W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

18 Feb 2014

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
AWK, Michael_Cooper, Joshue, Kathleen, Kathy_Wahlbin, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Loretta, Sailesh_Panchang, James_Nurthen, David_MacDonald
Regrets
David, Kerstin, JF
Chair
AWK
Scribe
Loretta

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 18 February 2014

<AWK> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 18 February 2014

<AWK> Chair: AWK

<BarryJohnson> No Phone today, just IRC

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<scribe> Scribe:Loretta

New Techniques: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140211misc/

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20140218/results

LC-2872: GIT and official W3C docs

AWK summarizes proposed response.

RESOLUTION: accepted as proposed.
... accepted as proposed.

LC:2874: Edits to G200

<Joshue> +q

<AWK> new text: The user is logged into a secured area of a site, and following a link to a page outside of the secured area would terminate the user's logon.

Resolution: Accepted as amended.

LC-2883: HTML technique is a duplicate of H93

<Joshue> I Katie suggesting that we retire some numbers?

<Joshue> LGR: The search engines keep finding the old version of docs.

<Joshue> LGR: We haven't come up with a solution.

<Joshue> LGR: Thats likely why.

<Joshue> MC: You can put a header at the top of the file 30,000 +

Yes, thanks.

MJ: Suggests adding a note to the current technique, alerting people to this problem.

<Joshue> LGR: The search engines dont adhere to this

MC: One problem is that there are dated as well as undated versions of documents. Loading via the "latest version" URI can lead to completely different techniques.

Sailesh: I assume everyone should be using the lastest versions, right?
... At the topic of each page there is a link to the latest version, right?

MC: Only for the entire document, not for the individual techniques.

AWK: Is there any kind of metadata that would help?

<Joshue> LGR: can we change so there is a link to current techniques?

<Joshue> MC: We can do that

LGR: Can we add a "current version" link to the techniques template, to help this going forward?

MC: Yes, we can do this. We'll need to work with Shawn on this.

AWK updating response to include decision about technique lini.

Sailesh: The onus is also on the user to be sure they are using the latest version of a technique.

AWK: Yes, but given the behavior of the search engines, users may not have the context to realize this is a problem.

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/

AWK: Should we use the Techniques link or the How to Meet link?

<Joshue> LGR: I thought the link would go to the latest version of the technique itself?

<Joshue> LGR: Then it has to.

<Joshue> AWK: Ok, I don't get the remark.

<Joshue> LGR: The idea is that the technique would link back to the latest version of the techs doc.

<Joshue> +q

LGR: I misunderstood which link AWK was asking about, which is not the proposed new link, but the link in the response
... which recommends where to find the latest techniques.

<Joshue> +1

<Kathleen> +1

Resolution: Accepted as amended.

LC-2893: Understanding Sucess Criterion 1.4.3

AWK summarizes issue and response.

Katie: We should put this on the list of issues for future guidelines.

Resolution: Accepted as proposed.

<scribe> ACTION: Katie to make sure this topic is on the list for future guidelines. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Make sure this topic is on the list for future guidelines. [on Katie Haritos-Shea - due 2014-02-25].

Sailesh: Is this an accessibility issue or a usability issue?

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/2895

LC2895: Add "Techniques for Specific Technologies"

AWK: THis issue came from EO.

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/complete-diff.html#ut-understanding-techniques-general-tech-specific-head

AWK: EO wants us to add a new section on this topic. We already have a paragraph about this. The response is to amend that paragraph.

<AWK> suggestion: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that all uses of that technology will meet WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in ways that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria.

AWK: Worry about the phrase "makes accessible to all people", since WCAG itself doesn't claim to meet that goal.

<Joshue> +q

JOC: This is a snapshot of the wider issue of how to improve our messaging.

AWK: Yes.

JOC: We should err on the side of caution while we work on the re-messaging.

AWK: This seemed like it didn't harm the re-messaging. Does anyone have concerns about this?

Resolution: Accepted as proposed.

LC-2897: ARIA 10 and requiring alt attributes

<Joshue> rssagent, draft minutes

AWK: There has been lots of discussion within WAI on this topic in the last few months.
... We know that ARIA 10 and F65 are currently out of sync.
... People are concerned that the use of aria attributes are not as well supported across browsers.
... Displaying the text when images aren't displayed is not a WCAG issue, but it is a UAAG issue.
... The proposed response indicates how we will update ARIA 10 and F65, to encourage authors to use the alt attribute whenever they can.

<Joshue> LGR: While I agree with the sentiment, we can't issue a response that says we are going to make these changes.

<Joshue> AWK: We need to put those changes in place.

<Joshue> LGR: Yes

<Joshue> AWK: Got it

LGR: I agree with the direction proposed, but we need to put the proposed changes in place before we can accept this proposal.

<Joshue> +q

David: I accept the proposal. My concern was that the process be public and tranparent.
... It is similar to the way we approach table layout, with a strong caution.

<David_> +1

Katie: Is there a reason we can't recommend the ARIA techniques? Why the strong encouragement to use alt?

James: The reason relates to the level of accessibility support.
... if you always require alt, why would anyone ever use aria?

Katie: we want to encourage people to support aria, but the reality is that the support isn't there. THe lesser of 2 evils is with providing access.

<Joshue> LGR: I don't understand what we are discussing!

AWK: Katie's suggestion is that our advice should include providing alt even if you use aria, so that you can provide the greatest backwards compatability.

Katie: Yes, I think the advice should require alt, rather than just strongly recommending it.

LGR: THis is why we need to decide what the technique modifications will be before we can answer this issue.

JOC: Some of this is an issue of user agent support for ARIA, and it is still early days.

Katie: Because we want to push aria forward, it still isn't fair to drop support for what is there.
... It is not supported well enough by all the AT. It doesn't hurt, it only helps.
... In 5 years, maybe we can drop that.

JOC: I agree. We need to do this in a very incremental way.

AWK: I have added Working Group Notes for what we could potentially add to ARIA 10. Nothing for F65 yet.

Sailesh: We can describe the current status of accessibility support, and what we recommend.
... we should indicate that this is still in active discussion.

Katie reviews working group notes.

<Joshue> LGR: Can we please put this request in a survey please, and not do it now?

<Joshue> AWK: It's worth getting peoples thoughts

AWK: Still useful to get feedback from people right now.

<Joshue> +q

AWK: Katie, can we work on the wording together?

<Joshue> -q

David: Clarify understanding? I heard Katie say that we would require an alt attribute, and I heard Andrew say that we strong recommend but don't require.

Katie: My proposal is to require alt.

AWK: My feeling is that we can't do that.
... People can and will make valid conformance claims without that.

<Joshue> +q

AWK: We may be exceeding our authority.

David: It seems a bit strident that we are exceeding our authority.
... Reconcile by allowing aria to be added to an image.

AWK: I worry about us taking hits to our credibility and relevance, because people are using aria

Katie: I think a bigger risk is losing access

AWK: We need to advocate for browsers and AT to improve their aria support. This will also be due to efforts by PF, too.

David: Should we be running ahead? WCAG should be giving practical advice.

JOC: THat is what we are trying to do. THe practical issues of how techniques are authored. In the WG, we have issues of managing perceptions.
... There is a fine line we need to walk.

James: Re aria being a new thing: it will shortly be a Recommendation. THere has been browser support for many aria attributes for 4 or 5 years. This isn't new.

David: Agree with Josh on almost everything. THe question is some variation of leaving ARIA 10 but requiring alt, or reopening F65. We will need to do one or the other.
... Discuss either at Face to Face or in survey.

AWK: I hope before the F2F, since we would like to update the documents before then.
... CHoices: keep ARIA 10 and modify F65, or don't keep ARIA 10 and don't modify F65.

David: or Katie's proposal to require alt for ARIA 10

LGR: But ARIA 10 is just an advisory technique on top of the alt technique.

Katie: ARIA 10 still encourages people to use aria, but requires alt. I hear from enough people who can't access information provided by aria.
... I would rather flag it and delay the use of aria until it is supported for everyone.
... People aren't hearing alternate text when it is provided by labelled-by.

AWK: With what browsers/AT combinations?

Katie: with a variety of combinations.

David: I don't see much use of labelled-by on the web for images.

AWK: I think we use it on the Adobe home page.

Resolution: leave open

<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask if Katie feels the same way about labeling form fields?

LC-2881: This technique should be advisory G183

Resolutino: Accepted as proposed.

Resolution: Accepted as amended.

Volunteers needed for remaining comments

AWK: Agenda email lists the remaining issues that need to be handled.
... I don't believe any of these are necessary for this round, since they are on parts of the document that hasn't changed.
... I will look at the commend on PDF techniques, however.
... Does everyone know how to get into the comment tracker? (Not github).

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/

AWK: Go into the comments tracker, look at the links to comments #19 and #20 for the current comments.
... Use the "assigned-to" drop down to select your own name to volunteer for that issue.
... If you have a response that is ready for WG review, let me (Andrew) know.
... None of the issues seem enormous, but may require some thought.
... Likely to be included in the September update.

LGR: If we can include them in this update, it would be good.

AWK: Proposed publication schedule targets everything approved next week, and edits into the document by Feb 28.
... Trying to negotiate MIchael's time, since ARIA is also trying to publish before CSUN.

LGR: We may need a longer meeting next week, or scheduling a separate meeting, to discuss the alt issue, since we need to settle that before publication.

AWK: we will plan to go 2 hours next week.

James: I have a conflict after our normal meeting time.

AWK: Propose using the Task Force meeting time (old WCAG time) for this issue.

<David_> would you like me to push minutes Loretta

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Katie to make sure this topic is on the list for future guidelines. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-02-18 17:38:18 $

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/pratical/practical/
Succeeded: s/5 or 6/4 or 5/
Succeeded: s/on the web/on the web for images/
Found Scribe: Loretta
Inferring ScribeNick: Loretta
Default Present: AWK, Michael_Cooper, Joshue, Kathleen, Kathy_Wahlbin, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Loretta, Sailesh_Panchang, James_Nurthen, David_MacDonald
Present: AWK Michael_Cooper Joshue Kathleen Kathy_Wahlbin Marc_Johlic Katie_Haritos-Shea Loretta Sailesh_Panchang James_Nurthen David_MacDonald
Regrets: David Kerstin JF
Found Date: 18 Feb 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: katie

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]