W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Minutes of WCAG WG teleconference of 29 November 2016

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:

Text of Minutes:


       [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


           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

           Alastair_Campbell, JohnF, Kathy_Wahlbin




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]COGA feedback requested
          2. [5]DPUB business
          3. [6]New SCs
          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/

    JO: this is a heads-up from COGA for feedback on their success

    <KimD> +KimD


      [12] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_Feed1/

    JO: please have a look and give feedback

    <kirkwood__> I can access


      [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


      [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

    <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.


      [16] 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

    Josh: Adding it to the definition would be a more public

    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.


      [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

    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

    Josh: We have other definitions elsewhere.

    Steve: But one example focuses a broad defintiion down to a

    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
    ... 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

    <clapierre> 1+ for all of Avneesh's comments and this was our
    Gap analysis from DPUB

      [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.


      [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

    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.


      [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


      [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

    <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


      [29] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility

    <tzviya> existing schema.org accessibitlity features:

      [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

    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

    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


      [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


      [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

    <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

    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

    <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
    ... 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

    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
    ... 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

    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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC