<Joshue108> status update, progress, issues etc
<Joshue108> status update, progress, issues etc
<Joshue108> Lisa has just shared a new test page for 1.3.5
<Joshue108> https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html
test
implementation for 1.2.5. the link https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html is an original proof of concept.
the "more options" and "less options" available on the page do not fulfil "programatically determinable".
JF: I don't see this fulfilling "programatically determinable". It's injecting javascript.
<gowerm> isn't the aria-importance attributes the programmatic determinability?
Joshue108: I don't see anything injected into the dom. The observation is right. Does this satisfy the success criteria?
<JF> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics
alastairc: Meeting some criteria but not all criteria.
jf: Criteria requires "programatically determinable". This isn't meeting that criteria.
<gowerm> +1 to Alastair
Alistair: mentions aspects that are in fact programatically determinable.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say I think this passes 1.3.5 but may be underwhleming.
Josh: chuck have a look at this and put an implementation on and see if it passes.
chuck+
<Joshue108> Chuck: Did we establish that the page content is programatically determd?
<Joshue108> Chuck: I'm not sure if I can pass or fail.
will take the determination of success or failure offline. This site may be an underwelming example.
<alastairc> I think it passes, but does not demontrate the 'icons' part. Plus, the accessibility supported aspet is arguable.
Joshue108: review where we are at (progress).
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/scorecard
Joshue108: we have a bunch of evaluations. There are a few we could use more evaluations of. Identify purpose (1.3.5), target size, <one more> behind in evaluations. Do try and find and perform an evaluation. Critical to get this done, we are down to the wire.
katie: on that page that Lisa put up, if you click on personal read json it presents you with another page.
Joshue108: Lisa anything you want to add about the implementation for 1.3.5?
Lisa is not on the phone
Joshue108: Updates, how are
people getting along?
... Any hassles or blockers, anything anybody wants to discuss
in the evaluations?
Alastairc: Been on some david sites, had some correspondence, worked things out, will give another go this evening.
<AWK_> I did a complete eval of lflegal and we need another evaluator. There are issues but I can share what they are going to fix if needed.
<alastairc> I've done a 1st pass on David's site, went well, couple of niggles but resolved/resolving, should be fine tonight.
Mark: Not yet a challenge, but want input from others. I have AA covered. Has anybody else found challenges with new success criteria? Any gotchas?
glenda: I haven't run into any gotchas, non text contrast is time consuming. Need to take a lot of screenshots and use analyzers, that's just the way it is. I don't find 1.3.4 hard to test for as long as you know what to inspect for.
detlev: I've been evaluating david's site, an issue with multiple ways. Is there a deadline I should be aware. 2.4.5 success criteria is currently fail, want to get clarity on the process. Is it ok to come in later and change to pass? Or when will we be frozen?
Joshue108: Deadline is end of tomorrow.
<Glenda> I’ve been leaving things “blank” when I know the site owner is working on it.
michael: tomorrow is the deadline in the timeline.
glenda: Can we ask for an extension of the timeline through midnight Sunday or Monday?
Michael: That amount of slip would be non-problematic, but we can't ask for a formal extension. We need to be deadline focus.
detlev: Still possible to change from fail to pass over weekend then. Yes.
Joshue108: We are down to the wire.
alistairc: Response to question
about some of the new things. Looking for reflow, it's worth
checking the menu where a site colapses the menu, can you still
get to the menu items? Somtimes things get cut off and can't
get to the menu items.
... Contrast... graphics bits wasn't too bad, but controls was
more time consuming.
... if changed to red border around button, with black
background, then check red vs black.
jf: good.
detlev: how exacting do we have to be in checking? For example, if there's one minor issue with text contrast, and one link is too little contrast, do we have to be a machine and fail even if third party content? How much tolerance do we exercise? I would normally do a pass with comment.
<Glenda> I think we need to be exacting for site conformance.
Joshue108: Personally, we want to try and illustrate where new success criteria is satisfied. If a criteria is satisfied but there are other issues with other criteria, that would still pass.
detlev: full evals?
Joshue108: Say for example that all new success criteria is met, but there are minor issues with color contrast, do we remain rigid or do we have wiggle room?
Michael: We need to be able to defend what we put forth. If we feel it's defensible with wiggle room, we are good. I wouldn't want to wiggle too much because we could be challenged.
detlev: some contrast issues, just don't want to give author hard time.
michael: maybe we would wind up declaring a site in that condition (a site that is using the partial conformance process).
marc: The full site testing for AA, how much of that site are we doing? Every single page? Home page? Two pages?
glenda: We ran a full scan on the site. For automation full, for manual, targeted.
Michael: We don't want to do a manual test of a site that is larger than five pages.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to speak about tolerance during evals
Joshue108: Try and use their own best judgement when something meets the success criteria but has minor infringements. I wouldn't want to torpedo a good evaluation for minor contrast issues that may not be a substantial accessibility issue.
<AWK_> Lflegal is about 900 pages, through automated testing and identification of repeated template usage I feel pretty confident that we covered the site quite comprehensively.
Joshue108: I saw another eval of
1.3.5. Anyone else want to talk about any issues that were
encountered or any help needed?
... Michael, anything else you want to bring up with the group?
Critical juncture.
<alastairc> I think we need another target size one as well?
<AWK_> I’m gettIng a pdf to add as a AA
Michael: Nothing specific. We need at least one more AA site for testing. We did the exercise of assigning people tuesday. Hopefully numbers will go up over the weekend. On Monday we will review scorecard. If there's a lot of red, we will really worry.
Joshue108: A couple do have reds.
2.3.5 targetsize and 1.3.5.
... If anybody knows of any sites that will pass, please
test.
<Glenda> Can we assign someone to CREATE a page that will meet 2.3.5 target size
marc: if you have a handful (five or six) you might be able to pass those to kathy, she has a plugin that take seconds to test.
why doesn't someone just create a page?
glenda: If it's not currently passing on Lany's, play it safe and create a page.
<AWK_> We might find a page on David’s site that could meet target size
marc: is there anyone with the skills to create a page over the next couple of days?
<AWK_> There is one page that is close but the twitter insert is most of the problem
Joshue108: ping kathy.
<Detlev> have to drop out, sorry
<Joshue108> https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html
Joshue108: hit personalize..
<kirkwood> also this may satisfy ww.nyc.gov/MOPD
marc: not the initial page.
glenda: do we have a page?
marc: How detailed will our instructions be?
Joshue108: Include that in a note in your evaluation to include the plug.
marc: rawgit page, will this be a problem?
we can ask Lisa not to move it.
<kirkwood> http:www.nyc.gov might satisfy target
marc: Last question: Do we need to create a quick implementation entry?
glenda: submit now is not sized right. 37 not 44.
<kirkwood> http://www.nyc.gov/MOPD I meant
glenda: We need her to make submit button bigger, fast.
marc: I'm pinging Lisa right now.
glenda: Everything else is sized right imho.
marc: Those imput fields are showing up as 36 and 38 for me.
glenda: Ask kathy.
<AWK_> Include the label in the target size for inputs
alastairc: target for inputs is anything that can be touched.
kirkwood: ... site does have large targets. I put link in feed.
alastair: twitter feeds have been problematic.
glenda: I see some issues. Down
arrow next to translate is tiny.
... discussion on target sizes ...
target size is 44x44.
alastairc: css pixels.
... you have to include the padding not just the size.
Joshue108: sending that to her
now.
... I think this is a good test case for target size.
... did john kirkwood mention he had a candidate?
kirkwood: /MOPD... important to include that in the link (use full link).
Joshue108: Can you eval this site?
kirkwood: Yes.
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say they are covered by User Agent Control: The size of the target is determined by the user agent and is not modified by the author.
<marcjohlic> To Mike's point - text input fields
gowerm: ... something that everyone was excited to hear...
Joshue108: Let's do evals of
that. Bump up the numbers on target size.
... If there is nothing else we need to discuss, we can drop.
We can spend some time and do some evals.
alastairc: If people run into problems, email me and chairs and we'll try and jump on it. Point your browsers and get clicking.
kirkwood: MOPD one is no longer in the evaluation queue.
Joshue108: That's ok, just add it.
Michael: NONONONO
... Whats the name of the site?
<marcjohlic> http://www1.nyc.gov/site/mopd/
michael: I had marked it as not for evaluation because you said you wanted to use the other one.
<AWK_> Did we settle the question around reflow eval?
michael: ... discussion on clarity of which sites to use... can we use both sites?
kirkwood: MOPD is much better and will pass everything.
michael: I'll turn it back on,
should be showing up now.
... Doesn't say MOPD, but does in the uri.
kirkwood: should be the Mayor's office for people with disabilities.
michael: It's there. Meant to be AA?
kirkwood: correct.
michael: Should bring us up to 8
AA sites.
... if we know one of the 8 won't meet it we will need
additional AA sites.
kirkwood: NYC Mayor's office of the CTO is the one that is failing AA tests.
michael: Should we remove it?
kirkwood: yes.
michael: That brings us back to 7 AA sites.
alastairc: Andrew will charge to the rescue with a PDF we can use.
Joshue108: Go evaluate...
... dog barking...
marc: Will you want to add Lisa's site for testing target size?
Michael: if it's a brand new one go ahead.
marc: another thing... someone
was reaching out to Lisa. Because she did adjust the page, they
would not be under the exclusion of the criteria, she will need
to bump up the padding for this site to pass.
... in a nutshell. Because the exclusion of the sc is as long
as you don't modify the controls... she has modified them, and
will need to size them up.
... to 44x44 minimum.
<marcjohlic> User Agent Control
<marcjohlic> The size of the target is determined by the user agent and is not modified by the author;
josh: a lot of the targetsize items are big to begin with.
marc: I'm inspecting them, they are only 36 pixels tall.
Glenda: He's right, me too.
marc: Everything needs to be bumped up and padding added to top and bottom.
josh: 36 now need to be 44, so add 4 pixels.
go forth and evaluate
<Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/We'll charge to/Andrew will charge to/ Default Present: AWK, JF, MichaelC, KimD, Greg_Lowney, alastairc, marcjohlic, jasonjgw, SteveRepsher, Glenda, Kathy, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue108, Chuck, gowerm, Detlev, (but, have, to, leave, in, 30, mins), kirkwood, need, early, Laura Present: AWK JF MichaelC KimD Greg_Lowney alastairc marcjohlic jasonjgw SteveRepsher Glenda Kathy Katie_Haritos-Shea Joshue108 Chuck gowerm Detlev (but have to leave in 30 mins) kirkwood need early Laura No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Chuck Inferring Scribes: Chuck WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Found Date: 29 Mar 2018 People with action items: WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]