18:29:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #cg
18:29:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/25-cg-irc
18:29:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs member
18:29:07 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #cg
18:29:09 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAICG
18:29:09 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_CG()2:30PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
18:29:10 <trackbot> Meeting: WAI Coordination Group Teleconference
18:29:10 <trackbot> Date: 25 July 2012
18:29:12 <shawn> zakim, dial shawn-617
18:29:12 <Zakim> ok, shawn; the call is being made
18:29:13 <Zakim> WAI_CG()2:30PM has now started
18:29:14 <Zakim> +Shawn
18:30:16 <shawn> zakim, drop shawn
18:30:16 <Zakim> Shawn is being disconnected
18:30:17 <Zakim> WAI_CG()2:30PM has ended
18:30:17 <Zakim> Attendees were Shawn
18:30:22 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #cg
18:30:23 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #cg
18:30:28 <shawn> zakim, dial shawn-617
18:30:28 <Zakim> ok, shawn; the call is being made
18:30:29 <Zakim> WAI_CG()2:30PM has now started
18:30:30 <Zakim> +Shawn
18:31:01 <Zakim> +??P2
18:31:02 <Zakim> +Jeanne
18:31:08 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P2 is Michael_Cooper
18:31:08 <Zakim> +Michael_Cooper; got it
18:31:19 <janina> janina has joined #cg
18:31:36 <Zakim> +Judy
18:31:42 <Zakim> +??P5
18:31:48 <janina> zakim, ??P5 is Janina
18:31:48 <Zakim> +Janina; got it
18:32:24 <Jan> Jan has joined #cg
18:32:33 <Judy> agenda+ Possible China TPAC
18:32:47 <Jan> zakim, code?
18:32:47 <Zakim> the conference code is 92424 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan
18:32:52 <Judy> agenda+ PFWG's proposed approach with CSS Flex Box
18:32:59 <Zakim> +??P6
18:33:21 <jeanne> regrets+ Jim_Allan
18:33:31 <Judy> agenda+ WCAG2ICT doc FYI
18:33:43 <Judy> agenda+ Next meeting sched
18:33:47 <Jan> zakim, ??P6 is really Jan
18:33:47 <Zakim> +Jan; got it
18:34:04 <MichaelC> agenda?
18:34:26 <MichaelC> agenda+ HTML 5 in TR specs
18:34:31 <Judy> IndieUI Update
18:34:40 <Judy> agenda+ IndieUI Update
18:35:08 <Zakim> +[Google]
18:35:41 <Loretta> Loretta has joined #CG
18:36:09 <Judy> agenda+ Publications timing & automation
18:36:24 <Loretta> scribe: Loretta
18:37:23 <Loretta> JB: W3C rotates the location of its meetings (Advisory, TPAC). Looking for input on holding TPAC in China in 2012.
18:37:39 <Loretta> s/2012/2013/
18:39:12 <Loretta> JB: Looking for informal input on which groups might be interested in holding meetings at a TPAC in 2013, whether there would be special travel issues, etc.
18:39:24 <Judy> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:39:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shawn, Michael_Cooper, Jeanne, Judy, Janina, Jan, [Google]
18:40:07 <Loretta> JR: ATAG doesn't seem to be able to travel much. We tend to do best in the US.
18:40:58 <Loretta> JB: No invited experts are in China, so that is an issue. But even for companies that have travel resources, accessibility doesn't seem to be able to get them.
18:41:38 <Loretta> JS: +1, and adds that scheduling over the Halloween weekend is an additional problem/burden for people.
18:42:05 <Loretta> JS: The Halloween schedule is costing us attendance this year. 
18:42:20 <Loretta> JS: Also, why China rather than Korea or other Asian locations?
18:42:41 <Loretta> JB: Because of new members from China, and trying to engage new companies in China.
18:43:06 <Loretta> JS: Maybe this makes it a good recruiting opportunity for WAI.
18:43:58 <Loretta> JB: With focus on mobile in IndyUI, , maybe this is a good opportunity to pull in partiicpation from phone companies.
18:44:26 <Judy> s/IndyUI/IndieUI/
18:44:36 <Judy> agenda?
18:44:41 <Loretta> LGR: WCAG isn't meeting these days at all, so probably wouldn't meet there.
18:44:57 <Loretta> zakim, take up item 1
18:44:57 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Possible China TPAC" taken up [from Judy]
18:45:05 <shawn> q+ to say we talked about this among WAI staff - including outreach opportunities, etc.
18:45:20 <shawn> ack me
18:45:20 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say we talked about this among WAI staff - including outreach opportunities, etc.
18:45:46 <Loretta> SH: We did discuss outreach opportunites at the WAI staff meeting.
18:46:37 <Loretta> JB: WAI does some small amount of participant support for travel by invited experts. I've put in an inquiry about availability of such resources.
18:46:55 <Judy> ...but no idea whether there will be resources from W3C.
18:47:04 <Loretta> zakim, take up item 2
18:47:04 <Zakim> agendum 2. "PFWG's proposed approach with CSS Flex Box" taken up [from Judy]
18:47:34 <Loretta> JS: CSS has a module proposing to go to CR. PF asked to review it. We see good news and bad news.
18:47:53 <Loretta> JS: We wanted to keep the rest of WAI informed, and seek feedback.
18:48:08 <Loretta> JS: Flex Box will allow relayout possibilities on a page.
18:48:29 <Loretta> JS: If this had appropriate support in browsers, this could be a bit accessibility benegit.
18:48:38 <Loretta> s/benegit/benefit/
18:48:52 <Loretta> JS: But it isn't clear browsers are stepping up on this.
18:49:36 <Loretta> JS: PF isn't clear how to proceed. One option: add a note in the spec. Meanwhile, request support for taborder and reordered taborder.
18:50:00 <Loretta> JS: PF will ask WCAG to include techniques for this feature.
18:50:16 <Loretta> Jeanne: What does taborder have to do with Flex Box.
18:51:14 <Loretta> MC: Flex box allows you to position a number of items, e.g., a div element with 4 span elements inside . Flex Box lets you ay that spans should grow the same amount as each other, etc.
18:51:43 <Loretta> MC: Flex Box also lets you reorder the items, e.g., display these in reverse order as the source code.
18:52:16 <Loretta> MC: That is where we get a taborder problem, since taborder will follow source code order. This means that focus will go backwards through the reversed items.
18:52:32 <Loretta> JS: Especially a problem if you are also looking at it..
18:53:01 <Loretta> MC: We think Flex Box is a good thing, but we think this problem should be solved. Right now, certain uses of Flex Box can create a usability problem for some people.
18:53:37 <Loretta> JB: Given that they are ready to go to CR, but this isn't yet solved, are we asking for a solution to be developed during CR?
18:53:53 <Loretta> JB: It is important that we be clear about what we are requesting.
18:54:24 <Loretta> JS: They know we have a serious concern about tab order. We haven't dropped the ball, but neither have they picked up the ball.
18:54:51 <Loretta> JS: Our relationship with CSS WG seems to be good and productive.
18:55:29 <Loretta> MC: They are away that we have a taborder issue, but I'm not sure how high it is on their radar that this affects Flex Box.
18:57:52 <Loretta> JB: This could affect their implementations for CR, since implementation might need to change to accommodate the solution. So  we need to negotiate how to address this problem without throwing off their entire schedule.
18:58:39 <Loretta> JB: You need to have a discussion with the CSS folks directly.
19:02:28 <Judy> agenda?
19:02:33 <Loretta> take up next item
19:02:43 <Loretta> close item 1
19:02:52 <Loretta> close item 2
19:03:00 <Loretta> take up next
19:03:19 <Loretta> take up item 3
19:03:32 <Loretta> JB: WCAG2ICT is be going out, probably Friday.
19:04:09 <Loretta> JB: The original date was tomorrow, but that is the anniversary of the ADA, and publishing on that date is often interpreted as relating to ADA.
19:04:36 <Loretta> JB: We don't want to give that message about this document. This is only intended to be an information note.
19:06:38 <Loretta> JB: We are not the appropriate organization to be publishing guidelines for non-Web content. This is just meant to be informative guidance about how WCAG might be interpreted inthis context.
19:07:28 <MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20120726/
19:07:29 <Loretta> JR: Is there an editor's draft, or will this be the first draft?
19:08:04 <Loretta> JB: This is the first TR draft. There is an editor's draft, but it is just a few days old. There is also a Google Docs site for working materials.
19:09:56 <Loretta> SH: I can't imagine that the Task Force would object to moving the date.to Friday.
19:11:23 <Loretta> JB: Michael, please change the staging to publish Friday.
19:11:36 <Loretta> MC: Do we also need to change the date on the Understanding document?
19:11:59 <Loretta> JB: I don't think that is necessary to change.
19:12:35 <Loretta> SH: We have no plans to announce the updated Understanding document.
19:13:01 <Loretta> LGR: I think we should.
19:14:00 <Loretta> JB: Just to clarify: the drop dead date is this week. We thought that we needed to publish Thursday to make this week.
19:16:32 <shawn> q+
19:18:04 <Judy> ...because we thought we could not publish on a Friday. But we negotiated a one-time way to do that.
19:18:48 <shawn> ack me
19:19:28 <Loretta> (Much discussion about ICT document, Understanding document, public reviews, ...)
19:20:03 <shawn> ftr, /me was not aware of the updates to Understanding until now
19:20:20 <Loretta> JB: Review requests probably need to go to different audiences. The updates to Understanding are explicitly in regard to web, although they relate to the ICT comments.
19:20:49 <Loretta> JB: The people who track just the Web should be looking at these changes, but may not want to be reviewing the ICT document.
19:21:24 <Loretta> SH: If it weren't for the ICT, we wouldn't be doing an update?
19:21:44 <Loretta> s/update?/update to Understanding?/
19:22:09 <Loretta> JB: This is leading me more towards Friday, since we uncovered unexpected work here.
19:22:26 <Judy> agenda?
19:22:34 <Loretta> zakim, close item
19:22:34 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', Loretta
19:22:47 <Loretta> zakim, close item 3
19:22:47 <Zakim> agendum 3, WCAG2ICT doc FYI, closed
19:22:48 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
19:22:48 <Zakim> 4. Next meeting sched [from Judy]
19:23:04 <Loretta> zakim, take up item 4
19:23:04 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Next meeting sched" taken up [from Judy]
19:23:22 <Loretta> JB: I will put out a questionaire for the remaining quarter dates.
19:23:41 <shawn> no regrets from me
19:23:53 <Judy> === please note availability yes/no first for Aug 1==========
19:23:53 <janina> +yes
19:23:57 <jeanne> jeanne is available on 1 August, but not on 8 August (vacation)
19:23:59 <Judy> +yes
19:24:08 <shawn> yes
19:24:15 <Jan> yes to both
19:24:38 <MichaelC> at the moment my calendar shows availability for 1 Aug
19:24:47 <Judy> === please note availability yes/no first for Aug 8==========
19:24:52 <MichaelC> at the moment my calendar shows availability for 8 Aug
19:24:52 <Jan> yes
19:24:53 <janina> yes to Aug 8
19:24:56 <Judy> maybe
19:25:08 <shawn> yes
19:26:11 <Judy> Tentative for AUG 8th as next meeting, to be confirmed
19:26:21 <Loretta> JB: Tentative date for next CG meeting; Aug 1
19:26:27 <Judy> Tentative for AUG 1st as next meeting, to be confirmed
19:26:36 <shawn> s/Tentative for AUG 8th as next meeting, to be confirmed/
19:26:43 <Judy> s/Tentative for AUG 8th as next meeting, to be confirmed//
19:26:48 <Judy> agenda?
19:27:00 <Loretta> zakim, close item 4
19:27:00 <Zakim> agendum 4, Next meeting sched, closed
19:27:01 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
19:27:01 <Zakim> 5. HTML 5 in TR specs [from MichaelC]
19:27:06 <Loretta> zakim, take up item 5
19:27:06 <Zakim> agendum 5. "HTML 5 in TR specs" taken up [from MichaelC]
19:28:03 <Loretta> MC: I started using HTML5 Respec for the 2ICT document. But during the task force review, Kieran says that JAWS has a bug and does't handle handings properly for HTML5.
19:28:18 <Loretta> MV: I converted to HTML1 and it works better for him.
19:28:26 <Loretta> MC: Is this an issue we need to raise?
19:28:29 <MichaelC> s/Kieran/Kiran/
19:28:49 <Loretta> JB: I asked some questions  about Respec, and it sounds like they are abandoning it.
19:29:25 <Loretta> MC: Probably Respec isn't totally abandoned, but abandoned for W3C-wide publications.
19:29:41 <jeanne> It will not be required, but it will continue to be supported. That was my understanding from the meeting. 
19:29:53 <Loretta> JB: I suggest you touch base with the systems team for more information.
19:30:05 <Loretta> JS: Should this be a JAWS fix?
19:30:38 <Loretta> MC: HTML5 is an exception to the W3C rule that specs can only be published in published W3C formats.
19:30:50 <Loretta> MC: The user agents issues demonstrate the value of this rule.
19:31:09 <Loretta> MC: But it is considered appropriate for HTML5 to publish using HTML5.
19:31:39 <Loretta> JS: Are there other accessibility support issues? I'd be more comfortable if this were more than just a JAWS problem.
19:31:56 <shawn> zakim, who is noisy?
19:32:06 <Loretta> MC: There is a complicated algorithm that applies to header elements in sections. I doubt that user agents are yet supporting this.
19:32:07 <Zakim> shawn, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jeanne (77%), Michael_Cooper (54%), Judy (18%), Janina (9%)
19:32:36 <Loretta> JB: What is the most efficient way to move forward?
19:32:37 <jeanne> q+ to ask the JAWS version? 
19:32:54 <Loretta> MC: The problem isn't in HTML5. It is a problem in implementation, and W3C Pub Rules.
19:33:11 <Loretta> JB; We could also take it to the vendor. They need to fix it ASAP.
19:33:28 <Loretta> JB: I don't think we'll get HTML5 deauthorized as a spec to publish in.
19:34:46 <Loretta> JS: If it shows up in multiple user agents and multiple ATs, then this is a wider issue with publishing in HTML5. We need more information.
19:35:31 <Judy> JB: thinks that there may actually be an HTML5 bug in terms of lack of graceful degredation violating their own design principles
19:36:47 <Loretta> JB: How can we get more data? 
19:37:05 <Loretta> Jeanne; Is this asking people with different screen readers to test?
19:37:08 <Loretta> JB: yes
19:37:17 <shawn> [ Shawn could do on EOWG, too ]
19:37:20 <Loretta> JS: maybe we can do this at Friday's meeting.
19:37:23 <Judy> agenda?
19:37:35 <Loretta> SH: I can also ask EO to test.
19:37:47 <Loretta> SH: Are we comfortable sending this request to a mailing list?
19:38:11 <Loretta> JB: Yes, finding out support for Header does not seem like a sensitive question.
19:38:21 <Loretta> Jeanne: Is there a test page to use?
19:38:42 <Loretta> JB: Any W3C spec published in HTML5. Can anyone identify one?
19:39:03 <Loretta> MC: It would need to use the section element.
19:39:18 <jeanne> Recent CSS specs use Respec. 
19:39:51 <Loretta> JB: asks SH and MC to take this offline (identifying suitable test page)
19:40:11 <Loretta> zakim,close item 5
19:40:11 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Loretta
19:40:19 <Loretta> q
19:40:23 <Loretta> q?
19:40:26 <Loretta> ack j
19:40:26 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask the JAWS version?
19:40:35 <Loretta> zakim, close item 5
19:40:35 <Zakim> agendum 5, HTML 5 in TR specs, closed
19:40:36 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
19:40:36 <Zakim> 6. IndieUI Update [from Judy]
19:40:44 <Loretta> zakim, take up item 7
19:40:44 <Zakim> agendum 7. "Publications timing & automation" taken up [from Judy]
19:41:24 <Loretta> JB: Trying to make the publication process more flexible, so publication can take place more days a week.
19:41:42 <Loretta> JB: WAI pushing back on accessibility exceptions.
19:42:30 <Loretta> MC: One thing we gained with restricted publication dates was a shorter notice requirement, which has helped me. If expanding the dates changes that, it would not be a win.
19:42:49 <Loretta> JB: They would be tryign to go the other way, with a shorter notice requirement.
19:42:59 <Loretta> JR; Are there potential downsides/
19:43:04 <jeanne> What they are talking about is not requiring notification, just a form to say publish, and then insta-publish
19:43:24 <Loretta> JB: The changes are around making the system team's work easier. It may come at a cost of less accessibility of published documents.
19:44:01 <jeanne> All the ATAG and UAAG specs refer to Apple accessibility docs, which have an invalid URI, therefore it would require manual publishing.
19:44:24 <Loretta> JR: On day of the week, I'm fine either way.
19:45:19 <Loretta> MC: Restricted dates helps focus the WG on finalizing. More flexibility may tempt groups to slip deadlines.
19:45:44 <Loretta> JB: Groups that meet on Wed often can't publish until the following Tues. That is one problem they are trying to address.
19:46:07 <Loretta> MC: I always tell groups I need a final draft a week in advance.
19:46:24 <shawn> agenda?
19:46:24 <Loretta> JB: zakim, close current item
19:46:33 <Loretta> zakim, close item 7
19:46:33 <Zakim> agendum 7, Publications timing & automation, closed
19:46:33 <shawn> zakim, close agenda 7
19:46:34 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
19:46:34 <Zakim> agendum 7, Publications timing & automation, closed
19:46:34 <Zakim> 6. IndieUI Update [from Judy]
19:46:34 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
19:46:34 <Zakim> 6. IndieUI Update [from Judy]
19:46:36 <shawn> zakim, save agenda
19:46:43 <Zakim> ok, shawn, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/25-cg-agenda.rdf
19:46:57 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
19:46:58 <Zakim> -Janina
19:46:59 <Zakim> -Judy
19:47:00 <janina> janina has left #cg
19:47:05 <Zakim> -[Google]
19:47:27 <Zakim> -Shawn
19:47:28 <Zakim> -Jan
19:47:34 <Zakim> -Jeanne
19:47:36 <Zakim> WAI_CG()2:30PM has ended
19:47:36 <Zakim> Attendees were Shawn, Jeanne, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Janina, Jan, [Google]
19:52:56 <Loretta> zakim, bye
19:52:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #CG
19:53:12 <Loretta> rrsagent, make log public
19:53:31 <Loretta> rrsagent, draft mintes
19:53:31 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft mintes', Loretta.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:53:39 <Loretta> rrsagent, draft minutes
19:53:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/25-cg-minutes.html Loretta
19:53:57 <Loretta> rrsagent, bye
19:53:57 <RRSAgent> I see no action items