W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

10 Mar 2015

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
+1.617.766.aaaa, AWK, Joshue, Kathy_Wahlbin, Mike_Pluke, Kenny, +1.303.579.aabb, Loretta, Marc_Johlic, Michael_Cooper, So_Vang, +1.313.390.aacc, Mike_Elledge, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.617.577.aadd, Moe_Kraft, James_Nurthen, cstrobbe
Regrets
Jon, Avila
Chair
Ad hoc
Scribe
Mike_Elledge

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 10 March 2015

<AWK> Chair: Joshue

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

<AWK> Scribe: Mike_Elledge

General CSUN debrief

JO: General CSUN debrief. Experiences. Then update from Kathy on Mobile TF meeting.

AK: One of important things is discussions Wednesday and Friday. I was there. Kathy were you there?

K: Part of time.

AK: Loretta was there. Katie was there Friday. Mike E. was there for both days.
... Interesting both days. Wednesday not as lively. More theoretical. Friday was more free-flowing. Perhaps bec conf was over.
... Judy Brewer had a deck that had a list of questions. DK if it is posted. Guaranteed wouldn't get through all. One was balancing stability with keeping up with technology.
... The general theme. Keeping WCAG as standard while looking to future without falling behind. Valuable discussion: Extension model, leave WCAG where it is, then work on particular extensions like low vision.
... Possible target areas: vertical markets (TV, Autos, Digital publishing) as areas of general interest for W3C, that others are looking into as well.
... Interested in what others thought.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask How would the suggested extensions work? Similar to the TF model?

JO: Any suggestion on how extensions would work? Like TF for specific areas of work?

AK: Tactical planning not really part of it. Figuring out what was of interest.

K: Whole extension piece would solve issues fitting within guidelines that are part of mobile, for example. Where specific to mobile would fit in. Excited by idea, make it easier to define either from vertical or technology.

<Joshue108> I like the vertical model too, but have concerns about bandwidth and resources.

K: A number of important things that could be addressed. Things that may not be communicated right now about specific subjects. Others seem excited too.

<AWK> Mike_Elledge: Struck by enthusiasm

<AWK> ...and the desire to put the emphasis on personalization and contextualization

AWK: To clarify. Greater point that recognition that cognitive, mobile and low vision are big areas where need for add'l work. Some perceived shortcomings in WCAG, and WAI guidelines in general. Should be able to do more for those audiences.

AK: These concepts were interesting in that may be impossible to deliver one experience to meet everyone's needs. Words instead of icons or vice versa, may have different combinatiosn of needs. How to deliver personalization important to those areas.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about the delta between GPII and this kind of model

JO: Just to ask about getting into area of GPII, customized UIs. Focus further down the road. Need to consider how WAI will work with that. Something we can tease out more?

AK: Agree something we need to know more about. GPII is still going to need standards. Gregg doing some really cool stuff, but at this time no way to really identify the components.

MP: Personalization/contextualization, aware of GPII. essential to meet individuals. How will it work with WCAG, which is more universal. Some SC, whatever will be applicable to some people in some circumstances. Need method for how WCAG will address contextual and optional requirements.
... If person/context how to apply within WCAG.

AK: Good question, don't know the answer. Personalization extension, or SC applied to situation. Would be great if everything was organized and browser could do heavy lifting. DK what full extant of effort would be.

L: Line betw user agent and content responsibility keeps getting blurrier. Not sure how that is resolved. A11y requirement puts onus back on user for things User Agents don't do. How will customized rendering be achieved? Unclear how it will.

JO: Blurring between content and user guidelines true for mobile too. WCAG is applicable in many contexts. Perception that only applies to particular content. Shift could go to technology from content, dk if need to make as much distinction between User Agent and content. A11y and universal detail devil is in the details.
... Developers need guidance. Concerned how we meet GPII.

<Joshue108> MP: In our guidelines it is clear that x is a content issue, but blurring too much can cause abstractions to break down.

MP: Involved in European procurement rules, very clear that it is a content issue. When writing requirements someone will have to meet can't have that blurring. If whole thing falls apart who has responsibility.

AK: Didn't have solution. Discussion about modules for vertical markets, mobile or vertical markets. Ppl interested in industry work (TV, autos, digital pubs) or cognitive, low vision and mobile (another grouping). How do we resource or group.

Katie: Auto not that different from mobile. Relatively close, brightness of screen, touch.

AK: Which do you like?

Katie: Observation.

<Joshue108> ME: The devil is in the details.

<Joshue108> ME: We could have guidelines SCs related to peoples ability.

<Joshue108> ME: Via taxonomies, attributes mapped to various criteria etc

<Joshue108> ME: DOn't know how to make it happen, but could be effective.

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Joshue108> ME: JIT A11y

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say the closer we can find mappings between verticals, the more we can avoid repitition.

ME: Just coined a new term. JIT A11y.

JO: Could be a nice #tag.
... Tie in to what Katie said. Don't want to do a whole lot of repetition. ID core things we do as a11y people, liek when we go to clients. Repeat basic best practices. Have them at the core of each vertical: design patterns, markup, etc. Could reduce repetition. Like similarities betw auto and mobile.
... Conscious of verticals popping up like mushrooms. Have to focus more on what ppl see as being stuff they'd like to do. Question is still open.

J: What do you mean by vertical?

AK: Discussion about doing work with WCAG to look at industry specific modules, digital pub, TV, and what WCAG means in that context. Low vision, mobile and cognitive focus. With number of ppl in WCAG can't do all at once. So want to know ppls interest.

J: Don't see why we have concern about verticals. DK why we would treat them differently from any other technology.

JO: Not treat them differently, trying to anticipate.

K: As far as verticals, some are important. Call out specific things, like pub: still view of moving content. Professors should be able to pause content. Important for digital publishing. There are examples for each.

J: Talking about verticals like retail. DK what we're talking about. Automotive?
... Confused by terminology.

AK: Terminology needs to be worked out.

J: Not sure that retail is WCAG's business.

JO: Verticals are specific domains like mobile, and various chunks we would work on.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say point of sale covers near field communications, which W3C does have an API for

<jamesn> verticals to us are Communications, Education, Healthcare, Utilities, Retails etc.

MP: If you start to talk about functional limitations. Auto: reduced cognitive load, attention, etc. the things you'd need to emphasis. Primary issues in automotive.

JO: Identifying core stuff that would be common a good approach?

MP: Yes, could be done fairly easily, take those things that relate to reduced cognitive load could apply them.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say point of sale covers near field communications, which W3C does have an API for and to say APA reviews all these techs and to say automative impacts

MC: Okay, I guess the term used by W3C for verticals won't match up to general industry definition. One impact near field communication, W3C actually has API for that. For auto real time...that said handled by accessible technology working group. Guidelines for using those features.

<jamesn> can someone point me to the W3C definition as I want to know what we are talking about - this is all I could find - http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/applications.html

MC: Mobile and cognitive are different kinds of verticals. For some there will be a need for standards, others have to pay attention to particular issues. Auto, for example, can't have small type.
... Shouldn't be constrained by particular model. Focus on what we need to address.

<Joshue108> Thats a good point, as already use of terms like vertical are steering our thinking in subtle ways..

AK: Person view is that we have plenty to do in mobile, cognitive, low vision and these are issues that affect everything. Would prefer to harden the core, with limited resources. Guidance that would help in general.
... With more resources could look at specific needs. Digital publishing working group could look at and integrate. But top priority is we harden the common space.

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Joshue108> +1

+1

<Ryladog> +1

JO: I wonder if we're saying the same thing. You know I thought michael's comment on terminology is good. Have to be careful about our internal jargon harder for outside groups to understand.
... Whole discussion of verticals a moot discussion. Shaping our thinking. Have to be open-minded about our approach. Need to be clear about what we're trying to do. Still soemthing that still isn't clear.
... Playing catch-up not good. Esp with consensus approach of W3C.

?: Talking about hardening the course what do you mean? Techniques?

AK: Have to think about mobile as part of whole thing, not a separate thing. An augmentation to the existing guidelines, can add as a layer. Different from auto, gaming, etc. If we're going to talk about how WCAG applies to retail, there can be app for that.
... Mobile really not different from WCAG. But for auto need to be prohibited from certain things since driving down the road.

MJ: Getting asked more and more for wCAG guidance on HTML5 techniques still have lots to be done. How do we apply AA to automotive--a resource issue.

Katie: There are other paradigms will have to take into account. Make take other protocols as well.

AK: Any other thoughts on this? CSUN in general?

MC: Resource improvement?

AK: People love our resources!

MC: Sharron Rush took notes. Hasn't sent around as far as I know. Panel on what doing to improve resources and what's thought about it. First half of session what they think about current mat'ls and how they would use them to accomplish specific tasks.
... Without notes, would say that one big take-away, that resources intended to support bureaucratically defined standards. Not meant to address specific tasks. Lots of interest in code examples up front, tagging by various aspects.
... Some of the W3C formalism a struggle for ppl not in W3C. Then showed survey and prototypes for quick reference, and tutorials. Resonated for some ppl, working on some of those things they want. Tagging and tutorials (for particular roles).
... Not everyone who uses the mat'ls are a11y specialists, so have to help non-prof'ls better. Most important bits first. Reducing jargon (lol, understandability). Of the 20-30 in room seem positive about what we're doing.
... More oppty for feedback, but only 40 minutes. Seem to be on the right track, but need to make more progress.

AK: Some ppl really fired up--resources not as helpful as should be.

MC: Something that's been on my mind: How to we make it easier for ppl to help us. Techniques, have history of not using submissions. If we can find ways of leveraging help from wider world should do so. DK what those are. We have high bar.

AK: Can define things we want. Targets for people to contribute work that would be helpful.

<cstrobbe> Ken Nakata wrote a blog post about this: http://blog.hisoftware.com/2014/accessibility/wcag-2-0-should-not-be-applied-to-software-and-mobile-apps

MK: My comment is had attended Ken Takata presentation for desiging for a11y. During presentation gave a comment to Access Board that shouldn't apply WCAG to software. Didn't delve into it. Contrast minimum contrast not sufficient. There is a camp out there that is wary of mapping WCAG to 508 refresh. Still don't know what his issues are.

AK: If go to Hi Software blog can see his comments--gave them last time to Access Board.
... Go to blog.hisoftware.com. See link above.

Katie: Ken did also testify to the Access Board. Another thing don't think he owns Hi Software, just works there. Has been purchased by Cryptzone. Not much danger in Access Board changing they're mind.

MP: Noticed that they referenced 549 as better way. Actually just re-wrote success criteria. Functionally what 549 and 508 did are the same. 508 points to working group notes. Not intended to be standard. Took the lazy approach.
... Some ppl want to make the european an international standard.

<MoeKraft> @Katie, You are correct. Ken Nakata is Director of Accessibility Consulting Practice at HiSoftware

MP: Had no choice. Some of the context is very unlikely that will applied to software. W3C had to address how it had to be done.

AK: Hearing some other companies that want a harmonized standard. Their not very different. Will be debate about how to harmonize them.

TF updates from CSUN

K: So a couple things we did with mobile a11y. Presentation on Friday. Overall everyone had positive feedback. Several sessions where ppl said WCAG did not apply to mobile, so good that note is coming out that says it does.
... Tuesday meeting, notes are out. Four areas: blue tooth keyboard support, also applies to mouth sticks, etc. Also talked about how that relates to touch and gestures. Custom gestures, minimum touch size, and research that's out there. Mobile TF will look into it.
... BBC, Apple, Android research on touch sizes. Moving toward personalization, how number of settings you can select adds to complexity. Honoring device settings and how it would work in best practice. Discussion on what is important for mobile users rather than WCAG.
... Which challenges are being faced, so we can be sure we're addressing key areas. Customization, resizing of controls (not just text). Readability, color contrast (ppl are outside looking at device). When looking at background of 4.5:1, if go to higher level will reduce number of combinations available. Not always high contrast, some users need low contrast. Also minimum font size.
... Not really possible to state miniumum font size. Also discussion of gestures and left to right movement can be difficult for some reasons. Brainstorming about mapping shortcuts to make it easier to use. Some of the highlights.

<Ryladog> mobile on Apple watch?

K: Mobile TF is going to look into these.

<Joshue108> tnx Kathy, sounds good.

MP: Looked at number of issues when doing Euro std. Virtually impossible to specify pixels. Couldn't really address color contrast on mobile phone in any meaningful way. No response from vendors. Will be interesting to see what comes out in mobile TF work.
... Could not find anything that was really useful. Including from industry. Can make measurement, but not always useful.

AK: Comments for Kathy?

JO: In general get positive feedback from notes. Liked that it is short and useful. Welcome. When is next version, wanted more information, high interest in getting more out.

Oops that was Kathy.

JO: Good to get a sense of conference. Thanks for that.

AK: One last agenda item. Asked about TPAC and whether we will meet in Japan. What is liklihood ppl can attend.

ME: Won't be able to.

K: Will be there.

AK: Still a question of time and travel budget. But good to think about. Will revisit.

ME: I will carry Katie's baggage if she will pay my way.

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015-03-10 16:32:29 $

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/hardengin/hardening/
Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Default Present: +1.617.766.aaaa, AWK, Joshue, Kathy_Wahlbin, Mike_Pluke, Kenny, +1.303.579.aabb, Loretta, Marc_Johlic, Michael_Cooper, So_Vang, +1.313.390.aacc, Mike_Elledge, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.617.577.aadd, Moe_Kraft, James_Nurthen, cstrobbe
Present: +1.617.766.aaaa AWK Joshue Kathy_Wahlbin Mike_Pluke Kenny +1.303.579.aabb Loretta Marc_Johlic Michael_Cooper So_Vang +1.313.390.aacc Mike_Elledge Katie_Haritos-Shea +1.617.577.aadd Moe_Kraft James_Nurthen cstrobbe
Regrets: Jon Avila
Found Date: 10 Mar 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/10-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]