<Rachael> scribe: Laura
rm: welcome everyone.
rm: Any new members?
... Any new topics?
bruce: doj has adopted wacg 2.1 for new title II rule
<Chuck> https://www.ada.gov/notices/2024/03/08/web-rule/
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/61 Deceptive Patterns
rm: new discussion on Deceptive
Patterns and WCAG
... interest to coga and others.
<bruce_bailey> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publish-final-rule-strengthen-web-and-mobile-app-access-people
rm: focus visible did not meet.
jaunita: has had lack of quorum. reach out if you want to join.
<Rachael> zaki, take up item 4
rm: At the 26 March 2024 meeting, we introduced a draft list of outcomes and guidelines based on the work we've been doing.
rm: alternative draft has gotten
comments.
... 2 thumbs up. Please vote on it and comment.
... Does the grouping work for a placeholder exploratory
draft?
... Are there any duplicates or ones that should be
combined?
... Are there any missing?
... Should we note items that would have essential
exceptions?
... no minimums or maximums yet.
<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/60
<Chuck> Here is the summary: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/60#discussioncomment-9058852
rm: a summary is in the discussion
<Rachael> Scratchpad https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G1z1oU-XqWpIaoQAFPLvZuyTuF1DKRGF5_6H5oFI328/edit#heading=h.z2taafl5gjo2
rm: how specific do we need to be?
<Rachael> What is testable: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sugAtqie_x1XqHDZo1Im7ftDNllWeRV_ty4PULeoTV0/edit#heading=h.ekutz99zocwa
rm: For the purpose of WCAG 3.0,
a testable outcome is a requirement that strives for the
following qualities:
... It addresses a clear user need
... There is little to no room for interpretation
... It can be tested quickly and inexpensively (possibly using
tools)
... It is easy to learn and understand
<Rachael> ACT rules: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/
rm: we need to future proof
this.
... Extremely testable examples but also technology and
implementation specific: ACT
... How do we balance “testable” and “future proofing”?
... What is the scope that "testing" occurs in?
gregg: +1 to future
proofing
... some of the rules are tests of techniques.
... what is a rule?
we used to have guidelines and SC and techniques.
rm: act re rules that are very testable.
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#outcomes-and-methods
rm: we are in process in
describing things can email some docs out.
... we will need to think about what things mean.
chuck: re: testable statements are future proof.
gregg: Suggest we keep outcomes testable. Suggest tech specific go into methods.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the more we move toward strictly testable, the more we restrict what we can address in WCAG3.
gregg: would help adoptability of wcag 3.
Jeanne: It was clear from silver
research strictly testable is difficult to understand.
... Plain language statement was suggested.
... then use techniques for edge cases.
... we do not want to use SCs because it doesn't work for a
number of use cases. We can do better.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to work on specific example
<Rachael> Current location: The current location within the view, process, and aggregate is visually and programmatically indicated.
<Graham> No access to doc
<Kimberly> ditto, no access to doc
<Chuck> I have updated access, please try again
rm: Current location: The current
location within the view, process, and aggregate is visually
and programmatically indicated.
... do we take out visually and programmatically?
... do we add a method?
... another example: "Error association: Error notifications
are programmatically associated with the error source.
gregg: interesting that it is
"visually and programmatically"
... think that they become the same in the future.
... we may lose a lot of time if we don't learn from
wcag.
... things need to be testable if they are to be
enforced.
... can have other things done that are "shoulds". We can cause
change.
... combine testable with the others.
... we addressed all of the disabilities in wcag2.
rm: don't want to rehash WCAG 2
<Zakim> Jennie_D, you wanted to discuss defining visually present, and error association example
sarah: maybe use explicitly .
jennnie: visually present may be
important.
... maybe use definitions,
<bruce_bailey> +1 to SH for "explicit" instead of "programmatically determinable" -- at least with present example
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to continue the help idea
gregg: can combine advice to testable and untestable.
rm: should assertions and methods be at the same level then?
gregg: Separate location from
level.
... Can't require assertions.
<GN015> What is the difference between asserting a company did something for WCAG compliance and providing an ACR (for legal point of view)?
gregg: assertions need to be located right with the outcomes
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Gregg to restate that question so I can note it down? Related to assertions
Gregg: the question is Can companies be required to make assertion?
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) include visually and programmatically "errors are visually and programmatically associated..." 2) use explicity "errors are explicitly associated..." 3) leave out "errors are associated..."
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) include visually and programmatically "errors are visually and programmatically associated..." 2) use explicity "errors are explicitly associated..." 3) leave out "errors are associated..." 4) other
<GreggVan> 1
<jaunita_george> 1
<jeanne> 1
<ShawnT> 1
<GN015> leaning to 1)
<Jennie_D> 1
<Poornima> 1
<Kimberly> 1
<dan_bjorge> 1 (or any of the others if-and-only-if you give a normative definition of "associated" that includes "visually and programmatically")
<JakeAbma> 1
<mbgower> 4 you could even just define "associated"
<giacomo-petri> 1
<bruce_bailey> 2 but 1 is okay (status quo)
laura: 1
<Frankie> 1
<Rachael> 2
gregg: what if we are talking about auditory interfaces?
<sarahhorton> 2 or 3
<Rachael> 2 or 3
<ljoakley> thank you, Gregg, I was thinking this and did not vote
<Chuck> Thirteen 1's, two 2's, one 4.
<GreggVan> 3
gregg: changing my vote to 3
<ljoakley> leave out visually
<Chuck> 3
<Graham> 4 - these should be 2 different things / criteria "errors are programatically" and "errors are visually"?
<Frankie> Also changing to 3 following Gregg's comment
<Rachael> Suggestion from mike "Are associated" and then define what "associated" means
mg: need to be careful with describing modalities.
<GreggVan> +1 to Mike he captured it better
<Chuck> NOTE: some vote changes, 1's still have the strong consensus
lo: suggest redoing the strawpoll.
<Jennie_D> * I could change my vote to 2 if the definition of explicit includes visual. Rationale: want to be sure the COGA needs are considered (for times people forget non-AT users with disabilities)
dan: disagree with using just
"associated".
... it is too ambiguous.
gregg: only thing required is
programmatically.
... it is modality independent.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say we also need to be careful not just to make this usability
mg: want to make sure we cover the accessibility issue.
<Chuck> Giacomo suggested poll: straw poll: 1) include visually and programmatically "errors are visually and programmatically associated..." 2) use explicity "errors are explicitly associated..." 3) leave out "errors are associated..." 4) other
mg: maybe it is how we define "associated".
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to comment on default vs customizaton chair hat off
rm: chair hat off.
... concept of default.
... and default vs customizaton needs
<Zakim> Jennie_D, you wanted to say that more is needed with programmatic
Jennie: some difficulties for Coga folks with the use of programmatic.
gregg: suggest programmatic
determinable to software determinable.
... we have a visual bias.
... if we have too many techniques we're going to blow it
up.
<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to suggest scribe change
dan_bjorge +1 to what Jennie talked about wrt cogg
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I don't think authors can anticipate all user needs and to say I don't think authors can anticipate all user preferences
scribe: if we only say programmatic, then focus indicators do not need to be visual? Surely not.
mbgower: I meant all users
preferences, and there is conflict...
... some users want lots of prompts but that makes experience
worse for others
... the more we can identify what authors need to do adds
clarity to requirements...
... where we see plug-ins or User Agents making things
accessible , that is fine , but we need to document and maybe
help develop those.
<Jennie_D> * apologies - have to drop. Great conversation. Thank you.
john toles: When I teach, I use plain language and leave out phrase like "programmatically determinable"...
scribe: so e.g. "Source of error
needs to be obvious"..
... Start with simple expectation and expand out to technical.
The statement needs to be simple...
<ljoakley> bruce +1
scribe: as is, SC much too specific and technical and put people off WCAG.
GreggVan: There seems to be an
underlying assumption that we cannot make things directly
accessible to people with cognitive disabilities...
... But we don't do that for people who are blind -- we require
compatibility with screen reading software...
... There is assumption that for cognitive, access must be
direct. But that is not correct...
... Back in the day we didn't have good coga AT , but that is
not true now and coga oriented AT is getting better.
<Rachael> draft straw poll: 1) include visually and programmatically "errors are visually and programmatically associated..." 2) use explicity "errors are explicitly associated..." 3) use are associated and define assodicated "errors are associated..." 4) other
Rachael: Will redo straw poll, draft and then voting
<ljoakley> 3
Rachael: Any rewording?
<ljoakley> reword 1, remove visually
GreggVan: If we define "explicitly associated" can we define that now?
<mbgower> 3
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) include visually and programmatically "errors are visually and programmatically associated..." 2) use explicity "errors are explicitly associated..." 3) use are associated and define assodicated "errors are associated..." 4) "associated in a way that is clear and exact" 5) other
Rachael: clear and exact
<dan_bjorge> 3 > 1 > others
<mbgower> 3
<JakeAbma> 1
<GreggVan> 3 then 1
<jaunita_george> 3 and 1
<tburtin> 1
<Azlan> 3
<sarahhorton> 2 or 3
<julierawe> 4
<dan_bjorge> changing answer, 3 (with "associated" defined within the outcome) > 1 > 3 (with "associated" defined globally) > others
<Francis_Storr> 3 then 1
<GN015> 1
<jtoles> 4 or 3
<TheoHale> 3
<Poornima> 1
scottohara: I am sure I am not the only person who has lost the tread?
Rachael: Just the one outcome
<Chuck> 4, 1, 7, 2
<Graham> 5) it depends on the exact SC we are working on...
Lori Oakley: Visually should be excluded from option 1
<Frankie> 4
mbgower: In alternative draft , we have some bullets with both visually and programmatically AND some which use only programmatically...
<GreggVan> 5 - programatically or associated in a software determinable way
mbgower: Which phrases are we talking about?
scottohara: +1 to mike's concern. Different phrasing might work here but not else where. I am not comfortable boxing myself in.
Rachael: Goal is get us to a list
and to stimulate conversaion....
... that conversation has been promotted. We need to trim down
the list...
... Please read through current draft...
<mbgower> There are three bullets that currently propose striking out "programmatically" OR "programmatically and visually"
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say IF VISUAL presentation is used, then visually and programmatically
Rachael: current draft has "programatically determined" scratched out, but line-by-line commenting appreciated.
GreggVan: We need to talk about
what and not how...
... we need to stay away from modality. Just focus on what
needs to be true.
<Chuck> good point to close on, and move on in agenda
Rachael: Agree with Mike Gower
that we will need to look at these individually.
... Are people comfortable avoiding modilty
<Chuck> bruce: Programmatically determined is a modality?
<mbgower> I would say "no"
Rachael: I think so. Others?
<Graham> just "errors are associated" if we are removing modalities?
GreggVan: PD is modality independent. ALL information should be software / programmatically determinable.
<Rachael> • Version2 Test Procedure https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit#heading=h.u59096q44x7f https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/4xe6QFeK/image.png
<Rachael> Version2 Test Procedure https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit#heading=h.u59096q44x7f
Rachel: We have run out of time , but please take a look at scrach pad.
<Rachael> • Version 2 Decision Tree https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit#heading=h.5wukoctx6so0
Rachel: biggest change with test
proceedure removed a test procedure wrt duplicate
information
... second item to focus on is decision tree on images like
equations that are more complex.
Rachael: Any feedback?
<Rachael> How to account for images for which there is an alternative nearby, but the thing itself doesn’t have the alt text.
Rachael: From github thread, first question was about text being nearby, but not in the alternative.
GreggVan: What is "non operable control" ?
Rachael: That should be static image.
GreggVan: Example is graphical
calendar with days of week as link...
... Duplicative for SR users. One approach was to mark link as
decorative, but that defies convention....
... Work around was to use graphical text instead , or to not
have text links.
... So text next to image being redundant is situational.
Rachael: I will add question to bottom of thread.
<mbgower> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1
mbgower: link is to project board
, should not be new to most people
... email sent out last week to AG list
... we are in middle of cycle and are looking for feedback
mbgower: the For discussion
column [from board] and Sent for AG approval are the key
columns.
... 8 items this cycle.
... I focus on one which is normative because it effects a
definition...
... it was noted that "transaction amount" is not personal
data...
... We had tagged as normative change. But this in an appendix
, and appendices are informative.
<Rachael> Descriptions of what is normative is at See https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#interpreting-normative-requirements
[mike reads from thread]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3539
mbgower: We got some clarity that
it qualifies as content which appears in appendix, though we
are lacking the word "appendix"
... that is the only PR left in "For discussion"
... I have moved items to top to get more attention...
* Add references between failure techniques and Focus Appearance understanding #3763 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3763>
[mike gower reads lines 5 thru 14]
mbgower: Just adjusting title and
refs to other SC...
... second file of this PR is cross reference to those
techniques...
... lines 726 thru 732
... all that happens is cross reference to two failure
techniques...
... looks like more substantial than it is. We would like some
up voting.
... Other PR is a bunch of files, seems intimidating...
·Merge pr3381 and pr3738 #3757 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3757>
scribe: really just house
cleaning. List of files change is one page...
... old link was to 2.1 and now changed to relative link to
wcag 2 evergree version.
Francis_Storr: It is 196 pages, the longer it sits, it gets bigger and bigger.
<Zakim> dan_bjorge, you wanted to clarify stance wrt normative/informative
dan_bjorge: Back to normative
change...
... characterizing as normative versus informative is not
plain. In practice it is normative....
... because it has impact to SC.
... I agree it is editorial. We don't think it need to be
flagged as "errata" though.
mbgower: We will following up
with Alastair on classes of errata.
... If it is a normative change, we will go through W3C
process.
Rachael: Chairs and staff reviewed and we agree it is an appendix and so not a normative change.
mbgower: I also must note that our errata doc does not include dates, per the description, so those need to be added going forward.
dan_bjorge: I would characterize this as an editorial change to a normative part of the text. Deque would not object, but would vote no.
mbgower: I won't go through the others. Welcome review, but the two I talked about need the most attention.
Rachael: AG members welcome to joing friday call.
<laura> bye.
<Kimberly> thank you. good bye
<Graham> bye everyone have a great week.
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/minimumsor /minimums or / Succeeded: s/os techniques./of techniques./ Succeeded: s/I can access the doc now. Thank you.// Succeeded: s/leave out programmatic/only say programmatic/ Succeeded: s/visable/visible/ Succeeded: s/quroum. /quorum. / Succeeded: s/use to /used to / Succeeded: s/abolut /about / Succeeded: s/testable difficult /testable is difficult / Succeeded: s/they we/they/ Succeeded: s/all of the disabilites we addressed /we addressed all of the disabilities / Succeeded: s/explesively/explicitly/ Succeeded: s/ourcomes/outcomes/ Succeeded: s/programatically./programmatically./ Succeeded: s/modailty/modality/ Succeeded: s/accessibity /accessibility / Succeeded: s/defualt needs./default vs customizaton needs/ Succeeded: s/proramatic deterrminable /programmatic determinable / Succeeded: s/deterrminable./determinable./ Succeeded: s/to not have texts/to not have text links/ Default Present: Laura_Carlson, Chuck, shadi, ShawnT, Jennie_D, bruce_bailey, Rachael, Azlan, giacomo-petri, GreggVan, Kimberly, dan_bjorge, JakeAbma, jtoles, mike_beganyi, tburtin, Frankie, Jen_G, mbgower, sabidussi_marco, sarahhorton, julierawe, scotto, ljoakley, Graham, Ben, Poornima, Francis_Storr, TheoHale, jaunita_george Present: Laura_Carlson, Chuck, shadi, ShawnT, Jennie_D, bruce_bailey, Rachael, Azlan, giacomo-petri, GreggVan, Kimberly, dan_bjorge, JakeAbma, jtoles, mike_beganyi, tburtin, Frankie, Jen_G, mbgower, sabidussi_marco, sarahhorton, julierawe, scotto, ljoakley, Graham, Ben, Poornima, Francis_Storr, TheoHale, jaunita_george Regrets: John Kirkwood Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: bruce_bailey Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey Scribes: Laura, bruce_bailey ScribeNicks: laura, bruce_bailey WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth 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: 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]
