14:39:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag

14:39:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/27-ag-irc

14:39:27 <Rachael> Zakim, start meeting
14:39:27 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:39:29 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:39:42 <Rachael> agenda+ Introductions and new topics
14:40:10 <Rachael> Agenda+ Error Prevention guideline and associated methods
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/error-prevention-July-21/results
14:40:51 <Rachael> Agenda+ Updated ACT-Silver proposal
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT-method-proposal/results
14:40:58 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Target size
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results
14:41:40 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Dragging:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Dragging-movements/results
14:41:52 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
14:42:02 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Consistent help
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/22_consistent_help/results
14:42:11 <Rachael> agenda?
14:44:48 <ShawnT> Hello all, this is my first meeting
14:46:59 <ShawnT> Thanks Rachael
14:47:38 <ShawnT> Not yet
14:47:40 <ShawnT> sorry
14:51:26 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
14:51:31 <ChrisLoiselle> I will be introducing Bhoomika on the call, she is person
that is interested in learning more about this work and working possibly within
AGWG and Low Vision. She reached out to us through the call for participation on
the LVTF emails.
14:52:06 <ChrisLoiselle> ok.
14:52:51 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
14:53:43 <Rachael> Regrets: Rain, Nicaise, Detlev, Jake
14:54:04 <sajkaj> sajkaj has joined #ag
14:54:07 <sajkaj> present+
14:54:24 <Rachael> agenda?
14:54:38 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
14:54:42 <Chuck> present+
14:54:55 <Rachael> present+
14:55:04 <ShawnT> present +
14:55:19 <ShawnT> present+
14:56:11 <Chuck> agenda?
14:57:33 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2021_Scribe_History
14:59:30 <Fazio> present+
14:59:33 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:00:16 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:00:21 <Jemma> present+
15:00:23 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:00:25 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:00:28 <MichaelC> present+
15:01:03 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2021_Scribe_History
15:01:12 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
15:01:30 <OliverK> OliverK has joined #ag
15:01:41 <Rachael> We need a scribe before we can start
15:01:45 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:01:45 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:01:57 <sarahhorton> present+
15:01:58 <Lauriat> Present+
15:02:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Unable to scribe today, been on calls for 6 straight
hours. Apologies.
15:02:04 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:02:06 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:02:18 <jeanne> present+
15:02:35 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #AG
15:02:59 <Rachael> zakim, pick victim
15:02:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick victim', Rachael
15:03:12 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
15:03:12 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose
MichaelC
15:03:21 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
15:03:21 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose
jeanne
15:03:25 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
15:03:25 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose
jeanne
15:03:32 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
15:03:32 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose
Rachael
15:03:34 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
15:03:34 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose
sajkaj
15:03:38 <Rachael> zakim, pick a victim
15:03:38 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose
Lauriat
15:03:53 <Lauriat> Scribe: Lauriat
15:03:56 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:04:03 <mbgower> present+
15:04:16 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:04:17 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
15:04:17 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions and new topics -- taken up [from
Rachael]
15:04:19 <MarcJohlic> present+
15:04:23 <johnkirkwood> present+
15:04:39 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:04:48 <OliverK_> OliverK_ has joined #ag
15:05:02 <mgarrish> present+
15:05:05 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:05:06 <Lauriat> ShawnT: [Introduces self, overview of work in the space]
15:05:25 <Lauriat> ChrisLoiselle: Also introducing someone, joining soon.
15:06:35 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:06:39 <Lauriat> BB: Recent grad, background in research, interested in digital
inclusion
15:06:40 <MelanieP> present+
15:06:41 <Jemma> present+
15:06:51 <Lauriat> Welcome, all!
15:06:52 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:07:00 <david-macdonald> present+
15:07:03 <david-macdonald> q+
15:07:06 <Lauriat> Rachael: Any new topics to add to agendas?
15:07:08 <Rachael> ack david-macdonald
15:07:45 <Lauriat> david-macdonald: Suggests a topic on evaluating passing
conditions, percentage of things passing or not.
15:08:24 <Lauriat> Rachael: On the agenda later in August, if that works?
15:08:28 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:08:28 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Error Prevention guideline and associated methods
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/error-prevention-July-21/results -- taken up
[from Rachael]
15:09:15 <jeanne>
https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/Explainer_edits-js/explainer/index.html#structure-of-
these-guidelines
15:09:23 <Lauriat> jeanne: Working on the explainer, which we looked at in June.
Thought it helpful to look at for this section to explain the structure.
15:10:10 <Lauriat> jeanne: Each guideline has one or more outcomes, which are
testable statements so you can tell whether the guideline has been met.
15:10:22 <Lauriat> jeanne: For the second topic, ACT it helping us work on this.
15:10:52 <Lauriat> jeanne: For the methods, those are kind of reworking techniques,
non-normative and technology-specific.
15:11:29 <Lauriat> jeanne: Ex: HTML, iOS app. As technology changes, you could have
a different method. Experimenting with the ACT group on that.
15:11:40 <Lauriat> jeanne: For this survey, using the older structure.
15:11:43 <Rachael> q?
15:11:50 <Chuck> TOPIC: Question 1 - Approval to move to CFC
15:11:57 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - Approval to move to
CFC
15:11:58 <Lauriat> Rachael: We have two survey questions:
15:12:06 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
15:12:09 <StefanS> present+
15:12:20 <Rachael> TOPIC: Error Methods Prevention Guideline
15:12:51 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Error Methods Prevention Guideline
15:12:51 <Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#error-prevention
15:12:55 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: We've reviewed a couple of times, so happy to
answer questions. This guideline focuses on preventing errors (rather than
responding to).
15:13:32 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: It takes some SCs from WCAG 2.x, reworks them into
WCAG 3 structure. Work through flows, from there to user needs, to methods that
address those needs.
15:13:45 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: Ended up with 3 methods associated with one
outcome.
15:13:56 <Rachael> q?
15:14:00 <AWK> q+
15:14:04 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: Questions on those, as you've reviewed those?
15:14:10 <Rachael> ack AWK
15:14:38 <Lauriat> AWK: Having a hard time separating guideline from methods. What
specifically is the guideline text?
15:15:18 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: "Provide features that help people avoid errors"
(please paste in if quoting?)
15:15:29 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:15:34 <JF> Present+
15:15:38 <Rachael> q?
15:15:39 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: From there, the methods provide ways of providing
input instructions.
15:16:06 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: We have not yet provided the error-prevention how
to, which would provide more information.
15:16:22 <Lauriat> AWK: Where it says "3.6 Error prevention Guideline: Provide
features that help users avoid errors."
15:16:34 <Lauriat> AWK: "Provides instructions for inputs that have requirements
(for example, required, date format, password) so users know how to provide valid
information."
15:16:37 <Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#error-prevention
15:16:44 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:16:48 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:17:04 <Lauriat> AWK: Functional categories, Critical errors, Rating as well?
15:17:17 <Rachael> q?
15:17:31 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: A question of "ready enough" for sending out for
public feedback.
15:18:00 <Lauriat> AWK: The guideline looks fine. Not a normative item right now,
right? Conformance would happen with methods.
15:18:12 <Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#error-prevention
15:18:13 <david-macdonald> q+
15:18:39 <Lauriat> Rachael: Looking at content on that page. The link on that page
is incorrect, no how to written yet, the link needs fixing.
15:18:55 <sajkaj> To AWK: I'm unclear that conformance is on the method, as I
expect methods are not normative. Maybe I'm confused?
15:19:01 <karen_herr> karen_herr has joined #ag
15:19:04 <karen_herr> present+
15:19:09 <Rachael> q?
15:19:15 <Lauriat> GN015: Also have confusion about normative vs. methods, since
difficult to test except at the method level.
15:19:39 <AWK> q+
15:19:55 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: It's not complete, we're rolling this out in front
of us while we build the content.
15:20:38 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: Working on other aspects of this, small group
working on it (would love more to join!).
15:20:53 <Lauriat> GN015: Maybe placeholder for missing pieces?
15:21:03 <johnkirkwood> +1 to Gundula regarding placeholders
15:21:39 <Lauriat> GN015: It currently looks like only instructions and nothing
else, so good to note other things likely to come.
15:21:43 <Rachael> ack david-macdonald
15:22:02 <JF> Q+ to ask about Credits
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/methods/instruction-for-completing-task/
#tests-button
15:22:23 <Lauriat> david-macdonald: I agree with that. If putting out a sketch for
the world to look at, we should note the full structure coming so they have that
context.
15:22:47 <Lauriat> david-macdonald: We haven't had the discussion about Rating,
yet. I'd rather have that discussion before we put it out to the world.
15:23:09 <sajkaj> Concerned this is general UX goodness, and wondering what's a11y
specific?
15:23:17 <Lauriat> Rachael: Catch 22 where we need to have the discussion to have
more content, but need more content to have that discussion.
15:23:22 <Lauriat> qv?
15:23:53 <Lauriat> Rachael: Moving forward as we can, but we need to go back and
forth to have an ability to make progress.
15:24:05 <jeanne> q+ to remind AGWG that they resolved to add more content so they
could develop the conformance
15:24:16 <Lauriat> david-macdonald: Traditionally, we wouldn't put something in a
draft unless we broadly agreed on things.
15:24:20 <Rachael> ack AWK
15:24:25 <jeanne> q-
15:24:28 <Lauriat> Rachael: Lots of editor's notes pointing to these.
15:25:21 <Lauriat> AWK: This guideline has one outcome currently. Really, the
guideline is that one line of text. Whether we feel like this is a reasonable
outcome to fit within it.
15:25:38 <Lauriat> AWK: Including the outcome in the survey where it asks if you
like this guideline?
15:26:47 <Lauriat> jeanne: The testable statements, the outcomes, are organized
into guidelines. In order to put in new methods, we need to associate them with an
outcome. In order to have an outcome, we need the guideline.
15:27:29 <Lauriat> jeanne: Actively working in a different group to make changes
based on comments from FPWD. Need the whole package there to work through more
content.
15:27:54 <Lauriat> jeanne: Whole "package" calls itself a guideline, the outcome is
part of that package so we can start working on methods.
15:28:20 <Lauriat> AWK: Question 2: move guideline to CFC? Q3: related methods to
CFC?
15:28:21 <stevelee> present+
15:28:31 <Lauriat> Rachael: We can also change how we survey if that'd help.
15:29:11 <mbgower> yeah, I get lost in the layout of this. any hand holds would
help
15:29:21 <Lauriat> AWK: It'd help to prefix with things like "Outcome: " to better
see this hierarchy in order to evaluate.
15:29:29 <Lauriat> Rachael: Outcome & methods as a separate part, then.
15:29:32 <Rachael> q?
15:29:41 <Rachael> ack JF
15:29:41 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about Credits
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/methods/instruction-for-completing-task/
#tests-button
15:29:42 <laura> +1 to awk
15:29:47 <JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/methods/instruction-for-
completing-task/#tests-button
15:29:47 <Lauriat> Rachael: Focusing mainly on guideline at this point.
15:29:57 <AWK> AWK: Also, what is the outcome image showing? Doesn't convey any
meaning to me
15:30:45 <Lauriat> JF: When I go to the method, tests tab. [reads from tab] I
understand what it asks for, but I could do this as a tooltip, which would fail
other things.
15:31:22 <Lauriat> JF: Test for clear words, we haven't defined what that means.
Expected results include a credit of 1 - what does that mean?
15:31:35 <jeanne> q+ to answer JF
15:31:38 <Lauriat> Rachael: All in the methods test tab?
15:31:41 <Lauriat> JF: Correct.
15:31:51 <jeanne> q-
15:32:03 <Lauriat> Rachael: We'll come back to that when we get to methods, if
good?
15:32:05 <Lauriat> JF: Yes.
15:32:12 <Rachael> Proposed RESOLUTION: Move the Guideline to CFC after the link is
fixed, placeholders are added, and "Outcome:" is added to template.
15:32:21 <Lauriat> Rachael: Anything else to discuss at the guideline level?
[crickets]
15:32:44 <JF> +.5
15:32:47 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:32:48 <jeanne> +1
15:32:48 <mbgower> 0
15:32:51 <david-macdonald> please repeat
15:32:51 <Lauriat> +1
15:32:52 <karen_herr> 0
15:33:02 <sarahhorton> +
15:33:03 <Chuck> +1
15:33:04 <sarahhorton> +1
15:33:12 <GN015> would like to see the placeholders before voting
15:33:12 <sajkaj> +0 because the a11y distinction from general UX design is unclear
to me
15:33:13 <Fazio> 0
15:33:14 <johnkirkwood> +1
15:33:32 <StefanS> 0
15:33:33 <Lauriat> AWK: Approving outcome as well?
15:33:37 <david-macdonald> 0
15:33:43 <Lauriat> Rachael: No, just guideline.
15:33:45 <MelanieP> 0
15:33:47 <AWK> +1
15:33:53 <laura> +1
15:34:02 <jon_avila> +0
15:34:15 <ShawnT> 0
15:34:19 <Lauriat> RESOLUTION: Move the Guideline to CFC after the link is fixed,
placeholders are added, and "Outcome:" is added to template.
15:34:32 <Rachael> TOPIC: Outcome text and methods
15:34:56 <Lauriat> Rachael: This goes back to JF's point on testability, we have
feedback in survey.
15:35:06 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Outcome text and methods for Error
Prevention
15:35:38 <Rachael> We are looking at:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2021/outcomes/input-instructions-provided
15:35:46 <Lauriat> GN015: We discussed methods normative (no), yet by reading I
feel they are normative as they form aspects of how they should be achieved.
15:36:08 <Rachael> q?
15:36:13 <Lauriat> GN015: If you a specific context, you may need to use specific
terms users would be familiar with.
15:36:33 <Lauriat> GN015: In many contexts, an example is not necessarily needed.
15:36:50 <Rachael>
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/error-prevention-July-21/results
15:37:21 <Lauriat> GN015: Last example doesn't explain what it (*) means, fully.
15:37:33 <Lauriat> GN015: Also seems to have some overlap between things.
15:38:24 <Rachael> q?
15:38:29 <Lauriat> laura: Wondering, under instructions, [reads]. Others have a
credit: 1, this one didn't. What does that mean?
15:38:34 <JF> +1, what is a Credit?
15:38:43 <jeanne> q+ to speak to a credit
15:38:47 <Lauriat> laura: Under tests, what is a standard location? Possible to
define?
15:38:48 <Rachael> ack jeanne
15:38:48 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to speak to a credit
15:39:30 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: About credits, we reviewed credits at the previous
meeting. Intention is to remove all of that for this round, since a prototype we
had tried out for scoring. Will remove for next working draft.
15:39:32 <jeanne> q-
15:39:40 <JF> Q+
15:39:53 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: Predictable location: we have some things provided,
can add more detail.
15:40:03 <Rachael> ack JF
15:40:05 <Lauriat> Rachael: Covered everything?
15:40:10 <Lauriat> laura: Yes, thank you.
15:41:01 <Lauriat> JF: You mentioned it'll get taken out for the working draft.
This conversation is about adding it to the draft? Concerned that as we drill in,
we have editorial changes to make. Possible to remove those for this?
15:41:07 <GN015> sorry, I have to drop
15:41:19 <Lauriat> sarahhorton: Absolutely, and intended. Didn't get to it before
the meeting.
15:42:29 <JF> Check that the page or view provides details about the required
format.
15:42:35 <Lauriat> Rachael: Getting a sense that we'll need to make more changes
before we get into resolution to go to CFC, so now looking for any other feedback
for Sarah & Co. to take into account before next meeting to review.
15:42:52 <Lauriat> JF: For line pasted in, definitely need more details on this and
what's acceptable.
15:43:07 <Rachael> q?
15:43:10 <mbgower> q+ to say I have a question about the critical error information
and how the instruction method aligns
15:43:44 <Chuck> q+ to ask if we are going to re-review the content before deciding
to go to CFC?
15:44:07 <Lauriat> AWK: For the outcome, I have concerns that it asked for things
not defined anywhere ("sensitive information").
15:44:20 <jeanne> q+ to answer AWK
15:44:23 <JF> as a thought, the "details about the required format" likely also
needs to be programmatically linked to the input
15:44:39 <Lauriat> AWK: Questions about the rating scale, but ack that we'll need
to do more there.
15:45:34 <Lauriat> AWK: Looking at methods, wondering how we'll deal with things
like tests for the method on required inputs indicated. Contrast of indicators,
etc.
15:45:45 <Lauriat> AWK: Will tests include checks like this to pass other methods?
15:46:01 <Lauriat> +1 to AWK on that last point from me
15:46:24 <JF> -1 to assuming anything AWK
15:46:47 <JF> Q+ to ask about ATomic tests and ACT format
15:47:00 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:47:00 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we are going to re-review the content
before deciding to go to CFC?
15:47:04 <Rachael> Chuck, yes we will re-review the outcome and method level
content before moving to CFC
15:47:15 <Lauriat> AWK: There are things we can assume users know. "Email:", input
purpose. Do we have to have that information, like "joe@example.com", or do people
know about entering email well enough?
15:47:36 <Rachael> q?
15:47:38 <Lauriat> qv?
15:47:55 <jeanne> ack je
15:47:55 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer AWK
15:47:58 <Rachael> q?
15:48:08 <Lauriat> mbgower: Looking at critical errors, relating to methods.
[reads]
15:48:27 <Lauriat> mbgower: Names can be sensitive in some contexts, so we need
more details on that.
15:48:34 <Chuck> q+ to comment on "sensitive information"
15:48:40 <Lauriat> ack mbgower
15:48:40 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I have a question about the critical
error information and how the instruction method aligns
15:48:51 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:49:16 <david-macdonald> q+
15:49:22 <Rachael_> Rachael_ has joined #ag
15:49:32 <Lauriat> ack JF
15:49:32 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about ATomic tests and ACT format
15:49:36 <Rachael> ack JF
15:49:56 <Lauriat> JF: "Test instructions are present" - I'd like to see these
written more in ACT-type format.
15:50:08 <Lauriat> +1, we'll get there.
15:50:43 <Rachael__> Rachael__ has joined #ag
15:50:44 <Lauriat> JF: I'd like to see that the information is programmatically
linked to the input, for instance.
15:50:48 <Rachael__> q?
15:51:02 <Rachael__> ack Chuck
15:51:02 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to comment on "sensitive information"
15:51:25 <Lauriat> Chuck: mbgower suggested a list, but I think we should provide
examples, rather than exhaustive.
15:51:26 <Rachael__> ack david-macdonald
15:52:12 <Lauriat> david-macdonald: Not as up on the structure as I'd like, I get
confused on what's normative or not normative.
15:52:48 <Lauriat> david-macdonald: Link takes me out somewhere else with a lot of
information, I don't know what's normative or not.
15:53:04 <mbgower> Chuck, 'sensitive information' is a critical error. An author
can totally fail this Guideline, so if we can't provide a list of sensitive
information, it becomes pretty problematic
15:53:26 <AWK> q+ to make suggestion for functional categories section
15:53:29 <Lauriat> +1, we also want to get more design help on this! Please send
suggestions of UX folks who can help.
15:53:47 <mbgower> I'd literally suggest some user testing on the format with new
users
15:53:50 <Rachael__> zakim, take up next item
15:53:50 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close
this agendum, Rachael__
15:53:54 <Rachael__> ack AWK
15:53:54 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to make suggestion for functional categories
section
15:54:00 <bruce_bailey> really appreciate the comment from people looking at wcag3
fresh, thank you
15:54:00 <Rachael__> zakim, take up next item
15:54:00 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Updated ACT-Silver proposal
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT-method-proposal/results -- taken up [from
Rachael]
15:54:11 <Lauriat> Rachael: ACT Silver proposal
15:54:52 <Lauriat> jeanne: What we've been saying about error prevention, while
Sarah's group moves forward, we also have another group looking at how we can make
methods more testable (to points raised today).
15:55:25 <Lauriat> jeanne: This is a proposal for how we could change the structure
of the methods. Look at this thinking about how this structure can be applied to
all of the guidelines we've already developed.
15:55:43 <Lauriat> jeanne: If you like it, we can migrate those over and write new
ones within this structure.
15:55:47 <Chuck> TOPIC: Approval to move ACT/Silver Method Proposal to CFC
15:55:56 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Approval to move ACT/Silver Method
Proposal to CFC
15:55:57 <Lauriat> Wilco: Reviewed in depth, so proposal to dive in.
15:56:36 <jeanne> q+ to answer Gundula
15:57:05 <Lauriat> Rachael__: Gundula's (sp?) point seems like it compares things
with others rather than evaluating the structure.
15:57:10 <jeanne> q-
15:57:19 <Rachael__> q?
15:58:02 <Lauriat> laura: Structure looks fine, if you don't use decorative images.
15:58:07 <Jemma> +q to ask minor details on glossary terms
15:58:24 <Lauriat> Rachael__: So comfortable with structure, just not content?
15:58:26 <Rachael__> ack Jemma
15:58:26 <Zakim> Jemma, you wanted to ask minor details on glossary terms
15:58:27 <Wilco> q+
15:58:27 <Lauriat> laura: Yes.
15:58:34 <Chuck> q+ to ask for scribe change
15:59:10 <Lauriat> Jemma: Test has lots of links to glossary terms, including old
definition of ARIA. Links can use unified glossary instead? Overall linking to
glossary seems helpful.
15:59:21 <Lauriat> Rachael__: Still separate from structure, but noted.
15:59:22 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:59:22 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
16:00:01 <Rachael__> scribe: david-macdonald
16:00:05 <david-macdonald> scribe: David
16:00:26 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve moving ACT/Silver Method Proposal to
CFC
16:00:38 <laura> Lost audio
16:00:53 <david-macdonald> Wilco: Can you explain your comment Laura?
16:01:09 <Rachael__> Proposed Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure (not
content)
16:01:20 <Rachael__> Proposed Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure (not
content) to CFC for use going forward
16:01:48 <laura> In WCAG 2.x pure decoration is "serving only an aesthetic purpose,
providing no information, and having no functionality". Don't know why we would
change it.
16:01:49 <laura> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration
16:01:53 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:01:55 <jeanne> +1
16:01:56 <Chuck> +1
16:01:57 <Wilco> +1
16:01:57 <david-macdonald> +1
16:01:57 <mbgower> +1
16:01:57 <sajkaj> +1
16:01:58 <MelanieP> +1
16:01:58 <Lauriat> +1
16:02:00 <johnkirkwood> +1
16:02:01 <ShawnT> 0
16:02:02 <laura> +1
16:02:03 <Rachael__> +1
16:02:04 <Fazio> 0
16:02:19 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:02:46 <david-macdonald> Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure (not
content) to CFC for use going forward [12:01]
16:03:05 <david-macdonald> RESOLUTION: Resolution: Move the proposed ACT structure
(not content) to CFC for use going forward [12:01]
16:03:06 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the proposed ACT structure (not content)
to CFC for use going forward
16:03:10 <Rachael__> zakim, take up next item
16:03:10 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close
this agendum, Rachael__
16:03:13 <Rachael__> q?
16:03:19 <Rachael__> ack wilco
16:03:25 <Rachael__> zakim, take up next item
16:03:25 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- WCAG 2.2 Target size
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results -- taken up
[from Rachael]
16:03:38 <Rachael__> TOPIC: "the value of spacing" confusing wording #1852
16:04:07 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - "the value of
spacing" confusing wording #1852
16:04:09 <Rachael__> The PR to resolve the confusion is at:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1853/files
16:04:15 <Chuck> is it just me that lost audio?
16:05:01 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1853 to address issue #1852
16:05:08 <ShawnT> I didn't vote but I +1 on github
16:05:09 <Rachael__> Proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1853
16:05:09 <mbgower> another solid from Patrick
16:05:21 <mbgower> +1
16:05:21 <AWK> +1
16:05:23 <ShawnT> +1
16:05:25 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:05:25 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:05:25 <JF> +1
16:05:26 <Rachael__> +1
16:05:39 <Wilco> +1
16:05:41 <jon_avila> +1
16:05:43 <david-macdonald> 0
16:06:01 <david-macdonald> RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1853
16:06:17 <Chuck> TOPIC: Question 2 - Adobe Comment #1889
16:06:19 <Rachael__> TOPIC: Adobe Comment #1889
16:06:31 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 2 - Adobe Comment #1889
16:06:45 <Rachael__> PR 1995 adds a new exception for legal requirements
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1955/files
16:06:46 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1955 to address issue 1889
16:07:45 <david-macdonald> Mike Gower: Why not kegal be essential?
16:07:50 <jon_avila> q+
16:07:54 <david-macdonald> s/kegal/legal
16:08:02 <Rachael__> q?
16:08:06 <Rachael__> ack jon_avila
16:08:55 <david-macdonald> Jon: clarification... confusing to have an issue, and
proposed response and the OR is a new idea, and voting on...
16:09:25 <AWK> q+
16:09:33 <Rachael__> ack AWK
16:10:27 <david-macdonald> AWK: Resoonse to Mike G. Not covered by essential
because the definition of format doesn't really cover these legal issues
16:10:42 <david-macdonald> s/resoonse/response
16:11:14 <david-macdonald> AWK: problem when there is a paper form that needs to be
provided online.
16:11:16 <Rachael__> q?
16:12:26 <david-macdonald> Mike G. OK I get that. Wish we could include it in
exception definition, because don't want to add this to all of the SC
16:12:59 <johnkirkwood> +1 to Andrew
16:13:12 <david-macdonald> AWK: OR allow governments to add their own exceptions.
It is a potential problem for some situations.
16:13:12 <johnkirkwood> they can add in exception (legal/gov’t)
16:13:13 <JF> +1 to AWK
16:13:27 <david-macdonald> Mike G. Worried this cojld be an many SCs.
16:13:41 <Rachael__> Straw Poll: Option 1: Accept PR 1995 adding exception Option
2: Accept proposed response encouraging local exceptions Option 3: Adjust meaning
of essential
16:13:46 <david-macdonald> s/cojld/could
16:13:47 <AWK> NO TO OPTION 3!!
16:13:48 <mbgower> q+ to say how about adjusting Essential wording?
16:13:49 <jon_avila> Option 2
16:13:55 <Wilco> 2, can live with 1, strong objection to 3
16:14:03 <JF> +1 to NO TO #3
16:14:09 <Rachael__> ack mbgower
16:14:09 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say how about adjusting Essential wording?
16:14:31 <bruce_bailey> q+ if we can add note ?
16:14:39 <david-macdonald> Mike: can we just change the essetial definition to add
"legally required"
16:14:53 <Rachael__> ack bruce_bailey
16:14:58 <AWK> MBGower's suggestion might be better if the bullet was titled
"necessary" instead of essential
16:15:14 <mbgower> <li><strong>Essential:</strong> A particular presentation of the
target is legally required or essential to the information being conveyed;</li>
16:15:28 <david-macdonald> Bruce: if WG believes definition of essential covers
it... is that in any option we're voted on or is that option 5
16:15:30 <Chuck> sound like option 5
16:15:40 <AWK> <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the
target is legally required or essential to the information being conveyed;</li>
16:16:18 <johnkirkwood> agree with Bruce
16:16:33 <david-macdonald> Bruce: it is unsettling to me because I think it is
included in definition of essential
16:16:36 <mbgower> essential if removed, would fundamentally change the information
or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be
achieved in another way that would conform
16:16:37 <bruce_bailey> +1 to discussion as to what essential means
16:17:02 <JF> Q+
16:17:03 <Chuck> q+ to say that I thought it was included, but AWK and MBGower
changed my minds.
16:17:41 <Rachael__> ack JF
16:17:53 <AWK> q+
16:18:02 <sajkaj> sajkaj has left #ag
16:18:07 <Rachael__> ack Chuck
16:18:07 <david-macdonald> JF: Andrew was clear about option 3, could we put "for
example" in the definition, which could add clarity
16:18:08 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that I thought it was included, but AWK
and MBGower changed my minds.
16:18:35 <mbgower> potential mod to glossary term: essential if removed, would
fundamentally change the information, legality or functionality of the content, and
information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
16:18:40 <david-macdonald> Chuck: I thought it was included in the definition. But
I'm convinced its not covered.
16:18:42 <Rachael__> q?
16:18:47 <Rachael__> ack AWK
16:19:10 <jon_avila> I agree it's not covered and adding examples would not make it
fit and is problematic.
16:19:40 <david-macdonald> AWK: in general, allowing feature creep in definition of
essential is dangerous. Is security, legal part of essential.
16:20:49 <mbgower> I agree I'm leery of modifying the definition, but did post in a
possible change. I can live with AWK's rewording of bullet to Necessary
16:20:51 <david-macdonald> AWK: essential is narrowly defined, any change that is
proposed for a11y if changing it is not doing the same thing, then that is the
"out".
16:21:03 <Rachael__> Straw Poll: Does essential cover the scenario of a legal
form's presentation? Yes / No
16:21:12 <AWK> No
16:21:12 <mbgower> No
16:21:13 <Wilco> No
16:21:14 <Chuck> No
16:21:18 <Rachael__> No
16:21:19 <david-macdonald> No
16:21:19 <bruce_bailey> yes
16:21:22 <JF> It's unclear
16:21:23 <jon_avila> No
16:21:24 <MelanieP> No
16:21:29 <ShawnT> no
16:21:43 <mbgower> q+ to say how about revisit AWK's Necessary bullet proposal?
16:21:54 <mbgower> q-
16:21:54 <jon_avila> only if it's related to functionality/information
16:22:18 <david-macdonald> Bruce: I defer to consensus
16:22:41 <johnkirkwood> goo point bruce
16:22:49 <johnkirkwood> s/goo/good
16:23:23 <david-macdonald> JF: I'm like Bruce will go with consensus. Seems unclear
to give yes/no, subjective... I lean with group,
16:24:32 <mbgower> <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of
the target is legally required or essential to the information being conveyed;</li>
16:24:33 <david-macdonald> Mike: I tried to mash legal into essential, would like
to pursue that
16:24:54 <Chuck> +1 to the bullet
16:24:54 <david-macdonald> q+
16:25:01 <Rachael__> ack david-macdonald
16:25:36 <ShawnT> q+
16:25:42 <AWK> yes, that's right, David.
16:26:03 <mbgower> LOL
16:26:24 <Rachael__> david-macdonald: I think andrew's response is that when we
updated the definition, buried in the changes it makes it hard to track what we've
done differently. I think Andrew's suggestion is that its better to add the extra
language. Not stealthily included.
16:26:32 <Wilco> q+ to suggest reversing legal / essential
16:27:00 <Rachael__> ack ShawnT
16:27:24 <bruce_bailey> +1 to use of the word "necessary" -- avoids the
"essiential" question
16:27:40 <david-macdonald> ShawnT: With GovCanada with forms there could be
confusing, so support the proposal
16:27:45 <Rachael__> ack Wilco
16:27:45 <Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to suggest reversing legal / essential
16:28:13 <david-macdonald> WILCO: lets put essential befor elegal in the sentence,
because essential is more common
16:28:24 <david-macdonald> Mike G: awkward that way.., any suggestions
16:28:29 <david-macdonald> Wilco, will try
16:28:44 <Wilco> <li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the
target is essential or legally required to the information being conveyed;</li>
16:29:02 <david-macdonald> q+
16:29:05 <mbgower> it just seems a bit awkward to me
16:29:12 <AWK> legally required _for_
16:29:16 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:29:30 <Rachael__> q?
16:29:32 <Rachael__> ack david-macdonald
16:29:34 <Rachael__> ack bruce_bailey
16:29:38 <AWK> q+
16:30:40 <Rachael__> DRAFT Resolution: Update the exception text to
<li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is
essential, or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>
16:30:51 <Rachael__> ack AWK
16:30:59 <Rachael__> DRAFT Resolution: Update the exception text to
<li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is
essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>
16:30:59 <jon_avila> who determines legality?
16:31:14 <david-macdonald> q+
16:31:20 <Rachael__> ack david-macdonald
16:31:34 <Chuck> q+
16:31:38 <Rachael__> ack Chuck
16:32:11 <Rachael__> DRAFT Resolution: Update the exception text to
<li><strong>Necessary:</strong> A particular presentation of the target is
essential or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</li>
16:32:12 <mbgower> sure
16:32:16 <Wilco> +1
16:32:17 <Chuck> +1
16:32:20 <ShawnT> +1
16:32:20 <johnkirkwood> +1
16:32:21 <jon_avila> -1
16:32:21 <AWK> +1
16:32:27 <david-macdonald> +1
16:32:28 <MelanieP> +1
16:32:32 <JF> +1
16:32:32 <mbgower> +0.9
16:32:56 <david-macdonald> Jon: who determines legality?
16:33:07 <jon_avila> We will have to start doing this for other criteria.
16:33:23 <Chuck> q+
16:33:29 <jon_avila> yes
16:33:36 <Rachael__> ack Chuck
16:33:59 <mbgower> q+
16:34:04 <Rachael__> q+ to suggest changing legality to a certain presentation is
required
16:34:11 <Rachael__> ack mbgower
16:34:11 <david-macdonald> Chuck: It doesn't require us to revisit every other
instance of this.
16:34:43 <jon_avila> It doesn't change my concern.
16:35:08 <mbgower> Yeah, my thnking too, David
16:35:08 <Rachael__> q-
16:35:20 <david-macdonald> Mike: Non, Andrew, does it matter if we call the bullet
"Essential" rather than "necessary"
16:35:39 <david-macdonald> strong>Essential:</strong> A particular presentation of
the target is essential or is legally required for the information being
conveyed;</li>
16:35:44 <david-macdonald> q+
16:35:55 <Rachael__> ack david-macdonald
16:36:28 <Chuck> +1 to DM
16:36:30 <Rachael__> david-macdonald: Response to Jon. If we say legally required
we mean the jurisitiction with authority
16:36:38 <jon_avila> I don't want to hold this up.
16:36:41 <mbgower> I prefer going back to Essential
16:36:52 <jon_avila> No but, but I can remove my objection.
16:37:13 <Rachael__> Proposed RESOLUTION: <strong>Essential:</strong> A particular
presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the information
being conveyed;</li>
16:37:41 <Wilco> +1
16:37:42 <mbgower> +1
16:37:45 <Chuck> +1
16:37:45 <david-macdonald> +1
16:37:47 <AWK> +.38
16:37:52 <johnkirkwood> +1
16:38:11 <JF> +.75
16:38:31 <MelanieP> -0.5
16:38:31 <mbgower> right
16:38:35 <mbgower> HA!
16:38:40 <jon_avila> +0
16:38:49 <mbgower> we got .5 closer :)
16:39:00 <Chuck> I'm ok with "necessary"
16:39:06 <Rachael__> Proposed RESOLUTION: <strong>Neceessary:</strong> A
particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the
information being conveyed;</li>
16:39:17 <JF> +1
16:39:18 <mbgower> +0.9
16:39:20 <Chuck> +1
16:39:22 <MelanieP> +1
16:39:22 <Wilco> +1.1
16:39:23 <AWK> +1
16:39:24 <johnkirkwood> +1
16:39:30 <david-macdonald> 0
16:39:43 <StefanS> +1
16:39:45 <jon_avila> +0
16:40:16 <david-macdonald> RESOLUTION: Accept as amended
16:40:25 <Chuck> +3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459
16:40:41 <Rachael__> TOPIC: User-agent components that can't be styled #1904
16:40:52 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: User-agent components that can't
be styled #1904
16:41:00 <david-macdonald> RESULUTION: Accept as amended<strong>Necessary:</strong>
A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the
information being conveyed;</li>
16:41:07 <Rachael__> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1956/files
16:41:24 <david-macdonald> RESOLUTION: Accept as amended<strong>Necessary:</strong>
A particular presentation of the target is essential or is legally required for the
information being conveyed;</li>
16:43:15 <david-macdonald> Mike: We intentional didn;t have UA exceotions. Its an
interesting question, but would like to see data, on which elements by UAs would
fail
16:43:29 <jon_avila> spinner perhaps
16:43:46 <david-macdonald> s/didn;t/didn't
16:43:47 <Rachael__> q?
16:44:02 <jon_avila> html input type number is spinner.
16:44:06 <david-macdonald> s/exeotions/exceptions
16:44:09 <jon_avila> date is a picker in some browsers.
16:44:12 <johnkirkwood> there is a date element implemenation
16:44:36 <jon_avila> Spinner for input type number:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/input/number
16:44:52 <david-macdonald> AWK: if browsers don't let us adjust them, the choice of
the author is to accept the issue or select a different control type
16:44:54 <Rachael__> q?
16:45:38 <Rachael__> User Agent Control: The size of the target is determined by
the user agent and cannot be modified by the author;
16:45:56 <Wilco> q+
16:46:03 <mbgower> q+ to say that spinbutton doesn't look stock
16:46:04 <Rachael__> ack Wilco
16:46:07 <ShawnT> q+
16:46:07 <david-macdonald> Rachel: Should it apply to components that CANNOT be
styled, vs things that are by default too small but can be modified.
16:46:11 <ShawnT> q-
16:46:18 <JF> +1 to Wilco
16:46:25 <ShawnT> I had the same comment as Wilco
16:46:41 <Rachael__> q?
16:46:59 <david-macdonald> WILCO: you can always make an accessible component
16:47:19 <ShawnT> q+
16:47:23 <david-macdonald> AWK: you could fix it with huge text, but design depts
won't accept
16:47:40 <Rachael__> ack mbgower
16:47:40 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that spinbutton doesn't look stock
16:47:56 <david-macdonald> AWK: does each square of colour picker be large enough
16:48:19 <david-macdonald> Mike: Its doable to customize, we have eception for
color picker
16:48:39 <david-macdonald> s/eception/exception
16:48:45 <Rachael__> ack ShawnT
16:49:17 <david-macdonald> SHAWN: it confusing and we need to clarify
16:49:45 <Chuck> +1 to Gundula's modification: If authors did not style a native
control so that" or "If authors did not style a native control, specifically if
they cannot style it, so that
16:49:51 <Rachael__> User Agent Control: The size of the target is determined by
the user agent and is not modified by the author;
16:49:54 <david-macdonald> Rachel: I think we want to get rid of "cannot"
16:50:07 <Wilco> q+
16:50:34 <Rachael__> ack Wilco
16:50:46 <Chuck> q+ to ask clarity on Wilco's comment
16:50:54 <Rachael__> ack Chuck
16:50:54 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask clarity on Wilco's comment
16:50:55 <david-macdonald> WILCO: People can make components accessibly, we
shouldn't allow default styles.
16:51:07 <david-macdonald> CHUCK: do you suggest we don;t change text
16:51:11 <mbgower> Current PR reads: User Agent Control: The size of the target is
determined by the user agent and cannot be modified by the author
16:51:36 <david-macdonald> WILCO: I can live with the proposal but not with the
idea that if the author chooses a defa
16:51:43 <Rachael__> straw poll: Do we require authors to fix the target size when
the user agent doesn't conform when possible yes / no
16:51:47 <ShawnT> no
16:51:48 <Wilco> Yes
16:51:49 <MelanieP> no
16:51:51 <Chuck> no
16:51:53 <johnkirkwood> yes
16:51:56 <david-macdonald> no
16:52:00 <jon_avila> I'm confused.
16:52:42 <mbgower> Jon, we currently have no user agent control exception
16:52:59 <jon_avila> yes
16:53:15 <Chuck> q+
16:53:23 <Rachael__> ack Chuck
16:53:35 <mbgower> q+ to say maybe you can have the question SHOULD we have a user
agent exception
16:54:08 <jon_avila> I agree with Chuck. That's why I asked.
16:54:24 <david-macdonald> Chuck: the question is about, the UA doesn't provide in
its default state, ? but allows it to be fixed...yes
16:54:26 <Rachael__> ack mbgower
16:54:26 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say maybe you can have the question SHOULD
we have a user agent exception
16:54:55 <Rachael__> Straw poll: Should we have a user agent exception?
16:55:00 <ShawnT> Yes
16:55:01 <MelanieP> yes
16:55:02 <mbgower> 0
16:55:08 <jon_avila> Yes - only when it's not possible to change.
16:55:17 <ShawnT> +q
16:55:27 <david-macdonald> Yes - only when it's not possible to change.
16:55:30 <Chuck> yes
16:55:44 <Rachael__> no
16:55:54 <JF> +1 to Mike
16:56:29 <david-macdonald> Michel: like Wilco, I don't think we should have get out
of jail free card for those who use a vanilla HTML component
16:56:33 <Rachael__> ack ShawnT
16:56:49 <david-macdonald> SHAWNT: We see a lot of vanilla HTML
16:56:57 <david-macdonald> in GOv of Canada
16:57:22 <JF> I just wanted to note that beyond form inputs, there is also the
@controls attribute in <video>
16:57:36 <MelanieP> q+
16:57:53 <Rachael__> ack MelanieP
16:58:43 <david-macdonald> MelanieP: concerned with overak direction. We are trying
ti force devs to spend a lot of time and energy from default ... i think we shpuld
lean on browsers
16:58:59 <david-macdonald> applies to focus visible and other things we've been
talking about
16:59:00 <ShawnT> I agree with MelanieP
16:59:02 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
16:59:21 <david-macdonald> RACHEL: Will add to chairs meeting agenda to discuss
16:59:37 <jon_avila> Thanks all!
16:59:57 <ShawnT> Thank you very much
17:00:12 <david-macdonald> zakim, bye
17:00:12 <Zakim> leaving. As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, Chuck,
Rachael, ShawnT, Fazio, Jemma, Francis_Storr, bruce_bailey, MichaelC, sarahhorton,
Lauriat, ChrisLoiselle, jeanne,
17:00:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:00:15 <Zakim> ... mbgower, MarcJohlic, johnkirkwood, mgarrish, MelanieP,
Laura_Carlson, david-macdonald, StefanS, JF, jon_avila, karen_herr,
stevelee, .5, .38, .75
17:00:19 <Rachael__> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:00:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
https://www.w3.org/2021/07/27-ag-minutes.html Rachael__
17:00:28 <mbgower> oh, there is no exception for the text input
17:00:31 <Rachael__> rrsagent, make logs world
17:00:31 <david-macdonald> rrsagent, make log public
17:00:58 <david-macdonald> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
https://www.w3.org/2021/07/27-ag-minutes.html david-macdonald
17:01:41 <Rachael__> zakim, end meeting
17:28:07 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #AG
18:02:52 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #AG
18:15:26 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
18:17:38 <johnkirkwood_> johnkirkwood_ has joined #AG
18:30:43 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
18:36:57 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
18:40:47 <johnkirkwood_> johnkirkwood_ has joined #AG
18:55:09 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
19:00:57 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #AG
19:23:30 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
19:55:15 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #AG
19:59:34 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
20:29:58 <MarcJohlic> MarcJohlic has joined #ag
21:21:03 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
22:35:16 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #AG
23:41:12 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag