WAI Coordination Call -- 09 Nov 2016

<Judy> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<scribe> scribe: janina

Confirming scribe and any agenda additions

jb: Currently under AC review
... Requesting that chairs inform their WGs
... Key is to get WG members to get their AC rep advised about this, and offer any assistance

mc: We're getting responses, mostly groups we ordinarily work with
... Have a request to add Dpub liaison

jb: You're expecting to handle the requests during review

mc: Yes, to the extent possible

jb: With respect to the Korean request, suggesting generic language with an "including ..." statement

mc: Draft text would be helpful

jb: OK
... Would be good to have robust participation in this review

AG WG charter <https://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter> out for review by W3C Advisory Committee, comments due by 2 Dec, please advise your AC rep

jb: Symposium on ICT testing last week. I attended with Shadi
... We hope to get some work going on this

Symposium on ICT accessibility testing <http://ictaccessibilitytesting.org/>

jb: Good participation, and great to see the interest in this area, including on research on accessibility testing
... Recommend people note this conference for future involvement
... Suggesting a WAI-IG followup on this

khs: Yes

WH event on accessibility of Internet/Web of things

shadi: Attended White House a11y event
... Focussed on panels -- so not much interaction
... Good speaker/panelist lineup
... IoT, medication, at and prosthetics, etc
... IoT main item

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/blog/2016/11/white-house-disability-inclusive-technology-summit/

shadi: Noting that we're working on it, concerned we will have interoperability with at

lisa: Can you provide link? Noting FCC is also active in IoT

shadi: Yes, it was mentioned we might need new guidelines
... Was noted that not every component would need to be accessible on its own, but the ecostructure must be

jb: Wanted to bring this up on the cc call because it touches all WAI work
... We particularly need help compiling use cases -- user scenarios
... Again suggesting a topic on WAI-IG hlpefully to lead to a IoT user scenarios discussion

ls: Would like to do some use cases for cognitive, but unavailable until next month
... Will be important to coordinate with the FCC

jb: Noting that Karen Pelz-Straus from the FCC was there

Upcoming publications & messaging; discussion topics for WAI IG

jb: Believe we have a note from Dpub ...
... Notes note from Tzviya re ARIA-Dpub and corresponding AAM on track

mc: We also have blog post ready, but only when we actually publish
... Rich is away through the month, so approval may be delayed

jb: Any topics that should go to WAI-IG?

khs: Have had questions why the timeline based WCAG work, rather than a completed spec
... Perhaps a discussion of how W3C specs, especially WAI specs move forward would be a way to go about it

jb: Notes this has been previously discussed with W3 management
... Notes this is on Chairs list
... The need some stability in accessibility guidelines has been raised several times.

josh: Notes that question has been responded to
... Not sure that widening discussion about this may not be useful at this time
... Notes that frequently updated techniques and understanding docs should be keeping guidance up to date
... Seems until 2.1 is out, and we have a better idea of what 3.0 will be, seems this would not help

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say Charles´ message was analyziing how quickly you *could* do a spec under Process, not how fast you *have to* do a spec and to talk about WCAG timelines

mc: Notes CNM's message was an analysis of what the process allows for timelines
... There are many reasons building up for updated guidelines, which is a major reason behind 2.1
... Notes the parallel effort to outline a 3.0 for the longer view
... Key point is that we won't know what follows 2.1 until we finish 2.1
... We're trying to define timelines we can meet

shadi: Agree with not saying a11y standards are different, and also agree with sticking to timelines
... Having a commitment to regular releases seems a bit different than sticking to a particular timeline
... Does any WG have a regular release commitment?

jb: Concept came from HTML, and has evolved since

khs: Very disappointed to hear we're not focussed on making a spec complete before moving forward with it
... Seems uptake will be more difficult that way with regulators

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I also disagree with every 2 years, or every 3 years and to say there is no way WCAG 2.1 could cover everything we want and done anytime soon; that´s

mc: I personally agree with the timeline concerns expressed

<Joshue108> +1 to MC

mc: On the other hand, everything we know we need to address--we can't do it all in any near horizon timeframe
... Wording in charter doesn't bind us to specific post 2.1 other than the Silver planning

<Judy> "The Working Group intends to produce updated guidance for accessibility on a regular interval of approximately three years, starting with WCAG 2.1. Depending on the outcome of the requirements development for the next major update to WCAG, it may be necessary to pursue further dot-releases of WCAG until the major release is ready to be completed in time for a scheduled release date."

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about personal preferences for WCAG.x

josh: It may not be the best, but there are reasons we decided to go this way, and we hope it helps keep our spec relevant
... Believe taking up the output from COGA and Mobile TFs will give us lots of substance in 2.1

shadi: Just not convinced that the timeline approach will improve our quality

ls: +1 to discomfort with timelines

Participation needs, community group or workshop liaisons?

<Joshue108> JS: We are short staffed.

jb: Noting the APA is preparing a recruiting message

mc: RQTF also struggling with membership--a nominal level so far
... Also CSS TF, mainly because we haven't identified a Co-Facilitator

<Joshue108> JS: That is disappointing after all the effort.

mc: Noting that Silver TF is small

jb: Wondering if too small? Need more diverse perspectives?

<Joshue108> It wont be small for long

mc: Expecting close coordination with main group
... Idea is a group of people who are able to devote focus to the work

josh: Don't believe it will be small for long

Upcoming publications, cross-reviews, and messaging

Update on WTAG

<MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/checklist.html

mc: Largely an APA effort--mostly me
... Currently a checklist to share with W3C groups doing specs
... Still an APA topic, maybe not yet ready for wider review

jb: Wondering about other WAI groups' feedback

mc: May need to be a second step, because we're now commited to an early v 1.0
... Had previously thought we'd do the WTAG and then a questionairre, but now the q is first

jb: Believe wider review would be helpful
... At least a "hives" review at this point

Next meeting: Nov 23 or Dec 7, topic requests

jb: Notes the 23rd date iis the day ahead of a major U.S. holliday
... Are people available?

<MichaelC> MC not available

ls: Yes

janina: Probably not

<Judy> Please indicate availability for Nov 23?

<shadi> [SAZ available]

<Judy> And for Dec 7th?

janina: Yes

<shadi> [SAZ available]

<MichaelC> MC available

<Kim> not 23, yes 7

<Judy> present?

- DRAFT -

WAI Coordination Call

09 Nov 2016

Attendees

Contents