<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2021-07-20
<Joshue108> scribe: Joshue108
CA: Intros?
Any new topics?
CA: Janina, you wanted to talk about joint TPAC meetings.
JS: Yes, APA is going to have several cross group meetings
And Jeanne has asked us to do a presentation on our work with various groups
Scheduled and getting ready for this Friday
10 AM EST
JS: We will talk about a WAI wide, maybe W3C glossary
lets agree language - then new specs from APA
and other groups as well as A11y User Requirements docs
relating to second screen and more
This may have an impact on WCAG 3 etc
CA: Are there any pointers?
<JA looks for page>
CA: Questions?
<sajkaj> APA's TPAC Page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021
CA: We were to talk about this, but need Makoto
JS: It's new methods
That we wanted to show to AGWG
before moving into HTML
We want to get feedback on the approach etc
Hopefully Makoto will come with questions
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1__8uxSEeVL35PLeSgB3n4-RIrOifFUftR5krZi_Dzb0/
The first one is complex images
JS: <Channels Makoto>
This is a HTML method
This comes from the top page of the WAI tutorials
There is a question about data representation..
Makoto created issue on GitHub]
There are comments
Its for a broad range of users
Do we need to include SEO as a user need?
Thoughts?
Then the description Tab.. w detailed descriptions
Can we describe the location of the longdesc in the @alt?
JS: Dont know where that came from..
CA: Regarding SEO, are you asking for AGWG to provide input?
Search engine is vague but borderline with types of tech outcomes
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about search engine optimization
Should it be search optomisation rather than Search Engine Opt?
JS: Is that a user need?
CA: Right, from the user perspective
JS: TV Rahman had a thing from Google labs that was helpful
This maybe beyond just text alts
JS: How much can we programmatically identify?
Or are there sensory aspects.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say should we have an image of a graph with text as an example of a complex image? Worried it causes confusion
MG: Riffs on example 2..
I'm concerned about this bar chart, esp with something relating to complex images
People may be confused about purpose
Is this an image of a chart? Or an example of chart where text is not part of image.
Unclear
What are we trying to convey?
<PeterKorn> +1 to that sentiment
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what if it is in fact an image that happens to contain a bar chart?
<johnkirkwood> +1
CA: My interpretation is that it could be either
PK: <scratches head>
Why are we not having accessible table alternative to this?
JG: Would the same thing apply to the example with no link in the example mappie charts?
They have more info.
GN: I have seen navigable charts etc so all info is retrievable
<stevelee> Might be off topic as I missed the background for complex images but this is a Coga Pattern - on this topic - https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#provide-alternative-content-for-complex-information-and-tasks-pattern
JS: We do have a spec with SVG 2 and ARIA so we can make this navigable and accessible
SS: Janina is right - but there are user agent variations
CA: The scope of the question is more about @alt text
Jeanne, when I look at this, I see an extreme case scenario, and as if someone put a clip in and needed @alt text that they may not have had.
JS: These are good
comments.
... One of Makotos questions is that he has been taking
examples from the HTML 5.3 spec
Now that is moving to the WHAT WG, should we take those examples from the living spec or create our own?
<laura> Who is editing the WHATWG spec now?
JS: We wanted original examples to stay close to existing specs and WAI tuts
DmcD: <Gives history lesson on HTML a11y>
examples are good
JS: WHATWG are the maintainers of HTML
Likely to change - W3C takes snapshots and publishes them
APA do horizontal review.
Snapshot examples are reviewed
We do find issue but that is the process
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wn8DuIvOJ7i-CzfcsoNmgEQ3MTjefHAgVTRFChsimD8/
JS: The next example of methods are
Groups of Images
If multiple images convey a single piece of information, the text alternative for one image should convey the information for the entire group.
<Jeanne walks through draft method>
PK: The star rating example seems poor
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for the definition of "one image"
Like the example of the bar chart - I'd like to see more exemplary examples of a11y, rather than one that isn't the best fit for the content
CA: What is meant by one image?
<Chuck> the portion which informed my question: If multiple images convey a single piece of information, the text alternative for one image should convey the information for the entire group.
JS: There was a lot of discussion on this in HTML
There is a mechanism for when alt is used for gestalt view vs atomic
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B4V-j5tI7C6Bj-HhcXD_4e06IJ7E9T_wY1Y5vs7xqx8/
JS: Last draft method is image maps
The text alternative for an image that contains multiple clickable areas should provide an overall context for the set of links. Also, each individually clickable area should have alternative text that describes the purpose or destination of the link.
<PeterKorn> Sorry; I need to drop.
<Chuck> bye Peter
JS: Comments?
MG: How does link purpose not address this?
<david-macdonald> blast from the past ... image maps
Why do we need this?
JS: To cover diff image
types.
... Good question
<Chuck> For Makoto: Doesn't link purpose cover this?
MG: Unsure of how Map of Katoomba found its way in
<Chuck> For Makoto: Could this be rolled into groups of images?
DMacD: I'd put alt text for group section in small section at the end./
JS: Thank e'one
<david-macdonald> at the end of groups method
JS: New method format..
We have been meeting to work on proposal for the methods that reduces ambiguity
and aligns methods etc
ACT to change rules format for WCAG 3
<david-macdonald> awesome project
Please review this in the context for how we are making this more accurate and precise
and clearer to test
JS: Exciting proposal
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B4V-j5tI7C6Bj-HhcXD_4e06IJ7E9T_wY1Y5vs7xqx8/edit
WF: <shares screen>
We want to blend these, but there is overlap
We started with decorative images method - and wanted to merge this with ACT rule
Doc starts with proposal
What is the outcome we are testing for?
What does it need a la methods?
How they relate is not clear.
WF: What we figured out is to add more info
<david-macdonald> is there a link to this doc around?
We want to add functional categories, errors etc
We want to add a method for each technology as it relates to the outcome
This gives precise and descriptive way for how a part of an outcome needs to be tested
There are now 5
and work out what methods we need for this direction
We want a list of images with appropriate and inappropriate @alt text
We can then work out %
WF: How do we blend this method with ACT rule?
One to many etc
More complex
much has stayed the same
Intro and description tabs have duplicate content - they will be combined
What info you need to test etc?
Rest of the content exists in method..
We may add, a short para to explain what is being tested
Would like input on this..
<mbgower> Still hoping a link will be posted
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B4V-j5tI7C6Bj-HhcXD_4e06IJ7E9T_wY1Y5vs7xqx8/
<mbgower> still looks like the wrong doc
<mbgower> yep
<mbgower> you just repasted
WF: <discusses
options>
... We want list of passing, failing examples etc
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JVmquc7mLJaxZhypPbBhR99fEFBmc0YDn1Wz2Jcl_oY/edit?usp=sharing
WF: We are replacing content with info from ACT rule
A11u requirements mapping..
Trying to build up lists.
<discusses applicability of ACT rules>
Works well
WF: Expectation is straight forward
We need a graphic that is not as available to AT
Third thing is the resources tab, we may change to a background tab
We are taking support sections and assumptions
<alastairc> "Background" would, to me, overlap with the intro material. Whereas it is really 'more info' from other sources, linking you off.
WF: Last proposal is a
glossary
... Am happy with proposal
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say (when WIlco is done) that we want to add a plain language statement and put the technical details in an accordion.
JS: Some people are thinking this is complex
May not be applicable to everyday devs
We need a plain language version
We will nail down the techy version first
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if glossary is a tab level addition?
<bruce_bailey> +1 on first impression ! thank you ACT wg
CA: Is the glossary a tab level addition
WF: At the tab
<Chuck> +1 likewise on first impression
Like understanding docs
DMacD: Great direction
In WCAG 2 there were discussion on N/A vs pass
<mbgower> scribe: mbgower
<laura> bye josh
DMacD: I'd like a robust
discussion about spending budget on various tests and
assessments
... At some point we will want to discuss what we want to do
with ambient images
<laura> +1 to david
Wilco: I agree with your comment about counting images
<david-macdonald> agree
Wilco: I think this approach will
work, regardless if we have a percentage or a
three-strikes-and-your're out. It will fit any of them.
... I would like at us adopting this. I think we should use
this approach for a few other methods.
... If you have to write these methods for every technology,
they rapidly increase.
... We need to figure out when we have full coverage
DMacD: I agree with comments earlier to try to simplify things and find plain language.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to new method format from ACT and Silver
<bruce_bailey> +1 to David M comments
<Rain_> +1 to survey, as COGA is working on a couple of these methods and I'd like to review with the subgroups
Chuck: We could sound out group or do a survey to reach resolution.
Jeanne: We are returning with a survey
Chuck: We are now moving into WCAG 2.2 topics
Chuck: There is an updated response. 3 individuals agreed, 1 proposed an adjustment
<alastairc> NB: I updated to include the adjustement
Rachael: I agree with intent but a sentence is not clear
[Chuck reads out Rachael's response]
Rachael: I don't think it's a content change. I'm just trying to make it clearer.
Alastair: I've made that update. I think it makes it better.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept updated response to address issue 1885
<Rachael> +1
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1885#issuecomment-879434704
David: What is the outcome?
Alastair: We're leaving it. It's
a response, not a change.
... We discussed the timeout for WebAuthn on list. The process
is the same as if you did an extension. It's no more steps. It
fits into the extension exception in Timeouts.
<alastairc> +1
David: The Success Criterion language can wait for an assessment in a real-world situation. We have some disonance between the language and WebAuthn. But I don't think it's going to have any practical problem.
RESOLUTION: Accept updated response to address issue 1885
Chuck: The TF suggested making a change in the Understanding document
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1940/files
<alastairc> Another factor that can contribute to cognitive load is hiding characters when typing. Although this criterion requires that users do not have to type in (transcribe) a password, there are scenarios where that is necessary such as creating a password to be saved by a password manager. Providing a feature to optionally show a password can improve the chance of success for people with cognitive disabilities or those who have difficulties with
<alastairc> accurately typing.
Alastair: People should review the PR as it stands. I've tried to take into account what was said in responses.
Chuck: Recap: you have adjusted to address Patrick and Rain's responses
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1940 to address issue 1912
Alastair: The thing that wasn't clear was what the requirement in the SC is
Rain: Your update is a good one.
The one concern after talking with the COGA TF is that by
removing the sentence that Abby had noted, we're still
potentially implying that for those that do this, they will
succeed in removing all cognitive tasks.
... One minor change is to add the word "some" before
"people"
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say why not an advisory technique?
<Chuck> mbgower: Discussed last time as having this as an advisory technique. Has this been explored?
Alastair: I don't have a problem including it as an advisory technique. Someone would have to write it.
<Chuck> mbgower: The proposal is fine, it seems a perfect advisory technique.
<jaunita_george> +1
<Chuck> mbgower: I think many people can benefit from exposing password.
Rachael: I will take a stab at a first draft
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1940 to address issue 1912
<alastairc> +1
+1
<Rain_> +1
<laura> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<JF> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1940 to address issue 1912
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1960 to address issue 1878
qw+
<Chuck> mbgower: Alastair, is this encorporating some of my content?
<Chuck> alastair: No, not your content.
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1960 to address issue 1878
Chuck: Patrick made some changes to address some comments
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say why keyboard?
<Chuck> mbgower: I'm looking at these cold. I'm confused. This is on dragging movement. Keyboard interaction is not being discussed. But both comments seem to be keyboard focused.
<Chuck> alastair: This may be related to new example.
Alastair: I may respond to Gundula directly
Alastair: Gundula's comment is the same for both, since it's the same PR
<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/results
<alastairc> Going from "programmatic markers that are arranged" to "programmatically determinable anchors or destination markers that are arranged..."
That's fine
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1962 to address issue 1927
<jaunita_george> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Rachael> +1
David: I think that will
work.
... i didn't mind it the way it was, but I can live with
it
... Anchor would be the number one method of meeting this. It's
not ideal for me
Wilco: I would prefer not to
change this because 'anchor' is an html term
... I can live with it, but I don't like it
<Chuck> mbgower: Not going to object to the change, but what is a programmatic marker? It's not a defined term. If nobody has that concern, this doesn't have to change, especially if its not an improvement.
<JF> +1 to needing a definition of programmatic marker
David: I agree with Wilco. There's a reason we used "programmatic marker"
<Rain_> maybe "anchor or programatic equivalent" would be better language?
<alastairc> Missing the full definition: "programmatic markers that are arranged in a meaningful sequence to determine the location of a page in relation to others in the set."
JF: Are we meaning specifically something that an AT can put focus on.
Alastair: You need to take the
whole definition to get the context
... The technique is the primary focus of this criterion. We're
looking for something that acts like an anchor but it's a very
specific kind of anchor
JF: An ID reference can also be acceptable?
Alastair: Only if the ID is for the purpose of arranging pages in a sequence
David: The history of where this comes from is epub. Quite often publishers will add these markers. If they've got to the effort of adding them, we want a method of getting to them
<alastairc> JF worth reading the green note in the intent: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/page-break-navigation really helps to understand the scope
<Chuck> mbgower: I still think that something that gives more an idea of a destination, I think we need it. I can live with it as is.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1962 to address issue 1927
<david-macdonald> -1
+1
<jaunita_george> +1
<Wilco_> -1
<alastairc> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Rain_> 0
<laura> 0
<johnkirkwood> 0
<Rachael> 0
<david-macdonald> sure
<alastairc> "programmatically determinable destination markers"
<Wilco_> I'm alright with that
i prefer that to the existing
<bruce_bailey> +1 to alastairc's edit
+1
<jaunita_george> +1
<david-macdonald> +
<johnkirkwood> +1
Thanks!
<Rachael> +1
<laura> +1
<bruce_bailey> fwiw , i thought I understood David's explanation, but then David voted -1
rain?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1962 to address issue 1927
<bruce_bailey> so i am happy with this edit
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1962 to address issue 1927
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Issue_tracking_and_resolution
Alastair: We have a Friday
meeting that is very successful. i encourage you to visit the
link I just posted
... An agenda will go out tomorrow, and I will add the details
to the wiki page
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/@@/Map of Katoomba/ Succeeded: s/@@/the example with no link in the example map/ Succeeded: s/testr/test/ Succeeded: s/dos/docs/ Succeeded: s/methds/methods/ Default Present: PeterKorn, alastairc, Joshue, Rachael, Francis_Storr, Fazio, Rain_, Lauriat, johnkirkwood, Laura_Carlson, jaunita_george, mbgower, KimD, MelanieP, jeanne, bruce_bailey, stevelee, StefanS, Nicaise, JF Present: PeterKorn, alastairc, Joshue, Rachael, Francis_Storr, Fazio, Rain_, Lauriat, johnkirkwood, Laura_Carlson, jaunita_george, mbgower, KimD, MelanieP, jeanne, bruce_bailey, stevelee, StefanS, Nicaise, JF, Joshue108 Regrets: Aimee Ubbink, Jake Abma, Detlev Fischer, Justine Pascalides, Chris Loiselle, Sarah Horton, Todd Libby Found Scribe: Joshue108 Inferring ScribeNick: Joshue108 Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower Scribes: Joshue108, mbgower ScribeNicks: Joshue108, mbgower WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]