15:30:57 RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:30:57 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-irc
15:31:05 rrsagent, make logs world
15:31:16 rrsagent, generate minutes
15:31:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-minutes.html Chuck_
15:31:30 meeting: AGWG-2021-01-05
15:31:37 chair: Chuck_
15:31:45 Zakim, start meeting
15:31:45 RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:31:46 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Chuck_
15:31:58 meeting: AGWG-2021-01-05
15:32:31 agenda+ Working effectively together for 2021
15:32:41 agenda+ WCAG 3.0 objection update Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/
15:33:12 â—‹ agenda+ Color issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/
15:33:21 agenda+ Color issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/
15:33:35 agenda+ Findable help issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/
15:40:34 regrets: Matt Orr, Charles Hall
15:41:13 JF has joined #ag
15:45:10 agenda+ Hidden controls update (question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/
15:49:12 Fazio has joined #ag
15:57:22 Ben has joined #AG
15:58:15 Present+
15:58:41 Jennie has joined #ag
15:59:18 chrisloiselle_ has joined #ag
15:59:29 bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:59:36 Raf has joined #ag
15:59:59 ChrisLoiselle__ has joined #ag
16:00:03 present+
16:00:07 Present+
16:00:08 JustineP has joined #ag
16:00:08 present+
16:00:16 present+
16:00:18 present+
16:00:26 present+
16:00:34 present+
16:00:39 jon_avila has joined #ag
16:00:52 present+jon_avila
16:01:10 scribe:bruce_bailey
16:01:24 JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:01:37 present+
16:01:51 zakim, take up item 1
16:01:52 agendum 1 -- Working effectively together for 2021 -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:02:09 TOPIC: Editors' note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion
16:02:09 +AWK
16:02:10 Chuck invites any new people to introduce themselves, but no takerrs
16:02:18 present+
16:02:19 Sukriti has joined #ag
16:02:26 present+
16:02:27 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/results
16:02:40 juliette_mcshane has joined #ag
16:02:42 present+
16:02:42 The chairs propose an editor's note in the Background on WCAG 3 section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to improve inclusion, with the following text...
16:03:00 Caryn has joined #ag
16:03:01 TOPIC: Working effectively together for 2021
16:03:07 Agenda Item: Working effectively together for 2021
16:03:09 MelanieP has joined #ag
16:03:20 present+
16:03:20 present+
16:03:38 Chuck: WG is taking up some policies and practices to facilitate coordination and work
16:04:11 ... asking sub groups to identify near term activities and goals and action items
16:04:13 sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:04:26 present+
16:04:42 ... also please remember to be civil, and approach chair if you have any developing concerns
16:04:52 https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
16:05:03 ... better to be considering and discussing sooner than later
16:05:09 zakim, take up next item
16:05:09 agendum 2 -- WCAG 3.0 objection update Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:05:14 Wilco has joined #ag
16:05:17 ... and we bid 2020 so long
16:05:34 The chairs propose an editor's note in the Background on WCAG 3 section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to improve inclusion, with the following text...
16:05:46 W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or inclusion within the process of creating this standard. [CUT]
16:06:00 We welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.
16:06:09 [bruce copy/paste from survey]
16:06:32 13 responses on survey, 11 approves, 2 ask for edits
16:06:57 Chuck calls on Jake Abma
16:06:59 david-macdonald has joined #ag
16:07:20 [Jake reads from survey]
16:07:59 The phrasing is awkward.
16:08:03 Nicaise has joined #ag
16:08:11 present+
16:08:13 laura has joined #ag
16:08:25 q?
16:08:28 it's not about supporting the review, but act upon review comments; it's not about support the feedback, but act upon the feedback
16:08:33 Q+ to speak to my selection
16:08:40 present+ Laura
16:09:00 Micheal Cooper: all these ways ARE the ways we support review
16:09:35 That does sound awkward
16:09:49 Chuck: JF suggest participation instead of inclusion
16:10:13 MC: This is meant to encompass feedback from people who are not members of working group
16:10:49 Chuck: As I heard your feedback, you say you have a clear idea, but think it can be misinterpreted?
16:10:57 mbgower has joined #ag
16:11:12 present+
16:11:12 q+ to say that is the intent...
16:11:26 Jake: I read it as people evaluating document is good, but ways WG should better support feedback is not clear
16:11:36 ... what is supporting inclusion?
16:11:37 ack ala
16:11:37 alastairc, you wanted to say that is the intent...
16:11:48 We support reviews by helping point people to materials and resources
16:12:03 With John's suggestion: W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or participation within the process of
16:12:03 creating this standard. We welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.
16:12:28 Alastair C: An example is if someone had difficultly going through a long document, we could facilate breaking up what is needed for digesting the document
16:13:01 Chuck: We have a process that facilitates feedback and review so we are including mechanisms for feedback and inclusion.
16:13:26 Q+
16:13:40 Inclusion to me means minority groups
16:13:40 ack JF
16:13:41 Chuck: Rachael has parsed out some feedback from John Foliot, asks MC for response.
16:13:56 MC: The word "inclusion" is closer to our intent.
16:14:24 like including diversity
16:14:26 John Foliot: When we use word inclusion to be inclusive, it just seems circular.
16:15:06 Chuck: I am hearing suggestion for word smithing but not strong objections. Andrew ?
16:15:23 (We jumped ahead a bit and had already put it in, but circled back to the group.)
16:15:57 AWK: I could not suggest changes because I was not clear on what text is in current draft. I withdraw my request for a change.
16:16:08 +1
16:16:09 +1
16:16:10 +1
16:16:10 +1
16:16:10 +1\
16:16:10 +1
16:16:11 Chuck: Please +1 if you accept the proposed editors note
16:16:12 +1
16:16:12 +1
16:16:13 +1
16:16:13 +1
16:16:14 +1
16:16:14 0
16:16:15 +1
16:16:15 +1
16:16:15 +1
16:16:19 -1 if anything you cannot live with
16:16:21 +1
16:16:44 RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed Editor's note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion
16:16:51 TOPIC: Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note
16:17:22 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/results#xq2
16:17:31 The chairs propose adding a section to to the Acknowledgment appendix of WCAG 3 FPWD recognizing Participants who made notable contributions to the creation of this document section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to objectively identify key contributers, with the following text:
16:17:38 This section will document key contributors. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft. This list will be updated for each subsequent draft.
16:17:52 [bruce copy/paste from survey]
16:17:53 refresh
16:18:03 q+ to say that I like Andy's ideas, but I don't want to put it in the FPWD
16:18:08 q-
16:18:12 Chuck: 13 replies, 10 approved as-is
16:18:20 q?
16:18:29 ack jeanne
16:18:29 jeanne, you wanted to say that I like Andy's ideas, but I don't want to put it in the FPWD
16:18:56 Jeanne: I like Andy's ideas, but it is a starting point for next draft, so don't use for now
16:19:01 Q: if we like Andy's ideas, how do we capture them for future work?
16:19:14 Chuck: Andy did not object, so that is fine.
16:19:41 Justine Pascalides has editorial nit
16:20:14 Q+
16:20:16 Bruce has editoria suggestion to remove word "key"
16:20:16 q?
16:20:31 q+
16:20:38 ack JF
16:20:57 Alasstair: We already have contributors section, so the idea is space for a little bit more.
16:21:23 John Foliot: Question is how we are going use Andrews suggestion going forward?
16:21:33 Jeanne: Adding to wiki
16:21:44 MC: Could be a pull request after publication.
16:22:04 Chuck: Good suggestion
16:22:11 q+
16:22:12 q?
16:22:15 ack Rach
16:22:19 present+
16:22:23 This section will document contributors who made notable contributions and it will be updated for each subsequent draft. The process of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft.
16:22:33 Chuck: Bruce do you have heartache with going forward with this using "key"
16:22:40 Bruce: that is okay
16:23:13 ack Davi
16:23:35 Rachael proposes an edit using wording previously approved. Bruce likes Rachels edit.
16:23:56 q+
16:24:03 Chuck: David McDonald answered survey that we should skip this new section for now.
16:24:18 I kinda agree
16:24:33 David McDonald: This is something that is really tricky to do, and is something we struggled with this for 1.0 and 2.0.
16:24:38 Q+
16:24:48 ... we can always add this later.
16:25:07 q+
16:25:09 Chuck: This is to address an objection that was raised
16:25:13 ack Ch
16:25:31 ack Faz
16:25:35 David McDonald: We can always add this latter, just seems premature at this moment in time
16:26:15 David Fazio: Agree with David McDonald, as there are so many people did work, seems like it could be more trouble than it is worth...
16:26:20 ack ala
16:26:26 on other hand, might be a motivator.
16:27:10 Alastair: Agree that this is a hard thing to do well. WCAG 3 is a bit of clean slate, so while it is a difficult thing to do well, it is probably better to start from beginning.
16:27:24 q+ to ask that it's worth the effort to try
16:27:26 ack ack
16:27:33 ... Overall, I would rather have a flat list of contributors, but I don't feel strongly about it.
16:28:04 q+ to suggest that Mike Gower's suggestion may be a middle ground
16:28:07 q?
16:28:11 ack Ch
16:28:11 Chuck_, you wanted to ask that it's worth the effort to try
16:28:14 Chuck: There are a lot of individuals who went above and beyond, so it does seems fair to me to review and come up with a process and so keep it it.
16:28:17 ach Rach
16:28:21 ack Rach
16:28:21 Rachael, you wanted to suggest that Mike Gower's suggestion may be a middle ground
16:28:55 Rachael: I don't have a strong feeling, but I want to acknowleges MG softer phrasing
16:29:17 MG: This section is intended to document key contributors...a list should be included... [from survey]
16:29:42 +1 to Michael
16:29:49 MG: I just used softer phrasing to get at intention, but not promissing something that might fall through
16:30:03 Rachael: I will propose something in minutes
16:30:14 Chuck: likes this approach
16:30:44 Chuck: David, if we were to soften the language, is that okay with you?
16:30:57 q+ to say that it helps us when people after publication make false claims of the contribution
16:31:06 David M: Yes, the softer proposal is better.
16:31:09 ack jeanne
16:31:09 jeanne, you wanted to say that it helps us when people after publication make false claims of the contribution
16:31:10 Proposed rewording: This section is intended to document participants who made notable contributions. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list should be included in the next draft and updated for each subsequent draft.
16:31:41 Jeanne: I started as Alastair expresse, not wanting to address this issue.
16:32:26 Consider "With special thanks, this section acknowledges the following individuals' notable contributions. The method..."
16:32:52 +1 to Jeanne
16:32:55 ... this comes somewhat from some people having their names in wcag 2.0 listed as contibutors, and getting business from that, they trade on that acknowledgment without being a really significant contributor
16:33:23 q?
16:33:25 ... it is a way of noting people that really did the work. I think this is worth doing.
16:33:32 Proposed rewording: This section is intended to document participants who made notable contributions. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list should be included in the next draft and updated for each subsequent draft.
16:33:33 morr4 has joined #ag
16:34:42 Justine: My edit is so be a little clearer.
16:34:45 q+
16:34:54 ack Rach
16:35:08 Consider "With special thanks, this section acknowledges the following individuals' notable contributions. The method..."
16:35:25 +1 to "special thanks"
16:35:25 q?
16:35:40 Racheal: I would prefere to capture Justines and AWK comment for introduction or maybe later, but not this editors notes
16:35:53 +1
16:35:53 +1
16:35:53 +1
16:35:54 +1
16:35:55 +1
16:35:55 +1
16:35:56 +1
16:35:56 +1
16:35:56 +1
16:35:56 [11:35] Chuck_ proposed RESOLUTION: Accept the amended "Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note"
16:35:56 +1
16:35:56 +1
16:35:59 +1
16:36:01 0
16:36:02 +1
16:36:02 +1
16:36:04 +!
16:36:08 +1, with assumption that if we don't agree criteria, we can leave it.
16:36:18 haha
16:36:33 RESOLUTION: Accept the amended "Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note"
16:36:46 zakim, take up next item
16:36:46 agendum 3 -- Color issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/ -- taken up [from Chuck_]
16:36:59 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/results#xq5
16:37:06 TOPIC: Question 1 - Updates to G183 remove the focus step in the procedure
16:37:37 In a previous survey question we agreed that contrast can be used as an extra visual indicator.
16:37:43 G183 tests for both contrast and having hover/focus with extra indicators. This is ok for a technique which can go beyond the SC requirements, however, it does cause confusion when people compare to F73, or consider that touch devices don't have hover/focus states.
16:37:45 rrsagent, make minutes
16:37:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-ag-minutes.html jeanne
16:37:50 Note that G182 is a more general technique that requires an extra indicator.
16:37:58 PR 1553 removes the 'focus' aspect (covered in other techniques) and clarifies what is required by the SC and what is required by the technique.
16:38:06 This would provide closure to issue 1118 and issue 1272 with a response:
16:38:14 The working group considered this issue and applied some updates in PRs 1500 and 1553 to clarify what passes the success criteria and what is needed for the technique.
16:38:43 9 respones, 3 people want some adjustments
16:39:24