See also: IRC log
<Joshue108> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<scribe> Scribe: Laura
<david_000> +1
JOC: Extensions being optional has caused some controversy.
<adam_solomon> +1
JOC: Reads proposed replcement form the survey.
<yatil> +1
<Kathy> +1
JOC: it removes “optoional”.
Adam: Is there a risk that people may be confused and think extensions are required?
JOC: Maybe.
... we need to review verbiage. Recent twitter storm.
Mike: When talk about extensions
and tightening them is it a requirement or optional?
... depends on intention.
JOC: Indended as a modular bridging technology.
<jon_avila> +1 to James and Adam
James: Risk of removing “optional” with policy makers.
JOC: Potentially an overhead.
David: explains history from 2014.
<Srinivasu> }Srini
<Srinivasu> +Srini
David: Twitterstorm with “optional” versus 2.1. Doesn’t think it will solve the complete twitterstorm.
<Srinivasu> Though we don't say it's NOT optional, but somewhere we may need to clarify it's required or optional... Else people keep asking.
JOC: People want WCAG 3. But we
work in a deliberate way.
... More food for thought.
RESOLUTION: Leave open.
JOC: Asks MichaelC opinion
MichaelC: Can live with dropping it.
Kathy: Dropping the word doesn’t make it required.
<david_000> +1
Kathy: doesn’t disagree with anyone.
<jon_avila> I'd like to see some formal comments rather than just conjecture on twitter
Kathy: How we label the
extensions may be the problem.
... who are your audiences an who are we trying to reach?
JOC: This is the draft.
<Srinivasu> I'm OK if we want extensions to be optional but there is someway we need to tell community that extensions are in addition to WCAG and they are really needed to consider. if not all, some of them are sort of required.
JOC: What is going to be the driver for people to adopt the extensions?
<Srinivasu> Reason I am a bit worried about "optional" is if we say optional, folks don't use it to most... then all the work being done by task forces may not get enough value.
Adam: Not against removing word
“optional” if we have a replacement.
... needs to be documented.
David: The word optional isn’t
the best word.
... would like to remove the word.
JOC: Happy to see the term removed and replaced with other nomenclature.
Adam: agree with David. Needs to be clearer.
<Joshue108> '"Extensions are stand alone standards modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0, and extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0 standard."
Adam: Extensions build on WCAG.
<david_000> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-wcag2-ext-req-20160105/
<Joshue108> '"Extensions are stand alone standards modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0, and extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0 standard."
Adam: would work for him. Replace the word.
<david_000> It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, which are modules that add accessibility guidance to the base of WCAG 2.0 for those who claim conformance to WCAG plus the extension..
<Joshue108> Mike suggests text - not mandatory but strongly recommended.
MichaelC: 2 instances of the word
optional. Not worth the heartburn.
... we need to come up with wording.
... only worry about the abstract.
<Joshue108> "Extensions are standards modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0, and extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0 standard."
<Joshue108> and
<Joshue108> "It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, modules that add accessibility guidance to the base of WCAG 2.0."
Mike: we need some kind of language regarding conformance.
JOC: Leave open for now.
<Joshue108> q
<david_000> Extensions are standards modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0, and extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them.
<Joshue108> Issue 99
<Joshue108> https://github.com/DavidMacDonald/wcag/commit/e0c2bb38578ebd35f6f5071b0752c73435251c77
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/results#xi99
David: Trying to do some
harmonization
... Has a pull request.
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/99
David: basically a failure.
Mike: Okay with 14 and 17.
JOC: Reads AWK survey comment.
David: no recommendations in the
failure tech.
... each page is marked up separately.
... we have 23 techniques.
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/108
<scribe> ACTION: David to add related tech and verify artifact in Fauilure. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> 'David' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dmacdona, dsloan).
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/108
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/results#xi108
<Joshue108> SCR37: Creating Custom Dialogs in a Device Independent Way
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/SCR37
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/SCR36
<Joshue108> SCR36: Providing a mechanism to allow users to display moving, scrolling, or auto-updating text in a static window or area
Jon: WE need to make sure we are focused.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/SCR26
<Joshue108> SCR26: Inserting dynamic content into the Document Object Model immediately following its trigger element
James: Seems like busy work.
JOC: not seeing compelling reason to merge them.
Jon: We could improve situations
more.
... Technique needs updating if to be kept separate. There are
differences when there are one dialog on a page, or multiple
dialog. Focus management need may vary depending on how the
dialog is open. So this could describe those situations
better.
RESOLUTION: Leave open.
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/109
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/results#xi109
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/SCR19
Adam: Explains background.
... Proposed response:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/109#issuecomment-136608790
Jon: Test procedure limited. Does not apply to dynamic content.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/SCR19
Adam: Re-reads procedure. no mention of focus.
Jon: Test procedure needs to be updated.
JOC: Adam may need to update.
<Joshue108> ACTION: Adam Solomon to create updated technique for SCR19 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> 'Adam' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., padam2, asolomon, azerner).
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/133
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/results#xi133
MichaelC: Would prefer if we are
going to change, we should do it in a blanket way.
... Can live with it going though.
JOC: Thanks everyone.
<Mike_Elledge> bye! Feel better!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Davis./David./ Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Present: Kathy Laura WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! Found Date: 19 Jan 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: adam david solomon WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]