W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

04 Nov 2014

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Joshue, Marc_Johlic, alistair, Michael_Cooper, Kenny, Katie_Haritos-Shea, [IPcaller], James_Nurthen, AWK
Regrets
Kathy_Wahlbin, Jonathan_Avila, Barry_Johnson, Eric_Eggert, Mike_Elledge, Jon_Avila, Bruce_Bailey, Christophe_Strobbe
Chair
Joshue
Scribe
marcjohlic

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2014

<Kenny> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2ndNov2014/

<Kenny> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2014

<Joshue108> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2014

<AWK> Trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2014

<AWK> I'll fix

<Joshue108> Chair: Joshue

<scribe> scribe: marcjohlic

New Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2ndNov2014/

1. Mobile TF proposed changes to G90:Providing keyboard-triggered event handlers

JOC: General consensus is that this still needs some edits
... At the F2F Loretta pointed out that we may need to document these at separate techniques that are advisory.
... Keyboard support on Mobile is not really that simple

KHS: Mapping to a Guideline and calling it Advisory makes good sense - was very much agreed upon at F2F

JOC: Stuff that is going on in Indie UI and UAAG will need to be pulled in for Mobile

<Loretta> zakim IPcaller is Loretta

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2ndNov2014/results

MC: We're enhancing a keyboard technique w/ applicability to Mobile - not clear how reference to Pointer Events fits in here
... Should be made more clear in the technique if we're keeping it

LGR: We're trying to push Touch into this keyboard technique - and not sure this is the place for that.

JOC: Looks like what we're saying is that we'll have separate keyboard techniques and touch techniques - and the touch techniques will be Advisory.
... Propose leaving open and have discussions with Kathy and Kim on having separate techniques for touch

RESOLUTION: Leave open - send back to Mobile TF for further discussion

<Joshue108> ACTION: Josh to follow up with Kathy and Kim on touch techs being advisory a la G90 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-295 - Follow up with kathy and kim on touch techs being advisory a la g90 [on Joshue O Connor - due 2014-11-11].

2. Mobile TF proposed changes to G162: Positioning labels to maximize predictability of relationships

JOC: Several responses suggesting that the second edit "@@The horizontal distance.." may be too wordy
... Any objection to Michael's suggested change to the first edit?

No objections

JOC: Any objections to my edit on removing the last line: "Finally, if the field has data.."

<Joshue108> MJ: If its a name field etc its easier to parse.

<Joshue108> MC: I don't like josh's edit as the low vis and cog combination doesn't work.

MJ: Broke the middle edit into multiple sentences to make it clearer

JOC: +1 Marc's edit

MJ: JN wants Cognitive TF to sign off on edit - believes he saw the opposite in a recent report

JOC: Safest thing would be to send off to Cognitive TF for review

MC: As the empowered entity, we should review and make edits - but be clear enough about what the edits are so that another group can review when published

JOC: Should Mobile TF approach Cognitive TF about the change?

RESOLUTION: Leave open pending Josh action

<Joshue108> ACTION: Josh to ping the Cog A11y TF for feedback on https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/G162 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-296 - Ping the cog a11y tf for feedback on https://www.w3.org/wai/gl/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/g162 [on Joshue O Connor - due 2014-11-11].

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/G162

Discussion of efficiency improvements for Working Group processes

JOC: Comment from Loretta for a lighter weight process for the way we work - using asynchronous methods for the way we work
... David suggested that maybe we don't need to respond to every comment that comes in vs when we solicit comments
... AWK suggested using the List more for discussions and the person with the final response uses GitHub (or another tracker) to log
... Any other thoughts on better managing Public Comments
... Could we spend less time dealing w/ Public Comments

LGR: Our current process - looking at today's where we are sending things back - sending back and forth is particularly slow

JOC: A lot of Public Comments are for clarification - or "can you help me understand WCAG more" - and not sure we should be spending a lot of time on those
... Should we be spending less time on these types of Public Comments

<Joshue108> MJ: I defo agree if theres a better way to do this.

<Joshue108> MJ: The current tool is hard to follow, but there are issues with Github, Bugzilla have better features.

Alistair: Reliance on surveys tends to weigh things down - we end up plowing through comments on Survey when we could have handled these on the List instead
... A lot of abstract issues - when someone misses an issue they end up having to dig around in previous surveys trying to find previous discussions

JOC: Do you feel that lists is an easier way to handle comments

Alistair: Yes - it's a bit more fluid (the list)

JOC: We'd have to find a way to manage list so that it included Working Group members and not just outside

KHS: One of the major responsibilities of this WG is to respond to public comments. We can't lose sight of that.
... Interested to find a better method, but if that doesn't work out, we can't just not respond to public comments

LGR: Dilemma for me is that by having decisions made at this meeting we exclude lots of people that can't attend this meeting for one reason or another (time etc)
... The challenge is however, how do you reach consensus in an asynchronous environment
... Challenge is to find a more asynchronous method that also defined how to measure when a consensus is met

<Joshue108> MJ: I'm stuck with an email client at IBM that doesn't support threading, I'll look at Gmail etc.

<Joshue108> MJ: Using a tool that had that structure within it would be good.

<Joshue108> MJ: There is a lot of variability in how people carry out these discussions.

<jamesn> +! - also allows people to come in half way through and still see the history

JN: Good thing about a good tracking tool is that if you come in halfway you can read the history and avoid circular discussions

<AWK> We discussed tracking issues and comments with a bugbase, possibly via GitHub that would address the need for a single thread to refer to

<Joshue108> is hearing that using a tracking tool for formatting may be a good idea for histroy tracking etc.

JN: One problem with asynchronous and not having that "deadline" for the call, there would be times when WCAG was missed

+1

JOC: Comes down to personal time mgmt

JN: Sometimes the problem w/ offline communications is that some people have more time to devote to these - as opposed to the calls where everyone on the call has the equal time devoted

+1

JOC: Might be a way to control times to response (delay a person from monopolizing the discussion)

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say the WG is no longer the same people as wrote the guidelines, so we have to exercise our responsibility in that light and to talk about consensus bar

MC: Responsibility of the WG: agree it's a responsibility we have, but we are not the same WG that wrote the guidelines - we should reflect that in our responses - issue less authoritative responses (unless we have a reason to).
... We need to keep in mind that we here don't have the full institutional knowledge anymore
... Consensus bar: We don't need to have as high of a consensus bar anymore (unlike when guidelines were written).
... We could lower the bar on defining what "consensus" is - not sure exactly what the measure should be
... We should think about what bar we would be comfortable with that could be met w/ some of these alternate discussion methods

JOC: Optics seem to dictate that every response needs to be "perfect" - not sure how useful that is.
... For consensus, I feel it is a case by case basis

AWK: Not sure we would want to cede the WG authority over interpretation

WG: We have had a continuous group of people that have participated
... Agree w/ what James was saying - problem w/ offline comm is that some folks have more time - others have less - raises the work/life balance about discussions that can go on all weekend, all week, all weekend again - need to figure out how we put the stake in the ground at the end

AWK: Agree it's a challenge

JOC: Some of the suggestions that came up were using tools like GitHub issues / bug trackers to better control discussions
... Any other comments or questions? Efficiency improvements - if anyone has any ideas let us know

AWK: Need volunteer(s)
... Had 74 responses from survey

Continue review/analysis of supporting documents survey data

AWK: Need volunteer(s)
... Had 74 responses from survey

<Ryladog> Can we have a link to the responses? I recall a WORD document

AWK: Need someone that can review and gather trends that appear
... Anyone that would be willing to look at a few of the questions?

<Joshue108> MJ: Yes, the updated one is available.

AWK: We will send something out

<Joshue108> JOC: Is the survey closed?

AWK: Survey is not completely closed
... We can add in if folks have additional responses
... Looks like 2 more responses may have come in
... Any Google Forms experts that can tell us how to turn off access to the survey - but still keep it out there?

JOC: We'll be in touch soon with the chunks we wanted folks to look through
... Been reviewing the minutes from the F2F and there are a lot of good ideas in there - putting those together
... Hoping to draw up some tangible actions

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Josh to follow up with Kathy and Kim on touch techs being advisory a la G90 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Josh to ping the Cog A11y TF for feedback on https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/G162 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-11-04 17:18:11 $

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)

Found Scribe: marcjohlic
Inferring ScribeNick: marcjohlic
Default Present: Joshue, Marc_Johlic, alistair, Michael_Cooper, Kenny, Katie_Haritos-Shea, [IPcaller], James_Nurthen, AWK
Present: Joshue Marc_Johlic alistair Michael_Cooper Kenny Katie_Haritos-Shea [IPcaller] James_Nurthen AWK
Regrets: Kathy_Wahlbin Jonathan_Avila Barry_Johnson Eric_Eggert Mike_Elledge Jon_Avila Bruce_Bailey Christophe_Strobbe
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014OctDec/0089.html
Found Date: 04 Nov 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: josh

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]