Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

21 Sep 2017


See also: IRC log


MichaelC, John_Kirkwood, John_Rochford, Andy_Heath, Jan_McSorley, kirkwood, JohnRochford, Pietro
Lisa_Seeman-Kestenbaum, Mike_Pluke


<scribe> scribe: MichaelC

Techniques for WCAG 2.1 support

<Jan> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YiknHDDDdKBdwVTEpxwUpyCaQL_tnpp9CfDlFjCq16E/edit# - Techniques

jms: ^ for techniques info

<Jan> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hmoaVU563kTio1EZD5mbNxcc0k924qVdZZwWckcbu0/edit# - understandings document

^ for understanding material with some info about techniques

LS says we should look at WCAG 2.0 techniques for examples of techniques


sample technique in the Timeouts (2) in above doc

when to use, description, examples, test, related techniques

I´m unclear if there is enough technical info

should we get feedback from developers?

is this enough?

can we ask AG participants for feedback?

mc: sounds ok

hard to say if this is technical

the SC is inherently not super technical

but the technique not clear about what it says to do beyond the SC wording

jms: maybe we can hash through the authentication technique

and get a feel for what makes a technical technique

jr: we pulled some of this from the Understanding doc

jms: let´s go back to top, accessible authentication

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

in Understanding, there are 3 techniques proposed

<JohnRochford> That URL is the understanding doc for the Accessible Authentication SC

so we need to create a full technique for each, for now just one

<JohnRochford> Actually, that URL is for all SC

JR, can you nominate a part of the Understanding to nominate as a technique?

jr: ¨essential steps which don´t rely on transcribing¨

mc: that´s general understanding content, might need reflection in techniques, but we should look at the techniques section fornow

jr: a lot of that come from the original issue paper

mc: suggest we start with the first one, the others need to be translated into technique language

<Jan> Michael: Techniques should be fairly granular for example, "allowing use of hardware tokens"

jr: if we get granular, we can´t write every possibility

mc: we don´t have to document every possibility

techniques aren´t required to conform to SC

we document the common ones we can think of, to provide guidance

should be very concrete for the ones we write up

ah: there are a lot of possibilities, too many for us to manage

mc: don´t need to write everything, can add more later

can document just titles for now, and flesh them out later

suggest we identify a couple per SC that have biggest bang-for-buck in implementation, or in understanding of the SC

jms: having a link sent, simplifying title

jk: don´t simplify important stuff out

jr: other techniques cover other situations

jms: metadata is what?

mc: least important, it´s about technology technique applies to and whether it´s positive or failure technique

jms: need some documentation of the technique sections and how to use them


mc: will do documentation when I get the techniques set up for WCAG 2.1

above is template with some instructions I set up a year ago, that Lisa copied from to set up templates in the google doc

j[k|r]: would help to have a walk-through example along with the instructions

mc: note the applicability (when to use) is mostly tautological, it´s something we had in the 2.0 techniques

jms: now for description, we want to look back at the Understanding draft for content that describes this technique

<neilmilliken> sorry for joining late what is the link to the document

<thrashing on description>


<Jan> Jan is going to write up a step-by-step guide, based on the work done this morning. There are a couple of sections left that need to be completed on the 1st authentication technique. Jan, Michael, and John Rochford will exchange emails to complete these sections and finish up the instructions.

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/09/21 15:32:38 $

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)

Found embedded ScribeOptions:  -final


Default Present: MichaelC, John_Kirkwood, John_Rochford, Andy_Heath, Jan_McSorley, kirkwood, JohnRochford, Pietro
Present: MichaelC John_Kirkwood John_Rochford Andy_Heath Jan_McSorley kirkwood JohnRochford Pietro
Regrets: Lisa_Seeman-Kestenbaum Mike_Pluke
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2017Sep/0022.html
Found Date: 21 Sep 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/09/21-coga-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]