Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

12 Feb 2019


alastairc, Chuck, MarcJohlic, kirkwood, Detlev, Brooks, Rachael, SteveRepsher, MichaelC, Raf, bruce_bailey, JF, gowerm, stevelee, Laura, JakeAbma, Katie_Haritos-Shea, david-macdonald
Justine, MikeE
Rachael, Detlev


<twalters> i'm here!

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

<Detlev> I can take over later

twalters: Wells Fargo Accessibility coordinator. Lots of conversation around testing there. Interested in better understanding the logic behind testing.

CSUN Registration https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2019-03_FtF/

alastairc: You will get a mix of very detailed and very high level.
... Reminder about CSUN registration. Please fill it in even if you're not going.

<twalters> Thx everyone!

It helps us arrange rooms, etc. Any questions?

Errata & updates Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/technique-approvals7/

<alastairc> Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/technique-approvals7/results

alastairc: If the link above doesn't work, remove the " at the end

Errata Links to Understanding docs

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#text-alternatives

<AWK> for example

alastairc: We unintentionally lost the links through to the guidelines. There used to be links to the understanding pages. They are missing.

<AWK> In 2.0: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv


alastairc: This was not intentionally missing. Just accidental omission. Does that address your concern Mike?

gowerm: I thought it had meant on the individual guidelines page.

alastair: no, its on the overall guidelines page.

<Chuck> no objections

<Chuck> +1

does anyone object to putting the links back?

<AWK> trackbot, draft minutes

<trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<AWK> rrsaagent, draft minutes

RESOLUTION: Accept Issue 595

Errata Better Link Text

<alastairc> Link in this section: https://w3c.github.io/wcag/21/guidelines/#background-on-wcag-2

alastairc: The original issue was that we needed to change the link text in the background section to the supplemental guidelines. The current link is a placeholder link. It simply says there will be some supplemental guidance. It was deemed worth including now because of the difficulty.

Does anyone feel strongly about adding the words "Supplemental guidance" to the link?

detlev: The best would be supplemental guidance on ...

<JakeAbma> see my example: Supplemental guidance beyond WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 as suggestion...

<gowerm> But this isn't a normative section, correct?

awk: If we were writing the spec today and it was not published there is no problem changing it. Is it wrong right now? Is it an accessibility issue/error? With the goal of limiting the number of errata, this seems a candidate to fix when able but not through an errata.

alastairc: I'm not sure it makes a difference if it is normative or not, as an errata. My first time through. We all agree its a nice change to make but the threshold for this type of change is very high. Does that make sense?

detlev: The issue is minute so it can wait but whenever it can be fixed, we should remember to fix it.

JF: I like the clarity. While it may be a change to a normative document, is it a substantive change or editorial change?I see it as an editorial change. We may not need to do it right away, I would like to see it addressed at our next major publishing activity. I don't want to lose this.

<JakeAbma> + 0.99 to JF

<twalters> is a screen being shared or just reviewing links?

alastairc: We can mark it WCAG.next

<AWK> @twalters - just the survey

JF: I am more comfortable with that. It doesn't impact legal conformance but it is an editorial change that clarifies.

<twalters> thx

alastairc: It just requires work from the chairs and others.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/errata/

MichaelC: The errata process. We do maintain an errata list for 2.1. We did expect to wrap all the errata up into a publication. We could do that separate from anything else we are doing. In the meantime, the guidelines say look at the errata. While likely noone does, they are available in principle.

alastairc: Do we have any objections to accepting the response?

RESOLUTION: Accept response for issue 608

awk: The next item was messed up in the survey. I propose we skip this one this week. We could also come back at the end of the call.

Issue 540

alastairc: Issue 540 is from Jon A. The issues is around the question of buttons without borders pass or fail

I think everyone has agreed on the survey. Are there any questions or objections to accepting issue 540?

RESOLUTION: Accept Issue 540

Issue 602

alaistarc: Is alt text part of the visible lablel? Our response is no. Does anyone have confusion or questions?

Are we happy to accept this?

RESOLUTION: Accept Issue 540
... Accept Issue 602

<bruce_bailey> Plugs ANDI

general conversation about ANDI

ANDI doesn't use WCAG defined accessible name but rather uses the name that some AT uses.

gowerm: Try google Chrome Inspect tool. It calculates well.

Jon: The aria working group has put together a tool for accessible name. They have a page where you can put in the code and get the information. I will share the link via email.

gowerm: For the inspect tool in chrome, you right click the element you want. Right click and inspect. Under the accessibility tab, it will show you the name and will show any names that override existing tools. I haven't compared with screenreaders.

<bruce_bailey> Here is the ANDI landing page: http://www.ssa.gov/accessibility/andi

alastairc: I want to click a button and see all the accessible names on a page.

Issue 538

alastairc: Clarify if modal dialog on page load is failure of SC 3.2.1. Most accepted. Jake thinks more discussion needed. This may be a failure of 3.2.5. Did you disagree with the response or think there is more to it?

JakeAbma: We discussed this two weeks ago and didn't get a resolution because the working group agreed. Mike Gower also noted that when the page loads, screenreaders read. If it also triggers a dialog, then you have a change of context without changing it yourself. We left the discussion at it is dependent on whether it was immediate (split second) or if it would occur a few seconds later and interfere.

That was the issue that we didn't have consensus about.

<Jon_avila> https://github.com/WhatSock/w3c-alternative-text-computation

I didn't see any discussion of the timing.

I encountered it today. I clicked a link, started reading and then seconds later it showed up and interrupted.

alaistarc: I am remembering this.

detlev: I haven't participated in the last few weeks and I haven't formulated a response. We did remove part of this. I remembered we were not able to conclude the discussion.

I would be unsure what reply to draft.

JakeAbma: The first sentence is not about F52. It is purely about having a dialogue open immediately on page open. We need to discuss what "immediately" is. Is that within 1/10th a second. If we agree on that we could add it to the response. But if the question is within 2 seconds, then we have an issue to solve.

Detlev: We would need a new technique. I think 3.2.1 is solved and F52 is also solved but not if its a failure of 3.2.5.

alastairc: It sounds like we need a different response and a new technique. Detlev, do you have time this week?

detlev: no

alastairc: Do you have time for it Jake?

Jakeabma: I can work on it this weekend. I will extend Detlev's response.

alastairc: that will give us something solid for next time or the week after.

RESOLUTION: Leave open Issue 538

Issue 165

<alastairc> PR for changes: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/604

alastairc: table caption needs rewording.

<Jon_avila> Firefox dev tools also calculates fhe acc nams fyi

the changes are to remove html references. Everyone accepted this response but not everyone got to it. It looks like the procedure needed a slight update.

awk: From the original comment, you need to be clear that the test wasn't saying that the table had to have content being used as a caption.

alastairc: Any questions or objections to accepting that pull request?

gowerm: I find step 3 off but it isn't this pull request.

RESOLUTION: Accept pull request 604

Retire H96

alastairc: Most people do not have a strong opinion. That is in issue 599, is using the track element to provide audio descriptions sufficient? The technique is advisory so was never sufficient. Laura thought we should keep the technique and point to videoJS as a resource.
... Is that essentially a workaround? Is it something people can use?

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/599#issuecomment-458805080-permalink

Laura: I think they are using it.

JF: I went back and tested that. I Couldn't get the browser extension for Chrome to work. The technique on paper works but we can't get it implemented in real life. The requirement is for Audio descriptions. The SC calls for an audio file to be attached.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/understanding-techniques#advisory-techniques

The track file was only intended to be used for timestamp file. This doesn't work in practice. The technique lead us to believe that with the support it could work but there is no native support. The existing plugin doesn't work. Another could be created. Ongoing work. We should likely keep it as advisory but add a warning.

<Ryladog> +1 to AWK

<JF> +1 with a (time-stamped) advisory of no current support

awk: I just added a link to advisory techniques. It includes many reasons why a technique is advisory. I think we have a justification to keep it but also that it isnt' helping anyone. I have no strong preference.

alastairc: Sounds like people are leaning towards keeping it and adding a note to the technique?

JF: I would like that but I'd want to make sure the advisory is timestamped. On the last review of Feb 2019.... So that in 6 months or 3 years will know the last time we looked at it. I like the idea of keeping it advisory because it opens the door for other SC where the ecosystem does not yet support it. I am +1 for a time stamp advisory on it.

<AWK> "As of February 2019 when this Advisory technique was last reviewed by the Working Group, there is no practical support for this technique available for developers to utilize."

<JF> +1 to that statement, while noting that the "time-stamp" is there

alastairc: My only concern with that is that it would be the only one with a timestamp. That feels like something we should do systematically. AWK has but in proposed text. Does anyone feel strongly that we should retire it?

any -1 to keeping the technique with the proposed notes?

<AWK> I will place the sentence at the end of the description - or the top?

RESOLUTION: Keep H96 ammended by note

<bruce_bailey> it was nice to see a couple developers chime in

<JF> End of description

AWK: Do we want the note at the beginning or end of the description?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to end

alastairc: I would have said at the end

awk: works for me.

JF: You made a comment that this would be the only timestamped one. Can we add it to our agenda to regularly review advisory techniques and add notes?

alastairc: we will add it to the chairs call

Feedback on approach to Issue 610

<alastairc> Pr from Patrick: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/612

alastairc: regarding benefits list in understanding of 2.4.6 and 3.3.2. Patrick proposed changes to clarify.

question if it is the right approach. Most said yes except Mike G.

concern it is getting pretty involved. Mike would rather see it more concise and a note at the bottom of the page. Concern about use of "labels"

gowerm: We will probably end up talking about this more on label in name. I think the text is fine but a lot could go at the bottom of the understanding document and only put the important notes up top. Its a lot of information that isn't the meat of understanding.

From a development perspective, you determine the label from the label. From the non developer perspective, its a visual determination. "label" has a lot of nuanced meanings. can be label element or text visually related to input. I think we end up into issues because of this.

<laura> For Issue H96: Maybe add to “User Agent Support Notes” doc? https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/Techniques/ua-notes/html

I could give you 10 elements and we'd get different decisions about what the label is. This change is removing text about labels that has existed for years.

awk: I think we will have this as a survey item to look at the specific, fine grained details. I didn't think this one was intending to be that.

<bruce_bailey> AWK just answered my question!

alastairc: It sounds like the approach is good but the details need to be reviewed and discussed.

<Detlev> (scribing) Shall I take over, Rachael?

everyone says its the right approach. Mike G can you add your comment to the pull request so Patrick can work it in?

<alastairc> scribe:Detlev

<scribe> scribe: Detlev

alastairc: TOPIC: errata for character key shortcuts and reflow

<alastairc> Changes: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/606/files?utf8=%E2%9C%93&diff=split

alastairc: 3 people happy with errata, some suggested changes

<twalters> what is a "pull request"?

alastairc: mostly small changes of wording to make it clearer
... Suggested change to note in reflow (see survey)

AWK: Vote on this item may have been incorrect - "example of content that requires" - does not need to say "parts of content"

alastairc: Most preferred "required" version
... accept PR with slight change

<bruce_bailey> Good edit!

<alastairc> "Examples of content which requires two-dimensional layout are images, maps, diagrams,"

alastairc: objections?

RESOLUTION: accept PR 606 as erratum, as amended

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#reflow

alastairc: Link to diff version is above - covering two different SCs

CSUN Registration https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2019-03_FtF/

WCAG 2.2 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22process/

alastairc: About WCAG process
... From a multi-part survey to work out timelines for the next few years
... While Silver is coming we need to finish 2.1 documentation
... so the question was: is there time for 2.2?
... would need to work in parallel to Silver

MichaelC: 2.2. should be done on its own merits, should not delay Silver

AWK: Survey Q was designed to get people to think about the timeline to improve planning for Silver
... we are looking at 34 months so there is time to address outstanding issues
... 2.2 to keep guidance current
... also focus on Understanding texts and Techniques

Katie: (has put in answer, refresh)
... We have no time, focus on Silver an Techniques for 2.1
... Group should not be split, put more effort into Silver

Bruce: did more work on Silver, was rougher than expected

Katie: We need to wor on what should go into Silver

Bruce: We should still do 2.2

<alastairc> q/

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we can do a 50:50 split on calls to focus on Silver and on 2.2

<Brooks> +1 to Katie's comments

Bruce: keep the work moving until Silver gets more concrete

AWK: We have discussed splitting time - if we ramp up work on Silver rather than delegating to a TF we can split telcos to focus on both - the consequence is that we have less time to spend on 2.2, may less get into it

<JF> +1 to AWK

AWK: we make better progress on Silver if we put more effort in it - not so bad if we have less in 2.2 because there can be a 2.3 after it, that is the idea of the cadence that was decided
...Katie: 2.3 could be Silver - Silver is not going to happen unless we work on it as a group

AWK: We can focus on it, but based on the current timeline we can also carry on with 2.2
... and if it si delayed we may end up with a 2.3
... would not suggest to put all eggs in the Silver basket because it may bwe too far off

alastairc: 2 phases for Silver: 1) the framework, 2) the content
... if the entire group worked on Silver, that would probably not speed it up, needs phasing in
... once we have example content and test the framework so it is more solid, there will be a huge amount to out current content into it, plus new stuff.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say we need to continue to be working on Success Criteria to continue fill9ing gaps and addressing new technologies

alastairc: just getting the framework for Silver ready will take longe than doing 2.2

JF: Have attended 65% of the calls - it is not many that show up there right now - they are wordsmithing an overview what Silver is going to accomplish to bring that back to the larger group, by CSUN
... then we can tell whether this is where we are heading
... since the AG guidelines are used as conformance benchmark we need something solid now and that will niot change with Silver

<scribe> ...new aspects like AR and Speech where we need to work on concrete measurable guidance

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: recall that Mike and I thought of a group to sketch out the stuf that will remain testable (?)
... more people should engage in Silver to give input there

Rachael: We have enough work between 2.2 and Silver but we should add another Thursday call to cover that extra work

<kirkwood> agree needs more members and if it gets prioritized through moving to Silver vs 2.2 do think another specific call of Silver & AG might be helpful

<Chuck> There is an echo

<Chuck> It remains

<Chuck> gone

<JF> Currently AG WG meets once a week for 2 hours here (and, another - 60 minutes? - for the Thursday call that Alastair chairs for the "other hemesphere"), and the Silver TF meets twice a week for 1 hour (each)

<AWK> AWK: We need to get work done outside of calls also

<JF> There is a limit of how many hours anyonc can dedicate to these calls

<kirkwood> +1 needs more attending Silver calls

alastairc: WOuld be possible - be need to define what is going on there and what the relationship be with Silver TF - more people should attend Silver calls first
... if entire WG works on Silver framework, that might impact other stuff, also, it is fairly abstract, nit sure it would move things forward mire quickly

Brooks: Can work on both - we still need work on 2.1 - we can be proactive with Silver and accommodate innovative stuff, content
... we are currently limited by the 2.X framework
... some challenges better met in different framework

JF: There is already 4 meetings 2 Silver calls, Tues and Thurs calls of AG
... So it is already a lot - the answer is not adding mire meetings - we need to figure out where can we best contribute

<twalters> departing early. will follow up on minutes. thx everyone.

JF: more voices on Silver calls would be useful
... supporting activity, but also we should work on more testable criteria
... we should put in work where we can contribute best

alastairc: Discussion on timing will go on -- if we continue working on 2.2 there is a working process doc

<alastairc> Working process proposal: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_working_process

alastairc: even if don't (continue on 2.2) it can be useful
... modt people found it useful
... another thing was the update of acceptance criteria

<alastairc> Changes to acceptance criteria: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements&type=revision&diff=10135&oldid=10103

alastairc: here you see the changes: testability, proces for creatign an initial doc to review
... everyone seemed to agree with that - any questions?
... no objections so seems to be alrigh
... the last was a ranking excerise
... 2.1 Techniques high up, followed by work on 2.2

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about survey for ranking

alastairc: clear that Techniques are important but if we fast forward these would be covered, so may distort results a bit

Bruce: We should not game the maths behind the ranking

<Ryladog> +1 to Bruce

AWK: We will work on Techniques and Understanding *forever* anyway so we debated whether it should be included on the survey

<Ryladog> We can update our charter

AWK: We need to have something for the rechartering to send out months in advance (round May) so we need to decide if we want to do 2.2.

<Ryladog> My thoughts are 100% on Silver, it is the next standard

alastairc: Thinking about question by amount of work needed - 2.1 quickest, 2.2 mor ework, Silver the most - 2.2 would fit in OK
... katie have you joined the Silver TF

Katie: Don't have the time for both - will be a huge amount of work

JF: Why either/ or, why not both?

Katie: It would be difficult to achieve, we should focus

<JF> Silver TF *IS* part of this WG

alastairc: Some attend both calls / discussions - if both were merged it probably not speed up the matter

Bruce: agrees with Alastair
... starting to work on Silver as whole Group jeopardises Silver - we should trust Jeanne and Shawn

kirkwood: Have been part of Silver for a while looking at neuro-diverse issues for which Silver paradigm would be a bette rfit - should b wereach out to leaders to increase investment it it?
... does no think that stronger that more input right now from WG may not help

alastairc: Appealing to leaders? Others to join the TF?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss consensus building

kirkwood: People knowing about the edges AR, VR, spreech and other innovative stuff

Bruce: The Silver development is also about consensus building

alastairc: will consult and see how to approach that

Rachael: Many people currently not engaged - we need finsish 2.1 and also Silver, but if we do not engage soon we may need to make them rework stuff, which wouldn't be ideal

<Rachael> Need to really think about allocation of time and balance across activities

alastairc: We encourage Jeanne and Shawn to report back but they have a lot of work on the conformance concept

<bruce_bailey> +1 to JF

JF: Bruce when he showed up in Silver calls he realised that work was not so mature yet
... That's why we should get regular updates, to get feedback and guidance on what works and what not

(updates from Jeanne and Shawn)

alastairc: If you have nit filled in 2.2 Survey please do - especially first 3 questions

Issue review

alastairc: any other business?

<Chuck> +1

AWK: anyone has issues for next week, for the survey?

<AWK> WCAG2ICT will be on the agenda in the next week or two I think

Jake: Wondering about relationship is between WCAG and native apps - sometimes they are part of discussions, like stuf frelating to EN 301549
... some think native apps are out of scope - but what is the official relationship in terms of the AGWG - could it figure in 2.2? It is not clear to me

<Chuck> understood

AWK: 2.0, 2.1 not officially scoped to non-wen content but there is WCAG2ICT note which is being updated
... will be subject to the next couple of calls
... officially not covered by WCAG 2.0/2.1 - but note was produced because there was a need to get guidance, there it wa sregarded as applicable

<Chuck> if David has a response to this topic, he should go next

<Chuck> Mine is a new topic

Jake: so there is an informative doc WCAG2ICT, but in b&W we do not take into account native right now

AWK: Would not say, not taking into account, but not main focus

MichaelC: W3C has to be careful to stay within jurisdiction

David: Scope of WCAG is to content at an http address - WCAG2ICT is good and used, but not an official standard
... often working with mobile apps but there is nit the jurisdiction to apply to mobile

alastairc: Line is getting blurrier

<Chuck> keep going on topic

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say with demands for our time, updating WCAG2ICT seems like low priority to me

Bruce: WCAG2ICT: good, but don't want to do it again...

JF: disagrees with scope of http, may be other protocols - that is not appropriate, was never enshrined anywhere

<david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html

<Chuck> Detlev: say something about this point, put issue on github. It comes up alot.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/507

<Chuck> Detlev: en301549 also includes most of WCAG for software, is reference point for mobile apps

<Chuck> detlev: it is a real issue how to apply these criteria. There are some criteria in there where the question is does it really apply...

<david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef

<david-macdonald> a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent

<Chuck> detlev: If you want to test those apps it could mean that all of them fail some instances of wcag.

<Chuck> detlev: These are issues that haven't been thought through entirely.

<bruce_bailey> @@JF: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef

<Chuck> detlev: There is a need for feedback from us.

<Chuck> detlev: Don't know how much people are thinking about this...

<bruce_bailey> Web page: a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using ***HTTP*** plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent

pleas put on agenda

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

<alastairc> rsagent, make minutes

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept Issue 595
  2. Accept response for issue 608
  3. Accept Issue 540
  4. Accept Issue 540
  5. Leave open Issue 538
  6. Accept pull request 604
  7. Keep H96 ammended by note
  8. accept PR 606 as erratum, as amended
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/02/12 18:01:30 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: alastairc, Chuck, MarcJohlic, kirkwood, Detlev, Brooks, Rachael, SteveRepsher, MichaelC, Raf, bruce_bailey, JF, gowerm, stevelee, AWK, Laura, JakeAbma, Katie_Haritos-Shea, david-macdonald
Present: alastairc Chuck MarcJohlic kirkwood Detlev Brooks Rachael SteveRepsher MichaelC Raf bruce_bailey JF gowerm stevelee Laura JakeAbma Katie_Haritos-Shea david-macdonald
Regrets: Justine MikeE
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Scribes: Rachael, Detlev
ScribeNicks: Rachael, Detlev
Found Date: 12 Feb 2019
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]