IRC log of ag on 2023-07-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

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