W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

03 Dec 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, shadi, Joshue, Michael_Cooper, Loretta, David_MacDonald, Marc_Johlic, Bruce_Bailey, Sailesh_Panchang, Kerstin_Probiesch, kerstin, James_Nurthen, Peter_Thiessen
Regrets
Alan_Smith, Kathleen_Anderson, Kathy_Wahlbin
Chair
Joshue
Scribe
Ryladog

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 03 December 2013

<Joshue> Scribenick: Katie

<MichaelC> scribeNick: Ryladog

<adam_solomon> im on the call - i put it in irc as soon as i got on (but i dont know which caller i am - its an ip caller)

<AWK> Chair: Josh

<scribe> scribe: Ryladog

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2861

Kick-off review of Evaluation Methodology Note <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126EM_Review/>

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/

Shadi: Thanks for your time. We apologize for the delay,We got over 100 comments from the previous draft
... WCAG_EM is a subtask of the WCAG WG

<Joshue> A link to the survey is available from last weeks, or directly from here https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/

<AWK> Evaluation Methodology Task Force is a WCAG WG and Evaluation and Repair Tools WG joint TF and they are producing a W3C Note on the topic.

Shadi: We want to be sure that the EM is closely associated with WCAG. We want approval from WCAG as a Working Draft

<AWK> TF link: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf

<shadi> priority: [mild/medium/strong suggestion]

<shadi> location: (such as: "under Introduction heading, third paragraph")

<shadi> current wording:

<shadi> suggested revision:

<shadi> rationale:

Shadi: Right now would be great if we can get any comments from WCAG WG on any mis-interpretations in WCAG-EN draft - and any suggested revisions, It will help us proritize the comments
... We may fix some things after publication. Low hanging fruit we will be able to address before publication

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#context

Shadi: New section "Relation to WCAG 2 Conformance Claim" which is of particular interest for your feedback.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step4

<Joshue> +q

Shadi: That section we need input on. And the entire STEP 4.
... We want to be sure that thereare no mis-representations
... Two sections, "Relation to WCAG 2 Conformance Claim" and Step 4

<shadi> Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample

<shadi> Purposes for this Methodology

Shadi: The WCAG-EM is designed for anyone who wants to follow a common procedure for evaluating the conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0.
... Another use case, you are a developer of a web site, and you do QA, but before yo ship you want to do a more comprehensive QA
... Someone procures a website and yu want to be sure the statement for confromance is valid or not

<AWK> Shadi, can you also clarify the steps between editor's draft/working draft and published note for the group?

Shadi: There is a use case for validation after the fact.
... A working group NOTE is not normative, but supports a standard. The WCAG-EM is expected to be a WG NOTE
... The stept to get to a WG NOTE - keep showing a Working Group draft - Editor Draft are created - but are not intended for public feedback. This is the 4th Public Working Drfat

AK: After is it a Public Working Draft, after that it becomes a NOTE?

Shadi: You are stll welcome to send additional comments after i is published, wewill create additional Editor drafts
... A working Group NOTE can be unpdated failrly often

Joshue: How do you want to receive our comments?

Shadi: We might want to discuss for an alternative way for addressing them- once the WG accepts how thecomments will be addressedthan we can log in the minutes
... We are awaiting you approval for publication

Joshue: We woll provide your comments. From the survey you can find the Disposition of Comments URL
... What is the status of the Disposition of Comments?

Shadi: Our response to previous Public Working draft comments
... Each Public Working Draft has its own Disposition of Commentsdocument. Survey is open until Dec 17th

Shadi; If yo need more time please let us know, bu we are hoping to get things dome earlieer. Then our call will be more effective

Shadi: Ley us kow if you are unable to meet this deadline. Please try to do the review earlier

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say that DHS and SSA is close to making their coordinated Trusted Tester protocol publicly available. I will work to get the public EM working draft in

Briuce: There is work in the US Federal Goverement is trying to find a common way to test. Particularly DHS and SSA - they have two very different approaches. I am hping that the EM document would have been better coordinated with the DHS andSSA processes

Shadi: There are some things we can change after the Public Working Draft, if we need to, but that input from those organizations would be great

Bruce: Hopefully this PWD will help those organizations get engagedin providing input. I want to besure there are not conflicts bewtween those frameworks

<shadi> +1 awk

AK: We want to clarify the timing. That is 2 weeks from today. Next weekwe will take some time for this. So if we can send our comments by Friday the 13th so we can make our ultimate deciasion by 17th

David: It sounds like something that wecan look at it and we can compare it

<Joshue> KHS: DHS are very specific about the tools that they use.

<Joshue> <discussion on Trusted Tester vs WCAG EM>

<shadi> +1 bruce

Shadi: Clarification there are a number of various organizations have specific tools - WCAG EM would be at the Techniques level, by providing a framewok and process
... Accessibility Supported and language aspects come in. I would be very intersted to see if WCAG EMwod be compatatble with DHS Trusted Tester program

Shadi; Thanks for your time.. Eric andI willbe processing the commenst as they comein

Joshue: Thanks. 2 or 3 other items

1) Volunteers needed to run through techniques looking for any out of date items/content.

Joshua: We needvolunteers t look through. Kerstinhas agreed to do this, we need others

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page

David: Are there approved ones?

Joshue: Yes

ANDREW: My understanding is what we are looking for. The Techiques TF has to do determine if they are approved or not. I would like our group to look for terrible errors or things that might be wrong

<Loretta> James made a review of the Failures, primarily focused on ARIA issues but also flagging a few other things.

Andrew: Jared had pointed out some things, as have others on Twitter, etc. We just need to do a good review for outdated/old content

<AWK> Task - are there issues that haven't been identified with published techs? http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/

Joshue: So good we are not doing a full review of ARIA - Andrew is saying big issue that we need to review with our techniques and failures. Like the F65 issue

Joshua: Is this what you want?

<Peter_Thiessen> Jumping in now and looking through the IRC log (sorry got hung up..)

Andrew: Yes. There are afew ways to do this. Failure Techniques. It will be good for folks to scan through - some are entirely uncontroversial, but other maybe addressing the SC or is i something else
... If we cold get people to volunteer to pick 20 afailures or techniques, we woud need 4peope to cover all th failures

David: With ARIA do we need to change things or were we wrong from the start?
... With ARIA do we need to change things or were we wrong from the start?

Andrew Yes, both of those

Andrew: On the Techiques Wiki there are some on your list
... There are other issues there, it will be good to havefolks give thema pass

Joshue; How current is the Wiki page?

James: They need to be undated?

Joshue: Can you look through to see that it is updated?

James: Yes

Joshue: Do you think we should divvy up the issues?

David: I will

Joshue: What do yu want to do

<AWK> David will review F0-F20

Kerstin: I will look at the Sufficiaent Techniques

Andrew: there are many

Joshue: Let say that you will look at 20 to 30 techiques

Kerstin: Folks can write in there names

<AWK> Any volunteers for F41-F60?

<Peter_Thiessen> Happy to help out

<AWK> Kerstin will review F21-F40

<Peter_Thiessen> sounds good

<AWK> Bruce will review F41-F60

<bbailey> Thank you.

<AWK> Peter will review F61-F80

<Peter_Thiessen> oh just noticed that :)

JOshua: David F1 to F20, Kestin F20 to F40, Who? F 40 to F60, Peter F60 to F80

<AWK> AWK will review F81+

Joshue: David F1 to F20, Kestin F20 to F40, Bruce F40 to F60, Peter F60 to F8

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/Failures

Joshue: David = F1 to F20, Kestin = F20 to F40, Bruce = F40 to F60, Peter = F60 to F80
... MC will put in the headings on the page for each individual who wll be reviewing on the Wiki Page
... How many are there?

Andrew: I think 90 (maybe) failures

David: Actually 91

Micheal: Andrew = F80 to F 91

Volunteer needed to craft a proposed response for: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2866

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2866

Josh: We need someone to draft a response for this

Andrew: I wwant someone elase to draft an initail response as a starting point. But if we can discuss now

<Joshue> Perfect, thanks Michael

Andrew: Basically SC 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide - the question is what if there is a button to start the movement - do you need to provide the Pause, Stop, Hide because theuser started the changingcontent?

<Joshue> +q

<jamesn> +1 to Andrew. This only applies if it is started automatically

Andrew: Currently we do not cover or address this issue.

<Loretta> +1 to Andrew

James: The requirement says for anything that starts AUTOMATICALLY. Andif they push a button it is not starting automatically. If the button isnot clearabou what it will do that is another issue

Salesh: That is new content, no interference
... If he user starts it they should be able to go back and undo

Joshua: Who wants to draft this response that 2.2.2 does not apply - is that what weare agreeing on?

David: I have never run in to this problem.

Andrew: Do you want to take a few more minutes to work on this issue?

Salesh: Yes

Andrew: The process is to place our response in the Resolution box on the comment
... Indicate in the status that you are taking it

Joshue: Salesh will be the owner of number 2

<scribe> ACTION: Salesh to draft response to 2866 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

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

LC-2861 is a dupe of LC-2860 - brief heads up to the group about removing

<scribe> ACTION: Sailesh to draft response to 2866 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Draft response to 2866 [on Sailesh Panchang - due 2013-12-10].

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2861

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2860

Josh: Is it OK to Delete 2861 becaus it was dealt within 2860?

RESOLUTION: Delete the comment 2861

Continue ARIA Techniques review <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126ARIA_Techniques/>

Joshua: Have you done this one David?

David: no
... I will put this in

test

David: Now we are clear, I did that update. The support is intermittenet

Josh: We have done. He will update the resolution. Do we ut in a fresh one?
... suggest we look at 5 and 6

<Joshue> ARIA1: Using the aria-describedby property to provide a descriptive label for user interface controls .

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA1:_Using_the_aria-describedby_property_to_provide_a_descriptive_label_for_user_interface_controls

Joshua: Number 5,

Joshue: One comment from Kathy and James

James: It doesnt seem to make any difference
... The IE one for paragraph

Josh: Maybe this is a non-issue. Then there is Sailesh's comment

David: I think Sailesh's idea for error messgaes is a great idea

James: I am fine with having an ARIA techinuqe for this, can we put Saileshs exampleinto an error technique, not this one, there are too many things going on here

<Joshue> http://mars.dequecloud.com/demo/form-alert2.htm

Sailesh: I agree

Josh: I agree, let find another place to put this

<jamesn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_ARIA_Live_Regions_or_role%3Dalert_to_Identify_Errors

James: This is good to put it in here.......(putting link in)

Sailesh: If you give a simple from control

James: We are not trying to cover 3.3.1 in this example

Josh: We agree that we will use Sailesh's example in another techinque

RESOLUTION: Accepted http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA1:_Using_the_aria-describedby_property_to_provide_a_descriptive_label_for_user_interface_controls

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA1:_Using_the_aria-describedby_property_to_provide_a_descriptive_label_for_user_interface_controls

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA1:_Using_the_aria-describedby_property_to_provide_a_descriptive_label_for_user_interface_controls

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA2:_Identifying_required_fields_with_the_aria-required_property

Josh: Number 6 ARIA Technique

Andrew: I see that Jame is saying, there is a gap there
... What is missing in my procedures is missing in each element

<Joshue> +q

<Loretta> Andrew, it sounds like you are saying there should be a failure for not marking a required field as required.

<jamesn> How about "examine each element where aria-required is bieng used to convey the required state of the field"

Andrew: Examine each element that is intended to be required
... Maybe I am splitting a hair, it seems that the title and procedure is ou of sync

Loretta: I like the current wording better.

Andrew: Looking at what I wrote before yes
... Maybe it is just a title (of the technique) issue

James: H90 maybe we could add one there

<jamesn> "Indicating required fields using aria-required"

Josh: Andrew, requires a boolean, it is a little difficult t parse

Andrew: There are 3 options u in the air here. 1 Change title,

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H90.html

Andrew: Indicating Required field rather than Identifying

Sailesh: If there is no visual indication of arequired field what is your take?

David: If there is no visual indication than there is no aria-required-by needed

Sailesh: Where they have arlready problematically associated it then there is no need
... They are duplicates, then it is not a failure of the SC it is then a Best Practice

James: one can use H90 to pass it or aria-required-by to pass it
... That would be an error in some cases if you don't give the indication out to anybody
... There are other ways you can pass it too

Sailesh: Yes, I said that

* Duplication doesn't bother me either

David: Duplication doesn't bother me either

Andrew: It is not harmful

David: It does not take a special amount of time

Sailesh: I am just saying if there is Programmatic association there is not a requeiement to use aria-required-by

RESOLUTION: Leave open

<AWK> ACTION: Sailesh to offer paragraph on best practices for http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA2:_Identifying_required_fields_with_the_aria-required_property [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Offer paragraph on best practices for http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/wiki/aria2:_identifying_required_fields_with_the_aria-required_property [on Sailesh Panchang - due 2013-12-10].

<Peter_Thiessen> cheers all

RESOLUTION: Leave open http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA2:_Identifying_required_fields_with_the_aria-required_property

<kerstin> cheers

<AWK> Katie, you can send to the list?

yes

<AWK> Trackbot, end meeting

I will do some work to clean up

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Sailesh to draft response to 2866 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Sailesh to offer paragraph on best practices for http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ARIA2:_Identifying_required_fields_with_the_aria-required_property [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Salesh to draft response to 2866 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-12-03 17:41:41 $

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/Thansk/Thanks/
Succeeded: s/How well does this website conform to WCAG 2/ The WCAG-EM is designed for anyone who wants to follow a common procedure for evaluating the conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0./
Succeeded: s/proecess/process/
Succeeded: s/dealt within 2960/dealt within 2860/
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Ryladog> ...
Found ScribeNick: Katie
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Katie> ...
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog
Found Scribe: Ryladog
Inferring ScribeNick: Ryladog
ScribeNicks: Katie, Ryladog
Default Present: AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, shadi, Joshue, Michael_Cooper, Loretta, David_MacDonald, Marc_Johlic, Bruce_Bailey, Sailesh_Panchang, Kerstin_Probiesch, kerstin, James_Nurthen, Peter_Thiessen
Present: AWK Katie_Haritos-Shea shadi Joshue Michael_Cooper Loretta David_MacDonald Marc_Johlic Bruce_Bailey Sailesh_Panchang Kerstin_Probiesch kerstin James_Nurthen Peter_Thiessen
Regrets: Alan_Smith Kathleen_Anderson Kathy_Wahlbin
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013OctDec/0224.html
Found Date: 03 Dec 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: sailesh salesh

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]