SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 05 May 2020

<Jennie> scribe: Jennie

Chuck: Call for scribe for hour 2

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

<ChrisLoiselle> I'll do scribing for hr two.

* submit ideas for types of scribe "awards of the year," email them to Chuck

Chuck: So far, 4 responses to the survey
... David M asked for some changes

Lisa: Yes, I looked at David's comments.
... Many of the things are in a new draft.
... We put some extra wording into the abstract

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html

Lisa: The extra wording in the abstract is to address the relationship between WCAG and this specification.
... It is important for the group to decide if they want the wording different.

<LisaSeemanKest_> This document can be considered a supplement to WCAG accessibility guidelines. It is designed to be informative only. It is It builds on the Cognitive Accessibility Gap Analysis and Roadmap , Cognitive Accessibility User Research and Cognitive Accessibility Issue Papers to address user needs that ar

Lisa: Clarifying that it is important, and not part of WCAG.
... If this is not clear enough, we could change it.
... (reads text pasted above)

<LisaSeemanKest_> address user needs that are not met in technologies and accessibility guidelines.

Lisa: Michael is also going to add some. The first bit is easy read.
... The next question was objection to having a link to proposals for WCAG 2.2
... They have been all moved to the appendix.
... We think they are important for those making a policy.

Chuck: Is this down in the details?
... David had a lot here

<LisaSeemanKest_> Unsuccessful example

Lisa: He wanted to change failure examples to unsuccessful example, maybe bad example or wrong
... But we need to tweak it. If he doesn't want "Failure"
... Laura wanted the appendix guidance for policy makers
... We have changed it to something softer

<LisaSeemanKest_> Appendix: Considerations for uptake in different contexts and policies

Lisa: this should help reach this issue.
... The difficulty we had with David's comments was that he asked for edits so it sound more like we were inviting authors to do things better
... A lot of his comments at the beginning were made harder in response to comments from Janina
... Most of them we are fine with, going through your comments.
... We will find another word to use than failure

Steve: possibly sufficient?

Lisa: no. In terms of the review to make it softer, it will take a very long time.
... We spent 3 weeks on the first sentence.
... In discussions with APA, we need to get the difference clearer between usable and accessible. This is complicated.
... We are happy to have you come to a call and discuss it
... We are hoping we can go to wide review without discussing it

<LisaSeemanKest_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#objective-1-help-users-understand-what-things-are-and-how-to-use-them

Lisa: We did make a different version, where we have addressed a lot of the comment
... Merging together some comments from Judy and APA
... The table, guidance for policy makers
... There was 1 column that definitely needed updating, the whole table needed a bit of a review
... I took out the "Can be applied to all content" line
... Testable through automated mechanisms - it doesn't match WCAG exactly because we allow user testing
... We put in the editor's note that this table needs review

<CharlesHall> “user testing” as a phrase is troublesome. we never test a user. we test a thing with the help of the user.

<AWK> +AWK

Lisa: I could also put it "at risk" if you feel it is not good.

Rachael: Compliments to Lisa (task force hat on).
... The one we are struggling to figure out is about "the document needs a full review..."
... This document is research based - it's foundation is in research and issue papers.
... As a task force we feel confident in what we are recommending.
... Can you help me understand more about your thinking?

David M: It is a 200 page document printed out, and we got it 2 days ago...

scribe: If it is the voice of WCAG, then I suggest we should edit in places like where we link to github issues
... 37 going into 2.1 - I'm great with that
... The table is almost exactly identical to the acceptance criteria

<Fazio> Usable and accessible are different. UX isn't necessarily a11y so by definition content usable is different

scribe: I think we need to review this carefully. If I was a person knowledgable about WCAG - why aren't they in WCAG?

<Fazio> I'd be happy if policy makers concluded usability was important

David M: I'm also concerned it will look like WCAG + COGA "extension" will be something people will think

scribe: I want some "daylight" between this and the WCAG requirements
... If those edits are made, I would be fine with signing off, and going to an editor's draft
... I'm reluctant to go forward without them.

Steve: In the relationship to WCAG, the objective sections should have links to WCAG pull requests
... We have moved them all to an appendix - I wanted to be sure you were reading the right version

David M: I followed the link in the URl

scribe: I didn't follow the link, but I would just change the link text
... It could have been in the appendix
... I would just put them somewhere else

Steve: OK, thanks

Lisa: The table for policy makers is an appendix. It wasn't the same criteria
... You could see if people could use the design through user testing, you can't through automated testing

<bruce_bailey> I think this is the appedix table under discussion

<bruce_bailey> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#appendix-testable-statements-for-each-pattern

Lisa: A lot of them require user testing, which is the opposite of WCAG

<bruce_bailey> i agree that linking to 2.2 issues under discussion is not appropriate

Lisa: (reading from a list)
... I have put in an editor's note. Is that sufficient?

<LisaSeemanKest_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#objective-1-help-users-understand-what-things-are-and-how-to-use-them

Lisa: Look at what Rachael put in for the new version. We have put in some clarification for the abstract.

<bruce_bailey> that is a good catch by David M

Lisa: We got a criticism that we had not clarified that users need this.
... The editorial comments where you say "some users may find it more usable" - to change it to say it might improve things
... That is exactly against the insistence we got from others
... If there is anything that is inaccurate, that should be clarified.
... But to take away the need...it seems it will be circular.

David M: I think there may be a middle ground.

scribe: Choices by designers can often improve this
... Legislators - many companies are being sued
... These suggestions, for good or bad, we haven't got consensus to make them requirements of WCAG
... This states that because of what authors did, they can't use them. We can't blame them
... It is ok to say they can't use the content, I'm fine with that
... Maybe there is another word that would be better

<jon_avila> Author choices do impact the user.

Lisa: That specific sentence went through multiple drafts, through APA, until we got approval about was it strong enough
... This is a loggerhead with different working groups
... Rather than saying what we are saying is inaccurate
... We should have a discussion after we go to wide review

<AWK> ack +++

<Chuck> ack ++++

David F: We can't get this stuff into the accessibility guidelines, and we have been asked to create something in a supplemental document

David M: that's inaccurate

<JF> +1 to David MacDonald

David F: In the W3C, it says you can implement everything in WCAG, but it still may not be accessible to people with disabilities

scribe: So here is some supplemental guidance to do that. We are not saying this is an accessibility standard or guidelines
... It will help you make your digital information accessible for those with cognitive disabilities
... What is the problem with inciting people to want to put this into 2.3 of 3.0
... Helping people see where work has been done, may help people do the research we need to get it into future WCAG versions

Lisa: I think a lot of people will find the changes proposed inflammatory
... It will sound like we are being muzzled
... I know you are on the same side, I would love for you to join the task force
... Let's put this out, and get consensus within the task force
... We are saying actual facts - there are people that can't use it because of a design choice
... People need this
... To not allow us to say that is a very big problem.

<jon_avila> +1 to Lisa

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

Rachael: We started this conversation broadly, and I heard 2 points of concern to David, both related to WCAG
... 1. the removal of the appendix, and 2. by putting those in, there is an unintended critique of the WCAG group
... I feel like the softening of the language is a lot of editorial group
... I think that would need to go to a subgroup, and I understand you haven't gone through all of it

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to separate two issues (removal of the appendix and softening the language)

Rachael: From a task force I hear the need to put this out as a supplement. COGA is not going to get these in WCAG
... The more valuable it becomes - there are groups that look forward to this document, because they know there is a gap in WCAG

<stevelee> +1

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if Lisa just said that the advice isn't all widely applicable

Chuck: I am +1ing what you said there, Rachael

Andrew: I like the document a lot, but have not read the whole thing thoroughly.
...Lisa: did you say all the advice in the design guide is not widely applicable, which is why it is not in WCAG?

Lisa: no. There is a table in the appendix on what objectives - if you want to make a policy, where the objectives would stand.

<david-macdonald> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#appendix-considerations-for-uptake-in-different-contexts-and-policies

Lisa: There was a column of "is it widely applicable" and this was taken off
... We didn't do exceptions
... Clear language may not be applicable to a Ph.D. - then don't do it
... This is not normative. If you don't want to do a specific design pattern, then don't do it

<bruce_bailey> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#h-ednote-1

Andrew: My core concern is the appendix, which is the guidance for policy makers
... There is a column that says "it can be applied to all content"

<LisaSeemanKest_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#objective-1-help-users-understand-what-things-are-and-how-to-use-them

Lisa: yes, I took that out

<david-macdonald> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938

Andrew: I feel like the intention of the appendix is that this is easy, applies to everything, and we should put it into regulation
... WCAG itself doesn't have a section like this
... I'm concerned about this section as formulated

<david-macdonald> List of Proposed SCs with acceptance criteria should be matched to the document

John F: 1st: this is a really long document

scribe: I've not completed reading it, so I have not finished getting ready to comment
... I'm hoping we are not making a final decision here
... I get the sense of urgency

<bruce_bailey> +1 to what JF saying about needing more time

scribe: But, we are working on it now, and I want to make sure whatever we publish is correct
... When you get the feedback from group members that haven't been as close to this
... I'm concerned with the push to publish - we should have a more unified front before we publish
... We probably need another week to digest what is in this note
... We all support the big goals. If we have questions and concerns, this is not people trying to block or slow down the publication of this document.

<bruce_bailey> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#h-ednote-1

Bruce: I'm ready for the straw poll then. The table for advice for policy makers are all yeses, seems like they should be bullet points

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to follow up on AWK comment about "Table of design patterns and policy criteria"

Bruce: 3 of the columns are all yeses

Steve: We have already changed the title of the appendix so it does not mention policy makers
... There is a tension here. For some users there are things that are real blockers.
... That is what the language was trying to address. It is not saying people have done things wrong, per se.
... I'd like an example from David

David M: In the design guide

scribe: At the very bottom, I would like it to be our voice, under the WCAG group which has a lot of clout

<bruce_bailey> four of five columns the entries are *ALL* yes or *ALL* high.

scribe: It could be a COGA document, and it doesn't yet have consensus from the working group

Steve: "because of choices by the author" - I can see that as an author that may be an example

David M: the word "because"

<JF> +1 to Steve - Framing Issue

Lisa: But it is the cause
... I think if we are going to a straw poll about going to wide review, we should take out that table because I am hearing a lot of resistance
... We knew it was not a mature appendix
... Are you a critical service, that's an important criteria
... I'm not aware of other things other than the table that is offending anyone
... The questions about do we have to say that things the author has done hasn't blocked someone with a disability
... Do I have to say, oh no, it would help me to use it - to pretend
... Because people often say, you should just be able to do it - do we need to keep up that narrative?

David M: No, we don't want to keep up that narrative

John A: I understand the issues with the appendix. Telling us that we cannot say that an author's decision doesn't impact the user...

<LisaSeemanKest_> +1 to jon

scribe: It does! What I am hearing is that it is really the user's disability and I'm hoping that is not the subtext

<LisaSeemanKest_> 100%

scribe: It is not the person's disability, it is the environment

David M: I would be glad too use the word impact. I have a problem with the word because.

scribe: It is a partnership between the disability community and the authors
... I have no problem with the partnership approach, particularly the broad statement

<bruce_bailey> +1 that wcag is NOT an advocacy document

scribe: If we use the word because, it is a legal - you caused this
... This is different than what you are doing is impacting me.

<JF> 1 that wcag is NOT an advocacy document

<AWK> "as a result of" might be better?

<Rachael> People with cognitive and learning disabilities rely on web content authors to make choices that help them successfully engage. Certain design choices negatively impact their impact:

Rachael: I want to suggest and get a response from Lisa and David
... (pasted above)

<JF> +1 to "so not blame the people but the behaviour"

Rachael: With the AG hat on, we are not making a decision today, we are coming back in 2 weeks

Chuck: I had a different understanding, but that is fine

<Nicaise> +1

<AWK> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 needs more review

Chuck: Let's go ahead and straw poll. Do you think this needs more review from our group?

<david-macdonald> +1

<KimD> +1 (needs more review)

<Laura> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Wilco> +1

<JF> +1 NEEDS MORE REVIEW (and time to do it)

<Detlev> +1

<Brooks> +1

<Fazio> I think it's ready to go -1

<Francis_Storr> +1

Chuck: We have a lot of +1

<OmarBonilla> +1

RESOLUTION: Continue to review the content of Content Usable

<Ryladog_> +1

TPAC planning

Chuck: The chairs have gotten a survey about TPAC that helps those putting it on with information about how to organize it.

<JakeAbma> +1

<david-macdonald> -1

<jon_avila> where is it?

<Detlev> where is it?

<CharlesHall> +1

<Rachael> +1

Chuck: If travel is permitted if gathering restrictions relax, do you plan to attend TPAC?

<Laura> -1

<Nicaise> +1

<david-macdonald> _+1

-1

<CharlesHall> vancouver

<Detlev> -1

<kirkwood> -1

<JF> +1 plan to attend in person in Vancouver

<Fazio> +1

<Ryladog_> Yes +1

<StefanS> -1

<bruce_bailey> +1 since north america

<jon_avila> -1

<Brooks> -1

<AWK> +.5

<david-macdonald> -1

<Francis_Storr> +0.5

<JakeAbma> +1

Chuck: The next question: Is the accessibility guidelines interested in mixed mode?

Michael: Some people in person, some people on video conference

<Ryladog_> +1

John F: How is that different than past TPACs?

<kirkwood> +1 to video

<JakeAbma> +1

<CharlesHall> +1 to mix

<AWK> +1 mixed mode

Michael: There would be more people on the conference bridge - more video

<KimD> +1 to mixed

<Detlev> +1 to mixed mode

<OmarBonilla> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<jon_avila> +1 to mixed mode

<Laura> +1

Andrew: Hopefully people understand that connections won't be better with more video

<bruce_bailey> -1 to mixed mode because audio-only support has been poor

<Francis_Storr> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Laura> +1

<jon_avila> +1 virtual

<Detlev> +1

<Ryladog_> +

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

Chuck: If travel is not permitted, would you attend virtually?

<CharlesHall> +1

<Wilco> +1

<JF> +1 to Virtual

<KimD> +1 to virtual

<bruce_bailey> +1 to virtual meeting

<Nicaise> +1

<OmarBonilla> +1

<Fazio> +1

<Brooks> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Ryladog_> +1

<AWK> +1 to will attend virtually if an all-remote event

<Laura> +1

Chuck: Thank you.

<Francis_Storr> +1

<StefanS> +1

Silver Virtual F2F https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Virtual_F2F_May_2020

Chuck: Silver has been planning a virtual face to face - this is the schedule
... Tomorrow and Thursday. I'm announcing this so members of this group that have not been attendees - know you are welcome to come
... These are working meetings
... It is intended to drive forward on the process of Silver, focusing mostly on conformance
... If you are interested, please do come

WCAG 2.2 Visual Indicators, last week to agree SC text https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/

Andrew: I will say that I am very interested in Silver, in conformance as a critical topic for Silver
... I'm also interested in the working group being involved, but I don't have the ability to attend right now
... It is really difficult to only find out the same week to attend

<Ryladog_> +1 to AWK comment

Andrew: I would really like to attend

<jon_avila> +1 to Andrew - this was a big surprise -- something we need to attend.

Chuck: I don't think the intent was to slight anyone on this group

<Francis_Storr> +1 to Andrew's comment. Want to attend Silver meetings but need more notice.

Chuck: I absolutely agree that more notice would help for participation

Andrew: I'm not taking it as a slight
... With more advance notice, it could really be a positive thing

Chuck: I will pass that along
... Next item - Visual indicators
... We have near 50/50 comments on pros and cons
... We have a mix of comments
... Detlev said that it is not met

Detlev: It was a comment from a while ago

*Right??? Bruce rocks!

Chuck: Justine has a comment about if this was implemented improperly.
... David is saying that it is ready
... Alastair says we need to talk more
... We had some pretty major concerns from our last conversations and I am hesitant to rehash them

David M: Here's a summary of where we are at.

scribe: I am an advocate of the technique. We really paired it down
... Since there were not many failure examples...but I was doing an evaluation this week and saw a back button that was just text
... I think it will help with progressing forwards and backwards through processes
... A lot of those objections were for previous wording
... It does have a narrow scope but there are areas it would help

Andrew: Where did you see a comment on the current version?
... Mine was just a question about which version we were reviewing
... OK

Chuck: Are you cleared up Andrew?

Andrew: I have a question about the SC text that we have not cleared from last time?

Chuck: No, go ahead

Andrew: If this is talking about progressing through a process, that clarifies some of my previous concerns
... The other thing I raised last week, not as directly, this SC text as written, if you have a button with an image on it
... My understanding is that this is not to apply to that
... We should make this say that
... Text based control
... If you have a button with an image in it, and the only way you are conveying that it is actionable only because it is spaced out from other things
... Then it would fail

<brucebailey> scribe: brucebailey

DavidM: i agree with both AWK issues
... icons used are more identifiable
... might not always tell they are actionable
... don't want text and icons off to the side
... need coga feedback, are we solving a real problem?

Chuck: polls for feed back
... no coga feedback

<Fazio> I thought we have

Chuck: any concerns with current draft?

DavidF: coga has commented quite a bit
... coga supports 100%

Gundula: when i read bit about needed to progress through a process
... does not match exactly with sentence

DavidM clarifies...

<david-macdonald> Progression includes going backwards or forwards. Sometimes a user has to go back to review their work.

<Fazio> +1 to Steve

Steve Lee: fits what we have been saying

Chuck: we had concern from alistair about implimentations

Alastair: old comment which has been addressed

Chuck: wrt next steps, responses quite varried
... any one on call with un addressed issues ?

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5WTualRt90rwNYFJeuOy_b5un4iMS0tTh1uWXosLaA/edit#

Alastair: wondering some concerns with examples document
... does new version fully address this ?

<david-macdonald> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5WTualRt90rwNYFJeuOy_b5un4iMS0tTh1uWXosLaA/edit#heading=h.ck57f2kxzytg

Alastair: still not seeing many failure examples
... concerned SC as drafted would not fail much, since it is a low bar (for various reasons)
... just want to register this concern

<Fazio> The impact has been diluted but still has an impact

Chuck: enough of a concern to hold off wide review?

Alastair: just not as enthusiastic as i was hoping for
... we have done wilco comments

<david-macdonald> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5WTualRt90rwNYFJeuOy_b5un4iMS0tTh1uWXosLaA/edit#

<alastairc> TExt: For each text based control that is necessary to progress through a process, spacing and/or font styling are not the only visual means used to convey that the control is actionable.

JF: which is final language?

<david-macdonald> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#

JF: is "text based" in or out?

<david-macdonald> For each text-based control that is necessary to progress through a process, spacing and/or font styling are not the only visual means used to convey that the control is actionable.

DavidM: edit made during the call

Steve Lee: we discussed at last coga meeting, and had some reservations

Brooks: confused over which version, survey link quite out of date

<david-macdonald> For each text-based control that is necessary to step forward or backward through a process, spacing and/or font styling are not the only visual means used to convey that the control is actionable.

Brooks: would have been hard for people to follow not on call

<david-macdonald> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#

Brooks: i had though that SC was still scoped to a process

<CharlesHall> my only concern is the term “visual” versus “visible” that was conveyed via the email list very early on.

Brooks: i with Alastair that SC has been watered down so much that it wont have much impact

<KimD> +1 to Brooks - this was literally being edited as Brooks was talking...

<Fazio> I would prefer not adding text-based

Chuck: i have acknowledged points as we worked through survey

Rochael: we did discuss in coga
... we were worried that process scoping limited implication too much

<Fazio> spa cover loans prime example

<Fazio> covid I mean

Rochael: we found example where non-obvious interactive controls were not encountered as part of processs

<JF> Does COGA have new proposed language?

Rochael: scope to process was okay when requirement was stricter

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to discuss editorial edit

Rochael: but now requirement is weak and does not seem to limited to progress

AWK: new edit between process going (both) back and forward was in response to concern over word "progress"

DavidM: David F said okay, but two other coga members want another edit

<KimD> If we keep editing during meetings, doesn't that invalidate all previous survey responses?

<Ryladog_> I am fine with removing process scope

DavidF: adding "text base" in the scope really weaken but we are okay

<JF> +1 to Ryladog (Katie)

DavidF: lots of examples in real world that SC is needed
... last call I provide some examples

Steve Lee: agree with Rachael that coga had concerns with limits...

scribe: adding text we decide we could live with

<Fazio> failure: We https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/disaster-assistance

scribe: scoping down to process was more of a concern
... control that kicks off a process can be an issue!

<Fazio> look at images as you scroll down

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to address Wilco's comments

[katie muted]

<Ryladog_> I am fine with removing PROCESS from this SC text

Alastair: processing through a process, including form fields, is included since buttons and links are text
... there was also a question about definition of "step" but that just means progressing
... Rachael and wilco comment about removing scope to process would open up more questions

<alastairc> https://www.gov.uk/

Alastair: with CSS is font face / bold / italic ?
... scroll down, 24 ministerial departments. Is that an example of a fail?

<Ryladog_> yes

Alastair: with process out, page fails, but with process in scope, list of links is not a fail

<Ryladog_> thank you

Katie is okay with taking out process

<david-macdonald> I could live without "process"

<jon_avila> Can we time box this discussion as we have missed getting to Focus indicators for 3 weeks.

Rachael, i think list of text links should fail

DavidM: okay with taking out process

<jon_avila> I'm worried that the Focus Indicator criterion will not get the time it needs.

<Ryladog_> +1 to David M

Jon: i want to time box THIS sc conversation so we can get to next agenda item

Chuck: we are on schedule

Rachael: location can be part of this, so taking out "process" is less risky
... what do you do with tool bar, function based on location
... it is obvious that it is an active control
... becomes lower risk sc by adding location to Understanding

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to state that location should be a technique

<david-macdonald> For each text-based control, spacing and/or font styling are not the only visual means used to convey that the control is actionable.

DavidM: new edit

<david-macdonald> Editor’s note: we are seeking input on exceptions for this success criteria

<Ryladog_> good idea Daid

DavidM: also ask for exceptions to success criteria
... requirement might be wider than anticipate, so we ask for feedback
... with the editor note, we acknowledge that we are asking for feedback
... can good help for people with disabilities
... could add exceptions in next draft

Chuck: take out "process" with editors note asking for attention

<Fazio> +1

<Ryladog_> +1 to David M

<GN015> -1

DavidM: ask public for feedback on appropriate suggestions for exceptions

<david-macdonald> +1

<Ryladog_> +1

<Laura> +1

<Rachael> +1

[straw poll]

<alastairc> For each text-based control, spacing and/or font styling are not the only visual means used to convey that the control is actionable.

<david-macdonald> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#

<Brooks> What are we voting on?

JF phrasing adjusted during call, paste again please

<Detlev> 0

<Nicaise> +1

<KimD> +1 to JF. It does change multiple times during the meeting

<AWK> +1 to "For each text-based control, spacing and/or font styling are not the only visual means used to convey that the control is actionable." with editor's note

<JakeAbma> +1

<kirkwood> +1

Gundula: i feel taking out the word "process" is making scope too wide to be realistic

<alastairc> +0, I think there will be new issues

Chuck: lots of +1s, a few +0, and Gundula's concern

JF: i am still seeing multiple version

<AWK> oh shoot - I agree re: process. This is very wide now.

JF: and that is with being live on the call

<AWK> -1

JF: writing seems too fluid
... writing on the fly does not seem rigorous enough
... intent was not updated as SC was drafted

<kirkwood> process was in the original intent

Alastair: can we get consensus on taking out scope to process?

<CharlesHall> +1 to wider scope without process

Alastair: other drafting can follow

JF: thats my point, i want to see new intent as well

<Detlev> we need to pin down what font styling means befor this vote is meaningful

JF: and then people not on the call miss the evolution

Chuck: agree changes on the fly can be hard to follow even in real time
... but we go to CFC after settled text

JF: i want to see stable proposal before straw poll on the call

DetLev: specific around font styling too vague to vote at the moment

Chuck: i am worried about time window
... but i am also hearing concern over rushing
... do we have another week?

Alastair: post-poning just means putting off other work
... it does feel close, but we did not decide to remove "process" or not
... what we mean by font styling and spacing are importing.

Chuck: Okay, we will defer for another week

RESOLUTION: leave open

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

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

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/focus-visible-enh-issues1/results

Chuck: comments here will be fresh
... bulk of people like option 3, refinement of previous text

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F83m-HXRkXz1QCF6_QNtQGzIULugMiFSLgtqDRgKA-s/edit

Alastair: here's document, only six people on survey
... this is me trying to work through previous comments and issues
... main concern is around complexity
... Jake raised nuance about minimum size or proportional size
... I proposed three options
... option pretty different
... third option is complex, but flexible criteria

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to provide overview

Alastair: in survey, i have replied to other peoples comments

Chuck: okay, in survey i see some questions, awk and oliver
... stefan made some suggestions

Alastair: issue is how prescriptive we are being
... leans you to saying needs to be solid border, but word "equivalent" is there, so it does not have to be a border per se

<CharlesHall> i don’t like options 1 & 2 prescription of border.

<Ryladog_> I like options 1 and 2. But like the 2 pixel border

DetLev: i find it difficult to prescribe 2 px outline since i think there are other good ways to meet need
... example would be large blurry block behind whatever has focus
... very visible, but very hard to measure
... so third option is best

Alastair: i would like to hear if anyone supports option 1 or 2

<CharlesHall> i love option 2 except the word border in the first bullet

DavidM: the word "equivalent" might be too prescriptive
... can understanding clarify, or be a defined term?

Alastair: might be able to think of another word

JF: i am struggling with option 2
... the way sentence is structured, does it allow multiple modes of operation?
... should it be that every mode of option?

Alastair: phrasing borrows exactly from 2.4.7

<jon_avila> Yes, it allows for a mode that allows for a mode that hides keyboard focus such as when the mouse is used.

Alastair: there was another related comment in survey

Chuck: looking for feedback against option 3
... or strongly in favor of option 1 or 2?
... no one on call asking for option 1 or 2

Alastair: will tackle questions about option 3 in survey
... Oliver asked for consistent indicator.

<Ryladog_> I dont care about the consistency either

Alastair: I would be less inclined to be be that prescriptive.
... Authors might have good reason for flexibility.
... Option 3 is stricter than version in working draft

<alastairc> The focus indication area is greater than or equal to the longest side of the bounding rectangle of the focused control, times 2 CSS pixel.

<alastairc> The focus indication area is greater than or equal to a 1px border of the focused control.

Alastair: updated version stopped talking about bounding rectangle.
... makes it simpler in other ways as well
... could work for circles and other shapes, and makes area larger

Chuck: so is AWK question addressed?

AWK: feel like what the group was doing in the past with constrast

<Nicaise> could you please include link to current public working draft in the minutes?

<Fazio> simpler is better for me as long as it achieves the same effect

AWK: we have been asked to provide evidence and research for the numbers prescribed in SC

<alastairc> Nicaise: https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#focus-visible-enhanced

AWK: dont think we already have research that quantifies what is focus visability
... so we take our best shot, and hope to hear from people to say if draft is realistic

Jonathan: we did some research in the low vision task force
... so a thicker border meant that the border did not have to be so thick
... we did an informal survey with people with a variety of visual disabilities, but not strict rigor

Alastair: three bullets points follow from the user testing, but they are general and all three factors an issue
... when simplified to pick a number like 2 px, because strict

Chuck: opens with an interested dilemma comment, picking either will have detractors

<Nicaise> +1

<Chuck> Option 3 - Refinement of the current text

Alastair: yes that is why i am hoping from feedback from group, cant pursue all three options simultaneously

<Chuck> Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator meets all of the following:

<alastairc> +1

JF: not clear of vote

<jon_avila> +1 to option 3

<Detlev> +1 for option 3

<Ryladog_> +1 option 3

<AWK> +1 for option 3

<kirkwood> +1 option 3

<Laura> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

Chuck: of the three options, looking for feedback which to focus on

<JF> +1 to pursuing Option 3 for more refinement

RESOLUTION: adoption Option 3 for more refinement

<Ryladog_> Thanks to all

<alastairc> rssagent make minutes

<JF> bye all

<alastairc> rssagent, make minutes

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

05 May 2020

Attendees

Contents

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

TPAC planning

Silver Virtual F2F https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Virtual_F2F_May_2020

WCAG 2.2 Visual Indicators, last week to agree SC text https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/

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

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

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output