Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

09 Dec 2014

See also: IRC log


AWK, Adam_solomon, Joshue, EricE, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, Marc_Johlic, cstrobbe, Brent, Loretta, Kathy_Wahlbin, Kenny, MoeKraft, James_Nurthen, jon_avila
Alistair, Katie, Barry, Mike, Elledge
Adam_solomon, AWK


<trackbot> Date: 09 December 2014

<Joshue108> Chair: Joshue

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

<yatil> Scribe: Adam_solomon

<yatil> scribenick: adam_solomon

Open question on a comment, and a proposed response https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/9thDec2014/results

LC-2950 Current uniqueness or necessity of F17 is unclear

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140306/2950

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/45

<yatil> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/9thDec2014/results#xq5


<Joshue108> http://davidmacd.com/test/more-than-one-accesskey.html

david: access key is broken, never been a success (interference with all sorts of technology keys, collision. With same access key on different controls it traverses. for html5 may require ability for user to reassign value. Shouldn't worry about uniqueness
... uniqueness might be best practice, not more than that

michael: one is xml other is html hard to clarify the difference
... say keyboard access not access key

joshua: don't need to mention access key at all

awk: f17 has 2 parts: access key (says check for uniqueness and thats wrong) this needs to be addressed. Other parts (table map etc) are mentioned by other techs. Left with access key which is wrong and unique id covered by f62, so we should dump f17, and if someone wants to draw up an access key tech thats fine, but f77 is good for parsing, f62 is also problematic, consider removing it as well> comment is good, doesn't go far enough

<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F62.html

david: leave f62 (xhtml)?

awk: f62 is redundant to f77 and partially flawed

joshua: access keys - broken model not good for accessibility - dump it until its improved

<Zakim> cstrobbe, you wanted to say that duplicate accesskeys may lead to indetermined behaviour; is that not an issue?

cstrobbe: wouldn't ambiguities from non unique access keys be a problem?

awk: spec allows non unique access keys, why should it be a failure?

cstrobbe: spec doesn't necessarily guarantee accessiblity

awk: nothing concrete to call them a failure

joshua: volunteer to draw up proposal or f17?

awk: i could do that, and include dumping f62 as well - is there agreement on that?

<cstrobbe> F17 also covers "for" without a corresponding "id". Is that covered elsewhere?

cstrobbe: f17 also has part about missing id

<Joshue108> ACTION: AWK to drawn up proposal for accesskeys F17 / LC-2950 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-304 - Drawn up proposal for accesskeys f17 / lc-2950 [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2014-12-16].

awk: with form controls: problem would be where control has id and label references different id and for that there is another technique

cstrobbe: when label is next to control, but no "for" is a scenario

awk: believe we have another tech for that

RESOLUTION: leave open
... leave open

Question regarding LC-2951 (Remove F42)

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140306/2951

joshua: what does long term cleanup list refer to?

michael: clean up redundancy

awk: f42 is better written, but all these techs point to different criteria. Hard to understand what they are failing, causing too much confusion

joshua: what about adding aria to f42?

awk: aria would be added to procedure (check if there role attribute)

cstrobbe: f42 would cover link which has event handlers but is not identifiable as link

awk: why does f59 not cover this?
... are links user interface controls

joshua: not clear cut to dump f42, keeping it and adding aria might be best way

james: why do we need to amend procedure - second step covers aria

kathy: could add note to description about aria

james: shouldn't encourage this - leave the note out
... applies to many failures, that js event handlers emulate link without it being a link because there is another control next to it, this shouldn't be a failure

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if F42 should be 4.1.2 also

awk: f42 not referring 4.1.2, should it? (and 1.3.1?)

kathy: if we add 4.1.2, then perhaps we should add note about aria, because 1.3.1 is about semantics, 4.1.2 about role. some note is preferrable, even without encouraging its use

<cstrobbe> "In the majority of cases setting an ARIA role and/or aria-* attribute that matches the default implicit ARIA semantics is unnecessary and not recommended as these properties are already set by the browser." http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics

awk: could use role=link for span, not best practice, but would work

joshua: keep f42, do we need to modify it and how?
... kathy could draw up proposed text later on , until then leave open

RESOLUTION: leave open

Please continue to feed the wiki with your comments and feedback https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis

agendum 2. "Please continue to feed the wiki with your comments and feedback

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that having a bullet point list of what the Quickref does well on the wiki would be helpful

erice: current how to doc doing well, what else can we do with quick ref doc

david: track down someone who is expert on ux usability, would be great for feedback

<Zakim> EricE, you wanted to say that we may have some user testing through EO…

parsing feedback from the working group survey

agendum 3. "parsing feedback from the working group survey"

Discuss https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140306/2958

link that works: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140306/2958


awk: can we close this out?

discuss http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2877

RESOLUTION: close this out


<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H91.html

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/58/files

awk: added input=file to h91, don't think there is need to survey again

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H91.htmlhttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H91.html

<AWK> Scribe: AWK

JOC: anything else?

Trackbot, end meeting

<cstrobbe> 下次聊

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: AWK to drawn up proposal for accesskeys F17 / LC-2950 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-12-09 17:12:49 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/resolution:/RESOLUTION:/
Succeeded: s/zzkim, mute me//
Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: leave open//
Succeeded: s/EricE, you wanted to say that we/erice: We/
Succeeded: s/erice: We/EricE, you wanted to say that we/
Found Scribe: Adam_solomon
Found ScribeNick: adam_solomon
Found Scribe: AWK
Inferring ScribeNick: AWK
Scribes: Adam_solomon, AWK
ScribeNicks: adam_solomon, AWK
Default Present: AWK, Adam_solomon, Joshue, EricE, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, Marc_Johlic, cstrobbe, Brent, Loretta, Kathy_Wahlbin, Kenny, MoeKraft, James_Nurthen, jon_avila
Present: AWK Adam_solomon Joshue EricE David_MacDonald Michael_Cooper Marc_Johlic cstrobbe Brent Loretta Kathy_Wahlbin Kenny MoeKraft James_Nurthen jon_avila
Regrets: Alistair Katie Barry Mike Elledge
Found Date: 09 Dec 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-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]