Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

12 Aug 2014


See also: IRC log


AWK, Michael_Cooper, Sailesh_Panchang, David_MacDonald, +1.703.637.aaaa, jon_avila, Wilco, Mike_Elledge, Marc_Johlic, alistair, cstrobbe, Kenny, Loretta
Kathy, James


<trackbot> Date: 12 August 2014

<alistair> alistair, joining in a minute or two

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

<scribe> scribe: jon_avila

awk: some new people joining call -- welcome Alistair and Christophe

<Loretta> zaki, IPcaller is Loretta

<AWK> Zakim take up item 1

Survey for August 12th - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2014Aug12/

awk: LC2496 about SC 3.2.2

LC-2946: Do links that open new windows fail 3.2.2?

awk: proposal by Karl Groves to eliminate confusion
... Christophe says g200 technique does not have any tests -- should limit to links - also talks about buttons

mike: as a sighted user of AT having a window open up could be disorienting. Can affect your expectations. Not aware of research.

awk: does clicking on a link change the setting of a user interface. 3.2.2 is on input.

<AWK> 3.2.2 On Input: Changing the setting of any user interface component does not automatically cause a change of context unless the user has been advised of the behavior before using the component. (Level A)

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we have to interpret WCAG, not optimize needs :(

David: perhaps separate questions. Were many arguments and discussions when WCAG 2 was written. warning a user about opening a new window was not a requirement but perhaps we didn't clearly indicate that.

michael: our job is interpret WCAG and not to say what is the best situation. The history was the opening a new window is a change of context but it was excluded from 3.2.x because following a link is not changing a control.

<AWK> 3.2.5 Change on Request: Changes of context are initiated only by user request or a mechanism is available to turn off such changes. (Level AAA)

Michael: was a design decision that could be changed in future but we have to report what the WCAG requirement is.

sailesh: agree with david and Michael -- thinks this is clarified in understanding document.

<AWK> Jon: I agree. Not a failure under current SC. It is user initiated and it is clear that is excluded. Should make more clear if possible.

sailesh: confusion comes in when you read other techniques and example. It is clear in 3.2.2. Other techniques that need to be cleaned up.

awk: series of changes to proposed resolution. A change to G200 is needed.
... G200 references 3.2.1 and 3.2.5. We suggest it should be modified to only refer to 3.2.5. Amend that by saying we need to put in place a test procedure for G200

loretta: is it advisory or sufficient?

awk: it's adivsory for sc 3.2.1 and 3.2.5

Loretta: we do allow advisory techniques without tests.

awk: is there any reason we need G200 associated with 3.2.1?

<AWK> 3.2.1 On Focus: When any component receives focus, it does not initiate a change of context. (Level A)

sailesh: discussion on 3.2.5 whether that applies to opening a new window because it is a user action.

awk: should G200 apply to both - Sailesh is saying applies to either but not both.

sailesh: g200 needs to be clarified to what it applies to, when you click or when something receives focus.
... are situations when window opens when you tab to link.

awk: g200 describes SC 3.2.5

Loretta: only advisory -- perhaps confusion.
... is a best practice.

jon: can advisory be used to meet SC?

loretta: not necessarily.

jon: is there a difference from best practice and advisory?

awk: we don't define best practices.

loretta: wide range of why something is advisory.

david: advisory may have testibility issues.
... no separate pages or techniques for best practices.

sailesh: advisory we means we'd like developers to go beyond. So this is best practice and there is no place for that.

awk: don't want to get bogged down for this question on definitions of advisory and sufficient techniques

<Mike_Elledge> +!

loretta: remove g200 references from both 3.2.1 and 3.2.5. Perhaps stamp advisory across the top to make it more clear that it's only advisory. May leave impression that it's sufficient.

awk: Would this be sufficient for 3.2.5 and if not, why?

jon: some say 3.2.5 say user opening new windows is user initiated and thus 3.2.5 doesn't apply and therefore only advisory.

alistair: mirror what Loretta said.
... difficult to police to say not to open new windows. Perhaps get ride of G200.

awk: any one else?
... g200 seems to go beyond SC 3.2.5. If it's causing confusion and goes beyond then we can remove it. We can always tweak it later.

Loretta: How hard would it be when techniques are only advisory to mark it right there?

awk: similar item marking content in same section for for LC 2879 some techniques that are part of an AND relationship with others. We have a proposed way of dealing with that.
... Agree that marking is something we need to consider.
... that is something we can improve in our techniques and understanding documents. Perhaps not terrible hard but challenge is to make sure it is accurate for all techniques.
... Michael is that a fair apraisal?

Michael: more challenging to automate and then review each technique to make sure they are annotated correctly.

awk: more techniques coming through process and more coming in from mobile TF. We want to improve user experience. We are doing these changes in order to answer this question.
... we could say that in the future we can be more explicit that a technique is advisory. Still leaves question about G200.

<AWK> Jon: believe should keep as advisory for 3.2.5 and remove link to 3.2.1

jon: should remove from SC 3.2.1 but keep advisory for .3.2.5

sailesh: remove from both as it's a best practice only.

david: keep as advisory from 3.2.5 but tweak to address Sailesh's concerns.

sailesh: might be open to tweak if we keep G200

awk: The objective of the G200 technique is to limit opening new windows... some situations it is preferential....

sailesh: concern about language of limit and not preferable and then it says it can be. Why do we list it as a technique.

awk: last sentence says that when links open new window then there is an advanced warning.
... historically people recognize there is a challenge. Perhaps historically a user agent issue -- perhaps disoriented. Something we'd recommend but not required.
... no problem leaving for 3.2.5 but we need additional clarify.

sailesh: can live with future updates to G200 and keeping it advisory to 3.2.5

awk: G201 advisory as well. Reference 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Giving users advanced warning when opening a new window. Does not reference 3.2.5
... Do people agree? Should it reference 3.2.5 in an advosry manner?
... Should we keep mapping to 3.2.1 and 3.2.2?

loretta: concerned that people will not read it as advisory and won't understand it's not sufficient. Perhaps just go to 3.2.5.

awk: concern that examples don't map to onfocus or on input.

christophe: Can we map to SC 3.2 directly instead of specific 3.2.x SC.

<Wilco> +1 to that

awk: Christophe suggests advisory technique on the guideline 3.2

david: don't have problem with it. Advisory are easier to map this way. Sufficient techniques would be different because of how we test.

awk: we do have future links for things like this to Guideline 1.1
... anyone who objects to that proposal to link g200 and g201 as advisory to guideline 3.2
... commenter mentions f37 -- change working "selection" rather than "status". Maps to on input SC 3.2.2.
... any concerns?

+1 to selection

+1 with awk for select lists

<Loretta> +1

awk: modifying proposal to clarify that g200 and g201 are advisory. Create issue to clarify in these techniques that they are advisory.

<Mike_Elledge> +1

awk: any objection to LC2946 as amended?

<marcjohlic> +1

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended

Survey from August 5th- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/ (only #s 3, 4, and 6).

LC2943 H9 is beyond requirement

awk: Create new technique that has minimal number of heading for 2.4.1 and then this one for 2.4.10.
... survey respondant indicates sufficient techniques are not requirements for a SC

sailesh: SC 2.4.10 doesn't require structure only text. Agree that h69 goes beyond.

awk: ok to go beyond as it's a sufficient technique. We did talk about modifying h69 already. Believe we agreed to add 2.4.10 h69 to address both.
... sounds like we want a new technique for 2.4.1 on heading but that doesn't map to 2.4.10?

sailesh: title for h69 requires heading for each section.

awk: that just means you can't use h69. you could use another heading technique that is not listed or via a new technique.
... Michael provided some text on how we ask for a new technique. Modify that in the proposal. Any objections to accept as amended?

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended.

<AWK> ACTION: AWK to add new technique idea to list per LC-2943 resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-268 - Add new technique idea to list per lc-2943 resolution [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2014-08-19].


awk: Japanese page with English video - what language should those be in? Need to include other audio information.

Loretta: Subtitles are useful but not an accessibility issue. If you say providing Japanese is required then why not require that for everything. We don't WCAG to make that requirement.
... if the video had showed Japanese subtitles then you need Japanese then that would be different

christophe: could be difficult to people who are deaf that may use sign language

wilco: tricky -- as a minimal requirement to have at least the same language as the video.

<Wilco> +1 on Loretta's comment

Loretta: could have advisory technique that subtitles include sounds to help address needs of the Deaf

david: if the video is bi-language and has two caption tracks one English and one Japanese. Would that sufficient?

loretta: may be useful for the deaf person to know that another language is being spoken.

awk: would we think it sufficient that is intended for Japanese audience with English spoken with English captions. In order to meet JiS standard (WCAG 2)-- is that sufficient? Our definition doesn't say anything about language specific.
... doesn't feel like those captions are helping Japanese user.

Sailesh: Think it would pass WCAG if captions were in English and audio cues. Audio cues and captions should be in same language.

<AWK> ack

Mike: ultimately have to think about end user. Translated from audio to written stand point. Could indicate translated from English.

Alistair: Comes down to national norms. e.g. Swedish TV had many parts in English.

RESOLUTION: Leave open.

awk: Please look at #6 in survey to review techniques and understanding docs.

<Mike_Elledge> Bye all!

awk: the link Christophe posted is not the official link.

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

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: AWK to add new technique idea to list per LC-2943 resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-08-12 16:33:48 $

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: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Default Present: AWK, Michael_Cooper, Sailesh_Panchang, David_MacDonald, +1.703.637.aaaa, jon_avila, Wilco, Mike_Elledge, Marc_Johlic, alistair, cstrobbe, Kenny, Loretta
Present: AWK Michael_Cooper Sailesh_Panchang David_MacDonald +1.703.637.aaaa jon_avila Wilco Mike_Elledge Marc_Johlic alistair cstrobbe Kenny Loretta
Regrets: Kathy James
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014JulSep/0128.html
Found Date: 12 Aug 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/08/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: awk

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

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]