Meeting minutes
Chuck: New individuals with our group, anybody who has not participated before would like to announce themselves?
Finalizing terminology https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/286#discussioncomment-13583192
Chuck: In this meeting, we are looking to get to a conclusion on accepting some terminology.
AC: activity on this.. I've done a new summary.
AC: The main discussion points we've had in the last couple of weeks are a bit of discussion about what constitutes an interactive item.
… We had quite a few people making points about how the current page definition is interpreted.
<bbailey> possibility: Clear, Objective, but Not What People Think
AC: (ac goes over the linked document)
<GN015> I understand a video player is not a non-interactive element, is that correct?
AC: I think the main discussion is around view.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to a previous speaker to explain how I will manage queuing before we process queue
<bbailey> +1 to GV that definitions building up nicely
Gregg: let's talk about components. You said a menu is not An interactive element and yet when you click on it, something happens.
… so paragraph is clearly not a component.and because it's not interactive, unless it's got links in it, which in case they are, but in which case that makes the paragraph a component.
AC: interesting comment on the paragraph with lots of links in. I'll have to think about that,
… I don't see a problem with saying that a menu is a grouping of interactive elements,
… They each interactive element within it is taking user input, so in a menu, you might have one thing that you click on that opens a menu, and then you click on something within the menu, and that does something. Those are different interactive elements.
<alastairc> I guess each link is for a different function, it's not a grouping?
Gregg: My suggestion isn't that you change the name, it's you change the concept. it's conflated.
<ChrisLoiselle> Not sure if this helps the conversation https://
<Zakim> Rain, you wanted to discuss component
Gregg: I don't think we need to have it in the hierarchy.
<bbailey> I think that a paragraph of static text might be a component (or part of component) when its an analog to longdesc type usage.
Rain: Components has a extremely specific meaning when we're talking about design systems.
<scott> +1 to rain's point. i've said similar in the past. components in component libraries / design systems aren't always interactive.
<alastairc> Question then: What do we call a grouping of interactive elements?
HV: The word component is not suitable for us, because developers use it in a lot of different ways, and it's going to confuse people, +1 to what Rain said, people create components with non interactive elements all the time, like Paragraphs with just text everywhere.
<alastairc> The wider concept of component doesn't help us in the spec.
HV: thing we could do is use the word part, within the definitional view to kind of make it a little bit more generic, but then we could physically talk about, like, a specific part of the whole.
<scott> also it can get weird if we have items which aren't typically interactive, but then are made interactive via scripting or because they've been given things like tooltips.
<Chuck> +1 to interactive unit, no objections to interactive group
HV: We could also explore Greg's suggestion, that we maybe don't need a component in the hierarchy,
<Rain> additional suggestions: compound component, module, block
HV: I disagree with the notion that unprecise view definition would be a problem for regulation, at work (regulator/monitor) we monitor at 1000s of conformance reports, people already apply web page inprecisely, eg when they apply WCAG to apps as EU governments 'have' to, and we don't find this lack of preciseness is not a problem,
… My suggestion would be to try and update it in HTML.
… I also think that they would be open to that.
<Zakim> GN, you wanted to state that the current conformance unit is unfeasible for business software
GN: I would like to turn to the conformance unit. So, I feel when a view or a page from conformance units, it should also be clear how they are defined.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on interactive items and components and to comment on "building block", but need to specify a grouping rather than a building block, what would the term be? and to comment on including processes, which is how it currently is in WCAG 2
GN: I would like to address the point that currently it is said the viewer page is part of the process, the whole process must be part of the conformance.
… Report unit I feel this is unfeasible, at least business software, but maybe also for web pages.
AC: We could separate the individual things which take focus from the component as a whole.
AC: So, I think it is helpful. I take the point about the clash that it has.
… I think it's helpful to have interactive element, or something like it and it's helpful to have a grouping.
… Definition of the conformance thing is from WCAG 2
Gregg: We do have to talk about process very, very carefully, but I think it's a really good concept.
<alastairc> Topics: Refining name (or concept) for components, Definition of view/page (objectivity), including whole of a process.
Gregg: I would stay away from components.
… Interactive collections is fine.
<alastairc> Why does a menu have to be "an" interactive element? The menu is made of elements.
Gregg: We really have to be careful around the navigation.
… And the last comment on interactive items is intent. That is untestable.
AC: I'm still not understanding why a menu couldn't be considered a grouping of interactive elements.
<scott> you can't tab to menus though. you either tab to the button that opens them, or you tab to the first menu item and then you can open that
Gregg: Because the paragraph is a grouping of interactive elements.
<Rain> Worth noting that many design systems include a menu component (or a handful of menu components depending on the complexity of the design system)
Gregg: an interactive element, then we're okay, because it works. If a menu isn't an interactive element, then you have to change the rules from.
AC: I don't think a paragraph would qualify if you've got links.
That are essentially separate links that go to different places.
<Azlan> Is there any reason a "group" may not be interactive in itself? If so, I feel it covers a menu/accordion etc.
Gregg: Will take this off line.
<Francis_Storr> https://
<Azlan> Correction - if not I feel it covers menus etc
<Rachael> +1 to aligning with html
<scott> +1 Francis
<hdv> +1 Francis!
<Adam_Page> +1 Francis
<alastairc> +1 if the individual things are 1 item, and composite are multiple.
FS: For the naming of the interactive elements, have we looked at adopting ARIA's widget roles and composite widgets?
Gregg: love the concept of view.. I just haven't been able to figure it out.
<Zakim> q, you wanted to discuss Gregg: can you explain why we need to determine so precisely what is and isn't a view, for whom does it solve which problems?
Gregg: how do you determine them?
… When we talk about view, we can't figure it out.
… With page, it's very clear. It's a URL.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask why we need a separate definition for an individual element and a group of elements
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to reply on why we need separate definition for individual and groupings of interactive elements. and to comment on the non-utiliy of page, and gregg's comment on view seems to be for an old version
RM: Why do we need a separate Interactive element and interactive, grouping of interactive elements versus just defining them one time as a single element and a grouping of elements.
<bbailey> keyboard / inputs subgroup also needed to distinguish between active and inactive elements
AC: The reason for having an interactive element is that you need something to refer to when you're talking about focus, target size.
… the definition of web page is clear and not used.
<bbailey> +1 that wcag2 definition for webpage clear (enough) but not used
AC: going back to that Web app example, essentially all the components change between these views, even the ones that look similar are actually different components, because it kind of replaces the whole screen.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to agree with @hdv that ambiguous terms not blocker for audits -- but it does seem problematic for SD
AC: A component. A grouping of interactive elements that allows you to change the content.
<alastairc> Working fine because we ignore the definition!
<GN015> In fact, navigation can bring the user to different products within one portfolio, therefore I disagree it should (necessarily) be called one view.
Bruce: we're spending a lot of time on these definitions, and they're working fine with WCAG2-oriented audits.
… it's not been a hard blocker.
<Chuck> +1 to retirement!
Bruce: So I think we need fuzzy words.
HV: Agree with Bruce regarding Fuzziness.
… Why we need to determine very precisely where one Where one view starts and where one ends?
… work for a regulator haven't really found it to be a problem.
<Jon_avila> Regarding the definition of view - how would responsive variations impact that - would that be a different view?
Gregg: The reason we need to have preciseness is because you can be fined. Or you can go to court, and if you have a lawyer who's worth worth their salt you can show that the actual regulation is nonspecific. Then you don't have to follow regulation at all.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the dead-end of defining "how much change" and to add that informative info about sampling / methodology are more useful.
Gregg: why is target size important, but not important for a menu?
AC: It's important for a menu, but it's important that each individual thing that you can target, so items within it, or the trigger for the menu, should each have sufficient size.
<scott> it's a menubar that contains menuitems. those menu items then invoke their own sub menus
<alastairc> https://
Gregg: I'll go back and rethink.
Gregg: Your new definition of view has the same problem.
<ChrisLoiselle> partial regrets for 2nd hour.
AC: Could be a page or multiple pages, with a navigation at the top, and tabs at in the middle.
Alastair: I tend to agree with Gregg that I don't see how we can use a definition of view that specifies an amount of change. Attractive but messy to police. Originally we wanted to use change of context to change view.
… this definition is intentionally wide. I was hoping we could progress with the wide definition partially because we are moving to Developing.
… Its not the end of the conversation. If its wide, it encompasses everything. The definition helps you chunk it up but the slices are very wide.
… from a regulation pt of view, it doesn't give you a get of free card. You are still on the hook for a lot of stuff.
… for conformance claims, they set the scope, whether it is page or views.
… my proposal is that we proceed with these definitions. I can talk to gregg and circle back with the group. If we can move forward with these. We have a note that says if you can use URLs, use those. If not, you can use views.
… We can still refine all of them but if we can get approval to get them in the next draft and test them out in our requirements, I think its a good next step.
Can we poll if we are happy to move them forward on that basis?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to alastairc to ask for scribe change
<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to respond to Gregg and ask if WCAG today isn't interpreted by different people in different ways in your experience?
hdv: I want to respond to Gregg's comment that interpretation is bad. Yes it is but that is true today and legal systems worldwide differ on these things.
… I think you are trying to make view more precise than necessary. I suggest we accept something that is good enough instead of 100% perfection. I don't think we can get there and we don't have it today. I don't think we nee dit.
… I agree with the wider definition. I think it works quite well.
<GN015> I feel the written definition of 'page' differs from the definition which Alastair just explained. Also the order in the document suggests a page can conatin several views, while Alastair said a view my contain different pages.
hdv: I like the idea of making URLs the default so everything today still works but we expand what we can do. Let's find precise enough
<GN015> Therefore, and because there are still many comments in the document, I feel we are not ready to decide on the definitions.
Detlev: Just two points. Quick on about the legal side and lack of preciseness. I think in most cases when a client is being accused of being inaccessible, it is not for something dependent on the definition of view or page. I don't think its an issue very often.
… can you scroll to the view definition? I am still not quite understanding what it means. I think it is the "that" at the end of the sentence. May be difficult for others as well.
alastairc: If you are using a nav bar within a view to change content within the view, you are still in the same view.
… content within the same layout are in the same view.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say MUST be true for page -- should be true for Page OR say [page/view] so people read all of the requirements with both words so they can see what each provision would look like for
Detlev: But that means that in a web page with consistent navigation, the whole site would be a single view.
alastairc: Default is URL.
GreggVan: I agree nothing is 100%. That is why when we talk about interrater reliability its not 100%. Can't ask if everyone likes it. That's something else.
<Detlev> @alastairc if you audit apps (no URLs) with a common bottom nav, it would face you to put ALL findings into reporting on ONE view!
GreggVan: Suggestion that we can use page or view. I agree that in many cases it doesn't matter but in a few it does. I think its important that we read the provisions with both page and view and see how it works,.
<Zakim> kenneth, you wanted to caution dependency on URL and potential for malicious compliance
<alastairc> Detlev - yep. Is that worse than when it only has 1 URL? We divide things up by components anyway.
kenneth: Whenever I hear dependence on if the URL changes. Some update too often and some don't. Keep in mind that URL changing or not can be an implementation detail. I worry we could end up in the tail wagging the dog if too much depends on that.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask for clarification about next pub and use of [page/view] ?
bbailey: I want to respond to draft poll. I think I am hearing you say that hte next pub would have a definition of view, keep the definition for page, and in the requirements would say "page/view"
<GreggVan> +1 to bruces suggestion
<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to ask if offline convo between Alastair and Gregg could include wider views
alastairc: Other option would be "conformance unit"
<Detlev> alastairc In situation of Web stuff with one url we would specify pages based on other attributes (heading etc.) not he same as component in my view
<Detlev> +1 to idde
hdv: I want to ask about opening the Gregg/Alastair conversation to others.
<Detlev> hidde
hdv: legal situations are different between US and Europse.
GreggVan: I want to second what he just said. Its not Ok for a smaller group to make decisions. A better idea would be to say here is a time where anyone interested in a long discussion can come.
… then they can shake it out.
alastairc: To hidde, I think it was to go through interactive element to go through definition but others are welcome.
Chuck: Poll but not resolution?
alastairc: Poll would be if everyone agrees with the draft resolution.
<Chuck> poll: Move the terminology in the document from exploratory to developing
alastairc: Editor's draft will have everything but the next content will be shwoing developing.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to Chuck
Chuck: Let's discuss that topic on its own, next week.
bbailey: The document we were discussing isn't clear about keeping the word web page.
… the document isn't clear that we will use all the terms.
<Chuck> Draft Poll: Move the terminology in the document from exploratory to developing
Francis_Storr: Does the W3C have an information architect on staff to help us define these terms?
<bbailey> thanks , i am okay with draft poll then
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to bbailey
kevin: No. The definitions are the working group's responsibilty as they are the specialists. We can reach out if there is difficulty.
Francis_Storr: Having worked with some before, they are very helpful.
GreggVan: Defintions for voluntary standards have a different set of rules for standards for use in regulations.
… need someone good for definitions in regulations.
… I think you are asking if can we switch from just pages to pages and views. When would we use either one. If we did that, and then use [page/view] everyone can look at it and comment back.
… see what problems are there. Is that the direction we are talking about going?
<alastairc> currently we only have "view" in the draft!
Chuck: I don't know what to poll.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think we are pollable
<Chuck> Draft POLL: Move the terminology in the document from exploratory to developing
alastairc: In the last draft we only have the defintion of view. Proposal is that we use the definitions in this document for the next draft and then use page/view which will draw attention to the definitions so we can get feedback,.
… moving to developing and include all of it in the next draft.
<alastairc> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Azlan> +1
<julierawe> +1
<hdv> +1
<GN015> -1
<bbailey> +1
<Glenda> +1
<Rachael> +1 with understanding htere are a few more opportunities to tweak as we review the draft for publication
<Frankie> +1
<joryc> +1
<DJ> +1
<Detlev> -1 I don't think the view definition is useful for content without URLs - we need a finer level of aggregate for reporting
<Laura_Carlson> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<LenB> +1
<GreggVan> +1 if viw] like/we have [page/view] like/viw] like alastair described
<Rain> +1 with acknowledgement that there will be ongoing conversation
<Francis_Storr> +1
Schedule Survey Update
https://
Rachael: Just taking about moment to discuss the schedule survey.
… we dropped the option of "do everything" and tried to refine the descriptions.
… the survey is extended, open until friday.
… its there, please do feedback.
<bbailey> So we have draft poll but not poll ?
<bbailey> And no Resolution ?
<alastairc> Detlev & GN015 I'll check your comments in the minutes and see if I can address your concerns.
<Detlev> ok!