<AWK> +AWK
<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma
<AWK> Scorecard: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/scorecard
AWK: scorecard pretty good
3.2.6 WCAG21 Status Changes and 2.6.1 WCAG21 Motion Actuation needs attention
MC: the ones are probably not
good ones, in the scorecard
... ones as in '1'
<Detlev> The Buecherhallen site meets 2.6.1 via iOS system undo-through-shake - so it could be ANY site
MC: Knowbility needs second evaluator
Glenda: A11YRules for status
changes, still making vhanges...
... we can start but not done
Detlev: status change not
applicable
... not spoken via screen reader
Glenda: need to re-test
... form only 36hours old... need to test
Detlev: waiting for last changes
AWK: individual SC's
implementation in solid shape
... HOWEVER...
... looking at individual sites, we need to dig in
... Lainey not AAA right now
... but is improving...
... need another AAA
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/28-waicc-minutes.html#item06
<AWK> https://inclusivepublishing.org
MC: these may be AAA: https://inclusivepublishing.org/ and http://epubtest.org/testsuite/accessibility/
<AWK> http://www.epubtest.org
<Glenda> what about https://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/after/home.html
AWK: both need some
improvement
... anybody knows of a site OR can make a site, 5 pages?
... we need 8 AA and 2 AAA before end of week
MC: all SC needs to be avaluated
<Detlev> Mayor's office looks like it ha squite a few issues
<AWK> Jake: Trying to get a clear picture of which sites to evaluate
<kirkwood> I had difficulty with MOPD one. I noticed issues as well. It was recommended by them to look at https://blueprint.cityofnewyork.us/ for what its worth.
<kirkwood> Had issues with Mayors one too, Detlev. I spoke to them about it
Kirkwood: added link, might be useful
<Detlev> digital blueprint: no visible kb focus issues...
Kirkwood: they told us it's fine, but seems like it's not
Detlev: sadly doesn't work, 3 second reveil issues
AWK: if they can fix issues quick, we provide more info...
<Detlev> the menu doe snot get kb focus - ther ewill be more issues for sure...
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say unclear what to do with test findings that show a pass for the demo site, but have ramifications for failures in the wild, or flag concerns with SC scope.
Gower: do we care 2.0 if sites meet 2.0?
correction: Gower: do we care 2.0 if sites meet 2.1?
<Detlev> sorry, menu *does* get focus, just no focus indication and funny order...
Gower: found interresting issues at Nomensa, what do we do with findings?
MC: file issues, or directly in
understanding
... sometimes in techniques
Kim: can we just make a site and
pass 2.1?
... don't we just need real live examples
<Glenda> For AAA I think Proof of Concept sites are fine.
AWK: we don't have all examples
for all SC
... because Lainy can doesn't mean Apple can
challenging to find sites with all SC in there...
Kim: it concerns me a bit if there aren't real / live sites out there
MC: sometimes we need compromises
<Detlev> Funka's site looks as if it might be at least close to meeting AAA https://www.funka.com/en/
AWK: Nomensa OK?
MC: think so
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/evaluation_results_site_summary?implementation_id=122
<kirkwood> www.nyc.gov/MOPD
<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/implementation_list?category=claims&level=AA
<AWK> Sites listed for AA conformance: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/implementation_list?category=claims&level=AA
<Detlev> I would much rather go for Funka for AA conformance- Mayor's office has a number of issues
AWK: NY Mayor's office for PWD, who want to check this one?
<AWK> Jake will look at MOPD site
<kirkwood> possible alternative: https://blueprint.cityofnewyork.us/ but it would me more difficult to get them to fix
will do NY Mayor's office for PWD
MC: CanAdapt Solutions Web Site is OK
AWK: Deque University Public has enough people working on it
Glenda: confident all will fixed
AWK: Knowbility, can use another
one...
... A11YRules, can use another one...
... A11Y Wins, can use another one...
... Matterhorn Protocol will be removed
<kirkwood> I do think this one is quite good: https://blueprint.cityofnewyork.us/
AWK: if anyone has accessible site / PDF / collection of web pages / ePub... please send
<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/evaluation_results_site_summary?implementation_id=122
Chuck: NY Mayor's office for PWD has issues
<kirkwood> if keypoard focus is not good on NY Mayors office then maybe: http://blueprint.cityofnewyork.us/accessibility/
Detlev: Funka seems AA proof, minor issues but really give evaluators easy wins
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say marc wanted me to follow up about 2.5.3 Target Size and Lisa's site. Is she going to resolve?
Gower: is there update on target size?
<Glenda> Scribe: Glenda
AWK: who wants to scribe on Thursday?
Chuck: I’ll do Thursday
AWK: Looking for scribe on Tuesday?
<gowerm> Marc indicates Lego was discussed at F2F and it shouldn't pass. He will follow up with Michael.
Brooks: I can scribe the first half.
Gower: I’ll scribe 2nd half on Tuesday.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues
AWK: we have 71 open issues.
Fortunately many of them are “I like this” comments or
“understanding document comments”.
... We need to resolve these issues before next Tuesday. We
will have a bunch of CFCs that will go thru. Note there are
many CFCs that went out today. Please look and respond to
those.
<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/844
<gowerm> "For the purpose of determining conformance, alternatives to part of a page's content are considered part of the page when the alternatives can be obtained directly from the page, e.g., a long description or an alternative presentation of a video."
<gowerm> +1 to JF. I pasted in the Note
JF: I’m not sure where this comment is coming from. See gowerm’s quote above
<AWK> "New A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes. Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform."
<gowerm> New A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes. Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform.
Existing in WCAG 2.0 "For the purpose of determining conformance, alternatives to part of a page's content are considered part of the page when the alternatives can be obtained directly from the page, e.g., a long description or an alternative presentation of a video."
<scribe> New in WCAG 2.1 "A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically generated by the page for various screen sizes. Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform."
<Detlev> afk (2 mins) :)
AWK: we are talking about the “new WCAG 2.1” clarification for full page.
David: This is not a change to WCAG, this is just a clarification to avoid confusion. This is the way experts already interpret WCAG 2.0 requirements.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I think if we clarify there are two different notes, Patrick's general note is a good draft.
AWK: Patrick’s response to on the right track. If you make an alternative available you need to mark it as conforming.
Gower: When you have variations based on screen size, all variations must be accessible.
AWK: anyone what to volunteer to write up response?
Gower: I will do it.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/843
David: I think we can give a response that we will revise the Understanding document to clarify this.
AWK: David do you want to draft the proposal.
David: Sure
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/842
AWK: a suggestion for understanding document (will address later in understanding)
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/841
AWK: any objections to me writing “thank you for your comment"
Nothing actionable. AWK is closing.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/840
AWK: Marking as understanding and will address
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/839
AWK: Patrick has already weighed in on this one. I think this is similar to a comment from Peter Korn.
See similar comment/response for target size here https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/754
AWK: already has draft response from gower
<JF> +1
<Chuck> +1
<laura> +1
AWK: I propose that we use gower’s response for 754 and 839.
<Mike_Elledge> +1
AWK: any objection to handling
both issues with same response?
... okay. moving forward.
RESOLUTION: Accept response for 754 and use for 839 also
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/838
AWK: I think she is asking for clarification between 2.1.1 and 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures.
Detlev: I think Patrick is right and we can turn his response into an answer. I’ve worked on understanding for 2.5.1.
AWK: Detlev will you write up the proposed answer?
Detlev: Yes. I can do that.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/837
AWK: moving to queue for handling as an “Understanding” document change. Not a need to change normative text. Any objections.
No objections.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/836
David: so we are leaving these open but marking them to be handled in Understanding (when we get to that point).
AWK: Correct…if an issue is about
fixing something in Understanding…then we are moving it from
“CR Comment” to “Understanding”
... Not having a visible label is not allowed by WCAG 2.0. This
WCAG 2.1 SC for 2.4.12 Label in Name does not come in to
play.
<Chuck> +1
AWK: anyone want to volunteer to respond to this one today?
David: I can write a response now.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I have drafted a response https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/844
AWK: reviewing draft response
from Gower.
... Sounds good to me. Any objection to this response?
... No objections heard. I will put out a CFC.
RESOLUTION: 844 accepted as proposed.
<Detlev> Just added the Proposed WG response to https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/838
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/835
<Detlev> yes - easier t oparse
Gower: we can address in the understanding document.
AWK: we could make an editorial change to this SC normative text for claity? Michael?
<gowerm> "For user interface components with labels that include text or images of text, the name contains the text that is presented visually."
<Chuck> +1 add "that is"
Michael: I think this would be worth presenting to the director as a grammatical change.
<Detlev> +1 for adding that is
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Greg> +1 to add "that is"
AWK: do people like adding “that is”? And let’s not change order of words.
<gowerm> +1 to "that is"
<kirkwood> +1
<kirkwood> +2 to “that is
+3
AWK: We will change the SC text editorially to read
<laura> +1
AWK: “For user interface
components with labels that include text or images of text, the
name contains the text that is presented visually."
... Regarding the use of “name” we are leaving it as is, to be
consistent with WCAG 2.0. Also based on glossary definition not
changing. Can be reconsidered for silver.
<AWK> "Proposed response: Thank you for the comment. We will change the SC text editorially to read: "For user interface components with labels that include text or images of text, the name contains the text that is presented visually." Regarding the use of "name" the Working Group is using the term consistently sit was used in WCAG 2.0 and made a decision to not change the glossary definition. This can be reconsidered for Silver."
AWK: Any objection to this proposed response?
<Greg> sit -> as it
AWK: Going, going..gone. Alright. No objection.
AWK: thank you for comment. closing comment.
<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/833
AWK: Gower, I can respond to
that.
... We received comments with concerns for pratical
implementation. And we did not have enough data to prove the
need.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/832
AWK: Michael, I assume this will happen?
Michael: Assign this to me. I’ll need to automate this. It will take some work.
AWK: Vote to not remove the numbers.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/831
AWK: changing from CR comment to Understanding issue. Done.
AWK: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/830
... Also about understanding. Marking it as such.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/829
AWK: would this change existing
implementations…this would be a strong “yes”. There would be
sites that currently meet WCAG 2.1 that would suddenly not
pass. What do people want to say for a response to this
one?
... If we change it, we would be exiting out the wrong end of
CR. So, we would need to provide rationale for why we decided
to do it this way. I would cite, there are a ton of sites that
already implement this, we are currently allowing this
exceptoin for the time being but will reconsider in the
future.
... Chuck, you game to draft a response.
Chuck: Yes.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/828
AWK: changing to an “Understanding” task
Laura: I have a proposed response.
AWK: Does Laura’s response sound okay to people?
+1
AWK: suggest we handle response to understanding that we can send it out when we have agreement here.
<JF> +1
+1
AWK: I’ll do the responses (and add an additional phrase). And we don’t need a CFC on 828 simple response.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/827
<Greg> That should be "in that language or script".
AWK: editorial change to 1.4.12 (and it would not change any implementations). Just clarification. We must be very careful with these. Does everyone agree that this is editorial.
<Mike_Elledge> Editorial +1
+1 editorial
<Greg> +1 to this being an editorial change only
<JF> +1 to editorial
<laura> +1
<KimD> +1 (to editorial)
RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended
<KimD> *sorry, connection issues for me today & kind of behind
<Greg> Most clear would be in/for "that combination of language and script"
<Chuck> My proposed response to 829:
<Chuck> Proposed response: As many existing implementations would be in violation of this success criteria, the decision was made to allow this exception. Removing this exception will be considered in future guidelines.
<Greg> The beginning of the sentence is plural and the end is singular, which ideally should be normalized.
AWK: lets go back to 829
... Sounds okay to me.
Chuck: who changes it to the offical response?
AWK: I do it (or Joshue, or
Alastair)…and I add in some text so it is clear that it is an
offiical response and how they can let us know if they still
have questions.
... Any objection to the proposed 829 repsonse.
<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/833
RESOLUTION: 829 proposed response accepted as proposed
AWK: Anyone who wants to help with issues…jump in 826 through 806
<Mike_Elledge> bye all
trackbot, end meeting
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) Default Present: AWK, JakeAbma, MichaelC, bruce_bailey, JF, Greg_Lowney, gowerm, Brooks, kirkwood, KimD, Laura, Mike_Elledge, Glenda WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, JF, MichaelC, KimD, Greg_Lowney, alastairc, marcjohlic, jasonjgw, SteveRepsher, Glenda, Kathy, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue108, Chuck, gowerm, Detlev, (but, have, to) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK Present: AWK JakeAbma MichaelC bruce_bailey JF Greg_Lowney Brooks gowerm kirkwood KimD Laura Mike_Elledge Glenda Found Scribe: JakeAbma Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma Found Scribe: Glenda Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda Scribes: JakeAbma, Glenda ScribeNicks: JakeAbma, Glenda Found Date: 03 Apr 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]