AG 28 April 2020 -- 28 Apr 2020

<Rachael> WCAG 2.2 Visual Indicators (pending links) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/

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

<Rachael> WCAG 2.2 Focus indicator (enh) issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/focus-visible-enh-issues1/

<alastairc> scribe:alastairc

Introduce COGA content usable note https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-04-content-usable

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-after-0327/content-usable/index.html

Rachael: This note has been worked on for a number of years. Been approved and reviewed before, but now want to move it to the next stage.
... the survey requests approval for moving to wide review.
... Aimed at designers & developers across the whole range, from small to large scale organisations / people.

<ChrisLoiselle> I can scribe alastairc if that works.

<ChrisLoiselle> ok

Rachael: Any questions / thoughts?

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-04-content-usable

Rachael: the survey will be open for 2 weeks, we'd like to review comments next week.

Lisa: If you are comfortable with it going to wide review but have other issues with it, please do feedback separately.
... if it is something editorial we can deal with whilst it is in wide review.
... this is a note, not normative. It is not prescriptive, if something isn't applicable, too expensive, that isn't an issue for this document.

<sajkaj> Would it be correct to call it: "Best practices?"

Look forward to reading it again, I'm sure it's changed a lot.

<LisaSeemanKest> :)

Lisa: May contain some best practices, but some is on user-needs, user-stories, different types of thing.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about coordination with EO

Lisa: there's a design guide section which you could call some of those 'best practices', but you'd be loosing people if it was relevent and you didn't follow it.

JF: Have you reached out to EO, they would be appropriate partners in promoting doc?

Lisa: We have on and off, anticipate they might use some of our personas/content to use elsewhere.
... we have more personas that they might want, as we have a lot to explain.

JF: I just know they've worked hard on ensuring they have used plain language.
... just suggest having a chat with them, as it is for educational purposes. They might have valuable feedback.

Lisa: We'll reach out to them.

Steve: Had a chat with EO Shawn LH about this, there are conversations going on. Also talking about supplemental guidance.

Silver FPWD MVP discussion https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQHgVFaJYS1WWs9BKucZxWboMNVuclvdNqnQuzPbWwY/

Lisa: We'll send an email about this specifically.

Rachael: Definition of 'enough' for the Silver FPWD.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQHgVFaJYS1WWs9BKucZxWboMNVuclvdNqnQuzPbWwY/

Jeanne: Link to doc. This was a request for Silver to define what it is that we think needs to be in the FPWD, in order for it to be ready to go out.
... what does it have to do? Rather than focusing on everyone agreeing on everything that's in it. Really want wide public review.
... started with list of what's enough, had some comments of additions.
... Jake made some suggestions, added to intro.
... wanted to add some discussion of how technology like dPub are covered.
... want to expand number of guidelines. 4 that are migrations, 2 that are new content.
... thought people would find it easier to understand the current access requirements.
... put a guideline checklist in for each one.
... added the status for each guideline.
... we will be looking for help to migrate things to Silver.
... on the conformance section, we made a list of things it should include.
... (reads from doc)

Rachael: We (the group) requested this, are there any comments?

MichaelC: In the doc some things are marked as 'discussed', we do need to approve things. However, we should take a permissive approach to that process.

Rachael: Any comments? Would like to move to a resolution that we are comfortable with this?

(Jeanne edits doc)

<Rachael> Question: Do we agree that the contents defined in the MVP are sufficient for a FPWD of Silver?

<JakeAbma> +1

<bbailey> +1 to move forward

<KimD> +1

<Brooks> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Chuck> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<Jennie> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Raf> 1+

<JF> -1

JF: Don't see conformance / scoring
... so each of these things will be written?

Rachael: Yes.

<JF> +1

MichaelC: The point of this was to say, if the Silver TF puts forward something that meets these requriements, we expect the FPWD to be approved.

Chuck: We are approving this is what needs to be there, not the content specifically?

MichaelC: If we have content that meets this definition, then we should not have a reason not to approve the FPWD.

<KimD> +1 to MC

<laura> +1 if the group agrees to a conformance model

MichaelC: We could add/remove things after FPWD, it is whether we are comfortable with showing it to the world.

JF: That's ok then.

MichaelC: Separately, as with WCAG 2 we learned how to create & approve things in a particular way. It will be the same for Silver. this is the starting point.

RESOLUTION: This document is sufficient to define what is in the FPWD

WCAG 2.2 Visual Indicators (pending links) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/

Rachael: Continued discussion, some research put forward. Does anyone want to comment about this?

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

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

alastairc: We are still in the place of we go for small scope (relatively), DM worked through to a point.
... scoping to processes and legal financial commitments. Much smaller set of controls. Even in that scenario.
... We don't have a good aspect of design aspects and how they align with good/bad button or link. If we took a wider scope...
... People drew parallels with non-text-contrast, which was very difficult to scope, and we had to do a lot of work afterwards.
... Finding unexpected results. We are still dealing with that now. If we took that in 2.2, we would need to have had the understanding doc with examples ready for critique right now.
... looking to defer to another round or silver.

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

<Glenda> +1 to what Alastair said. Deferring this to silver.

Kirkwood: One thing I'd like to be clear about - I'm very wary on pushing this off to Silver. Part of the issue is that it is part of process. Critical controls part of a process, needs fleshing out more to keep it narrow. Not to end up resulting in SC with all visual indicators. slightly different scope, feel that it's gone off scope a bit.

<kirkwood> Sorry lost audio

<Fazio_> I gave many examples pulled from the research

JF: I'm one that believes that we need to defer this. Support the use-cases, but what is sufficient? We're working on a technical solution today, that would be dependant on new helper apps

<Fazio_> Qt

JF: we're going to get a ton of feedback from designers.
... when I try to apply this example to a wordpress theme (as simple example), my brain explodes. Concerned that we're pushing it into 2.2 when would be better to get into the next version.

Lisa: To JF's point, making it machine understandable, that doc is a couple of weeks out. Got explainer sent to TAG, it's quiet mature.
... to be able to mark something as a critical control, we have that in the spec. The draft has implementations, it is on track.
... it would be ready to go to CR in a few weeks, will also go through horizontal review.
... the wording can be about it being machine understandable, with an 'unless' fallback for a visual indicator.
... it is easy to put on any site, it is just an attribute. You could do that now using microdata, so it is a reasonable way to do it.

<JF> Lisa is making my case of why we should wait a b it on this SC - let's get the technology mature enough to mandate

Lisa: agree with John's point, but the only reason it might be late is if WCAG doesn't link to it.
... the other issue, part of what's needed to get this through is a table of examples, measured against the wording.
... BUT, I want people to check after 3 items to see if it's going ok.
... also don't want to do that if people are going to vote against it anyway.
... important, don't want to see it delayed. There will be people who won't have been able to do shopping for 2 years, get medical care etc.

<AWK> +AWK

Lisa: urgency is obvious, we said 2 years 2 years ago.

<kirkwood> (my audio back, sorry)

DavidF: I'm hearing competing interests, concerns with research.
... I did provide those, things which are salient.

<AWK> Salience would need to be defined.

DavidF: enough for designers to do that.
... the argument a week ago, we've provide the information.

MichaelC: reacting to maturity of personalisation spec, have concern with temporary attribute to gain implementation experience. Don't think we could go to rec with that. Think it will be stuck in CR for a while, then need negotiation with WHATWG. The implementations are prototypes, not widely used, so not meeting accessibility support.
... all that said, would be happy for it to be there whilst marked at risk.

JF: +1 to Michael, I'm active there, think it's still 2 years +.

<Fazio> how does that differ from contrast ratio

JF: the problem remains that we're imposing limitations on designers. Salience is subjective to some extent, different people perceive it differently. even the colour contrast criteria is being re-visited. Understood the criticality of this from 2.1, when talking about improtant inputs/destinations. By the time we got there, the solution was weak.
... need a more robust solution. Sounds great, but when you apply it, lots of different use cases.

<Fazio> They had “masks” which means background distractions ie content

<Rachael> alastairc: research is low level visual perception research but not interface research. There is no mapping. No research that fills the gap in that this font style makes it salient.

<Rachael> ...pop out is a combination. Its difficult to map to what a designer would recognize or we can require visually. Programatic has limitations but that would be a relatively way forward. I'm concerned with we don't have the basis. Lisa mentioned about the examples. Several people tried several weeks ago and struggled. Difficult to say what is in process and what is in a criteria. We have options but all make it difficult.

Rachael: More of a question, understand why the prescriptive doesn't work, why not visually distinct?

<Chuck> alastairc: We'd need to work through lots of examples, 3 months ago.

<Chuck> alastairc: I don't have an issue in principal, we'd need sc to be the test and yes we can explain in understanding, it would need something on visually distinct, maybe a big definition.

<Rachael> alastair: We need to work through examples and have done that 3 months ago. I don't have an issue in principle. The SC would have to be the test. It would need somethign about what visually distinct or salience was even if it was definition.

<AWK> "Visually distinct" isn't testable without parameter to define what makes something distinct.

<Fazio> Contrast was found to have little to no effect on salience

JF: Also, somewhat covered by other SCs. Your ability to interactive with salient controls is frustrated?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ios-7/

Lisa: I thought the original set of research we quoted from was pretty useful?
... The EU project finishes in June, will be available then.
... have over a million users with a particular user-agent (subscribers).
... Will personalisation dash (attribute) be used? The implementors know that will be dropped, and works right now. Shouldn't be too big a break, between data- and new attribute. It is supported in the user-agents I'm aware of.
... still microformats to achieve the same thing.

<sajkaj> data- won't make it into the final spec

<sajkaj> That would violate html5

Lisa: Got something going to CR, got implementations. Early, but right side of early.

Rachael: we have two conversations, one on personalisation, one on visual aspects.

<Fazio> The whole point is to be able to scan a screen and recognize controls. Having to navigate around a page with a mouse or tab function creates mental fatigue

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

JF: we have implementer is great news

Rachael trying to circle us back

<GN015_> +1 to Fazio

Lisa: in term of research, see point, original on color, other things, see link above

Chuck: I wanted to respond to examples, say did that work with 50 examples; but that would not be persuasive

<LisaSeemanKest> thanks, chuck!

<KimD> +1 to Chuck

DavidM: from historical perspective, we talked about icons and I suggested "visual indicators" but that seemed too prescriptive

DM: we focused on process, needed to more than space and text
... we got close to agreement, took back to coga, but proposal did not go far enough
... we started to look at personalization, but that did not get consensus either

<LisaSeemanKest> we would be happy with any version

DM: then we tried a "do no harm" , dont get in the way of AT, but that also was not successful
... i want to propose we go back to text and space, just so we have something

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#heading=h.24djx66nn5hr

DM: see option 1 at bottom

<Fazio> Everyone got all weird about defining process if I remember correctly

<Rachael> A visual indicator is present for controls which are necessary to do the following: Initiate a process, Progress through a process, Complete a process, Return to a previous part of a process

<LisaSeemanKest> I am ok with the version

<Fazio> it was said to be too broad

<alastairc> Visual Indicator

<alastairc> A non-text line, border, background, icon, or other marking to indicate an element is interactive. Spacing and/or font styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the control is actionable

<Rachael> Exception: the control is part of a group of controls that has a visual indicator for the group

DM: a definition of visual indicator

Rachael: clearly a lot of work into this

Lisa: we did not really think we were close to success and would be stuck with it

<kirkwood> Looks good to me.

Lisa: we wanted broader scope than progressive process

DM: There was concern for definition of process, so we worked that out a bit
... phrasing borrowed from other SC

Lisa: i can live with something

JF: Looking at DM text, middle, initial, moving forward -- they are all either either button or link
... covered by other SC

<alastairc> JF - tabbing/hover is not sufficient, needs to be visually apparent without interaction.

JF: we have color and tab order

<Fazio> That exacerbates mental fatigue. It should just be visible at a standstill

<Detlev> @JF: no hover of kb focus on mobile...

JF: what you are saying is do not rely on font style or spacing alone

<Jennie> +1 to David F's comment: then a user has to hover all around the page to find them as a mouse user

DM: i am just trying to facilitate conversation

<Fazio> that was COGA’s point

DM: need non-static indications as well, cannot rely on hover for example

Lisa: image asking someone with dementia to hover to tell that something is a link, that is not reasonable

Chuck: Debate about whether on not ready does not help me understand if it is ready!

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to david

Chuck: Need more of david's proposals and less debated

<kirkwood> +1 to David

Glenda Sims: thanks david for bringing us back to early version, that really helps

<Fazio> Hugs

<Chuck> +1 DM

GS: like new direction, color contrast does not help

David Fazio: please see Google doc link of research, includes Covid emergency loans, actionable phrases with pictures

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Z3qxSk88OPvKAqvCCUEd-Ld2sKiMm4jK2rKq20PKFI/edit

scribe: when you click, looks like actionable buttons but are not
... there are "learn more" links too many pixels below pictures
... those are are the actions and they are too easy to miss
... page continues with text inside color, but no indication that they are buttons!
... disagree that research is not sufficiently relevant
... think of how visual test at eye doctors is not like real world

<alastairc> This is an example of what people looked at in the research David is referencing: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0042698902000160-gr1.jpg

scribe: i disagree that research need to be done in computer-human interaction

Rachael: Are we going to go forward?
... Are we going back to older wording, option 1?
... flesh out DF research?
... we have four options on table, option 1 seems only one with traction

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#heading=h.24djx66nn5hr

do we want to continue with option 1?

or do we want to defer?

<Glenda> 1b

scribe: we only have about two weeks

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to option 1b

<Detlev> defer

DM: clear that 1B is the label

<david-macdonald> +1 1b

<kirkwood> +1 to 1B

<Glenda> +1 to option 1b

<Rachael> Please let us know where you stand: Defer to 3.0, Option 1B, Other

<Francis_Storr> 1b

<Brooks> defer

<JakeAbma> +1 1B

<laura> +1 1B

<alastairc> defer - there's still so many open questions.

<Rachael> 1B: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#heading=h.24djx66nn5hr

<sajkaj> 1b but marked "at risk"

<alastairc> Suggestion: A non-text line, border, background, icon, or other marking to indicate an element is interactive is present for controls which are necessary to progress through a process, unless the control is part of a group of controls that have a visual indicator for the group.

<Rachael> 1B A visual indicator is present for controls that cause legal commitments or financial transactions for the user, and are necessary to do the following: Initiate a process, Progress through a process , Complete a process , Return to a previous part of a process. Exception: the control is part of a group of controls that has a visual indicator for the group

<Chuck> +1 1b

Chuck: so +1 is keep working with 1B version

<Jennie> +1 1b

<jon_avila> +1 1b

<AWK> Defer

Rachael: see lots of +1 for 1B, a few defers

<Rachael> defer

<KimD> defer

<JF> Can live with 1B, but would like to see "Spacing and/or font styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the control is actionable." surface as the first sentence and not the second or third...

Rachael: even if we stick with 1B, it still needs a lot more work

<OmarBonilla> defer

Chuck: thinks it will end up being deferred, but I try one more week

JF: i would like to start out with the sentence: spacing and fonts are not...

<AWK> +1 to JF - and that potentially gets rid of the definition

JF: bullets make reading the main point of success criteria too hard to read

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

JF: would cogo folk like that well enough

<kirkwood> +1

DM: agrees to work on phrasing
... this will be 1C

<Chuck> +1c

JF: Wondering if that will save this

<Chuck> chuck: I don't think so, but it's closer, and I'm willing to try.

<alastairc> Suggest: For controls which are necessary to progress through a process, spacing or font styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the control is actionable.

JF: by saying what is NOT acceptable, leaves open a lot of possibilities

<LisaSeemanKest> sound good

<kirkwood> +1 to Alastair

Alastair: I was trying to simplify the initiate, etc.

AC: trying to bring it inline with other success criteria

DM: works for me

<LisaSeemanKest> any next steps for me? i think david m is better at this then i am....

<Rachael> David M: Spacing and/or font styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the control is actionable, for controls that cause legal commitments or financial transactions for the user, and are necessary to do the following: initiate a process, Progress through a process , Complete a process , Return to a previous part of a process

<Rachael> For controls which are necessary to progress through a process, spacing or font styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the control is actionable.

<LisaSeemanKest> For controls which are necessary to progress through a process, spacing or font styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the control is actionable.

Rachael calls for straw poll on AC wording.

<Chuck> +1 on alastair's wording AND talking about it next week.

<jon_avila> I'd point out that 3.3.4 error prevention also covers user controllable data or test responses not just financial or legal commitments

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Glenda> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<laura> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

Chuck: still want discussion next week

<Fazio> If we include salience in understanding doc

<Raf> +1

<OliverKeim> +1

<Brooks> 0

Rachael: yes, needs more discussion on list, and update Understanding draft

<JF> +.85

JF: Clarifies that this drops exception for legal, etc.

<Fazio> I’ll help out

DM: I need some examples.

Rachael: Leave open, discuss next week

Lisa volunteers some examples too

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

Rachael item is on finding help.

Jenny responding to survey, Alastair added some suggestions

<Rachael> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/results

Jennie: thanks for feed back, all but chat bot can be quick
... large web site fail if information is on a second page (of a large website) cognitive load is an issue, so should fail

<Jennie> Note: if human contact information is used to meet this SC, then there is no requirement for a human to be available at all times, but there should be regular availability with hours posted.

Jennie: DM proposed about note about no requirement for human to be available at all time, but should include hours
... Laura Carlson suggested more generic term than "chat bot" so we have that
... suggestion for phrasing on finding help

<Jennie> from "find help" to "find available help" or "find help (if available)".

<Chuck> +1 for changing from chatbot to automated mechanism.

<Jennie> fully automated contact mechanism

<LisaSeemanKest> looks good

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

Alastair updating document as we talk

No more comments on call

<Jennie> The automated chatbot requirements seem very difficult to test. At what point does a mis-spelled word become unrecognisable to both human and chatbots? (Happens to me a lot!) Are all responses counting towards unsatisfactory ones?

Alastair has detailed question about testing...

<laura> Thank you, Jennie for the update.

Alastair, those are two things

AC: misspellings are one thing
... offering bullet options different
... chatbot i was blocked by offered more than three options
... but we might have bypassed that difficulty with the SC because we took out the bullets with the current phrasing
... sub bullets excluded with scope, so wording now is better

Glenda: Would it be possible to move important features of chatbot to a sufficient technique?
... then we would have good example, even if it wasn't normative text

<Glenda> If a chatbot is provided, it should meet other WCAG success criteria for your conformance level. Chatbots which work more effectively for everyone, and particularly for people with cognitive disabilities should:

<Glenda> recognize misspelled words,

<Glenda> provide human contact details if the chatbot is unable to provide a satisfactory response after 3 attempts, and

<Glenda> be dismissed with a single interaction, and recalled using a link or button.

Jennie: things we want as requirement might not be in SC

Glenda: right, want sufficient technique that will more likely not to be blocked when we go for consensus

Jennie: agreed, important aspects are now only in intent any way

JF: i think you skipped "if" when setting context

<alastairc> JF - we changed that last week

JF: does help ALWAYS need to be present

<Glenda> Can we add a Note: Help is not required. This is only applicable IF help is available.

Rachael: This was address, so not conditional now

Jennie: DM's proposal does have "if human contact used to satisfy this SC"

<Chuck> +1 remove note

<Glenda> +1 remove note

Alastair: we have changed SC, note could be removed.

Chuck: earlier on we were mandating help, now we made it conditional, seems like we have undercut purpose of SC
... instead of crappy chat bot, unpleasant human available 15 min / day satisfies new SC
... as drafted, SC is less necessary and more confusing

Jennie: original goal was to make one of these type of easy to use help modes readily findable

Rachael: i think we can get rid of exceptions, since we are not requiring help

Chuck: please address JFs concerns before mine

JF: the way you describe, is the way i was seeing it
... point is that IF there is help, that help be easy to find, and meet the human need

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

AC: my thinking was that you could have more than one
... if all four options provide, would all need to be linked one up?

Jennie: add "if at least one"

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

AC: if you do MORE than one, do all need to be linked up?

Jennie: SC should only require one
... only one needs to easily findable

Rachael: i have adjusted wording
... now says "at least one"

<Jennie> * it was in the version in the IRC

Detlev: if link in footer with "help" hypertext link to page listing options, is that a pass?

Jennie: Yes, that would be okay, based on current language.
... Just don't want another page in between those two.

<Glenda> I suggest it could be covered in a sufficient technique

Detlev: okay, seems a bit of grey area

<Jennie> Pass: https://twitter.com/AppleSupport

AC: large sites typically have a link on every page, but is a bit of hit-or-miss if help landing page satisfies the SC
... looking at some good E-Commerce sites that are doing so much but seems like it might fail the SC

Jennie: looking at your example, it is a good example because you can get to twitter which is live and one the approaches we suggest
... but it tricky because it took me four or so visual scans to find the link i was looking for

Racheal: if this is my help menu, then it passes, as I can always get to this page

AC: so landing page is okay

Jennie: that "contact us at Apple" which links to Twitter, passes because it meets the self-help option we describe
... could be more clear before you get there

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: we do not have a final proposal

<Chuck> +1

Rachael: do we have comment that have not been addressed?

<Rachael> Question: Are we ready to move this forward to CFC to add to the FPWD?

<laura> +1

<Glenda> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Detlev> +1

<JF> 0

<david-macdonald> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Jennie> +1

<AWK> 0

<alastairc> 0

<OmarBonilla> 0

<Raf> +1

<sajkaj> +0

Racheal asks negative votes from survey for more comment.

<KimD_> 0

<Brooks> 0

AC: i think we can address Wilco's concern for single page apps

Jennie: wilcos comments seemed older

AWK: i wanted to ask if we have firm version? did not hear response

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

Rachael: is this final?

<alastairc> +1 to remove exception.

Rachael: meant to get rid of exception

<Glenda> Have we addressed Wilco’s concern about “"consistent location": This is too generic. If I resize a page the location of elements can change.”

Rachael anyone want to keep exception?

<alastairc> Glenda - it should be the same as consistent nav

Rachael: i think we address in Understanding

AC: we have similar wording for mobile

AWK: for pages that apply, so you have help, you have to provide or link in consistent location

Jennie: so it does not have to be one all pages

Racheal not hearing objections.

<JF> Forward ho for more polishing

RESOLUTION: Accept SC into working draft

<jon_avila> Can we make sure to address the prposed Focus Indicator criterion next time . thanks

- DRAFT -

AG 28 April 2020

28 Apr 2020

Attendees

Contents

Introduce COGA content usable note https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-04-content-usable

Silver FPWD MVP discussion https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQHgVFaJYS1WWs9BKucZxWboMNVuclvdNqnQuzPbWwY/

WCAG 2.2 Visual Indicators (pending links) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/

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

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output