Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

05 Apr 2016

See also: IRC log


kirkwood, marcjohlic, KimD, JF, Sarah, Joshue108, alastairc, Laura, Makoto, Wayne, MichaelC, EricE, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea


<AWK> Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results

<AWK> regets+ Kathy


<AWK_> trackbot, list attendees

<trackbot> Sorry, AWK_, I don't understand 'trackbot, list attendees'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<AWK_> Scribe: alastairc

<laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<AWK_> Thanks for scribing Alastair

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

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

Update on WCAG.next sub-group (John, if ready)

JF: Feeling under the weather, but progressing. Still doing an email, coming soon with more details.

<Sarah_Swierenga> I could scribe on April 12, but wouldn't be able to scribe on April 19 (as requested)...

JF: Several sessions at CSUN that talked about where we go from here. For background see the URLs posting now.

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

JF: Talked through several models (4 or 5), to get feedback about which people prefer. The one that seemed to resonate most was having milestone dates.
... Would like to get the email out today, leave the feedback open for 10-14 days, and distill that down to a recommendation.

MichaelC: Would like to know more about the process proposed.

JF: Would like to have feedback to the WAI-IG list, a public list. Any changes to WCAG 2 will have a big impact, so we want an opportunity to provide feedback, are there other ways to collect feedback?

MichaelC: Just need to be clear about meeting announcements, proposals under review etc.

JF: Will email out to WCAG & WAI-IG, and Webaim lists as well. Open to other methods as well.

MichaelC: Might need to allow for non-public feedback as well.

JF: Looking for balance of process & progress. Would like it to be as open & public as possible, but happy to consider other more private methods.

Ryladog: Would ask that when something like this goes out, please include how to subscribe, as it gets sent around to other people not on the list.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/#subscribe

<JF> Feedback on potential models can be submitted to w3c-wai-ig@w3.org with the Subject Line: WCAG Next Possible Models Information on how to join the WAI-IG mailing list can be found at https://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/#mailinglist

<Ryladog> Thanks John!

JF: Will send this around for editors today.

MichaelC: Could setup a survey that is open to public submissions, readable for members.

AWK: Whether people submit comments to editors, or through anon survey, we should emphasis that it is more helpful to comment publicly, as we want an open process. A gently steer.

David: Are we planning on going through the 4 options, to give us an overview? Is it ok to edit & add to the wiki?

JF: Please do, with discretion.

<AWK_> Models: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

JF: 2 of the models would be a 2+, others would be 2.1 naming convention.
... The first is WCAG 2 + extensions, e.g. WCAG 2 + Cogn + Mobile

Second is based on TF, but as it is completed, it would be WCAG 2.1. Same thing, but different naming ext. Then 2.2 could be with the next extension included.

JF: Third one is having milestone dates, e.g. 6 months apart, 12 months apart, to be decided. Setup milestone dates, and then as particular SCs & techniques get added, they are incorporated into that milestone.
... Forth is extending WCAG 2.0 by platform / technology, e.g. taking info from Mobile. Or STB & gaming devices, as tech-specific versions.

<AWK_> _rrsagent, set logs public

JF: Open to other ideas, please add if you have them. We need to make a decision soon, knowing soon ish (e.g. summertime) would be a good thing.

Joshue108: Thanks John, question: have you managed to talk to Sarah & Alastair about SWOT analysis?

JF: There are a couple of discussion going on, one about the big picture (WAI 2020), and another about shorter term goals.
... We need both discussions.

Joshue108: Those discussions are going on, at least with some people. Very interested in the work progressing, thanks.

David: got the perceptions of the charter in my mind. Assuming we build these things over the year (e.g. with mobile TF progress), we can pop those in when we re-charter next year.

JF: There's some great progress being made in TFs, but not sure how it will be incorporated, that's the question we're trying to answer.
... It's the specifics we aren't sure of, e.g. what numbers for SC are added by TFs.

<Zakim> AWK_, you wanted to respond to charter question

JF: If there's progress on WAI 2020, I'd like to know more, and I'd like to see those discussions & thoughts appear somewhere.

Joshue108: It's been going on for a couple of years, plans & ideas. Still working things out. WAI 2020 is only one aspect.
... An important point is longevity & stability. We have to be conscious of that.

<David> ok

AWK_: We need to figure out what implications it might have for the charter. The charter might be fine, or we might need to re-charter urgently. Not concerned yet as the charter allows for re-chartering early, but will see.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say this is about longevity not just getting something out.

DPub document discussion and review request - http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/

AWK_: Digital pub group working on a doc, providing advice on ePub accessibility. Looking to release editors draft. Recommending WCAG 2 AA, requiring single-A, adding some additional requirements. Looking for comments from the group if they want to. Would need the comments for next Tuesday if we did, not sure we have time.

<Joshue108> AC: How does it relate to the other dPub thing?

David: Great that they are requiring WCAG.

Discussion on handling aging GitHub issues

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

AWK_: We have quite a few issues still there. With Github, there are 43 open issues. We've asked for people to take up different items, and we've closed 61. But still have a lot. Some get dealt with quickly, but some sit for a long time.

<Wayne> guilty too

AWK_: Would like to be able to address issues that are urgent / critical to understanding. But, for things that we don't have people to deal with it, but it isn't urgent, we'd like a quicker process to make as deferred. Let us keep the issues list smaller and more manageable.

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

AWK_: This process (linked above) would help to keep it manageable, would allow us to mark as deferred. Would also be able to view list of deferred issues.
... People will be able to open these items and work on them. Could see issue with some issues being considered important, but if people aren't willing to work on it, can't be that important...

Marc: Seems good, not sure if a month is long enough?

AWK_: If someone is regularly working on it, then that would keep it open.

<SarahHorton> I like the proposed process

<Sarah_Swierenga> no objections to keeping the issues list shorter

Ryladog: Seems good.

Mike_Elledge: How is this different?

AWK_: Currently issues sit there, want to keep it more manageable, a method to sort them out. If a month goes by and no-one has taken the issue on, then it goes to the deferred list (label feature in Github).

Mike_Elledge: Would propose that 'critical' ones (for editors), they might be starred or don't go on deferred list.

AWK_: We'd send a note out about issues that are going on the deferred list soon, so people are reminding. Working on it is basically the method for showing that it is important.

JohnK: Would it be noted as something that is not attended to? Differentiate deferred due to lack of interest, and not important.

AWK_: We'd probably resolve as closed things that are not going to be dealt with in WCAG2.

Ryladog: Given all the buzz for accessibility, can we put out a call for additional working group members?

AWK_: Can do things on github without being in the group.

MichaelC: Would like to see a recruiting drive, although might need to split up a bit. Wouldn't differentiate invited experts from member org experts.

AWK_: Seems like people are happy to try this process. Not carved in stone, can adjust the process later.

Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results

Issues 171

AWK_: everyone felt these are not required. Various comments, in this SC is the "or is available in text", so fairly clear and understood in the group.
... Goal was to get clarity & feedback so we can provide a response with call for consensus. No further comments?

RESOLUTION: WG agrees that Landmarks are not required to meet SC 1.3.1 for any page with head/foot/navigation areas as there are other ways to indicate a page's structure.

Issue 170

AWK_: Couple of grammar points, and two people disagreed with the point

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about change of context and change of focus definitions

David: Change of context is the difficult part, whether it is the user's action or not? WCAG1 had different context, and the consensus was around whether it was a user action or not.

Joshue108: Issue around change of context and our definitions. E.g. a mega menu always appears on mouseover. A monstrous menu appears. Technically it could be bypassed, but it seems like it should be a fail on something. 3.2.2 & 3.2.1 are specific, don't tend to cover this. Should we open/expand the definitions for the change of context?

jon_avila: If you're on a page, didn't press tab, a modal pops-up, that doesn't seem to be covered by AA, but is under AAA. We perhaps thought it was due to this technique mapped to 3.1, but re-reading, it is not covered (well).

<David> Here is my point alastair David: It is a Change of context but it is as a result of a user action. So it is not a failure of WCAG, because it is not on Input and not on Focus

<David> That is correct John

<David> What about a failure of redirecting the user??

Ryladog: Where you click a link and go to a new page, 3 ads pop-up and steal the focus. If the link said that it would be one thing, but stealing focus is something we need to clarify, probably within the existing SC.

David: We have a failure on re-direct? If you re-direct without someone asking for it, isn't that a fail?

<jon_avila> When any component receives focu

Ryladog: On input is an issue?

Wayne: It is specific in the language, perhaps too focused to cover this situation.

David: Can do a bit in the understanding doc, but not the SC.

jamesn: Have to be careful not to hamper useful functionality, e.g. tabbing out of a field triggers useful things.

<Ryladog> The issue of aan ad stealing focus when a link is hit to go to a new page I think is new covered by 3.2.2 On Input: Changing the setting of any user interface component does not automatically cause a change of context unless the user has been advised of the behavior before using the component. (Level A)

<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to say that I don't think 2.2.1 covers this

jamesn: Many of these things with pop-ups might be useful, e.g. 40% coupon pop-up, don't want to discriminate there.

Ryladog: someone who sees it has a choice, interferes with some people more.

<Ryladog> Agreed with link text

AWK_: In that situation it could be a failure of the link text. You aren't getting to where you expect.

<Ryladog> but also on input

Wayne: don't think that a dev of a commercial site who wants everyone to see an ad should be prevented.

<jamesn> +1 to Wayne

Wayne: filtering advertisements isn't our concern from accessibility point of view.

<Ryladog> It is disorienting to land on something that is not what the page's main purpose

AWK_: don't have a resolution right now, survey to find out more. Hoping we can get enough agreement so someone can right up what the resolution would be.

<AWK> AC: The original problem needs more clarity. Feels that this is a problem, but isn't sure where in WCAG it falls

<Joshue108> AC: Its disorentating. The specificness of some of the language, maybe need to re-read.

<Joshue108> AC: I'll do that and comment on the thread.

<jon_avila> yes failure of 3.2.5 IMO

AWK_: Initial part of question was about 3.2.1, which I don't think it fails under. But under 3.2.5 is more applicable.

<jon_avila> +1 to Michael

MichaelC: Agree that it should stay under 3.2.5, but could remove from 3.2.1

SarahHorton: Could be brought up under 4.1? (Missed a bit, sorry)

<Mike_Elledge> 4.1.2

AWK_: Would someone like to have a go at this? Might not be a case under 4.1.2 as AT generally announces new windows.

SarahHorton: Depends on how it's implemented, in some cases it is not announced. Custom dialogues probably not.

RESOLUTION: The WG generally agrees that F52 doesn't apply to 3.2.1 and needs someone to write up the official proposal of changes in GitHub

AWK_: There are a few more items in the survey, please feel free to answer those if you haven't. That's it for today.

<Mike_Elledge> bye

<Joshue108> bye all

<SarahHorton> Thanks all, bye!

Trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. WG agrees that Landmarks are not required to meet SC 1.3.1 for any page with head/foot/navigation areas as there are other ways to indicate a page's structure.
  2. The WG generally agrees that F52 doesn't apply to 3.2.1 and needs someone to write up the official proposal of changes in GitHub
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/04/05 16:32:02 $

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/Alastir/Alastair/
Succeeded: s/present+jon_avila/present+ jon_avila/
Succeeded: s/SWAT/SWOT/
Succeeded: s/asking at/requiring/
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Default Present: kirkwood, AWK, marcjohlic, KimD, JF, Sarah, Joshue108, alastairc, Laura, Makoto, Wayne, MichaelC, EricE, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea
Present: kirkwood marcjohlic KimD JF Sarah Joshue108 alastairc Laura Makoto Wayne MichaelC EricE jon_avila Katie_Haritos-Shea
Found Date: 05 Apr 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-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]