15:28:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:28:16 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/06-ag-irc
15:28:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:28:18 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:28:20 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:28:27 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2024-02-06
15:28:34 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:28:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/06-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:28:43 <Chuck> agenda+ Card Sort Results
15:28:51 <Chuck> agenda+ Prioritizing Outcomes (https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/43)
15:28:59 <Chuck> agenda+ Discuss Outcome format and level
15:29:08 <Chuck> agenda+ Review How-To Template
15:29:19 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.x updates (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024JanMar/0017.html)
15:30:00 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #ag
15:30:29 <rscano> rscano has joined #ag
15:45:43 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:49:04 <Chuck> Peer chairs, I have joined early if you are available to join and discuss the upcomming meeting.
15:55:44 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
15:57:20 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:58:10 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:58:25 <dj> dj has joined #ag
15:58:30 <dj> present+
15:59:31 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:59:39 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:59:40 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:59:40 <shadi> present+
15:59:42 <Detlev> present+
16:00:25 <wendyreid> present+
16:00:25 <rscano> present+
16:00:28 <kevin> present+
16:00:33 <Detlev> scribe: Detlev
16:00:41 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
16:00:45 <Gez> Gez has joined #AG
16:01:16 <Detlev> Chuck: question to Kevin - progress with template
16:01:22 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:01:25 <Chuck> regrets: Sarah Horton, Makoto Ueki, Tod Libby
16:01:26 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:01:31 <ShawnT> present+
16:01:34 <JakeAbma> present+
16:01:46 <graham> graham has joined #ag
16:01:46 <JustineP> present+
16:01:50 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:02:07 <mgarrish> present+
16:02:19 <alastairc> Regrets+ DuffJ
16:02:20 <Bri> Bri has joined #ag
16:02:22 <Detlev> Chuck: Any new introductions?
16:02:22 <alastairc> present+
16:02:29 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:02:40 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
16:02:44 <Chuck> Hi gregorio!
16:02:45 <tburtin> present+
16:02:56 <Chuck> q+
16:02:57 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:03:01 <Detlev> Introduction Gregorio Pellegrino
16:03:11 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:03:11 <Glenda> present+
16:03:18 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:03:28 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:03:30 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:03:32 <jon_avila> present+
16:03:33 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
16:03:34 <Chuck> ack Gregorio
16:03:35 <Detlev> ...auditing ebooks / websites among other things I missed
16:03:44 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:03:50 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:03:52 <Bri> present+
16:03:55 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #ag
16:03:56 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
16:03:58 <dan_bjorge> present+
16:03:59 <Detlev> Chuck: announncements?
16:04:18 <gpellegrino> present+
16:04:23 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:04:23 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Card Sort Results -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:04:24 <AWK> +AWK
16:04:30 <Detlev> ...if you have new topics, send them to chairs so they become future agenda items
16:04:42 <rscano> ciao Gaetano :)
16:04:45 <kirkwood> present+
16:04:53 <SabidussiUsablenet> SabidussiUsablenet has joined #ag
16:05:05 <david-cox> david-cox has joined #ag
16:05:05 <Gez> present+
16:05:06 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:05:07 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
16:05:11 <Detlev> Alastair: introducing Card sorting results - sorting outcomes into categories (refer to presentation)
16:05:12 <Jen_G> Present+
16:05:46 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
16:05:47 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpoEeAfNpZhvYbaPeLNqoar-a3WSFHlsU3zWtOi_51k/edit#slide=id.p
16:05:51 <mike_beganyi> present+
16:05:57 <Rachael> present_+
16:06:00 <Rachael> present+
16:06:14 <Chuck> q?
16:06:17 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:06:18 <Detlev> Alastair: :some things to consider: there is no "perfect" structure
16:06:29 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:06:32 <mbgower> present+
16:06:40 <Detlev> ...it is about best match - understand how people categorize it
16:07:00 <Detlev> ...basing this on averages would go wrong - create random associations
16:07:06 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:07:16 <Frankie> present+ Frankie Wolf
16:07:23 <Detlev> ...won't be using the exact result of the task, but helps in finding best structure
16:07:36 <jeanne> present+
16:07:55 <Detlev> ...how meta would it get (categorizing the categories)
16:08:09 <DanielHE> DanielHE has joined #ag
16:08:11 <DanielHE> present+
16:08:14 <Detlev> ...taggig will help but a good default structure will be important
16:08:26 <ashleyfirth> ashleyfirth has joined #ag
16:08:27 <graham> present+
16:08:31 <ashleyfirth> present+
16:08:34 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:08:43 <Detlev> ...one hint was organize outcomes the way they will be used - but no one organized things by life cycle
16:09:09 <Detlev> ...the biggest group use types of content as a structure
16:09:12 <TheoHale> TheoHale has joined #ag
16:09:24 <TheoHale> present+
16:09:37 <Detlev> ...another grouping was what to provide / not to provide
16:10:02 <Detlev> ...so of this is fuzzy and could be in several groups
16:10:15 <Azlan> present+
16:10:38 <Detlev> ...another approach was type of interaction (keyboard / screen reader / pointer / voice etc)
16:11:08 <Detlev> ....the soting tool allows to create a tree structure how things are grouped
16:11:31 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
16:11:36 <Detlev> ...allows an interactive analysis of grouping ("dendagrams"?)
16:11:39 <Poornima> present+
16:12:52 <kirkwood> can we have a one-sentence (clear & succinct) purpose statement of this exercise?
16:12:56 <graham> apologies that was me joining on phone while i had it on PC and the silly thing wouldnt let me mute, sorry!
16:13:01 <Detlev> ...average categories like controls - some odd ones
16:13:14 <Detlev> ...(please refer to presentation for details!)
16:13:16 <Chuck> no worries graham, glad you are here!
16:14:05 <Rachael> q+ for when Alastair is done
16:14:09 <Detlev> Alastair: a top-down approach could define one overall navigation scheme
16:14:39 <Detlev> ...supermarket example: navigating by type of food, or Italian food
16:15:20 <Detlev> ....interface-oriented vs.  provision-oriented
16:15:48 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:15:48 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss when Alastair is done
16:15:56 <Rachael> Silver Research https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1POs7orJ4ALB0bq5_vyo4v8RxDcr-5ctwD1noVgpXuJc/edit#slide=id.g3446f24b73_0_35
16:15:56 <Detlev> ...the next step will be recommended categories with outcome sorted where you would expect them
16:16:08 <dj> q+ to ask about next steps method (card sort?)
16:16:15 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
16:16:26 <ljoakley> present+
16:16:39 <Detlev> Rachael: Silver research quoted UX professionals in a way that you know when to think about each - like by role
16:16:46 <Chuck> ack dj
16:16:46 <Zakim> dj, you wanted to ask about next steps method (card sort?)
16:17:02 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:17:04 <david-cox> q+ I'm seeing a mix of nouns and verbs as well. For that term alignment portion of the process, could a third considered option be action-oriented category names?
16:17:08 <Detlev> DJ: Like it - will the next step again be a card sort or something else?
16:17:15 <ljoakley> 123
16:17:18 <Chuck> q+ david-cox
16:17:34 <Detlev> Alastair: good point - need to discuss with chairs and propose an approach
16:17:44 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:18:10 <kirkwood> how we organize can make the information more usable for different audiences such as UX designers.
16:18:33 <Chuck> ack david
16:18:37 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask about transition from slide 7 to 8
16:18:39 <Detlev> Ben: when I saw WCAG 2.X reframed in terms of job role it seemed to work only for a short time - because approaches to work change
16:18:46 <kirkwood> +1 to Ben
16:19:03 <alastairc> q+
16:19:04 <jeanne> q+ to explain Bentley University results as applies here is that type of content is helpful
16:19:09 <Chuck> ack bru
16:19:09 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about transition from slide 7 to 8
16:19:10 <Detlev> David C.: would action-oriented also be an option, a third alternative?
16:19:12 <Rachael> +1 to moving towards leading verbs in Option 2
16:19:32 <Detlev> Bruce: go back to slide 7 + 8
16:19:41 <mbgower> rrsagent, make minutes
16:19:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/06-ag-minutes.html mbgower
16:19:54 <Chuck> q?
16:20:33 <Detlev> Alastair:: thinking about categorization of categories - dendagram results you get these two options (two people independently)
16:20:34 <kirkwood> q+
16:20:55 <bruce_bailey> thank you!
16:20:55 <Detlev> ...interface-oriented vs.. provision-oriented
16:21:06 <Chuck> ack ala
16:21:12 <Chuck> ack jeanne
16:21:12 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to explain Bentley University results as applies here is that type of content is helpful
16:21:42 <Detlev> Jeanne: Background on UX pros study recommended reading
16:22:04 <Detlev> ...question was how can usability be improved?
16:22:39 <Detlev> ...organised by the needs of developers (because they use it most)
16:22:40 <TheoHale> I think the job/role classification is a moving target, we have a lot of shift in roles at Microsoft just within the last decade, when I started I focused on something that would likely be classified as UX Design... I do however see huge value in organizing by function as it would be more flexible.
16:22:44 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:23:06 <Detlev> ...since it is organised by user need, it does not match the understanding of developers
16:23:14 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:23:18 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r-5zaek3yFOTgDz0v7dzTwK_QUnOpAxTTr22OAonMbg/edit
16:23:24 <GreggVan> q+
16:23:24 <Chuck> ack kirk
16:23:25 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:23:29 <kevin> q+ to comment that there can be lots of different ways to organise the content that we could potentially support
16:23:29 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:23:43 <Wilco> q+
16:23:53 <Detlev> John K: The perspective bridging designers/developers is great
16:23:54 <alastairc> q+ on roles and how requirements tend to cross roles
16:24:41 <bruce_bailey> Analysis of Pete McNally Survey link also in slide 3
16:24:51 <Detlev> ...potentially missing is the "stick" perspective (legislation) - have enabled certain groups to push for legal action / standardisation
16:24:53 <Chuck> ack gia
16:25:15 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to giacomo-petri
16:25:22 <wendyreid> +1 to giacomo
16:25:28 <mbgower> FYI, we tackled a lot of this at ibm using the exising WCAG requirements. So it's useful to see that effort along with others https://www.ibm.com/able/toolkit/plan/overview
16:25:56 <Detlev> Giacomo: Lifecycle can be quite different between designers/developers - same person or a team - the guidelines should have filtering option to make it easier for users to achieve their goals
16:26:10 <Detlev> ...the process cannot be prescriptive
16:26:16 <jeanne> +1 to filters - we proposed using tagging
16:26:22 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:26:27 <Detlev> Chuck: closing queue
16:26:30 <wendyreid> +1 to filters, but where should we do the filtering
16:26:32 <Chuck> zakim, close queue
16:26:32 <Zakim> ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is closed
16:27:09 <Detlev> Gregg: these things are synergetic - go together - it's not just a list to tick off
16:27:31 <kirkwood> +1 to tags
16:27:43 <david-cox> +1 to tags as well
16:27:50 <Detlev> ...everything may end up in multiple categories - tagging could be an answer, tagged version (informative) based on normative material
16:27:50 <Chuck> ack dan
16:28:43 <Ben_Tillyer> Is crowdsourcing tags from readers of WCAG a possibility, so they could evolve over time?  (Obviously would need moderating)
16:28:44 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:28:44 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to comment that there can be lots of different ways to organise the content that we could potentially support
16:28:49 <Detlev> Dan: +1 to research quoted by Jeanne - grouping and tagging both important - like the top-level by type of content being assessed
16:30:07 <Detlev> Kevin: Lots of different ways to organs content - WCAG reorganization have been tried, that was interesting - other environments for working out are useful such as quicker that has tagging - content should be presented in different ways
16:30:07 <Chuck> ack Wilco
16:30:14 <david-cox> q+ if there's time
16:30:25 <GreggVan> Tagging allows sorting by person's role, by element, by type of testing, and more - all at the same time and intermixed
16:30:37 <kirkwood> red
16:30:38 <Detlev> Wilco: It'S like picking the color before we know what we want from the car
16:30:44 <Chuck> David, I closed queue so we could move on to the other agenda items.
16:30:54 <Chuck> Feel free to type in your thoughts.
16:30:58 <scotto> scotto has joined #ag
16:31:01 <Chuck> q?
16:31:05 <david-cox> I'll just comment here: roles change over time, so I'd recommend the baseline categorization not being done by role.
16:31:06 <scotto> present+
16:31:17 <Chuck> ack ala
16:31:17 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on roles and how requirements tend to cross roles
16:31:21 <Detlev> ...an outcome may be solved by different people in different ways (say who takes care of focus indicator, styled or default)
16:31:55 <david-cox> UX designer wasn't really a common role 15 years ago. Same with content designer.
16:32:34 <Frankie> +1 to content type being an effective way to organize content for WCAG implementors. I've written guidance using this approach several times now. Role gets tricky depending on the content type and organization.
16:32:50 <Detlev> Alastair: We intend to have tagging to have multiple views on same information - support that organizing by role is problematic, there is overlap - workshops show that role allocations vary across organisations
16:33:26 <Detlev> ...if it is related to the interface / the thing you're working on, it is the most concrete (for developers)
16:33:41 <Detlev> Chuck: Will consider results of sort to craft an answer
16:33:42 <david-cox> Also, the ARRM is an existing method of mapping roles to WCAG. We could incorporate that idea into the formal WCAG document in the future. (https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/ARRM_Project_-_Accessibility_Roles_and_Responsibilities_Mapping)
16:33:51 <david-cox> ARRM = Accessibility Roles and Responsibilities Mapping
16:33:59 <Chuck> zakim, open queue
16:33:59 <Zakim> ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is open
16:34:03 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 2
16:34:03 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Prioritizing Outcomes (https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/43) -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:34:07 <Detlev> Rachael: will create an alternative version of results and send out link to that
16:34:49 <Detlev> Prioritizing outcomes - publishing discussion lat week was nit conclusive -
16:34:52 <TheoHale> +1, to David-Cox, we also don't have a formal testing role anymore at Microsoft though that does not mean we don't test. Tagging based on function seems to be the best scheme. Role does seem to attach maybe too much to web content or specific platforms.
16:35:33 <Detlev> Chuck: Reviewed prioritizing outcomes, hint was that those that had research were higher ranked
16:36:23 <kirkwood> q+
16:36:26 <Detlev> Rachael: Possible of publishing things earlier one suggestion was to publish something that would bring excitement such as a new color contrast algorithm
16:36:29 <Chuck> ack kir
16:36:43 <Chuck> q+
16:36:52 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:36:54 <GreggVan> q+
16:37:12 <Detlev> John K: Prioritizing by analyzing analytics - how often are outcomes most searched
16:37:17 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:37:22 <Wilco> q+
16:37:45 <alastairc> If we prioritized by a usefulness/numbers thing, I'd rather use which issues are found most in testing.
16:37:48 <tburtin> +1 to John K idea
16:37:53 <kirkwood> or the most traffic on our site?
16:38:17 <Detlev> Gregg: We should be careful when looking for information guiding prioitization (WW2 plane example)
16:38:26 <alastairc> https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/survivorship-bias-plane
16:38:53 <Detlev> ...like analytics but needs careful use of result
16:38:54 <Chuck> q?
16:38:57 <Chuck> ack wilco
16:39:04 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2023/11/ag-charter
16:39:34 <alastairc> Yes, but which ones?
16:40:05 <Rachael> q
16:40:07 <Rachael> q+
16:40:17 <kirkwood> +1 to Wilco
16:40:26 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:40:32 <Detlev> Wilco: we have an answer in out charter which asks with a representative set of outcomes with documentation for WCAG 3 - need to demonstrate different approaches
16:40:57 <Chuck> q+
16:40:58 <david-cox> Basically, if it's some of column a, some of column b... what are column a and b?
16:41:01 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:41:05 <Detlev> Rachael: Pick sample cross category or several categories - both approaches would fit the charter
16:41:15 <david-cox> q+
16:41:31 <Detlev> Chuck: this is quite abstract now - hard to get a sense of how that feels
16:41:39 <Chuck> ack david
16:42:12 <Rachael> q+ to speak to reseasrch
16:42:41 <Detlev> David C: The discussion board for pro of outcomes there are 3 options - some need more research - should be push for that research to happen, since that will take longest
16:42:48 <ljoakley1> ljoakley1 has joined #ag
16:42:55 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:42:55 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to reseasrch
16:43:04 <Detlev> Rachael:: Part of the plan is to take all those and coordinate the research
16:43:15 <alastairc> The research is in parallel, but *we* need start working on things we have the research for.
16:43:19 <david-cox> cool, concurrent but the research portion is somewhat separate
16:43:27 <Chuck> q+
16:43:37 <Detlev> ...it is concurrent to this and it will be driven outside this groups - people wh are interested can get involved
16:44:16 <Detlev> Chuck: Distinction between self-evident outcomes vs. research-based - evident ones can ba fallacies
16:44:25 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:44:33 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Chuck's thoughts
16:44:44 <Wilco> q+
16:44:44 <alastairc> q+
16:44:50 <Chuck> ack Wilco
16:45:05 <Chuck> ack ala
16:45:10 <david-cox> +1 to figuring out how to make self-evident items also empirically-backed
16:45:12 <Detlev> Wilco: it' a bit nebulous now - maybe proposal needs to be more concrete
16:45:58 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:46:08 <Chuck> q+ to say that I don't think we back ourselves into a corner if we make a decision and decide later to change that decision
16:46:43 <Detlev> Alastair: it is tricky - the proposal of top priority (outcomes that have solid research) - others suggested to four on outcomes that *aren't* covered now - so the could be split between covered / not covered
16:46:58 <Rachael> q+
16:47:09 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:47:09 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that I don't think we back ourselves into a corner if we make a decision and decide later to change that decision
16:47:10 <Detlev> ...color contrast? anyone having proposals for VR?
16:47:41 <Wilco> q+
16:47:45 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:47:47 <Detlev> Chuck: making the decision early is good since the course can easily corrected
16:48:12 <Detlev> Rachael: Net we should pick one outcome and provide the rest (testable etc)
16:48:22 <Wilco> q-
16:48:29 <Chuck> q+ to ask about the polls
16:48:46 <david-cox> As long as there isn't an over-committment, then it's easy to course-correct. Might be tough to pause work on an outcome once it's approved / prioritized.
16:48:46 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:48:46 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about the polls
16:48:47 <Detlev> ...when we have done that we can next pick a group of outcomes and work on that
16:49:06 <Detlev> Chuck: Polls not mutually exclusive
16:49:16 <Chuck> Poll:  Focus on 1) a diverse selection of individual outcomes 2) diverse modules 3) Something else
16:49:32 <Wilco> q+
16:49:40 <Chuck> ack Wilco
16:49:51 <DanielHE> DanielHE has joined #ag
16:49:56 <Detlev> Wilco: clarification - what do diverse modules mean?
16:50:13 <GreggVan> q+
16:51:52 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:51:55 <alastairc>  So taking a spread from the start, or focus on 1 module to start with (then get diversity later).
16:51:57 <julierawe> present+
16:52:01 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:52:02 <Detlev> Rachael: representative sampling two ways. either individual outcomes like supportingn input / clear language / structure etc to get a cross section OR a diverse set of models but work on them modularly (all the text & contrast isseus
16:52:09 <kirkwood> 1
16:52:37 <alastairc> 1 as preference, but happy with 2.
16:52:54 <Chuck> 1, no objection to 2
16:53:16 <Chuck> Poll:  Focus on 1) a diverse selection of individual outcomes 2) diverse modules 3) Something else
16:53:18 <Detlev> Gregg: Two aspects: how to handle different situations - known things or new things; the best things might be to look at a variety of types or kinds of outcomes rather than randomly pick them
16:53:20 <david-cox> 2
16:53:22 <dj> 2
16:53:23 <Chuck> q?
16:53:23 <Rachael> 2 but happy with 1
16:53:27 <dan_bjorge> 2, but ok with either
16:53:30 <Bri> 2
16:53:35 <Detlev> vote: can't tell
16:53:41 <DanielHE> 2
16:53:41 <Wilco> 1
16:53:42 <ashleyfirth> 2
16:53:43 <david-cox> Rationale for 2: we should try out modules early, to see if it works for us.
16:53:46 <ShawnT> 2 but happy with 1
16:53:46 <graham> 1 - it means the module sorting conversation can happen over time and also means that templates for pages, scoring etc. can be tested and improved on a more varied test set
16:53:47 <JakeAbma> 1
16:53:48 <Azlan> 1
16:53:48 <Ben_Tillyer> 1.5 (happy with either equally)
16:53:49 <jeanne> 1 but ok with 2
16:53:54 <bruce_bailey> 3 -- mostly 1 but at least one module
16:53:55 <mbgower> 2, i think, but can go either way
16:53:56 <Frankie> 0 abstain
16:53:57 <laura> 1
16:54:02 <tburtin> Unsure.
16:54:06 <GreggVan> not sure i understand     3 maybe
16:54:08 <julierawe> Not sure
16:54:10 <Rachael> q+
16:54:12 <jon_avila> 0
16:54:12 <ljoakley1> 0
16:54:14 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:54:15 <Detlev> Chuck: sems 50:50 for niw
16:54:16 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:54:17 <Poornima> 1, 2 is also fine
16:54:27 <david-cox> q+
16:54:31 <Frankie> +1 to a little bit of both
16:54:32 <Chuck> q+
16:54:34 <Chuck> ack dan
16:54:36 <Detlev> Rachael: Maybe look at Bruce's suggestion
16:54:47 <graham> q+
16:54:49 <Chuck> ack david
16:54:51 <dj> 11 1s, 9 2s (not counting secondary preferences)
16:54:53 <GreggVan> q+
16:55:03 <Detlev> Dan: Most people don't have a strong preference - anyone want to make an argument?
16:55:08 <alastairc> Suggest that we look for a module which has a diversity of outcomes?
16:55:12 <dj> q+
16:55:14 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:55:16 <Wilco> q+
16:55:30 <Rachael> q+
16:55:36 <Detlev> David C: Good case for modular, because we haven't done that yet
16:55:39 <Rachael> q-
16:55:49 <ljoakley1> q+
16:55:49 <david-cox> can do a 'test pilot' module. Low stakes, more about trying out a process.
16:55:54 <Chuck> ack grah
16:55:59 <Detlev> Chuck; The chairs could decide, of the group is split or has no objections
16:56:57 <Wilco> q-
16:56:58 <alastairc> That's true, a colour contrast module would be quite biasing for a scoring approach and/or conformance model
16:57:00 <david-cox> fair points from Graham, agree
16:57:09 <ljoakley1> q-
16:57:09 <dj> q-
16:57:13 <dj> graham++
16:57:17 <Glenda> +1 to what Graham is saying..I prefer starting with a diverse list outcomes (I think starting with a module or 2 would be too narrow)
16:57:18 <Wilco> +10 Graham
16:57:41 <Detlev> Graham: very diverse selection is important because it gives us a better feel also for modules - we also need to get informed o scoring - something may work for a particular module, but not across the board - so to make sure it works across the board will be important
16:57:42 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:58:30 <Chuck> q+ to change scribes
16:58:46 <Detlev> Gregg: we need to get a feel for what the structure will look like how the different types will look, how different areas will be handled, since some require a very different handling
16:59:15 <Detlev> ...if we can drop color contrast but just use contrast (we are doing luminance)
16:59:40 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
16:59:46 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:59:46 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to change scribes
16:59:57 <Chuck> Poll:  Focus on 1) a diverse selection of individual outcomes 2) diverse modules 3) Something else
16:59:59 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  reintroduce poll...
17:00:06 <dan_bjorge> q+
17:00:07 <graham> 1
17:00:13 <dj> can we add a neutral option?
17:00:14 <david-cox> +1 to Dan
17:00:15 <Detlev> 1
17:00:28 <bruce_bailey> dan_bjorge:  can bruce's proposal be in list?
17:00:45 <Detlev> 1 (I liked <grahm's argument)
17:00:46 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  okay, new poll
17:00:51 <Wilco> 1
17:00:57 <giacomo-petri> 1
17:00:59 <rscano> 1
17:01:04 <Detlev> 1
17:01:05 <JakeAbma> 1
17:01:06 <Azlan> 1
17:01:08 <Glenda> 1
17:01:09 <dan_bjorge> 3 > 1 > 2
17:01:14 <alastairc> Poll:  Focus on 1) a diverse selection of individual outcomes 2) diverse modules 3) Start with individual outcomes and complete 1 module 4) something else
17:01:17 <Rachael> 3 but only slight preference
17:01:17 <david-cox> 3
17:01:18 <GreggVan> 1   plus overall structure
17:01:21 <dj> 3 then 1
17:01:22 <laura> 1
17:01:24 <alastairc> 1
17:01:24 <jeanne> 1
17:01:25 <graham> 1
17:01:26 <TheoHale> 1
17:01:27 <kirkwood> 1
17:01:28 <julierawe> 3 but only slight preference
17:01:30 <shadi> 1
17:01:32 <ShawnT> 1
17:01:33 <ljoakley1> 3then 1
17:01:33 <Chuck> 3, ok with 1
17:01:34 <mbgower> 3
17:01:38 <Ben_Tillyer> Changing from 1.5 to 1 thanks to graham.
17:01:45 <Francis_Storr> 1
17:01:47 <Wilco> Update, sorry 3 > 1 > 2 Can't disagree with Dan
17:01:47 <ashleyfirth> 1
17:01:49 <AWK> 1
17:01:52 <jon_avila> 1 or 3
17:01:56 <graham> haha ben
17:02:03 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  (1) seems to have momentum
17:02:05 <david-cox> 2.25 (jk)
17:02:26 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  second poll from earlier
17:02:26 <tburtin> 1
17:02:30 <Chuck> Poll:  Should we focus on items 1) Covered in WCAG 2 2) Gaps on WCAG 2, 3) Something Else
17:02:49 <graham> q+
17:03:01 <ljoakley1> 2
17:03:01 <alastairc> 3, I'd like to start with 50:50, then re-assess later.
17:03:01 <Chuck> ack Dan
17:03:08 <Rachael> q+ to suggeset revise the poll for 3) a bit of both
17:03:08 <ashleyfirth> 2
17:03:12 <GreggVan> change option
17:03:13 <dan_bjorge> q-
17:03:14 <GreggVan> q+
17:03:16 <kirkwood> 2
17:03:17 <Chuck> ack graham
17:03:22 <jon_avila> 3 a mix.
17:03:22 <Azlan> 2
17:03:24 <Glenda> 3, I'd like to start with 50:50, then re-assess later
17:03:30 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to alastairc
17:03:32 <dan_bjorge> 3, a mix
17:03:32 <bruce_bailey> graham:  50 / 50 , 3 or 4 of each
17:03:34 <Frankie> 3 a 50/50 approach
17:03:39 <Ben_Tillyer> 3, a mix
17:03:40 <Chuck> q?
17:03:46 <david-cox> 3; 50/50
17:03:46 <jeanne> q+ to say option 3 is pick the strong researc-supported and include some gaps
17:03:51 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:03:51 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggeset revise the poll for 3) a bit of both
17:03:53 <GreggVan> 3  a mix    50:50 is ok but  69:40 ok as wll
17:03:53 <bruce_bailey> ... good to see if anything breaks
17:03:55 <Rachael> Suggested poll : Should we focus on items 1) Covered in WCAG 2 2) Gaps on WCAG 2, 3) Pix a mix of covered and new  4)Something Else
17:03:57 <dj> 3 mix
17:03:59 <dj> q+
17:04:03 <TheoHale> 3, I think we can make a mess right now and clean it up later.
17:04:03 <david-cox> 3
17:04:05 <GreggVan> q-
17:04:09 <Wilco> 2, mostly new stuff and/or things that need fixing in WCAG 2
17:04:11 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:04:12 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  new poll
17:04:15 <kirkwood> 3
17:04:21 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  finishing queue first...
17:04:21 <Chuck> ack Jeanne
17:04:21 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say option 3 is pick the strong researc-supported and include some gaps
17:04:22 <GN015> 3 topic based, ind of from scratch, taking into account what is present in WCAG 2.x and closing gaps
17:04:41 <Chuck> ack dj
17:04:42 <kirkwood> +1 to a mix
17:04:50 <bruce_bailey> jeanne:  Recommend we start with strongly reasearch supported -- which will be mix of both
17:04:52 <tburtin> +1 Jeanne idea
17:04:53 <alastairc> q+ to say I don't think we'll be picking that many, so we can filter by strong research.
17:05:21 <bruce_bailey> dj:  Mix , but we should be clear that we are not covering all gaps or all needs at start
17:05:24 <Chuck> ack ala
17:05:24 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say I don't think we'll be picking that many, so we can filter by strong research.
17:05:35 <ljoakley1> q+
17:05:46 <Chuck> ack l
17:06:16 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  to Jeannes point , not like we will be starting with 50+ -- so we can include those with good research
17:06:18 <alastairc> q+
17:06:19 <Chuck> q?
17:06:21 <Chuck> ack ala
17:06:31 <jon_avila> we want to do both so we can also show people what 2.2 would look like in a new model.
17:06:36 <Rachael> q+
17:06:46 <bruce_bailey> loriOkley:  If we do not start with gaps, how do we avoid repeating gaps from 2.x ?
17:06:47 <kirkwood> cough… COGA … cough
17:07:14 <david-cox> q+
17:07:41 <bruce_bailey> alastairc: coga as gap would be very ambitious , but thinking of gaps such as one technology is not covereed?
17:07:50 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:07:59 <bruce_bailey> ... ex mobile,  that can be broad and gaps as well.
17:08:29 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Point of including familar problems lets us start writing...
17:08:37 <Chuck> ack david
17:08:49 <bruce_bailey> ... if we pick as start something new will make it harder to get started
17:08:58 <alastairc> s/that can be broad and gaps as well/there a bits of gaps, but broad support.
17:09:26 <bruce_bailey> david-cox:  Noting that mix will mean publication will be odd for people not following this process...
17:10:05 <alastairc> David - we have an establish 'maturity' process for signalling how complete things are, which should help with the confusion
17:10:07 <bruce_bailey> .. but publishing can be address later.  We do not need to decide how to publish just to figure out how to proceed.
17:10:14 <Chuck> q?
17:10:20 <Chuck> poll : Should we focus on items 1) Covered in WCAG 2 2) Gaps on WCAG 2, 3) Pix a mix of covered and new  4) Something Else
17:10:29 <graham> 3
17:10:31 <alastairc> 3
17:10:31 <Ben_Tillyer> 3
17:10:32 <rscano> 3
17:10:32 <dj> 3
17:10:33 <maryjom> 3
17:10:33 <bruce_bailey> ... there are creative ways to publish that do not block working.  ATAG was example.
17:10:36 <jeanne> 3
17:10:38 <jon_avil_> jon_avil_ has joined #ag
17:10:38 <laura> 3
17:10:40 <ShawnT> 3
17:10:40 <david-cox> 3
17:10:44 <Rachael> 3
17:10:47 <Frankie> 3
17:10:47 <Wilco> 2 > 3
17:10:48 <tburtin> 3
17:10:49 <giacomo-petri> 3
17:10:52 <GreggVan> 3
17:10:53 <ashleyfirth> 3
17:10:55 <Azlan> 3
17:10:55 <Chuck> 3
17:11:00 <Bri> 3
17:11:02 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  poll item (1) is not just SC, but broader topics
17:11:02 <JakeAbma> 3
17:11:05 <Glenda> 3
17:11:07 <mbgower> 3
17:11:08 <jon_avil_> 3
17:11:10 <Detlev> 3
17:11:11 <rscano> Seems that 3 is THE answer :)
17:11:14 <dan_bjorge> 3
17:11:32 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Group is giving us a strong preference for option 3...
17:11:39 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
17:11:39 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Card Sort Results -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:11:40 <bruce_bailey> ... not making resolution
17:11:43 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
17:11:43 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, Chuck
17:11:51 <Chuck> zakim, close item 1
17:11:51 <Zakim> agendum 1, Card Sort Results, closed
17:11:52 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:11:52 <Zakim> 3. Discuss Outcome format and level [from Chuck]
17:11:57 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uNJ2riUQjP1FOei5HJvZmIlIXbYYQZaTQJ01hb4zFtk/edit
17:11:57 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
17:11:57 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Discuss Outcome format and level -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:12:00 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uNJ2riUQjP1FOei5HJvZmIlIXbYYQZaTQJ01hb4zFtk/edit
17:12:21 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  there was an Outcome and Format and Levels, see link
17:12:30 <graham> one quick one, can i suggest 1.1.1 is part of the mix, it is the most complicated item (in terms of what it covers and scope) in WCAG 2.0 and may end up being 2/3 criterion?
17:12:55 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  last week people signed up to try outcome using different formatting.
17:13:20 <bruce_bailey> ... We could take week to read over and discuss / vote over github...
17:13:27 <Glenda> q+
17:13:39 <bruce_bailey> ... but if anyone wants live conversation now, please say so.
17:13:40 <Chuck> ack Glenda
17:14:23 <bruce_bailey> Glenda:  I tried writing up "adaquate time before timeout" and it was not until I got to questions that I got to anything objectively measurable...
17:14:53 <Chuck> q?
17:14:58 <bruce_bailey> ... with going on to optional replies, I tried who/what/where/why that wilco used.  I liked question format.
17:14:59 <mbgower> q+
17:15:01 <Frankie> q+
17:15:03 <Chuck> ack mbg
17:15:14 <bruce_bailey> ... was also why to prompt chat gpt
17:15:47 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower:  Only one offered was time measure.  The others seemed too soft.
17:15:50 <Chuck> ack mb
17:15:54 <Wilco> q+
17:16:50 <bruce_bailey> Glenda:  I tried following directions, but I didn't get down to requirements and testable and normative stuff until last part of template.
17:17:02 <Chuck> ack Frankie
17:17:07 <bruce_bailey> ... I could not avoid objective parts in question portion.
17:17:18 <alastairc> q+ on the question format, and whether we can have a normative section below outcome.
17:17:37 <bruce_bailey> Frankie Wolf:  I took on alt text since i have had so many audiences for that...
17:18:06 <bruce_bailey> ... i did not explore question format, but I found exercise and template worked well at start...
17:18:06 <Chuck> q?
17:18:44 <bruce_bailey> ... The User Statement was essential to conveying meaning and think that may be a good way to approach.
17:18:50 <Chuck> ack Wilco
17:19:00 <bruce_bailey> .... authors need to understand impact before they can work on fixing.
17:19:00 <Glenda> I love the Question format AND the User Need (I think Frankie is so right.  The why is very important!)
17:19:34 <jeanne> q+ to respond to Glenda that if we restrict ourselves to only "objectively testable" excludes user needs.  The car analagy is overly simplistic. We should not be restricting what user needs we can include by only accepting "objective testing"
17:19:41 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  The what/why/where approach comes from ACT framing.  The user story problematic from perspective of who decides?
17:19:51 <dan_bjorge> +1 to Wilco - it shouldn't be part of the normative statement, but should be consistently nearby
17:20:41 <Rachael> q+ to normative
17:20:45 <bruce_bailey> ... lesson learned from ACT is that it is very easy for things to get complex, with branching.  ACT rules had to scrap initial approach and reformulate approach.
17:20:57 <Glenda> Responding to Jeanne - I’m all about qualatative assertions.  I love usability testing.  So…when I said, “a driver’s license” that would be like “usability testing has been done with people with xyz disabilities”
17:21:00 <Chuck> ack ala
17:21:00 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the question format, and whether we can have a normative section below outcome.
17:21:09 <GreggVan> q+
17:21:11 <bruce_bailey> ... But wrt Outcomes -- We have not settled if those are going to be normative or not?
17:21:38 <david-cox> q+ to mention a possible format similar to where, what, why: if, then, except
17:21:54 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  It would be straightforward to formulate timing as questions, but the way Glenda approach added much more than that.
17:22:01 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #ag
17:22:23 <bruce_bailey> ... there is tension between question and the what/where need details.
17:22:37 <Glenda> q+
17:22:52 <Chuck> ack je
17:22:52 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to respond to Glenda that if we restrict ourselves to only "objectively testable" excludes user needs.  The car analagy is overly simplistic. We should not be
17:22:56 <Zakim> ... restricting what user needs we can include by only accepting "objective testing"
17:22:59 <bruce_bailey> ... so top part, why is thing important , but normative part could be aimed at testers and be normative.
17:23:25 <bruce_bailey> jeanne:  Please see Glennda and my replies in IRC.
17:23:51 <Glenda> I want WCAG to be tech agnostic.  I propose the questions (or assertions) for THIS PASSES need to be tech agnostic.  We can do the tech specific in ACT.
17:24:03 <bruce_bailey> ... If we set ourselfs up to using testable statements we are going to have gaps like we do with 2.x...
17:24:07 <julierawe> +1 to Jeanne
17:24:25 <Chuck> q?
17:24:28 <mbgower> We define testing to the degree we can, and extend qualitative assessments after that, IMO
17:24:28 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:24:28 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to normative
17:24:39 <alastairc> Glenda - I'd like WCAG to cover a wide range of tech, but to do so the guidance will need to be specific for particular platforms.
17:24:56 <bruce_bailey> ... We have very valid user needs which have qualitative response.  We should not be testable as something that puts us in a box.
17:25:02 <Detlev> q+
17:25:08 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:   We have a couple references for this discussion.
17:25:11 <david-cox> q-
17:25:16 <giacomo-petri_> giacomo-petri_ has joined #ag
17:25:17 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:25:22 <bruce_bailey> ... I will put up GitHub discussion.
17:25:22 <Detlev> q-
17:25:30 <Rachael> Normative vs. Informative https://jamboard.google.com/d/1b3MZ6ToJja5vbKiRREpWBpCnReFRz4BO37EtR03IlGo/viewer?pli=1
17:25:33 <bruce_bailey> Chuck calls attention to time.
17:25:46 <Rachael> Nomrative/Informative Pros and Cons https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QF5Olq8880_OmP0Eyr7CmFti5O1VIFUXPhguA6DFzlE/edit#heading=h.jycm1yj4w2u2
17:25:48 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  I agree people keep repeating the same concerns...
17:26:24 <bruce_bailey> ... outcomes might be wrong word, "provisions" can cover testable but also not testable....
17:26:43 <Rachael> +1 to Gregg
17:26:46 <bruce_bailey> ... if provision not adopted in regulation, what needs to be done is still preserved.
17:26:48 <Chuck> q?
17:26:51 <Chuck> ack Glenda
17:26:58 <TheoHale> I worry that it's not testable it will not be enforceable and will have less value. I would love to figure out if there is a way to capture what Jeanne is making without diluting the value of testable things that are clear.
17:27:27 <Rachael> +1 to Glenda
17:27:37 <Chuck> +1
17:27:44 <bruce_bailey> Glenda:  As we pick outcomes, it will be important not to pick simplier ones.  We need some that are GOGA oriented which rely on assertions rather than objectives....
17:27:53 <kirkwood> +1
17:28:18 <bruce_bailey> ... the passing would be claims that organization did user testing or provided training or hired additional FTE.
17:28:19 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to this idea
17:28:31 <Chuck> q?
17:28:46 <bruce_bailey> ... Assertions are not perfect , but step in correct direction , similar to having a drivers license or not.
17:28:49 <david-cox> great note to end on
17:28:53 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 4
17:28:53 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review How-To Template -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:28:55 <jeanne> +1 Glenda
17:29:03 <graham> I like the idea right up until the point that it requires X or Y service, lots of smaller businesses would not be able to afford that cost, yet they may be "compliant" anyway.
17:29:05 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 5
17:29:05 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- WCAG 2.x updates (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024JanMar/0017.html) -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:29:13 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  WCAG 2 stuff
17:29:35 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  If you are here only for WCAG3, drop if you like
17:29:43 <mbgower> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1
17:30:03 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower sharing screen of project board.
17:30:37 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  People are having trouble with screen sharing and scrolling, so thank you mike for warning.
17:30:58 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower:  We sent out 8 new candidates for adoption last week...
17:31:40 <bruce_bailey> ... if we get feedback from AG that raise any concern, we put into "For discussion" with task force and make adjustments.
17:31:48 <Chuck> q?
17:31:57 <bruce_bailey> ... Please work from bottom up, only 6 items.
17:32:16 <bruce_bailey> Issue 1642
17:32:35 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1642
17:33:24 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  We want to have more about documentation required since "standard exit method" and other keystrokes are not well documented...
17:33:58 <bruce_bailey> ... 2.1.1 is just keyboard operable -- but quality of that not addressed by SC
17:34:19 <bruce_bailey> [mike reads changed line in Understanding doc]
17:34:53 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  Lots of conversation in PR thread.
17:35:28 <bruce_bailey> ... paragraph added responsive to issue raised in PR thread [which mike g reads]
17:35:43 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  Any quesitons?
17:36:04 <bruce_bailey> ... we think guidance supported and aligned with normative language.
17:36:37 <bruce_bailey> [mike reads from current understanding, litteral SC text]
17:36:59 <Chuck> q?
17:37:11 <alastairc> So it came up due to the question: Shouldn't odd keyboard key commands be documented? To which the answer is yes, that's good, but not required.
17:37:20 <bruce_bailey> ... SC says keyboard operation must be possible, does not require documentation regarding keyboard operation.
17:37:30 <alastairc> q+
17:37:57 <laura_> laura_ has joined #ag
17:38:04 <bruce_bailey> On the repo is a link to wiki, one over from projects tab
17:38:33 <bruce_bailey> ... wiki includes 5 tabs at present , 1st being process...
17:39:06 <bruce_bailey> ... newest tab, at bottom, is a parking lot for issues to be considered for wcag 3.
17:39:10 <Chuck> ack ala
17:39:38 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  We are putting some advice (best practices) into the Understand....
17:40:01 <bruce_bailey> ... things like it is good to add documentation for keyboard operation, but not part of the requirement.
17:40:25 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Patrcik had some concerns in the thread.  Any concerns from AG?
17:40:46 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  3560 anti-aliasing note
17:41:11 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3560
17:41:25 <bruce_bailey> [mike reads new paraghraph from PR]
17:42:37 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  First paragraph is what was previosly, new paragraph address how thin fonts result in different contrast ratios than calculated from CSS color specified...
17:43:02 <bruce_bailey> ... this new paragraph adopted from Understanding for text contrast.
17:43:12 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3560#issuecomment-1924237552
17:43:37 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  Content is from contrast minumum and enhanced already in Understanding.
17:44:17 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  Wilco raised in thread that ACT rule uses screen sampling, not using CSS values specified.
17:44:45 <mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3671/files
17:45:20 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  In thread there was a concern raised that using screen sample results in content failing which might have passed before , as anti aliases make text fuzzy.
17:45:36 <Chuck> q?
17:45:36 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  Overall we looking for alternative in PR thread.
17:45:48 <bruce_bailey> alastairc: `Please say so if you have concerns.
17:45:54 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
17:46:21 <bruce_bailey> John Kirkwood:  Can you remove "underlying"  that is confusing term.
17:46:49 <bruce_bailey> dan_bjorge:  Do not need to wordsmith here, but I will try to come up with another word or phrasing.
17:47:17 <giacomo-petri_> q+
17:47:32 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  The normative text includes "underlying" so might be difficult to change.
17:47:32 <Chuck> ack gia
17:47:50 <bruce_bailey> kirkwood:  Could be "specified" which is more understandable.
17:48:16 <Wilco> q+
17:48:24 <dan_bjorge> q+
17:48:27 <bruce_bailey> gpellegrino:  Tension between what is easy for author but harder for tester....
17:48:28 <alastairc> q+ on gradients (tangent!)
17:48:32 <Chuck> ack Wil
17:48:33 <david-cox> fair point from Giacomo. layered elements with alpha channels.
17:48:40 <bruce_bailey> ... images with gradients particularly tricky.
17:48:58 <mbgower> q+
17:49:01 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  If AG members have concerns, can TF merge regardless?
17:49:16 <Chuck> ack dan
17:49:18 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  This came up with detlev concern for example.
17:49:29 <GreggVan> present+
17:49:42 <bruce_bailey> dan_bjorge:  Detlev joined call, so were able to got through...
17:49:56 <bruce_bailey> ... for this example we do need AG feedback...
17:50:22 <bruce_bailey> ... AG has agreed on ACT rule with pixel picking if color does not match CSS value.
17:50:39 <bruce_bailey> AG has agreed to contradictory things.
17:50:53 <Chuck> q?
17:50:55 <Chuck> ack ala
17:50:55 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on gradients (tangent!)
17:51:09 <bruce_bailey> dan_bjorge:  AG also approve using CSS values as acceptable testing method.
17:51:38 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  To giacomo-petri please see understand document which includes gradient examples.
17:51:42 <Chuck> ack mb
17:51:53 <GN015> A tester might have a high-end graphic monitor with a high resolution, and end user might have an older monitor with lower resolution. The pixels might have other colors with the end user. This is not only uncontrollable, but unforeseeable.
17:52:04 <Chuck> q+
17:52:18 <giacomo-petri_> q+
17:52:20 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  WRT resolution on disagreements, that process is exactly what we are trying to iron out.
17:52:44 <TheoHale> We need to figure out a way of transforming an image to reduce the contrast and validate that these images are compliant. Pixel picking will result in bugs being filed that might not help people with disabilities as teams will focus on these issues.
17:53:01 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  We will continue to work on these on github and on friday call and tuesday calls, and refine process
17:53:19 <Chuck> ack gia
17:53:22 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:53:26 <Wilco> works for me Chuck
17:53:37 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  We agree that there is work to do with hashing out process.  All agree there is not perfect agree ment.
17:54:05 <Wilco> q+
17:54:21 <bruce_bailey> giacomo-petri:  My point about gradients, is that it as a tester with gradiant, instructions provided do not give enough clarity with background collors...
17:54:22 <Chuck> ack Wilco
17:54:44 <mbgower> q+
17:54:44 <bruce_bailey> ... anti aliasing introduce a variable that test cannot control
17:54:48 <alastairc> q+ to say that's the way it has been for colour-contrast checking for many years.
17:54:55 <Chuck> ack mb
17:54:59 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  My question to AG is if color picker instruction is valid?
17:55:05 <Detlev> q+
17:55:37 <SabidussiUsablenet> present+
17:55:42 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  Color picker with text and background is much more reliable and repeatable, does not conflict with using CSS values...
17:56:10 <Detlev> q-
17:56:13 <dan_bjorge> q+
17:56:21 <bruce_bailey> ... can ignore anti-aliasing effect by pixel picking from center and using color pick to identifiy repsentiative pixel.
17:56:43 <Wilco> +1 I think so. CSS colors works very well 99% of the time
17:56:50 <Chuck> ack ala
17:56:50 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that's the way it has been for colour-contrast checking for many years.
17:56:59 <bruce_bailey> ... with gradient can be tricky, but solid colors are reliable to use color picky.  So not necessar a contradiction.
17:57:53 <bruce_bailey> alastairc:  It can be a little subjective, but for my testing I like firefox pluging which can flag low contrast reliably and programatically...
17:58:03 <Chuck> q?
17:58:07 <Chuck> ack dan
17:58:15 <bruce_bailey> ... then I can drill down to more subjective elements on a page.
17:58:58 <Chuck> q?
17:58:59 <bruce_bailey> dan_bjorge:  Using CSS values uses most of time, but is not rare for discrepancy.  Please see thread and examples from JAWS-test...
17:59:09 <bruce_bailey> ... even 16 px letters can be an issue.
17:59:10 <GN015> sometimes you have to go through hell
17:59:18 <david-cox> adjourned!
17:59:22 <ShawnT> +1
17:59:29 <maryjom> present+
17:59:51 <laura> bye
17:59:53 <graham> see you all
18:00:14 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minute
18:00:14 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minute', alastairc.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:00:15 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/06-ag-minutes.html alastairc
18:00:52 <rscano> bye
18:00:52 <Chuck> rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/06-ag-minutes.html Chuck
18:02:26 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
19:00:16 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag