<AWK> +AWK
<jemma> scribe:Jemma
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to share good news about Kathy Eng joining ACT
bruce: Kathy, a member of dept of homeland security will mainly focus on AT test
and help with AG
today is last day for TPAC registratoin
<JF> FYI: Currently the Registration system does not accept Amex - they are working on it now
michael: for now, we have 15 registrants
for AG
<JF> ya!
andy: basically, the goal is
soliciting the feedback from the people regarding the
process
... The deadline for feedback is August 24
michael: it would be helpful if you add the comments although you have mentioned previously.
andy: Please make sure to respond the most recent version to give feedback.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to double check
bruce: I will wait for another public release to give feedback with "FYI mode circulation".
michale: W3C is trying to clean up the doc, marking obsolete does not remove the doc but it will be disappeared from the index.
we are trying to mark old doc as obsolete
andy: we need to do CFC for
this
... general consensus is marking the newest version would be
good for venders and others to keep up with new version.
<kirkwood> +1 to 1.0 being obsolete!
ryladog: there may be some people/company still using WCAG 1.0
we may need some info about this
_ how about another country who is using the old version?
<Rachael> https://www.3playmedia.com/2017/08/22/countries-that-have-adopted-wcag-standards-map/
<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/
<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/india/ (India did not reference WCAG)
<Glenda> Indian Gov did reference WCAG 2.0 Level A in 2009
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say wcag 1.0 actually has parts that are harmful (as compared to HTML 3.2 which still works)
<kirkwood> bruce brings up a good pt
rachael: I copied the info
<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/united-states/ last updated 16 Feb 2017
jf: By looking at own source and
policy, some people seems to use wcag1.0 as section 508
derivative. https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/
... as a suggestion, we may want do more publication before we
pull the trigger.- marking WCAG1.0 obsolete.
<bruce_bailey> Per the WAI resource JF cited, here is the U.S. Dept of ED reference listed for refering to WCAG 1.0 under 504:
<bruce_bailey> https://www2.ed.gov/fund/contract/apply/clibrary/software.html
andy: question for michael, what are the triggers for marking "obsolete" within w3c?
michael: there is no hard rule, it is rather judgement call in this case.
<bruce_bailey> Since I worked there, I can confidently say that this ED document closely informed the 1999 Proposed Rule for the first set of 508 standards.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to say that I think it would be good for WCAG 1.0 to be designated as obsolete
<Glenda> +1 to marking at Obselete (becasue we do not recomment the use of WCAG 1.0 today)
<laura> +1
+1
<Kathy> +1
<Rachael> +1 to making it obsolete
<marcjohlic> +1
<Greg> +1 to mark WCAG 1.0 as obsolete
<kirkwood> +1
<gowerm> +1
jf: as a due diligence, I would take one or two more week to consult more info - W3C EO institutional info, Judy the director although I generally agree with marking obsolete.
<JF> +1 to taht AWK
awk: michael will check with judy
and send CFC
RESOLUTION: Michael will check with Judy and we will send the CFC after that about whether to obsolete WCAG 1.0
after that
awk: we need people to
engage/help with techniques
... any questions regarding techniques?
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3ATechniques
mg: some of them are ready
role log and role status
awk: if you start working on new
technique, let me know so that mark it accordingly
... good news is that pdf association would like to help
with techniques
awk: we will help pdf association
to get familiarized regarding the process and presentation(the
way to write). more things to come.
... we will review some next week.
<AWK> Best ones to focus on for this week: 435, 432, 417, 386
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F87.html
awk: Failure technique F87 contradicts the Accessible name and desc algorithm
<laura> From F87’s Desciption: “For users who need to customize or turn off style information in order to view content according to their needs, assistive technologies may not be able to access the information that is inserted using CSS.”
awk: any thought?
mg: I would not up for removing it.
laura: I agree with gowerm
<JF> +1 to Mike
gowerm: case of CSS :before and
:after pseudo classes
... just using these classes is not failure but the way they
are used for AT can be a failure.
<gowerm> F87: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to inserting non-decorative content by using :before and :after pseudo-elements and the 'content' property in CSS
<Greg> ...does not include generated content when exporting via Save As or the clipboard, the result may be unusable. The problem here is that UA strip out this critical information when exporting.
<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say Don't forget the issue of people who need to export in order to process content with assistive technology. Let’s take the example of a page that uses CSS
gowerm: some qualification and cautionary mechanism needed for using these pseudo classes.
<Greg> Let’s take the example of a page that uses CSS generated content to add numbers to list items. If this styling is disabled, and the user’s ability to navigate and communicate about it suffers. If someone needs to export the content in order to run it through AT, and the UA does not include generated content when exporting via Save As or the clipboard, the result may be unusuable. The...
<Greg> ...problem...
<Greg> ...here is that UA strip out this critical information when exporting.
<gowerm> +1 for LVTF
laura: I would bring low vision task force to this issue.
to get their opinion
<Greg> I don't feel we should lightly remove protection for people who need to export content in order to use external accessibility aid.
<AWK> Question to Greg - how do we collect enough information about the wide range of use cases where people might need to export information from a page and would be affected by removing this failure, F87?
greg: we have a difficulty to track of different technologies... I generally tend to consider the expenses .. I lean to leaving the caution.
<gowerm> scribe: gowerm
Brooks: I took myself off cue
because I think Greg's use case is one I hadn't thought of, and
we need to give it more consideration.
... If this is going to be a deal breaker for some users, we
should be cautious; otherwise if the AT has caught up with this
method we should align.
<AWK> Gower: We have the failure examples, we should check out whether these are actually supporting these.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say that the example with the screenplay would be much more error proof if the class was used to HIDE the speaker name, rather than to insert it
AWK: The next step is Laura is going to share with LVTF and Alastair and I will share with COGA and see if they have additional use cases.
RESOLUTION: Leave open for input from LVTF and COGA.
RESOLUTION: leave open for input from LVTF and COGA
AWK: My understanding is that we
did not mark this up for markup language but made it dependent
on whether the technology could communicate the input
purposes.
... So if PDF developed that, the onus would be on the PDF
author. Since it doesn't exist, it is easy to say 'you don't
have to do this' and we can clarify in the Understanding
doc.
JF: I agree, and the
Understanding document is not very clear.
... In the wild, people are seeing this as saying 'Use
autocomplete'. We are working on listing other ways to meet
this. It is not just for markup languages.
AWK: Mike Gower, that seems to align with your comment.
gowerm: yep
AWK: Anyone disagree with this basic read? If not we just need to get better language in 1.3.5.
JF: I'm happy to take that on. I'll also review 1.3.6 to ensure that it is in alignment with 1.3.5 as well
RESOLUTION: Leave open and JF to investigate and update Understanding.
AWK: I will put in a comment in the issue to indicate this and label it.
AWK: Now we get to debate the proper spelling of "dismissible".
<JF> @Michael Cooper - does the W3C have an "official" dictionary used for TR's?
<jemma> no objection
<JF> no objectioon
RESOLUTION: Accept issue 420 as editorial errata
AWK: In the time you get back, I would encourage folks to look through the techniques
trackbox, end meeting
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 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/15?/24/ Succeeded: s/disappear/disappeared/ Succeeded: s/to/to mark/ Succeeded: s/what is the meaning of/what are the triggers for/ Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: Michale will check with Judy and we will send the CFC/RESOLUTION: Michael will check with Judy and we will send the CFC after that about whether to obsolete WCAG 1.0/ Succeeded: s/for next week/for this week/ Succeeded: s/mg/gowerm/ Succeeded: s/will/would/ Succeeded: s/Gower:/Gower: We have the failure examples, we should check out whether these are actually supporting these./ Succeeded: s/I'll also review 1.3.6/I'll also review 1.3.6 to ensure that it is in alignment with 1.3.5 as well/ Default Present: AWK, MichaelC, jemma, Rachael, Michell, Greg_Lowney, gowerm, Laura, KimD, marcjohlic, JF, Kathy, kirkwood, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Glenda, Brooks WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, MichaelC, Greg_Lowney, jemma, marcjohlic, Rachael, gowerm, Chuck, Laura, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kathy, jon_avila, kirkwood, MichaelC_) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, MichaelC Present: AWK MichaelC jemma Rachael Greg_Lowney gowerm Laura KimD marcjohlic JF Kathy kirkwood Katie_Haritos-Shea Glenda Brooks Regrets: EA_Draffan David Chuck Jake Found Scribe: Jemma Inferring ScribeNick: jemma Found Scribe: gowerm Inferring ScribeNick: gowerm Scribes: Jemma, gowerm ScribeNicks: jemma, gowerm Found Date: 31 Jul 2018 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]