15:36:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:36:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-wai-wcag-irc
15:36:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:36:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:36:59 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:36:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:36:59 <trackbot> Date: 03 January 2017
15:37:02 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:37:02 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:37:03 <Zakim> 1. Requirements for SCs (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria) [from AWK]
15:37:03 <Zakim> 2. Numbering & updating SC (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering) [from AWK]
15:37:03 <Zakim> 3. Issue 77 review: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77 [from AWK]
15:37:03 <Zakim> 4. Issue 9 review: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9 [from AWK]
15:37:21 <Joshue108> agenda+ Discussion/Update from SC managers on issue progress.
15:37:32 <Joshue108> agenda+ Charter update
15:37:39 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue108
15:48:56 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
15:52:02 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:52:22 <AWK> +AWK
15:52:33 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:52:33 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Rachael, Laura, MikeGower, Kirkwood, David-macdonald, alastairc, Bruce_Bailey, Joshue108, jeanne, Lisa, Seeman, Jf, steverep, MoeKraft, Glenda, Katie_Haritos-Shea,
15:52:36 <Zakim> ... Rossen
15:53:32 <AWK> present: AWK
15:53:33 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:53:33 <Zakim> Present: AWK
15:53:42 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
15:53:48 <AWK> +Rossen
15:54:03 <AWK> +Joshue108
15:54:11 <AWK> +MichaelC
15:54:17 <AWK> +Ryladog
15:54:23 <AWK> +Jeanne
15:54:26 <AWK> +Greg
15:54:32 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:54:32 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Rossen, Joshue108, MichaelC, Ryladog, Jeanne, Greg
15:55:12 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #WAI-WCAG
15:59:10 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:24 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce-bailey
15:59:28 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:59:28 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:59:29 <Zakim> 1. Requirements for SCs (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria) [from AWK]
15:59:29 <Zakim> 2. Numbering & updating SC (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering) [from AWK]
15:59:29 <Zakim> 3. Issue 77 review: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77 [from AWK]
15:59:29 <Zakim> 4. Issue 9 review: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9 [from AWK]
15:59:30 <Zakim> 5. Discussion/Update from SC managers on issue progress. [from Joshue108]
15:59:30 <Zakim> 6. Charter update [from Joshue108]
15:59:42 <AWK> Chair: Joshue
15:59:58 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:15 <Wayne> present+ wayne
16:00:16 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:31 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:43 <kirkwood> present+ kirkwood
16:01:45 <JF> Present+ JF
16:01:53 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:04 <JF> agenda?
16:02:06 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:13 <MichaelC> present+
16:02:18 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:18 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Rossen, Joshue108, MichaelC, Ryladog, Jeanne, Greg, bruce-bailey, wayne, kirkwood, JF
16:02:23 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
16:02:24 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
16:02:25 <laura> present+ Laura
16:02:27 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:36 <Lauriat> Present+ Lauriat
16:02:57 <gowerm> Scribing: Mike Gower
16:03:14 <LisaSeeman> LisaSeeman has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:19 <AWK> Still need a scribe volunteer for January 24 to complete January.  Anyone?
16:03:20 <JF> scribe: gowerm
16:03:22 <gowerm> Josh: Welcome back everyone
16:03:28 <LisaSeeman> present+
16:03:40 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:41 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:55 <david-macdonald> present+ David-macdonald
16:04:06 <LisaSeeman> present+ Lisa Seeman
16:04:08 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:19 <gowerm> Requirements for SCs
16:04:19 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
16:04:23 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:26 <LisaSeeman> Hi Pietro
16:04:49 <steverep> present+steverep
16:04:50 <Joshue108> Welcome Pietro
16:04:57 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
16:05:03 <JF> Welcome Pietro!
16:05:09 <gowerm> Pietro: Introduced himself. Italian ICT and Comp Sc instructor.
16:05:14 <allanj> allanj has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:14 <gowerm> zakem, nextitem
16:06:26 <gowerm> zakim, next item
16:06:26 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Requirements for SCs (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria)" taken up [from AWK]
16:06:48 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
16:06:50 <adam_solomon> adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:51 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:07:01 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:04 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:09 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:07:21 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
16:07:31 <Wayne> persent+ pietro
16:07:31 <adam_solomon> present+ adam_solomon
16:07:42 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:44 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #wai-wcag
16:08:19 <erich_manser> erich_manser has joined #wai-wcag
16:08:28 <gowerm> Josh: Walk through the SC requirements for comments. Context is general guidelines
16:08:49 <gowerm> Josh: Cannot diverge from 2.0
16:09:12 <Ryladog__> Ryladog__ has joined #wai-wcag
16:09:31 <Ryladog__> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:09:50 <LisaSeeman> q+
16:10:14 <gowerm> Josh: Number 2 (testable), 3 and 4 seem uncontroversial
16:10:36 <gowerm> Josh: Number 5 Ensure for revised..."
16:10:52 <Glenda_> Glenda_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:24 <Joshue108> ack lisa
16:11:27 <gowerm> Josh proceeds through all 9 criterion, reading them out.
16:12:15 <Ryladog__> 8 out of 10
16:12:25 <gowerm> Lisa Seeman: Testability (#2). "an expert has a high degree of confidence..." Define what we mean by "human testable"
16:12:26 <david-macdonald> high degree of correlation?
16:12:45 <Ryladog__> 8 out of 10 experts would agree
16:12:55 <Joshue108> q+
16:12:59 <Glenda_> Present+ Glenda
16:13:09 <gowerm> Lisa: Take wording that was used in internal wiki and use that.
16:13:38 <gowerm> Lisa: [noise on line]
16:14:29 <alastairc> q+
16:15:08 <gowerm> Lisa: #9. Wants to add clarification: readily available formats 'that are available by the time 2.1 timelines are met'
16:15:21 <MichaelC> q+
16:15:31 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #wai-wcag
16:15:37 <AWK> q+ to say that we don't need to add the clarification to #9 since we will have items "at risk" if implementations are not complete
16:15:42 <gowerm> Josh: #9 doesn't necessarily even have to be in there. Relates to techniques not requirements
16:15:57 <Detlev> present: Detlev
16:16:02 <erich_manser> Present+ Erich
16:16:14 <Detlev> Present+ Detlev
16:16:24 <MichaelC> q+ to say risky to depend on timelines that haven´t been met yet
16:16:29 <MichaelC> q+ to say #9 very much applies to SC
16:16:51 <david-macdonald> "All Success Criteria must also be testable. This is important since otherwise it would not be possible to determine whether a page met or failed to meet the Success Criteria. The Success Criteria can be tested by a combination of machine and human evaluation as long as it is possible to determine whether a Success Criterion has been satisfied with a high level of confidence."  https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#[CUT]
16:16:59 <gowerm> Lisa: for #9 we want to move forward so 'readily-available' is future restrictive. "and assistive technologies" is restricitive. Some COGA not using ATs.
16:17:04 <Joshue108> ack me
16:18:02 <gowerm> Josh: re: "human testable" wording. not need to tinker with right now since it is a .1 update
16:18:09 <alastairc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0808.html
16:18:17 <Joshue108> ack alasta
16:19:12 <JF> Q+
16:19:27 <gowerm> Alastair: overlap concerns him most (link posted). If done to letter, means we can't do SC especially COGA and LVTF. If anything is an update, then it is an overlap.
16:19:51 <AWK> Alastair is talking about #8?
16:20:24 <Detlev> +1 to Alastair
16:20:35 <LisaSeeman> +1
16:20:52 <jon_avila> some of the lV and COGA criteria have overlap.  If we can't change the existing SC then a new would SC and therefore we could not introduce a beneficial SC
16:21:10 <Joshue108> q?
16:21:30 <jon_avila> Agree with Alistair - we either need to be able to modify SC or allow overlap
16:22:01 <gowerm> Alastair: not make changes to current ones if possible at first.
16:22:10 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
16:22:21 <jeanne> +1 to not be rigid about making changes to current SC when appropriate.
16:22:38 <Joshue108> ack Michael
16:22:38 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say risky to depend on timelines that haven´t been met yet and to say #9 very much applies to SC
16:22:42 <AWK> q+ to ask if a new SC that requires 400% enlargement would be regarded as overlap with the existing 200% requirement or not
16:22:58 <gowerm> MichaelC: 9 is a critical part of the requirements. not just about techniques.
16:23:36 <Joshue108> q+ to say what about where semantics don't exist for new techniques?
16:23:37 <LisaSeeman> Q+
16:23:53 <gowerm> MichaelC: re: timing. Risky to accept SC that are not implementable yet. SHould be marked as at risk, as well as dependencies.
16:24:04 <LisaSeeman> agreed that we need to define clearly why something is at risk
16:24:28 <AWK> ack AWK
16:24:28 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we don't need to add the clarification to #9 since we will have items "at risk" if implementations are not complete and to ask if a new SC that requires
16:24:31 <Zakim> ... 400% enlargement would be regarded as overlap with the existing 200% requirement or not
16:24:41 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
16:24:47 <gowerm> Andrew: No need to add anything to #9
16:25:41 <gowerm> Andrew: clarification on waht is a modification (i.e. 400 versus 200%). If new one is beyond that, is it a modification?
16:25:42 <david-macdonald> A couple of paragraphs on "testable" are at the top of this document. https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html
16:25:43 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:26:47 <Wayne> q+
16:26:59 <gowerm> JF: aspiration versus what is currently done. Aspiration puts us at risk of scrutiny and pushback
16:27:21 <gowerm> JF: need to be leaders but grounded in realism.
16:27:28 <Joshue108> ack me
16:27:28 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say what about where semantics don't exist for new techniques?
16:28:06 <Ryladog__> q+
16:28:17 <Joshue108> ack Lia
16:28:21 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
16:28:32 <gowerm> Josh: overall agrees with John
16:28:36 <MoeKraft> present+ MoeKraft
16:29:07 <gowerm> Lisa: need to make some changes. "support AT" in #9. Not relevant to all users.
16:29:08 <jon_avila> Agree that some users aren't using AT
16:29:24 <AWK> A working draft is not necessarily the same as implementations. Separate issues.
16:30:17 <Wayne> q-
16:30:57 <Wayne> q+
16:31:06 <gowerm> Lisa: Clarifies that Personalization is germane to needs not "readily-available"
16:31:52 <gowerm> Lisa: once personalization semantics are in place, burden is lessened.
16:32:03 <gowerm> josh: that seems like a case for incubation
16:32:34 <JF> Q+
16:33:00 <Wayne> q-
16:33:13 <david-macdonald> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6
16:33:28 <AWK> q+
16:33:29 <gowerm> Lisa: personalization can be done now, but a lot of work. easier when semantics are available
16:33:57 <gowerm> Lisa: should be there by CR, not February
16:34:05 <Joshue108> ack Lisa
16:34:06 <LisaSeeman> ack lisa
16:34:10 <Joshue108> ack ryla
16:34:26 <AWK> q+ to say that if an SC can be implemented before some new spec that make it easy is finalized and implemented then there is no dependence on that spec needed.
16:34:51 <gowerm> katie: Wants to include at risk in first draft to get feedback
16:34:59 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:35:06 <LisaSeeman> +1 to katie
16:35:24 <gowerm> JF: Some At Risk items may be silver-like projects
16:35:37 <JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/#time-scale-modification
16:36:10 <Joshue108> q?
16:36:36 <gowerm> JF: posts url as consideration of how to handle at risk items. could be released concurrently.
16:36:37 <Joshue108> q+ to say that projects like MAUR could be a good template
16:36:58 <Joshue108> ack me
16:36:58 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that projects like MAUR could be a good template
16:37:05 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:37:05 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that if an SC can be implemented before some new spec that make it easy is finalized and implemented then there is no dependence on that spec needed.
16:38:13 <gowerm> AWK: We don't need to put anything in about specs meeting working draft or CR. If you can meet it today, great. if you can't then it won't be sc or it will be at risk
16:39:08 <Ryladog__> +1 to that statement, just because something is hard, that does not mean we should address it
16:39:14 <gowerm> Josh: +1 If something is hard, it doesn't mean it is impossible. Complex implementation that demonstrates potential is fine. No need to over-engineer requirements
16:39:16 <Joshue108> q?
16:39:55 <Wayne> q+
16:40:00 <gowerm> Josh: sense is there is no strong objection. Just comments for tweaks. That is positive.
16:40:07 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:40:17 <LisaSeeman> +1
16:40:57 <gowerm> Wayne:  we have extreme needs that block people's ability to use the web, which cannot be met right now.
16:41:20 <AWK> q?
16:42:28 <marcjohl_> marcjohl_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:42:37 <gowerm> Wayne: we need to be aware that the current paradigm does not meet certain needs. 2 kinds of data: mutable data, that can be changed, and post-process data that can't be customized. (i.e., printer). Latter cannot be addressed by WCAG.
16:42:49 <Detlev> A big issue still seems to be if minor changes on exisiting SCs would be possible to reduce confusion - say, renaming 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) -> 1.4.3 Text Contrast (Minimum) so we can have a new one for graphics / icons that separates well
16:42:51 <LisaSeeman> Q+
16:43:28 <AWK> acl l
16:43:31 <gowerm> AWK: There are things we won't be able to get to in 2.1. Where that line falls is what we're figuring out as part of process.
16:43:31 <AWK> ack l
16:43:51 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #wai-wcag
16:44:52 <gowerm> Lisa: uncomfortable with #9 as it is.
16:44:56 <Joshue108> q+
16:45:39 <gowerm> AWK: with WCAG being technology independent, how can we reference a technology standard?
16:45:50 <alastairc> AWK / Lisa: The issue is between not changing 2.0, and re-writing current SC. We do need to square that - either we can re-write current ones, or we can't and Lisa would need to re-write some to make them additive.
16:45:53 <Detlev> q+
16:46:10 <MichaelC> q+
16:47:02 <MichaelC> q+ to say we care about *implementations existing* not *specification maturity* though they inter-relate
16:47:10 <gowerm> Lisa: cites ARIA as example of how "expose the role" could be included even though it didn't exist in HTML at the time of language drafting of 2.0
16:47:37 <gowerm> AWK: you could expose the role circa 2008. ie. checkbox
16:47:58 <bruce_bailey> Here is the note to SC 4.1.2:  This success criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or script their own user interface components. For example, standard HTML controls already meet this success criterion when used according to specification.
16:48:10 <MichaelC> q+ to say we need *some way* to exist of meeting a proposed SC, not necessarily the *preferred way*, that´s how we got stuff that related to ARIA before ARIA was finalized
16:48:19 <AWK> ack j
16:50:02 <gowerm> Josh: if something that can be demonstrated with a user agent, then it is readily available.
16:51:37 <alastairc> Detlev: yes, adjustments to text of current (e.g. Contrast to Text contrast) would help, but I'm happy leaving that to a later stage. Current issue is whether we can only write new SCs, and my example to the list was for https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/51 which moves an AAA to AA, and modifies (slightly) the text.
16:52:14 <Detlev> q-
16:52:36 <gowerm> Lisa: wants to understand what a 'readily-available assistive technology' is. Wants clarification to ensure there is no moving bar
16:52:38 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
16:52:39 <Joshue108> ack me
16:52:49 <MichaelC> ack me
16:52:49 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we care about *implementations existing* not *specification maturity* though they inter-relate and to say we need *some way* to exist of meeting a
16:52:52 <Zakim> ... proposed SC, not necessarily the *preferred way*, that´s how we got stuff that related to ARIA before ARIA was finalized
16:53:23 <gowerm> MichaelC: for accepting a SC we care about implementation existing, not specification.
16:53:54 <Wayne> q+
16:54:18 <JF> Q+
16:54:22 <gowerm> MichaelC: We don't care if a preferred means exists; it's whether a means exists. As long as we know it can be met.
16:55:18 <gowerm> MichaelC: WCAG does not define comprehensively what is 'good enough' That was intentional
16:55:20 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:55:43 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:56:51 <gowerm> JF: re: getting ARIA in before finalized. IBM's support of Firefox is known by many. 2.1 needs to be testable and implementable today. Silver can be more aspirational.
16:57:26 <gowerm> Josh: if there are implementations for COGA available, even if tricky, they can be candidates. Is taht acceptable?
16:57:50 <gowerm> JF: IT is a tricky question. e.g., audio descriptions rarely implemented.
16:57:54 <LisaSeeman> q+
16:57:57 <jon_avila> I see a lot of videos with audio description
16:58:02 <alastairc> JF the exception that proves the rule? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/categories/audio-described/highlights
16:58:12 <Joshue108> ack lisa
16:58:13 <jon_avila> If you relied on audio description you would see it more
16:58:32 <Wayne> q+
16:59:32 <Joshue108> ack way
16:59:43 <gowerm> Lisa: We need to keep pushing. if that results in some SC not getting traction, okay.
17:00:45 <Ryladog__> +1 to Wayne
17:00:46 <gowerm> Wayne: Understands Lisa's concern. COGA and LVTF have been cut out for so long, there isn't good stuff around. WE need guidelines to encourage people.
17:01:04 <LisaSeeman> +1 to wayne with hug
17:02:10 <kirkwood> +1 to Wayne
17:02:29 <gowerm> zakim, next item
17:02:29 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Issue 77 review: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77" taken up [from AWK]
17:02:41 <Joshue108> zakim, close item
17:02:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', Joshue108
17:02:45 <Joshue108> zakim, take up item 2
17:02:45 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Numbering & updating SC (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering)" taken up [from AWK]
17:03:26 <MichaelC> q+
17:03:35 <Ryladog__> yes, I recall that
17:04:50 <gowerm> AWK: Some discussion on call and on list. No perfect solution right now. Until we get clarity on #8 (overlap) we can't make decision on numbering.
17:05:07 <alastairc> +1 we need to decide on whether we can re-write current SC, then decide numbering
17:05:24 <JF> Q+
17:05:27 <Ryladog__> Can we do asurvey on this?
17:05:35 <Ryladog__> q+
17:05:42 <alastairc> q+
17:05:53 <gowerm> Josh: question is: are we going to rewrite existing SC?
17:06:01 <Detlev> q+
17:06:40 <Joshue108> ack micha
17:07:26 <bruce_bailey> q+ to argue that renumbering is less concern than only increasing accessiblity requirements
17:08:32 <gowerm> MichaelC: we shouldn't assign numbers to SC right now. Has no preference for numbering scheme. "how to meet" Quick document went through  major changes in last year. Some people involved in that are hoping that will be the primary landing point. If that happens, people will be sorting, so consistent numbering isn't so important.
17:08:37 <Joshue108> +1 to being open to the possibility of re-working current SCs before considering numbering etc
17:09:12 <bruce_bailey> +1 to what MC is saying for QuickRef ability to support 2.1 and about SC having meaningful handles and more arbitrary numbers
17:09:16 <gowerm> MichaelC: suggests using 'handles' instead of numbers.
17:09:19 <LisaSeeman> +1
17:09:24 <laura> +1
17:09:32 <Wayne> +1
17:09:43 <steverep> +1 to Michael
17:09:58 <Joshue108> ack jf
17:10:19 <JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering#Non-Specific_Feedback
17:10:53 <kirkwood> +1 to JF referncing the legal folks numbering
17:11:07 <gowerm> JF: In the real world, the handles are useful. The numbering for standards people is more important (pasted link)
17:11:54 <gowerm> JF: favours alpha or numeric extension. Numbers are there for reasons -- reporting, etc
17:11:59 <laura> +1 to using 'handles’ and  de-emphasising(not eliminatingnumbers.
17:12:10 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
17:12:10 <kirkwood> +1 to JF
17:12:12 <gowerm> MichaelC: clarifies not abandoning numbers
17:12:14 <Joshue108> ack ryla
17:12:24 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
17:12:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
17:12:25 <LisaSeeman> Q+
17:12:55 <gowerm> Katie: it's fine that numbers will be out of order. we should absolutely not change the nubmers or text of existing SC. This is not 3.0 where we can re-arrange everything.
17:13:08 <JF> +! to Katie's point, this is a dot-release of an existing standard
17:13:31 <kirkwood> +1 to Katie’s statement
17:13:46 <gowerm> Josh: would like to hear about additive examples.
17:14:15 <Joshue108> ack alas
17:14:27 <gowerm> Josh: concerned about too absolutist statement about not changing numbers or text
17:14:47 <gowerm> Alastair: Worried about how confusing 2.1 will be.
17:15:13 <gowerm> Alastair: asks Lisa if it is possible to not alter current SC to incorporate COGA.
17:15:22 <Ryladog__> q+
17:15:41 <alastairc> JF: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0808.html
17:16:07 <gowerm> JF: 2.0 would just be text/images of text. 2.1 would add icons.
17:16:07 <Glenda> JF, we are not changing that SC, we are adding a new SC…for clarity.  I
17:16:08 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/51
17:16:26 <gowerm> Alastair: the devil is in the details. Pastes example.
17:16:59 <gowerm> JF: make it 8a or 8.1 since more info isbeing added it is stil 1.4.8 but more stuff is being added.
17:17:10 <steverep> q+
17:17:25 <gowerm> Lisa: thinks an additive approach is a mess.
17:17:30 <Joshue108> +1 to Lisa
17:17:30 <Wayne> q+
17:17:58 <gowerm> Lisa: says the timeout is too short. How do you change that?
17:18:20 <AWK> q+ to talk about issue 51
17:18:30 <Glenda> JF, on 1.4.3, that original SC is only about text…so adding color contrast for icons, and visual focus indicators is similar not not a “child” of the original 1.4.3 (it is a proposed NEW SC).
17:18:47 <Joshue108> ack det
17:18:58 <gowerm> [noise on line]
17:19:25 <Detlev> OK
17:19:26 <Joshue108> ack bruce
17:19:26 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to argue that renumbering is less concern than only increasing accessiblity requirements
17:20:01 <gowerm> Bruce: numbering decision should be last. It is secondary to maintaining the backwards compatibility.
17:20:45 <gowerm> Bruce: numbering is irrelevant since gov't does date-specific references
17:21:28 <gowerm> Bruce: some rewording is going to need to be done to bring some existing SC into agreement.
17:21:32 <Joshue108> ack lis
17:22:13 <david-macdonald> q+
17:22:14 <bruce_bailey> some of the SC do not have exactly consistant phrasing for the same concept from one SC to the next
17:22:56 <gowerm> Lisa: the simpler we can make it for developers, the better. Simplicity should be goal.
17:22:58 <Joshue108> ack ryla
17:23:28 <gowerm> katie: stepping back from 'don't change'. We start out by adding new things [noise]
17:24:14 <gowerm> Katie: low-hanging fruit is adding. where it gets complicated, we need to be together to carefully rewrite.
17:24:41 <gowerm> steverep:
17:24:46 <Joshue108> ack steve
17:25:34 <gowerm> steverep: future stakeholders are important to keep in mind. if 2.1 is complicated, additive version, people will be put off. We can't completely rule out changing SC.
17:25:37 <Joshue108> q+ to say the pure additive model is likely a throwback to the extension model and we need to take an objective look at our process
17:25:56 <Joshue108> ack way
17:26:33 <jeanne> +1 to steverep
17:26:37 <gowerm> Wayne: AAA items are the sticky ones. But it doesn't matter too much: they're not as well formed; few people implement.
17:27:12 <Joshue108> ack awk
17:27:12 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about issue 51
17:27:15 <gowerm> Wayne: Changing AA needs to be heavily scrutinized, AAA not so much.
17:27:25 <jeanne> q+
17:27:43 <Glenda> +1 to what Wayne just said about AAA not needing as much scrutiny.
17:27:44 <jeanne> q-
17:28:04 <Detlev> Sorry for not being able to dial in without noise - I strongly support putting usability and conciseness of WCAG 2.1 above concerns reg. rewording / renumbering
17:28:21 <Joshue108> thanks Detlev!
17:28:37 <gowerm> AWK: this will come down to looking at specific examples. Maybe we move forward without fully resolving. uses Issue 51 as example of way to tackle
17:29:14 <Mike_Elledge> q+
17:29:16 <Joshue108> ack dav
17:29:17 <alastairc> For ones which propose change, suggest an impact assessment at the bottom of the doc that people can add to with techniques / failures.
17:29:18 <Wayne> +1
17:29:22 <gowerm> AWK: wants to minimize changes to extent possible.
17:30:42 <gowerm> Dav: suggests making additive for first draft. Larger point: Need to do 9 a week for next 7 weeks to make deadline.
17:31:46 <Joshue108> ack me
17:31:46 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say the pure additive model is likely a throwback to the extension model and we need to take an objective look at our process
17:33:03 <jeanne> +1 to Joshue. We need the flexibility to respond the needs of users of WCAG.
17:33:27 <gowerm> Josh: Parting thought: the group has to consider that SC may have to change going into 2.1.
17:33:53 <Mike_Elledge> Was just going to suggest that we indicate where SC have been revised or added to make it easier for ppl to identify the changes.  :^)
17:33:54 <Detlev> is there a link to *all* new suggested SCs anywhere?
17:34:04 <gowerm> Josh: could clear the path to making our February goal
17:34:20 <alastairc> Detlev: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues
17:34:29 <Mike_Elledge> bye all
17:34:32 <marcjohlic> trackbot, end meeting
17:34:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:34:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Detlev, Erich, Mike, Elledge, MoeKraft
17:34:34 <Detlev> ta Alatair
17:34:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:34:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:34:40 <AWK> then copy and paste the url in an email to the list
17:34:40 <gowerm> trackbot, end meeting
17:34:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:34:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:34:41 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:34:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Detlev, Erich, Mike, Elledge, MoeKraft
17:41:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
17:41:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-wai-wcag-irc
17:41:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:41:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
17:41:29 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
17:41:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
17:41:29 <trackbot> Date: 03 January 2017
17:41:37 <AWK> Present: AWK, Rossen, Joshue108, MichaelC, Ryladog, Jeanne, Greg, bruce-bailey, wayne, kirkwood, JF, alastairc, MikeGower, Laura, Lauriat, Lisa_Seeman, David-macdonald, Pietro, Kathy, adam_Solomon, jon_Avila, marcjohlic, moekraft, wayne, Glenda, Erich, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mike_Elledge, Kirkwood, SteveRep, Jeanne, Detlev
17:41:46 <AWK> Trackbot,m list attendees
17:41:46 <trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'Trackbot,m list attendees'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
17:41:51 <AWK> Trackbot,list attendees
17:41:51 <trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'Trackbot,list attendees'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
17:41:56 <AWK> Trackbot, list attendees
17:41:56 <trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'Trackbot, list attendees'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
17:42:03 <AWK> RRSAgent, list attendees
17:42:03 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'list attendees', AWK.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:42:21 <AWK> RRSAGent, draft minutes
17:42:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
17:43:01 <AWK> trackbot, end meeting
17:43:01 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:43:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Rossen, Joshue108, MichaelC, Ryladog, Jeanne, Greg, bruce-bailey, wayne, kirkwood, JF, alastairc, MikeGower, Laura, Lauriat,
17:43:04 <Zakim> ... Lisa_Seeman, David-macdonald, Pietro, Kathy, adam_Solomon, jon_Avila, marcjohlic, moekraft, Glenda, Erich, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mike_Elledge, SteveRep, Detlev
17:43:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:43:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:43:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:43:10 <RRSAgent> I see no action items