Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

13 Feb 2018


AWK, Kathy, JaeunJemmaKu, kirkwood, JakeAbma, Makoto, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, MichaelC, jallan, SteveRepsher, Glenda, jasonjgw, Greg_Lowney, Mike_Pluke, Mike_Elledge, KimD, Alex, Katie_Haritos-Shea
Mike_Elledge, gowerm


<Mike_Elledge> scribe: Mike_Elledge

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say is there a general page that is tracking Understanding and Techniques -- like the mobile page, but for all SCs?

Silver TF update

awk: Jeanne and Shaun giving up date today on Silver.

shaun: Here, difficult to get on.

<Lauriat> Progress Update: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Progress_Updates#Silver_Update_for_4th_Quarter_2017

sl: See link for details. Lots of participation. 71 members, active on calls, navigating research. Lit review being written. Legacy and conformance underway.

<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag

sl: Survey of 2.0 SC, analysis complete. Audience feedback being included. Conformance survey going out today, poss tomorrow AM.
... 4 research parnters sho have completed work. Job stories written for each role > designs. Three key areas conformity, maintenance and ?. Will be at CSUN for discussion.
... Design sprint at SD University. Trying to get a broad group with different perspectives.

<AWk_> +AWK

sl: usability is third area, see above.

glenda: How do we see the research?

sl: We ahve the papers locked down. Some not officially published, up to authors. There will be analysis, indirectly can be shared.

glenda: Didn't want to miss anything publixhed.

Js: Goal to have all analysis publised by march 1st. Starting to crank out reports. Expect within next two weeks available everything done. Will be sent to wcag wgs.

glenda: For Dec draft 2.1 items, have you seen that list. Many are needed, but may need more research. Can you do that?

sl: have not focused on 2.1. Do want to be aware as move forward. have not decided on content for silver. Conform model may be diffedrent, don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Definitely will be useful for content and user needs, as well as challenges and why couldn't get into 2.1.

awk: Any other questions?

me: Will there be a notice sent out?

js: Will send note to ag list.
... We're excited about it and want to share!

awk: Can yo talk about what the timelien is looking like? First public drafts, rec?
... Realize that precision is impossible for dates. But need to think about whetehr there is a 2.2 or straight to silver.

<Lauriat> Project Plan for reference: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Design_Plan_for_Silver

js: On track for research completion now, design sprint in March, reqs document May 2018. Work on pub working dreaft this summer, editor's draft at TPAC this October.

mc: These drafts will help define new charter.

js: Rechartering to being this Jan!
... Goal to go to rec in 2020. Still on timeline.

sl: See reference to design plan above. Structural res has been going on. Content res will be ongoing. In process of phase 1, 2, 3 next couple of months.

awk: Any other questions?
... Thank you so much

<Joshue108> thanks Jeanne and Shawn!

Survey for ACT TF: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_draft_review2018/

shadi: Happy to go
... Standing in for wilco and mary jo. Staff contact. Believe wilco gave update two weeks ago. Working on format spec, also have first sample rules to publsiha at same time, and rule process.
... will get validated, hopefully, then wg to approve once everyting completed. Rules dev with committee rather than working group.
... Plan to have this as wide review draft, but made quite some changes between drafts to address approaches that are not procedure. Example hierarchical approaches, AI, for example. This cange substantial and going for another working draft. Our schedule is okay, CR is in October, so have time.
... So survey is to get approval to pub acting format spec, also question to get input on sample rules and process. Rules really show how the spec looks like when implementned.
... Note that w3c formatting isn't applied, yet. Will be provided.

awk: ahve survey. Only about six respond so far. Idea is to approve publishing another draft. Hopefully not particularly controversial.

me: Should we be concerned with typos and minor edits?

shadi: I guess not typos, writing style, yes.

awk: Now have 7 ppl responding to survey. Any objectins to accept the next working draft?

RESOLUTION: Permission to publish draft of rules format and updated demo rules site.

Discussion of evaluation process and demo of tool

mc: This is a temp uri, will be off minutes. Will hae permanent soon. This is a copy of the tool to evaluate 2.0. Udated to modernize code and make it work for 2.1.
... A copule of pieces missing. follow second link to implementations. Link for 2.0 and how worked.
... (walk-through) go to a Tutor. Techs used, user agents tested, probably won't use self-evaluation this tiem around.

<AWk_> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/WCAG21/CR/implementations

<AWk_> "evaluate" link in 5th column

<AWk_> follow link

mc: Go to table rowls to evaluate column...you can evaluate the page, mark current progress, https://www.w3.org/2017/11/WCAG21/CR/evaluate?implementation_id=47
... links evaluation status, will allow you to evaluate in multiple sessions, success critera https://www.w3.org/2017/11/WCAG21/CR/evaluate_central?implementation_id=47&eval_sc
... Can indicate agreement, disagreement....list of sufficient techniques, not required, but can indicate techniques taht were sued, also failures
... Not sure how much we'll use for 2.1, but will keep it in tool.

awk: Until we have techniques, can't test, but will work to update this. Narrative may be more useful anyway.

mc: Evaluate techniques is broken, but will take you to a page to specific technique.
... Save input and continue,..or scroll down to look at each sc. Would go through the page. Can also look at sc one by one on another page. Same process.
... This is the process to do evaluations. Will need to have site open to evaluate. Each person using tool can use this. Two evaluators per site.
... In table of implementaitns, Evals shows number that ahve been done. https://www.w3.org/2017/11/WCAG21/CR/implementations
... Need at least two. Need to have common agreement. But if disagree, will ask another person or two to review.
... Chairs and I then can compare. 3 yes, 1 no > will decide depending on the comments. May add other reviewers. We wind up with final official review for each site. Expecting that reviewers with be wg members.
... Link to "My evaluations". Haven't added wcag 2.0 criteria yet, will. For some sites will be looking for only one sc is evaluated, others for 2.1 entirely.
... Will provide instructions for what to evaluate on each site. 2.0 criteria will be removed, new criteria will be added.

awk: Will have a clean slate.

mc: Can go into it and play. won't affect what we will do.

dm: thinking of sc as passive or active. Passive: Don't do dumb stuff. Quite a few are in that category. 11 of 17. When finding implementatins are we looking for how they overcame dumb implementation, or what they did right.
... for example, if label and name, whould we make sure that name was read by screen reader or api.

mc: Not a passive one.
... some amoutn of judgement, if not applicable or a pass. Depends on Sc. If don't do somehting done, if hasn't been done, then passed.
... Whetehr an evaluator puts pass or not applicable, still passes. If we need active implementation, then must record some passes for those Sc.
... If difficult to decide between pass and na, then something we make need to look at.

awk: Site could pass without video, but wouldn't be example of captioning.
... Want to demonstrate mboth a simple form as well as a complex one.

mc: If label doesn't have visible image would fail.
... Google's home page, main search field does not have explicit button. But does have search button, so we know that it has label.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about SC 1.3.4 & 1.3.5

jf: First link on the sample page to CR Reco page, link to 2.1 candidate recommendation goes to 404.

mc: We'll fix it.

alex: Some SC have multiple ways to meet, 2.2 has four choices. Should we find two of each, total 8 examples?

mc: Don't think that we're that granular.

alex: If all you need is two, then how is that robust. Other two not tested.

mc: We should try to get implmeemtation of all the choices. If we find violations of those bullets in some sites, then also relevant.

alex: Math works that if we just do two, testing half of them.

mc: Best to do full set, no formal requirement though.

awk: When will tool be ready?

mc: Don't know. Mostly ready now, but still finding things. Maybe next week.

<david-macdonald> @AWK That Google search field is an EXCELLENT example of "label in name" Visible label is "Google Search" and ACCNAME is aria-label="Search"

mc: Collecting implementations...please play with it so can hit ground running. Also if you report bugs can repair them.

awk: Commitment for that person's time?

mc: Yes. But communication issues with time zones and focus on CR.

<AWk_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Implementations

awk: Any other questins?
... Refer back to wiki page for sites taht are examples of each of SC and also full site for conformance.

<alastairc> I added a couple of Animations examples. Just getting some assessments done for full sites.

awk: One lead for full site (eight needed).
... Have one of two for AAA. Need badly.
... How about a corporate site. Need examples. May find full-site examples, but some sites will just meet individual scs
... for indivicual SC implementations, ahve filled out nicely. Sites we would into testing tool. Need some more.
... Have quite a few to do, 6 in hand and 10 or so need more. Please find implementations.

glenda: Spoke to Knowbility, about to launch a redesign. Think that if timing works have a yes we want to do this. At AA.

<alastairc> Can we do WCAG 2.0 AA, and the 2.1 AAA ones?

glenda: If need to go to AAA...let's try AA first.

chuck: How do I communicate my findings on this implementations page. Since my first task, still communicate via email. Found a variety of sites that challenge the standard, Apple.com, but also meet SC.
... MapQuest, can zoom in and out, but nto sure if it meets SC.

awk: In line with passive or active. In that we need to find examples that actively pass, while recognizing that value in site passing wihtout problems, if issue doesn't come up.
... For individual SCs, looking for active implementation.
... use the wiki for questionable example, go in and add some bullets, if not sure add note that not sure of example. And engage with the list, for feedback.

<gowerm> scribe: gowerm

<JF> http://john.foliot.ca/demos/autofill.html

JF: May be too nuanced, but I've been working on 1.3.4 Common Purpose. We've been looking at using the autocomplete attribute.
... I'm looking at a test page that uses all 53 values. But I'm not getting full support from all broswers for all of them. Is partial support acceptable?
... Do I have to find a form that uses all 53 values?

<Joshue108> and thanks John, Jon Av, good discussion

AWK: So I am using Safari, and the browser doesn't add in anything for an honorific, for example?

<Joshue108> and Jason W

JF: That's one of the one that does not appear to have any native support in any of the browsers.
... On Windows, I'm also looking at extensions. In most of the browsers you can find settings to populate what they call "addresses" with multiple datapoints.
... Even in the browsers, you can only provide so much data, and they won't support all the values.

Michael: I interpret this as an a11y support question.
... We need browsers that support in order to be programmatically determined. It tends to be an all-or-nothing question.

JF: I would push back on programmatically determined. It's in the code. you can query it.
... Nickname is in the code, but not supported by the browsers. i can style it. It just isn't supported by the browsers natively. So what about a browser extension?

Michael: I checked and you are right about 'programmatically determined'. It says 'agents can detect'
... Browser extensions is acceptable.

JF: I have some concerns, but a clearer path out of the forest.
... We're never going to find a form that supports all in the wild.

Michael: We don't need to show it in the wild, but we need something more than a test page -- something that is part of a site.

JF: There is one for IMPP which no one is likely to ever use.
... How did this meet the exit requirements at HTML5?

David: Don't we just have to show that the inputs that match are supported?

<Ryladog> Perhaps a Training site, that shows how to code to WCAG 2.1, as opposed to an Example page

<Ryladog> WAI Tutorial?

JF: The question is, do I need to provide an example of everyone being supported?

Michael: Our test procedures don't go to that level of detail. It is best for us to attempt to cover them all to be sure we are doing our due dilligence and avoid any problems, but realistically, if something doesn't occur in the wild, it may not have been detected.

JF: Some examples I gave are arbitrary, but the honoric prefix and suffix values aren't supported in any browser.

Michael: We've already shown that programmatically determined can be proven outside browser support. For a11y support, hopefully we can cook up an extension for this.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say we need practical robust examples where possible.

JF: I'll continue working on this. Wanted to flag my concern here, since it is complex.

<david-macdonald> Content that can be "programmatically determined" can be transformed (by user agents including AT) into different sensory formats (e.g., visual, auditory) or styles of presentation need by individual users. If existing assistive technologies cannot do this, then the information cannot be said to be programmatically determined.

Josh: John, thanks for contributing on the list. i think we start with low hanging fruit to start with.

<david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-programmatically-determined-head

Josh: Then folks can gain confidence.

<Joshue108> +1 to David

David: My understanding of programmatically determinable is that something has to be determined. I think we have to see if there is going to be a browser.

Michael: Reads definition of PD. So the presence of the attributes needs something to interpret it, such as a browser extension

AWK: In general, if you are assigned to find an implementation, please do so. Reach out to the chairs or list if you have issues. If you don't have anything assigned, please help those who do, or sign up.

Understanding walk-through

AWK: I wanted to remind people about how we're doing Understanding documents.
... If you are not using github, you write it up as you like then find someone who can use github to migrate -- email list or chair
... In general no one should be doing changes in the master branch.

Michael: No one can do changes in the master branch.

AWK: You should be able to find a branch for each SC. Those are the branches where you should be doing updates for Understanding documents.

Michael: Some SCs have been renamed but the branches haven't been. Keep working under the old name.

AWK: For example, non-text contrast used to be called graphics contrast.
... If you are working with more than one person, you can create a branch off of the SC branch. Then you can decide on whether to merge
... Does anyone have any questions?
... There is a readme file that summarizes this process.

<laura> Accepted WCAG 2.1: SC https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

Techniques walk-through

<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21

AWK: If you look at the main repository, you'll see a techniques directory
... There is a template in that directory, which you are encouraged to copy the html for.
... Don't follow the naming convention from 2.0. Instead come up with a name for the technique. So if it is using autofill values, just make it use_autofill_values or something. But be sure to create a branch.

<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21#editing-techniques

AWK: That page gives you a process.
... Most of the draft techniques in place... Contact task forces to take on work taking the draft techniques into a full technique.
... I'm putting an example in.

<AWk_> For example, if you have a technique that will be titled "Using HTML5 autofill field values" you might name the branch "using-html5-autofill" and the filename "using-html5-autofill.html"

Issues with responses (761, 760, 759, 758, 756)

AWK: That branch would be off of the master.
... We have a bunch of issues we need to work through.


<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/761


<JF> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Kathy> +1

<marcjohlic> +1

We would flag the Understanding part about Alexa/Google Home for implementation follow up

<Greg> +1

<Bruce_Bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed


<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/760

Katie: That's relevant based on keyboard

David: We could also point out we are using "pointer" rather than "mouse". We could get some credit for that, if mentioned in response.

<AWk_> Gower: Not specific to this topic, but our decision about not changing 2.0 in 2.1 is something that we need to think hard about for 2.2

<AWk_> ... some of the 2.1 SC may need to be more malleable

<AWk_> ... not for now, but we need to keep in mind moving forward

JF: We need to be careful we don't change SC because they're baked into legislation.

<AWk_> Bringing us back to #760

<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/760#issuecomment-365345796

RESOLUTION: Accept as amended


<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/759


<Ryladog> +1

<JF> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Greg> +1

<marcjohlic> +1

Bruce: Remove first sentence and "unfortunately" to make the second paragraph start "The change..."

RESOLUTION: Accept response as amended


<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/758

<AWk_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/758#issuecomment-363483318

<Glenda> +1 to Alastair’s comment proposal :)

<laura> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<marcjohlic> +1

<JF> +1, plus +1 to asking for examples from Amazon

<Greg> +1

<AWk_> current version : https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/758#issuecomment-365348617

<Glenda> +1 as ammended :)

RESOLUTION: Accept response as amended


<JakeAbma> +1


<kirkwood> +1

<Ryladog> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response as amended

<laura> +1

<JF> +1

AWK: I will send out a CFC for these ones.
... We had an objection for the last one from Lisa. We requested some information back, so have to close that off.
... It worked out well not having a call last Thursday. I'd like to give folks this week to focus on tasks.

JF: Is anyone interested in getting together to look at 1.3.4?

AWK: Why don't I sent out the agenda to say it's going to focus on 1.3.4 and 1.3.5?

<Joshue108> That would be helpful John

<Joshue108> thanks all - bye

<JF> bye all

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Permission to publish draft of rules format and updated demo rules site.
  2. Accepted as proposed
  3. Accept as amended
  4. Accept response as amended
  5. Accept response as amended
  6. Accept response as amended
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/02/13 17:59:51 $

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/Do I have to/JF: Do I have to/
Succeeded: s/autofill_technique/autofill_values/
Succeeded: s/autofill_values.html/autofill_values/
Succeeded: s/forwar/forward/
Default Present: AWK, Kathy, JaeunJemmaKu, kirkwood, JakeAbma, Makoto, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, MichaelC, jallan, SteveRepsher, Glenda, jasonjgw, Greg_Lowney, Mike_Pluke, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic, adam_solomon, shadi, Bruce_Bailey, Laura, Lauriat, Brooks, jon_avila, MikeGower, KimD, Alex, Katie_Haritos-Shea
Present: AWK Kathy JaeunJemmaKu kirkwood JakeAbma Makoto alastairc JF Joshue108 MichaelC jallan SteveRepsher Glenda jasonjgw Greg_Lowney Mike_Pluke Mike_Elledge KimD Alex Katie_Haritos-Shea
Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Found Scribe: gowerm
Inferring ScribeNick: gowerm
Scribes: Mike_Elledge, gowerm
ScribeNicks: Mike_Elledge, gowerm

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 13 Feb 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]