– DRAFT –
Accessibility Supported Subgroup Week 1

Makoto's starting draft:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_caRiZaTQDmsd2Vq415sz4AIullNse-GeGtohUfg_5M

Introduction

Makoto: welcome, joined AGWG in 2005 and also lead JIS committee work...
… I wanted to share experience with accessibility supported, and would like others to introduce themselves

AWK: Andrew Kirkpatrick, representing Adobe on AGWG, including co-chair for seven years working on 2.1, based in boston

Poornima: Working with Holland American Group, three cruise lines...
… before joining AGWG, worked in banking and team which focussed on accessiblity. Ten years in space, also includes engineering...
… I have been mostly background work, but am interested with being more active. This sub group and protocols.

Bruce Bailey: U.S. Access Board, section 508 refresh, IE since ~ 2003.

Makoto: Screen shares Accessibility Supported Subgroup pages on GitHub

Makoto: One main issues is how comprehensive, language and OS/browser support
… goal today is to figure out goals and plan for next 8 weeks
… subgroup handbook outlines work plan
… week 8 should be report back to AGWG
… todays agenda is to finalize goals for eight week period

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_caRiZaTQDmsd2Vq415sz4AIullNse-GeGtohUfg_5M/edit

<Makoto> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XxzwsgWZSDh2EDqTag-nYfrqAT3b6Glpu8DGbVpTd9M/

1st link is hand book

2nd link is working document

Makoto: doc starts with reference excerpts from 2.1, definitions and conformance requirement
… in my experience, concept is miss understood
… taken to means "can I use HTML or not?" -- Can I use PDF or not?

Bruce asks for clarification about how broadly "accessibility supported" is taken in Japan.

Makoto: In Japan, we tend to make PDF out of scope -- because it is so labor intensive to make accessible.
… People think "PDF is not perfect, so we cannot use PDF (at all)" -- but that is not correct.
… For example, simple PDF documents can be very easy to make accessible.
… So some PDF can meet JIS requirements.

Makoto: Accessibility Supported concept in 2.0 was very important, since 1.0 required W3C technologies...
… when 2.0 was under development, there were conversations about "baseline technologies" which considered listing products -- but AGWG settled on Accessiblity Supported instead.

Makoto: Concept was good, and technology neutral, but did not end up working well for Japan.

In 2nd doc, see "3. Use case # Japan"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XxzwsgWZSDh2EDqTag-nYfrqAT3b6Glpu8DGbVpTd9M/edit#heading=h.y22sywdlyi60

WCAG 2.0 Level AA is highly recommended, but not legally required.
… Bruce asked in document if there is movement for requiring in public sector.
… There are legislative discussions, but no formal requirement.
… Japan needs international (ISO) adoption for consideration.
… there are conversations about moving to 2.2 Level AA, but that will have to wait on ISO adoption.

Makoto: The screen reader market share in Japan is dominated by PC Talker...
… some developers are testing with NVDA
… ARIA support for PC Talker is lacking, and PC Talker tends to lag behind JAWS and even NVDA in terms of features.

Makoto: Example of lack features is 2.4.4 Link Purpose because documented sufficient techniques do not work with PC Talker.
… What we have done is include list of test cases in Japan standard.
… WAIC, pronounced "wake", includes those many references.

Reference source is: https://waic.jp/

Makoto: We created test code samples and testing proceedures.
… we have supported, partially supported, not supported
… this is H69

<Makoto> Accessibility Supported Informatin by WAIC https://waic.jp/docs/as/info/201406/index.html

Makoto: This is just one example. As you know, there are so very many techniques and failures already documented...
… for Japan, we worked to review all of these against various browsers and screen reading software
… many combinations.
… It has been a huge challenge, and it did not go as well as I had expected...
… please see Google Doc for summary of some experiences.

Makoto: Base on our experience in Japan, I would like to suggest that this concept of Accessibility Supported is needed, but it is very difficult.
… creating testing procedures should be developed by AGWG but I have not information about non-English efforts for similar work.

Please share example if you know of similar work outside of EN.

I would like to gather used cases of examples, if possible.

That background should help inform our goals for this subgroup.

AWK: I think one of the goals should be to come up with a recommendation if Accessibility Supported is needed or not.
… Clearly there is need for something, but what we have been doing lags behind what is available.
… So if needed, What does it need to accomplish?
… Why is it present in the document?

<AWK> +AWK

Poornima: I will dive in and comment in document this week. The goals is not just HTML but must address other technologies.
… Are we trying to develop guidelines for other technologies?
… If you take technologies like screen readers, are we requiring them to be multi-lingual?

Makoto: We can go in several directions. Big question is to decide who to approach...
… with HTML there might be an ABC element -- but how to know if compatible with assistive technology ?

Makoto: We used to have three standards, WCAG, ATAG, UAAG -- but WCAG3 aims to combine all of that.
… most Japanese developers have difficulty with English technical requirements. So current approach has created barriers.
… so this is what we are trying to address in these next 8 weeks.

Poornima: Simple example is hyper text links. Does every screen reader announce the presence of a link?
… The interactions between different browsers complicates the results very much.

Makoto: We can say that 2.0 was easier (than WCAG 3) because it will be open to wider range of digital content technologies other than HTML.

<AWK> Bruce: Likes the idea of dropping Accessiblity SUpport

Bruce: I like idea in principle of dropping Accessibiltiy Support

<AWK> ... hard to convey to lay people

Bruce: accessibility comes down to compatiblity with AT

<AWK> ... accessible comes down to compatible with AT so it can't be ignored completely

<AWK> ...other competing thing is that devs as a rule do a poor job of AT testing

<AWK> ... the US trusted tester program has rules to help address this issue

<AWK> ... another competing factor is that the DOJ and DoED go after sites they use a performance standard rather than conformance strictly

AWK: Is WCAG3 open to even more technologies? It will still be limited to web technologies.

Makoto: For next week, please review document and comments...
… Please add some use cases.

rssagent, end meeting

RSSAgent, you are excused