Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 06 Oct 2015

<trackbot> Date: 06 October 2015

<AWK> trackbot, what meeting is this?

<trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'trackbot, what meeting is this?'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Joshue108> Scribenick: Katie

<Ryladog_> Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea

<Ryladog_> ScribeNick: Ryladog_

<scribe> Chair: Andrew Kirkpatrick

Quickref update

<yatil> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0258.html

<Wayne> Wayne+

EE: Everthing from last week is the same. I appreciate the feedback. Proto works better inChrome now. Checkbox on the left side is better but not finished

<David> drop in link please

EE: We will improve that in the future. There are filtering of columns with help text
... We are fixing bugs and optimizing the icons in thi last stretch. We started browser testing. Im offline as of tomorrow. Set issues if you seeany

<Lisa_Seeman> +

EE: Dont forget about tagging.
... We are addressing some of the things that folks proposed, Also some stuff from Katie and David.
... We have the current QuicjRef with some serious introductory text there - please give us input here....

DM: I see a different look for a disabled interactive contol. Is that a new thing for low vision.

EE: Yes that is why I did that

DM: That could be a nice new convention - but as is it looks a bit confusing

<AWK> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize

I like this ideaEric!!

WD: It usually means when it is crossed out means it doesnt count

AWK: I amnot sure it s clear
... Maybe use Clear All

WD: Maybe Select All or Select None

AWK: That would work for the Levels, Technologies and Techniques - but I don't think it would work here on tags

DM: What if we just make it dissappear?
... It is OK to have it disabled with low contast

AWK: Thanks eric

Cognitive TF update

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page

LS: Our shratch board is open and in public - here is our wiki Home Page inthe What We Are Working On

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/links-buttons.html

LS: We are behind in our schedules. We have 2 new things. One is adding ARIA adding semantics

<Lisa_Seeman> https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation

LS: This is an opensoure project by people fro the group
... That is one thing...

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html

LS: These are being able to create techiniques to add JSON personalized
... Whne they can personalized the rendering without having to code additiona apges
... there is a SmartMD which is for Dementia - and they re looking at adopting this idea that we hac for the JSON personalozation and ARIA idea

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG

LS: This is our new dab at a Cognitive extension for WCAG. Please look at it, let use knw how it looks
... We have not solved evrything but it is all based on real research- please letus know
... The problemwith out Techniques document is very longand has some of the same information

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/techniques/index.html

LS: We tried to think of ways to include these

<Lisa_Seeman> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/coga/user-research.html

LS: We have 2 other document. Use Research and the White Papers. The User Research has specific areas but with things that cross them

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/index.html.

LS: This group wnats to talk about real users
... The other important set of documents are called Issue Papers, such as Security, Privacy, Payments etc
... There is agreat set of docs there. Multimedia is not ready
... This content has been wellresearch

JO: Thanks LIsa
... I am unsure - you have an extension and a proposal for an extension

<AWK> The extension is not for WCAG it is for ARIA (https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/links-buttons.html)

LS: There is also this proposal for ARIA and some of the techniques rely on Adaptivity - which is the ARIA suggetsion

<AWK> The proposal (https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG) is a proto-extension for WCAG

LS: One is with the ARIA adaptivity and one is without

<AWK> WCAG members should read the proposal and we can share comments with Lisa and Cognitive TF

LS: There is a new product tht people will be paying for usingthe imlementation of the ARIA Adaptivity

JO: So the PF Cognitive TFis that it?

LS: For WCAG and this proposal is a very early draft of what we would pass over to you as a recommendation for WCAG

JO: The Issue Papers links buttons is parts ofthe proposal?

LS: WCAG Proposal is based on Issue Papers, Research Document and Techniques
... There is one for WCAG and there is one for ARIA

JO: The personalization thing - hw does that fitin to WCAG?

LS: It is semi-independent - but it is being doneby folks inthe TF
... One of the first thing we are saying is Enable Adaptivity - now you canuse headers and landamarks - but there are new things coming using ARIA andJSAN

JO: Sounds great - do you have timeline?

LS: It is late
... There will be changes

JO: Can we say that then by the end of the month for review?

LS: yes

DM: I rally like the extension to wai-aria
... Howcan we require that in a SC - maybe we could say you need to provide an ImportanceLevel
... We can say somethin like Headings - so maybe - we could do somethng like that

LS: We can say - Make the content Adaptabe - and then ARI IMPORTANT could e a techique
... There is a very clear way according to the ARIA spec
... We are backing away from the RDF
... RDF is not as Well supported

DM: The WCAG language is 'the state of something is what it is when tested' so the equivilant forthis would be "the content is adaptable"
... 'is provided' is a very common wording

AWK: lets provide this feedback on the comments

DM: OK

LS: Anyone can send comments

<David> lisa can you provide your email in irc

JN: A few words of caution - for email ARIA-important is not the same thing to all peopleand all customers - we may not know wht is important to whom
... Personalization really adds the nghtmare for testing

WD: I was thinking about the ARIA too. ARIA hidden well they cant see this anyway - not thinking tht many using ARIA can see. It is not taking this into account. How are we going to get people to do this
... The Persoanization things is really important and how we will be able to get this done
... Precise numbers is about all people needing accomodation

<Joshue108> KHS: Personalisation is already in play with a lot of organisations.

<Joshue108> KHS: Its more complex sure, but I wouldn't let that stop us.

LS: it can be a nightmare - all weare doing is adding the ARIA - the implementation project it is like testingthing....we have script that reads in user setting and browser
... The author can pull in the script that says inmy enviroment this cant be done. we can amke a few extremes using JSON and peoplecan test against those profiles - that maywell be in the framework of these recommended settngs
... Thevariations will be those kind so fsetting, For ARIA important theontent isall there- but the user can get to the additional settings.
... it can accommodate a cascading approach

DM: Important - that is why we went to levels in WCAG. Maybe you want to call it ARIA persnailzed and then just add a number - or someother word

Interesting thought David

AWK: please look at the proposals

<David> aria-personalization=1, =2, =3, =4, =5

Low Vision TF update

<AWK> LVTF Wiki: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page

AWK: We have just gotten started, Jima Allen and I are the co-facilitators - we have a wiki where we are just starting to gather information
... There will be a User Needs and Requirements document that will eventually turn into an Extension proposal

Extension Requirements Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/

<yatil> Congratulations on getting the TF started!! 🎉

<Wayne> scribe: wayne

<scribe> scribe: Wayne

Extension Requirements Survey

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/results

<AWK> Draft: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Extensions_Framework

AWK: The point of this is owning and refining the doucment.

<David> http://davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integration-into-WCAG.html

AWK: Incorporate WCAG by reference... and all . Josh proposed leaving out redundant and outdated items out.

<AWK> Requirements for WCAG 2.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

MichaelC: If we say we are not going to follow WCAG 2.0 exactly then we will run into serious controversy.

AWK: Write to a more diverse audience, is a requirement from legacy, but still helps wit ambiguities.

Wording Changes Item 2

AWK: In this extension #Ensure that WCAG 2+EX conform to WCAG 2.

s/#Enssure/ensure

<David> Change "An existing success criteria may change in priority from level AA to level A, but not the other way around" to An existing success criteria may change in priority from level AA to level A, or AAA to AA (A) but not the other way around

Lisa: Offer modifications to techniques and success criteria... include guidelines

AWK: That 2 need to add that we might include new guidelines not just success criteria

Lisa: Concern - Text in images is really useful for cognitive. So there are conflicts. Make it expandable. An accommodation may conflict.

AWK: A new sc says don't use text in images ever... you are not breaking WCAG 2
... Are there use cases that conflict... Editors are looking at division that extend all the way to a new version of WCAG 2.1, 3...

Lisa: There are pages with a video, but captioning add times,

Josh: We must think about what is already there. Be aware of the interconnected web of cases.

David: See Comment before.

<inserted> scribenick: yatil

Wayne: WCAG might get in trouble if it specifies something that fixes it for one group only, and I think we need to address that.

AWK: Do you think there are things in WCAG that are not desireable for all end users?

Wayne: I think so, we need to make sure that we don’t have something that benefits one group and exclude others.

AWK: Current proposal says you cannot remove success criteria unless you replace it with a stronger SC. Also the SC could also be moved.

Wayne: What I wanted to say is: you can use this to meet 4.5:1 contrast ratio or you can do this…

James: It is written pretty carefully, I think we can cater for this. In addition: I think that such things could be addressed by user customization.

<Kathy> got to go - I hope we can continue this discussion next week

<AWK> We will, thanks Kathy. Sorry we couldn't get to you.

<David> I think this OK, because at least one alternative would conform or the origiginal would conform

<Mike_Elledge> Me, too. But this seems on track to me!

<inserted> scribenick: Wayne

Lisa: In wcag 2.0 making functionality in the same functionality. Multiple messages can be said for when a alarm goes off. Don't want to break if there is information for one group instead of others.

David: I don't see how this use case breaks WCAG 2.0.

<David> got to go....

AWK: Could you send the present scenario. We cannot process in the time we have left.

<laura> Bye. Got to go.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

06 Oct 2015

Attendees

Contents