Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

31 Mar 2015

See also: IRC log


AWK, Joshue, Marc_Johlic, Kathy_Wahlbin, David_MacDonald, Loretta, Katie_Haritos-Shea, EricE, Kenny, Michael_Cooper, James_Nurthen, Mike_Elledge, Cherie_Eckholm
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Katie Haritos-Shea


<trackbot> Date: 31 March 2015

<Kenny> hi

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

TPAC https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/results#x2673

<scribe> Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea

<scribe> ScribeNick: Ryladog

<scribe> Meeting: WCAG Working Group Teleconference

AWK: Two people will not be there, some will be there, many would like to be at TPAC 2015

TPAC 2015

AWK: Not sure if it will happen at this time

Page structure tutorial https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/PageStructureTutorial1/

DM: Unlikely that I will attend

New issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/86

New Issues

AWK: 1 new in GH #86 around keyboard heading navigation. Someone says heading supporting for UA is not existent - who can look into this

DM: I can

Page structure tutorial https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/PageStructureTutorial1/

Page Structure Tutorial

<AWK> http://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/page-structure/

AWK: Did you get a chance to review for technical issues
... Do not worry about the philosophical differences

AWK; We just want to ensure that there is no erroneous info in here

AWK: Loretta and and Mark J. , anyone esle?

KW: I did but I do not have my notes. I will find them

AWK: Any big errors?

KW: A couple of small things in the code I forget but will review my notes

AWK: Mark?

MJ: Om initial pages I see no issue , but I have just started

AWK: Lorreta, you thought it was good

LGR: Yes

AWK: Eric would like to publish this tutorial - in a skim I did not see anything glaring. I like the content structure
... Page section content has HTML5 and ARIA role content that is brought into the mix. I feel personally, with Loretta and my review that we should have much concern
... I think it is OK, how do others feel?

DM: This look like a best practices document here...
... where they have the navigation elements

<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/page-structure/sections/#labeling-sections

<yatil> ^^DavidMacD

DM: Role=navigation, not many sites have just one navigation role. So I think it needs ARIA

<Joshue108> -q

AWK: Should it add some text for multple naav to add ARIA label

DM: Yes, at least we should have an example
... How important is having a role
... + nav when you have an HTML5 nav with the role of Nav

JO: OK I have the same concener

<Joshue108> How about 'It can be used multiple times on a page, and aria-label can also be used to distinguish them appropriately'.

DM: This will be come the quintessential way to do things...we have this opportunity here to do that
... I am just taking a quick look at this time

<Joshue108> It can be used multiple times on a page, and aria-label should be used to distinguish them appropriately'

DM: I do not rea;ly have time to review this, sorry

AWK: I do not think it is Davids responsibility to reiveiw this
... Can we accept the revies we have

<AWK> CHange to "When the nav element is used multiple times on a page each nav element should be identified" ?

JO: Eric is talking about issues ith IE11 and this nav issues, so we should include that info

AWK: Maybe identify seconday labels

JO: I am not particularly a fan of primary secondary etc

KW: I found my list of review

EE: It is clear that we should use aria-label and we could have some compatability info - as an option

AWK: OK. Kathy

<Kathy> http://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/page-structure/headings/

KW: In the headings section - my question is do it with H1, should we say ideally H1 and take out H2

KHS: I agree


DM: I agree

AWK: Maybe we should remove this last senetnce entirely

<Joshue108> +1 to AWK

AWK: Say use the highest heading available

AWK; Is it OK to ask you to do what EO just asked you NOT to do?

EE: Sure. I amthe buffer

AWK: What do we think?
... Changes can happen after it is published
... We may never be able to reach perfection.......:-) Are we comfortable for WCAG to say this is good enough to go?
... or should we review it and who?

DM: Maybe I can. Eric have you found any browser that supports the Q element? I havent.

JO: We should keep it in for coverage and one day UA should support the specs that have it

AWK: There is benefits for using it now - even though it might not be supported in SC, but it will be supported for other users
... Do any SC read the CSS generated content

DM: No

JO: Of course they do

JN: If it is just using the virtual buffer it will not, but other wise it should

DM; But it did not show up in the DOM

DM: But it is not reading it.

JN: But it is in the AAPI

<Mike_Elledge> Trust, but verify!

AWK: David may have some time today

DM: The only thing that stuck out was tis and caption - so I amy have a few

<marcjohlic> +1

<Joshue108> +1 to AWK

AWK: Can we say that we are OK with this progressing towards being published - knoing that Davisd will provide some comment today. Are we commfortable with this?

EE: It is not about Publication today. There is still going to be another round of revieew before publishing

AWK; OK great, I was misinformed

<Loretta> brb

<Mike_Elledge> +1

Charter update - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2015WCAGSurvey/

AWK We provide comments - hopefully other will tale a look at it and provide comments - so that next time Eric asked for publication we will be ready to go

<yatil> 👍

Charter Discussion

AWK: This is the mail item that we talk about
... There were several formal objection to WAI charters - with 7 formal objections - as a result there is alot of scrutiny.
... The consensus is that the world is ready for normative work in WCAG
... We are not talking about WCAG 3 - but are talking about shorter documents that are extension documents. The first would be Mobile Touch
... that would extend WCAG> Perhaps in the future folks would say "I want to adopt WCAG2 plus X extension"
... so that will free us up to do normative work. Technique and Understanding docs would be needed for the extensions
... You can see from the charter
... Also in scope is developing the normative extensions in several areas, we can add them. Badnwidth will be our limiter here
... LOw Vision needs a more defined affort
... Further ahead further down the road , more 2020, and then coordinating with other groups in W3C. We still can have task forces
... Deliverable: Tej Understanding and Techniques
... Editor REq by the end of the year
... We expect alot tto come from Cognitive and Mobile work. Targeting a Mobile Extension
... New REq by April 2018

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to provide background on the non-web point

MC: I wanted to try to fast track the comments questioning excluding non-web content. I tried to look into the background of this

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/14-wai-wcag-minutes

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-wai-wcag-minutes

MC: I thought that Judy had asked us to add this. But I was wrong. It was the WG that wanted to add this. There were meerting where we talked about this
... Judy wants to not have that limitation as well
... And Loretta agrees now
... So I think we can come to consensus on this quickly to oepn up that limitation

KW: WHat is the Mobile scope?
... How will those dates flow together and where they came from?

MC: We tried to toss some milestones into the air - because we have to have them in the document. We needd to now have those converstaions.

Management likes to have Reqs completed in a charter cycle. Please give us better suggestions

MC: A fPWD dos not have to be super mature to publish. We can sgue for some later daye

KW: We are working on techniques. We have something. As long as the expectation is something. A skeleton. Then that is OK

MC: That is OK. The first draft might have a bifg section that is Requirements

AWK: There is 23 months between FPWD and CR
... It is a new review process

MC: I think it is better to have multiple WD to get pleny of feedback

AWK: So, we have liaison in here - the WAI coordination is going to be removed
... Questions, comments, thoughts?

MC: To answer David we left that open on person as to who we would liaise with


AWK: MaryJo has a comment,

MC: I dont know it might be a good comment

AWK: Maybe review the WCAG2ICT note in light of exstensions
... I worry about having enough time - it should be on th radar

MC: If we are going to publish the charter wwith some escape langauge. If we think we might updayte WCAG2ICT then we should put in ino tht eRquirmenets with milestones

AWK; We can re-invigorate a Task force to review that

MC: We have to have something in the charet allowing us to publish it
... It should be listed as the Understanding and Techniques

KHS: I agree...but hate that I do

AWK: What do others thinks?

MC: This is a level of baeocracy that most peoeple dont worry about

AWK: With WCAG 2 being stable. This is just an update - and WCAG 2 WCAG2ICT Extension

MC: Maybe we should put in updated guidance on HOw do WCAG guidance extend to non-web items - that might give us some protection
... Last bullet at the end of Item 2 in the Scope section
... Guidance for how WCAG 2.0 extensions could apply to non-web content if needed

AWK: Where would this go
... A new bullet right before # 3 in the Scope section

MC: I guess as needed is good
... I think this will give us coverage if needed

<marcjohlic> +1


AWK: Any thoughts or questions?

<Kenny> +1

AWK: This week there is the first meeting with W3C team and trying to resolve the comments that were made that resulted in formal objections
... What are the suggestions for WCAG, ATAG, UAAG, etc
... If we can say at that meeting we can say through our charter that - that we could address all of th formal objection commenst that came in against WAI
... The most point was WCAG2 is falling behind and think we need new normative work - we want to satisfy those needs with our new charter text
... We need to be prepared to say yes, we are willing to do this

MC: With these changes it would go for a review with the Advisory Committee which will be more than a months
... If it goes through - all mmebers will be asked to re-join the working group. Be prepared for that
... My experience we end up losing important participants
... So please prepare for this with your comapnies

AWK: Are there any objection to this charter?

RESOLUTION: WE will send this Charter to the W3C Advisory Committee for further revie

s/firther revie/further revieww

AWK: It is very exciting. Thank you.

I have that same excitement

AWK: That might cover our agenda
... Thank you everyone, We ill keep providing updates
... We are not meeting next Thursday - but Teusday wew will at this time
... There are comments that can be revieiwed etc until we know

MC: The working group is formally extended until May 18th

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/03/31 21:03:15 $

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/thpught/thought/
Succeeded: s/secodary/secondary/
Succeeded: s/avaible/available/
Succeeded: s/that e/that we/
Succeeded: s/DI/Di/
Succeeded: s/docuiments/documents/
Succeeded: s/I treid o look/I tried to look/
Succeeded: s/though tthat/thought that/
Succeeded: s/agrrees/agrees/
Succeeded: s/nbetter/better/
Succeeded: s/CM: I giess/MC: I guess/
Succeeded: s/p.B/p. B/
Succeeded: s/Chater/Charter/
Succeeded: s/sned/send/
Succeeded: s/Commitee/Committee/
Succeeded: s/firther/further/
FAILED: s/firther revie/further review/
Succeeded: s/further revie/further review/
Found Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog
Present: AWK Marc_Johlic Kathy_Wahlbin David_MacDonald Katie_Haritos-Shea EricE Kenny Michael_Cooper Joshue Mike_Elledge marcjohlic David Loretta Kathy MichaelC Joshue108 yatil MarkS Kenny
Found Date: 31 Mar 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]