W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

16 Oct 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Chair
Andi_Snow-Weaver
Scribe
Mary_Jo_Mueller

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 16 October 2012

<Andi> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller

<Andi> scribenick: MaryJo

Survey for October 12th Meeting, starting with question #7, Closed Functionality - Text for Introduction

<Andi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results

Closed Functionality: Text for Introduction

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results#xq7

For the interpretation of WCAG for closed products: We are making a list of excluded SC that wouldn't apply to closed functionality.

Concern that some of the WCAG SC are repetitive of requirements in the 508 ANPRM, that we shouldn't apply WCAG provisions to closed, contained products.

M376 says to apply WCAG to the software part of ICT with closed functionality. Some of the SC in WCAG specifically for interoperability with AT, so they've got a table to list those excluded SC.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say that access board already said in ANPRM that SC apply to closed functionality.

<BBailey> Guidance from this taskforce is very much appreciated. Thanks.

In the 508 ANPRM, WCAG is being applied to the software in ICT with closed functionality.

There are some SC in WCAG that prescribe a certain way of solving accessibility issues that are in conflict with methods already being used by closed products.

For example, the ability to resize text.

The list in this introduction section are the excluded SC.

<Andi> Add "and would be problematic for closed products or closed functionality."

RESOLUTION: Accept The text for the introduction concerning closed functionality, proposal #7 as written.

<Andi> ACTION: Pierce to draft additional text for closed functionality section to clarify these provisions are excluded from closed products [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Draft additional text for closed functionality section to clarify these provisions are excluded from closed products [on Pierce Crowell - due 2012-10-23].

2.1.1 Keyboard

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results#xq8

RESOLUTION: Accept the addition of 2.1.1 to the excluded list.

2.1.3 Keyboard (No Exception)

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results#xq13

RESOLUTION: Accept the addition of 2.1.3 to the excluded list.

1.4.2 Audio Control

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results#xq10

This says you can't have audio that plays more than a certain amount of time without the user having the ability to interrupt.

This causes problems for people with cognitive disabilities as well because something playing can interfere with their ability to read/interact with the visual UI.

508 and EU M376 already have exceptions for security for something that has to be played (emergency messages, etc), so this SC could be overridden in that case.

2.4.1 Bypass blocks

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results#xq1

<scribe> New proposal was made in the survey responses.

In documents, headers and footers are repeated.

<Andi> need some examples of things that would comply

Sometimes these are typed on every page rather than in a skippable area that contains the header/footer. PDFs have the option to remove the header/footer. WCAG has techniques for this SC for PDFs.

<korn> This is not germane to this SC.

Vital information does need to be somewhere in the reading order, such as information that would normally be located in the header or footer (like 'draft').

We discussed in our last meeting whether or not this SC should apply to information within a single document, or to multiple documents in a set.

Concern about making this SC apply to only a 'set of documents' but in software applies to a single software application.

It looks like this SC isn't quite solved yet.

Definition of 'navigation mechanism'

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results#xq3

<korn> For 3.2.3, within my survey comments, I made the proposal: " [Navigational mechanisms] that are repeated <within software> occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user."

When this definition goes to the WCAG working group, they can't add the definition, but can add it to the intent.

<korn> [nav 1] <some text> [nav 2] <- if this is repeated, it wouldn't need to be consistent because <some text> makes the two navs non-contiguous

Discussion on new proposal for the definition to capture the comments received on the survey.

Exclusion of headings is only because browsers don't use headers for navigation. However, headings in software can be a good method of navigation.

The WCAG working group specifically wanted to exclude headings. Concerned proposal will not be accepted if headings aren't excluded for non-web content.

Concerns voiced over terms 'focus of actions' and 'contiguous' used in the definition.

<korn> +1 Andi!

The concept of the navigational mechanism 'taking you somewhere' for software is what seems to be hanging us up. We may just want to think about the fact that whenever UI elements are repeated in the UI, that they should appear in the same relative order.

The problem is that sometimes the relative order is changed on purpose to make navigation by keyboard quicker.

Need to add a note that this definition is only 'as used in this SC'.

<Pierce> I object to the heading note all together

<korn> "non-web ICT" => non-web software.

The access board will be able to quote from the WCAG2ICT document, and should not just cite it since our document is not normative.

The separate definition of 'navigational mechanism' doesn't seem to be working for software. It may work better to make a suggestion on how we would apply the principle of the SC to software.

Another term that causes concern in the definition is 'jumps the user to another location'. Developers would have a difficult time figuring out what is or is not a navigational mechanism.

There is also concern about whether this definition works for documents as well. Should perhaps address 'non-embedded content' directly in the SC rather than in the definition for 'navigational mechanism'.

<Andi> ACTION: Andi to work with Peter on a proposal for 3.2.3 that avoids having to define "navigational mechanisms" for software. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Work with Peter on a proposal for 3.2.3 that avoids having to define "navigational mechanisms" for software. [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-10-23].

<Andi> non-embedded content: Content that is not embedded in software and that does not include its own user agent

Assertion that 'navigation mechanisms' is really a Web concept, so doesn't really need to be defined for softare or documentation and that we look at 3.2.3 without the use of that term.

<korn> Proposal 10 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/2-operable/24-provide-ways-to-help-users-navigate-find-content-and-determine-where-they-are/245-multiple-ways

The 2.4.5 consensus text for documents in proposal 10 could a part of the proposal for 3.2.3 for documents.

<Andi> ACTION: Andi to take consensus language for 2.4.5 (documents only) and try to apply it to a proposal for 3.2.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Take consensus language for 2.4.5 (documents only) and try to apply it to a proposal for 3.2.3 [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-10-23].

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Andi to take consensus language for 2.4.5 (documents only) and try to apply it to a proposal for 3.2.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Andi to work with Peter on a proposal for 3.2.3 that avoids having to define "navigational mechanisms" for software. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Pierce to draft additional text for closed functionality section to clarify these provisions are excluded from closed products [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/10/17 13:05:28 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Definition of 'navigation mechanism'/2.4.1 Bypass blocks/
Succeeded: s/multiple documents/multiple documents in a set/
Succeeded: s/jumps you to/jumps the user to/
Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
Found ScribeNick: MaryJo

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Alex_Li Andi Andi_Snow_Weaver BBailey Bruce_Bailey David David_MacDonald Gregg_Vanderheiden Judy Kiran Kiran_Kaja Mary_Jo_Mueller Microsoft Oracle P20 Peter_KOrn Pierce Pierce_Crowell aaaa aacc alex_ greggvanderheiden https inserted janina joined korn scribenick trackbot wcag2ict
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Found Date: 16 Oct 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html
People with action items: andi pierce

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]