See also: IRC log
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/
<Joshue108> Scribelist: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
<Joshue108> Scribe: Alistair
<MichaelC> scribe: alastairc
Discussing topics, should be good attendance from participants on the call.
<JF> Official TPAC page here: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/
<KimD> +KimD
Note that COGA will also be meeting there. There will be some remote participation possible.
MichaelC: Meetings are monday & tuesday. APA is also meeting those days, unfortunately.
JF: Looking to co-ordinate with the CSS working group?
MichaelC: We are looking to update techniques at some stage, but shorter term the APA are looking to plug some holes.
Joshue108: There will be people from the TFs there, so hopefully we can meet.
MichaelC: Mobile & LV don't
have official meetings, but can discuss things.
... Would be good for TF people to be in the WCAG meetings when
we discuss the Success Criteria.
... Will try and set some agenda times, working with the
Chairs, at a later stage.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
Joshue108: (Goes through the list, then) Those should keep us going for a good while!
JF: The new SC numbering method, shouldn't we have finished that by then?
MichaelC: If we complete it before then, great.
Joshue108: Is everyone happy with that?
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask for detail on Silver
davidmacdonald: Assume that the new SCs will be the bulk of it?
Jeanne: Would be good to have more detail on 'Silver' before TPAC, so it doesn't get squeezed out.
<davidmacdonald> +1
MichaelC: I think 2.1 work will be somewhat more urgent at that stage.
Joshue108: It will run in tandem, need to get some of the ideas down with tangible goals & deliverables.
davidmacdonald: Will be going in with candidate SCs, and should come out with rough wording.
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.
<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.
<Joshue108> me np
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.
Joshue108: Question then about getting the right people are included.
<Joshue108> +1 to JF and Jeanne
Jeanne: If we dribble things out publicly in small doses, will be difficult, should follow the W3C processes.
<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
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.
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.
... 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.
Joshue108: That's why institutional memory discussions are important.
JF: Underscore: don't want to use
social media when we get to that point, need a focused
discussion in one place.
... Github pinging back to the email list is ok, but rather not
have a different channel.
... Need to be able to go back and look things up from years
ago. Social media channels are lousy for that.
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.
... But, we do need to work with people from where ever they
come from.
<laura> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues
Laura: LVTF is using github to
manage issues.
... publishing likely to be Nov/Dec for LVTF.
<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
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.
<laura> Jim said Nov-Dec for LVTF: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2016Jun/0038.html
MichaelC: There are stages where it makes sense to blog/tweet, but too much will make it more difficult for us.
davidmacdonald: A soft approach, there are particular times when it is appropriate.
Joshue108: When discussions get heated, try not to bring in lots of people who haven't been part of the discussion.
JF: At some point we need to think about the platform where the work is being merged?
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.
JF: I'm a member of 4/5 working groups, so try to constrain the deluge of info.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline
Joshue108: Might seem quite quick, but the work behind the scenes should help.
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.
... People will be able to add techniques in HTML, rather than
XML.
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?
MichaelC: This is quick in W3C
time, a lot of it is minimum times for various review
stages.
... 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.
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.
... If we can get it out earlier, great, but on past experience
it takes time.
MichaelC: We'll welcome help keeping the timeline short, but it does mean we need to avoid lengthy discussions on small things.
<jeanne> +1 to limiting debate
Joshue108: 2.1 makes it seem small, but this is going to be a big deal.
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.
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.
<Ryladog> +1 to MC
MichaelC: At the moment, shouldn't go in expecting a 2.2
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering
Joshue108: Thanks for the comments from people so far. Want to have a good idea (or decided) by TPAC.
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.
... Checked with toolmakers, internal and external. Neither
thought it would be a problem, especially as we filter SCs.
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.
... 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.
... That should guard the integrity, the other options give a
different class (secondary?) class for the new SCs.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering
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.
... The tools allow filtering. Our clients don't care about the
numbering, we put them into bug tracking tools.
... Main thing is we just add to the bottom [of each
guideline], doesn't matter about the level.
... For changes in level, we just change it, don't need to
change the number.
<Ryladog> +1 to just changig the severity level of existing SC moving levels
<Joshue108> +1
<jeanne> +1 to change the severity and add to the end. Don't change existing numbers.
JF: For sub-requirements, 1.3 & 1.1 we already break those out for our testing methodology. E.g. multiple types of images.
<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
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.
JF: I thought the numbering scheme would be an issue, but didn't seem to be.
MichaelC: I'd like to add some ideas to the wiki.
JF: Can we establish some dates?
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering
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.
DavidMacDonald: Would like to see the other ideas, I'm possibly getting settled on an idea early.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we may need to ask the world about the impact of numbering
<Ryladog> I would like to see MC ideas too - I kniw he has been looking at this for yeears
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say pros cons important
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.
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.
<JF> +1
<jeanne> +1 to katie and SC review being number-less.
Joshue108: Primarily there will be a concern with the levels rather than the numbering.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about the statement "we haven't asked the world about Wcag 2.1"
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.
<Ryladog> How and Where do we do that MC?
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.
JF: If it's that serious, should we do that now?
MichaelC: We're working on it. Not implying the WG hasn't done something, it's something we (W3C+chairs) need to do.
<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
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.
... Could change the numbering (possibly), but obviously that
proposal would have definate cons.
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.
MichaelC: Planning on public review phase, not yet though.
<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to comment on problem statements of numbering
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.
... What is the problem statement for changing the
numbering?
<JF> The issue becomes, do we rank by number or by severity?
<JF> +1 to thinking about a db perspective
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.
... easier to change the view in other places like the quick
ref.
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.
steverep: Understand it could be considered a DB, but it is also a webpage people can read, so it should have a logical order.
<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?
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.
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.
<Joshue108> ACTION: JF and David to lead on SC numbering issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - And david to lead on sc numbering issue [on John Foliot - due 2016-07-05].
Joshue108: Are people happy with Silver?
<davidmacdonald> wai2020
JamesN: All for oberjean (AC: no idea how to spell it.)
<JF> aubergene
<steverep> Argento?
<Sarah_Swierenga> good bye everyone
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|https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG/TPAC_2016|https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016|G Succeeded: s/AFP/APA/ Found Scribe: Alistair Found Scribe: alastairc Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc Scribes: Alistair, alastairc Default Present: JF, steverep, alastairc, kirkwood, Laura, marcjohlic, Kathy, Joshue108, MichaelC, KimD, jeanne, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila Present: JF steverep alastairc kirkwood Laura marcjohlic Kathy Joshue108 MichaelC KimD jeanne Katie_Haritos-Shea jon_avila Lauriat DavidMacDonald Regrets: AWK Sarah Makoto Patrick Moe Found Date: 28 Jun 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: david jf WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]