<alastairc> agenda
<laura> Scribe: laura
<dj> +present
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/registration.html
alastairc: TPAC registration is open. Good to get registered ASAP.
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dMUwBqq5LYintI5xF5s3u6jTNnhb43PuQwR8-8kMSZU/edit#heading=h.biruczjv9aap
<Rachael> Updated the schedule, WCAG 2 will go to PR this week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dMUwBqq5LYintI5xF5s3u6jTNnhb43PuQwR8-8kMSZU/edit
RM: WCAG 2.2 going to PR this week. Schedule is slightly adjusted.
wilco: Looking for note.
AC: will look at this week,
<Wilco> + A note specifically in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 documents
<jon_avila> Thank you Michael for all you have done!
MC: I will be departing from W3C
after 17 years in this role.
... looking for new opportunities.
<AWK> +AWK
<shadi> wow, good luck for your future Michael!
<shadi> big loss for WAI
MC: Team is looking at new Staff contact.
<Detlev> all the best for the future, Michael!
<Rachael> scribe: rachael
<mgifford> Thanks so much Michael! You will be missed.
<scribe> scribe: Laura
<kirkwood> WOW good luck Michael! Incredible tenure. You will be missed!
ac: MC has been very influential in the WC3. He will be missed.
<ShawnT> +1 to missing MichaelC
<ToddL> Best of luck, Michael!
<mbgower_> Thanks for all your amazing work over the years, Michael!
<Wilco> Indeed, all the best Michael!
<Francis_Storr> Best of luck with everything, Michael. Thanks for everything you've done.
<AWK> Echoing Alastair's comments - Michael has been indispensable!
RM: mc has been instrumental in moving our work forward and will be missed.
Chuck: he has done so much behind
the scenes.
... He will be greatly missed.
jeanne: thank you for decades of service to a11y.
<Makoto> Domo arigato so much from Japan for everything you've done, Michael!
jeanne: brilliant strategic thinker.
<Jennie_Delisi> * Thank you for your mentorship and leadership, Michael! I appreciated all I learned from you.
Shadi: met yesterday. slowly
making progress on how the doc could look like. And what type
of doc it could be.
... need to get alignment on the doc.
... hope to have a frame and example considerations by the end
of the group's timeframe.
wilco: what are you bringing back to us in 2 weeks.
<Wilco> Great, thanks! That sounds fantastic
shadi: an outline of the document and 1 or 2 examples of the content.
ac: that helps. work on content that it could be a note separate from WCAG 3.
<Zakim> maryjom, you wanted to give an update on WCAG2ICT (unrelated to current topic)
mj: WCAG2ICT is getting close to being approved in subgroup. Hope to have a survey soon.
rm: pre CFC is out.
... please review. Let us know if you have concerns.
... document open for comments.
... created a new repository for WCAG 3
...
... want a clean place to start.
... have issues been tracking in spreadsheet. Will have
discussion topics.
... goal is to have draft responses.
... please review the google doc.
ac: trying to deal with these issues in bulk so it is more efficient.
dan: where can an issue be reopened?
rm: we will decide in an ag meeting.
dan: it is confusing in the doc.
ac: will address.
rm: want to work more like the
rest of the w3c works.
... piloting a new process.
... starting in august.
<ShawnT> +q to speak about join in on the conversation about the github process
ac: documentation for our current work is spread out. This is a way to centralize it.
chuck: will be more consolidated.
st: would like to be part of the process.
ac: everyone will be involved.
<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to speak about join in on the conversation about the github process and to
rm: Central to this is our
Agenda’s Page
... https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas
... Include agendas for next 2 meetings
... Section for Upcoming Topics
... Chairs create agenda from github label “Agenda”
<Chuck> New Process https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oD7M3b9i0iPMIKoakjwOOcEZH1h6hsjBuOXEqPPzoAQ/edit
rm: Members Activities: This list
goes through activities in order of urgency, with the items
that need to be addressed each week up front and additional
actions to take based on interest and available time later
on.
... For members that find Github overwhelming, focus on the
first 3 items.
... we will be taking surveys out of the process.
... For members that find Github overwhelming, focus on the
first 3 items.
... Agendas will be emailed out each week as well as available
at Upcoming Agendas
... Agendas will include links to issues, pull requests (PRs),
and discussions
... Members should respond to the summary with a thumbs
up/thumbs down
... Attend AGWG teleconference.
... Review minutes of any AGWG meetings missed and comment in
Github if disagree with the meeting result
... Review minutes of any AGWG meetings missed and comment in
Github if disagree with the meeting result
... Review and comment on issues, PRs, and discussions in the
“Upcoming Topics”
... Review and comment on issues, PRs, and discussions of
interest in the “Needs Review” queue
... Complex agenda items start as a discussion
... Chairs start a discussion topic in Github. Chairs queue up
discussion at AGWG
... Once AGWG reaches consensus on a general direction editors,
subgroup or individual contributor creates placeholder
content
... Chairs review all issues and PRs
... AGWG members, Community Group members, and public review
and comment in Github
... Chairs identify issues and PRs for upcoming meetings
... Action Needed: What members need to do before the meeting.
Content for Review: When the action requires members to review
more than a few lines of content, chairs will create a google
doc and link that in the summary with comments allowed. When
the action requires only a few lines for review, it can be
included in this section.
... Chairs will email the agenda to the AGWG on the Thursday
before the meeting.
... Chairs will lock any Google documents associated with
agenda items on Monday morning before the meeting and move
comments over to Github
... AGWG will discuss issues and PRs at designated meeting
GN: Agenda Thursday and Monday comment closed?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say add one week
rm: agenda will be sent out the
week before.
... TF will use an internal process.
... Facilitator will create an issue when they want an AG
review.
... This should include a summary:
... Facilitator asks AG chairs to add GitHub link(s) to Agenda
page and introduce the review request at the AGWG
meeting.
... After discussion, facilitators will make updates based on
feedback from AGWG and open any new issues.
... After discussion, facilitators will make updates based on
feedback from AGWG and open any new issues.
... Taskforce content only comes to AGWG for CFC approval at
key publication points
... Facilitators have the right to close issues raised at point
of publications if they are out of scope.
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12O-1BKwlx4iR43GvFzmScejq2xU9V-rehrlxN42st5M/edit
TL: Subgroups and TFs are they
already created or will they be.
... TF are in charter.
... WCAG 3 Subgroup Handbook describes that process:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12O-1BKwlx4iR43GvFzmScejq2xU9V-rehrlxN42st5M/edit#heading=h.gzpoqn1jwaec
... thinking of group on deceptive patterns.
rm: Don't Do Harm Sub Group would be a likely fit.
Dan: why is there an extra google doc?
rm: because working in github is hard to difficult for some people.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki#user-content-Subgroups
rm: Sub Group listing will be in the new repository .
chuck: In august we will have some training on this new process.
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask about potential gaps
Jennie: looks really good. For those that can't use GitHub what are they missing.
rm: everyone will be in github
for one click.
... reading conversations may be difficult. But they can
participate but not with the depth.
<Wilco> You're going to need a github account to vote though
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on 'use github'
rm: simple interaction is possible.
<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to comment on using polling instead of thumbs up and thumbs down
ac: we are aware of issues with Github. We are focusing on task as a whole.
<Wilco> I think polling is only in discussions?
st: polling instead of thumbs up or down?
<mgifford> I like Shawns point. Not sure we couldn't work with GitHub Discussions but would definitely need to explore it.
rm: whatever we choose needs to be consistent throughout all the processes.
<Rachael> scribe: Rachael
Chuck: We are now transitioning to WCAG 2 backlog. Folks here for WCAG 3 are welcome to stay but we will be on WCAG 2.
Chuck: TOPIC: Focus-not-obscured note & understanding document
Chuck; We had previously surveyed, emailed and discussed some updates to non-normative text for Focus-not-obscured previously. Unfortunately that wasn't quite resolved, the approved PR was merged into an alternative branch and didn't make it into "main". Those (generally agreed) changes have been collated into PR 3266 which can be previewed.
Chuck: [Reading comments]
Alastair: Melanie had editorial comments that could be incorporated before merge.
<dan_bjorge> +1 to replacing "disclosed" with "opened"
Alastair: Interesting comment on user disclosed vs. user open. If anyone wants to object to using user opens, please let us know.
<mgifford> Sorry, I have to jump off to another meeting but will watch the discussion here.
Alastair: apologies. In the future we will make sure anything that comes to survey will be merged into Main. This was being merged into another branch. That was a lesson learned this week.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3266 to update Focus-not-obscured note & understanding document
Alastair: I propose we take on
Melanie's editorial updates.
... and for Jon's comment, if he's ok, go ahead with this and
request Jon raise an issue or come to Friday meeting to work on
separate update for that.
Dan: This includes informative changes to the main document. Does that cause issues?
Alastair: Its something we agreed in the group. It shouldn't cause issues. Michael?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3266 to update Focus-not-obscured note & understanding document
<mbgower_> I'm 'okay' with updating 'disclosed' to 'opened'. "Disclosed/Disclosure" is a commonly used term in ARIA, etc., but it works synonymously here, pretty much https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/disclosure/
Alastair: There was a note on focus not obscured that didn't get merged into main. Due to branch confusion. Will this cause any transition issues?
<alastairc> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
<Chuck> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Detlev> +1
Michael: It will go into the transition version so I don't think there will be an issue.
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<laura> +1
+1
<mbgower_> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<alastairc> I agree it is less specific, but also more understandable in general...
mbgower_: I did want to point out, I think open is a less specific term than disclosure where its content that is being revealed and then hidden.
<LoriO> +1
<ToddL> +1
<kirkwood> +1
scotto__: I don't think it is going to be a problem. I was commenting on the PR not the survey. Is this going to account for the PR discussion?
alastair: We will try to combine comments in the PR.
alastairc: I think the more
substantive one was on the part about if you're tabbing out of
content, does that pop over automatically. [reads
section]
... the suggestion was slightly adjusting it. Keeping it
similar but making it a section and then referencing
subsection.
I don't think its taking anything away except for the bit that Scott thought was objectionable. Did you have examples of the pop over attribute that wasn't supposed to disappear when yuo tab out of it.
scotto__: In development of a pop over element in HTML for the auto state, which is the default state, the pop over does not automatically dismiss. Someone can click outside it. Someone can, if focus has left, they can use the escape key to close it without moving keyboard focus. Automatically closing was an unexpected behavior. Also undesireable, Developers don't want screen reader users to be confused why content they just interacted with
was gone.
scribe: that is how the pop over element is supposed to work. I dont' want the popover html feature to be in opposition with this.
Alastair: My suggestion is to agree and then this update won't ring those alarm bells.
<Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say what happens if another popover is opened?
Scott: I will take another look after the meeting and comment if needed.
<dan_bjorge> We don't actually have time to keep on working on this, correct? We have a deadline to merge this to get it in the transition document?
mbgower_: I think we can keep
working on this one. I am concerned about the potential for
someone to use a popover pattern to put a whole bunch of crazy
stuff in there which would not be intuitively expected to
persist.
... I think its a slippery slope. Lets carry on the discussion
and see.
Scott: Still be worked.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we need to merge the note in asap, we can carry on with the understanding doc.
Chuck: Is the proposal to accept the PR and then contineu working or not accept the PR?
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3266 to update Focus-not-obscured note & understanding document.
Alastair: Yes we need to accept the PR to get the note into Main so its part of the recommendation. Then we can work on the understanding.
Chuck: resolving with no
objecting vote.
... Requests using queue to continue conversation.
Chuck: DanB undertook and update to the focus-appearance understanding document in PR 3259. (the PR includes an overview of the updates.) A lot has changed, so it is probably easiest to preview the whole document.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3259 for Focus Appearance CR3
alastairc: This is a big change that lines the understanding with the AAA version. Thank you Dan for what must have been a lot of work. All agree.
Chuck: No comments. Moving to resolution.
<mbgower_> +1 we can keep tweaking these as we go. big improvement to align
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3259 for Focus Appearance CR3
dan_bjorge: I've had one or two folks reach out with editorial changes. I suggest this is the same state as the previous one. Accept in totality and open separate issues for wording that needs updates.
+1
<alastairc> +1
<laura> +1
<Chuck> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Detlev> +1
<LoriO> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
<ToddL> +1
<Makoto> +1
<Raf> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3259 for Focus Appearance CR3
Chuck: When we were in issues calls this was a big topic. Can you summarize?
alastairc: We had a couple of
disagreements on how to interpret audio description. The one
this was trying to get to was whether if you've got audio
description that doesn't actually have gaps in speech, this was
not applicable. Which is why there is a AAA version for
extended audio description. If you have a talking heads video
that also has visual information but no gaps in the audio then
this would fail.
... the alternative is that the Success criteria does not apply
in cases where the audio does not have sufficient forces.
<Chuck> Rachael: Just to understand, is the core question is whether it passes or fails if there are no gaps?
alastairc: at the AA level, if you have a video that has no gaps to add audio description, would it fail audio description?
SC 1.2.5: Audio description is provided for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media.
Aidaudio description is narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone
2nd note: In standard audio description, narration is added during existing pauses in dialogue. (See also extended audio description.)
<mbgower_> +1 to that interpretation
Lori: We talked about this on Friday. I thought the alternate version was that. I thought that if there are no gaps and there is no audio description of characters or important information, it would fail.
alastairc: I wasn't sure we'd come to that conclusion.
<Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say this should be addressed in the technique test, BUT first we need to get alignment on this core question
Chuck: Based on the terminology and the wording the question is that if there are no gaps to be utilized, is that a pass or fail?
mbgower_: Logical place to tackle
it is in the test technique.
... my opinion: If there are no audio descriptions, you fail
1.2.5 but you can't pass 1.2.3. You can't pass AA without audio
descirption if there's meaningful video only content.
<GN015> I feel if a video does not provide sufficient pauses to add an audio description, it causes mental overload anyway. If any visual information is missing, it fails and must be recreated with pauses. If the spoken text contains all visual information anyway, it passes. (This often happens in training videos, for example in slide based ones.)
AWK: There has always been
subjective interpretation that needs to be applied as to
whether an audio dsecription is able to be fit into a space or
whether the primary audio needs to be changed to make room for
whether the primary audio needs to be ducked. My recollection
is that we had extended audio description because there was the
possibility of situations where there is no space for audio
descriptions to be added.
... we wind up in a situation where if you have one audio
description then suddenly we're passing. I don't think we've
solved the problem which is the video is just too packed to add
audio descriptions. I would not say it fails.
Chuck: We are at end of call. Should we continue?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to bring POINT OF ORDER
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on having an zero-length audio description
alastairc: We had a bit of after-hours discussion a couple of weeks ago to drill down into the intent. I started talking around about the definition of audio descriptions. Personally, my preference would be to include the alternative version of Patrick's and have a look at this.
Lori: In the original it says "it will fail this success criteria"
LoriO: In the conversation, it says "In these cases it will fail."
Wilco: I think an important point to be made here is that not everyone can change the video due to copyright issues, legal constraints and technical constraints. Audio description has always been you fit it in where you have space and if not, address it elsewhere.
<mbgower_> +1 to wilco
<alastairc> this is a case of a binary rule to a continuum of cases :-/
<Zakim> mbgower_, you wanted to say it would be good to do some basic polling to find out where the friction is
<mbgower_> +1 to day
<mbgower_> dan
dan_bjorge: I want to give feedback on the point about whether there is a meaningful difference between 0 and 1 being the cutoff. When 0 is the cutoff is the likely way is that an author who isn't an audio description expert makes a determination that it isn't applicable without consulting someone knowledgable about audio description. At 1, it encourages authors to think meaningfully abotu the quesiton.
<laura> Innovative technology solutions such as plugins do exist that basically superimpose captions or audio descriptions. 3Play Media, Verbit, Cielo24, AutomaticSync all do this.
mbgower_: I think maybe a solution forward is to create a new technique. Almost all techniques talk about movies. We don't have an example of creating a separate audio track. Its a pretty easy test to ask and addresses files on the web of which there are many more than movies.
<AWK> Someone will need to watch the video to evaluate whether there is space and whether there is audio description, so I don't agree that there is a difference between zero and one individual description in many cases. It seems like people want an automated test to pass/fail this SC, but that can't be definitive.
<laura> +q
mbgower_: Test would have 2 questions. Is there important visual information not provided inthe audio track? Is the video without audio descriptions? I think this is a good approach and I'd be willing to take it on.
GM: I also feel the main point is whether any visual information is missing. If visual information is missing, it should fail.
Chuck: I see several people trying to join the queue. We will come back to this conversation.
alastairc: We will talk about it at Friday's discussion and bring this back to AG in 2 weeks.
<mbgower_> maybe we want 2 new techniques: 1) using audio descriptions in available space 2) covering all important visual information in the existing audio
<laura> bye. Thanks everyone.
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/ing the doc/in the doc/ Succeeded: s/resitered /registered / Succeeded: s/depatring frrom w3c /I will be departing from W3C / Succeeded: s/progrress /progress / Succeeded: s/getting apprroved /being approved / Succeeded: s/normative changes/informative changes to the main document/ Succeeded: s/ knoe / know / Succeeded: s/sprreadsheet. /spreadsheet. / Succeeded: s/efficent./efficient./ Succeeded: s/prrocess./process./ Succeeded: s/cenrtal to /Central to / Succeeded: s/thurs and /Thursday and / Succeeded: s/facilatator /Facilitator / Succeeded: s/harrm SG /Harm Sub Group / Succeeded: s/don't do /Don't Do / Succeeded: s/gihub /GitHub / Succeeded: s/consistant thougourt /consistent throughout / Succeeded: s/SG listing /Sub Group listing / Default Present: Chuck, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, ShawnT, Jennie_Delisi, present, JustineP, kirkwood, Ben_Tillyer, dj, Detlev, shadi, wendyreid, Makoto, MichaelC, maryjom, Francis_Storr, scotto__, jeanne, Wilco, ToddL, AWK, mbgower_, jaunita_george, JenStrickland, LoriO, Poornima, Daniel, jon_avila, dan_bjorge Present: Chuck, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, ShawnT, Jennie_Delisi, present, JustineP, kirkwood, Ben_Tillyer, dj, Detlev, shadi, wendyreid, Makoto, MichaelC, maryjom, Francis_Storr, scotto__, jeanne, Wilco, ToddL, AWK, mbgower_, jaunita_george, JenStrickland, LoriO, Poornima, Daniel, jon_avila, dan_bjorge Found Scribe: laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Scribes: laura, rachael ScribeNicks: laura, Rachael 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]