<AWK> agneda+ Understanding Non-text Contrast - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/#wbsq4
<laura> Scribe: Laura
MC: will run through a web page.
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline/Details
MC: asked to make a detailed
schedule
... little wiggle room.
... is a table
... Milestones are date specific.
... team is what MC and team do.
... WG Activity is what this WG is concerned with.
... March is implementation testing.
... next week: Identify gaps in the implementation report and
start scramble to fill with additional implementations
... need implementations now.
... end of march check in. Should be done with testing.
... closing comments too.
... 10 April all comments on CR closed. Make decisions on
at-risk items
... end of april start of may should have time to breathe
... then we will any discussion of substantive issues raised in
AC review
... questions?
mj: can we link to this page from the main timeline page?
mc: yes
... let me know if you have any comments or questions.
mj: should we be doing evaluationnow?
mc: yes.
mc: we looked through the tool last week and fix some bugs.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/implementations
mc: eval scope not useful so didn’t do that one.
josh: wondering about generic info.
mc: don’t worry about it.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Implementations
awk: we were working off of a
wiki page.
... now use the tool.
... don’t use the Wiki page going forward.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/implementations
awk: many or all of what we have
so far are looking at single SCs
... Nomensa is the full web site - the blog at AA
... need more time to do that one.
... tool is ready. Hopefully WG participants are ready.
<alastairc> NB: Please wait until tomorrow for Nomensa.com, the updates for 2.1 go live around 12 GMT.
mg: some highlighted issues on the SC. e.g. logos
awk: we will have to look at that issue.
no one needs to do 2.6.2 Orientation - Youtube.com
mc: may be practice ones on Youtube.com
awk: Most of these should be short
mc: we need 2 evaluators for each site. more if they disagree.
<adam_solomon> can someone put a link to evaluations page in irc?
awk: should do a call on thursday.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/implementations
awk: everyone please try to get one eval finished by then
<Joshue108> Good
awk: anyone interested in doing Nomensa?
DM: when would Nomensa need to be finished by?
awk: end of the month.
... would like to have 3 people to do it.
MC: before f2f would like to have people familiar with the tool.
<Joshue108> +1 to Michael
awk: volunteerers for Nomensa before CSUN?
David: menus an home page
<AWK> Volunteers for Nomensa review: Mike Gower, AWK
ME: would look at a few pages.
MG: will run it through a tool.
MC: concerend about part of a
site.
... won’t help with AA of the Nomensa website site.
adam: focus on what is in the short list in the tool?
awk... yes. we need to migrate what is on the wiki into the tool.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on scope
<kirkwood> I think I can add MOPD at AA level
AC: Nomensa has 3 templates used in the 30 pages on the site.
jk: MOPD is Mayors office on people with disabilities.
awk: do need more implementations and evaluations,
david: add instructions to Github?
MC: yes. will do.
awk: it is also on the wiki page.
awk: when jake pointed out he
hadn’t seen the survey. we fixed that.
... we have 17 new issues on the understanding docs.
... have a survey too.
... when people used email to respond to GitHub, please delete
anything that is not relavant.
<alastairc> Yes! big +1, clean email replies please!
awk: please trim your replies.
awk: David added some
responses.
... not had many replies.
... first part related to 1.3.4
... concerened about moving it.
... katie thinks it should move.
MG: that the POUR model and its
guidelines are not adequately normalized.
... not great fits but not much of a win to move
ac: impossible question for 1.3.4.
<Joshue108> Love it
ac: damned if we do and damned if
we don’t.
... don’t want to argue about it too long
awk: let’s decide on thursday.
david: 3.2.6 could go with it
either way. no strong opinion.
... could live with it in 4.1.3.
<Mike_Elledge> Hope it's not a Ford...
<Joshue108> Could live with 4.1.3 also
james: go with whatever has the less arguing
awk: respond to survey.
<david-macdonald> scribe: David
<david-macdonald> AWK Will give you a brief tour here
<david-macdonald> The survey has a link to the understanding documents. Not each of these is ready for having met or satisfied everything that the task force felt he could do.
<david-macdonald> However the ones linked in the survey are the ones with the task force to feel that they're pretty ready to go with the exception of the low-vision group. They want additional directional feedback
<david-macdonald> Will work on this survey... If there is something wrong with the understanding content that you feel needs to be fixed before it gets into the understanding document
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/791
<david-macdonald> This issue points you to the understanding content and the SC text and if you think it's great and nothing to do that you put a plus one somewhere. You don't need to make a big long comment just give+1, on survey just say I approve
<david-macdonald> If you feel that it's just an editorial issue, then please pull in or pull request or comment or suggest a fix so that we can fix it, and "in third paragraph we spell accessibility wrong"
<david-macdonald> If there's something to change that discussion should happen here
<david-macdonald> So far no one has responded to the point or cancellation item
<david-macdonald> AWK that's the process that you have not time to work on yet. Does anyone have questions about our doing that?
<david-macdonald> AWK: no questions because it's clear or because it's confusing?
<david-macdonald> Mike Gower: should we put in a future link if it doesn't exist yet.
<david-macdonald> AWK: if there is a technique that exists and we could just link to it, if it's in a wiki page that's fine, the main thing for many of these, where the understanding is ahead of the techniques.
<david-macdonald> Michael: if you get comments to do with the understanding document can just pull requests and update them without full consensus.
<david-macdonald> AWK: yes
<david-macdonald> AWK: pull request or comment, or to the list, are all okay
<david-macdonald> AWK: any questions about the understanding documents
<david-macdonald> AWK: I don't think it's worth trying to walk through an understanding document on the call, I think people just need to read it and see if it's wares of their expectations what it's supposed to be. Some people are really good at looking at the big picture and whether it makes sense, some people are really good at making spelling mistakes in grammar mistakes. We need them all.
<david-macdonald> Take a look and see what you think
<david-macdonald> This is less of a threshold of perfection because unlike the success criterion and the guidelines themselves which don't change, setting up so we can change these often so someone has better language several months from now will be able to integrate it quickly and easily
<david-macdonald> AWK we don't have any answers right now. Any questions on the approach to these five. We need to start clearing them. So on Thursday will talk about three of these
<david-macdonald> AWK that's all stuff that we have on the agenda right now. Katie I can see that you've joined.
<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/796
s/should we be doing evaluationnow?/should we be doing evaluation now?/
<david-macdonald> David: asking about the balance between security and help for people with disabilities and 1.3.4
<david-macdonald> AWK neither Lisa or the security department has answered us yet so we are still waiting to see what they're going to say about these things
<david-macdonald> MG: in a nutshell we have 1.4.5 which requires text instead of images of text if possible. We have a situation where we have logos which is a loud exception for images of text. With label in name we have this wording which effectively says any visible text whether it's text or images a text which appears as a label for something. The accessible name for that control needs to include the visible text. When I began taking checks on implementations
<david-macdonald> Some of them had to do with logos and I wasn't sure whether I agreed with that are not
<david-macdonald> A lot of locals can have text in them and the text is not. Wikipedia logo. Picture of a globe with a picture of a puzzle with different symbols which are a form of text like Omega and upon a symbol but the title of the element is visit the main page
s/evauations,/evaluations,/
<david-macdonald> It's kind of tough thinking that you can after you've Wikipedia and those symbols into the name of the link in order to meet this success criterion.
<alastairc> Err, is the logo a user-interface-component? Wikipedia logo isn't a link (on the homepage)
<david-macdonald> Kathy: the intent was not to include simple. It's text content and I guess we could clarify that in the understanding document, the user need here it's for speech user is looking at the visible text want the accessible text to includ it.
<david-macdonald> The intent was not to have the G for Google in its icon as part of its accessible name
<david-macdonald> AWK: for the example of the Wikipedia, I think the current example of images of text would exempt that globe example. Unless it's an image that has significant other visual content. The interpretation is something like puzzling together different interpretations around the world.
<gowerm> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
<david-macdonald> AWK so Michael as far as the issued is there anything you don't have an answer.
<david-macdonald> Michael: Kathy can you clarify
<david-macdonald> Kathy: there are number of different techniques in HTML that you can do where the HTML is different than the text alternative. There may be some that pass 1.1.1 but don't pass this one because the physical text next to match the accessible name.
<david-macdonald> Kathy: you bring up some good points with clarifications that need to be in there
<david-macdonald> Brooks: want to bring up the issue but contractions shortness of words. It's about the same success criteria label in name a slightly different spin on it
<david-macdonald> This be a good opportunity to bring up the issue that we talked about on the list about contractions and shortened versions of words label and whether or not it it's accessible as part of the label if the name doesn't include the shortened version
<david-macdonald> For example: pounds vs. lbs
<david-macdonald> Kathy would fail under the success criterion because the string does not match in the accessible name
<david-macdonald> AWK: if you are following speech technology and saying click on the 20 pounds in a month
<david-macdonald> David: it's all about the string of text. If the string of text label to successful name and passes, if it's not included in the accessible name it fails. So contractions wouldn't work unless you have the same string.
<david-macdonald> AWK: does anybody else have any issues that they want reviewed
<alastairc> I did one, just finding it
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/757#issuecomment-370151809
<david-macdonald> AWK: right now we have Dave incinerated, but I don't know if we have any others that are ready for review. Alastair found one and is finding it
<david-macdonald> switch incinerated/did an issue
<KimD> *I've got to run
<david-macdonald> AWK: it looks like were out of things to do so I propose that we take the extra time to start reviewing the understanding document, if you jointly we are asking people to do at least one evaluation using the evaluation tool by this Thursday. If you're wondering what you can do, this is it.
<alastairc> This is where I found it: https://www.w3.org/2017/11/WCAG21/CR/select_site
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/l.ittle/little/ Succeeded: s/awk? yes. we need to m/awk... yes. we need to m/ Succeeded: s/agurew/argue/ Succeeded: s/ ghetto vicious Richards// Succeeded: s/ic concerned with/is concerned with/ FAILED: s/should we be doing evaluationnow?/should we be doing evaluation now?/ Succeeded: s/timeline paga/timeline page/ Succeeded: s/and evauations,/and evaluations,/ Succeeded: s/with disabilites./with disabilities./ FAILED: s/evauations,/evaluations,/ Succeeded: s/undersranding/understanding/ Succeeded: s/thing that is not relavant.// Succeeded: s/delete any/delete anything that is not relavant./ Succeeded: s/responces/responses/ Succeeded: s/dave added/David added/ Succeeded: s/argueing/arguing/ Succeeded: s/their/there/ WARNING: Replacing list of attendees. Old list: AWK MichaelC alastairc Laura Greg_Lowney Brooks kirkwood KimD Mike_Elledge jasonjgw adam_solomon SteveRepsher marcjohlic Kathy gowerm Katie_Haritos-Shea Glenda david-macdonald New list: AWK MichaelC alastairc Laura Greg_Lowney Brooks kirkwood KimD Mike_Elledge jasonjgw adam_solomon SteveRepsher Default Present: AWK, MichaelC, alastairc, Laura, Greg_Lowney, Brooks, kirkwood, KimD, Mike_Elledge, jasonjgw, adam_solomon, SteveRepsher Present: AWK MichaelC alastairc Laura Greg_Lowney Brooks kirkwood KimD Mike_Elledge jasonjgw adam_solomon 1 david-macdonald marcjohlic Kathy gowerm Katie_Haritos-Shea Glenda Regrets: Glenda Bruce Jake Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: David Scribes: Laura, David Found Date: 06 Mar 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]