IRC log of wai-wcag on 2014-10-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:00:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-irc
20:00:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:00:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
20:00:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_WCAG()3:00PM scheduled to start 60 minutes ago
20:00:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
20:00:30 [trackbot]
Date: 26 October 2014
20:01:50 [AWK]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/10/tpac-2014
20:05:40 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
20:08:44 [MichaelC]
we can´t
20:08:54 [AWK]
Agenda+ Review of progress of Mobile techniques
20:09:11 [AWK]
agenda+ Initial review of supporting documents survey data
20:09:28 [AWK]
agenda+ Planning session for improvements to supporting docs
20:09:51 [AWK]
Agenda+ Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG
20:10:02 [AWK]
Zakim, agenda?
20:10:02 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
20:10:03 [Zakim]
1. TPAC Plans [from Kenny]
20:10:03 [Zakim]
2. October 14 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/14thOct2014/ [from Kenny]
20:10:03 [Zakim]
3. Response to LC-2972: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2972 [from Kenny]
20:10:03 [Zakim]
4. Techniques Work Review [from Kenny]
20:10:04 [Zakim]
5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK]
20:10:04 [Zakim]
6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK]
20:10:04 [Zakim]
7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK]
20:10:04 [Zakim]
8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK]
20:10:09 [Loretta]
Loretta has joined #wai-wcag
20:10:19 [AWK]
Zakim, close item 1
20:10:19 [Zakim]
agendum 1, TPAC Plans, closed
20:10:20 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:10:20 [Zakim]
2. October 14 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/14thOct2014/ [from Kenny]
20:10:23 [AWK]
Zakim, close item 2
20:10:23 [Zakim]
agendum 2, October 14 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/14thOct2014/, closed
20:10:26 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:10:26 [Zakim]
3. Response to LC-2972: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2972 [from Kenny]
20:10:32 [AWK]
Zakim, close item 3
20:10:32 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Response to LC-2972: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2972, closed
20:10:35 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:10:35 [Zakim]
4. Techniques Work Review [from Kenny]
20:10:36 [AWK]
Zakim, close item 4
20:10:37 [Zakim]
agendum 4, Techniques Work Review, closed
20:10:37 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:10:37 [Zakim]
5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK]
20:14:18 [Loretta]
You should have received an invitation to join in email.
20:15:04 [Loretta]
See if this url works: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/google.com/wcag
20:15:30 [AWK]
Zakim, agenda?
20:15:30 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
20:15:31 [Zakim]
5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK]
20:15:31 [Zakim]
6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK]
20:15:31 [Zakim]
7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK]
20:15:31 [Zakim]
8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK]
20:15:41 [marcjohlic]
marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
20:28:59 [AWK]
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/google.com/wcag
20:32:39 [AWK]
zakim, agenda
20:32:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'agenda', AWK
20:32:44 [Joshue]
zakim, agenda?
20:32:44 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
20:32:44 [AWK]
zakim, agenda?
20:32:45 [Zakim]
5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK]
20:32:45 [Zakim]
6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK]
20:32:45 [Zakim]
7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK]
20:32:45 [Zakim]
8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK]
20:32:45 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
20:32:45 [Zakim]
5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK]
20:32:45 [Zakim]
6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK]
20:32:48 [Zakim]
7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK]
20:32:48 [Zakim]
8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK]
20:39:08 [Joshue]
AWK: On a high level - we had the survey open for 3 weeks and we got ~ 75 people to go thru it
20:39:19 [Joshue]
AWK: It's impressive that people made their way thru it.
20:39:22 [Joshue]
<agreement>
20:39:41 [Joshue]
AWK: The survey wasn't as lean as we may have liked
20:39:50 [Joshue]
AWK: There is a lot of good feedback
20:40:05 [Joshue]
AWK: We can figure out now what questions and queries we can ask of it.
20:40:25 [Joshue]
<AWK> Gives overview of survey format.
20:43:46 [Joshue]
JOC: Very few developers in the survey - mostly a11y people
20:44:13 [Ryladog]
Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
20:44:24 [Ryladog]
ScribeNick: Ryladog
20:44:52 [Ryladog]
AWK: Topic: Initial review of supporting documents survey data
20:45:12 [Ryladog]
Topic: Initial review of supporting documents survey data
20:45:43 [Ryladog]
AWK: Not many people filled it out. There comments are less thorough. That was expected.
20:46:49 [Ryladog]
AWK: We may need to figure out some of the ideas we gleaned from this survey, and the go for a road show, and ask folks to elaborate
20:47:40 [Ryladog]
AWK: Percentage of job role we have 22 are spending 90% of their time at work. The respondents are the accessibility crowd
20:48:46 [Ryladog]
AWK: Familiarity, we need some graphics to see this data.
20:49:09 [Ryladog]
JO: I wonder if we need to define what is an expert
20:49:56 [Ryladog]
MC: But that makes it difficult
20:50:46 [Ryladog]
Kenny Zhang joins the meeting in the room.
20:51:03 [Ryladog]
AWK: Kenny just finished the Chinese translation of WCAG 2
20:52:19 [Ryladog]
KZ: Interpretation id difficult in the translation
20:53:31 [Joshue]
q?
20:53:32 [Ryladog]
AWK: 23% are not really clear about the the relationship between the normative and non-normative documents are
20:54:35 [Ryladog]
AWK: For the Which Sections are most helpful question....Examples were the most helpful and then Test and the description
20:54:54 [Ryladog]
AWK: ....the previous were most helpful.
20:55:07 [Ryladog]
AWK: That seems quite reasonable
20:55:26 [Ryladog]
LGR: I hink the Examples are invaluable
20:55:54 [Ryladog]
s/hink/think
20:57:02 [Ryladog]
AWK: For the Least helpful question, The results is almost the reverse except the tests.....
20:57:21 [Ryladog]
MC: Folks didnt like the number of links in resources...
20:58:50 [Ryladog]
MC: The people of the world are saying that the what you want us to know, is not what we, the public, want to know...
20:59:16 [Ryladog]
LGR: Complaints include, information is often out of date
21:00:05 [Ryladog]
LGR: The people reading these documents don't want to wrestle with these issues as much as we do...
21:01:15 [Ryladog]
KHS: I use the layers
21:01:58 [Ryladog]
MC: But that may not make it easier or not. We never came - front loading important bits should be our focus - and then link off
21:02:35 [Ryladog]
MS: We need to do something to make it more understandable
21:04:49 [Ryladog]
AWK; Techniques Question: Front matter. Have you read the front matter section. The response show that Most of them havent...
21:04:58 [Joshue]
KHS: People are really concentrating on the techs
21:05:41 [Ryladog]
MJ: I only recently looked at the Status of the technique - adn I find it very valuable - we should not make this go away
21:06:13 [Ryladog]
LGR: Those reading the techniques are not going to be interested in the front matter
21:06:34 [Ryladog]
JO: That is why we might want to have a role-based sets or sets
21:07:42 [Ryladog]
JO: So information optimized/based-on the role of the user (dveloper, policy maker, auditor etc)
21:07:54 [Ryladog]
AWK: There is a ton of info here...
21:08:35 [Ryladog]
AWK: Who might enjoy doing this kind of work to extract the data from the survey....
21:09:05 [Ryladog]
AWK: Excel might not be the best way to show this data.
21:09:30 [Ryladog]
MC: I can play with it when I get home
21:10:37 [Ryladog]
JO: Maybe we should sit with it and think it over. Information is beautiful is a nice resource for graphically showing this data.
21:10:55 [Ryladog]
LGR: But you need to analyze the data first
21:11:17 [Ryladog]
AWK: There are sections that some might not want o pat attention to
21:11:33 [Joshue]
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/books/
21:12:01 [Ryladog]
Jeanne Spellman arrives
21:12:54 [Ryladog]
MS: Folks are confused by how the docs are related
21:13:30 [Ryladog]
MS: AH says that if they have read the information they do find it useful
21:13:48 [Ryladog]
AWK: People was to wrk on the problem they have in front of them
21:15:55 [Ryladog]
AWK: I haven't done cross correlations in the data yet
21:17:03 [Ryladog]
MC: There are a LOT of great suggestions
21:18:50 [Ryladog]
AWK: Yes, we may have kept it open too long - for the US and Australian government - and a lot - not - so, zero govies (from that group) responded (some because of Google access issues for govie employees)
21:19:33 [Ryladog]
MC: There are a few folks with axes to grind, not many
21:20:02 [Ryladog]
AWK: I haven't even had enough time to read through it all.
21:21:27 [Ryladog]
AWK: Use the WORD document to see the good suggestions. Lets take 10 minutes to browse now - and highlightt what you want to talk about...
21:30:50 [Ryladog]
MC: Suggestion, Consider not publishing Techniques to the TR page
21:31:59 [Ryladog]
MJ: Is that why we always have these dated Techniques?
21:32:04 [Ryladog]
MC: Yes.
21:32:19 [Ryladog]
AWK: And we are adding more very day
21:32:34 [Ryladog]
AWK: there are 30 pages of comments
21:32:59 [Ryladog]
MC: Use 'plain language' - which is a quote from WCAG
21:33:01 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #wai-wcag
21:33:20 [Ryladog]
LGR: We need to solicit good writers
21:33:47 [Ryladog]
LGR: Put the important information first
21:35:12 [Ryladog]
MC: It seems to me, our tendency we always say read the SC, then Understanding then Techniques. We may need to change that for developers sucgh as here is the techniques and if you want to understand more here re links to it
21:35:55 [Ryladog]
MC: Policy wonks might need the graphic first - where as developers need the technical stuff...
21:37:27 [Joshue]
KHS: Designers and developers want to engage with different aspects of WCAG, and policy people like PMs, lawyers, legislators etc
21:38:06 [Joshue]
q?
21:38:19 [Ryladog]
AWK: What is a Policy Person? They ar only 1/68th of per audience - according to this survey.
21:40:14 [Ryladog]
AWK: One of our challenging is that we may be trying to meet the needs of too many audiences
21:40:47 [Ryladog]
JO: Back in the day it needed to establish itslef as a standard - it has done that. How can it be more practical
21:43:49 [Ryladog]
JO: Streamlining
21:45:45 [Ryladog]
KHS: It was attempted in the past - and we could think about now - to create a Plain Language version of all three WCAG 2 main docs
21:46:18 [Ryladog]
MC:We should be able to archive older techniques
21:46:52 [Ryladog]
MS: If you are for looking for a reference which helps
21:48:00 [Ryladog]
JeannneS: Whitney Q say that we can change the language in a spec to make it more easily understandable. Maybe you should have a conversation with her.
21:48:37 [Ryladog]
AWK: An idea, how can we best move forward, do people want to take one section at a time
21:49:45 [Ryladog]
MC: 3 thinks give folks time to digest those sections. Or have a list discussion for a dew weeks - or let do a wiki page, and grow a resources on what WCAG should do.
21:50:16 [Ryladog]
LGR: Are we looking at this feedback as a re-write of these documents?
21:51:01 [Ryladog]
AWK: Or we could just do a reformating - it can start to address some of the issue
21:51:53 [Joshue]
q?
21:51:53 [Ryladog]
MS: After we have done that - we can then ask again the same questions - that will tell us if the strucrure of the existing content is the problem or is it the content
21:52:00 [Joshue]
+q
21:52:07 [Ryladog]
MC: I think we can do a lot with the restructuring
21:52:35 [Ryladog]
MS: Presentation, simplicity of the language and the Examples
21:52:46 [Ryladog]
MC: The simplicity is the biggest problem
21:54:48 [Ryladog]
MC: Do a general simplification for the structure - before taking on a plain language. We also need to think about what the working group can except.
21:55:45 [Ryladog]
LGR: Maybe we dont quite need the same level on consensusfor simpler chnages
21:55:55 [Ryladog]
MC: I thinkwe could lower the bar.
21:56:31 [Ryladog]
LGR: I am afraid we ont get it done
21:56:31 [Joshue]
ack me
21:57:58 [Ryladog]
JO: What do we want to do to parse this stuff. We all have our own ideas - that are mostly similar. It we systematically parsing this stuff to extract the most relevant points and take action item based on that informtion
21:58:27 [Ryladog]
AWK: I think we need to get more people involved in the analysis...
21:59:34 [Ryladog]
LGR: I am not sure why certain people are here in the Working Group, what are they looking for..
21:59:47 [Ryladog]
JO: We did touch on that last week.
22:02:13 [Ryladog]
MC: We know you want a better resources, come work with us to create it.
22:03:21 [Ryladog]
AWK: If we send out a couple of sections to extract the information and then share it. Should we do that?
22:03:26 [Joshue]
+1
22:03:35 [Ryladog]
LGR: I am willing to do that
22:03:43 [Ryladog]
+1
22:04:41 [Ryladog]
AWK: We are just asking to identify the themes, if we get any feedback, it will be helpful.....
22:05:43 [Ryladog]
ACTION: Andrew to send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified WCAG Survey questions
22:05:43 [trackbot]
'Andrew' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., akirkpat2, alahart).
22:06:10 [Ryladog]
ACTION: AWK to send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified WCAG Survey questions
22:06:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-290 - Send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified wcag survey questions [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2014-11-02].
22:06:40 [Ryladog]
AWK: 15 minute break
22:25:41 [AWK]
TOPIC: dinner discussion
22:27:07 [AWK]
Done.
22:28:05 [AWK]
Zakim, agenda?
22:28:05 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
22:28:06 [MichaelC]
scribe: MichaelC
22:28:07 [Zakim]
5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK]
22:28:07 [Zakim]
6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK]
22:28:07 [Zakim]
7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK]
22:28:07 [Zakim]
8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK]
22:28:18 [AWK]
Zakim, close item 6
22:28:18 [Zakim]
agendum 6, Initial review of supporting documents survey data, closed
22:28:19 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:28:19 [Zakim]
5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK]
22:28:26 [AWK]
Zakim, take up item 5
22:28:26 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Review of progress of Mobile techniques" taken up [from AWK]
22:29:37 [Joshue]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page
22:29:50 [MichaelC]
present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Shebanek, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kenny_Jhong, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kim_Patch, Jeanne_Spellman
22:29:50 [AWK]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Development_Assignments
22:30:02 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, do not start a new log
22:30:37 [MichaelC]
kp: We did a gap analysis against other sets of mobile guidelines
22:30:47 [MichaelC]
debating whether we want to create techniques for those gaps
22:31:19 [MichaelC]
awk: when discussing M2 (text target size)
22:31:32 [Loretta]
Loretta has joined #wai-wcag
22:31:59 [MichaelC]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/M2
22:32:20 [MichaelC]
WG always has churn discussing techniques
22:32:48 [MichaelC]
khs: the TF does see that one as important enough to develop
22:32:59 [MichaelC]
ms: TF has list of 21 it wants to do
22:33:22 [MichaelC]
should it develop them? what if WG doesn´t accept them?
22:33:37 [MichaelC]
awk: goal is that there is guidance clarifying what developers should do
22:33:46 [MichaelC]
(and identify future guideline requirements)
22:34:12 [MichaelC]
What do people need to see to feel WCAG covers mobile?
22:34:19 [MichaelC]
khs: @@
22:34:30 [MichaelC]
js: But some of the techniques don´t apply to specific SC
22:34:34 [MichaelC]
how do we handle that?
22:34:40 [MichaelC]
lgr: They can be advisory
22:34:52 [MichaelC]
and put on Post WCAG 2 list
22:35:01 [MichaelC]
awk: Is that enough pay-off for the mobile group?
22:35:18 [MichaelC]
khs: not to pay attention to some specific techniques would be a mistake
22:35:34 [MichaelC]
awk: but what if it´s not part of WCAG?
22:35:57 [MichaelC]
e.g., does text target size disproportionately affect PWD?
22:36:07 [MichaelC]
js, khs: yes, there is research for that
22:36:31 [MichaelC]
khs: e.g., hand tremors, people without fingertip capacitance
22:36:40 [MichaelC]
lgr: conceptually that relates to keyboard accessibility
22:36:49 [MichaelC]
but that´s not a satisfying approach to mobile
22:37:11 [MichaelC]
ms: context of device doesn´t lend to keyboard use
22:37:26 [MichaelC]
khs: device independence concept no longer means just ¨does it work with a keyboard¨
22:38:02 [MichaelC]
lgr: but for this example, if it´s a device independent event but has to be triggered by touch screen, there is an issue
22:38:11 [MichaelC]
keyboard accessible means you could attach something if needed
22:38:30 [MichaelC]
awk: super-small radio buttons is something we see
22:38:34 [MichaelC]
is that covered by SC?
22:38:54 [MichaelC]
there isn´t a failure technique for making things too small
22:39:18 [MichaelC]
ms: differentiate between readability and interoperability
22:39:27 [MichaelC]
tiny radio button you can perceive but not actuate
22:40:20 [Joshue]
MC: We are struggling around the lack of specific guidelines
22:40:46 [Joshue]
MC: So what should we do, could we publish these techs 'guideline less' at the moment?
22:40:54 [Joshue]
LGR: They could be advisory
22:41:14 [Joshue]
MC: If we did that would they from a WCAG conformance view be acceptable.
22:41:50 [Joshue]
MC: It seems to me that in addition you will need a suggestions deliverable that the techs will relate to
22:42:15 [Joshue]
MC: We need to be careful but could have a working doc that addressed this gap
22:42:28 [MichaelC]
awk: there are techniques that apply at Guideline level, not SC
22:42:35 [MichaelC]
this example is more Principle
22:42:49 [MichaelC]
lgr: I bet mobile devices not keyboard accessible
22:42:55 [MichaelC]
ms: it´s coming
22:43:12 [MichaelC]
lgr: but mobile developers won´t put time into that
22:43:18 [MichaelC]
js: for navigation yes, but there is text input
22:43:22 [MichaelC]
the text input can hook to keyboard
22:43:27 [MichaelC]
but navigation doesn´t
22:43:35 [MichaelC]
lgr: because most people don´t interact that way
22:43:41 [MichaelC]
ms: there is no cursor
22:43:47 [MichaelC]
so they don´t even test that
22:43:53 [MichaelC]
kp: there are some with cursors
22:44:06 [MichaelC]
lgr: just browser
22:44:42 [MichaelC]
joc: can we be confident that language like ¨this must be keyboard accessible¨ will be consistent?
22:44:53 [MichaelC]
@@ gestural accessibility
22:44:55 [MichaelC]
lgr: no
22:45:11 [MichaelC]
ms: often people think of keyboard accessibillity as shortcuts
22:45:23 [MichaelC]
but that´s a different problem from what we´re exploring on mobile
22:45:32 [MichaelC]
lgr: gestures require lots of dexterity
22:45:54 [MichaelC]
kp: if gestures were consistent it would be easier
22:46:11 [MichaelC]
also there is no speech control on phones
22:46:27 [MichaelC]
these are tower of babel issues that need addressing
22:46:32 [MichaelC]
ms: there are no guidelines on timing
22:46:42 [MichaelC]
e.g., a flick, swipe, and tap differ only in speed
22:46:47 [MichaelC]
that´s a big a11y barrier
22:47:20 [MichaelC]
lgr: WCAG does have timing stuff
22:47:29 [MichaelC]
ms: but not really for this use case
22:47:39 [MichaelC]
no platform have adjustable timing yet
22:47:50 [MichaelC]
lgr: WCAG really fell back on keyboard access
22:48:06 [MichaelC]
I see that in theory that addresses mobile, but in practice not
22:48:13 [MichaelC]
awk: ?
22:48:23 [MichaelC]
ms: people using mobile devices won´t carry keyboards around
22:48:37 [MichaelC]
awk: will this be solved by IndieUI stuff?
22:48:58 [MichaelC]
lgr: maybe. Think today developers wouldn´t go to effort to support keyboard because usage would be so low
22:49:21 [MichaelC]
kp: keyboard fallback was always a crutch, that worked when they were endemic
22:49:24 [MichaelC]
but they aren´t on mobile
22:49:36 [MichaelC]
I´d like to see a mapping of keyboard shortcuts to functions
22:49:39 [MichaelC]
and map in gestures
22:50:07 [MichaelC]
lgr: make an interace that isn´t timing and location dependent, would meet WCAG
22:50:41 [MichaelC]
joc: what´s the low hanging fruit for developers?
22:51:29 [MichaelC]
is keyboard a11y that?
22:51:32 [MichaelC]
khs: @@
22:51:43 [MichaelC]
awk: what´s our best advice to a developer today?
22:52:01 [Joshue]
MC: Because its the best advise or because thats what WCAG says?
22:52:16 [MichaelC]
khs: keyboard?
22:52:19 [MichaelC]
js: @@
22:52:19 [Joshue]
+Q
22:52:58 [MichaelC]
khs: the events are @@
22:53:11 [MichaelC]
js: WCAG addresses navigation, but that doesn´t carry over well
22:53:12 [Joshue]
-q
22:53:34 [Joshue]
+q to say that there are some assumptions that certainly I'm making about mobile a11y that don't translate
22:53:43 [MichaelC]
awk: do we tell developers they can´t use keyboard access as their out because user wouldn´t be accessible?
22:53:58 [MichaelC]
js: users can be very successful on mobile platforms, but they´re not using keyboard access
22:54:08 [MichaelC]
it´s a different paradigm, and we need to be flexible to that
22:54:19 [MichaelC]
so I´d like to broaden definition of keyboard accessible
22:54:25 [MichaelC]
ms: more alternate input than keyboard a11y
22:54:40 [MichaelC]
kp: we don´t want to break things, esp things we don´t know about
22:54:44 [chaals]
chaals has joined #wai-wcag
22:55:16 [MichaelC]
e.g., speech input shouldn´t require me to learn a new language
22:55:45 [MichaelC]
I have keyboard interactions I´m used to, would like to replicate them on my mobile
22:56:02 [MichaelC]
khs: until we have something in place, we need to stick with what we know works
22:56:35 [MichaelC]
kp: in early speech days, tab was implemented as space which really broke navigation
22:56:47 [chaals]
rrsagent, draft minutes
22:56:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html chaals
22:57:25 [MichaelC]
joc: still want to look at low-hanging fruit
22:57:32 [MichaelC]
see a lot of work to be done in mappings
22:58:05 [Joshue]
ack me
22:58:05 [Zakim]
Joshue, you wanted to say that there are some assumptions that certainly I'm making about mobile a11y that don't translate
22:58:39 [MichaelC]
js: keep in mind is mobile isn´t the end point of these questions. Wearables is the next thing
22:58:53 [MichaelC]
khs: yes, so we really have to get away from modalities
22:59:15 [chaals]
rrsagent, make log public
22:59:31 [MichaelC]
kp: We still use QWERTY [in North America], example that some things stick around a long time
22:59:57 [MichaelC]
@@
23:00:07 [chaals]
[but we don't use it in a lot of Europe, where we have AZERTY and QWERTZ and other variations by default]
23:00:08 [MichaelC]
ms: seems to me we should keep exploring these candidate techniques
23:00:13 [MichaelC]
and sort out the guideline attachments later
23:00:34 [MichaelC]
khs: look at which ones are highest priority first
23:01:34 [MichaelC]
joc: sounds like we need to decouple mobile TF from WCAG SC
23:01:43 [MichaelC]
khs: doing that in cognitive also
23:01:52 [MichaelC]
awk: maybe not decouple, just ¨not require¨
23:02:14 [Joshue]
MC: Then lets just put out the guidance that we need to
23:02:26 [Joshue]
MC: The Cog a11y group is doing this also
23:03:02 [MichaelC]
awk: there are still use cases for keyboard access
23:03:27 [MichaelC]
e.g., someone with tremors really needs keyboard with filterkeys
23:03:42 [MichaelC]
so worried about a wholesale jump away from that to new paradigm of touch
23:03:49 [MichaelC]
not what you´re saying, but what people may hear
23:04:08 [MichaelC]
one of the first challenges of the Mobile TF is to lay out what the needs are
23:04:20 [MichaelC]
what use cases are better on mobile, what are worse?
23:04:21 [MichaelC]
q+
23:04:37 [MichaelC]
q+ to ask about difference between mobile and small
23:04:50 [MichaelC]
khs: tactile is example of something that helps everyone
23:05:12 [MichaelC]
js: enforcing keyboard a11y might not be the right path. Mobile platform may provide a better solution
23:05:16 [MichaelC]
awk: for many uers
23:05:18 [MichaelC]
not for all
23:05:34 [MichaelC]
khs: what is deaf-blind on mobile?
23:05:45 [MichaelC]
ms: bluetooth, refreshable braille
23:05:54 [Joshue]
+1 to Jeanne about not missing the inherent opportunities that the mobile platform may give us
23:06:11 [MichaelC]
ack me
23:06:11 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to ask about difference between mobile and small
23:06:19 [Joshue]
MC: Is the concern of mobile a11y an issue of small devices or portable devices
23:06:35 [MichaelC]
mc: is concern about mobile a concern about small devices, or about portable devices? is there a difference that needs to be captured?
23:06:37 [Joshue]
s/devices/devices?
23:06:42 [MichaelC]
khs: @@
23:07:14 [MichaelC]
ms: take a smart watch - is too small for speech synthesis
23:07:18 [MichaelC]
though may be able to provide in conjunction with a larger device it connects to
23:07:41 [MichaelC]
there are other examples historically of where the a11y came from partner devices
23:08:20 [MichaelC]
khs: for some wearables you´re attached to the device
23:08:28 [MichaelC]
ms: that´s model difference that may shake out
23:08:45 [MichaelC]
js: some provide wonderful a11y that we don´t traditionally recogniz
23:09:11 [MichaelC]
khs: some of the standards will be able to go beyond @@
23:09:22 [MichaelC]
if you can meet requirement @@
23:10:08 [MichaelC]
kp: is the rating of importance of techniques done by TF or WG?
23:10:24 [MichaelC]
mc: suggest TF, and run past WG to see where there are questions
23:12:00 [MichaelC]
kp: so let´s do that, and then cook up plan for where they fit
23:12:19 [MichaelC]
mc: suggest do technique identification, prioritization, and fleshing out
23:12:30 [MichaelC]
then map them to existing or ¨gap¨ success criteria
23:12:39 [MichaelC]
the gap SC become input to future requirements
23:12:46 [MichaelC]
so 2 basic deliverables there
23:13:11 [MichaelC]
awk: some of the shoe-horning to existing SC will have various levels of comfort
23:13:18 [MichaelC]
sortng that out informs future requirements
23:13:32 [MichaelC]
js: How do we want to present techniques?
23:13:55 [MichaelC]
I´ve been thinking we´d have a separate document for Mobile, like PDF and Silverlight
23:14:05 [MichaelC]
awk: they´re less discrete than those technologies
23:14:31 [MichaelC]
I imagined a collection of techniques applicable to mobile
23:14:37 [MichaelC]
though wonder if it´s a list of all techniques
23:15:07 [Joshue]
MC: In the redesign discussion, we should be looking at this question as well
23:15:36 [Joshue]
MC: Some techs shouldn't be primarily identified as only mobile - there are crossovers, not all are vertical etc
23:15:54 [MichaelC]
lgr: was expecting a separate document for mobile
23:16:18 [MichaelC]
ms: mobile web or mobile native?
23:16:25 [MichaelC]
there are different sets of issues there
23:16:37 [MichaelC]
e.g., off-screen screens, with no indication they exists
23:17:39 [AWK]
MC: Re LGR's poiint about a mobile-specific doc. We may have that, not sure what it will or won't look like
23:17:49 [AWK]
MC: s/poiint/point
23:18:12 [AWK]
MC: Re mobile web or native, TF shouldn't constrain itself at the start
23:18:36 [AWK]
MC: In terms of the deliverables we need to figure out what we will do
23:18:54 [AWK]
MC: W3C is currently scoped for work on the web, but
23:19:14 [AWK]
MC: this is an area of discussion with W3M
23:19:42 [MichaelC]
khs: e.g., touch targets is on both layers
23:19:49 [MichaelC]
what overlaps and what doesn´t?
23:19:54 [MichaelC]
many examples will merge
23:21:15 [MichaelC]
kp: we have a preliminary list of techniques that apply to mobile and web
23:21:25 [MichaelC]
there is a list of stuff that seems to be native only
23:21:52 [MichaelC]
mc: issue of web vs non-web content blurring is growing, we´ve got to face the question
23:22:07 [MichaelC]
W3C has its scope but we need to provide complete guidance for what´s in its scope
23:22:16 [MichaelC]
which means touching on the overlap areas
23:23:21 [MichaelC]
kp: screen size is a defining difference, maybe
23:23:28 [MichaelC]
awk: techniques
23:23:38 [MichaelC]
lgr: non technology specific are general techniques
23:23:55 [MichaelC]
khs: @@
23:24:08 [MichaelC]
ms: there will be devices that are solely speech controlled
23:25:35 [MichaelC]
mc: there were other cases like that, sometimes solved by making the new paradigm more accessible, some by accepting the old paradigm needed to be included
23:25:46 [MichaelC]
awk: @@
23:28:01 [AWK]
AWK: perhaps we should make the techniques for mobile grouped by the main factors that we're using the define mobile by (for now), such as using touch screen, or pertaining to multiple and small screen sizes, etc.
23:28:08 [MichaelC]
<kibbitzing>
23:29:11 [MichaelC]
q+ to ask about WCAG review of deliverabls
23:29:47 [MichaelC]
ack me
23:29:47 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to ask about WCAG review of deliverabls
23:30:25 [MichaelC]
mc: how can we help the mobile TF get things reviewed and approved?
23:31:50 [MichaelC]
kp: we´re still learning. Specific feedback on why things come back would be really helpful.
23:32:29 [MichaelC]
awk: Stuff that´s come to WG for review so far has been some of the hard stuff
23:32:56 [MichaelC]
I try to sit in on the mobile calls to help represent WG thoughts
23:33:11 [MichaelC]
<various>: yes that´s helpful
23:33:32 [MichaelC]
kp: a third work item is the techniques that just need subtle changes
23:33:57 [MichaelC]
a different learning curve for that
23:34:22 [MichaelC]
awk: for next Techniques publication hope there will be some new mobile techniques
23:34:30 [MichaelC]
though there´s no requirement
23:34:38 [MichaelC]
we´ll publish what we have
23:34:47 [MichaelC]
js: for me, it´s a priority to have a batch of those
23:35:18 [MichaelC]
awk: it can be question of when you have enough techniques accumulated to be worth publishing the batch
23:35:25 [MichaelC]
and whether to hold up schedule for a batch to be complete
23:35:46 [MichaelC]
right now we publish more often but don´t expect a banner ¨here´s X¨
23:36:01 [MichaelC]
lgr: it´s clear the mobile TF has context the WG doesn´t have
23:36:17 [MichaelC]
and vice versa in WG considerations
23:36:21 [MichaelC]
should find ways to share context
23:36:23 [MichaelC]
kp: @@
23:36:58 [MichaelC]
s/@@/we had discussions of gap analysis that generated notes, would be good to share those/
23:37:22 [MichaelC]
ms: regular check-ins help
23:37:30 [MichaelC]
awk: also ties to engagement question
23:37:41 [MichaelC]
there are people in both TF and WG activity
23:37:48 [MichaelC]
but at cost of each other
23:38:28 [MichaelC]
one issue as that a lot of the productivity swings on an individual´s engagement
23:39:18 [MichaelC]
kp: we welcome draft techniques from the WG too
23:52:18 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
23:55:01 [Loretta]
Loretta has joined #wai-wcag
23:55:02 [Loretta]
http://www.calafiapaloalto.com/
23:55:06 [Ryladog]
hi
23:56:57 [Ryladog]
/ says dinner is at 6:30 ( see URL Loretta put in above) in Palo Alto
23:57:04 [AWK]
TOPIC: Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG
23:57:18 [Loretta]
scribe:Loretta
23:57:42 [Ryladog]
/ dinner location is for CM and JF......
23:58:09 [Loretta]
Topic: Long term vision for WCAG and WCAG WG
23:58:51 [Loretta]
"WAI 20/20"
00:00:42 [Loretta]
(WAI 2020)
00:01:53 [Loretta]
Where do we hope (or fear) we will be in 5 years.
00:02:23 [Loretta]
JS: I working with UAAG and ATAG; we struggled so much with what requirement belongs wher.
00:02:55 [Loretta]
JS: Would like to see the issues addressed in a common set of guidelines, possibly modularized for more agility.
00:03:24 [Loretta]
AK: if things are sitll in modules, do they cut across WCAG/UAAG/ATAG issues?
00:04:01 [Loretta]
JS: Right. If a module addressed user input, it would cover content requirements and user agent requirements together.
00:04:10 [Loretta]
MS: What aboutoverlap of work?
00:04:30 [Loretta]
JS: We need to keep talking with one another. Today, the groups are siloed, which produces its own duplication.
00:05:02 [Loretta]
JS: Might also help our resources by having a single larger pool of people who could be involved in more focused, short term projects.
00:05:15 [Loretta]
KHS: Also gives people better context.
00:06:42 [Loretta]
Josh and Andrew and Michael are trying to figure out what is happening (if anything wiht WAI 2020)
00:07:31 [Loretta]
MC: WAI 2020 grew out of initial discussions of what was called WAI 3.0 - a harmonized set of guidelines that recognizes the roles of different players.
00:08:09 [Loretta]
MS: If it is published under a new name, politically does everyting need to be revisited?
00:08:23 [Loretta]
MC: Yes, it would be. One of the biggest things holding us back.
00:08:47 [Loretta]
MC: We can't say we are doing any WCAG 2.0 work. We can say we are exploring.
00:09:12 [Loretta]
MC: As future proofed as we tried to make WCAG 2.0, we didn't really expect it to last beyond 2020.
00:10:18 [Loretta]
AWK: Mike S, you talked today about simplification. today, there are guidelines for people creating content. The people creating a web page don't need to know about how to implement browsers, etc.
00:10:47 [Loretta]
AWK: Tension beteween simplifying things and pulling everything together under the same document.
00:11:25 [Loretta]
KHS: Don't think that there would be one document that would cover all those aspects, but that the people working on the standards are working more closely together.
00:12:22 [MichaelC]
q+ to talk about user needs
00:12:49 [Loretta]
KP: What if we created some kind of mapping of the existing standards around relevant topics?
00:13:32 [AWK]
ack m
00:13:32 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to talk about user needs
00:13:41 [AWK]
ack m
00:14:14 [Loretta]
MC: When I started working at W3C, one of the big gaps was technology accessibility guidelines. I've had a deliverable for 8 years to work on that.
00:15:13 [Loretta]
MC:: I feel the approach needed is to focus first on what users need. Then think through how to meet those needs. Sometimes there are multiple ways. Maybe the author can provide a feature. Maybe the user agent can provide a feature. Maybe both at the same time.
00:15:55 [Loretta]
MC: e.g. enlarging text: maybe the author provides a way to enlarge text, maybe the user agent provides it.
00:16:11 [Loretta]
MC: the technology needs to provide some mechanism.
00:16:21 [Loretta]
KHS:What about the accessibility API.
00:16:34 [jeanne2]
jeanne2 has joined #wai-wcag
00:17:29 [Loretta]
MC: We will have a tree of user needs and ways they can be met, in increasing detail. At some point there willl be a thread through tthe tree that is the guidelines. Things below that level are like the techniques.
00:18:16 [Loretta]
AWK: One of the areas where there has been lots of confusion. e.g. PDF accessibility, there are certain things the Reader does, and the line is different from html.
00:19:11 [Loretta]
AWK: We are seeing browsers doing less than they used to, e.g. Chrome browser with high contrast does not function the way IE does. It enables extensions so you can add lots of things, but it is not the responsibility of the Chrome developers.
00:20:06 [Loretta]
MC: Another part of the picture is author needs. We tend to say the user need trumps the author need. We haven't even considered the author needs. Maybe we could find better ways to meet both.
00:21:28 [Loretta]
MC: There is new work announced on the ePub format. They may be exploring some of that issue.
00:21:46 [Loretta]
AWK: Not sure accessibility is a success on the web yet.
00:22:40 [Loretta]
AWK: When it is time to think about next generation guidelines, do we raise the bar to include more users, do we lower it so that more authors/developers will reach it, etc?
00:23:31 [Loretta]
AWK: Look at CVAA - it has been very impactful , through the threat of further impactful things. Set the bar high, and provide strong enforcement.
00:23:39 [MichaelC]
q+ to talk about the requirements driving WCAG
00:24:17 [Loretta]
MS: CVAA has great teeth, but if we look at how widely supported WCAG is on the web, not very common.
00:24:18 [MichaelC]
q+ to talk about the relationship between technology innovation and standardization
00:24:39 [Loretta]
MS: How to make this work more palatable and easier to use by more people.
00:25:03 [Loretta]
MS: every conversation I have with someone not in this field is "this is too complicated".
00:25:39 [Loretta]
MS: one of the goals of WCAG inthe next 5 years should be how to make this easier to adopt.
00:26:36 [Loretta]
AWK: Is it really more difficult, or is it lack of interest in supporting it.
00:27:16 [Loretta]
MS: Most conversations are 1) I understand the problem and why it doens't work, but 2) I don't know what to do about it , given my constraints.
00:27:25 [Loretta]
MS: Also, lack of automated test tools.
00:28:00 [Loretta]
MC: For WCAG 2 we set the requirement on ourselves that WCAG be testable. If we want a higher bar, we might need to drop that, but at the price of implementability.
00:28:23 [Loretta]
MC: When Andrew says web accessibility isn't a great success yet, standardization and innovation are separate processes.
00:28:46 [MichaelC]
ack me
00:28:46 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to talk about the requirements driving WCAG and to talk about the relationship between technology innovation and standardization
00:28:48 [Loretta]
MC: We often can only influence accessibility features long after the spec for a technology is pretty much set.
00:29:31 [Loretta]
MS: I worked on VoiceOVer for iOS. When it first came out, it was pretty much inaccessible. Finally got to VoiceOver in iPohne 3GS.
00:30:30 [Loretta]
MS: what helped us: we came up with an effective gesture solution but which didn't have keyboard support. But the general guidelines of WCAG were very helpful in letting us interpret those in innovative way.
00:31:08 [Loretta]
MS: The general characterization of accessibility in WCAG was really helpful. Keyboard accessibility was too specific.
00:31:48 [Loretta]
MC: If we think of the combined accessibility requirmenets (rather than WCAG, UAAG, etc), this is even more applicable.
00:32:18 [Loretta]
MS: Provide broad guidelines to people to consider, as well as specificity of possible concrete solutions.
00:32:47 [Loretta]
JS: One of the things discussed in UAAG was creating personas of user needs.
00:33:18 [Loretta]
JS: Saw a tremendous need for personas, user needs, addressing multiple disabilities (very thorny area). Would be very valuable to do that.
00:33:33 [Loretta]
JS: I don';t know how W3C would do that, but we need it.
00:34:26 [Loretta]
MC: It is hard to come up with user needs that don't touch on the web. Looking at JTC, there were a few examples, e.g. need to physically control a device.
00:35:08 [Loretta]
MC: Have been identifying needs that I don't think are web based, but need to scrutinize carefully to be sure.
00:35:48 [Loretta]
MC: We wouldn't discard those needs, but but them in a category that is outside our scope.
00:36:00 [Loretta]
s/but but/but put/
00:36:30 [Loretta]
KP: Need to talk with a lot of people to put together the personas.
00:36:46 [Loretta]
MS: Work has been done in universities, but not pulled together anywhere.
00:37:25 [Loretta]
MS: Having some group to coordinate and bring clarity and logic makes a lot of sense.
00:38:02 [Loretta]
JS: We need to be able to work on sexy things, to attract more people to accessibility.
00:38:44 [Loretta]
MC: Also don't build theright connections to people who are working on the new technologies.
00:39:24 [Loretta]
MC: Encourage the creation of community groups?
00:39:57 [Loretta]
MC: Perhaps provide some structure/templates/guidance for new community groups. Later we could take their results through the process/bureacracy.
00:40:26 [Loretta]
JS: There are so many people who are interesting in accessibility and want to give, but can participate in the current process.
00:40:56 [Loretta]
AWK: It is interesting watching how other standards develop.
00:41:36 [Loretta]
AWK: What other standards are there that people come together to make the standard for noble reasons, rather than a business motivation for standardizing something.
00:42:12 [Loretta]
AWK: Accessibility has a little bit of business driver, but it hasn't traditionally been driven that way.
00:42:26 [Loretta]
AWK: Is the result that the level of engagement isn't as high.
00:43:00 [Loretta]
Kenny: China text is different, has different screen reader, different text input mechanisms.
00:43:33 [Loretta]
Kenny: Chiina standard organization wants to make standard for mobile phones.
00:43:54 [Loretta]
Kenny: Also wanted a standard for Input Method Editors.
00:44:30 [Loretta]
Kenny: Chinese layout is also different.
00:44:43 [Loretta]
Kenny: screen reader works differently for Chinese.
00:45:15 [Loretta]
Kenny: WAI discussion about next version needs to think about internationalization issues more.
00:48:36 [Loretta]
Kenny:: Many challenges because text does not have word break spaces normally. This causes problems with input.
00:49:22 [Loretta]
Kenny: So there are many CJK specific use cases for accessibility, as well as IME.
00:49:44 [Loretta]
MX: When you translated WCAG to Chinese, did you finding missing items needed for Chinese?
00:50:39 [Loretta]
Kenny: WCAG is very complex. Translation is challening, e.g., accessibility can be translated in different ways.
00:51:32 [Loretta]
Kenny: Tranlsated meaning of "robust" also has a different meaning. Was translated to "compatible", which is similar but not exact.
00:53:28 [Loretta]
MC: It is clear to me that we tried in WCAG to be as internationally compatible as possible, but didn't have representation from all the areas we needed. This needs to be a requirement for the next version (better representation).
00:53:47 [Loretta]
MC: Maybe we will find requirements that are different for different regions.
00:54:15 [Loretta]
KHS: We brought in one SC from JIS
00:54:40 [Loretta]
MC: There is also synergy: solutions for the layout problems Kenny mentioned may solve other layout issues.
00:55:17 [Loretta]
Kenny: Chinese standard trying to include accessibility IME, accessibility mobile.
00:56:27 [Loretta]
KHS: Are you suggesting a separate standrd for mobile, or for WCAG to cover mobile.
00:56:47 [Loretta]
Kenny: You need to define what you mean by mobile (hardware, software, application).
00:58:07 [Loretta]
Kenny: China's disabled person federation wanted to define a standard for accessibility.
00:58:26 [Loretta]
Kenny: All blind people use a similar touch screen mobile device.
00:58:36 [Loretta]
Kenny: The use the same platform.
00:58:48 [Loretta]
s/The/They/
01:00:09 [Loretta]
MC: As we set guideilnes or requirements, what do we require vs what are best practices.
01:00:50 [Loretta]
JS: Hears complaints about WCAG out of date, who would have predicted the rotor on the iPhone in 2008?
01:01:07 [Loretta]
JS: How to make the standard without squelching innovation?
01:01:11 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, make minutes
01:01:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html MichaelC
01:01:28 [MichaelC]
chair: Andrew_Kirkpatrick
01:02:24 [MichaelC]
s/we can´t/scribe: Joshue/
01:02:59 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, make minutes
01:02:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html MichaelC
01:04:13 [jeanne2]
jeanne2 has joined #wai-wcag
01:05:11 [MichaelC]
trackbot, end meeting
01:05:11 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
01:05:11 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
01:05:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
01:05:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
01:05:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
01:05:20 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-actions.rdf :
01:05:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Andrew to send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified WCAG Survey questions [1]
01:05:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-irc#T22-05-43
01:05:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: AWK to send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified WCAG Survey questions [2]
01:05:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-irc#T22-06-10