14:49:48 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:49:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-ag-irc 14:49:50 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:49:53 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:49:53 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:49:53 Date: 04 April 2017 14:49:53 ok, trackbot 14:49:55 Present: AWK 14:50:06 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:50:06 Present: AWK 14:50:31 agenda+ Reminder about GitHub issue updating for SC managers 14:50:47 agenda+ Top three SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017April5_top3/results (20 minutes each maximum on the call) 14:50:57 agenda+ Thursday call agenda items – unresolved issues from today 14:51:01 agenda+ TPAC 14:51:12 agenda+ COGA SC prioritization survey 14:52:15 present+ 14:52:37 jake has joined #ag 14:54:21 Greg has joined #ag 14:54:46 Wilco has joined #ag 14:55:30 Mike_Elledge has joined #ag 14:55:30 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:55:30 Present: AWK, jasonjgw 14:55:43 Present+ Mike Elledge 14:55:57 jamesn has joined #ag 14:56:21 MelanieP has joined #ag 14:56:56 Kathy has joined #ag 14:57:03 present+ Kathy 14:59:28 interaccess has joined #ag 14:59:45 trackbot, start meeting 14:59:48 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:59:51 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:59:51 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:59:51 Date: 04 April 2017 14:59:51 ok, trackbot 15:00:02 Chair: AWK 15:00:08 zakim, agenda? 15:00:08 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 15:00:09 1. Reminder about GitHub issue updating for SC managers [from AWK] 15:00:09 5. COGA SC prioritization survey [from AWK] 15:00:09 2. Top three SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017April5_top3/results (20 minutes each maximum on the call) [from AWK] 15:00:10 3. Thursday call agenda items – unresolved issues from today [from AWK] 15:00:10 4. TPAC [from AWK] 15:00:28 laura has joined #ag 15:01:19 JF has joined #ag 15:01:19 regrets+ Pietro, Marc_Johlic, Mike_Pluke, Rachael, EA_Draffan, Detlev, Alastair, Bruce_Bailey, Makoto, Thaddeus, Denis_Boudreau, Nicole_Windmann, Jeanne, Stafan_Schnabel 15:01:35 Present+ JF 15:01:37 present+ JamesNurthen 15:01:40 present+ 15:01:45 present+ Joshue108 15:01:50 scribe: jamesn 15:02:00 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:02:05 Lauriat has joined #ag 15:02:20 present+ Melanie_Philipp 15:02:41 Present+ Lauriat 15:03:09 jon_avila has joined #ag 15:03:18 present+jon_avila 15:03:23 present+ 15:04:06 KimD has joined #ag 15:04:09 kirkwood has joined #ag 15:04:12 Present+ 15:04:17 present+ Laura 15:04:24 present+ 15:04:30 zakim, next item 15:04:30 agendum 1. "Reminder about GitHub issue updating for SC managers" taken up [from AWK] 15:04:34 adam_lund has joined #ag 15:04:35 David-MacDonald has joined #ag 15:05:03 How swede it is! 15:05:19 Jim_S has joined #ag 15:05:35 present+ adaml 15:05:53 AWK: sent out a notice email on friday?? If you find your name on it then it tells you what items you need to update 15:06:06 if you are confused then let us know and we will help 15:06:08 steverep has joined #ag 15:06:08 present+ Jim_S 15:06:16 it really helps if we don't have to do it all ourselves 15:06:17 present+steverep 15:06:22 Glenda has joined #ag 15:06:31 helps if you let me know so i don't bug you again once it has been done 15:06:40 any questions? 15:06:50 as of next week will start asking for good excuses 15:07:10 TOPIC: Scribes 15:07:26 awk: out of people for scribes 15:07:31 need people for the next 3 weeks 15:07:38 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List 15:07:41 I will do next week 15:07:42 spaces are available up to may 15:08:06 I will 15:08:19 present+ 15:08:26 present+ 15:08:32 Mike E will do the 25th 15:08:58 if oyu haven't scribed this year yet then go to the list and ass yourself 15:09:04 zakim, next item 15:09:04 agendum 5. "COGA SC prioritization survey" taken up [from AWK] 15:09:06 scribe list updated 15:09:12 s/ass/add/ 15:09:20 s/oyu/you/ 15:09:48 agenda? 15:09:50 awk: survey didn't get made so didn't send it out 15:10:17 zakim, close this item 15:10:17 agendum 5 closed 15:10:18 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:10:18 2. Top three SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017April5_top3/results (20 minutes each maximum on the call) [from AWK] 15:10:21 zakim, next item 15:10:21 agendum 2. "Top three SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017April5_top3/results (20 minutes each maximum on the call)" taken up [from AWK] 15:10:39 awk: looking at the results 15:11:15 have 3 items - going to try to do this for a while.... have 55 SCs - and have 13 weeks. If we were able to do 3 a week we could get through all of them 15:11:42 it is hard to focus on them all - so trying to focus on a few for a week 15:11:59 further hindered by sending out the wrong item for the last one 15:12:34 TOPIC: Target size 15:12:50 ZAkim, ping me in 20 minutes 15:12:50 ok, AWK 15:13:13 The size of the target in relation to the visible display at the default viewport size is at least 44px by 44px for pointer inputs except: when a link or control has an alternative method that has 44px by 44px touch target link is part of a block of text and it has 44px x 22px touch target 15:13:21 q? 15:13:24 q+ 15:14:26 awk: that text is the entire text 15:14:28 https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html 15:14:30 ack jam 15:14:48 JN: This isnt' what we reviewed in th survey. 15:14:55 JN: I'm concerned by that. 15:15:08 s/in th survey/in the survey. 15:15:30 awk: sent an email asking if current language 15:15:45 what is in github is different from the current language 15:16:05 awk: was a miscue 15:16:51 awk: what I or Joshue will be doing when we hear what are the priority items - we will ping the Factilitors and SC managers 15:16:57 +1 15:16:59 to get language up to date 15:18:05 Kathy: new language - based on last set of comments there was concern about corse and fine - reviewing that. Have changed so no longer looking aqt course vs fine pointer input 15:18:15 have taken the least size overall 15:18:47 q? 15:18:59 Q+ to ask if Key-board accessible = "alternative method" 15:19:08 has 2 exceptions when controls have an alternative method to access it and then the big question that is still outswtanding is that when a link is part of a block of text - if there are overlapping touch target sizes. can't space those out based on fluid and responsive layouts 15:19:20 doesn't make sense when links are close together 15:19:35 talking to users and in the MAF - discussion about where the major issues are for users 15:19:57 a link or a button would be difficult overall as there are multiple things that are active at the same time 15:20:04 s/MAF/MATF 15:20:20 other places you could magnify and then activate things - such as links in a body of text 15:20:27 https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html SC now updated in Github 15:20:35 if you were going to reduce the requirements anywhere blocks of text would be a place 15:20:36 q+ 15:20:44 ack jf 15:20:44 JF, you wanted to ask if Key-board accessible = "alternative method" 15:20:48 q+ 15:21:13 JF: havea requirement that links need to be keyboard accessible - is that an alternative method 15:21:21 steverep has joined #ag 15:21:21 sorry i am late folks. meeting ran over 15:21:25 q+ to ask if this requires multiple UI's now - especially with a touch laptop... 15:21:29 present+steverep 15:21:34 q- 15:21:34 kathy: need to update language to be an alternate control - not an alternative method 15:21:46 it does say that the alternative method has a 44x44 touch target 15:21:52 need to update that to clarify 15:22:57 JF: have an issue dictating sizes to web designers - going to get a lot of pushback 15:23:14 ack james 15:23:22 q+ david 15:23:51 JN: I've a couple of comments but we need an exception when the only layout that makes sense is an on sceen keyboard. 15:24:03 JN: If that is 44px each that wont fit on an iphone. 15:24:18 JN: Dont see how that will work. There are also issues with wearables. 15:24:48 JN: Is that covered by our language? 15:24:52 JN: I don't think so. 15:24:58 KW: We'll have to look at that. 15:25:17 JN: These are dealt with by recovery and correction - small touch targets. 15:25:37 JN: So hitting the right thing isn't the main thing - as long as its close enough. 15:26:07 JN: Error correction methods are used in small keyboards etc. 15:26:16 KW: They also have auto correction etc 15:26:16 autpo correction fix it to the wronge word for me most of the time 15:26:22 JN: Yes. 15:26:36 Kim: have 2 questions 15:26:39 ack kim 15:26:39 KimD, you wanted to ask if this requires multiple UI's now - especially with a touch laptop... 15:26:55 in the proposal I wonder what it is in the text. 15:27:08 will be impossible for some types of content like footnotes 15:27:09 q? 15:27:19 2nd question is does this require a seperate UI 15:27:35 Kathy: lots of different ways to accomplish that 15:28:03 Kim: if they are smaller than the size you couldn't use the overlap. That is where we would mandate the 44x44 pixel 15:28:05 q+ 15:28:25 ack jam 15:28:44 JN: Just to comment on the footnotes one - you can scroll down to reach those. 15:28:55 JN: The alternate here is scrolling for example. 15:29:36 Kim: in a legal document could have another button to allow to get to those footnotes 15:30:19 Kathy: if you have a bunch of footnotes which have a small touch target it is an issue for an end user - if there is another way such as scrolling then that would be an alternative way to get them 15:31:03 Kim: the footnote itself - not the link to the footnote itself. Those can contain links. If the whole paragraph is ID and a link to something then you can't rteally fix that by scrolling to the bottom 15:31:25 AWK: it might be helpful with an example dcocument 15:31:33 ack david 15:32:14 DMD: this came out of the mobile TF. Trying to fix that people on small screens - that was the primary reason as i understand it 15:32:30 Kathy: could be shaking etc. not just a big finger on a small screen 15:32:50 AWK, you asked to be pinged at this time 15:32:53 DMD: what we are now proposing is to adopt the apple mobile SC and port those to desktop environments 15:32:57 or a person with low vision or problems with depth perception that may not be able to precisely touch the exact area 15:33:54 q? 15:34:11 this is a perfect exmaple( footnotes) where little tiny lines would have to be much bigger. Most sites would fail this right now. We would be talking abotu a major rewite of the entire web. Would be lots of buy-in for small screens but lots of orgs wont want this on desktop environments 15:34:27 s/exmaple/example 15:34:43 +1 to DMD's concerns 15:34:50 this appears to be over-reaching 15:35:16 DMD: understand there are difficulties - not a perfect answer but may be a way through 15:35:31 AWK: can you think of any language which may help clarify this 15:36:02 DMD: my proposed compromise doesn't seem like it would fly from certain members of the list 15:36:08 q+ 15:37:07 AWK: we need to do some more work - and need to move on 15:37:20 ack Lisa 15:37:31 The compromise would be to use mobile break points. Small screens have large target requirements. 15:37:38 LS: was going to suggest using a mechanism and then personalization could take care of it 15:37:39 q? 15:38:00 AllanJ_ has joined #ag 15:38:02 TOPIC: Adapting Text 15:38:51 Major items to address in previous item 15:38:59 exception for mandatory layouts 15:39:11 sizes and viewport sizes and personalization 15:39:26 language around alternative methods and what that is 15:39:36 Add exception for math content to that 15:40:29 AWK: seems to be a little bit closer due to raw numbers 15:40:49 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 15:40:49 ok, Joshue108 15:41:01 A proposed edit to address Bruce's suggestions is at: 15:41:02 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-290810047 15:41:02 AWK: is the GH version the current version 15:41:24 AllanJ__ has joined #ag 15:41:27 Laura: just rewording 15:41:42 AWK: James you had issues.. 15:41:59 JN: It could work fine for HTML content.. but dont know about Flash JAVA etc 15:42:02 q+ 15:42:18 JN: It looks like it could be widgets etc , which we dont want. 15:42:21 ack AWK 15:42:24 q+ 15:42:35 JN: But if platforms aren't going to do this, how it this going to work. 15:42:46 JN: You would need a customisation to support this, right? 15:43:00 q? 15:43:36 AWK: Getting that stuff into Flash, JAVA etc would be difficult. 15:44:08 LC: Alastair is working on something for this. 15:44:15 the content would support it 15:44:20 JN: I didn't know that. 15:44:25 LC: Look thru the thread. 15:44:31 q? 15:44:49 ack li 15:45:20 LS: so my question would be that we wanted paragraph spacing and blocks of text 15:45:25 Here's that discussion about mobile https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-268001666 15:45:25 The Low Vision Task Force discussed Lisa's request to add an extra bullet for extra spacing between columns and resolved not to do so. 15:45:30 https://www.w3.org/2017/03/30-lvtf-minutes.html#item01 15:45:37 Laura: LVTF discussed at last meeting - resolved not to add that bullet point 15:45:37 As Alastair pointed out it impacts layout far more than the other bullets and is a step up in requirements. 15:45:43 https://alastairc.ac/2017/02/four-levels-of-accessibility-customisation/ 15:45:54 it would be higher impact than what we want to do for this SC 15:46:16 LS: means we still need that as a seperate SC then 15:46:34 AWK: Detlev raised another issue 15:46:43 I find the addition of the "at least one different..." confusing. 15:46:43 Why not just plain font family, foreground colour, background color? 15:46:43 I tried to diligently read through the comments in issue 78 but at some point lost nerve, or lost track; so while there must have been a good reason to include this, I am pretty sure users of WCAG will find it quite confusing. 15:46:57 At one time for color we had used Wayne's suggestion of the ability to override "text color and background color to a single different text color and a single different background color". 15:47:13 Laura: at one time had different text (above) 15:47:20 David objected to that. 15:49:01 q+ 15:49:16 q+ 15:49:21 -q 15:49:22 laura: just have to prove that each one can be overriden 15:49:43 https://alastairc.ac/2017/02/four-levels-of-accessibility-customisation/ 15:49:44 q+ to say that maybe it is sufficient for a user to be able to modify these things. 15:49:45 ack jam 15:50:05 JN: The issue is saying that mobile would be exempt? 15:50:08 LC: It was 15:50:30 JN: Is that still the case? Requiring that for all sites on mobile wont happen. 15:50:50 LC: This could fly in the face of current a11y support. 15:50:52 q+ 15:50:56 JN: For AAA this may be ok. 15:51:02 q+ to get ensure there is consensus that this requires the page to provide an override mechanism where the UA doesn't provide it, rather than just to be compatible when attributes are overridden at the client side; last week it seemed some people disagreed 15:51:07 LC: The Low Vis need is for desktop at the moment. 15:51:14 LC: They can do other things on mobile. 15:51:17 ack josh 15:51:17 Joshue, you wanted to say that maybe it is sufficient for a user to be able to modify these things. 15:51:18 ack me 15:51:35 I wonder if there are different languages that require different fonts and changing to one font on the page would cause content to be missing or unusable 15:52:01 JOC: giving the capability to change things is good. Would be an open door. Like where it is going but would need rules for how ???? 15:52:15 ack david 15:52:19 Q+ 15:52:39 q+ 15:52:47 s/Like where it is going but would need rules for how ????/ There would be a question mark over measuring conformace. 15:52:58 q? 15:53:05 DMD: support this SC. I'm interested in a mobile exception. If there is language in the SC to override the accessibility support - then get back into that mobile vs desktop thing 15:53:14 q? 15:53:15 Laura: bruce was really against that 15:53:28 If the content support adaption it should pass even if it doesn't work on mobile 15:53:42 it's about the content supporting the capabilities 15:53:46 DMD: was bruce's concern leaving out people or that WCAG couldn't support the ability to do thaty 15:53:57 DMD: we can scope an SC to size of screen\ 15:54:42 ack greg 15:54:42 Greg, you wanted to get ensure there is consensus that this requires the page to provide an override mechanism where the UA doesn't provide it, rather than just to be compatible 15:54:44 q+ 15:54:46 ... when attributes are overridden at the client side; last week it seemed some people disagreed 15:54:53 q+ to call out Jon Avila's comments 15:55:51 +1 to Greg 15:55:54 Gregg: former is asking a lot - and might be contentious. Requiring pages to still work when overridden is much more reasonable. 15:56:04 s/Gregg/Greg 15:56:38 Is there consensus that this requires the page to provide an override mechanism where the UA doesn't provide it, rather than just to be compatible when attributes are overridden at the client side? Last week it seemed some people disagreed. 15:56:50 AWK: when adaptations are put in place the content still can be used is the 2nd one 15:57:14 +1 to Greg (require supporting browser/OS changes, not customization settings w/in website, app, etc.) 15:57:39 Greg: if at the client side things are overridden - things still work. That acknowledges that there are clients this will not work with - but can still get the majority of the SC through. 15:57:47 essentially a non interference 15:57:51 I consider the highest priority be that a page remains fully functional when the formatting is overridden. Even if mobile UA doesn’t support such overriding today, that can be changed over time. 15:57:55 q+ this is an important SC as it relates to the discussion about personalisation 15:57:59 AWK: I don't think that is what the SC is saying today 15:58:12 The current wording is ambiguous. 15:58:13 q+ this is important as it relates to the discussion about personalisation 15:58:23 q+ relates to the discussion about personalisation 15:58:26 ack JF 15:58:29 q? 15:58:33 issue with that is you dont know how the user will do it 15:58:38 q- AWK 15:58:48 q+ to say this relates to the discussion about personalisation 15:58:58 ack rel 15:58:58 relates, you wanted to the discussion about personalisation 15:59:02 ack kathy 15:59:05 JF: want to say (Jon Avilla) stated this. jon_avila> If the content support adaption it should pass even if it doesn't work on mobile 15:59:05 it's about the content supporting the capabilities 15:59:13 JF: I don't believe we have an issue 15:59:22 s/Avilla/Avila 15:59:32 in the accessibility settings there are ways of doing things today 15:59:48 s/in the/kathy: in the 16:00:08 kathy: we don't mandate accessibility support - that is up tot he organization 16:00:10 I don't see anything in the current text that suggests the author needs to provide a widget to provide the customization 16:00:13 ack lisa 16:00:44 LS: an exception could be along the lines of unless not supported in the native platform 16:00:49 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time 16:01:04 Laura: that is what bruce objected to on the last survey 16:01:07 q+ 16:01:10 ack me 16:01:10 Joshue, you wanted to say this relates to the discussion about personalisation 16:01:44 JOC: in terms of direction - it is useful as a teachable moment of how things can be customized in the browser 16:01:57 Q+ 16:02:11 ack mike 16:02:29 Mike: thinking that can - when we talk about silver - look at UA requirements 16:02:50 ack jf 16:03:27 JF: at risk of people throwing things at me. could say only use linked style sheets not inlinestyles 16:03:32 It's more than that though -- it's fixed size containers -- no overflow off 16:03:49 JN: You can override inline styles with a user style sheet also. 16:03:52 JF: Yup 16:03:56 Main issues: 16:04:31 Applicability to mobile, Flash, Java, etc when user agents don't support 16:05:05 conformance being superficial (only one option) 16:05:44 q+ to ask if everything is okay if we change language to "when changed" 16:05:44 Ideally we would split this into two SC: Level A to work when author formatting is overridden, and Level AAA to provide its own mechanism to override the formatting. 16:05:53 Greg's point - perhaps this should be an SC to speak to non-interference where adaptability is used 16:07:02 Greg: wan't talking about exceptions for mobile or otherwise 16:07:47 +1 to Greg's suggestion (A and a AAA SC - 2 in total) 16:07:58 RESOLUTION: Needs more work. 16:08:14 TOPIC: Accidental Activation 16:08:56 q- 16:09:34 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/65 16:09:46 https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/accidental-activation_ISSUE-65/guidelines/sc/21/accidental-activation.html 16:10:00 Kathy: language is the most current version 16:10:06 Up-Event: The activation of a component when the trigger stimulus is released. On different platforms the "up-event" may be called different things, such as "touchend" or "mouseup". Example: For touchscreen interaction, the event is triggered when a finger is lifted from the touchscreen at the end of a tap. 16:10:11 david had suggested some new language 16:10:32 q? 16:10:53 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/65#issuecomment-277798644 16:10:55 JN: I've issues with this - I don't like the single pointer activation. 16:11:04 JN: It needs to be defined more. 16:11:04 Issue: defining single-pointer activation 16:11:05 Created ISSUE-47 - Defining single-pointer activation. Please complete additional details at . 16:11:29 JN: There are things currently known - but may not have the down up model. 16:11:42 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/65 16:11:54 https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/accidental-activation_ISSUE-65/guidelines/terms/21/up-event.html 16:11:55 ISSUE: How to tighten conformance model for Adapting Text SC 16:11:56 Created ISSUE-48 - How to tighten conformance model for adapting text sc. Please complete additional details at . 16:12:27 JN: Defined as it is, is good. I'd not seen that. 16:12:29 Q+ 16:12:33 Pietro has joined #ag 16:12:45 Present+ Pietro 16:13:45 JN: This will be technology specific and limits it from having negative consequences. 16:13:54 JN: Should be ok! 16:14:11 JN: I don't want to require keyboard interfaces etc for things. 16:14:15 +1 to James 16:14:26 AWK: Is this tech specific or modality specific? 16:14:38 s/This will be technology specific/This will be modality specific 16:14:41 ack JF 16:15:12 KW: This is just specific to single point activation. 16:15:19 JN: What about eye tracking etc? 16:15:31 JF: Speech? 16:15:42 ack me 16:15:51 JN: It clarifies that it doesn't apply as there is no contact with the screen with eye tracking. 16:16:18 JN: What is the mapping to up events with eye tracking for example? 16:16:30 KW: This is specific to pointers only. 16:16:42 KW: We would not want to open that up further. 16:16:52 JN: We don't want to limit new technologies. 16:17:03 KW: We've spent a lot of time working this out. 16:17:12 >One point of contact with the screen, "contact" is in the definition 16:17:32 It could be further described in the understanding 16:17:44 KW: it is narrow already 16:18:03 q+ to say the first bullet item should be reworded to "Activation is on the platform's generic activation/click event, or explicitly on the up-event", so that the content isn't required to special-case when the platform's default activation is not on up-event. 16:18:31 JOC: Are you comfortable that it relates solely to pointer type devices? 16:18:39 KW: may find we want to exapnd in the future - but for now this is very narrowly focused 16:18:47 AWK: would this cover a mouse? 16:18:49 q+ to ask about platform assistive technology restrictions and drag and drop events 16:19:55 ack st 16:19:55 steverep, you wanted to ask about platform assistive technology restrictions and drag and drop events 16:20:39 steverep: wodnering about definition for platform assistive technologies. If something remaps the touch gestures which is not the OS shipped screen reader - are they responsible for it? 16:21:09 s/wodnering/wondering 16:21:19 KW: have touch with AT - and no accidental activation. The 2 are very close. Put that note in - to say there is another one which uses that note 16:21:45 steverep: if i need to remap touch that is on the user not the content 16:22:32 other thing is if there is a missed opportunity for DND events. Would be exempt by the timing exception. If you accidentally DND something the uzser could benefit by being asked to confirm or reverse it 16:23:09 ack greg 16:23:09