- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:24:08 -0500
- To: MATF <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-mobile-a11y-minutes.html
Text of minutes (for archiving):
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
06 Nov 2014
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/2014Nov/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-mobile-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
Andrew(AWK), AlanS, Brent, Detlev, Jan, Jeanne,
Jon_Avila, Joshue, Kim, KathyW, MikeS
Regrets
Chair
Kimberly_Patch
Scribe
jeanne
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Q&A / Status of Technique Assignments
2. [6]Reframing the existing WCAG 2.0 techniques
3. [7]Survey:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20141103_survey/
* [8]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 06 November 2014
<scribe> scribenick: jeanne
Q&A / Status of Technique Assignments
Detlev: I signed up for 2 that I know what they are about.
There are others where I don't know.
<KimPatch>
[9]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Devel
opment_Assignments
[9]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Development_Assignments
JS: Can Detlev point out the ones that are unclear?
detlev: M1: What does this technique aim at beyond the general
best practices
KW: Javascript commands for hover and surface touch. The
Technique was to discuss that specifically.
Detlev: So this would be separate from using CSS to highlight?
KW: That is something we need more clarity from WCAG about what
should be separate techniques. That can be incorportated into
another technique, but should it be separate?
... same thing with Reading Order, Touch and Keyboard Access.
We need more clarity.
... The deadline is rapidly approaching -- 18 Nov. We want to
have the most important on the schedule for next week.
KP: Who has techniques that will be ready for next week.
Detlev: M4 is done today. there is a draft to discuss
KP: Does anyone want to sign up for anything else?
KW: If you are struggling or partially done, even if you need
some writing help or technical help, let us know so we can draw
on the strength of the rest of the group before the deadline.
Reframing the existing WCAG 2.0 techniques
KP: We have sorted out the existing WCAG techniques into
buckets: existing that don't apply, existing that apply without
changes, existing that need changes.
<KimPatch>
tf/wiki/Subset_of_WCAG_2.0_Techniques_Applicable_to_Mobile_with
out_Changes_that_need_language_update
<KimPatch>
[10]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Subset_of_WCAG
_2.0_Techniques_Applicable_to_Mobile_without_Changes_that_need_
language_update
[10]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Subset_of_WCAG_2.0_Techniques_Applicable_to_Mobile_without_Changes_that_need_language_update
KP: Recently, I have been reviewing Techniques that could be
improved with subtle changes
... After more discussion in the group, I went through and made
suggestions to the first 100 Techniques where a few subtle
changes are needed. E.g., if the example has "laptop" that
implies it doesn't apply to mobile.
[Kim reviews some of the changes from the link above]
<AWK> How short is short enough for G14?
<Joshue> +q to say this looks good.
Detlev: also about sign language video
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say this looks good.
JP: Thanks to all the TF for a lot of work. This is what the
WCAG WG wanted to update the Techniques
<Jan> +q to agree with the changes to massage language to
remove implicit assumption of desktop/laptop devices
<Jan> -q
KP: The onesmissing from here, are the ones that we have
identified that need more work. THey are on a different list. I
ended at G111. there is more to do.
... even some of the changes are where laptop is implied.
JO: How about "activating" a link?
KP: I think UAWG found a problem with that.
Detlev: I think activating would cover all kinds of input.
<Joshue> Whatever an appropriate term.
JO: whatever the appropriate term, we can use that.
KP: Whatever the solution was with UAWG, I would like to
harmonize with that.
JO: what are the next steps? I have an action to do some of
what you have done? I would take a chunk of these?
KP: Is this good enough? If someone in TF finishes this and
sends it to WCAG, is it good enough?
JO: Yes, this would be great.
KP: Then WCAG could do the changes.
... I think we will see patterns.
JO: When will you be finished?
KP: Probably a few weeks.
AWK: A number of these seem easy, G14 would say: "Use this text
instead". To make it even easier for the TF, WCAG, and the
people doing the edits, I would ask for a pull request.
... G110 are not going to debate some of these. G14, for
example, I don't think I would send it by the WCAG WG.
KP: The wiki is here, and you can make that decision.
AWK: The grammar corrections are good to have.
AT the F2F we were discussing 3 threads and this is one of the
threads.
KP: The M techniques are having more trouble in focusing the
direction.
... the Techniques that the TF is changing also need more
direction from WCAG.
<Joshue> +q
KW: What do we put into an existing Technique?
JO: We were having a bigger discussion in the planning call
that are coming out about our approaches: how we catagorize and
how we create Techniques.
... we may need to separate more techniques by the technology
more
... I'm hoping that WCAG can thrash this out. WCAG is finding
our way, identifying gaps, review approaches.
... tie in more with IndieUI, UAWG in a more cohesive manner.
... we don't want to upend MATF work, but we are finding our
way.
KW: I don't know where we are going, and it is stalling the
work here. Everytime I am writing a Technique, I am blocked
from completing it.
... otherwise the work we are doing in the TF is being redone.
<Alan_Smith> Alan called back in and on IRC
JO: We are aware that it is a problem. We just don't want to
create something that has a short shelflife.
KW: We need to figure out where things are going to go and how
they will be organized, so that we can figure how they will go
forward.
JS: I see the next two weeks for making the Nov 18 deadline
JO: I think the low hanging fruit is the most important. The
subtle changes are easier to do.
AWK: We will take whatever work we can have done. It is all
useful. It's probably ok since we are amassing a body of
knowledge -- a large body of work for mobile. We will probably
have a few new techniques, a few minor techniques, some new
medium techniques. Is that ok to have a scattered collection of
things?
Detlev: I don't think there is a plan to have a separate
section of WCAG for Mobile Techniques?
... Has that been determined? Some may be questionable, whether
they are merged with existing Techniques?
JO: At the moment, there is a concern with labeling them as
mobile techniques, when they may be applicable to other
platforms and technologies. I see us rolling them into the
canon of techniques, and they would be applicable to mobile.
KW: As far as what is done by the 18th, there is very little
that we will be able to push out. Any time we can get more
Techniques out there is useful. We may have to wait for the
following release to say that we have substantial work for
mobile. The wiki is open to everyone so people can see what is
going on.
... especially since there is so much that is under discussion.
KP: I like what you said about "not explicitly mobile" because
everything is rather mixing.
JR: There is not a hard-and-fast division between desktop and
mobile. It's a continuum. I am ok with having it in one group,
but there are small screen and devices with sensors that should
be called out.
<jon_avila> Agreed that screen size and touch events are more
important than mobile specific
<jon_avila> +1
<Joshue> +q
<kw> +1
MS: We have skipped over the interaction model. touch an
gesture and speech. We should be looking at "what is the
interaction model for that thing?"
... and not calling it out as mobile or desktop.
JO: It's still an early discussion and we haven't fleshed it
out.
<jon_avila> Touch criteria could apply to kiosk even though it
isn't mobile.
JO: on Monday we will be discussing it in more detail.
<Joshue> -q
JA: How we communicate that to the public that are expecting
Mobile TEchnques. We need to share that thought process with
the community.
<jon_avila> Another category is bandwidth
Detlev: WCAG is a tremendous body of information and it can be
off-putting. we need to have a way to filter it or focus it for
specific design needs
Brent: We don't what will be coming up after mobile, so having
something more generic. Interaction model is a good way to go.
A variety of apps (coming from a deaf perspective). Things are
more creative today. How you design with Flash, how you
interact with devices, including interaction with devices that
are coming up.
... we have to make sure that things are applicable.
KP: Actionserver is software that allows you to control your
desktop with your mobile device.
... there are keyboards that can connect to any device. It puts
the keyboard everywhere and the touchscreen everywhere.
AWK: It's related to the Second Screen question -- connecting a
device that has some reason or ocnvenience to use rather than
the original screen.
KW: We are talking about structuring about interaction, but we
have discussed this with UAWG. When people are looking at it
from a device approach. But there is also an approach that is
inclusive of specific disabilities, such as cognitive, or
screenreader. We need to keep in mind the end-user.
<jon_avila> +1 to Mike
MS: These are really good points. I appreciate the comment how
we present this to the community and how we organize it and
present it. We discussed applying tags to the Techniques, that
will allow people to filter in multiple ways.
<AWK> Re: Tagging, as mentioned by Mike - agree, this was what
we discussed at WCAG F2F on Sunday and generally liked
<Detlev> +1
<Brent> +1
<Jan> +q to say we should have a WCAG-mobile note of some kind
Alan: it sounds like the focus of the next release is to
include mobile in WCAG as an accessible device for
accessibility. Many folks see that mobile is not appliable to
the WCAG guidelines. We need a clear definition that mobile
will be applicable.
<jon_avila> Would already apply to mobile web. Can be applied
to native mobile apps.
Alan: Just because we don't have all the Techniques written, we
need the explicit statement that WCAG 2.0 apply to mobile.
Industry is looking for it.
... It needs to be clearly stated.
+1 to Alan
JR: The communication side is very important. We need a note.
Repeat some of the comments from this call. The example of
touch screen kiosk is important. People want standards for
kiosks.
... but I can see people asking "where are the Techniques for
my language"
Alan: How do we go about Techniquing everything? Maybe all you
can say is that it is in the works.
KW: I think we will be figuring it out, and we will have more
information next week. Everyone's points are very good and need
to be considered for moving forward.
<Zakim> Jan, you wanted to say we should have a WCAG-mobile
note of some kind
Survey: [11]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20141103_survey/
[11] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20141103_survey/
KP: Everyone, please answer the survey for next week.
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 20:24:03 UTC