Telco result, resolution

Hi Andrew, Alastair, 
cc WG
This is mainly about process.

The last call (in which I could not take part) discussed the dragging issue and came to a resolution, squeezed in right at the end without straw poll, which looks like accepting option 2 (although I am not sure from the minutes whether it tries to settle that question definitively). The survey had, at the time of the call, a majority for option 3. If I am not mistaken, the points made by Jake, Patrick and me where not discussed in the call. 
I understand the reluctance to devote more time to something that may begin to resemble a pet peeve, but the ramifications of excluding dragging as soon as there is no strict directionality technically implemented are potentially far-reaching; as I see it, they would make it impossible to fail common type content and control sliders without single point activation alternative, despite the existence of best practice language and potentially sufficient techniques for sliders.

So I would like to get some clarity about process: what is the status of that resolution; what is it based on despite a different option favoured by a majority in the survey and the absence of a straw poll in the call; will there be a continuation of the debate and/or a CFC summarising options and giving all WG members a final say?
Detlev

Sent from phone

> Am 01.06.2019 um 17:34 schrieb Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>:
> 
> Hi Everyone,
>  
> As a heads up (to those that responded), for Detlev’s technique I tried to deal with the comments in the survey:
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Tech_Und_survey/results#xq27
>  
> Preview:
> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/tech-providing-single-point-control-sliders/techniques/general/providing-single-point-control-slider.html
>  
> These are the specific changes in a diff:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/760/commits/83b9fba7b4548a7985526400714ba95cc923ffd5
>  
> Primarily:
> Updating the 1st paragraph, trying to clarify the language for single pointers & gestures. The last sentence may be controversial but I think follows the discussion last Tuesday. That can be changed if I misunderstood.
> Cutting down the procedure, I don’t think it’s a good idea to be so specific about what methods count unless we’re confident it includes everything, in which case the examples should cover that more fully.
>  
> I didn’t change the left/right to include up/down (Jake’s comment), but I did clarify when it would count as a path-based gesture above (which wouldn’t include up/down).
>  
> Andrew: I’m not sure how to “make sure that the same level of increment is possible when clicking as for the keyboard and dragging.”, do you mean as part of the procedure?
>  
> Michael: Could we keep this as a specific technique for sliders? (In fact, Detlev has two, the other is ‘content sliders’.) If someone writes another similar technique we can combine them, but can we get this one on the board? See if the description addresses the path-base gesture bit now. It is a sufficient technique, but we aren’t saying all sliders must do this.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
> --
>  
> www.nomensa.com
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
> follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
> Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT
>  
> Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411
>