<Rachael> Target size (Q1) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results

<Rachael> agenda order: 1, 2, 4, 3

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2021_Scribe_History

<JustineP> Scribe: JustineP

Silver FPWD issue resolution (30 mins) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-weekly-responses-survey/results

Rachael: trial process, sent survey with a link to issues. We believe the issues can be moved through relatively quickly.
... larger issues will be called out separately from the surveys

<bruce_bailey> +1 for trying simpier issues first

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22status%3A+in+weekly+survey%22

Janina: Are issues marked in a specific way?

<Rachael> survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-weekly-responses-survey/results

Chuck: Yes, label is status: in weekly survey

#495 Email: IBM Comments on WCAG 3.0 Draft (1 - Introduction)

#458 Email: ITI Comments on First Public Working Draft of W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 (16 - Types of tests)

Chuck: For issue 495, IBM sent a document with 10 sections. First section was an intro without any concerns. The other sections were of more substance. Rain liked Alastair's suggestion to add to the end.
... updated response and will be reviewed at a later date.
... most issues raised an issue without proposed solution. Response is generally that AG will review and try to address.
... Rain proposed circling back to issue later.

Rain: For me, it was just ensuring that they understood that we committed to exploring further.

Chuck: So a clear indication that issue is not being dismissed and will be reviewed further.

Jeanne: Fine with answer for 510 although I'd like to flag for follow up. Also want to ask AG members if they have connections to folks in the EU for comments.

#510 Siteimprove Comments on WCAG 3.0 Draft (4 - WCAG 3.0 success levels are impractical)

<Fazio> I have an ITU ISO contact

<Fazio> Simao Campos

Chuck: So the ask is for anyone with EU contacts that can provide guidance. Also wondering if EU referenced model for bronze/silver/gold.

<JF> Maybe reach out to Jon Hassel?

Bruce: I have a contact in the EU that I can reach out to. How formal should the request be?

<alastairc> So long as they are happy to share the answer, no more formal than that.

Jeanne: Doesn't need to be terribly formal

<bruce_bailey> i will ask my contact

<johnkirkwood> presant

Chuck: Doesn't have to be formal but would ask them to review and ensure they are comfortable with communicating their opinion.
... Bruce, you also commented that you agreed with 510. Any thoughts?

Bruce: Is ironic that we chose bronze/silver/gold due to translation problems with A/AA/AAA. Do we have documentation of that difficulty?

<Chuck_> q>?

<jeanne> +1 David

David: I have a friend that I can also reach out to

Chuck: Would be appreciated!
... we were trying to address a particular issue with A/AA/AAA and someone pointed out that bronze/silver/gold has a similar issue.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss 507

<bruce_bailey> @davidF, that is how i am planning to phrase the question

Chuck: Question is whether or not if bronze/silver/gold is an unprofessional representation of what we are trying to accomplish.
... please confirm if they are comfortable with sharing their opinions

#507 Email: Siteimprove Comments on WCAG 3.0 Draft (1 - The proposal fundamentally alters the way in which WCAG is tested)

<Chuck_> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/507

Jeanne: To Rain's concern, I thought we might not want to answer 507 yet and instead address during April 29th meeting.

Chuck: No concerns with that approach.
... I did find it interesting as the feedback seemed to suggest that we retain existing conformance model but no other concrete suggestions were made.
... happy to keep it open and discuss on the 29th

Rachael: Do we need to log resolutions for each issue?

Chuck: Let's not close the issues although I will update the commentary to indicate that AG will follow up.

Jeanne: Only suggested that we don't close 507. Others can be closed with updated comments and tag for revisiting in the future.

Chuck: We can either keep open and defer to later, or close issue and tag for follow up.
... I don't have a strong preference either way.

<jeanne> that was AWK's suggestion last week to have a tag to revisit

Alastair: It is odd to close and flag for follow up, but because these are general comments we can close those issues that have agreed upon responses. Assignees will need to revisit closed issues with appropriate tags.

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to say I believe I was suggesting this use of milestone levels last week

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest creating a single overarching issue to close these to

Janina: Last week, I suggested that we tag with milestones. Is a process question and brings up question of prioritization. Can understand both perspectives.

<alastairc> We would need to establish what the milestones would be.

Rachael: Perhaps we can create overarching issues that will capture these general issues so that they can't get dropped.

Chuck: 507 will remain, 458 closes, 495 will be updated and closed, and we can figure out how to capture future action needed.

<Rachael> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close 495, Leave 507 open, close 510 and 458 to either a milestone or ovearching issue to track

Chuck: We will also amend comments. Any objections?

<Rachael> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close 495, Leave 507 open, close 510 and 458 with amended contents to either a milestone or ovearching issue to track

RESOLUTION: Close 495, Leave 507 open, close 510 and 458 to either a milestone or ovearching issue to track

Chuck: we've now closed our first issue going through the full process!

<Chuck_> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen

Chuck: I will encourage assistance with handling issues.

Rachael: Is everyone comfortable with this new process for handling smaller issues?

<johnkirkwood> +1

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that it is hard to survey multiple questions

Jeanne: I didn't feel like I had an easy way to flag issues that I agreed with vs. one issue that I had a concern with.

<GN015> +1

Jeanne: also don't want to make it difficult to create surveys though. Would like it to retain introductory question with specific issues/questions following. Would be easier for me.

Rachael: Let's try that next week.

Chuck: If we amount to 20-30 issues, could become unwieldy but let's give it a try.

Alastair: For issues that people disagree on, it might be easier to put discussion in Github thread.

<michael> +1

<sajkaj> +1 to avoiding multiple loci of discussion

<michael> Yep

Chuck: We can keep conversation directly in Github although we need to adhere to code of conduct/ethics. We can try both approaches.
... I'm willing to try both next week (Github and survey with individual issues for capturing comments).

Alastair: If you comment on survey and in Github, please indicate that you've commented in both areas via the survey.

Mike: If comments are in Github issue, will be less likely to get lost.

WCAG 2.2 Redundent entry (Q1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/results

<Rachael> Version 1: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/wcag22-redundent-entry-security-note/understanding/22/redundant-entry.html

Rachael: We've been discussing redundant entry for a while. Pasting in two suggestions.

<Rachael> Exception: When re-entering the information is essential

<Rachael> Version 2: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/wcag22-redundent-entry-security-note-alt/understanding/22/redundant-entry.html

<Rachael> Exceptions: When re-entering the information is essential, required to ensure the security of the content, or when previously entered information is no longer valid.

Rachael: we have 5 people that prefer version 2, 3 people that prefer version 1.
... Gundula and Jake, can you speak to your preference for vesrion 1?

Gundula: I feel that version 1 is better because it is more open to what might be considered essential and possible solutions. Also explained what is considered essential a bit better.

Bruce: Gundula's comment alludes to a third distinct pattern for phrasing exceptions. This pattern lumps three different exceptions into one. I wonder if we should list three individual exceptions.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that it is really down to whether we consider security in a particular form is essential

Alastair: Key difference is whether we consider a particular form of security (e.g., password creation) as falling under essential category. I don't think that it does...I prefer the second version. To Bruce's point about structure, we can begin with "unless..." as long as we address security aspect
... and previously entered info.

<Fazio> I cant think of a use case of reentering invalid info

Alastair: would prefer version 2 and exception would begin with "unless..."

<Fazio> kinda strange

<Chuck_> Unless re-entering the information is essential, required to ensure the security of the content, or when previously entered information is no longer valid.

<alastairc> "Unless re-entering the information is essential, required to ensure the security of the content, or when previously entered information is no longer valid."

Rachael: Core question is whether we can leave with "unless..." or if we prefer three separate concepts.
... straw poll please

Chuck: What are we voting on precisely?

Alastair: Do we follow version 1 path with "essential" or follow version 2 path with security considerations, etc.

<JF> V2 path - specificity is always a good thing IMHO

<johnkirkwood> V2 path

<Rachael> straw poll: Version 1 path essential or Version 2 path that calls out security and previously entered information

<JG> I agree with V2. People prefer specific examples.

Alastair: example of re-entering valid info: booking a holiday and are booking a hotel -- change location of holiday so hotel selection is no longer valid

<Fazio> that doesnt fit reentering but ok

<Chuck_> Version 2

<alastairc> v2

<ben> 2

<michael> 2

2

<bruce_bailey> version 2

<Rain> 2

<Detlev> v2

<laura_> v2

<GN015> v1

<MelanieP> v2

<Raf> v2

Rachael: We seem to have a strong preference for version 2. Gundula, can you live with v2 if we incorporate your points into understanding doc?

Gundula: For now, yes.

Rachael: any objections?

<alastairc> Was there anything from the V1 understanding that should be included in V2?

<Rachael> Proposed resolution: Move forward with concept of version 2

Bruce: Confirming that we are not discussing formatting right now.

Rachael: Correct

<johnkirkwood> +1

<Chuck_> +1, no objections

<Rain> +1

<JG> +1

RESOLUTION: Move forward with concept of version 2

Rachael: Let's discuss understanding doc first.

Gundula: I like example of why password creation was essential, would prefer to transfer this to understanding doc

Alastair: Its a good idea to call out password security as essential since it doesn't explicitly fall into the essential category.

<alastairc> Security measures such as preventing a password string from being shown or copied. When creating a password, it should be a unique and complex string and therefore cannot be validated by the author. If the system requires the user to manually create a password that is not displayed, having users re-validate their new string is allowed as an exception.

<Fazio> I still think reentering invalid info doesn't make sense

<Fazio> but whatever

David: If you try to book a hotel in San Francisco, and shift to another location, the information would change.

Alastair: Its essentially the same question being asked again from a testing perspective.

Mike: Without that, you'd be failing in the scenario described.

David: Okay

Gundula: To Alastair's wording, it is security related to ensure that the user is safe.

<Fazio> account security?

<johnkirkwood> data validation is the point of reentry make sure we have that captured

Alastair: Not sure I understand.

John K: Its related to data validation to ensure a missed keystroke wasn't present that then locked the user out.

Alastair: Related to data validation, it opens it up to a large number of possibilities. Calling it security helps to define purpose.

John K: Got it.

Rachael: Under the intent of redundant entry, content seems to be clear.

Mike: If we have agreement on normative text and note, perhaps we should discuss offline with Gundula to try to come to a consensus.

Rachael: Haven't quite gotten to normative text yet. Okay with that recommendation?

Alastair: Sure.

Gundula: Agreed.

<Rachael> ACTION: Michael, Gundula and Alastair to work on understanding.

<Rachael> scribe: Glenda

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2021_Scribe_History

<scribe> scribe: Glenda

<Chuck_> Unless re-entering the information is essential, required to ensure the security of the content, or when previously entered information is no longer valid.

<alastairc> Current: "Exceptions: When re-entering the information is essential,"

<alastairc> Suggested: "Unless re-entering the information is essential,"

Chuck: wondering about Bruces comments about unless.

Bruce: I think it is 3 exceptions. If they are going to be exceptions, it should be an enumerated list.

<johnkirkwood> +1 to Bruce

Rachael: Bruce, you are okay with “Unless”. You want a list. Correct?

<alastairc> Except when:

<alastairc> - When re-entering the information is essential,

<alastairc> - required to ensure the security of the content, or

<alastairc> - when previously entered information is no longer valid.

<Rachael> Straw poll: 1. Except when with numbered list or 2. unless....

<johnkirkwood> 1

<JG> 1

<alastairc> 0

<michael> Double when

<bruce_bailey> prefer prose

<Rachael> 0

<Fazio> 0

1

<Detlev> 0

<Raf> 0

<ben> 0

<Rain> 1

<JF> 0

<GN015> 0

<Sukriti> 0

<laura> 0

<Chuck_> 0, a slight lean towards 2

<Rachael> Proposed RESOLUTION: adjust the language to Except when with numbered list

Rachael: any objections?

<Chuck_> Proposed RESOLUTION: adjust the language to Except when with bulleted list

alastair: make it a bulleted list.

RESOLUTION: adjust the language to Except when with bulleted list

next agenda item

Target size (Q1) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results

<Rachael> understanding: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/target-size-minimum-understanding-rev/understanding/22/target-size-minimum.html

Rachael: Oliver is asking for another sample/example.

Gundula: I believe an illustration of how exactly the measure is done would be helpful.

<JG> I agree with Rain. Will the term 'fat finger' translate?

<Chuck_> +1 to rains suggestion for 'fat finger'

<johnkirkwood> +1 to Rain [fine motor control]

Rain: “fat finger” may be misunderstood. Instead say something about “reduce fine motoer control”. The way the captions are formated (centered/italicized)…makes them hard to read. Please remove italics and do not center.

<JG> +1 for the removal of italics and centering

<alastairc> pins on the map?

Detlev: suggestion to add targets with irregular size (like maps). I thought that would be an essential exception because that country is that small.

<JG> Do you think they could increase the scaling to meet the target size?

Rachael: thoughts on if maps should be an exception or not.

Alastair: agree that you can’t change the size of a country. Perhaps a “pin” could be used.

<johnkirkwood> exception of native support of zoom (maps)

mbgower: scope creep. whether maps are in, or not. not normative. we should address later.

Rachael: add a map example using pins. add a future point of discussion about “are maps an exception?”

Bruce: are css pixels technology neutral

<johnkirkwood> yes they are neutral

Alastair: css pixels come from web browsers. there is an equivalent concepts across different platforms.

Bruce: is there a non-html way to say this?

Alastair: we have that defined in the glossary

Bruce: i think that is as good as we are going to get.

<bruce_bailey> FWIW, agreed CSS Pixel definition is technology neutral: visual angle of about 0.0213 degrees

mgower: minor editing needs to be done for clarity (and it is not normative).
... we can review next week from git

<Rachael> Proposed RESOLUTION: Accept this updated understanding. Create a new PR with an additional map example using pins, additional measurement example, Rain and Michael's suggested edits

<Rachael> and creating an issue on maps as an exception for future discussion

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura_> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

Rachael: straw poll

<ben> +1

<Rain> +1

<JG> +1

+1

<Detlev> +1

<Sukriti> +1

<michael> +1

<Chuck_> +1

<alastairc> +1 (not requiring the pins bit if that raised more questions than answers)

<Rachael> Proposed RESOLUTION: Accept this updated understanding. Create a new PR with an additional map example using pins, additional measurement example, Rain and Michael's suggested edits and creating an issue on maps as an exception for future discussion

<morr4> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept this updated understanding. Create a new PR with an additional map example using pins, additional measurement example, Rain and Michael's suggested edits and creating an issue on maps as an exception for future discussion

Jaunita: quick question. how does scribing work? we want to hop in and help sometimes.

<laura_> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<karenherr> +q would also like scribing intro

Regina Sanchez coming from Navy Federal Credit Union implementing accessibility

<Detlev> didn't get the org name...

Rachael: welcome to our new members and we will offer a short intro to scribing.

<Rain> +1 for Rain to be included in that please

Continuing next-steps conversation

<Fazio> mental health

<JG> You can learn more about Navy Federal here: https://www.navyfederal.org/about.html

Rachael: are there any additional SC to put in a 2.3? where would we look to mine for those? But we haven’t really made that decision to do a 2.3.
... WCAG 3.0 is publishing regularly. that meets charter needs.
... it would be good to focus more energy on WCAG 3.0. Looks like diminishing returns for 2.3 and son on.
... Want to listen to other views?

Fazio: Until WCAG 3.0 is out, we should act as though we are going to need a 2.3 (because we don’t know when 3.0 will be out and how it will be adopted). This would be erroring on the side of caution. Knowing that 2.3 SC could be pulled into 3.0.

<Fazio> good point JF

<Fazio> APA is doing a lot

Foliot: More a question of resource allocation rather than activities. We can still work on both. We could set up task force within our larger working group. Example: XR Task Force.

<Fazio> in coordination with coga

JF: Focusing the bulk of our resources on WCAG 3.0 would be good. But I wouldn’t want to see zero activity on something outside WCAG 3.0.

<Fazio> there is no discussion of wcag 3 in latin america/caribbean

<Fazio> +1

<Fazio> +1 JG

JG (Juanita) - Second the previous comment. Bit of concern in consistency with WCAG 3.0 (and reliance on more manual testing and experts) to determine conformant. I see WCAG 2.x as the standard (more establish pass/fail criteria). Until WCAG 3.0 is more built out, I’d be concerned about moving resources away from 2.x series.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to argue for 2.3

<alastairc> What aspects of 2.3 would move that?

<JF> +1 to a WCAG 2.3 (and 2.4 if required)

<JG> +1 Bruce's comment

<JG> Thanks Alastair for the correction

Bruce: Echo Foliot’s concern. Resource allocation issue. Example of new contrast calculation/formula. That is just one example of something we could do in 2.3 that we could get large gov to move from 2.0. Needs to be a significant collection of new SC.

<ben> +1 Chuck

Chuck: I’ve heard, “WCAG 2.0 is embedded.” and “WCAG is more testable.” That is because the experts who built 2.x need to help with 3.0.

<MelanieP> +1 to Chuck

<JG> Bridge task force?

<JG> To bridge 2x to 3.0?

<Fazio> LOL JF

<Fazio> hehe MG

Chuck: I think Foliot said, have a Task Force to focus on 2.3…but move bulk of our resources to 3.0.

Foliot: We can still create testable requirements for emerging technology…and this task force work could go into either 2.3 or 3.0.

<ChrisLoiselle> An example would be regarding Visual Contrast WCAG 3 tooling and luminance contrast values and bringing contrast from WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.2. into new way of looking WCAG 3 for Visual Contrast into a potential WCAG 2.3 . I.e. bridging from WCAG 2.3 into WCAG 3. Pulling from WCAG 3 into WCAG 2.3 .

<Chuck_> +1 for TF on 2.3, and WG focuses on 3.0 but addresses suggestions from TF.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note there are 2 fundamental activities here: develop new SC (testable requirements) AND re-jig the structure around 3.0

<Fazio> -1

Rachael: 3 options: focus just on 3.0. focus mostly on 2.3. focus primarily on 3.0 with TF on 2.3.

mgower: still have cleanup of 2.1 and 2.2.

<Fazio> People like the concept

<Fazio> but its so conceptual

DavidM: what are overall impressions of WCAG 3.0?

<bruce_bailey> @DavidM you could just look at Gregg V's comments

<Fazio> It's not developed enough to determine

Rachael: wide variety go the whole range. Putting that picture together for the 29th. Will share that picture then.

<Chuck_> understanding: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/target-size-minimum-understanding-rev/understanding/22/target-size-minimum.html

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to focus on 3.0

<Fazio> +1 DM

DavidM: get impression from 3.0 comments. I’ve read greggV’s comments and I agree for the most part. So, I think a focus on 2.3 is good while we get more consensus on 3.0.

Alastair: still got work to do on 2.x series. Backlog of 420 comments. This is a stream of work regardless.

<JG> Will we adopt a more pass/fail structure in 3.0? This might be a conversation for the 29th.

Alastair: Back in 2018, I thought silver was still forming. But I’m more in favor of putting our focus on 3.0 and getting more resources to move requirements into 3.0. 2.x on maintenance. Hard for a group to really focus on 2 things.

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask issue processing report

Alastair: We have diminishing returns on mobile and low vis. COGA has lots of needs that fit better in 3.0.

Chuck: impression from WCAG 3.0, there are some broad critiques that require a lot of us to focus on answering these important questions.

<laura_> Silver Issue Processing Report: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Issue_Processing_Report

Chuck: all the reasons to work on 2.3 are valid. However when will we stop 2.x-ing. As some point we need to focus on 3.0.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about publishing and charter concerns

Rachael: I would like to see our expertise focus on 3.0 as the primary task. We need to help the content in 3.0 move forward.

Foliot: We need to be publishing something normative as part of the charter.
... once we get 2.2 published, at the end of the next charter period will we be able to publish 3.0?

Michael Cooper: There are no rules saying we have to publish in a charter period. We should not take on shorter term work (rather than longer term work).

<JG> I'm interested in participating in Silver.

Fazio: group is pretty large. everyone has the opportunity to get involved in 3.0. why aren’t they participating more. is it interest?

Rachael: I think that is an assumption. It could meet lack of time.

Chuck: I think that is a self-perpetuation option. As long as 2.x is being worked on…it will take up valuable reasources. As part of a transistion process, the more we work on 3.0, I anticipate more focus and interest will be on 3.0.

DavidM: several of my clients are asking me, “we want wcag 3.0”. They think 3.0 is coming soon.

<laura> agree with chuck: self-fulfilling prophecy

<ben> +1 david-macdonald. Hearing the same from clients

+1 to david M

<johnkirkwood> +1 to David

<Rachael> Straw Poll: Option 1: Focus on 3.0, no 2.3

<Rachael> Option 2: Focus on 2.3, light 3.0

<Rachael> Option 3: Focus on 3.0, taskforce/subgroup on 2.3

(can the task force have a limited # of participants?)

<JG> Could we rotate people between 2x and 3.0?

Melanie: would option 1 still support maintenance on 2.x? Rachael: yes.

DavidM: this is a big decision. should we wait for face-to-face?

<alastairc> This is effort allocation

<JG> +1 David's suggestion

Rachael: this is about effort allocation. Everything is still available…this is not a carved in stone decision.

Bruce: which is closest to the status quo?

Rachael: I think it is 2 (Bruce thinks that too).

<johnkirkwood> option 2

mgower: Bruce was proposing a transition / interium 2.3 (clean-up and incorporate aspects of silver into 2.3)?

Bruce: that is one of the options for option 2.

<JF> +1 to Chuck - a HUGE +1

Chuck: Option 3 has that as a option too.

mgower: 2.3 aligned trying to get us to 3.0 faster. or 2.3 not alighed with 3.0.

wilco: is 2.3 really a bridge to 3.0? Which one closes the door on 2.3? 1 closes it.

Michael Cooper: the outcome of our work is not based on the current state of a draft. one issue for us, if we charter ourselves to do 2.3 and don’t do it, that will be viewed with suspicion. I think we are safer making a decision and sticking to it. If we were to charter to only do 3.0, then 3 years down the road, we could, if we need it…charter a 2.3 in the next charter.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to 2.3 being bridge.

Michael Cooper: Oct 2022 is when this charter expires.

Alastair: is 2.3 a bridge to 3.0? We would need a TF to define how that would look. Concern with defining it as a bridge. I would consider 2.3 as testable new SC.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if ACT Rules are "versioned"?

Foliot: Use ACT rules format as much as possible. As ACT writes rules, are you really thinking of what version (2.x or 3.0)?

<alastairc> Go from a "test" or a requirement to a Success Criteria is a lot of work. To also convert it to WCAG 3.0 guideline is a lot of work, separately.

Wilco: a very large part is agnostic to WCAG version. Only place where we have to scope rules (based on SC normative in x version).

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about the bridge

Chuck: chair hat off. I’m hesitant to view 2.3 as a bridge. Such a different conformance model.

DavidM: echo that. 2.3 is backwards compatible. How could that be a bridge to 3.0 with a new model?

Rachael: chair hat off. I’ve tried writing for both 2.x and 3.0…it is very hard to do the bridge work between the two.

<Rachael> Straw Poll (all options include finishing 2.2 and cleanup work on issues)

<Rachael> Option 1: Focus on 3.0, no 2.3

<Rachael> Option 2: Focus on 2.3, light 3.0

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Rachael comment that writting a11y requirements for 2x and 3x is very different.

<Rachael> Option 3: Focus on 3.0, taskforce/subgroup on 2.3

<JG> Option 2

<MichaelC> 1 prefer, 2 do not support, 3 can live with

<david-macdonald> Option 1 OR 3: IF we take the current WCAG 3 draft and background work as a super useful input from which to make a start as a group together, rather than jumping on the moving train that is WCAG 3.0.

<jeanne> option 3

<alastairc> Option 3, assuming we get enough people volunteering for the TF, otherwise 1

<Fazio> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2, 3

<MelanieP> Option 1

<Chuck_> option 1, and happy with 3

<ben> Prefer 3, then 1

<GN015> 3

<JF> 3

<Rachael> wilco: Option 3

<michael> 1, 3, 2

<Rain> 3

<Francis_Storr> option 3

<karenherr> 2,3

<Detlev> 1

<Sukriti> 3

<johnkirkwood> Option 3

<laura_> 3 then 1

<Rachael> 1 then 3

Glenda: 1

Wilco: 3

<JF> rev. 3, then 2

<bruce_bailey> i would like to hear more about MC vote

<morr4> Option 2, then 3

<michael> I ranked them

<laura_> Sorry, I meant 1 then 3

Rachael: if you want to vote for more than one…you can vote again with commas

MC: We should put our effort into 3.0. I think we should not put too much effort into 2.x because we are just slowing down 3.0.

<Fazio> three appears to be winning

<Raf> 2,3

<alastairc> Requires enough people...

Rachael: Can anyone not live with options 3

<Fazio> I can live with 3

<Chuck_> I can live with 3

Glenda (I don’t trust 3. It really, really worries me. We’ve got to commit energy to 3.0 for at least one charter).

<MelanieP> +1 to michael

mgower: worry about fragmenting and working on 2.3. I can live with it. But we are still losing brain power into the task force. And taking away from 3.0.

<ben> +1 to MichaelC, is how I saw it

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to discuss 'requirements' TF

MichaelC: small task force on 2.3 and proposing to 3.0.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that a new "Testable Requirements TF" could/would work similar to the LV TF

Alastair: TF needs to focus on testable requirements (not focused on 2.3 or 3.0)…come back to the group before trying to create “SC”.

<alastairc> I'm more worried about the other way around...

<Fazio> I see that kinda my point as well

Foliot: agreeing with how Alastair described the TF. If we have too many people piling into the TF, then we need to ask why folks are not focusing on 3.0?

<mbgower> Thanks for all those comments, I'm comfortable with option 3

Rachael: I prefer to think of it as a sub-group (timeboxed) not a TF.
... thanks for your comments and contributions. great discussion. We will tally the data and get back with you.

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/tag to keep open/tag to revisit/
Succeeded: s/Foliot/JF/
Succeeded: s/Brian/Bruce/
Succeeded: s/'rrsagent, make minutes//
Default Present: ben, JustineP, bruce_bailey, JF, Fazio, jeanne, sajkaj, Rachael, Detlev, Chuck_, Raf, ChrisLoiselle, karenherr, stevelee, Rain, morr, juliette_alexandria, johnkirkwood, mbgower, JakeAbma, jon_avila, StefanS, MelanieP, Glenda, david-macdonald, Francis_Storr, Sukriti, alastairc
Present: ben, JustineP, bruce_bailey, JF, Fazio, jeanne, sajkaj, Rachael, Detlev, Chuck_, Raf, ChrisLoiselle, karenherr, stevelee, Rain, morr, juliette_alexandria, johnkirkwood, mbgower, JakeAbma, jon_avila, StefanS, MelanieP, Glenda, david-macdonald, Francis_Storr, Sukriti, alastairc, morr4, GN015
Found Scribe: JustineP
Inferring ScribeNick: JustineP
Found Scribe: Glenda
Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda
Found Scribe: Glenda
Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda
Scribes: JustineP, Glenda
ScribeNicks: JustineP, Glenda

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: alastair gundula michael

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.)