- From: Kim Patch <kim@redstartsystems.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:30:35 -0400
- To: "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <59A839AB.9040207@redstartsystems.com>
*MATF Minutes 31 August 2017 link:
https://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-minutes.html*
Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
31 Aug 2017
See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-irc>
Attendees
Present
shadi, Kathy, chriscm, Marc, David-MacDonald, marcjohlic, Kim
Regrets
Chair
Kathleen_Wahlbin
Scribe
Kim
Contents
* Topics <https://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#agenda>
1. Situation definition
<https://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item01>
2. Github editing
<https://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item02>
3. moving forward
<https://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item03>
* Summary of Action Items
<https://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
* Summary of Resolutions
<https://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC
Kathy: we have nine success criteria. URL has list of everybody's
success criteria that got into 2.1. Because these are in 2.1 right now
does not mean they will stay there. There's going to be further
discussion 2.1, what we do with the exception there, device sensors,
some of the other ones were we had things come up. the working group and
chairs agreed that we weren't going to be concentrating o
n that while we were approving these. That will be reviewed and looked
at after the fact. Those discussions will be happening pretty soon on
the working group calls
Kathy: in the meantime the task forces are going to take each of their
SC's and write the understanding. We have understanding for ours but
things have changed. There are long threads and Github, exceptions,
notes from the meetings that need to get incorporated.
... the taskforces will take the lead in doing theirs. Each of the
taskforces will be reviewing the others. opportunity to add mobile
specific to SCs from other taskforces – every task force will do that
... so will be taking the first pass at modifying, also techniques
... explaining URL – you can modify in github. There is a view link
... overall it would be easy to edit these in github. If someone is not
comfortable in github, we can make changes for everyone. Out of this
list we have 11 different things, one that's not on the list right now
which is device sensors.
... device sensors most likely will get in but that's not confirmed.
... right now we have 10, maybe 11 that we need to work on. One of those
is the conformance – is there something else we need to do that – is
there an understanding for that
David: there's an understanding conformance section and that's where
that edit would go in – this is good because it means we''re not
changing, just clarifying
Kathy: in looking at the different success criteria, David I've seen you
done a lot on change of content
David: I've done changes in most of those I was the manager for. I can
do change of content
Kathy: Andrew was the manager for target size – I can do that one
Mark: I'll get the understanding updated for orientation
<David_> http://tinyurl.com/jmo9st4. has the SC managers and all the
links also...
Kim will do character key shortcuts
and accessible name
David: doing conformance
Kathy: 4 that aren't covered, Detlev, Patrick will be here
... for the template for all of these, the templates are pretty much set.
Situation definition
David: examples
<David_>
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html>https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html
David: it's for when the techniques only apply to certain aspects of a
success criteria
... you might have a technique that only meets part of the success
criteria, not all of them. So gives us a little more flexibility in
terms of mapping techniques. This is a sufficient technique for the
success criteria but the context might change. You have situation A, B,
C to limit that
... it's once we start getting into the granularity of a technique. Say
it's a specific type of shopping cart or something that would apply to
it, but it wouldn't apply if you were in a different technology of course
... it just gives us a little more flexibility for when we are mapping
techniques. It's just when it doesn't cover the entire success criteria
– a way to limit it to a situation
Github editing
David: there sometimes a lag between the views
Kathy: is there anything we shouldn't do in terms of just copying. For
example target size at AA versus target size no exception at AAA – the
benefit is going to be the same – just copy it over
David: yes. Just copy the same stuff over and just amend a little
Kathy: techniques under AA and AAA, some sufficient techniques are repeated
David: that's fine – there will be a lot of overlap
... the big thing is to get grammar and punctuation right the first time
around. It's a total pain to go through and proofread the understanding.
My instinct is to dump things in and worry about other things later, but
if you're not going to come back soon later it's better to reread and
get the grammar right
moving forward
Kathy: I'd like to see if we can get most of these in draft format over
the next few weeks. Once you get it done let Kim and I know for the next
meeting – will keep going forward on those
David: techniques as well?
Kathy: we should put the techniques that we know in the techniques area.
There were others that came up in discussion. We are not writing the
techniques at this point, but put the titles in
David: if work has been done already on existing techniques put in – we
can apply work we've already done
<Kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
Kathy: target size example – we have links to techniques we've already
created
... everything that we had to find I was pretty careful in making sure
to transfer them over. it should be pretty close
Marc: how far are we going with techniques
Kathy: I was just going to copy what we had – start listing in
techniques and failure, but not worry about writing them now. Focuses on
understanding language. I was just going to put the headlines like we
have now right there
... we may have other things that come up for things we may want to
adjust after we see COGA and low vision go through this and feedback
from the working group
<Kathy>
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status#Issue_60_-_Target_Size>https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status#Issue_60_-_Target_Size
Kathy: also note that all of these have links to the issues of things
that we went through – for example for touch target we have the issues
that were listed. This is good to go back and look at some of those things.
David: do we have a list of all of the – a table?
2.4.11 Character Key Shortcuts
2.5.1 Target Size AA
2.5.2 Target Size (no exception) AAA
2.5.3 Pointer Gestures A
2.5.4 Concurrent Input Mechanisms AA
2.6.1 Orientation AA
2.7.1 Accessible Name A
3.2.6 Accidental Activation A
3.2.7 Change of Content AA
<marcjohlic>
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Development_Assignments>https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Development_Assignments
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page
Kathy: we can link back to this list
... numbering – 2.5.4 was target size, now it's concurrent input
mechanism. Don't get confused over old numbering versus you numbering,
but you can go back in assignments archive and look at the different
things we were working on
David: looks like it's going to be easier just to go through the list of
what we've listed so far.
<Kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
Kathy: I've already listed them under each of the github issues
... I uploaded the original issue for each of them. I listed all the
proposed techniques that we had come up for that under the technique
headings
David: on the main issue, the first entry
Kathy: next week we should have some that we will review on this call.
As soon as they get published to the github repository they will go out
with Michael's drafts. So if we get some of these into the understanding
it will be published with 2.1 when it goes out
... next week I should have more information about when the other
success criteria drafts will be ready. Will be reviewing each of those –
low vision and COGA
Marc: editing rights?
Kathy: I can edit it
Marc: I do have a pencil here – I can edit
... based on this table – is this finalized
Kathy: there are three outstanding, but those will be decided really
soon. This will be the latest and greatest all the time
Shadi: the reason the chairs are revisiting the CFC on device sensors is
because the initial objection specifically was not about the SC as such
it was about the scoping and so this makes a difference. The chairs are
putting a lot of emphasis on trying to treat all the success criteria
and input equally on equal basis using justified criteria for every
position. and Steven has been participating i
n trying to find a result so the approach is not to completely remove
it, but continue working on it after publication so it's likely that an
editor's note will be added saying there is an issue but we are going to
continue working on it rather than removing it
Kathy: the objection was around scope and was also muddied because
people were commenting about incorporation into 2.1.1 which was off the
table in terms of accepting it into 2.1. So the scope was in question
not the acceptance of the actual SC. And there was support for SC from
those who objected, but the objection was on scope not general principle.
... right now the scope has narrowed and I think it's fine to narrow the
scope. We haven't had any real objections on the proposed language and
it's really not that different from what we had, just narrowing the
scope to motion-based sensors rather than any device sensor
... that's where were at, so we won't put Device Sensors in until we
have a decision from the chairs. The other ones we will work on. Will
also have an update from the other taskforces next week as well
... we will be meeting regularly now until we get this done and then
will do techniques as well
... a lot of different groups are going to be coming and helping out
with this. I think it's important that the amount of work in the amount
of time and the discussions that we all had in the task force – that
that doesn't get lost in that we make sure that stuff gets in and we
continue the conversation on mobile – thanks for driving it forward
... any questions just let me know I can always edit for you
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
version 1.152 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2017/08/31 15:55:33 $
--
___________________________________________________
Kimberly Patch
President
Redstart Systems
(617) 325-3966
kim@redstartsystems.com <mailto:kim@redstartsystems.com>
www.redstartsystems.com <http://www.redstartsystems.com>
- making speech fly
www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
___________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2017 16:30:49 UTC