Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 21 Dec 2017

<laura> Think we start at 11.30 AM Eastern time https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/1041.html

<alastairc> I hope we can get to animations, I think it will either be a straightfoward pass through, or we'll get stuck quickly and give up.

<laura> You're welcome, Glenda

<laura> Hope we can get to it too, Alastair

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

<laura> Scribe: Laura

Interruptions (minimum): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/interruptions-minimum-review/results

<Lisa> current text for interuptions minum is at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2.2.7_Revision

awk: this is the hail mary pass
... we need to finish what we need to do today.
... consider if it is something you can live with.
... don’t let the perfect be the ememy of the good.

<Lisa> current text for interuptions minum is at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2.2.7_Revision

awk: current version of this SC is the top one at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2.2.7_Revision
... seems like a substantial change.

lisa: basically things got moved around.

awk: lets look at the survey
... no new comments

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2.2.7_Revision - any concerns?

awk: we need to figure about any current concens

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say is my response in 605 too long?

<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask about purposeful shifting of focus

brooks: wanted to ask about how this might incompass moving focus.
... don’t want to hammer improving user experience.

<alastairc> Would a modal dialogue that activated onclick be changing the point of regard and fail? presumably, the same dialoluge appearing at a random time would fail.

awk: modal would be user initiated.

josh: necessary and unnecessary is very subjective.

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2.2.7_Revision

lisa: unnecessary in not in the latest text.

MP: radical change.

<Joshue108> Actually that text looks better Lisa - but I don't know what the point of regard is.

MP: concerened about point of regard defintion

<Lisa> agreed, ets remove point of regard, it is too new

<Lisa> +1

MP: who knows what I am looking at?

<alastairc> A clear example of changing the point of regard would be a modal dialogue, but I guess there are more examples that are less obvious?

<Alex> a+

MP: that defintion is problematic.

<gowerm> what does "deliberately" mean here?

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to suggest removing "deliberately" as unnecessary

<Greg> FYI The definition of Point of Regard from UAAG 2.0 (note he final sentence): The position in rendered content that the user is presumed to be viewing. The dimensions of the point of regard can vary. For example,it can be a two-dimensional area (e.g. content rendered through a two-dimensional graphical viewport), or a point (e.g. a moment during an audio rendering or a cursor position in a...

<Greg> ...graphical rendering), or a range of text (e.g. focused text), or a two-dimensional area (e.g. content rendered through a two-dimensional graphical viewport). The point of regard is almost always within the viewport, but it can exceed the spatial or temporal dimensions of the viewport (see the definition of rendered content for more information about viewport dimensions). The point of...

awk: cant know point of regard (PoR)

<Greg> ...regard can also refer to a particular moment in time for content that changes over time (e.g. an audio-only presentation). User agents can determine the point of regard in a number of ways, including based on viewport position in content, keyboard focus, and selection.

<gowerm> +1 to removing "deliberately"

awk: think we should get rid of the word “deliberately” all together.
... we can’t tell

<alastairc> could we use 'change of context' instead of 'point of regard'?

awk: not testable.

alex: adjectives are suspicious.
... main purpose of the conetent is hard to tell.
... main , deliberate, and PoR should be removed.

lisa: took out PoR, and main
... can clarify in understanding

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say there would be significant overlap with SC 3.2.5, Change on Request, and to ask how an author changes point of regard?

lisa: recheck Wiki page now.

steve: overlap with change and request.
... need to explin upgrade to AA.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say "what does interrupt the presentation in any modality" mean"

MG: Changes in not defined.

<alastairc> Is it supposed to be 'or': "move focus or interrupt the presentation"

MG: don’t understand what “interrupt the presentation in any modality" means.

lisa: not my wording.
... if you ping at me or music starts

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about changes of context

lisa: context is moving focus, and a few other things.

<alastairc> google hangouts is on the web, similar thing

lisa: stuff specific to a web page.
... skype sessions?
... do we want to go back to older version?

<marcjohlic> Struggling to understand how this differs from the current 2.2.4 Interruptions (AAA).. especially if we add "a mechanism is available to suppress.."

awk: goes beyond changes of context. could be a problem under this SC.

jason: part of mh proposal is that some modalities may not be as distracting
... this area needs more study.
... not comforable with the SC. Should postpone to next version of WCAG.

Alex: skype and web page are independent of each other.
... it doesn't really work unless you tell all tabs and windows not to disturb.

<alastairc> Couldn't a web page detect it is not the foremost tab? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Page_Visibility_API#Use_cases

Alex: authors can not know that quiet hours are set.

awk: 10 min left on this one.

<AWK> (ending this one at 12:15)

mp: cross modality is problematic. Could be beneficial for people if possible.

lisa: wanted to make it future proof.
... should we merge the wording?
... or change it?

awk: need definition of interuptions.
... adjectives are probematic

lisa: refresh wiki page.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say "new content" is much too broad as a definition

mg: “new content” is a broad term.
... so many things that could entail.

<Lisa> Interruption: (do we need this now?) new content, popup, overlay, or message that are not part of topic or purpose of the content

lisa: refresh wiki page for new wording.

<alastairc> A mechanism is available to postpone or suppress interruptions, unless they are initiated by the user or involve an emergency. (Level AAA)

ac: some interruptions are good. some are bad for different user groups.
... maybe : A mechanism is available to postpone or suppress interruptions, unless they are initiated by the user or involve an emergency. (Level AAA)
... don’t thing we can solve the problem.

<jasonjgw> Note that we already have 2.2.4.

awk: hearing a lot of concerns.

<Lisa> current wording

<Lisa> Interrupt in any modality are user initiated or are necessitated by an emergency. (Level AA) Exceptions: Interruptions and changes of focus are allowed when: they are essential to the purpose of the content (including error messages or suggestions to aid form entry); when they are a required part of a real-time task or process (for example, an auction, or a time remaining alert in a timed assessment task); or can be automatically suppressed by the user through the

<alastairc> I feel we can make more progress more quickly on other SCs.

awk: can we find a concensus? hearing objections. support from lisa.
... jason: need time to look at it.

jason: it is difficult.

<Zakim> marcjohlic, you wanted to say what is the difference from 2.2.4 - this seems more difficult

jason: need more analysis

mj: don’t see the difference from 224

lisa: final bid.
... it is wider scope. part of a real time task
... needs to be part of the tilte.

<AWK> Please type +1 if you feel that we are ready and -1 if you feel we are not.

awk: straw poll

<Lisa> +1

<Alex> -1

<alastairc> -1, although happy to come back to it if we get through the others!

<jasonjgw> -1

<Mike_Pluke> -1

<jamesn> -1

<gowerm> -1

<JF> -1

<MarcMobile2> -1

<Brooks> -1 needs more time to be ready

<bruce_bailey> -1 we are not ready

<Detlev> -1

<Glenda> 0

<Mike_Elledge> -1

<AWK> -1

<Ryladog_> -1 I wish it was ready

Laura: 0 happy to come back to it if we get through the others!

<Greg> 0 wish it were closer

<steverep> -1, strongly suggest fixing scope by starting with techniques and specifics

RESOLUTION: No consensus

Contextual information: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Contextual_Information_review/results

<Glenda> +1 to Greg.

Accessible Authentication: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Accessible-authentication-review/results

<Lisa> new wording https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2-2-6_Revision

awk: ... lisa’s on top of it.

<scribe> …new wording https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2-2-6_Revision

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: gone back to Authentication processes do not rely upon the user to do any of the following:
... recall information;

perform calculations;

produce gestures;

transcribe information.

<MarcMobile2> Is that a typo that this is listed as Level A? Or is this under consideration for A?

<alastairc> Suggest combining: recall or transcribe information;

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say can you explain gestures?

awk: substantial changes to the wording

mg: question on gestures

lisa: was in there for 6 months.
... sometimes need to remember pattern.

<alastairc> I think the core aspect is memory, not being able to remember it.

lisa: we could take it out.

kate: don’t take it out.

jason: could increase time for pw memorization.
... could we design a 2 factor Authentication?
... cant live with it outside of AAA.

katie: the gestures bullet makes sense.

ac: don’t think jasons comment is fair.
... weath spec moves type of time based code to the device.
... emailed webauth list for thier timeline

<Brooks> Yes

<scribe> scribe: Brooks

lisa: answering Jason's point, all of the SC are at risk if implementation criteria fall short of exit criteria. No need to revisit this.

<AWK> This item ends at 12:50

lisa: app's have greater capacity to assist
... this really comes down to meeting exit criteria.
... this is a SC we've been waiting on for a long time. We need to resolve this today.

James: The latest versions seems different from previous versions. No authentication reset provision. Why?

ac: It hasn't been removed, per se. It could still be a technique.

James: Let's stop talking about transcribing SMS messages. We should talk about Google authenticator, and other equivalents.
... What if we were to run authenticator on same device and copy and paste between

ac: this isn't a way of running on pc, right?

James: there are versions out there. You can only run one authenticator, though.

<AWK> (VIP Access has a desktop browser toolbar client)

ac: you can still use those, if you provide another way of doing it.

James: WebAuth seems like a good solution, but should we rely on this when the spec isn't finished? We won't have scalable implementations to test until its been out for a while.

ac: If WCAG 2.1 and WebAuth are coming to maturity at the same time, maybe this would work.

awk: implementation will have to begin, generally in February.

James: They have not done a WebAuth implementation yet.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say do we need to contain "recall". It used to have scope. and to say a complete ban on transcribe is still tough to put in as AA. I can live with this going

ac: there may be compatible implementations

<alastairc> AC: I've asked for clarification from the WebAuth folks about the implementations, including whether chrome's is compatible.

mike: used to be different language in SC, in terms of exceptions.
... adding transcribe is problematic
... How much is this actually solved by WebAuth? What will still be problematic if that infrastructure was in place as we envision it?

jason: using time-based, one time passwords, you can do that on the same device now

<alastairc> A shell script for people with cog issues? That does not seem like a great implementation?!

jason: however, combining both functions on one device presents security issues.
... WebAuth spec helps. It doesn't help the completely independent devices scenario - in this scenario, users will have to copy information from device to another.
... no network connectivity is a setup that is inherently more secure...no need for a person in between the 2nd factor code and the user agent
... agree with Mike about transcription requirement

steve: this a big change, trying to digest
... on testability recalling information, there's a disconnect. If we have a list of things we can use to recall, we should use it.
... on performing calculations, the language is problematic. It needs to be more clearly stated.
... gestures are a little bit confusing, and needs clarification
... on the exception on laws and statutes, are we opening up a loophole that could be applied to any other SC? I don't see much value in including this language.

<Lisa> brook we do not have time for big changes

<bruce_bailey> agree w/ Brooks that 2nd exception does not belong

james: not ready for implementation as stated
... we need to tackle the two factor part of it.

lisa: maybe we can do some back and forth on the wording. Any consensus we reach, is based on availability of implementations. If not reached, it doesn't meet exit criteria.

ac: we need to tackle the 2 factor scenario, need to figure out how email providers can meet the requirements
... I argue that the transcription language is necessary. For some users, it is critical.
... It doesn't matter if people can recall or write things down. It think it doesn't make a difference.

<Lisa> This success cryteria is at risk pending standardized implementations and techniques being available in multiple platforms for multi step authentication and support for email providers

ac: transcribe and recall are both needed.
... I think there is some justification for laws and statutes exception with this one.

lisa: proving that you are human through standard techniques is problematic for a lot of users. Puzzles, mathematical, logic filters are problematic.

alex: multifactor authentication largely relies on a smartphone app
... produce gestures language needs to be cleaned up

<scribe> ...new language should be "re-authentication"

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: if we remove "transcribe," it would make this a lot more doable at A or AA

<AWK> (AWK thinks that when you are making the password that is a registration process rather than an authentication process)

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: all of this discussion is prefaced on the assumption that there is a "manager." In many instances, the end user is the manager/administrator.

<Lisa> router is pout pf scope

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: If you lose your key in Bitcoin, there is no one else who can help you retrieve it.

<Lisa> and this is all supported by allowing password managers

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Same is true with lost router passwords. - These things are often managed by web browsers.

<alastairc> How about: produce gesteres to: reliably re-produce gestures

steve: i can live with the second exception (laws and statutes)

<gowerm> Here's what I'd put in: Manipulating, parsing or performing calculations on alphanumeric strings

<alastairc> that would be recall?

<gowerm> No, for calculation

steve: suggest change in "perform calculations" language for clarity.
... I was under the impression that copying and pasting was not considered.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I don't think anyone is contesting that transcription challenges some people; what I'm contesting is that we don't have any data on ceilings. It's the

<Lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/23

mike: pasted in language to IRC that attempts to clarify "calculations" language

<Lisa> wording - perform calculations, such as including correctly identifying and entering numbers and letters from a character string; or

<alastairc> vs animations, the difference is that there are alternative ways of doing it.

mike: we don't have any data to suggest what a ceiling is for transcription. At A or AA it seems like big ask to put this requirement in.

<marcjohlic> Too high of an ask for Level A (imo) - and even AA (+1 to mgower's comment)

lisa: original wiki language about calculations got some review, we can put this in if the group wants.

<alastairc> Alex, don't need re-authentication as we've allowed username/password.

Requiring more than two things becomes difficult for some users to transcribe. Anything less than 4 items is security risk.

<Alex> alastairc, not sure how so

scribe: can we do a straw poll?

<gowerm> Manipulating, parsing or performing calculations on alphanumeric strings

<alastairc> you said they all rely on some sort of passcode, that's usually an email loop (which is fine), or un/pw.

AWK: are you OK with Mike's proposed change in language?

lisa: I'm OK with that.

<gowerm> That's parsing, Lisa

awk: Are we close enough on this continue?

<gowerm> +1 at AAA, +1 on AA without transcription

<Mike_Elledge> Bye, everyone. Have a great holiday!

<gowerm> And fine to have both

awk: We've got 3 options, 1. Stop working on this, 2. Move to AAA, 3. Look at it without transcription

<alastairc> The issue isn't the need, it is the feasibility. However, I'm arguing that there are feasible versions (that many will want to move to anywy, for usability)

<AWK> type +1 if approve at AA without transcription and -1 if not

lisa: COGA discussed removing transcription, but thought that removing the requirement would make the web less accessible

<gowerm> +1

<Alex> -1

<jasonjgw> +1

<Ryladog_> +1

<Glenda> +1

<kirkwood> +1

-1 need more time to review

<bruce_bailey> +1 can approve at AA w/o Transcription

<alastairc> err, -1 one, but because I think it should include transcription.

<Mike_Pluke> -1

greg: what does the straw poll mean?

<Ryladog_> +1 - I think it should include transcription

awk: if this SC text didn't include transcription, would you approve of the SC at AA.

<Greg> +1 would approve without transcription, but I believe requiring an alternative to transcription is better

<alastairc> it becomes pointless.

<Detlev> Have trouble understanding the implication of removing transcription - not sure

<marcjohlic2> +1

<steverep> -0, recalling and calculating still needs work

alex: there are still issues with the SC text, even considering transcription would be removed.

<alastairc> "reliably re-produce gestures"

<AWK> New straw poll - type +1 if would approve this at AAA (including transcription)

<gowerm> +1

alex: still have problems with produce gestures, re-authentication language isn't clear.

<jasonjgw> +1

<marcjohlic2> +1 and would prefer this over the AA option without

<Alex> 0

<bruce_bailey> +1 for SC w/ Transcription at AAA

<alastairc> +1, and would campaign for moving up at a later stage.

awk: strawpoll - Would you approve this SC without transcription at AAA?

<Greg> +1 for accepting at AAA but prefer AA

<laura> +1

<Glenda> +1 could support at AAA (but would prefer to see this in without transcription at AA)

<AWK> +1

<Ryladog_> +1 and I like Alex wording of 'gesture-based authentication'

<bruce_bailey> if we approve at AAA, please drop last exception

<Detlev> cautious +1

<Mike_Pluke> 0 I still think it needs more work

awk: lisa, are you OK with this SC at AAA without transcription language included?

lisa: this is better than nothing, but it isn't nearly as effective

Mike_Pluke: There are some things that don't look quite right in this SC, that require more time to consider.

<Alex> same problem as stated

<Alex> i have audio problem

steve: wondering if a subset of people can devote time to this outside of the working group agenda?

awk: it would tapping into working group time, either way.

<alastairc> I think it's close, I feel like there are reasonable answers for people's questions. It took me a month to agree with it, it's a process!

awk: it seems like there is greater support at AAA, than at A or AA.
... there are some suggestions that we can work with.

Are there any objections to accepting Mike G.'s ammended language at AAA?

<Lisa> embarrassing

<gowerm> +1 take it out

<Glenda> need to move on

awk: do people want to keep talking about this one, or move on.

<bruce_bailey> ok

<Glenda> keep wierd excpetion in

lisa: I prefer to move on.

<jamesn> remove the exception

<steverep> +1 to get rid of legal exception

<Ryladog_> +1 to remove weird exception

awk: any objections to the version that is on the wiki, assuming we can make the change for "calculations?"

<Lisa> +1 to remove weird exception

<Glenda> no objections

<alastairc> not objecting

<Lisa> not objecting but embassed

<Detlev> I have to leave now, sorry

RESOLUTION: Accept as amended at AAA

<lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/1-3-5_Revision

<alastairc> scribe:alastairc

Contextual information: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Contextual_Information_review/results

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/1-3-5_Revision

Lisa: AWK had encapsulated the issues, we drafted a new version. It now has a wider scope, but the key use-cases are still identified.
... (reads wiki page). Similar to AA, except two new words which have definitions.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say this may be a tighter definition of region: a perceivable programmatically determined section containing content. Any area that would require a landmark

Lisa: AAC will be expanded on as it's an acronym.

gowerm: would this definition be tighter?

<jamesn> can everyone else get to the URL?

<jamesn> 403 Forbidden

<jamesn> Request forbidden by administrative rules.

Lisa: This was text from ARIA region, but that looks very similar, fine with that.

gowerm: Should we have tech specific references?

<Mike_Pluke> +1 to putting that as a note

AWK: For that definition, the aria role should be a note as it's tech specific. Or make it an example, will look at others to keep consistent. Worth having in there.

<jasonjgw> +1 to AWK's approach to the definition regarding a technology-specific example in a note.

<lisa> added "for example" to the wiki

AWK: Also, for purpose of controls, let's use user interface componetents.
... not sure about the definition of icon, it might not be clear enough, or capture things we aren't intending to.

<jasonjgw> +1

<lisa> we could add " typically pictures that are their for artistic value are not icons"

AWK: pictograms, idograms? Not sure how to write that in a way that captures it is not a photo of the mona lisa. But then, the same image could be used as an icon. E.g. within a UI to depict how to get to that section of the museum.

Jasonjgw: Agree about the icon aspect, in some languages you can have an icon that represents a word. Seems a bit wide. Not sure how to tighten it though.
... would need to demonstrate accessibility support, would be a risk.

<gowerm> +1 to rename to Identify Purpose

AWK: apart from icon def, how do people feel? Also, could the title be similar to AA version, identify purpose?

<lisa> +1 to mike

mike_pluke: I'd suggest removing ideogram, we don't want every single chinese character having it's purpose identified.

<Ryladog_> +1

mike_pluke: Anyone else have thoughts?

<laura> +1 to rename to Identify Purpose

<lisa> updated icons

JamesN: Not sure what this gains?

Lisa: When we say programmatically determined, it is consistent with other uses. Role /relationship isn't just a free text, needs to be aria-controls or similar. The gain is everything for some users who have learnt a set of symbols, which means it can be adapted to the symbols they know.
... at triple A people will want to do in a way that is AC supported.

AWK: Difference is more about being programmatically understood.

<lisa> took it out

Alex: always worry about adjectives, 'sufficientely important', 'easily', those have to go. Agree with mike, chinese characters are ideograms.

Lisa: It was from the ARIA def, but happy to remove.

AWK: Looking at ARIA, not finding the region?

<AWK> "landmark" defintion: A type of region on a page to which the user may want quick access. Content in such a region is different from that of other regions on the page and relevant to a specific user purpose, such as navigating, searching, perusing the primary content, etc.

<jamesn> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#region

JamesN: It's part of the role definition.

<laura> ARIA def: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/roles#region

AWK: That was from landmark, but agree with removing adjectives.

<gowerm> Here's what i had suggested for that definition: a perceivable programmatically determined section containing content. Any area designated with a landmark role or html5 semantic element would be a region.

Mike_Pluke: could we change the word region, we can't say what a user would want to get to.

Lisa: May be able to navigate to?
... (reads new def) could change it to 'is able'

<lisa> region: a perceivable section containing content that is relevant to a specific, author-specified purpose and users is able to navigate to the section or to have it listed in a summary of the page or may want it hidden for simplified versions. For example, an area that would require a landmark role would be a region.

Lisa: I'll remove the 'hidden' bit.

<lisa> redone

<lisa> region: a perceivable section containing content that is relevant to a specific, author-specified purpose and users is able to navigate to the section or to have it listed in a summary of the page. For example, an area that would require a landmark role would be a region.

AWK: Are we just word smithing the defintions, or concerns about the SCs itself.
... I see this different from name/role/value, they do not necessarily convey purpose.

<AWK> AC: The intent is to allow people to apply icon sets to things

<AWK> ... where does that get shown? In Techniques?

<AWK> Lisa: yes, in techs

AWK: In understanding we'll have to clarify the types of things that it supports, then techniques provide how.
... what an AAC tool would do is what we'd provide in the understanding doc, here's the form, and here it is with the specialised tool.

<lisa> region: a perceivable section containing content that is relevant to a specific, author-specified purpose.. For example, an area that would require a landmark role would be a region

<lisa> a perceivable programmatically determined section containing content. Any area designated with a landmark role or html5 semantic element would be a region.

AWK: (reads out), that later bit could be a note.

JamesN: There are a lot of HTML5 elements that are not landmarks, you wouldn't want that exposed.
... Sure, the other version is better.

Jasonjgw: Just refreshed my memory about prog determined, it does include extracting presentation information, but it probably needs to go beyond that? It doesn't explicitely cover what we meant, even though it is about extracting data from the elements. But, it restricts it to presentation in different modalities, it's a bit uneasy.

<AWK> Region: a perceivable and programmatically determined section containing content. Note: In HTML, any area designated with a landmark role would be a region.

Lisa: Not too worried at AAA, people who want it to do will read into it properly.
... If there's a problem at AA, it's a different agenda item.

Jason: That's an issue.

Lisa: Have updated region def in wiki, will update icon one now.

AWK: (reads region def), I put in a version (above), and a note about the tech specific bit.

"region: a perceivable, programmatically determined section containing content. Note: Any area designated with a landmark role would be a region. "

AWK: concerns addressed?

<lisa> +1

<AWK> icon: pictogram displayed on a screen, that represents an idea or concept, in order to help the user navigate or understand a computer system, content or mobile device, including the images used in AAC communications. Icon conveys its meaning through its pictorial resemblance to a physical object. Pictures that are there for artistic value are not icons.

<lisa> icon: pictogram displayed on a screen, that represents an idea or concept, in order to help the user navigate or understand a computer system, content or mobile device. Icon conveys its meaning through its pictorial resemblance to a physical object. Pictures that are there for artistic value are not icons. For example: images used in AAC communications.

Alex: artistic value? rings a huge subjectivity bell.

<laura> Do all icons convey ther meaning through its pictorial resemblance to a physical objects?

Alex: we already have something in WCAG 2.0 for this type of thing?

Lisa: Images that are there for a specific sensory experience.

<jasonjgw> "Pure decoration" is the defined term.

<AWK> icon definition from the web: "a symbol or graphic representation on a screen of a program, option, or window, especially one of several for selection."

Lisa: Just checking the meaning... yes, perfect that's what we want.
... then I think Andrew's concerns are better addressed.

<lisa> icon: pictogram displayed on a screen, that represents an idea or concept, in order to help the user navigate or understand a computer system, content or mobile device. Icon conveys its meaning through its pictorial resemblance to a physical object. Images that are there specific sensory experience and decorative images are not icons. For example images used in AAC communications.

AC: weren't we removing pictogram?

Lisa: Iconograph was removed.

<gowerm> replace "a computer system, content or mobile device" with "content"

Laura: are all icons representing physical objects?

Lisa: Typically, but can't use that, so perhaps we remove that sentence.

<AWK> icon: pictogram used to represent an idea or concept in order to help the user navigate or understand and use content. Images that are there specific sensory experience and decorative images are not icons. Example: images used in AAC communications.

<lisa> apparently we do james...

AWK: (reads above def for icon),
... what do people think?

<gowerm> I don't think so, but since we've gone to the trouble :)

not too bothered, but suggest keeping for now.

<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask why we have to define icon at all

<AWK> icon: pictogram used to represent an idea or concept in order to help the user understand and use content. Images used to convey a specific sensory experience and decorative images are not icons. Example: images used in AAC communications.

AWK: How's that?

Alex: The last sentence doesn't seem complete.

<Ryladog_> looks good

AWK: That won't be normative, will smooth the example out

<laura> expand "AAC" to "Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)"

JamesN: By this def, my graph/pie chart fits the definition?

pictogram: a pictorial symbol for a word or phrase.

seems circular...

Lisa: It takes out pictures of religious symbols etc.

JamesN: Defining as icon as an icon... why not use pictogram?

AWK: Does anyone really want the definition included?

<lisa> +1 to removing the defintion

gowerm: If it goes in, need to check wCAG 2.0 usage.

JamesN: None, just checked normative text.

<laura> +1 to removing the defintion

<gowerm> +1 to handle in understanding

AWK: Ok, def gone.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/1-3-5_Revision

<Ryladog_> Explain what an icon is in the Understanding content for this SC

<lisa> +1

AWK: we're looking at 1.3.5 revision, any objection to accepting as ammended?

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<laura> +1

<gowerm> +1

<Ryladog_> +1

<Glenda> +1

JamesN: Are we using it somewhere else?

<jamesn> +1

<kirkwood> +1

AWK: Only used in definition for sign language interpretation, in geographical context.

<Alex> +1

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/1-3-5_Revision

<Brooks> +1

<lisa> :)

Animation from Interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/animation_from_interaction_review/results

<gowerm> scribe: gowerm

<alastairc> I needed to dig up the latest revision from the list, it has changed slightly: “Motion or size animations triggered by a user action can be disabled without preventing the action, unless the animation is essential to the functionality or the information being conveyed.”

AWK: We were getting kind of close but we needed more time. What do people think?

<alastairc> Just created: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2-2-9_Revision

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say "user interaction" instead of "user action"?

<laura> No objections in the survey. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/animation_from_interaction_review/results

ack

<Greg> I would not block it, but I did feel there were several problems with the wording and described these in the survey.

AWK: Is there any benefit in clarifying the user interaction?

Greg: I had three issues in the survey
... The use of the term "action" is ambiguous.
... Clicking a button, or performing a task? The intent is clearly the latter.

<Greg> (1) the term "action" here is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the user's direct action (e.g. clicking the mouse on the Print button, or per the example in 2.1.1, "press[ing] the space bar") or the primary, desired effect triggered by that action (e.g. printing the current document). Clearly the intent is the latter, but the wording conflicts with the way we use the term in 2.1.1 and the...

<Greg> ...definition of Target, although it matches that in the definitions of Keyboard Shortcut (new) and Process, and the list of Common Control Purposes (new); other uses are ambiguous.

Greg: The term action is used in two different meanings. We should think of a term so we're not ambiguous
... Does that make sense?

<alastairc> Now: Motion or sizing animations triggered by user interaction can be disabled without preventing the action, unless the animation is essential to the functionality or the information being conveyed. (Level AAA)

animations based on user interaction do not affect the functionality of the site

Greg: the second use of action is the problematic one

James: Function?

<AWK> Motion or scaling animations triggered by user interaction can be disabled, unless the animation is essential to the functionality or the information being conveyed.

Greg: Task. They should be able to complete the user task

+1 to that wording AWK

Alastair: If the user is scrolling, the fucntion is scrolling. The animation may do other things that could be disabled, such as swishing across the page.

Greg: Another example is the user minimizing a window. A secondary animation is showing that window moving towards the task bar.
... You should still be able to complete the operation, the task, without the animation.

<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to raise questions from the survey.

AWK: I'm not convinced that people who are making software are going to rip out functionality that is needed... If you are making a web-based email client that animates when moving to a folder, we can indicate that the functionality is still present.

<lisa> can you live with it ?

Greg: Let me give you an example: if you have a button that includes an animation, someone may elect to abandon the function rather than remove the animation?

AWK: What they are doing there is creating a conforming alternate version, which is required to have all the same functionality. They would fail based on that.

James: That's the same argument with images. The easiest way to resolve ALT is to remove the images.

AWK: If their response is to remove minimize for all users, then they would pass.

Greg: I was more concerned with providing the option to turn off.

<Greg> (2) the new term "motion animations" comes across as either redundant or ambiguous. Is it supposed to mean an image whose apparent bounding box changes location on the screen, regardless of whether the contents of that box change? That would seemingly exclude a pinwheel-type animation where only colors change is designed to simulate motion even though it's only changing colors, or a face...

<Greg> ...changing expressions, etc. If that's not the intended meaning, what is?

Greg: The second item was...
... That would exclude the pinwheel on a Mac.

Alastair: I tried to bound it to things that move in scale. That doesn't apply to basic colour changes.
... background colour changes wouldn't count -- something fading from black to white.
... the Mac balloon is giving an impression of movement.

<AWK> Motion or sizing animations -> Animation designed to give the impression of motion scaling

<AWK> Motion or sizing animations -> Animation designed to give the impression of motion or scaling

Greg: Animations that appear to move or change size?

<alastairc> Do we need "that appear to" ?

AWK: Maybe we should just replace the text and get rid of the definition

<AWK> "Animation designed to give the impression of motion or scaling"

<Glenda> +1 to AWK’s suggestion

<bruce_bailey> +1 to moving words from definition to SC

<Greg> (3) it's not clear why the change excludes animations that change appearance only, and why those are deemed less less distracting than those changing size or location. The new wording seems to narrow the focus to nausea/vertigo/motion sickness at the expense of attention issues, contradicting the older Intent section.

Greg: The third point was I wanted to ask why blinking wasn't included

Alastair: This came from vestibular disorders, where those aren't triggers to the same degree.

Greg: That's true but it also applies to distraction.

Jason: replacing the phrase would help

<alastairc> Just use "Animations"?

Jason: I was concerned with vestibular disorders and distractions.

<alastairc> Howa bout: Animations triggered by user interaction can be disabled, unless the animation is essential to the functionality or the information being conveyed.

<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask if this SC would encompass "processing..." spinning animations that were a result of user pressing a button on a web page

<Greg> I'd rather see this SC benefit both those with distraction issues as well as those with vestibular disorders.

Brooks: I wanted to talk about the spinning animation. It sounds like from Alastair's response taht would be considered.

AWK: Jason, I'm not sure whether your concern is addressed by this different language.

<Ryladog_> apologies

Jason: What I was saying is that we're focusing on animation. Even as is it addresses some issues by people subject to distraction. Even if it doesn't apply to blinking under the threshold, it benefits them. So we may want to revisit.

<laura> +q to say do we need “designed to give the impression of motion or scaling” or could we remove it?

AWK: Sounds like we're on point here with this one.

<Greg> I like Alastair's simplified version.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2-2-9_Revision

Laura: Remove the phrase

<alastairc> Animations triggered by user interaction can be disabled, unless the animation is essential to the functionality or the information being conveyed.

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Brooks> +1

<jamesn> +1

<Greg> +1

AWK: Do people think that's okay?

<Glenda> +1

<laura> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Glenda> love it <3

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<kirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended at ##:36 by Alastair

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2-2-9_Revision

AWK: Let's not start any big debates in the next week.
... We need to start hammering out the Understanding content. We also need to focus on responding to issues that exist.
... We have a lot of work to do. Thanks everyone, and talk to you in the New Year. Have a good break.

<laura> bye

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

21 Dec 2017

Attendees

Contents

Interruptions (minimum): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/interruptions-minimum-review/results

Contextual information: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Contextual_Information_review/results

Accessible Authentication: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Accessible-authentication-review/results

Contextual information: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Contextual_Information_review/results

Animation from Interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/animation_from_interaction_review/results

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output