IRC log of mobile-a11y on 2016-06-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mobile-a11y
15:02:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-mobile-a11y-irc
15:02:57 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #mobile-a11y
15:02:59 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_MATF
15:02:59 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:03:00 [trackbot]
Meeting: Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:03:00 [trackbot]
Date: 30 June 2016
15:03:59 [Kim]
Agenda+ Patrick's comments: https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues
15:04:01 [Kim]
Agenda+ Comments from WCAG: Finish survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/MATF-062116/
15:04:02 [Kim]
Agenda+ Next Steps – next meeting July 7
15:04:06 [jon_avila]
jon_avila has joined #mobile-a11y
15:04:11 [jon_avila]
present+jon_avila
15:04:14 [Kim]
chair: Kathleen_Wahlbin
15:05:06 [Kim]
Regrets+ Patrick, Henny
15:05:08 [shadi]
present+ Shadi
15:05:43 [Kim]
Present+ Kim
15:05:53 [Kathy]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline
15:06:42 [Kim]
Kathy: Deadline for 2.1. Coordination call with the other two taskforces
15:07:50 [Kim]
Kathy: crossover with low vision – affordances and contrast. Mobile drop these do not duplicate work – low vision take the lead on these and we will review
15:08:01 [Detlev]
Present+ Detlev
15:09:31 [Kim]
Kathy: timeline – proposal for 2.1 must be into WCAG working group by December 1. Format same as for touch and pointer – success criteria, understanding paragraph, one sentence of what the techniques would be. Techniques don't have to be written, just proposed
15:09:54 [Kim]
Kathy: goal for December one is to have that for any other success criteria we want to propose and any changes to touch and pointer
15:10:46 [Kim]
Kathy: keyboard proposal definition change back and forth in email. Answer from chairs as we can propose anything, doesn't mean it will go through. So will go ahead with that
15:11:43 [Kim]
Kathy: WCAG 2.1 2018 we are two years away from getting this officially out and launched
15:12:13 [Kim]
Kathy: if we don't have it in by December 1 will not get into WCAG 2.1, will have to wait until 3.0
15:13:21 [Kim]
Kathy: David on the mailing list success criteria we don't have in here – have to talk about where it fits in. Conforming with breakpoints, not enough to work on desktop, must work on mobile
15:14:14 [Kim]
Detlev: interaction with other task forces logistics?
15:16:03 [jeanne]
present+ jeanne
15:17:08 [Kim]
Kathy: wiki page that the coordinators have access to – Task Force exchange
15:17:15 [jeanne]
Issues in GH -> https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues
15:19:35 [Kathy]
https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/2
15:21:09 [Kathy]
This is what the entire 75 email thread to the list has been about for me, summed up in one sentence. This is what I would like to see in WCAg 2.1 That is not in 2.0 and is not in any 2.1 workup documents I've seen in COGA, LVTF, or MATF.
15:21:39 [Kim_]
Kim_ has joined #mobile-a11y
15:22:02 [Kathy]
https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/2
15:22:12 [Kathy]
This is what the entire 75 email thread to the list has been about for me, summed up in one sentence. This is what I would like to see in WCAg 2.1 That is not in 2.0 and is not in any 2.1 workup documents I've seen in COGA, LVTF, or MATF.
15:23:41 [jon_avila]
+1
15:24:15 [Kim_]
Marc: move to 1.3 adaptable?
15:25:11 [davidmacdonald]
davidmacdonald has joined #mobile-a11y
15:25:16 [davidmacdonald]
sorry late
15:25:39 [jon_avila]
1.3
15:25:54 [Kim_]
Kathy: did make this constrained. Wondering based on David's point if we need to revise this and talk about it in more general terms and have it move on different breakpoint and orientation
15:28:52 [jon_avila]
WCAG allows alternatives under the conformance requirements
15:29:12 [Kim]
David: the whole crux of the problem to me – different breakpoints will shift different components even if it's the same content.
15:30:06 [jon_avila]
You can also have a progressive enhancement site where minimal site is accessible but enhanced is not as long as you get to non-enhanced site
15:30:40 [Kim]
David: if I'm wrong, whole thread is necessary. Where in WCAG does it say two components to the same thing. You don't have to do anything as long as the link is accessible. I would say there's nothing in WCAG that says you have to have two components work if you have one component work and they do the same thing
15:31:54 [jon_avila]
You can conform without making a conformance statement
15:32:25 [Kim]
David: under WCAG you can say our site is conforming – just go home and use your desktop just like you don't have to say it works in any one browser
15:33:12 [Kim]
Detev: very common error people design hamburger menus and assume they don't have to be keyboard accessible. I've always assumed that if you do provide specific layouts than all those WCAG success criteria also apply to that view
15:34:08 [Kim]
David: we have different interpretation of what WCAG is… my interpretation just one view one stack that conforms
15:34:15 [jon_avila]
+1 to david
15:34:22 [Kim]
Kathy: in the US driven by a lot of legal requirements
15:34:40 [Kim]
David: I would love this to be wrong – I would love someone to prove me wrong because I don't want this to be true
15:35:28 [jeanne]
q+
15:35:36 [Kim]
Detlev: explicit requirements
15:36:20 [jeanne]
2. Full pages: Conformance (and conformance level) is for full Web page(s) only, and cannot be achieved if part of a Web page is excluded.
15:36:24 [Kim]
David: people just claim the minimum. Not very many people see this hole – want to see how I'm wrong
15:36:46 [jon_avila]
q+
15:37:10 [Kim]
Jeanne: conformance requirement number 2
15:37:11 [jon_avila]
You can meet with alternatives. +1 to david
15:37:54 [Kim]
David: I want that conformance requirement to block it in but I don't think it does. I think we have lots of precedent and language where it says you can find an alternate component that can meet your requirement if that requirement works.
15:38:30 [jeanne]
There are notes that apply to LongDesc
15:38:33 [jeanne]
Full pages: Conformance (and conformance level) is for full Web page(s) only, and cannot be achieved if part of a Web page is excluded.
15:38:33 [jeanne]
Note 1: For the purpose of determining conformance, alternatives to part of a page's content are considered part of the page when the alternatives can be obtained directly from the page, e.g., a long description or an alternative presentation of a video.
15:38:33 [jeanne]
Note 2: Authors of Web pages that cannot conform due to content outside of the author's control may consider a Statement of Partial Conformance.
15:38:36 [jon_avila]
I disagree
15:38:45 [Kim]
Detlev: you could only claim that for Internet sites you could not claim that general-purpose websites accessible for jaws. I think conformance requirement 2 would cover including things that are shown only at particular breakpoints
15:39:42 [Kim]
David: John doesn't think so, I don't really think so. If that's true – I hope it is, I wanted to be. But maybe we should make it explicit. Six of the people who know WCAG best in disagreement about this. We need to be clear and make it explicit.
15:39:59 [jeanne]
+1 to adding a note to Conformance #2
15:40:02 [Kim]
Kathy: we can make a proposal to add to conformance number 2
15:40:28 [jon_avila]
+1 to david
15:40:52 [Kim]
David: every breakpoint – I think John, Patrick, Jason might answer no. I don't want to but I would answer no
15:41:13 [jon_avila]
If doing to right it is the width of window not device
15:41:21 [Kim]
David: big thing is components that shift are different based on the size of your screen. Will change the layout of that one page, same content
15:42:00 [marcjohlic]
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef
15:42:41 [Detlev]
+1 to Marc
15:42:43 [Kim]
Marc: when we do this make it accessible for mobile too, I think how they back that up is same functionality. Mobile get same exact thing that desktop gets that's fine but as soon as the developers try to make it work for mobile you're now targeting a mobile platform
15:43:13 [jon_avila]
We agree with policy but WCAG doesn't clarify that.
15:43:17 [Kim]
David: conforming to alternative link – that was lots of conversation yesterday. If you shift page, link to bottom of page that says desktop site conforms you would meet WCAG
15:43:39 [Kim]
David: link at the bottom of the page, takes 10 minutes to find that link, have to go through that terrible mobile menu that is not working…
15:44:01 [Kim]
Kathy: low-vision perspective as well – might want to coordinate about what they're thinking as far as breakpoints as well
15:44:13 [jon_avila]
WCAG defintion: functionality processes and outcomes achievable through user action
15:44:50 [marcjohlic]
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef
15:44:58 [Kim]
David: one of their provisions is they want to be able to move it to one column. I would suggest ensure that all functionality in that view meets WCAG. There's nothing that I can see in the gap analysis that plugs that hole
15:45:50 [Kim]
Marc: you could extrapolate that you couldn't just tell someone go use the desktop version because then their process is completely different someone else's on that device.
15:45:57 [jon_avila]
Example 1: Successful use of a series of Web pages on a shopping site requires users to view alternative products, prices and offers, select products, submit an order, provide shipping information and provide payment information.
15:45:59 [jon_avila]
q?
15:46:18 [Kim]
Kathy: to complicate that further certain functions you provide different from mobile and desktop
15:46:22 [jeanne]
ack jea
15:46:25 [jeanne]
ack jon
15:48:45 [jeanne]
A responsive site is not an alternative on another page, it is a single page with different display modes.
15:49:07 [Kim]
Jon: when I use 100% resolution I get multiple views on my desktop – when I zoom in I can't get to the other view and I have limited functionality and that's a problem for me on the desktop. We agree it's a problem, but I don't think it's addressed by the current WCAG
15:49:43 [Detlev]
q+
15:49:54 [Kim]
Jon: we believe that if we put these new mobile requirements in we can address it in a success criteria for WCAG 2.1 without modifying
15:50:00 [jon_avila]
q-
15:50:05 [jon_avila]
we still can't hear you
15:50:58 [davidmacdonald]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Components_delivered_as_part_of_the_initial_page_load_conform
15:51:43 [Kim]
Detlev: I agree with Jon. Good use cases for when you might want to see different things – people use mobile versions because they are simplified, much easier to do because they are different from the desktop sites. The whole idea that everything should be accessible in all versions is complicated by the fact that we won't be able to prescribe the same sets of functionality are offered. That...
15:51:45 [Kim]
...also relates to the distinction that Alistair made in the mailing list. Same URL, different sites These two things we need to separate out somehow
15:52:10 [davidmacdonald]
This is what the entire 75 email thread to the list has been about for me, summed up in one sentence. This is what I would like to see in WCAg 2.1 That is not in 2.0 and is not in any 2.1 workup documents I've seen in COGA, LVTF, or MATF.
15:52:12 [davidmacdonald]
[Jason] What you’re arguing for, then, is the following:
15:52:13 [davidmacdonald]
If different user interface components or different versions of the content are provided, each customized for a distinct type of device or user agent, then the content only conforms to WCAG 2.1 if
15:52:15 [davidmacdonald]
(1) Each of the different user interface components or versions of the content conforms to WCAG 2.1 or
15:52:16 [davidmacdonald]
(2) A conforming alternate version is provided of each version of the content that does not conform, where the conforming alternate version is customized for the same type of device or user agent as the corresponding non-conformant version.
15:53:14 [jon_avila]
Not sure on word customized
15:55:00 [Kim]
Kathy: #2 what he's saying as you need to have some sort of version that works on that particular user agent device. So if you had a desktop version wouldn't that still conform because you could just go to the desktop version even though your default is going to show the mobile version?
15:55:29 [jon_avila]
What if the components can't be made accessible?
15:55:36 [jon_avila]
on one platform
15:55:47 [jon_avila]
q+
15:55:51 [Kim]
David: based on viewport size so very specific type of customization Very thin net. Each one of those components needs to meet WCAG
15:55:54 [Detlev]
q-
15:56:19 [Kim]
Jon: another concern – aria you menu keyword based won't work on iOS?
15:56:41 [Kim]
David: if you ship a menu your menu is now I custom version of that menu – might be different but shipped specifically for mobile device, that particular component that were shipped for mobile should work – that's what I'm saying
15:57:10 [Kim]
Jon: same functionality:
15:57:49 [Kim]
David: no. doesn't have to provide equivalent functionality of the desktop menu, but does have to conform to WCAG.
15:58:17 [Kim]
David: a component that we shipped based on viewport size. So each one of those components that shipped at a different viewport size has to be compliant. It doesn't have to do the same thing as the other breakpoints, just has to meet WCAG
15:58:49 [jeanne]
q+ to say I asked Patrick's opinion.
15:58:55 [Kim]
Jon: worry that it's overly broad. Might work for a menu, but other components…
15:59:12 [Kim]
Jon: have to think about it more
15:59:56 [Kim]
Jeanne: Patrick said when we are talking about responsive design it's not an alternate page it's the same page.
16:00:19 [Kim]
David: but there's another component on this page which now is not showing that actually does work and if you just get yourself to a device that can show that then you've met WCAG
16:00:20 [jon_avila]
for responsive -- but I'm thinking of non-responsive sites
16:00:32 [Kim]
Kathy: lots of pages these days that have things that you can't see that are still part of the page
16:01:44 [Kim]
Jeanne: but it's still a part of the page. Have to be careful about writing ourselves into a corner about a situation that is still in flux. More important related issue: people be able to choose which they get on their device
16:02:12 [Kim]
David: as long as we can ensure that. but we are three experts who have different opinions on this
16:02:35 [jon_avila]
For responsive pages you have a strong case I agree. But david's desktop site example was not a responsive site example
16:02:40 [Kim]
Kathy: out of time – I have to think through this more in detail.
16:02:56 [Kim]
David: I think there's still lots of confusion.
16:03:19 [Kim]
Kathy: I'll talk to Andrew and Josh and see if we can get clarity as far as other opinions
16:03:36 [Kim]
Kathy: if we take it up in the working group call, more clarity as to what we should do in the task force
16:04:08 [Kim]
David: key question: three different breakpoints on your website does your menu have to meet WCAG get every breakpoint
16:04:42 [Kim]
Kathy: David to ask others as well
16:04:55 [Kim]
Kathy: good conversation – will get clarity and figure out direction
16:05:53 [Kim]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim
16:07:16 [Kim]
Present+ Marc, David, Kathy,
16:07:24 [Kim]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:07:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim