Meeting minutes
AC: Welcome everyone.
ac: Any new members or change of affiliation?
Jaunita: Changing affiliation, my invited expert application this week. Because I've left Navy Federal and I've moved to Australia.
ACT rules review
<alastairc> w3c/
Ac: first up, we've got the ACT rules.
<alastairc> w3c/
DM: Kathy's not here. I'm Daniel, I'm the staff contact. Neither Kathy nor wilco is here.
… The group wanted to put this in front of of a larger group
… then when we think they're ready, we just sent them for approval. So these two PRs, I'm not sure if The links are in the chat.
AC: a couple of comments from bruce
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for presenters to announce scrolling for the benefit of other members
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask about the "[Don't Merge] bit ?
Chuck: point of order for anybody who's presenting. Just a reminder, please try to minimize scrolling or announce when you're going to scroll.
Bruce: my concern was the way this is phrased.
… Implies the opposite, even though it's really saying that it's failing things that might not need to fail.
… Having a script, if you would, a routine, a rule that fails something that fails that false false failures are worse than letting things through in my experience.
Ac: my reading of this was, so you were saying some of the failed examples may satisfy the success criterion So it's looking at the strict rules of the kind of ARIA spec. And if it's not meeting those rules.
<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to make sure this is a "prose" issue rather than a "format" issue
Ac: Then it's failing it. My understanding of that was that User agents might fill some things in and it works fine.
Dm: It seems to me this is now more a prose issue with what is written in the rules.
Rather than a format issue.
<Jon_avila> Are you saying that failing this may not fail WCAG? I agree that WCAG may not require following the ARIA specification.
Bruce: some of the failed examples may not satisfy the success criteria.
… Maybe that's just boiler point language. But it'd be good to say which of the failed examples might be that might be true for. And moreover, I don't think any can be true for any of the failed examples.
Ac: chair hat off. it is fairly common that you might essentially get a false positive.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say opening an issue to discuss the language used in the guidance sounds like an idea
MG: it would be a good idea to open a separate issue on kind of tackling the language and kind of syntax used in the guidance as opposed to the rule itself.
WCAG 3 detailed requirements
<Rachael> https://
RM: we are about to kick off the charter process. It takes a series of months and conversations for us to set the goals for our charter.
… For the next two year period. So if you have not seen the charter for this current two-year period, that's what's shown on the screen right now.
<Rachael> https://
RM: one of the most important parts of what we do is we set the goals for that two-year period. What are we attempting to complete by that time.
… And we will have decided whether it will be delivered all at once in phases, as modules. There's been a lot of discussion about that.
… it's was based on research done by the Silver Group, and it has design principles, but section four, the requirements section, is the section that we have to meet to publish and declare success when WCAG 3.
<Rachael> Github discussion: https://
RM: We want you to go to the GitHub discussion. We're going to give you the full two weeks to weigh in on this.
<Rachael> https://
RM: an example, we have a requirement to do broad disability support, and it's really broader disability support.
… There are some concepts in here that have been discussed in smaller groups but haven't been discussed in the full AG.
… this is a really important. I highly encourage everyone to read through it in detail.
… Think about the ramifications.
… we have threaded discussions, so please reply with your thoughts and discussion to the comment to the goal or requirement you are talking about.
Bruce: What is the suggested feedback mechanism?
RM: you can just reply to a particular comment, write a reply so it stays threaded. So if you had a better wording for some of this, just suggest the wording and keep going there. Often for small wordsmiths.
Working in the Google Doc is a little easier
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on where it goes
Gregg: we chould use hyphenated short names like we used uh decimal numbers.
RM: We were not reopening the requirements themselves conversation at this point.
terminology conversation
<alastairc> https://
<alastairc> https://
Ac: We have been Looking through this survey or rather the survey came out with the agenda We've had about six people fill that in,
… One of the main things we are asking is for people to sort of try and evaluate these definitions In the context of their work in the subgroups
<alastairc> https://
<julierawe> Rachael is it too late to ask what is meant by "achievable" in the Charter goals doc?
Ac: Some of these things we've already started incorporating but they are only in here as suggestions for the moment because I wanted to make sure the original text was still there for everyone during this comment period
GN: if we have a context that's connected to a change of context. What is the context and when does it change?
Because it also says If the context changes, it's a new view or something like that.
Ac: our initial definition for view did start from the change of context definition. So we've gone full circle.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say - scroll down and muy comments on each bullet are in the next comment in GitHub
Gregg: It wasn't friction with the term Ul context. That wasn't the problem with that term.
<kirkwood> what about view?
Gregg: The problem was, should we use that instead of page?
<kirkwood> nevermind
Gregg: A suggestion for everybody to do is to write your things and just use page /view as a stand-in to see whether or not what you're writing works If
… we have end up having to stick with page.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to comment on "UI Context" versus "page/view"
<kirkwood> page/view works I feel
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on thin vs thick slicing and "page"
Bruce: only problem with page slash view is I don't know how to say it out loud. I know how to write it.
Ac: There are some interfaces we deal with where defining a page based on URL or whatever our conformance unit is doesn't really work either because there isn't a URL or it doesn't change or you simply can't access a URL.
… So we know there are... places that doesn't work.
… Some interfaces like in the document in the previous presentation Things like the mail app, things like Slack.
<alastairc> https://
Ac: Do we need to provide two definitions?
… One that works when you have a URL and one that works when you don't.
<Zakim> DJ, you wanted to noninteractive
Dj: I just don't want us to forget about static content.
<Zakim> kenneth, you wanted to URL
Dj: completely non-interactive content, especially physical media.
… I think it's important here we choose the term that allows for that.
KF: want to highlight like When you suggest the two definitions, you sort of hinged on whether the thing involves a change of URL or not.
… could lead down some rather murky roads.
… if you use Slack, it does change the URL when you change channel, et cetera.
… Whereas like there are apps that don't change the URL, which can cause usability issues e.g. back button losing place or progress
<Jon_avila> It would be difficult to apply WCAG to non-digital. For example, different color and contrast calculations would be needed.
Gregg: To my knowledge, WCAG has never been applied to anything that was that was not electronic.
<Jon_avila> Contrast is different in print.
Gregg: speaking from EN301549 and and where we draw our lines.
… we don't touch anything that is non-digital.
DJ: I'm thinking more of ADA requirements, and especially where it comes to things like physical media you design, you often do that on a computer, so it's easiest to use the WCAG guidelines.
Ac: But I think the actual answer here is we do have, say, a definition of content very similar to the WCAG 2 one, which is any information and sensory experience to be communicated just updated to through a user interface.
<Zakim> DJ, you wanted to digital bilboards?
DJ: Digital billboards where the ad changes. What the user interface context there, I imagine would be the screen, right? And the view is going to be the screen.
<bbailey> FWIW, accessibility of non-interactive electronic signage is something of a gap in 508
DJ: I don't know. I don't have any answers to these.
… These are just questions l'd like to address.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say do we anticipate some kind of 'translation' similar to wcag2ICT? If so, I think concentrating on something clear and understandable in the primary context is important
<bbailey> Requiring a non-interactive digital signage to have a UI veers to being fundamental alteration
<todd> +1 to mbgower's point
Ac: In that kind of scenario, you're only going to be picking a few guidelines. You're not going to be doing the full WCAG.
<GreggVan> +1 to mbgower's comment
Mg: comment is kind of about the scoping exercise. I'm really concerned that the more we try to mushroom out our coverage every conceivable interaction
… It seems problematic to me to try to apply to that large area.
<bbailey> U.S. ADA has broad requirements for "effective communication" so that helps with accessibility of signage (digital or otherwise).
CL: there's other things that would be digital signage like medical signage say like a calendar events on a campus or a map of a campus.
<Zakim> DJ, you wanted to scope
Gregg: We should stick to web and to perhaps with keep in mind that it wants to be used in other digital technologies
… going beyond that is going to take something like an ICT effort.
DJ: First of all, we have digital signage now, right? And second of all, we have emerging technologies that describe the future situation.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on WCAG3 scope
<alastairc> https://
DJ: Instead of making things complex we can make the most general version of a guideline possible that still applies to everything.
<bbailey> The method of pointer cancellation is consistent within a product or set of [UI Contexts].
DJ: We should consider the full scope of digital content.
<GreggVan> suggest "scope of claim?"
<kirkwood> is a product potentially a site ?
Ac: officially in our charter we are sort of focus on is on web technologies
<GreggVan> if there is no claim there is no conformance?
Ac: But I would keep the scope to digital because otherwise, as Greg mentioned, you know, everything changes in terms of contrast and context.
sub-group work
<ChrisLoiselle> regrets, second half of meeting