14:39:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:39:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/22-ag-irc
14:39:49 <Rachael> zakim, start meeting
14:39:49 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:39:50 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:39:58 <Rachael> rrsagent, make logs world
14:40:14 <Rachael> Agenda+ New members and topics
14:40:23 <Rachael> Agenda+ Announcements and Reminders
14:40:49 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
14:41:01 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Visual Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/
14:41:13 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Misc Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/
14:42:29 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:44:01 <SThompson> SThompson has joined #ag
14:53:08 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:55:08 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:56:20 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
14:57:04 <Rachael> regrets: Todd L, Alastair G
14:57:07 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:57:16 <ShawnT> Present+
14:57:19 <Rachael> regrets+ Azlan C
14:57:23 <Rachael> present+
14:57:39 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
14:57:56 <laura> Scribe: Laura
14:58:11 <Chuck> agenda?
14:59:19 <kirkwood> present+
14:59:38 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:59:43 <JakeAbma> present+
14:59:51 <Chuck> present+
14:59:59 <OliverK> OliverK has joined #ag
15:00:27 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:00:36 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:00:49 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:00:56 <Detlev> present+
15:01:07 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
15:01:07 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- New members and topics -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:01:13 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:01:19 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:01:22 <alastairc> present+
15:01:24 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:01:29 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:01:33 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:01:33 <laura> RM: any new topics or member updates?
15:01:45 <Wilco> present+
15:01:48 <Chuck> regrets+ Sarah H.
15:01:50 <myasonik> myasonik has joined #ag
15:01:57 <laura> Bruce: noticed erata pages are out of date
15:02:01 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:11 <laura> ACTION:  erata pages are out of date
15:02:12 <trackbot> Error finding 'erata'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
15:02:14 <myasonik> present+
15:02:14 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:02:16 <tiffanytyson> tiffanytyson has joined #ag
15:02:17 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:02:17 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Announcements and Reminders -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:02:47 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:02:49 <alastairc> regrets+ SarahH
15:02:54 <MelanieP> present+
15:02:54 <laura> Rm: we are behind on 2.2.
15:03:19 <Rachael> q+ to say demonstration
15:03:24 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:03:24 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say demonstration
15:03:30 <laura> ... Please use q+
15:03:57 <laura> ... will try to get through most of the surveys today.
15:04:11 <laura> ... use +1's
15:04:39 <laura> ...we  need to speed up discussion.
15:04:45 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:04:54 <ShawnT> +1
15:04:55 <kirkwood> very clear. thank you.
15:04:57 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:04:57 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:05:00 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:05:06 <mbgower> present+
15:05:09 <Jen_G> Present+
15:05:19 <Rachael> TOPIC: User-Interface Component as basis for size
15:05:24 <Jen_G> Present+
15:05:35 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TI_DsJjfg9RW_A9C1XfqgtfYqNMfnxeCz6lxjpOQ9rk/edit#heading=h.tcutgbbczlhr
15:05:39 <laura> ... been taking about this previously.
15:06:15 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:06:21 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:06:53 <bruce_bailey> wrt my comment about the errata pages, see:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2177#issuecomment-1072668521
15:07:04 <laura> ... MG: said "I'm assuming you mean "User interface component" and that this "User-interface control" in the survey question was someone asleep at the wheel."
15:07:16 <mbgower> yep
15:07:49 <laura> RM : Oliver said "User Interface Component" should be used consistently, also the "sub component", if the decision is to use "User Interface Component" although ISO Standards make use of "User Interface Element" and "items" for subordinate content.
15:08:02 <laura> ... he noted some typos.
15:08:17 <alastairc> I think most of those were based on the rest of the doc, which will be translated to the understanding doc.
15:08:21 <bruce_bailey> s/erata/errata/
15:08:52 <laura> ... reads Gundula's comment
15:08:56 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:08:58 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:09:20 <laura> ... editorial comments.
15:09:27 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:09:44 <laura> ... AC replied to other comments.
15:09:53 <GreggVan> +present
15:10:14 <laura> ... reads wilco's comment.
15:10:40 <Rachael> https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/pen/OJjrddm
15:10:54 <laura> ...  wilco created a codeine.
15:11:10 <Wilco> s/codeine/codepen
15:11:39 <Detlev> @Rachael - please update survey
15:11:53 <laura> MG: edge cases do not mean the SC has failed.
15:12:07 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
15:12:22 <laura> ... we are talking about a bad design to begin with.
15:12:29 <GreggVan> q+
15:12:59 <laura> ... all examples failed the UIC
15:13:21 <laura> ... we get benefit from this SC.
15:13:41 <laura> AC: I put in a list of comments.
15:14:10 <laura> ... been focusing on edge cases.
15:14:32 <laura> RM: 9 agree in the survey.
15:14:37 <Rachael> Topic: User Interface Component (UIC) measure as visual basis
15:15:34 <laura> gregg: we have lists of items that put items into a toolbar.
15:16:00 <mbgower> I think you're talking about Focus Visible, not Focus Appearance, Gregg.
15:16:07 <laura> ... recoded links as buttons
15:16:55 <laura> Mg: this is on topic of focus indicator.
15:17:33 <Rachael> q?
15:17:45 <Wilco> q+
15:17:47 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:18:11 <laura> wilco: we are not saying that we are measuring visually.
15:18:17 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:18:33 <laura> ... we are not telling people how to measure.
15:18:36 <alastairc> q+
15:18:45 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:18:54 <laura> Ac: It based on UIC
15:19:13 <laura> ... haven't had to ease that previously.
15:19:42 <laura> ... we have encompassing component and all of the examples.
15:19:59 <GreggVan> q+  to say  "I think it is fine to talk about visual focus indicators being based on visual appearance.   As long as the focus is also programmatically determinable (another SC) we are fine. "
15:20:10 <laura> ... it is a perceived component.
15:20:12 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:20:12 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "I think it is fine to talk about visual focus indicators being based on visual appearance.   As long as the focus is also programmatically
15:20:15 <Zakim> ... determinable (another SC) we are fine. "
15:20:21 <laura> Gregg: I thin it is fine.
15:20:22 <mbgower> It is also there in the bounding box part of the existing wording too
15:20:26 <Wilco> q+
15:20:44 <laura> wilco: don't think it is obvious.
15:21:12 <alastairc> q+ to say we included a note on that which did talk about the interpretation
15:21:14 <laura> ... we had a definition in the last draft.
15:21:28 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:21:30 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:21:30 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we included a note on that which did talk about the interpretation
15:21:35 <mbgower> q+
15:21:45 <laura> ... I don't follow. It doesn't say visual.
15:22:03 <laura> Ac: we are talking about focus appearance.
15:22:18 <laura> ... and how to interpret it.
15:22:37 <laura> ... base it on the visual appearance.
15:22:50 <laura> ... had a twitter poll.
15:23:34 <laura> Mg: we do have SC based in a functional need.
15:23:42 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask about adding preface "For UIC that have a visual appearance..."
15:23:56 <laura> ... trying to give muscle to focus visible.
15:24:01 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:24:16 <alastairc> "encompasses the visual display of the user interface component"??
15:24:17 <laura> .. has gone through a lot of scrutiny.
15:24:41 <laura> ... we have a lot of examples.
15:24:47 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:24:47 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about adding preface "For UIC that have a visual appearance..."
15:24:49 <laura> ... it is working well.
15:25:02 <laura> Bruce: sympathetic to wilco.
15:25:19 <alastairc> q+
15:25:27 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:25:40 <Wilco> q+
15:25:41 <laura> Ac: prefaced by keyboard focus.
15:25:48 <mbgower> Do we have examples?
15:25:49 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:26:06 <mbgower> Say again, please?
15:26:18 <laura> wilco: if it is visible presentation lets say so.
15:26:29 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) Include the information about visual measurement in understandning and note only 2) include it in the SC text
15:26:37 <Wilco> 3
15:26:40 <GreggVan> 2
15:27:00 <alastairc> q+
15:27:01 <GreggVan> q+
15:27:02 <laura> Wilco: we need to continue to work on this.
15:27:02 <GN015> 1
15:27:15 <mbgower> q+
15:27:16 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) Include the information about visual measurement in understandning and note only 2) include it in the SC text 3) continue to work on a combination of visual and programmatic
15:27:21 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:27:22 <bruce_bailey> 2 (but okay w/ 1)
15:27:28 <OliverK> 1
15:27:30 <laura> ... we have previously rejected visual appearance.
15:27:32 <Ryladog__> Ryladog__ has joined #ag
15:27:47 <myasonik> 1
15:27:49 <Ryladog__> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:27:54 <mbgower> q+ to say its not just visual appearance, it's the focus indicator that is the key question in COMBINATION with the visual presentation of the UIC
15:27:55 <bruce_bailey> s/understandning/understanding/
15:27:57 <jon_avila> 1 or 2 is fine
15:27:59 <laura> Ac: we are building on top of focus visible.
15:28:07 <jon_avila> q+
15:28:08 <Rachael> 1
15:28:12 <Wilco> q+
15:28:29 <alastairc> "encompasses the visual display of the user interface component"
15:28:32 <Rachael> +1 to learning as we work
15:28:37 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:28:41 <laura> ... cauls say visual display.
15:28:50 <Chuck> +1 to "visual display of the..."
15:28:57 <jon_avila> I would be good with visual display of interface component
15:29:12 <Rachael> +1 to this being visual
15:29:15 <laura> Gregg: have to break it down by by the aspect you are working on.
15:29:44 <laura> ... so say visual focus indicator.
15:29:45 <mbgower> adding "visual display of" to the first bullet seems okay
15:29:47 <Detlev> so we just need: When a user interface component has keyboard focus, the *visual* focus indicator:...
15:29:47 <Rachael> ack jon_avila
15:30:26 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:30:26 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say its not just visual appearance, it's the focus indicator that is the key question in COMBINATION with the visual presentation of the UIC
15:30:28 <laura> Jon: 1.3.1 says convey though presentation.
15:30:30 <GN015> we allow circles to be focused by circles. The technical dimensions of a circle image usually are square or rectangle. So from our examples, the visual dimensions clearly have always been a source for the measurement.
15:30:30 <joeyang> joeyang has joined #ag
15:30:53 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:31:02 <laura> mg: can add  visual if that would help.
15:31:13 <mbgower> it IS written
15:31:35 <laura> Wilco: what we are saying now sounds circular.
15:31:37 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Jon Avila comment that SC (like 1.3.1) tend to presentation not visual presentation
15:31:38 <mbgower> no
15:31:49 <Rachael> q?
15:31:57 <mbgower> q+
15:32:25 <laura> Wilco: previously tried to work in target but backed out of it.
15:32:36 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:33:11 <laura> mg: target is the actual points that are interactive on the screen.
15:33:22 <GreggVan> q+
15:33:24 <alastairc> It isn't based on target, and it was not used because it didn't align with either visuals or the underlying code, and could create a negative incentive
15:33:38 <laura> ... we aren't talking about pixels on the page.
15:33:57 <Rachael> q+ to say we should see the adjustment of adding visual as mbgower suggested
15:34:00 <laura> ... target can't work- too easy to fudge.
15:34:08 <GN015> +1 to Mike
15:34:32 <laura> ...  we assume the design is useful.
15:34:33 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:34:57 <laura> Gregg: sounds like a technical thing.
15:34:58 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Mike Gower that focus indicator relatively agnostic to target size
15:35:00 <mbgower> q+
15:35:25 <mbgower> q+
15:35:27 <laura> ... some systems have group strategies.
15:35:46 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:35:46 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we should see the adjustment of adding visual as mbgower suggested
15:35:52 <mbgower> q-
15:35:55 <laura> ... success of approximation.
15:36:19 <Detlev> 1 visual can be i nthe first sentence
15:36:31 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TI_DsJjfg9RW_A9C1XfqgtfYqNMfnxeCz6lxjpOQ9rk/edit#heading=h.tcutgbbczlhr
15:36:50 <laura> Ac: I updated: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TI_DsJjfg9RW_A9C1XfqgtfYqNMfnxeCz6lxjpOQ9rk/edit#heading=h.tcutgbbczlhr
15:36:55 <alastairc> When a user interface component has keyboard focus, the focus indicator:
15:36:55 <alastairc> encompasses the visible display of the user interface component
15:36:58 <Detlev> q+
15:37:25 <Rachael> ack Detlev
15:37:42 <GreggVan> q+  to say  "should we say visual focus indicator"  in first line
15:37:48 <mbgower> that doesn't work as well, Detlev
15:37:53 <laura> detlev: add visual in front.
15:38:00 <GreggVan> When a user interface component has keyboard focus, the visual focus indicator:
15:38:25 <laura> Ac:  doesn't work. It is about the visuals.
15:38:26 <mbgower> bingo
15:38:27 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:38:27 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "should we say visual focus indicator"  in first line
15:38:44 <jon_avila> Agree with Alastair.
15:38:50 <mbgower> q+
15:39:01 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:39:29 <laura> mg: focus indicator is a defined term.
15:39:42 <laura> (Reads definition)
15:39:49 <Detlev> OK I withdraw my sugestion!
15:40:15 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept  using User Interface Control as the basis of size with updated text
15:40:37 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept  using User Interface Component as the basis of size with updated text
15:40:44 <Wilco> q+
15:40:46 <Detlev> +1
15:40:49 <ShawnT> +1
15:40:51 <alastairc> +1
15:40:52 <Chuck> +1
15:40:52 <JakeAbma> +1
15:40:54 <GN015> +1
15:40:58 <Rachael> +1
15:40:58 <jon_avila> +1
15:40:59 <kirkwood> +1
15:41:00 <Ryladog__> +1
15:41:01 <Francis_Storr> +1
15:41:02 <mbgower> I'm not sure I would have said "size" but okay :)
15:41:03 <OliverK> +1+1
15:41:03 <myasonik> +1
15:41:03 <GreggVan> +1
15:41:19 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:41:26 <GreggVan> q+ to say   "ok  visual is already included in the definition of focus indicator.    I would have defined it as "visual focus indicator" if it is only the visual indicator we are defining but that ship has sailed so  OK  -- visual is already in the sentence virtually.
15:41:27 <laura> Laura: +1
15:41:31 <GreggVan> q-
15:41:42 <mbgower> that's fine
15:41:48 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:42:10 <alastairc> visible / visual ?
15:42:12 <laura_> laura_ has joined #ag
15:42:17 <Wilco> Accept using visible display of the User Interface Component as the basis of size with updated text
15:42:22 <joeyang> joeyang has joined #ag
15:42:23 <mbgower> Accept the visual display of the UIC as part of the assessment for Focus Appearance
15:42:36 <Wilco> -1
15:42:44 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the visual display of the UIC as part of the assessment for Focus Appearance
15:43:25 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Accept the visual display of the UIC as part of the assessment for Focus Appearance, with 1 objection that visual is not the correct approach
15:43:36 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:43:42 <laura> RESOLUTION: Accept the visual display of the UIC as part of the assessment for Focus Appearance
15:43:50 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:43:58 <laura> Rm: notes 1 objection.
15:44:14 <mbgower> that's fine too. WE can wordsmith it.
15:44:17 <GreggVan> +1 to visual presentation     vs    visual display
15:44:41 <Rachael> Topic: Note on sub-components / active descendants
15:44:43 <laura> rm: will continue to wordsmith
15:44:53 <Rachael> NOTE: Where a user interface component has active sub-components (for example, an opened drop-down menu shows a list of menu items), this Success Criterion applies to the item with keyboard focus
15:45:01 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TI_DsJjfg9RW_A9C1XfqgtfYqNMfnxeCz6lxjpOQ9rk/edit#heading=h.tcutgbbczlhr
15:45:52 <laura> Ac: we added a note: NOTE: Where a user interface component has active sub-components (for example, an opened drop-down menu shows a list of menu items), this Success Criterion applies to the item with keyboard focus.
15:46:04 <laura> ... The purpose is to make clear that when evaluating the SC you would use the item with focus rather than the parent.
15:46:16 <laura> ... The other notes (that you can see in the editor's draft at the moment) have been removed as they do not seem to be needed with this version.
15:46:30 <laura> Rm: 5 agree
15:47:05 <laura> ... Reads Oliver's comments.
15:47:22 <laura> ... Reads Wilco's comments.
15:47:38 <Rachael> Where a user interface component has active sub-components (for example, an opened drop-down menu shows a list of menu items), the above requirements apply to the indicator of the active sub-component.
15:47:58 <alastairc> Wilco - were you aiming for that to be part of the SC text or as a note?
15:48:00 <laura> ... reads mg's comments.
15:48:09 <laura> Mg: +1 to wilco.
15:48:33 <laura> rm: reads Gundula's comments.
15:48:34 <jon_avila> q?
15:48:56 <jon_avila> q+
15:49:08 <laura> ... Reads Detlev's comments
15:49:12 <bruce_bailey> anchor in survey:  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results#xq41
15:49:29 <mbgower> Detlev, does Wilco's wording clarify things?
15:49:38 <Rachael> themes:  lack of clarity on what is used in combobox, note vs. SC text, wordsmithing
15:49:44 <alastairc> q+ to talk to Detlev's example
15:49:49 <alastairc> qv?
15:50:00 <Rachael> ack jon_avila
15:50:18 <laura> Jon: apply to whichever one has keyboard focus.
15:50:21 <mbgower> q+
15:50:35 <Rachael> Where a user interface component has active sub-components (for example, an opened drop-down menu shows a list of menu items), the above requirements apply to the indicator of the active sub-component.
15:50:49 <mbgower> q+ to say the larger component can be good practice but I'm a bit leery of failing a lack of it
15:51:03 <alastairc> Definition of focus (that we aren't using): https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-focus
15:51:04 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:51:04 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to Detlev's example
15:51:06 <laura> Jon: another option that it applies to anything.
15:51:12 <Wilco> suttest: also applies to...
15:51:21 <Wilco> s/suttest/suggest
15:51:37 <laura> ac: we came up with a definition of focus.
15:52:40 <laura> Detleve: it is ambiguous to me.
15:52:41 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:52:41 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the larger component can be good practice but I'm a bit leery of failing a lack of it
15:53:33 <laura> mg: leary of adding it to large and sub component
15:54:11 <laura> ... could fail existing implementations.
15:54:25 <alastairc> "the above requirements apply to the indicator of the active sub-component when the user interacts with them"?
15:54:28 <alastairc> q+
15:54:45 <laura> Rm: Ould we clarify  in understanding doc?
15:55:06 <mbgower> q+ to say it already says "active"
15:55:15 <Chuck> ack ala
15:55:21 <Chuck> ack mb
15:55:21 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say it already says "active"
15:55:28 <alastairc> ok
15:55:40 <laura> ac: finishing of definition. Happy with clarifying understanding doc
15:55:52 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) use Wilco's wording and understanding document 2) Use wilco's wording, alastair's addition and understanding, 3) Something
15:56:13 <alastairc> 1
15:56:18 <Chuck> 1
15:56:19 <ShawnT> 1
15:56:25 <Wilco> 1
15:56:25 <Rachael> 1 or 2
15:56:26 <laura> Laura: 1
15:56:27 <bruce_bailey> 1
15:56:27 <JakeAbma> 1
15:56:30 <jon_avila> 1 or 2
15:56:31 <Detlev> 1 or 2
15:56:32 <Ryladog__> 1
15:56:34 <mbgower> 1
15:56:45 <MelanieP> 1
15:56:47 <GreggVan> 1  or 2
15:56:50 <kirkwood> 1
15:56:58 <OliverK> 1
15:57:12 <joeyang> 1 or 2
15:57:13 <alastairc> q+
15:57:14 <mbgower> is michael on call?
15:57:28 <Detlev> unfortunately have to drop off at the full hour...
15:57:35 <Wilco> q+
15:57:48 <alastairc> ack me
15:58:01 <laura> ac: topic came from wilco's comment.
15:58:14 <Wilco> q+
15:58:20 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:58:33 <laura> Rm: wilco comfortable with a note?
15:58:41 <GreggVan> +1  to notes cannot be normative
15:58:44 <alastairc> q+ to say it is interpreting what a component is
15:58:51 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:58:51 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say it is interpreting what a component is
15:58:57 <mbgower> q+ to say this is interpretive
15:58:58 <laura> wilco: notes are not normative. Needs to be in SC.
15:59:19 <Wilco> q+
15:59:34 <Ryladog__> q+
15:59:36 <laura> Ac: it is interpretive.
15:59:43 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:59:43 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this is interpretive
15:59:49 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:00:18 <laura> Wilco: I disagree. UIC is a single control as I read it.
16:00:27 <bruce_bailey> +1 that it is interpretive, seems similar in scope to other notes
16:00:28 <Rachael> ack Ryladog__
16:00:35 <GreggVan> q+
16:01:00 <laura> Katie: example of a calendar.
16:01:06 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
16:01:19 <alastairc> It depends whether you see the function as "selecting a date" from a calendar, or "selecting THIS date" from a calendar. Same for a menu, you are selecting an item, that's the function.
16:01:32 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:01:33 <mbgower> q+
16:01:35 <bruce_bailey> katie:  UIC with sub-components been around a while
16:01:50 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/22-ag-minutes.html laura
16:02:15 <bruce_bailey> GreggV:  Areas of navigation, keyboard opening up child elements is not rare...
16:02:30 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:02:43 <bruce_bailey> ... tab to a big component, enter, tab to sub component of parent UIC
16:03:10 <bruce_bailey> MikeG: As Gregg mentions, this note is not a new concept...
16:03:35 <Wilco> q+
16:03:42 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:03:45 <bruce_bailey> ... if we put this detail into the SC, then that begs the question that UIC didn't mean what people used to understand.
16:03:48 <GreggVan> q+  to say  "notes are explanatory of the text above it"  but the content needs to be there in the first place"
16:04:05 <mbgower> I'm fine removing "Note" and putting it in as a new paragraph.
16:04:12 <mbgower> in the normative text.
16:04:24 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:   There is a definition in ARIA spec about descender elements, this interpretation deviates from that definition
16:04:25 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:04:25 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "notes are explanatory of the text above it"  but the content needs to be there in the first place"
16:04:47 <alastairc> q+
16:04:47 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#managingfocus
16:04:59 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:05:04 <laura> s/thin it /think it /
16:05:06 <bruce_bailey> GreggV:  Notes cannot add anything new.  If something is already common practice, that should be reflected already by the term.
16:05:51 <Rachael> straw poll:  1) In SC text 2) As note
16:05:54 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  I reviewed ARIA definitions earlier, and they are changing some of their terms, but we are stuck with some of our terms, like focus indicators...
16:05:57 <laura> s/cauls say /could say /
16:05:57 <Wilco> 1
16:06:02 <bruce_bailey> ... some deviation is okay.
16:06:02 <ShawnT> 1
16:06:06 <mbgower> 2 but 1 is fine
16:06:08 <alastairc> 2, can live with 1
16:06:13 <MelanieP> 1
16:06:13 <JakeAbma> 2, 1
16:06:15 <bruce_bailey> Rachael asks for straw poll.
16:06:17 <Chuck> 2, 1
16:06:18 <GreggVan> 1 if it is new
16:06:19 <joeyang> 2, 1
16:06:28 <laura> 2, 1
16:06:28 <Ryladog__> 2, 1
16:06:29 <jon_avila> 2
16:06:41 <Wilco> I will
16:06:45 <GreggVan> where is the exact text?
16:06:45 <Chuck> I will not
16:06:47 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  who would object if note ?
16:06:49 <ShawnT> I will
16:07:06 <Rachael> Who would object if we make it SC text
16:07:08 <alastairc> Gregg - in the doc, "UPDATES from the meeting", the bottom note.
16:07:14 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  who would object if SC text ?
16:07:14 <GreggVan> thx
16:07:20 <Chuck> I will not
16:07:59 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  no objections to making this SC text, so in the interests of consensus, we can go forward there
16:08:03 <mbgower> :)
16:08:20 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Add Wilco's text previously discussed into the SC text
16:08:24 <bruce_bailey> Chairs agree that less friction, even though more prefer note approach.
16:08:27 <Wilco> +1
16:08:27 <GreggVan> +1
16:08:28 <Chuck> +1
16:08:31 <Rachael> +.5
16:08:32 <alastairc> +1
16:08:33 <JakeAbma> 1
16:08:38 <ShawnT> +1
16:08:38 <laura> +1
16:08:39 <jon_avila> 0
16:08:41 <MelanieP> +1
16:08:43 <mbgower> 0
16:08:49 <kirkwood> +1
16:09:03 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Add Wilco's text previously discussed into the SC text
16:09:18 <laura> s/by by /by /
16:09:19 <Rachael> TOPIC:  Not including the 1px perimiter metric
16:09:26 <bruce_bailey> Moving to next topic, not including 1x perimeter metric
16:10:15 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  The way we restructured, ignore top bit, it is much simpler.  But there are some thing which do not pass...
16:10:38 <bruce_bailey> So an analysis drops down to the exceptions.  Which we also wanted to keep simple.
16:11:27 <Rachael> There is one change in scope compared to the previous version: When using the primary part of the new SC text, it does not allow for indicators with gradients, or thick indicators that lack adjacent contrast. However, the exception will cover almost every circumstance of that.
16:11:32 <bruce_bailey> AC:... there are edge cases that no longer pass.  A circle is one example.
16:11:53 <laura_> s/Ould we clarify /Could we clarify /
16:12:02 <bruce_bailey> ... the fail cases are where the author relies on a 1 px border.
16:12:32 <Wilco> q+
16:12:51 <bruce_bailey> ... so trade off is between keeping prose as simple as possible , but fail some designs which might not actually be terrible (e.g. ovals).
16:13:14 <bruce_bailey> Rachael summarizes voting from survey.
16:14:37 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower simplicity more valuable than allow edge cases, and one could make case that those should have 2 px border any way.
16:14:40 <Wilco> q-
16:14:57 <MelanieP> q+
16:15:15 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Questions from Gundala and Oliver about drop shadows, but let us take that up in next survey.
16:16:10 <bruce_bailey> Michail Ysonik:  I would like to speak up for a little more complexity being better.   We can address in Understanding or other materials.
16:17:15 <bruce_bailey> Oliver:  white background and shadows and radio buttons need more consideration.
16:17:47 <Wilco> +1 to GN, I spotted that too, it's stange
16:17:55 <Wilco> s/stange/strange
16:18:05 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  The focus indicator itself might have a halo, but SC text is not clear if that would be pass or fail.  I would like to add area of focus indicator to pass.
16:18:19 <alastairc> q+ to talk about the halo, it's covered by the exception.
16:18:19 <mbgower> q+ to say "an area" is in the preamble text
16:18:37 <bruce_bailey> ... Shadow does not decrease size of focus indicator, it reinforces size.
16:19:05 <Rachael> themes:  Accounting for halos focus indicator, how many items now wilco,
16:19:05 <alastairc> Gundula - in the doc look for "Box shadow, 1px white outline inside the shadow"
16:19:18 <mbgower> potentially a cumulative note
16:19:23 <Rachael> q?
16:19:26 <Rachael> ack MelanieP
16:19:51 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Hearing two themes:  focus indicator and box shadow, and measuring non-rectangular shapes.
16:20:21 <bruce_bailey> Melanie Philipp:  If one has circular focus that replaces the indicator -- is that a fail?
16:20:39 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:20:39 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about the halo, it's covered by the exception.
16:20:57 <OliverK> present+
16:21:31 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  1 px fail for circle is fail because of need for contrast against two colors, so fall into the exception
16:22:24 <bruce_bailey> ... area of focus area has a size and contrast measurement, but thats 4 px which meets perimeter metric from previous for rectangle...
16:22:29 <Wilco> So a 1px outline around a checkbox is fine because it's square, but around a checkbox it fails because it's round
16:22:39 <Wilco> radiobutton
16:22:53 <GN015> q+
16:23:02 <bruce_bailey> ... but then for rounded corners, those will cut off some of that area, and not meet the previous area requirement we were working with.
16:23:27 <bruce_bailey> MP:  So is that only for shadows or the like.
16:24:11 <bruce_bailey> AC:  Crisp outline help, but also if the indicator is entirely inside the drop shadow or halo, so might not meet exception.
16:24:11 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:24:11 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say "an area" is in the preamble text
16:24:47 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower:  Maybe editorial, but "area of the focus indicator" might help resolve what is being measured...
16:24:50 <Wilco> +1 to "all", good catch
16:25:15 <alastairc> q+ for the component/adjacent question
16:25:43 <Rachael> ack GN
16:25:47 <bruce_bailey> ... In the third bulllet, 3:1 contrast is against component, but that might result in same color as background instead of adjacent color.
16:27:00 <bruce_bailey> AC:  In rewrite, change 3:1 against component to adjacent because AWK suggest for least overlap, dark outline against dark button.
16:27:23 <bruce_bailey> ... so re-write addresses that case.
16:27:45 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  Still seems like it would be clearer with previous version.
16:27:54 <alastairc> MichaelG - I was just trying to minimise the difference between this and the previous version: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#focus-appearance-minimum
16:27:55 <bruce_bailey> Rachael asks MikeG to propose something.
16:28:20 <alastairc> q+
16:28:25 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:28:25 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to discuss the component/adjacent question and to
16:28:55 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  Check boxes and radio buttons are not rare, and this version is requiring 2 px for radio button but 1 px for check boxes.  I would prefer consistent requirment.
16:29:49 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  I don't agree this version introduces inconsistency because it is only about shadows and halos and similar decorative effects.
16:30:00 <bruce_bailey> MikeG passes on rerwrite.
16:30:11 <alastairc> I think it was 5 / 2 / 2 (Oliver changed)
16:30:17 <Wilco> q+
16:30:30 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Coming back to survey, we have majority for simpler approach.  I would like straw poll.
16:30:31 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) simpler SC text, some failures 2) more complex SC text, fewer failures 3) Go back to original wording
16:30:42 <Wilco> 3, can live with 2, object to 1
16:30:44 <mbgower> 1 then 2
16:30:44 <JakeAbma> 3, 2
16:30:44 <GN015> 2
16:30:46 <joeyang> 2, 3
16:30:47 <Chuck> 1
16:30:52 <ShawnT> 2
16:30:52 <alastairc> 1, 2 is ok (ish), object to 3
16:30:53 <Ryladog__> 2
16:31:02 <myasonik> 2
16:31:05 <MelanieP> 2
16:31:06 <jon_avila> 1
16:31:20 <laura> 1 or 2  are okay
16:31:38 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I read this as best way forward.
16:31:47 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Agreed.
16:31:59 <Rachael> draft RESOUTION: Add the 1px perimeter metric to the exception
16:32:04 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Add the 1px perimeter metric to the exception
16:32:10 <bruce_bailey> s/ead this as best/ead two as best/
16:32:10 <alastairc> q+
16:32:14 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:32:19 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:32:54 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  The outcome of (2) means that what passes or fails will be as with previous version, so that is alignment...
16:33:14 <mbgower> q+ to say where is the 1px going?
16:33:15 <bruce_bailey> ... but we had so many people raise concerns with regard to complexity...
16:33:20 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:33:20 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say where is the 1px going?
16:33:28 <bruce_bailey> ... multiple nested bullets might work
16:33:45 <bruce_bailey> MikeG asks for clarification on direction
16:34:00 <GN015> q+
16:34:04 <Rachael> ack GN
16:34:19 <bruce_bailey> AC:  Need to bring in previous bullets, might now be three level deep or complicated and / or
16:34:36 <mbgower> q+
16:34:38 <Wilco> +1 to GN
16:34:42 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:34:43 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  I would like parity between the 1 px and 2 px approaches.
16:35:18 <bruce_bailey> MikeG;  I feel like vote was for more complexity, but now ask is for less complexity.
16:35:20 <mbgower> q+
16:35:43 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:35:58 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  Hope we can eliminate question about halo because they could be outside of component, outside of the 1 px border.
16:36:13 <bruce_bailey> MikeG clarifies wording about area.
16:36:35 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  In the exception, yes, but not the SC body.
16:37:05 <bruce_bailey> AC:  I have inserted into the first of the exceptions, but that is not changing what passes or fails.
16:37:57 <bruce_bailey> ... if we go back to area in the SC body, that gets back to very complex portion at top of SC.  Rewrite moves complexity into exception.
16:38:09 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Add the 1px perimeter metric to the exception
16:38:19 <Wilco> 0
16:38:20 <bruce_bailey> ... complexity has to go somewhere, so idea is to have opening condition simple.
16:38:31 <joeyang> +1
16:38:36 <ShawnT> +1
16:38:37 <mbgower> 0
16:38:39 <GN015> + 0.8
16:38:40 <Rachael> 0
16:38:41 <alastairc> +0.5 (on the basis of moving on)
16:38:41 <JakeAbma> 0
16:38:43 <laura> 0
16:38:50 <MelanieP> +1
16:38:58 <Chuck> .5
16:38:59 <Ryladog__> +1
16:39:01 <myasonik> +1
16:39:13 <GreggVan> 0
16:39:13 <alastairc> It is in the doc now, under the "UPDATES from the meeting" heading
16:39:31 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  seem to have some support in this direction
16:39:34 <jon_avila> 0
16:39:36 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Add the 1px perimeter metric to the exception
16:39:51 <mbgower> decorations
16:39:51 <GreggVan> That is consensus  - bingo
16:39:56 <bruce_bailey> RM:  did not get objections
16:39:59 <Rachael> TOPIC: Definition of Encompasses
16:40:15 <Rachael> Continuously surrounds, bounds or includes the whole of
16:40:29 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results#xq42
16:40:47 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  issue from survey around if we include halo and decoration
16:41:02 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  goes through agrees
16:42:02 <Chuck> +1 to mgower
16:42:25 <alastairc> q+ to talk to decorative effects / perception of UICs
16:42:35 <bruce_bailey> MikeGower:  concern that definition may be getting muddy if it includes decoration, so prefer to address with exceptions
16:42:55 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  two agree with adjustment
16:43:23 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  one something else, Wilco prefers we go back to previous version
16:43:47 <Rachael> theme: Go back to previous rewrite, decorative effects
16:43:53 <Rachael> q?
16:43:56 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:43:56 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to decorative effects / perception of UICs
16:43:57 <bruce_bailey> Rachael, not hearing themes, other than going back, and decorative effects.
16:44:20 <Rachael> regrets+ Sarah h
16:44:39 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Going back to the decorative aspect, going through examples, and not wanting to define decorative...
16:45:14 <bruce_bailey> ... discussed in Friday meeting, so it seemed better just to include the area of decoration.
16:45:44 <GN015> q+
16:45:53 <bruce_bailey> ... Folks on the call generally agreed to just consider the decorative parts part of the component.  That whole area is the bounding box.
16:46:09 <Rachael> ack GN
16:46:11 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  Decorative is everything not needed to identify component...
16:46:26 <Wilco> q+ to ask if backgrounds are decorative
16:46:39 <bruce_bailey> ... shadow example of effect that some people will not see at all, so why does that get to count?
16:46:43 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:46:43 <Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to ask if backgrounds are decorative
16:47:04 <bruce_bailey> ... Other components, like buttons, have very obvious edges.
16:47:32 <mbgower> q+
16:47:40 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  Does background count?  Seems very arbitrary.
16:48:13 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:48:35 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  You are going to get a variety of indicators, so whatever you perceive as the control, that is where you put your bounding box.
16:49:12 <alastairc> +1, or you put a 2px indicator in place and be sure you meet it.
16:49:14 <bruce_bailey> MikeG:  We have experimented with the phrasing.  So if one put the bounding box around the whole thing, that is a pass...
16:49:24 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) Continuously surrounds, bounds or includes the whole of.   2) Continuously surrounds, bounds or includes the whole of except for effects that appear to be outside the boundary of the control 3) Something else
16:49:37 <mbgower> 1
16:49:43 <Wilco> 3
16:49:45 <joeyang> 1
16:49:46 <Chuck> 1
16:49:47 <Rachael> 1
16:49:48 <GN015> 2
16:49:50 <alastairc> 1, and anyone suggesting 2 will need to define that!
16:49:50 <bruce_bailey> ... and if one puts the bounding box through the shadow or halo, then you do a complicated area calculation.  Author has a choice of their approach.
16:49:53 <ShawnT> 1
16:50:03 <laura> 1
16:50:04 <Ryladog__> 1
16:50:05 <MelanieP> 2
16:50:26 <Chuck> 9 1's, 2 2's, 1 3
16:50:54 <MelanieP> no
16:50:56 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  more inclined to 1s, objections ?
16:51:01 <Wilco> already objecting
16:51:34 <bruce_bailey> Rachael acknowledges Wilcos previous objection to visuals, and this is part of that.
16:52:02 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  Are we discussing this again or not?
16:52:13 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We will come back with completed SC.
16:52:42 <bruce_bailey> Gundala:  My preference is to come back later, since I think there will be more conversation.
16:53:05 <Wilco> q+
16:53:18 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Based on Wilco concern being tied to other issue, I recommend we keep moving this forward.
16:53:40 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  How do you determine if graphical effect is part of the button or not?
16:54:01 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  We have example of that in the document.
16:54:19 <mbgower> makes sense to me
16:54:22 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  What about the button in div and div has the shadow.
16:54:23 <joeyang> same
16:54:48 <bruce_bailey> AC:  Criteria is if it seems like part of the button.
16:55:06 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept shorter definition with 1 objection and a concern about handling focus on the whole page
16:55:12 <alastairc> If it is perceived to be part of the component...
16:55:27 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I am still tally support for the simpler approach, noting Wilco's concern.
16:55:53 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept shorter definition with 1 objection and a concern about handling focus on the whole page
16:55:57 <Chuck> +1
16:55:58 <bruce_bailey> Wilco agrees that minutes are okay.
16:56:03 <mbgower> +1
16:56:04 <Wilco> -1
16:56:05 <alastairc> +1
16:56:09 <Ryladog__> +1
16:56:10 <MelanieP> 0
16:56:11 <ShawnT> +1
16:56:22 <joeyang> +1
16:56:28 <jon_avila> 0
16:56:46 <Chuck> 7 +1's, 2 0's, 1 -1
16:56:51 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Accept shorter definition with 1 objection and a concern about handling focus on the whole page
16:57:56 <Wilco> q+
16:58:07 <bruce_bailey> Rachael and Alastair discuss how proceed towards CFC
16:58:28 <bruce_bailey> AC:  I think we need Understanding document updated before CFC
16:58:28 <alastairc> If anyone can create a good definition of "decorative" aspects, that would be very useful...
16:58:35 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:58:47 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  When will we be reviewing final SC text?
16:59:16 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  Will we go to CR with such a significant change?
16:59:36 <Wilco> q+
16:59:41 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Agree that we will need conversation, might be email
17:00:09 <bruce_bailey> Wilco request review on final terms.
17:00:24 <bruce_bailey> AC:  Does not trigger new CR
17:00:46 <GN015> present+
17:01:00 <bruce_bailey> present+
17:01:00 <jon_avila> Thank you.
17:01:07 <mbgower> Thanks
17:01:13 <Rachael> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:01:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/22-ag-minutes.html Rachael
17:01:29 <Rachael> zakim, end meeting
17:01:29 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ShawnT, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, kirkwood, JakeAbma, Chuck, Detlev, alastairc, Wilco, bruce_bailey, myasonik, MelanieP, mbgower, Jen_G,
17:01:32 <Zakim> ... jon_avila, Francis_Storr, present, Katie_Haritos-Shea, .5, OliverK,  0.8, GN
17:01:32 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1
17:01:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/22-ag-minutes.html Zakim
17:01:34 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Rachael; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:01:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:02:52 <bruce_bailey> s/erata pages/errata pages
17:03:05 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:03:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/22-ag-minutes.html bruce_bailey
17:12:42 <`join_subline> `join_subline has joined #ag
17:52:07 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
17:57:09 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #ag
17:59:16 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
20:01:29 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
22:19:55 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag