– DRAFT –
AGWG Teleconference

Alastair: Anyone who wants to introduce themselves?
… Any agenda items for upcoming meetings?
… Hearing none.

Guideline breakdown tryout, process

<Chuck> +1 to recording

Alastair: I'll be recording this section, we had a few regrets.
… if anyone doesn't want to be on the recording, don't say anything.
… This is an exercise, moving WCAG 2 to 3 migration, this enables us to structure what goes into WCAG 3.
… To do that we reconfigure the requirements from WCAG 2. If you transport it across you transport the granularity.
… Some criteria are bigger / more complicated than others.
… To reconfigure that we need to break things down.
… Thinking through how this breakdown works is useful for our progress of WCAG 3.
… We ran a pilot a few weeks ago. The most successful one was to apply categorizations to existing criteria.
… Also to think about the units of testing. Component, view, process, site.
… And then there is types of test, objective tests. Does it have alt text or not.
… Conditions, test cases, and protocols.
… What we tried to do is create smaller units. We're not trying to fill in gaps.
… It's easy to add extra requirements, but that's not what we're aiming to do.
… Non-text content can be divided. Functional needs were fairly straight-forward.
… How you test it is a little more complicated.
… yes / no does it have alt text. Then, does it have appropriate meaning.
… Complex materials might be better at the view level.
… We noted down functional needs from the subgroup work.
… This is all listing what we think the success criteria does now.
… Funtional needs was a subset of the original ones.
… How this works varies depending on the success criteria.
… Audio-only / video-only are quite similar in terms of test type, but the functional needs vary a lot.
… The exercise today, we'll split into groups of 4. Everyone can open the functional needs link.
… Pick the criterion, add the categories, see how the success criteria can be divided up. Does it make sense to divide by types of test, by functional needs, user needs.
… Try to create the smallest useful unit of test.

<alastairc> Functional / user needs https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#heading=h.4jiwp8jpc143

<alastairc> Mapping https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MGGgqgeL779aJu7iNuXQMHgJygV7l6GouM7--5ABJ5U/edit#heading=h.9oxnj9cw11i8

<AWK> +AWK

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tXIaJxQCyuOTkvLcJR5QgTN13h6dIgtUlE7H9CUCvew/edit#gid=0

Alastair: Make a copy of the document, this is the bit we'll fill in.
… This is where you can pick the success criterion to tackle.

<alastairc> Example of one done already: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Fdy-o7DKfWwzxk1AJbAGGedtE4VeJ_f6tNV_4Og7WU/edit

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sGLpBwAAsZfhANpWO3jo0zMOdwDtckhjSmsYpisQfFU/edit#slide=id.g11f44e61c34_0_12

<mbgower> yep, no access

Sarah: I was wondering if you thought about using severity as help in getting to the smallest unit?
… In other projects I've done it helped to align severity with needs.

Alastair: For the moment it's together what we have from WCAG 2. We're working with "included or not".
… When we get to recombining it we'll need to go through severity.
… If people want to think about that through the exercise I think that'll be useful.

Rachael: I'll start the breakout rooms. If you need captioning you can come to the main room.
… You'll get an invitation. Feel free to come back to the main room.

Alastair: Start a fresh document and work in there
… We're doing a categorisation exercise.

<alastairc> Template to start from, but create your own copy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MGGgqgeL779aJu7iNuXQMHgJygV7l6GouM7--5ABJ5U/edit#heading=h.9oxnj9cw11i8

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sGLpBwAAsZfhANpWO3jo0zMOdwDtckhjSmsYpisQfFU/edit#slide=id.p

<Rachael> We will wrap up in 1-2 minutes to come back and regroup

Alastair: I had a useful session with my group looking at focus order.
… We got through needs and types, got started into breaking it down into probably two requirements.
… Anything people found particularly easy or difficult?

Chuck: We selected pointer cancellation, we came across sub-guidelines. In this case it was one of the following. To us it felt like these could not be broken up.

Peter: When we looked at test types, one was clearly automatable, the others maybe not, even if they were objective.
… We wanted to make them sub-guidelines but didn't think it was possible.
… We noted different facets of cognitive related to some but not all of the four.
… We though the exercise was interesting.

<Fazio> +1 Peter

Alastair: We came across a couple that we thought could not be broken down. Still helpful to get them at the same level of granularity.

Mike: We worked on 1.3.3, we spent the entire time on functional and user needs.
… I suspect part of that is because we're not super familiar with the newer needs.
… Since this is about instructions it hit on a lot of things. We ended up discussing what it did and did not cover from a COGA perspective.

Alastair: Our pilot was three 2-hour sessions. We got through one SC every half hour or so.

Fazio: It might be a good idea to reference design notes like Content usable. It helps testers figure out how to achieve user needs.

<mbgower> Group 1 was Gundula, Janina, Jaunita and Mike (covered 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics)

MichaelC: In part the SC target AT users, regardless of why they are AT users. It seems false to map them to functional needs.
… In this case there were needs beyond users. But guidelines created for AT continues to be a question

Alastair: What we found so far, some guidelines break down nicely along functional needs and can potentially be separated.
… Some guidelines cover so many functional needs, but break down along user needs.
… Others break down better as test type or component type.
… There is no one good way to do this.

Rachael: If you have a document, move it to a shared folder.
… Next to the title, there is a star, move, then move it to the correct drive.
… Please share it with Jeanne or me and we'll move it for you.

Alastair: We've been working on this database, it'll go into that and we can filter and export from there.

WCAG 3 Example Conformance Scenarios https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

alastairc: Conformance Scenarios, shared before meeting, Janina to present

Janina: assuming everyone in scenarios operating in best of faith

<shadi> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VrEl43FAqLBQc2IsQCCBuxtDhb5p1Ccc/

Janina: talking about part, not all, come to conclusions, interested in feedback but haven't spent time on details, go easy on details, focus on organization

shadi: Collection of scenarios, content authors have challenges conforming with WCAG, develop shared understanding of situations
… discussions across groups, scenarios help understand what we mean
… buckets, not proposing solutions
… [reads from slides]
… not everything has to be in WCAG
… some solutions policy, technical, on spectrum
… release early, often, looking at first draft, some doesn't have full consensus, looking for feedback, it this useful, should we keep at it
… all comments welcome
… bugs occur in content — where there's software, there are bugs

<Fazio> This is where the Maturity Model we're developing will be applicable/useful

shadi: large content accumulating rapidly, e.g., user generated content, reviews, videos, etc
… auto-generated content, weather pictures, etc
… large volumes of content not able to conform immediately
… takes time to adjust content after acquisition, [reads slides]
… many examples that require human intervention, not publish until accessible or take other steps?
… Content provider doesn't control content, website that allows users to create websites, technical requirements for CMS, tool producer might not be responsible for sites created
… aggregating portal, syndicated, different relationships between content and provider
… content provider, e.g., payment service, can select service but have dependency
… social media embedding, content management used by website and dependent on CMS
… live content, e.g., reduced caption quality for live, might have higher bar for prerecorded
… some types of content difficult to conform, e.g., immersive environments, sensory experiences, lack of AT support
… content rarely used, aspects in WCAG 2x, outdated/archived content, useful to go back, e.g., ancient weather forecast?
… things put online but not known if going to be used, same priority?
… experimental for all users, included people with disabilities, e.g., some feature, robot, drone, figure out as we go along
… things known beta, could break, not excuse but what is reasonable effort
… not all requirements applicable to all content, limited group of users, known set of user tech, WCAG 2x accessibility supported, can we build on that?
… small business have limited expertise, for many factors including accessibility
… limited resources, too, might be policy
… get in touch, link in agenda, Silver Conformance Options Subgroup, Janina and Jeanne leading, Shadi lead editor
… contact to get involved or provide feedback

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that a lot of this seems to be already in the ATAG material. The content aggregator is a new consideration to address. I don't think authors should be excepted from responsibility for choosing an inaccessible service feature

mbgower: Question whether a lot should in WCAG, enforcement, applicability for those that adopt WCAG, doing pretty well, jurisdictions decide
… covered by ATAG, separate spec, how much bringing in?
… content aggregator new considerations, good to consider
… exceptions, can create problems, old stuff mark as not going to make accessible, similar outcome, user understands company is not going to make accessible, otherwise don't need to list
… like transparency that company needs to report

shadi: Policy consideration? Maybe, but maybe can do better
… SC 1.1.1 broken down, identify images you put online, provide more descriptions, put requirements on 2 levels to address separately\
… outlining scenarios that content authors experience
… to be worked out, not making proposal for how to work with it

<mbgower> thanks for the presentation. it's a really interesting space to discuss

shadi: unclear whether ATAG is included in WCAG 3

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask / suggest that we need to be aware of these considerations, but not necessarily build into WCAG 3.

shadi: not proposing exceptions, possible ways forward, outline things to be discussed, situations

alastairc: Need to be aware of considerations, not building in, not making blanket exceptions

Wilco: Leave up to policy makers, will exempt generally, potentially to provide more informed ways to deal with it

<shadi> +1 to Wilco

Wilco: need to give policy makers tools to ask questions

<Jaunita_George_> +1 to wilco

shadi: Can we do better than blanket exceptions, e.g., maps

PeterKorn: Policy makers don't think about how to navigate these situations more intelligently
… e.g., everything needs to conform, what about bugs, what about user generated?

<alastairc> Next step if you have feedback: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

PeterKorn: as we write guidelines, etc, address where best

alastairc: Provide feedback to work

maryjom: Policy-makers don't understand topic, some countries remove products when not 100% conformant
… has difficulties

<shadi> [[please feel free to use the "Discussions" tab to add your feedback too]]

kirkwood: Fantastic, aspect of undue burden, legal reasons, business reasons should be addressed more, measurement of undue burden
… has to be core to this, W3C showing it can be done to standards, transforming internet to decrease burden, esp for technical, legal documents, scaling for small businesses

WCAG 2.2 Visual Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/

shadi: Survey? What's process to get more feedback

Janina: Take offline, talk to chairs

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1895#issuecomment-1051108085

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2238

alastairc: 7 agree, 1 agree with adjust, few comments
… Wilco comment about brackets addressed in PR
… last call?

<alastairc> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept response and PR

RESOLUTION: Accept response and PR

<Rachael> +1

Excluding design canvases #1888

mbgower: Will address Patrick's editorial comment

alastairc: concerns about canvas interface, lots of objects, multiple controls/layers

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfEgRs99CBc9vVHhCNowwj07v6UDGb-2QaB9IlfBZ5A/edit#

alastairc: combined approached into suggestion
… one approach takes out focus

<alastairc> "The trigger for hover is an editable item within a region of the page dedicated to editable items."

alastairc: exception for those types of editors
… if add persistent controls would overwhelm interface
… [reads responses]
… focus added to close loophole but if focus on hover requirement (as orig intent) makes it more narrow, excluded interactions we didn't want included
… [reads responses]

Wilco: Don't think correct in saying it's a problem, have to have selected, doesn't matter they're hidden if not selected
… interact with graphical object, have visual indicator that tells where to go for controls
… doesn't apply, could have explanation in understanding document

alastairc: Applicability? What is indicator?

GN015: Question about exception or focus, confusing
… canvas, if and when needed, e.g., email tool, icons appear only when mail selected, same with editable object

alastairc: Deleted bits (hover or focus) is one option, take away focus bit. Second is to add exception

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about applicability

alastairc: Editor interface, trying to make keyboard accessible so options appear on focus, if have hover or focus, when focused equivalent of selected

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think "visual indicator" is VERY difficult concept to pin down; I suspect we would not get agreement on when something fails

mbgower: SC at risk because of visual indicator, difficult to pin down, when is indicator or when realize operable
… might be interesting exercise, see if we can agree
… suspect we can't

alastairc: Can try running exercise

GN015: Another aspect with dropping focus, element visible only on hover then requirement applies, what about when on hover and focus, still have elements user has to look through
… e.g., tab or moving mouse

alastairc: Good point, providing options on both makes out of scope

<Wilco> +1, that's where my "substantial down grade" comment came from.

Rachael: Wilco's point, address in understanding document, preferred way to go

<alastairc> "The trigger for hover is an editable item within a region of the page dedicated to editable items."

alastairc: With focus aspect, does some form of it help?

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfEgRs99CBc9vVHhCNowwj07v6UDGb-2QaB9IlfBZ5A/edit#

AWK: It helps, with some of understanding language suggested, being able to say sufficient to have text next to control, challenge because not everything is editable
… winds up getting complex
… need to say, there's an area here with a lot of editable things, interface provides way to determine those, challenges, e.g., focus order
… region exempted from this because designed as place to edit things
… different from general expectation

<mbgower> Is the delineated canvas region itself the "visual indicator"? Is that acceptable to people?

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cn9SvuOiu_m-phcyK5IdtipNzyoM2pkcCHbnWfcqsNc/edit#

alastairc: Visual thing, created examples, question whether things have visual indicator
… look through document for next week, agree? Yes/No?
… leave comments on each example, does it have visible indicator?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say and provide failure examples!?

mbgower: Add examples of failures

<alastairc> rssagent, make minutes