Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

28 Jan 2020


(no, one), Rachael, JakeAbma, Laura, JF, Fazio, stevelee, CharlesHall_, alastairc, Jennie, JustineP, Detlev, MarcJohlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila, mbgower
JustineP, MarcJohlic



<AWK> +Nicaise

<Fazio> I’m at the Orlando airport. Can’t scribe

<AWK> Please consider signing up for scribing the next month: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<JustineP> I can scribe first hour

<JustineP> scribe: JustineP

Last reminder to re-join group

AWK: Last reminder to rejoin. If not done, you will not receive emails, etc. until you rejoin. If you need help finding AC rep reach out to Alastair/Andrew.

Marc: Where can we see if AC rep/organization has rejoined?

AWK: Michael will look into it

MichaelC: When a member organization rejoins, all organization members are rejoined automatically

WCAG 2.2 Information in steps: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/info-in-steps/results

<Fazio> Mine

<AWK> Current Draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18MCz5XDsMmglcAe2j-HzQbpADpw_HtdVjDZ3EHX4-xk/edit

Fazio: Added resources to address questions around research

AWK: One concern in survey that "shall" items are not met.

Fazio: Concerns were related to Understanding doc
... mostly related to research and I've added that information.
... some verbiage has been added to draft

Mike G: Why was text "required to be re-entered" added?

AWK: Trying to change language at top regarding "necessary to proceed..."

Mike G: Text is getting less convoluted but can probably be trimmed further

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask which SC text was best?

Alastair: Which version of text do we want to proceed with?

Fazio: Would like to add "information is provided to the user"

<JF> +1 to David F

AWK: Will add to the bottom draft text.

John F: Can we restructure page to post working version at top? Difficult to track which is the active version.

AWK: Yes

Mike G: take out phrase "which is required"

Alaistair: we are trying to address "re-entry"

John F: If information has been entered, it should be available at your fingertips. I'm seeing critical issue is that there's a timeline: information previously submitted can be recalled without using memory.

scribe: do we put a limit on timeframe?

<JF> Information provided by the user previously can be recalled later without the need of user-memory (recall)

AWK: consider adding word "either"
... Pasting suggested text into working document.

Mike G: Has text encapsulated need?

AWK: Doesn't cover David F's concern about information provided to the user.

<kirkwood> information that is dependent on information entered in previous steps shall be made easily available

<Fazio> It’s important to have both needs met

Fazio: Can we break up into two sentences?
... one sentence would focus on information that user entered. The other sentence would focus on information provided to user.

AWK: "entered by" or "provided to" is an understandable phrase

Fazio: There still seems to be confusion.

AWK: I like the top version better. It provides clear technical direction.

John F: I can live with proposed version.

Alastair: I pasted in a slightly different version with restructured text.

<kirkwood> ientry of information that is dependent on information entered in previous steps shall be made easily available

Mike G: "essential" phrase can standalone as its own sentence

AWK: Which version is preferred?
... need a final version. No objections are apparent.

<JF> I can live with any of the choices

Stevelee: important to say that pre-existing information is supplied at the point where it is needed
... at point of entry

Alastair: Will need text to cover in Understanding document

<laura> +1 for AC’s version

John F: I'm fine with any version. Alastair's version with formatting seems to be more readable. Address incomplete sentence at end.

Stevelee: Agree
... Do we need to constrain to form filling process?

John F: If information was provided in earlier process, not in current process, is it relevant?

Fazio: we added the word "current" to address that consideration

AWK: Current wording seems to target the current process.

<kirkwood> +1 to needed

<Fazio> I agree

Rachael: Broaden text to say "needed by the user"... information may not be isolated to the need to re-enter.

<kirkwood> +1 my point was to make a decsion based on the information. don’t agree that selection is correct

AWK: Need to think about scenarios in which that would be relevant to scope clearly.

Fazio: Text "selected" and "entered" was in first version and may have been pared down.

John K: Agree with Rachael. Specifically about needing information from previous steps. Auto-populated doesn't cover the need.

scribe: for example, booked a hotel room for 3 people on the third day of a trip and need to make decision on car rental at the next step in a process.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to address Brook's question

<Fazio_> with Rachael makes sense

Alastair: Brooke's had a question about passwords and the need to re-enter. Would fall under the essential exceptions category and should be covered in Understanding document.

Mike G: If we lose context around focus on user input, scope would be unclear.

<Fazio__> You’re out of the current process

<kirkwood> its on the same travel site happens all the time

scribe: To John K's example, information in car rental entry is not relevant to hotel reservation. Scope can quickly become unclear.
... the car rental step is a different process.

<kirkwood> wasn’t a perfect example

<kirkwood> agreed

Rachael: Would like to see the SC move forward. Focus on "entered" if needed to narrow scope and move forward.

Stevelee: Can we push down to an implementation step?


<alastairc> Just wondering who added 'depenent on', doesn't seem to make sense in the sentence?

AWK: SC is focusing on information that is in a process. Are we talking about multiple processes or information within a process that is required?

Fazio: That's why we put in "current" in the text and can clarify in Understanding document.
... information needs to be readily available for user to select.

Alastair: Could be an input selection or available on page for user to copy/paste.

<kirkwood> “information from previous steps readily available”

Fazio: That gets to the techniques aspect of it.

John K: Was thinking that autopopulating would be more difficult than making information readily available.

<Fazio__> Someone put the selection technique in using amazon as an example

Alastair: Implementation may focus on information being available.

<Fazio__> so it’s in there

AWK: Top version is adapted from Alastair's text.
... first sentence of top version vs. Alastair's original is different.

Stevelee: Going back to question about scope and user requirements...issue is consideration for user's working memory.

<Fazio__> T ghg are c why it’s current process

<Fazio__> current is working menory

John K: Is about information dependent on previously entered information.

Fazio: It is also related to mental fatigue.

Jennie: Is there a definition of "steps"?

<Fazio__> Good question

AWK: We have a definition of "process."

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-processes

Jennie: If we need to test, will need to help people understand text around "steps in a process."

<alastairc> We also define similar things here: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc3

<alastairc> "a process (i.e., a sequence of steps that need to be completed in order to accomplish an activity)"

AWK: Would hope that "steps" is relevant to its common usage of the word.

<Fazio__> wireframes should be in steps for a process flow

<kirkwood> a single action would be a step

AWK: thoughts?

<kirkwood> no?

<Jennie> Because of definition of process, I prefer option 1

Alastair: We have similar language in 5.Q.3

<kirkwood> a single html form?

Alastair: the reason that we are using "steps" is due to the underlying assumption that previously entered information isn't available at current step.

<Jennie> Single sign on?

<Fazio__> should we add a definition in the understanding doc

John K: I've always thought of a step as a single HTML form (one enter key.)

AWK: Is often correct but not always correct.

<Fazio__> on the page at point of yse

<Fazio__> point of use

Jon Avila: Does "is available" mean from a link, on a pop up, or on the same page? Also, having information about other sites would not be helpful. How can we reduce clutter to relevant information?

<Fazio__> info necessary to proceed

<Fazio__> yes

<Fazio__> +1

Alastair: Text focuses on information that a user has already entered.

AWK: Hearing that information is not just provided to the user, but that the user selected it.

<kirkwood> +1

Jon Avila: That does clarify.

Fazio: Scope is about information that is required to move to the next step in the process.

Jon Avila: Does the information need to be available on that page without pop up, etc.?

Fazio: Yes

Jon Avila: Historically, WCAG has accepted long descriptions, hyperlinks, etc.

Fazio: Navigating across pages, etc. can create mental fatigue.

Jon Avila: Agree but we should clarify.

AWK: I revised text to address those concerns.
... we should be careful about changing context.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'm concerned all the recent topics can be handled in Understanding and Techniques; don't constrain the SC overly

Mike G: Discussion stemmed from definition of "steps" which can be covered in Understanding document or Techniques. We can't anticipate every design decision.

scribe: if we try to constrain SC too much we can create impediments.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say happy with either, suggest tackling the main understanding doc question.

<kirkwood> I’m worried that this form process will make one able to change or slect anythoing in the process in every step of the process. eliminating the need for steps?

<Fazio> We have it for seizures

<Fazio> and flashing content

Alastair: Agreeing with Mike Gower. We seem to agree that mental fatigue occurs and can be severe. It seems tricky to include in Understanding document because multiple factors come into play.

<Fazio> not over time like days

Alastair: seizures and flashing content are related. Mental fatigue can't be attributed to a specific trigger in the same way. Is not clear-cut.

Fazio: Am fine with your updates and it is important for people to understand the rationale behind the SC.

<MarcJohlic> scribe: MarcJohlic

AWK: Alastair do you have a preference between the top or bottom?

<Fazio> +1for top

AC: Mild preference for the top one

<laura> +1 for top one.

<Fazio> I agree with AK

<mbgower> In the second version, I'm suggesting a slight trim:

Jake: where's line between when you cover something in the success criteria versus the understanding document?

<mbgower> For steps in a process, information entered or selected by the user which is required on subsequent steps of the process is either: • auto-populated, or • available for the user to select

<mbgower> In fact, "of the process" can be taken out the second time too

<mbgower> For steps in a process, information entered or selected by the user which is required on subsequent steps is either: • auto-populated, or • available for the user to select

Jake: When is something part of the normative text versus went to explain something in the understanding document

AWK: we rely on the common understanding of what the words are and we rely on our own interpretation with those phrases mean we can indicate any understanding document what the working group's intent was

<kirkwood> I think we need to define steps.

DF: the law has the same problem and what the Supreme Court has done is they point folks to the plain language definition of things - that is what's in the dictionary

AWK: How do we choose between the two options we have now?

mbgower: I've made a few revisions to the bottom one

<Fazio> It’s provided for the purpose of being entered later

AWK: I would like to see "of the process" added back in

<Fazio> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1 to #3 but still feel we may need to define "steps" in the Understanding Document.

AWK: would like "of subsequent steps 'of the process'"


<Ryladog> +1

<laura> +1

<Fazio> semicolon instead?

AWK: What do people think of the updated second version vs top

AC: With the changes we do lose a bit of context

<Fazio> Can’t we clear this in the understanding doc

AC: OK with that change as long as we explain that if it's somethign that blocks you from progressing that needs to be addressed

<AWK> For steps in a process, information entered by or provided to the user, that which is required on subsequent steps is either:

<AWK> auto-populated, or

<AWK> available for the user to select on the current step

<alastairc> For steps in a process, information entered by or provided to the user that is required on subsequent steps is either:

<Jennie> is it "and is required on subsequent steps"

DM: "Except when" vs "Exception :"

AWK: We looked and use "Exception:" more often

Jennie: Consider using "and" where the "that which" is stricken

AWK: If we did "and" I feel we need to add "and" to the first bullet as well

<Fazio> You do

<Jennie> +1 to edit

mbgower: Is "needed" sufficient vs "required"? Are we getting ourselves into a situation by using "required"?

<david-macdonald> Exception: = 3x ... Except when = 6x

AWK: "required" serves to make it more testable

mbgower: Agreed

<Fazio_> On those

<Fazio_> yes

AWK: Are people OK with what we have now?

<Fazio_> itbink we all agree

<Jennie> on subsequent steps in case it is more than once?

<mbgower> +1

<Fazio_> we just have different ways of wording

+1 (after changing "the subsequent step" to "subsequent steps"

AWK: Still need some techniques for this one

<kirkwood> can help

Fazio: Anyone available to help with the techniques?

AC: We don't need code examples for this one - it's a prescriptive sort of thing.

<kirkwood> yes i can help

<CharlesHall_> apologies, i have to drop off the call

Last reminder to re-join group

WCAG 2.2 Fixed Reference Points: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/page-break-nav/results

<Fazio_> I’m gonna drop off and che k into my hotel now. Thanks everyone

AWK: Fixed Reference Points

<AWK> Current draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Zn0_TGcqrM-L_wb0PIFHM4AnHJ64wPsucZyRGlf2Fg/edit#heading=h.y476ttrsa0b5

DM: Dropping my AAA versions of it due to complications
... If you have an explicit navigation marker, then you need to be able to navigate to it

AWK: Not a lot of responses to the survey yet. A number of responses have text, but no decision yet.

DM: Would be interested to hear more about Brooks' comment
... in the SC proposal document
... "add that publication version needs to be available to user" (from Brooks)

AWK: Brooks isn't on the call, but does that make sense to anyone else?

AC: He may be thinking about where you have a paper version of something and you're accessing say the ePub version

DM: I think that's what he means - and that's what we were talking about in the AAA version. This one is self-referencing. It would probably be a separate SC to do that.

AWK: Can you explain what you mean by markers in audio and video timeline

DM: I believe that came from Mike Gower

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that the defn of explicit navigation marker' seems broad. wouldn't it cover headings, for example?

AWK: Because the problem is that this starts off with "in content implemented with markup languages"

mbgower: I think it's becoming pretty broad - for example I think headings would be covered by this and I don't believe that was the original intention

AWK: What is meant by audio video timelines and further, are they considered markup languages

mbgower: I think timestamp would be better than timeline

<JF> Usually? More like always Mike...

mbgower: If you have a transcription of a video timestamps could be considered, but if that's making it too convoluted it can be dropped.

AWK: Using the timestamp example, you could potentially end up with 600 which is not what we want with this SC

JF: there is definitely a distinction between timeline and timestamps
... Master timeline is the source of all truth which then other things can fire off against

Jennie: In govt when a law is being proposed and they're discussing it, they'll have the line number at the beginning to reference it. I believe having line number in here would be helpful.

JF: In the print world where line numbers are consistent, but with reflow in the equation those line numbers may change

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if we also define "implicit" markers, are we ok?

<mbgower> This entire SC is based on the notion of a master source, and mabye that should be in the SC

JF: I want to be really careful - demarkations should be relevant to the master document.

<mbgower> Primary source markers

AC: Explicit navigation marker - if we scope out things like "element IDs" and "headings", are we OK with that?

<mbgower> Primary source references?

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about page numbers

AWK: This started out talking about page numbers. At TPAC it was indicated that page numbers were a problem - folks navigate via scrolling or using a doc outline. If a teacher says: "Let's go to Page 6" we want a consistent way that everyone will wind up at the same place.
... If we make this about explicit navigation markers, and that's a broad category, we might make this too difficult - as opposed to talking about page numbers on paginated content.

DM: I agree - and I feel we lost something by dropping "page numbers" which was a part of earlier versions.

AWK: And not sure how that came about because even in Google docs they do show and indicate page numbers and pagination

<mbgower> Primary source markers: In content implemented using markup languages, where primary source navigation markers are present in the content, a mechanism is available to navigate to each marker.

<mbgower> BTW, AWK, the mobile version of docs does NOT seem to have page numbers

Jennie: When we have legislation reviewed, we do have problems with the PDF vs the printed version. The difficulty is that there isn't a navigation option to navigate by those line numbers. If we do include line numbers here, that would help in those situations.

AWK: In a PDF, you can link to a page, but getting to a sub section of a page can't always be done.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we could use page numbers, no harm to having another method later.

AWK: So I agree, but I'm not sure that that is what this SC is covering.

<mbgower> Primary source markers: In content implemented using markup languages, where primary source navigation markers are present in the content, a mechanism is available to navigate to each marker.

AC: Shawn's issue was "page number is good, but why don't we widen this more". As long as we have something around that primary source material or another format I don't think that would be something that would be objected to.

AWK: So you don't think Shawn was objecting to page numbering specifically

AC: He just wanted it to be wider
... As long as it's scoped so that if you don't have this primary marker in it, then you don't have to worry about it.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think it COULD fall under this if it isn't scoped to tight

mbgower: When I bring up Google Docs on my phone, I don't get page numbers. That may be what Shawn was also referencing.
... 1) there has to be a primary source and 2) the primary source has to have markers in it that are referenced
... the risk is that it's so broad that people might not get it.

"Primary source markers: In content implemented using markup languages, where primary source navigation markers are present in the content, a mechanism is available to navigate to each marker."

mbgower: We have to explain that this only pertains to a case where you have a primary source, and it has non-malleable markers - such as page numbers.

<mbgower> I can live with this being scoped down to page numbers

<Jennie> +1

DM: In 2.0 we abstracted things in an effort to extend the longevity. I think we can use page numbers and that is something that would have longevity.

mbgower: I can live with including page numbers

AWK: David, I suggest checking with Shawn on this again also

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/01/28 18:02:14 $

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/deal with this normative is the normative text but because relying/we rely/
Default Present: AWK, Nicaise, Rachael, JakeAbma, Laura, JF, Fazio, stevelee, CharlesHall_, alastairc, Jennie, JustineP, Detlev, MarcJohlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila, mbgower
Present: (no one) Rachael JakeAbma Laura JF Fazio stevelee CharlesHall_ alastairc Jennie JustineP Detlev MarcJohlic Katie_Haritos-Shea jon_avila mbgower
Found Scribe: JustineP
Inferring ScribeNick: JustineP
Found Scribe: MarcJohlic
Inferring ScribeNick: MarcJohlic
Scribes: JustineP, MarcJohlic
ScribeNicks: JustineP, MarcJohlic
Found Date: 28 Jan 2020
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]