14:33:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:33:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/31-ag-irc
14:33:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:33:25 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:33:27 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:33:35 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2023-10-31
14:33:55 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:33:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/31-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:35:16 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2 issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results
14:35:44 <Chuck> agenda+ Ongoing subgroup work on (Pointer support, Clear Purpose, Prevent Harm)
14:43:33 <Chuck> regrets: Jennie Delisi
14:55:27 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:58:08 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:58:13 <ShawnT> present+
14:59:13 <Bri> Bri has joined #ag
15:01:11 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:01:17 <Bri> present+
15:01:48 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
15:01:59 <dan_bjorge> present+
15:02:05 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:02:12 <tzviya> regrets+
15:02:25 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:02:29 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:02:46 <Rachael> present+
15:03:03 <Bri> I have to drop when we switch to breakout rooms so I can scribe
15:03:19 <Bri> scribe: bri
15:04:13 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:04:31 <Bri> Chuck: thanks for joining! some are festive for halloween
15:04:36 <alastairc> present+
15:04:41 <Bri> Chuck: first topic, anyone want to introduce themselves?
15:04:43 <Chuck> present+
15:04:52 <Bri> Chuck: remember to present+
15:04:55 <alastairc> regrets+ JustineP
15:05:03 <Bri> Chuck: any new topics?
15:05:05 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:05:17 <scotto> scotto has joined #ag
15:05:19 <Bri> Chuck: announcements: day light savings changes
15:05:29 <scotto> present+
15:05:34 <Bri> Chuck: reminder clocks will be switching or have switched
15:05:47 <Bri> Chuck: another, charter is in process. there will shortly be a call for participation
15:05:57 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
15:05:59 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:06:04 <Bri> kevin: nothing else to add right now. big phrases like "soon" and "coming"
15:06:05 <tburtin> present+
15:06:12 <Bri> Chuck: any questions regarding charter?
15:06:16 <Bri> Chuck: chairs, anything else?
15:06:18 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:06:18 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2 issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:06:21 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:06:26 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:06:34 <Bri> Chuck: first one, reviewing WCAG 2 issues. about 40 min
15:06:42 <Bri> Chuck: any objections to sharing screen?
15:06:44 <mbgower> present+
15:06:46 <Makoto> present+
15:06:59 <Bri> Chuck: sharing screen. first question is rewrite SCR37
15:07:23 <Bri> Chuck: reading information
15:07:40 <Bri> alastairc: stating Kantel isn't here and has points
15:07:59 <Bri> alastairc: first is about focus others is about opening modal dialogues
15:08:19 <Bri> alastairc: explained Francis's point
15:08:36 <Bri> alastairc: reading the comments
15:09:26 <Bri> Chuck: MichaelG asked if we plan to provide a working example
15:09:41 <Bri> alastairc: I dont think so but we can. wasn't part of the previous one
15:09:55 <Bri> Chuck: wilco has a comment. wilco can you summarize yours?
15:10:05 <Bri> Wilco: summarizes his own comment
15:10:31 <alastairc> q+
15:10:57 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  ccept amended PR 3024 to address SCR
15:10:59 <Bri> Francis_Storr: assign a number because it could be leapfrog to something else
15:11:03 <mbgower> I was thinking this could be linked to 2.4.3 Focus Order
15:11:08 <alastairc> q+
15:11:11 <Bri> Wilco: cool, so ignore second point
15:11:14 <Chuck> ack ala
15:11:26 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:11:46 <Bri> alastairc: on the relationship, system looks at understanding documents and creates links to techniques. It's not included in PR
15:12:12 <Bri> alastairc: sorry it's a focus order
15:12:29 <Bri> alastairc: i think it is sufficient
15:12:50 <Bri> alastairc: does that help? Francis do you remember off hand?
15:13:01 <Frankie__> Frankie__ has joined #ag
15:13:04 <Bri> Francis_Storr: no, more make it into HTML modal dialogue
15:13:44 <Bri> alastairc: it's a sufficient technique that include things not required in WCAG
15:13:53 <Bri> alastairc: is there an objection to this update?
15:14:05 <Bri> alastairc: this will remove SCR37
15:14:17 <Bri> Chuck: that's for Wilco?
15:14:21 <Bri> alastairc: primarily yes
15:14:23 <mbgower> +1 to replace SCR37 with H## and to make it a sufficient technique for 2.4.3, situation 3
15:14:30 <Bri> Wilco: Yes, personally
15:14:59 <Bri> alastairc: have you looked at the original?
15:15:16 <Chuck> q+ to ask if we are making progress
15:15:18 <Bri> Wilco: if we put something new, we should look at the original
15:15:24 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:15:24 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we are making progress
15:15:38 <Bri> Chuck: that's the question here. is this incrementally improving the technique
15:16:03 <Bri> Chuck: perfection is desirable but let's not roadblock if there's improvement. but that's opinion
15:16:15 <alastairc> Old but live version: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/client-side-script/SCR37
15:16:16 <Chuck> q?
15:16:40 <Bri> Wilco: I'm concerned we are suggesting things that are requirements
15:16:59 <Bri> Chuck: alastiar I can do a proposed resolution to see where we stand?
15:17:05 <sarahhorton> present+
15:17:15 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 3024 to update SCR37
15:17:16 <Bri> alastairc: I'd like to narrow down what success looks like for this
15:17:29 <Bri> Chuck: proposing resolution to update SCR37
15:17:39 <Chuck> +.5
15:17:41 <Bri> Chuck: not jumping immediately, more a poll
15:17:44 <mbgower> +1
15:17:55 <Bri> mbgower: can we make it rename and renumber?
15:17:57 <kirkwood> present+
15:17:58 <Bri> Chuck: sure
15:17:59 <alastairc> +1, happy to continue work
15:18:07 <Wilco> -.5
15:18:16 <laura> +1 Agree in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the improving what we have.
15:18:22 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 3024 to update, rename and renumber SCR37
15:18:24 <Rachael> +.5 - if changes can be made in the next two weeks, continue working
15:18:35 <dan_bjorge> -.5 - hard to judge without knowing the context in which it will be referenced
15:18:41 <Bri> Chuck: Mike, is that what you had in mind? Hope it's clearer
15:18:45 <ShawnT> +1
15:18:47 <Bri> mbgower: yep
15:18:48 <scotto> +1 - the current example is not a sufficient technique to make a proper dialog.
15:18:49 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:18:50 <Makoto> +.5
15:19:00 <Bri> Chuck: judging there isnt a hard consensus here
15:19:06 <ljoakley1> present+
15:19:08 <Bri> alastairc: okay I'll follow up after the meeting
15:19:27 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Adding why it is important to 2.1 SCs #3312
15:19:27 <Bri> Chuck: no resolution. continue working it. advancing to question 2
15:19:40 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:19:43 <Bri> Chuck: adding why it is important to 2.1 SC 3312
15:19:57 <Bri> Chuck: reads description. 6 agrees, 1 wants adjustment
15:20:09 <Bri> Chuck: gundula isn't on the call but wanted adjustment
15:20:31 <Chuck> q+
15:20:44 <Bri> Chuck: I'll start the conversation
15:20:52 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:21:02 <Bri> Chuck: both target screen readers. I'm not sure I agree with this comment
15:21:15 <mbgower> q+
15:21:19 <Chuck> ack mbg
15:21:21 <Bri> Chuck: ummm Mike
15:21:35 <Bri> mbgower: input ones, that is not listed in benefts section
15:21:48 <alastairc> +1, the idea behind input purpose was primarily for cognitive issues.
15:21:54 <Bri> mbgower: I'm not sure AT's would surface
15:21:59 <GreggVan> q+
15:22:17 <Bri> mbgower: several situations people point out benefits missing
15:22:38 <bruce_bailey> i agree that input purpose is not AT centric
15:22:41 <Bri> mbgower: I don't think we should introduce things not in the understanding documents
15:23:04 <Bri> alastairc: no I think we should rebut this so it is in the minutes
15:23:16 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:23:46 <Bri> GreggVan: is it true that font is not mentioned in SE but we're mentioning in the brief?
15:23:52 <Bri> mbgower: I can speak to that
15:23:53 <alastairc> The proposed in-brief for text spacing: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3312/files#diff-9aed7c10a9693b74332635ceaf20a22180d0814f0705774b6b2bca0733fb8e0c
15:24:04 <Bri> mbgower: SE is about text spacing
15:24:32 <dj> dj has joined #ag
15:24:45 <dj> present+
15:24:46 <Chuck> q+ to say that's not really what the in brief is intended to be
15:25:08 <alastairc> q+ on the intent and understanding doc
15:25:19 <mbgower> q+
15:25:25 <Bri> GreggVan: if the understanding is poorly written, then instead of writing an inaccurate end brief, we should change the understanding then write an accurate brief
15:25:29 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:25:29 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that's not really what the in brief is intended to be
15:25:37 <Bri> Chuck: the scope is more plain language, not a correction
15:25:37 <Chuck> ack ala
15:25:37 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the intent and understanding doc
15:25:58 <Bri> alastairc: the intent of text spacing is to allow people to override fonts
15:26:10 <dan_bjorge> q+
15:26:20 <GreggVan> q+
15:26:27 <alastairc> For example, a user may need to change to a wider font family than the author has set in order to effectively read text.
15:26:33 <Bri> alastairc: success criteria test doesn't mention changing fonts but the intent does
15:26:46 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#text-spacing
15:26:48 <Chuck> ack mb
15:26:50 <mbgower> q-
15:27:04 <Bri> mbgower: I was going to say the same thing
15:27:19 <Bri> mbgower: I'm open to making the case that it should AT
15:27:26 <laura> +1 Alastair recalls correctly.
15:27:32 <Chuck> ack dan
15:27:42 <Bri> dan_bjorge: I want to express support for both
15:27:49 <Bri> dan_bjorge: understanding doc does mention AT
15:28:18 <Bri> dan_bjorge: font changes as motivation for the issue doesn't matter
15:28:35 <alastairc> Confused, it is, the only reason it isn't mentioned in the SC text is because that isn't how you test it.
15:28:35 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:28:48 <alastairc> q+
15:28:50 <Bri> GreggVan: I agree. Doesn't matter what the orignial motivation for SC
15:28:56 <Rachael> regrets+ Justine
15:29:03 <alastairc> q+ to say we could figure out how to do it, and did it.
15:29:12 <Bri> GreggVan: you can't put something in the understanding doc that isn't in the SC
15:29:46 <Bri> GreggVan: if it's not in the SC, it shouldn't be in the understanding doc and if it is needs to be flagged and fixed
15:30:11 <Bri> GreggVan: those things are clearly AT. I would like to understand what "skeptical of AT" meant
15:30:15 <mbgower> q+ to say that the Understanding document's Intent section often addresses concepts beyond normative text
15:30:20 <Chuck> ack ala
15:30:20 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we could figure out how to do it, and did it.
15:30:34 <Bri> alastairc: I'll leave that to Mike. pushing back on "didn't know how to do something"
15:30:47 <Bri> alastairc: main intent was to allow people to override fonts
15:31:15 <Bri> alastairc: just because success criteria doesn't mention it, don't think it's a valid reason to not include it
15:31:17 <GreggVan> q+
15:31:28 <Chuck> ack mb
15:31:28 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that the Understanding document's Intent section often addresses concepts beyond normative text
15:31:58 <Bri> mbgower: original 2 rows, now covered by what author is doing, what SC requirements, those are directly addressing norm of text
15:32:05 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say SC 1.4.12 uses "font" repeatedly.  Understanding not requiring change of font face / font name -- just font characteristics.
15:32:06 <Bri> mbgower: third is user benefit and intent
15:32:34 <Bri> mbgower: thiks it's legitmate to look at understanding doc and see what is addressed there
15:32:44 <alastairc> The proposed text for this is "Why it's important: Some people need text with different spacing or fonts."
15:33:09 <Bri> mbgower: skeptical comment, what meant: need to make sure there is a case AT is included in the benefit section
15:33:30 <Bri> mbgower: I'm already in process of adding it to new issue and go back and look at understanding document
15:33:32 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:33:58 <Bri> GreggVan: correct me if wrong, if I write that it is impossible to change font, I will pass SC but will fail understanding?
15:34:07 <Bri> GreggVan: understanding will say I can change font
15:34:30 <Bri> GreggVan: understanding doc saying we can change font is not accurate. am I correct or wrong?
15:34:39 <Bri> mbgower: reads the last line of understanding doc
15:34:55 <alastairc> I think there's a different between "AT" that we typically refer to, and the AT that would be used to benfit from 'identify input purpose'.
15:35:04 <alastairc> q+ on overriding fonts
15:35:19 <Bri> GreggVan: clarifies how he understood what was read
15:35:27 <Bri> mbgower: that's not what summary says
15:35:27 <Chuck> ack bru
15:35:27 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say SC 1.4.12 uses "font" repeatedly.  Understanding not requiring change of font face / font name -- just font characteristics.
15:35:53 <GreggVan> +1
15:35:53 <Chuck> ack ala
15:35:53 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on overriding fonts
15:35:55 <mbgower> 				<dt>Goal</dt><dd>Users can adjust text spacing to make it easier to read.</dd> 				<dt>Author task</dt><dd>Ensure content adapts to user-defined text settings.</dd> 	         <dt>Why it's important</dt><dd>Some people need text with different spacing or fonts.</dd>
15:35:56 <laura> +1 to bruce
15:35:57 <Bri> bruce_bailey: I think we can say "font characterisc"
15:36:09 <GreggVan> q+
15:36:17 <Bri> alastairc: time we wrote it, we had a discussion about if it's possible to let users override fonts
15:36:27 <Chuck> s/characterisc/characteristics/
15:36:46 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:36:56 <Caryn> Caryn has joined #ag
15:36:56 <Bri> GreggVan: yes plus one to Bruce
15:37:06 <mbgower> I have that in as a suggestion, and can make it so
15:37:07 <alastairc> s/about if it's possible to let users override fonts/about if it's possible to prevent users from overriding fonts
15:37:33 <Bri> GreggVan: the understanding doc talks about the probability but if you add "characteristics" to the summary, that should solve it
15:37:57 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 3312 ("in brief")
15:37:57 <Bri> GreggVan: responds to the comment on the use of AT
15:38:03 <Bri> Chuck: proposes resolution
15:38:18 <Bri> Chuck: accept ammended PR 3312
15:38:25 <Bri> alastairc: what is the ammendment?
15:38:42 <Bri> mbgower: it is already in there
15:38:44 <alastairc> Last bit ammended to: "Some people need text with different spacing or font characteristics."
15:38:45 <laura> +1
15:38:45 <alastairc> +1
15:38:46 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:38:47 <ShawnT> +1
15:38:49 <dj> +1
15:38:50 <GreggVan> +1
15:38:56 <Francis_Storr> +1
15:38:58 <sarahhorton> +1
15:38:58 <kevin> +1
15:39:00 <dan_bjorge> +1
15:39:03 <Chuck> +1
15:39:05 <Wilco> +1
15:39:08 <mbgower> +1 I'm also adding the other comment on input to omnibus issue
15:39:09 <Makoto> +1
15:39:10 <Bri> +1
15:39:14 <tburtin> +1
15:39:16 <Bri> Chuck: any concerns?
15:39:25 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 3312 ("in brief")
15:39:31 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 3312 ("in brief")
15:39:50 <Bri> Chuck: we have 6 minutes left. either sneak peek or quick resolution for #3333
15:40:02 <Bri> Chuck: read description
15:40:22 <Bri> Chuck: Gundula had comments
15:40:31 <Chuck> q?
15:40:35 <alastairc> q+
15:40:40 <Chuck> ack ala
15:40:49 <Bri> alastairc: I don't understand her first comment
15:41:20 <Bri> alastairc: if something is open and receives focus, it can't obscure focus
15:41:22 <scotto> q+
15:41:32 <Chuck> ack scotto
15:41:56 <Bri> scotto: just clarity. there's use cases when you open something and focuses goes into it. that's not true for everything
15:42:00 <GreggVan> q+
15:42:21 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:42:25 <Bri> scotto: not everything opened by user will receive focus. whether it should is a different topic
15:42:33 <Bri> GreggVan: difference in term "usually" and "never"
15:42:56 <Chuck> q+
15:42:58 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:42:59 <Bri> GreggVan: you can't have a usually followed by a never
15:43:01 <alastairc> q+
15:43:13 <Bri> Chuck: I didn't read it that way. technical semantics I am agreeing with
15:43:15 <alastairc> The specific area Gundula seems to be commenting on: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3341/files#diff-a1e686474a9da05fc533ce56cd7a154aa4c12cbbf42591ac35b181ea0ea57f84R126
15:43:36 <Bri> GreggVan: agreed with how Chuck read it
15:43:49 <Bri> alastairc: yeah this specific area doesn't say "never"
15:44:06 <scotto> q+
15:44:13 <Chuck> ack ala
15:44:13 <alastairc> ack me
15:44:38 <Bri> scotto: while focus may move into an element, there are use cases when it doesn't dismiss focus automatically
15:44:42 <Chuck> ack scot
15:44:58 <GreggVan> q+
15:45:24 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:45:39 <Bri> GreggVan: this is a note in the SC so we can't tweak it correct?
15:45:47 <Bri> alastairc: we are in the understanding but it is explaining a note in SC
15:45:58 <Chuck> q+ to assess where we are at
15:46:06 <Bri> GreggVan: if we do the "if, then" approach, that will make things clearer
15:46:28 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:46:28 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to assess where we are at
15:46:41 <alastairc> If this isn't agreed: "allows for user-opened content to obscure the item receiving focus, provided the user can bring the item with focus into view using a method that doesn't require navigating back to the user-opened content to dismiss it."
15:46:41 <alastairc> Then we need to re-group on it on Friday.
15:46:42 <Bri> Chuck: I'm assessing where we are because we are at time
15:47:26 <Bri> alastairc: what Scott said, it sounds like we aren't agreeing with the statement in the understanding doc. If true, we need to regroup on Friday
15:48:00 <Bri> alastairc: basically, if you open something that obscures, it's okay if you can go back and dismiss it. Scott is this what you are concerned?
15:48:31 <Bri> scotto: I'm fine with the text written. But I had heard it would be okay if someone had to move back to the obscured element
15:49:15 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 3341 to address issue 3333
15:49:21 <Bri> Chuck: I'm interpreting that Gundula isn't getting a lot of support on her concerns so this is fine?
15:49:31 <Bri> alastairc: I think so. I will ask Gundula
15:49:39 <Chuck> +1
15:49:41 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:49:42 <Bri> Chuck: resolution to accept 3333
15:49:44 <scotto> +1
15:49:48 <laura> +1
15:49:51 <ShawnT> +1
15:49:51 <dj> +1
15:49:52 <alastairc> +1, I'll circle back to Gundula
15:49:52 <Makoto> +1
15:49:52 <dan_bjorge> +1
15:49:56 <Francis_Storr> +1
15:50:03 <sarahhorton> +!
15:50:09 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 3341 to address issue 3333
15:50:09 <sarahhorton> +1
15:50:12 <Bri> Chuck: last opportunity?
15:50:15 <Bri> Chuck: so resolved
15:50:24 <mbgower> For the record, I added the two input purposes to the issue on Understanding documents https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3429
15:50:25 <Chuck> Scribing ends here, as group will do exercises
15:50:35 <bruce_bailey> q+ for question about exercises
15:50:52 <Chuck> Pointer support scratchpad:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y9ihiYAgLfR83Cu6phRuPTcBr3N9Kr_uFD9cGuxpsgc/edit#heading=h.txiccm4cn4nl
15:51:07 <Rachael> q+
15:51:33 <Chuck> Clear Purpose scratchpad:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KhzQdfr3yGHEIWLva-SLahFNk6K6YlrUqJNkANOv0FA/edit#heading=h.xbv57ky3kd2
15:51:43 <Chuck> Prevent Harm:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S9K4i0CAiTHCWXD0_LnpS90E2l9VC_Xs18UmOXhGzaw/edit#heading=h.t3uqwwnk7ffi
16:44:57 <Chuck> alastair and Rachael, are you wrapping up?  Can I close the rooms?
16:45:16 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
16:45:16 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
16:45:17 <Zakim> 1. WCAG 2 issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results [from Chuck]
16:45:17 <Zakim> 2. Ongoing subgroup work on (Pointer support, Clear Purpose, Prevent Harm) [from Chuck]
16:46:31 <bruce_bailey> q?
16:46:34 <bruce_bailey> q-
16:46:43 <Chuck> ack bru
16:46:46 <Chuck> ack rach
16:54:33 <jeanne> present+
16:54:44 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
16:54:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/31-ag-minutes.html jeanne
17:58:54 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag