W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

20 May 2014

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
+1.617.766.aaaa, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, Joshue, +1.703.825.aabb, Kathy_Wahlbin, David_MacDonald, Marc_Johlic, Sailesh, +1.703.637.aacc, jon_avila, +31.30.239.aadd, Michael_Cooper, Wilco, Loretta
Regrets
Kathleen, Katie
Chair
Joshue
Scribe
Kathy, jon_avila

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 20 May 2014

<Joshue108> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Kathy> scribe: Kathy

Survey: (#3 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/13May2014/results#xautoplay

<Joshue108> Edits to Add 2.4.10 to H69

<jon_avila> jo: survey, some accepts and some rejects. Sailesh says H42 is duplicate of H69.

<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H69.html

<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H42

<scribe> scribe: jon_avila

sp: SC 2.4.1 could be added to h69. There isn't anything really new in H69.
... Headings are inserted because there are headings on the page not just because you are creating ways for screen readers to move to regions of a page. It's a by product.

jo: AWK says h42 indicates a way to mark a page, while h69 talks about bypass block -- so he says there are some differences.

awk: what's nice about h42 -- it's a very straight forward technique. It's a clean procedure. H69 is focusing on something different. If the descriptions are combined then it becomes more difficult to understand. AWK favor keeping them separate.
... recognizes that there are co-mingling of ideas that headings can help address other SC.

jo: h69 is used to highlight behavior that is already there.

bb: not thrilled with two techniques that are similar. Not comfortable with h69 to ignore one of the check steps.
... can we have to sets of procedures, not sure what solution is. Doesn't like have a check that you ignore. Doesn't think we have that anywhere else.

awk: we do have this other places but it is not common.

jo: thing it fine with me -- but others may have concerns. Is there anyone who can't live with it?

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H69.html

bb: looking at live h69. Maybe we could combine results somehow to make them cleaner.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Edits_to_Add_2.4.10_to_H69

awk: asks to clarify Bruce's recommendation.

bb: split expected results into two bullets rather than one run-on.
... No expected results in current wiki page at the moment.

jo: Bruce's suggestion sounds fine to me, anyone who can't live with it?

awk: what what Joshue's change?

jo: change to get rid of "to content". That's all. very minor.

sp: we do have several techniques that address multiple SC. When someone reads h42 he says that he can meet two things at once. Reading the technique that just covers navigation implies that developers may add off-screen headings for screen reader users.

jo: we don't want to mandate heading where there is no need for them.

sp: doesn't seem complexity in merging two together.

awk: h42 says when you have a heading you have to mark it up as heading per SC 1.3.1.
... h69 is basically saying there is utility in having structure -- it's not about marking things up - it's about having those structures in specific places. In 2.4.1 you have to have them in locations to skip around main content.
... 2.4.10 says you have to have comprehensive set of heading elements to give users outline of the content. They are related -- but there are more differences.

lgr: my worry is that people will think they aren't meeting the basic heading requirement without using heading to be used for structure.

jo: now we have sophisticated patterns with ARIA and HTML5 for creating document structure.
... recommend that make suggested changes and go back later and address ARIA structure, etc.

awk: Sailesh has some concerns -- is he satisfied enough, then we see if we can accept as amended?

sp: record his decent and then go ahead.

jo: would rather resolve decent. We could leave open and then try to resolve. The context historically is that heading were primary mode of navigation for screen reader users back in the day.

awk: public comment suggested that we had 2.4.10 to h69. Separate issue to say should we get rid of h69.
... create issue for working group to see if we should merge h42 and h69 and indicate Sailesh had comments about that. Suggest we accept this one as amended and then let it go out as public comment and then work on open issue.
... try to keep two things separate. If we bundle we will have large ball of tangled yarn.

sp: is it ok to merge 2.4.10 with H69 because 2.4.10 says add headings -- that is different from h69. Perhaps add 2.4.10 to h42?

jo: I like the idea of logging issue for working group.

lgr: disagree with Sailesh but postpone until we come back and look at issue.

<AWK> ISSUE: Should H69 be merged into H42?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-19 - Should h69 be merged into h42?. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/19/edit>.

awk: click on issue link it will take you to the issue page and then navigation will allow you to log issues and see all issues opened and closed.

Survey: May 20 2014 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140520/

RESOLUTION: accepted as amended

<Joshue108> New Technique: Using aria-describedby for link purpose

<Joshue108> New Technique: Using aria-describedby for link purpose

jo: we have some comments form LGR about supliment or augment

lgr: did not suggest alternate language, but appreciate those who did.

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140520/results#xnewregio

jo: detlev also agreed as did JO on language. Need some more text with suggestion.
... MC says text should be moved around to help flow of paragraphs.

sp: comment that says we should add an example to ARIA1 - ARIA1 is for user interface and some said we need to separate item for links. But this technique talks about other user interface controls.
... We should limit this new technique to link because we already have one on links.

dm: copying language because it had been approved. So not taking credit, copied from labelledby.

<AWK> +1 to sailesh's comment on only talking about links

sp: We should focus this technique on 2.4.4 for links -- not other UI controls -- that is covered under other ARIA techniques.

dm: we can remove that additional language.

<Loretta> shall I call in again?

jo: taken out reference to form controls.

sp: have another comment about example. Example references heading text, another example might be for paragraph text.

jo: not sure if we should draw attention to JAWS ability to speaking paragraph.

dm: will draw up example?
... people may not read and may look to examples, so an example may be helpful.

<Joshue108> JA: I saw some mails saying we were going to remove the header item from the Understanding doc. So if we are saying if this can be used as a tech but headings that can't be used for non AT users, then what are we requiring?

<Joshue108> JA: For non, screen reader users.

<Joshue108> JA: But is there nothing here for Cog A11y

awk: didn't actually change the sentence to meet what Sailesh was saying about visible focus element.

<Joshue108> +1 to AWK

awk: we should simply it to say link.

dm: putting in second example.

sp: related techniques should indicate to ARIA1.

jo: anything else?
... detleve made comment about first sentence under example 1 that extends not replacing text. Doesn't anyone like that?

dm: should say extend rather than augment.

jo: doesn't like teaser paragraph text.

sp: "when applied on links it helps screen readers understand the context" -- this could be moved up.

dm: to move text around based on comments from MC and SP.

jo: DM working on example 2 -- text should mirror that in example 1.
... user agent notes should say what versions of AT.

dm: in IE description is announced twice.

awk: Used JAWS 15 and IE and it only read once.

jo: should we link to accDescription or remove it as it is suplimentary information.

dm: Would like to teach developers relationship of accName and accDescription.

jo: A little leaner without it so it's not confusing. Can live with it either way.

sp: don't need to worry about speaking text twice as it's a bug. Perhaps we have a note about screen readers like JAWS being able to announce the text, other AT do not.
... A sentence that captures that some AT don't support speaking of paragraph text and thus this is why this technique is proposed.

awk: Sailesh was saying we shouldn't put in JAWS bugs. AWK disagrees because that is what the section is for and we can update.
... Should not talk about other technique.

<Joshue108> +1 to AWK

jo: is there any gain to keep people away from other technique.

<Joshue108> JA: I'm concernred that you can meet this SC using this technique, concerned about cognitive disabilites and low vision users.

lgr: might want to add something to techniques were accessibility support is weak

sp: doesn't think we need to mention bug because it does announce.

dm: could support JA's comment that link text should be close proximity.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if "Check that each ID in the value of the aria-describedby attribute matches an ID of a visible and nearby text element." addresses Jon's concern

dm: sentence could be used to confirm that text is near by.

<AWK> Check that each ID in the value of the aria-describedby attribute matches an ID for a text element which is visible and close to the link text."

awk: suggesting some text like check that ids match for a text element that is visible and close to the link text.

jo: how do you define nearby?

awk: is there a scenario where it doesn't need to be nearby?

dm: updated language

<Joshue108> JA: I'm in favour of the change but we need to work out the wording.

<Joshue108> JOC: Right

<Joshue108> JA: Does it have to be in the same paragraph or same heading, they are testable things.

<Joshue108> JA: My challenge is that, if we don't think this is relevant to Cog A11y, we can go that route.

<Joshue108> JA: The SC talks of programatically determined, but the support understanding docs talk about these things, as other docs are misleading.

jo: need to move on

<AWK> I think that we need to leave this one open to address the cognitive/testability issue and/or update understanding text related to the concern Jon had

dm: added in a second check.

jo: have to leave open.

<Joshue108> JA: Thats too specific

jo: come back to this later, possibly next week. Will re-arrange agenda to make sure we cover those.

RESOLUTION: leave open.

Discussion on meeting with EOWG regarding LC-28

jo: skip past items and bring up #3.
... issue with wording between ourselves and EO. AWK - can you post URI. we'd like to have a delegation to attend an upcoming EO call on Friday 30th at 8:30am EDT.

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

jo: comes down to wording.

I can't access that URI with my account.

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

<Loretta> Josh, did you mean Friday, May 30 or Monday, June 30?

jo: yes, 30th of May.

mc: would like 5 of us including chairs and MC.

<David> +1

mark: reading through comment to understand what are the differences. Would like to join as he is on east coast.

mc: will get call info to people.

marc: will join.

<Loretta> invite Gregg?

lgr: should extract the information out of this page into a wiki page to make it easier?

<bbailey> I do plan to attend.

jo: can't delay again - we want to discuss, open invitation to everyone. Thanks to those who promised to attend.

Review of accessibility tutorials - call for interest

jo: we want to make sure accessibility tutorials don't conflict with WCAG. So we need another delegation. Put out a call to member who can help perform a review of this suite of tutorials.

<AWK> "hives review" - not nit-picking, only issues that literally make you swell up and feel like you might explode

<bbailey> I would like to press back on phrasing about “accessible” vs “conforming”.

jo: when do you think this will happen?

<MichaelC> - http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/

<MichaelC> - http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/

kathy: what are the time requirements?

mc: Education and Outreach works with Europe for funding to creating these tutorials. They don't want them to conflict but they may not cover anything. They want to push them out to the public and they want to publish soon.

<David> table summary has been deprecated in HTML5

mc: Primarily want a review to make sure they aren't saying something wrong. Basically is there a big reaction. a more in-depth review is useful but will take time. They don't want to delay publication. They can always update resource.
... suggest that we do this as a sub group of the working group. Need people who know WCAG enough to detect issue. Don't throw in all possible comments at this level -- only look for big issues.

jo: thanks Michael.
... kick off straight away.

mc: plan to have final approval to publish this Friday. They may delay reasonable amount of time for us to review. Just these two so far.

<AWK> I'm in for it

<David> +1

<Kathy> +1

<Joshue108> +1

mc: Ideal to have present and former chairs plus a contact and a few other members.

jo: take up new items next week.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-05-20 16:30:48 $

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)

Found Scribe: Kathy
Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Scribes: Kathy, jon_avila
ScribeNicks: Kathy, jon_avila
Default Present: +1.617.766.aaaa, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, Joshue, +1.703.825.aabb, Kathy_Wahlbin, David_MacDonald, Marc_Johlic, Sailesh, +1.703.637.aacc, jon_avila, +31.30.239.aadd, Michael_Cooper, Wilco, Loretta
Present: +1.617.766.aaaa AWK Bruce_Bailey Joshue +1.703.825.aabb Kathy_Wahlbin David_MacDonald Marc_Johlic Sailesh +1.703.637.aacc jon_avila +31.30.239.aadd Michael_Cooper Wilco Loretta
Regrets: Kathleen Katie
Found Date: 20 May 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/05/20-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]