Techniques for specific technologies wording

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#Techniques_for_Specific_Technologies

Judy: Thanks to everyone for coming and it's great to hear the intros and to reflect on the extensive involvement of so many for so long.

Judy: I will do a bit of procedural background and then ask for summary of the issue. I am a guest facilitator on invitation from the two group Chairs. There was a question of how it could be difficult to be objective while chairing, so my guest facilitation of this portion was seen as a way to allow the chairs to participate.
... I have had awareness of the issues but not been very involved. My understanding is that EO has sent comments to WCAG-WG and WCAG is reflecting on those. However, since publication occurs more frequently these days, we need to address the EO comments soon in order to move ahead quickly.
... at this time, it would be useful to hear a summary of the status of where WCAG-WG is on consideration of the comments. Michael?

Michael: Not really the best, most current person to do so

Judy: How about you Joshue? Can you update us on where the comments stand in the perspective of the WCAG-WG?

Joshue: We considered the first submitted comment and had returned a counter suggestion. At this point, the phrase in question seems to be "in a way that is accessible to all potential users"

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/2895

Joshue: There is a bit of a disconnect in the language and the issue. EO has perhaps broadened it beyond what is the intent of WCAG. That is the crux of the question.

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#Techniques_for_Specific_Technologies

Shawn: Please do note that EOWG's revised wording does not say "all" anymore.

AWK: Wayne's question is what specific technology is being referenced. The answer is that in this paragraph there is not meant to be a specific one. But to the question of this issue, we discovered a flaw in our comment processing procedure. The change that we have talked about, which I think we can agree is better than what is there before, is not clearly displayed as the update.

<shawn> EOWG's latest suggestion: "Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create accessible content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users."

Judy: Can we look at both versions?

Judy: do we have a link before us of the currently published version?

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html

<AWK> heading is "General and Technology-specific Techniques"

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-general-tech-specific-head

<AWK> After the initial change that is present on the page, WCAG discussed this change:"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 both the WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance requirements."

Judy: EO is not completely satisfied and the floor is open for comments and discussion.

<Andrew> EO current suggestion: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create accessible content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.

Joshue: EO has removed the word "all" and refers to "potential users" I could live with that wording. The word "all" makes the phrase so aspirational that it is unrealistic. Removing that is progress.

Bruce: I would want to suggest greater separation between "Wcag conformance" and "accessibility"

<dboudreau> huge +1 to what Bruce is saying

Judy: Bruce, can you suggest alternative wording?

<shawn> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.

Shawn: If you take the word "accessible" from that sentence would that make the difference?

<shawn> with AWK's addition: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.

<dboudreau> How about: "Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all cases to create content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and ensure that they provide content in a way that is accessible to the widest possible range of potential users." Does that work?

<Joshue> Well said, me too

<Joshue> +1

AWK: My understanding of the reason for initial rejection was the emphasis by WCAG-WG on meeting the SCs and EO wanted greater emphasis beyond that. So we wanted to then include more of the Techniques and referencing the Requirements as the final metric. The EO emphasis on "accessible" rather than explicitly focused on SC and conformance requirements makes the statement vague.

Joshue: I agree that the clarity of focus within the statements is important rather than generalalities about "accessibility"

<Joshue> Thanks Andrew that could well be the case.

<shawn> with AWK's addition: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.

AndrewA: I am not sure that the part about including conformance requirements came back to us for consideration. Our concern was that in some cases SCs could be met but until user agents were capable of rendering, they were not meeting conformance requirements. That fact is not emphasized sufficiently to provide clear caution.

Joshue: Yes it seems we had a bit of a disconnect.

Judy: So let's hear a summary from Shawn on EOs perspective.

<bbailey> +1 to shawn's version just posted

<Andrew> like the idea of adding "... meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance requirements"

Shawn: With the part that includes conformance requirements, the part we still had trouble with. It was not in the first revision that came back to us but as we have included it now, it seems like we have another version.

Judy: There seems to be more common perspective than disagreement. It seems there are not major differences at this point.
... I would like to ask for as clear a statement as we can muster of the agreed upon portion of the phrase and then find the points of disconnection.

Denis: There is also a need, in our opinion to capture the fact that there is an ability to capture the fact that even with conformance there can be barriers.

Judy: That seems to move away form the consensus we were moving toward. It seems that we have to look at current alternatives.

<Judy> Josh's suggested text, again: "Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users."

Joshue: Is the current suggested text (in IRC) one that EO can live with?

<shawn> +1

<Andrew> Josh's wording looks good

<Sylvie> I am ok with the first sentence, but think that "potential users" is vague and easily misunderstood.

Denis: I don't know if I am missing the point, and I am perfectly OK with this but miss the fact that we are overlooking the existence of a wide spectrum of users whose needs may not be met. "potential users" seems unclear

Judy: You feel it is missing a significant piece...are you OK with the language or not?

Denis: I am OK with this direction but would like to go further.

Sharron: I understand Denis concern and I share that concern, but I am OK with the language as suggested in this context.

<paulschantz> +1

<shawn> +1

<AnnaBelle> +1

<Andrew> +1 to josh's suggestion

Denis: Josh - yes. My proposal would be something like "Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to the widest range of users possible."

<Sylvie> +1 to Denis proposal

Wayne: I agree with Denis on this. This is an EO document, not a WCAG document. The language is correct, but we are in fact suggesting things that are broadening accessibility.

<Joshue> No this is a WCAG doc

Judy: In fact Wayne, it IS a WCAG document.

Wayne: We wanted to point out the fact that WCAG conformance is only partial accessibility, it will not in fact create accessibility. It leaves out a lot of people - mostly people with low vision, dyslexia, cognitive - and we want that noted somehow.

<Joshue> +q I don't see the net gain in differences between using language like potential user vs widest range of users?

David: I just want to make sure I understand the sentence. Are you saying that developers need to use other technologies to meet the needs of all users. So it is more about technologies than WCAG is that right?

Wayne: Yes, you have that right

Michael: WCAG introductory materials need be focused, to speak only about sufficiency of techniques to satisfy WCAG. The goal of the paragraph in question is to explain how Techniques meet WCAG. We are not trying to address the fact that WCAG can meet the needs of all users. But this specific paragraph is to clarify when Techniques support SCs. To point to ways that go beyond that could be confusing. This is not the place to do that.

<Joshue> +1 to Mr.Cooper

Judy: Would it help to have a pointer to the place where "that" is or might be?

Joshue: This comes back to my point that this is meant to confine the discussion to WCAG and the relationship between SCs and Techniques.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it doens't necessarily mean using a different technology - it might mean avoiding certain uses of a technology that can't meet wcag sc+conf req

AWK: Responding to the earlier comment, the wording does not necessarily mean that you must use a different technology. It is more complex, you may need additional techniques or another technology, or other options. Hence the emphasis on awareness and the need to keep conformance requirements in mind.

Shawn: The overall issue is that "Oh there's now a WCAG technique for WAI-ARIA" they will take it to mean that now they can use a certain technique in all cases and it will meet accessibility requirements. We actually feel that this point needs to be made many places. Wherever there is discussion or reference to accessibility support, this point has a place.

<AndrewA> +1 to shawn re developers interpretation of having techniques available

David: If there is a concern that wherever people find a reference to accessiblity techniques specific to one technology, they will make that logical leap, I can understand the concern. However I don't see that people WILL make that leap to the fact of full WCAG conformance by these isolated techniques. And I think that this statement makes that difference clear.

<MichaelC> I can't do this live, but I could generate a table of success criteria supported by techniques in various technologies - I'm pretty sure we would find no technology for which techniques exist for all SC

AndrewA: We have had situations here in Australia where developers will find the PDF techniques or the ARIA techniques that have recently been published by W3C and feel like - OK that problem is now solved, we can pick from these and use them to have no accessibility problems. In the real world, we have seen it happening over and over.

Joshue: That is a very good thing to be aware of and only galvanizes my thought that we should keep the language very specific to the conformance requirements and techniques.

<shawn> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria.[note from scribe - I believe this is a typo and should be conformance requirements rather than conformance criteria...please confirm] Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.

<shawn> denis' last sentence.... Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and ensure that they provide content in a way that is accessible to the widest possible range of potential users

Judy: What I hear is that so far this has been a helpful exchange of perspectives. We still need to find what to do about it.

<LiamM> +1 to Judy

Shawn: The language in IRC now has found wide acceptance. Denis had a comment only about the closing sentence.

Denis: changing "all" potential users. I don't like potential so much, but would much prefer to add widest range of users to broaden that.

Judy: But wouldn't someone who came for techniques say "but that is just what I came to do."

Denis: It works both ways...some want to quote a specific techniques and expect them to do more than what it actually does.

<AndrewA> Denis' experience reflects mine

Judy: I know there are ways that WCAG has tried in the past to make limitations explicit and clearly stated. I understand but in this case, it seems like what we are suggesting is a frame shift.

Liam: Another perspective is that this is making things more vague rathert than less. It is not a development requirement. You could get things to be well meaning and half-assed in time for the deadline. I wanted to give that perspective from a developer view.

<Joshue> +1 to Liam

<dboudreau> For the record, I would completely drop "potential" from that sentence... "that is accessible to the widest possible range of users".

Wayne: Given the context, I understand and am now in favor of narrowing the scope.

Judy: Since there are clear limitations and cautions in the intro, is it no longer necessary to have more than a succinct caution and not be so aspirational here?

<dboudreau> sylvie, nous parlond d'utilisateurs potentiels... dont tous ceux qui seraient potentiellement impactes positivement par la solution.

<dboudreau> proposee

Wayne: Yes, we run the danger of confusing people. It is more a matter of getting people farther down the road rather than making them understand the geography of the entire planet.

Judy: It seems as though we don't yet have agreement on this point...can I hear from someone from WCAG on this point?
... Denis, I wanted to come back to your comment. It seems that you are close to agreement on most of it. Can you live with this ?

<Joshue> +1 to Judy

<Joshue> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.

<shawn> +1

<Andrew> +1

Sharron: I agree with Sylvie - potential is a weasly word here

<Joshue> I think we should remove the second sentence

<Sylvie> Although Denis explained it in French, I am not sure everybody (not native speaker) would understand the meaning of "potential" here.

josh: the second sentence is rather vague - can we just remove? there places we state the limitations to technologies and to WCAG

<Sharron> -1, I strongly disagree with removal of second sentence

Shawn: EO had 'accessible to your users' - concern was that people say 'I have no users with that issue' hence we added 'potential users'

<Joshue> Then we need to clarify the second clause

Sharron: strongly think we need the note about 'limitations of specific technologies'

<Joshue> If the first clause in the sentence is vital, thats fine

Sharron: maybe then plus 'available/accessible to a wide range of users'

<shawn> [ brainstorm: Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to users with disabilities. ]

<dboudreau> better for me too

Judy: recognise that the second sentence is important

<Sylvie> Would be better to use only "users" not potential.

<Wayne> +1 to Shawn

<Sharron> scribe: Sharron

<Andrew> Shawn: ... accessible to users with disabilities

Judy: Please react to accessible to users, accessible to users with disabilities

<Joshue> either is fine with me

<AWK> Either is fine with me

<Wayne> ... users with disabilities within the context of WCAG.

Andrew:David, can we talk about the widest range of people with disabilities - it does go beyond WCAG, but that is where want to encourage people

David: This paragraph is all about WCAG, I want to stay focused on WCAG. This change makes it a bit confusing. I have some concern that by adding "accessible to users" we are expanding it beyond the goal.

Wayne: We could completely qualify it and in some ways it will make it so specific it is not understandable. people with disabilities is where to put the period.

<shawn> ... critiera... Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to users with disabilities.

Judy: Can we look at this once more in IRC?

<David> Or "Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way meets WCAG.

<shawn> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to users with disabilities.

<Wayne> +1 to David

<Andrew> first sentence: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way meets WCAG.

<Andrew> +1 to Shawn's second sentence

<shawn> -1 to David's -- it loses the bigger picture

<dboudreau> +1 to shawn's

Sharron: The bigger picture is what we are trying to point to...+1 to Shawn

<Sylvie> +1 to Shawn's

<Andrew> -1 to David's - we already say must meet WCAG in first sentence

<Howard> +1 to Shawn

<marcjohlic2> +1 to David's

<Sylvie> +1 to Andrew Arch's comment, WCAG already in first sentence

<LiamM> 0 neutral

<David> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way meets WCAG regardless of which technology is used..

<Andrew> recall AWK and josh were happy with Shawn's suggestion (but haven't seen Davids)

<marcjohlic2> Yes

<marcjohlic2> I can live with that, yes

<Wayne> +1 to Shawn

<shawn> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to users with disabilities.

<MichaelC> FYI while the call went on I did a quick and dirty mapping of techniques to success criteria - it's very clear from this table that no single technology meets all of WCAG, not even "general": http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/05/sc-technology-mapping.html

<LiamM> 'users' vs 'people'?

<paulschantz> +1 to Shawn, agree with Andrew about duplication of "must meet WCAG" in 1st sentence

<David> I can live with the language "users with disabilities"

<shawn> [ per Liam -- "people" maybe better than "users" -- I'm ok with either ]

Judy: WCAG folks, can you live with this language

David: yes

<marcjohlic2> I'm fine with that

<Andrew> +1 to people (rather than users)

<shawn> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance criteria. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities.

<Howard> I like "people" +1

<Andrew> +1

<paulschantz> +1 to people

<Sylvie> No preference

Judy: Any objections?

David: The nature of the statement is informative?

Judy: Yes the entire document is informative

David: Than yes, I am OK

Judy: Then it seems we have a sentence that we can all live with.

Location for caution on Techniques for specific tech

Shawn: The other point is where to locate this. Do we want to discuss now or if WCAG wants to review or suggestions for placement

<shawn> location https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#Location

<Andrew> EO had proposed "it should go at at the top before the TOC, and in the Technology Notes section"

Judy: I was not aware that was a question as well. So given that we have lost two of the WCAG participants, I would not want to try to come to agreement on that but will listen to the recap and see if we have any additional perspective.
... anyone from WCAG could comment?

<shawn> Additional place for it: include on technology-specific techniques pages of those for which this is a particular issue, such as WAI-ARIA, PDF, Flash. (are there others?) At the top (before the TOC), or in the Technology Notes, or elsewhere?

<Andrew> maybe we should refer the location suggestion back to WCAG with them all having to leave.

Michael: It just hit my radar as a place in the intro..?

<David> url!

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_review#Location

Shawn: On the technology specific technique pages, should the note be repeated?

Judy: Seems like we need more time for WCAG to be alerted to this. I don't expect that most people on WCAG have seen it. Now there is a pointer, we can take advantage of people here to see if any questions or perceptions to exchange, then take it up for future.

Liam: Basically part of the reason for this are thinks such as you can't really make Flash accessible on some platforms. It would be very helpful from a developer perspective to have that clear on the page - explicit guidance. Can we just be specific per technology. E.g. on Flash techniques page: "as of May 2014, you can't make flash accessible on Macs".

Michael: I can't speak for the groups, but we understood this to be an edit to an existing section. I am opposed to repitition in general but could consider. If it would be at the top of technology specific page, that could be unfair since my mapping doc showed that no technology is completely able to meet all requirements.

<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to suggest we refer the location suggestion to the group

<Wayne> +1

Andrew: I suggest that we have gone as far as we can today and EO should make a specific suggestion about placement.

<shawn> Judy: Andrew's point - frequent publications - people looking at specific technologies as they are published

Judy: Wondering about the notion raised earlier that people look forward to updated techniques and sometime extrapolate too much from updates to technology-specific guidance as it is published. Andrew, your suggestion that there be a more specific proposal put forward. How soon could that be offered?

Andrew: We still have time on today's meeting, will try to sort something out today.

Judy: OK well, thanks everyone for the discussion particularly the WCAG vistors and I will step out.

Shawn: We wanted to give other folks in EO a chance to comment and expect everyone will be OK with it. Any comments before we go the the question of where to put it?

<Andrew> suggestion from EO was "it should go at at the top before the TOC, AND in the Technology Notes section"

<Andrew> +1 to tech specific pages (even if that means all!)

Shawn: and asked if it should go on technology-specifc pages. Michael felt that first, he does not like repetition AND that since the caution could apply to all technologies, not just the new ones, it would be unfair to target those.

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/flash.html#flash_notes

Shawn: and then Liam's point that in some cases there is a not even a cautionary note, just notes on what it *does* work on.

Liam: But there is no explicit note of how "here there be dragons"

Shawn: Are you saying that there should be a note everywhere? every type of techniques?

Denis: If you mean every technology specific technique document, yes.

<Andrew> +1 to all techniques pages

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/flash.html

Wayne: Don't developers need to know "is this technique supported where I want to use it?"
... I am just trying to clarify what is actually being suggested here? If I was a developer I would want to know how and where it is supported.

Shawn: Every single technique has user agent support notes

<Andrew> stating all supporting UA/ATs and versions is a big maintenance task

<LiamM> At the top.

Wayne: If people got used to looking at the technology notes, it could work

<Wayne> +1

<paulschantz> +1 to at the top

<dboudreau> +1 for putting it at the top of all technology specific pages

Shawn: Do we want to say we are also OK with ones where it currently has technology notes

<Andrew> +1 to top of all tech pages

Liam: Yes the ones for which it is meaningful

Shawn: OK I will summarize for the EO list....any other comments for now?

<Jan> +1 for top of all tech-specific pages

Update on Tutorials survey

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#30_May_2014_teleconference

Shawn: Quick reminder that there are three high priority things to do this week

<shawn> Minutes updated here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Meetings#Past_Meetings

Shawn: Tutorials questionaires and main page questionaire. Please take time to review and suggest new wording. Eric says he is "not a marketer" and would appreciate forks on GitHub and marketing suggestions. The main landing page will be first thing that new visitors will see, and will determine the message they get. Suggestions may also be placed in wiki or email.
... deadline has been extended to Monday 2 Jun, so do please get those done.
... anything else?
... great thanks all, have a good weekend.