Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

15 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, Brooks, AWK, gowerm, Katie_Haritos-Shea



Reviewing issues

<scribe> scribe: alastairc

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues

AWK: For the issues we have - where are we at?
... 37 total, but 17 are for understanding docs.

Starting with https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/752

WCAG2ICT-ifying the new SCs

David: I can take that on, and bring it to the break-out sessions on Monday/Tuesday.
... It involves updating the WCAG 2.0 ICT doc
... but not updating WCAG itself.

AWK: I thought some of the work was more translation?

David: Can't solve some aspects in 2.1, more of a silver thing.
... I'm still under/on it, ish.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say this seems a bit premature, and not a priority

gowerm: Is this a priority at the moment?

AWK: It is an issue that should be resolved. Agree, shouldn't take David out of commission, but if it's an hour, that's ok. Just enough to formulate a response.

David: I've looked at it before for Canadian project, everyone will be asking it fairly soon. It's worth a couple of hours to create an output.

<JF> I want to alsonote the final comment from Peter Korn in that issue: "Failing such a draft, please consider at a minimum issuing a clear statement from the W3C/WAI (or at least WCAG WG) stating that pending an update to WCAG2ICT, they recommend NOT applying anything beyond v2.0 to non-Web ICT."

Jason: In relation to a proposed SC, remember Alex raising some ICT context issues. Wondering if David would capture those issues along the way. It seems reasonable to postpone detailed work until after recommendation.

JF: It's important, we can't ignore it, but part of the larger topic is with Silver. The "W" is for web content, but in the issue filled, he isn't expecting a draft now. Could resolve by saying we defer it until post-publication.
... just don't get lost down a rabbit hole.

Katie: Not a rabbit hole.

Issue 753 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/753

AWK: I have to write something up, but basically we are not changing the conformance model for 2.1
... is there anything else to add?

Jason: So long as there is a mechanism to make sure it's picked up in Silver, that would be appropriate.

AWK: We have labels for that in github.

Issue 754 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/754

AWK: Can anyone take this on?

gowerm: Is it just that it needs to be measurable & testable?

Jason: That's the important consideration, and a good start to the response. If they have another means of achieving that it would help for later versions.

gowerm: I'll take it.

Issue 755 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/755

AWK: It's around role / sub-role, perhaps a misunderstanding of the SC. Can anyone take this on?

Issue 757 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/757

AWK: This has a CFC

Issue 762 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/762

AWK: Assigned, will ping the assignee.

Issue 763 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/763

AWK: Assigned to Mark.

Issue 764 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/764

AWK: assigned to JohnK

JohnK: Something I need to get to, but have discussed and will respond.

Issue 765 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/765

AWK: Changes to status changes, name. It's possible, to solve the problem we could just say that 'status messages could be programmatically determined', removing the other scoping.
... that sort of change we could make, it isn't changing the intent of the SC at all.

Katie: It would be a good rational as to why it should be under 4.x.

David: The definition of PD appears to work.

Jason: Andrew's proposed change is fine, the slight issue left is that it isn't just the content, but the fact it has appeared needs to be determinable. The act of coming into operation. So long as it's clear, that's fine.

<JF> +1 to AWK (re: defintion)

AWK: Isn't that achieved by the scope of the definition?

MichaelC: Does the edit change the intent, would need to persuade the director.

David: I like the idea of removing words.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say this is a slippery slope, changing the text at this point

David: Don't think the roles and properties adds much.

<JF> +1 to David - Understanding do is the place for better clarification

gowerm: Thowing out a change now is tricky, we had a lot of discussion and issues about this SC. We got there after a lot of discussion/. I could live with change of label, but worried about the change of SC text.

AWK: I think it's about the title and text, but I can ask about what they would envision.

s/of discussion\/./of discussion.

David: Reading the second para: Is he focusing on the title? Seems to, perhaps ask him about that.

gowerm: The understanding doc covers a lot of material, several different examples. We need to be cautious about this one.

David: When it was "any changes" it was difficult, so scoped it down. Could we have our own definition of status messages, can we change that?

gowerm: Can we have 'status changes' as an understanding doc to review on the list? Take this aspect into consideration when reviewing that.

AWK: I'll also follow up with the commenter around this next week.

Issue 772 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/772

AWK: Asking - what is bold?
... I'l follow up with Jake.

Issue 773 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/773

AWK: About the abort / undo clause.
... need a proposed response, there was plenty of discussion, can someone sign up for that?

Issue 774 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/774

AWK: clarification about keyboard gestures, does it apply to mouse dragging, is the keyboard equivalent also acceptable? The comments after that suggest it's already covered, so someone just needs to pull those together...

Issue on editorial, full stops etc.

MichaelC: Mostly editorial, but don't want to change anything from 2.0

<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/773#issuecomment-369761477

773 revisit

<david-macdonald> I'm fine with that

<marcjohlic> +1

gowerm: Response was to split undo and abort into separate bullets, doesn't change the logic. It addresses what they asked, and the scenario where undo & abort are separated.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say can we go back to 773 for a moment?

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#pointer-cancellation

Katie: good suggestion.

<laura> +1

<JF> +1

<AWK> +1

AWK: Does it change intent? either we asked for something different, or it wasn't clear. So you think it wasn't clear, the commenter didn't think it was clear.
... have support for this, might need to defend it, but seems defensible. Would help to get Steve's thoughts on it, but have the basis for a good response.

gowerm: It's important for the understanding doc as well.

Issue 803 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/803

AWK: About moving the list of 1.3.4 terms into WCAG

JF: I'm happy to take this, but need to determine if we want to move in that direction.

<JF> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79

JF: there's some good reasons not to point to be the HTML standard. There's something other groups that also need to solve a similar problem. Getting traction.
... still concerned it could change under our feet. But, the group needs to decide.
... Either we put it under our space, or live with using the HTML spec.

MichaelC: I don't support definition a technology within the guidelines, and it would mean going back into CR. It's unlikely to be referencable in time. We picked the HTML5.2 version so it wouldn't change.

<david-macdonald> For michael Gower's proposal for issue 773 "Abort: <remove>Where completion of the function is on the up-event, </remove>a mechanism is available to abort the function before completion;

AWK: related to other changes that need discussion, could that be argued?

MichaelC: I have a huge concern about defining it there, recommend strongly against.

<MichaelC> but we can see if the Director accepts that it´s editorial if we really want

Jason: If whatever is referred to in the next version for this issue (2.2 / silver), is a super-set of what HTML defines, then you are only broadening it, not reducing it. So the only problem is if subsequent HTML versions reduce the list, but people have mentioned that might happen.
... potential issues with differences between HTML and WCAG conformance. But, a super-set of the terms later on doesn't seem to be a problem.

JF: We're not talking about auto-complete, it's about tokens that map to the meaning. It is using it as a taxonomy, not a technique.
... whether the list is published under HTML5, or WAI, is editorial. If we copy-paste the terms into a doc, we aren't looking for autocomplete, we're looking for the token value.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we should not define a taxonomy in guidelines

<Ryladog> If we are not talking about autocomplete, than can we remove that in the SC?

MichaelC: Technology or taxonomy, I don't think it should be in the guidelines. Concerned about exceeding our mandate, it's much better to refer to an external resource.

JF: People keep mixing autocomplete with the SC, and by pointing to HTML5 we're saying it's autocomplete. It's just a list of values and definitions. Agree an appendix isn't a great way, there's discsion at the W3C about this problem, others need it, but now the ecosystem at W3C doesn't have it.
... whether it's an appendix in HTML (TR), or an appendix (in TR), it's still there.

<JF> autocomplete is NOT the only way to meet this SC

Katie: Only way to meet it today is with autocomplete, other methods aren't supported. Need separate personalisation SC later.

<AWK> AWK: Autocomplete is simply providing a reference list of purposes, it is not the only way to meet the SC.

Jason: Agree with John the SC is open to misinterpretation as simple mandating of autocomplete, a close reading makes it clear what the purpose is. The understand doc could clarify. Remaining issue, a reduced list of values in HTML in future, in that case we couldn't use it subsequently as a technique.
... there are other metadata technologies that could be used later. That doesn't seem to be a problem that would challenge the SC.

David: There's an issue about the security of autocomplete.

JF: talk next week, probably not an issue.

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/03/15 17:04:43 $

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)

FAILED: s/of discussion\/./of discussion./
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, Brooks, AWK, gowerm, 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 Brooks AWK gowerm Katie_Haritos-Shea
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc

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

Found Date: 15 Mar 2018
People with action items: 

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]