13:57:43 RRSAgent has joined #ag 13:57:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-irc 13:57:45 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:57:45 Zakim has joined #ag 13:57:47 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 13:57:47 ok, trackbot 13:57:48 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 13:57:48 Date: 13 April 2017 13:58:08 Chair: Ad hoc 13:58:17 zakim, agenda? 13:58:17 I see nothing on the agenda 13:58:33 agenda+ Adapting Text options discussion 14:43:08 LisaSeeman has joined #ag 15:01:23 marcjohlic has joined #ag 15:03:50 david-macdonald has joined #ag 15:04:10 Present +DavidMacdonald 15:04:16 laura has joined #ag 15:10:57 Greg has joined #ag 15:28:17 Glenda has joined #ag 15:28:32 allanj has joined #ag 15:28:40 present+ 15:28:48 AWK has joined #ag 15:29:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:29:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html AWK 15:29:14 ScottM has joined #ag 15:29:28 rrsagent, set logs public 15:29:57 shawn has joined #ag 15:30:02 agenda+ Adapting Text options discussion 15:30:11 agenda+ COGA: Support Personalisation SC 15:30:19 zakim, agenda? 15:30:19 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 15:30:20 1. Adapting Text options discussion [from Joshue108] 15:30:20 2. Adapting Text options discussion [from AWK] 15:30:20 3. COGA: Support Personalisation SC [from AWK] 15:30:25 Zakim, close item 1 15:30:25 agendum 1, Adapting Text options discussion, closed 15:30:26 present+ Laura 15:30:27 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:30:27 2. Adapting Text options discussion [from AWK] 15:30:40 Chair: Joshue 15:30:46 +AWK 15:30:54 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:30:54 Present: allanj, Laura, AWK 15:30:55 present+ Glenda 15:33:03 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:33:12 made it 15:34:19 I can volunteer to scribe. 15:34:19 scribe: jim 15:34:36 Scribe: Jim 15:34:47 Zakim, take up item 1 15:34:47 agendum 1. "Adapting Text options discussion" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:34:48 present+ 15:35:10 Proposal H (Level AA) and I (Level AAA): An in tandem 2 SC approach 15:35:11 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_H_.28Level_AA.29_and_I_.28Level_AAA.29:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach 15:35:41 Issue 78: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78 15:35:53 laura: 2 SC AA and AAA, AA no mechanism, remove "at least", AAA has mechanism 15:35:55 Current text of SC: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/adapting-text_ISSUE-74-78-79/guidelines/sc/21/adapting-text.html 15:36:06 JF has joined #ag 15:36:10 David: "I think this a good use of wording from 1.4.5 "If technologies being used 15:36:11 can achieve it,..." It's probably the best of all of them... and I can support it." 15:36:12 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0168.html 15:36:16 present+ JF 15:36:31 q+ to clarify my concern about the "at least" clause meant removing the entire clause, and my proposal for the split into two SC 15:36:32 KimD has joined #ag 15:36:37 laura: call for vote 15:36:40 ack g 15:36:40 Greg, you wanted to clarify my concern about the "at least" clause meant removing the entire clause, and my proposal for the split into two SC 15:36:42 Mike_Pluke has joined #ag 15:36:47 Ryladog_ has joined #ag 15:37:06 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:37:29 gl: clarify my past comments. not just remove "at least" but remove entire specified range 15:37:32 First, at Level A, "If and when author formatting is overridden by the user agent, the page does not lose any essential content or functionality." Then, in the testing instructions, we'd list font family, foreground color, background color, line spacing, letter spacing, and word spacing. Note that those aren't the only types of formatting to which this should apply: for example, no information sho 15:37:33 uld be conveyed by bolding or italics alone. 15:37:35 Second, at level AAA, "The content provides a mechanism that allows the user to override the default formatting to, at minimum, the following: … Exceptions: ..." 15:38:58 present+ 15:39:12 gl: AAA would apply to closed systems 15:39:13 present+ 15:40:00 checking on my dog, will be back soon 15:40:08 awk: gl wording changes how I think about SC. 15:41:06 gl: if user uses the UA to change settings, then page should still work. at the AAA the UA is not available to make changes, so author must do more. 15:42:03 awk: why don't you require XX, and it doesn't matter what UA does or does not support. Functionality is still necessary. 15:42:18 ... must be able to respond to that Question. 15:42:33 gl: suggesting the level is higher. 15:43:52 awk: no, we have specified with WCAG2 that some things have to get done. don't care what the mechanism. it just needs to get done. use a widget or don't... but the SC need to be met 15:44:06 zakim, ping me in 10 minutes 15:44:06 ok, Joshue108 15:44:27 ... balance between UA requirements that are not yet filled vs author doing lots of work. 15:45:10 laura: the hard part is making the first one work. 15:45:33 ... davidm adamant about hard metric for testing 15:45:39 Q+ to say I generally agree with Greg L 15:45:48 gl: true for both SC 15:45:48 ack jf 15:45:48 JF, you wanted to say I generally agree with Greg L 15:46:13 laura: wayne wanted all colors and fonts tested. 15:46:33 jf: +1 to GL proposed wording. 15:47:03 q+ to reiterate Andrew's point - what user needs regardless of UA capability 15:47:08 ... user should be able modify authors code (author proposed, user disposes) 15:47:10 ack me 15:47:10 shawn, you wanted to reiterate Andrew's point - what user needs regardless of UA capability 15:47:11 ack s 15:47:17 q+ 15:47:45 shawn: does GL wording meet user need. is there an out if the UA doesn't allow change 15:47:55 ack ry 15:48:03 gl: then it falls to AAA author makes a mechanism 15:48:29 khs: like using 1.4.5 lang. "if the technology doesn't allow..." 15:48:44 If technologies being used can achieve it,..." 15:48:48 q+ to say that the reason I lean towards AAA over AA for the second 15:48:56 s/AAA author/AAA and the author 15:49:49 gl: proposal - A for when user agent overrides, because is easy. Author mechanism, then more work. so AAA or AA 15:50:10 present+ jasonjgw 15:50:25 awk: so content is still funtcional when user with UA makes change ... 15:50:33 gl: level A 15:50:51 awk: any issues... mobile, etc. 15:50:57 laura: testing? 15:51:10 gl: questions about PDF 15:51:22 Testabilty: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Testabilty 15:51:22 laura: it can be done in pdf 15:51:43 awk: ... with different viewers 15:52:28 awk: if user can't override because UA doesn't allow, then its not a failure. is that correct 15:53:21 gl: yes, that is correct 15:53:34 s/is that correct/is that correct? 15:53:37 The SC 1.4.5 language “If the technologies being used can achieve..." to address scoping in H 15:53:57 gl: pdf would pass A, but not AAA 15:54:06 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time 15:55:27 gl: if UA allows no changes, then author provides a dropdown to allow user to make changes to formatting. 15:55:53 awk: how does pdf fail? 15:56:26 q+ 15:56:55 q+ to say why require widget if provided by UA? 15:56:57 ack g 15:56:57 Greg, you wanted to say that the reason I lean towards AAA over AA for the second 15:57:01 gl: author has to provide some mechanism to be AAA, to cover the "just in case" the UA has no mechansim 15:57:13 +1 to AWK regarding "providing a widget" 15:57:31 +1 for not requiring widget if common UAs provide the functionality 15:57:34 q- 15:57:39 awk: not excited about having to require providing a widget 15:57:48 Q+ 15:58:04 ack jf 15:58:45 q+ 15:58:50 ack ry 15:59:06 jf: opposed to requiring a widget 15:59:15 q+ 15:59:22 q? 15:59:22 khs: at AAA no problem with widget 15:59:35 q+ 15:59:49 awk: non disruption model as A, mechanism is available as AAA 15:59:59 If you want to remove my proposed AAA SC that's fine. My preference is to say that AAA is defined as maximally accessible, and that means going the extra effort to be accessible even when there are limitations in the user agent--as there are in a lot of mobile browsers today, which don't yet support user style sheets. 16:00:35 also i gave up a fmily day for the personlization bit 16:00:42 so i would like to get to it 16:01:08 So what did others think of my Level A proposal J: "If and when author formatting is overridden by the user agent, the page does not lose any essential content or functionality."? 16:01:12 jf: can we make some resolution to move forward 16:01:13 q- 16:01:44 has Laura not done that already? 16:01:47 Greg’s: "If and when author formatting is overridden by the user agent, the page does not lose any essential content or functionality." 16:02:28 awk: this call is not about action, only discussion. Laura send to list the options. 16:02:32 Laura, my apologies if we took up too much time on the first topic. 16:02:35 laura: did that 16:02:42 +1 to AWK 16:02:48 awk: then call for vote on list, 16:03:09 RESOLUTION: Group to review options for split SC on the list 16:03:12 Zakim, take up next item 16:03:12 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, AWK 16:03:18 q? 16:03:20 acxk la 16:03:24 ack la 16:03:27 Zakim, take up next item 16:03:27 agendum 2. "Adapting Text options discussion" taken up [from AWK] 16:03:47 Zakim, take up next item 16:03:47 agendum 2 was just opened, AWK 16:03:56 Zakim, close item 2 16:03:56 agendum 2, Adapting Text options discussion, closed 16:03:57 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 16:03:57 3. COGA: Support Personalisation SC [from AWK] 16:04:03 Zakim, next item 16:04:03 agendum 3. "COGA: Support Personalisation SC" taken up [from AWK] 16:04:14 agenda? 16:04:52 awk: many challenges from Tuesday call 16:05:02 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results#xq4 16:05:07 https://www.w3.org/2017/04/11-ag-minutes.html 16:05:13 ls: perhaps move discussion to coordination call. 16:05:33 ... asked for feed back off list... no response. 16:05:41 Current language: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/#support-personalization-minimum 16:05:59 ls: survey responses. need more discussion . 16:06:41 ls: we have changed wording to address comments. that moved us further away from consensus 16:06:55 Apologies I have another call.....ciao to all! 16:07:15 ls: we want access to metadata. questions about ... is technology ready? 16:07:58 ls: simplified version. 5 controls (including "more controls"), and controls must have icons and words. 16:08:31 ... pushback on metadata. don't know what it is or what to do with it. 16:08:54 ls: thousands of sites use metadata for personalization. 16:08:57 q? 16:09:32 ls: people are not comfortable. so we made changes. but it is watered down. 16:09:59 no js. we gave an alternitve 16:10:29 awk: 2 bullets - authors use metadate, and if not metadata do this. 16:11:09 awk: concerns about test ability due to language. "important" controls, important to whom? 16:11:18 ... concerns about 5 controls 16:11:29 awk: others have thoughts? 16:11:44 +1 to Jim "5 controls" 16:11:55 Q+ 16:12:01 ls: did people look at definitions for terms 16:12:40 ... if the definitions are not testable we can work on that. COGA is using language found elsewhere in WCAG 16:12:57 ls: which definitions need work? 16:13:15 rrsagent, make minutes 16:13:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html laura 16:13:15 ack JF 16:13:20 ls: testibility of words? 16:13:42 note: scribe missed a bullet from lisa 16:13:48 Glenda has joined #ag 16:14:51 jf: 5 items seems arbitrary. so have a fly out menu with 5 items, if I hover over an item then it flys out with 5 more times, does that pass 16:15:20 ls: yes. the object ... is to get to a simplified interface. 16:15:53 ... use definitions in semantics document for personalization. good examples 16:17:06 jf: concern about specifying 5. the user need is "simplified " interface. agree with requirement. the 5 requirement is too prescriptive. 16:17:26 https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/ 16:17:32 ls: we want critical features in a simplified interface. 16:18:08 q+ to speak to critical features, channeling a comment about google docs 16:18:16 ls: we want the second bullet in SC add semantics. is that possible in native apps. tried to make it easy by being prescriptive 16:18:57 ... if we use language in semantics document ... reads from document 16:19:21 ls: if you like the def in semantic doc, we can use that. but it seems vague. 16:19:23 ack a 16:19:23 AWK, you wanted to speak to critical features, channeling a comment about google docs 16:19:45 This setting should be used on: 16:19:47 Elements that are essential for the key function (from the user perspective) of the page (Example: The send button for an email draft) or 16:19:48 Elements that are sometimes critical to a user being able to use the site, such as "save my work" or "emergency instructions" or 16:19:50 Elements that are used by over 90% of a user group (such as parents or teachers) use this element most times they use the content 16:19:51 Typically 3 links or buttons would be considered "simplest" 16:19:58 awk: critical feature, important information. example google docs. 16:20:37 ... do we expect that google docs would have an only 5 controls. 16:20:45 Q+ 16:21:09 ls: perfect examples. some users only need print, save, and x. 16:22:05 ack jf 16:22:07 ls: lets mark it up and see what people think. If SC is too web centric. then provide a simplified version. happy to change wording. not sure what to change 16:23:10 jf; push back. in google docs. 4 icons save, undo, etc. then another section on zoom, then ... but these are all critical function. 16:23:46 q+ 16:23:51 ls: there are some folks who only need 3 -5 "commonthings 16:24:49 ... that are used 90% of the time. need an alternative interface. more button with all features, and a less button that only shows 5 things. thats the user need. 16:25:07 ack mike 16:25:20 ls: it was orignal proposal. got lots of push back. and things got worse. 16:26:08 mp: critical features depend on what person is trying to do. reading vs writing. 90% of what tasks. 16:26:19 ls: 90% of a user groups. 16:26:33 mp: different interface for each group? 16:27:39 ls: trying to meet needs of folks who can't deal with more than 5 options. 16:27:41 I wonder if a tool like Read & Write for Google Docs is a better solution…in other words…is this an AT issue. See https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/readwrite-for-google-chro/inoeonmfapjbbkmdafoankkfajkcphgd 16:27:56 ls: want guidance. 16:28:30 awk: people have concerns about technology or implementations or ... 16:29:12 awk: concerns about altrnatives - semantics vs alternate interface. 16:29:45 awk: seems most seem to think that this is not fully baked. 16:30:21 Q+ to ask about "not based on facts" 16:30:29 ls: can we have a COGA call to work on wording? should we have just one bullet point - semantics 16:30:33 ack jf 16:30:33 JF, you wanted to ask about "not based on facts" 16:30:56 q+ 16:30:59 jf: ls said that concerns "not based on facts" what don't we know. clarify... 16:32:01 ls: not enough time. we may disagree on that point. I need to build concensus. added bullet about 5. should that be eliminated of make it more flexible. 16:32:15 ... what are people happy with. 16:32:32 awk: talk on list some more. 16:32:54 awk: need to hear back on survey comments... 16:33:09 I'm curious about to what extent people are opposed to the approach of the SC, or just the details. (I'm in the latter camp; I think it's a good goal, and a decent approach, but there are details that would need to be fixed.) 16:33:19 awk: still more work to do on this. 16:33:57 ls: will it ever be enough. or will it be "its too much work" or is it wording? 16:34:04 if this is to address intellectual disabilities - this doesn't apply to all sites/content 16:34:04 Q? 16:34:31 awk: coga attributes only would be a problem. 16:35:11 awk: to progress, need to have options that are not already covered by wcag and are not too onerous 16:35:35 "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" 16:35:45 awk: don't know what number I would pick, 10 or 15 or more. not sure 16:36:17 rrsagent, make minutes 16:36:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html allanj 16:36:17 ack gl 16:37:02 glenda: circular conversations are all around many SC. part of process. frustrating. 16:37:47 glenda: concerned that we can't name a number. "important" is a concern. 16:38:21 glenda: read/write - perhaps this is an AT solution. 16:39:19 ls: perhaps 5 or definition of "important" 16:39:54 glenda: can live with essential. and that is hard enough to define. don't want more definitions. 16:41:01 scribe: Glenda 16:41:51 awk: WCAG 2.0 use of essential is a binary. 16:42:48 awk: If we say 5 controls (or what is essential)…then it would be easy for developers to say “everything is essential”. 16:42:57 +1 to AWK - people at my company would say everything is essential 16:43:25 Lisa: Do you have a suggestion on how to get around that issue? 16:44:18 JF: I think the longer range goal for using meta data to support personalization is the right strategy. We have to be very pragmatic about what is ready for today. 16:44:35 Lisa: That is why we are giving the alternative. 16:44:52 JF: But just because we have a standard does not mean it will be picked up. 16:45:18 Lisa: adding the metadata is easy. 16:45:39 JF: I believe adding the metadata for coga is not easy in practice. 16:46:11 +1 Glenda also believe adding the metadata for coga is too hard to actually do well. It is a huge undertaking. 16:47:58 Lisa: This is a chicken and egg problem. We need to require it. The metadata standard already exists. 16:48:19 q+ 16:48:37 q? 16:51:13 Scribe is leaving…who would like to take over scribing? 16:51:47 ack kim 16:51:51 SCribe:AWK 16:51:56 scribe: AWK 16:52:21 Kim: wants to take a step back 16:53:05 ... concerned about very complex tools for professionals such as attorneys 16:53:26 ... worried that this SC can't apply to every situation 16:53:55 ... have hundreds of web sites and they won't be able to take on the addition of all these attributes 16:54:09 ... to support this there would need to be exceptions 16:55:12 Lisa: there are ppl on COGA TF that are affected, people in professional settings who need to use complex tools 16:55:25 Glenda has left #ag 16:55:33 ... huge cost to society 16:55:56 ... people may be retiring 3-5 years early because of these challenges 16:56:46 Kim: reality is that not everyone can do the work of an attorney 16:57:14 ... practice of law demands a convoluted and complex web site in many cases. 16:58:20 q+ 17:00:00 ack m 17:01:42 +1 to MC 17:01:51 MC: highlighting the difference between issues related to implementability (Kim's ideas) and issues related to user needs (Lisa). We need to not regard these as the same issue. 17:02:28 trackbot, end meeting 17:02:28 Zakim, list attendees 17:02:28 As of this point the attendees have been allanj, Laura, AWK, Glenda, Greg_Lowney, ScottM, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, KimD, jasonjgw 17:02:36 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:02:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html trackbot 17:02:37 RRSAgent, bye 17:02:37 I see no action items