15:45:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:45:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/12-ag-irc
15:45:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:46:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:46:00 <trackbot> Date: 12 October 2017
15:46:48 <KimD> KimD has left #ag
15:51:19 <AWK_> chair: AWK
15:51:23 <AWK_> zakim, agenda?
15:51:23 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:51:24 <Zakim> 3. Github practices (linking and replying) [from interaccess]
15:51:24 <Zakim> 4. Discussion on Failure techniques [from interaccess]
15:51:24 <Zakim> 5. AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22 [from interaccess]
15:51:39 <AWK_> zakim, clear agenda
15:51:39 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:51:42 <AWK_> agenda+ Implementation process (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/)
15:51:59 <AWK_> agenda+ Github practices (linking and replying)
15:52:09 <AWK_> agenda+ Discussion on Failure techniques
15:52:21 <AWK_> agenda+ AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22
15:58:20 <AWK_> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:58:20 <Zakim> Present: AWK, JakeAbma, lisa, jasonjgw, Joshue108, alastairc, steverep, AndyHeath, Roy, Brooks, allanj, Melanie_Philipp, Detlev, Alex, Kathy, MichaelC, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic,
15:58:23 <Zakim> ... david-macdonald, Pietro, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Makoto, MikeGower, kirkwood
15:58:29 <AWK_> Present: AWK
15:59:12 <AWK_> +Rachael
15:59:18 <AWK_> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:18 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Rachael
15:59:29 <jasonjgw> present+
16:00:11 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #ag
16:00:18 <Brooks> present+ Brooks
16:01:41 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
16:01:50 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
16:01:50 <laura> present+ Laura
16:01:57 <MichaelC> present+
16:02:19 <alastairc> present+
16:02:46 <Alex_> Alex_ has joined #ag
16:03:15 <AWK_> Implementation survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl
16:04:05 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:04:05 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
16:04:26 <david-macdonald> present+ David-MacDonald
16:04:41 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:05:01 <JakeAbma> present+ JakeAbma
16:05:08 <AWK_> Scribe: Jason
16:05:42 <jasonjgw> scribe: jasonjgw
16:05:49 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
16:06:06 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
16:06:07 <jasonjgw> zakim, next item
16:06:07 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jasonjgw
16:06:09 <AWK_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/results
16:06:13 <steverep> present+steverep
16:06:16 <AWK_> q?
16:06:21 <Alex_> present+
16:06:26 <AWK_> q- steve
16:06:32 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:06:41 <jasonjgw> zakim, next item
16:06:41 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Implementation process (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/)" taken up [from AWK_]
16:06:45 <AWK_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/results
16:06:48 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
16:07:17 <jasonjgw> AWK summarizes the results of the survey on CR exit criteria.
16:08:06 <AWK_> For wCAG 2.0: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/
16:08:17 <jasonjgw> AWK: explains the role of CR exit criteria and the requirements of the W3C Process Documents - that there must be two independent implementations. The survey links to the implementation report for WCAG 2.1.
16:08:36 <jasonjgw> The exit criteria for WCAG 2.0 are our starting point, but comments have been received on the survey.
16:09:54 <jasonjgw> At least 4 or 5 participants have suggested that requirmeents 1 and 2 of the WCAG 2.0 success criteria shouldn't be looked at for 2.1. We needn't show cofnormance to success criteria inherited from WCAG 2.0, but only that the new 2.1 criteria (those added in 2.1) can be implemented.
16:10:43 <jasonjgw> There must be two implementations of each SC that we add in 2.1. In addition, there must be assistive technologies for which we have documentation (of accessibility support) and documented techniques for implementing the new success criteria.
16:11:06 <AWK_> q?
16:12:05 <gowerm> q+
16:12:16 <jasonjgw> AWK notes consistency among several of the comments in the survey. He asks whether anyone thinks we need to find new implementations for the 2.0 SCs as opposed to focusing entirely on the 2.1 SCs.
16:12:16 <AWK_> ack M
16:12:42 <alastairc> q+
16:12:44 <MichaelC> q+
16:13:05 <Brooks> q+
16:13:06 <jasonjgw> Mike: there might be ramifications in relation to the 2.0 SCs of implementing them in the context of 2.1, so he isn't sure we should exclude 2.0 SCs from the implementation process.
16:13:06 <AWK_> ack ala
16:13:40 <jasonjgw> Alastair: we shouldn't focus on the 2.0 criteria unless there are GitHub issues suggesting overlap with the new SCs.
16:14:13 <jasonjgw> It shouldn't be necessary for the exit criteria, but as part of the process we should address such overlap
16:14:46 <AWK_> q?
16:14:47 <jasonjgw> AWK: suggests we can identify 2.0 SCs that may incur impact as a result of the 2.1 additions, and deal with such issues in the CR process.
16:14:50 <laura> +1
16:14:59 <AWK_> ack g
16:15:03 <AWK_> ack m
16:15:48 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: largely agrees with other comments, but wishes to separate the formal requirements of Candidate Recommendation from other testing that we ought to do. He suggests dealing with overlap or dependencies among 2.1 and 2.0 SCs if possible prior to CR.
16:15:53 <alastairc> sounds good, +1 to Michael's comments
16:15:58 <AWK_> ack br
16:15:59 <jasonjgw> However, doing so should not be a formal requirement of CR exit criteria.
16:16:48 <jasonjgw> Bruce: the primary focus should be on two implementations of the 2.1 SCs.
16:17:14 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:17:24 <jasonjgw> Responding to a question, MichaelC clarifies that basic implementability is the focus of CR, not public support or widespread implementations.
16:18:13 <jasonjgw> AWK: we should be able to find two Web sites that meet each of the new success criteria. He notes that it's more challenging a goal to reach when browser implementation is required - which it isn't here.
16:18:50 <Detlev> can't find the link to the Webex meeting - would someone mail it to me?
16:19:05 <jasonjgw> MikeG agrees with MichaelC's approach.
16:19:29 <Detlev> @AWK - ah great
16:19:41 <MichaelC> q+
16:20:06 <AWK_> ack mi
16:20:11 <jasonjgw> AWK: survey respondents suggested we need not adhere to teh 2.0 CR requirement of 10 implementing Web sites. He asks whether this requirement is necessary, or whether two implementations of each SC are sufficient.
16:20:57 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: suggests tehre should be testing of cofnormance levels covered rather than by individual success criteria. He does not think we should adhere to a specific number.
16:21:06 <jasonjgw> (of implementing Web sites).
16:22:22 <jasonjgw> AWK: the question is as to removing items 1 and 2 from the WCAG 2.0 exit criteria - no need for 10 implementations or for demonstrating partial conformance.
16:23:11 <steverep> q+
16:23:22 <MichaelC> q+
16:23:35 <jasonjgw> Detlev: thinks less effort should be devoted to evaluating at Level AAA.
16:23:53 <MichaelC> q+ to say we need conformance level examples that collectively cover all the added SC
16:23:57 <AWK_> ack steve
16:23:58 <MichaelC> q+ to say we need AAA
16:24:00 <jasonjgw> He considers we need to show that we can still conform to 2.0 SCs - those which are now part of 2.1
16:24:28 <gowerm> +1 agree #2 seems pretty odd
16:24:56 <jasonjgw> Steve: interprets the partial cofnormance requirement as needing to show taht what we say in WCAG about partial cofnormance works
16:25:21 <MichaelC> q+ to see partial conformance not needed because not new
16:25:24 <jasonjgw> It's unclear whether we need to demonstrate, e.g., Level A only.
16:25:26 <AWK_> ack m
16:25:26 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we need conformance level examples that collectively cover all the added SC and to say we need AAA and to see partial conformance not needed because not
16:25:27 <MichaelC> ack me
16:25:30 <Zakim> ... new
16:26:20 <Alex_> q+
16:26:46 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: we don't need to test A as it's covered under AA - however, we need to identify situations in which one can conform to one success criterion but then not to another at a different level (e.g., an SC from A and another from AA - or from AAA).
16:26:59 <jasonjgw> We don't need to perform a partial conformance claim test, as this is unchanged in 2.1.
16:27:08 <Detlev> +1 to Michael
16:27:09 <AWK_> ack alex
16:27:09 <steverep> +1 to Michael C = my opinion exactly
16:27:46 <jasonjgw> Alex: especially in relation to zoom and adapting text, we need to look for issues of concurrent implementation of both SCs.
16:28:07 <AWK_> q?
16:28:18 <AWK_> ack ra
16:28:19 <jasonjgw> AWK: considers taht there may be other examples of interdependencies.
16:28:54 <Brooks> q+
16:29:15 <jasonjgw> There is discussion of whether zoom text and color contrast requirements may interact.
16:29:36 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
16:30:02 <gowerm> q+
16:30:20 <jasonjgw> Poor contrast may become more perspicuous at scale (e.g., an icon that only appears due to a responsive design when the text is enlarged).
16:31:19 <AWK_> ack brooks
16:31:21 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: this is a case where we should separate CR exit criteria from best practice evaluation. However, responsive design and other issues should be acknoweldged and added to an understanding document - they should be kept out of CR exit criteria.
16:31:44 <Pietro> Present+
16:32:35 <gowerm> q+ to say Consistent Navigation is another SC where the new Zoom could cause breakage.
16:33:01 <jasonjgw> Brooks: do we have sites that might pass a 2.0 SC but then not pass due to changes made to implement a new SC.
16:33:23 <AWK_> ack g
16:33:23 <Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say Consistent Navigation is another SC where the new Zoom could cause breakage.
16:33:55 <AWK_> Brooks: one example is that a site that is zoomed will have a larger area of flashing content
16:34:10 <jasonjgw> MikeG: consistent navigation requriements are potentially affected by zoom, reflow and responsive design. He suggests we need to assess some potentially cofnorming 2.1 sites against the 2.0 SCs.
16:34:26 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
16:34:28 <AWK_> q+
16:35:04 <AWK_> ack AWK
16:35:09 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: testing conformance to 2.0 SCs should not be formally required in the CR exit criteria. We can exceed the bar (of CR exit criteria) but we shouldn't set the bar higher than is necessary.
16:36:37 <jasonjgw> AWK: we're looking for a combination of sites that affirmatively implement all of the success criteria.
16:37:27 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: we only need these implementations for the new 2.1 SCs. That is, we need a combination of sites that collectively, actively meet all of the SC to achieve total coverage.
16:37:51 <AWK_> q?
16:37:54 <jasonjgw> He suggests that looking for interactions among SCs should be looked for but should not be a CR requriement.
16:38:30 <jasonjgw> AWK: of the 2.0 exit criteria, we're interested in achieving #1 for some number of sites.
16:38:54 <jasonjgw> He asks wehther we should ahve, e.g., 5 sites - four at AA and one at AAA?
16:39:19 <jasonjgw> What should #1 say if we're keeping it?
16:39:19 <Detlev> +1 to AWK proposal (4 AA, 1 AAA)
16:39:53 <jasonjgw> MikeG: he needs to review the AAA criteria to determine how many sites are likely to be able to conform.
16:40:19 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: if conforming is too burdensome over-all then it's a problem that should be identified.
16:40:41 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:41:04 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:41:11 <jasonjgw> If we discover that Level AAA SCs are "bit asks" during the CR phase, we have to return to working draft status - this should be identified before we move to CR.
16:42:01 <AWK_> s/"bit asks"/"big asks"
16:42:21 <jasonjgw> Responding to a question, MichaelC identifies that we need to ensure those not involved in the working group can successfully implement. Implementation on large mainstream sites - with real-world significance - is desirable but not essential. Small sites and demonstration sites can be relied on for the purpose.
16:42:39 <Ryladog> q+
16:43:02 <jasonjgw> AWK: it's hard to introduce even small changes to large sites.
16:43:04 <AWK_> ack ry
16:43:26 <jasonjgw> Katie: suggests a portion of a site could demonstrably conform.
16:43:59 <jasonjgw> MichaelC agrees that this is sufficient for CR testing, but the work ideally shouldn't be carried out by people involved in WCAG spec development.
16:44:13 <kirkwood> present+
16:44:47 <jasonjgw> AWK: exit criterion #1 for WCAG 2.0 imposes a minimum number of Web pages per site.
16:45:14 <jasonjgw> He asks for alternate proposals for #1 (besides 5 sites - 4 at AA - 1 at AAA).
16:45:22 <gowerm> +1
16:45:30 <gowerm> drop it
16:45:36 <jasonjgw> Exit criterion #2 (partial cofnormance) - AWK proposes dropping it.
16:45:41 <jasonjgw> No one disagrees.
16:45:50 <gowerm> q+
16:45:52 <Ryladog> +1
16:46:00 <laura> +1
16:46:05 <jasonjgw> Exit criterion #3: at least two implementations of each success criterion.
16:46:18 <Ryladog> +1
16:46:55 <AWK_> ack g
16:46:55 <jasonjgw> MikeG: inquires whether (e.g., for content on hover or focus) meeting the exception is considered meeting the SC.
16:48:05 <jasonjgw> AWK: thinks that if the SC is met by satisfying the exception, it qualifies as meeting the SC. We need two implementations that demonstrate positively meeting the success criterion.
16:49:00 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: in general, an exception declares situations in whcih an SC is not applicable. For purpose of CR, non-applicability is not sufficient to satisfy the SC. The SC has to be affirmatively met (i.e., actually implemented).
16:49:30 <jasonjgw> AWK: Accessibility support documentation for at least two technologies.
16:50:00 <MichaelC> q+
16:50:03 <jasonjgw> AWK notes that this is important to demonstrating technology independence of the specification.
16:50:31 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:51:00 <jasonjgw> He suggests that identifying technologies which can meet our "accessibility supported" needs shouldn't be difficult.
16:51:07 <steverep> So it is a matrix requirement?
16:51:21 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: notes that the combination would be a user agent/technology combination.
16:51:40 <AWK_> ack m
16:52:03 <Ryladog> +1 to MC, to not repeat this
16:52:09 <jasonjgw> MichaelC proposes that we don't need to test this item, since we haven't changed the concept of accessibility support and how it operates in WCAG, whereas it was new in 2.0 and then still subject to close scrutiny.
16:52:19 <steverep> q+
16:52:20 <Detlev> +1
16:53:16 <jasonjgw> AWK clarifies that the working group produces the "accessibility support" documentation to show that the SCs could be met using that technology - showing how the technology supports what is necessary to meet WCAG.
16:53:26 <Alex_> q+
16:53:36 <AWK_> ack s
16:54:23 <gowerm> +1 take it out; my only proviso is that it's good requiring keyboard documentation where keyboard operation deviates from standards
16:54:25 <MichaelC> q+
16:54:45 <jasonjgw> Steve: suggests that a less extensive matrix of technologies would suffice.
16:54:48 <MichaelC> q+ to say steve may be right we need accessibility support documentation *for the new SC*
16:54:48 <jasonjgw> q+
16:54:57 <AWK_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/accessibility_support
16:55:27 <MichaelC> q+ to say or maybe our SC testing will provide enough evidence
16:55:59 <jasonjgw> AWK: we need two different technologies taht are accessibility-supported.
16:56:15 <AWK_> ack a
16:56:52 <jasonjgw> Alex: inquires which variety of HTML would need to provide the accessibility support.
16:57:10 <AWK_> ack mi
16:57:10 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say steve may be right we need accessibility support documentation *for the new SC* and to say or maybe our SC testing will provide enough evidence
16:58:23 <jasonjgw> MichaelC: maybe we need to document accessibility support for the new SCs. We would try not to be too specific (e.g., to versions of HTML or what is implemented in different user agents).
16:58:27 <AWK_> ack jas
16:58:53 <AWK_> Jason: some of the new SC, e.g. personalization
16:59:18 <AWK_> ... raise issues of accessibility support and we may need to document that support
16:59:26 <AWK_> ... because it could be changing quickly
16:59:53 <AWK_> ... this is similar to 4.1.2 for WCAG 2.0 because of ARIA support changing
17:00:40 <jasonjgw> AWK: regards jasonjgw's comments as implying some kind of technology support requirement for the new SC.
17:01:02 <Alex_> hard stop, have to run
17:01:11 <jasonjgw> AWK: techniques have test procedures and all issues have been addressed (that is, all open issues).
17:01:33 <jasonjgw> AWK suggests that we have agreement on everything but accessibility support documentation - at least among those of us who are on the call.
17:02:05 <jasonjgw> AWK proposes that we'll uncover accessibility support information as we perform CR-related conformance evaluations, but perhaps we don't need to include it formally in CR exit criteria.
17:02:09 <jasonjgw> q+
17:02:34 <AWK_> ack j
17:03:25 <AWK_> Jason: think that focusing on the new SC, especially where they demand new technologies, and definitely related to adapting text and zoom, that the content can adapt appropriately
17:03:42 <AWK_> ... the ASD will provide that reassurance
17:03:56 <Brooks> It is important for us to consider, at some point, support the technology stack provides in support of the new SC.
17:05:20 <Brooks> +1 to Jason
17:05:25 <AWK_> q?
17:05:40 <kirkwood> present+
17:05:50 <jasonjgw> AWK: proposes to submit a summary to the mailing list.
17:06:15 <jasonjgw> He requests that those with GitHub issues ready for resolution should notify Josh and label the items accordingly.
17:06:25 <jasonjgw> zakim, bywe
17:06:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'bywe', jasonjgw
17:06:33 <jasonjgw> zakim, bye
17:06:33 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Rachael, jasonjgw, Brooks, MikeGower, Laura, MichaelC, alastairc, David-MacDonald, JakeAbma, Glenda, steverep, Alex_,
17:06:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:06:36 <Zakim> ... Melanie_Philipp, Pietro, Detlev, Katie_Haritos-Shea, kirkwood, marcjohlic
17:06:39 <jasonjgw> rrsagent, make minutes
17:06:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/12-ag-minutes.html jasonjgw
17:06:48 <jasonjgw> rrsagent, bye
17:06:48 <RRSAgent> I see no action items