<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vsp1V2hBpU6Y0vNt-AGP-Y6fOxx1-IjoKgBJ_3bPlfg/edit#

<scribe> scribe: [Susan_H_]

<bruce_bailey> FWIW, i only just now saved my reply to suzanne about skipping "you"

wilco: notes we need to determine how to end sections in proposal
... other thoughts on outcome 'headings describe or intro the content that follows'?

Jake: question, if you skip a heading or two how do you define what content follows which?

wilco: this is something we've parked

New Granular Outcome Proposal review

jeanne: i don't disagree this should be normative but it's tricky

bruce: can we add 'all of these terms may need to be normative' to proposal?

wilco: as long as we steer away from redifinging we should be safe, right?

jeanne: these aren't things that go in the glossary. these are specific to this outcome. The terms may be relevant to other outcomes but these should be more specific

wilco: would be much more difficult to use if each outcome has its own defiintions

jeanne: first go to is to use standard defs. anywhere we can

jennifer: why do we have all these hard ways to keep track of these terms? can we consolidate them, craft them, and put them in one place later? Is that a good workflow?

wilco: willing to give it a shot.another solution - in act we've used qualifiers, when a term is different than wcag we use qualifier. e.g. instead of 'web page' we use 'html page'
... something could be visual, semantic headings etc. if we want to avoid conflict with other heading def.

jeanne: this would make glossary entry for heaidng have a lot of subheadings. which is fine. let's try it on a few more guidlines to see if it works

wilco: i'm okay either way but prefer a global list of definitions. less confusing.

jeanne: agrees but don't know if that will work.

wilco: briefly review other terms, notes strikedowns

jeanne: does anyone object to taking those out or cannot identify the strikeouts? I will paste in what they are b/c I know screen readers & strike outs don't work well

<jeanne> We are removing: Vocabulary.com’s definition of heading: “A heading is a word, phrase, or sentence at the beginning of a written passage that explains what it's about. A heading is very similar to a title”.

<mbgower> I think it needs to

<jeanne> Removing: Headings include semantics, presentation, function. This outcome refers to the function.

mike: should table headers be considered headings?

wilco: I think that's implicit in defines what headings are not

Mike: are captions on data table a headings? you usaually determine this by visual presentation.

jennifer: that's covered in another outcome further down

wilco: seems we're talking about headings in text, that outline the structure of a document and i don't think table headers do.

<bruce_bailey> agree that we not try and address data tables at this point

<mbgower> They are in text. They do identify structure.

wilco: it is tricky to say what does give you help outlining content of document. has this been discussed before?

Francis: Jeanne and I worked on this and this is as far as we got

Sheri: part of the purpose of headings is to provide nav for screen readers. if the element doens't show up as this then they don't count

wilco: so that's defining headings based on semantics then?

sheri: that's the way I was looking at it

wilco: that's different than how we define it here (introduces a content section)

shriang: no, table captions aren't presented as headings with SR

anne: i think that's up the SR i guess but I havent seen it. isn't up to the SR is it? the point is to define a heading which helps all users.

jeanne: wasn't suggesting we narrow it down, only that SR behavior can help the decision

<Skotkjerra> Anne=Stein Erik on the same computer as Anne :)

mike: SRs can bring up tables, table caption would show what is a essentially a header for that table and that's only avail. to SRs. but headings presented visually as such but not semantically also count.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are you considering table headers as headings? and to say i can comment, even though I'm not a native SR user

wilco: too many ways to use headings. what we should focus on here is section heading. How do people feel about changing outcome to "Section headings describe or introduct the content that follows"?

jeanne: that's where we used to be. this is a good example of where something works on outcome but not another.
... do we have a definition of section headings? HTML headings mean something different and we should be looking more broadly than HTML

shriang: can we specify section headings as 'sections of content'?

wilco: feels unwieldly. this is the challenge ACT has been facing. how do we make it precise but also succint

jeanne: that's not our goal, let's lay out all the exceptions, we're not making it a one size fits all. won't be specific but we can put it accordian

anne: i've been working on wcag translations and it's a huge problem when we take something out of the main content bc only normative part is getting priority. non-english speakers could miss this extra content.
... in somelanguages section heading is one term, having one term with two different defitions can cause difficulties in the translation.

emma: some of these definitions end up being half a page compared to a couple of sentences in english

<Jennifer> I am so grateful for your perspective and input, Anne!

shadi: anneif she's filed on issue on this

emma: we've made it where it links out. don't know if this will be a problem outside of scandinavian langs. as well

<bruce_bailey> +1 for "Section Heading" for this outcome

wilco: is this useful to change 'headings' to 'section headings' or do we need an inline definitions for this outcome?

jeanne: i'm okay with this if we're explicit that it's not HTML headings

jennifer: can we go with something else

jeanne: we can say this is what we mean by headings for this specific outcome.

wilco: I agree. occasionally we probably need to do that. we do similar in ACT
... *changes to 'section heading' and adds to do to clarify not HTML *
... *takes out previous defintion of subheading*

<jeanne> Organize content so the headings make locating and navigating information easier and faster.

bruce: where do we define hierachal?

jeanne: i think that's the organize content outcome

bruce: what about skipping headings? it's AAA. it's fine to come to it later but just double checking

wilco: *reads out examples of 'sections' of content*
... do we need this dictionary defintition?

jeanne: we don't. was just captured from a meeting as part of a proposal

anne: would a menu also be a section of content? a footer?

jeanne: sure

anne: so these would also need a heading?

wilco: i don't think this outcome requires that

jeanne: should it? I'll add it in the notes
... if people are interested, please start working on that

wilco: should this list of examples be exhaustive?

jeanne: would be a good approach. does that work for ACT

wilco: yes

jeanne: but then we get back into issue of
... what about this element and that element. but what does that do for the testing?
... will leave that to ACT
... let's go over exceptions and the next steps. we need two work groups on this

wilco: not time for exceptions. we have a lot of homework on defining headings.
... do we want to set up a smaller group? could also take some ACT TF mtg time

jeanne: asks who from Silver would be willing to work with ACT. she
... is interested

Sheri: I'm interested

jeanne: this team will be working on act integration, not specifically defining headings
... need to groups - defining and ACT integration.

sheri: will work on whatever is best.

jeanne: do we want to keep having these monday calls to focus on headings proposal?

wilco: i think so. should set up a poll for a different time though

jennifer: structured content subgroup meets at this time. anyone is welcome to join and help

jeanne: silver and act will have to work closely

<Skotkjerra> I'll join ACT group if time permits

wilco: who's working with act? Anne, jeanne and myself. anyone else should email.

list attendees

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/asks emma /anne/
Succeeded: s/ emma:  i've been/ anne:  i've been/
Succeeded: s/emma: in some /anne: in some/
Default Present: Jennifer, Wilco, ToddLibby, jeanne, shadi, Susan_H_, mbgower, anne_thyme, JakeAbma, Francis_Storr, Skotkjerra, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey
Present: Jennifer, Wilco, ToddLibby, jeanne, shadi, Susan_H_, mbgower, anne_thyme, JakeAbma, Francis_Storr, Skotkjerra, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Susan_H_
Found Scribe: [Susan_H_]

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: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)