<Chuck> @Rachael, our telecon page: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag still refers to webex.

<Jennie> scribe: Jennie

Rachael: Is there anyone new that wants to introduce themselves?

Conformance Challenges Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Conformance-Challenges-FPWD2/

Rachael: Silent pause means no
... This has been put out again and is available until April 28th

Peter: We made substantial changes from the last survey (last year)
... Michael helped to update the tone. We have changed the title to encompass that we are not including mitigation strategies.

<JF> +1 to that Peter

Peter: This is to help readers understand that even though there are challenges, there are mitigations you can make even if you are not able to address the challenges.
... We also added conformance language
... Hopefully this is more in keeping with the historical work of AGWG in the conformance area.
... We got more comments last week from David M and Laura C
... those are also addressed.
... I warmly invite everyone to read it, put your comments on the survey for discussion next week.

Rachael: Thank you.
... Any other comments?

Silver Meeting Schedule and Working Draft Expectations

Rachael: The Silver facilitators and chairs got together. There are a number of meetings between both groups happening.
... We propose integrating the groups for one of the meetings
... We want a brief discussion and to get your thoughts on this proposal.

Brooks: I am all for it. I look forward to the blended approach.

Rachael: OK great.

<david-macdonald> coming back

<david-macdonald> good

John F: I am in favour of that as well. My concern is the total number of hours being devoted to all of this in a given week.

scribe: they are willing to reduce the number of hours.
... I'm struggling to meet with all the calls.

Rachael: I think the proposal is to consolidate a Silver meeting with an AG meeting.
... this would require fewer.
... This would also help those in AG that haven't been able to join Silver for some

John F: I think it is the total number of hours

John F: I'm spending 3 hours on calls today. I'm happy to do that, but I need to spread the hours over all groups I am in

Rachael: Do you have a counter proposal?
... It would be 3 hours total and then a separate Silver meeting

John F: I don't have a counter proposal. This is only the elimination of 1 hour.

scribe: Inviting more of AG to join a Silver call, they could have joined the other meeting call.
... This doesn't reduce the total number of hours

Rachael: OK

David M: A little down the same lines. I am appreciative of the idea to get us together. I'm wondering about winding up 2.2 then fully integrating Silver?

scribe: Is this kind of temporary until 2.2 is out the door?

Rachael: I think that is the thinking with the working group approval.
... I defer to other chairs, Silver facilitators if they want to clarify.

David M: I support that. What if we overlap a half hour which starts a half hour earlier? Or would that encroach too much on 2.2?

Rachael: I have heard now 2 other proposals.

Chuck: My understanding of 1 proposal is that our meetings reduce from 5 hours to 4, and another is that the Silver call moves to Wednesday instead of Tuesday so it doesn't butt up against the AGWG call.
... that's one of the ideas being floated so it is not all contiguous.

Katie: I strongly support this proposal.
... It should have been done a long time ago.

Rachael: General support for some type of combination. Definitely support for a reduction in the # of hours.
... I think long term we do want to shift the AG meetings once 2.2 is done.
... Shall we survey on preferences?

Katie: we could poll here?

* thank you Rachael!

<AWK> The advantage of a survey is seeing all proposals at once

<Rachael> Proposal: Adjusting a silver meeting to increase AG attendance

<JF> +1 to AWK

<Brooks> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Fazio> 0

<sajkaj> +1

Rachael: Andrew has pointed out that a survey enables you to view all proposals at once, and we can follow up with that

<JakeAbma> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<Chuck> +1

David M: this would change the time?

<david-macdonald> +1

Rachael: More friendly for Europe

<Fazio> don't forget PST

<laura> +1

Rachael: General support for that one

John F: Are you saying earlier in the day?

<Francis_Storr> +1

Rachael: I'm sorry, I was speaking about the evening meetings at 7pm
... but yes, we would need to find one that works for the majority of participants

John F: There are other WAI domain activities that meet, and because we want to include Europe

scribe: the times available in the morning Boston time are limited.

<KimD> -1 - Tuesday am Silver meetings work for me, another day might not work

Rachael: We will have to poll and be careful about finding a time

<JF> -1, I'm with Kim

<laura> +1

<Chuck> -1 to adding time

<david-macdonald> +1

Rachael: The other proposal: add some time to the AG meeting, and allocate it to Silver

<Brooks> -1

<Fazio> -1

David M: that would be less time overall, with a half hour added to the AG meeting?

<Ryladog> -1

<alastairc> -1, I think having a separate meeting would make it easier to allocate things separately.

David F: one of the good things about the structure now is there are times that work for various times

scribe: but if we change the times to be more European and Eastern friendly, what about the other coast and Japan?

<AWK> The proposal from a while back was to bring silver into the regular WCAG call and split time 50/50 with WCAG 2.2 topic

scribe: the call today was 6:30 am but the Friday call is 4pm my time

<KimD> 0 - not sure what that looks likes

scribe: but it is hard to keep up with 3 different calls per week.

Rachael: It looks like there is less support for adding time.

<david-macdonald> +

<JF> +1 to the 50/50 split

<Ryladog> +1 to that

Rachael: Andrew brings up a previous proposal to split the AG call into 50/50

<david-macdonald> +1 to 50/50 split

<sajkaj> Sooner or later, tha half/half should become tenable

Andrew: To clarify: our intention was that silver would be increasing it's time. It might start with 30% and eventually becomes more

<Fazio> that makes sense

Andrew: unclear the timeline, but this could change of course.

Rachael: So we have 3 different proposals

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to David's question on 2.2

Alastair: In reply to what David stated earlier, it would be good for that 50/50 but at the stage we are at now, we can fill a meeting with 2.2 until we have that approved
... I would be more in favour of different meetings until the future

<Fazio> +1

David M: Yes. Once we get passed the hump of the SC for 2.2 then we could get to a split split

Chuck: I've found that (for adding time, 2 hour call goes to 2.5 or 3 hours) when you go beyond 2 hours is when you start causing mental fatigue

<Ryladog> +1 to Chuck

Chuck: I am find with 50/50 split, and delaying it until we are more mature in 2.2
... I am not ok with adding time to the AGWG call

Rachael: Going back to trying to get more AG people into Silver calls, some of the comments I saw were that changing the time would be a problem.
... If we leave that time, would we still get people to participate from the AG?

Katie: I wasn't clear?

<Fazio> Too early for PST

Rachael: The Tuesday morning time. A few commented that the Tuesday morning time worked. If we leave it at the time, do we still get participationg

John F: To Chuck's point, as a person that attends both calls, I welcome the half hour break between calls

John F: If it was 3 hours, it would be very difficult. I'm good with the Tuesday, but I struggle with the evening and Friday calls

<JakeAbma> +1 to Tuesday too.leave as is

Chuck: I think the big proposal is to drop the late Tuesday call, and we won't be having it today

<JakeAbma> Friday not possible for Europe, 01:00 at night

Chuck: (not as chair) I think the Tuesday call will go away

<JakeAbma> Wednesday another day to Tuesday and Thursday already, need a day off too

Rachael: Are we looking at moving the Friday call?

John F: If you are asking Silver to make the Friday call earlier so more from this group can call in, that's reasonable

<Fazio> I would like tues morning moved an hour or so later

<JakeAbma> +1 to Friday earlier

scribe: but some would only be on the call half the time

Janina: Friday is currently 2pm Boston time
... I know there are west coat people that want to stay involved.

Rachael: I think we can make a series of proposals that people can vote on in the survey
... Any other comments?
... The second one is discussing this group's expectations for a silver 1st working draft

John F: Can you phrase it as a question?

Rachael: What are your expectations of what you are going to see in a silver working draft?

David M: My sense is the world is watching.

scribe: We have the standard that is one of the top 50 standards of all history.
... Understanding it has lots of flaws and needs improvement...
... We want to follow it up with something strong, that solves problems, that is clear for people to follow
... I would like to see enough maturity on the big questions like measurement vs testing
... the proposals for scoring it
... I don't want just a vision
... I don't want to make people afraid.
... Measurability, mature, and the ability to score it

Alastair: (Chair hat off) The big thing for me is that a reaonably expert person in accessibility would be able to hit the draft up with possibly just an explainer
... and be able to understand it
... It would have at least 3 guidelines. 1 that is familiar, and be able to work through scoping an accessibility review through to scoring at the end
... to understand where Silver is going
... In terms of maturity the guidelines don't need to be hugely mature, but we do need some sense of how the scoring works
... getting to the bottom of measurement and scoring

Brooks: I think among many things, I would look to see something old and something new
... showing how things are translated in the new standard, and then
... something new. Either new technology, new definitions
... Something that would not have previously fit in the WCAG 2.x

<Ryladog> New is the Conformance modal

John F: I will echo some of what David M said

scribe: I have long said that the hardest piece will be the conformance piece
... I think there is a lot of water needed to go under the bridge before we talk about that
... I'm concerned without having scoring and conformance information will be poorly received.

<AWK> +1 - agree that conformance is hardest and for many, the most important

Jeanne: The major thing I would like is from consensus in AGWG - what's the minimum viable product that we want

<AWK> +1 to clearly defining the MVP

Jeanne: it's hard to keep addressing one issue at a time in order to get to agreement on a survey that we are ready to publish
... Keeping in mind that 1st public working draft are supposed to be a 1st, and just indicate intentions, thinking of the group
... so that adjustments can be made
... I know some people would like a lot of maturity, but in some ways, that is self-defeating
... If it turns out the public feedback is opposed
... We need to be able to adjust course, like a usability design where you test wireframes so you can adjust

Rachael: I think clearly defining the minimum viable product makes sense, and some of this discussion can be used to help with that
... Do we have a proposal to get a group together to define what would have to be in a minimum viable product?

<JakeAbma> count me in, working on it already

Jeanne: I would certainly be willing to work on a proposal, and I would welcome anyone that wants to work on it to volunteer to help

<david-macdonald> MVP I'd say 3 scs end to end

David M: I would be glad to review what you are thinking

<Ryladog> Personally not a fan of minimal-viable-product for a W3C standard

scribe: the testability and the conformance model of those 3

Alastair: Even when you have wireframes, you have to take the direction. You have something that can get you through the jjourney
... We might have other wireframes, but we need to pick one to review

John F: I am wearing a special t-shirt! 3 words: measurable, testable, repeatable

scribe: Whatever product we have, I would want to see those 3 requirements in it

Rachael: Jake has volunteered to assist. Jeanne, bring in David M too
... Katie you said you are not in favour of a viable product?

Katie: I am concerned if there is not enough meat, because we have such a high bar, I think people will be disappointed
... I am not a fan of something like that for something that applies to laws

Rachael: Where is the enough line for you?

Katie: The enough line would have been the previous standard to have most of the structure figured out, and then becoming clearer on the wording of the SC specifically
... but in this case, whatever the framework is, and that can ensure measurable, testable, repeatable,
... this is so complicated that I just don't think we have rationale to put forward something at this time until we have worked on it very thoroughly

Rachael: Do you agree that having an exercise of what is enough, is that useful from your point of view?

Katie: absolutely, there is no reason not to. I think we just have to be very careful because so many places will be looking and judging...
... and wanting to have something implementable that they can be talking about
... I think that we have not had the entire working group on it
... I am not trying to say that the work of the Silver task force's work is not useful, it just needs everyone working on it
... so they can provide better requirements and guidance
... I feel like we are less than half measured
... We are where we are, but it is something we need to do sooner rather than later.

Rachael: I will give an action to Jeanne and Jake to work on this, circle back with David M
... If anyone else wants to weigh in, please reach out to them or chairs
... Two weeks? Reasonable?

Jeanne: works for me

Jake: I can work on it 25 hours a week

Rachael: Can we turn it around in a week?

Jake: no

Rachael: ok, two weeks. Any other comments?

Brooks: For me, another thing I would like to see, is another discussion about the user experience.
... Whatever guidelines we provide, it would be important not just to speak to the content authors, but some understanding of the user,
... the software support standards, markup
... that's an area where we could improve this new standard
... giving clearer context in how it plays into the user experience
... not being to prescriptive

Rachael: Thank you. Anything else before I close the topic?

WCAG 2.2 Visual indicators https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/

Rachael: David I think this is yours

David M: There are 2 proposals on the table. I want to come up with which 1 we would rather go with

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#

David M: the 2nd one is trying to address the objections several members have had around prescribing what a visual indicator includes

scribe: using color alone as a model
... I said don't rely upon these things using the same language
... I think we should go over option 2, and see if there are strong objections
... Basically says: you can't use spacing or font size
... the big thing I heard from COGA: spacing and font adjustments to indicate it is actionable
... I want the group's opinion on option 2
... my sense is option 2 is the way to go

Stefan: If every interaction has been taken into account?
... If I hover with the mouse over an indicator, all the visual stuff can be exposed.
... Why is it only static things?

David M: The intention is not to rely on hover or focus

scribe: It is primarily for those in the cognitive community
... There are links in a block of text, and if you hover you get an underline
... but only color was the indicator
... That wouldn't be allowed, or we could cover it in the Understanding Document
... Was there another question?

Chuck: I like it, I like the direction it is going. One minor change to consider: spacing difference in font type
... I was envisioning that the font type is changing live on the fly

David M: that works for me - I'm changing that now

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if font type = Ariel vs Courier, or style attributes?

Alastair: I'm stuck on font type phrase
... I hear this as Ariel, Courier...
... From the note underneath, it is differentiating font style

<JF> +1 to Alastair

<Fazio> or variations?

<JakeAbma> +1 to that, mentioned it already in the comments

Alastair: I thought we wanted something outside of the type
... Maybe font style, and including underline?

<AWK> +1 to alastair on font style

David M: I think of Arial bold as a different font type from Arial

David M: it is on my experience with downloads

<JF> sometimes. Mature fonts will have a "family", others won't

Alastair: it is either font or type facce?

<jon_avila_> I agree with Alastair that when I hear font type I think font face

David M: it is confusing for lots of people, so we should do something like that

<JakeAbma> both versions are possible, depending on the font builder

<alastairc> text styles

Rachael: Any other suggestions before I go on with the cue?

David F: why can't you just add a comma?

scribe: variations in font which include x, y, z

John F: Certain fonts have a family, mature fonts you can download multiple versions

scribe: other fonts there is only one version
... we need to be careful about the terminology here

<kirkwood> bold, and italic are definitely not fonts

scribe: This might be something that APA could work on - reach out to the other group so we could be consistent?

John F: they are referencing this as part of styling. Whatever they are referencing in terms of styling, they would have guidance.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/

David M: that makes sense to me

John K: Include me too

John K: You can actually electronically bold a font

scribe: there is a different font for bold. We can parse through language

<alastairc> You can have bold/italics etc all in one 'typeface' font: https://css-tricks.com/one-file-many-options-using-variable-fonts-web/

<AWK> font properties

Jake: The problem here is that it all depends on which font is chosen, embedded and implemented

<alastairc> text properties

Jake: if you choose font face bold, but sometimes the bold is not applied

<AWK> that works, Alastair

Jake: it is very hard to determine from a test perspective what will be bold
... We have had fonts between light and bold, and they didn't listen to CSS styling

<alastairc> AWK - just trying to avoid the term font!

Jake: You can give it a name, but you still don't know if it is the bold

<AWK> "Changes in text properties are not used..."

Jake: Some do listen to the CSS, but for a lot of fonts, this is not the case

David M: It doesn't matter for this case, because you are still not going to pass

scribe: You cannot claim bold

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say why "non-text" line?

Mike G: I actually worked with a type setter (smile)

scribe: A non text line - why is that in there?
... I don't understand why non text cannot be removed
... Underlining links is allowed, just like it has for the last 30 years

<jon_avila_> we could say something like non-reliance on font weight - either as implemented as font family or font attribute

scribe: I have to drop. It could be an underscore, a rule line

David M: I'm trying to respond to COGA's request

scribe: I'm not an expert on this

Mike G: it is about not relying on font, and font face alone

*sorry that was David M

Andrew: underline would pass

* scribe change?

* yes

<JakeAbma> scribe: Jake

<JakeAbma> Brooks: we need visual examples to see what we talk about

<JakeAbma> Brooks: also to understand what types of marks or indication would pass the new criterion

<JakeAbma> Brooks: think this issue is broader than COGA, lets ask low vision task force

<JakeAbma> Brooks: might be for most disability groups

<JakeAbma> Brooks: factor is "how long will it takes to recognize a indicator"

<JakeAbma> Brooks: extra time and trouble is for more that COGA

<JakeAbma> DF: big thing is attention, there is bottom up and top down attention

<JakeAbma> DF: if it's not different looking different the brain has trouble recognizing

<JakeAbma> DmD: you don't need to test for bold for this SC, so it's not a problem

<Rachael> straw poll: Do you prefer option 1 or option 2?

<JakeAbma> DmD: if it's disproportional than it is SC worth, so the COGA group mentioned it's disproportional

<Chuck> +1 option 2

<david-macdonald> Option 2

<JF> OPtion 2

<alastairc> Option 2

<JakeAbma> Option 2

<laura> Option 2

<Ryladog> + 1 option q2

<kirkwood> option 1

<jon_avila_> option 2

<Brooks> 0 - I think this SC is missing the point. don't like either option

<Francis_Storr> Option 2

<JakeAbma> JK: the font issue is something I'm worried about

<JakeAbma> JK: the bold, underlining etc. needs to be fleshed out better to make it clear what we mean

<jon_avila_> This issue disproportionately affects people with low vision as well - as folks can see and interpret each word to evaluate whether it indicates an interaction word. Using the mouse to hover to locate interactive items is more difficult as well.

<Fazio> can we add an exception for that?

<JakeAbma> DmD: we can exempt underlines

<JakeAbma> Brooks: original was, is it clear that it is interactive, if we say the opposite, what it can't be, doesn't give clear understanding

<alastairc> Suggestion: "Differences in spacing, typeface, or font style are not used as the only visual means of conveying that controls are actionable, if they are necessary to do the following:"

<kirkwood> +1 to Brooks

<JakeAbma> Chuck: option 2 is less prescriptive, nr. might be too overly prescriptive

<JakeAbma> AC: working through the type face part, we might go the way specify the font / type properties

<jon_avila_> I agree with Brooks that this SC doesn't go far enough to address the needs.

<JakeAbma> Rachael: sounds like option two is preferred

<JakeAbma> DmD: can add examples, not sure if it helps much

<jon_avila_> We should clarify what is meant by spacing -- letter spacing? Spacing of content on the page?

<JakeAbma> DmD: a underline, a bold, not sure if it helps as these are probably already clear

<JakeAbma> Gundula: see DmD deleted option one, but was a remark in the file I like it to be present

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about the other half of the scoping.

<JakeAbma> DmD: it's still at the bottom of the page

<JakeAbma> AC: live examples would be better help than a underline or bold example

<JakeAbma> AC: in combination with the bullet points

<alastairc> Don't think it's a brick wall, just be assured that it is easy to scope controls in/out.

<Fazio> Didn't we do that last week too?

<JakeAbma> DmD: would like to know if there's enough to continue before adding examples

<JakeAbma> JA: do we allow sizing? and spacing, text spacing etc. is that enough indication?

<JakeAbma> DmD: it's all about processes, not regular links

<JakeAbma> JA: it's very limited, the scope now

<JakeAbma> JA: doesn't help me, low vision probably not their needs

<JakeAbma> JA: an action verb can be enough for interaction, for me I have to read each text on the screen by it's wording

<JakeAbma> Rachael: John you want larger scope?

<alastairc> David - check this page https://www.argos.co.uk/ scroll down to the 'Portal mini', that row has no indicators.

<Rachael> Jake: I heard something about processes. From other SC, there was discussion that a link. You want to write mail and the link to go to the next page is part of a process. What is the scope for us of a process? If you start a process by clicking on a link, is that in scope? Here we just said no but in other conversations we said yes. I read the definition and some actions may include or start with following a link.

<Rachael> David: I think it is part of the process

<Rachael> Jake: Isn't clicking a link part of the process?

<Rachael> David: If the link is taking you to the shopping cart, then we could talk about it.

<JakeAbma> AC: we start leaning heavily on process

<kirkwood> are we combining issues of process and font or visual indicators are two things being conflated here?

<JakeAbma> AC: it's applying to controls for processes as DF mentioned

<JakeAbma> AC: we've gone through a wider scope, now a narrow one

<alastairc> Oh, and agree with Jake about having more examples for what is covered by process.

<JakeAbma> Chuck: if the challenge was how to define things, we might open up the scope now as it is currently written

<JakeAbma> DmD: can work on the scope, and how / when links apply

<JakeAbma> DmD: in Lyon the W3C director came in and mentioned he would like to see COGA SC in the new dot release

<Ryladog> +1 to David M

<alastairc> Interesting point from Chuck - now it is saying "don't use X/Y/X" in a fairly constrained way, do we need to scope to process?

<JakeAbma> DmD: interesting comment that we can widen it now, we surely should not drop it

<JakeAbma> SS: affordance and the definition would be beneficial, but it's not in the draft

<david-macdonald_> earlier draft was "visual affordances" but was dropped

<Fazio> Make it "salient"

<Fazio> is the scientific term

<Brooks> +1 to Stefan's point about including the word affordances

<JakeAbma> DmD: when we started we had affordances, but it was too hard to grasp what that exactly means

<AWK> +AWK to speak to comparison to 1.4.12

<JakeAbma> JF: there's work happening in the personalization TF which might apply to this one

<JakeAbma> JF: once the spec in mature, there will be a programmatic way for important indicators

<JakeAbma> JF: down the road we will have a way, make way for personalization

<david-macdonald_> earlier drafts https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8gzwC0H9Ia2jPCI409My4W8s4Et2fVb_9bV6_LdVb8/edit#heading=h.n5l24nbcdm9i

<JakeAbma> Brooks: I think of this SC as the affordance SC for input assistence

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about defining what is to be avoided, rather than what is best

<JakeAbma> AC: interesting about Chucks comment that we don't need the narrow scope anymore

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Research_needed

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to comparison to 1.4.12

<david-macdonald_> In content implemented using markup languages that support visual adaptation of user interface components, one of the following is true, with no loss of content or functionality, and by changing no other style property:

<JakeAbma> AWK: think about text spacing SC, same as JA mentioned, we should take advantage of adaptability of the web

<Rachael> straw poll: Should we continue to move forward with this SC for 2.2?

<Chuck> +1 continue

<JakeAbma> AWK: we're quantifying design preferences instead of supporting adaption, that is probably what content creators want

<Fazio> +1

<david-macdonald_> +1 continue

<jon_avila_> +1 to continue

<bruce_bailey> +1 to continue

+1

<kirkwood> +1

<AWK> 0

<Francis_Storr> +1

<JakeAbma> 0

<laura> +1

<JF> 0

<Brooks> 0

<alastairc> 0

<stevelee__> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<JakeAbma> DmD: can you get back with examples based on the comments?

<Fazio> If you want some yoga support let me know

<kirkwood> david I would like to help you

<JakeAbma> DmD: I surely can

WCAG 2.2 Finding help https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/results

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fX4Iw169OGUny5RTd70S8qAneYy5e0hr7zupE21gPBM/edit#

<Rachael> For single page apps or any set of web pages with blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages, at least one of the following is included or linked in a consistent location:

<Rachael> human contact details - e.g., phone number, email address; human contact mechanism - e.g., messaging system, chat client, contact form, social media channel; Self-help option; A fully automated chatbot that can: recognize misspelled words, provide human contact details if the chatbot is unable to provide a satisfactory response after 3 attempts, be dismissed with a single interaction, and recalled using a link or button.

<JakeAbma> Rachael: any objections to the SC text as is right now?

<JakeAbma> AC: most comment were from Oliver, we replied to all, not sure if they are all dealt with

<Fazio> does physical address meet human contact req?

<JakeAbma> AC: wilco mentioned we need SPA definition (single page apps)

Single page apps: After the first page load, all subsequent page and content changes are handled internally by the application

<JakeAbma> q_

<bruce_bailey> i think 2.0 requires icons to be used across a site

<JakeAbma> Rachael: we removed the self help and added it to the understanding

<bruce_bailey> used consistently that is

<JakeAbma> Rachael: move on from there

<alastairc> Bruce - I was thinking about Consistent Navigation https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#consistent-navigation

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if a long PDF is a "set of web pages"

* David M: physical address is not in the understanding document. We can add it.

<JF> add e-Pub "books" to AWK's question

<alastairc> I thought we'd been through that, and decided not?

<JakeAbma> AWK: concerned every PDF might need 'help'

<JakeAbma> AC: we used "set of web pages" to avoid PDFs

<JakeAbma> Rachael: can we clarify in Understanding

<JakeAbma> JF: ePub is also collection of pages (it's HTML5)

<JakeAbma> AC: we couldn't cover ePub as they are under the same URL

<bruce_bailey> @alastair, yes 3.2.3 is relative order (in a set of web pages), and 3.2.4 is that icons have consistant meaning (in a set of web pages)

<JakeAbma> Jennie: for the majority of long PDFs we've seen that help is present

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to argee that PDF is *not* a set of web pages but EPUB *is*

<JakeAbma> Bruce: ePub is meant to be a set of web pages, PDF is not

<alastairc> Is it worth putting this out for wider review with that as a editorial question?

<GN015> -1

<bruce_bailey> sometimes people ZIP up websites -- they are still sets of web pages

<Chuck> +1 moving forward

<JF> ) to moving forward

<alastairc> GN: Still worried about the examples. Also discussed FAQs no being sufficient.

<JF> *0 to moving forward

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

Rachael: Will have to come back to this.

Thanks everyone, please continue discussion on list.

Bruce: Like an email?!?

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/that icon have/that icons have/
Default Present: jeanne, Rachael, JakeAbma, alastairc, MichaelC, sajkaj, Fazio, PascalWentz, Jennie, shanew, JF, StefanS, StefanSchnabel, Brooks, Gundula, stevelee, Laura, kirkwood, mbgower, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Nicaise, bruce_bailey, david-macdonald_
Present: jeanne Rachael JakeAbma alastairc MichaelC sajkaj Fazio PascalWentz Jennie shanew JF StefanS StefanSchnabel Brooks Gundula stevelee Laura kirkwood mbgower Katie_Haritos-Shea Nicaise bruce_bailey david-macdonald_
Regrets: mgower bruce
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie
Found Scribe: Jake
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Scribes: Jennie, Jake, alastairc
ScribeNicks: Jennie, alastairc

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


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.)