15:30:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:30:46 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/22-ag-irc
15:30:53 <Chuck> rrsagent, make logs world
15:30:59 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:31:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/22-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:31:05 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:31:11 <Chuck> Zakim, start meeting
15:31:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:31:12 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:31:18 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2022-11-22
15:31:24 <Chuck> agenda+  Subgroup Check Ins
15:31:30 <Chuck> agenda+ Revisit Evaluating Procedures PR https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/PR653/
15:31:44 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 issue resolutions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/
15:32:43 <Chuck> regrets: Makoto Ueki, Poornima Subramanian, Bruce Bailey
15:57:34 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
15:57:42 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:58:15 <StefanS> present+
15:59:04 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:59:10 <JakeAbma> present+
15:59:38 <Rachael> present+
15:59:39 <ShawnT> present+
15:59:50 <alastairc> present+
15:59:58 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:00:25 <GreggVan> present+
16:00:48 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
16:00:52 <jeanne> present+
16:00:55 <Jennie> present+
16:01:37 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
16:01:47 <JenStrickland> present+
16:02:10 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:02:18 <tzviya> present+
16:02:38 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
16:02:40 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:02:41 <Mikayla> Mikayla has joined #ag
16:02:44 <Fazio> present+
16:02:49 <ToddL> present+
16:03:02 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
16:03:18 <Jem> present: JaeunJemmaKu
16:03:18 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:03:22 <mbgower> present+
16:03:25 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
16:03:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/22-ag-minutes.html Jem
16:03:30 <Jem> agenda?
16:03:36 <Regina> Regina has joined #ag
16:03:39 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
16:03:50 <StefanS> scribe: Stefan
16:04:07 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
16:04:32 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:04:33 <JenStrickland> Here's the scribe list with link to instructions: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List
16:04:36 <Detlev> present+
16:04:48 <Mikayla> present+
16:04:58 <StefanS> present+
16:05:06 <kirkwood> PRESENT+
16:05:10 <Caryn> Caryn has joined #ag
16:05:14 <maryjom> present+
16:05:14 <Caryn> present+
16:05:24 <StefanS> Charles: any announcements?
16:05:39 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:05:39 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Subgroup Check Ins -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:05:40 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:05:40 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:05:42 <StefanS> Regina: agenda?
16:05:45 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
16:05:59 <Raf> present+
16:06:01 <StefanS> Charles: bringing that up right now
16:06:02 <Jem> zakim, take up agenda item 1
16:06:02 <Zakim> 'item\ 1' does not match any agenda item, Jem
16:06:10 <Jem> zakim, next
16:06:10 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next', Jem
16:06:11 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:06:15 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:06:23 <Jem> Topic: Subgroup check in
16:06:37 <StefanS> Shawn: some updates to give
16:06:59 <Chuck> q?
16:07:02 <jeanne> q+
16:07:05 <StefanS> Shawn: conformance options about next steps meeting, we need to finalize next week
16:07:05 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
16:07:08 <Chuck> ack Jea
16:07:15 <StefanS> Charles: any other subgroup?
16:07:37 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:07:56 <StefanS> Jeanne: Sirver TF works on TPAC projects .. outcome of user needs .. we show them whenever we're scheduled
16:08:03 <Azlan> present+
16:08:26 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:08:26 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Revisit Evaluating Procedures PR https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/PR653/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:08:28 <StefanS> Charles: other individuals with experience will be involved .. any other missed updates from subgrousp?
16:08:39 <StefanS> Charles: move on 1st survey
16:09:34 <StefanS> Charles: agree to merged PR? Specific to editors note .. some individuals have reccommendations
16:09:51 <StefanS> Charles: goes outside of original note
16:10:03 <Jem> zakim, who is here?
16:10:03 <Zakim> Present: JaeunJemmaKu, mbgower, Detlev, Mikayla, StefanS, kirkwood, maryjom, Caryn, Laura_Carlson, Raf, jon_avila, Azlan
16:10:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see Azlan, wendyreid, jon_avila, Raf, Caryn, Detlev, kirkwood, Regina, mbgower, Jem, Mikayla, maryjom, Fazio, GN015, JenStrickland, Jennie, laura, JakeAbma, jeanne,
16:10:06 <Zakim> ... StefanS, RRSAgent, Zakim, Chuck, ToddL, ShawnT, tzviya, Mike5Matrix, MichaelC_, Seirdy, GreggVan, jcraig, jspellman, Rachael, alastairc, bwang, ChrisLoiselle, trackbot
16:10:17 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
16:10:17 <StefanS> Charles: 2 individuals want to merge PR
16:10:33 <StefanS> Charles: is jennifer available?
16:10:53 <StefanS> Charles: (reads what jen wrote)
16:10:56 <Jem> present+ Jenniferstrickland
16:11:16 <OliverK> OliverK has joined #ag
16:11:23 <StefanS> Charles: I didn't see changes in the edit, Jen?
16:11:33 <StefanS> Jenifer: there was change but super-tiny
16:11:53 <StefanS> Jennifer: something was wrong in paragraph
16:12:18 <StefanS> Jennifer: seems to be consolidated now
16:13:40 <StefanS> Charles: (reads other comments)
16:13:48 <Regina> present+
16:13:56 <Chuck> +1
16:14:01 <Jem> response is here https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/PR653/results
16:14:07 <StefanS> Charles: +1 to that
16:14:33 <StefanS> Charles: Gregg says that it confuses outcomes .. different things mixed to different ways
16:15:25 <StefanS> Gregg: this was written before and is behind actual discussion .. terms have been defined different now
16:15:32 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Evaluating Procedures
16:15:50 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to:  Evaluating Procedures
16:15:52 <Rachael> q+ to address Jennie's concerns (after queue opens)
16:15:52 <Chuck> q?
16:16:40 <StefanS> Jennie: I will comment mine .. unconfortable with reference to COGA materials .. COGA TF is working on  atesing plan .. and the way it is presented here the COGA TF is likely uncomfortable with
16:17:15 <StefanS> Jennie: COGA TF need to put consensus on this .. we need verification for every page
16:17:16 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:17:16 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to address Jennie's concerns (after queue opens)
16:18:02 <StefanS> Rachael: we will commit always circling this back to COGA .. we go ahead and consider merging it with two notes
16:18:18 <Chuck> q?
16:18:21 <StefanS> Rachael: wid did make the change on TF teporarily
16:18:23 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 653 and merge with 2 notes to address the need for the definitions and to replace the examples long term (next update) with Coga's
16:18:26 <MichaelC_> q+
16:18:35 <Chuck> ack Mich
16:18:57 <StefanS> MichaelC: are we talking about same thing ? ay changes missed?
16:19:10 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 653 and merge with 2 notes to address the need for the definitions and to replace the examples long term (next update) with Coga's
16:19:13 <StefanS> Charles: .. replace examples longterm with COGA examples
16:19:22 <StefanS> Charles: first refine the notes
16:19:33 <Jennie> +1
16:19:38 <Chuck> +1
16:19:38 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:19:39 <kirkwood> +1
16:19:44 <Jem> +1
16:19:47 <laura> +1
16:19:48 <JenStrickland> +1
16:19:49 <maryjom> +1
16:19:50 <StefanS> +1
16:19:51 <ToddL> +1
16:19:52 <OliverK> +1
16:19:57 <Regina> +1
16:19:58 <GreggVan> +1
16:19:59 <JakeAbma> +1
16:20:07 <Rachael> +1
16:20:29 <Jem> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 653 and merge with 2 notes to address the need for the definitions and to replace the examples long term (next update) with Coga's
16:20:30 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 653 and merge with 2 notes to address the need for the definitions and to replace the examples long term (next update) with Coga's
16:20:56 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:20:56 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 2.2 issue resolutions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:21:11 <StefanS> Charles: WCAG 2.2 review
16:21:21 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 1 - Difficulties with inconsistency of Target Size (Minimum) #2695
16:21:24 <StefanS> Charles: rest of the meeting is all about that
16:21:28 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - Difficulties with inconsistency of Target Size (Minimum) #2695
16:22:20 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results
16:22:30 <StefanS> Charles: very long thread .. unintuitive results with lists where some fail .. radius approach suggested .. wilco proposed update
16:22:53 <StefanS> Charles: there is separate discussion about inline links exist
16:23:27 <StefanS> Charles: wilco on call? (reads what he wrote)
16:23:57 <StefanS> Charles: (reads Gregg notes)
16:25:54 <StefanS> Gregg: current def of offset .. if buttons overlap .. is problematic .. can always push one side of a button .. but makes no sense
16:26:19 <StefanS> Gregg: also z-Order issues .. measure from middle of button to edge of other button
16:26:55 <StefanS> Gregg: different sized objects have other issues .. what to take for measurement .. what to take as center and what is the offset then
16:28:35 <Chuck> Stefans:  I imagine a square, size of a fingertip, placed on an object.  Mobile scenarios have exactly that.  I ask, where I would put the finger, I would start tapping on that.
16:28:51 <GreggVan> q+
16:28:57 <Chuck> Stefans:  I would try to get to the center of the object, I would count white space and half that.  Then you avoid overlapping issues.
16:29:02 <mbgower> q+ to say 12px from the centroid seems like it might be the easiest way to express it. The calculation may be complicated for strange shapes but seems to work
16:29:17 <Chuck> Stefans:  I count the white space and divide by half.  This gives amount of pixels in size.  I would expect here.
16:29:40 <StefanS> Charles: (reads Gundulas comments)
16:30:02 <StefanS> Gundula: def from furthest to closed has issues
16:31:07 <StefanS> Gundula: target offset discussion is close to that .. I suggest some changes to the definition .. user should hit the intended target and nothing else .. how can we measure vertical alignment?
16:31:28 <StefanS> Gundula: (explains her measusing concept in detail)
16:32:13 <StefanS> Charles: Mike? Should I read yours? (reads Mikes comments)
16:33:40 <GreggVan> q+  to say  Perhaps the simplest is to say   "there must be at least  XX pixels between some single point in a target and the closest edge of  all other targets".       This combines the original with gregg and StefanS   -- and accomplishes the goals of all three.  And is easier to understand.    Also suggest that we rename it something like  "Effective Target  Clearance
16:33:51 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:33:51 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  Perhaps the simplest is to say   "there must be at least  XX pixels between some single point in a target and the closest edge of  all other targets".
16:33:54 <Zakim> ...      This combines the original with gregg and StefanS   -- and accomplishes the goals of all three.  And is easier to understand.    Also suggest that we rename it something
16:33:54 <Zakim> ... like  "Effective Target  Clearance
16:33:59 <Detlev> +1 to Alastair's simple solution
16:34:03 <StefanS> Alastair:  Had an Idea .. draw 24x24 square over target .. want to hear the others
16:34:31 <StefanS> Gregg: lets combine the ideas of teh people (explains his idea)
16:34:49 <Chuck> q+ to ask about Alastair's suggestion
16:35:02 <StefanS> Gregg: "effective target clearance" term
16:35:03 <GN015> q+ to Alastair's suggestion (and Stefan's): the box shouldn't overlap neither with any other target nor with any other target's box
16:35:12 <Chuck> ack mb
16:35:12 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say 12px from the centroid seems like it might be the easiest way to express it. The calculation may be complicated for strange shapes but seems to work
16:35:23 <mbgower> * Spacing: The center/centroid of a control is at least 12 CSS pixels away from every adjacent target;
16:35:41 <GreggVan>  q+
16:35:45 <StefanS> Mike: building of couple of comments .. spacing center is 12 css pix away from boundaries
16:36:07 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:36:07 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about Alastair's suggestion
16:36:07 <StefanS> Mike: pretty easy to understand .. rectangles generally are
16:36:20 <Detlev> Mike: What about a ring-shaped target?
16:36:42 <alastairc> q+ to propose next steps
16:36:44 <Chuck> ack GN
16:36:44 <Zakim> GN, you wanted to Alastair's suggestion (and Stefan's): the box shouldn't overlap neither with any other target nor with any other target's box
16:36:45 <StefanS> Charles: how this would work Alistair with your concept?
16:37:11 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:37:12 <StefanS> Gundula: not overlap with target OR their box ,, better?
16:38:06 <StefanS> Gregg: sometimes you have to select states, sometimes something else .. target type does matter in overlapping
16:38:10 <Chuck> ack ala
16:38:10 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to propose next steps
16:38:37 <ToddL> I could potentially imagine target overlap when subgrid is implemented by Chromium maybe. I may be wrong.
16:39:57 <StefanS> Alistair: I'll take it from here. Gundula, we needs some testcases for that (discusses special cases) .. also Greggs def of target needs to incude nested targets .. we have solid proposals on the table .. can use friday meeting to work this out .. result should be mathematically to test
16:40:01 <Chuck> q+
16:40:09 <mbgower> 8am pacific
16:40:18 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:40:41 <alastairc> 11am Boston. Ah, sorry about the day!
16:40:48 <StefanS> Charles: (we need to find an approppriate date)
16:41:09 <StefanS> Gregg: maybe offline via googledoc?
16:41:22 <StefanS> Alastair: I set up a google doc and send link around
16:41:31 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Better clarity on inline targets for Target Size #2767
16:41:38 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 2 - Better clarity on inline targets for Target Size #2767
16:41:39 <Detlev> include me in
16:42:11 <StefanS> Charles: inline links can be difficult to measure
16:42:21 <StefanS> Charles: (reads comments)
16:42:51 <alastairc> This list is a key case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Standards
16:43:19 <StefanS> Charles: links in text cannot be increased in height
16:44:02 <StefanS> Charles: wilco wanted something else .. (reads wilcos comments)
16:45:17 <alastairc> I'm not sure how a navbar is not considered human language?
16:45:29 <StefanS> Charles: Gregg you wanted something else (reads Greggs comments)#
16:46:14 <StefanS> * Jem OK
16:46:44 <StefanS> Charles: reads Gundulas comments
16:47:24 <StefanS> Charles: (reads Alistairs comments)
16:48:05 <StefanS> Alastair: short summary of a long discussion ..
16:48:31 <StefanS> Mike: we touching in these comments many trhings .. line height for instance
16:49:31 <StefanS> Mike: you can have list of items, some aof them are link, some of them not etc ..  horizontal separators to separate links .. how do we line up sentences?
16:49:35 <alastairc>   Inline: A dimension of the target is defined by the same dimension of inline text.
16:49:48 <alastairc> q+ to suggest something
16:50:04 <GreggVan> q+
16:50:07 <Chuck> ack ala
16:50:07 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest something
16:50:11 <StefanS> Mike: we can add these in an understanding document - what the difference between links in various different conztainers
16:51:12 <StefanS> Alastair: i can live wit set of exceptions .. but quite difficult to interpret .. list in main area body tag? or what? (proposes different approach for links)
16:51:26 <Jem> +1 to Alastair's idea of updating the exception
16:51:46 <Jem> adding info to inline
16:51:51 <StefanS> Alastair: half part of web content wouldn't pass when we are too strict .. so we need to have take care
16:52:03 <Chuck> q?
16:52:06 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:52:07 <StefanS> Alastair: (proposes other approach for exceptons)
16:52:18 <mbgower> no
16:52:44 <StefanS> Gregg: comments are public?
16:52:47 <StefanS> Alastair: yes
16:53:16 <alastairc> q+
16:53:24 <Chuck> ack ala
16:53:39 <StefanS> Gregg: copy and paste of comments should be possible
16:53:41 <Jem> That is what I will do as a scribe - copying the response to the meeting minutes.
16:53:53 <StefanS> I learn a thing any day
16:53:59 <Chuck> q+
16:54:02 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:54:19 <ShawnT> Maybe another person besides the scribe could do that
16:55:01 <Chuck> Michael's suggestion is option A.
16:55:09 <Jem> MG's suggestion is "The control is in a sentence, or in a sentence fragment within the main content."
16:55:51 <Chuck> Alastair's suggestion is Option B.
16:55:54 <alastairc> Inline: A dimension of the target is defined by the same dimension of inline text.
16:56:04 <mbgower> Both are useful.
16:56:09 <Jem> alastair's suggestion is adding excpetion to inline definition
16:56:13 <Chuck> poll:  Do you prefer option A, option B, or C:  Neither
16:56:24 <Chuck> A
16:56:25 <Detlev> Alastair: what about lists )and links within)  with slightly different line heights
16:56:35 <Jem> Alastair: "Where list items contain non-link text, the list is considered to be body text and part of the inline exception."
16:56:51 <wendyreid> present+
16:56:58 <Jem> ..."Inline: Inline: The size of the target (height) is restricted by the height of adjacent non-link text-content."
16:57:01 <mbgower> line spacing?
16:57:12 <Detlev> q+
16:57:30 <alastairc> B, could live with A.
16:57:39 <Chuck> ack Det
16:58:14 <Jem>  good question, Detlev.
16:58:15 <Chuck> q?
16:58:20 <GreggVan> q+   to say       a dimension of the target is restricted by the spacing between lines of text
16:58:20 <alastairc> q+
16:58:25 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:58:25 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say       a dimension of the target is restricted by the spacing between lines of text
16:58:37 <Chuck> ack ala
16:58:40 <alastairc> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Standards
16:59:00 <StefanS> Gregg: dimension o target is restricted by spacing between different lines of text
16:59:12 <Chuck> q+
16:59:14 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:59:21 <Jem> scribe: Jemma
16:59:34 <GreggVan> q+
16:59:40 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:59:41 <mbgower> D: I think both approaches are worth pursuing, and see which one is more successful
17:00:08 <Jem> Greg: what do you mean by various text links?
17:00:10 <Jem> alastairc:
17:00:27 <Chuck> q+ to discuss mbgower's option D
17:00:29 <Jem> if you see the wikipedia page, it has various types of links in main, footer, and navigation
17:00:34 <mbgower> q+
17:00:52 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:00:52 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss mbgower's option D
17:00:56 <Jem> ...so we can see various link types
17:01:06 <Chuck> ack mbgower
17:01:10 <Jem> greg: that clear my question.
17:01:33 <Jem> mg: both tackle the same problem
17:01:37 <Chuck> q+
17:01:57 <Jem> s/both/both approaches/
17:02:37 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:02:37 <GreggVan> q+    to say    suggest    option  e)      " a dimension of the target is restricted by the spacing between lines of text for the language"
17:02:44 <Jem> ...in Wiki page, there are vertical list of links and so many different types of links
17:02:57 <alastairc> q+
17:03:09 <Jem> Chuck: Alastair will create the PR..
17:03:17 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:03:17 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    suggest    option  e)      " a dimension of the target is restricted by the spacing between lines of text for the language"
17:03:26 <alastairc> I think a google doc with image exampltes will be better than PRs at this stage
17:03:43 <mbgower> +1 to alastair's comment
17:03:47 <Chuck> ack ala
17:03:58 <Jem> +1 greg including other languages
17:04:02 <GreggVan> +1 to alastair
17:04:21 <GreggVan> +1 to alastair to move to friday meeting
17:04:25 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 3 - Removing 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2
17:04:31 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 3 - Removing 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2
17:04:50 <Jem> response for the topic is available at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq13
17:05:09 <Jem> PR is at https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2797
17:05:31 <Chuck> q?
17:05:33 <alastairc> q+ to say Gregg's suggestino is included now
17:05:37 <Chuck> ack ala
17:05:37 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say Gregg's suggestino is included now
17:05:48 <Jem> greg's comment is just a tweak to change
17:05:48 <Jem> "The following content is left for historical purposes."
17:05:48 <Jem> "The following content is left for historical purposes to show the original intent."
17:05:57 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2797 to remove 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2.
17:05:59 <Jem> alastairc: It is incorporated.
17:06:03 <mbgower> +1
17:06:03 <wendyreid> +1
17:06:07 <Jem> +1
17:06:07 <GreggVan> +1
17:06:08 <Rachael> +1
17:06:11 <alastairc> +1
17:06:11 <Chuck> +1
17:06:19 <ShawnT> +1
17:06:20 <alastairc> q+
17:06:21 <AWK> +1
17:06:22 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
17:06:26 <Chuck> ack ala
17:06:27 <SuzanneTaylor> present+
17:06:33 <AWK> +AWK
17:06:33 <maryjom> +1
17:06:34 <kirkwood> +1
17:06:46 <GN015> +1, also with Gregg's amendment
17:06:58 <Jem> alastairc: Awk did mapping on ...
17:07:07 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2797 to remove 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2.
17:07:20 <Caryn> +1
17:07:33 <alastairc> Mapping doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MJ6FxO7ujQ4X9BQtAnDDoWyvpAKU44MR4h-bob9SG7M/edit
17:07:34 <Jem> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2797 to remove 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2.
17:07:52 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 4 - Focus Not Obscured (minimum) should not prohibit cookie popups #2551
17:07:59 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 4 - Focus Not Obscured (minimum) should not prohibit cookie popups #2551
17:08:11 <Jem> response is at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq4
17:08:35 <Jem> question is at https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2551
17:08:48 <alastairc> Noting some votes are from last week...
17:09:21 <Jem> Greg and Wilco wanted to have update with adjustments. Greg is fine
17:09:40 <alastairc> q+ to query Stephan's point
17:09:40 <Jem> stefan wanted something else, "All cookie popups require user decision on storing, therefore focus is in popup and never behind, this is a pseudo debate."
17:09:50 <GreggVan> q+
17:09:58 <alastairc> Current proposed addition to the understanding doc:
17:09:59 <alastairc> A notification implemented as sticky content, such as a cookie banner, will fail this Success Criterion if it obscures an element with focus. Ways of passing include making the banner modal so the user has to dismiss the banner before navigating through the page, or using <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/css-scroll-snap/#propdef-scroll-padding">scroll padding</a> so the banner does not overlap other content. Notifications that do not require
17:09:59 <alastairc> user action could also meet this criterion by closing (dismissed) on loss of focus.
17:10:11 <Chuck> ack ala
17:10:11 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to query Stephan's point
17:10:24 <Jem> alastairc: regarding stefan's point
17:10:55 <Jem> ...there is wide discussion behind it
17:11:06 <Chuck> ack gregg
17:11:13 <Jem> ... wilco and greg's points are addressed
17:11:55 <alastairc> q+
17:12:04 <Jem> greg is addressing his two comments in the response
17:12:31 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2611/files
17:12:44 <Chuck> ack ala
17:13:06 <Jem> above PR address Greg's points
17:13:12 <Chuck> q+ to ask about PR 2611
17:13:16 <Jem> removing mandatory word and ..
17:13:36 <Jem> added "<p>A notification implemented as sticky content, such as a cookie banner, will fail this Success Criterion if it obscures an element with focus. Ways of passing include making the banner modal so the user has to dismiss the banner before navigating through the page, or using <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/css-scroll-snap/#propdef-scroll-padding">scroll padding</a> so the banner does not overlap other content. Notifications that do not
17:13:36 <Jem> require user action could also meet this criterion by closing (dismissed) on loss of focus.</p>"
17:13:47 <Chuck> q?
17:13:49 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:13:49 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about PR 2611
17:13:53 <Jem> greg: that answers to my question
17:14:37 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2611/files also address wilco's issue
17:14:39 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2611 to address issue 2551.
17:14:44 <GreggVan> +1
17:14:47 <Jem> +1
17:14:52 <ShawnT> +1
17:14:54 <Chuck> +1
17:14:54 <OliverK> +1
17:14:55 <Detlev> +1
17:14:56 <alastairc> +1
17:14:58 <Rachael> +1
17:15:03 <JakeAbma> +1
17:15:04 <mbgower> +1
17:15:14 <alastairc> Chuck - suggest skipping 5 until 1 & 2 are resolved.
17:15:15 <ToddL> +1
17:15:18 <maryjom> +1
17:15:24 <StefanS> +1
17:15:29 <Jem> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2611 to address issue 2551
17:15:38 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 6 - How does 2.4.12: Focus Not Obscured relate to opacity #2583
17:15:48 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 6 - How does 2.4.12: Focus Not Obscured relate to opacity #2583
17:15:58 <Jem> response is available at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq5
17:16:18 <Jem> question by wilco is "When a component is focused, and the component is covered by an element with an opacity of 95% would that count as obscuring? What about if the opacity is 5%?"
17:18:07 <Jem> Chuck is reading the comments from Melalnie and Wilco
17:18:36 <Jem> Greg: I suggest the change "Suggest following that sentence with a more direct sentence something like "When a focus cursor can be covered by a semi-opaque component, the ability of the focus cursor to pass 2.4.11 should be evaluated (and pass) while the focus cursor is under the semi-opaque component. "
17:19:05 <Jem> ...o provide simpler language and suggest what it can be done
17:19:12 <Jem> s/o/to/
17:19:13 <Chuck> q?
17:19:14 <mbgower> q+ to say 'obscure' versus 'entirely hidden'
17:19:15 <GreggVan> q+
17:19:19 <Chuck> ack mb
17:19:19 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say 'obscure' versus 'entirely hidden'
17:19:40 <Jem> MG: what "arguably" is trying to do ...
17:20:11 <Chuck> q+ does "obscured" address Melanie's question?
17:20:19 <Chuck> ack does
17:20:21 <Chuck> ack "ob
17:20:24 <Chuck> ack addr
17:20:27 <Chuck> ack melan
17:20:29 <Chuck> ack que
17:20:31 <Chuck> ack on
17:20:34 <Chuck> ack Greg
17:20:34 <Jem> ...differnt form of obscuring
17:20:36 <GreggVan> "When a focus cursor can be covered by a semi-opaque component, the ability of the focus cursor to pass 2.4.11 should be evaluated (and pass) while the focus cursor is under the semi-opaque component. "
17:20:45 <Jem> .. and trying to preemble @@@
17:20:52 <Chuck> q+ to ask if "obscured" addresses Melanie's question
17:21:51 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:21:51 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if "obscured" addresses Melanie's question
17:21:58 <mbgower> While less than 100 percent opacity is obscuring the component but not causing it to be "entirely hidden"...
17:22:04 <alastairc> Another form of obscuring can occur due to light boxes or other semi-opaque effects overlapping the item with focus. While less than 100 percent opacity is not causing the component to be "entirely hidden," such semi-opaque overlaps may cause a failure of <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/focus-appearance.html">2.4.11 Focus Appearance</a>. When a focus cursor can be covered by a semi-opaque component, the ability of the
17:22:04 <alastairc> focus cursor to pass 2.4.11 should be evaluated (and pass) while the focus cursor is under the semi-opaque component. The intention in both situations is that the component receiving focus should never be obscured to the point a user cannot tell which item has focus.
17:22:07 <mbgower> q+
17:22:33 <Chuck> ack mb
17:23:16 <alastairc> q+
17:23:21 <Jem> MB: Alastairc and I are in the same page. We can work on simplifying the lanauges and removes the word, arguably
17:23:23 <Chuck> ack ala
17:23:27 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2671/files
17:23:49 <Jem> alastairc: you can see the chages in above PR files
17:24:07 <mbgower> +1 that works
17:24:23 <mbgower> correct
17:24:40 <Jem> melanie: confirming what Alastair addressed in the PR
17:24:44 <GreggVan> \For sighted people who use a keyboard or keyboard-like device (e.g., a switch, voice input), knowing the current point of focus is very important. However, when progressing through a page, other content may potentially hide the focused element. This Success Criterion ensures that the item receiving focus is not entirely hidden by other content created by the author.
17:25:13 <Jem> mg: changes is "Another form of obscuring can occur due to light boxes or other semi-opaque effects overlapping the item with focus. While less than 100 percent opacity is not causing the component to be "entirely hidden," such semi-opaque overlaps may cause a failure of <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/focus-appearance.html">2.4.11 Focus Appearance</a>. When a focus cursor can be covered by a semi-opaque component, the ability
17:25:13 <Jem> of the focus cursor to pass 2.4.11 should be evaluated (and pass) while the focus cursor is under the semi-opaque component. The intention in both situations is that the component receiving focus should never be obscured to the point a user cannot tell which item has focus."
17:25:31 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2671 to address issue 2583.
17:25:33 <alastairc> I'm going to change cursor to indicator.
17:25:44 <Jem> +1
17:25:51 <mbgower> +1
17:25:53 <Chuck> +1
17:25:55 <GreggVan> +1 to that
17:25:56 <ShawnT> +1
17:26:01 <laura> +1
17:26:05 <GreggVan> +1 to resolution
17:26:22 <ToddL> +1
17:26:22 <Jem> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2671 to address issue 2583
17:26:29 <Detlev> +1
17:26:35 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 7 - An attempt to simplify/clarify 2.4.11 Focus Appearance #2687
17:26:43 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 7 - An attempt to simplify/clarify 2.4.11 Focus Appearance #2687
17:26:51 <Jem> response is available at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq7
17:27:29 <Jem> alairstair's response is at https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2687#issuecomment-1308736768
17:27:49 <Jem> MG: I do like how the 3:1 contrast has been pulled out so it is only stated once. It would be worth exploring if we can extract that.
17:28:00 <alastairc> q+ to suggest taking on Wilco's suggestion about testing with people
17:28:27 <Jem> Wilco's response is "We should answer Eric's broader point about this SC being too complex for level AA. As he points out, he's not the only person who has concerns about this. I don't think we should dismiss that. Personally, I think it would be good if we did some reliability research for this. Maybe get 20 experienced auditors to test a page with some focus indicator complexities on it. That should at least give us an idea of where this SC is in
17:28:27 <Jem> its inter-rater reliability."
17:29:27 <Jem> Caryn: Eric's suggestion makes testing easier
17:29:39 <Jem> ...and improve understandabilty
17:29:47 <Jem> ... outweighing any concerns
17:30:01 <Jem> s/outweighing/outweigh/
17:30:15 <Chuck> q?
17:30:17 <Chuck> ack ala
17:30:17 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest taking on Wilco's suggestion about testing with people
17:30:17 <Jem> ... my co-worker is also agree with Eric's comments
17:30:57 <Chuck> q?
17:32:12 <Chuck> q+ to ask about doing the research before approving the resopnse?
17:32:19 <mbgower> I would object, for sure
17:32:25 <Jem> alastairc: two separate things, one is interreliability research and the other is about responding to the raised issue
17:32:34 <Chuck> ack ask
17:32:42 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:32:42 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about doing the research before approving the resopnse?
17:32:52 <Jem> alastairc: two things can be pararell
17:33:13 <Jem> ... worth to try to simplfy color contrast..
17:33:16 <mbgower> Yeah, I'll give it a shot, and I agree it is a 'long' shot
17:33:18 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept proposed response to address issue 2687 and perform Wilco's proposed research in parallel.
17:33:24 <Jem> +1 MG
17:33:43 <mbgower> q+
17:33:48 <Chuck> ack mb
17:34:21 <Jem> MG: suggesting that taking constrast as the separate area and working on it
17:34:28 <Jem> ...regarding Caryn's point
17:34:48 <Jem> ... there are good examples by alaistair about challegnes
17:35:31 <Chuck> q?
17:35:33 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept proposed response to address issue 2687 and perform Wilco's proposed research in parallel.
17:35:41 <alastairc> +1
17:35:45 <Jem> +1
17:35:53 <ShawnT> +1
17:35:54 <laura> +1
17:35:54 <Caryn> +1
17:36:00 <Rachael> +1
17:36:01 <mbgower> +1 and I'll attempt to reorg as per the issue
17:36:03 <Chuck> +1
17:36:13 <JakeAbma> +1
17:36:21 <Detlev> +1
17:36:24 <Jem> RESOLUTION:  Accept proposed response to address issue 2687 and perform Wilco's proposed research in parallel.
17:36:37 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 8 - SC 2.4.11 "Focus Appearance" on WCAG 2.2 Candidate Recommendation #2689
17:36:42 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 8 - SC 2.4.11 "Focus Appearance" on WCAG 2.2 Candidate Recommendation #2689
17:36:49 <Jem> response is available at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq8
17:37:10 <Jem> caztcha raised issue 2689, trying to reform the SC into simpler text.
17:37:15 <GN015> Did we skip question 5? If so, was it intentionally?
17:37:46 <Jem> Wilco 's comment is "I think what is "continuous" is fairly debatable. Is a 200 px wide slider with 5 options continuous? What about 50? what about 500? Where do you draw the line here. Even something like a color picker isn't truly continuous. It's a range between 0 and 255. It's all pretty arbitrary, and then starts to depend on things like how much pixel density does the screen have.
17:37:46 <Jem> 
17:37:46 <Jem> We should stay out of this and just exempt all sliders. WCAG has other requirements that ensure further accessibility of them, such as 2.1.1 keyboard."
17:38:04 <mbgower> I think Wilco may have cross referenced the wrong survey question, or the survey numbers changed
17:38:12 <mbgower> q+
17:39:03 <Chuck> q?
17:39:08 <mbgower> q-
17:39:10 <Jem> alastairc: wilco's response should be from q8, not q9
17:39:22 <Jem> ...question number is changed
17:39:30 <alastairc> GN015 - yes, it was intentional to skip 5, we need to do the other parts of Target size first.
17:39:34 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept proposed response to address issue 2689
17:39:36 <Jem> s/Wilco 's comment is "I think what is "continuous" is fairly debatable. Is a 200 px wide slider with 5 options continuous? What about 50? what about 500? Where do you draw the line here. Even something like a color picker isn't truly continuous. It's a range between 0 and 255. It's all pretty arbitrary, and then starts to depend on things like how much pixel density does the screen have.
17:39:36 <Jem> 11:37 AM
17:39:36 <Jem> 11:37 AM
17:39:36 <Jem> We should stay out of this and just exempt all sliders. WCAG has other requirements that ensure further accessibility of them, such as 2.1.1 keyboard."/ /
17:39:50 <alastairc> +1
17:39:53 <Chuck> +1
17:40:00 <Jem> +1
17:40:02 <ShawnT> +1
17:40:10 <mbgower> +1
17:40:11 <Rachael> +1
17:40:11 <Detlev> +1
17:40:14 <GreggVan> +1
17:40:18 <ToddL> +1
17:40:19 <laura> +1
17:40:19 <kirkwood> +1
17:40:24 <Jem> RESOLUTION:  Accept proposed response to address issue 2689
17:40:29 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 9 - 2.5.8: Are all slider variants excluded or only sliders that look and are operated like sliders #2713
17:40:36 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 9 - 2.5.8: Are all slider variants excluded or only sliders that look and are operated like sliders #2713
17:40:47 <Jem> response is available at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq9
17:41:09 <Jem> Jaws-test asked in issue 2713 whether sliders with distinct areas counted as continuous in Dragging.
17:41:23 <Jem> The PR is at Jaws-test asked in issue 2713 whether sliders with distinct areas counted as continuous in Dragging.
17:41:47 <mbgower> q+
17:41:47 <Chuck> q?
17:41:47 <Jem> s/The PR is at Jaws-test asked in issue 2713 whether sliders with distinct areas counted as continuous in Dragging./ /
17:41:51 <Chuck> ack mb
17:41:57 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2718
17:42:12 <Jem> MG: I agree with Wilco. Slider case bothers me.
17:42:29 <Chuck> q?
17:43:05 <Jem> alastairc: we talked about target size
17:43:37 <mbgower> q+ to say that is every slider
17:43:38 <Jem> patrick updated the content
17:43:55 <Chuck> ack mb
17:43:55 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that is every slider
17:43:58 <Jem> ...the comments was removed from the slider
17:44:07 <Jem> alastairc: it will be simple pr
17:44:19 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2718 to address issue 2713.
17:44:21 <Jem> mg: yes, it is just removing slider portion
17:44:32 <alastairc> Examples include  color pickers displaying a gradient of colors, or editable areas where you position the cursor.
17:44:45 <Chuck> +1
17:44:49 <mbgower> +1
17:44:55 <laura> +1
17:44:57 <Rachael> +1
17:45:01 <Jem> +1
17:45:05 <ShawnT> +1
17:45:05 <maryjom> +1
17:45:06 <Detlev> +1
17:45:09 <GreggVan> +1
17:45:10 <ToddL> +1
17:45:12 <mbgower> q
17:45:14 <Regina> +1
17:45:14 <mbgower> q+
17:45:14 <Jem> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2718 to address issue 2713
17:45:19 <GreggVan> present+
17:45:20 <Chuck> ack mb
17:45:41 <Jem> mg: Wilco 's comment is suggesting exempting all the slides
17:45:59 <alastairc> q+
17:46:03 <Chuck> ack ala
17:46:03 <Jem> ... which is opposite we are thinking. wondering why we shoudl exempt the sliders
17:46:24 <Jem> alastairc: removing the slider as the example is ...
17:46:55 <mbgower> We should just bring to Wilco's attention
17:46:57 <alastairc> Updated: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2718/files
17:47:07 <mbgower> is Melanie on call?
17:47:08 <alastairc> OK, I'll ping Wilco on that
17:47:13 <mbgower> k
17:47:59 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 10 - 2.4.12 Focus not Obscured (Minimum) and user opened / controlled content #2751
17:48:06 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 10 - 2.4.12 Focus not Obscured (Minimum) and user opened / controlled content #2751
17:48:13 <Jem> response is available at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq10
17:48:44 <Jem> In issue 2751 Melanie asks whether openable content would count towards failures of focus-not-obscured.
17:50:05 <alastairc> Yes, there will be other WCAG 2.2 surveys, but we've focused on (potential) normative text updates first
17:51:05 <Jem> zakim, who is here?
17:51:05 <Zakim> Present: JaeunJemmaKu, mbgower, Detlev, Mikayla, StefanS, kirkwood, maryjom, Caryn, Laura_Carlson, Raf, jon_avila, Azlan, Jenniferstrickland, Regina, wendyreid, SuzanneTaylor, AWK,
17:51:09 <Zakim> ... GreggVan
17:51:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see AWK, OliverK, SuzanneTaylor, wendyreid, jon_avila, Raf, Caryn, Detlev, kirkwood, Regina, mbgower, Jem, Mikayla, maryjom, GN015, laura, JakeAbma, jeanne, StefanS,
17:51:09 <Zakim> ... RRSAgent, Zakim, Chuck, ToddL, ShawnT, tzviya, Mike5Matrix, MichaelC_, Seirdy, GreggVan, jcraig, jspellman, Rachael, alastairc, bwang, ChrisLoiselle, trackbot
17:51:19 <Chuck> q?
17:52:09 <Rachael> q+
17:52:15 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:52:24 <Chuck> q+
17:52:27 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:52:30 <mbgower> q+
17:52:36 <Chuck> ack mbg
17:52:36 <Jem> Melanie: Regarding Rachael' point, I agree with her but I did not adress that in my comment.
17:52:53 <Jem> Rachael: we can tweak the words so we can reflect the intention
17:53:17 <jon_avila> q+
17:53:26 <Chuck> ack jon
17:53:46 <Jem> jon_avila: my understanding is that when people are testing is
17:53:58 <Chuck> q?
17:54:01 <mbgower> Yes, that's my understanding too, Joon
17:54:07 <mbgower> s/Joon/Jon
17:54:08 <Jem> ...to catch the initial state and add that to the document.
17:54:29 <mbgower> yes
17:54:31 <Chuck> q+ MelanieP
17:54:33 <Chuck> ack MelanieP
17:54:55 <alastairc> q+
17:54:56 <Jem> melanie: mg's suggestion is losing the focus, not obscuring the focus?
17:55:15 <Jem> ... user purposely loose focus...
17:55:25 <Jem> and collapse the intial view..
17:55:40 <mbgower> q+
17:55:58 <Chuck> ack ala
17:56:00 <Jem> ... I am trying to cover often used case by content editor
17:56:51 <Chuck> ack mb
17:56:55 <Jem> alastairc: it does not fail those types of widgets..open and close dialog
17:57:49 <Jem> MG: It is really hard to understand the users' intents - focus in the tab and out of focus without realizing that it obscures the content...
17:58:23 <Chuck> q+ to say I don't think we have time to get to consensus
17:58:28 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:58:28 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think we have time to get to consensus
17:58:49 <Jem> +1 to chuck
17:59:06 <mbgower> Maybe we can work offline on this, Melanie
17:59:12 <Jem> alastairc: I will work on this
17:59:18 <GN015> present+
17:59:20 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
17:59:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/22-ag-minutes.html Jem
17:59:31 <alastairc> On linkedin, it does have a right-hand side panel which obscures some links, and it's a problem...
18:01:16 <Jem> s/response/The response/
18:01:31 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
18:01:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/22-ag-minutes.html Jem
18:16:18 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
18:36:02 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:42:36 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
18:43:29 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
19:09:21 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
19:33:40 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:35:50 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:55:48 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:34:33 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:37:53 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:14:28 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
22:17:03 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
22:27:47 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:47:39 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag