<Jennie> scribe: Jennie

* Happy to help Rachael!

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2022_Scribe_History

Rachael: This is the link for the scribe list. It helps if you sign up ahead of time.

New members and topics

Rachael: Do we have anyone new and wants to introduce themselves?
... (brief)

Aileen: I work at ServiceNow.
... I have been working on design systems.

Rachael: Welcome.

<Ben_Tillyer> Welcome Aileen!

Rachael: Anyone else?
... Any new topics to list for future?

Announcements

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki

Rachael: Reminder - we are tracking the work for WCAG 3 on the Silver wiki
... We have subgroups already working
... All contact information is on the wiki
... If you are in charge of a subgroup please keep this up to date
... This helps with clarity and transparency
... Also, we are expanding, slightly, the scoping subgroup
... If you are interested in the test types work, this is the group to join
... This is not about protocols
... Another reminder: if you are on queue, and someone else says what you were going to say, please just plus 1

<mbgower> rssagent, make minutes

Observers at meetings https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/non-participant_observers/results

Rachael: Observers at meetings - we have been getting requests
... Often for new employees, interns, to understand how we work
... The chairs feel it will increase visibility, and participation
... 16 people responded to the survey as comfortable
... Makoto asked about people that are not in the company and I believe that is ok
... Any other questions or concerns?

WCAG 3 Placeholder for User Agents and AT https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/accessibility_supported_placeholder/results

Rachael: We have a process in place that we worked through last time, and updated a bit

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Maturity_Labeling_Process

Rachael: this is our first time through adding placeholder content
... The first topic is user agents and assitive technology, and how we will address that in WCAG 3
... After we, as a group, agree, to open this and add placeholder text
... We will then open a subgroup
... Then the subgroup will draft examples and use cases
... They will bring this back in 4-6 weeks
... There is not a lot of content here - just a placeholder indicating where in the document this would go
... 1st question: background. Then asking people to put content in to help the subgroup.
... I will not read through all of them. But for those that commented, state if something is important to call out
... please state that now

<Rachael> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/accessibility-supported-placeholder/guidelines/index.html

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to +1 mary jo comment

Bruce: your plan is not to go through the comments much?

Rachael: We gather all the content, and have it written down, and give people a chance to state any other comments
... Having it in the survey is important for the subgroup
... I see your plus one to Mary Jo's comment

Bruce: yes, to have a line, not just the heading

Rachael: Question 1 or 2?

Bruce: I think it was in placeholder 2

<jeanne> +1 to Mary Jo's comment to clearly separate ATAG from authoring

Rachael: I will read through question 2.

Bruce: for question 1: the topic is assistive technology support. I cited the place in the 508 refresh.

Rachael: The survey is perfect for the subgroup to take it to their working notes.
... Talking about the approval - we are putting in placeholder text for section 6.4 is the proposed location
... 8 people approved it
... (reads from the survey)
... I believe the first comment is on the editor's note
... (reads from the survey)
... In response to comment 2, that is correct, there is no content yet
... No other comments

JF: I want to follow up on Gregg V's comment
... When they are marked as placeholder hidden, you click on it, and it doesn't go anywhere

<Chuck> +1 I found that issue as well.

JF: I don't have an answer
... If it is hidden, it shouldn't be in the side menu either

<bruce_bailey> fwiw, my comment in survey is similar to GV comment JF is discussing

Rachael: We have taken an action because a lot of people struggled with this
... Can you note down ideas, and we will talk about that
... Put them in the survey

<Wilco> Yeah, this used to remove it from the menu. Don't know why it doesn't today :-/

Rachael: Next group: those who approved with adjustments

<alastairc> It is for me, FF ok?

Rachael: (reads from survey)

Bruce: no further comments

Rachael: Last group is something else
... (reads from survey)
... I think we should talk about this in terms of placeholders and headings for filtering next week

Alastairc: I think this came about because there have been some topics people have not wanted to see even as placeholders
... It may seem like an odd question to ask, but it is actually our 1st step
... That may be where some of the confusion lies

Rachael: This is meant to be our kickoff steps

GreggVan: The sentence that says "We will be addressing this topic" sounds more definitive

<Rachael> theme: Change placeholder note text.

GreggVan: I think addressing this topic sounds like we will be addressing this guideline

<Rachael> From MaryJo "Placeholder. We will address this topic." or "Placeholder. We will address this topic in a future draft."

<bruce_bailey> +1 to GV comment that *exploring* seems better than *addressing*

<MelanieP> +1 to Gregg

GreggVan: The placeholder language itself, next step is exploratory, etc. - the language should be more indicative of that

<laura> +1 to Gregg.

GreggVan: And invite them to submit comments

Rachael: Mary Jo added something similar
... let's talk about the placeholder text, and then we will make it consist

<Rachael> Placeholder. We will explore this topic in a future draft.

<laura> we may explore

Rachael: What do people think of this?

GreggVan: I think we should go beyond this and ask for input
... Say we are exploring this in future drafts, and provide a link

<bruce_bailey> another word might be *investigate*

<JF> +1 to soliciting input - perhaps the link for that would be to GitHub issue (?)

Rachael: It is on our editor's draft, but we can add that

GreggVan: I think it is less than explore
... Something less than "we will be addressing"

JF: To follow up on GreggVan's comment

<bruce_bailey> i agree with "less than address"

JF: When we open a topic, we want to hear from everybody
... And when we do we could link to the issue page

Rachael: We do, for each topic, have a grouping milestone so it is easy to link to that

+1 to email, thank you

<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to say not just github

Rachael: If you are ok, we will take this back and craft it

<Rachael> Draft: Placeholder. We will be exploring this topic. If you have input, please create a GithHub Issue at [link to topic page] or submit an email

Rachael: We will link to the topic page, and provide an email

<GreggVan> [08:21:50] GreggVan: q+ to say Placeholder: We will be exploring this topic in future drafts. We solicit {input from the field}

Rachael: Not this exact language

GreggVan: There are different ways people can provide input. I think having a page on how people can provide input. Github is great, but some people can't use it
... Maybe for the placeholder and exploratory - we solicit input from the field, and have the input from the field be a link

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Placeholder. We will be exploring this topic in future drafts. If you have input, please [chairs will figure this out]

Rachael: That makes a lot of sense

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Peter_Bossley> +1

<michael> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Detlev> +1

<alastairc> +1

<MelanieP> +1

+1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

GreggVan: you should also think about this for exploratory

Rachael: that makes sense

RESOLUTION: Placeholder. We will be exploring this topic in future drafts. If you have input, please [chairs will figure this out]

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: are there other things for user agents and AT?

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say Placeholder: We will be exploring this topic in future drafts. We solicit {input from the field}

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Add Placeholder text for User agents and AT

<Jaunita_George> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Wilco> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Chuck> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<GreggVan> +1

+1

<jeanne> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<JF> +1

<laura> +1

GreggVan: I have some comments: in the past AT has been given a pass, but it needs to be accessible as well

Rachael: those comments are valuable - have you put them in the survey?

GreggVan: yes, I did

Rachael: The first part of the conversation was anything that needs to be discussed beyond the survey

GreggVan: I put some of it in the survey, but not all of it

Rachael: The purpose of the survey is to give the group kicking off all the information you are thinking about

GreggVan: OK

Rachael: We are working out this process. I appreciate your patience

RESOLUTION: Add Placeholder text for User agents and AT

Rachael: If we have time, I will pause to get feedback on this process before the top of the hour
... Is there anyone with a particular interest in working on this subgroup?

<Ben_Tillyer> Yes please, interested

Bruce: I am not clear what the title of the subgroup is

Rachael: It should be around accessibility supported

<Poornima> yes, interested

Rachael: The topic is on intergrating assistive tech and user agents into WCAG 3

Bruce: volunteering

<bruce_bailey> i am interested, mostly to provide 508 perspective

Juanita: Integrating assistive tech - specs and user agents?

Rachael: The UAAG and ATAG
... and the questions that go with it - it is really broad

Juanita: ok, thanks.

<Jaunita_George> I'm interested

WCAG 3 Placeholder for Real World Accessibility https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/placeholder_partial_accessibility/results

*Thank you Bruce! Can't parse those quick enough while typing!

Rachael: A theme that came out of this is that we need to retitle this
... We will use the same process
... The comments in the survey will go to the subgroup working on this
... Anything commentors of question 1 feel we need to call out?

GreggVan: The real world accessibility - to me, that sounds like the rest of our document isn't about the rest of the world
... Global comments belong in the preamble
... We know there will be bugs in software - we are telling you what makes something accessible. This is a policy recommendation
... A bug still makes it inaccessible.
... Trying to put something in as a provision, no, you are not accessible if you have bugs
... It is broken, it needs to be fixed, but you don't sue someone if you get a flat tire
... I am not sure that it really belongs here
... This is being discussed in the conformance text.
... I am objecting to putting it in placeholder text
... Think of it as a safety thing - if it is broken, it needs to be fixed

<laura> +1 to Gregg. Bugs should be fixed.

Rachael: That is moving us on to the 2nd question.
... We need to discuss if we add it, and if we do, what we name it
... (returns to reading the survey)
... Any of the people that approved it have additional comments?

Laura: I think I changed my vote after listening to Gregg

Rachael: 4 people approved with adjustments (reads from the survey)

Makoto: To me, resteraunt, shopping, minor accessibility issues might be a better title for this section
... We should also have a note for what we are going to address, and what we are working on

<shadi> +1 to Makoto

Rachael: Thank you. (continues reading for the survey)
... And we had several something elses

<scribe> ...(continues reading from the survey)

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: We will come back to Michael G's comment next week

<scribe> ...(continues reading from the survey)

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: again the qualification statement that others have raised

<scribe> ...(continues reading from the survey)

<jeanne> I note that naming is difficult.

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: I will add to Sarah's comment that critical errors falls under this as well

Sarah: Flipping it from what you can get away with, to more about the barrier prevention type of approach
... This makes it more user focused than conformance focused

Rachael: Thank you

GreggVan: I expanded on the text to add what I said before

Rachael: Thank you
... I am hearing several themese
... What should we call it?
... What note should we add?
... Where should we add it?
... Should we add it at all?

<Rachael> Themes: What should we call this?, What note should we add?, Where should we add it? Should we add it at all?

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about this topic and Bronze, Silver, Gold

Rachael: Did I miss any other themes from the survey?

JF: To be clear, what I was voting for in the survey was to add the topic as a placeholder
... This is a conformance issue
... We have this problem - we have committed to using bronze, silver, and gold
... Bronze is going to be less than gold
... It is to me about tolerance
... Tolerance for friction on the website, or digital content
... In terms of real world accessibility, I think this is what we are talking about, but with a different title

<michael> Have we committed to bronze/silver/gold? It's a draft, right?

JF: This feels like it is kicking off the conformance conversation

Rachael: Yes, this is officially kicking off the conformance conversation

<alastairc> michael - it's exploratory at the moment

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that there are more nuances -- there is a need to work on it.

Rachael: These are the 2 topics I thought we would start with

Jeanne: In response to Gregg
... Those examples are very black and white to this broad topic
... There are a lot of nuances we need to discuss, which are captured in the comments people have made
... The work needs to go forward because we need to talk about it
... There will be a group that works on this
... There is a lot more complexity, nuance, and need from the accessibility community
... For a more nuanced addressing of the issues people have raised
... I do think we need to go forward with it

<shadi> +1 to more nuance

Alastairc: Adding to Jeanne
... In our reports we tend to do A, AA issues that have failed
... We also do a barrier score: the impact on general tasks
... that somebody is trying to accomplish
... It might not be letting people get away with things - I like Sarah's idea of making some things more critical than others
... If you are going above bronze or silver, you may be able to discount some minor issues if you have done the work to address the higher issues
... We need the placeholder to kick off the process so people can work on it
... We can say it will be removed if it doesn't work out

Wilco: I think it is important to have the conversation, even if we decide not to do anything with it
... It is common to hear people disagree with what WCAG says is accessible

<JF> +1 to Wilco

Wilco: There is a difference between what people experience and what WCAG says
... That is what I am hoping to see in this work

<jeanne> +1 Wilco

Wilco: Let's have WCAG better reflect people's experience

Ben T: I agree with Wilco

<GreggVan> +1 to wilco

scribe: The work will not necessarily means it will work in all the way through maturity
... We all know sites with serial issues that don't work for people with certain disabilities - this may have some benefit to communicate
... I agree that the name should be changed, but I am not sure what the new name should be

<GreggVan> +1 to wilco -- but discussion should be as part of how we handle all policy/conformance like issues

<Rachael> strawpoll: Do you support kicking off this work (wording and location still to be determined)

JF: I really do think we need to rename this. If it is about conformance, we should include that word in the title

<Chuck> +1

<michael> +1 to kick off

<jeanne> +1 to starting the work

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<alastairc> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<JF> +1 to kicking of the conformance discussion

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1 to kicking off the work

<aileenhackett_> +1

<Makoto> +1

<GreggVan> +1 for discussion -- but we have a full subgroup looking at it

<Nicaise> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<MelanieP> +1

Sarah: "This work" - could you say what this work is

Rachael: I am worried I will get the wording wrong. Is that ok?

Sarah: The way it is described in the survey - if that is what this work is, I have some hesitation
... There is work that needs doing, but I am concerned about the focus of the work

<laura> +1 to sarah

Rachael: Let's work on that wording
... Jeanne can you put something in?

Jeanne: I don't have a great idea for the title

Rachael: Ok, then I open that up to everybody

GreggVan: I think you are talking about temporary inaccessibility
... You are talking about a bug that occurred, and until it is discovered, fixed, you will not have accessibility
... There is also the case when many items are added
... These are being discussed in the conformance subgroup
... There are a lot of things that happened that temporarily causes things we don't know how to solve
... I think that would be a good way to begin looking at these topics

<alastairc> Prioritisiation of issues?

<michael> Lost audio?

GreggVan: What is the purpose of this? One at a time?
... If a bunch of things all fall under a category, let's discuss them this way

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about alignment with conformance subgroup?

Bruce: There is a conformance subgroup, but this group is different?

JF: I agree with Bruce
... I am concerned with Gregg's reference to bugs
... We are talking about functional accessibility - what will be functional for some, will not be functional for others
... We can't be fully accessible to all users

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to JF

JF: There is no such thing as perfect

<ShawnT> +1 to JF

JF: I think it is more than conformance - it is about defining functional vs perfect accessibility

Rachael: Thank you for the point
... I don't want to have the subgroup's conversation here

<jeanne> Friction Tolerance & Critical Errors

<jeanne> The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of people with disabilitiies. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

Rachael: This is to form the subgroup
... What are some possible ways to address this idea of functional accessibility, or accessibility where you don't have 100%
... Then they can come back to this group

<bruce_bailey> Here is ED of activity I was thinking of:

<bruce_bailey> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/

Rachael: If you put yourself on queue to have that conversation, please volunteer for the subgroup
... I am interested in hearing names

GreggVan: All of the topics I just heard are already on the Thursday conformance group's discussions
... If you are not talking about conformance broadly, I am not sure what you are talking about
... I hear you saying there ought to be conformance that is grey
... What's this other group?

Rachael: I did not think that was what the Thursday group was talking about

<jeanne> Friction Tolerance & Critical Errors

<jeanne> The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of people with disabilitiies. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

Jeanne: I have a proposal for a name and a paragraph (reads the above posts)
... Yes, the conformance options group is working on this, and having a placeholder would be helpful for that part of this work

<GreggVan> +1 to Jeanne

Rachael: OK, so we are talking about shifting the work to that group?

Jeanne: from my perspective, yes

Shadi: We are putting out this so people can provide input. What are we asking of people? Maybe the paragraph can be more specific of the reviewers.

Rachael: We are not asking for comments, though we always welcome comments.

*Bruce: after Rachael?

Rachael: We don't put something into the working draft unless we have agreement from the group to put it our directly for comment
... People are always able to add comments

* Word

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say slight edit to Jeanne's text s/experience of people with disabilitiies/ experience of both authors and people with disabilities/

Shadi: like Jeanne's proposal, makes sense

GV: suggest slight edit, authors and users

<Zakim> michael, you wanted to say I suspect this will be too much for conformance subgroup?

Mike Gower: Want I am hearing from conformance group is that this is addressed...

<Wilco> +1 MikeG

<Jaunita_George> +1

scribe: I hear conformance subgroup already has work cut out, so this is different.

Sarah Horton: This is a proposal to allow/tolerance for minor error which is covered by current conformance activity...

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say it is Conformance Options subgrouip

scribe: so I want to suggest this new group focus on the flip side of that question...
... but that might working at cross purposes.

Jeanne: To clarify, the work PK and Janita Sanka (sp) is leading is noting very particular use cases...

<Zakim> michael, you wanted to say we need to avoid stating explorations as solutions

Jeanne: not addressing conformance models per se, and is getting close to having more of their use cases reviewed.

Mike Gower: I have concern that proposal is outside of the problem space.

<jeanne> Friction Tolerance & Critical ErrorsThe Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilitiies. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

scribe: I don't think it is critical errors, but what I have heard of problem statement is okay...
... but also I agree that no site is perfect and all sites have bugs.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Add "Tolerance & Critical Errors". The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilities. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

<Jaunita_George> +1

Wilco: I have concern that we have two groups doing duplicate work.

<Wilco> -1

<JF_> I'm with Wilcoi

<jeanne> +1

<michael> -1

<Chuck> +1

[straw poll]

<ShawnT> 0

<Wilco> "critical errors" suggests a solution, we should open the group to think beyond that

<Makoto> 0

<GreggVan> +1

<MelanieP> 0

<alastairc> +1 for adding something, not sure about the title yet.

Rachael: We will hear from the -1 folks, try and get to some consensus

<Rachael> Clarification "Frication Tolerance & Critical Errors". The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilities. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

Sarah Horton: Just want to add "friction" to topic title

JF: Friction tolerance is part of it, but this topic really seems still to be conformance model under WCAG 3...
... having two subteams, they will be at cross purposes.

<michael> Me too

Wilco: Not everyone needs to stay on top of, subgroups can report back. ...

<Wilco> +1 to Friction tolerance

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Chuck> +1 ok with the change to Friction Tolerance

<sarahhorton> How about Issue Severity?

Wilco: Please focus on new problem and not current term like "critical errors"

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION "Frication Tolerance." The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilities. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

<Jaunita_George> +1

<alastairc> Prefer Sarah's suggestion, just "Issue severity"

Rachael: Note this is why we are having this conversation.

<Jaunita_George> No concerns here

<Wilco> works too

<JF_> -1 I'd like to see "Conformance" somewhere in the title

<jeanne> +1 - Naming is hard. Let's just do it.

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION "Frication Tolerance and Issue Severity" The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilities. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

<michael> Conformance Tolerance for bugs

<jeanne> +1

<laura> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<JF_> -1

Rachael: talk about what we might have as better wording for straw poll

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION "Friction Tolerance and Issue Severity" The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilities. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

<Jennie> +1

<Makoto> +1

<sarahhorton> +0 would prefer just Issue Severity

<MelanieP> +1 to just "Issue severity"

<GreggVan> +1

<JF_> +1 to Mike G.

<alastairc> +1. Not keen on "friction tolerance", sounds like something from a NSFW site, or perhaps a mechanical process.

Rachael: Agree we can take "critical errors" from topic of this subgroup, since that term is part of WCAG3

<GreggVan> +1 to friction tolerance being opaque to most readers

Mike Gower: I don't know what is meant by friction tolerance

<alastairc> Suggest "Issue Severity", and JF, note that it is within the conformance section.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION "Issue severity" The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilities. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

Sarah Horton: agree that term is not clear, because we also have concerns for tolerance for errors, and small problems combining to large barrier

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Chuck> +1

<jeanne> +1

<michael> That's okay

<alastairc> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Wilco> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<michael> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<JF_> 0

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<ShawnT> +1

Alastair: To JF concern, since this in Conformance section, we can keep that word out of this subgroup topic of discussion

<Jennie> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<laura> +1

Rachael asks about draft wording of poll.

<Rachael> RESOLUTION "Issue severity" The Silver Research project and WCAG Challenges document noted use cases for better aligning WCAG conformance with the experience of both authors and people with disabilities. This idea does not yet have consensus support and will be worked on in the upcoming months.

<GreggVan> +1 to chairs

<michael> Chairs rec.

<Chuck> +1 for chairs doing some recon

Rachael: We have had lots of conversation about new group or existing group...

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<alastairc> /me yes, let's do that with the TF /sub-group people

<Wilco> nope, go for it

Rachael: so talk more now? Wait on chairs conversation?

<jeanne> I want Janina involved

Rachael: Chairs will discuss, and come back to AG.

<GreggVan> +1 to send comments to chairs or talk with them

<ShawnT> I'd like to be involved

<JF_> interested

<Jaunita_George> +1 I'll try, but might be spreading myself too thin

<sarahhorton> I'm interested in issue severity work

<jeanne> I want to be involved

Rachael: Please volunteer if you are interested with this discussion.

<aileenhackett_> interested in issue severity work

<alastairc> I'm interested, may be a bit stretched in next couple of weeks.

Rachael: No one of us will be able to keep track of everything.

<JF_> interested in discussing conformance - if this is the sub-team then I am interested

<laura> interested, time permitting.

Rachael: Subgroups are working independently and reporting back to this Tuesday meeting.
... We will add to surveys.

ACT Rules survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/all-act-agwg-may-2022/results

New rule: SVG element with explicit role has non-empty accessible name

Racheal: We are moving to ACT topics, four questions.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/7d6734/proposed/

Racheal: from Survey, 8 people approved.
... Any concerns here?

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept ew rule: SVG element with explicit role has non-empty accessible name

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule: SVG element with explicit role has non-empty accessible name

<Wilco> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<laura> +1

<Raf> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<kirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept new rule: SVG element with explicit role has non-empty accessible name

New Rule: Element with presentational children has no focusable content

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/307n5z/proposed/

[Rachael reads from survey]

Wilco: [to Mary Jo comment] This is about accessible name, and not focus order at all. Rule does not map to 1.4.3 SC

<Rachael> draft RESOUTION Accept New Rule: Element with presentational children has no focusable content

<Chuck> +1

<Wilco> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<iankersey> 1

<Rachael> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<laura> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Wilco> s/2.4.3/2.4.3

<MelanieP> +1

RESOUTION Accept New Rule: Element with presentational children has no focusable content

New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/a25f45/proposed/

Rachael: 5 approve, 2 with adjustment
... [from survey] Mary Jo had question, +1 from GV

Wilco: We could add examples, agreed. We have some with Headers referencing no existing things...
... Is that a blocker?

Rachael: I would like to approve, with new example.

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element but add new example per Mary Jo's comment and run by Mary Jo and Gregg

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: accept New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element but add new example per Mary Jo's comment and run by Mary Jo and Gregg

<Chuck> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Rachael> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<laura> +1

<ShawnT> +1

RESOLUTION: accept New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element but add new example per Mary Jo's comment and run by Mary Jo and Gregg

Update Approved ACT Rules

Rachael: please see links in survey
... definitions

New Rule: headers attribute specified on a cell refers to cells in the same table element

Wilco: I did not get to Mary Jo's second example. We have sort of a "weasel" example, with off screen content..

I would appreciate AG input and feedback

Maybe some clarification in Understanding?

Wilco: We could expand example, but would like addition to Understanding first

<alastairc> Wilco - could you raise an issue on 1.3.1 for this?

Racheal: Any objections to going forward for now?

Wilco to create issue for this.

Update Approved ACT Rules

Rachael: Sentence hard to parse, CSS instruction for Hidden is hard to follow.

Wilco: I can address editorially, maybe two sentence instead of the long one.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept Update Approved ACT Rules with Wilco's edits to fix Mary Jo's editorial concerns

<jo_weismantel> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Chuck> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept Update Approved ACT Rules with Wilco's edits to fix Mary Jo's editorial concerns

<laura> +1

WCAG 2.2 Dragging movements (2 questions, no update) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results

Wilco thanks all for feedback.

Does a Technique G219 example fail Pointer Gestures? #2248

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2356

Rachael this includes pull request to remove example.

scribe: 12 people agree with update. Any concerns?

Detlev: I have alternative, leave swipe in but mention that might fail other SC
... swipe can be good alternative to dragging, can be accessible, so it would be nice to include for readers as an option.

Alastair: It makes it more complicate to include example with significant caveat is challenge.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2356

Detlev: Understood, wanted chance to include as option.

<alastairc> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<Wilco> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Rachael> Detlev: +1

<GreggVan> +1

<laura> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

Rachael: Ask Detlev to consider creating new issue so we can work more on including swipe example.

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2356

Dragging Movements needs some attention #1917

Alastair: MG opened issue on this, general question about sufficient academic support...
... 2nd issue was that phrasing was stronger that could really be support
... from thread and survey result, edit has been accepted, seems agreement that SC is beneficial...
... so we have Detlev volunteered to update Understanding.

<Jaunita_George> No

Racheal: 8 agreed in survey, two other coments

bruce: github thread we arrived at edit

Rachael: reads from survey

<Rachael> proposed new sentence: Others use a specialized or adapted input device such as a head pointer, eye-gaze system, or speech-controlled mouse emulator, which may make dragging cumbersome and error-prone.

Mike Gower: We have agreement with softer language

Racheal: Just to be clear, we are keeping SC

Detlev: Please consider reaching out. I have surveyed a few, but not getting as much response as we would like.

Alastair: We did have companies like Adobe and Saleforce express some concerns with new SC, but not this one.

Rachael: Reads Todd Libby comment from survey, asking for a little more clarity in Understanding.

<Zakim> GN, you wanted to ask whether users with tremor are a good example for users who benefit from this SC

Rachael: [Reading more from survey] Wilco had concern that this should be marked At Risk for CR.

Gundala: I think it would be good to add example of users with tremors, as they will mention.

Mike Gower: Just to explain more about my concern, this barrier is really something the OS or platform should address...

scribe: it just seems too prescriptive: You must have single pointer.

<mbgower> Just that one sentence

Rachael: I am hearing agreement to update Understanding. Is there question about removing?

Alastair: It is late in process to do research. But it could still be a question about benefit. We could mark it as "at risk" and then pull at last minute...

[confirms w/ MC that At Risk is viable option]

Alastair: We could do more research.

<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) Continue with Dragging and update the understanding document 2) Continue with Dragging, update the understanding document and make as risk 3) Remove Dragging

Mike Gower: It is phrased so that a person could be supported for Single Pointer, so I think it is okay.

<mbgower> 1

<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) Continue with Dragging and update the understanding document 2) Continue with Dragging, update the understanding document and mark as risk 3) Remove Dragging

<Detlev> 1

<Wilco> 2

<JF_> 2, 3

<mbgower> 1, 2

<ShawnT> 1

<alastairc> 1, 2

<aileenhackett_> 2

<Rachael> 1

<jo_weismantel> 1, 2

<Jaunita_George> 1,2

<GN015> 1

Rachael: Please vote in order preference.

<ShawnT> 1, 2

<MelanieP> 2, 1

<laura> 1, 2, 3

<Francis_Storr> 1 2 3

<iankersey> 1 2 3

<Detlev> I can live with 2!

Racheal: I am seeing support for 1 and 2, but a couple cannot live with 1 and some for 2

Wilco: If we think this might be moot, we really should look into that.

Do we think this is largely addressed?

scribe: I would like to know more about accessibly support of the feature

JF: I am not seeing virtue with calling this SC out as At Risk

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the MATF responded when I raised this and said it wasn't supported

Michael Gower: I had raised this issue before to Mobile TF, they do NOT think it is supported currently

scribe: but could approach as we did with Resize Text, if platform support got better.

<Rachael> Who cannot accept Continuing with Dragging and update the understanding document to include that it is not widely supported

Alastair: I looked for Android setting without success, did not find, but even so that might not help browser.

<Wilco> if we know it is, I can

Wilco: I am okay with the feedback we have gotten from GitHub disscussion and email list

<Wilco> +1 good suggestion Melanie

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: accept Continuing with Dragging and update the understanding document to include that it is not widely supported but when it is, that can be used to mee this.

Melanie: If we don't think this is widely support, we could go ahead, but still have caveat if support becomes widely supported

<Wilco> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: accept Continuing with Dragging and update the understanding document to include that it is not widely supported by operating systems but when it is, that can be used to meet this.

<MelanieP> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Rachael> +1

<GN015> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Detlev> +1

<alastairc> To do (for Detlev): Add paragraph at end of the intro about this not being supported by OS/user-agents at the moment, but if it were then that would meet the SC.

<jo_weismantel> +1

<mbgower> +1

<alastairc> +1

<GN015> please fix typo: meet instead of mee

<mbgower> BTW, here's the background issue on this https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/6

RESOLUTION: accept Continuing with Dragging and update the understanding document to include that it is not widely supported by operating systems but when it is, that can be used to meet this.

<Detlev> will update Understanding text as agreed

Rachael: Coming back, lost 3 folks, but are people okay with how we are approaching place holder text?

Improving Placeholder process

<Rachael> Add survey question about interest

Wilco: I thought it went well. It was good to invite folks on agenda.

<laura> bye.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/UAG and ATAG/UAAG and ATAG/
FAILED: s/2.4.3/1.4.3/
Succeeded: s/1.4.3/2.4.3/
Succeeded: s/stimmst du mit ab? zwei leute wollen das SC fallen lassen.//
Default Present: alastairc, Rachael, Jennie, Chuck, Ben_Tillyer, bruce_bailey, Nicaise, Jaunita_George, Makoto, MichaelC, jeanne, shadi, myasonik, iankersey, Peter_Bossley, MelanieP, ShawnT, JF, sarahhorton, kirkwood, Fazio, JustineP, jo_weismantel, Detlev, Laura_Carlson, Francis_Storr, mbgower, Wilco
Present: alastairc, Rachael, Jennie, Chuck, Ben_Tillyer, bruce_bailey, Nicaise, Jaunita_George, Makoto, MichaelC, jeanne, shadi, myasonik, iankersey, Peter_Bossley, MelanieP, ShawnT, JF, sarahhorton, kirkwood, Fazio, JustineP, jo_weismantel, Detlev, Laura_Carlson, Francis_Storr, mbgower, Wilco
Regrets: Shawn L, Todd L, Jake
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Scribes: Jennie, bruce_bailey
ScribeNicks: Jennie, bruce_bailey

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)