<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2023-05-02

<alastairc> chair+ alastairc

<Laura> scribe: Laura

Introductions and announcements

alastairc: charter is extended to finish off 2.2
... request on 2.X documentation.

FS: going over techniques. Need help on smil.

<AWK> +AWK

FS: and Javascript.

awk: Was involved with smil when techniques created. Is it still used today?

dan_bjorge: think it is still supported and relevant. (from stack overflow)

ts: used in epub and daisy.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask for DIF between Understanding in TR space versus WAI editions

<plh> --> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/5o0yiO440LM/m/YGEJBsjUAwAJ?pli=1"SMIL was not deprecated and there are no plans to do so. It's still a supported feature in Chromium. Feb 2023"

bruce_bailey: maybe on long term agenda que.
... learned fed agencies are depending on docs in TR path.
... needs some love and attention.

<LoriO> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/SVG/SVG_animation_with_SMIL

W3C TPAC Interest https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/tpac_2023_interest/

LoriO: article on SVG

<Ben_Tillyer> Apologies, could not complete the survey as I was on annual leave. I plan to attend TPAC in person.

alastairc: let chairs know if will be attending and didn't fill out survey.

jk: would prefer ending surveys on day of meeting.

rm: wanted to give more time.
... can put on future agenda.

WCAG 3 Editor and Working Drafts https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/working_draft_23/

alastairc: Noted editorial changes. Thanks to respondents
... no substantive changes requested.

GreggVan: unable to turn in my comments.
... section on 3rd party content. Seems premature.
... If page has content that is inaccessible it is inaccessible.
... not expressed very well.

rm: we are updating editor's draft. That was already approved.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that it has been in a published working draft for 18 months, it was consensus work.

GreggVan: concerned about working draft.

jean: it already in working draft.
... it was already approved. Don't think it should be removed.

GreggVan: comments apply to entire document.
... it is a different issue.
... issues should be borught up.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on issue process

Rachael: we are completely reworking. Gregg has a valid concern.

alastairc: either we have comments on generated content or we didn't have issues before.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask best venue for GreggV to note concerns?

alastairc: gregg should create issue in github.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say a quick review shows no changes between the two drafts

racheal: it was in draft before.

alastairc: if we haven't made changes, it should stay in.

Cyborg: catching up on conversation.
... would not want it included in this draft.

alastairc: was not worked on in this draft.

<Rachael> Direct link to the section being discussed: https://w3c.Github.io/silver/guidelines/#user-generated-content

alastairc: not a current area of focus. Gregg will raise an issue in GitHub.
... need to continue our work
... The AGWG needs to update the WCAG 3 Working Draft. Our Maturity Labeling Process states that we will only update placeholder and exploratory content after discussion at the group and by CFC.
... While it is uncommon to publish placeholder and exploratory content, the chairs feel that if we do not publish, there is a significant risk to continuing our work. W3C management agrees. We would like to move everything in the editor's draft to the working draft.
... (reads Andrew Somers comments)

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to add following W3C policy

Rachael: not publishing is not an option.

wilco: we have a policy not to put exploratory and placeholder in working draft.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve moving the editor's draft content to the Working Draft

<Wilco> +1

<mikeGower> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<mgarrish> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<tzviya> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Luis> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

laura: +1

<Ryladog> +1

<alastairc> +1

<LoriO> +1

<Detlev> 0

<Francis_Storr> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> 0

Detlev: would have liked to have had more progress.

RESOLUTION: Approve moving the editor's draft content to the Working Draft

RESOLUTION: Approve moving the editor's draft content to the Working Draft

Document Breakdown https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1iIQNhaXhA46VLmtZvvaGPUzjzJf8WQesv9JgiumfJzY/edit#slide=id.g23d017a7b09_0_31

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1Fcxs_VkhH2MvY9UmqMQT5biFvmfWVMMAYYIm7vuo_K0/edit

Rachael: Slide deck: Need to figure out how many docs we want to publish.
... The key chunks we would possibly cover is: Content, How to, Conformance, Other.
... could break into 2 parts

<GreggVan> q_

Rachael: 3 Part Option and 3+ Part Option and Multi-Part Option

GreggVan: Like the 3 plus part
... 3rd part shouldn't be in any of our docs.
... conformance needs to stay with our docs.

<bruce_bailey> I very much appreciate having this conversation !

GreggVan: techniques and techniqueschange all the time.

<Rachael> How many documents do we write?

Cyborg: Is this how it is presented in the next draft?

<kirkwood> my vote: feel “conformance” and “how to” together

Cyborg: more it is broken apart the better for feedback. appreciate gregg's feedback.
... hesitate to use 3rd party. It is problematic.
... pick a different other.

<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to discuss reviewing wireframes of these models with users

<tzviya> +100 to Jennie

<Cyborg> keeping 3rd party out of other - using other one for other. 3rd party is problematic.

Jennie: want to introduce wayfinding and usability.

<bruce_bailey> As a regulator, open to concept of having conformance as its own normative document

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about initial thoughts on which is informative and which normative ?

Jennie: Include wireframes and COGA.

<Cyborg> +1 to multi-part approach

bruce_bailey: Conformance as its own piece doesn't bother me.
... Don't see the problem.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Bruce's view

<kirkwood> +1 agree with Bruce (as a former regulator)

Wilco: WCAG 2 is a currently monolith.
... need to break work up into logical chunks.

<LoriO> +1 with Wilco

<Ryladog> I think we need to identify which Parts are Normative and which are Informative

Wilco: to get work out sooner.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Wilco. Sprints are better than Marathons.

Wilco: split things up. Example outcomes.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Rachael that we might capture the question of whether conformance and content must be together for regulators.

dan_bjorge: versioning could be a problem.
... if it is split up.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about alternatives, e.g. conformance could be separate, then reference the guidance

dan_bjorge: case by case may make more sense.

alastairc: if conformance is separate it may not be a problem.
... dependencies could be a problem.
... agree with usability aspects. people come for the requirement.

Cyborg: usability & coga in the how to's
... interdependence came up as CSUN. Let the conformance subgroup do its work before we decide.

GreggVan: there are multipart standards.
... breaking it up is a problem.

<bruce_bailey> FWIW @cybele I am pretty sure than you are using *wayfinding* differently than comes up in ADA context and built environment.

GreggVan: wcag is based on urls. if something else we would have problems.

shadi: Skeptical on breaking up conformance

<alastairc> mbgower - structure of the docs

<mgifford> The trouble is that most web sites are built with other libraries, rather a CMS or a framework like Gatsby or GitHub pages.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to consider a pyramid approach, a central point with other things hanging off.

<mgifford> Yes, the URL needs to comply, but the guidance needs to highlight the reality that pages are usually built with multiple templates.

alastairc: thinking if a pyramid approach. Everything would be pinned to a primary doc.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say all normative in one -- as many informative as is useful

<Cyborg> +1 to what Alastair just suggested - interesting

<shadi> +1 to alastair's pyramid model (maybe also biased by my egyptian background)

GreggVan: pyramid model is interesting.

<Ryladog> +1 to Gregg

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to look at the CSS model where there is a regular publication of the latest version of each document and to talk about using the maturity levels to develop

GreggVan: we have normative and informative. normative has to be a unit that updattes as a whole.

jeanne: CSS uses a model where there is a regular publication of the latest version of each document .

<plh> --> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2023/ CSS Snapshot 2023

jeanne: maturity model can help .
... don't have to settle conformance first.

<Luis> +1 on working on guidelines so we can test

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this seems like another conceptual discussion that is going to be heavily affected by work going forward

<Chuck> +1

<Detlev> +1 to Jeanne

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to talk about the difference between volunteer and mandatory standards

mg: get rough idea of considerations and work progessively

GreggVan: voluntary standards can be changed. But WCAG is different.
... agree with jeanne on conformace.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the sepearation TR doc from 'easy' view

alastairc: possible to have same content in different versions.
... let's not restrict our thinking.
... can fall back to TR version.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say - I don't have a problem with that ----

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss scribe change and time box end

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

<Laura> GreggVan: can have informative/normative doc but that would be an informative doc.

WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

Rachael: Thanks for feed and conversation, moving on to WCAG2 items

2.4.11 Focus Appearance exception doesn't match explanation #3016

Rachael: Survey on 2.4.11 Focus Appearance

Alastair: Shawn Lauriet raised issue on combining exceptions, see links from survey.
... Shawn not on call today, but we had settled to separtate

Rachael: [going through survey] several agrees with survey

<Rachael> Mike Gower's wording: Both the focus indicator and the indicator's background color are determined by the user agent and not modified by the author.

Mike Gower: I am not quite sure I understand why Shawn still has concerns, but I have made editorials changes to try an address.

scribe: By keeping exceptions separated, we have more flexibility in Understanding.

Rachael reads Shawns comment from survey.

Wilco: Would be better to have Shawn reply.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Address concern in understanding document

Racheal: Regardlesss, we are at end of CFC period. But want to provide opportunity for objections.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

alastairc: I also want to note that we did try very hard at one stage to combine the exceptions, and that lead to separating exceptions....

<alastairc> +1

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Address concern in #3016 understanding document

<dan_bjorge> +1

alastairc: May have been PDF where different possibility for background images was different than HTML.

<Ryladog> +1

<AWK> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<LoriO> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Laura> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Wilco> 0

<mikeGower> 0

Wilco: 0 is because I wish Shawn was here. But we already have CR.

<GreggVan> 0 - no particular preference but we need to move on so +.5

RESOLUTION: Address concern in #3016 in the understanding document

Accessible Authentication failure techniques #1916

Rachael: We will do our best to address in Understanding.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2990/files

alastairc: For some context, this is a new additional failure technique to note non-obvious cognitive function technique.

Rachael: We had 6 responses in survey, 3 approve no comment, 3 approve with editorial comment.

<dan_bjorge> @Wilco: password managers handling TOTP-generated one-time-codes is definitely a thing (off the top of my head, I know Bitwarden supports this)

MikeGower: I have made some changes from survey feedback, include Wilco's note about passcode versus password -- so test and name and other phrasing more generic.

Rachael reads Wilco's comment from survey, that example seems trivial.

Wilco: I will read MG changes.

Gundala: [as noted in survey] different words used to mean same thing (password/passcode).

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say where I've seen it

Ben_Tillyer: I have seen several markets, including banks, where they use *passwords* and not one-time pass codes.

dan_bjorge: I know from personal experience that password managers (eg, Bitwarden) can support one-time pass codes.

<mgifford> Nice about listing failure to paste as am error.. That is so annoying

alastairc: This technique is focused on examples that are in real world. Blocking copy/paste would be a different failure.

AWK: Thanks affirmations that failure technique is realistic...
... Got on queue to note that this Failure Technique is not explicit enough since it is really about failing the whole SC and not just one particular technique.

mikeGower: I have made another edit to be more careful with phrasing, while keeping title more open.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2990 with revisions discussed in meeting

Rachael: Chair hat off, for translation concerns, can we surface terms a little more?

Gundulla: I would strongly prefer separating passcode from password.

<Rachael> +1

alastairc: Can we start with password, but then explain that technique includes passcode and pass phrase.

Gundala: I will take a look a rewrite.

<mgifford> I like that approach Bruce

dan_bjorge: I note that AWK noted that technique not consistent with other very similar techniques.

alastairc: I want to note that this was a new author -- but they did a very good job -- so I would like to keep this if we can...

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2990 with line added to procedure, define password at the top and circulate to group via email

<dan_bjorge> +1

alastairc: look for one more call to comment via listserv

<kirkwood> +1

<jo_weismantel> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<mgifford> +1

<Wilco> 0

<mbgower> 0 I'd rather have Dan (or whomever just take the comments and bring it back, rather than to say 'use password'

<GreggVan> 0

<Laura> +1

<Luis> +1

mbgower: [called upon] It is been success pattern taking feedback and having revised version back to group...
... i am not certain this direction is not too prescriptive.
... i would like more editorial layway

leeway

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2990 with comments addressed including resolving password inconsistency and circulate to group via email

alastairc asks for clarification, so new proposed draft resolution

<mbgower> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Luis> +1

<Laura> +1

<Rachael> +1

No strong concerns from 0 voters

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2990 with comments addressed including resolving password inconsistency and circulate to group via email

alastairc: We have two more questions in survey, but added late, so not talking today maybe

Rachael: may be ending early

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that I have submitted a PR for the quick blurbs

<alastairc> That's one of the questions for next week: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq36

alastairc: I had left time for CFC issues, but none that need to be raised to AGWG so far.

SC 4.1.1 Note

mbgower: Please provide feedback to my PRs

Wilco: I would like if CFC could go out with CR3 and 4.1.1 question

alastairc: I will do so this evening, but am trying not to overlap CFCs.
... None of this delays publication but we do have other erratta over due....
... Issues like republication of 2.0 or 2.1 and incorporating erratta.

Wilco: Can we point to errata in announcements?

alastairc: I will touch base with Michael Cooper. Might not make it with next round. Is it errata?
... PR is ready, so I will start working on email coms.

Rachael: Any concerns for that approach?
... Any other topics?
... Please do reply to CFC and answer survey

<Chuck> Thank you Rachael and Alastair for chairing.

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/depending /are depending /
Succeeded: s/docs in /on docs in /
Succeeded: s/perfer /prefer /
Succeeded: s/ respondants/ respondents/
Succeeded: s/ requsted/ requested/
Succeeded: s/updatinf /we are updating /
Succeeded: s/concerrned aboutt /concerned about /
Succeeded: s/ draftt/ draft/
Succeeded: s/github/Github/
Succeeded: s/Greag /Gregg /
Succeeded: s/exploitory and placholder /exploratory and placeholder /
Succeeded: s/restsw /techniques/
Succeeded: s/heistate /hesitate /
Succeeded: s/intoduse /introduce /
Succeeded: s/ usabilty/ usability/
Succeeded: s/Conformace /Conformance /
Succeeded: s/experience that passwords/experience that password managers (eg, Bitwarden)/
Succeeded: s/conformace is separtte /conformance is separate  /
Succeeded: s/dependancies /dependencies /
Succeeded: s/usabilty /usability /
Succeeded: s/usabilty/usability/
Succeeded: s/interdependance /interdependence /
Succeeded: s/conformace /the conformance /
Succeeded: s/rthere /there /
Succeeded: s/mulit-part /multipart /
Succeeded: s/is pased /is based /
Succeeded: s/woll /would /
Succeeded: s/seckptical /Skeptical /
Succeeded: s/pinnedd to /would be pinned to /
Succeeded: s/CSS used mulit versions/CSS uses a model where there is a regular publication of the latest version of each document /
Succeeded: s/matuity model can /maturity model can /
Succeeded: s/differenc between /difference between /
Succeeded: s/considerattions /considerations /
Succeeded: s/volentaty /voluntary /
Succeeded: s/ differentt\./ different./
Succeeded: s/restict /restrict /
Succeeded: s/relavant/relevant/
Default Present: alastairc, Chuck, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Francis_Storr, Jennie, Lauriat, tzviya, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, mgarrish, Ben_Tillyer, plh, GreggVan, dan_bjorge, jo_weismantel, shadi, AWK, Detlev, corey_hinshaw, Raf, kirkwood, sarahhorton, jeanne, Jay_Mullen, Cyborg, Luis, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Wilco, mbgower, GN
Present: alastairc, Chuck, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Francis_Storr, Jennie, Lauriat, tzviya, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, mgarrish, Ben_Tillyer, plh, GreggVan, dan_bjorge, jo_weismantel, shadi, AWK, Detlev, corey_hinshaw, Raf, kirkwood, sarahhorton, jeanne, Jay_Mullen, Cyborg, Luis, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Wilco, mbgower, GN, LoriO, GN015
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: Laura
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Scribes: Laura, bruce_bailey
ScribeNicks: Laura, bruce_bailey

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.)