<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2023-06-06
<scribe> scribe: mbgower
Chuck: Are there any introductions? New to this call or new role?
<JenStrickland> I think we should announce *someone* being elected to a new W3C AB role…
<JenStrickland> I'm super excited about her win!
Wendy: I'm a newly elected member of the AB.
Jen: I'm super excited about her.
<laura> congrats Wendy
<Chuck> Decision policy Survey: Updating the AG Decision Policy - Web-Based Straw-poll and Balloting System (w3.org)
Chuck: One more announcement. We have a decision policy survey out.
<AWK> +AWK
<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Decision-Policy-23/?login
Chuck: This was opened last week.
It closes on Thursday. [Reads context]
... There is a google doc referenced. We ask that you not edit
the doc, but put comments in the survey
<AWK> Chuck, can you share what AC members were concerned and what the concerns were?
Chuck: I would say the concerns
were that there is a difference in what the AGWG decision
policies were compared to those across the board. It promoted
and fostered objections. Early on in the start it is more about
discussions, with objections later on in the process.
... We're trying to make more uniform.
... Two individuals have shared their names.
<AWK> OK, thanks. Wasn't sure if this was one or two people from the AC or many people
Chuck: We're not doing an update today. We will be giving next week.
[Chuck begins sharing screen]
<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Decision-Policy-23/?login
Chuck: These are ongoing issues from the backlog
<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/623#issuecomment-865916948
Chuck: I will go through the responses. 9 agreed with the response, 4 thought it should have adjustments, 1 had an alternative
[Chuck reads Devlev's response]
Alastair: I'm not sure what we
would add at the moment.
... We'd have to try to put something together. I'm not sure
there is any adjustment I can make at this stage.
Detlev: It's fine.
[Chuck reads Jon's response]
[Chuck reads Laura's response]
[Chuck reads Gundula's response]
[Chuck reads Wilco's response]
Chuck: Alastair did responses inspire some updates?
Alastair: We could say that WCAG does not specifically address HCM.
<alastairc> "However, WCAG 2.x does not explicitly address HCM. There are some failure techniques today such as failure techniques for pseudo content and CSS Background images as well as defining both foreground and background colors."
Gundula: I feel answering is good, but it should be mentioned in the Understanding document.
Alastair: For Contrast Enhanced or Visual Presentation?
Gundula: Maybe both?
<alastairc> Response amended: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/623#issuecomment-865916948
Chuck: Can we approve proposed response and subsequently update Understanding documents?
Gundula: that's realistic
Wilco: For all of these it might be worth updating the Understanding documents. I would be in support of making updates as part of resolving issue.
Alastair: I don't mind doing
that. I don't think it's clear where someone would have
looked.
... It requires someone taking on the work.
Chuck: I'd normally agree. In this instance, can we adopt the response?
Wilco: Can we leave the issue open?
<jon_avila> I agree with Alastair, I'm not sure how people would know where to look for the answer. Perhaps some WAI EOWG page.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended response to address issue 623, keep issue open and update appropriate understanding docs.
Alastair: We can resolve to agree to the response. I can put in a comment that it would be useful to include Understanding updates, possibly in Contrast (Enhanced)
<Wilco> +1
<Chuck> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Makoto> +1
<Rachael> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<laura> +1
<GN015> +1
Kicking the can down the road
<jon_avila> +0
RESOLUTION: Accept amended response to address issue 623, keep issue open and update appropriate understanding docs.
<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2127/files
Chuck: 6 agree with update, 1 wants something else
[Chuck reads Gundula's response]
Alastair: Apologies. The change
had already been merged over a year ago, but it wasn't marked
as closing this issue.
... Are we happy to close now that this has been merged in.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on gundula's questions
Chuck: The 341 came from prior calculations, I believe.
Alastair: The numbers came from
the difficult-to-understand calculation for the threshold. This
is the resulting number.
... I don't think we want to change that number
... The author can only set a sizing in web terms. Gundula was
suggesting reduces the size. That would be a different
requirement. I think you'd struggle to get that in.
Chuck: Did you say that 2127 had already been merged?
Alastair: Yes. It closed a number of other issues, but not this one.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2127 which has already been merged and close issue 1132.
<Detlev> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Chuck> +1
<alastairc> +1
<GN015> +1
+1 to close 1132
<Makoto> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Raf> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<laura> +1
<kirkwood> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2127 which has already been merged and close issue 1132.
<Rachael> +1
Chuck: 5 agreed, 1 wanted adjustments, 2 wanted something else
[Chuck reads Makoto's response]
Makoto: I don't disagree with removing. I just want to clarify we don't have to.
Chuck: Laura agreed it was an accessibility support issue
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the accessibility support
Alastair: This speaks to people's assumptions on techniques.
<alastairc> https://test-cases.tink.uk/longdesc/
Alastair: We have pretty poor support.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are we only removing from the 2.2 documents?
Alastair: It's generally not supported by what most people would be using. H45 will still stick around in 2.0. It's there for the historical record, but in our modern techniques, there should be an assumtpoin
<Chuck> mbgower: Just to get clarity, relevant to where it should be updated in the other docs. This would be getting updated in 2.2 version and maybe 2.1?
<scribe> scribe: mbgower
Alastair: The 2.1 and 2.2 would
be updated. Not 2.0
... we should probably update the conformance portion. I think
we are best to come back for the conformance material. We can
go ahead to eliminate the technique
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2503 to address issue 2502, create new PR to remove longdesc in example from understanding conformance.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2503 to address issue 2502, create new PR to remove longdesc in example from understanding conformance for review at a later date.
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2503 to address issue 2502, create new issue/PR to remove longdesc in example from understanding conformance.
<Detlev> +1
+1
<alastairc> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Wilco> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Makoto> +0.5
<JenStrickland> +1
<Raf> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<Rachael> +1
<LoriO> +1
<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2146/files
Chuck: 9 agreed and 1 wanted an adjustment
[Chuck reads Andrew's response]
<Chuck> mbgower: Andrew's wording is elegant, but my concern, the component is determined by user agent and not modified by the author, we have page background considerations. I'd rather leave it with proposed language.
<scribe> scribe: mbgower
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2146 to address issue 1385.
+1
<Chuck> +1
<alastairc> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<Makoto> +1
<LoriO> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<laura> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<Detlev> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2146 to address issue 1385.
<GN015> +1
<alastairc> On AndrewS's comment about 'visible' not defined, we're just refering to the focus-visible meaning.
<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2909#issuecomment-1377975101
Chuck: 8 agreed, 1 wanted an adjustment
[Chuck reads Jon's response]
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the 'sufficient techniques' aspect
Jon: My concern is that turning on high contrast colours can cause other issues. It's preferable to have a mode that would support all the criteria at once.
Alastair: There are comments that it would be good to write up techniques. There is already a technique on reduce-motion
Chuck: I might be slightly
disagreeing about setting a mode. Individuals can do
customizations, and those may not meet WCAG criteria
... I'm concerned on customizations needing to meet all
requirements.
Jon: I'm not suggesting that if someone customizes it, that needs to meet. I am saying that 'you have to turn on high contrast mode' as an author response may cause other problems.
<DavidMiddleton> I agree with John that if the author is creating a high contrast mode that it is fully accessible so it doesn't create more problems than it fixed.
Alastair: From the comments, we have potential future techniques we can consider. I don't think anyone was disagreeing with it.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept response to address issue 2909.
Alastair: If a technique has knock on effects, those should be considered as part of any sufficient technique we publish.
<alastairc> +1
Jon: Is this tangentially related
to the other issue on sound?
... As this is written, we can decide separately.
+1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<LoriO> +1
<DavidMiddleton> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Wilco> +1
<jon_avila> +.5
<GN015> +1
<laura> +.5
RESOLUTION: Accept response to address issue 2909.
<Makoto> +1
<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2621/files
Chuck: 5 agreed, 1 wanted adjustments, 1 something else
[Chuck reads Jon's response]
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer comments
[Chuck reads Gundula's response]
Alastair: For Jon's comment, what we were aiming for is that being able to mute the system sound is not enough. It has to be content orientated
Jon: Are we distinguishing system from chrome?
<alastairc> "Muting the system volume is not "pausing or stopping" the autoplay audio. Both the "pause or stop" and control of audio volume need to be independent of the overall system volume."
Chuck: That applies to all audio, the user agent and platform.
Bruce: Nice catch by Jon.
<alastairc> History - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag21-errata/results#xq5
Bruce: Do we think muting the browser tab is equivalent? Muting the tab is not muting the whole app, but thinking of the phrase, I think it would be related
<AWK> Only autoplay audio is not started by the user
<alastairc> The SC text: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#audio-control
Lori: Why is it only auto-play?
Alastair: The SC context is if it autoplays.
<bruce_bailey> In context, system volume would have to include the User Agent, so with our example, that is *all* audio from Chrome and not just a tab.
<Chuck> +1
<Wilco> +1
Alastair: We were trying to write a response to an issue saying 'can I just mute the system setting?' But Jon's question is novel.
<AWK> If you have a browser tab for a page that has no audio then it seems that it would pass, but on youtube that wouldn't pass.
Jon: If we wanted to allow mute of tab we'd want to ensure there was only one source on the page.
<kirkwood> what if the mechanism is not findable? should it be an obvious mechanism?
Jon: If we muted the text to speech on the page, or if there were two sources of sound, that would be more problematic.
<bruce_bailey> I am okay with accessibility supported mute window/tab feature being relied upon as a sufficient technique.
<alastairc> also noting I've never found a way to use the mute-tab from the keyboard (it may exist, but I couldn't find it when I last looked).
Gundula: Being able to rely on Chrome is relying on a specific browser. It may take time to locate the correct tab.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change
<bruce_bailey> I am also okay with our writing that such a feature is *not* sufficient. :-)
Wilco: I think we are going beyond the survey.
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Wilco's point.
Wilco: I think this is far less of an issue these days.
<Wilco> scribe+
<alastairc> scribe- mbgower
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2621.
<Wilco> Chuck: Was this closed before, and we're trying to address it?
<Wilco> Alastair: This PR is to address 1533
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2621 to address issue 1533.
<Wilco> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<Makoto> +1
<alastairc> +1
<GN015> +1
<Rachael> +1
<laura> +1
<LoriO> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2621 to address issue 1533.
<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2520#issuecomment-1292146955
<Wilco> Chuck: Jon wanted something else
<Wilco> ... [reading comments]
<Chuck> Content with visually intrinsic semantics should use the mark-up appropriate for that content. If content is not visible in the viewport, it is not the case for SC 1.3.1 as it is not "conveyed through presentation" as the SC 1.3.1 describes. For example, on the other hand, invisible data tables used as alternate version of data charts for users without vision should have proper table mark-up so that header cells can be identified. Because invisible dat[CUT]
<jon_avila> FYI definition of presentation doesn't mention visual: presentation rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by users
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on alternative versions
<Wilco> Alastair: Couple points to separate. My first reaction was that we generally look at structure visually presented
<Wilco> ... Presentation doesn't need to be visible though. I would argue that hidden heading are intended to be perceived
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I agree that presentation is visible.
<Wilco> ... If you're presenting a hidden alternative for conforming purposes, then that should work as intended
<Wilco> Chuck: 1.3.1 is pretty clear to me that it's about the visible content, I agree with others that it's problematic to try to wrap invisible content in
<alastairc> Intent: "to ensure that information and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes."
<Wilco> AWK: 95% of the time it's about ensuring the semantics of visual content is in alignment, but presentation doesn't say anything about visual. It's strongly aligned with it, but there are cases where it's not true.
<Wilco> ... I like the idea of if its an off screen alternative, it needs to be the same.
<alastairc> "presentation: rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by users"
<Wilco> AWK: Putting a data table in the accessibility tree makes it available in a form to be perceived by users
<Wilco> ... There's no visual component to the rendering, but that doesn't have to be visible
<Wilco> Chuck: I'm slowing getting there, but not there yet
<Wilco> Alastair: This probably should be put in the understanding document. We then need to agree what it would need to be.
<Wilco> ... The thrust of it, if something's being added as an alternative to the visual content, it should convey information meaningfully
<Detlev> +q
<Wilco> ... Whether things like hidden headings would be covered by the normative text?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I'd need to see the undersanding doc update.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Update understanding document and response and review at a later date.
<Wilco> Detlev: Hidden headings I think falls under the same idea, its an alternative to visual information.
<Wilco> ... It's not far removed from the table example
<Wilco> AWK: If an offscreen table is used as an alternative version, then what it needs to do is provide the same information as the original content.
<Wilco> ... That requires headings for the axis.
<Wilco> Mike: I feel we're in a though experiment. If somethings only presented programmatically, it's almost a reverse of what the SC is intended for.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK that off-screen table in accessibility tree sounds like a terrible idea
<Wilco> ... It seems to me like we're getting in a weird space. I would love to see examples where we have a problem because of this.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to mike gower that this seems to be reading SC backwards
<Wilco> Bruce: I wanted to add that invisible text is a reasonable technique to try and make pages work better. I don't think that's forbidden.
<Wilco> Chuck: I've always thought landmarks are a technique for meeting 1.3.1.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to chucks point about landmarks
<Wilco> ... They're abstract objects with no clear visibility
<Wilco> Alastair: I think we need to bring it back
<Wilco> Bruce: I thought the response addressed all the techniques well enough
<alastairc> needs a PR rather than a response
<Wilco> Chuck: This is one of those cases where a response + an update is what would best close this issue
<alastairc> (or as well)
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Update understanding document and response and review at a later date.
<Wilco> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Rachael> +
<Wilco> Chuck: The action is we'll work on the understanding document and bring it back later.
<jon_avila> +1
<Wilco> Alastair: There are parts we've agree on. An alternative version needs proper structure. We'll put something down for hidden headings, which should flush out further comments.
RESOLUTION: Update understanding document and response and review at a later date.
<laura> +1
<Wilco> Alastair: Mike has been working on the "In brief" sections. It would be useful for people to look at those. There are lots of them.
<alastairc> The 2.1 PR with comments incorporated: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3191
<Wilco> Mike: WCAG 2.1 changes I've tried to accommodate all the recent feedback
<alastairc> 2.0 SCs: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3219
<Wilco> Alastair: If we could get comments back by a week from tomorrow, it can go into survey for the week after
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/share/shared/ Default Present: JenStrickland, Rachael, Jennie, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, wendyreid, tzviya, mbgower, Makoto, Francis_Storr, Wilco, alastairc, jon_avila, maryjom, MichaelC, Laura_Carlson, AWK, Detlev, kirkwood, LoriO, jaunita_george, .5 Present: JenStrickland, Rachael, Jennie, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, wendyreid, tzviya, mbgower, Makoto, Francis_Storr, Wilco, alastairc, jon_avila, maryjom, MichaelC, Laura_Carlson, AWK, Detlev, kirkwood, LoriO, jaunita_george, .5 Regrets: Sarah Horton, Shawn Thompson, Azlan Cuttilan Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower 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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]