15:59:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:59:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-irc
15:59:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
15:59:25 <Lisa_Seeman> Lisa_Seeman has joined #ag
15:59:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:59:26 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:59:27 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:59:27 <trackbot> Date: 21 February 2017
15:59:36 <interaccess> zakim, agenda?
15:59:36 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:59:43 <interaccess> Chair: AWK
16:00:23 <interaccess> agenda+ We are using a new IRC channel. #ag
16:00:27 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
16:00:34 <interaccess> agenda+ Joining AGWG – WCAG members need to rejoin. Don’t delay!
16:00:43 <interaccess> agenda+ FPWD Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/
16:00:54 <interaccess> agenda+ Update on ACTF
16:00:54 <mattg> present+ mattg
16:01:12 <interaccess> agenda+ Improving Issues and PR Process
16:01:17 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
16:01:20 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:01:28 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
16:01:29 <interaccess> np
16:01:38 <steverep> present+steverep
16:01:49 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
16:01:55 <adam_lund> adam_lund has joined #ag
16:01:58 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
16:02:07 <steverep> present+
16:02:08 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
16:02:17 <shwetank> present +shwetank
16:02:19 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
16:02:20 <Lauriat> Present+ Lauriat
16:02:23 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:02:24 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
16:02:31 <MichaelC> present+
16:02:37 <Wilco> present+
16:02:39 <JF> JF has joined #ag
16:02:43 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
16:02:47 <JF> Present+ JF
16:02:55 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:02:58 <laura> present+ Laura
16:03:01 <David-MacDonald> David-MacDonald has joined #ag
16:03:11 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
16:03:20 <Detlev> can't find password in IRC meeting room header
16:03:28 <adam_lund> present+ adam_lund
16:03:35 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
16:03:52 <alastairc> present+ alastc
16:03:56 <David-MacDonald> Present+ David-MacDonald
16:04:03 <alastairc> present -alastc
16:04:07 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
16:04:22 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #ag
16:04:22 <alastairc> present- alastc
16:04:23 <Wilco> scribe: Wilco
16:05:29 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:05:42 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
16:05:42 <Zakim> agendum 1. "We are using a new IRC channel. #ag" taken up [from interaccess]
16:05:43 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
16:05:47 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:05:51 <Wayne> present+ wayne
16:06:05 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
16:06:07 <maryjom> present+MaryJoMueller
16:06:09 <Wilco> AWK: We are using the #AG channel, not the #wcag channel
16:06:11 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 2
16:06:11 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Joining AGWG – WCAG members need to rejoin. Don’t delay!" taken up [from interaccess]
16:06:13 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
16:06:21 <Jim_S> Jim_S has joined #ag
16:06:29 <Jim_S> present+
16:06:38 <kirkwood> present+
16:06:43 <Joshue108> agenda+ Accessibility of current working group tools
16:06:50 <Wilco> AWK: If you haven't rejoined under AGWG, you need to do that. For invited experts there is a process, see e-mail sent about this
16:07:17 <Wilco> ... we haven't checked who dropped off. If you are working for a member company, you need to be asigned by them
16:07:28 <Wilco> ... check with your AC rep or one of us
16:07:46 <Wilco> MC: Been keeping track, 3/4 have joined, but some major companies have not
16:08:01 <Wilco> ... I'll start pinging people individually soon
16:08:37 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 3
16:08:37 <Zakim> agendum 3. "FPWD Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/" taken up [from interaccess]
16:08:42 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:08:55 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:09:14 <Wilco> AWK: Important item, do we send this document out for FPWD
16:09:25 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
16:09:28 <AWK> +AWK
16:09:32 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
16:09:35 <Wilco> ... 3 people yes, 17 yes with changes, 2 say no
16:09:53 <KimD> present+
16:09:59 <Wilco> ... james voted no, he's not on the call now, he had not enough time for review
16:10:24 <Wilco> ... there are another 2 days for the call
16:10:46 <Wilco> BB: Can we vote in another 2 days?
16:11:10 <Wilco> AWK: If we assume at the end of the discussion, the people on the call say yes, then we will put out a CfC on the list
16:11:49 <Wilco> ... unless there are major objectsions, we're trying to get it out for public review
16:12:25 <Wilco> ... if the concern is that there isn't enough time to review, that is understandable, but we are saying that there is no full consensus by the WG
16:12:53 <Wilco> ... but if you found major issues that you feel reflect poorly, or will be a bigger problem then them being late, those should be brought up
16:13:42 <gowerm> +1 for Laura's Animation from Interaction
16:13:48 <Wilco> AWK: we'll go though the comments. Laura is suggested adding an additional SC
16:14:19 <Wilco> ... I had put in my initial response, not everything had been selected. We reached out to all TF facilitators to get their view, which were most ready
16:14:28 <Wilco> ... looked at those and brought in PRs from that.
16:14:50 <Wilco> Laura: This one isn't associated with any TF. It would benefit from outside feedback.
16:15:03 <Detlev> +1 for taking orphan SC in
16:15:05 <laura> It would benefit from additional outside feedback regarding vestibular disability research. And implications for other disabilities.
16:15:06 <JF> Agenda?
16:15:13 <laura> The SC is not sponsored by Task Force so has automatically been left out.
16:15:17 <Wilco> AWK: I recognize that puts it at a disadvantage, but I want to emphasise that we'll be doing additional reviews
16:15:26 <Wilco> ... this is the first, but there will be more.
16:15:53 <laura> When?
16:16:43 <Joshue108> CR ETA by Jan 2018
16:16:55 <Joshue108> PR April 2018
16:17:00 <Joshue108> REC June 2018
16:17:06 <gowerm> q+
16:17:07 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/project
16:17:20 <AWK> ack mi
16:17:27 <Joshue108> ack gow
16:18:16 <David-MacDonald> q+
16:19:11 <AWK> ack da
16:19:45 <Detlev> sure
16:19:52 <Detlev> yes
16:19:56 <AWK> Scribe: Detlev
16:20:31 <Detlev> David: suggests to include the one additional SC proposed by Alastair
16:20:57 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #ag
16:21:29 <Detlev> Andrew: has included changes about SC that required user testing (plain language)
16:21:38 <Detlev> OK go
16:22:01 <Wilco_> AWK: Did people have any thoughts or questions about user testing
16:22:18 <MichaelC> q+
16:22:24 <Wilco_> Lisa: I'm not sure why it's an advantage to do that. For the sake of getting through the call, I'd like to have a note there that we need to go back to that
16:22:27 <AWK> ack mi
16:22:44 <Wilco_> MC: Your PR removes the definition for reliable and achievable, which seems to be unrelated to the change
16:22:55 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
16:23:04 <Wilco_> ... It's referenced from minimizing errors
16:23:21 <Pietro> Present+ Pietro
16:23:21 <Wilco_> AWK: I took it out because it talked about user testing
16:23:55 <Wilco_> ... I took that out because it seemed to hinge on user testing, and we've never specified techniques to say yes or no to anything
16:24:13 <Wilco_> MC: We then need to unlink
16:24:19 <Wilco_> Lisa: We need a definition here
16:25:08 <Wilco_> AWK: Not sure what the resolution of this is
16:25:32 <Wilco_> MC: Are we accepting the PR, I'll edit the PR now and we can merge it
16:25:44 <Wilco_> AWK: does it sound okay to everyone?
16:25:49 <Joshue108> q?
16:26:21 <Wilco_> AWK: Wayne, you indicated that you want a disclaimer, because you say github is inaccessible
16:27:24 <Wilco_> WD: Patrick salved the github problem yesterday, we can use it now. I think we should take the WG seriously that they think enlargement without wrapping is accessibility support
16:28:01 <Wilco_> ... I think maybe we should look at the tools we use for this process, see what they are and how to have workarounds so memebers with disabilities can participate
16:28:10 <alastairc> s/enlargement without wrapping is accessibility support/enlargement without wrapping is not accessibility supported
16:28:25 <MichaelC> q+
16:28:35 <Wilco_> ... Willing to withdraw this. I would appreciate some effort from the group. A lot of us can't participate
16:28:58 <Lisa_Seeman> Q+
16:29:04 <AWK> ack m
16:29:09 <Wilco_> ... even the survey are hell to go through because they don't meet the SCs.
16:29:09 <MichaelC> ack me
16:29:32 <Wilco_> MC: We know of these issues. I've been working on a proposal to improve this process. But I can't implement it until after CSUN
16:29:43 <Wilco_> ... as soon as I'm back I'll work on improving the review process
16:30:17 <Wilco_> ... In terms of general a11y issues of the tools. We're aware of those issues and are looking into them. They aren't as easy to resolve
16:30:29 <gowerm> noise on line
16:31:03 <Wilco_> WD: We have a workaround, but I want to adress this. I want more people to participate in the discussion. I think you're right, people won't get this done until after CSUN
16:31:07 <Joshue108> q?
16:31:10 <Joshue108> q+
16:31:37 <Wilco_> ... I think it's good enough. Patrack, and I think James put solutions on the list. I think maybe we should put them on the WAI-IG list
16:31:39 <MichaelC> q+ to say PR 148 updated
16:31:58 <Wilco_> ... We should have thos suggestions somewhere
16:32:15 <Wilco_> MC: we're tracking this in W3C
16:32:23 <AWK> ack li
16:32:53 <Wilco_> Lisa: We have the same problem. Most of us can't participate in this process. We've kicked up a fuss because it is a problem
16:33:13 <Joshue108> ack me
16:33:14 <Wilco_> ... The new SCs need to be conformant to, so we can get equal participation.
16:33:14 <AWK> ack j
16:34:31 <Wilco_> Josh: The chairs are aware of (a11y) issues people are having. We will address them after CSUN. We put a lot of thought into a11y about new tools like github. There are new challanges
16:34:48 <mhakkinen> mhakkinen has joined #ag
16:35:07 <Wilco_> ... what I would appreciate is if we could keep it off the WCAG list. Feel free to e-mail the chairs, but I would appreciate you e-mail me
16:35:09 <Wayne> q+
16:35:27 <Wilco_> ... we hope to solve issues in the next few weeks. We will need input from those users aswell
16:35:36 <AWK> ack mi
16:35:36 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say PR 148 updated
16:35:41 <AWK> ack wa
16:36:16 <Wilco_> WD: I want to repeat the action is good. A lot of this was avoidable, this was available weeks ago.
16:36:51 <Wilco_> ... I hope we find a way to let people know that we put these fixes in place
16:37:10 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/148/files
16:37:20 <Wilco_> AWK: Michael updated the PR in this link
16:37:34 <Wilco_> ... to indicate the term is under revision
16:37:55 <Wilco_> ... leaves it in a place where we won't forget about it and invite comments
16:38:09 <alastairc> seems fine for this draft.
16:38:09 <Wilco_> ... anyone object?
16:38:34 <Wayne> +1
16:39:38 <Wilco_> Lisa: We did lose a lot of exceptions. We will get kickback
16:39:52 <Wilco_> MC: two have been edited, one is removed
16:40:03 <Wilco_> ... there is a pointer to the issue
16:40:11 <Wilco_> ... can we merge?
16:40:22 <marcjohlic> +1 to pr and merging
16:40:23 <Wilco_> AWK: Unless people object, we can merge
16:40:49 <Wilco_> WD: Josh convinced me about user testing
16:41:23 <Joshue108> yeah - ethics is a concern
16:41:30 <Wilco_> AWK: Any objectsions to merge? No objections, moving on
16:42:16 <Wilco_> Michael: it is in the introduction, it says "not all proposals in the above list ..."
16:42:26 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
16:42:27 <Wilco_> AWK: Does that work for you Kathy?
16:42:53 <Wilco_> Kathy: Yes, works for me
16:42:54 <AWK> ack lisa
16:43:27 <Wilco_> lisa: include "Most of which will be included in subsequent drafts"
16:43:46 <Wilco_> ... we want to say the concerns are met.
16:44:09 <marcjohlic> +1 to MC's reword
16:44:20 <Wilco_> AWK: I don't think we can predict what will get in
16:44:42 <Wilco_> Lisa: can live with it
16:45:18 <MichaelC> q+
16:45:31 <Wilco_> AWK: Lisa's comments are next
16:45:41 <MichaelC> ack me
16:45:41 <Joshue108> q?
16:45:47 <Wilco_> MC: my comment partly addresses your comment
16:46:25 <Jan> Jan has joined #ag
16:46:44 <Wilco_> Lisa: You said the TF facilitators had been asked. But I found out yesterday, it was in the survey, I couldn't possibly read every other response. I didn't know of the draft before
16:47:03 <Ryladog> I had the same problem Lisa!
16:47:24 <Wilco_> ... some things that were tagged high priority were excluded. The result is, two mature high priority were not included. And one had old wording
16:47:48 <Wilco_> ... Can we use the new wording?
16:48:09 <Wilco_> AWK: let's deal with this first, then the other 2
16:48:54 <Wilco_> Lisa: I think the language SC is easy, we have better wording now. Less controvertial, smaller scope, etc
16:49:31 <Wilco_> ... it is in the survey. Added the extra definition and the exception
16:50:25 <Wilco_> MC: I got that wrong in my branch, I wanted to check with you on that.
16:50:37 <Wilco_> ... I have a branch that has it. I'll try to fix it with this instruction
16:50:54 <JF> Q+
16:51:16 <Detlev> I thought we had agreed to take out 2aLSO ON CONTROLS2 IN pLAIN LANGUAGE 8MINIMUM9
16:51:57 <gowerm> @detlev, controls is no longer there
16:52:07 <Wilco_> AWK: Michal has a PR, it still falls under not full consensus, but it seems reasonable to update.
16:52:09 <Detlev> I thought we had agreed to take out "Also on controls"
16:52:31 <Wilco_> s/Michal/Michael
16:53:16 <Wilco_> JF: I'm not clear what we're voting on. I'm concerned. Are we going to get to everything?
16:53:26 <Wilco_> AWK: This is the highest priority item today
16:53:42 <Wilco_> ... I'm hoping we can get through lisa's issues
16:54:11 <Wilco_> MC: I've updated the proposed issue, should I merge?
16:55:02 <Wilco_> AWK: Adjusted where the exception was, added a definition
16:55:28 <mhakkinen> +q
16:55:48 <AWK> ack j
16:55:53 <Ryladog> +1 - thanks MC for editing on the fly
16:55:53 <AWK> ack m
16:56:15 <Wilco_> Marc: Since this is an international document, should there be a reference to i18n
16:56:18 <JF> Q+
16:56:33 <Wilco_> Lisa: It is in the exceptions, but it had user testing.
16:56:41 <AWK> "In languages where present tense and active voice do not exist, or are not clearer in the language of the content, use the tense and the voice that are clearest for the content."
16:57:18 <Wilco_> MC: I've restored all the exceptions, user testing is removed, but everything is back
16:58:13 <JF> +1 to Andrew
16:58:15 <JF> ack me
16:58:19 <Wilco_> AWK: This exception speaks to one aspect, there is more work to do before we have consensus. Additional exceptions may be needed
16:58:24 <marcjohlic> +1  (this is just a starting point)
16:59:00 <JF> +1 to Lisa's point
16:59:00 <Joshue108> q?
16:59:08 <Wilco_> Lisa: There are issues with every SC that hasn't gone through. We shouldn't try to go through these issues on this call
16:59:11 <JF> we are getting bogged down in the weeds.
16:59:14 <Ryladog> +1 to Lisa
16:59:20 <Wilco_> ... there has been a lot of consideration for non-european languages
16:59:37 <Wilco_> ... we don't want to delve into more things. We won't finish the conversation.
16:59:59 <Wilco_> AWK: We need to get through the comments
17:00:38 <Wilco_> JF: I think this SC will need a lot of discussion
17:01:00 <Wilco_> ... I want to be sure that just because it is in the FPWD today, doesn't mean it will be here a year from now
17:01:49 <Wilco_> Lisa: There are two SCs that were more mature. There was support customization minimum
17:02:07 <Wilco_> s/customization/personalization
17:02:10 <Wayne> q+
17:02:29 <Wilco_> ... it is a much smaller scope. We took out the second half of the SC.
17:03:07 <Wilco_> ... We feel strongly this should be in the draft. It also relates to a hackathon at CSUN
17:03:29 <Wilco_> AWK: We wouldn't suggest people do active development based on any of these
17:03:37 <Wilco_> Lisa: The more time people have, the better
17:04:14 <MichaelC> q+
17:04:32 <MichaelC> q-
17:04:36 <Wilco_> ... There was one that got rejected, this one is much smaller now. It just hadn't been looked at, Michael wasn't aware there was new wording
17:04:44 <Wayne> q-
17:05:05 <Wilco_> AWK: I would like to move forward, noted, support personalization, and managable blocks, we'll bring it up at the end
17:05:31 <Wilco_> MC: I didn't think it was ready because I was looking at an older version. We could include them
17:06:05 <MichaelC> q+
17:06:52 <Wilco_> AWK: Green says new, the other says proposed.
17:07:01 <MichaelC> q-
17:07:23 <Wilco_> MC: I would argue that color isn't the only way to convey information.
17:07:27 <Wilco_> JF: ok
17:07:51 <Wilco_> MC: I had substantial editorial comments
17:07:55 <Joshue108> q?
17:08:44 <Wilco_> AWK: These look editorial. hyphens, spacing, glosary links. What are the ones that you feel might be on the edge?
17:09:20 <Wilco_> MC: Added a definition for orientation. Also added links to some CSS Specs, made them normative references
17:09:46 <Wilco_> ... many of the definitions were put into the format of WCAG 2
17:09:57 <Wilco_> ... I tried to not lose content when doing it
17:10:37 <gowerm> +1
17:10:42 <Wilco_> AWK: This seems okay to me, what do others think?
17:10:43 <KimD> +1 to MC's changes
17:10:44 <laura> +1
17:10:46 <alastairc> +1
17:10:46 <marcjohlic> +1 with these changes from MC   https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/147/files
17:10:47 <Ryladog> +1
17:10:47 <Wayne> +1
17:10:51 <jeanne> +1 for MC changes
17:10:51 <Joshue108> +1
17:10:53 <Kathy> +1
17:10:53 <Jim_S> +1
17:10:54 <Makoto> +1
17:10:56 <Detlev> +1
17:11:08 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
17:11:21 <Wilco_> AWK: Any objections? None
17:11:34 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if we have covered MC
17:12:20 <Wilco_> Alistair: Can live with this LVTF SC, we're unclear if it works so it could get comments.
17:12:36 <Wilco_> ... also wanted to ask how the draft will be announced. Framing will be key I think
17:13:26 <Wilco_> MC: I've got a draft announcement, They are under review from Judy & Shawn, I can have them available to the group in 2 days
17:13:40 <Wayne> q+
17:13:42 <Wilco_> AWK: We should include that we are looking for feedback
17:14:29 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
17:14:30 <Wayne> +20
17:14:30 <Wilco_> BB: Michael is doing a whole bunch of work, I want Michael to know we've got his back if there is a problem
17:14:34 <Ryladog> +1 to Bruce
17:15:20 <Wilco_> MC: My main worry is will we get very difficult feedback. I think the introduction help, and the announcements should do so aswell.
17:15:47 <AWK> ack wa
17:15:50 <AWK> ack b
17:15:50 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we have covered MC
17:17:00 <Wilco_> AWK: Comments from Mike, questioning some of the SC language, the route of the draft. Are any of your concerns severe?
17:17:05 <Wilco_> Mike: Can live with it
17:17:35 <Wilco_> AWK: Planning WAIC meeting to review
17:18:05 <Wilco_> Makoto: Sorry for not having enough time to review, but I will review each SC and I'll make a comment on i18n and language issues
17:18:14 <laura> Thank you, Makoto
17:18:31 <Wilco_> Marc: I'm all good
17:19:12 <Wilco_> Detlev: There is orientation, which fits better under 2.6
17:19:33 <David-MacDonald> q=
17:19:38 <David-MacDonald> q+
17:20:29 <Wilco_> AWK: You were suggesting to move 261 to 2.5, and 2.6.2 should that go there aswell?
17:20:48 <Wilco_> Detlev: Orientation should go there
17:20:55 <Wilco_> ... and device sensors
17:21:07 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
17:21:18 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
17:21:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html jamesn
17:21:25 <David-MacDonald> Some of these success criteria proposals may not have not yet met one or more of the <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>requirements for success criteria. </a> We are seeking feedback on the proposals to determine whether or how they can meet all the requirements, such as being testable, implementable, apply to all content, and apply across all technologies (or how to manage exceptions).  In addition, review from[CUT]
17:21:39 <AWK> 2.1.4 to 2.6 GL
17:21:43 <David-MacDonald> internationalization for proposals dealing with language and symbology is requested.
17:21:50 <AWK> 2.5.2 to 2.6
17:21:51 <Wilco_> AWK: 214 should go under 2.6, and 2.5.2 goes to 2.6
17:22:03 <AWK> 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 go to 2.5
17:22:44 <marcjohlic> q+
17:23:18 <AWK> ack da
17:23:21 <marcjohlic> ack marc
17:24:35 <Wilco_> AWK: Jason, you have a few comments. Any items you feel are major blockers, or we can't handle in messaging?
17:25:30 <David-MacDonald> q_+
17:25:43 <laura> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/1026.html
17:26:05 <Wilco_> MC: There is a proposal for a new section in the introduction
17:26:31 <Wilco_> ... it looks repetative
17:27:22 <Wilco_> Jason: It should avoid impression that proposals under consideration are in, it also raises the i18n concerns by explicitly requestiong review on the subject
17:27:23 <Wayne> q+
17:27:44 <Wilco_> ... MC has some changes, if those address the issues that is fine.
17:27:48 <David-MacDonald> zakim
17:28:02 <Wilco_> MC: I propose we add it as a section after the list of new SCs
17:28:29 <Joshue108> yes
17:28:32 <Ryladog> yes
17:28:33 <marcjohlic> +1 willing to hang on
17:28:41 <Makoto> yes
17:28:42 <Ryladog> +1
17:28:42 <Wayne> +1 to talk longer
17:28:44 <Lisa_Seeman> +1
17:28:50 <Jim_S> +1 to hang on
17:28:53 <gowerm> can talk longer
17:28:56 <marcjohlic> +1 to publishing FPWD in its current state
17:28:58 <kirkwood> +1
17:28:58 <laura> +1 willing to hang on
17:29:00 <jamesn> I am concerned but I havent had a chance to review it yet
17:29:01 <Wilco_> +1
17:29:06 <Detlev> +1
17:29:06 <David-MacDonald> +1 talk longer
17:29:12 <steverep> Willing to stay since I'm last
17:29:12 <jeanne> +1 to publish FPWD.
17:29:25 <alastairc> I can't hang on, but not concerned. Would propose to swap out Printing, and put in 2 from Coga and the Animations one. But won't object either way.
17:29:58 <KimD_> KimD_ has joined #ag
17:30:19 <Wilco_> AWK: Assuming we say yes, then we'll do a CfC on the list, and if that does not raise new information, we will route this through and it will published on the 28th of Febuary
17:30:32 <Wilco_> David: Had no time to review
17:30:59 <Wilco_> AWK: It's not ideal, not the way we want to do it in the future
17:31:03 <jeanne> I can't hang on, but I am in favor of publishing.
17:31:22 <Wilco_> s/David/JamesN
17:32:00 <Wilco_> David: Gregg had concerned that proposals were going out that not all of them met the requirements for SCs
17:32:41 <Wilco_> ... he was saying to not put those in. I said back that reviewing that would be a long process. But instead of identifying which ones those are, we could ammend the wording
17:32:53 <Wilco_> ... saying they may not meet all the requirements for SCs
17:33:04 <AWK> q?
17:33:44 <Wilco_> MC: I put in the text Jason refereneced into the text. it is under the SC list
17:34:00 <Lisa_Seeman> Q+
17:34:23 <Wilco_> David: Yes this would work. But some of them do meet all the requirements. Say "They may not yet"
17:34:26 <Greg_> Greg_ has joined #ag
17:34:32 <mhakkinen> +1 to adding "may"
17:34:46 <JF> +1 to adding "may"
17:34:53 <AWK> ack wa
17:35:23 <Wilco_> WD: I think "may not" will fix it
17:35:26 <AWK> ack lisa
17:36:03 <JF> Must leave now. Thanks all, I support the publishing of the FPWD as an important step in our process.
17:36:05 <Wilco_> Lisa: All the new criteria might not survive depending on the feedback
17:36:21 <Wilco_> ... I think this is something we could emphasise
17:36:41 <Wilco_> AWK: Can you live without that?
17:36:50 <Wilco_> Lisa: Can live, but I'm not happy with it
17:37:14 <Wilco_> ... there is enough implied. This is counterproductive
17:37:31 <Wilco_> +1 to having the text
17:37:51 <marcjohlic> I'm OK with the changes
17:38:42 <Wilco_> SR: Some comments were editorial. Most substantial is commin input error definition
17:38:58 <Wilco_> ... conflicting normative and conformative
17:39:40 <Wilco_> AWK: You are using informative to make a normative definition. Reasonable to add a comment
17:40:18 <Wilco_> MC: added this in
17:40:40 <Wilco_> Kim: We're good, everything addressed
17:41:06 <Wilco_> AWK: What hasn't been addressed are Lisa's changes, and comments from Laura about animations from interactive
17:41:35 <steverep> q+
17:41:39 <Wayne> +1 to add them in despite concerns
17:41:44 <Wilco_> MC: I think they are as good as the others, if the group approves they can merge in
17:43:02 <Wilco_> ... When I went through the list for COGA, managable blocks was not good enough. But it has been updated, it was hard to find.
17:43:13 <Wilco_> ... the text that was there meets the bar
17:43:23 <Wilco_> ... If I had seen that text it would be on the list.
17:43:40 <AWK> ack s
17:44:04 <Wayne> WCAG 2.0 matured a process that began with 1.0. Many of the new SCs never reached 1.0 so we can expect many  difficulties
17:44:22 <Wilco_> MC: Plain language is in
17:44:44 <Wilco_> AWK: personalization, managable blocks, and animation from interaction are new
17:44:52 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
17:45:08 <Wayne> q+
17:45:12 <Wilco_> AWK: We are putting a lot out there that doesn't have consensus
17:45:16 <gowerm> q+
17:45:21 <AWK> ack lisa
17:45:38 <marcjohlic> +q
17:45:43 <Wilco_> Lisa: These would have gone in if communication hadn't been quite as rushed
17:46:27 <Wilco_> ... the other thing to bare in mind, quite a few people have voted these things should go in
17:46:29 <KimD_> +1 to concerns about non-consensus items out there
17:46:37 <Wilco_> ... not just people from COGA
17:46:40 <AWK> ack wayne
17:47:05 <jamesn> q+ to ask if there are any that are in that you consider not so important wehich could be removed in order to reduce the number of new things for people to review?
17:47:21 <Wilco_> WD: I think we can put them in. The taskforces have looked at these and said they are important
17:47:25 <Lisa_Seeman> q?
17:47:27 <AWK> ack mi
17:47:51 <marcjohlic> q-
17:48:02 <Wilco_> Mike: A problem is that it's not clear what happens next. I would suggest if we have 3 things on the table, we either include them all, or we don't and they get added later
17:48:04 <AWK> ack marc
17:48:12 <AWK> ack jame
17:48:12 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask if there are any that are in that you consider not so important wehich could be removed in order to reduce the number of new things for people to review?
17:48:20 <AWK> ack gow
17:48:46 <Wilco_> James: Are any that have been proposed not as important, so they can have these instead, there is already lots to review
17:49:37 <Wilco_> Lisa: MC only looked at those that had highest priority tasks. We are 8 disabilities, they are vastly different.
17:49:42 <Wilco_> ... it would be hard to cut
17:49:44 <laura> +q
17:49:57 <Wayne> q+
17:50:05 <bruce_bailey> I have to drop off in 5 min, but +1 to pub.
17:50:05 <AWK> ack la
17:50:23 <Wilco_> Laura: Just to say the animation one had substantial discussion and support. It would benefit from outside feedback
17:50:29 <AWK> ack wa
17:50:30 <Jim_S> Jim_S has joined #ag
17:50:42 <Jim_S> present+
17:50:57 <Wilco_> +1 to putting them in
17:51:01 <bruce_bailey> present+
17:51:05 <Wayne> +1 to all 3
17:51:12 <kirkwood> +1 to all 3
17:51:15 <Ryladog> +1 to putting them in
17:51:15 <Jim_S> +1 to all 3
17:51:20 <steverep> In the interest of saving time: (1) Change "way activate" to "way to activate" in Single Key Shortcuts
17:51:23 <Lisa_Seeman> :)+1 to all 3
17:51:25 <Detlev> +1
17:51:28 <marcjohlic> +1  can live with it - they'd be going in 2 weeks from now anyway
17:51:30 <bruce_bailey> +1 to whatever MC thinks he can do!
17:51:35 <Wilco_> AWK: Any objections?
17:52:02 <Wilco_> ... none. Adding them any
17:52:04 <gowerm> no objection
17:52:08 <Lisa_Seeman> +1
17:52:12 <Wilco_> ... Any objection to a CfC to publish as FPWD
17:52:13 <Wayne> +1
17:52:14 <kirkwood> no objection
17:52:16 <Wilco_> +1
17:52:20 <Makoto> +1
17:52:22 <Jim_S> +1
17:52:27 <Ryladog> +1 to publication
17:52:27 <laura> no objection
17:52:28 <kirkwood> +1
17:52:29 <Detlev> +1
17:52:31 <marcjohlic> no objection
17:52:54 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Publish as FPWD
17:53:00 <AWK> AWK will route CFC
17:53:04 <laura> Thanks all.
17:53:06 <Wilco_> AWK: Congrats everyone, thanks for the hard work and effort
17:53:07 <bruce_bailey> bye
17:53:08 <Detlev> bye
17:53:09 <gowerm> now let's improve our process!
17:53:12 <laura> bye
17:53:35 <Wilco_> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:53:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html Wilco_
18:17:23 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
18:28:38 <Lisa_Seeman_> Lisa_Seeman_ has joined #ag
18:30:57 <Lisa_Seeman> Lisa_Seeman has joined #ag
18:48:29 <Lisa_Seeman_> Lisa_Seeman_ has joined #ag
19:05:50 <laura> laura has joined #ag
19:07:17 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
19:21:14 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
19:22:05 <laura> laura has joined #ag
19:36:37 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
19:48:11 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
19:56:23 <interaccess> interaccess has joined #ag
20:00:14 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
20:25:58 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
20:31:00 <alastc> alastc has joined #ag
20:31:06 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
20:47:15 <laura> laura has joined #ag