W3C

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

04 Feb 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Jutta, Jan, Greg, Tim_Boland
Regrets
Alex_L., Sueann_N.
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
Jan

Contents


New survey results

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107-2/results

A.3.1.4 Keyboard Access

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107-2/results#xq6

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JanMar/att-0020/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20130128.html

1. Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (Level A, AA, AAA):

Many ATAG 2.0 success criteria refer to meeting WCAG 2.0 success criteria. In order to test these success criteria, you will need a Web Content Accessibility Testing Procedure that is: (a) specific to the "included" web content technology (e.g. HTML, CSS, SVG, etc.) produced by the authoring tool and (b) designed to test WCAG 2.0 conformance to at least the target level (e.g., Level AA)....

scribe: Such a test procedure may include:

Manual tests: These are the most complete tests and should follow How to Meet WCAG 2.0. Even if semi-automated or fully automated tests are available to test certain WCAG 2.0 success criteria, manual tests may be required to test others.

Semi-automated or fully automated accessibility checkers: Some testers choose to use semi-automated or fully automated web content accessibility checkers as part of this procedure. Free automated tools that accept URIs or pasted HTML code include:

WebAIM Wave

AChecker

etc.

Web content markup examination tools: These tools (e.g. Firebug) can help testers discover and visualize the markup that gave rise to a particular onscreen rendering.

Keyboard navigation test: Testing whether the web content is fully operable with a keyboard interface.

Screen reader test: Testing the accessibility of the user interface with a screen reader such as NVDA (Windows), Jaws (Windows), Orca (GNOME), or VoiceOver (Mac OSX, iOS).

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107-2/results#xq6

alex's comment: If the SC only ask for keyboard to work, then the test should not test for visible focus. WCAG 2.0 has SC 2.4.7 for focus visibility. If we need to solve the same problem, then we need an SC for that. We cannot add extraneous test per 4.2 for A.3.1.4 above just to pluck a hole in ATAG. That goes the same for A.3.1.1. Step 4.2 is not acceptable.

GP: Feel that they are samwe

TB: Agree that they are combined

CE: Not saying its separate, just saying SC has to mention it

JR: OK with it being separate and level A

WCAG2 says 2.4.7 Focus Visible: Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible. (Level AA)

JT: OK that seems fairly clear

JR: in wcag it is separate and AA
... I think it needs to be an A

JT: Any objections to adding an SC like this at level A?

GP: OK with this

TB: Isn't this a major change?

JT: Should not be a major change since the group had intended it.

<Greg_Pisocky> This is Greg I can type

<Greg_Pisocky> General agreement to add a success criteria ;that explicitly addresses visible focus

<Greg_Pisocky> 3.1.5

<Greg_Pisocky> AI Greg to develop alternative language for 3.1.5

<Greg_Pisocky> Make distinction for system wide alternative commands

<Greg_Pisocky> Can't change Ctrl P but can define an alternative sequence that does the same. One handed typist for example.

<Greg_Pisocky> 3.2.1 Roberto's comments and Jan's modifications

<Greg_Pisocky> No objections to Jan's addition

<Greg_Pisocky> 3.2.2 Jan's modification accepted

<Greg_Pisocky> A.3.2.3 More discussion

<Greg_Pisocky> 3.2.3 Issue regarding separation of Content from Control of the Action

<Greg_Pisocky> GP Examples are fine but they may not be sufficient

<Greg_Pisocky> Jutta proposes adding to the example (animatiion or script used as a user interface component)

<Greg_Pisocky> Jutta recommends see pheg(?)

<Greg_Pisocky> AI - Better examples with clarification for 3.2.3 to be provided

<Greg_Pisocky> A.3.2.4

<Greg_Pisocky> Jan has provided language to address Alex's objections at least partially

<Greg_Pisocky> Consensus seems to be that Jan's modification address's Alex's concern

<Greg_Pisocky> Next week, will proceed with the remainder. Bridge issues also will be investigated.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-02-04 21:02:43 $

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)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Jan
Inferring Scribes: Jan
Default Present: Jutta, Jan, Greg, Tim_Boland
Present: Jutta Jan Greg Tim_Boland
Regrets: Alex_L. Sueann_N.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JanMar/0018.html
Got date from IRC log name: 04 Feb 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/02/04-au-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]