WCAG Working Group

29 Apr 2014


AWK, Sailesh_Panchang, Joshue, kathleen, Michael_Cooper, Marc_Johlic, So_Vang, John_Foliot, Wilco_Fiers, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, James_Nurthen


<Joshue> Surveyed: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc22April2014/

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/29thApril14_RTC/

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/29thApril14_TECH/

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Working_Group_Techniques_Development_Assignments

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

<JF> scribe: JF

zakim: agenda

zakim: take up item 1

1) Complete review of technique 'Using the region role to identify a region on a page'

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_the_region_role_to_identify_a_region_of_the_page

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/2014/04/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item08

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc22April2014/results#xnewregio

Josh: there seems to be some dissonance on where we are sitting, can Andrew please explain?

AWK: attempting to figure out where this applies to

Haven't had the time to discuss in depth

not much hope of finishing it

Josh: are we done with the main issues with it?

were there any solid take-awways from last week?


looking at survey for this at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc22April2014/results#xnewregio

LGR: don't think we made it all the way through comments

Josh: general feeling is that this is a good technique

needs some tweaks and finding a home for it - which success criteria does it relate to?

<Loretta> I don't think we decided about labels at all.

AWK: one open question - is there a scenario when a region would NOT require a label?

spec says to name a region is to associate something to it

<Joshue> +q

LGR: regions such as paragraphs do not require a name - this is for naming interactive regions

MC: this is constrained to things that have state, and can change

LGR: we should have a WBS to get discussion

MC: the spec *could* be interpretted to see a paragraph as a control, it seems to be a stretch

Josh: for the purposes of this - does this straddle 1.3.1 and/or 4.1.2? (JF hopes he has these numbers correct)

KHS: will agree with Loretta for this as on an interactive control

(+1 to KHS from JF)

MC: fairly certain that Greg would have a clear recollection of this

Sailesh: believe it does relate to an interactive control

but what about a frame? also related

Josh: will add to agenda for next week

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA11.html

AWK: in comparing this to Aria 11 - maps to 1.3.1 and 2.4.1

doesn't specifiy in the test procedures that it requires a name

if you identify the region (i.e. with a landmark), then you have met requirement

so we could be more specific: make sure area is marked up with region

sailesh: two comments - landmarks are usually generated - generally unique.

LGR: may want to have a technique for a region (not neccessarily a landmark)

Josh: yes, I wanted to look at this further

for something that doesn't need or have an ARIA landmark - then I would want to label it with something

Josh: while ARIA spec is explicit, we want to ensure that it is writ large in the techniques

<AWK> Suggest change from: It is important to name the region using a technique like aria-labelledby that references a heading for the region. The heading may be marked up with h<n> tag or role=heading

there may be times when, in the abscence of a suitable heading, that aria-label could be used to generate a useful name

any string

<AWK> to: It is important to name the region using a technique like aria-labelledby that references a heading for the region or by providing a name using aria-label.

AWK: don't have a strong feeling whether this Must or not include a name piece

we can go either way

Josh +1 from me

Wilco: wond3ring for 1.3.1 - is if you are communicating structure as well - to indicate the relationship to the larger site/page

LGR: agree with providing suggestions on how to label regions

want to be careful that we don't limit the way it can be done

Josh: good point

but, the describption is incomplete - AWK's text just briefly mentions it

<AWK> New suggestion: It is important to name the region using aria-labelledby, aria-label, or by other means.

LRG: believe there should be suggestions, but just to be careful

Sailesh: agree; ARIA specs also mention aria-heading

Josh: looking to recap

wish to +1 Andrews text

LGR: the one thing I am thinking is that we have had a lot of discussion on labeling regions - we should be sure we have that captured

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

Josh: any objections to AWK's suggested text?

Wilco: could it be that there are scenarios where the label *is* required?

Josh: generally speaking, all these controls/regions should be lableled with something

<Loretta> It is important to name regions, because they are generic grouping elements and users will need some way to tell which region they are in. Regions can be named using a technie like ...

<Loretta> +1

AWK: suggest that either Sailesh or myself re-group comments and then re-present

Josh: would like to try and get this resolved today, never to be re-opened (smile)

LGR: provided an alternative text

Josh: then perhaps we should take this off and refine off-line

Sailesh: there is one other comment. The sentence that starts with "screen readers that support..." should be removed - not accurate anymore

Josh: confused now - thought region roles where treated like landmarks

<Wilco> +1

suggest that you guys take off-line for polish and will review next week

Proposed comment responses:

<AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open

<kathleen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/29thApril14_RTC/results

<AWK> s/leave open/leave open for Sailesh to adjust technique based on discussion

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2922

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/29thApril14_RTC/results

Comment LC-2922: Draft response "Are ARIA landmarks required?"

Josh: updated response based on feedback

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2922

Josh: asking for review and final discussion (if required)
... any objections to accepting the response?

AWK: do we want to say that you never need to use ARIA?

LGR: dangerous to say you must always use ARIA

AWK: goes both ways

MC: depends on what technology you are using, and what you want to accomplish

<Joshue> +q

<Joshue> JF: I'm concerned about using MUST etc, would rather be excplicit on requirements and leave it up to the authors discretion.

<Joshue> +1

JF: clarrification on my point - I do not like to be explicit on the means of achieving the requirement(S)

<Wilco> +1

AWK: like that better

<Joshue> NOTE:

<Joshue> - ARIA11 is documented as a sufficient technique for SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.1 and like most techniques, it is not the only way for passing these SC.

RESOLUTION: accepted as ammended

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2891


<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2891

Josh: suggestion to leave this one open

this should be on you Wilco

know that you are happy with this, but not sure if WG is aware

Wilco: yes, I am happy

MC: need to describe what we did in the response
... we just need a clean public record

RESOUTION: leave open for now

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2888


Josh: any objection to the respnse?

RESOLUTION: accepted as is


<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2885

Josh: Andrew had a comment

this is a general technique

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H92.html

AWK: the example is similar in the ways that are needed for H:90 - is redundant, doesn't add anything to H:90

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

there are 2 approaches - make this a general technique without HTML example on how to do

James, appeared to be in agreement, but then asked why not just leave the HTML (for HTML use)

not fussy - can go either way

Josh: any objections to what AWK proposed?

JF: leaving in code is helpful to some

<Joshue> JF: Theres nothing wrong with leaving the HTML there.

MJ: adjust the example, but remove the color piece - take andrews re-tweak of the example, but leave the HTML

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2885

RESOLUTION: make the description slightly more generic, but leave the example code in - AWK to make the changes


<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2886

Josh: this technique should be generalized

MJ: saw two ways of going with this - provided both for discussion

Josh: what are we doing with this?

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/C29.html

MJ: what it comes down to is that it should be general enough - do we make this a general technique? or option 2 - keep as a specific CSS technique - if that is the case we need to update the testing technique

AWK: all of the examples are using CSS - yes, we could make it general but there is so much CSS

we should modify the test procedures

<AWK> Instead #2: Check that the control changes the presentation by modifying individual CSS style properties or by activating an alternate style sheet.

Josh: a lot happening in the examples
... AWK, you were the only one to comment extensively - not sure what to do next

AWK: my suggestion is to go with option 2 - make the linkage between test procedure and presence of CSS more direct

(JF +1 to AWK)

RESOLUTION: accepted as ammended

Cognitive TF update: From Lisa. [Latest TF report available here https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Reports

Josh: noting different TFs out there - hope to have updates from these different groups over the next weeks

was hoping to have Lisa here this week - deferred to 2 weeks from now

Update on technique assignments and progress

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

Josh: things continuing ast pace - a few weeks left before the deadline

any concerns? anyone want to take on more (or sign up)?

AWK: reviewing the list earlier - if you scan far column

pretty solidly incomplete - not sure if folks are working and not updating (that's OK)

but ultimately we want to use this to tgrack where we are at

there have been some times on Thursdays when others have joined

tried to set a low bar - 2 techniques

but if we lack the bandwidth, then we need to figure that out

Josh: we are here to help

Wilco: want to ask/add that has been working on a11y support db at W3C

to see if there are some tests that could be added - if anyone is interested drop me a note

<Loretta> thanks, Wilco!

Kathleen: question around process - what happens next? I have things on personal web site that are linked. Will taht be copied to a W3C space?

Josh: can leave it there as long as you want - we might want to pull it into the actual wiki

MC: we WILL take the code examples and host internally at W3C - need to review if that is set to go

AWK: if you are using GitHub then the examples are up there in a seperate directory

Michael is working on getting that rendered as HTML

Update on WCAG @ TPAC 2014 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcagtpac14/

Kathleen: I know there is a per-person/per-day fee

(group seems to believe it is ~$50 / day)

<MichaelC> TPAC 2014

AWK: asking about PF schedule

JN: prefer that we do not conflict with PF's schedule
... think we were looking at Thurs/Fri for PF

JF: I believe taht PF did agree with Thurs/Fri

MC: we are expected to have agenda figured our in advance - know that some will have split loyalties

Josh: will finalize date soon enough
... looks like that is it

AWK: any further comments?

<AWK> Scribe: AWK

JN: planning to have the Thursday techniques meeting 4pm ET
... Not many techniques to discuss yet

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-04-29 17:49:56 $