See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 24 March 2015
<Joshue108> is Joshue
<Joshue108> Joshue108 is Joshue
<scribe> scribe: marcjohlic
<Loretta> zakim IPcaller is Loretta
Dan Frank - Wells Fargo - joining working group
DF: Creating an approach to scoring, prioritizing - metrics for accessibility testing
JC: Will send Dan a URI to work Shadi is doing also
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/%22
JOC: 2 "definitely will be there" and 2 "definitely won't be there" responses so far
AWK: Need more responses from WG members before we can make a final decision
JOC: Would like to get a consensus as soon as possible
<Joshue108> [Updated Test Procedure F68] Procedure looks wrong
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/81
RESOLUTION: Leaving open awaiting more responses from members
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/85/files?diff=split
KHS: Changes to my comment based on Andrew's response
<Ryladog> For all input, textarea and select elements in the Web page (EXCEPT those of type hidden, submit, reset, or button ) one of the following checks must be true:"
AWK: propose "inputs of type hidden.. etc" vs "those of type"
<Ryladog> For all input, textarea and select elements in the Web page (EXCEPT input type hidden, submit, reset, or button ) one of the following checks must be true:"
RESOLUTION: Accepted Katie's updated text for F68
<Joshue108> [Comment Response F3] Clarify the meaning of "is also available" in step #3 of F3 test #80
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/80
AWK: Agree there is an issue here
- just want to ensure we are marking this against the correct
SC
... If someone has CSS turned off, then an image may not appear
then they may not have any alt text - is that was folks are
talking about as well?
JOC: My understanding as well
JA: Also agree
AWK: Is that a Failure of 1.1.1 or 2.4.6 or a User Agent thing?
JA: I see it as a 1.1.1 because
it's an image that doesn't have a text equivalent
... 2.4.6 Is that if you already have a heading or label then i
has to describe the purpose
AWK: I was thinking it was a control image, but if it's just a content image then label doesn't really come into play
KHS: Even as a control image it will still fit under 1.1.1
JOC: Should we put a note in the technique?
LGR: Think we may be making this more complex than it is
<Mike_Elledge> !
AWK: Seems like we are depending
on user agent behavior to fill the gap
... If we turn CSS off, we are counting on user agent to fill
that gap
JA: The way I look at this is CSS
is presentation only. We have a programmatic method but we also
have to have a visual alternative...
... If this was a control, 4.1.2 would apply
... Some situations more SC could apply
... Until we have another technique, I would be careful about
changing this one (this is the only one that covers need to
present alternatives for CSS images)
JOC: Suggest leaving this open before making a response because it may hit a few areas that we didnt' consider
JA: We could make the same argument for color
LGR: But we have specific SC that
address use of color
... This may be an oversight
KHS: Brings back the one that we wanted to get rid of in 508 around turning off CSS and having all functionality available (going away in Refresh)
RESOLUTION: Leave open while AWK works on wording
<Joshue108> [Comment response G136] Meaning of "Alternate version" is not clear
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/73
JOC: Mixed response on this one
AWK: Commentor's comment was just
on the example - don't think there is anything in G136 that
says you "must do this" like link has to be called something
specific
... We already have a standard that says you must name links
appropriately
JOC: Issue is around ambiguity of "alternate version" - so we should clear that up
<Joshue108> On a Web site, for each page that does not conform to WCAG at the declared level, the first link on the page is called "Alternate accessible version" (or using other link text that properly conveys the purpose of the link). The target of this link is the alternate version of the page that conforms to WCAG at the declared level.
+1
<Joshue108> +1
<Loretta> +1
<Joshue108> +1 from James
<Kathy> +1
<Kenny> +1
JN: Suggest dropping "alternate" and just got with "accessible version"
JOC: Agree
+1
JOC: Preference for removing "alternate" but I can live with it
<Joshue108> MJ: I like as it will shorten link
AWK: Just updating the
Example
... Test does not mention link text
JA: Does not say that it has to be first link either
JOC: Making me re-think the use of "alternate" - but that is a discussion for another day
RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended per AWK's suggested text minus the word "alternate"
<AWK> For each image added to the content via CSS, HTML style attributes, or dynamically in script as background images. 1. Check that the image conveys important information. 2. Check that a text equivalent for the image is not available programmatically. 3. Check that a text equivalent is not available visually when the CSS image is not displayed.
AWK: This doesn't change what we
currently have, but it does make it clearer
... Would have to update Expected Results
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F3.html
LGR: Is it possible to
programmatically associate text for CSS images?
... Seems that the only method is for hiding the text when the
image is present
JN: There are ways of doing this
LGR: Concerned that there are ways of approximating it - but not that specifically associate the text with the image
JN: They would both be associated
w/ the same DOM node. Correct that the text is not associated
directly w/ the CSS image, but it is INDIRECTLY associated via
the DOM node
... People are going to be doing this anyway - so we need to
provide them a way to do it correctly
LGR: What is is WCAG that makes it true that if an image is not available neither is the alt text.. Would it be 1.1.1? Discussion around that
JA: Strictly speaking you can't
provide an alternative based on the text alt definition. You
could still meet WCAG through other methods - so maybe not
under 1.1.1 it could be under conformance
... If you had a chart that didn't provide all of the details
via alt text, but the the details were provided on the page
AWK: The use case I see is where
there is an icon - and for some reason they like to use
<i> and maybe it has text inside it or sometimes it
doesn't, and they use CSS to assign a background image
... The difference between this method and using <img> is
that AT alerts the user that there is an image there
... It's very uncomfortable - probably an area where we should
make a note for ourselves about future work. Feel that the
INTENT is clear enough, but there might be enough wiggle room
in 1.1.1 where an argument could be made that the <i>
element is being made into non-text content
... Big question really is: We may be making some assumptions
about what the UA is going to do with text alternatives
JOC: To James' point to what
degree can we rely on the UA to handle that correctly (indirect
association via the DOM)
... Do we need to leave open and work on the Test procedure
more? My sense is yes
... I think we need to be more clear from the UA side on what
is likely to happen in the majority of cases when CSS images
aren't displayed. Things have change from when this was first
written.
... Are there differences when CSS is off vs when CSS images
are off
JN: We don't need to worry about CSS off for conformance
AWK: Let's leave this open for another week to look at this one
JA: If you're going to propose changing the Test procedures, also need to update the Expected Results
AWK: Agree
JOC: Agree and would help to clear up all of the "if" cases
ME: Wondering if we also need to take a look at SC for presenting alternate content
AWK: That's were we can put a note in the wiki, but we can't change the SC itself (normative)
RESOLUTION: Leave open (again)
AWK: Brief update about charter -
many of you have heard from us that the charters are out for
review
... Word that we've gotten back is that we may need some
modifications
... Substantial number of comments that came in on different
topics
... Charter proposed did not have any normative work defined in
it - and that was raised by a number of commentors
... So there are things going on, and if you're a member of a
W3C company you can go in and review the comments.
... For WCAG the main comment was that WCAG is very important
and that there needs to be Normative work going on. Folks have
talked about normative extensions as opposed to "version"
updates
... Based on conversations and WAI2020 meetings at CSUN, people
feel there are pieces that might need to be updated. Want to
validate what I was hearing with folks on the WG call
<jon_avila> YES!
<Kathy> yes!
<Joshue108> MJ: Yes
AWK: Do you feel that there is enough that we've identified via Mobile and Cognitive work that there are things that need normative work
KHS: Extensions are a good idea.
We need to continue to leave the techniques as
non-normative.
... So keep extensions normative - but any techniques that come
out of those non-normative so that we can address any changes
that are needed
... Would also include "Low Vision" concerns and possibly even
"wearables" in addition to mobile
AWK: Extensions idea - similar to
the way the ongoing work to HTML5 is being done
... Discussing that WCAG extensions could be handled the same
way. WCAG would still be there - could be referenced, but that
as extensions come out some other company / institution etc
could say "OK we are WCAG plus Extension X"
... Then at some future time we could decide to wrap these all
together
... That was the discussion at CSUN - smaller more agile
extensions. And yes techniques would still be
non-normative
... Even talking about finding ways to make techniques work
even faster. For example what if Techniques were pulled off of
the TR track and updated much more quickly
... We have already moved to every 6 months, but perhaps could
make it faster. Techniques could be modified, rolled out more
readily. Just something that was discussed.
... We will be updating everyone about what happens, but we
know it's certainly going to be a topic for a bit
JOC: Talking about work we need to do as a WG - techniques in Mobile space
KW: We're taking information we
have in the Mobile note and looking at the 4 key areas we
discussed in the F2F
... What are best practices that we need for keyboard
navigation - what are things we need to document as Best
Practice
... What we could use help on is getting that list together -
then going back to write the techniques
... One thing we are waiting for is to see which way things go
on WCAG Extensions as that could affect how we go about writing
techniques
... Please review Note and provide feedback
http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/
KW: Starting a new wiki page and
inserting some placeholders in the Note. Kim is creating new
wiki this week to track things that came out of F2F (touch size
for example and research around all of that)
... Collecting a lot of information around a lot of things -
want to check research that is out there to help define as best
practice vs advisory etc
AWK: A lot work to be done - part
of what Josh and I are suggesting is that it would be great for
people looking over work that needs to be done, and seeing
where they could contribute - their areas of expertise
... Another example is that in the WCAG technique Examples use
HTML 4 - where they could be updated to HTML 5 - and it doesn't
make us look up to date when we don't have HTML5 in our
exmaples. Would be a great contribution to have folks that
could update those to HTML5
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Working_Group_Techniques_Development_Assignments
AWK: This url is where we have tracked this in the past (needed technique work)
<jon_avila> I don't think our aside technique never got finished.
AWK: Similarly, if you found some techniques on your own, throw an item on this page indicating the work you're going to help out with
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/JC:/JOC:/ Succeeded: s/it is/ as it/ Succeeded: s/still be normative/still be non-normative/ Found Scribe: marcjohlic Inferring ScribeNick: marcjohlic Default Present: AWK, Joshue, Kathy_Wahlbin, +1.650.464.aaaa, EricE, Marc_Johlic, Dan, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mike_Elledge, jon_avila, Michael_Cooper, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kenny, James_Nurthen Present: AWK Joshue Kathy_Wahlbin +1.650.464.aaaa EricE Marc_Johlic Dan Katie_Haritos-Shea Mike_Elledge jon_avila Michael_Cooper Loretta_Guarino_Reid Kenny James_Nurthen Found Date: 24 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]