<AWK> +AWK
<Joshue108> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 12 December 2017
<scribe> scribe: Mike_Elledge
Please identify yourselves before speaking, at least initially. Thx!
Josh: Please present yourselves into IRC if you haven't
Josh: Talk about the understanding document. and any questions you have for your issues. Michael will update on understanding.
MC: First, may have been confused on process. May have missed some requests. Perhaps should have merged all at once.
Josh: My understandig to merge what was there.
Lisa: Would like to review soem of them with the editors. Purpose of controls, others. What pattern? Edit at once? Or should Michale look at once.
MC: Person who has responsibility can handle edits.
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC
MC: Others should work on branch if not the editor: My SC criteria 2, for example. The work with editor.
Lisa: What is the timeline?
MC: Should I merge what is there, or only what editor asks.
<Glenda> +1 merge everything even it is not perfect
<lisa> +1 merge what we have now, and then republish as we go
AWK: We recognize understanding docs won't be perfect. Can update them. Agreed taht we would do more informally. But before CR need agreement.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say we will have CFCs on Understanding shortly
AWK: Need to have that approval step eventually. Put up content, get comments now.
Josh: Planning to have cfc's in
the new year. Just go for it now.
... Just add anything that will provide greater clarity.
MC: Will merge the remaining
branches by the end of the week.
... As I work on branches, saw there were edits not related to
understanding, sometimes not even for SCs. Branches were set
for understanding.
... If not understanding, then put in a new branch. Keep them
separate!
... I will be filtering on that basis.
... Third thing. Renamed branches according to SC renames.
TEchnically a new branch, but has the same history. Use the new
name for the SC branch.
... Can ask me if you want to prune your branch.
... If you scroll down past the list of files, there are
instructions.
Josh: Questions?
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/tree/Techniques#user-content-editing-techniques
Josh: This is initial foray into techniques. We will need them for new SC. How does everyone feel about writing techniques. Questions?
<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/tree/Techniques/techniques
Josh: Happy to help, answer questions. Do have documentation. May divide into techniques subgroup. And/or crowd source Techs 2.
MC: More details. Couple of links
into log. Working on approach for techniques branch. Have set
up, ported from 2.0, same format.
... Technologies in the branch. There is a structure you should
follow. Go to any folder to see structure of the format.
... Instructions: Editing techniques. Short meaningful file
name. In 2.0 every technique had a number. With multiple ppl
creating technique, could have duplicates.
... Instead use filenames that reflect SC title. Something that
is meaningful and not too long.
... In the technique put which SC applies in meta data.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask "<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> - seriously?"
JF: Still using html, still
deliberate?
... Still using xhtml.
MC: xml docs that are html5 compatible. text is in html important, to be xhtml formatting.
detlev: Will we have form before writing techniques? May want to discuss. How to make them accessible?
Josh: Like the idea of subgroup,
dedicated team. Some items are cutting edge. Want to be sure
that worth the time. At the discretion of the leader of
Techniques group for your category (mobile, etc.)
... Have to decide yourself.
detlev: Might be good for ppl to put very general technique. So can look at validity before publishing.
<Joshue108> acl lisa
Lisa: Couple of things. Have put
link for techniques. Don't want to put all them. Would be part
of tech task force, I guess. But there for porting.
... Micro data. Do you want to put in with html5 techniques?
Also have web spec authentication. Also have Google docs, but
should we put time into things we've put into techniques?
... Like the idea of a task force, rather than calls. Have to
address SC at risk, which is "tomorrow".
Josh: In terms of time, task
force good idea. Could mean lesser calls, more flexibility. Use
whatever you need to collaborate.
... At risk SC, particularly controls. Could really benefit
from techniques. May make difference in soemthing being
included.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say many of the Understandings have suggested techniques which should be vetted, and likely the TFs should be involved and to suggest *associating* a
<kirkwood> +1 to point of techniques TF
<AWK> -1 to official techniques TF
MC: As far as working on
techniques, you can identify on the bottom. TF's would want to
work on them, aside from separate task force.
... Drafting is different from finalizing techniques fo
rinclusion. Let's be informal so ppl can respond.
<Joshue108> +1 to MC
MC: To become part of SCs, techss will be more formal.
Josh: Let's be loose at beginning
to get input.
... Technique can start as one thing then change.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say we have a wiki page to collect ideas
<david-macdonald> move on... i;ll figue it out
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Proposed_WCAG_2.1_SC_Techniques
Awk: Have a wiki page we can use to collect ideas. Propose that if coming up with a name start there. Put the ideas there, I'll add from understanding docs.
MG: Wondering if made sense to
have understanding docs, just focus on outline of techs. Pseudo
technique without number. To give ppl idea of what is
envisioned.
... Can have text string as objective for January.
AwK: Already there in many cases, so continue to use.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask if we want a single TF or subgroup TFs?
josh: Keep things loose. Put your name on it. Use a wiki.
<david-macdonald> I wanted to ask about the role of EO, who expressed interest in writing some of the understanding/techniques
josh: Single task force or group.
Throw stuff at it. Think it helps to have umbrella, clear
path.
... How dedicated ppl will be. Some will step up, need support.
Want to get as much input as possible.
awk: Right now need SCs finalized
and understanding doc. List of what SCs will be. Have more time
to write techs. But need first to know what they will be so we
can get coverage.
... Don't have that many days.
josh: Have to talk about it, but have priorities. In new year can get more structure as needed.
<david-macdonald> my comments are above
<Joshue108> Thanks David
<david-macdonald> I wanted to ask about the role of EO, who expressed interest in writing some of the understanding/techniques
lisa: Wanted to clarify how
moving forward. COGA cannot put steps in Google doc into html.
Too many for me to do. Also getting them up to std--will need
help. Can't put this on COGA task force, unless ppl join us to
help.
... Need active ppl for COGA techniques, who can use
GitHub.
lisa: Also have Google doc with examples of written templated techniques. Have also in understanding in techs. And an implementation page.
josh: Will help each other--inter
TF cooperation. Do reach out. Sounds like you ahve things in
various states. Link to them will be helpful.
... Will come back to this. So we're using time productively to
focus on techniques. This is a headsup for understanding docs,
what's comingup.
awk: Clarify where wse are wrt
timeline. Want to avoid having days of multi-hour long calls as
we go to final draft. Can't do it.
... Jan 23rd-publish date. 23 days left. We don't have much
time. Working backwards, know we'll have to have cfc approved
by the group to publish as candidate recommendation.
... if working group says ready to go, how much tiem needed to
publish.
mc: If want to publish on 23rd, would have to send pub request on 22nd, then week for transition. Then need by 15th.
awk: Working group needs to approve in cfc by jan 15th. 48 hours before that have to pass/fail. Would like more cushion.
mc: cfc ahs to start on teh 11th.
<Detlev> Are these deadlines set in stone?
awk: Realistically is impossible. So we'll need to talk about it. Comments are open until the 12th--11th at midnight.
mc: Can try to negotiate, can you process it faster.
awk: Have a final meeting on the
12th.
... Less than 10 days in new year, and whatever time there is
until then. Running out of time.
... Would like to propose, how to figure how to handle four SCs
at risk. In next two-three meetings, before break at least, if
group can resolve teh comments.
... If can't resolve them, will have to say at risk SCs wont'
get in. Bec have to address new comments that come in as
well.
... What do ppl think?
lisa: Chanuka has just started--8
days. Would really help if we can plan this out so I can spend
tiem with family.
... Other issues, really work hard to get comfortable with
wording. May not have tiem to discuss. Majority want to get in,
even if some issues, then want to keep them at risk.
... Can still keep them at risk.
awk: Already have decided to not include if still at risk. If not consensus won't find in final recommendation.
lisa: Not include because not enough time available?
awk: Have discussed, though. Have to focus on what we're trying to accomplish broadly. But need to recognize that may not.
lisa: Don't remember that was the consensus that was reached.
<Glenda> MVP baby. Let’s get done what we can. We’ve proven we can do a lot in 18 months.
awk: Don't think there would be support for candidate recommendation without consensuss.
<lisa> the big picture right now is one sc for coga, after years of work
glenda: This is crunch time. Have shown we can work quickly. Doesn't make sesne to put at risk into CR. let's see what we can do by the 12th.
<AWK> current non-consensus items: Contextual information, accessible authentication, interruptions (minimum), animations from interaction
awk: Answering David's qeustion.
katie: Want to keep in mind that we are fast, and it could be that less solid work has resulted. Have to be careful about making assumptions about what we accomplish.;
<david-macdonald> I can help COGA drop their Google doc into Github
awk: If we try to work too fast,
we increase rish that we'll make mistakes. But that's why we
hae reveiw periods so get add'l eyes on it.
... Hae to keep to timeline to publish in June. HTML5.2 went
out as proposal. Just went out as 5.3. Don't get bogged down on
perfection being the enemy of the good.
josh: Work has not been wasted. Be careful not to get somehing oer the line that's not quite right. Can cause trouble further down the line in 2.2 or Silver
<lisa> _1
<lisa> -1
<lisa> I doubt silver will be any better
josh: Bear in mind all the work that has been done so far.
<Joshue108> I wasn't just talking about COGA either Lisa.
katie: Be careful. HTML can go
fast. Don't relate it to what we're doing. MSoft presentation
ahs added to Office and Win 10 for a11y. Implementation based
on WCAG 2.0. New learning tools, won't admit that it came from
WcAG.
... These were things that MSoft didn't want to include 10-12
years ago. Consider things that are AAA. They are being
included now.
<Glenda> +1 Katie…this is exciting to see MS picking up AAA. Wow!
katie: Things we do now will have an impact.
<Ryladog> Dont assume JF what I signed up to do
jf: Want to be clear the W3C is not writing legislative requriements. We create technical docs. 2.1 will be best practices, nothing more.
<Glenda> -1 to JF…we have to write these SO they can’ be picked up as legal requirements
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to discuss AAA as an option and set schedule to address items in next few calls
katie: Not what I signed up for. We write up with leg req in mind.
<david-macdonald> Where in Github do we add techniques?
awk: have to rcognize that some
of those items that are at risk may go in as AAA. Do have to
figure out if we can't reach consensus at AA, can we reach
consensus at AAA?
... Should we be able to do this before xmas break? Knowing
that chanuka starts tonight, can we commit to a lengthy meeting
on the 21st.
<david-macdonald> I'll be around
awk: Lisa may be able to meet during the holiday, but can we set aside a chunk of time to discuss the at risk items.
<Glenda> +1 for Dec 21
<Ryladog> +
<Ryladog> +1
awk: Thursday talk about oen or two, next thursday, one or two, then the 21st finalize.
lisa: Can work on chanuka. Doing first half can at least catch end of it. Will keep Tuesday free for WCAG. If we put anything in do it Thursday.
<lisa> might need sme longer calls next tuesday and thursday
<KimD> I'm on holiday
<Ryladog> I can come
<Glenda> available
<JakeAbma> Not available sadly..
awk: Thursday the 21st finalize what we haven't been able to. 135 this thursday: In order: Contextual information, accessible authentication, interruptions (minimum), animations from interaction
<Greg> I'm available for a long call on 21 Dec.
<Joshue108> can do
<alex> i can make it
<JF> +1 available
<Brooks> I'm available
<gowerm> available
<laura> can do
awk: availablity for the 21st.
<marcjohlic> On vacation but will dial in if I remember :D
<alex> 3 hr
<Makoto> not available
<Joshue108> 3
<Glenda> I’ll give you whatever you need
awk: How long? No more than 3
hours.
... 11:30 to 2:30?
<JF> +1 to a 3 hour tour (a 3-hour tour)
+1
awk: 11:30 EST
... A reasonable approach?
... Also need to talk about issues coming in. GEtting new
issues.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues
awk: Tagging with new label,
working draft comment, will also put in SC label. Don't want to
have lots of discussion on these.
... If becomes a broad discussion, deviates from comment. Need
to resolve them.
... Proposed that comments be resolved in my email.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Responses_to_Dec_WD_Issues
awk: On that page, we're adding
in the issues, can add draft responses. Want responses to come
from working group. We will then agree if responses are what we
want. Then give commenter a chance to respond.
... If interested in responding, assign it to yourself in
github, then put it on the page. In soem cases my be in cfc,
others not require changes.
... Does that make sense for responding to proposed responses.
If it's ready to go, send ot josh or me, we'll put in
survey.
<Glenda> +1 reasonable plan
lisa: Will take longer to review them with lots of numbers.
awk: LInk is there underneath.
lisa: Have to leave wiki to read them.
<Glenda> Lisa, you could go here to see them in context in GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/labels/Dec%20WD%20Comment
<lisa> just the sc refrence
awk: Don't think there is a perfect way.
<Zakim> david-macdonald, you wanted to ask where do we discuss among ourselves the response?
dmac: Where can we discusss these?
awk: ont the email lsit.
steve: Makes things cumbersome.
Could be colliding with someone, have to put it in wiki markup,
etc. Guidance on keepiong on issues more pertinent.
... Better if it's in one place.
glenda: I thnk this is
appropriate. It is hard for human beings to disassociate from
comments, have to respond as group. Not just speakign for
ourselves. Get that the wiki has issues; would be nice to have
link on Github that links to comments.
... can read words tnot numbers.
<Glenda> Open Comments for Dec Draft link on wiki https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/labels/Dec%20WD%20Comment
<Glenda> add this link to the top of this wiki page ttps://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Responses_to_Dec_WD_Issues
glenda: can see what's open on the wiki page. so can look at it quickly.
lisa: Suggesting that we have name of SC next to the number. That would help.
awk: Okay. So, to Steve's
comment: a problematic process? Part of my thinking was dealing
with lots of comments in last round. Hard for commenter to know
what is being proposed. Makes it challenging.
... In past would email comment, then we'd email back.
Discussion would take place elsewhere. When we do it using
Github the discussion causes confusion.
<Glenda> +1 - let’s not pull the public onto the merry-go-round. Let them see the consensus response.
david: What if we put tag on it like personal comment. Could be confusing, but more open. Have administrator tag comments that are not official. Having three places overrides benefit of Github.
awk: Actually four. Survey.
<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to suggest an alternative
Steve: Simple alternative; have default response. "Thank you for comment. We will respond when reached consensus." Some commenters will get confused, but often the real issue comes out on thread.
glenda: Dangerous to let everyone on teh mary go round. Have to be more formal. Support the wiki (for discussion).
awk: Thanks for the feedback and will give it more thought.
<JF> by all
awk: Will meet Thursday for 90 m inutes. Next Tuesday 2 hours. Following Thursday 3 hours.
<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) Default Present: AWK, Mike, Elledge, JakeAbma, SteveRepsher, Joshue108, JF, Laura, jallan, kirkwood, Alex_, Glenda, Greg_Lowney, Makoto, lisa, Katie, Haritos-Shea, Brooks, KimD 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 Mike Elledge JakeAbma SteveRepsher Joshue108 JF Laura jallan kirkwood Alex_ Glenda Greg_Lowney Makoto david-macdonald lisa Katie Haritos-Shea Brooks KimD Regrets: Kim_Dirks Rachael KathyWahlbin Bruce_Bailey Alastair Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 12 Dec 2017 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]