14:49:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:49:28 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/26-ag-irc
14:49:37 <Chuck> here too.
14:49:51 <Rachael> Agenda+ New members and topics
14:51:04 <Rachael> Agenda+ Announcements and Reminders
14:51:12 <Rachael> Agenda+ Proposal to update WCAG 3 editor's draft with test types https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_test_section/results
14:51:21 <Rachael> Agenda+ Visible Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results
14:51:30 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Page break locators https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/results
14:51:44 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Misc Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/results
14:51:47 <Rachael> agenda?
14:52:02 <Rachael> regrets: Sarah H, Todd L
14:52:58 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
14:53:00 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:53:59 <Rachael> agenda- 2
14:54:20 <Rachael> zakim, agenda order 1, 3, 7, 4, 5, 6
14:54:20 <Zakim> ok, Rachael
14:54:22 <Rachael> agenda?
14:54:47 <Rachael> zakim, agenda order 1, 3, 4, 7, 5, 6
14:54:47 <Zakim> ok, Rachael
14:54:51 <Rachael> agenda?
14:55:48 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
14:55:57 <Jennie> present+
14:56:05 <Jennie> scribe: Jennie
14:56:15 <Rachael> present+
14:56:29 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:57:33 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
14:57:37 <ToddL> present+
14:57:56 <alastairc> present+
14:57:58 <jeanne> present+
14:58:05 <Rachael> regrets- Todd L
14:58:20 <ToddL> Thank you, Rachael.
14:58:33 <Chuck> present+
14:58:48 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:58:48 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:58:49 <Jennie> Rachael: We are looking for a scribe for hour 2
14:58:52 <JakeAbma> present+
14:59:15 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
14:59:15 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:59:22 <shadi> present+
14:59:29 <ShawnT> present+
14:59:43 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:59:57 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
15:00:15 <GreggVan> present+
15:00:40 <jweismantel_> jweismantel_ has joined #ag
15:00:41 <JustineP> present+
15:00:46 <Rachael> present+
15:00:50 <jweismantel_> I'm Jo and am new
15:00:56 <Jennie> Rachael: Jo, welcome
15:01:01 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
15:01:01 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- New members and topics -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:01:01 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
15:01:05 <Lauriat> Present+
15:01:12 <Lauriat> agenda?
15:01:21 <Jennie> Rachael: We ask new members to say their name, where you work, 1 sentence on your background
15:01:22 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
15:01:42 <Jennie> Jo: I work at Pearson. I am excited to be here and contribute
15:01:49 <Rachael> q+
15:01:55 <Rachael> q+ to say something
15:01:59 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:02:01 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say something
15:02:13 <Jem> present+ jaeunjemmaku
15:02:43 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #ag
15:02:47 <Jennie> Rachael: anyone else here that is new?
15:02:57 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:58 <Jennie> ...Any topics to bring to the attention of the chairs?
15:03:05 <ToddL> I'll be in a work meeting at the same time, so I won't be able to speak.
15:03:05 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:03:05 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Proposal to update WCAG 3 editor's draft with test types https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_test_section/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:03:13 <bruce_bailey> Welcome Jo and Pearson!
15:03:36 <Jennie> Rachael: 2 purposes - a new way of thinking about how we will handle expanding what we test in WCAG 3
15:03:42 <Jennie> ...We had explored scoring and rating
15:03:48 <Jennie> ...We are now exploring different types of tests
15:03:54 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:04:21 <Jennie> ...We have broken down the tests into different levels of subjectivity
15:04:29 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
15:04:35 <Jennie> ...We are exploring how this impacts different SC - we are at the exploring phase
15:04:40 <mbgower> present+
15:04:59 <Jennie> ...The editor's draft: shift what is in this draft and mark as exploratory
15:05:31 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:05:33 <Jennie> ...Removing content, outstanding process (moving things from one level to the next, we need to capture information), and then make the content change
15:05:58 <Rachael> TOPIC: Agree with removing ratings, scorings, and critical errors
15:06:18 <Jennie> Rachael: 7 people agree, 1 with adjustments, no disagrees
15:06:23 <Jennie> ...Starting with the agrees
15:06:43 <Jennie> ...(reads from the survey)
15:06:58 <kirkwood> present+
15:07:36 <Jennie> Rachael: no further comments from those that agreed
15:07:46 <Jennie> ...(reads Sarah's suggested adjustments)
15:07:54 <Rachael> TOPIC: Should we leave in critical errors?
15:07:58 <Jennie> Rachael: Any other topics I missed on that?
15:08:08 <Rachael> q?
15:08:11 <Jennie> Rachael: queue is now open to general conversation
15:08:15 <Rachael> q+
15:08:16 <jeanne> q+ to say that I like the idea of leaving critical errors
15:08:42 <Jennie> Rachael: Chair hat off - I think we should not leave off critical errors. My concern: that we have them to fit in for scoring, and we may adjust
15:08:47 <Rachael> ack Jennie
15:08:53 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:08:55 <Rachael> ack jeanne
15:08:55 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I like the idea of leaving critical errors
15:09:25 <Jennie> Jeanne: I like the idea of keeping it. I like Sarah's idea.
15:09:34 <Jennie> ...Because it is not directly related to the scoring we could leave it in
15:09:34 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:09:39 <mbgower> q+
15:09:40 <JF> Present+
15:09:43 <Jennie> ...We need some way of addressing the issue. I could go either way
15:09:46 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:10:01 <Jennie> Mbgower: I think the critical errors are still errors and will fail current SCs
15:10:07 <Jennie> ...Depending on how the assessments go
15:10:13 <Jennie> ...The roll up situation
15:10:26 <Jennie> ...Without talking about why you are including them, it is hard to explain why you are even mentioning them
15:10:28 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
15:10:33 <alastairc> +1, they are fails, we don't need to call them out separately (until we get to the conformance/scoring aspect).
15:10:40 <Jennie> ..."These are critical errors" could be left there, but may raise more questions
15:10:42 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:10:47 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:10:59 <Jennie> Bruce: Is it possible to have an exposition on the critical errors
15:11:00 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:11:02 <Jon_avila_> Jon_avila_ has joined #ag
15:11:06 <MelanieP> present+
15:11:10 <Jennie> ...To have the idea behind it, without saying which are critical errors?
15:11:11 <Rachael> q+
15:11:16 <Rachael> ack Raf
15:11:22 <alastairc> Wouldn't that be part of explainer type content, rather than the spec?
15:11:29 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
15:11:32 <jaunita_george> Present+
15:11:40 <Jennie> Rachael: (chair hat off) I think that we could leave something small in, like an editor's note saying we are exploring it, but take it off elsewhere
15:11:46 <Rachael> q?
15:11:48 <Jennie> ...we could have it as exploratory
15:11:52 <Jon_avila_> Present+jon_avila
15:11:55 <jeanne> +1 to critical errors as placeholder
15:12:12 <Rachael> Straw poll: 1. Remove critical errors 2. Critical Errors as placeholder 3. Keep critical errors in as is
15:12:17 <alastairc> 1 or 2.
15:12:18 <Chuck> 2
15:12:18 <JakeAbma> 1
15:12:18 <JF> 1
15:12:19 <Jem> 2
15:12:20 <ShawnT> 2
15:12:21 <Wilco_> 1
15:12:22 <jweismantel_> 2
15:12:25 <jeanne> 2
15:12:27 <MelanieP> 1
15:12:30 <Jon_avila_> 2
15:12:30 <kirkwood> 1
15:12:30 <GreggVan> 1
15:12:31 <bruce_bailey> 2
15:12:32 <ToddL> 1
15:12:33 <Detlev> 2
15:12:35 <Rachael> 1 or 2
15:12:39 <Lauriat> 2 or 1
15:12:43 <GreggVan> q+
15:12:44 <mbgower> 1 or 2
15:12:46 <Rachael> ack Raf
15:12:48 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:12:50 <Detlev> present+
15:12:57 <Chuck> 7 1's 8 2's, and a bunch of eithers
15:12:58 <mbgower> 1 preferred :)
15:13:07 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:13:10 <Jennie> Rachael: We have 7 for 1, 8 for 2
15:13:32 <Jennie> GreggVan: In the old way we were talking, and until we have the new mechanism, I think critical errors was a way to cover a big hole in the old approach
15:13:41 <Jennie> ...If we revisit it, they may come back again
15:13:50 <Jennie> ...It is kind of like having another layer, like the A and AA
15:13:57 <Jennie> ...If you have critical errors and non critical errors
15:14:01 <Chuck> q+
15:14:10 <Jennie> ...Until we decide we are labeling the others as "not critical errors" is my concern
15:14:19 <Detlev> q+
15:14:20 <Rachael> ack Chuck
15:14:25 <Jennie> ...Pushes all the other provisions down into another layer
15:14:33 <Jon_avila_> We have non interference in the conformance requirements.
15:14:34 <JF> Can't any error be critical for a specific user?
15:14:38 <Jennie> Chuck: We seem to have consensus that we are removing option 3
15:14:49 <Jennie> ...There are a variety of people who put either / or
15:14:55 <Jem> In reality, we also call "critical error" as a deal breaker. What is the downside if we leave it as "placeholder"?
15:14:58 <Jennie> ...Could we see if people tolerate 1 or the other
15:14:59 <Rachael> ack Detlev
15:15:16 <MelanieP> q+
15:15:19 <Jennie> Detlev: I don't think it is necessary that the concept of critical error means everything else is not critical
15:15:38 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say i think concept of critical error is new and different and important
15:15:41 <Jon_avila_> Yes.  We also require full process today.
15:15:43 <Jennie> ...3rd category: non-critical - is a formal problem, but doesn't constitute a serious barrier - I find the concept quite useful
15:15:43 <Rachael> ack MelanieP
15:15:45 <Jem> + 1 to Deltev
15:16:07 <JakeAbma_> JakeAbma_ has joined #Ag
15:16:10 <Jennie> Melanie: I thought I heard including an editor's note, but then the straw poll said placeholder.
15:16:24 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:16:24 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think concept of critical error is new and different and important
15:16:26 <Jennie> Rachael: I can separate in the next straw poll
15:16:38 <Jennie> Bruce: Critical errors is new and different, not something we have in 2x
15:16:45 <Jennie> ...It is more than the blockers in the conformance report
15:17:03 <Jennie> ...I favor having something
15:17:07 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) remove critical errors, 2) critical errors in editors note 3) critical errors as placeholder content w/ editors note
15:17:15 <JF> 1
15:17:16 <GreggVan> 1
15:17:17 <Jem> I would like to shed light on Greg's point - "critical error" helps to complement the downside of current WCAG.
15:17:17 <Chuck> 2
15:17:19 <bruce_bailey> 2
15:17:19 <Jennie> Rachael: Pick which one you most prefer
15:17:20 <ShawnT> 2
15:17:21 <jweismantel_> 2
15:17:22 <Jon_avila_> 2
15:17:24 <kirkwood> 1
15:17:24 <Rachael> qq?
15:17:24 <alastairc> 3
15:17:25 <jeanne> 2 ok with any
15:17:25 <Rachael> q?
15:17:30 <jaunita_george> 2 or 3
15:17:30 <Jem> 2
15:17:32 <ToddL> 1
15:17:38 <MelanieP> 2, 1
15:17:41 <JakeAbma_> 1
15:17:44 <mbgower> Suggest: Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it will not be a focus of discussion in the next charter, it is intended to re-asses this concept in the future"
15:17:47 <Jennie> Rachael: (read Jemma's comment)
15:17:47 <Detlev> 2 oe 3
15:17:52 <Lauriat> 2 okay with any
15:18:08 <Rachael> 2
15:18:18 <Jennie> Jemma: Yes, I think Gregg's comment about critical errors is important
15:18:19 <GreggVan> q+  to clarify
15:18:28 <Jennie> ...It is very practical for use to use in reality
15:18:33 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:18:33 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to clarify
15:18:46 <Jennie> GreggVan: The critical error, when we had something you didn't have to pass everything
15:18:58 <mbgower> q+
15:19:02 <Jennie> ...Like scoring, if you do 90% but you did none of some for a disability group
15:19:06 <Chuck> 5 1's, 10 2's, then mixes.  Working on mixes
15:19:11 <Jennie> ...That is where critical error came in
15:19:18 <Chuck> a single 3
15:19:21 <Jennie> ...You have a way of "passing is good enough" without doing them
15:19:27 <Jennie> ...Without doing them all
15:19:36 <Jennie> ...Hyper A - you just can't not do something
15:19:39 <Rachael> Possible note (based on mike's suggestion): Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included,  AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
15:19:42 <bruce_bailey> Here is link to CC5 Non Interference, but I understand WCAG3 idea of Critical Error to be broader
15:19:44 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#cc5
15:19:49 <Jennie> ...If we have taken scoring out, there is no longer a need for critical errors at this time
15:19:55 <Jennie> ...We should bring it back in the future
15:19:56 <Chuck> a few 2's with lesser preferences to either 1 or 3.
15:20:19 <Jennie> ...The As would need to be a critical error
15:20:32 <jeanne> q+ to explain critical errors
15:20:33 <Jennie> ...If there isn't scoring at this time, then there isn't a need for critical errors
15:20:41 <Chuck> 5 1's, 13 2's, 1 3
15:20:44 <Jennie> Rachael: Before we go further, we did have a preference towards 2
15:20:48 <jeanne> q-
15:20:48 <Jem> I think Greg is voting for #2 ;-)
15:20:48 <Jennie> ...The editor's note
15:20:54 <Jennie> ...a strong preference
15:21:01 <Jennie> ...Would anyone object to an editor's note?
15:21:18 <Rachael> Possible note (based on mike's suggestion): Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included,  AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
15:21:19 <Jem> no objection.
15:21:27 <alastairc> no
15:21:29 <Jennie> Rachael: I think we will talk about the wording in a moment
15:21:31 <GreggVan> I could live with #2  depending on what it said
15:21:34 <Jennie> ...Sounds like no objections
15:21:41 <ToddL> no
15:21:47 <Jennie> ...Mike put in a suggestion tied to the charter, which I slightly reworded
15:21:55 <Jennie> ...(reads Mike's suggestion)
15:21:55 <mbgower> q-
15:21:59 <Rachael> q?
15:22:01 <Jennie> ...What else would people like to see?
15:22:08 <mbgower> q+
15:22:11 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:22:12 <GreggVan> +1
15:22:27 <Jennie> Mbgower: Thank you for doing that. I think everyone understands the basic concept
15:22:35 <GreggVan> q+ to say   that works for me
15:22:38 <Jennie> ...Is it something we can have a few people review, and bring it back?
15:22:39 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:22:51 <Jem> + 1 to Mbgower's approach
15:22:51 <Jennie> Rachael: Absolutely, I just want to be sure that people share any feelings about it
15:22:55 <Jennie> GreggVan: That works for me
15:23:02 <Jennie> ...In terms of language. It is also good the way it is
15:23:26 <Jennie> ...We can figure out what we do later, and use that short description.
15:23:32 <Rachael> draft resolution: Remove ratings, critical errors, and scorings. Add editor's note similar to Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included,  AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
15:23:49 <Wilco_> 0
15:23:51 <kirkwood> +1
15:23:52 <mbgower> +1
15:23:52 <Lauriat> +1
15:23:54 <Chuck> +1
15:23:55 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:23:56 <GreggVan> +1
15:23:57 <Jon_avila_> 1
15:23:59 <ShawnT> +1
15:24:00 <jweismantel_> +1
15:24:00 <Detlev> +1
15:24:00 <MelanieP> +1
15:24:03 <JF> +1
15:24:03 <jeanne> +1
15:24:04 <alastairc> +1
15:24:07 <Rachael> +1
15:24:08 <Jem> +1
15:24:09 <GN015> +1
15:24:10 <laura> +1
15:24:24 <Raf> +1
15:24:39 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Remove ratings, critical errors, and scorings. Add editor's note similar to Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included,  AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
15:24:39 <Jennie> RESOLUTION: Remove ratings, critical errors, and scorings. Add editor's note similar to Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included,  AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.
15:24:43 <JakeAbma__> JakeAbma__ has joined #Ag
15:24:46 <JakeAbma__> 0
15:24:50 <Rachael> TOPIC: What are outstanding questions on the new approach?
15:25:04 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: What are outstanding questions on the new approach?
15:25:23 <Jennie> Rachael: (reads from the survey)
15:26:01 <JF> Q+
15:26:17 <alastairc> q- GreggVan
15:26:48 <ToddL> not atthis time
15:27:09 <Jennie> Rachael: no other comments from Todd
15:27:21 <Jennie> ...Mike can you clarify your statement?
15:27:42 <Jennie> mbgower: Personally it is extremely hard to deep dive into 2.2 then go into Silver - hard to go back and forth
15:27:52 <Jennie> ...Hopefully we can get 2.2 to the next stage, then pivot
15:27:56 <Jennie> Rachael: I concur
15:28:01 <laura> +1 to MG
15:28:06 <Jennie> Rachael: (reads from the survey)
15:28:14 <Jem> Regarding Gundula's comment, Makoto and I had the same feedback regarding the "naming" of the various test approaches.
15:28:25 <Jennie> Gundula: no futher commens
15:28:39 <Jennie> Jeanne: no further comments
15:28:53 <Jennie> Rachael: I think we have a list with some rewording from Todd, 2 further questions from Gundula
15:28:58 <Rachael> q?
15:28:59 <Jennie> ...And I am now opening the queue
15:29:02 <Rachael> ack jf
15:29:16 <Jennie> JF: This may be a minor point, but I am concerned that things that are not tests we are calling tests
15:29:24 <Jennie> ...Gregg referenced this in an earlier comment
15:29:33 <Jennie> ...Evaluation is a good word, but I am struggling with "test"
15:29:43 <Jennie> ...Can we remove "test" and instead reference "evaluations" instead?
15:29:46 <Rachael> q+ to answer
15:29:47 <mbgower> q+ to say almost every existing SC includes subjective wording that is 'tested'
15:29:51 <GreggVan> q+
15:29:57 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:29:57 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer
15:30:20 <Jennie> Rachael: (chair hat off) the intent of this approach was "could we expand tests" if we took the assumption that what was pass or fail would change
15:30:25 <Jennie> ...The use of "test" is intentional
15:30:38 <Jennie> ...We are trying to see if we can fit an expanded set of requirements into what is pass or fail
15:30:45 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:30:45 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say almost every existing SC includes subjective wording that is 'tested'
15:30:46 <Jennie> ...Open to other ideas
15:31:01 <JF> Q+
15:31:07 <kirkwood> could we have a link to the poll?
15:31:08 <Jennie> mbgower: I read the comments posted. Every success criteria in 2.x - almost all have some subjective components
15:31:21 <Jennie> ...I think that test evaluations has the same idea
15:31:27 <alastairc> kirkwood - the survey? https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_test_section/results
15:31:36 <Jennie> ...Is there an alt text programmatic indicator here, and does it meet
15:31:36 <kirkwood> thank you!
15:31:48 <Jennie> ...The way forward is to see if we can make both testable
15:31:55 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:31:57 <Jennie> ...I think the direction is clear from the current wording
15:32:16 <mbgower> not true!!
15:32:19 <OliverK> OliverK has joined #ag
15:32:21 <Jennie> GreggVan: The requirement is only that there is alt text. Not that the alt text has to be good - that would be subjective
15:32:22 <JF> +1 and BINGO to Gregg
15:32:29 <Jennie> ...Placeholders are clearly defined
15:32:41 <alastairc> "serves the equivalent purpose" - goes beyond just existing
15:32:42 <mbgower> "All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below."
15:32:47 <Jennie> ...That's been the hallmark of things being testable
15:32:55 <Jennie> ...When you are done, you need to be able to determine you are done
15:32:56 <laura> +1 to Gregg
15:33:01 <Jennie> ...It depends on who is doing the judging
15:33:09 <Jennie> ...With multiple testers...
15:33:15 <Rachael> q?
15:33:24 <Jennie> ...You can't require someone to do something, then they cannot determine they are done when they are done
15:33:31 <Jennie> ...Lines are always blurry
15:33:43 <Jennie> ...Talks about being on both sides of a line or border
15:33:43 <Wilco_> q+
15:33:56 <Jennie> ...It should be clear if you are on one side or the other
15:34:04 <Rachael> ack JF
15:34:04 <Jennie> ...It should have high inter-rater reliability
15:34:10 <Jennie> JF: Exactly what Gregg said
15:34:16 <mbgower> 1.2.1 "presents equivalent information "; 1.3.1 "Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation "
15:34:24 <Jennie> ...Mike talked about success criteria in 2.x - those are all testable statements
15:34:35 <mbgower> 1.3.2 "When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning,"
15:34:38 <Jennie> ...When we talked about these in the past, COGA talked about wanting other aspects added
15:34:47 <Jennie> ...They created Creating Content Usable
15:35:01 <Jennie> ...Example: having a definition of beautiful or delicious depends on what you think it is
15:35:02 <Rachael> q+
15:35:07 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
15:35:10 <jeanne> q+ to say "that serves the equivalent purpose"
15:35:21 <Jennie> Wilco: Nobody is proposing to have tests with low inter-rater reliability
15:35:25 <Lauriat> +1 to Wilco
15:35:25 <GreggVan> q+ to suggest solution
15:35:30 <alastairc> +1, this is a tangent
15:35:33 <Jennie> ...I think we should agree that because this is exploratory, we should let the work continue
15:35:35 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:35:36 <Rachael> q-
15:35:55 <Jennie> Rachael: 1 option - Are these tests or evaluations?
15:35:58 <Rachael> ack jeanne
15:35:58 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say "that serves the equivalent purpose"
15:36:03 <Chuck> +1 this is a tangent
15:36:05 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:36:19 <Jennie> Jeanne: To answer Gregg, that serves the equivalent purpose in 1.1.1 is subjective condition
15:36:27 <Jennie> ...It is not like we don't have subjectivity in WCAG 2
15:36:31 <jon_avila> Today WCAG 2.x does require equivalent purpose and not just alt.
15:36:42 <Jennie> ...What will help is if we can tease them apart, and start doing more reliable testing of the subjective things
15:36:53 <mbgower> +1 to Jeanne and Wilco
15:37:02 <Jennie> ...As Wilco says, we are just starting. Let's explore it, it could solve some major problems, and I would like to see it keep going
15:37:06 <bruce_bailey> +1 that text alternative serves equivalent purpose is not so objective
15:37:13 <Jennie> GreggVan: I have the same answer later in the questionnaire
15:37:25 <Jennie> ...Categories are things you sort things into, rather than tags
15:37:38 <Jennie> ...Everything not in the 1st category is by definition not subjective
15:37:44 <JF> “Qualitative scoring cannot be used for conformance testing; a test must comprise criteria that either fail or pass if said criteria are to be employed in any legislative manner. Otherwise, two testers may produce altogether different results, which is unacceptable for WCAG in its present role in European legislation.” (SiteImprove - https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/509)
15:37:55 <Jennie> ...Conditional, not conditional - leaving out subjective as something that all the others are not
15:38:10 <Chuck> q?
15:38:13 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:38:13 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest solution
15:38:20 <Jennie> Rachael: We did collect terminology, and I am seeing that suggestion here. We will survey that in a future survey
15:38:29 <mbgower> q?
15:38:42 <Jennie> GreggVan: If you say there are going to be types, everyone will go back to the types that are named
15:38:49 <Jennie> ...We could add a note
15:39:04 <Jennie> ...If the note says "we are going to go forward, but have not yet found the right categories"
15:39:12 <Jennie> ...The whole conversation has been what are the categories
15:39:28 <Jennie> Rachael: let's go back to - we are looking at adding exploratory content into the draft
15:39:34 <Jennie> ...We are just thinking about these ideas
15:39:47 <Jennie> ...In the process we agreed on is that we would capture all the things we think we should work on
15:40:03 <Jennie> ...Gundula has asked is the naming of test approaches appropriate?
15:40:19 <Jennie> ...By having the question in we are acknowledging it is not yet right, but we are exploring it
15:40:27 <Jennie> ...That we are continuing in the direction
15:40:39 <Jennie> ...Is there another question that we can capture that we know is an issue with this direction?
15:40:46 <Rachael> q?
15:40:48 <Jennie> ...Does that make sense Gregg?
15:40:50 <GreggVan> q+ to suggest that if we know we don't have the types - we don't put anything in
15:40:53 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:40:53 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest that if we know we don't have the types - we don't put anything in
15:41:07 <Jennie> GreggVan: If we know we don't have the types right...if you want to put something in
15:41:25 <JF> +1 to Gregg
15:41:26 <Jennie> ...Are you saying that we are going to go forward having 4 types, 3 of which are absolutely not objective
15:41:40 <Jennie> ...Then there would be 3 more types that are not exclusive
15:41:45 <Jennie> ...I think we rename the 1st one
15:41:59 <Jennie> ...These are the kind that are unconditional
15:42:02 <Rachael> q?
15:42:19 <Jennie> ...If you have not determined that they are not objective, we should change the terms
15:42:21 <JF> "Objective Tests" and "Subjective Evaluations"
15:42:33 <alastairc> q+ to say we've discussed the types quite a lot, we know the categories, it's the names that we haven't settled on
15:42:39 <Jennie> Gregg: I think this would address several of the issues
15:42:41 <JF> Q+
15:42:49 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:42:49 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we've discussed the types quite a lot, we know the categories, it's the names that we haven't settled on
15:42:50 <Jennie> ...Finding new ways of looking at this, other than the ways we have
15:43:00 <Jennie> Alastairc: We have discussed these types of tests in other meetings
15:43:09 <Jennie> ...We know the categories - it is the names we haven't settled on
15:43:19 <Jennie> JF: I keep coming back to the fact that words are important
15:43:24 <Rachael> ack JF
15:43:38 <Jennie> ...I have proposed a way to have other ways of measuring
15:43:46 <laura> +1 to "Objective Tests" and "Subjective Evaluations"
15:43:46 <GreggVan> q+ I suggest reordering the order you handle the questionaire.    you need to proces the other question first
15:43:46 <Jennie> ...But gets us out of the objective vs subjective
15:44:19 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:44:25 <Jennie> GreggVan: You said we would make a decision first - I think the order is incorrect. I think we figure out the words first but I will review the draft resolution
15:44:34 <kirkwood> are we then saying all user tests are subjective?
15:44:52 <Jennie> Rachael: I will attempt to write the resolution to address that
15:45:38 <Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in survey along with the question of whether to use test or evaluation. Change the first test name to Unconditional while we continue to evaluate terminology.
15:45:39 <Jennie> ...this is just around which questions should be in the editor's note
15:45:40 <JF> @Kirkwood that would seem logical to me. Each user is unique, and their approach to interaction as well. I want to be sure we are evaluating content, and not users!
15:45:52 <Jennie> Rachael: Please give comments before voting
15:46:04 <Jennie> ...Do I need to reword it?
15:46:12 <GN015> I prefer 'objective'
15:46:24 <Jennie> Rachael: These categories are defined in the document
15:46:36 <Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in survey, accept editorial content,  along with the question of whether to use test or evaluation. Change the name of first test type to Unconditional while we continue to evaluate terminology.
15:46:38 <jeanne> I prefer objective
15:46:55 <GreggVan> +1
15:47:04 <Wilco_> +1
15:47:04 <Chuck> +1
15:47:04 <Jennie> Rachael: Let's go ahead and vote
15:47:09 <ShawnT> +1
15:47:09 <jaunita_george> +1
15:47:10 <jweismantel_> +1
15:47:10 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:47:11 <alastairc> +1
15:47:14 <GN015> -0.5
15:47:15 <jeanne> +1
15:47:16 <ToddL> +1
15:47:18 <Lauriat> +1
15:47:18 <JF> -1 to "unconditional" - I understand the intent, do not like the term
15:47:21 <mbgower> 0 I'm not sure where 'unconditional' came from
15:47:25 <laura> 0
15:47:30 <MelanieP> +1
15:47:39 <jon_avila> +0 unconditional is not the same as subjective
15:47:58 <Jennie> Gundula: On the one hand I prefer objective, there are fixed rules that could be automized
15:48:09 <Jennie> ...Renaming before the overall discussion on renaming the categories
15:48:15 <Detlev> 0 also unclear about unconditional
15:48:22 <Jennie> JF: Pretty much the same as Gungula
15:48:31 <Jennie> ...I would prefer objective testing, where it is objective
15:48:36 <mbgower> q+
15:48:38 <GreggVan> q+  to answer
15:48:40 <Jennie> ...Anyone running the tests should be able to get the same results
15:48:42 <laura> +1 to objective
15:48:58 <Jennie> Mbgower: I know that we are looking at a greater means of granularity
15:49:16 <Jennie> ...If we adopt splitting it into 2 for now, we might be able to get this in, and worry about the details as we progress
15:49:18 <Jennie> +1
15:49:40 <Jennie> GreggVan: Remembering that these are types that you sort into
15:49:45 <Jennie> ...If you call them tags, you can more than one
15:49:59 <Rachael> q+
15:50:03 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:50:04 <JF> Q+
15:50:06 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:50:06 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to answer
15:50:25 <Jennie> ...I have a concern about one of the types being objective
15:50:35 <Jennie> ...If you do that, then nothing else can be objective
15:50:41 <Jennie> ...Unless we are thinking of these as tags
15:50:58 <Jennie> ...Will everything be one of the types? Or as tags or descriptors, so some things can be more than one
15:51:01 <mbgower> this is a matrix, not a 1-dimensional approach
15:51:02 <Jennie> ...Or characteristics
15:51:12 <JF> ack me
15:51:14 <mbgower> q+
15:51:15 <Jennie> ...Then something could be objective, and conditional, and could be a procedure
15:51:29 <Jennie> ...Then I think we would be ok
15:51:39 <kirkwood> this is already done with alt text. objective tests (presence of alt text) and subjective evaluations (relevant alt text)
15:51:41 <SuzanneTaylor> -1 its too confusing if these are tags
15:51:49 <Jennie> Rachael: A lot of this has happened in previous meetings, they are meant to be categories or types
15:51:56 <alastairc> Gregg, have you read this https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#objective-tests
15:51:58 <Jennie> ...These are the different ways you can test a particular objective
15:52:07 <Jennie> ...They are exclusive of each other
15:52:13 <Jennie> GreggVan: That's what I thought
15:52:29 <Jennie> Rachael: I think your point is valid
15:52:36 <Jennie> GreggVan: This is the most important topic
15:52:43 <Jennie> ...I think putting this into the draft
15:52:56 <Jennie> ...Saying this group has formally decided that 3/4ths not be testable
15:52:59 <alastairc> Gregg, we've been discussing this for several meetings
15:53:00 <Jennie> ...That is monumental
15:53:04 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:53:09 <JF> +1 to Gregg
15:53:16 <Jem> +1 to Kirk's example
15:53:25 <Jennie> Rachael: The premise of this is that all of them are testable, but what is tested was different
15:53:40 <Jennie> ...We were not saying that anything is more subjective than anything in 2.x
15:53:46 <Jennie> ...That is why we spent several meetings on this
15:53:53 <Jennie> ...We will not get to the next question
15:54:03 <Jennie> ...Is everyone comfortable with the questions we have - to get them into the draft note
15:54:03 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
15:54:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/26-ag-minutes.html laura
15:54:03 <Chuck> +1 comfortable with questions
15:54:05 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:54:21 <Jennie> mbgower: Just acknowledge that we have had a number of meetings on this
15:54:28 <Jennie> ...This is a matrix
15:54:34 <Jennie> ...Things are going across 2 different directions
15:54:37 <Jennie> ...It is not linear
15:54:54 <Jennie> ...If you divide things into 4, you inferred that it means that only a quarter of them will be assessed in one area
15:54:57 <Jennie> ...That is not correct
15:55:17 <Jennie> ...A certain amount will be subjective, and we are attempting to categorize in different ways
15:55:19 <JF> Q+
15:55:22 <Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey,  add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation".
15:55:33 <Rachael> ack JF
15:55:51 <Jennie> JF: Part of the problem here is we also need to be thinking about conformance
15:56:02 <GreggVan> Q+  saying there are different things we are going to test -- is not the same as saying that only one of the things will actually be tested
15:56:05 <Jennie> ...We have had feedback about subjective
15:56:10 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
15:56:16 <Jennie> Rachael: any feedback on the draft resolution?
15:56:31 <Jennie> GreggVan: You are talking about another one of our surveys or going into the editorial draft?
15:56:41 <Jennie> Rachael: We have an editor's draft, with different levels of maturity
15:57:01 <Jennie> ...We agreed as a group to have a bottom level of maturity, and to capture questions
15:57:10 <Jennie> ...We have a list of questions we don't think we have the answers to
15:57:16 <Jennie> ...This meeting brought up another question
15:57:37 <Jennie> ...I am asking if we are ok adding the questions
15:57:44 <Jennie> JF: I am looking for the questions
15:58:07 <Rachael> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html
15:58:19 <Jennie> Rachael: The survey has the full list as well
15:58:24 <Rachael> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#testing
15:58:30 <Jennie> Rachael: We are talking about the editor's note
15:58:39 <Jem> Regardig resolution, are we voting for "objective test" or "subjective evaluation" instead of outstanding question of wehther to use "test" or "evaluation"? Would the fomer be more closer to the consensus?
15:58:42 <Jennie> ...Section 4, testing section, editor's note has the list of questions
15:58:48 <Chuck> +1
15:58:56 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:59:14 <Jem> +1
15:59:19 <GreggVan> q+ to add a question
15:59:19 <ShawnT> +1
15:59:27 <Chuck> q+ to ask for scribe change
15:59:32 <GN015> +1
15:59:40 <Lauriat> +1
15:59:49 <Jennie> GreggVan: One of the questions should be: we may have different types of tests, but should any of them be not objective?
16:00:01 <Jennie> Rachael: OK, perfect
16:00:06 <Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey,  add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "should any test be not objective"
16:00:07 <Jennie> *Scribe change soon?
16:00:16 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:00:16 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
16:00:28 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:00:28 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to add a question
16:00:29 <bruce_bailey> q+ for my blunt suggestion is for AGWG to focus more on prose and less on what regulators or litigation might find attractive
16:00:32 <kirkwood> +1
16:00:39 <alastairc> +1
16:00:42 <Detlev> +1
16:00:45 <Lauriat> +1
16:00:46 <Wilco_> +1
16:00:47 <mbgower> +1
16:00:47 <jaunita_george> +1
16:00:49 <Chuck> +1
16:00:51 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:00:51 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss my blunt suggestion is for AGWG to focus more on prose and less on what regulators or litigation might find attractive
16:00:54 <jeanne> +1
16:00:56 <ShawnT> +1
16:00:58 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
16:00:59 <ToddL> +1
16:00:59 <Jennie> Bruce: things should be objective
16:01:05 <JF> 0
16:01:16 <Jennie> ...I think the question is is the group's tolerance for less objective
16:01:26 <jaunita_george> q+
16:01:26 <Jennie> ...I think about how much due diligence the group has given
16:01:31 <jweismantel_> +1
16:01:33 <Jennie> ...That are attractive to regulators
16:01:41 <Lauriat> +1 to Bruce
16:01:50 <Jennie> ...My advice to the group is to worry less about that, and concentrate
16:01:53 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
16:01:54 <Jennie> ...On writing good prose
16:01:56 <jeanne> +1 to Bruce
16:01:58 <GreggVan> q+  question to bruce
16:02:00 <Jem> +1 to bruce
16:02:13 <laura> 0
16:02:16 <Rachael> zakim, close queue
16:02:16 <Zakim> ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is closed
16:02:18 <Jennie> Rachael: I see we have a queue and am closing queue
16:02:21 <GreggVan> 0
16:02:22 <Jennie> ...We need a new scribe
16:02:26 <jaunita_george> q-
16:02:31 <alastairc> q- question
16:03:05 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:03:05 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kirkwood
16:03:27 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:03:27 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ToddL
16:03:29 <Detlev> I can scribe
16:03:35 <Detlev> Scribe: Detlev
16:03:50 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:04:07 <GreggVan> +1
16:04:09 <Detlev> Rachael: Any objections to the queston on the list?
16:04:11 <bruce_bailey> +1 to question, my concern was for "should"
16:04:44 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey,  add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant of we of subjective tests"
16:04:51 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:04:52 <Detlev> Bruce: "should be objective" is easy, it is more how tolerant of subj, tests are we
16:04:53 <jweismantel_> +1
16:04:53 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey,  add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests"
16:04:53 <Chuck> +1
16:04:53 <jaunita_george> +1
16:04:55 <mbgower> +1
16:04:56 <Rachael> +1
16:04:58 <Jem> +100
16:04:59 <JF> 0
16:05:01 <ToddL> +1
16:05:02 <SuzanneTaylor> 0
16:05:02 <jeanne> +1
16:05:03 <Detlev> +1
16:05:39 <Detlev> Gregg: The other question should not be taken out - should there be things in it that are not objective should be retained
16:05:43 <GreggVan> +1
16:05:44 <Lauriat> +1
16:05:50 <Wilco_> +1
16:05:51 <GN015> +1
16:05:55 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey,  add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests (aka should any test be not objective)"
16:06:01 <Detlev> Rachael: Putting the question back in
16:06:20 <Chuck> +1 let's live with this
16:06:22 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey,  add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests  and Should any test be not objective?
16:06:28 <Detlev> Gregg: Can live withit, Bruce's point should be a separate question
16:06:37 <Detlev> Bruce: no problem
16:06:40 <Chuck> no objection
16:06:42 <JF> no
16:06:54 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Accept new questions in the survey, accept editorial content from the survey,  add an outstanding question of whether to use "test" or "evaluation", add a question of "How tolerant are we of we of subjective tests  and Should any test be not objective?
16:07:02 <Jem> +1
16:07:34 <Detlev> Gregg: Bruce, you said whe should focus on good prose even if that is a problem to regulators
16:07:36 <Jem> agenda?
16:07:40 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
16:07:42 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Visible Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:07:49 <Detlev> Rachael: should not cover this here now, letÄs move to 2.2.
16:07:55 <bruce_bailey> we already have SC which we characterize as being objective -- but are more subjective in actual practice than we would like
16:08:42 <bruce_bailey> To GV, imho we should not let quest for objective prevent us from developing good guidelines
16:09:05 <Detlev> Rachael: What are next steps on Visible controls - left it for COga to review, that happened - AAA not a direction to take according to them - instead proposing several other options limiting the scope
16:09:24 <Detlev> Survey asked about the exceptions and other approaches to Visible Controls
16:09:36 <Detlev> Rachael: Mike, Alastair, anything toadd?
16:09:44 <Detlev> Alastair: No
16:10:30 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:10:31 <Chuck> regrets+ Todd Libby
16:10:37 <AWK> +AWK
16:10:56 <Detlev> MikeG: The key thing is that the current wording demonstrably does not work - any choice except removing requires more work and someone needs to do that
16:11:12 <ToddL> @Chuck I'm still here. :)
16:11:30 <Detlev> Rachael (going through people's survey results, asking for any additions)
16:11:58 <Detlev> Rachael: Reading Sara's comments
16:12:01 <jon_avila_> jon_avila_ has joined #ag
16:12:29 <Detlev> Rachael: Reading Bruces's comments, Jon's comments
16:12:41 <Detlev> Rachael: Reading AWK's comments
16:13:30 <GreggVan> q+
16:13:37 <Detlev> 3 people supported removing the SC
16:14:03 <Detlev> Rachael: Reading Alastair's comments
16:14:52 <Detlev> ALastair: Comes down to issue of affordance and expectations, people asee that differently
16:15:04 <alastairc> BTW, the 'editable' bit was in a different branch, not in the survey question.
16:15:06 <AWK> Q+ to say I put in pursuing alternative 1 as my choice, assuming that we are pursuing this SC for WCAG 2.2. I do think that it is a separate discussion as to whether we have time and resources to get to a solution.
16:15:16 <Detlev> Rachael: (Reading MikeG's comments)
16:15:30 <Detlev> MikeG: The hard thing is to define visual indicators
16:16:25 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:16:28 <Rachael> TOPIC: Pursue or remove
16:16:32 <Detlev> Rachael: Should we remove or pursue - if the latter, we need volunteers to work on it
16:16:38 <mbgower> q+
16:16:57 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:17:44 <alastairc> Gregg, it's in the first line
16:18:01 <Detlev> Gregg: Visual indicator only appears in the exceptions - it should say 'visually hiding the control' is essential, that would remove 'visual indicators
16:18:41 <Detlev> ...is this really a critical problem? Are there examples for the issue, beyond skiplinks
16:18:51 <Detlev> Rachael: has been identified as an issue
16:19:10 <Rachael> ack AWK
16:19:10 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say I put in pursuing alternative 1 as my choice, assuming that we are pursuing this SC for WCAG 2.2. I do think that it is a separate discussion as to whether
16:19:13 <Zakim> ... we have time and resources to get to a solution.
16:19:13 <Detlev> Gregg: Hiding controls addresses the problem (?)
16:20:05 <Detlev> AWK: pursuing Alternative 1 is my choice - but it may not feasible in the time frame - wasn't thinking about it in terms of the time constraints
16:20:11 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:20:54 <Detlev> MikeG: The next survey question "What counts as Vissible indicator" - there was only agreement on one of the example, demonstrating the difficulty
16:21:18 <Wilco_> q+
16:21:27 <Detlev> Rachael: Straw poll whether we should continue or not - if the former, we need people to step in and work on it
16:21:43 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) Continue to pursue 2) Remove
16:21:46 <ShawnT> 1
16:21:48 <Detlev> 2
16:21:48 <mbgower> 2
16:21:52 <Chuck> 2
16:21:55 <ToddL> 2
16:21:56 <GreggVan> 1)
16:22:03 <jaunita_george> 2
16:22:03 <bruce_bailey> 1
16:22:05 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
16:22:06 <alastairc> 2, unfortunately I've tried many ways, can't see a way forward.
16:22:21 <Chuck> 3 1's, 6 2's
16:22:22 <AWK> Want to say 1 but suspect that it is time to say 2
16:22:23 <MelanieP_> MelanieP_ has joined #ag
16:22:39 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
16:22:41 <Detlev> Wilco: e need to know time lines before the decision - do we need 2.2 recommendations before the end of the charter?
16:22:42 <Nicaise> present+
16:22:58 <Detlev> Rachael: We need to close out issues this week
16:23:12 <laura> 2 unless someone volunteers
16:23:28 <Detlev> Gregg: Volunteers to take a crack on making this make sense
16:23:42 <Detlev> ...need help with filling in the background
16:23:45 <GN015> 1
16:23:46 <Francis_Storr> Would like to say 1, but voting 2
16:24:00 <Detlev> Rachael: Who else would be available?
16:24:12 <Detlev> ...Coga may involve several people
16:24:35 <Detlev> Gregg: Tell me what I missed (background) then rephrase
16:24:42 <Wilco_> Given all we have left on 2.2, I don't see how we can even afford another meeting on this.
16:25:00 <Detlev> Rachael: We can give you the info - Alastair or MikeG might be the ones
16:25:27 <Detlev> MikeG: Needs all the time on focus appearance
16:25:37 <Rachael> q?
16:25:45 <Detlev> Alastair: can give background
16:25:47 <Wilco_> q+
16:25:50 <mbgower> I think i objet
16:25:58 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
16:26:02 <Detlev> Rachael: Any objections to pursue this for one final week
16:26:19 <Detlev> Wilco: We have a bunch of other thing sdtoo - but no objection
16:26:41 <mbgower> q+
16:26:46 <Detlev> Alastair: Will need to send out CfCs for other SCs that have been talked about already
16:26:47 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:27:44 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) Gregg will pursue for one more week 2) Remove
16:27:50 <Detlev> MikeG: Clarifying why I objected - with focus appearance, we had iterations for months - how can we do that for Visual Controls which has lots of affordance aspects that are difficult to puin down - that's why said disontinue
16:27:52 <mbgower> lets call it a strong caution over an objection
16:28:09 <Chuck> 2
16:28:12 <mbgower> 2
16:28:13 <MelanieP_> 2
16:28:14 <Detlev> 2
16:28:17 <Wilco_> 2, and I don't like it...
16:28:20 <GN015> 1
16:28:21 <bruce_bailey> 1
16:28:24 <ShawnT> 1
16:28:27 <Rachael> 2 and I agree with Wilco, I don't like it
16:28:27 <Nicaise> opt 1
16:28:33 <alastairc> 1, but I think the likely outcome is that I will brief Gregg, and it won't go any further :-( so 2 is just as realistic.
16:28:37 <laura> 2
16:28:40 <jweismantel_> 2
16:28:48 <Francis_Storr> agreeing with Wilco. 2
16:28:48 <Chuck> q+
16:28:48 <jaunita_george> 2
16:28:52 <Rachael> ack Chuck
16:29:21 <Detlev> Chuck: We need consensus by next week
16:29:31 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:29:38 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: We will try one last time but if no quick consensus next week, we will drop for 2.2
16:29:41 <Wilco_> 0
16:29:41 <Chuck> +1
16:29:46 <Nicaise> +1
16:29:48 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:29:49 <mbgower> 0
16:29:53 <Detlev> Rachael: Good example for one of the 'less objective' test types...
16:29:53 <ShawnT> +1
16:29:54 <GN015> +1
16:29:56 <MelanieP_> -.5
16:29:57 <Detlev> +1
16:29:59 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
16:30:03 <laura> +1
16:30:04 <jon_avila> +1
16:30:04 <Francis_Storr> 0
16:30:05 <alastairc> +1 (see it as a form of due diligence. )
16:30:13 <Detlev> Rachael: Gregg please send out draft early to group can vet it
16:30:24 <ToddL> +1
16:30:41 <Detlev> Rachael: Melanie - does it mean .5 menas can live with it?
16:30:47 <Detlev> Melanie: truw
16:30:51 <Detlev> ...true
16:31:05 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: We will try one last time but if no quick consensus next week, we will drop for 2.2
16:31:16 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
16:31:16 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:31:17 <Detlev> Rachael: Agrees it is good for of due diligence
16:31:30 <Detlev> Rachael: Focus appearance now...
16:31:40 <Rachael> TOPIC: Updated understanding document for "encloses"
16:31:53 <Detlev> Rachael: Updating understanding doc regarding the term "encloses"
16:32:31 <Detlev> Alastairs: builds on discussions of last 2 weeks - if it is better than before we can move forward - last chance on this SC
16:32:39 <Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/focus-appearance-encompass/understanding/22/focus-appearance-minimum.html
16:32:57 <Detlev> Rachael: (reads survey results)
16:33:22 <Detlev> MikeG: No additions...
16:33:37 <Detlev> Bruce: no comment
16:33:48 <mbgower> q+
16:34:13 <Detlev> Rachael: (reads Gundula's comment disjoint bounding boxes)
16:34:56 <Detlev> Rachael: (reding Wilco's comment)
16:35:17 <Detlev> Wilco: Thi sis about the exception clause, not relevant to the first part
16:35:45 <Detlev> Rachael: This is just about the Understanding doc - assume normative changes have been agreed
16:36:03 <Detlev> Alastair: normative hasn't changed right MikeG?
16:36:30 <Detlev> Alastair: normative text has nit changed
16:36:46 <alastairc> s/nit changed/not changed
16:37:21 <Wilco_> yes, I'm seeing it in the preview
16:37:22 <alastairc> Michael: There has been one addition to the normative text, which was "instead" at the very end. The
16:37:31 <Detlev> MikeG: There was no intention of having a normative change in survey - but one change yet to be discussed, may need to be pulled out and checked
16:38:01 <Detlev> Rachael: (reading AWK's comment)
16:38:33 <Wilco_> +1 to AWK
16:38:36 <Detlev> AWK: not a good idea to be too prescriptive (?)
16:38:37 <Rachael> themes: bounding box definition, against adjacent colors, normative change of word "instead", exception language
16:39:03 <Detlev> Rachael: Did I miss any themes?
16:39:06 <mbgower> q+
16:39:07 <Chuck> +1 themes
16:39:22 <Rachael> TOPIC: bounding box defintion
16:39:23 <Detlev> Rachael: Starting with bounding box definition
16:39:33 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:40:03 <Detlev> MikeG: There is no change of bounding box - understands what's being said, but this is pre-exisiting - can be created as issue but not part of thid change
16:40:15 <Detlev> Rachael: Gundula, can you create an issue for that?
16:40:41 <Detlev> Gundula: Will create issue
16:40:45 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: GN will create an issue for the bounding box definition
16:41:02 <Rachael> TOPIC: Against adjacent colors
16:41:09 <alastairc> q+
16:41:15 <Detlev> Rachael: Next "Against adjacent colours"
16:41:22 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:41:45 <mbgower> q+
16:41:58 <Wilco_> q+
16:42:09 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:42:09 <Detlev> Alastair: question for Wilco: do not think adj color prohibit halo or gradient typefocus indicators
16:42:41 <jon_avila> What is meant by fading?  Halo or non-persistent indicator?
16:42:43 <Detlev> MikeG: I thin it does - if you have a fading focus indicator it will fail adjacent colors
16:43:04 <Detlev> Alastair: Talking about fading in time or visually
16:43:12 <Detlev> Alastair :not time
16:43:14 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
16:43:52 <GN015> q+ to refer to use of 'adjacent' in 1.4.11
16:44:02 <Rachael> ack GN
16:44:02 <Zakim> GN, you wanted to refer to use of 'adjacent' in 1.4.11
16:44:03 <Detlev> Wilco: You need to define what the indicator is adjacent to - so it is unclear what os measured against what with glows and the like (?)
16:44:09 <alastairc> q+
16:44:25 <mbgower> q+
16:44:46 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:44:52 <Detlev> Gundula: Weused the term adjacent coloralso in 1.4.11 - there it states that intermediate pixels in between color areas cna be neglected
16:45:14 <alastairc> "Where the area is adjacent to the component"
16:45:32 <Wilco_> +1
16:45:32 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:45:39 <Detlev> Alastair: Whas discussed recently; the solution was an aspect to incorporate "where the area is adjacent to the component"
16:46:46 <Detlev> MikeG: The difference between this one and 1.4.11 was whether the indicator stays contrasty - if you add a halo it doesn't make the indicator imperceptible
16:47:25 <Detlev> ...Here we are not talking not about the component but the indicator, which can be a few pixels away from the component
16:48:04 <alastairc> q+
16:48:26 <alastairc> q+ to say - can we agree the understanding doc updates? And comment on adjacent.
16:48:34 <GN015> q+ to answer to Mike
16:48:34 <Detlev> ...1. the overall area needs sufficient suze; 2. That area has enough contrast between focused and unfocused state; 3. where it is abutting, it needs to be thimk enough so beople perceive it (thickness)
16:48:57 <Detlev> ...even with halo you need at least 2px thickness requirement anyway
16:49:19 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:49:19 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say - can we agree the understanding doc updates? And comment on adjacent.
16:49:29 <Detlev> Alastair: no one was objecting o Understandign update
16:49:53 <Detlev> ...we have a slightly simplified version for the adjacent part
16:50:09 <alastairc> "Where the area is adjacent to the component, it has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the component or a thickness of at least 2 CSS pixels."
16:50:34 <Wilco_> If I'm not mistaken, we voted against that simplified version a few weeks back
16:50:57 <Detlev> ...either 2 pixels thickness requirement, or revert to prior version where there was a requirement 'where the indicator is adjacent to the component'
16:51:14 <Rachael> ack GN
16:51:14 <Zakim> GN, you wanted to answer to Mike
16:51:25 <mbgower> That would fail
16:51:32 <Detlev> Gundula: Agrees there needs a contrasting area , but also true for 1 pixel
16:51:45 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed it recently in which case we will move them to issues)
16:52:00 <jaunita_george> +1
16:52:04 <Detlev> (sorry unable to fdully capture details of this technical discussion above)
16:52:13 <mbgower> q+
16:52:16 <alastairc> +1
16:52:18 <Chuck> +1
16:52:21 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:52:22 <ToddL> +1
16:52:23 <Detlev> +1
16:52:34 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:52:53 <Detlev> MikeG: Adjacent colors has not changed here, was resolutin from last week
16:53:04 <Wilco_> q+
16:53:12 <alastairc> Minutes with that resolution: https://www.w3.org/2022/04/19-ag-minutes#item07
16:53:30 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed it recently, if surveyed recently it will move to an issue)
16:53:30 <Detlev> Wilco: my recollection: We did not have the final wording of this
16:53:40 <Detlev> Rachael: Need to go back and check
16:53:44 <alastairc> This is the diff we were looking at: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2283/files#diff-444c5829eebc004b2bed36e50ccd93bbc460c08d46c2bf15d4675daa34bfd9bf
16:53:48 <mbgower> RESOLUTION: Approve the change to use "Encloses" and "adjacent colors" in the SC text.
16:53:50 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed them recently, if surveyed recently it will move to an issue)
16:54:25 <Detlev> Rachael: Mike pasted from the previous notes?
16:54:32 <alastairc> s/RESOLUTION: Approve the change to use/
16:54:37 <Detlev> Rachael: Open an issue (Wilco)
16:54:44 <Chuck> +1 to draft resolution
16:55:00 <alastairc> q+
16:55:06 <Detlev> Rachael: Mike agree with this resolution?
16:55:11 <Wilco_> ack me
16:55:13 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
16:55:17 <Rachael> ack alastairc
16:55:36 <Detlev> Alastair: We included that change, have covered it
16:55:49 <mbgower> +1
16:55:57 <Rachael> RESOLUTION: Accept the understanding document update and survey Adjacent Colors, normative change of word "instead", and exception language (assuming we haven't surveyed them recently, if surveyed recently it will move to an issue)
16:56:04 <mbgower> q+
16:56:10 <Detlev> Rachael: Use the last few minutes to discuss adjacent colors
16:56:13 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:56:26 <mbgower> q-
16:56:32 <Detlev> MikeG: Let's better talk about the use of the word 'instead'?
16:57:01 <alastairc> Draft poll: Use current 'adjacent colors' (1), or revert to the previous version (2)
16:57:13 <Detlev> Rachael: Do we need adjecent colors or revert to 'adjacent to the component' do we need to straw poll that
16:57:13 <Wilco_> 2
16:57:19 <ToddL> 2
16:57:25 <mbgower> please paste
16:57:41 <Rachael> straw poll: 1) Keep adjacent colors 2) Change back to Where the area is adjacent to the component
16:57:54 <bruce_bailey> 2 (soft)
16:57:57 <alastairc> "Where the area is adjacent to the component, it has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the component or a thickness of at least 2 CSS pixels."
16:58:00 <Detlev> Mike: Pleas aste wording
16:58:08 <jon_avila> q+
16:58:08 <GN015> 1
16:58:11 <alastairc> 1 prefered, but not against 2
16:58:14 <Rachael> ack jon_avila
16:58:35 <Wilco_> q+
16:58:41 <Detlev> Jon: Is it that the secnd applies to both sides of the indicator?
16:59:07 <GreggVan> 2)
16:59:11 <mbgower> q+
16:59:12 <GreggVan> 2
16:59:15 <Rachael> ack Wilco_
16:59:22 <Rachael> 1
16:59:25 <Detlev> Alastair: Yes - if it is a big indicator you need the 2 pixel thickness, the older one allowed one picel with gradient
17:00:12 <Detlev> Wilco: The high opacity part of the indicator should contrast to its low opacity part - is that it?
17:00:48 <Detlev> MikeG: The indicator can cut though other things on the page - the wording does not cove that well now
17:00:52 <jon_avila> Thank you
17:01:04 <GN015> present+
17:01:09 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/26-ag-minutes.html alastairc
17:01:24 <Rachael> zakim, make logs world
17:01:27 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs world', Rachael
17:01:33 <Rachael> rrsagent, make logs world
17:27:09 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
17:55:31 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
18:04:06 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
18:45:13 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
20:20:31 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag