Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

29 Aug 2017

See also: IRC log


AWK, Brooks_Newton, Detlev, JF, JakeAbma, Joshue108, Kathy, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD, Laura, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, MichaelC, MikeGower, Mike_Pluke, marcjohlic, shadi, shawn, chriscm


<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_Aug2017/

josh: do we need to have call thursday
... talking about working next steps and planning in next call

ACT Rules Format draft publication survey


Josh: att draft

<Joshue108> ACT Rules format draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_Aug2017/results

Wilco: SC task we released first draft in april and got some feedback
... second draft is ready for public review, a few open questions

<KimD> *I think it's my new colleague

Wilco: those are good places to provide feedback

<Wilco> https://wilcofiers.github.io/act-rules/rules/ACT-R1.html

Wildo: in addition we have been working on a few samples

example here

<BAN> BAN = Brooks Newton - sorry bout that! New member

Wilco: aria descrbe by and third for autmatically playing audio and video
... we picked thos to give more of an idea to review
... we picked these three to give different kinds
... first one to go into pass or fail. if you fail that means 221 3.2.5 SC

sorry need right numbers

Wilco: aria describe by one has three steps once done with automated testing
... the ti=hird is a lttle similar with aduio and video which is a bit more complex
... these rules have vaalidation tests at bottom of each one
... it has a whole bunch of audio and video at bottom of page
... we are current looking for feedback

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_Aug2017/results

Josh: if havent andswered survey please do so

BN: thank you for the welcome
... been doing web design development for 20 plus years, worked with ATT and deque just joined thomson reuters
... look forward to guiding accessibility

Josh: welcome we are always looking for scribes

LS: question for Wilco had a few questions
... first looks like you are using CSS instead of xpath

Wilco: mostly becaause people know what look like

LS: are they selectable?
... you’ve got plain text ins step one
... does this create ambiguity
... could that be parsed two ways is it completely unambiguous?

Wilco: it is not
... want to make sure useful in both scenerios, way we tackle is with test cases for places where ambiguity

LS: the point clear to conform or not conform
... not sure if we are avoiding ambiguity, should it come iwth pick languatge or javascript maybe better as exposed expression

Wilco: only way i’ve found to be completely unambiguous to code it
... we want to give rooom how to implement and trying to find optimal way to do that

LS: could make unambigurous in tree mode

Josh: could we take offline
... will reach out to lisa
... results are in and have resolution to publish

RESOLUTION: Publish the ACT Rules Format 1.0 second draft and three examples rules

Updating Understanding documents tutorial by Michael

Josh: next item to look at is updating understandin document

MC: much i’ve sent before on mailing list

<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/#user-content-editing-draft-understanding-content

MC: primary documentation is top level of repository in github
... this is a little brief because hoping that process is self documenting

<MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0499.html

MC: message back in May with more infor
... haven’t changed too much since that time

<MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/0906.html

MC: wnat to talk about new branches i set up
... cleaned up old working branches and stup new branches
... branch name is accessible-authtication
... there is one for each success criteria
... at momen there are 290 acting SC files
... the process is the same
... work on file in branck of same name


<Glenda> Can you give us a link to one of the new branches…just to make sure I’m looking in the right place?

MC: there is parallell file for each SC page
... for each SC we need a working document

<Glenda> are these them? https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/branches/active

MC: it will be easier to merge branch
... understand files are in folder undersatnding/21

not sure if this is correct?

MC: when submitted SC alot of content in uderstanding woudl go in the issue

<MichaelC> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/refactoring/wcag20/sources/refactoring/understanding-template.html

MC: we have not routinely made sure that it was in the understanding pages
... this is to show a template
... they are named same as SC
... there is a heading level 1 followed by each of the sections
... there is an intent section and an example section, a resoureces sedction, a techniques section, within each may have as situation section
... i’ll talk about techniques at end of mini tutoriial
... you’ll see a lot of grey insturctional text
... when you edit an understand ing document you can remove such as class=instrucionts
... keep all class attributions
... we are likely to do script proicessing
... no styling yet
... these class attributes will make esier to autmate
... the top level should alwasy be there
... within example section should create inside subsection

SC: in techniques showed sub section
... whould show reference techniques
... if you don’t need situations don’t need should strip out and do copy of situation

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/

MC: let me point where understanding docments are beingh published
... thats where this content should go
... this is only including understandin pages for 2.1
... it’ll be easeier to work on 2.1 now

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/21/contextual-information.html

MC: first on different copy of styoing over
... there may be content from that SC that can be populated
... when i set this up when we approved more SC

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/21/graphics-contrast.html

MC: to help i ported material from the issue from thos four SC
... the graphics contracst is the most complete
... this on uses exmaples
... this one includes reasonable compete understanding page

<AWK> AWK is creating a page that lists the accepted SC, and will include links to the editable section of GitHub for each SC's understanding document, and ultimately to the techniques for that SC when being worked on.

<AWK> Page is at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

Josh: creating a page with link to all SC and techniques as well , not done right now but its here

MC: Andrew: has a list of the SC

<laura> Thank you Andew!

LS: busnch of questions
... problem with editing in github maybe will help that
... the problem is collecting contribution from task force that will move

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hmoaVU563kTio1EZD5mbNxcc0k924qVdZZwWckcbu0/edit#

LS: we have put into googledoc

MC: we did talk about it in task force facilitator call. free to use but not official until in github
... can work on conten elsewhere such as goodl make sure content migrated at righ time

LS: when should it be migrated
... for next publication

MC: when you feel it is ready to migrate

LS: when do you need it to migrate for next draft

MC: can’t give a date but soon
... if you have multiple might be difficulet, but can update
... don’t worry to much about timing

LS: what we have is better than nothing

MC: up to you

LS: if we can catch the pbulication in a week or now

MC: its your judgement
... point of understanding is that we can update them
... there is room for asynchranity

LS: only point to nomnitive documents bu

JF: perhaps off in the weeds, do we have a final count of how many SC appratnely 15 by michael and 20 by andrew

MC: there should be 20


<david-macdonald> I think my spreadsheet is fairly up to date tinyurl.com/jmo9st4

<AWK> CFC for printing ends at 11:59 pm tonight

MC: I failied to update understanding there should be 20

JF: I’d like to know how many and would like to have stable

MC: I have 20

Josh: four conformance changes and one more in play

Andrew: don’t have a stable set yet

JF: can we have an indcation of when we will have that

Josh: give us unitl end of week

<david-macdonald> I have 22 with 2 CFC outstanding

MG: covering formatting of understanding docuement

<david-macdonald> http://tinyurl.com/jmo9st4

MB: wondering if we are going to have consistent languge with bulleting

MC: I plan to do that
... probable do proposed checklist


LS: i told task force that today was the day for deadline and say finished with google doc today

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hmoaVU563kTio1EZD5mbNxcc0k924qVdZZwWckcbu0/edit#

MC: just send the links to docs over and i’ll probly do migration
... any other questions about proposed process

David: should use caption

MC: can choose to use alt text

David: i would suggest we use alt in addition to caption

MC: don’t think alt should be a copy of cation


<david-macdonald> Device sensors seems to have good consensus now https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/67

SR: after we updated, how would you know to pull in a second branch

MC: Josh and Andrew and I hven’t really talked about in review versus flexibility

Josh: review time need input on

David: i sufggest bypass getting consensus on unserstanding and we can just do a pass better use of time than getting consensus

MC: if we go that pass we need to eventually have a revew

David: i agree

Josh: not hearing anyone demanding review cycles

Planning - next phase/steps discussion

Josh: planning to plan to adjust and reorder focus as a group, need to reset a bit. on chairs agenda
... creation of new techniques, understanding documents and review process
... all things on radar, including extra thursday call
... do we need to have one over next couple of weeks

MC: regarding approiving understanding
... about pull versus merge
... andrew likes pull i prefer not

MD: either way do what makes sense to you


<kathy> This time conflicts with Mobile call

<chriscm> Pull request and requested merge result in the same thing ending up in the repository, it's just a difference in User Experience.

Josh: less of an paetite for review cycle

Andrew: unles we have specifc agenda items for Thursday calls, maybe we should reserve time but unless specific needs otherwise not use it
... it may not find it will be needed

Andrew not meet if don’t have it scheduled

Josh: should we keep onbooks?

MC: that should be fine
... will be changing p4ssw0rds

Josh: will reserve time think shoud take extra thursday call off books

Detlev: wondering what the plan is for doing understanding pages, is it plan that thos people will work on the understanding. Any planning of that?

Josh: understanding document would be peiced together by SC manager


Andrew: number of people some people have greater writing than technical
... like SC manager assignment have a place whre people can indicate will intend to do work on it

Delev: it would be useful who is to do work on particular pages of understand documents

Josh: we will reach out to do that
... we will make sure but doesn’t have to be SC manager
... is that ok detlev

detlev: sure

<Zakim> vote, you wanted to discuss PR since issues are closed

kathy: if we do thursday that conflicts with low vision and mobile calls

<allanj> +1 to Kathy

Kathy: thought we were taking first pass of understanding in the task force

<AWK> AWK, yes, TF's will take first pass

Andrew: yes, we weren’t cufficient clear task forces have taken first pass at understanding document
... the task force can make well consider edits to change in SC text
... want to make sure low vision and cognitive task forces are taking a look at it for example

Adrew: but yes would expect at outse the first name of those listed of ddoing wok on understand doemnt would be doing it

<david-macdonald> I've updated the links on my spreadsheet to the new branches (Except for Targets size no exceptions, Undo, and Printing to be done later)

JW: significant work in reviewing issues, we need to go through process of issues with forhtcoming draft and address public process. that process will be at least as intense as that last week

Laura: not sure how that will be done

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter2017#understanding

<laura> “Work with the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG) in developing Understanding support material for new WCAG 2.1 success criteria.” https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter2017#understanding

LS: in the uderstanding document I have some notes, said in different surveys not going to be able to find them all. it would be really helpful if pople remind of importance
... can add tonight in google docs and I can pass it over
... to make sure important issues are addressed

Josh: reach ou to you right?

LS: yes adding to google docs should be today
... don’t assume i remeber everything

Josh: people should reach out to you lisa
... thanks for overview of understanding
... no call this Thursday

thank you!

<Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Publish the ACT Rules Format 1.0 second draft and three examples rules
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/08/29 16:12:39 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/accessibilityi/accessibility/
Succeeded: s/tyher3e/there/
Succeeded: s/sith/with/
Succeeded: s/instead of/in addition to/
Default Present: AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Joshue108, JF, shawn, shadi, MichaelC, MikeGower, Laura, Detlev, Mike_Pluke, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Katie_Haritos-Shea, marcjohlic, Kathy, alastairc, Glenda, david-macdonald, jasonjgw, Mike, Elledge, dboudreau, chriscm, jon_avila, kirkwood, JanMcSorley, Roy, Wilco, lisa, Greg_Lowney, bruce-bailey, steverep, BAN, Brooks_Newton
Present: AWK Brooks_Newton Detlev JF JakeAbma Joshue108 Kathy Katie_Haritos-Shea KimD Laura Makoto Melanie_Philipp MichaelC MikeGower Mike_Pluke marcjohlic shadi shawn chriscm
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: kirkwood
Inferring Scribes: kirkwood

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 29 Aug 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/08/29-ag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]