Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 11 Apr 2017

<interaccess> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 11 April 2017

<AWK> Scribe: Kathy

<AWK> Next week's Scribe is Laura.

<AWK> +AWK

<scribe> scribe: Kathy

<kirkwood> prsent+ kirkwood

Josh - new member Chris

<Glenda> Can you post a link on how to sign up for scribing?

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

<laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

another new member Jake

TPAC F2F

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AGWG_TPAC2017/

Josh: we will have a meeting at TPAC

held in November

in California

<Jake> JF => http://www.pepemilan.com/resize.php?imagen=galeria/articulos/modelo-z614-horma-cuba-toga-snake-metal-azul-par_180_5.jpg&ancho=1500&alto=1065

there will also be remote participation

we need to figure out the preference for days

alot of people said they only want 2 days - then we need to figure out the days

Andrew - we have taskforces that want to meet

Michael - there can be separate meetings for the taskforces

Michael - there will be conflicts so we should schedule what is needed

Andrew - we may not have control over what days we will have

Katie - the other groups have not decided on the days, should not use the Wed for meetings

Michael - Wed is a good day to learn more about what is happening

<AWK> Proposed resolution: WCAG will meet at TPAC, days TBD.

RESOLUTION: AG meeting will be happening at TPAC

<Glenda> What is the host hotel?

Michael - recommend booking hotels nwo

<MichaelC> TPAC 2017

link is not working

WCAG 2.1 progress/expectation/pace - brief discussion

Josh - been through a lot and wanted to talk through peoples concerns

wanted to talk about managing expectations

Andrew - know there are concerns about the pace and how we are going to get through all 55 SC. The work we are doing is ongoing. It is challenging to find solutions for all good ideas. We need to be practical and identify the failings in the language. If we put it out without the appropriate language it will get a lot of comments and potential of being rejected. This is hard

we don't know how many we will get completed. Good to have a few that are implementable and testable

Katie - keep in mind there is a monthly release. Not surprised that we got comments. We will experience burn out if we are releasing too frequently. What ever that means... 4, 5, 6 months to get good comments

<jamesn> big +1 to Katie

Josh - want us to all manage the work at a good sustainable pace. People are feeling pressure and we need to work at what we can do

this is a .1 release and there may be another version

<bruce_bailey> nominally, 2.1 comment are here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agwg-comments/

<bruce_bailey> but that is not the full set...

<Ryladog> +1 to watching our own nervous systems and mental health

<KimD> +1 to taking a reasonable pace and quality being "job 1"

John - earlier this year at CSUN there were conversations that we may want to publish what we have at the readiness of where we are at

we have a lot of good proposals and research. There is alot of documentation that is scattered about

we may want to publish it but state where it is at

<kirkwood> +1 to John on publishing as is

Josh - there was a thread about this. W3C looks for cutting edge. We could publish as non-normative

Wayne - I am worried about legal responsibility. We become national law. The impression we give is that we meet the needs of people with disabilities. People do not have any legal recourse

scribe: barriers for a user with low vision to be a programmer
... we are putting people at risk - we should be doing no harm

Josh - github is the platform that was chosen and we could use other tools but that will take research

<Ryladog> Clarifying that my comment was also mostly about getting other to take commenting on our work seriously - like it has to this point. We need to make it do-able for the important orgnizations and individuals who commented on the FPWD, to be able to assign experinced staff to provide the thoughtful comments that they have. We cannot expect them to do that every month.

Wayne - in the research we found that this was not sustainable. This is a barrier for users with low vision but meets wcag 2.0

Josh- we need to bridge the gaps and looking for guideance in the low vision

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask where outsider comments are posted

scribe: we have a lot of competing needs and we are listening to the requirements and balancing these needs

Bruce - there were comments that we are not responding to yet

<AWK> My only point is that we need to be clear that WCAG 2.x doesn't result in full accessibility and ideally we will signal rolling updates to continually bridge the gap.

<david-macdonald> tinyurl.com/jmo9st4

scribe: are those github numbers

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/

David - there is a list of all the comments

Josh - that is useful. To speak briefly on the comments. SC managers will be the responder for the comment and to suggest the response

Josh - we need to keep focused and on quality

New techniques work

Josh - SC work is good but we need to back up this with techniques

we need to start thinking about the techniques

scribe: we need to figure out how this will work and the TF

<Joshue108> KW: There is already a lot of work done.

<Joshue108> KW: We will need to go back to that and review etc

Josh - there will be expertise in the TF

<Joshue108> KW: And make sure none of this is lost.

Wayne - we have been working on collecting the difficult pages when we try to implement the SC and the techniques

bad page is where we can identify what is going on to discuss techniques on how to remedy this

that is where we are at

<laura> The Issue 78 Options Wiki page for the survey has info on Testability

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Testabilty

Laura - for issues 78 we are thinking of a strategy for this

Josh - keep this in the back of your mind. we will put formal structure for this in the coming weeks

Thursday call agenda items

SC Review

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017April5_top3/results

Josh - kick off Accidental Activation

it is a SC from mobile taskforce

there were a few comments

<marcjohlic> believe so - the options

<marcjohlic> but threw me off with the link

there were comments on the accessbility support

are there any objections

RESOLUTION: accept Accidental Activation
... Accept Accidental Activation SC

Josh - Support Personalization

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results

Support Personalization

<Joshue108> Support Personalization / Issue 6

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6

<Joshue108> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/#support-personalization-minimum

there were no thumbs up for this SC

<Joshue108> KW: It is not clear what is being asked to be done beyond what is done in 1.3.1. or 4.1.2

<Joshue108> KW: It seems like a lot of this is already covered.

<Joshue108> KW: Not sure about diff between control and screen.

Mike: is there someone from Coga on the phone?

John: I am on the call and will relay to Lisa

Wayne: there are classifications and was wondering if essential term is good enough

could also be tightened up... I don't understand what the techniques would be for this

JohnF: concerned about the wording of the SC. It seems to suggest a separate version
... history has shown us that we should not have a parallel version

James: 5 controls per screen is not enough to do anything

<Greg> John, would it be okay if it make it clearer that it means a version or presentation option is available?

how do you know what is essential functionality. People could be using the system differently

<AWK> +1 to james

Wayne: WCAG 2.0 answered that by if you can throw this out of the page then it is not essential

James: then everything is essential

JohnF: there is a difference between applications and webpages

<KimD> +1 to James N - "we don't put anything on the page that isn't essential" for a customer to use it.

Glenda: context is important on the number; change to number for each chunk. In the future you could have an overlay through personalization

Jason: you can limit the number of controls by having control at a deeper level; that may not make it easier for the user. Now harder to find controls. Understand the rational but having a number is not the right way to achieve it

<Wayne> +1

<JF> Question: would a five-button "fly-out" menu, with each of those five top-level buttons containing 5 more navigation choices... would that meet the "Maximum of 5" criteria?

<Joshue108> I also dont think we can restrict authors in that way as they design content for users in a way that they hope supports their needs in the first place.

<Glenda> If we could have an ability to semantically identify what is absolutely essential for the “chunk” you are focused on now. Rather than setting a number of only 5 controls, an ability to only see the absolute essential controls. Could even later add the semantic ability to prioritize controls (just like heading levels). So…future semantic thinking here…but it could lead to overlays that let you filter out anything extra.

Jason: we don't know what is required to satisfy the proposal and it is not testable. We need to develop the AT before we start putting SC in place
... it is too early to determine what is required

David: Jason covered my comments. I can see require authors do something to help users for cognitive impariments

Josh: is there any comments that have not been addressed?
... needs a lot of work right now

Greg: what is comes down is that there is comments but needs to be address by the COGA TF
... should take in account all of the comments raised

Mike: my comments from January, there is lot of potential and we need to implement techniques
... as it matures we can bring it back as SC

RESOLUTION: go back to COGA for reviewing comments and further work

Adapting text options

Josh: proposal C and D got comments

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results#xsc

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options

<laura> It also has info on Testability:

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Testabilty

Laura: James comment on testability and there is some info on the WIKI page
... it is for adapting text to override author settings

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-291918379

do we need to have a definition of minimum - the term at least

Greg: the problem is where you are allowing support overwriting the minimum. it needs to compatible for all fonts. If there is a function on the page then you can set a minimum number of fonts

<david-macdonald> -1 on that.

<Wayne> scribe, wayne

<Wayne> scribe: wayne

There was no specification on splitting: Level A formatting overide, Level AA, AAA page doesn't supply it.

Katie: Ok with splitting in two.

David: When the user agent gets overridden. Only need to test for one override. Can you need to override. Responsible for all then you can go wrong. That creates non testability.

<Glenda> +1 to David (and use a sufficient technique with that one font that is best for testing)

<Kathy> Wayne: I think we can compromise on the fonts. There are rules for typography for legibility. We need to think about other languages. Then we can specifically test for these

<Kathy> ... have a list of accessible fonts

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to suggest we stick to the AA proposal as the AAA is not necessarilty suported by the LVTF

<Ryladog> What about the most common legible font in each language?

<Kathy> Steve: can we just talk about AA proposal

<Joshue108> +1 to that.

<Kathy> are all of these proposals are trying to do the same thing

<Ryladog> What about using the wording the say "2 (or 3) most common legible fonts" in each language?

<Kathy> Against the AAA requirement, better to let the user do this and doesn't gain anything. What is needed is AA

<Joshue108> +1

<Greg> Steve, that would be for closed systems.

<Kathy> Josh: comes down to scoping the change

<Kathy> Can we say that this is going in the right direction

<Kathy> David: can we ask if people can get consensus

<Kathy> James: when we talk about overriding something.. is it anything or a specific method

<Kathy> Laura: talking about a number of different options

<Kathy> David: it is just one

<Ryladog> +1 to just one

<Kathy> James: if I tell you this is how you can change it, does this meet the SC

<Kathy> Answer is yes

<Kathy> should be "a mechanism"

<steverep> +1 to David's comments

<Glenda> I like Proposal E

<Kathy> James: it needs to be up to the author to decide what method is used

<Ryladog> I also like proposal E...:-)

<Kathy> not the user

<Greg> I agree that the conformance claim has to specify at least one mechanism that allows overriding author formatting while keeping the page completely functional.

<Kathy> Josh: mechanism implies a thing

<Kathy> Andrew: it is one thing for a user to create a stylesheet and a different thing for user to change about this list of things

<Ryladog> I am not a fan of mechanism

<Kathy> Laura: mechanism language is the problem

<Kathy> Andrew: if an author says that we meet the SC since told the user that they can change this by setting a list of things. On a small website this may be a short list but could be more on a larger site. This would not be acceptable

<Kathy> James: we would want to exclude somethings such as icon fonts

<Kathy> Wayne: i have thought about this for a long time

<Kathy> you have tokens that are user defined

<Kathy> we need to identify the things that the user can change it

<Kathy> want the author to verify that the content can be changed

<Kathy> Josh: isn't this just talking about passing if using CSS

<Kathy> Wayne: no sometimes blocks

<Ryladog> This SC is inherently about a premier a11y tenet - the separating the content from its presentation .....

<Kathy> Steve: the main comment from the user perspective the mechanism to do this is a few and when it breaks it really breaks. If there were a finite list of things that the author was doing to prevent this then it could be scoped that way

<Glenda> +1 ryladog

<Kathy> ... have given up trying to figure out the list of things

<Kathy> Josh: may be approaching this the wrong way

<Kathy> it is a handshake between the the developer and the user

<Kathy> Laura: we should leave out mechanism to narrow it some

<Kathy> E may be better

<Kathy> Josh: basically saying don't get in the way of user stylesheets

<Joshue108> JW: The assumption around this language is that the mechanism succeeds.

<Joshue108> JW: James question is interesting, and raises the issue that no mechanism is required but is assuming there is one that works and is limiting the consequese.

<Joshue108> JW: This does raise the question - that when this falls down to AT in the end.

<Joshue108> JW: Do we assume they can make the changes - it is all about consquence.

<Joshue108> JW: and what the author can do etc.

Jason: There is not a lot of functionality is the assumtion succeeds and when it suceeds then we want to limit the consequences. If I understand the language correctly. It assums that one exists and it limits the consequences. The issue goes away but it assums that assistive technology exists. It succeeds on making the canges. What the author could or could not do.

<Joshue108> LC: Whats your fave Jason?

<gowerm> refresh the vote results

RESOLUTION: Needs more discussion.

<Ryladog> Suggest including some CSS language to it

<Ryladog> +1 to MC

<laura> bye

<Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

11 Apr 2017

Attendees

Contents