<AWK> +AWK
<laura> Scribe: Laura
awk: reminder to rejoin the group.
mc: 31st of the month is deadline.
<Detlev> is there a way to confirm that re-joining has worked?
<JohnRochford> I resubmitted my membership Christmas day.
ac: should get an email when you rejoin.
<Detlev> ok thanks..ö
mc: one members list shows another one doesn’t show.
awk: silver F2F is at CSUN.
... Check: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/2020-03_F2F/"
marc: can WCAG members sit in?
awk: we are welcome to join.
ACT TF work statement survey. 4 people respned in afirmative.
<AWK> Current Work statement: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/work-statement
wilco: published the first rule and would like to continue.
<AWK> Proposed work statement: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Draft_Work_Statement
wilco: want to build out
repository
... track implimentations
... mainatining the spec.
... collaborating with silver.
... support to community group.
... questions?
<david-macdonald> good
awk: none.
RESOLUTION: Accepted and run CFC
awk: pull request came through recently.
MC: needs to be merged into master.
awk: we want to get a FPWD out in
January.
... want WG’s approval
AC: aiming for end of the month to publish.
awk: we will get a draft out for
people to review.
... could run a CFC next week following the call.
... sound reasonable?
... any questions?
big dif of 2.2 N 2.1 is that we tighten up our process so we have a small number of SCs to start.
awk: PR that MC put in to add
research
... want SC’s based on research as much as possible.
... some are hard to do deep research.
... this is a note so we can update it.
mc: paragraph was copied from silver.
dm: agree with adding it.
... don’t have alot of data on coga that we would like.
... so may take more time.
awk: last sentence tries to address that.
jr: link to extensive study to test COGA
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about 'operationalising' SCs, and later requirement addition
ac: ton of research from coga and lvtf.
<JohnRochford> Web Page Design Recommendations for People with Down Syndrome Based on Users’ Experiences: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/11/4047/htm
ac: discussion on research on 2
decimal spaces
... things like non text contrast - we have tried to make them
at a useful level.
... lots of research that something is a problem … but we need
to be careful of false positives.
... late addition to 2.2
... but it should make things easier later.
jennie: is there a location of quality of reserach that is needed? What are the minimums?
awk: not aware of any.
ac: don’t think that there is an answer to that.
<jon_avila> I'd like to also make sure research includes people with disabilities as research without this group included does not address the situation for this population
<JohnRochford> The above referenced study is user-research of the efficacy of the 2.1 COGA guidelines.
ac: we have worked from the TFs and relied on our experts.
mc: paragraph is carefully worded.
<jon_avila> Research can also be flawed and not take into account all of the factors
jr: we have experts on coga tf and that has to be good enough.
brooks: agree.
<kirkwood> +1 to Rochford as well
brooks: suggest help building out questions
jf: concerned about “it is good
enough”
... the people who show up have an itch to be scratched.
... concerned about bias.
jr: there are people like me and EA that do research.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about gathering these questions
jf: there is an inherent bias. and need to be cognizant of it.
ac: started a page on the wiki.
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Research_needed
ac: Example Animation from
Interactions
... if there are others ping me
... TFs have helped.
<Brooks> +1 to JF's concerns about limiting research bias.
ac: some things are not
researhced becuse they are too obvious.
... helpful to have input from experts and advocates.
awk: check out the last
sentence.
... make the best decisions that we can.
jennie: is there a way to note types of evidence?
<JF_> +1 to "anecdotal" classification
awk: right now we don’t but we
should.
... need to figure it out.
ac: should include in the SC docs that we have.
awk: I had a comment on the
addition.
... anyone else?
rm: slight wording change.
... last sentence of paragraph - propose say “limited”
<AWK> Suggest: In situations where there is no (or limited) evidence or research
rm: times when we have some info and experise comes into play.
<AWK> In situations where there is limited or no evidence or research
rm: any objections to that change?
mc: made change.
... any objections to my change?
<alastairc> "The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are prioritized, including needs that differ from the majority."
mc: "The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are prioritized, including needs that differ from the majority."
<alastairc> AWK proposed removing that last bit.
<JohnRochford> +1
<alastairc> +1
<Detlev> all should go
laura: +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Brooks> +1
<Rachael> -1
<kirkwood> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
rm: agree that it is not worded well. Feel like there needs to be need the concept of number.
awk: open to something different. suggestions?
<Detlev> Suggestion: Change "that the needs of all people with disabilities are prioritized" to "that the needs of all people with disabilities are taken into account"
rm: maybe make it a separate sentence.
<kirkwood> +1 to “taken into account” rather than prioritized
Detlev: feels to strange to use prioritized
<kirkwood> +1
<AWK> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are prioritized, including needs which are specific to small groups of users.
(wordsmithing)
<Rachael> ...that the needs of all people with disabilities are taken into account. This includes the needs specific to small groups of users.
<Detlev> +1
<Rachael> +1 I am good with that or something close to it.
<AWK> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are taken into account. This includes the needs specific to small groups of users.
<Ryladog> +1
laura: +1
<Brooks> +1
<AWK> +1
<Chuck> +1
<JohnRochford> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Rachael> +1
<stevelee> small typeo "the needs OF specific"?
<stevelee> ignore me
<stevelee> +1
<Chuck> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are considered, including the needs specific to small groups of users.
<david-macdonald> +1
ref: one concern. can it be understood as just being considered as it can be rejected.
<Chuck> that's just for visual.
<Detlev> 'taken on board'?
ac: 6 of one half a dozen of the other.
raf: both are weak.
<Chuck> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are evaluated. This includes the needs specific to small groups of users.
raf: maybe think about another word.
<stevelee> I feel 2nd is slightly more readable though a longer sentence
<kirkwood> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are addressed, including the needs specific to small groups of users.
<kirkwood> addressed?
awk: all are very similar.
<Brooks> How about "identified and supported"?
awk: prioritized is stronger but not much.
jf: we can’t be all things to all
people.
... quantifying it paints us into a corner.
<Zakim> JF_, you wanted to push back on "all"
steve: concerned about meeting everyone’s needs.
scribe change?
<AWK> Suggestion: The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that all identified needs of people with disabilities are taken into account. This includes the needs specific to small groups of users.
<Ryladog> Possibly: "every effort is made to..."
<kirkwood> all needs are reasonably addressed.
<Ryladog> +1
<kirkwood> within reason
<alastairc> My thesouraus lookup for 'considered' didn't help much, seems like the best option still
<JF_> "all" is might encompassing...
mg: advise against using
prioritized.
... and the word “all”
chuck: like considered or taking into account.
<AWK> Scribe volunteers for second half needed
<alastairc> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that all identified needs of people with disabilities are considered, including needs specific to small groups of users.
jf: underpromise and over deliver.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to suggest "The intent is to make informed decisions to ensure that all identified needs of people with disabilities are addressed wherever possible. This includes
jf: we can’t promise to be perfect here.
<AWK> "The intent is to make informed decisions to ensure that all identified needs of people with disabilities are addressed wherever possible. This includes the needs specific to small groups of users."
jf: all is the catch.
<alastairc> +1
<Rachael> +1
<JF_> +1
<stevelee> +1
<Detlev> 1+
awk: are people comforable with this last one?
<JakeAbma> +1
<Brooks> scribe: Brooks
<jon_avila> -1 I would remove wherever possible
Raf: I like the version, but
perhaps it is too strong.
... perhaps we can use something more general.
<Detlev> Are we going to spend the rest of the call on this tiny wording issue?
<JF_> +1 to Chuck's point
Chuck: we've established a defensible position with the language we have, even if others do disagree with it
Raf: OK, I'll accept that.
<Chuck> +1
<jon_avila> +0
RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended
awk: We've got 5 shall items are
met, and 2 people say shall items are not met.
... Mike Gower, are your comments current?
MG: My comments are not current.
JohnR: I included as much as your comments as possible.
Alastair: My comments are current
<Detlev> yeah, problem solved
awk: Do the changes that have been made address your concerns, Detlev?
Detlev: commented in IRC that problem is solved.
awk: Want to make sure that folks understand how this is being changed.
JohnR: We all agreed that we should refocus the SC on cognitive. I completely rewrote it for that purpose. Alastair modified it to make it more SC friendly.
<laura> s/research /research /
JohnR: Jake had made a lot
suggestions in the document, maybe we want to address those on
the call.
... Bruce found a terrific resource on biometric methods.
Alastair found a wonderful resource on
authenticationpatterns.
Detlev: Does this SC mandate for simple username and password sites that the author has to provide something beyond those basic fields?
<laura> s/not researched because /not researched because /
JohnR: Maybe Alastair would be best to respond.
Alastair: The intent was to make it so users wouldn't have to memorize passwords. The base acceptable solution from COGA was a simple password reset.
<laura> s/expertise /expertise /
<david-macdonald> PERHAPS change to "specific" password... to account for a link where you can create a new password.
Alastair: It is tricky, in terms of how we would word it.
Detlev: Different contexts present different challenges. I wasn't clear if reset was a potential solution.
Alastair: Unclear on whether transcribing as part of that process is OK to do.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to suggest slight rewording
<AWK> When an authentication process relies on a cognitive function test, at least one other authentication method must also be available that does not rely on a cognitive function test.
<mbgower> +1 to wording change
<kirkwood> +1
Jake: Let's take the default
suggestion for username and password. This relies upon a
cognitive function test operate.
... autofill, and other supportive techniques may help, but
there's still a cognitive function test that's at the base of
this authentication process
... so instead of saying "the author must provide other
methods," isn't it true that the other methods are provided by
other things.
... are we saying that the content author has to implement
another method for logging in?
<laura> s/comfortable /comfortable /
Jake: or do we say two text inputs are OK, but don't prevent other methods, such as biometric inputs, from working?
<laura> s/mainatining the /maintaining the /
<kirkwood> Jake brings up some very valid points
Alastair: When it comes to
third-party authentication techniques, that's something
different. Let's put that to one side on the basis that that's
not the content author problem we are speaking to.
... If you use valid email and password fields, is that a valid
aproach? That seems like a valid approach, but to some extent
it does undermine part of the intent of this SC
Jake: It seems like we would need to provide another way.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'm confused by the inclusion of a national ID number in the exception. Either someone has that memorized, or they are going to transcribe it, both of
Alastair: WebAuthn would be another.
<JF_> PII Best Practices suggest stopping using that data Mike G.
<jon_avila> I have used mine to register for several systems like health and retirement, paying the IRS, etc.
<Jennie> Employee id number is often used as a long in for some systems.
MG: I don't understand how the national identification number isn't called out as problem.
<kirkwood> correct
Alastair: It's not pleasant, it's not desirable - but I think we were thinking that it wouldn't be feasible to asks sites to not use that type of input type. The idea was to require something that you use on multiple sites, not something specific to that site.
MG: I think it raises more questions by including that number as an authentication method, than by excluding it.
<kirkwood> must drop
Alastair: Maybe we can drop this. It was included for feasibility, not for desirability.
JohnR: I agree with Mike Gower. We should remove that.
<Detlev> is national id number US-specific?
awk: Right now this is a note in
a definition. The intent was to provide another option. We will
get feedback on this from a public review. Is this
implementable? From previous discussions with COGA folks, it
seemed reasonable.
... If its something we can work with, maybe we should leave it
in and get feedback?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say this was flagged & reviewed last time
JF: Accessibility, Privacy, Security and Internationalization need to do their horizontal review? Should we call this issue out to the Security group?
Alastair: We did that last time before the draft went through to public review. Point taken. We're happy to get that review again.
JF: Maybe we should put something in the draft, such as a note that says this requires feedback from the Security group.
Alastair: We request review. Feel fairly confident about this version of the SC.
awk: Want to ask if we've resolved Jake's questions?
Alastair: We could call out a technique in the Understanding document.
<laura> s/whenyou/when you/
JohnR: Jake, what do you think?
Jake: We don't have a lot options
here. Recover passwords by email, a question list, all
solutions go back to relying on the cognitive function test
associated with filling in username and password.
... I'm not sure we need too many approaches, because things
like biometrics aren't the responsibility of the content
author.
Alastair: Is it a blocker to consider the email reset as a method of passing this SC?
<jon_avila> Email reset would need to be done each time -- it's just kicking the issue down the road again. Email may also require authentication.
Jake: This approach wouldn't work in all contexts.
Alastair: There are lots of small scale sites whose best bets would be well-marked up forms that support browser functionality.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that I agree with much of what Jake is saying, but I think this is ready to go out for public comment
awk: There are a number of things that will reduce what's required to remember. But not things that will eliminate the need to remember.
MG: I agree with much of what Jake says, but I believe there are a number of techniques I can think of to add to this. I think the SC is mature enough to make to the first public working draft.
<JohnRochford> +1
awk: What do others think? Is there anyone who feels that this SC is not ready for public comment?
JF: I think we are good with what we have. Let's get the wide review now.
awk: There's a need to harmonize what we have now in the SC with recent comments. Alastair will work through those. We don't have full techniques yet. But, we have the basic idea of those techniques, yes?
Alastair: Yes, we have high-level ideas for the techniques. Should be fairly straightforward.
awk: Seems like next steps would be to verify that we are good with the comments in the Understanding, then work on Techniques. Maybe should put this in GitHub. Is that OK with you Alastair?
Alastair: Yes.
awk: It seems like further development of the SC isn't necessary, but work on techniques and understandingis what we should do.
RESOLUTION: SC Text is ready for external review, need to finalize understanding and build techniques to get this SC into the editor's draft.
awk: There are four responses
that say that "shall items" are not met.
... Jake isn't here to review his comments.
<alastairc> Squarespace example?
awk: I have a hard time imagining a situation where a control to complete a process is less prominent that others on the page.
Rachael: Persistence is an important part of this process, but it really started out about the scrolling issue. When controls are in an unusual position, they becomes difficult to find. Wondering if the intent has shifted from what COGA initially intended.
awk: Haven't considered a situation where a control isn't visible until you hover over it. How would you know to hover over it? There's enough subjectivity in the SC, I wondered if anything would fail?
<jon_avila> I've seen final submit buttons be in different places and not near next buttons. This could be good to prevent accidentable submission - but also problematic to locate it.
Rachael: Since we are at the end of the call, maybe we should go back to COGA and ask about the persistence issue, or leave it out and plan on picking it up with Silver?
JF: We've got to be carefull about being too prescriptive.
awk: Let's have this on the agenda for next week, unless we hear differently from COGA.
RESOLUTION: Leave open
<alastairc> Next weeks agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas#Jan_21st_.28AC_Chairing.29
<laura> bye
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/me an ER/me and EA/ Succeeded: s/now er/now we/ Succeeded: s/wee have/we have/ Succeeded: s/needs are specific/needs which are specific/ Succeeded: s/half doesn’t/half a dozen/ Succeeded: s/qunatifying it paints us into acorner./quantifying it paints us into a corner./ Succeeded: s/ everyon’s needs./ everyone’s needs./ Succeeded: s/concidered/considered/ Succeeded: s/perhabs/perhaps/ Succeeded: s/resonable/reasonable/ Succeeded: s/paragroah /paragraph / Succeeded: s/thie adding /with adding / Succeeded: s/woiuld/would/ Succeeded: s/addres that/address that/ Succeeded: s/reseach /research / Succeeded: s/reserach on 2 /research on 2 / Succeeded: s/to make ment /to make them / Succeeded: s/reseach /research / FAILED: s/reserach /research / Succeeded: s/minimumns/minimums/ Succeeded: s/reseach/research/ Succeeded: s/authenticaton /authentication/ Succeeded: s/inherant /inherent / Succeeded: s/cognazant /cognizant / FAILED: s/not researhced becuse /not researched because / Succeeded: s/descions /decisions / Succeeded: s/sentice /sentence / FAILED: s/experise /expertise / Succeeded: s/feel like be need the concept of number./Feel like there needs to be need the concept of number./ Succeeded: s/understood as just considered. as it can be regected./understood as just being considered as it can be rejected./ Succeeded: s/addresed/addressed/ Succeeded: s/prioritiszed /prioritized / Succeeded: s/concerened /concerned / FAILED: s/comforable /comfortable / FAILED: s/mainatining the /maintaining the / Succeeded: s/collb /collaborating / Succeeded: s/copyed /copied / Succeeded: s/decmial /decimal / Succeeded: s/reserach /research / Succeeded: s/thik there /think that there / Succeeded: s/researhced becuse /researched because / Succeeded: s/experise /expertise / Succeeded: s/comforable /comfortable / Succeeded: s/whenyou /when you / FAILED: s/whenyou/when you/ Succeeded: s/set in./sit in?/ Succeeded: s/work on techniques /work on techniques and understanding/ Default Present: AWK, JohnRochford, Chuck, Laura, alastairc, shadi, maryjom_, JakeAbma, Jennie, MichaelC, Detlev, Wilco, david-macdonald, mbgower, Brooks, MarcJohlic, kirkwood, JF_, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila, stevelee, Raf WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, JohnRochford, Chuck, Laura, alastairc, shadi, maryjom_, JakeAbma, Jennie, MichaelC, Detlev, Wilco, david-macdonald, mbgower, Brooks, MarcJohlic, kirkwood, JF_, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila, stevelee) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, JohnRochford, Chuck, Laura, alastairc, shadi, maryjom_, JakeAbma, Jennie, MichaelC, Detlev, Wilco, david-macdonald, mbgower, Brooks, MarcJohlic, kirkwood, JF_ WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, JohnRochford, Chuck, Laura, alastairc, shadi, maryjom_, JakeAbma, Jennie, MichaelC, Detlev, Wilco, david-macdonald, mbgower, Brooks, MarcJohlic, kirkwood, JF_, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Raf) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, JohnRochford, Chuck, Laura, alastairc, shadi, maryjom_, JakeAbma, Jennie, MichaelC, Detlev, Wilco, david-macdonald, mbgower, Brooks, MarcJohlic, kirkwood, JF_ Present: AWK JohnRochford Chuck Laura alastairc shadi maryjom_ JakeAbma Jennie MichaelC Detlev Wilco david-macdonald mbgower Brooks MarcJohlic kirkwood JF_ Regrets: DavidFazio Nicaise Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: Brooks Inferring ScribeNick: Brooks Scribes: Laura, Brooks ScribeNicks: laura, Brooks Found Date: 14 Jan 2020 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]