<MyNickname> is Joshue108

<MyNickname> MyNickname is Joshue108

<AWK> Chair: Joshue

<laura> resent+ Laura

<AWK> Scribe: Jeanne

<Wilco> Put me down for december 13th :)

<gowerm> I can take one

<gowerm> Jan 3

<scribe> scribenick: jeanne

COGA feedback requested https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/ 

JO: this is a heads-up from COGA for feedback on their success criteria

<KimD> +KimD

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/

JO: please have a look and give feedback

<kirkwood__> I can access

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/

JO: this is the first request, there will be more in the next few weeks.

DPUB business

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results

JO: I don't have a firm agenda for this topic. I want to wrap up the issues left over from the previous meetings.
... I want to make sure we have resolutions and next steps.

Tzviya: We had a DPUB meeting yesterday. We had a mini-agenda based on our discussion in the meeting with WCAG last week

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef

Tzviya: 1) the WCAG concept as a "set of web pages" which David had suggested might fit.
... we talked about adding an additional example to the definition

<tzviya> Example: A publication is split across multiple Web pages, where each page contains one chapter or other significant section of the work. The publication is logically a single contiguous unit, and contains navigation features that enable access to the full set of pages.

Tzviya: Matt Garrish proposed some language (above)
... this way ok with the DPUB group. It's intentionally broad.

<DavidMacDonald> +1

<Joshue108> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

AWK: Just so I'm clear. You are proposing that the line become a part of the existing definition. If we think that the current definition already covers this, I would prefer that it be handled in the Understanding doc, so it doesn't change people's interpretation of the definition.

<DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef

Katie: Why would we not add it to the definition? We are adding it to 2.1, it is backwards compatible, and we are only adding an example.
... I think we should include it.

<bruce_bailey> web page definition included examples

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef

Tzviya: the proposal is to add this example to the existing definition.

Josh: Adding it to the definition would be a more public endorsement.

David: I think it is good to add it as an example. It doens't change the definition. The words are the same. It shows that we are embracing a new thing. The Understanding document doesn't get as much.

ack {

<Joshue108> ack {

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it does change the normative meaning

JonA: Is this for the definition of page, or set of pages?

Josh: Set of pages

AWK: I don't agree, there is no where in WCAG that it says that Notes or Examples are not normative. I want to be careful because it is normative. I can go either way, I just want to be careful that there are specific and real benefits to doing so. There are also some costs.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef

Josh: Michael? Do you see any way that it is changing the normative definition?

<jon_avila> set of Web pages collection of Web pages that share a common purpose and that are created by the same author, group or organization Note: Different language versions would be considered different sets of Web pages.

<Joshue108> Example: A publication is split across multiple Web pages, where each page contains one chapter or other significant section of the work. The publication is logically a single contiguous unit, and contains navigation features that enable access to the full set of pages.

Josh: There seems to be broad consensus, but it will need to be a survey to the larger group.

Mike: This seems to be a sweeping decision to add digital publishing. Is there any conflict with the WCAG applying to the digital publishing world?

Katie: The US government is including electronic documents to add WCAG. I don't see how it breaks backward compatibility.

Mike: I just raise it because it raises a broad set of standards to apply to specifically to digital documents. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is a problem.

Steve: I have no objection. I'm looking at the existing defintion, which is already broad. I think that if you put one example, you should have more examples to keep the definition broad.

Josh: We have other definitions elsewhere.

Steve: But one example focuses a broad defintiion down to a narrow.

Josh: Are there other areas where we have definitions that need more examples?

David: We aren't making new defintions, it always applied to a set of pages. We used set of pages because we couldn't define a "web site" because we couldn't define where is started and stopped. This adds some clarity to it. We could add more examples, but we have plenty of definitions that only have one example. It's the best fit for digital publishing.

Avneesh: Clarifications: We have already done the ePub accessibility publications. Most other things in WCAG that apply to dPub. Everything in WCAG applies to digital publishing.
... books are ready online and offline. The strategy of W3C to apply to digital publishing. It is the best first example to get into the WCAG. This is the first step.

<AWK> AWK made Issue 72 for this: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/72

<clapierre> 1+ for all of Avneesh's comments and this was our Gap analysis from DPUB http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/

RESOLUTION: To route Issue-72 for approval

Tzviya: 2) Metadata: I know there was a lot of discussion on how to treat metadata

<tzviya> https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature

<tzviya> http://pending.schema.org/

Tzviya: Schema.org includes accessibility features already. The pending schema.org features will be approved in a few weeks, before the FPWD of 2.1.
... DPUB is proposing these are included in WCAG 2.1 in some way. We propose including them as a Best Practice, Technique or AAA success criteria. We want consensus today on the best way to include them.

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html

Katie: I want to do an update to the Metadata Appendix that was written in 2006. I haven't been able to meet with the people yet, but hopefully we will have something we can go forward with.

Josh: Tzviya, do you have a preference?

Katie: A Technique has to support a success criteria, and I don't think you have success criteria to attach it too.

Josh: I was going to say that I don't think Techniques will work. Tzviya, how do you feel about this being a Best Practice?

Tzviya: we were ok with Best Practice, but I understood from last week that we dont' have a category of Best Practice.

<DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html

Katie: Chaas McCathie Neville said he would like to see it as a level AA success criteria

<DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility

David: I was looking at accessibility features that have already been approved.
... theere is a certain amount of overlap, there are checklist-type things.
... if there is a metadata tag for WCAG-conforming and the level. That would fit in with what we already have
... the technologies relied on would also helpful. I don't think we can require it.

Josh: I don't think it could be a best practice.

Katie: It would be multiple

<Rachael> +1 aaa success criteria

Katie: let's agree on AAA success criteria

AWK: Which issue in the repository -- which metadata would apply to existing success criteria. If we can establish, "no that's not the case" then we can talk about AAA success criteria.

<DavidMacDonald> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/17

Katie: resource discovery would be alternative. This would deal with 1.2, 2.2

<laura> Request to consider inclusion of accessibility metadata #16 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/16

<Ryladog> Metadata for Resources Discovery, could have Techiques are 1.1.1 Long Descriptions, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5

Avneesh: These two are most useful. Others are access mode (audio, visual, tactile)

Charles: The other is accessibility hazards

<DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility

<tzviya> existing schema.org accessibitlity features: https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature

<tzviya> pending features http://pending.schema.org/ (search on accessibility)

Katie: Resource discovery for tactical map. That's additional. What are you talking about for tactile?

<clapierre> For Hazards this is the link https://schema.org/accessibilityHazard

Avneesh: We see tactile in several forms. There is a requirement for alternative content. We want to help with discovery. A publication could be availalbe totally in braille, for example.

Tzviya: The accessibiltiy feature can have a value of MathML, so someone can discover that the resource includes math, or braille, for example

Steve: THis is the kind of success criteria that would allow people to search on specific types of content, like on YouTube. This is a success criteria that describes pre-termined information to the user.
... it would need some work in the definition, e.g. a document described as MathML wouldn't be entirely MathML, so the defintiion would need some work.

<Joshue108> ack

Wilco: It sort of conforms to WCAG, but not exactly. I think this introduces confusion. For example, if we say it is keyboard accessible, does that mean it passes "2.1.1, 2.1.2 or 2.1.3" Without more work on what maps where, we would be introducing confusion. We need it mapped to WCAG.

<steverep> Completely agree, but that's a schema.org issue and why it should be advisory at first

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say do we have a draft technique for this?

George: I do believe it is very valuable in discovery. The human readable description can clarify what is there. In tactile, having a link to the 3D model or swelling paper and having that information in the metadata is very valuable.

Josh: Have we got a Technique for this? Could you put together a sample Success Criteria

<gowerm> The value I've heard mentioned seems to be largely linked to available content at a macro level: CC, audio description... That makes sense to possibly include as a AAA for those SC that deal specifically with content 1.2.1-1.2.5. But most WCAG SC are not so macro-content related.

<jon_avila> It can't be a sufficient technique unless it allows you to pass a success criteria

Tzviya: I can write something, I just need to know what to write.

Katie: We can do it in the next week.

Josh: It makes more sense to me as a success criteria. Let's see some proposals.

Katie: can we go beyond the Dec 1 date?

Josh: I think so. It is important.

<DavidMacDonald> SC XXXX Metatdata: Metadata is provided which describes the accessibility characteristics of the content

<jon_avila> Thank you Josh, I have been waiting for the last 3 weeks to talk about low vision success criteria

<Ryladog> Thanks David!

Tzviya: For those concerned about wording on Schema.org wording. The DPUB group controls that wiki. If you have concerns about wording, send them to me or Matt Garrish and we will work something out.

RESOLUTION: Katie to work on text for proposed success criteria metadata with others.

Tzviya: We want to update Appendix C

<Ryladog> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html

<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2

<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-1

Katie: The information for Schema.org wasn't available then, and it needs to be updated.

<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2v1

<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-A

<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-AA

<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-AAA

New SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results

New SC proposal - Issue 10: Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum)

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10

<gowerm> Yep

Josh: In terms of votes, 5 have accepted it. 9 accepted with changes. 1 Do not accept.

<jamesn> Request forbidden by administrative rules.

Wilco: I posted several issues in Github which are already posted. It seems like there are loopholes that need to be addressed before we progress.

Josh: In the broaders sense, can we work things out or are there things that are show-stoppers that are completely wrong.

Wilco: I think all these things can be worked out.

Katie: These are new and need to have details that need to be worked out.

<laura> Thank you, Wilco.

Josh: So if you think it is totally off-base we need to know. We will discuss improvements.

Wilco: I didn't approve with changes because it needs so much work.

<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to talk about the disabled items

Josh: I see that no one has commented on the GH issues.

<jon_avila> We need to find other ways to communicate disabled items

JamesN: The major thing that needs to be worked out is "disabled items". It makes them look like non-disabled items. This adds a great deal of confusion. I think it is a non-starter unless it has a low contrast which is also a non-starter.

<gowerm> +1 lower contrast threshhold for disabled item

Glenda: Thank you to Wilco for making all these comments

<Wilco> +1 on disabled, that was one of my points as well

<jon_avila> Disabled items are there to give you clues about what is available and what might be options. People with low vision should have access to that information

Glenda: Wilco and I will work together on a specific proposal.

Katie: We need to have discussion on making a decision to change the paradigm.

<Joshue108> +1 to developing concensus on disabled items and suitable contrast

Katie: everyone should put their informaiton in Github issue

Josh: Do you mean not to put comments in WBS?

Katie: No, I just mean to put comments in GH.

JonA: We need to think how disabled items can be conveyed more effectively. It is valuable information that people iwth low vision need. There is text, there is other content to help you get it un-dsiabled. We need to think beyond what has always been done.

Josh: We welcome paradigm-busting and new ideas.

<kirkwood__> +1 to jon avila

<Glenda> +1 to jon

<laura> +1 to jon

MikeG: I want to echo what Jon has said. There are a lot of content out there which would be non-conforming if we changed this.
... I want to suggest a 3rd level of ratio that covers disabled item that is lower than 3.1

<Ryladog> +

MikeG: you can't always see what is in disabled field, but it is at least a trigger that more needs to be discovered.

<DavidMacDonald> What about an icon to indicate disabled?

<Ryladog> Yes David

Glenda: Wayne Dick said that we need to see the disabled control. It is an old paradigm. I think about unavailable unavailable airline seat are marked with an X

<DavidMacDonald> That's lighthouse

<AWK> Lighthouse

<AWK> 4.5 was a negotiated value

Glenda: who are the people who established the original people who worked on the ratios for the original 2.0

<DavidMacDonald> http://www.lcfvl.org/

Katie: Gregg Vanderheiden

Shawn: We need some other way, just because it was always done this way doesn't mean it should continue.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if SC 1.4.3 AA 4.5 ratio "Incidental: Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface component ... have no contrast

Katie: It would be backward compatible

<gowerm> Fair enough, Katie.

Bruce: My question is answered by Katie, I wondered if changing the minimum contrast ratio would break backward compatibility.

David: I like JonA's idea of a new paradigm. Perhaps a new icon.

Josh: Has anyone reached out to the COGA group to see if they are working on it?

Glenda: I will reach out.

John: I am on the COGA TF.

<Glenda> +q

Mike: I am concerned with the meaning of "perimeter". WE need to distinguish between the inner and outer edge. If you have a white border on a black outline. If the focus indicator example, you need to distinguish between the inner and outer indicator.
... a lower contrast ratio than 3:1, we need more ability to distinguish between the focus indicator, @@, and @@.

<DavidMacDonald> A bit of history... originally in WCAG we ddid not have an exception for disabled items. SAP negotiated that into WCAG in the last year

Josh: Who on LVTF on the call is going to take responsibility for adapting the feedback from this call?

Glenda: I volunteer to be responsible.

<DavidMacDonald> Alex Li of SAP (now at Microsoft) negotiated the exception for disabled items.

AWK: Once these proposals are submitted, they are the WCAG WG's responsibility. We may need to ask questions of the task force, but I expect that everyone on the call should be taking responsibility to engage on these issues.

<DavidMacDonald> s/nogotiation/negotiation

Josh: Now the working group owns these success criteria, so share your knowledge and expertise and wade in on the issues and comments.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about issues within issues in git hub

RESOLUTION: Glenda to work on an updated proposal on Disabled Item Success Criteria proposal

Bruce: I am concerned about issues within issues in Github. There used to be better tools.

Josh: It gets time to get used to, but I encourage you to start using the tools and be a part of the discussion.

New SC proposal - Issue 9: Informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum)

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9

Laura: I started that proposal and Alastair picked up on it.

Josh: Mostly approvals and a few comments.

Wilco: Most of the same issues as the previous issue

Josh: Is there anything that is way off, that you can't work with.

Wilco: it needs another pass at it.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about photographs and paintings in LVTF discussions

Laura: I can collaborate with Alastair to revise the proposal based on the comments in the WBS and this meeting

RESOLUTION: Laura and Alistair to work on an updated proposal on Informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum)

Bruce: How does the LVTF address paintings and photographs? It is not clear that they are exempted from 9 & 10.

Glenda: I thought it was covered by "Important Information" but we need to have a specific exemption for that.

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/defintion/definition/
Succeeded: s/mormative/normative/
Succeeded: s/"2.1, 2.2 or 2.3"/"2.1.1, 2.1.2 or 2.1.3"/
Succeeded: s/?? are marked as ??/unavailable airline seat are marked with an X/
FAILED: s/nogotiation/negotiation/
Succeeded: s/nogotiated/negotiated/
Found Scribe: Jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found ScribeNick: jeanne

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, Srini, alastairc, Tzviya, mattg, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, DavidMacDonald, Avneesh, JF, kirkwood, bruce_bailey, jeanne, Glenda, Wilco, Kathy, Joshue108, steverep)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK


WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, Joshue, Wilco, Bruce_Bailey, Greg_Lowney, Srini, Laura, Avneesh, steverep, Charles_LaPierre, Tzviya, Mike_Gower, Joshue108, Makoto, Jim_S, Lauriat, jeanne, Glenda, MichaelC, kirkwood)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, Joshue, Wilco, Bruce_Bailey, Greg_Lowney, Srini, Laura, Avneesh, steverep, Charles_LaPierre, Tzviya, Mike_Gower, Joshue108, Makoto, Jim_S, Lauriat, jeanne, Glenda

Present: AWK Avneesh Bruce_Bailey Charles_LaPierre DavidMacDonald George Glenda Greg_Lowney James_Nurthen Jim_S Joshue Joshue108 Laura Lauriat Makoto Mike_Gower Srini Tzviya Wilco jeanne jon_avila marcjohlic steverep Katie_Haritos-Shea Mike Elledge Rachael
Regrets: Alastair_Campbell JohnF Kathy_Wahlbin
Found Date: 29 Nov 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: