See also: IRC log
<AWK> +AWK
<Srini> Srini+
<gowerm> Mike Gower+1
<Srini> Can someone please ping WebEx URL?
<bbailey> +Bruce_Bailey
<DavidMacDonald> test
<Srini> it's not showing up on IRC
<Kim> +Kim
<kirkwood> +kirkwood
<Srini> can someone please ping WebEx link?
<AWK> +Mike_Gower
AK: When signing in, don't put space between your names
<bbailey> @me how do i tell zakim bbailey is Bruce_Bailey?
<bbailey> nick=Bruce_Bailey
<Srini> can someone help me with WebEx link pease?
<Makoto> Srini, WebEx link: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m064eab3e5485b640231a7fe56dc4785c
jo: couple of items from last week.
<Srini> Thanks
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/246
jo: Two issues. One part agreed,
other not.
... . First part seems okay. move aria2 from 3.3.3 to 3.3.2.
But not add aria21 to 3.3.3. Seems general consensus.
awk: thx.
<DavidMacDonald> +1 to Jon... both
<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/results#xpull189
jo: Move aria2 from 3.3.3 to 3.3.2
<Joshue108> +1 moving ARIA2 technique 3.3.3 to 3.3.2
<marcjohlic> +1 on moving ARIA2 from 3.3.3 to 3.3.2
jf: to say not valide on 3.3.3 an incomplete truth. primarily req'd on the label or instruction, but...should apply 3.3.2. But as technique not incorrect to have on 3.3.3 as well.
Srini: Agree
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the reason that this was not fully agreed on (I think) is that ARIA-required doesn't necessarily result in a visual label
<Srini> Andrew, you have a great point.
AK: just putting aria required doesn't meake a visual change. have to include visual change, where 3.3.2 would come into play. Wld not coutn as label or instruction.
jo: html5 required atribute
discussion last week.
... Advisory technique
ma: 3.3.2 as advisory technique. it is reinforcing the visual with arai
bb: Mike c just resolved issue, as additional technique
jo: useful in 3.3.3.
<Srini> JO, HOW WOULD THAT BE?
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if the advisory vs sufficient question was resolved last week?
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that if ARIA2 is just reinforcing the visual for 3.3.2 then that is the reason that it should not be in there.
<Srini> sorry for caps
jf: discussion around aria-required, visual indication. already different how present themselves to user. don't know if muddying the water with that.
aK: Aria required doesn't result
in visual affect, then not sure why we'd put it in 3.3.2. If
there is an html5 visual requirement would support adding it to
3.3.2.
... then a question of accessibility support. If something done
productively with visual would meet 3.3.2.
<steverep> Can the default browser behavior be undone with CSS?
jf: aria will only result in
visual element if you put it there. only get feedback when
error and get response when you have screen reader.
... labels and instructions require you to input.
<Srini> Even if aria2 doesn't provide visual effect, it can still be relevant to 3.3.2 and not 3.3.3
ak: if does show visual, then 3.3.2, otherwise not.
<Ryladog> +1 to Andrew comment, it must be visual to support 3.3.2
jo: sufficient technique,
advisory technique in some cases. but have to be careful.
... Live with advisory technique?
<AWK> I don't support ARIA2 as advisory for 3.3.2
ma: yes. but not an advisory in 3.3.3. 3.3.3 is an error suggestion so should be instructions. looking for consistency.
ja: use this technique and use this technique. Combine them.
jo: put this in as a sufficient technique if you do as "and"?
ja: as an example, under 3.3.2 say "and the following".
jf: more accurate
<AWK> +1 to Katie's comment
katie: whether advisory of sufficient rationale should be the same. advisory not suppored as much. if not sufficient, then not advisory. not a fan of "plus".
jo: not as robust.
ja: reason why has to be sufficient. if allows you to meet on condition can't rely on it. if advisory may be part of the solution. Understand people may not understand that have to combine, but we do note it.
<AWK> Criteria for Advisory Techniques: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-advisory-head
jo: could add aria or html as part of sufficient techniques.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to make a suggestion
jo: do boolean technique as sufficient w/ reference to arai or html as advisory technique.
ak: to clear this issue, not move
to 3.3.2. if someone puts together proposal for "and" we can
consider it then.
... work can take place outside of call.
ma: will do it.
<Joshue108> ACTION: MikeGower to come up with suggested Boolean Technique for 3.3.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'MikeGower'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
<Joshue108> ACTION: gowerm to come up with suggested Boolean Technique for 3.3.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Error finding 'gowerm'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
me: ma is mg.
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/242
<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/results#xpull175
mg: before we move. aria21 to 3.3.3. will incorporate for feedback.
jo: easier if they are
separate.
... slight name change for G53 to more generic.
RESOLUTION: Mike Gower to work on updates to Issue 246 in a new issue
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G53
mg: ibm checklist trying to take general techniques. 2.4.4 does not have a general idea for linking. odd situation where g53 talks about linking text with preceding sentence. Wanted to capture programmit aspect.
<jon_avila> Agree with James. We have a technique for each way we allow.
jn: not in favor. things allowed in link context are constrained. can't just say programmatic. have to be specific. in other situations are specific.
jo: need for specificity.
jn: yes
<AWK> +1 to James's comment
ja: have a technique elsewhere. agree with james.
mg: does have a list of specific technologies. just want to put clarity on #8.
jo: don't see.
mg: sufficient techs in 2.4.4. Eight is listed there.General technique then techniques that support it are common.
jo: struggling to see net gain. sounds like makes sense.
<Joshue108> but that's because it uses a virtual cursor
dm: context on when came up with
it. struggling around link text in link lists, without context
in jaws. john slatin found could read paragraph if focus
remains on link. can move to link list, grab focus. nobody ever
does it in my experience.
... enclosing in sentence doesn't really solve this. hope to
fix for 2.1
ak: mg said that in list of links #6 is enclosing sentence, #8 is programmatically determined. Should we be putting #6...
mg: actually a paragraph tag. sentence is not programmatically determinable with current tech.
<jon_avila> I would be fine with moving g53 down to item 8
jo: depends on AT. virtual cursor to walk the dom.
<AWK> Propose leaving it as it is.
<JF> +1 to AWK
jo: struggling to see net gain.
ak: leave as it is.
... to david's point can address it in 2.1 or silver. Not sure
there is a net gain. feels a little weird.
jo: leave with the weird unless net gain.
<AWK> It is hard to have a general technique that covers programmatically determined link text since programmatic determination varies by technology
gm: in terms of net gain is clarity. move g53 under #8. Wanted example of determinable. trying to meet this sc. no way to point to meeting the sc.
jo; would be helpful in 2.1. for now let's leave it.
jn: if not addressing it, won't reopen it.
jo: objections for not making
change?
... none. will just leave this one.
dm: dont' have to use techniques to meet sc.
RESOLUTION: Not accept changes in Issue 242
<JF> +1 to David - Techniques are always just guidance
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/240
mg: had a whole list to bring up for IBM checklist.
jo: consensus is that it is already covered in 1.3.1.
jf: question is whether h90 is covered in 1.3.2. It's backward. already covered, but not how the choices in survey were presented.
jo: do you want to add h90 in 1.3.1
jf: Sure, but already covered.
jo: i was one who dragged in 3.3.2. no need to add?
<AWK> The question is - "should H90 be listed as a sufficient technique for 1.3.1?"
<jon_avila> No because it alone it is not sufficient just like ARIA 2
mg: purpose to make presentaitons programmatically determinable, if you use symbol then have to have it inside the legend tag to be pd. people with visual issues asterisk will be between label and input, so not pd.
gm: if someone fails to do this would fail.
alastair: have to convey it programmatically in other ways.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H44.html
ak: mike brought up h44, compaer it to h90. h90 is 3.3.2, h44 is 3.3.1. very similar. big difference is procedure more beefed up, takes you through the steps. can see the argument for sufficient for 1.3.1 but only if it's beefed up?
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to refute Marc's claim: <label for="input" aria-required="true">Name</label>*
jf: want to reiterate what JN
said. put asterisk inside the label, so meeting
requirement.
... often will say required="true" in aria, works better.
<jamesn> (also the trend is away from putting asterisks on required fields - and to label optional fields instead in some way - not asterisks of course)
ja: when took survey hard to understand what we were respondign to. in past person putting issue put in proposed response. would be helpful if proposal were clearer.
jo: would you like h90 as a technique for 3.3.1.
ja: would have to make it more robust.
jo: mg would you like to work on it?
ak: not being punitive... :^)
jo: does anyone want to take it on.
mg; would take on h44
ak: comgning h90 into h44?
mg: yes
<jon_avila> recommend not to combine h44 and h90
mg: will go back to look at it.
RESOLUTION: to keep #240 open
<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0434.html
<AWK> Submission form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7jxkMzK4HbzK0cyyBnkv3cKFJL_ahIwIcbHao7qOZLyDy-w/viewform
jeanne: email to wcag list about
stakeholder form for silver.
... one of key things is identifying large group who will be
stakeholders (for first phase: research).
... ppl who outside of wcag, who are thought leaders,
developers, etc. who use silver and are influential in how
industry going. wanted to invite members of wcag, then general
public for suggestions.
... stakeholders not joining task force. TF will reach out to
them for guidance and advice. send surveys to htem, interview,
ask to keep record how using wcag, meeting in december to put
together all these names adn their role in industry.
... stakeholder map. a balanced group of people who will cover
all aspects of how ppl use silver now and in future.
jo: what do you need from the group? just an update?
<jeanne> Form <- https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7jxkMzK4HbzK0cyyBnkv3cKFJL_ahIwIcbHao7qOZLyDy-w/viewform
jeanne: want group to suggest stakeholders. here's the form!
ak: if ppl know ppl who are developers, etc. concerened with a11y fill out list so we have broad outreach.
jeanne: Thx to laura. Need disability organizations. Want to reach out beyond WAI. rare disabilities, ppl who we haven't reached out to before. As well as existing.
jo: okay with going out to lists?
jeanne: wait a week so we can provide context (what silver is).
jo: get people's attention.
jeanne: will put in effort this week. want feedback--take a test drive. hopefully will send link out to group, distribute it broadly.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if I should prompt contacts at DOJ, DOT, etc.
bb: if you want to hear from federal ppl.
jeanne: absolutley. have policy makers as term.
makoto: chairman, so should I distribute to committe?
jeanne: Yes would suggest oen or two ppl Can be organizaitons, doesn't have to be ppl.
Makoto: will do.
jeanne: international organizations. don't want to be us-centric
<AWK> Korean group = NIA
jemma: should include NIA.
bb: tried to fill out for access board. didn't work well for organization, seems best for individuals.
jeanne: name field should be name or organization.
ak: form does not have any
required fields.
... silver group would still need info.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say form is not well suited to organization
jeanne: could put name of organization and person for contact.
jf: reiterate what jeanne said, international is important. Jonathan hassel from UK, for example. need international feedback.
jo: moving on
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
jo: will have to resurvey. May
not met needs of dpub working group.
... frame what you need from us.
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/16
<Joshue108> Request to consider inclusion of accessibility metadata
<jemma> In terms of stakeholder group in Korea, NIA(National Information Society Agency (NIA), http://eng.nia.or.kr/english/eng_nia.asp) will be interested in the work.
<tzviya> DPUB IG published a note mentioning metadata as well: https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/#discoverability
<jemma> my link is about stakeholder submission form agenda.
mattg: meta data has com to the fore in dpub. from IMS access for all metadata. for the WWW. as we're developing our own accessibility content. need to allow discovery in bookstores.
<DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted
mg: is this valuable? should bit be guidance for accessibility metadata? don't have strong opionion of hwo to integreate with wcag.
tzviya: coming from many areas, assessments, digital pub interest group. wld be appreciated win web community to discover what is accessible. if website has captioning, if there is flashing content, for example.
katie: an extension we tried to
get into 2.0. dublin core. need an expanded version for content
accessibility, component accessibility. May be hard to handle
for 2.1, but need to identify accessibility or alternative
content that is accessible.
... now have support in pub community.
ak: agree. tremendous utility in
having available. My question is what actually exists in
tooling. concern that put in "must use metadata" would apply to
all web content. have to either scope it down. conforming
alternative may have to include what it includes that is
different.
... may be silver or 2.1.
<laura> If it is for conformance, would ACT TF be involved?
jo: my concersn are similar. dpub may be special use cases. how content is defined or packaged. does dpubl require special consideration.
jf: touched on it. maturity of tools. are we seeing a strong push to meet reality rather than aspiration. all for metadata, but make a sc seems too soon. not aware of tools taht are supporting a11y metadata.
mattg: search engines are picking up on it. can do a custom serach on google.
jf: if ppl not doing it or if difficult to do, question whether it should be mandated.
dm: was at tpac and there was an
issue filed back in the day about metadata. something we've
wanted to do for some time. 5 months ago revisited issue. don't
really know what schema it is, or what is being done.
... should survey the field, see what is going on...actually
agree with jf, which is remarkable...
... see if there's anything in next two years, otherwise silver
in 4 years.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if best practices would be preferred over requirement
tzviya: schema dot 2 is being
used by search engines. don't need a requirement for dpub, best
practice would be fine. expect to write in next year, will have
examples.
... would love to see as best practice. all done in github.
would appreciate having input.
alistar: will have to look at pwa, can include some techniques.
jo: packaged content. before moving forward dpub would like wcag to help, reach out to matt and tzviya. don't want to push entirely down the road. cases we can start to look at now.
katie: shold implement waht we talked about. work as wll as can idpf (?). start the best practices component in 2.1.
wilco: also looking at evaluations, sounds very similar.
jo: encourage everyone to talk off line.
<Ryladog> As well as supporting our new Consortium partner IDPF
jo: can you come back next week?
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to set context for the DPUB requests for the WCAG people
t: yes.
<DavidMacDonald> Can the DPUB folks pop emails to the list so we can contact you etc...
ak: just wanted to set context
that these items for dpub we are in position should be
evaluating whether they should be in 2.1 or not. may say yes,
or deal with techniqus or understanding chagnes.
... at the point where we are making these decisions.
<Rachael> Have a good week.
bye all
<laura> bye.
<Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/don't put space between + and/don't put space between your names/ Succeeded: s/Mike to work/Mike Gower to work/ Succeeded: s/address it in 2.1/address it in 2.1 or silver/ Succeeded: s/covers programmatically determined/covers programmatically determined link text/ Succeeded: s/tzvia/tzviya/ Succeeded: s/ibpf/idpf/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge Inferring Scribes: Mike_Elledge Default Present: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Kim, DavidMacDonald, alastairc, kirkwood, Srini, Laura, Makoto, Joshue108, Mike_Gower, Wilco, JF, jon_avila, Charles_LaPierre, marcjohlic, Katie, Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, JaEunJemmaKu, Rachael WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, steverep, DavidMacDonald, Bruce_Bailey) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Srini, DavidMacDonald, alastairc) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Kim, DavidMacDonald, alastairc, kirkwood WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Kim, DavidMacDonald, alastairc, kirkwood, Srini, Laura, Makoto, Joshue108, Wilco, JF, jon_avila, Charles_LaPierre, marcjohlic) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Kim, DavidMacDonald, alastairc, kirkwood, Srini, Laura, Makoto, Joshue108 Present: jeanne Tzviya mattg Sarah AWK Greg_Lowney Mike Elledge Bruce_Bailey steverep Kim DavidMacDonald alastairc kirkwood Srini Laura Makoto Joshue108 Katie Haritos-Shea MichaelC JaEunJemmaKu Rachael Regrets: Moe_Kraft KathyW Found Date: 15 Nov 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: gowerm mikegower WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]