15:53:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:53:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-wai-wcag-irc
15:53:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:53:21 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:53:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:53:22 <trackbot> Date: 15 December 2015
15:53:26 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:53:26 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:53:27 <Zakim> 1. Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122 [from Kenny]
15:53:27 <Zakim> 2. Walkthru and status update of current issues [from Kenny]
15:53:27 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
15:54:18 <Joshue108> agenda+
15:54:18 <Joshue108>   1. The COGA TF would appreciate the working groups feedback on two proposals for pulling together all the information from the COGA into a readable/digestible summary for the purposes of gap analysis. [1]
15:54:18 <Joshue108> 
15:54:18 <Joshue108>  [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Proposal_review/
15:54:51 <Joshue108> agenda+ The COGA TF would appreciate the working groups feedback on two proposals for pulling together all the information from the COGA into a readable/digestible summary for the purposes of gap analysis
15:54:56 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:54:56 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:54:57 <Zakim> 1. Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122 [from Kenny]
15:54:57 <Zakim> 2. Walkthru and status update of current issues [from Kenny]
15:54:57 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
15:54:58 <Zakim> 5. The COGA TF would appreciate the working groups feedback on two proposals for pulling together all the information from the COGA into a readable/digestible summary for the
15:54:58 <Zakim> ... purposes of gap analysis [from Joshue108]
15:55:50 <david> david has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:23 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:42 <AWK> ZAkim, agenda?
15:58:42 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:58:43 <Zakim> 1. Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122 [from Kenny]
15:58:43 <Zakim> 2. Walkthru and status update of current issues [from Kenny]
15:58:43 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
15:58:44 <Zakim> 5. The COGA TF would appreciate the working groups feedback on two proposals for pulling together all the information from the COGA into a readable/digestible summary for the
15:58:44 <Zakim> ... purposes of gap analysis [from Joshue108]
15:59:20 <Joshue108> zakim, drop item 1
15:59:20 <Zakim> agendum 1, Discussion on 'Checkbox and Radio button labels and 1.3.1' https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/122, dropped
16:00:25 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
16:00:55 <AWK> RRSAgent, set logs public
16:01:01 <Jan> Jan has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:10 <AWK> Chair: Joshue
16:01:12 <AWK> +AWK
16:01:15 <AWK> +Joshue
16:01:21 <AWK> +Wayne
16:02:09 <AWK> Agenda+ meetings and timelines
16:02:23 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:38 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:49 <laura> present+ Laura
16:04:56 <MichaelC> Why is it that WebEx is extra unresponsive just when you´re running late?
16:05:09 <Wayne> wayne+
16:06:28 <Kurt> Kurt has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:31 <Wayne> scribenick: wayne
16:06:33 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
16:06:47 <Wayne> Scribenick: wayne
16:06:47 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:06:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
16:07:37 <Wayne> zakim, next item
16:07:37 <Zakim> agendum 3. "AOB from last week" taken up [from Kenny]
16:08:21 <david> just got connected...
16:08:21 <Wayne> zakim, item 6
16:08:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'item 6', Wayne
16:08:32 <Joshue108> zakim, take up item 6
16:08:32 <Zakim> agendum 6. "meetings and timelines" taken up [from AWK]
16:09:47 <Wayne> Josh: No Meeting for the next 3 week, Next meeting Jan 5
16:10:54 <Wayne> AWK: To follow w3c publications schedule: First we publish erata then Techniques with final changes.
16:11:50 <Wayne> AWK: Our plan is so we can have a survey out in three weeks. This is so all is back from CSUN.
16:12:08 <adam_solomon> adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
16:12:20 <Joshue108> zakim, take up item 5
16:12:20 <Zakim> agendum 5. "The COGA TF would appreciate the working groups feedback on two proposals for pulling together all the information from the COGA into a readable/digestible summary for
16:12:24 <Zakim> ... the purposes of gap analysis" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:12:36 <adam_solomon> the password wcag for webex doesnt work for me - is it correct?
16:12:43 <AWK> s/First we publish erata then Techniques with final changes/First we publish extension requirements document draft then Techniques and understanding docs with final changes
16:12:53 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Proposal_review/
16:13:34 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:13:56 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:14:07 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:14:19 <JF> present+ JF
16:14:59 <david> me
16:15:10 <Wayne> Josh: The COGA group asked for review of documents. The summary format is most popular.
16:15:19 <Mike_Elledge> budgies!
16:16:41 <Rakesh> Rakesh has joined #wai-wcag
16:17:00 <Rakesh> rakesh
16:17:06 <Jan> JR: BUT I wonder if the table headings could be improved. I suggest:
16:17:08 <Jan> - split up "HTML" and "Content". HTML should cover programmatic practices (e.g. use of <label>) while "Content" would be more about page organization.
16:17:09 <Jan> - I think information for "User Agent (and UA extensions)" fall into "Operating System/Other" so maybe call that out (e.g. "User Agents, UA extensions, OS, etc.") or if you don't agree perhaps make a new column for user agent information.
16:17:11 <Jan> - Would a column on "Authoring Tool advice" be a useful addition? How could authoring tools help to manage and automate these new considerations?
16:17:31 <Wayne> Jan:  Table had the advantage of studying a particular colum.
16:18:48 <david> ihear josh perfectly and very clear
16:20:07 <Jan> Scribe: Jan
16:20:33 <Jan> AWK: Likes separate table...
16:20:54 <Jan> AWK: Helps to be able to break things up into chunks...just a personal preference
16:21:08 <Jan> AWK: Agree with Jan
16:21:16 <Jan> JO: Sitting on fence...
16:21:23 <Jan> JO: Big table is definitely out
16:21:36 <Jan> JO: They have a huge amount of content
16:21:52 <Jan> AWK: Does anyone have a really strong opinion...
16:22:03 <Jan> AWK: Or is everyone on the fence
16:22:23 <Jan> WD: I think there needs to be a summary that could also have a table
16:22:31 <Jan> JO: Augmented table sounds good
16:23:01 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
16:23:01 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:23:03 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
16:23:03 <Zakim> 5. The COGA TF would appreciate the working groups feedback on two proposals for pulling together all the information from the COGA into a readable/digestible summary for the
16:23:03 <Zakim> ... purposes of gap analysis [from Joshue108]
16:23:04 <Zakim> 6. meetings and timelines [from AWK]
16:23:14 <AWK> Zakim, close item 6
16:23:14 <Zakim> agendum 6, meetings and timelines, closed
16:23:15 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:23:15 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
16:24:48 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/124
16:25:07 <Jan> Topic: WCAG Github issues
16:25:54 <Jan> AWK: LW proposed SVG SC for 1.4.5 (text in images)
16:26:03 <Jan> JO: Sounds good to me
16:26:14 <Joshue108> q?
16:26:15 <Jan> +1
16:26:23 <Jan> JO: Any objections?
16:26:34 <marcjohlic> +1 to having Leonie write up the SVG technique!
16:26:38 <JF> +1
16:26:41 <Wayne> +1
16:26:47 <laura> +1
16:26:58 <Jan> JO: All agree
16:27:19 <yatil> present+ EricE
16:27:32 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/121
16:28:14 <Jan> JO, AWK: Quick discussion of item 122
16:28:53 <Jan> Topic: New WCAG Failure technique (121)
16:29:08 <Jan> JO: Sounds like a good idea
16:29:36 <Jan> AWK: Anyone would like to take this on?
16:29:41 <Joshue108> q?
16:29:53 <Jan> MJ: I'll take it
16:30:12 <Jan> AWK: Assigned to Mark
16:30:47 <Jan> Topic: WCAG Issue 114
16:30:51 <Jan> AWK: Done
16:30:55 <Jan> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/114
16:31:07 <Jan> Topic: WCAG Issue 113
16:31:24 <Jan> AWK: We're waiting to hear from ARIA group?
16:31:56 <Joshue108> q?
16:31:58 <Jan> AWK: There is some disagreement...some people say adding search semantic overrides native sematics...otrhers say it tightens them
16:32:08 <Jan> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/113
16:32:32 <Jan> JO: Rich has responded that there is nothing inherently wrong with applying Search to form
16:32:54 <Jan> DM: Why is it necessary?
16:33:07 <Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA11.html#ARIA11-ex4
16:34:01 <Jan> JR: What about what Leone suggests?
16:34:07 <Jan> JO: OK
16:34:15 <Jan> AWK: OK but is the other way bad?
16:34:38 <Jan> AWK: Should the validator throw an error?
16:35:02 <Jan> DM: I think we have it covered?
16:35:08 <Jan> DM: In ARIA 1.1
16:35:18 <Jan> DM: Are they introducing a new search role?
16:35:27 <Jan> JO: What's the issue here?
16:35:56 <Jan> JO: I think we just eave this open unless we get new info?
16:36:01 <Jan> DM: MC?
16:36:18 <Jan> DM: In ARIA are they introducing a new search role?
16:36:33 <Jan> MC: There's a role of search that goes on the form element
16:36:48 <Jan> MC: I'll take a look
16:37:02 <Jan> MC: What do you mean?
16:37:12 <Jan> DM: I saw in a blog post by SSB
16:37:22 <Jan> DM: By Bryan.
16:37:45 <Jan> MC: Search role goes on the form, search-box goes on the control
16:38:18 <Jan> MC: So the search is the landmark, the searchbox is just the control
16:38:39 <Jan> JR: Isn't MC answering this...."search role goes on form element"
16:38:49 <Jan> MC: search role goes on form element
16:39:07 <Jan> AWK: We say it can go on form element or a parent element
16:39:28 <Jan> MC: It can be on the parent but only if parent has nothing non-search related in it
16:39:52 <MichaelC> <div id=¨search¨ role=¨search¨><form action=¨search¨><input type=¨search¨/></form></div>
16:39:54 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:40:11 <MichaelC> <form action=¨search¨ id=¨search¨ role=¨search¨><input type=¨search¨/></form>
16:40:13 <MichaelC> both are ok
16:40:25 <david> yes
16:40:27 <Jan> MC: So user need is as a navigation landmark?
16:40:33 <david> it shows up in the landmarks
16:40:35 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:40:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:40:39 <david> that's right
16:40:51 <david> that works
16:41:01 <Jan> s/MC/JO
16:41:03 <jamesn> present+ JamesNurthen
16:41:11 <david> got it
16:41:14 <Jan> MC: AT user can bring up a list of landmarks, etc
16:41:19 <Jan> JO: James?
16:41:41 <Jan> AWK: Is it ok to use role=search on form
16:41:59 <Jan> James: Yes it should be ok, but our spec should clarify that
16:42:44 <Jan> MC: Yes, ARIA spec should clarify.
16:43:03 <Jan> James: Right, you're overriding something that doesn't really have any semantics
16:43:30 <Jan> MC: OK, then its an ARIA issue. WCAG has to wait for them
16:43:57 <Joshue108> q?
16:44:12 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:44:47 <david> q+
16:44:58 <Jan> AWK: Maybe we should propose a response...this is allowed by the spec...unless we feel strongly that it overrides native semantics, then we let this one be...we should flag this for validator people to no longer flag this as warning
16:45:09 <jamesn> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/
16:45:20 <Jan> MC: So leaving this agrees with ARIA, but disagrees with HTML
16:46:51 <Jan> James: In ARIA in HTML, it says only allows global aria attributes on form elements...so roles not allowed.
16:47:33 <Jan> AWK: We could also say that Leonie provides a valid way of doing this...
16:47:44 <Joshue108> q?
16:47:54 <Jan> James: Anyone have a link to the ARIA thread
16:47:55 <MichaelC> q+
16:48:03 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/113
16:48:07 <Jan> AWK: Discussion in 113 thread
16:48:34 <Jan> MC: I should point out that ARIA in HTML is not a spec-track doc
16:48:44 <Jan> MC: And doesn't seem to rule it out
16:49:10 <Jan> DM: It's not that you can't override...but use native semantics when possible
16:49:37 <Jan> MC: For element doesn't have a native semantic...invisible to accessibility API
16:49:50 <Jan> FORM element
16:50:03 <Jan> MC: So not overriding, it's just extending
16:50:06 <jamesn> q+
16:50:19 <Jan> MC: Of course we wouldn't want to block it working as a form
16:50:35 <jamesn> This is from the ARIA in HTML document
16:50:59 <jamesn> "Documents must not use any role values with elements in the Document conformance requirements for use of ARIA attributes in HTML table, other than the corresponding role value (if any) as listed for that element in the third column,	other than those indicated in the second column, which should not be used."
16:51:12 <Jan> AWK: I think the intermediate position until we have clear advice...is to use Leonie's xample instead of current example
16:51:45 <Jan> MC: From what I've now seen, our example seems ok
16:51:58 <Jan> MC: ARIA needs a note on this
16:52:17 <Jan> James: Steve's document has this....
16:52:18 <jamesn> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/
16:52:54 <Jan> MC: OK this is different....it's normative rec track
16:53:33 <Jan> James: In a table in chapter 3...
16:53:41 <Joshue108> q?
16:53:49 <david> contact Steve F..
16:53:51 <Jan> James: Does not seem to allow this role
16:53:55 <david> q-
16:53:57 <MichaelC> ack me
16:54:08 <Jan> MC: OK so, this does need to be taking up with them as the ARIA group
16:54:42 <Jan> MC: I would recommend WCAG take the path of least resistance and leave example alone
16:54:53 <Joshue108> ack james
16:54:56 <jamesn> ack me
16:55:18 <Jan> WD: This is what drives developers crazy
16:55:37 <Jan> WD: If they use our code and get a warning
16:56:12 <Jan> MC: Validator is at fault, because it follows a spec that's at fault, but WCAG advice appears to be correct
16:56:13 <jamesn> Logged https://github.com/w3c/html-aria/issues/18
16:56:32 <Jan> DM: Maybe tweet Steve on this
16:57:04 <Jan> James: Better to log bug and then tweet that
16:57:27 <Jan> MC: Best not to try to use twitter to track bugs
16:57:58 <Jan> JO: OK, should we have Leonie's advice added
16:58:08 <AWK> proposed response: The best judgement of the Working Group is that the validator is at fault in this situation.  Currently, the WG does not believe that this example is overriding native semantics and provides useful functionality at present, but if normative information demonstrates that this is incorrect we will modify the example.
17:00:39 <AWK> Scribe: Laura
17:01:38 <laura> AWK: Think it is technologies. Don’t think we need role on it.
17:02:21 <laura> AWK: We don’t really know. So we should leave it alone.
17:02:51 <Joshue108> q?
17:02:51 <laura> JOC: Okay
17:02:53 <Wayne> +1
17:02:54 <Joshue108> +1 to AWK
17:02:57 <laura> +1
17:03:01 <Mike_Elledge> +1
17:04:11 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/106
17:04:32 <laura> AWK: Not sure what 106 is asking.
17:05:38 <laura> Wayne: Is this related to CMS’s?
17:05:49 <laura> JOC: not sure
17:06:29 <laura> AWK: need to follow up with requestor.
17:06:52 <david> david has joined #wai-wcag
17:07:21 <david> #99 I still need to add an example...
17:07:46 <Joshue108> q?
17:08:17 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/95
17:08:58 <laura> Wayne: Will put in low vision use cases.
17:09:12 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/92
17:09:25 <laura> David: Is working on it.
17:09:44 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/91
17:10:45 <laura> AWK: We were thinking of moving to another location.
17:11:18 <laura> David: Perhaps remove the links and leave them as text.
17:11:45 <laura> AWK: Maybe move them to a best practice page.
17:11:58 <Wayne> q+
17:12:11 <laura> Michael: Made a Wiki page on it.
17:14:11 <laura> Michael: Found a lot of duplicates, some we should write up, some should go on a best practice doc.
17:15:08 <laura> Wayne: we have a soultion for 95 and could go on the survey.
17:15:29 <laura> AWK: take a look at it again.
17:15:48 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/87
17:16:02 <laura> AWK: Ongoing need for this.
17:16:50 <laura> AWK: Will get back to it. Help welcome.
17:17:36 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/78
17:18:07 <laura> AWK: Turn over to low vision task force.
17:19:02 <laura> AWK: 70 and 71 Josh will look at.
17:20:09 <laura> AWK: We did CFC on 122.
17:20:55 <laura> …question on what contitutes a form label.
17:21:46 <laura> …can we meet 412 without on of the recomended methods.
17:21:59 <laura> JOC: yes.
17:22:23 <laura> Wayne: We should be very careful so AT can find it.
17:22:26 <jamesn> q+
17:23:11 <Joshue108> ack wayne
17:23:14 <Joshue108> ack james
17:23:26 <laura> AWK: Get rid of the failure technique?
17:23:42 <laura> James: Not sure.
17:23:51 <AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F68.html
17:24:51 <laura> James: potentially Place holder could be used.
17:24:56 <jamesn> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aapi/#input-type-text-input-type-password-input-type-search-input-type-tel-input-type-url-and-textarea-element
17:25:18 <Mike_Elledge> q+
17:25:22 <JF> +1 to James' point
17:25:37 <laura> James: map directly to: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aapi/#input-type-text-input-type-password-input-type-search-input-type-tel-input-type-url-and-textarea-element
17:25:55 <david> placeholder does not persist after focus visually
17:26:23 <laura> Joc: concerned that we break other stuff.
17:27:24 <AWK> Placeholder could fail 3.3.2 if the field is filled in
17:27:47 <laura> Wayne: placeholder should be a contrast failure.
17:28:07 <laura> Wayne: should be called out.
17:28:50 <laura> James: doesn’t fail 412
17:29:24 <laura> Joc: don’t want to be percriptive.
17:31:39 <laura> AWK : AT support is the lacking in implicit methods. Devs will have to do more testing.
17:31:47 <AWK> We aren't going to come to a conclusion, but thanks to all for thinking about it
17:32:07 <laura> JOC: May have to loosen some things to allow progress.
17:33:14 <laura> AWK: Think about it and we will figure out what we want to do.
17:33:28 <Kurt> +Kurt
17:33:30 <Mike_Elledge> +Mike Elledge
17:33:36 <Wayne> +waume
17:33:43 <Mike_Elledge> Have a great holiday, all!
17:33:44 <Wayne> +sayne
17:33:48 <laura> JOC & AWK: Thanks to all have a great .
17:33:50 <Wayne> +wayne
17:34:04 <laura> JOC & AWK: Thanks to all have a great break.
17:34:09 <AWK> Trackbot, end meeting
17:34:09 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:34:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Srini, JF, Laura, EricE, Jan, Joshue108, Kenny, marcjohlic, DavidMacDonald, MichaelC, Wayne, JamesNurthen, Kurt, waume, sayne
17:34:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:34:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:34:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:34:18 <RRSAgent> I see no action items