W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

06 Jan 2015

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Joshue, +1.313.390.aaaa, +1.617.766.aabb, AWK, Marc_Johlic, Mike_Elledge, Michael_Cooper, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lisa_Seeman, Kathy_Wahlbin, Kenny, Loretta, EricE, +1.703.637.aacc, Jon_avila, James_Nurthen, David_MacDonald
Regrets
Moe_Kraft, Barry_Johnson
Chair
Joshue
Scribe
Mike_Elledge

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 06 January 2015

<Ryladog> having a hard time getting connected

Mike Elledge will scribe

Next Item TopicWCAG WG Review of research document. Initial findings.

WCAG WG review of the Cognitive A11y TF 'Cognitive Accessibility User Research' document.

Cognitive Accessibility User Research' document

Great document. Comments from Andrew and Michael.

JO: Congratulations to your team (Lisa). Haven't had a chance to look at in detail. Lot of work and it is very long. Managing size deserves attention.

<LS> Part of reason for putting into separate document because of length. Didn't want to distract from what to do. This is background research: profiles, something for reference.

<LS> So can find where recommendatins will come from. First part important. So people can see how condition impacts implementation.

<Ryladog> got kicked off. Coming back. Weather?

LS: Will link to techniques and cross-cutting issues.

JO: Already working on supporting materials to understand doc, and springboard for subsequent work.

LS: If had info in gap analysis would distract people.

JO: Filled a key tangible gap. Andrew comment: Getting outside feedback from public.

AK: Hard to imagine a perfect document. So much there. Can't comment on content. Comments are readability, structure. Since won't achieve perfection, think lots of people out there to provide valuable feedback.

<Joshue108> +1 to getting it out there and collecting feedback from domain experts.

LS: Want first working draft. You are right, not perfect. Wld like to get comments. Send it out to practitioners; see if there are challenges that are left out. Make it stronger. Have to publish it to get conversations started.

AK: Perfectly fine with releasing that.

JO: Think the same way. Get it out there. Will send a strong message that this is what we're looking on. Plus one.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask how much disclaiming of quality to make

JO: Maybe clean up some low-hanging fruit.

MC: Comfort level for sending out for comments.
... Would say come take a look.

JO: No need to apologize.

AK: Don't think we've ever released doc not expecting to send out a note. Here's a working draft, work in progress. Provide comments.

MC: Comments for particular topics.

JO: Structure, what it's missing. Important to ask.

<Joshue108> ME: Is there an organisation or experts that we could send it too directly?

<Joshue108> ME: Just to make sure we have got the right people?

ME: How best to contact experts?

MC: To particular organizations, we send out to list and they forward. In terms of contacting particular organizations have encouraged groups to join list.

LS: To do list item to send to particular organizations. Can ask people on call to send to organizations, people they know.
... In terms of what we're looking for, would like most to have use cases of people using ICT. People who are working with people with disabilities, let us know if we have missed use cases.
... Have people say that in my experience this is what has happened when working with PWD.
... Wary of asking for structural changes. Everyone has opinion. Have gone around a few times already.

<AWK> Feedback from the group on the COGA document is here: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_feedback/results

JO: If not appropriate, don't ask for structural comments.

LS: Comfortable saying it is early draft, really want input.

JO: If there are things that doc is weaker on, can call it out so don't get lots of repetitive comments. Call out what the document isn't, for example. Not a catch-all for all cognitive disability.

KH: Looking at cognitive dimentia--put TBD, and would like comments here (for example).

MC: Would prefer as editorial notes, or to do class. Something I can do in doc preparation.

KH: Different colors, or something. Thanks.

<Ryladog> dropped again sorry

<Ryladog> Coming back

LS: What do you think if we publish as is. Always will be more to do. Is it worth delaying it.

MC: Changing ? to TBD won't be time-consuming. If KHS has someting in particular can pull it.

JO: May be parts where ? need to be revisited.

LS: Quite a few revisions of dimentia. So ? are legacy. Not looking for feedback, necessarily. So not everything will be TBD.

KHS: Can change to TBD. But wouldn't say that we're looking for more info, because in many cases are not. If slowing things down just leave them in.

JO: Next steps: Go ahead. Some minor changes for Katie. Time frame?

MC: Publish January 13th.

KHS: Will send out locations to Lisa and Michael today.

MC: Any changes have to be given to me by end of this week.

JO: Kudos for great job.

RESOLUTION: WG agrees to publish Cognitive Accessibility Research Document.

LS: That's what it's called. May change title, but so far that it's name.

Upcoming public review of WCAG Understanding and Techniques with How to Meet public review drafts

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2015/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20150106/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2015/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20150106/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20150106/

working group approval for public review

JO: Any objections from WG for public review?

RESOLUTION: Working agrees to publishing document for public review.

AK: Three weeks?

MC: Normally 4 weeks, but have done 3. January 27th date set earlier.

JO: Okay. Everything ready, MC?

MC: Needs announcments to be approved, expect Thursday. May be announced with date of today or Thursday. But will go out Thursday.

JO: Thanks for hard work and efforts getting it ready.

Final feedback for final tasks of Quickref refresh.

JO: Eric?
... Quickref refresh.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis

JO: Asked for any comments to be put into wiki. Any new additions, Eric?

EE: Haven't been new additions since before break. Have primary tasks id'd.
... Combination of techniques that are needed to meet sc, is one of tasks. Also task for specific questions on websites. Thrid is high-level overview and ability to drill down to speickfic points.
... Fourth is techniques for specific technology. Very useful and pretty much covering it. A little room to explore what is possible.
... Secondary tasks: Overview of support material. Checklist of information that is presented.

JO: In terms of primary tasks, 2 and 4 are similar. Content-based approach can be used.

EE: Agree.

JO: In terms of moving forward. Asked everyone in group to contribute. Are you ready to move ahead?

EE: Yes. Can move ahead to practical prototypes.

JO: Look forward to hearing of your progress. Let us know on a semi-regular basis. Look forward to it.

AK: One of my comments: represent "and relationships and techniques" Need to address, since they weren't clear to people.

EE: Good thing to move it up so more prominent on page.

AK: In soem ways, present more prominently for specific techniques. Still a confusing notion. Oh can use H17, not realizing need in conjunction with G57.

EE: Mainly a design issue. Need to clarify that two things work together.

JO: Flag when someone chooses a praticular combination, cool if we can call them out.
... Anything else to be more clear about?

D: Clarify?

JO: Call out to group to let us know if there's anything else that needs to be done.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Resource_Redesign/Quickref/Analysis

DM: Link out to wiki?

JO: Thanks Eric!

Final Tutorials Review/Publication approval Cycle

JO: Before Xmas ppl signed up to do final iterations. Don't forget....there will be a final call to push those tutorials out. In terms of final review cycle...the 13th?

AK: Next Tuesday.

JO: Andrew do a WG call to make sure that everyone's happy with changes.

AK: Trying to remember what EE wanted for that.

JO: Had a final call for editorial review. When that is done do you want WCAG WG to give approval for public review.

EE: Please have a look at where we have things in conflict with WCAG, not focus on wording. Techniques we should mention.

JO: Major conflicts and omissions. Deadline the 13th.

Discussion on working group priorities

JO: Local call to group for priorities next year.
... AK and I will talk further about it.

AK: One other issue: changes to the list and meeting structure, and times. Still <sneeze> pending.

KHS: Thinking of what changes?

AK: Discussed if we can conduct more work via list. Will be able to meet less often or for shorter amount of time.
... 11:30 to 12:30, for example. Would help James. For Eric and Josh earlier the better.

DM: This year need to collect information about WCAG Next. What is working, not working, what are key issues. What's still important, what's not (in terms of things people doing wrong).

JO: REally started doing that work over last several years.

<Joshue108> ME: Are you talking about a11y issues that have increased and or decreased in importance?

DM: LIke magnifying 200%, because browsers do it now.Haven't seen except one person. Throw them into room, figtht them out, and decide based on our collective wisdom.
... Possible future issues, wikipedia page, other things taht would be in WCAG next.

JO: Could be very exciting, contributions from Mobile TF, etc.

<Joshue108> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/coga/user-research.html#importance-of-this-document

DM: 204 and 206 remaining issues. Magnification and different views.
... Would like to make revisions to. So should be merged techniques. If you do force line not to wrap, provide a different view.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to disagree with merging anything prior to the public review

JO: 204 and 206 are replacing....

AK: Probably saying the same. WG had agreed to change already. Appreciate your comments, though. Don't want to hold up public review.

JO: Okay with you David?
... Valid comment, shouldn't hold off public review.

DM: Agree. Will address in comments.

JO: AK anything else to discuss.

AK: Some discussion about when meeting at CSUN. Had asked who was going to be around so can arrange time and place. Seemed like not ready to finalize.

ME: Don't know my schedule yet for CSUN.

AK: Will there be a f:f at TPAC next year (Sapporo Japan)? Less likely to be able to meet.

KHS: Should meet at CSUN for that reason.

AK: May want to focus on mobile group.

KW: Have been talking about meeting for mobile. Maybe can do something there.

AK: Will be really challenged to find a time.

KHS: Have you talked about it?

<Jon_avila> I'd only be availalbe Tuesday late morning and afternoon.

KW: Will bring up Thursday. Trying to get note finished before CSUN, then take info and think about how to map into WCAG techniques. Where and what fits in. Best practices, would be very helpful to have F:F.
... Have members of WCAG group there would be great.

JO: F:F would be more practical.

AK: Maybe past time to say having one. How many ppl coming.

<Kathy> yes

<Ryladog> me

ME: Yes

<David> +1

<Loretta> I plan to be at CSUN.

<jamesn> i am there

<Jon_avila> +1

<AWK> I will

<Kenny> plan to CSUN

<MichaelC> I would only go if there is FtF meeting for me to attend

KW: May have a problem too. No sponsor or room.

AK: Pre-conference?

<Loretta> No preconference.

<Jon_avila> I am availalbe Tuesday afternoon

ME: Not sure--would try.

<Ryladog> No precon

AK: Other option to sneak in during conference.

DM: Doesn't work well. Trying to book travel. Much harder to change flights.

KW: My pref is Tuesday as well.

AK: Saturday another option.

<Ryladog> Sat or Sun OK for me

KW: Can't do Saturday. Will be Monday or Tuesday for Kim and I.

AK: Who prefers Monday?

<Ryladog> either

KHS: Monday would make sense if Tuesday was Mobile TF.

AK: DK if two full days.
... No one prefers Monday. Does anyone prefer Saturday?
... Who can't make Saturday?

<Jon_avila> Not me

<Loretta> no for Saturday

AK: Saturday not looking good.
... Michael and I will discuss.
... Will make decision asap. Next few days.
... Will let WG know how soon we have to respond.

DM: Seems like one day. Not a problem.

KW: Is there stuff happening on Saturday at CSUN?

ME: Last year only had final wrapup on Saturday.

JO: Will get a decision on meeting at CSUN.

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015-01-06 17:18:20 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Inferring Scribes: Mike_Elledge
Default Present: Joshue, +1.313.390.aaaa, +1.617.766.aabb, AWK, Marc_Johlic, Mike_Elledge, Michael_Cooper, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lisa_Seeman, Kathy_Wahlbin, Kenny, Loretta, EricE, +1.703.637.aacc, Jon_avila, James_Nurthen, David_MacDonald
Present: Joshue +1.313.390.aaaa +1.617.766.aabb AWK Marc_Johlic Mike_Elledge Michael_Cooper Katie_Haritos-Shea Lisa_Seeman Kathy_Wahlbin Kenny Loretta EricE +1.703.637.aacc Jon_avila James_Nurthen David_MacDonald
Regrets: Moe_Kraft Barry_Johnson
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JanMar/0001.html
Found Date: 06 Jan 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/01/06-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]