– DRAFT –
AGWG-2022-04-12

<Jennie_Delisi> Scribing command cheat sheet if helpful! https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

Chuck is flying solo today

Silver Research (Jeanne, 45 minutes)

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19UNBssRa0wk2ZXMyxv4PISLpYh50g5DRQwGycEzmy24/

<AWK> +AWK

Jeanne: 2016 - 2017 research of Silver requirements is provided in above slide deck link for historical context

Jeanne: 12 months of research partnered with academia and corporate research

Jeanne: identified high priority questions contacted academic and corporate researchers. Got a lot of feedback

Jeanne: SC's were categorized by ease to learn, use, teach

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19UNBssRa0wk2ZXMyxv4PISLpYh50g5DRQwGycEzmy24/

Jeanne: need for plain language, improve flexibility of guidance, AAA is useful but needs improvement, more advice needed for AT

<Chuck> Laurat beat me

Jeanne: put user needs first, improve usability of WCAG

Jeanne: Non w3c a11y resources are used more frequently than WCAG

Jeanne: Job stories were written (31 roles)

Jeanne: Important part: invited people from each role was very holistic for research

Jeanne: True/False measurement must be changed

<ShawnT> This is awesome! Can we share this presentation with colleagues?

<mbgower> Thanks for the reminder of the background, Jeanne!

Juanita: Lawyers don't have enough tech understanding for wcag

<Wilco> +1

Jeanne: People really love WCAG guidance

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is Silver at a point where there is value in reassessing at a larger scale like this?

<ShawnT> I'd like to see the papers in HTML format (willing to help convert it)!

Mike: updated feedback on change of perspectives from beginning of silver till now might be useful

<mbgower> not suggesting doing another 18 months!

Jeanne: maybe small version of that might be possible

<Jaunita_George> +1 to Shawn and I can help too

<kirkwood> great work

<Zakim> Detlev, you wanted to say that I am not sure how revisting 3 year old Silver ambitions this brings us closer to answering the core questions how we set a manageable framework for WCAG 3

Detlev: Not sure feedback on current perspectives will be helpful

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to try and answer

Chuck: WCAG 2 likely had similar experience, maybe leverage lessons, revisiting all research might be counterproductive

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to respond to mbgower with our stakeholder process

<Chuck> +1 to Lauriat

Shawn: validating approach will be useful

<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Shawn L!

<Detlev> fair enough, Jeanne...

Jeanne: build on progress don't reopen issues

<sarahhorton> +1 Jeanne

<Lauriat> +1

<Chuck> +1

Continue WCAG SC Breakdown Exercise (45 minutes)

<Azlan> I am going to have to leave in a moment due to child care needs

<Chuck> Presentation slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sGLpBwAAsZfhANpWO3jo0zMOdwDtckhjSmsYpisQfFU/edit#slide=id.p

<Chuck> Main Functional / User Needs, and Outcomes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#heading=h.4jiwp8jpc143

<Chuck> TEMPLATE WCAG 2.x guideline breakdown: TEMPLATE WCAG 2.x guideline breakdown - Google Docs

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MGGgqgeL779aJu7iNuXQMHgJygV7l6GouM7--5ABJ5U/edit#heading=h.9oxnj9cw11i8

<Chuck> Condition (subjective) test: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/edit#slide=id.g115ec01aa81_0_39

<Chuck> Example of a completed(ish) one: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Fdy-o7DKfWwzxk1AJbAGGedtE4VeJ_f6tNV_4Og7WU/edit#heading=h.jz8eg0yt4no8

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pbgQOxtpaAqUQs98ZPVF8cCaOFnFNLWwF3LmAr1YfLQ/edit

<Chuck> Room 2 - 2.4.3 Focus Order (Looks pretty done): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gBGEKABwHzHsxjrFVbf0hqRvwXYuAhpKMWYNlVpbwf0/edit#heading=h.vx20z4iqr83a

<Chuck> Room 3 - 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1shRC-AhxeKBpP4NxecV7Gv2BVRCHxYdRxU-eJViZ4VA/edit#heading=h.vx20z4iqr83a

<Chuck> Room 4 - 3.1.1 Language of Page: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rrTfFW2vxSybE2neI9SN1h8WFA4QfoiiLFahEAvTO7A/edit

<Chuck> Room 5 - 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xnz5QmQBdikEpogEo-czNRzLX46Bm3fYog5V9hwnalU/edit

<Chuck> Room 6 - 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zSgYcLuXZ5E-tWSuvWpTBmtaso3eGxSfwIsnOkfkJWY/edit

<kirkwood> Chuck, do you have a list of them. We are finished with ours.

<kirkwood> (from room 6)

<Chuck> Room 1 - 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pbgQOxtpaAqUQs98ZPVF8cCaOFnFNLWwF3LmAr1YfLQ/edit

<jeanne> Non-Text Contrast (new doc)

<Chuck> Jeanne, I have made note of new doc in my personal notes.

Chuck: Share experiences? Problems with docs? Breakouts?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say what we found in group 1

mbgower: Covering sensory, reorienting to notes from last time, more explicit notes would help
… will work outside group time to proceed

<Chuck> If you are able, please leave your breakout room and return to the main channel, or leave call and return to call. Thanks.

mbgower: work on test types

Chuck: Other observations? Jeanne, new doc? Were there challenges?
… going to look at this, set of folders, will be public, decide whether to continue as part of call or take outside of scope of call
… have advanced migration, thank you

Detlev: Focus order, how to do next step, important aspect of focus order is focus management, issue current under focus order for want of better option
… calls for new SC or guideline, instead have put as sub-guideline, but might need to be main with focus order as sub-guideline
… can we spot opportunities and reorder?

<Chuck> +1 Detlev

Chuck: Will be reviewing, agree

Silver Research (Jeanne, 45 minutes)

WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/ (30 minutes)

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results

Question 1 - Out-of-viewport content #2204

Chuck: Reads question and responses

mbgower: Question focus, what if someone scrolls out of view and item doesn't take focus because scrolled out of view
… agreement if something with focus does not appear in viewport should be fail, but use of "mechanism" allow scroll to bring back into view, make explicitly if author work makes something not appear in viewport
… author hasn't obscured, coded so restricts from getting focus
… not entire hidden due to author-created content
… response, can revamp to make more official

Chuck: Opinion could be amended response, not changing files, just changing response?

mbgower: Change "by" to "due to" in files

<Zakim> MelanieP, you wanted to say I didn't respond to the survey but I don't think the scenario is already covered by 2.4.7

MelanieP: Disagree with response in survey, agree with Mike's amended response (I think)
… yes

mbgower: Take longer response, make into pithy response, get Alastair to modify proposed response

Chuck: Can we get resolution here?

<Zakim> GN, you wanted to say that " a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visibl"

GN015: Different understanding, focus indicator always visible no matter what you do, does not say there's a way to make it visible, understand requirement differently, focus indicator isn't covered by scrolling as mode
… don't follow interpretation

mbgower: Added SC to make explicit that users don't have to scroll to get item into focus
… loop back at end of call, will try to revamp

Question 2 - Replace "encompasses" with "encloses"

Chuck: [reads question and responses]

GN015: Regardless might always be dotted or dashed, not bound to which word but something that says solid line

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this does

mbgower: Definition includes that now, solidly bounds or surrounds
… made clear in understanding doc

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Replace "encompasses" with "encloses" for Focus Appearance

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<laura> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Wilco> 0, still disagree with the rewrite

<Wilco> there will be one, not on this

RESOLUTION: Replace "encompasses" with "encloses" for Focus Appearance

Question 3 - Updated understanding document for "encloses"

<JakeAbma> +1

Chuck: [reads question and response]

<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2283/files#diff-5141b6e15e630ef38c219252b621af594f043b323334776f948912eb043a05f1

mbgower: response to Jonathan, covered by understanding doc, needs to contrast against outside and component

mbgower: Walk through adjustments in diff

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2283/files#diff-5141b6e15e630ef38c219252b621af594f043b323334776f948912eb043a05f1

mbgower: [walks through changes shown in diff]
… change to colors to match language in first part, to address concept of ensuring abutting component, problem of only measuring contrast against component, 1 CSS px would fail
… always measuring against adjacent colors, language works
… without color contrast, can use 2px

Detlev: Need to contrast to component and to background?

mbgower: Yes, or be 2 CSS px thick
… stars ranking, second has indicator, abutting star, no offset, must be 3:1 against both exterior, interior, or thicker
… when offset, if same orange as star would not contrast against component, but not abutting so shouldn't fail

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accepted the amended document to include "encloses"

mbgower: minimum bounding box, assumptions not addressed, box not defined term, assumption that box isn't skewed
… redefined

<Zakim> GN, you wanted to ask whether non-text contrast needs a remark for focus indicator; or is a failure on adjacent colors supposed to fail both SC?"

GN015: Adjacent colors already required, should focus appearance also fail

mbgower: Addressed in understanding, non-text contrast, this is about focus indicator specifically, when FI doesn't abut, component exists without focus, still has to contrast

GN015: Understand focus indicator as a component

mbgower: Difference of interpretation intent to close differences

GN015: Fail focus appears, not non-text contrast

mbgower: Depends on component

mbgower: strange thing, user agents adding pixels to prevent anti-aliasing, even in SVG
… could magnify to get pixel to side, added by UA
… added to definition

Wilco: Rotating box, horizontally aligned might be better

mbgower: Wanted to specify not tilted, open to suggestions

Wilco: Aligned to x and y axis (in ACT rules)

mbgower: Will incorporate

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accepted the amended documents to include "encloses"

<MelanieP> +1 to Wilco. I like where Mike is going, but this is too much with no time to consider

Wilco: Substantial change, not enough people to poll

<laura> bye