14:28:04 RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:28:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-irc
14:28:14 rrsagent, make logs world
14:28:24 rrsagent, generate minutes
14:28:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:28:32 chair: Chuck
14:28:41 Zakim, start meeting
14:28:41 RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:28:43 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:28:46 present+
14:28:54 meeting: AGWG-2022-07-25
14:30:07 regrets: Jake Abma, Gundula Niemann, Todd Libby, Bruce Bailey, Rain Michaels
14:30:52 regrets: Jake Abma, Gundula Niemann, Todd Libby, Bruce Bailey, Rain Michaels, Wilco Fiers
14:31:03 agenda+ Announcements
14:31:08 agenda?
14:31:16 zakim, clear agenda
14:31:16 agenda cleared
14:31:25 agenda+ Announcements
14:32:38 agenda+ Scoping Presentation & Discussion
14:32:46 agenda+ Subgroup Intros and Q&A
14:32:56 agenda+ Silver Task Force Transition
14:33:05 agenda+ Revisiting Functional and User Needs
14:33:12 agenda?
14:42:02 Rachael, are you able to join the call a bit early?
14:55:20 Jennie has joined #ag
14:55:22 jeanne has joined #ag
14:55:28 present+
14:55:32 scribe: Jennie
14:55:41 present+
14:57:01 Francis_Storr has joined #ag
14:57:20 present+
14:57:53 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
14:57:55 present+
14:59:28 mbgower has joined #ag
14:59:35 present+
14:59:49 joweismantel has joined #ag
14:59:58 present+
15:00:04 Lauriat has joined #ag
15:00:37 Present+
15:00:41 Chuck: We will be starting in a few minutes. We will formally start at 2 minutes after
15:00:44 present+
15:00:48 ShawnT has joined #ag
15:01:07 present+
15:01:15 present+
15:01:15 present+
15:01:18 Chuck: We will start in 1 minute
15:01:29 Fazio has joined #ag
15:01:29 ...Please use present plus if you have not already done so
15:01:38 present+
15:02:14 Chuck: Welcome
15:02:20 ...We have a scribe for hour 1
15:02:31 ...We need a scribe for hour 2. Please volunteer
15:02:41 ...Does anyone on the call want to introduce themselves?
15:03:02 ...Does anyone have in mind new topics?
15:03:09 ...We keep a list for future meetings.
15:03:13 zakim, take up item 1
15:03:13 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:03:24 GreggVan has joined #ag
15:03:28 https://www.w3.org/2022/09/TPAC/registration.html
15:03:32 Chuck: Reminder: TPAC registration
15:03:39 laura has joined #ag
15:03:42 ...Please register if you intend to participate in person or remotely
15:03:48 KimD has joined #ag
15:03:53 ...Early bird: available until August 5th, with substantial savings
15:03:56 ...50%
15:04:06 https://www.w3.org/2022/09/TPAC/registration.html#inclusion-fund
15:04:12 sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:04:15 ...Also, reminder: inclusion fund and honorarium
15:04:16 jon_avila has joined #ag
15:04:22 present+
15:04:24 ...This can help with funding
15:04:52 shadi has joined #ag
15:05:02 Makoto has joined #ag
15:05:05 present+
15:05:06 ...If you are interested in WCAG to ICT, please contact Michael Cooper
15:05:18 present+
15:05:30 ...We have not yet begun meeting, but after a few more milestones are reached we will begin
15:05:33 q?
15:05:38 q-
15:05:45 ack Shawn
15:05:51 q-
15:05:52 present+ Laura_Carlson
15:06:02 Chuck: The final announcement
15:06:08 ...A minor change for scribing
15:06:08 janina_ has joined #ag
15:06:16 ...We will follow what Silver is doing
15:06:26 ...We will keep a list of regular participants that are also able to scribe
15:06:35 ...That list - we will start from the top, go to the bottom.
15:06:39 +1
15:06:46 ...Those that have scribed recently will be moved to the bottom of the list
15:07:01 ...When needing a scribe, this helps selecting people that have not scribed in a while
15:07:06 ...We will be putting together this list
15:07:15 So we need to sign up for remote TPAC if we want to attend any of the AG calls during TPAC week?
15:07:16 q+
15:07:18 ...If you feel that you are not an effective scriber, send an email to the chairs
15:07:24 ...We will ensure you are not on the list
15:07:37 ...This will help guide us on who to ask
15:07:45 ack Rach
15:07:47 ...This will not increase pressure to scribe
15:07:55 AWK has joined #ag
15:07:58 Rachael: We are moving to implementation testing in the next week
15:08:02 +AWK
15:08:08 ...If you are willing to be a tester for WCAG 2.2 please email the chairs
15:08:13 q?
15:08:16 ...The more testers we have, the faster we can get through this
15:08:20 zakim, take up next item
15:08:20 agendum 2 -- Scoping Presentation & Discussion -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:08:38 Chuck: Mike Gower and Francis have been working on this
15:08:44 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oqb_nhqIGDtmEIOQEfHPu4HNfk1WDtvn/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=118419493369958965106&rtpof=true&sd=true
15:08:57 Raf has joined #ag
15:09:01 present+jon_avila
15:09:13 Also: Rachael and Shawn working on it :)
15:09:23 Mbgower: we will take questions at the end
15:09:57 ...This is an exploratory discussion
15:10:01 ...It will not lead to a vote
15:10:09 ...other than some terminology
15:10:41 ...(reviews agenda)
15:11:03 ...Problem statement: this statement captures some of the considerations we were chasing
15:11:14 ...(reads problem statement)
15:11:42 ...We will talk about 2 main areas
15:11:54 ...We were trying to touch on key concepts
15:12:01 ...What is the smallest unit we test against
15:12:09 ...Answer: the user interface component
15:12:10 q+
15:12:30 ...Focus appearance brought interesting questions
15:12:41 ...All of us perceive things differently
15:12:46 Hi Ben, other than the preso link and sharing, I don't think we have an alternate version to share at this time, but I will ask when we get to Q&A
15:12:52 ...One lesson: even when something is subjective we can derive benefit
15:12:53 q+ to ask about alternate versions
15:13:12 reminder to all that I will process queue at the end of presentation
15:13:12 ...For focus appearance: you can make something look like a button that is not coded as a button
15:13:25 ...User centered approach: we need to understand how the user perceives these
15:13:31 ...Another thing: sub-components
15:13:36 ...Like menu items in a menu
15:13:51 ...They can appear to take focus - do people perceive this as its own user interface component?
15:13:58 ...Same thing with a menu bar, or a ribbon
15:14:08 ...Do people perceive them as a single user interface component?
15:14:17 ...Another question: afforances like chevrons
15:14:27 ...If we assess this, do we need to assess smaller units?
15:14:53 ...And, what about graphs (visual constructs)? Sound? Touch?
15:15:11 ...Some, like text: labels are perceived by most people to be part of the user interface component
15:15:20 ...Other things are page or process oriented
15:15:31 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
15:15:36 ...Another important thing: we don't have to reinvent the wheel
15:15:49 ...Lots have come out since 2.0 came out
15:16:04 ...Ultimately: what moves us towards repeatable, measureable, consistent results
15:16:15 ...1 example of subcomponents is on slide 5
15:16:32 ...Left picture: date input, with text above it.
15:16:53 Right picture: calendar widget, is the calendar part of the input, or more than 1?
15:16:56 Jen_G has joined #ag
15:17:08 Present+
15:17:13 ...There is focus on the actual year - you infer you could move the year
15:17:22 ...There are left and right arrows for moving through the months
15:17:31 ...These are affordances - are they their own components?
15:17:41 ...Affordances: besides all the numbers in black, one is in blue
15:17:46 ...That is the 24th of July
15:17:51 ...It also has a dot
15:17:56 ...It indicates the day it is
15:18:07 ...How best to convey what it is important?
15:18:33 ...Native HTML input has a calendar input, but I have seen some without a calendar input - is this a failure?
15:18:45 ...Sometimes this helps us make an assessment
15:18:50 ...Moving on - slide 6
15:19:04 ...This was discussed on one call
15:19:12 ...Objective and subjective need a definition
15:19:20 ...An exercise can help with terminology
15:19:33 ...Objective test (reads from the slide)
15:19:46 ...high: we debated putting 100% here
15:20:28 ...Focus appearance: hopefully it is repeatable, and measurable, easily
15:20:33 ...Slide 8
15:20:42 ...Are the 2.x criteria objective or subjective?
15:21:03 Link to exercise on slide: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vLuxeNwdgkSS0wenjAcm9eQlYMSGtwCHP125QYbSOKI/edit?usp=sharing
15:21:05 ...Our view: if it is not objective, it is subjective
15:21:13 ...We broke out the wording
15:21:37 0
15:21:38 ...How many do you think are each?
15:21:56 ...Our answer: all ended under both
15:21:57 Completely objective = 0
15:22:06 ...I extended this to first 3 dozen
15:22:18 ...We moved to a 5-point continuum
15:22:26 ...Totally subjective to the opposite
15:22:35 ...34 fell outside the endpoints
15:22:48 ...1 was pretty objective, 1 was pretty subjective
15:22:50 ...Slide 9
15:22:56 ...1.4.2 audio control
15:23:02 ...Fully objective?
15:23:16 q+ to ask about "objective" testing and evaluating such
15:23:18 ...3 seconds is subjective
15:23:30 ...But it creates a clear condition against which we can measure
15:23:36 3 sec is not subjective. It may be arbitrary
15:23:41 ...If it was 2 or 4, you still would have something to measure against
15:23:57 ...You may end up with discussion around rounding
15:24:18 ...The requirements are very specific
15:24:28 ...You have an understanding of when you arrive at yes
15:24:32 OmarBonilla has joined #ag
15:24:36 ...1.4.9 Images of Text
15:24:44 ...(reads from slide 10)
15:25:05 ...Getting everyone to agree on pure definition, and essential will be difficult to get everyone to agree on
15:25:13 ...And significant other visual content
15:25:24 ...This is purely subjective criteria
15:25:27 ...Those are the extremes
15:25:30 ...Slide 11
15:25:35 present+
15:25:56 ...Non-text content could use more granularity
15:26:10 ...(reads from slide 11)
15:26:33 ...Example from the exercise: pulled out the objective and subjective parts
15:26:45 ..."has a text alternative" and "that serves the equivalent purpose"
15:27:02 ...Can we get to more objective by making a few tweaks?
15:27:06 ...Slide 12
15:27:26 ...Does the image have an attribute?
15:27:32 ...Is the code good?
15:27:46 ...Looking at it this way you start to see some truism
15:27:55 ...You can begin to see things that help be consistent
15:28:07 ...It is a lot easier to answer within the confines of some technology
15:28:17 q+ to say This is very useful and helpful work, kudos! Did you look at the work that Test Reliability did in how to write Outcomes and Methods?
15:28:19 ...Whether or not there is an image tag on the page is easy to get people to agree on
15:28:33 ...You can imply some of these concepts, and get some clarify
15:28:39 ...clarity
15:28:51 ...You can apply this to different success criteria
15:29:12 ...More consistent reporting should be considered
15:29:19 ...(slide 13)
15:29:39 ...Do we need 1000 words to get to the equivalent purpose? And would anyone find that helpful?
15:29:50 ...Image is a dog, with a blurry background
15:29:58 ...But you could say a lot of things about this dog
15:30:13 ..."Dog" may not sufficiently describe this picture
15:30:26 MarcJohlic has joined #ag
15:30:37 ...People could have different perceptions of these descriptions
15:31:04 ...There are many different ways to think about this photo
15:31:16 ...If we assess for other criteria (slide 14)
15:31:33 Peter_Bossley has joined #ag
15:31:36 ...Singular vs plural - this would provide clarity
15:31:40 present+
15:31:51 ...Could discount words like the
15:31:58 ...To get a minimum number of words
15:32:19 ...Subject/object, or Noun/verb
15:32:33 ...Context: is it in the user process on a dog buying website?
15:32:40 ...Is there a caption?
15:32:49 ...Maybe then it is more relevant
15:33:00 ...We need to think what the page is about
15:33:04 ...(slide 15)
15:33:25 ...Left: a Golden Retriever running, ball in its mouth, leaves on the grass
15:33:35 ...Right: 4 dogs, on a white background
15:33:44 ...They all have different poses, different kinds of dogs
15:33:56 ...The 2nd image is from an article about breeds that live the longest
15:34:02 ...Alt text then might describe the breedds
15:34:18 ...There is nothing about Irish Setters in the article - so surprising it is there
15:34:24 ...Is it being in the background important?
15:34:59 ...(makes a comment about how dogs are not that important to him!!!!) LOL - comment from the scribe
15:35:06 "Love of my life"
15:35:06 ...(slide 16)
15:35:20 ...Looking at 1.1.1
15:35:32 ...Lots talking about short text alternative, then long text alternative
15:35:39 ...What if there was a criteria only for images
15:35:53