AGWG Teleconference – 27 September 2022

GreggVan: attempt to find a different approach then binary yes/no
… ends up saying one need is more important than another
… tends to deprioritize certain types of disabilities
… the question is who does the barrier impact?
… issues will come up over and over again
… having it as explanatory is ok but need to list the issues
… personally can't see a way through but doesn't mean we shouldn't try

alastairc: for who, tried to not play off different audiences to each other
… for a specific group, is one issue stronger than another?

GreggVan: also within groups, it tends to relate to individual needs
… is one user need more or less important than another

Detlev: there are known blockers
… for example, missing name for menu
… also for cognitive there may be specific known blockers
… other issues may be gray areas
… looking for the known blockers

<alastairc> How do we incorporate context/process/task? Is that part of scoping, or issue severity? Both are important to the end result.

GN015: suggesting a new point to be added

alastairc: we have 2 Pull Requests
… need to align between them

GreggVan: want to avoid temptation to keep adding new ideas as experimental
… not speaking about current ideas, just concerned about progression
… if we feel uncomfortable declining ideas, and end up putting them all in
… just a warning for the future

Chuck: there is "Placeholder" as a filter before that
… we will test out the process as we go

GreggVan: need to be clear that we have an expectation that this could work, rather than a mere wish

<Jem> +1 alastairc

alastairc: feel sufficiently different from random idea

<GreggVan> +1

GreggVan: do we ensure we have people who challenge the ideas?

alastairc: try our best, we have a fairly active group

AWK: can we ensure the 6 months promise?
… seems like we can't keep that

<Chuck> I've noted down

alastairc: would need to remove maybe half the document at the moment

<Jem> May we add automatic notification feature - expiration date -for the github issue?

alastairc: will revisit with the chairs

AWK: had similar issue with comments processing in the past
… suggest some form of timer mechanism

<Jem> As the member of another working group, I can say that the speed of incoming git issue filing tends to be beyond the capacity of working group. ;-)

<Jem> not to mention keeping up with given timelines.

<Jem> challenge of operationalization.

<alastairc> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 661 (addition to the guidelines), with Gundula's additional point

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<ToddL> +1

<laura> +1

<GN015> +1

<Makoto> +1

<JenniferS> +1

<Jennie> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Detlev> +1

<maryjom> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 661 (addition to the guidelines), with Gundula's additional point

<mbgower> +1 hopefully we can address the redundancy with the editor's draft at some point

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 656, for the updates to methods, but removing the updates to the Requirements document

<sarahhorton> +1

<ToddL> +1

<jeanne> +1

<JenniferS> +1

<Makoto> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Jennie> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<laura> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 656, for the updates to methods, but removing the updates to the Requirements document

Equity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/results

GreggVan: there is equity in our guidelines vs equity in our processes
… the write up seemed to talk about both
… and to flip back and forth between them

<alastairc> "The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group wants to commit to a) improving equity of all types in our processes and participation and b) improving equity for the full spectrum of users with disabilities in content authored using WCAG3. Exactly what that will encompass and how it can be measured is under exploration and discussion."

<mbgower> go ahead

<alastairc> mbgower:

<jeanne> +1 to Gregg's edits. -1 to putting something about W3C level in the WCAG3 Requirements

alastairc: does GreggVan's suggestion address your comment mbgower?

mbgower: feel there was a discussion during TPAC on how to influence W3C overall

JenniferS: think there was a two-pack at TPAC
… conversation was also about taking equity discussion to W3C leadership

MichaelC: think need to also address equity at W3C level
… just back and need to get back into this
… will be speaking with the chairs first
… need to think about this carefully

<JenniferS> +1 to Gondola's comments re recruiting and time zone considerations

GN015: thinking along the lines of what GreggVan was saying
… how can we better involve people with different disabilities
… not only recruit but also keep participants

alastairc: AWK comment

MichaelC: editing exploratory label as we speak

alastairc: resolves comment from GN015?

GN015: yes

<mbgower> I will draft something now....

alastairc: mbgower's comment

MichaelC: don't have wording for this, does mbgower?

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files

Chuck: suggest moving to next topic and coming back later to this one

ACT Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/results

New Rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name

alastairc: AWK's comment

Wilco: these examples are marked up as such

<alastairc> Rule being discussed: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/8fc3b6/proposed/

AWK: don't understand the note
… when would the SC be met despite note marked up?

Wilco: very edge case where not properly marked up but still not voiced by user agents

AWK: ok, got it
… maybe clarify in note?

Wilco: agree, good point

alastairc: mbgower's comment

mbgower: suggestion decorative attribute

alastairc: any comments on the rule itself in the mean time?
… small clarification on the assumption at the top
… otherwise sounds like agreement

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is there anything the agwg can do to influence html5 for this?

<jon_avila> What about aria-hidden?

mbgower: can we influence HTML5?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change

ACT Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/

<jon_avila> Role presentation?

mc: we can do work with APA and html for more coordianted way.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name

<Ryladog> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Wilco> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Raf> +1

<laura> +1

<JenniferS> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name

<kirkwood> +1

Line height in style attributes is not !important

<jon_avila> +1 but I think there could be some tweaks for accessibility support and role presentation/aria-hidden

+1 jon

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/78fd32/proposed/

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/results#xq5

<jon_avila> I agree the name is confusing and the exclamation could be missed by text to speech

alastairc is reading through the result comments

wilco: I don't mind changing the title, but the group should know they've approved this same wording twice before on:

- Letter spacing in style attributes is not !important

- Word spacing in style attributes is not !important
… there is also way to tweak this(?) via browser plugin.

wilco: I would like to make this as two separate things to simplify

because of default browser styling issues

and the way it can be customized by the browser/os settings such as color contrast and so on

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept rule "Line height in style attributes is not !important", ACT will look at the titles of all similar rules.

<Wilco> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Azlan> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<JenniferS> +1

<Makoto> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Jennie> +1

<GN015> +1

<Raf> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Jem> s/the settings/by the browser and OS settings such as color contrast and so on/

RESOLUTION: Accept rule "Line height in style attributes is not !important", ACT will look at the titles of all similar rules.

New Rule: HTML graphics contain no text

https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/0va7u6/proposed/

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/results#xq6

MG: Not a problem with the rule per se, but that editor's note in the definition is pretty bad!
… 'image of text' seems not to be clear in WCAG

francis: 1. The rule is titled "HTML graphics", but it relates to two criteria with "images" in the title. All the examples use "image" instead of "graphic" and the Background section also uses "images". For consistency, consider changing the rule name to use "images".

2. Related: would "(Images | Graphics) in HTML…" be more accurate than "HTML (Images | Graphics)…"?

Wilco: Francis' comments sounds right. I don't why that happened.

Mokoto: Just to confirm. Does the "Passed Example 6" which uses the background-image property mean that it is okay to use it to meet SC 1.1.1 as well?

If it is the AGWG's consensus, why don't we remove the F3 failure from the Understanding and Techniques documents?

If not, this example can mislead people to use the background-image property to meet SC 1.1.1 even if it doesn't matter for SC 1.4.5/1.4.9.

F3: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using CSS to include images that convey important information

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F3

wilco: there was example for adding role to background image

makoto: wondering about consensus about the background image... and

discussion about https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F3

wilco: I dont think there is conflict with F3 and we can add more clarity to the section

alastairc: Does text within an SVG still count as text in 1.4.5? I had thought text in SVG would count as text (not ruled out by https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-images-of-text).

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to respond to SVG text

poornima: question about "significant" vs not significcant the text

wilco: re: SVG question, that is the text because it is customizable and editable within svg taag
… regarding poornima's question - image not decorative, but text in the image can be decorative and non significant.

<alastairc> Suggestion to change title to: "Images in HTML contain no text"

frnacis: For consistency, consider changing the rule name to use "images"

jennifer: I reread a few times and do not understand what the bullets under Expectation mean.

alastairc: context of this rule is that

how to testing the rule
… the way I read Expectation is the specificity of guidelines.

<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to suggest something

<mbgower> I have added an issue to track improving the "significant content" wording in the definition. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2693

<Chuck> Jem: I hear why it's hard to understand. This is a key component of this testing. We have to be mindful of significant and decorative. This is a basic requirement to understand to do testing. Correct? What is the expectation and goal?

<Chuck> Jem: We need something to clarify the section.

<Chuck> Jem: Can you add what the expectation is?

<Chuck> Wilco: The rendered imagery source, there are different things that can be images. The thing that any visible image needs to meet.

<Chuck> Wilco: It's essential or it doesn't contain text.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to context

<Chuck> Jem: This is a requirement before we apply the rule to the object?

<Chuck> Wilco: Yes.

<Detlev> Have to leave early today, regrets.

<Chuck> Alastair: Basically scoping as what counts as a target.

alastairc:

alastairc: basically it is about scoping

for testing

<GN015> I need to step out, sorry!

poornima: it would be great to clarify that this seciton is for testing point/implementation point

<Jennie> * Mbgower: maybe the decision about what qualifies as significant needs to be defined, or assigned to someone to make the decision?

<Chuck> +1 to work then publish

RESOLUTION: Revisit 'expectations' section on this rule.

<Chuck> Jemma: Can we add "expectation", add some verbage to "expectation" before publishing.

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#expectations

<Wilco> There's a summary here too: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/about/#structure-of-act-rules

<Chuck> Jemma: I'm asking if we can add some information about what this structure means. Maybe you have it in the template, and I missed it.

<Chuck> Alastair: Wilco linked to it above.

jennie: it would be helpful to add back to the glossary doc so that we can help with people with memory issue.

+100

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that the tester does not get exposed to the rule. It is used to create engines

<Ryladog> +1 to MG

jennie: I just wanted to point out that to see this to confirm manual testers

i think it is soley used for testing development.

<Wilco> +1 Jennie, and if it's okay, I'd like to talk about how we can improve the design

<Jennie> * Wilco - happy to help! Connect with me by email, and we can set up a time to chat

<mbgower> The clearer the rules are, the better, to jenny's point. I just want to ensure we're clear on intended audience.

Ryladog: it is interesting to know whether this is used for automatic testing so.. there is a case people are trying to create customize the rules so it is important to create these correctly.

wilco: there is separate rule for manual testing

this is just focusing on automatic testing.

Meta element has no refresh delay

jem;I think whatever the use case is - automatic or manual, it should be understandable to users.

<Poornima> * Thanks Wilco and Mike, yeah that makes sense, considering this specific rule is more of logical interpretation, I think the automated checkers can be of little help. I may be wrong, but agree with little more context will help to understand the definitions clearly.

<alastairc> draft resolution: Accept new rule - Meta element has no refresh delay

Meta element has no refresh delay

<Wilco> +1

<alastairc> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Poornima> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<Makoto> +1

<sarahhorton_> +1

<Raf> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Meta element has no refresh delay

Meta viewport allows for zoom

andrewsommers: > "the attribute value does not have a maximum-scale property with a value less than 2."

2 is still insufficient. There is no reasonable reason that a user should not be permitted to zoom to the full capabilities of the user agent. The author should not place any limitation on zoom, this should be left up to the technology of the user agent.

<Chuck> +1 to Alastair's explanation that this is a test to ensure zoom goes to minimum required, and does not represent a maximum

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Meta viewport allows for zoom

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<laura> +1

<Azlan> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Makoto> +1

<sarahhorton_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Poornima> +1 love to see this rule going official now!

RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Meta viewport allows for zoom

Topic; Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation

Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation

poo: svg use aria-hidden for focus management

sometimes

actually I saw the use case Poornima mentioned

wilco: this rule would not cover that use case.

<Chuck> +1

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation. Add example for svgs inside of links.

<Chuck> +1

<ToddL> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<laura> +1

<Jaunita_George> =1

<Makoto> +1

<Poornima> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Raf> +1

<Jaunita_George> *+1

RESOLUTION: Accept new rule - Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation. Add example for svgs inside of links.

Equity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/equity-proposal/requirements/index.html#equity

<mbgower> Note: should be link to "functional categories"

MichaelC: is going over changes he made

<mbgower> https://w3c.github.io/silver/explainer/#functional-categories

<mbgower> I'm easy :)

group is talking about editorial update and approval process.

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/equity-proposal/requirements/index.html#equity

<alastairc> The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group wants to commit to a) improving equity of all types in our processes and participation and b) improving equity for the full spectrum of users with disabilities in content authored using WCAG3. Exactly what that will encompass and how it can be measured is under exploration and discussion.

<alastairc> "The primary scope for equity in WCAG 3 is to address equity for persons with disabilities, including users with more than one disability. WCAG 3.0 is categorizing functional needs, including the intersection between different functional categories, to help achieve this. Efforts towards equity must also consider the spectrum of human experience and how it intersects with disability. "

alastairc: we will add Greg's comments and update the contents with feedback.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 654 (https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files)

<ToddL> +1

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1

<sarahhorton_> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Makoto> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<mbgower> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Jennie> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<maryjom> +1

MichaelC: I will add that functional work is in progrees and so on to PR later.

<Poornima> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 654 (https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files)

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.hdmhdpe64w4v

alastairc: cfc is coming

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say spotted a real gaff as a result of the ACT review!

chuck: pro and cons on conformance option is being worked on and will be able to share the work next week.

<Chuck> Link to Pros and Cons Conformance Options: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.hdmhdpe64w4v

<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2693

– DRAFT –
AGWG Teleconference

27 September 2022

Attendees

Meeting minutes

Announcements

Starting the next subgroups https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06/

Issue Severity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-post-tpac/

Equity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/

ACT Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/

New Rule - Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name

ACT Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/

Line height in style attributes is not !important

New Rule: HTML graphics contain no text

Meta element has no refresh delay

Meta element has no refresh delay

Meta viewport allows for zoom

Meta viewport allows for zoom

Element with aria-hidden has no content in sequential focus navigation

Equity Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/

Summary of resolutions

Diagnostics