AGWG teleconference -- 14 Jul 2020

<alastairc> agenda order 4, 1, 2, 3

<alastairc> agenda order 5, 1, 2, 3

<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

Reminder about CFCs - Error correction (Processes)

<Rachael> Discussion about error correction vs 3.3.6 is at https://www.w3.org/2020/03/03-ag-minutes.html#item03

AC: please look at the CFC and and respond if possible

Updates to touch target spacing https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Pointer-target-spacing-update/results

<alastairc> Enlarge: A mechanism is available to change the CSS pixel size of each target, or its spacing, so there is an area with a width and height of at least 44 CSS pixels that includes it, and no other targets;

<alastairc> User agent: The size of the target is controlled by the user agent and is not modified by the author;

<Chuck> +1 both are fine, but prefer the one that's there slightly over Gundula's

<AWK> " except for the situations listed below"?

AC: need update of understanding

<Chuck> +1 for minor editorial change

AC: looks like we can have a CFC

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Pointer-target-spacing-update/results

RESOLUTION: accept changes and publish pointer target spacing as amended

Focus visible AAA version, including naming https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/focus-visible-enh-issues4/results

Focus visible SC at AAA

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17nRYCTMT6GzKoa8G8-WUTh8NXhzx-FOED_2mNeRmmU8/edit#

AC: adjacent contrast is dropped because of the 2 CSS pixels in AAA
... it's a higher requirement

GN: visually might not be clear if not another variable present, like 4 CSS px or adjacent

DF: thought AAA was to mandate the outline

AC: we could, but a background change would not meet that

<Detlev> fair point

DmD: make it as simple as possible but not simpler, add some nuances

AC: in test the change of contrast was more important than the adjacent contrast

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say non-text contrast covers that

MG: suggestion from Gundula might be good for the Enhanced version

<Chuck> +1 mbgower, this suggestion is best for non-text contrast

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/wcag22-focus-visible-enh-updates/understanding/22/focus-visible-enhanced.html

<alastairc> "For the keyboard focus indicator of each User Interface Component, all of the following are true:"

AWK: seems to be a difference in the AA and AAA version, not sure if we want this

<CharlesHall> curious why it is referred to as “keyboard focus indicator” when focus can be triggered by {n} methods. why is “keyboard” necessary? (other than keeping old language)

AWK: we might need to clear up the text as no UI component seems excewpted

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#focus-visible-enhanced

<alastairc> When a User Interface Component displays a visible keyboard focus, all of the following are true:

<bruce_bailey> +1 for "when..."

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are we getting ourselves in hot water with "around the control"?

MG: what does around the control really means? do we mean something like perimeter?

<Chuck> can't think of any holes.

<Detlev> looks fine

<mbgower> +1

<Chuck> Can anyone NOT live with "When a user interface component..."

<alastairc> + for "When a User Interface Component ", or -1 for can't live with

<sukriti_> +1

<Detlev> +1 can live with or better even

<GN015> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<laura> +1

<Chuck> +1 can live with

<AWK> +1 can live with

<david-macdonald> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

DmD: you need to adjust the focus indicator with this SC? The default will fail?

AC: Safari and Firefox fail at the moment

RESOLUTION: Include the new AAA version of focus visible in WCAG 2.2

<sukriti_> ofc, thank you

Naming the focus visible criteria

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/focus-visible-enh-issues4/results#xq2

<alastairc> Option 4:

<alastairc> Level A: Focus visible

<alastairc> Level AA: Focus appearance (Minimum)

<alastairc> Level AAA: Focus appearance (Enhanced)

<Chuck> +1 fine with 4.

<mbgower> is 'indicator' better than appearance?

<Detlev> +1 to DmD - can live with option 4, but not keen...

DmD: we usually added something at the end, option 4 is different, not sure if we need to do it this way

AC: we have 3 levels now, not 2, so a bit different

<CharlesHall> the word appearance sets a precedent for reuse, and may have non-specific connotation for translations

<laura> need to drop off.

<GN015> +1 to Mike

RESOLUTION: Accept option 4 for naming.

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<alastairc> scribe:mbgower

Support with issues, focused on WCAG 2.2 issues

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22WCAG+2.2%22+-label%3A%22Technical+%28bug%29%22+-label%3A%22Survey+-+Ready+for%22+-label%3A%22Survey+-+Added%22

alastairc: it would help to get people taking issues.

alastair: This list is our focus. We're trying to make sure we have updates for anything that may get into our wider review.

Detlev: It might help to add the 'needs assignment' label

<alastairc> 2.1 example: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1187

alastairc: Does anyone have any other questions?

<alastairc> Bounding box: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1075

<sukriti_> I assigned myself that one since I have another focus visible issue

AWK: I'm interested in hearing what people think of #770

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/770

David: Removing an SC is challenging. You really need 100% buy in to remove something.

AWK: I felt like when it was being discussed I wouldn't have characterized much of it as opposition.

<david-macdonald> opposition https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/770#issuecomment-531387377

AWK: My reading looking at the comments is that no one has come up with an example yet that isn't caught by another SC.
... I would love to be able to take this one out, because it's not really meaningful.

<alastairc> David - I think those examples were shown failing others?

<david-macdonald> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/770#issuecomment-582156705

AWK: I wanted to hear what other people said. I don't want to spend time making the case for removing if it's an insurmountable hurdle

<bruce_bailey> Please see Jon Availa comment at:

<bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/770#issuecomment-501264525

Chuck: John Foliot was asking for data. I want to acknowledge that I have no data, just experience
... I seem to remember there were some folks speaking against deprecation

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask in anyone pinged Steve Faulkner ?

Chuck: Are we talking about deprecating from 2.2 or all levels?

Alastairc: Just 2.2

Bruce: I've pasted in a comment

Alastairc: I don't think this would get in with our current thinking. I thought the matters Jon and others have raised were addressed.
... I wonder if there is another option to remove duplicate IDs.

David: That may be the way to go. Validation, back in 2004, caused a lot of discussion.
... What won the day was that we didn't want people to use up their a11y budget looking for ampersands.

<bruce_bailey> agreed, 4.1.1 was a compromise from requiring valid syntax

David: We could just remove the duplicate IDs. The way we could justify is because of the 'accessibility supported' clause. Something needed fails 1.3.1

Alastair: Who could take that on?

David: I can.

<bruce_bailey> i do not think dropping / ammending 4.1.1 will get people upset

Contrast math

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/695

Alastair: Another topic that came up was the contrast math. I hesitate to post the thread...
... The basic premise is that there is algorithm work being done.
... Under relative luminence, the number was taken from a prerelease, and since then (circa 2000) the official spec has a slightly different number.

<CharlesHall> this seems to be best to defer to wcag 3 since a new formula has already been developed.

Alastair: The results shouldn't change in our current world, but with higher resolution, it could. We're not talking about a new forumula. Just updating the number to match the official spec.

Chuck: I think it is inocuous and I would argue for it, but worried about it leading to other discussions. It's being addressed in SIlver, so my chair hat off opinion is to leave it for now.

Bruce: It's going to be awhile before Silver. We notice the error, fix the error.

Alastair: I don't think it opens the floodgates, and we have a response about further matters being worked on by silver

AWK: I wonder if we could just do a technique?

<Chuck> +1 AWK's idea of adding a technique.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for new issue with tighter scope

Alastair: I don't want to touch the current issue, which has a lot of other considerations. I'm going to create a new issue. Can someone take it on?
... Is anyone wondering about any issues?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to disagree about waiting for silver

<sukriti_> I'll take both

<sukriti_> they're all related

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/796

Alastair: Bruce, you're down against 4 on the list. Presumably #796 is almost ready to come back to the group?

Bruce: I'd be happy for it to come back to survey

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say a PR I did had some affiliation issue. THought I resolved, but... https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1201

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask for issue number on contrast threshold value

<alastairc> time outs question: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/392

Alastair: this is old, but I flagged it with 2.2

<alastairc> Also one with Flash definition: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/553

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22WCAG+2.2%22+-label%3A%22Technical+%28bug%29%22+-label%3A%22Survey+-+Ready+for%22+-label%3A%22Survey+-+Added%22

Alastair: Please have a look through the issues list, if no one is assigned, feel free to grab an issue. Contact the chairs if you have questions.

- DRAFT -

AGWG teleconference

14 Jul 2020

Attendees

Contents