14:40:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:40:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/18-ag-irc
14:41:00 <Rachael> zakim, start meeting
14:41:00 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:41:02 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:42:52 <Rachael> Agenda+ New members and topics https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Fe9Umitx/image.png
14:43:03 <Rachael> Agenda+ New members and topics
14:43:10 <Rachael> Agenda+ Announcements
14:43:20 <Rachael> Agenda+ Guidance for Policy subgroup update (5 minutes)
14:43:29 <Rachael> Agenda+ Error Notification https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/2#issuecomment-1635861716 (Piloting our new process)
14:44:24 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG2ICT Review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Third-content-review-by-AGWG2/
14:44:36 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.x backlog issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/
14:44:38 <Rachael> agenda?
14:44:46 <Rachael> zakim, close item 1
14:44:46 <Zakim> agendum 1, New members and topics https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Fe9Umitx/image.png, closed
14:44:48 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:44:48 <Zakim> 2. New members and topics [from Rachael]
14:44:48 <Rachael> agenda?
14:53:12 <Rachael> regrets: Dan
14:54:42 <dj> dj has joined #ag
14:54:45 <dj> present+
14:56:39 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
14:56:49 <Chuck> agenda?
14:58:06 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:58:38 <ShawnT> present+
14:59:06 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:59:11 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:59:17 <shadi> present+
14:59:27 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
14:59:39 <jeanne> present+
14:59:57 <Rachael> present+
15:00:10 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:00:21 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:00:21 <Wilco> present+
15:00:31 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:00:36 <maryjom> present+
15:00:37 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:00:42 <Chuck> present+
15:01:31 <dj_> dj_ has joined #ag
15:01:31 <alastairc> present+
15:01:31 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
15:01:31 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- New members and topics https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Fe9Umitx/image.png -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:01:31 <Rachael> zakim, close item 1
15:01:31 <Zakim> agendum 1, New members and topics https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Fe9Umitx/image.png, closed
15:01:31 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:01:31 <Zakim> 2. New members and topics [from Rachael]
15:01:33 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 2
15:01:33 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- New members and topics -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:01:34 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:01:44 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:02:08 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #ag
15:02:18 <JenStrickland_> JenStrickland_ has joined #ag
15:02:18 <dj__> dj__ has joined #ag
15:02:20 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:02:22 <dj__> scribe: dj__
15:02:26 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:02:34 <Makoto> present+
15:02:38 <scotto> scotto has joined #ag
15:02:46 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:02:48 <kevin> kevin has joined #ag
15:02:54 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:02:54 <dj__> Rachael: first topic: new member introductions
15:02:57 <LoriO> present+
15:03:02 <mbgower> present+
15:03:03 <scotto> present+
15:03:05 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
15:03:19 <JustineP> present+
15:03:20 <dj__> Daniel Henderson: I'm Daniel Henderson, he/him, from Texas
15:03:31 <Chuck> Welcome Daniel Henderson-Ede! (Not yet on IRC).
15:03:47 <mikeGower> mikeGower has joined #ag
15:03:51 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
15:03:54 <dj__> Kevin White: I'm not new, but I'm new to the group. I work for W3C and will be the team contact for the group in the near future.
15:03:58 <ToddL> present+
15:04:03 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 3
15:04:03 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:04:05 <dj__> Rachel: Anyone else have a new role?
15:04:08 <kevin> present+
15:04:18 <dj__> ... Next topic: announcements.
15:04:19 <Rachael> TPAC Registration Reminder https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/registration.html
15:04:46 <Rachael> WCAG 2.2 is approved for moving to Proposed Recommendation on Thursday. We are aiming for August 22nd for Rec publication. You can see the updated summer schedule at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dMUwBqq5LYintI5xF5s3u6jTNnhb43PuQwR8-8kMSZU/edit#heading=h.z5r9gp6oigb7
15:04:49 <kirkwood> present+
15:04:56 <dj___> dj___ has joined #ag
15:05:03 <dj___> scribe: dj___
15:05:08 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:05:14 <dj___> Rachel: 1. Register for TPAC in spet
15:05:14 <MichaelC> present+
15:05:16 <sarahhorton> present+
15:05:19 <Rachael> CFC is open until Thursday for updating the WCAG 3 working draft
15:05:23 <dj___> ... 2. WCAG 2.2 come out on the 22nd
15:05:36 <Rachael> Subgroups will be starting in the next week or so
15:05:37 <dj___> ... 3. We have a working draft for WCAG 3, so make sure to respond
15:05:45 <Rachael> a.	Harm from motion Mondays at 8 eastern
15:05:50 <dj___> ... 4. New subgroups starting
15:05:57 <Rachael> Content order Mondays at 10 eastern
15:06:09 <Rachael> Timing and interruptions Mondays at 12 eastern
15:06:33 <Rachael> group-ag-plan@w3.org
15:06:39 <dj___> ... If interested to sign up or know someone, please do because the subgroups are light
15:06:42 <Rachael> q?
15:06:52 <dj___> ... Any questions on announcements?
15:06:56 <dj___> q+
15:07:05 <Rachael> ack dj__
15:07:05 <Chuck> q+ Chuck
15:07:08 <Chuck> DJ:  Where can we register for the subgroups?
15:07:11 <JenStrickland_> Nat Tarnoff would be an excellent invite for vestibular disorders.
15:07:14 <dj___> DJ: where can we register?
15:07:19 <Daniel_Henderson-Ede> Daniel_Henderson-Ede has joined #ag
15:07:26 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:07:30 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
15:07:33 <dj___> Rachel: In the email
15:07:46 <JenStrickland_> I will email you and them.
15:07:48 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 4
15:07:48 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Guidance for Policy subgroup update (5 minutes) -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:08:14 <alastairc> regrets+ BenT
15:08:18 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:08:23 <dj___> Shadi: Final subgroup meeting next week.
15:08:26 <kirkwood_> kirkwood_ has joined #AG
15:08:29 <Detlev> present+
15:08:47 <Rachael> q?
15:08:50 <Jaunita_George> present+
15:09:14 <dj___> ... We still need to do some things, but there's mostly consensus.
15:09:31 <Jaunita_George> We should continue this in the next round of subgroup work
15:09:42 <dj___> ... "Last minute curve balls" are certainly welcome
15:10:12 <dj___> ... Working on introductions vel sim right now to explain context and group perspective.
15:10:40 <dj___> ... By next week, we hope to have something solid enough for the WG to understand.
15:10:45 <Rachael> q?
15:10:56 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 5
15:10:56 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Error Notification https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/2#issuecomment-1635861716 (Piloting our new process) -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:10:57 <JenStrickland_> present+
15:10:58 <dj___> Rachel: Thank you.
15:11:15 <dj___> ... Moving to next topic.
15:11:47 <dj___> ... Last week, we sought feedback and open Error Notification PR
15:12:17 <dj___> ... We have placeholder guidelines at this point
15:12:38 <dj___> ... Two subgroups are working on moving them to exploratory
15:12:57 <dj___> ... In Github, there is a summary of why this PR exists
15:13:14 <dj___> ... In this meeting, we want you to read through the PR and give feedback
15:13:33 <dj___> ... For next week, we want you to actually review the content and give thumbs up or down
15:13:45 <dj___> ... We will then move the Google Doc comments to Github
15:14:18 <dj___> ... Thank you Wilco an jeanne for translating the informative text to Markdown.
15:15:03 <dj___> ... Not all links work right now because we are moving repositories, but this will be fixed within a month or two
15:15:11 <GN015> q+
15:15:15 <dj___> ... Does anyone have questions on the process?
15:15:17 <Rachael> ack GN015
15:15:20 <Rachael> ack gn
15:15:55 <dj___> GN015: I did not find the same text in the Google Doc as in the PR, and I also did not have the rights to comment on the Google Doc.
15:16:03 <dj___> Rachel: Good catch. We will fix that.
15:16:38 <GN015> How is a thumbs or thumbs down done?
15:16:40 <alastairc> Comments encouraged...
15:16:41 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:16:50 <Rachael> q?
15:16:51 <dj___> ... In the lower left hand corner of the PR comment, you can press the smiley face to give a thumbs up or down if you want a simple reaction
15:17:08 <David_Middleton> David_Middleton has joined #ag
15:17:09 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
15:17:09 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:17:10 <Zakim> 2. New members and topics [from Rachael]
15:17:10 <Zakim> 3. Announcements [from Rachael]
15:17:10 <Zakim> 4. Guidance for Policy subgroup update (5 minutes) [from Rachael]
15:17:10 <Zakim> 5. Error Notification https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/2#issuecomment-1635861716 (Piloting our new process) [from Rachael]
15:17:12 <Zakim> 6. WCAG2ICT Review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Third-content-review-by-AGWG2/ [from Rachael]
15:17:12 <Zakim> 7. WCAG 2.x backlog issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/ [from Rachael]
15:17:22 <GN015> q+
15:17:32 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:17:33 <Rachael> ack GN
15:17:43 <dj___> ... This is meant as a trial on the new workflow. If you struggle a lot, please let us know.
15:17:51 <Chuck> q+
15:17:53 <dj___> GN015: How do I perform a thumbs up or down
15:18:03 <Rachael> ack Chuck
15:18:04 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:18:09 <alastairc> q+
15:18:17 <dj___> Rachael: Press the smiley face. It's also keyboard accessible.
15:18:25 <JenStrickland_> q+
15:18:26 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:18:32 <dj___> Chuck: You also need to be logged in to Github
15:19:00 <dj___> Alastair: If you want to suggest specific changes as well, you can also add a comment to the PR or Google Doc
15:19:14 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:19:18 <Rachael> ack JenStrickland_
15:19:21 <AWK> +AWK
15:19:24 <dj___> DJ: Apologies to Rachael for spelling their name incorrectly previously.
15:20:03 <MichaelC> q+
15:20:05 <dj___> Jen: When I first started participating in W3C, I had to go through a process to associate my Github account with W3C. Do people need permissions to react to PRs?
15:20:06 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
15:20:15 <alastairc> not for reactions, only for commits
15:20:33 <dj___> MichaelC: Yes. Your username needs to be added, which is manual. I can add you.
15:20:40 <Rachael> q?
15:20:48 <dj___> Rachael: If you have issues, email AG plan or AG chairs and we will help you.
15:20:49 <JenStrickland_> I think each reaction should be associated with a GitHub account that can be traced to a W3C member.
15:21:04 <Rachael> q?
15:21:12 <JenStrickland_> I understand Rachael — and I'm in the W3C GitHub. I was thinking more of the folks who are new.
15:21:34 <dj___> Alastair: We cannot restrict reactions to W3C members
15:21:42 <AWK> zakim, draft minutes
15:21:42 <Zakim> I don't understand 'draft minutes', AWK
15:21:45 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 6
15:21:45 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- WCAG2ICT Review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Third-content-review-by-AGWG2/ -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:22:22 <dj___> maryjom: WCAG2ICT just reached a new milestone.
15:22:47 <dj___> ... We've completed new guidance for some criteria
15:22:57 <dj___> ... We also added and updated glossary definitions
15:23:15 <laura> I'm getting "You are NOT allowed to see this questionnaire" for https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Third-content-review-by-AGWG2/
15:23:29 <dj___> ... We've also created a new survey for the AGWG to complete
15:23:33 <kirkwood> don’t have access
15:23:43 <Chuck> can you try again?
15:23:47 <Chuck> I just updated this second.
15:23:47 <dj___> ... it's in IRC. It's not super long and we want your input.
15:24:09 <laura> Thanks check.
15:24:15 <kirkwood> sorry yes my bad
15:24:20 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:24:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/18-ag-minutes.html AWK
15:24:29 <Chuck> Checked by Chuck.  Everyone should now have access.
15:24:52 <dj___> ... After this survey, we will work on getting 2.1 in there. Later on, we will work on getting 2.2 in there once it's more stable
15:24:57 <laura> s/check./Chuck./
15:25:03 <Chuck> q+
15:25:04 <Rachael> q?
15:25:06 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:25:06 <Rachael> ack Chuck
15:25:11 <dj___> ... Please let us know if you find any blocking errors in the survey
15:25:15 <dj___> Rachael: any questions?
15:25:23 <kirkwood> working now
15:25:26 <Rachael> q?
15:25:33 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 7
15:25:33 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- WCAG 2.x backlog issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/ -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:25:34 <dj___> Chuck: I just did a quick update to give people access. Please let me know if you still don't have access
15:25:46 <dj___> Rachael: Item 7: WCAG 2.x backlog issues.
15:25:53 <Rachael> TOPIC: 4. Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video #1836
15:25:54 <dj___> ... We're going out of order
15:26:07 <dj___> ... Topic 4: Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video
15:26:10 <Chuck> q+
15:26:33 <dj___> Alastair: The audio-only citerion mentions video conferencing.
15:26:40 <dj___> ... There is a PR to fix the wording
15:26:41 <shawn> present+ Shawn(part)
15:27:01 <bruce_bailey> q+ for my edititorial
15:27:28 <dj___> Charles: Rachael had to step away so I'm jumping in as backup chair
15:27:28 <Chuck> ack
15:27:34 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:27:37 <dj___> ... Moving on from WCAG 3 to 2.2 now.
15:27:45 <bruce_bailey> i think "voice conferencing" should be "audio conferencing"
15:28:15 <LoriO> Have to drop for another appt. /quit
15:28:25 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 1837 to address issue 1836.
15:28:26 <LoriO> LoriO has left #ag
15:28:31 <dj___> alastairc: "Web-based voice conferencing" is original; Bruce is suggesting "audio" instead of "voice"
15:28:36 <GN015> q+
15:28:39 <dj___> ... I don't see a lot of difference; mostly preference
15:28:41 <Chuck> ack bruc
15:28:41 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss my edititorial
15:28:44 <Chuck> ack GN
15:28:58 <Chuck> back to you Rachael
15:29:13 <Rachael> q?
15:29:19 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:29:28 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:29:38 <dj___> GN015: I also feel that "voice conference" focuses on a voice is being heard. I prefer "voice"
15:29:45 <mikeGower> mikeGower has joined #ag
15:30:13 <dj___> bruce_bailey: "audio" is parallel to "video". saying "voice conferencing" is like saying "sight conferencing". i don't have a strong objection though
15:30:18 <Rachael> Straw poll Voice Conference or Audio Conference
15:30:19 <dj___> Rachael: let's do a straw pole
15:30:24 <JenStrickland_> could it be web conferencing without audio or visual distinction?
15:30:28 <bruce_bailey> voice conferencing is parallel to sight conferencing
15:30:29 <jon_avila> Audio
15:30:32 <dj___> audio
15:30:32 <Chuck> audio conference, will not object to voice conference
15:30:35 <AWK> either
15:30:36 <mikeGower> Voice, worried about music, etx
15:30:36 <GN015> voice
15:30:41 <JenStrickland_> audio
15:30:42 <kirkwood> audio
15:30:42 <ToddL> audio
15:30:45 <ShawnT> either
15:30:48 <alastairc> "voice conferencing", but either
15:30:59 <laura> either
15:31:01 <scotto> either...
15:31:02 <bruce_bailey> music is also captioned
15:31:05 <mikeGower> Q+
15:31:06 <Chuck> 5 for audio 3 for voice, many either
15:31:08 <Rachael> ack mikeGower
15:31:26 <dj___> mikeGower: I was wondering about music lyrics and things like that
15:31:43 <dj___> ... it seems to me that music is specifically excluded from this. Is that correct?
15:32:03 <AWK> This is just an example.
15:32:09 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:32:19 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:32:22 <Makoto> either will work in terms of translation (into Japanese)
15:32:25 <AWK> "such as"
15:32:28 <dj___> alastairc: *reads SC*
15:32:42 <dj___> bruce_bailey: there is a tradition of having captions for music
15:32:49 <kirkwood> “radio webcasts” are much more creative with their audio … an audio designers job
15:32:58 <shawn> audio matches the SC
15:33:05 <dj___> ... I also think it's more common to say "video conferencing" and "audio conferencing"
15:33:28 <dj___> Rachael: there is a slight preference to "audio" and it also matches the SC. can you accept "audio"?
15:33:35 <mikeGower> Fine
15:33:42 <GN015> I will not argue on whether voice or audio
15:33:42 <dj___> ... Anyone uncomfortable with "audio"?
15:33:48 <Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Adopt Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video #1836  with change to audio conferencing.
15:34:00 <bruce_bailey> +
15:34:02 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:34:02 <Chuck> +1
15:34:03 <ToddL> +1
15:34:06 <GN015> +1
15:34:07 <alastairc> +1
15:34:08 <dj___> ... vote on the draft resolution with change to "audio"
15:34:09 <kirkwood> +1
15:34:09 <dj___> +1
15:34:11 <Rachael> +1
15:34:14 <Makoto> +1
15:34:14 <jon_avila> +1
15:34:17 <scotto> +1
15:34:27 <Detlev> not sure
15:34:53 <JenStrickland_> +1
15:34:55 <dj___> ... Detlev do you have concerns?
15:34:56 <laura> +1
15:35:02 <dj___> Detlev: not sure whether this is an improvement
15:35:09 <bruce_bailey> thank you, it is not only voice which gets into captioning streams
15:35:12 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Adopt Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video #1836  with change to audio conferencing.
15:35:13 <dj___> Rachael: ok, we will go ahead and accept the resolution
15:35:25 <Rachael> TOPIC: 5. Non-text Contrast - Figure on background changes #2494
15:35:42 <dj___> ... our next topic is #5 on the survey (Non-text contrast changes)
15:35:50 <Chuck> draft RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494
15:36:19 <dj___> alastairc: one of the examples that said that it wouldn't pass did actually pass, which has since been corrected
15:36:29 <dj___> ... also we are using higher quality screen shots now
15:36:41 <dj___> Rachael: 9 people agreed with the update, nothing else happened
15:36:48 <dj___> ... any concerns?
15:37:07 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494
15:37:07 <alastairc> +1
15:37:08 <Chuck> draft RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494
15:37:09 <ToddL> +1
15:37:11 <dj___> ... vote
15:37:11 <GN015> +1
15:37:12 <ShawnT> +1
15:37:13 <JenStrickland_> +1
15:37:13 <Chuck> +1
15:37:15 <scotto> +1
15:37:17 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:37:17 <Detlev> +1
15:37:18 <dj___> +1
15:37:18 <Rachael> +1
15:37:18 <Daniel_Henderson-Ede> +1
15:37:18 <Makoto> +1
15:37:21 <laura> +1
15:37:27 <kirkwood> +1
15:37:43 <Rachael> RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494
15:37:44 <Chuck> all +1s, no 0's, no -1's
15:37:51 <Rachael> TOPIC: Adjustment to 'in brief' sections
15:37:52 <dj___> ... unanimous, so let's accept the resolution
15:38:13 <dj___> ... back to q 1 of the survey (adjustment to "in brief" sections)
15:38:34 <dj___> alastairc: outreach group wanted intro at beginning of text and adding why it's important
15:38:50 <dj___> ... I don't think it's worth going through content changes
15:39:27 <dj___> Rachael: 6 agree with the update, 4 agree with the changes
15:39:44 <dj___> ... laura said "great job" and found a typo
15:40:01 <dj___> ... GN015 agreed and put in editorial comments
15:40:28 <dj___> GN015: first one (accessible authentication) is not editorial
15:41:10 <dj___> ... "don't make people recognize" and "don't make people [?] to log in" feel the same
15:41:29 <dj___> ... focus not obscured enhanced/minimum feel the same
15:42:05 <dj___> ... "target size minimum": i prefer "cannot" over "find it hard to"
15:42:15 <dj___> Rachael: these are content edits, thank you
15:42:25 <dj___> ... we can address these outside the meeting
15:42:38 <Rachael> q?
15:42:47 <AWK> q+
15:42:51 <Rachael> ack AWK
15:42:53 <dj___> Rachael: anyone else who commented want to speak?
15:43:17 <dj___> AWK: is having this text above the SC text a good idea?
15:43:30 <dj___> ... i feel like people will think this is the normative text
15:43:35 <dj___> ... do other people feel similarly?
15:43:40 <alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/wcag22inbriefEOW/understanding/22/accessible-authentication-minimum.html
15:43:48 <dj___> Rachael: alastairc is showing what this looks like
15:43:51 <alastairc> q+
15:43:54 <dj___> ... let's discuss this
15:43:55 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:44:06 <dj___> alastairc: i felt similarly initially
15:44:21 <bruce_bailey> q+ for exactly the lines for which AWK has concern?
15:44:28 <shawn> q+
15:44:30 <dj___> ... having "in brief" as a lead-in helps people who don't understand the SCs
15:44:33 <kirkwood> better from Cognitive perspective
15:44:40 <jon_avila> I agree with Andrew.  Perhaps we can make the actual SC text more clear that it's the official requirement or messaging.
15:45:00 <AWK> q+
15:45:08 <kirkwood> q+
15:45:15 <dj___> ... maybe we should put text in saying "the in brief is a summary and below it is the actual SC"
15:45:19 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:45:19 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss exactly the lines for which AWK has concern?
15:45:29 <dj___> bruce_bailey: thank you
15:45:44 <dj___> ... is your concern the whole "in brief" section being above the SC text?
15:45:47 <dj___> AWK: yes
15:45:52 <Rachael> ack shawn
15:46:00 <AWK> q+ to ask if it is possible to include this information in the right rail (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/audio-only-and-video-only-prerecorded)
15:46:09 <alastairc> The main options are either: Above the SC text, or at the top of the intent.
15:46:24 <dj___> shawn: the education at reach WG was concerned with the complexity of the SC criteria, but the points they address are simple
15:46:38 <dj___> ... which is why we suggested the brief go first: so that people aren't overwhelmed
15:46:45 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask where is SC text with AA example?
15:46:57 <Rachael> ack AWK
15:46:57 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if it is possible to include this information in the right rail (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/audio-only-and-video-only-prerecorded)
15:47:19 <dj___> AWK: if you go to the link i put in IRC, there's a "page contents" section on the right
15:47:33 <dj___> ... it feels like the "in briefs" might go best in the right rails
15:47:36 <Rachael> q+ to scribe change
15:47:36 <dj___> s/rails/rail
15:47:46 <Rachael> ack kirkwood
15:47:51 <dj___> ... because they are complimentary
15:47:54 <jon_avila> Regarding the right sidebar In responsive views when you zoom in it will still be above the SC.
15:48:01 <bruce_bailey> to be clear, i am very much a fan of this "in brief" work !
15:48:35 <dj___> John kirkwood: i think it's been said that the complexity of what we have makes it hard to get an understanding when you get on the page
15:49:19 <dj___> ... i think it's a fantastic improvement to have the more understandable statement up front
15:49:19 <mikeGower> q+
15:49:19 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:49:19 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask where is SC text with AA example?
15:49:19 <dj___> ... better cognitive accessibility
15:49:19 <alastairc> q+ on the main options for where it could go
15:49:19 <dj___> bruce_bailey: i'm also a fan of the "in brief" sections
15:49:55 <shawn> s/the education at reach WG/the education and outreach WG
15:50:02 <dj___> ... i didn't see the SC text in the preview?
15:50:22 <dj___> alastairc: the preview is bare-bones; once it's actually done you can see it better
15:50:36 <alastairc> q-
15:50:46 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:50:46 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to scribe change
15:50:50 <jon_avila> I am good with the brief at the top - just that we clarify the SC is required.
15:50:54 <kirkwood> recommend putting placeholder SC text to make less confusing?
15:51:09 <dj___> Rachael: new scribe?
15:51:16 <dj___> bruce_bailey: I can in 3 minutes
15:51:23 <dj___> Rachael: dj can you continue to scribe
15:51:27 <shawn> version with In Brief (old wording) before the SC wording with styleing: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6991814/244842394-5807b3c3-ff00-4cef-a74f-db55d69f0e5f.png
15:51:31 <Rachael> q?
15:51:36 <dj___> dj: certainly
15:51:38 <Rachael> ak mikeGower
15:51:46 <dj___> Rachael: mike dower?
15:52:04 <dj___> s/dower/gower
15:52:10 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
15:52:43 <dj___> mikeGower: the in brief is basically a shortened version of the understanding docs, which is good
15:52:44 <AWK> Do we have any user stats on how people arrive at the page - actual data?
15:52:45 <bruce_bailey> mikeGower:  most people will already have seen SC text before hitting Understanding page...
15:52:56 <Rachael> q?
15:52:59 <Rachael> ack mikeGower
15:53:05 <kirkwood> +1 to Mike
15:53:06 <alastairc> AWK - when we've asked MichaelC previously the answer was no
15:53:15 <bruce_bailey> ... want to endorse this "in brief" approach based on experience with developers
15:53:17 <AWK> Maybe we should make the SC text collapsable in the understanding template
15:53:24 <Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) Keep in Brief at top of page 2) Place In Brief in the right sidebar 3) Place the in Brief below SC text
15:53:58 <Chuck> 1, 3
15:53:58 <bruce_bailey> shawn:  I have some before and after urls to see the different approaches
15:54:03 <Wilco> 1, 3, 2
15:54:05 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:54:09 <jon_avila> 1
15:54:11 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:54:21 <Chuck> bruce:  Double checking with Shawn, you are all big fans of this?
15:54:21 <JenStrickland_> 1
15:54:26 <mikeGower> 1, haven't seen 2, so hard to visualize
15:54:27 <Chuck> bruce:  Your proposal?
15:54:29 <kirkwood> 1, 2, 3
15:54:29 <ToddL> 1, 3, 2
15:54:35 <GN015> 3 or 1
15:54:35 <ShawnT> 1, 2, 3
15:54:36 <Daniel_Henderson-Ede> 1, 3
15:54:38 <Rachael> 1, can live with 2
15:54:44 <alastairc> 1, 3, not sure 2 would work in that width.
15:54:50 <AWK> 2,1,3
15:54:52 <bruce_bailey> bruce asks Shawn to clarifythat EOW strongly advocates this approach
15:54:54 <Detlev> 1, 2, 3
15:54:57 <shadi> 1
15:55:00 <Chuck> q+ to summarize
15:55:00 <bruce_bailey>  SLH;  YES
15:55:08 <JenStrickland_> 1 — thinking of reading order rather than visual design, my expectation is that it the In Brief comes before.
15:55:09 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:55:09 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to summarize
15:55:15 <scotto> 1, 3.
15:55:18 <Rachael> ack Chuck
15:55:36 <bruce_bailey> Shawn:  Please see git hub issues for conversations and input
15:55:36 <alastairc> q+ to ask if it's worth saying "Success Criterion (SC) - the requirement"
15:55:49 <laura> 1, 2, 3. If one make the SC text look more official.
15:55:55 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:55:55 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if it's worth saying "Success Criterion (SC) - the requirement"
15:56:21 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:56:31 <bruce_bailey> Rachael asks for strong concerns with any of the approaches?
15:56:51 <Rachael> q?
15:56:52 <mikeGower> In terms of feedback on editorial changes, im trying to address each in turn
15:56:58 <GN015> q+
15:56:59 <laura> +1 to AC
15:57:06 <Rachael> ack GN
15:57:06 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Synthesizing some of the feedback, there could be some additional ways we could put emphasis on the SC text.
15:57:27 <bruce_bailey> GN015:  I am worked that sidebar might too easily be over looked
15:57:27 <shadi> +1 to GN
15:57:28 <Chuck> +1 similar concerns as shared by Gundula
15:57:28 <kirkwood> sidebar concerns me a lot too.
15:57:56 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the new placement and structure of In Brief and work on emphasizing the SC
15:58:06 <laura> q+ to ask From the Understanding Document how do you get back to the spec?
15:58:12 <JenStrickland_> Noting a concern that the sidebar is exclusive to desktop / tablet visual design.
15:58:15 <Jaunita_George> +1
15:58:15 <Rachael> ack laura
15:58:15 <Zakim> laura, you wanted to ask From the Understanding Document how do you get back to the spec?
15:58:36 <bruce_bailey> laura:  side comment, from Understanding, how does one get to spec ?
15:59:12 <shadi> q+
15:59:22 <bruce_bailey> scotto:  I has similar concern
15:59:24 <Rachael> Kevin and Shawn have an action to add a way back to the Spec from the new understanding docs
15:59:30 <Rachael> ack shadi
15:59:43 <scotto> yes, the previous versions did have a link back to the spec
15:59:44 <bruce_bailey> shawn:  i will take action item to look into that
15:59:53 <kevin> qq+
15:59:54 <mikeGower> Off topic. Suggest someone open an issue on navigation
15:59:59 <AWK> Was in WCAG 2.0 days: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html
16:00:01 <Rachael> ack kevin
16:00:01 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to shadi
16:00:11 <Wilco> +1 Mike
16:00:20 <Rachael> q+
16:00:30 <Rachael> ack Rachael
16:00:32 <Chuck> +1 to mikeGower, it's notable and needs to be addressed, but not in scope with survey question.
16:00:33 <scotto> q+
16:00:45 <bruce_bailey> shadi:  I like where this is going, and that redesign does not break back button -- so that is still a way
16:00:49 <Rachael> ack scotto
16:00:56 <jon_avila> Yes there was a link to the SC!
16:01:01 <Detlev> many people will find understanding doc from search and can't use back button
16:01:02 <bruce_bailey> question if link to SC was in previous version
16:01:05 <AWK> See https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html for an example
16:01:18 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the new placement and structure of In Brief and work on emphasizing the SC
16:01:20 <bruce_bailey> scotto:  I am sure there was an explicit link previously.
16:01:28 <Chuck> +1
16:01:35 <laura> +1
16:01:37 <Rachael> +1
16:01:38 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
16:01:39 <shawn> +1 from EOWG to put In Brief before SC
16:01:39 <Detlev> +1
16:01:39 <ShawnT> +1
16:01:40 <jon_avila> +1
16:01:42 <Makoto> +1
16:01:43 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I will table the link discussion , please vote
16:01:43 <kirkwood> +1
16:01:44 <mikeGower> +1
16:01:48 <GN015> +0.7
16:01:49 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:01:53 <alastairc> +1
16:01:58 <JenStrickland_> +1
16:02:04 <ToddL> +!
16:02:06 <ToddL> +1
16:02:09 <Chuck> 17.7 for :-)
16:02:18 <mikeGower> q+
16:02:27 <AWK> /me didn't say it was obvious, just present :)
16:02:29 <Chuck> 16.7, sorry
16:02:32 <shadi> [2.0 structure sent people in circles because people who came from the QuickRef to the Understanding were sent back to the spec rather than to the QuickRef, and they were disoriented]
16:02:40 <Rachael> ack mikeGower
16:03:08 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We will continue working.
16:03:10 <AWK> s/\/\/me didn't say it was obvious, just present :)/
16:03:24 <alastairc> Thank you for keeping the 2.2 and 2.1/0 separate!
16:03:42 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Accept the new placement and structure of In Brief and work on emphasizing the SC
16:03:47 <Rachael> q?
16:03:48 <shadi> great work Mike & EOWG!
16:03:48 <Rachael> TOPIC: Parsing update for WCAG 2.1 understanding #3280
16:04:00 <bruce_bailey> mikeGower: There might be oportunity to unify Understanding between 2.0 .1 and .2
16:05:04 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Reminding all of history, that 2.2 drops parsing SC, but Understanding for 2.1 left a bit of gap...
16:05:51 <bruce_bailey> ... so this PR is just adding a brief paragraph, replacing much longer content from previous Understanding version for 2.1....
16:06:33 <bruce_bailey> ... just adding linkage for explainaion
16:06:35 <bruce_bailey> With a statement like "the HTML Standard has adopted specific requirements" is there part of HTML5 specification which might be pointed to?
16:07:03 <Chuck> Bruce:  Is it literally true?  I accept that it is.  If there's a change to the HTML specs, there should be a link.  Is that a literally correct statement?
16:07:05 <alastairc> q+
16:07:10 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:07:12 <bruce_bailey> bruce asks if statement is literally true?
16:07:52 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Answer is kind of both, since it has all been evolving together, statement is true
16:08:10 <alastairc> q+ on Wilco's point
16:08:31 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  In survey Wilco we had CFC.
16:09:03 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:09:03 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on Wilco's point
16:09:04 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  This is just a little bit more of an addendum to tie the different version together.
16:09:30 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  This will probably mean that we have to do a "republication" CFC
16:10:14 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  I am still not clear how this is not something we already approved.
16:10:46 <scotto> here is just one link to some of content in the HTML spec about how the parser works, where there was no parsing section in html 4 - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#an-introduction-to-error-handling-and-strange-cases-in-the-parser
16:11:05 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  When the Understanding is republished, this PR will update for the part which had correct.
16:11:10 <Rachael> q?
16:11:39 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  The Understanding update show up in the repo, so why is this PR needed?
16:12:20 <shawn> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:12:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/18-ag-minutes.html shawn
16:13:00 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  PR won't effect 2.2 Understanding.  Update was not approved for 2.0.  This PR is just for 2.1, which was approved, but there are some bugs which this resolves.
16:13:02 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Please remember these are Understanding document.
16:13:04 <Rachael> q?
16:13:07 <Wilco> q+
16:13:26 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Correct, except for 2.0 Understanding which is in TR space.
16:14:02 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept Parsing update for WCAG 2.1 understanding #3280
16:14:06 <Chuck> +1
16:14:07 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:14:08 <Wilco> +1
16:14:09 <ToddL> +1
16:14:10 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:14:19 <GN015> +1
16:14:20 <ShawnT> +1
16:14:21 <mikeGower> mikeGower has joined #ag
16:14:22 <Detlev> +1
16:14:23 <bruce_bailey> Wilco and Alastair confirm this is all approved CFC updates Understanding
16:14:23 <Rachael> +1
16:14:24 <Makoto> +1
16:14:27 <Daniel_Henderson-Ede> +1
16:14:33 <mikeGower> +1
16:14:35 <jon_avila> +1
16:14:35 <laura> +1
16:14:36 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
16:14:42 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Accept Parsing update for WCAG 2.1 understanding #3280
16:14:52 <Rachael> TOPIC: Suggested improvement to Understanding 2.2.1: Timing Adjustable #1814
16:15:14 <Rachael> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3281
16:15:33 <Jaunita_George> We should add an example that talks about MFA
16:15:36 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Timing Adjustable has requirements for things which disappear, especially without user interaction....
16:16:36 <bruce_bailey> ... Some time ago AWK started issue and we have PR to add paragraph allowing for Toasts as example
16:17:25 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  (from survey) GN015 had wording suggestion because Toast might have unique information.
16:17:41 <GN015> agree to Jaunita concerning MFA
16:17:48 <Chuck> Bruce:  I think it matches Gundula's comments.  Not all toasts have alternatives.
16:17:50 <kirkwood> agree with Gundula and Bruce
16:18:12 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Wilco had an edit
16:18:37 <jon_avila> I'm thinking of success or failure messages that appear and then disappear but aren't traditional toast notifications - so I agree that if we want this to apply beyond toast.
16:18:47 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Mike Gower in survey agreed in concept, but there is still tension from normative SC
16:19:11 <Rachael> regrets+ Ben
16:19:31 <bruce_bailey> mikeGower:  It is a timed based event, the justification provided so far is just not quite good enough...
16:19:48 <bruce_bailey> ...still seems like a normative change from Understanding.
16:19:57 <alastairc> q+ on alternative methods
16:20:02 <Chuck> q+ to say that this is toast specific
16:20:06 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:20:13 <Wilco> q-
16:20:18 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:20:18 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on alternative methods
16:20:18 <Jaunita_George> q+
16:20:20 <bruce_bailey> mikeGower:  RAR prohibits even microsecond timed event
16:21:05 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  To m gower point, we have explicit exceptions in other SC...
16:21:38 <Rachael> ack Chuck
16:21:38 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that this is toast specific
16:21:56 <bruce_bailey> ... Reflow is an example where there is an implicit Conforming Alternative Version, as screen resizes some text might be lost, but SC phrasing needs only one.
16:22:39 <Rachael> ack Jaunita_George
16:22:46 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  M Gower , i see how you get there with your concern.   Still, the suggested answer is still a huge improvement over status quo.
16:23:19 <Rachael> q+
16:23:31 <Rachael> ack Rachael
16:23:38 <mikeGower> Yep, essential I'd say Juanita
16:23:38 <bruce_bailey> Jaunita_George:  I had similar question with authentication that has time limit.  We should have more examples with security and real time exception.
16:24:12 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Okay, but that is a new Issue please, not this exact situation.
16:24:26 <Rachael> Straw poll: Does this SC text support the change? Yes / No
16:24:30 <bruce_bailey> Jaunita_George agrees to submit issue for security time outs.
16:24:30 <mikeGower> No
16:24:46 <alastairc> Not directly, but alternative conforming versions does
16:24:48 <Wilco> No -- but the CAV does
16:24:50 <GN015> yes
16:24:59 <Chuck> I concede "no-ish", but still think the change is ok.
16:25:08 <Rachael> Straw poll: Does this SC text or SC text + Alternative Conforming Version support the change? Yes / No
16:25:09 <Detlev> yes I think it is a reasonable change
16:25:10 <jon_avila> Yes
16:25:17 <Wilco> yes, then
16:25:58 <bruce_bailey> q+ to mention i don't think we need reference CAG
16:26:03 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:26:03 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention i don't think we need reference CAG
16:26:36 <Rachael> q?
16:26:42 <Chuck> I wasn't able to capture Bruce's thoughts.
16:26:53 <Chuck> q+
16:27:12 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  no need to resort to  CAV
16:27:13 <mikeGower> I WANT this change, I just don't think it's supported by the normative text
16:27:22 <Wilco> Can someone explain why conforming alternative version wouldn't allow for this?
16:27:35 <mikeGower> Q+
16:27:45 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  I am not entirely sure I am tracking all the suggested edits
16:28:04 <scotto> q+
16:28:09 <Rachael> ack Chuck
16:28:15 <bruce_bailey> GN015:  I am concerned with information conveyed, not the toast itself
16:28:38 <Rachael> ack mikeGower
16:28:47 <scotto> q-
16:28:48 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I want to think about this more
16:28:58 <bruce_bailey> mikeGower:  SC says what it says
16:29:25 <bruce_bailey> mikeGower:  What is the CAV for a notice
16:29:30 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:29:40 <alastairc> Agree that some would pass and some would fail, depending on the content of the message
16:29:46 <Chuck> Jaunita, there's a section in the understanding document "Notes regarding server time limits" that has some content applicable to login timings and (my interpretation) dual factor situations.
16:29:56 <bruce_bailey> mikeGower:  "you've got mail" toast is problematic
16:29:58 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:30:12 <Rachael> q?
16:30:13 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We are at time
16:30:16 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:30:20 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:30:53 <Chuck> Bruce:  Not all toasts are created equal.  "You've got mail" is for information you don't have any other way.  Our access board has a mechanism to view past messages.
16:31:47 <Chuck> That looks like a progress bar
16:31:55 <Rachael> q?
16:32:05 <ShawnT> present+
16:32:06 <ToddL> present+
16:32:09 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
16:32:10 <GN015> present+
16:32:12 <bruce_bailey> Bruce defend toast links on access board site
16:32:14 <kirkwood> present+
16:32:16 <David_Middleton> present+
16:32:41 <mikeGower> That's informative reinforcement.
16:33:03 <Chuck> zakim, generate minutes
16:33:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'generate minutes', Chuck
16:33:07 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
16:33:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/18-ag-minutes.html alastairc
16:34:47 <Chuck> interesting, not seeing minutes
16:34:47 <Chuck> just going in slow motion
16:34:47 <alastairc> seems ok: https://www.w3.org/2023/07/18-ag-minutes.html
16:37:46 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-supplementary-content
16:43:11 <alastairc> Shame the concept of supplimental content is only used in 1 SC, rather than CAV