<AWK> resent: AWK
<AWK> s/resent:AWK/
<laura> Scribe: Laura
<Detlev> I can do it
AWK: Reminder about process that we used for 2.1 process is set to be this Friday, Aug 25.
detlev: difficult to comment.
Don’t know alternatives.
... hard to give opinion.
<alastairc> Suggested improvements are helpful, but not required.
<Detlev> OK I see
awk: areas of problems and
identify needs for Chairs to discuss.
... if you have solutions that would be great. If not that’s
okay too.
jake: May not make the deadline. Is it okay to extend?
<alastairc> SUrvey currently open until Oct
awk: yes. will not close survey right away. And can also provide comments to charis.
MC: still time to provide comments.
awk: CSUN proposals start in
Sept.
... do we want to have a F2F there?
<Glenda> +1 Face-to-Face (before CSUN) while we still have energy :)
awk: people there. but is a busy
time.
... post TPAC we will be in discussion of post 2.1
<JakeAbma> +1 before
<bruce_bailey> +1 to before
<marcjohlic> +1 to before
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if anyone doing CSUN preconference
<KimD> +1 to before (but not sure if I'm attending)
<Chuck> +1 to before
<Brooks> +1 to face-to-face at CSUN on Monday and/or Tuesday
bruce: pre CSUN may be a good time
<Glenda> W3C face-to-face mtgs are the best pre-conference (intellectually stimulating) time ever!
awk: 2 days too many?
... could be a different time/place for a f2f.
chuck: last year’s worked well for me.
<bruce_bailey> FWIW, I have easier time w/ travel if it is conjunction with other activity.
awk: judy thinks she may have a space for us.
<Chuck> +1 to 2 days preceding CSUN @ CSUN
<Glenda> +1 to 2 days preceding CSUN
awk: silver TF may be meeting at
CSUN too.
... anyone prefer 1 day to 2 days?
<alastairc> I'm currently non-commital, not sure about budget for next year yet
awk: will have to send something out to the list too.
<Detlev> not likely that I can attend
awk: thanks for input.
... f2f are encouraged by w3c. But understand may be hard for
some.
awk: JF did some great work on
this understanding doc.
... Bruce had question: “Am I correct to understand that with
these being “big changes” that we do have a track changes
versions?”
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/453/files
awk: look at the files version.
awk: I wanted to know if we have
related resources for this?
... currently says input needed from COGA.
<alastairc> I did ask the TF, will have a link for that section
awk: we should have those at some
point.
... remove that section or leave it blank.
... everyone on survey says it should be published.
AC: did ask coga.
awk: any objection to publishing?
MG: survey was about a technique.
awk: no don’t think it is.
MG: may want to reduce reading
level.
... more time talking about way instead of techniques.
... okay with it going forward.
RESOLUTION: publish understanding 135 after removing related resources comment and fixing the error Mike Gower identified
awk: running it though the reading level checker can be ime consuming and may not be reliable.
glenda: wise words: not to group
edit. and not to set a certain grade level.
... it is a tool to inspire.
<alastairc> I can add a resourse to the understanding doc, e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-gap-analysis/#table3 - COGA Gap Analysis Table 3: Entering Data, Error Prevention, & Recovery
<kirkwood> you can use the word, just have it defined
glenda: last tool we used wasn’t specific.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I'm particularly sensitive to readability since there were a number of proposed COGA SCs specifically covering understandability of text -- only having 3
MG: Wanted to flag COGA considerations.
awk: may be good time to bring in EO.
<bruce_bailey> +1 for MG catch on the paragraph having a list
brooks: personas may be useful.
awk: intent was to roll out personas for all SCs.
<gowerm> paragraph 7, "Success Criteria" should be "Success Criterion". I'll do a pass for basic style and feedback to John.
<alastairc> Such as: http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
awk: maybe we should add a link to a tool for readability to our process.
<alastairc> although that barfed on some of the sentences...
MG: Success Criteria" should be "Success Criterion".
awk: we are going to publish this
soon.
... put a comment on the PR for editorial things.
awk: techniques ready for initial
review.
... detlev has the first one: Tech failure hover focus content
not dismissable
detlev: 2 people have reviewed it.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/450
AC: minor edits.
<alastairc> Typing - I made a couple of little changes, but basically _1
<alastairc> +1
<alastairc> Jon and I answered Detlev's questions, we think it's valid
awk: needs more attention from people to look at it.
<alastairc> Replying to Detlev: You could hover over a reasonably large element, the new content appears, as does an [x] in the corner of the trigger. You could then maintain hover over the trigger and select the close button.
detlev: close button would seem
to violate dismissible
... havne’t looked at all comments yet.
awk: Tech autocomplete #437 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/437
<Detlev> @alastairc: I see - need to look at an example of that
<alastairc> Detlev - not sure there are many (any?) examples now, but should be an option to leave open
awk: need one more person to review.
jf: I can take a look at it.
brooks: ARIA practices has guidance on close button.
awk: Example aria role log
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/436
... no open comments.
MG: not as well supported as status SC.
awk: user agent notes are to be
put in a separate file.
... Tech media queries sticky #389
... Tech media queries sticky #389
... https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/389
... needs more comments.
... Tech flexbox reflow #388 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/388
AC: last 3 are Jakes
awk: this one seem close. needs an additional reviewer.
<Detlev> will have a look
Laura: will review this one.
MG: could be a good failure in this one.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-techniques#Completed_Techniques
<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/388#issuecomment-407873608
awk: add it to the wiki page.
<alastairc> Could also add the published location of the new published technique, which we didn't last time: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/aria/ARIA22
awk: from jake Tech media queries
grid reflow #387 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/387
... looks like it is progressing.
<Chuck> Chuck: AFK
awk: I will look at it.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-techniques#Completed_Techniques
awk: look at:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-techniques#Completed_Techniques
... good page to tell us were we are at.
... looks like none of these Techniques are anywhere.
Jake: sticky headers issue with
proper conditions.
... need to discuss more. Others are nearly complete.
awk: anyone know of Techniques
being worked on for orientation?
... found a sample failure and sent it to the list.
... what is a positive technique?
<alastairc> Agree, it is a 'don't break things' test...
<gowerm> +1
awk: dont break things test.
yes. thanks,
<marcjohlic> scribe: marcjohlic
awk: 1.3.5 are there any other techniques we could use for Identify Purpose - right now we have one proposed technique.
JF: In essence that's the only
one that has a11y support.
... there was another proposed for 1.3.6 but it doesn't
scale
... there is ongoing work in the Personalization TF that may
bring forward some techniques.
<laura> s/hard for dome./difficult for some./
AWK: 1.3.6 Identify Purpose - none of these techniques are completed
<JF> explorations of other methods of attaching element level metadata - this is simply research at this time. https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content
AWK: Any discussion going on in the COGA TF?
<kirkwood> yes thats correct
AC: Not in the COGA TF - might be more of a focus of Personalization TF
<laura> s/techiques/techniques./
AWK: 1.4.10 Reflow - no completed
techniques, but a bunch that are active.
... Ask folks to take a look at this wiki page and see if
you're assigned to something - make any corrections - or pick
up one of interest to you.
<Chuck> back
AWK: 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast -
no complete techniques
... we have some proposed techniques but they're not assigned
to anyone yet. Might be easy to tackle - if interested sign up
for them.
... 1.4.12 Text Spacing - this one proposed technique is pretty
close to completion. Are there any other techniques that would
work here?
<alastairc> I might be having a failure of imagination, but I cant think of any other way of meeting the SC.
AWK: 1.4.13 Content on Hover or
Focus - no completed techniques. We have a few being worked on
(Detlev's), but there are a bunch of other ones waiting for
folks to pick them up.
... My preference is to have positive techniques over failure
techniques.
... Failures always seem simple at first - but never really
are. :)
<Detlev> I can do a positive technique for Hover & Focus (using aria-live to speak it)
AWK: 2.1.4 Character Key
Shortcuts - no techniques - no one assigned.
... Are there any actual techniques in progress?
DF: Kim might have a good handle on Single Key Shortcuts
2.2.6 Timeouts - no completed techniques - no one assigned.
AWK: 2.3.3 Animations from Interactions - two proposed techniques - but none assigned
<Detlev> I have created a pull request for a single pointer technique, needs initial reviews: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/454
AWK: 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures - Detlev has 3 of the proposed techniques assigned to him.
DF: Technique pasted above could be ready for review - could take care of two of the proposed techniques. PR created a few moments ago.
AWK: 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation -
no completed techniques
... Looks like we have a drafted technique for when touch is
removed from a control. May be similar to the other technique
on up-Event
... 2.5.3 Label in Name - Detlev has a few in here that he is
working on
... #5 Failure may need to be removed - a comment from
Detlev?
<laura> s/undersanding/understanding/
<Glenda> I think that was my comment
"Failure: Accessible Name contains the visible label text, but one or more other words comes before the visible label text"
AWK: Issue 956 indicates some
discussion around this.
... If you have a label and it's out of order, is that a
Failure?
<alastairc> I didn't think that was a failture
<Glenda> In the normative see https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#label-in-name
<Glenda> NOTE
<Glenda> A best practice is to have the text of the label at the start of the name.
DF: We discussed this would not fail as long as the string was not disrupted
GS: I provided the question -
while looking at 2.5.3, there is a normative note that a best
practice is to have the label at the start of the name
... so we need to either fix the understanding doc or that
normative note
... current Understanding doc calls it a failure
AWK: Examples shows accessible
name starts label
... also has wording that would point to it being a failure if
it's not at the start.
<Glenda> Accessible name contains the visible label text, but one or more other words comes before the visible label text
GS: This is the text that was originally in the Understanding doc - listed as a Failure - but it looks like it has now been removed.
AWK: So we can remove the Failure technique (proposal) from the wiki.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I'm concerned with 2 of those failures.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/label-in-name.html
MG: There are 3 bulleted failures
still in the Understanding document, but not sure 2 of them
really fit.
... Accessible name contains the visible label text, but the
words of the visible label are not in the same order as they
are in the visible label text
... Accessible name contains the visible label text, but one or
more other words is interspersed in the label
... These two bullets are not be failures of the SC text
... Not saying they're wrong - just that the SC text doesn't
support them.
<AWK> Success Criterion 2.5.3 Label in Name (Level A): For user interface components with labels that include text or images of text, the name contains the text that is presented visually.
<Chuck> +1 to Devlev's interpretation
DF: I would interpret "contains the text" as contains the string as shown visually w/o other words interspersed.
<alastairc> could read it strickly to say the visible text is there exactly, but could have other text before and/or after.
MG: I would consider that a liberal reading
DF: We would be missing the entire point of this SC if developers could switch the words all around. We should emphasize that.
<JF> +1 to Detlev
+1
AWK: Let's leave them in the list
for now. That interpretation does match what I recall as the
reason for us doing this SC.
... however, not an unusual interpretation to think that other
words could be added in
AC: My recollection was that some it helped and wasn't harmful to have other words added in. For example, pagination - if you visually showed 1, 2, 3 it would be helpful to have "page 1" "page 2" etc
<Detlev> +1 to Alastair - I think we have dropped that F
AC: We need to be clear w/ Failures and clear with good examples to show what we intended.
<david-macdonald> Sorry... late...
AWK: 2.5.4 Motion Actuation - two
techniques are assigned to Marc - need to find some time to
work on them.
... 2.5.5 Target Size - no completed techniques - no one
assigned.
<david-macdonald> you can sign me up for touch target size
AWK: 2.5.6 Concurrent Input
Mechanisms - no completed techniques - no one assigned. Need
folks to work on these.
... 4.1.3 Status Messages - we DO have a completed technique -
our sole completed technique (Mike's)
MG: I will be driving the role="log" to completion
AWK: Wanted to run through this
list to re-emphasize how many techniques we have for WCAG 2.1 -
the answer is ONE
... We certainly will be spending a big chunk of time at TPAC
just working through techniques - driving to completion.
... If you don't feel like you have a Tech or Understanding doc
to work on, please look through the list and find one.
DM: Will pick up one of the Touch Target Size techniques
<gowerm> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/aria/ARIA22
<gowerm> Michael, I also wondered about this text: (Sufficient using a more specific technique).
AWK: @Michael, looks like there is a problem with the Generator - take a look at the Test Procedure - should be "For each: status message"
<gowerm> It appears at the end of Applicability
MC: Investigating issues with the generator - will check it out.
<alastairc> David - my site uses min-height/width to make sure all the links are large enough.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/status-messages
AWK: If you go to Understanding Status Messages, there's three situations - A B and C. In situation A there's an "and" relationship. That's what the message "(Sufficient using a more specific technique)" is referring to.
MG: I question the value of
having that in the Technique
... I was just flagging it - not sure the parenthetical really
adds anything. Just questioning it's value in the Technique
doc
AWK: We were discussing this last week. There are a few options on what that parenthetical could be. Something we'll continue to think about.
<Zakim> Glenda, you wanted to ask about label in name and accessible name calc
GS: Question on Label in Name - when we were testing a site for this, throughout the industry there is debate on whether a placeholder qualifies for an accessible name.
<david-macdonald> http://davidmacd.com/blog/is-placeholder-accessible-label.html
GS: If we don't clarify, could cause problems on whether someone fails Label in Name
<Glenda> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1480831
<Detlev> what kind of noise is that
GS: opened bug w/ Mozilla to ask them to stop using placeholder as accessible name - but was told it would qualify because it is a programmatic name
<Glenda> Also discussion on AG mailing list under subject: Bug: Firefox Accessibility Inspector reports placeholder attribute as eligible for accessible name
GS: Not that we'll resolve it today, but we do need to make it crystal clear for wcag 2.1
<gowerm> https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/sec-forms.html#the-placeholder-attribute
JF: Want to add that HTML 5 spec says that the placeholder spec should NOT be used as the label for form input - but that's what we're facing now.
<Glenda> note that is “should” not “must"
JF: Are we going to go for "spec purity" or for what we're seeing on the ground now.
<AWK> right
<JF> exactly... "SHOULD"
<alastairc> I thought we got to: It's ok for placeholder to figure in the accname, but David was looking at a failure: Failure of SC 3.3.2 due to using the HTML placeholder attribute for a label on form fields
<Glenda> and if the title attribute can qualify for accessible name…how is the placeholder attribute not qualified?
<Glenda> +1 to what Brooks is saying. Placeholder alone will not pass 3.3.2 for a visible label.
<gowerm> +q to say for now we can have our cake and eat it too, maybe? by just not creating a sufficient or failure technique for it.
<Glenda> gower - I disagree. We have to clarify this. We loose so much time arguing over things like this as a community.
MG: As time has gone by the arguments against using placeholder text have gotten weaker. UAs are making the text more accessible. We'd have to add a lot of language around it to get it right.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say for now we can have our cake and eat it too, maybe? by just not creating a sufficient or failure technique for it.
GS: If we don't solve it, we're going to have half the community calling it a failure and half not - so that's why i feel we have to resolve it.
<gowerm> I just point to the html5 spec to say 'don't do it.'
JF: We're already working with clients that want to meeting WCAG 2.1 so we need to resolve it. Scripting tricks around placeholder (not using the actual placeholder attribute). We need to be careful because UA support could disappear (see table summaries in the past)
<JF> +1 to David - get that into the Understanding Doc
<alastairc> +1, should be fail under 3.3.2 / 1.3.1
<Brooks> +1 to failing SC 3.3.2 by using placeholder as the lone visible label for an input
AWK: We're trying to be technology independent - and allow for new tech and innovation - the goal is that the success criteria can be met. If someone can show they can meet it (through scripting) we should be OK with that. We should be cautious around forbidding something.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I think there are ways of saying it fails now by pointing at the html5.2 spec. I don't think WE need to necessarily make a new failure technique for it.
AWK: I feel some of the discussion around placeholder is not viewed the same - we hear folks wanting us to say it's a failure - and we have to be careful with that.
DM: Not sure we can point to the HTML 5 spec, but maybe what we can say is that the label needs to be visually persistent across states.
AWK: Anyone what wants to step up and write some modifications to the Understanding is welcome to do so.
DM: I'll make some modifications - and draft a Failure
<alastairc> Perhaps note that the 'label' is not there in some scenarios in here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/labels-or-instructions.html
trackbot, end meeting
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/resent:AWK// Succeeded: s/post csun we/post TPAC we/ Succeeded: s/for dome/for some/ Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: publish understanding 135 after removing related resources comment./RESOLUTION: publish understanding 135 after removing related resources comment and fixing the error Mike Gower identified/ FAILED: s/hard for dome./difficult for some./ Succeeded: s/it is t tool to inspire./it is a tool to inspire./ Succeeded: s/add ot to the wiki page./add it to the wiki page./ Succeeded: s/Others are near done./Others are nearly complete./ FAILED: s/techiques/techniques./ Succeeded: s/publishing this soon./publish this soon./ Succeeded: s/thnks/thinks/ Succeeded: s/perfer/prefer/ Succeeded: s/undersanding/understanding/ Succeeded: s/forrward/forward/ Succeeded: s/inital/initial/ Succeeded: s/dismissable/dismissible/ Succeeded: s/guidence/guidance/ Succeeded: s/staus/status SC/ Succeeded: s/separte/separate/ Succeeded: s/beinf/being/ FAILED: s/undersanding/understanding/ Succeeded: s/righ/right/ Succeeded: s/Dvid/David/ Default Present: AWK, alastairc, Laura, Chuck, MichaelC, Brooks, JakeAbma, Detlev, marcjohlic, kirkwood, Glenda, Greg_Lowney, gowerm, JF, david-macdonald Present: AWK alastairc Laura Chuck MichaelC Brooks JakeAbma Detlev marcjohlic kirkwood Glenda Greg_Lowney gowerm JF david-macdonald Regrets: JimAllan JohnFoliot Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: marcjohlic Inferring ScribeNick: marcjohlic Scribes: Laura, marcjohlic ScribeNicks: laura, marcjohlic WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 21 Aug 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]