14:45:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:45:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/26-wai-wcag-irc
14:45:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:45:18 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
14:45:20 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:45:20 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:45:21 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:45:21 <trackbot> Date: 26 April 2016
14:45:27 <AWK> Zakim,a genda?
14:45:28 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, AWK.
14:45:31 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
14:45:31 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:46:52 <AWK> agenda+ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results
14:47:06 <AWK> agenda+ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160412_misc/results
14:47:50 <AWK> agenda+ discussion on pixels and points
14:52:50 <KimD> KimD has joined #wai-wcag
14:55:32 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:34 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:16 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:29 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:53 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
14:58:44 <AWK> +AWK
14:59:17 <David> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5.4#Proposed_2.5.4
14:59:38 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:58 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:06 <yatil> present+ EricE
15:01:08 <AWK> Scribe: Sarah_Swierenga
15:01:18 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:30 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:31 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:55 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:01:55 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:01:57 <Zakim> 1. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results [from AWK]
15:01:57 <Zakim> 2. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160412_misc/results [from AWK]
15:01:57 <Zakim> 3. discussion on pixels and points [from AWK]
15:03:02 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:24 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:03:42 <AWK> Chair: AWK
15:04:18 <laura> present+ Laura
15:04:42 <AWK> Mobile TF on agenda next week
15:04:55 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:04:55 <Joshue108> JF could you mute, I'm getting the helicopters again!
15:04:57 <KimD> present+ KimD
15:05:13 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:05:14 <JF> Present+ JF
15:05:17 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:05:20 <Greg> present +Greg_Lowney
15:05:27 <AWK> +John_Kirkpwood
15:05:28 <SarahHorton> present+ SarahH
15:05:29 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:05:35 <AWK> -John_Kirkpwood
15:05:40 <AWK> -John_Kirkwood
15:05:41 <David> present+ David_MacDonald
15:05:47 <Mike_Elledge> present+ Mike_Elledge
15:06:05 <AWK> +John_Kirkwood
15:06:05 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:06:53 <Sarah_Swierenga> zakim, take up item 1
15:06:53 <Zakim> agendum 1. "https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results" taken up [from AWK]
15:07:28 <Sarah_Swierenga> TOPIC: Issue 167
15:07:56 <Kirkwood_> Kirkwood_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:08:17 <Kirkwood_> +kirkwood
15:09:00 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: don't use aria if html will do. we want to make sure we use html first.
15:09:00 <AWK> -John_Kirkwood
15:09:22 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/179/files?diff=split
15:10:15 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: in order to indicate all of the aria techniques that may relate, we need to include about half of the techniquest
15:10:51 <Sarah_Swierenga> .awk: could put aria techniques as a related resource, especially since there will be a high degree of overlap.
15:11:15 <Sarah_Swierenga> david; if we hadn't already done the work, we could keep that.
15:11:43 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk; concerned that it could be a distraction
15:12:32 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: challenging to stage this in github. have people had a chance to really look at this?
15:12:50 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:13:31 <Sarah_Swierenga> sarahhorton: it is challenging. from the survey, it seemed that we were going to include the aria info, but not in the table. requests clarification.
15:14:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: aria info will not be in the table, but provide related techniques that connect to the aria techniques. input types are reflected in the table.
15:14:23 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
15:14:38 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: reading only and disabled states are included in the table
15:15:01 <laura> q+
15:15:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: much more comprehensive than it was before
15:15:24 <AWK> ack m
15:15:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> mike: looked at it in a text editor. lots of valuable info. is the concern that it might be overwhelming?
15:16:20 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: concerned about getting everything in, but not messing it up somewhere
15:16:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> mike: seems good to me
15:16:33 <AWK> ack l
15:17:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> alistairc: is it possible to put an 'output' version?
15:18:13 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: more work. had hoped that github could render it, but it's a lot of work. recommends copying the content to a wiki page and then point people there.
15:18:39 <Sarah_Swierenga> laura: thanks for doing this, andrew. are we going to have to do this for the future techniques, too?
15:19:13 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: optimistically hopefully that they are mostly included now
15:19:42 <Mike_Elledge> +1
15:19:55 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: call for consensus
15:20:44 <Sarah_Swierenga> RESOLUTION: accepted full request 179 as proposed
15:21:00 <AWK> s/full request/pull request
15:21:32 <Sarah_Swierenga> TOPIC: Issue 165
15:23:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: suggested changing text in the procedure, e.g., for each data table with text that serves as a caption. should verify that the caption is part of the element
15:25:39 <Sarah_Swierenga> josh: page 39, issue 165, forget about his comment
15:26:54 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: main point of comment is that not all tables need a caption
15:27:34 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: proposing to change the technique procedure so that it recognizes the association more clearly.
15:27:38 <AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H39.html
15:28:26 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
15:28:31 <jnurthen> jnurthen has joined #wai-wcag
15:29:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: can we just accept the recommendation?
15:30:51 <Greg> q+
15:30:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: concerns about accepting the proposed changes?
15:31:07 <jnurthen> rrsagent, make minutes
15:31:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html jnurthen
15:32:03 <jnurthen> rrsagent, make log world
15:32:09 <jnurthen> rrsagent, make minutes
15:32:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html jnurthen
15:34:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: proposed changes specify the full procedure
15:34:10 <Joshue108> I'm struggling to see the next gain of this change tbh
15:36:55 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: people want techniques that are testable, even by machines
15:37:48 <AWK> q?
15:37:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: fundamentally disagree with making changes in all of these techniques.
15:38:04 <Greg> q-
15:38:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> josh: what is the next gain of making these changes?
15:39:14 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:39:16 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: do we need to make the change? must make the change?
15:40:28 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: maybe making the change would be practical
15:40:37 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:40:55 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
15:41:21 <AWK> Proposed response: The Working Group is declining to make a change.  The technique is about the use of the caption element and it does not require that all tables use a caption element, it just defines how to make proper use of the caption element  for tables with a visible caption.
15:41:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: can draft the response: the techniques are not required, but the success criterion is required.
15:43:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
15:43:58 <Mike_Elledge> +1
15:44:12 <David> This approach is consistent with our other techniqes. The tests are required to meet the technique but the technique is not required to meet the SC
15:44:24 <jnurthen> q+ to ask about H91
15:44:24 <Joshue108> +1 to david and AWKS response.
15:44:35 <JF> +1
15:44:42 <Joshue108> zakim, q?
15:44:42 <Zakim> I see Mike_Elledge, jnurthen on the speaker queue
15:44:45 <Ryladog> +1
15:44:55 <KimD> +1
15:45:05 <Makoto> +1
15:45:21 <AWK> ack mi
15:45:39 <Sarah_Swierenga> mike: satisfied with the proposed changes
15:45:42 <laura> +1
15:46:15 <Sarah_Swierenga> RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response
15:46:26 <AWK> ack james
15:46:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> James: h91 edit question - added role
15:47:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: what does role mean here?
15:47:55 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: how does one test for this on different platforms? we should be referring to the role mapping document. this is not correct.
15:48:23 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: not correct everywhere
15:48:47 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:48:47 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:48:48 <Zakim> 1. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results [from AWK]
15:48:48 <Zakim> 2. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160412_misc/results [from AWK]
15:48:48 <Zakim> 3. discussion on pixels and points [from AWK]
15:48:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: that's why it wasn't specifically mentioned in the test procedure.
15:49:00 <Joshue108> agenda+ WCAG.Next Models update from JF
15:50:48 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: suggests leaving the roles in the table, but be consistent in choosing which role is being used.
15:51:14 <AWK> TOPIC: H91 again
15:51:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: For each instance, check that the role is an equivalent platform role to the one in the table.
15:52:18 <AWK> For each instance of the link or control check that a platform role equivalent to the role indicated in the table is used  (needs edit)
15:53:01 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: recommends revisiting the issue, and sending it around for comment again.
15:53:17 <Sarah_Swierenga> TOPIC: Issue 158
15:53:59 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: have a pull request from James.
15:54:07 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/174/commits/51dc61457402e3cf59dad71e1f1e2fda12178822?diff=split
15:55:24 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: update links to 1.1 version. links to external code examples will point to something that will get updated eventually
15:55:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: removes the link to the primer completely
15:56:04 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: concerns about pointing to a working draft?
15:56:19 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: 1.0 is still a draft, so actually no different
15:56:38 <Sarah_Swierenga> josh: 1.1 is a good draft
15:56:58 <Joshue108> q?
15:58:43 <jnurthen> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.1/#exampletree
15:59:32 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: takes her to the example
16:00:02 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: safari doesn't take you to the right spot, but chrome does
16:00:09 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: the anchor is correct
16:00:37 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: should take user to A3.1
16:00:43 <alastairc> no objection
16:00:47 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:00:48 <Joshue108> +1 to accept
16:00:53 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to accept
16:01:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> Accept pull request 174
16:01:24 <Sarah_Swierenga> RESOLUTION: Accept pull request 174
16:02:17 <Sarah_Swierenga> zakim: take up item 2
16:02:40 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 3
16:02:40 <Zakim> agendum 3. "discussion on pixels and points" taken up [from AWK]
16:02:43 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 4
16:02:43 <Zakim> agendum 4. "WCAG.Next Models update from JF" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:03:10 <JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_on_WCAG.Next_Models
16:03:29 <Sarah_Swierenga> john: got good feedback
16:04:00 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: good international feedback as well
16:04:22 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: option 2.2 seemed to gather the most amount of positive feedback.
16:05:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: jeanne did a great job of pulling together the wiki page
16:06:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: number of comments focusing on authoring tool support. also, creating best practices requirement,
16:08:16 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: maybe introduce a fourth column for best practices
16:08:31 <Joshue108> q?
16:08:38 <Joshue108> ack me
16:08:39 <AWK> ack j
16:08:39 <Zakim> jnurthen, you wanted to ask about H91
16:09:13 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: where do we go from here? chairs would want to contemplate this.
16:09:51 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: will get back to the group regarding how to proceed.
16:09:52 <SarahHorton> Thank you, JF and Jeanne esp,  great work!
16:10:06 <MichaelC> The comments summary is really helpful
16:10:22 <AWK> AWK: Thanks to John, Jeanne, Sarah and others involved!
16:10:29 <Joshue108> Good job
16:10:30 <Ryladog> +1
16:10:48 <Sarah_Swierenga> zakim: take up item 2
16:11:06 <Sarah_Swierenga> zakim, take up item 2
16:11:06 <Zakim> agendum 2. "https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160412_misc/results" taken up [from AWK]
16:11:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> TOPIC: Issue 173
16:11:46 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: need more discussion on this.
16:12:04 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: debate around landmarks
16:12:49 <KimD> KimD has joined #wai-wcag
16:12:53 <Sarah_Swierenga> alistairc: seems that there would be cases where it wouldn't fit. want a positive technique, rather than a failure.
16:14:58 <JF> Q+
16:15:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: describes a google example wrt footer
16:15:18 <jnurthen> q+ to ask if the stuff at the top right is a header?
16:15:31 <AWK> ack JF
16:16:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: not every document is going to have a footer. wants to see positive techniques.
16:16:26 <Joshue108> +1 to more positive patterns over failures.
16:16:39 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173
16:16:47 <David>  "Failure of 1.3.1 due to visually distinct regions of a page (headers, footers, navigation bars, main content, asides) not being programmatically determinable or identified by text."
16:16:52 <Ryladog> The techniques are about keeping up to date with technologies based on the current normative language
16:17:14 <Ryladog> and Techniques includes failures
16:17:17 <David> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173
16:17:50 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: this is something that should be fixed
16:18:46 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: there are 100s of pages now that visually have distinct regions that aren't marked as headers or footers.
16:19:01 <Joshue108> q?
16:19:06 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: we need to write more failures.
16:19:08 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:19:32 <AWK> ack james
16:19:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: people would have to retroactively thousands of sites
16:20:17 <JF> +1 to James
16:20:20 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: pushing back on '5 mins to fix' idea. it can be months to fix some of this.
16:20:21 <alastairc> q+
16:20:29 <KimD> +1 to james
16:20:31 <AWK> ack jn
16:20:31 <Zakim> jnurthen, you wanted to ask if the stuff at the top right is a header?
16:20:40 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: we've fixed this across lots of pages quickly
16:20:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: for many projects, this is not a simple fix
16:22:21 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: does what needs to be done matches up with the standards
16:22:27 <AWK> ack mike
16:22:38 <JF> Q+
16:23:27 <JF> Q+ to say that tools do track changes over time, contrarty to what Mike suggested
16:23:34 <Sarah_Swierenga> mike: the issue isn't that it will cause pain for site owners to fix the sites. any number of updates can cause something to go out of compliance. this something that organizations could do moving forward.
16:23:56 <AWK> ack al
16:23:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> mike: providing areas of the page is very helpful, and should be required
16:24:21 <AWK> q+
16:24:54 <Sarah_Swierenga> alistairc: david has worked through the issues, but it is a change to 1.3.1.
16:25:36 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: while it is a technique, we do need a failure
16:27:16 <AWK> ack jf
16:27:16 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that tools do track changes over time, contrarty to what Mike suggested
16:28:09 <Sarah_Swierenga> Mike: that may be the case for some organizations, but not for other sites.
16:28:43 <Joshue108> Heres a html5 section element technique that I was working on https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_HTML5_section_elements
16:29:25 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: there were no landmark elements when wcag 2.0 was written.
16:29:44 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: can't rewrite the requirements way after the fact
16:29:57 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:30:05 <AWK> ack AWK
16:31:21 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: we didn't fail sites on footer when we did the wcag 2.0 implementation report
16:31:24 <MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/
16:31:31 <alastairc> it was the concept of landmarks we didn't have (not just the implementation), did all passing pages have headings for each visual section?
16:32:06 <Joshue108> q?
16:32:55 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: just shows why we need to update wcag 2.0.
16:34:23 <Sarah_Swierenga> mike: when html5 elements came in and tags were deprecated, did people fix their pages?
16:34:50 <Sarah_Swierenga> jf: it wouldn't break the tag if deprecated elements are included.
16:35:46 <AWK> ack mi
16:35:53 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: we don't have resolution on this. last agenda item will be handled next week.
16:35:54 <Mike_Elledge> good discussion, everyone! TTFN!
16:35:55 <AWK> Trackbot, end meeting
16:35:55 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:35:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, John_Kirkpwood, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge,
16:35:58 <Zakim> ... John_Kirkwood, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea
16:35:58 <SarahHorton> Bye!
16:36:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:36:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:36:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:36:04 <RRSAgent> I see no action items