Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

17 Apr 2018


JakeAbma, JF, alastairc, bruce_bailey, Makoto, Glenda, Alex_, Joshue108, Brooks, KimD, SteveRepsher, Laura, MichaelC, marcjohlic, gowerm, kirkwood, jon_avila, david-macdonald
Mike Ellege


<scribe> scribe: Mike Ellege

Transition to PR

AC: As far as I'm aware good to go for transiciton to PR, All the CR went through.
... Any word from the Director about reorganization?

JO: have to talk to MC about that.

AC: 7 AA, 3 AAA implementations. Use one of AAAs as AA.
... Any questios from the gorup about transition, cfcs, implementation questins?

Brooks: Can you give update on a11y suport for SCs? Was this documented in separate place to review?

AC: Certain more applicable than others. Looking for web content and sites to support them. For identifying input purpose and AAA looked for two user site implementations.
... Not sure that we've documented that. Also several for user implementation of spacing. Not trackable in official tool. Should doc somewhere. Will ask.

Brooks: Is it possible to implement in acutal site, and other is does it do anything for the user. Showing that support for each would be a benefit to everyone.

AC: Should link from Understanding and Techniques as well.

JO: When doing evaluations, some SC that are cutting edge, issues that there are some chicken and egg scenarios. Happy to see so many implementations. Looking for robustness. User agent support always an issue.
... Are open to ideas for keeping up to date.

AC: Heard back from director on organization?

MC: Wanted to hear that changes did not affect implementations. Conference call affirmative response from implementers would be helpful. Won't get a "Yes" befoer he accepts or decliens transition request.

AC: We'll go ahead--hope it's okay.

MC: No guarantees.

AC: Anyting else about implementation, PR transition?

MC: Plan is to send formal transition request after this call ends. Assuming still ahve support for call for consensus. Would be helpful if TF members voted.

AC: Please send in your +1 everyone.

Understanding and Techniques

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-understanding-documents

AC: Next main focus. Have docs for everything. Haven't been scrutinized yet. Need to arrange a round of reviews. Some have started. Lots of docs to go through.

<Glenda> question: is the +1 for formal transition to PR via the email from Andrew with the summary of “CFC - Advance WCAG 2.1 to Proposed Recommendation”?

AC: Particular doc assignments. There is a wiki page with new SC and links to primary Github issue for each.
... Yes.
... Rather than minor changes, more interpretive approach before looking at CFCs formally.
... Please look at wiki and put your name next to soemthing. Review the understanding doc: dos it support the SC, fulfill its purupose as understanding doc, failures and techniques.
... if everyone takes oen or two we can get through it. This week. Any comments in github. If confident, put in comments.
... Looka t it next week.

<jallan> Reflow

<JakeAbma> Will do Understanding Target Size and Reflow

<laura> I’ll do Understanding Text Spacing

AC: Put into IRC would like to look at.

<Chuck> I have assigned myself concurrent input mechanisms

<JF> Will look at 1.3.4 & 1.3.5 if you want...

<Glenda> I’ll do Animations from Interactions

<steverep_> hover/focus, status changes, pointer cancellation

<alastairc> I'll do Label in name

Mike E will look at non-text contrast.

<bruce_bailey> It looks like this is pretty much editorial review?

AC: Any questions? Note first link goes to SC. Sedcond toe3s to branch. Can edit on branch.

BB: Editorial? Can sign up on one not confident on?

AC: Yes, that's the point. :^)

JF: When due?

AC: our main focus. Not sure on exact deadline.

MC: Timeline ahs a deadline.

JF: This time next week? REasonable?

AC: Will be in good place then.
... Can move onto Techniques.

<bruce_bailey> I signed up for 3.2.6 status changes

MC: Ratify entire swuite May 14th. All reviews doen by then. Should break down into micro timelines. About 4 weeks.

AC: Have ppl update docs as well. Assumption that understanding docs will be revised.

<laura> When will EO be reviewing/editing the understanding docs?

AC: Will be referencing in core issue (caret keys)? Will have lots of commetns on issues. Will iterate quickly through them.
... We can review the understanding docs now.
... Other questions?


BB: Less comfortable with understanding docs.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about techniques

AC: Get the SCs first, then Understanding docs, then techniques. If comfortable with Understanding docs, pls add need x, y, z techs needed.

Other business

Jo: I think that's it for today. Covered understanding. Need to get over the line for PR. Can follow-up.

BB: Found a couple of docs for Library of Congress, won't meet PR date.

AC: Are we okay to add more implementations after PR?

MC: Can add them. Won't help our case. Director will be reviewing this week. Doesn't hurt implementation doc, but wno't affect our transition to PR.

AC: A good thing, but not a help for PR.

<laura> Did the nomensa fixes get implemented?

MC: Unless new data has come in, need another AA within 2 hours. Can use AAA instead, but not best thing to do.

<alastairc> Laura: yes, just going live around now

AC: Didn't think we'd get new test done.

MC: Any sites that just need a second tester? They are the Library of Cognress sites. Either need to explain that AAA counts as AA, or will need to flip AAA to an AA.

<laura> If the nomensa fixes are in, David and I should be able to update our reviews. Should pass at AA.

AC: Worth trying. Andrew's implementation testing status from Thursday, 7 done, Laney Feingold had a another review (AAA--JO did). Do have ten that have passed.
... Don't think we'll ge anymore in next couple of hours.

MC: Will add wording to that effect. Will help optics if we get 8, so if Bruce can get one of sites to help in next couple of days.

BB: Don't think they'll get done in time.

AC: Nomensa fixes were implemented.
... Please +1 the transition if you haven't. Pick an Understanding doc or two. Get some reviews in next week. Then on to Failures and Techniques!
... That's all!

mg: Boundaries on non-text contrast. Will send. Trick will be to discern between target boundary and visual control. Make the boundary part of control, may make edge cases more celar.
... Won't resolve image on a link.

GS: My brain was looking at boundary. Does it have to have color contrast? yes, since shouldn't have to guess where target is.

MG: Nomensa used Google Map image. Put an image in GoogleMap a link. then use link to activate. Problem was that actual GM image doesn't ahve sufficient comtrast on edge colors.

<alastairc> Mike - thanks, but you don't have to scribe this!

<alastairc> this is the after-party...

Okay, dokey!

<jon_avila> I agree, the border would would need to contrast with the background not with what's inside.

<jon_avila> I could also be done with a double border if needed.

<alastairc> sorry david, it's free for all at the mo', we've finished the official meeting

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: 2018/04/17 15:57:33 $

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/Library fo Congress/Library of Congress/
Succeeded: s/Eitehr/Either/
Succeeded: s/If the  nomensa fixes are in David and should be able to update our reviews. Should pass at AA./If the nomensa fixes are in, David and I should be able to update our reviews. Should pass at AA./
Default Present: JakeAbma, JF, alastairc, bruce_bailey, Makoto, Glenda, Alex_, Joshue108, Brooks, KimD, SteveRepsher, Laura, MichaelC, marcjohlic, gowerm, kirkwood, jon_avila
Present: JakeAbma JF alastairc bruce_bailey Makoto Glenda Alex_ Joshue108 Brooks KimD SteveRepsher Laura MichaelC marcjohlic gowerm kirkwood jon_avila david-macdonald

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Greg_Lowney)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Detlev

Regrets: Detlev
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Found Scribe: Mike Ellege
Found Date: 17 Apr 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]