W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

25 Jun 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
+1.650.506.aaaa, Peter_Korn, +1.978.443.aabb, Joshue, Michael_Cooper, Kathy, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, Marc_Johlic, kerstin_probiesch, David_MacDonald, James_Nurthen
Regrets
Chair
Joshue
Scribe
Kathy

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 25 June 2013

zakim aabb is Kathy

<scribe> scribe: Kathy

Schedule for summer

RESOLUTION: no meeting next week

WCAG to ICT

<kerstin_probiesch> Hi all

Peter: We have made a number of small changes.
... this is the final draft

<kerstin_probiesch> finally I've made me (skype experience)

AWK: is there any time requirements for publication

Peter: Publish with 30 day comment period. Ideally the week of July 8th for final publish end of August or beginning of September

<Joshue108> +q

Michael: We can do approval on July 9th and publish on July 11th

RESOLUTION: Review the ICT document next week and talk about it during the July 9th meeting

<Joshue108> I'll make sure it's on Lorettas radar and we get her feedback.

Responding to Comments

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20130625Misc/

AWK: for LC-1251 I suggest replacing the first sentence to "This success criteria allows authors to use images of text unless the visual presentation of the text can be achieved using text-based technologies."

Peter: Greg's proposal are branding would not help with this class of problems

Joshue: They are looking to tighten the language to specifically address branding
... Need to look at this more closely

<AWK> This success criteria allows authors to use images of text unless the visual presentation of the text can be achieved using text-based technologies.

AWK: if a company wants to use image of text, we allow it. As the support for web fonts then no longer need to use images of text. It is ok for logos but not in other places.

David: big issue is a missing word, the desired font of the designer that is not available in CSS and that is where the exception is
... if it can be done with CSS then should not use image of text

<Joshue108> ACTION: Josh to review LC-2751 more closely [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-207 - Review LC-2751 more closely [on Joshue O Connor - due 2013-07-02].

<Joshue108> +q

<Joshue108> -q

<jamesn> so an example is http://www.w3.org/WAI/

<jamesn> :)

Kathy: Does this include purchasing web fonts to achieve it with CSS?

David: Does not require clients to purchase web fonts to meet the criteria.

<Joshue108> LC-2774

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20120103/2774

<Joshue108> LC-2762:

David: LC-2762 we may want to look at this in the future and we should acknowledge this in the response and create an action item

Joshue: David can you create a list to track the post WCAG 2.0 items

<MichaelC> Post WCAG 2 issues

Michael: We have a list - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2 Post WCAG 2 issues

Peter: objective to LC 2762

<korn1> /objective/objection

AWK - LC 2766 we should be careful about assuming this effects people who are blind; fine to add something to the comment that we will need to look at this in the future but we need evidence if we state something about a blind user

RESOLUTION: LC-2766 Accept as amended

Joshue - move to LC 2762

<Joshue108> LC-2762

Peter: as long as the color is of sufficient contrast then it is ok. If the icon is made of two colors and they have sufficient color contrast then you are not rely on color alone. It may be useful to have some additional guidance

<Joshue108> +q

<Joshue108> -q

Peter: we look at the color difference between them and whether they have sufficient luminosity. It should have said hue is the only difference

Joshue: 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 are connected but can exist independently. Does this concern with just text?

David: Yes, it is just text
... WCAG does not cover that unless they have the same icon that differ only be color

<Joshue108> Actually David that would be a good thing to add to the doc.

Peter: we may want to add this to the post WCAG 2.0 list. We may want to add this to 1.4.1 in the understanding document. Images that do not contain text then we may want to add something about color contrast - it is a good idea that they have sufficient color contrast

Kathy: What level for color contrast?

<Joshue108> KW: A question to Peter, 4:5 or 3:1?

Peter: 3:1
... this suggestions not requirements

AWK: we are trying to say in response to the question, there is nothing that addresses icons unless instructions refer to color

<Joshue108> +q

<korn1> Please see http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G183

Joshue: Is this a can of worms

Peter: there are ISO standards on this. This is a post WCAG 2.0 item. Since 1.4.1 talks about color is not the only means, then we could say that there needs to be enough contrast as well.

RESOLUTION: LC-2762 accepted as proposed

<Joshue108> ACTION: AWK to add issue to the Note Post WCAG 2 doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-208 - Add issue to the Note Post WCAG 2 doc [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2013-07-02].

LC-2768: Text field followed by instructions

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2768

<AWK> Action 208 on AWK to add issue related to need for clarification on color contrast in icons to the 'editing post WCAG 2' wiki document.

<trackbot> Error finding '208'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.

<AWK> Action-208 on AWK to add issue related to need for clarification on color contrast in icons to the 'editing post WCAG 2' wiki document.

<MichaelC> action-208: add issue related to need for clarification on color contrast in icons to the 'editing post WCAG 2' wiki document.

<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-208 Add issue to the Note Post WCAG 2 doc.

<AWK> Scribe AWK

<AWK> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed

LC-2773: ARIA1: Using the aria-describedby property to provide a descriptive label for input controls

<AWK> Josh: concern with this comment is that IE8 only partially supports ARIA described by

<AWK> David: I wrote the proposed response

<AWK> AWK: it's a pretty simple response

<AWK> RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed

<Joshue108> ack, AWK

LC-2767: Search button followed by search options

<AWK> David: wants to add this to list for post WCAG 2.0

<AWK> RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed

<kerstin_probiesch> bye+

<AWK> Same issue

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: AWK to add issue to the Note Post WCAG 2 doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Josh to review LC-2751 more closely [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-06-25 16:45:10 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/respose/response/
Found Scribe: Kathy
Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy
Default Present: +1.650.506.aaaa, Peter_Korn, +1.978.443.aabb, Joshue, Michael_Cooper, Kathy, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, Marc_Johlic, kerstin_probiesch, David_MacDonald, James_Nurthen
Present: +1.650.506.aaaa Peter_Korn +1.978.443.aabb Joshue Michael_Cooper Kathy AWK Bruce_Bailey Marc_Johlic kerstin_probiesch David_MacDonald James_Nurthen
Found Date: 25 Jun 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: awk josh

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]