15:18:21 RRSAgent has joined #ag 15:18:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-ag-irc 15:18:23 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:18:26 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 15:18:26 ok, trackbot 15:18:26 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 15:18:26 Date: 11 May 2017 15:18:27 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:18:28 Present: AWK, Joshue, JakeAbma, Detlev, Mike, Elledge, kirkwood, alastairc, steverep, MikeGower, shwetank, Laura, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD, Melanie_Philipp, 15:18:28 ... David-macdonald, Pietro, JanMcSorley, Greg_Lowney, jasonjgw, marcjohlic 15:18:33 present: AWK 15:18:39 Zakim, agenda? 15:18:39 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 15:18:40 7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess] 15:18:40 9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108] 15:18:40 10. single key shortcuts [from AWK] 15:18:40 5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess] 15:18:48 Zakim, clear agenda 15:18:48 agenda cleared 15:19:06 agenda+ Timeouts: Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/results 15:19:46 agenda+ Single Key Shortcut Alternative: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/results#xsc 15:19:59 agenda+ Minimize User Errors: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/minimize-user-errors-13/results 15:21:16 regrets+ Laura_Carlson, Loiselle, Alastair, AlexLi, Peitro 15:21:33 regrets- alexli 15:21:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:21:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-ag-minutes.html AWK_ 15:22:05 rrsagent, set logs public 15:29:29 marcjohlic has joined #ag 15:29:53 Greg has joined #ag 15:30:23 present+ jasonjgw 15:31:33 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:31:43 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:31:43 Present: AWK, jasonjgw, Greg_Lowney 15:31:50 +MichaelC 15:31:58 +Lisa 15:32:33 nick lisa\ 15:32:37 nick lisa 15:32:47 JF has joined #ag 15:33:01 present+ JF 15:33:15 zakim, who's here? 15:33:15 Present: AWK, jasonjgw, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Lisa, JF 15:33:17 On IRC I see JF, Greg, marcjohlic, RRSAgent, AWK_, interaccess, laura, kirkwood, allanj, lisa, MichaelC, Zakim, jasonjgw, trackbot, csarven, yatil 15:34:12 scribe: JF 15:34:27 zakim, take up next item 15:34:27 agendum 1. "Timeouts: Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/results" taken up [from AWK_] 15:34:48 AWK: list discussio happening. Feels like Jason still has the most concerns 15:34:54 Ryladog has joined #ag 15:35:23 q? 15:35:29 zakim, agenda? 15:35:29 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 15:35:30 1. Timeouts: Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/results [from AWK_] 15:35:30 2. Single Key Shortcut Alternative: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/results#xsc [from AWK_] 15:35:30 3. Minimize User Errors: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/minimize-user-errors-13/results [from AWK_] 15:35:30 Kim has joined #ag 15:35:47 AWK: I am hearing that you do not feel there is enough value for this 15:35:52 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:35:56 JW: I sent an email that outlines my concerns 15:36:06 Current proposal: For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit at the start of the process, unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached. 15:36:16 KimD has joined #ag 15:36:21 the current proposal has limited value: the use-cases are not actually showing that this proposed SC is the right way forward 15:36:54 Present+ KimD 15:37:15 JW: I have acknowledged 2 proposals, including enhancing 2.5 (?), or advancing 2.2.1 by removing some of the options - limiting it to authenticated sessions 15:37:39 2.2.5 15:37:44 q+ 15:37:47 JW: the idea is to trya nd solve the problem more directly 15:38:13 Rachael has joined #ag 15:38:30 AWK: one suggestion then is to edit 2.2.1? (or more accurately creating a new SC that mirrors 2.2.1 with adjustments 15:39:00 steverep_ has joined #ag 15:39:02 JW: there are a couple of different options that look interesting however 15:39:15 ack l 15:39:22 LS: Couple of things 15:39:47 the orignal proposal was to edit 2.2.1, but we were told no to taht 15:40:14 q+ 15:40:39 q+ to ask if the current proposal helps address the user need 15:40:48 LS: Agree that we've cut-out a lot of what we wanted to do, but in dicussions there were so many problems in the original proposal, we figured we'd scale this back to something easier to accomplish, and build on that 15:41:39 LS: the COGA TF advanced this not because it is that urgent, but that we felt it was pretty straight-forward 15:41:54 This doesn't address all the issues, but it is a good start 15:42:07 2.2.5 Re-authenticating: When an authenticated session expires, the user can continue the activity without loss of data after re-authenticating. (Level AAA) 15:42:08 ack r 15:42:59 KHS: Liked Andrews suggestion to edit current SC - move 2.2.5 to AA from AAA 15:44:14 q? 15:44:37 KHS: we know there are pieces missing with 2.2.1, but if we pull down 2.2.5 and make some adjustments then we may actually move this forward 15:45:04 LS: cn live with the proposal of moving 2.2.5 from AAA to AA (per Anderews suggestion) 15:45:28 +1 to moving 2.2.5 re-auth to AA. 15:45:37 q+ Alex 15:45:39 q+ 15:45:43 +1 to moving 2.2.5 re-auth to AA. 15:45:44 ? 15:45:50 KHS: if we move it, we should also edit it 15:46:17 AWK: there is a difference here between authenticated sessions and non-authenticated 15:47:10 AWK: would the modified proposal then work? Give the user a heads-up before a session expires - aka helps manage expectations 15:47:26 LS: it helps it a lot 15:47:50 LS: 2 things: 1, you don't waste your time, and 2) you don't experience a "failure" after investing time 15:48:49 q+ 15:48:51 ack a 15:48:55 ack a 15:48:55 AWK, you wanted to ask if the current proposal helps address the user need 15:49:02 present+ Rachael 15:49:22 Alex: when it comes to a real-time event, does that consititute a time-out? This makes a big difference 15:49:36 can i have the link to the current proposal 15:49:55 AWK: the modified proposal isn't talking about timeouts but time limits imposed by the content 15:50:01 I wook on date-retention issues in EU today, and you need explicit user-consent before retaining any data 15:50:02 q+ 15:50:14 But first, what is in and what is out? 15:50:39 AWK: real-time event would be out... this is about time-limits imposed by the content 15:50:53 if it is something that the content has control over, it should express that 15:51:08 but if it is controlled external from the content (gives examples) then it is excempt 15:51:27 Q+ 15:51:35 "For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit at the start of the process, unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached." 15:52:02 AWK: what was the other concern Alex? 15:52:14 +1 to alex 15:52:18 Alex: definately need the consent of the user, else it is a privacy violation 15:52:59 Alex: authentication does not directly link privacy consent 15:53:23 AWK: 2.2.5 states "can", not MUST 15:53:48 so we'd likely need to also include language related to privacy rules 15:54:36 ack jas 15:54:53 AWK: if there is a legal requirement to NOT save the date (aka privacy, etc.) then the requirement is just to advise in advance of the time-limit 15:55:07 JW: there may still be a need for exceptions related to real time, etc. 15:55:17 also open to the idea of an edit to 2.2.1 15:55:44 JW: if those are distinct proposals, i think they cover the issues, but would want to see concrete text first 15:56:11 JW: agree with Andrew on some of the conditions/restrictions 15:57:14 JW: what we really want is for users to be subjected to fewer time-outs, as few as possible 15:57:39 ack lisa 15:58:04 JW: however like others, I don't think I will be supporting proposals that don't really achieve the intended goals (due to watering-down/compromise, etc.) 15:58:18 LS: we will need a mechanism to move this forwardAWK: Agreed 15:58:24 q? 15:59:00 q+ to ask about moving 2.2.5 15:59:36 ack ry 15:59:39 q- 15:59:41 LS: we need to look at the comments - there were some real issues. For example, if we demand consent, will that impose additional barriers. Also around data-storage, etc. 15:59:52 KHS: this is clearly an important user-need 15:59:59 so whatever we do, we need to do something 16:00:09 q+ are there some SCs at AAA that would benefit COGA if bumped to AA? 16:00:21 byThe privacy component and consent seems the issue 16:00:29 q+ are there some SCs at AAA that could go to AA 4 COGA? 16:00:35 entities are responsible to protect user-data - this is being done already 16:00:35 q? 16:00:38 q+ 16:00:51 ack jf 16:00:52 attempting to define a time beyond 24 hours may be unachievable 16:01:38 JF: mentioned before - concern is that if the content provides the timeout then it isn't enough, other sources of timeouts 16:03:04 AWK - looking at the understanding document of 2.2.1 - we state that if it is a server setting for your site that you have control over, then it impacts... 16:03:33 my response however was if it is limits set by the content, it allows us to avoid it inter-mingling with some of the real-time issues bing rasied 16:03:40 ack josh 16:04:14 To help JF; My comment was, lets accept what we have today, pasted in here above by AWK. It addresses a very important user need, needing to the time they have to complete something. I am also saying that 2.2.5 would need to add user-consent to the timeout dialog, to maintain the data for 24 hours. The site has the responsibility to protect the privacy of their users data, and they do this today. Defining a reasonable amount of time say 24 hours is reasonable 16:04:28 AWK: what we have now is that we do not have a lot of time left. If we don't get something done with this, it will drop to the bottom of the queue again 16:04:51 so I am suggesting a new survey for next tuesday's call, and then send out a CfC around 2.2.5 and our intent 16:04:53 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status#Issue_14_-_Timeouts 16:05:24 AWK: We are in a new process attempting to keep track of these issues - provides link 16:05:24 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/14 16:05:27 My broader question is around how many AAA SCs could be edited and bumped to AA? 16:05:44 There are many that seem similar IMHO. 16:05:57 we've also added a new section "OPen Issues and Surveys" - we will collectively maintain these to attempt to narrow the funnel of inofmration we've got 16:06:15 Also has testability improved for some so they could be upgraded (sic)? 16:06:19 hearing some concerns from Jason, but not "dead" 16:06:19 maybe we can have the a "can live with option" 16:06:28 AL: what is thhis 2 week thing? 16:06:40 AWK: every two weeks we attempt to focus on just 3 issues 16:06:44 zakim, next item 16:06:44 agendum 2. "Single Key Shortcut Alternative: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/results#xsc" taken up [from AWK_] 16:07:16 AWK: is Kim Patch here? 16:07:19 KP: yes 16:07:34 Current version: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/single-key-shortcuts_ISSUE-69/guidelines/sc/21/single-key-shortcuts.html 16:07:36 AWK: this doesn't seem to have as much focus as other issues at this time 16:08:04 looking through this one... where are people thinking this is at? 16:08:13 are there still concerns that haven't been addressed? 16:09:12 Short name: Character key shortcuts 16:09:13 SC: 16:09:15 "If a shortcut consisting entirely of character keys is implemented by the web page to activate a control, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that uses at least one non-printing key." 16:09:16 Definition: 16:09:18 Character key: any keyboard character that is printable, i.e. letters of the alphabet including capitals, punctuation, numbers, and symbols. 16:10:04 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:10:14 AWK: so this appears to be a substantial change 16:10:30 KP: yes, it is, to address Gregg (Gregg?)'s concerns 16:10:52 AWK: now confused - what is this actually trying to say 16:10:56 That was Greg's concern, not Gregg's. 16:11:21 Q+ 16:11:52 AWK: do people have multiple shortcut keys for applications? 16:12:55 GL: strings of character keys, used by things like VIM text editor (etc.) often use non-letter keys to start sequences, for example ;x for exit 16:13:30 if the focus is in the wrong place however, those characters can be typed, but interpretted not as text but as comands 16:13:37 this is what we are attempting to avoid 16:14:05 Q+ 16:14:20 ack jf 16:14:54 GL: another example... typing ahead. If you cannot see the screen, you can find yourself typing ahaead and thus triggering a problem as well 16:15:42 GL: in the latest draft, one of those still had the "non-printing key" which should be actually the printing key 16:15:50 KP: deliberately left that, but can change it 16:16:13 JF: It seems that one of the things that would be manifest with this kind of problem 16:16:26 "If a shortcut consisting entirely of character keys is implemented by the web page to activate a control, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that uses at least one character key." 16:16:36 ... is that this is related to role=application content 16:16:54 ... so all keyboard responsibility falls to the author 16:17:19 "If a shortcut consisting entirely of character keys is implemented by the web page to activate a control, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that uses at least one non-character key." 16:17:59 === concern that people may think that we are talking about accesskey even though we are not 16:18:10 We had talked about adding 'custom scripted behaviors' or 'custom behaviors' 16:19:44 q+ to point out that today's HTML does not support unmodified keyboard shortcuts, but those might be supported in future versions or other web standard languages, or by unusual user agents. 16:20:50 ack greg 16:20:50 Greg, you wanted to point out that today's HTML does not support unmodified keyboard shortcuts, but those might be supported in future versions or other web standard languages, or 16:20:53 ... by unusual user agents. 16:21:19 === might be applicable only to web applications (role=application) 16:21:24 GL: while this is correct today, there is no guarnetee thta this is the expected behavior for all time 16:21:37 we should contemplate HTML6 may change 16:22:59 +1 to JF 16:23:02 Today's HTML does not support unmodified keyboard shortcuts, but those might be supported in future versions or other web standard languages, or by unusual user agents. 16:23:07 q? 16:23:21 q+ 16:23:35 q+ to ask if role=application is used on GMAIL example? 16:23:41 ack r 16:24:02 q+ 16:24:02 KHS: this is why I suggested "custom behaviors", after which we can better define that 16:24:05 ack me 16:24:05 Joshue, you wanted to ask if role=application is used on GMAIL example? 16:24:07 q+ alex 16:24:38 JOC: want to examine this a bit more if we use role-"application" as a means of constraining this 16:25:03 So anyone can get out of this SC by not using role=application? Would that cause them to fail any other SC? 16:25:11 JOC: does anyone know if GMail uses role="applications" when they usae single-key shortcuts? 16:26:15 MG: Katie's language is not specifically talking about role=applications, but it would vcover that use-case 16:26:43 Q? 16:26:58 KHS: will drop text into IRC 16:27:00 gowerm has joined #ag 16:27:01 s/does anyone know if GMail uses role="applications" when they usae single-key shortcuts?/Is role application used in the GMAIL example that supports Kim P's use case? 16:27:03 present+ MikeGower 16:27:06 q+ 16:27:26 ack l 16:27:47 +1 to Lisa 16:27:47 LS: don't think there is a requirement to use role="application", but there is not specific requirement - no existing SC today 16:27:48 ok 16:27:50 ack alex 16:28:31 I do not agree with restricting this to custom behaviors, for the reasons I've already stated: that HTML 6 might allow the author to specify unmodified shortcut keys, which would not be "custom behaviors" but should be covered by this SC. 16:29:01 "When building custom behaviorsiIf a shortcut consisting entirely of character keys is implemented in a by the web page to activate a control, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that uses at least one non-printing key." 16:29:02 AL: only read the old version... if you do have this behavior - a single printable character - then we are proposing two options? Turn it off or re-map it (to something that uses a non-printable character / modifier key as well) 16:29:30 AL: question about space bar - is that a non-printable or printable character key? 16:29:45 "When building custom behaviors if a shortcut consisting entirely of character keys is implemented in a by the web page to activate a control, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that uses at least one non-printing key." 16:30:12 q+ 16:30:15 AL: seeking clarity here before I voice an opinion 16:30:32 "When building custom behaviors if a shortcut consisting entirely of character keys is implemented by the web page to activate a control, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that uses at least one non-printing key." 16:30:33 Spacebar is not just a substitution to the Enter key 16:30:44 obviously space-bar is used in different applications - but if somebody presses the space-bar and then a focusable element, then that is fine? 16:30:47 KP: yes 16:30:51 Space should definitely be covered: anything which is part of a normal text string that can be pasted in is potentially a problem. Hmm, of course, by that logic newline is also potentially a problem. But don't forget that this originally didn't apply to the control that had focus, so that was not a problem. 16:31:13 AWK: the space bar is likely not going to come up often since it is used for other things often (pgdn, button activation) 16:31:26 KP: in my mind, the space-bar is not a character key - the list of character-keys are provided... 16:31:43 Kim, don't you have spaces in voice macros, that are automatically "typed in" when you give a command? 16:32:00 AL: in languages like CJK, you have to use combinations to form certain characters 16:32:27 you dont voice spaces 16:32:40 AL: so the question is, has this been reviewed agaisnt non-latin languages (I18n)? 16:32:52 === have we considered other keyboards like for CJK? 16:32:55 KP: don't thin it makes a difference (for speech users) 16:33:57 MG: feel the focus on this is saying "You hae to use a modifier key" - wondering if we put the focus there? would that solve the issue? 16:34:18 if a shortcut does not involve a modifier key, then... 16:34:29 KP: escape key, ctrl key, etc. 16:34:40 === can this be simplified by making the focus be on using a modifier key? 16:34:51 ack gow 16:34:53 +1 to Mike's thinking, needs fine-tuning thought 16:34:54 ack jas 16:35:39 JW: my concerns remain unaddressed. I would be interested in seeing the form that this takes after we apply some of the other constraints articulated (role="application, i18n issues, etc.) 16:35:47 Mike, the wording was supposed to allow use of Esc or F10 or PgDn, which unfortunately merely requiring a modifier key would still exclude. However, maybe we can include wording about modifier keys as well as non-character keys. 16:35:47 KP: did you look at the video? 16:35:50 Video showing the problem: https://youtu.be/OPjfpDU9S08 16:35:57 JW: doesn't address my concerns 16:36:18 If a shortcut consists of only one or more printable character keys, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that includes a modifier key 16:36:25 KP: if there is anything in GitHub that is not addressed, please ensure that the concerns/questions are there 16:36:41 Q? 16:37:29 Q? 16:37:35 If a shortcut consists only of one or more printable character keys, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that includes a modifier key 16:37:43 AWK: seems there is no resolution on this now 16:38:00 KP: pasting in latest, as concerned that there are multiple different versions flying aroudn 16:38:10 "If a shortcut consisting entirely of character keys is implemented by the web page to activate a control, then a mechanism is available to turn it off or to remap it to a shortcut that uses at least one non-character key. 16:38:11 KP: reminder to look at the GitHub thread too please 16:38:11 zakim, who is on the call? 16:38:11 Present: AWK, jasonjgw, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Lisa, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD, Rachael, MikeGower 16:38:41 Greg: Esc or F10 or PgDn, are not printable characters 16:39:26 trackbot, end meeting 16:39:26 Zakim, list attendees 16:39:26 As of this point the attendees have been AWK, jasonjgw, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Lisa, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD, Rachael, MikeGower 16:39:34 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:39:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-ag-minutes.html trackbot 16:39:35 RRSAgent, bye 16:39:35 I see no action items