Meeting minutes
<Chuck_> ○ agenda+ Color issues: https://
Working effectively together for 2021
Editors' note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion
<AWK> +AWK
Chuck invites any new people to introduce themselves, but no takerrs
https://
The chairs propose an editor's note in the Background on WCAG 3 section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to improve inclusion, with the following text...
Working effectively together for 2021
Chuck: WG is taking up some policies and practices to facilitate coordination and work
… asking sub groups to identify near term activities and goals and action items
… also please remember to be civil, and approach chair if you have any developing concerns
<Chuck_> https://
Chuck: better to be considering and discussing sooner than later
WCAG 3.0 objection update Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-12-editorsnote/
Chuck: and we bid 2020 so long
The chairs propose an editor's note in the Background on WCAG 3 section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to improve inclusion, with the following text...
W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or inclusion within the process of creating this standard. [CUT]
We welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.
[bruce copy/paste from survey]
13 responses on survey, 11 approves, 2 ask for edits
Chuck calls on Jake Abma
[Jake reads from survey]
The phrasing is awkward.
it's not about supporting the review, but act upon review comments; it's not about support the feedback, but act upon the feedback
Micheal Cooper: all these ways ARE the ways we support review
<Fazio> That does sound awkward
Chuck: JF suggest participation instead of inclusion
MC: This is meant to encompass feedback from people who are not members of working group
Chuck: As I heard your feedback, you say you have a clear idea, but think it can be misinterpreted?
Jake: I read it as people evaluating document is good, but ways WG should better support feedback is not clear
… what is supporting inclusion?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that is the intent...
<jon_avila> We support reviews by helping point people to materials and resources
<Rachael> With John's suggestion: W3C strives to be as inclusive as possible, and has actively sought participation and input from a broad range of stakeholder groups. We recognize, however, that there is always room for improvement in practices to support inclusion and representation. As you evaluate this document, please consider whether there are ways the Working Group can better support your review, feedback, or participation within the process of
<Rachael> creating this standard. We welcome feedback on this question as part of your comments.
Alastair C: An example is if someone had difficultly going through a long document, we could facilate breaking up what is needed for digesting the document
Chuck: We have a process that facilitates feedback and review so we are including mechanisms for feedback and inclusion.
<Fazio> Inclusion to me means minority groups
Chuck: Rachael has parsed out some feedback from John Foliot, asks MC for response.
MC: The word "inclusion" is closer to our intent.
<Fazio> like including diversity
John Foliot: When we use word inclusion to be inclusive, it just seems circular.
Chuck: I am hearing suggestion for word smithing but not strong objections. Andrew ?
<alastairc> (We jumped ahead a bit and had already put it in, but circled back to the group.)
AWK: I could not suggest changes because I was not clear on what text is in current draft. I withdraw my request for a change.
<Nicaise> +1
<AWK> +1
<laura> +1
<JustineP> +1
<JakeAbma> +1\
<alastairc> +1
Chuck: Please +1 if you accept the proposed editors note
<Sukriti> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<Ben> +1
<Rachael> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Fazio> 0
<david-macdonald> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<JF> +1
-1 if anything you cannot live with
<mbgower> +1
Resolution: Accept the proposed Editor's note in WCAG 3 FPWD on inclusion
Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note
https://
The chairs propose adding a section to to the Acknowledgment appendix of WCAG 3 FPWD recognizing Participants who made notable contributions to the creation of this document section of the FPWD, requesting feedback on how to objectively identify key contributers, with the following text:
This section will document key contributors. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft. This list will be updated for each subsequent draft.
[bruce copy/paste from survey]
<david-macdonald> refresh
Chuck: 13 replies, 10 approved as-is
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I like Andy's ideas, but I don't want to put it in the FPWD
Jeanne: I like Andy's ideas, but it is a starting point for next draft, so don't use for now
<JF> Q: if we like Andy's ideas, how do we capture them for future work?
Chuck: Andy did not object, so that is fine.
Justine Pascalides has editorial nit
Bruce has editoria suggestion to remove word "key"
Alasstair: We already have contributors section, so the idea is space for a little bit more.
John Foliot: Question is how we are going use Andrews suggestion going forward?
Jeanne: Adding to wiki
MC: Could be a pull request after publication.
Chuck: Good suggestion
<Rachael> This section will document contributors who made notable contributions and it will be updated for each subsequent draft. The process of identifying these individuals is in process and a list will be included in the next draft.
Chuck: Bruce do you have heartache with going forward with this using "key"
Bruce: that is okay
Rachael proposes an edit using wording previously approved. Bruce likes Rachels edit.
Chuck: David McDonald answered survey that we should skip this new section for now.
<Fazio> I kinda agree
David McDonald: This is something that is really tricky to do, and is something we struggled with this for 1.0 and 2.0.
… we can always add this later.
Chuck: This is to address an objection that was raised
David McDonald: We can always add this latter, just seems premature at this moment in time
David Fazio: Agree with David McDonald, as there are so many people did work, seems like it could be more trouble than it is worth...
on other hand, might be a motivator.
Alastair: Agree that this is a hard thing to do well. WCAG 3 is a bit of clean slate, so while it is a difficult thing to do well, it is probably better to start from beginning.
… Overall, I would rather have a flat list of contributors, but I don't feel strongly about it.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask that it's worth the effort to try
Chuck: There are a lot of individuals who went above and beyond, so it does seems fair to me to review and come up with a process and so keep it it.
<Chuck_> ach Rach
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest that Mike Gower's suggestion may be a middle ground
Rachael: I don't have a strong feeling, but I want to acknowleges MG softer phrasing
MG: This section is intended to document key contributors...a list should be included... [from survey]
<Chuck_> +1 to Michael
MG: I just used softer phrasing to get at intention, but not promissing something that might fall through
Rachael: I will propose something in minutes
Chuck: likes this approach
Chuck: David, if we were to soften the language, is that okay with you?
David M: Yes, the softer proposal is better.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that it helps us when people after publication make false claims of the contribution
<Rachael> Proposed rewording: This section is intended to document participants who made notable contributions. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list should be included in the next draft and updated for each subsequent draft.
Jeanne: I started as Alastair expresse, not wanting to address this issue.
<JustineP> Consider "With special thanks, this section acknowledges the following individuals' notable contributions. The method..."
<JF> +1 to Jeanne
Jeanne: this comes somewhat from some people having their names in wcag 2.0 listed as contibutors, and getting business from that, they trade on that acknowledgment without being a really significant contributor
… it is a way of noting people that really did the work. I think this is worth doing.
<Rachael> Proposed rewording: This section is intended to document participants who made notable contributions. The method of identifying these individuals is in process and a list should be included in the next draft and updated for each subsequent draft.
Justine: My edit is so be a little clearer.
<Chuck_> Consider "With special thanks, this section acknowledges the following individuals' notable contributions. The method..."
<jeanne> +1 to "special thanks"
Racheal: I would prefere to capture Justines and AWK comment for introduction or maybe later, but not this editors notes
<Nicaise> +1
<jeanne> +1
<Raf> +1
<JustineP> +1
<Wilco> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<Rachael> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Ben> +1
[11: 35] Chuck_ proposed RESOLUTION: Accept the amended "Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note"
<mbgower> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<Jennie> +1
<Fazio> 0
<laura> +1
<JF> +1
<Sukriti> +!
<alastairc> +1, with assumption that if we don't agree criteria, we can leave it.
<Sukriti> haha
Resolution: Accept the amended "Notable Contributions Section and Editor's Note"
Color issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-color-updates/
https://
Question 1 - Updates to G183 remove the focus step in the procedure
In a previous survey question we agreed that contrast can be used as an extra visual indicator.
G183 tests for both contrast and having hover/focus with extra indicators. This is ok for a technique which can go beyond the SC requirements, however, it does cause confusion when people compare to F73, or consider that touch devices don't have hover/focus states.
Note that G182 is a more general technique that requires an extra indicator.
PR 1553 removes the 'focus' aspect (covered in other techniques) and clarifies what is required by the SC and what is required by the technique.
This would provide closure to issue 1118 and issue 1272 with a response:
The working group considered this issue and applied some updates in PRs 1500 and 1553 to clarify what passes the success criteria and what is needed for the technique.
9 respones, 3 people want some adjustments
AWK: Agree with the changes with some adjustment, please see pull request
… title should be shorter
… with more recent techniques, we try to set up the procedure. So I suggested "for each instance..."
… you need to (1) look where color is used, then (2) color is used alone
AWK: I have line item edits within the PR
Alastair: I am making the edits on github
Wilco: I have missed the earlier the call, but contrast as the only visual distinction is problematic for many people with certain visual impairments
… relying only upon contrast, makes it very difficult for some people with low vision who need to work in darkeded room with generally very little contrast
Mike Gower: I have no problems with edits proposed, but now we have lost mention of focus indicator
… I would like for us to note that including focus indictor (which could just be underline on hover) is very helpful to convey the focus state
Alastair: These edits have been under development for quite a while and really this is a kind of tidying up because it has been a bit of a fudge...
as to when we allow contrast to stand alone or not. It is a narrow hole, especially because there are only a few color combinations that are strong enough,
<Wilco> Thanks for the clarification Alastair. I figured it was something like that.
so relying upon high contrast color contrast only (without the visual focus indicator) makes this a compromise and is a middle ground bridging other techniques...
This technique is asking for more than the literal requirements of the success criteria. It is a compromise, because the alternative is have a high-contrast-only techniques
and then a advisory technique that goes beyond the bare minium.
<MelanieP> +1 to two separate techniques: sufficient and advisory
Mike G: We have lost focus or hover from title, so the emphasis could should call that out. I will add an edit to the PR. I can live with changes though.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask Alastair about going beyond the SC
AWK: To clarify, this technique goes beyond the SC (before and after the edit)?
Alastair: Yes, and edits have gone back and forth. Left the hover indicator in.
… Erik Egger advocated for pulling both focus and hover out, but current draft has lef hover indicator in place.
<AWK> I don't think that this is advisory
<AWK> this is sufficient
Wilco: There is already a failure technique, so does it make sense for this to be an advisory technique.
Alastair: F73 is the mirror failure technique, but we do need a sufficient technique along these lines.
Chuck: We have gone through comments and talked through pull requests
<AWK> +1
Chuck: please vote Accept the response and amended PR and close issues 1118 and 1272 ?
<Rachael> +1
<laura> +1
<Chuck_> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<mbgower> +1
Alastair: adjust procedure with 1st paragraph in front
AWK: I may have missed that focus was already removed from title
AWK: My last item, in procedure, "where color alone conveys information" does not feel exactly right...
maybe should be "in each instance where color is used to convey information"...
Chuck: I may want to leave this open for one more week...
Alastair: Only new change from survey is edit to last part of procedure.
… change is editorial
Chuck: please vote again
<laura> +1
<AWK> +1
<mbgower> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Wilco> 0
<Chuck_> +1
<JF> 0
<MelanieP> +1
Resolution: Accept the response and amended PR and close issues 1118 and 1272
Chuck: No objections
<Ryladog> +1
<alastairc> Alastair - will also reply to @yatil.
Question 2 - Clarity for 1.3.3: Sensory Characteristics needed #1532
Question 2 - Does this SC really apply to "single page" web applications? #1427
https://
<Sukriti> I'll scribe
<AWK> Sorry, one more thing on G183
Question 2 - Clarity for 1.3.3: Sensory Characteristics needed #1532
Jake: was commenting on another issue, this one not applicable
AWK: Was trying to determine what we were trying to accomplish with this example
… seemed to be saying position and color were things you couldn't rely on
… trying to reconcile with example 1
… and SC 1.4.1
Jake: is this about instructions, why are we talking about sensory characteristics
… example 1 is not an instruction
Alastair: if the example has a label, it would pass
… because you are not relying on position or color
… but it was unclear why the example passed. That was the change
Charles: Does that address the questions?
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon; it does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also refers to the label of the icon.
MikeG: Just posted slightly updated wording to address
<Chuck__> +1 mbgower's suggestion
<alastairc> visually labels?
Jake: are we saying this is an instruction but doesn't count because there is a label
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to remind people to read the errata
MikeG: taking another crack at rewording to clarify
AWK: SC text for 1.3.3 errata for 2.0, color doesn't show up. Helps having it in there. Mike's formulation helps address my concern
<alastairc> How about: "The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon;
<alastairc> it does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also has a visual label for the icon."
<AWK> labels in WCAG are visual
Alastair: It also has a visual label as opposed to a programmatic label.
Jake: Instructions part still unclear
<mbgower> The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon; it does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also refers to the label, so it passes this criterion..
Alastair: this is a success example
Charles: Recommend focusing narrowly on addressing the survey question
Bruce: instruction instead of it
<AWK> +1 to MBG's text and BB's edit
<Chuck__> The instruction uses positioning and color to help identify the icon; the instruction does not rely on these sensory characteristics since it also refers to the label, so it passes this criterion.
<bruce_bailey> looks good
AWK: Comment about online
… editorial change from on-line to online
+1
<Ben> +1
<AWK> +1
<alastairc> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Wilco> 0
<bruce_bailey> +1
<laura> +1
<mbgower> +1
<morr4> +1
<Fazio> 0
<MelanieP> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<JF> 0
Resolution: Accept Alastair's amended update to second example in PR 1571
<Raf> 0
Findable help issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-findable-help-updates/
Question 1 - Some suggested editorial changes for clarity Issue #1462
Alastair: Summary of some of the suggestions discussed previously
… supported vs included
MikeG: Single web page vs set of web pages clarification
<Rachael> +1
<david-macdonald> https://
<Chuck__> ack
Alastair: Making sweeping changes might have unintended consequences
DavidM: If content changes but the url stays the same
<Ryladog> +1 to David's memory
Jennie: Is Mike suggesting to do the definition of web pages just for this SC?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to point out the 2 definitions & 3 scenarios aspect https://
MikeG: Intending to change the definition of set of web pages overall. Don't see anything totally scary
Alastair: traditional web page without massive changes, set for same purpose
… complication from SPA definitions
… tricky bit was the single page old fashioned applications that don't change urls
… even when new content
… in that case fits both web page and set of web pages definition
… would mean old fashioned SPAs would fit both a web page and a set of pages
<Chuck__> https://
Alaistar: Web pages, set of web pages and SPAs
… two types of SPAs - routing and not
MikeG: SPAs that change the URI wouldn't be included
Alastair: the ones that do routing fit web page and set of web pages
… reason to call out SPAs was that if the content changes with the same URIs without being caught in that text
MikeG: Anything stopping us from making set of web pages definition specific enough
Jake: question, there is a fourth variation applicable, where a big part of the pages have two different URIs within the same website
… the SC applies to all of them
<Fazio> My LMS has that characteristic
Jake: do you judge view by view
… hybrid SPAs that sometimes change URIs
Alastair: That would cover both
DavidM: I like the current wording. SPA is a subset of a web page if my understanding is correct
<alastairc> Current definition of SPA: Pages obtained from a single URI that provide navigation which changes the meaning of the Web page
DavidM: it is URI based and so fundamental to the definition of a web page
<mbgower> I'm fine to retract my suggestion. i just wanted to explore it. thanks
<Wilco> -1 to updating the definition from my part too
<Jennie> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<mbgower> +1
+1
<Wilco> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Raf> +1
<laura> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Ben> +1
<JF> 0
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<Chuck__> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
<Rachael> 0
Resolution: Accept Alastair's proposed response to issue #1462
<bruce_bailey> +1
Question 2 - Does this SC really apply to "single page" web applications? #1427
<david-macdonald> looking at spa definition I can live with it... it finishes with "... meaning of the web page" which addresses my concern
Alastair: the issues goes through the confusion that people face
Charles: Mike, is your concern addressed?
MikeG: my comment about the original draft is not about Alaistar's response
<bruce_bailey> +1
<laura> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Ryladog> +1
+1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<morr4> +1
<Jennie> +1
<JF> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Rachael> +1
Resolution: Accept Alastair's proposed response to issue #1427
<david-macdonald> +1
DavidM: maybe mention 3.2.6 language of the SC
… on each page - is it each view?
Alastair: definitions part of WCAG 3.0 discussions
Katie: screen was covered many times, means being able to see visually vs a page
<david-macdonald> "... on each page or view inside a single page web application"
Charles: closing loop
Hidden controls update (question 1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/
Charles: hidden controls rewording
John: the document was both the SC and the understanding document
… concerned about benefits, not SC
… seems to be focused on people with cognitive disabilities
<JF> https://
John: will also benefit people with low vision
<bruce_bailey> https://
<alastairc> David - for the 'a page' bit, we're basically jamming the SPA definition into the web-page defintion, so I think we can consider it in scope.
John: concerned with focus on single groups of users
<kirkwood> low vision users should be included
<kirkwood> +1 to JF
<Fazio> And visual field cuts like mine
<kirkwood> low vision + limited vision
Alastair: can add some more context to understanding document, needs to be based in logic or research
… we completely rewrote hidden controls. Are we happy with that SC text/
John: got at least two members who believe there is solid justification for the low vision use case
… not necessarily objecting, find it incomplete
<JF> https://
Rachael: happy to add that use case and work with John to do so. Outstanding question: are we happy with the SC?
<kirkwood> yes but put intent low or limeted vision
<kirkwood> +1 to JF
<alastairc> JF - if you read the background material, those are not the issues raised.
<alastairc> JF - then write it up!
Rachael: the broader question, how would you like to proceed overall?
<kirkwood> would assist with rewording to include “limited vision”
Rachael: 4 options, move forward with survey, with revisions, defer or other
<kirkwood> agree with JF concerns
<alastairc> JF - normative first, then informative
<kirkwood> not a wasted effort to make the changes
<alastairc> kirkwood - we had significant changes based on not relying on 'process', so if we don't continue with the SC, then no point updating understanding text.
Charles: would those who deferred or chose other like to speak?
AWK: concern that this winds up being too broad
… have we sufficiently narrowed down
AWK: there might be situations where this might not apply
John: what about the 4th bullet point to address that
… a mechanism is available
<kirkwood> alastair - fair enough
DavidM: there's more squishiness in this SC than most others, agree
… but think we have addressed many concerns. Exception list is pretty comprehensive, and essential
… that gives developers and authors flexibility
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask - if there is 'information needed to ID components', does that catch any of the negative examples?
<JF> Wordsmithing: Information needed to identify user interface components needed to progress or complete a process is visible without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus, except when:
Alastair: trouble I have is, information needed to ID components good for menus etc. What about examples such as tables, where for each there are actions available on hover
rrsagent generate minutes