Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjom: Any announcements?
<Chuck> https://
Chuck: Reminder to follow CEPC (see link above). Guidance on getting along.
… and respecting each other. If you have concerns, you can approach chairs to highlight violations or concerns.
… we strongly encourage everyone to read the document, abide by the document, and respect everyone's cultures, background, etc.
maryjom: This is a good reminder. We have not had problems in this group but its a good reminder.
LauraBMiller: The updated Canadian accessibility standard is now available. Will add link when found
https://
LauraBMiller: the document is behind a paywall
https://
phil-day_: Was Chuck's announcement just a reminder? Also, the CSA store has changed its rules so anyone outside north america can no longer get the standard.
Chuck: There are no problems that I am aware of in this group. W3C management asks chairs to make this announcement periodically. At least once a quarter. Beginning of the year, festive world harmony -good time to mention CEPC.
… expect again in 3 months
bruce_bailey: Does the doc include some way to follow up? I can also ping Wendy.
Chuck: Lets take that conversation offline.
bruce_bailey: When we had the 508 refresh, it was a huge deal making the standards available.
<Chuck> I can take scribing if Rachael wants to speak to that.
maryjom: The timeline for WCAG 2.2
https://
… they have a tentative schedule of publishing 2.2 early April but a hard deadline of April 30 because the charter times out.
… CFC for content and restart CR in January.
… hopefully by next week.
… proposed recommendation in Feb and published in early April.
… only a few more being tweaked so we can leave them to the end so the schedule changes won't affect us.
<Zakim> LauraBMiller, you wanted to say I'll see if we can get a hold of it with CSA permission for the use of this group
Standup for self-assigned work
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: sharing screen and link is above
… we are working on items under "Ready for TF to review" 1.3.5 and 1.4.12
… where are people at and is there anything I or someone in the taskforce can do to move it along?
… will follow up with Anastasia. Laura - you were working on intro section on background.
LauraBMiller: Will work with Bruce this week.
maryjom: There is some follow up on #18. Cleanup from conversion between markup and html.
… hopefully we can remain in markdown. We'll see.
… Sam. 2.5.4 motion actuation? How is that going?
Sam: I took it up before the holidays but haven't started. Will work on it now.
maryjom: #52, I'm not sure all the docs are citable yet.
daniel-montalvo: I will check on this shortly.
maryjom: links in understanding documents that weren't resolving. Michael Cooper may have been working on this.
daniel-montalvo: I will follow up with Michael
maryjom: Bruce, you had 2.5.1. How is that going?
bruce_bailey: I still need to start.
maryjom: I had started #22 on comments and definitions. Shawn, we had a markdown issue where content wasn't included. Have you made any progress?
ShawnT: Have not yet started.
maryjom: Please let us know if you need help.
… seem to be some folks in APA who are adept in respec.
… challenge is getting the two working properly.
ShawnT: Just sent an email to set up offline meeting on this.
Survey: Readiness of SC 1.3.5 proposal to incorporate into editor's draft
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: 3 responses to incporporate into editor's draft as is.
Can you get into this https://
maryjom: There had been some tweaking to text. Is that correct?
<phil-day_> 2nd link from Rachael worked for me
<Sam> not allow to see results
<Mike_Pluke> Me too
<ShawnT> same here
<FernandaBonnin> I can access it
<maryjom> https://
<Sam> I am signed in and still not allowed in
<ShawnT> I'm signed in either
<ShawnT> either = also
[troubleshooting survey issues]
<Mike_Pluke> Exactly the same for me
<ShawnT> same here
loicmn: I suggest adding "for" to the notes where needed.
maryjom: [reads through Laura's notes
Laura: Just wondering if being broader would help.
Chuck: Perhaps share the screen to show the results. We'll troubleshoot the results access outside this call.
LauraBMiller: Some question about whether android and iOS always allow this content. Providing alternatives.
… am I the only one who thinks that is helpful. If just me, not needed.
Devanshu: My small concern is that we would be suggesting the technology which I don't think we should do.
maryjom: My concern is that its counter what the SC is suggesting. My comment may address what you are thinking. The names of the attributes are different depending on the technology. We talked about adding a section on input purposes but hadn't decided. If we add that section, and reiterate the note from WCAG...
… The note that says "The list of input types..."
… If we agree the editors can add that section and content. Does that address what you are worried about Laura?
Laura: Some. When we are in a self service situation we often provide instructions. Requiring the form identify as well is redundant and not necessary. Is there a way to incorporate some messaging that the point of this is to identify the form but allow some flexibility in how its identified.
maryjom: You are thinking of some note that when the technology can't support...
LauraBMiller: Even if it does, it depends on the situation. Self service experiences need to be more seemless and more conversational.
… forcing self service kiosks to identify the form is difficult.
phil-day_: I agree with what Laura is talking about. In self service we are designing for novice users where WCAG is for experienced users. Novice users benefit from more conversational. I wonder if you earlier note mentioning that closed software is excluded to make clear that this is no longer the case.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to warn we may need scribe change and to talk about Laura's recommendation
<Chuck> The content is implemented using technologies with support for identifying the expected meaning for form input data.
Do not think it's necessary to add the redundancy mentioned earlier
Does take it back to the closed product software that we added.
<Chuck> I will scribe for her if she wishes to participate in conversation.
<phil-day_> +1 for closed product software suggestion
<Chuck> Laura: I think it's fine. I mentioned it, I just wanted to bring it up.
<Sam> +1 also for closed product software
<maryjom> Mary Jo's suggestion was: "Closed product software often has no user agent nor platform support for programmatic input purpose identification."
European standard, rather than just saying "closed products" it was more specific to which type of product was closed.
Could be opened in some areas but not entirely closed to AT.
Sam: I understand that we want to leave it broad. What is the other AT that we believe is being left out?
<Chuck> https://
Maryjom: reading Success Criterion 1.3.5 Identify Input purpose
"The content is implemented using technologies with support for identifying the expected meaning for form input data.
<Chuck> We purposely were agnostic regarding technologies.
AT is not specifically mentioned.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask Mike Pluke about closed products
Bruce_bailey: Ask Mike, earlier versions of 301.549 there was a broad exception for closed. 508 in the US we made additional requirements for closed products instead of excepting them.
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to point to how closed functionality was dealt with in WCAG2ICT v1
Mike_pluke: we tried to narrow it down and put in some alternatives as well.
<bruce_bailey> thanks Mike, EN 301 549 is more nuanced wrt "closed functionality" than U.S. 508
<loicmn> "Note 2: See also the discussion on Closed Functionality in the Introduction. "
loicmn: Every time we have success criteria that is different or not applicable, we have a note pointing to the section of cross functionality. Which had the list of success criteria.
<bruce_bailey> U.S. 508 requirements for Closed Functionality is here:
Points to appendix A
<bruce_bailey> https://
<loicmn> https://
maryjom: have the standard pointer to closed functionality and then add the explanation.
We have success criterium for each that may be problemative.
problematic.
maryjom: can take the EN conversation offline with Mike_pluke
<maryjom> Poll: Should there be an addional note added to the closed functionality section for "Closed product software often has no user agent nor platform support for programmatic input purpose identification."
<Chuck> Thanks Rachael!
Sam: It was different in EN standard, it was specific to closed but the order was different.
Sam: it is not the equivalent to just grab what EN did.
GreggVan: I don't think we can create new guidelines but we may be able to characterize. "for closed products the following considerations should be made"
<phil-day_> +1 for additional note on closed in poll
<Sam> +1
<olivia-hogan-stark> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<loicmn> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
+1 for additional note (wordsmith)
<Devanshu> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
maryjo: still concerned with the first note.
Maryjom: Want to make sure that the first note makes the scope clear.
Chuck: We can't infer beyond what's in the original success criteria that user agents should if they didn't in the original criteria
<loicmn> +1
maryjom: Once we add in the section on Purposes for User Interface Components" and the closed products items it would be complete. Is that agreed?
<olivia-hogan-stark> +1
<phil-day_> +1 for changes - with Laura's wordsmithing
+1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<Sam> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<ShawnT> +1
Devanshu: Asked about the closed product software note.
Maryjom: adding suggestion into the comment. Laura to take the suggestion and make any changes.
Maryjom: will take up text spacing next week.
<phil-day_> Thanks all