Meeting minutes
<AWK> Survey on Task Force updates: https://
Tewt
test
Publication timeline update - Techniques in by May 15!
May 15 is the date to get techniques for November publication
Six months apart is what we are going for
Survey on techniques and comments: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/15thApril2014/
AWK: Survey
AWK: Draft proposal for techniques for dynamic content
Joshue: This goes beyond SCR 21
AWK: goes through comments in survey with users
Joshue: People are using libraies these days... don't now how to address that in our techniques
AWK: JQUERY is used but we can't rely on it...
<AWK> Original comment that kicked this off: https://
Loretta: We shouldn't stand behind a library.. don't endorse anything
test
<Joshue> DMcD: It's a difficult question, I hear what Josh is saying about real world development.
<Joshue> DMcD: We do want to make sure what we put in works.
<Joshue> DMcD: If we did identify widgets that worked well in JQuery for example, what would be the harm? We link to other resources like Juicy Studio etc.
<Joshue> DMcD: We do need to acknowledge if people are doing things right.
Loretta: I have nightmare of GOV of Canada or otherw saying, you must you foo library
David: Yes it is a real concern
AWK: Original comment was form Wilco... we should address applicability of SCR 21, limit it to that now...
Josh: Yes let's limit to SCR 21
<Joshue> http://
Josh: Should we retire it
AWK: Wilco doen't think it aplies to 1.3.1 but it might apply to others such as meaningful sequence
AWK: it is so braod of a way of using technology, that is cannot be made consise?
Josh:
it could be a simpler techniue to cut down, and perhaps expand out to other applicability
David: GOV of Canada called me up and said document.write should not be discouraged
AWK: seems to discourage some practises rather than encouraging good practises
AWK: example hard to map to 1.3.1
AWK: if it was titled how to insert a heading into a oage maybe that work
Josh: yes agree, title of technique not accurate
<Loretta> Someone might check with Cynthia Shelly on the history of this technique.
Josh: turning down volume on the don't in the technique could make it a lot more useful
Josh: can't we map to a conformance requirement
<David> s/josh/john
<Joshue> DMacD: I don't think we have ever mapped to a conformance requirement
LORETTA: We could map to a conformance criteria
Loretta: with this mapping to 4.1.1 is that you run risk of things like duplicate ids
ACTION: Josh to ping Cynthia for some background on SCR21
<trackbot> Created ACTION-253 - Ping cynthia for some background on scr21 [on Joshue O Connor - due 2014-04-22].
Gregg: We try to talk about positives, but you can talk in a positive way about things to avoid... so you could say, "this is done in this way to avoid that.... but we usually try to say why
<AWK> Techniques that refer to conformance requirements only currently for CR#1: http://
Gregg: wrt to wuestion about mapping to conformance criteria... usually it is in conjunction with a SC, but the things that are required are using SC within the conformance criteria, i think we can refer to them but we try tl map to a SC because the Conformance criteria are on the SCs
JOSH: +1 on AWK ... rewrite description, new title, relating to example with Form validation would be better
<Loretta> THe Understanding doc for a conformance criterion with techniques: http://
AWK: wary to map to 4.1.1 but could write failure techniques on messing up dom
JOSH: scr21 doesn't say why it is wrong to do the things it discourages
<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask what is the problem with innerHTML?
ACTION: David to connect with GOV of Canada regarding their objections to the discouraged parts of SCR21
<trackbot> 'David' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dmacdona, dtodd2).
ACTION: dmacdonato connect with GOV of Canada regarding their objections to the discouraged parts of SCR21
<trackbot> Error finding 'dmacdonato'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://
ACTION: dmacdona : David to connect with GOV of Canada regarding their objections to the discouraged parts of SCR21
James: nothing wrong with document.write... it is just old and clunky
JAMES: it seems to be a tuotial on scripting... no our role
JAMES: some people might look to us
JAMES: i don't know where we can assign this
RESOLUTION: leave open David will get back to us re GOV of Canada
move h87 to a general technique
<Jon_avila> http://
John: put a tech support... 3rd paragraph explains why it was an issue prior to JAWS 8
the last few sentence about previous issue... requiring refresh
<Joshue> DMacD: General Techs tend to get ignored.
<Joshue> DMacD: They don't have the same profile. What do we do?
AWK: Yes we should work with EO on that
RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed LC 2887
Comment LC-2892: Draft response
AWK: second option is generally accepted.... We could remove the technique
<Joshue> DMacD: But isn't it important to notify people of changes to the DOM?
<Joshue> <gives example>
<AWK> http://
<Joshue> AWK: This is about changing the users context.
<Joshue> DMacD: But shouldn't it be required? Shouldn't we have a failure where they don't provide instructions for DOM changes?
<Joshue> AWK: The only thing thats different here is the notion of where the user location is.
<Joshue> AWK: Where can you put this, where it's not at a location that may be bypassed?
<Joshue> DMacD: What about ARIA?
<Joshue> AWK: Sure, but that's a different technique.
<Joshue> DMacD: I'd like to think this over.
<Joshue> AWK: This isn't about DOM changes, but changes in context.
JOHN: would like to have a failure for this DOM... rather have it more general than not at all
AWK: if success criteria says it do we need a failure
AWK: my gut is we could leave it ope, or remove it for now, and come back faiure techniques
JOSH: should remove it
Jon: agree part of the title is not great... but if we remove failure we loose the test steps
JON: if we remove this are there any failures with test steps
JOSH: i don't find test steps useful
JON: my preference would be to improve test steps
<Joshue> DMacD: Sounds like we need a larger strategy.
<Joshue> DMacD: We need to review the way people are doing things now.
JON: might be able with describedby to modify... maybe reinstate...
JON: would it be the same name or number
AWK: depends
JON: must weigh danger of leaving it with the what we lose if removed
AWK: Concerned it has a lot of problems
ACTION: David and JON to look at rewriting technique in communication with AWK
<trackbot> 'David' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dmacdona, dtodd2).
JAMES: may need mandatory training... should be allowed to replace it
AWK: leqve open until May 15, pending action by David and JON, but if we don't we will yank...
RESOLUTION: dmacdona and JON to work on rewriting technique.... if done before May 15 it will be considered... if not drop it.
ACTION: dmacdona and jon to look at rewriting technique f76 in communication with AWK
<trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - And jon to look at rewriting technique f76 in communication with awk [on David MacDonald - due 2014-04-22].
The following is a proposed update to technique H30. The proposal is to add an example 7 to the technique: Example 7REOLUTION:
<AWK> JA: this aligns with the HTML spec
<Kathy> +1
<AWK> KW: Works in JAWS
<AWK> DMD: reading ok with NVDA
<Jon_avila> I have to drop off the call.
RESOLUTION: Accepted as ammended H30 new example pending editorial changes
G141 edit
RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed
RESOLUTION: accepted as proposed G141 change "would to could" in second paragraph of
the description
will do minutes
<AWK> Anyone with Techniques questions can attend the techniques meeting Thursday at 4pm Eastern.
<AWK> IRC channel #wcag-techs