Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

12 Jan 2016

See also: IRC log


AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Jan, Rakesh, Eric, LisaS, Kathy, David_MacDonald, Joshue108


<AWK> password is in the IRC header


<Kathy> Hi - can you tell me what the webex password is? I cannot connect

<scribe> Scribe: Sarah_Swierenga

third time's the charm! :-)

<MichaelC> +MichaelC

Virtual FtF planning (duration? Video?)

Item 1: face-to-face CSUN

AKW: no formal f-t-f this year. F-t-t at TPAC

Katie: no f-to-f at Deque?

AWK: want to have virtual f-to-f to gather the group

<Joshue108> scribe list updated,Wayne to scribe next week, Katie week after.

michael: videoconferencing?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say special travel is harder to organize

awk: probably not for quality reasons

<Wayne> Wayne+

awk: maybe videoconferencing or webex, and some in-person locations. goal to deepen connections in group

<Wayne> +Wayne

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say special travel is harder to organize

awk: reaction to virtual face-to-face?

wayne: could the one at TPAC be virtual?

awk: will have a phone call, but may not have capability to have videoconferencing

michaelc: webex may be available at TPAC
... routinely have a way to share visuals and powerpoints

katie: what about WWW2016 in montreal?

<shorton> plans to be at W4A

awk: for most travel is difficult, so exploring other ways to have face-to-face

<david_000> so we're on for TPAC Lisbon?

<david_000> Cool

awk: yes, we're on for TPAC Lisbon

jk: M-Enabling? (June 13-14)

awk: not likely for f-t-f

TPAC meeting planning

<AWK> Planning on meeting F2F at TPAC in September

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/blog/2015/09/tpac-2016-dates-and-location-announced/

item2 TPAC meeting planning - already covered - meeting at TPAC in Sept

UAAG/ATAG update

awk: uatag group is closed. discussions with Judy about the group
... uaag/atag are both closed. future is currently under discussion for implications for WCAG
... survey

Issue 80

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/results

awk: general idea is that F3 and whether we should have a change to the procedure to indicate that it's about when the image is not displayed, and that the image is accounted for programatically

<jnurthen> can we change line "For all images added to the content via CSS, HTML style attributes, or dynamically in script as background images:" to "For all background images added to the content via CSS, HTML style attributes, or dynamically in script:"

awk: F3 is just for 1.1.1, but is not necessarily for making it visual
... want to see a failure identified for a contrast, as a new item

<Joshue108> +1 to James

<Wayne> +1 Wayne

<Ryladog> +1 to James

<laura> +1

james: wants to clarify that this is for all background images

awk: wayne doesn't want to use background images for anything other than background image functionality
... this change wouldn't be for the march release
... no change for current round. this proposed change would be in the sept release

<jon_avila> I agree it's better to keep the two concepts separate as lack of alternative applies to 1.1.1 and another HC issue possiblies to 1.3.1

<jon_avila> I would be ok with leaving the comment open and making the change

michaelc: keep the comment open while we're working on it, so we don't forget about it. Issue 80

awk: this comment has been here since March 2015, so would like to do something - new issue that says we need to make a new technique

michaelc: timeline of the issue shouldn't necessarily be a factor

joshua: accessible alternatives for images in background elements in css. developers are putting images in backgrounds that are important
... for cases when it's not robust

awk: if it's not conveyed to AT then there is a failure

Joshue: how do i provide alt text for background images - not sure what to recommend

awk: we need to work on this

<JF> +1 to Josh's point - real world is critical

john: need to make sure we still have a failure. am okay with creating new issue. change and the new failure should come at same time.

sarah: thanks Joshue for correction. sorry about that

awk: not thinking about high contrast mode being part of 1.1.1
... propose to accept this change and add a new issue. Consensus:


awk: any objections:

<jon_avila> sure, but I'd also like some clarification on AT

<Joshue108> A la Jons point High Contrast (OS level) is AT. just not 'off the shelf' etc - we should park this for future UA/WCAG work IMo.

<shorton> I am also concerned with the use of "assistive technology"

<shorton> I agree that it's not okay

michaelc: have loosened the requirements, which could be an issue with interpretation

<Joshue108> SS: I think it is a 1.1.1 issue.

awk: want to clarify that while the bground image topic is an issue 1.1.1, but the contrast issue

<Joshue108> SS: I suggest leave it where it is and produce another one.

<Joshue108> AWK: Why

<Joshue108> SS: Its a non text content that has no alternative.

sarah: this is a 1.1.1 issue - non-text content that doesn't have an alternative

<Joshue108> AWK: If you have background image with a text alt via aria label.

<Joshue108> AWK: Then it would pass, which you are talking about.

sarah: would provide a visible text alternative - replacement

<Joshue108> SS: The way I would do this is to prove a visible text alt, as a replacement.

<Joshue108> AWK: Thats fine but not the only one.

<Joshue108> SS: Its still a text alt to an image. Its not just about programmatic alternatives.

<Joshue108> SS: the use of the term AT does imply that those with AT will have access.

<Joshue108> shorton: What about those without AT?

shorton: still a text alternative to an image, but still a programatic and visual for those not using AT

awk: does replacement have to use text?

shorton: no

awk: ... then it's not 1.1.1

shorton: still ambiguity - need more investigation

awk: then we should leave this open for now.
... need a new technique
... looking ofor volunteers to work on this

shorton: volunteer to help

awk: new technique for disappearing background images

<Joshue108> ACTION: Sarah Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-318 - Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images. [on Sarah Horton - due 2016-01-19].

RESOLUTION: leave Issue 80 open

Issue 96

Issue 133

<JF> ISSUE 133?

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/133

awk: proposes referring to HTML5 instead of earlier versions

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/137/files?diff=split

awk: specific changes in github

john: there was work done on polygraph html
... we should reference "the most version of HTML5" and give a pointer

<JF> S/polygraph /polygot

michaelc: is this a specific or general comment. specific technique
... would like consistent advice for all html techniques. we are mostly doing that anyways.

awk: agrees, but we should check the rest of the similar issues. doesn't want to leave things hanging until it's complete

katie: using html according to spec, then in cases where there are differences with other html version, we would identify that specifically

<david_000> +1

<yatil> +1 to JF & Katie

<AWK> Current: At the time this technique was published, the appropriate versions of these technologies is HTML 5 and XHTML 1.0. HTML 5 is the latest mature version of HTML, which provides specific accessibility features and is widely supported by user agents. XHTML 1.0 provides many of the same features as HTML 5, but unlike HTML 5 it is not being currently maintained.

katie: we need common languages for all of these situations, except where the versioning makes a difference

<david_000> can do it now...

awk: suggestions for changing language?
... proposal to make current version more general wrt versioning

michaelc: xhtml is at 1.1

<david_000> How about this: The latest mature version of HTML is the best way to provide specific accessibility features that are widely supported by user agents. It is best to stay up to date with the latest version.

wayne: the xhtml is very important because of epubs groups that will be looking to wcag. the extensions have to be compatible with xhtml.

<Ryladog> Use HTML/XHTML according to specification supported in your environment.

<david_000> agree

awk: likes david's first sentence

JF: more than html

katie: but it is an html techique

<JF> suggest: The latest mature version of HTML (or related markup language) - ??

awk: the goal of the technique is to say that if you use html according to spec, there is a benefit to doing so, e.g. addressing the parsing issue
... one option is to replace the entire paragraph with david's sentences or first sentence (with minor edit)

<Ryladog> +1 to Davids first sentence

<david_000> I can accept that friendly amendment

awk: timestamp 11:04

<david_000> OK with me

awk: 12:04 in this thread - latest mature version of html

<Ryladog> +1 yes

<david_000> probably just the first

<Joshue108> +1 simpler is best.

awk: asking which version people like

<Ryladog> first sentence

<laura> One sentence.

david: probably just first sentence

<jon_avila> +1

<Wayne> +1

<JF> +1 to one sentence

awk: proposes making that change and adding jon's to that

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/137/files#diff-45dae38117526e3ccc3cd4e65e061fe4

awk: Split version in github in upper right is helpful

<jnurthen> did you mean to remove XHTML from line 14 too?

awk: removing xhtml from line 14, too
... any concerns

<Ryladog> I agree with Josh

joshue: don't understand what 'there are a few broad aspects' means.

awk: they are listed below it

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/137/files#diff-45dae38117526e3ccc3cd4e65e061fe4

katie: would rather we vote and then she has a comment

<Joshue108> +1 to edited version

<yatil> +1 to edited version

awk: votes for proposed edits

<Wayne> +1

RESOLUTION: accepted as recommended

<AWK> AWK will route for Cfc

<david_000> yup

<jnurthen> yes

katie: in general, do we as a working group only consider only those 4 components for parsing? or, is parsing broader and needing more spec?

awk: please raise this on the list.

<Joshue108> +1 to raising on list

<david_000> ack

Issue 96

<david_000> no

awk: kathy indicates that if images have multiple colors then all colors must meet contrast 3.1.

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/96

kathy: images aren't meant to be read, but 3:1 color contrast ratio for icons, since they are usually bigger
... usually does this based on size, since they are usually larger

awk: my take - right now graphical info that is not text is not currently covered. would be hard to defend a different position.

<yatil> I think that UI contrast should be covered somehow. I usually shoot for a 4.5:1 ratio.

kathy: number of considerations, and does agree that it isn't currently under WCAG

laura: suggest referring to low vision task force

michaelc: there are multiple threads that need to be parsed out
... don't want to confound issues. let's address them piece by piece to cover the whole problem, but not beyond.

<AWK> I think that when Kathy said "larger" she meant "large-scale" e.g. equivalent to 18pt+

JF: wants to push back - icon is meant to be read. what are they usually bigger than? icons tend to be actionable, so just like text they would need to be contained inside a size threshold.

<Joshue108> +1 to Wayne

wayne: we have icon fonts now, so the spec applies

<david_000> 1.4.3 applies to any font including icon fonts as long as they are text characters

<AWK> WCAG defines text as sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence is expressing something in human language

wayne: spec should change when technology changes and icon text is being used to talk now.

<Wayne> +1

<shorton> I agree that icons don't fit the WCAG definition of text

james: don't think we can apply icons specs the same as text

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about techniques for icon fonts

<Joshue108> sry!

<Joshue108> cant unmute

<shorton> +1 to making it a technique issue

michaelc: adds that icons font might be a techniques issue, but need to separate icons from the implementation

james: this could fall between the cracks, so has added an issue in github

joshue's comment (not james)

<Joshue108> I think techniques for Icon fonts are needed. I've added an issue in Github

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/144

<laura> bye

RESOLUTION: Leave open

trackbot, end of meeting

<trackbot> Sorry, Sarah_Swierenga, I don't understand 'trackbot, end of meeting'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

trackbot end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Sarah Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

  1. leave Issue 80 open
  2. accepted as recommended
  3. Leave open
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/01/12 17:31:56 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/scribemic:Sarah_Swierenga//
Succeeded: s/scribenic: Sarah_Swierenga//
Succeeded: s/joshua/Joshue/
Succeeded: s/SS/shorton/
Succeeded: s/ACTION, Sarah Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images.//
Succeeded: s/POLYGOT/polygot/
Succeeded: s/michael5/michaelc/
Succeeded: s/(?)//
Succeeded: s/ach d//
Found Scribe: Sarah_Swierenga
Inferring ScribeNick: Sarah_Swierenga
Default Present: AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Jan, Rakesh, Eric, LisaS, Kathy, David_MacDonald, Joshue108
Present: AWK Josh wayne jon_avila JF Sarah_Swierenga MichaelC Katie Haritos-Shea JamesNurthen Laura Mike Elledge Jan Rakesh Eric LisaS Kathy David_MacDonald Joshue108
Regrets: Jan
Found Date: 12 Jan 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: horton sarah

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]