Meeting minutes
announcements, not seeing WCAG2.x on agenda
announcements
every other week we go on WCAG 2,x, to review and offer to group, we cycle every two weeks. Meeting of the 23rd will have WCAG 2.x
chuck: We have not sent them to AG yet to early to review, look at them next week
any other announcements? nope
anyone new on the call or in a new role?
Nat_Tarnoff: This is Nat Tarnoff first meeting of the group, joined after CSUN opportunities came up
thanks!
Subgroup updates
Chuck: otherindividuals that want to introduce themselves
Filippo: 2nd time here, part of the useablenet team, new to a11y, not much to give for now
chuck: thank you for joiining, your audio is a bit off
chuck: anita or wendy can you give us a brief update
this
Wendy Reid: no movement so far will be restarting
chuck: focus appearance, I was not there, Alistair can you give an update?
chuck: are we trying to ramp up any new groups
<bruce_bailey> On call last week, 2nd half of meeting, Mike Gower covered "Ready for Review" column from WCAG 2.x project board
<bruce_bailey> https://
Exploratory Guidelines and Outcomes https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/60#discussioncomment-9072721
<chuck> https://
Chuck Adams: workingexploratory outcomes, Racheal had put in a summary
Chuck Adams:summarized, we can make some decisions, for the next 30 minutes hit some key points or in other conversations, Racheal should I dive in?
RAcheal Bradley: Putting this in the working daraft, talking about immediate next steps
Chuck Adams: converstion that we couldn't complete, visual and priogramatically, no solution, group leaning to evaluate the use of thes case by case, write up the guildeline, keep both in outcome and evaluate case by case. that's what I remember from last week. Any objections to this approach. That's how we will proceed. Is it okay to leave out exceptions until next week. Convertion broad definition or not? Option proposed, we not worry abou
t exception,will consider in next phase. Any concerns?
<chuck> +1
GreggV: is it useful to leave a note mentions the topic, people think of an exception leave it as a question so people bring it up later
rached B: in working draft or editors draft
greggV: people will iobject in a note say things to be thinking about this this and this
chuck A: I incorrectly presumed that this was for us only not publis facing, not opposed, think about next context
Rachel B: not including exception in this draft but a number of outcomes will get exceptions as we work
Gregg V: exploratory draft just a big long list of outcomes, not stuffing bug list into WCAG3, lots of things that have not been thought through. I'm afraid if internal draft, wouldn't but outcomes into a draft to the public, these are candidates, looks like we haven;t figured out how to do it, seems me to be getting ahead of ourselves, none of these are beyond sticky notes onthe wall that I'v seen
Racheal B: Gregg, did go though that whole prioces no decision to publish working getting it into a publishable list, placeholder list of guidance, purpose is we know this is exploratory some are inspirational, promote come for research, work on ones we have enough research on, asking th public what did we miss, shift WCAG3 into a public converstion. ditors draft we decide if comfortable of publishing to working draft.
Chuck A: we brought these concepts to the group before, engage the public earlier,they will see rougher work, we need to explain very caerfully, reearch a key point, give the users an earlier opportunity to comment
<Rachael> yes
Gregg V: big list in google docs that I made comments on?
Chuck A: google doc contains content
<Detlev> Can you post link for reference?
<alastairc> It would replace the current list of placeholder guidelines: https://
<kirkwood> can we put link to list (google doc) in IRC so we are on same page
<Detlev> @alastairc Ta!
<rscano> yep
Gregg V: taking big long list and taking the experimental topics to the public? Not sure about that. Should we take big list and stick it in? Can show public with enough introduction we an put thm in, very raw very early, please look and see what we are missing
Racheal B: working on list in our space getting a clean list, pull request with things that are authoring only, things with not a lot of reearch, show to the group, a full converstaion with framing just getting starting list
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- suggest we post annotated list
Chuck A: back to the concept of essential exceptions, note in internal notes, Gregg suggested could we add as brief notes out to the publis, I avhe a concern with that. If we start putting in exceptions haven't flushed them out, not good vetting, content is raw getting group review, an idea of exception will get noted not for the pulic
Gregg V: put it out as annoted list, put them out with bullets "need Research:, concerns, this and that and the other may turn into exception or how would this be implemented. so when public looks at it, if they know the answers they write to us. Also blunt you haven't thought about this.
Chuck A: not a bad idea not pushing back on that, we could add those notes fater publication, exactly what you said could be notes.
<bruce_bailey> essential definition from 2.2: https://
<bruce_bailey> essential: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information *and* functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg. wary of Essential Exception (language) myself, it is seemingly a condition or can be addressed in notes / comments
Chuck: I'm not sure how we should move forward.
ljoakley: I support Gregg's suggestion. I think we want people to provide the suggestions and comments.
<wendyreid> +1
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if definition for essential is being reconsidered?
Rachael: I think we'll be more productive with a PR, but we need to have a list to put in front of people. We need lots of framing, lots of notes.
bruce_bailey: I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with our definition of essential
<bruce_bailey> I think definition is fine as is
GreggVan: I am concerned about something going viral in the field and we don't even see it.
… we want WCAG 3 to look like we're going where we haven't gone before, thoughtfully.
… want to avoid people thinking its going off the rails. We don't want people being scared of it.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on general framing for essential exception
<ljoakley> @Gregg thank you
<GreggVan> +1
alastairc: This comes down to the framing when we put it out. We need draft text to put in front of people. Not worth saying much more until we have text in front of us that we are preparing to put out.
… on the essential exceptions whether we do that per outcome or not. I suggest we try to keep as much as we can in the general framing and only put in outcome specific notes when there is something specific on that particular one.
<Zakim> chuck, you wanted to say where I think we are at regarding "essential exceptions"
<GreggVan> +1
alastairc: right now the shape of the list is what we need feedback on.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to alastair that "essential exception" could be part of introduction, rather than outcome-by-outcome
<bruce_bailey> if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
chuck: We are looking to create the PR. I think we are at adding a framing note about essential exceptions and then if needed, circle back on this after people have the text in front of them.
<bruce_bailey> https://
kirkwood: Can someone put in the defintion to essential exceptions?
alastairc: See above. We will likely change that after we've worked on WCAG 3 a bit. Useful default to start with.
chuck: Third bullet. In our rough documents we have both "process" and "task" in different parts. Sometimes we may be referring to the same thing or possibly to a nuance. Do we want to clarify or normalize on one of these terms.
… possibly "process" is more of the mechanism and "task" is more human oriented.
Rachael: Process is more software oriented, task was more human oriented, was a way to distinguish
chuck: we have 3 choices. Do we want to use process, task or accept that we are using both.
alastairc:
alastairc: I thought there was a difference between them. Process is something the site provides that has a start and finish. Task is a human goal. I'm inclined to keep both. Process is a subset of task.
<Detlev> +1 to Alastair here
<chuck> +1 to Alastair
GreggVan: A task is a think you need to do. A process requires you to do multiple things.
<kirkwood> essential
<kirkwood> if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
GreggVan: a process has multiple things that have to be done and done in order.
Buying something is a process. Adding to cart, paying, etc. are tasks.
… process usually means multiple pages.
<ljoakley> quit
So ok to keep both terms?
<chuck> Poll: keep the use of both terms "process" and "task"
Chuck: Will do poll.
DJ: I agree there is a difference. In keeping both, we may use process incorrectly rather than task.
<Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to say a task is a thing to be done. A process is how to do it
DJ: I'd like to see a task and actions distinction where actions are one control for example.
Azlan: A task is what you have to do. A process is how to do it.
… worth keeping both.
<chuck> POLL: Keep using both terms "process" and "task" and potentially add additional nuanced terms such as "action"
+1
<Azlan> +1
<chuck> +1
<NatTarnoff> +1
<dj> -1
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss understanding
<GreggVan> +1
+1
<Detlev> +1
<ToddL> +1
<Frankie> +1
Jennie_Delisi: I want to make sure we remember that to "process" (cognitive) is part of a process as well.
<kirkwood> +1
Chuck: One -1 but overall support.
<Jennie_Delisi> * no problem Rachael - one moment
<laura> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1 but would like a definition sooner than later
Rachael: Something to look at when we put the PR out is whether task and process are used appropriatly.
<chuck> rachael: Something to look at when we put the PR out, think about if the words "process" and "task" are used appropriately.
<Jennie_Delisi> * Understanding/comprehension is an essential piece of accessibility. This is needed to complete a task, but may be inherent.
Text Alternatives Conversation Continued https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit#heading=h.cu8l0ohk9n2q chuck]
Jennie_Delisi: Understanding/comprehension is an essential piece of accessibility. This is needed to complete a task, but may be inherent.
<alastairc> https://
alastairc: Picking up where we left off on text alternatives. I will share screen and share document.
… A couple updates from discussion we had last time. Partly on decision tree and partly on testing process.
… Last time we split into groups and worked on examples. We will do so again. Not quite ready to be compiled but there were some items to discuss.
… there were some items like data and artistic items where the image itself was the experience. a plain text alternative was not equivilent. That added a level to the decision tree.
<bruce_bailey> alastairc:: "a plain text alternative would not be an equivalent"
<chuck> I will go through queue after Alastair does his preview
alastairc: another change was that if the non-text content duplicates adjacent text, the alt should be null. Not a hard and fast requirement.
mbgower: The thing that's missing here, is a second part. If no, provide a brief alternative and a second alternative wiht more information.
… similar to situation b where you can't provide everything. Example: a video, you title the video and then provide the alternatives.
[editorial discussions]
mbgower: Edit revised proceedure 2. Change shall to may
alastairc: group 3 was working on examples for that
<mbgower> +1 "may"
mbgower: If process its still useful to have the process flow
<gpellegrino> presnet+
GreggVan: Change to its allowable to make it null.
alastairc: One of the examples if you have icons and text. They each have an icon. If each gets alt text that matches text next to it, should it be a failure.
GreggVan: I was called into a situation where that happened. Making it a "may" may solve that problem. IT may be the right or wrong thing to do. We shouldn't say its always the thing to do.
<GN0153> The text should not duplicate immediately visible text. Alternatively, it either should describe the image/icon or be null.
<Zakim> chuck, you wanted to ask about the ask
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to queue scribe change at the top of the hour
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to discuss next topic
alastairc: One more topic before we break into groups. On the decision tree, starting with whether its operable or not isnt' the right place to start. It doesnt' handle situations where image is part of a control or thumbnails in an image gallery.
… Dan, do you have examples which don't handle that complex case? Or does anyone else?
<Kimberly> +present
Dan: examples we were evaluating in the exercise were graph widgets. Relatively common for webapps displaying graphs to have parts of the graph be operable.
<Jennie_Delisi> * operable data visualizations. Excellent example, dan_bjorge.
Dan: There are operable controls are part of this. there are gray areas in the first question that makes me question it.
… not sure which direction to go down the tree.
alastairc: I would like to assign that example to one of the groups to tackle it.
<alastairc> https://
scribing stops, breaking into subgroups. See documents
<Graham> mbgower you were in group 2 with us I believe!
<alastairc> Reminder - the pass/fail examples are NOT whether the website example passes, but listing for that scenario what alt-text should pass, and what should fail. I.e. make up the alt-text in multiple ways to show what would pass/fail for that scenario.
Group 3 focused on emoji vs symbols. Emoji have standard alt text, but symbols do not. Also, use of dingbats is problematic as there is no association between the symbol/picture produced and the letter used.
Group 4 focused on a couple with gaps. Sprites was a specific example, but came up with pass & fail examples. Also expanded on the image for exploration (17). We added a map example, a visitor map example. Talked through that, and what pass/fail examples were.
… had a brief stab at example 13, tried an org-chart, but not sure about that one, so haven't got to pass/fail examples yet.
Group 1 focused on an interactive image, chose a zoomable sunburst. Didn't finish, but made some suggestions to the decision tree that we updated in our google doc. Ended contemplating whether it was too much for this excercise. It was very complex, so unclear what equivelents would be.
… made some suggestions.
<bruce_bailey> Decision tree (for straightforward images) on WAI: https://
<Graham> I don't have access to comment on the relevant doc, but for the point that Mike was making on Dingbat fonts, perhaps we should treat these in the same way as ASCII art.