Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

24 Jun 2014

See also: IRC log


Joshue, Shadi, alistair, Wilco, Kenny, Bruce_Bailey, Michael_Cooper, +1.703.637.aaaa, jon_avila, Marc_Johlic, David_MacDonald, EricVelleman, +1.703.825.aabb, +1.703.825.aacc, James_Nurthen


<trackbot> Date: 24 June 2014

<Joshue> New Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24June2014/

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2

<Joshue> Continuation of discussion on Alistairs technique and F76 (Items #3 and #4)

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

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

<scribe> scribe: jon_avila

Reminder No call next week - July 1

Discussion with WCAG-EM about changes and requested review (Shadi - 15 minutes)

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014AprJun/0249.html

Updates with WCAG Evaluation Methodology

shadi: working on processing comments on January publication of working draft. Have reorganized and editorial changes.
... few substantial changes from comments and discussions that we already had with WCAG WG. We believe that we have addressed all comments and arguments and this is a complete document that is ready for publication as WCAG WG note.
... non-normative - informative document, support document to WCAG 2.0.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140623#step5d

shadi: Walk us through particular changes that may want our attention, 5d: provide an aggregated score.

<David> link to doc again please

shadi: Before the score was based on adding up violations -- based on f2f meeting, that algorithm and procedure was removed. But leave in guidance and caution about when you provide an aggregated score.

<EricVelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140623#step5d

<Joshue> +q to ask if there is still any suggested metric in the doc to do a score with

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140623#step4a

shadi: goal to provide guidance to those who provide this info but not prescribe something that isn't agreed upon by all parties
... step 4a - could use WCAG review. How to check WCAG conformance. This isn't new and has been reviewed but this has been pulled together into one section with different structure with a different editorial approve.
... Point to FAQ where review of techniques is not required for making conformance. Also talk about alternative versions, accessibility support, and non-interference; also link to more places in WCAG for guidance.
... hope to get approve from WGs to publish this as WG note and provide to the public as a useful resource.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask if there is still any suggested metric in the doc to do a score with

eric: Changes mostly rearranging content that has already been reviewed.

jo: Survey in following weeks call -- thanks for bringing this up. Do you have any suggested method for aggregation?

shadi: we don't provide any method for scoring aggregation -- we provide info of info how they can be used and how they can be misleading.
... There is ongoing research and activity. There is no single measure that addresses all of the quality criteria.

<Zakim> David, you wanted to ask about full page alternate page vs. component

david: You talked about alternative formats -- what about components versus pages. Example of date pickers, do you need date picker or will a text box suffice -- is there any discussion about that?

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140623#alternate-versions

eric: Have not further interpreted those issues - we tried to summarize current guidance and provide resources. Our understanding is that WCAG allows both.
... we use example in understanding doc with a video that has captions and one that does not.
... info in understanding document could be further improved.

david: agree with that.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask about reference FAQ rather than copy FAQ? I worry that FAQ is less authoritative and more likely to updated (so less stable).

bb: really need to address language about components and alternative versions. Wanted to ask about EM - significant editorial changes. Why not have FAQ right inside the document?

eric: good question - could consider quoting them rather than referring to them. One click less -- downside is that if those get refined or updated then maintenance issues.

bb: FAQs are not subject to level of review as other documents. Rather have EM contain snapshot of FAQs at this time rather than links.

eric: could you put that in your survey?

shadi: we've opened a survey like we did last time. Prefer to have all comments in one place.

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20140623/

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20140623/

jo: let's use EM survey link -- send out on Friday to group. People will have time to answer.

shadi: Please put your comments in the survey and Eric and I will think about it. I was hoping survey was already open from Tuesday to Tuesday.

jo: will get survey emailed out to the list after the call.

shadi: Yes, that would be great to re-forward that -- let me know about timelines. If participants fill out that survey, Eric and Shadi will process it next week. On the next meeting on the 8th we can discuss.
... on 8th come up with a log on how we process the comments. Perhaps get resolution for approval on that call if we can resolve all comments.

jo: will send out reminder that deadline is 1st. We will parcel feedback to WG and discussion on 8th.

david: brilliant to not choose one particular method for scoring. Do we have some language about why one was not chosen?

shadi: we say they can be misleading and may not provide real measurement on the level of accessibility of a site - provide links to research symposium.

jo: Anything else from Shadi or Eric?

Review of open actions and issues. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/

david: Thanks to group for effort.

jo: Thanks to Eric and Shadi and our colleague group.

If ready, discussion on EO proposal for 'techniques being informative' wording

mc: summarize proposal for EOWG -- question -- we already agreed about how technologies are imperfect. We want people to see it but we don't want to repeat multiple places. We need to work out a proposal and get team consensus.

<EricVelleman> Eric Dropping off also, bye all

<MichaelC> See <a>Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html> for important information about the usage of these informative techniques and how they relate to the normative WCAG 2.0 success criteria. The Applicability section explains the scope of the technique, and the presence of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to

<MichaelC> create content that meets WCAG 2.0.

mc: proposal on the technique technology pages and one page for all. Add at top of page add a paragraph that mc will paste into IRC.

<MichaelC> ¨Important information about Techniques¨

mc: Top of every technique page -- not for top of technology pages. There would be a heading and disclaimer. At the bottom of each technique page a section already has a section -- that will be removed in lieu of this at the top.

<MichaelC> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance requirements. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities.

mc: Technology pages such as ARIA techniques as an example - have some paragraphs, proposal is to add a new paragraph just pasted in IRC by MC. This paragraph was already approved for introduction.

<Joshue> +Q

mc: two changes, 1 appears in like 600 places.

david: are we saying that st might not be sufficient?

mc: we are saying that technology is universally sufficient.

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/05/sc-technology-mapping.html

mc: Means that you can use that technology to meet that SC.
... document showing that no technology as ST for all SC. This paragraph is just pointing that out.
... First part discussed goes at the top of each technique.

jo: seems like page bloat and repetition Like to see a page that has these changes so we can see it.

mc: Can mock something up.
... not adding repetition, we are editing repetion as there is already a section at the bottom of each technique.
... Moving section and editing it. We are altering what is already repeated.

bb: like the idea of promoting but it makes harder to get access to main content of technique.

jo: first review of text seems a little wordy. Perhaps it could be chunked out.
... Another idea to edit current language at bottom and possibly move it to top.

david: not proposing to change any language -- but want to be clear about what we are saying.
... Do people still need to do testing with AT even if you use a ST for a SC such as 1.3.1

wilco: you should test with AT

mc: ST are AT supported but you should use your judgement in testing with AT.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask for discussion about utility at having disclaimer at top of page.

mc: always been discussion - this proposal doesn't address this.

bb: Already discussion at bottom - it's an important. Time spent wasn't wasted. Don't like idea of having it at the top of every page.

jo: wonder if 2nd sentence should be first.

mc: Sentence with link was put first on purpose.

<David> me/ don't see this: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance requirements. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say Okay, I like it. Applicability could use one sentence introduction anyway.

mc: This the link from MC is only part of the proposal - the first part.

bb: like it

mc: will work on a mock-up of 2nd part for technology pages for review.

<Joshue> JA: By adding this language we hope to not give people the impression that they can use ARIA to label any control. Context is important.

<Joshue> JA: Thats very general, I need an example to understand this.

mc: posted url of techniques page.

david: language is not clear what your explanation of the language is
... saw previous paragraph and agreed upon language -- it's not harming it -- it's just going to make people scratch their heads.

mc: couple of options: move on, pick up for next publication round, 3rd option to say let's improve for this publication round -- limited time.

david: Not harming -- just raise questions -- we could address this in later rounds.

mc: consensus text could be more clear - we can work on it later. right now we need to work on the where to put the text.

jo: Personal feeling is that the agreed text isn't that back so I don't know if we need to bounce it back to EO

david: we aren't saying you can rely on this technique for this specific circumstances.

Alistair: from outsiders point of view that it's clear. It would be the rare person to make the jump that a ST means that the technology as a whole is acceptable to meet at SC.

jo: want to move agenda.

mc: Is there preliminary agreement to move proposal on.

jo: WG consensus on wording, but not on adding it to this additional place.

mc: does WG approval general direction.

<bbailey> +1

jo: Can people agree with general move?


<bbailey> I expressed my concerns, and am happy with discussion and explaination.

jo: working group members on call support the proposed places to add wording. Formal proposal processing coming soon.

<scribe> ACTION: michaelc to take this proposal to the EO group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/06/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-263 - Take this proposal to the eo group [on Michael Cooper - due 2014-07-01].

From June 10 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/10thJune2014/

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/10thJune2014/results#xtechsc2

jo: related to technique from last week kindly submitted by Alistair Alistair is on call to talk about item #3 on survey from June 10.

<alistair> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Creating_a_conforming_alternate_version_for_a_web_page_designed_with_progressive_enhancement

jo: AWK had made some changes to description. Has been some discussion w/ RWD and progressive enhancement. Two camps, RWD is just CSS, others say RWD can use JS.

alistair: Changed technique - removed all reference to RWD to make it clearly about progressive enhancement. Incorporated AWK text.
... added a description from Wikipedia about progressive enhancement.
... want to claim conformance based on base site -- there are libraries to do this thing. this about how to make a claim based on this technique.
... so many tie ups between progressive enhancement and RWD. People are using PE to drive RWD. Use something like modernizr and then use CSS in much more stable environment.

<Joshue> +q

alistair: Could say RWD designed with progressive enhancement.

<alistair> responsive web pages designed with progressive enhancement

jo: If this does straddle both different camps -- that's fine with me. Does anyone have any comments on Alistair's changes?

david: not sure about lowest common denominator for all devices accessing the content?

alistair: Use pure underlying HTML code as base.
... allow people get back to pure version -- PE will enhance a page without asking people.

james: sounds like we are sending accessibility users back to basic page.

alistair: reason to allow people to claim conformance on something rather than all versions that can't be tested. Use WCAG infrastructure to them claim conformance to all versions.
... Allow people to claim conformance based on current guidelines.

jo: Text pre-enahnced conforming alternate version is wordy

james: Have hard time with technique and path that is already there in WCAG.

david: text versions go back to 99 -- you have all functionality at basic level -- enhanced from there. Don't want to go with lowest common denominator language.

jo: start with functioning page that does 80 to 90 of page's bells and whistles.

<jnurthen> This is a line in the descfription i have a big problem with "One solution to this challenge is to select the pre-enhanced version of the web page (e.g. the DOM state created solely from the HTML in the source code in the absence of support for scripts, styles or non-HTML plugins) as the "fully conformant version". With regard to support, it presents the lowest common denominator version for all devices accessing the content."

alistair: Language of "version that can be broadly used" may be better than lowest common denominstor.
... very specific situation for people creating pages where it can be used in a multitude of environments -- have to claim conformance - you should claim on the base version.
... enhanced version should be made as accessibility as possible.

jo: survey for call on 8th.

RESOLUTION: Leave open, Alistair to incorporate feedback.

Alistair: thanks for letting me talk about it.

Review of comments https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_Needing_Responses

james: No concept that alternatives need to be of same efficiency as performing the task. Could take you 20 times as long.
... might not meet courts or Section 508 equivalence.

<bbailey> Taking 20 times longer is not equivalent functionality

bb: 20 times is not equivalent functionality. This is huge issue with Department of Transportation for WCAG AA for website they have authority over -- they did talk about alternative conforming versions.

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

jo: Some open actions and issues that we will front load into calls. We had a full agenda today so we didn't get into them.

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2889

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2889

jo: We have some comments needing responses. James has one. 2nd one needs an owner. Does anyone want to draw up a response?

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2871

david: will take 2871

Review of open actions and issues. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/

Start walking through WCAG SC for pros/cons/improvements:

jo: walk through of SC. Please answer survey if you have not already. Review the document proposal guide.
... Like institutional memory exercise.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: michaelc to take this proposal to the EO group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/06/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-06-24 16:29:39 $

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/Setence/Sentence/
Succeeded: s/personal feeling is that we can bounce it back to EO if people think it need to be more clear./Personal feeling is that the agreed text isn't that back so I don't know if we need to bounce it back to EO/
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Default Present: Joshue, Shadi, alistair, Wilco, Kenny, Bruce_Bailey, Michael_Cooper, +1.703.637.aaaa, jon_avila, Marc_Johlic, David_MacDonald, EricVelleman, +1.703.825.aabb, +1.703.825.aacc, James_Nurthen
Present: Joshue Shadi alistair Wilco Kenny Bruce_Bailey Michael_Cooper +1.703.637.aaaa jon_avila Marc_Johlic David_MacDonald EricVelleman +1.703.825.aabb +1.703.825.aacc James_Nurthen
Found Date: 24 Jun 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/06/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: michaelc

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

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]