See also: IRC log
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC
Kathy: we have nine success criteria. URL has list of everybody's success criteria that got into 2.1. Because these are in 2.1 right now does not mean they will stay there. There's going to be further discussion 2.1, what we do with the exception there, device sensors, some of the other ones were we had things come up. the working group and chairs agreed that we weren't going to be concentrating o
n that while we were approving these. That will be reviewed and looked at after the fact. Those discussions will be happening pretty soon on the working group calls
Kathy: in the meantime the task
forces are going to take each of their SC's and write the
understanding. We have understanding for ours but things have
changed. There are long threads and Github, exceptions, notes
from the meetings that need to get incorporated.
... the taskforces will take the lead in doing theirs. Each of
the taskforces will be reviewing the others. opportunity to add
mobile specific to SCs from other taskforces – every task force
will do that
... so will be taking the first pass at modifying, also
techniques
... explaining URL – you can modify in github. There is a view
link
... overall it would be easy to edit these in github. If
someone is not comfortable in github, we can make changes for
everyone. Out of this list we have 11 different things, one
that's not on the list right now which is device sensors.
... device sensors most likely will get in but that's not
confirmed.
... right now we have 10, maybe 11 that we need to work on. One
of those is the conformance – is there something else we need
to do that – is there an understanding for that
David: there's an understanding conformance section and that's where that edit would go in – this is good because it means we''re not changing, just clarifying
Kathy: in looking at the different success criteria, David I've seen you done a lot on change of content
David: I've done changes in most of those I was the manager for. I can do change of content
Kathy: Andrew was the manager for target size – I can do that one
Mark: I'll get the understanding updated for orientation
<David_> http://tinyurl.com/jmo9st4. has the SC managers and all the links also...
Kim will do character key shortcuts
and accessible name
David: doing conformance
Kathy: 4 that aren't covered,
Detlev, Patrick will be here
... for the template for all of these, the templates are pretty
much set.
David: examples
<David_> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html
David: it's for when the
techniques only apply to certain aspects of a success
criteria
... you might have a technique that only meets part of the
success criteria, not all of them. So gives us a little more
flexibility in terms of mapping techniques. This is a
sufficient technique for the success criteria but the context
might change. You have situation A, B, C to limit that
... it's once we start getting into the granularity of a
technique. Say it's a specific type of shopping cart or
something that would apply to it, but it wouldn't apply if you
were in a different technology of course
... it just gives us a little more flexibility for when we are
mapping techniques. It's just when it doesn't cover the entire
success criteria – a way to limit it to a situation
David: there sometimes a lag between the views
Kathy: is there anything we shouldn't do in terms of just copying. For example target size at AA versus target size no exception at AAA – the benefit is going to be the same – just copy it over
David: yes. Just copy the same stuff over and just amend a little
Kathy: techniques under AA and AAA, some sufficient techniques are repeated
David: that's fine – there will
be a lot of overlap
... the big thing is to get grammar and punctuation right the
first time around. It's a total pain to go through and
proofread the understanding. My instinct is to dump things in
and worry about other things later, but if you're not going to
come back soon later it's better to reread and get the grammar
right
Kathy: I'd like to see if we can get most of these in draft format over the next few weeks. Once you get it done let Kim and I know for the next meeting – will keep going forward on those
David: techniques as well?
Kathy: we should put the techniques that we know in the techniques area. There were others that came up in discussion. We are not writing the techniques at this point, but put the titles in
David: if work has been done already on existing techniques put in – we can apply work we've already done
<Kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
Kathy: target size example – we
have links to techniques we've already created
... everything that we had to find I was pretty careful in
making sure to transfer them over. it should be pretty
close
Marc: how far are we going with techniques
Kathy: I was just going to copy
what we had – start listing in techniques and failure, but not
worry about writing them now. Focuses on understanding
language. I was just going to put the headlines like we have
now right there
... we may have other things that come up for things we may
want to adjust after we see COGA and low vision go through this
and feedback from the working group
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status#Issue_60_-_Target_Size
Kathy: also note that all of these have links to the issues of things that we went through – for example for touch target we have the issues that were listed. This is good to go back and look at some of those things.
David: do we have a list of all of the – a table?
2.4.11 Character Key Shortcuts
2.5.1 Target Size AA
2.5.2 Target Size (no exception) AAA
2.5.3 Pointer Gestures A
2.5.4 Concurrent Input Mechanisms AA
2.6.1 Orientation AA
2.7.1 Accessible Name A
3.2.6 Accidental Activation A
3.2.7 Change of Content AA
<marcjohlic> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Development_Assignments
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page
Kathy: we can link back to this
list
... numbering – 2.5.4 was target size, now it's concurrent
input mechanism. Don't get confused over old numbering versus
you numbering, but you can go back in assignments archive and
look at the different things we were working on
David: looks like it's going to be easier just to go through the list of what we've listed so far.
<Kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
Kathy: I've already listed them
under each of the github issues
... I uploaded the original issue for each of them. I listed
all the proposed techniques that we had come up for that under
the technique headings
David: on the main issue, the first entry
Kathy: next week we should have
some that we will review on this call. As soon as they get
published to the github repository they will go out with
Michael's drafts. So if we get some of these into the
understanding it will be published with 2.1 when it goes
out
... next week I should have more information about when the
other success criteria drafts will be ready. Will be reviewing
each of those – low vision and COGA
Marc: editing rights?
Kathy: I can edit it
Marc: I do have a pencil here – I
can edit
... based on this table – is this finalized
Kathy: there are three outstanding, but those will be decided really soon. This will be the latest and greatest all the time
Shadi: the reason the chairs are revisiting the CFC on device sensors is because the initial objection specifically was not about the SC as such it was about the scoping and so this makes a difference. The chairs are putting a lot of emphasis on trying to treat all the success criteria and input equally on equal basis using justified criteria for every position. and Steven has been participating i
n trying to find a result so the approach is not to completely remove it, but continue working on it after publication so it's likely that an editor's note will be added saying there is an issue but we are going to continue working on it rather than removing it
Kathy: the objection was around
scope and was also muddied because people were commenting about
incorporation into 2.1.1 which was off the table in terms of
accepting it into 2.1. So the scope was in question not the
acceptance of the actual SC. And there was support for SC from
those who objected, but the objection was on scope not general
principle.
... right now the scope has narrowed and I think it's fine to
narrow the scope. We haven't had any real objections on the
proposed language and it's really not that different from what
we had, just narrowing the scope to motion-based sensors rather
than any device sensor
... that's where were at, so we won't put Device Sensors in
until we have a decision from the chairs. The other ones we
will work on. Will also have an update from the other
taskforces next week as well
... we will be meeting regularly now until we get this done and
then will do techniques as well
... a lot of different groups are going to be coming and
helping out with this. I think it's important that the amount
of work in the amount of time and the discussions that we all
had in the task force – that that doesn't get lost in that we
make sure that stuff gets in and we continue the conversation
on mobile – thanks for driving it forward
... any questions just let me know I can always edit for
you
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) Default Present: shadi, Kathy, chriscm, Marc, David-MacDonald, marcjohlic, Kim Present: shadi Kathy chriscm Marc David-MacDonald marcjohlic Kim No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Kim Inferring Scribes: Kim Found Date: 31 Aug 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-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]