Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 19 May 2015

<trackbot> Date: 19 May 2015

<Joshue> on new suggested consensus process]

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20150512Misc/

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted

<AWK> Chair: Joshue

<AWK> trackbot, draft minutes

<trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<Joshue> Scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<AWK> Present AWK

<adam_solomon> i just joined the webex

<Mike_Elledge> Yep--getting into webex

<laura> I’m on webex too.

<David> scribe: David

Update on QuickRef refresh http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/

At Accessu last week in Texas... users wanted more concrete ajd to the point. Collected two full days of user feedback. Not formal UT but got lots of first impressions.

<yatil> http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]

Eric: Link above has all feedback http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected] want more fine grain task based searches... want to find all techniques for images etc.
... Want tagging to do this
... Want filtering inside SC, don't want timed based images techniques... should hide those if we look for images... it's out of scope now but possible future enhancements
... information not grouped for them... contrast requirements One is AA one is AAA ... why are those so far appart..the tagging approach we can

fix that

Eric: Quite reasonable to do that.... WG should understand techniques that don't have content... also many people don't know how techniques relate to guidelines
... May want to future fix WCAG to address these...
... Feedback haven't got our users rightin the first place. Some wrong assumptions.... People want to go from the problems out and work back to the SC not Vice Versa

<Joshue> DmacD: Will you be providing us with the comments that you got on WCAG?

Michael: Everyone should make sure they don't use auto gain on WEBEX

Eric: People liked it but we do need to revisit our design of the quickref...
... I don't think feedback should need to fix the placement of the SC in the standard

Josh: Do you think that problem based approach will cause redesign...

Eric: Thinking of having both task based and SC based organization

Continuation of survey from last week [item 3 and update/discussion

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20150512Misc/results

Josh: We need to do Issue 89

<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/86#issuecomment-99463886

<Daniel> AWK The overview pane on the left -- text overlaps the content in the right pane, in Safari

Third party content

<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/69#issuecomment-87877885

<AWK> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015AprJun/0137.html

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/69

AWK: Gregg has selected a good response similar, but more detailed... we can decide which is better...

This is about flash requirements

AWK: Do we want to add Gregg's language to the understanding?
... a couple of grammar corrections to Gregg's text https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015AprJun/0137.html we can do that editorially and add to understanding. That's my recommendations

David: +1

<laura> +1 with the couple of grammar corrections

AWK, I think we can close the loop as soon as we do Pull request... then we'll finalize with group

<Joshue> Issue 89: Scope of "Third Party Content"

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/89

<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/89

Makoto: If they can't make the content conform, they would make a conformance claim. If they can't then a statement of partial conformance would be made which is not conformance

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/308

AWK: It is qualified non-conformance

<Makoto> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20150226/F3

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Understanding_Partial_Conformance_-_Third_Party_Content

Loretta: Makoto do you think that there is a WCAG issue around images fading

Makoto: Failure 3 under 1.1.1

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F3.html

Michael: If 3rd party content fails, it often doesn't affect the rest of content... want to make clear... in response... however there are the non-interferance conformance reauirements... 2.2.2... pause... flassh etch

Loretta: Wonder if we made a mistake to allow pzrtial conformance

Michael: It was about mashup sites, and active participants...

wanted to be able to claim some sort of conformance for the work they have done... to get SOME credit for the work they've done on accessibioity even if some 3rd party

Laura: There are anumber of law suits about third party.

<laura> When an author makes a decision to use a third party implementation, they should choose products that meet accessibility requirements.

Laura: Recommend the following: When an author makes a decision to use a third party implementation, they should choose products that meet accessibility requirements.

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20150512Misc/results

<Joshue> http://www.ada.gov/madison_co_ny_pca/madison_co_ny_sa.html

<marcjohlic> +1

<Joshue> +1 to Laura response

David: Friendly amendment for WCAG: When an author makes a decision to use a third party implementation, they should choose products that conform to WCAG requirements.

<laura> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Daniel> +1

Joshue: Updated WIKI: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Understanding_Partial_Conformance_-_Third_Party_Content

David: who will not be able to access this page. perhaps make this "who will not be able to access some of the content on this page.

<Mike_Elledge> +1

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended

<Makoto> "Filtering third third party content so that only conforming content is allowed could help raise the bar. "

<AWK> Only allowing third party content that is conforming will improve accessibility.

David: Hanging gerund...Filtering

<Ryladog> +1

AWK: Only allowing third party content that is conforming will improve accessibility.

<Joshue> +1 to AWKs edit

<Makoto> +1 to Andrew's edit

James: Not possible to filter... because can't automatically check for WCAG conformance in order to filter
... The timeliness of Twitter is what it makes it relevant. Can't check it in real time

<AWK> In practice, it is possible to claim conformance for web pages that contain third party content, but only allowing third party content that is conforming will improve accessibility.

AWK: In practice, it is possible to claim conformance for web pages that contain third party content, but only if that content conforms. Allowing third party content that is conforming will improve accessibility.

<AWK> In practice, it is possible to claim conformance for web pages that contain third party content. Sites that require third party content to conform will improve accessibility.

David: Just use this instead. Sites that require third party content to conform will improve accessibility.
... Can we just remove this paragraph "In practice, it is possible to claim conformance for web pages that contain third party content. Sites that require third party content to conform will improve accessibility. A platform or tool may provide guidance for how to address conformance problems when including it in another web page. Only allowing third party content that is conforming will...
... improve accessibility. "

<Makoto> How about this? "In practice, it is possible to claim conformance for web pages that contain third party content. Using third party content that conform to WCAG will improve accessibility. A platform or tool may provide guidance for how to address conformance problems when including it in another web page."

<Joshue> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Louis_Cheng> +1

<yatil> +1

<laura> +1

<Ryladog> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept Andrew's alternate version of statement of partial conformance clarification https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Understanding_Partial_Conformance_-_Third_Party_Content

Reviewing Post-WCAG 2 issues:

WCAG Charter

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/draft-wcag-charter

<laura> Present+: Laura

<Mike_Elledge> Bye!

<laura> Bye

<Kenny> bye

<Makoto> Bye

David: Capturing last conversations before end of call, David Concerned that not publishing in TR space will reduce the authority of the techniques. Particularly concerned about failures which carry more weight

Katie: Also concerned if the failures lose some of their authority, perhaps leave them in TR

Michael: The wording of the charter is an OR statement: Understanding WCAG 2.0, to be published as a W3C Working Group Note or as a curated resource of the Working Group. Understanding WCAG 2.0 explains the intent of each Success Criterion and links to known sufficient techniques, both general and technology-specific; " If we decide thqt it is not the best path then we can proceed with TR as...
... before
... the model we were thinking about was that we would publish an index to TR and the links would point to the currated space
... But it was really Andrew, Joshue and myself brainstorming a way to make the publishing cycle more streamlined. If we find that their are weighty considerations for TR then we'll have to look at those

David: So we are not deciding now to bypass TR space for the body of the techniques, we are just giving ourselves that option...?

Michael: We could create a review by the public space into our new process even if they aren't in the TR space.
... Right, the charter gives us the option to investigate this process, it does not decide that we will pursue this. There will need to be discussion and group consensus to move out of TR space for techniques.

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

19 May 2015

Attendees

Contents

Update on QuickRef refresh http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/

Continuation of survey from last week [item 3 and update/discussion

Reviewing Post-WCAG 2 issues:

WCAG Charter

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output