W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

26 Aug 2014

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Joshue, AWK, Michael_Cooper, Bruce_Bailey, Marc_Johlic, Loretta, Kathy_Wahlbin, cstrobbe, +1.512.276.aaaa, jon_avila, Brent_Shiver, Mike_Elledge, Kenny, Katie_Haritos-Shea, James_Nurthen, Cooper, alistair
Regrets
Wilco, Sailesh, David
Chair
AWK
Scribe
FordMotor, Mike_Elledge

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 26 August 2014

<AWK> Chair: AWK

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

<AWK> Scribe: FordMotor

<MichaelC> scribe: Mike_Elledge

August 26th Survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/comments26Aug2014/

AK: Quick round of introductions
... Adobe

BB: Section 508

BS: IBM. Speaking through interpreter.

ME: USability spec/Accy at Ford

Loretta: Google

KW: Boston. Interactive accessibility

C: Belgium

JA: SSB. N. VA

<Kenny> W3C WAI, from China

<MichaelC> Beihang site

Katie: WCAG. JP Morgan Chase

MC: W3C. Boston. Staff contact for this group.

August 26 Survey

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/comments26Aug2014/results

AK: First two items. 8 Accept. Objections?

RESOLUTION: Accept 2948 and 2947 as proposed.

LC-2949: Not just charts and graphs

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/comments26Aug2014/results#xlc2949

AK: Not just charts and graphs that should have good contrast ratio, should also pay attn to other things. Bruce comment on "should."

BB: "Should" implies must, why is it advisory? Clear without using it.

AK: Worry that if change it to "important" people will be confused whether have to do it.

BB: Sentence before makes clear.

JO: Use of data presented in all vs. in "these" forms.

AK: Updating proposal in response to comments.

<bbailey> Here's the paragraph in context:Although this Success Criterion only applies to text, similar issues occur for data presented in charts or graphs. [begin change]Data presented in charts and graphs should also have a good contrast ratio to ensure that more users can access the information.[end change]

<AWK> Although this Success Criterion only applies to text, similar issues occur for data presented in @@charts, graphs, diagrams, and other non-text-based information. Data presented in @@these forms also need to have a good contrast ratio to ensure that more users can access the information.

Modify second sentence: charts, graphs, diagrams, and other non-text-based information. Data presented in these forms also need have a good contrast ratio to ensure that more users can access the information.

AK: Comments

<jon_avila> +1

+1

<bbailey> +1

K: Making it appear that it should...

BB: Combine in one sentence?

K: Can be impossible to provide sufficient contrast. Want them to try, but not put people in impossible situation if can't.

AK: Have good or a good contrast ratio?

<AWK> Although this Success Criterion only applies to text, similar issues occur for data presented in @@charts, graphs, diagrams, and other non-text-based information. Data presented in @@these forms also needs to have good contrast to ensure that more users can access the information.

JA: Cotnent instead of data?

L: Read it as a form.

<Joshue108> +1 to content presented in this manner

<AWK> Although this Success Criterion only applies to text, similar issues occur for data presented in @@charts, graphs, diagrams, and other non-text-based information. Content presented in @@this manner also needs to have good contrast to ensure that more users can access the information.

<bbailey> Although this Success Criterion only applies to text, similar issues occur for data presented in charts, graphs, diagrams, and other non-text-based information, which also needs to have good contrast to ensure that more users can access the information.

AK: Don't like BB comment, too long.
... Any objection to AK's sentence.

B: Doesn't sound advisory?

L: Okay with it.

<bbailey> +1

Jo: Use content in both sentences.

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended.

Captions for video in foreign language

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/comments26Aug2014/results#xlc2942

AK: Some history. Came to an understanding last week. Everyone not fully happy, seems like a bit of a gap. But...
... Bruce comment

BB: Missed a "not". Perhaps sentence could be an addition.

AK: Issue is that sentence we have is to encourage people who have already provided captions to provide subtitles that also include information otherwise not presented.

BB: Think that my point is subtitles providing information diferent from captions is important.

<Joshue108> +q

L: Distinction betw subtitles and captions is important, but subtitles not required by WCAG. If people provide subtitles would like them to consider language issues
... Think that discussion addressed distinction.

BB: Yes, in wcag proper.

JO: Glad to hear what Loretta said, i.e., conflation of captions and subtitles.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say it is pretty common for people to assume subtitles == captions

BB: Just to reiterate common mistake that subtitles can substitute captions.

UK English does not distinguish between them.

BB: Routinely watch either. Often subtitles do not have non-spoken info. Lately, DVDs will say subtitled for hearing-impaired, English and non-English.

JO: James point that England doesn't distinguish, Ireland neither.
... To extant that we diffentiate between them, should captioning also contain info that subtitles would. Maybe make it less confusing?

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2942

<bbailey> see: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#captionsdef

AK: Worry about what you say, bc difference in our WCAG definition.

<bbailey> Note 5: In some countries, captions are called subtitles.

AK: Revised resolution.

BB: Reads will to me.

<bbailey> +1

Brent: Listening in...couple of comments. Subtitles is different from captioning. Sometimes can be frustrating not to have info about sound effects. But be careful about hearing-impaired, not PC, degrading
... probably say deaf and hard of hearing. DHH instead.

AK: Appreciate that feedback, thanks.
... Will change "deaf" to "deaf and hard of hearing." Do we need third sentence at all?
... Any thoughts?
... Will remove it.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2942 - updated response

AK: Any objection to accepting as amended?

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended.

AK: Process question for Brent. Are you getting enough time working through an interpreter?

Brent: Pretty skilled interpreter can keep up. If I have objection will tell you loud and clear. Thanks for that.

BB: Not blocking. Thank you. Good to have person who is deaf to tell us if process works for him.

Brent: Seen many situation where deaf person or deafness not thought of as individual. Many people frustrated with HDMI since captioning can't be passed through.

JO: Also thank Brent since DHH people often under-represented.

AK: Basically all done with comments! Well done.

Captions Techniques Update

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/General/Caption_Updates

AK: Marc has sent in updates. Thanks. We don't talk about accuracy, but it is an important aspect, as well as not obscuring content with captions.
... Michael C last proposed change?
... Are you muted, we'll come back?

MJ: Change in test procedure for Flash and ? need to describe.

MC: Agree with value, but worry that it is beyond scope.

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20140408/#media-equiv-captions

AK: In how to meet section, number 3 (122) provide any of techniques below is an "and" relationship. Use G97 and techniques.

<AWK> s/use G97/use G87

MC: People will not always see that.

AK: From strict techniques view, covered even if we don't make that change. Flash 9 doesn't describe obscuring.

MC: Could make it part of test procedure.

AK: Would probably be fine...looking at SMIL 11...thoughts?

L: Did we come to conclusion of how to make more obvious that it is "And" relationship?

AK: Does XML get to it? Less obvious and easy a change. Do we have a draft?

MC: Can present something to group.

AK: Add sufficient when combined with another technique to Flash 9 directly.

MC: Add to test procedures to make it more obvious.
... Change approved for round, but not in time for group to discuss.

L: Since haven't sorted how to make more obvious when technique is part of AND relationship, wouldn't want to decide that would only put in general technique, assuming that it would help.

AK: Bruce--"obscuring" is a should not a must.

<bbailey> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#captionsdef

AK: Josh: "Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) are visible and do not obscure onscreen action or content/information presented visually."

<bbailey> Note 4: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant information in the video.

<marcjohlic> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140408/media-equiv-captions.html#captionsdef

JO: Obscured not clear, should call it out.

MJ: Change "important" to "relevant".

BB: Saw it, but problem with saying "should" is an oversight on our part.

AK: Can't say "can't" obscure, attempt to minimize it, but possible that there is info in every part of screen, so impossible not to obscure.

BB: Okay with requirement saying should. It "must" have come up.

<AWK> AWK: Impossible not to obscure some amount of content in some situations.

BB: Quality expectation for live captioning is different. So should say something about "quality". YouTube captioning doesnt meet this requirement.

<AWK> Key phrase for editing: Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) are visible and accurately represent the content and do not obscure any important information.

JO: Agree, even if we don't have a definition of it. "highest degree possible"?

AK: Check that captions meet the WCAG definitions of captions

BB: But also say something about quality.

<AWK> Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) meet the WCAG definition of captions to ensure accurate and high-quality information.

JO: Confused. Remove should not obscure since it's part of definition, but put in comment about quality.

BB: Quality is implicit, but not explicit. So steps should include it.

JO: Remove reference to obscuring, but include quality.

<Joshue108> +1 to Bruces idea

<Loretta> q

MC: Type of captioning is important. Quality varies a great deal. High level accuracy would be good term. Agree with taking out obscurity. Third--sometimes captioning is hard to see (contrast).

<Joshue108> Very good point Brent

<AWK> Captions are text so are covered by the other color contrast rules

L: First assure Brent that auto captiosn on YouTube are not sufficient to meet WCAG. So apologies, not meant to be sufficient. Color contrast, what were user agent responsibilities and which were author content. Gets blurry.
... Size, color, font are user agent functions. Not author. So don't think additional requirements here is appropriate. Would be covered by existing text contrast criteria.

JA: Reiterate. Remove check for relevant content. Don't agree. Have others like clarity, people rely on these and don't go back to definition.

<AWK> Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) meet the WCAG definition of captions to ensure accurate and high-quality information.

<bbailey> +1

<Joshue108> +q

AK: Captions include speech and non-speech audio, cc can be turned off, open not, not obscure video...What approach should we take. Put in all, some, or that captions meet definition?

JO: Thanks for reading definition. Follow what Bruce said. If quality not addressed would see it as a progression if we said must be high quality. Caption already addresses obscuring content. Prefer what Bruce said.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say test procedures haven´t usually had links, but there´s no reason they can´t

MC: We typically don't put links in test procedures, but can to caption if it's helpful.

JA: For other things go into detail, when it's important. Just don't say go there.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say repeating most of caption definition is okay, but be careful. Also "ensure accurate" is different than "being accurate"

JO: Could live with referencing not obscuring.

BB: If want to address obscuring and non-speech elements just don't want to repeat all of definition. Captions also have to keep up with speech, live expectations are lower than pre-recorded, so have to say something about quality and accuracy bec they are implicit but not explicit.

<jon_avila> +1 to that.

<bbailey> happy to take a pass at further edit

AK: Feel like...not confident we can address this for approval. Leave open. Bruce want to improve procedure started by Marc. A bit of a "hail Mary" pass that would get into this draft, don't feel have to address. A would like to.
... Do people want to try to get in next twelve minutes.

L: Move it forward.

+1

AK: Address it next week, there fore appear in March rather than September revisions.

MJ: Kind of torn. Seems like we're almost there. ARe we that far apart of definition or test procedure?

AK: Then question of which techniques we apply it to. SMIL or general.

MJ: Better to continue discussion.

JO: Feel like Marc, would be great to have something about "quality" in there. Defer to concensus.

AK: Grudging willingness to leave it open.

MJ: Okay.

RESOLUTION: Leave open.

<AWK> ACTION Bruce to edit https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/General/Caption_Updates to improve procedure based on August 26, 2014 call

<trackbot> Created ACTION-270 - Edit https://www.w3.org/wai/gl/wiki/techniques/general/caption_updates to improve procedure based on august 26, 2014 call [on Bruce Bailey - due 2014-09-02].

BB: Will take a crack at it. Thanks Marc for initial.

Publication review, approval, and link checking. Timeline update

AK: Item two.
... Will produce final for review by group. Task this week. Michael has missive that no broken links. Link checking > no broken links. Usually a few links disappear. So have to either fix or replace with reasonable replacement.
... For publication review timeline, will send out email with schedule for tech and understanding document. What is relevant, week before Thanksgiving is the deadline. Of particular interest to Mobile task force, will contain many of the updates in next round.

MC: Links that were valid but are now broken. Will send out list.

Institutional Memory Collection for 26th August 2014 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/IMCAugust2014/

AK: Any questions?
... Next topic Institutional Memory. Won't get far. But let's discuss.

<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/IMCAugust2014/results

AK: TOPIC: 241 AND 242

<Joshue108> Start next week on Institutional Memory Collection for 26th August 2014 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/IMCAugust2014/results

AK: Think about for next week.
... Any questions on that?
... Alistair's technique won't get to in next two minutes.

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

AK: Review open actions and issues. Please review your open actions and issues.

<AWK> Final request - review actions: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/open

BB: Alistairs technique status?

AK: New link and modifications to it. Since July have wanted to discuss when he is on call, he's here, but had to address pressing matters of revisions to techniques.

JO: Thanks Alistair for patience.

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-08-26 16:32:28 $

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/matter/manner/
FAILED: s/use G97/use G87/
Succeeded: s/taht cpations meet definition of cpations?/that captions meet the WCAG definitions of captions/
Found Scribe: FordMotor
Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Scribes: FordMotor, Mike_Elledge
Default Present: Joshue, AWK, Michael_Cooper, Bruce_Bailey, Marc_Johlic, Loretta, Kathy_Wahlbin, cstrobbe, +1.512.276.aaaa, jon_avila, Brent_Shiver, Mike_Elledge, Kenny, Katie_Haritos-Shea, James_Nurthen, Cooper, alistair
Present: Joshue AWK Michael_Cooper Bruce_Bailey Marc_Johlic Loretta Kathy_Wahlbin cstrobbe +1.512.276.aaaa jon_avila Brent_Shiver Mike_Elledge Kenny Katie_Haritos-Shea James_Nurthen Cooper alistair
Regrets: Wilco Sailesh David
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014JulSep/0185.html
Found Date: 26 Aug 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/08/26-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]