Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

24 Oct 2017

See also: IRC log


AWK, bruce_bailey, KimD, jasonjgw, Makoto, Laura, Mike_Elledge, MichaelC, lisa, alastairc, MikeGower, Brooks, JF, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Pietro, kirkwood, david-macdonald
Andy_heath_Kathy_Wahlbin, Jake_EA_draffan, David_MacDonald



<AWK> reagent, draft minutes

<AWK> Zaki, ping me us in 62 minutes to get a new scribe

<Mike_Elledge> Welcome back!

<scribe> scribe: bruce_bailey

Finishing survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Oct_17th_agwg/ (#’s 6, 7, & 8, and possibly 3)

<scribe> scribe : bruce_bailey


Response to 327

Response to comment on 3.2.7 Change of Content #482

<lisa_> the volume is cuting out

This was in response to David MacDonald

AWK: we have the pull request wrt changing second bullet

9 access and others with comments and suggestion

AWK call on Alistair to respond

Alastairc: thinks response covers it

it seems a bit odd that change in focus might exempt

could be 50/50 chance

AWK: similar comments / concerns

it can be a slippery slow with "after" since that could be 10 pages down

does it help? does it hurt?

AWK: we need to think more about user need

calls on Jason

<david-macdonald> monitoring for a few nmoments while on break from teahing

Jason: changes may immediately follow focus might not be where the change is

this is not always the case

example is a form where the content changes as data is put into form

when one selects one field, the fields and options change

user might not know to look

Jason: 2nd point is magnificant does not have to cover all the content that was changed

might just be live area

3rd point was concern that proposal might not be exactly right thing for the user

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about "what kind of notification?" is there a minimum notice required?

conclusion is we should consider more.

John F: To notification issue, do we need to define or clarify?

JF: FaceBook example is just a ping on a page. Is that enough?
... We kind of envisioned an aria live region, but that might not be necessary

Jason: We specify something like an aria live region

If we want to allow other approaches, we need to dicuss further

that technology needs to be developed

Users are likely to expect an aria live region

the form example might be a bit missleading

things might not work as well as commenter things.

AWK: to summarize, core of requirement is notification and could be a chime or something

JF: Asks if we have that documented in draft understanding?

MikeG: I was okay with comment, but draft has undefinded terms

<JF> +1 Mike

There are a lot of details and undefined terms that we do not have clear enough

The part about "programatic notification" is okay but not fleshed out enough

AKW: Programmatic notification is made by the author, because of something the author did, but the AT response is not known.

AWK: are there other issues beyond programmatic notification?

MikeG: PN is the main issues but even it is vague.

<jnurthen> +1 to vagueness here

MikeG gives other quick examples of vagues.

Jason: agree significant definitial issues

Thinks we may be able to address those with other current open issues.

HTML5 techniques will cause user agents to be alerted in at least some sense

We should think in our clarifications about how programmatic notification works

AWK: I am hearing some real significant doubts about PN but also this SC in particular.

People like this idea, for a requirement about alerting to changes on the page that does not have immediate focus.

Downstream in the page and sequential reading order are tied into this as well.

In the survey, 9 of us said we should allow the downstream exception

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to disagree specifically with the exception

Asks for speaking up to agree.

Steve concures with concern. Agrees that exception that exception is a problem.

Steve: Exception assumes that a blind individual only needs to get one read of the page

Steve does not like the change.

AKW asks for reasons to keep the change.

MikeG says that if the change is right after the other control, then it really might not be a problem.

MikeG: If it immediately follows, not something much further down the page, the new information should be readily available.

<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask about intent of SC - Is this about ultimate discoverability of added content, or is this about immediate discoverability of new content?

Brooks: idea is to let user immediately know about new content

Alternative is just that users find out because something is in their way

AKW asks for clarification for concern, back to drop-down example of picking country.

<lisa> just stepping aay for a moment

If user selects US, then drop down is state. If user selects Canada, then drop down is provinces

Brook: Issue is simplier than we might be making. Agrees that user does not need to hear that second group of choices changes.

JohnF: The key issue really seems to be around proximity.

So changing the the very next field change is fine. Most forms and fillout is a linear process.

Question about what happens when going backward? Going back to country field from bottom of form?

How close is close enough?

Jason: Example is survey is similar to what JF described, so picking a different country might delete what the user put into address field.

User would be okay with states changing to providences, and expect that proximate change.

Other changes, like the address line being lost, would need programmatic notification.

If we want to restrict this based on kind of changes, we need some clarification about that.

General assumptions about linear reading order might not hold. So we need to re-evaluation.

James: We need to think more about proximity. If any user makes a choice that changes the (form) page three screens away, no one knows.

JF: Asks about page.

<Alex__> good point

JF clarifies about long page. There are ways to think about proximity and flow.

JF: Flow term is interesting, different than proximity. Is issue really about change of flow?

<lisa> putting my comments n irc.

<lisa> emphasis is also imporant

<lisa> people think you will know or see something becuse it is in bold

If the change is in the experience space of "not yet heard" then changes there are not important.

<lisa> but proximity is not relivent

Shopping cart experience is a good example.

Example with lots of simultaneous data (ex., sports scores) need consideration as well.

MikeG: Context was experience of screen reader users and aria live and what programmatic notification could be for different people
... Change of context for the user remains an important concern.

I reasonable technic is to notify the user.

The user could be notified in advance, but only when the technology does not support the live notification.

Exception for advance notification is too broad as currently written.

MikeG gave the example of the fast keyboard user moving away from focus, missing the screenreader update.

Programmatic notification could have solved that.

Brooks: It is not about options for question 2 changing is not so important as understanding the relation from question 1.

Example of country and then subdivision is okay.

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say talking about proximity is a non-starter for me - visual and DOM can be very different

Example of favorite color changing options in next question is must less obvious.

Steve: Talking about proximity is a non-starter since DOM proximity and visual proximity might not be strict enough.

Proximity in terms of cognitive is even more problematic. States coming from country is intuitive.

No end user wants an aria alert about changes down the page when those changes are natural and not needed.

As a full-time screen reader user, I am concerned with current phrasing.

AWK: So we want this funtional and not overly verbose.

Jason: The important changes relevant to the task and how the content is designed.

Change should fall into the scope of what is being effected by the notification.

<JF> There seems to be a distinct dividing line here: forms versus other content that updates (i.e. sport scores, etc.)

So some examples we discussed meet that threshhold

We might also scope this down to UI elements that are added or deleted.

Example of sports results page would be compatible with this, since updates are expected, but not newly added.

<AWK> Current issues logged on "Change of Content" SC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%7Ecomment-change-of-content

Agree that current phrasing is not sufficient.

AKW: We have a log of significant comments and concerns [as pasted in].

Just one public comment, but it seems we cannot answer it without collectively digesting member concerns.

Looking for volunteer to scrub through issues?

<steverep> +1 to volunteer (fear is a wonderful motivator)

<gowerm> +1

Are there themes? Is is all just different aspects of one issue?

MikeG: Wants to check that COGA group did not initate this?

AKW: Thinks this is of issue to COGA group, but came from mobile task force

<alastairc> This one came from DavidM, one of the few 'misc' SCs.

<lisa> if you want to suggest or cc the coga group that would be fantastic

AKW: Report back in a week? Asking for more time is okay.

RESOLUTION: Leave open. SteveR and MikeG will review and report back.

survey item 7, proposed response to changing handles on SC



See SteveR:The premise for closing issues like this should be that we must concentrate on 2.1 SC and only talk about 2.0 changes for serious conflicts instead of cosmetics. The group was far from unanimous on making zero changes to 2.0 criteria (and there was no formal decision recorded on it unless I missed it), so there's no need for such a response.

Bruce is okay with respond as ammended

<AWK> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 SC, in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC."

AKW has response from Micheal.

Bruce is okay with MC response

<AWK> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 SC, in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC for WCAG 2.1 but will defer this issue for future consideration."

<gowerm> +1 "future consideration"

<Ryladog> +1 to AWK

SteveR: Okay. There may be lots of these.

<laura> +1

<KimD> +1

Just because we cannot handle for 2.1, we should not have harsh response.

AKW ask for objections.

MikeG thinks it needs word smithing.

<gowerm> Teh WG has ruled out editorial or substantive changes to WCAG 2.0... compatibility while creating WCAG 2.1. Therefore...

JF: To what SteveR asks. Did we not decide not to change anything in 2.1 that is coming over from 2.0?

We decided to create new SC for 2.1 so we avoided need to edit 2.0 SC.

<gowerm> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 normative language while updating WCAG 2.1 SC , in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC for WCAG 2.1 but will defer this issue for future consideration."

MikeCooper: We made decision NOT to change 2.0 SC but reserved option to come back to 2.0 SC.

Not in favor of deciding not to decide, but that is what the WG settled upon.

AWK concurs w/ MC assessment.

<gowerm> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 normative language while drafting WCAG 2.1 SC , in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility.

<JF> +1 to draft response

<alastairc> +1

<laura> +1

AKW asks for objections.

<Makoto> +1

<gowerm> "The WG has ruled out changes to WCAG 2.0 normative language while drafting WCAG 2.1 SC, in order to maintain clear backwards compatibility. Therefore we will not rename these SC for WCAG 2.1 but will defer this issue for future consideration."

RESOLUTION: accept response as ammended

<JF> From our Charter: The WCAG 2.1 update will be an incremental update to WCAG 2.0 rather than a major revision. WCAG 2.1 is designed to build on the WCAG 2.0 recommendation to ensure testability and technology independence, and will also ensure backward compatibility with WCAG 2.0.

question 8 from survey, proposed response

8. Proposed response to Learning Disabilities of America - Technology Committee Comments: WCAG 2.1 For Learning Disabilities and Cognitive Disabilities #211

Lisa S: The response was polite, said what we are doing, but does not address concerns

Commenter suggested changing levels, some AAA they asked to be Single A

We have not explained why we are not making changes

Lisa thinks our response should offer more explaination

characterization of suggested SC not being mature should be more specific

For example, if suggestions are not testable, we should say so

If there are other issues, we should explain more

We do have aspirations to pull more into a road map, so we should explain that

We should explain more why we are not accepting their request now

<gowerm> +1 to Lisa drafting a response for WG review

We know something won't get into 2.2 so we could say that, but say what we are working on

We could also talk about Silver and non-normative supporting documents

JF: As the author of the response, I wanted to keep it short

factual, accurate, concise in response

commenter made on comment for 10 SCs

If they want forensics, the links to research materials is there

<alastairc> I think there is a point to add about why some things won't make A/AA, and one point to make about the other (non SC) means of improvements.

JF disagrees that response is patronizing

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say difficult to respond substantively to this comment before we have finished other issues affecting those SC

JF: Commenter response is to older draft. Shorter response is better than writting a book.

MC: Seems like the kind of thing where we cannot respond until we have addressed larger issues affecting SCs.

MC agrees with JF observation that comment is on earlier draft.

LisaS: yes, they have taken 10 comments and merged them into 1, but issue could be addressed better.

Commenter deserves more serious response.

If they had asked 10 separate questions, would we not have 10 responses?

Do we have a good explaination why personalization is at AA and not single A?

Commenter is new to WCAG, so they are familar with our process.

Commenter is raising significant issues that deserve more in depth response.

<AWK> AWK: to clarify, they didn't look at the wrong version, the comment is older and based on an earlier version.

JF: The answer to why SC are A and AA is link provided.

Lisa is asking us for more justification, but commenter has not described why they think SC should be at different levels.

<lisa> actulay i am asking us to discuss if they are right and if we can do anything they asked for

<lisa> rather then just explain why not

There are a several SC that we have moved along, and have settled on AA v AAA or A

<lisa> +1 o steve

JF: We have lots of background and a document trail. Response provides that.

Alastair: Understands Lisa's point, but there is too much ground to cover to go over all the history that Lisa is asking for.

<JF> Points to: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria#Initial_Suggestion_for_Priority_Level

Alastair: Ther

There is also the ongoing compromise we have been making all along to balance importance and adoption.

<JF> Current version: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-levels-head

Alastair has started to draft that up.

AWK: Agrees that working out response via github is challenging when commenters are tracking the work-in-progress draft proposed response
... Github proposed responses have been good about putting work-in-progress caveats

but we might want to respond on list too.

LisaS: We had said we might consider changing levels based on feedback towards end.

<AWK> AWK: Think that we should focus on the non-deferred SC in the response and link to the details on the deferred ones

LisaS: So we should send interim responsed. We should ask if commenter can give us more information and documentation supporting their reasoning.

It is true that there some kind of balance, but should solict them for more information regarding the importance of adjusting SC.

LisaS: Especially for a commenter that might not only be new to our process but new to WCAG.

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say this can be a dialogue not a final answer

LisaS disagrees with closing the response.

SteveR: Agrees with LisaS, and that traditional one comment / one response approach might not be best in this case.
... We could ask "You say this should be A when we said AA. Why?"
... We should not be so eager to close this out, just leave as a dialog.

AWK: I agree with SteveR, LisaS, and JF concerns. But it is 10 issues.

AWK maybe use JF response as invitation to open dialog?

AWK: We could still say which are closed, current state of others, and which are defered to Silver.

So we ask to close this issue, then open new issues as needed.

JF: Concurs with proposed approach, but may not to continue to steer this particular response.

<alastairc> I'm afraid I have to drop off now, I've just emailed Lisa and the list with a starting point, if Lisa updates that, I'm happy to put the whole response together.

LisaS: Can we offer someone to followup with with explaination of process and how best to contribute?

Maybe do that by phone?

AWK: Talks with LisaS about proposed followup. Agrees that we have to leave open.

Alastair has volunteered to work on drafting response.

AWK also volunteers to work on response.

RESOLUTION: leave open, AKW and AC will work

CR Exit Criteria

AWK: No survey for now

We discussed a couple weeks ago

Remaining issues was accessiblity support documentation

<AWK> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0244.html

AWK and SteveR have discussed and see not to list [above].

Okay with having 5 conforming websites, one at AAA

Two implementations for each new SC

Sufficient Techniques updated in response to comments

We have several new SC for authors doing something, example purpose of controls

Techniques could be title or aria, and is already covered by techniques for 2.0

<lisa> it does not need browser support

There are questions about context that need significant accessiblity support documentation

So that is a couple examples of browsers and AT

Show our work as we say

Jason: Agree with AWK approach as outlined, but some techniques rely on technology that are only readay as we get close to CR

<AWK> AWK: The line in the exit criteria current suggested says 'Accessibility support documentation for SC with platform/user agent/assistive technology dependencies is available for at least two technologies with at least four platforms (operating system/user agent/assistive technology combinations);'

So we need to have some caveats around techniques that coming down to the wire timing wise

AKW: Working group responsible for intepreting that line.

If we do not have consenses, we may have to drop SC near deadline

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to agree in concept with AWK, but disagree on some SC

Jason: Needs a bit more clarification.

AWK agrees.

SteveR: Might have concern with status of some SC.

When do we have to have techniques for every SC?

Is it before or after SC is met?

AWK: We have to have it before.

SteveR is okay with that.

AKW: This makes things like "purpose of control" to be clear.

AWK: List does not itself have to be in exit criteria.

Brooks: No reason to exclude "purpose of control" and important not to exclude it.

AWK notes that some new SC might turn out to have already written techniques for 2.0.

LisaS: Sufficient technique might just be in the page HTML and just noted.

Lisa requests more guidence, for example if a plug-in needs to work in four browsers.

LisaS is concerned that SC could be dropped just because of misunderstanding about what work needed to go into exit criteria.

AWK clarifies that exit criteria is coming from requirements for CR process.

MC: We need to know what our exit criteria are in order to go to CR.

LisaS: Maybe we have a separate discussion about what we expect to provide?

JF: Yes, we need to have examples of purpose of control, but before that we need at least one technique for each new SC.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it isn't enough for the "data" to be in the HTML, there needs to be AT/UA that support it

JF: We need to show that new SC are doable. Lets get away from individual SC and focus on exit criteria.

AWK: The purpose of the accessibility support documentation is to show that users benefit from the work that authors do.

AKW gives example with ALT tags, that the technique is not sufficient if AT does not do something with the ALT tag.

The exit criteria requires demonstration of actual function.

<Zakim> laura, you wanted to ask: Does "Accessibility support documentation is available for at least two technologies" mean that SCs must currently work in 2 technologies such as PDF and

The four platform requirement is somewhat flexible in that multiple OS count.

Laura: How much do we have do document?
... Do we need multiple technologies for each SC?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say implementation doesn´t mean just browser but has to mean *something*

The adapting text SC is an example where we might only have support in HTML

AKW: For WCAG 2.0 we looked at PDF, Silverlight, and other technologies.

MC: For WCAG 2.0, we did not require that every technique be available for PDF.

MC clarifies that the presence of markup only is not enough.

We need an implementation does something useful with some combination of browser + AT.

MC agrees with JF that if cannot write a technique, then that is blocking.

Jason: It is difficult to argue for a requirement that does not help users in actual practice.

As far as adoption is concerned, we really need experience to know that what is in the SC and a technique is what is actually needed.

What we ask for is what is the user needed.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about dependencies on "AT" - is that a criteria?

Otherwise we would speculating on non-exiting technology.

JF: Ask about ALT tag example, since not every PWD uses AT, but might still be useful.

Another example is schema.org meta data which is tremenously useful and in actual use, but not exposed to AT at the moment.

JF: Autocomplete is an example of something that is tremendously useful, and useful for PWD. Does that pass?

AWK: Alt tag example was just a nominal example, but if nothing used it, alt tags would not be suffiicient.
... Some 2.1 SC might not be available to AT because the browser is not making the data available.

Purpose of control is pretty broad, and our exit criteria does not require that it work everywhere, just that we can demonstrate a couple good examples.

JF: Some of new SC transcend AT, so don't want to be trapped by that.

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask how schema.org is consumed by users?

SteveR: The whole point is that we cannot claim conformance without accessilbilty support.

That requirement is in WCAG 2.0 now.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say AT vs user benefit; use impact user interaction modulo a11y metadata conformance bit

If the only AT for purpose of control uses micro data or schema.org, that would not be accessibilty support.

MC: To simplify, we require benefit to user.

<JF> +1 to mcooper

Accessibility support is a bit of misnomber because we actually prefere for the benefit to come from the browser, not AT.

WRT schema.org, we have not extended support to PWD to be outside the direct user experience.

<lisa> so autocomplete, which helps the use, is one technology

<lisa> and a plug in is a second

Notice: Review of Draft Understanding content

Katie: If any new SC that gets in under Principle 4 still requires user agent support

AWK: Heads up, expect survey for Understanding

TPAC just a couple weeks away, read the Understanding doc ahead of time!

Review of current techniques needed for SC https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Proposed_WCAG_2.1_SC_Techniques

Please feel free to brainstorm and add new techniques to that wiki

Katie asks JF if dinner date set?

JF working on it, should have date by Friday,

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Leave open. SteveR and MikeG will review and report back.
  2. accept response as ammended
  3. leave open, AKW and AC will work
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/10/24 17:04:54 $

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/scribe:bruce_bailey/scribe: bruce_bailey/
Succeeded: s/AKW/AWK/
Succeeded: s/provices [sp]/provinces/
Succeeded: s/Jason clarifies/JF clarifies/
Succeeded: s/making changing/making changes/
Default Present: AWK, bruce_bailey, KimD, jasonjgw, Makoto, Laura, Mike_Elledge, MichaelC, lisa, alastairc, MikeGower, Brooks, JF, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Pietro, kirkwood, david-macdonald

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: (no, one), bruce_bailey, KimD, jasonjgw, Makoto)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, bruce_bailey, KimD, jasonjgw, Makoto

Present: AWK bruce_bailey KimD jasonjgw Makoto Laura Mike_Elledge MichaelC lisa alastairc MikeGower Brooks JF steverep Katie_Haritos-Shea Pietro kirkwood david-macdonald
Regrets: Andy_heath_Kathy_Wahlbin Jake_EA_draffan David_MacDonald
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Found Date: 24 Oct 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/10/24-ag-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]