14:15:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:15:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-irc
14:15:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:15:03 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
14:15:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:15:05 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:15:06 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:15:06 <trackbot> Date: 28 June 2016
14:15:09 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:15:09 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:15:21 <Joshue108> agenda+ TPAC Topics. https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG/TPAC_2016
14:15:29 <Joshue108> agenda+ Pre-TPAC - timeline/priorities.
14:15:39 <Joshue108> agenda+ WCAG 2.1 planning/timeline.
14:15:56 <Joshue108> agenda+ SC Numbering proposals team/work.
14:16:07 <Joshue108> agenda+      WCAG codename Survey (from last week :
14:16:07 <Joshue108>  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/
14:34:32 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue
14:37:27 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:15 <Joshue108> Scribelist: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
14:58:22 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #WAI-WCAG
14:59:19 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:19 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:13 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:39 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:47 <JF> Present+ JF
15:01:49 <allanj> allanj has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:53 <steverep> present+steverep
15:02:05 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:02:17 <Lauriat> Present +Lauriat
15:02:18 <kirkwood> present+ kirkwood
15:02:19 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:35 <laura> present+ Laura
15:03:09 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:03:53 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:04:02 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:04:58 <KimD> KimD has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:04 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:06:25 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:06:25 <Zakim> agendum 1. "TPAC Topics. https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG/TPAC_2016" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:07:06 <MichaelC> s|https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG/TPAC_2016|https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016|G
15:07:33 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
15:07:45 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
15:07:51 <Joshue108> Scribe: Alistair
15:07:56 <MichaelC> scribe: alastairc
15:09:15 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:46 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:47 <alastairc> Discussing topics, should be good attendance from participants on the call.
15:10:40 <JF> Official TPAC page here: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/
15:11:09 <KimD> +KimD
15:13:23 <alastairc> Note that COGA will also be meeting there. There will be some remote participation possible.
15:14:32 <Joshue108> q?
15:14:33 <alastairc> MichaelC: Meetings are monday & tuesday. AFP is also meeting those days, unfortunately.
15:15:21 <Joshue108> s/AFP/APA
15:15:35 <alastairc> JF: Looking to co-ordinate with the CSS working group?
15:16:09 <alastairc> MichaelC: We are looking to update techniques at some stage, but shorter term the APA are looking to plug some holes.
15:18:04 <alastairc> Joshue108: There will be people from the TFs there, so hopefully we can meet.
15:18:45 <alastairc> MichaelC: Mobile & LV don't have official meetings, but can discuss things.
15:19:25 <alastairc> MichaelC: Would be good for TF people to be in the WCAG meetings when we discuss the Success Criteria.
15:19:32 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #wai-wcag
15:19:50 <alastairc> MichaelC: Will try and set some agenda times, working with the Chairs, at a later stage.
15:19:53 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:19:53 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
15:20:24 <davidmacdonald> davidmacdonald has joined #wai-wcag
15:21:40 <davidmacdonald> Present +DavidMacDonald
15:22:43 <Joshue108> q?
15:22:43 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
15:22:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html jeanne
15:22:48 <JF> Q+
15:23:01 <jeanne> rrsagent, make logs public
15:23:03 <Joshue108> ack Jf
15:23:15 <alastairc> Joshue108: (Goes through the list, then) Those should keep us going for a good while!
15:23:47 <alastairc> JF: The new SC numbering method, shouldn't we have finished that by then?
15:24:01 <Joshue108> q?
15:24:08 <alastairc> MichaelC: If we complete it before then, great.
15:24:26 <jeanne> q+ to ask for detail on Silver
15:25:01 <alastairc> Joshue108: Is everyone happy with that?
15:25:09 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
15:25:20 <Joshue108> ack jeanne
15:25:20 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask for detail on Silver
15:25:31 <alastairc> davidmacdonald: Assume that the new SCs will be the bulk of it?
15:26:27 <alastairc> Jeanne: Would be good to have more detail on 'Silver' before TPAC, so it doesn't get squeezed out.
15:26:32 <davidmacdonald> +1
15:26:53 <alastairc> MichaelC: I think 2.1 work will be somewhat more urgent at that stage.
15:27:33 <Joshue108> q?
15:27:38 <alastairc> Joshue108: It will run in tandem, need to get some of the ideas down with tangible goals & deliverables.
15:27:56 <davidmacdonald> q+
15:28:03 <Joshue108> ack david
15:28:27 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:28:27 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:28:28 <Zakim> 1. TPAC Topics. https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG/TPAC_2016 [from Joshue108]
15:28:28 <Zakim> 2. Pre-TPAC - timeline/priorities. [from Joshue108]
15:28:28 <Zakim> 3. WCAG 2.1 planning/timeline. [from Joshue108]
15:28:29 <Zakim> 4. SC Numbering proposals team/work. [from Joshue108]
15:28:29 <Zakim> 5. WCAG codename Survey (from last week : [from Joshue108]
15:28:52 <alastairc> davidmacdonald: Will be going in with candidate SCs, and should come out with rough wording.
15:29:05 <alastairc> Zakim, next item
15:29:05 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Pre-TPAC - timeline/priorities." taken up [from Joshue108]
15:30:00 <Joshue108> q?
15:31:31 <alastairc> JF: I don't mind social media being used for social stuff, but don't want a requirement for it. When we look for a wider public comment we should socialise it every way we can.
15:31:37 <Joshue108> JOC: Some main things to do pre-TPAC are (my 2 cents) work on the new Charter, finalise new SC numbering system, mechanism for wider review.
15:31:54 <Joshue108> me np
15:32:34 <alastairc> JF: At what point do we want to send things out to public review? If done SC by SC, might generate a lot of chatter. Would prefer a smaller group method first, then shared more widely.
15:32:51 <JF> Q+
15:32:56 <alastairc> Joshue108: Question then about getting the right people are included.
15:33:08 <MichaelC> q+
15:33:16 <Joshue108> +1 to JF and Jeanne
15:33:21 <MichaelC> q+ to note FPWD not until next year sometime
15:33:30 <MichaelC> q+ to note we already operate in public
15:33:41 <alastairc> Jeanne: If we dribble things out publicly in small doses, will be difficult, should follow the W3C processes.
15:33:47 <MichaelC> q+ to say we may want a coherent draft rather than dribbles
15:33:50 <Joshue108> ack JF
15:34:21 <MichaelC> q+ to say but we should still be receptive to feedback that comes in bits and pieces
15:34:46 <MichaelC> q+ to invite people with input to join the process
15:34:50 <MichaelC> ack me
15:34:50 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note FPWD not until next year sometime and to note we already operate in public and to say we may want a coherent draft rather than dribbles and to say but
15:34:51 <Joshue108> ack mich
15:34:54 <Zakim> ... we should still be receptive to feedback that comes in bits and pieces and to invite people with input to join the process
15:34:58 <alastairc> JF: We have experience from the last 9 months, where minor issues have dragged out on github/twitter. Takes a lot of energy. Like working in public, but should prioritise energy with people who work on it.
15:35:43 <alastairc> MichaelC: Don't have charter auth to publish this year, probably better for us to have proposed delta of 2.0 to 2.1 , rather than dribbles.
15:35:51 <JF> Q+
15:36:37 <alastairc> MichaelC: Anyone watching us can do so and make suggestions. As JF said, people who aren't involved enough miss context and can throw the discussion off.
15:36:59 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:37:10 <alastairc> Joshue108: That's why institutional memory discussions are important.
15:37:42 <alastairc> JF: Underscore: don't want to use social media when we get to that point, need a focused discussion in one place.
15:38:01 <alastairc> JF: Github pinging back to the email list is ok, but rather not have a different channel.
15:38:33 <alastairc> JF: Need to be able to go back and look things up from years ago. Social media channels are lousy for that.
15:38:37 <Joshue108> q+
15:38:47 <Joshue108> ack me
15:38:59 <JF> Q?
15:39:04 <laura> q+
15:39:58 <alastairc> Joshue108: When we start to work on a particular tool, e.g. the older ones, we try the shiny new thing, then get swamped by it. Unless there is a resolution early, the threads can get out of control. It's a wider issue in how we manage it.
15:40:20 <Joshue108> ack laura
15:40:24 <alastairc> Joshue108: But, we do need to work with people from where ever they come from.
15:40:34 <laura> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues
15:40:40 <MichaelC> q+
15:40:43 <alastairc> Laura: LVTF is using github to manage issues.
15:40:52 <MichaelC> q+ to say I don´t consider github ¨social media¨ it´s ¨issue tracker¨
15:41:15 <MichaelC> q+ to say strategic use of social media probably better than wonton use
15:41:17 <alastairc> Laura: publishing likely to be Nov/Dec for LVTF.
15:41:29 <Joshue108> ack michael
15:41:29 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I don´t consider github ¨social media¨ it´s ¨issue tracker¨ and to say strategic use of social media probably better than wonton use
15:41:44 <JF> Q+
15:42:02 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:42:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
15:42:39 <alastairc> MichaelC: I'd say github is an issue tracker rather than social media per-se. It isn't setup to email the list, people can subscribe to specific issues. We should make strategic use rather than "wanton" use.
15:43:01 <laura> Jim said Nov-Dec for LVTF: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2016Jun/0038.html
15:43:24 <alastairc> MichaelC: There are stages where it makes sense to blog/tweet, but too much will make it more difficult for us.
15:44:39 <alastairc> davidmacdonald: A soft approach, there are particular times when it is appropriate.
15:44:43 <Joshue108> q?
15:44:46 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:44:46 <alastairc> Joshue108: When discussions get heated, try not to bring in lots of people who haven't been part of the discussion.
15:44:57 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:44:57 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:44:58 <Zakim> 2. Pre-TPAC - timeline/priorities. [from Joshue108]
15:44:58 <Zakim> 3. WCAG 2.1 planning/timeline. [from Joshue108]
15:44:58 <Zakim> 4. SC Numbering proposals team/work. [from Joshue108]
15:44:59 <Zakim> 5. WCAG codename Survey (from last week : [from Joshue108]
15:45:21 <alastairc> JF: At some point we need to think about the platform where the work is being merged?
15:46:04 <alastairc> MichaelC: Github will be where it lives, but wiki scratch space could let us hash things out. There will be an authoritative version, and an exploritory version.
15:46:25 <alastairc> JF: I'm a member of 4/5 working groups, so try to constrain the deluge of info.
15:46:38 <Joshue108> q?
15:47:28 <alastairc> Zakim, next item
15:47:28 <Zakim> agendum 3. "WCAG 2.1 planning/timeline." taken up [from Joshue108]
15:47:44 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline
15:47:49 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:48:02 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:48:34 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:48:44 <MichaelC> q+
15:49:05 <Joshue108> ack mich
15:49:08 <JF> Q+
15:49:11 <alastairc> Joshue108: Might seem quite quick, but the work behind the scenes should help.
15:50:00 <Joshue108> q?
15:50:13 <alastairc> MichaelC: as an FYI, I would call the extentions the editors drafts, rather than working drafts. I'm planning to setup a WCAG 2.1 in github in the next few weeks. Just a version change to start with, but that's where it will go. Also  have to convert the sources from XML to HTML, for reasons.
15:50:47 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:50:51 <alastairc> MichaelC: People will be able to add techniques in HTML, rather than XML.
15:51:51 <alastairc> JF: Is that timeline quick? That's two years from now, that's quite long. Is there a way to tighten it? It's a 2.1 extension, could be a 2.2, tech changes quickly, are we still going to be chasing the bus?
15:52:11 <alastairc> MichaelC: This is quick in W3C time, a lot of it is minimum times for various review stages.
15:52:46 <Joshue108> q+
15:53:06 <alastairc> MichaelC: I hear your concerns, but as you've said, we do need to take the time to do it fast. This is a minimum reasonable timeline. If we went faster, we won't refuse to publish ahead of time, but need to be realistic given other pressures.
15:53:09 <Joshue108> ack me
15:54:01 <alastairc> Joshue108: I've been chair for 3 years, it's gone amazingly quickly. If we came out with SC right now, there's a lengthy review process with various parties, and re-review cycles.
15:54:28 <alastairc> Joshue108: If we can get it out earlier, great, but on past experience it takes time.
15:54:43 <Joshue108> q?
15:55:22 <alastairc> MichaelC: We'll welcome help keeping the timeline short, but it does mean we need to avoid lengthy discussions on small things.
15:55:23 <jeanne> +1 to limiting debate
15:56:08 <alastairc> Joshue108: 2.1 makes it seem small, but this is going to be a big deal.
15:57:06 <alastairc> JF: My concern is frequency, in the agile world they do small sprints and keep things small. We're trying to be more waterfall. We could publish 4 of 6 SCs that are not controversial, but if we have to wait for the other 2.
15:57:45 <alastairc> MichaelC: We're mainly planning to focus on 2.1 followed by 3.0. Could do 2.2, but our work is used by different audience than browsers.
15:57:54 <Ryladog> +1 to MC
15:57:55 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:57:55 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:57:56 <Zakim> 3. WCAG 2.1 planning/timeline. [from Joshue108]
15:57:56 <Zakim> 4. SC Numbering proposals team/work. [from Joshue108]
15:57:56 <Zakim> 5. WCAG codename Survey (from last week : [from Joshue108]
15:58:13 <alastairc> MichaelC: At the moment, shouldn't go in expecting a 2.2
15:58:19 <alastairc> Zakim, next item
15:58:19 <Zakim> agendum 4. "SC Numbering proposals team/work." taken up [from Joshue108]
15:58:37 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering
15:58:58 <alastairc> Joshue108: Thanks for the comments from people so far. Want to have a good idea (or decided) by TPAC.
15:59:45 <alastairc> JF: I think that some of the discussions have helped coalesce the ideas. Talk about ordering, slotting them in after the AAAs would be odd.
16:00:33 <alastairc> JF: Checked with toolmakers, internal and external. Neither thought it would be a problem,  especially as we filter SCs.
16:00:38 <Joshue108> q?
16:01:05 <MichaelC> q+
16:01:51 <alastairc> DavidMacDonald: We are in agreement! Eric (who did the quickref tool) agrees. Summary: Stick to the 3 number scheme, unless something is a sub-SC under another one.
16:02:07 <Joshue108> q+
16:02:28 <MichaelC> q+ to say only JF and David have had a chance to contribute to the wiki yet; I have additional ideas; we need to get a bunch of proposals with pros / cons before trying to settle on one
16:02:44 <JF> Q+
16:02:51 <alastairc> DavidMacDonald: Put them at the end of the current guidelines. Three of the existing only have single A SCs. There are a few guidelines where it is a little sticky, but looking at the whole thing, put them at the end. When presenting to the public, we can change how that works.
16:03:24 <alastairc> DavidMacDonald: That should guard the integrity, the other options give a different class (secondary?) class for the new SCs.
16:03:39 <Joshue108> ack josh
16:03:53 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering
16:05:01 <alastairc> JF: The biggest concern I've heard is that under 2.0, they are pre-stacked as A/AA/AAA. If we randomly insert AA /AAAs it will be confusing.
16:05:52 <alastairc> JF: The tools allow filtering. Our clients don't care about the numbering, we put them into bug tracking tools.
16:06:12 <alastairc> JF: Main thing is we just add to the bottom [of each guideline], doesn't matter about the level.
16:06:33 <alastairc> JF: For changes in level, we just change it, don't need to change the number.
16:06:43 <Ryladog> +1 to just changig the severity level of existing SC moving levels
16:06:53 <Joshue108> +1
16:07:10 <jeanne> +1 to change the severity and add to the end.  Don't change existing numbers.
16:07:32 <alastairc> JF: For sub-requirements, 1.3 & 1.1 we already break those out for our testing methodology. E.g. multiple types of images.
16:07:44 <Joshue108> ack michae
16:07:44 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say only JF and David have had a chance to contribute to the wiki yet; I have additional ideas; we need to get a bunch of proposals with pros / cons before
16:07:48 <Zakim> ... trying to settle on one
16:08:43 <alastairc> MichaelC: Feels like we're rushing into it, I have a few ideas for proposals before we settle on one. Biggest problem is that we grouped by conformance without representing it the numbering scheme. There are others we should put on the table.
16:09:11 <alastairc> JF: I thought the numbering scheme would be an issue, but didn't seem to be.
16:09:33 <alastairc> MichaelC: I'd like to add some ideas to the wiki.
16:09:39 <alastairc> JF: Can we establish some dates?
16:10:09 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering
16:10:37 <alastairc> Joshue108: Suggest you guys put a proposal in the wiki, as can MichealC. Then get some agreement from the "succcess criteria numbering TF" to put to the group.
16:10:38 <Joshue108> q?
16:10:41 <MichaelC> q+ to say we may need to ask the world about the impact of numbering
16:11:08 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:11:12 <alastairc> DavidMacDonald: Would like to see the other ideas, I'm possibly getting settled on an idea early.
16:11:15 <Joshue108> ack michae
16:11:15 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we may need to ask the world about the impact of numbering
16:11:16 <Ryladog> I would like to see MC ideas too - I kniw he has been looking at this for yeears
16:11:18 <MichaelC> q+ to say pros cons important
16:11:20 <MichaelC> ack me
16:11:20 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say pros cons important
16:11:50 <Joshue108> q+
16:12:00 <Ryladog> q+
16:12:43 <JF> Q+ to ask about the statement "we haven't asked the world about Wcag 2.1"
16:12:54 <alastairc> MichaelC: Even before we start putting SCs out for review, this is a question we want to ask the world, does the numbering matter? Some of us are very close to it. We are assuming we should do a 2.1, but we haven't had feedback from the world about it. Does it create issues for people used to WCAG 2.0? Te important part of the wiki is the pros and cons. Need a complete view of the pros/cons.
16:12:55 <Joshue108> ack me
16:13:21 <Joshue108> ack ryla
16:13:36 <Joshue108> q+
16:14:43 <alastairc> Ryladog: I think the numbering scheme for 3.0 it's all on the table. For 2.1 it should fit with 2.0. We have some ideas on numbering, but the SC review should probably be number-less.
16:14:46 <JF> +1
16:14:52 <Joshue108> ack me
16:15:18 <MichaelC> q+ to say numbering is less important than substance, but we can´t escape it, it´s one of those W3Cish things that make things take a while
16:15:20 <jeanne> +1 to katie and SC review being number-less.
16:15:20 <davidmacdonald> q+
16:15:49 <alastairc> Joshue108: Primarily there will be a concern with the levels rather than the numbering.
16:15:51 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:15:51 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about the statement "we haven't asked the world about Wcag 2.1"
16:15:51 <MichaelC> q+ to say agree we should review without worrying about number, though we´ll need the number later
16:16:50 <alastairc> JF: We haven't asked the world about WCAG 2.1? The working group was chartered for the extensions, so that was approved, then the group came to 2.1 as the implementation of the extensions.
16:17:21 <Joshue108> q?
16:17:55 <Ryladog> How and Where do we do that MC?
16:17:56 <alastairc> MichaelC: This isn't a W3C process thing per-se, but meant the wider world in terms of abandoning extentions in favour of 2.1. When published, the world might then inundate us with feedback.
16:18:10 <alastairc> JF: If it's that serious, should we do that now?
16:18:41 <steverep> q+ to comment on problem statements of numbering
16:18:45 <alastairc> MichaelC: We're working on it. Not implying the WG hasn't done something, it's something we (W3C+chairs) need to do.
16:18:45 <MichaelC> ack me
16:18:45 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say numbering is less important than substance, but we can´t escape it, it´s one of those W3Cish things that make things take a while and to say agree we
16:18:48 <Zakim> ... should review without worrying about number, though we´ll need the number later
16:19:48 <alastairc> MichaelC: numbering is less important than substance, but we can't escape it, it's one of those W3Cish things that make things take a while. In WCAG 2.0 the numbers changed in the drafts as they were generated by position. It's only because they got frozen on publishing that they can't change.
16:20:24 <Joshue108> q?
16:20:37 <alastairc> MichaelC: Could change the numbering (possibly), but obviously that proposal would have definate cons.
16:20:55 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
16:20:56 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
16:21:36 <alastairc> JF: Agree, but need to put out the call for opinions now, or we don't do it. Similar to the discussion about social media earlier.
16:21:48 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #wai-wcag
16:22:06 <alastairc> MichaelC: Planning on public review phase, not yet though.
16:22:08 <Joshue108> ack david
16:22:26 <Joshue108> ack ste
16:22:26 <Zakim> steverep, you wanted to comment on problem statements of numbering
16:23:27 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:23:35 <alastairc> steverep: problem statement about numbering - the substance is more important, but the problem of adding to the end is the lack of logical A/AA/AAA ordering. The doc could become more inaccessible itself, e.g. for screen reader users jumping around, or for cog-impaired.
16:23:50 <alastairc> steverep: What is the problem statement for changing the numbering?
16:24:02 <JF> The issue becomes, do we rank by number or by severity?
16:24:18 <JF> Q+
16:25:06 <KimD> q+
16:25:15 <Joshue108> q?
16:25:18 <JF> +1 to thinking about a db perspective
16:25:24 <Joshue108> zakim,agenda?
16:25:24 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
16:25:25 <Zakim> 4. SC Numbering proposals team/work. [from Joshue108]
16:25:25 <Zakim> 5. WCAG codename Survey (from last week : [from Joshue108]
16:25:33 <steverep> q+
16:25:38 <alastairc> davadmacdonald: If we slot in a new SC, and move everything down one, all the SCs would change under that. If you add an 'a' at the end (e.g. 3.2.2a) it looks like a sub-section. Should think of them as DB. If you have a DB and remove one, it's bad as the 'id' changes.
16:25:56 <alastairc> davadmacdonald: easier to change the view in other places like the quick ref.
16:26:51 <alastairc> JF: Analogy of DB is interesting, the ID isn't used in many places. Might be issue when consuming a whole document, but that isn't as common.
16:27:29 <alastairc> steverep: Understand it could be considered a DB, but it is also a webpage people can read, so it should have a logical order.
16:27:36 <MichaelC> Note that the SC all have IDs that are different from there numbers. They also have ¨handles¨ that aren´t numbers and wouldn´t be impacted. Maybe the numbers aren´t as critical?
16:28:13 <alastairc> steverep: Concern seems to be the number changes so can't reference it, but as a new person to the WG I get confused very quickly when people refer to numbers only.
16:29:06 <alastairc> MichaelC: The 'handles' wouldn't change in 2.1, could use those more. Are the numbers that important? We have used them in an important way, but could change that.
16:29:21 <alastairc> zakim, next item
16:29:21 <Zakim> agendum 5. "WCAG codename Survey (from last week :" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:29:43 <Joshue108> ACTION: JF and David to lead on SC numbering issue
16:29:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - And david to lead on sc numbering issue [on John Foliot - due 2016-07-05].
16:30:06 <alastairc> Joshue108: Are people happy with Silver?
16:30:47 <davidmacdonald> wai2020
16:31:10 <alastairc> JamesN: All for oberjean (AC: no idea how to spell it.)
16:31:19 <JF> aubergene
16:31:24 <steverep> Argento?
16:31:32 <Sarah_Swierenga> good bye everyone
16:31:57 <alastairc> trackbot, end meeting
16:31:57 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:31:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been JF, steverep, alastairc, kirkwood, Laura, marcjohlic, Kathy, Joshue108, MichaelC, KimD, jeanne, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila
16:32:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:32:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:32:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:32:06 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-actions.rdf :
16:32:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JF and David to lead on SC numbering issue [1]
16:32:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-irc#T16-29-43
16:32:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
16:32:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-irc
16:32:54 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make log world
16:33:31 <MichaelC> regrets+ AWK, Sarah, Makoto, Patrick, Moe
16:33:37 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
16:33:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html MichaelC
16:33:39 <MichaelC> rrsagent, bye
16:33:39 <RRSAgent> I see no action items