<Jennie> Scribe: Jennie
Rachael: Before formal agenda -
is anyone new and want to introduce yourself?
... You can unmute or use IRC
... Waiting one more minute for new members
... Are there other items you would like added to the agenda in
the future?
Bruce: I am not clear on the plans for TPAC
Rachael: We don't have anything
formal, but have some things drafted. I will bring this to the
group next week.
... Any other new topics?
Janina: User generated CFC?
Rachael: We are a-go to the best
of my knowledge but I will double check.
... Any new members that want to introduce themselves?
Julie: I am at Understood.
... I am thrilled to join this group.
Breixo: I work in local quality
solutions - web accessibility company in Spain
... in the finance and treasury departments. I am changing to
digital accessibility and honoured to be in this group.
GreggVan: I am a new/old
member.
... I was Chair of WCAG 1 and WCAG 2. This is my 50th year in
technology and disability. I am rejoining this working
group
... I hope to provide some historical context as we chart our
way into the future.
GreggVan: The Trace Center has moved to Maryland, College park.
Rachael: The first agenda item is WCAG 2.2
We need to test to show what meets each level
Rachael: We need volunteers to
help test for AAA - example sites, provide feedback.
... This will start now, go through November.
AlastairC: There is a particular
tool that Michael will set up, that we enter results
into.
... There will be a couple of examples for each, websites and
documents.
... We will have to gather testing materials.
... This is testing sites for a particular success criteria or
all of WCAG.
Rachael: We have some sites, Michael will be getting the tool set up.
Breixo: I volunteer
Rachael: We will reach out to
everyone that volunteers.
... Are others willing to help?
<Ben> I might be able to help!
<bruce_bailey> 2.1 links to its implementation report at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/implementation-report/
Rachael: It is ok for people that
are not very technical, or struggle with git
... Thank you Ben
<julierawe> I'd like to help test as well
David M: You can assign something to me.
Rachael: Julie, thank you
... That is a fantastic group to get started.
<bruce_bailey> 2.0 implementation report was linked from CR at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/
Rachael: If others decide to
join, please let us know
... Any questions or other comments?
<alastairc> Also, if anyone wants to put their site up as an example, it's good PR.
Rachael: The mobile task force is
picking up new work on development and different
platforms.
... They are actively seeking individuals working in the
accessibility mobile space to join them.
... If you are working in this space, or know someone, please
reach out.
... Any questions?
AlastairC: If interested, you can start with the chairs, and we will get you connected.
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/
Rachael: That is the task force page.
Rachael: Beginning the work on
conformance for WCAG 3
... The chairs are drafting a plan that we intend to bring to
this group next week or the week after for review
... Some things need to start either way
... Protocols comes out of the work John Foliot did
... Instead of treating them exactly as a standard, they would
be like a checkpoint
... We wanted to come back to this topic, and see who would be
interested in participating in a subgroup
JF: The concept I had proposed
was to look at the protocols. For those new to the calls, 2
that I pointed out were
... Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive
Disabilities
... It has goals, but it is difficult to determine if you have
achieved them
... Another example: US Government's Plain Language
Requirements from plainlanguage.gov
... This is what I was referencing in that concept
GreggVan: This is an interesting topic.
<bruce_bailey> https://www.plainlanguage.gov
GreggVan: I understand the goal -
areas where we know what you should do, but have difficulty
drawing lines
... Are you exploring a level 3 success criteria?
... I love what you are trying to do.
Rachael: We are not assuming we
have A, AA, AAA
... We have a lot of interlocking parts
... We are trying to have different subgroups start to topic
about concepts that have been proposed
... Then bring them back to the larger group to have that
conversation
... John F presented a few weeks ago, and we want a group to
explore it more, then have a richer conversation as a larger
group
<alastairc> Minutes (and links) for previous pres: https://www.w3.org/2021/08/10-ag-minutes.html#t04
<jeanne> JF Proposal https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAQSPv1bGuUAlhO41rPkkfrlijF2uzmF/view
JF: What I had proposed is that
moving from a pass/fail to a graduated score
... Because of that we need a mechanism to make this
distinction between those levels
... You can gain some points towards your score by making an
asssertion that your organization has adopted certain
goals
... If your group makes a public declaration, and the protocol
is publicly available
... Anyone could read the protocol, read the content, then make
an evaluation
... Rather than trying to measure subjectivity, if the entity
makes the public declaration of a protocol, is worthy of some
acknlwledgement
... At least now if you find yourself in front of a judge, the
judge would have a 3rd party reference and can see what you
have pr
... produced
Ryladog: I think this is a good
idea
... I'm wondering if this could also be listed as additional
stuff for protocols adopted in a VPAT
... The US Government's 508 adopts 7 or 8 other standards.
<JF_> yes, similar in application
Ryladog: This is sort of like that. I think considering how it would be incorporated into a VPAT would be important.
<bruce_bailey> @katie, not sure what you mean by "other stuff" in 508
Ryladog: I think the amount of plain language in WCAG 3 is great
<bruce_bailey> incorporation by reference
<bruce_bailey> will provide url
Ryladog: The PDF, the human factors, the various other standards, incorporated by reference
Rachael: These are all the
different pieces the subgroup would need to explore
... Thinking about what they are and how to integrate them
JakeAbma: That's exactly what the
maturity model subgroup does
... If you could reword it for this - it is almost the same
concept
... It might be interesting to see it next to the maturity
model
... That would be a proof point
JF: Actually Jake, yes. The work
that the maturity subgroup has been working on influenced some
of my proposal
... I have pointed to the maturity group as a protocol
<bruce_bailey> IBR from 508 reg: https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#702-incorporation-by-reference
JF: My concern is the measuring
mechanism in that work will be difficult to apply at
scale
... But the concept is the same
Rachael: Thank you for this good
discussion
... We should have at least one person from the maturity model
also working on the subgroup
... Who is willing to work on this subgroup?
GreggVan: What is the workspan of this group?
<JF_> happy to volunteer Rachael
GreggVan: I could start in October
<jeanne> +1 to volunteer
Rachael: I am guessing 6-8 weeks
of conversation
... And when this comes back to the larger group we will have
lots of conversation around it
<JakeAbma> +1 volunteer
<GreggVan> +1 to volunteer as I can later starting october
Rachael: Anyone else?
<SuzanneT> +1 volunteer
Rachael: We will send emails out
to kick this off, then you can set up times
... Thank you everyone
... Is there anyone interested in leading the group?
JF: I am fairly invested, I would be happy to
Rachael: Thank you John
Rachael: One of the other big
areas to explore and bring back is paths and processes
... How do we talk about a process in an SC view
... In WCAG 3 we are looking at a series of screens, or views,
to accomplish a task
... There are pros, cons, complexities
... If we can solve the problem of how to define a process, it
would help for testing for consistency
... Does anyone have any questions?
... Michael Gower - I'm hoping you will be interested
JakeAbma: I have been trying to
work out error validation and error correction, and finishing
errors
... A flow chart with a multistep form - as an experiment
... The conclusion is: if you have such a process, there are so
many possibilities where certain methods or outcomes, or
combinations apply
... to a thing like that. It gets really complication to come
up with just one definition
... Completing a 3 step form with 8 form fields - there is so
much to do with headings, labels, instructions, etc. etc.
... You take a whole bunch of success criteria at once, that
might be applicable or not in a process
... I'm questioning if we even want that
... It is so much easier to break it up in very clear
steps
... you can define, and judge
... to apply certain outcomes and methods - you break them up
into small parts
... It has too many variables to test or work with to be
objective
... It didn't work out for me
Rachael: I think you have
articulated the challenges we have all been running into with
this
... We may not be able to work it out, but it is something we
would like a group to explore
<alastairc> Still good to explore and try to define, even if it doesn't work out. But include someone positive (e.g. ShawnL?)
JF: I kind of agree with Jake's
observations, but assuming we move forward with processes and
the protocols suggestions
... Both activities will still need: today we don't do well is
conformance reporting
... We don't have a real mechanism for reporting
conformance
... We received feedback that this would be useful
... For dashboards, or for the protocols to make that work -
there will need to be a way to make public assertions
... Having a subgroup look at conformance reporting may be
useful
Rachael: I have taken note of
this and we can figure out where that subgroup fits
... And, we don't know if we are going forward with both those
paths
JF: Even if we don't adopt those
2 proposals, even the bronze, silver, gold - we still need a
mechanism for making that declation
... declaration
Ryladog: There is a tool on the W3C that does guide you through testing
<jeanne> EARL
<ChrisLoiselle> wcag em and reporting
Ryladog: The actual working group is em, yes
<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/#!/#%2F
<JF_> +1
Ryladog: Those individuals should
be involved, as well as ACT
... both the group and the community group
<Wilco> EARL falls under AG, does it not?
<ChrisLoiselle> footer of link I provided has names and groups
Rachael: I have made a note
Ryladog: It is still functioning because they are updating it
Rachael: We will come back to
that at a future meeting
... We still need people to volunteer regarding the paths
... I will volunteer. Is anyone else willing to volunteer?
Lead?
... OK, we will send an email out looking for others
<JF_> @wilco I believe that EARL falls under WAI
Rachael: We have a survey on the
error prevention changes - we are trying to move to CFC for the
September publication
... We agreed to publish what we have in the September WCAG 3
publication
... Then we will look at conformance until we get to a model we
are all comfortable with
... We have 7 willing to publish, 1 who disagrees
... Some saw the pull request but that was added later
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/548/files
JakeAbma: I joined the error
prevention subgroup 8 weeks ago
... I have to catch up on the work they have done - which has
been very thorough
<alastairc> Is there an updated link for the rawgit preview? Getting a 404 at the moment.
JakeAbma: I am not sure if I saw
the latest publication
... When I follow the links I don't think there are a lot of
changes made
... The name for the guideline and what is underneath - 1
outcome for that guideline with 3 methods
... This doesn't reflect the work they have done from the last
year
... It is not complete
... There is a subdivision underneath
... They need to be separated into clear outcomes, proper
instructions, format instructions, conditional
instructions
... identifiable attributes
... We did not discuss in the last weeks, but instructions
presented as needed
... In general - input instructions provided is not an
outcome
... Outcomes should have an end relationship
... You need to say something is required, you need to have
input purpose attributes available
... Then there are the methods
... For a year we have discussed that methods need to have an
or relationship
... It doesn't matter which method you do
... There are methods, but they are for different
outcomes
... This is not what we want when we talk about error
prevention, and doesn't talk about all the work the group has
been doing
<alastairc> Ah, it was merged and the branch deleted, so I think main is it: https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/main/guidelines/index.html#error-prevention
JakeAbma: It raises more questions than answers because it is just not mature enough to be out there. This is only part of the story
Rachael: Alastairc has pasted in a link, that was merged, in case you want to see the preview
JakeAbma: it is the same
Jeanne: I think that Jake has
raised a lot of good structural questions that we need data to
actually evaluate
... how we are going to proceed
... This is another prototype of the guideline
... We started with 5, this is the first one we have done since
then, incorporating a lot of what we have learned since the
original one
... This is not final - this is early protocols to give us data
about the structure
... We need it to keep refining, testing, the structure we are
building
... We want to make it clear to people that this is not mature
work
... I think this is very needed
Rachael: The group has done a
great of work, we are in agreement with that
... The majority of individuals are comfortable going forward
with this according to the survey
... We know it is not perfect, but it is to get comments on the
content as it is, and the structure
... Jake, do you want to articulate your other concern for the
group?
JakeAbma: I hear what you and
Jeanne are saying, and in general I agree with that
... But for this one, they did this very deliberately
... And adopt without doing the whole thing, only
instructions
... For me, it is a step back even from other guidelines
... If we say we have a structure, and methods for an outcome,
you cannot see that in this one
... It is not the work that has been done - that is 20 steps
forward
... What is in there is steps back
... The methods and the outcome are not a continuation of what
we have been doing - my interpretation
... It would have been different if the 6 outcomes I proposed,
which is part of their work
... It is confusing to have methods for an outcome without an
or relationship
... Instead of showing our improvements
Rachael: Sarah noted that we
resolved with the group on August 17 to go to CFC - so we may
have already agreed to that
... Michael if you could check that, I would appreciate
that
Janina: I don't have much to add
to what Jeanne said
... I would suggest that it is important for us to get
feedback, even when we know things aren't finished
... I thought we were looking at this a few weeks ago
Rachael: Michael Gower - you had some suggestions?
<michael> Sorry.
Rachael: (reads Michael's comments)
"INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING TASKS I'm concerned with the method 'Instructions for completing tasks' including the following example: "Providing simple instructions within labels". Typically labels that include instructions are wordy and often counterproductive. "
"The example you give "(required)" is not so much an instruction as an indicator. If this is specifically meant to address required inputs, why not make it something like "Identifying inputs that must be completed""
"I'm not sure the User need section is really addressing in the way intended? I thought they were supposed to align with Functional needs? I don't think your test procedure really captures checking for Required fields."
"REQUIRED INPUTS INDICATED Okay, so given there is a separate method for required inputs, why is that appearing in the prior input? Removing references to required inputs from instructions resolves most of my prior concerns."
" think there are 2 scenarios that are legitimate ways to meet this which don't align with some of your guidance. They are: 1) Scenario: all fields are required. Solution: "All questions must be answered" is stated once at the start of the form."
"Fields are still programmatically marked as required, but no additional visual indicator is provided. 2) Almost all fields are required.Solution: "Responses are required, except where noted." appears at top of form. Fields that are not required are marked "(optional)""
"INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE... "Instructions provided using the placeholder attribute are not persistent and therefore do not meet this requirement." I was a little surprised by this, which appears in the Detailed description section, because I didn't think a Method was considered a "requirement"."
"It also seemed a little technology specific. Finally, I think it needs the word "only" as in "Instructions provided using only the placeholder...""
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2021/08/17-ag-minutes.html#t01
Rachael: If we did vote on this previously, we can capture these changes and move forward
<michael> Fine
Alastairc: I think we can consider it ok for CFC. We have people that have commented, and it is worth tackling survey comments if we can
Rachael: Jeanne - can these be
integrated in?
... We may have lost Jeanne
... Is anyone else here active on the error prevention
guideline group?
JakeAbma: A lot of other people left the group
Rachael: Jake, you are in the
group, and you are concerned about moving this forward
... With Mike's changes integrated, are there small changes
that would make you comfortable to move this forward?
JakeAbma: I think we should not
do it, but this is my opinion
... It doesn't reflect the work done
<JF_> +1 to Jake
Rachael: If we put in an editor's note indicating this work is only partial, would that address your concerns?
JakeAbma: That's a hard
question
... Let's not have that discussion here. We had some
discussions in the Error Prevention group - they did what they
knew was best
... But some concepts were not clear to them that were in other
guidelines
... That was some of my concern
... If that does not align, then it just raises questions
... We should try to prevent raising questions
... At least not concensus on definitions - that might be
interesting for the next release
... Adding a bunch of notes - but we still say this is a new
one. This must be an improvement after months of work, and that
is not what I see
AWK: 1. A suggestion for the
chair: can you live with it - this can be useful
... 2. I agree with a lot of what Jake has shared. The
discussion on the 17th reflected the concerns Jake and some
others had
... About pushing out material, requirements
<JF_> +1 to AWK
AWK: Worrying about potentially
it being throw away work
... I think what we decided was fine, let's put this in now,
but they we really need to figure the conformance model out
<Detlev> +1 to AWK
<Zakim> JF_, you wanted to also to note that the testing and scoring piece is... confusing
AWK: I am not rejecting it with this recollectionin mind
JF: I am a big +1 to Andrew's
comment about scoring
... When I look at the testing tab, it says scoring will be
figured out
<alastairc> Agree with AWK, and also think it will help us to have it there when working on conformance
JF: Then under rating for
instructions provided, there is a scoring method that is
unclear
... We are putting forward information without a back end to
it
... We don't know what we are scoring or how to get that score
in the 1st place
... My concern is why are we continuing to add to this spec
when there is a huge question we have not resolved yet?
*Scribe change?
GreggVan: My concern, and it has been for a while, what you are really doing is we don't want to face the implications
<JF_> +1 Gregg
GreggVan: We don't want to talk
about if it is testable
... If we don't have restrictions on what we can do
... But in the end we will be in a horrible position that we
have been in before
... We create a whole bunch of advice, but there is no way to
fit it into a conformance model that can live in the outside
world
... WCAG has existed in the regulatory world, and it has had a
huge impact
... Anything that doesn't fit into that conformance model - the
really good ideas...
... We need to stop putting more and more things in because we
don't want to just have to take it out again
Rachael: We have been going back
and forth between then
... It has been iterative
<Ryladog> I remember those Face-2-Faces for WCAG 2.0
<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Continue to move Error Preventions forward to CFC with Mike Gower's edits and any edits that come out of the Error Prevention group discussion but recognizing that this is a live with decision and we will be pivot to focus on conformance next
Rachael: We hear loud and
clear
... I will propose a resolution
<KimD> +1
Rachael: Can we all live with moving this forward to CFC, using Mike Gower's edits, and recognize it is a lived with decision
<alastairc> +1
<sajkaj> +1
Rachael: Then at CFC we will call out that there have been changes that are coming
<ShawnT> +1
<AUbbink> +1
GreggVan: are we agreeing it is just in our internal documentation?
Rachael: CFC is to publish
<mbgower> +1 feels like we already voted on this, so don't see how we can't now :)
Rachael: It would not be widely publicized in the draft
GreggVan: it is not part of a call for public comment?
Rachael: No
Janina: It would show as the latest working draft
<JenniferS> +1
*Scribe change please?
<Wilco> 0
<JF_> -1
<Detlev> 0
<JakeAbma> 0 I'll try to stay alive, (but -1 for the guideline)
<AWK> 0
<Ben> 0
<david-macdonald> 0/-1
<laura> 0
<bruce_bailey> 0 can live with but would rather we resolve
<ToddLibby> 0
<Ryladog> -1
<kirkwood> 0
<GreggVan> -1 at this point
Rachael: We do not have enough to move this forward
<mbgower> scribe: mbgower
<Jennie> *Thank you mbgower!
Rachael: Are there small changes
we can do to make this workable?
... Or is the objection larger?
<JF_> the latter Rachael
<GreggVan> not publish if not ready.
Ryladog: I understand that the w3c wants something publishable, but this is a very different kind of thing. People either respect what we put out or they don't
Jake: How much time do we have?
Rachael: We might be able to bring it back next week. We are trying to wrap up these conversations.
Jake: That's a shame. i have a middling solution. I've proposed 6 outcomes. maybe we don't have enough methods... I don't think we need them. Sarah is not there the next 2 weeks. Maybe it is too late to iterate to get it out there.
<alastairc> Suggest: Just keep it in the editors draft, and we will need to update it before going out to the public working draft, at the same time / after the conformance milestone
GreggVan: I'm worried that if
we... This can wait until after we get through a conformance
model. I'm worried about lists rather than concepts.
... If we lose our reputation it takes forever to get it
back.
JF: This is a heartbeat publication. There are enough folks on this call who have these concerns, that I don't know why we want to formalize.
<Ryladog> +1 to JF, GV, JA
Rachael: We'll circle back to discuss next steps.
Rachael: we're moving to WCAG 2.2
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xYriil533EW5DfOTDedG1g25JiVNqt0FJcQECys5n0o/edit
Alastair: This first one isn't on
Focus Appearance, but it is overlapping.
... It is about how Focus Indicators overlap with Non-text
Contrast.
... We had a discussion last week. The question is whether
these updates help clarify.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer Gundula's comments
Alastair: I think there is some
confusion here. She talks about Figure 3, but that isn't a
focus indicator. I don't think that's relevant (the first 2
paragraphs)
... The rest seems to be about Focus Appearance.
Rachael: Does anyone want to speak to this?
Francis: If Figure 3 isn't a focus indicator, then it is a little confusing to say "the external indicator"
Alastair: it was a whole other example.
Rachael: Have you had a chance to look at Michael's comments?
<alastairc> If the focus indicator changes the border of the component within the visible boundary it must contrast with the component. Typically an outline goes around (outside) the visible boundary of the component, in this case changing the border is just inside the visible edge of the component.
Alastair: Yes, I think so. I added a slightly better explanation.
David: I'm a little confused by
the example just below figure 4. [reads same section]
... I believe that when the focus indicator is on a component
that it becomes part of the component, therefore the contrast
must be with the component itself.
Alastair: That's how we had
thought about it going back...3 years? The difficulty comes
with comparing completely internal focus indicators. That's not
an example we had nor one we had considered. Compare to the
toggle button. It seems difficult to say that the toggle
button, as a state indicator, has to have internal contrast but
the focus state doesn't.
... As you can see from the 8 examples we are proposing, there
are variations. The key text we discussed last week is in
yellow
... We're not changing the previous examples, but we are
fleshing out.
David: What I've been doing with
my clients has been to say 'it doesn't cover all needs'. 'We're
trying to plug that hole in 2.2'
... Do I now say 'we consider it part of the focus indicator,
but when it is inside the component, we do something else'?
Alastair: Have they been using internal focus indicators?
David: They've been asking about scenarios.
Alastair: The broad brush you're saying is correct.
David: So you're saying we hadn't thought of the internals, but we are now.
Alastairs: Examples 4, 5, 6 and 7 are variations on examples we hadn't done previously.
David: It feels like we're changing the rationale. it feels like we can't explain it that way anymore. Change in a future version.
Alastair: It is open to make this an update to WCAG 2.2.
david: Yeah, we could do it in a 2.2. It's just going back and reinterpreting is problematic.
Alastair: I'll just give you the background: people outside the group have been interpreting it this way. The Understanding document doesn't give you anything to go on.
GreggVan: You can't use the
Understanding document to introduce anythign that is not in the
original standard.
... If you intended to do something in the standard, what you
said applies. Not what you intended.
... It sorta sounds like the standard wasn't thought out fully,
so now we have a provision.
... The only way is to revise it.
... You have to treat it as a component. I even put in a
comment at the time.
... These examples are very clear. There are things that pass
that shouldn't pass. That means we have a bad provision.
... The way we fix it is to go back and examine the original
provision carefully.
Alastair: We are not trying to
reinterpret the standard. There are lots of broad criteria in
2.0. David was talking about how the group interpretted
it.
... I had a look for your comment on the success criteria. I
couldn't find any relevant to this discussion.
... At the moment, this is very much a case of 'does the group
agree with this update?' We've made the decision several times
to proceed with this strategy.
Feel free to add.
David: I think there's something
Gregg said that is important: our intentions, if it's not in
the text, we don't consider it. it's what we say.
... Alastair is saying it's not very well articulated, so we
are trying to make it clearer. And we have leverage because we
haven't addressed this specific example.
Alastair: Yeah, think of all the discussion around Headings from 1.3.1. We have to talk in the Understanding document about how the normative text should be interpretted.
<alastairc> My point was that people outside the group often think they are required...
GreggVan: A couple of comments.
Headings are not required, and we talk about something being a
good idea to do. It's not required.
... An understanding document can be used to discuss.
<alastairc> user-interface components are defined
GreggVan: If one were to say
'adjacent components need to contrast'. Then we should define
what adjacent is.
... if the highlight is a component of the interface, then we
would just clarify that people didn't even notice that there
was a highlight, then it would clearly fail because of the
component contrast.
... I think there is a path out of this that doesn't require
rewriting a success criteria.
<Rachael> user interface component: a part of the content that is perceived by users as a single control for a distinct function
Alastair: We are not at a stage
where we can go back and redefine things. We can't go back and
redefine in retrospect that states are different than
that.
... We are doing what Gregg is suggesting with focus
appearance. That is already in process. But how people
interpret Non-text contrast is important, because we don't want
to overlap any more than we need to.
<Detlev> @GreggVan: I think it would be strange to think of a focus indicator as a component, doesn't work throughout. Think of color inversion for focus, very visible, but not a component...
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say UICs are defined
Gregg: I think that's exactly
correct. The way to go forward is, as you suggest, to handle it
in the focus appearances SC. We need to make sure the new one
does address the new accessibility concerns?
... We should not say 'how have people been interpretting
it?'
<ChrisLoiselle> I didn't want to interrupt the conversation here, If it is helpful, here is the process https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#update-reqs there is also https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#revised-rec-substantive, not sure if worthwhile in this context, but wanted to share . Open to whatever way makes it more accessible for users.
<Detlev> scribe: Detlev
<alastairc> We need to separate our thinking on the old and new SCs.
DmD: Leave conversation off the table, should focus be part of the component - may interest only a few
Alastair: we haven't tried to
explain it publicly
... we need to work out how we can add to WCAG 2.2. - haven't
hear much opposition
Rachael lets not whether these can be accepted allowing clarification and updates later
GreggVan: Looking at the ones that pass or fail - fig e doesn't ay it?
Alastair: passes
Gregg: would disagree with that one, passes based on size
GreggVan: :but that is an issue
Alastair: We agree there are gaps, there is no size reuirements
GreggVan: Should cal outfit 3 is a technical pass, but not good, that's why we are working on a new SC to cover that - that
<mbgower> scribe: mbgower
<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: to accept the proposed updates with suggested edits and address substantive issues in new SC
<Ben> +1
<Detlev> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<ToddLibby> +1
+1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<JenniferS> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<david-macdonald> +1 (holding nose)
<AUbbink> +1
<Rachael> +1
<laura> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<Breixo> +1
RESOLUTION: to accept the proposed updates with suggested edits and address substantive issues in new SC
<JF_> +.75 (I'm with DMD)
Rachael: I'm going to skip to things we had agreement on.
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1859
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1859#issuecomment-859155244
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2000
Alastair: Is Ben on call.
Ben: I read the response and it's fine.
<Ben> There is another question that I've agreed with too, nothing further to add on that one either
Alastair: Switching from Focus
Appearance from Non-text Contrast. I've tried to avoid the word
"background". it's very easy to confuse people, including
yourself.
... That's one of the things that caused confusion.
<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response
<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response and PR
<Ben> +1
+1
<ShawnT> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<laura> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Breixo> +1
<AUbbink> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<ToddLibby> +1
<Raf> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response and PR
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1861#issuecomment-898635943
Rachael: This is also an issue
Ben raised. He has accepted the proposed response.
... This was universally agreed on in the survey. Any
questions?
Alastair: It meant "metric" in terms of numeric ways to say whether it passes or fails.
GreggVan: If it says whether it passes or fails, how it that different?
<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response to #1861
<Detlev> +1
+1
<ToddLibby> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<AUbbink> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<Breixo> 0
<GreggVan> 0
<kirkwood> +1
<laura> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response to #1861
<Ben> +1
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2000/files
Rachael: While we don't have time to get through it, I'm hopping back to topic 2.
<GreggVan> I am voting 0 on things I don't understand or have not been around enough to understand and don't want to hold up meeting for long catchup descriptions
Rachael: 2 agreed and 2 agreed with updates
Alastair: I accepted all but one
of Mike's
... In regard to Gundula's comment, it could be a result of the
screen shot resolutions and browsers. So that makes sense to
say what exactly is being shown.
<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR2000
+1
<alastairc> +1
<julierawe> 0
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Breixo> 0
<laura> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<Detlev> +1
<ToddLibby> +1
<AUbbink> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR2000
<GreggVan> 0
<ShawnT> Thanks
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/Alastiar/Alastair/ Default Present: ShawnT, jeanne, MichaelC, Ben, Jennie, JakeAbma, JF, kirkwood, Francis_Storr, sajkaj, alastairc, ChrisLoiselle, AUbbink, Rachael, garrison, bruce_bailey, Laura_Carlson, Raf, mgarrish, MelanieP, Breixo, Detlev, GreggVan, julierawe, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JenniferS, david-macdonald, ToddLibby, mbgower, Wilco, Lauriat, SuzanneT, StefanS Present: ShawnT, jeanne, MichaelC, Ben, Jennie, JakeAbma, JF, kirkwood, Francis_Storr, sajkaj, alastairc, ChrisLoiselle, AUbbink, Rachael, garrison, bruce_bailey, Laura_Carlson, Raf, mgarrish, MelanieP, Breixo, Detlev, GreggVan, julierawe, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JenniferS, david-macdonald, ToddLibby, mbgower, Wilco, Lauriat, SuzanneT, StefanS Found Scribe: Jennie Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower Found Scribe: Detlev Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower Scribes: Jennie, mbgower, Detlev ScribeNicks: Jennie, mbgower, Detlev 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]