Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 18 Sep 2019

<Chuck> FYI: We are working on audio issues. Can't get in room audio to work.

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

AWK: Test

<AWK> agneda?

AWK: Start 15 minutes before top of hour
... All set?
... Welcome! Seen many at silver meetings. Now we transition to AGWG meeting. Time will be spent on silver.
... Review of agenda...
... Time on group dynamics and expectations, then silver. Somewhere there will be a break.
... Within silver a bunch of topics, talking about the migration of existing content, assessing conformance models, pros and cons.
... Silver made progress on mon and tue.

Shawn: I've some updated links to share.

AWK: Some members will go address questions on our charter, and speak with some other members. There will be some chair shuffling.
... One last WCAG 2.1 technique to discuss for a full set of techniques for A and AA SC.
... for 1.3.5.
... We'll spend time on that, and shift into WCAG 2.2 which will finish the day.
... That's the main focus for tomorrow as well.
... 2.2 will be big focus. When charter is approved, we have a year to get 2.2 out the door. That includes wd, crs, techniques, etc. Lots of work to do.
... Any questions?

Jake: Agenda of 2.2... in 2.1 first we made normative text, then techniques. Will we do that for 2.2?

AWK: First bullet in 2.2 for agenda is reviewing process. In more detail.
... We need to spend some time on group expectations.
... Can we go around the room in 90 seconds and say who we are and company or invited expert.

Nicaise, MS

MC W3C

David invited expert

<Fazio> David Fazio Invited Expert

AWK: Jake scribes after Chuck
... then Katie
... one more scribe... John

<DavidClarke_> David Clarke, Invited Expert I18n, observing

Nicaise: How does one put themselves in the q.

AWK: q plus is the way. Good to add text related to question.
... Need to discuss group expectations. Entering the new phase of work where we are very focused on 2.2 spec. If we learned anything, its now we get into difficult conversations.
... specific language, user needs, get a spec done, it's difficult.

<laura> audio is great for me on Webex. Dialin didn’t work though.

AWK: Anyone working on WCAG 2.1 would not say they got everything perfectly the way they want.
... 2.2 will be the same as well. There will need to be compromises.
... What's important is that we are all on the same page on how we get there. Talking about some of the behavior and working norms we expect.
... This crosses W3C. At Chair lunch this was half of the agenda. Dispute resolution, make working progress smoother, better, more inclusive.
... We want to do that. Everyone wants to do that. But we want a conversation with everyone, highlight some resources we have at W3C
... We can level set around that point.
... Some of the things we think about... starting points for norms. Without making a long list, we have 5 things that we are putting forward as the norms.
... To see if anything should change or add.

Chuck: can you paste in these five bullets?

<laura> Yes. Audio is fine.

1) Assume positive intentions from others.

2) Treat others with respect you expect to be treated with.

3) Take an inquiry stance.

<JohnRochford> Order of operations Map WCAG to Silver structure For each guideline-level grouping, identify user needs Identify tests to validate meeting user needs Write methods to meet the tests Write the top-level guideline to communicate what the methods provide

4) Ground statements in evidence.

5) Hear all voices.

AWK: This is something for when discussions are difficult, it's hard to remember.

<JohnRochford> Ah, sorry Chuck. I did not see you were already adding the bullets when I pasted them in.

AWK: for #2, very standard, but bears mentioning.
... #3, in group discussions, people get into reaction mode when someone says something and people strongly want to react against it ... "that's wrong!"
... The point of this one is that it's important to in working with other people, if someone says that something should work a specific way, we want to encourage questions to detemine the basis for that perspective.
... To get at the underlying point and understand the viewpoint. And questions help to analyze the point in a reflective manner.
... Much more welcoming. As opposed to digging in heels.
... It can turn into a situation where 12 people say one thing and 2 say another... we've determined consensus, but 2 people haven't had enough inquiry.
... Grounding statements in evidence is critical as well.
... No good examples, but we can say "this should work a way" or "this does work a way", make sure you are clear about it... Version of JAWS you use may make it work that way.
... But does that work in other permutations? We need to look at all the evidence. I think that making sure we are being deliberate will be valuable.
... Hearing all voices, which means listening to all perspectives. As a chair (can be hard to remember) is actively get more people involved.
... There are times when it's Alastair and Katie and David (as an example), I think that as a chair I can get other voices to participate.
... To get positive affirmation or hear other perspectives.
... As we are looking at first public working drafts as crs, we are looking for voices outside of wg.
... That's our list. 5 starting points. What do people think, do they resonate? Anything else? Should we modify these? How do we handle these things?
... We'll have contentious conversations, and the goal is to have a consensus.
... Any thoughts?

Katie: Not limited to this wg, the instances I was involved in where I mis-behaved, I reacted to my perception of bullying. I like that we want to hear other voices.
... Because of bullying, other voices weren't speaking up, and they didn't want to engage in that. It's important to try and counter that. I did not succeed before. I like these goals.

<Fazio> Appreciative Inquiry is a good technique

<Fazio> Yes ("I hear you"), and?

David: When I've been in other wg as well as my one, one of the things is that I've seen in the past (but not in recent years) people divide on personal lines.
... katie and I may disagree... if I am not careful, I may get into a state where I disagree with her in the future because I disagree with her now. It's important to not get in that mindset.
... Whatever the discussion point is, they get compartmentalized, and it's not based on an individual.
... It's just to be aware of it and keep yourself out of individualizing it.

Michael: Any suggestions? You are suggesting self awareness. Any idea on how to steer people?

David: Let's say I automatically object to Katie, and someone says to me.. "last week didn't you agree with her, why disagree now?" It's a good gentle approach.
... The other is to call it out: "WHY do you think Katie is wrong?"

AWK: There's valid in having evidence. I may disagree with someone that I feel is always wrong... when a point is structured around data...
... That can be broken down much more, it makes it harder for me to keep that wall and resistance up against those points.
... I can work on pieces I agree with and the pieces I don't. That's very valuable.

John: As a person who is legally blind, I don't have the advantage of detecting upset people via non-verbal queues. I wonder if it's ok that if I think it's happening, if I ask an open question? What should I do?

Alastair: Everyone over a teleconference (no visual queues)

Michael: some people with social challenges may not be able to interpret tone of voice or facial expressions.

David: Everyone is difference, take a moment to breath, realize that we are all here for the same reason. Take a moment and have an open conversation.

John: Doesn't address my question. What should I do, what should happen, how can I be helped?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to offer my approach to what John raised.

Shawn: My approach to that, I try to do pre-emptively if I see someone else struggling. If I think that I've come across poorly, I'll take a breath and ask how that person thinks I sounded.
... I can correct that if necessary. Again based on facts. If someone's upset it may be because you came across wrong. If you start off with checking that.
... Flip side... if I am upset because of what someone said, I'll try and mirror the statement back, rephrase, the words may not mean the same thing to them.
... That will bring up the disconnect.

John: Is there anything we as a group to help people who can't detect that?

Shawn: Someone prompts "John you may be coming across wrong"... stop things from continuing off the cliff, and get everyone back on the same page.
... There are other possibilities.

Mike Gower: I count on the chairs on remote calls to provide the visual equivalence. Seeing blank faces, etc. To understand what's going on in the room.

Katie: A lot of our meetings are digitally and on the phone, lots of people aren't seeing visual queues. It helps to verbalize.
... The ability to determine from a tone of voice if someone is upset is another area of sense.

AWK: I think that ... David...

<AWK> q

David: Agree with ... the idea of Chair intervening if char is in position to observe. One reason people do get upset is because people misunderstand.
... Simple misunderstandings, one thing that happened a while ago was a relatively contentious motion. Someone said "should we table it", and q was "Do you REALLY want to?"
... People got upset. The concept was to put asside for future discussion. UK/Brittish was that we were going to vote on it. The identical words in the same language could cause misunderstanding.
... the "Please can you rephrase it" will often sort out those difficulties. Equally if you aren't sure if someone is upset, say "I'm sorry if I upset you", or "are you happy with..."
... Trying to keep communication open. Be aware that some people in wg aren't working in their best language.

AWK: Yes paying attention to tone of conversation that Alastair and I strive to do, as does Michael. I don't think people should need to wait for us to notice that things are strained.
... I suggest that people should be confortable raising issue themselves. Ask some of those questions. For me if Alastair is away or I'm away... Chair is very loaded.
... I can't guarantee I'll catch every instance, sometimes issues bubble up. There's no doubt that we'll check every specific meaning. "Do you mean stop or vote"?
... We'll progress one step or 2 steps beyond where we prefered we stopped. I think that as long as we can identify take a step back, take a breath...
... "Did you actually mean this?" Or "This is what I think I'm hearing you say". Hopefully has smoother progress. Maybe we've got 5 minutes to get things done, maybe we shouldn't be pressured into finishing.

Alastair: Sometimes we try and summarize where a discussion has gotten to, which helps to determine if we understood properly.

AWK: Any other points?

Nicaise: Some information can be very sensitive. If we put too much burden on the speaker over expressing their views, that can put burden on speaker.
... Where frank and open conversation is needed, I prepare myself.

AWK: There's a balance to that. If you assume that someone has a positive intention, you can ask question to clarify, and maintain the positive view of intentions. You can get down to the facts.
... IT's pretty common in human interactions that you react to that. This exercise in part is to slow down the reaction, and think about things before reacting.
... If that ... I think that in my mind some of that is interpreted as "I should not be as sensitive..." and I think it's about being more analytical and probing, to determine if I'm justified in being upset or if I misunderstood something.
... All in agreement?
... Anything that you feel we can better do to support the practice of these things? I know there are times when I haven't done the things I need to do as well as I could.
... What other types of support people Alastair, I (AWK) and Michael can do.

Shawn: Logistics... are these slides being shown in webex.

Chuck: They are in twice.

Katie: I would say that my frustration came a couple of times because I felt unheard. If we could take about it with all 3 of you together if someone has an issue.

AWK: Absolutely. We'll talk about W3C's documents, there's a process document for formal objections. I think we are talking about avoiding that.
... We want poeple to feel comfortable asking questions of eachother. If that doesn't work, talking to us chairs.. If it's about myself or Alastair, we'll be receptive about taking about ourselves.
... If that doesn't work, talking with the other two chairs about the subject is perfectly fine.

Katie: Thinking about you 2 and Michael.

Michael: I'm hearing suggestions for listening to others, and when expressing yourself making sure you are heard accurately. If you feel you aren't being heard.
... Say that you feel you aren't being heard. If that doesn't work, that's when the frustration starts building. We could build a cycle of self feeding tention.
... That might be the time to send an IRC message stating that you feel you aren't being heard.
... May make a private suggestion on how to phrase. If that doesn't work, then come to us. A set of escalating tasks. As much as possible do them at the base level.
... Learn to express and learn to listen, and have these other escalated options available.

Alastair: Whoever... if all three of us are on the call, and the 2 that aren't chairing, can receive messages and react. Or after the meeting we can discuss.
... That does happen now.

AWK: I would encourage people to bring things up BEFORE reaching boiling point. Makes it smoother.
... Why the conversation is important because we are heading into a time of pressure... deadline is coming, don't have time to worry about feelings, but takes longer if we don't.
... Won't result in high quality.
... Any other thoughts?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to mention checking with others, depending on comfort levels.

Shawn: Another response to that and a q. The response is for situations where someone feels upset, coming to a chair or Michael can feel like escalating, and may not be sure that's what you want to do...
... If I'm in that situation, I'll do a sanity check with a peer. Ask for their advice and perceptions. Sometimes maybe I'll be informed that I took it the wrong way, or I'll be instructed to advance to Michael.
... Sometimes people who are upset don't want to prolong the experience.
... katie, you felt that you were bullied. Having the person who feels bullied be responsible for bringing that up sometimes doesn't work. How do WE handle those cases?

AWK: Someone who feels that they are feeling bullied, we encourage them to talk to us, we want to help. In the group, we've worked together often enough.
... We can and should be advocates for eachother. The chairs need to pay attention to people being engaged.
... That's another piece. Similarly, I mentioned a while ago, hearing all voices, actively probing among the group so that if the conversation is dominated by some people, bring in other people...

<Fazio> The open door policy of just being able to have a matter of fact conversation about how you're feeling about what's going on in the group with Michael, or a Chair, without it being an escalation I think goes along way

AWK: So the person who feels bullied has voices in their support, but making sure if someone goes quiet we can actively engage them and pull them back in and make sure they understand their opinions are valued.
... If someone is feeling bullied, someone has to notice. Either the person, chairs, staff contact, or others in the group. All should feel empowered to raise concerns.

<Fazio> Many times people just need time too vent. Actually psych studies have identified an exact number of minutes a person needs to vent when feeling upset to deescalate situations

AWK: Alastair could be shutting down Chuck, shouting and yelling... does that... are there other things we should be doing?

Shawn: Open question. To bring up things you can talk through, and to raise the point that it is all of our responsibility.
... To try and stop them going south.

<Fazio> +1 on the sanity check

Michael: Sanity check is a good thing. Sometimes it can be someone you trust who is like minded, sometimes it can be someone who isn't like minded.
... Bullying is a tough issue... because sometimes leadership may be the source. If you don't feel comfortable coming to us, sanity checking is helpfull..
... We may not notice, it could be viewed as a simple disagreement rather than bullying. Having someone else speak on your behalf COULD be an option.
... If that doesn't feel like an option, there are escalation paths besides us 3. You can go to Judy or Phillip. You should use them if you feel you can't use the lower ones.

AWK: Some W3 resources: Code of conduct.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc

AWK: <reads from coc>

<alastairc> New version: https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/

AWK: The new version in development digs in much more to additional details around types of unacceptable behavior. Whether or not it's offensive comments, threats of violance...
... Fortunately we've never faced that.
... There's much more in here on details, micro-aggressions, talking over, feigning suprise at lack of knowledge. Lots of detail. It's not finalized.
... We have not fully digested it. It's a valuable tool for the W3C. All WG need to navigate.
... Also link to process document. Progression of a spec to rec, contacts, formal objections, etc.
... Any additonal comments? We can stop and move on.

<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

Silver topics

<Jemma_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit

<Lauriat> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2019#Thursday.2C_19_September_2019

<alastairc> Wiki page with the links we're about to look at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2019#Thursday.2C_19_September_2019

<Lauriat> Project Plan Needs working doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zFgVcDUMSOrZ5nnGRocs2pZYkqOhwdyMU_Z62_CedbQ/edit

SL: 4 things to talk through
... starting with Silver Project Plan Needs
... how can we get SIlver and the overall working group working on SIlver in near future
... we'll make more projects with some people working on it with expertice
... starting with Explainer doc for on-boarding, etc.
... we need to know the bar for what to write, after that we can start picking up work we feel comfortable with in whatever way we chose to work
... we need to prepare for spring 2020 when much more people will start working on SIlver
... we need people with managements experience for project plans and keeping it up to date
... we do different things in parallel, next to content we split up to work on a conformance model which is very rough at the moment

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals

SL: continue with How to evaluate Conformance Proposals
... conformance models are complicated, in order to asses there are different dimensions on how they might work
... we look at how the conformance model works against requirements
... some are directly related, like Requirement 3.1 Multiple ways to measure
... other are more indirectly, like Requirement 3.5 Readability/Usability
... Requirement 3.1 Multiple ways to measure

<Lauriat> Requirement 3.1 Multiple ways to measure: All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.

<AWK> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.1_Multiple_ways_to_measure)

SL: we'll Check that the conformance model serves more needs of people with disabilities
... in two ways as proposed, 1. Testing with proposed Success Criteria from Low Vision, Coga, and Mobile Task Forces
... the other: Stakeholder interviews with Low Vision, Coga, and Mobile Task Forces, and other stakeholders
... does this conformance make it easier or more difficult to get SC in, we need to check that it will not be more difficult than with the current model

<AWK> Deferred items from WCAG Github: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3ADeferred

SL: that would be bad if we make it more difficult

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3AWCAG.next+

AWK: searching for deferred issues / SC in Github to be used for checking

SL: next, Requirement 3.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility

<AWK> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.2_Flexible_maintenance_and_extensibility)

<Lauriat> 3.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility: Create a maintenance and extensibility model for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities using emerging technologies and interactions. The process of developing the guidance includes experts in the technology.

<Jemma_> +q

SL: we want to Pick at least 2 emerging technologies

<Jemma_> how would you define "emerging" technology?

Jemma: how do you define emerging technologies

SL: Good question, difficult to answer, but most likely technologies NOT present in WCAG right now, like AR / VR etc.
... we must be clear that we don't include emerging technologies which might not be there after a while, like 1 / 2 years, we must be careful to right guidance for them
... we might also look at full desktop touch etc. So same underlying technologies but different uses of them
... we've been talking about removal or editing of possible guidance, how does this work out with a possible point system, conformance etc.
... next, Creation & Platform: Stakeholder interviews with SMEs in the area of that emerging technology
... most of the WG members know web very well, but we might need to add people for other expertice
... SME = subject matter experts

<Jemma_> +q

David: have you had some discussions with member companies?

SL: not yet

Katie: does gaming fit?

SL: yes, gaming can fit

<Jemma_> my questions is about the relationship with Flexibility and the voice of stakeholders.

Jemma: Stakeholder interviews are involved, how do we find the people that don't know, get them involved?

SL: my view is the following list, to get them involved

<Lauriat> Stakeholder map, for those interested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/128vPnCweXN9t4JBG7-AOeBhT-KquaWXcCsi3H-f8u94/preview

SL: of course we need to set the line somewhere, still working on the correct approach

Katie: we got to do something outside of the English language
... they might have other AT, ways of interacting etc.

David: we need to engage not only the dominant players

<alastairc> DavidF talks through national & international rehabilitation agencies that could be source of stakeholders.

<Zakim> achraf, you wanted to say can be part

SL: we made the stakeholder map to see how it maps and we we can bring to researchers
... so we can map out the space and helps in our search

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say regarding emerging technology, do we have good definitions of what constitutes 'web'? Do we have a handle on how to delineate what parts of an online

MG: do we have a handle on how we constitute "web"?

SL: No

AWK: we'll talk about this in combination with the charter, together with AC

SL: it's complicated , the chairs will figure it out!

DC: there's a internationalization WG, please reach out if you need help
... in the internationalisation WG we have lots of contacts willing to help out

<Jemma_> for example, Korea has KWCAG to localize WCAG to Korean context.

Katie: take into account also the cultural aspects

<Jemma_> +1 Katie's suggestion

<Jemma_> Katie suggested to have a meeting with international stakeholders if Silver TF project time line allows.

<Ryladog> Scribe: Ryladog

Jeanne: What is a good idea?

<AWK> Requirement 3.4 Technology Neutral

<Lauriat> Requirement 3.4 Technology Neutral: Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if specific technical advice doesn't yet exist.

Having and an Internationale Accessibility AT Users for input into silver

<AWK> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.4_Technology_Neutral)

Requirement: Technology Neutral 3,4

SL: Tech Neutral has the same braeking out, for emerging tech
... for the CM we want tomake sure that this deosnt prohibit this. The CM affects this

AWK: I think with in WCAG this is individual SC

SL: We can talk about Language of environment rather than page (as in 3.3.1)
... Other tests?

Nicaise: Emerging ? what does that mean

SL: In the past it meant keyboard UIs, and now we have many like touch UI models. Emerging UI could be platform or content

AWK: MS Game system uses gestures as a UI, and it might be the only way. That interaction type we haent really dealt with

<Lauriat> Requirement 3.5 Readability/Usability: The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of plain language, structure, and design.

<AWK> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.5_Readability.2FUsability)

SL: in the context oftest CM, this is largely making sure that wedont make the GL incomprehensible
... we have tests in here checking against the style guide

Take the 4 existing success criteria and 3+ new guidance proposals (from Test of 3.4 Technology Neutral), and check against our style guide to see whether we can still meet it. Stakeholder interviews with Cognitive Task Force, plain language experts, translation (non-native English speaker) experts.

<alastairc> Jake: Is there a plan B if the plain language/readability part doesn't work?

SL: I have tagged David for i18n

JA: Understandable by a non-tect audeince.

SL: Have top level which is tech nurtral, and have the paltform specific guidance that would have to include wording that was specifc in that technology

Alastair: Plan B would be seperate content

SL: well that is plan A

JohnR: so you also have to think about the tech for dev language

SL: It has to meet the Readability

JohnR: A common tech a plain langauge then parens '(tech term)'

DF: we are going through this right now with COGA
... creating glossaries of term

DavidC: Something called Simplified English for people whose first lang, that might be nice to look at and other langauges simplified grammarsuage is not English
... dont use term that is a noun and verb

SL: yes, but this is a little too in the weeds for this. But matters alot for the style guide

<Lauriat> Requirement 3.6 Regulatory Environment: The Guidelines provide broad support, including: Structure, methodology, and content that facilitates adoption into law, regulation, or policy, and; clear intent and transparency as to purpose and goals, to assist when there are questions or controversy.

<AWK> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.6_Regulatory_Environment)

Stakeholder interviews with at least 5, but not more than 10, Regulatory policy-making stakeholders including at least 5 different regulatory systems. Stakeholder interviews with at least 5, but not more than 10, Regulatory policy-using stakeholders including at least 5 different regulatory systems.

SL: For testing the CM, these these are the two
... We do not want 5 RS from just the US
... we expect to get a range of feedback on...we will want

<Chuck> Katie: Example... this won't work in Japan law because...

SL: we want tohear about barriers to law buidling in all coutries

AWK: This is why we want to look at 3 or 4 CM so we can look at them and make those decisions after holding them up to the light. It maybe a combo approach

SL: Just because there are so many moving parts to a CM
... Stakeholder interviews as many as we can do in a reasonable amount of time

AWK: It might even be a webinar for different regulatory systems - that would e ideal. Like atking advantage of evryone at M-Enabling

<Jemma_> +1

<Lauriat> Requirement 3.7 Motivation: The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

<AWK> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.7_Motivation)

Stakeholder interviews across a range of organizations. Stakeholder interviews across a range of disability advocacy organizations.

SL: I will talk about what we talked about on Tuesday.
... Google has many diffent team to get different types of teams.
... We got alot of overall content itself, should were think this, does thi actually move the needle

Jemma: In Summary this is the one are to validate there testing.

SL: But users still come to us but they still have all of these issues
... Having a structure to navigate a path forward.
... One thing we go we could have user participationhave our mem take this back ber orgs

Jemma: For stakeholders it is more of a user reasearch

AWK: How do we know your motivation. There sort of answers that. So I wonder about our tests?
... will that be tantamount to motivation
... I dont know if we want to say...
... Does this scoring system work for you?

SL: And does the scroring mechanism make the teams go BEYOND?

<Jemma_> +q how about we rephase the title of "movitivation", requirement 3.7?

SL: Sub-bullets thes are the questions we want answer to

AWK: If we get 5 responses that they dont test this way at all

Alaistair: If somebody saysno

Jemma: What is the point about this req?

<alastairc> Suggest questions such as: Would this scoring system work for you? And then: Would it encourage you to go beyond the baseline min?

SL: we do have some notes on this page, but we do elsewhere
... I will followup with giyhub bugs
... Ihave answers on to why its vague

<Jemma_> s/what is the point/what is the purpose

<Zakim> achraf, you wanted to say about the monitor

<achraf> http://qatar.checkers.eiii.eu/en/benchmarking/

JohnR: Silver did a protypeof the points system and eveluating user need. The outcome was that some disability group something one important to one group

ACHRAF: I want to share this Qatar resource with you...
... how we evaluate, and our partners

DF: I wonder if partners wouldbe afraid to participate

Jemma:

DF: The motivation peice confused me, are we tracking the motivation before use or after we publish?

SL: We want to get a sense BEFORE wepublish. We will respond to the feedback we get

<Chuck> katie: Are we looking for a certain amount of feedback? A least amount?

<Jemma_> rssagent, make minutes

<Chuck> SL: It's per interview. We want a broad range achievable in a given timeline.

Do we have a minimu for 3.7?

SL: We want many but not too many

AWK: this is a prominent issue with Regulators

<Lauriat> Requirement: 3.8 Scope: The guidelines provide guidance for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. Our intent is to provide guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more.

<AWK> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.8_Scope)

Req #1: Develop a mix of Silver guidelines and Methods that would include at least 2 methods each for: content creators, browsers, authoring tools, and assistive technologies. Show the methods to AGWG members (content creator experts), accessibility experts from 2-3 major browsers, 2-3 assistive technology vendors (including at least 1 non-English language assistive technology), and 2-3 accessibility experts from authoring tool vendors.

SL: there is only one test
... The reworded wouldbe stakeholders and validating

<alastairc> Katie: I'd like to go above one

<Chuck> Katie: I'd like to go above at least one.

<Chuck> Katie: Not specific to this topic, we might want to look at the 5 most used languages in the world and make sure we are testing the AT in those areas.

<Chuck> SL: I'd like to include a breadth of language requirements.

<Chuck> Katie: I wouldn't limit it to that we should have some sort of metric for that.

<Chuck> Katie: The relevance matters. It's the quality vs... we know everyone is using it, instead of security and privacy where you have different things around the world.

<Chuck> Katie: In our case it's one standard around the world.

JohnR: this goes back Acheivability

I would like to ensure the qualityover the speed

<Jemma_> +1 to JohnR

Jake: It alsodepends on if it is possible to extend. Because if we publish now in certain parts of the world they use technology in a different way, that wewill have a way to adress those things

SL: I think here is the communication aspect -when we dont have the feedback in time

<Chuck> Katie: I think we will have lessons learned. No matter how we try to figure this out. Our experience from 2.0 and 2.1. If we do this well enough and publish in 5 languages we'll get more feedback.

<Chuck> Katie: If only in english you'll get feedback from english speaking participants. But we are an international standards body.

Theshas not been approval for an extensibility

<Chuck> Katie: It will only get somewhere if it's in the relevant language of the world.

<Fazio> +1 to multiple languages

SL: Thisgoes bakc to the project plan add publishing draft in severallangauges
... Anything else for CM testing?
... Some is part of IA

<Chuck> Katie: Jeff, other than different testing from different countries and different technologies. We are talking about publishing in 5 different languages.

AWK: I agree but let finish the CM first

SL: Does this look CM testing good?

DavidC: It might be better to say one non-latin script instead of nonEnglish

SL: Yes

AWK: We would like to hear what people think

+1 to this is a good plan

<Chuck> +1

<AWK> Any objection to using the plan as presented to evaluate the conformance model proposals?

<JakeAbma> +1

<JohnRochford> +1

<achraf> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Jemma_> +1 with a condition that we make "Requirement 3.7 Motivation" be a bit clearer.

Nicaise: In organization we use the word "range"?

<KimD> +1

SL: It is covered in our langauge I think
... We will addressJemma's concern

RESOLUTION: Accept conformance model noting Jemma's Condition

SL: We do have 2 more Silver Topics

Silver Issues and Exceptions

<Lauriat> Conformance issues & exceptions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1II0MP6l_Xn8GaRhxGSJPIbCto7xTLww3zpSjr6k57g4/edit

<Lauriat> How do we set up methodologies for task-based assessment that can be used across a breadth of websites and products?

SL: Becasue a task is relevant to a particular site, so we would define that
... So we would want to include the Non-Interfence type SC but without it becoming very difficult to do so
... Because we are moving away from the term Webpages, and towards environment. Defining the tasks would scope of what would be conformance on the owner of the thing that is going through the assessment

<Chuck> Katie: I think the concern we talked about the other day is leaving it up to the org to define the scope has to be controlled. They can scope out stuff that is relevant...

<Chuck> Katie: I want to address some other way to address the interface that's in front of you. The user is interacting with the interface in front of them.

<Chuck> Katie: Unless 'what is this' is a task.

<Jemma_> +q can you share the definition/example of "non-interference" type if you don't mind, Shawn?

Alastair: I think it is how far around that task could go

DF: I am glad readily acheivable is there.

SL: my view is not up to us, but their regulators or others

DF: Maybe we can give them a mechanism

Jemma: what is Non-interference?

<Chuck> Katie: like the 4 sc that are called for in wcag 2.0, 2.1. Keyboard trap, flashing, things that keep a user from using the interface.

<Lauriat> Non-interference: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc5

SL: Please ask questions while we are going through this

Alastair: Are we trying to answer this?

SL: I want answer the first part
... This is not specific to the CM
... go acognitive walkthrough of thispersona (of say low-vsion)
... That is one example, we have sketched out a particlar issue
... Rating those expereince of each persona. Andfind out why you cant accomplish easily with a screen magifier

Jake: We shouldbe thinking about the more interactive parts, when you use tab sequencing
... It may be possible to go beyond on-
... beyond non-interference

SL: Yes. Conformance and the results of actual testing. Like collisions we would like that to be relflected

Alastair: Easilt Keyboard cover like 8 GL. But using maybe non-AT and more subjective barriers.
... we had a complaint from a dragon users, that used the tools different

<Chuck> Katie: User interaction patterns.

SL: I am getting to a point, in Docs there are at least5ways to bold text
... This is an illustration of that all pahts should be accessible. In voice it depends on the the persons voice

DF: I talk about at least all the human senses, by touch hearing speech you are making sure people can perform

<JohnRochford> SL: I would appreciate points such as, "when you are thinking about this, please keep that in mind".

<JohnRochford> AC: We may need alternative ways of achieving a task.

<Lauriat> How do we migrate people from WCAG 2.x to Silver from a conformance viewpoint? (for example, should WCAG 2.0 or WCAG 2.1 be grandfathered to Silver?

<JohnRochford> SL: Should WCAG 2.x migrate to some level of Silver?

<JohnRochford> SL: How do we migrate people who are using WCAG 2.x?

<JohnRochford> David: You could match Silver conformance levels to WCAG 2.x.

<JohnRochford> Chuck: We bring over 2.x in a way that people following it don't break and yet meet Silver conformance levels.

<JohnRochford> AC: I don't want Silver to be restricted by matching to WCAG 2.x.

<JohnRochford> Katie: We are trying to do more with Silver. It's a richer model than WCAG 2.x.

<JohnRochford> Katie: The whole point with Silver is to stretch conformance.

<JohnRochford> David: There may be a perception by companies that they may not have to follow Silver unless it becomes law as WCAG 2.x is.

<JohnRochford> Chuck: There will be more friendlier views of following Silver if there is overlap between 2.x and Silver.

<JohnRochford> SL: My motivation is that guidelines should reflect the experiences of PwD.

<JohnRochford> SL: That also depends upon the platform and/or tools PwD use.

<JohnRochford> AC: You are hamstringing yourself if you are trying to do 1 to 1 mapping.

<JohnRochford> Katie: How can we future proof design, do vigorous testing, address gaps from lessons learned from 2.x?

<JohnRochford> SL: We are going to have to discover future gaps.

<JohnRochford> AC: We need to track where 2.x went into Silver.

<JohnRochford> AC: We should provide a mapping/migration document.

<JohnRochford> Janina: If we map 1 to 1, that will be a problem because it will box us in (restrict us).

<JohnRochford> Welcome back, Mike.

<JohnRochford> Chuck: Our current progress is not yet boxing us in.

<JohnRochford> Chuck: Silver may have a smoother path to adoption if it has a subset minimum that is 2.x friendly.

<JohnRochford> Chuck: Companies may adopt Silver more quickly if they don't think their WCAG work is wasted.

<JohnRochford> SL: A mapping/migration doc should answer that quite well.

<JohnRochford> SL: I'm not concerned about auditing. I am concerned about implementation.

<JohnRochford> We have 2 docs: One is a snapshot from about a year ago. One is our working doc.

<JohnRochford> Jake: We must do mapping to ensure adoption. Do we have a choice?

<JohnRochford> SL: I don't know yet if there will be a choice.

<JohnRochford> Janina: We will find out as we go through the process.

<JohnRochford> Katie: Tools use the failures of the SC, but they will add more.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say has there been any discussion of a scenario where 2.x persists as a baseline and 3x is the equivalent of a LEEDS certification?

<JohnRochford> Mike: Will 2.x persist as a baseline?

<JohnRochford> Mike: Would be the migration plan be complimentary and not a replacement?

<JohnRochford> SL: I don't expect that because it would be too difficult to have to follow both.

<mbgower> k, thanks. so in 1hr 20

<alastairc> Re-starting around 13:45 (12 min from now)

<LisaSeemanKest_> anyone there?

<LisaSeemanKest_> ah it is not just me

<alastairc> Muted, unless you want to hear the post-lunch conversation?

Finalise last WCAG 2.1 technique

<LisaSeemanKest_> going to try apa

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/Failure_for_135_AWK/techniques/failures/F_1_3_5.html

<Jemma_> Scribe: Jemma

<alastairc> scribe:Jemma_

awk: saftest failure will be having incorrect autocomplete.
... among three failures

jn: autocomplete failure needs context, ie. it depends on which name is

<Ryladog> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/Failure_for_135_AWK/techniques/failures/F_1_3_5.html

<mbgower> I think wrong uses of autocomplete is the fastest way to get a failure

awk: what do other people think about #2 procedure, "check that the form field does not has a valid and well-formed autocomplete attribute and value pair that matches the purpose of the input."?

jake: this does not need to be scoped to "mark up" languages.

WCAG 2.2 Work

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

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements

things to do for this WCAG 2.2 topic is that 1) Does it meet the SC requirement, 2)if not how we are going to do it, 3) who can do the work?

alastairc: <showing the list of SC requirements on the screen>

<alastairc> Disproportionately affects a user with a disability.

<alastairc> Is automatically or manually testable.

<alastairc> Different testers should get the same results.

<alastairc> Describe the condition required to meet the criteria.

<alastairc> Uses the WCAG 2.x A/AA/AAA level structure.

<alastairc> Applies to all content across all websites.

<alastairc> Applies across technologies to the greatest extent possible.

<alastairc> Doesn’t overlap with existing Success Criterion.

alastairc: since we have a limited time, we will just go over the key points for each SC items.

1. Accessible Authentification

<mbgower> However, it's still a cognitive function

<alastairc> Full doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J3NFw6NPyj7QGddBtRmagrtS-x4t9BWan8PYEdSpMZM/edit#heading=h.9a579gtg9i39

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is this implying "any one of the following"

group discusison about "not exclusively relying on" one of following

<Fazio> +1 to expand wording from "does not rely on any"

katie and MC: this implies that it can supply the alternative methods.

jake: remove "including..."phrase .. can be the solution?

katie: we add examples of cognitive function to other SC..

<mbgower> +1 to sublist in the understanding doc or maybe Is it possible to have a definition for cognitive function to cover this?

jake: the list in the SC seems to be limited...

awk: here in the list means that it includes the listitems more than ones stated.

<Rachael> +1 to not making this at least two

<KimD> +1 should not say "at least 2" because - future possible authentication methods

mike: cognitive function can be defined in normative doc and link to the doc will be helpful.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think you do not want to say 'at least 2' or anything. 'does not rely on any one of the following'

mike: "except for your own namem ...)" sounds like cumbersome to understand.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if there is any authentication that wouldn't be covered by this list

awk: can this be inclusive most of time?

<mbgower> s/exceot for your own namem ...)" sounds like cumbersome to understand./add a normative definition of cognitive function instead of being in the SC text

mc: there is a chance new things come up anytime.

as authentification methods

<mbgower> use of webauth can solve this without using any of these necessarily

katie: we may need examples of two factor authentification...

davidF: may we have a chance to burden small bussinesses?

<Rachael> When authentication is used, at least one method is available that allows a user to authenticate without relying on:

<mbgower> that's why I was suggesting "any one of the following"

<alastairc> https://1drv.ms/p/s!AqcLQeCk6CjwiKIUezUgJTtB7sgmBQ?e=4Ceh7W

<alastairc> ^ link to the powerpoint file

rach: I don't think we are talking here what we are trying to say in the statement

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I would like to suggest this be called Accessible Re-Authentication

<Fazio> I agree with MG Login or re-authentication?

mg: I think my intention for SC aims to be more extensive rather than limitive. I am wondering whether we are considering "reauthentificaiton" using google or fb login..

johnrochford: I don't want to limit this SC only to re-authentification.
... because there is authentification system you dont need to initiate or create the login(authentification)

alastairc: talking about different authentificaiton system example...

johnRochford: for one example, you are just authentificated, it is just because you are human,.
... another example is birthdate authentificaiton.

??: the point of this SC is that if you are relying on one of these items, that means it fails.

<stevelee> I agree the language needs to avoid complicated mental parsing loops :)

<mbgower> removed "exclusively" from option A

<mbgower> I think option A is what we want, without the word "exclusively"

jake: suggestion to change "a specific biometric input" to "a biometric input"

<Rachael> When authentication is used, users can authenticate using a method that does not rely on:

<mbgower> +1 I like that R

<stevelee> +1 from me

<KimD> -1

rach: focus on Users action, rather than specific software function.

<mbgower> But it should be ...rely on any one of the following', right?

<mbgower> as written a and b are quite different. A allows 2 of those to occur. B disallows any of them

<alastairc> a) When authentication is used, a method is available that does not exclusively rely on any one of the following:

<alastairc> b) When authentication is used, users can authenticate using a method that does not rely on:

awk: we will figure out the language.

<mbgower> I really want the word "exclusively" removed from A :)

<KimD> Is this what it's trying to say "When asking users to authenticate from one of the categories below, a second method from a different category must also be used. "

awk: technique will be completed once the SC language are completed.

johnRochford and John Folio are working on this.

<AWK> Web Authentication Spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/

https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/ELuIEmnB/

https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/#use-cases

use case for webauth can be found above,.

kim: I think there is the loophole in the concept.

<Lauriat> Joining the wordsmithing party: "If a method of authentication relies on any of the following, at least one other method must also be available which does not rely on the same modality/modalities."

awk: one example is voice authentificaiton but if you have to say your passsword/put it in, there is a cognitive issue to consider as Kim said.

<Rachael> +1 to lauriat's suggestion.

??: here i think authentification and captcha are mixed in the dicussion. chaptcha is the validation method, not authentification methods.

<mbgower> I think it's useful and it is a strong candidate

<Fazio> +1

awk: we will continue to consider this for WCAG 2.2

<KimD> I think it needs work but is a good idea

awk: does anyone think that it is not going toward positive direction?

shawnlauriat: it is going with the positive direction.

Touch target spacing

<mbgower> s/??: here I think/mbgower: I think

<alastairc> If the target for pointer inputs is less than 44 by 44 CSS pixels then there is a minimum of 8 CSS pixels between adjacent targets except when:

<alastairc> - Inline The target is in a sentence or block of text;

<alastairc> - Essential A particular presentation of the target is essential to the information being conveyed.

jakeabma: there was a discussion about lack of testing method for SC Spacing between touch targets.

alastairc: Kathy had a chance to make updates.

jakeabma: if people are using flexbox, this is going to be the problem.

awk: is there no way to set the minimum padding among flex box?

jakeamba: then it means that you have to add minimum px for each flexbox scenarios.

shawnlariat: you are talking about implementation possibilty.
... there is the way that we can test the padding depending on various layout sizes.
... there is the way most of failure cases can be automated.

<mbgower> How about making this Non-Text Targets?

please refer the "few exceptions" link in the SC google doc.

mbgower: two points. 1) this limits to non text target 2) Can topic be the candidate for Silver or UX experts in Apple or MS?

awk: these are from Apple design spec and compared with MS...

mbgower: I would rather to talk about this based on the research and by UX experts, not accessibiilty issues.

alastairc: for the sake of discussion, devel's advocate, ....

<KimD> +1 this pattern with "small" buttons is all over

<alastairc> Kim - is that a bad thing? I.e. are you +1ing this as a potential SC?

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we should ask apple/google/microsoft about size and spacing and implementation

<stevelee> good point!

+1 to questions from AWK and alastairc

<mbgower> icons in an application toolbar are somewhat of an 'exception' in that they are 'shortcuts' to functions offered in the menu.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about usability (tested?) interfaces, would making buttons bigger impact negatively?

<KimD> +1 you see less content. What happens when you zoom?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that there should be language for 'relying' on the small targets

sl: I am trying to understand/explain that what are the implications for this SC by pointing out different examples in google doc and android apps.

<alastairc> q

In summary, this SC require the discussion on 1) testability(UI) 2) asking questions to relevant parties such as apples/google/microsoft about size and spacing.

<AWK> Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HqI19P0LUzdpbm1IM2PPhloXjXWHFC9Fo3QjoVQ4Irc/edit#

Focus visible

<alastairc> Focus visible doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9_WBgfhViWAaRFIWWt10CP5rBsEVIWm3vT1vWqrHvI/edit

<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

AC: intent is to be sure a visible change is clearly present when a UIC is focussed

<AWK> (Alastair reads SC proposal)

SL: is there research for this SC available?

AC: only some ad hoc research

<alastairc> https://alastairc.uk/tests/wcag22-examples/focus-more-visible-2.html

AC: some work better than others

Jake: doesn't this mean we will have big problems with 3 way contrast colors? As discussed with hover previously

AC: that you have more options, like adding thicker border
... example 3 shows that it is impossible for this SC
... inverted focus works fine
... example 5

SL: does the caret have a use for 11b

AC: didn't think about it yet

AWK: noted
... it would be good to check against design systems from companies to check if it works

<Fazio> Contrast Sensitivity chart resource from medical association: https://www.aoa.org/Documents/optometric-staff/Articles/Contrast-Sensitivity.pdf

AWK: does it make sense for all of us, is it implementable?

SL: need to make it easy to what the focus area is

Jake: first time we will not allow default UA coloring?

AWK: yes, if the default is not according to these rules, authors need to adjust

<KimD> Do we need more clarity about what has to be measured in the third bullet?

<KimD> will do

AC: if you have suggestions, please provide

Essential Controls

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPtCqWHjrhj3QZ4afsqzmWDd-zMSf39RsMqSpR2QGCg/edit#heading=h.oq5d847iraod

AWK: Rachel said personalisation will be published on time for nr. 2

<alastairc> Data simplification tag would be for part number

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/#simplification-explanation

<KimD> What about when a user is zoomed - a control that *was* visible may not be visible after zoomed. Would that be a violation?

AWK: long forms with button at the end will make it difficult

<KimD> It seems like there are so many ways to fail 1., that you'd always have to do 2.

rachel: more clear if we take main navigation out?

AWK: not sure if we need to do it right now

Jake: can't we make it an extension of / like: input purpose, so we can rid of nr. 1?

<alastairc> .

<KimD> Good point, Jake. Testing

<KimD> Agree that WCAG is a brand and has meaning on its own

<alastairc> Previous survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NamingSilver/results

<alastairc> includes the names

<alastairc> Several comments supporting keeping the WCAG acronym in some form, although realising that it shouldn't be 'content'

<alastairc> "Web Creation Accessibility Guidelines"?

<alastairc> trackbot end meeting

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

18 Sep 2019

Attendees

Contents