AGWG Teleconference -- 09 Nov 2021

<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2021-11-09

<laura> Scribe: Laura

<Detlev> I can do it

<alastairc> scribe: laura

AC: Any new members?

(None)

Janina: My contract with amazon is over at the end to this week.
... will put in for invited expert.

Ac: any future topics?

jf: would like to have dedicated time to work on GitHub issues.

<AWK> +AWK

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer state of issues

Ac: It may be in order.

RM: gives statistics on issues.

WCAG 3 Process discussion (60 minutes) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach_nov_9/?login

<JF> CAn you share those stats Rachael?

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach_nov_9/results

Process approval survey

Ac: 4 agree. 6 Agree with changes.
... reads comments.
... extra step if in polishing.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process

awk: link to Wiki page?

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process

<alastairc> Diagram: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZZ8hD56XqGS0u3Rn2o1ows6ZrKRAwnAjllkXknp2bR8/edit#slide=id.gfb6a5a59bb_0_131

Awk: reads maturing , polishing, and stable definitions.
... The Polishing level indicates that the requirement to get to this level is AG agreement but then two bullets down it says that a CFC is required. Which is correct?
... If a CfC is needed for polishing then I'm ok with that level being in the editor's draft and maybe the Working draft (but with both indicating the stability level).
... bullet disagrees with itself.
... would like it to be clear.

Ac: polishing needs to go to CFC.

RM: need to rewrite to make it clear.
... goes to CFC then editors draft.

Awk: need to clarify.

<Rachael> Stable won't have notes for things to change. Polishing will still have details that will likely have associated notes

Awk: how different is it from stable? Hard to understand.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say Requirements to get to this level: AG agreement (meeting/survey) to go to editors draft. CFC to get to Working Draft

RM: Stable won't have notes for things to change. Polishing will still have details that will likely have associated notes

Gregg: could change bullet.
... means some polished may be in both.

RESOLUTION: placeholder content will require WG approval, to be sought asynchronously, and any content that does not get asynch approval will be discussed. Chairs take an action to bring back asynchronous options with feedback from COGA so the working group can select an option for asynchronous decision making

jf: concerned on timeline for survey.
... we had a CFC that placeholder has working group approval.
... once something gets into the draft it is hard to get it out.
... Would like to get confirmation that placeholder needs working group approval.

Ac: we have been refining what is in the wiki page and diagram.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say Requirements to get to this level: AG agreement (meeting/survey) required to go to editors draft. CFC required to get to Working Draft. That

Ac: need to refine polishing and stable.
... happy to do so.
... (reads comments)
... will add warning.
... opportunity to have comments. we do regularly do that.
... need to label.

<Rachael> Note that at the bottom of the document (Decisions to be made), we have captured that an outstanding decision is "Decide on the best way to capture issues, needs, areas of discussion, and pros/cons on alternatives. Needs to be accessible and also link easily to Github issues."

Gregg: pros and cons go to subgroups
... editors can condense them down.

AC: what is not agreed yet needs to be represented.
... When a decision does not get agreement, some mechanism should be established and it recorded on the decision page, so that the same debate does not repeat over and over again without new information. Would be useful.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to discuss my own understanding, where in this process is the current 3.0 content considered to reside? Is the majority still considered Exploratory? Or do

Mg: general feeling where we are in this process?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer

RM: most exploratory.

<mbgower> Okay, thank you. That was my sense as well. i just wanted to make sure I wasn't making assumptions.

RM: outstanding question.

<Chuck> laura: You (AC) got it all

AC: reads Sarah's comments.
... Clarify that we are publishing two documents, a working draft and an editor’s draft that has a “sandbox” filter.
... didn't want to get stuck on the naming.

Janina: Latest sand box link at the top of every doc my be confusing.

<tink> +1 to Janina.

Janina: may have more process questions if 3 docs.

<kirkwood> +1 to Janina comment

Janina: high bar for anything we call a draft.
... not link to the sandbox. And not promote it.

Leonie: +1 to Janina.

<Wilco> +1

Leonie: editors draft should be the sandbox.

<Rachael> +1 to Leonie

<Detlev> +1 for keeping it simple

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to clarify my comment in the survey that wasn't clear - I think that the Sandbox should have placeholder, exploratory, and maturing, and the editor's draft has

Awk: I think that the Sandbox should have placeholder, exploratory, and maturing,.

<JF> +100 to AWK

Awk: we had trouble previously getting things out of the editors draft.
... editors draft can be a work in progress. Debate needs to happen either way.

<Fazio> +1 Leonie

Leonie: maybe make it clear that the editors draft is the sandbox.

Awk: Editors draft should only have polishing and stable.

<JF> +1 to Gregg

gregg: WCAG gets adopted as a regulation. It is unlike other standards.

Janina: I think it is possible to put content into a draft that doesn't get published by using labels.

MC: yes it is true.

<Fazio> +1 Wilco

Wilco: thinking about publishing less mature content.

<Fazio> In my opinion we're way overthinking this

<Rachael> +1 Wilco (chairs hat off)

Wilco: maybe we build something that nobody likes.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I frequently reference working draft during issue discussions and to say I frequently reference editor's draft during issue discussions

<Fazio> Team Wilco

<tink> +1 to Wilco.

Mg: I do reference the editors draft quite often.
... need to point to it for the most recent version.
... it has the most current language.
... 3.0 doesn't work in the same way as 2.X

shadi: In reference to clear communication and 2.1. Did we have these levels?

Ac: no. we didn't have labels for 2.1. But we ran into problems.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say

ac: it is a group thing as well as an external thing.

jeanne: we have a dichotomy of purpose.
... need to check things with external experts. Need a link to give them a link.
... need stake holders to look at content.

<AWK> +1 to Gregg's point, dropping off queue to avoid redundancy.

Gregg: extra sandbox level facilitates more things getting seen earlier.

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

Ac: Sarah second point: Extend the time subgroups can work on placeholder and exploratory content.
... we will come back to that.
... "Add “with the sandbox filter” to Step 2: Exploratory, “If the working group agrees to add the content as exploratory, then the content will be added to the editor’s draft [with the sandbox filter].” "
... sandbox is unfiltered. Editors draft is the filter.

sarah: not a big deal.

<Rachael> Sarah, can you read the description in the Documents list add proposed text here that would better clarify what we mean?

sarah: "Add details about how working group agreement will be managed for content that does not require CfC, where “consensus in a meeting is the level required.” Will it require no objections? If content with objections can be published in the editor’s draft, how will those objections be recorded and tracked?"
... would have summary of issues. Pros and cons.
... consensus doesn't mean no objections. But they would be noted.
... Should note that in the document.
... may be things that people can't live with. But that go into the draft.

<Rachael> It can be added to the Terminology section

AC: we will link to decision page.

Sarah: we are moving into new territory..

<sajkaj> The exploratory unconsensed content is described for working drafts in Process 2021

JF: What is the content that does not require CFC?
... worried about content that does not require CFC.
... will strongly object.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer John

RM: content goes into any draft without agreement.
... work hard not to have objections.
... then we go to CFC.
... all content has to go to this meeting.
... more formal content needs to get CFC.
... we have tried to address your concerns.

Jf: bringing some clarity. even the Sandbox requires AGWG approval?

RM: yes.

AC: reads Sarah's comment. "subgroups still don’t have that open, collaborative, and creative space."
... ability is still in place.

Sarah: We are creating an editors sand box.
... need to bring in various concepts into a shared branch.

Ac: it is a big funnel.

<Detlev> should I take over scribing now?

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

<Fazio> thats a clear language requirement

<Rachael> In the list of outstanding decision it states "Decide on an asynchronous method of making decisions that is accessible to all participants, including COGA"

Gregg: talk about asynchronous WG but not clear what it means

<Fazio> +1 Greg

Gregg: in the chart are two boxes with different words, should be clarified

AC: as to filtering aspect, we need to refine that
... placeholders & asynchronous, we separate that because it will come to whole group in WG meetings, so not asynchonous

Gregg: suggesting to change wording to use same phrasing

AC: agreed

<Fazio> +1Gregg = clear language

AC: reading Jennifers comment
... in survey
... suggest another pass for the wording of the labels
... was it mainyl on wording?

<AWK> I need to drop for a quarterly review. I agree with the concept of a sandbox version, can live with "maturing" content in the editor's draft (but think it is not advisable), and agree that there should be a period of time where content is stale (6 months sounds good) and should be downgraded out of the sandbox.

Jennie: cognitive requirements for readers
... reduce reliance on memory
... if stage is not marked as CfC this requires consensus in meeting - should be clearer

AC: We can revise the process doc
... get WG agreement on following this process
... will we have sandbox version or not?
... preparing poll

<alastairc> Poll: I agree with including the sandbox version of the WCAG 3.0, as described in the process doc.

<david-macdonald> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<sajkaj> -1 because the definition of "sandbox" remains unclear to me

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

-1 as its already complex

<tink> -1 to the sandbox

<Wilco> -1

<jeanne> -1 as too heavyweight a process

<JF> -1

<Rachael> -1 I would prefer just an editors draft with marked content but I can live with it

<Fazio> -1

<laura> +1

<Fazio> agree with Janina

AC: Alternative is that the editor's draft can contain less mature content

<Jennie> +1

<sarahhorton> Would the editors draft include content of all levels

<Fazio> Keep things the way they've been

AC: is that the preference of those aswering with -1?

<bruce_bailey> okay, i am -1 now, because we need something with more enthusiatic support

<sarahhorton> Define les mature please

<JF> as long as it gets into the Editor's Draft via consensus

<alastairc> Pll: I agree with having less mature content in the editor's draft

<sajkaj> +1 that's what it's for!

+1 yes explain at the top it can all change

<Rachael> +1 with labeling and warning (less complex, easier to manage, and echos W3 process)

<Wilco> +1

<tink> +1 to using the Editors Draft for its intended purpose - as a place to put immature content that is not yet ready for publication on /TR.

<sarahhorton> So it would include exploratory and placeholder content?

<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1 but need to add labeling plus information throughout

<bruce_bailey> i agree with having less mature content in the editors draft

<jeanne> +1

<mbgower> +1 with context offered

AC: mirroring results of previous poll

<sarahhorton> +1 if it includes exploratory and placeholder content

<laura> If it has consensus

<GreggVan> +1

<JF> +1 to Laura

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to clarify consensus

AC: That would mean we have labelled conent (marked as exploratory)

<laura> Formal consensus

Rachael: Two ways of consensus which one is it?

Gregg: Are we voting on the process we just surveyed?

AC: 2 Polls: 1. Include sandbox? 2: Agree to add less mature content if properly labelled?

Gregg: If we go back to a situation that everything can go into editor's draft?

<GreggVan> -1

AC: Yes, but labelled as such

JS: quoting a previous ressolution - just emphasizing that new content goes through a fromal approval process, mie than just straw poll

<laura> -1

AC: Worry is that we agreed to lowering the bar, but got stuck at the percieved higher bar of editor's draft

Gregg: in WCAG 2 we debated 2 or 3 levels, then we realised that there was no consensus and we returned to three levels.

<JF> Bingo!

Gregg: people may think its good to put all sorts of stuff straight up to editor's level - so dropping a sandbox level will cause problems down the line

AC: open to suggestions for polls to work out the conflict

<alastairc> Draft RESOLUTION: The working group agrees to use the editor's draft for placeholders and exploratory content

<GreggVan> -1

<laura> -1

AC: any disagreement?

<Wilco> +1

<Rachael> +1 but I really just want to find a solution so can live with the alternative

<mbgower> +1

<kirkwood> -1

<jeanne> +1

can live with bith what to get veyond impasse

<bruce_bailey> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<JF> ...as long as content added has consensus

<Jennie> +1 but change needs to be identified regularly throughout the doc to help note the change (no memory requirement)

<ShawnT> +1

AC: those prefering 2 levels, can you live with the sandbox approach?

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mbgower> +1 sandbox approach is fine too

<laura> If it has as long as full consensus

<Wilco> No, strong dislike for the sandbox, for reasons mentioned before

<tink> Yes, could live with the sandbox, though reluctantly.

Jennie: concern that there is a change in definition of the term 'editor's draft'

<bruce_bailey> folks, please try not to ask people to live with proposed phrasing

AC: one way forward is to accept that ed. draft has less mature, but labelled content - then we could test this appproach and look at it again

<jeanne> -1 that the the combination of sandbox and AGWG approval will block transparency of what we are working on and prevent getting outside feedback. This is a loop that keeps us from being able to make any progress

AC: Can you accept this approach, Greg and Laura?

sorry, Greg

Gregg!

<GreggVan> if you are asking -- can we give the two level a chance and see if it wil work -- yes

<kirkwood> +1 to less mature but labled content

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Try out adding content to editor's draft with full marking and warnings and then revisit this in a few months to see how its working

AC: We can add to the satus and mark each section - everything will be labelled

Rachael: We can try it out, the review in 2 months' time

<JF> "Try out adding content to editor's draft **that has received group consensus**...

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask you do need to specify what agreeemnt is needed to get into editors draft and it should not be the same as for sandbox right?

<laura> +1 to JF **that has received group consensus**..

Gregg: You first said everything can go into ed. draft but we didn't set the level of agreement
... we need something to specify the criteria - what is neede for content to go into ed. draft

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Try out adding all levels of content to editor's draft using working group agreement and working group agreement+CFC to the working draft, with full level markings and warnings and then revisit this in a few months to see how its working.

<Fazio> by default a draft is exploratory

AC: We haven't said what the level is needed to accept something as exploratory

<kirkwood> concerened about author burden to manage this exploratory content… or maybe this is misguided?

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Try out adding all levels of content to editor's draft using working group agreement and to the working draft using working group agreement+CFC , with full level markings and warnings and then revisit this in a few months to see how its working.

AC: JF - group consensus is in the process doc

Janina: ed. draft will also the stable content - it is a gradation to show how mature content is
... the one thing missing is a way to hide content in the draft
... so you can more easily compare stuff

<Jennie> +1 to Janina's suggestion. That makes it much easier to process and consider.

AC: We start labelling ad see that we can come up with optimisations

<michael> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Rachael> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<laura> Editors draft should be working draft using working group agreement+CFC

<tink> +1

<JF> +.9

<Ryladog> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<GreggVan> what does working grouip agreement mean?

<ShawnT> +1

<GreggVan> if no cfc?

<Jennie> +1

<GreggVan> does it mean agreement of whomever shows up for a meeting?

AC: WG agreement means survey and polls in the meeting

<Fazio> Are we counting Community members?

<GreggVan> if so that should be in the resolution

<GreggVan> ah survey and meeting

<sarahhorton> It's the same process as is defined in the process proposal

<Fazio> we no longer have member only meetings

<sarahhorton> Just without the sandbox filter

JF: same q as Gregg - does agreement includes the survey?

AC: yes that is in the process doc that we have been discussing

DavidF: WG attendance has grown, includes community members - this has complicated things, not all info available to them - do we include community members in consensus?

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Try out adding all levels of content to editor's draft using working group agreement (asynchronous for placeholder if possible, survey+meeting for placeholder when needed and for all other levels) and to the working draft using working group agreement+CFC , with full level markings and warnings and then revisit this in a few months to see how its working. We will explore filtering within the editor's draft as part of this

<Rachael> trial.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask should this resolution then also be survey and meeting? since it is so different than what was surveyed?

<sajkaj> I believe IP implications for Copmmunity Group only participants?

AC: Will discuss with Michael - but may not make a lot of difference objections come up elesewhere

Gregg: Since resolution is different from what was surveyed - are we getting a chance to comment or is this just a complete change now?

AC: We have covered the survey responses and have many people on the call, so I see no problem with making this decision

<bruce_bailey> +1 for 12:31 draft resolution

<JF> +1 for 12:31 draft resolution

RESOLUTION: Try out adding all levels of content to editor's draft using working group agreement (asynchronous for placeholder if possible, survey+meeting for placeholder when needed and for all other levels) and to the working draft using working group agreement+CFC , with full level markings and warnings and then revisit this in a few months to see how its working. We will explore filtering within the editor's draft as part of this

AC: Concerns about this resolution at XX:31?
... We haven't covered the aspect of placeholders and timing

Rachael: Will update ad send out via email, so if there are concerns remaining, we can brong it back to meetings

WCAG 2.2 Visible controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/

AC: Concludes Sier WCAG 3 part

Question 1 - Exception may not align with understanding text #1980

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results

AC: We need to start with Question 3

Difficult to understand meaning #1840

<Rachael> PR: ag/pull/2019/files

AC: Explains issue (see issue text)

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2019/files

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2019/files

AC: changes to wording to make it easier to read
... Gundula and Sarah had concerns

Rachael: (reading Gundula's comments)
... same conversation regarding skip links

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer Gundula's comment

Gundula: tab stops on invisible elements is a concern

AC: Would need to be addressed in a different SC - the concern here is hover
... you don't includes focus then everything passes - so including kb focus closes the loophole

Gundula: Should skip links be included ?

Rachael but then they should become visible

<bruce_bailey> very common on .gov sites

AC: invisible skip links fairly common

<bruce_bailey> One example: https://www.section508.gov/

Rachael: Best practice example showing skip links becoming visible - shouldbe separated out from this issue
... agree, Gundula?

<JF> not so much "invisible" but rather controls that are exposed ONLY when focused

Gundula: agreed

Rachael: will create separate issue

<ShawnT> Lainey Feingold's website is the only one I've seen who didn't hide the skip nav

<ShawnT> https://www.lflegal.com

Wilco: not a fan ofnew language on visile indicators, feels too vague

<alastairc> FROM: information needed to identify that user interface components are available is visible...

<alastairc> TO: provide a visible indicator that the components are available

Wilco: retro fit wording from previous version "visible indicator" not specific enough

Rachael: Can you provide wording?

Wilco: yes

<Rachael> The exception for components that provide ‘keyboard-only functionality’ is to allow features that provide a keyboard-only alternative for non-keyboard functionality, such as skip links that allow users to move keyboard focus to different page areas, to be invisible until focused.

Rachael: Reading Sarah's comment

Sarah: Git tangled up in similar way as Gundula - maybe its the wrong SC here

<Wilco> Suggestion: "provide a visible indicator that identifies the available components"

skip link should not be an exception since it does not resonate in understanding document

Rachael: Reading Rains comment
... Reading mgower's comment

<Wilco> Suggestion 2: "provide visible indicators that identifies the available components"

Rachael: AC, can we rework this outside the meeting?

AC: Did not reakize that it widened scope of exception - we can work on it

Rachael: reading David's comments
... you want to speak to it?

<JF> +1 to re-survey later

<Wilco> Suggestion 3: "provide visible indicators that identify the available components"

Rachael: We take all that into account and rework - any objections?

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Rework to address concerns raised outside of meeting and resurvey

mgower: Concern with preamble is hover only ?? (muffled sound)

AC: will gather suggestions, update PR, bring it back

<bruce_bailey> i heard MG say that it might be possible to only worry about content that ONLY appears on hover

RESOLUTION: Rework to address concerns raised outside of meeting and resurvey

Confirmation on navigation menus #1845

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1845#issuecomment-907014282

Reading issue text

Rachael: Reading proposed response

<kirkwood> sorry skip to main content also here: https://www.schools.nyc.gov/

<kirkwood> sorry on slow response

12 ppl agreed 2 with adjustment Jon, speak to your adjustments?

<Rachael> suggested addition to response "And to answer your other questions -- yes - opening up a page that has the submenu items on it for navigation would pass for the reason you cite. "

Rachael: Any other topics?

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept ammended response (gregg's suggestion added)

<Rachael> +1

<laura> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<alastairc> +1

<JF> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept ammended response (Gregg's suggestion added)

<kirkwood> +1

WCAG 2.2 Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results

Target Size addition of user agent and equivalent exceptions #1993

Rachael: UA exceptions

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1993/files

Rachael: defines essential

8 agree some want something else? Wilco thinks 'not modified' too vague

Rachael: reading further comment for Wilco
... Reads Greggs alternat control exception, may be far awy, down on the page speak to that, Gregg?

Gregg: Small control OK when there is alternate control - but how can I know that there is anoher control, or where it is? Seems problematic - may need a link to alternate control

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to alternatives

AC: We struggled with shaping this exception because some controls with small targets and browser-based controls not meeting target size
... With page based conformance alternatives are generally considered a pass

<laura> Bye

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

09 Nov 2021

Attendees

Contents

WCAG 3 Process discussion (60 minutes) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach_nov_9/?login

Process approval survey

WCAG 2.2 Visible controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/

Question 1 - Exception may not align with understanding text #1980

Difficult to understand meaning #1840

Confirmation on navigation menus #1845

WCAG 2.2 Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/

Target Size addition of user agent and equivalent exceptions #1993

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output