<Mike_Elledge> scribe: Mike_Elledge
Reminder: Silver prototype exercise. Any questions? Still going, please check it out. Next week followup.
ac: Techniques went out for survey. First is media queries
<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/tech-media-queries-sticky/techniques/css/media-queries-sticky.html
ac: A few responses. Happy with
technique. Page has stidky header or footer, when someone zooms
in section can take over screen.
... Puts sticky behind media query so if not enough space won't
cover page.
... Probably don't need to signpost complexity. When tabbing
backwards can disappear under sticky header. Comment?
... Can't think where else we would put it.
... Jake has addressed...thanks Jake. Still in preview version.
Cached?
... AK ahd some comments. Wording updates.
ak: Thought unfixed sticking headers might do.l
ac: Fixing probably more
appropriate.
... Principle or approach comments...either could work. Remove
medium complexity, esp. if only one exazmple.
... From comments...mg needs more discussion...
mg: Here
ac: Trouble getting example to work?
mg: An outstanding comment.
ac: Header more obvious if you
play with window size. Below a certain height will
unstick.
... Remove complexity bit...
ak: Define principle or approach. Given that there are two comments, approach would be better.
ja: Fine with me/
ac: Have cleared comments...should we put in note or comment? Have in third paragraph.
ja: Have added.
<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/tech-media-queries-sticky/techniques/css/media-queries-sticky.html
ac: Fourth paragraph. Detlev, have you seen?
<JakeAbma> Be aware that sticky regions can create disadvantages for keyboard users and should therefore be used judiciously. The problem for keyboard users tabbing through a page with a fixed header is that once the page has started to scroll, tabbing backwards to reach interactive elements higher up on the page will often mean that the focus becomes invisible once it moves behind the sticky header. Users must then scroll up to be able to see the focus, something the[CUT]
<JakeAbma> necessarily be aware of. In the same way the visible focus can disappear behind a sticky footer, so users would need to scroll down to be able to see their focus position, which is a major inconvenience.
<Brooks> +1 to adding the note
detlev: Looks good to me. Suffidient techs are taken as recommendations, acknolwedgte that there is another issue.
ac: Doesn't solve all the problems.
ak: Procedure question. Starts
with mobile device, portrait and landscape, whether sticky or
not based on settings.
... Then second is the same thing but zoom. Some way we can
consolidate this into one check.
... Seems like procedure separates height setting. Can we
clarify that?
ja: If remember, have to re-read
it, wrote procedure. Two way to trigger unstickingess. One is
height, other is landscape and portrait. But not sure can skip
portrait/landscape test.
... Not everyone builds the way I did. Can look at it
again.
<JakeAbma> @media (min-device-width: 576px) and (max-device-width: 1024px) and (orientation: landscape) {
ak: I had missed the orientation part. Now understand why. Wouldn't want to start over.
<JakeAbma> @media (min-device-width: 576px) and (max-device-width: 1024px) and (orientation: landscape) {
ak: Happy as it is now.
ac: Kind of two procedures. Can't check orientation on desktop. Can't test on mobile without lots of heights.
<jon_avila> browser developer tools support rotate (see Chrome)
ac: Other questions, issues with
this going live?
... Probably have to reco one device...
Glenda: CSS test on dev tools, not really kosher.
ac: If not sure, current procedure is best for now.
RESOLUTION: Accept pull request 389 as
amende
... Accept pull request 389 as amended
ac: Comments more extensive for
this one. More discussion first.
... Results out of sync with procedure...More significant
changes to make on this one...
... Any working examples (mg). Do we provide examples for
failures?
... Detlev. Test procedure. keyboard dismisses content...
... Change procedure as docu,mentedd keyboard shortcut
detlev: Not ideal. difficult to encompass all conditions. Turn into sufficient technique. Looking for comments.
<Ryladog> Expected Results If #2, #3, and #4 - doesnt match Test Procedure numbers in steps
ac: Will drop that one. Procedure issue in making sure it's a failure.
detlev: Example on basic level.
Popup on hover. Can link from rendered version on his own site.
Should be improvoed. Also include another example where popup
may be footnote, so hovering over main text gives popup, with
source code at bottom of doc.
... I.e.. where source code isn't nearby. Have asked friend to
help with scripting, but feel free to do.
<alastairc> New technique for help: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/529
detlev: Any other technique as well.
ac: Thank you for putting in links, Laura. Ak: had comments.
ak: Length, not major.
ac: Did separating it help?
ak: Absolutely
... Everything I said can be addressed briefly.
... Second paragraph of description seems to be missing
somehting...
ac: Resolution is addition of
colon, for subseqent bullet points.
... Text spacing metrics...
... "here's a tool" section...
ak: Asking person to go back and look at text spacing metrics. Do we want this or give detail about the four metrics.
ac: We could create subbullet list, that includes them all, but perhaps put in description taht these are required.
<laura> could we link to it?
ak: Not give specific numbers, but paragraph spacing and line height
ac: Link to success criteria? Takes you out of context.
<Ryladog> It would be confusing
<Ryladog> yes
ak: What do others think? If encountered as a test, do you need that specificity?
<Ryladog> yes
ac: Katie: would like
specificity.
... Line height, paragraph spacing...perhaps add note to
procedure checks.
<AWK> Use a tool or another mechanism to apply the text spacing metrics (line height, and paragraph, letter, and word spacing),
ak: Add note to procedure checks, but not sure what you're saying ak
<laura> add sub bullets:* Line height (line spacing) to at least 1.5 times the font size;
<laura> * Spacing following paragraphs to at least 2 times the font size;
<laura> * Letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 times the font size;
<laura> * Word spacing to at least 0.16 times the font size.
ak: See above.
... Other part, after check #3 is true, test in each
layout.
... Not crucial. Is should correct word. But if text
spacing...check that all fucntionality is available, repeat 2
& 3 for different break points.
ac: Have a feeling have used elsewhere.
ak: You and I should go through it and make it consistent where we have same issue.
ac: Wrapping version
similar...apart from description...
... Bottom three on section.
... Laura happy?
<laura> I’m fine with it.
<laura> either is ok with me.
ak: How resolving procedure? Sub-bullets? or parenthetical version?
ac: Happy with parenthetical one.
When it is publixhed will link to SCs, will help. Bookmarklet
should make it straightforward.
... Resources and understanding have links.
... Publish?
<Ryladog> +1
<laura> +1
RESOLUTION: To publish 386 as amended
ac: Another technique:
<alastairc> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag/tech-fitting-images-viewport/techniques/css/tech-fitting-images-viewport.html
ac: Reflow. If you zoom in and
author does nothing, images will expand to viewport, which
doesnt meet technique.
... Jake put together example. Can link.
mg: This is an advisory technique?
ac: Sufficient for particular kind of content. I fyou have images and similar media and don't use this technique will fail.
mg: Isn't there an exception for reflow? Think it would be advisory with language we're using.
ac: Would need to be advisory. Don't think we need to worry about content for this technique.
mg: Candidate in 2.2 as part of requirement for image to follow this.
ac: good point.
<Detlev> there will be cases where you *don't* want an image to reflow
ac: In terms of comments on technique:
ak: Would remove everything except keeping images for reflow and two panels. So ppl don't have to wade through all that stuff.
ac: Wireframe issue--ppl don't understand latin
ja: Can make it simpler. Depends
on discussion if have to do it. This is more an actual live
sample. Can put in two columns, but can argue not as accurate
as in a real website.
... Both have a purpose.
ak: Can go either way, my inclination is to strip out extra stuff, and still works.
ja: Have seemed example as stripped. Thought it didnt' feel right. Big links, lots of text in them. Example didn't say as much to me. Maybe need both.
ac: Have purpose in two columns containing images, can work across different devices. Wonder if it will work if remove latin.
ak: We could also make two
examples that are similar. One stripped down, the other full.
Don't really care.
... If will take 3 weeks, let's send out as is.
<Ryladog> I think it is fine to go
dm: If I'm looking at right one, I like it. Really cute example. Not overdone. Shows reflowed page. Good mockup. Not out of consistency, don't have a huge precedent for live examples. Don't see the issue.
<Detlev> agree with David - I like the example as it is
ac: Most ppl happy with it.
ja: It make be nice to make it an issue to discuss. Think we can do better than a lot of examples of WCAG 2.0, more live examples. But what does group think.
ac: Good point.
... Will note for future discussion.
... Jake has made some nice examples, browser support much
better.
... For this technique, happy to go as advisory technique.
ak: Also resolution to accept 495 since separate.
<Ryladog> +1
<Detlev> +1
<laura> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept pull request 494 as amended
<Ryladog> +1
<laura> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Brooks> +1
ac: Everyone happy to accept 495 subject to future discussion
<kirkwood> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept pull request 495 subject to future discussion
<alastairc> Homework for this week: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Ready+for+initial+review%22
ac: All our techniques. Can get to more if...ppl will look at ones ready for initial review. Half a dozen...that's your homework...to look at others for review.
dm: Send an email for initial review...
ac: WCAG2ICT updates survey. New
document for update.
... There is a v 2.0. should we have v 2.1?
... 1 person update 2.0. 2 create new. 3 no preference.
<jon_avila> I personally find it useful.
ac: Bruce had key comment...on call? Said didn't we already decide one or other. Not best use of our time. Don't see a need to update. 508 already adopted their approach.
<jon_avila> Agreed!
<gowerm> +1
ak: 508 uses WCAG 2.0 bec had ICT document. EN includes 2.0 uses WCAG sc, but not for 2.1
dm: Think everyone would like 2.1 for ICT. Gives credibiltiy to WCAG 2.1. You can rely on this. Totally useful.
<Chuck> Scribe: Chuck
<Mike_Elledge> Yay check!
<jon_avila> I agree with Andrew.
awk: I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or Bruce.
ac: We can ambush Bruce later if
he gets here. It's then worth proceding worth some of the more
specific aspects.
... Going through all of the individual sc does it apply, so
looking at orientation
dm: Just on one thing before we start. The WCAG to ICT only goes A and AA, we don't have AAA, we didn't have time when we created.
<Ryladog> +1 to David
dm: I propose we look at just A and AA to be consistent.
ac: It looks like it includes all of them.
awk: We'll attribute that to the zeal of the survey maker.
<jon_avila> Level A and AA would be most important.
ac: In the call we'll keep to A
and AA.
... Two people say it applies directly, one disagreed, one
thought it should be excluded.
... I have a feeling Bruce might have excluded everything based
on the principal of his first comment.
... John thought it might need clarification on specific
terms.
... No comments, so not sure of the terms.
... I should check with Andrew, best output is just to rattle
through and work through which ones do and don't apply, but
Bruce's comments aside.
... For then orientation we can say it applies with
clarification with terms.
awk: #1 output of this discussion
A) this is something the wg should do, B) this is achievable
and not be a multi-month activity. C) Who would like to help
work on this...
... and get feedback from others, and continue this.
ac: Answer to 1 is that this is
something the wg should do.
... Anyone on the call who worked on this in version 2, how
long did it take?
dm: It was a killer. I don't have
the same kind of sense that will be the case this time, maybe
optimism.
... It took a year and we met weekly for 2-3 hours. We were
mostly hammering out the model, and now the model is there for
us. It should go fairly quick.
... In my initial pass, I didn't see that there was a lot of
problems answering those three questions. Particularly just for
the 12.
ac: you are interested in working on this?
dm: yes, I can contribute and help.
<Ryladog> Me
<Ryladog> Probably Bruce
<Ryladog> :-)
ac: That's part of question C. Is there anybody else who is interested in working on this. I assume that involves taking a success criteria, translate, exclude as appropriate.
dm: That will be punishment for bucking system.
mike: Checking with Mary Joe to see if she is interested.
ac: We won't restrict to people
just on the call.
... In which case, Andrew do you want me to go through the rest
of the survey, we have some that do apply, some that don't
(from those who joined in so far).
awk: I think it's worth banging on them, and you should refresh the survey. I moved the AAA down to the bottom. If we do that, we can focus first on A and AA.
<alastairc> Updated survey start of items. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT_Update/results#xq4
ac: Orientation I think people
were happy that this applies to web software, possibly with
clarifications. Identify Input Purpose...
... was disagreed on. Johnathon thought it applied only to
markup languages.
dm: When I was looking on that, I
borrowed some language from another place, the language was
kind of like...
... <fast talker>... we see that in the current WCAG to
ICT.
ac: Opens it up for PDF.
<jon_avila> I'm fine with what David proposes as long as it's clear.
dm: Basically says if there is a mechanism it applies, but there isn't a mechanism.
ac: John is fine with that as
long as it's clear.
... Reflow. Should be excluded. A couple of people thought it
shoudl be excluded from non-web software and documents.
... Andrew thought it could be included...
dm: It's likely that for software that there will be need for two dimensional layout.
detlev: I want to make everyone
aware that this will not apply outside of places outside of EU,
there in EN 301 549 there's annex a.
... A1 refers to web-content and A2 refers to software. These
two tables have all kinds of conditional and non-conditional
links to the european norm.
... There are various things that are dragged into the
standards for Europe. That will probably define how WCAG is
applied in Europe.
... for those doing the wcag to ict exercise, it's important to
look at EN and these two tables. Want a link?
<Ryladog> We will have to review that Detlev, thank you
dm: yes please do. Aren't those tables, don't they apply to functional requirements?
detlev: Not entirely sure. It's a
mapping that shows the directive, links to EU norm. has a
number of things that are not web-content. Just one
chapter.
... It's full ranging. This mapping is there to explain how for
web-content and native apps other parts of the EN would relate.
It's quite technical and complex.
... Should be looked at for this task.
awk: I think I got it here.
... I think that's the right link.
<AWK_> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/02.01.02_60/en_301549v020102p.pdf
detlev: Make sure, because they just updated it.
awk: That's the latest one.
detlev: there's an Annex A, in there you can find the tables.
dm: Looking forward to that. I thought that the tables were perifial, I was looking at the EN pretty closely, but that was prior version.
detlev: I'm talking from perspective of german. Content of these tables has to be dragged into the German public sector regulations. Needs looking at?
dm: page 81?
detlev: 81-83, 84 is the second one on mobile applicatoins.
dm: We'll look at that for sure. It's not bad once you get into it.
ac: If you say so....
... Identify input purpose done, reflow... I wonder for the
people who thought it should be excluded from non web software
and documents.
... Seemed like it could apply to pdf and EPUB. Not in
scope?
dm: They are, totally.
ac: That seems like reflow would
be included.
... non-text contract I think it's only Bruce who is excluding.
Others thought it could apply as written.
... Text spacing. Johnathon would be excluded. Andrew thought
it could apply as written.
awk: I think that there's a couple we saw in here. We are interpreting it for only markup languages. 1.3.5 is another one. I thought we wrote them to be applied more broadly.
<laura> The exception already is in place. “Human languages and scripts that do not make use of one or more of these text style properties in written text can conform using only the properties that exist for that combination of language and script.”
awk: In some ways it's nice that when the technology exists it will automatically apply.
<david-macdonald> I've got to run... my opinions are here http://davidmacd.com/WCAG/wcag2ict-21-discussion.html
awk: until then it's an automatic pass.
ac: Thanks David.
... yes, user agent support is something we can improve upon
hopefully.
<jon_avila> I have to leave the meeting.
ac: Content on hover on focus,
might need some clarification. Such as we don't have escape to
dismiss. Does that make it very difficult to apply?
... How do you apply hover on focus? Need interesting
techniques to make it dismissable.
awk: There's enough sub-clause
conditions we have to think about this very hard.
... Kiosk is more of a closed system. It's worth looking at
closer.
ac: And then keyboard shortcuts.
Could be directly applied, apart from Bruce.
... Seems fairly straight forward.
... Pointer gestures and cancellation. Apart from Bruce, seemed
straight forward to apply.
mg: I don't think it would have considerations for mobile. Doesn't have a pointer that can hover.
detlev: May have a pointer.
mg: Pointer but no keyboard?
detlev: Possibly.
mg: Just trying to think of such a kiosk. I think there's less concern...
ac: I think it's, just looking
through, label and name could applie as written. At least
according to John and Andrew. Seems straightforward.
... I think most apps have the concept of accessible name.
awk: That one is all about content. Content and accessibility name matches the visible label.
ac: Those concepts are well
supported. Motion actuation.
... Could be applied directly as written.
... Handling status messages... Johnathon thought that could
apply only to markup languages.
<gowerm> +1 to AWK
awk: I agree. It does only apply to markup languages. That doesn't mean it can't be desktop software.
<david-macdonald> ps Kiosks have special treatment in the WCA2ICT, we called them closed functionality.
ac: yes.
awk: I guess the question is what
did wcag to ict do to 4.1.1?
... Says applies directly as written.
ac: I think it's going to be a
case of working through individually. Some people will be
familiar with how wcag to ict works.
... Just a case of people sitting down and working through the
new items.
<Mike_Elledge_> Have to go too. Bye all.
ac: We should have a catchup on
how the chairs would think this gets added.
... Mike has to go too.
awk: We can follow up with Bruce and ask for clarification.
ac: Apart from that, I think
there's no other business.
... Agenda done. People dropping off.
... We've got david and katie who are interested in working on
that. Andrew and I will pick up with Bruce.
... Probably worth people working on it and bringing it back to
the group.
... and Mary Joe.
... Great!
... In which case I recommend people please have a look at the
techniques, and if you have questions....
... It looks like people were happy with the CFC. Concludes
tonight.
... Apart from that please look at the techniques. I'll take
David's suggestion and email the links. It's in the
notes.
... let us know if you have any questions. I've updated the
wiki page for techniques if you are thinking of starting
off.
<alastairc> Technique writing: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-techniques#List_of_Techniques
ac: Wiki page itself now doesn't
contain the big list. LInks thorugh to the spreadsheet we
worked on at TPAC. In terms of technique writing this is a good
place to start.
... Thank you everyone.
<laura> bye
<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/Topic: Test// Succeeded: s|https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/…|| Succeeded: s/epup/EPUB/ Succeeded: s/ac: Dropping like flies.// Default Present: AWK, Chuck, alastairc, Rafal, kirkwood, Detlev, Mike_Elledge, Brooks, MichaelC, david-macdonald, JakeAbma, Kathy, Laura, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Glenda, jon_avila, gowerm WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: stevelee, Makoto, skotkjerra) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK Present: AWK Chuck alastairc Rafal kirkwood Detlev Mike_Elledge Brooks MichaelC david-macdonald JakeAbma Kathy Laura Katie_Haritos-Shea Glenda jon_avila gowerm Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck Scribes: Mike_Elledge, Chuck ScribeNicks: Mike_Elledge, Chuck WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 13 Nov 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]