W3C

- DRAFT -

WCAG Working Group Teleconference

14 Jan 2014

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Joshue_O_Connor., David_MacDonald, Kathy, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Shadi, Kerstin_Probiesch, Michael_Cooper, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Marc_J., James_N., wuwei
Regrets
Chair
AWK
Scribe
Katie

Contents


<Joshue108> Chair: Joshue

<AWK> Scribe:Katie

Continue ARIA Techniques review - only #4 and #6 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126ARIA_Techniques/

Joshue: We are going to have a F2F at CSUN

Shadi: Are you looking at Tuesday, WCAG-EM is looking to have one on Mon and Tues. Maybe we can coordinate

Joshue: ok

Discussion of Evaluation Methodology Note and approval for publication of working draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126EM_Review/

<MichaelC> agenda order 7, 5

Approval of techniques and understanding documents for public review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/techunderstandpublic/

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/techunderstandpublic/results

<scribe> Chair: Andrew/Joshue

<scribe> ScribeNick: Ryladog

<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/

AK: I responded to most of the comments
... ARIA 10, this your comment is how do we come to consensus.....we did discuss and approved on Dec 10th.....what do people think about it?

<Joshue108> +q

DM: My concern is F65 and ARIA 10 - this sounds cyclical - I think we need to fix one or the other. Maybe we should discuss at F2F

JO: I think we do need to talk about it.

<kerstin_> sorry for delay

JO: Michael can we suspend this until we have time to talk about it?

<Joshue108> +q

AK: If we are looking to publish today - that could be a problem

LGR: We can still publish today and add a NOTE to the draft - identifying that we are still working on this one issue

LGR; Reasonable?

MC: Yes

MC; Suggest in STATUS provide list of things we are working on. And add and ED NOTE describe the issue

JO: That sounds good

<Joshue108> +1 to AWK

AK: I want to speak to Davids suggestion, I think we want commentors to address this document - not F65 - we never approved F65
... Does anyone object to adding tabindex -1?

LGR: You need identify that tabindex -1 works for IE

DM: So often I see developers copy code - thinking that they have fixed it. My other concernis the ID - you are not supposed to start and ID with a number

AWK: We are no clear on that
... It is L1 and L2 - I think it was L just for label

LGR: This should be easy to fix

<Joshue108> KHS: A major selling point of WCAG is that we allow for the updating of techs and our docs - this is important to identify.

<Joshue108> +q

<AWK> how about: WCAG 2.0 guidelines and success criteria are designed to be broadly applicable to current and future web technologies, including dynamic applications, mobile, digital television, etc. They are stable and do not change. Specific guidance for authors and evaluators on meeting the WCAG success criteria is provided in techniques, which include code examples, resources, and tests. W3C's Techniques for WCAG 2.0 document is updated periodically, about once a ye

<AWK> to cover more current best practices and changes in technologies and tools.

<Joshue108> re: AWK, its good. How about WCAG 2.0 guidelines and success criteria are designed to be broadly applicable to current and future web technologies, including dynamic applications, mobile, digital television, etc. They are stable and do not change. However, specific guidance for authors and evaluators on meeting the WCAG success criteria is provided in regularily updated techniques, which include code examples, resources, and tests.

<Joshue108> +q

KHS: No it should not block publication - but I would like to ensure that the RATIONALE/REASON the Techniques and Understanding are non-normative and updatable to avoid being a rapidly outdated standard

LGR: My comments were mostly about the itengrity of the documents

<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/F24.html

AWK: Yes, we were also concerned about that, and took some action, and learned a lot

Kerstin: We could make an editor note

AWK: We want the WG to discuss this before we add it as a note

<Joshue108> +q

JO: I agree with what Andrew is saying before we send it out

Kerstin: Yes I am OK with this

MJ: I cannot view the Intro text on the Quickref page - and it is also not displaying any of my choices for techniques

<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20140107/Overview.php?introopt=Y

<marcjohlic> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20140107/Overview.php

<David> +1 here

MC: Yes I see that, I will look into that

JO: Will you be able to fix that on the call?

MC: Probably not

RESOLUTION: Group has Approval of Techniques and Understanding documents for Public Review - provided the QuickRef document fix and Comment about ARIA 10

<AWK> brb

DM: I can suggest text for ARIA 10 - will do with Loretta right now

Discussion of Evaluation Methodology Note and approval for publication of working draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126EM_Review/

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129

Shadi: This is from the previous editors draft
... We asked ERT, WCAG and EO to review
... we ended up with over 100 comments we have proposed resolutions. There are a coupe of open ones that I wouldlike to go over. We want to Publish as a working group draft

<Loretta> THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute. Example XX demonstrates a situation where it might be desirable just to use aria-abelledby, with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the general issue.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment18

<Joshue108> Nice Loretta!

<Loretta> (Need David's input...)

Shadi: Comment 18: Core Functionality

<Joshue108> Should we say something like "still discussing the wider issue of new methods to provide text alternatives[...]" or similar?

<shadi> "Essential Functionality"

Shadi: We felt that Greggs terminology might not be understood - so we suggest to call it Essential Functionality, Is that OK?
... The definition will remain the same as it is now.
... There have been several suggestions

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment26

<David> I would add to lorretta: THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute (i.e. by amending F65). Example XX demonstrates a situation where it might be desirable just to use aria-abelledby, with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the general issue.

<Loretta> Sounds good to me, David.

<Joshue108> I'm wondering if we should refer to the issue of 'alternatives to traditional ways of providing alternate text' - ARIA is one of those ways.

<Joshue108> THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to only use various aria attributes, in some use cases, to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute.

<David> Andrew can you add the <ednote>?

<Loretta> I think David's version is easier to understand.

<Joshue108> Ok. I does mention F65 tho..

Shadi: Comment 26: We are suggesting not to use Gregg's but to use what we have
... Are there any objections

<shadi> [[W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented (non-normative) Techniques for WCAG 2.0 that help evaluate conformance to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques (see Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria). Some evaluators might use other methods (inline with the requirements for custom techniques) to evaluate conformance to WCAG 2.0. W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented (non-normative) Te

<shadi> chniques for WCAG 2.0 that help evaluate conformance to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria.]]

<Joshue108> Should we call ARIA attributes, in this context, supporting text alternatives?

<Joshue108> That could be problematic on second thoughts..

DM: You need to be conformant to SC not techniques

Shadi: We say nowhere to evaluate conformance with Techniques

Kerstin: I do not agree - I would agree with publishing at a working draft

Shadi: What is the issue? What do you see?

LGR: All of the WCAG documents is meant for a variety of audiences - the techniques are not limited to developers

+1 to LGR

Shadi: All we are saying that Techniques *can* help in evaluating conformance to WCAG 2 SC
... Maybe we can allow more time

I have no problem with Publication

DM: The two key issues for me are fairly important. One on Comment 37: I see therational fornot changing it. The wording I proposed that it is important have PWD to be used, but I think it is going to be less of anevaluationif a PWD is not always included
... I think most evaluators can discover most relevant issues

Shadi: This language has been there from the beginning

JO: Can you live with this as is?

DM: Yes
... What about a specific size?

Shadi: We think that what we have proposed is best and more consistant
... We also run into issues with a fixed number of pages

<Joshue108> +q

DM: Just provide some guidance

Shadi: We hope to do that in the next draft

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment43

Shadi: Comment 43: Relates to Scoring - this is strongly disputed
... Developing a ratio as a ballpark figure - not comparing one site with another - but rather a site against itself
... One issue is that we call it scoring - but really it is a ratio to get a rough idea. One idea is to keep that section, another is to drop that section for this draft

Kerstin: I don't think that scoring is useful. There are no proven data for the reliabiility of the suggested scoring system in WCAG-EM. Therefore I would like to see dropping the section on scoring

<Joshue108> +q

DM: The government of Canada was really hoping to see this document covering Scoring - everybody wants it - bu tI am not sure that it is realistic

<kerstin_> Ryladog: I've said that, that I don't think that scoring is useful. And that there are no proven data for the reliabiility of the suggested scoring system. Therefore I would like to see droping the section

Shadi: Maybe we can extend the comments to the end of the week?

JO: I would rather us reviewing it this week and addressing it on next weeks call - as the ScoringMetrics is a very big issue
... Please put you suggested text for ARIA 10 here now?

<kerstin_> Ryladog, could please correct my comment on scoring?

<David> I would add to lorretta: THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute (i.e. by amending F65). Example XX demonstrates a situation where it might be desirable just to use aria-abelledby, with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the general issue.

Kerstin, please put in the text you want and I will be happy to

<kerstin_> I don't think that scoring is useful. There are no proven data for the reliabiility of the suggested scoring system in WCAG-EM. Therefore I would like to see dropping the section on scoring

<David> THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute (i.e. we are also discussing F65 in this context). Example XX demonstrates a situation where it might be desirable just to use aria-abelledby, with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the general issue.

<David> id THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide text alternatives for an image without providing an alt attribute (i.e. we are also discussing F65 in this context). Example XX demonstrates a situation where it might be desirable just to use aria-abelledby, with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the...

<David> ...general issue.

<Joshue108> THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute (i.e. we are also discussing F65 in this context). Example XX demonstrates a situation where it might be desirable just to use aria-abelledby, with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the general issue.

<David> id THe Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute (i.e. we are also discussing F65 in this context). Example XX demonstrates a situation where it might be desirable just to use aria-abelledby, with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the...

<David> ...general issue.

<AWK> The Working Group is still discussing whether it is appropriate to use various aria attributes to provide a text alternative for an image without providing an alt attribute. <loch ref=”ARIA10”> ARIA10: Using aria-labelledby to provide a text alternative for non-text content</loc> is included to invite public comment and help the working group come to a conclusion about this technique as well as related items (e.g. F65).

<AWK> Examples within ARIA10 demonstrate situations where it might be desirable just to use aria-labelledby with no alt attribute. We solicit feedback on this example and on the general issue.

<kerstin_> thx @ryladog

* you bet!

DM: Should we include HTML 5?

JO: I think we will leave HTML 5 out for now

JO; This is really going to blow up.

Bring it on

DM: The F@F well be fantastic

<Joshue108> +1 to AWK text

<Kathy> +1

<kerstin_> +1 also

<AWK> gotta go, thx bye

<kerstin_> bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-01-14 17:45:26 $

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/coorinate/coordinate/
Succeeded: s/thecomments/the comments/
Succeeded: s/edotor/editors/
Succeeded: s/?//
Succeeded: s/Kerstin: I think scoring is useful - is there prudent data - when it comes to conformance - I would really like to drop the Scoring for WCAG EM/Kerstin: I don't think that scoring is useful. There are no proven data for the reliabiility of the suggested scoring system in WCAG-EM. Therefore I would like to see dropping the section on scoring/
Succeeded: s/wille/well be/
Found Scribe: Katie
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog
Default Present: Joshue, Shadi, AWK, Michel_Fitos, Kathy_Wahlbin, David_MacDonald, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Loretta, Michael_Cooper, kerstin_, wuwei, James_Nurthen

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Joshue_O., David_M., Kathy, Katie, Andrew_K., Shadi, Kerstin, Michael_C., Loretta_GR, Marc_J.)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Joshue_O_Connor., David_MacDonald, Kathy, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Shadi, Kerstin_Probiesch, Michael_Cooper, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Marc_J., James_N., wuwei

Present: Joshue_O_Connor. David_MacDonald Kathy Katie_Haritos-Shea Andrew_Kirkpatrick Shadi Kerstin_Probiesch Michael_Cooper Loretta_Guarino_Reid Marc_J. James_N. wuwei
Got date from IRC log name: 14 Jan 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/01/14-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]