Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

03 Oct 2017

See also: IRC log


AWK, brooks, Detlev_, Roy, Joshue, KimD, Glenda, Melanie_Philipp, Greg_Lowney, steverep, JF, David-MacDonald, Laura, MichaelC, lisa, Pietro, AndyHeath, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue108, jasonjgw, bruce_bailey, alastairc, Jim, jamesn, MikeGower, marcjohlic, kirkwood
Detlev, Mike_Elledge, Kathy, GregLowney, EA_Draffan, Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson
BruceB, Mike G


<Joshue108> Scribenick: BruceB

Unofficial TPAC AG WG Get-Together (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG)

<bruce_bailey> Josh, introduce Andy

<bruce_bailey> Andy Heath

<bruce_bailey> makes introductions, background in personalization long time

<bruce_bailey> worked with dave ragett and indepent ui

<bruce_bailey> long ago starting with POUR now have 120+ items

<bruce_bailey> AndyyHeath also has been working with Lisa on Coga

<bruce_bailey> Unofficial TPAC get together, John F posted to list and invites folks to drink and dinner

<bruce_bailey> survey monkey in survey

<Joshue108> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TPAC2017-AGWG

<bruce_bailey> *thanks

<bruce_bailey> If JF gets good feedback, he will try to organize something

<bruce_bailey> especially if he gets some consistent responses on survey wrt costs, etc

Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0

<bruce_bailey> hopefully brief, Josh and AWK discuss and want to be clear

<bruce_bailey> Reiterating: there will not be any normative changes to WCAG 2.0

<bruce_bailey> We are focusing our time and attention on 2.1 and latter 2.2 and silver

<JF> Besides, changes to WCAG 2.0 is out of scope per our Charter: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/ag-charter#deliverables

New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/

<bruce_bailey> David MacDonald asks if we are allowed to make things harder

<bruce_bailey> Josh affirms, that is within scope for 2.1

<bruce_bailey> We cannot change 2.0

<bruce_bailey> james comments that techniques that do not work for 2.0 might be a problem

<bruce_bailey> Josh affirms that we are drawing line on 2.0

<bruce_bailey> JF raises question that techniques do not have versioning

<bruce_bailey> A new technique that has the effect of making requirements (from 2.1, as compared to 2.) could be problematic

<bruce_bailey> JF open to versioning, but we do not have that in process

<bruce_bailey> Michael Cooper points out that technics point to SC

Normative Changes to WCAG 2.0

<bruce_bailey> MC say quick ref will make that most obvious view of that

<bruce_bailey> JF (and MC) agree that this is a work in progress, so we are all curious as to what this will look like in end

<alastairc> The URL is 'versioned': w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/, could we transplant over to w3.org/TR/WCAG21-TECHS/ and modify from there?

<bruce_bailey> MC says that QuickRef will have 2.1/2.0 filter, so that will be part of the solution

<bruce_bailey> JF reminds us that techniques are non-normative

<bruce_bailey> It will be interesting to see how this all plays out

<bruce_bailey> Jason thinks it will be conceptialy clear

<bruce_bailey> Certain techniques will only be mapped to SC from 2.1

<bruce_bailey> There may be an issue where the technique at least on its surface seems to apply to the text of a 2.0 SC

<bruce_bailey> There was also a comment that we may end up rephrasing some 2.0 SC

<bruce_bailey> Katie says new techniques for 2.1 should not be a problem

<jamesn> Why do new SC for 2.0 need to be seperate?

<bruce_bailey> There will be additional new techniques, so those might need additional care

<bruce_bailey> MC resists idea of version

<david-macdonald> presen+

<bruce_bailey> Katie asks about new techniques have distinct lables

<bruce_bailey> MC versioning even new technique would be problematic and confusing

<bruce_bailey> Katie: it seems like all the new techniques should have promenant note about being only applicable to 2.1

<bruce_bailey> Josh, asks to wrap the techniques discussion

<JF> @Josh - perhaps a topic for TPAC?

<bruce_bailey> Can be a future meeting item, perhaps at TPAC per JF suggestion

New Issues Survey #371/#372 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Issues_Sept28th_call/

<bruce_bailey> Very interesting of course, but OT for now

<bruce_bailey> We will start with 3, issue 175

Requirement for PDF forms to be Interactive #175

Requirement for PDF to Interactive

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/175

<bruce_bailey> Please see survey, thanks for David MacDonald for writing up.

<bruce_bailey> Contrarary response from SteveRep

<bruce_bailey> Josh characterizes survey as most people accepting David's proposed response.

<bruce_bailey> Josh ask David to see if OP accepts response.

<bruce_bailey> Josh points out that GitHub process is so transparent that response is developed on the fly

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to basically say we should defer not reject at this stage - it's an important point

<bruce_bailey> Josh asks for objections.

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep agrees with closing for 2.1 but keep the issue open

<bruce_bailey> MC points out that open issues are open for 2.1 only

<AWK> Then that would be "defer to silver"

<bruce_bailey> MC asks SteveRep to add to wiki

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Potential_Accessibility_Guidelines

<bruce_bailey> Link back to this issue, keep on radar for future work

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep asks for "defer to silver" label

<JF> Defer to silver? Perhaps instead we state "defer to future work" as we may actually release a 2.2 before Silver comes out

<bruce_bailey> MikeGower

<bruce_bailey> MG asks about changing a definition of 2.1 as compared to 2.0

<bruce_bailey> Definitions are normative, so this may need more discussion

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep agrees to followup

<AWK> Would make sense to change "defer to silver" label in github to "defer to future work" or just "defer" and then we can put a link to the closed issues with that label on the wiki page

RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed in github survey

<JF> +1 AWK

4. And/or in SC2.2.7 Accessible Authentication #325

<bruce_bailey> Josh agrees w/ AWK that "defer to silver" is really "defer to future work"

<bruce_bailey> Josh discuss "or" versus "and"

<bruce_bailey> MC says it is not editorial

<bruce_bailey> MC proposes changing header to match the bullets

<bruce_bailey> This fixes the problem without changing meaning

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/325

<bruce_bailey> Issue 325

<alastairc> Issue 325: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/325

<bruce_bailey> We are discussing issue 325

<bruce_bailey> David M has a counter possition from MC that it is not merely editiorial

<bruce_bailey> Issue of recalling and transcribing versus recalling information or transcribing information

<bruce_bailey> MC says intent of SC is to cover either use case

<bruce_bailey> MC agrees that preamble is confusing

<alastairc> Shouldn't the first instance be the same then? The top line is "OR"

<bruce_bailey> MC asserts that changing heading without changing bullets keeps intent

<bruce_bailey> DavidM says it might be the sequence of recall THEN transcribe is actually the problem

<bruce_bailey> MC proposes defering

<bruce_bailey> Jason remembers discussions from meeting

<bruce_bailey> Jason recollect was that Coga folks that problem use case of transcribe text from a different device (say a security key) was one of the issues

<Glenda> @jasonjgw the meant and. And they need the ability to copy and paste. They are not talking about writing it down by hand. They are talking about the ability to copy and paste digital content.

<bruce_bailey> Copy from two-factor security code is transcribing but not recalling, but is a problem

<bruce_bailey> Josh reports from email from Lisa that SC was meant to apply to either or

<bruce_bailey> Lisa email was not about sequence

<bruce_bailey> JF remembers that copy number from a phone from a web page is not the issue

<kirkwood> holding in mamory was the issue as i recall too

<kirkwood> mamory/memory

<bruce_bailey> JF, it could be a mobility issue, but not a coga issue

<bruce_bailey> JF says the bullet points as correcting in the survey is correct

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say that transcribing by itself is a cognitive issue

<bruce_bailey> Josh wants to leave open because Lisa is not on call

<kirkwood> think lisa should be on the call

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep also says that transcribing by itself is an issue

RESOLUTION: Leave open until Lisa S available for discussion

<bruce_bailey> Josh adding to Thursday call

Success Criterion 3.2.7 Change of Content #365

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/365

<bruce_bailey> This was from Gregg V

<bruce_bailey> David M has a proposed response

<bruce_bailey> Gregg comment was that he does not know what this does and need an Understanding document so he could better understand the SC

<Joshue108> proposed definition for prog notification https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/b5c68e17f82feb0cdbbafc273f245b136a7445c4

<bruce_bailey> David has the draft page from Understanding linked up, including pull request to definitions

<bruce_bailey> Second bullet is merely advanced warning, which might be instruction

<bruce_bailey> Dave thinks he has written up all that GV is looking for

<bruce_bailey> David affirms that some text in Understanding has not been reviewed during any calls

<bruce_bailey> Josh asks MC to weigh in on proposed definition

<david2> >notification set by the content which can be announced to the user without virtual or actual focus, using methods that are supported by user agents, including assistive technologies</p> + <p>Example: a screen reader announces to a user that their shopping cart has been updated after they select an item for purchase.</p>

<bruce_bailey> AKW thinks we probably needs CFC on proposed definition

<bruce_bailey> Josh proposed CFC for definition

<gowerm> +1

<bruce_bailey> MC felt that is not strictly necessary

<david2> definition of programmatic notification above

RESOLUTION: Proposed definition for Programatic Notification to go to CFC

<Ryladog> +1

<bruce_bailey> Josh, other items on this survey discussed last week

Survey on Essential cases: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential_breakout/

<bruce_bailey> Josh: this is a list of possibly inconsistant references to "essential"

<Joshue108> 9, 7, 5,4,2,1 - Unanimous

<bruce_bailey> This was discussed some last week

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

<bruce_bailey> For this week the collective items (single survey item) broken into a survey item each

<bruce_bailey> Josh asks the folks to double check the items that are anoymous

<bruce_bailey> David M missed the survey and had feedback from last week

<bruce_bailey> David's feedback is on GitHub

<bruce_bailey> David asks that we check with coga folks that might have concern

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say the survey is a bit wrong for Animation from Interactions

<bruce_bailey> MC thinks we will catch those with the new survey and the ones that are not anonymous

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep: 12 SC total

<bruce_bailey> five are just links to glossary

<bruce_bailey> one missed in survey, from AAA

<bruce_bailey> question on animations is a bit mixed up, but no actually substantive change

<bruce_bailey> survey question 4 is a bit miss-phrased

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep walking through that one verbatim

<bruce_bailey> Josh agrees to double chek on 4

<alastairc> I'm SC manager on the animations one, no objection to that change for number 4.

<bruce_bailey> JF raises issue with #9 and timelyness of survey

<gowerm> +1 JF

<bruce_bailey> Survey has not been open long and is still open now until the 19th

<bruce_bailey> JF asks to have more time, even on unanimous items

<bruce_bailey> Josh reminds everyone that we are on a tight shedule

<bruce_bailey> JF asks for more time for 9 at least

<bruce_bailey> David M asks if we can at least clear ones where we just added links

<JF> specifically pushing back on #9

<bruce_bailey> Josh agrees, we can just knock out the lowest hanging fruit

<bruce_bailey> David M still looking

<bruce_bailey> David sees no problem with changing a few essential to required

<bruce_bailey> The adding links of course is no problem, but will double check that 2.0 glossary meaning is the one that was intended

<bruce_bailey> David reports that Lisa S agree with the changes

<JF> +1 to more time

<bruce_bailey> There may be an inconsistant use of essential within the "steps" language

<bruce_bailey> David asks Alastair C about adapting text

<bruce_bailey> Alastair refers to survey, but is somewhat concerned that removing word essential changes meaning

<bruce_bailey> Alastair does not know why word essential was added

<bruce_bailey> David M points out that recent proposal was to remove essential

<bruce_bailey> Question as phrased in survey uses a new notation

<bruce_bailey> @@ for adding, -- for deletion

<bruce_bailey> Josh is going to walk through SC edits where we had anonymous responses

<Ryladog> +1

<bruce_bailey> David M still has not able to answer survey, has been focussed on pull requests on GitHub

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep reports that edits are netted up in a single pull request

<bruce_bailey> Josh and David M discussing accidental activation

<bruce_bailey> change is just link

<JF> +1 Jason. More time = more time

<bruce_bailey> David M is okay with any links to glossary definition being added

<gowerm> +1 jason

<bruce_bailey> Jason suggest instead that for this call we just discuss the controversial ones

<bruce_bailey> Josh, we will deal with more on survey

<bruce_bailey> Discussion shifting to issues, rather than easy ones

<bruce_bailey> Jason has suggestions for improving a few in survey

<bruce_bailey> Jason asks that we focus on the ones where there is disagreement

<bruce_bailey> Josh asks Jason about Q8 with contrast ratio in graphic elements

In Graphics Contrast

<Joshue108> In Graphics Contrast

<Joshue108> http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/correct-use-of-essential/guidelines/index.html#graphics-contrast

<bruce_bailey> Some people liked okay, but a few issues raised with reference to pure decoration and hover focus

<bruce_bailey> Jason would like clarification about what is covered and what is not in scope

<bruce_bailey> Jason's suggest phrasing aligns this SC with the one on Hover

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to explain once again why we need these changes - can only use essential to describe an exception and to offer to address some comments now

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep explains why changes are needed

<bruce_bailey> all these use the word essential

<bruce_bailey> some of the uses are not using the word essential consistent with 2.0 uses of essential

<bruce_bailey> wcag 2.0 definition very specific

<Joshue108> DFN - http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/correct-use-of-essential/guidelines/index.html#dfn-essential

<Joshue108> "if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform"

<bruce_bailey> refers to something that if removed, changes the function of the page

<bruce_bailey> Josh confirms with SteveRep that people are mixing the common dictionary meaning with the glossary meaning

<bruce_bailey> Example is understanding essential meaning of a graphic is not using the word essential like 2.0

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep: comments on graphic contrast in particular needs more careful consideration

<bruce_bailey> a graphic that is pure decoration is not essential, for example, so we might address that by adding an exception

<bruce_bailey> Jason thanks SteveRep analysis and agrees with it

<bruce_bailey> Alastair agrees and understands better why SteveReps suggustions are what they are

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say, pure decoration is defined in glossary

<Joshue108> MG: Pure decoration is a defined term.

<Joshue108> MG: Thats different from essential.

<bruce_bailey> Mike G agrees that reference to pure decoration is different but better

<gowerm> pure decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality.

<bruce_bailey> Proposal is for "unless pure decoration"

<bruce_bailey> That is different than essential

<bruce_bailey> That is essential is not opposite of pure decoration

<KimD> *I need more time to go through the survey

<bruce_bailey> Josh asks if people need more time, know that we have clarified some of the issues

<JF> +1 to mcooper

<bruce_bailey> MC discussion is not really progressing

<bruce_bailey> MC asks if we need to survey competing pull requests

<bruce_bailey> If people see two competing approaches, it might help folks with responses

<bruce_bailey> Josh asks people to review answers

<bruce_bailey> Josh asks people to review definitions for essential and pure decoration

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say I can put together a proposal for Graphics Contrast, but I'd like to keep these changes focused.=

<bruce_bailey> SteveRep will send his rational and summary to list

<bruce_bailey> *me thanks MikeG

<Joshue108> Scribenick: Mike G

<bruce_bailey> *me waves goodbye, thanks all

<bruce_bailey> *me afk but leaving window open so I can read the end when I get back

RESOLUTION: Leave open and come back on Thursday

AGWG Work Items progress check in and sign-ups: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22

<gowerm> Josh: We need people to take ownership of these

<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22AGWG+Work+item%22+no%3Aassignee

<gowerm> Michael: This URI shows the 5 that are not assigned

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/405

<Joshue108> Relates to Purpose of Controls https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#purpose-of-controls

<gowerm> JF: I support the editorial change to put in bullets

<MichaelC> -1

<david-macdonald> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/405

<gowerm> Michael: I don't think breaking out into bullets works as proposed.

<gowerm> JF: They are all controls essentially

<gowerm> JF: We are looking at conventional controls have some meta data attached. it was to include all three.

<Ryladog> Completely agree it is AND

<gowerm> David: added bullets while adding the AND conjunction

<gowerm> David: They are the same solutions, one with bullets, one without

<gowerm> JF: I prefer the three bullets, but I could go either way.

<gowerm> JF: It definitely is an "and".

<gowerm> Michael: I agree an "and" was meant. i can live with either, but prefer non-bullet

<Joshue108> Success Criterion 2.2.8 Timeouts - Split into two criterion? #403

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/403

RESOLUTION: John Foliot to update the pull request

RESOLUTION: Rachael to take on issue 403

<Joshue108> Problem with Technique G131 #307

RESOLUTION: Jake Abma to take on issue 307

<Joshue108> SUPPORT PERSONALIZATION -- no user setability is specified #302

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/302

<Joshue108> Learning Disabilities of America - Technology Committee Comments: WCAG 2.1 For Learning Disabilities and Cognitive Disabilities #211

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/211

<gowerm> JF: Is there an action item from this? It just looks like voicing support

<gowerm> Rachael: There is a question in here, near the top

<Pietro> I have not studied their coments

<gowerm> Michael: I think their questions are rhetorical. We can maybe defer until the end.

<gowerm> Andy: I'll take a look, but may need some handholding.

<gowerm> JF: Will hold Andy's hand.

<gowerm> Michael: I suggest we assign 211 to both Andy and John.

<gowerm> Josh: I know this is messy but we just need to find assignees

RESOLUTION: Assign both 211 and 302 to John Foliot, with Andy Heath assisting on 302 and John Kirkwood assisting with 211

<gowerm> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accepted as proposed in github survey
  2. Leave open until Lisa S available for discussion
  3. Proposed definition for Programatic Notification to go to CFC
  4. Leave open and come back on Thursday
  5. John Foliot to update the pull request
  6. Rachael to take on issue 403
  7. Jake Abma to take on issue 307
  8. Assign both 211 and 302 to John Foliot, with Andy Heath assisting on 302 and John Kirkwood assisting with 211
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/10/03 16:48:43 $

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/ivy/ Andy/
Succeeded: s/scoper/scope/
Succeeded: s/Kathy says new/Katie says new/
Succeeded: s/+!/+1/
Succeeded: s/deferfing/defering/
Succeeded: s/looking that/looking at/
Default Present: AWK, brooks, Detlev_, Roy, Joshue, KimD, Glenda, Melanie_Philipp, Greg_Lowney, steverep, JF, David-MacDonald, Laura, MichaelC, lisa, Pietro, AndyHeath, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jasonjgw, MikeGower, kirkwood, JakeAbma, Joshue108, bruce_bailey, alastairc, Jim, jamesn, marcjohlic
Present: AWK brooks Detlev_ Roy Joshue KimD Glenda Melanie_Philipp Greg_Lowney steverep JF David-MacDonald Laura MichaelC lisa Pietro AndyHeath Katie_Haritos-Shea Joshue108 jasonjgw bruce_bailey alastairc Jim jamesn MikeGower marcjohlic kirkwood
Regrets: Detlev Mike_Elledge Kathy GregLowney EA_Draffan Denis_Boudreau Laura_Carlson
Found ScribeNick: BruceB
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <BruceB> ...
Found ScribeNick: Mike G
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Mike\ G> ...
Inferring Scribes: BruceB, Mike G

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 412 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Scribes: BruceB, Mike G
ScribeNicks: BruceB, Mike G
Found Date: 03 Oct 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]