Meeting minutes
I have to drop when we switch to breakout rooms so I can scribe
Chuck: thanks for joining! some are festive for halloween
Chuck: first topic, anyone want to introduce themselves?
Chuck: remember to present+
Chuck: any new topics?
Chuck: announcements: day light savings changes
Chuck: reminder clocks will be switching or have switched
Chuck: another, charter is in process. there will shortly be a call for participation
kevin: nothing else to add right now. big phrases like "soon" and "coming"
Chuck: any questions regarding charter?
Chuck: chairs, anything else?
WCAG 2 issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results
Chuck: first one, reviewing WCAG 2 issues. about 40 min
Chuck: any objections to sharing screen?
Chuck: sharing screen. first question is rewrite SCR37
Chuck: reading information
alastairc: stating Kantel isn't here and has points
alastairc: first is about focus others is about opening modal dialogues
alastairc: explained Francis's point
alastairc: reading the comments
Chuck: MichaelG asked if we plan to provide a working example
alastairc: I dont think so but we can. wasn't part of the previous one
Chuck: wilco has a comment. wilco can you summarize yours?
Wilco: summarizes his own comment
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: ccept amended PR 3024 to address SCR
Francis_Storr: assign a number because it could be leapfrog to something else
<mbgower> I was thinking this could be linked to 2.4.3 Focus Order
Wilco: cool, so ignore second point
alastairc: on the relationship, system looks at understanding documents and creates links to techniques. It's not included in PR
alastairc: sorry it's a focus order
alastairc: i think it is sufficient
alastairc: does that help? Francis do you remember off hand?
Francis_Storr: no, more make it into HTML modal dialogue
alastairc: it's a sufficient technique that include things not required in WCAG
alastairc: is there an objection to this update?
alastairc: this will remove SCR37
Chuck: that's for Wilco?
alastairc: primarily yes
<mbgower> +1 to replace SCR37 with H## and to make it a sufficient technique for 2.4.3, situation 3
Wilco: Yes, personally
alastairc: have you looked at the original?
Wilco: if we put something new, we should look at the original
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we are making progress
Chuck: that's the question here. is this incrementally improving the technique
Chuck: perfection is desirable but let's not roadblock if there's improvement. but that's opinion
<alastairc> Old but live version: https://
Wilco: I'm concerned we are suggesting things that are requirements
Chuck: alastiar I can do a proposed resolution to see where we stand?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3024 to update SCR37
alastairc: I'd like to narrow down what success looks like for this
Chuck: proposing resolution to update SCR37
<Chuck> +.5
Chuck: not jumping immediately, more a poll
<mbgower> +1
mbgower: can we make it rename and renumber?
Chuck: sure
<alastairc> +1, happy to continue work
<Wilco> -.5
<laura> +1 Agree in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the improving what we have.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3024 to update, rename and renumber SCR37
<Rachael> +.5 - if changes can be made in the next two weeks, continue working
<dan_bjorge> -.5 - hard to judge without knowing the context in which it will be referenced
Chuck: Mike, is that what you had in mind? Hope it's clearer
<ShawnT> +1
mbgower: yep
<scotto> +1 - the current example is not a sufficient technique to make a proper dialog.
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Makoto> +.5
Chuck: judging there isnt a hard consensus here
alastairc: okay I'll follow up after the meeting
Adding why it is important to 2.1 SCs #3312
Chuck: no resolution. continue working it. advancing to question 2
Chuck: adding why it is important to 2.1 SC 3312
Chuck: reads description. 6 agrees, 1 wants adjustment
Chuck: gundula isn't on the call but wanted adjustment
Chuck: I'll start the conversation
Chuck: both target screen readers. I'm not sure I agree with this comment
Chuck: ummm Mike
mbgower: input ones, that is not listed in benefts section
<alastairc> +1, the idea behind input purpose was primarily for cognitive issues.
mbgower: I'm not sure AT's would surface
mbgower: several situations people point out benefits missing
<bruce_bailey> i agree that input purpose is not AT centric
mbgower: I don't think we should introduce things not in the understanding documents
alastairc: no I think we should rebut this so it is in the minutes
GreggVan: is it true that font is not mentioned in SE but we're mentioning in the brief?
mbgower: I can speak to that
<alastairc> The proposed in-brief for text spacing: https://
mbgower: SE is about text spacing
GreggVan: if the understanding is poorly written, then instead of writing an inaccurate end brief, we should change the understanding then write an accurate brief
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that's not really what the in brief is intended to be
Chuck: the scope is more plain language, not a correction
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the intent and understanding doc
alastairc: the intent of text spacing is to allow people to override fonts
<alastairc> For example, a user may need to change to a wider font family than the author has set in order to effectively read text.
alastairc: success criteria test doesn't mention changing fonts but the intent does
<bruce_bailey> https://
mbgower: I was going to say the same thing
mbgower: I'm open to making the case that it should AT
<laura> +1 Alastair recalls correctly.
dan_bjorge: I want to express support for both
dan_bjorge: understanding doc does mention AT
dan_bjorge: font changes as motivation for the issue doesn't matter
<alastairc> Confused, it is, the only reason it isn't mentioned in the SC text is because that isn't how you test it.
GreggVan: I agree. Doesn't matter what the orignial motivation for SC
GreggVan: you can't put something in the understanding doc that isn't in the SC
GreggVan: if it's not in the SC, it shouldn't be in the understanding doc and if it is needs to be flagged and fixed
GreggVan: those things are clearly AT. I would like to understand what "skeptical of AT" meant
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we could figure out how to do it, and did it.
alastairc: I'll leave that to Mike. pushing back on "didn't know how to do something"
alastairc: main intent was to allow people to override fonts
alastairc: just because success criteria doesn't mention it, don't think it's a valid reason to not include it
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that the Understanding document's Intent section often addresses concepts beyond normative text
mbgower: original 2 rows, now covered by what author is doing, what SC requirements, those are directly addressing norm of text
mbgower: third is user benefit and intent
mbgower: thiks it's legitmate to look at understanding doc and see what is addressed there
<alastairc> The proposed text for this is "Why it's important: Some people need text with different spacing or fonts."
mbgower: skeptical comment, what meant: need to make sure there is a case AT is included in the benefit section
mbgower: I'm already in process of adding it to new issue and go back and look at understanding document
GreggVan: correct me if wrong, if I write that it is impossible to change font, I will pass SC but will fail understanding?
GreggVan: understanding will say I can change font
GreggVan: understanding doc saying we can change font is not accurate. am I correct or wrong?
mbgower: reads the last line of understanding doc
<alastairc> I think there's a different between "AT" that we typically refer to, and the AT that would be used to benfit from 'identify input purpose'.
GreggVan: clarifies how he understood what was read
mbgower: that's not what summary says
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say SC 1.4.12 uses "font" repeatedly. Understanding not requiring change of font face / font name -- just font characteristics.
<GreggVan> +1
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on overriding fonts
<mbgower> <dt>Goal</dt><dd>Users can adjust text spacing to make it easier to read.</dd> <dt>Author task</dt><dd>Ensure content adapts to user-defined text settings.</dd> <dt>Why it's important</dt><dd>Some people need text with different spacing or fonts.</dd>
<laura> +1 to bruce
bruce_bailey: I think we can say "font characteristics"
alastairc: time we wrote it, we had a discussion about if it's possible to prevent users from overriding fonts
GreggVan: yes plus one to Bruce
<mbgower> I have that in as a suggestion, and can make it so
GreggVan: the understanding doc talks about the probability but if you add "characteristics" to the summary, that should solve it
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3312 ("in brief")
GreggVan: responds to the comment on the use of AT
Chuck: proposes resolution
Chuck: accept ammended PR 3312
alastairc: what is the ammendment?
mbgower: it is already in there
<alastairc> Last bit ammended to: "Some people need text with different spacing or font characteristics."
<laura> +1
<alastairc> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<dj> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<kevin> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Wilco> +1
<mbgower> +1 I'm also adding the other comment on input to omnibus issue
<Makoto> +1
+1
<tburtin> +1
Chuck: any concerns?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3312 ("in brief")
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3312 ("in brief")
Chuck: we have 6 minutes left. either sneak peek or quick resolution for #3333
Chuck: read description
Chuck: Gundula had comments
alastairc: I don't understand her first comment
alastairc: if something is open and receives focus, it can't obscure focus
scotto: just clarity. there's use cases when you open something and focuses goes into it. that's not true for everything
scotto: not everything opened by user will receive focus. whether it should is a different topic
GreggVan: difference in term "usually" and "never"
GreggVan: you can't have a usually followed by a never
Chuck: I didn't read it that way. technical semantics I am agreeing with
<alastairc> The specific area Gundula seems to be commenting on: https://
GreggVan: agreed with how Chuck read it
alastairc: yeah this specific area doesn't say "never"
scotto: while focus may move into an element, there are use cases when it doesn't dismiss focus automatically
GreggVan: this is a note in the SC so we can't tweak it correct?
alastairc: we are in the understanding but it is explaining a note in SC
GreggVan: if we do the "if, then" approach, that will make things clearer
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to assess where we are at
<alastairc> If this isn't agreed: "allows for user-opened content to obscure the item receiving focus, provided the user can bring the item with focus into view using a method that doesn't require navigating back to the user-opened content to dismiss it."
<alastairc> Then we need to re-group on it on Friday.
Chuck: I'm assessing where we are because we are at time
alastairc: what Scott said, it sounds like we aren't agreeing with the statement in the understanding doc. If true, we need to regroup on Friday
alastairc: basically, if you open something that obscures, it's okay if you can go back and dismiss it. Scott is this what you are concerned?
scotto: I'm fine with the text written. But I had heard it would be okay if someone had to move back to the obscured element
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3341 to address issue 3333
Chuck: I'm interpreting that Gundula isn't getting a lot of support on her concerns so this is fine?
alastairc: I think so. I will ask Gundula
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
Chuck: resolution to accept 3333
<scotto> +1
<laura> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<dj> +1
<alastairc> +1, I'll circle back to Gundula
<Makoto> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<sarahhorton> +!
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3341 to address issue 3333
<sarahhorton> +1
Chuck: last opportunity?
Chuck: so resolved
<mbgower> For the record, I added the two input purposes to the issue on Understanding documents w3c/
<Chuck> Scribing ends here, as group will do exercises
<Chuck> Pointer support scratchpad: https://
<Chuck> Clear Purpose scratchpad: https://
<Chuck> Prevent Harm: https://
<Chuck> alastair and Rachael, are you wrapping up? Can I close the rooms?