14:58:25 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 14:58:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/21-wai-wcag-irc 14:58:27 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:58:27 Zakim has joined #wai-wcag 14:58:29 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:58:29 ok, trackbot 14:58:30 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:58:30 Date: 21 June 2016 14:58:32 Chair: AWK 14:58:34 Makoto has joined #wai-wcag 14:58:36 Zakim, agenda? 14:58:37 I see nothing on the agenda 14:58:48 marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag 14:59:01 agenda+ TPAC Registration reminder (https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/) 14:59:10 Lauriat has joined #wai-wcag 14:59:13 agenda+ WCAG Techniques and Understanding review coming this week. Focus for the months ahead. 14:59:47 agenda+ Success Criteria acceptance criteria (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq2) 15:00:13 KimD has joined #wai-wcag 15:00:19 agenda+ Guidance for TF’s and others submitting new SC (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq3) 15:00:27 Greg has joined #wai-wcag 15:00:37 agenda+ WCAG codename (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq1) 15:01:21 laura has joined #wai-wcag 15:01:26 +AWK 15:01:31 +Rachael 15:01:35 +KimD 15:01:37 +Lauriat 15:02:18 jeanne has joined #wai-wcag 15:02:23 +marcjohlic 15:02:27 Scribe: Kathy_Wahlbin 15:02:29 present+ jeanne 15:02:30 present+steverep 15:02:38 present+ Makoto 15:02:42 present+ Laura 15:02:45 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:45 Present: AWK, Rachael, KimD, Lauriat, marcjohlic, jeanne, steverep, Makoto, Laura 15:03:08 Kathy has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:11 SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:26 allanj has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:39 present+ Kathy 15:04:34 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:04:34 Present: AWK, Rachael, KimD, Lauriat, marcjohlic, jeanne, steverep, Makoto, Laura, Kathy 15:04:38 scribe: Kathy 15:04:54 +SarahHorton 15:05:22 JF has joined #wai-wcag 15:05:30 Present+ JF 15:05:37 davidmacdonald has joined #wai-wcag 15:05:38 AWK: there will be a meeting next week but checking for the beginning of July 15:05:54 AWK: Please fill out the attendance survey 15:06:01 Present +DavidMacdonald 15:06:40 Present+ DavidMacdonald 15:07:17 present+ MichaelC 15:07:30 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/ 15:07:42 Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag 15:08:14 Marc: Initially filled it out but added to it. 15:08:23 AWK: it is a rolling survey 15:08:36 regrets+ James 15:08:45 zakim, take up item 1 15:08:45 agendum 1. "TPAC Registration reminder (https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/)" taken up [from AWK] 15:09:20 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:09:31 AWK: TPAC coming up in Septemver 15:10:03 Registered and hotel booked - working on flights today :) 15:10:05 AWK: we will be busy talking about success criteria and the charter 15:10:24 AWK: it will be a good one to go to 15:10:59 zakim, take up next item 15:10:59 agendum 2. "WCAG Techniques and Understanding review coming this week. Focus for the months ahead." taken up [from AWK] 15:12:22 Timeline for Techniques and understanding: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Timelines 15:12:24 AWK: we will be sending out a review this week. The schedule is every 6 months. The end of June we need an update approved. There are changes in techniques. We are ready for public review. Comments will be addressed in the July/August timeframe 15:12:48 AWK: Publish Sept 8 15:13:10 AWK: Will be send to the list, so be on the lookout for it 15:14:12 AWK: Change of focus. We have been doing a lot on the calls but it has been backwards facing - processing comments. In order to get WCAG 2.1 done and WCAG next, we need to increase our focus on this 15:14:41 AWK: while we will get comments and questions, chairs and Michael feel that we need to put our priorities on future work 15:15:35 AWK: 90% new work, 10% old work 15:16:13 q+ 15:16:19 ack m 15:16:32 Marc: wanted to check in on timeframe for WCAG 2.1 15:16:37 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 15:16:39 \o/ for facing forward!!! :D 15:16:48 AWK: probably 2 year timeframe 15:16:50 WCAG 2.1: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1 15:16:54 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:17:04 \o/ for facing forward!!! 15:17:22 AWK: we would like to get it done faster 15:17:27 +1 to a quicker timeline 15:17:58 AWK: June 2018 is the target 15:18:39 John: WCAG 2.0 was released in Dec and woudl be good to echo the date 9 years later 15:19:30 John: Good way to start for the new year and it would benefit us all 15:19:35 q+ 15:20:27 AWK: there will be a lot of time approvals 15:21:10 AWK: I have never done this so we need to figure this out and what is normal timing 15:22:30 Q+ 15:23:21 Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag 15:23:22 It was 9 years for WCAG1.0 1999 to Dec 2008 release of 2.0, so we have the 9yr WCAG 2 to 2.1 june 2017 15:23:25 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:23:52 ack r 15:23:52 Michael: timeline for first working draft and candidate document (the cycle). The number of working drafts depends. We are trying to keep the number of working drafts down with the taskforces having a deadline. Wider review may have major concerns to be addressed and several cycles. We would want to 3 other working drafts and spaced 1 month apart. Target for CR is being reached then we decide if we keep everything in there 15:23:55 +1 15:23:55 q+ 15:24:42 KimD has joined #wai-wcag 15:24:43 Katie: I think we need to be careful about hard deadline, target dates are good but concerned about sharing dates wider 15:24:44 ack j 15:25:06 q+ to say timelines are important to keep focus, but also should be realistic 15:25:21 q+ 15:25:44 John: it is a year and half away and taskforces have done a lot of research; with the reviews it would take use to 2017 date 15:25:46 q- 15:26:07 ack m 15:26:07 MichaelC, you wanted to say timelines are important to keep focus, but also should be realistic 15:26:08 John: would like to keep the fire under our feet 15:26:42 Q+ 15:26:56 Michael: timelines are important but we need to be realistic but aggressive enough to keep us focus 15:27:00 ack AWK 15:28:52 +1 15:29:00 AWK: remember working on WCAG 2 and a lot of people were frustrated that it was taking a long time. Would like a realistic timeline and pushing for when we want it but a date that we can meet. If we can't agree on a feature then we remove it. Certain things may not make it to 2.1 15:29:04 ack j 15:30:11 John: personally would like to publish early and often. Companies have moved to agile. We should have target dates but leave the door open for other milestones. Biggest concern is that it is 2 years away 15:30:27 q+ 15:30:32 ack m 15:30:33 ack me 15:31:50 Michael: if we can develop something that we can publish then we can move forward. We are talking about a formal document. We will need to understand the process takes time and in W3C time it is realistic 15:32:10 John: but there are companies developing now that need this. 15:32:26 Michael: we can publish working drafts after we recharter 15:32:55 Michael: recharter is targeted for early 2017 15:34:17 AWK: we will show the most aggressive schedule we could have. There are certain steps that have to be done and we need realistic timelines 15:34:24 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 15:34:32 q+ 15:34:46 present+ Joshue108 15:34:50 ack ka 15:34:52 AWK: we have a lot of stakeholders 15:35:07 Kathy: agree with aggressive timelines 15:35:16 ... everyone needs to provide feedback 15:35:30 ... not everyone on the call provided feedback on the mobile survey 15:35:39 ... if people are committed then we can move faster 15:35:50 q+ to ask about the rechartering 15:36:53 ack j 15:36:53 jeanne, you wanted to ask about the rechartering 15:36:55 John: if the amount of feedback coming back, then we can adjust the dates. 15:37:23 Jeanne: wanted to talk about the rechartering schedule 15:38:00 Michael: recharter done by Dec 2016 15:38:22 Michael: then we can publish working drafts in early 2017 15:38:40 Jeanne: would like to see more in WCAG 3 in the rechartering 15:39:19 Jeanne: concerned that we rechart this year and then having to recharter again for WCAG 3 we are pushing it too far out and would like people to start on this in parallel 15:39:36 Michael: glad that there is interest in working in parallel 15:40:17 AWK: would like to see if we can push up the date for rechartering. If it is Dec then we have WCAG 2.1 in the middle 15:40:53 q? 15:40:56 AWK: what we do next depends on the parallel work that can go on. 15:41:11 AWK: the content will fall out from the taskforces 15:41:20 q+ 15:41:21 q+ 15:41:53 ack sa 15:41:53 AWK: the more we can done sooner the easier it will be aggressive schedule for WCAG 3 15:42:05 Sarah: what are we waiting for? 15:42:19 Q+ to ask about starting up an internal Task Force to start this activity 15:42:38 AWK: we are getting started but we had focus on other things. Now we are officially switching focus 15:43:09 AWK: we will have a few more weeks setting up 2.1 and then starting on 3.0 15:43:33 Sarah: it is not a waterfall situation, we can get going on it 15:43:43 ack jo 15:44:04 q+ 15:44:26 ack j 15:44:26 JF, you wanted to ask about starting up an internal Task Force to start this activity 15:44:29 Josh: reiterate what Andrew said, we need to realistic. Things that are not perfect from the taskforces will be pushed to a later version so we will stick to the deadlines 15:45:10 John: to follow along with Sarah and Jeanne are suggesting. Should we start a taskforce to start on this? 15:45:54 ack dav 15:45:54 Michael: if there is sufficient interest then we should do this 15:46:28 David: for success criterion that are not developed in a taskforce, how can we get these considered for the group 15:46:43 q+ 15:46:47 David: what is the pathway for creation of success criteria 15:47:08 David: do we need a taskforce to look at things like dynamic contnet 15:47:41 AWK: the next thing we will be talking about this 15:48:24 David: concerned about success criteria that does not have a home 15:48:31 Q+ 15:48:36 ack me 15:49:21 q? 15:49:35 Michael: realistically whatever the source the success criteria comes from, there will be a process for reviewing it. The chairs will handle them fairly but the public comments need an advocate 15:50:41 ack m 15:50:41 Michael: someone in the working group can be an advocate. Without an advocate, it is hard for the conversation to progress 15:50:47 ack j 15:50:50 q+ 15:51:11 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1 15:51:25 John: I understand what David was saying, the biggest gap is there is not one place for all new proposed success criteria 15:51:53 John: all proposed success criteria should be added to the list no matter of the source 15:52:07 John: doesn't think that this will be an issue 15:52:27 ack awk 15:52:46 David: so we don't need a taskforce for new success criteria 15:52:51 John: yes I think so 15:53:14 John: there is overhead with taskforce so lets keep that to a minimum 15:53:21 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 15:53:36 AWK: agree, we don't need another taskforce but we need advocate for it 15:54:00 AWK: we will have a mechanism to submit success criteria 15:54:34 Yay!! 15:55:07 AWK: one final comment on WCAG 3.0 - we are in agreement and we will start it soon. We need some time to get it framed. I am on vacation for 2 weeks so we need to wait a few weeks 15:55:29 zakim, take up next item 15:55:29 agendum 3. "Success Criteria acceptance criteria (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq2)" taken up [from AWK] 15:56:22 AWK: we have a survey for the proposed success criteria acceptance criteria. David did a lot of work on this. 15:56:50 AWK: we would like to discuss this on the group 15:59:08 David: the 8th item is from Loretta - it is important that the author can determine that they met it, without the end user. The underlying principle is not describing the end user 15:59:34 AWK: how does that differ from the others 15:59:45 David: close similarity 16:00:42 David: affirmative condition and make sure that it is not described in the end user perspective 16:01:02 AWK: not a user based requirement 16:01:45 David: not from the point of view from the end user. We look at this from the problem we are trying to solve and put it into authoring perspective 16:02:17 AWK: Greg, you asked about what is affirmative condition. 16:02:47 AWK: you are right some of them are written in the absence or negative 16:03:19 q+ 16:03:19 Greg: should not prohibit what we already do 16:03:49 David: success criteria can have negative words 16:03:55 Success Criteria don't have negative action words telling the author what to do, like "don't", "should not", "Avoid" etc. nor do they have brackets or quotes in the testable statements. However, in some Success Criteria, the elements of the content "do not" have certain characteristics. (See 1.3.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 4.1.1) 16:04:21 David: we don't have "author don't do this" 16:04:32 q+ to say we should minimize edits to existing WCAG 2.0 SC 16:04:34 it is on the content 16:04:37 ack m 16:04:37 MichaelC, you wanted to say we should minimize edits to existing WCAG 2.0 SC 16:04:58 Michael: as design principle we should not change existing SC 16:05:09 +1 to not changing the text (it will mess with backward compat) 16:05:20 ... enters in more confusion if we did this 16:05:30 ... in 3.0 we should look at this 16:06:00 AWK: that does get into the issue with the numbering 16:06:22 AWK: people are familiar with the numbering 16:06:35 Q+ 16:06:53 ack jon 16:06:57 ack jf 16:07:16 John: I know that at least one instance that the existing success criteria where we want to go from AAA to AA 16:07:40 q+ 16:08:00 Greg, how about "Success criteria describe the specific condition required to meet the criteria, not the method to reach the condition."? 16:08:04 ack m 16:08:06 John: there are some areas that we want to address gaps like color contrast on icons 16:08:21 q? 16:08:36 Michael: we should revisit this later 16:09:07 ... easier to figure out when we have something 16:09:25 John: given the timeline this is more urgent 16:09:26 Andrew, that would be fine and avoid the contradiction. 16:09:56 Michael: we need something in the first working draft 16:10:11 present+ 16:10:20 David: what if we propose to have 4th level 16:10:41 John: I would +1 it as a working example 16:10:59 q+ 16:11:11 ... I don't alot of possibilities 16:11:15 q+ to say what if we introduce letters to make them clearly differentiated? 16:11:55 David: since we are not rewording SC and not renumbering and can't have AA after AAA 16:12:12 ack mi 16:12:12 MichaelC, you wanted to say what if we introduce letters to make them clearly differentiated? 16:12:14 AWK: table these details on the numbering for now 16:12:27 John: can we set a time when we will think about this? 16:12:55 +1 to that 16:12:57 AWK: if we want to have a few people think about this and list options 16:13:35 zakim, agenda? 16:13:35 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 16:13:36 3. Success Criteria acceptance criteria (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq2) [from AWK] 16:13:36 4. Guidance for TF’s and others submitting new SC (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq3) [from AWK] 16:13:36 5. WCAG codename (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq1) [from AWK] 16:17:16 AWK: questions about "must apply to all content". 16:17:24 +1 to MUST< SHOULD MAY (RFC 2119) 16:19:21 AWK: Kim mentions that language should be direct 16:20:07 ... Michael mentions that we need to define testability 16:20:35 Michael: need to think about "applies across technologies" 16:20:50 gregorian format 16:21:50 AWK: my interpretation is that SC is not applicable to each portion of a webpage but are applicable to web page as a whole 16:22:08 ... media ones apply but may not be on every pag 16:22:44 AWK: this is good. We are not approving but this gives us some direction 16:22:49 I also felt this one was a bit overly broad, as few things apply to ALL technologies. Even terms like “link text” have implicit dependency on aspects common to many, but not all W3C technologies. However, many SC can be interpreted as having implicit scoping. 16:22:58 AWK: we will tweak on the WIKI 16:23:11 zakim, queue? 16:23:11 I see no one on the speaker queue 16:23:42 AWK: is appears that people think we are pretty close on this 16:23:54 it's fine 16:23:58 +1 to "we are close" 16:23:59 Zakim, take up next item 16:23:59 agendum 4. "Guidance for TF’s and others submitting new SC (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq3)" taken up [from AWK] 16:24:18 +1 to "we are close" 16:25:16 AWK: here is a list of things that need to be offered to WCAG WG 16:26:37 AWK: not worth developing a process for new guidelines 16:26:54 ... the form will need to accomodate for new guidelines 16:27:10 ... goal is to provide enough information for them to make decisions 16:27:32 David: we need to define new terms 16:27:48 AWK: we should add item for new terms are identified 16:27:50 q+ 16:28:57 David: in the new SC I am proposing has "change of context" is a common term but how we are using is so we need to define it 16:29:36 ... we may add new glossary terms 16:30:04 ack mi 16:30:18 MC: recommended to COGA that they link to terms more. 16:30:28 ... helps make compact SCs 16:31:14 ... we have made it so that the definition could we dropped into the SC (replacing the word) 16:31:22 +1 for definition 16:31:23 ... and have the SC still make sense 16:32:10 bye everyone 16:32:15 trackbot, end meeting 16:32:15 Zakim, list attendees 16:32:15 As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Rachael, KimD, Lauriat, marcjohlic, jeanne, steverep, Makoto, Laura, Kathy, SarahHorton, JF, DavidMacdonald, MichaelC, Greg_Lowney, 16:32:18 ... Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue108, allanj 16:32:23 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:32:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot 16:32:24 RRSAgent, bye 16:32:24 I see no action items