WCAG Working Group Meeting

21 May 2013

See also: IRC log


Joshue, Kathy, Peter_Korn, +1.253.381.aaaa, Robin, Marc_Johlic, Loretta, Katie_HaritosShea, Leonie, Gregg_Vanderheiden
Peter Korn


<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CharterRefreshMay2013/

<Joshue108> scribe: Peter Korn

LW would like to see reference to older persons, in addition to persons with disabilities

KW - are we calling out specific disabilities because we explicitly plan to work on them? ("cognitive, mobile, etc.")

JC - yes, these enumerated items ARE things we definitely want to focus on

JC - list isn't exhaustive

KW - should we put HTML5, ARIA on this list as well?

JC - we are definitely doing work there, in a TF. Don't know we need to enumerate every domain in the charter.

JC - definitely consider adding HTML5, ARIA to the enumerated list

JC - now looking at "Explore needs for potential minor..." part of charter

JC - very much trying to ensure scope of charter is broad enough to cover new types of technologies

<kerstin_probiesch> I'm here, but I don't have comments. I'm ok with the written points

GV - are we going to limit ourselves to "WCAG plus"? If we are looking at removing anything, we open ourselves to a huge process, with regulatory implications.

<Joshue108> thanks kerstin

GV - previous text noted that our work would be "backward compatible". We could put regulatory adoption on hold if we signal that WCAG 2.0 could be changed (e.g. WCAG 2.1)

JC - we need to have sufficient scope that (1) doesn't break anything that is stable, and (2) allows us to move in an iterative way.

GV - Maybe the topc should be "explore major/minor additions to WCAG" - looking at anything we missed, but won't go back and undo anything

JC - now looking at "Coordinate with other groups..." portion

JC - now looking at "General Comments on other aspects of the charter" section

JC - the charter doesn't lock us in religiously. We can re-charter if we need to.

JN - points out that re-chartering is a real pain; it shouldn't be something we think we want to do

JN - the aim is a charter to take us through 3 years; we would re-charter only if we felt we really needed to

WCAG2ICT Items: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GenWCAG2ICT21st5th2013/

RESOLUTION: accept charter with amendment to "Explore" section title, which replaced the word "updates" with "additions", so it becomes: "Explore needs for potential minor and / or major ADDITIONS to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines"

AWK - (still on previous agenda item) so we cannot remove/replace anything with this charter?

GV - Yes; we don't want to be able to change things in a way that is incompatible with WCAG 2.0. That could break test tools, regulations that have adopted WCAG 2.0, etc.

<Joshue108> +q

GV - Likewise we don't want to do anything that might be seen as a reason to "wait for WCAG 2.1" vs. adopting 2.0.

AWK - What would be bad is making a decision to add/remove without having all the information. So that is why we had the language "collect requirements".

AWK - therefore it is part of our job to consider backward compatibility. So to only explore additions seems unnecessarily constraining.

AWK - reluctant to say we can only add, because we haven't evaluated yet

JC - whether it says explore... additions vs. updates, amounts to the same thing. We are exploring.

<Joshue108> PK: I agree. It amounts to the same thing.

<Joshue108> PK: We can re-charter if we find new things in the next three years, the exploration isn't constrained.

<Joshue108> PK: It may signal that we might do more, I am in favour of Greggs change without any change in the bullets.

GV: Wording of WCAG from the start encompasses the idea that AT may advance; so if relying on AT & it can now do something it couldn't do before, we don't need to change the SC to cover it (e.g. zoom, which is now in browsers so the content doesn't have to self-zoom since essentially all browsers now do it)

GV - The key question we have is whether we are contemplating a non-backward-compatible WCAG update.

GV - If we think there is something seriously broken, we should work on that. If not, then not. And if we discover a serious breakage within next 3 years, we can re-charter.

JC - feels we are getting a little derailed. We have discussed this a lot in last several weeks. We need to finalize the charter.

GV - charter is an extrodinarily meaningful document. Orignally talked about 2 parts: (1) additions to a 2.1, and (2) longer term look at where technology is going and whether we need to look at guidelines in an entirely new way [as a very long term thing]. Now these two things seem to have been mushed together, and very worried about uncertainty in short term.

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say it would be better to be constrained to not introducing compatibilities rather than “additions” only versus “updates”.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask Gregg if he views this change in wording as serving to state that we are not chartered to investigate the removal of any items in WCAG

BB - would like to clearly state intention to not break backward compatibility, but prefers the word "update"

AWK - don't want to hear "we can't even talk about x" if we have the word "addition" instead of "update".

<greggvanderheiden> the intent is to maintain backward compatibility for any wcag 2.0 series guidelines while

<Ryladog> +1 with Gregg and Andrew

<greggvanderheiden> carrying out more open discussions about how to craft future guidelines to address emerging technical environment

<greggvanderheiden> the intent is to maintain backward compatibility for any wcag 2.0 series guidelines while carrying out more open discussions about how to craft future guidelines to address emerging technical environment

JN - The charter as written doesn't seem to allow us to publish a new edition of WCAG. Is that something to state explicitly?

<AWK> The "Out of Scope" section clarifies James's concern

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask for a stronger word than “intent”

<greggvanderheiden> why is the meeting restricted?

<greggvanderheiden> I fell out and am not allowed to reenter

<greggvanderheiden> and the meeting is still in progress?

<AWK> trying to figure it out gregg

<greggvanderheiden> ah I have it

<greggvanderheiden> hold on

LJW - is there a tangible deliverable out of requirements gathering?

AWK - in the deliverables section, we do say we will develop requirements

JC - seems we aren't quite as close to finalizing charter as thought

RESOLUTION: re-open the charter discussion
... first 7 (of 8) survey items accepted

<Joshue108> What are the common causes of confusion, and what can be done to fix them?'.

<Joshue108> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/temp/document-organization-trial

<Joshue108> ack, korn

<AWK> First 7 items accepted are: General WCAG2ICT guidance for Principles and Guidelines, Definition for: changes of context, Definition for: structure, New text on Conformance notes, Satisfies a success criterion, Conformance, Accessibility Supported

<Joshue108> PK: This text displays a re-ordering of the blocks we put together.

<Joshue108> PK: We quoted the WCAG SC and intent and then placed out changes into the doc.

<Joshue108> PK: In this re-odering we quote the WCAG SC then put in our guidance and quote WCAG understanding.

<Joshue108> :-)

LGR - no objection in principal. Relies on TF to ensure there aren't changes to "understanding" text. Also would like to authorize TF to make editorial changes w/out needing to come back to WCAG WG each time.

<Joshue108> +1

<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to clarify that this is for all SC.

BB - would like to do both things: OK this change, and empower TF to make formatting/editorial changes.

RESOLUTION: accept survey item 8 - proposed re-org of WCAG2ICT presentation

<Joshue108> RESOLUTION: WCAG WG delegates decisions on the WCAG2ICT doc to the WCAG2ICT editors, chairs.

<Joshue108> s/RESOLUTION: I propose the WCAG WG delegates decisions on the WCAG2ICT doc to the WCAG2ICT editors, chairs./

RESOLUTION: WCAG WG delegates editorial decisions on WCAG2ICT document to the WCAG2ICT editors

<kerstin_probiesch> bye

<David> Wrapping up minutes:

<David> RRSAgentI have made the request,

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-05-21 16:28:07 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Jame's/James's/
Succeeded: s/Out of Scoe/Out of Scope/
Succeeded: s/I propose the//
FAILED: s/RESOLUTION: I propose the WCAG WG delegates decisions on the WCAG2ICT doc to the WCAG2ICT editors, chairs.//
Succeeded: s/decitions/decisions/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: korn
Found Scribe: Peter Korn
Default Present: Joshue, Kathy, Peter_Korn, +1.253.381.aaaa, Robin, Marc_Johlic, Loretta, Katie_HaritosShea, Leonie, Gregg_Vanderheiden
Present: Joshue Kathy Peter_Korn +1.253.381.aaaa Robin Marc_Johlic Loretta Katie_HaritosShea Leonie Gregg_Vanderheiden
Got date from IRC log name: 21 May 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]