14:40:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:40:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-wai-wcag-irc
14:40:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:40:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:40:27 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:40:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:40:28 <trackbot> Date: 14 June 2016
14:40:40 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue108
14:40:44 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:40:44 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
14:40:45 <Zakim> 1. TPAC Registration (https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/) [from AWK]
14:40:45 <Zakim> 6. WCAG.next timeline [from AWK]
14:40:45 <Zakim> 7. COGA update (Lisa) [from AWK]
14:40:45 <Zakim> 2. Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/ [from AWK]
14:40:46 <Zakim> 4. H91: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016AprJun/0660.html [from AWK]
14:40:46 <Zakim> 5. WCAG Techniques and Understanding timeline [from AWK]
14:40:56 <Joshue108> zakim, clear agenda
14:40:56 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:41:54 <Joshue108> FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/
14:41:54 <Joshue108> 
14:42:09 <Joshue108> Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/
14:42:14 <Joshue108> agenda+ Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/
14:42:25 <Joshue108> zakm, clear agenda
14:42:34 <Joshue108> agenda+ FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/
14:42:41 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:42:41 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
14:42:42 <Zakim> 1. Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/ [from Joshue108]
14:42:42 <Zakim> 2. FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/ [from Joshue108]
14:42:49 <Joshue108> zakm, clear agenda
14:42:51 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:42:51 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
14:42:52 <Zakim> 1. Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/ [from Joshue108]
14:42:52 <Zakim> 2. FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/ [from Joshue108]
14:43:02 <Joshue108> zakim, drop items 1, 2
14:43:02 <Zakim> I don't understand 'drop items 1, 2', Joshue108
14:43:06 <Joshue108> zakim, drop item 1
14:43:06 <Zakim> agendum 1, Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/, dropped
14:43:12 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:43:12 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:43:13 <Zakim> 2. FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/ [from Joshue108]
14:43:18 <Joshue108> zakim, drop item 2
14:43:18 <Zakim> agendum 2, FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/, dropped
14:43:21 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:43:21 <Zakim> I see nothing remaining on the agenda
14:43:26 <Joshue108> agenda+ FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/
14:43:46 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:43:46 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:43:47 <Zakim> 3. FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/ [from Joshue108]
14:43:58 <Joshue108> zakim, item 3 is item 1
14:43:58 <Zakim> I don't understand 'item 3 is item 1', Joshue108
14:44:20 <Joshue108> agenda+ Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/
14:44:30 <Joshue108> agenda+ WCAG 2.1 Requirements.
14:44:45 <Joshue108> agenda+ Acceptance Criteria for Success Criteria.
14:44:53 <Joshue108> agenda+  How to solicit Success Criteria from non-working group members.
14:44:58 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:44:58 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
14:44:59 <Zakim> 6. Acceptance Criteria for Success Criteria. [from Joshue108]
14:44:59 <Zakim> 7. How to solicit Success Criteria from non-working group members. [from Joshue108]
14:44:59 <Zakim> 3. FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/ [from Joshue108]
14:45:00 <Zakim> 4. Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/ [from Joshue108]
14:45:00 <Zakim> 5. WCAG 2.1 Requirements. [from Joshue108]
14:46:47 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
14:49:28 <Joshue108> zakim, the agenda order is 4, 3, 1,5,7
14:49:28 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
14:56:54 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
14:58:18 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
14:58:57 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:02 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:19 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:28 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:29 <Lisa_seeman> Lisa_seeman has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:35 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:02:18 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:03:05 <steverep> present+steverep
15:03:19 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:36 <Lauriat> Present+ Lauriat
15:03:45 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:49 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:04:00 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
15:04:19 <alastairc> present+ AlastairC
15:04:21 <laura> present+ Laura
15:04:40 <Joshue108> present+ Lisa
15:04:41 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:05:14 <jeanne> scribe: jeanne
15:05:51 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:00 <jeanne> zakim, take up item 1
15:06:00 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:06:08 <kirkwood_> kirkwood_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:17 <davidmacdonald> davidmacdonald has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:18 <kirkwood_> present+
15:06:47 <davidmacdonald> Present +davidmacdonald
15:08:30 <jeanne> zakim, take up next item
15:08:30 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Mobile TF survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/2016-0509/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:09:06 <jamesn> present+ JamesNurthen
15:09:14 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:18 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:09:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
15:09:31 <davidmacdonald> Present+ davidmacdonald
15:09:35 <kirkwood_> present +kirkwood
15:09:52 <jeanne> JO: Take a look at the mobile survey and be sure to fill it in.
15:10:04 <jeanne> ... a few people have responded already.
15:10:17 <jeanne> ... if you haven't replied, please do, it's important.
15:10:21 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
15:10:21 <Zakim> agendum 3. "FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:11:07 <jeanne> JN: When are we going to discuss the mobile survey?
15:11:13 <jeanne> JO: Next week.
15:11:32 <jeanne> JO: FPWD of COGA Gap
15:11:50 <jeanne> ... is out as a survey this week
15:12:07 <jeanne> ... there are responses for publication as a FPWD.
15:12:42 <jeanne> ... the second question was for publication, many positive responsive
15:12:53 <jeanne> ... there is a note for a 404 reference
15:13:21 <jeanne> LS: Kudos for finding the broken link. We are reviewing all the links to make sure they are all working.
15:13:30 <Joshue108> q?
15:13:46 <jeanne> Is there consensus to publish?
15:13:51 <jeanne> all accepted
15:13:59 <davidmacdonald> COGA, consider when writing SC's http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/what-are-WCAG-success-criteria.html
15:14:06 <jeanne> RESOLUTION:  Publish COGA for FPWD is accepted.
15:14:10 <Sarah_Swierenga> yeah!
15:14:21 <jeanne> MC: Can we talk about appendices?
15:14:49 <jeanne> ... there was confusion whether the semantics docuemnt is part of this package
15:15:06 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:15:07 <davidmacdonald> link?>
15:15:25 <jeanne> ... it was decided that the Gap Analysis document so the semantics document and extension are appendices.
15:15:42 <AWK> +AWK
15:16:04 <jeanne> ... this meant that the extension would not be published as a separate document, which could be confusing since we are working toward 2.1
15:16:23 <jeanne> ... the WCAG WG did not see that version with the appendices in the survey.
15:16:38 <jeanne> JO: Do we need a separate survey?
15:16:42 <Joshue108> q?
15:16:54 <jeanne> MC: It doesn't seem necessary
15:17:11 <jeanne> LS: It would be useful to get feedback earlier on the appendices
15:17:45 <jeanne> ... we have a Gap ANalysis that needs more success criteria, and now people can see that there is a SC that could handle it.
15:17:52 <MichaelC> s/It doesn't seem necessary/This is a substantive change so normally I would say yes, but if the group doesn´t see the need to re-review then we could just go ahead; these are just appendices/
15:18:12 <jeanne> ... or if people think that "this could be handled with semantics" and they can see the semantics.
15:18:26 <davidmacdonald> q+
15:18:32 <jeanne> ... so it seems as those the task force has done practical work that could be used by people.
15:18:46 <Joshue108> q+ to say I'm happy to see draft SCs published asap, as a part of an appendix is fine.
15:18:53 <Joshue108> ack dav
15:18:53 <jeanne> ... we like the success criteria, and it would be good to start getting some feedback on it.
15:19:30 <AWK> q+ to say that the main reason to not include the proposed SC is that it may cause confusion when the SC inevitably change as the WG reviews and as they are integrated with other TF proposed SC
15:19:37 <MichaelC> q+
15:19:49 <jeanne> DMD:  Great work on this.  In terms of the SC, it seems like a lot of the SCs have "do not"s in them.  Did the task force look at the SC document I wrote?
15:20:10 <MichaelC> q+ to say the appendix to the gap analysis is definitely not the form the SC will eventually take in WCAG 2.1
15:20:23 <jeanne> LS:  I looked at it.  The COGA document was quite mature when you sent it to me. There may be feedback that they want the document to be more positive.
15:20:40 <MichaelC> q+ to say a document on a private blog should be taken with a big grain of salt; the WCAG WG has not yet developed its SC guidance for 2.1
15:20:43 <jeanne> DMD: It is more than being positive, it is having statements of what passes.
15:20:43 <laura> Davids SC blog post: http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/what-are-WCAG-success-criteria.html
15:21:14 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:21:16 <jeanne> LS:  It's a lot of work and it is going to be tricky.  It's not necessarily acceptance criteria.
15:21:46 <jeanne> ... it needs to be descriptiove.  Where we knew these SC criteria existed, we conformed to them.
15:21:47 <Joshue108> q?
15:22:23 <jeanne> ... If we try to rewrite them now, -- it's a lot of work -- and we run the risk of losing what we wanted in the SC to begin with.
15:23:32 <jeanne> ... we need to know what the acceptance criteria are, and what are the best practices of writing SC.  We want to know this before we do another pass at writing SC.
15:24:04 <jeanne> DMD: Everyone should do all of these things, in my opinion.
15:24:22 <jeanne> LS:  What we don't want interations of acceptance criteria.
15:24:29 <MichaelC> ack j
15:24:29 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say I'm happy to see draft SCs published asap, as a part of an appendix is fine.
15:24:52 <jeanne> JO:  We need a baseline of what is an acceptable SC.
15:25:02 <jeanne> ... that is something we are going to talk about in the call today.
15:26:23 <jeanne> ... it would have been helpful to have discussed this perspective on success criteria within the working group before the conversation is published publicly.
15:26:35 <Joshue108> q?
15:26:36 <AWK> ack AWK
15:26:36 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the main reason to not include the proposed SC is that it may cause confusion when the SC inevitably change as the WG reviews and as they are integrated
15:26:38 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:26:39 <Zakim> ... with other TF proposed SC
15:26:45 <jeanne> ... we need to have this discussion
15:27:20 <MichaelC> q+ to say the gap analysis is Note-track; we could clarify the intended fate of the proposed SC
15:28:14 <jeanne> AWK: I worry that we are putting SC in the document, because these success criteria can change.  I worry about confusion between what is official and what is not.  I am comfortable with the task force publishing the gap analysis.
15:28:34 <MichaelC> ack me
15:28:34 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say the appendix to the gap analysis is definitely not the form the SC will eventually take in WCAG 2.1 and to say a document on a private blog should be
15:28:36 <jeanne> ... it gets more messy when we say "and these are the success criteria that we propose."
15:28:36 <Joshue108> ack mic
15:28:37 <Zakim> ... taken with a big grain of salt; the WCAG WG has not yet developed its SC guidance for 2.1 and to say the gap analysis is Note-track; we could clarify the intended fate of the
15:28:37 <Zakim> ... proposed SC
15:29:45 <Joshue108> q+ to say I  agree with  AWKs point also but doesn''t that mean we do a lot of this behind closed doors as such?
15:29:47 <jeanne> MC: That is a relevant point (andrew's). It is a Note-track document, so it should not be expected that the SC proposed would mature in their current state, or that they should be expected to be in 2.1.  Careful wording should help.
15:30:28 <jeanne> ... it needs a caveat that this is not complete work, but are rather that they are success criteria proposed to address them but not finalized.
15:30:35 <Joshue108> ack me
15:30:35 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say I  agree with  AWKs point also but doesn''t that mean we do a lot of this behind closed doors as such?
15:30:54 <jeanne> ... the comments from David are David's opinion, and the task force should focus on what is needed.
15:31:18 <MichaelC> (which have useful content but haven´t yet been vetted through the WG process)
15:31:21 <AWK> AWK: Work isn't behind closed doors - it is on GitHub...
15:31:28 <Lisa_seeman> q+
15:31:36 <jeanne> JO: If we keep back the success criteria, it makes it seem like we are working less publicly until we have perfected the wording.
15:31:38 <AWK> AWK: May not be as discoverable
15:32:16 <jeanne> AWK: It may not be as discoverable, but it isn't behind closed doors.  We do want comments, but it is more likely that it will change than not.
15:32:43 <jeanne> MC:  We have to be clear about that in the introduction to the appendix and the introduction to the Gap Analysis
15:33:26 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:33:26 <jeanne> JO: We have to think about, even in opposition to my desire to get this published.  Maybe we need to schedule updates to success criteria differently.
15:33:47 <jeanne> LS:  I agree that this is a first draft, and we expect substantial changes.
15:33:56 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:33:56 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:33:57 <Zakim> 3. FPWD of COGA Gap Analysis, Road Map and Issue Papers https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_FPWD_2016/ [from Joshue108]
15:33:57 <Zakim> 5. WCAG 2.1 Requirements. [from Joshue108]
15:33:57 <Zakim> 7. How to solicit Success Criteria from non-working group members. [from Joshue108]
15:33:57 <Zakim> 6. Acceptance Criteria for Success Criteria. [from Joshue108]
15:34:00 <jeanne> ... If we put it in a callout box, hopefully that will do the trick.
15:34:45 <jeanne> JO: We are generally agreed for publishing these in Appendices, but we do need to think about it.
15:35:07 <jeanne> ... Congratulations on publishing, and thank you for all the hard work.
15:35:34 <alastairc> Are we talking about these? https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/#new-success-criteria
15:35:34 <jeanne> JO: Does the WCAG WG want more survey time to approve the Appendices?
15:35:51 <jeanne> ... we are noting AWK's concern.
15:36:44 <jeanne> MC: We need to get things out for review, while still working with us. Another group that I coordinate with published without putting them through review, so this seems like a middle route.
15:37:05 <jeanne> ... the other task forces may want to do this with their documents, and we should expect that.
15:37:18 <Lisa_seeman> Please note that this is an early draft. The task force expects substantial changes.
15:37:26 <Lisa_seeman> (proposed wording)
15:37:44 <jeanne> JO:  I am fine with including the SC as appendices, with the callout "writ large"
15:38:45 <jeanne> MC: We can also do a CfC including the Appendices.  We can save a week by putting out a CfC for including the Appendices and see if there are objections.
15:39:08 <jeanne> LS: We are ready to go with the Appendices for the Gap Analysis.
15:39:21 <Lisa_seeman> http://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/
15:39:52 <jeanne> JS: that is the Gap Analysis with Appendices.  One for success criteria, and one for proposed semantics.
15:40:09 <alastairc> Direct link: http://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/#new-success-criteria
15:40:30 <Lisa_seeman> http://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/#cognitive-and-learning-disabilities-and-wcag
15:40:30 <Joshue108> http://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/#cognitive-and-learning-disabilities-and-wcag
15:41:42 <jeanne> JO: I will put out a CfC after the call.  Appendix A is the semantics and Appendix B are  the success criteria.
15:41:55 <Joshue108> q?
15:42:21 <jeanne> LS: When I sent an email to the list, I gave a link to the sub-document that was the semantics. But they were not included in the survey.
15:42:54 <jeanne> JO: There was some confusion about that, and decided to refer to the Gap Analysis as the COGO canon.
15:43:28 <jeanne> MC: But there is also the COGA Research that was published a year ago.  The "COGA canon" is quite large.
15:44:20 <jamesn> q+
15:44:26 <jeanne> MC: There are technology enhancements in Appendix A that are needed for Appendix B.
15:44:29 <Joshue108> ack james
15:44:54 <jeanne> JN:  I'm looking at Appendix B and I am having trouble seeing success criteria.
15:45:02 <davidmacdonald> B.3.1.1 Timed event are not used except for the situations listed below.
15:45:04 <davidmacdonald> B.3.2.1 Do not expose user information in a way that can be exploited without informed consent
15:45:05 <davidmacdonald> B.3.2.2 Do not add mechanisms that are likely to confuse the user in a way that may do them harm and use known techniques to keep the user safe.
15:45:07 <davidmacdonald> B.3.3.1 Provide a clear structure that includes:
15:45:08 <davidmacdonald> B.3.3.2 Interactive controls are visually clear or visually clear controls are easily available that conform to the following:
15:45:10 <davidmacdonald> B.3.3.3 Instructions, labels, navigation and important information are provided with a clear writing style that includes:
15:45:11 <davidmacdonald> B.3.3.4 When there is a barrier between the content and the user that requires additional abilities an alternative is provided that does not require additional abilities.
15:45:13 <davidmacdonald> B.3.3.5 Provide mechanisms that help the user focus and maintain or restore context if the context is lost.
15:45:13 <jeanne> JN:  there are techniques, but I don't see sc
15:45:14 <davidmacdonald> B.3.4.1 A predictable design is used within a set of pages that includes:
15:45:16 <davidmacdonald> B.3.5.1 The success or failure of every action should be clearly indicated to the user and visual rapid feedback should be available. Spoken feedback should be a user selectable option.
15:45:17 <davidmacdonald> B.3.5.3 Support is provided that help users complete and check their task, that includes§
15:45:19 <davidmacdonald> (may be provided via a standard personalization mechanism) (COGA Techniques 2.9 )
15:45:20 <davidmacdonald> 1.	Use known techniques to minimize errors that are relevant to the content
15:45:22 <davidmacdonald> ….
15:45:23 <davidmacdonald> B.3.5.4 Provide mechanisms that help the user focus and maintain or restore context if the context is lost.
15:45:30 <jeanne> LS: Anything that is in dashed boxes are techniques.
15:46:04 <Joshue108> q+
15:46:15 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:46:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
15:46:16 <jeanne> LS: We would say "Use a clear structure that includes" and then give a list of things that complete the success criteria, or other examples that use lists.
15:46:41 <jeanne> ... we wanted to be able to use vague words that people understood.
15:46:48 <AWK> regrets+ Kathy, JF
15:46:51 <MichaelC> q+
15:47:12 <jeanne> ... e.g. "a clear writing style" and then write specifics of what that includes.
15:47:18 <jeanne> ... it makes it long.
15:47:40 <jeanne> ... there should be a list from the table of contents, that pops out as a list of succcess criteria.
15:49:06 <jeanne> JN: The techniques are mix-and-match for example, some of the success criteria seem like techniques.  You are welcome to give that as feedback.
15:49:28 <jeanne> ... maybe wawnt to push them out as techniques.
15:50:20 <MichaelC> ack me
15:50:42 <jeanne> MC: I haven't felt that the success criteria were mature, but I want to determine if they are good enough for public review.  If the WG feels that they are not sufficiently mature for public review, or that the WG needs more time to consider them, then we should determine that.
15:51:20 <jeanne> JN: In 3.6.2 there are AAA that are mixed between AAA and AA, and I don't see how that would work.
15:51:38 <jeanne> JO: This should be included in a survey so that the comments are captured for the record.
15:51:41 <MichaelC> ack j
15:51:55 <jeanne> ... I haven't gone expensively through them myself.
15:52:38 <jeanne> ... I see the Techniques in perforated boxes, but they are mostly headings.  IS there semantic language in them?
15:52:53 <jeanne> LS: They aren't Techniques yet, they are placeholders.
15:53:24 <Joshue108> q?
15:53:29 <jeanne> ... This is not meant to be a WCAG extension or WCAG 2.1. This is work that is ready to be passed to the Working Group.
15:53:45 <jeanne> ... pulling out some things as AA and AAA.
15:53:49 <jamesn> q+ to say we should eliminate the words success criteria
15:54:07 <jeanne> ... I think we should delay publishing these Appendices until we get feedback from the WG.
15:55:05 <jeanne> ... in Appendix A, we should not call them success criteria, they are more releated to semantics that would be addressed by a technical spec such as ARIA.
15:55:44 <jeanne> ... I recommend that we omit the Appendix A because they may be confusing.
15:56:26 <davidmacdonald> q+
15:56:39 <jeanne> LS: Why take out Appendix A, because they need to be published.  I can agree with taking out Appendix B, in which case, it would not be confusing to publish Appendix A, because there are no success criteira to confuse people.
15:57:04 <jeanne> JO: Perhaps we could do two CfCs, one for success criteria, and one for semantics.
15:57:49 <jeanne> LS: I am ok with removing the success criteria, because it seems that there is too much concern and that will delay the publication.
15:57:58 <jeanne> ... But why pull out the semantics?
15:58:33 <jeanne> JO:  I'm just concerned about confusion around the semantics.  there are different "hats" required for the semantics and for the success criteria.
15:59:37 <AWK> regrets+ moe_kraft
15:59:43 <jeanne> ... there are 12 success criteria.  I think the semantic document would be easier, because we are basically just approving them to be sent to another group.
15:59:48 <MichaelC> q+ to say I don´t know that we need to survey all the SC individually and stuff yet - this isn´t WCAG 2.1 content, it´s just an appendix - but do agree it seems the WG wants a review round before publishing that extension
16:00:13 <jeanne> ... I propose that we put the success criteria in a survey.
16:00:32 <jeanne> MC: Can we go ahead and publiish without the success criteria?
16:01:10 <Joshue108> ack jame
16:01:10 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to say we should eliminate the words success criteria
16:01:39 <Joshue108> ack david
16:01:50 <jeanne> JN: If we are removing them, it addresses my concern.  I suggest that changing the wording not to call them success criteria.
16:02:01 <jeanne> DMD: I agree.
16:02:03 <MichaelC> ack me
16:02:03 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I don´t know that we need to survey all the SC individually and stuff yet - this isn´t WCAG 2.1 content, it´s just an appendix - but do agree it
16:02:04 <Joshue108> ack micc
16:02:06 <Zakim> ... seems the WG wants a review round before publishing that extension
16:03:09 <jeanne> MC: We can always re-publish with the success criteria added back in.  I don't know that we need to review all the success criteria individually yet, because we aren't working on 2.1 YET.  So we could do a broad review of them, and then an detailed review later when we are working on 2.1
16:03:57 <Joshue108> q+
16:04:19 <jeanne> ... we could review it as a whole to send it for public review.  As opposed to getting individual discussion and review for each individual success criteria that would be necessary for publication in a REC-track working group.  that's a higher bar for publication.
16:04:50 <Joshue108> ack me
16:05:31 <jeanne> MC: It's a little strange that this group is approving publishing a semantics document which really should be the purvue of another group. WCAG WG is focused on their own concerns.
16:06:09 <jeanne> JO: If it goes out for public review without an internal review that could catch any major issues.
16:06:31 <Lisa_seeman> q+
16:06:31 <jeanne> MC: That would delay it by weeks, but we would be doing positive work going forward
16:06:45 <jeanne> ... the sooner we start doing review, the better.
16:07:37 <Joshue108> q?
16:07:55 <jeanne> LS: publishing the success criteria was a new idea, but let's wait with the success criteria. Publish the Gap Analysis and Semantics, but also put the survey out for the WCAG WG on the success criteria.
16:08:30 <jeanne> ... there are a different concern from this group, as to the structure of the success criteria. It owuld be very helpful to get this feedback right away.
16:08:31 <MichaelC> ack l
16:08:49 <jeanne> ... and we can start the process of explaining why the success criteria are there.
16:09:32 <jeanne> MC: I want to propse that we publish without Appendix B success criteria, and then figure out how to get a review of the success criteria.
16:09:50 <Joshue108> q?
16:10:26 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
16:10:26 <Zakim> agendum 5. "WCAG 2.1 Requirements." taken up [from Joshue108]
16:11:30 <jeanne> MC: We need to make it clear that there was a decision made in this meeting to remove the Appendix B Success Criteria.
16:11:46 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Requirements_Draft
16:11:46 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Requirements_Draft
16:11:56 <jeanne> JO: WE need to make a survey about this.
16:12:19 <jeanne> ... we want to get the group's feedback on this.
16:13:02 <Joshue108> q?
16:13:17 <jeanne> ... we will discuss this next week. This is a head's up to prepare for next week.
16:13:46 <Mike_Elledge> present+ Mike Elledge
16:14:04 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
16:14:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html jeanne
16:15:00 <jeanne> MC: I'm working on a problem with the script where links were broken.
16:15:04 <AWK> q+
16:15:12 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:15:16 <Lisa_seeman> q+
16:16:20 <jeanne> AWK: It is worth pointing out that there are two sections to this document.  There is a section that is similar to the work we did on the Extension Requirements.  There is a distinct section for what determines a success criteria that is focused appropriately.
16:16:37 <jeanne> ... we have to weave them in with the existing success criteria, and that is hard.
16:16:49 <jeanne> JO: Should I split them into two separate documents?
16:16:53 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1
16:17:10 <jeanne> AWK: I don't think that is necessary.  I put split them in the wiki.
16:17:20 <davidmacdonald> Summary of SC
16:17:26 <Joshue108> ack llisa
16:17:29 <davidmacdonald>     Make testable statements
16:17:29 <Joshue108> ack li
16:17:30 <davidmacdonald>     It must be possible to evaluate the Success Criteria independent of the user who is consuming it
16:17:30 <jeanne> JO: I would be happier separating them and then linking them.
16:17:32 <davidmacdonald>     Describe the affirmative condition of the passing content
16:17:32 <Lisa_seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html
16:17:33 <davidmacdonald>     Success Criteria are technology neutral
16:17:35 <davidmacdonald>     Success Criteria apply to ALL content unless there are specific exceptions
16:17:36 <davidmacdonald>     Define new terms carefully
16:17:38 <davidmacdonald>     Use existing Success Criteria for examples of how to say things
16:17:39 <davidmacdonald>     Sometimes it helps to split up a Success Criterion
16:17:41 <davidmacdonald>     Not all proposals can become Success Criteria
16:17:42 <davidmacdonald>     No set of Success Criteria can meet the requirements of ALL users
16:17:54 <jeanne> LS: I wanted to put in the link to the success criteria once we remove it from the Gap Analysis document.
16:18:23 <jeanne> ... it is the same document
16:19:08 <jeanne> AWK: We will have to talk about this, but I wonder if it will be better to have success criteria in a granular manner that is easy to separate from other information.
16:19:36 <jeanne> ... everyone is going to have to figure out what is a success criteria and what is additional information.
16:20:07 <jeanne> ... The WG should discuss how they want to be presentted with SC to review.
16:20:42 <jeanne> LS: I'm not sure what to do with AWK's comment
16:20:53 <steverep> q+ to say please remove ARIA labels on heading links - why are they there?
16:21:25 <jeanne> AWK:  I don't expect you to do anything now.  But be prepared that we will ask you for a different format, because this is difficult to determine what is success criteria and what is not.
16:22:02 <Joshue108> ack stev
16:22:02 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to say please remove ARIA labels on heading links - why are they there?
16:22:09 <jeanne> JO: The heading structure is a difficult, but it is a presentation issue.  We will work something out.  We don't expect Lisa to figure it out
16:22:55 <jeanne> SR: The Gap Analysis Report has ARIA labels on them in addition to heading. It results in every heading being read twice from screen-reader.
16:23:25 <jamesn> q+
16:23:56 <jeanne> ... it is the anchor inside the heading.  The heading is read, and then "permalink", then the ARIA label is read.
16:24:35 <jeanne> JN: The permalink is there to allow people to link directly to that section
16:24:49 <jeanne> ... all W3C documents have them.  It allows deep linking.
16:25:56 <jeanne> MC: We have worked on screenreader users on it.  We can certainly address this as a better approach, but that should be in a separate format that this.  It is being done with the scripts for the document.
16:26:29 <jeanne> JN: It is the expected behavior, but perhaps we want to do it differently.
16:26:31 <Joshue108> q?
16:26:59 <Joshue108> ack james
16:27:04 <jeanne> SR: Realistically, does it need to repeat the heading since you get it right after.
16:27:29 <jeanne> JN: But the list of links would be "permalink, permalink, permalink" which would not be acceptable.
16:27:57 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
16:27:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html jeanne
16:28:00 <Mike_Elledge> bye all!
16:28:24 <laura> bye. Thanks all.
16:28:26 <laura> laura has left #wai-wcag
16:34:00 <Joshue108> http://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis
16:34:08 <MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/coga/user-research/
16:35:33 <jeanne> zakim, bye
16:35:33 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, John_Kirkpwood, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge,
16:35:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wai-wcag
16:35:36 <Zakim> ... John_Kirkwood, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila, marcjohlic, Rachael, BM, Shawn,
16:35:36 <Zakim> ... Lauriat, adam_solomon, Davidmacdonald, Shawn_Lauriat, [Steve, Repsher], JamesNurthen, Steve_Repsher, steverep, Sarah_Swierenga, Steve, Andrew, John, Lisa, kirkwood_
16:35:45 <jeanne> rrsagent, bye
16:35:45 <RRSAgent> I see no action items