30:58 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:31:07 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:31:29 <shadi> ...WCAG could require landmarks
16:31:31 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if protocols subgroup has wiki or Google pages
16:31:47 <shadi> ...but not the specific landmarks for the particular site
16:31:56 <shadi> ...the site would define that for itself
16:32:12 <shadi> ...and test that it meets it consistently
16:32:18 <Ryladog> q+
16:32:53 <shadi> AC: what about external protocols like plain language?
16:33:05 <alastairc> ack br
16:33:05 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if protocols subgroup has wiki or Google pages
16:33:27 <shadi> RMB: there is still on-going discussion about that in the protocols group
16:33:29 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Protocols
16:33:39 <shadi> ...but imaginable to use both
16:33:43 <alastairc> ack Ryladog
16:33:49 <shadi> KH: brilliant!
16:34:19 <shadi> ...seems like a great way for moving forward
16:35:03 <shadi> ...for example, for language-specific aspects
16:35:19 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Group agrees to progress in this direction, working on the next steps
16:35:29 <Wilco> q+
16:35:42 <SuzanneTaylor> +1 to Katie's enthusiastic reaction
16:35:47 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:35:57 <shadi> q+
16:36:29 <shadi> WF: how much of this has been incubated
16:36:39 <shadi> ...how quickly can we expect this to become mature
16:36:59 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:37:02 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
16:37:05 <ToddL> present+
16:37:10 <StefanS> present+
16:37:46 <Jem> so it is like quantative vs qualitative...
16:37:58 <shadi> RMB: some checks have judgement calls, like logical sequence
16:38:20 <shadi> ...on incubation, we could take years on this
16:38:34 <michael> Q+
16:38:41 <shadi> ...if we agree to move forward, could explore in just a few months
16:38:58 <shadi> ...can drop if not useful in a month or two
16:39:19 <shadi> ...meant to help us move forward, not be part of the document
16:39:21 <alastairc> ack shadi
16:39:28 <shadi> AC: helping us categorize things
16:40:06 <alastairc> shadi: On a similar note, on the draft resolution, is it to progress or to explore?
16:40:51 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
16:40:54 <jaunita_george> present+
16:41:01 <alastairc> ... similar to Wilco, is it exploratory  and incubation, or the set direction?
16:41:22 <shadi> s/to progress or to explore/AGWG to progress on this vs sub-group to continue exploring
16:41:28 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Group agrees to explore this direction, working on the next steps from the presentation
16:41:49 <alastairc> q?
16:42:23 <Ryladog> I think this is a set direction until or if we find it cant work. The proposal seems to help address some room for answers for places we have gotten stuck
16:43:13 <OliverK> OliverK has joined #ag
16:43:13 <shadi> RMB: need to bring back to the main group
16:43:14 <Ryladog> That matrix
16:43:32 <alastairc> ack michael
16:43:53 <bruce_bailey> +1 on agree to try for sure
16:43:56 <Ryladog> +1 to MG
16:43:59 <shadi> MG: way to help move things forward
16:44:32 <shadi> ...can work in small groups
16:44:42 <shadi> ...did not take long to try out 1.1.1
16:45:20 <shadi> ...bring back to see if it useful to people
16:45:35 <garrison> q+
16:45:41 <alastairc> ack garrison
16:46:04 <shadi> AG: is the trial for 1.1.1 documented somewhere?
16:46:09 <Ryladog> q+
16:46:22 <shadi> ...would be good to see
16:46:34 <shadi> RMB: have a rough draft
16:46:45 <shadi> ...want to clean it up then bring it back
16:46:55 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say i see in notes that subgroup is struggling with "protocol" term
16:47:01 <shadi> ...will try to have it by Friday
16:47:05 <alastairc> ack Ryladog
16:47:58 <shadi> KH: seems quite clear to me
16:48:06 <shadi> ...can imagine the 1.1.1 example
16:49:19 <shadi> ...closer to what actually happens in the real world
16:49:23 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
16:49:23 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i see in notes that subgroup is struggling with "protocol" term
16:49:37 <shadi> AC: not every success criterion would have a space in each cell of the matrix
16:50:03 <shadi> BB: seems the term "protocols" is ambiguous for many
16:50:22 <shadi> ...also history in how this term is used
16:50:26 <Chuck> +1
16:50:31 <Wilco> 0
16:50:33 <jaunita_george> +1
16:50:35 <Ryladog> +1
16:50:40 <Lauriat> +1
16:50:43 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:50:43 <MelanieP> +1
16:50:43 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
16:50:45 <ShawnT> +1
16:50:46 <Jennie> +1 (excited to try this!)
16:50:47 <GreggVan> +1
16:50:49 <ToddL> +1
16:50:50 <shadi> AC: any concerns to moving forward with the draft resolution?
16:50:53 <laura> +1
16:50:57 <shadi> +1
16:51:06 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Group agrees to explore this direction, working on the next steps from the presentation
16:52:05 <shadi> RMB: scoping sub-group meets every second Wednesday at 3pm ET
16:52:11 <Lauriat> +1 to Rachael on the "Aha!"
16:52:13 <shadi> ...welcome others to join the call
16:52:23 <shadi> ...helped me understand the work
16:52:36 <Ryladog> PLease send the infor for the calls and groups
16:52:43 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:52:43 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 2.2 Visual Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:52:59 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results
16:53:57 <alastairc> TOPIC: Examples provided are not enough #1443
16:54:25 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1443
16:54:29 <Jem> agenda?
16:55:00 <Chuck> I will back Jemma up
16:55:12 <alastairc> scribe: Jem
16:56:04 <Jem> Topic: WCAG 2.2 Visual Controls
16:56:08 <alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/issue1443-visible-controls/understanding/22/visible-controls.html#visible-control-innerline-1
16:56:22 <alastairc> TOPIC: Examples provided are not enough #1443
16:57:46 <Jem> alastairc fixed verb tense
16:58:33 <Jem> alastirc: regarding adding success example, we can do that but that would not block this issue of adding failure example.
16:58:49 <Jem> alastirc: any questions?
16:58:57 <michael> Q+
16:59:19 <Jem> michael: these are effective example.
16:59:22 <alastairc> ack michael
16:59:26 <Jem> s/are/is/
16:59:26 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2200
16:59:37 <sarahhorton> +1
16:59:43 <Jem> +1 ;-)
16:59:44 <GN015> +1
16:59:46 <ToddL> +1
16:59:51 <jaunita_george> +1
16:59:52 <Chuck> +1
17:00:05 <ShawnT> +1
17:00:09 <Francis_Storr> +1
17:00:15 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2200
17:00:27 <alastairc> TOPIC: Explicitly say that this mechanism is visible #2072
17:00:48 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2072
17:01:20 <Jem> After some discussion, Frances Storr proposed a response, basically: It doesn't seem to improve the SC, and doesn't match other uses of that term.
17:01:24 <KimD> KimD has left #ag
17:01:29 <Jem> David agree with it
17:01:30 <GN015> q+
17:01:39 <Jem> s/agree/agreed/
17:02:07 <Jem> gn015: love to cross check the conformance with other rules
17:02:46 <Jem> alastairc: it is compatible other rules
17:03:37 <Jem> like "mechanism available"
17:03:55 <Jem> ... it is used at audio control, etc...
17:04:09 <alastairc> ack GN015
17:04:14 <alastairc> ack GN
17:04:19 <Jem> ... if you find any descrepancy or unclarity, let us know.
17:04:27 <Jem> gn015: I will do cross check.
17:04:43 <Jem> +1
17:04:46 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept response to #2072
17:04:48 <Ryladog> +1
17:04:50 <Chuck> +1
17:04:51 <sarahhorton> +1
17:04:53 <Jem> +1
17:04:56 <jaunita_george> +1
17:05:02 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept response to #2072
17:05:22 <alastairc> TOPIC: Adobe Comment #1888
17:05:27 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1888
17:05:41 <Jem> Rachael created PR 2234 to address it with an update to the understanding document and a new technique, along with a response in the thread.
17:06:22 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2234/files
17:06:41 <alastairc> In some cases, all items within a component of the page, such as a design canvas, are editable. Adding the information needed to identify the user interface components would reduce users' ability to understand and use the interface. In this case, adding text programatically and visually adjacent to the component that states that all content is editable could serve as the indicator.
17:07:06 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
17:07:36 <AWK> q+
17:07:50 <Jem> editorial adjustment suggested by Sarah
17:08:03 <Jem> Editorial:
17:08:03 <Jem> - large design [FIX TYPO] canvans
17:08:03 <Jem> - <li> states that all content is editable [CUT could serve as the indicator]. </li></p>
17:08:03 <Jem> 
17:08:03 <Jem> Check for consistent use of terms component, sub-component, control, especially for the main instruction, “Add text to a control stating all content is editable.”, which I think should be “Add text to a component stating all content is editable.”
17:08:07 <JustineP> present+
17:08:13 <alastairc> ack aw
17:08:16 <circ-user-GC3w9> circ-user-GC3w9 has joined #ag
17:08:25 <Jem> alastair: I can do check component part by Sarah's comment after the meeting
17:08:45 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
17:08:58 <Jem> awk: question about scope of component. first one is that design canvas is component/
17:09:11 <Ryladog> sub-items
17:09:19 <Jem> then what is the component concept in the second and third?
17:09:20 <Ryladog> and primart item?
17:09:47 <circ-user-GC3w9> q+
17:10:04 <circ-user-GC3w9> q-
17:10:08 <Jem> we are talking about the component here in "In some cases, all items within a component of the page, such as a design canvas, are editable. Adding the information needed to identify the user interface components would reduce users' ability to understand and use the interface. In this case, adding text programatically and visually adjacent to the component that states that all content is editable could serve as the indicator."
17:10:15 <michael> Q+
17:10:17 <alastairc> "In some cases, all items within a section of the page, such as a design canvas, are editable."
17:11:01 <alastairc> ack michael
17:11:19 <Jem> michael: how about changing the name of control?
17:11:46 <alastairc> q+ to suggest it is area or section of content
17:11:47 <AWK> q+
17:11:56 <Jem> michael: text in canvas? and also we can use "target size" concept here too.
17:12:01 <laura> laura has joined #ag
17:12:13 <Jem> ... we can work on on this because this is the first draft
17:12:15 <alastairc> ack me
17:12:15 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest it is area or section of content
17:12:36 <Ryladog> Primary larger item, like a calendar, and each of its sub-controls
17:12:57 <alastairc> ack aw
17:13:31 <Jem> AWK: using illustrator, we have multiple layers ..
17:13:57 <Jem> ..part of way to discover the layer is using visible control like toggle.
17:14:28 <michael> Q+
17:14:47 <Jem> ...my concern is that when there are multiple of controls to interact with thousands items
17:15:09 <Jem> ... user may ask which visual control the user should use to interact.
17:15:34 <alastairc> q+ to talk to what scenarios we're confident about
17:15:51 <Jem> ... I don't see the way to explain clearly about intentionally obsucured visual control
17:15:53 <alastairc> ack michael
17:15:59 <Jem> michael:
17:16:26 <Jem> ...guessing things in layer effectively create
17:16:33 <Jem> the mechanism
17:16:47 <Jem> ... I agree that we need more investigation
17:17:13 <maryjom> maryjom has left #ag
17:17:15 <Jem> ...like the caes of color pallete
17:17:49 <alastairc> ack me
17:17:49 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to what scenarios we're confident about
17:17:56 <Jem> s/caes/case/
17:18:19 <Jem> alastairc: changing layers has point.
17:18:31 <Jem> s/pallete/palette/
17:18:55 <Jem> ... I don't think the design area is not the inital case for this SC
17:19:21 <Jem> ... but there was the case in game(?) which has multiple controls
17:19:41 <Jem> ...if we craft some exception
17:19:58 <Jem> .. for items within editable area something like that?
17:20:14 <Ryladog> Items contained in an editable area
17:20:38 <michael> Q+
17:20:49 <alastairc> ack michael
17:20:56 <Jem> alastairc: design palette is difficult case. we would like to cover simple cases first.
17:21:58 <Jem> michael:in word doc, there are muliple interactions such as right click, hightlight... isolating the object concept may be helpful.
17:22:32 <Jem> ... does adobe has unlock/lock in global level, awk?
17:23:08 <michael> Q+
17:23:12 <Jem> awk: I can find out.
17:23:24 <alastairc> ack michael
17:23:45 <Jem> alastairc: we may verify those interactions whether it is using hover or click so on...
17:24:13 <Jem> michael:current language does not have
17:24:35 <Jem> ... current draft "When user interface components are invisible until hover or focus makes them visible, provide a visible indicator that the components are available, except when:"
17:25:29 <Jem> alastairc:current one does not consider to cover "select"
17:25:42 <sarahhorton> q+
17:25:47 <Jem> ... that may be the issue
17:26:02 <alastairc> ack sarahhorton
17:26:10 <Jem> ... clickablity of design interface seems to be the topic.
17:27:34 <Jem> sarah: the intention is actionable when there is no affordance, context which tell users that it is actionable. - self explanatory
17:28:10 <Jem> ...we may want to pursue the direction of "self explanatory"
17:28:12 <michael> Q+
17:28:29 <Jem> ...becuse that is the intention of this sc
17:28:50 <Jem> alastairc: sc is hard to take consider the context..
17:29:14 <Jem> .. we struggle with that. in addition, we had opposition from COGA
17:29:30 <Jem> ... like the people with memory loss issue.
17:29:36 <alastairc> ack michael
17:30:06 <Jem> michael: agree with that this is visual affordance by Sarah
17:30:48 <Jem> ...missing part is UIC part...visual affordance may help
17:31:09 <Jem> alastairc: that is different from visual indicator..
17:31:25 <Jem> michael: visual indicator vs visual affordance...
17:32:06 <michael> Q+
17:32:09 <alastairc> ack michael
17:32:17 <Jem> alastairc: we can form some scoping or exception for the SC
17:32:38 <Jem> michael: I have been trying to bring designers to AG discussion
17:33:24 <AWK> +1 We can talk Mike
17:33:43 <sarahhorton> q+
17:33:50 <Jem> ... I would love to explore how we can tackle this without causing problems to designers.
17:34:12 <michael> Q+
17:34:13 <alastairc> ack sarahhorton
17:34:22 <Jem> alastairc: can you add suggestion to the survey, Awk?
17:34:46 <Jem> sarahhorton: I like to caution making complex what is really is
17:35:25 <Jem> ...it is definitely worth to looking into the complex case but I would recommend to focus on the core intension of this SC.
17:35:39 <Jem> alastairc: my concern is about testability
17:35:44 <sarahhorton> q+
17:35:54 <Jem> .. to say it passes or not.
17:35:59 <alastairc> ack michael
17:36:52 <Jem> michael: not only adobe tool, jamboard, miro tool also has this complex features.
17:37:32 <Jem> ... intentional interaction is important
17:37:34 <alastairc> ack sarahhorton
17:37:48 <Jem> .. although I am not sure what this affects COGA
17:38:06 <Jem> sarahhorton: regarding Alastairc's point
17:38:27 <alastairc> q?
17:38:56 <Jem> ... I don't want to lose sight for the original intention as well as lose opportunity to solve the problem people already have.
17:39:15 <michael> Q+
17:39:40 <alastairc> ack michael
17:39:48 <kirkwood> Can we actually depend on hover?
17:40:11 <kirkwood> q+
17:40:18 <Jem> alastairc: WCAG 2.x framework, both need to be met - testability(broad coverage?) and original intention
17:40:47 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1888
17:40:53 <Jem> michael: discussion of selectabilty
17:41:04 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
17:41:31 <Jem> kirkwood: I have concern about "hover" part
17:41:50 <Jem> ...kiosk in public place does not have hover capability.
17:41:59 <michael> Q
17:42:50 <Jem> kirkwood: I am referring to any touch screen scenario
17:43:18 <michael> Q+
17:43:50 <Jem> alastairc: so this sc scope is when people depend on hover design
17:44:08 <alastairc> ack michael
17:44:55 <Jem> michael: it will be really good to understand initial intent by COGA.
17:44:59 <alastairc> Q for COGA: is this for a touch environment as well as a mouse env? I.e. is it a problem where you select something to get more controls?
17:45:15 <sarahhorton> q+
17:45:23 <alastairc> ack sarahhorton
17:45:33 <GN015> q+
17:45:52 <Jem> sarahhorton: I worked on remix of this sc quite while back. it was about affordance is.
17:46:16 <Jem> ... point John K made is really telling the story
17:46:38 <michael> Q+
17:46:46 <Jem> .. make things clearly actionable
17:46:58 <kirkwood> +1 to Sarah
17:47:09 <Jem> agenda?
17:47:11 <alastairc> acl gn
17:47:14 <alastairc> ack gn
17:48:19 <Jem> gn: click case is the worst case such as clicking white space to see any actional items
17:48:26 <alastairc> ack michael
17:48:49 <Jem> michael: two things - 1. adding focus wording
17:49:07 <Jem> ... focus was added later to make this meaningful
17:49:14 <AWK> Requiring that users click in a blank area to identify a component sounds like a general usability issue. I don't think we see that being done anywhere today.
17:49:24 <Jem> ... so changing focus is changing the scope.
17:49:31 <alastairc> s/focus was added later to make this meaningful/focus was added later to close a loophole
17:49:48 <Jem> 2. regarding the clicking blank space by GN
17:50:19 <kirkwood> MG i think your interpretation of what Gundula said
17:50:48 <Jem> ... entire interaction point is not covered, we may need to rewrite this.
17:50:58 <michael> That's not a uic
17:51:24 <michael> Q+ to say not a uic
17:51:41 <sarahhorton_> sarahhorton_ has joined #ag
17:51:51 <alastairc> ack michael
17:51:51 <Zakim> michael, you wanted to say not a uic
17:52:25 <Jem> michael: any canvas would not meet the defintion of UIC.
17:52:49 <Jem> ... because canvas include mutliple UIC.
17:53:00 <michael> Q+
17:53:02 <Jem> kirkwood: how about the case of ...
17:53:10 <Jem> ..dot, dot, dot
17:54:08 <alastairc> ack michael
17:54:25 <Jem> alastairc: dot dot dot as control to take action.
17:54:27 <sarahhorton_> This is the working document from the original intent: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v9VN9JN7fWIv1fIlBNXRhibMnRavn0M2Bx6AohtZ_jc/edit#
17:55:29 <Jem> michael: this discussion seems to be how we contain the scope...
17:55:34 <Jem> alastairc: summary
17:55:55 <kirkwood> for example edit, move, change type size  type controls in a design canvas
17:56:15 <Jem> 1. AWK case - extra and complex controls does not show necessarily on hover.
17:56:18 <AWK> In tools like PPT you can insert a text area that has no border and if you don't add text to it right away you might need to click around to find it again (or use select all to find all objects, which can be overwhelming).
17:56:30 <Jem> ...2. COGA question
17:57:03 <Jem> -... isolating this sc from hover only is beneficial or not
17:57:34 <Jem> alastairc: we will try to answer to above two questions
17:58:08 <Jem> alastairc: awk and michale can do some follow up for the survey.
17:58:37 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
17:58:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/01-ag-minutes.html Jem
17:59:23 <circ-user-GC3w9> Try "until hover alone"
17:59:49 <circ-user-GC3w9> name /?
17:59:56 <circ-user-GC3w9> name: mbgower
18:11:23 <circ-user-GC3w9> circ-user-GC3w9 has joined #ag
18:25:04 <circ-user-GC3w9> circ-user-GC3w9 has joined #ag
19:01:56 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #ag
19:14:12 <circ-user-GC3w9> circ-user-GC3w9 has joined #ag
19:22:32 <circ-user-GC3w9> circ-user-GC3w9 has joined #ag
22:53:05 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag