W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

28 May 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Cooper, Adam_Solomon, Bruce_Bailey, Marc_Johlic, Peter_Korn, Cherie_Eckholm, Joshue, +1.613.907.aaaa, David_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Gregg_Vanderheiden, James_Nurthen
Regrets
Kathy_Wahlbin, Kerstin_Probiesch
Chair
Andrew_Kirkpatrick
Scribe
Joshue

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 28 May 2013

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter

new WCAG Charter

+q

+q to say that there is a tension between policy adoption and backwards compat and the need to progress the guidelines.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that there is a tension between policy adoption and backwards compat and the need to progress the guidelines.

<W947C> David is w947c

+q to ask does Gregg think we should remove the updates/addition clause altogether?

+ q Respectfully disagree with Gregg, that is not what we are trying to do. We need to re-charter. We are not doing this charter work because we want to tinker with WCAG for the sake of it.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we're not opening WCAG back up now, we are talking about evaluating the need to do so

<W947C> Actually 10yrs btw 1 and 2

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask does Gregg think we should remove the updates/addition clause altogether?

<adam_solomon> andrew, josh do you want scribed details on this discussion, or just topic/resolution style

<adam_solomon> gregg made the point that we need to consider looking forward to wcag 3 no less than updating wcag 2, and that an update would represent tons of work, which would be at the expense of moving forward to wcag 3

<adam_solomon> andrew made the point that we can discuss that issue when the time comes, and that we might very well decide that it doesn't need to be update, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it in the frame of the charter

<adam_solomon> david: important to maintain stability for wcag 2 support, will be lots of work to get an update done, but should look for a way to make wcag adaptable to new technology

+1 to Loretta

+q

<adam_solomon> loretta: fear of workload or stability shouldn't necessarily prevent us from including update in charter

<adam_solomon> gregg: including possibility of non backward compatiblity might prevent adoption of standards by the corporate world

+1 to Peter K

<AWK> "Explore needs and issues related to new or unaddressed accessibility concepts"

<greggvanderheiden> +1

"Explore needs for potential future versions of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines"?

Sorry that was from a previous discussion with Andrew..

Damn you copy and paste..

<AWK> "Explore needs and issues related to new or existing accessibility concepts"

Thanks Peter..

<greggvanderheiden> existing is very different than Non-addressed

<adam_solomon> peter: changing language might assuage the potential backlash

<greggvanderheiden> Explore needs and issues related to new or unaddressed accessibility concepts

<adam_solomon> loretta: don't see any real problem with the language, all these issues are on the table for future discussion, charter shouldn't cause regulators to panic at this point since no one has yet decided there will be an update which would cause lack of stability

<W947C> Explore needs emerging from new technologies and long term accessibility issues

-q

+q

<adam_solomon> andrew, josh: should not constrain ourselves from at least discussing improvements for end users because of the fear of "backward compatiblity"

<adam_solomon> peter: language of "need to explore..." may not indicate ability to actually change the standard, and therefore actually implementing an update would be subject to the same opposition from outside groups as would the current language

<greggvanderheiden> Explore needs and issues related to new or unaddressed accessibility concepts and next generation Web Access Guidelines

+q

Explore accessibility issues and define requirements for future versions

<greggvanderheiden> +1

<greggvanderheiden> Explore accessibility issues and define requirements for next generation guidelines

ok, thanks Peter.

<Loretta> throw in "potential", either for requirements or future versions?

<korn> +1 to Gregg's variant

<korn> +1 to "adding potential"

+q

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say the current charter does simply enable exploration, of features and of regulatory impact, and that should be reasonably unconstrained; a future charter

<greggvanderheiden> anything beyond tomorrow is futureā€¦ so future seems to be pretty ambiguous

<greggvanderheiden> next year? 2 years? or really future?

<Loretta> Any of the above, *if* the WG finds it appropriate.

<AWK> "Explore accessibility issues and define requirements for potential future guidelines"?

<W947C> Explore new accessibility issues and long term accessibility technology requirements

<greggvanderheiden> +1

<korn> +1 to AWK's text. That works for me.

<Loretta> If we find a "short term" issue (e.g. mobile, anyone), we should discuss those too.

<Loretta> We will not be making changes to WCAG 2.0; it is a recommendation.

I can live with AWK's text

Better!

I like potential

<AWK> Explore accessibility issues and define requirements for potential future guidelines

<Loretta> If by some miracle we released WCAG 3.0 in a year, the agencies would have the same dilemna.

<greggvanderheiden> grin

Einstein said "Reality is a thing plus its potential" :-)

B-)

<Loretta> How about "unlikley"?

<Loretta> which has a very different sense from "maybe".

<korn> http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter

Explore accessibility issues and define requirements for potential future guidelines

<adam_solomon> resolution: consensus on andrew's last pasted text ("explore..."), and continue discussion of charter next meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-05-28 16:43:21 $

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/amde/made/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Joshue
Inferring Scribes: Joshue
Default Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Cooper, Adam_Solomon, Bruce_Bailey, Marc_Johlic, Peter_Korn, Cherie_Eckholm, Joshue, +1.613.907.aaaa, David_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Gregg_Vanderheiden, James_Nurthen
Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick Cooper Adam_Solomon Bruce_Bailey Marc_Johlic Peter_Korn Cherie_Eckholm Joshue +1.613.907.aaaa David_MacDonald Loretta_Guarino_Reid Gregg_Vanderheiden James_Nurthen
Regrets: Kathy_Wahlbin Kerstin_Probiesch
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013AprJun/0056.html
Found Date: 28 May 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/28-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]