Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 27 Aug 2019

<AWK> WCAG 2.1 Technique scrub

<AWK> WCAG 2.2 SC check in

<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

Charter update (https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2019/charter.html)

AWK: discussed Charter, also with Silver people last week

<AWK> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2019/charter.html

AWK: change is in the charter under "scope" third bullet
... question was: will we only focus on "web" and nothing else?
... we will focus on the Web

<AWK> "As noted in the Requirements for Silver, it will use a different framework to allow it to address more disability needs, address emerging technologies on the web such as augmented / virtual reality (AR/VR/XR) and digital assistants, and provide non-normative support (for instance, through supporting techniques) for authoring tools and user agents, and technologies that impact accessibility such as assistive technologies, software, and operating systems."

AWK: normative will be all Web content guidance, authoring tools and user agents, and technologies that impact accessibility such as assistive technologies, software, and operating systems. etc. will be informative
... today we already have the non-normative WCAG2ICT
... we will provide advice, so we have an official en non-official targets

<bruce_bailey_> FWIW, I would not characterize WCAG2ICT as being "incorporated into regulation"

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I find the last sentence...

<bruce_bailey_> It is fair to say that WCAG2ICT informed regulation

MG: will that be possible in the time we have?

AWK: concerns people have is we don't meet our targets, and that is a valid concern
... we already adjusted the charter, not sure if we need to more than we already did

<mbgower> I can live with the last sentence. I just wanted to flag the work commitment.

DmD: are we commited to Silver, say we can't resolve the conformance model
... are we commited to the first 3 bullets is for is not possible in time?

AWK: no question we have a challenging piece of work with Silver, but generally the charter is providing the box we're chartering

<bruce_bailey_> I am all for a WCAG 2.5

AWK: we're trying to balance, try to get SIlver evolved so we can say "get it out in the next two years..."

Chuck: I don't see making the first date for Silver already and I'm part of Silver on a regular basis

<laura> timeline seems aggressive to me too.

<bruce_bailey_> i agree with Chuck that Nov 1st draft for Silver is too optimistic

Chuck: november 2019, I don't see how we get there

Bruce: agrees

<johnkirkwood> agree too

AWK: MC, any comments on this?

MC: we're fine tuning and Silver folks want a date not too far away

AWK: if we hit 2021 for CR, first working draft is November and will have gaps, probably as an example conformance
... CR date may be changed based on progress
... should or shouldn't we send it out for member review right now?

<laura> Send for member review.

Chuck: send it and ask for comment

AWK: objections? Anyone?

Jake: bullet text is fine, but we should be clear on how to write documentation and not give wrong impression to people who read it

AWK: clear and agree
... in future it may be possible for the WG to write normative guidance outside Web, we need to make it possible to fit a a certain moment

WCAG 2.1 Techniques and Understanding survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AGWG_T_U_Aug2019/) (1 item)

AWK: for item 1, ask your AC rep to vote on the charter (if it's not you)

1. Failure of Success Criterion 4.1.3: Status Messages #853

<mbgower> I've now added in text about this, but not a solid ms value

DmD: important concept for live regions is that they are already in the DOM before adding / changing content
... should be clearly in the technique

MG: have added this 'pre-existing ARIA role''
... question 2: is 500 ms enough?

DmD: not sure

MG: added: "Additionally, if the role or property is not set before the dynamic content is added, this also predicts a failure."
... added check 3 for automation

<Zakim> bruce_bailey_, you wanted to ask about 500 miliseconds?

Bruce: 500 ms, make it half a second

<Chuck> jake: two comments. I created ... we injected something in the dome. 300ms worked fine. We shouldn't mention 500.

<Chuck> Jake: We should do our research first.

<Chuck> Jake: About #3, I added a comment. Because you talk about ... aria or another technology, and then at step 3 you mention only

<Chuck> jake: aria roles or properties. They may be extended in the future. #3 won't last very long probably.

<Chuck> Jake: I don't get why we take into consideration automation in our test procedures. It should be tech agnostic.

<Chuck> Jake: Comments Michael?

Detlev: odd to mention things not to be done in a failure

AWK: 500 ms, is this hardware specific, UA specific, make it generic in text

<AWK> "Technologies that support Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)."

AWK: make it technologies supporting ARIA and we're save
... for the automation part, MG, you say it's for automating tools...? And we can change it in technical non normative docs?

<Chuck> Jake: If I read that the new content does not take focus... does not change context. But we have a definition of change of context.

<Chuck> Jake: Do you mean change of focus, because change of context (major changes of content)... that may be a misread of the additional text does not change context

<Chuck> Jake: I was thinking of a change of context. That's not part of this technique.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-status-messages

<Chuck> Jake: If you didn't ask "does not change context" then it's clear, but that additional part makes it pretty odd.

<Chuck> Jake: A status message is NOT a change of context.

<Chuck> MG: Reads the definition

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-change-of-context

<mbgower> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/status-messages.html#dfn-changes-of-context

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

MG: Quite a bit of text on the definitions.

awk: does that make sense to you Jake?

<mbgower> Success Criterion 4.1.3 Status Messages (Level AA): In content implemented using markup languages, status messages can be programmatically determined through role or properties such that they can be presented to the user by assistive technologies without receiving focus.

Jake: Yes, I skipped focus part. All clear.

awk: Great. You said procedure step 3.... you asked us to write in general terms and not aria, but this is about making the failure specific to aria. Is that ok?

Jake: Yep, not a problem.

awk: Rachel... when to use... I think what we did addresses this... is that accurate?
... Is there a way to rewrite more clearly....? I think that we have done what she asked for.
... Other people agree?

<mbgower> Should it be "Technologies that support" or Technology that supports" ?

awk: No disagreement.
... MG I'm not sure if you have looked at my comments.

MG: I addressed them all including changing the procedure language.

awk: If you want to adjust procedure step 2, mispelled "check".

MG: Thanks

awk: Example X.... it doesn't describe focus, just virtual focus. Did we change anything for that? Is virtual focus focus?

MG: See if my rewrite addressed that. It's without focus.
... Unless user repositions to that next... now.

awk: Great.

Jake: I have a question... in the middle. When I read the procedure, and the description, I had a feeling that I read the same info twice.
... Did anyone have the same feeling?
... Was description less a description and more a part of testing procedure? More alike when I read the second time. Not sure if it should be part of description.

awk: Is it because there is the 1 and 2 describing the 2 critiera?
... And those 2 are represented in the procedure as well?

Jake: Yes. Feels like the procedure is a summary of what I just read.

MG: That's exactly it.

jake: I wasn't sure ... is that how we set up a description for a technique or a failure? Something I put in the comments.
... Felt like I already read that. If that's on purpose that we describe our procedure then fine. but if we want to describe why a failure is a failure then I expect some other indroductory text.
... Does that sound logical?

awk: Yes... sounds logical. I can see what Mike did here. Clarifying. But there's more than that which is in the procedure.
... I think we can come up with an improved narritive description. I would propose if we want to we can, but that shouldn't stop us from accepting.
... But accepting dooms it for being this way for 6 months unless someone tackles it right away. We are trying to get these done before TPAC. Other thoughts?

<JakeAbma> accept!

<mbgower> I'm happy to incorporate, if jake has suggestions. offline?

<laura> accept

<Ryladog> accept

awk: Any objections to accepting as amended?

<Detlev> accept

MG: Is it the wording "the technology that supports" or "technologies supporting"?

awk: What I pasted. "Technologies that support..."

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended.

awk: That's pull request 853. Mike, all done in there now?

MG: Just pushed.

awk: After travis I'll accept.

WCAG 2.1 Technique scrub

<AWK> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15idlBl1qQTNr2SIi4Drzk1Q1vnWAi5L26GCCv6mjD2g/edit#gid=0

awk: Let's take a look at where we are with techniques. This is the spreadsheet. Overview tab.
... Looking a bit more foresty and less xmas-y, more green less red.
... At this point if you scroll down below for AA there's 5 techniques that we need.
... failures for.
... One of which we just accepted. There are 4.
... 2 weeks and 4 failures. Need one for 1.3.5. Identify input purpose. 1.4.12 text spacing. 2.5.1 and 2.5.4.
... Once we have those we'll have one or more sufficient and failures for A and AA.
... We still do have AAA where there's work we should do.
... We have some that have been drafted. I want to check and see where we are at.
... Went through spreadsheet (first tab), and looking down through there.
... Identify input purpose is the first one. And there's 2 failures that were mentioned before.
... One is using incorrect autocomplete for input fields.
... Form collecting info on a user, with email address, and I put first name for that would be an easy example.
... Using the wrong value would be a failure. Another would be using auto complete on fields not about the user.
... example form for self and child, and auto complete should be there for you but not child.
... MJ and John were on those 2.
... neither is here. I'll follow up with them.
... MG if you talk to Marc, ask about it.

<chuck_> scribe: chuck_

detlev: Is 2nd failure a serious real failure?
... Browsers have their own mechanism rather than what you specify. Sometimes not used the wrong way.

awk: Anybody else know anything else about autocomplete and second failure? I don't recall any conversations about this not being a second failure.

detlev: JF worked on this. He's the best.

<AWK> AWK will follow up with JF regarding Detlev's question about the second failure

awk: I'll follow up with JF.
... Rachael, did detlev cover your point?

Rachael: Moved beyond my point.

awk: Then on to 1.4.12. 2 sufficient techniques published, 3 advisory published, and a couple of failures written.
... David we had your name written down for second one. Is that in any state of readiness?

dm: Yep in my mind and spreadsheet.
... losing content when text styles are modified.

<JakeAbma> scribe: Jake

<JakeAbma> AWK: need authors, please put your name in the spread sheet

<Chuck__> scribe: Chuck__

<JakeAbma> AWK: 2.5.1: Not relying on path or multipoint gestures for operation, what is status Detlev?

<JakeAbma> Detlev: will look up

<AWK> AWK will look into #793, as will Detleve

jake: If you write it up it needs to be finished in 2 weeks?

awk: yes. We would like to get these 4 failures written and approved by Sep. 10 call.
... means that you have 10 days to write it up and assuming that writing it up is so on target that no one has comments or changes.
... Possible, though not typical.
... Wouldn't end the world if we had to finish at TPAC, but would be better to focus on other stuff.
... We still don't have a suggestion for a failure for 2.5.1.
... Anyone thought about what we would do for a failure for 2.5.1?
... Let's brainstorm some.
... <reviews understanding 2.5.1>
... There's one suggested here.

detlev: Obvious is if there's an element that reacts to swipe gesture but no alternative. Sometimes you can move element in any direction.
... Carosel moves left and right, if something moves up and down, up and down could trigger scrolling.
... Failure would have to be general, would have to include test if movement is specific. If there's no alternative it would fail.

mg: Suggestion - requirement for a pattern to authenticate into an application, and there's no alternative (like user name and password).
... Encountered more on Android and iOS.

awk: So like you must draw a spiral.

mg: yes, and there's no alternative.

rachael: Would a swipe to progress carosel without button count?

awk: That would depend on whether it counts as path based gesture or not.
... if you have to swipe to the right to go to next item, and any motion left, up or down after first point makes it not work...
... It still works then maybe it's not completely path based.
... Maybe "yes"?
... Mikes example sounds straight forward. If we had a multipoint gesture would be easier technique to write.
... If you have to 3 finger tap on something to make it work there's going to need to do that with a single pointer.
... Anybody want to take a crack at it?

detlev: Mike can you send me an example of authentication gestures thing? I'll take a crack, but not familiar.

mg: Yes. Many people will be familiar if using a device.
... We don't need working example, it can be descriptive. I think 3 finger tap would be easier. Wouldn't need nuances.

detlev: Would be good to have relatable example. Double tap, pinch tap, all are use to. If it's web content it will be things that work with single pointer anyways.
... Mobile may not be the best case to use for this failure.

awk: I like having more than one failure here. This sc has those 2 groupings. Would be good to provide clarity around those parts.
... Any volunteers for any other failures?

dm: I can take the one on line 62. 1.4.12.

awk: You are named for both of those?

dm: Yes. I won't be at tpac.

awk: No argument.
... I'll follow up with you politely.
... 2.5.1...?

<Detlev> I put myself up for that

detlev: I'm signed up.

mg: Throw over fence to me if needed.

awk: 2.5.4 g213 is the published technique. failure to ... Rachael we have drafted. We need to go through it.

Rachael: We went through it at the beginning of August. You made some adjustments. I think it's ready to go.

mg: Do we have a draft of the other sufficient technique for disabling motion actuation?

awk: The one that rachael is working on?

Rachael: We merged them together.

mg: The g213

awk: A couple of orange to check in. Row 49. G18, g145 and g147. These are sufficient techniques for non text contrast.
... g18 is <reads> does not list 1.4.11 non text contrast as one of the sc's that it applies 2.
... next one is similar in that it talks about 3:1 between text and background. Next one...
... <reads> the question is... do any of these apply to 1.4.11. We have them down as applying, but it seems they shouldn't be listed as techniques for 1.4.11

mg: I flagged this, thought it was approved, though there was a pull request.

awk: To take them out? I think that has happened. I think the spreadsheet hasn't been updated.
... G147, we don't have a technique.
... Do you recall if we removed G147?

mg: typo? G174?

awk: Let's see.
... Yes it is.

mg: G145 is no longer appearing as link.

awk: Neither is the other one. does say it's linked to 1.4.11.

mg: It does exist and it does cross reference.

awk: Back on overview for non text contrast we have 5 and not 7 techniques. Still plenty.
... Going down row 101. This technique was originally written as g211 and was changed to g212. but the referencing doc still pointed to g211.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G211

awk: G211 is for label and name and also says for pointer cancellation. Not correct.
... I've made adjustment in master branch for the write sc points to g212 instead of g211.
... If writing techniques don't pick a number. Give it a name that makes sense and we'll change it to the right thing.
... Past occurrence has been fixed.
... G210 on the spreadsheet says advisory.
... However in the published technique says it's sufficient. Anybody remember so that I don't have do do exhaustive investigation?

mg: My gut instinct is that this is sufficient.

awk: OK. <reads> Dragging and dropping object, back to original location... I think it's sufficient as well.
... I'm going to update spreadsheet, so it's published sufficient technique.

mg: If we didn't have that we wouldn't have any sufficient technique.

awk: We have g212.

mg: Not showing up right now.

awk: That's the one we have to ... 211 to 212.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G212

awk: That will get adjusted.
... This spreadsheet is pretty current right now.
... We've got those 4 AA items that need failures. Good work.
... At CSUN we said we would be finished by tpac, and we may!

WCAG 2.2 SC check in

<AWK> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0

awk: for the potential sc's, we don't have any this week. We'll spend time at tpac in just a few weeks.
... on wcag 2.2. Rachael, you asked that I add afforances item to the spreadsheet. I did, but I need more info.

rachael: I'll provide shortly

dm: I put together a draft and coga's been reviewing. Here's a link.

awk: who's primary? David?

dm: Looks like me.

awk: Do you want to provide a... have we talked about this on the wg call?

dm: 2 weeks ago we discussed about affordances and may be worth discussing. I put together something, we can review and discuss.
... will paste in link shortly.

<david> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit?usp=sharing

awk: Any other updates on 2.2 sc's?
... A repeated plea for help would be a fine update.

dm: There's a callout for a sc or explore a sc of labels for icons. I went through the discussion. Looked fully fleshed out. Would be difficult to add.
... If somebody feels we should pursue it, wouldn't be hard to create an sc for that. But lot's of complex considerations.
... That's where I left it. If someone disagrees that we can't get it done...

awk: So saying it WOULD be difficult to get in?

dm: Yes. Very long string of comments. No feeling that we could get it in, lots of feelings of troubles trying to get it in.

awk: Any comments about that discussion? Or updates about any other sc?
... sc proposals.
... I expect that we will spend lots of time on wcag 2.2 sc proposals at tpac.
... We'll probably... I would expect most people are coming for ag wg calls will be there earlier and will come into silver as well.
... We are trying to figure out if people are going to both. How much time on silver we may spend.
... We'll spend some time on silver in ag calls. We will likely spend 3/4 time on 2.2.
... If you are driving these sc's, any efforts you can make to get it in better shape before tpac would be helpful.
... If you need help let us know.

Jennie: Let me know what is the very last day we would be able to submit a draft for review at tpac.

awk: I'll let you know. Don't have an answer now.
... Could be morning of tpac. will be a working tpac.
... We may have a new idea at tpac and we'll talk about it.
... I expect the agenda to be malleable.
... sooner is better though.

<Jennie> ack Jennie]

awk: Any other q or comments?
... none. We can close the call.

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

27 Aug 2019

Attendees

Contents

Charter update (https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2019/charter.html)

WCAG 2.1 Techniques and Understanding survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AGWG_T_U_Aug2019/) (1 item)

1. Failure of Success Criterion 4.1.3: Status Messages #853

WCAG 2.1 Technique scrub

WCAG 2.2 SC check in

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output