W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

13 May 2014

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
David_MacDonald, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, +31.30.239.aaaa, Wilco, kathleen, +1.571.389.aabb, jon_avila, Loretta, Lisa_Seeman, Michael_Cooper, Joshue, James_Nurthen
Regrets
Kathy
Chair
AWK
Scribe
Bruce

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 13 May 2014

<Loretta> brb

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

<AWK> Scribe: Bruce

Review of https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_Needing_Responses (4 new)

Update on Cognitive Accessibility Task Force from Lisa Seeman.

Lisa address group for update.

Mix of folks from CSUN face-to-face

Something could go to ARIA, to CAPTCH paper, WCAG WG

Mandated for work on gap analysis and word map and technques

Gap analysis first and important focus since eight different disability groups have been identified.

Not just AT compatibility, but feature needs

GPII has some similar work

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page

Work is in public, actively trying to avoid copy right issues

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Gap_Analysis

As with other wiki, work in progress, not authoritative necessarily

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Section_3

<Lisa_Seeman> good practices and avoid bad practices

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Good_and_bad_practices

Staffing working to collect ideas that can help, good practices and avoid bad practices

includes inclusive design practices, can be outside WCAG techniques per se

<Joshue> +q to say that the more we can identify commonalities the better

cognitive load is a good example of common issue that people complain about

helps address different needs and different ATs

TextHelp and Arabic language support are also current examples

CAPTCHA coming up as an issue again, plan to make suggestions to PF on that

<Joshue> -q

Symbol space is also an area that needs more investigation, as symbols may be better for some people than languages

Some symbol sets have copyright issues

Copyrighted symbol set may be very much like native language for some people, but can't be shared across tools.

<Zakim> David, you wanted to ask for a short list of issues that people with cognitive disabilities complain about

Lisa: very early for generatizations

<Joshue> +q

short-term dependance on working memory issue for many different types of cognitive issues

Want to make interface to require as little learning as possible.

<jon_avila> Flat design is bad for people with low vision too IMO.

The “flat design” paradigm currently popular actually increases cognitive load.

It is better to have borders distinction between buttons for example.

Joshue thanks for feedback, and we are continuously looking for more overlap and suggestions.

AWK and Lisa invite participation with her task force.

WCAG members are already vetted, so volunteers needed!

Time-out issues also something that comes up frequently as barrier, easy to lose place and orientation.

Timeout likely to require re-checking.

(This relates back to David's earlier question.)

Reminder to check page, if your name is there, this is reminder.

Also need to add new items.

Also need volunteers to add your name.

Particularly, 2912, 2871

Review of https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_Needing_Responses (4 new)

Discussion on comment processing - improving how we deal with questions to the working group, from the working group.

Main issues is that comments from working group tend to be bigger and need more work

<AWK> Suggesting new process for comments from WG members

<AWK> WG-raised issues should be filed in issue tracker http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/

<AWK> if raised on mailing list, migrate to tracker

<AWK> same for WG public comments, document they get moved to tracker instead of treated as public comment

<AWK> which resolves the public comment - by adding to tracker

<AWK> standing agenda item to walk through tracker issues and discuss

<AWK> people can put comments in issue or by email before WG discussion so dont need WBS

Working group suggestions tend to be deeper and more complex

Question to working group: How does this sound?

Question is if we should dialog less on list serve?

David is concerned that issues from public might no look like they are picked up.

David asks advantages for our tracker v git hub

AWK: we are figuring this out

WG has more familiarity with issue tracker than git hub

Michael outline process of tracker

Current issue is that formality of tracker works better for discreet issues

Concern with git hub is that it is not W3C controlled service

Would be alarming to loose git hub discussions

AWK: using tracker may seem a little redundant, but we know threads are preserved

<Joshue> +q

Joshue, any objections?

We are trying to reduce overhead, make things more efficient.

<MichaelC> My thoughts: we need a tracker for issues raised by WG members, so they don´t get lost. Suspect people use the public comments process for that, but that conflates issues and imposes extra formality that we don´t need.

<MichaelC> Using our tracker helps with assurance, so WG members don´t need to use the public comment process.

<MichaelC> Use internal tracker instead of GitHub issue management because we need a paper trail for posterity

<MichaelC> If GitHub goes down, we lose that

RESOLUTION: Adopt process as described for handling working group comments

Author of technique, Allister asking if he is on right track, asking for feedback

<Joshue> +q

Trying to get back to DOM plus text, but don’t want accessible version to look like it is dumbed down

Joshue thinks this may conflict with progressive enhancement

Loretta understand concern for alternate version, but since we allow them, this should fine technique for alternative version

<Joshue> +q

<scribe> Ongoing issue that documenting techniques is interpreted as advocating technique as best practices

Joshue concerns with perception versus what is actually proposed in practice

David tries to paraphrase

That the conforming alternative version is available by link.

<Joshue> +q

AWK paraphrases as page making extensive use of progressive design, but all states of DOM not all testible

So idea is to have explicit link to robustly tested version

Technique could be pragmatic response to having too many combinations to test.

David possible likes idea.

Don’t want this to be analogy of using back door kitchen door for wheelchair access.

Joshue likes approach since it can be quite practical. Great flag for bigger issues.

<Wilco> +q to include a warning

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to include a warning

Helps address versioning, and issues with accessibility supported.

Wilco: Could be good, may need significant caveats.

Would be better for default version to be accessible. Fallback options are always a concern.

<Joshue> +1

RESOLUTION: Communicate to Alistair that work is worth pursuing

Misc Survey 6th May 2014 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140506/results (only LC-2854)

Suggestion is get rid of acronym and just use abbr

Use abbr to mark up expansions

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2854

Michael reviewing

RESOLUTION: Accepted as ammended

Survey. Techniques and Institutional Memory. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/13May2014/

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/13May2014/results#xcaptions

1. [Updated Technique] Combining adjacent image and text links for the same resource

AWK suggest getting rid of example with closing slash so example combined and simplier

Does not really seem necessary to have both XHTML and HTML.

Bruce asks why example are different.

Loretta points out that example have been there before, point was to rephrase as positive statements.

Bruce retracts his suggestion.

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H2.html

Edit may make DIFF hard to spot

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=Techniques%2FHTML%2FCombining_adjacent_image_and_text_links_for_the_same_resource&diff=4376&oldid=96

Michael feels rewording is an improvement

AWK asks about combining two examples.

<Joshue> Agreed

Only difference is a single slash, too much text for such trivial difference.

David, Joshue, Bruce agree with simplification

Michael points out that HTML5 prefers HTML syntax!

RESOLUTION: Accepted as ammended

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/13May2014/results#xaudiodes

Issue is that ARIA-invalid can be the solution or be part of a solution

Concern is that ARIA-invalid can be the solution or be part of a solution

Jon has concern with useability for folks with low vision

<Joshue> Changing the text may be sufficient?

Example uses border attribute, so that helps.

Jon has suggested edit with phrasing

<Joshue> +q

James likes having CSS techniques

David clarifies that with example icon is in CSS

<Joshue> +1 to Jons suggestion

Discussion to small modification to support using CSS

Jon's suggestion to second bullet, for example by using an error-icon rendered visually by some technique that does not rely on color such as a visual cue like a border.

James and others okay with this.

<MichaelC> ackme

Michael asked to clarify his comment.

Discussion that AT support may not be sufficient.

May want aria-invalid plus label technique

Discussion that objective is have discreet technique that does not rely upon lable

Concern expressed with statement: When visible text is used to programmatically identify a failed field and / or convey how the error can be corrected, setting aria-invalid to "true" is superfluous from a strict compliance standpoint.

Don’t want to steer people away from aria.

Michael: This harkens back to long standing concern AT-push issue.

We want to encourage support for aria, but not require it

Discussion of text edit...

Michaels comment also applies to example 2.

Discussion how to edit examples to keep them parallel in form.

<Joshue> brb

AKW and Michael make discussed changes to wiki page

AKW makes analogy to calendar controls

Highlight difference between “incorrect” and “missing”.

Examples now have both ARIA invalid and described by

<Joshue> +Q

Description updated as well.

<wilco> +q

Joshue asks about error correction versus just error identification

Wilco points out ambiguity in test procedure around “instructional text”

Discussion

<Joshue> BB: Isn't the requirement for the instruction text, we may not have prog association as an explicit requirement

Discussion that programmatic association for instructional text okay even if not required by SC, can be appropriate for technique.

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended

Did not get to last couple items.

AWK: Have 5 or 6 techniques, but time running short

David has technique in progress for aria described by

Or may be aria labeled by, we can choose one over the other

Open call on Thursday, let Loretta or James know

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-05-13 16:34:34 $

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/IPII/GPII/
Succeeded: s/29.12/2912/
Succeeded: s/2.8.71/2871/
Succeeded: s/Comment from working/Main issues is that comments from working/
Succeeded: s/that issues might/that issues from public might/
Succeeded: s/Adopt proposal/Adopt process as described for handling working group comments/
Succeeded: s/is on right tracking/is on right track/
Succeeded: s/conflicts/conflict/
Succeeded: s/pursing/pursuing/
Succeeded: s/Wilco asks about/Joshue asks about/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: bbailey
Found Scribe: Bruce
Default Present: David_MacDonald, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, +31.30.239.aaaa, Wilco, kathleen, +1.571.389.aabb, jon_avila, Loretta, Lisa_Seeman, Michael_Cooper, Joshue, James_Nurthen
Present: David_MacDonald AWK Bruce_Bailey +31.30.239.aaaa Wilco kathleen +1.571.389.aabb jon_avila Loretta Lisa_Seeman Michael_Cooper Joshue James_Nurthen
Regrets: Kathy
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014AprJun/0089.html
Found Date: 13 May 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/05/13-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]