14:28:24 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:28:28 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/09-ag-irc 14:28:28 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:28:29 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:28:30 chair: Chuck 14:28:42 meeting: AGWG-2023-05-09 14:28:55 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:28:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/09-ag-minutes.html Chuck 14:29:11 agenda+ WCAG 2.2 WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/ 14:38:46 mgarrish has joined #ag 14:56:11 jon_avila has joined #ag 14:56:38 bruce_bailey has joined #ag 15:00:25 present+jon_avila 15:00:30 present+ 15:01:02 Jennie has joined #ag 15:01:08 present+ 15:01:20 present+ 15:01:29 kirkwood has joined #ag 15:01:47 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 15:01:49 present+ 15:02:03 dan_bjorge has joined #ag 15:02:16 Makoto has joined #ag 15:02:37 J_Mullen has joined #ag 15:02:41 Present+ 15:02:47 present+ 15:02:47 present+ 15:03:32 present+ 15:03:39 scribe: Daniel 15:03:45 present+ Daniel 15:03:52 zakim, take up next 15:03:52 agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.2 WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/ -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:03:54 mgifford has joined #ag 15:04:08 sarahhorton has joined #ag 15:04:21 laura has joined #ag 15:04:33 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:04:38 present+ 15:04:39 LoriO_ has joined #ag 15:04:48 q+ 15:05:03 present+ 15:05:05 Topic: Announcements 15:05:12 ack Rach 15:05:20 Jaunita_George has joined #ag 15:05:25 Rachael: We will be pausing most WCAG3 work for a few weeks as we finish work on WCAG2.2 15:05:37 ... I ask people to review the surveys ahead of time 15:05:46 q+ 15:05:51 ack ala 15:06:16 q+ 15:06:16 Alastair: If anyone is interesting in testing for WCAG2.2 please get in touch with me directly or with the Chairs list 15:06:20 ack bru 15:06:49 mbgower has joined #ag 15:06:55 present+ 15:07:02 zakim, take up item 1 15:07:02 agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.2 WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/ -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:07:08 zakim, take up item 1 15:07:08 agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.2 WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/ -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:07:09 present+ 15:07:12 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results 15:07:20 Detlev has joined #ag 15:07:20 TOPIC: Question 1 - Rewrite technique C40 and associated example per discussion in #3026 15:07:27 AWK has joined #ag 15:07:27 present+ 15:07:30 Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - Rewrite technique C40 and associated example per discussion in #3026 15:07:50 Chuck: Rewrite techinque C40 15:08:20 ... 33112 updates techniques C40 and C41 15:08:39 q+ 15:08:40 shadi has joined #ag 15:08:44 ack ala 15:08:45 ... Everyone agreed with these updates, just /questions/suggestions received 15:08:47 present+ 15:08:47 q+ 15:08:57 JSherrod has joined #ag 15:09:14 Alastair: There was a note around not to set outline:none when shadow box is used 15:09:14 ack dan 15:09:23 q+ 15:09:36 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq35 15:09:39 Dan: There is also other options that I have seen, but that's reasonable. 15:09:39 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3112 15:09:52 q- 15:10:00 q? 15:10:03 ... The word "solid" is to tackle examples of focus and color that we discussed before 15:10:05 proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3112 to address issue 3026. 15:10:19 +1 15:10:19 +1 15:10:21 +1 15:10:22 +1 15:10:23 +1 15:10:25 +1 15:10:26 +1 15:10:27 +1 15:10:29 +1 15:10:29 +1 15:10:30 +1 15:10:36 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:10:37 +1 15:10:39 +1 15:10:43 +1 15:10:50 +1 15:10:57 present+ 15:10:57 RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3112 to address issue 3026. 15:11:07 TOPIC: Question 2 - Add 'In brief' section at start of 2.2 SCs #2905 15:11:15 Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 2 - Add 'In brief' section at start of 2.2 SCs #2905 15:11:22 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq35 15:11:27 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results 15:11:27 Glenda has joined #ag 15:12:05 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq36 15:12:11 Chuck: 15:12:17 q? 15:12:29 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2905 15:12:47 Chuck: Any concerns with Patrick's adjustments? 15:12:52 JustineP has joined #ag 15:13:12 Mike: That would make the autohr information cumulative through the AAA SC 15:13:43 q+ 15:13:46 q+ 15:13:49 ack Ch 15:13:51 ... I would like to avoid doing that, otherwise they are going to get bigger 15:14:16 ack ala 15:14:16 Chuck: Agree. There needs to be a line as to how comprehensive we get 15:14:49 q+ to say my "no" is not very strong or passionate 15:14:49 Alastair: People quite often will be landing on an understanding document without the context of the other SCs 15:15:24 ... If we can keep it short, such as "don't make people memorize or transcribe" 15:15:36 q+ to suggest additional DD 15:15:52 Mike: My suggestion is to leave this as is for onw and start exploring the 2.1 to see what we should do 15:16:00 seeing how it goes with the 2.1 SCs works for me. 15:16:03 ack Ch 15:16:03 Chuck, you wanted to say my "no" is not very strong or passionate 15:16:22 ack Br 15:16:23 bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest additional DD 15:16:25 Chuck: I am not particularly pasionate one way or the other, I am persuaded by your suggestion 15:17:01 Bruce: Love this. It might be good to add mentions that there is a stricter criterion 15:17:06 q? 15:17:17 Chuck: Alastair,a re you happy with Mike's suggestion to leave as is? 15:17:25 q? 15:17:28 Alastair: That's fine, and we can mention it to Patrick 15:17:29 proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2905 to add an "in brief" section. 15:17:41 +1 15:17:43 +1 15:17:48 +1 15:17:50 Bruce - the AA version is linked just below the In brief selection 15:17:52 +1 Love the approach 15:17:52 +1 15:17:53 +1 15:17:55 +1 15:18:05 +1 15:18:06 +1 15:18:08 +1 15:18:09 +1 15:18:09 +1 15:18:10 +1 15:18:13 +1 15:18:16 RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2905 to add an "in brief" section. 15:18:24 TOPIC: Question 3 - G219 title for 2.5.7 Dragging Movement is misleading #3128 15:18:33 Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 3 - G219 title for 2.5.7 Dragging Movement is misleading #3128 15:18:54 q+ 15:19:14 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq37 15:19:19 Chuck: Patrick opened issue and put updates in PR 3133 15:19:26 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3128 15:19:35 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3133/files 15:19:47 ack Gregg 15:19:51 Mike: I find the wording awkward. It is hard to parse 15:20:29 Greg: Agree with a little editorial. Draging movements that do not provide a single pointer method would be a failure 15:20:43 q+ on single pointer 15:20:53 ... As to the title, I think removing the single pointer part would be OK as it is all explained below 15:20:59 ack ala 15:20:59 alastairc, you wanted to comment on single pointer 15:21:22 Alastair: The change to the failure was very minor, interesting comment from Greg 15:21:41 ... Whether something is single pointer or not is not directly on the dragging aspect 15:21:57 q+ to say that I don't think it's necessary to specific single 15:22:04 ... The dragging may or may not be single pointer 15:22:30 .. I think it is currently accurate, potentially it could be better, but for the failure technique the alternative needs to be a single pointer method without dragging 15:22:41 ack mb 15:22:41 mbgower, you wanted to say that I don't think it's necessary to specific single 15:22:44 Ensuring an alternative to dragging movements 15:23:08 Mike: What I just pasted seems to be fine. I don't think we have to specify in the title though 15:23:12 q+ to say -- just trying for plainer language -- change "Dragging movements due to not providing" to "Dragging movements that do not provide " 15:23:16 ack Gregg 15:23:16 GreggVan, you wanted to say -- just trying for plainer language -- change "Dragging movements due to not providing" to "Dragging movements that do not provide " 15:24:05 Greg: I just typed my suggestions. 15:24:16 +1 to Gregg's parsing 15:24:20 q+ 15:24:23 ... Current is difficult to parse, I'd be fine anyway 15:24:23 ack mb 15:24:31 +1 to Gregg’s language 15:24:49 +1 to Gregg's plainer language 15:24:59 Mike: That is the standard way all techniques are written 15:25:21 q+ to ask Alastair if there's been amendments 15:25:23 q? 15:25:24 q+ to say AH I see maybe put in quotee 15:25:26 ack Ch 15:25:26 Chuck, you wanted to ask Alastair if there's been amendments 15:25:46 Chuck: I see you have been doing some moving around, not sure if there are amendments to this 15:25:55 withdraw my suggestion 15:26:03 ack Greg 15:26:03 GreggVan, you wanted to say AH I see maybe put in quotee 15:26:10 Alastair: One that Greg was suggessting and another that Mike suggested. 15:26:39 Failure of Success Criterion 2.5.7 due to not providing a single pointer... 15:26:47 q+ to suggest a link to the SC 15:26:48 q+ 15:26:55 ack Rach 15:26:55 Rachael, you wanted to suggest a link to the SC 15:26:57 Greg: Now I understand. Maybe we should put parenthesis around "dragging movements". If we do so I would withdraw my suggestion 15:27:11 ack mb 15:27:29 Mike: You should take out the first "dragging movement" Alastair 15:27:41 proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3133 to address issue 3128. 15:27:52 +1 15:27:55 +1 15:27:56 +1 15:27:57 +1 15:27:57 +1 15:27:58 +1 15:27:58 +1 15:27:59 +1 15:28:00 +1 15:28:03 +1 15:28:27 +1 15:28:30 Failure of Success Criterion 2.5.7 due to not providing a single pointer method for the user to operate a function that does not require a dragging movement 15:28:59 RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3133 to address issue 3128. 15:29:00 ...that uses a dragging movement 15:29:08 [Word-smithing from screen shared contend] 15:29:10 TOPIC: Question 4 - Rewrite OTP section in Accessible Authentication understanding #3150 15:29:18 Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 4 - Rewrite OTP section in Accessible Authentication understanding #3150 15:29:50 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq38 15:29:51 q+ to say let's settle on either OTC or OTP! 15:29:56 ack mb 15:29:56 mbgower, you wanted to say let's settle on either OTC or OTP! 15:30:15 Chuck: Wilco created 3095 about one time codes and how we can explain them in the understanding doc. Patrick created PR @@@ to explain it. 15:30:20 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3095 15:30:33 Mike: Not sure if this is OTC or OTP (code or password) 15:30:34 q? 15:30:42 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3150/files 15:31:01 Alastair: I think we are using "one time passcode" 15:31:09 Chuck: Does this change anything? 15:31:13 Mike: I don't think so 15:31:27 proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095. 15:31:29 Greg: I just did a search and "OTC" did not appear anywhere in this PR 15:31:38 q+ 15:31:41 s/@@@/3150/ 15:31:41 ack ala 15:32:35 Alastair: For context, one time passcodes that you get from a separate device and you have to type them in is one of the reasons why Coga brought this as an issue 15:33:02 ... That has improved as now you can copy paste, but as long as you have to type them in it continues to be an issue 15:33:10 +1 to this SC and this improved description 15:33:15 ... That is donw to accessibility supported 15:33:25 q? 15:33:28 q+ to mention "one time password" is more common term 15:33:34 ack Br 15:33:34 bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention "one time password" is more common term 15:33:38 ... IF you are in a close environment you may work around it, if you are in an open environment it may be not that apparent 15:33:49 +1 15:33:51 propse RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095. 15:33:51 q+ to say I have a mild preference for passcode 15:33:57 Bruce: It seems "password" is the more popular term instead of "passcode" 15:34:09 +1 15:34:13 ack mb 15:34:13 mbgower, you wanted to say I have a mild preference for passcode 15:34:15 +1 15:34:17 +1 15:34:18 +1 15:34:18 q+ 15:34:26 ack Gre 15:34:31 Mike: +1 I will do more digging and come back with a future PR if needed 15:34:47 q+ 15:34:54 Greg: "Passcode" is an interesting combination, I think people will recognize it 15:34:54 ack Lori 15:35:28 q+ 15:35:36 ack Gregg 15:35:43 Lori: Using "passcode" or "password" due to the second stage verification that is going on, "passcode" is different than "password'. "Passcode" is that thing you get on the phone to make sure you are who you say you are 15:35:48 +q 15:35:48 Looking at Google Trends - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&geo=CA&q=%22pass%20code%22,%22pass%20word%22,password,passcode&hl=en 15:35:49 +1 to Lori 15:35:54 q+ JSherrod 15:36:01 q+ 15:36:07 Greg: I think some orgs give you one-time passcodes that are numbers and letters 15:36:13 q+ 15:36:28 passcodes are usually supplied to you (for a limited time). 15:36:31 Lori: But these are CAPTCHA-like codes that we have flagged as insecure and potentially not accessible some times 15:36:32 password vs. passcode: https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/password-vs-passcode 15:37:02 ack Jsh 15:37:07 ... The passcodes that I am thinking of are the ones that you first use your regular password and then you have a second code either mailed or in your mobile phone 15:37:28 ack ala 15:37:30 John: "Verification code" is what I see in second factor authentication 15:37:45 Alastair: I think what wwe are facing is different orgs calling it different things 15:37:46 1+ John 15:38:01 passwords are often created by user 15:38:07 ... It's a bunch of characters that you are given and you then have to put them in your computer 15:38:18 q+ to say verification code has more traction https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=one%20time%20passcode,one%20time%20password,verification%20code 15:38:25 ... It may be useful for us to differentiate this from "passwords" 15:38:26 q+ 15:38:31 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22one+time+passcode%22 409K versus https://www.google.com/search?q=%22one+time+password%22 ~8.5 million 15:38:36 ack Gregg 15:38:39 ... I suggest that we accept what we got at the moment 15:38:55 +1 to putting a pin in it and circling back 15:39:08 +1 pinning 15:39:13 Greg: Agree with what Alastair just said. If we make it so that it only applies to passwords it is like we are missing half the process 15:39:30 Passkey, passphrase, PIN's... Could we say, "passwords and additional security inputs" 15:39:40 q? 15:39:45 ... I think letters and numbers can be "code" as well 15:39:47 ack mb 15:39:47 mbgower, you wanted to say verification code has more traction https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=one%20time%20passcode,one%20time%20password,verification%20code 15:39:55 This specific update is on the topic of one-time-pass-thingies 15:40:15 +1 15:40:15 Mike: I'll take it to do some more digging. I think we should continue with what we have for now 15:40:17 ack Rach 15:40:36 +1 to "verification code" 15:40:39 proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095. 15:40:51 Rachael: Appreciated. I would also like to see "verification code" in there, having these different words will make it more readable. Currently it is difficult to process as these two are very similar 15:40:53 +1 15:40:54 +1 to verification code 15:40:55 +1 15:40:57 +1 15:40:59 +1 15:41:00 +1 15:41:01 +1 15:41:01 +1 15:41:03 +1 and keep improving from there 15:41:04 +1 15:41:05 +1 15:41:07 +1 15:41:10 +1 15:41:11 +1 15:41:15 RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095. 15:41:23 TOPIC: Question 5 - Loophole in 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)? #3045 15:41:26 we need to not drop addressing verification codes 15:41:34 (PIN) stands for NUMBER and is confusing when applied to codes that are letters and numbers 15:41:36 Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 5 - Loophole in 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)? #3045 15:41:57 LoriO_ - create a github issue if you are worried we'll drop it, but mbgower is on it. 15:42:25 Chuck: Patrick created 3045 about lack of a minimum for taget size when we include spacing. He included subsequent updates and people seem to agree with those 15:42:33 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq39 15:42:38 q? 15:42:52 proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3103 to address issue 3045 and 2755. 15:42:56 q+ 15:43:02 ack ala 15:43:04 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3103 15:43:08 +1, patrick did a great job with this, contains a ton of work 15:43:27 +1 for hat tip to Patrick! 15:43:35 +1 thank you Patrick! 15:43:36 Alastair: This is one example of a huge amount of work Patrick does even though he cannot attend meetings regularly. Thanks Patrick 15:43:40 +1 to Patrick and all he does. 15:43:52 proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3103 to address issue 3045 and 2755. 15:44:02 +1 15:44:04 +1 15:44:04 +1 15:44:06 +1 15:44:08 +1 15:44:09 +1 15:44:10 +1 15:44:10 +1 15:44:12 +1 15:44:13 +1 15:44:22 +1 15:44:31 RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3103 to address issue 3045 and 2755. 15:44:32 +1 15:44:52 Topic: Questions 6 and 7 15:45:04 Alastair: There are a couple I assumed would take longer 15:45:15 ... We will leave these for next week 15:45:37 ... There is a technique for "Focus not obscure" which you may want to have a look at 15:45:52 ... I will update the survey and add a preview link so that it is easier to review 15:46:13 ... We have another open issue for "focs not obscure" on whether it could create keyboard issues 15:46:34 ... Most of it we have addressed, there are some bits that we still need to figure out 15:46:46 ... There is a WCAG2x backlog as well 15:46:57 ... We are almost at the end of the WCAG2.2 issues 15:47:10 q+ to ask about Q on Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) Understanding 15:47:16 ... IF there is not enough fforom WCAG2.2 we will add these WCAG2.x backlog issues as well 15:47:28 ack bru 15:47:28 bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about Q on Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) Understanding 15:47:46 q+ 15:48:13 ack mb 15:48:18 Bruce: Should we have less tolerance for lightboxes or other diminishing of contrasts in "focus obscure (enhanced)" 15:48:28 Mike: I think this got copied over from the other SC 15:48:29 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3163 15:48:39 q? 15:49:05 ... Do you want to strip that out? 15:49:12 Alastair: You ahve until Thursday 15:49:38 q? 15:49:41 Mike: We have minimum and enhanced for "focus obscured" 15:49:42 rrsagent, make minutes 15:49:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/09-ag-minutes.html Rachael 15:49:58 Topic: Use of GitHub 15:49:59 https://github.com/w3c/wcag 15:50:40 Alastair: WCAG2.x part of the repository for the WCAG2.x 15:50:54 ... W3C has hundreds of repos 15:51:00 ... We have a separate one for WCAG3 15:51:24 ... We have guidelines, understanding documents, techniques, and the rest you can figure it out 15:51:47 ... We have issues as well. Anything WCAG2.2-related has a WCAG2.2 tag 15:52:20 ... You can search for issues and PRs that include the label or you can search excluding the label 15:52:49 ... If you ahve a W3C account and you are a member of this group you should have automatic permissions to create branches, assign yourself to issues, etc 15:53:03 ... Anyone in the world can create issues 15:53:30 [Alastair shows an issue created by Mark about a specific technique] 15:53:45 Alastair: From that issue, someone created a PR to address it 15:54:15 ... Others have suggestions, which may or may not be accepted 15:54:37 ... IF we strongly disagree with the issue, we put a response in a comment explaining why we disagree with it 15:55:29 ... Once that is done, we can add labels like "survey" 15:55:39 q? 15:55:49 ... We do not use GitHub for these agreement processes 15:56:21 ... It is difficult to make it work only for group participants, and the survey gives us the opportunity to introduce the topics more broadly 15:56:58 RRSAgent: draft minutes 15:57:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/09-ag-minutes.html bruce_bailey 15:57:06 ... Normatie content follows a very official process under W3C 15:57:11 ... If we pass CR for WCAG2.2, that would be the last update 15:57:30 ... Non-normative change we can agree on within the group 15:57:53 [Alastair focuses on conversations tab of the GitHub PR interface] 15:58:28 Alastair: Key words are used to mark an issue as solved once the PR is merged 15:58:45