<AWK> 'zakim, agenda?
<AWK> +AWK
<laura> Scribe: Laura
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2019-03_FtF/
awk: please fill out the
form.
... if it needs to be adjusted, let us know.
<alastairc> Also fill the form in if you are NOT going.
awk: this is the survey
4 people agree with this change as an errata.
1 persona agree with this as an errata with some changes.
awk: suggested change to PR to
only change the one word - removing "trigger"
... good agreement.
<bruce_bailey> agree w/ just removing word and not reordering
mg: bigger issue the way it is worded seems to be a contradiction..
<AWK> Current: The additional content remains visible until the hover or focus trigger is removed, the user dismisses it, or its information is no longer valid.
<AWK> Mike's: The additional content remains visible until the user dismisses it, its information is no longer valid, or the hover or focus is removed.
MG: could explain in understanding also.
<alastairc> Adding 'it' to the SC text would make it pretty long: "the hover or focus is removed from the trigger and new content."
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#content-on-hover-or-focus
MG: is in contradiction to
itself.
... The key objective was to replace the word "trigger" so that
users would not interpret that the trigger itself must be
removed to meet the criterion.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about trigger twice
AC: I see mike’s point. May be easier to explain in understanding.
Bruce: the word trigger is a problem throughout.
awk: I don think it is in the first bullet.
MC: happy to doing it in understnding.
<alastairc> +1 for the understanding, unless people are hearing it's a problem?
RESOLUTION: Leave open. Mike will work on understanding doc.
awk: Issue 526 we should retire
it.
... This technique is suggested for when the default tab order
doesn't suffice. I don't know why we would want to remove
it
<bruce_bailey> agree w/ AWK that H4 is not incorrect -- so how much work to make it cleaner?
awk: if it is not worthwhile, we
should lobby HTML WG.
... techiques are not normative.
AC: google “positive tab index”
and a lot of articles come up that it is is a bad idea.
... almost always a better way of doing it.
... focus management, -1
<alastairc> My other point (possibly lost in the audio) was also that: At what point does putting a warning on a technique mean it should be removed? If I wrote that warning, people would wonder why it's there!
brooks: do we want to avocate a for it? a technique seems that we are.
awk: just because we don’t have
it doesn’t mean they can’t do it.
... we have a battle around techniques.
... show that we have a range of things with our
techniques.
<alastairc> could we remove that, add one for moving focus in those scenarios?
MG: hard to see a valuable way to
use this techque.
... I have a weak vote to remove.
AC: any good examples of using it?
awk: none that I can think of.
Maybe small set of things.
... aria best practices stongly discourages.
... I can go either way.
... anyone things we should keep it?
... or a mistake to remove it?
RESOLUTION: Remove H4
AC: happy with Laura’s proposal.
RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended.
awk: exploring process for 2.2 for input.
AC: roughly 40 weeks fron now to FWD.
awk: according to silver tf rec
2021
... that is a while.
... 3.5 years before we have silver.
... we have to be recharetered next october.
... we can work on 2.2 things before then.
... oct 2020 for 2.2. rec
... I think there is time.
... worried that we will leave a gap it we go to silver.
AC: times we based on TPAC
discussions. could spend some of our time on silver.
... more controlled process.
awk: WCAG 2.2 Success criteria
acceptance requirements
... has changes
<scribe> …new section on what is needed before SC can be added to the draft.
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: needs to be a
package that is ready to go.
... in working process we need to pick our priorities.
... 20 sprints are available..
Chuck: are you saying we would
have a milestone deadline?
... comment on when we are considered done.
awk: we have checks and
process.
... work in accordance with priorities.
chuck: be good if techniques included.
awk: yes. they need to cover each aspect of the SC.
brooks: opportunity cost to not going to silver. everyone can’t participate in both.
awk: maybe 2 hour calls. could
split call between silver and 2.2.
... use calls for both efforts.
brooks: that could help. devil is
in the details.
... duplication of effort formulating 2.2 when we know that
they will need to be reworked for silver.
... how do we make the pivot to silver.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say the intial part will eat into the number of sprints.
awk: need to find a balance.
AC: hope that it is not a
mutually exclusive effort.
... need subgroup to work on SCs.
... should help efficiency.
... agree with Rachael’s comment.
... may have more phone calls.
mg: I would not consider 2.1 done at this point. Doesn’t have enough meet to it yet.
<Rachael> +1 mg
<bruce_bailey> +1 to what mike is saying about 2.1 not being done enough (in terms of techniques)
mg: feels like we have another 6 months work on 2.1 to do.
<Chuck> +1 to mike
<Brooks> +1 to mg's comment
<Glenda> +1 to MG
awk: that will be part of TPAC work and will be ongoing.
AC: we have hit most of the
techniques that we discussed a TPAC.
... Some SC are difficult to test.
MC: label in name needs some
work.
... will try to do deep dives into all SCs.
... edge cases are difficult.
... we did not finish 2.1 in june.
chuck: I don’t understand what
the definition done was for 2.1.
... would like a clear definition for 2.2.
MC: more support materials is
needed for 2.1. But we need to recharter.
... we need to make 2.2 progress to include it in a
charter.
... process for 2.2 will be more effective in defining when we
are done.
awk: need new scribe.
<Glenda> scribe: Glenda
AWK: we will put a survey out
next week for the proposed working process and acceptence
requirements for WCAG 2.2. I think we need to make a decision
sooner rather than later…on if we are moving forward with WCAG
2.2.
... Straw Poll - if Silver is out December 2021 (as a rec), do
people feel we should focus on WCAG 2.2 (as well as
silver)?
<MarcJohlic> +1 to focus on 2.2 given that Silver is targeting Dec 2021
<MichaelC_> +1 to 2.2
<Brooks> -1
<Rachael> +1 to 2.2 but only if we add time to balance priorities.
Chuck: WCAG 2.1 is still nagging me that it is unfinished. We should first finish important work needed in WCAG 2.1 before focusing too much on WCAG 2.2.
<jon_avila> I'd like to know more about how 2.2 SC could benefit silver. And if there was no 2.2 then would silver address them
<gowerm> If SIlver is out end of 2021, I question doing 2.2 (note IBM reps are not in agreement)
-1 (recommend focus on finishing WCAG 2.1 important pieces and silver instead of doing WCAG 2.2)
<gowerm> BUT I don't think silver will be out end of 2021. Which is why I DO think we should do a 2.2
<alastairc> +1 keeping working on the 2.x line, inc 2.2
<alastairc> Techniques listing: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15idlBl1qQTNr2SIi4Drzk1Q1vnWAi5L26GCCv6mjD2g/edit
AWK: we are always working on WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. I think we are close to everything that needs to be there for WCAG 2.1.
<Zakim> MichaelC_, you wanted to note work done on 2.1 also rolls into 2.2 and to say 2.x and silver parallel adoption
MichaelC: We have a concept of
running WCAG 2.x in parallel to Silver.
... If the world says, Silver rocks, you can quit doing WCAG
2.x…then great. But we may need a parallel standard for some
time.
... I sympathetic that we have more work to do on WCAG 2.1. But
we also need to consider our charter timeline for WCAG 2.2.
<jon_avila> +1 to 2.2
<kirkwood> 0 -recommend focus on finishing WCAG 2.1 important to put more focus Silver instead of focusing on only doing WCAG 2.x
<bruce_bailey> +1 to 2.2 strawpoll
<kirkwood> ok
<laura> s/avocate /advocate /
<kirkwood> +1 then ;)
AWK: will set up a survey for next week to get additional feedback on a recommended decision
<stevelee> +1
+1 to strawpoll
<Chuck> +1 to poll
<laura> s/understnding /understanding /
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/585
AWK: we need a volunteer to pick up this issue.
<AWK> (probably makes sense to combine with https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/553)
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/591
AWK: will add this to a survey asking for volunteers
gowerm: I’ll volunteer for issue 591
<AWK> 591 - Mike Gower
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/583 - David's technique, needs more work
AWK: what are barriers to volunteering? time, knowledge?
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/582 - Mike Gower
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/542 - 4.1.1
<AWK> CHUCK TAKES IT
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/539 Some updates for 1.3.6, identify purpose understanding doc.
<AWK> Marc took 539, 537, 536
AWK: Glenda took 581
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/584
<AWK> Will follow up with Detlev
<AWK> Is ALT text part of the visible label for 2.5.3 Label in Name? (Issue 602)
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/602
AWK: anyone have thoughts on 602?
Alastair: I agree that this seems like a recursive requirement.
gowerm: The only time you need to
worry about an image of text.
... I’m happy with AWKs thoughts on this.
<laura> agree with awk take on it.
Brooks: I asked “what’s a label” and a label needs to be available to everyone. And alt text is not available to everyone. So, I agree with AWKs decision/answer.
AWK: I’ll write up a quick answer to 602 and put it on the survey so we can close it out.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/599 Is using the track element to provide audio descriptions sufficient?
AWK: David suggested we demote
this to advisory. My comment, it is already advisory. So, I
think we can close this.
... Reasonable?
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/598 Exception for use of symbols as visible label in regard to 2.5.3 Label in Name
AWK: see examples of text being used as a symbol
gowerm: I think I’ve got a solution for this. I’ve drafted an explaination in new understanding doc. I’m having it reviewed by one other.
<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask, have you thought about abbreviations?
Brooks: have you considered abbreviations like the symbol for Bristish Pound Sterling being lb
(glenda probably got that wrong) I think Brooks meants “lb” standing for “pound”
<alastairc> Pedanditc note: pound sterling is £, lb is for pounds of weight.
Brooks: guidance for a content author for abbreviations that will work for speech recognition
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/596
Alastair: we do have a gap. Brooks has a point. I think this could be handled with guidance in silver. And also suggest an option for displaying the accessible name. I don’t think we should squeeze it into 2.5.3
AWK: I’ve reported this to github, they have engineers looking in to this.
MichaelC: assign it to me, I’ll forward it to the person who is talking ton MS about things like this.
595 is on MichaelC’s to do list
AWK: We need to survey this as
editorial errata.
... we can survey this as described (before Michael changes
it)
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/594 respec-generated glossary links different from xslt-generated glossary links
Assigned to MichaelC (594)
593 - assigned to gowerm https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/593
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/562 Link in 2.1 failing F73
Alastair is already assigned.
AWK: Thank you for volunteering and working on your issues. Talk next week.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 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/happu with/happy with/ Succeeded: s/prioriites/priorities/ Succeeded: s/techiques /techniques / Succeeded: s/dificult /difficult / Succeeded: s/controled /controlled / FAILED: s/avocate /advocate / FAILED: s/understnding /understanding / Succeeded: s/thoughout/throughout/ Succeeded: s/contadiction /contradiction / Succeeded: s/ruling/thoughts/ Succeeded: s/undertanding/understanding/ WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: alastairc, JakeAbma, MarcJohlic, bruce_bailey, Chuck, SteveRepsher, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Rachael, gowerm, AWK, jon_avila, JF) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK Present: AWK Rachael Chuck alastairc kirkwood Laura MarcJohlic stevelee MichaelC Raf Brooks Kathy bruce_bailey SteveRepsher Glenda gowerm Regrets: JF Detlev BruceB Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: Glenda Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda Scribes: Laura, Glenda ScribeNicks: laura, Glenda WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 05 Feb 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]