<alastairc> present?

<Stefan> present StefanSchnabel

<alastairc> Seeking a scribe or two...

<alastairc> scribe:Brooks

CSUN attendance, worth having an AG meeting?

<Chuck> +1 attending

Alastair: How many people are going to be attending CSUN?

<Rachael> +1

<JakeAbma_> +1

<stevelee_> +1

<JakeAbma_> -1

<Rachael> -1

<Chuck> +1 attending CSUN, not the call.

<kirkwood> -1

<Detlev> -1

<JF> -1 will be at CSUN

<stevelee_> -1

<Chuck> -1

<JustineP> +1

<laura> +1

-1

<Stefan> -1

<CharlesHall_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Nicaise> -1

<Detlev> confused, I won't be at CSUN...

scribe: If you are going to be at CSUN put -1. Put +1 if you could attend this AG meeting.

<bruce_bailey> +1 will be going to CSUN, not sure about meeting time

scribe: If we do have a meeting, it won't be a full decision-making meeting.

WCAG 2.2 Information in steps https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/info-in-steps/results

Alastair: It looks like most people are happy with the SC text.
... I put in a comment that I would prefer that the focus of the SC is a bit clearer for testing purposes.
... I had suggested changing that to "information previously entered" in the SC draft. This is an adjustment to say that if you are looking at a page, you can pass or fail an input you are looking at you can tell if that info has previously entered.

Stevelee: Wondering if we can make it clearer whether or not we are talking about a step to the left or a step to the right?

MG: I think it applies in both situations. This SC is talking about the current session, not a previous session.

<kirkwood> should we have “session” in there then?

Alastair: What matters is if you've entered info in a previous step.

Stefan: I think the title is misleading, because the SC is really about information "across" steps. Still need definition around process. Where does a wizard fit in?

Alastair: A wizard, I think, would be a sub-set of a process. The short name for the SC needs to be just two or three words.

<kirkwood> name is fine to me

Stefan: What about "Information in step-based processes?" It's long, but that's the idea.

Stevelee: It's not just info that the user has entered themselves, but also info that has been presented to the user in a previous step.

<kirkwood> multi-step forms

MG: What about "Re-entering information?"

John: It could be something like "Multi-step forms."

Alastair: I think we are going to need to be more specific. I like "re-entering information" because its to the point.

JF: Maybe the title should name the desired endstate, such as "avoid repeated entry."

<david-macdonald> redundant entry

JF: Is there an aversion to negative terms, such as avoid repeated entry? That seems succinct?

MG: The SC name probably doesn't matter that much in the first public working draft.

DM: What about "redundant entry?"

<JF> +1 to Mike G. - have a placeholder for now and solicit wider feedback

Alastair: Does anyone object to changing it to previously entered information? That means taking out the "on subsequent steps" bit.

Kirkwood: It's not just redundancy, it's also about not forcing users to remember that information in a later step.

Alastair: There doesn't seem to be a conflict here.

Kirkwood: I'm talking about something like the hotel name, which was given to you in an earlier step, which the user will have to remember in a later step.

Alastair: I'm not hearing any objections to what we're proposing, in terms of a change in the wording.

JustineP: I thought we might want to clarify what the ending point of this SC should be. It wasn't clear to me by reading the SC text where the cutoff point for this might lie.

Alastair: The definition of "process" we are working from says that it will end, for example in eCommerce, when the purchase has been made.

JustineP: It may just be that the SC doesn't need that level of detail.

<kirkwood> looks good to me “or provided” is important. good

MG: I think in the Understanding document, there should be a discussion of what a compounded activity is. So, in planning a trip there are multiple activities.

Alastair: I think that covers all of the recent comments since this was updated last. Any other comments or questions?

Kirkwood: I've been involved with this from the beginning, and I think this looks great. If we can cover info that was presented to users in an earlier part of the process, we'll be in good shape. I think this a huge one for COGA.

Stevelee: Wondering if you go back and forth between steps, does that info disappear?

Alastair: What the page can do is either autopopulate it, or present it to the user in another fashion.

<kirkwood> +

<kirkwood> +1

<Ryladog> +1

Alastair: Are we happy to put this SC into the working draft? There can be changes later, but are we ready to publish?

Bruce: Any tips on moving Google Docs info into GitHub?

Alastiar: Clear comments, create a pull request, all future comments go to GitHub.

JF: Two things. The links to "essential" seems to be broken. Also, should we include language that talks about "prescribed by law" or something broader than just "essential?"

<kirkwood> timing out bidding

Alastair: This SC wouldn't apply to where you have to re-enter password info multiple times.

JF: Can we get a flag on this that tells people we should have a discussion on the scope of what we should allow for exceptions.

Kirkwood: If during the process, the "goods" have gone away due to timing, how does that fit into what we've provided as an exception?

Rachael: Do we need to have at least one technique fleshed out before we pass this on to the working draft?

Alastair: I think we do need a fleshed out one. We do have test procedures. What we really need is for someone to fill out the Technique template for this SC.

Rachael: I'll take a pass at this, if others will review.

Kirkwood: I'll help review that.

Alaistair: I'm also happy to review - just need help filling out the Technique template.

<Rachael> +1 to move it to draft after technique added

<Detlev> +1

<JakeAbma_> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<stevelee_> +1

<laura> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Chuck> +1

<JF> +1 (technique *AND* not about exceptions)

<JustineP> +1

Alaistair: I will still try to round up consensus with the group here, contingent on the inclusion of the Technique. Is everyone happy with this SC?

<JF> *note

<CharlesHall_> +1

+1

<MarcJohlic> +1

<Stefan> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept Success Criteria pending technique

WCAG 2.2 Fixed Reference Points https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/page-break-nav/results

Alastair: The CFC will go out via email before it goes into the draft.

DM: I'd like to talk about the word "edition." I think it would work best to make suggestions in the draft SC, rather than to overwrite what others have written.
... Are we on track? Does the rest of the SC language work?

Alastair: This SC has come back to being more ePub focused, rather than having a broader scope.

DM: We've put it back to page break. We need to have "set of pages" in the SC language.
... We need to be focused so that the SC doesn't cover more than just the web.

Alastair: JustineP had some comments in the SC draft text.
... the phrase "a mechanism is available" is there - managing page breaks isn't currently a user agent controlled feature. It is an author requirement at the moment.

Stefan: I wasn't sure what some of the language in the SC meant, in terms of defining the page break.

DM: These techniques are mostly done by the ePub team. Once we get the SC finished, I can pull you into the conversation, Stefan.
... I think people with disabilities would be affected disproportionately by the issues this SC attempts to handle.

Alastair: One of the comments asks "Will this be A or AA?" What do you need to accomplish? How big of an issue is it?
... Does it apply to all content? The answer is yes. This SC is trying to scope to electronic editions with fixed points of references.

Rachael: It sounds like the point is provide a common way of understanding "where you are" so that people can have a common understanding across document formats.

<CharlesHall_> apologies/regrets I have to drop off the call

DM: This is carefully scoped to documents that have the page break locator included.

Alastair: Did we get to the bottom of the difference between "edition" and "publication?"

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this does not actaully require alignment between versions

DM: I'd rather go with "publication," and switch over to "edition" if we have to.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to what MG is saying

DM: Editions can have different page numbers and we don't have any jurisdiction outside the web.

<bruce_bailey> page numbers without being able to reference between rendering versions, defeats point of SC it seems to me

MG: The SC, as its worded, doesn't require that the page numbers be consistent across the same document across different devices.
... I've made the change to add "consistent across editions" in the SC language.
... I'm concerned about page numbers that don't give users the capacity to synchronize where they are reading in a given document.

Bruce: I agree that "edition" seems better than publication.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about "version" instead of edition or publication

DM: I'm concerned that we are overstepping the scope our charge if we scope this too widely. It could put the SC at risk.

<mbgower> publication can be a one-off. It has no suggestions there is more than one. Whereas 'edition' and 'version' both imply multiple publications.

JF: Part of charter delay was around scoping to just web content. I suspect that the proper scope it is less about web, and more about technologies that the W3C covers.

<mbgower> scribe: mbower

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<scribe> scribe: mbgower

Alastair: "edition" suggests one of a set.
... Given it says, 'if you have page breaks, provide a way to get there'

David M: I think the epub team would reject that.

Alastair: The AAA is saying 'you should have them'

David Macdonald: I could attempt to widen this out with an and/or statement

David Macdonald: I don't know if we want to do that.

David Macdonald: They want to see consistency across versions. Someone was concerned with editions changing page numbers.

David Macdonald: IT would say what it says right now plus "or a corresponding epub"

David Macdonald: Then we could try to handle the versions of an edition.

Alastair: This sounds like a navigation SC. It would become something else.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I can live with it but I'm disappointed and to

<bruce_bailey> i want to ask about additonal AAA requirement?

mbgower: I can live with it.

Bruce: I had a similar thought in the back of my head. A triple is when it applies to the page nubmers being consistent across renderings.

<Ryladog> +1 to Bruce

Alastair: Does it widen it at AAA or make it more narrower?

David Macdonald: It would apply between versions.

Alastair: So, consider creating a AAA version. We could really do with a technique test procedure.
... Does anyone have concerns with the text itself?

[crickets]

RESOLUTION: Leave open to address techniques

WCAG 2.2 Dragging https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging/results

David: should I try to incorporate my existing AAA?

Alastair: Try to finish off the one that's in front of us, then copy and paste.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LaVX-RTaLQL0tN4G3NhOTlmj16swt0VzC7ssaAjqIwg/edit

Alastair: Quite a few have commented but I'm not sure how many are recent.
... Most agree it's met.
... This is a simpler but wider requirement compared to Pointer Gestures in 2.1. There's been some work tidying up the understanding document.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13QWLthBoEU6xuJQ4UrYOwuvJp0a42Z70JRjAsjtv1m4/edit#

Alastair: It's fairly straightforward conceptually. Meeting it is harder.
... I pasted in some examples.
... Not all work.

Detlev: There was one point Mike raised, whether swiping would be in scope or not.
... We have 2.5.1 for swiping, and the distinction has been something of a nightmare.
... I have not thought this through.

Alastair: I had considered a superset of gestures. Anything you cannot operate by tapping (if you're on a touchscreen, at least).
... Is taht what you've been thinking?

Detlev: Maybe some one else could speak to that?

Alastair: I'm not seeing any comments or objections.

Detlev: If there is an agreement to accept and it is considered a superset of the existing SC, then there is a question of whether we need the existing one.

John F.: I'm not concerned with the volume of SCs, especially considering Silver.

John F: I'm more about consistency and accuracy. If this is changing or augmenting, we can create a new one.

<Detlev> fine with me!

Alastair: This one is conceptually easy to understand.
... I'm expecting some public responses from this.
... I was impressed that places like Zenhub and Surveymonkey addressing this.
... This may be pushed down to AAA.

<Detlev> shall I take over scribing, Mike, then

Alastair: techniques need fleshing out.

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

mbgower: At one point we had contained pointer gestures to non-dragging, it makes sense that this covers the other stuff - so better not merge and keep separate
... this is an opportunity to get things better aligned - people can see ok this is about dragging - while 2.5.1 is gestures
... people may not make the difference but it is better to have in conceptually separated

alastair: Dragging could be 1. superset of pointer gestures; 2. could cover things dragging on the page (just dnd but not swiping); 3. forgotten...
... if we want to cover all things moving on the page we would need the right terminology for that - to separate it clearly from pointer gestures

mbgover: can take up with Detlev

alastair: operating on elements (as in swiping) and dragging stuff around is dfferent
... views on superset vs. separation? no strong feelings myself...

Davide: Agrees with separating it out - there is a concetual differnece

<stevelee_> +1

Brooks: Understanding if I get this right: This supports touch interfaces, is not disallowing it
... it just requires alternatives

alastair: Someone using touch with motor impairment is the target group

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that there is an AT 'edge' to this, but I think we can get public feedback

mbgower: If you think about keyboard, we do not rely on particular leys, fall back on OS functionality - there is some equivalent in the touch environment, but it's not there yet - it's worth getting public comments.
... there is a frontier here - if all the OS offer alternative modes it would be a different situation (?)

alastair: let Mike and Detlev argue about it for a week to come about for something that is the opposite of 2.5.1

RESOLUTION: Leave open

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

WCAG 2.2 Confirmation before submission https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-confirm-before-submission/results

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pcg6ixAfuwlo6jb2tkZBGTDhF0fAiO49h21E6HCbQ6I/edit

Steve: The name is slightly open to discussion. At the moment it is "Multi-step Review". There are some questions on it.

Alastair: Jake's comments are up to date.

Steve: I think all his comments are in the document.

Rachael: We were talking about not giving permission.

Alastair: What I meant was not leaving editing publicly open. Letting people comment is fine.
... That should now be group commentable.
... The idea is that users in a multi-step process can move about and get back to where they were.

Detlev: I haven't looked at this in great detail, but you have a process with choices. You go down a fork but go back to where the fork started.
... There are tricky issues with maintaining info.

Steve: We tried to cover where it is possible. The exception is 'don't even bother to try'
... I don't know where the exception came from.

John K: Are you talking about "Processes which do not allow a user to regress previous steps for technical or legal reasons"?

Steve: Yes.

John K: I don't know where that came from.

Steve: There is a question around submission.

John K: I feel that something is missing -- the whole shopping cart scenario. If things are being held in the shopping cart, there may be business process issues that would be an exception.

Steve: Are you talking about a timeout issue, say purchasing a ticket?

John K: Yes

Steve: I think that is outside the scope.

Alastair: YEs, that is more about timeouts. This is about navigating.
... Detlev raised that. For me, it's the second bullet
... That gets back to Detlev's branching question.

<alastairc> Suggesting: If it is possible to return to the furthest point along the process without needing to change entries, it can be done directly.

Alastair: I was wondering about rescoping this.
... INstead of having to hit 'next' 'next' 'next'
... There might not be an origin point.

Steve: We wondered about Information in Steps covering this.

<Detlev> edit suggestion " without needing to change entries in one of the intermediate steps"

Alastair: The navigation aspect isn't covered.

Steve: You mean the navigation aspect of going back.

<Rachael> +

Alastair: If it's possible to go back... That was the concept I was suggesting
... "Without needing to enter values" is covered by the other SC
... That part can be removed.

John k: Is the main point correcting or re-entering information?

Alastair: If you are on step 4 and you go back to step 2. To get back to step 4, assuming you haven't altered anything...
... This covers whether there is a navigation. Maybe breadcrumbs for each step.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say "previously visited" is redundant

Alastair: Rachael is suggesting "completed step"

Alastiar: IT helps in 2 ways. If you've gone to step 4, youv'e completed steps 1-3. If you change something at step 2, step 3 may become incomplete.

Steve: Completed can mean 2 different things.

Alastair: I think we can cover this in understanding.

Steve: I'm happy to remove that second bullet now.

<Rachael> +1 to removing teh 2nd bullet

Steve: part is covered in the other SC.

Alastair: For what was the third bullet
... Jake says it would take a lot of effort to maintain.
... It would just have a generic warning.
... It could become hugely complicated to have the logic in place.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say and to say there is language around that

<alastairc> mbgower: Language for this in error submission? Start with 'where it's possible to'.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/error-suggestion.html

Alastair: We are out of time. Mike if you can think of anything, feel free to offer suggestions.
... We will have a SIlver update. ACT will be providing some information. We will continue this and hopefully get on to Visual Indicators.

RESOLUTION: leave open

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/I/I'm/
Default Present: alastairc, Nicaise, JakeAbma, StefanSchnabel, JF, Raf, JustineP, Rachael, Detlev, CharlesHall_, Brooks, Chuck, stevelee_, MarcJohlic, Laura, kirkwood, bruce_bailey, david-macdonald, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower
Present: alastairc Nicaise JakeAbma StefanSchnabel JF Raf JustineP Rachael Detlev CharlesHall_ Brooks Chuck stevelee_ MarcJohlic Laura kirkwood bruce_bailey david-macdonald jon_avila Katie_Haritos-Shea mbgower
Regrets: JennieD
Found Scribe: Brooks
Inferring ScribeNick: Brooks
Found Scribe: mbower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Scribes: Brooks, mbower, mbgower, Detlev
ScribeNicks: Brooks, mbgower, Detlev

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.)