Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 08 Apr 2014

<trackbot> Date: 08 April 2014

<AWK> SCribe: Kathleen

<MichaelC> scribe: kathleen

<AWK> Scribe: Kathleen

<MichaelC> scribe: kathleen

republishing WCAG supporting docs

MichaelC: understanding and techniques documents are being republished as of today to add acknowledgments

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ now references an April 8 date

MicaelC: if you notice any contributors missing please let me know

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ is also set to April 8

Publication timeline update

<AWK> New techniques due 15- May

<AWK> Working group finalizes last edits for inclusion 8-Jul

<AWK> Public review draft for comments published 22-Jul

<AWK> Length of comment period 21 days

<AWK> Comments close 12-Aug

<AWK> Days to process comments 14 days

<AWK> WG approval of version for publication 26-Aug

<AWK> Publication request 2-Sep

<AWK> Publish 9-Sep

AWK: we have about a month to get our techniques submitted so the we as a group can work on them

New survey of draft responses to comments and one new technique https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/08042014survey/

Thursday meetings?

AWK: we need to talk about that

Loretta: people need to come to the meetings
... I will be there

I will be there too.

AWK: I am planning on being there.

Comment LC-2890: Draft response

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/08042014survey/results

<bbailey> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/H27.html

<bbailey> H27: Providing text and non-text alternatives for object

<bbailey> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/H53.html

<bbailey> H53: Using the body of the object element

Jon_Avila: response did not appear to complete

I wasn't sure what the proper terminology was.

Ryladog: I'm good.

AW: any objection to saying content instead of body?

Jon_Avila: do we need to say how it would be accessed by assistive tecnology?

AWK: looking at H53's Example 1

wilco: I sent this one in
... I can put this issue in to see how well it is supported

AWK: we need data on how example 1 works
... however it is already a published technique
... I don't know what the current support is
... we will bring example 2 into H53
... for ourselves, a note to look at the accessibility support

<Jon_avila> +1

AWK: reasonable approach?

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended

<AWK> ACTION: Wilco to investigate accessibility support for H53 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-252 - Investigate accessibility support for h53 [on Wilco Fiers - due 2014-04-15].

wilco: will look into accessibility support

Comment LC-2903: Draft response

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/08042014survey/results#x2652

AWK: proposal to add links to Mozilla documentation for blink

RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed

Comment LC-2892: Draft response

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/08042014survey/results#x2663

<AWK> Marc's suggestion: F76: Failure of Success Criterion 3.2.2 due to not providing change of context instructions prior to a control that would cause a change of context

<Jon_avila> yes, I believe so.

<bbailey> current: F76: Failure of Success Criterion 3.2.2 due to providing instruction material about the change of context by change of setting in a user interface element at a location that users may bypass

<bbailey> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/F76.html

Ryladog: I like it (the proposed new title)

Loretta: not a clearly written failure

<bbailey> +bb to say title should use same phrasing as sc

<bbailey> advised of the behavior before using the component

AWK: due to not advising the user in advance of a potential change of context

<marcjohlic> I like that

<AWK> F76: Failure of Success Criterion 3.2.2 due to not advising users of a possible change of context prior

<AWK> F76: Failure of Success Criterion 3.2.2 due to not advising users of a possible change of context

Jon_Avila: "don't do this, bit if you do ...."

s bit/but

http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140311/G13

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say that even if failure is kind of redundant to the SC, it may still be important to document.

AWK: do we want to leave this open and talk to Gregg about it?

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask if some of the difficulty is that we do not have another way of providing a prompt?

extensive form control/html discussion ensues

RESOLUTION: leave open until next week

LC-2880: Draft response

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/08042014survey/results#x28800408

Loretta: still in Proposal status

RESOLUTION: leave open

ARIA Technique: Using Aria-Invalid to Indicate An Error Field

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/08042014survey/results#xaria001

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_Aria-Invalid_to_Indicate_An_Error_Field

<AWK> wiki link: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_Aria-Invalid_to_Indicate_An_Error_Field

AWK: comments indicate poeple are confused about the what the technique is doing

Loretta: these are examples of people should not be using aria-invalid - failure?

Sailesh: use it when there's no other error desciption

testing

<AWK> scribe: kathleen

AWK: Example 1 is a good example
... second example a little different
... some cases using describedby and some not

jamesn: why would you use both?

s/woould/wouldn't/

<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to note that I don't see aria-invalid in Example 2 at all

Sailesh: where can we use aria-invalid when by itself it satifies a success criterion?

AWK: sometimes its helpful to provide additional text
... leave this one open and talk about it further?

jon_avila: you could use it on other types of widgets that are not required

AWK: the spec says you shouldn't do it but it may not be the cause of a failure.

james: read it as a really strong "should"

<AWK> RESOLUTION: leave open

AWK: talk about this one on Thursday? 4 pm ET

RESOLUTION: leave open

AWK: let Loretta and James know what you want to discuss on Thursday

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_Needing_Responses

<AWK> Please check that link for comments that you committed to respond to

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

08 Apr 2014

Attendees

Contents