Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

13 Mar 2018


JakeAbma, Mike_Elledge, JF, Kathy, alastairc, MichaelC, Laura, bruce_bailey, Joshue108, kirkwood, Glenda, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, jasonjgw, SteveRepsher, KimD, Ryladog, Katie, Haritos-Shea


<Chuck> What are the connect details? The link is going to Thursday's instance, and I can't find a Tuesday instance to link to.

<JF> @Chuck: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag

<Chuck> Thursday, March 15, 2018 | 10:00 am Eastern Daylight Time (GMT-04:00) | 4 hours | Not started

<alastairc> Chuck: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag-plan

<scribe> Scribe: Glenda

<bruce_bailey> Congrats and thanks James

<laura> We will miss you James.

jamesn is leaving Oracle. This will be his last AG call. Chuck will be on this call for Oracle. (he will reveal where his is going at CSUN)

jamesn plans to continue working on ARIA

CSUN Agenda

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about CSUN room

<bruce_bailey> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CSUN2018/

AWK: Expecting around 15-20 people for AGWG face-to-face at pre-CSUN. We have a room at the conference hotel. We will send specific info via email about that.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CSUN2018/

MichaelC: should I reopen this survey so folks can keep their RSVP up to date?

AWK: yes, reopen the survey thru this friday…update your preference

AWK; remote attendance, we will figure that out the best we can as we get to the room. We will be relying on a webex. Biggest challenge will be hearing all the different voices.

AWK: we still need to finalize the agenda. Basic foci are: resolving issues + dealing with implementations. Important (but 3rd in priority - working on understanding and techniques).
... sound like a viable approach? suggestions? ideas?

<JF> +1

goodwitch says +1

AWK: Room is Old Town B
... 8am to 5pm we have the room (Mon and Tues)

<Joshue108> wow

<bruce_bailey> * $5 cookies sounds like a relative bargin!

AWK: catering at hotel is super expensive, so please grab your own breakfast. We are all on our own for breakfast and lunch (we will leave the room to grab lunch).

JF: I was able to order pizza for a hackathon at that hotel.

<bruce_bailey> * LOL

AWK: interest in a dinner on monday?

<JakeAbma> +1 to dinner

<Joshue108> +1 to dins

<Chuck> +1 Dinner

<Kathy> +1

goodwitch +1 for dinner

<JF> +1 for dinner. Also, if we have a hard-count we can make a reservation at Buster's Beach House for one of thedays lunches

AWK: we will plan on having dinner Monday night for anyone who wants to join

<inserted> -> zakim, https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag-ftf Face to face remote participation instructions

Possibly moving 1.3.4 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/768

AWK: looking thru this and based on conversation from thurs call. I don’t know that we have support for moving this. But we will open for discussion for a few minutes today.

<bruce_bailey> Principle 1: Perceivable - Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.

<bruce_bailey> Principle 3: Understandable - Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable.

Katie: 3.3 Input Assistance

AWK: we certainly do not have unanimous support for moving it. We have more people supporting keeing it where it is.

Katie: what we have related to personalization in 1.3.4 is close to zero. The way 1.3.4 was supposed to be personalization, but now it is focused on input assistance. There maybe some personalization in the future using the auto-complete taxonomy. But there are no implementations for this personalization today. So that is my concern. It is input assistance today.
... My other issue is, to address personalization with all stakeholders, not just with accessibility. I don’t think this working group has the expertise to deal with personaization, We need a web-wide personalization initiative.

<bruce_bailey> Guideline 1.3 Adaptable: Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure.

<bruce_bailey> Guideline 3.3 Input Assistance: Help users avoid and correct mistakes.

Jason: If you look at Guideline 1.3 and 3.3, what we have in 1.3.4 is closer to the principle of 3.3.

<Ryladog> +1 to Jason says relating SC to GL and Principles

Jason: I think it fits very well where Katie is suggesting it should go.

<JF> w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics

JF: it is a larger activity than just accessibility. This is informed by experts outside accessibility.

<JF> https://a11y-resources.com/developer/adaptable-ui-personalisation#aui-field

Example proof of concept related to personalization using the auto-complete tokens.

<Joshue108> +1 to John

JF: the point really is to allow for personalization. We split this SC into 2 parts so 1.3.4 can be the proof of concept.
... bug was filed by Chaals, to revisit the idea of attaching the list of tokens directly to the AG (relaxing the dependency on HTML 5)

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to agree with Katie and Jason

<bruce_bailey> I do not disagree that personalization, if and when we have a more specific SC, probably belongs in 1.3.

bruce: what we have is currently a fit for 3.3, not 1.3.

Katie: personalization task force is a great start, but needs a broader group and in a more thoughtful matter.

<KimD> Huge +1 to Katie

<kirkwood> +1 to Katie

james: I was originally against moving it. I’m now leaning towards moving to 3.3. Then we squeeze in personalization at 3.3.

AWK: chairhat off. I don’t think it is a good idea to move into 3.3. I agree this is not all about Input Assistance. This is intended to be the first of personalization. It is just a contrained version of personalization.

<JF> G3ict supports thisSC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/744

<JF> +1 to the concern around seperating from 1.3.5

My greater concern about moving it to 3.3 is spearating it from 1.3.5. I don’t think we can put everything we need in personalization into 3.3…it is far broader than Input Assistance.

Katie: This is not any longer about personalization. This is about input for forms. We don’t need to be confusing people.

<JF> The SC states: The meaning of each input field collecting information about the user can be programmatically determined

<bruce_bailey> Here's current 1.3.4, emphasis added:

<bruce_bailey> The meaning of each *input field* collecting information about the user can be programmatically determined when: The *input field* has a meaning that maps to the HTML 5.2 Autofill field names; and

<bruce_bailey> The content is implemented using technologies with support for identifying the expected meaning for *form input data*.

<laura> Not moving it is future proofing...if personalization comes to fruition. The question is how big is that "if"? Moving it is pragmatic, for what we have right now.

Wrapping up in 9 minutes.

Make that 8 minutes

JF: programmatically determined is the focus

alastair: personalization is a bigger thing. I struggle to fit it under 3.3. 1.3 is about is the markup correct. This fits in 1.3.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say this disuccion and focus on where 1.3.4 should live is a waste of time

joshue: this is waste of time to discuss where this goes. Move on.

gower: personalization does not fit in the POUR model. Katie’s arguement is persuasive. We don’t loose that much by moving it to 3.3. We are spending way too much time on this.

<kirkwood> +1 to JF saying important point just saying programatically determined, the substance of proposal

jason: Katie is requesting we acknowledge the substance of what this proposal is actually requiring. AT for problems of user input. Squarely fits in 3.3. Personalization is a misleading way to discuss 1.3.4.

goodwitch: +1 to keeping in 1.3 (and lets move on to something else please)

<kirkwood> +1 this is not personalization it is about assisting those with cognitive disabilities to be able to interact with information, standards not custom per user which is personalization

<kirkwood> its not personal its cognitive

AWK: let’s not refer to other’s opinion as pathetic. That is not professional.
... is there anyone who cannot live with leaving 1.3.4 where it is.

<Ryladog> I cant

I can

<JakeAbma> can

<kirkwood> I can

<Kathy> can

<JF> I can

<marcjohlic> I can

<alastairc> I can

<JF> me

<kirkwood> me

<Ryladog> no me

<Alex_> 0

<KimD> I would like it to move

<JakeAbma> me

Is there anyone who cannot live with moving 1.3.4 to 3.3.


<Ryladog> I would to move it to 3.3

<Greg> 0

<laura> 0

<Alex_> 0

<kirkwood> 0

<steverep_> +1 to move it

make a decision and move on

<alastairc> Bruce: have a look at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JanMar/1444.html

AWK: uncomfortable consensus to leave it where it is.

RESOLUTION: CFC for not moving 1.3.4

gower: is there any value in weighing what people prefer? as to what they can’t stand?

AWK: let’s see how the CFC goes. This is taking far more time than it is worth.

<Chuck> +.001 to move it

Possibly moving 3.2.6 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/802

<bruce_bailey> Thanks Alastair for the link. That is still an argument from history rather than semantics or logic.

Do we move 3.2.6 under 4.1 or stay where it is?

AWK: one comment for status quo, keep it where it is.
... in previous one…I see a lot of neutral, go either way.
... anyone want to speak for or against moving it

David: mildly in favor of moving it. so close to name, role, value, be nice to have it in 4.1.

<steverep_> To 1.3 or 4.1?

gower: belongs as much in perceivable - it fits comfortable in multiple places
... POUR is a venn diagram with some overlaps

<alastairc> The "can be programmatically determined through role " leans me towards 4.1.2

jason: gower makes a good point that it could fit under Perceivable. Good arguement for 4.1, looks like a good home for it. Where it currently stands in Predictible…it is a more uncomfortable fit.

<JF> @Jason AKA "Understandable"

<JF> +1 to Josh

Joshue: a little bit like David and Jason. I see the appeal to moving it to 4.1. But it also sits okay where it is. Not super strong feeling.

AWK: I can see the argument for 4.1.3
... proposal is to move it. I’m not hearing objection to moving it. Anyone who cannot live with it moving to 4.1.3?

<JF> 0

Goodwitch: 0

RESOLUTION: Move 3.2.6 to 4.1.3 (CFC)

Implementation testing https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/

<gowerm> scribe gowerm

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/implementations

<gowerm> AWK: We have implementations that haven't been looked at at all, but most have had at least one person look at them.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say that Animation from Interactions under Enough Time is IMO the worst fit for any of the new 2.1s. Like others, it was there for historical reasons that no

<MichaelC> CR scorecard

<gowerm> Michael: Once there are 2 evals, you do not need to do another, so move to another item

<gowerm> MichaelC: Text spacing and Label in Name would seem to have their evals done -- which may be inaccurate because it may be one person twice -- but others need to be done.

<gowerm> MichaelC: We need more AA sites and AAA sites.

<gowerm> Glenda: Michael, can you add the goal on there? The target?

<gowerm> MichaelC: Perhaps

<gowerm> Glenda: It would be inspiring to know.

<gowerm> Glenda: The deque site was submitted, but there is a refresh scheduled. Who submitted?

<gowerm> Glenda: Neither John, Katie or I added it.

<gowerm> MicahelC: I can remove it for now.

<gowerm> MichaelC: In principle we can download pages, but that is less desirable.

<gowerm> AWK: Did you say the new site is going to conform to 2.1 and will be in place in time for testing?

<gowerm> Glenda: No, I didn't.

I want it to be 2.1 compliant…but I can’t promise it will be in time for WCAG 2.1 implementation. Ask me again in a few weeks (after CSUN!)

<gowerm> AWK: We need more AA implementations for sites. i think we have 2.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if that might not be a CSUN activity?

<gowerm> JF: Part of this feels like a hunt-and-seek activity. Could we crowd-source that at CSUN?

<gowerm> AWK: Define the crowd

<gowerm> JF: At hallway chats we could talk it up.

<gowerm> JF: The more hands we have involved, the faster.

<gowerm> AWK: We will have a better sense by the time we're done Monday/Tuesday

<gowerm> AWK: I've been hoping we'd have full site implementations in place by CSUN.

<gowerm> AWK: CSUN may be a good place to shake the bushes.

<gowerm> AWK: Anyone have anything they want to raise?

<gowerm> Jason: I'm not sure if this is the right place to raise this. I was wondering how things do stand in regard to implementations of 1.3.5.

<gowerm> AWK: We don't have anything on the scorecard for it.

<alastairc> Case for opening an issue?

<gowerm> AWK: Checking in with a task force or someone who is heavily involved in an SC is a good way to flag further considerations found with an SC while testing.

<gowerm> JF: For 1.3.5, the wording suggests it wants something in the source code. We aren't asking for a functional outcome. As long as info if being written to the DOM, is that sufficient?

<gowerm> Jason: The conformance section highlights accessibility supported. That's what connects the programmatically determined with the user agent and ATs. In order to demonstrate 1.3.5 you not only need appropriate metadata, but you have to demonstrate it is going to be consumed in order to support the user.

<gowerm> AWK: Yes, it's a challenging one.

<gowerm> AWK: LIsa is looking for implementations of that, and talking to people. It's of particular concern.

<gowerm> Jason: I like it, I just have concerns about the exit criteria.

<gowerm> AWK: I will follow up with Lisa on current status.

Understanding Pointer Cancellation - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/#wbsq13

<gowerm> AWK: We have 5 people who have approved adding. Looking at the github issue, Mike Gower and Josh, you both had comments.

<gowerm> Josh: I just had simple additions. I made some minor suggestions, but I'm happy to ship as it is.

<gowerm> AWK: Is there any objection to merging?

RESOLUTION: Merge Pointer Cancellations into editors draft.

<gowerm> AWK: Typos etc can still be addressed, and other information can still be added.

Understanding Motion Actuation - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/#wbsq16

<gowerm> AWK: We have no one saying it's ready and 3 people saying they don't approve.

<gowerm> AWK: What needs to happen?

<gowerm> AWK: Mike, please see my note about which branch in which you made the Pull Request.

<gowerm> Marc: What do I do when the Pull Request doesn't contain everything?

<gowerm> AWK: Just make changes in the same branch that the pull request is from.

<gowerm> AWK: We will merge the things that need to be changed and then alert the list.

RESOLUTION: leave open

Understanding Concurrent Input Mechanisms - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/#wbsq14

<gowerm> AWK: There are 2 objections. Mike Gower, you have some changes and PR 800. Is this the same situation?

<gowerm> gowerm: Yes.

<gowerm> Jason: Unfortunately I haven't reviewed the text. I'm just wondering if people have run into testing sitautions about testing implementations.

<gowerm> Jason: For some of these, the wording is "don't do this", so yes discussion of failure traps is a good idea, along with Failure Techniques.

<gowerm> AWK: In this case, there are 2 Sufficents and 2 Failures. Neither is developed, but they are listed.

<gowerm> Jason: Is this enough of a real problem to be included as is? That was the original question and contineus. I think looking at the Failure cases is the way to go.

RESOLUTION: Leave open

Understanding Character Key Shortcuts - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/#wbsq9

<gowerm> AWK: We have one approve and one do not approve.

<marcjohlic> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/787

<gowerm> AWK: Mike you suggested removing example 4. We can maybe discuss this?

<gowerm> gowerm: The example I removed is in the issue thread.

<gowerm> AWK: You were suggesting this is not an example of meeting this.

<jamesn> it doesn't meet any of the parts of it

<Alex_> yes

<gowerm> AWK: This example would work if it contained non-printable characters, correct?

<marcjohlic> modify

<gowerm> AWK: Is modifying or removing example 4 better?

<gowerm> Kathy: We can combine example 4 into example 3. I'll bring it up on Thursday's call.

<gowerm> Jason: Remapping it to a large number of characters seems like it could introduce usability requirements.

<gowerm> AWK: There are edits but it seems reasonably close.

RESOLUTION: Leave open.

Understanding Non-text Contrast - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/#wbsq4

<gowerm> AWK: We have 3 people approving and no one disagreeing. There are no comments in the issue. According to that, it seems to be ready to go.

<alastairc> I suspect people haven't gotten all the way through yet...

<gowerm> AWK: This one has received a lot of work and attention. Is there anyone who would object to integrating?

RESOLUTION: Merge into editors draft.

<gowerm> AWK: We've made it through the agenda. We've got more items coming up, so we'll plan our meeting for Thursday as well.

<gowerm> David: What time do we start at CSUN?

<gowerm> AWK: We are on from 8 to 5

<gowerm> AWK: We will probably not start at 8, because we never have, but we will send around an agenda that has that first part as welcoming and setting up.

<alastairc> How would the observers know where you are??

<JF> +1 to observers *by permission* from the chairs

<gowerm> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. CFC for not moving 1.3.4
  2. Move 3.2.6 to 4.1.3 (CFC)
  3. Merge Pointer Cancellations into editors draft.
  4. leave open
  5. Leave open
  6. Leave open.
  7. Merge into editors draft.
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/03/13 16:53:29 $

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: i|zakim, take up item 3|-> zakim, https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag-ftf Face to face remote participation instructions
Default Present: JakeAbma, Mike_Elledge, JF, Kathy, alastairc, MichaelC, Laura, bruce_bailey, Joshue108, kirkwood, Glenda, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, jasonjgw, SteveRepsher, KimD, Ryladog, Katie, Haritos-Shea
Present: JakeAbma Mike_Elledge JF Kathy alastairc MichaelC Laura bruce_bailey Joshue108 kirkwood Glenda Greg_Lowney marcjohlic jasonjgw SteveRepsher KimD Ryladog Katie Haritos-Shea
Found Scribe: Glenda
Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda
Found Date: 13 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]