<laura> Scribe: Laura

New members and topics

AC: Any new members?

(None)

AC: Any new topics?

(None)

Announcements and Reminders

Ac: None

Rechartering Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results

AC: Proposed approach based on last discussion.

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html

AC: focused on 1.2 Focus for the 2022-2024 Charter, 2.1 WCAG 3, and 3.1 Normative Specifications.
... will run through survey comments.

<Rachael> A pull request with the suggested wording changes is at: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/19-april-charter-discussion/charter.html

AC: Several agreements.

<AWK> +AWK

Ac: Gundula would like to add to close gaps in the exiting guidelines to the list of known challenges.

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/19-april-charter-discussion/charter.html

rm: made an adjustment to address Gundula's comment.
... https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/19-april-charter-discussion/charter.html

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2313 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/VWIukJUs/image.png

Rm: change added a bullet.
... under scope.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2313/files

Rm: additional guidance as a challenge.

<AWK> Can you clarify where the bullet was added? Under what numbered section please? sorry...

Gn: meant it as a challenge. Want to close gaps.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2313/files line 172

Gn: I would like to keep the option to work on these or incorporate gap closures with other efforts.
... like non-text contrast.

<AWK> Thanks. That's under 1.2 Focus for the 2022-2024 Charter

Gn: that addresses my comment.

ac: bruce wondering about employee assignments.

Rm: started on Shadi's comments.
... others we need to talk about.

<Rachael> to address #1 in Shadi's comment a change is on line 192 at https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2313/files

Shadi: conformance is a known issue we 3.0 needs to address.
... 3rd party is one of these.

Ac: what would we add?

shadi: sentence is confusing. 3rd party needs to be addressed.

<alastairc> Noting a topic of 3rd party as part of conformance.

shadi: 3rd party should be part of conformance.

Ac: reads shadi's comment.

<alastairc> Noting topic of listing types of content / scenarios (e.g. maps, art materials)

Ac: think 3.0 needs to apply to more content types.

Shadi: needs definitions for 3rd party.

<alastairc> Noting topic of definitions for 3rd party / emerging tech.

<kirkwood> +1 to Shadi regarding defining 3rd party

Shadi: need to be more specific about emerging tech and media.

<kirkwood> +1 to Shadi

<Jaunita_George> +1 to Shadi

AC: reads awk's comments.

Awk: rm for the last one, the bullet point helps.
... wide review draft is not well defined.

Rm: we have had a wide review draft.
... this would be the next steps.
... ideally before the next charter is done.

Awk: This is just a working draft?

rm: yes.

Awk: Is it also saying that any stand-alone resource that is regarded as a part of WCAG 3 must be published as a draft within this charter period or it won't be part of WCAG 3? I'm not sure how we know...

Rm: would need to be in draft form.

awk: if we had a doc for a topic, then in 2 years we need a draft or it will not e part or 3.0

Rm: we need to publish something on it or we won't pursue it.

<Wilco> +1, good suggestion

awk: maybe scope down to have stand alone doc as notes.

<Rachael> If any part of of the initial WCAG 3 will be published as a stand-alone resource, a draft will be made available within this charter period.

Rm: If any part of of the initial WCAG 3 will be published as a stand-alone resource, a draft will be made available within this charter period.

<Rachael> If any part of the initial WCAG 3 recommendation will be published as a stand-alone resource, a draft will be made available within this charter period.

<kirkwood> +1

<Chuck> +1

awk: what does it mean If a transitional document between WCAG 2.2 and WCAG 3 is to be created, a first draft of it will be published by the end of the charter."

Rm: topic for more conversation. Maybe we can drop that sentence.

<alastairc> Noting topic of transitional document 2.x > 3

<alastairc> Noting topic of 2.3

<KimD> +1 to AWK - clarity about 2.3

<Wilco> we had that in the out of scope, but took it out because of confusion about the transitional doc and what it's number would be

Ac: Michael agreed with some adjustments.

mg: I can live with what we decide.

AC: reads rm's comments.
... reads lc's comments.

<mbgower> +1 about 3rd party content potentially bogging us down

Rm: addressed comments in update.

wilco: could take 6 years for guidelines.

<Rachael> I am not seeing "reasonable amount of time: in this version: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/19-april-charter-discussion/charter.html

<bruce_bailey_> +1 to Wilco's concern, his six year best guess estimate is not unreasonable

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say "migration" isn't in the charter, but I'm assuming this charter doesn't exclude doing a migration?

Mg: concerned about defining 3rd party will bog us down.
... migration is not in the charter.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer that

Mg: wondering I d not mentioning it does not rule it out.

Noting a topic of 3rd party as part of conformance.

Rm: indent was to create enough migration that it would demonstrate decisions that we make,.

AC: shadi wants to cover 3rd party.

Shadi: number of ways 3rd party can be tackled.
... needs to be part of the draft.

Ac: we are adressing 3rd party in the charter.

Mg: looking at migration bullets.
... don't see a problem.

<mbgower> "WG will propose an approach for public review that addresses each of the WCAG 3 requirements and known challenges. "

Shadi: its not listed specifically that we will address 3rd party.

wilco: if we can'd address something in 2 years, we may not do it at all.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest solution

<Rachael> Suggest to change paragraph "If topics such as third-party content, scoring..." to "Approaches for complex topics that will be included in the initial version of WCAG 3 will be made available for public review before the end of this charter."

wilco: "will try" is the best we can do now.

Rm: could say "complex topics" instead.

<Rachael> I am talking about section "WCAG 3 Conformance Model"

shadi: could add in 192 conformance model 3rd party.
... will keep lingering if we don't address it.
... concerned by making things vague.

Ac: charter is not supposed to be overly long.

wilco: we do not have consensus on 3rd party.

Shadi: charter should not be long.
... difficult things should be put in the charter.
... 3rd part needs to be broken down.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that we can't take the decision before we've done the discussions.

Ac: chair hat off. Looks like you want us to make a decision before we have done the work.

Shadi: asking to have the discussions and do the work.
... need to decide and take position.
... Need to decide on the scope.

Rm: we have had discussions on 3rd party and have no consensus.
... want to move past this.
... is this the direction we want to go.?

<Jaunita_George> +1

Chuck: chair har off. this is the compromise portion that I'm willing to accept.

<kirkwood> ‘third party content’ is not effectively defined at this point

<Chuck> +1 to moving on to other themes

ac: subgroups have worked on defining.
... struggling with including more on 3rd party.

Shadi: will think about it more. Can move on.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss scribe change

<mbgower> +1 not the place

<kirkwood> Alastair: inlined to not spend time on it today

<kirkwood> .. third party and emerging technology defintions per Shadi

<kirkwood> … places where working on those defintions we can pull in for 3rd party

<kirkwood> Rachael: looking for defintion but unsure where

<kirkwood> Alastair: maybe if cnot covered in guidelines previously for emerging tech

<kirkwood> … i guess we can regarding 2.3 various low vision congtive, mobile but didn’t have people forming group taking external sources and put in formal 2.x guidlines without support haven’t started

<kirkwood> Alaister: personally would rather put all foucus on 3

<alastairc> acl Wilco

<kirkwood> Wilcon: maybe 2.3 being out of scope doesn’t mean anything

<kirkwood> Alastair: if looking for differntiated between 2.x is that what we are talking about?

<kirkwood> Wilco: by end of charter do it or rule it out in whatever form

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say ouch for 2.3 out-of-scope -- but maybe that is needed

<kirkwood> Alaistair: anthing backwards compatibvle but not ruling out in between not backward compatible but based on 2.x line

<kirkwood> Bruce: think what i was asking. think world needs 2.9 but not sure if this group should be asked to do it. but maybe should put there that 2.3 is out of scope

<kirkwood> Alaistar: anyone object to putting it out of scope?

<bruce_bailey> i am okay with 2.3 being out of scope for the charter

<kirkwood> Melanie: like us to clena up quests of 2.0,2.1, 2.2 we need to answer questions on what we already have

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to maintenence

<kirkwood> … not continuing technical debt

<kirkwood> Alaistar: it ways on me too, to do that

<Rachael> proposed language: While we will continue to maintain and clean up WCAG 2, adding new guideance to WCAG 2 is out of scope.

<kirkwood> Alastair: tackling badk log would be good

<Wilco> proposed language: While we will continue to maintain and clean up WCAG 2, adding new guideance to WCAG 2 is out of scope, except as a transitional document to WCAG 3.

<kirkwood> Shadi: I agree with Melanie and other comment. maybe a group on WCAG 3 and other on maintenance seems like a lot of work under one charter

<kirkwood> Alistar: maintaining guidance in terms of out of scope

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Adding further SCs to WCAG 2.x will be out of scope

<Chuck> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Wilco> +1-ish

<bruce_bailey> +1

<KimD> +1

<mbgower> 0

<JakeAbma> 0, -1

<kirkwood> 0

<Rachael> +1

<Detlev> sees to depend on too many other things for me to submit vote

<ShawnT> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<kirkwood> AC: work on backlog but not sure value of adding new SC as part of upcoming work

<Rachael> I have updated https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/19-april-charter-discussion/charter.html with Kim's suggestion around disabiltity related langauge and the various conversations here.

<kirkwood> AC: things like errata can look at WCAG 2 focus, don’t have agreement on direction

<kirkwood> Michele: need to get resolution on differnet options of charter approach

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Continue to work in this direction for the charter

<kirkwood> Michele/Rachael

<Chuck> +1

<shadi> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Rachael> +.5

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> Focusing on Demonstrated Solutions

<JakeAbma> +.5

<KimD> -1; need to define "this direction"

<Detlev> abstain, not involved enough to have an overview good enough to give meaningful vote

<kirkwood> Alastair: focus and scope in having a preliminary set of guidleines and testing

<bruce_bailey> +1 that resolution should have a few words clarifying "this direction"

<kirkwood> Wilco: definite this is it conversation

<mbgower> +1 I'd like to get to charter more quickly

<JustineP> late +1 after hearing the additional discussion

<kirkwood> Rachael: non 3.0 part is very deraft there is at least 3 topics need to discuss. if we all have a sense this is direction can notify AC

<Rachael> If we have general agreement on this direction, I can put together a list of key topics for discussion and rework our schedule

<kirkwood> Alastair: voting on Rachaiel put in. around guidance and structure

<Chuck> No objections

<kirkwood> … any substantive objections to propsed charter?

<kirkwood> Alastair: don’t want big objection on something else we talked about

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: WG is comfortable with direction charter discussion is going in

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Detlev> queue!

<alastairc> q/

<kirkwood> Shadi: my understanding is not conformance first not guidelines first a mix of both in two years have a complete draft. I like that

<kirkwood> Rachael: complete gives me pause consensus of approach, a lot to say complete

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Rachael for consensus on approach versus "complete"

<kirkwood> Shadi: point taken

+1 to Rachael

<kirkwood> +1 to Rachael

<Rachael> Wholistic view of approach including consensus decisions on all hard topics

<Chuck> +1

WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results

<kirkwood> Alastair: on to 2.2 surveys, the 3 part is complete

Out-of-viewport content #2204

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2204#issuecomment-1096984939

<kirkwood> Alastair: i proposed a response and MG had a draft response

<kirkwood> MG: i put in draft and opened ticket. think it can be done

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commit/d7fa965e064f5fcf872e48754f67e31537a87106

<kirkwood> Alastair: very small change to wording

<kirkwood> MG: for context only apply if author content applies on top of it, as a result of author content so not misinterpreted

<kirkwood> AC: gneral agreement from survey

<kirkwood> AC: any comments or objections,

<Jaunita_George> +1

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2204#issuecomment-1096984939

<Chuck> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

+1

<MelanieP> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2204#issuecomment-1096984939

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

Updated understanding document for "encloses"

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/focus-appearance-encompass/understanding/22/focus-appearance-minimum.html

Chuck: Went through all comments last week. There were a lot of changes last week, people wanted to see them in the PR.

Mike: We could look at changes to normative, couple of tweaks, and then look at understanding separately.

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

Alastair: In terms of the SC text, the definition updated.
... I think that resolved GN's comment.
... The other change is in the exception, "adjacent colors" is a slight change.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I ran through the reasoning last time

Mike: I ran through the reasoning last time. The focus indicator is not necessarily against the component.
... Adjacent colors could be the component or the background.

Alastair: Hopefully people looked through the updates
... If not we can resolve to accept the update

Mike: There are some things in the note that warrent discussion

Alastair: Reading Wilco's comments

<mbgower> it seems redundant to me

Alastair: if you say Adjacent colors, I thought that would be all colors

Wilco: I'd rather be explicit

Mike: That was talking about UICs, that was about colors outside of it. The adjacent item is outside the component, here we're not.
... Its used twice though, one of this is not part of the current change.

<bruce_bailey> i would not rather have "all" here if the qualify is not used in other SC with similar phrasing.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say adding "all" might be bad

Mike: In some ways it could get more confusing, but I'm okay with it.

Bruce: If we're not using it in other places, it begs the question as to why its here and not in other places.
... If we mean all here, perhaps we didn't mean all in other.

<GN015> +1 to Bruce

<bruce_bailey> could have "all" in Understanding

Wilco: Not a huge issue compared to other concerns I have.

<mbgower> I will add to Understanding

Alastair: Another comment, access should be axis

Mike: That's in the definition.

Alastair: I thought we did encloses last week.

Mike: Wasn't approved

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2283/files#diff-444c5829eebc004b2bed36e50ccd93bbc460c08d46c2bf15d4675daa34bfd9bf

<mbgower> +1

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve the change to use "Encloses" and "adjacent colors" in the SC text.

<Jaunita_George> +1

<mbgower> can we discuss in the Understanding document, please

<alastairc> Wilco: Didn't add in response, aren't the star rating examples one component

<laura> +1

0

<mbgower> +1

Alastair: Hopefully straight-forward

<alastairc> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Chuck> +1

<GN015> +1

<Detlev> +1

<MelanieP> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve the change to use "Encloses" and "adjacent colors" in the SC text.

<mbgower> i would now advocate looking at definitions

Mike: The minimum bounding box definition, I updated a bit more.
... Wilco suggested x and y axis, which became difficult to prase
... I thought horizontal axis was the most understandable

<alastairc> "the smallest enclosing rectangle aligned to the horizontal axis within which all the points of a shape lie. Where a component consists of disconnected parts, such as a link that wraps onto multiple lines, each part is considered to have its own bounding box."

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

Mike: I think what has to happen is, the definition is updated somewhere else.

<alastairc> In the diff, it is in the understanding doc line 52

Mike: I used rectangle instead of box, and I specifically said its horizontally aligned

RESOLUTION: Approve the proposed update for "Minimum bounding box" definition.

Mike: The perimeter is back in, hasn't been modified

<alastairc> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<laura> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<Detlev> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Rachael> +1

<mbgower> <p class="note">Note: Contrast calculations can be based on colors defined within the technology (such as HTML, CSS and SVG). Pixels modified by user agent resolution enhancements and anti-aliasing can be ignored.</p>

Mike: Even with SVG you can grab an image which has a defined color, but opening it in the browser, it will add anti-aliasing. If you put that into the calculation it gets wacky fast

<Zakim> GN, you wanted to say I see an issue with the separated parts

Alastair: Where you have access to the SVG, that makes sense

<mbgower> 1) we're not talking about bounding box and 2) I didnt' change that

GN: I'm trying to understand. I feel we want to have it compliant, otherwise there would be two focus indicators with no indication those two belong together.

Alastair: We're talking about the note

<mbgower> 44

Mike: It wasn't changed, I think this should get opened as a new issue.
... Any objection to this note?

Wilco: Does this also apply to other SCs?

<alastairc> Wilco: Should this apply elsewhere as well?

Mike: As a whole yes, but this is very specific about individual pixels

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Include the proposed note on using declared values, on line 44 of the diff.

Mike: That's why it's more important to be explicit about this.

0

<Chuck> +1

<mbgower> +1

<alastairc> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Rachael> 0

Wilco: I'm fine with it, I think it begs the question of why not in other places though.

RESOLUTION: Include the proposed note on using declared values, on line 44 of the diff.

<mbgower> and now onto the Understanding doc!

Mike: The understanding doc can be tackled as a separate thing.
... In terms of the stars, one could implement the stars as independant things, but generally, you put the focus on the star independently.

<mbgower> they may or may not be

<mbgower> it depends how it's built

<bruce_bailey> +1 that group of stars might be single UIC

<alastairc> "Where a user interface component has active sub-components (for example, an opened drop-down menu shows a list of menu items), the above requirements apply to the indicator of the active sub-component."

<mbgower> 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/do not/do now/
Succeeded: s/fouc/foucus/

WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: Fazio, Chuck, StefanS, ShawnT, Jennie_Delisi, JustineP, Lauriat, mbgower, JakeAbma, kirkwood, Nicaise, sarahhorton, GreggVan, Detlev, jeanne, OmarBonilla, Wilco, shadi_, AWK, Azlan, MelanieP, Jaunita_George, JudyB, Laura_Carlson, KimD, Katie, Haritos-Shea, Jen_G, SuzanneTaylor, jon_avila, Francis_Storr, GN
New list: Chuck, jeanne, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, bruce_bailey_, Fazio, shadi, Lauriat, alastairc, JakeAbma, ShawnT, mbgower, SuzanneTaylor, StefanS, KimD, AWK, Detlev, MelanieP, Jaunita_George, kirkwood, Wilco, Francis_Storr, JustineP, Jen_G, .5, GN

Default Present: Chuck, jeanne, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, bruce_bailey_, Fazio, shadi, Lauriat, alastairc, JakeAbma, ShawnT, mbgower, SuzanneTaylor, StefanS, KimD, AWK, Detlev, MelanieP, Jaunita_George, kirkwood, Wilco, Francis_Storr, JustineP, Jen_G, .5, GN
Present: Chuck, jeanne, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, bruce_bailey_, Fazio, shadi, Lauriat, alastairc, JakeAbma, ShawnT, mbgower, SuzanneTaylor, StefanS, KimD, AWK, Detlev, MelanieP, Jaunita_George, kirkwood, Wilco, Francis_Storr, JustineP, Jen_G, .5, GN, GN015
Regrets: Sarah H, Jennie
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Scribes: Laura, Wilco
ScribeNicks: laura, Wilco

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.)