14:47:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:47:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-wai-wcag-irc
14:47:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:47:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:47:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:47:26 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:47:26 <trackbot> Date: 09 August 2016
14:47:29 <AWK> Chair: AWK
14:47:31 <AWK> +AWK
14:47:36 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
14:47:36 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:47:37 <Zakim> 1. TPAC Registration reminder: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC [from AWK]
14:47:37 <Zakim> 2. Survey on SC requirements: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reqsWCAG21/results
14:47:37 <Zakim> 3. WCAG Techniques and Understanding comments – soliciting assistance for items https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
14:47:38 <Zakim> 4. Communication practices discussion [from AWK]
14:47:48 <AWK> Zakim, clear agenda
14:47:48 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:48:07 <AWK> agenda+ TPAC Registration closes September 2: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC
14:49:36 <AWK> agenda+ ACT TF Proposal  https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement
14:50:03 <AWK> agenda+ Survey on Public Comments: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August9Misc/results
14:50:31 <AWK> agenda+ SC requirements discussion
14:51:57 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wai-wcag
14:53:33 <davidmacdonald> davidmacdonald has joined #wai-wcag
14:53:47 <AWK> regrets+ Laura_Carlson, Shawn_Lauriat, Wayne
14:54:02 <LisaSeeman> LisaSeeman has joined #wai-wcag
14:54:35 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:15 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:23 <AWK> agenda+ github issue volunteers
14:58:36 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:14 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:37 <AWK> agenda 4 is SC requirements discussion https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
15:00:45 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:45 <AWK> agenda 4 = SC requirements discussion https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
15:00:58 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:00:58 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:00:59 <Zakim> 1. TPAC Registration closes September 2: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC [from AWK]
15:00:59 <Zakim> 2. ACT TF Proposal  https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement [from AWK]
15:00:59 <Zakim> 3. Survey on Public Comments: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August9Misc/results [from AWK]
15:01:00 <Zakim> 4. SC requirements discussion https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
15:01:00 <Zakim> 5. github issue volunteers [from AWK]
15:01:15 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:28 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:02:32 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:32 <shadi> shadi has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:36 <Rachael> present+ Rachael
15:02:40 <agarrison> present+ agarrison
15:02:48 <steverep> present+steverep
15:02:50 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:55 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:03:02 <shadi> present+ shadi
15:03:10 <Mike_Elledge> present+ Mike_Elledge
15:03:15 <SarahHorton> present+ SarahHorton
15:03:23 <davidmacdonald> Present+ David MacDonald
15:03:37 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:04:11 <Rachael> I can scribe if noone else would like to do so.
15:04:27 <AWK> +Greg_Lowney
15:04:53 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
15:04:55 <davidmacdonald> Scribe: David
15:05:10 <AWK> ZAkim, take up item 1
15:05:10 <Zakim> agendum 1. "TPAC Registration closes September 2: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC" taken up [from AWK]
15:05:11 <davidmacdonald> Zakim, take up item 1
15:05:12 <Zakim> agendum 1. "TPAC Registration closes September 2: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC" taken up [from AWK]
15:05:36 <davidmacdonald> AWK coming to last reminder for TPAC
15:06:18 <davidmacdonald> Zakim, take up item 2
15:06:18 <Zakim> agendum 2. "ACT TF Proposal  https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement" taken up [from AWK]
15:06:59 <davidmacdonald> AWk enough iterest expressed for concept to pursue
15:07:21 <davidmacdonald> s/iterest/interest
15:08:04 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
15:08:12 <davidmacdonald> Separate question. is there enough resources... there are people already working on it
15:08:29 <davidmacdonald> AWK cjair feel we should support it.
15:08:46 <davidmacdonald> s/cjair/chairs
15:08:57 <Sarah_Swierenga> present+ Sarah_Swierenga
15:08:59 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:13 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:41 <AWK> ACT = Accessibility Conformance Testing
15:10:20 <KimD> KimD has joined #wai-wcag
15:10:39 <davidmacdonald> Wilco: ACTS automated testing proposals, figure out what would make for good test rules and use those as a rallying point, brought into a single repository...
15:11:03 <Judy> Judy has joined #wai-wcag
15:11:06 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:11:18 <AWK> ack mi
15:11:20 <davidmacdonald> SHadi: includes semi automated and other types of human tesign
15:11:28 <AWK> q?
15:12:14 <davidmacdonald> Mike-E: defined rules for automated and semi automated... wondering if we collide with existing tools, is it an issue and how to mitigate ot
15:12:53 <Judy> present+ Judy
15:13:19 <KimD> +KimD
15:13:34 <davidmacdonald> Wico: It can be an issue... that is why we want to do this work... tools have disparity of results...  want to come together to get an approach that tool devs cannagree on
15:13:52 <davidmacdonald> s/wico/Wilco
15:14:17 <davidmacdonald> s/cannagree/can agree
15:14:31 <davidmacdonald> Mike: Is there interest by developers
15:15:01 <shadi> q+
15:15:10 <davidmacdonald> Wilco: Deqaue, IBM, SSB, Site Improve and others are on board
15:15:27 <shadi> q-
15:15:34 <davidmacdonald> Mike: What skill sets are you looking for?
15:15:43 <Judy> s/Deqaue/Deque/
15:16:19 <davidmacdonald> Wilco: Knowing WCAG and and working on tools, QA people
15:16:27 <AWK> q?
15:16:28 <Judy> q+
15:16:31 <AWK> ack j
15:17:01 <davidmacdonald> Judy: Thanks to Wilco and Shadi, part of work would be under a new charter, yes?
15:17:26 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Need figure out deliverables...
15:17:32 <Judy> q+
15:17:49 <AWK> ack j
15:18:01 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Ability to deliver, is dependant on people coming into the group from the community group
15:18:16 <davidmacdonald> Judy: There are a few orgs that can
15:19:10 <davidmacdonald> Judy: some orgs cannot easily participate on community group but can be under a WCAG group...
15:19:41 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Assuming group agrees.
15:20:13 <davidmacdonald> Michael: We can probably put it in our space quickly before the CFC
15:21:03 <davidmacdonald> Judy: Sounds doable, there would be an approval timeframe... want to ensure we can maintain enthusiasm from contributing orgs during this transition time.
15:21:35 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Are we comfortable with concept and work statement
15:21:57 <davidmacdonald> AWK if so we can proceed
15:22:09 <LisaSeeman> i can not access the link
15:22:25 <davidmacdonald> AWK anyone uncomfortable... (silence=agreement)
15:22:30 <Kathy> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement
15:22:36 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
15:22:42 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:23:09 <steverep> q+ wondering about approval of tools
15:23:10 <davidmacdonald> RESOLUTION: Working group approves work statement and TF proposal
15:23:19 <AWK> ack s
15:23:20 <alastairc> @LisaSeeman I think you have to take the quote mark off the end.
15:23:40 <davidmacdonald> s/proposal/Proposal for the ACT task force
15:23:57 <shadi> q+
15:24:31 <davidmacdonald> Steve: are we going endorse or evaluate any tool for accuracy with our agreed set of tests
15:24:40 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Not likely
15:24:40 <AWK> ack sh
15:24:51 <davidmacdonald> Shadi: AAc doesn
15:24:59 <alastairc> @Judy - it is clear, I only said that as earlier there was talk about the automated rules being first up in terms of work, helping to standardise rule set.
15:25:13 <Wilco> q+
15:25:24 <davidmacdonald> W3C doesn't make assertions on tools or browser etc...
15:26:36 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:26:49 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:27:03 <AWK> ack wil
15:27:05 <davidmacdonald> Shadi: Tool makers can say what tools they are following, as a self declarations
15:27:12 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:27:32 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:27:32 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:27:33 <Zakim> 1. TPAC Registration closes September 2: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC [from AWK]
15:27:33 <Zakim> 2. ACT TF Proposal  https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement [from AWK]
15:27:33 <Zakim> 3. Survey on Public Comments: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August9Misc/results [from AWK]
15:27:34 <Zakim> 4. SC requirements discussion https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
15:27:34 <Zakim> 5. github issue volunteers [from AWK]
15:27:52 <AWK> Zakim, close item 1
15:27:52 <Zakim> agendum 1, TPAC Registration closes September 2: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC, closed
15:27:54 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:27:54 <Zakim> 2. ACT TF Proposal  https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement [from AWK]
15:27:58 <AWK> Zakim, close item 2
15:27:58 <Zakim> agendum 2, ACT TF Proposal  https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement, closed
15:28:00 <davidmacdonald> Wilco: A lot of doscussion about writing test that can prove a tool is implemented properly. Likely will be a suite of tools to run agaonst tools to ensure they've implemented our recommendations
15:28:01 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:28:01 <Zakim> 3. Survey on Public Comments: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August9Misc/results [from AWK]
15:28:10 <davidmacdonald> Take up item 4
15:28:34 <agarrison> dropping off
15:29:07 <davidmacdonald> AWK: WCAG 2.1 SC requirements... almost at agreement.
15:29:12 <MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
15:29:44 <davidmacdonald> Acceptance criteria for proposals
15:30:25 <davidmacdonald> Want to ensure proposals are consistent
15:31:32 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Idea is to have simple format, and guidelines in a template
15:31:49 <LisaSeeman> q+
15:32:52 <alastairc> Q+ alastairc to ask whether there are criteria / standards for the evidence needed for a new SC
15:33:44 <alastairc> q-
15:34:48 <AWK> ack lis
15:35:37 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: We are close but would like clarifications innthe draft. Concerned this is the intent, written, but people may forget, and time wasted pulling up minutes etc... evidence can be a link to the evidence...
15:36:02 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Lots of work for evidence, if it helps 6 different disabiloties
15:36:24 <davidmacdonald> s/disabiloties/disabilities
15:37:29 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Let's add links, or anecdotal evidence... the ones where we rely on anecdotal are self evident such as exposing a user's information
15:37:29 <AWK> q+
15:38:51 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Desciption of how it can be tested is a lot of work, not aware it would be required for FWD
15:39:06 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Concerned we can't get that in time
15:39:36 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Would like a clause "time permitting"
15:40:03 <AWK> ack AWK
15:40:05 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Ameded #5 may be a link to a seoarate resource
15:41:44 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Regarding evidence... that is where WG will be engaged... SCs with rock solid evidence that specific users, changes discussiona nd makes it easier... if its anectotal, then it's still evidence, but is harder and longer and more discussion... people will want to learn about the issue and ask many questions
15:42:02 <LisaSeeman> q+
15:42:32 <davidmacdonald> AWK: I'm not inclined to say what kind of evidence they submit... butnwe'll need some sort of evidence that WG can consider
15:42:50 <davidmacdonald> s/butnwe/but we
15:43:00 <AWK> ack lis
15:43:47 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Worried... first round ... don't want us to discriminate towards issues with less research or evidence for cognitive disabilities.
15:45:08 <Ryladog> q+
15:45:23 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Wondering what those who were in WCAG think? there was some sort of evidence...
15:45:41 <davidmacdonald> LISA: Burden of evidence is similar to 2.0
15:46:18 <AWK> ack r
15:46:30 <davidmacdonald> LISA: WCAG 2 ... a person showed us on a computer and we accepted it... just seeing that it works...
15:47:15 <davidmacdonald> Katie: Whatever you have here, is associated with evidence, associated with the resource, can be hidden, but we need a trail of evidence...
15:48:22 <davidmacdonald> LISA: Do not expose information where it can do them harm... its anecdotal... my dad got dementia and people tried to sell him stuff...
15:49:51 <davidmacdonald> LISA: Should write a summary of the evidence... we're on the same side... when less evidence, is when its completely obvious...
15:50:25 <davidmacdonald> Katie: When presenting the SC, we would want someone on COGA available to answer questions...
15:50:45 <davidmacdonald> LISA: Yes that would meet our need...
15:51:07 <davidmacdonald> AWk: What's the proposal?
15:51:38 <davidmacdonald> Katie: We want someone available to answer questions from WG about evidence
15:52:55 <davidmacdonald> AWK: If a proposal doesn't have the benfits etc... then we don
15:53:05 <MichaelC> q+ to disagree with gruelling time constraints
15:53:43 <davidmacdonald> if there are no benefits listed or evidence, we don't have a proposal, we have an idea.
15:53:49 <LisaSeeman> q+
15:53:51 <davidmacdonald> q+
15:54:40 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:54:43 <AWK> ack m
15:54:43 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to disagree with gruelling time constraints
15:54:48 <davidmacdonald> AWK: perhaps have incomplete proposals have "at risk"
15:55:30 <AWK> ack lis
15:55:35 <davidmacdonald> Michael: Don't think time frame is unreasonable... there are hundreds of pages of work.
15:55:44 <Ryladog_> +1 to must have option for "at risk" status
15:56:58 <davidmacdonald> LISA: COGA is a category, its a huge area, not like low vision... etc... very complex huge fields, covers as much variety and people as WCAG... first draft, we were not asked for this new information 2
15:57:03 <MichaelC> q+ to accept Lisa´s broad scope for cognitive definition, but we´re not boiling the ocean in WCAG 2.1, we´re doing what we can with what´s in front of us
15:57:59 <MichaelC> q+ to say the timeline includes lots of discussion time - the December deadline is just to get first version of SC in front of us
15:58:17 <AWK> ack d
15:58:26 <AWK> David: couple of things
15:58:36 <MichaelC> q+ to say the ask is not as big as you fear, it´s just to have high-level indication of need and implementability, not full resources
15:58:40 <AWK> ... my preference is to get more req from PWD
15:58:41 <AWK> ...
15:59:15 <AWK> ... in WCAG 2.0 we wanted to provide more req for cognitive but the information wasn't available at the time
15:59:42 <AWK> ... my hope is that more is testable now, more research now
16:00:19 <AWK> ack m
16:00:19 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to accept Lisa´s broad scope for cognitive definition, but we´re not boiling the ocean in WCAG 2.1, we´re doing what we can with what´s in front of us and
16:00:22 <Zakim> ... to say the timeline includes lots of discussion time - the December deadline is just to get first version of SC in front of us and to say the ask is not as big as you fear,
16:00:22 <Zakim> ... it´s just to have high-level indication of need and implementability, not full resources
16:01:21 <davidmacdonald> David: WCAG 2 did what we could... Cognitive research was low, the field was huge and many issues were not testable. Hopefully there is more research now...
16:02:01 <AWK> q+
16:02:38 <davidmacdonald> Michael: I feel I could write the requirements and testability in a couple of afternoons...
16:02:40 <AWK> q+ to say that we are looking to get to a FPWD in February
16:02:41 <LisaSeeman> q?
16:02:44 <LisaSeeman> q+
16:02:48 <AWK> ack AWK
16:02:48 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we are looking to get to a FPWD in February
16:03:26 <AWK> ack Lisa
16:03:27 <davidmacdonald> AWK: December deadline is for FPWD early in the year to get feedback from public for a 2.1 in first quater of 2018
16:04:19 <AWK> q+ to ask Lisa what problems she is concerned about down the line
16:04:47 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Let's say that research and testing can be described in a few sentences... explicitly in the SC requirements.
16:05:15 <Kathy> q+
16:05:33 <AWK> ack AWK
16:05:33 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask Lisa what problems she is concerned about down the line
16:07:18 <davidmacdonald> Lisa: Want to ensure we have a change to address concerns... a conversation rather than a sharp cutting off of the proposal.
16:07:22 <Kathy> go ahead
16:07:45 <davidmacdonald> s/chance/change
16:08:08 <davidmacdonald> s/change/chance
16:09:14 <AWK> ack kath
16:09:19 <LisaSeeman> q+
16:09:38 <davidmacdonald> AWK: This is a checklist, getting it on the agenda to consider rather than accepting it on WCAg
16:10:28 <davidmacdonald> Kathy: Do we want to suggest what level it is at ... and indicate if there are new guidelines... if there are new techniques for existing tSC, how does that fit in...
16:10:59 <davidmacdonald> s/tSC/SC
16:12:00 <davidmacdonald> AWK: If its a new technique just do what we are doing now
16:13:14 <AWK> ack lisa
16:13:27 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Just put it in "what principle of guideline does it fall under"
16:13:38 <davidmacdonald> s/of/or
16:15:44 <KimD> +1 to checklist is good
16:16:28 <davidmacdonald> AWK: Anyone object to sending checklist of proposals.
16:17:51 <davidmacdonald> Greg Lowney: Suggest we can add optional examples if they have them under #9 ..."User examples beneficial but not required"
16:18:35 <davidmacdonald> RESOLUTION: Checklist for proposals for new SC approved
16:18:54 <AWK> TOPIC: Success Criteria Requirements
16:19:59 <davidmacdonald> LISA: Object to the word "reasonable".
16:21:06 <davidmacdonald> LISA: change "common format" to "readily available"...
16:21:21 <davidmacdonald> q+
16:21:44 <AWK> ack d
16:22:04 <AWK> q?
16:22:12 <Ryladog_> +1
16:23:33 <davidmacdonald> Have Success Techniques which demonstrate that each Success Criterion is implementable, using readily available formats, user agents, and assistive technologies.
16:23:54 <davidmacdonald> RESOLUTION: Acepted SC requirements
16:23:55 <AWK> TOPIC: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines
16:24:15 <LisaSeeman> Are short in length. However brevity should not at the expense of clarity or testability.  Minimize the use of lists to where they make the success criteria easier to follow. Lists can be used to prevent the creation of multiple, similar, success criteria.  When using lists, numbered lists are preferred to more easily allow referencing specific items Avoid the use of "notes" unless it makes the  success criteria easier to follow (Notes are regarde[CUT]
16:24:18 <davidmacdonald> s/Acepted,Accepted
16:24:30 <davidmacdonald> d	s/Acepted/Accepted
16:24:40 <davidmacdonald> s/Acepted/Accepted
16:25:17 <LisaSeeman> Are short in length. However brevity should not at the expense of clarity or testability.
16:25:41 <LisaSeeman> Minimize the use of lists to where they make the success criteria easier to follow. Lists can be used to prevent the creation of multiple, similar, success criteria.
16:26:07 <davidmacdonald> +1
16:26:11 <MoeKraft> I like the change +1
16:26:36 <alastairc> Einstein's: as short as possible but not shorter?
16:26:44 <MoeKraft> : )
16:26:49 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:27:03 <alastairc> s/not shorter/no shorter
16:27:38 <Rachael> q+
16:27:42 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:27:50 <AWK> ack r
16:28:12 <davidmacdonald> AWK: concerned about irony of a guideline about short SCs being long...
16:28:16 <LisaSeeman> q+
16:29:36 <davidmacdonald> Rachel: Make the clarification to "ensure that the SC ..."
16:29:47 <AWK> ack li
16:30:09 <davidmacdonald> LISA: Concerned people on the call will not understand...
16:30:21 <KimD> What about "1. Are concise and clear"
16:30:52 <MoeKraft> +1
16:30:53 <alastairc> +/-1, don't mind.
16:30:59 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
16:31:03 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:31:44 <Mike_Elledge> Bye all
16:32:09 <davidmacdonald> AWk not quite there on this Best Practice section .... we'll end the call and come back to it next time
16:32:22 <AWK> Trackbot, end meeting
16:32:22 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:32:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, Joshue108, Rachael, Makoto, Lauriat, Kathy, Laura, Greg_Lowney, lisa, adam_solomon, marcjohlic, KimD, Katie_Haritos-Shea,
16:32:25 <Zakim> ... MichaelC, jeanne, moekraft, Mike_Elledge, Lisa_seeman, alastairc, jon_avila, shadi, steverep, Davidmacdonald, Wayne, Judy, Elledge, kirkwood, Sarah_Swierenga, agarrison,
16:32:25 <Zakim> ... SarahHorton, MacDonald
16:32:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:32:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:32:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:32:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items