15:40:00 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 15:40:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/18-wai-wcag-irc 15:40:02 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:40:02 Zakim has joined #wai-wcag 15:40:04 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 15:40:04 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_WCAG()11:00AM scheduled to start 40 minutes ago 15:40:05 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 15:40:05 Date: 18 March 2014 15:41:40 Zakim, agenda 15:41:40 I don't understand 'agenda', AWK 15:41:44 Zakim, agenda? 15:41:45 I see nothing on the agenda 15:43:24 Agenda+ Joint meeting with Eval Task Force 15:43:43 Agenda+ Task Forces checkin - Mobile, Cognitive, Techniques 15:43:55 Agenda+ Gap analysis - requirements not covered by WCAG 2.0 15:44:01 Agenda+ How to write techniques 15:44:07 Agenda+ Explore future guidelines work goals 15:44:16 Agenda+ Improving public input and source format 15:44:23 Agenda+ Criteria for techniques 15:44:35 Agenda+ Techniques work plan 15:44:57 WAI_WCAG()11:00AM has now started 15:45:04 +Marc_Johlic 15:45:19 Marc, 15:45:32 agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/03/ftf-meeting 15:45:48 /me Marc, we apparently have no phone access, trying to figure that out. 15:46:18 jnurthen has joined #wai-wcag 15:46:31 meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Face to Face meeting 15:46:50 chair: Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor 15:53:48 -Marc_Johlic 15:53:49 WAI_WCAG()11:00AM has ended 15:53:49 Attendees were Marc_Johlic 16:01:37 JF has joined #wai-wcag 16:01:47 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 16:03:20 marc, since we have no good phone service we think that it will be an exercise in frustration for you to try to hear all of us via a mobile phone 16:03:42 We can just assign a bunch of actions to you! 16:09:25 shadi has joined #wai-wcag 16:13:30 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/03/ftf-meeting#agenda 16:13:33 sribe:JF 16:13:38 scribe: JF 16:15:35 zakim, take up item 1 16:15:35 agendum 1. "Joint meeting with Eval Task Force" taken up [from AWK] 16:15:55 awk: enough seats in the room now, round-table intros 16:17:14 Areminder that scribing is a shared effort :) 16:17:48 a number in the room are part of the Eval Task Force 16:18:19 shadi: EVal TF met yesterday to review comments 16:18:26 deadline for comments was end of Feb 16:18:44 good comments surfaced, but nothing big in terms of "Issues" 16:18:51 hope next publication will be the first Note 16:18:52 David has joined #wai-wcag 16:19:03 hoping to release bu June timeframe 16:19:08 also doing test runs 16:19:19 have done that previously 16:19:24 s/bu June/by June 16:19:35 running internal testing side-by-side with the TF evals 16:19:49 now hope to do a more formal review, tracking via a website 16:20:02 imitating the Formal Candidate process 16:20:21 a few issues to discuss, including increased complexity and the scoring issues 16:20:30 TOPIC: Review teams: Do we recommend that website accessibility evaluations are more effective with a team of 2-3 evaluators, as opposed to 1 only? 16:20:31 the later being something of a bigger issue 16:20:32 Review teams: Do we recommend that website accessibility evaluations are more effective with a team of 2-3 evaluators, as opposed to 1 only? 16:21:02 Loretta has joined #WAI-WCAG 16:21:03 Shadi: there is a document (2005) from WAI taling about combined expertese 16:21:12 kw has joined #wai-wcag 16:21:18 notes that an evaluator requires mutliple expertese 16:21:18 EricVelleman has joined #wai-wcag 16:21:33 suggests that a single evaluator may not have the full set of skills 16:21:37 -> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/review/reviewteams.html Review Teams for Evaluating Web Site Accessibility 16:21:53 may have gone a bit overboard in the recommendation - feedback suggesting it is too heavy 16:22:09 so want to see what is the way forward. what is the common practice today? 16:22:47 clear that one person *can* do a review end to end, but note that a team is better 16:23:08 JF: There are many organisation where it is only one person. 16:23:51 Lisa_Seeman has joined #WAI-WCAG 16:23:56 awk: reminds that there is the irc channel and queuing 16:23:58 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#teams 16:24:08 JO: do we have any signs that more is better? 16:24:10 http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/reviewteams 16:24:56 q+ 16:25:25 q+ 16:25:27 KW: document calls for "teams" - may be a team of 1, or a team of multiple people with individual skills 16:25:53 the document suggests that 1 isn't enough (not directly), and so want to be sure taht nuance is clarrified 16:26:19 JO: important distinction that an individual can have multiple skills 16:26:30 Q? 16:26:35 q+ 16:26:38 ack lisa 16:26:59 s/taht/that 16:27:06 LS: explanation makes sense, but it needs to be clear in the document. For example if it says team, we need to clarrify 16:27:18 present: Andrew_Kirpatrick, James_Nurthen, Lisa_Seeman, Shadi_Abou-Zahra, David_MacDonald, Kathy_Wahlbin, Eric_Velleman, Klaus_Miesenberger, Paul_Adam, Tim_Boland, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Joshue_O_Connor, John_Foliot, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden 16:27:32 ack dav 16:27:32 KW: talking about removing the term team altogether, and instead note that it could be more than one - combined expertese 16:27:54 Q+ gv 16:28:08 +q 16:28:12 DM: agree with Kathy. as a 1-person consultant, experience shows that 1 can evaluate - many sites only require one 16:28:25 KW: the term is combined expertese 16:28:35 +1 to core competencies 16:28:38 DM: perhaps include core-competancies 16:28:39 ack awk 16:28:56 AWK: even with one person who is highly qualified - humans make mistakes 16:29:00 jamesn0000 has joined #wai-wcag 16:29:30 ack gv 16:29:55 greb V.: the eval team requires expertise in all areas. can be one or many 16:30:30 the concern is that people go in with a certain perspective (eg. blindness expertise) and thus skews the report form that perspective 16:30:33 s/greb/Gregg 16:30:40 DM: the term team is problematic 16:30:49 ack me 16:31:01 JO: agree, one DM may have more expertise than a team of 5 with less experience 16:31:33 Zakim, queue? 16:31:33 I see no one on the speaker queue 16:31:38 shadi: seems to have concensus. not time to do the word-smithing now 16:32:08 but it seems clear that requestors need to have an understanding of the core competnancies, and aks for that, not numbers 16:32:09 TOPIC: Techniques: Can we be more encouraging about the use of techniques (for evaluation!), yet be clear that the SCs are the checking targets? 16:32:21 Zakim, agenda? 16:32:21 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 16:32:22 1. Joint meeting with Eval Task Force [from AWK] 16:32:22 2. Task Forces checkin - Mobile, Cognitive, Techniques [from AWK] 16:32:22 3. Gap analysis - requirements not covered by WCAG 2.0 [from AWK] 16:32:22 4. How to write techniques [from AWK] 16:32:22 5. Explore future guidelines work goals [from AWK] 16:32:23 6. Improving public input and source format [from AWK] 16:32:23 7. Criteria for techniques [from AWK] 16:32:23 8. Techniques work plan [from AWK] 16:33:09 shadi: the issue is the tension between referencing techniques versus the fact that the techniques have been promoted to normative in certain locales 16:33:49 q+ 16:33:56 +q 16:33:59 ack awk 16:34:00 need to keep a polite distance. Be aware of the techniques, (don't want to undermine the work of WCAG), but leary to appear to promote the Techniques as normative 16:34:06 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step1d 16:34:17 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4a 16:34:21 q+ 16:34:28 awk: how much of that tension results around confusion between normative and guidance implied in the techniques? 16:34:54 one thing we've noted is to provide additional clarrity around the techniques - what does it mean when you fail a technique? 16:35:28 shadi: yes, things have gotten better. however that is also the question. the pressures come from external locales 16:35:56 the techniques are being referenced as "normative" in for example M376 (european of Sec. 508) 16:36:11 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 16:36:17 ack me 16:36:23 shadi: we do want the work recognized and used, but remain concerned that too much weight is being given to the Techniques 16:36:32 JO: part of the issue is that we get lost in our own jargon 16:36:40 q+ 16:36:54 perception is that outside of us, everyone sees what we do as bing normative 16:36:56 Q+ 16:37:01 ack lor 16:37:01 not sure how to undo that perception 16:37:14 Clarification: M376 is the mandate that resulted in EN 301549 16:37:25 EN 301549 is the standard 16:37:30 LGR: not sure if there is real confusion, but rather it is easier to evaluate against specific techniques when expertise is lacking 16:38:15 not sure is we can fix this at our end via wordsmithing 16:38:59 the real danger is that if something works, but is not in the "Official Techniques" that it will be rejected 16:39:30 ack lisa 16:39:31 Shadi: there have been some useful resources like the FAW that we need to elevate, to reinforce that the Techniques ar enot Normative 16:39:53 LS: confession - took a long time to understand what normative really means 16:39:55 q+ katie 16:40:00 16:40:10 so we need to perhaps use clearer language 16:40:41 LS: another way may be to use a different template: the techniques have an appearance of "official" 16:40:50 perhaps use a different font 16:40:58 JO comic sans (laughter) 16:41:22 JF: We don't use colour alone! 16:41:24 LS; but use a different color (purple maybe) 16:41:39 zakim, queue? 16:41:39 I see GreggVan, katie on the speaker queue 16:41:39 ack gr 16:42:03 gregvan: use color reduntantly as it is very useful for cognitive 16:42:06 (agreement) 16:42:26 but Loretta makes a good point - using the "standard" shifts the blame/responsability 16:42:42 if authors use what is specified in WCAG then they can't be blamed 16:42:52 ack me 16:42:55 believe the term we need to use is "Requirement" 16:42:56 +q 16:43:04 the other term would be "approved option" 16:43:14 s/FAW/FAQ 16:44:30 GregVan: so focus on the requirement. 16:44:57 q+ 16:45:04 ack katie 16:45:25 khs: a huge part of the training we are doing is the idea around the design of WCAG, by being able to be a standard that can last through an umber of tech changes 16:45:32 ack me 16:45:40 thus the only requirement is to meet a, AA, or AAA 16:45:51 s/an umber of/a number of 16:45:59 but that the techniques can grow with technology - that the Standard can grow - by design 16:46:07 ack me 16:46:15 Zakim, queue? 16:46:15 I see no one on the speaker queue 16:46:15 JO: want to +1 Katie 16:46:49 q+ katie 16:46:55 we need to refocus on the Success Criteria 16:47:01 and less so on the techniques 16:47:03 q+ 16:47:09 ack katie 16:47:15 ack kat 16:47:17 ack lore 16:47:48 q+ 16:47:59 KHS: one more thing. even folks in this biz ... 16:48:27 a major eval tool company stated that the Standard is seen as a guideline 16:49:25 pauljadam has joined #wai-wcag 16:49:37 rrsagent, make logs world 16:49:52 JO: need to move along 16:50:17 JO: this is a good conversation, but we need to watch this space 16:51:14 TOPIC: Support for evaluators: Throughout the work we've noted that WCAG 2 does not provide adequate support for evaluators and that we will not be able to cover these needs in WCAG-EM -- reporting back to WCAG... 16:51:19 shadi: next issue is on the similar line 16:51:57 just a report back - throughout the work of EM, we feel there is a strong lack of support for evaluators - taht the techniques are written from the author perspective only. 16:52:00 Q+ 16:52:55 ack me 16:53:01 there are different checks in the Techniques to address this 16:53:25 shadi: the feedback is that a point-by-point evaluation method would be useful 16:53:47 JO: acknowledged 16:54:05 shadi: we went point by point to look at that 16:54:07 ack JF 16:54:27 JO: good feedback and interesting to hear the update 16:54:38 surprised to hear the eu standard point to the Techniques 16:56:26 JO: just to close the loop - what can the group do to help EM going forward? 16:56:32 AWK: Just to clarify that EN 301549 doesn't point to WCAG techniques as required, but it does reference the Evaluation Methodology in an informative way. 16:59:46 shadi: in terms to evaluation support - for example a quick reference 16:59:58 ACTION: Working group to clarify the importance of the SC over techniques, the use of failures, how to use the quick ref doc for evaluators. 16:59:59 Error finding 'Working'. You can review and register nicknames at . 17:00:07 to have these created with the evaluator in mind, and not just the authors 17:00:51 shadi: thge other peice is more guidance on a11y support 17:01:03 JO: that is a much larger discussion, on the agenda for later today 17:01:15 more practical guidance 17:01:15 ACTION: joshue to get working group to clarify the importance of the SC over techniques, the use of failures, how to use the quick ref doc for evaluators. 17:01:16 Created ACTION-242 - Get working group to clarify the importance of the sc over techniques, the use of failures, how to use the quick ref doc for evaluators. [on Joshue O Connor - due 2014-03-25]. 17:01:21 ACTION: WCAG WG to clarify a11y support 17:01:22 Error finding 'WCAG'. You can review and register nicknames at . 17:01:37 q+ katie 17:01:57 action: joshue to get WCAG WG to clarify a11y support 17:01:57 Created ACTION-243 - Get wcag wg to clarify a11y support [on Joshue O Connor - due 2014-03-25]. 17:02:05 Q? 17:02:09 ack katie 17:03:23 MJM: need both a quick list and a comprehensive document as well for evaluators 17:03:43 when you have testing going on there is a different between unit tests and holsitic tests 17:04:21 shadi: it is theoritically possible that a "page" could meet WCAG for one AT, and another section failing for another AT 17:04:44 Lisa_seeman has joined #wai-wcag 17:04:47 shadi: this is a real world problem, and need to know what tools can solve this 17:04:50 Zakim, queue? 17:04:50 I see no one on the speaker queue 17:05:23 JF: So you could have a page that works apart from embedded video. 17:05:27 GV: Then it fails 17:06:16 shadi, no the top page would work with one set of AT, and the bottom part of the page with another AT, then it passes 17:06:35 did not note that the Guideline does not state that the whole page is required to be accessible 17:06:54 ACTION: Josh to clarify how conformance requirements relate with SC and evalution methods. 17:06:54 Created ACTION-244 - Clarify how conformance requirements relate with sc and evalution methods. [on Joshue O Connor - due 2014-03-25]. 17:07:29 shadi: survey suggests thtis is a problem 17:07:43 awk: would be interested in seeing the survey results, and we can address this again 17:08:09 LGR: interested to see if there is a gap/loophole in our documentation that is introducing this confusion 17:09:19 ACTION: Shadi to look up what the past survey was that indicated that pages could meet accessibility support requirements with different AT for different parts of a page 17:09:19 Created ACTION-245 - Look up what the past survey was that indicated that pages could meet accessibility support requirements with different at for different parts of a page [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2014-03-25]. 17:09:20 shadi: next issue is scoring 17:09:23 TOPIC: Scoring: There are many reasons for and against, and different (and strong) opinions within WCAG WG -- how should we move forward on this? 17:09:44 scoring in whatever way (different approaches exist) - is frequenetly asked for and done in practice 17:09:54 but there are many concerns here, and it is controversial 17:10:05 accessibiliyt is not quantitive, but qualitive 17:10:20 s/accessibiliyt/accessibility 17:10:25 have looked at quality criteia for the metrix 17:10:29 and nothing realy exist 17:10:36 q+ 17:10:53 question: do we stop, as it is too difficult/controversial, or do we attempt to pursue further? 17:10:55 +q Lorettta 17:11:04 ack Lor 17:11:07 with teh understanding that it would not be perfect 17:11:40 s/teh/the 17:11:41 shadi: one motiviaiton is to see ("track" progress) 17:11:51 q+ 17:12:03 LGH: so the score would translate to what? more people can use my website? 17:12:05 q+ 17:12:18 shadi: it is more about tracking progress and "competitive advantage" 17:12:25 ack gre 17:12:27 q+ 17:12:31 JO: it ties into the buisness case nicely as well 17:12:33 q+ 17:12:44 GregVan: one reason to not use scoring is that it violates WCAG 17:12:57 having a measure of partial conformance is not allowed 17:13:21 it there is a need to do tracking you can always say that you meet X number of Success Criteria 17:13:57 problem can become that if you start to accept "85%" successful, you eventually lop off 15% 17:14:37 KW: what about using a more complicated weighting system 17:14:47 GregVan: we have A, AA, AAA 17:14:55 q+ 17:14:55 q+ katie 17:15:00 if you are skipping A's and doing AA's then that is a problem 17:15:05 ack lisa 17:15:16 LS: agree with GReg, but... 17:15:22 it depends on whether we can do it well 17:15:45 if we can do it well, will usability increase with this, then... 17:16:17 so if we can make sure that the scoring is well done 17:16:48 for example, a submit button that doesn't take focus is pretty serious, yet an image in the footer without alt text is less urgent 17:17:10 shadi: the question is then, do we pursue or not? 17:17:16 Q+ 17:17:47 ack awk 17:18:02 awk: not optimistic that we can navigate a scoring mechanism 17:18:08 this has been tried many times over the years 17:18:23 that said, it is reasonable to have a dashboard on accessibility 17:18:34 q+ 17:18:36 related against bugs. 17:18:41 q+ 17:18:55 for example if you have zero bugs against AA in a bug tracker, then that is a score 17:18:58 q- 17:19:11 wry however that it becomes a rat-hole quickly 17:19:29 JO: abstraction that WCAG is a binary pass/fail 17:19:40 some will say we will do all of A, and some of AA 17:19:42 ack lor 17:20:27 LGR: biggest issues is that when you start scoring changes the dynamic 17:20:42 teams start working towards percentages, and not the total issue(s) 17:20:52 ack jamesn 17:20:55 ack katie 17:21:03 +q to say we need also to support good design aesthetics. 17:21:13 KHS: in the real world of remediation and development, people need a prioitization plan 17:21:30 even though there is A, AA, AAA where to start? 17:21:44 recommend tackling the A's first, then the AA's etc. 17:21:48 as a broad plan 17:22:15 ack Katie 17:22:19 ack JF 17:22:55 JF: Scoring is required, bugs are prioritiesed. 17:23:11 JF: Bugs are dealt with like this, from most important to least. 17:23:17 q+ 17:23:24 JF: We need some recomendation on prioritisation 17:23:39 q- 17:23:44 JF: We need a way to distinguish fatal from non critical errors 17:24:07 Zakim, queue? 17:24:07 I see Lisa_seeman, kw, Joshue on the speaker queue 17:24:50 GRegVan: there is a difference between highlighting a plan of attact versus scoring 17:24:59 ack lisa 17:25:06 shadi: this isn't the issue, rather to measure progress over time 17:25:08 zakim, close queue 17:25:08 ok, MichaelC, the speaker queue is closed 17:25:10 Q? 17:25:36 LS: there is a desire to say"we are the best" 17:26:06 if you can't do it well (this is an improvement on usability) then fine 17:26:17 ack kw 17:26:18 but don't let dashboards say "this is black based on WCAG 17:26:41 s/this is black based/this is blessed based 17:26:57 KW: another option is that there is A, AA, AAA - people can track the number of issues against each 17:27:10 . 17:27:22 q? 17:27:28 JO: harin that there is the need 17:27:40 shadi: trying to rename this or refocus 17:27:42 ack joshue 17:27:42 Joshue, you wanted to say we need also to support good design aesthetics. 17:28:12 JO: one of the things is to try and tie this up - people who wear different hats and bring in the views there 17:28:23 noting that there are still cracks 17:28:25 ack me 17:28:58 JO: wrapping up, we need to have something that is static - that it also recognizes good, beautiful design. lat thing we want is "ugly accessbile" 17:29:04 s/lat/last 17:29:41 s/lat/last 17:29:45 awk: appears that we don't have time for a demo of the accessiblity support db 17:30:34 awk: we are running about 30 minute behind schedule 17:32:15 Taking our break early due to excess verbosity and JF's tired scribing fingers 17:47:49 zakim, pick a victim 17:47:49 sorry, jamesn0000, I don't know what conference this is 17:47:58 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 17:48:36 Scribe: Loretta 17:49:07 Judy Brewer: thanks Adobe and ETS for hosting this meeting 17:49:47 Topic: Cognitive Task Force Report (Lisa Seeman) 17:50:20 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2014Mar/att-0009/cogaupdate032014.pptx Lisa´s slides 17:51:49 Cogntive and Learning Disability Task Force - joint task force of WCAG and PF 17:52:14 s/Cognt/Cognit 17:52:51 Important to remember that cognitive disabilities are localized. Affects only some skills, not all cognitive skills. 17:53:24 Largest group of people with disabilities have cognitive disabilities. 17:53:40 Growing - # of people with dementia is growing. 17:53:50 Usability of web sites goes down for people from age 25. 17:54:09 Many systems have become a lot more complex. e.g. Web of Things. 17:54:21 TV, phone system are much more complicated to use. 17:54:33 This bars people from getting basic information. 17:54:50 TF plan: review existing techniques to see how they could be improved. 17:55:11 Users and abilities -> gap analysis -> techniques. 17:55:28 working on gap analysis now. 17:56:05 Looking at 2 sets of things: user groups and technologies. 17:56:16 When you put these together, hope to reach new conclusions. 17:56:34 Phase 1, because there are so many types of cognitibve disabilities. 17:57:32 Dyslexia Dyscalculia ADD/ADHD Brain injury, aphasia Non-vocal Dementia Down Syndrome Autism 17:57:51 Cognitive disabilities are very diverse, sometimes diamentrically opposed. 17:58:04 s/mentr/metri/ 17:58:41 THere are groups being missed out, but trying to look at groups with the greatest variability possible. 17:58:48 What might proposals look like? 17:59:24 1. Simple techniques that are good for everyone. For instance, Windows has F1 for context help. This is a really useful tool. 17:59:38 There may be techniques that are broad, relatively simple to do. 17:59:45 There are also techniques for different user groups. 18:00:29 + q to ask can we do some work to identify techniques that have common treads with all user groups but have a cog a11y focus. 18:00:32 The Save button and the Save icon. If people with dementia are literate, the Save button is important. For someone who is non-vocal, a Save icon may be needed. 18:00:35 +q to ask can we do some work to identify techniques that have common treads with all user groups but have a cog a11y focus. 18:00:49 zakim, reopen queue 18:00:49 ok, MichaelC, the speaker queue is open 18:00:52 +q to ask can we do some work to identify techniques that have common treads with all user groups but have a cog a11y focus. 18:01:01 Something like IMS lets different user groups find different resouces. 18:01:09 Need the metadata to find the best resources for them. 18:01:24 Current metadata only supports physical disabilties, not cognitive. 18:01:49 Customizing environments for people. 18:02:05 Techniques structure: finding the right techniques is one problem in WCAG. 18:03:16 People with different cognitive disabilities have different needs so some techniques are different for different groups. This led to techniques for cognitive disabilities either to be advisory techniques or to be at level AAA. 18:03:47 e.g. 2.2.5 is valuable for everyone with cognitive disabilities. 18:04:07 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#time-limits-server-timeout 18:04:11 if you lose all your data because your session times out, it is a bad thing for all people with cognitive disabilities. 18:05:13 WCAG also wants author freedom, and this also impedes techniques for cognitive. e.g. under guideline 2.4. is making links visually distinct. But because it changes the look of a page, it is advisory. 18:05:31 Suggestion: do we want a tag for cognitive within WCAG? 18:06:07 q+ to suggest we consider techniques approaches holistically across all the TFs - time later today allocated to start that 18:06:12 We've seen people put WCAG techniques into legislation, but advisory techniques won't be included. 18:06:37 Many people want to make their web site accessible for cognitive disabilities, but don't know how. 18:08:10 Time limits are universal, but it is AAA. We don't want to change WCAG, but how can we bring more visiility to techinques that help cognitive? 18:08:49 There are so many advisory techniques. If you want something like level A for cognitive, how will people create that checklist, and understand which advisory techniques are important for cognitive. 18:09:03 Maybe create a Note that is just a checklist. 18:09:30 Also the more important vs the less important. 18:09:50 Maybe also create some leveling for techniques for cognitive. 18:10:11 zakim, queue 18:10:11 I don't understand 'queue', AWK 18:10:14 zakim, queue? 18:10:14 I see Joshue, MichaelC on the speaker queue 18:10:45 We may want to make some changes to tchniques so they address both physical and cognitive needs, e.g., alt text should be simple text. 18:11:18 ack me 18:11:18 Joshue, you wanted to ask can we do some work to identify techniques that have common treads with all user groups but have a cog a11y focus. 18:11:20 e..g. given a picture of a sign that says "normative text" should the alt be literal or a simpler version of the language.? 18:11:34 Josh: excellent work; very ambitious work. 18:11:39 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 18:11:58 Josh: would be great to identify the WCAG techniques that are particularly relevant. 18:12:07 q+ 18:12:41 q+ 18:12:47 ack me 18:12:47 MichaelC, you wanted to suggest we consider techniques approaches holistically across all the TFs - time later today allocated to start that 18:12:48 ack mich 18:13:06 notes that there is HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives around ALT text - and all of its nuances: http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ 18:13:08 Michael: I heard you talking a lot aobut the techniques, including how they are not meeting the needs of cogntive. 18:13:08 Lisa_Seeman has joined #wai-wcag 18:13:13 q+ 18:13:29 Michael: let's consider this holistically, since I think the other Task Forces are doing similar things. 18:13:40 q- 18:13:54 Michael: can we generalize our solution, i.e., rather than a special tag for cognitive, do we need a general tagging scheme. 18:14:11 Tim: are you proposing defining a new level of conformance. 18:14:26 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page 18:14:28 Lisa: right now, we are doing gap analysis. 18:14:46 Q+ 18:14:49 q+ to say that the TF has two main benefits - how to help address cognitive now, and identifying issues for future consideration 18:14:49 Lisa: put everything on the wiki. can sort through later. 18:14:58 Zakim, close queue 18:14:58 ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed 18:15:20 Lisa: we haven't come out with a road map. We are just starting explorations. 18:15:23 ack ryla 18:15:52 Katie: TF is trying to draw on existing expertise. 18:16:13 Katie: Save button vs icon is a good example, that there are not universal solutions for cognitive. 18:16:27 zakim, queue? 18:16:27 I see Lisa_Seeman, JF, AWK on the speaker queue 18:16:28 Katie: it is not intuitive. Need the people who have done the research involved. 18:16:39 ack lisa 18:17:29 ack jf 18:17:36 Cognitive breakfast tomorrow morning at 7:30. in Lael's 18:18:02 To write in the wiki, you must be a member of the task force. 18:18:14 JF: how can non-TF members contribute or make comments? 18:18:38 Lisa: there is a discussion list for the TF, and anyone can join that. 18:18:49 Michael: any WCAG member can join the TF. 18:19:10 ack awk 18:19:10 AWK, you wanted to say that the TF has two main benefits - how to help address cognitive now, and identifying issues for future consideration 18:20:30 AWK: 2 benefits from this and other TFs: determine how to improve what we offer within the current framework/guidelines, and what issues should be considered for any future work on the guidelines. 18:21:18 Josh: could the TF produce a matrix of techniques and success criteria that are specifically useful for the user groups you are studying? 18:21:56 TOPIC: Mobile TF update 18:21:57 zakim, reopen queue 18:21:57 ok, MichaelC, the speaker queue is open 18:21:58 Topic: Mobile Task Force (Kathy Wahlbin) 18:22:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-discussion/ 18:22:15 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page 18:22:27 pauljadam has joined #wai-wcag 18:22:38 TF started by taking a good look at what resources are currently out there (WCAG and non-WCAG) 18:22:56 BBC, IBM, work that has been done on mobile, to see where we are today. 18:22:59 Discussion list for general issues of cognitive and learning disabilities accessibility. 18:23:02 That list is still growing. 18:23:12 Looking at publishing all or parts of that. 18:23:37 Also more gap analysis. 18:24:00 Looking at BBC guidelines and doing gap analysis against both WCAG and UAAG. 18:24:12 This is in th beginning stages. 18:24:35 Also going through all of the WCAG techniques and Understanding documents and identifying areas where they need to be updated for mobile. 18:24:54 e.g. adding keyboard examples, looking at places where working might need to be updated. 18:25:06 What does keyboard access mean for mobile? 18:25:22 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Keyboard_Access/Modality_Independent_Control/IndieUI 18:25:55 Gregg: Most or all phones allow bluetooth keyboards. 18:26:07 Kathy: but how they work depends upon the device. 18:26:38 Gregg: I worry that people think that phones don't have keyboards, so that means they can't meet that provision, so we should remove the provision. 18:26:55 Kathy: We aren't going that way; that idea hasn't even come up. 18:27:34 Gregg: I have heard suggestions that the requirement should be changed to keyboard accessible or gesture accessible. But gestures don't meet the needs of all people who use keyboards. 18:27:57 Uplevel - descending into the technical details.. 18:28:26 TF would like to continue this discussion over the next few weeks. Have invited some people to come talk with the TF. 18:28:37 Then will summarize the discussion and bring it to the WG. 18:29:30 Judy has joined #wai-wcag 18:29:35 UAAG is also working on this, and TG will also take this info there. 18:29:42 s/TG/TF 18:30:32 Key tnings: gap analysis, which techniques need changes, which techniques should be added, both for mobile web and mobile apps. 18:30:42 s/tni/thi 18:31:15 Also discussed having an easy way to get to the mobile techniques. How does something find all the mobile examples in general techniques, etc. 18:31:39 Create separate techniques, like for PDF? But it is still HTML. Similar challenges as for the cognitive TF. 18:31:46 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Draft_WCAG_Techniques 18:32:03 WIll be converting this info into a matrix. 18:32:28 At that point, TF will bring their plan to the WG for review before starting work on techniques. 18:33:17 q+ to talk content and structure of techniques 18:33:25 q+ 18:33:46 Gregg: might consider adding mobile sections to existing techniques, rather than writing separate mobile techniques. 18:34:05 Kathy: looking at which need modifications vs writing new ones. 18:34:22 Gregg: people may think only the mobile techniques apply to mobile. 18:34:49 Michael: there are 2 tasks. How is the current structure not working for you, and what techniques are missing. 18:34:50 ack me 18:34:50 MichaelC, you wanted to talk content and structure of techniques 18:35:00 ack dav 18:35:42 David: we are talking out web applications at an http address, right? 18:36:02 Kathy: both web applications and mobile native applications. 18:37:09 Judy: there is a continuun of apps from native to web (wrapped apps, hybrid apps, ...) 18:37:30 With HTML5-centered open web platform, you can use HTML5 and other specs to tap into most of the capabilities of the device. 18:37:57 Judy: There is a much larger space of things that is relevant. 18:38:22 Judy: Analysis of what parts of WCAG are relevant to mobile has always shown a high overlap. 18:39:29 Paul Adams: I do this all the time at Dequeue. Apply WCAG where it works and it is mostly everywhere. But most people don't understand how to apply WCAG to native apps. 18:39:49 AWK_ has joined #wai-wcag 18:39:49 Gregg: WCAG to ICT on the criteria level, but don't have techniques. 18:39:59 Gregg: there would be LOTS of them. 18:39:59 Zakim, AWK_ is AWK 18:39:59 sorry, AWK_, I do not recognize a party named 'AWK_' 18:40:33 Gregg: Judy, does the W3C want our WG to wander outside of web content? 18:41:03 Judy: the matrix is from our Mobile Czar. I've been pushing him to push that further, and that is one of the questions we are debating internally. 18:41:13 Zakim, queue? 18:41:13 I see no one on the speaker queue 18:41:33 Judy: WAI will track that, but will also identify the relevance, like WCAG-to-ICT. 18:42:09 Zakim, agenda? 18:42:09 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 18:42:10 Judy: But we had not done the exercise of looking from the mobile environment back to what is needed. Happy that the TF is tackling this. 18:42:10 1. Joint meeting with Eval Task Force [from AWK] 18:42:10 2. Task Forces checkin - Mobile, Cognitive, Techniques [from AWK] 18:42:10 3. Gap analysis - requirements not covered by WCAG 2.0 [from AWK] 18:42:10 4. How to write techniques [from AWK] 18:42:10 5. Explore future guidelines work goals [from AWK] 18:42:10 6. Improving public input and source format [from AWK] 18:42:10 7. Criteria for techniques [from AWK] 18:42:11 8. Techniques work plan [from AWK] 18:42:18 Zakim, close item 1 18:42:18 agendum 1, Joint meeting with Eval Task Force, closed 18:42:19 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 18:42:19 2. Task Forces checkin - Mobile, Cognitive, Techniques [from AWK] 18:42:32 Zakim, take up next item 18:42:32 agendum 2. "Task Forces checkin - Mobile, Cognitive, Techniques" taken up [from AWK] 18:43:01 Topic: Techniques Task Forece 18:43:10 s/rece/rce 18:43:36 AWk: need to discuss division of labor between TF and WG 18:43:46 q+ to talk history of techs tf 18:43:58 TF is resource constrained, especially compared to the number of techniques we would like to have. 18:44:11 AWK: great that we could get so many out in the latest update. 18:44:32 AWK: but techniques bounced back and forth between WG and TF a lot. 18:44:52 AWK: we are trying to figure out the role and balance of the TF 18:45:09 AWK:: TF members have a lot of experience writing techniques. 18:45:34 AWK: Greater engagement among the WG members in writing techinques will also help that process. 18:45:35 ack mic 18:45:35 MichaelC, you wanted to talk history of techs tf 18:45:49 +q 18:45:55 Michael: history of the task force - created as a joint TF between WCAG and PF. 18:46:09 PF needed ARIA techniques, and wanted HTML5 techniques. 18:46:28 ack me 18:46:34 ARIA has matured. Accessibility in HTML5 has improved. PF needs for the TF are less strong. 18:47:12 Josh: thanks to the TF chairs and members for all the work that has been done. 18:47:33 James: thanks to everyone who has worked on techniques. Everyone has been very patient with the back and forth. 18:47:59 AWK: or we change the way we think about the tchniques, sometimes several times. 18:48:10 Michael: is there a plan to close the TF? 18:48:31 AWK: no, but there is a recognition that there is a lot of technique work that needs to be done. 18:48:57 It isn't realistic to expect that work to be magically done by some separate group. 18:49:16 AWK: part of what we need to figure out is what the role of the TF should be. 18:49:24 James: All TF members are in WG. 18:49:56 Josh: We have potential duplication. Need to eliminate some of the churning, and focus the attention of the core WG on this. 18:50:03 James: Yes, but don't know how this is going to work. 18:50:35 AWK: As we look at tracking techniques, etc., some of our discussion this afternoon may help us figure this out, or whether there isn't a role for a special group. 18:50:59 AWK: Maybe TF handle sprioritization or tackles hard problems? 18:51:30 James: maybe the standard meeting time is a workshoip time to help people who are struggling with writing techniques. No separate surveysk etc. 18:52:13 Gregg: break it down to technique definition, technique writing, technique review. This might let people work on the aspect they are comfortable with. 18:52:18 Katie: great idea. 18:53:11 Josh: There are lots of technique authoring tips that are not domain-specific. 18:53:18 q+ 18:53:34 Q+ paul 18:53:38 ack judy 18:54:05 Judy: Agree that there is an intimidation factor in writing the techniques, but we want to build capacity within the group of people who are interested in this. 18:54:08 Zakim, queue? 18:54:08 I see paul on the speaker queue 18:54:25 Judy: Would like to see a "Learning how to write techniques" session. 18:54:37 ack p 18:54:37 Judy: And really want to increase the number of people who can write tchniques. 18:55:12 Paul: Making it faster and more efficient. All I did was write the live example. I'm happy to do that for any techniques (provide live examples for people). 18:55:30 Paul: I';m not as good at wording the technique, but I'm happy to learn. 18:55:57 +q 18:56:07 AWK: We talked about the new wiki page - dashboard for where techniques are at. Different people are good at different parts of the task. 18:56:23 AWK: We want this to be a working group, not a review group of other people's work. 18:56:40 AWK: We want to encourage everyone to give technique writing a try. 18:56:47 ack me 18:57:01 AWK: Modifying an existing technique is an easy way to get started. 18:57:17 Josh: We need to codify the logic used in technique test procedures. 18:57:30 Michael: The accessibility database support people depend on that. 18:58:51 ACTION: Josh to work on codifying the logic used for technique test procedures 18:58:51 Created ACTION-246 - Work on codifying the logic used for technique test procedures [on Joshue O Connor - due 2014-03-25]. 19:01:30 Writing WCAG Techniques notes: https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1-EQ6Z7LguQevaHYsJL-pCiQARgspUaGe5ykKGeF0aNQ/edit 19:02:51 scribe: Kathy 19:03:32 ^ I'm not able to access that URL (username and password) 19:03:36 zakim, room for 3? 19:03:37 ok, MichaelC; conference Team_(wai-wcag)19:03Z scheduled with code 9224 (WCAG) for 60 minutes until 2003Z 19:05:36 Loretta: mostly historical information and there may be better ways to. This is what we learned along the way 19:06:12 LGR: Techniques provides specific examples of the principles 19:06:24 LGR: provides a way to convey best practices 19:06:32 Loretta: the techniques document helps people by providing specific examples, documents not best practices that does not meet WCAG 19:06:51 ... also a way to convey "not-best" practices that still meet WCAG 19:07:48 Loretta: we should be reinforcing best practices 19:08:11 Loretta: the issue is should we include item that are not best practices but meet the success criteria 19:08:30 Loretta: debate will be should we be telling people that 19:08:49 Loretta: we should decribe the outcome 19:09:10 Lortetta: want the technique to be useful for people who did not develop the page 19:09:33 ... trying to write the description and test procedure based on what you can see on the page 19:10:27 ... sometimes have awkward language, need more plain talkers 19:10:34 ... role for many skills 19:10:57 Standard write up, set of instructions and templates available 19:11:32 the links are in the document that Loretta will distribute 19:11:45 -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques Techniques starter page 19:11:58 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Instructions 19:11:58 -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Instructions Technique Instructions 19:12:01 Loretta: overview of the different sections 19:12:12 -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Template Technique Template 19:12:27 Status section - working group only; details on the history 19:12:41 ... could include links to the survey and the comments made 19:13:36 Applicability - there is no much to say in some cases but some are complex; this section will be in the final document 19:14:04 ... capture when it is applicable and when it will not apply 19:14:16 ... call out what success criteria is it relevant to 19:14:38 ... may need to be combined with something else 19:15:08 User Agent and AT Notes - added to document AT support 19:15:41 ... list all combinations that were tested. Based on what was available to test 19:15:48 ... this section gets out of date 19:16:08 ... snapshot of what is true at the time of writing the technique 19:16:58 AWK: this section can be updated; but it would be great to link to the accessibility support database 19:17:29 AWK: did a quick test and there were 66 different combinations that received feedback on 19:18:04 Loretta: we were worried about this when WCAG came out and now it is worse 19:18:24 ... more combinations than ever before 19:18:45 ... for new techniques we should add information for the working group discussions 19:18:58 ... maybe this becomes part of the status section 19:20:36 ... if we write things down about this, we should date them 19:21:41 ... all the testing WG does is in English, so accessibility support is not covered in other languages 19:22:28 ... probably going away 19:22:37 Description: what is this technique 19:22:57 ... think about a developer who wants to solve the issue and give enough details 19:24:16 ... often see "the objective of this technique is..." 19:24:28 that is the abstract language; objective 19:24:37 ... should describe how 19:24:57 General Techniques it is hard to go into more detail 19:25:04 they are catch all 19:25:16 ... specific techniques are easier 19:25:25 to write 19:26:26 Model of adding examples does not work 19:26:36 examples are important but are not the techniuqe 19:26:55 also include information on best practice and label it as such 19:27:07 Examples: useful for helping people understand 19:27:16 ... lots of people will cut and paste examples 19:27:23 ... we need to be careful about the model 19:27:47 ... if you code to show full conformance, then the example becomes very large 19:27:51 ... needs to be a balance 19:28:19 ... current compromise is to put a snippet on the page and the live example has the surrounding code 19:28:31 ... live examples need to be compliant 19:29:27 David: what about just highlighting the change 19:29:44 ... things are getting more complex 19:29:48 q+ 19:29:54 ... may help users to quickly see 19:31:08 Lisa: worried about in the case of ARIA where you don't have the full examples 19:31:17 Lisa: people will leave out parts 19:32:02 AWK: will pick up this conversation at 4:30 19:32:19 Loretta: the right answer is not clear cut 19:32:39 Josh: issues around complexities 19:33:08 Loretta: historically we did not have live examples but shoudl be included moving forward 19:33:39 ... counter example should not be included 19:34:21 ... failure example is sometimes easier but should not be included 19:34:25 in this section 19:34:45 Resources Section: link to other sites where you get more good info 19:34:53 ... also list related techniques 19:35:02 ... or a relevant failure 19:35:18 Test Section: 2 parts - procedure and expected results 19:35:43 ... steps to see if the user has implemented it correctly 19:36:00 ... it is hard but very important 19:36:29 tempting to write based on the accessibility support 19:36:51 much better to write a test procedure without relying on specific things 19:37:09 Write them as clear 19:37:18 ... sometimes it better to be redundant 19:37:32 Failure Techniques: document common failures 19:37:33 queue? 19:37:51 ... people may think these are good but are common things that found 19:37:57 stronger than techniques 19:38:13 ... need to be careful in writing these 19:38:43 ... some items may not be absolute failures anymore with changes in technology 19:38:50 ... tied to accessibility support 19:39:19 Gregg: they are good but if they get too complex then not useful - keep those that are crisp and useful 19:40:26 Gregg: need to document that some items may not be included 19:41:15 Lisa: may lose that messaging, these are good for pointing to these in testing 19:41:20 queue? 19:41:25 ack lisa 19:41:36 q+ pauljadam 19:41:54 Josh: not as clear 19:42:00 Loretta: hard to write 19:42:02 ack p 19:42:18 Paul: accessibility anti-patterns 19:42:28 ... before and after demo is good 19:42:52 Loretta: good if people picked up tutorials around this 19:43:06 Paul: UX is already looking at this 19:43:18 AWK: does it help to write procedure first? 19:43:36 Loretta: I do not limit myself to writing in order 19:43:43 depends on the technique 19:43:57 ... what ever gets you going on it 19:44:19 place on iterating for the technique 19:44:49 sometimes it is just adding in pointers or collections of information 19:45:31 ...maybe adding in DRAFT into the title when researching the techniuqes 19:45:41 ... we all bring different strengths 19:46:12 http://accessibility.athena-ict.com/aria/aria-examples-index.shtml 19:46:31 Lisa: I have examples that can be used 19:46:38 http://accessibility.athena-ict.com/aria/aria-tests-index.shtml 19:47:18 Loretta: make more progress if we were able to get the interaction going with writing the techniques 19:48:02 Kathy: can we have multiple people assigned 19:48:06 AWK: yes 19:48:38 AWK: maybe we spend some time to unstick ourselves 19:48:50 AWK: space for adding need help on the WIKI page 19:49:19 AWK: still struggling around the details of Github 19:49:43 AWK: right now use the WIKI 19:50:17 AWK: goal is to make it more user friendly 19:50:26 AWK: XML makes it difficult 19:54:47 Writing WCAG Techniques: https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1-EQ6Z7LguQevaHYsJL-pCiQARgspUaGe5ykKGeF0aNQ/pub 20:00:00 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:04:16 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:06:06 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:19:39 kw has joined #wai-wcag 20:20:33 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:23:22 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:26:25 jamesn has joined #wai-wcag 20:29:41 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 20:30:15 rrsagent, list attendee 20:30:15 I'm logging. I don't understand 'list attendee', Ryladog. Try /msg RRSAgent help 20:30:38 Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea 20:30:48 ScribeNick: Ryladog 20:31:09 Meeting: WCAG Working Group F2F Afternoon Session 20:31:29 Chair: Andrew Kirkpatrick 20:31:42 rrsagent, make minutes 20:31:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html Ryladog 20:32:04 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:32:25 Present+ Gregg_Vanderheiden 20:32:57 Present+ Loretta_G-Reid 20:33:19 Present+ Andrew_Kirkpatrick 20:33:38 Present+ Josh O'Connor 20:34:03 Present+ Michael_Cooper 20:34:17 Present+ Josh_O'Connor 20:34:38 Present+ John_Foliot 20:34:55 Present+ Tim Boland 20:35:17 Present+ Tim_Boland 20:35:43 Present+ Paul_Adam 20:36:00 Present+ Kathy Wahlbin 20:36:32 Present+ Kathy_Wahlbin 20:36:54 Present+ David_MacDonald 20:37:19 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 20:37:39 Present+ Lisa_Seeman 20:38:01 Present+ James_Nurthen 20:38:29 Present+ Mary_Jo_Mueller 20:38:51 Present+ Judy_Brewer 20:39:15 Present+ Marc_Johlic 20:39:43 Present+ Wilhelm 20:40:00 zakim, agenda? 20:40:00 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 20:40:01 2. Task Forces checkin - Mobile, Cognitive, Techniques [from AWK] 20:40:01 3. Gap analysis - requirements not covered by WCAG 2.0 [from AWK] 20:40:01 4. How to write techniques [from AWK] 20:40:01 5. Explore future guidelines work goals [from AWK] 20:40:01 6. Improving public input and source format [from AWK] 20:40:01 7. Criteria for techniques [from AWK] 20:40:02 8. Techniques work plan [from AWK] 20:40:07 GreggVan has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:46:28 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 20:47:31 zakim, close item 5 20:47:31 agendum 5, Explore future guidelines work goals, closed 20:47:32 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:47:32 2. Task Forces checkin - Mobile, Cognitive, Techniques [from AWK] 20:48:07 Zakim, next item 20:48:07 agendum 3. "Gap analysis - requirements not covered by WCAG 2.0" taken up [from AWK] 20:48:49 zakim, take up item 5 20:48:49 agendum 5. "Explore future guidelines work goals" taken up [from AWK] 20:51:08 zakim, take up item 3 20:51:08 agendum 3. "Gap analysis - requirements not covered by WCAG 2.0" taken up [from AWK] 20:51:08 David__ has joined #wai-wcag 20:51:28 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2 20:51:31 -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2 Post WCAG 2 issue collecting list 20:51:33 Loretta has joined #WAI-WCAG 20:51:40 AWK: Post WCAG list see URL 20:52:06 (Third time's the charm: Writing WCAG Techniques https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Writing_WCAG_Techniques_-_Notes 20:52:12 JF has joined #wai-wcag 20:52:36 AWK: The big question for us is - our charter is almost done, since it is for 3 years - do we want anymore NORMATIVE work? 20:53:35 AWK: We have been using this Wiki Page - Post WCAG to just dump issues. Articles and blogs and metadate, etc, yada yada 20:54:28 AWK: One thing we need to do is a structured way to address these problems. Do e need a new version of WCAG or should we work with what we have? 20:55:04 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2 20:55:04 pauljadam has joined #wai-wcag 20:55:24 AWK: Currently there is no plan for anew version of WCAG. We would need very good rationale if we do. 20:55:43 AWK: Where did all of these artciles come from? 20:55:54 GV: Some of them are from years ago 20:55:55 lisa_seeman has joined #wai-wcag 20:56:04 JO: I threw abunch of things inthere 20:56:10 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2 20:56:27 s/inthere/in there/G 20:56:51 JO: of progression, feel free to edit it 20:57:18 GV: Maybe we need more information inthe Understanding Doc - maybe sort by WCAG doc 21:00:13 kathyw has joined #wai-wcag 21:00:18 21:00:31 Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag 21:00:50 ScribeNick: Ryladog_ 21:00:53 s/inthe/in the 21:01:27 LGR: We had this split between WCAG and UAAG and those bounderies continue to blur 21:02:09 q+ to comment on WAI 2020 21:02:12 GV: We got into this in Web2ICT and what is Hybrid. We need an entirely different kind of car 21:02:15 LGR: We should hear from the people trying to implement WCAG 2.0 and what challenges they have 21:03:09 GV: We need to solve that we are going to the hybrid, now they want you to bring things down from the cloud. In WAG2ICT for books - we ran into this 21:03:22 JF: We have OS that use HTML now 21:03:24 ack judy 21:03:24 Judy, you wanted to comment on WAI 2020 21:03:52 GV: We need to invite Rich S. to talk with them about where tech is gong next... 21:03:55 Q+ 21:04:02 +q 21:04:33 JB: One assumption for future possibilities - for now WCAG 2 is stable - we also assume that forward 21:04:51 back 21:06:05 JB: we beleive is stable because all of the forward compatability work that went into WCAG. We will need to work more closely with the other two GL - we may need to do something combined with those gourps as WAI2020 21:06:48 ack JF 21:07:01 JB: One thing we wold love to have wold be talks about what WAI2020 might need, Thinking way ahead, planning way ahead. It may be that WCAG may need to take the lead on that combined context 21:08:25 JB: What are the immediate reflections are of those in WCAG forthis WAI2020 for way in the future. We understand that it will take a lot of time to get consensus for a future vision for us 21:09:25 JB: Now in 2014 - we have noticed as soon as someone talks about updating WCAG there is this panic cycle - it is too much work to update a stable standard will be underestimated 21:09:36 JF:Propbably by a factor of 10 21:10:04 JB: We are very happy withthe Techiques layer that allows for updating. WAI2020 is not that far away 21:10:51 JB:but it is not. It enables folks to think ina very calm way about thefuture. Possibly inmodules. Maybe as we have better planwe may name it something else 21:12:07 JB: It is to hard to stricly subset this stuff. We need a broader brush. Jeff Jaffy the W3C CIO we need visionary thinking, you have an opportunity to invite dialog on the future 21:12:31 GV: Not 2050, but 2020 is the future within grasp 21:13:27 JO: The probem though is the dirth of techniques. The BBC created a lot of good mobile techniques. We are behind on a set of guidelines. Maybe it is time for a fresher look 21:13:45 JO: There is this need for stability anditerativechanges 21:13:48 Q+ 21:14:07 s/anditerativechanges/and iterative changes/G 21:14:11 ack josh 21:14:58 GV: there is nothing preventing us rightnow ofcoming up with more techniques. If you need more techiques - do not change the guidelines b/c folks will work on that 21:15:45 GV: In WCAG2ICT almost all of the WCAG SC were good and applicable as princples to address software and documents 21:16:09 GV: How do you apply these Princples with the various Technologies 21:16:14 q+ 21:16:23 q+ 21:16:36 JF: It is based on princples will never change 21:16:38 q+ 21:16:53 q+ to say technology evolution has created new a11y problems - even though the principles are the same, new success criteria are needed 21:16:58 ack jf 21:17:00 JO: But people look at WCAG with different hats - for different audiences 21:17:13 ack me 21:17:13 MichaelC, you wanted to say technology evolution has created new a11y problems - even though the principles are the same, new success criteria are needed 21:17:13 ack jf 21:17:26 q+ 21:17:33 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 21:17:50 ack david 21:18:02 q+ 21:18:10 MC: I agree with JF, but the technologies are chnaging - he SC may need to be changing - not sure that we need new standard yet or not 21:18:15 q+ 21:18:41 Q+ 21:19:32 DM: It doesnt seem like anything new that content not seperated from presentation. I do not think if WCAG 3 cam out folks might not freak out. I think it is possible to have a WCAG 3 in 2018 or 2020 21:19:33 ack Lisa 21:19:40 q+ 21:20:58 LS: GL 3.1 make it Understandable, at Level A and/or AA put in Language tags. That is a guideline that needs to be filled in. Like definitions forJargon is AAA a that is Normative. 21:21:30 LS: The only place I can see where I can put in new Cognitive techniqus 21:21:50 JO:Maybe you will not needs levels for Techniques forCognitive 21:23:21 Zakim, queue? 21:23:21 I see GreggVan, AWK_, Loretta, JF, Judy on the speaker queue 21:23:22 MC: WCAG is used to push movement on people, and you are saying as is - there willbe no push for the congnitive without the Normative push. Our only option now is AAA 21:23:41 GV: So you could put techniques under Guidelines 21:23:55 LS: But techiques are used to justify SC 21:25:03 LS: Rich will be talking about alternative versions I guess - for that the techique can be stronger - you are less worried about Author Freedom 21:25:37 JO: Give us your new mapping best pratcice, that is an idea- thenWCAG can look at that 21:26:44 kw has joined #wai-wcag 21:26:53 JB: I think that might create more confusion. In ShenSzen the Roadmap is really good. It is better to keep it associated with WCAG mapping. We do ot want to slow down the conversation. 21:27:46 JB: Towards the future there is going to be al lkinds of ideas - it may be harder if folks are doing their own version. 21:27:48 queue? 21:28:00 JO: For mesome loose thinking for a WAI2020 21:28:03 s/al lkinds/all kinds 21:29:01 JB: Someblue sky space wold be pretty god, but we will need to frame it well. Within this - lets get a bunch of people thinking about this using these parameters. 21:29:17 JO: I am talking about a kind of 'note to self' 21:30:43 LS: Basically the task force is to create a Roadmap - it can be a bit more blue sky. If you are thinking of 2020 - look at things like 'exposing structures' (and things like that) that I thinkare brokeninthecurrent version 21:30:45 Zakim, queue? 21:30:45 I see GreggVan, AWK_, Loretta, JF, Judy on the speaker queue 21:30:48 ack greg 21:31:17 GV: Unpacking. It took so many years to get consensus onthis it will take too many years to fix 21:32:05 GV: You will have to have the same old discussions....but inthe end it all turns out the same. But you have a wholenew group of people 21:32:06 s/onthis/on this 21:34:16 GV: 2020 for a topic that spans the WAI groups, - the xtech list. WCAG only applies to HTTP. People think that is a web page and it is not, it uses other protocols. The future will have more of these blended apps and the user does not even know the difference 21:34:54 GV: That is going to bethetrend. Thisis what weare going to have to address - these merging techologies 21:35:41 GV: Google, Apple, Microsoft are all doing this. We have to move away from HTTP only 21:35:58 KHS: We are making ourselves irrellivant if we dont 21:37:33 q+ 21:37:58 GV: One other thing with GPII - IUIG you cant get companies to giveyou an API (Because they are worried about you stealing their code). But if we could give the companies the iUIG to those companies to provide as impleinterface OUT of their app 21:38:48 GV: Then you could say if you can make it work with this generator - yo may have greater accessibility than we do today 21:39:40 GV: Can we come at this thing from a very different perspective - take the weight off of the authors 21:39:49 LS: Adaptable interface 21:39:52 W3C work in this area is Model-based User Interfaces http://www.w3.org/2011/mbui/ 21:40:28 ack awk 21:40:53 GV: Some are worried about too computer. We need to allow companies to do accessibility and keep control of their content 21:40:58 s/WAI2020/WAI 2020/G 21:41:32 The WCAG working group is collecting requirements for a possible future version of the guidelines. The group is not chartered for normative work at present. Any work on the guidelines themselves will only occur once a clear need is established and would not be finalized for many years. 21:42:16 AWK: We are not yet looking for broad public input on this. So use our official Talking Points statement - use this - please do NOT talk about WCAG 3, WAI2020. he talk is aroundmaking the web better 21:42:27 q+ 21:43:30 AWK: Please no tweets and facebook posts....please use the talking points 21:43:41 q+ 21:43:47 ack loret 21:45:00 s / stealing their code/ stealing their functionality and selling it under other cover/ 21:45:03 LGR: History - back when we first talked about requirements. A mansaid make sure whatever we do woll be testable, that their might be regulations built around these. I think the thinking about WAI2020 21:45:58 queue? 21:46:07 LGR: The discussion is insomeways going to be the same. Got to leave the assumptions. 21:46:42 s/WAI2020/WAI 2020/ 21:46:57 AWK: People brought in their experience with WCAG 1 to improve WCAG 2 21:47:09 q? 21:47:16 q- 21:47:28 DM: Yes that experience will be coming in soon for the US and Canada 21:47:35 q+ 21:47:46 KHS: Lesons Learned from the implememntations 21:48:36 q+ to pose the question "who are the key stakeholders that we need to have discussions about implementation experience with?" 21:49:01 LGR: I thinktheMobile and Cognitive Task Forces will be starting to explore some of this. Greggs hybrid will bring this in as well. We are going to have to go back and rethink things around the UI 21:49:19 s/thinktheMobile/think the Mobile/g 21:50:01 JF: almost me too. David when you talk about WCAG 3 - I freak out. I like theidea of WAI2020. We like extension specs. 21:51:07 JF: It s about messaging and branding. If we start thinking about drastic name changes - we need to be really really mindful. WAI2020 can be the umbrella. 21:51:22 ack jf 21:51:25 ack judy 21:51:32 JF: It is not that difference, It is an extension 21:53:23 JB: I will relay to Jeff that WAI-2020 is being well taken here. If we sell it as a package - this name is a placeholder for a really good discussion. We hope that poeple understand that this is place that is welcoming place (at the W3C) to have this discussion. 21:54:37 JB: Our door is open. WCAG 1 got alot of feedback. WCAG 2 WAI asked the WCAG WG as a convergence standard welcoming perspective from peopleall around he world 21:54:48 Q+ Tim 21:54:49 s/WAI-2020/WAI 2020/ 21:55:01 s/WAI2020/WAI 2020/G 21:55:41 JN: Some of the things that Gregg was talkingabout is really freaking me out. I was thinking we are using ARIA to give everybody the same accessibe UI 21:55:44 ack jamesn 21:55:46 ack li 21:57:14 LS: That is important. Web of Things - broaden it, ICT is more than the web. We need to look at these ICT UI for everything. (Our heating system) 21:57:58 JO: I like JOhn's idea, do not break what we have 21:58:40 LS: The other advantage of WAI-2020 instead of WCAG-2020 - this will annoy companies. 21:59:25 DM: Strike the WCAG 3 21:59:32 ack gregg 22:00:16 q+ 22:01:12 GV: New-AG sound nice. WAI-2020 can be more than GL. It is not promising a new WCAG. It is about a new WAI way. More global way (WAI) 22:01:41 shadi has joined #wai-wcag 22:01:57 GV: I hear people already saying wait to write your policy until after WCAG 3. 22:03:49 q? 22:04:00 q+ to ask a really simple question on a detail 22:04:55 GV: Adam Osborn - Osborn 1 a portable computer, Do not bring out a hope for something else. WAI-2020 really is the right name/vision. The reason you are putting in WAI ARIA in is so that you are putting in this information that is available for others to use 22:05:23 GV: For cognitive you cannot make one size fits all. 22:06:15 JN: We have these modes where we render a different UI but we are now removing those because of all of the issues 22:06:34 GV: These are the important issues that we need to raise 22:06:57 ack me 22:06:57 AWK_, you wanted to pose the question "who are the key stakeholders that we need to have discussions about implementation experience with?" 22:07:45 AWK: Should be generate a list of the key stakeholdeers who we want to hear from are? 22:08:18 AWK: Canada, New Zealand, Austalia andsay tool vendors? 22:09:41 GV: What about web seminars, like TED talks - give half hour webinars and capture them - they can be people just sharing different thoguht - and those people can recommend others. 22:10:01 ack tim 22:10:19 GV: You could have a place where people could suggest other people to bring into the discussion 22:10:44 GV: The IoT really makes you stop and think 22:11:02 TB: This is a paradigm shift 22:11:28 LS: With the WoT you are taking away functions that people used to have 22:12:03 ack judy 22:12:03 Judy, you wanted to ask a really simple question on a detail 22:12:12 Zakim, close queue 22:12:12 ok, AWK_, the speaker queue is closed 22:12:13 GV:: We have already done it - older people cannot send aletter as tey do not know how to send anemail 22:13:58 s/WAI 2020/WAI2020/G 22:14:07 JB: Lets make it WAI2020 22:14:09 s/WAI-2020/WAI2020/ 22:14:21 s/WAI-2020/WAI2020/G 22:15:00 -> http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/ W3C Workshop on the Web of Things, 25–26 June 2014, Berlin, Germany 22:15:08 http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/ 22:15:41 JB: that is a better hash tag. I will bealking about tomorrow ar tech tour, we scan community groups, workshops, there was a Web of Things workshop that is coming up. I hope they can amend their topic list 22:16:05 JB: We need 22:16:05 q+ 22:16:42 JB: We need folks to go there, we need the Ally talks there 22:17:06 JF: When can we start to talk about WAI2020? 22:17:46 JB: Tell folks to join the WCAG WG.....frameit well...I iwll figure out some talking points 22:19:48 JB: I thought maybe in a few months we would have something 22:19:51 q+ 22:20:10 q+ 22:22:17 KHS: I want to do an intersection on Ally and Privacy talk 22:22:26 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 22:22:38 JB: Let meinteroduce you to Wendy Seltser 22:23:42 AWK: So we can think about this. But we are constrained about speaking about this. We need for clarity on timing. Maybe we want it after the NMPRM. 22:24:36 JB: The concrete question what kind of discussions, events, etc would be useful to collect during the coming year? 22:25:31 JB: What is the advise on how to frame that? Maybe the talking point is"what are your thoughts on how to frame this discussion"? 22:26:06 JB: The actionable step is that WAI begins to commit to those discussions 22:26:17 AWK: Is WAI2020 a noun or a verb? 22:27:45 JB: It is being built. If you choose to accept this task. For instabce in Nov in China - can you have a ninput for future ideas in Beiging? Yes 22:28:28 DM: AmI right in saying that WCAG 2.2 or 3 is off the table 22:29:17 GV: WAI2020 is a dicsussion about the where the WAI wants to position itself for how to address technology in 2020 22:30:35 JO: We all are aware that technology is quickly changing, so WAI2020 is a fresh though. 22:30:49 JB: Does this work for people oris this awkward? 22:31:12 DM: I through out WCAG 3 and it was not a good idea. 22:32:19 JF: If we have this we are not going to mess with WCAG 2. 22:32:38 JB: The cogniitve stuff cant wait for 5 years 22:33:53 KHS: Look towards WAI2020 - but let it be know that until then the NON Normative documents and techniques will be addressing the changing technologies now 22:34:50 JO: Get Cognitive andMobile TFs going and the Techiques and the nthe WAI2020 doscussion can be going on 22:35:10 AWK: Yes, so weneed to define how to do that Tandem work 22:36:02 LGR: I think getting the feedback on WCAG 2 implementations will help us on what to do moving forward 22:36:44 GV: If we take it to the higher plane - I do not want to have patching WCAG 2 22:37:02 AWK: Who would like to create a proposal to do that? 22:37:11 GV: I will 22:37:17 JO: I will 22:37:24 Also Kathy W 22:37:36 JB also interested 22:38:15 GV: We have some people into talk for you. I will pull clips from State Of the Science talks and I will send it to you. 22:38:55 JB: There will be all kinds of discussions coming from different places 22:39:18 AWK: I just want WCAGs view to take acrack at WCAGs veiw 22:40:22 ?me Dinner at 7 22:41:01 rrsagent, make minutes 22:41:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html Ryladog_ 22:59:13 AWK has joined #wai-wcag 23:00:00 scribeNick:jamesn 23:00:40 agenda? 23:00:57 zakim, take up item 6 23:00:57 -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Source_Format_Refactoring Source Format Reformatting issue collection 23:00:57 agendum 6. "Improving public input and source format" taken up [from AWK] 23:01:18 -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Source_Format_Refactoring Source Format Reformatting issue collection 23:02:09 AWK: talking about improving public input and source format 23:02:28 MC: have put a URI into IRC with a wiki where collecting info about this 23:02:50 Loretta has joined #WAI-WCAG 23:02:52 MC: we have already mocved our sources to github and are starting to explore how to take input via github 23:03:12 MC: nive thing is that public can make an edit BUT they have to edit xml sources 23:03:34 MC: that might have been the tippoing point. Now at the chair level thinking about revising the source format 23:04:27 MC: has been using XMLSpec which has a bunch of structural features. but wcag is different and techniques have which are highly crosslinked and copied so it is a bit different there 23:04:50 MC: a lot of mixing of content. solves a lot of problems but increasingly unwieldy 23:04:56 MC: getting harder to fix bugs 23:05:19 MC: so in the wiki page have started listing problems with current format 23:05:26 MC: we might want to create a new format 23:05:41 MC: started to create requirements. This list is not complete 23:06:04 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Source_Format_Refactoring#Requirements_for_new_format 23:07:14 open for discussion how much we want to enforce validation 23:07:37 MC: a bunch of errors caused by duplication so wantt o avoid that 23:07:59 MC: the a11y support db poeople depend on test procedures of technqieus so they need to know about upgrades 23:08:32 MC: hard now as the xml files are in massive files. Hard to tell what is changed 23:09:26 MC: change histories 23:09:54 MC: manual diff markup - we provide a diff-marked version. Every one of those diff markings is manually maintained 23:10:16 MC: revision control systems have this info so need to autromate this 23:10:32 MC: output various forms of docs. need to be able to still do this 23:10:38 q+ JF 23:10:44 ack JF 23:10:53 JF: no epub? 23:11:05 MC: can add that requirement 23:11:22 MC: also need to make it easy for WG members to edit 23:11:36 MC: we don't want unvetted edits so good iin a way 23:11:48 MC: need to seperate proposed from approved edits 23:11:54 MC: github helps with this 23:12:03 MC: also make easy for public to suggest edits 23:12:14 MC: including whole techniques 23:12:36 EH: is commenting allowed? 23:12:49 MC: that could be something we could add 23:13:07 AK: the [ull request allows a description 23:13:18 MC: but that gets lost when gets integrated 23:13:50 MC: do we want people to be have to use github 23:14:05 MC: technical considerations 23:14:22 MC: Should we use an XML format (optionally that uses a lot of HTML in it), or should we use vanilla HTML with special markup (sections, ids, classes) to enforce structure? 23:14:43 MC: HTML has WYSYWIG tools but could be hard to enforce structure 23:15:08 MC: a 2nd question is do we use an XSLT-based generator or would we use a script-based generator 23:15:32 AWK: 1 file for aria technqiues but gets used in a bunch of documents 23:15:40 MC: you would not want to do it by habd 23:16:00 MC: i am more comfortable with xslt than script but not sure that is a requirement 23:16:10 MC: we expect to continue with git but not a given 23:16:35 MC: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Source_Format_Refactoring#Work_plan 23:17:15 Collect and prioritize requirementsDevelop a proposed format that appears to meet the requirements. 23:17:15 Transform the existing materials into the proposed formats, in a testing branch. 23:17:15 Develop the generator that outputs the desired final materials. 23:17:15 Test the generator's output. Revise the format as needed, and revisit requirements if needed. 23:17:16 Approve the format and generator output. 23:17:46 MC: do we want to embark on this - will cost a lot of my tiume 23:18:02 MC: and if we are going to embark on it we need to get a com[plete set of requirments 23:18:20 MC: there was an attempto to design - but requriements change 23:18:41 LGR: sounds like it leaves us in a more maintainable state 23:18:53 MC: we talked about new work. and new technique development 23:19:11 AWK: we have had interest from govt of canada to create techniques for example 23:19:22 AWK: need a pathway to get help 23:19:24 +1 23:19:43 LGR: what else would you be doing if not this 23:20:10 AWK: this is an upfront investment with immediate payback. There is a lot of effort whcih is not really necessary 23:20:43 GV: how much work would it save on each publication? 23:21:08 MC: it is the developing the materials where it saves time and increases quality 23:21:25 AWK: also about allowing people to follow through and cfreate technqieus 23:21:53 MC: 23:22:56 Judy has joined #wai-wcag 23:24:12 GV: I'm not sure that the 2 times you copy over are going to save any time. 23:24:37 MC: only pull requests on a branch - but if we want to accept their input then we would still have work to do. 23:25:01 Sample of XML structure: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=SourceSample&action=edit 23:25:48 AWK: learning curve to what makes sense 23:26:05 AWK: some things like doing a link is a LOC not an A 23:26:51 GV: they could be contributing general techqniesu without knowing html 23:27:09 MC: could create a structure and then they could use a wysywig editor 23:27:39 MC: ensuring we get the right format is harder 23:27:56 MC: more about omitting a class or putting them in the wrong order etc 23:28:25 AWK: even the current format - a simple form which might be limited could drive info into the correct structures 23:28:54 MC: the current form tries to do that but the xml it generates is not in sync with what we now use 23:29:25 MC: i've been in charge of this since ben left - at first didnt want to mess with it but i havne;t up till now. 23:29:33 MC: have been thinnknig about for years 23:29:43 AWK: it is just to shut me up 23:30:15 MC: Andrew was the canary for non wg members to commit content 23:30:25 MC: this could become a priority 23:30:52 MC: would slow down some of the support to indieui and aria1.1 23:31:06 MC: would slow me down on participation on technique development 23:31:19 MC: would be doing less participation in the technical work 23:32:08 ryladog: we had a license to xmlspy before which helped with the xml. What format would be easiest to get additional help 23:33:11 ... we shouldn't be using comething archaic 23:33:36 MC: neither are archaic. When it was all set up it scripting wasn't viable but now it is 23:33:48 MC: would be HTML5 if we go with HTML-based solution 23:34:19 MC: HTML vs XML and script vs XSLT are different discussions. 23:34:50 AWK: if using git then it is important that folks can see the html version of the outpur within moments of creating the xml doc 23:35:06 MC: that does require script as the solution 23:35:30 AWK: don't think is does.... to be able to so a server-side xslt generation and then view that 23:35:58 MC: need to find which are importaqnt and which are not met by the current sources 23:37:41 q+ 23:37:43 MC: many of the current requirements are not met by the current sources 23:38:28 ryladog: if and when 508 refresh happens and we are pointing to the techniques. Would we want this done and in place before that 23:38:49 MC: requirement is that the generated docs are still at the same URIs 23:40:57 MC: going to html requires that it is importtant that the public can edit sttuff 23:41:11 MC: and deprioritises things like enforced structure 23:41:20 ack ry 23:42:20 MC: lots of easy mistakes can be made with the current format 23:43:06 MC: there is no good reason for some of the things like LOC instead of A 23:43:14 MC: that would be easy relativey speaking 23:43:16 JF_ has joined #wai-wcag 23:43:28 MC: question there if it is worth the investment 23:43:29 zakim, JF_ is JF 23:43:29 sorry, JF_, I do not recognize a party named 'JF_' 23:43:55 MC: if i make modest changes to the source format then the amount of work on the generator is reasonably high and the payoff is low 23:44:05 zakim, I am JF 23:44:05 sorry, JF_, I do not see a party named 'JF' 23:44:08 AWK: how firm do you think these requrieoments are 23:44:28 MC: could use some eyes - also probably missing some. Also no prioritisation of these 23:45:00 DMD: we are making a good change to github - now stabilise that and maybe revisit that 23:45:20 MC: already runnngin into difficulties due to reasoins like source files so biug 23:45:43 LGR: i can't see ntyuhing leaping out in terms of priorities but i'm not the one running into these issues 23:46:15 MC: i am not convinced myself. I lean towards wanting to refactor 23:47:19 MC: every time i do a pub i have hair pulling and every time i get through it and am thankful when it is over. Then next time there is another issue etc. The amount of time ovetr the years has grown to be significant 23:47:39 ryladog: i am under assumption that we are going to be doing technique releaseds more often 23:47:53 AWK: every 6 months is target 23:47:59 MC: i would like to do it 23:49:09 MC: quick fix to switch to individual files per technique 23:49:18 MC: I think it would take 3 months 23:50:32 MC: there may be some things we could do easily and then do other things later 23:50:56 LGR: sounds like long-term maintenance that actually pays off but there are short term unknowns 23:51:10 SAZ: Translators have had issues also 23:51:55 MC: Refactoring should help that also 23:53:06 LS: worries about MC time on PF and other groups 23:53:37 MC: Would have to support these less for a time period 23:54:16 MC: if we're changing public input process then we might be suggesting that people use the new format 23:55:00 MC: If we don't refactor then people will develop techniques in wiki 23:55:39 MC: one compelling reason is to increase public participation 23:56:03 SCribe: AWK 23:56:07 Scribe: AWK 23:56:57 MC: If public input is a high requirement then the W should be involved as beta testers