<Chuck_> meeting: AGWG-2021-03-02

<Jemma> scribe: Jemma

<bruce_bailey> Partial regrets, I have to drop for 30 min at 11:30

<scribe> scribe:Jemma

<JustineP> Also partial regrets, need to drop within 20-30 minutes

<scribe> Chair:Chuck

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

<bruce_bailey> @Sarah Horton, please see my reply to your comment in second survey

chuck: please feel free to sign up for the scribe list.

Daylight savings time

<Chuck_> https://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/2021a.html

chuck: if you click the date link, it will convert to the correct meeting time. but that is only for the week.

<alastairc> For UK, and I think EU, the meeting is an hour earlier for the last two weeks of March. I recommend putting in a recurring invite for 11am Eastern Time (Boston), for it to work automatically.

WCAG2ICT Update

chuck: if you are interested in attending WCAG2ICT, please let the chairs know

<Rachael> chairs email is: [email protected]

Target spacing/area (Q1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/

<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results#xq12

chuck: going over each survey questions
... 7 people agreed with it, 3 people want some changes

Updated SC text for closing issues (revised again)

chuck: reading mikeG's comment for the discussion

mikeG: three exceptions should be listed, not four.
... SC text is great

alastair explained the different editing for SC and understanding doc.

next comment by AndrewK

<AWK> +AWK

<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results#xq12

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results#xq12

"In the understanding text it says that there are four exceptions, but the SC has three. Also, can the exceptions be listed in the understanding document in the same order that they appear in the SC?

We aren't defining offset because it is explained in the bullet, yes? I think that the bullet needs to indicate that the offset may include space between targets.

I'm not convinced that the unique area is needed. Yes, target areas can overlap, but is this a frequent issue?"

alastairc: talking about slider example regarding thumb target

addresssed by AWK

Awk: another example is phone contact vertical list

user can scroll by alphanbet

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say can the slider itself be considered essential? Do we need an alternative exception?

scribe: if there is enough space, that may be fine.

mikeg: slider has the continuous target points? do we need alternate exception here if the target fails?

<Chuck_> jemma: this is related to aria apg slider example. Trying to understand MG's point, what do you mean by continuous target?

<Chuck_> mg: a 0-100 slider, you can type anywhere in that slider and adjust the value. Is that a problem for the pieces of the slider, or is that all one target?

https://raw.githack.com/w3c/aria-practices/slider-color-viewer-update/examples/slider/slider-color-viewer.html

<Chuck_> jemma: the component controls the.... pasted a url.

<Chuck_> alastair: You can click anywhere in there and move the slider.

<Chuck_> awk: you "must" be able to.

<Chuck_> awk: The concern is that if we say a target is a region... you could reasonably say "whatever the increment is of a slider will have an impact on the size of the target, the collection of targets"

<Chuck_> awk: a slider doesn't fit in with this sc the way we are talking about it. We might need to craft an exception that allows this use case.

<Chuck_> awk: instead of a slider, limit the u/i space, you must duplicate it with +/- or input field.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask Wouldn't the 'target' be the whole slider?

<Fazio> I’m think JF has a good point

<Fazio> I’m thinking I mean. Not I’m think

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to point out the mobile use case for tapping the bar vs using keyboard after tapping the thumb and to point out that select components have multiple targets

<alastairc> target definition: region of the display that will accept a pointer action, such as the interactive area of a user interface component

<JF> @Jake https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.0/roles#slider

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask is there a different between the slider target and the sliding of the slider

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say we need language clarifying targetable regions. other examples are maps, easels, any part of an editable word document

awk: added argument for one web widget for one, instead of multiple compoents in it like combobox for alastirc's response.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if we then need an exception for continuous things, or drop the SC?

mikeg: we can add some clarification lanugage - one target for the touch point..

<Fazio> Brain injury neurological impairments cause spasms in hands/limbs etc, shaking fine motor deficiency etc. so I think JF has a valid point

<Fazio> there’s also an interesting OCD component that applies too

alastirc: It seems that either we need exception for the slider region or ?? . I need to think about the lanaguage to propose.

<mbgower> 2 possible exceptions: 1) alternative method (think of increment buttons at either end of sliders); 2) exception for targetable reggions

alastirc: I suggest to investigate Awk's comment

awk: suggestion for "unique area"
... "argets that overlap other ttargets must have an area of at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels which is not overlapping another target."

<david-macdonald> +1

<JF> liking AWK's idea, but would need to address 'native' (default) renderings

awk: we may get rid of "unique area' so that we don't need to proivde definitions.

chuck: It seem that weattempt to add more scopes to this SC

jf: I am thinking that there may be the exception by mobile plat form author can not control.

awk: I think we have different opinion that whether this should be in SC or not.

jf: I am thinking about potential case regarding "user control" between native and non native.

alas: we talked about those exception cases before but we removed it.

<alastairc> AWK's changes: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/scha14-pointer-target-spacing/understanding/22/pointer-target-spacing.html

jf: talking about this forward thinking perspective.

davidm: it would be better to think about "unique area" to solve this problem.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about the "overlapping" suggestion

davidm: would be challenging to put this as some bullets points

alastairc: reading understadning doc to share the definition of overlapping and unique area(??)

<david-macdonald> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Chuck_> +1

<Sukriti> +1

<david-macdonald> are we looking at the same thing

<mbgower> ?

awk: what tripps me up is that we are talking about most edge cases

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/scha14-pointer-target-spacing/understanding/22/pointer-target-spacing.html

<alastairc> Targets have an area of at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, except if:

alastaic: took AWK's suggestion and removed those vagueness in the doc
... only thing left is slider subregion target issue

chuck: in summary, we need to work on slider thumb issue before we move on.

<mbgower> Alternative: An alternative method...

alastairc: It is needed basically providing exception for multiple subcomponent targets like thumb in the slider.

<AWK> I'm more concerned about the slider issue now than I was at the start of the call

<JF> "Focusable" components may not always have "grabbable" or "clickability" on the entire component.

mb: can we share the ideas on variable taget region issue and come up with language suggestion?

<mbgower> I'm happy to work with David to come up with something for this

sharing screen reader testing example

<AWK> -1 to David's idea

<AWK> This is not just an understanding doc thing, I don't think

<mbgower> I'm good to take this away and try to tackle

david: we can approach this issue with revising understanding doc.

awk: I agre with david some part but we dont want leave the slider can be out of this SC

<mbgower> +1

<david-macdonald> +

<alastairc> +1

<AWK> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<Raf> +1

<JF> 0

RESOLUTION: Accept the amended update and response to address issues 1361, 1381, 1384, 1433 and 1444 and create a new issue for sliders

WCAG2ICT Update

Findable help (TBC) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/

<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/results

<alastairc> woo-hoo, 5 issus down! Only 1 added.

Rewording Findable Help to address scoping questions

<david-macdonald> 5 steps forward 1 step back

sarahhorton: scope of sc is a bit confusing
... if the scope is that help is in the page, we don't need to get set of page to include help..

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to explain the 'set of web pages' conundrum

<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/results

sarah's comment is "If the scope is that pages that include “ways to get help” should present those ways in the same relative order on each page that includes them, then there is no need for scoping the requirement to a “set of web pages” since the scope is every page that includes those ways to get help."

alastairc: bascially trying to follow former format to address this issue

davidm: suggested from "...within a set of..." to "...within the set of..."

mikeg: my last comment is sort of agreeing with sarah.
... advocating renaming the sc to distinguish from the SC, consistent navigation

<Fazio_> +1 consistent help

mikeg: "I have no problem with text added to clarify the differences and connections between this SC and Consistent Navigation."

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to mention JonA's point.

<JF> Happy to remove *any* reference to "web pages" (forward compat for WCAG 3)

<Jennie> +1 to Jon A's point

mealanie: the site has different navigation template depending on purpose but it can be violation of this SC.

jf: I prefer to get away from the notion of "web pages"
... so that it can be applicable to other formts, pdf, xr, so on.

<mbgower> I can't find the latest wording. can someone please post?

<alastairc> In the survey question

chuck: reading comments from alastairc and mbgower - keeping the scope of wcag 2.2

<JF> +1 to Chuck - if we want this in WCAG 3, it will need to be reworked at some point in time to be more agnostic

<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/results

<alastairc> Bruce's text: For each page within a set of web pages that provide one or more of following ways of finding help:

<alastairc> * bullet list

<alastairc> Access to those ways of finding help is included in the same relative order on each page.

bruce's comment -"WCAG 2.0 phrasing is always "a set of web pages" and not "the set of web pages".I agree with the concern @Sarah H raises. I suggest moving "set" into the opening line. I also think their should be more consistent phrasing between the opening and concluding lines. Follows is my attempt to resolve her concerns."

"For each page within a set of web pages that provide one or more of following ways of finding help:

* bullet list

Access to those ways of finding help is included in the same relative order on each page."

chuck: consensus is forming to remove "set of web pages"

<david-macdonald> that was my questions

bruce: how do we know the scope then?

<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

<Jemma> alastairc: I am happy with bruce's formulation and one thing is to add..

<JF> I'm increasingly uncomfortable with "web pages" here

Chuck: are you comfortable with bruce wording

AC: yes

JF: we have definition, but it's very limiting
... if we get the phrasing right , we might safe in the long run

<mbgower> For pages in a set of web pages that make available... in the same relative order on each page.

<david-macdonald> +1

<Melanie> +1

MG: we do need set of web pages to give it some scope

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to web pages

AC: would be nice to have more than set of web pages, but that's for WCAG 3

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to also note that "Personalization" will be a future technique here - https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-help-1.0/#helptype-explanation

SH: I don't think the term set of web pages is problematic, it's more about scoping

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to provide a scenario where "set of web pages" helps.

AC: example given is about a help link in product pages compared to checkout pages where the help might be different, like a phone number in another place. I don't see that this should be a failure

<sarahhorton> "Ways to get help are included in the same relative order on each page they are made available."

<alastairc> without 'set of web pages', the scope for cross-page comparison would be the entire conformance claim.

AC: we have the complete conformance claim, or a subset defined as set of web pages in WCAG

JD: when a template is used, the COGA meant that each page based on the template must have the help in the same relative order
... if a page lacks a help, or in another place, it fails

AC: yes, it must be in the same position, the problem is IF a page lacks a help, is it in a 'set of web pages'
... removing a help would make it not applicable, moving it will fail

<alastairc> For each page within a set of web pages that provide one or more of following ways of finding help:

<alastairc> * Human contact details;

<alastairc> * Human contact mechanism;

<alastairc> * Self-help option; or

<alastairc> * A fully automated contact mechanism,

<alastairc> Access to those ways of finding help is included in the same relative order on each page.

<mbgower> +1

<Chuck_> Poll: +1 if you support Bruce's suggestion

<Rachael> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<Jennie> +1

<laura> +1

<JF> 0 (although better without "Set of pages" language)

<juliette_mcshane> +1

+1

<alastairc> +1

<Melanie> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree with Bruce's amended rewording to address issues 1436 and 1367

<Raf> +1

<Sukriti> +1

TBC: Findable Help - Goal of Criterion Ambiguous #1435

<Melanie> Does "provide" need an "s"?

<david-macdonald> ps, I've written a proposal for slider exception: Have it in Google doc.

SH: we need to make clear it's about the order, not specifically about the value of help
... update the Understanding doc

Redundant entry (Q1-4) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/

<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/results

Re-name the SC?

SH: no problem to go with the other option to keep

<mbgower> 0

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<Fazio> 0

<Rachael> +1

<Raf> 0

<Sukriti> +1

<david-macdonald> 0

<JF> 0

<johnkirkwood> +1

<laura> +1

<Melanie> 0

RESOLUTION: Keep the name the same

Google feedback #1453

<Fazio> +1

RM: if search is part of process I'm comfortable

<Rachael> +1 if COGA agrees with using "difficulties"

<Fazio> paste response please

<bruce_bailey> +1

<alastairc> Slighty updated: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1639/files

<mbgower> I wouldn't mind slight wording on the search example

<alastairc> Current: "A search results page pre-fills the search input with the previously entered search term."

<mbgower> A search results page pre-fills the search input with the previously entered search term in the same process.

<mbgower> during the same process?

<alastairc> Updated.

<mbgower> +1

<Fazio> 0

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> +1

<JF> 0

<alastairc> +1

<Raf> 0

<laura> +1

<david-macdonald> 0

<Sukriti> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1639 to address the suggestions, and accept the response to address issue 1453

Adjust process definition example

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mbgower> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Raf> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<laura> +1

<Sukriti> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1640 and response to address issue 1453

Re-entry and security #1346 and #1431

<mbgower> 'Requiring re-entry of a new password is considered essential."

<johnkirkwood> +1

<alastairc> Security verification, such as repeating a password, is considered essential.

<johnkirkwood> clearer

<Chuck_> jake: a Q for mike. I recall "essential" means that it would fundamentally changes something. Like 20%-30% resetting a password doesn't require entering password 2nd time, and you can retreive.

<Chuck_> jake: does this fit "essential"?

<alastairc> Jake - We had a *long* conversation about that last week: https://www.w3.org/2021/02/23-ag-minutes.html#item07

<Fazio> many times

<Chuck_> mbgower: Not proposing something new, we revisited and discussed a lot. Essential exception is ok. The wording I provide is more clear on the exception. I don't want to re-open the "is it essential"

<Fazio> I think we agreed to MG's suggestion

<Chuck_> alastair: I left options in from previous survey. Is intended to be "do you agree with response"?

<Fazio> I thought not I think

<Fazio> paste it please

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1431

<Chuck_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1431#issuecomment-784637036

<laura_> +1

0

<Fazio> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<alastairc> mbgower - PR for you https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1659

<mbgower> thanks

<Rachael> +1

<Melanie> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed response to address issues 1346 and 1431

<Sukriti> +1

Detlev: do we need the fourth exception, about a small target and another one on the same page with same function?

<laura_> bye

<mbgower> Alastair: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1660

AC: we decided that we do not need to mention alternatives

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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/argets/targets/
Succeeded: s/soe/some/
Succeeded: s/definition of/definition of overlapping and unique area(??)/
Succeeded: s/ass/as/
Default Present: alastairc, Raf, bruce_bailey, Jennie, Jemma, Chuck, juliette_mcshane, Melanie, Fazio, johnkirkwood, JakeAbma, oliver_keim, Francis_Storr, sarahhorton, Sukriti, JF, david-macdonald, Rachael, AWK, karenherr, jon_avila, StefanSchnabel, Laura_Carlson, Caryn, (sorry, to, be, so, late), mbgower, Detlev

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: alastairc, Chuck_, Jemma, bruce_bailey, Raf, JustineP, Jennie, Fazio)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ alastairc, Raf, bruce_bailey, Jennie, Jemma, Chuck

Present: alastairc, Raf, bruce_bailey, Jennie, Jemma, Chuck, juliette_mcshane, Melanie, Fazio, johnkirkwood, JakeAbma, oliver_keim, Francis_Storr, sarahhorton, Sukriti, JF, david-macdonald, Rachael, karenherr, jon_avila, StefanSchnabel, Laura_Carlson, Caryn, (sorry to be so late), mbgower, Detlev
Regrets: Rain Michaels, Charles Hall, Matthew Orr
Found Scribe: Jemma
Inferring ScribeNick: Jemma
Found Scribe: Jemma
Inferring ScribeNick: Jemma
Found Scribe: JakeAbma
Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma
Scribes: Jemma, JakeAbma
ScribeNicks: Jemma, JakeAbma

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.)