SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 02 Aug 2017

<mattg> do we have to call in? I'm not getting any audio options

<laudrain> i confirm

<Bill_Kasdorf> the meeting number in the invitation isn't working

<dkaplan3> hi, thanks, rdeltour

<Avneesh> I am also not able to call in.

<Avneesh> Is ivan on IRC?

<laudrain> no

<Bill_Kasdorf> I've tried the meeting number 317 985 035 a couple of times and it doesn't work

<Bill_Kasdorf> not yet

<laudrain> no, the meeting isn’t open

<laudrain> got it

<daniel_weck> I am not able to join on WebEx / concall telephone number

<daniel_weck> any tips?

<daniel_weck> Should I use the WebEx app? Or the phone number?

<daniel_weck> What is the password?

<Bill_Kasdorf> just calling the 617 number and entering the meeting number now works

<BenSchroeter> I am in the webex now too. I have to jump at the bottom of the hour.

<daniel_weck> Thank you rdeltour, I'm in

<tzviya> to join WG: https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/100074/join

<scribe> scribe: Romain

WCAG 2.1 status

mattg: in a nutshell, the metadata issue hasn't come up on the WG's radar

<Avneesh> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/308

mattg: Andrew and Joshua are on vacation. it could come up next week

<Avneesh> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/313

mattg: the other issue is about reading order. lot's of debate on the tracker
... about whether it's general UX or specific to a11y
... it w/b useful for people to take a look at that
... other proposals, being able to bypass repeated blocks in documents
... does it fall under multiple ways? or a new SC?
... it's definitely useful for people to look at it and chime in

jason: it hasn't been established that content that would comply to WCAG 2.1 would fail to comply to this criteria
... the WG has to make decisions on a large number of proposals before the end of this month
... everything that hasn't a very strong rationale wouldn't be in 2.1

George: did David suggested that we actively comment in what we're proposing in order to raise the level of its presence in the group?

Avneesh: yes

jason: the WG would have to make difficult priority decisions, a lot of proposals won't make it in any form
... only a few proposal are possible in a 3 weeks timeframe
... it takes some time to go through each proposal and get them address

Avneesh: what's the opinion about the metadata proposal?

jason: some interesting discussion
... I proposed that if people want to strenghten that section, they would enhance the provision within WCAG

tzviya: I think the job of this group is not to decide what's a priority for WCAG, but what's a priority for our group
... it might sounds obnoxious, but not our problem if they have diffculties to discuss everything
... we can work with them to adjust the priorities
... there's lot of stuff that people want to put in 2.1, but these are our priorities
... we know it might get cut, but it's their problem

Avneesh: the question is if there's some thing we can do to get it in

George: we have to be there, to make sure that our proposal are still in line, and answer any queestions

mattg: the metadata proposal is still there
... the other one was more a proposed clarification to the Understanding document, but might be pushed as an SC
... if we want to push it as an SC, we need to clarify it
... maybe that's something we need to take offline again, and discuss how much of a priority it is (it = the "reading order" proposal)

Avneesh: about the metadata, if it can get it in 2.1 it's fine
... about the "reading order" issue, I don't think it makes a lot of difference

<laudrain> +1

mattg: is it a big enough problem and priority for 2.1?

<laudrain> +1 to metadata in 2.1

mattg: metadata is in a better shape for people to discuss it when brought up to the chairs

tzviya: might be a good idea to send an email to Andrew or Josh
... as far as reading order and packaged concept, it's rather fragile and being stretched

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to suggest sending an email with priorities

tzviya: not sure we can push for it at this point
... but we can clarify things about what we need, what we want

mattg: I've been told trying to change that in 2.1 is too big a change

dkaplan: there's only so much 2nd guessing we can do
... we can say what are what our priorities, they'll tell us what we can do to help

jason: there's some outstanding issue about metadata
... it doesn't actually improve a11y
... there's view in WCAG that requiring somebody to declare sth about the content raises some objection on the basis of legal requirements
... it WCAG 2.0 they were concerned about organizations having difficulties to be required to declare sth

<tzviya> shouldn't this discussion happen on a WCAG call?

jason: I don't know how much an issue it is now

mattg: there's a new proposal we've been making
... just proposing adjustment to what's in conformance
... statements on the a11y + additional prose
... it's not the original proposal, we came up with a less contentious proposal for 2.1

Avneesh: we did this following your comment Jason, maybe you can go through the new proposal and help us getting it through?

<mattg> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/308

jason: they'll have to bring it to the chairs, disucss the conformance langugage, then go through a call for consensus
... I've not seen the proposal yet

Avneesh: I've placed the link to the PR, and will send a link to the proposal

<mattg> https://github.com/daisy/epub-revision-a11y/wiki/WCAG-Discovery-Metadata-Proposal

tzivya: officially Katie was the person in charge, but she was offf soe David took it over

jason: something you might think is uncontroversial can turn out to be difficult...

Avneesh: ok. I'll send an email to the chair to explain them our priorities

struture of the a11y requirement document

<clapierre> http://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/

Avneesh: the gap analysis IG note is not the output of the Publishing WG
... so we have to review it and incorporate the reqs in that note in the new WG
... we discussed creating a new document in the WG
... initially a wiki page
... working on the principles now, then integrate techniques after
... we have to discuss the structure of this document, any input?

<clapierre> Digital Publishing and Accessibility in W3C Documents

<clapierre> W3C Interest Group Note 03 May 2016

George: [question about the note]

Avneesh: we have to create a requirement document that will be used as input to the WG

tzviya: what are you hoping to accomplish with the note?

Avneesh: 1. when the PWG specs are developed, the principles identified in this doc will help keep things on track wrt a11y
... 2. keep principles aligned when discussing Silver
... the principles should be at one place, then the issue tracker is a floating thing
... we match the specs with principles

tzviya: I would hesitiate to create a document structure before we know what we're documenting

dkaplan3: you're referencing the doc from last year (IG), are we turning that in a new document for the WG or starting from scratch?
... is the goal the same as for the note from last year?

Avneesh: the note identified what are the gaps, now we need to identify some SCs

dkaplan3: it was just a note, would we be using that list of things we think would need to exist as an input for new SC?

Avneesh: I've gone through the notes many times, some things need clarification
... many things come from hard-core specific a11y background
... we need to make it understandable to the general public

dkaplan3: the EPUB a11y requirements are much more barebones
... the a11y reqs and the note are very different

clapierre: some of the requirements in the note were integrated in the EPUB a11y requirements
... as a starting point, we can look at what's currently incorporated in the 1.0 a11y spec
... and what still needs to happen
... is that what you were thinking about what needs to happen for the SC?

Avneesh: we know that all the reqs can't go to WCAG 2.1, many will go into Silver
... people in PWG will be asking why we need to care about these things if it's not in WCAG
... so we need to document our reqs
... we can reference the IG note and the a11y specification when documenting our reqs
... the a11y spec is more concrete, the note was less concrete but more gaps are described
... the wiki page can be a reference for PWG to follow, and for us for working with WCAG

mattg: trying to figure out what we want to solve in the PWG
... are we trying to ensure that what PWG is doing includes a11y?
... or start focusing on what our priorities need to be in Web Pub, then only start to focus on how content is produced acccessibly
... it's difficult to say how to produce PWP when we don't know what it is

George: we want to identify the high level principles and techniques that are going to guide our work
... we can then go down to more specific issues
... trying to figure out what can be pushed to WCAG, or what fits in the PWG domain
... some things will be specific to publishing, other general things
... if we have these principles to promote in the PWG, or WCAG work, is that what we think we need?

Avneesh: yes, that's the main idea

tzviya: as a chair of the WG, we should discuss issues that affect the PWG
... if you're discussing WCAG matters, bringing the concerns of publishing matters, but our goal as a TF is to define a11y for publications

<Bill_Kasdorf> we are a subset of the PWG, not a WG

<Bill_Kasdorf> and not an IG

Avneesh: absolutely, WCAG is doing its work, we're just discussing issues that are relevant to publishing

tzviya: we have specs to write. this TF should focus on the concerns about these specs

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to matt's question

tzviya: we might be looking at too large a scope right now, accomplishing 2 tasks
... yes there s/b representatives from this WG to express the concerns of publishing
... but the main priority of this TF is not to bring a11y to the Web

George: do you mean we should be looking at all the existing WCAG work and say these are the chunks that apply to Web Publications and let the WG know?

tzviya: that's kind of a default assumption

dkaplan3: there's a bunch of things being conflated
... we've talked a long time about should we be writing techniques, etc
... we don't need to duplicate any of the core a11y work
... technique for adding metadata is a good thing
... we need to say "there are some things that we really want to have in our publication but we cant. do we need to write some new SC?"
... aside from the high level spec (current EPUB a11y spec), are there places that have gaps?
... for the WG that Tzviya defined, that would be our job

jason: the WG is developing a new publishing specification. our priority is that all reqs for a11y are included in that specification, that's what the WG is about
... if there's liaison needed with WCAG WG to make sure that the specs coming out of this WG
... we can collaborate with both WG to get this things addressed

Avneesh: I think the common understanding is that we need to focus on the a11y issues that are the current state of WCAG
... we also know which are the main areas of publishing which are not covered by the Web a11y
... coming to Matt's comment, until PWP get some shape, we can't know what's the structure of these requirements
... maybe we can wait with this document, and let the WG come with a FPWD
... there's also the possibility that Web Pub are close to the web and there's not a lof of new requirements
... have I interpreted the group well?

<tzviya> +1 to what avneesh said

clapierre: I agree with what you said
... it's sort of what we did in the a11y TF of the IG
... our job was to find any issue that could be an a11y issue and discuss in the TF separately
... that's our role here as well, I like the idea of continuing this here

mattg: yes, generally agree with what Avneesh said
... the nav doc issue that came up several times can be the kind of issue we need to discuss in this group
... we can have a position on why it's an a11y issue and why it s/b a priority
... maybe we should be building up a list of similar issues

Avneesh: good. We have to discuss the nav doc in next week's agenda

dkaplain: agree with everyone. If we need time, one of the things we can do is develop a list of gaps, and specific things we want to do and turn them to formal requests
... we don't need to do the work about why they're important

<clapierre> 1+ Deborah

dkaplain: if we have time to kill while waiting for the whole group, it's a great thing to do

tzviya: you don't necessarily need to wait for the TF consensus to comment on issues
... it's a good idea to form a position, but everybody can form an opinion
... Avneesh, can you move the minutes into a sub page of the wiki?

Avneesh: any final comment?

jason: some of the a11y requrements can be addressed in the specs under development by the PWG
... if there are other things that publication-related software doesn't do, where does that belong?

<dkaplan3> uaag, jasonjgw? Except that's not live, is it?

jason: if it's related to a particular web technology that the PWG want to use
... it's difficult at the moment, there's no work on the way to address UA a11y requirements
... that might change in Silver

Avneesh: [closing the meeting]

<clapierre> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/02-pwg-a11y-minutes.html clapierre

<Avneesh> rrsagent make minutes

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

02 Aug 2017

Attendees

Contents

WCAG 2.1 status

struture of the a11y requirement document

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output