AGWG Teleconference -- 12 Oct 2021

<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2021-10-12

<scribe> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

<scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle

Shadi: Previously with WAI, now with Amazon. Working closely with Peter and Janina moving forward.

<Fazio> Of course we know you, Shadi

<Fazio> High five on the new gig

Chuck: Thank you for the re-introduction!
... Any new topics?

<AWK> +AWK

<Fazio> why do wee need a lawyer?

<jaunita_george> +1

Laura: On last week's media survey on legal, perhaps Ken Nakata or Lainey F. would be appropriate? Ken had concerns around clarity being sacrificed for simplicity in Silver Is that possible to have speakers attend?

<jaunita_george> +1 to Laura

<laura> https://convergeaccessibility.com/2021/10/11/join-us-at-our-upcoming-conferences-copy/

<laura> also:

<laura> https://vimeo.com/624778807

<Fazio> Isn't that what we use github for? - commentary

Chuck: We will review and see what opportunities are available for us. Thanks for the recommendations.

<alastairc> We will be responding to all comments, but we need to make progress on the answers before we can respond to them.

<david-macdonald> I'm here now

Jake: On Greg V.'s topics and comments, can we have time to discuss Greg's concerns ? Perhaps merging the legal conversation topic with Greg's on structure would lead to clarity within the group.

Chuck: We will review that as well, thanks Jake.

DavidF: We have people with different viewpoints, implied law vs. constitutionalism . I'm not sure how constructive it could be.

Chuck: I've noted the topic as well, Thanks David.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move to the agenda

<jaunita_george> +1 to David

DavidM: On precedence and outside opinion , I think it would be welcome for different viewpoints of lawyers.

Process overview

Chuck: Process overview, handing off to Alastair.

Alastair: Topic is on WCAG and making decisions. Talks to agenda.
... intended to be introduction and overview of process.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MRuvJ6BcLCPfupvvrwL6GU-KsyWR76Tb/edit#slide=id.p3

Alastair: Problem to solve is tension between providing public drafts and not taking 20 years to get to the recommendation stage. Talks to parallel work . Places link to process slide. Accessible SVG.
... talks to candidate recommendation and effort we put in. Working draft is entirety of our work over next couple of years. Working draft stage is the biggest part of our work.

Working Draft on left side of slide and Rec on right hand side , in between working group review, public review and advisory committee review as we head to Rec.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#w3c-recommendation-track

scribe: we want public review.
... on Working Group , tends to have more testers vs. legal group. Having lawyers talk to group would be useful during this time.
... reads working drafts from W3C process doc. Talks to it not necessarily representing an consensus of working group.
... it is suitable for gathering wide review to advancing to next stage of maturity.
... Proposal , is to mark content maturity by levels, talks to placeholder, exploratory , maturing, mature , stable. (slide 7 of slide deck).
... stable would need CfC AG consensus .

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to separate definitions of lower-case consensus vs upper-case CfC

MichaelC: consensus is not the same that we are used to think of with CfC. This is a softer consensus with people active at time of discussion.

Alastair: We may use wording of agreement in future iteration of this discussion .
... slide 8 talks to Example . Conformance section with exploratory level, other sub sections with placeholder or maturing .
... slide 9 Content moving through drafts via wikis, google docs, pull requests, editors draft then marked by level , snapshot would then be moved to working draft , marked by levels.

AlastairC: On consensus from decision policy of AG, reads slide 10, which links to consensus and managing dissent W3C process .
... slide 11 talks to Objections . Rationale is that you can't live with it.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about how long is reasonable to wait before responding to public comments (beyond "thanks, we got your comment")

<JF> Groups should favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that cause strong objections from a few people.

JF: Talks to strong objections from a few people within discussion around consensus process.

AlastairC: talks to next steps slide.

<bruce_bailey> wrt slide 7 and <q>AG Consensus</q> -- maybe change to something like <q>AG non-objection</q> ?

Chuck: Please be mindful that we need to move to a new topic and discussion will be in list.

JF: It has been 7 months since we received comments on FPWD, so on timeline , we should be responsive on feedback we get.

<bruce_bailey> this was really helpful Alastair , thank you

Gregg: I had discussions, but you can take me off list

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask what the advantage of this is? Doesn't seem like this accelerates ultimate completion of the recommendation. Recommend instead linking from the editor's

<Zakim> michael, you wanted to say I like approach. Need to think beyond technical considerations

AWK: You can take me off queue and I'll provide comments within the list.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK and Gregg -- looking forward to more conversation

MikeG: I might do same thing. This may be content focused. Perhaps style considerations may fall within stable level.

Cybele: Can this also be taken to COGA for ensuring that this process is accessible as possible? Earlier the better. Second concern is on raising questions and lack of consensus on an issue. I.e. JF's comments on issues and issues reappearing in different ways and talking to points where they weren't necessarily addressed previously.

<Jennie> +1 to Cybele as the COGA task force may need both time to process, and a conversation as a way to provide feedback.

Cybele: On objections, making sure that same issue doesn't splinter and reappear in different places.

DavidM: We should have conversation as well as just within list.

Chuck: do you have any thing else , Alastair?

Alastair: Happy to have discussion asynchronously as we move forward on process within the list.

WCAG 3 Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/med_con/

<Rachael> We will have asynchronous discussion and then survey this for a more robust discussion

BruceB: Is the slide deck available for a while ?

Chuck: I believe so, Alastair can confirm.
... On topic of Media considerations, I'm going through comments linearly. I will go through agreements and then non agreements.
... Opens to Bruce and safe harbor.

BruceB: I wanted to show how in regulatory environment how this could be done. I.e. not modified by X date.

<Cyborg> My comment re: consensus is that it would be helpful if we could ensure that clear objections by many people that establish a principle result in a mechanism to prevent that same discussion splintering into many other places where objections may not be collected as much.

PeterK: I feel we have addressed most comments in the document. We went with everything except number 5 on BenT.'s list.

<Cyborg> In other words, if it is a clear -1 with reasoning from a group, that this be clarified in documentation

<Ben> I've read the updated document, thank you for the work. (Also you pronounced my surname well)

Chuck: I couldn't find where the document was supporting excemptions.

<Chuck> will get to queue after Janina finishes.

Janina: On changes we've implemented , we picked up Ben's recommendations. Ben's point number 5 was to define substantial update and we have added the term to the emerging glossary of words we want to define. On Gundula's comments, we thought outcomes and methods would be a place to list these.

<Cyborg> I didn't complete the survey but think it would be helpful to embed improvements in media accessibility as they become possible and available - that best practices move us forward and don't wait for a WCAG 3.1 or 4.0

Janina: on Stephan's comments around examples, we thought we had them, on map views or street views. Accessible for some not for all yet, etc.

<bruce_bailey> This is how USAB handled historical content with the revised 508 standards, E202.2 exemption for Legacy ICT: https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E202.2

Cybele: I did read the survey. I support the concerns raised by individuals , Laura, Sarah , etc.

<bruce_bailey> Any component or portion of existing ICT that complies with an earlier standard issued pursuant to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (as republished in Appendix D), and that has not been altered on or after January 18, 2018, shall not be required to be modified to conform to the Revised 508 Standards.

<Cyborg> support concerns raised by Laura, Sarah, David M.

Gregg: Talks to normative vs. non normative , is it a guideline or understanding? Seems to be mixed in terms of where it fits.
... On should or shouldn't do, that is regulatory. We should be saying , is it accessible or not.

PeterK: For first point, we don't yet have guidelines written. We want to go as far as we can in this stage. We want to collaborate as guidelines are written.
... on Gregg's second point, difference between accessible conformance and compliance. I.e. AA vs. AAA vs. A conversation. On Silver, bronze, silver , gold. With that in mind, there may be a number of ways of approaches.

<Chuck> I will review the "disagrees", once this conversation comes to a good pausing point

On media, it may not be possible to do more, but we could do this much. If you do this, you get "X" amount of conformance, whatever that may be.

Gregg: Thank you, Peter. I see where you are going. I think setting categories vs. recommendations may be beneficial.

<Cyborg> Was there consensus on that version of bronze, silver and gold?

JF: I am concerned colleagues worrying about exemptions. Talks to bronze, silver, gold. We need to be able to account for it. We want to establish minimum threshold and what is achievable

Janina: We are trying to get ongoing conversations going on common examples available on web. We need to develop this further in conformance, guidance , etc. I think splitting this out and being formal with all of this is worthwhile.

Cybele: Conformance is in development stage. Presumption that bronze is imperfect an assumption. I would like to see a bronze that is much more robust in qualitative approach. Gold could be role models in practice. There are questions around conformance model.
... concerning about using conformance model and exemptions and how it impacts end users . Talks to Laura C.'s concerns and end user impact. Risks are real.

JonA: I think bronze is minimum level that most will meet. If bronze doesn't require captioned videos from 1960 , I don't think we should set that as level of conformance. I think we should be setting the standard as to what is best for end user and then law makers make laws on regulatory stance.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say bronze, silver and gold are a good conversation, but getting off topic

<kirkwood> +1 Jonathan Avila

<Cyborg> +1 to John Avila - not providing exemption, but instead leading in that area

<laura> 1 to John Avila

DavidM: I think we need to step forward on this , and agree with Jon A.'s comments.
... Talks to legal exemption, I think having lawyers come in to talk to that would be beneficial .

LauraC: I agree, we need to have people come in and talk to us on legal. It may cause companies to choose third party content to allow them to not conform. Would be bad for education and end users.

PeterK: Appreciates the concerns around the topic. Talks to media and Ontario laws. The granular needs to be explored.

<JF> +1 to Wilco

<kirkwood> +1 to Wilco

Wilco: WCAG has a lot of exemptions or exceptions . It is not trying to treat all content as equal. Talks to what is reasonable and what is not. Talks to same safety standards for truck vs. a tricycle , it may not be beneficial.

MikeG: Legacy terminology and what it includes. Very fuzzy as to what it means. Is legacy technology dependent ? Talks to various examples. Is it just web or prior to web?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say this document seems to be raising the bar from current situation

<Cyborg> +1 to clarifying definition of legacy

MikeG: I'm not sure where this is going , but would like to have definition smoothed out .

<Cyborg> +1 to John Avila questioning legacy

JonA: On legacy, just because it is older, why wouldn't we make it accessible? I.e. Built environment

<Ben> +1 to John Avila

JonA: archive issue vs. legacy video. How can person with a disability access it? I'm surprised we are having the discussion.

<Cyborg> +1 to Laura's concerns about exemptions in an educational context and the impact on end users.

<kirkwood> +1 John Avila, I am surprised as well

Chuck: calls for scribe.

<kirkwood> After discussion, I see it as diluting as well.

<Cyborg> Chuck: read the document and current situation is current situation in world, perceived this document as elevating rather than diluting requirements. Interesting that my take is that this could elevate requirements. Maybe we are overly prescriptive or normative, need to think about this.

<Cyborg> Greg: usually exceptions are when something isn't possible, or is completely impractical, rather than trying to do a judgment whether this or that group has to worry about it.

<Cyborg> Greg: there are different categories and what should happen to each one, we should mention 3-4 things to think about when making rule: should be caption able unless outside your control. in many places, you can pay extra for captioned content. you can offer to cover costs or ask for permission to caption it and copyright laws support that.

<Cyborg> Greg: good to have categories but not a priori say this or that group doesn't have to follow rules. that is problematic to others and me too.

<laura> YouTube embed option allows for providing accurate captioning and audio descriptions of third-party video.

<laura> https://www.3playmedia.com/services/features/plugins/captions-plugin/

<bruce_bailey> Just a FYI, adding on to what Gregg talked about. In regulations there tend to be <q>General Exception</q> which are exemptions from coverage at all.

<Cyborg> Janina: Greg you raised a number of good questions which we just touch on. yes education and government may have different authority to do more and we are thinking about that with HTML 5 to build that into the structure for just this reason. whether someone should not be offered a library of resources because the accessible option is not available, we need to determine what conformance means, how perfect you need to be.

<Cyborg> Janina: we do need to flesh out more on meaning of legacy. example of contemporary media that did not have alt text in Obama Library, but does that mean that everything produced by White House calligraphers should not be available or is that level of trove have enough value to put it out anyway

<Chuck> Poll: Approve Media Considerations for Editor's Draft.

<Cyborg> Janina: would like to have another group talk about this on Thursday or Friday to have this wider conversation. these questions are real and we do need to get to them.

<Cyborg> -1

<mbgower> 0

<jeanne2> +1 for ED

<sajkaj> +1

<KimD> +1

<laura> -1

<sarahhorton> -1

<GreggVan> -1 Good document but needs to be worked on first

<Chuck> +1

<Wilco> +1, assuming we make its status clear

<Azlan> +1

<kirkwood> -1

<jaunita_george> -1

<Ben> +1

<Detlev> 0

<JakeAbma> 0

<jon_avila> -1 without additional notes that we will review legacy

<ShawnT> -1

<MarcJohlic> +1

<Cyborg> -1 until it addresses the questions of Laura, Sarah, David M and John Avila

<alastairc> +1 for editors draft, it is worthy of discussion and wider review, but I'm not agreeing with the whole thing in principle.

<david-macdonald> -1 (would like to hear from lawyers) on assertions

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jaunita_george> Hi! I'm a lawyer.

<Cyborg> Janina: we do have a lawyer on the call right now, but i don't know if I should be outing people here. (lawyer unidentified)

<Cyborg> Chuck: Thank you Juanita (who is the lawyer)

<Cyborg> Chuck: putting it in working draft will provide us with opportunity to give us wider review and bring in others in call

<Chuck> cyborg: Wondering if there is a way before there is a decision to insert the specific concerns or statement that brings the concerns into the draft itself so that those concerns become part of the draft.

<GreggVan> q

<kirkwood> Janina: made a point that it is in editors draft not working draft

<Cyborg> Chuck: I'm not getting consensus here

<Chuck> +1 to Cybel's idea

<alastairc> +1, and we could soon mark it as exploratory...

<Cyborg> Greg: I want to echo that, if you want to get something out, and there are concerns, put those concerns in the document - so that both sides are in the document.

<kirkwood> +1

<Cyborg> Greg: +1 to that added

<JF> +100

<Cyborg> Janina: can people submit content for an editor's note before it is put out to the editor's draft

WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/

<KimD> +1 provide content!

<Cyborg> Chuck: WCAG 2.2 - first question is focus appearance

Question 1 - Approval to Move to Editor's Draft

Question 1 - Inline elements that wrap over multiple lines #1328

<Cyborg> Chuck: in line elements that wrap over multiple lines - section 1328 - Michael Gower says this is not the case. PR 2040 reverses that logic. Should we approve 2040 or something else. We have an even split of approval or want something else?

<Cyborg> John Avila: both items together or each one separately, not clear what outcome is

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1328

<Cyborg> Alastair: each will pass/fail, indicator can be split between them. visual helps in 1328 in top comment, audio described content, if you took a bounding box approach, makes a big box for what isn't a big link. if you use an outline, it's fine but when you use a border it misses the right hand side of the right hand part of the link and the left hand side of the left part of the link. doesn't meet the size requirement

<Cyborg> Alastair: not a complete perimeter

<Cyborg> John Avila: may not be large enough, under the example, would that pass or fail?

<Cyborg> Alastair: if you consider them as separate links, it would fail, because it doesn't meet the size metric.

<Cyborg> John Avila: it sounds like the indicator link needs to be...

<Cyborg> Alastair: if you use outline...

<Cyborg> John Avila: what if I just use it on the left edge?

<Cyborg> Alastair: If you did that, you'd have very odd text and get a potentially thick border on just the left side of the link, so the second part wouldn't have a focus indicator.

<Cyborg> John Avila: specify what needs to be done instead

<Cyborg> Alastair: if you use a 1 pixel border, the thickness needs to be increased to compensate for the missing side

<Cyborg> Chuck: I had a brief internet connection issue

<alastairc> "If you use a 1px border, the thickness would need to be increased to compensate for the missing side as it is not a complete perimiter."

<Cyborg> Alastair: just working on the text to address John's concerns

<Detlev> +1 to Greg's point

<jon_avila> I agree Gregg - that's what we had previously.

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

<Cyborg> Greg: I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with the open ended rectangles. because it word wraps, doesn't mean it increases the width of border. semantically it makes more sense that it wraps, need to keep the links separate. are we solving the problem in the wrong direction?

<JF> +1 to gregg, coupled with the fact that with zooming etc., 'split links' like this may or may-not be evident to all

<Cyborg> Mike: initially we show a link with Latin text that begins on one line and continues to the next line, 3 sided rectangle - left, top, bottom, but does not have rectangle side on right because word continues on the next line, which has a box on top, bottom and right side so if you made it longer, it would go together to make whole

<Cyborg> Mike: but that breaks the concept of bounding box in definitions. so figure 9 - both parts of it fail because they are only 3 sided.

<Cyborg> Greg: does the pull request remove that sentence?

<alastairc> The current doc in context: https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/focus-appearance-minimum.html#focus-indicator-inline-link

<Cyborg> Mike: without the examples, it's hard to parse what this is talking about, so make sure we leave the examples. this is a user agent implementation problem, not only an author problem.

<alastairc> The outline examples: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1328#issuecomment-906520198

<Cyborg> Mike: This happens in Safari and Chrome, if there is overlap, the bounding box looks like a tetris shape (Z), so these 3 scenarios come into play, so people can see it, with alt text, they need examples to understand the difference. do we change the normative text or tackle it a different way? but we need to tie this up clearly.

<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1328#issuecomment-906520198

<jon_avila> I agree, this would change with reflow.

<mbgower> Easiest solution may be to alter the definition!

<jon_avila> I'd vote for updating the definition of bounding back

<Cyborg> JF: whether zooming is involved, when I minimize my browser to narrowest view, it spreads over 3 lines, because it is a long link. so the idea of putting in vertical lines because the line has ended is highly unachievable in many contexts. we are not focusing on the right thing. when the link spreads over 2 lines, not having the right hand information lets us know that there is more on the next line.

<Cyborg> JF: we're not thinking about link wrapping in terms of zooming and window sizes.

<kirkwood> and mobile I would add

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1328

<Cyborg> Alastair: For JF's point, we are considering it, that's how it was brought up in the first place. links wrap. if you don't do anything, you'll get a box around both sides of a separated link. if you have a long line, as Mike put in his comment, when you zoom, this is what happens to linked text. as to normative definition of bounding box, i am reluctant to adjust that primarily because in the default case, the browser treats them as separate items

<Cyborg> Alastair: ...and puts a box around both.

<Cyborg> Alastair: if we did just the normative definition, i have a feeling that has another effect, but i need to look it up.

<scribe> Scribe: ChrisLoiselle

<Cyborg> Jake: we had the same kind of issue with target size and specifically targets overlapping when they go to the next line and that is why we have exceptions. if this only happens with link or border, maybe we need an exception like 258 and 255

Cybele, I can take over.

<Cyborg> Thanks Chris!!!!

Gregg: What if we remove sentence about word wrap. Would that solve problem?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say it seems like figure 9 is an abberation? Should it be removed?

MikeG: I'm not sure. Is the question to remove figure 9? Talks to link getting split. Is there are browser that actually does what is in figure 9?

AlastairC: Talks to border vs. outline and defining side or side thickness. Border does allow. Missing side appears on boarder and CSS property used.

Gregg: If we remove the sentence, if the link wraps , treat it as two different objects. Would that solve the issue of the one link vs. two links issue.

MikeG: Talks to link phrasing, vs. disconnected words.

Gregg: Talks to word wrap vs. disconnected vs. hyphenated word use.

<mbgower> the smallest enclosing box within which all the points of a shape lie. Where a component consists of disconnected parts, each part is considered to have its own bounding box. Links that wrap onto multiple lines are not considered disconnected parts.

MikeG: reads through comment.

<Detlev_> +1 to "not considered disconnected parts."

Chuck: Mike, is this your suggestion to amend 1240?

MikeG: I think this solves the contradiction issue.

<jon_avila> I agree with Gregg

AlastairC: This is in addition to the PR. Talks to issue about bounding box and wrapping issue. I think we need to talk to this.

Wilco: The browser creates the bounding box. You have client wraps. The browser puts it around client.

<jon_avila> Why are we tying this to browser box model?

<alastairc> We aren't, which is making it more complex!

Gregg: We need to understand what we are trying to achieve and then write more about it.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say bounding box is currently just for the shape consideration?

AlastairC: We need to talk to inline elements and wrapping. Reason on disconnected parts was around multiple parts of a component. Text wrapping and browsers have different way of dealing with it.

MikeG: On bounding box topic, previously talked through in shape criteria. Text links not shapes?

<mbgower> or "Text links are not considered shapes."

Wilco: Perimeter does.

MikeG: Wording contradicts the definition.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2040/files

Wilco: So should we update understanding documentation ?

<Ben> +1 to Wilco

MikeG: Then using a failure technique on this for links.

Gregg: You should be failing the other way. Can you do padding with both?

<Chuck> poll: Accept amended PR 2040 to address issue #1328 and create failure technique

Alastair: We updated the understanding document. In summary, perimeter is the continuous line . The minimum bounding box doesn't fit the definition either. Inclined to update understanding document and create failure technique.

<kirkwood> can we just change “bounding box” to “bounding perimeter”?

Chuck: I don't think we can close issue.

AlastairC: we can use a placeholder on technique.

JohnK: Can we use bounding perimeter instead?

<mbgower> yep :)

AlastairC: Talks to star shape . The perimeter itself.

Gregg: Talks to measuring of line , 1 pixel wide , more total pixels.
... To John K.'s topic, perhaps using bounding box or complex perimeter that encompasses shapes.

AlastairC: We have it other way and that may confuse the issue.

<Chuck> poll: Accept amended PR 2040 to address issue #1328 and create failure technique

<mbgower> +1

Chuck: to poll question , do we want to review that?

<Chuck> +1

<Ben> +1

<Wilco> +1, not sure the technique is essential though

<jaunita_george> +1

Chuck: Can members plus one if you support the amendment to PR 2040?

<JF> +1

<GreggVan> +0

<alastairc> +1, agree with Wilco

<JakeAbma> +1`

<mbgower> 'and consider failure technique' :)

<bruce_bailey> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Detlev_> 0

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2040 to address issue #1328 and create a failure technique in the future

<Raf> 0

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2040 to address issue #1328 and consider a failure technique in the future

<JF> I continue to struggle with Failure Techniques in principle

AlastairC: If someone wants to come up with text to update , please feel free to do that off call.

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2040 to address issue #1328 and consider a failure technique in the future

Chuck: Opens to Gundula on context shape , reads her comment.

Question 2 - What is a complex shape? #2050

AlastairC: I think there is misunderstanding. On focus indicator of shape, it could cause a large thickness if using perimeter or bounding box. We aren't restricting it. May be a misunderstanding.

Gregg: On circle, perimeter would follow a contour .

<alastairc> perimeter: continuous line forming the boundary of a shape not including shared pixels, or the minimum bounding box of a complex shape, whichever is shortest. For example, the perimeter calculation for a rectangle is 2h+2w -4, where h is the height and w is the width and the corners are not counted twice. The perimeter of a circle is 2𝜋r.

AlastairC: Pastes in definition of perimeter.
... We talk to complex in other shapes.

Gregg: If you remove complex shape, then it is any shape.

MikeG: I'm not sure what I'm saying other than remove shape from second part. You could disregard the comment.

AlastairC: On Stefan's , I think his comments need to be talked to.

Stefan: what is the question?

AlastairC: Complex shapes are part of definition.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2051 to address issue 2050

Stefan: Yes, thanks.

JF: On client side image maps, we have construct of polygon (oval, triangle, shape of state in USA). I am wondering if polygon in image maps could bring clarity to it?

AlastairC: I think recommending update to understanding could be helpful, but keeping out of normative.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2051 to address issue 2050

<Chuck> +1

<Wilco> +1

<JF> +1 Mike

MikeG: Talks to adding polygon in addition to complex shape

Wilco: doesn't need to be a polygon though.

JF: Anything asymmetrical is a polygon within image maps.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2051 to address issue 2050

AlastairC: Shape could be anything, though.

MikeG: I removed the second "shape" on my comment. I was just giving the history of my comments.

<Wilco> +1 to Mike's suggestion

<Wilco> It's cleaner

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2051 to address issue 2050

<JF> Definition of Polygon in HTML5: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/image-maps.html#attr-area-shape-poly

<mbgower> +1

JF: Are we rejecting MikeG's comment on polygon wording?

<kirkwood> +1 to polygon

<Wilco> correct; I'm -1 on polygon

<Chuck> -1 polygon

<Ben> -1 to polygon

JF: pasted polygon in HTML5 link in IRC

<mbgower> continuous line forming the boundary of a shape not including shared pixels, or the <a>minimum bounding box</a>, whichever is shortest.

JF: We can point to definition already defined to remove ambiguity

<mbgower> ^ that's what I had in my comment, and what Wilco was +1ing

<jon_avila> I don't think polygon is the right term.

Chuck: Definition on math and HTML may collide. Worth continuing the conversation

<kirkwood> that is correct

<JF> In the polygon state, area elements must have a coords attribute with at least six integers, and the number of integers must be even. Each pair of integers must represent a coordinate given as the distances from the left and the top of the image in CSS pixels respectively, and all the coordinates together must represent the points of the polygon, in order.

<jaunita_george> Need to hop off, sorry.

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

12 Oct 2021

Attendees

Contents

Process overview

WCAG 3 Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/med_con/

WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/

Question 1 - Approval to Move to Editor's Draft

Question 1 - Inline elements that wrap over multiple lines #1328

Question 2 - What is a complex shape? #2050

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output