See also: IRC log
<AWK> +AWK
<David> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5.4#Proposed_2.5.4
<AWK> Scribe: Sarah_Swierenga
<AWK> Mobile TF on agenda next week
<Joshue108> JF could you mute, I'm getting the helicopters again!
<AWK> +John_Kirkpwood
<AWK> -John_Kirkpwood
<AWK> -John_Kirkwood
<AWK> +John_Kirkwood
<Kirkwood_> +kirkwood
david: don't use aria if html will do. we want to make sure we use html first.
<AWK> -John_Kirkwood
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/179/files?diff=split
awk: in order to indicate all of the aria techniques that may relate, we need to include about half of the techniquest
david; if we hadn't already done the work, we could keep that.
awk; concerned that it could be a distraction
awk: challenging to stage this in github. have people had a chance to really look at this?
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.
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.
... reading only and disabled states are included in the
table
... much more comprehensive than it was before
mike: looked at it in a text editor. lots of valuable info. is the concern that it might be overwhelming?
awk: concerned about getting everything in, but not messing it up somewhere
mike: seems good to me
alistairc: is it possible to put an 'output' version?
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.
laura: thanks for doing this, andrew. are we going to have to do this for the future techniques, too?
awk: optimistically hopefully that they are mostly included now
<Mike_Elledge> +1
awk: call for consensus
RESOLUTION: accepted pull request 179 as proposed
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
josh: page 39, issue 165, forget about his comment
awk: main point of comment is
that not all tables need a caption
... proposing to change the technique procedure so that it
recognizes the association more clearly.
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H39.html
david: can we just accept the recommendation?
awk: concerns about accepting the
proposed changes?
... proposed changes specify the full procedure
<Joshue108> I'm struggling to see the next gain of this change tbh
awk: people want techniques that are testable, even by machines
james: fundamentally disagree with making changes in all of these techniques.
josh: what is the next gain of making these changes?
awk: do we need to make the change? must make the change?
david: maybe making the change would be practical
<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.
david: can draft the response: the techniques are not required, but the success criterion is required.
+1
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<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
<Joshue108> +1 to david and AWKS response.
<JF> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<KimD> +1
<Makoto> +1
mike: satisfied with the proposed changes
<laura> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed response
James: h91 edit question - added
role
... what does role mean here?
... how does one test for this on different platforms? we
should be referring to the role mapping document. this is not
correct.
... not correct everywhere
... that's why it wasn't specifically mentioned in the test
procedure.
awk: suggests leaving the roles in the table, but be consistent in choosing which role is being used.
james: For each instance, check that the role is an equivalent platform role to the one in the table.
<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)
awk: recommends revisiting the issue, and sending it around for comment again.
awk: have a pull request from James.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/174/commits/51dc61457402e3cf59dad71e1f1e2fda12178822?diff=split
james: update links to 1.1
version. links to external code examples will point to
something that will get updated eventually
... removes the link to the primer completely
awk: concerns about pointing to a working draft?
james: 1.0 is still a draft, so actually no different
josh: 1.1 is a good draft
<jnurthen> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.1/#exampletree
katie: takes her to the example
awk: safari doesn't take you to the right spot, but chrome does
james: the anchor is
correct
... should take user to A3.1
<alastairc> no objection
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Joshue108> +1 to accept
+1 to accept
Accept pull request 174
RESOLUTION: Accept pull request 174
zakim: take up item 2
<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_on_WCAG.Next_Models
john: got good feedback
jf: good international feedback
as well
... option 2.2 seemed to gather the most amount of positive
feedback.
... jeanne did a great job of pulling together the wiki
page
... number of comments focusing on authoring tool support.
also, creating best practices requirement,
... maybe introduce a fourth column for best practices
<Zakim> jnurthen, you wanted to ask about H91
jf: where do we go from here? chairs would want to contemplate this.
awk: will get back to the group regarding how to proceed.
<SarahHorton> Thank you, JF and Jeanne esp, great work!
<MichaelC> The comments summary is really helpful
<AWK> AWK: Thanks to John, Jeanne, Sarah and others involved!
<Joshue108> Good job
<Ryladog> +1
zakim: take up item 2
awk: need more discussion on
this.
... debate around landmarks
alistairc: seems that there would be cases where it wouldn't fit. want a positive technique, rather than a failure.
awk: describes a google example wrt footer
jf: not every document is going to have a footer. wants to see positive techniques.
<Joshue108> +1 to more positive patterns over failures.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173
<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."
<Ryladog> The techniques are about keeping up to date with technologies based on the current normative language
<Ryladog> and Techniques includes failures
<David> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173
david: this is something that should be fixed
jf: there are 100s of pages now that visually have distinct regions that aren't marked as headers or footers.
david: we need to write more failures.
jf: people would have to retroactively thousands of sites
<JF> +1 to James
james: pushing back on '5 mins to fix' idea. it can be months to fix some of this.
<KimD> +1 to james
<Zakim> jnurthen, you wanted to ask if the stuff at the top right is a header?
david: we've fixed this across lots of pages quickly
james: for many projects, this is not a simple fix
awk: does what needs to be done matches up with the standards
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.
... providing areas of the page is very helpful, and should be
required
alistairc: david has worked through the issues, but it is a change to 1.3.1.
david: while it is a technique, we do need a failure
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that tools do track changes over time, contrarty to what Mike suggested
Mike: that may be the case for some organizations, but not for other sites.
<Joshue108> Heres a html5 section element technique that I was working on https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_HTML5_section_elements
jf: there were no landmark
elements when wcag 2.0 was written.
... can't rewrite the requirements way after the fact
awk: we didn't fail sites on footer when we did the wcag 2.0 implementation report
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/
<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?
david: just shows why we need to update wcag 2.0.
mike: when html5 elements came in and tags were deprecated, did people fix their pages?
jf: it wouldn't break the tag if deprecated elements are included.
awk: we don't have resolution on this. last agenda item will be handled next week.
<Mike_Elledge> good discussion, everyone! TTFN!
<AWK> Trackbot, end meeting
<SarahHorton> Bye!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/full request/pull request/ Found Scribe: Sarah_Swierenga Inferring ScribeNick: Sarah_Swierenga Default Present: AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, John_Kirkpwood, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, John_Kirkwood, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea Present: AWK EricE Kathy Laura jeanne KimD alastairc JF Joshue108 John_Kirkpwood SarahH Makoto David_MacDonald Mike_Elledge John_Kirkwood Greg_Lowney kirkwood MichaelC Katie Haritos-Shea Found Date: 26 Apr 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/26-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]