Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

21 Feb 2017

See also: IRC log


David-MacDonald, Detlev, Greg_Lowney, JF, Laura, Lauriat, MichaelC, MikeGower, Wilco, adam_lund, alastairc, jeanne, marcjohlic, mattg, shwetank, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, Makoto, MaryJoMueller, Joshue108, Jim_S, kirkwood, jon_avila, Kathy, KimD, Pietro, bruce_bailey
Wilco, Detlev


<interaccess> np

<Detlev> can't find password in IRC meeting room header

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

We are using a new IRC channel. #ag

AWK: We are using the #AG channel, not the #wcag channel

Joining AGWG – WCAG members need to rejoin. Don’t delay!

AWK: If you haven't rejoined under AGWG, you need to do that. For invited experts there is a process, see e-mail sent about this
... we haven't checked who dropped off. If you are working for a member company, you need to be asigned by them
... check with your AC rep or one of us

MC: Been keeping track, 3/4 have joined, but some major companies have not
... I'll start pinging people individually soon

FPWD Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/

AWK: Important item, do we send this document out for FPWD


AWK: 3 people yes, 17 yes with changes, 2 say no
... james voted no, he's not on the call now, he had not enough time for review
... there are another 2 days for the call

BB: Can we vote in another 2 days?

AWK: If we assume at the end of the discussion, the people on the call say yes, then we will put out a CfC on the list
... unless there are major objectsions, we're trying to get it out for public review
... if the concern is that there isn't enough time to review, that is understandable, but we are saying that there is no full consensus by the WG
... but if you found major issues that you feel reflect poorly, or will be a bigger problem then them being late, those should be brought up

<gowerm> +1 for Laura's Animation from Interaction

AWK: we'll go though the comments. Laura is suggested adding an additional SC
... I had put in my initial response, not everything had been selected. We reached out to all TF facilitators to get their view, which were most ready
... looked at those and brought in PRs from that.

Laura: This one isn't associated with any TF. It would benefit from outside feedback.

<Detlev> +1 for taking orphan SC in

<laura> It would benefit from additional outside feedback regarding vestibular disability research. And implications for other disabilities.

<laura> The SC is not sponsored by Task Force so has automatically been left out.

AWK: I recognize that puts it at a disadvantage, but I want to emphasise that we'll be doing additional reviews
... this is the first, but there will be more.

<laura> When?

<Joshue108> CR ETA by Jan 2018

<Joshue108> PR April 2018

<Joshue108> REC June 2018

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/project

<Detlev> sure

<Detlev> yes

<AWK> Scribe: Detlev

David: suggests to include the one additional SC proposed by Alastair

Andrew: has included changes about SC that required user testing (plain language)

OK go

<Wilco_> AWK: Did people have any thoughts or questions about user testing

<Wilco_> Lisa: I'm not sure why it's an advantage to do that. For the sake of getting through the call, I'd like to have a note there that we need to go back to that

<Wilco_> MC: Your PR removes the definition for reliable and achievable, which seems to be unrelated to the change

<Wilco_> ... It's referenced from minimizing errors

<Wilco_> AWK: I took it out because it talked about user testing

<Wilco_> ... I took that out because it seemed to hinge on user testing, and we've never specified techniques to say yes or no to anything

<Wilco_> MC: We then need to unlink

<Wilco_> Lisa: We need a definition here

<Wilco_> AWK: Not sure what the resolution of this is

<Wilco_> MC: Are we accepting the PR, I'll edit the PR now and we can merge it

<Wilco_> AWK: does it sound okay to everyone?

<Wilco_> AWK: Wayne, you indicated that you want a disclaimer, because you say github is inaccessible

<Wilco_> WD: Patrick salved the github problem yesterday, we can use it now. I think we should take the WG seriously that they think enlargement without wrapping is not accessibility supported

<Wilco_> ... I think maybe we should look at the tools we use for this process, see what they are and how to have workarounds so memebers with disabilities can participate

<Wilco_> ... Willing to withdraw this. I would appreciate some effort from the group. A lot of us can't participate

<Wilco_> ... even the survey are hell to go through because they don't meet the SCs.

<Wilco_> MC: We know of these issues. I've been working on a proposal to improve this process. But I can't implement it until after CSUN

<Wilco_> ... as soon as I'm back I'll work on improving the review process

<Wilco_> ... In terms of general a11y issues of the tools. We're aware of those issues and are looking into them. They aren't as easy to resolve

<gowerm> noise on line

<Wilco_> WD: We have a workaround, but I want to adress this. I want more people to participate in the discussion. I think you're right, people won't get this done until after CSUN

<Wilco_> ... I think it's good enough. Patrack, and I think James put solutions on the list. I think maybe we should put them on the WAI-IG list

<Wilco_> ... We should have thos suggestions somewhere

<Wilco_> MC: we're tracking this in W3C

<Wilco_> Lisa: We have the same problem. Most of us can't participate in this process. We've kicked up a fuss because it is a problem

<Wilco_> ... The new SCs need to be conformant to, so we can get equal participation.

<Wilco_> Josh: The chairs are aware of (a11y) issues people are having. We will address them after CSUN. We put a lot of thought into a11y about new tools like github. There are new challanges

<Wilco_> ... what I would appreciate is if we could keep it off the WCAG list. Feel free to e-mail the chairs, but I would appreciate you e-mail me

<Wilco_> ... we hope to solve issues in the next few weeks. We will need input from those users aswell

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say PR 148 updated

<Wilco_> WD: I want to repeat the action is good. A lot of this was avoidable, this was available weeks ago.

<Wilco_> ... I hope we find a way to let people know that we put these fixes in place

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/148/files

<Wilco_> AWK: Michael updated the PR in this link

<Wilco_> ... to indicate the term is under revision

<Wilco_> ... leaves it in a place where we won't forget about it and invite comments

<alastairc> seems fine for this draft.

<Wilco_> ... anyone object?

<Wayne> +1

<Wilco_> Lisa: We did lose a lot of exceptions. We will get kickback

<Wilco_> MC: two have been edited, one is removed

<Wilco_> ... there is a pointer to the issue

<Wilco_> ... can we merge?

<marcjohlic> +1 to pr and merging

<Wilco_> AWK: Unless people object, we can merge

<Wilco_> WD: Josh convinced me about user testing

<Joshue108> yeah - ethics is a concern

<Wilco_> AWK: Any objectsions to merge? No objections, moving on

<Wilco_> Michael: it is in the introduction, it says "not all proposals in the above list ..."

<Wilco_> AWK: Does that work for you Kathy?

<Wilco_> Kathy: Yes, works for me

<Wilco_> lisa: include "Most of which will be included in subsequent drafts"

<Wilco_> ... we want to say the concerns are met.

<marcjohlic> +1 to MC's reword

<Wilco_> AWK: I don't think we can predict what will get in

<Wilco_> Lisa: can live with it

<Wilco_> AWK: Lisa's comments are next

<Wilco_> MC: my comment partly addresses your comment

<Wilco_> Lisa: You said the TF facilitators had been asked. But I found out yesterday, it was in the survey, I couldn't possibly read every other response. I didn't know of the draft before

<Ryladog> I had the same problem Lisa!

<Wilco_> ... some things that were tagged high priority were excluded. The result is, two mature high priority were not included. And one had old wording

<Wilco_> ... Can we use the new wording?

<Wilco_> AWK: let's deal with this first, then the other 2

<Wilco_> Lisa: I think the language SC is easy, we have better wording now. Less controvertial, smaller scope, etc

<Wilco_> ... it is in the survey. Added the extra definition and the exception

<Wilco_> MC: I got that wrong in my branch, I wanted to check with you on that.

<Wilco_> ... I have a branch that has it. I'll try to fix it with this instruction

I thought we had agreed to take out 2aLSO ON CONTROLS2 IN pLAIN LANGUAGE 8MINIMUM9

<gowerm> @detlev, controls is no longer there

<Wilco_> AWK: Michael has a PR, it still falls under not full consensus, but it seems reasonable to update.

I thought we had agreed to take out "Also on controls"

<Wilco_> JF: I'm not clear what we're voting on. I'm concerned. Are we going to get to everything?

<Wilco_> AWK: This is the highest priority item today

<Wilco_> ... I'm hoping we can get through lisa's issues

<Wilco_> MC: I've updated the proposed issue, should I merge?

<Wilco_> AWK: Adjusted where the exception was, added a definition

<mhakkinen> +q

<Ryladog> +1 - thanks MC for editing on the fly

<Wilco_> Marc: Since this is an international document, should there be a reference to i18n

<Wilco_> Lisa: It is in the exceptions, but it had user testing.

<AWK> "In languages where present tense and active voice do not exist, or are not clearer in the language of the content, use the tense and the voice that are clearest for the content."

<Wilco_> MC: I've restored all the exceptions, user testing is removed, but everything is back

<JF> +1 to Andrew

<Wilco_> AWK: This exception speaks to one aspect, there is more work to do before we have consensus. Additional exceptions may be needed

<marcjohlic> +1 (this is just a starting point)

<JF> +1 to Lisa's point

<Wilco_> Lisa: There are issues with every SC that hasn't gone through. We shouldn't try to go through these issues on this call

<JF> we are getting bogged down in the weeds.

<Ryladog> +1 to Lisa

<Wilco_> ... there has been a lot of consideration for non-european languages

<Wilco_> ... we don't want to delve into more things. We won't finish the conversation.

<Wilco_> AWK: We need to get through the comments

<Wilco_> JF: I think this SC will need a lot of discussion

<Wilco_> ... I want to be sure that just because it is in the FPWD today, doesn't mean it will be here a year from now

<Wilco_> Lisa: There are two SCs that were more mature. There was support personalization minimum

<Wilco_> ... it is a much smaller scope. We took out the second half of the SC.

<Wilco_> ... We feel strongly this should be in the draft. It also relates to a hackathon at CSUN

<Wilco_> AWK: We wouldn't suggest people do active development based on any of these

<Wilco_> Lisa: The more time people have, the better

<Wilco_> ... There was one that got rejected, this one is much smaller now. It just hadn't been looked at, Michael wasn't aware there was new wording

<Wilco_> AWK: I would like to move forward, noted, support personalization, and managable blocks, we'll bring it up at the end

<Wilco_> MC: I didn't think it was ready because I was looking at an older version. We could include them

<Wilco_> AWK: Green says new, the other says proposed.

<Wilco_> MC: I would argue that color isn't the only way to convey information.

<Wilco_> JF: ok

<Wilco_> MC: I had substantial editorial comments

<Wilco_> AWK: These look editorial. hyphens, spacing, glosary links. What are the ones that you feel might be on the edge?

<Wilco_> MC: Added a definition for orientation. Also added links to some CSS Specs, made them normative references

<Wilco_> ... many of the definitions were put into the format of WCAG 2

<Wilco_> ... I tried to not lose content when doing it

<gowerm> +1

<Wilco_> AWK: This seems okay to me, what do others think?

<KimD> +1 to MC's changes

<laura> +1

<alastairc> +1

<marcjohlic> +1 with these changes from MC https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/147/files

<Ryladog> +1

<Wayne> +1

<jeanne> +1 for MC changes

<Joshue108> +1

<Kathy> +1

<Jim_S> +1

<Makoto> +1


<Wilco_> AWK: Any objections? None

<Wilco_> Alistair: Can live with this LVTF SC, we're unclear if it works so it could get comments.

<Wilco_> ... also wanted to ask how the draft will be announced. Framing will be key I think

<Wilco_> MC: I've got a draft announcement, They are under review from Judy & Shawn, I can have them available to the group in 2 days

<Wilco_> AWK: We should include that we are looking for feedback

<Wayne> +20

<Wilco_> BB: Michael is doing a whole bunch of work, I want Michael to know we've got his back if there is a problem

<Ryladog> +1 to Bruce

<Wilco_> MC: My main worry is will we get very difficult feedback. I think the introduction help, and the announcements should do so aswell.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we have covered MC

<Wilco_> AWK: Comments from Mike, questioning some of the SC language, the route of the draft. Are any of your concerns severe?

<Wilco_> Mike: Can live with it

<Wilco_> AWK: Planning WAIC meeting to review

<Wilco_> Makoto: Sorry for not having enough time to review, but I will review each SC and I'll make a comment on i18n and language issues

<laura> Thank you, Makoto

<Wilco_> Marc: I'm all good

<Wilco_> Detlev: There is orientation, which fits better under 2.6

<Wilco_> AWK: You were suggesting to move 261 to 2.5, and 2.6.2 should that go there aswell?

<Wilco_> Detlev: Orientation should go there

<Wilco_> ... and device sensors

<David-MacDonald> Some of these success criteria proposals may not have not yet met one or more of the <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>requirements for success criteria. </a> We are seeking feedback on the proposals to determine whether or how they can meet all the requirements, such as being testable, implementable, apply to all content, and apply across all technologies (or how to manage exceptions). In addition, review from[CUT]

<AWK> 2.1.4 to 2.6 GL

<David-MacDonald> internationalization for proposals dealing with language and symbology is requested.

<AWK> 2.5.2 to 2.6

<Wilco_> AWK: 214 should go under 2.6, and 2.5.2 goes to 2.6

<AWK> 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 go to 2.5

<Wilco_> AWK: Jason, you have a few comments. Any items you feel are major blockers, or we can't handle in messaging?

<David-MacDonald> q_+

<laura> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/1026.html

<Wilco_> MC: There is a proposal for a new section in the introduction

<Wilco_> ... it looks repetative

<Wilco_> Jason: It should avoid impression that proposals under consideration are in, it also raises the i18n concerns by explicitly requestiong review on the subject

<Wilco_> ... MC has some changes, if those address the issues that is fine.

<David-MacDonald> zakim

<Wilco_> MC: I propose we add it as a section after the list of new SCs

<Joshue108> yes

<Ryladog> yes

<marcjohlic> +1 willing to hang on

<Makoto> yes

<Ryladog> +1

<Wayne> +1 to talk longer

<Lisa_Seeman> +1

<Jim_S> +1 to hang on

<gowerm> can talk longer

<marcjohlic> +1 to publishing FPWD in its current state

<kirkwood> +1

<laura> +1 willing to hang on

<jamesn> I am concerned but I havent had a chance to review it yet

<Wilco_> +1


<David-MacDonald> +1 talk longer

<steverep> Willing to stay since I'm last

<jeanne> +1 to publish FPWD.

<alastairc> I can't hang on, but not concerned. Would propose to swap out Printing, and put in 2 from Coga and the Animations one. But won't object either way.

<Wilco_> AWK: Assuming we say yes, then we'll do a CfC on the list, and if that does not raise new information, we will route this through and it will published on the 28th of Febuary

<Wilco_> JamesN: Had no time to review

<Wilco_> AWK: It's not ideal, not the way we want to do it in the future

<jeanne> I can't hang on, but I am in favor of publishing.

<Wilco_> David: Gregg had concerned that proposals were going out that not all of them met the requirements for SCs

<Wilco_> ... he was saying to not put those in. I said back that reviewing that would be a long process. But instead of identifying which ones those are, we could ammend the wording

<Wilco_> ... saying they may not meet all the requirements for SCs

<Wilco_> MC: I put in the text Jason refereneced into the text. it is under the SC list

<Wilco_> David: Yes this would work. But some of them do meet all the requirements. Say "They may not yet"

<mhakkinen> +1 to adding "may"

<JF> +1 to adding "may"

<Wilco_> WD: I think "may not" will fix it

<JF> Must leave now. Thanks all, I support the publishing of the FPWD as an important step in our process.

<Wilco_> Lisa: All the new criteria might not survive depending on the feedback

<Wilco_> ... I think this is something we could emphasise

<Wilco_> AWK: Can you live without that?

<Wilco_> Lisa: Can live, but I'm not happy with it

<Wilco_> ... there is enough implied. This is counterproductive

<Wilco_> +1 to having the text

<marcjohlic> I'm OK with the changes

<Wilco_> SR: Some comments were editorial. Most substantial is commin input error definition

<Wilco_> ... conflicting normative and conformative

<Wilco_> AWK: You are using informative to make a normative definition. Reasonable to add a comment

<Wilco_> MC: added this in

<Wilco_> Kim: We're good, everything addressed

<Wilco_> AWK: What hasn't been addressed are Lisa's changes, and comments from Laura about animations from interactive

<Wayne> +1 to add them in despite concerns

<Wilco_> MC: I think they are as good as the others, if the group approves they can merge in

<Wilco_> ... When I went through the list for COGA, managable blocks was not good enough. But it has been updated, it was hard to find.

<Wilco_> ... the text that was there meets the bar

<Wilco_> ... If I had seen that text it would be on the list.

<Wayne> WCAG 2.0 matured a process that began with 1.0. Many of the new SCs never reached 1.0 so we can expect many difficulties

<Wilco_> MC: Plain language is in

<Wilco_> AWK: personalization, managable blocks, and animation from interaction are new

<Wilco_> AWK: We are putting a lot out there that doesn't have consensus

<marcjohlic> +q

<Wilco_> Lisa: These would have gone in if communication hadn't been quite as rushed

<Wilco_> ... the other thing to bare in mind, quite a few people have voted these things should go in

<KimD_> +1 to concerns about non-consensus items out there

<Wilco_> ... not just people from COGA

<Wilco_> WD: I think we can put them in. The taskforces have looked at these and said they are important

<Wilco_> Mike: A problem is that it's not clear what happens next. I would suggest if we have 3 things on the table, we either include them all, or we don't and they get added later

<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask if there are any that are in that you consider not so important wehich could be removed in order to reduce the number of new things for people to review?

<Wilco_> James: Are any that have been proposed not as important, so they can have these instead, there is already lots to review

<Wilco_> Lisa: MC only looked at those that had highest priority tasks. We are 8 disabilities, they are vastly different.

<Wilco_> ... it would be hard to cut

<laura> +q

<bruce_bailey> I have to drop off in 5 min, but +1 to pub.

<Wilco_> Laura: Just to say the animation one had substantial discussion and support. It would benefit from outside feedback

<Wilco_> +1 to putting them in

<Wayne> +1 to all 3

<kirkwood> +1 to all 3

<Ryladog> +1 to putting them in

<Jim_S> +1 to all 3

<steverep> In the interest of saving time: (1) Change "way activate" to "way to activate" in Single Key Shortcuts

<Lisa_Seeman> :)+1 to all 3


<marcjohlic> +1 can live with it - they'd be going in 2 weeks from now anyway

<bruce_bailey> +1 to whatever MC thinks he can do!

<Wilco_> AWK: Any objections?

<Wilco_> ... none. Adding them any

<gowerm> no objection

<Lisa_Seeman> +1

<Wilco_> ... Any objection to a CfC to publish as FPWD

<Wayne> +1

<kirkwood> no objection

<Wilco_> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Jim_S> +1

<Ryladog> +1 to publication

<laura> no objection

<kirkwood> +1


<marcjohlic> no objection


<AWK> AWK will route CFC

<laura> Thanks all.

<Wilco_> AWK: Congrats everyone, thanks for the hard work and effort

<bruce_bailey> bye


<gowerm> now let's improve our process!

<laura> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Publish as FPWD
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/02/21 17:53:40 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/enlargement without wrapping is accessibility support/enlargement without wrapping is not accessibility supported/
Succeeded: s/Michal/Michael/
Succeeded: s/customization/personalization/
Succeeded: s/David/JamesN/
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Scribes: Wilco, Detlev
ScribeNicks: Wilco, Detlev
Present: David-MacDonald Detlev Greg_Lowney JF Laura Lauriat MichaelC MikeGower Wilco adam_lund alastairc jeanne marcjohlic mattg shwetank steverep Katie_Haritos-Shea wayne Makoto MaryJoMueller Joshue108 Jim_S kirkwood jon_avila Kathy KimD Pietro bruce_bailey
Found Date: 21 Feb 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]