14:31:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:31:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-irc
14:31:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:31:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
14:31:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:31:29 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:31:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:31:30 <trackbot> Date: 21 July 2015
14:31:37 <Kenny> zakim, agenda?
14:31:37 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:32:06 <Kenny> agenda+ WCAG meeting schedule reminder - there will be no meetings on 28th July, 4th August.
14:32:25 <Kenny> agend+ Review of progress on Github issues https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
14:32:36 <Kenny> agenda+ Review of progress on Github issues https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
14:32:51 <Kenny> agenda+ QRG Updates with Eric
14:33:05 <Kenny> agenda+ WCAG Extension discussion
14:33:14 <Kenny> zakim, agenda?
14:33:14 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:33:15 <Zakim> 1. WCAG meeting schedule reminder - there will be no meetings on 28th July, 4th August. [from Kenny]
14:33:15 <Zakim> 2. Review of progress on Github issues https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Kenny]
14:33:15 <Zakim> 3. QRG Updates with Eric [from Kenny]
14:33:16 <Zakim> 4. WCAG Extension discussion [from Kenny]
14:45:55 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:29 <MichaelC> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0077.html
14:57:58 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
14:59:01 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
14:59:03 <laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
15:00:21 <MoeKraft> zakim, agenda+ WCAG meeting Schedule
15:00:21 <Zakim> agendum 5 added
15:00:59 <laura> present+ Laura
15:01:38 <Louis_Cheng> Louis_Cheng has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:44 <MoeKraft> zakim, what is on the agenda?
15:01:44 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:01:45 <Zakim> 1. WCAG meeting schedule reminder - there will be no meetings on 28th July, 4th August. [from Kenny]
15:01:45 <Zakim> 2. Review of progress on Github issues https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Kenny]
15:01:45 <Zakim> 3. QRG Updates with Eric [from Kenny]
15:01:45 <Zakim> 4. WCAG Extension discussion [from Kenny]
15:01:45 <Zakim> 5. WCAG meeting Schedule [from MoeKraft]
15:01:48 <Louis_Cheng> present+ Louis
15:01:58 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:02:27 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:33 <MoeKraft> Scribe nick Moekraft
15:02:54 <MoeKraft> Zakim, Scribe nick MoeKraft
15:02:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'Scribe nick MoeKraft', MoeKraft
15:03:19 <laura> Scribe: MoeKraft
15:03:39 <MoeKraft> Zakim, takeup next
15:03:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'takeup next', MoeKraft
15:04:11 <MoeKraft> Zakim, take up next agendum
15:04:11 <Zakim> agendum 1. "WCAG meeting schedule reminder - there will be no meetings on 28th July, 4th August." taken up [from Kenny]
15:05:16 <MoeKraft> Josh: On holidays. Will reconvene second week in August
15:05:48 <MoeKraft> Zakim, take up next agendum
15:05:48 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Review of progress on Github issues https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues" taken up [from Kenny]
15:06:12 <yatil> present+ EricE
15:06:18 <MoeKraft> Joshue: We have a few folks who have made progress. Laura and Wayne.
15:06:30 <MoeKraft> Laura: I have some proposed text for issue 5.
15:06:40 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Is this ready for survey?
15:07:09 <MoeKraft> Laura: Do not have permission to mark it ready. But yes, this item #105 is ready for survey
15:07:26 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Thank you Laura
15:07:43 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Did that go okay.
15:07:49 <MoeKraft> Laura: Yes
15:07:57 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Wayne, how about you?
15:08:36 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Item #78 was a general issue on low vision. It will be a great thing to bring up but we can table for now. Take a look at my comments.
15:08:37 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/105
15:09:01 <laura> 105 is ready for survey
15:09:05 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Itme #95 regarding Contrast for graphics could be turned into a technique. Let's send around on a survey
15:09:18 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:27 <Kathy> present+
15:10:11 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Action images with good contrast will be usable without being disruptive. This is a good technique. A lot harder to change than text on a background.
15:10:45 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:10:57 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/95
15:11:07 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Can we send this out as a survey.
15:11:23 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Yes. If you can write up technique we can send out to the group.
15:11:27 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:11:27 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
15:11:38 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Pretty clear what issue was
15:12:58 <MoeKraft> Wayne: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/103 is on Situation B. We do have ARIA techniques. My question is do we put forward the 23 techniques from the WG or are we particular and go to task force and go through these 1 by 1?
15:13:33 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Not aware of subgroup in Protocol and Formats. We did have an ARIA task force which will be revitalized soon.
15:14:04 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:14:05 <MoeKraft> Joshue: We will aggregate all techniques under one umbrella and identify which are advisory
15:14:29 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Situation B deals with Roles, Should we go ahead an suggest ARIA techniques which are pretty well defined. I think we should.
15:14:42 <MoeKraft> Wayne: I propose we put ARIA techniques in 4.1.2
15:15:05 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Go ahead. Whatever you see fit.
15:15:12 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Will do. And will send that out.
15:16:06 <MoeKraft> Wayne: How do you compute contrast with a gradient background? I think we should go ahead and publish as a technique.
15:16:19 <MoeKraft> Katie: Pick the lowest contrast and compare against that
15:16:39 <MoeKraft> Wayne: That's what we generally tell developers to do when we audit them.
15:16:49 <MoeKraft> Wayne: I will write this up in technique language
15:17:32 <MoeKraft> Katie: On a moving background usually an image, you want to test on a logical stopping point.
15:17:48 <yatil> q?
15:18:12 <MoeKraft> present+ MoeKraft
15:18:13 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:18:19 <David> Present+ David MacDonald
15:18:24 <Mike_Elledge> present+ Mike Elledge
15:18:33 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Anything else?
15:18:34 <yatil> s/id M/id_M/
15:18:35 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:18:58 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Stylistically, I should put this in a couple techniques to make palatable so we don't have a 7 part technique.
15:19:10 <MoeKraft> Katie: I already have some stuff written up
15:19:24 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Any other comments for Wayne? Thanks Wayne.
15:19:35 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Mike Elledge
15:20:37 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: Mostly wanted feedback on what I put into GitHub in response to one of the issues is helpful. Issue # 102
15:20:39 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/102
15:21:54 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
15:22:09 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: Situation when there is a refresh, auto redirect rarely provides information why the page is being redirected. Suggested this violates WCAG 2.2 but really WCAG 3.2 Change in Context
15:22:39 <Kenny> present+ kenny
15:22:44 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
15:22:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html laura
15:22:55 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: Before someone initiates an action, they are not told what will happen. If pressing a button takes you to a different page or website. I think 3.2 fits better with this rationale.
15:23:16 <MichaelC> chair: Joshue
15:23:21 <Ryladog> q+
15:23:25 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: How do we best show this in WCAG 2.0? This should be a failure when the user is not informed of the auto-redirect
15:23:33 <David> q+
15:24:19 <MoeKraft> Katie: I don't limit to one. 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.2.1
15:24:29 <yatil> ack ry
15:25:13 <MichaelC> present+ Joshue, Wayne
15:25:15 <MoeKraft> Katie: 2.2.1 time limit, 2.2.2 really just basic when content is moving causes disorientation, 3.2.1 change of context
15:25:41 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: Do we choose multiple checkpoints for a failure?
15:25:58 <yatil> q+ Josh
15:26:02 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Put under all relevant success criterion
15:26:09 <MoeKraft> ack David
15:26:38 <MoeKraft> David: 3.2.1 is on focus, is the page a component and is it receiving focus.
15:26:45 <MoeKraft> Katie: It's hijacking focus
15:27:17 <MoeKraft> David: It's making it not possible to receive focus.
15:28:05 <MoeKraft> David: Not sure we should map to 3.2.1, for example, if you tab forward and moved to a new place is what I think 3.2.1 is about. What is the summary of the issue?
15:28:23 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: Auto-redirect with no information provided, browser prevents it.
15:28:33 <MoeKraft> David: Right user does not know where to go
15:28:58 <MoeKraft> David: If the browser stops the redirect, everyone is punished equally
15:29:08 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Change of context here
15:29:13 <marcjohlic> +1 to what David is saying
15:29:15 <MoeKraft> ack Josh
15:29:27 <MoeKraft> Joshue: This would be something to note in your GitHub issue
15:30:00 <MoeKraft> David: Usually a result of input or focus trigger the the change of context. So how do we map auto-redirect to one of these?
15:30:12 <MoeKraft> Katie: Usually someone clicks to go to a new page
15:30:37 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: Someone clicks on a link. Give message: This will take you somewhere different.
15:30:51 <MoeKraft> David: This is not necessarily on the page.
15:31:04 <MoeKraft> Katie: Don't stick with page by page,
15:31:27 <MoeKraft> David: May not be on their own website. I really want to fail this just unsure of the mapping
15:31:30 <MoeKraft> q?
15:32:24 <MoeKraft> Joshue: This is an interesting discussion. There might be a 1 to 1 mapping. Mike, do you have enough to crack this issue? If not 1-1 but spread over a few SC. Are you any wiser after discussion?
15:33:06 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: I thought information be provided up front, but if interrupted, then this is another point where we should receive info. I would call it a failure on all 3 success criteria.
15:33:25 <MoeKraft> Mike_Elledge: But also acknowledge David's concern about not being on a page
15:33:35 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Anyone else?
15:33:40 <MoeKraft> q?
15:34:09 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Please use mail list if you have any questions
15:34:23 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Eric, are you on the call?
15:34:43 <MoeKraft> Zakim, take up next agendum
15:34:43 <Zakim> agendum 3. "QRG Updates with Eric" taken up [from Kenny]
15:35:04 <dboudreau> dboudreau has joined #wai-wcag
15:35:11 <yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/
15:35:26 <MoeKraft> Eric: Thank you. Just a quick update on the Quick Reference. I have worked a bit on this over the past 2 weeks.
15:36:01 <MoeKraft> Eric: Look at left navigation menu on larger screens. Can access filters pretty quickly. Result of feedback session.
15:36:17 <MoeKraft> Eric: Wanted filters more in focus for quicker access
15:36:19 <laura> s/issue 5./issue 105./
15:36:50 <MoeKraft> Eric: Got all the left navigation and with prominence and position should lead persons to appropriate filters.
15:37:03 <MoeKraft> Eric: Second change, success criteria layout. Now more spacious.
15:37:25 <MoeKraft> Eric: Thoughts to make it more distinct. Orient more easily.
15:37:54 <MoeKraft> Eric: Compact view of the success criteria. Button is positioned to the right.
15:37:57 <Ryladog> Looks very nice Eric!!
15:38:41 <MoeKraft> Eric: Third change, Techniques layout, 1.1.1 e.g. to show techniques for this criteria you now have checkboxes to show and hide content and compact the view
15:39:28 <MoeKraft> Eric: On left in filter column we have built in possibility to select techniques e.g. advisory techniques & failures or technologies, can change on individual success criteria
15:39:43 <MoeKraft> Eric: Much easier than before
15:40:24 <MoeKraft> Eric: Other minor changes, top notification bar, people will be notified when they change the filters, could be more prominent
15:40:33 <MoeKraft> Eric: Also minor editions to styling
15:40:42 <MoeKraft> Eric: Will work on Mobile browsers
15:40:57 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
15:41:04 <Wayne> Wayne Dick
15:41:28 <yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/issues/
15:41:29 <MoeKraft> Eric: IF you have any comments or questions speak up now or look at issues on GitHub or create new ones
15:41:34 <Wayne> q
15:41:35 <MoeKraft> q?
15:41:36 <yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues/new
15:41:39 <David> q+
15:41:43 <MoeKraft> q?
15:41:54 <MoeKraft> ack David
15:42:03 <MoeKraft> David: I really like it
15:42:20 <MoeKraft> David: Question about choice on tabbed interfaces
15:42:51 <MoeKraft> David: When you select content and hit tab key the next stop is filter and then contents. With tab stops should take you inside content.
15:42:59 <MoeKraft> Eric: No conscious decision right now.
15:43:21 <MoeKraft> Eric: We want some consistency. Filter first and then content. Since it is short navigation it should be fine.
15:43:46 <MoeKraft> Eric: If we use ARIA and make it clear things have changed
15:44:50 <MoeKraft> David: I like what you've done but there is definitely 2 camps on whether to use tab or arrow keys
15:45:41 <MoeKraft> Eric: We have to think about desktop metaphors from the Web as introduced by ARIA. Use ARIA to show it's a menu. You basically have to adopt the arrow key functionality as well. Need to use JavaScript from ground up.
15:45:51 <Wayne> q+
15:46:04 <MoeKraft> Eric: Can get very messy. This simple approach shouldn't be a problem if we communicate clearly.
15:46:18 <MoeKraft> David: Any one else have opinions on this?
15:46:51 <MoeKraft> Joshue: Several blind uses I know do not understand the tabbed interface metaphor. Maybe not a successful pattern.
15:46:56 <MoeKraft> q?
15:47:36 <MoeKraft> Wayne: I know that in a lot of schools for the blind in the US, they focus on using the arrow key in preference to the tab key. So yes, it is a problem.
15:48:01 <MoeKraft> David: My understand is that you are moving down the page using the arrow key,
15:48:55 <MoeKraft> Wayne: In practice, there are other ways to use tab key and children are not being trained to do that. This is what we ran into when we did accessible high stakes testing. Alot of folks are trained to depend on arrow key.
15:49:03 <MoeKraft> Wayne: It's a difficult problem
15:49:05 <MoeKraft> q?
15:49:07 <yatil> ack w
15:50:58 <yatil> Zakim, take up next
15:50:58 <Zakim> agendum 4. "WCAG Extension discussion" taken up [from Kenny]
15:52:13 <Wayne> Scribe:nic
15:52:22 <Wayne> Scribe, Nick
15:52:24 <yatil> Scribe: Wayne
15:52:39 <yatil> s/Scribe:nic//
15:52:48 <yatil> s/Scribe, Nick//
15:53:20 <yatil> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:53:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html yatil
15:54:07 <Wayne> Josh: Extensions: 3 Points of Interest in IRC
15:54:14 <yatil> s/Wayne Dick/present+ Wayne Dick/
15:54:17 <MichaelC>  - can extensions modify WCAG 2.0 SC
15:54:17 <MichaelC> - must conformance to WCAG plus extension be backwards compatible with WCAG without extension
15:54:17 <MichaelC> - can extensions conflict with each other
15:54:23 <MoeKraft_> MoeKraft_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:54:37 <yatil> s/ne D/ne_D/
15:54:46 <Wayne> Josh: Should extensions modify existing criteria.
15:55:29 <Wayne> Josh: Identify extensions that can be done through success criteria.
15:55:39 <David> q+
15:56:38 <Wayne> Michael: the WCAG + extensions is backward compatable
15:57:12 <MichaelC> s/the WCAG/question of whether the WCAG/
15:58:34 <Wayne> David: Extnsions should add to WCAG not decrease WCAG difficulty.
15:59:33 <laura> +1
15:59:52 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:32 <marcjohlic> rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html marcjohlic
16:00:37 <Wayne> MichaelC : Questions are interrelated. Changing WCAG may change. Should we just add or change. Can we override existing criteria.
16:01:16 <Wayne> Josh: Can extension WCAG.
16:01:22 <Wayne> David: Yes
16:01:37 <laura> s/Extnsions/Extensions/
16:02:33 <David> Wayne: Important issue, what we consider A11y support. Screen Mag is not sufficient a11y support
16:03:20 <David> Wayne: so WCAG has nothing apart from that for a11y
16:03:31 <David> Scribe: David
16:03:45 <MichaelC> q+
16:04:17 <David> Wayne: can't navigate the DOM with magnifier
16:04:59 <David> Wayne: SC work 2 ways ... 1) AT 2) does it exist
16:05:20 <David> Michael: A11y support... if there is no tool we can't have a SC
16:05:48 <David> Wayne: proposal to merge WCAG and UA WG, approach armonized
16:05:58 <MichaelC> ack me
16:06:09 <David> Michael: but fr us, if there is no tool we can't donanything
16:06:25 <David> Joshue: It's an assistive technology issue
16:07:21 <laura> Wayne: Responsive design will do the job. It is the AT for low vision.
16:07:46 <David> Wayne: AT exists, ...
16:08:02 <David> Wayne: Responsive design is an AT
16:08:24 <David> Michael: well that is not AT, it's a technology technique
16:09:21 <David> Michael: there may be candidate techniquesto require...
16:09:36 <David> scribe: Wayne
16:09:58 <Wayne> Josh: There are two other issues
16:10:01 <MoeKraft_> q?
16:10:01 <David> q?
16:10:03 <Wayne> q?
16:10:12 <David> ack david
16:10:42 <MichaelC> to clarify, I am saying responsive design is not an AT, it is an authoring technique - but its existence means there are ways to meet the SC, so we´re back in ¨accessibility supported¨ territory
16:10:56 <MichaelC> and therefore can have a reasonable authoring guideline
16:10:57 <Wayne> Josh: Second question must conformance + the extension be backwards compatible with WCAG
16:11:57 <Ryladog> +1 to Davids proposals
16:12:07 <laura> +1
16:12:17 <Wayne> MichaelC: Extensions must be harder so backwards compatibility holds.  We  can make conformance harder not easier.
16:12:34 <MichaelC> s/MichaelC/David/
16:13:30 <laura> q+
16:13:46 <Wayne> MichaelC: Do we support backwards compatible.  Is it a goal.
16:15:08 <MichaelC> q+
16:15:21 <Wayne> Josh: An extension by its nature may not be backwards compatible. If it addresses some new need.
16:15:23 <Makoto> q+
16:15:27 <Wayne> q+
16:16:09 <Wayne> Laura: Unless there is some thing we are not think of at this time.
16:17:08 <David> q+
16:17:19 <MichaelC> ack l
16:17:21 <MichaelC> ack mi
16:17:45 <MichaelC> ack m
16:17:46 <Wayne> MichaelC: Example: Provide multi media but don't privide alternate text.
16:18:06 <Wayne> MichaelC: this would nullify alt-tex.
16:18:52 <Wayne> q+
16:20:06 <MichaelC> ack w
16:21:31 <MichaelC> ack d
16:22:26 <Wayne> David: That really gets in the way. A show / hide model . Nothing can interfer with conformance.
16:22:33 <Wayne> +1
16:23:15 <laura> WCAG is a prequisite to extensions
16:23:17 <Wayne> David: Extensions cannot invalidate WCAG.
16:23:40 <Wayne> Josh: Can extensions conflict?
16:23:51 <David> q+
16:24:01 <MichaelC> q+
16:24:10 <MichaelC> ack d
16:24:33 <Wayne> David: No. Success Criteria conflict.
16:25:19 <MichaelC> ack me
16:25:25 <Wayne> David: We cannot have them conflict with each other. Techniques that cannot can manage conflicting needs.
16:25:48 <Kathy> q+
16:26:29 <Wayne> MichaelC: We might run into extension A is important and extension B will break us.  We need to be careful.
16:26:41 <Kathy> ack me
16:27:34 <Wayne> Kathy: Agree in principle in stable WCAG. What change priority level.  Can we change the priority level.
16:28:17 <Wayne> MichaelC: Using the metric harder extensions only.
16:28:29 <Wayne> sorry Michael I got lost.
16:29:03 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:30:06 <Ryladog> q+
16:30:06 <Wayne> Makoto: The next japanese Standard (JIS) will be the Japanese translation of WCAG 2.0
16:31:09 <Wayne> Makoto: I'd like WCAG 2.0 to be stable. However, once and extension will be published, we (JIS) might need to do something for the international harmonization.
16:31:26 <MichaelC> ack m
16:31:30 <laura> q+
16:31:43 <MichaelC> zakim, close queue
16:31:43 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC, the speaker queue is closed
16:32:27 <MichaelC> ack r
16:32:32 <Wayne> Mike_Elledge: It will be helpful to provide context for the extensions with respect to how it sets with WCAG 2.0
16:32:55 <Wayne> Katy: Change priority could change WCAG.
16:33:11 <MichaelC> ack l
16:33:54 <Wayne> Laura: To avoid conflicts between extensions.  Have all extension groups coordinate extensions.
16:34:00 <laura> Avoid conflicts between extensions. One idea: each TF could review all other extensions.
16:34:06 <David> eric... where is the github issue list for the how to meet...
16:34:22 <yatil> s/eric... where is the github issue list for the how to meet...//
16:35:11 <Wayne> Josh: We must put these comments on the survey.  Could these 3 issues be converted to principles.
16:36:02 <MoeKraft_> rrsagent, make minutes
16:36:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html MoeKraft_
16:36:15 <marcjohlic> trackbot, end meeting
16:36:15 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:36:15 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:36:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:36:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:36:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:36:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items