See also: IRC log
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
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__, Kim, Kathy, Chris, Mark, Jake Present: shadi__ Kim Kathy Chris Mark Jake No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Kim Inferring Scribes: Kim WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Found Date: 19 Oct 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/10/19-mobile-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]