Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

08 Sep 2015

See also: IRC log


EricE, Laura, AWK, Srinivasu_Chakravarthula, Kathy, jon_avila, kenny, adam_solomon, David_MacDonald, Katie, Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, Bruce_Bailey, Josh, Kenny, Katie_Haritos-Shea


<trackbot> Date: 08 September 2015

<AWK> Scribe: Bruce_Bailey

AWK: welcome
... appologies for late agenda


<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/

Erik: talking about quick ref

EricE: lots of changes under hood

taking up UI

what you cannot see is tagging, look at footer tab

rough preview for now

hoping for less text

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/wiki/tagging-success-criteria

multiple working groups provinging input

githup wiki page provided for input please

request for wg members take look at list, think of other text and tags that could be useful

are any tags redundant? are they properly associated?

current some tags only associated with single sc -- so we may not be keeping that tag

MC: tags look good, but are you keep separate track of tags?

EE: currently externally managed, but we may want to roll into jason
... would be helpful to incorporate into Json

MC: Other peoples opinion?
... Majority view is what folks want.

AWK: Could see tags getting added ad hoc, so need capability to edit
... Would want to consolidate, that would editorial. Need to keep tags in mind as we go forward

EE: tags just for SC at present
... very much tags are under control of group

MC: tags for techniques might be useful in future
... we would want list of tags so typos do not accidently introduce new tags

EE: understood, again tags just for SC for now

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask if you´re maintaining the tags independently or if you want them in the sources - soon, or eventually

David M: Q about tab order on new layout page

Eric and David resolve behavior

EricE: Future item is some inconsistences with sources, flagging for Michael

<yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues/26

As Eric notices, forwards to editors

EricE has created a list (link above), asks others to add if they notice issues.

<laura> Nice job eric.

AWK: Anything else?

AKW: Kudos

AWK: Also unders announcements, charter still under development

Resolving open comments on charter

Hopefully next week.

WG still operating under extended charter for next few weeks.

AWK: Anything else?

David_M: Asks if more discussion beyond WCAG extensions?

AWK: Commenters raised. Further work with ATAG and UAAG also under discussion.

Lots of questions still, more questions than answers at the moment.

MC: Exploring options. Significant administrative issued. Major change would mean revisiting charter yet again.
... Plan for now is proceed as we had discussed, but think more about how to incorporate more ideas for Charter and future scope.

This is third proposed charter, so we really don't want forth attempt. We want to give all due consideration for future ideas. How does that sound?

DavidM: Sounds good.

Jon Avila: Points out how much could be added to future guidelines, but we need mobile extensions now.

MC: The more feedback we get from task forces, the better idea we have how to incorporate ideas and suggestions from tast forces.

<David> A discussion paper on turning advice to Success Criteria in mobile http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/TouchProposal_Discussion.html

MC: Mobile is ahead of other groups, but even there we do not have concrete fix. One problem is indentified.

Kathy shared TF notes so far

DavidM: Some language looks like it could be phrased as SC but there is still a lot of controversy

DM: Discussion is still going on with regard to how universal mobile SC are, as compared to current SC. So they may be more like best practices.
... Changing the WCAG model would not be a good thing.

AWK: People like what Michael has been saying. We seem to have consensus to keep moving current charter through, look more or different in future.

Josh on-line, checks in.

AWK: Reviewing options for charter. One option for future charter is to get away from extensions.

DavidM: Could also work in recommendations from task force into techniques documents. That would be closer to normative.

MC: Reminds group that techniques are not normative, and we do not want contrived mappings.

DavidM: There may still be oportunities to work taskforce advice into failure techniques.

AWK: Work will continue on Charter.
... Working group approval would be needed for any non-editorial changes, including a 3rd charter vote.
... Expect some editorial.

Techniques and understanding update

AWK: Check w/ MC on schedule for publishing.

MC: Held up on coordinating announcements, which need an approval cycle, initiating this week.

AWK: From a working group perspective, could be anytime. Wording on announcement more complicated than edits this time around.

Survey on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/


AWK: Survey was a little late. Only one item looks completed.

Work through as we go on call.


Issue 110 Technice G65

Issue 110: Update G65 breadcrumb technique to follow the HTML5 pattern?

Laura asked to summarize.

<laura> Mic problems agian.

<AWK> G65: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G65.html

AWK: In description asks to add arrow to last paragraph of description and providing an example 3 as shown git hub page

Uses aria lable for breadcrumb and new resource.

AWK: Only survey comment is to add indent for readability.

Katike H: Likes it.

AWK: Notes new example is quite a bit more detailed than other.

<scribe> New example is just for SC 2.4.8. Does not seem like a major change. Calls for objections?

RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed (including code indentation)

<laura> Thank you.


#114 Example #2 of F22 seems to stretch SC 3.2.5 requirement

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-45 - 114 example #2 of f22 seems to stretch sc 3.2.5 requirement. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/45/edit>.

AWK: Salish had question, AKW clarified in response and change. Salish liked it.
... Clarify that just because a user clicks on a link, that *could* be a change in context

TOPIC survey 2nd question 114 Example #2 of F22 seems to stretch SC 3.2.5 requirement

<MichaelC> trackbot, close issue-45

<trackbot> Closed issue-45.

DavidM: adds some context that originally some discussion

Some people assert that clicking a link that brings up new window is change in context

AWK: Other institutional memory on this?
... Notes that current wording mentions change of view port


MichaelC: Remembers Ben arguing case.
... Recalls notification

Bruce recalls that is where advance notice to user is required.

KatieH: Wanted notice to users if behavior was not clear

AWK: Asks David if link opening new window in 3.2.5 was not a problem.

DavidM: Consensus at time was to live with it because screen reading software announces new link.

AWK: Who benefits if this is interpreted as new requirement?

DavidM: Advance notice helps screen reader users, as well as people with cognitive disabilties. Nice for everyone.
... Example Eric uses with wikipedia off-site icon -- but indicated new window.

AWK: what about low vision user? Screen reader use case heavily discussed

Bruce asks to check WCAG text

Jon Avila: Some consensus 3.2.5 applies

AWK: There is A A A item for this -- so implies is not requirement for A A

JonA: No failure associated with no advance notice of new window

MichaelC: Recalls that SC got morphed to capture tabbing through page

Katie: Definition of link captures this.

AWK: Asks for clarification if 3.2.2, want to keep conversation on 3.2.5

MichaelC: Thinks David is correct, at A A A need advance notice.

At A A with 3.2.5 link opening new window is permitted

Specific wording on 3.2.5 does not explicit notice that link will be new window.

DavidM: New window opening is not good, but not prohibited

MichaelC: We do not have text in techniques that behavior is okay maybe because we did not want to encourage it.

AWK: New technique text seems to contradict earlier conclusion that new window is tolerated.

<AWK> F22: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20150226/F22

MichealC: Technique documents reflect intent at the time written, could be rewritten to address confusion.

JonA: If we make this edit, we need to change the name.

MichealC: Could also make new technique, but we should defer on that.

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20150226/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html

AWK: Current proposal under discussion is to change technique in Understanding document for F22.
... quotes new text
... This is a clarification within understanding document

<AWK> text I read comes from: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/114#issuecomment-135866669

DavidM: Think we can work this out.

AWK: Does everyone agree at A A A user needs advance notification?

No objections.

Bruce checks for 3.2.5 and A A A

MichaelC: Wording is complex, but does say what we want.

JonA: This raises some questions with 3.2.2. Making it explicit for 3.2.5 makes the poor behavior okay for 3.2.2

DavidM: Thinks other examples with form fields makes this change okay. User has feedback where they are changing things.

<laura> changes of context definition: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-unpredictable-change.html#context-changedef

AWK: As Katie mentioned, selecting links not invoking 3.2.2

JonA: So long as we are making distinction with regards to settings helps this. We may need to add that to 3.2.2

Katie: Problem is that what is perceived as link nowadays has morphed quite abit from when 3.2.2 was first written. Overlays come into effect.

AWK: Cites from understanding for 3.2.2 that mentions controls in contrast to links

JonA: Still a little ambiguous

DavidM: Gives example with forms where you know you have initiated activity

JonA: On a link and press enter invokes modal dialog box, is that not a change of context without opening a new widow? It is a new viewport. Understanding says that not all changes of content are changes of context.

DavidM: Mentions 2008 context, users were still prepared that they were is some kind of dialog box with changes related to that.

JonA: Asks why is this different for 3.2.5?

Josh: Distinction between initated and non-initiated changes of context seem like a continuim

DavidM: At 3.2.5 need advance notice, while 3.2.2 can be infered from being on a link.

AWK: Resonable question, but should we taking something out of 3.2.5? Really doubt there would be consensus for that. Could revisit that later, after new charter.

JonA: Agree to differ.

DavidM: Agree we can defer larger conversation. Safe to make clarification now.

AWK: Agrees that proposed text is complex, but all discussion seems like we can keep it. Any objections as proposed?

RESOLUTION: Accept issue 114 as proposed.

issue 99


Issue 99: Update PDF14 to be in sync with PDF/UA and also ensure footer information is available in other means

AWK: JonA has good point about links in footer.
... Bruce had editorial suggestion.
... Asks DavidM (technique author) about artifacting footers with links. Is current wording a problem?

DavidM: Thinks that is okay, failure is to UA, not WCAG SC
... We are encouraging artifacts, and we can catch other failures

JonA: What should we say about links in footers?

DavidM: Do we need to list out things PDF/UA might not catch?

AWK: Could be different opinions. What about running footers with link?

DavidM: PDF/UA just says to artifact headers and footers, so it can be too broad

JonA: PDF/UA may not have considered edge cases, so links in footers may be overlooked.
... There are updates expected soon for PDF/UA
... Some of the problems come down to UA issues -- it would be nice if UA gave selective access to running footers in PDF.

AWK: Could be a future issues to revisit PDF technique 14. Do we like what we have here well enough?
... Should be a fairly simple failure: You have followed advice in PDF/UA and made footer invisible to AT and have footer information available elsewhere (e.g., page numbers)

<David> Here is pdf14 rewrite

JonA: Asks for clarification that this applies only to running footers?

<David> here is 14 https://github.com/DavidMacDonald/wcag/commit/a98f5313076676730c07cdb3110ce28b9e3e44e7

AWK: Proposed text does not specify running or no. Just says if hidden and not otherwise available, then a failure.

JonA: Seems reasonable as written then.

AWK: Asks for objections

DavidM: Checks that this rendering is not available as formated HTML.

AWK: New work flow has this artifact

s/artifcact/effect that final formal not in HTML/

[12:31] <bruce_bailey> s/artifact/effect that final formal not in HTML/

RESOLUTION: Leave open

AWK: Since a pull-request we need text cleaned up completely before accepting.

<laura> bye

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/09/08 16:32:55 $

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/present+jon_avila/present+ jon_avila/
Succeeded: s/Anythink/Anything/
Succeeded: s/Availa/Avila/
Succeeded: s/into techniques/into failure techniques/
Succeeded: s/AKW/AWK/
Succeeded: s/readabiltiy/readability/
Succeeded: s/248/SC 2.4.8/
Succeeded: s/ISSUE:  114 /TOPIC:  #114 /
Succeeded: s/Katie Haritos/Katie_Haritos/
Succeeded: s/Availa/Avila/
Succeeded: s/MichaelC:  Think we can work this out./DavidM:  Think we can work this out./
Succeeded: s/JonA;/JonA:/
FAILED: s/artifcact/effect that final formal not in HTML/
Found Scribe: Bruce_Bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Default Present: EricE, Laura, AWK, Srinivasu_Chakravarthula, Kathy, jon_avila, kenny, adam_solomon, David_MacDonald, Katie, Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, Bruce_Bailey, Josh
Present: EricE Laura AWK Srinivasu_Chakravarthula Kathy jon_avila kenny adam_solomon David_MacDonald Katie Haritos-Shea MichaelC Bruce_Bailey Josh Kenny Katie_Haritos-Shea
Regrets: Louis_Cheng
Found Date: 08 Sep 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/08-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]