IRC log of mobile-a11y on 2017-02-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:53:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mobile-a11y
15:53:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-mobile-a11y-irc
15:53:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #mobile-a11y
15:53:27 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_MATF
15:53:27 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:53:28 [trackbot]
Meeting: Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:53:28 [trackbot]
Date: 23 February 2017
15:53:49 [patrick_h_lauke]
patrick_h_lauke has joined #mobile-a11y
15:54:42 [Kim]
agenda+ Current status of WCAG 2.1 FPWD
15:54:44 [Kim]
agenda+ Technique development for existing SCs (continuation)
15:54:45 [Kim]
agenda+ Next steps
16:00:00 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #mobile-a11y
16:01:31 [Detlev]
present+ Detlev
16:01:58 [marcjohlic]
marcjohlic has joined #mobile-a11y
16:03:13 [patrick_h_lauke]
present+ patrick_h_lauke
16:03:37 [jon_avila]
jon_avila has joined #mobile-a11y
16:03:59 [shadi]
present+
16:05:26 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #mobile-a11y
16:06:28 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #mobile-a11y
16:06:54 [marcjohlic]
present+ marcjohlic
16:07:08 [chriscm]
chriscm has joined #mobile-a11y
16:07:10 [Kathy]
present+ Kathy
16:08:04 [Detlev]
scribe?
16:08:14 [Kim]
TOPIC: where we are with the draft
16:08:19 [Detlev]
scribe: Detlev
16:08:23 [patrick_h_lauke]
https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html
16:08:36 [Kim]
Kathy: there is a first public working draft. We have 10 success criteria that we went through last week that we propose to go into the first public working draft
16:08:59 [Detlev]
scribe: Kim
16:09:23 [Kim]
Kathy: those 10 are marked as being propose but they haven't been fully reviewed by the working group – caveat, everything can be changed, but we did get 10 in there last week. the ones that we took out we recommended to wait till silver based on comments in github
16:09:24 [chriscm]
Sorry, I'm watching my niece today :)
16:09:30 [chriscm]
present+ chriscm
16:10:15 [Kathy]
present+ Kathy
16:10:16 [Kim]
Kathy: there's more discussion that needs to take place. Instead of trying to rush through, trying to change on the fly the decision by the chairs was to have 8-10 success criteria from each of the different taskforces go into the first public working draft so we can start getting comments and feedback on those. That's what the status is of this first public working draft. Any questions?
16:10:45 [Kim]
Marc: is there a discussion going on about folks just not wanting to change any of the existing success criteria?
16:12:50 [Kim]
Kathy: when the decision was made about creating the Trask forces it was voted on that we couldn't make substantial changes to any existing success criteria. 2.1 and 2.0 stay the same with some add-ons. It hasn't been decided that we can change them. Has wider implications – COGA misunderstood and wrote a lot of their success criteria to change existing instead of separate ones. There are a...
16:12:52 [Kim]
...lot of moving pieces that really need to be thought through – implications, what were actually going to do. Until that decision is made we can't really move forward. originally we were thinking of changing 2.1.1, but then there's been a lot of thought in writing keeping at the same.
16:13:22 [Kim]
Kathy: comment – first get comment and then look at the bigger picture – what's going to happen in silver versus 2.1. That's where were at – there's no decisions that have been made to date
16:14:11 [Kim]
Kathy: I didn't want us to try and rush to get something in just because we were on the deadline for first public working draft. We would've had nothing in for mobile because we would not have gotten consensus within a weeks time when we had spent several years developing it. So we will look at it again and the working group will look at it – we'll get there.
16:14:15 [Detlev]
q+
16:14:45 [shadi]
q+
16:15:00 [Kim]
Kathy: CSUN, Shadi Kim and I will be doing a presentation we will be asking for comment on the working draft
16:16:30 [shadi]
ack det
16:16:31 [Kim]
Kathy: they are fine with us working on techniques for existing success criteria and putting them in. Also changes that we think – things like adding a technique. There's still confusion out there about how WCAG applies to mobile
16:16:49 [Detlev]
q-
16:17:10 [Kim]
Shadi: hate to have people stalled. my understanding is techniques are a much more atomic level and will be quite movable depending on how the success criteria is formulated
16:17:16 [shadi]
ack me
16:18:03 [Kim]
Kathy: I think to a certain extent we probably could – we haven't gotten a lot of guidance from working group in how they should be written
16:18:46 [Kim]
Detlev: we started with developing techniques and then moved to developing success criteria, so there's one where I already did something – mobile navigation for narrow break points – don't know whether that could be mapped to some other existing success criteria. There may be others
16:19:39 [Kim]
Detlev: would want to make sure work would be used. we could go through the list and see what can be mapped on to 2.0 success criteria right now and is safe to develop anyway. We would probably be wise not to develop techniques for things that would be going in 3.0 right now
16:20:28 [Kim]
Kathy: we have started going through some of those old ones – from the standpoint of what was done and what we could add and we've got a bunch of actions were were going to be writing techniques or modifying techniques to go into WCAG 2.0 or 2.1, so we have a clear picture of what we can start working on
16:21:17 [Kathy]
http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/
16:21:23 [Kim]
TOPIC: extension document
16:27:35 [Kim]
Kathy: going through determining whether we should keep them in or remove
16:28:00 [Kim]
We left off on 3.3
16:29:08 [Kim]
TOPIC: touchscreen
16:29:47 [patrick_h_lauke]
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/minimize-error-cues.html
16:29:59 [Kim]
Kathy: labels required – that's for everybody not just for people with disabilities
16:30:43 [Kim]
Patrick: adding touchscreen here – clearly stated how the user should act with the page as an example. Beyond that the general sense of this is fine – not sure we need a specific extra technique
16:31:17 [Kim]
Detlev: might get in the way if you didn't have touchscreen – don't see how this could be dealt with independently of the different type of user agent you're using
16:31:49 [Kim]
Patrick: in the example bullet point clearly saying the case of on a touch enabled kiosk or something like that. I know that was it vague enough to interpretation but I think the overall sense that instruction should be given is already in WCAG 2
16:32:44 [Kim]
Marc: in addition to the bullet update one of the existing techniques with another code example where it's kind of obvious that it's untouched voice given instructions that are in the code snippet. G131 or H44, just adding another example
16:33:05 [Kim]
Kathy: originally if it was standard for the platform we weren't going to do that but just if we were creating a custom gesture
16:33:33 [Kim]
Kathy: to a certain extent this is part of the assistive technology – to a certain extent we can rely on assistive technology to provide that information
16:34:09 [Kim]
Patrick: a shortcut way of doing something may be relevant
16:35:00 [Kim]
Kathy: I like your idea of just adding examples in the understanding document. We can also add one to one of the existing – I think we would want to stay away from descriptive label ones and just add more ones on the instructions
16:35:36 [Kim]
Kathy: it sounds like the consensus is that we don't need another technique but we might want to just add an example of minimum to the understanding, possibly add an example to an existing technique
16:35:37 [patrick_h_lauke]
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G131
16:36:36 [Kim]
Detlev: technique 131, it could be written so that using most of what the text there says already – that allows pinch zooming once it detects that the user is navigating with, which it can do on the map itself – then it can say use pinch zoom to zoom into the map – something like that
16:37:13 [Kim]
Patrick: we don't need to go into specifics, just leave it very high level, but at least it mentions the idea that sometimes it might be good to provide these instructions and hints even for things like touch
16:37:45 [Kim]
Kathy: G ones are supposed to be technology independent, H ones are HTML
16:38:04 [Kim]
Patrick: leave it high-level, just touch without saying exactly how
16:38:27 [Kim]
Kathy: any objection to modifying the first example in G131 and adding to the understanding document in 3.3.2
16:38:59 [Kim]
Marc: no objection but we aren't focusing on custom M005
16:40:28 [Kim]
RESOLUTION: have no additional techniques for 3.3.2, just add an example to the understanding documents, write the example that Patrick just did on the fly for G 131
16:42:03 [Kim]
Patrick: originated on BBC mobile but also covered in using appropriate markup – has the effect on mobile that in many cases and then switches to the appropriate keyboard. I'm not sure why exactly its fallen here. Once it switches the keyboard we need to write instructions about this will bring up a numeric keyboard, choose it from here. You would have to sniff exactly which browser, which...
16:42:05 [Kim]
...platform it is. If it is that then I think we've already made the decision that it wasn't necessary.
16:42:38 [Kim]
Kathy: next ones are 3.3.3-3.3.6 we didn't have any specific suggestions for mobile for those, does anyone see any need to add anything for mobile
16:43:06 [Kim]
Kathy: we can skip over 3.4 because that is part of what are doing. That brings us to principal 4, robust
16:43:24 [Kim]
Kathy: 4.1 parsing, does anyone see anything we need to do differently for mobile and parsing
16:43:59 [Kim]
Kathy: 4.2 hamburger menu technique example – that's what M017 was all about
16:44:13 [Kim]
Detlev: that can be far more general
16:44:20 [Kim]
Kathy: looking to see if there is already a technique on that
16:44:49 [Kim]
Patrick: 4.1.2 is more programmatic
16:45:05 [Kim]
Patrick: having a visual representation is not 4.1.2
16:45:34 [patrick_h_lauke]
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat-rsv.html
16:46:06 [Kim]
Patrick: looking for expanded in intent – don't see any sufficient techniques that cover this
16:46:30 [jon_avila]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_the_WAI-ARIA_aria-expanded_state_to_mark_expandable_and_collapsible_regions
16:46:43 [Kim]
Kathy: ARIA 5 – we could add an example there
16:47:04 [patrick_h_lauke]
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/ARIA5
16:47:08 [Kim]
Patrick: simple disclosure widget doesn't have to be specific to a menu – just any kind of disclosure widget, also applies to large screen not just small screen
16:48:01 [Kim]
Kathy: thoughts about putting an example under ARIA 5
16:48:27 [Kim]
Jon: link above to something that was started but never finished by another group
16:48:58 [Kim]
Patrick: this gives a little indication and a few examples – the actual meat of the things that you should do you have to go to the ARIA documentation itself. We could add an example but it will never cover everything very completely
16:49:30 [Kim]
Kathy: or do we want to take the one that was already written and finalize it as a new one – using the wai aria expanded state to mark expandable and collapsible regions
16:49:49 [Kim]
Patrick: putting that into ARIA 5 technique seems appropriate
16:50:57 [Kim]
Jon: at the same time it's like a catch also I don't know that people will look to that for this particular need
16:51:49 [Kim]
Jon: also test procedure – simpler if it split out
16:51:58 [jon_avila]
Agreed - i vote for a separate technique
16:52:09 [Kim]
Kathy: I would vote for having separate rather than ARIA 5 just because ARIA 5 is so broad
16:52:22 [Kim]
Kathy: is anybody against having it separate
16:52:26 [Kim]
no objections
16:53:47 [Kim]
ACTION: Jon to create separate disclosure widget technique for mobile
16:53:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-64 - Create separate disclosure widget technique for mobile [on Jonathan Avila - due 2017-03-02].
16:54:30 [Kim]
TOPIC:
16:55:04 [Kim]
Kathy: add under 2.4.2
16:55:10 [Kathy]
https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/accessible-responsive.html
16:55:20 [Kim]
Detlev: change the title for the new state
16:55:35 [Kim]
Kathy: link – things you may want to think about from responsive design
16:56:01 [Kim]
Kathy: spatial and behavioral cues, issues with different modalities – arrow keys doesn't work with touch, for example
16:57:22 [Kim]
Patrick: some of these are sweeping – example of Google sheets supporting mouse on android. Just going by screen size, on smaller sized viewports and don't say anything about arrow keys is probably not the right approach. Just looking at spatial and behavioral cues not using things like above left – I have a vague feeling that this is already covered in WCAG 2
16:57:30 [Kim]
Kathy: yes you can't use any sensory characteristics
16:57:37 [Kim]
Patrick: I'm not sure that this brings a lot new
16:58:13 [Kim]
Kathy: the other big comment in there was around toggles and focus order – problematic when different screen sizes. Technique around that challenge
16:58:40 [Kim]
Patrick: that would fall under the more general do we need a technique under the focus order and content order SC's
16:58:47 [Kim]
Patrick: I think we've touched on those
16:59:27 [Kim]
Kathy: I just wanted to make sure we had those things covered that Alistair had put out to the list
16:59:58 [Kathy]
Accessible hiding: Where something is visually hidden but can be focused with the keyboard, I tend to fail that under 2.1 Keyboard or Focus visible depending on the content. It seems there could be another technique for this though.
17:00:11 [Kim]
Kathy: accessible hiding – technique on that
17:00:25 [Kim]
Patrick: focus isn't currently visible because it's offscreen
17:01:23 [Kim]
Patrick: if there is a technique the covers this we could write one in cross-reference
17:01:30 [Kim]
Kathy: I'll do research to find if that's already covered
17:02:30 [Kim]
Kathy: there's no meeting next week, majority will be at CSUN. I'll create a list. We have been creating actions we will go on with those waiting for next steps with success criteria. For the next few weeks will be working on finalizing these and getting these submitted. We'll figure out a timeline moving forward once we hear from the working group.
17:02:52 [patrick_h_lauke]
patrick_h_lauke has left #mobile-a11y
17:05:44 [Kim]
zakim, list participants
17:05:44 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Detlev, patrick_h_lauke, shadi, marcjohlic, Kathy, chriscm
17:06:14 [Kim]
Present+ Kim, Jon
17:06:26 [Kim]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:06:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim
17:15:17 [Kim]
regrets+ Henny
17:15:27 [Kim]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:15:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim
17:15:51 [Kim]
chair: Kathleen_Wahlbin
17:16:02 [Kim]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:16:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim
17:17:52 [Kim]
rrsagent, bye
17:17:52 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-mobile-a11y-actions.rdf :
17:17:52 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jon to create separate disclosure widget technique for mobile [1]
17:17:52 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-mobile-a11y-irc#T16-53-47