15:36:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:36:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-ag-irc
15:36:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:36:19 <AWK> +AWK
15:36:19 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:36:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:36:21 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:36:21 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:36:21 <trackbot> Date: 23 March 2017
15:36:29 <allanj> scribe: allanj
15:36:35 <JohnRochford> present+ JohnRochford
15:36:47 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:36:49 <AWK> TOPIC: Dependence on User Agents/Accessibility Support and what this means for WCAG SC
15:36:51 <laura> present+ Laura
15:37:01 <ScottM> present+ ScottM
15:37:42 <allanj> awk: bruce - control contrast. do we think that default browser focus is good enough.
15:38:22 <alastairc> Difference is that the focus isn't there until you focus, LV people need to have the border there to see it in the first place.
15:38:41 <allanj> ... if SC, focus had to have 4.5:1 and UA don't support, and authors can make change. can we set expectations that authors should make it better
15:38:59 <allanj> glenda: reasonable expectations that developers do it.
15:39:18 <AWK> Glenda: especially since it is set in one place (CSS)
15:39:23 <JF> +1 to Jim
15:39:27 <AWK> Jim: if dev can they should
15:39:27 <alastairc> q+
15:39:59 <laura> JA: Authors can make it better and worse. They should make it better.
15:40:06 <AWK> q- AWK
15:40:22 <allanj> Jim: browsers fail in focus contrast. devs can make it worse by turning it off, then they should be able to make it better.
15:40:33 <Glenda> oreo method can contrast with any background http://www.glendathegood.com/a11y/lvtf/textinputborder.html
15:40:43 <AWK> ack glenda
15:41:04 <Joshue108> JA: If we set focus as 4.5:1, then thats what it is and the authors do it.
15:41:09 <David-macdonald> q+
15:41:21 <Joshue108> JA: If the user wishes to do it is their prerogative.
15:41:26 <AWK> ack al
15:41:32 <Joshue108> JA: There needs to be a base for the author to start.
15:42:02 <laura> JA: If we set 4.5:1 it will meet the needs of a big majority of users. Then the user can apply their own CSS if they want to customise it.
15:42:06 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
15:42:29 <KimD> Present+
15:42:30 <allanj> alastair: can lv user see a control without giving it focus? then there is question of line border
15:42:57 <allanj> ... what is a minimum thickness and at what contrast
15:43:18 <Glenda> here are some failure examples I created for 1 CSS px width and 3 CSS px width
15:43:22 <Glenda> q+
15:43:26 <AWK> Alastair: first question - can a user identify an item when it isn't focused?
15:43:37 <Glenda> Failure examples: http://glendathegood.com/a11y/lvtf/submitbuttonbordernota11y.html
15:43:39 <allanj> ... if you have input button with no border, user doesn't know it is a button
15:43:46 <AWK> ... second question - what level of contrast is needed when it isn't a text-based control
15:43:53 <AWK> ack da
15:43:58 <erich_> erich_ has joined #ag
15:44:14 <allanj> ... what is minimum border at what contrast so users can see it?
15:45:01 <AWK> ack glen
15:45:31 <allanj> DM: double border, center is transparent.
15:45:35 <alastairc> AC: If you're LV and zoomed into a page, you need to discern the border to find the input, so focus styles are not relevant to that. Secondly, is 3:1 enough contrast when it is a line? (compared to reading text).
15:45:56 <JF> Q+ to say we're delving into techniques...
15:47:01 <Glenda> Go look at these 3 failure examples http://glendathegood.com/a11y/lvtf/submitbuttonbordernota11y.html
15:47:17 <allanj> gs: is 4.5:1 and 3:1 based on line thickness is good failure point
15:48:38 <JF> ack me
15:48:38 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to say we're delving into techniques...
15:49:07 <David-macdonald> Q+
15:49:16 <AWK> ack da
15:49:24 <allanj> awk: if the browser has a visible focus, is that ok? or should we require more contrast
15:49:32 <alastairc> I would be happy to ask for something more-conrtasty, we have no leverage over the UAs except via web developers.
15:49:49 <marcjohlic> q+
15:50:09 <allanj> dm: requiring specific contrast will be tricky.
15:50:32 <alastairc> Note that the user-agent focus styles are being separated from outline, early stage but promising.
15:50:35 <JF> Q+
15:50:38 <AWK> ack marc
15:50:49 <Lisa_Seeman> Lisa_Seeman has joined #ag
15:51:06 <allanj> marc: for interface control, happy with contrast contrast requirement.
15:51:20 <AWK> ack jf
15:51:43 <allanj> ... not sure about focus. let UA and user CSS
15:52:48 <alastairc> Also: Note that the user-agent focus styles are being separated from outline, early stage but promising.
15:53:04 <ScottM> someone has a cat purring
15:53:15 <allanj> jf: native presentation of author content should pass contrast requirements.
15:53:36 <allanj> ... if dev sets a background color, then they need to change the outline
15:53:38 <AWK> q?
15:54:46 <alastairc> I can outline my previous thoughts: https://alastairc.ac/2017/02/four-levels-of-accessibility-customisation/ , just afraid of the noise here.
15:54:52 <allanj> awk: implementability and techniques. is it too hard to do.
15:55:33 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
15:55:59 <allanj> awk: there are more complicated UA dependencies. What is too much for authors? how to manage expectations.
15:56:17 <allanj> ... for focus - here is the bar, then user free to change.
15:56:30 <allanj> ... Lisa - personalization
15:56:31 <AWK> ack li
15:56:33 <Glenda> David, can you check out the multi-border method I just created at this location (scroll to bottom of the page) http://glendathegood.com/a11y/lvtf/submitbuttonbordernota11y.html
15:56:53 <allanj> ls: UA support, is not just AT support.
15:56:54 <AWK> Lisa: User agents aren't just AT
15:57:08 <AWK> s/Lisa: User agents aren't just AT
15:57:13 <AWK> s/Lisa: User agents aren't just AT/
15:57:40 <AWK> q?
15:57:50 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
15:57:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-ag-minutes.html laura
15:58:09 <allanj> ls: UA is browser, extensions, and other things.
15:58:27 <alastairc> To noisy here, could someone read this out?  I think there are 4 general levels... there is UA/AT that can adapt a site without the authors needing to do much except not cause problems (adaptation), and there are adaptions that need the author to do things to enable it (customisation/personalisatoin).
15:59:04 <alastairc> The effort required is fairly different, the LVTF ones generally fit under adaptation.
15:59:04 <JF> Q+ to read aloud Alastairs comment (on his request)
15:59:40 <allanj> awk: need ensure understanding that not all UAs have the same functionality. if 1 UA has high contrast focus, and others dont, they could base their claim on that one browser.
15:59:40 <AWK> ack JF
15:59:40 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to read aloud Alastairs comment (on his request)
16:00:43 <alastairc> NB: Thst's two of the relevent levels, I outlined the others in my article, but not important here
16:01:05 <allanj> jf: agree with Alastair. what can we expect from the UA stack - OS, browser, extensions, AT, etc.
16:01:14 <alastairc> thank you :-)
16:01:24 <allanj> ... how much does author need to do ... or not to do!
16:02:02 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
16:02:27 <Pietro> Present+ Pietro
16:02:38 <allanj> ls: worded SC on personalization - techniques have a burden. ???
16:02:53 <AWK> talking about https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6
16:03:05 <allanj> ... ask to authors to expose context and accessible properties.
16:03:31 <allanj> ... figure out what is not covered by other SCs
16:03:36 <alastairc> Lisa_Seeman: Is there more to it (personalisation min) than adding metadata? If the meta-data causes icons to be added, surely you also have to customise the layout?
16:03:59 <Glenda> Oh…look!  A triple-decker orea with red frosting filling http://www.glendathegood.com/a11y/lvtf/submitbuttonbordernota11y.html
16:04:08 <JF> Q+ to ask about "Critical" - who and how is that defined?
16:04:21 <Glenda> triple decker oreo (black cookie with red frosting) http://www.glendathegood.com/a11y/lvtf/submitbuttonbordernota11y.html
16:04:26 <AWK> Q+ to say that it is worth thinking about how what is expected in support personalization relates to the current 1.3.1
16:05:24 <allanj> ... create something that is less burdensome for author (coga script/extension) or more work for user
16:05:51 <MichaelC> q+ to say personalization semantics seems to address mainly HTML, so we need approaches that work more broadly anyways
16:06:05 <MichaelC> q+ to say I think the personalization semantics is likely to evolve a lot after FPWD
16:06:55 <allanj> awk: there are personalization criteria being worked on in ARIA. should be fpwd soon
16:07:18 <allanj> ... is that enough for inclusion in AG
16:07:57 <AWK> ack JF
16:07:57 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about "Critical" - who and how is that defined?
16:08:02 <allanj> ls: ARIA and W3c 2 implementations (extensions on 2 different browsers)
16:08:34 <allanj> jf: "critical" , what is critical - how is that defined.
16:08:36 <Lisa_Seeman> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
16:08:42 <AWK> q+ AWK later
16:08:49 <AWK> q- later
16:08:57 <AWK> ack later
16:08:57 <Zakim> later, you wanted to say that it is worth thinking about how what is expected in support personalization relates to the current 1.3.1 and to
16:09:12 <allanj> ls: let us know if definition above is OK
16:10:01 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
16:10:02 <AWK> ack mi
16:10:02 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say personalization semantics seems to address mainly HTML, so we need approaches that work more broadly anyways and to say I think the personalization
16:10:05 <Zakim> ... semantics is likely to evolve a lot after FPWD
16:10:08 <allanj> jf: concern is how strongly we mandate this with A and AA. still very early in technology. not mature yet
16:10:50 <AWK> ack AWK
16:10:50 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it is worth thinking about how what is expected in support personalization relates to the current 1.3.1 and to
16:11:03 <allanj> mc: aria personalization if for html only. still evolving. not generalizable to to all web technology. need to word SC in a general manner
16:11:35 <allanj> awk: you wanted to say that it is worth thinking about how what is expected in support personalization relates to the current 1.3.1
16:11:57 <allanj> ... what are the hook necessary for personalization tools to do their job
16:12:37 <allanj> ... want to enable support for personalization. what constitutes sufficiency. well established and mature
16:13:04 <allanj> awk: concern about stability, and adoption of spec.
16:13:05 <alastairc> Not just stability, we can't tell how much effort is required to implement these new specs.
16:13:06 <AWK> ack AWK
16:13:09 <AWK> ack lis
16:13:12 <David-macdonald> q+
16:13:57 <allanj> ls: to get enough content working it has to be in the standard. chicken and egg.
16:14:39 <allanj> ... Create SC, so sites can use it, and browsers will make it work
16:15:24 <allanj> ls: how for are we willing to go. can we be innovative, or just document what is already in use.
16:15:25 <MichaelC> q+ to say standards and guidelines are inherently conservative
16:15:53 <MichaelC> q+ to say and if overly aspirational they can fail to meet their objective
16:16:37 <allanj> ls: or require author to provide personalization and build their infrastructure.
16:17:06 <allanj> ls: this all works with RDFa and coga script. but there are issues
16:17:20 <allanj> ls: or we do nothing
16:17:37 <MichaelC> q+ to say we won´t solve all problems in WCAG 2.1, we have to take on what we can, and we have future projects under way to go further
16:17:43 <alastairc> I'm trusting the need, but really struggling to work out the effort required on the author side, that's what we can't quantify yet.
16:17:49 <AWK> ack david
16:18:06 <JF> +1 to Alastair - this is a scalability problem
16:18:42 <Lisa_Seeman> no it is not a sacalability problem, we have a lvely exptention script already for that
16:18:51 <Lisa_Seeman> one file per site
16:19:05 <allanj> dm: like the coga idea. critical features (coga techniques) programmattically determinable.
16:19:10 <Lisa_Seeman> Q+
16:19:15 <alastairc> Lisa: is it just adding attributes to the page, or does the author need to do more for the layout etc?
16:19:24 <AWK> Q+ to say that it would be helpful to see what a a specific site (say w3.org) would need to do to fully meet the personalization semantics
16:19:30 <MichaelC> ack me
16:19:30 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say standards and guidelines are inherently conservative and to say and if overly aspirational they can fail to meet their objective and to say we won´t
16:19:33 <Zakim> ... solve all problems in WCAG 2.1, we have to take on what we can, and we have future projects under way to go further
16:19:46 <allanj> ... are we trying to get a wedge to raise awareness, or force authors to do LOTS of work.
16:20:29 <AWK> Michael: Standards need to be built around what is known to work in most cases
16:20:42 <allanj> mc: standards are conservative. can't be aspirational. Must spec what we know works.
16:21:02 <JF> +1 to Michael, and to note that the current mood at the W3C AC is that aspirational goals are being quite frowned upon
16:21:12 <allanj> ... in wcag2.1 can solve all problems. why we have silver and perhaps 2.2
16:21:18 <AWK> ack lisa
16:22:22 <allanj> ls: we agree that it is implementable. at what bar. the author just has to add semantics. then the UA or extension does something with the semantics.
16:22:22 <MichaelC> q+ to say add semantics can work but is it a realistic ask?
16:22:44 <JF> Question: can "relevance and information for simplification" be achieved without the use of COGA-* attributes, for example through the use of the @title attribute?
16:22:55 <allanj> ... I think with the current wording it should address the issues.
16:23:19 <allanj> ... looking for guideance on whats the bar?
16:23:27 <MichaelC> q+ to say WG guidance will be fuzzy because there are so many tradeoffs to consider
16:23:37 <allanj> ls: SC is only about critical features.
16:24:12 <JF> Q+
16:24:59 <allanj> ls: can create a critical feature file per site. Benetech hackathon. using an x-name pointer.
16:25:02 <AWK> ack AWK
16:25:02 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it would be helpful to see what a a specific site (say w3.org) would need to do to fully meet the personalization semantics
16:25:15 <allanj> ... should help with author burden and scalability.
16:25:49 <alastairc> +1
16:25:54 <AWK> ack mi
16:25:54 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say add semantics can work but is it a realistic ask? and to say WG guidance will be fuzzy because there are so many tradeoffs to consider
16:26:45 <KimD> +1 to MC - very complex
16:27:16 <allanj> mc: adding semantics is a lot of work. are there other ways to acheive same result.
16:27:58 <alastairc> Cautiously positive, slightly worried about invisible meta-data use, tends to get forgotten if it isn't visible. Would like to dig in more to the practicalities, will look at the semantics spec.
16:28:18 <allanj> ... guidance will be fuzzy, too many trade offs.  have to build an understanding in the working group.
16:28:19 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
16:28:21 <AWK> ack JF
16:29:16 <allanj> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
16:29:22 <AWK> ack li
16:29:31 <MichaelC> q+ to say rdfa doesn´t solve the core problem
16:29:36 <allanj> jf: do you have to use coga attributes?
16:29:48 <MichaelC> q-
16:29:51 <allanj> ls: or use RDFa.
16:29:58 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
16:30:40 <allanj> jf: adding semantics is a lot of work... witness microformats - failed due to amount of work.
16:30:46 <AWK> ack lis
16:31:29 <allanj> ... for big site or companies with LOTS of big sites - scalablilty is an issue.
16:32:08 <allanj> ls: put this to survey. see what everyone thinks and what are concerns.
16:32:17 <alastairc> I would really like more concrete info on how it is (intended to be) implemented before survey.
16:32:25 <allanj> awk: more to talk about.
16:32:56 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:32:56 <Zakim> Present: AWK, jasonjgw, Rachael, Wilco, Wayne, MichaelC, bruce-bailey, Jim_S, AdamLund, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, JF, alastairc, dboudreau, MelaniePhilipp, Laura, JanMcSorley, KimD,
16:32:56 <MichaelC> trackbot, end meeting
16:32:56 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:32:59 <Zakim> ... Makoto, steverep, Pietro, Glenda, allanj, JohnRochford, Joshue108, ScottM
16:32:59 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, jasonjgw, Rachael, Wilco, Wayne, MichaelC, bruce-bailey, Jim_S, AdamLund, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, JF, alastairc, dboudreau,
16:32:59 <Zakim> ... MelaniePhilipp, Laura, JanMcSorley, KimD, Makoto, steverep, Pietro, Glenda, allanj, JohnRochford, Joshue108, ScottM
16:33:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:33:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:33:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:33:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items