20:00:25 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 20:00:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-irc 20:00:27 RRSAgent, make logs public 20:00:29 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 20:00:29 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_WCAG()3:00PM scheduled to start 60 minutes ago 20:00:30 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 20:00:30 Date: 26 October 2014 20:01:50 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/10/tpac-2014 20:05:40 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 20:08:44 we can´t 20:08:54 Agenda+ Review of progress of Mobile techniques 20:09:11 agenda+ Initial review of supporting documents survey data 20:09:28 agenda+ Planning session for improvements to supporting docs 20:09:51 Agenda+ Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG 20:10:02 Zakim, agenda? 20:10:02 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 20:10:03 1. TPAC Plans [from Kenny] 20:10:03 2. October 14 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/14thOct2014/ [from Kenny] 20:10:03 3. Response to LC-2972: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2972 [from Kenny] 20:10:03 4. Techniques Work Review [from Kenny] 20:10:04 5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK] 20:10:04 6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK] 20:10:04 7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK] 20:10:04 8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK] 20:10:09 Loretta has joined #wai-wcag 20:10:19 Zakim, close item 1 20:10:19 agendum 1, TPAC Plans, closed 20:10:20 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:10:20 2. October 14 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/14thOct2014/ [from Kenny] 20:10:23 Zakim, close item 2 20:10:23 agendum 2, October 14 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/14thOct2014/, closed 20:10:26 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:10:26 3. Response to LC-2972: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2972 [from Kenny] 20:10:32 Zakim, close item 3 20:10:32 agendum 3, Response to LC-2972: https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/REC-WCAG20-20081211/2972, closed 20:10:35 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:10:35 4. Techniques Work Review [from Kenny] 20:10:36 Zakim, close item 4 20:10:37 agendum 4, Techniques Work Review, closed 20:10:37 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:10:37 5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK] 20:14:18 You should have received an invitation to join in email. 20:15:04 See if this url works: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/google.com/wcag 20:15:30 Zakim, agenda? 20:15:30 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 20:15:31 5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK] 20:15:31 6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK] 20:15:31 7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK] 20:15:31 8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK] 20:15:41 marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag 20:28:59 https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/google.com/wcag 20:32:39 zakim, agenda 20:32:39 I don't understand 'agenda', AWK 20:32:44 zakim, agenda? 20:32:44 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 20:32:44 zakim, agenda? 20:32:45 5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK] 20:32:45 6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK] 20:32:45 7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK] 20:32:45 8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK] 20:32:45 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 20:32:45 5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK] 20:32:45 6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK] 20:32:48 7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK] 20:32:48 8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK] 20:39:08 AWK: On a high level - we had the survey open for 3 weeks and we got ~ 75 people to go thru it 20:39:19 AWK: It's impressive that people made their way thru it. 20:39:22 20:39:41 AWK: The survey wasn't as lean as we may have liked 20:39:50 AWK: There is a lot of good feedback 20:40:05 AWK: We can figure out now what questions and queries we can ask of it. 20:40:25 Gives overview of survey format. 20:43:46 JOC: Very few developers in the survey - mostly a11y people 20:44:13 Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea 20:44:24 ScribeNick: Ryladog 20:44:52 AWK: Topic: Initial review of supporting documents survey data 20:45:12 Topic: Initial review of supporting documents survey data 20:45:43 AWK: Not many people filled it out. There comments are less thorough. That was expected. 20:46:49 AWK: We may need to figure out some of the ideas we gleaned from this survey, and the go for a road show, and ask folks to elaborate 20:47:40 AWK: Percentage of job role we have 22 are spending 90% of their time at work. The respondents are the accessibility crowd 20:48:46 AWK: Familiarity, we need some graphics to see this data. 20:49:09 JO: I wonder if we need to define what is an expert 20:49:56 MC: But that makes it difficult 20:50:46 Kenny Zhang joins the meeting in the room. 20:51:03 AWK: Kenny just finished the Chinese translation of WCAG 2 20:52:19 KZ: Interpretation id difficult in the translation 20:53:31 q? 20:53:32 AWK: 23% are not really clear about the the relationship between the normative and non-normative documents are 20:54:35 AWK: For the Which Sections are most helpful question....Examples were the most helpful and then Test and the description 20:54:54 AWK: ....the previous were most helpful. 20:55:07 AWK: That seems quite reasonable 20:55:26 LGR: I hink the Examples are invaluable 20:55:54 s/hink/think 20:57:02 AWK: For the Least helpful question, The results is almost the reverse except the tests..... 20:57:21 MC: Folks didnt like the number of links in resources... 20:58:50 MC: The people of the world are saying that the what you want us to know, is not what we, the public, want to know... 20:59:16 LGR: Complaints include, information is often out of date 21:00:05 LGR: The people reading these documents don't want to wrestle with these issues as much as we do... 21:01:15 KHS: I use the layers 21:01:58 MC: But that may not make it easier or not. We never came - front loading important bits should be our focus - and then link off 21:02:35 MS: We need to do something to make it more understandable 21:04:49 AWK; Techniques Question: Front matter. Have you read the front matter section. The response show that Most of them havent... 21:04:58 KHS: People are really concentrating on the techs 21:05:41 MJ: I only recently looked at the Status of the technique - adn I find it very valuable - we should not make this go away 21:06:13 LGR: Those reading the techniques are not going to be interested in the front matter 21:06:34 JO: That is why we might want to have a role-based sets or sets 21:07:42 JO: So information optimized/based-on the role of the user (dveloper, policy maker, auditor etc) 21:07:54 AWK: There is a ton of info here... 21:08:35 AWK: Who might enjoy doing this kind of work to extract the data from the survey.... 21:09:05 AWK: Excel might not be the best way to show this data. 21:09:30 MC: I can play with it when I get home 21:10:37 JO: Maybe we should sit with it and think it over. Information is beautiful is a nice resource for graphically showing this data. 21:10:55 LGR: But you need to analyze the data first 21:11:17 AWK: There are sections that some might not want o pat attention to 21:11:33 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/books/ 21:12:01 Jeanne Spellman arrives 21:12:54 MS: Folks are confused by how the docs are related 21:13:30 MS: AH says that if they have read the information they do find it useful 21:13:48 AWK: People was to wrk on the problem they have in front of them 21:15:55 AWK: I haven't done cross correlations in the data yet 21:17:03 MC: There are a LOT of great suggestions 21:18:50 AWK: Yes, we may have kept it open too long - for the US and Australian government - and a lot - not - so, zero govies (from that group) responded (some because of Google access issues for govie employees) 21:19:33 MC: There are a few folks with axes to grind, not many 21:20:02 AWK: I haven't even had enough time to read through it all. 21:21:27 AWK: Use the WORD document to see the good suggestions. Lets take 10 minutes to browse now - and highlightt what you want to talk about... 21:30:50 MC: Suggestion, Consider not publishing Techniques to the TR page 21:31:59 MJ: Is that why we always have these dated Techniques? 21:32:04 MC: Yes. 21:32:19 AWK: And we are adding more very day 21:32:34 AWK: there are 30 pages of comments 21:32:59 MC: Use 'plain language' - which is a quote from WCAG 21:33:01 jeanne has joined #wai-wcag 21:33:20 LGR: We need to solicit good writers 21:33:47 LGR: Put the important information first 21:35:12 MC: It seems to me, our tendency we always say read the SC, then Understanding then Techniques. We may need to change that for developers sucgh as here is the techniques and if you want to understand more here re links to it 21:35:55 MC: Policy wonks might need the graphic first - where as developers need the technical stuff... 21:37:27 KHS: Designers and developers want to engage with different aspects of WCAG, and policy people like PMs, lawyers, legislators etc 21:38:06 q? 21:38:19 AWK: What is a Policy Person? They ar only 1/68th of per audience - according to this survey. 21:40:14 AWK: One of our challenging is that we may be trying to meet the needs of too many audiences 21:40:47 JO: Back in the day it needed to establish itslef as a standard - it has done that. How can it be more practical 21:43:49 JO: Streamlining 21:45:45 KHS: It was attempted in the past - and we could think about now - to create a Plain Language version of all three WCAG 2 main docs 21:46:18 MC:We should be able to archive older techniques 21:46:52 MS: If you are for looking for a reference which helps 21:48:00 JeannneS: Whitney Q say that we can change the language in a spec to make it more easily understandable. Maybe you should have a conversation with her. 21:48:37 AWK: An idea, how can we best move forward, do people want to take one section at a time 21:49:45 MC: 3 thinks give folks time to digest those sections. Or have a list discussion for a dew weeks - or let do a wiki page, and grow a resources on what WCAG should do. 21:50:16 LGR: Are we looking at this feedback as a re-write of these documents? 21:51:01 AWK: Or we could just do a reformating - it can start to address some of the issue 21:51:53 q? 21:51:53 MS: After we have done that - we can then ask again the same questions - that will tell us if the strucrure of the existing content is the problem or is it the content 21:52:00 +q 21:52:07 MC: I think we can do a lot with the restructuring 21:52:35 MS: Presentation, simplicity of the language and the Examples 21:52:46 MC: The simplicity is the biggest problem 21:54:48 MC: Do a general simplification for the structure - before taking on a plain language. We also need to think about what the working group can except. 21:55:45 LGR: Maybe we dont quite need the same level on consensusfor simpler chnages 21:55:55 MC: I thinkwe could lower the bar. 21:56:31 LGR: I am afraid we ont get it done 21:56:31 ack me 21:57:58 JO: What do we want to do to parse this stuff. We all have our own ideas - that are mostly similar. It we systematically parsing this stuff to extract the most relevant points and take action item based on that informtion 21:58:27 AWK: I think we need to get more people involved in the analysis... 21:59:34 LGR: I am not sure why certain people are here in the Working Group, what are they looking for.. 21:59:47 JO: We did touch on that last week. 22:02:13 MC: We know you want a better resources, come work with us to create it. 22:03:21 AWK: If we send out a couple of sections to extract the information and then share it. Should we do that? 22:03:26 +1 22:03:35 LGR: I am willing to do that 22:03:43 +1 22:04:41 AWK: We are just asking to identify the themes, if we get any feedback, it will be helpful..... 22:05:43 ACTION: Andrew to send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified WCAG Survey questions 22:05:43 'Andrew' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., akirkpat2, alahart). 22:06:10 ACTION: AWK to send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified WCAG Survey questions 22:06:10 Created ACTION-290 - Send out assignments for identifying the themes is identified wcag survey questions [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2014-11-02]. 22:06:40 AWK: 15 minute break 22:25:41 TOPIC: dinner discussion 22:27:07 Done. 22:28:05 Zakim, agenda? 22:28:05 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 22:28:06 scribe: MichaelC 22:28:07 5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK] 22:28:07 6. Initial review of supporting documents survey data [from AWK] 22:28:07 7. Planning session for improvements to supporting docs [from AWK] 22:28:07 8. Discussion on long-term vision for WCAG WG [from AWK] 22:28:18 Zakim, close item 6 22:28:18 agendum 6, Initial review of supporting documents survey data, closed 22:28:19 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:28:19 5. Review of progress of Mobile techniques [from AWK] 22:28:26 Zakim, take up item 5 22:28:26 agendum 5. "Review of progress of Mobile techniques" taken up [from AWK] 22:29:37 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page 22:29:50 present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Shebanek, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kenny_Jhong, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kim_Patch, Jeanne_Spellman 22:29:50 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Development_Assignments 22:30:02 rrsagent, do not start a new log 22:30:37 kp: We did a gap analysis against other sets of mobile guidelines 22:30:47 debating whether we want to create techniques for those gaps 22:31:19 awk: when discussing M2 (text target size) 22:31:32 Loretta has joined #wai-wcag 22:31:59 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/M2 22:32:20 WG always has churn discussing techniques 22:32:48 khs: the TF does see that one as important enough to develop 22:32:59 ms: TF has list of 21 it wants to do 22:33:22 should it develop them? what if WG doesn´t accept them? 22:33:37 awk: goal is that there is guidance clarifying what developers should do 22:33:46 (and identify future guideline requirements) 22:34:12 What do people need to see to feel WCAG covers mobile? 22:34:19 khs: @@ 22:34:30 js: But some of the techniques don´t apply to specific SC 22:34:34 how do we handle that? 22:34:40 lgr: They can be advisory 22:34:52 and put on Post WCAG 2 list 22:35:01 awk: Is that enough pay-off for the mobile group? 22:35:18 khs: not to pay attention to some specific techniques would be a mistake 22:35:34 awk: but what if it´s not part of WCAG? 22:35:57 e.g., does text target size disproportionately affect PWD? 22:36:07 js, khs: yes, there is research for that 22:36:31 khs: e.g., hand tremors, people without fingertip capacitance 22:36:40 lgr: conceptually that relates to keyboard accessibility 22:36:49 but that´s not a satisfying approach to mobile 22:37:11 ms: context of device doesn´t lend to keyboard use 22:37:26 khs: device independence concept no longer means just ¨does it work with a keyboard¨ 22:38:02 lgr: but for this example, if it´s a device independent event but has to be triggered by touch screen, there is an issue 22:38:11 keyboard accessible means you could attach something if needed 22:38:30 awk: super-small radio buttons is something we see 22:38:34 is that covered by SC? 22:38:54 there isn´t a failure technique for making things too small 22:39:18 ms: differentiate between readability and interoperability 22:39:27 tiny radio button you can perceive but not actuate 22:40:20 MC: We are struggling around the lack of specific guidelines 22:40:46 MC: So what should we do, could we publish these techs 'guideline less' at the moment? 22:40:54 LGR: They could be advisory 22:41:14 MC: If we did that would they from a WCAG conformance view be acceptable. 22:41:50 MC: It seems to me that in addition you will need a suggestions deliverable that the techs will relate to 22:42:15 MC: We need to be careful but could have a working doc that addressed this gap 22:42:28 awk: there are techniques that apply at Guideline level, not SC 22:42:35 this example is more Principle 22:42:49 lgr: I bet mobile devices not keyboard accessible 22:42:55 ms: it´s coming 22:43:12 lgr: but mobile developers won´t put time into that 22:43:18 js: for navigation yes, but there is text input 22:43:22 the text input can hook to keyboard 22:43:27 but navigation doesn´t 22:43:35 lgr: because most people don´t interact that way 22:43:41 ms: there is no cursor 22:43:47 so they don´t even test that 22:43:53 kp: there are some with cursors 22:44:06 lgr: just browser 22:44:42 joc: can we be confident that language like ¨this must be keyboard accessible¨ will be consistent? 22:44:53 @@ gestural accessibility 22:44:55 lgr: no 22:45:11 ms: often people think of keyboard accessibillity as shortcuts 22:45:23 but that´s a different problem from what we´re exploring on mobile 22:45:32 lgr: gestures require lots of dexterity 22:45:54 kp: if gestures were consistent it would be easier 22:46:11 also there is no speech control on phones 22:46:27 these are tower of babel issues that need addressing 22:46:32 ms: there are no guidelines on timing 22:46:42 e.g., a flick, swipe, and tap differ only in speed 22:46:47 that´s a big a11y barrier 22:47:20 lgr: WCAG does have timing stuff 22:47:29 ms: but not really for this use case 22:47:39 no platform have adjustable timing yet 22:47:50 lgr: WCAG really fell back on keyboard access 22:48:06 I see that in theory that addresses mobile, but in practice not 22:48:13 awk: ? 22:48:23 ms: people using mobile devices won´t carry keyboards around 22:48:37 awk: will this be solved by IndieUI stuff? 22:48:58 lgr: maybe. Think today developers wouldn´t go to effort to support keyboard because usage would be so low 22:49:21 kp: keyboard fallback was always a crutch, that worked when they were endemic 22:49:24 but they aren´t on mobile 22:49:36 I´d like to see a mapping of keyboard shortcuts to functions 22:49:39 and map in gestures 22:50:07 lgr: make an interace that isn´t timing and location dependent, would meet WCAG 22:50:41 joc: what´s the low hanging fruit for developers? 22:51:29 is keyboard a11y that? 22:51:32 khs: @@ 22:51:43 awk: what´s our best advice to a developer today? 22:52:01 MC: Because its the best advise or because thats what WCAG says? 22:52:16 khs: keyboard? 22:52:19 js: @@ 22:52:19 +Q 22:52:58 khs: the events are @@ 22:53:11 js: WCAG addresses navigation, but that doesn´t carry over well 22:53:12 -q 22:53:34 +q to say that there are some assumptions that certainly I'm making about mobile a11y that don't translate 22:53:43 awk: do we tell developers they can´t use keyboard access as their out because user wouldn´t be accessible? 22:53:58 js: users can be very successful on mobile platforms, but they´re not using keyboard access 22:54:08 it´s a different paradigm, and we need to be flexible to that 22:54:19 so I´d like to broaden definition of keyboard accessible 22:54:25 ms: more alternate input than keyboard a11y 22:54:40 kp: we don´t want to break things, esp things we don´t know about 22:54:44 chaals has joined #wai-wcag 22:55:16 e.g., speech input shouldn´t require me to learn a new language 22:55:45 I have keyboard interactions I´m used to, would like to replicate them on my mobile 22:56:02 khs: until we have something in place, we need to stick with what we know works 22:56:35 kp: in early speech days, tab was implemented as space which really broke navigation 22:56:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:56:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html chaals 22:57:25 joc: still want to look at low-hanging fruit 22:57:32 see a lot of work to be done in mappings 22:58:05 ack me 22:58:05 Joshue, you wanted to say that there are some assumptions that certainly I'm making about mobile a11y that don't translate 22:58:39 js: keep in mind is mobile isn´t the end point of these questions. Wearables is the next thing 22:58:53 khs: yes, so we really have to get away from modalities 22:59:15 rrsagent, make log public 22:59:31 kp: We still use QWERTY [in North America], example that some things stick around a long time 22:59:57 @@ 23:00:07 [but we don't use it in a lot of Europe, where we have AZERTY and QWERTZ and other variations by default] 23:00:08 ms: seems to me we should keep exploring these candidate techniques 23:00:13 and sort out the guideline attachments later 23:00:34 khs: look at which ones are highest priority first 23:01:34 joc: sounds like we need to decouple mobile TF from WCAG SC 23:01:43 khs: doing that in cognitive also 23:01:52 awk: maybe not decouple, just ¨not require¨ 23:02:14 MC: Then lets just put out the guidance that we need to 23:02:26 MC: The Cog a11y group is doing this also 23:03:02 awk: there are still use cases for keyboard access 23:03:27 e.g., someone with tremors really needs keyboard with filterkeys 23:03:42 so worried about a wholesale jump away from that to new paradigm of touch 23:03:49 not what you´re saying, but what people may hear 23:04:08 one of the first challenges of the Mobile TF is to lay out what the needs are 23:04:20 what use cases are better on mobile, what are worse? 23:04:21 q+ 23:04:37 q+ to ask about difference between mobile and small 23:04:50 khs: tactile is example of something that helps everyone 23:05:12 js: enforcing keyboard a11y might not be the right path. Mobile platform may provide a better solution 23:05:16 awk: for many uers 23:05:18 not for all 23:05:34 khs: what is deaf-blind on mobile? 23:05:45 ms: bluetooth, refreshable braille 23:05:54 +1 to Jeanne about not missing the inherent opportunities that the mobile platform may give us 23:06:11 ack me 23:06:11 MichaelC, you wanted to ask about difference between mobile and small 23:06:19 MC: Is the concern of mobile a11y an issue of small devices or portable devices 23:06:35 mc: is concern about mobile a concern about small devices, or about portable devices? is there a difference that needs to be captured? 23:06:37 s/devices/devices? 23:06:42 khs: @@ 23:07:14 ms: take a smart watch - is too small for speech synthesis 23:07:18 though may be able to provide in conjunction with a larger device it connects to 23:07:41 there are other examples historically of where the a11y came from partner devices 23:08:20 khs: for some wearables you´re attached to the device 23:08:28 ms: that´s model difference that may shake out 23:08:45 js: some provide wonderful a11y that we don´t traditionally recogniz 23:09:11 khs: some of the standards will be able to go beyond @@ 23:09:22 if you can meet requirement @@ 23:10:08 kp: is the rating of importance of techniques done by TF or WG? 23:10:24 mc: suggest TF, and run past WG to see where there are questions 23:12:00 kp: so let´s do that, and then cook up plan for where they fit 23:12:19 mc: suggest do technique identification, prioritization, and fleshing out 23:12:30 then map them to existing or ¨gap¨ success criteria 23:12:39 the gap SC become input to future requirements 23:12:46 so 2 basic deliverables there 23:13:11 awk: some of the shoe-horning to existing SC will have various levels of comfort 23:13:18 sortng that out informs future requirements 23:13:32 js: How do we want to present techniques? 23:13:55 I´ve been thinking we´d have a separate document for Mobile, like PDF and Silverlight 23:14:05 awk: they´re less discrete than those technologies 23:14:31 I imagined a collection of techniques applicable to mobile 23:14:37 though wonder if it´s a list of all techniques 23:15:07 MC: In the redesign discussion, we should be looking at this question as well 23:15:36 MC: Some techs shouldn't be primarily identified as only mobile - there are crossovers, not all are vertical etc 23:15:54 lgr: was expecting a separate document for mobile 23:16:18 ms: mobile web or mobile native? 23:16:25 there are different sets of issues there 23:16:37 e.g., off-screen screens, with no indication they exists 23:17:39 MC: Re LGR's poiint about a mobile-specific doc. We may have that, not sure what it will or won't look like 23:17:49 MC: s/poiint/point 23:18:12 MC: Re mobile web or native, TF shouldn't constrain itself at the start 23:18:36 MC: In terms of the deliverables we need to figure out what we will do 23:18:54 MC: W3C is currently scoped for work on the web, but 23:19:14 MC: this is an area of discussion with W3M 23:19:42 khs: e.g., touch targets is on both layers 23:19:49 what overlaps and what doesn´t? 23:19:54 many examples will merge 23:21:15 kp: we have a preliminary list of techniques that apply to mobile and web 23:21:25 there is a list of stuff that seems to be native only 23:21:52 mc: issue of web vs non-web content blurring is growing, we´ve got to face the question 23:22:07 W3C has its scope but we need to provide complete guidance for what´s in its scope 23:22:16 which means touching on the overlap areas 23:23:21 kp: screen size is a defining difference, maybe 23:23:28 awk: techniques 23:23:38 lgr: non technology specific are general techniques 23:23:55 khs: @@ 23:24:08 ms: there will be devices that are solely speech controlled 23:25:35 mc: there were other cases like that, sometimes solved by making the new paradigm more accessible, some by accepting the old paradigm needed to be included 23:25:46 awk: @@ 23:28:01 AWK: perhaps we should make the techniques for mobile grouped by the main factors that we're using the define mobile by (for now), such as using touch screen, or pertaining to multiple and small screen sizes, etc. 23:28:08 23:29:11 q+ to ask about WCAG review of deliverabls 23:29:47 ack me 23:29:47 MichaelC, you wanted to ask about WCAG review of deliverabls 23:30:25 mc: how can we help the mobile TF get things reviewed and approved? 23:31:50 kp: we´re still learning. Specific feedback on why things come back would be really helpful. 23:32:29 awk: Stuff that´s come to WG for review so far has been some of the hard stuff 23:32:56 I try to sit in on the mobile calls to help represent WG thoughts 23:33:11