<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Jennie> *I can scribe first half still, just need to switch computers for mic

<Jennie> scribe: Jennie

ACT rules integration review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-07-ACT/results

Shadi: A while back we agreed to make a proposal on how the ACT rules will be integrated into the supporting document with the techniques and understanding
... This is a proposal from the task force.
... There are 3 pages to look at ...1: a new understanding page

<AWK> +AWK ...1: Understanding ACT rules, and explains how they work

<Rachael> Link to understanding: https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/understanding-act-rules.html ...1: We are suggesting this gets added to the Understanding Documents.

<Rachael> Link to example understanding: https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/understanding-act-rules.html ...2: A paragraph added to the related techniques. Page titled - for the rule title technique and success criterion

<Rachael> Link to technique: https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/technique-H25-act.html ...2: this is for the technique on page titles, on page 25?
... We took the same technique and added a paragraph that adds the rules, and did the same with the standing page title page

<Rachael> Understanding page title: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/page-titled ...2: We added a paragraph here where related techniques to success criterion
... So 1 added page and 2 additions

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if we need to explain "ACT" in those contexts, or should we leave that to the redesign work?

Rachael: Everyone of the 10 that responded in the survey said yes.

Alastair: ACT may not mean much to most people. Is this better left to the redesign work?

<AWK> <abbr> use in heading?

Shadi: I used it in headings, but then I tried to expand it on the first occurrence. If this was missed, it was a bug.
... I hope this follows best practice conventions.

<bruce_bailey> good catch, +1 for explaining acronym

Alastair: Andrew is suggesting using it in the heading

<scribe> ...New comers may not know what it meant.

<Mike_Pluke> +1 for explaining

<AWK> "Related conformance testing rules" ?

Shadi: In the redesign work, hopefully there will be explanation of these techniques to make it easier to understand the different support documents.
... We tried to refer back to the Understanding page.
... I'm looking at H25, for example. Important Information About Techniques

<mbgower> present_

Shadi: (reads from the document)
... This would hopefully explain to newcomers. But this will become clearer with the redesign

Alastair: the understanding document does this will.

Rachael: Andrew, you said that "the page has no title" (scribe missed the rest)

Andrew: I found that a little confusing so I threw that note in.

Wilco: I got it.

Rachael: Are there other concerns, or changes suggested to this way of integrating these rules?
... I would like to do a straw poll

<Rachael> Strawpoll: Move forward with integrating ACT Rules into WCAG Materials with changes discussed today

<JakeAbma> +1

<Wilco> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<laura> +1

<sukriti> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<AWK> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Rachael> +1 if you agree, -1 if you object, 0

<bruce_bailey> +1

<maryjom> +1

<PascalWentz> +1

<Chuck> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<alastairc> +1, caveat that Michael has to do the work!

<ok> +1

<Detlev> +1

RESOLUTION: Move forward with integrating ACT Rules into WCAG Materials with changes discussed today

Rachael: Anything else before the next topic?

<alastairc> Link for WCAG 2.2 issues that need dealing with: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22WCAG+2.2%22+-label%3A%22Technical+%28bug%29%22+-label%3A%22Survey+-+Ready+for%22+-label%3A%22Survey+-+Added%22

Rachael: As background, we are moving from SC to working on comments from the public about WCAG 2.2
... Part of this process we need to respond to them. We need people to pick up these issues, that it is drafted, fully addressed. We bring it to the working group
... This link is all the outstanding issues we have identified so far.

<sukriti> Happy to

Rachael: You can circle back to the chairs, you can ask for assistance
... It is a great way to get more involved. Please take a few minutes and if one is not assigned to someone already, you may want to volunteer.

<alastairc> bruce_bailey - you're on a few, are there any you could do with help with, or would like to hand over?

Rachael: Look for assignees - if "noone" then you can assign it to yourself
... If someone is already assigned, they will be listed

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about current assignees

Rachael: If you have questions I'm happy to help

Alastair: Some people have already put themselves down for things. Bruce is down for 3
... If you are interested in that particular issue, I think you can put yourself down as a second assignee, as I know they will appreciate help

Sukriti: I will look at it afterwards, I can't get into it right now.

Rachael: Is there one of particular interest?

Sukriti: I was looking at the cross behaviour between focus and hover

Rachael: Thank you.

<sukriti> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1196

Alastair: I'm still unsure which one it is

Rachael: How many of these do you want to go over individually Alastair?

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1156

Alastair: Maybe 2 or 3, partly as a scenario of what needs to happen. How about 1156 (2nd on the list)
... This is a fairly recent one, a public comment talking about what is something the person felt was a major loophole.
... The process for anyone tackling it is to read through the comments.
... If you go through and understand the thread, and go down to the bottom of that - what would the next step be?
... It could be drafting a response which begins with "The group has discussed it, and..." and then this does get discussed, and into a survey for review
... It could be an action which needs to occur - if so, create a draft or bring the idea back to the group.
... This could be an email to the list, in a meeting
... Then there is a respond back and close the comment, or do we make a change based on the comment

<Fazio> Forresundant entry’s sayin toautocomplete. Bc thst still requires the user to rely on their memory

Michael: Make sure that this is not shared until it is published

Chuck: If an individual reads through the issue and finds it spawns multiple threads, turning into 2 or 3 separate conversations - are we approaching each thread uniquely?

Alastair: I think we try to stick to the original response.

<Rachael> Michael: Label proposed response/action as "Proposed response" so it doesn't look like its final

<Fazio> ugh. Typing one handed on phone. I say no I mean to autocomplete

Alastair: If we feel something new is coming out of it, start a new request, and respond to the original one and list that this is happening
... This may make multiple issues.

Rachael: Is anyone interested in taking this one on?

Bruce: In the old days, we used to craft the proposed response outside of the public view
... The original commentor could say "I don't like your response"
... In particular, github - the comments aren't threaded. Is there another way to try to craft the response in a way that is less transparent?

Alastair: We can take it on a case by case basis.
... If you are tackling an issue and would prefer not to put it on the thread. Maybe put in into an email on the list, which is still public, but it will not specifically notify the commentor.

Bruce: OK, thank you

Rachael: This issue has a lot of background.

Alastair: I think it will end up with mostly a 1 paragraph response.
... Mostly reading.

<sukriti> Happy to take this on

<sukriti> ofc

Rachael: If you are thinking doing something like this, and would like to take this on, reach out to the chairs and we can walk you through the process
... Thank you!

Francis: I think the comment of looking to take it on but a bit intimidated is where I am
... I will probably at some of this point will reach out to consider taking one of these on

<Fazio> I’m interested in the redundant entry comments since that was the COGA SC I worked on

Rachael: Would it be helpful if we set up a call where we made ourselves available to those wanting to try to take one on?

Francis: Yes

<mbgower> I just added a proposed response for https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1067

Rachael: David F is interested in redundant entry
... and thank you Mike Gower

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/796

Alastair: this one is assigned to Bruce, and this is around 2.0 content for multimedia, but it is normative changes for 2.2

<sukriti> https://github.com/scha14

Alastair: There is already a pull request, but the question is - is it ready to go in front of the group
... trying to find a solution or next step, and let us know, then we can put it in front of the group

Rachael: That is number 796
... We will talk in the chairs meeting to see about when we can have that meeting for those that may want to review some together
... Any other questions?

Alastair: If you can't assign yourself to something, that may mean your username is not in our repository. Provide your github user name to myself or Michael and we can try to get you added

Rachael: Any other comments or questions?

Reflow updates survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reflow-updates/results

<alastairc> Anyone who doesn't have the 'assign' button, please send your github username to me or MichaelC.

Rachael: This is continuing the conversation from last week. The first topic is for reflow.
... Last week's decision was to extend to 320 but the question is how
... The week's question: what approach should we take?
... Update the SC?
... (missed this one)
... 8 people wanted to update the SC
... 8 wanted to add
... 3 that wanted something else.
... Andrew wanted something else. Can you expand?

Andrew: My concern because we did talk about it before...
... In the old days, we would discuss perfect being the enemy of the good.
... Down to is correct, but doesn't seem necessary in the current situation
... What we get out of reflow - developers need to pay attention to this conceptually
... But they don't make one size work well

Level(s) for 1.4.10 Reflow #1050

Andrew: What it will accomplish: add to the WCAG text on their efforts
... I guess they will do it, but they will do it anyway
... And if they need to make 320 by 256 work from a reflow perspective, they still want their sites to work in between
... I want WCAG to say this is the established minimum you need to meet, and logic will take over fairly well
... What we are going to have to do is redo a lot of things in terms of the documents, and it doesn't feel like there is a lot of gain there

Rachael: Is Wayne on the call?

Chuck: My possibly inaccurate understanding of why it was written this way was for sites written for mobile.
... While your explanation is helpful, this crafting is to get more focused on the sites
... I am trying to figure out if that has meaning to what you just said, in your concerns. I'm not seeing the harm in adding the down to
... Is the perceived extra effort your concern?

<bruce_bailey> i think it is * a lot * of extra effort

Andrew: There is extra effort if you are evaluating every break point for accessibility
... I think the most responsible website application developers are doing this anyway
... To me it is: what are we gaining (other than credit for the extra effort) and does it make an appreciable difference
... And I haven't seen that in the comments.
... Do we need to make this change?
... We say that WCAG 2.0, 2.1 do not represent what you need to do for full accessibility - there will always be more to do.
... What we have been trying to do with 2.1 is fill in those gaps, so it is less broad.
... I think it is a good job using technologies in reflowable ways

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to channel Patrick

Alastair: I'm slightly channeling Patrick - I generally agree with Chuck's history point.
... We started with a compromised position - we have been essentially testing for this the last couple of years.
... It does come up, not often, but it tends to come up more often on intranets, and applications, where you zoom in a bit and you get horizontal scrolling

<Fazio> +1

Alastair: Then you scroll in a bit more and it snaps into a new layout
... At the moment we have to put that in as a best practice
... The difference would be we could fail it instead of putting it into a best practice
... It would make a difference to help and catch those what are essentially bugs

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i have not heard how testing would be practical

Bruce: My concern is I have not heard how testing would be addressed in a way that you can confidently say "I have addressed down to"
... Whereas "at" is clear
... If you are looking at it literally, it is much more difficult
... That's what I think is the WCAG text Andrew was talking about
... I would like to see down to a AAA version

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to testing

Alastair: In testing, there is a binary approach. You would have to go through ever pixel on the way down
... The practical way we have been testing is to use zoom
... Have a 1280 width and zoom in
... Which isn't every point
... If the understanding document says "test within each break point" it reduces the burden of testing
... Because we already have to test this way for text spacing and text sizing, it isn't much extra work
... on the way down to 320 pixels

Rachael: Wayne in the "something else" category takes the exact opposite tack from Andrew
... he thinks it should be level A and have down to
... His arguement is the technology is well traveled
... It is not outside mainstream technology
... Lists 3 million people in the US alone
... The 3rd something else is Mike Gower

Mike G: This is kind of an extension for some of the comments

scribe: Sara from Microsoft was talking about specific scenarios
... not text content, but application interfaces
... and how much more complicated it is to design for a mobile space
... It is becoming a detterant
... The "why bother" attitude starts to happen
... I'm not saying this is an excuse to drop this
... But maybe we need more than just down to
... If people feel we are achieving this with the current text...but this is a hard SC to parse
... I think we should try to add exactly what the issue is here
... I haven't heard a lot of people saying reflow as it is is causing a bunch of problems

<alastairc> agree with also tackling sarah's other point, but it's a separate one.

scribe: Having had some time to think about it - what is the rationale for making the change?
... I don't want to increase the difficulty and move from A to AA

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to level change

Andrew: The changing levels: I don't really care if it changes levels
... I don't think there is impact or benefits from going from AA to A
... I don't think there are policies that will be impacted
... We can move it, but it comes with additional cost for people updating documentation and all the things we have been talking about

<Chuck> +1 to Andrew

Andrew: Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I don't think it will make a lot of difference

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say there was a misunderstanding there, and it's separate from 'down to'

Alastair: I would take Sara from Microsoft's point seriously

<jon_avila> I agree with AWK that there isn't a compelling reason to move the SC from AA to A.

Alastair: Where she was discussing how difficult it is for something like Visual Studio - there was some assumption that this needs to work in this
... I don't think what we are talking about now (down to) - if they are struggling at 320, they are struggling to put it into this size, full stop
... I think it would help tackle her point - how we write the exceptions

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to quote wayne: Is reflow easy to achieve? No

Alastair: I haven't had a chance to think that through. Michael, if you can, I think it would be useful to think through

Bruce: I agree with Andrew - policies I know lump A and AA together
... I think we should stick to the framework for WCAG 2.0, pay a lot of attention to it
... Wayne says it is easy, no. Things that are not easy are not A
... If at 320 turns out - maybe that should have been a AAA thing
... We are finding applications that are almost impossible to code to - down to 320 should be a AAA requirement per the schema we have used for assigning A, AA, AAA

Alastair: I will mildly disagree with Bruce
... It is the "at" getting a complex interface into 320 - there wasn't push back against intermediate stages

<bruce_bailey> SC being infeasible for any technology is why SC ended up at AAA (versus A, AA)

Alastair: The intermittent stages are easier because they are bigger
... It is getting a desktop application into 320 pixels wide that was the problem

Rachael: On the survey we had 8 people support updating the current SC
... We had 5 people supporting reflow to A
... Would several of those who support using "down to" discuss their reasoning for that?

Gundula: we heard that with the current wording people developing cleanly, using responsive design, if we reword to down to
... For those not bothering with the values in between might fail our users needing in between
... I feel just changing to down to - looking at the intent, zooming usually includes up to
... So I feel it has less impact on the end users and few impact on the authors

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that changing the language of an existing SC to make it more difficult affects backward compatibility

Mike G: This is something we have tried to avoid in the past: making it more difficult because it impacts backward compatibility

scribe: It could fail something in the next iteration that previously passed

Rachael: That leans more towards updating reflow to level A and adding a new AA for down to

Alastair: I thought the backwards compatibility was the other way around
... I can appreciate there are other issues
... I put my vote against the down to, but I am not particularly opposed to the other options
... Such as marking the other as deprecated

Rachael: Anyone else want to speak to moving this down to A and adding another at AA?

Chuck: I don't see that there is any practical difference to moving to A and changing text to down to
... If you only change to down to and don't move to A
... Bruce's observation from the past: altering would map to AAA
... I would say maybe we leave this as is, and move to AAA

<jon_avila> I agree with Chuck - down to is AAA and keep 1.4.10 at AA.

Rachael: Chuck has proposed a 3rd option: leaving current language, and adding a AAA
... Bruce - is that what you are leaning towards?

Bruce: yes

<bruce_bailey> +1 to keep current language and new AAA requirement

Rachael: Can we do a straw poll?

<Rachael> Option 1: Update the current SC to use "down-to".

* thank you!

<Rachael> Option 2: Update reflow to A and add a new SC for reflow (enhanced) at level AA for down-to

<jon_avila> Option 3

<JakeAbma> Option 1

<Rachael> Option 3: Leaving AA alone and adding a AAA for reflow (enhanced)

<AWK> Option 4 - no change

<Chuck> Option 3

<alastairc> Option 1/2 (i.e. increasing the requirement to "down to", at whatever levels we decide)

<Ryladog> Option 3

<Francis_Storr> Option 3

<AWK> Option 4

<GN015> Option 1

<bruce_bailey> option 3 or option 4

<sukriti> Option 1

<mbgower> Option 3/4 preference

<kirkwood> Option 1

<Detlev> option 1

<laura> Option 3

Rachael: Chuck - do you have the ability to make a quick spreadsheet?

Chuck: I will try

<Mike_Pluke> Option 3

<CharlesHall> 3

Rachael: I am seeing more support for 3 or 4

<sukriti> 3 has max votes

Chuck: I'm trying to do the math

<AWK> (I could also support 3, but haven't seen a strong compelling argument)

Rachael: It does look like option 3 has most support
... Can anyone not live with Option 3?

<GN015> 1

Detlev: Can you restate option 3?

<Rachael> Option 3: Leaving AA alone and adding a AAA for reflow (enhanced)

Michael G: I suspect Wayne would be a "can't live with this"

Bruce: We did not have his option in the list

Rachael: I did not, but I don't feel it would not have support

Chuck: that's my sense as well

Alastair: If there are objections all around, nothing changes
... Do we make this change at A or AA? But same as Andrew, I'm not sure adding AAA is worth it

<Rachael> Strawpoll: Would people object to the change at A/AA?

<Chuck> Object +1

<alastairc> For 'down to'

<jon_avila> +0

<AWK> Yes, to objecting to change

<bruce_bailey> -1 to having down to at level A or AA

<mbgower> 0

<Mike_Pluke> 0

<kirkwood> 0

<JakeAbma> 0

<Detlev> no objection

Alastair: we are asking people for objections

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say it's not i don't care

Michael G: I'm still concerned when we talk about moving from AA to single A,

scribe: I'm not sure I have enough data to support that
... This is ignoring the don't
... This is not in the same ballpark as focus visible
... For reflow, has stuff really changed that much since 2.1 came out?

Detlev: Simply a reminder that there was a significant support for changing it for down to in the survey. Not the same group, but significant in the survey
... Is the call, and its choice of people more representative than the survey?
... What's the rule on that?

Rachael: Thanks for bringing that up.
... Any change decided here would have to go to CFC
... Wayne's point is a good example of this
... The survey guides our conversation
... I'm hearing a very distinct split

Alastair: to Detlev's point, the survey was positive to the change
... Some people were away last week
... Before we get to CFC, we are going to hear from all voices at some stage
... It does make it harder
... we were trying to get it down to A or AA, but if we have objections that, I don't see an intermediary position we can agree to because it is a distinct change

Rachael: Asking for a scribe change
... Can anyone scribe

<sukriti> I can do it but first time so might mess up

<Rachael> scribe: sukriti

<Jennie> * thank you Sukriti!

<laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

Chuck: We need some form of consensus on what the change is going to be

There is consensus on a change, unclear on what it should be

<Rachael> ack: mbgower

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say do we have anecdotal or solid material on challenges posed with the existing SC wording?

Mike: Concerned about abandoning the effort. More about what the original intent was

Alastair: Need to balance user need and burden on design and development
... may help with editorial note and make that something we're looking for feedback about

<bruce_bailey> i would be okay with change going into next draft -- since that is a way to get feedback

David: Important for cognitive accessibility

<CharlesHall> i would rather change the sc to remove viewport target versus change the specificity of the target viewport. the simple use is any zoom should trigger reflow – agnostic to the original viewport or new viewport.

David: you have a few milliseconds to process

<alastairc> Easiest change would be to update current to 'down to' + editors note

Rachel: We are actively looking for feedback and revisit later
... what are people's thoughts on motivation as to why we're doing this

<bruce_bailey> i would love to see large developers comment that the change is burdensome

<alastairc> CharlesHall - there needs to be an end point though?

<CharlesHall> in the zoom %, perhaps

<Ryladog> Good idea!

Rachel: How would you feel if we put a change at A/AA and added WCAG 2.2 editor's note to gather more feedback

Chuck: Rather than bias with a proposal or outcome we desire, put out note saying looking for feedback

<AWK> -1 research should be conducted before a change, not during a change

<alastairc> CharlesHall - in which case, from what starting point?

Alastair: Will get more feedback if we propose change

Rachel: andrew, looking for feedback

<AWK> Feasibility research is still research

Alastair: We're looking for the user feedback angle

<bruce_bailey> i am worried that if draft has change, then large developers will assume that the WG is a-ok with change

Chuck: Without stating A/AA, what if we were asking for comments on just "down to"
... and by that looking for collecting data through that means about that to than to

Andrew: So you're asking about the editor's note to the SC?

Alastair: And included in the list of changes at the top

Mike: the history of this - the intent of this was changed to 'at'. It didn't come out of a new sc for 2.2
... was almost proposed as a housekeeping exercise
... don't think it is, involves signification amount of testing

<kirkwood> +1 to significant amount of testing

Mike: not sure how much current wording causing problems

<CharlesHall> alastairc: I mean something like: “Content can be scaled or zoomed to 400% and presented without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling across both axes (2 directions).” so the zoom is quantified but the viewport is not.

<jon_avila> I agree with Bruce's concern that it will be assumed that it's the group recommendation is to change the wording at the current level.

Bruce: Same sense Alastair says not an actual practice or testable
... how do we write that up
... concerned about putting in a change that the group is not completely behind

<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce’s concern

Bruce: we need more feedback
... editor's note for proposing the change in next draft
... then if the large developers don't object, can take it from there

Rachel: thank you

Chuck: there's more desire for data
... one way we discussed (editor's note and request for comments) doesn't seem great

Rachel: Alastair comments?

Alastair: tweeted to gather request
... good change from user perspective
... how to we get feedback from developers and testing point of view

Rachel: propose we all gather more information and revisit in the future
... change is needed but need to look at how to make it feasible and testable

Alastair: Mike's asking if current SC causing problems
... in-between failures/ bugs or specific mobile-only versions
... 320 px works and upwards horizontal scrolling works
... down to would catch both
... bugs would become failures
... where it has been < 320 px will have a problem

<CharlesHall> +1 to alastairc description. 320 becomes the explicit target.

Chuck: meeting 320 criteria challenge has been tied to older tech stack

<alastairc> would love to hear problems people have who create information-dense interfaces, e.g. portals, dashboard, editors etc.

Rachel: asking for feedback on information-dense interfaces, covid-19 info

Alastair: good internal question for people to ask about

Rachael: revisit in two weeks after checking interally

<Rachael> proposed resolution: Gather research and revisit

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Fazio_> +0

<kirkwood> +1

<alastairc> +1, still alive

<AWK> +1

<laura> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

Language of 1.4.10/Reflow exception seems broader than intended #1049

Rachael: See support for that, be back on this in 2 weeks

<Rachael> current: Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning

<Rachael> proposal: Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning which can scroll.

Rachael: We had 3 yes, should update exception, 3 for change + errata, 4 for no, 1 for something else
... let's start with the no's

andrew: the cost of making changes is through understanding "whenever possible" and I think it is possible

Bruce: A canvas palette that doesn't support scrolling might be a problem
... disagree with changing - panning vs scrolling even though can be kind of scrolling

Alastair: feedback from MSFT, losing functionality. If you have something that meets the exception eg. toolbar interface, you can lose functionality. Not the intent.
... interpretation challenge and balance between losing functionality and making a change

Chuck: Do we have data that this is the interpretation and impact

<alastairc> Was raised because it was interpreted this way (in a particuular company)

Chuck: there can always be interpretations. Is it defensible position?
... no text changes are necessary

<Chuck> +1 to Rachael

Rachael: new wording unclear

<jon_avila> I think the exception is confusing and the I agree with Rachel that the wording is not any clearer.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i disagree that SC can be read to mean that feature need not be provided

Bruce: SC change of text didn't help
... not providing the feature at all is not the intent

<jon_avila> I still don't know if a horizontal menu or toolbar is allowed or not.

Rachael: would individuals who voted for the errata and change speak to that point of view

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say an addition to the second note could address this (in addition to more in the Understanding)

Mike: this can be handled in understanding document. Second note can also add clarity
... I don't see anyone designing an app and adding additional content for the sake of it

Rachael: reading document

Alastair: good example of proposal after seeing an issue
... somebody to come up with better proposal - understanding document
... what would that update be?
... can someone propose?
... high bar on normative update
... compromise to do informative update?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to propose next step

Chuck: more supportive of a normative in general but here the change of text seems not necessary
... supportive of a non-normative update in this case

<Rachael> Proposal: Mike G move forward with a different proposal to update note or understanding document

Mike: will update note and understanding document - non-normative

Alastair.

Alastair: is normative but will be more clear and defensible

<Chuck> no objections

Katie: note is not normative. Document or note to SC?

<AWK> Notes are not normative in the spec

Rachael: Note to SC
... The update would either go in the note or understanding document

<alastairc> AWK - this always gets me, I thought notes (in the spec) are normative.

Mike: Anyone object to that next step?

<GN015> Which is the next step?

Rachael: Anyone object to that next step?
... Mike G move forward with a different proposal to update note or understanding document
... This needs a lot of discussion

alastair: feel free to email the draft
... for whoever is coming up with the proposal

Rachael: either one works

alastair: for anyone looking through issues and needs help
... will stay and help through questions

Rachael: Any more topics before closing out?

Misc github working

<alastairc> Michaels: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1067#issuecomment-654938657

Mike: issue 1067. Could we work from that one? Proposed to real response?

Rachael: The ones that don't require normative changes will need to do a cfc

Chuck: let's wrap up

Rachael: Anyone interested in specific issues stay back
... Thank you all

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/Shadi:/Wilco:/
Default Present: Chuck, Rachael, alastairc, stevelee, Francis_Storr, sukriti, Jennie, maryjom, kirkwood, GN, AWK, CharlesHall, bruce_bailey, Laura, JakeAbma, ok, Detlkev, Detlev, mbgower, Fazio, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila
Present: Chuck Rachael alastairc stevelee Francis_Storr sukriti Jennie maryjom kirkwood GN AWK CharlesHall bruce_bailey Laura JakeAbma ok Detlkev Detlev mbgower Fazio Katie_Haritos-Shea jon_avila
Regrets: Nicaise D Brooks N
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie
Found Scribe: sukriti
Inferring ScribeNick: sukriti
Scribes: Jennie, sukriti
ScribeNicks: Jennie, sukriti

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.)