See also: IRC log
(All WCAG comments: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Touch_and_Pointer_Guideline_-_WCAG_WG_Feedback)
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria_Submission_Requirements
Kathy: several things finalized
over the last week – we now have a template for success
criteria.
... we need to go through each of success criteria and put it
in this format. Eight parts. There's a github template that
Andrew put together. We have 14 and 14 weeks to do them. Lots
of work ahead.
... walking through submission requirements
... also put timeline together – we want to go through and see
which ones we can finalize
... for each of the different success criteria that we are
going to propose we need to have success criteria text. If we
are suggesting a change to existing success criteria (which
right now we are not) the only changes to existing are to add
techniques and we can do those after December.
... we get the guidance from WCAG that we can't revise keyboard
so will be submitting a new one. So everything is new
<patrick_h_lauke> glossary terms - we'll need that definition of "pointer input"
Kathy: we can suggest success
criteria level, but that's not required. Glossary changes. New
guidelines. We need to look at each one of those – if we do,
need to outline each of these.
... we need to clearly list what the users benefits are – why
are we doing this. We already have some of that in our
understanding
... #6 will have to really pull together some information –
information about how this is going to benefit users and
evidence – links to research. For example touch target size,
why did we come up with that size, associated research,
justification and evidence for each one
... #7 test procedure – doesn't have to be detailed, just
description – some justification for the information that this
is a testable success criteria. Anything that's not testable
camera and as a success criteria. Information about how this
would be tested. If we have time we can put a test procedure.
At minimum brief description of how would be tested
... Titles of techniques that we would want to write – doesn't
need to be complete. At least an idea of what these would
be.
... each success criteria on a different page. You could put it
in github right away or if you prefer, you can put it in a wiki
page and transfer later. We don't want github to slow down
anybody's progress
... Questions?
<jon_avila> Can you post the link to the list? Thanks
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria_Submission_Requirements
<Kathy> https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension
<jon_avila> I took orientation
Kathy: we have 14 new success
criteria in progress. A couple of them are pretty much done. I
think we can start with those. I put my name in for next week
because were going to need one of them finalized for next week.
The touch target one is almost done. I'll pull that together
for next week. I'd like to put people's names to the so we can
get the scheduled on. Am to have draft completed...
... in September. Need to identify what the issues are early on
and see if people need help. We can have more than one person
working on them as well. I just want to put together a
schedule.
Discussing assignments and logistics
Shadi: David I'll work with you off-line to create github page
<shadi> +1 to patrick - files may be better for collaboration ... suggest to use short handles rather than numbers
<davidmacdonald> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5.3
<patrick_h_lauke> https://gist.github.com/patrickhlauke/96110b10547770021e58f5098dd31087
<scribe> New SCs in Github or wiki – put past or related documents at the top of that document and a link to it in the Mobile Success Criteria section of the submission requirements page:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria_Submission_Requirements
David: make it clear that Pointer is touch
Patrick: we have that
... will do pointer, pointer gestures, keyboard with AT, device
inputs – might pull and help from other people
Kathy: volunteer for noninterference of AT?
<patrick_h_lauke> https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/5
Kathy: it's in the Github repository for the original. Haven't done a lot of work on it yet. Even if you could start pulling together the document for it and putting in what you have
Patrick: concern about crossover with other taskforces
Kathy: we're planning on getting these proposals out there to identify any crossover. Pull together what we have
<Alan_Smith> Sorry, phone line lost service. Please assign me one item to work on. I'll reach out with questions if I have any. Thank you.
<patrick_h_lauke> chris/kathy could you add your comments to the https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/5 issue and close it?
Chris: it's probably not mobile specific, but applies heavily to mobile because it's so young. AT on desktop is mature don't have to worry about it, AT on mobile more issues.
Kathy: it's getting more into the personalization aspects of it so we will want to take a look at what low vision and cognitive group are doing with that, but that is one that we may end up dropping and just putting in pointer to what they are doing.
David: regarding numbering – on the stuff that we are thinking about proposing a new guideline maybe we should use the numbering that we were thinking of it – that might be part of our proposal
Kathy: they want us to reference
what it would be, but as far as success criteria numbering they
wanted that left out
... David – once we get touch target size in the format we can
go through that pretty quickly. Can you get accidental
activation or works with ATI on done by next week?
David: yes both
Marc: will take target size for next week
Kathy: remember the wiki page with research for that – remember to put those links on the page for it
Jon: question about short names
David: alternate text is short name – short name is orientation
Jon: where is information?
Kathy: original note, wiki
pages
... any history – having any of the history would be
great.
... priority are the ones that have to do with touch and
pointer, so I put those down as the ones we would want to do
first, but I'm happy to change the priorities
... submission requirements template – I just put what was
relevant to us
<Kathy> https://gist.github.com/patrickhlauke/96110b10547770021e58f5098dd31087
Kathy: maybe this a good point for Patrick to go through the changes on his
<patrick_h_lauke> https://gist.github.com/patrickhlauke/96110b10547770021e58f5098dd31087/revisions
Patrick: explaining changes,
moved accidental activation – it's not AT specific. Added
David's take on making SC's based on Kim's concerns about
speech. 2.6.4 and 2.6.5
... Main rewording is 2.7, some of these have temporary names,
still not 100% happy with them, but get ideas across. 2.7.1
rather than such as pressure tilt or twist – didn't want it to
be too specific just in case additional sensor comes
around
... 2.6.3 last major change
<Alan_Smith> Alan is back on call
Patrick: look at it as a whole – take a helicopter view, it should cover most of the concerns about different types of input, pressure sensors, tilt and orientation sensors that sort of thing. Does it make sense? have we left anything out? take a look at wording and some of the tweaks that were made
Kathy: questions or thoughts?
<patrick_h_lauke> https://gist.github.com/patrickhlauke/96110b10547770021e58f5098dd31087
<patrick_h_lauke> https://gist.github.com/patrickhlauke/96110b10547770021e58f5098dd31087/revisions
<patrick_h_lauke> note i'm on holiday next two calls
<patrick_h_lauke> so will have to be towards end of this month when i can make a proper start
Kathy: happy with general
organization. Next step is putting them in individual pages.
Scheduling target size, accidental activation, touch with AT
for next week
... if you going to miss a meeting try to review – important to
keep up, critical that we get everybody's input on these
Patrick: for anyone using the wiki initially will help put on Github once is finalized
Kathy: if it's a technique under an existing SC we are not worrying about those yet
<patrick_h_lauke> afraid need to duck out now
Jon: we couldn't put orientation under 4.1.2 because it's page level so need new SC
Kathy: it's fine to go through and change it
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/DavidMacDOnald/DavidMacDonald/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Kim Inferring Scribes: Kim Present: patrick_h_lauke Kim Kathy DavidMacDonald shadi Chris Marc Jon Regrets: Henny Found Date: 11 Aug 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/11-mobile-a11y-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]