<JakeAbma> scribe: Jake

TPAC proposed agenda

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2018

<alastairc> Jake: 50% on techniques? I'm just wondering how we see that? Signed up for a couple, but what's the approach? 20 people?

<JakeAbma> AWK: ask Task Forces what's most needed to work on for the techniques, pair up and make some great progress

<JakeAbma> AWK: details will be worked on the next two weeks

<JakeAbma> DmD: Silver have meetings at same time?

<JakeAbma> MC: yes, and intertional

<JakeAbma> AC: we may / can have joined sessions

<JakeAbma> JK: remote possibility for participation?

<JakeAbma> MC: yes, phone in room

<JakeAbma> DmD: is WCAG2ICT Vs. WCAG 2.1 on the agenda?

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2018/09/25-ag-minutes.html#item03

<JakeAbma> AC: discussed last week and yes, we'll do

<JakeAbma> AC: not expected on TPAC, but soon

2. Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/TechniquesforApproval/

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/484

Pointer Gestures

<jon_avila> when we say not caught -- we are saying drag and drop does not have to meet this requirement or does have to?

<JakeAbma> BN: question about single click actions, are they acceptable for replacing complex gestures?

<JakeAbma> AC: that applies to key strokes

<JakeAbma> AC: that's a new issue, it was already there...

<JakeAbma> BN: it seems like the two different ways of interacting both (may) have accessibility problems

<JakeAbma> MG: we may make a note and create new issue

<jon_avila> iOS does have touch accommodation but I don't see something specifically mention of different settings for standard and long touch.

<AWK> AWK: In iOS there is a long press duration adjustment setting under "assistive touch"

<JakeAbma> DF: there may be issues with long press for people with motor impairments

<AWK> AWK: Yes, iOS 12

<JakeAbma> AC: but it isn't a drag and drop issue, so good point to check out later

<david-macdonald> move the sentence down one paragraph: "Note that free-form drag and drop actions are not considered path-based gestures for the purposes of this Success Criterion."

<Detlev> fine

RESOLUTION: accept PR484 as amended

Tech using role log

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/435

<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/tech-using-role-log/techniques/aria/aria-log-role.html

<alastairc> Jake: Tested a bit, but didn't work in VO

<Detlev> @AWK: let me check

<Detlev> @AWK: I don't think so

<JakeAbma> MG: checked in voiceover seemed to work

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say tested with VO/Safari and it works

<JakeAbma> Checking it right now, doesn't work...?!

<JakeAbma> Safari VO = OK

<AWK> Tried chat log with safari and VO and it is reading well, doesn't speak "conversation" for each update

<JakeAbma> AWK: some UA information is a bit old, but we need to come up with when exactly a technique is fine to publish

<AWK> I'd remove the aria-labelledby unless we feel that it is required

<JakeAbma> AC: mobile voiceover will be more important than IE

<JakeAbma> AC: aria-labelledby may be deleted as it causes some issues

<JakeAbma> MG: can add a note about aria-labelledby

<JakeAbma> AC: context for live aria messages will be nice, add a note/

<JakeAbma> ?

<JakeAbma> AWK: suggest to remove aria-labelledby and some note text we'll be probably ready next week

RESOLUTION: accept PR435 as amended

Process Survey reminder (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/process-results-pt1/)

<JakeAbma> AC: no extra comments added

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

<JakeAbma> AC: need to break it down, lots of info we need to guide

<JakeAbma> DmD: 2 ways of making tools better

<JakeAbma> DmD: 1 = make tool 100% accessible, 2 = make it as accessible as possible and support people who need more help

<JakeAbma> DmD: so far GitHub is best tool we worked with to make lots of progress, no other tools around

<JakeAbma> AC: GitHub is mainly for issue tracking and change tracking what we do, so there may be even better tools

<JakeAbma> AC: we need to look into this further

Any other business

<Brooks> Scribe: Brooks

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/201

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/201

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G183.html

AC: We could stop using difference between Hue/color and get rid of G183, or we could lean on accessibility supported - any other thoughts?

Jon: To me the difference isn't so much color, its really the lightness of the links compared to the surrounding text. I see it as a luminosity issue.

AWK: I agree it's confusing. What's unfortunate about 2.0, there wasn't a specific threshold that was identified. We've got a technique for non-text contrast in WCAG 2.1, and that's 3:1 contrast ratio. We don't have a lot of backup information that justifies that threshold.

MG: The relative luminosity is the whole basis upon which the non-text contrast is set. It seems people are concerned about having to add an underline on focus. I would be concerned about removing it. It may be seen as in conflict with the non-text contrast SC in WCAG 2.1.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that adding the underline may not be required but is required for this technique.

DmD: G183 means, in my recollection of how it was originally discussed, that the user wants to be able to distinguish links on a page without touching or interacting with the page.

AWK: I don't think that underlining has to be restored on focus. If you've got the 3.0:1 contrast ratio between non-underlined link text and non-link text, that should be enough. You still need other visual effects, such as hover/focus, cursor change, etc. But, they shouldn't be necessary.

<gowerm> +1 to what AWK is saying

AWK: Returning underlining on focus is, however, part of this technique.
... I think you would still pass 1.4.11 if you didn't have other visual affordances other than necessary contrast.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F73.html

Jon: If you look at F73, it indicates that there has to be some need to differentiate, but contrast requirements aren't specifically listed.
... There should be something that distinguishes links from non-links that doesn't require interaction with the content.

MG: Is there anyone out there who is saying that we don't need luminosity difference requirements?
... G183 is very clear about requiring a 3.0:1 contrast ratio. I'm not getting what the problem is.

<Detlev> Sorry, away from desk...

<alastairc> Eric's comment: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/201#issuecomment-426170685

AWK: The problem is that the commenter is saying that G183 shouldn't pass. Maybe we need addtional languange in the Understanding docs.

AC: I think this information is in the Understanding document for 1.4.11, not sure about 1.4.1.
... To address Eric's point, maybe we need to separate luminosity contrast with issues with hue.

MG: I think the current guidance we have on relative luminosity makes the issue clear.

AC: I can see some possible confusion here, and can appreciate the commenters reasons for bringing this up.

MG: I'll see if I can do some research on this and sending you my findings.

Reflow for URLs

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/486

<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/tech-reflow-url/techniques/css/reflow-url.html

AC: If people use long URLs onscreen, it can often trigger horizontal scrolling. Andrew suggested that we consider whether or not long URLs that trigger horizontal scrolling would break the Reflow SC in WCAG 2.1.

AWK: I don't see that it would cause a failure in the WCAG 2.1 Reflow SC.

<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/tech-reflow-url/working-examples/css-reflow-url/

AC: It may be easiest if we put this example in a fixed width 320px page.
... Any other business, questions, comments?

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Ready+for+initial+review%22

AC: There are still some items in the "Ready for initial review column," so please check those out. If there are any issues in this list that you think are ready, please send the chairs an email.

<alastairc> trackbot end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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/difference so much/difference isn't so much/
Succeeded: s/requirements are specifically/requirements aren't specifically/
Default Present: MichaelC, Brooks, alastairc, Detlev, JakeAbma, david-macdonald, kirkwood, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea, gowerm
Present: MichaelC Brooks alastairc Detlev JakeAbma david-macdonald kirkwood jon_avila Katie_Haritos-Shea gowerm
Regrets: Glenda Bruce Kathy JF Chuck EA Laura
Found Scribe: Jake
Found Scribe: Brooks
Inferring ScribeNick: Brooks
Scribes: Jake, Brooks

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 02 Oct 2018
People with action items: 

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.)