Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 22 May 2018

<alastairc> Chair:alastairc

<Kim> *WebEx is s-l-o-w

<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

Understanding docs survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/understanding_changes4/results

Understanding Orientation

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/922/files?utf8=%E2%9C%93&diff=split

AWK: Gower had questions on call last week...

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/928

<scribe> Scribe: JakeAbma

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/922/files?utf8=%E2%9C%93&diff=split

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/928

MG: added for what intent was (in first place), and distinguishing between physically level and application level

AC: any objections to update?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to mike edit

<laura> +1 to mike’s edit

<bruce_bailey> +1 to AWC catch of ancillary

AWK: suggest 'ancillary' to 'distinct from'

AC: 'ancillary' suggests dependencies

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest "compliments"

<bruce_bailey> This Success Criterion is ancillary to such device "lock orientation" settings.

<bruce_bailey> This Success Criterion compliments such device "lock orientation" settings.

MG: compliments seems fine, thx to Bruce

<AWK> I think that this will confuse people

<AWK> (the camera metadata example)

<alastairc> "Some websites and applications restrict the screen to a particular display orientation and expect"

RESOLUTION: accept pull request 922 as amended

Non-text contrast

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/924

<alastairc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018AprJun/0506.html

AC: uncomfortable with relative luminance and 1.4.1
... maybe we combining things a bit too much

<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/non-text-contrast-ac/understanding/21/non-text-contrast.html

Glenda: agree at this point would be rough to include, want to keep it for silver

MG: 1.4.1. we have specific rules for text and color with examples
... visual state need 3:1
... if we have state indication only for use of color, we need distinct between UI elements
... we need to cross reference so people can think about it

AC: do we need contrast / use of color for all states in a UI control?

MG: yes, just the same as for what we have with links, for someone who can't see the colors, with relative luminence
... alter the BG, make lines thicker etc.

<Glenda> I suggest not saying “color alone”…but say “hue alone”. So we can help people understand that difference in luminosity are accessible (for colorblind and low vision) if you meet 3 to 1 (for non-text content)

<Kim> +1 to cross-referencing

<Detlev> sorry, got caught up in a meeting

MG: make sufficient and failure technique to tackle this issue...

<AWK> Created https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/932 and assigned to Mike Gower

<gowerm> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G183

<Glenda> no objections :)

RESOLUTION: accept Pull Request 924 subject to updating graphical examples

CHanges to understanding timeouts

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/925

AWK: Davids comments mostly editorial...
... what I didn't change = 20hours of activity
... suggested 24, didn't change that

AC: Lisa wanted 24 specifically

<Detlev> Leave 20

MG: 20 was for consistency with 2.0

<Detlev> what difference do 4 extra hrs make??

AC: maybe "at least 20...?"

<kirkwood> 24 hours was a logical choice from a cognitive perspective

<alastairc> Setting a session timeout to occur following at least 20 hours of inactivity.

MG: people were warned in the SC language before limit kicks in, that text is gone now. when you'll see message, probably to late

<Glenda> I agree with Mike

<AWK> current: This Success Criterion helps users who need additional time performing tasks or reading content by ensuring they are notified about timeouts at the beginning of a timed process.

<kirkwood> seems ok

<AWK> "This Success Criterion helps users who need additional time performing tasks or reading content by ensuring they are notified about timeouts related to inactivity"

MG: people should be aware there's a time limit, not only when time is up

<Chuck> Yep

<Chuck> Scribe: Chuck

<AWK> "This Success Criterion helps users by ensuring they are notified about timeouts related to inactivity."

alastairc: ...gets into more detail on the explanation...

<kirkwood> User can prperly prepare materials prior to a timed process

<Detlev> where is this text? Not in pull request 925...

<AWK> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/timeouts-awk/understanding/21/timeouts.html

<Detlev> ok

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/925/files?utf8=%E2%9C%93&diff=split

john: muted?

<kirkwood> sorry will have to call in go on

<kirkwood> the objection was that people need to prepare materials before ata timed process

<AWK> John, want to type in your thoughts?

<kirkwood> ok its fine then

alastairc: I think we still have that language in there.

<kirkwood> sorry

<kirkwood> ok fine

alastairc: in 2nd paragraph of benefits.

AWK: How about, we could add in... we could change that to comma, including preparing materials in advance or if they need to prepare materials in advance of starting the process.

<kirkwood> yes that is fine

<Detlev> suggestion: "...whether or not they can manage this task in the given time"

alastairc: turns it into long sentence

david-macdonald: Wondering about overlap with timing adjustable... <reading>. These are all true. <reading> It just seems... concerned that this overlaps with timing adjustable. This is about notifying the user before hand.

alastairc: Had a discussion before, another issue needs to be raised about that aspect. We are the point now seeing if everyone is happy with this version. Don't want to push it around.

AWK: At line 14 it's deviating. "When the user cannot finish the task in the time aloted". That one is talking about 2.2.1. I might suggest we remove the paragraph.

gowerm: Is it useful to link these two in the understanding documents (with 2.2.1)?

alastairc: Would require more thought on how that would work.
... Not opposed to linking to the other one as long as we are clear about the relationship.

gowerm: OK to remove the text, but add language how it relates to 2.2.1.

alastairc: Should we create a separate issue AWK?

AWK: Sure.

alastairc: That would just be crossreference the two success criteria.

AWK: We might be able to add a sentence (stop gap solution). Oh bummer I've timed out.

<AWK___> "<p>This Success Criterion works in tandem with Success Criterion 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable, but is specifically focused on notification of timeouts related to user inactivity.</p>"

alastairc: That works.

<Detlev> sounds good

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept pull request 925 as ammended.

Identify Purpose

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/929

Judy: How long will meeting go?

alastairc: end of hour. This is last topic.
... I've overhauled this. It was pruning. I left as much as was relative to the SC. Comments from David and Andrew that I've integrated (typos and small things).
... Others have looked at it and accept it into the draft. Anybody else have any additions, questions or comments?

<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/identify-purpose-ac/understanding/21/identify-purpose.html

AWK: One question: Where it says "people who benefit..." do we need something more? Is it language processing, language comprehension? I'm thinking this might be misinterpreted.

Judy: ...answered...

alastairc: Including language related, other related...

Judy: I was trying to fill in some examples. I am not clear that language and learning disabilities is used widely.

<kirkwood> I agree maybe aphasia?

alastairc: Maybe we could rephrase the top sentence... <suggestion>

<david-macdonald> Language-Based Learning Disability:

AWK: How about we get rid of the word "related" and add "related" elsewhere?

<kirkwood> sounds good

alastairc: Sure.

<laura> +1

<kirkwood> languag3e-related

alastairc: Reading commentary from John. We need to keep it as simple and broad as possible.

<kirkwood> language-related

DM: We could use language based learning disability.

<kirkwood> language based is fine too

alastairc: John is suggesting language based...

<kirkwood> I’d move it down in list

alastairc: Other questions/comments?

<kirkwood> meory being first, and focus second

AWK is editing this.

<kirkwood> sure

<AWK___> done

alastairc: Any other comments/questions?

<kirkwood> can email me directly

Mike: Been some discussion about appropriate terminology... if anybody is aware of any organization that is creating information about cognative, etc. please send it.

alastairc: Good idea.

DM: Include me.

<kirkwood> i dohn’t remind other ;)

<kirkwood> hee hee

alastairc: just wrapping up this agenda item.

<kirkwood> yes

RESOLUTION: accept pull request 929 as ammended.

alastairc: How much time do you need Judy?

Judy: 5 minute item.

alastairc: Let's do it now.

Abstract changes

903 abstract change that relates to whether or not this document supercedes 2.0

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/903/files

Judy: Never intended to make 2.0 unusable. People can quickly jump to assumptions. 1: People abliged to use 2.1 and may be required to use 2.1 think it is invalid to use 2.0

<alastairc> (highlights changes to the abstract)

2: We've seen ... updating whether or not 2.0 is valid or not that they are deciding 2.0 is no longer valid. Let's clarify that 2.0 is still ok to use 2.0 even if the wg recommends use of 2.1.

Judy: Additional thing - W3 changed doc to supercession: Looks very clear but if you keep reading it becomes unclear and this might cause a misunderstanding.
... Supercession requires a formal process and separate AC review. We want to make sure this document makes clear that we are not superceding or deprecating 2.0.
... People use 2.1 for new content and where possible for new policy.
... I propose adding a short pre-amble stating that 2.0 is not deprecated or superceded...
... People might have questions and comments.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we have implemented all of Judy's suggestions: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/903/files

DM: I agree with having something. It will take a while to take up 2.1. We don't want people saying the older standards are not valid.

Judy: People who need that can find it and locate it in the same place in the abstract. There should be no suprises.

AWK: We could run into challenges even trying to have WCAG 1.0 closed off or superceded in that way for these same reasons. Fine to be clear on this point.

Judy: I think that might be an interesting conversation in the next year in re to 1.0, but we don't want to pull the rug out or create confusion about 2.0.

AWK: All changes you suggested we have integrated into the current version. A couple of other questions...
... Were added to the review. Once I integrated all the changes a word appeared three times in one sentence.

Judy: That doesn't intersect with the language I added does it?

AWK: Maybe it didn't. It did not.

Judy: I'm dropping off, if there are no questions with this request...

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we can have two sentences instead of one

Bruce: Where was the chance to edit this? I've not seen this, and I want to split one long sentence into 2.

<AWK> Just suggest the change, Bruce

Judy: This was something that Michael prepared, dropped a note to me, I added an addition. Can you read out your preference and explain why?

<alastairc> For this bit? "While the publication of WCAG 2.0 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0, the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts."

Bruce: The sentence that concerns me... <reading>. I would like to use instead <reading>.

Judy: I think that would work.
... Bruce's rephrasing works well.

<bruce_bailey> Asks that "While the publication of WCAG 2.0 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0, the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts."

AWK: I like having those together. It's then basically saying that while 2.0 is not superceded, we recommend you use 2.1.

<bruce_bailey> Instead be: The publication of WCAG 2.0 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. However, the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts.

Judy: To be clear, the problematic ambiguity in the later reference to supercession is one of the reasons why we should be careful...

<laura> How about: While the publication of WCAG 2.0 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. However, the W3C recommends…

<Kim> +1 to separating.

Bruce: I want to have a clear sentence that's portable.

Judy: Separating them would be portable and would remain sufficiently clear.

<Kim> I would also like a little more clarity or stress on this applying to NEW developement

Judy: AWK I like the linkage but Bruce's portability is pretty important for buffering against confusion.

Laura: I am thinking that we can split, however at the start of the second sentence... <reading> then say "however we recommend".

<AWK> I'd prefer to make it more of a declaration rather than use however

Judy: I was trying to find a similar thing and avoid reduncy, economy of words.

Laura: There's a typo in there too.

Judy: So ... <recaps suggestion>

<AWK> -1

Judy: What do people think?

<AWK> The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. The W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts.

DM: I like it as long as you add a period.

Judy: Here's what I'm worried about. If the 2nd sentence is portable, and is used without the first sentence, would create confusion.

<gowerm> how about a semicolon?

Judy: Adding however helps promote the linkage.

AWK: Why would 2nd sentence cause confusion?

<Kim> Take out "While" at start of first sentence though.

Judy: It already is creating confusion.

DM: I understand/see the confusion.

<gowerm> ...2.0; however, th W3C...

Judy: ...we need to be more precise.

<bruce_bailey> I want the portability please

DM: Maybe the portability is not such a good thing. Maybe it should be one sentence.

Laura: I agree.

Bruce: I really want that portability.

AWK: What does the portability do for you?

Bruce: I'm having to answer questions about 2.1. I would like a portable sentence that I can cite from the 2.1 doc and as a compound sentence I don't get that.

alastairc: If it is portable then the portable one would cause the confusion wouldn't it?

Bruce: No. I'm worried about the first half of the compound sentence as is.

<Kim> +1 to Bruce. First sentence should be "The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0."

DM: If there is a period and a however that would solve it for you?

Bruce: Correct.

Judy: The assumption I'm seeing people make is that 2.0 will no longer be valid to use.

<alastairc> For Bruce: "While the publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. However, the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts."

<AWK_> "WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.0 are both active recommendations, but the W3C recommends that new and updated content use the most updated specification to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts."

<Kim> Need to take out the "while" at start of first sentence, Alistair.

<gowerm> The publication of WCAG 2.0 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. However, the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts.

AWK: Making a suggestion...

Judy: Certain words are defined, and superceded is a defined term, but is redefined a bit ambiguous.
... The status could change in the future. The more you say about it in this version the more you would have to correct in the next version.
... It's a w3c recommendation.
... Going back to Laura's idea...
... As soon as you have cleared AC review process, it will then be W3C recommending, not just the WG recommending.

<alastairc> Thinking: "The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. For new and updated content the W3C recommends the use of the latest recommendation to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts."

DM: What would that look like?

<AWK_> "The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. While WCAG 2.0 remains a W3C Recommendation, the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility efforts."

Judy: <rephrases>.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to what AWK just pasted in

DM: Maybe add "stable"?

AWK: My only question is whether there is another word instead of "recommends"?

<gowerm> the W3C encourages

AWK: "while 2.0 remains a W3C recommendation..."

Judy: It's actually deliberate. Relates to W3C can make any policy statement.

AWK: I was thinking "advises" but I'm totally fine with it.

gowerm: I'm concerned with this recommendation.

AWK: <reads current recommendation>

<Makoto_> +1 to AWK's edit. This statement is very important because Japan will keep using WCAG 2.0 as the national standard until 2.1 become ISO/IEC, at least.

Judy: Maybe "advises" works.

alastairc: or "encourage".

Judy: "encourage" sounds fluffy in this context.
... many like "advises".

alastairc: Does this address portabillity?

bruce: Yes.

<Makoto_> +1 to "advices"

alastairc: Anything else Judy?

Judy: Thanks for your incredible work. More to come.

AWK: There are comments in the first paragraph.

gowerm: Should we at least get the language we settled on?

AWK: It's in there now.

<Kim> *follow up on Bruce's comment - can we propose edits on this?

AWK: <reading the before>... I thought that sounded wierd from a structural perspective. Blindness and low vision are not a people. <reading recommendation>
... How do we say this w/o using "accommodation"?

DM: How about we say....

alastairc: I'm not clear from John's statements if he wants both "accommodation"s gone.

<AWK_> "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including those with blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations; b

AWK: The sentence we have now...

alastairc: This is not something that has to be resolved this week is it?

AWK: It does need to be resolved.

alastairc: I think this addresses exactly what John says.

AWK: I'm warry of changing the rest of it. So I'm hoping this is ok.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/903/files

alastairc: What we are proposing is on the right.

<marcjohlic> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/903/files?utf8=%E2%9C%93&diff=split

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about "Content that conforms to WCAG 2.1 also conforms to WCAG 2.0."

alastairc: There's a sentence in the 2nd paragraph ... <reading> I remember someone complaining about that or wondering if that was the case. Am I inventing memories?

AWK: That is definitely the case, basis of our backwards compatability. Changing that to one sentence is something Judy was specifically asking for.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to edits, thanks

Kim: Apologize, not involved for a week. I'm wondering... goes back to what Judy was talking about, in the newly split second sentence. What does that really mean? Can we look at that or is it too late?
... Impacts my company in particular. We are constantly updating content.
... This would not be a helpful distinction for us.

alastairc: Depends on the conformance you are claiming. You can continue to claim 2.0 conformance. Even though W3C recommends 2.1, you don't have to.

Kim: If I look at this as a policy statement. If we are looking at updated 508, and looking at old legacy sites that conform to 1.0 and weren't changed anymore, you can take those off the table. I'm looking for that clarity in this statement.
... If updating not just content, but code and functionality then 2.1 is not intended for you. Can we be that clear?

DM: I'm going to channel Greg. WCAG is a measuring stick. "What is". The language we are giving provides tools to policy makers to craft their own policies. 508 is a legal document. WCAG is a measuring stick.

<alastairc> I think the sentence that applies is: "The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0."

<bruce_bailey> To Kim, yes that was a fine paraphrase of the Revised 508 Standards exception for legacy content.

Kim: I agree with you David, it's splitting hairs. When I brought this up before, I've said this isn't meant to be backwards looking. It's meant for new stuff.

DM: That's not our intent is it?

Kim: I don't think we want to discourage... for corporations with 100s of websites which don't conform with 2.1 (reflow for example) it is unrealistic to expect them to rebuild all their websites.

<alastairc> q/

Kim: This is a forward looking standard (we should say that somewhere).

<bruce_bailey> Current (just now): ...the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of accessibility effort

AWK: We try and tread a carefuly line around policy. We want to be able to say that this is the updated standard and you should use it. My expectation (speaking for Adobe) that we will use it when we can, or when customers expect it.

<bruce_bailey> Why not: ...the W3C recommends that content use WCAG 2.1 to maximize accessibility efforts

AWK: With millions of web pages we will not be saying that we'll update everything to new standards by "end of June". I don't want to explicitly say that this is only for "new stuff".
... Then we'd get into a long statement about defining what is an update. Been in enough of those to never want to repeat.

Kim: I get that this is very tricky. What we have is a recommendation. But when it gets adopted by other countries it would be helpful that this is forward looking. We don't expect instantly complying.

alastairc: Need to wrap up soon.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to agree that it is odd for 2.1 to mention new and updated content

<david-macdonald> "the W3C recommends that new and updated content use WCAG 2.1"

Bruce: Alarmed that we are doing this at the end of the hour and we lost Judy. This one line in the update is mentioning "new and updated". We could drop those and make a plain statement. This is a lot to throw in at the last minute.

Kim: I agree very tricky.

<gowerm> ack

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say that I would be concerned if the opposite was said, i.e., if you are just changing some content, ignore 2.1. Because I expect that where an existing site

Mike: We have to discuss this more.

<Glenda> I do not think it is only forward looking. It is a rec. Policy/Law will set when it applies and to what.

alastairc: We'll come back to this on Thursday, ok AWK?

AWK: Sure. Not too late.

<alastairc> agenda

alastairc: Anything to say on Rec AWK?

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

22 May 2018

Attendees

Contents