Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

15 April 2014

Attendees

Present
+1.212.924.aacc, +1.703.637.aabb, +1.910.278.aaaa, AWK, David_MacDonald, Gregg_Vanderheiden, James_Nurthen, John_Kirkwood, Jon_avila, Joshue_O_Connor, kathleen, Kathy_Wahlbin, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Marc_Johlic, Michael_Cooper
Regrets
Bruce, Bruce_Bailey, Sailesh, Sailesh_Panchang
Chair
AWK
Scribe
David

Meeting minutes

<AWK> Survey on Task Force updates: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/April14TFUpdates/

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://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/2891

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://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/SCR21

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://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20140408/#conformance-reqs

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://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head

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://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.

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://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_support/BulletinView.asp?QC=1165

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://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F76.html

<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

Summary of action items

  1. Josh to ping Cynthia for some background on SCR21
  2. David to connect with GOV of Canada regarding their objections to the discouraged parts of SCR21
  3. dmacdonato connect with GOV of Canada regarding their objections to the discouraged parts of SCR21
  4. dmacdona : David to connect with GOV of Canada regarding their objections to the discouraged parts of SCR21
  5. David and JON to look at rewriting technique in communication with AWK
  6. dmacdona and jon to look at rewriting technique f76 in communication with AWK

Summary of resolutions

  1. leave open David will get back to us re GOV of Canada
  2. Accepted as proposed LC 2887
  3. dmacdona and JON to work on rewriting technique.... if done before May 15 it will be considered... if not drop it.
  4. Accepted as ammended H30 new example pending editorial changes
  5. Accepted as proposed
  6. accepted as proposed G141 change "would to could" in second paragraph of
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 126 (Tue Nov 10 12:12:40 2020 UTC).

Diagnostics

Failed: s/josh/john

Succeeded: s/userd/sers

Succeeded: s/sers/users

Maybe present: David, Gregg, James, John, Jon, Josh, Joshue, Loretta