Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjom: Not too much, but email went out wrt correcting URL and date ask for comments
maryjom: I am working on PR with edits accepted so far.
<PhilDay> Comments are due on 29 September
maryjom: should be up today.
<LauraBMiller> Not sure who will be interested but just wanted to share this Canadian publication about self service technology. I was interviewed for the project and if you read closely (haha) you can find a few positions we have taken (mentions of usability and accessibility, for instance). I'd love your feedback and I will throw together a summary of findings to share). https://
LauraBMiller: Link to CA study
… study interviewing 22 people including people who are blind or low vision and what might impact kiosks, what are issues?
<dmontalvo> Public comment deadline is Friday 29 September
LauraBMiller: Would love feedback
maryjom: I will pass along to ITI colleagues
maryjom: Access Board has rulemaking and there are others
Chuck: With regard to 2.2 posting, still a work in progress.
… status email was posted to public list.
maryjom: In the ITI VPAT committee, we are ready to go
<Chuck> bruce_bailey: WCAG2ICT main url now still points to 2013.
<PhilDay> Latest link to our FPWD is https://
Bruce notes that old link still points to previsious (finalized) version
www.w3.org/tr/wcag2ict
dan motalvo: that was per AG direction, and "obsoleted" sticky also removed
PhilDay: Any TPAC related news?
<Chuck> +1 participating in TPAC
<dmontalvo> Attending TPAC, regrets for next week's meeting
<ShawnT> +1 participating in TPAC
<mitch11y> +1 I'll be at TPAC
<maryjom> +1 participating remotely
<shadi> +1 TPAC
<Mike_Pluke> -1
maryjom: TPAC is next week, so we might want to skip wcag2ict meeting next week.
<loicmn> I'm not attenting TPAC... but I'm busy on the 14th. No WCAG2ICT good for me ;-)
maryjom: We will skip next week, our next meeting 9/21.
<dmontalvo> Attending TPAC, regrets for next week's meeting/+1. Attending TPAC, regrets for next week's meeting/
Chuck: To clarify, no WCAG2ICT activities at TPAC
<Chuck> +1 to no at TPAC formal WCAG2ICT activities
maryjom: AG WG is working on a number of WCAG3 topics. I had just presumed many people here unavailable.
… Maryjo will note via email.
FPWD public comments
maryjom: We have not received additional public comments this past week.
<maryjom> Initial draft response: w3c/
maryjom: Work for the week included reviewing proposed group reply to Craig Keefer and have several thumbs up.
<maryjom> • Link to issue for the update requested during last week’s: w3c/
maryjom: We discussed last week, and have had a few editorial suggestions.
<maryjom> Update to response proposed: I also wanted to call to your attention that WCAG2ICT does not comment on hardware aspects of products, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.2 is built do not apply to these. This limitation of scope is listed in the Excluded from Scope section.
maryjom: That was what I proposed to add.
mitch11y: Not objections, but first half of sentence could be clearer.
… It could be confusing to outsider, since we do talk about physical keyboard and some other hardware oriented aspects.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Send response on kiosk comment received on 15 August, as updated with the additional comment.
mitch11y: If its already there, then I withdraw my suggestion.
<loicmn> +1
<maryjom> +1
<mitch11y> +1
<LauraBMiller> +1
<PhilDay> +1
RESOLUTION: Send response on kiosk comment received on 15 August, as updated with the additional comment.
maryjom: No new comments at the momement, but feedback would be appreciated.
<maryjom> Updated the section status: https://
maryjom: I meant to mention earlier that project status section of working draft has some additions
… and updates. The table was FCPWD material, and I added some dates and filling in placeholder sections which will need to be filled in for next major draft.
maryjom: I will add a task. Any concerns or questions, please let me know.
Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
<maryjom> Survey link: • https://
1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus
<maryjom> https://
[maryjo starts screen share of survey submissions]
six accept as is. 1 request for changes, 1 other.
maryjom: Loic proposes change to conclusion sentence.
… mitch11y suggest not including final bullet, since characteristic of "rare" was not elsewhere
GreggVan: Agree with Mitch's comment that its counter productive to mention "rare". The fact that it is rare is irrellevant.
… When it does apply, it is a barrier.
… There are some mobile devices with pointing devices, and eye tracking is similar mechanism. Future tech might change things more.
mitch11y: I stand behind recommendation to remove mention of "rare" but I will admit I was thinking of mobile, so my rational in survey is not quite right.
PhilDay: I disagree in that this is frequent enough problematic settings, for example PIN pads and security concerns on kiosk.
GreggVan: There are times where it is not possible, so times when it will not be there, so why harmful to keep requirment?
PhilDay: It continues from the discussion last week, to continue question of "not applicable" because some audits will fail rather than skip requirement.
mitch11y: I would rather we call out when overlay is not possible.
PhilDay: We would not tend to do pop-ups anyway, so this might come up for what is context of new page? Is PIN entry a hover?
GreggVan: If technology does not support pop-up, so can't be a problematic, so what might occur where SC would fail?
… This is similar to technology without audio -- those cannot fail audio-oriented SC.
… Our questions should help decide when requirments are in closed funtionality list.
PhilDay: I think I am coming around to the consensus view. There almost certainly could not be a pop-up, and if there were, it would have to be something with a keyboard.
PhilDay: I am comfortable with this not being in the not applicable to closed functionality.
<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – updated version, as-is, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – Remove bullet, or 4) Something else
<GreggVan> 3
<mitch11y> 3
<FernandaBonnin> 3
<loicmn> 3
<Mike_Pluke> 3
<PhilDay> 2, but 3 is OK as well
<olivia> 3
<Chuck> 3 (chair hat off, representing Oracle)
<ShawnT> 3
maryjom: I have another resolution to offer.
RESOLUTION: Update 1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus - remove the bullet.
<PhilDay> +1 to the idea of general statement of non-applicability
maryjom: We do have an open issue/question about how audits answer question about SC. Might need to clarify not applicable versus automatically met.
… We are a little limited on what we can say.
<PhilDay> In the WCAG 2.2 conformance model, a success criteria is satisfied if the item being evaluated does not fail it. If the success criterion is in relation to something that does not exist for the item being evaluated (e.g. a success criterion is about captioning audio and there is no audio) then the success criterion is automatically met. This approach is central to the way the success criteria in WCAG are structured and worded.
GreggVan: That can be in the standard itself. For WCAG2ICT 2.0 we have some discussion...
<PhilDay> section 5, comments on conformance
<PhilDay> point 2 in section 5
GreggVan: EN 301 549 has addressed this by having clauses at top of sections. For example, "if you have audio then the following applies" so it is more explict to skip.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say thanks for the props, but I honestly don't know, and I'm scrambling to read :-)
GreggVan: For WCAG 2.x we have similar concept in conformance language.
Chuck: I will look to see...
<PhilDay> https://
PhilDay: Yes, section 5 addresses.
maryjom: For ACR (accessibility conformance reports) we include option for not applicable.
GreggVan: In past, developers might not provide feature (say, captions) and so claim N/A.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say +1 to that -- but it shout be for all
maryjom: VPAT makes it clear that is example of "N/A" abuse -- not using the definition provided for entering Not Applicable.
Mike_Pluke: Recommend making this very clear.
GreggVan: Agreed, but suggest making that stand out strongly.
mitch11y: Agree with adding as clarification and quoting.
maryjom: Please someone open an issue?
mitch evens volunteers
2.1.1 Keyboard
https://
mary jo screen shares survey. 6 agreed, 2 something else
maryjom asks Mitch to clarify where his suggested edit belongs.
<PhilDay> Relevant original text is from https://
GreggVan: I am confused by note saying that there is no need to apply to all closed functionality...
… if there is an keypad or on-screen keyboard , then SC can be applied and met...
<Chuck> FYI: 2.1 Conformance refers to the 2.0 document "Understanding Conformance" found here https://
GreggVan: Where WCAG 2.x approach does not work, then wcag2ict guidance might be to include physical keyboard as solution....
… I do not agree it would never apply.
maryjom: We wanted to clarify that device with buttons might not have same requirements as for keyboard UI...
… If you don't have a keyboard, could correctly state not applicable.
GreggVan: We might clarify for ICT without keyboard and closed functionality so keyboard cannot be added...
… could be some mechanism/feature which provides XYZ
PhilDay: I think that is concern that Mitch and Loic were raising. Traditional view of tactile discernable might not be met, yet device have good accessibiltiy.
… For example, swipe gesture can work well without vision, but touchscreen is not tactiley discernable without activation
loicmn: That was the issue I was trying to address with my edit.
mitch11y: Whatever replacement, issue is that 2.1.1 is not requiring physical keyboard be provided.
GreggVan: "change "does not apply" to "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing"
GreggVan: Can drop first half of sentence, and include obligation to provide functionality another way.
GreggVan: UMD Trace RERC won grant to further explore touch screen accessibiliy.
… Access approach for iPhone and Android are too complicated for many users.
GreggVan: If end-user cannot add screen reader, probably device need to provide its own text to speech.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "change "does not apply" to "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing" and to
maryjom: I am not sure where we are with suggested edits, and I am concerned we are crossing into another SC.
GreggVan: Need to ask why was this provision put into WCAG? change "does not apply" to "Needs to be met in another way that achieves the same accessibility for those who cannot do accurate pointing"
<GreggVan> accurate non-time-dependent pointing
GreggVan: If you cannot do this, you need to provide another way for people who do not have fine motor accuracty.
maryjom: We are out of time.
No meeting next week
<GreggVan> alternate way to provide access for peopele who not have accurate non-time-dependent pointing
maryjom: I will not reopen survey, but will have new clean survey picking up with revised questions.
<GreggVan> [08:00:29] GreggVan: alternate way to provide access for peopele who not have accurate non-time-dependent ro path dependent pointing