– DRAFT –
Accessibility Supported Subgroup Meeting - Week 3

<Makoto> Subgroup wiki https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Accessibility-supported-Subgroup

Wiki page has link to working draft (Google Docs)

Wiki page has links to previous minutes

Laura Miller from Vispero introduces herself.

Makoto: last week just AWK and Makoto

Finalize Our Goal and Work Plan towards TPAC

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

Makoto: As a reminder, "Accessibility Supported" was not in WCAG 1.0 and is a new concept with WCAG 2.0
… at our first meeting it was proposed that we might consider dropping the concept for WCAG 3...
… at last weeks meeting, AWK and Makoto drafted an outline for addressing the question.
… for starters, I'd like to suggest that our goal would be to present pros and cons on

1) Keep "Accessibility Supported" 2) Get rid of "Accessibility Supported" for WCAG 3.

Makoto: another work item is adding use case to working document

#1 Makoto - Japan (How other language than English has been addressing the concept of "Accessibility Supported".) #2 Andrew - Adobe (How a technology vendor has been addressing the concept of "Accessibility Supported".) #3 Bruce - Section 508 (How a government (Access Board) has been addressing the concept of "Accessibility Supported".)

Poornima: I volunteered to describe our companies experience with challenge of multiple browsers and multiple assistive technologies...
… accessibility statement might reflect what browers we used.

Poornima: We looked at WebAIM survey to check that we were testing with screen readers most in use...
… trying to document in our accessibility statement what we did, how we tested

Example from Holland America

Makoto shares example from powermaper.com/tests/screenreaders/

https://www.powermapper.com/tests/screen-readers/

Discussion if organizations are using these sort of tools.

Poornima: HA uses WebAIM report, but covered products is similar.

Rachael: Likes goals. Please also write up other sub goals.

Rachael: sub group could be convined after TPAC to work on step 2

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to volunteer that varied combination seems not popular with U.S. Feds

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest the additional goal of outlining next steps

Bruce: in federal sphere, testing with AT more of a last resort
… general best practice is using protocol like Trusted Tester and ANDI (from SSA)
… testing with screen reading software or AT is last (or latter) resort
… for employee, JAWS is the most popular, but NVDA sometimes used for testing.

<Rachael> +1

<Poornima_> +1

<LauraBMiller_> +1

Makoto: folks okay with work plan as discussed?

Laura: Can we add to work plan if we like sources?

Makoto: We are open to other sources. PowerMapper new to me as well.

Bruce: i think we are just informally sampling resources, not deep dive into compatible testing as a group

Makoto: Returning to Use Cases in working document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XxzwsgWZSDh2EDqTag-nYfrqAT3b6Glpu8DGbVpTd9M/edit#heading=h.y22sywdlyi60
… Japan experience was a public body and in the doc I includes some of that experience...
… please use Japan use case as a model. I would like to assign everyone a use case

Bruce: I have started adding 508 Refresh as Use Case, seems to be going well

Poornima: I will add HA experience as use case.

Laura volunteers to read and will plan to suggest a Use Case topic for next week

Mokoto: For next week, we will review state of use cases.
… please be ready to discuss next week, no need to finish

Mokoto: In working document, there are some comments which I would like to discuss...

Review comments on "Accessibility supported in WCAG 2"

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

Bruce: I am just seeing Jon Avila comment for the first time -- it is a good observation -- but I need to think about it.

Makoto: Can we put some numerical parameters around accessibility supported, like 50-60%?

Laura: If we are talking about an overlay approach, can the assessment be made without AT?
… If you do not have accessibility support -- and there is a problem -- how can you know if AT is working or problem is elsewhere?

<Rachael> JAWS has a setting that is on by default that takes an enter key and translates it to a mouse click. This helps fix a lot of issues on the web but breaks some pages that detect the enter key specifically. There is a way to pass the enter key through that works. The site works with the keyboard but does not work with the keyboard when JAWs is turned on. So when something is keyed to the enter key does it pass or fail?

Laura: Seems like small errors could block accessibility at large

Laura: So page passes, by turning JAWS off, but now page does not read!

Rachael: My question is doe the page looking for the Enter key fail accessibility supported?

Laura: So if an auditor allows for that, seems like just multiplying exceptions and possible problems.

Poornima: I also want more time to digest Jon Avila's comment...
… but take labeling example, from the markup there are multiple ways to address SC requirement -- ARIA being just one ...
… but some ways might not work well with a variety of AT but just because one AT does not work it is not fair to fail SC...
… but other case is code that seems to address SC but does not work in practice -- so that should not pass SC either...
… but we know how to code correctly most of the time

Mokoto: In Japan we have similar example, PC Talker with 85% marker, but it does not support WAI-ARIA so those techniques are not useful in Japanese...
… whereas English version of page works fine, but that is not enough and highlights problem with accessibility support

Makoto: Please review and add to working document

RSSagent, make minutes