Meeting minutes
<Chuck> here too.
<ToddL> Thank you, Rachael.
Rachael: We are looking for a scribe for hour 2
<jweismantel_> I'm Jo and am new
Rachael: Jo, welcome
New members and topics
Rachael: We ask new members to say their name, where you work, 1 sentence on your background
Jo: I work at Pearson. I am excited to be here and contribute
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say something
Rachael: anyone else here that is new?
… Any topics to bring to the attention of the chairs?
<ToddL> I'll be in a work meeting at the same time, so I won't be able to speak.
Proposal to update WCAG 3 editor's draft with test types https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_test_section/results
<bruce_bailey> Welcome Jo and Pearson!
Rachael: 2 purposes - a new way of thinking about how we will handle expanding what we test in WCAG 3
… We had explored scoring and rating
… We are now exploring different types of tests
… We have broken down the tests into different levels of subjectivity
… We are exploring how this impacts different SC - we are at the exploring phase
… The editor's draft: shift what is in this draft and mark as exploratory
… Removing content, outstanding process (moving things from one level to the next, we need to capture information), and then make the content change
Agree with removing ratings, scorings, and critical errors
Rachael: 7 people agree, 1 with adjustments, no disagrees
… Starting with the agrees
… (reads from the survey)
Rachael: no further comments from those that agreed
… (reads Sarah's suggested adjustments)
Should we leave in critical errors?
Rachael: Any other topics I missed on that?
Rachael: queue is now open to general conversation
Rachael: Chair hat off - I think we should not leave off critical errors. My concern: that we have them to fit in for scoring, and we may adjust
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I like the idea of leaving critical errors
Jeanne: I like the idea of keeping it. I like Sarah's idea.
… Because it is not directly related to the scoring we could leave it in
… We need some way of addressing the issue. I could go either way
Mbgower: I think the critical errors are still errors and will fail current SCs
… Depending on how the assessments go
… The roll up situation
… Without talking about why you are including them, it is hard to explain why you are even mentioning them
<alastairc> +1, they are fails, we don't need to call them out separately (until we get to the conformance/scoring aspect).
Mbgower: "These are critical errors" could be left there, but may raise more questions
Bruce: Is it possible to have an exposition on the critical errors
… To have the idea behind it, without saying which are critical errors?
<alastairc> Wouldn't that be part of explainer type content, rather than the spec?
Rachael: (chair hat off) I think that we could leave something small in, like an editor's note saying we are exploring it, but take it off elsewhere
… we could have it as exploratory
<jeanne> +1 to critical errors as placeholder
<Rachael> Straw poll: 1. Remove critical errors 2. Critical Errors as placeholder 3. Keep critical errors in as is
<alastairc> 1 or 2.
<Chuck> 2
<JakeAbma> 1
<JF> 1
<Jem> 2
<ShawnT> 2
<Wilco_> 1
<jweismantel_> 2
<jeanne> 2
<MelanieP> 1
<Jon_avila_> 2
<kirkwood> 1
<GreggVan> 1
<bruce_bailey> 2
<ToddL> 1
<Detlev> 2
<Rachael> 1 or 2
<Lauriat> 2 or 1
<mbgower> 1 or 2
<Chuck> 7 1's 8 2's, and a bunch of eithers
<mbgower> 1 preferred :)
Rachael: We have 7 for 1, 8 for 2
GreggVan: In the old way we were talking, and until we have the new mechanism, I think critical errors was a way to cover a big hole in the old approach
… If we revisit it, they may come back again
… It is kind of like having another layer, like the A and AA
… If you have critical errors and non critical errors
… Until we decide we are labeling the others as "not critical errors" is my concern
… Pushes all the other provisions down into another layer
<Jon_avila_> We have non interference in the conformance requirements.
<JF> Can't any error be critical for a specific user?
Chuck: We seem to have consensus that we are removing option 3
… There are a variety of people who put either / or
<Jem> In reality, we also call "critical error" as a deal breaker. What is the downside if we leave it as "placeholder"?
Chuck: Could we see if people tolerate 1 or the other
Detlev: I don't think it is necessary that the concept of critical error means everything else is not critical
<Jon_avila_> Yes. We also require full process today.
Detlev: 3rd category: non-critical - is a formal problem, but doesn't constitute a serious barrier - I find the concept quite useful
<Jem> + 1 to Deltev
Melanie: I thought I heard including an editor's note, but then the straw poll said placeholder.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think concept of critical error is new and different and important
Rachael: I can separate in the next straw poll
Bruce: Critical errors is new and different, not something we have in 2x
… It is more than the blockers in the conformance report
… I favor having something
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) remove critical errors, 2) critical errors in editors note 3) critical errors as placeholder content w/ editors note
<JF> 1
<GreggVan> 1
<Jem> I would like to shed light on Greg's point - "critical error" helps to complement the downside of current WCAG.
<Chuck> 2
<bruce_bailey> 2
Rachael: Pick which one you most prefer
<ShawnT> 2
<jweismantel_> 2
<Jon_avila_> 2
<kirkwood> 1
<alastairc> 3
<jeanne> 2 ok with any
<jaunita_george> 2 or 3
<Jem> 2
<ToddL> 1
<MelanieP> 2, 1
<JakeAbma_> 1
<mbgower> Suggest: Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it will not be a focus of discussion in the next charter, it is intended to re-asses this concept in the future"
Rachael: (read Jemma's comment)
<Detlev> 2 oe 3
<Lauriat> 2 okay with any
<Rachael> 2
Jemma: Yes, I think Gregg's comment about critical errors is important
… It is very practical for use to use in reality
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to clarify
GreggVan: The critical error, when we had something you didn't have to pass everything
… Like scoring, if you do 90% but you did none of some for a disability group
<Chuck> 5 1's, 10 2's, then mixes. Working on mixes
GreggVan: That is where critical error came in
<Chuck> a single 3
GreggVan: You have a way of "passing is good enough" without doing them
… Without doing them all
… Hyper A - you just can't not do something
<Rachael> Possible note (based on mike's suggestion): Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included, AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
<bruce_bailey> Here is link to CC5 Non Interference, but I understand WCAG3 idea of Critical Error to be broader
<bruce_bailey> https://
GreggVan: If we have taken scoring out, there is no longer a need for critical errors at this time
… We should bring it back in the future
<Chuck> a few 2's with lesser preferences to either 1 or 3.
GreggVan: The As would need to be a critical error
… If there isn't scoring at this time, then there isn't a need for critical errors
<Chuck> 5 1's, 13 2's, 1 3
Rachael: Before we go further, we did have a preference towards 2
<Jem> I think Greg is voting for #2 ;-)
Rachael: The editor's note
… a strong preference
… Would anyone object to an editor's note?
<Rachael> Possible note (based on mike's suggestion): Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included, AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
<Jem> no objection.
<alastairc> no
Rachael: I think we will talk about the wording in a moment
<GreggVan> I could live with #2 depending on what it said
Rachael: Sounds like no objections
<ToddL> no
Rachael: Mike put in a suggestion tied to the charter, which I slightly reworded
… (reads Mike's suggestion)
… What else would people like to see?
<GreggVan> +1
Mbgower: Thank you for doing that. I think everyone understands the basic concept
… Is it something we can have a few people review, and bring it back?
<Jem> + 1 to Mbgower's approach
Rachael: Absolutely, I just want to be sure that people share any feelings about it
GreggVan: That works for me
… In terms of language. It is also good the way it is
… We can figure out what we do later, and use that short description.
<Rachael> draft resolution: Remove ratings, critical errors, and scorings. Add editor's note similar to Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included, AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
<Wilco_> 0
<kirkwood> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Jon_avila_> 1
<ShawnT> +1
<jweismantel_> +1
<Detlev> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<JF> +1
<jeanne> +1
<alastairc> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Jem> +1
<GN015> +1
<laura> +1
<Raf> +1
RESOLUTION: Remove ratings, critical errors, and scorings. Add editor's note similar to Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included, AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
RESOLUTION: Remove ratings, critical errors, and scorings. Add editor's note similar to Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included, AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
<JakeAbma__> 0
What are outstanding questions on the new approach?
Rachael: (reads from the survey)
<ToddL> not atthis time
Rachael: no other comments from Todd
… Mike can you clarify your statement?
mbgower: Personally it is extremely hard to deep dive into 2.2 then go into Silver - hard to go back and forth
… Hopefully we can get 2.2 to the next stage, then pivot
Rachael: I concur
<laura> +1 to MG
Rachael: (reads from the survey)
<Jem> Regarding Gundula's comment, Makoto and I had the same feedback regarding the "naming" of the various test approaches.
Gundula: no futher commens
Jeanne: no further comments
Rachael: I think we have a list with some rewording from Todd, 2 further questions from Gundula
… And I am now opening the queue
JF: This may be a minor point, but I am concerned that things that are not tests we are calling tests
… Gregg referenced this in an earlier comment
… Evaluation is a good word, but I am struggling with "test"
… Can we remove "test" and instead reference "evaluations" instead?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer
Rachael: (chair hat off) the intent of this approach was "could we expand tests" if we took the assumption that what was pass or fail would change
… The use of "test" is intentional
… We are trying to see if we can fit an expanded set of requirements into what is pass or fail
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say almost every existing SC includes subjective wording that is 'tested'
Rachael: Open to other ideas
<kirkwood> could we have a link to the poll?
mbgower: I read the comments posted. Every success criteria in 2.x - almost all have some subjective components
… I think that test evaluations has the same idea
<alastairc> kirkwood - the survey? https://
mbgower: Is there an alt text programmatic indicator here, and does it meet
<kirkwood> thank you!
mbgower: The way forward is to see if we can make both testable
… I think the direction is clear from the current wording
<mbgower> not true!!
GreggVan: The requirement is only that there is alt text. Not that the alt text has to be good - that would be subjective
<JF> +1 and BINGO to Gregg
GreggVan: Placeholders are clearly defined
<alastairc> "serves the equivalent purpose" - goes beyond just existing
<mbgower> "All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below."
GreggVan: That's been the hallmark of things being testable
… When you are done, you need to be able to determine you are done
<laura> +1 to Gregg
GreggVan: It depends on who is doing the judging
… With multiple testers...
… You can't require someone to do something, then they cannot determine they are done when they are done
… Lines are always blurry
… Talks about being on both sides of a line or border
… It should be clear if you are on one side or the other
… It should have high inter-rater reliability
JF: Exactly what Gregg said
<mbgower> 1.2.1 "presents equivalent information "; 1.3.1 "Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation "
JF: Mike talked about success criteria in 2.x - those are all testable statements
<mbgower> 1.3.2 "When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning,"
JF: When we talked about these in the past, COGA talked about wanting other aspects added
… They created Creating Content Usable
… Example: having a definition of beautiful or delicious depends on what you think it is
Wilco: Nobody is proposing to have tests with low inter-rater reliability
<Lauriat> +1 to Wilco
<alastairc> +1, this is a tangent
Wilco: I think we should agree that because this is exploratory, we should let the work continue
Rachael: 1 option - Are these tests or evaluations?
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say "that serves the equivalent purpose"
<Chuck> +1 this is a tangent
Jeanne: To answer Gregg, that serves the equivalent purpose in 1.1.1 is subjective condition
… It is not like we don't have subjectivity in WCAG 2
<jon_avila> Today WCAG 2.x does require equivalent purpose and not just alt.
Jeanne: What will help is if we can tease them apart, and start doing more reliable testing of the subjective things
<mbgower> +1 to Jeanne and Wilco
Jeanne: As Wilco says, we are just starting. Let's explore it, it could solve some major problems, and I would like to see it keep going
<bruce_bailey> +1 that text alternative serves equivalent purpose is not so objective
GreggVan: I have the same answer later in the questionnaire
… Categories are things you sort things into, rather than tags
… Everything not in the 1st category is by definition not subjective
<JF> “Qualitative scoring cannot be used for conformance testing; a test must comprise criteria that either fail or pass if said criteria are to be employed in any legislative manner. Otherwise, two testers may produce altogether different results, which is unacceptable for WCAG in its present role in European legislation.” (SiteImprove - https://
GreggVan: Conditional, not conditional - leaving out subjective as something that all the others are not
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest solution
Rachael: We did collect terminology, and I am seeing that suggestion here. We will survey that in a future survey
GreggVan: If you say there are going to be types, everyone will go back to the types that are named
… We could add a note
… If the note says "we are going to go forward, but have not yet found the right categories"
… The whole conversation has been what are the categories
Rachael: let's go back to - we are looking at adding exploratory content into the draft
… We are just thinking about these ideas
… In the process we agreed on is that we would capture all the things we think we should work on
… Gundula has asked is the naming of test approaches appropriate?
… By having the question in we are acknowledging it is not yet right, but we are exploring it
… That we are continuing in the direction
… Is there another question that we can capture that we know is an issue with this direction?
… Does that make sense Gregg?
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest that if we know we don't have the types - we don't put anything in
GreggVan: If we know we don't have the types right...if you want to put something in
<JF> +1 to Gregg
GreggVan: Are you saying that we are going to go forward having 4 types, 3 of which are absolutely not objective
… Then there would be 3 more types that are not exclusive
… I think we rename the 1st one
… These are the kind that are unconditional
… If you have not determined that they are not objective, we should change the terms
<JF> "Objective Tests" and "Subjective Evaluations"
Gregg: I think this would address several of the issues
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we've discussed the types quite a lot, we know the categories, it's the names that we haven't settled on
Gregg: Finding new ways of looking at this, other than the ways we have
Alastairc: We have discussed these types of tests in other meetings
… We know the categories - it is the names we haven't settled on
JF: I keep coming back to the fact that words are important
… I have proposed a way to have other ways of measuring
<laura> +1 to "Objective Tests" and "Subjective Evaluations"
JF: But gets us out of the objective vs subjective
GreggVan: You said we would make a decision first - I think the order is incorrect. I think we figure out the words first but I will review the draft resolution
<kirkwood> are we then saying all user tests are subjective?
Rachael: I will attempt to write the resolution to address that
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in survey along with the question of whether to use test or evaluation. Change the first test name to Unconditional while we continue to evaluate terminology.
Rachael: this is just around which questions should be in the editor's note
<JF> @Kirkwood that would seem logical to me. Each user is unique, and their approach to interaction as well. I want to be sure we are evaluating content, and not users!
Rachael: Please give comments before voting
… Do I need to reword it?
<GN015> I prefer 'objective'
Rachael: These categories are defined in the document
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in survey, accept editorial content, along with the question of whether to use test or evaluation. Change the name of first test type to Unconditional while we continue to evaluate terminology.
<jeanne> I prefer objective
<GreggVan> +1
<Wilco_> +1
<Chuck> +1
Rachael: Let's go ahead and vote
<ShawnT> +1
<jaunita_george> +1
<jweismantel_> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<alastairc> +1
<GN015> -0.5
<jeanne> +1
<ToddL> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<JF> -1 to "unconditional" - I understand the intent, do not like the term
<mbgower> 0 I'm not sure where 'unconditional' came from
<laura> 0
<MelanieP> +1
<jon_avila> +0 unconditional is not the same as subjective
Gundula: On the one hand I prefer objective, there are fixed rules that could be automized
… Renaming before the overall discussion on renaming the categories
<Detlev> 0 also unclear about unconditional
JF: Pretty much the same as Gungula
… I would prefer objective testing, where it is objective
… Anyone running the tests should be able to get the same results
<laura> +1 to objective
Mbgower: I know that we are looking at a greater means of granularity
… If we adopt splitting it into 2 for now, we might be able to get this in, and worry about the details as we progress
+1
GreggVan: Remembering that these are types that you sort into
… If you call them tags, you can more than one
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to answer
GreggVan: I have a concern about one of the types being objective
… If you do that, then nothing else can be objective
… Unless we are thinking of these as tags
… Will everything be one of the types? Or as tags or descriptors, so some things can be more than one
<mbgower> this is a matrix, not a 1-dimensional approach
GreggVan: Or characteristics
… Then something could be objective, and conditional, and could be a procedure
… Then I think we would be ok
<kirkwood> this is already done with alt text. objective tests (presence of alt text) and subjective evaluations (relevant alt text)
<SuzanneTaylor> -1 its too confusing if these are tags
Rachael: A lot of this has happened in previous meetings, they are meant to be categories or types
<alastairc> Gregg, have you read this https://
Rachael: These are the different ways you can test a particular objective
… They are exclusive of each other
GreggVan: That's what I thought
Rachael: I think your point is valid
GreggVan: This is the most important topic
… I think putting this into the draft
… Saying this group has formally decided that 3/4ths not be testable
<alastairc> Gregg, we've been discussing this for several meetings
GreggVan: That is monumental
<JF> +1 to Gregg
<Jem> +1 to Kirk's example
Rachael: The premise of this is that all of them are testable, but what is tested was different
… We were not saying that anything is more subjective than anything in 2.x
… That is why we spent several meetings on this
… We will not get to the next question
… Is everyone comfortable with the questions we have - to get them into the draft note
<Chuck> +1 comfortable with questions
mbgower: Just acknowledge that we have had a number of meetings on this
… This is a matrix
… Things are going across 2 different directions
… It is not linear
… If you divide things into 4, you inferred that it means that only a quarter of them will be assessed in one area
… That is not correct
… A certain amount will be subjective, and we are attempting to categorize in different ways
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey, add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation".
JF: Part of the problem here is we also need to be thinking about conformance
… We have had feedback about subjective
Rachael: any feedback on the draft resolution?
GreggVan: You are talking about another one of our surveys or going into the editorial draft?
Rachael: We have an editor's draft, with different levels of maturity
… We agreed as a group to have a bottom level of maturity, and to capture questions
… We have a list of questions we don't think we have the answers to
… This meeting brought up another question
… I am asking if we are ok adding the questions
JF: I am looking for the questions
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: The survey has the full list as well
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: We are talking about the editor's note
<Jem> Regardig resolution, are we voting for "objective test" or "subjective evaluation" instead of outstanding question of wehther to use "test" or "evaluation"? Would the fomer be more closer to the consensus?
Rachael: Section 4, testing section, editor's note has the list of questions
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Jem> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<GN015> +1
<Lauriat> +1
GreggVan: One of the questions should be: we may have different types of tests, but should any of them be not objective?
Rachael: OK, perfect
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey, add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "should any test be not objective"
*Scribe change soon?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to add a question
<kirkwood> +1
<alastairc> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<Wilco_> +1
<mbgower> +1
<jaunita_george> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss my blunt suggestion is for AGWG to focus more on prose and less on what regulators or litigation might find attractive
<jeanne> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<ToddL> +1
<Jennie> Bruce: things should be objective
<JF> 0
<Jennie> ...I think the question is is the group's tolerance for less objective
<Jennie> ...I think about how much due diligence the group has given
<jweismantel_> +1
<Jennie> ...That are attractive to regulators
<Lauriat> +1 to Bruce
<Jennie> ...My advice to the group is to worry less about that, and concentrate
<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
<Jennie> ...On writing good prose
<jeanne> +1 to Bruce
<Jem> +1 to bruce
<laura> 0
<Jennie> Rachael: I see we have a queue and am closing queue
<GreggVan> 0
<Jennie> ...We need a new scribe
<Detlev> I can scribe
<GreggVan> +1
Rachael: Any objections to the queston on the list?
<bruce_bailey> +1 to question, my concern was for "should"
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey, add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant of we of subjective tests"
<bruce_bailey> +1
Bruce: "should be objective" is easy, it is more how tolerant of subj, tests are we
<jweismantel_> +1
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey, add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests"
<Chuck> +1
<jaunita_george> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Jem> +100
<JF> 0
<ToddL> +1
<SuzanneTaylor> 0
<jeanne> +1
+1
Gregg: The other question should not be taken out - should there be things in it that are not objective should be retained
<GreggVan> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<Wilco_> +1
<GN015> +1
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey, add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests (aka should any test be not objective)"
Rachael: Putting the question back in
<Chuck> +1 let's live with this
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey, add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests and Should any test be not objective?
Gregg: Can live withit, Bruce's point should be a separate question
Bruce: no problem
<Chuck> no objection
<JF> no
RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey, add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests and Should any test be not objective?
<Jem> +1
Gregg: Bruce, you said whe should focus on good prose even if that is a problem to regulators
Visible Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results
Rachael: should not cover this here now, letÄs move to 2.2.
<bruce_bailey> we already have SC which we characterize as being objective -- but are more subjective in actual practice than we would like
<bruce_bailey> To GV, imho we should not let quest for objective prevent us from developing good guidelines
Rachael: What are next steps on Visible controls - left it for COga to review, that happened - AAA not a direction to take according to them - instead proposing several other options limiting the scope
Survey asked about the exceptions and other approaches to Visible Controls
Rachael: Mike, Alastair, anything toadd?
Alastair: No
<AWK> +AWK
MikeG: The key thing is that the current wording demonstrably does not work - any choice except removing requires more work and someone needs to do that
<ToddL> @Chuck I'm still here. :)
Rachael (going through people's survey results, asking for any additions)
Rachael: Reading Sara's comments
Rachael: Reading Bruces's comments, Jon's comments
Rachael: Reading AWK's comments
3 people supported removing the SC
Rachael: Reading Alastair's comments
ALastair: Comes down to issue of affordance and expectations, people asee that differently
<alastairc> BTW, the 'editable' bit was in a different branch, not in the survey question.
Rachael: (Reading MikeG's comments)
MikeG: The hard thing is to define visual indicators
Pursue or remove
Rachael: Should we remove or pursue - if the latter, we need volunteers to work on it
<alastairc> Gregg, it's in the first line
Gregg: Visual indicator only appears in the exceptions - it should say 'visually hiding the control' is essential, that would remove 'visual indicators
… is this really a critical problem? Are there examples for the issue, beyond skiplinks
Rachael: has been identified as an issue
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say I put in pursuing alternative 1 as my choice, assuming that we are pursuing this SC for WCAG 2.2. I do think that it is a separate discussion as to whether we have time and resources to get to a solution.
Gregg: Hiding controls addresses the problem (?)
AWK: pursuing Alternative 1 is my choice - but it may not feasible in the time frame - wasn't thinking about it in terms of the time constraints
MikeG: The next survey question "What counts as Vissible indicator" - there was only agreement on one of the example, demonstrating the difficulty
Rachael: Straw poll whether we should continue or not - if the former, we need people to step in and work on it
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Continue to pursue 2) Remove
<ShawnT> 1
2
<mbgower> 2
<Chuck> 2
<ToddL> 2
<GreggVan> 1)
<jaunita_george> 2
<bruce_bailey> 1
<alastairc> 2, unfortunately I've tried many ways, can't see a way forward.
<Chuck> 3 1's, 6 2's
<AWK> Want to say 1 but suspect that it is time to say 2
Wilco: e need to know time lines before the decision - do we need 2.2 recommendations before the end of the charter?
Rachael: We need to close out issues this week
<laura> 2 unless someone volunteers
Gregg: Volunteers to take a crack on making this make sense
… need help with filling in the background
<GN015> 1
<Francis_Storr> Would like to say 1, but voting 2
Rachael: Who else would be available?
… Coga may involve several people
Gregg: Tell me what I missed (background) then rephrase
<Wilco_> Given all we have left on 2.2, I don't see how we can even afford another meeting on this.
Rachael: We can give you the info - Alastair or MikeG might be the ones
MikeG: Needs all the time on focus appearance
Alastair: can give background
<mbgower> I think i objet
Rachael: Any objections to pursue this for one final week
Wilco: We have a bunch of other thing sdtoo - but no objection
Alastair: Will need to send out CfCs for other SCs that have been talked about already
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Gregg will pursue for one more week 2) Remove
MikeG: Clarifying why I objected - with focus appearance, we had iterations for months - how can we do that for Visual Controls which has lots of affordance aspects that are difficult to puin down - that's why said disontinue
<mbgower> lets call it a strong caution over an objection
<Chuck> 2
<mbgower> 2
<MelanieP_> 2
2
<Wilco_> 2, and I don't like it...
<GN015> 1
<bruce_bailey> 1
<ShawnT> 1
<Rachael> 2 and I agree with Wilco, I don't like it
<Nicaise> opt 1
<alastairc> 1, but I think the likely outcome is that I will brief Gregg, and it won't go any further :-( so 2 is just as realistic.
<laura> 2
<jweismantel_> 2
<Francis_Storr> agreeing with Wilco. 2
<jaunita_george> 2
Chuck: We need consensus by next week
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: We will try one last time but if no quick consensus next week, we will drop for 2.2
<Wilco_> 0
<Chuck> +1
<Nicaise> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<mbgower> 0
Rachael: Good example for one of the 'less objective' test types...
<ShawnT> +1
<GN015> +1
<MelanieP_> -.5
+1
<SuzanneTaylor> +1
<laura> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<Francis_Storr> 0
<alastairc> +1 (see it as a form of due diligence. )
Rachael: Gregg please send out draft early to group can vet it
<ToddL> +1
Rachael: Melanie - does it mean .5 menas can live with it?
Melanie: truw
… true
RESOLUTION: We will try one last time but if no quick consensus next week, we will drop for 2.2
WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
Rachael: Agrees it is good for of due diligence
Rachael: Focus appearance now...
Updated understanding document for "encloses"
Rachael: Updating understanding doc regarding the term "encloses"
Alastairs: builds on discussions of last 2 weeks - if it is better than before we can move forward - last chance on this SC
Rachael: (reads survey results)
MikeG: No additions...
Bruce: no comment
Rachael: (reads Gundula's comment disjoint bounding boxes)
Rachael: (reding Wilco's comment)
Wilco: Thi sis about the exception clause, not relevant to the first part
Rachael: This is just about the Understanding doc - assume normative changes have been agreed
Alastair: normative hasn't changed right MikeG?
Alastair: normative text has not changed
<Wilco_> yes, I'm seeing it in the preview
<alastairc> Michael: There has been one addition to the normative text, which was "instead" at the very end. The
MikeG: There was no intention of having a normative change in survey - but one change yet to be discussed, may need to be pulled out and checked
Rachael: (reading AWK's comment)
<Wilco_> +1 to AWK
AWK: not a good idea to be too prescriptive (?)
<Rachael> themes: bounding box definition, against adjacent colors, normative change of word "instead", exception language
Rachael: Did I miss any themes?
<Chuck> +1 themes
bounding box defintion
Rachael: Starting with bounding box definition
MikeG: There is no change of bounding box - understands what's being said, but this is pre-exisiting - can be created as issue but not part of thid change
Rachael: Gundula, can you create an issue for that?
Gundula: Will create issue
RESOLUTION: GN will create an issue for the bounding box definition
Against adjacent colors
Rachael: Next "Against adjacent colours"
Alastair: question for Wilco: do not think adj color prohibit halo or gradient typefocus indicators
<jon_avila> What is meant by fading? Halo or non-persistent indicator?
MikeG: I thin it does - if you have a fading focus indicator it will fail adjacent colors
Alastair: Talking about fading in time or visually
Alastair: not time
<Zakim> GN, you wanted to refer to use of 'adjacent' in 1.4.11
Wilco: You need to define what the indicator is adjacent to - so it is unclear what os measured against what with glows and the like (?)
Gundula: Weused the term adjacent coloralso in 1.4.11 - there it states that intermediate pixels in between color areas cna be neglected
<alastairc> "Where the area is adjacent to the component"
<Wilco_> +1
Alastair: Whas discussed recently; the solution was an aspect to incorporate "where the area is adjacent to the component"
MikeG: The difference between this one and 1.4.11 was whether the indicator stays contrasty - if you add a halo it doesn't make the indicator imperceptible
… Here we are not talking not about the component but the indicator, which can be a few pixels away from the component
… 1. the overall area needs sufficient suze; 2. That area has enough contrast between focused and unfocused state; 3. where it is abutting, it needs to be thimk enough so beople perceive it (thickness)
… even with halo you need at least 2px thickness requirement anyway
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say - can we agree the understanding doc updates? And comment on adjacent.
Alastair: no one was objecting o Understandign update
… we have a slightly simplified version for the adjacent part
<alastairc> "Where the area is adjacent to the component, it has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the component or a thickness of at least 2 CSS pixels."
<Wilco_> If I'm not mistaken, we voted against that simplified version a few weeks back
Alastair: either 2 pixels thickness requirement, or revert to prior version where there was a requirement 'where the indicator is adjacent to the component'
<Zakim> GN, you wanted to answer to Mike
<mbgower> That would fail
Gundula: Agrees there needs a contrasting area , but also true for 1 pixel
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed it recently in which case we will move them to issues)
<jaunita_george> +1
(sorry unable to fdully capture details of this technical discussion above)
<alastairc> +1
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ToddL> +1
+1
MikeG: Adjacent colors has not changed here, was resolutin from last week
<alastairc> Minutes with that resolution: https://
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed it recently, if surveyed recently it will move to an issue)
Wilco: my recollection: We did not have the final wording of this
Rachael: Need to go back and check
<alastairc> This is the diff we were looking at: https://
<mbgower> "Encloses" and "adjacent colors" in the SC text.
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed them recently, if surveyed recently it will move to an issue)
Rachael: Mike pasted from the previous notes?
Rachael: Open an issue (Wilco)
<Chuck> +1 to draft resolution
Rachael: Mike agree with this resolution?
Alastair: We included that change, have covered it
<mbgower> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed them recently, if surveyed recently it will move to an issue)
Rachael: Use the last few minutes to discuss adjacent colors
MikeG: Let's better talk about the use of the word 'instead'?
<alastairc> Draft poll: Use current 'adjacent colors' (1), or revert to the previous version (2)
Rachael: Do we need adjecent colors or revert to 'adjacent to the component' do we need to straw poll that
<Wilco_> 2
<ToddL> 2
<mbgower> please paste
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Keep adjacent colors 2) Change back to Where the area is adjacent to the component
<bruce_bailey> 2 (soft)
<alastairc> "Where the area is adjacent to the component, it has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the component or a thickness of at least 2 CSS pixels."
Mike: Pleas aste wording
<GN015> 1
<alastairc> 1 prefered, but not against 2
Jon: Is it that the secnd applies to both sides of the indicator?
<GreggVan> 2)
<GreggVan> 2
<Rachael> 1
Alastair: Yes - if it is a big indicator you need the 2 pixel thickness, the older one allowed one picel with gradient
Wilco: The high opacity part of the indicator should contrast to its low opacity part - is that it?
MikeG: The indicator can cut though other things on the page - the wording does not cove that well now
<jon_avila> Thank you