<scribe> Scribe: Laura_Carlson

ac: Welcome Folks

<ChrisLoiselle> :)

<kirkwood> ;)

Announcements

Chuck: will be asking to close out older Silver issues.
... If you want any to stay open just say so and they will be kept open.

RM: Several people have come forward pronoun usage concerns.

<JenStrickland> Thank you so much for the thoughtful handling of this issue!

RM: We are evaluating on how to proceed. Please think of other points of view.

<CHall> I think there are language/cultural nuances involved with pronouns as they're very personal.

<CHall> Although /I use she/they, I don't really care about pronouns personally but I recognize that this is important to many people.

RM: Follow up if you make a mistake.

<CHall> I try to use names because I occasionally mess up

RM: This is difficult for some people. Avoid giving advice. We are working on it.

<Rachael> qq+

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to this comment

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to ljoakley

LO: How do we know what a person's preferred pronoun is?

RM: We don't have a formal policy. Could set preferred pronouns in Zoom & IRC

Julie: I tried in IRC but it wouldn't let her.
... Helpful if directions were sent out.

Jen S: This is happening in person and otherwise.

scribe: we don't need to somebody else's superhero.
... understand people are people. We make mistakes.
... With my job I can't add pronouns right now.

<julierawe> FYI, I just logged out and tried to log back in with my pronouns but got this message: julierawe_[she/her]: Erroneous nickname

scribe: There is a lot at play here. Be kind.

DJ: you can put pronouns in your real name field.
... Assume good faith.

Gregg: Would using they for everyone an option?

<Azlan> Looking at my Zoom profile, I can see a field to add pronouns and set how they get shared in meetings

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we are exploring this, and we aren't certain yet

RM: we will take. The suggestion under consideration thank you.

<mbgower> +1

AC Default to a person's name can help.

<alastairc> WCAG-EM

<kirkwood> link?

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/

Kevin: Some interest in updating the Web Conformance Evaluation Methodology.

<bruce_bailey> WAI overview page is: https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/conformance/wcag-em/

<kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-em

Kevin: Goal update refs from wag 2 to 2.2.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/conformance/wcag-em/#video

Repository is at: https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-em

<kirkwood> get in touch with?

scribe: contact Hidde if interested in helping

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/

Chris: interested in discussing.

Kevin: 2 things: Eval methodology and the reporting tool.
... slightly different things.

<ChrisLoiselle> reference for ATAG , https://www.w3.org/WAI/atag/report-tool/. Would be interested in both of these. Understood on your response Kevin, thanks!

Items https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/301

Ac: Discussion on defining "Item" #301 : https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/301

RM: We've talked a lot around different terminology that all come down to these smaller levels of components.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on terms

AC: haven't had much discussion in this discussion.

<Rachael> scratchpad at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TN5DrA__RZZ4u1Y1TIynlPCiC3nrFAaApTuLRtdPGqM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ti7ji79nncnn

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if "item" same as "part" conversation from last week

Bruce: is this from last week like views? UI views resonated with me.

<bruce_bailey> from last week, and view, the term which resonated for me was "UI view"

RM: a constant vocabulary may make sense.

Ac: Interface may be simpler.

<kirkwood> “element” is a classic term (print)

RM: concerned about losing the user.

JG: Should start thinking about AI. Not really an interface.

<CHall> q+ to say what's the difference between UI content vs UI context? UI context refers to surrounding environment and conditions which user interacts with UI that encompasses tasks and application state

Carrie: what's the difference between UI content vs UI context? UI context refers to surrounding environment and conditions which user interacts with UI that encompasses tasks and application state

Ac: content is essentially everything.
... So we have the sort of WCAG 2 definition which uh which is kind of all encompassing. So if there's any change of content then you might be, if we tied a Ul context to the Ul content.

<kirkwood> suggestions: elements, boxes, containers

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if "testable unit" been tried enough to rule it out? and to ask if "testable unit" been tried enough to rule it out?

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to bruce

Jory: concept of item is sort of partially owned by some roles in the form of list item and menu item are the two that I can think of. I don't know if there's more.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say concern about confusion between content and context

<bruce_bailey> testable part seems fair to me

<bruce_bailey> +1 to jory concern for "item"

Bruce: Have people had tried using testable unit?

<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to say onscreen for specific view "size"

<CHall> yes to what Rachael just said, confusion between what's interactive and what isn't, why I asked about this.

RM: I'm not aware of someone having tried it. So we could certainly try that.

<kirkwood> ai response: Software Development & UI Design: The smallest testable unit is typically a component (e.g., a button, input field, or label in a design system).

Jennie: When people are designing, does this account for them designing for a particular view?
... example.

There's the mobile view size. There's different screen sizes, and then there's the issue of what would be off screen.

Ac: I don't think that concept would be a problem for whether it's on or off screen.

<kirkwood> both are

<bruce_bailey> to Ben, is "Unit Testing" imply something larger than smallest testable part ?

<Azlan> I like the idea of unit tests and integration tests

Ben: to plus one to Bruce's comments.

Whenever I talk to people in software testing outside of accessibility, they're either doing integration testing or unit testing.

<kirkwood> it should be ‘namable’

<bruce_bailey> to kirkwood (and ai response) and smallest testable unit typically being a component, i think that is okay even with components having smaller parts (buttons, fields) which might be tested

<bruce_bailey> +1 to scott

Scott: Even in this definition of item that's you know working on right now You're talking about interface components, which include like dropdowns, menus, and links But I would look at that as like drop down, you know, whether that's like a combo box with a list box pop up
... What word we use is probably okay as long as we can just get agreement on it.

<kirkwood> a namable unit such as…

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to propose this is smallest unit, with potential parent units

Ac: I'm sort of coming to the conclusion that maybe, and sorry chair hat off, I'm really commenting on the sort of text maybe we should update it to remove The component bit, well, remove the term component. So such as a menu item, a link.
... Or a control on a media player would make that, I think, the smallest thing.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say same issue with sentences and paragraphs

Roland: why we do not use the good old user interface element or user interface object. It seems to me very similar to what we are describing here.

<kevin> WCAG 22 had user interface component: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-user-interface-components

ac: Part of the reason is to be clearer because we've had problems in WCAG 2 for some of the things like focused elements and things where you have this parent-child relationship and it wasn't clear.

RM: I think different requirements will need different scopes of smallest testable unit testable unit the concept of what is truly smallest and then acknowledging they can be nested or have multiple parents at different levels may be a really good way to approach this.

Ben: So I'm envisaging some sort of conformance claim in the future and In that, if I was writing one of these conformance claims I would probably want to list out the items that I know to be compliant or non-compliant.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to rachael , wcag 2.2 uses "element" (or elements) 17 times -- but "element" is not defined term in glossary

Ac: I don't think we'd be using this as a conformance unit.
... We've been talking about the user interface context which are equivalent conformance unit to sort of web page.

JK: I just wanted to make sure that we have in there as a named unit. So it's something to be tested and indexed tested and indexed. It's not it's not named in some way, then I think It's sort of out in the ether.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/301

AC: that's what we have at the moment. It could be a phrase, paragraph, label, error message, icon, image.

It's what is our smallest useful unit that could be referenced in a guideline.

<Rachael> Straw Poll: Item, Part, Unit, Smallest Testable Unit, Component, Element, Object

<jaunita_george> +1 to unit

<joryc> unit

<DJ> smallest testable unit

<alastairc> +1 to unit, or ui-unit

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to unit

<bruce_bailey> smallest testable part

<ljoakley> _1 element

<ljoakley> +1 element

<kevin> +1 Smallest Testable Unit or unit

RM: We'll move this conversation back to GitHub and we encourage you to continue having the conversation.

<Chuck> smallest testable unit or unit

<ShawnT> +1 Smallest Testable Unit

<GreggVan> -1 smallest testable part

<Rachael> Element or unit

<Graham> +1 element

<robu01> +1 element

<JenStrickland> +1 to unit, due to concerns about element being confused with HTML element by end users

<Jennie_Delisi> Preference is smallest testable part, but understand its length may make it more suitable as the definition for the other 2

<LenB> smallest testable unit

Shadi: Is it imaginable that we will need something larger than item? And smaller than UlView. I'm thinking of a collection of items that together are I don't know, something else on a unit another item

<MJ> +1 unit or +1 smallest testable unit

<Chuck> unit and "smallest testable unit" have the plurality.

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format-1.1/

<alastairc> q/

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- repeating problems with redefining terms already understood to mean somthing else

AC: I was thinking that along similar lines too Because if we are sort of strict about the smallness of the unit than there are parent sort of and grouping relationships that I think we might want to reference, but I think it would be useful to start here and build up.

<shadi> -1 element because it's too close to HTML terminology; +1 item because it leaves unit available as a larger component (collection of items)

<Poornima> +1 to smallest testable unit

<ChrisLoiselle> For example, https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format-1.1/#test-cases

Chris: Maybe sync on... prior work done. unit, component, element, object, discussion for what they've covered in the rules and how they craft that information.

AC: We'll see if we can cross-reference.

Gregg: I remind the group of the danger and the fact that it is bad practice or forbidden practice to use words that already have another definition and then attribute our own meaning to them.
... secondly, I think we want this work to be picked up by standards bodies And such as BN301549.

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format-1.1/#rule-types is also worthwhile

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask ben if "unit testing" defines "unit" ? and to ask ben if "unit testing" defines "unit" ?

Gregg: we are not allowed to redefine terms that are already defined in other standards.

<todd> unit is not in the ACT glossary https://act-rules.github.io/glossary/

<ljoakley> Greg, couldn't you just check the glossary?

<todd> +1 to unit

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format-1.1/#test-subject then test target within the test subject

<kirkwood> AI: In web design, a "design unit" refers to a fundamental building block or standard used to maintain consistency and structure across a website or application, often implemented through a design system.

<bruce_bailey> does UI imply interaction ?

Bruce: I wasn't clear from Ben's conversation of unit testing I think that you have a different definition from unit.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that this gives us internally a place to start.

<shadi> +1 to test target

AC: maybe we start off with unit for now, but... Except that we need to cross-reference things

Chuck: we've accomplished that we can use some derivative of unit for us And continue the conversation and do our research across the other standards to see where it might be used elsewhere.

<kirkwood> JK preference: “design unit”

RM: So we have been talking about defining task flow and process.
... I think the next step in this is us to go through requirements and see how well the definition of process we have works. I'm going to scroll down to where we kind of landed.
... we would like people to make comments on whether they agree with it, they don't agree with it, what their preference is as far as the views question.

<ChrisLoiselle> partial regrets, customer call at same time. Thank you.

RM: I will write a summary of the items conversation in GitHub. Please come back to that as well and add your comments and thoughts there.

s/poilicy /policy /

s/persons preferred /person's preferred /

s/Default to a persons /Defaulting to a person's /

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/had to update zoom legally thus left and came back and I'm present//
Succeeded: s/. T/ t/
Succeeded: s/Hide/Hidde/
Succeeded: s/stock stay /to stay /
Succeeded: s/I have she//I use she/
Succeeded: s/persons preferred /person's preferred /
Succeeded: s/poilicy/policy/
Succeeded: s/a persons name /a person's name /
Succeeded: s/reason is be /reason is to be /
Succeeded: s/was are / are /
Succeeded: s/the the /the /
Succeeded: s/the the /the /
FAILED: s/poilicy /policy /
FAILED: s/persons preferred /person's preferred /
FAILED: s/Default to a persons /Defaulting to a person's /
Succeeded: s/and etc and if /tested and indexed. It's not /
Default Present: MJ, Azlan, giacomo-petri, kirkwood, todd, ljoakley, CHall, JenStrickland, DJ, kenneth, bruce_bailey, AlinaV, gpellegrino, Ben_Tillyer, julierawe, jtoles, Frankie, Glenda, Francis_Storr, ShawnT, jaunita_george, BrianE, Graham, Makoto, LenB, mbgower
Present: MJ, Azlan, giacomo-petri, kirkwood, todd, ljoakley, CHall, JenStrickland, DJ, kenneth, bruce_bailey, AlinaV, gpellegrino, Ben_Tillyer, julierawe, jtoles, Frankie, Glenda, Francis_Storr, CHall9, ShawnT, jaunita_george, BrianE, Graham, Makoto, LenB, mbgower
Found Scribe: Laura_Carlson
Inferring ScribeNick: Laura_Carlson

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.)