<alastairc> WCAG 2.2 reviews Dragging only (1st question) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22reviews/
<alastairc> Techniques & understanding updates questions 1-6 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AGWG_T_U_Aug2019/
<AWK> +AWK
<Jennie> I can scribe 2nd half
<johnkirkwood> I can scribe 1st half
<johnkirkwood> yes!!!
<johnkirkwood> ;)
<alastairc> scribe: johnkirkwood
Alastair: ... WCAG 2.2 update.
Where we got to and what the plan is
... doing some reviews of potential SC we have had 19 ish
... 4 are progressing well. some updates some new
... another 4 with substantail questions
... 3 potential of being left out
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0
Alastair: orientation content
change of particular interest, intially had jake
... does anyone know about it
I have it
Alaistar: memorization needs more
support, david has done first draft can send around
... description of icons need someone to take it on
Alastair: moving on to
timings
... new SC proposed to intial draft reviewed by TPAC so we can
go through final list of good candidates. only have a couple
more weeks
... after TPAC will work on understanding techniques early next
year review. then after er3eview and candidated
recommendations... it was in an email.
... any questions or comments?
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22reviews/results
Alastair: Detlev sent this
through, link takes to you to querstionnair
... results second link
... laura no comment
... pointer gestures scope didn't include all drag, detlev
tried to fill the gap on essential dragging need
... my main concern was feasability
... where draggin is only good way of doing rather tha
essential.
... wondering if examples of dragging issue examples would be
good to know
... any other questions on this WCAG 2.2 SC?
... or need more time?
... my only comment was an english thing lateral sideways up
and down
... anyone can help on potential SC. There are a few that could
do with a little more assistance
... the ones needed more focus were in question 2 in
survey
... half an hour to look at it would be very useful
... I'm here!!!!
... if no comments have to consider draggin SC is a potential
go in 2.2
... no questions or comments on 2.2 work?
Alastair: move on, because no questions
Alastair: on issue list first one is an update to WCAG 2.0 document
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/767
Alastair: a link to change.
... sensory 1.3.3 make change more explicit instructions
<Jennie> I can hear you
no
all good on my end
<alastairc> Question: Has anyone else lost audio.
<Fazio> I can hear
<jon_avila> I can hear you Alastair
Alastair: sorry andrew its mostly
you with audiio issues
... couple of comments, M Gower not sure about what its to do
with, particular example in understanding document. if alt text
refers to shapes this would be a failure
... referencing color icons, not able to read out with all
context
Andrew: to read through M Gower content? Not sure if he's asking if the SC means what it says. not quite sure
Alastair: i didn't think alt text fit into it
Andrew: no i don't think it does
Alastair: so answer probably is
no to MG
... for this pull request Michael second comment doesn't figure
in. the other is not a change in this pull request anyway
<laura> agree with keeping F26
could you write the resolution, sorry
Alastair: questions or
comments?
... keep fe6 any objections?
F26
Michael: not sure about deleting file
Alastair: might need to create a
new branch
... not seeing any objections
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 767 ammended to keep F26
Alastair: same survey new
topic
... potential arrata change to 2.1 on motion actuation
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/733/files
Alastair: pull request shows
change
... reason behind in in issue 7.2.7 ? not right issue?
... is this supporting intent of mobile accessibility task
force
... it is in question
Andrew: seems like a big change
to a. normative SC worry about making a change of this
significance without more digging into it
... don't want to be too casual about it
Alastair: because not a huge
amount of respones happy to put on hold
... in support of change it looks more different than it
is
... at the moment it appears from first sentence implies both
operating with motion was struggling to write a technique
MichaelC: device motion and user motion I assum equivalent to accessibility supported interface
Alastair: and goes on to say can be disabled
Michael: first part is redundent
David: supported with interface technology
Alastair: user interface components and disabiling accidental triggering
Michael: need to understand it
DavidM: unless works with assitive technology have fall back buttons. it is kind of redundant
Alastair: applying supported
interface to prevent activation having problem with
... put this on hold
... writing supporting documentation
can you do resolution?
RESOLUTION: On hold pending further comments
Alastair: next one is also a possible errata
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/264
Alastairc: not using images of
text SC limits intent of author for visual affect it seems that
should be adjusted to remove a loophole.
... its question to those who were around when it was
scoped?
Alastair: in definition 'in order to achieve a visual affect'
David: long arguments. if the
designer had in their mind a particular design and devloper
could only use images as text as acception
... if you can achieve design with real text need to do it that
way
... if you can do it to particulary placed or a font couldn't
get through CSS
Alaistair: that seems to leave a large loophole
<alastairc> SC: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#images-of-text
David: whats the loophole
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-images-of-text
Alastair: text that has been
rendered in none text to achieve a particular affect
... text without affect, if its boring its not covered
... the definition doesn't cover standard text styling
... it doesn't seem to be covered
David: rather than is an add on.
text is used to convey the information is the important
point
... never seen that exception used
... don't have a problem with it, don't need to rewrite to make
clearer
Alastair: other part the note
creates a differnt loophole
... infographics graphs would be excluded
David: if photo of someone street
sign wouldn't need contrast. incidental text would have been a
better word
... incidental text like a sign in a window in a phot
Alastair: thats clearer to intent
David: painting drawing sketch,
info graphics weren't very important at the time
... never heard that as part of discussion
... ok to clarify with wider culture. haven't had difficulty
with this one but maybe others have
Alastair: andrew was main commmentor
David: notes on page or music score
<Jennie> Maybe like the lyrics on a page of music?
Rafal: someone playing music or looking a tscore
David: incidental possibly unless all people could see and use notes
Alastair: andrew struggling with
webex
... it applies to 2.0 and 2.1, don't want to jump on it as a
change with only five of us
... closing a loophole i haven't noticed
... doesn't include infographics i wouldn't have thought
<alastairc> Proposed change in the text: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/777/files
David: i don't think it was original intent
Alastair: could do with a couple more comments form dissentors
from dissentors
Alastair: we need comments from others
<AWK> AWK: I don't see the benefit of this change.
RESOLUTION: On hold pending comments from people dis-agreeing.
<laura> +1 for waiting for awk and others.
<AWK> This is a normative change
<AWK> ok
Alastair: fairly straight
forward, odd pharse that references 5 seconds and 3
seconds.
... almost editorial but wondering if there was something that
came up 10 years ago that i don't understand
<alastairc> Original doc: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20161007/time-limits-pause.html#time-limits-pause-intent-head
David: 2.2 more than five seconds in parallel with other content?
Alastair: no other mention of 3 secnonds
Andrew: 1.4.2 thress seconds is mentioned
Andrew Somers: 1.4.2 thress seconds is mentioned
David: arbitrary
Andrew: think it was arbitrary
Alastair: it helps to make it a
few seconds from pull request
... if no one objections
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 778
Alastair: if not can accept pull request 778
Alastair: note name roll value in roadmap
<Jennie> scribe: Jennie
<johnkirkwood> thanks
Alastair: Laura found it, and is
happy to remove it
... any objections to accepting and just removing that
comment?
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 779
Alastair: issue #800 which David
started around button backgrounds, and not having a
border.
... during that conversation we discussed the process mostly
from June 2018 just before publishing 2.1 to establish that
buttons, links, etc. do not need to have a border or
background
... that would differentiate. It would not be in scope if there
was another means of identifying them.
... Somebody suggested adding that to the understanding
document, with an example.
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/813
Alastair: which is in pull
request 813.
... an edit in the table.
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/813/files
Alastair: Michael G responded he
is concerned about the wording. He would be happier if it was
changed to "A button which has **a distinguishing** indicator
such as position...."
... affordances would probably be better achieved with another
one.
Andrew K: a button such as an indicator does not need a contrasting outline
scribe: puts in the usability mention that will help clarify that technically you don't need it, but it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.
<alastairc> "A button which has a distinguishing indicator such as position, text style, or context does not need a <em>contrasting</em> visual indicator to show that it is a button, although some users are likely to identify a button with an outline that meets contrast requirements more easily."
<alastairc> Jennie: Question - does it mean there wouldn't have to be a visual outline?
<AWK> @Jennie - see the buttons at the top of https://www.funka.com/
<Fazio> Contrast sensitivity is a major perceptual issue
Alastair: we had questions about
that prior to publication
... there were different colors behind the main
navigation
... the Funka example doesn't have any indicators around the
main indicators - it is just text.
... seemingly clear designs were using other mechanisms, rather
than a border or background.
... it is difficult because it is across all user
controls
... there are some legitimate circumstances where there is not
a indicator required.
<Fazio> I disagree
Alastair: there are other cases
where a light indicator might be needed
... if you had a light indicator in some cases, and were
suddenly required to have contrast, you would remove it.
... the intent of this SC was primarily around discerning
inputs and controls, and knowing they are there in the 1st
place
... there is an arguement for an SC around affordances
David F: I strongly disagree with that. Without a visual indicator, you will not know it is there.
scribe: especially for people with cognitive disabilities, this is really important
<johnkirkwood> agreed!
Alastair: did you have a look at the example that Andrew put in?
<johnkirkwood> tough on mobile too
David F: I don't have my glasses on right now, and I can barely notice the top navigation.
<johnkirkwood> I hace same issue as David
David F: I was searching around in the black bars, and then I figured out that there was no focus state change, so as I moused around I found it.
<johnkirkwood> I had same issue
Rachel: when we discussed it before publication, we talked about a possible SC for 2.2 on affordences. Are we still in a space where we could still consider this?
Alastair: yes.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we are talking about an important point, but we can't change what the WG agreed to in this SC. We need to determine if there is a WCAG 2.2 change that
Andrew: yes. If there is
something that we can determine that we want to suggest as a
new SC, 2.2. is a time to do this, or Silver.
... the WG had an uncomfortable consensus, because that was all
we felt we could do in 2.1
... I want to be sure we are not revising what the SC that we
agreed to was, with changes
Alastair: yes. And, I think it is
a good one to tackle, not an easy one to tackle.
... in terms of needing to go through a lot of examples, and
agree on which examples are an issue, and from what
perspective.
... this was primarily discussed around low vision, but it
could also be cognitive perspective.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ would fail this also if the SC was interpreted that way
<johnkirkwood> its both COGA and low vision
Alastair: yes, worth tackling. It may be difficult to come up with examples that everyone would agree would work, but fit an easy to define guideline.
<AWK> and https://www.deque.com/ would fail too
<AWK> and https://www.nomensa.com/:)
Alastair: in terms of this
particular example, which was an update to the nontext
understanding document.
... does anyone have objections to the update as it stands?
Andrew: as amended with what I
pasted into the chat?
... "A button which has a distinguishing indicator such as
position, text style, or context does not need a
<em>contrasting</em> visual indicator to show that
it is a button, although some users are likely to identify a
button with an outline that meets contrast requirements more
easily."
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 813
<Fazio> sorry
<Fazio> I object
Andrew: David F are you objecting because you feel the SC says something different? Or because you feel like the change is not reflecting what the working group agrees the SC was.
David F: I think you shouldn't remove the identifying features of a button for any purpose. Does that make sense?
scribe: a visual indicator.
Andrew: do you feel the language of WCAG supports that?
David F: I would need to do more research on it.
Alastair: current situation: SC for non-text contrast does not require people to have a visual indicator. There is history.
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/813
Alastair: Glenda had some similar
comments and missed that bit of history as well.
... the history is now in the github thread. This is a good
place to read the history.
... I don't think the objection applies to the change.
... the requirement is something we need to have in the
SC.
... Rachael will bring this to the COGA group to discuss.
... we will let the resolution stand. And will continue this
conversation.
<david-macdonald> I've just created https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit?usp=sharing
Alastair: I will add to the WCAG 2.2 stuff.
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15idlBl1qQTNr2SIi4Drzk1Q1vnWAi5L26GCCv6mjD2g/edit#gid=0
Alastair: a quick review of the
techniques for 2.1 spreadsheet
... we have sufficient techniques for all except 3 of the WCAG
2.1 criteria.
... missing one for time outs, target size, and ?
... and current input mechanisms
Andrew: Patrick had some going
<david-macdonald> I just changed the permissions... If you had trouble try again.
Andrew: the group wanted to
prioritize the single and double A ones first
... if people are looking for priorities. Looking at the
failures for the A and AA
... is where we need attention next.
Alastair: it is also where we
have less drafted, so it is a cleaner slate
... text spacing, content on hover or focus
Andrew: identifying purpose and
reflow
... Mark did you sign up for one recently?
Mark: it was one of those
Andrew: I highlighted it in blue
on the first worksheet
... are you still able to work on that?
Mark: yes. Or Mike.
Andrew: should be fairly easy.
<johnkirkwood> sorry need to drop
Alastair: Can anyone else put their hand up for a half hour to 1 hour work over the next week or 2?
Andrew: I would suggest an hour or 2
Alastair: we do have templates
for these type of things.
... you can draft it in a Google doc if that is easier.
... if you want to go straight into github, that is fine.
... just fleshing out some of the documentation we need.
... ok. Feel free to get in touch by email if you don't want to
speak up right now.
... that's the end of our agenda.
... any questions about things we are working on at the
moment?
Andrew S: re a possible SC we are working on in Silver right now, in terms of visual contrast.
scribe: what would be the first step to potentially add on an SC to 2.2?
Alastair: you could give us an overview now. Then, draft a Google doc, and we put it in the cue
Andrew S: 1 of the things we are working on has to do with perception of contrast.
<Fazio> I was looking for fyi agree
scribe: mostly body text - the
way we perceive it is at the far end of our ability to perceive
it
... due to spatial frequency
... we are providing some use cases in terms of required
contrast.
... the potential SC would be a stepping stone to Silver.
... for body text, or columns of text - 7:1 instead of
4:1
... this would be in keeping with other worldwide
standards.
... when we say 7:1 is comparable to 10:1
... ISO standards reference 10:1 which would be similar to
WCAG's 7:1
Alastair: that sounds reasonably
easy to define and add to the specs.
... yes, I will email you a link to the resources for creating
that issue.
Andrew S: great!
Alastair: I would appreciate your
feedback on some questions about focus visible success
criteria, the updated version of this.
... it is around change. Our current is around adjacent
colors.
... if you know of any research that could contribute, that
would be greatly appreciated.
Andrew S: yes, will do.
Alastair: any other
comments?
... we will give you back a half hour. Have a look at the
techniques spreadsheet, and see if there are any you could
review, and do a failure technique.
... please email me in case someone else is doing one at the
same time.
... Thank you
... I will be back in 3 weeks.
<alastairc> rrsagent make minutes
<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) Default Present: AlastairC, AWK, Fazio, Raf, Jennie, JustineP, MichaelC, johnkirkwood, Laura, KimD, jon_avila, david-macdonald, Rachael Present: AlastairC AWK Fazio Raf Jennie JustineP MichaelC johnkirkwood Laura KimD jon_avila david-macdonald Rachael Found Scribe: johnkirkwood Inferring ScribeNick: johnkirkwood Found Scribe: Jennie Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie Scribes: johnkirkwood, Jennie ScribeNicks: johnkirkwood, Jennie Found Date: 13 Aug 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]