See also: IRC log
aaaa is someone else
<Joshue108> ScribeNic: Loretta
<Joshue108> ScribeNick: Loretta
<AWK> Scribe: Loretta
DIscussing Kathy's comment about whether implicit labels should be a failure.
Sailesh: Tested this example and found many screen readers and browsers that handle it correctly.
Conclusion: do not include this as a failure example.
AWK: H44 test procedure says to check for the for attribute. So that technique doesn't describe implicit labels. But that doesn't mean that implicit labels can't be sufficient.
Sailesh: many examples in other techniques use implicit labeling.
JOC: Support for implicit labeling is improving. The story might have been different 2 years ago.
Sailesh: Still concerned about how it works with voice activate software.
Loretta: Recommends that Sailesh should join the task force working on the accessibility support data base!
RESOLUTION: Accept F68 as amended.
<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/failures.html#F68
Take up item 2
LC-2850: Title Change for G86
<AWK> G86: Providing a text summary that requires reading ability less advanced than the upper secondary education level.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2850
Michael: Just using "less than" with no comparison is ambiguous.
Use AWK's suggestion: G86: Providing a text summary that can be understood by people with lower secondary education level reading ability
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2850 as amended.
<Joshue108> LC-2847: Comments on the following: LC-2790 @longdesc
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2847
AWK: John and Laura seem to be
advocating a full discussion of the comparison between longdesc
and describedby any time describedby is mentioned.
... Agree that we don't want the describedby technique to say
that it is the preferred way; we should just say that it is one
way to meet SC.
... Some of the changes made in response to Laura's comment
include a more even-handed comparison in the longdesc
technique.
<Joshue108> +q
JOC: Will this be sufficient to put this topic to bed? Will we be giving longdesc the status it deserves?
LGR: We need to modify the proposed response to include Andrew's proposal, then send this to survey again.
<Joshue108> -q
RESOLUTION: Leave
LC-2847 open, Andrew to craft new response to this and
LC-2848.
... Leave LC-2848 open, per previous resolution.
<Joshue108> LC-2846: F91 example 1 contains markup error
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2846
LC-2846: F91 example 1 contains markup error
Change response to accept the accepted change.
AWK argues that this really was a cut-and-paste error, and that we didn't mean to introduce this markup error.
RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2846 as amended.
<Joshue108> LC-2844: Out of date User Agent Support info
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2844
MC: Response needs to be more concrete. Are we going to change anything, or not?
JOC: What do we say about the ASD?
MC: Should discuss this, but
probably can't decide today.
... Suggestions for what we might do:
... Add dates for all the user agent notes. Downside: this
would be hard to do for all our historical user agent notes.
Perhaps we only do this for user agent notes going forward.
<Joshue108> +q
MC: Another option: remove all the existing user agent notes and move them to another page. Not clear the best way to organizing this information. But this would let us update that page, and just reference the page from the techniques.
This makes it easier to update the user agent info, but still doesn;t guarantee it doesn't get stale.
MC: THird option: wait for the
accessibility support data base. But we don't have a schedule
for this.
... My preference would be option 2.
<Joshue108> -q
Eventually, this links in the techniques could move from this page to the accessibility support database.
AWK: I thought we had already decided to go with option 2.
<Joshue108> +q to say that at least agreeing to start adding dates to UA support notes from here on in would be helpful. We could also look at the history for techs and then use that as a timestamp.
LGR: For ARIA techniques, we have been assuming user agent notes would not be in the techniques. But I didn't recall that we were planning to go back and change all the existing techniques.
MC: I can automate extracting the
user agent notes from the techniques.
... Easiest approach: set up a wiki page called User Agent
notes that has a bookmark and header for every technique.
The section would contain exactly what is in the current user agent notes right now.
MC: It would be obvious how random our user agent notes are.
JOC: COuld they we edited and manually updated after the fact?
MC: Yes, this could be done after
the automated part. But it is going to be a big page.
... If we wanted to organize them by user agent, for instance,
it would be a lot of manual work.
... Since it would be a lot of work and since the ASD might
come along and do that anyway, suggest not doing this.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that at least agreeing to start adding dates to UA support notes from here on in would be helpful. We could also look at the history for techs and then
JOC: We could give this a
try.
... Can we extract dates for existing user agent notes?
MC: It would be a manually process of looking through the CVS entry and finding the edits. THis would be a lot of work and slow.
JOC: Like the idea of the wiki
and it being easy.
... I like having all the user agent data in one place.
... I am uneasy about removing the user agent notes from each
technique.
MC: There would be a link to this page in each technique.
SP: Include "last updated by" information for this data.
JOC: Can this be done by the Task Force?
LGR: I think this is the wrong
place to do it.
... When techniques are authored, you don't know when the
technique will be published.
JOC: But you can record when the user agent testing was done.
LGR: Would rather see the energy put into the ASD.
JOC: Have some concerns about whether anything is happening with the ASD. Last talked with Shadi several months ago.
AWK: Invite Shadi to join
editor's meeting for an update?
... My understanding is that we are planning to have a separate
User Agent notes document for ARIA, similar to PDF.
... Also, how much are we discussing ASD publicly?
<AWK> Thanks for the comment, your feedback is very useful. We agree about the need to better 'time stamp' the user agent support notes so we can track progress as we develop techniques. For ARIA techniques we intend to combine all user agent notes into a single document to be available and linked from individual techniques at the time of publication. For all other techniques we are considering extracting all user agent notes from the individual techniques and combining
JOC: Agree, there is still staging needed for the ASD (accessibility support database).
<AWK> these into a separate linked resource that can be more easily updated.
JOC: Would separating these out help with the ASD?
MC: I don't think they will
incorporate our user agents note since they are so
unreliably.
... I think the ASD will be organized differently, too.
JOC: I was under the misimpression that the user agent notes from the ARIA techniques would be of some use to ASD.
LGR: SHould set expectations that WCAG will not be going back and updating the user agent notes.
JOC: Should make it clear that the user agent notes are just a snapshot in time, and that the ASD is the proposed mechanism for addressing this problem.
MC: Don't think it would take much time to pull out the user agent notes (maybe an hour or two), and think it will be less confusing .
<Joshue108> +q
MC: We can put information in that document explaining that we aren't planning to update the information.
JOC: THis sounds good to
me.
... But how much can we discuss ASD in responses?
MC: We need to treat it something that may not ever happen, so we can't be too public in our discussions.
AWK: I updated the proposed response.
MC: WOuld like to decide whether we are going to create the single document, and should get WG approval.
AWK: Doesn't seem like it should be controversial.
MC: It is a change to the structure, and there may be people who want to comment on it.
JOC: WOuld making a trial run of the new document help?
MC: It may help with WG acceptance.
RESOLUTION: Michael to produce a draft combined user agent note page; leave LC-2844 open and survey again when page is available.
<Joshue108> LC-2849: If there is a focusable element inside a div then the onkeypress works
LC-2849: If there is a focusable element inside a div then the onkeypress works
AWK: Added comment about how he
thinks we should respond.
... Example isn't relevant to this failure, which is specific
to creating links.
DIscussion about whether it is possible to emulate a link in a way that shouldn't trigger the failure.
AWK: I will update the response and we can resurvey.
RESOLUTION: Leave LC-2849 open. ANdrew to update response.
<Joshue108> RIA Technique: modifying F43
<Joshue108> RIA Technique: modifying F43
ARIA Technique: Modifying F43
Modifying test procedure per LGR comment.
AWK: Note that there is a flip side and presentation could be misused to cause this failure.
<Joshue108> +q
LGR: Some background: this failure used to try to address both sides, and the TF was having a hard time making a test procedure that was understandable. It was suggested that it would be easier to split these into two failures.
SP: Agree that it would be better to make using role presentation inappropriately a separate failure.
JOC: role presentation does not
suppress all the content, e.g., setting role=presentation on a
layout table would not hide the contents of the table. If the
contents are not exposed, that would be an AT bug.
... can anyone confirm?
LGR: I think James Nurthen has expressed this before, as well.
SP: But it you have a data table with labels in the column and row headings, you don't want to use role=presentation.
<Joshue108> zakim queue
RESOLUTION: Also provide a failure to expose relationships in the content because of the misuse of role=presentation
AWK: Still find the first 2 sentences awkward. Suggest removing the last sentence from my proposal and use that to replace those sentences.
Reviewing Sailesh's comments.
Discussion about first item in Sailesh's comments (not captured in minutes)
RESOLUTION: Resume discussion of this item next week; leave open for further discussion.
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) Found ScribeNick: Loretta Found Scribe: Loretta Inferring ScribeNick: Loretta WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: AWK Adobe Conclusion Cooper G86 IPcaller JOC Joshue Joshue108 LC-2844 LC-2846 LC-2847 LC-2849 LC-2850 LGR Loretta MC Marc_Johlic Michael MichaelC SP Sailesh SaileshP Sailesh_Panchang ScribeNic ScribeNick aaaa as from https inserted joined marcjohlic that timestamp use wai-wcag You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Regrets: Bruce cherie alan kerstin gian Kathy peter korn Got date from IRC log name: 01 Oct 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]