Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 19 Oct 2017

Kathy: I want to get everybody up-to-date with the success criteria understanding documents

<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

Kathy: this is the wiki page that has the current status – all the new success criteria that have been defined for 2.1
... for all the mobile specific ones I have now made sure that those are part of the W3C repository – character key shortcuts, target sizes, pointer gestures, concurrent, accidental, change of content
... through the last couple meetings we've made some changes to those and now I've made sure that those are all up-to-date. So I have marked those as being completed under the TF review. The goal is that the taskforces are reviewing every single success criteria regardless of where it originated from so that we can make sure that the content includes mobile if needed for any of the other ones
... we'll be updating this wiki page with the ones that we have reviewed
... you'll see that the mobile vision task force has marked some of them that they've completed
... Mobil ones should be good enough to go back to the working group
... some of them like accessible name have changed already a little bit – that'll go back into adjusting that probably within the working group
... The understanding documents does not include specific details for the techniques failures sufficient advisory techniques. We have listed just name of what we would write for those. When the understanding documents are finalized we would go ahead and update – create those specific techniques and failures
... Jake and Chris have purpose of controls done. First does anyone have changes since last meeting on any mobile specific criteria. Then we'll go into reviewing low vision ones and purpose of control
... Jake, maybe you can walk us through yours

<JakeAbma> https://rawgit.com/jake-abma/wcag21/master/understanding/21/purpose-of-controls.html

Jake: better link
... took the document prepared, saw the last comments from Lisa. I didn't put all of it in there from her but restructured. Also a little bit cleaner.

Chris: I took the same approach – I would say the same for mine

Jake: just to give one example telling people that the Internet gives all people all kinds of opportunities, that's true for all success criteria so I don't think it's necessary. There's one thing I did change. I added predefined instead of conventional because of resistance for conventional
... high-level how to meet, benefits already provided, I restructured to better explain. I didn't put much effort into techniques because another round for those
... a lot of links which didn't work. Remote link text to make more descriptive

Chris: maybe the first paragraph on the intent could include a just a little more information from Lisa's original. I think it's a bit too concise. Also I think if you add more information from there– I think it's trimmed a little too much. Overall ignoring the link stuff this gets an overall thumbs-up

Kathy: from the mobile side for me is in the intent I would want to have a reference to the accessible name SC to talk a little bit about the need of each user and that there is similar type of requirements for users as well. The purpose of controls and accessible name have similar things I think we can do. I'm wondering if we can cross reference that in the intent

Jake: we were also talking about accessible name and speech users they will use that so maybe possible – I don't understand it very well but it's like – . I didn't do the research but I'm pretty sure speech users don't use micro formats for controls..
... the intent of writing and the intent is not specifically to just add sentences because someone worked on it – need to be clear and concise. Sometimes in understanding documents there's so much in there that you're using the core of the intent.

Chris: I'm tempted to scan through a few docs – look at four or five of the other understanding documents and see a balance to maintain consistency. That's the exercise I went through. I pulled out for understanding docs from other criteria in WCAG already. Are they longer or did you hit the right mark? Independently of what we think this mark is, let's see if it's consistent.

Jake: I spent a lot of time creating the wording for the intent to cover specifically the basics of the intent. What is missing here?
... we have the benefit of the examples to explain the practical side

Kathy: the understanding document across which WCAG has a little more information in it. We do have to be concise because people get lost in the understanding we currently have
... the examples of been very user focused in the past, that doesn't mean that's the way it should be
... note for speech users
... note about accessible name – on some of the understanding documents there's just a note that references the impact – a cross reference note for something else to think about when they are implementing the success criteria.

<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

Marc: will make changes and merge back into orientation after call

Jake: I have to leave in a minute. I will update the first part of the intent and will send

Kathy: Chris are there others that you've worked on that you want to present?

Chris: I have a couple of commits that I need to add

<chriscm> The intent of this success criterion is to support personalization and support user preferences and user needs through the use of metadata consumable by assistive technologies, user agents or other technologies that allow a user to customize the appearance of various controls. By applying this information from a publicy available vocabulary, technologies can respond to the purpose of a control, and present it to the user in a custom, user

<chriscm> defined way.

Chris: what do you think about this – just the intent content

Suggested change to make it just a little smoother:

scribe: user needs with metadata that's consumable…

Chris: I'll finish the rest and make the whole document ready for Tuesday or Thursday – whenever it needs to happen

<Kathy> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/graphics-contrast/understanding/21/graphics-contrast.html

Kathy: we can talk about graphics contrast
... we should mention in the understanding that this helps mobile users as well
... not only low-vision, but mobile users in sunlight etc.

Chris: I like that comment – any time you can incorporate WCAG into something that's good for everyone – that's a cool connection

Kathy: that's the only one that's marked ready
... we can spend the rest of the time looking at mobile to see if there's anything else and making sure ours are ready. If I've missed something putting them up let me know.

Kathy Next week there won't be a meeting. Kim, Shadi and I are away. I'm sure there are tweaks but I think we are in pretty good shape.

Presen+ Kim, Kathy, Chris, Mark, Jake

- DRAFT -

Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

19 Oct 2017

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output