W3C

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

26 Jun 2018

Attendees

Present
Laura, alastairc, Makoto, Glenda, Kathy, Brooks, Greg_Lowney, JF, marcjohlic, MichaelC, bruce_bailey, AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Detlev, gowerm
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
JakeAbma, Chuck

Contents


<alastairc> scribe:JakeAbma

<Chuck> Here is an article which I found (related to us) and interesting: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f2f86c90-6e9c-4f32-a68b-4fe9ff514340&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2018-06-26&utm_term=

<KimD> *HEY

<KimD> *:-)

Calls week of July 4

<Chuck> awk Chuck

AC: no Tuesday meeting july 3th

<bruce_bailey> Here is a shorter URL for that lexology.com article:

<bruce_bailey> http://lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f2f86c90-6e9c-4f32-a68b-4fe9ff514340

<Kathy> Mobile taskforce is not meeting

TPAC registration reminder

AC: please register for TPAC, just a reminder!

<AWK> +AWK

<AWK> We are meeting on Monday and Tuesday

<AWK> At TPAC

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2018/

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/

Review techniques process

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-techniques

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-techniques#Creating_Technique_documents

AC: all steps in document / see link

<AWK> And if you have an idea for a technique that isn't listed, just add it to the list

AC: please sign your name to the techniques you would like to create

Kathy: sometimes it makes sense to combine techniques

<laura> I have draft 1.4.12 Text Spacing Technique: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018AprJun/0741.html Like Detlev did for his draft technique, I worked straight on the specific technique branch. Is that okay?

<Greg> :-)

AC: Github or Wiki to create technique, when draft is finished, tell chairs...
... as soon as 4/5 people are happy with draft, a survey will be made and will continue with publishing if approaved

Marc: did we have a date set for techniques? Targets?

AC: ideally when we published, but the sooner the better

Survey for Non-text contrast understanding update

AC: no questions on techniques anymore, great...

MG: two related to status messages

Kathy: character key short cuts should be ready

<alastairc> Jake: Have 3 ready for reflow, not all in github yet, not sure if that was the proper way. All the text is there, need to know where the working example folder was.

<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag#provide-working-examples-of-techniques

AWK: we have working example for anything non-trivial

Chuck: if I can help with techniques, let The Chuck know

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/nontextcontrast_understanding/results

JF: if I look at failure technique, IF you do any other styling, you're failing

F78

JF: the failure for F78 is exactly what I've been saying all along, the techniques has been present all along
... when browser default can be changed, we should support to do something about this

<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say suggest adding a parenthetical to the language that elaborates it slightly, e.g. "except where the appearance of the component (and its appearance against

<Greg> Rather than simply say "except where the appearance of the component is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author", essentially repeating the text of the SC, we could elaborate on it here by saying something like "except where the appearance of the component (and its appearance against the background) is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author".

<JF> +1 Greg - that's the issue and my main concern

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to sufficient techniques

Greg: IF you change anything from what is default UA, your responsible for fixing all other requirements

AWK: techniques are not per se demonstrated proof of the SC

<KimD> +1 to AWK

JF: have been telling for ten years, we've left gaps we're trying to fix in 2.1
... if your changing default styling, your responsible for fixing the SC

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to ask about contrast of other control colors

<AWK> G195 is about "author-supplied" focus indicators. This makes it not relating to the exception but DOES relate to the non-exception case and 1.4.11 provides the metrics around "highly-visible"

Wilco: question: default checkbox and select don't also meet requirements from default UA like Chrome, are we going to fail them?

JF: IF they can be styled, yes

<KimD> Good question, Wilco. Why would we hold authors to a higher standard that browsers?

<KimD> that/than

<AWK> Agree with Alastair - ok to include but neither represents the exception case

<Greg> Wilco, the answer is that if there are bugs in a UA's default presentation, they can and should be fixed in the UA without requiring action on the part of the myriad authors of vanilla web pages. Whereas if page authors customize their display, it cannot be easily fixed in bulk.

AC: browsers could do better job in future...

<Greg> ...fail on badly designed browsers.

Glenda: in low vision task force we were discussing to NOT add expection for UA styles
... we needed to exempt the default UA, primarily because of the focus indicator
... the word "the appearance" was key, not the color itself

<laura> LVTF minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/10/19-lvtf-minutes.html

Glenda: so the perception of the colors, background / foregound

<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say the answer is that if there are bugs in a UA's default presentation, they can and should be fixed in the UA without requiring action on the part of the

Greg: we hold authors more responsible because it's easier, we should also put pressure on UA makers themselves, but it harder

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say look at the description of https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G149

<Greg> The rationale for holding web pages authors to higher standard than UA default presentation is that the latter can and should be fixed in the UA without requiring action on the part of the myriad authors of vanilla web pages. Whereas if page authors customize their display, it cannot be easily fixed in bulk. Also, the exception is specifically so that web pages don't have to list in their...

<Greg> ...compliance claims that they fail on badly designed browsers.

MG: Firefox uses text color for focus indicator

JF: caveat in G149, need to have UI conformant UA

AC: no one objecting to the techniques proposed, if you do please comment, otherwise we'll add
... Jon proposed a rubric matrix, don't think we need to be so specific

AWK: would be nice to get clarity, but will be hard, work with what we have now..

<JF> 2.4.7 Focus Visible: Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible. (Level AA)

<Greg> I was just pointing out that in the survey I had said the same thing I said on the call earlier, supporting John's position and suggesting the parenthetical resolving the ambiguity on that side. But it sounds like it does not have consensus.

<Chuck> Scribe: Chuck

ACT Survey

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_draft_review2018b/

AC: Thanks for everyone who looked at this draft from ACT workforce. We've agreed to publish with no comments. All agreed. AC put in a suggestion for wilco
... Wilco can take that on if he likes. Bruce stated an intention for some homework. Any other comments, questions on Testing Rules Format Draft?
... No negative comments. Should be good for publication before moritorium. Thank you everyone who looked through that.

other business

AC: Andrew, do we have other business?

AWK: Main business is people know what they need to do for techniques. We want to fill queue and improve techniques and understanding.
... We are soon going to start talking about process for what we do next for WCAG 2.2 or Silver. That's coming after our break. Hopefully end of July.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-techniques

AC: No meeting next week. 20ish people. What I would really like is if people would go to techniques page and put yourself down for one. Done in wiki or github, we don't care.
... Sign in, up and get on those techniques.
... Any other business?

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/06/26 16:08:53 $

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|https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/#registration||
Succeeded: s/anything what is default/anything from what is default/
Default Present: Laura, alastairc, Makoto, Glenda, Kathy, Brooks, Greg_Lowney, JF, marcjohlic, MichaelC, bruce_bailey, AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Detlev, gowerm
Present: Laura alastairc Makoto Glenda Kathy Brooks Greg_Lowney JF marcjohlic MichaelC bruce_bailey AWK Katie_Haritos-Shea Detlev gowerm
Found Scribe: JakeAbma
Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Scribes: JakeAbma, Chuck
ScribeNicks: JakeAbma, Chuck

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

Found Date: 26 Jun 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]