SC Managers Phase1
Contents
- 1 WCAG 2.1 SC Review Process/SC Management [DRAFT]
- 2 SC Manager Role
- 3 Current SC Managers
- 3.1 Alastair Campbell (@alastc)
- 3.2 Glenda Sims (@Goodwitch)
- 3.3 Jake Abma (@jake-abma)
- 3.4 Wayne Dick (@WayneEDick)
- 3.5 David MacDonald (@DavidMacDonald)
- 3.6 Laura Carlson (@lauracarlson)
- 3.7 Katie Haritos-Shea (@Ryladog)
- 3.8 Marc Johlic (@marcjohlic)
- 3.9 Jon Avila (@mraccess77)
- 3.10 Bradley Montgomery, Rachael (@rachaelbradley)
- 3.11 Andrew Kirkpatrick (@awkawk)
- 3.12 Josh O Connor (@joshueoconnor)
- 3.13 Erich Manser (@emanser)
- 3.14 Neil Milliken (@)
- 3.15 Thaddeus Cambron (@inclusiveThinking)
- 3.16 EA Draffan (@ eadraffan)
- 3.17 John Rochford (@JohnRochfordUMMS)
- 3.18 Jim Smith (@jim-work)
- 3.19 Mike Pluke (@mapluke)
- 3.20 Jan McSorley (@jmcsorle)
- 3.21 Chaohai Ding (@chaohaiding )
- 3.22 Lisa Seeman(@lseeman)
- 3.23 Steve Lee(@SteveALee)
- 3.24 John Kirkwood(@citymouse)
- 3.25 Jeanne Spellman (@jspellman)
- 3.26 Detlev Fischer (@detlevhfischer)
- 3.27 Denis Boudreau (@dboudreau)
WCAG 2.1 SC Review Process/SC Management [DRAFT]
Success Criteria proposals from task forces will be reviewed as described below:
- SC proposals submitted Dec 1 (completed)
In order to prepare the SC proposal for WG review:
- Each proposal (represented by a GitHub issue) will have a “manager” who is assigned.
- No manager will have more than two proposals at any one time.
- The manager must not have been the primary driver for the proposal on the TF.
SC Manager Role
- This is a Phase 1/Milestone stage where we are looking for provisional acceptance of SCs - and not final approval.
- All current issues are set to Phase 1/Milestone.
- Githhub is the main platform for commenting on any SC.
- WBS is the main platform for voting on a candidate SC.
The Manager will:
- Read and understand the proposal, talking with TF members if needed
- Identify overlap/synergies with other SC proposals
- Identify major benefits and challenges related to the proposal
- Drive discussion on the GitHub issue thread and on WG calls related to the proposal
- A manager may raise an underlying issue on the WG list also (e.g. “hey, issue 1 is talking about contrast and we are getting stuck on what the right contrast level is and wanted to talk about this specific item in detail here”)
- Discussion may result in closing, deferring, or merging a proposal, which could eliminate the need for further steps for a proposal.
- Develop a pull request on GitHub containing the proposal, including any changes for consensus review.
- Fork the WCAG21 repository to your own GitHub account
- Create a branch off of the Master branch (use a logical name for the branch, e.g. Issue1023 or “highcontrastfocus”)
- Make the changes and create the pull request for the Master branch.
- When the Pull request is made:
- Provide the link to the original issue in the pull request comments.
- Provide the link to the pull request in the issue comments.
- Close the issue.
The Working Group will discuss the pull request in GitHub, on the list, and on calls where necessary. When a consensus view is reached in the view of the chairs, a Call for Consensus will be raised by the chairs.
SC pull request procedure
See the documentation on making branches, submitting, pull requests and using the SC HTML format for steps to make proposals the editors can incorporate.
GitHub Video help for SC Managers
Forking the WCAG 2.1 source file repository: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J5REgcK1QY
Creating a new branch for SC changes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=285s7puQH9s
Current SC Managers
NOTE: Please add yourself to this list (with your Github username in the header also) along with details of any SCs that you are currently working on.
Here is the list of current candidate success criteria on Github.
Alastair Campbell (@alastc)
NOTES/STATUS
- 77 Resize Content], survey, one update to make then pull request.
- 100 Graphics Contrast], formerly issue 9, approved on survey and now a pull request.
- Graphics Contrast - Accepted into FPWD
Glenda Sims (@Goodwitch)
- User Interface Component Contrast (was Issue #10 Interactive Control Contrast) - ready for survey 2/13/2017
NOTES/STATUS
- History: Closed Issue: #10 Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum) (LV)
- Issue #10 Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum) wiki wiki where Glenda made changes first (when appropriate, Glenda asked Jim Allan to migrate approved changes to github back when he owned issue 10 and it was still open).
Issues/Comments made on Proposed SC for Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum): 49 comments as of Jan 5, 2017. 22 Resolved. 27 Open and being reviewed.
Version 2 Changes (Jan 4, 2017) Incorporating Comments Round 1
- Changed from proposed Level A to proposed Level AA. (Why: To stay in sync with Issue 9. Suggested by Makoto, Bruce Bailey & AWK. Approved by LVTF.) When: Change made in wiki on 19:51, 7 December 2016
- Changed "selected indicator" to "selection indicator". (Why: To keep vocabulary consistent with WCAG 2.0. Wording change proposed by AWK and Maureen Kraft.) When: Change made in wiki on 20:56, 28 December 2016
- Move disabled element contrast to Silver because it needs preference control. (Why: Approved by LVTF. Action-93. Suggested by Michael Gower, Wilco, jnurthen, Joshue O'Connor and more). The color contrast needs for disabled form controls has conflicting solutions for some low vision users and some users with cognitive issues. Therefore, the color contrast needs for disabled elements needs a preference control and it will be well suited for Silver). When: Change made in wiki on 23:24, 28 December 2016 and 23:29, 28 December 2016
- Removed ( ) from non-text. (Why: For clarity. Suggested by Wilco.) When: Change made in wiki on 23:39, 28 December 2016
- Changed "input elements" to "user interface components". (Why: For consistency with WCAG 2.0 vocabulary. Suggested by Wilco.) When: Change made in wiki on 23:54, 28 December 2016
- Changed the term "graphical element" to "interactive image" for consistency with proposed glossary term. (Why: For internal consistency. Suggested by Wilco.) When: Change made in wiki on 00:09, 29 December 2016
- Changed "important" to "essential". (Why: To stay in sync with proposed SC Informational Graphic Contrast) Inspired by Alastair Campbell and comments made by Wilco and AWK. When: Change made in wiki on 00:23, 29 December 2016
- Added "outer" to immediate surrounding background. (Why: For clarity. Per Michael Gower's suggestion. To stay in sync with proposed SC Informational Graphic Contrast) When: 00:47, 29 December 2016
Version 3 Changes (Jan 29, 2017 - Feb 8, 2017) Incorporating Comments Round 2
50 comments as of Jan 29, 2017. 46 Resolved. 4 Open and being reviewed. See that latest version of this proposed SC at LVTF wiki - Interactive Control Contrast (Minimum) where Glenda makes changes first (when appropriate, Glenda asks Jim Allan to migrate approved changes to github).
- Changed px to CSS px (Why: For testability and consistency with Issue 9 ) Inspired by Wilco's comment in github. When: Change made on wiki 27-29 January 2017
- Added CSS px definition (Why: For clarity, testability and to parallel issue 9) Inspired by Wilco's comment in github. When: Change made on wiki 29 January 2017
- Removed references to interactive image(s) (Why: anything related to contrast within a graphic is moving to Issue 9 ) Inspired by Bruce Bailey's comment on WCAG survey 2016/11/20 and jnurthen on github. When: Change made on wiki 29 January 2017
- Renamed proposed SC from "Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum)" to "Interactive Control Contrast (Minimum)". And issue 9 is changing from "informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum)" to "Graphic Contrast (Minimum)". (Why: For simplicity and clarity, Issue 9 will cover contrast related to graphics. Issue 10 will cover contrast related to user interface components (like text inputs and radio buttons) and focus indicators, selection indicators. ) Inspired by Bruce Bailey's comment on WCAG survey 2016/11/20. When: Change made on wiki 29 January 2017
- Refined "immediate surrounding background" to "immediate surrounding color(s)" and adjusted definition of "immediate surrounding color(s)". (Why: For clarity and consistency with Issue 9 ) Inspired by jnurthen comment in github. When: Change made on wiki 27-29 January 2017
- Removed confusing / unnecessary glossary terms (Why: the proposed glossary terms of border line, medium width border and medium indicator caused confusion. Proposed SC has been simplified so these terms are no longer necessary) Inspired by Maureen Kraft, Bruce Bailey, Andrew Kirkpatrick When: Change made on wiki 27-29 January 2017
- Added examples ( (Why: For clarity) Inspired by Josh O'Connor and jnurthen's comments on WCAG survey 2016/11/20. When: Change made on wiki 29 January 2017
- Clarified that color contrast only applies to essential graphical objects (Why: The previously proposed SC text might have been misunderstood to mean that any and all graphical objects would need to meet color contrast requirements) Inspired by Maureen Kraft. When: Change made on wiki 3, February 2017
- Added test for selection vs non-selection (Why: Realized that I had not included a color contrast requirement for selected vs non-selected) Inspired by me working on sufficient contrast examples. When: Change made on wiki 3 Feb 2017
- Simplified SC Text (Why: SC Text was hard to understand) Inspired by Wilco. When: Change made on wiki 8 Feb 2017
Jake Abma (@jake-abma)
NOTES/STATUS
Wayne Dick (@WayneEDick)
NOTES/STATUS
Pull request due - Feb 4th [Josh]
David MacDonald (@DavidMacDonald)
- #58 Reflow Single Column
- #22 Addition of author settable properties to 4.1.2
- No Accidental Activation #65
- Single Key Shortcuts #69
NOTES/STATUS
- No Accidental Activation #65 moved from Detlev to David
- Pull request for #58 Reflow Single Column
- Line Length #57 Line Length [CLOSED]
- ISSUE #3 [CLOSED]
Laura Carlson (@lauracarlson)
Issue 78 Adapting Text
- Issues 74 and 79 were merged with Issue 78 on February 1, 2017. Check: related email.
- Pull request is #124.
- Incorporated into the First Public Working Draft, 28 February 2017.
- SC for viewing
- SC for editing
- SC in full draft guideline
- Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG? (Thread) - Laura Carlson
- Experiment Design - Wayne Dick
- How do we distinguish between I, l and 1 and 0 and O?(Thread)- Wayne Dick
- Should we drop the color bullet for now?) (Thread) - Laura Carlson
- Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used"...) (Thread) - Laura Carlson
- SC Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies? (Thread) - Laura Carlson
- SC #78 'Adapting text', and a question regarding consensus on icon fonts (Thread) - Detlev Fischer
- A measure of element growth due to changing font family. (Thread) - Wayne Dick
- none - Wayne Dick
- Adapting Text: "narrow values" vs "wide values" how to reach consensus - Laura Carlson
- Can someone explain the therapeutic value of switching to one font family - Laura Carlson
- Adapting Text proposals for next week's survey. - Laura Carlson
- Adding Greg L's Adapting Text proposals to the Wiki in anticipation of a vote between J&K and H&I - Laura Carlson
- Adapting text question on this week's survey (Thread) - Laura Carlson
- Adapting Text SC: Addressing the main issues (Thread) - Laura Carlson
- A test for Color. Please comment. (Thread) - Wayne Dick
- Font Family failure (Thread) - Wayne Dick
- User-adaptations in SCs (Thread) - Alastair Campbell
- Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Thread) - Laura Carlson
- Issue 78 SC text - was Re: Post-Minutes update (Thread) - Laura Carlson
Minutes
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 4 May 2017
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 27 April 2017
- AG minutes, 20 April 2017
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 20 April 2017
- AG minutes, 18 April 2017
- AG minutes, 13 April 2017
- AG minutes, 11 April 2017
- AG minutes, 6 April 2017
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 6 April 2017
- AG minutes, 4 April 2017
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 30 March 2017
- AG minutes, 21 March 2017
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 9 February 2017
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 2 February 2017
- Low Vision Task Force minutes, 26 January 2017
Public and Member Comments
- Adapting Text is needed #153 - Scott Hollier
- Microsoft Comments on Adapting Text #186
- Oracle comment on 1.4.15 Adapting Text #222
- WebAIM Feedback - SC 1.4.15 – Adapting Text #254
- Validity Tests #276 - Wayne Dick
Related Issues
- Add icon fonts to the definition of non-text content #296
- Add technique for identifying CSS generated content-images #297
Research
- CSS !important Spacing Test - Laura Carlson
- Line Height (leading) Research - LVTF
- Letter Spacing Research - LVTF
- Word Spacing Research - LVTF
- Results of Bookmarklet Tests for Issue 78
Resolutions
- RESOLUTION: removing font family from Adapting Text SC text, because font width is very similar to letter spacing. we will address spacing and font family in the understanding document. - LVTF, April 27, 2017
- LVTF Discussion - April 27, 2017
Surveys
- Results Results of Questionnaire Adapting text April 15, 2017
- Results SC Survey April 11, 2017
- Results of Questionnaire SC review April 5, 2017
- Results of Questionnaire SC review March 14 2017
- Results of Questionnaire SC review February 14 2017
- For those who had survey comments, I responded to them in the pull request discussion.
Techniques
Understanding Document
Wiki Pages
- Issue 78 - Adapting Text Issues
- Adapting text user to content requirements table
- Text adaptation user to content requirements
- Issue 78 Options
- Consensus Tally for Adapting Text SC Text - To include or not include "A mechanism is available" language
- Results of Bookmarklet Tests for Issue 78
- SC Text to Combine 79, 78, 74
- Brainstorming Short Name Ideas for Issue 78
Katie Haritos-Shea (@Ryladog)
NOTES/STATUS
Marc Johlic (@marcjohlic)
- #62 Keyboard with AT
- #70 Orientation - Ready for Survey 2/16/2016
NOTES/STATUS
- 62 Keyboard with AT - This may indicate a need for a change to the core SC 2.1.1.
- Pull request for #70 Orientation
Jon Avila (@mraccess77)
NOTES/STATUS
- Pull request for #67 Device sensors
NOTE: This may indicate a needed change in core SC 2.1.1
Bradley Montgomery, Rachael (@rachaelbradley)
NOTES/STATUS
- 33 - Error prevention - PR imminent.
Andrew Kirkpatrick (@awkawk)
NOTES/STATUS
Josh O Connor (@joshueoconnor)
NOTES/STATUS
Erich Manser (@emanser)
NOTES/STATUS
Issue 79 Font Family is closed. It has merged with #78, and #74 into Ability to Override
Neil Milliken (@)
NOTES/STATUS
Status update requested - Feb 4th 2017
- PR for #55 clear purpose https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/102
- PR for #36 visually clear controls https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/101
Thaddeus Cambron (@inclusiveThinking)
NOTES/STATUS
Familiar Design (Minimum) Based on questions from @awkawk. @lseeman suggested adding "help" and "navigation to help" to Glossary. I suggested the following definition based on a SC specific to help where help is defined as: Help - A mechanism provided to give a user access to help content, a support page or a support function that is reachable with one user action. @patrickhlauke asked for clarification as to what constitutes "one" in the definition above. As this definition comes from a different SC which is also under review I would like to take this to the larger group or to the Manager of that SC as any changes would need to be reflected in the original SC as well. Note: Need reference to original SC help definition for review.
Both @detlevhfischer and @patrickhlauke have concerns around the lack of current customization/personalization options available to the users. In addition both members stated concerns around the complexity of the rollback option. @inclusiveThinking would like the larger group to consider if there are any additional ways to support this SC. @detlevhfischer mentioned the possibility of a test of standard controls but indicated that this as a test may not lead to 100% conformance.
Familiar Design (Enhanced)
@detlevhfischer had similar concerns for this SC as were stated in Familiar Design (Minimum), specifically lack of current customization/personalization options available to the users. Use of standard controls were suggested but limitations were noted as per the comments above in Familiar Design (Minimum)
Consistent Navigation
@patrickhlauke suggested the following change to reflect the SC stance of the position of an element
"3.2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative order @@ and position in the overall page layout @@ each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user. "
Thereby eliminating the phrase "in the primary modality of the content"
Status update requested - Feb 4th 2017
EA Draffan (@ eadraffan)
NOTES/STATUS
Status update requested - Feb 4th 2017
John Rochford (@JohnRochfordUMMS)
NOTES/STATUS
Pull request for Accessible Authentication SC
- 24 Manageable Blocks / #23 Accessible Authentication reviewed and discussed not currently accepted by WG.
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SC_review_Jan2017/results
Jim Smith (@jim-work)
NOTES/STATUS
Status update requested - Feb 4th 2017
- Pull request for #41 - Plain Language - Enhanced
- Pull request for #30 - Plain Language - Minimum
- Pull request for #42 - Plain Language - All Content
PR work done by Thaddeus @inclusivethinking.
Mike Pluke (@mapluke)
NOTES/STATUS
Status update requested 4th Feb 2017
Jan McSorley (@jmcsorle)
NOTES/STATUS
Status update requested 4th Feb 2017
Chaohai Ding (@chaohaiding )
NOTES/STATUS
Re-assigned to Lisa 6th Feb. Status update requested 4th Feb 2017
Lisa Seeman(@lseeman)
NOTES/STATUS
Status update requested 4th Feb 2017
Steve Lee(@SteveALee)
NOTES/STATUS
Pull request for #39 Critical features
John Kirkwood(@citymouse)
Jeanne Spellman (@jspellman)
NOTES/STATUS
Status update requested 4th Feb 2017
Detlev Fischer (@detlevhfischer)
NOTES/STATUS
#61 Pointer gestures
Picked up SC 61. has been reworked to allow editing/viewing.
There is a comment by Microsoft #196 stating that complex vs. simple pointer gestures are not defined, that an exception is needed for situations where the use of multiple fingers and complexity gestures are essential, and that the SC should be scoped to exclude multi-user scenarios / be bound to single-user scenarios.
A comment by Webaim #264 wonders whether this SC is moot as it may already be covered by the proposed SC 2.5.3 Touch with Assistive Technology. The comment is gnerally supportive but would prefer to move the Pointer Gestures SC to level AA. I have responded
#66 Pointer inputs with additional sensors
SC 66 has been reworked to allow editing/viewing.
Comments have called the SC "a criteria awaiting a problem" and what it addresses an "outlier situation", seeing proximity / potential overlap with #61 Pointer gestures and #67 Device Sensor.
There is now also a Microsoft comment on Pointer inputs with additional sensors #194 finding the SC "a little too sweeping". calling for an exception for underlying function that requires input beyond x y coordinates, e.g. for scenarios such as painting and calligraphy.
Denis Boudreau (@dboudreau)
NOTES/STATUS
Issue 18
- Issue 18 Animation from interactions seems to have reached consensus by the people participating in the discussion (as of January 30, 2017). Pull request 96.
- Surveyed February 7, 2017.
- For those who had comments @lauracarlson responded to them all in the pull request discussion. 4 commits were made.
- Incorporated into the First Public Working Draft, 28 February 2017.
- Added links to Issue 18 per Andrew's "Task for SC managers" instructions. They are also listed here:
- Added links to Understanding Docs