See also: IRC log
<adam_solomon> cant find the password to webex
<adam_solomon> got it
<AWK> +AWK
<scribe> Scribe:David
John: Didn't see anything on the agenda about WCAG next
Andrew: we can add to agenda after surveys
<JF> Kick-off email is here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2016AprJun/0014.html
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results
AWK: Issue 169 Redundant 13 people agree, 5 don't... James and micheal aren't here...
AWK SKIP FOR NOW
Do buttons have same status as links, 2.4.4
<JF> +1 to what Andrew just said
Alastair: Is it about link text in button layout or a form button
JF: Agree if it's an anchor or button... if it's a call to action, clicking on it is a get not a put, fetches, irrespective, asking end use to do something, so text should be descriptive... therefore 2.4.4
Mike: Button is different from link... submitting, cancelling etc... links and buttons have different purposes
Adam: we are talking about 4.1.2 and 2.4.4,
AWK: I interpret 2.4.4 as a special case for links
S/I interpret it as the button acting as a link./
AWK: I cannot find WCAG text that allows us to apply link requirements to buttons
JF: Using a button when it should be a link, no arguement but it is being done so we should address it
Adam: should you be able to use context around button describe the button, as we do with links
<yatil> [EricE leaves]
AWK: I believe it is something we
should cover but don't think we do cover it...
... web page defn ex two. links or buttons... clearly a
distinction between links or buttons...
<AWK> David: Agrees with AWK. feels that 4.1.2 applies to buttons but 2.4.4 doesn't
<AWK> ... part of the reason links are different is due to existing SR support for reading expanded link text
Alastair: should we say if button is acting as a link then 2.4.4 should apply
<jamesn> note I have an (old) action to clarify this - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/139
<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to say I have asked this before
<JF> Strong +1 to the idea that there is more "accountability" in 2.4.4
James: I have an old action 2011 to clarify this... it was clear not to apply to button, buttons need to make context in the label
Adam: sounds like you are saying it should logically it should but what does the SC say...
James: clearly not covered in 2.4.4, and 2.4.9 even more...
David: 2.4.4 was a leniency to allow ambiguous text in the actual link
JF: Today buttons are being used as links... so we need an errataetc...
AWK: Do the words cover "button", they don't, then we have to rely on the intent, which it seems there was no intent to apply it to buttons back then.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about <div onClick>
AWK: not convinced 2.4.4 is for buttons
what about a DIV, acting as a link
AWK. I'd look at the a11y API to determine whether the user agent treats it as a button or link
Adam: could it be argued, ypu need it's text to describe it's purpose, "read more" but link is where you are going...
<Ryladog> +1 to link and buttons that behave the same need the same requirement
<KimD> +1 buttons are not covered in 2.4.4. and we take up in the future
JF: Factual of what elements are
vs. author intents...
... defer to WCAG next... ok with me
<adam_solomon> i take it back, i agree with awk: button is not a link
AWK: some distinction in WCAG between link and button, we can't remap the element based on author intent... messy
<laura> I'm not convinced 2.4.4 covers buttons. Prefer taking up in WCAG next.
Alastair: If a button is acting as a link, is the role incorrect under 4.1.2
David: I'm hoping in the near future we'll fail links that don't have context programmatically, using labelledbyby, etc...
s/Alestair/Alastair
<AWK> JF: reiterate what James said - we say that authors need to use the right element
back
<scribe> Scribe: David
<AWK> ... if WCAG 2.0 doesn't specifically address buttons in 2.4.4 then we need to add it to the list for WCAG .next
JF: Should punt it to WCAg
Next
... strict reading on WCAG, Buttons not included in 2.4.4
AWK: We can propose respond 168 saying WCAG doesn't cover buttons in 2.4.4 This is seen as a gap to be address in WCAG.NEXT
<JF> Draft Resolution: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.4.4 (Issue 168) has determined that <buttons> are out of scope per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to address that gap.
RESOLUTION: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.4.4 (Issue 168) that <buttons> are out of scope per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to address that gap.
<AWK> Draft resolution: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 version
<JF> +1 to taht
<Ryladog> +1 to remove it
<AWK> Draft resolution: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 version
Adam: some group memeber don't think this causes a "gap" but rather 2.4.4 opens for more leniency
s/The The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 versionWorking Group has concluded that WCAG 2.4.4 (Issue 168) that <buttons> are out of scope per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to...
scribe: address that gap./
RESOLUTION: The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 version
AWK: LVTF says hover state should have contrast, active state ok if not sufficient contrast
Adam: I can live with that... I brought up another issue... about tabbing away.
James: might be out of window at
large magnification
... Sarah says active state should apply...
<AWK> David: There's a great reason not to in that there is value in having a substantial change inn contrast to indicate that the button has been pressed
<AWK> Proposed change to first sentence:
James: I agree...
David: We should distinguish for people that active state is a momentary pressing action
<AWK> WCAG interprets SC 1.4.3 to require that the text of links and controls which changes in response to focus and hover events meets the appropriate contrast requirement.
<AWK> Both hover and focus states impact low-vision users, but the active state is not explicitly required to meet the contrast requirement:
<laura> Should “WCAG interprets” be “WCAG WG interprets” ?
David: add a sentence about active state
<AWK> Both hover and focus states impact low-vision users, but the active state (the split-second state when a button or control is being clicked or pressed) is not explicitly required to meet the contrast requirement:
<AWK> Both hover and focus states impact low-vision users, but the active state (the typically split-second state when a button or control is being clicked or pressed) is not explicitly required to meet the contrast requirement:
Adam: sometimes someone might hang on the active state, while trying to decide.
AWK: the esc key should let you stop the action of a helod down active state
<Makoto> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2014Feb/0039.html
Makoto: would like explanation for the different response. I've been allowing this to Japanese people, I need to explain why. but can live with change.
need rational
<AWK> Add: This is a change from previous advice offered by the working group as a result of input from the Low Vision Task Force which identified additional concerns.
<KimD> +1 to AWK's add
Makoto: SC has not changed, interpretation has changed, we need to explain, in understanding document for example. Want to have documented explanation
<AWK> Add: This is a change from the previous interpretation offered by the working group as a result of input from the Low Vision Task Force which identified additional concerns that the working group had not considered, and which are addressed below.
David: I can update understanding.
<JF> +1 to that
+1
Makoto: Sounds good to me
<Ryladog_> +1
RESOLUTION: accept response as amended.
<AWK> Trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/present +David// Succeeded: s/Present +KimD// Succeeded: s/CAG/WCAG/ Succeeded: s/TOPIC: 168/TOPIC: Issue 168/ Succeeded: s/TOPIC: 168/TOPIC: Issue 168/g Succeeded: s/dkfferent/different/ Succeeded: s/AWK: I interpret it as the button acting as a link.../AWK: I interpret 2.4.4 as a special case for links/ Succeeded: s/shpuld/should/ Succeeded: s/+!/+1/ Succeeded: s/a11y API/a11y API to determine whether the user agent treats it as a button or link/ Succeeded: s/Alestair/Alastair/ FAILED: s/Alestair/Alastair/ Succeeded: s/resoluiton/resolution/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/The The Working Group has concluded that WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 does not cover button elements per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group resolves to add this as an issue for consideration in a post-WCAG 2.0 versionWorking Group has concluded that WCAG 2.4.4 (Issue 168) that <buttons> are out of scope per a strict read of WCAG 2.0. The Working Group recognizes this gap, and resolves to... Succeeded: s/157/167/ Succeeded: s/167/157/ Succeeded: s/oressing/pressing/ Found Scribe: David Inferring ScribeNick: David Found Scribe: David Inferring ScribeNick: David Default Present: AWK, JF, Makoto, EricE, AlastairC, adam_solomon, Laura, David, KimD, Kathy, Mike_Elledge, marcjohlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen Present: AWK JF Makoto EricE AlastairC adam_solomon Laura David KimD Kathy Mike_Elledge marcjohlic Katie_Haritos-Shea JamesNurthen Regrets: Patrick_Lauke John_Kirkwood Sarah_Horton Sarah_Swierenga MichaelC Joshue Found Date: 12 Apr 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/12-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]