<scribe> Scribe: Laura

TPAC – meeting in November. Book your hotel room!

<MichaelC_> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/

AWK: We are planning to meet.
... Book your room now.

Racheal: What days are we meeting?

AWK: Not known yet.
... Book for the week then adjust as needed.

<AWK> +AWK

Adapting text options survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextSurvey/results)

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextSurvey/results#xq1

AWK: Laura sent a question to the list.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0225.html

scribe: The SC needs to be testable from the text of the SC, but the specific technique to accomplish it may vary by technology, which is why we have techniques.

<david-macdonald> Success Criteria - For each guideline, testable success criteria are provided to allow WCAG 2.0 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification, purchasing, regulation, and contractual agreements. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest). Additional information on WCAG levels can be foun[CUT]

Andrew’s: email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0226.html

<JF> +1 to AWK

scribe: need to make it testable from the text of the SC

<LisaSeeman> not manging to join the meeting

scribe: Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextSurvey/results

David: I've chose H and I because for J and K, I don't know how I could test an SC that requires ALL functionality and information to work regardless of what font or what background was overridden.
... needs to be testable.
... There has been a lot of discussion of wide vs. narrow. My suggestion has been that if a user can override one font or one background color or one text color, it is highly likely (but not certain) that they can over ride MANY others. On the other hand the testing and conformance statements for J would be impossible as far as I can see.

Bruce: like 145 shift.

Katie: strongly agree.
... H is clear and testable as written.

Wayne: did some research. font sizes are normative. Some are bigger. Variance is small.
... could have one test for everything.
... could have ranges.
... need to look at the data.

marc: agree with david.
... really like D but bullets in H.
... if that is not an option would go with H&I

Katie: don’t think it is for no reason. Can’t get into specific font types. Must work for all languages.

<LisaSeeman> in israel the populer fonts are things like "david"

<shwetank_> +1 to laura

wayne: has written a program to do it.
... been making a big problem out of nothing.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about internationalization (CJK, etc.)

wayne: should send back to the LVTF.

JF: +1 to Katie

<jon_avila> we have differences already SC 1.4.8 has different requirements for CJK

<kirkwood> +1 also to Katie regarding naming font faces

JF: we are international organization.

<shwetank_> also devanagari for hindi and other indian languages

<jon_avila> this has been done before in WCAG 2.0

<kirkwood> +1 to JF

<Wayne> Family Girth Girt32 Andale Mo--32 --32 -1 Arial 32 1 Arial Black 38 1.18 Avant Garde --32 -1 Bookman --32 -1 Century Schoolbook 35 1.09 Comic Sans MS 35 1.09 Consolas 35 1.09 Courier 38 1.18 Courier New 38 1.18 Euclid 35 1.09 Garamond 32 1 Georgia 35 1.09 Helvetica 32 1 Impact 28 .87 Lucida Sans Typewriter 35 1.09 Palati—32 --32 -1 Tahoma 33 1.03 Times 32 1 Times New Roman 32 1 Verdana 38 1.18 Wide Latin 62 1.9

AWK: Trouble with naming fonts.

<JF> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CJK_fonts

AWK: ineed to reasonable test.

wayne: I think we can.

<JF> Cyrillic fonts: https://www.linotype.com/6731/cyrillic.html

we can measure for each language.

<JF> "There are over 800 fonts available through Google Fonts' main website" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fonts)

JK: Issue from coga.

<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to ask in what ways you anticipate pages will fail when fonts are changed

JK: trouble with naming fonts.

<gowerm> Let's just do H and K (to address concerns with specifying fonts) and get it out there.

Greg: Don’t understand the problem people are having with fonts.
... don’t see the problem.

<JF> +1 to the "well designed" ideal

<Wayne> +1

James: when a product doesn’t work it would be a bug against the product.
... need requuirements on what the fonts need to support.

wayne: we can define tolerances.
... we need to reseach this for a few weeks.

<Mike_Elledge> pre

<Greg> I don't think a page would fail because the user chooses a font that displays a lot of rectangles for characters. Every character would still be displayed, regardless of whether or not the user could understand it, and therefore it complies. An user's ability to read it is not part of the requirement.

MG: we are boiling the ocean.

<Ryladog> +1 to that

MG: they are very similar.

<jon_avila> Agree with David

Dvid: then it will be in a narrow range.

<jon_avila> CSS does have rules

Rachael: Phrasing is confusing on the intro statement.

<Detlev> Happy to shift support to H if language is addressed

<Wayne> +1

AWK: Font and color seem to be the problematic bullets.
... we could drop them.

Steve: Would be okay with dropping font. But not color.

AWK: can anyone not live with H&I?

<Detlev> +1 can live with H& I

Katie: leave the bullets.
... get it out there.
... more input is helpful.

AWK: concerns about font.

<JF> I can live with "H", but I am opposed to "I"

steve: what are the objections to color?

AWK: David had issues.

<gowerm> Nope, Bruce, I can hear fine

<KimD> *It's ok for me Bruce

<JF> +1, we cannot "forbid" stupidity...

David: okay with color bullet.

wayne: could compute color.

<david-macdonald> "If the technology being used has the ability to override text styles, text styles of the page can be overridden without losing essential content or functionality as follows:" To address Rachel's wording concern perhaps this "If the technologies relied upon allow the text styles to be overridden, text styles of the page can be overridden without losing essential content or functionality as follows:"

<Greg> +1 to allow user flexibility even if the user can choose configs they cannot use

JF: don't restrict the user.

<jon_avila> Agree. Stupid was poor choice or word

<Greg> That is why I don't like saying just one or two color choices, or fonts: we should not allow a page to conform just by providing two predesigned color schemes, which would certainly not support a sufficiently wide range of users.

<Greg> s/colo choices/color choices/

Laura: Text is : If the technology being used has the ability to override text styles, text styles of the page can be overridden without losing essential content or functionality as follows: font family to one different font family

<Greg> As I've said before, it would help to separate the question of the main paragraph wording from that of the list wording.

<jon_avila> but we need a failure on how to mark icon fonts properly and if they don't mark it properly then it fails

<Greg> Wayne, a well-designed page should not break when a wide font is selected: if it's well designed nothing will overlap.

Wayne: Don't think the language works.

AWK: Font seems to be holding us up.

David: think we are clear to move forward.

MG: Maybe H and K?

<JF> I can support H & K

AWK reads H&K

<david-macdonald> If the technologies relied upon allow the text styles to be overridden,

<AWK> instead of "If the technology being used has the ability to override text styles"

<Greg> I will not veto H, but I strongly prefer J's bullets on fonts and colors to those of H.

David: amandment to H "If the technologies relied upon allow the text styles to be overridden, text styles of the page can be overridden without losing essential content or functionality as follows:”

AWK: K would require a widget.

GL: intent is requiring a widget.

AWK: K doesn’t require a widget.
... lets talk about this on Thursday.

Accessible Authentication: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/#wbsq10

<bruce_bailey> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results#xq10

<gowerm> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results

AWK reads results

Lisa: Kind of surpised. Gave people 2 options.
... Tons of mechanisms that people can use to conform.

<JF> QW+ to ask that we have this particular SC reviewed by the W3C Security WG

Lisa: seems to have stepped back.
... to james, no one is saying we should encourage the ability to retrieve a password.

James: reset is okay. Drop the word retrieve. Easy to fix.

Lisa: Happy to change that word.

MG: Problems clarifying with the 2 bullets
... Do you have examples?

Lisa: Yes. W3C password. Sends me a link. Can be sent to form. Can be a token.

<AWK> isn't a method that uses a token requiring copying information?

Lisa: Facebook & Google conform on the 2nd bullet.
... Banks could have biometrics.
... many site are conforming.

<Ryladog> Suggestion: "Accessible Authentication Methods: A mechanism is available to reset any authentication method that relies upon a user's ability to memorize or recall information."

Lisa: to Josh, have spoken to other WG.

<Wayne> +1

Katie: could reword.

<shwetank_> I like katie/david's suggestion

JF: Different levels of security. Need to be mindful.

<KimD> +1 to JF - different levels, based on target audience perhaps?

Rachael: seems we have lost info.
... ”retireve or”

<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say the issue about "retrieve" may actually be about the ambiguity introduced by "or". I don't think it is intended to mean both have to be supported, just at

MK: need to be clear. Important and doable

<david-macdonald> A mechanism is available to reset or retrieve authentication information that relies upon a user's ability to memorize or recall information.

Greg: the “or” introduces an ambiguity.

<marcjohlic> I like the rewrite - but I don't like "retrieve" in there - and think to AWK's point we should better define "that"

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<JF> +1 to JamesN

<gowerm> +1 to removing "retrieve"

<marcjohlic> +1 to james - drop "retrieve"

James: object to the word retrieve.

<shwetank_> +1 to James

Wayne: agree with James.

Jason: Would responding to personal questions qualify?

Katie: there are options.

<Greg> I agree with Jason: personal questions tend to require memorization even if that's not the author's intention.

<david-macdonald> A mechanism is available to reset authentication information that relies upon a user's ability to memorize or recall information.

Katie: doesn't have to be memorization.

<Greg> That could be addressed in the supporting documents as a specific failing example.

Lisa: Jason, should be a failure.
... has to be something that doesn't rely on memory.

<Ryladog> "Accessible Authentication Methods: A mechanism is available to reset any authentication method that relies upon a user's ability to memorize or recall information."

Lisa: to katie, okay with removing retrieve

<dboudreau_> +1 to removing “retrieve” as well

<jamesn> isn't coming in a mechanism?

Lisa: Requiring reset seems to put burden on author.
... we have given people an option.

<Wayne> A mechanism ... operate authentication...?

Lisa: at a loss why this hasn’t gotten through.

wayne: wondering if the terms are the problem. Maybe use operate authentication?
... without having to rely on memory.

<JF> Would a link "Forgot my password" be sufficient?

<LisaSeeman> if the reset the password does not rely on memory you are ok

David: could live with in with his edit on the second bullet.
... open to let it go to public review with his suggestion.

<LisaSeeman> Andrew can we go for a quick revote, if we take out the word reset

MP: Maybe an add exception.

<AWK> There's no such thing as a quick revote!

<LisaSeeman> a hands up +1

<Ryladog> +1 to another SC for that

<Greg> Sites not allowing reset due to security concerns is not a problem, as the site can comply with the first bullet instead.

<jamesn> I totally agree with JF that this needs further review from security groups - but think that can maybe happen once it goes into FPWD.

MP: Maybe SC with new across the board text. not tied to authentication.

AWK: Lisa make edits and send it to the list.

RESOLUTION: leave open

andrew will followup with Lisa and SC manager.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
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/otion/sption/
Succeeded: s/sption/option/
Succeeded: s/they can choose/the user can choose/
FAILED: s/colo choices/color choices/
Succeeded: s/^does not rely?//

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: allanj, Laura, AWK, Glenda, Greg_Lowney, ScottM, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, KimD, jasonjgw, dboudreau, Lauriat, shwetank, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Detlev, Rachael, jon_avila, adam_solomon, Mike, Elledge, Mike_Pluke, kirkwood, Kathy, LisaSeeman, Michael, DAVIDMACDONALD, lisa, seeman)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ allanj, Laura, AWK, Glenda, Greg_Lowney, ScottM, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, KimD, jasonjgw, dboudreau, Lauriat, shwetank, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Detlev, Rachael

Present: allanj Laura AWK Glenda Greg_Lowney ScottM JF Katie_Haritos-Shea MichaelC KimD jasonjgw dboudreau Lauriat shwetank Makoto Melanie_Philipp Detlev Rachael DAVID
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Date: 18 Apr 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/04/18-ag-minutes.html
People with action items: