<laura> Scribe: Laura

<alastairc> scribe: laura

<dbjorge> Good morning! This is my first AGWG meeting, happy to introduce myself at the beginning

<dbjorge> (Dan Bjorge)

intros or announcements

alastairc: Any new members?

dan: Hi I'm Dan Bjorge, software engineer at Microsoft.

<jon_avila> Welcome

<Rachael> Welcome

<Chuck> Welcome!

alastairc: Any new topics or agenda items?

bruce_bailey: errata could use dates.
... only one WCAG2 normative errata at present, but it does not have a date.

agenda+ WCAG 3 Review Test Section Editor’s Draft Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/updated_editor_draft/

alastairc: changing process in surveys. We have one one week. Then we review the week after.
... editorial aspects.
... edited to address andrew's and others comments.
... no Substantive comments.
... seems we have support. But not a big response to survey.

GreggVan: got a note from RM. I missed this survey.

jeanne: RM didn't get your comments but will addrress. You have another day to do survey.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that Gregg's changes are in next week's survey closing tomorrow

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if next editors draft will have contrast example?

bruce_bailey: next editors draft will not have contrast?

alastairc: I think so

Rachael: probably won't have pieces that are not done yet.

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/Editor-draft-cleanup/guidelines/index.html#testing

<bruce_bailey> so Plain language section also not in next ED as well?

alastairc: assertions is included
... we have support for that.

Rachael: this week test section then conformance

GreggVan: will close then open survey?

Rachael: editorial changes are in.
... next week focus on conformance.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to affirm that Plain Language also being skipped for ED ?

<Rachael> Not yet

alastairc: any objections to moving testing section to developmental.

bruce_bailey: you wanted to affirm that Plain Language also being skipped for ED

<dbjorge> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/416

dbjorge: Issue 416 on structure is complex

alastairc: not what end users will get.

<dbjorge> Thanks, that resolves my concern :)

GreggVan: readability not a condition.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer about 416

<bruce_bailey> thanks for the bit of screen sharing helping to facilitate this conversation

jeanne: this new draft is working to address MS Issue .
... gregg, no strong reason to have adaptive separate.

Rachael: this is probably a substantive issue.
... could break things out.

GreggVan: that's helpful.
... adaptive If tests says you could use either, evaluators with get different results.
... gets five different results.

alastairc: need to state conditions.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to push on this a bit

Rachael: could have situation a and b.

<Chuck> suggested Poll: update language to direct when to use condition a and when to use condition b.

<Rachael> strawpoll: Do you agree that in conditions different measures can be used in different situations, if we specify the situations?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask if regulators agree that only one test can be used

jeanne: you know if regulators agree that only one test can be used

jea

<alastairc> +1

<Detlev> hard to +1 without a deeper dive into the pros and cons...

<GreggVan> +1

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest "change this to Under condition A use this test under that condition use another test"

GreggVan: regulators usually don't tell you a particular test. They specify the measure.
... they specify the outcome not the test.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask whether we can answer these questions and expand on these topics as a part of developing the sections from here?

<jeanne> +1 Shawn

<JenStrickland> +1 to @lauriat

<bruce_bailey> + 1 to straw poll, I agree that in conditions different measures can be used in different situations, with specified situations.

Lauriat: can we answer these questions and expand on these topics as a part of developing the sections from here?

<dbjorge> +1 to straw poll

<jeanne> -1 to stop restricting ourselves

<jon_avila> +1 I agree with Gregg

<GN015> I rather understood to word conditions as conditions, not just as circumstances.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to move the Testing section to "developmental", with an editorial update for the conditions examples.

<jon_avila> My +1 was to the straw poll

<bruce_bailey> thanks for the additional discussion

jeanne: can be worked on going forward. Would like more evidence.

<jon_avila> I don't think that's what the edit is saying

<Chuck> +1 to calling out that this needs additional exploration

Rachael: could add an editor's note and leave it open.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to draft resolution at 11:30

<jeanne> +1 to additional exploration

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say Agree to change example of condtional to be cond

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to move the Testing section to "developmental", with an editorial update for the conditions examples and a new editor's note to allow exploration of multiple measures in addition

GreggVan: Agree to change example of conditional to condition.

<Lauriat> +1

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say to whom can I send my editorial comments?

<alastairc> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Jennie> +1

mbgower: missed the survey. have minor suggestions. Can I send it?

<maryjom> +1

<dbjorge> +1

<Poornima> +1

<jon_avila> +1

Rachael: yes. send it to me or group chairs distribution list

<Makoto> +1

<ToddL> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree to move the Testing section to "developmental", with an editorial update for the conditions examples and a new editor's note to allow exploration of multiple measures in addition

RESOLUTION: Agree to move the Testing section to "developmental", with an editorial update for the conditions examples and a new editor's note to allow exploration of multiple measures in addition

Review next week's survey on conformance options https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_draft_2_1/

<bruce_bailey> http://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html#scoring

alastairc: another survey closes 23:59, Boston time on 2023-02-09.

<bruce_bailey> http://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html#conformance-levels

Rachael: looking at 4.3 conformance levels
... seemed to have has support last time we looked at it.

<bruce_bailey> Only 4 replies at the moment...

Rachael: goes over the spec. I made some editorial changes already.

alastairc: four responses so far.

GreggVan: attaching to outcomes is a good idea.
... examples have user testing and test with screen readers. Thoughts on global actions.

Rachael: more along the lines of contrast.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to build on that

Shawn: can use granular tests for failures.

<jon_avila> Can I assume these are in the editor's draft?

Rachael: thinking of adding as exploratory

<alastairc> ack zakim, take up next item

WCAG 2.2 issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/

2.4.11 text-decoration as focus indication for links #2679

AC: Ted Drake raised that a lot of organizations use text-decoration as the focus indicator. We created a PR.
... https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2772/files
... wouldn't pass reliably
... Reads Michael Gower's comments.
... it is more a warning.
... Mary Jo had editorial comments that were accepted.
... Reads more comments.

GN: If a focus indicator passes the criterion in the normative text, it must pass the SC.

An argument like "and would therefore pass. But this is <em>not</em> a focus indicator that <em>reliably</em> passes this criterion." is not fair.

scribe: agree that an underline is not a good idea to be used as focus indication. Nevertheless it needs a WCAG based argument.
... Can it be argued with 3.2.4 Consistent Identification - an indication used for something else may not be used as indication for focus?
... Otherwise we might need an adaption of the normative text, like an explicit condition "The indication for focus may not be use as indication for something else within the set of web page".

shadi: happens to pass that the line is long enough. Shorter words wouldn't pass. Just need to spec that.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to GN

alastairc: maybe edit the top paragraph.

gn: underline passes? is that correct?

AC: adding white space wouldn't work

<alastairc> acl mbgower

mg: PR links under nine characters. Add the word "only"

<alastairc> If authors rely on the text-decoration property of links as a focus indicator (i.e. no text underline by default, then showing a 1px underline when focused), that is likely to meet the minimum size requirement only if the text is more than 9 characters. If the number of characters in the links vary, it is likely some links will fail.

<shadi> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Detlev> +1

laura: +1

gn: not happy with a underline as a focus indicator.

<jon_avila> It is pretty common - I agree it's not recommended but could pass.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve PR 2772, and closing issue 2679

<Detlev> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ToddL> +1

laura: +1

<dbjorge> +1

<shadi> +1

<Makoto> +1

<jon_avila> +1 I think it's also confusing because it looks the same as an unfocused link.

<ShawnT> +1

<JenStrickland> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve PR 2772, and closing issue 2679

Google - Success Criterion 2.4.11 Focus Appearance (Level AA) #2706

ac: Google added a document of their combined feedback in Issue 2706.
... reads Patrick Lauke's comment
... reads David MacDonald's comment

<jon_avila> FYI we do have a failure https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/failures#F24 which indicates a fail if you specify background or foreground color and not the other

ac: reads Todd's comment.

<alastairc> https://alastairc.uk/2023/02/focus-appearance-thoughts/

ac: trying to come up with good ways of explaining it.
... does that help?

gn: no other remarks.

todd: I will read over the post. Can I email you?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change

ac: yes.

<jon_avila> I can do it.

<jon_avila> scribe: jon_avila

Dbjorge: Didn't to survey in time - from our standpoint in Accessibility Insights with early testing - agreement that this is very confusing. We having trouble people interpret what they need to test it. Don't have specific wording updates. May hurt ability of adoption.

<AWK> +AWK

Alastair: easy to explain how to meet and create good indicator - it's harder to focus the ones that are there. 2 different problems. The first can make 2nd easier. we are taking survey for inter-tester reliability. have 3 responses - 1 from group and 2 from outside. It is something that is ongoing and the SC is at risk.
... do people agree with responses including that we are still tseting it.

<bruce_bailey> +1 , i agree with response

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Agree with the response for #2706

<mbgower_> +1

<ToddL> +1, I can agree.

<Detlev> +1

<AWK> +1

<GN015> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<JenStrickland> +1 Thank you!

<Makoto> +1

<Poornima> +1

<Chuck> +1

+1

<kirkwood> +1

<laura> +1

Alastair: if anyone else has comments on my explanation - I will use that to rejig the understanding doc

RESOLUTION: Agree with the response for #2706

Alastair: that was the one with the most something else comments.

MBgower: Patrick going back for on 2706 - one extremely minor tweak with the language. One edge case that might help with language - even if people don't alter the background color they still run into the failure on the user agent exception. It reads if it not modified by the user. Could we change modify to alter?

<Detlev> mieft vs. alter sorry too fine a point... :)

<kirkwood> specifying the background color?

Mbgower: Having someone explicitly setting established the background would not still fail the exception.

<laura> s/address /address /

<mbgower_> The focus indicator and the indicator's background color are not altered by the author.

<mbgower_> #2706

Alastair: I think that aligns with the intent. If we have minor editorial changes to the text that is possible - we try to avoid it - that would help to make it clearer. That is is 2706.

<mbgower_> ?me yep

Alastair: Many comments from Google - let's not lose this point - could you Mike Gower create a new issue or PR to address that point?

Wilco: this SC is listed as risk in CR. When will we get the opportunity vote yay or nay?

Alastair: We will have to vote before PR.

Google - Success Criterion 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication (Level AA) #2707

Alastair: the next one is on accessible authentication.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2707

Alastair: combined feedback and PR in response to that. Quite a few updates and response as well - apologies forgot to put that in link. the PR made quite a few update - to talk about the exceptions because that is updated with the AAA version and then understanding updates going on.
... Comments from GN015 - we made an update based on feedback from COGA that in person content one to change it to non-text that the user has provided to the website.
... Recognition vs. recall is important. Text ones are generally implemented as your mother's maiden name type of security questions which are almost definitely and cognitive function test like passwords.

Oliver: think I selected the wrong one.

Alastair: shall we resolve to agree on PR 811?

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Agree PR 2811 and close #2707

<mikeGower> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<dbjorge> +1

+1

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

Alastair: any disagreement?

<ToddL> +1

<GN015> +1

<Detlev> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree PR 2811 and close #2707

Google - Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Level AAA) #2708

<Makoto> +1

Alastair: it didn't link to it - it was 2708.
... commented on AA version - the changes were also in the same PR that we approved. This should be straight forward. One question was around what is a common object. We have discussed several times previously. Never want to try to define common again. If orgs use non-common objects that will be a problem for others including cultural. Isn't disability specific - rather than define - we have said any object recognition.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2708#issuecomment-1327516333

<mikeGower> +1

<Detlev> trust

Alastair: Does anyone feel strong that they need to read it and come back or trust that it's the same from the previous issue?

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to accept response to #2708

<mikeGower> Yep

+1

<Detlev> +1

<dbjorge> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Makoto> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree to accept response to #2708

<Poornima> +1

Success Criterion 3.2.6 Consistent Help (Level A) #2709

Alastair: This one is on consistent help. The type of comments this address is dynamic DOM structure as we had talked it through - less likely to fail in that scenario - it loads content within a template rather than loading a new template. It was not very clear on serialization would work as the SC talks about same relative order.
... We did have a PR that had already gone and had raised some aspects previously so there is not a PR associated with this one.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to response for #2709

<ToddL> +1

<laura> +1

<Rachael> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Makoto> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<GN015> +1

<Poornima> +1

<dbjorge> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree to response for #2709

Success Criterion 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Level AA) #2710

+1

Alastair: Focus non-obscured - mostly questions - we have slightly changed the SC before the questions - both now align to say user interface component. This is just a response.

<mikeGower> +1 to Gundula

<Detlev> you could mention it ANYWHERE, don't start!

Alastair: GN015 states that many criteria require testing across page variations should be mentioned in the understanding document. Alastair can take that as a thing to add.

<kirkwood> +1 to Gundula

Alastair: take that as a new separate issue. Do we agree to responses for 2710?

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to response for ##2710

<mikeGower> +1

<Detlev> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Makoto> +1

<ShawnT> +1

+1

<GN015> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree to response for ##2710

Google - Success Criterion 2.4.13 Focus Not Obscured (Level AAA) #2711

Dbjorge: in the PR question says they would like more examples and techniques and section of missing failure techniques to get fleshed out. Will that be done later?

Alastair: that is an ongoing process. We occasionally get people raising specific issues and techniques are updates. The last line addresses updating techniques.

<dbjorge> Ah, I see #2711 does have a line on the end about "examples are ongoing" - I was looking at the #2710 response which doesn't seem to have such a note

Mbgower: There was some discussion with that not everyone agrees on what is covered and the users ability to move content. I don't consider opening a chat window is moving content. We can loop back afterwards.

Alastair: Can't remember where we left it - but we can take it up on the Friday call.
... Dan suggested adding the ongoing task for techniques and failures to previous one as well.

<dbjorge> Thanks, that resolves my concern!

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept response for #2711

+1

<Chuck> +1

<dbjorge> +1

<Makoto> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response for #2711

Accessible Authentication disallows Security questions #2733

<bruce_bailey> issue where mike g and i might be in some disagreement is in 2751

Alastair: This one might speak to GN015 question - Mbgower asked about only images - could prevent sites from asking text based security questions. There is a response on when it's images - recognition vs. recall and quite a bit different.

<mikeGower> I think this is now addressed in the understanding doc

Alastair: Mike had accepted that as a Reponses - there is an extra line added to understanding doc which we approved - text based does not qualify for this exception - text based variations tend to be a larger barrier - we had 8 people agree with no comments.
... you have a chance now if you have any comments.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept response to #2733

<mikeGower> +1

+1

<laura> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Makoto> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<GN015> +1

Alastair: looks like support so far.

RESOLUTION: Accept response to #2733

Alastair: we will be down to 40 on WCAG 2.2 side. Most are understanding documents or resposnes.
... would like to do a plug for the Friday meeting - don't always do an agenda - if you would like to attend - it is on Friday's at 11am ET.
... will pop in meeting info

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/fdbff191-ae2e-48ee-87d7-37b2b20c653a/20210702T110000

<bruce_bailey> okay , no disagreement in 2751

Alastair: If you are logged in you will get Zoom meeting and export and download the ics calendar. Has standard agenda to go through anything people did last week and current issue and github QA for people
... try and assign people to issues - so limited block of work each week and we come back and have that discussion or otherwise will go into our survey. At the moment we only have 1 item ready for survey. We do need to plug-in a few more things. Does anyone have any questions about that meeting?
... unless anyone has another topic we will call an end to the meeting.

<Rachael> Thank you all

<mbgower_> thanks

<laura> Bye!

<dbjorge> Thanks!

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/one at present but ont dated/only one WCAG2 normative errata at present, but it does not have a date/
Succeeded: s/screen sharing help facilitate/screen sharing helping to facilitate/
Succeeded: s/send it to me and charisa/send it to me or group chairs distribution list/
Succeeded: s/sofware engineer at microsoft./Hi I'm Dan Bjorge, software engineer at Microsoft./
Succeeded: s/eratta /errata /
Succeeded: s/the your /your /
FAILED: s/addrress /address /
Succeeded: s/peices /pieces /
Succeeded: s/testng /testing /
Succeeded: s/adapive /adaptive /
Succeeded: s/susbstanive /substantive /
Succeeded: s/thab'ts/that's/
Succeeded: s/adabive /adaptive /
Succeeded: s/reg ususlly /regulators usually /
Succeeded: s/can we can /can we /
Succeeded: s/edior's /editor's /
Succeeded: s/condtional toa /conditional to /
Succeeded: s/for responces /four responses /
Succeeded: s/scrren readers/screen readers/
Succeeded: s/globsal /global /
Succeeded: s/organisations /organizations /
Succeeded: s/edirorial /editorial /
Succeeded: s/woildn't /wouldn't /
Succeeded: s/underine /underline /
Succeeded: s/addrress /address /
Default Present: Laura_Carlson, jeanne, GreggVan, Rachael, ToddL, Detlev, jon_avila, alastairc, dbjorge, ShawnT, maryjom, shadi, Jennie, bruce_bailey, Wilco, Makoto, Chuck, Lauriat, JenStrickland, JustineP, ChrisLoiselle, sarahhorton, mbgower, Poornima, AWK, kirkwood, GN, Jaunita_george
Present: Laura_Carlson, jeanne, GreggVan, Rachael, ToddL, Detlev, jon_avila, alastairc, dbjorge, ShawnT, maryjom, shadi, Jennie, bruce_bailey, Wilco, Makoto, Chuck, Lauriat, JenStrickland, JustineP, ChrisLoiselle, sarahhorton, mbgower, Poornima, AWK, kirkwood, GN, Jaunita_george, GN015
Found Scribe: Laura
Found Scribe: laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Scribes: Laura, jon_avila
ScribeNicks: laura, jon_avila

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


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.)