<AWK> +AWK
<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma
AWK: early bird till 21st of June
<KimD> KimD
Shawn: working on migrating content
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/WCAG_to_Silver_Migration_Map
Shawn: running through TOC
... been through all SC
... done some grouping, then identify user needs
... grouping may shift around a bit
... once user needs are identified, write tests, then platform
specifics
... link is first pass of that
... we will ask some specifics to specialists for better
understanding
... grouping results ready, not final though, some are
repeated
Jeanne: had informal meeting at
AccessU
... we wrote template to how to write content
... so make it easier for people to start writing
... what we did was: making template, users needs, identifying
test, writing method, then roughly understanding like text and
in the end, the Guideline
<jeanne> Content Writing Process https://docs.google.com/document/d/152RdsWpzq0QqdiSeW2dk0-RTp6QZkbcOZevbfa0tQMo/edit#heading=h.2ofg9ub2gkrq
Jeanne: this is the content writing process
<david-macdonald> can you open the doc to public, can't access
<stevelee> need access, thanks
Jeanne: need to make new copy, this one isn't working
<Lauriat> Copy viewable by all: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eAqHf2dk-qhyk3YtwfHV0uIIrCejwCnlZnPuFzVhYx4/edit
Jeanne: we provide some
instructions on how to write
... first map current techniques and ACT rules, identify
needs
... see how existing tests can be included
... want to do some new type tests to see if the tests are OK,
and after that the methods
... writing the methods will take up much more work
... at Step: 4 we're busy with, step 5 needs some more work
soon
... next time we'll have content to show you!
<jeanne> Google drive folder with content drafts https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u5P_VwQUu--1NXSzu2Wwsj-QalDCt_W
stevelee: in what format is the template presented in?
Jeanne: at the moment in GOogle
Docs, for abbility of comments
... all formats may be possible
... ow, you mean editors draft?
... we should make it publicly available
... we can go offline for discussing on how to work with COGA
in formats they prefer
Wilco: we've published CR a month ago
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/
Wilco: today is final day for
public review
... got some good feedback
<shadi> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/
Wilco: new name for community
group: ACT R
... in contact with some companies to implement the rules
... couple of placed we see them embedded alongside the
techniques
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/353#issue-428734105
Wilco: also working on proposal
for plan how process might look like, people / companies
writing ACT rules
... broken down activities for embedding
... once we have enough implementation, the rule can be
submitted
... got Rule support, Rule submission, Rule maintenance and
Publication Approval
... we're pretty much ready
Shadi: we're incubating the rules
in the community group
... discussing and agreeing on the rules
... ultimately AG group approval to authorize
... we need to still define quality requirements
... example is if ARIA rules comply with WCAG, and where do we
agree on this
Cooper: we don't charter task forces, what we do need to know is deliverables
AWK: we're looking for feedback
about: a: WG will publish the rules?
... if yes, is the process outlined the right one?
... will the WG be involved?
... ACT TF is specialized within the larger WG, works well in
that regard
... worry about the rules getting too far
... might be the WG sees an issue in first part of rules while
the TF already set second / trir
third part of the rule
Wilco: need mechanism for this
AWK: we need to strike right balance
Shadi: some rules might end up as
"good practice" not specially full conformance
... idea to have monthly or quarterly heads up
<shadi> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5f99a7
AWK: how is it looking right before CR?
Wilco: had 6/7 commenters, mostly superficial comments
Shadi: several people do implementations, looks good
MG: don't take it too far before we get a bit more involved
<Chuck> Scribe: Chuck
Andrew: Great scribe work!
... WCAG 2.1 techniques and where we are at. We have accepted
some since we started monitoring.
... The status is still largely where it is. The main question
is are there any... anybody taken up new technique for success
or failure?
<no response>
Andrew: With this we do need
people to take up some.
... Looking over one in particular, one that's orientation we
could use another for content on hover or focus.
<JakeAbma> just finished a new SC, will do doorslam coming week
Andrew: We could use another for
character key shortcuts, there's one drafted for each success
and failure.
... Pointer gestures will be discussed today.
... there are a few in motion now. Is there anyone on the call
that has time or interest and doesn't know what to work on?
DM: I've got 4...
... I should be able to do one a week.
Andrew: What SC are those?
DM: 1.4.12 failure, 1.4.11, 2.5.2
failure.
... I've got 2 in the queue.
... 1.4.12 and 1.4.11.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to sheepishly admit that I have a task to create another Failure Technique for SC 1.3.5 (that essentially shows/explains that the metadata is applied *only* to user
JF: I've been dragging this one
around. I've an action to create failure technique for
1.3.5
... Metadata applies only to user and not names and addresses,
etc. Show and tell technique.
... Only the name input directly related to the user
applies.
... I owe that. Not sure if you are tracking it. Add it and
assign it to me.
Andrew: It's a failure ... form that asks for your name and your spouses name or child's name. It shouldn't apply the attribute to the spouse or child.
JF: Essentially correct. That's
one use case. booking airline tickets for the entire family.
There may be different family names.
... Another use case... HR form with names of all employees in
office. Your name, but all other names would be
different.
... Autocomplete shouldn't apply there.
... Auto-complete, where the data that's going to be captured
relates directly to the end user. Lot's of confusion around
this.
... I need to write up a technique, may be a success technique
may be a failure technique. I have to show code examples.
Andrew: Is Marc on the call?
mbgower: No.
Andrew: Was going to ask about
news for row 12.
... I added it, does this look good?
JF: Yes, this describes it well enough.
Jake: Couple of q. I have time to
start some techniques this coming week. I see one for....
... At reflow I see approvals, while those techniques for
reflow are already published I think you need to update
those.
Andrew: The first worksheet may not ... be up to date. Feel free to write published.
Jake: Line 30 and 38 are
published already. I see some other ones AAA for target size.
Which one is more important?
... AAA or M/yellow?
... Row 124 or 27...
... Not sure while we have failure and sufficient while they
are opposite, but we can make them. I can start with 124.
or
... I can start with #5.
Andrew: I would rather you see
#5.
... Given that the... column f priority is a bit confusing. For
orientation that one is high priority as a SC as oppposed to
target size
... Which is medium, while it's in a state of complete
incompletion, it's a lower priority than the AA one.
Jake: I'll do #5. #30 is published also.
Andrew: I think I had that as
approval. I didn't know if it was published or if it was
approved but not yet published. Haven't looked yet.
... Your telling me it's published I can change it.
Jake: Not sure...
Andrew: If wg said yes it's good, but not yet pushed out on the server, it's not published yet.
<JakeAbma> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/working-examples/css-fitting-images/
<JakeAbma> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/css/C37#examples
Jake: This is the one
<above>
... Seems published to me.
Andrew: Changed!
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the spreadsheet isn't totally up to date?
MG: The discussion that just
happened is what's happening to me to. Even when working on
editors draft, looks aug 18.
... did we lose continuity in our version control?
... They aren't showing up in editor's draft or published. My
comment is it would be good to understand how frequently these
happened...
... And things were adopted.
Andrew: Label and name?
MG: Yep.
Andrew: I've got on here overview
tab 3 label and name techniques. I'll go through and check
where things are at.
... I'll make sure this is accurate.
<MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/ shows updated 22 May 2019
Andrew: And MC, as far as date on editors draft, we need to update the date in the master branch, is that right?
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/
MC: Editor's draft says <date>, it's possible that date updating isn't working but it is, not sure what you are looking at.
MG: May be a caching issue, but came up that way on 2 different computers.
Andrew: If you still see that and don't see current date ping us, we'll sort it out.
MG: w3c.github.io...
MC: slash understanding...?
MG: <mentions different url>
MC: You are looking at older version. If you look under understaning that's more current, date is on cover page.
MG: <url> the 3rd link is latest editors draft. Which is the standard everyone would go through.
MC: Last time we updated guidelines, not understanding.
MG: I'm not the only person that will follow this path. No obvious way to get there.
MC: You did get there.
MG: OK.
Andrew: You click on 1.4.10
reflow, then click on understanding reflow, that is taking you
into the w3.gi... <url>
... Which that one is may 22nd.
MC: I know that a person not
familure wouldn't know, but that IS the most recent
version.
... We can discuss things about putting dates on every
understanding page, not constrained on structure. We can do
that if helpful.
... But you are getting to the latest info.
MG: OK, links to techniques seem out of date.
Andrew: May be that the techniques were accepted and that we forgot to update the references?
MG: I made a PR for that. I guess I'm saying it gets messy. Now I understand why guildelines didn't make sense to me.
Andrew: We'll get that updated. Let's move on. Get to survey, will help us progress on techniques.
Andrew: On this....
<NO!>
... We haven't had a ton of people responding.
... First question.
Andrew: From last week we had
discussion around what is covered by the concept of path based
gestures.
... Which comes into play with regards to pointer gestures SC.
We wanted to have a survey so folk could weigh in.
... We've got some feedback from people. We are trying to get
to a resolution on whether... around slider.
... Is a slider where you use the mouse to move the thumb
around, does this violate the sc or not?
... Some came back with "maybe", some came back with difinitive
answers.
... Patrick Luck prefers option 3. For this pointer gesture sc
that the only thing that would be acceptable without an
alternative
... is a pointer action that actually is free form, hand
writing for example.
... That seems to be what Patrick and Detlev and Jake are
behind.
... Then MG and myself both responded to the survey with a
different opinion.
... Anyone who's ... Detlev on the call?
MG: He couldn't make it today.
Andrew: So Detlev wrote the
proposal, he definitely supports only freeform dragging or
drawing is excluded.
... If you need to drag an item through a maze shaped path for
some reason (game or activity) where it's essential would be
ok.
... Anything else would not be ok. On the call... slider such
that it only matters where you start and end the
dragging.
... Doesn't matter what path you take... that's why we have the
survey.
... Anybody else want to weigh in?
<AWK> Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures (Level A): All functionality that uses multipoint or path-based gestures for operation can be operated with a single pointer without a path-based gesture, unless a multipoint or path-based gesture is essential.
Jake: I have a q. For you or MG.
Why you do not want #3 included? It almost seems like we have a
AA sc for #1 and #2,
... And an AAA for #3. Why do you or MG want to leave out the
one for #3? I don't understand the reason for this
moment.
... I think Detlev also does not understand.
Andrew: What do you mean leave it out?
Jake: Why not go all the way
except for the signature or other freeform? How can we make
this clear to users of WCAG where the line is?
... And the reason why it stops at some point. Where you and MG
draws the line, or Detlev and myself draw the line?
... What's your reason?
MG: First of all, the actuall
wording says path base gestures. We had an official response in
the wg by an outside agency.
... Path base gestures would have same definition as keyboard,
we didn't do that. We voted to do that, never happened.
... If we are not following that, we aren't...
... If you want to redefine path based gestures the way it is
defined in 2.1.1 keyboard.
... If the wg wants to do that, we are on shaky ground.
... The pointer gestures is talking about single point usage.
We already have this wierd conflict going on.
... We do have clear guidance on what we were going to say
before.
<JF> +1 to Mike - we did agree to that quite some time ago
Andrew: Jumping in, agree
completely with MG. There is a clear point that we need to do a
better job of what that is.
... That it is related to just start and end points or if it's
the path inbetween.
... One of the things that's a concern to me, it seems to be
about if sliders are an issue or not. It should not be
aboug...
... Any given slider, it's about the implementation of the
slider. Is it implemented in a way that meets the sc or
not?
... I see JF agreeing with Mike. Anyone else in queue?
... I'm trying to find the link you sent MG.
MG: I can find fast. One sec.
DM: Jumping in.
... So a bit of history on path based gestures. It really was
about drawing programs and couldn't replicate with
keyboard.
... Everything had to be operatable with keyboard except for
drawing program, keyboard. Could have any # of middle
points.
<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/478
DM: Otherwise we would have done an etch-a-sketch which would have been difficult. That's where it came from.
Andrew: Thanks.
... MG has a link to issue 478. And ...
... This is where we talked about changing single untimed
pointer gesture to untimed single pointer gesture.
DM: From Nov 2017. It's a little while ago. Important point is last part of response.
Andrew: Yep.
... We said there would be a new definition.
... We published in June but we did not do that.
... So... we can't just add it in now. We could add in 2.2.
<mbgower> "user's movement" to me is at the crux of this discussion
Andrew: We don't have that
definition in. Q for other people in the call. Do we feel this
provides sufficient history about where we've been?
... To convince people that we don't want to take option
#3?
Jake: Is the definition is not there, how can we make a decision? It will not be more clear. You will still have people on both sides.
Andrew: We have to make some sort of decision?
Jake: Postponed?
... Definition is a little awkward. Because of the fact that
the definition was not there, maybe we ended up with this
discussion.
... For me I've never seen this one before. So you can make a
decision without the definition. But I don't think people
... will pick it up automatically.
MG: You don't think the rewriting covers this?
Jake: I think that NOW we lack
the definition. There's some awkwardness with single pointer
where it's single pointer gesture.
... where it contains "path based" in it where it's not
defined.
... From a holistic approach. If we have this definition, it
might fit in your proposal. Maybe if and when it's there.
... It may be oppposed to the sc. We may not cover the intent
of these. This feels not correct. I can imagine it's hard to
explain.
... This slider is about the end points. The intent is to help
people to have an alternative with a motion or gesture.
... We still don't help people out with sliders.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that having to make a specific motion or gesture is included
Jake: Is that clear? I think you are right if we have this definition. We still exclude some custom widgets and components we would like to cover.
Andrew: MG...
MG: For people who require
specific motion or gesture IS included.
... Originally the wording Detlev had is he excluded drag and
drop. Gestures that require direction...
... Are defined as what path based is.
... Now making clear where direction is involved. Those things
are included. Even the slider is included if the definition
requires specific motion along the x axis.
Andrew: And I think Jake that we
can make a decision about what the WG feels the text
says.
... It's helpful if we have a definition we approved. but we
have lots of things that don't have definitions that we still
have thoughts about.
... In this case we've got... a response back to a question
which clarifies what we were thinking about even though we
don't have a definition.
<AWK> Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures (Level A): All functionality that uses multipoint or path-based gestures for operation can be operated with a single pointer without a path-based gesture, unless a multipoint or path-based gesture is essential.
Andrew: It would be good to
clarify today if we can if people feel like in this sc that
path based means just related to end points or not.
... Here's sc text <reads>.
... Given what we talked about, are there people who feel that
this path based gesture here....
... Are there people who feel the wg's intent to only address
free form gestures or whether it was to allow gestures where
the endpoints are the only points that matter.
DM: I think we intended to include swipe, that's a path based gesture, a particular path to make it work. Custom swipes is what we are trying to deal with.
<mbgower> +1 to David's comment. Custom swipes.
DM: Making sure people with shaky hands could do that functionality.
<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/61
Andrew: OK, MG agrees.
MG: I pasted in the original
issue back when the original wording was there. This comes down
to any form of dragging should be included.
... If it's included then the conversation can stop, if not
then we need to talk about what dragging we don't want to have
included.
... How many people think all forms of dragging are
included?.
DM: Drag-and-drop examples?
MG: Any .....
DM: You'd have to have a pointer you could fall back for.
MG: You'd have to have a single click operation. Using no movement.
<AWK> Question: Was the WG intent with 2.5.1 to allow any gesture as long as the result of the gesture only depends on the start and end points?
Andrew: Asking question just
related to start and end points? <reads>
... Which means drag and drop is ok as long as you didn't have
to follow a specific path when following it. Just start and end
points.
DM: I see what you're
saying.
... I don't think that was the intent but it sounds
interesting.
Andrew: You don't think that was the intent?
<mbgower> "Was the WG intent with 2.5.1 to allow any gesture as long as the result of the gesture only depends on the start and end points?" Yes, and we have multiple votes backing that up.
<AWK> +1 to that being the intent
DM: I don't remember us discussing this. but I think this is an interesting thought.
Andrew: OK. David says no, MG
says yes.
... This does not mean that you think the sc is perfect or that
there isn't more to be done. It's about what we were trying to
do.
... Most people are not saying anything. Not sure? Don't care?
Aren't following?
Jake: Just one... what I'm trying
to understand, besides the definition... but if say we do not
cover drag and drop or some other
... forms which do not align with the sc. Then we end up with a
version where certain user interactions will not be possible
for certain people...
... With motor challenges, or at that isn't able to perform the
movement. If we do not demand from the guidelines to have a
single point alternative...
... Then we don't have coverage for these people. Why do we
want to exclude those movements or those cases right
between...
... The specific path based or the end points? Why would we
leave that part open?
... Because it doesn't follow the normative text we don't have?
Or is there another reason?
MG: We already had a vote on
drag-and-drop being out of scope. We had a vote on an official
vote on a response.
... We had this discussion a lot of times. If we could go back
in time and say path based is not in the language then we could
have that discussion.
... There's multiple comments and issues that have had comments
and discussions, not a new discussion.
Jake: At least to not have the
enormous elaborated understanding doc. Cover what we discussed
in the past.
... Took a while to read the comments. Maybe discuss it for 2.2
AA or AAA sc. To cover those other cases.
... Those other cases will still be an accessibility fail?
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if we can add some exceptions here?
Andrew: MG proposed for 2.2.
JF: For the most part I agree
with Mike. Lot's of discussion. I hear Jake's concerns as
well.
... The editorial and understanding has a lot of words but no
simple examples. Is there any value in us looking at the
understanding doc...
... And adding a table about what's in scope and not in
scope?
<JakeAbma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/744
JF: If I'm to understand your concern, there's a lack of clarity about what's in scope. Maybe we can clean up the understanding doc with a table.
Jake: I added an issue, I'll make a proposal. You can read about it in issue 744.
Andrew: The pull request we have
here are updating understanding content to clear things
up.
... This first question... the original pull request, option 2
was doing something similar but different, option 3 was more
substantial.
... I think that what you are saying Jake is true. We are
trying to get clarity, but we aren't in agreement on what
clarity means.
... MG pointed out what the wg was thinking in the past. Maybe
current group can confirm if we are just talking about the end
points.
... Then we can zero in on specific clarity.
... Does that make sense?
JF: I think you said it better, if that's the case I agree.
Andrew: I think so.
... So do people agree that the original intent of the wg was
to interpret path based gestures as relying just on start and
end points?
<laura> A Proposed WG answer for 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures from Wiki: Path-based gestures are any gestures where the user engages with a screen (e.g. touches or causes a mouse-down), moves the pointer, and then releases the finger or mouse at another location. The WG will still determine whether we need a definition.
<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Response_issue_721#2.5.1_Pointer_Gestures
Andrew: Or anyone disagree?
DM: re-ask?
Andrew: write it down.
DM: Swipe to right for instance that doesn't have an end point if you start from a point and go in a direction. Would that be in scope?
JF: That feels like a keypress operation. It's not but it feels that way.
<AWK> Does anyone disagree that the original intent of the WG was that path-based gestures meant that only the start and end points mattered in a gesture?
DM: Yes. We have swipe in the language.
<mbgower> A swipe is direction reliant and therefore path-based
DM: What are people's thoughts?
Andrew: David if you have a swipe
where in iOs there's a mail app, you can swipe to get rid of an
email from the list of emails.
... If you can start the swipe and move the mouse all over, and
if you end up at the rigth spot that wouldn't count.
... But if you have to stay in the same horizontal band, you
have to start on the left hand, you have to move right,
... It's not just relying on start and end points it would
apply.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I have never heard anyone suggest that swipe is not in scope. Swipe, by definition, is directional
DM: So swipes are in scope.
MG: No one ever suggested that about swipes.
DM: Drag and drop would not be in scope because it does not rely on the path.
MG: Exactly.
DM: I'm on same page.
Andrew: Does anyone disagree <reads>?
DM: one last thing.
... In case where there isn't a start and end, there's just a
direction, then that's still in scope?
... A swipe doesn't have a start and end point. That's not
getting excluded?
Andrew: I'm having a hard time hearing you. Swipe is still covered.
MG: The way Alastair defined it, swipe starts with a press movement and a release. Which means it does have a start and end point.
DM: I'm thinking with coordinates for start and end points. Everything has a start and end point.
MG: I'm trying to find language that Alastair put in.
Chuck: Time check. Near end.
MG: The language Alastair has.
<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/714/files
Chuck: Paste it in.
Andrew: Getting down to end of call.
DM: It works. Where's it on page?
MG: First green line.
First...
... I'll read out line. Line 14 in replacement.
<reads>
<AWK> A <strong>path-based gesture</strong> involves an interaction where the user engages a pointer with the display (down event), carries out a directional movement in a pre-determined direction before disengaging the pointer (up event). The direction, speed, and also the delta between start and end point may each be evaluated to determine
Andrew: From what I've heard, I
feel like we can resolve this that it doesn't include gestures
with....
... We can decide on which pull request to use, but we have
come to a conclusion.
RESOLUTION: The WG intended that path-based gestures in 2.5.1 does not include gestures that only depend on the start and end points.
trackbot, end meeting
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/Shidi// Succeeded: s/<someone>/mbgower/ Succeeded: s/MC/MG/ Default Present: AWK, alastairc, jon_avila, Fazio, MichaelC, Chuck, Laura, Detlev, david-macdonald, stevelee, johnkirkwood, KimD, mbgower, JakeAbma, Rachael, JF, Lauriat, Raf, shadi Present: AWK Chuck Detlev JF JakeAbma KimD Laura Lauriat MichaelC Rachael alastairc david-macdonald johnkirkwood jon_avila mbgower stevelee Raf shadi Regrets: Fazio Found Scribe: JakeAbma Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck Scribes: JakeAbma, Chuck ScribeNicks: JakeAbma, Chuck WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 28 May 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]