See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 May 2014
<Joshue108> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<Kathy> scribe: Kathy
<Joshue108> Edits to Add 2.4.10 to H69
<jon_avila> jo: survey, some accepts and some rejects. Sailesh says H42 is duplicate of H69.
<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H69.html
<Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H42
<scribe> scribe: jon_avila
sp: SC 2.4.1 could be added to
h69. There isn't anything really new in H69.
... Headings are inserted because there are headings on the
page not just because you are creating ways for screen readers
to move to regions of a page. It's a by product.
jo: AWK says h42 indicates a way to mark a page, while h69 talks about bypass block -- so he says there are some differences.
awk: what's nice about h42 --
it's a very straight forward technique. It's a clean procedure.
H69 is focusing on something different. If the descriptions are
combined then it becomes more difficult to understand. AWK
favor keeping them separate.
... recognizes that there are co-mingling of ideas that
headings can help address other SC.
jo: h69 is used to highlight behavior that is already there.
bb: not thrilled with two
techniques that are similar. Not comfortable with h69 to ignore
one of the check steps.
... can we have to sets of procedures, not sure what solution
is. Doesn't like have a check that you ignore. Doesn't think we
have that anywhere else.
awk: we do have this other places but it is not common.
jo: thing it fine with me -- but others may have concerns. Is there anyone who can't live with it?
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H69.html
bb: looking at live h69. Maybe we could combine results somehow to make them cleaner.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Edits_to_Add_2.4.10_to_H69
awk: asks to clarify Bruce's recommendation.
bb: split expected results into
two bullets rather than one run-on.
... No expected results in current wiki page at the moment.
jo: Bruce's suggestion sounds fine to me, anyone who can't live with it?
awk: what what Joshue's change?
jo: change to get rid of "to content". That's all. very minor.
sp: we do have several techniques that address multiple SC. When someone reads h42 he says that he can meet two things at once. Reading the technique that just covers navigation implies that developers may add off-screen headings for screen reader users.
jo: we don't want to mandate heading where there is no need for them.
sp: doesn't seem complexity in merging two together.
awk: h42 says when you have a
heading you have to mark it up as heading per SC 1.3.1.
... h69 is basically saying there is utility in having
structure -- it's not about marking things up - it's about
having those structures in specific places. In 2.4.1 you have
to have them in locations to skip around main content.
... 2.4.10 says you have to have comprehensive set of heading
elements to give users outline of the content. They are related
-- but there are more differences.
lgr: my worry is that people will think they aren't meeting the basic heading requirement without using heading to be used for structure.
jo: now we have sophisticated
patterns with ARIA and HTML5 for creating document
structure.
... recommend that make suggested changes and go back later and
address ARIA structure, etc.
awk: Sailesh has some concerns -- is he satisfied enough, then we see if we can accept as amended?
sp: record his decent and then go ahead.
jo: would rather resolve decent. We could leave open and then try to resolve. The context historically is that heading were primary mode of navigation for screen reader users back in the day.
awk: public comment suggested
that we had 2.4.10 to h69. Separate issue to say should we get
rid of h69.
... create issue for working group to see if we should merge
h42 and h69 and indicate Sailesh had comments about that.
Suggest we accept this one as amended and then let it go out as
public comment and then work on open issue.
... try to keep two things separate. If we bundle we will have
large ball of tangled yarn.
sp: is it ok to merge 2.4.10 with H69 because 2.4.10 says add headings -- that is different from h69. Perhaps add 2.4.10 to h42?
jo: I like the idea of logging issue for working group.
lgr: disagree with Sailesh but postpone until we come back and look at issue.
<AWK> ISSUE: Should H69 be merged into H42?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-19 - Should h69 be merged into h42?. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/19/edit>.
awk: click on issue link it will take you to the issue page and then navigation will allow you to log issues and see all issues opened and closed.
RESOLUTION: accepted as amended
<Joshue108> New Technique: Using aria-describedby for link purpose
<Joshue108> New Technique: Using aria-describedby for link purpose
jo: we have some comments form LGR about supliment or augment
lgr: did not suggest alternate language, but appreciate those who did.
<bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140520/results#xnewregio
jo: detlev also agreed as did JO
on language. Need some more text with suggestion.
... MC says text should be moved around to help flow of
paragraphs.
sp: comment that says we should
add an example to ARIA1 - ARIA1 is for user interface and some
said we need to separate item for links. But this technique
talks about other user interface controls.
... We should limit this new technique to link because we
already have one on links.
dm: copying language because it had been approved. So not taking credit, copied from labelledby.
<AWK> +1 to sailesh's comment on only talking about links
sp: We should focus this technique on 2.4.4 for links -- not other UI controls -- that is covered under other ARIA techniques.
dm: we can remove that additional language.
<Loretta> shall I call in again?
jo: taken out reference to form controls.
sp: have another comment about example. Example references heading text, another example might be for paragraph text.
jo: not sure if we should draw attention to JAWS ability to speaking paragraph.
dm: will draw up example?
... people may not read and may look to examples, so an example
may be helpful.
<Joshue108> JA: I saw some mails saying we were going to remove the header item from the Understanding doc. So if we are saying if this can be used as a tech but headings that can't be used for non AT users, then what are we requiring?
<Joshue108> JA: For non, screen reader users.
<Joshue108> JA: But is there nothing here for Cog A11y
awk: didn't actually change the sentence to meet what Sailesh was saying about visible focus element.
<Joshue108> +1 to AWK
awk: we should simply it to say link.
dm: putting in second example.
sp: related techniques should indicate to ARIA1.
jo: anything else?
... detleve made comment about first sentence under example 1
that extends not replacing text. Doesn't anyone like that?
dm: should say extend rather than augment.
jo: doesn't like teaser paragraph text.
sp: "when applied on links it helps screen readers understand the context" -- this could be moved up.
dm: to move text around based on comments from MC and SP.
jo: DM working on example 2 --
text should mirror that in example 1.
... user agent notes should say what versions of AT.
dm: in IE description is announced twice.
awk: Used JAWS 15 and IE and it only read once.
jo: should we link to accDescription or remove it as it is suplimentary information.
dm: Would like to teach developers relationship of accName and accDescription.
jo: A little leaner without it so it's not confusing. Can live with it either way.
sp: don't need to worry about
speaking text twice as it's a bug. Perhaps we have a note about
screen readers like JAWS being able to announce the text, other
AT do not.
... A sentence that captures that some AT don't support
speaking of paragraph text and thus this is why this technique
is proposed.
awk: Sailesh was saying we
shouldn't put in JAWS bugs. AWK disagrees because that is what
the section is for and we can update.
... Should not talk about other technique.
<Joshue108> +1 to AWK
jo: is there any gain to keep people away from other technique.
<Joshue108> JA: I'm concernred that you can meet this SC using this technique, concerned about cognitive disabilites and low vision users.
lgr: might want to add something to techniques were accessibility support is weak
sp: doesn't think we need to mention bug because it does announce.
dm: could support JA's comment that link text should be close proximity.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if "Check that each ID in the value of the aria-describedby attribute matches an ID of a visible and nearby text element." addresses Jon's concern
dm: sentence could be used to confirm that text is near by.
<AWK> Check that each ID in the value of the aria-describedby attribute matches an ID for a text element which is visible and close to the link text."
awk: suggesting some text like check that ids match for a text element that is visible and close to the link text.
jo: how do you define nearby?
awk: is there a scenario where it doesn't need to be nearby?
dm: updated language
<Joshue108> JA: I'm in favour of the change but we need to work out the wording.
<Joshue108> JOC: Right
<Joshue108> JA: Does it have to be in the same paragraph or same heading, they are testable things.
<Joshue108> JA: My challenge is that, if we don't think this is relevant to Cog A11y, we can go that route.
<Joshue108> JA: The SC talks of programatically determined, but the support understanding docs talk about these things, as other docs are misleading.
jo: need to move on
<AWK> I think that we need to leave this one open to address the cognitive/testability issue and/or update understanding text related to the concern Jon had
dm: added in a second check.
jo: have to leave open.
<Joshue108> JA: Thats too specific
jo: come back to this later, possibly next week. Will re-arrange agenda to make sure we cover those.
RESOLUTION: leave open.
jo: skip past items and bring up
#3.
... issue with wording between ourselves and EO. AWK - can you
post URI. we'd like to have a delegation to attend an upcoming
EO call on Friday 30th at 8:30am EDT.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/2895
jo: comes down to wording.
I can't access that URI with my account.
<Loretta> Josh, did you mean Friday, May 30 or Monday, June 30?
jo: yes, 30th of May.
mc: would like 5 of us including chairs and MC.
<David> +1
mark: reading through comment to understand what are the differences. Would like to join as he is on east coast.
mc: will get call info to people.
marc: will join.
<Loretta> invite Gregg?
lgr: should extract the information out of this page into a wiki page to make it easier?
<bbailey> I do plan to attend.
jo: can't delay again - we want to discuss, open invitation to everyone. Thanks to those who promised to attend.
jo: we want to make sure accessibility tutorials don't conflict with WCAG. So we need another delegation. Put out a call to member who can help perform a review of this suite of tutorials.
<AWK> "hives review" - not nit-picking, only issues that literally make you swell up and feel like you might explode
<bbailey> I would like to press back on phrasing about “accessible” vs “conforming”.
jo: when do you think this will happen?
<MichaelC> - http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/
<MichaelC> - http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/
kathy: what are the time requirements?
mc: Education and Outreach works with Europe for funding to creating these tutorials. They don't want them to conflict but they may not cover anything. They want to push them out to the public and they want to publish soon.
<David> table summary has been deprecated in HTML5
mc: Primarily want a review to
make sure they aren't saying something wrong. Basically is
there a big reaction. a more in-depth review is useful but will
take time. They don't want to delay publication. They can
always update resource.
... suggest that we do this as a sub group of the working
group. Need people who know WCAG enough to detect issue. Don't
throw in all possible comments at this level -- only look for
big issues.
jo: thanks Michael.
... kick off straight away.
mc: plan to have final approval to publish this Friday. They may delay reasonable amount of time for us to review. Just these two so far.
<AWK> I'm in for it
<David> +1
<Kathy> +1
<Joshue108> +1
mc: Ideal to have present and former chairs plus a contact and a few other members.
jo: take up new items next week.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Kathy Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy Found Scribe: jon_avila Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila Scribes: Kathy, jon_avila ScribeNicks: Kathy, jon_avila Default Present: +1.617.766.aaaa, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, Joshue, +1.703.825.aabb, Kathy_Wahlbin, David_MacDonald, Marc_Johlic, Sailesh, +1.703.637.aacc, jon_avila, +31.30.239.aadd, Michael_Cooper, Wilco, Loretta Present: +1.617.766.aaaa AWK Bruce_Bailey Joshue +1.703.825.aabb Kathy_Wahlbin David_MacDonald Marc_Johlic Sailesh +1.703.637.aacc jon_avila +31.30.239.aadd Michael_Cooper Wilco Loretta Regrets: Kathleen Katie Found Date: 20 May 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/05/20-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]