AGENDA 1 -- announcements (including CSUN attendance) -- taken up [from alastairc] AlastairC https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CSUN-Face-To-Face/ Alastair : Face to Face CSUN attendance , there are 10 people intending to be there in face to face , 6 remotely. ... please do sign up and answer if you can ... do we know timing for day? Rachael : 8am Pacific , 11am ET through afternoon is plan, nothing definite. AlastairC Questions on Editor's Draft Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/draft-revew-Feb-23/ Alastair : Survey on editor's draft . Rachael : Relatively short survey. The second question was answered previously but we are carrying over. Please do submit if you are able. Closes this Thursdsay. Alastair : Any open announcments? MaryJo : WCAG2ICT update . We are creating guidance for WCAG 2.1 a and aa . We have our first four ready for survey. We have background section as well. ... We will be pointing out a survey for AGWG . I'm creating survey right now. We will discuss in AGWG meeting . Alastair : Might be March 21st timeframe with CSUN etc. happening. AGENDA 2 -- Guideline Grouping Survey Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/guideline-org/ -- taken up [from alastairc] +1 to AWK re more time AWK : Plea for consistency on when surveys are open until. Thursday closings are hard time wise to respond. More time is better. I find the timing of the surveys very confusing. Chuck: We are opening on Wednesday , then week to respond on Thursday of next week. i confess to struggling with new pattern as well ...hopefully that works for all, as that also helps to include weekend for chairs. AWK : appreciate the efforts on aggregating the comments. Alastair : WCAG 2.2 issues are backlog issues. Multiple issues , those are left open and we tackle per week. WCAG 3 is more topic based and gathering of opinions. ... Different use cases , but goal is to have more time to have to respond , Thurs to Thursday window for responses. AlastairC https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/guideline-org/results Alastair : Context was to have placeholder level content and organizing for work. Organized by topic , scope, expertise. Currently placeholder only. CSUN is on 13th, we don't have a meeting on Tuesday, next is on March 21st. TOPIC: Color Contrast, Luminescence and Text size Alastair : Mostly comments were from Andy S. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsNS1z_WBt3Ey30m-At8V87jYeM65KoWSR7L3SRR3T4/edit#heading=h.sxfsael6ky53 Rachael: Andy would like to add second guideline to proposal, places in link to Google doc ... Readability and luminance contrast topic and comments may be easier in document. ...opens up to group for comments. +1 to Alastair, we'll need similar expertise, best to keep grouped. Alastair : May be worth separating out if have enough for different sub groups . Any particular comments from group? Contents use sufficient contrast and do not rely on color alone Contents use sufficient contrast and do not rely on color alone Gregg: What are we separating out? Contents use sufficient contrast and do not rely on color alone Rachael: Color alone vs. visually readable content uses sample luminance Visually readable content uses ample luminance contrast Gregg : Visually readable ... one would rely to buttons vs. text ? They should state why they are different. Running text. vs. no running text. Bridge daemon Lauriat, you wanted to +1 Alastair on context Lauriat : Does splitting out guidance within work , that is more a question within subgroup to decide. +1 Alastair : In the document, we can leave them separated out. How we arrange the work, it would be the same subgroup. We will get back to Andy. Rachael : I would leave the notes in the doc, I would re-word if we are to split them out. Subgroup action item. +1 Rachael : Jennifer recommended putting in structure . Structure should be own subgroup ? Kind of opposite of last topic on organizing. Jennifer sent her regrets via email the other day Alastair : Jennifer not on participant list. Regrets for this meeting. For this work, we will keep in document. Subgroup can consider that topic as well. Rachael : slightly different conversation on breaking them out. Want to avoid subgroups working on same thing in different places. Q? Gregg : I would agree. Making a comment on structure being consistent. Consistency around cognitive , agree separate. TOPIC: Term / grouping for "safe" Rachael : Site or app is "safe" to use. Alternative phrasing is requested. Flashing, animations, motion, etc. Need name for guidelines. Rachael : Not dangerous was one recommendation. I like "avoids known hazards" I just added a comment in the doc. Suggestion: "The site or app does not cause harm" Gregg : Working groups need to be separate. I.e. flash and computational aspects. Different expertise for other topic. +1 to splitting into two groups because of different technical expertise. +1 to splitting it Jaunita : If we are talking about banking, i.e. critical errors, you have risk. For example, financial fraud, etc. Laura : request to remove third party . We don't have consensus yet. It would be for everyone. Bridge daemon Rachael, you wanted to answer the 3rd party piece Rachael : This pulled together the work back in the fall that was done on this topic. Warns users should still be part of what is within this topic. +1 to delete “3rd party” Alastair : Flashing and Animations grouped together? Todd : Guideline , the site or app does not cause harm would be one suggestion. Is there any concern that saying "warning" might make people think it's ok to use flashing content as long as they warn the user first. Alastair : holistic term of safe vs. avoiding harm... thank you. safety & security guidelines is terminology have used John Kirkwood: on terminology being used . Alastair : More on subgroups to decide TOPIC: Overall organization discussion I agree "safe" is different than doing no harm. Alastair : Not being organized by principle. Jennifer wasn't convinced this was needed. Perhaps by topic, etc. +1 to say that tagging will be essential and is part of the design ... editor's note on feedback , as part of this for PR for placeholder in regard to the draft structure . +1 to jeanne, beat me to noting it ... talks to it not being final, but structured by tagging vs. one particular structure in general. Gregg : This document is for organizing outcomes. The guidelines aren't organized per se. The guidelines could still be organized in POUR principles. Bridge daemon jeanne, you wanted to say that tagging will be essential and is part of the design Might be an interaction that the sub outcomes may not sort well if sorting guidelines. +1 to Rachael's comments I agree with the tagging approach AlastairC +1, I've been through re-organising the guidelines multiple times, and am pretty confident there is no "one way" that works across organisations / audiences. Jeanne : Part of design is heavy use of tagging and flexibility of organization. We are trying to organize by topic and expertise. For a way of identifying what goes together. We aren't getting rid of POUR (principle) . Some could apply to perceivable and operable per se. +1 to alastair's point Bridge daemon Rachael, you wanted to suggest alphabetical order for the placeholder level ... Design group is working on findability and filtering of information vs. how we are working on these items. Rachael : We do have levels, so we may not need organization . Grouping for work is important. Perhaps grouping alphabetically would be beneficial . Bridge daemon bruce_bailey, you wanted to note i marked my comment as resolved -- is that constructive to the process? Or should I let editors do that? oops I meant +1 to Jeanne's comment (also rachael now) Bruce : Alphabetical sorting comment on organization. ... on comments, in Google doc, marking as resolved ok in document? Rachael : Yes, that is fine. Alastair : Jared Spool mentioned that alphabetical is arbitrary , thus true to what Bruce mentioned. completely arbitrary and intentionally so -- i love it Rachael : PR is next step. Please comment in Google doc if you are able to. AGENDA 3 -- Discussion about Requiring vs. Encouraging -- taken up [from alastairc] Chuck : We know these are challenging conversations. We know they are all valid. We follow the code of ethics . ...We want to call out blanket statements and may need further research . ⇐ Ben_Tillyer quit (~Ben_Tillyer@a11e3e9c.public.cloak) Ping timeout: 180 seconds ... we found out that framing of required vs. encouraged did not work out entirely. All are requirements for someone , somewhere. We need to think of difficulty level of a particular method or recommendation and consider user impacts, then we map to bronze, silver and gold. I.e. needs for education and training. Healthcare. Entertainment needs, for content types. ...conversation will continue next Monday regarding mapping. Gregg : Very good points. We talked to concept of requirable and encourage able , how does the person know that they've done it or not , passed it or not. Make it easier...how do I know if it is easy enough? Bridge daemon alastairc, you wanted to comment on trying to separate user-requirement from spec-requirement https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vcRAtYtdTSgoUoY30BpSFEs9Wji3k2Q3N9Qm3vRsFVg/ Alastair : I was also member of call yesterday. We have rough notes and will refine it as we move through it . We have a slight problem , user requirements and what we are requiring in terms of the specification. We have requirements we want included. WCAG 2 isn't a complete map of accessibility related. perhaps use "user needs" and WCAG requirements ... spec was on what we expect authors to do. User requirements vs. requirements themselves . Mapping those to bronze, silver and gold levels. WCAG has had similar challenge with the use of the word "guidance" and "guideline" Do we want to have a more complete listing to include? Bridge daemon mbgower, you wanted to say often we speak of "user needs" and "standards requirements". Can we maintain those perspectives? Alastair : Are we prepared to do that? We need to concentrate on required , due to MVP requirements of charter. Michael: User needs vs. standards requirements may be a possibility ... my need may be more general, requirements may change and be different. agree with user needs separation AlastairC q yes, requirements of the requirements we are crafting Alastair : Requirements of spec vs. author and user needs as well. Gregg : Plus one on user needs. If in WCAG 3 , user needs and what we can do to meet them. Some are required , some are not. Requirable vs. encouraging (recommendations) . Bridge daemon Rachael, you wanted to say next steps Rachael : These are two meetings that are setting up the face to face conversation. We will revise the two options and bring this back to group on 13th as a subgroup back to AGWG Alastair : We will talk to this more in CSUN remote and Face to Face discussion agreed :) Bridge daemon I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, alastairc *I would really appreciate an email to the list, a week ahead of the CSUN hybrid session, with links to any documents that will be discussed. AlastairC agenda? Bridge daemon I see nothing remaining on the agenda Jennie, we will do our best +1 Jennie AlastairC agenda+ WCAG 2.2 issues [60 minutes] Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/ AGENDA 4 -- WCAG 2.2 issues [60 minutes] Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/ -- taken up [from alastairc] *Thank you @Rachael! Alastair : Agenda moves toward WCAG 2.2 issues TOPIC: 1. Suggest more structure to Intent section of 3.3.7 Understanding article #2650 Chuck set the topic: 1. Suggest more structure to Intent section of 3.3.7 Understanding article #2650 ... most people agreed , one suggestion with adjustment, editorial changes. Opens to Michael. Agree with Mike! MikeG: Is there something as fully inclusive and accessible? Perhaps "more" accessible or inclusive. Perfection is concerning. MikeG: Suggestions were more editorial in survey. +1 to MG issue on “fully accessible” +1 to MG edit for "more accessible" versus "fully accessible" +5 to that. we even devote a paragraph to saying nothing is ever "accessible" Alastair : Link was to accessibility enhanced. only better or minimum AlastairC Line 63 - change from fully to 'more' MikeG: talks to granularity of line 63 on issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2988/files MikeG: Other suggestions were editorial in nature. ... my hope was not to changing in meaning. ho about just getting rid of the “more” or “fully” qualifiers? https://www.w3.org/Guide/manual-of-style/ ⇐ J_Mullen quit (~J_Mullen@a11e3e9c.public.cloak) Ping timeout: 180 seconds Gregg : if you are talking about "the web" it is capital. If website, it typically is not capitalize it. Defer to W3 definitions and editorial aspects. +1 to that ⇐ Lauriat quit (~Lauriat@a11e3e9c.public.cloak) Ping timeout: 180 seconds Alastair : Want to avoid massive find and replace regarding where this is mentioned. AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2988 with adjustments from mbgower DanB: The original issue was consistency around organization. Not sure if separate concern of what PR is resolving the issue. From https://www.w3.org/Guide/manual-of-style/#Terms Either capitalize or lower case "Web" (e.g., Web developer or web developer, Web project or web project, Web page or web page, Web application or web application Alastair : I thought it did resolve the issues. Web site, web site, website :two words (capitalize or lower case "Web") or one (lower case) ⇐ Jennie quit (~Jennie@a11e3e9c.public.cloak) Ping timeout: 180 seconds DanB: I was referencing 2560 PR. s/referencing 2560 PR/referencing 2650 PR AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2988 with adjustments from mbgower, double-check that it answers issue 2650 Alastair : I may need to reference the PR and answering the questions contained +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 AlastairC RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2988 with adjustments from mbgower, double-check that it answers issue 2650 RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2988 with adjustments from mbgower, double-check that it answers issue 2650 +1 TOPIC: 3. Example Could Be Replaced with an Example that Encourages Greater Equity #2550 AlastairC https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2753/files Alastair : Color wheel topic and inputs around using it. Michael Gower: I think concern Suzanne raises in survey has been addressed. [MG quotes color wheel excerpt] mbgower: Per my comment in survey, I think it redundant AlastairC A widget where you can drag a gift to one person in a photo of a group of people also has a menu alternative where users can select the person that should receive the gift from the menu. alastairc: Everyone agreed, so question is do we add example? ... please +1 to add example , or -1 if you think it redundant -.1 especially because it's a little hard to picture/understand AlastairC Poll: +1 to include, -1 to not include ack bruce_bailey bruce_bailey: Is one of those drag and drop? +1 to have a drag and drop bruce_bailey: The other's didn't sound as much. bruce asks if earlier example is clearly drag and drop ? +0.5 - I think it's redundant with the existing 3rd example, but better than the existing example (ie, drop the 3rd) bruce: slider control is not great example of drag and drop greggv: i think we should keep both because there are so many kinds of drag-and-drop ... the example with coordinate entry seems not similar to others +1 to that kanban is jargon dan_bjorge: i think 3rd example IS drag and drop, but its not obvious ... so I suggest replacing that one with this simpler example alastairc: I recommend keeping that one in, as it is a common pattern... Also fine with keeping both if the 3rd is really a specifically common example in practice AlastairC A kanban implementation allows users to drag and drop items between columns, and provides an additional pop-up menu after tapping or clicking on items for moving the selected element to another kanban silo by tapping or clicking on pop-up menu entries. ... Trello is drag and drop for example , but keyboard alternative has good useabiltiy alastairc: How about updating Kanban example ? And keeping others as well? +1 to Gregg GreggVan:For interests of plain language, can this be writting without out "Kaban" and describe functionality. +1 "task board" no AlastairC A task board (kanban) implementation allows users to drag and drop items between columns, and provides an additional pop-up menu after tapping or clicking on items for moving the selected element to another kanban silo by tapping or clicking on pop-up menu entries. MikeGower suggest Kanban in parenthetical -- because it is useful for people who know the term ⇐ shadi quit (~shadi@a11e3e9c.public.cloak) "Page closed" mbgower: i will have suggestion in PR comment A taskboard that allows users to drag and drop items between columns, also provides an additional pop-up menu after tapping or clicking on items for moving the selected element to another column by tapping or clicking on pop-up menu entries. ChrisL gives a technical definition. alastairc: So we will include Detlevs updates and some of thees other suggestions. “drag and drop task board" [alastair does some screen sharing with PR edits] oops "signboard" AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2753 with amendment to link to taskboard / kanban explanation. alastairc: To Jon A, suggesting is okay but already addressed in full context. +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 RESOLUTION:Accept PR #2753 with amendment to link to taskboard / kanban explanation. +1 TOPIC: 4. Focus not obscured margin technique and working example #2746 Chuck set the topic: 4. Focus not obscured margin technique and working example #2746 +1 alastairc:This is new technique because we did not have clean example previously [alastair review comments from survey] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq11 alastairc: From preview, I have incorporated suggestions from survey. ... still needs a little more work and suggestions to better address Wilco's suggestions. ... we might be able to trim back , deleting CSS in example AlastairC Updates: Ensure it works at different viewport sizes. ... reduce amount of code in example (rely on the working example) ... i am checking sample code with different view ports sizes AlastairC ... Update test procedure to clarify the tabing-to aspect, not scrolling plus tabbing. alastairc: Other updates to techniques? alastairc: Okay to leave to Francis to pull and minor edits? Wilco: Concur. Francis Stor: There was a suggestion about useability with code highlighting... [alastair and francis discus] AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2746 with proposed amends to be done. +1 +1 +1 +1 bruce_bailey: Make sure that you aren't counting on me to make notes Francis... alastairc:This is still an issue for FireFox AlastairC Also check Firefox, not fixed element RESOLUTION:Accept PR #2746 with proposed amends to be done. TOPIC: 5. What are the user's solutions of Focus Not Obscured (minimum)? #2700 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq12 alastairc: Propose essentially we accept Detlev response on GitHub thread. mbgower: I am not sure we got the question. I was not clear if after focus on not wrt person who submitted issue. ... i am note sure if response is complete +1 alastairc: i will add in your comments from survey AlastairC https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2700#issuecomment-1290835189 alastairc: Detlev reply are examples on solutions for some points raised by commenter... AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept Detlev's response to the question, as amended. ... MikeG is more from developer perspective +1 +1 +1 +1 [no objections raised] RESOLUTION: Accept Detlev's response to the question, as amended. +1 +1 TOPIC: 6. Clarification sought on "set of web pages" #2298 +1 Chuck set the topic: 6. Clarification sought on "set of web pages" #2298 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq13 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2298 alastairc: We have added a few more examples and clarified another... ... substantial comment from Wilco, recommending against change to any TR doc alastairc: If keep to Understanding docs only , this will be 5-6 success criteria -- so a number to update q- q- MikeG: are example in spec normative or informative ? From 5.1, "Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as "non-normative", diagrams, examples, and notes are informative (non-normative)." alastairc: nominally examples are informative , but still effects translations Wilco: Change in TR space remains problematic, not just for translations. We have to resolve for 2.1 or 2.0 as errata or not? ... not understanding rational for keeping to Understanding. AlastairC Poll: Include example in (1) The definiton, or (2) the five understanding documents alastairc: Updating definition for 2.2 seems much cleaner. Does answer for 2.2 only change voting ? GreggVan:If it is definition, then normative ? alastairc: Examples in definition are informative. +1 to Mgower mbgower: It is a good place to have definitions clear , as technology matures I don't have strong feelings either way. +1 to MGower Wilco: It is not just this case only, there are endless place we might make things clearer. Adding examples as technology evolves seems unending. alastairc: We addressed this with 2.2 on similar issue that Jon Availa raised. We have space with 2.2 to add some clarity... ... We would not anticipate errata for 2.2 just to add an example.... Bridge daemon mbgower, you wanted to say changes https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3008/files and to say I would like response to my suggestions https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3008/files ... this is for publication. After publication is a very different case. mbgower:Process question, are edits in GitHub constructive -- or should I stick with survey? mbgower: explains mechanics of suggestion on pull request for suggested edits to PR ... Is that something to avoid? Should I use survey only? Good for accuracy. Color visions is not required -- alastairc: As chair (editor) the suggestion mechanic is VERY helpful. Bridge daemon GreggVan, you wanted to say Agree we don't want to do this a lot -- but we should do when WE think it is unclear or we need to clarify with our own team ... Would ask for as soon as possible, make reference to survey. ... no need to repeat PR suggestion in Survey GreggVan: The fact that we are making examples for each other is telling that we need better examples. AlastairC Poll: (1) Update in the definition, or (2) add the examples to the Consistent Help SC understanding page. alastairc: Agreed, and this example cam from jon_avila who is on the call. 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 but either way would work 1 1 I'd prefer just 2.2 Wilco allows group consensus defers prefer errata for both alastairc: question as to what to do for 2.1 , 2.0 ? AlastairC Poll: (1) Supplement defintion for 2.2 only (2), or include as errata for 2.1 and 2.2 prefer 1, but 2 is fine AlastairC Poll: (1) Supplement defintion for 2.2 only (2), or include as errata for 2.1 and 2.0 2 1 but 2 would be fine as well 2 2 2 GreggVan: Updating definition is going to raise red flaggs, so please characterize as "supplementing current definition" 2 but 1 is fine as well 1 2 2 either fine no objection alastairc: Any objections on call for doing as erratta ? We probably should keep guidance consistent and the errata would help us do that alastairc: One other suggested example from MG ... AlastairC Any issues with the suggested update? +1 to suggested update alastairc:Any problem with this update from MikeG? +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 AlastairC RESOLUTION: Accept PR #3008 and add as errata to 2.0 and 2.1 +1 0 TOPIC: 7. Dragging Movements - Carousels - Overflowed Containers #2684 mbgower: Have another words smithing https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq14 Scrolling feels more like a gesture alastairc: Concern is that scrollable containers are not in scope of dragging. alastairc: Asks if MikeG has incorporated into his PR suggestions? Not all scrolling areas have scroll bars. Firefox will add tabindex to areas with overflow - but other browsers will not. mbgower: I did not , as I thought that was changing PR too much alastairc: I suggest we accept PR, as we can investigate and ammend later if needed AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3040 and close issue 2684 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 AlastairC RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3040 and close issue 2684 TOPIC: 8. Update focus-appearance alastairc: Minor edit from Wilco mbgower: i have in my PR AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3017 dan_bjorge: Distinction between WHILE keyboard focus versus when RECIEVING kb focus mbgower: This is focus , not focus unobscured alastairc: SC did get slightly tweaked, lets double check mbgower: We have current requirement for focus indicator , and the SC for focus visible versus focus AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3017 +1 +1 dan_bjorge: this prose is illustrating and contrasting SC , so we should be careful +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 AlastairC RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3017 TOPIC: 9. Does Redundant Entry require the data available in the current step? #2805 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq16 alastairc: For context, earlier version of SC includes series of steps -- and that was problematic AlastairC Requiring people to recall information entered previously can cause them ... this PR updates Understanding to match current SC text , and having mention of steps was confusing ... survey question might have included some of that context , which address Wilco's comment in survey. mbgower: I have provided editorial suggestion for some of this alastairc: Comment in survey from jon_avila about in the same page -- addressed by fact that SC scoped to page dan_bjorge: In context in this SC, can we add "in the same process" ? alastairc: The "same process" might reference data from three screen prior -- so that is not as helpful. AlastairC Data which is "available to select" would need to be on the same page. I agree with the idea - thanks for the clarification [alastair and wilco discuss less-jargon phrasing] [mbgower explains UI option for line-by-line comment/suggestion] AlastairC draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3042 draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3042 as amended in the PR +1 +1 mbgower:Page icon with plus symbol , very mouse centric operation , but converts your entry to suggestion which is easy to add int +1 +1 +1 +1 Thanks all +1 Thanks all +1 alastairc:More questions for next week! ... we got through 8 of 10 hightlighted