W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

[minutes] 27 April Techniques Task Force of the WCAG WG telecon

From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:28:59 -0400
Message-ID: <42718DDB.9080909@w3.org>
To: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Minutes available at: <http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html>

Action items:
[NEW] ACTION: Becky take 1.3
[NEW] ACTION: david send bg techs for 2.5
[NEW] ACTION: David take 4.2
[NEW] ACTION: dmd do either magnification tool have ability to zebra stripe
[NEW] ACTION: john research "inter-rater reliability" - is there a % 
cutoff point?
[NEW] ACTION: michael add definitions for sufficient, optional to 
section on definitions
[NEW] ACTION: michael delete clause about positive tests and conformance
[NEW] ACTION: Michael put information about relation of sufficient and 
optional in baseline section
[NEW] ACTION: Michael take 2.4
[NEW] ACTION: wac ask tim about creating css test cases
[NEW] ACTION: wac new issue for 3.2 related to increasing font size
[NEW] ACTION: Wendy take 1.1


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                 Techniques Task Force of the WCAG WG Telecon

27 Apr 2005


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0256.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc


          Becky_Gibson, Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald,
          Wendy, Chris_Ridpath

          Tim, Ben, Christophe


          David, Becky_Gibson, wendy


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Plan for addressing techniques and test suites for 1.1,
            1.3, 2.4, 4.2
         2. [6]Requirements for Checklists and Techniques
         3. [7]Mapping of script techniques to guidelines
     * [8]Summary of Action Items


Plan for addressing techniques and test suites for 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 4.2

   mc: techniques for the guidelines above

   wc: techniques taskforce michael john mike david becky wendy, chris on
   ... should take up test cases and techniques at same time to harmonize
   ... how to divy up the work???
   ... who's willing to do what, how much time do people have
   ... we have lots of people, if everyone took 10 techniques we could do

   bg: seem to be loosing people from wed

   wc: resourses is an issue

   mc: that may be good because we can focus

   w: if you are doing a lot of action items on this call don't do much
   on Thurs

   js: and vice versa

   wc: next wed we need to talk about techniques....divy up work today.
   by monday issue summaries, harvest more on Wed. then update propsoals
   following week then following wed close
   ... i think some tech for 1.1 could be combined
   ... can't get into bugzilla

   js: I got in the day before yesterday

   wc: I'll ask gregg to restart that server

   mc: I'll write up search tips
   ... take on tech for a guideline, in context of current, review each
   tech related to a guideline keeping in mind the discussions in main
   group thurs, discuss enndotes, bugzilla, then propose action, to
   close,change, create new combine etc

   setp2: go through mapping doc, think of techniques that appear to be

   css html and script

   mc: test cases: go through the test cases for the techniques..
   identify issues with existing test cases and propose additional test

   wc: I have ideas for test cases in CSS
   ... perhaps test cases with tim

   <wendy> ACTION: wac ask tim about creating css test cases [recorded in

   js: jim allen, james craig might help

   bg: we have no JS scripts techniques now

   mc: there open issues about how to write techniques in relation to
   ... havestin WAIG list ok to do also but not necessary

   bg: but guidelines in flux

   mc: make conditional techniques

   js: we may close 1.1, 4.2, 2.4, 1.3 soon

   wc: I'm tempted to take 1.1 cause I'm doing the guideline summary.

   <Michael> ACTION: Wendy take 1.1 [recorded in

   wc: labeling functional apps will work with Becky

   bg: label is ot an alternative

   wc: it is test that serves the same purpose

   mc: label is label not an alternative

   mc: will be alot of work - review list for info about GL plus techs
   and tests

   wc: so makes sense to work with person reviewing the GL

   dm: have been working on 4.2

   js: but there is a proposal on the list - can start with that
   ... hope is that WG comes to consensus on proposal - then techs group
   can start work based on newly adopted proposal

   <Michael> ACTION: David take 4.2 [recorded in

   js: so hopefully don't have to sift through all the prior proposals

   mc: so David is taking 4.2

   <Michael> ACTION: Michael take 2.4 [recorded in

   mc: MC will take 2.4

   <Michael> ACTION: Becky take 1.3 [recorded in

   bg: will take 1.3

   <Michael> action 3 = David take 4.2, work with Loretta

   <Michael> action 4 = Michael take 2.4, work with Yvette

   bg to work with jc; dm to work with LGR

   <Michael> action 5 = Becky take 1.3, work with Joe

   mc to work with yh

   wc: by Monday, may 2 we will all have sent an issue summary related to
   the techs; proposals for changes would be great
   ... on May 9 will submit proposals for changes (based on dicsussion on
   May 4)
   ... goal will be to discuss and close on May 11
   ... concerned that am travelling week of May 9

   js: perhaps can coordinate with Ben?

   wc: will be in Japan to will be ahead of all of you :-)
   ... will be at WWW conf and also speaking to JIS folks while in Japan

   js: have sent draft of 3.1 proposal to JIS group since they are
   concerned with English language centric issues

   mc: work is assigned; will send a summary of what we are doing; May 2
   is this Monday - so not lots of time, plan accordingly

   dm: this includes bugzilla stuff - but we can't access bugzilla right

   mc: will work on access

   dm: only dealing with techs that are still related to gL

   mc: sent emails with mapping of techs to guidelines - use those emails
   as starting point

   bg: all CSS techs showed as not being mapped

   mc: then probably not mapped properly
   ... so consider techs that aren't currently assoc. and perhaps propose
   associating them with a particula Gl

   dm: have end to ends on my site that may help

   mc: will try to include pointers to all sources in set of instructions

Requirements for Checklists and Techniques

   <David_> [14]http://www.eramp.com/david/end_to_end/index.htm

     [14] http://www.eramp.com/david/end_to_end/index.htm


     [15] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050426.html

   mc: sent a change log to list


     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0263.html

   <David_> end to end links above have associations that I eyeballed
   from Guidelines to Techniues docs, (6 months ago)

   mc: added info to intro about techs not being comprehensize - no
   garuntee we cover every possible tech and technology
   ... following techs is not req. to conform to WCAG - is a set of well
   thought out suggestions
   ... for most users is best way but not only way
   ... def. of reliably human testable - understood that want to remove
   "80% of human testers would agree" so rewrote
   ... added def. of postitive and negative tests
   ... pos test demonstrates proper applicaton of tech; neg test
   demonstrates improper application
   ... remove ref. to additional ideas
   ... added bullets about sufficeint and optional
   ... provided clarification of AND and OR
   ... removed req. for showing support by all AT (provide where approp)
   ... removed req. about untestable techniques
   ... added placeholder about baseline
   ... this is probably biggest thing I want to deal with
   ... removed appendix fields
   ... removed req. about general techs that are req. to conform

   js: issues about req. for conformance
   ... positive test means test has been correctly implemented

   mc: reads from doc about pos and neg tests

   js: this should only be for techs that are sufficient
   ... may not need second clause, where tech is sufficient for
   conformance a positive test would indicate conformance - something
   like that

   mc: wanted to say techs are a way to meet SC - a positive test is a
   good thing for access.

   js: but pos. test isn't always a garuntee of conformance

   mc: action to delete clause about positive tests and conformance

   js: sufficient and optional bullets added?

   <wendy> ACTION: michael delete clause about positive tests and
   conformance [recorded in

   mc: reads info from doc

   js: does that entail that we have to spell out benefit?

   mc: why would we document an optional tech unless we thought it was
   worth it?

   js: so are we requiring ourselves to say what the identifiable benefit

   <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to ask in tech summaries, start to
   categorize the techs as sufficient, future, etc?

   wc: if we can describe them well - we can also use the categories for
   a tech. summary categories
   ... if we want to categorize techs as optional, sufficient, future,

   mc: yes want to categorize; need that for when the tech spans
   ... at lowest baseline most techs are not optional but may become
   optional in higher baselines
   ... or may be optional in one baseline and sufficient in another or
   vice versa

   wc: might be helpful if in the list of defs we list ooptional,

   mc: so action to create definitions

   wc: other categories?

   <wendy> ACTION: michael add definitions for sufficient, optional to
   section on definitions [recorded in

   mc: analysis includes a not recommended category - where following
   tech was destructive to access.

   js: so there are places were we tell people what not to do

   mc: no - it is a tech for one baseline that is not rec. for another

   dm: do we want to say that a tech becomes optional in another

   mc: req. doc does say tech must specify the baseline; probably should

   dm: need to carefully define optional

   mc: do we want to include the three baselines we have been discussing
   so far?

   bg: do need to define them

   js: instinct is to not put in req. since they may be somewhat fluid
   ... techs need to def. baseline and which baseline a given techs works

   <Michael> ACTION: Michael put information about relation of sufficient
   and optional in baseline section [recorded in

   js: but don't think req. doc should contain the definitions of

   wc: req doc should be like a checklist to make sure we have done the
   all necessary work
   ... saying what we are going to implement without saying how

   js: say techs will ref. more than one baseline but not what they are

   mc: so current wording about techs referencing the baseline it applies
   to is ok

   js: yes

   mc: but still need to define baselines and where to include those defs

   js: need to figure out grouping etc.

   mc: so should add an agenda item for next wed. to discuss baseline

   wc: there will probably be issues related to baseline in our techs
   issues summary
   ... still see the 80% figure in the req. doc

   mc: didn't remove it - wasn't sure if that was the action -
   ... at first deleted the sentence - then just updated the wording

   dm: we are giving an exact % for an arbitrary number

   js: actually 80% is a common target

   dm: what is the exact term

   js: inter-rater reliability
   ... one example is if hand 5 people the same set of content they will
   agree on the rankings from best to worst but might give diff.
   numerical scores

   mc: we are tangenting a bit - do we want to zap the 80% testable by
   humans sentence or not?

   js: will take action item to see if there is agreement about % cut off

   <wendy> ACTION: john research "inter-rater reliability" - is there a %
   cutoff point? [recorded in

   dm: can get a book about inter-rater reliability for $39.99 :-)

   mc: is there more on req? do we need a break?

   wc: suggest putting it on agenda again so people have more time to

   mc: will update based on actions from today's call and repost req. doc

   <David_> book called "handbook of inter-rater reliability"

   <David_> [21]http://www.stataxis.com/interrater.htm

     [21] http://www.stataxis.com/interrater.htm

Mapping of script techniques to guidelines


     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0249.html

   bg: didn't map too many to 1.1. didn't go through existing script
   ... went through a list apart, etc. tried to propose techs for 3
   categories: 1. don't have scirpt, 2. can help w/accessibility 3.
   scripts not helping accessibility, but common scripts and how to do
   ... only additional in noscripting e.g., about making accessible
   pop-ups (using real links instead of javacript uris). mapped to 2.4
   ... felt a bit of a stretch, but using a tags appropriately.
   ... could probably go under 4.1 as well.

   js: re: 2.4, is it supporting navigation?
   ... under 3.2 have extreme changes of context.

   bg: tech is not to show how to mark extreme change of context.

   js: if it's about using a tag might be about 1.3

   wac: 3.2 level 1 #1 - "Any extreme change of context is implemented in
   a manner that can be programmatically identified. " is using a in a
   way that the ua knows what's going on. thus "programmatically

   bg: the next group were to enhance accessibility
   ... focus to form element. 2.4, level 2, #4
   ... could also be #2 of that GL and level
   ... someone on the list said hadn't seen onload reliably.

   mc: concept of setting focus is not under debate?

   bg: no. someone else suggested "here's how i do it"

   mc: like it, however, nothing before the focus is read.

   bg: for filling out a form, is good.

   js: google starting doing that/jaws supported, but field not labeled.

   bg: leave it with one

   mc: prefer to map to only one when possible. may have weak mappints to
   others. technique should only map to one.

   bg: next is how to catch onchange of input, validate, and set focus on
   next element. sort of help ppl correct errors, but helps navigate

   mc: also helps when do validation to do not mess it up.

   js: what if script validates and input wrong?

   bg: leaves you in the same field. however, this hard b/c depends on
   the script.
   ... may not be able to come up with techs that are acceptable to the
   group. need code and testing...

   js: what is the main thrust of the technique? helping users avoid
   errors and make ease to correct? or navigating sequentially?
   ... then 2.4 l2 sc 2

   bg: navigating sequentially
   ... it assumes you are doing validation. vs the other technique that
   says "move to the next field when there are 3 characters"

   js: the 1st one goes under 2.5 (making easy to correct errors)

   bg: say that it's about validation

   input assist to change the background color or border of the element
   with focus [GL 2.5 L2 SC1 (If a user error is detected, the error is
   identified and provided to the user in text ) although color and
   border isn't really text and this technique isn't specific to errors.]

   bg: could be "help navigate" or "error handling"

   mc: could also set text (not only color)

   bg: adding text effects the layout.

   input assist auto advance through fields. Fore example, a US phone
   number input with 3 fields as you finish typing 3 numbers in the first

   field the cursor moves to the next field and after three numbers there
   jumps to the last field. This one is likely to be controversial as I'm
   sure there are some people that dislike the auto advance behavior. [GL
   2.4 L3 SC2 (When a page or other delivery unit is navigated
   sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows
   relationships and sequences in the content.)]

   bg: some ppl like this one, others don't.

   js: in an app, a user preference?

   <scribe> ACTION: david send bg techs for 2.5 [recorded in

   mapping makes sense

   input assist to show a specific format in the field and user input
   over types the format with the actual value. For example, a field for
   a US social security number that shows "###-##-####" - as the user
   types the # gets replaced by the actual input. [GL 2.5 L2 SC2 (If a
   user error is detected and suggestions for correction are known and
   can be provided without jeopardizing security or...

   scribe: purpose, the error is identified and the suggestions are
   provided. ) This technique is not specific to errors, though. ]

   bg: instead of 3 fields, one field with format.
   ... put under 2.5, however the user hasn't created an error helps
   prevent an error.

   <jslatin> a mechanism is available to help users enter data correctly

   looks like we need to propose a success criterion in guideline 2.5 at
   level 2 or 3

   mc: info needed to fill out the form is before the form

   wac: google suggests - need info about how to fill in. not sure that
   "###-##-####" will be intuitive to users.

   question about creating a SC that might not be met by HTML. although,
   seems that there are ways to do it in HTML.

   wac: next steps?

   figure out how to create an accessible pop-up (NOT a new window) that
   can be made accessible. I'm not sure how to do this, yet, but it could
   be used to provide more detailed information or help without leaving
   the page. [GL 2.1 L1 SC1; (All of the functionality of the content,
   where the functionality or its outcome can be described in a sentence,
   is operable through a keyboard or keyboard...

   scribe: interface. ) and GL 2.1 L3 SC 1; (All functionality of the
   content is designed to be operated through a keyboard or keyboard
   interface. ) ]

   <David_> [24]http://www.eramp.com/david/general/

     [24] http://www.eramp.com/david/general/

   wac: extreme change of context?

   <David_> above is general tech proposals for 2.5

   discussion about how this could map to a variety of SC depending on
   the example. could also map to 3.2 (if avoiding an extreme chnge of
   context) or 2.5 (if helping user correct an error)

   bg: pretty open ended. perhaps too early to map.

   convert information provided via <link> elements into a select list on
   the page. From alistapart.com entry: Dynamically Conjuring Drop-Down
   Navigation [$1\47] [GL 2.4 L1 SC1 (Structures and relationships within
   the content can be programmatically determined );GL 2.4 L2 SC 1 (
   Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as
   a single delivery unit include a table of...

   scribe: contents with links to important sections of the document. );
   and GL 2.4 L2 SC2 (There is more than one way to locate the content of
   each delivery unit, including but not limited to link groups, a site
   map, site search or other navigation mechanism. )]

   mc: tech to get around UA deficiency

   bg: also navigation

   js: level 2 under 2.4 (multiple nav mechanisms)
   ... l2 sc2 of 2.4

   provide alternative text sizing on the page (in combination with CSS).
   Here is an example for alistapart: Power To The People: Relative Font
   Sizes [$1\47] Warning - it uses JavaScript uris :-) [This seems like a
   helpful technology but I can't find a mapping???]

   js: take it for granted that text is perceivable (by default). perhaps
   a criterion that text is actually perceivable.

   mc: related to tech on absolute size, have been unable to map them.

   dmd: the only reason that we recommend rel is that there is a bug in

   mc: css mapping to 1.3

   need a criterion about font size and reflowing content when font size

   js: fits under 3.2?
   ... b/c talk about consistency and design and effect on layout
   ... want to allow for changes in font size w/out blowing up layout

   bg: it's hard to do.

   js: specify a threshold, beyond which it is not the designers

   dmd: address what % users can increase font size?

   wac: what's the general rule of thumb from moving from increasing font
   size in browser to using magnification software?

   <scribe> ACTION: wac new issue for 3.2 related to increasing font size
   [recorded in

   formatting table rows to distinguish one from another. This should
   help the readability of all users but particularly screen magnifier
   users if the table is wide. Another alistapart example: Zebra
   Tables[$1\47] [GL 1.4 L1 SC1 (Any text that is presented over a
   background image, color, or text can be programmatically determined. )
   although that is a bit of a stretch since the technique itself...

   scribe: is using color]

   discussion of benefits - people who use magnifiers, people with
   learning/reading disabilities

   mc: may fit under understandable

   js: perhaps an optional technique under 3.1 or 2.4 (re: making tables
   more navigable)
   ... perhaps another mechanism for locating content

   discussion about variety of places it could map to.

   wac: depends on primary benefit - if learning disability, 3.1. if
   magnificiation, orientation and 2.4

   <scribe> ACTION: dmd do either magnification tool have ability to
   zebra stripe [recorded in

   dmd: i've been looking re: inter-rater reliability and 80% seems
   reasonable number. 70% they say is low, 90% is high. sent john
   articles have found.

   next week: issue summaries for techniques/test cases, baseline,
   requirements, script mapping

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Becky take 1.3 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: david send bg techs for 2.5 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: David take 4.2 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: dmd do either magnification tool have ability to zebra
   stripe [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: john research "inter-rater reliability" - is there a %
   cutoff point? [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: michael add definitions for sufficient, optional to
   section on definitions [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: michael delete clause about positive tests and
   conformance [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Michael put information about relation of sufficient and
   optional in baseline section [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Michael take 2.4 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: wac ask tim about creating css test cases [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: wac new issue for 3.2 related to increasing font size
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Wendy take 1.1 [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version 1.122
    ([40]CVS log)
    $Date: 2005/04/27 16:07:51 $

     [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 01:29:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:39 UTC