AGWG meeting -- 21 Apr 2020

<laura> Scribe: Laura

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

AGWG/Silver meeting times

AC: continung meeting time discussion.
... went through options previously.
... basically current slot or Wed at 10 boston time.

<Fazio> 2 hours before now is 6 AM PST

AC: any one for who it would make a big difference?

<Fazio> which is way early for me. But I'm 1 person

<Glenda> I’d vote for Wed

<Glenda> Tuesday would be a personal “no go” for me.

<KimD> Keeping it the same (Tues am) better for me

<Rachael> Options: Tuesday 9:30-10:30 EST (current time slot) or Wednesday 10-11 EST

<Pascal_Wentz> +present

<JakeAbma> +1 to Tueasday for me

AC: this meeting would stay as it is.

<stevelee> +1 tues

<Chuck> +1 for wed, no objections to tue

<Brooks> no preference for me

<Detlev> both OK

<Rachael> both ok

<Glenda> (no worries if y’all need to do it on Tuesday)

<kirkwood> both ok

<JustineP> no preference

AC: will talk withwith co-chairs.
... discussing having sub-groups.

<AWK> +AWK

<alastairc2> Conformance testing

<alastairc2> Text contrast

AC: working on specific tasks.

<alastairc> Conformance testing,

<alastairc> Text contrast,

<alastairc> Alt text,

<alastairc> plain language,

<alastairc> and a new guideline

<alastairc2> Alt text

<alastairc2> plain language

<alastairc2> ...and a new guideline

<kirkwood> yes

<JustineP> yes

<AWK> yes

<Brooks> yes

<Nicaise> +1

<Francis_Storr> Yep - would be interested in joining a sub-group

AC: 3 or 4 people per group working on silver tasks.

laura: +1

<JakeAbma> yes, multiple

<bruce_bailey> i am also working on media (AD/captioning)

<jeanne> I am delighted at the response.

GN: color contrast or text contrast?

<bruce_bailey> right now it is just text

AC: whatever silver is working on.

<bruce_bailey> Visual Contrast for Text

Jeanne: visual contrast for text.

<bruce_bailey> methods could be expanded to cover non-text

WCAG 2.2 Visual Indicators https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/results

jeanne: will be in touch with everyone who said yes.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_NVxB-eIljhYSNcW0A7_2aHt9GwNfLnRF5n_stHrbc/edit#

<LisaSeemanKest> coga comments

ac: been through many iterations

Lisa: maybe missed something.
... problem with the visual indicators.
... found a paper on flat design.
... we have more research.
... probelm with the definition of “critical”
... harmonize with personalization task force.

<Fazio> mental fatigue kicks in

Lisa: these are the worst offenders.
... big step in the right direction.

<Fazio> the business loans for COVID stimulus in US have this problem

Lisa: makes designers aware if the issue.

<Fazio> Imagine a business missing out because of this and closing

Lisa: could limit to links and buttons.
... could merge 102

AC: (goes though the options.)

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about definition of critical

AC: on Lisa’s doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_NVxB-eIljhYSNcW0A7_2aHt9GwNfLnRF5n_stHrbc/edit#
... not a def of critical for someone external to the site.
... option 3 avoids that.
... could be some language tiding
... good that we have research on flat design.

<Fazio> Also research on attention "salient" targets

ac: don’t know if we have research on other affordances.

GN: agree.
... option 3 has 3 characteristics
... button should be covered by exception.

<LisaSeemanKest> GN can you reload?

GN: opt for 2 characteristics not 3.

lisa: replace critical with necessary

ac: that may help

DF: has lots of research
... will send links.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to the research needed.

<LisaSeemanKest> david can you put the in the google docs

awk: have some data. need research on what helps people.

<Fazio> Yes AWK

<Fazio> I will put a list of links together

<Fazio> All of the research is computer based too

awk: would love to see the research.

jf: concern that is design prescriptive.
... we will get pushback.

<JF> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html

jf: personalization task force is working on this.
... why not programmatically determinable instead of prescribing design.

ac: if the scope is narrow. it is not dictatorial.

<Zakim> JustineP, you wanted to ask if a web-based text editor would be in scope for this SC or if scope is limited to forms only

<Fazio> Salience is brought about by having a logical relationship with the background while having prominent unique characteristics. - not so prescriptive

Justin: thinking of scope.
... and how it would apply.

AC: save button may be a next step in a process.

Justin: needs clarification of “process."

<alastairc> Justine: Does this help? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc3

lisa: could add an exception for John’s concern.

<LisaSeemanKest> The control can be programmatically determined as critical

<JF> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#action-explanation

<jon_avila> Justine -- I agree we need to better define what is meant by process. I've raised the same examples.

<JustineP> To some extent it does Alastair, although I can imagine the example of text editing being a source of confusion and possibly result in poor implementations related to the intent of this SC.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that for toolkits like wordpress, it is often easier to change the visual aspects than the code (aka personalization markup)

Rachael: good way to look at it is from the WordPress angle.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to "process"

Rachael: wouldn’t support only programmatically.

awk: we would be catching a ton of stuff in this SC.
... What is a process?

<Fazio> I would say yes to all AWK

awk: all sorts of things. could be a dragnet.

<LisaSeemanKest> i would say yes

<LisaSeemanKest> multi step process

<Brooks> Would we mark as an error any type of page input that was missing a role? Why not mark as an error an input that doesn't look like an input?

<LisaSeemanKest> multi step process!

awk: we want these things to be accessible. but have to recognize imposing a design is hard.

ac: definition of process and design characteristics.

jf: +1 to awk

<Fazio> There's an example from a scientific study of how simple it can be called the "invisible gorilla" test

jf: look at PTF attibutes.
... for types of buttons and links.
... need to but semantic into the element.

<jon_avila> Do we have a reference for the 85% claim of WordPress themes failing?

s/ put semantic/ but semantic/

<JF> @jon, no, but no evidence to the contrary either

<Fazio> "invisible gorilla test"

ac: we have several answered questions that we need.

<Rachael> Suggested approach: User interface controls are visually or programmatically distinct from elements that are not user interface controls.

Rachael: suggest a different approach
... User interface controls are visually or programmatically distinct from elements that are not user interface controls.

<Chuck> Then doesn't everything pass and there is no value to this SC?

<jon_avila> Today all interactive elements already must have roles per 4.1.2.

lisa: add “as critical” to Rachael’s proposal.

<JF> Again from the personalization draft" <input data-simplification="critical" value="Submit" type="submit"/>

lisa: wording “determined as a button” would be confusing.
... what want is that is “critical”.

<Chuck> q/

<LisaSeemanKest> it is the action or criticle

ac: is that close to option 3?

lisa: Yes close.

<AWK> Because 2.4.5 is so easy

dm: no controversy on “process” in 2.1.
... could scope this.
... could use personization TF semantics if we had another 6 months.

<Brooks> muted somehow - I'll my comments to IRC.

<AWK> Part of the reason that it hasn't come up for "complete processes" is that people are reporting on the conformance of web sites anyway and doing so by aggregating the individual page results, so this is covered without needing to precisely identify the processes involved.

DF: study that was done.
... on what people miss obvious things.
... brain screens things out.

ac: study shows context.

<Glenda> http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html

<Brooks> I'm a fan of the personalization task force. There's power stuff going on there. I'm also OK with taking a programmatic approach to the Visual Indicators SC - but, only if there is widespread accessibility support so that users who need it, can opt to view "old-school" or other custom input designs that more clearly convey interactivity and role. We've had programmatic indications of input roles since the earliest days of the web.

<Brooks> How many user agents, browser extensions or AT support customization of display of inputs based on input elements or aria roles?

ac: we have guidance from the studies.
... SC could be visual with a personalization aspect.
... reads Brooks’ IRC comments.

<GN015> To me it seems unpractical if a user who for example visits a shop page first needs to customize the UI. This is no option in my opinion.

<LisaSeemanKest> easyreader, athena have i plementions - and firefox has an alpha

<Fazio> \\\\\Saliency Research: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698902000160

jf: lisa’s “critical” is is taken up in P TF
... style switcher for dark and light modes.

<david-macdonald> That's always been an option for all SCs, conforming alternative.

<jon_avila> WCAG always allow for alternative switchers -- sites use that today for SC 1.4.3 Text Contrast

<Fazio> "With respect to visual search, one may conclude that popout targets are found so quickly because they are salient and visually attract attention to exactly those locations where target properties are encoded."

ac: “critical” is good for author but not external.
... alternative style sheet could fit in.

JF: what are we doing for non sighted users?

ac: don’t think that is a blocker.

jf: think it is a blocker.

<Fazio> Plus this SC is "visual" indicators. Wouldn't JF's comment better suit a separate SC?

scribe change?

<Fazio> I plugged one in IRC

ac: need to cover what is included in process. what is meant in saliency.

<Fazio> I quoted a pont too

<Fazio> It's in the link

<LisaSeemanKest> ok

Finding help https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/results

<Detlev> go on then I'll do it

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

alastair: Talking through state of things regarding Findable help

<JF> +1 to Chuck's concerns

<alastairc> doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fX4Iw169OGUny5RTd70S8qAneYy5e0hr7zupE21gPBM/edit

Chuck: (chair hat off) concerned with 2 aspects - manate help AND mandating types of help - the requirement to have help may not always be beneficial - 2 years later we don't know what new mechanisms might become available

alastairc: principle mitigation is that there is a range of options for offering help

Chuck: widecasting helps, but mandating help at all might be overly prescriptive

alastairc: We thought of scenarios where it might not be applicable which is why scenarios were widened

JF: Some use cases where it's not applicable, for example, the intranet
... don't need human help link here, it'S already a system for internal people

<david-macdonald> could create exception for sites not presented to the public?

JF: Here it may just be there to satisfy an SC
... how will it play out fo small websites based on things like Wordpress? would phone number and address be sufficient

alastairc: should pass...

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that if chatbot specificity is an issue we could widen it to automated/ai solutions and that the contact information is pretty broad for simple sites

JF: Does not solve any real problem, just more demands on the content creator

<Chuck> +1 to Rachael

Rachael: Chatbox is another option - there are ways for small sites to pass with less

Justine: a specific example would be a web-based voting booth, might need another exception

Jennie: Thanks for those putting in final edits. JF example intranet - COVID is a good example where a new employee would need that type of human help
... so intranet is a good use case to help someone with cognitive issues to find help
... some people do not know if and where is help - having a place where there is explicitly stated that there isn't help also helps

<stevelee> +1

<JF> What happens when there is no "help" available? We are demanding business process as well

Jennie: the voting example help could direct people to the right information on the process

JF: concern is that we are going beyond remit - we are mandating a business process

<laura> s/PTF attibutes. /Personalization Task Force attributes. /

<Fazio> +1 JF I mentioned this concern at TPAC

JF: this does not scale. When help is available it should be easy to find, that was the initial stance, and that's OK

<AWK> +1 excellent point. Help needs to be reached through an accessible mechanism but can't be required.

<Chuck> Chuck has bounced around on interpretation, including the interpretation that help is easy to find IF available.

<jon_avila> The SC allows for automated/self help.

alastairc: missed what triggered help as being required

JF: Email said FAQ alone is insufficinet and human help needs to be provided

<Fazio> It used to be help must be offered on every page then it changed to just help must be provided

alastairc: Currently FAQ IS sufficient, someone said it should not be, but now is

Lisa: Initial proposal was scoped to cases where help is available
... phone may take users to menu system which is hard to use, limits help to people who can manage those processes

<Glenda> +1 to Lisa’s suggestion “when help is available”

Lisa: we could limit it to cases where help is provided

<laura> s/personalization /personalization /

alastairc: mandating a particular location for help so it is easy to find?

<JF> From the Draft Doc: INTENT: The intent of this proposed Success Criteria is to ensure users can find help for completing tasks on a website.

alastairc: (reads current text) add: "if human contact info is provided, it is provided at a consistent place"?

Lisa: Human contact details should go directly to a human (not multistep / menu process

<Rachael> ...when one or more of the following is available, it is linked in a consistent location:

<stevelee> +1

<JF> +1

Rachael: we should not use the different alternatives

<Jennie> +1

loose

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Chuck> +1 "when one or more of the following are available..."

<Zakim> KimD, you wanted to ask if this SC trying to say that automated systems are not acceptable?

<JF> +1 for "IF" language as opposed to "MUST" language

Kim: So automated options "press 1 to..:" are not allowed to meet SC?

Lisa: Currently not ruled out - but it is a common problem, like pressing zero - you many have to wait a long time but will be crucial for some people - another alterhnative is having an email as a fallback

JF: In th egoogle doc linked from the survey there is no indication that help must be a human being
... (reads draft text of Google docs)

<Chuck> I never interpreted that this was requiring human help. There is a bucket for chatbots, which may be expanded for future proofing.

JF: so this is a new requirement, we should not mandate a business process (having human help available) - many cannot provide that

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about varying scales

alastairc: that's why there alternaitves

<laura> s/is is taken up in P TF/is taken up in Personalization TF/

alastairc: talking about varying scales
... at the bigger end of the scale, large organisations where there is no one switchboard (like Apple) where you divide in various products or topics, with lots of help options
... some organisations have removed their phone number because they felt unable to deal with a deluge of calls following COVID

Jennie: Response to take the phone tree out of SC: this felt like being outside the scope of AG. Human help was important but not feasible for all

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to jennies reasoning

Jennie: Alastairs concern about larger orgs: you can have different sets of web pages where help would be specific to the produc or service covered
... help could also direct to places further down for more specific help

alastairc: could be a couple of steps away?

<JF> Concrened with this: "While some people may easily be able to identify that no support would be available for a particular type of website, this may not be apparent to some users with disabilities. Because of this, no exemption has been provided for websites that do not provide support."

<alastairc> q/

Jennie: Yes. Contact mechnism or contact details (which can be a list of contacts)

<Zakim> LisaSeemanKest, you wanted to say we can becuse the phone tree is voiceml which is w3c technology

Lisa: makes sense

JF: reading draft about self-helf option -- no exception provided, all sites need some form of support - that goes too far, dangerous territory

<Fazio> small businesses will have problems

Jennie: new paragraph that was added recently - could be worded differently
... self-help option could also be an FAQ

<JF> https://hellosweetiebbq.com

Jennie: if that would satisfy concerns, we could reword that paragraph

<ChrisLoiselle> As a type of user, i want to do something so that I can get some benefit. I.e. as a person who is hungry, I want to order a pizza online, so that I can eat. If I can't find the order form online. I'd need help section to understand where to call or how else to reach out, i.e. chat bot, human help otherwise, i.e. clicking on a link that then calls me.

JF: small website example offering take-away delivered by third party - who would then be responsible for providing help?

<jon_avila> Grubhub would be responsible for Grubhub pages.

<Fazio> +1 JF

JF: The restaurant itself might not answer the phone

<jon_avila> That's fine if there number if not managed right now.

JF: the process started at the restaurant's website, so people with cognitive issues might not expet help from a third party delivery service
... so it is part of the website owner's responsibility

<jon_avila> These sound like strawman arguments.

<Jennie> New set of webpages?

alastairc: the difference might be whether the 3rd party sevice is included or opens on a separate page

<Fazio> Is it delicious?

<GN015> The restaurant or delievery service should be able to explain how their page is handled. And they should be able to tell where to find the information where to send bug reports (for example).

alastairc: Site might be passed on the basis of a consistent Facebook link

<JF> @Fazio - yes

Rachael - if human help is optional, would that address JF concerns?

JF: yes - first level, do they demonstrate that there is an intention to help?
... requirement should scale to small sites
... on large sites it makes a lot of help - but 80% is small sites, needs to work on that scale

<alastairc2> Suggestion: For single page apps or any set of web pages with blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages, if one of the following is available then it is included or linked in a consistent location

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we are implementing "when one or more of the following are available..."

<Chuck> +1

<JF> +1 to that Alastair, as it speaks to "Findability" and not provisionment of the help per-se

alastairc: Does that address the gap?

Jennie: like the proposal but maybe need a better definition of self-help option

originally FAQ was included as an example of self-help option

alastairc: If we switching to a requirement to "if you supply help, have it at consistent location"..

Jennie: self-help option meets timeliness requirement

alastairc: would prefer to keep examples in Understanding doc
... can differentiate it from within page help - this is help offered across pages
... There seems to be support fo rthe principle of the SC if we add "if provided, male locatin oconsistent" - Wilco had concerns regarding overlap consistent navigation
... any further concerns?

JF: What are we agreeing to now?

alastairc: pasted in 30 past the hour

<JF> +1

alastairc: give Jennie a chance to run through the rest of the SC

Gundula: did not grasp the actual change in the Google doc
... so if there is no offer of help, then there is no requirement to show it

<jon_avila> I agree with Andrew, that we should clean that up.

<Jennie> Proposal: human contact mechanism other than a fully automated chatbot, then remove bullet 4

AWK: Likes the solution - we need to cover fully automated chatbots that cannot recognise mis-spelled words that would now not meet one of the four bullets

<Glenda> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fX4Iw169OGUny5RTd70S8qAneYy5e0hr7zupE21gPBM/edit#

JF: Not consistent to text in Google docs

alastairc: only first part was pasted in - can be cleaned up and agreed mnext week

AWK: If we do want to require human help it cpuld be scoped differently

RESOLUTION: leave ope
... leave open

<alastairc> Suggestion: For single page apps or any set of web pages with blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages, if one of the following is available then it is included or linked in a consistent location

WCAG 2.1 errata for target definition https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1100

alastairc: Came up durin gtarget spacing SC, defintion of target

<alastairc2> region of the display that will accept a pointer action, such as the interactive area of a user interface component

<alastairc2> region of the display that will accept a pointer action to trigger a function, such as the interactive area of a user interface component

alastairc: could be interpreted that click anywhere in the page with event bubbling would mean the entire page can be the target
... that's why the text was extended to make it specific to activation that triggers a function - could go in as errata in 2.2

Problem might be that it is seen as changing the scope then it would just be an update in 2.2.

AWK: no clear what is gained

alastairc: makes definition of target clearer that is means user interface control
... (explains detail on pointer action)

<GN015> I am ok with the change. I feel it explains what is meant.

alastairc: the point is that it is clearer that activation of a *function* is the decisive thing

AWK: do not see any real benefit - is that worth the cost of making this change

David: was it just an edge case that we missed, unintentionally?

<Rachael> +1 to making it an errata

alastairc: Is anyone going to object if we put this in as CfC for errata?

<jon_avila> I think it's more confusing -- but not opposed to it.

AWK: would not object but also not support - will read exchange with Wilco that led to this

alastairc: not enough time for next topc

Focus indicator (enh) issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/focus-visible-enh-issues1/results

<alastairc> Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F83m-HXRkXz1QCF6_QNtQGzIULugMiFSLgtqDRgKA-s/edit#

alastairc: public comments on focus visible, many responses
... includes responses by different people

<jon_avila> Thanks

<alastairc> rrsagent make minutes

- DRAFT -

AGWG meeting

21 Apr 2020

Attendees

Contents

AGWG/Silver meeting times

WCAG 2.2 Visual Indicators https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/results

Finding help https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/results

WCAG 2.1 errata for target definition https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1100

Focus indicator (enh) issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/focus-visible-enh-issues1/results

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output