Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 30 Jan 2018

<jamesn> do we need F2F on the agenda?

new member intro

<Mike_Elledge> awk: new member on call, Chuck Adams

<Mike_Elledge> JN: Just joined our group will be taking over soem work from me.

<Mike_Elledge> CA: At oracle, working on a11y for 4 years. Joined James' group. Glad to join.

<Mike_Elledge> CA: In mtn time--Colorado

Status of CR transition

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Status of CR transition. have transitioned to candidate recommendation. Congrats all! Not easy, some concerns raised, including some commitiments

<kirkwood> Great!!

<Mike_Elledge> awk: to take on some commitments to show what 2.1 supports and does not. New comments betw now and 3/30. Also implementations.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: One formal objection. Director W3C ruled on that.

<Mike_Elledge> MC: Director has ack that progress made on req sufficient to advance. Ack that there were concerns over achievements. Some ppl wanted clarification that made moving ahead with CR approve.

<Mike_Elledge> jf: Thank you Andrew and Josh. <applause>

<Mike_Elledge> jo: Good effort everyone.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: What we've committed to doing?

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Included editor's note in abstract highlighting concern about changes wanted, committed to review what's in there and discussing potiential text changes during CR period.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: Commitment to having ppl raised objections to participate? or group concensus?

<Mike_Elledge> Awk: Consensus on doc language. No commitment that LS would have final say, but please participate.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: Consensus required to get language higher than approving CR. What level of consensus needed? Majority?

<alastairc> Hmm, less about numbers, more about the nature of the objections.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: As far as # of objections, dk what to say. There have been variations in consensus for SCs, based on level of concern vary. Misspelled words vs. no implementations. Not a bright line for passage.

<alastairc> I.e. new text should be proposed (e.g. by COGA folk) and if no one objects, job done. If people do, we consider reasons and adjust.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Depends on how many object. No formula.

<Mike_Elledge> Katie: Based on new decision...don't understand what the level of consensus is. For CR "can you live with it." works if everyone feels respected. Expectation that it will be addressed. Timeline left many people dissatisfied.

<AWK> Decision Policy: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Whetehr soemone can live with it is part of the policy.

<laura> The “AG WG Decision Policy” has an “Evaluating the Call for Consensus” section: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

<Mike_Elledge> katie: Not how it's been adjudicated. More trust if everyone reels listened to.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Have asked numerous times if ppl can live with decision. Need to identify disconnect.

<Mike_Elledge> katie: Problem.

<Mike_Elledge> Katie: Passage with 20% objecting doesn't seem like consensus. There are some real things that haven't been addressed. When we can reach real consensus on quality and what it means, then easier to address comments that come in.

<Mike_Elledge> Katie: Will help if we can reach consensus on SC.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: I think part of problem is consensus was to leave things out to reach it. Didn't mean that we tried to find solutions. Putting in more user needs until accommodations could be reached was left out.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: Would like commitment that CFC will have longer time period to accommodate vacation etcs. Also clarity so ppl know what they're voting on. That full text, objections are there so can be found. Espeically for ppl with cognitive issues.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: not all ppl can look through 50 items. Espec those who are interested in COGA.

<JF> +1 to MichaelC

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> no one is asking for a single person to bloc anything

<Mike_Elledge> mc: Discussion of decision process not clearly part of agenda. Would like to talk to chairs about it. Need process that allows progress. So policy has to allow for that. Also don't want overruling objections capricious. In good faith, but will look at it and circle back.

<Mike_Elledge> DL: Not sure what this is about. Bullying and intimidation. Can't relate to that. Would want that to be transparent or in another forum.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> so there is no agreement that the coga task force memmbers will be able to vote on the cfc about their objections

<Mike_Elledge> katie: Want to help him understand. There were six ppl who were on working groups that felt they would be bullied or ridiculed so didn't speak up.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ktie: about 6 people game t her about feling intimidated about partvcipating

<Mike_Elledge> katie: May have given more quality in rush to consensus. No one should feel they can't participate. Feels wrong.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Encourage anyone who feels that way bring issue to chairs or MC, or to omsbudsman who will help. Agree that no one should feel ridiculed or bullied. Do need to know about it, though.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Have addressed and will again.

Implementations

<Judy> [JB: Andrew mentioned ombudsperson. Here is link to code of ethics and professional conduct (CEPC) and multiple ombudspeople. Link here: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Need to have that SCs are able to be used, tested, measured, supported by AT and user agents. Looking for ten implementations, two AAA, eight at AA level.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> athena-ict can do one

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Need to have ppl interested in help find sites that support implementation and encourage them to get going on implementing the criteria in 2.1.

<Mike_Elledge> dm: Can do in own website?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ask niel and mark from Atos

<alastairc> Does it have to be every page? I have a large public on in mind, but the (ahem) PDFs let it down.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Don't want to have every website for implementation to be one of member sites. Lainey Feingold did one. Definitely need some that are independent.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> does it need to be every AAA? becuse sometimes they do not work together

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Does it have to be on every page? No, not every page (ex. Adobe.com), but have to point to it.

<Mike_Elledge> mc: Would assume that it would be in conformance with WCAG claim process. Tells how to scope a conformance claim.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Do need implementations of every SC, but not on every web page for AA or AAA. May well conform with AAA and don't have video with description won't have to conform to all.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Reasonable examples of compliant sites and individual SCs. Whole site doesn't have to conform at AA or AAA level.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask where we will be gathering this implimentation data

<Mike_Elledge> jf: Two columns. One fully conform and other pages that are exemplar meeting a particular SC. Where will be gathering this info? Process for gathering and recording.

<Mike_Elledge> mc: Behind scenes tool is being updated for 2.1. Not quite ready, but should be soon. Will be similar to 2.0. Figuring out how to do differently given that there are 2.0 and 2.1 involved. Board will be putting in time for it.

<Mike_Elledge> mc: for every site or page there was a database, where you could record observation: Applicable, not applicable, passed, not. Typcially two ppl reviewed site. Larger group if no agreement. Report then includes results.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Have some work to do to get details ready. Everyone should be thinking about whether they have clients or friends or organizations that can help with implmeentiations. Our bar is reasonable, stronger the more implementations.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: If ppl have ideas about implementaitons send them to the chairs. Will also help with encouragement. Important, if don't do it, won't advance.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Chuck, if you ant to talk type q+

Updating Abstract and Introduction

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21

<Mike_Elledge> awk Updating abstract and intro. Since went to CR this morning, still have to complete this. Clean up branches in github repository. I'll have to, Michael too.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Need ppl to think about abstract and intro. Concern that was raised is in abstract felt like an overstatement what conforming to 2.1 would do.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: is about "making web content more accessible"; intent to continue that process, not 100% accessibilty. Further clarified in layers of guidance, that included a sentence that

<AWK> From Layers of guidance: Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible, to

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Not trying to suggest that 2.0 or 2.1 is going to make all content fully accessible, but there's some confusion.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: A fair representation?

<Mike_Elledge> Judy: Sounded like you wanted to poll? Speaking to idea of adding more to second sentence of abstract, i.e, the claims we're making. Troubled by dropping some of te disabilities or functions. There are some that 2.0 helps, 2.1 incrementally also.

<Mike_Elledge> jb: Have to be precise. Not having qualifier in second sentence ("some") may be where issue is. In most ways 2.1 is moving things forward. yesterday got assurance that language could be modified. Worth considering adding "more" in second sendtence as well.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Concerns?

<Mike_Elledge> ls: I think the main problem is want ppl to make content as a11ble as they can, wish or can. Want to include ppl with cognitive disabilities. Needs to be out there for everyone. My concern is want to max a11bility, don't want anyone to think they have done more than they have, or do less.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: Write it so optimize how much a11y gets done. So world becomes more accessible. Don't want ppl to thinkg they've doen more than they have.

<david-macdonald> mute jake

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Mute, folks, if not talking.

<Mike_Elledge> dm: Not unlike 2.0, think language we crafted was fine. That refers to cognitive disabilities (layers of guidance). Import that into main body. Had same issue in 2.0. Lots of desire to get guidance that will help, but without authors being able to use AT can't do as much as want to.

<AWK> David: the text from the layers of guidance has good consensus and I would support integrating it into the 2.1 intro

<Mike_Elledge> ls: Amount of information that 's out there is greater: easy reading guidelines. There are good stds. language.gov in US. England, ppl have had to supplement what we have in wcag.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: If ppl read old language won't know there is more they can do. Shouldn't link to them, but could make a page that collects SC that are proposing with guidance.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: Important that first sentence changes, bec ppl won't read through doc. Write that for more information about what we're looking at, link here. Could become a supplement. Guidance even if not at testable level, or widely avaialble.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to discuss supplemental guidance document

<Mike_Elledge> awk: We know what SC are not going to make it into 2.1. Have talked about supplemental guidance doc, there's interest that we don't lose good ideas. Not normative, but where it could be found.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Ppl working on browsers, ATs could see where the challenges are. Wld think could do this on same timeframe as 2.1, but it's a lot.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: We've discussed this. Impoortant for ppl to know.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Other concerns about abstract.

<Mike_Elledge> jo: Don't want ppl to feel that they;'re addressing a group when they're not. but Also don't want them to feel that theyr'e not when they are. Be cautious that we don't undermine what we're doing.

<JF> +1 to Josh

<kirkwood> agree we don’t want to undermine work that has been done that helps Coga. +1 to Joswh

<kirkwood> joswh/Josh

<Mike_Elledge> kathy: THink that true for all areas: mobile target size; may be worthwhile that some groups might want to know how to do better, especially what didn't make it in 2.1. Providing more information about what to consider.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Don't think that the concept is restrictive to cognitive. Lots of ways to put it together.

<Mike_Elledge> ls: Agree with Josh, value, mainly at AAA. But way we've worded levels is that A is minimal lvel of compliance, but not true for cognitive. There's benefit at A and AA, but key accommodations start at AAA. Arguable would be there in A and AA. It's not.

<Mike_Elledge> jb: Focus in 2.1 is somewhat different, to focus on several areas. Think about how levels could be adapted. Some catchup can be done in the Understanding doc.

<Mike_Elledge> jb: also in additional documentation mentioned by lisa and kathy. Maybe a perfect oppty to do it now.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> i will

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Anyone want to volunteer for putting edits?

<kirkwood> I would volunteer as well

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> +1 to david

<Mike_Elledge> dm: Open to it. have to decide whetehr it's appropriate to link.

<AWK> AWK will help with the editing also

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Don't want to lock it down too tight.

<Mike_Elledge> me: Some parameters would be helpful.

<Mike_Elledge> awk: If want to add "some" then okay, but if want to replace whole section hard to set rules. Not sure aware of all possibilites that may be considered.

<AWK> John Kirkwood also

<Mike_Elledge> jk: I will do as well.

<Judy> [JB interested to be copied in on the thread about the abstract]

<JF> Happy to jump in as well

<AWK> AWK to send around an email on this

<Mike_Elledge> awk: Will send around on list and see if anyone else is interested.

<kirkwood> agree with volunteering David

group climate

<Mike_Elledge> bien sur

ACT TF update

<Mike_Elledge> wilco: can you hear me okay?

<scribe> scribe: allanj

<Mike_Elledge> Aw, come on team!

<Mike_Elledge> Thanks, Jim!

wilco: regrets from MaryJo. ACT meeting. set up to harmonize accessibility testing.
... setting up documented testing procedures. First working on a REC - ACT Rules format. getting a shared approach using a shared language.

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html

wilco: 2nd draft in Oct. working on 3rd version. see above
... good feedback. changed how procedures are written. initially - step by step. choose element, do steps, make pass/fail determination.
... number of testers who do not have a linear testing approach. some have machine learning, and other ways. can't have 1 way to test.
... solution ... not how to test, abstract a bit - what is expected from a webpage
... sections on 'applicability', 'expectations' - things that must be true.
... this has taken time... to get wording correct - non-vague language. Write expectations so you get consistent results.
... think we have a good balance.
... completing draft. Survey open for consensus to publish. then send to AG WG for review
... other work also.
... ACT Review Process

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process

wilco: have a shared language to write rule. How to get rules written and vetted? this is the goal.
... different orgs write for internal use, share, and we combine and vet.
... check on role implementors - tool or processes. Task Force reviews. then we have a new rule.
... still definitions to work on.
... working on example rules in the new rules. Modified from 2nd draft.

dm: in WCAG. careful to say something not applicable. this is different thinking from WCAG.
... perhaps chat with Gregg. if not applicable and it passes WCAG. seems a disconnect with historical pass/fail WCAG

wilco: aggregation should help map the concern.

md: ah good. explicitly call that out.

me: is it voluntary to comply with ACT. what are thoughts.

wilco: Rules are not mandatory. rules are not the only way to do testing. many options.
... hope rules are adopted. will not be vetting tools for implementation. not W3C role.
... need to collect data on implementation. to check on rule adoption and validity.

awk: have a survey going now. after review then will send survey to AG prior to publication of new draft.

wilco: preCR review draft - WIDE REVIEW!!

awk: any other questions, contact wilco or maryjo. or file an issue

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues

md: link to issues for ACT?

close item 6

open item 9

awk: CSUN - finding a place. want a meeting. need a place... pool not an option.
... solicit ideas or spaces for Mon and Tues for CSUN. need help

<JF> @AWK can you re-confirm our needs? How many people do we anticipate?

awk: planning on a meeting. let us know about space for 20 people for meeting.
... 15 on survey. 20 is ballpark

jf: room with wifi and phone

mc: chairs, tables, lots of plugs. broadband for connectivity and webex

awk: min - power, chairs, wifi, tables

close item 9

open item 5

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

close item 4

awk: clean up table. links to SC, understanding content - review/edit,
... need people to review understanding content.
... everyone should pick one to review.

awk

kw: have folks assigned to mobile SC. happy to pair with TF members. working on understanding review.

jim: same for LVTF

ls: alastair and I are reviewing

awk: lisa working on id common purpose, etc. all related to COGA.

ls: will review 2 AAA and 1 at AA. though AA far from what we proposed, but will review (id common purpose)

md: what is time frame?

awk: reviews done in 2 weeks. submit proposals.

<AWK> David can try to help with Identify Common Purpose

md: will help review.

<alastairc> I've a few changes to make to graphics contrast, but will review the COGA ones, and have time to do some updates, but not sure the scale yet.

<AWK> Josh can try to help with Identify Common Purpose also

josh: will work to review common purpose

mc: send me the link to branch so I can update.
... names may change to reflect latest draft

awk: folks who are not members of TFs, pick a success criteria - review, document thoughts, confusions, imporvements.
... send to TF SC facilitator, or sent to WG list to express concerns. All should review Understandings.
... given timeline. comments end - end of march. out the door published by end of April.
... much to do. finite time

me: what kind of feedback needed?

awk: Understanding - any feedback is good. will get some from comments.
... spelling, grammar, examples are poor, introductions and benefits (what are other benefits of the SC)
... go to WCAG spec. there is a link to each SC understanding doc.

mc: note. may be some issues with currency of information.
... the wiki link is current as to where to edit. some branches not renamed.

awk: understanding column are updated to reflect current name. a couple need adjusting due to branch renaming. Non-text content and common purpose (?)

mc: will try to get updates this week

awk: please make time to review and comment. use github make a branch. see autorepository on how to make a branches and pull requests.

open item 6

close itme 6

open item 7

close item 6

awk: same situation for Techniques. set up pages, id techniques. what exists, what needs to be written,
... need to be written, examples created, testing procedures.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> all the coga technques drafts are at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YiknHDDDdKBdwVTEpxwUpyCaQL_tnpp9CfDlFjCq16E/edit#heading=h.803zleyfz8or

awk: important to work on. Administrative work needs to be done to get everything ready so folk can work on.

jim: yes for LVTF

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> would like somone from wcag to get it into the template and proof read etc

lisa: many done. will review. most in google docs. written by TF members. need clean up by folks with experience.

awk: Mobile and Coga asking for help.

<Zakim> steverep_, you wanted to ask about a possible format change to better demonstrate techniques (or guidance on a custom approach)

awk: need live techniques with code and testing. lots of space for people to do work based on skills.

sr: ask about a possible format change to better demonstrate techniques (or guidance on a custom approach). similar to aria live examples.

mc: aria live on a linked page for examples. actual technique not live.
... need to write some guidance doc on live techniques. CSS, etc. so the all look the same.
... open to thoughts

josh: look to URI on previous live technique examples.

awk: comments starting to come in. Feel free to jump in to propose answers

<AWK> People can also help draft responses to comments: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues

awk: currently 7 issues. 2 related to techniques. Please draft a response.
... will become more work as time moves.
... do we want to change how we respond to comments.

<Detlev> I think the wiki page with responses worked quite well

awk: last time we separated the github discussion from working group list. some liked that process others did not.
... thoughts?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> I need to drop now

dm: work in github. first response - below will be discussion, official response will be designated as such. perhaps a tag for offical response (with color)

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> no one in coga sould follow the github treads

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> they were imposible to follow

awk: issues on github, many comments, some proposed response. then it becomes the link for the survey.

<steverep_> Audio issues....

dm: yse, then create consensus response and post "official response" to github

mc: concern about github. when a commenter uses github, they see every related message - a bit complicated may get confusing for those who don't understand.
... don't have a good way or process on whether commenter excepted response.

<__real_Joshue108> I just posted some links to how to write WCAG techniques, including a template to the list.

awk: yes, want confirmation of acceptance of response.

sr: wiki is complicated and not fun. understand github issues, this seems a global w3c issue in general.

<JF> +1 to Steve's suggestion

sr: perhaps, set up a saved reply (auto response) - explains process. will make an official response.

awk: good idea if we can find it.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> coga sub task fource is starting

<__real_Joshue108> shadow dom for the shadow issues?

dm: perhaps a hack, shadow issue to create a separate issue for discussion, then post official response on original issue.

awk: rather not have more issues.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to perhaps also add a note on how to *stop* following all of the GitHub discussion thread (i.e. unsubscribe)

dm: brainstorming

<steverep_> GitHub saved replies documentation - https://help.github.com/articles/using-saved-replies/

jf: every email from github has link to stop / mute a thread. bring it to the top.

mc: need to figure how to get back to the original commenter.

awk: perhaps have response callout by name of the commenter.
... seems folks like not using wiki. Chairs will take under consideration. Plan on meeting on Thursday.

<__real_Joshue108> thanks all and congrats on getting this far :-)

awk: Meeting on thursday.

zakim agenda?

close item 5

close item 7

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

30 Jan 2018

Attendees

Contents

new member intro

Status of CR transition

Implementations

Updating Abstract and Introduction

group climate

ACT TF update

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output