15:31:52 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 15:31:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/10-wai-wcag-irc 15:31:54 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:31:57 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 15:31:57 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:31:57 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 15:31:57 Date: 10 November 2015 15:32:06 zakim, agenda? 15:32:06 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 15:32:07 3. Extension Requirements Survey (Update): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/ [from Joshue108] 15:32:20 clear agenda 15:32:33 agenda+ QuickRef update from Eric 15:32:44 Holiday Schedule and Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/ 15:32:55 agenda+ Holiday Schedule and Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/ 15:33:07 agenda+ Face To Face meeting and survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGF2F/ 15:33:21 agenda+ Extension Requirements 15:33:27 zakim, agenda? 15:33:27 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 15:33:28 1. QuickRef update from Eric [from Kenny] 15:33:28 2. Holiday Schedule and Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/ [from Kenny] 15:33:28 3. Face To Face meeting and survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGF2F/ [from Kenny] 15:33:29 4. Extension Requirements [from Kenny] 15:45:46 laura has joined #wai-wcag 15:49:25 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 15:49:36 trackbot, start meeting 15:49:38 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:49:40 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 15:49:40 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:49:41 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 15:49:41 Date: 10 November 2015 15:49:52 zakim, agenda? 15:49:52 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 15:49:53 1. QuickRef update from Eric [from Kenny] 15:49:53 2. Holiday Schedule and Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/ [from Kenny] 15:49:53 3. Face To Face meeting and survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGF2F/ [from Kenny] 15:49:54 4. Extension Requirements [from Kenny] 15:50:14 agenda+ WAI tutorial suggestions 15:50:21 Chair: Joshue 15:56:14 AWK has joined #wai-wcag 15:56:20 Zakim, agenda? 15:56:20 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 15:56:21 1. QuickRef update from Eric [from Kenny] 15:56:21 2. Holiday Schedule and Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/ [from Kenny] 15:56:21 3. Face To Face meeting and survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGF2F/ [from Kenny] 15:56:22 4. Extension Requirements [from Kenny] 15:56:22 5. WAI tutorial suggestions [from Joshue108] 15:56:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:56:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK 15:56:59 rrsagent, set logs public 15:58:36 Chair: Joshue 16:01:25 Jan has joined #wai-wcag 16:02:57 marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag 16:04:21 David has joined #wai-wcag 16:04:36 sorry still trying to get my mike working 16:04:43 can hear you fine 16:04:43 Kathy has joined #wai-wcag 16:04:45 jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag 16:04:59 Sarah_Swierenga_ has joined #wai-wcag 16:05:20 present+ Kathy 16:06:01 present+ EricE 16:06:15 scribe: David MacDonald 16:06:22 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:06:22 Present: EricE, Laura, Kenny, Joshue, marcjohlic, Kathy 16:06:28 Wayne has joined #wai-wcag 16:06:35 present+ David 16:06:45 present+ Joshue108 16:06:50 present+jon_avila 16:06:55 zakim, atendees 16:06:55 I don't understand 'atendees', jon_avila 16:07:01 zakim, list attendees 16:07:01 As of this point the attendees have been EricE, Laura, Kenny, Joshue, marcjohlic, Kathy, David, Joshue108, jon_avila 16:07:14 present+ Sarah_Swierenga 16:07:21 present+ Laura 16:07:26 scribe: David MacDonald 16:07:26 zakim, take up next 16:07:26 agendum 1. "QuickRef update from Eric" taken up [from Kenny] 16:07:46 I can scribe 16:08:08 jjjjj 16:08:14 scribe: jon_avila 16:08:20 yes 16:08:31 testing 16:09:09 jo: QuickRef update was sent to the group. Important reboot of guides. 16:09:33 QuickRef survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2015-10-quickref/results 16:09:40 eric: thank you to everyone who has filled out the survey. Got a few new comments. 1 objections from David. Have addressed that. Please go back in look David. 16:10:25 withdraw my objection 16:10:32 eric: most approvals for public reviews. Few more hours left on survey. Some smaller things coming up about the scrolling behavior that we want to address before going into public review 16:10:43 eric: thank you for your valuable feedback. Lot of good stuff in there. 16:10:53 jo: Looks like we will be able to go into public review? 16:10:58 eric: Yes, appears so. 16:11:06 jo: any questions for Eric while he is here? 16:11:25 wayne+ 16:11:30 jo: hearing none, thank you Eric. Looking forward to the review interaction. Any objections for this going out to public? 16:11:44 david: may want to change status section of the document. 16:11:59 Eric: Yes, we will change that and provide a link for survey from the public to get feedback. 16:12:01 jo: any objections? 16:12:08 jo: hearing none 16:12:36 +MichaelC 16:12:51 awk: need to send something out to the working group as a whole before we have a resolution. 16:14:23 Michael: we don't need to trip over wording on all resolutions despite consensus policy. 16:14:50 RESOLUTION: QuickRef prototype to go for public review 16:14:57 zakim, take up next 16:14:57 agendum 2. "Holiday Schedule and Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/" taken up [from Kenny] 16:16:17 jo: looks like 17 nov and 24 of nov are good and so forth. 22nd and 29th of December are not looking good. So we will not have calls then but we will be back in the saddle on the 5th of January 2016. 16:16:20 +1 16:16:23 jo: anyone have anything to add? 16:16:34 +1 16:16:47 +1 16:16:47 zakim, take up next 16:16:47 agendum 4. "Extension Requirements" taken up [from Kenny] 16:17:22 zakim, take up item 3 16:17:22 agendum 3. "Face To Face meeting and survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGF2F/" taken up [from Kenny] 16:17:54 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGF2F/results 16:18:16 jo: the first question in the survey was on co-locating 16:18:33 jo: 8 at CSUN 5 at TPAC in Lisbon 16:18:59 jo: Also the w4a event in Montreal 16:19:32 http://www2016.wwwconference.org/ 16:19:50 MiichaelC: W4A always happens at same place www conference 16:19:52 +1 on Montreal or Lisbon 16:20:37 jo: should we have our own distinct even or co-locate? 16:20:45 jo: Most people have no preference on that question. 16:21:07 q+ 16:21:19 q+ to recommend TPAC 16:21:32 jo: next preference is to have it with another event. North America east coast is first preference and then west coast North America and then Europe. 16:22:02 q- 16:22:07 jo: having a F2F in either TPAC or CSUN or both is likely option. 16:22:09 ack awk 16:22:22 I can't do CSUN this year... 16:22:27 awk: would be good to send the survey out the tasks forces also. 16:22:41 adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag 16:22:49 awk: if we had a two day long F2F we could have time for TF participants work together and join in with working group as a whole. 16:23:07 +1 16:23:08 q+ to +1 TF and mention coga 16:23:11 awk: by the time we are doing this we will have some things to work out as whole. If people think this is a good idea we should send this out to the chairs. 16:23:48 kathy: sounds like great idea. F2F would be focusing on extension model and having the TFs together and look at work as a group would be great. 16:23:54 jo: awk to send out the LV TF. 16:24:01 kathy: is this open to all or restricted? 16:24:11 awk: should be open to 2018 16:24:21 kathy: will send out to mobile TF 16:24:21 ack mic 16:24:21 MichaelC, you wanted to +1 TF and mention coga 16:24:48 Michael: requires you be a member of the WCAG working group to fill it out. Not all TF members are working group members. 16:25:14 awk: just checked the box to allow others to be able to fill out the survey. 16:25:17 ack mich 16:25:17 MichaelC_, you wanted to recommend TPAC 16:25:24 q? 16:26:14 MichaelC: COGA has been talking about the F2F. TPAC is a good idea because we have not done it recently. We should really consider it. 16:26:32 jo: agree it would increase task force participation 16:26:49 awk: to ping Lisa on COAG TF and survey 16:27:13 s/COAG/COGA 16:27:24 jo: any other comments/questions? 16:27:26 zakim, take up item 4 16:27:26 agendum 4. "Extension Requirements" taken up [from Kenny] 16:27:44 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Extensions_Framework 16:28:01 jo: we've had some pretty active threads on the frameworks for extensions. Andrew has some rolled some questions to the extensions document. 16:28:06 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=WCAG_Extensions_Framework&diff=5872&oldid=5867 16:28:17 jo: diff version provided so we can see what changes were made. 16:28:22 q? 16:28:50 q+ 16:29:12 ack michael 16:29:42 jo: first item, an existing SC may change by going from AAA to AA or AA to A from a lower priority to a higher 16:30:10 michaelC: need careful thought on how much we would take advantage of this requirement 16:30:18 q? 16:30:43 q+ 16:31:04 ack kathy 16:31:14 jo: agree we need to think about it. 16:31:53 kathy: maybe we need note about that anything that is moved up can be achieved across all technologies. 16:32:08 jo: another indicator is testability. We need to maintain that all A and AA are testable. 16:32:20 michaelC: Some things may have become more testable over the years. 16:32:36 michaelC: some sort of note saying that extensions need to be cognizant of the impact. 16:33:01 kathy: It may not be clear to all people in TF why something was at AAA and what it needs to go for to be moved. 16:33:55 jo: maybe want to add a section to the framework or some supporting document 16:34:11 michaelC: would add a sentence to hook in the requirements document. 16:34:16 q? 16:35:37 q+ 16:35:44 ack wayne 16:35:47 michaelC: we already say they meet the pre-existing requirements. Maybe something like pay attention to the existing requirements. 16:36:30 wayne: what about places where SC is missing or need to be updated? 16:36:44 awk: Example might be to change 200% of SC 1.4.4. to 400% 16:36:57 jo: don't intend to weaken any SC 16:37:39 michaelC: extensions are backwards compatible 16:40:22 jo: next change was to say strive to make all extensions compatible with each other. 16:40:42 Extensions that modify existing success criteria do so with full consideration of the impact on the rest of the guidelines in context of the full set of requirements that apply to the guidelines and extensions. For examples, extensions that lower the conformance level of a success criterion ensure that the success criterion meets the bar of wide implementatbility and testability expected at that level. 16:41:24 jo: original document say "must not conflict". Now it says they should be able to co-exist and allow authors to implement multiple extensions 16:42:19 I made a change to the "ensure that web pages which conform..." heading section. Adding a sentence. 16:42:55 awk: this change was done as result of conversation last week as we had very strong language that we said must not conflict and there was concern about that. 16:43:30 awk: I changed that to indicate that conflicts would ideally not exist but that we recognize that they may happen. The focus was around minimization and striving to make the compatible but not a firm statement to say NO there cannot be any conflicts. 16:43:48 q+ 16:44:17 ack way 16:44:25 jo: extensions would ideally be harmony allowing authors to meet multiple extensions. We understand there are diverse needs and we want to ensure the extensions can meet those. 16:44:53 wayne: how will developers code to this? 16:44:53 Suggestion: Extensions will ideally not conflict with each other, allowing authors to implement multiple extensions. 16:45:02 jo: we are working on framework first 16:45:41 awk: a little concerned about the word harmony you proposed. Feel like something that is short and clear is desirable. 16:46:21 jo: first we have a change. Ok with the change. Don't like the circular "if extensions exist for their own purpose" language. 16:46:59 +q 16:47:06 ack lauta 16:47:10 ack laura 16:47:29 laura: how about using the word should? They should not conflict unless there are valid reason and they are understood and weighed 16:47:45 jo: that works as it does not use the word "must". 16:48:34 awk: Agree that is simpler. Made a change extensions should not conflict with either other allowing authors to implement multiple extensions allow author to meet different user needs (see page for actual wording) 16:49:53 jo: moving on to bit about those working on extensions and communications with the working group 16:50:23 q? 16:52:01 awk: about release part - Michael had request that we specifically call out and ask for review of this block of text so people can focus on this 16:52:31 jo: please pipe up if anyone has any comments on questions. 16:52:33 q? 16:53:11 q? 16:55:47 jo: sticking with model that extensions mirror model in WCAG so people will have to able to have matching claims 16:56:12 awk: If you are meeting extension AA then you will be meeting everything in WCAG AA 16:57:04 q? 16:57:13 wayne: was thinking it might be possible to say WCAG AA but only extension A 16:57:26 q+ 16:58:35 awk: that is true. you could have a WCAG AA conformant site but then meet an extension to level A because we have not meet the all of the level AA in the extension. 16:58:43 ack mich 16:58:47 wayne: that matches how WCAG 2 was intended. 16:59:13 michaelC: I see the reason but I think it will be confusing to have them at different levels. Extensions shoudl have levels but you shoudl use same level. 16:59:15 q+ 16:59:38 jo: Can only make extension claims if you are already WCAG compliant. 17:00:29 michaelC: less concerned with that point as if you haven't got to WCAG why would bother with extension. I could see meeting WCAG A and extension A. 17:00:45 q+ 17:00:48 ack jon 17:00:57 q+ to ask Kathy about Mobile extension plans to have A/AA/AAA criteria 17:01:24 JA: I understand michaels point. It makes sense but in practice matching a level and extension exactly is impractical. 17:01:36 JA: Extensions are optional. 17:01:57 q+ 17:01:58 JA: A lot of people out there way they support WCAG but they dont claim conformance 17:02:08 http://davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integration-into-WCAG.html 17:02:21 ack me 17:02:58 ack david 17:03:33 michaelC: Mechanics of claims is something the W3C cares about but is important to have a model. But agree we do need to understand the practical real world expression of the WCAG criteria. 17:04:08 david: would really like to have one extension that we could mix the SC together and have one thing that we say to the world with our updated extension model. 17:04:13 ack awk 17:04:13 AWK, you wanted to ask Kathy about Mobile extension plans to have A/AA/AAA criteria 17:04:14 ack me 17:04:23 +1 to David's 1 extension. 17:05:14 awk: Wanted to confirm that Kathy had said that the mobile group already had started to separate criteria into different levels 17:05:33 kathy: mapping to same structure and levels. Right now we have A and AA in the mobile TF and we are using both levels. 17:05:47 jo: should restrict extension levels to AA 17:06:08 kathy: I don't think so because we may want to capture things that full into AAA 17:06:08 s/jo: should restrict extension levels to AA/jo: should we restrict extension levels to AA? 17:06:20 kathy: technology changes and at least we have captured items as AAA 17:06:33 We have people who pick and choose from AAA 17:06:42 +1 17:07:04 kathy: better to have SC available under AAA. Don't think we should limit it to A or AA. No reason not to. 17:07:10 q? 17:07:52 q+ 17:08:15 ack way 17:09:12 wayne: Find sites that meet WCAG level such as AA but the assistive technology doesn't work. Recommend report bugs to AT. 17:10:45 Extensions that modify existing success criteria do so with full consideration of the impact on the rest of the guidelines in context of the full set of requirements that apply to the guidelines and extensions. For examples, extensions that lower the conformance level of a success criterion ensure that the success criterion meets the bar of wide implementatbility and testability expected at that level. 17:11:15 So sorry, but I have a meeting with my manager and must sign off for this week. Regrets, too, for next week due to an all-day on-site meeting with the federal program officer from one of my grants. Thanks for your patience as I get up to speed - and thanks to Mike Elledge for keeping me in the loop during my long absence from this important working group. Have a good day. 17:11:42 MichaelC: AA is higher conformance level than A 17:12:33 michaelC: Conformance levels are like climbing a mountain 17:13:49 Success criteria that are to be moved from AAA to AA or lower must be testable or have global AT support. 17:15:41 bang 17:16:48 q+ 17:17:00 michaelC: Trying to explain the consequences of changing a success criteria including the level of a success criteria. If you do does it change the meaning of the SC for WCAG 2 17:18:20 michaelC: WCAG does not list the criteria used to set level -- they are in a wiki. We relaxed a little on AAA criteria. Still had to be testable but we didn't need to be as confident. 17:18:55 +1 to Kathys text 17:19:34 Gregg says the criteria are testable, applicable, and reasonable. 17:19:55 kathy: provided a simplification of what Michael said. 17:20:20 It is important to note that changes to the level for existing success criteria need to be made with awareness of the implementability and testability requirements for the new level. For example, a Success Criteria may currently be at Level AAA as a result of very limited testability, and moving that Success Criteria to Level AA would require greater testability. 17:20:29 michaelC: really are speaking to level changes -- so perhaps it might be better to talk about that rather than us trying to be more general. 17:20:42 awk: also wrote an alternative. Will read Kathy's now. 17:20:49 kathy: fine with either one. 17:23:01 awk: May make more sense to put it under the section with conformance structure model as well. 17:24:15 jo: we could have stricter requirements for extension requirements. 17:25:08 michaelC: don't try to solve issues of WCAG in the extensions model. 17:25:12 jo: don't want to port issues over. 17:25:27 michael: doubt extensions will bother with AAA 17:25:37 +1 on no AAA for extensions 17:25:39 michaelC: don't think AAA is top priority. 17:25:41 I doubt it as well 17:25:57 michaelC: people want A or AA stuff 17:26:18 q+ 17:26:37 michaelC: no need to rule out AAA 17:26:52 ack wayne 17:27:17 ack wa 17:27:20 q+ to say why rule one thing out like AAA in extensions, when we didn´t want to rule out other things like extensions conflicting? 17:27:21 ack jon 17:27:27 ack jon 17:29:01 from the definition of audio description: "Note 2: In standard audio description, narration is added during existing pauses in dialogue." 17:30:39 ack michae 17:30:39 MichaelC, you wanted to say why rule one thing out like AAA in extensions, when we didn´t want to rule out other things like extensions conflicting? 17:30:58 +1 17:31:08 MichaelC: let's not rule it out. 17:31:13 I don't think that we should rule out AAA either 17:31:22 q? 17:31:30 bye 17:31:38 bye all 17:31:41 zakim, list attendees 17:31:41 As of this point the attendees have been EricE, Laura, Kenny, Joshue, marcjohlic, Kathy, David, Joshue108, jon_avila, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC 17:31:48 rrsagent, make minutes 17:31:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html jon_avila