<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2023-08-22

I don't have audio

Don't think I can scribe today.

<jon_avila> Did the zoom link change?

<Ben_Tillyer> Yes, details on https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag

<wendyreid> scribe+

<wendyreid> Chuck: Before we get into the agenda, anyone new? Or has a new role?

<wendyreid> Frankie: Hi, I'm new! This is my first call

<wendyreid> ShaneDittmar: Hi I'm Shane, I work with CVS Health, thanks for having me!

<wendyreid> Chuck: Any other topics for the queue of future discussions?

<wendyreid> Chuck: Any announcements?

<wendyreid> ... we'll be talking more about WCAG 2.2 later

<wendyreid> Rachael: The recording for the training from the last few weeks is now available

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Onboarding_for_working_in_Github

<wendyreid> ... the wiki is in progress

<wendyreid> ... the link is in IRC

<wendyreid> Chuck: Anything else?

TPAC preparation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/tpac-2023/ (5 Minutes)

<wendyreid> Chuck: Survey that is still open about TPAC participation

<wendyreid> ... we'll do a brief review

<wendyreid> ... 6 attending in person, 13 virtual, 6 not attending, 2 unsure

<wendyreid> ... we asked about days planning to attend, and guidelines of interest

<wendyreid> ... we plan to do a compressed sub groups model

<wendyreid> ... instead of 8 weeks, 4 days

<wendyreid> ... constructing guidance and materials

<wendyreid> ... this will help us plan crafting the subgroups

<wendyreid> ... anything else to add?

<wendyreid> alastairc: Even if you don't attend, please let us know

<wendyreid> Chuck: Any questions?

<wendyreid> JohnRochford: I'm one of the 6, are we expecting more than 6 to attend?

<wendyreid> Chuck: I anticipate the number will go up, that's why we're doing the survey

<wendyreid> Rachael: There is a list somewhere

<wendyreid> ... it's not just people from our WG who join sessions

<wendyreid> ... and we need to figure out the virtual side

<wendyreid> ... each day will be a different subgroup topic

<wendyreid> ... it'll help to know who is available when

<wendyreid> JohnRochford: Six people at the conference?

<wendyreid> Rachael: Oh no, only this group and who has replied to the survey

<wendyreid> bruce_bailey: Looking at the registration form, W3C would appreciate people dropping in for WCAG calls to be registered

<wendyreid> Chuck: That is my understanding

Subgroup updates (10 Minutes)

<wendyreid> kevin: That is correct yes

<wendyreid> GreggVan: This year is in Sevilla, Spain, whole thing is in CET?

<wendyreid> ... what times are the meetings?

<wendyreid> Chuck: Rachael you had a calendar?

<wendyreid> Rachael: We're still working out the details

<wendyreid> ... planning on creating two time zone splits

<dan_bjorge> For new folks: we use a few special commands in this IRC to help run meetings. The only ones you'll need to worry about today are (1) that you should send one "present+" message so your name is included in the meeting minutes as present and (2) if you'd like to speak in response to something on the call, you should join the queue to speak by typing "q+"

<wendyreid> ... EU/Asia, and NA/EU

<wendyreid> ... we haven't run this by everyone yet, but we'll share soon

<wendyreid> GreggVan: Filling out the survey, unsure of the times

<wendyreid> Rachael: Trying to create times to avoid people waking up at 2am and working

<wendyreid> Chuck: Subgroup updates

<wendyreid> ... each one will present a short status report

<wendyreid> ... first we have harm from motion

<wendyreid> Rain: Ready to share

<wendyreid> ... we've completed week 5, more than halfway through

<wendyreid> ... we have come up with a few discoveries

<wendyreid> ... in the course of thinking of the outcomes

<wendyreid> ... start out by explaining motion and pseudo-motion

<wendyreid> ... for individuals who may be harmed by motion, the same effect is true if it's real motion to pseudo-motion

<wendyreid> ... may be things like a gradient shifting on hover

<jon_avila> Wavy lines and so forth as well cause pseudo motion

<wendyreid> ... strobing when someone is scrolling and there are blocks in different high-contrast colours

<jeanne> +1 to Jon Avila

<wendyreid> ... we're realizing that everything we're talking about with motion is true of pseudo-motion

<wendyreid> ... we started by looking at functional needs to make sure we included everything

<alastairc> Presentation file for Harm from Motion update: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fIJz7D312pOFImzKVCM9eTvQP8w0drJlf0td-xw6eOs/edit#slide=id.p

<wendyreid> ... [shows slide]

<wendyreid> ... one of the ones we thought important was respecting motion settings

<wendyreid> ... individuals who may have issues with spatial tracking, or vestibular challenges, photo sensitivity

<wendyreid> ... areas with functional needs needing to be addressed

<wendyreid> ... starting to identify outcomes

<wendyreid> ... four high level themes

I now have audio back and can scribe the 2nd hour.

<wendyreid> ... motion and pseudo-motion under user control

<wendyreid> ... avoiding harmful motion by dfault

<wendyreid> ... protect users from continuous motion

<wendyreid> ... and spatial orientation of elements remains consistent

<wendyreid> ... also something that might be out of scope

<wendyreid> ... audio can have what feels like motion

<wendyreid> ... or create a sense of motion

<wendyreid> ... where might that fit within all of this

<wendyreid> ... task progress, user myay experience fatigue

<wendyreid> ... or users having to move to consume content, like turning head to read

<wendyreid> ... now working on refining

<wendyreid> ... haptics and audio, where does this fit in

<wendyreid> ... should we be scoping this criteria to "harm from visual motion"

<wendyreid> ... categories, we looked at FAST and other W3C docs, breaking them up into high-level existing categories

<wendyreid> ... creates some overlap

<wendyreid> ... avoiding repetition or redundancy

<wendyreid> ... concerned about the implication of "severe" or "mild" differentiations

<wendyreid> ... discussions were also about where pseudo-motion "fits"

<alastairc> Just as a group-member, we haven't discussed micro-animations, but one of the big scope questions is "how do you define size"

<wendyreid> ... considering recommending two new guidelines

<wendyreid> ... harm from haptic and harm from audio

<wendyreid> ... next steps to further refine outcomes

<wendyreid> ... write in plain language

<wendyreid> ... document challenges

<wendyreid> ... and work on stretch goals if we can

<wendyreid> Chuck: Mike you were going to ask about microanimations?

<wendyreid> ... one of the scope questions is how to define size

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are you making any distinction for microanimations?

<wendyreid> Rain: The answer there is that it's part of defining motion and harm

<wendyreid> ... we have identified micro-animations as a potential harm

<wendyreid> ... there's a lot of questions

<wendyreid> Chuck: Did that answer the question?

<jon_avila> Jiggling icons is an example of these animations

<wendyreid> mbgower: There's potential distraction considerations

<wendyreid> ... especially balancing that some animations may be beneficial

<wendyreid> ... I would suggest differentiating between visual and haptics, that is great to identify.

<wendyreid> ... You covered everything from 2.1 and took it further

<wendyreid> Rain: Thanks for adding that, jiggling or micro-animations, we have it in the document

<wendyreid> ... we need to add more clarity about personalization

<wendyreid> ... some may find it harmful, some may be beneficial

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say time to move to next preso

<wendyreid> ... you've hit on something we need to dig into further

<wendyreid> kirkwood: Sorry I wasn't fully on with the harm from motion, there might be a missing concept

<wendyreid> ... visual processing of moving objects for those with limited vision

<wendyreid> Chuck: Thanks John, we are short on time, let's move on

<wendyreid> ... let's discuss asynchronously

<Rachael> Thank you all for your work on this!

<wendyreid> Francis_Storr: Timing and interruptions

<wendyreid> ... [sharing slides]

<wendyreid> ... did do some research, shared via email as well

<wendyreid> ... we looked at WCAG 2.2, user needs vs functional mappings

<wendyreid> ... COGA documents

<wendyreid> ... other general research articles

<wendyreid> ... deceptive pattern work

<wendyreid> ... user needs and structured tests

<wendyreid> ... have noted areas we may be going out of scope, trying to keep this tight

<wendyreid> ... open question about whether W3C should provide guidance on what is an emergency

<wendyreid> ... next steps, going to work on outcomes and methods, and final PR

<wendyreid> ... three weeks

<wendyreid> Chuck: Any question for timing and interruptions

<wendyreid> GreggVan: Nicely sumamrized

<wendyreid> ... question about emergencies, you'd think it might be life/health threatening

<wendyreid> ... or significant financial risk (not opportunity)

<wendyreid> Francis_Storr: Yeah, we talked through things like concert seat availability, 15 people have this in their cart, understood

<wendyreid> ... the word significant opens it up to discussion

<wendyreid> ... work for the future

Clear language https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/9#issuecomment-1678944806 (30 Minutes)

<wendyreid> Chuck: To next agenda item

<wendyreid> ... clear language work

<wendyreid> ... we are now delving into the new process territory!

<wendyreid> ... Training was done over the last couple of weeks

<wendyreid> ... new for the group, new for chairs, please be patient with us

<wendyreid> Rachael: As a reminder, we put this up, put it in the agenda

<wendyreid> ... conversation on GH

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/9#issuecomment-1687264695

<wendyreid> ... we're going to lock conversations on the monday before the call

<wendyreid> ... gives the chairs a chance to review and provide a summary

<wendyreid> ... not going to read individual comments

<wendyreid> ... there was general support for breaking this guideline apart

<wendyreid> ... thought behind it that there was enough content to break it down to facilitate discussion

<wendyreid> ... does everyone support that

<wendyreid> ... conversation about internationalization

<wendyreid> ... rather than approach it in this

<wendyreid> ... this is an example we covered in training, rather than dealing with it in the issue, we've opened a discussion

<Rachael> discussion on internationalization https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/17

<wendyreid> ... please take some time to join in

<wendyreid> ... when that discussion reaches a point where it can be proposed to the group

<wendyreid> ... we can move ahead

<wendyreid> ... this is a hard guideline

<wendyreid> ... this guideline might need conditional testing and assertions

<wendyreid> ... we have different techniques and ways

<wendyreid> ... we need to test the approaches too

<wendyreid> ... lets discuss the subcomponents

<wendyreid> ... concerns about the outcomes about words and phrases

<wendyreid> ... use of word lists

<wendyreid> ... APA pronunciation

<wendyreid> ... terms instead of words

<wendyreid> ... need to be captured going forward

<wendyreid> ... next area was sentence structure, may impact voice

<wendyreid> ... chunking information

<wendyreid> ... definition between short and long

<wendyreid> ... concern about whitespacing being redundant

<wendyreid> ... numberical concepts, terms like "warm" or "cool" may be too subjective

<wendyreid> ... typography, handled by subgroup on text appearance

<wendyreid> ... other conversations about conformance

<wendyreid> ... another question about outcome phrasing

<wendyreid> ... whether we're writing outcomes in the right voice or tone

<wendyreid> ... we should open an issue for future consideration

<wendyreid> ... that is a summary

<wendyreid> ... topics we can discuss here, are we comfortable with chunking it out?

<wendyreid> ... did we miss anything?

<wendyreid> GreggVan: Kudos to people working on this

<Chuck> scribe+ Chuck

<wendyreid> ... uncommon words is always a stickler

<wendyreid> ... I would like us to revisit again, identify reference dictionaries for different languages

<wendyreid> ... if not in the dictionary, define it

<wendyreid> ... then anyone could click on any word and it would have a definition

<wendyreid> ... that would make it easy to test

<wendyreid> ... another one strikes me about pages being read aloud, we don't have AT for cognitive that transforms the page into something understandable

<wendyreid> ... I guess I'm suggesting that we do it in a way that information is programmatically determinable

<wendyreid> ... then you don't have to do anything special yourself

<Rachael> +1 to writing all outomes in a way that allows work to evolve to user agents and AT whenever possible

<wendyreid> ... we support that you have a page like this, or a way to present a page like this

<wendyreid> ... author could proofread, but in the future we may have tools that could do it accurately

<Chuck> wendyreid: Thanks for the amazing summary, new process looks good. I noted that we should chunk this out. It's long. When we get into sections on chunking, that jumped at me.

<jon_avila> Building on what Gregg indicates - a mechanism or method is available to.... that allows for technology to evolve

<Chuck> wendyreid: Some of this is related to clear language, but some is formatting. That gets lost. We have requirements on formatting in WCAG 2. Might be good to have a separate line.

<Chuck> wendyreid: Headers and breaks. We should break this up, it did get long. That jumped out at me. And it should be separated.

<wendyreid> JohnRochford: Briefly, Gregg, my team and I have been working on training AI to produce plain language

<wendyreid> ... Julie ??? and I co-lead the subgroup

<wendyreid> ... scope creep, worried about that

<julierawe> Julie Rawe :)

<wendyreid> ... internationalization wise, we're trying to be careful of culture

<wendyreid> ... we know english

<wendyreid> ... we're anticipating that what we produce in english will then be produced in other languages

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that greggs suggests seem to fit well into breaking up clear language into smaller pieces

<wendyreid> Chuck: Gregg's observations were keen and good

<wendyreid> ... that fits well into the plan to keep it exploratory, break it into smaller components

<Chuck> wendyreid: Quick question, we talk about internationalization. Have we asked the group to review?

<Chuck> Rachael: Yes we did. Coga and Internationalization are already having conversations.

<wendyreid> Chuck: Any other questions?

<wendyreid> ... sounds like a plan, we don't need consensus, we'll just ask clear language to review and separate out sections for further view

WCAG 2.2 Resolving WCAG 2.2 Objections

<wendyreid> Rachael: A few more revisions, thank you all

<wendyreid> Chuck: We have concluded our work on WCAG 3, moving into WCAG 2

<julierawe> Thanks for the Clear Language feedback, folks!

<wendyreid> ... we're going to be talking about WCAG 2.2 objections

<wendyreid> alastairc: I'm sure everyone is aware we're going through the candidate recommendation stage

<wendyreid> ... we've received some objections

<wendyreid> ... the alignment of passing 4.1.1

<wendyreid> ... we did a while back go throug that process

<wendyreid> ... we in the process of republishing

<wendyreid> ... 2.1 and 2.0

<wendyreid> ... we did look at republishing, it would be a monumental amount of work

<wendyreid> ... the errata approach seemed better

<wendyreid> ... the note for 2.1, the one that went around for republication

<wendyreid> ... that will be added to 2.1 when it's republished

<wendyreid> ... for 2.0, we're trying to get to the bottom of how it will appear as an errata

<wendyreid> ... the errata page doesn't show the changes

<wendyreid> ... it's more obscured than any of us would like

<wendyreid> ... looking at incorporating the note from 2.1 or a link to the updated understanding page

<wendyreid> ... to show the new notes in the understanding document

<wendyreid> ... it'll be talked about in the errata

<wendyreid> ... any questions or comments?

<wendyreid> bruce_bailey: I don't quite understand the comment about the WCAG 2 errata not listing the errata?

<wendyreid> alastairc: If you go to the errata page, [shares screen]

<wendyreid> ... errata is described, but the change is not shown

<wendyreid> ... it makes what we were trying to do with showing notes not as effective

<wendyreid> bruce_bailey: Also hoping for dates on the erratum

<wendyreid> alastairc: Before my time, not sure how we'd track down dates

<wendyreid> jon_avila: Had a question, there's errata for 2.1 and it's being republished?

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/

<wendyreid> alastairc: If we republish, it goes on the face of the spec, not in errata

<wendyreid> jon_avila: Two versions with different dates?

<jon_avila> thanks

<wendyreid> alastairc: You always have access to the dated versions, but the page from the TR link would be updated and show the change

<wendyreid> ... but previous versions are available

<wendyreid> dan_bjorge: Just wanted to check on the 2.0 thread, looked like it was using wording from March, not the May version, is that resolved?

<wendyreid> alastairc: We found the later PR, so yes

<bruce_bailey> I do not need *all* the dates, but I do need clarity as to which errata are after January 18, 2017 please.

<wendyreid> dan_bjorge: Another new CfC thread?

<wendyreid> alastairc: Yes, we're just pinning down the details and will send

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about timing

<wendyreid> Chuck: So the chairs discussed, what does this mean for timing?

<wendyreid> alastairc: Other objection was from internationalization and people interested in it

<wendyreid> ... there's been some kerfuffle about text spacing

<Rachael> I will restart the CFC later today or tomorrow.

<wendyreid> ... what happens in different writing systems

<wendyreid> ... and the exception may not be wide enough to cover those aspects

<wendyreid> ... also some confusion with the success criteria

<wendyreid> ... if the user overrides preset styles, they shouldn't lose content, confusion that people should be expected to use these values

<wendyreid> ... the other was visual presentation

<wendyreid> ... this one doesn't have an exception

<wendyreid> ... it does have a variation for CJK writing systems

<wendyreid> ... it doesn't have an exception for non-latin writing systems

<wendyreid> ... we had a discussion

<wendyreid> ... threads on GH, anything marked internationalization

<wendyreid> ... we discussed with the internationalization wg

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3347/files

<wendyreid> ... for publishing 2.2, the way we can address those objections is to add notes to those success criterion

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3351/files

<wendyreid> ... adding the links to the PRs

<wendyreid> ... under text spacing, first note: content is not required to use the specified values

<wendyreid> ... indicator that there is a big world of writing systems and this may not cover everything

<wendyreid> ... for visual presentation, the mechanism is the browser or AT manipulating content on behalf of the user

<wendyreid> ... we need to refine the text

<wendyreid> ... also need to CfC

<wendyreid> ... and incorporate into WCAG 2.2.

<wendyreid> ... if you do have a chance to look, please look ASAP

<wendyreid> ... and the internationalization TF is looking as well

<wendyreid> ... in terms of timing

<wendyreid> ... the republication for 2.0 will happen quite quickly, the rest will depend on the objectors and their agreement on the updates

<wendyreid> ... we'd like to set up a subgroup to address errata for the SCs

<wendyreid> ... update the understanding documents to address the concerns

<wendyreid> ... if the objectors agree to all that, and the objections are removed, it shouldn't add too much time at all

<wendyreid> ... if there is a lot of discussion, or they don't withdraw

<wendyreid> ... we'll need to escalate to a council

<wendyreid> ... or a normative update, that puts us at starting CR again, hopefully we can address these sooner rather than later

<jon_avila> yes

<wendyreid> bruce_bailey: I remember something in 2.1 about not expecting to get all AAA requirements

<wendyreid> alastairc: Yes it's under conformance

<wendyreid> ... we have tried to make that point as well

<wendyreid> ... it's a AAA, it's 15 years old

<wendyreid> ... it's not something that should delay us at this point

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

<scribe> Scribe: laura

<jon_avila> Unfortunate as delays in WCAG 2.2 mean that WCAG 2.2 was not in the ADA Title proposed rulemaking

ac: straight forward PR.
... One person wanted something else

<bruce_bailey> > It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.

Question 1 - Understanding doc for 1.2.9 mentions video #1836

ac: Rain mentioned that by strictly saying "audio" here it implies that tools such as Zoom, Google Meet, and Teams might be exempt because they have both audio and video. Perhaps "web based audio and/or audio-visual conferencing" or "the audio portion of web-based conferencing" would be more clear? I realize that sounds wordy, but want to make sure the scope is clear.

mikeG: If it is live audio only, it is not in scope.

<jon_avila> I agree with Mike

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1837 to address issue 1836.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<LoriO> +1

ac: can put comment to one side.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

laura: +1

<mbgower> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Azlan> +1

<scotto> +1

<abbey> +1

<Bri_Brown> +1

<kevin> +1

<tburtin> +1

<ShaneDittmar> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Makoto> +1

<David_Cox> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Rachael> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1837 to address issue 1836.

Question 2 - Non-text Contrast - Figure on background changes #2494

<Detlev> +1

ac: giacomo-petri opened issue 2494 on the overlap between non-text contrast and use-of-color.

Patrick created PR 2574 to address the issue, and keep the other images consistent.

scribe: all on survey agree with the update

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<Rachael> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Detlev> +1

laura: +1

<scotto> +1

<ShaneDittmar> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Azlan> +1

<abbey> +1

<kevin> +1

<tburtin> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2574 to address issue 2494

Question 3 - Understanding for Contrast does not call out Color Blindness #2033

ac: We have discussed issue 2033 previously, and did not approve PRs 2034 and 3240 in a previous meeting. Bruce has taken the feedback and created PR 3284.

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results#xq40

ac: most agreed.

MikeG: My biggest concern with the proposed change is that "luminance" is used throughout the update, yet I don't see the benefit. In the existing text, there's something of a definition in a note on why it makes more sense to use 'relative luminance' than 'luminance'.
... But the phrase "relative luminance" is not used in these updates at all.
... My recommendation would be to alter the uses of "luminance contrast" to simply "contrast" and update the note on relative luminance as necessary to provide sufficient context.
... The name of the SC is Contrast (Minimum), not Luminance Contrast.
... need to define what we mean.

<David_Cox> I figured it was to clarify that contrast isn't a colour wheel thing. Orange versus blue is contrasting, but isn't the same meaning of contrast as this success criterion is intending

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on luminance term

<jon_avila> It's non hue contrast

ac: luminance separates from hue.
... it does have value. Maybe we should just say what we mean.

LoriO: I had to look up what the word means.
... if we add a definition, it could help. Or take the word out.

<kirkwood> +1 Lori

gregg: It has to do with light. It is the wrong word.

<LoriO> lu·mi·nance /ˈlo͞omənəns/ nounPhysics noun: luminance the intensity of light emitted from a surface per unit area in a given direction.

<alastairc> Suggestion from Gregg - "Colour independant contrast", or "light/dark contrast".

gregg: color indementdent tcontast or light /dark

<mbgower> "This Success Criterion and its definitions use the terms "contrast ratio" and "relative luminance" rather than "luminance" to reflect the fact that Web content does not emit light itself. The contrast ratio gives a measure of the relative luminance that would result when displayed. (Because it is a ratio, it is dimensionless.)"

Dan: the term has a normative definition. Stick with that unless there is a compelling reason.

LoriO: don't know why the definition helps anyone.

<kirkwood> web content DOES emit light

MikeG: It is a bit further down in the understanding doc. Like light/dark idea.

ac: seems we are going in circles.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "perhaps the simplest is to change it to "relative luminance (or light/dark) contrast"

ac: should be consistent. Maybe use light/dark concept.

<alastairc> +1 to "relative luminance (or light/dark) contrast"

<Chuck> +1

<David_Cox> Or slightly rearranged "relative luminance contrast (contrast between light and dark elements)"

gregg: relative luminance(contrast)

<bruce_bailey> to "relative luminance (or light/dark contrast)

<kevin> +1 for simple language to support correct term... or vice versa even

<GreggVan> ok with that

<GreggVan> +1 per alastair

bruce: like relative luminance (or light/dark contrast)

<dan_bjorge> no - contrast ratio is defined as a ratio between two relative luminances, contrast should be outside the parens

<GreggVan> +1 to thata

davidC: () is editorial.

<alastairc> "The intent of this Success Criterion is to provide enough luminance contrast (light/dark contrast) between text and its background..."

mikeG: I also find the inclusion of citations within the text quite unusual for WCAG, where references are kept in a section, not cited in parentheses throughout.

<alastairc> Also - change the other instances of "luminance contrast" as just "contrast".

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask if there is a way to add a section that talks about the correct terms?

kevin: can we have simple language at the start of the doc? and the go into details.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say relative luminance contrast (light/dark contrast independent of color) -- then later just use contrast and to say

gregg: relative-luminance contrast (light/dark contrast independent of color) -- then later just use contrast

<mbgower> the main intent was just to introduce 'colour-blind'.

<jon_avila> I agree. It's not color contrast.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that it sounds like we are discussing some non-inconsequential updates

gregg: it is not color contrast.

<bruce_bailey> I like "relative luminance (light/dark contrast independent of color)"

<mbgower> me too, Bruce

chuck: sounds like we are discussing some non-inconsequential updates

ac: close on scope. but other things could be updated later.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3284 to address issue 2033

<kirkwood> This is about color blindness which is the ability to distinguish hue, no? but its not effectively addressed no?

<alastairc> "The intent of this Success Criterion is to provide enough luminance contrast (light/dark contrast) between text and its background..."

Gregg: accept amended PR?

chuck: yes.

johnK: isn't hue the main issue? Seem to have lost that.

Gregg: is is about colorblindness. Hue independent.

Mike: Took a stab at the verbiage.

<David_Cox> it's contrast of relative luminance

<David_Cox> so it is relative-luminance contrast

bruce: shouldn't have relative luminance contrast.

gregg: needs to be hyphenated.

<David_Cox> +1 with Gregg, sorry all

(wordsmithing)

<kirkwood> become too complicated it seems

<David_Cox> seems like it needs some PR reviews on GitHub

Question 4 - Suggested improvement to Understanding 2.2.1: Timing Adjustable #1814

chuck: making some progress but need to be brought back.

ac: We previously discussed issue 1814 about Timing Adjustable and temporary messages such as toast messages.

After the previous discussion updates were made to PR 3281.

scribe: 6 agree with the update. 3 agree if adjusted
... Gundula mentioned I see two points are missing:

1) Even if there is the ability to verify the arrival of a mail by other means, the timing should be adjustable by user settings.

scribe: For some users, these message toasts are distracting, so they might wish to switch them off entirely. As a consequence they rely on alternative means.
...

2) If the message (toast) contains further information, the message(s) themselves should be retrievable.

ac: Bruce commented that I agreed if not adjusted, but I suggest explaining that the 5 second limit on the notification is so the message does not cause a failure against SC 2.2.2 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide.

bruce: PR is fine. could add a sentence or 2 later.

ac: Michael Gower had some minor tweaks in the PR.

<Chuck> +1 to mbgower's edits

<Chuck> +1 that such requests are out of scope

ac: think Gundula is going outside of SC.

<scotto> +1 that the comments are good, but out of scope to what this PR is trying to clarify

chuck: outside the scope.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3281 to address issue 1814.

<alastairc> +1

<scotto> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<abbey> +1

<ShaneDittmar> +1

<kevin> +1

<kirkwood> +1

ac: think mike's update addresses Gundula second comment.

<Detlev> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<LoriO> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

laura: +1

<mbgower> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3281 to address issue 1814.

<David_Cox> +1

<alastairc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JulSep/0242.html

<tburtin_> +1

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/???/kevin/
Succeeded: s/motion to pseuo-motion/motion to pseudo-motion/
Succeeded: s/udner user control/under user control/
Succeeded: s/pleas/please/
Succeeded: s/AA/AAA/
Succeeded: s/wthe wrom/the wrong/
Succeeded: s/staright /straight /
Succeeded: s/luminace /luminance/
Succeeded: s/laguage /language /
Succeeded: s/lumanance /luminance /
Default Present: Francis_Storr, kevin, Chuck, JohnRochford, alastairc, jeanne, Ben_Tillyer, bruce_bailey, ShawnT, jon_avila, wendyreid, Azlan, dan_bjorge, Makoto, thinkbulecount, GreggVan, Rain, ShaneDittmar, mgarrish, sarahhorton, kirkwood, julierawe, Jennie_Delisi, Detlev, scotto, tburtin, Laura_Carlson, maryjom, ChrisLoiselle, mbgower
Present: Francis_Storr, kevin, Chuck, JohnRochford, alastairc, jeanne, Ben_Tillyer, bruce_bailey, ShawnT, jon_avila, wendyreid, Azlan, dan_bjorge, Makoto, thinkbulecount, GreggVan, Rain, ShaneDittmar, mgarrish, sarahhorton, kirkwood, julierawe, Jennie_Delisi, Detlev, scotto, tburtin, Laura_Carlson, maryjom, ChrisLoiselle, mbgower, thinkbulecount2
Regrets: Poornima Subramanian, Todd Libby, tzviya, JustineP, DJChase
Found Scribe: laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)