User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 16 Apr 2015

<trackbot> Date: 16 April 2015

Increase checkbox size

<allanj> scribe: allanj

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/WCAG2_HTML_Problem_File_Fixed.html

split results

in fireworks

text only zoom resulted in 2/4 checkbox did not get bigger, and 2/4 did get bigger

<jeanne> when testing whether a plain HTML checkbox enlarges when the text size enlarges, 2 people had it work, 2 did not have it work. All are running FF 37.01 and all on Windows 7.

but standard zoom, checkbox all got bigger

<jeanne> All had Zoom Text Only turned off

Shawn comment

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2015AprJun/0016.html

shawn: 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 are *global*. Most of the use of borders especially and also margins that I've seen has been needed at the *element* level."

RESOLUTION: add Border and Margins control to 1.4.2

close item 1

take up item 2

<Greg> A bit odd to have borders be AA per-element but AAA globally (because it's considered "Advanced").

gl: border by elements should be a AAA

<Greg> Margins definitely AA or better; but for Borders I have trouble coming up with justifications for significant accessibility impact. Perhaps it might be used to highlight headings and the like.

<Greg> However, I won't object to making Borders AA.

RESOLUTION: move borders from 1.4.6 to 1.4.2

Implementations by feature

<Greg> https://w3c.github.io/UAAG-Implementations/Implementations-by-feature

1.1.2 - can do this with USER STYLE sheet

greg has a stylesheet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K4WJs94FfY youtube with captions CC button is not grayed out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe30habM0ls youtube with no captions no CC button

1.1.3 - settings for images in browsers -

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/981640

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/turn-off-images-internet-explorer-49962.html

1.1.4

<scribe> done

1.1.5

<scribe> done

1.1.6

<scribe> done

discussion of list of alternative content type that the UA processes

gl: in 1.1.5 chrome can turn off images but not have alt, could use CSS to display alt
... put yes/no/maybe at the top of each box in implementation columns
... so we know when something is really done

1.1.7

need to find

at risk

1.2.1

ja: not sure how to test this

UAWG Charter

<jeanne> Judy: We're getting a level of feedback that we've never gotten before, some of which is good to see. So pretty much everything in the charter package is being looked at with fresh eyes.

<jeanne> ... sometimes it is a matter of perspective or misconceptions

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

jb: the browsers say that there isn't the engagement in UAWG because the browsers aren't here.
... maybe the question should be "why aren't the browsers here?"
... we continue to hear from PwD that there are basic accessibility problems with browsers that are not being addressed.
... UAWG is not funded by W3C, there is an expectation it would be published as a REC
... I want to explore the possibility that IF we could get permission to recharter as a Note, what does UAWG see as options?
... What would it look like to recharter for Note track, if that were an option, and how long would it take to get that charter done?

Jim: We could probably do it in a couple weeks

Greg: I totally respect the judgement and opinions of the people in this working group. They are smart, dedicated people who have been doing this work for a long time. That said, from my perspective personally, I really like the idea of guidance documents that would be more useful to developers than a standards document
... I will also be very sad if the group doesn't produce a standard. If standards are enforced in purchasing decisions, that is the only thing that gets real changes to happen. It won't drive the industry forward.
... but on the other hand, a number of our SC don't have implementations

<allanj> +1 to many SC being at risk if REC track

Judy: There a lot of complicated truths in what Greg said.
... What if it were not either/or, is there a value in looking at what can go into REC track and what will not.

<allanj> UI that UAAG20 talks about is what to do for users, NOT how to do something

<allanj> ... to get an accessible environment

Jim: The UI that we have in the Guidelines is what functions they need to provide to users, not HOW they have to do it. We were very careful not to include HOW.

Greg: Has anyone given any specfic examples of where we are telling them how to change their UI?

Judy: The current discussion doesn't seem to be looking at the detail of the spec in great depth

Greg: They may not have any substantial actual objections?

Judy: My understanding is that the browsers have objections such as: the approach is outdated, the industry is moving toward apps, etc.
... there are comments from a few browsers that have been looking at UAAG in depth.
... one browser said there would be more concerns if UAAG were published as a normative.
... I'm not sure how to get us a clearer answer, except to have a series of discussions.

Jim: Even if we do all these things, we still have a year to finish

Judy: Jan said that the group is self-censoring the spec, because they are afraid it will be shot down if it is on REC track.

s/ Judy: Jan said that the group is self-censoring the spec, because they are afraid it will be shot down if it is on REC track. //

Judy: I hear a mix of advantages and disadvantages, rather than a clear consensus on a Note

Jan: This document has everything including the kitchen sink. To send it as REC, we would have to take more out because we don't have implementations, or it is not testable.
... We could do a small set that has implementations and publish that as a REC.

Jim: that's a really low bar.

Jan: We take the best. That brings up the lowest browser.

<allanj> js: might help mobile browsers

- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

16 Apr 2015

Attendees

Contents

Increase checkbox size

Shawn comment

Implementations by feature

UAWG Charter

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output