12:59:54 RRSAgent has joined #ag 12:59:54 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/16-ag-irc 12:59:56 RRSAgent, make logs public 12:59:56 Zakim has joined #ag 12:59:58 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 12:59:58 ok, trackbot 12:59:59 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 12:59:59 Date: 16 May 2017 13:00:06 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:00:06 Present: (no one) 13:00:08 +AWK 13:00:12 Chair: AWK 13:00:15 zakim, agenda? 13:00:15 I see nothing on the agenda 13:00:38 agenda+ Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/results 13:00:47 agenda+ Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/ 13:00:58 agenda+ Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4 13:01:40 Scribe: Mike_Pluke 14:31:32 Greg has joined #ag 14:48:22 marcjohlic has joined #ag 14:53:56 Wilco has joined #AG 14:54:19 AWK has joined #ag 14:54:24 Zakim, agenda? 14:54:24 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 14:54:25 1. Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/results [from AWK] 14:54:25 2. Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/ [from AWK] 14:54:25 3. Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4 [from AWK] 14:54:33 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:54:34 Present: AWK 14:56:23 laura has joined #ag 14:57:22 MelanieP has joined #ag 14:57:22 regrets+ Makoto, Lauriat, Glenda, Pietro 14:57:54 JakeAbma has joined #ag 14:58:26 alastairc has joined #ag 14:58:32 present+ JakeAbma 14:59:17 what is the password again ? 14:59:21 for the webex 15:00:01 gowerm has joined #ag 15:00:13 present+ Laura 15:00:41 Detlev has joined #ag 15:01:00 thank u 15:01:10 present+ alastairc 15:01:12 ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag 15:01:27 present+ MikeGower 15:01:27 KimD has joined #ag 15:01:34 Bruce_Bailey has joined #ag 15:02:23 present+ Bruce_Bailey 15:02:31 That's mike gower actually 15:02:34 present+ MelanieP 15:02:37 Kathy has joined #ag 15:02:51 maryjom has joined #ag 15:02:53 Rachael has joined #ag 15:02:53 present+ Detlev 15:03:06 present+ MaryJoMueller 15:03:16 present+ marcjohlic 15:03:30 jon_avila has joined #ag 15:03:31 Mike_Pluke has joined #ag 15:03:36 present+ Rachael 15:03:54 present+ 15:04:05 Alex_and_Crystal has joined #ag 15:04:30 Present+ KimD 15:04:46 yes, but can't find the webex password 15:04:58 Ryladog has joined #ag 15:05:12 Sorry thought it had changed 15:05:25 Mike_Elledge has joined #ag 15:05:29 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:05:29 Zakim, ping me in 25 minutes 15:05:29 ok, AWK 15:05:33 Present+ Mike Elledge 15:05:52 present+ Mike Pluke 15:06:07 kirkwood_ has joined #AG 15:06:32 davidmacdonald has joined #ag 15:06:37 Currently no consensus in surveys 15:07:07 zakim, takeup next item 15:07:07 I don't understand 'takeup next item', Mike_Pluke 15:07:22 ]zakim, next item 15:07:38 zakim , next item 15:07:42 zakim, next item 15:07:43 agendum 1. "Resize Content: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ResizeContent-issue77/results" taken up [from AWK] 15:08:01 Crystal_Jones has joined #ag 15:08:51 q+ 15:08:55 steverep has joined #ag 15:09:05 present+steverep 15:09:22 Good results from the Resize Content survey - 8 ready to go 15:09:23 kirkwood has joined #ag 15:09:56 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:10:04 present+ 15:10:11 David's OK with going live with 400% even though he'd be happier with 300% 15:11:07 present+ kirkwood 15:11:25 q+ 15:11:52 JF has joined #ag 15:11:54 Kim felt that her company would not meet 400% without scrolling. They might have to opt out of 2.1 15:11:56 q+ 15:12:05 mike can you mute 15:12:20 q+ to say we should think of the ¨major reno¨ approach to policy targets 15:13:00 adam_solomon has joined #ag 15:13:03 Kim's still OK with going ahead with this as it is not impossible 15:13:17 present+ adam_solomon 15:14:47 Detlev shares Greg's thoughts on lowering the bar for text that is already large. Fears that there might be some push back as it will be very hard to meet. 15:15:22 q+ to talk about this 15:15:41 present+ JF 15:15:48 LV TF's proposals started at 1600%, so already signiticantly down from that. 15:16:52 Michael Gower's comments raised concern regarding mobile. 15:17:31 Michael also sees no benefit in being A rather than AA as everyone uses A and AA and not just A 15:17:56 q+ 15:18:22 +1 to reflow ability 15:18:25 It is possible to reflow but not allow resize up to 400% 15:18:49 jamesn has joined #ag 15:19:35 Mike Gower asked What would we lose if this only specified text. 15:20:21 present+ 15:20:48 Stephen Repsher's comment reference to "conflicts" related to SCs that refer to 200% 15:21:00 q+ 15:21:41 Mike Elledge realised that he was confused between resizing text at AA and content at 400% - seems to be in conflict 15:22:15 ack alex 15:22:29 q+ to go over my survey comments 15:22:41 === what is a fixed spatial layout? 15:23:17 The menu could collapse and expand 15:24:01 Alex asked questions related to horizontal menu bar or ribbon at the top 15:24:27 Alex, I would suggest menu bars wrap to multiple lines, like other content. 15:24:58 ack ala 15:24:58 alastairc, you wanted to talk about this 15:25:00 Andrew is after an answer to what is a "fixed spatial layout" referred to in Alex's question 15:25:43 +1 agreed: going above 200%, it really doesn't matter what the target is. 15:26:14 Alistair concludes that if you go beyond 200% it doesn't matter much if you go to 300% or 400%. 400% difference between old iPhones and a laptop. 15:26:57 Linearization to help LV users who tend to override layouts. 15:28:10 Alistair discussed A versus AA. Confusing because of not wanting to change the current SC. Lose any 2-d information when linearization. 15:28:59 The current resize text SC is a good fallback for things that go in the exception. 15:29:34 Making one a higher level than the other would mean re-writing the existing one. 15:29:55 The 400% is easier to test than tests related to reflow. 15:30:11 agenda+ ACT TF Update 15:30:27 Dispute over whether responsive content sites lose content when reflowed. 15:30:31 AWK, you asked to be pinged at this time 15:31:15 Decided that adding an exception for mobile is not related to the content. 15:32:27 === Alex also concerned about wide menubar paradigm in this case 15:32:29 Alex felt that his answer related to what constitutes a fixed layout has not been answered. 15:32:49 ack michaelc 15:32:50 MichaelC, you wanted to say we should think of the ¨major reno¨ approach to policy targets 15:33:24 @alex_and_crystal Have you read the 'intial responses' here? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Resize_content_issues_review 15:33:52 ack ry 15:34:13 Michael C: Shouldn't use implementability on retrofit as a criteria for rejection? 15:34:25 *thanks MichaelC for the clarification about retrofitting v new dev 15:34:25 Electronic Health Records requires on Level A in the US 15:34:36 yes 15:34:45 @alastairc, no I have not read it. But how does that address the questions? 15:34:53 until 2021 15:35:14 ack jasongw 15:35:17 @alex_and_crystal See the bit starting: The "fixed spatial layout" does need better definition and examples (in the understanding document), which would include: 15:35:22 Canada is not yet AA, but will be by 2021. 15:36:10 Ontario started with Single A though, yes? 15:36:20 ack greg 15:36:20 Greg, you wanted to go over my survey comments 15:36:35 Jason suggests that 2.1 may be a standard for new or substantially re-written content. 15:36:40 And remember that that is WCAG 2.0 targets. If we made Resize Text A for 2.1, that would not affect any jurisdictions current guidance 15:37:06 There are a few real-world example that demonstrate that Level A and Level AA are being used separately 15:37:32 Greg Lowney re his comments: Agrees with Alex that more difficult for sights that already have large text - maybe an exception is required. 15:37:48 how about zoom until your text is 64px size (for example) 15:37:50 @Bruce_Bailey, agreed, but again, those are WCAG 2.0. If we move something in 2.1, that doesn't affect any current jurisdiction 15:38:00 AWK: for a wide menu I'll add that the developer would have a variety of options, from adding a single menu button that then exposes the list of top-level menu items, to adding a "more"-type icon to show the next set of menu items, to wrapping the menu. 15:38:21 Greg Lowney: The role of native controls. The content of a field may be wider than the visible screen and may need scrolling. 15:38:46 q+ 15:39:04 === what is the role of the UA for web content? Implication for mobile UA.... 15:39:14 Greg wanted Clarification on the role of web-based user agents. Clarify what is required of them. 15:39:37 zakim , next item 15:39:46 @alastairc, thanks for that. I am looking for something along this line. Of course, we need definition text, not just examples. 15:39:48 zakim, clear queue 15:39:48 I don't understand 'clear queue', AWK 15:39:48 native controls should come under the exception of spatial layout 15:39:54 Just to note, I've answered most things, but I do need to go back and address comments from Greg (Lowney) and JakeAbma 15:40:02 q- 15:40:07 ack ja 15:40:18 RESOLUTION: Leave open 15:40:26 zakim, next item 15:40:26 agendum 2. "Plain Language: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/plainLanguage-min-Issue30/" taken up [from AWK] 15:40:30 See my my survey comments for more details. 15:40:32 @Alex_and_Crystal sure, does that need to be in the SC text or understanding? 15:41:11 @gowerm, I am just saying it feels premature to me to give up on A/AA/AAA for 2.1 at the moment... 15:41:11 @alastairc, either in sc text or definition 15:41:34 allanj has joined #ag 15:42:04 zakim, ping me in 25 minutes 15:42:04 ok, AWK 15:42:33 Laura's question about who is going to maintain the 1500 word vocabulary 15:43:11 Q+ to ask "In the public" how? where? in what format? 15:43:24 Lisa: The answer is that the 1500 word list has to be publicly listed. 15:45:28 A lot of concerns over the 1500 word concept - either not enough compared to say what WCAG has 15:45:47 q+ 15:46:03 q+ 15:46:17 Lisa says that all comments have been dealt with, but Andrew suggested that ongoing comments suggest that this has not been fully resolved. 15:47:19 Is 1500 a number derived from research & which language? 15:47:30 ack JF 15:47:30 JF, you wanted to ask "In the public" how? where? in what format? 15:47:57 Stephen Repsher wants to see at least something in the normative test about where the list comes from 15:47:57 q+ to ask where 1500 came from 15:48:09 http://www.lflegal.com/ 15:48:10 ack r 15:48:57 all non testable 15:49:35 ack li 15:49:37 Katie suggests that having a summary and a link 15:49:49 ack bru 15:49:49 Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask where 1500 came from 15:49:55 q+ 15:50:10 q+ 15:51:01 q+ 15:51:14 there are brudcasting program tha do that too 15:51:18 ack jason 15:51:26 Bruce wonders where the 1500 number came from (could be smaller or much larger). Some books provide a list of words used at the end (maybe an approach). 15:52:28 +1 to Jason 15:52:56 q+ 15:53:23 ack lisa 15:53:26 I would like to know if it is allowed for the content author provide the list of 1500 words they used. 15:53:41 Jason Concerns about internationalization because of lack of word lists in different languages. Different vocabularies used in each language. Also still issues with different application domains. 15:54:54 Lisa suggests that if we don't get the word list idea in, there won't be a significant benefit for many users. 15:55:16 q+ 15:55:45 q+ to ask again where 1500 came from. Why not 2000? Why not 2500? 15:56:38 q- 15:56:40 Lisa suggests that need to separate concerns regarding how the word list concept can be implemented versus those that think that there is no value in the concept at all 15:57:29 seems like instructions would include words like checkbox, radio button, button, drop down. So we'd need to make sure common core words include all control names. 15:58:24 Lisa argued that after 1500 words, the extra words are relatively obscure. Should allow general communication with this number of words. Additional context specific word lists can be added to this. 15:59:57 q+ 16:00:05 Here is an example of ten hundred words in English: 16:00:07 https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Most_frequent_1000_words_in_English 16:00:07 ack gower 16:00:20 Is it just me or did the audio dropped? 16:00:42 just you 16:01:18 3.1.5 Reading Level: When text requires reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level after removal of proper names and titles, supplemental content, or a version that does not require reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level, is available. (Level AAA) 16:01:29 reading level is not helpful 16:02:08 ack adam 16:02:10 also does not work internationaly 16:02:24 Mike Gower thinks that this is an important topic. Wondered how Headings and Labels is of a similar level of generality compared to other SCs got into WCAG 2.0. 16:02:32 Also questions why reading-level could not be used - never heard the full rationale against. 16:02:33 words can be easy to read and not simple, such as the word "mode" 16:02:34 "Reading level is not helpful" is not a helpful explanation 16:02:59 right, and "mode" at a elementary school level would not be on the list 16:03:11 Adam solomon that the 1500 word list would come from the body acquiring the system. 16:04:22 === concern about internationalization - do we know? 16:04:24 Question to Lisa - is this cross-language threshold? 16:04:45 Interesting comment from Adam Solomon: "that the 1500 word list would come from the body acquiring the system." 16:06:07 Would it be possible to raise the language a bit for any languages where it might 1500 words might not be appropriate (e.g. to 1600/1700) 16:06:33 Maybe OT, but here is the Saturn V rocket explained with ten hundred words: 16:06:36 q? 16:06:37 http://xkcd.com/1133/ 16:06:41 ack alex 16:06:44 English, Hebrew and Arabic are languages that have been considered. 16:06:56 @lisa This is the note from Reading Level. "According to the Open Society Mental Health Initiative, the concept of Easy to Read cannot be universal, and it will not be possible to write a text that will suit the abilities of all people with literacy and comprehension problems. Using the clearest and simplest language appropriate is highly desirable, but the WCAG Working Group could not find... 16:06:57 ...a way to test whether this had been achieved. The use of reading level is a way to introduce testability into a Success Criterion that encourages clear writing. Supplementary content can be a powerful technique for people with some classes of cognitive disability. " 16:07:04 AWK, you asked to be pinged at this time 16:07:45 that is why we have a scope 16:08:04 Alex - a hammer looking for a nail situation. Comprehension is a complex issue - every time you draw a line there is a significant cost to things like freedom of speech. 16:08:20 q+ 16:08:26 === should this be a personalization issue instead of a defined threshold? 16:08:59 q- 16:09:02 SC is scoped to: error messages that require a response to continue, instructions, labels and navigational elements 16:09:12 Alex - ought to be a personalization issue - not convinced by the universality of the 1500 words limit. 16:09:23 ack li 16:09:59 Scope doesn't make it a freedom of speech issue - e.g. for buttons, etc. 16:10:19 don't know 16:10:36 Is there a chance of a 1500 word limit getting through? 16:10:41 -1 (sorry) 16:10:50 -1 I cannot support the 1500 words at this time 16:10:57 -1 for now 16:10:58 -1 16:10:58 +1 yes, with the edits I proposed in survey 16:11:01 -1 16:11:03 -1 16:11:04 -1 16:11:05 also in the tecniques you can add it as an attribute fso you can use wnay text you like 16:11:06 -1 16:11:10 0 still waiting 16:11:11 abstain 16:11:13 0 16:11:18 In today's technology environment -1 Maybe in future 16:11:18 +1 16:11:20 0 16:11:36 RESOLUTION: leave open 16:11:47 -1 at the moment, just not clear on who would be responsible for it. 16:12:00 -1 I think it will rely too much on others creating controlled vocabularies :^ ( 16:12:05 zakim, next item 16:12:05 agendum 3. "Target Size: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4" taken up [from AWK] 16:12:16 zakim, next item 16:12:16 agendum 3 was just opened, Mike_Pluke 16:12:32 Several points of clarification: - Target does not mean size of the link or button. Can have padding or spacing around the interactive control for the touch target area - Increasing the touch target size, does not necessarily mean larger keyboard focus indicator – see Patrick's mock up- http://codepen.io/patrickhlauke/pen/aBNREe - Increasing target size to 44x44 CSS pixels can be accomplished using CSS using pointer events and does not require scripting 16:12:42 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60 16:13:12 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60#issuecomment-301830356 16:13:56 Kathy clarifying that 44 pixel does not mean the focus indicators etc. get bigger - just the target size 16:13:58 q+ 16:14:47 So really a CSS change to accomplish this. Proposals that should not just be links, so example also includes blocks of text 16:15:48 Option 1 +1 exception for links in blocks of text 16:15:55 q+ to correct that it is not guaranteed that the visual indicator does not expand 16:16:21 ack james 16:16:27 3 options described 16:17:00 +1 for Option 1: Inline: The target is a text link in a block of text. 16:18:13 James Nurthern can do padding using CSS only, but that is inflexible. If change extra size of the padding to suit the circumstances cannot be done entirely in CSS. 16:18:24 native controls today (