14:31:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:32:03 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/30-ag-irc
14:32:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:32:04 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:32:08 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:32:17 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2023-05-30
14:32:25 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:32:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/30-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:32:39 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Issues, 1 question https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/
14:32:53 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.x backlog issues, 6 questions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/
14:57:53 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
14:58:00 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
14:58:07 <alastairc> present+
14:58:32 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:59:39 <ShawnT> present+
14:59:51 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:59:57 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:59:58 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:00:03 <shadi> present+
15:00:21 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:00:24 <Wilco> present+
15:00:25 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
15:00:34 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
15:00:54 <Rachael> present+
15:01:10 <JustineP> present+
15:01:19 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:01:23 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #AG
15:01:36 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:01:37 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:01:42 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:01:44 <alastairc> scribe: bruce_bailey
15:01:47 <Jaunita_George> present+
15:01:48 <bruce_bailey> AGWG approved for four days at TPAC
15:02:29 <jo_weismantel> jo_weismantel has joined #ag
15:02:37 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:02:37 <jo_weismantel> present+
15:02:44 <AWK> +AWK
15:02:48 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  any intros or announcments?
15:02:52 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:02:55 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:02:55 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.2 Issues, 1 question https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:03:05 <LoriO> present+
15:03:16 <bruce_bailey> chuck: on rolling questionaire for 2.2 pub
15:03:41 <shadi> q+
15:03:51 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:03:56 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
15:04:00 <shadi> q-
15:04:01 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
15:04:02 <mbgower> present+
15:04:07 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  survey Q is for adding privacy and security breakout in preamble
15:04:16 <Raf> present+
15:04:28 <shadi> agenda?
15:04:36 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:04:45 <bruce_bailey> 9 replies in survey, all agree or agree with (minor) adjustment
15:05:30 <Poornima> present+
15:05:35 <bruce_bailey> MikeGower:  Just want to amplify Patrick Lauke's comments...
15:05:51 <AWK> Anti-security still is related to security! :)
15:05:54 <bruce_bailey> ... SC are relevant -- but not neccessarily blockers
15:06:00 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:06:15 <mbgower> :)
15:06:16 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Wilco in survey argues for informative.
15:06:21 <laura> Laura_Carlson
15:06:47 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  Glad to have this as informative, but I did not try to add to list of SC
15:06:47 <alastairc> q+ to discuss where it could go
15:07:06 <Chuck> ack ala
15:07:06 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to discuss where it could go
15:07:20 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Rachael asked in survey if 2.2.5 should be included?
15:07:52 <AWK> This strikes me as highly informative.
15:07:57 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  As to where this should go, came in late, proposal is to put into Introduction, but do not know if we can mark as informative
15:07:58 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #ag
15:08:13 <mbgower> +1 that it's a summary and not normative
15:08:23 <bruce_bailey> ... since they are summaries at end, proposed location seems better fit.
15:08:30 <Chuck> q+ to ask if Alastair is proposing keeping in this section but marking as informative?
15:08:48 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  I would also note that this detail is in our charter.
15:08:54 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:08:54 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if Alastair is proposing keeping in this section but marking as informative?
15:08:55 <MichaelC__> MichaelC__ has joined #ag
15:09:01 <kirkwood> present+
15:09:36 <Chuck> proposal:  Add after section 5 and label as informative
15:09:52 <bruce_bailey> Chuck confirms with Alastair that proposal is add "informative" markup to two paragraphs.
15:09:58 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:10:00 <Chuck> +1
15:10:03 <mbgower> +1
15:10:06 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
15:10:10 <Wilco> +1
15:10:11 <laura> +1
15:10:11 <Chuck> q+
15:10:13 <jon_avila> +1
15:10:16 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:10:16 <ShawnT> +1
15:10:19 <Detlev> present+
15:10:20 <Raf> +1
15:10:25 <Detlev> +1
15:10:29 <Poornima> +1
15:10:32 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:10:35 <sarahhorton> present+
15:10:39 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:10:42 <LoriO> +1
15:10:48 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:10:58 <Makoto> present+
15:11:20 <jon_avila> We may want to consider 1.3.5 as well.
15:11:21 <alastairc> q+ on wording if we expand
15:11:32 <bruce_bailey> Chuck discusses with Alastair and Rachael about which SC to include.  Conclusion is that ennumeration can be separate discussion.
15:11:33 <Chuck> ack ala
15:11:33 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on wording if we expand
15:11:48 <jon_avila> Input purpose
15:12:05 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:   Jon/John brought up 1.3.5....
15:12:35 <Chuck> +1 to changing to "related to privacy or security"
15:12:57 <bruce_bailey> ... I think we need to expand list to SC that AG has identified as related, not just those which have "privacy" or "security" in SC text.
15:12:58 <AWK> q+
15:13:08 <Chuck> ack AWK
15:13:15 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  If we agree, there are additional PR which are needed.
15:13:50 <Chuck> q+
15:13:54 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  There are a whole lot that relate to security -- including 1.1.1 and captcha.
15:13:58 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:14:06 <Rachael> +1 to caveat
15:14:22 <alastairc> q+ on next steps
15:14:24 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Agree we should caveat, because list will not be exhaustive.  Agreed this is informative.
15:15:06 <Chuck> ack ala
15:15:06 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on next steps
15:15:17 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Summarizing, we have agreement in principle so no conflicts yet.   But is captcha enough to rope in 1.1.1?
15:15:50 <Chuck> q+ to ask about "resolving" this in list?
15:15:55 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  We are having some substantial discussion here so I would want to work on phrasing and survey.
15:16:01 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:16:01 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about "resolving" this in list?
15:16:12 <jon_avila> I like Alistair's wording of "relationship" rather than "impact".
15:16:27 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Are we resolving this PR today then or not?
15:16:52 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Add as informative, if there are disagreements, AGWG members can express in list when reviewing in list.
15:16:59 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  We can at least resolve to add as informative, which is worth noting in minutes.
15:17:13 <alastairc> we'll come back to it in a meeting if there are disagreements
15:17:19 <alastairc> +1
15:17:20 <AWK> +1
15:17:21 <ShawnT> +1
15:17:21 <jon_avila> +1
15:17:22 <mbgower> +1
15:17:27 <laura> +1
15:17:31 <Makoto> +1
15:17:32 <Detlev> +1
15:17:33 <Rachael> +1
15:17:36 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Add as informative, if there are disagreements, AGWG members can express in list when reviewing in list, and will review any disagreements in next call should any occur.
15:17:57 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
15:17:57 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 2.x backlog issues, 6 questions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:18:25 <bruce_bailey> Shadi:  Do you want update from sub groups?
15:18:33 <Chuck> agenda + subgroup updates
15:18:42 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
15:18:42 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- subgroup updates -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:18:49 <shadi> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Guidance-for-policy-makers-Subgroup
15:19:12 <shadi> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/
15:19:23 <bruce_bailey> shadi:  Guidance for sub policy meeting Mondays, including yesterday, working through Use Cases and discussing...
15:19:25 <shadi> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B-qfTrPxnhIa0AxhPEF6SIDTLAGnneoauBRHGzS5q7U/edit#heading=h.s0ukjtq0hqao
15:19:50 <bruce_bailey> for first two, please see google doc which is what group is using to collect...
15:20:03 <bruce_bailey> ...please request access if link is not working for you.
15:20:38 <bruce_bailey> shadi:  We hope that next two then want to put ideas into outline as to sketch out what a guidance document might look like...
15:21:03 <bruce_bailey> ... but I cannot attend next week, so I want to provide update today.
15:21:23 <bruce_bailey> shadi:  I ask that participates continue working on shared doc.
15:21:38 <bruce_bailey> Chuck, other updates?
15:21:51 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 2
15:21:51 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 2.x backlog issues, 6 questions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:22:13 <Chuck> TOPIC Question 1 - 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Clarify text-overflow: ellipsis applicability #728
15:22:22 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Clarify text-overflow: ellipsis applicability #728
15:22:41 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  These are half dozen question to resolve 2.2 issues
15:23:10 <bruce_bailey> ten agreed, 2 adjustements, 2 something else
15:23:46 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Francis recommends (in survey) taking out "generally"
15:24:15 <bruce_bailey> Francis_Storr:  The text works without word and "gnerally" adds ambiguityl
15:24:17 <Chuck> q+ to add to wilco
15:24:43 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Reads Wilco's comment, Wilco does not elaborate.
15:25:08 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Reads Lori's suggestion, which includes code.
15:25:26 <Chuck> q?
15:25:30 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:25:30 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to add to wilco
15:25:40 <bruce_bailey> LoriO:  I do no think we should be using abbreviations.
15:25:57 <jon_avila> q+
15:26:02 <Chuck> ack Jon
15:26:06 <alastairc> q+ on whether it's an exception
15:26:29 <LoriO> q+
15:26:30 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  steve F correction to link is inncorporated in PR
15:26:36 <Chuck> ack ala
15:26:36 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on whether it's an exception
15:26:58 <Wilco> q+
15:26:59 <mbgower> q+ to say this is not intended as an exception. It addresses how one can achieve 'no loss of content'
15:27:00 <bruce_bailey> Jon A:  I do see this barrier quite often in the field.
15:27:59 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  We are not phrasing this as an exception.  But it does happen with high magnification that heading is truncated, but it is a matter of degree.
15:28:05 <Chuck> ack Lor
15:28:25 <alastairc> q+ to answer
15:28:33 <Chuck> ack Wilco
15:28:37 <bruce_bailey> ... Truncation can happen with heading in many circumstances without any magnifcation.
15:29:04 <bruce_bailey> LoriO:  Can this requirement be met through alternative text?
15:29:06 <Chuck> +1
15:29:25 <Chuck> ack mb
15:29:25 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this is not intended as an exception. It addresses how one can achieve 'no loss of content'
15:29:35 <laura> +1 to wilco
15:30:00 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  This is similar to concern I put in survey, that it sounds normative, and techniques like putting in ellipsis is essentially the same results but would unambiguosly pass.
15:30:12 <Wilco> It could be expanded somewhere else on the page
15:30:21 <Chuck> q+ to say I don't think we need a comprehensive list
15:30:24 <Chuck> ack ala
15:30:24 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer
15:30:33 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  There is sufficient affordance.  Are there other examples anyone can suggest?
15:30:52 <kirkwood> (resizing window? device turning screen portrait/landscape?) maybe not?
15:30:58 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  To Lori's question, no, alt text would not generate a pass for this SC.
15:31:16 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Shares screen to offer some proposed updates.
15:31:39 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #ag
15:31:53 <mbgower> q+
15:31:57 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:31:57 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think we need a comprehensive list
15:32:06 <bruce_bailey> alastairc: j1st is to Wilco's comment.  These are updates for understanding on text spacing.
15:32:20 <Wilco> +1 Chuck
15:32:29 <Chuck> ack mb
15:32:43 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I agree list is not comprehensive and I would not want to imply it is.
15:33:11 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  I am okay with edits so far, adding e.g., but i do not think it is quite complete enough...
15:33:24 <Chuck> q?
15:33:30 <jon_avila> q+
15:33:34 <Chuck> ack Jon
15:33:50 <bruce_bailey> ... for example the end-user resizing should not generate a fail, and Understanding is not quite clear enough on the point.
15:34:07 <bruce_bailey> jon_avila:  Trucation is problematic for links.
15:34:07 <mbgower> It's now just an example
15:34:17 <Chuck> q?
15:34:19 <DavidMiddleton> DavidMiddleton has joined #ag
15:34:22 <mbgower> q+
15:34:24 <Chuck> ack mb
15:34:33 <bruce_bailey> ... Is link text being broken acceptable ?  And if so, can we add to Understanding?
15:35:05 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  Asks if two current examples are sufficient.  (Read Card example)
15:35:10 <Chuck> q+
15:35:29 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:35:37 <bruce_bailey> jon_avila:  Link is part of same UI element, so may make knowing the link difficult.
15:35:51 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  I can make example clearer.
15:35:55 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #ag
15:36:18 <alastairc> where the ellipsis is part of a section of content which includes a link, the truncated text is revealed on the linked page
15:36:19 <bruce_bailey> jon_avila:  It is still not clear if what i describe is a pass or not.
15:36:39 <mbgower> I've got an idea of how to rephrase
15:36:52 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I feel like we have agreement, but not certain we have the resolution.
15:36:59 <Chuck> poll:  Happy with changes made in PR thus far?
15:37:03 <Chuck> +1
15:37:04 <jon_avila> +1
15:37:09 <mbgower> suggest res: to accept PR with changes and incorporation of comments
15:37:11 <Rachael> +1
15:37:12 <ShawnT> +1
15:37:41 <bruce_bailey> Chuck confers with Alastair and Mike G on resolution.
15:37:54 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2827 wto address issue 728.
15:37:56 <bruce_bailey> mbgower: It is an Understanding doc, so we can always revisit.
15:38:11 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2827 to address issue 728.
15:38:13 <Chuck> +1
15:38:15 <mbgower> +1
15:38:18 <jon_avila> +1
15:38:22 <GN015> +1
15:38:23 <Detlev> +1
15:38:38 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2827 to address issue 728.
15:38:39 <Jaunita_George> +1
15:38:43 <Makoto> +1
15:38:44 <laura> +1
15:39:07 <Chuck> TOPIC Question 2 - Changes to Reflow note and Understanding #1201
15:39:16 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 2 - Changes to Reflow note and Understanding #1201
15:39:24 <bruce_bailey> Chuck resumes screen share and next topic on survey.
15:39:50 <bruce_bailey> 13 responses, 7 agree, 3 adjustments, 3 something else
15:40:07 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Oliver asks if deletion is on purpose?
15:40:22 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:   Line 42 can be removed
15:40:29 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #ag
15:40:55 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Cory disagrees with removal and cell constraints.
15:41:30 <Chuck> +1 to Lori's comments in survey
15:41:43 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Gundula does not agree with deletion since two dimentional scrolling in single cell is a barrier.
15:42:11 <Chuck> q?
15:42:16 <bruce_bailey> LoriO:  Image stacking is a bad example, since it does not happen with any UA, and I proposed a different one.
15:42:26 <jon_avila> I agree with Gundula - I want to make sure we keep that each data cell can be viewed.
15:42:36 <Francis_Storr> q+
15:42:46 <Chuck> ack Fran
15:42:53 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  No one on queue and some significant editorial suggestions.
15:43:21 <Chuck> q?
15:43:36 <Detlev> q+
15:43:42 <bruce_bailey> Francis_Storr:  Just noticing "complex" data tables which is a subjective.  Or do we have wide understanding of *simple* data tables.
15:43:46 <mbgower> q+
15:43:51 <Chuck> ack Det
15:44:02 <ChrisLoiselle> For reference on how data tables are presented https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/
15:44:37 <bruce_bailey> Detlev:  I think simple/complex is that complex would need more than merely top row and leftmost column as label....
15:44:45 <ChrisLoiselle> The word simple is used thus the opposite would be complex
15:44:47 <Chuck> q?
15:44:49 <Chuck> ack mb
15:44:54 <jon_avila> I interpret complex differently
15:45:00 <bruce_bailey> ...Simple table will mean that table can read strictly linearly order and make sense.
15:45:13 <Chuck> q+ to say I don't think we need to differentiate complex.
15:45:33 <ChrisLoiselle> the word complex is used here as well https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/tips/
15:45:40 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  My recollection is that PR was just for a single bullet and what I see now seems to be larger change.
15:46:14 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:46:14 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think we need to differentiate complex.
15:46:38 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  (highlighting paragraph) the DIFF may be making this look like it is more than it is, or there may be something which got duplicated.
15:46:48 <kirkwood> do merged cells? create complex tables?
15:46:58 <Chuck> q?
15:46:59 <alastairc> q+
15:47:08 <Chuck> ack ala
15:47:15 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I think we are describing a table -- so by definition the 2 D layout is integral.
15:47:38 <Chuck> q?
15:47:47 <bruce_bailey> John Kirkwood asks about merged cells, and those causing a table to become complex.
15:48:12 <ChrisLoiselle> complex and simple are also mentioned here https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H63 for reference with regard to tables
15:48:15 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  Regnerated DIFF is making change more inline with my memory.
15:48:29 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  I am going to have to review.
15:49:09 <bruce_bailey> AWK: provides an example of where we already talk about *simple* tables
15:49:24 <LoriO> q+
15:49:34 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Change is replacing "out of scope" with plain language
15:50:04 <Chuck> ack Lor
15:50:11 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  then towards end, a clearer example of complex table being an exception
15:50:33 <mbgower> q+ to say that is a different issue
15:50:43 <Chuck> ack mb
15:50:43 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that is a different issue
15:50:48 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
15:50:48 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:50:49 <Zakim> 2. WCAG 2.x backlog issues, 6 questions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/ [from Chuck]
15:50:49 <Zakim> 3. subgroup updates [from Chuck]
15:51:03 <bruce_bailey> LoriO:  I recommend line 38 taking out example with stacked graphic and replace example with math not being able to wrap sensibly.
15:51:14 <alastairc> q+
15:51:17 <Chuck> ack ala
15:51:24 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  That phrasing is legacy, I would prefer we address in separated PR.
15:51:46 <bruce_bailey> LoriO:  That is not a compelling reason to retain.
15:52:03 <Chuck> +1
15:52:08 <Chuck> q?
15:52:10 <Poornima> Agree with Lori's comments that data table content cannot be an exception for the reflow as  it is the text
15:52:30 <Detlev> q+
15:52:32 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  We have quite a bit in understanding about data tables... and the question about images not needing to wrap does come up on occaison.
15:52:47 <Chuck> ack Det
15:53:00 <bruce_bailey> [chuck and alastair review changes made during call]
15:53:28 <bruce_bailey> Detlev:  The bit about "loss of meaning" is lost.
15:54:04 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Agree, can changing to "lost" for better readability.
15:54:27 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Are people okay with updates?
15:54:52 <Chuck> poll:  Is the PR with these updates ok?
15:54:58 <bruce_bailey> [wilco confirms his edit corrected, duplicated line]
15:55:13 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1201/files#diff-1422862b6bcb5e07b2764c99e7dfb03c4bfc2964b52aaad5d0a6fcf7ff8a3985
15:55:14 <mbgower> +1 it's an improvement
15:55:19 <Chuck> +1
15:55:24 <Detlev> +1 fine
15:55:31 <DavidMiddleton> +1
15:55:33 <ShawnT> +1
15:55:39 <kirkwood> +1
15:55:40 <Makoto> +1
15:55:44 <sarahhorton> +1
15:55:46 <Wilco> +q
15:55:48 <Wilco> +1
15:55:49 <Wilco> q-
15:55:52 <Poornima> +1
15:55:56 <laura> +1
15:56:00 <Francis_Storr> +1
15:56:05 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 1201 to address issue 1049.
15:56:10 <mbgower> +1
15:56:19 <Chuck> +1
15:56:23 <sarahhorton> +1
15:56:34 <jon_avila> +0
15:56:37 <mbgower> q+
15:56:40 <Chuck> ack mb
15:56:44 <Detlev> can't make second hour today...
15:57:03 <jon_avila> The text talks about zoom to 400% although the SC focuses on 320CSS pixel width.
15:57:04 <Chuck> q+ to say scope creep?
15:57:12 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  I just want to point out that Scott caught in PR a disconnect.  Not THIS change, but might be a different edit.
15:57:16 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:57:16 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say scope creep?
15:57:22 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 1201 to address issue 1049.
15:57:34 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  That would be another scope creep regardless.
15:57:53 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe : ChrisLoiselle
15:57:54 <jon_avila> I can do it
15:58:10 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
15:58:13 <Chuck> TOPIC Question 3 - Add 'In brief' section at start of 2.1 SCs #3191
15:58:18 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:58:20 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 3 - Add 'In brief' section at start of 2.1 SCs #3191
15:58:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck : Talks to PR 3191 and talks to survey results.
15:59:26 <ChrisLoiselle> ... references Gundula's review
16:00:00 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: have not gone through all Gundula's in full yet.
16:00:00 <alastairc> q+
16:00:18 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: Steve F. made a comment, Mike G already adjusted PR with that edit.
16:00:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael : One editorial. One different on single character shortcuts phrasing.
16:01:13 <Chuck> q?
16:01:15 <Chuck> ack ala
16:01:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: Talks to customizing character key shortcuts.
16:01:44 <mbgower> q+
16:01:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: It may be best to follow up offline call to review. If Mike can put in to the PR thread, it may lead to quicker resolution
16:01:52 <Chuck> ack mb
16:02:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: Responses in survey is probably not best. Putting comments in the PR is best with comments for me personally. The process would work for me as author.
16:02:34 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:02:47 <alastairc> q+ to say I'll highlight the PR next time
16:02:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: Mike G. will review Gundala's comments and review at later date.
16:02:53 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:02:59 <Chuck> TOPIC Question 4 - Update/correct 3.3.3 understanding #1804
16:03:08 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 4 - Update/correct 3.3.3 understanding #1804
16:03:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: I will help on that process in the survey email to comment on PR
16:03:15 <alastairc> q-
16:04:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: PR 1804 topic , Patrick's update. Gundula found a typo on input error.
16:04:09 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: I updated the PR
16:04:13 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:05:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: Reads Gundula's comments about month example vs. password example. Sums up to keeping a better example.
16:05:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: just that first edit on typo, not the content within it.
16:05:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: I did not make those changes other than the typo.
16:05:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: is that in an area that wasn't updated in the PR?
16:06:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Gundula : May , July , July text , adding the password example. The month name example.
16:06:45 <mbgower> it pre-exists, not what's changed pretty much
16:06:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: That is not what is changed in this PR, correct?
16:06:48 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:07:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck : I am not sure if relates to the month example.
16:07:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: reviews the the PR , it appears the set of values is removed per Gundula's call out on that update to the PR edit.
16:07:53 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:08:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: May be best to take offline to review vs. propose in and accept.
16:08:38 <mbgower> I'd agree with that
16:09:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: Jake recommended this as it was an example on label that was not providing extra suggestion, might have not been best example , input field with month be added and input text error not much different.
16:09:03 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:09:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: It is not suggesting the solution it is just telling that it is an issue but not providing new information.
16:09:59 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: That would be a new change.
16:10:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: close off 1804 and then someone file another to add a password example for 3.3.3 .
16:10:44 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 1804 to address issues 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801
16:10:58 <alastairc> +1
16:10:59 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:11:07 <jon_avila> +0 I found it really hard to know what actually was changed.
16:11:09 <LoriO> +1
16:11:10 <mbgower> +1
16:11:15 <Chuck> +1
16:11:23 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
16:11:27 <kirkwood> +1
16:11:29 <Raf> +1
16:11:30 <ShawnT> +1
16:11:31 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:11:32 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 1804 to address issues 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801
16:11:35 <mbgower> q+
16:12:14 <ChrisLoiselle>  RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 1804 to address issues 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801
16:12:14 <Chuck> TOPIC Question 5 - WCAG F85: Clarify guidance about where the focus should go when the modal dialog is closed #518
16:12:14 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
16:12:14 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 5 - WCAG F85: Clarify guidance about where the focus should go when the modal dialog is closed #518
16:12:21 <mbgower> q+ to say maybe we should have a brief discussion about more usable ways of reviewing or commenting on these backlog issues?
16:12:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck : Question 5, dialog discussion. ARIA vs. WCAG conflicts. PR 3214.
16:12:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Patrick  wants focus in vs. focus on.
16:12:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Steve F. wants to refer to Patrick's comment.
16:13:00 <ChrisLoiselle> has adjustment been made?
16:13:04 <mbgower> q-
16:13:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: Don't think so.
16:13:11 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:13:53 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: in response to Gundula's proposed solution. On backlog items, is there a better way on introducing on what was changed ? Smaller changes?
16:13:54 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:14:10 <Chuck> q?
16:14:18 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:14:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: Wording on focus handling works well, however when dialogue goes away, put it on target. What happens when target is gone when closing the dialogue?
16:15:28 <ChrisLoiselle> data table and delete of row , destructive action then where does focus go? We put it back on item that proceeded it prior to deletion.
16:15:34 <LoriO> Q+
16:15:37 <bruce_bailey> +1 that data table with delete button in row would be a good example to address
16:15:49 <Chuck> ack Lori
16:15:50 <ChrisLoiselle> ... moving it forward is explicit language used in PR. I think both back and forward would be beneficial
16:16:07 <ChrisLoiselle> Lori : Data table that with only one row?
16:16:18 <jon_avila> q+
16:16:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: back up one element in DOM for context. Unless you jumped to there.
16:16:39 <Chuck> ack Jon
16:16:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Lori: Would go to headers of table?
16:16:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: that would be the case.
16:16:58 <alastairc> q+ to find where the issue in the PR is?
16:17:39 <ChrisLoiselle> Jon A: Talks to Trusted Tester and expanding button functionality. Focus discussion on focus moving forward vs. shift tabbing back in content.
16:18:02 <Chuck> ack ala
16:18:02 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to find where the issue in the PR is?
16:18:04 <ChrisLoiselle> ... on returning focus, it is a different conversation. If we are asking for user to do an action after a deletion .
16:18:05 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:18:48 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: On Mike's problem regarding Tables and deletion aspects vs. how it is written in PR currently.
16:19:05 <Chuck> q?
16:19:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: if we don't have the trigger control, what would we do.
16:19:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: If trigger control does not exist , then we wouldn't want the user to shift tab to know where focus is present.
16:20:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: if control exists, tabbing forward would place user one forward from triggering element.
16:20:38 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:20:43 <ChrisLoiselle> ...updates PR with comments working through issue.
16:20:46 <alastairc> Check whether moving the focus backwards once in the sequential navigation order puts focus on the trigger control, or if the trigger no longer exists the subsequent item.
16:20:50 <Chuck> ack Bru
16:20:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce : I think make the phrasing a second sentence.
16:20:57 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:21:32 <jon_avila> q+
16:21:39 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: If the triggering component....triggering seems very specific... never mind.
16:21:42 <Chuck> ack Jon
16:22:00 <ChrisLoiselle> Jon A: Sequential item need to be used? Could we previous interactive item?
16:22:02 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:22:07 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 3214 to address issue 518.
16:22:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: If you are moving forward tabbing would move you forward .
16:23:16 <ChrisLoiselle> Jon A: The subsequent navigable phrasing is confusing.
16:23:35 <Chuck> q?
16:23:37 <Chuck> q+
16:23:41 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:23:58 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: instead of tab , what if we talk about element should receive the focus?
16:24:24 <ChrisLoiselle> The element preceding the control
16:24:37 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Alastc's latest suggestion
16:24:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: check if the focus is on the trigger control.
16:24:43 <alastairc> Check whether the focus is on the trigger control. If the trigger control no longer exists then check whether the previous navigable item is focused.
16:24:44 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:24:48 <Chuck> +1
16:25:04 <mbgower> q+
16:25:05 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:25:09 <Chuck> ack mb
16:25:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: Francis on the call?
16:25:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: The wording has been altered but the step is pre-existing.  He isn't altering procedure just the wording of it.
16:26:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: I disagree with 3214 but it would be another issue.
16:26:14 <Chuck> q?
16:26:17 <Chuck> ack Br
16:26:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Mike G: I will open another issue for my points.
16:27:07 <mbgower> I think we should remove that change!
16:27:09 <alastairc> q+ to check about trigger not existing scenarios
16:27:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: Asking about second sentence about second trigger doesn't exist. Maybe skip that in PR 3214
16:27:19 <Chuck> ack ala
16:27:19 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to check about trigger not existing scenarios
16:27:44 <bruce_bailey> i agree that "triggers not existing" is worth addressing
16:27:59 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: I think we need to pursue this as it could be a use case where this may happen on a new page. Needs further rephrasing and work.
16:28:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck : We are at end of time. Mike G. pointed out that we are addressing out of scope changes. Perhaps we can review that process further in future meeting.
16:28:36 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:29:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: Focus in vs. on the trigger control.
16:29:12 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say we have some edits to keep
16:29:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: I'd need to review further.
16:29:15 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:29:17 <Chuck> ack Bru
16:29:17 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say we have some edits to keep
16:29:24 <ChrisLoiselle> Bruce : We have some edits worth accepting.
16:29:27 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
16:29:39 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair C: We will log this at front of next conversation to pick up.
16:29:44 <ChrisLoiselle> rssagent , make minutes
16:29:44 <Ben_Tillyer> Thanks everyone
16:30:02 <laura> Byr. Thanks.
16:30:12 <Chuck> rrsagent, make minutes
16:30:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/30-ag-minutes.html Chuck
16:30:19 <GN015> present+
16:33:22 <mbgower> I have created a new vague issue to track further discussion on F85 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3223
16:33:50 <mbgower> q+ to say occasionally the diff does NOT distinguish the change
16:35:17 <mbgower> Sure, I can undertake to summarize that in the description. Sometimes it is in the originating issue
16:36:16 <mbgower> q-
17:27:42 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag