– DRAFT –
AGWG Teleconference

New members and topics https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Fe9Umitx/image.png

New members and topics

Rachael: first topic: new member introductions

Daniel Henderson: I'm Daniel Henderson, he/him, from Texas

<Chuck> Welcome Daniel Henderson-Ede! (Not yet on IRC).

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.

Announcements

Rachel: Anyone else have a new role?
… Next topic: announcements.

<Rachael> TPAC Registration Reminder https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/registration.html

<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

Rachel: 1. Register for TPAC in spet

<Rachael> CFC is open until Thursday for updating the WCAG 3 working draft

Rachel: 2. WCAG 2.2 come out on the 22nd

<Rachael> Subgroups will be starting in the next week or so

Rachel: 3. We have a working draft for WCAG 3, so make sure to respond

<Rachael> a. Harm from motion Mondays at 8 eastern

Rachel: 4. New subgroups starting

<Rachael> Content order Mondays at 10 eastern

<Rachael> Timing and interruptions Mondays at 12 eastern

<Rachael> group-ag-plan@w3.org

Rachel: If interested to sign up or know someone, please do because the subgroups are light
… Any questions on announcements?

<Chuck> DJ: Where can we register for the subgroups?

<JenStrickland_> Nat Tarnoff would be an excellent invite for vestibular disorders.

DJ: where can we register?

Rachel: In the email

<JenStrickland_> I will email you and them.

Guidance for Policy subgroup update (5 minutes)

Shadi: Final subgroup meeting next week.
… We still need to do some things, but there's mostly consensus.

<Jaunita_George> We should continue this in the next round of subgroup work

Shadi: "Last minute curve balls" are certainly welcome
… Working on introductions vel sim right now to explain context and group perspective.
… By next week, we hope to have something solid enough for the WG to understand.

Error Notification w3c/wcag3#2 (comment) (Piloting our new process)

Rachel: Thank you.
… Moving to next topic.
… Last week, we sought feedback and open Error Notification PR
… We have placeholder guidelines at this point
… Two subgroups are working on moving them to exploratory
… In Github, there is a summary of why this PR exists
… In this meeting, we want you to read through the PR and give feedback
… For next week, we want you to actually review the content and give thumbs up or down
… We will then move the Google Doc comments to Github
… Thank you Wilco an jeanne for translating the informative text to Markdown.
… Not all links work right now because we are moving repositories, but this will be fixed within a month or two
… Does anyone have questions on the process?

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.

Rachel: Good catch. We will fix that.

<GN015> How is a thumbs or thumbs down done?

<alastairc> Comments encouraged...

Rachel: 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
… This is meant as a trial on the new workflow. If you struggle a lot, please let us know.

GN015: How do I perform a thumbs up or down

Rachael: Press the smiley face. It's also keyboard accessible.

Chuck: You also need to be logged in to Github

Alastair: If you want to suggest specific changes as well, you can also add a comment to the PR or Google Doc

<AWK> +AWK

DJ: Apologies to Rachael for spelling their name incorrectly previously.

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?

<alastairc> not for reactions, only for commits

MichaelC: Yes. Your username needs to be added, which is manual. I can add you.

Rachael: If you have issues, email AG plan or AG chairs and we will help you.

<JenStrickland_> I think each reaction should be associated with a GitHub account that can be traced to a W3C member.

<JenStrickland_> I understand Rachael — and I'm in the W3C GitHub. I was thinking more of the folks who are new.

Alastair: We cannot restrict reactions to W3C members

WCAG2ICT Review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Third-content-review-by-AGWG2/

maryjom: WCAG2ICT just reached a new milestone.
… We've completed new guidance for some criteria
… We also added and updated glossary definitions

<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/

maryjom: We've also created a new survey for the AGWG to complete

<kirkwood> don’t have access

can you try again?

I just updated this second.

maryjom: it's in IRC. It's not super long and we want your input.

<laura> Thanks Chuck.

<kirkwood> sorry yes my bad

Checked by Chuck. Everyone should now have access.

maryjom: 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
… Please let us know if you find any blocking errors in the survey

Rachael: any questions?

<kirkwood> working now

WCAG 2.x backlog issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/

Chuck: I just did a quick update to give people access. Please let me know if you still don't have access

Rachael: Item 7: WCAG 2.x backlog issues.

4. Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video #1836

Rachael: We're going out of order
… Topic 4: Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video

Alastair: The audio-only citerion mentions video conferencing.
… There is a PR to fix the wording

Charles: Rachael had to step away so I'm jumping in as backup chair

ack

Charles: Moving on from WCAG 3 to 2.2 now.

<bruce_bailey> i think "voice conferencing" should be "audio conferencing"

<LoriO> Have to drop for another appt. /quit

proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1837 to address issue 1836.

alastairc: "Web-based voice conferencing" is original; Bruce is suggesting "audio" instead of "voice"
… I don't see a lot of difference; mostly preference

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss my edititorial

back to you Rachael

GN015: I also feel that "voice conference" focuses on a voice is being heard. I prefer "voice"

bruce_bailey: "audio" is parallel to "video". saying "voice conferencing" is like saying "sight conferencing". i don't have a strong objection though

<Rachael> Straw poll Voice Conference or Audio Conference

Rachael: let's do a straw pole

<JenStrickland_> could it be web conferencing without audio or visual distinction?

<bruce_bailey> voice conferencing is parallel to sight conferencing

<jon_avila> Audio

audio

audio conference, will not object to voice conference

<AWK> either

<mikeGower> Voice, worried about music, etx

<GN015> voice

<JenStrickland_> audio

<kirkwood> audio

<ToddL> audio

<ShawnT> either

<alastairc> "voice conferencing", but either

<laura> either

<scotto> either...

<bruce_bailey> music is also captioned

5 for audio 3 for voice, many either

mikeGower: I was wondering about music lyrics and things like that
… it seems to me that music is specifically excluded from this. Is that correct?

<AWK> This is just an example.

<Makoto> either will work in terms of translation (into Japanese)

<AWK> "such as"

alastairc: *reads SC*

bruce_bailey: there is a tradition of having captions for music

<kirkwood> “radio webcasts” are much more creative with their audio … an audio designers job

<shawn> audio matches the SC

bruce_bailey: I also think it's more common to say "video conferencing" and "audio conferencing"

Rachael: there is a slight preference to "audio" and it also matches the SC. can you accept "audio"?

<mikeGower> Fine

<GN015> I will not argue on whether voice or audio

Rachael: Anyone uncomfortable with "audio"?

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Adopt Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video #1836 with change to audio conferencing.

<bruce_bailey> +

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<ToddL> +1

<GN015> +1

<alastairc> +1

Rachael: vote on the draft resolution with change to "audio"

<kirkwood> +1

+1
… Detlev do you have concerns?

<Rachael> +1

<Makoto> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<scotto> +1

<Detlev> not sure

<JenStrickland_> +1

<laura> +1

Detlev: not sure whether this is an improvement

<bruce_bailey> thank you, it is not only voice which gets into captioning streams

RESOLUTION: Adopt Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video #1836 with change to audio conferencing.

Rachael: ok, we will go ahead and accept the resolution

5. Non-text Contrast - Figure on background changes #2494

Rachael: our next topic is #5 on the survey (Non-text contrast changes)

draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494

alastairc: one of the examples that said that it wouldn't pass did actually pass, which has since been corrected
… also we are using higher quality screen shots now

Rachael: 9 people agreed with the update, nothing else happened
… any concerns?

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494

<alastairc> +1

draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494

<ToddL> +1

Rachael: vote

<GN015> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<JenStrickland_> +1

+1

<scotto> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Detlev> +1

+1
… unanimous, so let's accept the resolution
… back to q 1 of the survey (adjustment to "in brief" sections)

<Rachael> +1

<Daniel_Henderson-Ede> +1

<Makoto> +1

<laura> +1

<kirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494

all +1s, no 0's, no -1's

Adjustment to 'in brief' sections

alastairc: outreach group wanted intro at beginning of text and adding why it's important
… I don't think it's worth going through content changes

Rachael: 6 agree with the update, 4 agree with the changes
… laura said "great job" and found a typo
… GN015 agreed and put in editorial comments

GN015: first one (accessible authentication) is not editorial
… "don't make people recognize" and "don't make people [?] to log in" feel the same
… focus not obscured enhanced/minimum feel the same
… "target size minimum": i prefer "cannot" over "find it hard to"

Rachael: these are content edits, thank you
… we can address these outside the meeting

Rachael: anyone else who commented want to speak?

AWK: is having this text above the SC text a good idea?
… i feel like people will think this is the normative text
… do other people feel similarly?

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/wcag22inbriefEOW/understanding/22/accessible-authentication-minimum.html

Rachael: alastairc is showing what this looks like
… let's discuss this

alastairc: i felt similarly initially
… having "in brief" as a lead-in helps people who don't understand the SCs

<kirkwood> better from Cognitive perspective

<jon_avila> I agree with Andrew. Perhaps we can make the actual SC text more clear that it's the official requirement or messaging.

alastairc: maybe we should put text in saying "the in brief is a summary and below it is the actual SC"

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss exactly the lines for which AWK has concern?

bruce_bailey: thank you
… is your concern the whole "in brief" section being above the SC text?

AWK: yes

<alastairc> The main options are either: Above the SC text, or at the top of the intent.

shawn: the education and outreach WG was concerned with the complexity of the SC criteria, but the points they address are simple
… which is why we suggested the brief go first: so that people aren't overwhelmed

<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)

AWK: if you go to the link i put in IRC, there's a "page contents" section on the right
… it feels like the "in briefs" might go best in the right rail
… because they are complimentary

<jon_avila> Regarding the right sidebar In responsive views when you zoom in it will still be above the SC.

<bruce_bailey> to be clear, i am very much a fan of this "in brief" work !

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
… i think it's a fantastic improvement to have the more understandable statement up front
… better cognitive accessibility

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask where is SC text with AA example?

bruce_bailey: i'm also a fan of the "in brief" sections
… i didn't see the SC text in the preview?

alastairc: the preview is bare-bones; once it's actually done you can see it better

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to scribe change

<jon_avila> I am good with the brief at the top - just that we clarify the SC is required.

<kirkwood> recommend putting placeholder SC text to make less confusing?

Rachael: new scribe?

bruce_bailey: I can in 3 minutes

Rachael: dj can you continue to scribe

<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

dj: certainly

<Rachael> ak mikeGower

Rachael: mike gower?

<dj___> mikeGower: the in brief is basically a shortened version of the understanding docs, which is good

<AWK> Do we have any user stats on how people arrive at the page - actual data?

mikeGower: most people will already have seen SC text before hitting Understanding page...

<kirkwood> +1 to Mike

<alastairc> AWK - when we've asked MichaelC previously the answer was no

mikeGower: want to endorse this "in brief" approach based on experience with developers

<AWK> Maybe we should make the SC text collapsable in the understanding template

<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

<Chuck> 1, 3

shawn: I have some before and after urls to see the different approaches

<Wilco> 1, 3, 2

<jon_avila> 1

<Chuck> bruce: Double checking with Shawn, you are all big fans of this?

<JenStrickland_> 1

<mikeGower> 1, haven't seen 2, so hard to visualize

<Chuck> bruce: Your proposal?

<kirkwood> 1, 2, 3

<ToddL> 1, 3, 2

<GN015> 3 or 1

<ShawnT> 1, 2, 3

<Daniel_Henderson-Ede> 1, 3

<Rachael> 1, can live with 2

<alastairc> 1, 3, not sure 2 would work in that width.

<AWK> 2,1,3

bruce asks Shawn to clarifythat EOW strongly advocates this approach

<Detlev> 1, 2, 3

<shadi> 1

SLH; YES

<JenStrickland_> 1 — thinking of reading order rather than visual design, my expectation is that it the In Brief comes before.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to summarize

<scotto> 1, 3.

Shawn: Please see git hub issues for conversations and input

<laura> 1, 2, 3. If one make the SC text look more official.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if it's worth saying "Success Criterion (SC) - the requirement"

Rachael asks for strong concerns with any of the approaches?

<mikeGower> In terms of feedback on editorial changes, im trying to address each in turn

<laura> +1 to AC

alastairc: Synthesizing some of the feedback, there could be some additional ways we could put emphasis on the SC text.

GN015: I am worked that sidebar might too easily be over looked

<shadi> +1 to GN

<Chuck> +1 similar concerns as shared by Gundula

<kirkwood> sidebar concerns me a lot too.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the new placement and structure of In Brief and work on emphasizing the SC

<JenStrickland_> Noting a concern that the sidebar is exclusive to desktop / tablet visual design.

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Zakim> laura, you wanted to ask From the Understanding Document how do you get back to the spec?

laura: side comment, from Understanding, how does one get to spec ?

scotto: I has similar concern

<Rachael> Kevin and Shawn have an action to add a way back to the Spec from the new understanding docs

<scotto> yes, the previous versions did have a link back to the spec

shawn: i will take action item to look into that

<mikeGower> Off topic. Suggest someone open an issue on navigation

<AWK> Was in WCAG 2.0 days: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to shadi

<Wilco> +1 Mike

<Chuck> +1 to mikeGower, it's notable and needs to be addressed, but not in scope with survey question.

shadi: I like where this is going, and that redesign does not break back button -- so that is still a way

<jon_avila> Yes there was a link to the SC!

<Detlev> many people will find understanding doc from search and can't use back button

question if link to SC was in previous version

<AWK> See https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html for an example

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the new placement and structure of In Brief and work on emphasizing the SC

scotto: I am sure there was an explicit link previously.

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1

<Rachael> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<shawn> +1 from EOWG to put In Brief before SC

<Detlev> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Makoto> +1

Rachael: I will table the link discussion , please vote

<kirkwood> +1

<mikeGower> +1

<GN015> +0.7

<Jaunita_George> +1

<alastairc> +1

<JenStrickland_> +1

<ToddL> +!

<ToddL> +1

<Chuck> 17.7 for :-)

<AWK> /me didn't say it was obvious, just present :)

<Chuck> 16.7, sorry

<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]

Rachael: We will continue working.

<AWK> s/\/\/me didn't say it was obvious, just present :)/

<alastairc> Thank you for keeping the 2.2 and 2.1/0 separate!

RESOLUTION: Accept the new placement and structure of In Brief and work on emphasizing the SC

<shadi> great work Mike & EOWG!

Parsing update for WCAG 2.1 understanding #3280

mikeGower: There might be oportunity to unify Understanding between 2.0 .1 and .2

alastairc: Reminding all of history, that 2.2 drops parsing SC, but Understanding for 2.1 left a bit of gap...
… so this PR is just adding a brief paragraph, replacing much longer content from previous Understanding version for 2.1....
… just adding linkage for explainaion

With a statement like "the HTML Standard has adopted specific requirements" is there part of HTML5 specification which might be pointed to?

<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?

bruce asks if statement is literally true?

alastairc: Answer is kind of both, since it has all been evolving together, statement is true

Rachael: In survey Wilco we had CFC.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on Wilco's point

alastairc: This is just a little bit more of an addendum to tie the different version together.

alastairc: This will probably mean that we have to do a "republication" CFC

Wilco: I am still not clear how this is not something we already approved.

<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

alastairc: When the Understanding is republished, this PR will update for the part which had correct.

Wilco: The Understanding update show up in the repo, so why is this PR needed?

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.

Rachael: Please remember these are Understanding document.

alastairc: Correct, except for 2.0 Understanding which is in TR space.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept Parsing update for WCAG 2.1 understanding #3280

<Chuck> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Wilco> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<GN015> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Detlev> +1

Wilco and Alastair confirm this is all approved CFC updates Understanding

<Rachael> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Daniel_Henderson-Ede> +1

<mikeGower> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<laura> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept Parsing update for WCAG 2.1 understanding #3280

Suggested improvement to Understanding 2.2.1: Timing Adjustable #1814

<Rachael> PR: w3c/wcag#3281

<Jaunita_George> We should add an example that talks about MFA

alastairc: Timing Adjustable has requirements for things which disappear, especially without user interaction....
… Some time ago AWK started issue and we have PR to add paragraph allowing for Toasts as example

Rachael: (from survey) GN015 had wording suggestion because Toast might have unique information.

<GN015> agree to Jaunita concerning MFA

<Chuck> Bruce: I think it matches Gundula's comments. Not all toasts have alternatives.

<kirkwood> agree with Gundula and Bruce

Rachael: Wilco had an edit

<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.

Rachael: Mike Gower in survey agreed in concept, but there is still tension from normative SC

mikeGower: It is a timed based event, the justification provided so far is just not quite good enough...
… still seems like a normative change from Understanding.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on alternative methods

mikeGower: RAR prohibits even microsecond timed event

alastairc: To m gower point, we have explicit exceptions in other SC...

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that this is toast specific

alastairc: 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.

Chuck: M Gower , i see how you get there with your concern. Still, the suggested answer is still a huge improvement over status quo.

<mikeGower> Yep, essential I'd say Juanita

Jaunita_George: I had similar question with authentication that has time limit. We should have more examples with security and real time exception.

Rachael: Okay, but that is a new Issue please, not this exact situation.

<Rachael> Straw poll: Does this SC text support the change? Yes / No

Jaunita_George agrees to submit issue for security time outs.

<mikeGower> No

<alastairc> Not directly, but alternative conforming versions does

<Wilco> No -- but the CAV does

<GN015> yes

<Chuck> I concede "no-ish", but still think the change is ok.

<Rachael> Straw poll: Does this SC text or SC text + Alternative Conforming Version support the change? Yes / No

<Detlev> yes I think it is a reasonable change

<jon_avila> Yes

<Wilco> yes, then

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention i don't think we need reference CAG

<Chuck> I wasn't able to capture Bruce's thoughts.

bruce: no need to resort to CAV

<mikeGower> I WANT this change, I just don't think it's supported by the normative text

<Wilco> Can someone explain why conforming alternative version wouldn't allow for this?

alastairc: I am not entirely sure I am tracking all the suggested edits

GN015: I am concerned with information conveyed, not the toast itself

Chuck: I want to think about this more

mikeGower: SC says what it says

mikeGower: What is the CAV for a notice

<alastairc> Agree that some would pass and some would fail, depending on the content of the message

<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.

mikeGower: "you've got mail" toast is problematic

Rachael: We are at time

<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.

<Chuck> That looks like a progress bar

Bruce defend toast links on access board site

<mikeGower> That's informative reinforcement.