<AWK> Scribe: Brooks
awk: we have two implementation
of every SC on an individual basis. we also have a number of
implementations for SC as part of the site evaluations.
... 3 items on at risk survey
SC 1.3.5 Indentify Purpose -
scribe: Kim said that it shouldn't be a part of the standard because of implementation concerns
<AWK> Brooks: concerned about implementaation
<AWK> ... concerned about defining the responsibility clearly for content owners
awk: anyone have other thoughts about this one - SC 1.3.5?
gowerm: want to hear from folks who tested implementations for 1.3.5
Chuck: same concerns as others
have mentioned, but not rising to level of excluding. If items
were programmatically determinable, they were passed.
... concerned at the moment about the ability to have a clear
path to use this info to the benefit of the user
alastair: used regions markup and links - unclear on how to test icon purpose. I don't think it is too problematic, however. If there isn't a clear accessibility support method, then it should not fail, or at least it would only fail at AAA level
Detlev: some concerns here on this SC how to test this. Wondering about how AT is going to handle this. There may not some conventional attributes for some purposes.
Jason: One way to approach this to ask whether SC 1.3.5 is open to interpretation. For SC 1.3.1 we've got well-established markup and implementation guidance. Not as sure about 1.3.5. I've got concerns about testability of SC 1.3.5.
<KimD> *having tech issues calling in
awk: we've got plug-ins like
Stylish that can support access to content based on
user-defined rules. We knew that with SC 1.3.5 that there would
be concerns about how plug-ins and AT might handle info.
... Many of us seem slightly to quite uncomfortable about the
viability of 1.3.5 because there isn't a crystal clear spec on
this. However, there a number of ways we've identified to
achieve the goal of this SC.
... Kim do you want to speak to your concerns about 1.3.5?
Kim: I'm not clear on how people will be specifically benefited from this SC, don't know how we'll test for it.
David: 1.3.5 is a little bit at odds with the AA version of this. Kind of feel a bit wary of approving this, knowing that there are some issues that people have with this.
<KimD> +1 to David, just not mature
Katie: Personalization is too complicated of an issue for just accessibility to deal with - it needs to be addressed by the larger web standards community. AI is likely the best method to handle this complex topic. This topic needs a lot more thought. I don't think this is best way to go.
awk: would you support including it?
Katie: I don't want to include it
here. It should be taken on by other working groups in a
larger, more encompassing effort.
... I think we need to be exploring other options to how to get
this to work.
awk: If AI becomes plausible, then it could be used as a conforming method.
<Glenda> +1 to leaving it in (becasue it is that open)
<marcjohlic> +1 to Chuck
Chuck: My argument for 1.3.5 is that it is AAA. By advancing this SC, we are leading the effort in this space, as opposed to following.
<alastairc> +1 for, AI capable (and available) for doing the same thing is a long way off, explicit attributes are the way to go for the foreseeable future.
<marcjohlic> Get the conversations started so that we can improve on it for 2.x and/or Silver
Jason: I agree with Katie. For
the next version of these standards, we
... will have a better chance to handle this correctly. I'd be
comfortable with not including it. On the other hand, it is at
AAA. It's only for people who want to take on the extra work
than most policies require.
... As for the AI approach, how do we direct the author to only
do the work that they have to do to achieve conformance? I
think we need an architectural discussion about what
requirements to content authors have to address to their
parts.
Lisa: People have used the
techniques related to 1.3.5 for some time. There is quite clear
evidence that this works and real users have benefitted.
... There's a lot work that has been done in this area,
although it hasn't necessarily made its way to web content.
There's traction in this community to support 1.3.5.
<alastairc> I'll be persuaded that AI is capable of this type of thing when I can type "sheep" into my google photos and it doesn't bring up wolves (amoungst the pictures of sheep). Mistakes of that type undermine automated conversion of icons / regions etc.
Lisa: Taking it out now will be a disaster for these user groups. Research was done 10 years ago. The general approach has been validated. This is the only accommodation I'm aware of for AC users, and its at AAA. We need to be clear that we make some accommodations to some users with cognitive disabilities, but not to other groups.
<Ryladog> I can live with keeping it
<AWK> Anyone who cannot live with including 1.3.5 at AAA in the PR?
<KimD> I haven't changed my mind, I don't think it's ready
awk: The core question is whether or not anyone can't live with this SC being a part of the standard. Is there anyone who absolutely can't live with 1.3.5 going into the PR?
<alastairc> KimD do your business owners try to conform to any AAA SC?
Kim: I don't think this SC is
mature enough to include in the standard. If it were at AA, I
would absolutely not be able to live with it.
... Shouldn't the standard for AA be the same as AAA, in terms
of the requirements for accessibility support?
<Glenda> Sign language on all videos is AAA for WCAG 2.0.
David: There's more flexibility at AAA, as practical matter of how the working group has approached these standards.
Gowerm: There were some implementation questions that came from testers, but nothing that seems insurmountable.
Glenda: Did you talk with anyone who had video on their site?
Gowerm: I was just talking about 1.3.5.
Lisa: The analysis is a bit different for AAA.
Glenda: There is strong evidence that we put things in AAA that are wonderful to do, but may not make sense economically for some content owners.
MichaelC: I think this is a situation where content owners may selectively choose to conform with this SC.
<AWK> Judy: AA
Judy: will place comment in IRC
Alex: We have encountered
multiple times where AMy understanding as well was that AAA was
rarely used as a comprehensive conformance criteria, so I'm
concerned to hear this as a potential reason to exclude this.
items are included as part of policies across the globe in
various countries.
... This is an acceptable risk that I can handle. Just because
we put it at AAA doesn't mean that there isn't a risk. But it
is a risk I can handle.
awk: Any objection to accepting SC 1.3.5 into PR publication?
RESOLUTION: Do not take the CR ¨at risk¨ action to remove SC 1.3.5
awk: Is there anyone who wants to speak against this being removed from the at risk group?
<Alex_> agrees with Judy_alt
Gowerm: The hover state is difficult to conform with this requirement. I would like to see some additions to the Understanding document that will address difficulties with hover state conformance.
Alastair: We do have some text in the Understanding document that touches on this concern with the hover state. The component contrast (versus the background contrast) has been the more difficult context for conformance.
<Glenda> outlining things is how we get it solved
Alastair: It is doable. The impact is that there would be less contrasting colors if this issue weren't addressed in the Understanding.
Jason: I think there are testability concerns related to this SC. It isn't going to be clear for some what components of graphical objects need to meet the contrast requirements. We might have to revist later on.
David: Alt text will allow for conformance, when graphic contrast isn't met.
Gowerm: Hover is a mouse-only state. Pointer shape change also provides information to the user, if color contrast requirement isn't met.
<alastairc> I think David meant visible text
Alex: Question for David, is alt text a viable alternative to graphic contrast?
David: Long description, for example, would serve as a viable alternative.
<Glenda> +1 to what David said…but it would not be the first solution I would suggest
<gowerm> There is not language about this SC failing ONLY where there is no other means of distinguishing. It is a possible problem, as hinted at by David here
Alex: Is this information available in the Understanding document?
Alastair: Alt text in the code
and not on the page, is not what David meant.
... David meant text descriptions that are visible are more in
line with what the SC supports.
<alastairc> Have a look under "Required for understanding"
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html
<Glenda> Required for understanding
<Glenda> The term "required for understanding" is used in the Success Criterion as many graphics do not need to meet the contrast requirements. If a person needs to perceive a graphic, or part of a graphic (a graphical object) in order to understand the content it should have sufficient contrast. However, that is not a requirement when:
<Glenda> A graphic with text embedded or overlayed conveys the same information, such as labels and values on charts.
<Glenda> The graphic is for aesthetic purposes that does not require the user to see or understand it to understand the content or use the functionality.
<Glenda> The information is available in another form.
<Glenda> The graphic is part of a logo or brand name (which is considered 'essential' to it's presentation).
<david-macdonald> Parts of graphics required to understand the content, except when a particular presentation of graphics is essential to the information being conveyed.
<Glenda> Direct quote from Understanding “The information is available in another form.”
Alex: If I have an icon, I have to figure out what part of the graphic is required to test. If I have a text label on the icon itself, then I'm good.
<laura> Understanding Non-text Contrast: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html
David: The text has to be visible to be a means of conforming with this SC.
<alastairc> Also look at "Dynamic Examples"
Alex: That's a different spin, David. This information needs to be reflected in the Understanding document for this SC.
awk: Need to open up another issue to address this gap in the Understanding document.
<alastairc> David, Alex, note the 'dynamic examples' bit as well.
awk: Any objection to not exercising the at risk option for this SC?
RESOLUTION: Do not take the CR at risk action to remove SC 1.4.11
<gowerm> scribe gowerm
<gowerm> Last survey item: Animation from Interactions
<gowerm> Kim: Thought it was AA not AAA, so she doesn't have a problem at AAA
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say that hover is a 'mouse-only' state, so has redundancy with the pointer shape change, which makes it defensible as something to reduce the requirement for.
<gowerm> Alastair: The implementations we found were from big sites.
<AWK> awk: Any objection to not exercising the at risk option for this SC?
<KimD> *nope
<gowerm> AWK: Any objections to moving to PR?
RESOLUTION: Do not take the CR at risk action to remove SC 2.2.7
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/scorecard
<gowerm> AWK: We have 3 out of 10 sites where we have 2 evaluators confirming things are as they should be
<gowerm> AWK: The 2 AAA sites are Lainey Feingold's site. We need another evaluator for it. The other is the Fundamentals demo site that Jake worked on. We are okay with evaluators on the second one.
<gowerm> AWK: On the AA side, we have 3 that have multiple evaluators: CanAdapt, Readability and a11yRules.
<gowerm> AWK: Alastair do you want to speak to Nomensa?
<laura> Evaluation results for Nomensa website: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/evaluation_results_site_summary?implementation_id=99
<gowerm> Alastair: I have a couple of updates stuck at UAT. Almost everything has been done. I will ping Michael, Laura and David to retest. Just a question of getting some dev time to get live.
<gowerm> Alastair: it will be in the next couple of days.
<gowerm> AWK: So that one is coming.
<gowerm> AWK: Another is Deque U. Glenda can you tell us where you're at?
<Rachael> I can do that tonight
<gowerm> Glenda: Marc from IBM and I had approved our evals. Rachael needs to review some changes made a few days ago
<marcjohlic> Yep - I have DQU passing AA completely
<gowerm> Rachael: My issues was with error messages not being read by screen readers.
<gowerm> Glenda: Marc confirmed that was fixed.
<gowerm> AWK: Knowbility is one of the other ones. That has a few different items that are out there.
<gowerm> AWK: A couple of items in 1.4.5 and 1.3.4.
<gowerm> Greg: I'm still working on it. There are a few minor issues a developer needs to resolve. They are isolated.
<gowerm> AWK: Marc, do you have time to review?
<gowerm> AWK: What time frame are you envisioning for retesting things?
<gowerm> Greg: Hopefully by midnight west coast time?
<gowerm> AWK: You mentioned Skip Link pop-ups. I think we resolved.
<gowerm> Greg: I wasn't aware there was a consensus on the answer.
<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/854
<gowerm> AWK: We need another reviewer for a PDF document. We got a document from the Adobe Security team.
<gowerm> AWK: Does anyone with familiarity want to take on this 7-page document?
<gowerm> AWK: It is a fairly straight forward document.
<gowerm> David: Hand it over to me.
<gowerm> David: Hand it over to me.
<gowerm> AWK: It looks like we have commitments to resolve and test in the next day.
<gowerm> AWK: We have a bunch of issues with comments drafted in the survey.
<gowerm> AWK: Every survey item is unanimous with the exception of 12, which was a minor wordsmithing that I regarded as editorial and made a change ("I" to "we")
<gowerm> Katie: I wanted to discuss the issue of the naming of the guidelines.
<gowerm> AWK: Did you want to talk about any of the ones on the survey?
<gowerm> Katie: No
<gowerm> AWK: We'll get back to you.
<gowerm> AWK: With all of these being unanimous, we can ask for unanimous consent for these.
<gowerm> Is there any objection to accepting these comment responses as proposed?
RESOLUTION: Accept all comment responses in survey as proposed
<gowerm> AWK: Katie, you're up.
<gowerm> Katie: We did not get to the discussion for naming guideliens at the F2F. It was put off again. So when it came up last week, it got shut down.
<gowerm> Katie: The naming of a guideline as "Additional" is bad form. We should take care of that before moving to PR. Shadi mentioned Kathy had come up with some. i think we need to review.
<gowerm> Katie: We need a clear definition of the SC content in that guideline.
<gowerm> AWK: To clarify, you're talking about guideline 2.6 Additional Sensor Inputs?
<gowerm> Katie: Yes
<gowerm> AWK: This was raised initially by Mike Gower, as a follow up.
<AWK> Gower: when looking at GL's and SC's contained
<AWK> ... a few problems came up
<AWK> ... one SC doesn't fit
<AWK> ... in reviewing them we have "keyboard accessible" as an existing GL
<AWK> ... thought that if we had one called "non-keyboard accessible" that other SC would fit into that more easily
<AWK> KHS: Someone came back not liking that idea
<AWK> .. Kathy had a different idea
<gowerm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/852
<Ryladog> Kathy can you share that
<Ryladog> Speech Input Character Key Shortcuts Label in Name Pointer Pointer Gestures Pointer Cancellation Target Size Input Methods Concurrent Input Mechanisms Motion Actuation Device Settings Orientation Status Changes
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say can we get away from some of the issues by looking at Robust?
<gowerm> scribe gowerm
<AndroUser> +1 to Andrew
<gowerm> AWK: My concern is that this is a potential rat hole. If we recategorized, a lot of them could fit in a lot of different places. From my perspective, I'm feeling that the likelihood of us getting to consensus on this is low.
<Joshue108> +1 to Andrew
<gowerm> AWK: We have received zero public response on this. We haven't seen comments about this.
<Detlev> +1 to AWK
<gowerm> AWK: I'm questioning whether it's necessary, and whether it's just going to shift what bothers a different group of people.
<Joshue108> Also in the context of a potential WCAG 2.2 etc
<gowerm> Katie: I think guidelines give a perspective on the SC below them is important.
<Joshue108> Things could be moved around etc then..
<gowerm> Katie: In general people consider WCAG confusing. On the one hand, I wish this was resolved. On the other, if folks just want to end the discussion, we should do so.
<gowerm> AWK: Katie and Mike have expressed interest in trying to improve.
<AWK> +1 to consider moving SC now, 0 to keep as they are
<david-macdonald> I'm ok with the discssion if we have nothing else to do
<gowerm> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<Kathy> +1
<marcjohlic> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
<Joshue108> 0
<Alex_> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<AWK> 0
<Rachael> 0
<Makoto> +1
<Detlev> 0 do that in silver
<Greg> 0
<Glenda> 0
<jallan> 0
<laura> 0 It could be a time sink.
<KimD> +1, but not strongly
0
<alastairc> +1, if time-limited and off the main thread. Come up with one solution, vote.
<bruce_bailey> reconsidering the title of the SC might be a faster fix
<cwadams> 0
<bruce_bailey> title of the guideline i mean
<Joshue108> -1 to one meeting. That's not feasible
<gowerm> AWK: If we don't approve our transition to PR... If we do it today, which would need to provisional, then we're on schedule.
<gowerm> AWK: If we didn't do it by Thursday then we are going to be way off schedule.
<Alex_> what's on the agenda on Thursday?
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I think we can at least scrutinize and consider some options.
<Joshue108> They'd better be pretty low..
<alastairc> Can we have 2 options (plus current default) ready for thrusday? Then a 20 minute yes/no.
<Joshue108> Looks like a 3..
<gowerm> I am happy to work with others to coe up with 2 options for thursday, Alastair.
<Joshue108> FTR I'm not averse if it can be covered clearly, and agreed on smartly and promptly but am concerned that it will not.
<gowerm> AWK: we're talking about moving 4 and creating/changing 2 guidelines
<gowerm> Lisa: I think there are some other changes that also need to go through (the languages changes in the abstract). That may also take a meeting.
<Joshue108> +1 to Lisa
<gowerm> AWK: People definitely are going to need to take a look at what we have in the introduction.
<gowerm> Lisa: Are there more things?
<gowerm> Judy: Michael just sent a summary.
<plh> --> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018AprJun/0212.html Edits to WCAG 2.1 Introduction in place
<gowerm> Judy: I was in queue to comment on a previous issue. I missed the lead in to the issue guideline names and organization. That sounded like a lot of potential changes for something that is about to exit CR and go to PR. That may trigger some problems getting through the process.
<gowerm> Judy: WRT changes in the abstract and intro in response to objections. My understanding there was some discussion before CSUN which hadn't been wrapped up. Michael sent a summary of those changes during this call, with side-by-side views. I wanted to encourage the group to look at those.
<gowerm> Judy: Michael may want to expand on that.
<gowerm> AWK: You were hearing correctly that the discussion was about including a couple of new guidelines for organizing, and then moving positions of SC criteria. It doesn't change the conformance requirements. It doesn't change any implementations. It is just changing at an organizational level.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> i cant follow the side by side. is this the latest darft? https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/
<gowerm> AWK: That said, at some point there's some volume of changes that triggers a wrong result.
<gowerm> Katie: This is not a new topic. It just kept getting put off. This doesn't affect 2.0, but gives clarify to what the new SC are. We could make it a long thing -- it would have been nice to have a thorough discussion -- but I think it can be tackled between now and Thursday.
<gowerm> Josh: It makes me nervous to be spending time doing this. We are in a delicate spot. Our energy needs to be focused on critical things.
<gowerm> Josh: If people want to do this, that would be okay. But I would rather focus on other material.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/852#issuecomment-379671407
<Ryladog> I am
<gowerm> AWK: I would love to see if people like this framework. If people are generally comfortable with that as a possible approach.... If someone is willing to write it up with details... I am happy to write it up as something we can look at.
<gowerm> AWK: I would hope we can also say the WG is okay with it going forward with it either way, but thinks that these last minute changes to the organzation that don't affect conformance are possible.
<gowerm> Judy: The concern I would have... Michael is noting he's already asked about this. The concern I would have is whether it might trigger some disruption of the harmonization with Europe or with China.
<gowerm> Judy: I don't know what the implications are.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I already asked Ralph about this
<gowerm> Michael: I asked Ralph about the impact. He said it's probably okay, but he wants to know if it impacts existing implementations. My understanding is 'no, it won't'. But that is the filter he'll be asking.
<Ryladog> I will be happy to write that up tonight
<gowerm> Michael: I didn't aski him about volume, but as long as it's editorial and doesn't impact implementation.
<gowerm> Me too
<Ryladog> great
<Ryladog> yup
<gowerm> I like Michael's suggestion for us to come up with 2 possible ways.
<gowerm> AWK: If we can't come to consensus on this, are people going to be okay?
<Judy_> [JB: will raise qu with Shadi wrt ETSI & CEN/CENELC processes]
<Joshue108> Yeah, if there isn't a clear suggestion promptly.. I suggest ignoring for now.
<Ryladog> I will be ok with going forwaRD
<gowerm> Michael: This topic is on the mailing list. I added to the abstract. I copied in 3 sections from WCAG 2.0 that weren't there before. I reorganized some material under a new Comparison section.
<Joshue108> Thanks Michael
<gowerm> Michael: We removed the end note that we added at CR, because these changes address.
<AWK> Changes in files split view: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/847/files?diff=split
<gowerm> Lisa: From my perspective, we had debates. This isn't reflecting that at all. I don't think this would address. Maybe we can go back to that thread with people who had an objection to CR. I think it is important to have consensus.
<gowerm> AWK: It would be helpful if you could look at your concerns, and the changes Michael has.
<gowerm> Lisa: I was reviewing previously.
<gowerm> Michael: I want to caution on expectations. We can't go overboard in one directions. Which is what I worry about. We have to think about what is appropriate to add to a standard like this.
<gowerm> AWK: Lisa, if you can offer some specific changes.
<Joshue108> But that's not what happened.
<gowerm> Lisa: That was done already. This WG, having made the decision to exclude primary level 1, do not want to give impressions that this is where to look for addressing the needs of those groups.
<gowerm> Lisa: It needs to be clear that people need to look at supplementary information. It is misleading, and gives the impressions that this is a good starting point. It is not. I see it as a disservice.
<KimD> *gotta run. Not sure I agree with Lisa's take though
<gowerm> Lisa: We've decided to exclude for a variety of reasons that may be valid.
<gowerm> Josh: Lisa I was on the call. I was thinking we could stick around. It's an opportunity to talk. But I have to push back. You are implying that we are actively excluding from some ulterior motivation.
<gowerm> Josh: Maybe we need to work to point out where there are other resources.
<gowerm> Josh: We've gone our hardest to try to realize this. If it hasn't worked into the rather rigid restrains of testability, etc.,...
<gowerm> Judy: I think that a follow on conversation on this may be useful. I don't think it will result in complete satisfaction by anyone. It's too bad this didn't come up earlier in this meeting. I would like to have more conversation and see if there is anything that is still possible with the wording or how things are pointed to.
<Joshue108> Sorry, I've also gotta drop..
<gowerm> Judy: We could try to sort out a time.
<kirkwood> don’t think there is a hidden agenda. Just need to be able to point to an area to cover cogntive issues in a way to be comfortable. I am interested.
<gowerm> Judy: Can we figure out who would be interested in the next 2 hours?
<gowerm> Judy: Or possibly tomorrow?
<gowerm> Lisa: My preference would be for tomorrow.
<gowerm> Judy: 10am or 11am Boston tomorrow?
<Joshue108> I L be there..
<Joshue108> Thanks Andrew
<gowerm> AWK: If anyone else is interested, I can send them the information.
<gowerm> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 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/If there isn't a clear accessibility support method, then it should be AAA level/If there isn't a clear accessibility support method, then it should not fail, or at least it would only fail at AAA level/ Succeeded: s/AA/My understanding as well was that AAA was rarely used as a comprehensive conformance criteria, so I'm concerned to hear this as a potential reason to exclude this./ Succeeded: s/SC 1.3.5 accepted into PR publication/Do not take the CR ¨at risk¨ action to remove SC 1.3.5/ Succeeded: s/Leiney/Lainey/ Succeeded: s/Fiengold/Feingold/ Succeeded: s/Michael: Hand/David: Hand/ Succeeded: s/WRGT/WRT/ Succeeded: s/lead in/lead in to the issue guideline names and organization/ Succeeded: s/animated discussion/discussion before CSUN/ Succeeded: s/abstract/abstract and intro in response to objections/ Succeeded: s/okay forward/going forward/ Succeeded: s/alterior/ulterior/ Default Present: AWK, Brooks, MichaelC, Alex_, Greg_Lowney, bruce_bailey, Makoto, gowerm, Detlev, Laura, Kathy, alastairc, jallan, jasonjgw, kirkwood, plh, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Glenda, KimD, Rachael, LisaSeemanKestenbaum Present: AWK Brooks MichaelC Alex_ Greg_Lowney bruce_bailey Makoto gowerm Detlev Laura Kathy alastairc jallan jasonjgw kirkwood plh Katie_Haritos-Shea Glenda KimD Rachael LisaSeemanKestenbaum Regrets: EA_Draffan Mike_Elledge Found Scribe: Brooks Inferring ScribeNick: Brooks Found Date: 10 Apr 2018 People with action items: 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]