See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 18 February 2014
<AWK> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 18 February 2014
<AWK> Chair: AWK
<BarryJohnson> No Phone today, just IRC
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<scribe> Scribe:Loretta
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20140218/results
AWK summarizes proposed response.
RESOLUTION:
accepted as proposed.
... accepted as proposed.
<Joshue> +q
<AWK> new text: The user is logged into a secured area of a site, and following a link to a page outside of the secured area would terminate the user's logon.
Resolution: Accepted as amended.
<Joshue> I Katie suggesting that we retire some numbers?
<Joshue> LGR: The search engines keep finding the old version of docs.
<Joshue> LGR: We haven't come up with a solution.
<Joshue> LGR: Thats likely why.
<Joshue> MC: You can put a header at the top of the file 30,000 +
Yes, thanks.
MJ: Suggests adding a note to the current technique, alerting people to this problem.
<Joshue> LGR: The search engines dont adhere to this
MC: One problem is that there are dated as well as undated versions of documents. Loading via the "latest version" URI can lead to completely different techniques.
Sailesh: I assume everyone should
be using the lastest versions, right?
... At the topic of each page there is a link to the latest
version, right?
MC: Only for the entire document, not for the individual techniques.
AWK: Is there any kind of metadata that would help?
<Joshue> LGR: can we change so there is a link to current techniques?
<Joshue> MC: We can do that
LGR: Can we add a "current version" link to the techniques template, to help this going forward?
MC: Yes, we can do this. We'll need to work with Shawn on this.
AWK updating response to include decision about technique lini.
Sailesh: The onus is also on the user to be sure they are using the latest version of a technique.
AWK: Yes, but given the behavior of the search engines, users may not have the context to realize this is a problem.
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
AWK: Should we use the Techniques link or the How to Meet link?
<Joshue> LGR: I thought the link would go to the latest version of the technique itself?
<Joshue> LGR: Then it has to.
<Joshue> AWK: Ok, I don't get the remark.
<Joshue> LGR: The idea is that the technique would link back to the latest version of the techs doc.
<Joshue> +q
LGR: I misunderstood which link
AWK was asking about, which is not the proposed new link, but
the link in the response
... which recommends where to find the latest techniques.
<Joshue> +1
<Kathleen> +1
Resolution: Accepted as amended.
AWK summarizes issue and response.
Katie: We should put this on the list of issues for future guidelines.
Resolution: Accepted as proposed.
<scribe> ACTION: Katie to make sure this topic is on the list for future guidelines. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Make sure this topic is on the list for future guidelines. [on Katie Haritos-Shea - due 2014-02-25].
Sailesh: Is this an accessibility issue or a usability issue?
<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/2895
AWK: THis issue came from EO.
AWK: EO wants us to add a new section on this topic. We already have a paragraph about this. The response is to amend that paragraph.
<AWK> suggestion: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that all uses of that technology will meet WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in ways that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
AWK: Worry about the phrase "makes accessible to all people", since WCAG itself doesn't claim to meet that goal.
<Joshue> +q
JOC: This is a snapshot of the wider issue of how to improve our messaging.
AWK: Yes.
JOC: We should err on the side of caution while we work on the re-messaging.
AWK: This seemed like it didn't harm the re-messaging. Does anyone have concerns about this?
Resolution: Accepted as proposed.
<Joshue> rssagent, draft minutes
AWK: There has been lots of
discussion within WAI on this topic in the last few
months.
... We know that ARIA 10 and F65 are currently out of
sync.
... People are concerned that the use of aria attributes are
not as well supported across browsers.
... Displaying the text when images aren't displayed is not a
WCAG issue, but it is a UAAG issue.
... The proposed response indicates how we will update ARIA 10
and F65, to encourage authors to use the alt attribute whenever
they can.
<Joshue> LGR: While I agree with the sentiment, we can't issue a response that says we are going to make these changes.
<Joshue> AWK: We need to put those changes in place.
<Joshue> LGR: Yes
<Joshue> AWK: Got it
LGR: I agree with the direction proposed, but we need to put the proposed changes in place before we can accept this proposal.
<Joshue> +q
David: I accept the proposal. My
concern was that the process be public and tranparent.
... It is similar to the way we approach table layout, with a
strong caution.
<David_> +1
Katie: Is there a reason we can't recommend the ARIA techniques? Why the strong encouragement to use alt?
James: The reason relates to the
level of accessibility support.
... if you always require alt, why would anyone ever use
aria?
Katie: we want to encourage people to support aria, but the reality is that the support isn't there. THe lesser of 2 evils is with providing access.
<Joshue> LGR: I don't understand what we are discussing!
AWK: Katie's suggestion is that our advice should include providing alt even if you use aria, so that you can provide the greatest backwards compatability.
Katie: Yes, I think the advice should require alt, rather than just strongly recommending it.
LGR: THis is why we need to decide what the technique modifications will be before we can answer this issue.
JOC: Some of this is an issue of user agent support for ARIA, and it is still early days.
Katie: Because we want to push
aria forward, it still isn't fair to drop support for what is
there.
... It is not supported well enough by all the AT. It doesn't
hurt, it only helps.
... In 5 years, maybe we can drop that.
JOC: I agree. We need to do this in a very incremental way.
AWK: I have added Working Group Notes for what we could potentially add to ARIA 10. Nothing for F65 yet.
Sailesh: We can describe the
current status of accessibility support, and what we
recommend.
... we should indicate that this is still in active
discussion.
Katie reviews working group notes.
<Joshue> LGR: Can we please put this request in a survey please, and not do it now?
<Joshue> AWK: It's worth getting peoples thoughts
AWK: Still useful to get feedback from people right now.
<Joshue> +q
AWK: Katie, can we work on the wording together?
<Joshue> -q
David: Clarify understanding? I heard Katie say that we would require an alt attribute, and I heard Andrew say that we strong recommend but don't require.
Katie: My proposal is to require alt.
AWK: My feeling is that we can't
do that.
... People can and will make valid conformance claims without
that.
<Joshue> +q
AWK: We may be exceeding our authority.
David: It seems a bit strident
that we are exceeding our authority.
... Reconcile by allowing aria to be added to an image.
AWK: I worry about us taking hits to our credibility and relevance, because people are using aria
Katie: I think a bigger risk is losing access
AWK: We need to advocate for browsers and AT to improve their aria support. This will also be due to efforts by PF, too.
David: Should we be running ahead? WCAG should be giving practical advice.
JOC: THat is what we are trying
to do. THe practical issues of how techniques are authored. In
the WG, we have issues of managing perceptions.
... There is a fine line we need to walk.
James: Re aria being a new thing: it will shortly be a Recommendation. THere has been browser support for many aria attributes for 4 or 5 years. This isn't new.
David: Agree with Josh on almost
everything. THe question is some variation of leaving ARIA 10
but requiring alt, or reopening F65. We will need to do one or
the other.
... Discuss either at Face to Face or in survey.
AWK: I hope before the F2F, since
we would like to update the documents before then.
... CHoices: keep ARIA 10 and modify F65, or don't keep ARIA 10
and don't modify F65.
David: or Katie's proposal to require alt for ARIA 10
LGR: But ARIA 10 is just an advisory technique on top of the alt technique.
Katie: ARIA 10 still encourages
people to use aria, but requires alt. I hear from enough people
who can't access information provided by aria.
... I would rather flag it and delay the use of aria until it
is supported for everyone.
... People aren't hearing alternate text when it is provided by
labelled-by.
AWK: With what browsers/AT combinations?
Katie: with a variety of combinations.
David: I don't see much use of labelled-by on the web for images.
AWK: I think we use it on the Adobe home page.
Resolution: leave open
<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask if Katie feels the same way about labeling form fields?
Resolutino: Accepted as proposed.
Resolution: Accepted as amended.
AWK: Agenda email lists the
remaining issues that need to be handled.
... I don't believe any of these are necessary for this round,
since they are on parts of the document that hasn't
changed.
... I will look at the commend on PDF techniques,
however.
... Does everyone know how to get into the comment tracker?
(Not github).
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/
AWK: Go into the comments
tracker, look at the links to comments #19 and #20 for the
current comments.
... Use the "assigned-to" drop down to select your own name to
volunteer for that issue.
... If you have a response that is ready for WG review, let me
(Andrew) know.
... None of the issues seem enormous, but may require some
thought.
... Likely to be included in the September update.
LGR: If we can include them in this update, it would be good.
AWK: Proposed publication
schedule targets everything approved next week, and edits into
the document by Feb 28.
... Trying to negotiate MIchael's time, since ARIA is also
trying to publish before CSUN.
LGR: We may need a longer meeting next week, or scheduling a separate meeting, to discuss the alt issue, since we need to settle that before publication.
AWK: we will plan to go 2 hours next week.
James: I have a conflict after our normal meeting time.
AWK: Propose using the Task Force meeting time (old WCAG time) for this issue.
<David_> would you like me to push minutes Loretta
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/pratical/practical/ Succeeded: s/5 or 6/4 or 5/ Succeeded: s/on the web/on the web for images/ Found Scribe: Loretta Inferring ScribeNick: Loretta Default Present: AWK, Michael_Cooper, Joshue, Kathleen, Kathy_Wahlbin, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Loretta, Sailesh_Panchang, James_Nurthen, David_MacDonald Present: AWK Michael_Cooper Joshue Kathleen Kathy_Wahlbin Marc_Johlic Katie_Haritos-Shea Loretta Sailesh_Panchang James_Nurthen David_MacDonald Regrets: David Kerstin JF Found Date: 18 Feb 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: katie WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]