15:40:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:40:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/10-ag-irc
15:40:14 <Chuck> rrsagent, make logs world
15:40:22 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:40:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/10-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:40:30 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:40:37 <Chuck> Zakim, start meeting
15:40:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:40:39 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Chuck
15:40:48 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2023-01-10
15:41:01 <Chuck> agenda+ CSUN https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/csun-2023/
15:41:09 <Chuck> agenda+ Jan-March Schedule
15:41:16 <Chuck> agenda+ CEPC and queuing
15:41:27 <Chuck> agenda+ Will be shifting meetings (tentative)
15:41:38 <Chuck> agenda+ ACT Rules https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-dec-2022/
15:43:19 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 CFC Discussion (if needed)
15:43:30 <Chuck> agenda+ Assertions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/assertions-jan-2023/
15:44:16 <Chuck> regrets:  Bruce Bailey
15:48:57 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:49:35 <Chuck> regrets+ Todd Libby
15:51:21 <alastairc> agenda?
15:52:53 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has joined #ag
15:52:56 <Chuck_> agenda?
15:56:10 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:57:25 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:57:44 <laura> Scribe: Laura
15:57:44 <J_Mullen> J_Mullen has joined #ag
15:58:42 <iankersey> iankersey has joined #ag
15:59:01 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
15:59:33 <Jennie> present+
15:59:41 <Jennie> Is there a meeting on January 31st?
15:59:41 <J_Mullen> Present+
16:00:33 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
16:00:38 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:00:49 <JustineP> present+
16:00:54 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:01:03 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:01:04 <shadi> present+
16:01:28 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
16:01:30 <Rachael> present+
16:01:35 <mikayla> mikayla has joined #ag
16:01:36 <JenStrickland> present+
16:01:56 <GreggVan_> present+
16:02:04 <mikayla> present+
16:02:19 <laura> chuck: welcome. Happy new year.
16:02:20 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
16:02:37 <Poornima> present+
16:02:42 <laura> ... Any new members?
16:02:52 <laura> ... Any new topics?
16:03:06 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
16:03:10 <Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-jan-2023/?login
16:03:14 <laura> (none)
16:03:32 <JenStrickland> One thing: the equity sub-group will be prepared to present a report to the group on January 31.
16:03:52 <Makoto> present+
16:03:54 <laura> ... survey on Accessibility-supported 2 Subgroup Participation
16:03:55 <Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/culture_check_in/
16:03:59 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
16:04:22 <laura> ...year since  chaals joined us.
16:04:23 <ShawnT> present+
16:04:28 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:04:28 <jaunita_george> present+
16:04:43 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:04:45 <laura> ... culture check in next week
16:04:46 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:04:50 <mbgower> present+
16:05:14 <laura> jen S: equitySG  on the 31st.
16:05:16 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
16:05:25 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 1
16:05:25 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- CSUN https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/csun-2023/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:05:25 <kirkwood> present+
16:05:27 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:05:32 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:05:37 <laura> chuck:
16:05:52 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:05:55 <Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/csun-2023/results
16:06:11 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
16:06:16 <AWK> +AWK
16:06:21 <laura> 7 can't attend
16:06:27 <jeanne> present+
16:06:34 <JenStrickland> Apologies! I didn't see this survey before it closed. I will be presenting at CSUN, so could meet in person.
16:06:45 <mbgower> I did not see the survey, sorry. I can attend on teh Monday
16:07:05 <laura> ... 3 may attend, 1 will attend a Monday AG meeting in person at CSUN if we plan to meet and nothing unexpected happens, 1 is attending.
16:07:10 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
16:07:23 <laura> ... remote may be possible.
16:07:48 <Chuck_> q?
16:07:50 <Rachael> q+
16:07:55 <jeanne> I will attend remotely
16:07:55 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:08:16 <laura> RM: if we do have a meeting will have it hybrid.
16:08:22 <Ben_Tillyer> I hope to join in person, but cannot confirm at the moment
16:08:30 <laura> chucck: may reopen survey.
16:08:30 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 2
16:08:30 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Jan-March Schedule -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:08:47 <JenStrickland> * Jaunita, yes! We still ought to find a way to meet in person before — but these illnesses are a cramp to plans. I'm currently sick and keeping away from other people.
16:09:00 <laura> RM: will reopen survey
16:09:01 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUf5dY9NJjikBYJIo8az2uSVGm_A5RDNI3i8G9JsgD4/edit#slide=id.g1c642465f9e_0_0
16:09:28 <laura> ...I have  powerpoint presentation.
16:09:59 <laura> ... Tentative Schedule
16:09:59 <laura> ... Tentative Schedule
16:09:59 <laura> ... Publish WCAG 2.2 by April
16:10:15 <laura> ... CFCs to update content and restart CR in January (Ideally by Jan 17th)
16:10:30 <laura> ... PR in February
16:10:33 <iankersey> iankersey has joined #ag
16:10:39 <laura> ... Publication in early April
16:10:43 <iankersey> present+
16:10:47 <laura> ... Final Deadline 30 April
16:10:55 <laura> ... Publish an updated working draft for WCAG 3 in March
16:11:04 <laura> ... Remove outdated content
16:11:12 <laura> ... Include status markings
16:11:20 <laura> ... Include an updated test section
16:11:28 <laura> ... Possibly include options on conformance for public comment
16:11:34 <laura> ... Close outdated issues
16:11:46 <laura> ... Switch to new charter as soon as 2.2 is published
16:11:48 <Chuck_> q?
16:12:12 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:12:12 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- CSUN https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/csun-2023/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:12:23 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 3
16:12:23 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- CEPC and queuing -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:12:41 <alastairc> zakim, close item 1
16:12:41 <Zakim> agendum 1, CSUN https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/csun-2023/, closed
16:12:43 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:12:43 <Zakim> 3. CEPC and queuing [from Chuck]
16:12:44 <Chuck_> https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/
16:12:48 <alastairc> zakim, close item 2
16:12:48 <Zakim> agendum 2, Jan-March Schedule, closed
16:12:49 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:12:49 <Zakim> 3. CEPC and queuing [from Chuck]
16:12:58 <laura> ... want to highlight CEPC
16:13:29 <laura> ...it establishes how we behave
16:13:49 <laura> ... please follow the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
16:13:49 <KimD> p+
16:14:13 <KimD> Nope
16:14:33 <tzviya> the link for cepc is at https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
16:15:08 <laura> ... wha to discuss how we manage the que. we use q+
16:15:29 <kirkwood> q+
16:15:38 <laura> ... linear fo m of conversation.
16:15:49 <tzviya> q+ to point out the timer
16:16:04 <laura> ... we don't want to marginalize anyone. default is liniar.
16:16:45 <laura> ... chairs may support limited form of conversation in some circumstances.
16:17:11 <tzviya> q-
16:17:15 <laura> ... may also engage in topical converssations.
16:17:41 <laura> ... However, liniar que is the default so everone has a turn to speak.
16:17:42 <Chuck_> q?
16:17:49 <Chuck_> ack kirk
16:18:06 <laura> kj: commend you for this.
16:18:51 <alastairc> q+ to show how the topic is attached to the queue
16:18:58 <alastairc> qv?
16:19:21 <alastairc> q-
16:19:28 <laura> ac: also can attach topic to your q+ whic his helpful.
16:19:37 <kirkwood> q-
16:19:44 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:19:44 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Will be shifting meetings (tentative) -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:19:48 <JenStrickland> * Thank you for the clarification on this!
16:20:21 <laura> rm: have not made a descion on this.
16:20:21 <alastairc> Attach the topic by saying "to" after q+, e.g. "q+ to say that topics are good"
16:20:29 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:20:38 <laura> ... could spit this meeting after CR.
16:21:26 <shadi> q+
16:21:26 <Chuck_> q+
16:21:26 <laura> ... we kind of do this now but could make it  a more formal split.
16:21:31 <Chuck_> ack shadi
16:21:53 <alastairc> q+ to add context on the length of meeting aspect
16:21:55 <laura> shadi: welcome a separtate meeting.
16:22:14 <laura> ... worry about WCAG 3 only for 1 hour.
16:22:28 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:22:32 <GN015> +1 to Shadi, I share the concerns on reducing to 1 hour
16:22:45 <laura> ... could keep 2 hours for WCAG 3. and ather meetings for WCAG 2.
16:22:49 <kirkwood> +1 to Shadi
16:23:13 <laura> chuck: won't make any decsion without input and survey.
16:23:32 <laura> ... opposite concern as shadi.
16:23:51 <Rachael> q+ to say that one reason is subgroups
16:23:51 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:23:52 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to add context on the length of meeting aspect
16:23:58 <laura> ... need to balance time (chair hat off)
16:24:49 <Chuck_> ack Rach
16:24:49 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that one reason is subgroups
16:24:50 <laura> ac: most useful are updates from subgroups and topics to make descions.
16:25:11 <Chuck_> q?
16:25:18 <laura> rm: fruitful descussions in Sub-groups.
16:25:30 <Wilco> present+
16:25:36 <laura> chuck: we re exploring options.
16:25:47 <Chuck_> q?
16:25:52 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
16:25:52 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- ACT Rules https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-dec-2022/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:25:59 <alastairc> present+
16:26:05 <kirkwood> present+
16:26:05 <Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-dec-2022/results
16:26:43 <laura> chuck: Approve new ACT Rules, December 2022 survey
16:26:46 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 1 - New Rule: HTML page title is descriptive
16:26:52 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 1 - New Rule: HTML page title is descriptive
16:27:17 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:27:33 <laura> chuck: 12 approved
16:28:04 <laura> ... 1 wants adjustments,  do not approve.
16:28:04 <Wilco> q+
16:28:44 <Chuck_> ack Wilco
16:29:04 <laura> wilco: rules not only for auto tools.
16:29:37 <alastairc> Wilco's comment answers Stefan and Gundula's survey questions.
16:29:41 <laura> jd: concerns about icons, design, & PDFs
16:29:45 <Wilco> PDF is not covered by this rule. It would have to be a separate rule
16:30:08 <Wilco> Thanks for the suggestions on the icons.
16:30:33 <laura> chuck: reads detlev's comments.
16:31:11 <Jennie> Wilco - even PDFs displayed in the browser? It would be (I think) how the browser pulls the page title from the document.
16:31:43 <laura> chuck: (reads Michael Gower's comment)
16:32:29 <mbgower_> mbgower_ has joined #ag
16:33:27 <Chuck_> q?
16:33:34 <laura> chuck: (reads Stefan Schnabel's  and Gundula Niemann's  comments)
16:34:13 <Chuck_> q?
16:34:17 <laura> wilco: these rules are not meant to be fully automated.
16:34:50 <laura> chuck: mike do you have a proposal?
16:35:10 <laura> mg: could say this tile exists.
16:35:17 <Wilco> q+ to say that rule already exists
16:35:37 <Chuck_> ack wilco
16:35:37 <Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to say that rule already exists
16:35:38 <laura> ... nail down what description means.
16:35:50 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/2779a5/
16:35:53 <laura> wilco: that rule does exist.
16:36:52 <laura> ... not sure what you would need or want from expounding on description.
16:37:29 <laura> GN: my concerns have been resolved
16:37:31 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept rule "HTML page title is descriptive"
16:37:38 <mbgower_> q+
16:37:43 <Chuck_> ack mbg
16:38:08 <Wilco> q+
16:38:17 <Chuck_> ack Wilco
16:38:38 <laura> mg: need to get the link working
16:38:38 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/2779a5/proposed/#related-rules
16:38:52 <Chuck_> q?
16:39:05 <alastairc> q+
16:39:18 <laura> ... maybe some design tweaks.
16:39:20 <alastairc> q-
16:39:25 <Detlev> q+
16:40:02 <mbgower_> q+ to say should there be a place for prerequisites and dependencies?
16:40:09 <Chuck_> ack det
16:40:27 <alastairc> q+
16:40:28 <laura> Detlev: need to have auto testing or semi-auto testing explained.
16:40:32 <Chuck_> ack mb
16:40:32 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say should there be a place for prerequisites and dependencies?
16:40:35 <alastairc> ack mbgower_
16:40:50 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:40:50 <laura> mg: should there be a place for prerequisites and dependencies?
16:41:00 <Wilco> q+ to talk about automated vs manual
16:41:12 <laura> ac: there is a link.
16:41:38 <Chuck_> ack wilc
16:41:38 <Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to talk about automated vs manual
16:41:48 <laura> ... think we are fine. "Described" could be expanded on later.
16:41:54 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/c4a8a4/proposed/#implementations
16:42:26 <laura> wilco: we do have info on implementations documented.
16:42:31 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended rule "HTML page title is descriptive"
16:42:32 <mbgower_> I agree the Related rules section is likely sufficient, thanks
16:42:33 <Karen> Karen has joined #ag
16:42:46 <Wilco> +1
16:42:50 <Chuck_> +1
16:42:52 <jon_avila> +1
16:42:57 <Jennie> +1
16:43:00 <laura> laura: +1
16:43:01 <iankersey> +1
16:43:02 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
16:43:04 <alastairc> +1
16:43:04 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:43:07 <jeanne> +1
16:43:07 <JenStrickland> +1
16:43:12 <mbgower_> +1 with hopes we can get some better guidance on what constitutes 'descriptive'
16:43:13 <kirkwood> +1
16:43:19 <maryjom> +1
16:43:19 <shadi> +1
16:43:20 <Raf> +1
16:43:21 <GreggVan_> +1
16:43:22 <Detlev> +1
16:43:33 <laura> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended rule "HTML page title is descriptive
16:43:33 <jeanne> present+
16:43:35 <ShawnT> +1
16:43:35 <maryjom> present+
16:43:43 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 2 - New Rule: Image accessible name is descriptive
16:43:50 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 2 - New Rule: Image accessible name is descriptive
16:43:50 <GreggVan_> q?
16:43:58 <GreggVan_> q+
16:44:51 <laura> chuck: 11 agreed, one wants adjustments, one does not apporve.
16:44:57 <Chuck_> ack Greg
16:45:15 <laura> gregg: ACT rules are not normative right?
16:45:20 <alastairc> q+
16:45:22 <jon_avila> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:45:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/10-ag-minutes.html jon_avila
16:45:32 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:45:51 <mbgower_> q+
16:45:55 <laura> ac: correct. we link to them from the understanding docs.
16:45:58 <Chuck_> ack mb
16:46:36 <laura> mg: conserned that "descriptive" is not clear.
16:46:45 <Chuck_> q+
16:46:51 <Chuck_> ack Ch
16:46:59 <alastairc> q+ to say we need someone to sit down and work through those examples
16:47:21 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:47:21 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we need someone to sit down and work through those examples
16:47:25 <laura> chuck: mg are you okay with rule going through as it stands?
16:48:02 <laura> ac: does it support our understanded of the SC.
16:48:19 <mbgower_> q+ to say IMO, it's kicking the can down the road in regard to improving inter-rater reliability; maybe this is a 3.x problem
16:48:22 <GreggVan_> q+
16:48:28 <laura> ... need to do through examples MG mentions.
16:48:40 <Chuck_> ack mb
16:48:40 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say IMO, it's kicking the can down the road in regard to improving inter-rater reliability; maybe this is a 3.x problem
16:49:01 <J_Mullen> [apologies about that - my mute came off for a second]
16:49:02 <laura> mg: we are testing limited  2.x language.
16:49:15 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
16:49:23 <Wilco> +1 to taking a closer name at this for 3.0
16:49:34 <J_Mullen> all good alastair.
16:49:35 <Wilco> s/name/look
16:49:48 <Chuck_> q?
16:49:56 <laura> gregg: we are talking about image accessible name right? sounds like alt text description.
16:49:59 <alastairc> q+
16:50:01 <Wilco> q+
16:50:03 <alastairc> q-
16:50:07 <Chuck_> ack ala
16:50:10 <Chuck_> ack wil
16:50:13 <mbgower_> Accname and description computation
16:50:35 <laura> wilco: effectively the same thing.
16:50:42 <mbgower_> https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.2/#:~:text=The%20accessible%20name%20and%20description,specific%20to%20individual%20content%20languages.
16:50:56 <Chuck_> q?
16:50:59 <laura> ... alt or aria-label
16:51:02 <mbgower_> sorry, this is a cleaner link https://w3c.github.io/accname/
16:51:20 <laura> gregg: maybe add it as a note?
16:51:34 <laura> wiclo: agreed.
16:51:37 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended rule "Image accessible name is descriptive"
16:51:45 <kirkwood> +1
16:51:47 <GreggVan_> +1
16:51:49 <ShawnT> +1
16:51:50 <jeanne> +1
16:51:50 <Chuck_> +1
16:51:57 <alastairc> +1, happy for ACT to add a bit of text on alt-text providing the name
16:51:58 <laura> laura: +1
16:52:03 <iankersey> +1
16:52:05 <Wilco> +1
16:52:05 <Jennie> +1
16:52:09 <JenStrickland> +1
16:52:18 <mbgower_> q+
16:52:19 <Makoto> +1
16:52:22 <Detlev> +1
16:52:24 <Chuck_> ack mb
16:52:28 <jon_avila> +1
16:52:29 <mbgower_> yes
16:52:38 <mbgower_> OMG
16:52:58 <mbgower_> A cross reference to the other rule
16:53:06 <mbgower_> the 'exists' rule? Don't see it
16:53:19 <laura> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended rule "Image accessible name is descriptive"
16:53:30 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 3 - New Rule: Element in sequential focus order has visible focus
16:53:36 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 3 - New Rule: Element in sequential focus order has visible focus
16:53:45 <mbgower_> +1 with addition of other rule cross reference
16:54:29 <laura> chuck: 7 approved, 5 wants adjustments, one does not approve.
16:54:55 <mbgower_> please
16:54:59 <laura> chuck: reads Oliver Keim's comments.
16:55:16 <laura> ... reads Michael Gower's comments.
16:55:47 <alastairc> I don't think I've ever come across the word "unicity" before, huh.
16:56:11 <laura> chuck: not sure what proposed change is.
16:56:23 <GreggVan_> q+
16:56:24 <Zakim> sees GreggVan_ on the speaker queue
16:56:35 <jon_avila> To Michaels comment, in my opinion this is about sequence focus order not anchors where focused is moved.
16:56:55 <laura> chuck reads detlev and awk's comments.
16:57:19 <AWK> I think that you made my point for me, Chuck!
16:57:34 <Wilco> q+
16:57:34 <Zakim> sees GreggVan_, Wilco on the speaker queue
16:57:35 <Chuck_> Maybe my intent ;-)
16:57:59 <laura> Gregg: shouldn't  says 1 pixel and 1 digit.
16:58:13 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
16:58:14 <Zakim> sees Wilco on the speaker queue
16:58:18 <Chuck_> ack Wil
16:58:19 <Zakim> sees no one on the speaker queue
16:58:47 <alastairc> Until WCAG 2.2.. (hopefully)
16:58:51 <laura> wilco: WCAG doesn't give a threshold.
16:58:53 <GreggVan_> q+
16:58:53 <Zakim> sees GreggVan_ on the speaker queue
16:58:57 <Chuck_> q+
16:58:57 <Zakim> sees GreggVan_, Chuck_ on the speaker queue
16:59:00 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
16:59:00 <Zakim> sees Chuck_ on the speaker queue
16:59:02 <mbgower_> q+ to say I think my general feedback is I want more context. There should be a Related rules section as part of your template. There should be more context on constraints of rules
16:59:02 <Zakim> sees Chuck_, mbgower_ on the speaker queue
16:59:10 <laura> ... could add it it but is not in normative language.
16:59:17 <Chuck_> q+ to ask for scribe change
16:59:17 <Zakim> sees Chuck_, mbgower_ on the speaker queue
16:59:32 <Wilco> q+
16:59:32 <Zakim> sees Chuck_, mbgower_, Wilco on the speaker queue
16:59:36 <laura> gregg: all of these do beyond normative language.
17:00:06 <laura> ... suggest not having the test. It is dangerous.
17:00:10 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:00:11 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask for scribe change
17:00:11 <Zakim> sees mbgower_, Wilco on the speaker queue
17:00:36 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
17:01:29 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
17:02:07 <Francis_Storr> scribe: Francis_Storr
17:02:12 <Chuck_> q?
17:02:12 <Zakim> sees mbgower_, Wilco on the speaker queue
17:03:38 <jon_avila> In my opinion I don't think we should add 2.4.3 focus order as this doesn't test for it - it's related but not covered by this rule.
17:03:44 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:03:44 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say I think my general feedback is I want more context. There should be a Related rules section as part of your template. There should be more context on
17:03:47 <Zakim> ... constraints of rules
17:03:47 <Zakim> sees Wilco on the speaker queue
17:03:53 <Chuck_> ack wilc
17:03:53 <Zakim> sees no one on the speaker queue
17:03:58 <Francis_Storr> mg: talking about constraints and related rules. I want the documents to make sense to people coming in cold.
17:04:23 <mbgower_> got it
17:04:26 <laura> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:04:38 <Francis_Storr> wf: these rules test for failures against the SCs. rules are never stricter than the SCs
17:04:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
17:04:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/10-ag-irc
17:05:03 <GreggVan_> q+ to say they are narrower but they should not be weaker.    Stronger is ok  but not weaker
17:05:07 <mbgower_> +1 to that notion. you can only check for the minimum: a 1-pixel contrast change is sufficient for current requirement
17:05:12 <alastairc> Which we come across daily
17:05:12 <Francis_Storr> ... I'd be happy to have more discussions about this.
17:05:26 <MichaelC> present+
17:05:44 <Francis_Storr> ... we've all agreed that no pixel change is a failure
17:05:54 <alastairc> Doesn't saying "in sequential order" take out the "back to top" targets?
17:06:00 <Chuck_> q+
17:06:07 <Francis_Storr> ... If focus ordering in the title is confusing, we can take that out.
17:06:38 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:06:38 <Zakim> GreggVan_, you wanted to say they are narrower but they should not be weaker.    Stronger is ok  but not weaker
17:06:42 <alastairc> q+ to say that the title helps scope-out the skip targets.
17:07:02 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:07:04 <Chuck_> q+
17:07:04 <mbgower_> q+ to say "orders some in the dom relative to each other" seems to be about focus order?
17:07:22 <Wilco> Rules test for conformance problems of WCAG
17:07:47 <Francis_Storr> gv: are these rules failure rules or rules to test the criteria? If it's a failure, it should be narrow. If they're failures, we should clearly call them that.
17:07:51 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:07:51 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that the title helps scope-out the skip targets.
17:08:29 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:08:31 <Francis_Storr> ac: having the sequential focus order aspect I thought was a good idea. having that scoping is a good thing.
17:08:41 <Detlev> q+
17:08:51 <jon_avila> I agree with Alastair
17:09:01 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:09:01 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say "orders some in the dom relative to each other" seems to be about focus order?
17:09:13 <alastairc> Chuck_ - Suggest we do question 5 (more process oriented)
17:09:49 <Chuck_> OK, thx.  Question 5, then WCAG 2.2
17:09:59 <Wilco> q+
17:10:19 <Chuck_> ack Det
17:10:22 <alastairc> Question for publication though - is it wrong? (I.e. misleading or would lead to incorrect results.)
17:10:23 <JenStrickland> q+
17:10:26 <Francis_Storr> mg: we don't necessarily want a focus indicator on something that's not interactive, but we don't want to ban it.
17:11:16 <Chuck_> ack Wilco
17:11:20 <Francis_Storr> df: in testing, finding one non-visible focus stop generally isn't a big barrier. this sc would disallow that and would be fairly severe.
17:11:48 <jon_avila> I find it very confusing when I tab and there is no focus indicator at all - it makes me think I am missing something or that the indicator is broken
17:11:53 <Francis_Storr> wf: I don't think this is too strict.
17:12:08 <mbgower_> q+ to say that pressing Tab to reach items that take focus (sequential order) SHOULD always have a visible focus.
17:13:00 <Francis_Storr> ... as for renaming ACT to call them "failures" this is something we can revisit later.
17:13:08 <GreggVan_> q+
17:13:20 <Chuck_> ack Jen
17:14:02 <Francis_Storr> JS: I've heard a lot about focus being on interactive elements, but I've seen in practice that non-interactive elements need focus.
17:14:10 <Chuck_> q+ to say can this be tweaked and we review in a future call?
17:14:22 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:14:22 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say that pressing Tab to reach items that take focus (sequential order) SHOULD always have a visible focus.
17:15:07 <Francis_Storr> mg: I think that anything that gets focus should have a focus indicator.
17:15:17 <alastairc> q+ to ask where to raise issues, and I thought it was HTML specific, and what we need for publication
17:15:23 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:15:40 <mbgower_> that's in 2.2, doesn't exist yet
17:15:55 <Chuck_> q?
17:15:56 <Francis_Storr> GV: can't we engage the normative rules about focus indicator?
17:15:56 <Wilco> q+
17:15:57 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:15:58 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say can this be tweaked and we review in a future call?
17:16:13 <jon_avila> SC 1.4.11 does require some contrast for focus indicators.
17:16:18 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:16:18 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask where to raise issues, and I thought it was HTML specific, and what we need for publication
17:16:22 <GreggVan_> ah  sorry I was thinking 2.2  for sure
17:16:23 <mbgower_> I'm fine to accept as is, with understanding Wilco will update
17:16:26 <alastairc> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues
17:16:41 <Francis_Storr> ac: it would be good to raise an issue for this.
17:16:52 <Francis_Storr> ... I thought these were HTML specific.
17:17:13 <Francis_Storr> ... what do we need for publication?
17:17:18 <Chuck_> q?
17:17:18 <GreggVan_> q+ to ask  when 2.2 is released will this one be automatically updated
17:17:21 <Chuck_> ack wil
17:18:10 <jaunita_george> I'm an ADS and can help
17:18:23 <Francis_Storr> wf: act rules have been exclusively HTML but they don't have to be. If anyone is a PDF expert and wants to help write rules, please get in touch.
17:18:27 <Chuck_> ack Greg
17:18:27 <Zakim> GreggVan_, you wanted to ask  when 2.2 is released will this one be automatically updated
17:18:28 <alastairc> Ah, it's covered in the "Applicability" section of each rule, so each rule is (or can be) tech specific
17:18:43 <alastairc> Informative content, not dependant on 2.2
17:18:46 <jon_avila> q+
17:18:52 <Chuck_> ack Jon
17:18:53 <Francis_Storr> gv: is this something that will automatically be released when WCAG 2.2 is released?
17:19:10 <Francis_Storr> ja: can we put a note that other criteria might apply?
17:19:18 <Wilco> q+
17:19:21 <Chuck_> ack Wil
17:19:31 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept rule "Element in sequential focus order has visible focus"
17:19:39 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended rule "Element in sequential focus order has visible focus"
17:19:44 <Francis_Storr> ... if we put a note in there, people will be aware they need to check other criteria.
17:19:46 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/oj04fd/proposed/#background
17:19:48 <Francis_Storr> wf: this is in the background information
17:20:13 <alastairc> +1, and for improvements: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues
17:20:14 <Wilco> +1
17:20:18 <ShawnT> +1
17:20:19 <JenStrickland> +1
17:20:22 <GreggVan_> -1     I think we should wait til 2.2 or include a note IN the item
17:20:22 <Detlev> -1
17:20:22 <Makoto> +1
17:20:24 <jon_avila> -1 as 1.4.11 is mssing
17:20:25 <mbgower_> +1 if Wilco can acknowledge my comment
17:20:31 <Raf> +1
17:20:48 <laura> 0
17:20:52 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 5 - New Rule: Text has enhanced contrast
17:20:54 <Wilco> q+
17:20:58 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Question 5 - New Rule: Text has enhanced contrast
17:21:00 <Francis_Storr> ca: moving onto question 5
17:21:09 <jon_avila> 1.4.11 is missing
17:21:35 <shadi> +1
17:21:44 <Francis_Storr> wf: I need to know what to do to resolve these issues
17:22:55 <Detlev> @Wilco: I will communicate m concern vs. this rule (Element in sequential focus order has visible focus) via mail
17:23:08 <GN015> Have we skipped Q4 on purpose?
17:23:10 <mbgower_> Chuck, did you mean to skip 4?
17:23:15 <Wilco> Thanks Detlev
17:23:30 <Chuck_> yes
17:23:33 <alastairc> Wilco - JonA was asking for 1.4.11 to be referenced (in the background). Gregg's point I don't think is applicable.
17:23:48 <Detlev> @Wilco: What list would be most useful for that?
17:24:03 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 6 - Streamline ARIA rule approval process
17:24:12 <Chuck_> TOPIC:  Question 6 - Streamline ARIA rule approval process
17:25:07 <mbgower_> +1 I agree with Gregg's comment
17:25:47 <Wilco> q+
17:25:51 <alastairc> Gregg - other way around, ACT create the rule, and ARIA review. (But works in principle)
17:25:58 <Francis_Storr> gv: I think we can delegate our approval to the ACT group. If they have a concern then they can bring it to us
17:26:13 <mbgower_> +1 for distribution to list
17:27:03 <Chuck_> q?
17:27:04 <mbgower_> +1
17:27:07 <Chuck_> ack wilco
17:27:26 <Francis_Storr> awk: what I'm describing in my comment is that we can add, remove, and update content quickly similar to the Understanding documents
17:27:51 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  AGWG grants ACT Task force amended standing permission to publish ARIA-specific rules as "approved".
17:27:56 <mbgower_> q+ to say that AWk's point about revistation is important
17:28:01 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:28:01 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say that AWk's point about revistation is important
17:28:21 <alastairc> q+
17:28:32 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:28:32 <Francis_Storr> mg: Andrew's comment is really germane here.
17:28:42 <Wilco> Issues always welcome :-) This is iterative work
17:28:42 <mbgower_> +1
17:28:56 <jon_avila> q+
17:28:59 <Wilco> there is, we have a priority label
17:28:59 <GreggVan_> q+   you said as ammended.   what was ammendment?   AWK's?
17:29:15 <Francis_Storr> ac: if there's something really wrong, I don't know if there's a mechanism in github to say "this is urgent"
17:29:20 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:29:23 <alastairc> jon_avila - yes, there will be emails to the AG list.
17:29:40 <alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION:  AGWG grants ACT Task force standing permission to publish ARIA-specific rules as "approved", with notifications to the list
17:29:42 <mbgower_> Resolution: Grant standing approval to publish ARIA-specific ACT Rules, once approved by the ARIA Working Group, with the resulting rules distributed to the AGWG list
17:29:52 <jon_avila> Great!
17:29:57 <GreggVan_> q+
17:30:02 <Chuck_> ack jon
17:30:05 <jon_avila> q-
17:30:08 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:30:44 <AWK> q+
17:30:44 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  AGWG grants ACT Task force amended standing permission to publish ARIA-specific rules as "approved" (posted to list and if concerns exist AGWG can comment)
17:30:48 <Chuck_> ack AWK
17:30:51 <Francis_Storr> gv: sending it to the list and if there's a concern then AG can comment, then I think that ties up all the lose ends
17:31:36 <Chuck_> q?
17:31:39 <Wilco> q+
17:31:44 <alastairc> Process would be: Email to the AG list including links to the rules and the github issues, then issues can be raised on github (or by reply), and ACT will act on those
17:31:46 <Rachael> +1 to either, slight preference to 1 week heads up
17:31:50 <Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION:  AGWG grants ACT Task force amended standing permission to publish ARIA-specific rules as "approved" (posted to list and if concerns exist AGWG can comment)
17:31:58 <Francis_Storr> wf: I should always be able to give some advanced notice
17:32:08 <mbgower_> +1
17:32:13 <GreggVan_> +1
17:32:13 <Wilco> +1
17:32:13 <Chuck_> +1
17:32:14 <ShawnT> +1
17:32:14 <alastairc> +1
17:32:15 <jon_avila> +1
17:32:18 <AWK> +1
17:32:22 <shadi> +1
17:32:27 <JenStrickland> +1
17:32:29 <laura> +1
17:32:32 <GreggVan_> nice job
17:32:33 <Jennie> +1
17:32:44 <Francis_Storr> RESOLUTION:  AGWG grants ACT Task force amended standing permission to publish ARIA-specific rules as "approved" (posted to list and if concerns exist AGWG can comment)
17:33:00 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
17:33:00 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Chuck_
17:33:03 <Chuck_> q?
17:33:07 <Chuck_> ack wilco
17:33:11 <Wilco> q-
17:33:15 <Chuck_> zakim, take up next item
17:33:15 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- WCAG 2.2 CFC Discussion (if needed) -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:33:38 <alastairc> TOPIC: 4.1.1 removal
17:33:57 <Francis_Storr> ac: we've got a couple of cfcs at the moment. The first is about 4.1.1 removal.
17:34:23 <Francis_Storr> ... leaning towards passing that cfc
17:35:18 <Francis_Storr> ... we've got several possibilities about how to deal with 2.0 and 2.1 which are currently unresolved
17:35:46 <Chuck_> q?
17:35:52 <Francis_Storr> ... in talking to certain stakeholders, it seems like a good time to make this change
17:36:04 <alastairc> TOPIC: Target size
17:36:15 <laura> s/equitySG/equity sub-group will be prepared to present a report /
17:36:35 <Francis_Storr> ac: we had 2 things raised.
17:36:39 <Chuck_> I have a note on the sub-group report, tentatively planned for the 31st.
17:36:53 <Francis_Storr> ... one was the inline exception, one was target offset
17:37:02 <laura> s/will have it /we will have it /
17:38:14 <Francis_Storr> ac: a change has been made in the pr. it seems editorial. if you have a comment, please raise it.
17:38:38 <mikeGower> mikeGower has joined #ag
17:38:46 <laura> s/wha to discuss /For what to discuss and /
17:39:14 <laura> s/linear fo m /linear form /
17:39:16 <Francis_Storr> ... between gregg and detlev, there was a suggestion for an update
17:39:40 <GreggVan_> +1
17:39:48 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has changed the topic to: Target Size
17:39:57 <Francis_Storr> ... suggests adding 'a list in the body of the page' as an exception
17:39:59 <laura> s/default is liniar./default is linear./
17:40:47 <laura> s/ converssations/ conversations/
17:41:15 <laura> s/liniar que /linear que /
17:41:16 <mbgower_> Inline: The target is in a sentence or in a list in the main content on the page, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
17:41:58 <Francis_Storr> ac: reads feedback from JA.
17:42:06 <laura> s/whic his /which is /
17:42:36 <Francis_Storr> ac: we also had a comment from Mary Jo, who was concerned that it was becoming too web-centric.
17:43:17 <laura> s/descion /decision /
17:43:44 <Francis_Storr> ac: shows examples relevant to the new proposed wording
17:43:46 <laura> s/separtate /separate /
17:44:41 <laura> s/ather meetings /and have additional meetings /
17:44:49 <Francis_Storr> ... anything that's in a list in the main part of the page would get an exception.
17:45:01 <alastairc> <strong>Inline:</strong> The target is in a sentence, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
17:45:05 <Francis_Storr> .... is this a worthwhile update to the sc?
17:45:15 <laura> s/decsion /decision /
17:45:15 <mbgower_> q+ to say the update is less webcentric and IMO amounts to the same thing
17:45:21 <alastairc> Poll: Is it worth adding a specific exception for lists
17:45:24 <GreggVan_> q+
17:45:29 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:45:29 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say the update is less webcentric and IMO amounts to the same thing
17:46:15 <laura> s/ descions./ decisions./
17:46:21 <Detlev> +1 to main content
17:46:23 <GreggVan_> q+  to say  "I think your simple add of lists
17:46:23 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:46:24 <Zakim> GreggVan_, you wanted to say  "I think your simple add of lists
17:46:27 <Francis_Storr> mg having the actual list in here, it makes it much less technology specific. This solves some stuff without making it any messier.
17:46:49 <laura> s/descussions /discussions /
17:47:00 <mbgower_> Inline: The target is in a sentence or in a list in the main content on the page, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
17:47:01 <Chuck_> Poll: Is it worth adding a specific exception for lists?
17:47:03 <alastairc> Poll: Is it worth adding a specific exception for lists? +1 for yes, -1 for no. (We'll do the 'how' next)
17:47:14 <Wilco> -1
17:47:21 <Rachael> 0
17:47:22 <GreggVan_> +1
17:47:23 <Chuck_> 0
17:47:25 <ShawnT> 0
17:47:25 <Detlev> +1
17:47:25 <GN015> -1 I feel lists are covered
17:47:26 <mbgower_> +1 either is fine with me, but I think from a non-html it is worth it
17:47:27 <alastairc> +0.5
17:47:29 <JenStrickland> +1
17:47:30 <AWK> 0
17:47:37 <jaunita_george> +1
17:47:43 <laura> +1
17:47:54 <GreggVan_> +1 because if you gave your list of lists    most of the group would fail to score it correctly
17:48:02 <Rachael> How do we distinguish between visibly rendered lists and programmatic lists that are restyled?
17:48:37 <JenStrickland> Good question, Rachael!
17:48:38 <Francis_Storr> wf: I think this adds more challenges than it answers. now we have to decide what a list is and what the body of a page it.
17:48:44 <Chuck_> q?
17:49:00 <alastairc> Proposed update: Inline: The target is in a sentence or in a list in the main content on the page, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
17:49:11 <laura> s/apporve /approve /
17:49:20 <GreggVan_> q+
17:49:35 <laura> s/conserned  /concerned  /
17:49:39 <Chuck_> ack Gregg
17:50:19 <Francis_Storr> gv: if you gave that list of lists to a group of people, I doubt they'd score it correctly.
17:50:24 <alastairc> Text lists were the most difficult examples we had for this exception
17:50:33 <mbgower_> q+
17:50:52 <Francis_Storr> ... I think that not having lists in there would be a serious mistake. I don't see any reason to not include it.
17:50:55 <Chuck_> ack mbg
17:51:16 <Francis_Storr> mg: I think I can live with either situation.
17:52:04 <Chuck_> q?
17:52:05 <Francis_Storr> mg: the value of having the lists specifically in here adds value.
17:52:09 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
17:52:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/10-ag-minutes.html laura
17:52:14 <alastairc> q+
17:52:16 <Chuck_> ack ala
17:53:03 <mbgower_> Without the lists language, we can just add the explanation in the Understanding doc, IMO
17:53:14 <alastairc> "or in a list in the main content on the page"
17:53:16 <Detlev> q+
17:53:21 <Chuck_> ack Det
17:53:44 <Francis_Storr> ac: we need to resolve this in the next few days
17:54:05 <Chuck_> q?
17:54:19 <Francis_Storr> df: maybe it's enough to say everything in the main content is exempt
17:54:39 <Chuck_> q+
17:54:41 <Wilco> q+
17:54:44 <Francis_Storr> ac: that would lead to quite a lot of content would be exempt that we wouldn't want to be
17:54:50 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:54:52 <Chuck_> ack Wil
17:55:53 <Chuck_> q+
17:55:55 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:55:57 <GreggVan_> q+
17:56:06 <laura> s/so everyone /so everone /
17:56:10 <mbgower_> q+ to say this is about sentence fragments
17:56:18 <Chuck_> ack Greg
17:56:25 <JenStrickland> The main content of a page is subjective based on the user's purpose in a moment.
17:57:24 <Francis_Storr> gv: maybe you could say "links that aren't used for inter-page navigation", although this could be any link
17:57:28 <Chuck_> ack mb
17:57:28 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say this is about sentence fragments
17:57:30 <laura> s/and and /and /
17:58:10 <laura> s/we re /we're /
17:58:24 <Francis_Storr> mg: the standard text on the web right now will fail because there's insufficient line height. we don't want every link to fail the guideline.
17:58:26 <Chuck_> q+ to say time's up, discuss options
17:58:45 <Francis_Storr> ... the one area we looked at that failed everything was lists, which is why we're looking at this
17:58:58 <JenStrickland> q+
17:59:05 <Francis_Storr> ... this continues to be a challenge with links inside the main body of the document.
17:59:07 <laura> s/ apporve./ approve/
17:59:24 <laura> s/conserned /concerned /
17:59:28 <Chuck_> ack Ch
17:59:28 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say time's up, discuss options
17:59:39 <Chuck_> ack Jen
17:59:50 <GreggVan_> q+ to suggest     "lists not for top or side navigation"
18:00:26 <Francis_Storr> js: if something we propose would fail most things on the web and those things are causing issues for people, then shouldn't we address that?
18:01:47 <mbgower_> q+ to say increase line height will not necessarily be good for everyone
18:02:00 <JenStrickland> Ah, thank you, Alastair, that makes good sense.
18:02:44 <alastairc> ack GreggVan_
18:02:44 <Zakim> GreggVan_, you wanted to suggest     "lists not for top or side navigation"
18:02:58 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
18:02:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/10-ag-minutes.html alastairc
18:03:54 <JenStrickland> * Thank you, Gregg! The resizing does help.
18:04:15 <alastairc> q+ to talk about top/side nav
18:04:30 <alastairc> ack mbgower_
18:04:30 <Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say increase line height will not necessarily be good for everyone
18:05:40 <GreggVan_> q+
18:05:55 <alastairc> ack alastairc
18:05:55 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about top/side nav
18:06:37 <alastairc> ack GreggVan_
18:07:16 <Detlev> it does sometimes
18:07:33 <ShawnT> hamburger menus
18:07:40 <Detlev> q+
18:09:07 <alastairc> ack Detlev
18:09:20 <mbgower_> but were any of those links in lists on the github page?
18:09:49 <GN015> need to drop
18:13:08 <JenStrickland> In many of the online word processing applications the line-height for lists is distinct from the normal paragraph text style. I often have to adjust because links in the list items end up being too close to one another and could be "fat fingered."
18:17:55 <JenStrickland> what if the bullets are hidden through CSS styling?
18:18:10 <JenStrickland> q+
18:18:38 <maryjom> +1 to "bulleted or numbered" for lists in the exception. Not technology-specific.
18:18:46 <alastairc> ack jen
18:19:47 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
18:19:53 <alastairc> Inline: The target is in a sentence or, in a bulleted or numbered list, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
18:21:44 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1khsB3Qo8P8VkvTOw2_akHJx_PiXF8HuZ6uKc7uyI1qQ/edit#
18:22:14 <ShawnT> can we use a list?
18:22:27 <ShawnT> instead of making it all one line
18:23:46 <mbgower_> mbgower_ has joined #ag
18:27:01 <maryjom> The target is in a sentence, is in a bulleted or numbered list, or the size....
18:27:21 <alastairc> Inline: The target is in a sentence, is in a bulleted or numbered list, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
18:28:20 <alastairc> Inline: The target is in a sentence, or is in a bulleted or numbered list, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
18:29:30 <alastairc> Inline: The target is in a sentence, or is in a bulleted or numbered list, or is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
18:30:51 <alastairc> Inline: The target is in a sentence, or is in a bulleted or numbered list, or the size is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
18:32:37 <alastairc> Inline: The target is in a sentence, or is in a bulleted or numbered list, or its size is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;
18:32:44 <maryjom> +1
18:32:51 <JenStrickland> +1
18:32:57 <alastairc> present+
18:33:04 <alastairc> zakim, end meeting
18:33:04 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Laura_Carlson, Jennie, J_Mullen, JustineP, shadi, Rachael, JenStrickland, GreggVan_, mikayla, Poornima, Makoto, ShawnT, jaunita_george,
18:33:07 <Zakim> ... mbgower, kirkwood, Francis_Storr, AWK, jeanne, iankersey, Wilco, alastairc, jon_avila, maryjom, MichaelC
18:33:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:33:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/10-ag-minutes.html Zakim
18:33:10 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, alastairc; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:33:10 <Detlev> present+
18:33:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
18:36:44 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
18:43:36 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:14:59 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag