See also: IRC log
<laura> Hi Wayne, I liked yours too :-)
<AWK> IRC information: https://www.w3.org/Project/IRC/
<AWK> +AWK
<Joshue> +Joshue
<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<scribe> scribe: Wayne
Josh: The extension has been excellent. We don't have to work out all of the details now. We don't need to get too hunb up in all the details. The extensions are exploritory.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that what we do with new work is a critical part of defining the requirements
JF: We are working on a requirements doc. The discussion of what we are going to do with them is critical.
Josh: We are playing a long game and we need to avoid getting lost in the weeds. Our current grasp does not stack up.
Katie: I usderstand Johns concern, but we need more to address them.
JF: I don't see how the tasks are mutually exclusive. Some TFs are almost ready. It is blocking work.
Josh: Thought experiment. Suppose if some of this work did not result in extensions. They may be a new version of WCAG.
<Zakim> Ryladog, you wanted to not worry about what those developing SC will be numbered for now from each task force
JF: If iI usderstand I do. I do not agree.
Katie: What there developeing scucess criteria are. We need to see all the requirements befor we start applying numbers etc.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the Task forces are expecting to provide a set of possible SC, not a fully-formed extension at this time. Not sure what work is being blocked.
AWK: I don't think work is being blocked. Right now the TFs is not the numbers. In some cases numbers are added. They do not make a commitment. I am not sure the work is being blocked. What we need to do with all the content. I'm not sure we can wait for all TFs to complete.
<JF> example of Mobile: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5.3
<JF> touch stand-alone kiosk
Kathy: In order to move the mobile task force forward. The numbering is aproximate. Things are not just mobile specific. The numbering is not just the way to wrap our heads around hand what will fit. Put them in so that the TFs can work.
SaraH: It seems clear that the TFs are doing good work. The concerns are with what to do with what is coming out. The task forces should focus on the content, but there is a gap that is an "activity" task force that turns it into guidelines and resources for conformance.
<Mike_Elledge> +1
SaraH: We ned an additional activity TF to integrate it.
Kathy: You cannot say that a TF cant do the integration.
SaraH: There should be an additional activity that specifically does integration.
<Joshue> /me I can here you..
<Joshue> /me I'll dial in
<AWK> +1 to JF's point that the WCAG main group is the integration group
JF: Kathy says the TFs need direction and guideance. Sara proposed an integration TF. We need answers now. When will wee do this? I don't think it is too early to do this. I propose the WCAG WG is the integration.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say ok to have requirements open for a while; mark it as an open issue; attempt to address the issues as seems best in the extensions; see how that
<JF> +1 to a Schedule, which should be in the Requirements document
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask a question
MichaelC: It is acceptable. We don't have enough information to finalize. We can say to the TFs that we don't know all requirements. We can leve it open. Johns concern about timing is important. We need to set deadlines. We cnanot do anything undil wie have some drafts.
Judy: I appreciate the thoughtful
discussion: I've heard we need all of the requirements clear.
Other says maybe just a set of this. We need not only a
caldnear deadline but a qualitative threshold. Mobile is ahead.
Is there a qualitative threshold. I've heard that TF may be
held up without requiements. This happened with WCAG 2. If TFs
are held back, we could do some and make decisions. Set
a...
... clear qualitative threshold.
Josh: I hear what John is saying. I think we can wait. The details of thes requirements is not necessary. We need to through rocks at these requirements. We do not need to define what it needs to be now.
JF: Model of integration. Is it defined. It should be part of the requirements document. Do we have a definition of extension. We cannot change WCAG 2. We want to extend.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that a schedule is not in the requirements document. These are different.
AWK: We do need to define the requirements but the schedule is separate.
JF: A question is when will we address that.
<JF> +1 to figuring that out - sooner rather than later
<alastairc> What is difficult about developing SCs in the task forces independently, before conformance is defined?
AWK: We may have to accept a degree of flux. My hope is so we have guidence. If we allow flexibility we can hone it.
<Joshue> WD:It seems to me we are developing criteria and extensions of criteria that are non-conflicting.
<Joshue> WD: Thats our operating principle.
<Joshue> WD: We have an idea of what SCs they will fit with, some ideas are new.
<Joshue> WD: I don't feel constraint.
<Judy> s/This happened with WCAG 2.0/When WCAG 2.0 was under development, sometimes they couldn't decide everything at once, so sometimes they mocked up different approaches to explore and gain experience from those./
Judy: I think that: If any groups feel constrained then we need to address that. Calendar is less important thatn qualitative content limit. This may allow us to define what to do.
<JF> Thank you Kathy!
<Judy> s/Calendar is less important than qualitative content limit./Can the extension requirements doc also address qualitative threshold as well as calendar schedule?/
<Joshue> +1 to high level view of nexus between TF work
Kathy: Johns integration. We are
focused. Low vision users with LV. Cognitative looks at their
group. There are things they are looking at. There may be cross
over. There is a issue of overlap. There is not a clear if were
creating one extension or multiple extensions. We are focus on
specific things. We do need coordniations. We are looking at
multiple things, technology and users. There is...
... going to be having overlap. We all need to be thinking
about . We do need to think about those things are fitting
together. It doesn't stop TFs from working, but we do need to
coordinate similarities.
Josh: As people are in there
silos they may not be aware of other TFs are doing.
... Need to have coordination
Mike_Elledge: I heard hypothetically that a lack of a clear path is constrianing TF work. We don't want to limit the group creativity. Once they have come up with somethings we can impose limits.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we shouldn´t answer things slower than we can help, but also can´t answer them well faster than we should and to say presence of open issues means
Josh: We can look at them being independent, but we don't want to be too open ended.
MichaelC: We shouldn't drag our feet, but we need to be schedule concious. The presence of open issues means we are making progrss. Requirements are important, but they are not the only way to include a framework.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to push for a clear definition of extension in this WG
JF: Sooner rather than later, are we have multiple extensions, are are we going to have one that sends us forward. If we don't have a requirement how do we move forward.
<JF> +1 on avoiding ghettoization
<Ryladog> +1 to Josh's plan
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask a follow-up question
Josh: If you had ask me months ago. I would say there will be a mobile, cognitive, ... Now I do not see that that would work. I urge that we don't stop. Publish what they have god. Look at potential interoperability. A requirement at this time is not a good idea.
<David> +David
Judy: This is an important
discussion. One approach is to figure out what is doable at
eash stage. Come up with something that will work. The group
might want to think about is how do we max out the questions
now.
... what detailed questions can be askde. What issues that you
see may be useful. What do I think?
<David> http://davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integration-into-WCAG.html
JF: An extension model that is
based on user models... WCAG for Cognitive ... WCAG for
mobile... that would be the worst model. What do mean by
extension.
... There seems to be WCAG 2 + this and that. Before you build
a building we need a plan. This is not slowing down TF. All we
need is a requierment. What we do with these extensions.
... Whther it is WCAG 2.0 or some other... until we do this we
are flailing about.
<JF> +1 to Sarah - the time is now
SaraH: This is a process that is ready for architecture. We need to design different mock ups. Now is the time to do it.
<MichaelC> +1 to designing alternate approaches for comparision
<Makoto> +1 to JF
David: When we first started this process maybe we could look at David's model.
<Zakim> Ryladog_, you wanted to talk about what is not on the table
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to clarify something
Katie: What we need to about is what we are talking about. We thought WCAG _+ X+Y... Probably having a single extension is what we need. I think the 2.1 ... is what we want to have. if we can lets have it.
Judy: It has never the case the case that we couldn't not look at different extensions models.
<jon_avila> I thought our old charter said we couldn't create new normative work? Guess that was a rumor?
JF: Now is the time to start the discussion. Let's not punt this down the road. We don't have an end state.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say +1 to discussion now; but need data to be productive
Josh: If I hac money and was a betting man I like a 2.1.
<Judy> s/at different extension models/at updated versions/
MichaelC: We need dada. We don't want to punt down the road but I don't want to go in circles and go nowheres.
Laura: Arent we bound by our charters to have extensions.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if we can we agree to set a milestone for concluding that discussion?
MichaelC: Could not publish a WCAG 2.1 without rechartering.
<MichaelC> but could experiment with it, under requirements gathering
JF: I appriciate we have discussed. Can we set a milestone to have that architecture. Can we agree to have mid threshold. Could we put a frame around this and an end date.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to further clarify
Josh: No. it is the worng questions. I have my reservations.
<laura> Charter: https://www.w3.org/2015/09/wcag-charter
Judy: There has been a push about
having the req track being in and out of scope. There is no
constraint in the funding, and has not been. There have been
some constraints about Rec track work in charters, but also an
expectation that we would explore new stuff.
... You need a consencus on the need. Once again we need a
qualitative threshold.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say +1 to timeline; suggest chairs propose a 1st draft and to say timeline doesn´t mean we can´t change course; it´s meant to keep us on course and to
<JF> +1 to working towards identified dates, while remaining flexible in reaching consensus
MichaelC: On the charter it enables to publish extensions. It does not define the decision. All the models would be supported. I do support timelines. I think we can do it. We will need flexibility. Just because we don't know where we are going doesnt mean we cannot make one.
JF: +1 to timeline. We need to
set dates.
... we need to have some closure.
<David> hmmm I guess something is wrong with my mike...
<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/157
add a new note to clarify if contrast success criterion for 1.4.3 applies to all states for interactive elements such as links, buttons and inputs.?
<David> how about... "for a state that indicates a change of state which is intended to be an instantaneous indication of a change of state"
RESOLUTION: James N and Alistair to work on description of transcient meta states
Item 2: Needs to postpone
<jon_avila> Are we talking about h64?
AWK: Unless anyone objects we remove it.
James: It appears to be advisory.
<Mike_Elledge> bye all!
James: Note that is an advisiory technique.
<laura> Bye!
<SarahHorton> Thanks!
rssagent, make minutes
trackbot, end meeting
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|?me|/me|g Succeeded: s/content threashold/qualitative threshold/ FAILED: s/This happened with WCAG 2.0/When WCAG 2.0 was under development, sometimes they couldn't decide everything at once, so sometimes they mocked up different approaches to explore and gain experience from those./ FAILED: s/Calendar is less important than qualitative content limit./Can the extension requirements doc also address qualitative threshold as well as calendar schedule?/ Succeeded: s/MichaelC/Mike_Elledge/ FAILED: s/at different extension models/at updated versions/ Succeeded: s/Is there a constraint in the ffunding./There is no constraint in the funding, and has not been./ Succeeded: s/We have never had a constraing in the limits. The expectation that we would explore new stuff./There have been some constraints about Rec track work in charters, but also an expectation that we would explore new stuff./ Succeeded: s/Item 1/Item 2/ Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Default Present: Michael_Cooper, Alastair_Campbell, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kim_Dirks, Laura_Carlson, Lisa_Seeman, Mike_Elledge, Moe_Kraft, Rakesh_Paladugula, Sarah_Horton, Wayne_Dick, MoeKraft, David, AWK, marcjohlic, JamesNurthen, JF, Joshue108, jon_avila, AlastairC, EricE, Elledge, Sarah_Swierenga, Srini, Dirks, Makoto, Joshue, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Kathy Present: Michael_Cooper Alastair_Campbell Andrew_Kirkpatrick Joshue_O_Connor Katie_Haritos-Shea Kim_Dirks Laura_Carlson Lisa_Seeman Mike_Elledge Moe_Kraft Rakesh_Paladugula Sarah_Horton Wayne_Dick MoeKraft David AWK marcjohlic JamesNurthen JF Joshue108 jon_avila AlastairC EricE Elledge Sarah_Swierenga Srini Dirks Makoto Joshue Greg_Lowney MichaelC Kathy wayne Kim Laura WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 01 Mar 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]