Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 16 Dec 2014

<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2014

<Kenny> zaki,call kenny-mobile

<Joshue108> cribe list:https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<scribe> scribe: EricE

<scribe> scribenick: yatil

Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20141216/

<AWK> Take up item 1

Unanimous consent items

<AWK> RESOLUTION: LC-2950 and LC-2871 are accepted as proposed

LC-2960

<AWK> ARIA2: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA2.html

AWK: This is ARIA2. Suggested that there are other than optical clues that could work with this technique.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140306/2960

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commit/c9e1068eb94838df9670110e29746175ff854b5e#diff-0

… Made an adjustment to refer to presentation than just visual information. Presentation more general.

<Joshue108> ARIA 2 changes URI https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commit/c9e1068eb94838df9670110e29746175ff854b5e#diff-0

Loretta: Proposed change is fine to me. Got distracted by GitHub…

[AWK reads Sailesh’s comments]

Loretta: Presentation seems to be perceived as visual.

<Joshue108> +q

<AWK> Def of presentation: rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by users

AWK: It is carefully defined to not mean visual only.

Josh: I think your response is fine, presentation is not only visual.

AWK: Others?

Josh: We should find out why he’s not happy here.

AWK: It also doesn’t have a test. We could have it one of two ways: Writing this technique just for the visual use case or for broader presentation use cases. We try to do the latter.

Marc: Rewording might make it much more clear.

… probably “which is presented as being required”.

AWK: Sailesh seems to think that it is about visual presentation. But it is not. I wouldn’t add an audio indication, and if I did other success criteria would come into play.

… Examples are visual as well, probably we need some other means as well.

… I’ll make a minor wording edit. Any objections to accept it as proposed?

RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed

LC-2951

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140306/2951

<AWK> (AWK will make minor grammar change in parenthetical comment)

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/63/files?diff=split

AWK: A lot of comments, some good points coming up. Resulting suggestion was significant change.

… Adding and removing things and focusing on emulated links.

… Related changes in F59.

Loretta: I had some comments on wording.

… What would be the test procedure for this?

AWK: Changed the test so that if the result of the test 1 or test 2 means you don’t meet certain success criteria.

[[

(Intro) For all elements with JavaScript event handlers which make the element emulate a link.

a. Check if the prog determined role of the element is link

b. Check if the emulated link can be activated using the keyboard

if check a is false then fails 4.1.2

if check b is false then fails 2.1.1/2.1.3

]]

AWK: It was confusing that some things were true and some were false. Moving one check to the qualification to the intro.

<Loretta> not programmatically determinable or not keyboard accessible

<AWK> Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 4.1.2 due to emulating links in a way that is not programmatically determinable or not keyboard accessible

<Loretta> failure to emulate a link

Loretta: That’s what we need to say, but it’s quite complicated.

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/63/files?diff=split

<Loretta> Failure of ... when emulating a link.

AWK: We may need to rename F42.

Josh: Support the new wording.

Loretta: Tossing up potentially shorter title: “when emulating a link” – I think we don’t need to go into the detail in the title.

Josh: I like it, can we work with this.

Michael: Sometimes we may be a little verbose in titles.

<AWK> new title: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 4.1.2 when emulating links

Loretta: We may have to change the and to an or in the title.

<AWK> new title: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, or 4.1.2 when emulating links

… makes sure that you fail even if you only fail one of those.

AWK: Now when I see it, there is 1.3.1 in there but it’s not in the test, there is nothing in here that it needs to show as a link.

<Joshue108> +1 to new title: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, or 4.1.2 when emulating links

… We could say in the test procedure that all elements with added event handlers should look like a link.

… that should cover 1.3.1

James: That makes sense.

<AWK> Changing title as above.

AWK: If test a fails, it would fail 4.1.2 and 1.3.1.

<AWK> Changing the procedure per AWKs comments in the survey

<AWK> making intro to the procedure: "For all elements which are presented as links and with JavaScript event handlers which make the element emulate a link."

<AWK> first check in procedure fails 4.1.2 and 1.3.1

Loretta: My comment with ARIA is addressed by the changed test procedure.

AWK: Accepting as amended?

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended

[AWK dreams of the automated GitHub-based future]

Publication schedule

AWK: Pretty brief. In order to publish at CSUN, Michael, Josh, and I will create a version where we search for public comments.

… Please look at the publication draft as soon as we come back in the new year.

list changes

AWK: We will send out a note shortly. Changes to the list. We want to use the list more to approve changes. If we talk about things in the meeting, we may run a call for consensus in the list.

… We want to encourage people to work in the working group.

upcoming meetings

AWK: No meetings next week, and the week after that. Next meeting January 6th.

James: Is meeting time staying the same?

AWK: We haven’t resolved this yet.

… Still on the table.

Tutorial Review Signup

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20141216/results#xq6

<AWK> Review of tutorials: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/DecTutorialReview/

AWK: People were able to sign up for the tutorials, if you do the review, you can use the other form to add your comments. Should be pretty straight forward.

<AWK> Reviews in before January 13 please

QuickRef tasks

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis#Tasks

<Joshue108> EE: I've had a look at the tasks in the QR redesign

<Joshue108> EE: I've grouped them into primary, secondary and out of scope tasks etc

<Joshue108> EE: Please have a look, give us feedback and comment

<Joshue108> EE: If there isn't much feedback at the beginning of the year, I will take what is there and start prototyping.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis#Current_Version

<Joshue108> AWK: Is it task number 1, being the only thing the QR does?

<Joshue108> EE: Its basic tasks, such as filtering etc and task number 1.

<Joshue108> EE: It is the only resource where you can find those relationships

<Joshue108> EE: It's important we don't loose that functionality

<Joshue108> AWK: it seems like a lot of additional tasks, we want it to be manageable for you.

<Joshue108> AWK: So the group should look thru these tasks, and provide feedback?

<Joshue108> EE: Yes

<Joshue108> EE: We can come review this list in time, and compare progress with the prototype etc

<AWK> AWK: check if agree with the tasks identified and the priority assigned to each

<Joshue108> LGR: Its a reasonable sorting, prioritising

<Joshue108> AWK: Everyone please have a look

<Joshue108> JOC: We can give this to the list after the tidyup

<Joshue108> EE: Please look asap

<Joshue108> AWK: Anything else?

<Joshue108> EE: Nope

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

16 Dec 2014

Attendees

Contents