<alastairc> agenda order 1,2,3,4,5
<laura> yes. I can’t hear you though.
<laura> no
<laura> no
<Chuck> scribe: Chuck
<laura> will do.
alastiarc: Notifications/review. ACT task force went through review period, and looking to go into CR.
Bruce: Can we get URL's?
<maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html
alastiarc: There's an
implementation report.
... I can't seem to open up implementation report.
maryjom: I'll post that one as well.
<maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-implementations.html
alastiarc: Chance to review and
ask q. I don't think anything substantially changed.
... Unlikely you'll find anything new or outrageous. If you do
find anything please let team know. We will likely go to
CFC
maryjom: there's a change history
if you want to see changes in verbage in apendix 3. This lists
the changes.
... It's all editorial, clarifying, a little bit of
re-arranging (4.1, 5.1). Existing arrangement was confusing to
one of reviewers.
... Flows better to reduce confusion.
... Overall it's pretty much editoral things that
happened.
... we have implementations which are necessary (documented in
implementation doc).
alastiarc: A spread of rules being implemented across tools.
maryjom: 3 implementations and a couple of rules.
Shadi: We are in candidate
recommendation phase. Where we have to demonstrate that the
spec can be implemented in practice.
... In this case it's rules.
... We have at least 2 different rules which demonstrate that
this can be implmented. Some are implemented in automated, some
in manual.
... We've met the exist criteria, and requesting approval from
working group to approve latest draft to go from candidate to
proposed recommendation.
... Pre-final stage.
... At this stage there's sign-off. Hopefully in late sept or
early oct complete recommendation.
... wg decision to approve go from candidate to proposed
recommendation.
alastiarc: Thanks.
... Does anybody have any questions/comments?
dm: I'm looking at rule implementations, can you talk a little bit about....?
wilco: epub rule. Developed by
Daisy Consortium Community Group. it uses rules written by ht
rules community group for titles.
... rules looks at if epub has correct titles.
alastiarc: It was good to include that as another technology beyond browsers.
Shadi: There's also an svg rule which might be interesting.
alastiarc: Any other q?
<laura> scribe: Laura
AC: reviewing ACT docs.
saudi: start using it.
ac: survey this week.
... using focus visible to how to update a WCAG 2.x
requirements.
... 3 main options.
... Option 1, modification.
... Option 2, moving 2.4.7 to level A and adding a new
SC.
... Option 3, deprecating 2.4.7 and adding a new SC.
... mixed results.
... bruce and MG had comments
MG: Maybe my “No” should be
“Prefer Not”..
... not as a problem going forward as going backward.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to MG comments, that option 3 is very poor
jf: concerned with backwards
compatibility.
... building on top is the best option.
... deprecating makes it hard for organizations.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to JF comments that we should probably avoid deprecating SC if we don’t really have to
AC: it is the same either way.
jf: we are playing Jenga.
... building on top is easier to explain.
bruce: Alastair, you are thinking too much like a mathematician and not enough like a bureaucrat.
JF: advocating for #2
David: okay with moving it to AA
ac: understanding docs would have
a lot of overlap. But what about techniques?
... Techniques that are sufficient for the current 2.4.7 will
not be sufficient for the new SC, that will need to be
deprecated.
MG: would need to specify which techniques apply to which SCs
<bruce_bailey> i am not following alastair outline that there is logical contradiction with option 2
<bruce_bailey> thanks MG
AC: will call it on the survey to
option 2
... anyone object?
bruce: might want to check with @awk.
RESOLUTION: Choose Option 2 for focus visible SC
AC: Proposed SC text:
Instructions are provided for custom gestures or motion
actuation.
... confused by Jonathan’s comments.
... Jon not on call.
bruce: Maybe need to have other related SC done first?
AC: don’t think so.
... MG had a comment.
MG: IBM has gone off 508 for
this.
... expected to surface inline help.
ac: not a blocking comment but a
scoping comment.
... I had a comment regarding supplementary gestures.
<alastairc> "All functionality that requires the use of custom gestures or motion actuation has instructions to indicate how to operate the functionality."
ac: don’t have to add
instructions.
... Rachael had a comment.
... Bruce had a comment too.
... apart from scoping doesn’t sound like there are any
blockers.
Jake: I am writing up this
SC.
... I heard the comments.
AC: MG had the scoping
comment.
... my comment was about what happens if there is another way
of doing it?
<Rachael> /me Laura: I can take scribing whenever you would like.
MG: maybe add the word “only”?
<Rachael> scribe: Rachael
mbgower: Instead of tapping a menu, you can swipe a menu to open it at the same time.
alastairc: It seemed odd to include instructions for a custom gesture you don't have to use.
alastairc: any other comments?
alastairc: 6 happy as proposed. Jake added comments asking for working examples. I agree but that doesn't necessarily need them as a general technique...
Jake: We may have been through these.
alastairc: I was wondering if a
user overrides using the operating system. Is there anything
the author can do about that?
... if that is what its trying to say, I didn't get that but I
don't think its a big issue.
mbgower: I would like to present
an idea to get feedback on. I introduced the idea of
"prevalent" into the second paragraph. A designer can get away
with something as long a prevalent alternative is
available.
... The term is undefined but I think there should be something
indicating that it should be easy for a user to get to the
control. Do you all think we need more wording about that?
Alastairc: We are testing on a page by page level. The test procedure is the bottom line so on whatever page you are testing you would make sure there is a control. It didn't bother me.
david-macdonald: What more is
being required here than 1.3.4? It seems like this is already
covered.
... Where you don't have to click anything. Isn't this a
technique for 1.3.4?
<mbgower> however, I DO think prominent is better than prevalent
Alastairc: Yes it is.
mbgower: Can we avoid doing this in the future? It was confusing to go in and see answers from a previous iteration.
alastairc: We had a time crunch and we will try to avoid it but it is helpful sometimes to have all the information in a single place.
david-macdonald: Consider,
"...prevelant, requiring only one action on page
load,..."
... We need to define it in a way to measure it. There is a
huge gray area there. You could meet the SC but make it harder
to get to.
Rachael: We may want to dive down this rabbit hole at some time because we need this concept in other places.
Alastairc: It can make it difficult on a page by page basis
<mbgower> +1 to Rachael's comment
Alastairc: can we get this technique on the board and come back to the aspect of mechanisms that are easily available. It is something that crops up for quite a few potential SC.
mbgower: I think david-macdonald is right and prominent is more appropriate than prevelant. For this SC its isn't critical so is OK for this one but we should revisit in the future.
david-macdonald: The language of the technique may need to be more consistent with the language used in other techniques.
mbgower: If you are OK with me addressing comments, I can move forward.
<david-macdonald> Providing a control to allow a user to change the orientation when orientation is locked by the content
Alastairc: Yes I am. Then we can merge the PRs into master.
mbgower: I will take it from that and work on it.
Alastairc: Does anyone object to us resolving this technique as ammended?
RESOLUTION: Approve Tech Control Orientation as amended
<david-macdonald> Providing a control to allow a user to change the orientation when it is locked by the content
Alastairc: This was put back in but Jake has a lot of questions about whether this technique belongs to this SC.
Jake: To respond to the technique updates, I like the updates. To be clear, according to the normative text of the SC the doorslam might fit but together with the understanding document I have a lot of questions. I think we need a rewrite of the understanding document.
<alastairc> The comment thread: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/799
Jake: a little more than a month
ago, I had a question from the accessibility organization of
the Netherlands about orientation and they had it wrong. I am
working on a dutch translation of WCAG 2.1 and the 20 experts
I'm working with believe orientation is about the physical
orientation. The understanding document was responsible for
misunderstanding.
... the technique is clear but compared to the understanding
document, it is confusing.
... We have a good technique but it doesn't fit with the
understanding document. If an application switches orientation
and shows different content.
... Websites, etc need to support both orientations. The
content is restricted for a certain width/height ratio. If you
read it fairly well with the principles, then you have a
difference.
... the doorslam changes the content based on the display. I
understand the wording in that we won't focus on content that
is present or not present but that is not what this says.
Changes in content due to display is not covered in the
SC.
... the moment you change the content based on display, you
restrict the orienation.
... alternatively, the user agent should display the page based
on the default orientation of the device or based on the device
sensors. That is also not correct.
<johnkirkwood> +1 (including concerns expressed regarding difficulty restriction of page size) device change it rotates within. this needs to be reread and rewrite this.
Jake: If you adjust your browser to certain sizes, you can still see the portrait content on a device with a landscape orientation. We need to rewrite the understanding document.
alastairc: So the technique is fine but we need to rewrite the understanding document.
There seems to be a disconnect between the technical and general documents. We should revisit the understanding document. I've marked it as 2.1 and needs assigning. Does anyone want to take that review?
scribe: based on that, are you OK to approve the technique?
Jake: Yes.
alastairc: Any objections to publishing the technique based on PR822?
RESOLUTION: Accept Tech Failure Doorslam
alastairc: The last time we looked at this we left mbgower to do a final review. I think that went fine. Does anyone object to publishing this technique?
mbgower: Originally I was concerned about some of the language because it implied that dragging was a path based gesture. I still feel like this is a very specific technique but we need more general general techinque. In the meantime, it stands alone OK so it may be rolled up but I think we can publish.
alastairc: Any comments or objections?
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 760 Providing a control slider that offers single point activation
alastairc: After we publish the items for today, we will be up to 2 on orientation.
bruce: I just noticed an issue with a revision on the editors draft. I can email public WCAG but what is the process?
alastairc: Please do that fairly
soon and cc Shadi and Wilco along with our list
... actually cc the more specific act list.
david-macdonald: Is this up to date?
alastairc: Not including today
and possibly not last week
... I think Andrew has a mechanism looking at techniques but I
need to update this.
... orientation we will have at least 1 sufficient and 1
failure. The ones we are low on, Pointer gestures has a few
coming through. We need a sufficient technique on animation
from interactions.
... I thought we had motion actuation.
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/#changelog
alastairc: the change log above
should be an active representation of right now.
... Identify Purpose: We only have 1. We could do for a success
technique for Character Key Shortcuts
... Rather than going through this on the call, I will do some
updates and send a list of the 5 SC we should tackle next. Can
anyone spare an hour or two to write up a technique? Can be in
a document not Github. Its a good way of getting into an
SC.
<mbgower> I'm good to take on one of these, Alastair. We can decide offline.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15idlBl1qQTNr2SIi4Drzk1Q1vnWAi5L26GCCv6mjD2g/edit#gid=0
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask best path for submitting comments on ED of ACT
Rachael: We have duplicate failure techniques on pointer gestures but it is very unclear if anyone is writing either.
mbgower: I will look into it
david-macdonald: I had written a technique and sent it but haven't heard.
alastairc: It is in my backlog. you are bringing forward two potential new ones?
david-macdonald: Yes. One says if you have a fixed page such as in an academic environment you need a common reference point. These SC try to help with that. One says if you have page locators, make them programatically available.
The second one says if you have the provide a way to navigate them.
<david-macdonald> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Zn0_TGcqrM-L_wb0PIFHM4AnHJ64wPsucZyRGlf2Fg/edit#heading=h.n3esw3alr309
alastairc: I think it would be good to check back in my email on starting off wcag 2.2 SC.
david-macdonald: The epub team has put these together.
alastairc: Did anyone else start working on the previously existing epub document? Andrew, Bruce, and David (lead) are listed.
david-macdonald: We wanted to get them in granularly. If they are both accepted we can collapse them. One is more conservative.
alastairc: I just forwarded the email to you. You are on step 2.
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yjrfIP9KLqTn_Jlq6-T1JvsqY924R_5z1WI2YLv3obc/edit#gid=0
alastairc: if anyone else is interested in the epub, reach out to me or David.
Does anyone else have comments/questions on techniques or SC?
I will give you time back. We made it through the agenda.
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/Daisy Con.../Daisy Consortium Community Group/ Succeeded: s/playing jinga/playing Jenga/ Succeeded: s/thinking too much like a mathamantition and ot like a bueucate/Alastair, you are thinking too much like a mathematician and not enough like a bureaucrat/ Succeeded: s/"ll functionality/"All functionality/ Succeeded: s/requirments/requirements/ Succeeded: s/No should be perfer not/“No” should be “Prefer Not”./ Succeeded: s/backwards compat/backwards compatibility/ Succeeded: s/buidling /building / Succeeded: s/undersanding /understanding / Succeeded: s/specifiy /specify / Succeeded: s/suryvey /survey / Succeeded: s/OPtion/Option / Succeeded: s/visable /visible / Succeeded: s/done fires/done first/ Succeeded: s/coment /comment / Succeeded: s/instuctions/instructions/ Succeeded: s/reort/report/ Succeeded: s/supplimentary /supplementary / Present: alastairc Chuck Rachael JakeAbma stevelee Fazio Laura bruce_bailey maryjom johnkirkwood JustineP JF Glenda mbgower david-macdonald Regrets: Nicaise Jonathan_Avila Rafal Detlev Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Scribes: Chuck, Laura, Rachael ScribeNicks: Chuck, laura, Rachael Found Date: 16 Jul 2019 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]