14:57:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-wai-wcag-irc
14:57:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:57:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:57:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:57:24 <trackbot> Date: 12 April 2016
14:57:45 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
14:57:45 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:58:03 <adam_solomon> cant find the password to webex
14:58:12 <AWK> agenda+ Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/Results
14:58:23 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
14:58:41 <AWK> agenda+ Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160412_misc/Results
14:58:47 <adam_solomon> got it
15:00:15 <AWK> regrets+ Patrick_Lauke, John_Kirkwood, Sarah_Horton, Sarah_Swierenga
15:00:29 <AWK> +AWK
15:00:48 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:13 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:37 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:46 <KimD> KimD has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:35 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
15:04:01 <JF> Present+ JF
15:04:04 <KimD> Present +KimD
15:04:06 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:04:47 <allanj> allanj has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:14 <yatil> present+ EricE
15:05:32 <alastairc> present+ AlastairC
15:06:09 <AWK> Zakim, list attendees
15:06:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, Makoto, EricE, AlastairC
15:06:24 <adam_solomon> present+ adam_solomon
15:06:25 <David> present +David
15:06:28 <laura> present+ Laura
15:06:35 <David> present+ David
15:06:45 <KimD> Present+ KimD
15:06:45 <yatil> s/present +David//
15:06:49 <AWK> Zakim, list attendees
15:06:49 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, Makoto, EricE, AlastairC, adam_solomon, Laura, David, KimD
15:06:53 <yatil> s/Present +KimD//
15:07:46 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:47 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:08:15 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:08:23 <Mike_Elledge> present+
15:09:26 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:32 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:09:41 <AWK> TOPIC: Announcements
15:09:54 <David> Scribe:David
15:10:13 <David> John: Didn't see anything on the agenda about CAG next
15:10:56 <David> Andrew: we can add to agenda after surveys
15:11:21 <JF> Kick-off email is here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2016AprJun/0014.html
15:11:44 <JF> s/CAG/WCAG
15:11:50 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
15:11:50 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/Results" taken up [from AWK]
15:12:06 <David> zakim, topic 1
15:12:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'topic 1', David
15:13:01 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results
15:15:01 <AWK> Regrets+ MichaelC, Joshue
15:15:04 <David> AWK: Issue 169 Redundant 13 people agree, 5 don't...  James and micheal aren't here...
15:15:15 <David> AWK SKIP FOR NOW
15:15:28 <AWK> TOPIC: 168
15:15:34 <David> Topic: 168
15:15:53 <David> TOPIC: 168
15:16:27 <yatil> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:16:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html yatil
15:16:53 <David> Do buttons have same status as links, 2.4.4
15:16:54 <yatil> Chair: AWK
15:17:15 <yatil> s/TOPIC: 168/TOPIC: Issue 168
15:17:31 <yatil> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:17:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html yatil
15:17:36 <JF> +1 to what Andrew just said
15:17:57 <JF> Q+
15:18:14 <yatil> s/TOPIC: 168/TOPIC: Issue 168/g
15:18:29 <yatil> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:18:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html yatil
15:18:55 <David> Alastair: Is it about link text in button layout or a form button
15:19:23 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:19:39 <AWK> ack jf
15:20:53 <AWK> ack mike
15:21:09 <David> JF: Agree if it's an anchor or button... if it's a call to action, clicking on it is a get not a put, fetches, irrespective, asking end use to do something, so text should be descriptive... therefore 2.4.4
15:21:53 <adam_solomon> q+
15:22:09 <JF> Q+
15:22:14 <David> Mike: Button is different from link... submitting, cancelling etc...  links and buttons have dkfferent purposes
15:22:18 <AWK> q+
15:22:26 <David> s/dkfferent/different
15:22:51 <AWK> ack adam
15:24:10 <David> Adam: we are talking about 4.1.2 and 2.4.4,
15:24:40 <David> AWK: I interpret it as the button acting as a link...
15:24:51 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:25:28 <David> S/I interpret it as the button acting as a link./
15:26:06 <AWK> s/AWK: I interpret it as the button acting as a link.../AWK: I interpret 2.4.4 as a special case for links
15:26:41 <David> AWK: I cannot find WCAG text that allows us to apply link requirements to buttons
15:26:43 <AWK> ack jf
15:26:47 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:27:23 <David> JF: Using a button when it should be a link, no arguement but it is being done so we should address it
15:27:38 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
15:28:57 <David> Adam: should you be able to use context around button describe the button, as we do with links
15:29:08 <David> q+
15:30:01 <yatil> [EricE leaves]
15:30:02 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:30:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
15:30:09 <AWK> ack AWK
15:30:18 <alastairc> q+
15:30:38 <David> AWK: I believe it is something we shpuld cover but don't think we do cover it...
15:31:09 <David> s/shpuld/should
15:31:37 <jamesn> present+ JamesNurthen
15:32:17 <David> AWK: web page defn ex two. links or buttons... clearly a distinction between links or buttons...
15:33:05 <AWK> ack david
15:33:16 <adam_solomon> q+
15:34:06 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
15:34:49 <AWK> David: Agrees with AWK.  feels that 4.1.2 applies to buttons but 2.4.4 doesn't
15:34:51 <jamesn> q+ to say I have asked this before
15:35:17 <AWK> ... part of the reason links are different is due to existing SR support for reading expanded link text
15:35:25 <AWK> ack ala
15:35:57 <David> Alastair: should we say if button is acting as a link then 2.4.4 should apply
15:36:22 <adam_solomon> q-
15:36:33 <jamesn> note I have an (old) action to clarify this - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/139
15:36:41 <AWK> ack ja
15:36:42 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to say I have asked this before
15:36:49 <JF> Strong +! to the idea that there is more "accountability" in 2.4.4
15:36:58 <JF> s/+!/+1
15:38:01 <David> James: I have an old action 2011 to clarify this... it was clear not to apply to button, buttons need to make context in the label
15:38:34 <adam_solomon> q+
15:38:41 <AWK> ack ada
15:39:09 <David> Adam: sounds like you are saying it should logically it should but what does the SC say...
15:40:10 <David> James: clearly not covered in 2.4.4, and 2.4.9 even more...
15:40:16 <David> q+
15:41:08 <AWK> ack david
15:42:02 <JF> Q+
15:42:33 <AWK> ack jf
15:43:32 <David> David: 2.4.4 was a leniency to allow ambiguous text in the actual link
15:43:54 <AWK> q+
15:44:01 <adam_solomon> q+
15:44:02 <David> JF: Today buttons are being used as links... so we need an errataetc...
15:44:13 <AWK> ack AWK
15:44:50 <adam_solomon> q-
15:45:36 <David> AWK: Do the words cover "button", they don't, then we have to rely on the intent, which it seems there was no intent to apply it to buttons back then.
15:45:47 <JF> Q+ to ask about <div onClick>
15:45:52 <adam_solomon> q+
15:46:14 <AWK> ack jf
15:46:14 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about <div onClick>
15:46:24 <David> AWK: not convinced 2.4.4 is for buttons
15:46:50 <David> what about a DIV, acting as a link
15:46:57 <AWK> ack ad
15:47:06 <David> AWK. I'd look at the a11y API
15:47:36 <AWK> s/a11y API/a11y API to determine whether the user agent treats it as a button or link
15:47:51 <David> Adam: could it be argued, ypu need it's text to describe it's purpose, "read more" but link is where you are going...
15:47:53 <Ryladog> +1 to link and buttons that behave the same need the same requirement
15:48:08 <KimD> +1 buttons are not covered in 2.4.4. and we take up in the future
15:48:25 <David> q+
15:49:20 <David> JF: Factual of what elements are vs. author intents...
15:49:45 <David> JF: defer to WCAG next... ok with me
15:49:52 <adam_solomon> i take it back, i agree with awk: button is not a link
15:51:01 <David> AWK: some distinction in WCAG between link and button, we can't remap the element based on author intent... messy
15:51:03 <AWK> ack da
15:51:42 <alastairc> q+
15:52:01 <laura> I'm not convinced 2.4.4 covers buttons. Prefer taking up in WCAG next.
15:52:08 <AWK> ack ala
15:52:42 <jamesn> q+
15:52:45 <David> Alestair: If a button is acting as a link, is the role incorrect under 4.1.2
15:53:54 <David> David: I'm hoping in the near future we'll fail links that don't have context programmatically, using labelledbyby, etc...
15:54:22 <AWK> ack jamesn
15:54:39 <AWK> s/Alestair/Alastair
15:54:39 <David> s/Alestair/Alastair
15:55:28 <JF> Q+
15:55:39 <AWK> ack jf
15:56:14 <AWK> JF: reiterate what James said - we say that authors need to use the right element
15:56:30 <David> back
15:56:53 <David> Scribe: David
15:56:56 <AWK> ... if WCAG 2.0 doesn't specifically address buttons in 2.4.4 then we need to add it to the list for WCAG .next
15:57:07 <David> JF: Should punt it to WCAg Next
15:58:15 <David> JF: strict reading on WCAG, Buttons not included in 2.4.4
15:59:18 <David> AWK: We can propose respond 168 saying WCAG doesn't cover buttons in 2.4.4 This is seen as a gap to be address in WCAG.NEXT
15:59:44 <JF> Draft Resolution: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.4.4 (Issue 168) has determined that <buttons> are out of scope per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to address that gap.
16:00:17 <adam_solomon> q+
16:01:01 <adam_solomon> q-
16:01:07 <David> RESOLUTION: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.4.4 (Issue 168) that <buttons> are out of scope per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to address that gap.
16:01:36 <adam_solomon> q+
16:02:32 <AWK> Draft resoluiton: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 version
16:03:02 <JF> +1 to taht
16:03:43 <AWK> s/resoluiton/resolution
16:04:37 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:54 <Ryladog> +1 to remove it
16:06:00 <AWK> Draft resolution: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 version
16:06:36 <David> Adam: some group memeber don't think this causes a "gap" but rather 2.4.4 opens for more leniency
16:07:47 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:07:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:09:19 <David> s/The The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 versionWorking Group has concluded that WCAG 2.4.4 (Issue 168) that <buttons> are out of scope per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to...
16:09:21 <David> ...address that gap./
16:10:05 <David> RESOLUTION: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 version
16:10:46 <David> TOPIC: Issue 157
16:11:15 <jamesn> q+ to answer Adam's comment in the survey
16:11:39 <David> s/157/167
16:12:15 <David> s/167/157
16:12:41 <jamesn> q-
16:12:49 <adam_solomon> q-
16:13:40 <David> AWK: LVTF says hover state should have contrast, active state ok if not sufficient contrast
16:14:38 <David> Adam: I can live with that... I brought up another issue... about tabbing away.
16:14:52 <David> James: might be out of window at large magnification
16:15:38 <David> James: Sarah says active state should apply...
16:16:28 <AWK> David: There's a great reason not to in that there is value in having a substantial change inn contrast to indicate that the button has been pressed
16:17:07 <AWK> Proposed change to first sentence:
16:17:13 <David> James: I agree...
16:18:18 <David> David: We should distinguish for people that active state is a momentary oressing action
16:18:19 <AWK> WCAG interprets SC 1.4.3 to require that the text of links and controls which changes in response to focus and hover events meets the appropriate contrast requirement.
16:19:01 <David> s/oressing/pressing
16:19:23 <AWK> Both hover and focus states impact low-vision users, but the active state is not explicitly required to meet the contrast requirement:
16:19:57 <laura> Should “WCAG interprets” be “WCAG WG interprets” ?
16:20:00 <David> David: add a sentence about active state
16:20:50 <AWK> Both hover and focus states impact low-vision users, but the active state (the split-second state when a button or control is being clicked or pressed) is not explicitly required to meet the contrast requirement:
16:21:05 <adam_solomon> q+
16:21:10 <AWK> ack adam
16:22:27 <AWK> Both hover and focus states impact low-vision users, but the active state (the typically split-second state when a button or control is being clicked or pressed) is not explicitly required to meet the contrast requirement:
16:22:29 <David> Adam: sometimes someone might hang on the active state, while trying to decide.
16:22:56 <David> AWK: the esc key should let you stop the action of a helod down active state
16:23:03 <Makoto> q+
16:23:08 <AWK> ack m
16:23:21 <Makoto> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2014Feb/0039.html
16:24:41 <David> Makoto: would like explanation for the different response. I've been allowing this to Japanese people, I need to explain why. but can live with change.
16:24:46 <JF> Q+
16:24:47 <David> need rational
16:25:02 <AWK> Add: This is a change from previous advice offered by the working group as a result of input from the Low Vision Task Force which identified additional concerns.
16:26:11 <KimD> +1 to AWK's add
16:26:15 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:26:17 <Ryladog_> q+
16:26:31 <JF> ack JF
16:26:42 <AWK> ack ryl
16:26:46 <David> Makoto: SC has not changed, interpretation has changed, we need to explain, in understanding document for example. Want to have documented explanation
16:30:07 <AWK> Add: This is a change from the previous interpretation offered by the working group as a result of input from the Low Vision Task Force which identified additional concerns that the working group had not considered, and which are addressed below.
16:30:13 <David> David: I can update understanding.
16:30:31 <JF> +1 to that
16:30:42 <David> +1
16:30:55 <David> Makoto: Sounds good to me
16:31:10 <Ryladog_> +1
16:31:25 <David> RESOLUTION: accept response as amended.
16:32:08 <AWK> Zakim, list attendees
16:32:08 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, Makoto, EricE, AlastairC, adam_solomon, Laura, David, KimD, Kathy, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen
16:32:19 <AWK> Trackbot, end meeting
16:32:19 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:32:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, Makoto, EricE, AlastairC, adam_solomon, Laura, David, KimD, Kathy, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen
16:32:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:32:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:32:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:32:28 <RRSAgent> I see no action items