IRC log of ag on 2017-04-11
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:48:58 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ag
- 14:48:58 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/11-ag-irc
- 14:49:00 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 14:49:03 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
- 14:49:03 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot
- 14:49:03 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
- 14:49:03 [trackbot]
- Date: 11 April 2017
- 14:49:16 [AWK]
- Zakim, agenda?
- 14:49:16 [Zakim]
- I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
- 14:49:17 [Zakim]
- 3. Adapting Text [from Joshue108]
- 14:49:17 [Zakim]
- 4. Accidental activation [from Joshue108]
- 14:49:55 [interaccess]
- interaccess has joined #ag
- 14:50:00 [AWK]
- zakim, clear agenda
- 14:50:00 [Zakim]
- agenda cleared
- 14:50:05 [interaccess]
- trackbot, start meeting
- 14:50:08 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 14:50:11 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
- 14:50:11 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
- 14:50:11 [trackbot]
- Date: 11 April 2017
- 14:50:11 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot
- 14:50:12 [AWK]
- agenda+ WCAG 2.1 progress/expectation/pace - brief discussion
- 14:50:18 [marcjohlic]
- marcjohlic has joined #ag
- 14:50:23 [AWK]
- agenda+ New techniques work
- 14:50:30 [marcjohlic]
- marcjohlic has joined #ag
- 14:50:33 [AWK]
- agenda+ Three new SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/
- 14:50:45 [AWK]
- agenda+ Thursday call agenda items
- 14:50:58 [AWK]
- agenda+ TPAC F2F
- 14:51:12 [interaccess]
- Chair: Joshue
- 14:51:13 [AWK]
- zakim, agenda order is 5,1,2,3,4
- 14:51:13 [Zakim]
- ok, AWK
- 14:52:51 [AWK]
- regrets+ Mike_Elledge, EA_draffan, Rachael, Neil_Milliken, Denis_Boudreau, Jim_Smith
- 14:53:15 [laura]
- laura has joined #ag
- 14:53:18 [AWK]
- Scribe: Kathy
- 14:53:43 [AWK]
- Next week's Scribe is Laura.
- 14:53:48 [jasonjgw]
- present+
- 14:54:07 [AWK]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:54:07 [Zakim]
- Present: Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Glenda, Laura, jasonjgw, david-macdonald, Joshue108, steverep, ScottM, JF, erich, Shawn, Katie_Haritos-Shea, kirkwood, KimD
- 14:54:30 [AWK]
- Present: jasonjgw
- 14:54:35 [AWK]
- +AWK
- 14:54:37 [AWK]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:54:37 [Zakim]
- Present: jasonjgw, AWK
- 14:55:36 [Jake]
- Jake has joined #ag
- 14:55:57 [MelanieP]
- MelanieP has joined #ag
- 14:57:28 [Kathy]
- Kathy has joined #ag
- 14:57:41 [Kathy]
- present+ Kathy
- 14:58:12 [allanj]
- present+
- 14:58:51 [Joshue108]
- present+ Joshue108
- 14:59:02 [KimD]
- KimD has joined #ag
- 15:00:26 [Kathy]
- scribe: Kathy
- 15:00:43 [adaml]
- adaml has joined #ag
- 15:01:06 [KimD]
- Present+ KimD
- 15:01:19 [kirkwood]
- prsent+ kirkwood
- 15:01:33 [Makoto]
- Makoto has joined #ag
- 15:01:39 [laura]
- present+ Laura
- 15:01:41 [JF]
- JF has joined #ag
- 15:01:48 [Lauriat]
- Lauriat has joined #ag
- 15:01:52 [JF]
- present+ JF
- 15:01:55 [kirkwood]
- present+ kirkwood
- 15:01:55 [Makoto]
- present+ Makoto
- 15:01:56 [Lauriat]
- Present+ Lauriat
- 15:02:07 [bruce_bailey]
- bruce_bailey has joined #ag
- 15:02:11 [adaml]
- present+ adam_lund
- 15:02:20 [MelanieP]
- present+ Melanie_Philipp
- 15:02:33 [bruce_bailey]
- present+ bruce-bailey
- 15:02:38 [Glenda]
- Glenda has joined #ag
- 15:02:39 [Joshue108]
- zakim, agenda?
- 15:02:39 [Zakim]
- I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- 5. TPAC F2F [from AWK]
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- 1. WCAG 2.1 progress/expectation/pace - brief discussion [from AWK]
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- 2. New techniques work [from AWK]
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- 3. Three new SC to review - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/ [from AWK]
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- 4. Thursday call agenda items [from AWK]
- 15:03:00 [jasonjgw]
- present+ jasonjgw
- 15:03:19 [gowerm]
- gowerm has joined #ag
- 15:04:12 [AWK]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 15:04:12 [Zakim]
- Present: jasonjgw, AWK, Kathy, allanj, Joshue108, KimD, Laura, JF, kirkwood, Makoto, Lauriat, adam_lund, Melanie_Philipp, bruce-bailey
- 15:04:33 [gowerm]
- present+ MikeGower
- 15:04:53 [Kathy]
- Josh - new member Chris
- 15:04:59 [david-macdonald]
- david-macdonald has joined #ag
- 15:05:04 [steverep]
- steverep has joined #ag
- 15:05:18 [steverep]
- present+steverep
- 15:05:19 [Glenda]
- present+ Glenda
- 15:05:50 [MichaelC]
- present+
- 15:05:54 [Jake]
- Jake has joined #ag
- 15:06:11 [david-macdonald]
- present +david-macdonald
- 15:06:30 [david-macdonald]
- zakim, who's here?
- 15:06:30 [Zakim]
- Present: jasonjgw, AWK, Kathy, allanj, Joshue108, KimD, Laura, JF, kirkwood, Makoto, Lauriat, adam_lund, Melanie_Philipp, bruce-bailey, MikeGower, steverep, Glenda, MichaelC
- 15:06:33 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Jake, steverep, david-macdonald, gowerm, Glenda, bruce_bailey, Lauriat, JF, Makoto, adaml, KimD, Kathy, MelanieP, laura, marcjohlic, Joshue108, RRSAgent, AWK, jeanne,
- 15:06:33 [Zakim]
- ... allanj, kirkwood, MichaelC, jasonjgw, Zakim, yatil, csarven, trackbot
- 15:06:37 [Wilco]
- Wilco has joined #ag
- 15:07:01 [Greg]
- Greg has joined #ag
- 15:07:12 [Glenda]
- Can you post a link on how to sign up for scribing?
- 15:07:26 [Greg]
- present+ Greg_Lowney
- 15:07:40 [Joshue108]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
- 15:07:43 [laura]
- Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
- 15:07:50 [Kathy]
- another new member Jake
- 15:08:13 [ChrisLoiselle]
- ChrisLoiselle has joined #AG
- 15:08:20 [marcjohlic]
- present+ marcjohlic
- 15:09:30 [jeanne]
- present+ jeanne
- 15:10:19 [Kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 15:10:19 [Zakim]
- agendum 5. "TPAC F2F" taken up [from AWK]
- 15:10:33 [Joshue108]
- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AGWG_TPAC2017/
- 15:10:33 [AWK]
- q+
- 15:10:37 [Kathy]
- Josh: we will have a meeting at TPAC
- 15:10:45 [Kathy]
- held in November
- 15:11:02 [Kathy]
- in California
- 15:11:09 [Jake]
- JF => http://www.pepemilan.com/resize.php?imagen=galeria/articulos/modelo-z614-horma-cuba-toga-snake-metal-azul-par_180_5.jpg&ancho=1500&alto=1065
- 15:11:13 [Kathy]
- there will also be remote participation
- 15:11:25 [Kathy]
- we need to figure out the preference for days
- 15:12:30 [AWK]
- q+
- 15:12:33 [Wayne]
- Wayne has joined #ag
- 15:12:41 [Kathy]
- alot of people said they only want 2 days - then we need to figure out the days
- 15:12:42 [Ryladog]
- Ryladog has joined #ag
- 15:12:55 [Joshue108]
- ack awk
- 15:12:57 [Ryladog]
- Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 15:13:10 [Kathy]
- Andrew - we have taskforces that want to meet
- 15:13:15 [Wayne]
- Present+ Wayne
- 15:13:26 [Kathy]
- Michael - there can be separate meetings for the taskforces
- 15:14:23 [Kathy]
- Michael - there will be conflicts so we should schedule what is needed
- 15:14:43 [Ryladog]
- q+
- 15:14:50 [Kathy]
- Andrew - we may not have control over what days we will have
- 15:15:42 [AWK]
- ack r
- 15:16:21 [Kathy]
- Katie - the other groups have not decided on the days, should not use the Wed for meetings
- 15:16:39 [Kathy]
- Michael - Wed is a good day to learn more about what is happening
- 15:16:51 [AWK]
- Proposed resolution: WCAG will meet at TPAC, days TBD.
- 15:17:41 [Kathy]
- Resolution: AG meeting will be happening at TPAC
- 15:18:05 [Glenda]
- What is the host hotel?
- 15:18:14 [Kathy]
- Michael - recommend booking hotels nwo
- 15:18:24 [MichaelC]
- -> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/ TPAC 2017
- 15:19:24 [Kathy]
- link is not working
- 15:20:30 [jamesn]
- jamesn has joined #ag
- 15:20:48 [jamesn]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 15:20:48 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/11-ag-minutes.html jamesn
- 15:20:53 [Kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 15:20:53 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "WCAG 2.1 progress/expectation/pace - brief discussion" taken up [from AWK]
- 15:21:22 [jamesn]
- present+
- 15:22:10 [Kathy]
- Josh - been through a lot and wanted to talk through peoples concerns
- 15:23:00 [Kathy]
- wanted to talk about managing expectations
- 15:23:29 [Ryladog]
- q+
- 15:24:07 [Joshue108]
- q+
- 15:25:05 [Kathy]
- Andrew - know there are concerns about the pace and how we are going to get through all 55 SC. The work we are doing is ongoing. It is challenging to find solutions for all good ideas. We need to be practical and identify the failings in the language. If we put it out without the appropriate language it will get a lot of comments and potential of being rejected. This is hard
- 15:25:19 [JF]
- Q+
- 15:25:47 [Kathy]
- we don't know how many we will get completed. Good to have a few that are implementable and testable
- 15:25:57 [AWK]
- ack ry
- 15:26:59 [Wayne]
- q+
- 15:27:13 [Joshue108]
- ack me
- 15:27:16 [Kathy]
- Katie - keep in mind there is a monthly release. Not surprised that we got comments. We will experience burn out if we are releasing too frequently. What ever that means... 4, 5, 6 months to get good comments
- 15:27:31 [bruce_bailey]
- q+ to ask where outsider comments are posted
- 15:27:44 [jamesn]
- big +1 to Katie
- 15:28:07 [Kathy]
- Josh - want us to all manage the work at a good sustainable pace. People are feeling pressure and we need to work at what we can do
- 15:28:21 [Kathy]
- this is a .1 release and there may be another version
- 15:28:24 [bruce_bailey]
- nominally, 2.1 comment are here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agwg-comments/
- 15:28:30 [Joshue108]
- ack Jf
- 15:28:31 [bruce_bailey]
- but that is not the full set...
- 15:28:49 [Ryladog]
- +1 to watching our own nervous systems and mental health
- 15:29:01 [KimD]
- +1 to taking a reasonable pace and quality being "job 1"
- 15:29:01 [Kathy]
- John - earlier this year at CSUN there were conversations that we may want to publish what we have at the readiness of where we are at
- 15:29:28 [Kathy]
- we have a lot of good proposals and research. There is alot of documentation that is scattered about
- 15:29:45 [Kathy]
- we may want to publish it but state where it is at
- 15:29:57 [kirkwood]
- +1 to John on publishing as is
- 15:30:20 [Kathy]
- Josh - there was a thread about this. W3C looks for cutting edge. We could publish as non-normative
- 15:30:22 [Joshue108]
- ack wayne
- 15:31:10 [AWK]
- q+ to say that WCAG is not setting national law
- 15:31:10 [Kathy]
- Wayne - I am worried about legal responsibility. We become national law. The impression we give is that we meet the needs of people with disabilities. People do not have any legal recourse
- 15:31:50 [Kathy]
- ... barriers for a user with low vision to be a programmer
- 15:32:05 [Kathy]
- ... we are putting people at risk - we should be doing no harm
- 15:32:52 [Kathy]
- Josh - github is the platform that was chosen and we could use other tools but that will take research
- 15:33:03 [Ryladog]
- Clarifying that my comment was also mostly about getting other to take commenting on our work seriously - like it has to this point. We need to make it do-able for the important orgnizations and individuals who commented on the FPWD, to be able to assign experinced staff to provide the thoughtful comments that they have. We cannot expect them to do that every month.
- 15:33:22 [Kathy]
- Wayne - in the research we found that this was not sustainable. This is a barrier for users with low vision but meets wcag 2.0
- 15:33:43 [Kathy]
- Josh- we need to bridge the gaps and looking for guideance in the low vision
- 15:33:47 [Glenda]
- q?
- 15:33:59 [AWK]
- q-
- 15:34:36 [Joshue108]
- ack bruce
- 15:34:36 [Zakim]
- bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask where outsider comments are posted
- 15:34:37 [Kathy]
- ... we have a lot of competing needs and we are listening to the requirements and balancing these needs
- 15:34:55 [Kathy]
- Bruce - there were comments that we are not responding to yet
- 15:34:56 [AWK]
- My only point is that we need to be clear that WCAG 2.x doesn't result in full accessibility and ideally we will signal rolling updates to continually bridge the gap.
- 15:35:15 [david-macdonald]
- tinyurl.com/jmo9st4
- 15:35:17 [Kathy]
- ... are those github numbers
- 15:35:17 [Joshue108]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/
- 15:35:30 [Kathy]
- David - there is a list of all the comments
- 15:35:47 [Pietro]
- Pietro has joined #ag
- 15:36:01 [Pietro]
- Present+ Pietro
- 15:36:09 [Kathy]
- Josh - that is useful. To speak briefly on the comments. SC managers will be the responder for the comment and to suggest the response
- 15:36:10 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 15:36:47 [Kathy]
- Josh - we need to keep focused and on quality
- 15:36:49 [Kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 15:36:49 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "New techniques work" taken up [from AWK]
- 15:37:10 [Kathy]
- Josh - SC work is good but we need to back up this with techniques
- 15:37:24 [Kathy]
- we need to start thinking about the techniques
- 15:37:33 [Kathy]
- q+
- 15:37:48 [Kathy]
- ... we need to figure out how this will work and the TF
- 15:38:01 [Joshue108]
- ack kathy
- 15:38:17 [Joshue108]
- KW: There is already a lot of work done.
- 15:38:26 [Joshue108]
- KW: We will need to go back to that and review etc
- 15:38:49 [Kathy]
- Josh - there will be expertise in the TF
- 15:39:00 [Joshue108]
- KW: And make sure none of this is lost.
- 15:39:28 [Kathy]
- Wayne - we have been working on collecting the difficult pages when we try to implement the SC and the techniques
- 15:39:55 [Kathy]
- bad page is where we can identify what is going on to discuss techniques on how to remedy this
- 15:39:59 [Kathy]
- that is where we are at
- 15:40:06 [laura]
- It also has info on Testability:
- 15:40:07 [laura]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Testabilty
- 15:40:13 [Kathy]
- Laura - for issues 78 we are thinking of a strategy for this
- 15:40:57 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 15:41:03 [Kathy]
- Josh - keep this in the back of your mind. we will put formal structure for this in the coming weeks
- 15:41:07 [Kathy]
- Josh - keep this in the back of your mind. we will put formal structure for this in the coming weeks
- 15:41:13 [Kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 15:41:13 [Zakim]
- agendum 4. "Thursday call agenda items" taken up [from AWK]
- 15:41:22 [Kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 15:41:22 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 was just opened, Kathy
- 15:41:48 [Kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 15:41:48 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 was just opened, Kathy
- 15:42:02 [MichaelC]
- zakim, close item 4
- 15:42:02 [Zakim]
- agendum 4, Thursday call agenda items, closed
- 15:42:03 [Zakim]
- I see nothing remaining on the agenda
- 15:42:03 [Kathy]
- zakim, take up agenda item 5
- 15:42:03 [Zakim]
- 'item\ 5' does not match any agenda item, Kathy
- 15:42:06 [MichaelC]
- agenda?
- 15:42:18 [Kathy]
- TOPIC: SC Review
- 15:42:24 [Joshue108]
- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2017April5_top3/results
- 15:42:41 [Kathy]
- Josh - kick off Accidental Activation
- 15:42:54 [Kathy]
- it is a SC from mobile taskforce
- 15:43:01 [Pietro_]
- Pietro_ has joined #ag
- 15:43:12 [Kathy]
- there were a few comments
- 15:43:38 [marcjohlic]
- believe so - the options
- 15:43:50 [marcjohlic]
- but threw me off with the link
- 15:44:20 [Kathy]
- there were comments on the accessbility support
- 15:44:24 [laura]
- s/It also has info on Testability:/The Issue 78 Options Wiki page for the survey has info on Testability/
- 15:44:29 [Kathy]
- are there any objections
- 15:45:05 [Kathy]
- Resolution: accept Accidental Activation
- 15:45:24 [Kathy]
- RESOLUTION: Accept Accidental Activation SC
- 15:46:46 [Kathy]
- Josh - Support Personalization
- 15:46:47 [Kathy]
- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results
- 15:47:06 [Kathy]
- TOPIC: Support Personalization
- 15:47:11 [Joshue108]
- Support Personalization / Issue 6
- 15:47:15 [Joshue108]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6
- 15:47:29 [Joshue108]
- https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/#support-personalization-minimum
- 15:48:04 [Kathy]
- there were no thumbs up for this SC
- 15:48:05 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 15:48:50 [Joshue108]
- KW: It is not clear what is being asked to be done beyond what is done in 1.3.1. or 4.1.2
- 15:49:00 [Joshue108]
- KW: It seems like a lot of this is already covered.
- 15:49:19 [Joshue108]
- KW: Not sure about diff between control and screen.
- 15:49:26 [gowerm]
- q+
- 15:49:55 [Joshue108]
- ack gow
- 15:50:06 [Joshue108]
- zakim, ping me in 15 minutes
- 15:50:06 [Zakim]
- ok, Joshue108
- 15:50:12 [Kathy]
- Mike: is there someone from Coga on the phone?
- 15:50:30 [Kathy]
- John: I am on the call and will relay to Lisa
- 15:51:20 [Kathy]
- Wayne: there are classifications and was wondering if essential term is good enough
- 15:51:34 [JF]
- Q+
- 15:52:00 [Kathy]
- could also be tightened up... I don't understand what the techniques would be for this
- 15:52:04 [Joshue108]
- ack jf
- 15:52:31 [Kathy]
- JohnF: concerned about the wording of the SC. It seems to suggest a separate version
- 15:52:48 [Kathy]
- ... history has shown us that we should not have a parallel version
- 15:53:26 [Kathy]
- James: 5 controls per screen is not enough to do anything
- 15:53:43 [Greg]
- John, would it be okay if it make it clearer that it means a version or presentation option is available?
- 15:53:54 [Kathy]
- how do you know what is essential functionality. People could be using the system differently
- 15:54:03 [Wayne]
- q+
- 15:54:15 [AWK]
- +1 to james
- 15:54:16 [Glenda]
- q+
- 15:54:16 [Joshue108]
- ack wayne
- 15:54:39 [Kathy]
- Wayne: WCAG 2.0 answered that by if you can throw this out of the page then it is not essential
- 15:54:51 [Kathy]
- James: then everything is essential
- 15:55:07 [Kathy]
- JohnF: there is a difference between applications and webpages
- 15:55:26 [KimD]
- +1 to James N - "we don't put anything on the page that isn't essential" for a customer to use it.
- 15:55:40 [Joshue108]
- ack glenda
- 15:56:57 [Kathy]
- Glenda: context is important on the number; change to number for each chunk. In the future you could have an overlay through personalization
- 15:57:02 [jasonjgw]
- q+
- 15:57:21 [Joshue108]
- ack jason
- 15:58:16 [Joshue108]
- q+
- 15:58:20 [Kathy]
- Jason: you can limit the number of controls by having control at a deeper level; that may not make it easier for the user. Now harder to find controls. Understand the rational but having a number is not the right way to achieve it
- 15:58:33 [Wayne]
- +1
- 15:59:17 [JF]
- Question: would a five-button "fly-out" menu, with each of those five top-level buttons containing 5 more navigation choices... would that meet the "Maximum of 5" criteria?
- 15:59:27 [Joshue108]
- I also dont think we can restrict authors in that way as they design content for users in a way that they hope supports their needs in the first place.
- 15:59:34 [Joshue108]
- q-
- 15:59:39 [Glenda]
- If we could have an ability to semantically identify what is absolutely essential for the “chunk” you are focused on now. Rather than setting a number of only 5 controls, an ability to only see the absolute essential controls. Could even later add the semantic ability to prioritize controls (just like heading levels). So…future semantic thinking here…but it could lead to overlays that let you filter out anything extra.
- 16:00:00 [Kathy]
- ... we don't know what is required to satisfy the proposal and it is not testable. We need to develop the AT before we start putting SC in place
- 16:00:28 [Kathy]
- ... it is too early to determine what is required
- 16:01:21 [Kathy]
- David: Jason covered my comments. I can see require authors do something to help users for cognitive impariments
- 16:01:56 [Kathy]
- Josh: is there any comments that have not been addressed?
- 16:02:09 [Kathy]
- ... needs a lot of work right now
- 16:02:36 [gowerm]
- q+
- 16:03:03 [Kathy]
- Greg: what is comes down is that there is comments but needs to be address by the COGA TF
- 16:03:22 [Joshue108]
- ack gower
- 16:03:24 [Kathy]
- ... should take in account all of the comments raised
- 16:03:53 [Kathy]
- Mike: my comments from January, there is lot of potential and we need to implement techniques
- 16:04:09 [Kathy]
- ... as it matures we can bring it back as SC
- 16:04:56 [Kathy]
- RESOLUTION: go back to COGA for reviewing comments and further work
- 16:05:07 [Zakim]
- Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
- 16:05:43 [Kathy]
- TOPIC: Adapting text options
- 16:06:13 [Kathy]
- Josh: proposal C and D got comments
- 16:06:39 [AWK]
- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCs_April_11/results#xsc
- 16:06:42 [Kathy]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options
- 16:06:50 [laura]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options
- 16:07:08 [Ryladog]
- q+
- 16:07:11 [laura]
- It also has info on Testability:
- 16:07:12 [laura]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Testabilty
- 16:07:17 [Kathy]
- Laura: James comment on testability and there is some info on the WIKI page
- 16:07:23 [Wayne]
- q+
- 16:07:51 [Kathy]
- ... it is for adapting text to override author settings
- 16:07:57 [laura]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-291918379
- 16:08:54 [Kathy]
- do we need to have a definition of minimum - the term at least
- 16:09:46 [david-macdonald]
- q+
- 16:10:06 [Joshue108]
- zakim, ping me in 10 minutes
- 16:10:06 [Zakim]
- ok, Joshue108
- 16:10:41 [Kathy]
- Greg: the problem is where you are allowing support overwriting the minimum. it needs to compatible for all fonts. If there is a function on the page then you can set a minimum number of fonts
- 16:10:42 [Wayne]
- q?
- 16:11:16 [david-macdonald]
- -1 on that.
- 16:11:51 [Wayne]
- scribe, wayne
- 16:11:59 [Wayne]
- scribe: wayne
- 16:12:54 [Wayne]
- There was no specification on splitting: Level A formatting overide, Level AA, AAA page doesn't supply it.
- 16:13:08 [steverep]
- q+ to suggest we stick to the AA proposal as the AAA is not necessarilty suported by the LVTF
- 16:13:09 [Joshue108]
- ack ryla
- 16:13:34 [Wayne]
- Katie: Ok with splitting in two.
- 16:13:44 [Joshue108]
- ack davi
- 16:15:04 [Wayne]
- David: When the user agent gets overridden. Only need to test for one override. Can you need to override. Responsible for all then you can go wrong. That creates non testability.
- 16:15:22 [Glenda]
- +1 to David (and use a sufficient technique with that one font that is best for testing)
- 16:15:26 [Joshue108]
- ack waye
- 16:16:08 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 16:16:13 [Joshue108]
- ack way
- 16:16:16 [Kathy]
- Wayne: I think we can compromise on the fonts. There are rules for typography for legibility. We need to think about other languages. Then we can specifically test for these
- 16:16:31 [Kathy]
- ... have a list of accessible fonts
- 16:16:34 [Joshue108]
- ack steve
- 16:16:34 [Zakim]
- steverep, you wanted to suggest we stick to the AA proposal as the AAA is not necessarilty suported by the LVTF
- 16:16:36 [Ryladog]
- What about the most common legible font in each language?
- 16:16:53 [Kathy]
- Steve: can we just talk about AA proposal
- 16:16:54 [Joshue108]
- +1 to that.
- 16:17:13 [Kathy]
- are all of these proposals are trying to do the same thing
- 16:17:36 [Wayne]
- +1
- 16:17:45 [Ryladog]
- What about using the wording the say "2 (or 3) most common legible fonts" in each language?
- 16:17:56 [Kathy]
- Against the AAA requirement, better to let the user do this and doesn't gain anything. What is needed is AA
- 16:18:00 [Joshue108]
- +1
- 16:18:07 [jamesn]
- q+
- 16:18:10 [Greg]
- Steve, that would be for closed systems.
- 16:18:18 [Kathy]
- Josh: comes down to scoping the change
- 16:18:36 [Kathy]
- Can we say that this is going in the right direction
- 16:19:09 [Joshue108]
- ack james
- 16:19:10 [Kathy]
- David: can we ask if people can get consensus
- 16:19:33 [Kathy]
- James: when we talk about overriding something.. is it anything or a specific method
- 16:19:53 [Kathy]
- Laura: talking about a number of different options
- 16:20:04 [Kathy]
- David: it is just one
- 16:20:06 [Zakim]
- Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
- 16:20:11 [Ryladog]
- +1 to just one
- 16:20:27 [Kathy]
- James: if I tell you this is how you can change it, does this meet the SC
- 16:20:33 [Kathy]
- Answer is yes
- 16:20:35 [AWK]
- q+
- 16:20:50 [Kathy]
- should be "a mechanism"
- 16:21:10 [steverep]
- +1 to David's comments
- 16:21:11 [Glenda]
- I like Proposal E
- 16:21:27 [steverep]
- q+
- 16:21:28 [Kathy]
- James: it needs to be up to the author to decide what method is used
- 16:21:33 [Ryladog]
- I also like proposal E...:-)
- 16:21:35 [Kathy]
- not the user
- 16:21:41 [Wayne]
- q+
- 16:21:59 [Greg]
- I agree that the conformance claim has to specify at least one mechanism that allows overriding author formatting while keeping the page completely functional.
- 16:22:03 [Joshue108]
- ack awk
- 16:22:05 [Kathy]
- Josh: mechanism implies a thing
- 16:22:16 [jasonjgw]
- q+
- 16:22:50 [Kathy]
- Andrew: it is one thing for a user to create a stylesheet and a different thing for user to change about this list of things
- 16:23:01 [Ryladog]
- I am not a fan of mechanism
- 16:23:24 [Kathy]
- Laura: mechanism language is the problem
- 16:24:34 [Kathy]
- Andrew: if an author says that we meet the SC since told the user that they can change this by setting a list of things. On a small website this may be a short list but could be more on a larger site. This would not be acceptable
- 16:24:57 [Kathy]
- James: we would want to exclude somethings such as icon fonts
- 16:25:09 [Joshue108]
- ack wayne
- 16:25:16 [Kathy]
- Wayne: i have thought about this for a long time
- 16:25:39 [Kathy]
- you have tokens that are user defined
- 16:25:59 [Kathy]
- we need to identify the things that the user can change it
- 16:26:29 [Kathy]
- want the author to verify that the content can be changed
- 16:27:07 [Kathy]
- Josh: isn't this just talking about passing if using CSS
- 16:27:11 [Kathy]
- Wayne: no sometimes blocks
- 16:27:41 [Joshue108]
- ack steve
- 16:27:49 [Joshue108]
- zakim, close queue
- 16:27:49 [Zakim]
- ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
- 16:28:18 [Ryladog]
- This SC is inherently about a premier a11y tenet - the separating the content from its presentation .....
- 16:28:47 [Kathy]
- Steve: the main comment from the user perspective the mechanism to do this is a few and when it breaks it really breaks. If there were a finite list of things that the author was doing to prevent this then it could be scoped that way
- 16:28:49 [Glenda]
- +1 ryladog
- 16:29:01 [Kathy]
- ... have given up trying to figure out the list of things
- 16:29:10 [david-macdonald]
- q+
- 16:29:16 [Kathy]
- Josh: may be approaching this the wrong way
- 16:29:32 [Kathy]
- it is a handshake between the the developer and the user
- 16:30:17 [Kathy]
- Laura: we should leave out mechanism to narrow it some
- 16:30:27 [Kathy]
- E may be better
- 16:31:22 [gowerm]
- q+
- 16:31:34 [Kathy]
- Josh: basically saying don't get in the way of user stylesheets
- 16:32:46 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 16:32:50 [Joshue108]
- ack jason
- 16:33:36 [Joshue108]
- JW: The assumption around this language is that the mechanism succeeds.
- 16:34:20 [Joshue108]
- JW: James question is interesting, and raises the issue that no mechanism is required but is assuming there is one that works and is limiting the consequese.
- 16:34:40 [Joshue108]
- JW: This does raise the question - that when this falls down to AT in the end.
- 16:34:56 [Joshue108]
- JW: Do we assume they can make the changes - it is all about consquence.
- 16:35:04 [Joshue108]
- JW: and what the author can do etc.
- 16:35:06 [Wayne]
- Jason: There is not a lot of functionality is the assumtion succeeds and when it suceeds then we want to limit the consequences. If I understand the language correctly. It assums that one exists and it limits the consequences. The issue goes away but it assums that assistive technology exists. It succeeds on making the canges. What the author could or could not do.
- 16:35:11 [Joshue108]
- LC: Whats your fave Jason?
- 16:36:07 [gowerm]
- refresh the vote results
- 16:36:18 [Joshue108]
- RESOLUTION: Needs more discussion.
- 16:36:27 [Ryladog]
- Suggest including some CSS language to it
- 16:36:41 [ChrisLoiselle]
- ChrisLoiselle has left #ag
- 16:36:46 [Ryladog]
- +1 to MC
- 16:37:32 [laura]
- bye
- 16:37:38 [Joshue108]
- trackbot, end meeting
- 16:37:38 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 16:37:38 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been jasonjgw, AWK, Kathy, allanj, Joshue108, KimD, Laura, JF, kirkwood, Makoto, Lauriat, adam_lund, Melanie_Philipp, bruce-bailey, MikeGower,
- 16:37:42 [Zakim]
- ... steverep, Glenda, MichaelC, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, jeanne, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Wayne, jamesn, Pietro
- 16:37:46 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 16:37:46 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/11-ag-minutes.html trackbot
- 16:37:46 [Wayne]
- Wayne has left #ag
- 16:37:47 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:37:47 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items