14:17:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:17:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/27-ag-irc
14:17:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:17:41 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:17:51 <alastairc> agenda+ Starting the next subgroups https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06/
14:17:58 <alastairc> agenda+ ACT Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/
14:18:07 <alastairc> agenda+ Issue Severity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-post-tpac/
14:18:16 <alastairc> agenda+ Equity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/
14:18:22 <alastairc> Continue conformance Pros and Cons conversation
14:18:29 <alastairc> agenda+ Continue conformance Pros and Cons conversation
14:23:42 <Karen> Karen has joined #ag
14:24:45 <Karen> Karen has joined #ag
14:46:09 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
14:46:13 <Chuck> agenda?
14:53:45 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
14:56:02 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
14:56:05 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
14:56:08 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:56:59 <ShawnT> present+
14:57:29 <alastairc> present+
14:57:33 <alastairc> chair:alastairc
14:58:41 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:59:05 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
14:59:10 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
14:59:35 <Jennie> present+
15:00:08 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
15:00:17 <JustineP> present+
15:00:19 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:00:19 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:00:26 <shadi> present+
15:00:30 <joweismantel> joweismantel has joined #ag
15:00:32 <shadi> scribe: shadi
15:00:35 <Peter_Bossley> Peter_Bossley has joined #ag
15:00:44 <ToddL> present+
15:00:46 <Peter_Bossley> present+
15:00:55 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:01:00 <jeanne> present+
15:01:03 <joweismantel> present+
15:01:05 <JakeAbma> present+
15:01:09 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
15:01:12 <Lauriat> Present+
15:01:13 <Azlan> present+
15:01:14 <Marie_> Marie_ has joined #ag
15:01:23 <shadi> agenda?
15:01:34 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:01:53 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #ag
15:01:57 <alastairc> present+ FrancesStorr
15:02:07 <Jaunita_George> Present+
15:02:26 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:02:32 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
15:02:45 <Makoto> present+
15:02:48 <MichaelC> present+
15:03:01 <alastairc> TOPIC: Announcements
15:03:01 <Poornima> present+
15:03:04 <JenniferS> JenniferS has joined #ag
15:03:05 <Chuck> present+
15:03:08 <JenniferS> present+
15:03:09 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:03:20 <Jaunita_George> q+
15:03:21 <shadi> alastairc: any intros?
15:03:26 <shadi> [crickets]
15:03:42 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
15:03:44 <shadi> alastairc: looking for implementation testing
15:03:44 <alastairc> ack Jaunita_George
15:03:52 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:03:58 <mbgower> present+
15:04:00 <Jem> present+
15:04:06 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:04:09 <shadi> Jaunita_George: have two new folks who might be able to help
15:04:20 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
15:04:23 <maryjom> present+
15:04:27 <Nicaise> present+
15:04:27 <Azlan_> Azlan_ has joined #ag
15:04:42 <Chuck> q+
15:04:46 <shadi> alastairc: specific to that one project?
15:04:53 <shadi> Jaunita_George: think so
15:05:00 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:05:19 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:05:46 <Poornima> q+
15:05:58 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
15:06:00 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:06:14 <alastairc> ack Poornima
15:06:14 <Detlev> present+
15:06:20 <AWK> +AWK
15:06:36 <Jem> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1avNVZFsbTdc6LjqsXqysTh6n6goijouGk1Eio0lLpsQ/edit
15:06:58 <Jem> https://www.funka.com/en/
15:07:14 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:07:14 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Starting the next subgroups https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:07:22 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:07:36 <Jaunita_George> q+
15:07:51 <sarahhorton> present+
15:07:58 <Chuck> q+
15:08:00 <Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06
15:08:05 <alastairc> ack Jaunita_George
15:08:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:08:52 <Jem> agenda?
15:08:52 <shadi> alastairc: uneven distribution to groups, please check the survey
15:09:14 <shadi> Jaunita_George: there was a proposal for a site redesign group?
15:09:24 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
15:09:36 <shadi> alastairc: need to consider resourcing too
15:10:10 <ajdavis_> ajdavis_ has joined #ag
15:10:23 <shadi> ...will revisit with the chairs
15:11:12 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:11:17 <Wilco> Please fill in the survey today. I'd like to pull it all together tomorrow.
15:11:23 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:11:49 <ajdavis_> I am new and wondering if I can get access to the survey
15:12:07 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06/results
15:12:48 <alastairc> zakim, take up item 3
15:12:48 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Issue Severity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-post-tpac/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:13:00 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-post-tpac/results
15:13:05 <MarieB> MarieB has joined #ag
15:13:21 <shadi> alastairc: continuation from TPAC discussion
15:13:23 <alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/c4f15d75f75688e4b9b8ec45a4c7f7aad4829822/guidelines/index.html#critical-issues
15:14:32 <shadi> GreggVan: attempt to find a different approach then binary yes/no
15:14:56 <shadi> ...ends up saying one need is more important than another
15:15:22 <shadi> ...tends to deprioritize certain types of disabilities
15:15:49 <shadi> ...the question is who does the barrier impact?
15:16:02 <shadi> ...issues will come up over and over again
15:16:18 <shadi> ...having it as explanatory is ok but need to list the issues
15:16:46 <shadi> ...personally can't see a way through but doesn't mean we shouldn't try
15:17:17 <GreggVan> q+
15:17:19 <Detlev> q+
15:17:32 <shadi> alastairc: for who, tried to not play off different audiences to each other
15:17:48 <alastairc> ack GreggVan `
15:17:50 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:17:52 <shadi> ...for a specific group, is one issue stronger than another?
15:18:30 <shadi> GreggVan: also within groups, it tends to relate to individual needs
15:18:56 <shadi> ...is one user need more or less important than another
15:18:59 <alastairc> ack Detlev
15:19:31 <shadi> Detlev: there are known blockers
15:19:54 <shadi> ...for example, missing name for menu
15:20:15 <shadi> ...also for cognitive there may be specific known blockers
15:20:23 <shadi> ...other issues may be gray areas
15:20:36 <shadi> ...looking for the known blockers
15:20:57 <alastairc> How do we incorporate context/process/task? Is that part of scoping, or issue severity? Both are important to the end result.
15:20:57 <Regina> Regina has joined #ag
15:21:38 <shadi> GN015: suggesting a new point to be added
15:22:45 <shadi> alastairc: we have 2 Pull Requests
15:23:28 <shadi> ...need to align between them
15:23:52 <GreggVan> q+
15:23:57 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:24:24 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:24:34 <shadi> GreggVan: want to avoid temptation to keep adding new ideas as experimental
15:24:49 <shadi> ...not speaking about current ideas, just concerned about progression
15:25:16 <Chuck> q+
15:25:17 <shadi> ...if we feel uncomfortable declining ideas, and end up putting them all in
15:25:33 <shadi> ...just a warning for the future
15:25:41 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:25:57 <shadi> Chuck: there is "Placeholder" as a filter before that
15:26:09 <shadi> ...we will test out the process as we go
15:26:42 <GreggVan> q+
15:26:44 <shadi> GreggVan: need to be clear that we have an expectation that this could work, rather than a mere wish
15:26:48 <AWK> q+
15:26:58 <Jem> +1 alastairc
15:27:07 <shadi> alastairc: feel sufficiently different from random idea
15:27:19 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:27:20 <GreggVan> +1
15:27:30 <shadi> GreggVan: do we ensure we have people who challenge the ideas?
15:27:33 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:27:36 <alastairc> ack AWK
15:27:48 <shadi> alastairc: try our best, we have a fairly active group
15:28:26 <shadi> AWK: can we ensure the 6 months promise?
15:28:44 <shadi> ...seems like we can't keep that
15:28:53 <Chuck> I've noted down
15:29:03 <shadi> alastairc: would need to remove maybe half the document at the momet
15:29:06 <Jem> May we add automatic notification feature - expiration date -for the github issue?
15:29:12 <shadi> ...will revisit with the chairs
15:29:22 <shadi> s/momet/moment
15:29:53 <shadi> AWK: had similar issue with comments processing in the past
15:30:06 <shadi> ...suggest some form of timer mechanism
15:30:57 <Jem> As the member of another working group, I can say that the speed of incoming git issue filing tends to be beyond the capacity of working group. ;-)
15:31:11 <Jem> not to mention keeping up with given timelines.
15:31:47 <Jem> challenge of operationalization.
15:32:23 <alastairc> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 661 (addition to the guidelines), with Gundula's additional point
15:32:43 <Chuck> +1
15:32:45 <ShawnT> +1
15:32:46 <sarahhorton> +1
15:32:48 <joweismantel> +1
15:32:50 <ToddL> +1
15:32:50 <laura> +1
15:32:50 <GN015> +1
15:32:51 <Makoto> +1
15:32:53 <JenniferS> +1
15:32:56 <Jennie> +1
15:32:59 <JakeAbma> +1
15:33:03 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
15:33:05 <Jaunita_George> +1
15:33:07 <Detlev> +1
15:33:13 <maryjom> +1
15:33:15 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept PR 661 (addition to the guidelines), with Gundula's additional point
15:33:40 <mbgower> +1 hopefully we can address the redundancy with the editor's draft at some point
15:33:51 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 656, for the updates to methods, but removing the updates to the Requirements document
15:34:11 <sarahhorton> +1
15:34:13 <ToddL> +1
15:34:18 <jeanne> +1
15:34:21 <JenniferS> +1
15:34:22 <Makoto> +1
15:34:23 <ShawnT> +1
15:34:26 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
15:34:29 <joweismantel> +1
15:34:30 <Chuck> +1
15:34:31 <Jennie> +1
15:34:33 <JakeAbma> +1
15:34:36 <laura> +1
15:34:39 <Jaunita_George> +1
15:34:54 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept PR 656, for the updates to methods, but removing the updates to the Requirements document
15:35:01 <alastairc> agenda?
15:35:10 <alastairc> zakim, tame up item 4
15:35:10 <Zakim> I don't understand 'tame up item 4', alastairc
15:35:17 <alastairc> zakim, take up item 4
15:35:17 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Equity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:35:31 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/results
15:37:26 <shadi> GreggVan: there is equity in our guidelines vs equity in our processes
15:37:45 <shadi> ...the write up seemed to talk about both
15:37:56 <shadi> ...and to flip back and forth between them
15:37:59 <alastairc> "The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group wants to commit to a) improving equity of all types in our processes and participation and b) improving equity for the full spectrum of users with disabilities in content authored using WCAG3. Exactly what that will encompass and how it can be measured is under exploration and discussion."
15:38:05 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:38:20 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:38:21 <mbgower> go ahead
15:39:24 <JenniferS> q+
15:39:24 <mbgower> q+
15:39:29 <JenniferS> -q
15:39:31 <sschnabe> sschnabe has joined #ag
15:39:33 <alastairc> mbgower:
15:39:36 <alastairc> ack mbgower
15:39:39 <jeanne> +1 to Gregg's edits.  -1 to putting something about W3C level in the WCAG3 Requirements
15:39:44 <shadi> alastairc: does GreggVan's suggestion address your comment mbgower?
15:39:56 <MichaelC> q+
15:39:56 <JenniferS> q+
15:40:15 <shadi> mbgower: feel there was a discussion during TPAC on how to influence W3C overall
15:40:17 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
15:40:20 <StefanS> present+
15:40:24 <alastairc> ack JenniferS
15:40:44 <shadi> JenniferS: think there was a two-pack at TPAC
15:41:42 <alastairc> ack MichaelC
15:41:51 <shadi> ...conversation was also about taking equity discussion to W3C leadership
15:42:20 <shadi> MichaelC: think need to also address equity at W3C level
15:42:34 <shadi> ...just back and need to get back into this
15:42:44 <shadi> ...will be speaking with the chairs first
15:42:50 <shadi> ...need to think about this carefully
15:43:56 <JenniferS> +1 to Gondola's comments re recruiting and time zone considerations
15:43:56 <shadi> GN015: thinking along the lines of what GreggVan was saying
15:44:20 <shadi> ...how can we better involve people with different disabilities
15:44:36 <shadi> ...not only recruit but also keep participants
15:45:02 <MichaelC> q+
15:45:22 <alastairc> ack MichaelC
15:45:44 <shadi> alastairc: AWK comment
15:46:20 <shadi> MichaelC: editing exploratory label as we speak
15:46:56 <MichaelC> q+
15:46:58 <shadi> alastairc: resolves comment from GN015?
15:47:02 <shadi> GN015: yes
15:47:08 <alastairc> ack MichaelC
15:47:08 <Wilco> present+
15:47:37 <mbgower> I will draft something now....
15:47:44 <shadi> alastairc: mbgower's comment
15:48:01 <shadi> MichaelC: don't have wording for this, does mbgower?
15:49:22 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files
15:49:25 <Chuck> q+
15:49:32 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:50:05 <shadi> Chuck: suggest moving to next topic and coming back later to this one
15:50:07 <alastairc> agenda?
15:50:14 <alastairc> zakim, take up item 2
15:50:14 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- ACT Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:50:19 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/results
15:50:54 <alastairc> TOPIC: New Rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name
15:51:26 <Wilco> q+
15:51:35 <alastairc> ack wi
15:51:37 <shadi> alastairc: AWK's comment
15:52:04 <shadi> Wilco: these examples are marked up as such
15:52:22 <alastairc> Rule being discussed: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/8fc3b6/proposed/
15:52:51 <shadi> AWK: don't understand the note
15:54:18 <shadi> ...when would the SC be met despite note marked up?
15:55:01 <shadi> Wilco: very edge case where not properly marked up but still not voiced by user agents
15:55:12 <shadi> AWK: ok, got it
15:55:20 <shadi> ...maybe clarify in note?
15:55:29 <shadi> Wilco: agree, good point
15:56:04 <shadi> alastairc: mbgower's comment
15:56:55 <shadi> mbgower: suggestion decorative attribute
15:57:46 <shadi> alastairc: any comments on the rule itself in the mean time?
15:58:02 <shadi> ...small clarification on the assumption at the top
15:58:12 <shadi> ...otherwise sounds like agreement
15:58:19 <mbgower> q+ to say is there anything the agwg can do to influence html5 for this?
15:58:22 <Chuck> q+ to ask for scribe change
15:58:23 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name
15:58:43 <alastairc> ack mbgower
15:58:44 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is there anything the agwg can do to influence html5 for this?
15:58:56 <MichaelC> q+
15:59:00 <jon_avila> What about aria-hidden?
15:59:09 <shadi> mbgower: can we influence HTML5?
15:59:21 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:59:21 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
15:59:59 <Jem> scribe: jemma
16:00:02 <alastairc> scribe: Jem
16:00:08 <Jem> agenda?
16:00:20 <Jem> zakim, take up item 2
16:00:20 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- ACT Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:00:22 <alastairc> ack MichaelC
16:00:54 <jon_avila> Role presentation?
16:01:38 <Jem> mc: we can do work with APA and html for more coordianted way.
16:01:49 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name
16:02:58 <Jem> +1
16:03:01 <Ryladog> +1
16:03:02 <ToddL> +1
16:03:06 <Wilco> +1
16:03:10 <joweismantel> +1
16:03:10 <JakeAbma> +1
16:03:11 <alastairc> +1
16:03:13 <Azlan> +1
16:03:13 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
16:03:13 <Makoto> +1
16:03:14 <Chuck> +1
16:03:14 <ShawnT> +1
16:03:14 <Raf> +1
16:03:16 <laura> +1
16:03:18 <JenniferS> +1
16:03:18 <sarahhorton> +1
16:03:20 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:03:24 <GreggVan> +1
16:03:31 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name
16:03:33 <kirkwood> +1
16:03:43 <alastairc> TOPIC: Line height in style attributes is not !important
16:03:48 <GreggVan> present+
16:03:51 <jon_avila> +1 but I think there could be some tweaks for accessibility support and role presentation/aria-hidden
16:04:00 <Jem> +1 jon
16:04:14 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/78fd32/proposed/
16:05:37 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/results#xq5
16:05:49 <jon_avila> I agree the name is confusing and the exclamation could be missed by text to speech
16:06:32 <alastairc> q?
16:06:33 <Jem> alastairc is reading through the resulte comments
16:06:39 <Jem> s/resulte/result/
16:07:28 <Jem> wilco: I don't mind changing the title, but the group should know they've approved this same wording twice before on:
16:07:28 <Jem> - Letter spacing in style attributes is not !important
16:07:28 <Jem> - Word spacing in style attributes is not !important
16:07:54 <Jem> .. there is also way to tweak this(?) via browser plugin.
16:08:13 <Wilco> q+
16:08:28 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:08:44 <Jem> wilco: I would like to make this as two separate things to simplify
16:09:00 <Jem> because of default browser styling issues
16:09:34 <Jem> and the way it can be customized the settings
16:10:03 <Jem> s/the settings/by the browser/os settings such as color contrast and so on/
16:10:11 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept rule "Line height in style attributes is not !important", ACT will look at the titles of all similar rules.
16:10:20 <Wilco> +q
16:10:22 <Wilco> q-
16:10:23 <Wilco> +1
16:10:25 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
16:10:26 <jon_avila> +1
16:10:26 <Ryladog> +1
16:10:28 <Chuck> +1
16:10:29 <Azlan> +1
16:10:29 <ShawnT> +1
16:10:33 <JenniferS> +1
16:10:34 <Makoto> +1
16:10:37 <GreggVan> +1
16:10:38 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:10:39 <Jennie> +1
16:10:42 <GN015> +1
16:10:44 <Raf> +1
16:10:52 <sarahhorton> +1
16:10:55 <joweismantel> +1
16:10:56 <kirkwood> +1
16:10:59 <ToddL> +1
16:11:00 <Jem> s/the settings/by the browser and OS settings such as color contrast and so on/
16:11:02 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept rule "Line height in style attributes is not !important", ACT will look at the titles of all similar rules.
16:11:08 <Chuck> TOPIC:  New Rule: HTML graphics contain no text
16:11:23 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/0va7u6/proposed/
16:11:45 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/results#xq6
16:12:27 <Jem> MG: Not a problem with the rule per se, but that editor's note in the definition is pretty bad!
16:13:13 <Jem> ... 'image of text' seems not to be clear in WCAG
16:13:44 <Jem> francis: 1. The rule is titled "HTML graphics", but it relates to two criteria with "images" in the title. All the examples use "image" instead of "graphic" and the Background section also uses "images". For consistency, consider changing the rule name to use "images".
16:13:44 <Jem> 2. Related: would "(Images | Graphics) in HTML…" be more accurate than "HTML (Images | Graphics)…"?
16:14:20 <Jem> Wilco: Francis' comments sounds right. I don't why that happened.
16:14:48 <Jem> Mokoto: Just to confirm. Does the "Passed Example 6" which uses the background-image property mean that it is okay to use it to meet SC 1.1.1 as well?
16:14:48 <Jem> 
16:14:48 <Jem> If it is the AGWG's consensus, why don't we remove the F3 failure from the Understanding and Techniques documents?
16:14:48 <Jem> If not, this example can mislead people to use the background-image property to meet SC 1.1.1 even if it doesn't matter for SC 1.4.5/1.4.9.
16:14:49 <Jem> 
16:14:49 <Jem> F3: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using CSS to include images that convey important information
16:14:49 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F3
16:15:38 <Jem> wilco: there was example for adding role to background image
16:16:17 <Jem> makoto: wondering about consensus about the background image... and
16:16:40 <Wilco> q+
16:16:45 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:17:08 <Jem> discussion about  https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F3
16:17:40 <OmarBonilla> OmarBonilla has joined #ag
16:17:43 <Jem> wilco: I dont think there is conflict with F3 and we can add more clarity to the section
16:17:53 <kirkwood> present+
16:18:19 <Poornima> q+
16:18:29 <Jem> alastairc: Does text within an SVG still count as text in 1.4.5? I had thought text in SVG would count as text (not ruled out by https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-images-of-text).
16:18:39 <alastairc> ack Poornima
16:19:03 <Wilco> q+ to respond to SVG text
16:19:47 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:19:47 <Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to respond to SVG text
16:19:49 <Jem> poornima: question about "significant" vs not significcant the text
16:21:33 <Jem> wilco: re: SVG question, that is  the text because it is customizable and editable within svg taag
16:22:39 <Jem> .. regarding poornima's question - image not decorative, but text in the image can be decorative and non significant.
16:23:08 <alastairc> Suggestion to change title to: "Images in HTML contain no text"
16:23:21 <Jem> frnacis:For consistency, consider changing the rule name to use "images"
16:24:22 <Jem> jennifer: I reread a few times and do not understand what the bullets under Expectation mean.
16:25:11 <Wilco> q+
16:25:48 <alastairc> q+ to speak to context
16:25:52 <Wilco> q-
16:26:35 <Jem> alastairc: context of this rule is that
16:26:47 <Jem> how to testing the rule
16:27:24 <Jem> ... the way I read Expectation is the specificity of guidelines.
16:28:34 <Jem> +q to suggest something
16:28:42 <alastairc> ack ack alastairc
16:28:46 <alastairc> ack Jem
16:28:46 <Zakim> Jem, you wanted to suggest something
16:28:57 <mbgower> I have added an issue to track improving the "significant content" wording in the definition. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2693
16:29:22 <Chuck> Jem:  I hear why it's hard to understand.  This is a key component of this testing.  We have to be mindful of significant and decorative.  This is a basic requirement to understand to do testing.  Correct?  What is the expectation and goal?
16:29:32 <Chuck> Jem:  We need something to clarify the section.
16:29:40 <Chuck> Jem:  Can you add what the expectation is?
16:30:02 <Chuck> Wilco:  The rendered imagery source, there are different things that can be images.  The thing that any visible image needs to meet.
16:30:08 <Poornima> q+
16:30:12 <Chuck> Wilco:  It's essential or it doesn't contain text.
16:30:14 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:30:14 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to context
16:30:27 <Chuck> Jem:  This is a requirement before we apply the rule to the object?
16:30:29 <Chuck> Wilco:  Yes.
16:30:37 <Detlev> Have to leave early today, regrets.
16:30:40 <Chuck> Alastair:  Basically scoping as what counts as a target.
16:30:41 <Jem> alastairc:
16:30:41 <alastairc> ack Poornima
16:30:55 <Jem> alastairc: basically it is about scoping
16:31:02 <Jem> for testing
16:31:39 <GN015> present+
16:31:52 <GN015> I need to step out, sorry!
16:32:19 <Jem> poornima: it would be great to clarify that this seciton is for testing point/implementation point
16:32:38 <Jennie> * Mbgower: maybe the decision about what qualifies as significant needs to be defined, or assigned to someone to make the decision?
16:32:46 <Chuck> +1 to work then publish
16:33:09 <Jem> q+
16:33:16 <alastairc> ACK Jem
16:33:31 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Revisit 'expectations' section on this rule.
16:33:42 <Wilco> q+
16:33:48 <Chuck> Jemma:  Can we add "expectation", add some verbage to "expectation" before publishing.
16:33:48 <alastairc> ACK Wilco
16:33:54 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#expectations
16:34:43 <Jennie> q+
16:34:44 <Wilco> There's a summary here too: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/about/#structure-of-act-rules
16:35:21 <Chuck> Jemma:  I'm asking if we can add some information about what this structure means.  Maybe you have it in the template, and I missed it.
16:35:28 <Chuck> Alastair:  Wilco linked to it above.
16:35:58 <mbgower> q+ to say that the tester does not get exposed to the rule. It is used to create engines
16:36:12 <Jem> jennie: it would be helpful to add back to the glossary doc so that we can help with people with memory issue.
16:36:17 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:36:18 <Jem> +100
16:36:19 <alastairc> ack ack Jennie
16:36:22 <alastairc> ack Jennie
16:36:28 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:36:28 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that the tester does not get exposed to the rule. It is used to create engines
16:36:43 <Jennie> q+
16:37:08 <Ryladog> +1 to MG
16:37:12 <Ryladog> Q+
16:37:26 <alastairc> ack Jennie
16:37:48 <Jem> jennie: I just wanted to point out that to see this to confirm manual testers
16:38:02 <alastairc> ack Ryladog
16:38:02 <Jem> i think it is soley used for testing development.
16:38:11 <Wilco> +1 Jennie, and if it's okay, I'd like to talk about how we can improve the design
16:38:46 <Wilco> q+
16:38:46 <Jennie> * Wilco - happy to help! Connect with me by email, and we can set up a time to chat
16:38:52 <mbgower> The clearer the rules are, the better, to jenny's point. I just want to ensure we're clear on intended audience.
16:39:30 <Jem> Ryladog: it is interesting to know whether this is used for automatic testing so.. there is a case people are trying to create customize the rules so it is important to create these correctly.
16:39:52 <Jem> wilco: there is separate rule for manual testing
16:40:03 <Jem> this is just focusing on automatic testing.
16:40:19 <alastairc> TOPIC: Meta element has no refresh delay
16:40:35 <Jem> jem;I think whatever the use case is - automatic or manual, it should be understandable to users.
16:40:41 <Poornima> * Thanks Wilco and Mike, yeah that makes sense, considering this specific rule is more of logical interpretation, I think the automated checkers can be of little help. I may be wrong, but agree with little more context will help to understand the definitions clearly.
16:41:15 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
16:42:04 <alastairc> draft resolution: Accept new rule - Meta element has no refresh delay
16:42:05 <Jem> topic:Meta element has no refresh delay
16:42:21 <Wilco> +Q
16:42:29 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:42:33 <Wilco> +1
16:42:34 <alastairc> +1
16:42:34 <ToddL> +1
16:42:34 <Poornima> +1
16:42:34 <Chuck> +1
16:42:35 <ShawnT> +1
16:42:37 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:42:38 <sarahhorton_> sarahhorton_ has joined #ag
16:42:43 <Azlan> +1
16:42:43 <Ryladog> +1
16:42:43 <joweismantel> +1
16:42:44 <Makoto> +1
16:42:50 <sarahhorton_> +1
16:42:52 <Raf> +1
16:43:02 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Meta element has no refresh delay
16:43:12 <alastairc> TOPIC: Meta viewport allows for zoom
16:43:12 <Jem> Topic:Meta viewport allows for zoom
16:44:28 <Jem> andrewsommers:> "the attribute value does not have a maximum-scale property with a value less than 2."
16:44:28 <Jem> 
16:44:28 <Jem> 2 is still insufficient. There is no reasonable reason that a user should not be permitted to zoom to the full capabilities of the user agent. The author should not place any limitation on zoom, this should be left up to the technology of the user agent.
16:44:30 <Chuck> +1 to Alastair's explanation that this is a test to ensure zoom goes to minimum required, and does not represent a maximum
16:44:46 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Meta viewport allows for zoom
16:44:50 <Wilco> +1
16:44:52 <Chuck> +1
16:44:55 <ShawnT> +1
16:44:56 <alastairc> +1
16:44:58 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:45:00 <laura> +1
16:45:01 <Azlan> +1
16:45:02 <GreggVan> +1
16:45:03 <joweismantel> +1
16:45:04 <ToddL> +1
16:45:06 <Ryladog> +1
16:45:07 <Makoto> +1
16:45:10 <sarahhorton_> +1
16:45:16 <kirkwood> +1
16:45:19 <Jem> Topic: Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation
16:45:21 <Poornima> +1 love to see this rule going official now!
16:45:25 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:45:30 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Meta viewport allows for zoom
16:45:44 <Jem> s/Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation/ /
16:45:50 <Jem> Topic; Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation
16:46:09 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation
16:46:18 <Poornima> q+
16:46:22 <Chuck> ack poo
16:47:05 <Jem> poo: svg use aria-hidden for focus management
16:47:11 <Jem> sometimes
16:47:48 <Wilco> q+
16:48:14 <Jem> actually I see the use case Poornima mentioned
16:48:25 <Jem> s/I see/I saw/
16:48:39 <Jem> wilco: this rule would not cover that use case.
16:48:49 <Chuck> +1
16:49:13 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation. Add example for svgs inside of links.
16:49:23 <Chuck> +1
16:49:24 <ToddL> +1
16:49:24 <ShawnT> +1
16:49:26 <GreggVan> +1
16:49:27 <laura> +1
16:49:28 <Jaunita_George> =1
16:49:28 <Makoto> +1
16:49:30 <Poornima> +1
16:49:30 <joweismantel> +1
16:49:31 <Wilco> +q
16:49:31 <Ryladog> +1
16:49:34 <Raf> +1
16:49:37 <Jaunita_George> *+1
16:49:57 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:50:02 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation. Add example for svgs inside of links.
16:50:05 <alastairc> agenda?
16:50:14 <alastairc> zakim, take up item 4
16:50:14 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Equity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:50:18 <MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/equity-proposal/requirements/index.html#equity
16:50:50 <mbgower> Note: should be link to "functional categories"
16:50:59 <Jem> MichaelC: is going over changes he made
16:51:01 <mbgower> https://w3c.github.io/silver/explainer/#functional-categories
16:51:15 <mbgower> q+
16:51:48 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:52:28 <mbgower> I'm easy :)
16:52:43 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
16:52:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/27-ag-minutes.html Jem
16:53:09 <Jem> group is talking about editorial update and approval process.
16:53:18 <alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/equity-proposal/requirements/index.html#equity
16:53:28 <alastairc> The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group wants to commit to a) improving equity of all types in our processes and participation and b) improving equity for the full spectrum of users with disabilities in content authored using WCAG3. Exactly what that will encompass and how it can be measured is under exploration and discussion.
16:53:44 <alastairc> "The primary scope for equity in WCAG 3 is to address equity for persons with disabilities, including users with more than one disability. WCAG 3.0 is categorizing functional needs, including the intersection between different functional categories, to help achieve this. Efforts towards equity must also consider the spectrum of human experience and how it intersects with disability. "
16:54:16 <Jem> alastairc: we will add Greg's comments and update the contents with feedback.
16:54:26 <alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 654 (https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files)
16:54:36 <ToddL> +1
16:54:39 <Chuck> +1
16:54:52 <laura> +1
16:54:54 <sarahhorton_> +1
16:54:55 <alastairc> +1
16:54:57 <Azlan> +1
16:54:58 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:54:58 <Makoto> +1
16:54:58 <ShawnT> +1
16:55:02 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:55:02 <Ryladog> +1
16:55:02 <GreggVan> +1
16:55:02 <mbgower> +1
16:55:03 <joweismantel> +1
16:55:04 <jeanne> +1
16:55:05 <Jennie> +1
16:55:12 <kirkwood> +1
16:55:13 <maryjom> +1
16:55:14 <Jem> MichaelC: I will add that functional work is in progrees and so on to PR later.
16:55:16 <Poornima> +1
16:55:33 <alastairc> RESOLUTION: Accept PR 654 (https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files)
16:55:53 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:55:55 <Chuck> q+
16:55:59 <mbgower> q+ to say spotted a real gaff as a result of the ACT review!
16:56:07 <alastairc> ack Chuck
16:56:15 <Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.hdmhdpe64w4v
16:56:45 <Jem> alastairc: cfc is coming
16:57:10 <Raf> present+
16:57:27 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:57:27 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say spotted a real gaff as a result of the ACT review!
16:57:48 <Jem> chuck: pro and cons on conformance option is being worked on and will be able to share next week.
16:58:03 <Chuck> Link to Pros and Cons Conformance Options:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.hdmhdpe64w4v
16:58:18 <mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2693
16:58:23 <Jem> s/to share/to share the work/
16:58:41 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
16:58:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/27-ag-minutes.html Jem
16:58:49 <Azlan_> Azlan_ has joined #ag
16:58:53 <OmarBonilla> present+
17:00:05 <Azlan_> Azlan_ has joined #ag
17:00:08 <Azlan_> Azlan_ has left #ag
17:49:09 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
18:15:20 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag