Meeting minutes
AGWG approved for four days at TPAC
<AWK> +AWK
Chuck: any intros or announcments?
WCAG 2.2 Issues, 1 question https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/
chuck: on rolling questionaire for 2.2 pub
Chuck: survey Q is for adding privacy and security breakout in preamble
9 replies in survey, all agree or agree with (minor) adjustment
MikeGower: Just want to amplify Patrick Lauke's comments...
<AWK> Anti-security still is related to security! :)
MikeGower: SC are relevant -- but not neccessarily blockers
<mbgower> :)
Chuck: Wilco in survey argues for informative.
<laura> Laura_Carlson
Wilco: Glad to have this as informative, but I did not try to add to list of SC
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to discuss where it could go
Chuck: Rachael asked in survey if 2.2.5 should be included?
<AWK> This strikes me as highly informative.
alastairc: As to where this should go, came in late, proposal is to put into Introduction, but do not know if we can mark as informative
<mbgower> +1 that it's a summary and not normative
alastairc: since they are summaries at end, proposed location seems better fit.
alastairc: I would also note that this detail is in our charter.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if Alastair is proposing keeping in this section but marking as informative?
<Chuck> proposal: Add after section 5 and label as informative
Chuck confirms with Alastair that proposal is add "informative" markup to two paragraphs.
<Chuck> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<Wilco> +1
<laura> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Raf> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Poornima> +1
<LoriO> +1
<jon_avila> We may want to consider 1.3.5 as well.
Chuck discusses with Alastair and Rachael about which SC to include. Conclusion is that ennumeration can be separate discussion.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on wording if we expand
<jon_avila> Input purpose
alastairc: Jon/John brought up 1.3.5....
<Chuck> +1 to changing to "related to privacy or security"
alastairc: I think we need to expand list to SC that AG has identified as related, not just those which have "privacy" or "security" in SC text.
alastairc: If we agree, there are additional PR which are needed.
AWK: There are a whole lot that relate to security -- including 1.1.1 and captcha.
<Rachael> +1 to caveat
alastairc: Agree we should caveat, because list will not be exhaustive. Agreed this is informative.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on next steps
Chuck: Summarizing, we have agreement in principle so no conflicts yet. But is captcha enough to rope in 1.1.1?
alastairc: We are having some substantial discussion here so I would want to work on phrasing and survey.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about "resolving" this in list?
<jon_avila> I like Alistair's wording of "relationship" rather than "impact".
Chuck: Are we resolving this PR today then or not?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Add as informative, if there are disagreements, AGWG members can express in list when reviewing in list.
alastairc: We can at least resolve to add as informative, which is worth noting in minutes.
<alastairc> we'll come back to it in a meeting if there are disagreements
<alastairc> +1
<AWK> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<mbgower> +1
<laura> +1
<Makoto> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Rachael> +1
RESOLUTION: Add as informative, if there are disagreements, AGWG members can express in list when reviewing in list, and will review any disagreements in next call should any occur.
WCAG 2.x backlog issues, 6 questions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/
Shadi: Do you want update from sub groups?
subgroup updates
<shadi> https://
<shadi> https://
shadi: Guidance for sub policy meeting Mondays, including yesterday, working through Use Cases and discussing...
for first two, please see google doc which is what group is using to collect...
… please request access if link is not working for you.
shadi: We hope that next two then want to put ideas into outline as to sketch out what a guidance document might look like...
… but I cannot attend next week, so I want to provide update today.
shadi: I ask that participates continue working on shared doc.
Chuck, other updates?
WCAG 2.x backlog issues, 6 questions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/
<Chuck> TOPIC Question 1 - 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Clarify text-overflow: ellipsis applicability #728
Chuck: These are half dozen question to resolve 2.2 issues
ten agreed, 2 adjustements, 2 something else
Chuck: Francis recommends (in survey) taking out "generally"
Francis_Storr: The text works without word and "gnerally" adds ambiguityl
Chuck: Reads Wilco's comment, Wilco does not elaborate.
Chuck: Reads Lori's suggestion, which includes code.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to add to wilco
LoriO: I do no think we should be using abbreviations.
mbgower: steve F correction to link is inncorporated in PR
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on whether it's an exception
Jon A: I do see this barrier quite often in the field.
alastairc: We are not phrasing this as an exception. But it does happen with high magnification that heading is truncated, but it is a matter of degree.
… Truncation can happen with heading in many circumstances without any magnifcation.
LoriO: Can this requirement be met through alternative text?
<Chuck> +1
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this is not intended as an exception. It addresses how one can achieve 'no loss of content'
<laura> +1 to wilco
Wilco: This is similar to concern I put in survey, that it sounds normative, and techniques like putting in ellipsis is essentially the same results but would unambiguosly pass.
<Wilco> It could be expanded somewhere else on the page
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer
mbgower: There is sufficient affordance. Are there other examples anyone can suggest?
<kirkwood> (resizing window? device turning screen portrait/landscape?) maybe not?
alastairc: To Lori's question, no, alt text would not generate a pass for this SC.
alastairc: Shares screen to offer some proposed updates.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think we need a comprehensive list
alastairc: j1st is to Wilco's comment. These are updates for understanding on text spacing.
<Wilco> +1 Chuck
Chuck: I agree list is not comprehensive and I would not want to imply it is.
mbgower: I am okay with edits so far, adding e.g., but i do not think it is quite complete enough...
… for example the end-user resizing should not generate a fail, and Understanding is not quite clear enough on the point.
jon_avila: Trucation is problematic for links.
<mbgower> It's now just an example
jon_avila: Is link text being broken acceptable ? And if so, can we add to Understanding?
mbgower: Asks if two current examples are sufficient. (Read Card example)
jon_avila: Link is part of same UI element, so may make knowing the link difficult.
mbgower: I can make example clearer.
<alastairc> where the ellipsis is part of a section of content which includes a link, the truncated text is revealed on the linked page
jon_avila: It is still not clear if what i describe is a pass or not.
<mbgower> I've got an idea of how to rephrase
Chuck: I feel like we have agreement, but not certain we have the resolution.
<Chuck> poll: Happy with changes made in PR thus far?
<Chuck> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<mbgower> suggest res: to accept PR with changes and incorporation of comments
<Rachael> +1
<ShawnT> +1
Chuck confers with Alastair and Mike G on resolution.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2827 wto address issue 728.
mbgower: It is an Understanding doc, so we can always revisit.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2827 to address issue 728.
<Chuck> +1
<mbgower> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<GN015> +1
<Detlev> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2827 to address issue 728.
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Makoto> +1
<laura> +1
<Chuck> TOPIC Question 2 - Changes to Reflow note and Understanding #1201
Chuck resumes screen share and next topic on survey.
13 responses, 7 agree, 3 adjustments, 3 something else
Chuck: Oliver asks if deletion is on purpose?
Chuck: Line 42 can be removed
Chuck: Cory disagrees with removal and cell constraints.
<Chuck> +1 to Lori's comments in survey
Chuck: Gundula does not agree with deletion since two dimentional scrolling in single cell is a barrier.
LoriO: Image stacking is a bad example, since it does not happen with any UA, and I proposed a different one.
<jon_avila> I agree with Gundula - I want to make sure we keep that each data cell can be viewed.
Chuck: No one on queue and some significant editorial suggestions.
Francis_Storr: Just noticing "complex" data tables which is a subjective. Or do we have wide understanding of *simple* data tables.
<ChrisLoiselle> For reference on how data tables are presented https://
Detlev: I think simple/complex is that complex would need more than merely top row and leftmost column as label....
<ChrisLoiselle> The word simple is used thus the opposite would be complex
<jon_avila> I interpret complex differently
Detlev: Simple table will mean that table can read strictly linearly order and make sense.
<ChrisLoiselle> the word complex is used here as well https://
mbgower: My recollection is that PR was just for a single bullet and what I see now seems to be larger change.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think we need to differentiate complex.
alastairc: (highlighting paragraph) the DIFF may be making this look like it is more than it is, or there may be something which got duplicated.
<kirkwood> do merged cells? create complex tables?
Chuck: I think we are describing a table -- so by definition the 2 D layout is integral.
John Kirkwood asks about merged cells, and those causing a table to become complex.
<ChrisLoiselle> complex and simple are also mentioned here https://
mbgower: Regnerated DIFF is making change more inline with my memory.
mbgower: I am going to have to review.
AWK: provides an example of where we already talk about *simple* tables
alastairc: Change is replacing "out of scope" with plain language
alastairc: then towards end, a clearer example of complex table being an exception
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that is a different issue
LoriO: I recommend line 38 taking out example with stacked graphic and replace example with math not being able to wrap sensibly.
mbgower: That phrasing is legacy, I would prefer we address in separated PR.
LoriO: That is not a compelling reason to retain.
<Chuck> +1
<Poornima> Agree with Lori's comments that data table content cannot be an exception for the reflow as it is the text
alastairc: We have quite a bit in understanding about data tables... and the question about images not needing to wrap does come up on occaison.
[chuck and alastair review changes made during call]
Detlev: The bit about "loss of meaning" is lost.
alastairc: Agree, can changing to "lost" for better readability.
alastairc: Are people okay with updates?
<Chuck> poll: Is the PR with these updates ok?
[wilco confirms his edit corrected, duplicated line]
<mbgower> +1 it's an improvement
<Chuck> +1
<Detlev> +1 fine
<DavidMiddleton> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Makoto> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Poornima> +1
<laura> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1201 to address issue 1049.
<mbgower> +1
<Chuck> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<jon_avila> +0
<Detlev> can't make second hour today...
<jon_avila> The text talks about zoom to 400% although the SC focuses on 320CSS pixel width.
mbgower: I just want to point out that Scott caught in PR a disconnect. Not THIS change, but might be a different edit.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say scope creep?
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1201 to address issue 1049.
Chuck: That would be another scope creep regardless.
<jon_avila> I can do it
<Chuck> TOPIC Question 3 - Add 'In brief' section at start of 2.1 SCs #3191
<laura> https://
Chuck: Talks to PR 3191 and talks to survey results.
… references Gundula's review
Mike G: have not gone through all Gundula's in full yet.
Chuck: Steve F. made a comment, Mike G already adjusted PR with that edit.
Rachael: One editorial. One different on single character shortcuts phrasing.
Chuck: Talks to customizing character key shortcuts.
Alastair C: It may be best to follow up offline call to review. If Mike can put in to the PR thread, it may lead to quicker resolution
Mike G: Responses in survey is probably not best. Putting comments in the PR is best with comments for me personally. The process would work for me as author.
Chuck: Mike G. will review Gundala's comments and review at later date.
<Chuck> TOPIC Question 4 - Update/correct 3.3.3 understanding #1804
Alastair C: I will help on that process in the survey email to comment on PR
Chuck: PR 1804 topic , Patrick's update. Gundula found a typo on input error.
Mike G: I updated the PR
Chuck: Reads Gundula's comments about month example vs. password example. Sums up to keeping a better example.
Alastair C: just that first edit on typo, not the content within it.
Mike G: I did not make those changes other than the typo.
Alastair C: is that in an area that wasn't updated in the PR?
Gundula: May , July , July text , adding the password example. The month name example.
<mbgower> it pre-exists, not what's changed pretty much
Chuck: That is not what is changed in this PR, correct?
Chuck: I am not sure if relates to the month example.
Alastair C: reviews the the PR , it appears the set of values is removed per Gundula's call out on that update to the PR edit.
Chuck: May be best to take offline to review vs. propose in and accept.
<mbgower> I'd agree with that
Alastair C: Jake recommended this as it was an example on label that was not providing extra suggestion, might have not been best example , input field with month be added and input text error not much different.
Mike G: It is not suggesting the solution it is just telling that it is an issue but not providing new information.
Alastair C: That would be a new change.
Alastair C: close off 1804 and then someone file another to add a password example for 3.3.3 .
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1804 to address issues 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801
<alastairc> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<jon_avila> +0 I found it really hard to know what actually was changed.
<LoriO> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Chuck> +1
+1
<kirkwood> +1
<Raf> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1804 to address issues 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1804 to address issues 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801
<Chuck> TOPIC Question 5 - WCAG F85: Clarify guidance about where the focus should go when the modal dialog is closed #518
Chuck: Question 5, dialog discussion. ARIA vs. WCAG conflicts. PR 3214.
Patrick wants focus in vs. focus on.
Steve F. wants to refer to Patrick's comment.
has adjustment been made?
Alastair C: Don't think so.
Mike G: in response to Gundula's proposed solution. On backlog items, is there a better way on introducing on what was changed ? Smaller changes?
Mike G: Wording on focus handling works well, however when dialogue goes away, put it on target. What happens when target is gone when closing the dialogue?
data table and delete of row , destructive action then where does focus go? We put it back on item that proceeded it prior to deletion.
… moving it forward is explicit language used in PR. I think both back and forward would be beneficial
<bruce_bailey> +1 that data table with delete button in row would be a good example to address
Lori: Data table that with only one row?
Mike G: back up one element in DOM for context. Unless you jumped to there.
Lori: Would go to headers of table?
Mike G: that would be the case.
Jon A: Talks to Trusted Tester and expanding button functionality. Focus discussion on focus moving forward vs. shift tabbing back in content.
… on returning focus, it is a different conversation. If we are asking for user to do an action after a deletion .
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to find where the issue in the PR is?
Alastair C: On Mike's problem regarding Tables and deletion aspects vs. how it is written in PR currently.
Alastair C: if we don't have the trigger control, what would we do.
Mike G: If trigger control does not exist , then we wouldn't want the user to shift tab to know where focus is present.
Alastair C: if control exists, tabbing forward would place user one forward from triggering element.
… updates PR with comments working through issue.
<alastairc> Check whether moving the focus backwards once in the sequential navigation order puts focus on the trigger control, or if the trigger no longer exists the subsequent item.
Bruce: I think make the phrasing a second sentence.
Chuck: If the triggering component....triggering seems very specific... never mind.
Jon A: Sequential item need to be used? Could we previous interactive item?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3214 to address issue 518.
Alastair C: If you are moving forward tabbing would move you forward .
Jon A: The subsequent navigable phrasing is confusing.
Chuck: instead of tab , what if we talk about element should receive the focus?
The element preceding the control
<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Alastc's latest suggestion
Alastair C: check if the focus is on the trigger control.
<alastairc> Check whether the focus is on the trigger control. If the trigger control no longer exists then check whether the previous navigable item is focused.
<Chuck> +1
Alastair C: Francis on the call?
Mike G: The wording has been altered but the step is pre-existing. He isn't altering procedure just the wording of it.
Mike G: I disagree with 3214 but it would be another issue.
Mike G: I will open another issue for my points.
<mbgower> I think we should remove that change!
Bruce: Asking about second sentence about second trigger doesn't exist. Maybe skip that in PR 3214
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to check about trigger not existing scenarios
<bruce_bailey> i agree that "triggers not existing" is worth addressing
Alastair C: I think we need to pursue this as it could be a use case where this may happen on a new page. Needs further rephrasing and work.
Chuck: We are at end of time. Mike G. pointed out that we are addressing out of scope changes. Perhaps we can review that process further in future meeting.
Alastair C: Focus in vs. on the trigger control.
Chuck: I'd need to review further.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say we have some edits to keep
Bruce: We have some edits worth accepting.
Alastair C: We will log this at front of next conversation to pick up.
rssagent , make minutes
<Ben_Tillyer> Thanks everyone
<laura> Byr. Thanks.