IRC log of wai-wcag on 2016-04-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

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