IRC log of wai-wcag on 2016-08-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:46:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-wai-wcag-irc
14:46:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:46:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:46:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:46:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:46:40 [trackbot]
Date: 02 August 2016
14:46:45 [AWK]
Chair: AWK
14:47:17 [AWK]
regrets+ sarah_horton, Joshue
14:47:33 [AWK]
agenda+ TPAC Registration reminder: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC
14:47:42 [AWK]
agenda+ Survey on SC requirements: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reqsWCAG21
14:48:25 [AWK]
WCAG Techniques and Understanding comments – soliciting assistance for items https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
14:48:46 [AWK]
agenda+ Communication practices discussion
14:49:15 [AWK]
zakim, agenda item 3 is WCAG Techniques and Understanding comments – soliciting assistance for items https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
14:49:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, AWK
14:50:09 [AWK]
agenda 3 = WCAG Techniques and Understanding comments – soliciting assistance for items https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
14:50:22 [AWK]
agenda+ Communication practices discussion
14:50:27 [AWK]
zakim, agenda?
14:50:27 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:50:28 [Zakim]
1. TPAC Registration reminder: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC [from AWK]
14:50:28 [Zakim]
2. Survey on SC requirements: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reqsWCAG21 [from AWK]
14:50:28 [Zakim]
3. WCAG Techniques and Understanding comments – soliciting assistance for items https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
14:50:28 [Zakim]
4. Communication practices discussion [from AWK]
14:51:37 [AWK]
agenda 2 = Survey on SC requirements: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reqsWCAG21/results
14:51:44 [steverep]
steverep has joined #wai-wcag
14:55:32 [KimD]
KimD has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:32 [Greg]
Greg has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:34 [JF]
JF has joined #wai-wcag
14:57:37 [AWK]
regrets+ Marc_Johlic
14:57:39 [AWK]
+AWK
14:57:43 [JF]
Present+ JF
14:58:06 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
14:58:16 [steverep]
present+steverep
14:58:47 [Laura]
Laura has joined #wai-wcag
14:59:01 [KimD]
+KimD
14:59:27 [Ryladog]
Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:00:16 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:27 [Lauriat]
Lauriat has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:39 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:42 [Mike_Elledge]
Present+ Mike Elledge
15:01:12 [alastairc]
alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:12 [Laura]
present+ Laura
15:01:13 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:14 [Lauriat]
Present+ Lauriat
15:01:20 [Kathy]
present+ Kathy
15:01:40 [Makoto]
present+ Makoto
15:01:57 [Greg]
present+ Greg_Lowney
15:02:14 [kirkwood]
kirkwood has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:27 [alastairc]
present+ alastairc
15:02:36 [Rachael]
Rachael has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:45 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:49 [kirkwood]
+kirkwood
15:02:56 [Rachael]
+Rachael
15:03:12 [laura_]
laura_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:31 [AWK]
regrets+ James_Nurthen
15:03:37 [davidmacdonald]
davidmacdonald has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:42 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+Sarah_Swierenga
15:03:51 [davidmacdonald]
Present+ DavidMacDonald
15:05:09 [AWK]
Scribe: Alistair
15:06:38 [Wayne]
Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:35 [alastairc]
AWK: Please note the attendance survey, but unfortunately our sanity is not being helped by administering the survey tool. We'd like to go back to the old way of doing it (i.e. reply to the agenda, responding to the list) if you cannot attend.
15:07:48 [AWK]
Zakim, take up item 1
15:07:48 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "TPAC Registration reminder: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC" taken up [from AWK]
15:07:50 [Wayne]
scribe, wayne
15:08:16 [Ryladog_]
Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:08:20 [Ryladog_]
Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:08:53 [Wayne]
AWK: TPAC Reminder. Please come if you can. It helps with the group unity. Strongly encourage people...
15:09:11 [Wayne]
Present+ Wayne
15:09:21 [AWK]
Zakim, take up item 2
15:09:21 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Survey on SC requirements: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reqsWCAG21/results" taken up
15:10:02 [AWK]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
15:10:11 [steverep]
FYI, TPAC overlaps with the USBLN conference which is just one reason I cannot attend
15:11:31 [Wayne]
AWK: It looks like 8 have anwered. The first one are how do we assess new criteria. The second is what support is needed. Best Practice guidelines.
15:12:14 [Greg]
q+
15:12:32 [Wayne]
... Success Criteria Criteria most think are good.
15:12:41 [MichaelC]
present+ MichaelC
15:12:54 [Ryladog_]
+1 to add this text to the page
15:12:56 [Wayne]
Laura: There should be guidance on Level A, AA, AAA
15:13:16 [Wayne]
AWK: The problem is the rules are hard and fast.
15:13:32 [Wayne]
Laura: Should this be put in best practices.
15:14:09 [jon_avila]
jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
15:14:13 [jon_avila]
present+jon_avila
15:14:36 [steverep]
q+ to ask if filling out survey after the meeting is okay
15:14:39 [Wayne]
AWK: the present ocument looks at common factors, but there is a certain subjectivity.
15:15:04 [Wayne]
...: We would like, but it is illusive
15:15:15 [davidmacdonald]
q+
15:15:20 [AWK]
s/illusive/elusive
15:15:37 [AWK]
From Understanding Doc: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-levels-head
15:15:49 [Wayne]
MichaelC: We could point to the old document.
15:16:34 [jon_avila]
Agree with David.
15:16:35 [MichaelC]
-> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Levels Factors the WG considered in conformance levels before
15:16:48 [AWK]
q?
15:16:49 [davidmacdonald]
q-
15:17:10 [jon_avila]
Look at what happened with WCAG to non-web ICT where we ended up with provisions that don't apply to software that is screen based such as titles for screens
15:17:14 [Wayne]
David: We do not want to be technology. Don't want to forbid outright that technology.
15:18:04 [JF]
Q+ to say that mark-up is not technology
15:18:06 [AWK]
ack greg
15:18:08 [Greg]
Every SC should clearly specifies whether the described behavior is required to be (a) Always On, (b) On In The Default Configuration, (c) Available In The Default Configuration, or (d) Available (possibly using third-party tools).
15:18:15 [Wayne]
..: IN WCAG we talk about markup languages. I just may be something about particular groups of languages that would be called out.
15:19:33 [Wayne]
Greg: Every SC should be always, vs available or available as appropriate. Authors always, only available or by default.
15:19:59 [jon_avila]
q?
15:20:08 [jon_avila]
q+
15:20:23 [AWK]
ack jf
15:20:23 [Zakim]
JF, you wanted to say that mark-up is not technology
15:21:08 [AWK]
ack jon
15:21:13 [Wayne]
JF: I don't think a markup language is a technology, a screen reading software. We need a clear definition of technology.
15:22:36 [Ryladog_]
Defintion of Technology in WCAG 2 = technology (Web content) mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents Note 1: As used in these guidelines "Web Technology" and the word "technology" (when used alone) both refer to Web Content Technologies. Note 2: Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user exper[CUT]
15:22:42 [Wayne]
Jon: Scope success criteria: Page titles only apply ot app title. Where screen based content we .... Some software is mainlined so we cannot have titles.
15:23:21 [Wayne]
AWK: What would that mean relative to Davids comment.
15:23:38 [Wayne]
Jon: We need scoping.
15:24:07 [Ryladog_]
Note 2: Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static Web pages to synchronized media presentations to dynamic Web applications. Example: Some common examples of Web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript. text
15:24:27 [Wayne]
David: That is what I meant.
15:24:36 [Wayne]
q+
15:25:16 [Wayne]
David: We would only want to do that was essential.
15:25:32 [AWK]
ack wayne
15:25:53 [jon_avila]
like png
15:26:14 [davidmacdonald]
q+
15:26:34 [Wayne]
..: Why would we
15:26:39 [AWK]
q+ AWK
15:27:07 [Wayne]
JF: All we can do is define requirements.
15:27:33 [Greg]
q+
15:28:16 [AWK]
ack david
15:28:21 [MichaelC]
q+ to say we can´t go too far in the a11y support rabbit hole for 2.1 - that´s a Silver project
15:28:29 [AWK]
ack AWK
15:30:15 [Mike_Elledge]
q+
15:30:29 [Wayne]
AWK: I am concerned about not having a clear line that technology specifics. if we had had items that some technologies could not do, If we found technology specific SCs it would not lay out the linear path for all SCs.
15:30:41 [AWK]
ack Greg
15:30:50 [Greg]
I would change the language to read “Apply across technologies to the extent possible. (Technology-specific issues should usually be in Techniques.)”
15:30:54 [Ryladog_]
q+ to say unique IDs needed to be called out, I think. Sure there may be another/broader way to say that
15:31:18 [MichaelC]
q-
15:31:32 [Ryladog_]
+1 Greg
15:31:39 [JF]
+1 to Greg's point. Keep technology items in the techniques section
15:31:41 [Wayne]
Greg: This to Davids point. Apply across technologies where appropriate.
15:31:55 [davidmacdonald]
+1
15:32:03 [Wayne]
-1
15:32:04 [laura_]
+1
15:32:05 [Rachael]
+1
15:32:28 [Wayne]
+1 for guidance to ourselves
15:33:04 [AWK]
ack mike_ell
15:34:16 [Wayne]
MikeE: It sounds like technology should be in techniques and if it is an SC it should be broad enough to apply across technology
15:34:53 [Wayne]
AWK: Agrees. Maybe there is some wiggle room to look and justify.
15:35:28 [Wayne]
AWK: I think 4.1.1 that is redundant to other criteria.
15:35:45 [Wayne]
MikeE: I can point to it and say validate code.
15:35:56 [AWK]
ack ry
15:35:56 [Zakim]
Ryladog_, you wanted to say unique IDs needed to be called out, I think. Sure there may be another/broader way to say that
15:36:14 [Greg]
q+
15:36:31 [Wayne]
Katie: The confusion about 4.1.1. I understand that it is best to go with what was ssuggested.
15:37:13 [Wayne]
..: Like unique ids, and it is valid today.
15:37:14 [davidmacdonald]
Historically 4.1.1 was a compromise between those who were lobbying for full validation... it was a huge war...
15:37:27 [AWK]
ack greg
15:37:52 [Greg]
(Re Michael’s statement that technology-specific things should be in Techniques.) One problem in my mind is that every technique should flow a fairly obvious result of the SC.
15:38:01 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:38:23 [Ryladog]
Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:39:25 [Wayne]
Greg: Scoped SCs should be in Techniques: The SCs have weight but techniques don't. Its not obvious that it would be followed. Techniques are non-normative.
15:39:39 [Ryladog]
+1 to MC
15:40:00 [Greg]
As Michael says this document is for our guidance rather than a public, hard-and-fast requirement, so it would be useful to state that at the top of the document, just so everyone is clear on the document’s application.
15:40:02 [Wayne]
MichaelC: I agree with the principle, but it should be rare
15:41:05 [AWK]
q?
15:43:41 [Greg]
(Re Wayne’s concern about inaccessible technologies) Web sites that rely on a technology that cannot meet WCAG cannot be considered compliant. A web page can, however, offer both a version or mode that uses the inaccessible technology as long as it also provides the same functionality through a version or mode that is compliant.
15:43:56 [Wayne]
AWK: We want to have SCs that are not technology specific. Related to technology there will always be gaps. But we want look forward as much as possible.
15:44:46 [JF]
Q+
15:45:24 [AWK]
ack jf
15:46:06 [davidmacdonald]
q+
15:47:01 [davidmacdonald]
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head
15:47:02 [jon_avila]
This goes back to the WCAG conformance requirements -- if you rely on technology it must be conformant unless there is an alternative
15:47:18 [Wayne]
JF: If a user is not an ARIA aware tool.
15:48:30 [AWK]
Wayne: you might use a technology that has no accessibility support and that is a problem for users
15:48:38 [AWK]
JF: Is that a problem that this WG can solve?
15:48:45 [davidmacdonald]
Why permit alternate versions? "Sometimes, pages use technologies that are not yet accessibility supported. " https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head
15:48:52 [steverep]
q+
15:49:43 [AWK]
Wayne: The problem is if content doesn't work in ANY user agent
15:49:51 [AWK]
ack david
15:50:43 [AWK]
ack steve
15:50:43 [Zakim]
steverep, you wanted to ask if filling out survey after the meeting is okay and to
15:50:48 [Greg]
q+
15:51:18 [Wayne]
David: We have why permit alternative versions. If some want to use technology that is not accessiblity supoorted there must be an alternative version.
15:51:51 [alastairc]
+1 to david, WCAG2 has got that covered, we can move on.
15:52:09 [JF]
Q+ to note that "pages" is now becoming something of an antiquated term
15:52:19 [davidmacdonald]
+1
15:52:40 [Wayne]
AWK: It is possible to meet SCs with no UA to support it, but you would have to have some AT that supports the content.
15:52:55 [Greg]
I think our seeming disagreement is caused by differing interpretations of "technology". By "a web site relying on a technology" I didn't mean the user's choice of screen reader or browser, but rather things like pages conveying text only through Flash.
15:52:56 [AWK]
ack greg
15:53:33 [AWK]
ack JF
15:53:33 [Zakim]
JF, you wanted to note that "pages" is now becoming something of an antiquated term
15:54:28 [Wayne]
JF: So, David quoted the text that used, " a page that ..." We might want to move beyond "page".
15:55:11 [Wayne]
AWK: Suggest editorial changes to criterion 3.
15:56:46 [Wayne]
..: I'm not clear about as broad as possible but not too broad. This bullet is challenging. SCs don't include redundant. We should not introduce any more.
15:57:11 [davidmacdonald]
http://davidmacd.com/blog/what-are-WCAG-success-criteria.html
15:57:14 [Wayne]
JF: Keyboard vs touch. That is how I interpreted it.
15:57:23 [davidmacdonald]
See table from Gregg
15:57:26 [Wayne]
AWK: That is the art vs the science.
15:59:07 [Wayne]
David: To apply to all problems you want to address without restricting things that shouldn't
15:59:33 [Wayne]
...: be addressed.
15:59:36 [Greg]
q+
16:00:01 [AWK]
ack greg
16:00:03 [Greg]
Gregg's table is wonderful, except that once again it uses the ambiguous term "technologies".
16:01:17 [Greg]
Some technologies are inaccessible, and we don't want to reword our SC make them pass.
16:02:15 [Wayne]
SCs should apply to all problems you want to address without applying to problems it is not trying to address. No unintended consequences
16:03:25 [davidmacdonald]
IF the Proposed Wording ...THEN
16:03:27 [davidmacdonald]
Can be mis-read or misunderstoodUse different wording
16:03:28 [davidmacdonald]
Does not apply to a part of the problem that it should apply toWording is too narrow or specific in its language and it needs different wording.
16:03:30 [davidmacdonald]
Forbids something that is OKWording is too restrictive or too general and it needs to have qualifications or exceptions, or be worded differently.
16:03:31 [davidmacdonald]
Is impossible to meet in some technologiesIt is too general and needs to have qualifications or exceptions or be worded differently.
16:03:33 [davidmacdonald]
Is not specific enough that you can tell when you have done it.It is not testable, and it needs rework.
16:03:34 [davidmacdonald]
Introduces problems for some other group besides the one you are trying to help (e.g. works great for some - but not good - makes it worse - for others).It needs to be reworked so that it addresses the problem you are trying to solve without making other problems.
16:06:05 [Greg]
Andrew, as you say, since it's only for our guidance and not normative even for us, it's fine as a goal to keep in mind.
16:06:10 [Wayne]
AWK: The item is find the balance. But it is there.
16:06:17 [AWK]
q?
16:07:15 [AWK]
Suggest adding: Avoid establishing redundant criteria for content which are addressed in other Success Criteria
16:07:42 [AWK]
Suggest adding: Avoid establishing redundant criteria for content which are addressed in other Success Criteria
16:07:44 [Greg]
+1
16:07:49 [Wayne]
+1
16:08:24 [Greg]
Avoid making SC mutually exclusive, as well.
16:09:11 [Wayne]
AWK: You need to provide alternative criteria and in another criteria on linked images having a name. Something we need to minimize.
16:09:14 [Wayne]
Q+
16:09:34 [Greg]
q+
16:10:17 [AWK]
Suggest adding: Avoid establishing criteria for content which are addressed in other Success Criteria
16:10:24 [AWK]
ack wayne
16:11:02 [steverep]
Change "Success criteria describe the specific condition required to meet the criteria, not the method to reach the condition" to "Describe a specific condition required of the content, as opposed to a technique or method to reach the desired condition"
16:11:17 [Wayne]
Two Problems: We have many TFs and it is hard to fit new SCs into olf criteria.
16:11:25 [steverep]
q+
16:11:49 [AWK]
ack greg
16:11:51 [Greg]
I agree we should try to avoid redundancy and list it as a goal. However, one reason that it's not always be possible is the organization into section for Perceivable, Operable, etc. It is inevitable that some design aspects will fall into more than one category.
16:12:33 [AWK]
ack steve
16:12:57 [Wayne]
+1
16:13:08 [KimD]
+1
16:14:44 [Greg]
"Try to avoid ..."
16:15:14 [Rachael]
q+
16:15:36 [Wayne]
Avoid redundancy where possible....
16:15:41 [AWK]
ack r
16:15:57 [Wayne]
Rachaell: Is this a best practice instead of requirement?
16:17:05 [Greg]
q+
16:17:13 [Wayne]
AWK: I think they are different. It feels more specific than be as specific as possible, but best practice is more about writing instead of content.
16:17:14 [AWK]
ack greg
16:17:15 [Greg]
Agreed with Rachael: since the first section starts with "SC SHALL", it seems that anything that is a "SHOULD" belongs elsewhere.
16:18:26 [Wayne]
Greg: The only things that should be like normative vs. non-normative.
16:19:25 [MichaelC_]
MichaelC_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:19:31 [Wayne]
Greg: I wasn't clear on the difference between criteria and best practice.
16:19:55 [Greg]
On the other hand, since the entire document is non-normative, only general guidance to ourselves, maybe it's not worth worrying too much about moving things around.
16:20:02 [Wayne]
...: Since the whole document is non-normative we don't have to worry about that detail.
16:20:23 [MichaelC__]
MichaelC__ has joined #wai-wcag
16:20:45 [Greg]
q+
16:21:05 [Wayne]
AWK: We leave this one in here. If we think this is good we send it out for consensus
16:22:35 [AWK]
ack greg
16:22:36 [Wayne]
Steve: Describe the condition to meet the criteria rather than a method, the criteria is circular. You could simplify.
16:23:02 [Greg]
Success Criteria Shall: Clearly specify whether the described behavior is required to be (a) always on, (b) on in the default configuration, (c) available in the default configuration, or (d) available (possibly using third-party tools).
16:24:13 [Greg]
Everything that can be checked independently or referred to has to have some way of referring to it, thus numbered lists are always better than bulleted lists when they can stand alone.
16:25:19 [Wayne]
AWK: The could be best practice.
16:25:52 [Greg]
For example if “Lists are used”, which reads like any page would fail to comply if it fails to include at least one list--or two, depending on the reader’s interpretation. What you really mean is “Information is conveyed using lists when they are appropriate”.
16:27:16 [Rachael]
q+
16:27:40 [Wayne]
JF: Why the video should auto start, or choice or at least in a profile.
16:28:27 [AWK]
ack ra
16:29:20 [Wayne]
Rachael: We have this conversation with color scheme. This could be a criteria. Would this apply to existing SCs.
16:30:21 [Wayne]
Rachael: We are allowing change to existing criteria.
16:32:12 [alastairc]
NB: I used the SC requirements to draw up this page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Animation_caused_by_user_interaction and it was a very useful process. (Not that it is fully-baked yet, but it helped!)
16:32:13 [Rachael]
Slight correction: I think this is valuable but if we add it as a requirement for critera, would we commit to adding it to existing SCs?
16:32:35 [Wayne]
AWK: We will run into timeline issues. We want to be carefully. This starts to get us to UA requirements. This may be something that is hit hard in Silver instead of 2.1. We may talk about this on the list.
16:33:28 [Sarah_Swierenga]
bye everyone
16:33:33 [Wayne]
trackbot, end meeting
16:33:33 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:33:33 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, Joshue108, Rachael, Makoto, Lauriat, Kathy, Laura, Greg_Lowney, lisa, adam_solomon, marcjohlic, KimD, Katie_Haritos-Shea,
16:33:36 [Zakim]
... MichaelC, jeanne, moekraft, Mike_Elledge, Lisa_seeman, alastairc, jon_avila, shadi, steverep, Davidmacdonald, Wayne, Judy, Elledge, kirkwood, Sarah_Swierenga
16:33:36 [Laura]
bye!
16:33:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:33:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:33:42 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:33:42 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items