<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Rachael> scribe: mbgower

Content Usable Glossary Review https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/add-glossary/content-usable/index.html#glossary

Rachael: COGA TF began review in July. The review has closed.
... No changes in this version except the glossary.
... This is the briefing required through their process.

Lisa: We are looking at every comment, but we haven't put them in this draft. This only covers the glossary. We aren't ignoring the other issues; we just wanted to publish the glossary to get attention.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if these are all hyper linked terms

Bruce: I wanted to check that these are all terms that will be hyperlinked. They are going to occur in the COGA guidelines?

Lisa: I hope so.
... I'd like to see it as submitted, but would be good to submit as an issue.

Bruce: Other glossaries are phrased in such a way that you can plop in the definition anywhere the term is used. has that process been followed?

Lisa: I don't think so.

Bruce: Okay, it seems this glossary is more like a typical document. Normative standards tend to be more rigid.

Rachael: I do believe we will link to these from the content.
... Keep in mind this is a note, not a standard. Do you feel with need to address your comment?

Bruce: I don't have strong feelings. I just want clarity.

Lisa: I would like it to be hyperlinked every time we use the term. Please open an issue.

Bruce: Please provide me the link for filing an issue.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues

<Rachael> mbgower: Caution that if you add links, not every use of the word will be useful to link to the glossary

Lisa: We have plans to ensure we use terms consistently.
... People may jump around the document. Different areas use words almost in an opposite way.
... We try to make it readable by everyone, but to know what we're talking about, you may need that clarification.

<kirkwood> +1 to Lisa’s point

Rachael: The goal is to stay on schedule with this review.

Focus appearance (question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-updates/

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1501/files

<Rachael> results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-updates/results

Rachael: Mike Gower did an editorial review of the Understanding document. He did a PR.
... The survey contains a summary of the changes.

<Rachael> mbgower: The motivation was because I was working with this SC, I knew what had motivated changes in the normative text and I wanted that reflected in the understanding. Not changing meaning

Rachael: 7 agreed with changes; 4 with some adjustments.

Sarah: I think my changes are self-explanatory. Just typos and tweaks.

Gundula: I don't feel my changes are substantial. Just wording and calculation.
... I would talk about Focus Indication Area, not Focus Indicator.
... The area of the focus rectangle calculation is recently changed.

<Rachael> mbgower: This PR was put in before the changes so we just need to update for those.

Alastair: Just before the meeting, I went thorugh and made Sarah's updates. Refresh and you'll get those.
... We'll need another update to incorporate Gundula's.
... Focus indicator and indicator area may need some more discussion.
... I think the reason was we were trying to make it consistent across the bullets.
... Where we use the term area, we use it in the definition.

<Rachael> scribe: Wilco

<Rachael> questionairre: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-updates/

<Rachael> ACTION: See about changing results page to link back to survey

<trackbot> Error finding 'See'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.

Alastair: Used to have "focus indication area" as a definition, is now "focus indicator". Believe the definition was not always used as an area.

David: Do we need the word "minimal", we're already saying "at least". Think we can drop it.

Mike: It's a gradation of indicators, if you have an indicator that fades out, what can happen is even if you have an area that meets the contrast, if you include the part that is failing out even though there is a sufficient amount of the area.
... If you have a fade, and take the part away that is not 3:1, you have a part left that must meet the area.

Alastair: In the understanding doc there is an example of a gradient, that if it doesn't all meet it, you cut it off.

David: Minimal focus indicator is a subset of the focus indicator. I don't think "minimum" adequately defines this.

Mike: That didn't change in this pull request. Only part I changed were the first two bullets.

Rachael: Sounds like we may need an extra issue.

David: I'll file an issue

<bruce_bailey> wrt agendum 1, i filed an issue: https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/227

<jon_avila> I agree the minimum is also defined by the first bullet.

Alastair: Is it clear enough that "focus indicator area" is a reference back to the first bullet.

Mike: I think reversing it "pixels in the focus indicator area" might help.

<Rachael> straw poll: Should we change the definition focus indicator as a set of pixels?

Mike: We use focus indicator in other places in normative text, one of the things I was trying is that we don't need to define area because the SC text itself indicates how its achieved.
... I did not change the normative text, just put in a definition for focus indicator.

Rachael: should we also file an issue for this?

Mike: I think it is.

<bruce_bailey> -1 to "focus indicator" as a set of pixels because I can imagine visual indicators that do not use pixels

Gundula: I can open that issue.

<alastairc> Bruce - I'm fascinated to know what a non-pixel, visual indicator would be?

Jake: I came across a demo, in the github issue I shared two examples. I tried to calculate two examples, it seemed okay, but it was an edge case, but on another button it was a fail.
... This comes back to an issue I raised, when an element is not rectangular.

Alastair: This would be a new issue. On issue 1531, it is a problematic thing that is easier to do when you're implementing it. If the button gets bigger, so does the indicator, as opposed to with a fixed sized icon.
... I would rather remove the 8 pixel extension to the normative bullet, and keep it as a proportional indicator.

Jake: The biggest difference talks about the surface area, but the second talks about a side, which doesn't fit this example.

Alastair: The update would be to remove that second part, so it is not an option.

Jake: That fixes only have the issue.

Rachael: There is an issue, but is not what we are reviewing now. We'll come back to it.
... Andrew suggests adding the word "ratio".

Mike: I think it is fine to add "ratio"

Alastair: I'll make the change.

Rachael: Anything else?

<Rachael> Straw Poll: Can we merge pull request 1501 with changes discussed in this meeting?

<Detlev> +1

<mbgower> +1

<alastairc> +1

<laura> +1

<DavidASx> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<Rachael> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<GN015> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR.

Hidden controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-11-hiddencontrols/

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-11-hiddencontrols/results

Rachael: This SC is something we've come back with. The responses we got indicate a need for it. There are challenges to scoping it.

<mbgower> Rachael: We have struggled with getting this into 2.2. Responses indicate a need for it, but also talked about scoping challenges. We talked at a previous meeting but ran out of time.

<mbgower> Rachael: Survey contains the context for the question.

Sarah: Three things seemed like they need to be addressed
... First is the definition of controls, maybe by changing the term to terms used in other SCs. Controls on its own isn't used that often.
... Then the scoping seems a bit confusing, about which controls this is about and when. Is harder to resolve because it seems squishy "at the time they are needed".
... Then the last is we're giving provisions in the understanding doc of when it would not apply, such as an alternative, then disappearing controls are acceptable. That should be part of the SC language.

Rachael: Sounds like you are in favour of removing the "in process" portion?

Sarah: I suggest instead of controls, we be more specific, maybe UICs, and yes we remove "process", but still am concerned about "at the time they are needed". That could potentially be removed if the exceptions are included in the SC.
... If we keep "at the time needed" we need to define this.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on "Hidden Controls: Controls are visible at the time they are needed without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus, or a mechanism is

Alastair: Not sure controls are as easy to define. Depending on what you are doing there might be multiple processes you are trying to complete. For example, needing to hover over things to find the edit button. If you're not trying to edit thing you don't need it.
... If we don't have some qualifier you come to "all controls need to be visible all the time".
... I'm struggling to find a concept that fits the "visible when needed but not before"

David: Is there an example of this? I test a lot of sites and can't think of examples where this causes problems.

<alastairc> Wordpress, Basecamp

<jon_avila> Slack has an example where you have to focus or hover a name to have the edit icon become available.

Rachael: Will try to find the examples page. We want to avoid requiring when there is another view where the control is visible.

Alastair: If you hover over a message in slack you get a hover with icons.

Rachael: We want some place in the process where people don't have to hunt for controls they need to use.

David: Trying to piece together an array of real-life problems, and how common they are.

Sarah: zoom does it when you move over the window, the controls appear.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lUh2ZsQXRlC_S2gtJE5mMSIHEwB1K2gBBc0VL3hL4Yk/edit

Alastair: It also has a setting to make them permanent

<jon_avila> I agree It could be an option to always show so not to clutter the interface for all users.

Sarah: I want to clarify about "at the time needed", I think it may be possible to remove it if we listed exceptions like having a setting, or an alternative way to achieve the same functionality.

Rachael: Believe that is in the SC text as an option.

Katie: Do we need the mode of operation clarification, like a contrast switch, that would allow you to make the choice to have all controls available, is that an option?

<Rachael> Controls needed to progress or complete a process are visible at the time they are needed without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus, or a mechanism is available to make them persistently visible.

Rachael: Believe that is in the SC text.

David: So the normal way to meet this would be some invitation / control that if you click you can edit or change the thing, whereas if you have a title, but there is no visible invitation to make the changes.

Rachael: There are a few ways to solve this. Put in a redundant control, or an option to reveal all controls.

<jon_avila> I agree - a menu ... would allow it to meet to show more options. I think we have good examples of how to meet this that are flexible.

<jon_avila> I think an edit icon for the table as a whole would work

David: What about in an example with a table where clicking in the table deletes the number. So the table would have numbers, and a little "x" for deleting each number.
... Or an editor mode that you can turn on.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say Controls are visible without requiring pointer hover, or a mechanism is available to make them persistently visible except when:

Mike: I was wondering how much of a problem this is for keyboard. Once keyboard reaches it, you'll have a focus indicator.

<mbgower> An equivalent function is available using controls that are not only displayed on hover

Mike: It didn't seem like keyboard is nearly as big a problem. Second, I think "when they are needed" is hard to define. I would suggest that we might want to add the above.
... The idea would be, as you hover, there should be a mechanism to make them persistently available.
... Wonder if that would help to contain it.

Jon: I think it's important for keyboard-only users as well. If you don't know it's editable you may not navigate to each one to read it. If you don't know something is available you may need to hunt around for them. I know in order to get to the option they need a keystroke, but there might also be a shortcut key.

<alastairc> I can't see a way of getting to the options on each comment without hover (or tabbing)

<alastairc> in slack

Mike: The keyboard should always be there.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about scribe change

Jon: Not sure how to even start the process. Saw this in Slack, I didn't know the channel description was editable.

<jon_avila> scribe: jon_avila

Rachael: probably does apply to both keyboard and mouse. Do we want to do a straw poll?

DavidM: Slack is example of people use on a regular basis. In those cases there may be UI reasons why there is less detail. What if we add - or if there are instructions provided what is editable and how to use it?

GUN015: Keyboard users are fast - hidden controls can pop up and go away - can't expect that keyboard should watch screen to watch for unexpected control appears. Keyboard equally affected.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest that we agree on removing process, but would need to rapidly review issues and build on the exceptions.

Rachael: Very much a COGA SC - retaining from time to time and use to use is tough - even understanding or applying instructions is tough - espeically ones that are buried off screen is enough to address this challenge.

AlastairC: Seems like agreeing to remove process aspect. That simplifies things but means that we need to rapidly build out exceptions.
... Which that concept of process we might hit examples that are problematic and necessary which is difficult. For example, Zoom - small screen device - looking at participant list - take up with but you won't want controls be each by default. There are interfaces where it is a problem but not solvable.

Rachael: question of removing process and at time needed. 2 separate straw polls. Need quite bit of work to stay in as it's at risk. How do we want to move forward.

<Rachael> straw poll: Remove process from the SC text as a way forward

<david-macdonald> -1 because in a process was added to limit... ie does a drop down menu fail without process

<Nicaise> +1

Rachael: add plus 1 if you agree with removing process

<bruce_bailey> +1 to remove "process" from SC text

<mbgower> -1

<Ryladog> +1

<DavidASx> +1

<laura> +1

<kirkwood> -1

<david-macdonald> -1

<sarahhorton> +1

Rachael: Any part of control could be shown including a top menu.

<alastairc> +1, if the exceptions get defined pronto

Rachael: love to hear thoughts from negative 1

Kirkwood: concern with loosing process moves away from original intent helping track through multi-step process. Doesn't seem quite right as it takes teeth out of things.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that if we lose both "Controls needed to progress or complete a process" and "at the time they are needed" makes the scope huge, and loses context

Mbgower: may be when we remove multi-step - changes have taken us away from multi-step process like a wizard that you couldn't complete - kind of making this scope huge and not really address the initial ask.

<kirkwood> +1 to Mike Gower point as well

Detlev: Process is very vague anyway - would adding a smiley be a prcoess? Could be seen as such with steps and actions - not sure if process really helps in narrowing.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#glossary

Rachael: That is the challenge that was raised in scope. Process is defined term.

Jake: Responding to mbgower - process was introduced in creating the issue. We did not start with it. added later.

mbgower: first encounter I had was multi-step.

Rachael: Started with essential.

Detlev: Has aspect been discussed that controls show other controls. Three virtual dots for more to look at. Would that meet.

Rachael: that would meet as currently written.
... Another issue might push people to put more things in drop down menus with multi-level drop down menus.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to point out the challenging issues, e.g. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1360

AlastairC: If we were to maintain process we would need understanding text such as 1360 which stand out. Reading through issue of examples that are hard to deal with as when they are needed is going to be any better than process. We have to come up with answers that either explain or outline as exceptions or combination of both.

Rachael: For those who do not agree with removing process - do you have a recommendation.

Mbgower: multi-step gave more context than process.

<Detlev> belated +1 to removing process

<kirkwood> +1 to multi-step

Rachael: do we continue to work on this - we are time crunch. We could remove process or add multi-step -we need examples and ways to address to turn this around quickly.
... Straw poll to continue or defer. If we continue we have to agree on direction.

<Rachael> Straw Poll: Do we continue or defer? +1 to continue, -1 to defer to WCAG 3.0

<Wilco> +1 continue

<mbgower> -1 reluctantly

<bruce_bailey> +1 to continue

<alastairc> -1, defer, mostly because I can't see a way around the issues

<kirkwood> +1

+1

<Chuck> -1

<sarahhorton> +1 only if we can get the exceptions in place

<david-macdonald> -1, just can't see all remifications yet

<Detlev> +1 I'd like it continued but have no time avail. to commit :)

<Rachael> Jake +1

<Ryladog> +1

Rachael: 8 plus 1s and 4 negatives

<laura> +1 if we have people to work on it.

Chuck: fine continuing - but we have various loads of things to do. I'm happy to change - but we really need help on getting this to where we are comfortable with it.

Rachael: Resources in COGA are also constrained. Which way do you think is best option for success?

<Rachael> Options: 1. Removing process and "when needed" and writing exceptions 2. Add in multi-step 3. Better clarify what we mean by process

Sarah: When you say process what do you mean?

<Rachael> 1. Controls are visible without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus, or a mechanism is available to make them persistently visible.

Rachael: Would say controls are visible with requiring...

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest a 'decorative' exception instead of process

AlastairC: Next step is to go through github issues and scenarios that people have raised and writing an exceptions list. Maybe more of a decorative exception - possible the most important of important task. Maybe some exception around that rather than process.

Rachael: Sounds like that is in support of option 1.

<Rachael> straw poll: Options: 1. Removing process and "when needed" and writing exceptions 2. Add in multi-step 3. Better clarify what we mean by process

<david-macdonald> 2

<kirkwood> 2

<Wilco> 1

<sarahhorton> 1

<Rachael> 1

<mbgower> 1

<alastairc> 1

<Ryladog> 1

<bruce_bailey> 1

<Chuck> Option 3, has long term positive impact.

<GN015> 1

1

<laura> 1

<stevelee> 3

<Detlev> 1 (though not very hopeful we'll get anywhere)

<david-macdonald> yes

<Chuck> Very fine with 1

<stevelee> yes

Rachael: Strong consensus for 1 and equal for 2 and 3. Can folks live with 1?

<kirkwood> yes

<ok> 3

<GN015> Oliver Keim

<ok> thx

<kirkwood> eliminates original intent but is ok

Rachael: Oliver can you live with #1?

<ok> yes

Rachael: Who is willing to work on this? We need set of suggestions in next two weeks. We may need list of exceptions - may lead to 2 or 3 later.

Chuck: If we don't get some highlight that it could get deferred.

DavidM: generally want to help with wording - but don't know if I could characterize the examples and that is the big challenge. What are those exceptions and find people?
... We are doing another round before publication - so that is another possibility.

<alastairc> David - some of the issues do outline the examples which seem odd.

Sarah: would be happy to help. At what point do we throw in the towel when something is not going to fly? One reservation I have is that it will be difficult to construct the SC and exception. This is treading the line. How do we decide can't be?

AlstairC: hard to answer - we do have requirements for success criteria that we were using as a benchmark. If we define what testing works - normative defines a statement that is true or false on an interface. This set of words, this requirements. It will be useful for Silver and that will help us flesh it out for what we want for the requirement will be useful. It might not be useful for this version.

Alastair: Not wasted as we have more flexibility with WCAG 3.0 - so it won't be wasted.

<kirkwood> willing to help as well

Rachael: would you be willing to work with Sarah and spent a few hours to work out something?

DavidM: I could try to connect - we might come back with language that would characterize these examples.

Rachael: John Kirkwood and Mike Gower are both willing to help. If folks are will to get together for a few hours and then we can make a better decision about going forward.
... The other option at this point is to move to WCAG 3. Can you bring back in 2 weeks on 8th of December.
... who is taking lead on setting up meeting.

DavidM: will take it up on Zoom.

<Rachael> ACTION: David, John, Mike, and Sarah will take a look at this and bring it back December 8th

<trackbot> Error finding 'David,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.

Issue Assignment

AlastairC: General call to help for things we need to do. Quite a lot of issues that I have categorized by SC. redundant entry listing for example. Mostly assigned.
... We do need to make progress on updating. General thing - work out resolution on each issue - I'll pick randomly and in this case somebody has raised an issue with term session Then there are some comments on it. Given the comments from the group are around scope - seems like the outcome in this case our intent as a group was to say a process was restricted to a session. We weren't trying to setup a requirement across session.

<david-macdonald> can we get link to the issue list

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Issue_tracking_and_resolution

AlastairC: Does anything need to change normatively- then it might be a small change in understanding doc or just a response to say the group does not intent process to span sessions therefore there is no changes needed. We could then put that in the survey and say agree or disagree - assign to themselves and go through that process to determine if we need to create change or reponse.
... and then it goes into a survey (ready for survey marking).

Mbgower: I think I created a PR to tackle it.

AlastairC: If so it wasn't referenced. Mike's suggest is ideal - a pull request. If you are not familair with that then just create a small google doc or comment.

mbgower: 1410 has a PR attached.

<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1410

AlastairC: need to reference issue in PR. Mike had asked if it resolved the issue.

Alastair: That's the basic process. Raise issue, comment, so forth. It may be that you don't feel like you have context to answer - in which case adding a comment can help.

AlastairC: Quite a few - a few ready for survey. Making some progress - but need to make more? Any questions?

Sarah: Procedural question - finding help: I gave this a stab a while back - but I had questions - I talked you in and assigned to AlastairC. Is that a good way to engage others in the group collaboratively.

AlastiarC: Generally good - but I am automatically tagged in all issue. So I have to filter. You have tagged as ready for survey so I will come back to it. I had not looked at findable help. In general it's a good process.

AlastairC: Previously Jenny was managing findable help - may fall to Rachael in github division.

Rachael: Certain chairs take certain issues - but it changes.

AlastairC: feel free to email me. that is a non-automated issue I will see.

Rachael: other questions?

Alastair: If you can spend next 15 minutes for an issue and pick resolution?

Rachael: Any other things to raise before we close? Pick up an issue please.

thank you

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q9zWT1OjdCrts2xuadVEaJ2wpyLzxnysFQCSTs72L2o/edit

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/a ste of/a set of/
Default Present: Chuck, Rachael, LisaSeemanKest, DavidASx, alastairc, stevelee, GN, Raf, juliette_mcshane, kirkwood, Nicaise, sarahhorton, mbgower, MelanieP, bruce_bailey, david-macdonald, CharlesHall, Laura, Detlev, Wilco, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JakeAbma, ok
Present: Chuck Rachael LisaSeemanKest DavidASx alastairc stevelee GN Raf juliette_mcshane kirkwood Nicaise sarahhorton mbgower MelanieP bruce_bailey david-macdonald CharlesHall Laura Detlev Wilco jon_avila Katie_Haritos-Shea JakeAbma ok GN015
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Scribes: mbgower, Wilco, jon_avila
ScribeNicks: mbgower, Wilco, jon_avila

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: about changing david page results see

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.)