15:18:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:18:31 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/26-ag-irc
15:18:31 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:18:32 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:18:38 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:18:47 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2024-11-25
15:18:54 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:18:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/26-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:19:03 <Chuck> regrets:  Mary Jo Mueller, Bruce Bailey
15:19:13 <Chuck> agenda+ Introduction to FPWD Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile (WCAG2Mobile)(JJ)
15:19:21 <Chuck> agenda?
15:19:30 <Chuck> zakim, clear agenda
15:19:30 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:19:34 <Chuck> agenda+ Introduction to FPWD Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile (WCAG2Mobile)(JJ)
15:19:45 <Chuck> agenda+ Discussions of issues with publication
15:19:54 <Chuck> agenda+ Communications
15:20:06 <Chuck> agenda+ Content Related Definitions (text, image, content, interactive component, etc.)
15:20:19 <Chuck> agenda+ Subgroup working sessions
15:22:53 <Chuck> regrets+ Tiffany Burtin
15:54:14 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:54:41 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:58:18 <kevin> zakim, who is here?
15:58:18 <Zakim> Present: alastairc, Rachael, ToddL, ShawnT, ChrisLoiselle, Jennie_Delisi, filippo-zorzi, bruce_bailey, Ben_Tillyer, wendyreid, Azlan, Francis_Storr, mbgower, tiffanyburtin,
15:58:22 <Zakim> ... ljoakley, Makoto, mgarrish, nina, julierawe, GreggVan, Gez, kirkwood, Graham, dan_bjorge, MJ, jon_avila, Laura_Carlson, Glenda, scott, LenB, Kimberly
15:58:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see filippo-zorzi, GreggVan, RRSAgent, Chuck, Jem, kirkwood, Zakim, dmontalvo, jedi, elguerrero, hdv, ZoeBijl, alastairc, jeroen, bwang, alice, cwilso, Rachael, tink,
15:58:22 <Zakim> ... ChrisLoiselle, kevin, jcraig
15:58:26 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:58:34 <kevin> Present: Kevin, ChrisLoiselle
15:58:46 <ChrisLoiselle> apologies, can
15:58:48 <Chuck> present+
15:58:53 <ChrisLoiselle> apologies can't scribe today.
15:59:12 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:59:29 <ChrisLoiselle> thanks!
16:00:07 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag
16:00:10 <JJ> present+
16:00:35 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:00:50 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:00:55 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:00:58 <Jennie_Delisi> scribe+
16:01:08 <GreggVan> present+
16:01:13 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
16:01:16 <alastairc> present+
16:01:23 <elguerrero> present+
16:01:33 <Tananda> Tananda has joined #ag
16:01:40 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:01:48 <Tananda> present +
16:01:52 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:01:56 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Scribes get positive attention for their efforts
16:02:17 <kirkwood> (trophy?)
16:02:24 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: I also try to give out scribe trophies
16:02:41 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:02:41 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
16:02:41 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:03:03 <Makoto> present+
16:03:12 <Rachael> present+
16:03:15 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Thank you for joining.
16:03:17 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:03:20 <ShawnT> present+
16:03:31 <kirkwood> present+
16:03:31 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Is there anyone on the call who is new, or has a new role they would like to announce?
16:03:33 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:03:36 <julierawe> present+
16:03:56 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Announcement: holiday break.
16:04:06 <Jennie_Delisi> ...December 10th is the last meeting of the year.
16:04:14 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Next 3 weeks have no meeting
16:04:14 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:04:23 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Subgroups: figure out availability over the holidays
16:04:31 <Frankie> Present+
16:04:34 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Our group resumes January 7th
16:04:44 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
16:04:50 <ljoakley> presnet+
16:04:56 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Any new topics to add to the new topics list?
16:05:00 <ljoakley> present+
16:05:06 <Chuck> agenda, take up item 1
16:05:16 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:05:16 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduction to FPWD Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile (WCAG2Mobile)(JJ) -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:05:30 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:05:34 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:05:37 <ToddL> present+
16:05:41 <sarahhorton> present+
16:05:42 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: This is applying WCAG 2.2 to mobile.
16:05:57 <DJ> DJ has joined #ag
16:06:00 <DJ> present+
16:06:06 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Jan Jaap will be presenting
16:06:43 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: I am the new facilitator of the mobile accessibility task force
16:07:01 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Android, iOS, but also addressing the larger mobile space including hybrid apps
16:07:01 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:07:07 <LenB> present+
16:07:09 <Jennie_Delisi> ...On Github: matf
16:07:18 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Similar set up to WCAG2ICT
16:07:30 <Jennie_Delisi> ...WCAG2Mobile will be our working name
16:07:44 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:07:54 <Azlan> present+
16:07:59 <alastairc> /me oops, no, it's fine https://github.com/w3c/matf/
16:08:03 <Jennie_Delisi> ...(displayed the github information)
16:08:07 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
16:08:21 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There are files for each success criteria
16:08:26 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Then we add out guidance
16:08:27 <BrianE> present+
16:08:39 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There is a document on the github domain
16:08:46 <JJ> https://w3c.github.io/matf/
16:08:54 <r_brown> r_brown has joined #ag
16:09:01 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: this is the guidance
16:09:10 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We are getting ready for our first group draft ntoe
16:09:22 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We are still working on our abstract, introduction
16:09:30 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We have comments about our success criteria
16:09:39 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We have reached consensus for some of them
16:09:59 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We are taking the text as written from WCAG2ICT, and when needed adding our own changes and notes
16:10:11 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We are planning to have an expand and collapse
16:10:18 <Jennie_Delisi> ...1 for WCAG, 1 for WCAT2ICT
16:10:24 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Underneath you have our guidance
16:10:46 <Jennie_Delisi> ...This helps people review the sections of interest to them
16:11:00 <Jennie_Delisi> ...For our draft we have about 17 success criteria with something written.
16:11:06 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We are looking for feedback.
16:11:22 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We are interested in hearing what is missing.
16:11:24 <Chuck> q?
16:11:28 <kirkwood> q+
16:11:45 <alastairc> q+ to ask where the controversial ones might be?
16:11:45 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Your ask is for group members to review and provide feedback - correct
16:11:48 <kevin> q+
16:12:02 <Chuck> ack kikr
16:12:03 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: Yes. Especially the alignment to WCAG and WCAG2ICT. And if there are issues we should address.
16:12:05 <Chuck> ack kirk
16:12:10 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:12:22 <Jennie_Delisi> kirkwood: You characterized this as non-web. Is that the terminology?
16:12:30 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: No, not in our current workstatement.
16:12:31 <ChrisLoiselle> great work on this. Thanks for your presentation ! I like the alignment where it is applicable.
16:12:44 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I did try to focus on native, but we are considering other types.
16:12:58 <Jennie_Delisi> kirkwood: Thank you for clarifying.
16:13:11 <Jennie_Delisi> ...This will be a focus from a regulatory perspective.
16:13:16 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:13:17 <JJ> From Work Statement: The objective of the Task Force is to produce informative resources for applying WCAG to Mobile Applications, including but not limited to native mobile apps, mobile web apps, mobile web content, and hybrid apps using web components inside native mobile apps.
16:13:18 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: I will put the work statement in chat
16:13:23 <Chuck> ack ala
16:13:23 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask where the controversial ones might be?
16:13:41 <Jen_G> Present+
16:13:48 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Alarge-variation
16:13:48 <Jennie_Delisi> alastairc: From the draft - most of the conversation is happening around the ones which need to vary more.
16:13:59 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There is a tag for large variation. For me - that is where I will start.
16:14:09 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: The draft only contains the ones we have reached consensus on.
16:14:23 <Jennie_Delisi> jj: Yes, most of the description is happening in the medium and large variation ones.
16:14:27 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:14:48 <alastairc> s/most of the description/most of the discussion
16:14:48 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:14:53 <Jennie_Delisi> Kevin: I think it would be good to have an element of consensus from the group to publish
16:14:57 <Chuck> q?
16:14:57 <Jennie_Delisi> ...because it is the first time
16:15:05 <Chuck> q+
16:15:07 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Any other questions?
16:15:09 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:15:19 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: JJ - what is your preferred engagement?
16:15:28 <Jennie_Delisi> ...How would you like them to share with the group?
16:15:40 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: Ideally in a github issue so we can assign it to someone.
16:15:47 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
16:15:51 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Or if there is an existing issues, continue with those.
16:15:52 <nina> nina has joined #ag
16:15:56 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Otherwise the public email
16:16:11 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Also possible is to use Slack, though this is not preferred.
16:16:13 <alastairc> There is a "feedback" section at the top of the draft: https://w3c.github.io/matf/
16:16:17 <ChrisLoiselle> could you add the exploratory tag to the SCs in conversation that vary and point to the GitHub in the section?
16:16:19 <Chuck> ack Chris
16:16:47 <Jennie_Delisi> ChrisLoiselle: In the W3 document .io - there is a reference to github
16:16:55 <Jennie_Delisi> ...and possibly tag exploratory?
16:17:00 <Jennie_Delisi> ...That's a suggestion
16:17:05 <Jennie_Delisi> JJ: Yes, that is something we can do.
16:17:17 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Normally you would not link to an external website.
16:17:32 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We could place a link to the issue for people to join the discussion if we are allowed to do.
16:17:36 <Chuck> q?
16:17:38 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I think that would help.
16:17:47 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Any other questions or thoughts?
16:17:49 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:17:49 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Discussions of issues with publication -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:18:10 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Publication: we are working with maximum effort on the next draft of WCAG 3
16:18:19 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We have been making changes on the side.
16:18:22 <Rachael> The most recent version: https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/
16:18:33 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I will share screen
16:18:55 <Jennie_Delisi> ...This latest version  - I will highlight areas of interest
16:19:08 <Jennie_Delisi> ...At the top: there are a set of questions we are asking the public for feedback on
16:19:16 <Jennie_Delisi> ...(reads those questions)
16:19:39 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Most of this we asked for review a few weeks ago, so there have been minor changes
16:19:44 <Jennie_Delisi> ...To images alternatives
16:19:57 <Jennie_Delisi> ...This has the outcome, and the provisions
16:20:01 <Jennie_Delisi> ...The decision tree.
16:20:04 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:20:10 <Detlev> present+
16:20:21 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Most of these direct links should work. They are on the right.
16:20:29 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Some of the definitions have content.
16:20:40 <Detlev> q+ to suggest that "Avoid cognitive tasks" and should perhaps still be changed
16:20:51 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There are links to the appropriate method.
16:20:55 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Clear meaning is the new one.
16:21:07 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We have a decision tree which works slightly differently than the others.
16:21:08 <Chuck> q?
16:21:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Q+
16:21:13 <Jennie_Delisi> ...If you have a preference, please comment.
16:21:20 <Chuck> ack Detlev
16:21:20 <Zakim> Detlev, you wanted to suggest that "Avoid cognitive tasks" and should perhaps still be changed
16:21:48 <Jennie_Delisi> Detlev: I hope that this one guideline sounds odd where it says "Avoid cognitive tasks"
16:21:53 <Rachael> q+
16:21:56 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Can it still be changed?
16:21:58 <Chuck> ack Chris
16:22:07 <Jennie_Delisi> ChrisLoiselle: To keep up with terminology
16:22:18 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Are we now using foundational provision instead of requirements?
16:22:30 <julierawe> q+
16:22:31 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastair: yes. Foundational, supplemental, and assertions.
16:22:33 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:22:46 <GreggVan> q+
16:22:53 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: Re name change: most are exploratory, and just placeholders.
16:23:04 <ChrisLoiselle> makes sense, thanks!
16:23:05 <Jennie_Delisi> ...If there are ones like Detlev called out - we can change those now.
16:23:17 <Chuck> ack julie
16:23:18 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Pretty easy to change as long as nobody objects.
16:23:31 <Jennie_Delisi> Julierawe: Looking at the image alternatives section - there is a style guide
16:23:42 <alastairc> q+ on style guide
16:23:42 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Is that one there as a foundational requirement?
16:23:48 <Jennie_Delisi> ...How is that part of the image alternatives.
16:23:51 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:23:58 <Jennie_Delisi> GreggVan: We changes from requirements to revisions
16:23:59 <kirkwood> agree “avoid cognitive tasks” doesn’t sound right…. “avoid undue cognitive pressure… or something like that (needs work)
16:24:05 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:24:11 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We need a way to tell the requirements from the conditions.
16:24:16 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We don't have a shall vs should
16:24:38 <Rachael> q+ to answer gregg
16:24:38 <Chuck> ack ala
16:24:39 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on style guide
16:24:46 <Jennie_Delisi> ...If not to include recommendations - how will we tell the difference between requirements and recommendations
16:24:57 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Regarding the style guide - we have assertion next ot it
16:25:08 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Everything under image alternatives
16:25:18 <GreggVan> q+
16:25:19 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:25:23 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We have foundational ones, supplemental ones (above the base level of conformance)
16:25:27 <Jennie_Delisi> ...and we have assertions.
16:25:37 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There is also a note saying we are considering recommendations
16:25:45 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:25:45 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer gregg
16:25:50 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Not all guidelines will have all of those, but they are the ones we discussed so far.
16:25:54 <Detlev> "2.9.1 Reduce cognitive load" might be an option
16:26:00 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: right now we only use provision in a few places.
16:26:08 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We could replace the first one.
16:26:13 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:26:15 <Jennie_Delisi> ...To address the concern.
16:26:21 <Jennie_Delisi> GreggVan: That would be great.
16:26:25 <julierawe> q+
16:26:25 <sarahhorton> +1 to changing provisions to requirements
16:26:43 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Requirements and recommendation...and avoid ambiguity
16:26:44 <alastairc> q+ on including non-requirements in decision tree.
16:26:45 <Chuck> q+ to mention Detlev's suggestion Reduce Cognitive Load
16:26:58 <r_brown> present+
16:27:00 <Jennie_Delisi> ...In the keyboard group we have mixed requirements and recommendations
16:27:05 <Rachael> q+
16:27:07 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 for a non technical non W3 member to understand this from non technical plain language standpoint
16:27:17 <Chuck> ack julie
16:27:24 <alastairc> Chris, sorry, +1 to which bit?
16:27:42 <Jennie_Delisi> Julierawe: Having assertions listed - I just noticed another set of guidelines with an assertion with a styleguide listed
16:27:47 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Clear meaning will have one as well.
16:27:57 <Rachael> q+ to answer Julie
16:27:59 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Will the longterm plan be to have one at the end of every section?
16:28:02 <Chuck> ack ala
16:28:02 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on including non-requirements in decision tree.
16:28:08 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to the use of terms being used appropriately and defined.
16:28:13 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastair: to answer Julie's question
16:28:15 <Rachael> q-
16:28:31 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We need to get through a few more examples so we can work out if we can have a standardized style guide
16:28:41 <Jennie_Delisi> ...And then will have to discuss how this impacts conformance.
16:28:59 <Jennie_Delisi> ...For now we are including it because it is part of our intended scope
16:29:19 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Gregg was talking about adding the recommendations into the decision tree - I found that hard to do
16:29:23 <GreggVan> q+
16:29:28 <Jennie_Delisi> ...if you are trying to use it to get to a pass or fail.
16:29:45 <Jennie_Delisi> ...You would have to stack some of them at the beginning or end, when you already have your pass or fail.
16:29:55 <Jennie_Delisi> ...The tree helps with the pass/fail.
16:30:08 <Jennie_Delisi> ...But if the things that are not foundational - if they are used for scoring.
16:30:14 <Jennie_Delisi> ...They don't work in a tree as such.
16:30:21 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I would be interested to see the keyboard one.
16:30:24 <Chuck> q?
16:30:26 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:30:26 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to mention Detlev's suggestion Reduce Cognitive Load
16:30:31 <Jennie_Delisi> ...But for the ones reviewed so far, I cannot see a way to do that.
16:30:44 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Detlev made a suggestion of reduce cognitive load
16:30:49 <Jennie_Delisi> ...To update the name of that one.
16:30:49 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:31:00 <Jennie_Delisi> GreggVan: We cannot really use a direction item
16:31:06 <Jennie_Delisi> ...You can never satisfy that
16:31:16 <Jennie_Delisi> ...You have to have something which is a target.
16:31:20 <kirkwood> minimize
16:31:22 <Jennie_Delisi> ...A  minimum conformance level.
16:31:28 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Unless it is a recommendation.
16:31:33 <Chuck> q?
16:31:35 <alastairc> "Avoid complex cognitive tasks"?
16:31:39 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Then you can reduce, because you don't test a recommendation.
16:31:57 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Re Alastair's comment - there are some recommendations which would come alongside the requirement.
16:31:58 <kirkwood> agree ‘reduce’ is a comparative action
16:32:04 <Jennie_Delisi> ...But many are attached to a requirement.
16:32:16 <Jennie_Delisi> ...You must do this, best practice to do that...
16:32:21 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Makes sense to put them there.
16:32:39 <Jennie_Delisi> ...They do not contribute to scoring, but then they are located along with the other information.
16:32:43 <alastairc> q+ on listing together
16:32:47 <julierawe> q+
16:32:56 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I think they should be together.
16:33:01 <Jennie_Delisi> ...It could be in 2 columns.
16:33:03 <Chuck> q+ to say Users can complete tasks without needing to memorize nor complete advanced cognitive tasks
16:33:07 <kirkwood> “minimize cognitive load” (?)
16:33:10 <Detlev> My main point was that "Avoid Cognitive Tasks" sounds weird. I am not partial t any there particular name - so if reduce does not work it could be "Low cognitive load"
16:33:17 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Then if there are points for the recommendations, but this might be hard to do.
16:33:28 <Chuck> ack ala
16:33:28 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on listing together
16:33:33 <Jennie_Delisi> ...This would help get more of the untestable stuff in there.
16:33:44 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Onscreen are the list of provisions.
16:33:52 <Jennie_Delisi> ...It is in the listing.
16:33:53 <Rachael> q+ to say if and how we want to incorporate recommendations is a future conversation, post this publication
16:34:11 <Chuck> ack julie
16:34:15 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I think it will be useful once we review the keyboard one to see if there can be alignment.
16:34:34 <Jennie_Delisi> Julierawe: Will there be a link between the WCAG 3 guidelines and the how-to information living under WAI?
16:34:39 <Chuck> q?
16:34:42 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Will there be an easy way to get between them?
16:34:54 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:34:54 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say if and how we want to incorporate recommendations is a future conversation, post this publication
16:34:57 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Yes. It is in the "i" area that says "how to meet"
16:35:03 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
16:35:05 <dan_bjorge> present+
16:35:10 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:35:18 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:35:18 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say Users can complete tasks without needing to memorize nor complete advanced cognitive tasks
16:35:19 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: Re incorporating recommendations - we had decided to postpone it and we will come back to it.
16:35:33 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: There have been conversation around the naming of one of the guidelines
16:35:42 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I want to see if we can decide what that should be.
16:35:53 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Users can complete tasks (continues reading)
16:35:59 <Chuck> No memorization
16:36:08 <Jennie_Delisi> ...that is one possible title suggested.
16:36:17 <Chuck> ack Dan
16:36:33 <Jennie_Delisi> DB: I see the yellow and red 4s at the top of the document.
16:36:34 <Rachael> q+
16:36:37 <kevin> qq+
16:36:39 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Are these already being addressed?
16:36:49 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:36:49 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to dan_bjorge
16:36:57 <Jennie_Delisi> Kevin: They are not programmatic errors.
16:37:04 <Jennie_Delisi> ...They are missing defintions
16:37:13 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:37:30 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: some of those are missing links, and I have been doing some of those fixes while we have been meeting.
16:37:37 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Back to the title
16:37:41 <Chuck> minimize cognitive load
16:37:45 <Jennie_Delisi> ...of the one success critieria
16:37:53 <Chuck> No memorization
16:37:58 <Rachael> Detlev also suggested Low Cognitive Load
16:38:14 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: 3 suggestions
16:38:21 <GreggVan> q+
16:38:26 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:38:28 <Jennie_Delisi> Any other suggestions?
16:38:29 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:38:36 <Jennie_Delisi> GreggVan: I think low works.
16:38:37 <kirkwood> avoid high cognitive load
16:38:40 <r_brown> r_brown has joined #ag
16:38:40 <ljoakley> q+
16:39:01 <Jennie_Delisi> DB: I think low cognitive load is an improvement.
16:39:15 <Jennie_Delisi> ...But no memorization - 2.9.5 is fairly close.
16:39:18 <Rachael> q+
16:39:22 <Chuck> draft poll:  1) Minimize Cognitive Load, 2) Low Cognitive Load, 3) No Memorization
16:39:26 <Chuck> ack dan
16:39:28 <Chuck> ack lj
16:39:46 <Jennie_Delisi> ljoakley: If we say complete advance cognitive tasks - will that cover the new types of people challenges with puzzle pieces needing to go in the correct place to access the site?
16:39:47 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:40:02 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: This section of guidance has not had a subgroup work on it - it is exploratory
16:40:18 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Conversations around what it will cover does not need to happen or be decided.
16:40:26 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Please watch for when the subgroup happens.
16:40:57 <alastairc> scribe+
16:40:58 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
16:41:09 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:41:11 <alastairc> scribe: alastairc
16:41:13 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:41:17 <dan_bjorge> "Avoid cognitive tests"?
16:41:17 <Chuck> poll:  1) Minimize Cognitive Load, 2) Low Cognitive Load, 3) No Memorization
16:41:18 <Jennie_Delisi> scribe+
16:41:26 <Jennie_Delisi> * I am back - thank you
16:41:42 <Chuck> poll:  1) Minimize Cognitive Load, 2) Low Cognitive Load, 3) No Memorization, 4) Avoid cognitive tests
16:41:55 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:42:11 <kevin> q+
16:42:12 <ljoakley> 4
16:42:18 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:42:30 <Jennie_Delisi> Kevin: I sense there are a few definitions required for any of these
16:42:31 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:42:31 <Chuck> 4
16:42:35 <alastairc> 4, but does that address Detlev's understanding?
16:42:40 <DJ> 1/4
16:42:44 <Azlan> 4
16:42:44 <Jennie_Delisi> ...this should be considered what best suits your thoughts.
16:42:46 <julierawe> 1
16:42:47 <dan_bjorge> 4 > 2 > 1
16:42:47 <Detlev> There is a subentry "No cognitive tests" already...
16:42:56 <Rachael> 1 (4 is too close to another that it will likely be merged into in the future)
16:43:00 <Jennie_Delisi> kirkwood: Does "no memorization" cover it?
16:43:02 <Chuck> q
16:43:07 <Detlev> q+
16:43:13 <Chuck> ack Det
16:43:16 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: I did not think no memorization covered it.
16:43:16 <ShawnT> 2 or 4
16:43:23 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:43:30 <r_brown> 2.) Low Cognitive Load
16:43:35 <Jennie_Delisi> Detlev: I think avoid cognitive tests which would cover it, but there is an item beneath which covers this.
16:43:39 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:43:43 <Rachael> q+
16:43:48 <alastairc> q+ to suggest this needs to be tackled by the sub-group
16:43:51 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Minimize cognitive load is more general - maybe it covers the spread better.
16:43:58 <Chuck> ack gia
16:44:04 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I don't have a preference, but the original one is more difficult to understand.
16:44:17 <Frankie> Can someone reshare the options for voting? IRC keeps disconnecting.
16:44:21 <Jennie_Delisi> Giacomo: The current is very restrictive.
16:44:28 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There is a difference between test and task.
16:44:31 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:44:38 <GN015> 1, 4
16:44:41 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: I agree changing from tasks to tests reduces the scope.
16:44:52 <Chuck> q+ to report on the results of the poll
16:44:53 <ToddL> 1
16:44:55 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Originally there was one agreed upon in 2.2 - no tests, no puzzles.
16:45:04 <Jennie_Delisi> ...This one has a broader scope.
16:45:15 <kirkwood> 1
16:45:18 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I think there is a different gist to this that the subgroup will need to review.
16:45:19 <Frankie> 1
16:45:23 <Chuck> ack ala
16:45:23 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest this needs to be tackled by the sub-group
16:45:24 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I hesitate to remove it
16:45:38 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I wonder if we can let it go for the moment, and let the subgroup work on it.
16:45:39 <GN015> so I correct myself to: 1, alternatively keep the original
16:45:44 <OliverH> OliverH has joined #ag
16:45:49 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There is something similar coming which may overlap.
16:45:58 <Chuck> ack ch
16:45:58 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to report on the results of the poll
16:45:58 <Detlev> 1
16:46:00 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: That wasn't a poll option
16:46:09 <Laura_Carlson> 1
16:46:18 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: At this point, 1 is the highest response
16:46:24 <Rachael> Minimize Cognitive Load
16:46:29 <GreggVan> q+
16:46:29 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:46:46 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:46:46 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Let's change the name to Minimize Cognitive Load, knowing it needs to go to a subgroup
16:46:58 <alastairc> I think 1 had a stronger objection than the current option.
16:47:10 <Jennie_Delisi> GreggVan: That is impossible - I could never meet it
16:47:24 <Jennie_Delisi> ...If this is a requirement, we cannot use that type of vocabulary
16:47:26 <Chuck> q+
16:47:34 <Jennie_Delisi> ...The requirement underneath will be to meet some level.
16:47:36 <alastairc> "Avoid cognitive tests & memorization"
16:47:37 <Chuck> q+ to ask if there are any objections to Avoid cognitive tests
16:47:43 <Jennie_Delisi> ...If it is a recommendation, that is fine.
16:47:57 <Jamie> Jamie has joined #ag
16:48:11 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Those who supported 1 - do you have objections to the 4th option?
16:48:14 <Rachael> (chair hat off) I object to the 4th option
16:48:20 <Jennie_Delisi> ...1 was minimize cognitive load
16:48:23 <GreggVan> q+
16:48:25 <Jennie_Delisi> ...4 was avoid cognitive tests
16:48:26 <Jamie> present+
16:48:29 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:48:29 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if there are any objections to Avoid cognitive tests
16:48:35 <Rachael> q+
16:48:37 <Jennie_Delisi> GreggVan: cognitive test means you are testing the person.
16:48:39 <Chuck> ack Greg
16:48:40 <Detlev> Alastair's option is better
16:48:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Q+
16:48:50 <Jennie_Delisi> ...These are tests for whether it is a human.
16:48:51 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:48:57 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:49:09 <giacomo-petri> I'd like to also propose in the poll to keep it as is for now, waiting for subgroup feedback
16:49:11 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:49:12 <GN015> I prefer the original over Option 4, as 'tasks' is wider than 'tests'
16:49:21 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: I object to changing tests to tasks.
16:49:26 <Jennie_Delisi> ...that is chair hat off.
16:49:34 <Chuck> ack Chris
16:49:35 <Jennie_Delisi> ...This is talking about tasks.
16:49:35 <giacomo-petri> +1 to Rachael
16:49:56 <Jennie_Delisi> ChrisLoiselle: I feel it is more a subgroup thing
16:49:57 <Rachael> +1 to subgroup work needed.
16:50:02 <Jennie_Delisi> ...as opposed to word smithing here.
16:50:07 <julierawe> +1
16:50:09 <dan_bjorge> q-
16:50:12 <dan_bjorge> +1 subgroup
16:50:13 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There is a lot related to instructions and detailed instructions
16:50:23 <alastairc> +1, leave as is
16:50:26 <kirkwood> “CAPTCHA can test users’ cognitive ability”
16:50:28 <Frankie> +1 to leave as is
16:50:29 <giacomo-petri> +1
16:50:31 <Chuck> +1 to leave as is
16:50:31 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Then we are talking about leaving it here, knowing the subgroup needs to address it
16:50:35 <Makoto> +1
16:50:44 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: We will leave it as is
16:50:45 <ToddL> +1
16:51:08 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: We will send this out to the group for review
16:51:19 <Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: I think we are asking people to look at it today and tomorrow.
16:51:29 <Jennie_Delisi> ...If you know of an objection for going to CFC, please raise it.
16:51:37 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Then we will send the CFC tomorrow.
16:51:52 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Because Thursday is a U.S. holiday.
16:51:59 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Be expecting it to go out.
16:52:08 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:52:08 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Communications -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:52:51 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: There are a lot of people on the call who get questions about what is happening with WCAG 3
16:52:59 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We also know people will put out social media posts.
16:53:09 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We appreciate the work to keep the spotlight on the group.
16:53:20 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We have some communications suggestions
16:53:32 <Jennie_Delisi> ...These are things which might be helpful.
16:53:39 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We are moving towards publishing soon.
16:53:58 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Anyone who wants to create an article - start thinking about what you might want to say.
16:54:02 <Chuck> q?
16:54:07 <Jennie_Delisi> ...The W3C will have its own communications as well.
16:54:14 <Jennie_Delisi> ...When considering your communications,
16:54:21 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Please share that it is a draft.
16:54:34 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Point out the maturity levels - that most of the content is still exploratory.
16:54:47 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Include the key questions we want feedback on.
16:55:01 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Consider adding that WCAG 2 remains the standard of record, and will be so for a while.
16:55:18 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We would like you to avoid saying that WCAG 3 is around the corner.
16:55:28 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Also avoid suggesting that people start adopting it.
16:55:59 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Technical point: if images are used in communications to make key points, consider that the alt text doesn't always get moved forward to the next platform.
16:56:16 <Chuck> q?
16:56:26 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: images also sometimes do not get pulled through.
16:56:32 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Any questions?
16:56:43 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:56:43 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Content Related Definitions (text, image, content, interactive component, etc.) -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:56:59 <Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: This will be discussed in the future.
16:57:05 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/140
16:57:22 <Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I have introduced the topic - thank you to Gundula for responding.
16:57:29 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We need a few more reactions and comments.
16:57:46 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There are a few key ones that tend to get referred to a lot.
16:58:06 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I have suggested a couple of updates to the text one.
16:58:20 <Jennie_Delisi> ...I suggested an update.
16:58:36 <Jennie_Delisi> ...There are a couple of questions like: have you come across issues with the WCAG 2 versions we could solve?
16:58:46 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Would it help if we separated controls from content further?
16:59:00 <Chuck> q+ to either ask for a scribe change or end scribing
16:59:09 <Jennie_Delisi> ...Now would be a good time to point out solutions.
16:59:15 <Jennie_Delisi> ...It would be great to have more people review.
16:59:22 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:59:22 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to either ask for a scribe change or end scribing
16:59:24 <Jennie_Delisi> ...We could work on getting these into the next draft.
16:59:37 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:59:37 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Subgroup working sessions -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:00:53 <alastairc> scribe:alastairc
17:01:04 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
17:01:07 <alastairc> TOPIC: Keyboard feedback
17:01:40 <OliK> OliK has joined #ag
17:01:48 <alastairc> GreggVan: Originally had 5 provisions, went through them and kept repeating ourselves. E.g. user needs and testing.
17:01:57 <alastairc> ... looked at putting together into 1.
17:02:37 <alastairc> ... came to 9 user-needs / topics, and collapsed them down.
17:02:43 <Chuck> q+ to ask if we could schedule this for next week?
17:03:18 <alastairc> ... in the outcome we added a pre-condition, so you can jump out quickly if it doesn't apply
17:03:28 <alastairc> ... added a list of requirements underneath.
17:03:56 <alastairc> ... the last one is a bit tricky, comparing to other inputs.
17:04:10 <mbgower> q+ to say have you considered "comparable time on task"?
17:05:02 <alastairc> ... then, in the 'foundational requirements' section, it works through the various requirements [see doc, 2nd tab]
17:05:19 <alastairc> ... it incorporates the best practices.
17:05:32 <alastairc> ... they are like recommendations, just a different term.
17:05:52 <alastairc> ... it means you only have to navigate the page once, rather than going through 5 times.
17:05:53 <mbgower> q+ to say that "all elements viewable" is at least awkwardly phrased. Do you mean discoverable?
17:06:04 <alastairc> ... any time there is a recommendation, can be slotted into the tree.
17:06:24 <alastairc> ... sometimes there's best practice that doesn't slot in, went underneath.
17:06:44 <Chuck> ack ch
17:06:44 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we could schedule this for next week?
17:06:52 <alastairc> ... so what used to be a bunch of long, repeated things, it collapsed down into one.
17:07:06 <Chuck> q+ to ask what is the input, and can we treat this as an intro to a conversation next week?
17:07:24 <mbgower> q+ to say it looks like you also have not specified a need for indication of the current item with focus
17:07:29 <alastairc> ... Dan thought it was harder to parse than when separate.
17:07:34 <Chuck> ack mb
17:07:34 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say have you considered "comparable time on task"? and to say that "all elements viewable" is at least awkwardly phrased. Do you mean discoverable? and to
17:07:37 <Zakim> ... say it looks like you also have not specified a need for indication of the current item with focus
17:07:48 <alastairc> mbgower: This seems like a new topic, but three things I noted.
17:08:17 <Detlev> q+
17:08:19 <alastairc> ... for the final bullet, the comparison, have you considered a time comparable task.
17:08:53 <alastairc> GreggVan: yes, but also impossible. If there are 700 clickable items, there's no way to make that the same as zipping down with a mouse.
17:09:17 <alastairc> mbgower: "comparable time on task"
17:09:54 <alastairc> ... and further down, "all elements viewable", does that mean discoverable?
17:10:23 <alastairc> ... finally, in "h", focus not obscured, doesn't have the core requirement of visible focus indicator?
17:11:02 <alastairc> GreggVan: There's no interface that doesn't do that.
17:11:25 <alastairc> Alastairc: We have a separate guideline for focus-appearance.
17:11:40 <alastairc> GreggVan: Does the group support the overall approach
17:11:44 <alastairc> q+ on approach
17:11:50 <Chuck> ack detlev
17:12:17 <alastairc> Detlev: I like avoiding the duplication of testing, but some of these items seem to fit elsewhere.
17:12:27 <Chuck> qq+ alastairc
17:12:43 <alastairc> ... not sure about one big decision tree.
17:12:45 <Chuck> ack ala
17:12:45 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on approach
17:12:48 <Chuck> ack ala
17:12:48 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to react to Detlev
17:13:25 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:13:25 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what is the input, and can we treat this as an intro to a conversation next week?
17:13:46 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
17:13:48 <Chuck> alastair:  If the requiremnets and testing work together, that's a good sign that it is working as a single outcome.
17:13:58 <Chuck> alastair:  We have something that covers the visual appearance.
17:15:02 <alastairc> Noting that text contrast is now called "Text appearance" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGEgRebgj8XfvwU-Fx2kAtd-3Ifl-UkEgyOxT1Xc5UY/edit?tab=t.0
18:05:14 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
18:35:05 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
18:35:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/26-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
19:00:18 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
19:20:13 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
22:02:49 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
22:40:51 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag