W3C

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

16 Mar 2021

Attendees

Present
Chuck, ben_tillyer, JustineP, juliette_mcshane, JF, JakeAbma, MarcJohlic, bruce_bailey, karenherr, Detlev, Raf, Rain, MelanieP, sarahhorton, StefanS, Rachael, mbgower, johnkirkwood, JakeAbma_, AWK, Wilco, david-macdonald, Francis_Storr, alastairc, GN, GN015, ChrisLoiselle_
Regrets
Sukriti, Matthew Orr
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
ChrisLoiselle_, bruce_bailey

Contents


<alastairc> Focus appearance enh https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results

<ChrisLoiselle_> scribe:ChrisLoiselle_

<alastairc> zakim take up next item

Intros / announcements / potential agenda items

<alastairc> (None)

Focus appearance enh https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1623/files

AlastairC: WCAG 2.2 SC discussion around Focus Appearance and AA vs. AAA version.

Question around minimum area bullet should align. CSS perimeter discussion.

Reviewing the comments , Andrew 's comments "Achieve a 4.5:1 contrast ratio" sounds like the pixels are together accomplishing something. People may think that this means an average contrast ratio value? How about "have" instead of "achieve"?

Andrew's other comment , Did we clarify whether the 2CSS pixel is entirely outside of the control or can be inside the bounds of the unfocused control?

AlastairC: second pixel is either inside or outside and not on edge of control. I think option is to say 2CSS solid border perimeter on outside.

Hope I typed that correct.

<alastairc> Minimum area: The _focus indicator area_ is greater than or equal to a 2 CSS pixel solid border outside the component.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to comment on https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G18.html

AlastairC: Do people have comments? JF , go ahead.

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G18.html

JF: Relevant , technique on https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G18.html states to use one pixel , For example, if a letter is lighter at the top than it is a the bottom, it may be difficult to maintain the contrast ratio between the letter and the background over the full letter. In this case, the designer might darken the background behind the letter, or add a thin black outline (at least one pixel wide) around the lette[CUT]

ratio between the letter and the background above 4.5:1.

JF: Editorial aspect related to what we are talking to in terms of updating technique or add a new one

AlastairC: How does that map to Focus Appearance ?

JF: It maps back to this in terms of techniques, so worth a review.

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?showtechniques=1411#non-text-contrast

BruceB: I believe it is an editorial review and update .

<JF> links to G18: Ensuring that a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 exists between text (and images of text) and background behind the text

AlastairC: I think the quick reference may be out of date. It may be the case of the quick refence needing updating.

JF: Where do we raise the issue ? Is quick reference EO?
... It is worth a look as how this maps and how it is referenced.

AlastairC: Yes, but focus appearance at AAA , it shouldn't impact this particular success criteria discussion.

<alastairc> Minimum area: The focus indicator area is at least as large as the area of a 2 CSS pixel thick perimeter outside of the unfocused component;

AlastairC: Outlines tend to be outside the component, but can be set inside. The amount of numerical pixels can be less.
... Any comments on this ?

AWK: What is this aligned with?

AlastairC: Aligning with the AA version.

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#focus-appearance-minimum

<Chuck> ack "outside"

AWK: For in the AA version, at least as large as the area of a 1 CSS pixel thick perimeter of the unfocused component. The AA doesn't say what it is.
... Perimeter is in and not outside of component?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say why "outside"?

AWK: I want us to be clear, inside , etc.

<JakeAbma_> 🎁 +

<AWK> +AWK

MikeG: Definition of perimeter is available. Focus Indicator is defined. Is your argument around twice the size of the perimeter?

AWK: The focus can't be entirely inside the component. It can be half and half not entirely inside.

MikeG: It could be inside technically.

<alastairc> Minimum area: The focus indicator area is at least as twice large as the area of a 1 CSS pixel thick perimeter of the unfocused component;

<mbgower> at least as large as twice the area of a 1 CSS pixel thick perimeter of the unfocused component;

<alastairc> Minimum area: The focus indicator area is double the area of a 1 CSS pixel thick perimeter of the unfocused component;

MikeG: Or double the area rather than twice.

<mbgower> do we need "at least" or does "minimum" cover it?

<alastairc> Minimum area: The focus indicator area is at least as large as double the area of a 1 CSS pixel thick perimeter of the unfocused component;

MikeG: People tend to skip the minimum text and it makes it clearer.
... We could put the At least as large as text in the preamble.

<mbgower> The focus indicator area is at least as large as either

AlastairC: You can suggest it if you'd like to.

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1623 to facilitate Focus Appearance Enhanced more closely matching the AA version.

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1623 to facilitate Focus Appearance Enhanced more closely matching the AA version.

Dragging update https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/results

AlastairC: Regarding where one ends and one starts.

Trivial edits: "...accessible, however, it is possible..." should have a semicolon: "...accessible; however, it is possible..." "...pointer gestures which are..." should have a comma: "...pointer gestures, which are.. from MikeG per https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/results

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1649 to update the cross reference of Dragging / gestures

Visible controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/hidden-controls-12-2020/results

<alastairc> Preview: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/e5711d19748fa9feebf9767a277e637f21de8f2d/understanding/22/visible-controls.html#examples

<Rain> +1 to the suggested edit

<Rachael> +1 to edit

From David McDonald : I think the line in the PR "...being available through multiple sensory characteristics,..." " should be changed to "...don't rely on sensory characteristics, ..."

from MikeG: I would prefer "all possible locations" to read as "all possible fields"

Indication of which fields are editable: In a web editor, once a page is open for editing, all possible locations that can be activated to edit always display a clear visible activation control, such as a pencil icon. Would be changing to fields vs. locations

MikeG: You'd need a pencil icon on entire area. You could click anywhere and begin editing but that is not the intended use case .

Rain: I'm concerned on the word field. I.e something editable that is not a field and how that would impact user.

<mbgower> "Indication of which fields are editable: "

AlastairC: If you have to activate it before editing...

MikeG: For my comment on fields, it talks to which fields are editable, thus my wording on fields vs. location.

Rain: I am happy with that.

AlastairC: Change will go in once we merge, as it is an understanding document.

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1648 to update the examples for visible controls

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I opened a new issue from what I noticed on our first Focus Appearance survery

AlastairC: CfCs will be forwarded soon, as we wanted to hold off during CSUN / Axe-Con

<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1684

MikeG: I opened up a new issue on Second sub-bullet of Focus Appearance (Minimum) can be read to contradict the first sub-bullet

Next Steps Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag23_content/results

AlastairC: We worked through items we could with task forces for WCAG 2.x. The question is around 2.3 now or Silver. Are there any other success criteria that we want to cover in 2.3? If not, we'd concentrate on WCAG 3 .

Comments can be reviewed here https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag23_content/results. Comments are around editorial and understanding updates.

AlastairC: I don't think it would necessarily need a WCAG 2.3 per se.

JF: WAI domain updates https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/ & https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/ and research around requirements. Have we gone through these documents and produce normative requirements?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to JF that MAUR/XAUR could be mined for SC

Should we review possibility of new task forces?

DavidMcD has brought up many good points.

Technology related testable statements and requirements and atomic units should be reviewed and applied to specific use cases.

AlastairC: On EPUB, the question was around definition of a web page. The bigger question would be 2.3 vs. 3.0

JF: I think using the ACT rules notation format is useful for atomic tests to apply to 2.x or 3.x stream. Are there more things we can standardize and test for to make it more accessible?

<JF> -1 to knee-jerk rejection of WCAG 2.3

JakeA: I believe we talked to not working on 2.3 version and that 2.2. would be last version.

AlastairC: I don't think we ruled it out as a group, but we are looking to where to put efforts in moving forward.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest (new) dated version of 2.2 or 2.5 or 2.9 or 2.999

BruceB: I don't think we committed either way. I think a 2.3 could be a good idea in the 2.x series.

DavidMcD: Taking a position on maps , i.e. heat maps or directions , exemptions around it and reason behind it.

<JF> @David - testing for accessible maps could be a 2.x *AND* 3.x activity.

Integration of aria best practices in WCAG and vetting process of patterns ...

<bruce_bailey> @dm i would appreciate a pointer to the CA exempting of "complex maps" thanks

<alastairc> Bruce - Public Sector regs in EU exempt maps.

DavidMcD: WCAG 3 and WCAG 2 group and integration of groups

<Rachael> COGA will be working on finishing up a paper on wayfinding but I don't beleive it would be in time for a 2.3 assumig we keep the same schedule.

AlastairC: XR is an avenue to explore. Maps on 2.3 would be tight, but definitely an interesting topic

SarahH: I am involved in WCAG 3 . User needs are arising that aren't in WCAG 2. It was difficult in to answer the survey. If we were to stay and develop WCAG 2, we are able to address those in WCAG 2 SCs (i.e. visually distinct headings, as well as errors sub group user needs)

The question is whether to do that in WCAG 2 or shift focus.

AlastairC: We understand there are other user requirements that fit into WCAG 3. Question is do we have items that would fit into WCAG 2?

SarahH: Yes.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose a new Task Force "New Testable Statements" (or some such...)

AlastairC: I think having that bit more concrete is necessary.

<johnkirkwood> +1 to JF

JF: Regarding charters, WCAG 3 may be 3 to 5 years out . What I would propose is integrating the WCAG 2.x and WCAG 3. culture and creating new task forces.
... WCAG 2.x charter and task forces to look at new activities , say for example the https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/ & https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/

<Detlev> @JF can you briefly explain what mour? sour? stnad for?

WCAG 3.x to final recommendation may down the road .

Detlev, XR Accessibility User Requirements

Media Accessibility User Requirements

<JF> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10Jessi_ONIPPWBG7OwqjTqaCf2aZdG_9P_mE6R8J9rU/edit#gid=0

<Detlev> Thanks

JF: Pastes in Google sheet on testing and scoring issues

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

<ChrisLoiselle_> JF: I think we should continue reviewing the testable statements.

<ChrisLoiselle_> Thanks Bruce!

<david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/ MAUR

Wilco: agree that we need to work on diverging path between 3x and 2x
... integration needs to happen sooner than later, and involve this WG

<david-macdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/ XR

Wilco: wcag3 also seems very ambitious to me
... maybe we could have multiple specs within 3x framework
... no one wants 10 year development
... slim changes to 2.3 or draft 3 both okay
... we don't have to make the 2/3 decision yet.

Mke Gower: Agree that we don't have to decide yet

<mbgower> Confirm Important Information For Web pages that cause legal commitments or financial transactions for the user to occur, a mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and correcting information before finalizing the submission. (AA)

scribe: even from 2x stream there are ideas being discussed
... I talked with Racheal on error prevention for example, maybe even at AAA level
... lots of threads we could continue work on

<david-macdonald> Examination of candidate SCs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit?usp=sharing

Racheal Montgomery: We can continue to think about gaps and keep dialog moving

scribe: regard to COGA perspective, we have pretty much hit dead end for 2x SC
... there is more room to address COGA issues under 3x framework

John Kirkwood: Agree with previous comments, and appreciates Bruces's point about governments needing updated 2x version and approach

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note we need to publish *something* in our charter

scribe: but there are so many things that are not working well enough with the 2x approach. COGA is one thing, page-based approach is another.

JF: I would like to push back on the premise that Charter needs to focus on what will be published in short timeframe.
... Agreed, the AC needs to approve, but we shoud decide what is best path for WG.

Alastair Campbell: Agree we would have parallel work on testable statements, that work for both 2x and 3x frameworks.

JF: See this is a way out of quagmire.

David MacDonald: three things I see different are scoring, processes versus pages, and user testing

scribe: on its face, seems like 5+ years out, but I don't think that has to be the case

<johnkirkwood> JK: there are so many things that are not working well enough with the 2x approach. COGA is one thing, page-based approach is another.

scribe: for example, just addressing task based approach versus page based review would be huge

<johnkirkwood> +1 to David

scribe: not such a radical shock, something that is needed, and something we can do in a couple of years

<laura> +1 to David. Brillant.

AC: Once we have have the structure in place, could see how we start throwing many people and hours at the challenges.

<johnkirkwood> David had a very good approach there, I feel.

Wilco Fiers: The challenges seem bigger than that, there are so many pieces in scope for WCAG3 that it could be multiple documents

scribe: (lists a few) so addressing the pieces would let us make progress.

AC: Lots of options, not finalized, so not deciding today.

<Rachael> Agree it is notfinalized. We hope to have a one day joint discussion in April.

DM: Want to talk about structure. One of the big comments from Gregg Vanderheiden was that we started with a long list of requirements,

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that one issue with the current scoring model is that it focuses on content, which is problematic for COTS and "content-free" frameworks (etc.)

DM: and the structure kind of fell out from the list. GV wrote about how wcag3 seems to be focused on the structure without much content.

JF: Current wcag3 scoring models has problems, but beyond that I wanted to bring up how wcag3 focuses on end-user content
... what COTS developers and CMS and frameworks need is a way to validate their accessibility feature
... current wcag3 approach does not facilitate that since it is focused on content
... question for WG is what do we focus on next in the near term, because wcag3 is not mature enough

AC: What are the potential criteria for a 2.3 if we take that on?
... in survey, JF commented on how wcag2x does not help will addressing processes
... MG commented that there are SC that did not make the cut for 2.1/2.2
... We already brought up XAUR/MAUR
... DM is there more we could do for ePUB?

<david-macdonald> Proposal (1) put energy into a new unit of measurement (site, process, ...) (2) migrate new SCs, (3) mine sources.

DM: In current framework, there is not much on the ePUB side of things. From everything I have heard from them, doesn't fit with 2x framework.

AC: Agreed ePUB is not really web content, so I agree with you that we have gotten what we can.

<AWK> Interesting idea to help bridge any gap between 3.0 and 2.x, Sarah.

Sarah Horton: There could be some GL from 3x which might be adapted. With there errrors group, there is SC potential

<david-macdonald> https://idpf.github.io/a11y-guidelines/ epub

scribe: ex source of error, proximity of error. So if we stay the course with 2.3 there is content from Errors Group that could become SC in 2x.

<david-macdonald> epub http://idpf.org/epub/a11y/

AC: What is status of errors gorup?

<JF> +1 to Sarah

SH: Work products are all public facing, in various formats, but is linked from wcag3 fcpwd so the work is available.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose an 'exploration' activity

<JF> https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/, /www.w3.org/auto/wg/, https://www.w3.org/WoT//www.w3.org/WoT/

JF: Are there other w3c activities that could be used to contruct testable statments?
... for example Automotive Working Group is part of The Web so there might be SC we could craft from that activitiy.
... Lisa gave compelling example of the difficulty her father had with modern thermostat. Why couldn't we spin up TF that look for testable statements in these different domains.
... Nothing wrong with using 3x work to look for scenerios and use cases that we have been missing.

MG: Another approach is considering modalities.

<JF> +1 Michael

<JF> also "biometrics"

<johnkirkwood> +1 to voice activation needs

MG: for example, 2x doesn't say anything specifically about voice recognition and speech activation
... we could knit more from Silver into 2x framework.
... I do have some concern with the focus of form over content, but there is more work we can do.

Wilco: We should be writing our requirements in both format. Make sure what we write fits into both 2x and 3x formats.
... Not that much more additional work to write requirments in both formats.
... Also I think people are overstating differences. Less yes/no, more numbers.

AC: With current approach, for topic like IoT we scope our focus to what is the Web piece.
... Sivler opens that up, so that will be significantly different

Gundula: wcag3 is much more focused on user experience, so that is quite different

AC: Agree, that will be a challenge for our charter.
... Gundula also had SC suggestion for behavior of search fields, and another for context of page title.

<michael> Point of regard

AC: three pontential SC directly from survey, and lots of other comments
... will discuss with cochairs for next steps
... JF mentioned multiple version, and sourcing meta data tracking for where requirements come from

<michael> I like Wilcox's comments

<Wilco> +1

DM: I would suggest a straw poll for merging with Silver teams

AC: That had been the plan, one initial round of comments have been sorted
... do need to mange who is working on what

Jake Abma: What I see being present at Silver meetings is a reason for difference with approach.

scribe: I miss the thinking process from this group not being available to the Silver conversation. Interesting question to be solved.

JF: Merging the two groups is just a matter of who is showing up at the different calls.
... several people in both sets of calls. Silver is an hour Tuesday and Friday, but then several task forces which meet all week long.
... There are also people on the Silver calls that can't make this call. To me, it is more about time management.

AC: We have been filling up these meetings with 2.2 issues, so we are at the stage where we should talk about maybe doing more 3x work.
... Would ask people to look around for new requirements would be appropriate for either 3 *or* 2.
... Chairs will have some deliberation.

<JF> Maybe look here for other emergent activities at the W3C: https://www.w3.org/TR/

Rachael: We are starting the conversation about having a joint long-format meeting in April.
... please be on the lookout for a poll to figure timing.

MG: I want to caution that past experience is that we have had repeated thinking we are all most done, I don't think we should underestimate work needed to close out 2.2.

AC: I think we are better off with 2.2 as compared to 2.1, because this time we worked on Understanding and How To Meet simultaneously

<JF> Add to the list that contains MAUR and XAUR the RAUR - https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-raur-20201207/

AC: maybe come back to consitency, as we get down to less than 100 open issues.

Melanie Philipp: I had question about large number (400+) of open issues, so what is the plan to get those addressed?

AC: Agreed, we have that in queue.

JF: Added Realtime Accessibility Usability Requirments.
... might be worth pinging that working group.

<laura> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept amended PR 1623 to facilitate Focus Appearance Enhanced more closely matching the AA version.
  2. Accept amended PR 1623 to facilitate Focus Appearance Enhanced more closely matching the AA version.
  3. Accept amended PR 1649 to update the cross reference of Dragging / gestures
  4. Accept amended PR 1648 to update the examples for visible controls
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/03/16 16:47:06 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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/rejection of WCA 2.3/rejection of WCAG 2.3/
Succeeded: s/even from 1x stream/even from 2x stream/
Succeeded: s/@thanks JF//
Succeeded: s/Q= to propose an 'exploration' activity//
Succeeded: s/https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/, https://www.w3.org/WoT/
Succeeded: s/Q= to note that e.x is about *MORE* than just "a page"//
Default Present: Chuck, ben_tillyer, JustineP, juliette_mcshane, JF, JakeAbma, MarcJohlic, bruce_bailey, karenherr, Detlev, Raf, Rain, MelanieP, sarahhorton, StefanS, Rachael, mbgower, johnkirkwood, JakeAbma_, AWK, Wilco, david-macdonald, Francis_Storr, alastairc, GN
Present: Chuck, ben_tillyer, JustineP, juliette_mcshane, JF, JakeAbma, MarcJohlic, bruce_bailey, karenherr, Detlev, Raf, Rain, MelanieP, sarahhorton, StefanS, Rachael, mbgower, johnkirkwood, JakeAbma_, AWK, Wilco, david-macdonald, Francis_Storr, alastairc, GN, GN015, ChrisLoiselle_
Regrets: Sukriti, Matthew Orr
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle_
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle_
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Scribes: ChrisLoiselle_, bruce_bailey
ScribeNicks: ChrisLoiselle_, bruce_bailey

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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]