- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:50:18 -0400
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Cc: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Minutes (HTML):
https://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html
Text of minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WCAG 2 Next Steps Workshop
14 Mar 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-irc
Attendees
Present
Katie, Haritos-Shea, John, Sarah, Alastair, jeanne
Regrets
Chair
John
Scribe
jeanne
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Design Process
2. [5]Constraints
3. [6]Audience (topic order is incorrect - Audience discussion is after the Design Process)
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
Design Process
<Sarah gives introduction to Design process>
<Ryladog> Wiki page:
[9]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next
[9] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next
Sarah: Establish an approach that begins from an open-minded
way of thinking, and move forward.
<Ryladog> David MacDonald's visualizations from the previous
extension plan:
[10]http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integ
ration-into-WCAG.html
[10] http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integration-into-WCAG.html
Sarah: start with Divergent Thinking, which is coming up with
tons of ideas, then they can be evaluated.
... today's focus is on defining the problem space.
... the next session could be generating ideas
... then making choices of what solutions to pursue at the CSUN
meeting and creating prototypes.
John: <reviews schedule of meetings> and present ideas to WCAG
WG on April 5
Sarah: We have the opportunity to consider WCAG broadly
... we all do design all the time
... we are building an extension on WCAG, we have the
opportunity to identify what we can adapt and provide
additional functionality.
... we are talking about the scope
... I have nothing specific in mind. I am here to sort things
out.
Katie: What we are trying to do is figure out how to put the
extension work into WCAG, and now we can look at what we can do
to change WCAG. If you look at what the task forces are doing,
they are adding Guidelines
... I think we can modify the current work. Don't kill the
existing Principles
John: We need to add Guidelines and Success Criteria
... addding guidelines is ill-defined. The task forces are
working on Guidelines and success criteria
... a problem statement is interoperability
... that task forces are coming up with conflicting success
criteria
Katie: We have to take that into account, we aren't going to
fix that in this group.
Audience
Sarah: We have to keep it in mind.
... Can we talk about the audience for these guidelines.
John: 1. developer who is trying to incorporate new Guidelines
and success criteria into their work. They want to adopt new
success criteria into their work patterns.
... 2. Conformance officers who need to verify that they are in
conformance
... 3. Toolmakers who make tools for conformance reporting
Katie: Would we want to change things for these audiences?
jeanne: 4. companies that make authoring tools
... 5. policymakers
<JF> 5. Policy Makers
<Ryladog> Katie: For those audiences do we want to change the
existing Principles, Guidelines and SC numbering? I think not.
6. accessibility experts and people with disabilities
Alastair: 7. educators - educate people about the guidelines
John: training and educators is absolutely a category
Alastair: Accessibility consultants use it for auditing
... we let them know how their sites comply and advises them,
then audits
... accessibility consultants know the guidelines the best next
to the people who wrote them
Katie: Quality assurance - make sure the the product match the
standards
jeanne: People with disabilities use WCAG mostly for filing
complaints
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to write up a summary of the audience
discussion for the wiki [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01
]
[11] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01]
Katie: I want to focus on what we want to present in April.
Redesigning the entire WCAG is beyond what I want to do right
now.
John: WCAG 2.0 cannot change. Policymakers need WCAG 2.0 to
stay the same. We are looking to move forward to serve the
developers, accessibility experts, conformance officers,
toolmakers, and ...
Sarah: I want to follow the process to identify audiences,
identify constraints, @@, models.
ALastair: We know the final outcome we want -- we need to
identify the middle part. We are going very wide, and I think
we need to get to more details, more quickly.
John: What we have is a collection of napkin sketches on the
table. What we need to do is look at what we have and identify
the pros and cons, articulate the weakness and strengths.
... we need to keep in mind the users and audiences
Alastair: Can we brainstorm the problems we are facing between
now and WCAG next
... conflicting success criteria
... describing to the world - complicated to WCAG + Extensions
... difficult to establish conformance
jeanne: add a problem, -- the definitions of WCAG are
inadequete to modern technology -- for example, the definition
of "web content" can't include hybrid mobile apps because they
don't use http
John: We have to build on WCAG, we cannot fork or cause a
divergence from WCAG 2.0
... if we are supporting the toolmakers, the conformance
experts, the policy makers, then we can't make WCAG 2.0
obsolete.
Katie: We have to talk about adding additional extensions to
WCAG. They have to take into account the success criteria that
are already there
Alastair: If we can't fork or diverge from WCAG, then we may
end up with accessibility requirements
Constraints
Katie: Low Vision Task Force came up with color contrast
requirements that are in conflict with WCAG.
... possibly adding it as an additional requirement.
... maybe we do need to kill the existing requirement, I don't
have a strong opinion.
Alastair: I think we have to say that there is another
potential requirement
John: Do we make the jump from a WCAG 2.0 to a WCAG 3.0? Or do
we keep extending WCAG 2.0
Katie: I think we have to do that.
John: One of the key divergences that we are looking at right
now, is that an option that we rethink WCAG based on the same
Principles, but renumberate or structure differently.
Katie: Let's up a table of the options
... this example of color contrast can be used to frame the
options
Alastair: I see WCAG 2.1 following the principles of WCAG 2.0.
When you look at rewriting WCAG, then we look at WCAG 3.0
<alastairc> Jeanne: Develop a suite of standards, using
principles of WCAG as the core, then suite of individual SCs &
techniques that are smaller and more odular
<alastairc> Jeanne: WCAG 3 not off the table, but looking at
different options.
John: The moment we start building toward a suite of
requirements, it becomes more complex for the conformance
officers, and educators.
Alastair: I would think that then the EU and UA policymakers
would then be responsible to pick and choose and then they
would make the one standard
John: This is some of our history -- the policymakers and
toolmakers want to have one standard.
... let's give them one or more standards, but not building
things on the fly.
Alastair: I heard a talk toward policymakers, who want one
standard, and keep it updated
John: I think it is an option that we should articulate and
discuss. I have already identified a "con" for it.
... we have been doing this for a while, so we don't want to
get too far into these models, I think we need to look at the
constraints.
Alastair: Constraints
<summarizes @@@ >
John: How do we address requirements that may conflict? The
color contrast issue is the poster child for that.
... who is responsible for making those decisions
... the issue is that different task forces may come up with
requirements that conflict. How do we handle it?
Sarah: I can rewrite the wiki. We can talk about what the world
will look like if we are successful in achieving the project,
what the world will look like if we are successful.
Alastair: We do the work, and people love it ;)
John: Time to delivery. People have already been complaining
about how long it has been since they got an update.
... one the constraints that we have an a signpost of success
is how to address this. How do we keep accessbility
requirements up to date.
jeanne: The "suite" idea is not an audience-based model where
people get to pick and choose. This is more of the CSS model -
where there is a modular approach. This spec applies to Media
Players, this applies to Web RTC, this applies to Hybrid apps.
John: This gets really messy really fast.
Katie: CSS doesn't get tied to civil rights legislation.
Alastair: I did a project on Mandate 376, there was a high
level principles, then it broke down into technologies
Katie: There is overlap, but that is better than underlap
John: Are you thinking: If there is a touch interface, then
this applies, otherwise Not Applicable
<alastairc> The high-level function requirments:
[12]http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statemen
ts
[12] http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statements
Katie: I think we need to add additional success criteria, and
say under these circumstances, this applies
... you have to write as many instances as possible. And be
realistic. Not everything will apply to every interface.
Jeanne: We need a process to add to WCAG for addressing
disabilities WCAG did not address
Katie: We also need a model that allows to be more nimble to
address new technology and devices that are being developed
... we want to address WCAG Next with a model of being built on
for the future.
Sarah: WCAG doesn't seem to be tied to specific interaction
types. Preserving that would be a priority.
Katie: WCAG was written to try to make it technology neutral.
But we could not anticipate all the future would bring.
<alastairc> Jeanne: Example, slide-traps in mobile. Would like
to say 'navigation trap' instead of keyboard trap.
Katie: What we can do for 2.1.2 is add a new SC for "navigation
trap" and then a future WCAG 3 or WCAG2020, we could delete the
older outdated one.
... I think we can't kill the requirements that people depend
on today in a WCAG 2.x -- we can add but we can't subtract.
Alastair: We could have so many things overriding that it
becomes messy.
Katie: Example: increasing font sizes -- people say that
technology took care of the 200%, so people didn't pay
attention to it. Then new technology came out that didn't
handle font resize well.
... I think we will see a lot of different approaches coming
from the task forces.
Sarah: WHy not do the one word change in the example of
keyboard -> navigation?
Katie: I don't think we have the time to do that now/
John: WCAG 2.0 is hermetically sealed. We can't change that
without having the time issue of changing WCAG.
... I see two different efforts. An incremental approach that
adds to what we already have and a group working on an entire
rewrite
Sarah: Can anything in the WCAG 2.1 change the existing
requirements.
John: I think that is a key question that should be publically
addressed.
Katie: In 508, the functional requirements were not made
primary. We should do functional requirements first.
Alastair: We have a conflict between timely updates and what
policymakers want to stay the same.
Katie: You can't change it every 6 months, but you can do it
every 2 years -- especially if you tell them that it will be
updated every 2 years.
... then we have to organize the process so it can be
expeditiously updated every 2 years.
John: I think that six months is too short, but 2 years seems
too long.
... maybe we need a 5 year plan.
<scribe> ACTION: Katie to add the table of options to the wiki
[recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02
]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02]
JOhn: The long term process has been deferred for too long. I
think Sarah's process needs to be considered for the longer
term work.
Next meeting: Friday Boston 9am 18 March
John: Record the minutes link in the wiki and send to the WCAG
mailing list.
<scribe> Chair: John
<JF> Next meeting: New Meeting Fri, Mar 18, 2016 8:00 AM - 9:30
AM Central Daylight Time
[14]https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/380705429 You can also
dial in using your phone. United States : +1 (408) 650-3123
Access Code: 380-705-429
[14] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/380705429
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to write up a summary of the audience
discussion for the wiki [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01
]
[NEW] ACTION: Katie to add the table of options to the wiki
[recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02
]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01
[16] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 14:50:56 UTC