- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:05:34 -0500
- To: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5905308e-89f4-79a0-0200-17841a267459@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted version of minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2016/11/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Text of Minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
29 Nov 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/29-wai-wcag-irc
Attendees
Present
AWK, Avneesh, Bruce_Bailey, Charles_LaPierre,
DavidMacDonald, George, Glenda, Greg_Lowney,
James_Nurthen, Jim_S, Joshue, Joshue108, Laura, Lauriat,
Makoto, Mike_Gower, Srini, Tzviya, Wilco, jeanne,
jon_avila, marcjohlic, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea,
Mike, Elledge, Rachael
Regrets
Alastair_Campbell, JohnF, Kathy_Wahlbin
Chair
Joshue
Scribe
Jeanne
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]COGA feedback requested
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/
2. [5]DPUB business
3. [6]New SCs
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/re
sults
4. [7]New SC proposal - Issue 10: Interactive Element
Contrast (Minimum)
5. [8]New SC proposal - Issue 9: Informational Graphic
Contrast (Minimum)
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<MyNickname> is Joshue108
<MyNickname> MyNickname is Joshue108
<AWK> Chair: Joshue
<laura> resent+ Laura
<AWK> Scribe: Jeanne
<Wilco> Put me down for december 13th :)
<gowerm> I can take one
<gowerm> Jan 3
<scribe> scribenick: jeanne
COGA feedback requested
[11]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/
[11] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/
JO: this is a heads-up from COGA for feedback on their success
criteria
<KimD> +KimD
<Joshue108>
[12]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/
[12] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/
JO: please have a look and give feedback
<kirkwood__> I can access
<Joshue108>
[13]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/
[13] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/
JO: this is the first request, there will be more in the next
few weeks.
DPUB business
<bruce_bailey>
[14]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_20
16/results
[14] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
JO: I don't have a firm agenda for this topic. I want to wrap
up the issues left over from the previous meetings.
... I want to make sure we have resolutions and next steps.
Tzviya: We had a DPUB meeting yesterday. We had a mini-agenda
based on our discussion in the meeting with WCAG last week
<tzviya> [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
[15] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
Tzviya: 1) the WCAG concept as a "set of web pages" which David
had suggested might fit.
... we talked about adding an additional example to the
definition
<tzviya> Example: A publication is split across multiple Web
pages, where each page contains one chapter or other
significant section of the work. The publication is logically a
single contiguous unit, and contains navigation features that
enable access to the full set of pages.
Tzviya: Matt Garrish proposed some language (above)
... this way ok with the DPUB group. It's intentionally broad.
<DavidMacDonald> +1
<Joshue108> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<laura> +1
AWK: Just so I'm clear. You are proposing that the line become
a part of the existing definition. If we think that the current
definition already covers this, I would prefer that it be
handled in the Understanding doc, so it doesn't change people's
interpretation of the definition.
<DavidMacDonald>
[16]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
[16] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
<bruce_bailey>
[17]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
[17] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
Katie: Why would we not add it to the definition? We are adding
it to 2.1, it is backwards compatible, and we are only adding
an example.
... I think we should include it.
<bruce_bailey> web page definition included examples
<bruce_bailey> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef
[18] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef
Tzviya: the proposal is to add this example to the existing
definition.
Josh: Adding it to the definition would be a more public
endorsement.
David: I think it is good to add it as an example. It doens't
change the definition. The words are the same. It shows that we
are embracing a new thing. The Understanding document doesn't
get as much.
ack {
<Joshue108> ack {
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it does change the
normative meaning
JonA: Is this for the definition of page, or set of pages?
Josh: Set of pages
AWK: I don't agree, there is no where in WCAG that it says that
Notes or Examples are not normative. I want to be careful
because it is normative. I can go either way, I just want to be
careful that there are specific and real benefits to doing so.
There are also some costs.
<Joshue108>
[19]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
[19] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
Josh: Michael? Do you see any way that it is changing the
normative definition?
<jon_avila> set of Web pages collection of Web pages that share
a common purpose and that are created by the same author, group
or organization Note: Different language versions would be
considered different sets of Web pages.
<Joshue108> Example: A publication is split across multiple Web
pages, where each page contains one chapter or other
significant section of the work. The publication is logically a
single contiguous unit, and contains navigation features that
enable access to the full set of pages.
Josh: There seems to be broad consensus, but it will need to be
a survey to the larger group.
Mike: This seems to be a sweeping decision to add digital
publishing. Is there any conflict with the WCAG applying to the
digital publishing world?
Katie: The US government is including electronic documents to
add WCAG. I don't see how it breaks backward compatibility.
Mike: I just raise it because it raises a broad set of
standards to apply to specifically to digital documents. I
can't think of anything off the top of my head that is a
problem.
Steve: I have no objection. I'm looking at the existing
defintion, which is already broad. I think that if you put one
example, you should have more examples to keep the definition
broad.
Josh: We have other definitions elsewhere.
Steve: But one example focuses a broad defintiion down to a
narrow.
Josh: Are there other areas where we have definitions that need
more examples?
David: We aren't making new defintions, it always applied to a
set of pages. We used set of pages because we couldn't define a
"web site" because we couldn't define where is started and
stopped. This adds some clarity to it. We could add more
examples, but we have plenty of definitions that only have one
example. It's the best fit for digital publishing.
Avneesh: Clarifications: We have already done the ePub
accessibility publications. Most other things in WCAG that
apply to dPub. Everything in WCAG applies to digital
publishing.
... books are ready online and offline. The strategy of W3C to
apply to digital publishing. It is the best first example to
get into the WCAG. This is the first step.
<AWK> AWK made Issue 72 for this:
[20]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/72
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/72
<clapierre> 1+ for all of Avneesh's comments and this was our
Gap analysis from DPUB
[21]http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/
[21] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/
RESOLUTION: To route Issue-72 for approval
Tzviya: 2) Metadata: I know there was a lot of discussion on
how to treat metadata
<tzviya> [22]https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature
[22] https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature
<tzviya> [23]http://pending.schema.org/
[23] http://pending.schema.org/
Tzviya: Schema.org includes accessibility features already. The
pending schema.org features will be approved in a few weeks,
before the FPWD of 2.1.
... DPUB is proposing these are included in WCAG 2.1 in some
way. We propose including them as a Best Practice, Technique or
AAA success criteria. We want consensus today on the best way
to include them.
<tzviya>
[24]https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
[24] https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
Katie: I want to do an update to the Metadata Appendix that was
written in 2006. I haven't been able to meet with the people
yet, but hopefully we will have something we can go forward
with.
Josh: Tzviya, do you have a preference?
Katie: A Technique has to support a success criteria, and I
don't think you have success criteria to attach it too.
Josh: I was going to say that I don't think Techniques will
work. Tzviya, how do you feel about this being a Best Practice?
Tzviya: we were ok with Best Practice, but I understood from
last week that we dont' have a category of Best Practice.
<DavidMacDonald>
[25]https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
[25] https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
Katie: Chaas McCathie Neville said he would like to see it as a
level AA success criteria
<DavidMacDonald>
[26]https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
[26] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
David: I was looking at accessibility features that have
already been approved.
... theere is a certain amount of overlap, there are
checklist-type things.
... if there is a metadata tag for WCAG-conforming and the
level. That would fit in with what we already have
... the technologies relied on would also helpful. I don't
think we can require it.
Josh: I don't think it could be a best practice.
Katie: It would be multiple
<Rachael> +1 aaa success criteria
Katie: let's agree on AAA success criteria
AWK: Which issue in the repository -- which metadata would
apply to existing success criteria. If we can establish, "no
that's not the case" then we can talk about AAA success
criteria.
<DavidMacDonald> [27]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/17
[27] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/17
Katie: resource discovery would be alternative. This would deal
with 1.2, 2.2
<laura> Request to consider inclusion of accessibility metadata
#16 [28]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/16
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/16
<Ryladog> Metadata for Resources Discovery, could have
Techiques are 1.1.1 Long Descriptions, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,
1.2.4, 1.2.5
Avneesh: These two are most useful. Others are access mode
(audio, visual, tactile)
Charles: The other is accessibility hazards
<DavidMacDonald>
[29]https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
[29] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
<tzviya> existing schema.org accessibitlity features:
[30]https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature
[30] https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature
<tzviya> pending features [31]http://pending.schema.org/
(search on accessibility)
[31] http://pending.schema.org/
Katie: Resource discovery for tactical map. That's additional.
What are you talking about for tactile?
<clapierre> For Hazards this is the link
[32]https://schema.org/accessibilityHazard
[32] https://schema.org/accessibilityHazard
Avneesh: We see tactile in several forms. There is a
requirement for alternative content. We want to help with
discovery. A publication could be availalbe totally in braille,
for example.
Tzviya: The accessibiltiy feature can have a value of MathML,
so someone can discover that the resource includes math, or
braille, for example
Steve: THis is the kind of success criteria that would allow
people to search on specific types of content, like on YouTube.
This is a success criteria that describes pre-termined
information to the user.
... it would need some work in the definition, e.g. a document
described as MathML wouldn't be entirely MathML, so the
defintiion would need some work.
<Joshue108> ack
Wilco: It sort of conforms to WCAG, but not exactly. I think
this introduces confusion. For example, if we say it is
keyboard accessible, does that mean it passes "2.1.1, 2.1.2 or
2.1.3" Without more work on what maps where, we would be
introducing confusion. We need it mapped to WCAG.
<steverep> Completely agree, but that's a schema.org issue and
why it should be advisory at first
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say do we have a draft technique
for this?
George: I do believe it is very valuable in discovery. The
human readable description can clarify what is there. In
tactile, having a link to the 3D model or swelling paper and
having that information in the metadata is very valuable.
Josh: Have we got a Technique for this? Could you put together
a sample Success Criteria
<gowerm> The value I've heard mentioned seems to be largely
linked to available content at a macro level: CC, audio
description... That makes sense to possibly include as a AAA
for those SC that deal specifically with content 1.2.1-1.2.5.
But most WCAG SC are not so macro-content related.
<jon_avila> It can't be a sufficient technique unless it allows
you to pass a success criteria
Tzviya: I can write something, I just need to know what to
write.
Katie: We can do it in the next week.
Josh: It makes more sense to me as a success criteria. Let's
see some proposals.
Katie: can we go beyond the Dec 1 date?
Josh: I think so. It is important.
<DavidMacDonald> SC XXXX Metatdata: Metadata is provided which
describes the accessibility characteristics of the content
<jon_avila> Thank you Josh, I have been waiting for the last 3
weeks to talk about low vision success criteria
<Ryladog> Thanks David!
Tzviya: For those concerned about wording on Schema.org
wording. The DPUB group controls that wiki. If you have
concerns about wording, send them to me or Matt Garrish and we
will work something out.
RESOLUTION: Katie to work on text for proposed success criteria
metadata with others.
Tzviya: We want to update Appendix C
<Ryladog>
[33]https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
[33] https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2
<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-1
Katie: The information for Schema.org wasn't available then,
and it needs to be updated.
<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2v1
<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-A
<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-AA
<DavidMacDonald> accessibilityFeature: levelWCAG2-AAA
New SCs
[34]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
[34] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
<Joshue108>
[35]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
[35] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
New SC proposal - Issue 10: Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum)
<Joshue108> [36]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10
[36] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10
<gowerm> Yep
Josh: In terms of votes, 5 have accepted it. 9 accepted with
changes. 1 Do not accept.
<jamesn> Request forbidden by administrative rules.
Wilco: I posted several issues in Github which are already
posted. It seems like there are loopholes that need to be
addressed before we progress.
Josh: In the broaders sense, can we work things out or are
there things that are show-stoppers that are completely wrong.
Wilco: I think all these things can be worked out.
Katie: These are new and need to have details that need to be
worked out.
<laura> Thank you, Wilco.
Josh: So if you think it is totally off-base we need to know.
We will discuss improvements.
Wilco: I didn't approve with changes because it needs so much
work.
<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to talk about the disabled items
Josh: I see that no one has commented on the GH issues.
<jon_avila> We need to find other ways to communicate disabled
items
JamesN: The major thing that needs to be worked out is
"disabled items". It makes them look like non-disabled items.
This adds a great deal of confusion. I think it is a
non-starter unless it has a low contrast which is also a
non-starter.
<gowerm> +1 lower contrast threshhold for disabled item
Glenda: Thank you to Wilco for making all these comments
<Wilco> +1 on disabled, that was one of my points as well
<jon_avila> Disabled items are there to give you clues about
what is available and what might be options. People with low
vision should have access to that information
Glenda: Wilco and I will work together on a specific proposal.
Katie: We need to have discussion on making a decision to
change the paradigm.
<Joshue108> +1 to developing concensus on disabled items and
suitable contrast
Katie: everyone should put their informaiton in Github issue
Josh: Do you mean not to put comments in WBS?
Katie: No, I just mean to put comments in GH.
JonA: We need to think how disabled items can be conveyed more
effectively. It is valuable information that people iwth low
vision need. There is text, there is other content to help you
get it un-dsiabled. We need to think beyond what has always
been done.
Josh: We welcome paradigm-busting and new ideas.
<kirkwood__> +1 to jon avila
<Glenda> +1 to jon
<laura> +1 to jon
MikeG: I want to echo what Jon has said. There are a lot of
content out there which would be non-conforming if we changed
this.
... I want to suggest a 3rd level of ratio that covers disabled
item that is lower than 3.1
<Ryladog> +
MikeG: you can't always see what is in disabled field, but it
is at least a trigger that more needs to be discovered.
<DavidMacDonald> What about an icon to indicate disabled?
<Ryladog> Yes David
Glenda: Wayne Dick said that we need to see the disabled
control. It is an old paradigm. I think about unavailable
unavailable airline seat are marked with an X
<DavidMacDonald> That's lighthouse
<AWK> Lighthouse
<AWK> 4.5 was a negotiated value
Glenda: who are the people who established the original people
who worked on the ratios for the original 2.0
<DavidMacDonald> [37]http://www.lcfvl.org/
[37] http://www.lcfvl.org/
Katie: Gregg Vanderheiden
Shawn: We need some other way, just because it was always done
this way doesn't mean it should continue.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if SC 1.4.3 AA 4.5
ratio "Incidental: Text or images of text that are part of an
inactive user interface component ... have no contrast
Katie: It would be backward compatible
<gowerm> Fair enough, Katie.
Bruce: My question is answered by Katie, I wondered if changing
the minimum contrast ratio would break backward compatibility.
David: I like JonA's idea of a new paradigm. Perhaps a new
icon.
Josh: Has anyone reached out to the COGA group to see if they
are working on it?
Glenda: I will reach out.
John: I am on the COGA TF.
<Glenda> +q
Mike: I am concerned with the meaning of "perimeter". WE need
to distinguish between the inner and outer edge. If you have a
white border on a black outline. If the focus indicator
example, you need to distinguish between the inner and outer
indicator.
... a lower contrast ratio than 3:1, we need more ability to
distinguish between the focus indicator, @@, and @@.
<DavidMacDonald> A bit of history... originally in WCAG we ddid
not have an exception for disabled items. SAP negotiated that
into WCAG in the last year
Josh: Who on LVTF on the call is going to take responsibility
for adapting the feedback from this call?
Glenda: I volunteer to be responsible.
<DavidMacDonald> Alex Li of SAP (now at Microsoft) negotiated
the exception for disabled items.
AWK: Once these proposals are submitted, they are the WCAG WG's
responsibility. We may need to ask questions of the task force,
but I expect that everyone on the call should be taking
responsibility to engage on these issues.
<DavidMacDonald> s/nogotiation/negotiation
Josh: Now the working group owns these success criteria, so
share your knowledge and expertise and wade in on the issues
and comments.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about issues within
issues in git hub
RESOLUTION: Glenda to work on an updated proposal on Disabled
Item Success Criteria proposal
Bruce: I am concerned about issues within issues in Github.
There used to be better tools.
Josh: It gets time to get used to, but I encourage you to start
using the tools and be a part of the discussion.
New SC proposal - Issue 9: Informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum)
<Joshue108> [38]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9
[38] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9
Laura: I started that proposal and Alastair picked up on it.
Josh: Mostly approvals and a few comments.
Wilco: Most of the same issues as the previous issue
Josh: Is there anything that is way off, that you can't work
with.
Wilco: it needs another pass at it.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about photographs and
paintings in LVTF discussions
Laura: I can collaborate with Alastair to revise the proposal
based on the comments in the WBS and this meeting
RESOLUTION: Laura and Alistair to work on an updated proposal
on Informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum)
Bruce: How does the LVTF address paintings and photographs? It
is not clear that they are exempted from 9 & 10.
Glenda: I thought it was covered by "Important Information" but
we need to have a specific exemption for that.
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [39]To route Issue-72 for approval
2. [40]Katie to work on text for proposed success criteria
metadata with others.
3. [41]Glenda to work on an updated proposal on Disabled Item
Success Criteria proposal
4. [42]Laura and Alistair to work on an updated proposal on
Informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum)
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 18:06:22 UTC