Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

26 Feb 2019


AWK, alastairc, shadi_, JakeAbma, stevelee, MichaelC, Brooks, Laura, Lauriat, maryjom, kirkwood, Bruce_Bailey, Raf, KimD, JF, david-macdonald, SteveRepsher, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MikeGower, Rachael
Laura, Mike_Elledge


<laura> Scribe: Laura

CSUN registration reminder

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2019-03_FtF/

AC: Reminder for CSUN. fill out survey.

awk: MC sent out email for funding from org for CSUN.
... ~$3,000 high end.

ACF TF Update (Mary Jo, Wilco, Shadi)

AC: reply to MC if you can

<Bruce_Bailey> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JanMar/0283.html

Wilco: trying to get to CR for the past 6 months

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/NOTE-act-rules-common-aspects.html

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Exit_Criteria_for_Rules_Format_Spec

Wilco: resolved all of our comments.
... believes we are ready to go into CR.

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html

Wilco: CFC had no objections.
... . Shadi posted more documents.

AC: Comment aspects are like technologies.

<shadi> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/rules.html

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask about “aspect” term

wilco: Common Input Aspects will have a rowing list.

shadi: we have a section on change history.
... 4.4 has been the biggest change.
... haven’t added any more features.
... only rules is going to CR
... not aspects.
... latest draft hasn’t been published yet.
... many rules are already implemented
... thinks we are in good shape.
... rules are not in the latest format.

AC: questions?
... next stage is for people to read it.

<Bruce_Bailey> thanks alastair, i have not looked at since tpac

shadi: do we know timelines? can do offline.

AC: can do offline.
... can reply on list.
... will have survey and CFC.

WCAG 2.2 / Silver discussion (Background: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JanMar/0288.html)

AC: We had a several week 2.2 discussion. CFC failed.
... some valid concerns.

<Bruce_Bailey> This view from the listerv might help folks parse the conversation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JanMar/thread.html

<Bruce_Bailey> See “Re: 2.2 / Silver separation” in particular

awk: we knew we were not measuring percentages.
... lots of ways to participate in silver now.
... we are coming up on a new charter.
... we need good information on if we will be doing silver in TR space.
... need to make good estimates.
... we will be having silver TF more involved with WG.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to try to clarify each part of the CFC, so I can best understand.

Shawn: Wondering about CFC. 4 things coming together. To do 2.2. Ramp up on silver.. schedule for silver. schedule for 2.2.

awk: techniques was also a part of the CFC.

AC: 2.1, 2.2, and silver were the 3 parts of the CFC.

Shawn: maybe CFC on each aspect.

<Zakim> JF_, you wanted to ask about a *shorter* charter, with less/fewer deliverables

AC: difficult to do. Will try to get to consensus.

JF: What if we go for a shorter charter?
... 18 month or 2 years.

AC: still need to decide on where to spen our time.

MC: shorter time brings risks. Like we don’t know what we are doing.

JF: we don’t know what we are doing. boils down to 50/50.

MC: should focus on what we are doing first. Charter second.

AC: if we are doing a 2.2 need to start fairly soon.
... evenly spilt on survey between 2.2. and silver.
... could ramp up more slowly on silver.
... any objections to that.

bruce: katie has objections to not moving directly to silver.

brooks: I too have concerns.
... need extra help in setting up effective guidance.

JF: silver is using methods instead of SCs.
... whole new framework.
... we need to be thinking about VR and speech

david: concerned about the proliferation of SCs.

AC: 2.2. process would be constrained. Starting with 16 SCs. Maybe half getting in 2.2.

<Zakim> JF_, you wanted to respond to David's concern about more SC

JF: myth that auto checkers check 30%, but that's only if all SC are tested for on every page. No Video or Audio? Removes a number of SC, thus % can go higher.
... big picture things we all agree to
... more technology specific SCs
... more rules but not all rules apply to all pages.
... that is the direction that silver is looking.

Shawn: would need to figure out requirements and project plan.
... we need a solid understanding of people on the WG.

AC: need to structure the house. Then fill it with content.
... If we had a CFC on just 2.2 would that have any objections?

brooks: would like to think outside of the box.
... Could pick on VR and use as a test case in Silver.

no audio

My audio stopped.

<AWK> Brooks: to me it seems like a good opportunity to make sure that the group takes some time to think out of the 2.2 box to work on new challenges

<AWK> ... how much time would we spend with 2.2

<AWK> ... on these topics

<Mike_Elledge> scribe: Mike_Elledge

ac: 45% as part of the CFC for silver activity. If someone can bring requirement for new item, still viable.
... If not in 2.2, can be silver.

<kirkwood> maybe look at COGA for those requirments too

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say i though i hear brook say we should be working on methods while doing sc

bb: Silver as well as 2.2 was what I heard brooks say.

bn: a fair assessment. Still formulating my thoughts. While talking to experts on AT, if know transitioning, why not set aside cycles as part of 2.2.
... Adopt some things, does the different framework help, what do wehave to consider for silver.

<laura> Mike E: I have audio again. I can scribe again if you like.

bn: Consider how challenges would be outside of 2.2.

ac: Part of the process to take 2.0, 2.1, and add to silver.

jk: Cognitive an example. Lot of things close, and with more eyes and thought could have been in 2.1.
... Ture of non-screen tech, too. Could be built-on.

mg: Two parter: 1. Assuming charter has to produce deliverable. True?

ac: I think so...

mc: A demand of W3C member companies. Could put forward one, but pressure to ensure that there is a deliverable within 12-18 mos.

mg: Stuck on doing 2.2, or not. Is it realistic to produce silver within next charter time frame.

sl: Many questions to answer before knowing.

mg: Either deliver silver or 2.2. One seems easier than the other.

ac: Don't have to deliver entirety of either. Working draft would be deliverable.

<Bruce_Bailey> +1 to MikeG point about pressure for rec deliverable within charter period

mc: If we have deadline longer than 3 years, would have working draft. If don't deliver deliverable raises questions. If we can defend, possibly defend that.

<Zakim> JF_, you wanted to respond to "...process to take 2.0, 2.1, and add to silver."

mc: In theory can work on things beyond our deliverable date.

jf: Add 2.2 to Silver. Haven't had discussion?

jk: Have discussed. some SC would be guidelines, some would be...

ac: Previous SCs were being tested.

jf: Don't have process, but testing anyway. A hypothetical way forward.

ac: Was responding to brooks. Will be a migration of content of wcag 2.x into silver in some to be defined form.
... Should or shouldn't feel pressure to include 2.2?

bn: A good question. Agree to work on 2.2. Good to have it clarified in deliverable.

kh: Originally designed as wcag 20/20, became silver. Our next big change on delivering reqs in different way, including browsers. Do think we need to get going. Hope we do feel that pressure.

r: Do talk about % of silver. Would overwhelm them if we went to gthem. Even bringing over SC tinot silver format brought up questions. If we set aside some time and brought concern back to silver would be helpful.
... Split time in charter a good approach.

ac: hearing mostly support, for defined time for silver in cfc, causes issues, but if more gradual ramp up, talking thru at CSUN, does that ease people's minds?
... about cfc?
... Silence...good?

ak: Write it down, pls.

<Lauriat> +1 to AWK's suggestion to write down the rewording.

ac: Modify cfc: Similar to cfc, commit to 2.2, portion of our time to silver, would ramp up to 50%.

<AWK> The WG would committing to a WCAG 2.2 and a proportion of time on Silver that would possibly ramp up to 50% over the next year.

bb: Ought to have clear consensus or not on WCAG 2.2.

sl: same.

<mbgower> +1

<JF_> +1

ac: As long as people are happy with that...can we have +1 for 2.2.

<Rachael> +1

<Ryladog> -1


<JakeAbma> +1

<AWK> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Bruce_Bailey> +1

<Brooks> -1, if no effort spent on Silver

<MarcJohlic> +1

ac: committed to ramping up time on silver, just how...

bn: Would be +1 if time was set aside for Silver. Transitioning without constraints from formats of past.

<kirkwood> I agree with depenency of effort on Silver. as per Bruce. need to share responsiblity

<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce’s point

bn: Lots of challenges to share. Don't want to add without having more parties to the table.

<mbgower> I'd like the other question put forward. Can you ask folks vote on NOT doing a 2.2 and committing to a silver deliverable?

ac: Not comfortable that we've defined that.

bb: Is what necessary?
... Clear consensus for silver?

ac: No one not committed to silver.

ak: WG already working on that.

kh: No

<Ryladog> A Task Force is working on Silver

<JF_> @Katie, that TF is a child of this WG. So yes,m this WG is working on Silver

ak: Need consensus on 2.2 bec it's a new piece of work. More details to be discussed at CSUN about silver, we have to decide how much time to spend on it.
... Will give us opportunity to understand that.

<Bruce_Bailey> +1 to what AWK is saying, 2.2 is yes/no -- but silver is yes

mg: Clear if not doing 2.2, should commit to deliverable for silver. Can we?
... Katie can we do that.

<AWK> TF's are part of the WG

<kirkwood> +1 KH

kh: yes, we have a task force working on 2.2. Looking at silver from time to time. WG working on silver, concerned about others coming in.

mg: ARen

kh: A task force is working on silver.

ak: We are working on silver, it's a subgroup.

kh: In past, creating wcag 2.0 were all working togehter. Not another group. We are avoding doing this work, the worse it will get.

jf: Let jean go first.

Js: I think some of the strategic things we've been doing are trying to address, have had to take the time to get started on silver. Remember tjhat ppl working on sivler are part of this group.
... also have community group which is active. Any plans have to consider how working with community group.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to compare to WCAG2ICT

js: It will be dial, not scary, two different groups going forward at same time.

jf: Plus one to jean. Ppl are showing up for Silver. Progress being made.
... Worried that can't get published in three years.

kh: Will take a lot of work.

ak: other examples of task forces where a big deliverable that took place in task force. Silver won't be same way in that it will be done entirely by TF, but if we can't deliver within 3 years, then what will wg do in meantime?
... have to provide updated guidance, like in 2.2. Maybe silver faster without 2.2, but can't get chareter for 4 years, or a non-deliverable.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say i am hearing Katie ask for CFC to move silver work to TF

ak: Have learned from 2.1, to avoid challenges we faced. In reqs document.

bb: Feeling that need statements that can go to consensus in our charter. Not sure how to phrase siler in way that doesn't include 2.2 .
... Need statement that can go into charter. Need to work on 2.2, since Silver won't be done in 3 years.

ac: If after a year, silver framework is solid, can switch from 2.2 to silver, since not commiting to SCs.

<twalters> Apologies My IRC stopped working. Who approves our charter

<twalters> ?

ac: Will bring to a close shortly.

<AWK> @twalters - the W3C membership

<AWK> ... and the W3C Management

<twalters> thank you.

ac: Hear that generally ppl would like to work on 2.2, finish 2.1, rampup on silver, a matter of how that works.

bn: Michael said dont' worry so much about charter, focus on work. Rush to get something else is affecting our decision. Don't want arbitrary deadline with deliverable.

kh: quality, quality.

ac: Silver a difficult matter. 2.1 trailing off, 2.2 constrained, silver the big issue, given new framework.
... wouldn't want to be forced to a deadline.

Issue Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/technique-approvals8/results

ac: Survey.
... on issues, two new techniques.

ak: mutter, mutter...

Issue 538

<twalters> Logging off. Will follow up with minutes. Have a good day everyone.

ac: jake produced long and detailed response. Everyone in results is happy with it.
... impact then pull request, remove references to 3.2.1 in understanding doc.
... Objections? questions?

<AWK> Suggest that we ask the group if there is any objection to accepting all unanimous survey items under unanimous consent.

ac: jesse?

jh: If it's okay to open a modal on a page load?

ac: From jake, yes, not a failure of this. response that there are legit reasons.
... other questions.
... Unanimous consent.

RESOLUTION: Accept response as proposed.

zakim: next topic

ak: in past where unanimous consent, can we accept all items in survey where unanimous. 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all unanimous. Accept based on feedback.

ac: Yes let's do that. Any objection to accepting 5-8 survey questions?

<JF> +1 no objections

bb: Number of answers drops off for 7 & 8. Enough?
... never mind

ac: No objections.

RESOLUTION: Accepting items 5-8.

New Technique: Boundary contrast


ac: Contrast. three approvals with changes. Preview up to date for this?

R: In html, but didn't render in preview.

ak: sounds good, procedure needs work.
... Not part of test procedure. But what would be test procedure? Is this line not needed?

dm: Focus indicator?

ac: Next
... from rachael.

r: Referencing std, or SC. Brought it in to be sure we covered it. Intent is there is pie chart, that contrast is sufficient without %. Cross reference to another SC, to be sure that it's not overlooked.

ac: Probably needs more explanation.

r: Remove, or supplement it?

ak: Seems like procedure is identical.

r: When referencing last night, none of it showed up. If showing up now, gtreat!

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/576/files

ac: Just sort of stops after each graphic...github source code is only where I can see it.
... Cuts off 6 at bottom.

ak: 4 seems to work.

ac: Just missing latest update from Rachael.

ak: only difference is saying number 3 is true.
... ppl can visualize taht difference...

ac: Technique is not about use of color, jsut a cross ref. Colors have visual labels. Ok with keep or discard.

bb: Better improve, rather than remove.

ac: Add reference to understanding document.

ak: Distinction between colors and boundary.
... if off to side, shows yellow, etc. for chocolate.

ac: Technique is can you see where one begins another starts.

ak: isn't this a case of color alone? Wouldn't that meet non-color contrast, but fail color alone.
... So not sufficient to meet 2.1, but for SC it's applying to (is okay).

mg: On its own not helpful phrase.

ak: Delete it entirely. Tech for a specific success criterion. Doesnt mean you have to meet another.
... one technique wont' solve all quesitons.

mg: Becomes legend alignment, could put in % and would solve. But issue here is eliminating boundaries.

bn: But helpful to remind others.

mg: In understanding doc already, though.
... Also includes both label and % to resolve color contrast issue.

ac: Where would we stop? Lots of interrelated criteria here.
... If we remove that, assume updated proceduer is correct...any objections to publising this new technique.

ak: What changes?

ac: Updating procedure to #2, and removing note.

bn: Why so many renderings?

ac: Previews of github seem to be a perennial problem.

<Rachael> Proposed procedure: Procedure For each graphical object required for understanding use a color contrast tool to: 1. Measure the contrast ratio of each color compared to the adjacent color(s) or border (if present). 2. Check that the contrast ratio is at least 3:1 for each adjacent color or border (if present). Expected Results #2 is true.

ak: REmoving last sentence from description: "this technique...etc."

<AWK> +1 to accepting as amended

<laura> +1 to accepting as amended

<Rachael> +1

<Bruce_Bailey> +1 thanks


<mbgower> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<MarcJohlic> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept as amended.

ac: Next topic...

dm: zzzzz hello?
... Adding another example, outline will be four px, same principle, different look.

ac: Jon avila's comment: works in outline, would not in high contrast.

dm: Still see focus, but two color advantage wont be. could lose outlien depending on contrastin high contrast mode.
... Look on its own merit. Don't have another solution. In general, a big win for most people.
... Compelling reason to include.

ac: A naive implementation would remove line and leave shadows.
... Box shadows, not borders.
... A user agent issue. If outline is "0" then nothing in high contrast mode. But not doing it here.

ak: for high contrast indicator, must be 3:1. Test should be specific for that.

mg: Better make at least 3:1.

ac: Part of indicator is contrast against itself.

dm: Two colors that are used have contrast > 3:1 ratio

mg: Also reduces workload for author.

ak: Gap? Two colors that have 3:1 that don't have against another color.

mg: Focus rectangle, would still have contrast with one another.

ak: If technique said black and white, would be 21:1. If ppl confident that colors would work out, that another isn't less than 3:1 against them.

ac: So long as adjacent.

<Rachael> If I have a black background and a white focus target, and a black outer line and a white inner line, the contrast between elements will work but does the focus indicator actually show focus?

<AWK> "Check that the two colors in the focus indicator are adjacent and have a contrast ratio that is 3:1 or greater"

r: See above.

mg: If interior match exterior than will be no difference.

dm: But there will be a size change that would cause that effect. Super edge case.
... box shadow will make it larger.

mg: Could be anotehr step referencing 3:1
... step one, 3:1 ratio would cover 4.11, highly visible would meet high contrast.

dm: so much css to figure out all combinations.

<JF> Hard stop with a client call in 1 minute. Thanks all - L8R

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to discuss friendly edit to example: focus { box-shadow: 0 0 0px 1px white... -- can one of those leading zeros be the word black?

dm: black or 0 0 0

ac: black should be in outline statement.

bn: Black dotted not just dotted.

<mbgower> +1

<Bruce_Bailey> okay: outline: dotted should be black dotted

ac: ak okay with Black to outline statment?

<mbgower> +1

<Bruce_Bailey> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<laura> +1

ac: Any objections?

<MarcJohlic> +1

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended.

<laura> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept response as proposed.
  2. Accepting items 5-8.
  3. Accept as amended.
  4. Accepted as amended.
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/02/26 18:05:20 $

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)

Succeeded: s/$3,000/~$3,000/
Succeeded: s/out comments/our comments/
Succeeded: s/JF: myth that auto checkers check 30%/JF: myth that auto checkers check 30%, but that's only if all SC are tested for on every page. No Video or Audio? Removes a number of SC, thus % can go higher./
Succeeded: s/discusion/discussion/
Succeeded: s/measureing/measuring/
Succeeded: s/togeather/together/
Succeeded: s/siver/silver/
Succeeded: s/schdule/schedule/
Succeeded: s/schdule/schedule/
Succeeded: s/spen/spend/
Succeeded: s/doinf/doind/
Succeeded: s/effive/effective/
Succeeded: s/prolification/proliferation/
Succeeded: s/constained/constrained/
Succeeded: s/specfic/specific/
Succeeded: s/clear consensus or not/clear consensus or not on WCAG 2.2/
Succeeded: s/stucture/structure/
Succeeded: s/requirments/requirments/
Succeeded: s/doind/doing/
Succeeded: s/insead/instead/
Succeeded: s/spendd/spend/
Succeeded: s/delierable/deliverable/
Succeeded: s/befoer/before/
Succeeded: s/otehr/other/
Succeeded: s/byeond/beyond/
Succeeded: s/guideliens/guidelines/
Succeeded: s/clarifed/clarified/
Succeeded: s/Orginally/Originally/
Succeeded: s/esigned /designed /
Succeeded: s/becaome /became/
Succeeded: s/th ink /think /
Succeeded: s/Wold /Would /
Succeeded: s/conciersn /concern /
Succeeded: s/peopole's /people's /
Succeeded: s/Stating with 16 SC/Starting with 16 SCs/
Succeeded: s/becamesilver/became silver/
Succeeded: s/timeline/deadline/
Succeeded: s/TOPC/TOPIC/
Default Present: AWK, alastairc, shadi_, JakeAbma, stevelee, MichaelC, Brooks, Laura, Lauriat, maryjom, kirkwood, Bruce_Bailey, Raf, KimD, JF, david-macdonald, SteveRepsher, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MikeGower, Rachael
Present: AWK alastairc shadi_ JakeAbma stevelee MichaelC Brooks Laura Lauriat maryjom kirkwood Bruce_Bailey Raf KimD JF david-macdonald SteveRepsher Katie_Haritos-Shea MikeGower Rachael
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Scribes: Laura, Mike_Elledge
ScribeNicks: laura, Mike_Elledge
Found Date: 26 Feb 2019
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]