Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 19 Apr 2018

<kirkwood> I could

<kirkwood> sorry no one coud hear me ;_

<scribe> scribe: alastairc

Understanding docs (Q&A, process, timing)

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-understanding-documents

Josh: Last week (this Tuesday) we starting the review process of understanding documents.
... there's a few items than need a reviewer (at the URL above)

David: I'll take character keys

JF: I took 1.3.5/6, the name and numbers have changed, I'm not seeing that reflected anywhere.

<Joshue108> AC: Just carry on with the understanding doc.

<Joshue108> AC: Include that as a comment

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about name changes and number changes...

Josh: That's great, carry on with those.

<kirkwood> timeouts i can do

Josh: Just need some more eyeballs, anyone else?

David: Shall we make new branches?
... what about commenting, a few minor things?

<kirkwood> if relatively terse we put into comments if majory changes, we should make changes on a seperate branch. -my understanding.

<kirkwood> i would do timeouts

Josh: John added, David added, timeouts... thank you JohnK

<marcjohlic> Label in name

Josh: Pointer gestures, label in name... any takers?
... thank you marcjohlic
... last one, any takers?

greg: I'll take pointer gesterures.

Josh: time frame is 1st pass for next tuesday, then swap onto different docs for the week after.
... No comments on the first 4 in the list, Laura commented on text-spacing.
... Bruce did a doc with track-changes on motion actrivation, great.

AC: Noted that bruce had some questions, would be great if David could take a look.

Chuck: A few questions (shared screen) on concurrent input mechanisms, there is a phrase on "respect user settings". I'm not sure what it is there for, no other reference.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

Chuck - suggest pinging Patrick Lauke on github wiht a comment, I think he authored it originally.

Josh: (missed a bit due to audio sorry).

Kim: Are we wondering what the user-settings means?

Josh: We were wondering if there was a glossary item for it, but we don't.

kim: If the user has locked something to a particular orientation we'd want to respect that.

AOB

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/815

Josh: Was looking for tool to help with text-spacing testing. Came across a couple of things, does anyone has a plugin that they use that is effective?

Judy: Shawn tracks some of the text-spacing issues, and _might_ know about tools for that

Michael: Stylish works well, just need the CSS to include.
... Director asked about section 7, where the list of common purposes (replacing HTML5.2 autofill) doens't have the same terms. Looks clear we worded it to be more generic, but can't find a place where we documented it.

JF: I don't remember the conversation happening, I know I missed some calls, I'd have kicked up a stink if it was changed.

<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/#input-purposes

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/sec-forms.html#sec-autofill

Josh: We touched on this on 803, where Charles commented. We skirted around it and Andrew made points about it, not wanting to rigidly reference HTML5.2. However, we don't have explicit documentation about it.

Michael: the decision included the ability to revert to the previous version. Or we could just change the list to exactly match.

<Joshue108> URI John?

JF: Looking at the list it is somewhat trunkated?

Michael: there are more autocomplete values, but we grouped things so that 'name' covers many of those, so they are more conceptual.

JF: I don't remember that explicit conversation, but even when we had that list previously it was the complete list.

Michael: If we changed it to be exactly the same, would that be better than the external reference?

JF: Yes

<KimD> Yes, we wanted to be general

Josh: The reason it's like this, is because there are some aspects that are better than others.

<KimD> (+1 to Josh)

JF: More terms will be added, the personalisation spec should build on it.
... We did have a list of 53 input values supported in the wild, if not native browser support.

<Joshue108> Here is the closest thing I have to a thread on this issue from CSUN https://www.w3.org/2018/03/20-ag-minutes.html#item10

JF: there is a trimmming here I don't think we discussed.

Josh: At this stage, if we feel referencing HTML5.2 is what is needed to get to PR, I can live with that. I'd rather not, but would be ok.

<Joshue108> +1 to David

David: this kinda got by me, although I like this list better. I do have a problem with some of the support.

<JF> -1

I support it, and the director agrees, we're not increasing the requirements.

<KimD> +1 to David

Michael: Increasing or decreasing would not be good.

Josh: that's important, I don't think this changes the requirement. Agree with David, easier to do.
... it's one potential technique, it's not absolute. I don't see any real difference in practice.

<JF> Techniques are not Requirements

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to point to the resolution: "RESOLUTION: working group decides to move the list into an appendix of wcag 2.1 unless that change contravenes cr status."

JF: The resolution from the meeting doesn't appear to support changing it.

Josh: Andrew does make some comments about that above about making some changes, but we still have a problem. No mal-intent, one of those things.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I don´t think it changes the requirement, but it changes the wording and would be happier with a documented WG consensus that it doesn´t change the

<Judy> JB: If there is a possible risk that this could be interpreted as a substantive change, you might have just barely enough time to run a standalone cfc to settle the qu -- though this may indeed not be substantive

Michael: trying to work back, the CFC to accept moving the terms closed before the edits, and I haven't yet been able to see if the edits were available during the CFC.

<JF> strongly disagree that this is 'editorial' only, as the list is now shorter thanpreviously

Michael: in spite of all that I don't think it does change the requirement, and there's a disclaimer at the top. If there are people saying 'I wouldn't have voted for that', but then I'm not sure we can defend it, so might need to revert to the HTML version.

JF: I'd support that over what we have right now.

Judy: I was considering to see if Ralph were available to give us an interpretation, but if Michael says we can role back, that's interesting.

Michael: The change would be nullified, so no change.
... for the option of copying values unchanged into the spec, although there are concerns there as well, but not sure it would be accepted now.

<Chuck> regrets, must leave early

Michael: would people prefer to include the complete list in WCAG 2.1 (+1), or revert to linking to HMTL 5.2 (-1)

<Joshue108> +1 to list

<JF> +1

<kirkwood> +1 to include

<JF> I agree with Josh - our reference is the rsolution we passed during TPAC, which (I believe) was also the intent of the CfC

Judy: Lots of work done in little time, I agree w Josh completely understandable; do you want a fall-back option of a quick CfC on this?.

Michael: There wouldn't be time, given calendars. 1st option is to copy the list in. 2nd choice is revert.
... I have a meeting tomorrow, part of transition process, this was in time to raise with the group. Unfortunately there won't be time to check.

David: Looks like a misunderstanding.

Kim: don't want to make this bigger.

<JF> +1 to david - I would insist on seeing all of the terms that we entered into CR with reflected *somewhere*, either as an appendix or, as originally, pointing to the HTML 5.2 autocomplete token values

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

19 Apr 2018

Attendees

Contents

Understanding docs (Q&A, process, timing)

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output