W3C

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

23 Jan 2018

Attendees

Present
MichaelC, JakeAbma, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, Kathy, JF, jasonjgw, BruceBailey, Greg_Lowney, Brooks, alastairc, kirkwood, Roy, MikeGower, Laura, Joshue108, KimD, SteveRepsher, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic, Glenda, Katie_Haritos-Shea
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
bruce_bailey, Glenda

Contents


<AWK> +AWK

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

AWK: 15 people on the call, so we are ready to go

Wrapping up CFCs

AWK: survey from this morning, note some changes with new look and feel

surveys look like other w3c pages

AWK: decision underway to move editors draft to CR

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_CR/results (Survey to more Editor's draft to CR)

AWK: seems to be in decent shape, but there are some questions we should discuss, two main issues

first Q is around what is at risk

second q is on target size

AWK: my expectation that at risk would be determined by response to survey, but that does not seem like enough, so we need to discuss now

two SC in CR for considering

1 3 5 and 2 2 7

Question is if other SC should also be noted as being at risk

AWK: some at risk are ones where we made changes since last review, about 12, seems like too many
... others would be during CFC people raised objections
... third category would be where implementations concerns were raised

Jason: testability and MS concern with inter-rater reliability is an issue
... expectation is that CR review process would be give this feedback
... this is for non-text contrast

<alastairc> 1.4.11

Joshue: we need to talk about target size at AAA

<AWK> confirm that non-text contrast is 1.4.11

Joshue: see JF comments on list

AWK: that was Jon Avilla, and see survey as well

<Joshue108> Steve Rephser also

<JF> I've had concerns about the 22 px measurement on-going. Not a blocker, but a concern

AWK: concerns expressed about target size at AAA
... comments focused on AA, but that did not pass

So should concern apply to AAA as well? It is a reasonable question.

AWK: target size question could be resolved a couple ways

one way is just to leave as-is

another option is to mark at risk, so it might be removed

third option is another CFC that the item needs a change, but that would have to be done quickly

AWK: 3rd option will post-pone CR by a couple of days
... these are the two item, I would like to focus on at-risk items first
... three item at risk

<AWK> AWK expected that Identify Purpose, Animation from interactions, and non-text contrast would be at risk

AWK: based on previous discussions and concerns about implementations
... I did not think interruptions would be at risk because that is not in spec
... Questions, concerns?

MikeG: Could we have discussion from moving animations from sufficient timing?

MG: does not have good home, but it is not helping where it is, and this edit could be done without CFC

AWK: yes, it is possible, but we are on slippery slope here
... could be consequences with timing that we are trying to avoid
... last weeks discussion had objections with all the proposed moved

<Joshue108> +1 to staying on point and on time.

AWK: we cannot turn this into opening up target size or other dismissed SC
... being at risk means that if we cannot show sufficient demonstration of implementations or other concerns, then we option to remove from spec

then spec could move forward with at risk item removed

to modify the at risk item means resetting the CR process back

SR: concern w/ MikeG that there are a couple items that do not make sense where they are, seems like it could be edititorial
... what is difference between SC at risk and not, since changes and comments could be raised on any SC

AWK: if we agree with comment and SC not marked at risk, then we need to redo CR stage
... with SC marked at risk, we can drop SC and spec moves forward
... or if we get comments that we think we addressed (even if we disagree with comment) then we could still move forward

SR: then should we decide which few to drop now?
... which SC jeopardize 2.1 draft?

<alastairc> Are there any dependancies? I.e. if one is pulled it affects others?

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say target size should be at risk

AWK: agreed, if there are SC which are in peril, we should mark those as being at risk

<JF> Sadly +1 @mgower

MikeG: Target size SC should be marked at risk because AA comments are relevant to AAA SC, namely the 22x22 size

AWK: I think we also discussed that ETSI is doing working and charged with doing work on EN 301 549 but they are waiting on 2.1
... there plan now is to not include anything in their draft that is marked as at risk
... some w3c folks think at risk is a low impact decision

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about ETSI work

AWK: there is the other side though that we need to be concerned with
... that is four SC that have been mentioned

Kathy: asks if EN 301 549 looking at AAA SC

Judy: there is a bit of interest in AAA SC but that was not one of our original expectations
... AWK articulated it well, that our decisions should not be overly driven by external processes
... the inclusion of AAA would be conservative, but there is some discussion about, for example AAA apply to home page only

Judy offers to answer questions

AWK: Judy has heard concerns, but not clear decision if AAA SC would be included or not

Judy: discussion of possibility just came up last week, need to defer to Shadi who could not be on the call today

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to add to EN and AAA

Judy: there have been long term concerns about AAA even appearing in a requirements document when they might only be meant for guidence

Wilco: I am also in WG with Shadi, and one concern is to having different parties with different requirements. They do not want differences from different countries.
... this is the web accessibility experts group providing advice

AWK: long answer to Kathy's question, but there are moving parts

Joshue: at risk mechanism gives us a shorter way to remove SC while moving process forward

AWK: at risk avoids re-doing CR process
... implementability of image contrast remains at risk

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask when would At Risk items be finalized (process-wise).

AWK: testability seems okay, the question is much more about implementing

(MarcJohlic asked the question.)

JF: at risk was raised in January, what is the timeline milestone for making at risk decisions now?

AWK: item marked at risk in CR will be at risk throughout CR and we will make decision towards the end
... if something at risk, we get not comments, and we have implementation example, we would remove at risk qualifier

<JF> thanks Michael, that's the date I was seeking - mid-April

Michael Cooper: We need to decide at risk by April

AWK: we need to decide on proposed recommendation by April to make June publication

Jason: the question on non-text contrast is around testabiltiy if different raters would have agreement when testing
... inter-rater reliability is a key issue

AWK: agreed, this is the flip side of implementability

Kathy: still does not understand SC being marked at risk or not
... what if an SC not marked at risk has problems with implementation?
... Are we going to have an issue if we find problem with SC not marked at risk?

MichealC: If something is NOT marked at risk and find problems during implementation, that means CR dates pushed back

MC: downside of too many things marked at risk could have veto from W3C director

Judy: marking at risk consistent with providing timeline protection for moving spec forward
... at risk should be used judiciously and sparingly
... EN 301 549 will not move forward with at risk items, but there could be subsequent consolidation activity
... AWK mentioned that at risk designation could be removed during PR but there is also potentially the ability to remove at risk designation with modified CR while still keeping spec schedule

Kathy: if target size AAA is put at risk, and we want to change it because AA SC was dropped, does marking it at risk give us a better option for changing it?

AWK: I think we a CFC to say that these X items are at risk, that puts us back 48 hours

MC: yes, we could put CFC back, but the only choices to us for spec is to do what we would do in the at risk statement
... we cannot do some different thing

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to clarify the fall-back option for at risk items

kahty: can we use at risk statement to reflect the changes we want to see at AAA?

Judy: we have been doing some what-if questions and reflecting on W3C process
... basic idea with at risk items is just to remove at risk item
... idea to use fall back language with at risk item is that it could introduce a delay

MC: director needs to approve this sort of use of at risk, since policy is not explict

Judy: intersection with patent exclusion issue clause
... my recommendation for WG is to focus on which SC have potential changes
... we will support MC on finding answers to specific process questions as needed

AWK: what we could do, we have a few changes (e.g. target size, maybe moving) and noting which SC are are risk
... this would be another CFC with SC noted at risk and fall-back options spelled out
... we would have new editors draft with potentially new at risk notes
... once we are in CR and someone makes comment that gives better wording, that is editorial and we can do that
... not sure if moving animations from actions is editorial or not, so AWK would prefer doing that sooner than later

MC: Thinks a move is not changing the requirement, guidelines are just organizational, so that is editorial

AWK: kathy proposes name change and phrasing more consistent with other SC, so we could make that change in CFC survey if we want
... such a CFC would have "if that fails..." language so that people have options

AWK ask MC if that is workable.

MC concurs, but needs fall back instructions to be very clear

Joshue agrees.

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask if "editorial" changes, even significant, are possible?

MC: whole SC does not have to be at risk, we could just note a bullet for example

MG: if we do have to redo CFC, in addition to 3 SC at risk, they were not clearly marked up.

Lisa: It is important to clarify why something is at risk

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to ask about currently marked at risk items

Lisa: it should not be just that anything can be thrown out due to lack of concessus
... if SC dropped, rational should be clear, so that people doing implementations know what they are working for

AWK: agree. the first time we really can mark things at risk is CR

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> clarification. why it is at risk and why it might be dropped needs to be clearly definded

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> so we know exactly what bar needs to be met

MC: at risk notes explict for reason for being marked at risk

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> i need to drop soon.

MC: most items marked at risk are because of implementation concerns
... WG would not drop for arbitrary reasons

AWK asks Kathy what needs to change to keep target size at AAA

AWK agrees with survey comment that (enhanced) can be dropped

AWK two comments about size, and David M suggest edit in his survey response

AWK: the AA version of target size

<AWK_> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#target-size

AWK: has 22x44 with list of exceptions
... propose to uses 44x44 px with inline exception

<AWK_> Is the suggestion...

<AWK_> Use https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#target-size-enhanced

<AWK_> but change the inline exception to "The target is at least 22 by 22 CSS pixels when in a sentence or block of text;"

<AWK_> but change the inline exception to "The target is in a sentence or block of text;"

<alastairc> I'd be happiest removing the middle two exceptions entirely. However, could live with a general inline exception.

<Joshue108> +1 to that

<gowerm> Fine with me

JohnF: my recollection and measurement was 22 was problem

AWK: number is dropped

<JakeAbma> +1 "The target is in a sentence or block of text;"

AWK: no expection for links in block of text, they are excepted

JohnF: will not block but not comfortable

JF: could be instances where 44x44 is not realistic

<Joshue108> I like it that it is AAA

<Joshue108> It can be used as needed...

JF: drop down fly-out menus might be an issue, seems heavy-handed

AWK: this AAA where it was before

<Joshue108> +1 to Jason

Jason: one premise to AAA is that they might not be applicable to all web content, so AAA is the place for this sort of requirement

<gowerm> +1 for AWK suggestion

Jason: AAA can be applied where they make sense

JamesN asks if we can get rid of all exceptions at AAA

<Joshue108> -1 to getting rid of all exceptions at AAA

<steverep> +1 can live with it at risk in case there are comments about justifying 44 for PWDs

AWK: so that would be essential, inline text

JamesN: at AAA means that everything has 44x44 target size

<alastairc> +1 to jamesn, although thinking about implementaion testing...

JamesN: yes, you would have to change design, but it is possible, and you change how you do things

<Joshue108> thats true..

<kirkwood> no inline text links, no dropdown menus. seems impossible no?

JamesN: implementation testing might be hard because finding sites that have done this is tough

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> my site (Athena ict) is happy to volunteer as an implemention

AWK: which is why want to have exception even at AAA

<alastairc> kirkwood - menus can be done with that spacing. Not when designed desktop first, but some do

JamesN: thinks we can find sites that are mobile-oriented

<KimD> -1 (James - disagree; not all sites can get away from text links)

AWK: do we keep some exceptions or not

<JakeAbma> with the exception it's easier to add a conformance claim, otherwise you may fail on inline links

<alastairc> Also: Should keep 'enhancement' at AAA unless JF promises we can change the names in 2.2.

JamesN asks how many AAA sites we need. AWK says two.

AWK: deleting all exception seems like a larger change than we had been discussion
... choices- remove entirely

leave as is editors draft

or change as AWK described.

AWK asks if any objections?

<alastairc> +1 to tweaked new version (minus 22px ref)

AWK: no 22 cs px mention

<JakeAbma> +1 to no 22

<Joshue108> +1 to tweaked version sans 22

Joshoe concurs

<Glenda> +1

<steverep> +1 - at risk

<gowerm> +1 to AWK sans 22

<AWK_> proposal is the same as the 12/9 WD AAA version of target size except with "The target is in a sentence or block of text;" for inline exception

AWK: should we change title?

<laura> +1

<gowerm> +1 to making it Target Size

<alastairc> ok, makes sense

AWK: thinks changing target size, and if 2.2 has AA, then change to (minimum) or something else later on

<JF> +1 to AWK - I think once we've named something, the name should remain unchanged

AWK does AAA need to be at risk?

<alastairc> not a very risky at AAA

<Glenda> scribe: Glenda

<Joshue108> dont think it needs to be at risk

JF: what is cost of marking at risk or not?
... keep at risk mark

<KimD> *can we have this in a CFC or online so we can see the language side-by-side?

<scribe> SCRIBE: Glenda

AWK: need to consider if EU is going to consider AAA (or not)
... if we went that route, the only thing at risk would be

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say yes, at risk

animations, non-text contrast, identify common purpose, and target size

Steve: is the target size we are recommending really for disability, or just a general usabilty guideline

<gowerm> +1 to Steve's comment. the measurement was a common theme, and people questioned the rationale. Enough reason to list at risk.

joshue: I suggest not marking the target size at risk, even with 44 in

AWK: anyone have concerns about the other 3 at risk? animations, non-text contrast, identify common purpose?

<JF> Clarification - I'm not adamant about at risk or not - I am just asking about the cost of doing so now

AWK: anyone have concerns that we won’t be able to get implementations for target size enhanced

<alastairc> no strong feelings. I suspect our homepage probably meets it now, and if it doesn't, could do with a couple of tweaks.

<gowerm> re: AWK, question, I think it will work into reflow, and I don't have strong feelings about at risk or no, but think at risk is more prudent

AWK: anyone object to not marking it at risk?

<steverep> Eh...

<Joshue108> I'm also not feeling strongly about it either way having it at risk would mean less of a chance of another CR cycle..

AWK: Steve what does “eh” mean

Steve: I’m on the fence. If we put out something that does not really address a disability need...

AWK: Do you think this doesn’t address any disabilty needs? Or do you think it should do more?

<alastairc> It's another continuum thing, like reflow. There's a user need for 1000% increase in size, we picked 400% / 320px as a feasible limit for authors. But it is still useful for people with disabilities.

JF: gently push back on “defining disability” … this target size will help people with disabilities. Neutral on “at risk”. Let’s move forward.

<Joshue108> +1 to John

<alastairc> Hmm, I seem to have some risky SCs.

AWK: any objections to animations, non-text contrast, identify common purpose marked at risk?

RESOLUTION: mark the following SC “at risk” animations, non-text contrast and identify common purpose

<KimD> +1

<KimD> (to defer moving)

<Joshue108> +1

AWK: can we delay working on questions relating to moving SC?
... we are delaying everything by 2 days (proposed)

<Ryladog> +1

AWK: from a risk mitigation, let’s keep it as clean as we can. Michael has said that moving SC around is editorial.

+1 to defer moving (from Glenda)

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask what "at risk" will mean for Contrast?

steve: could we change wording of guideline “Seizures”

michael cooper: “Seizures” is WCAG 2.0. Would not recommend changes to that.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to speak to seizures

jason: guildelines help us understand the criteria, has implication for interpretations.

gower: do we have to go to another CFC on target size?

AWK: we have agreement to not move SC at this time.
... First option - I will send a new draft with change of target size AAA item. And I will show these 3 items marked (at risk) - animations, non-text contrast, identify common purpose.

gower: wants changes to the Seizure guideline - slightly uncomfortable fit. Really want to add vestibular disorders.

AWK: with 22 minutes left in this call, it would be highly risky to try to make this change now. I think it is inadvisable.

<steverep> Here's the easy rewording: Seizures and Dizziness - Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures, dizziness, or imbalance.

Glenda: +1 to what AWK just said. Don’t change Guidelines from WCAG 2.0. Let it go as is.

gower: I don’t like it. But I can live with it.

<Ryladog> +1 to Don’t change Guidelines from WCAG 2.0

AWK: I will send out a CFC, and we will likely see a new publication early next week
... I would like to adjourn and go work on the CFC.

+1 - let AWK go work on the CFC

JF: CSUN update for travel plans?

AWK: we don’t have a space yet.

We have a suite…how many heads?

AWK: 15-20 people

Kathy: I have an option for Tuesday

<JF> Will we be meeting Thursday?

AWK: calling meeting adjourned early. I’ll go work on CFC.

<KimD> No objection!

AWK: Can we say “No”? Anyone object?
... no meeting Thursday

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. mark the following SC “at risk” animations, non-text contrast and identify common purpose
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/01/23 17:43:37 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/John Availla/Jon Availla/
Succeeded: s/Availla/Avilla/
Succeeded: s/EN 201/EN 301/
Succeeded: s/on moving forward/on finding answers to specific process questions as needed/
Succeeded: s/It an/It can/
Succeeded: s/voleter/volunteer/
Succeeded: s/change of another/chance of another/
Present: MichaelC JakeAbma LisaSeemanKestenbaum Kathy JF jasonjgw BruceBailey Greg_Lowney Brooks alastairc kirkwood Roy MikeGower Laura Joshue108 KimD SteveRepsher Mike_Elledge marcjohlic Glenda Katie_Haritos-Shea
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Found Scribe: Glenda
Found Scribe: Glenda
Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda
Scribes: bruce_bailey, Glenda
ScribeNicks: bruce_bailey, Glenda

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 23 Jan 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]