<AWK> +AWK

<steverep> Quick intro question - Can we extend the expiration date on the Understanding survey?

<AWK> Scribe?

<jallan> scribe: Jim

<lisa> im here

schedule moving forward

<AWK> Timeline: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline

<jallan> awk: did not publish working draft yesterday

<jallan> ... need to get WD out

<jallan> ... this is the wide review draft. presents a very stable draft.

<jallan> ... get the hard comments.

<jallan> awk: Solid SCs, don't want formal objections. or it gets complicated - director override, or another draft

<jallan> awk: proposing modification to schedule

<jallan> ls: anyone from a company can make a comment. not an executive signoff. when we have a member comment - is it an executive comment, or an individual comment.

<jallan> ... is there some mechanism to distinguish>

<Glenda> Isn’t that the responsibility of the AC rep for that company?

<Alex> how is W3C is to monitor governance of member companies?

<jallan> awk: I am the main voice for my company. we try to cover this with "can you live with X?" as a representative of a member company, not an individual.

<jallan> ... no easy resolution. remind folks they are speaking for company. but, they may not know the 'position' of the company

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline

<jallan> awk: scheduled to publish CR on 9 Jan.

<jallan> ... propose WD Dec 5 (rather than Dec 12 in schedule),

<jallan> ... means everything must be resolved by noon Dec 1, to do a CFC by Tuesday at noon. then can get CR in Feb, and get to REC on same schedule

<jallan> awk: anticipating lots of comments, and tough comments. and still have time to resolve them

<jallan> awk: Dec 1 wrap &cfc, dec 5 wide review draft,

<lisa> we need thoughs deadlines as well

<jallan> awk: have Understanding as good as we can get in the interim. has taken a bit of back seat to SC wording and issues

<lisa> we could do with a voletere to help with the coga understding sections

<jallan> ... have a survey on Understanding now. lots to do between Dec 5 and CR... refine understanding and techniques.

<jallan> .,. need understanding for reviewers

<jallan> jason: do we have single understanding doc

<laura> They are all linked in the survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/understanding_SC/

<jallan> awk: github, page for every understanding. in the ED draft, there are links to each understanding doc.

<jallan> mc: no single understanding doc yet. can do, not sure of priority

<jallan> ... all docs are linked in an index page

<AWK> Current understanding page: http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/understanding/index.html

<MichaelC> Understanding WCAG 2.1

<jallan> awk: what needs to happen... between now and dec 1

<jallan> ... resolve comments, then CFC. gives example.

<jallan> ... if can't resolve, then use existing and mark as "at RISK" in wide review draft.

<jallan> ... mark as 'at risk' in CR, then it may be removed.

<jallan> awk: questions, then discuss what happens in next two weeks

<jallan> sr: in CR, if 'at risk', what is allowed in terms of changes

<jallan> mc: eg. worried about implementations, if we don't find then removed. anything not marked 'at risk' can't be changed -- or back to CR and blow timeline

<jallan> sr: draft has to be explicit. CR must have conditions of what happens to AT RISK SCs.

<jallan> awk; realistically, only a few AT RISK

<jallan> ls: if any thing marked AT RISK - we mark what causes the AT RISK., who made objection, and specifics about objection. to make them easy to find and work out.

<JF> +1 for simplicity there Lisa

<jallan> AR = AT RISK

<lisa> thanks jim...

<jallan> awk: yes need to document AR process. Agree!

<jallan> mg: Lisa sounds like you want people to summarize their issue.

<jallan> ls: need clear indication of why AR. then who and why... which comments. Only for AR items. other SC are fine.

<jallan> ... and specific - word, clause, definition or something else.

<jallan> ... what needs to happen to resolve the issue. wants process to resolve issues

<jallan> mc: need to be specific about what is AR. don't need to summarize

<lisa> also make for acountablity

<jallan> jf: perhaps some semantics. for new folks to process. tracking down issues etc. needs to easier - github, wiki, mailing list, etc.

<jallan> ... need to be able to point to 1 place

<jallan> awk: +1 to one place

<Joshue108> And from me.

<jallan> awk: how to make more progress. Have make LOTS of progress - Kudos to ALL. lots of dedication. now ... more work

<jallan> ... have 2 weeks to address comments on SC.

<jallan> ... can't sustain 2 hour a day call for 8 days till Dec ... have call Mon, Tues (skip w-f), following week - more calls or big sprint

<Ryladog> yes

<laura> yes

<lisa> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 to call monday

<JF> +1 to Mon & Tues

<steverep> +1 to Mon and Tues

<Glenda> +1 Mon and Tues

<Rachael> +1 Mon & Tues

<jallan> awk: prefer not 2 hr calls everyday following thanksgiving week

<KimD> +1 M & T

<Joshue108> Mon Tues good

<Brooks> +1 Mon and Tues

<laura> 10-12

<Alex> + 1 M & T

<jallan> awk: does call time work? 10-12 eastern

<Joshue108> 10 12 good

<lisa> good for me

<Ryladog> i will come after that

<Ryladog> yes

<Rachael> it should work.

<jallan> awk: 11 -1?

<lisa> i have a call the first hour

<Ryladog> yes

<jallan> awk: Monday 11 -1 eastern, Tues regular time

<JF> capacity? Yes

<bruce_bailey> +1 to long call Tuesday

<Joshue108> Break good

<jallan> awk: any tolerance for longer on tuesday. with a break

<lisa> yes, with break

<KimD> +1, I can go longer Tues

<Ryladog> later

<Rachael> later

<Glenda> later

<marcjohlic> later

<lisa> earlier?

<lisa> oh well

<jallan> awk: 3 hour call on Tuesday 11-2 with break at 90min

<Glenda> I am open to longer calls

<jallan> awk: following week. MTW, or 4hr calls on TT

<jallan> ... should start one call earlier for europe

<lisa> longer

<Glenda> longer calls with STRICT time management

<Ryladog> longer on fewer

<jallan> ... short calls more days, long calls less days?

<Glenda> (we had great productivity with our all day mtgs at TPAC)

<bruce_bailey> +1 for longer calls rather than more calls

<jallan> al: short calls, more days

<jallan> gs: churn on short call. more discipline on long calls

<bruce_bailey> my attendence will be spotty

<jallan> jf: everyone is tired

<jallan> and passionate about issues

<lisa> on a longer call we can close issues

<lisa> and not continue with diffrent people

<jallan> jf: long calls make more progress

<lisa> im tiered anyway

<Joshue108> Shorter calls with breaks between works for me

<jallan> awk: break calls,... 2 hrs in morning... many hour break, then another 2 hours

<steverep> ... then multiply by ?

<jallan> al: how much time

<Joshue108> I find long calls hard and tiring

<jallan> laughs all around... crystal ball

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_countdown

<jallan> awk: many in survey, some need deeper review. TPAC helped. ...

<jallan> ... if each needs 2 hours -- then 12 -14 hours

<jallan> al: half next week, then week of 27 have 4 scheduled on TT, just need 3 hrs more that week

<Glenda> 4 hours

<lisa> one long cal with brake

<jallan> awk: on monday - 2 2 hour calls, or 1 4hr

<Glenda> focused…ger ‘er done!

<Ryladog> i for 4

<lisa> coffee

<laura> Depend on when

<steverep> Don't care, let's get to it

<KimD> Doesn't matter, as long as it's after 10 CST

<jallan> awk: Monday 27 10-2

<laura> yes

<Glenda> 10-2 easter on Monday the 27 - I’m all yours :)

<Joshue108> Yup

<Rachael> yes

<lisa> i have the persolization call 12 -1

<jallan> khs: yes, a little late

<Rachael> +1 gowerm

<jallan> +1

<lisa> so at least one hour i wont be there

<lisa> yes

<jallan> times 2 and lie

<JF> 9 days a week...

<lisa> spf call monday is 1-2. (time xzones mixing me up

<laura> yes 10-2 Wed. nov 29

<jallan> awk: Monday 27 4 hrs 10-2 eastern, Tues 3hrs run late, Wed 29 10-2

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say that can we time box things?

<Alex> +1

<jallan> mg: time box, move to next items, instead of beating the SC

<jallan> awk: will propose a schedule for long days

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Resolving_Timeouts/results

<jallan> close item 1

<jallan> open item 2

<AWK> Current: Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned at the start of a process about the length of inactivity that generates the timeout, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 24 hours of user inactivity. (Level AAA)

<AWK> Proposed: Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned about the estimated length of inactivity that generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20 hours of user inactivity. (Level AAA)

<Rachael> Definition of User Inactivity: Any continuous period of time where no user activity occurs. The method of tracking user activity will be determined by the web site or application.

<jallan> awk: discussed at TPAC. had consensus with phone and present. comments for moving to 20 hrs

<jallan> ... provide warning at outset

<jallan> ls: at AAA a user advantage at 24 hrs. its about the user, not the implementation. at AAA want it to be about the user.

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to inquire whether the loss of "at the start" is significant. Wasn't that a key idea here?

<jallan> awk: don't want to rehash 20 vs 24. at AAA prioritize others above this. can we live with 20 hrs as agreed at tpac.

<lisa> true

<gowerm> +1 top

<kirkwood> thought it was in advance too

<jallan> sr: is loss of start of process an issue. thought purpose was to warn at beginning.

<gowerm> "users are warned in advance about the length..."

<jallan> mg: +1 to warn in advance

<AWK> Updated proposed: Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned in advance about the estimated length of inactivity that generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20 hours of user inactivity. (Level AAA)

<KimD> +1 to keeping the "in advance" at AAA

<Joshue108> Gotta drop

<Glenda> “Start of Process” doesn’t the developer know…because that is the MOMENT the dev starts a timer.

<jallan> al: warn at start of process. the issue - what is start of process? buy a book... enter app, search for book, book in cart, or checkout

<Glenda> The developer knows when the start the timer…they just need to let the USER know that a timer has started.

<jallan> jw: at TPAC point of inactivity starts the timer and the warning. could be many entry points

<jallan> ... if simple db activity different from multistep process. when inactivity timing is in operation...

<kirkwood> could it be starting a “user input process” ?

<Rachael> +1 "in advance"

<kirkwood> +1 to “in advance"

<jallan> awk: like in advance, they are in control of timer, and can tell user when the timer starts. allows implementation variations.

<jallan> ls: need to define when the start of the process... when the data is collected ... put something in cart

<jallan> ls: in advance doesn't help the user.

<jallan> awk: so... "warn in advance" provides no value, then remove SC?

<jallan> ls: what is time for 'warn in advance

<jallan> ... 20 seconds. we are editing out all advantages to the user

<kirkwood> +1 to Lisa, losing the ability for a person to judge the levelof effort for an online process prior to be able to prepare/compensate

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say "Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned at the start of the process about the estimated length of inactivity that generates the

<jallan> awk: if tell 20 secs in advance. another technique - user adds to cart then have 10 min to complete transaction. more inspirit of SC.

<jallan> ... other wording?

<jallan> mg: pasted in

<jallan> mg: Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned at the start of the process about the estimated length of inactivity that generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20 hours of user inactivity.

<AWK> Updated proposed: Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned at the start of the process about the estimated length of inactivity that generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20 hours of user inactivity.

<jallan> mg: understanding to clarify warning and time limits

<jallan> awk: concerns about update?

<Glenda> +1 to what Alex just said…”when inactivity time begins"

<jallan> al: why 'start of process', how about 'start of inactivity'

<gowerm> 'at the start or before the start of the times activity'

<AWK> Updated proposed: Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned at or before an activity timer is set about the estimated length of inactivity that generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20 hours of user inactivity.

<Glenda> “start of inactivity timer”

<jallan> ls: at start of process can tell user about time of inactivity

<kirkwood> well page to page could be inactivity no? +1 to lisa

<jallan> ls: still useless. timer is set on page, start buying airline ticket - how much time do I have. need to know when I start process.

<jallan> awk: can make a technique on how to start the process

<steverep> Is that just an argument for making it before only?

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say buying an airline ticket is part of a site

<lisa> also the 20 hour or 24 hour

<jallan> rachael: +1 awk wording

<jallan> mg: lisa, airline example, timer starts when you start booking a flight.

<jallan> awk: lisa, is new wording enough, can you live with this.

<kirkwood> don’t think one page works

<steverep> What wording are we discussing to settle on?

<jallan> ls: not sure, not 24 hrs. up to developer.

<lisa> no, there is sesion data

<jallan> jf: loss of data happens when you are in an authenticated state. provide advisory when you login

<lisa> but the user needs to know that

<jallan> ... prices changes in airline. think the SC helps

<lisa> we cant hear you

<KimD> *nope, can't hear him

<kirkwood> will type on

<kirkwood> my concern is that the LOE of a whole process is included to prepare user

<lisa> yup, that is what this was about

<kirkwood> for a process of filling out information, not just page timeout

<AWK> Scribe: Gower

<JF> scribe: gowerm

AWK: I'm not sure I'm following you, John.

<laura> bye all gotta go.

AWK: Are you saying someone starting a process needs to know what is expected of them?

<kirkwood> yes, mean that end user might need compensatory things to get through a process

<kirkwood> write down, get help, etc

<kirkwood> what lisa is saying

<kirkwood> kinda have lost it

Steve: Maybe I'm hearing this wrong, but could this be resolved by just saying "before"?

<lisa> better

Steve: If it happens before, then you have warning before timr.

<AWK> Updated proposed: Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned before an activity timer is set about the estimated length of inactivity that generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20 hours of user inactivity.

Alex: Airlines have dynamic pricing, so the time can vary, as opposed to car rentals. Depending on what a user decides to do, the timeout might change.

<steverep> But "estimated" is there to cover that and it's at AAA

Alex: In some cases, even things like concert tickets may vary for timeouts depending on popularity of the event.

<lisa> and at triple AAA not all sites need to be able to do it

Alex: It can get complex

<kirkwood> yes time before starts. 5 minutes. take an average user. if there are 50 form fields to fill out rather than 5 in a process that would help

<lisa> does not have to be whidely aplicable

Steve: That is covered by "estimated"

<lisa> before is not good enough for me

Alex: Know that you will have some complications. At triple A we know it won't be applicable to everything.

AWK: We are at the end of the call. Lisa can you live with that language?

Lisa: I'd like to hear John Kirkwood's response.

AWK: Do you want this to be put out to CFC, or put it to the end of the queue?
... It's AAA, so it will be one of the last few to be evaluated. We have a window. If it's not useful, we should get rid of it, otherwise put it to CFC.

<kirkwood> just so you know how long a process is before it starts 100 form fields coming rather than 3 form fields would speak to LOE

<lisa> not sure, can we have the proposal and ask coga

Michael: I'm also changing meetings. So the question was: do a CFC or move to end of queue.

<Rachael> cfc

<lisa> -1

<kirkwood> don’t agree with dropping

Michael: If we fail consensus we might not get back to it.

<lisa> prefer not to have cfc

<JF> end of queue

AWK: We dont' have consensus to put to cfc, so we'll hopefully have time after other SCs to revisit it.
... Rachael, if you as the manager or others have ideas for language, you can work on it.

RESOLUTION: No consensus

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/idividual/individual/
Succeeded: s/Dec 1 wrap, dec 2 cfc, dec 5 wide review draft/Dec 1 wrap &cfc, dec 5 wide review draft/
Default Present: AWK, jasonjgw, SteveRepsher, Brooks, jallan, Glenda, Crystal, john_kirkwood, Pietro, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MikeGower, Laura, MichaelC, Jan, JF, KimD, Rachael

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: (no, one))
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK

Present: AWK jasonjgw SteveRepsher Brooks jallan Glenda Crystal john_kirkwood Alex Pietro Katie_Haritos-Shea MikeGower Laura MichaelC Jan JF KimD Rachael
Regrets: Alastair Jake john_rochford mike_pluke greg_lowney
Found Scribe: Jim
Found Scribe: Gower
Found Scribe: gowerm
Inferring ScribeNick: gowerm
Scribes: Jim, Gower, gowerm
Found Date: 16 Nov 2017
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)