Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

05 May 2015

See also: IRC log


AWK, Laura_Carlson, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Kenny, cstrobbe, Marc_Johlic, Michael_Cooper, MoeKraft, Loretta, Kathy_Wahlbin, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Cooper
Jonathan_Avila, Eric_Eggert, Alan, Alan_Smith, Eric_Eggert._Joshue


<trackbot> Date: 05 May 2015

<Kenny> and feedback on Issue Sorting https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/IssueSorting/

<AWK> Chair: AWK

<scribe> scribe: marcjohlic

new member

AWK: New invited expert Laura Carlson

LC: Working in a11y since around 2000 - was in HTML a11y Task Force

Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5thMay2015/

Fix 2 code errors in Ex. 3 of ARIA2: Identifying a required field with the aria-required property

<AWK> ARIA2 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA2.html

AWK: Only complaint is in the extra <head> tag - should be removed or changed

<Loretta> where is the code?

code: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commit/4e7c715badacf6ff19717a01631e6b3f9986d549?diff=unified

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commit/4e7c715badacf6ff19717a01631e6b3f9986d549

AWK: Upper right above the code has a "Unified" and "Split" button. Split view may be easier to see the changes

MC: Still hard to see where the fix was in the issue

AWK: Second to last comment "Fix for Issue 90"

MC: Can't really tell that's a link - usability problem w/ GitHub that we'll have to look into

AWK: We could get rid of <head> and either say "here are the css files" or we could just style the line

DM: Agree we don't need to have complete page code for all of the examples - just the snippet as if you were jumping into the middle of the page

MC: Agree w/ David

AWK: Proposing in between <code> blocks, "this is the CSS code that would be included"

DM: Agreed

KW: Agree w/ the changes

LC: Good solution

RESOLUTION: Accepted as amended - AWK will remove <head> and add line of text saying here's the CSS

review and feedback on Issue Sorting https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/IssueSorting/

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted

AWK: Only 5 respondents to date.
... As we think about extensions for WCAG, the idea is to get some thoughts from these comments
... Asking folks to sign up for a group of five and provide feedback
... Would like to have at least 2 for each group of comments
... Have at least a couple of people vetting these comments

MK: If we see only 1 person assigned, then that one is still open, correct?

AWK: Correct

MK: Is that the same for the articles as well?

AWK: Think that there are enough articles right now that would rather we just have 1 person per article right now
... Looking for folks to review articles, then add any new found issues to the top table
... Expect that we will end up with a lot of new comments added to the top table that we will have to review
... Would like to be able to start going through these next week - ensure that we have a common understanding
... An example would be in Jared's article he talks about removing CAPTCHA - so Marc or David would take that suggestion and add it to the top table

<Ryladog> I will help with this starting next Sunday, Mothers Day. Don;t forget your mothers....:-)

<cstrobbe> "save early and often"

<laura> I can help with this too.

AWK: Suggest crafting your wiki entry in another app first, then copy - paste - save in the wiki and get back out in order to avoid collisions

MC: Wiki login is same username and pw as the surveys

AWK: Purpose behind this activity is that we've got this long list of things people want us to do with WCAG - things at the time we felt were worthwhile - so they were added to the Post WCAG 2 wiki. So as we're looking into adding extensions, we should review what has already been suggested. Some of these may have already been tackled via task forces - such as cognitive.

Charter update

AWK: AC meeting in Paris this week. Accessibility and the charter is one of the topics there this week
... A lot of discussion around the updates to the charters
... Our draft charter appears to be generally agreed to by people
... Been some discussion around the need for a combined working group - WCAG, ATAG, UAG, ERT etc
... It would be a new group
... We will know more by the end of this week

MC: Proposal to combine guidelines working groups wouldn't be immediate, but rather about a year from now
... One thing that could impact us would be moving ERT wg into a WCAG task force
... If that happens we will have to add deliverables to our charter
... Expect that this would have to come with people in order to be successful
... If we add / change deliverables, there would a requirement for everyone to re-join the working group. There is a grace period and as long as you accept during that time it's pretty simple. Can be more difficult if you miss the grace period so try to respond during that grace period

AWK: Would need to figure out the best way to work - asynchronous work - time zone challenges etc
... We have talked about doing more work asynchronously via the list - and having calls for consensus via the list.
... Even items that we discuss on the call we would do a call for consensus via the list?

<AWK> Marc: How would that work on the list? A separate email on the list?

AWK: In other groups there are discussions that might happen in multiple threads, but then ultimately on the email list, once the chairs feel like there is a consensus - when it seems like the vast majority of folks are in agreement on how it should be settled, then a separate email is sent out w/ the the issue - links to where it's been discussed - and what has been decided - and final...
... call for agreement. Something along those lines - would have to check w/ how other groups are doing it.

DM: Think GitHub could be core to this whole thing as we are moving forward. Would be great if we could get Eric or someone to spend a full call with us on how to properly use GitHub


LGR: Let's not just do it on a call - cuz everyone can't join calls - but get it written down - all the steps

<laura> +1

KOS: Next time we get together for a F2F would be very helpful to have a session on GH

AWK: Can't imagine we are the only W3C group with challenges here

LC: There's probably documentation already out there

LGR: True that GH is well documented, but that documentation is not necessarily geared toward us

AWK: We need to assemble a list of tasks that we expect WG members to be able to do in GH - then put together documentation around that

DM: Even link those tasks to parts of larger documentation

AWK: How to suggest a small change to a technique or understanding document would be useful, how to assign an issue or get an issue assigned to you, create a new issue - those 3 would help people quite a bit
... Any other suggestions from folks that have been in a group that has worked asynchronously?

DM: HTML5 is working that way - Steve has even pointed out that he can get more done not being on the calls and just working

MC: W3C has different bars for what is considered "consensus" for the group. Can be hard at times to tell if there is full consensus. WCAG WG is one that has a bit higher bar for consensus
... As we look at these different ways of working, we need to look at the affect on call for consensus and if we want to accept that or not

KHS: Confirming there will not be a F2F in Japan?

AWK: Correct - no F2F in Japan (TPAC)

KHS: Any alternate suggestions for a F2F?

AWK: Some have suggestion next CSUN
... As we start talking about more normative work we may have a need for more F2F meetings

KHS: We should start planning rather than waiting for a last minute thing.

AWK: I agree. Michael where is TPAC in 2016

MC: Looks like it will be in Lisbon
... Close to being official.. fairly certain..

AWK: Benefit of TPAC is that there are other W3C folks there.. CSUN sometimes there is too much other stuff going on

MC: 2016 TPAC is expected to be in September

AWK: Wrapping up 25 mins early - great time to take a look at the issues and articles in the wiki so that we can discuss them next week

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/05/05 16:06:30 $

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)

Found Scribe: marcjohlic
Inferring ScribeNick: marcjohlic
Default Present: AWK, Laura_Carlson, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Kenny, cstrobbe, Marc_Johlic, Michael_Cooper, MoeKraft, Loretta, Kathy_Wahlbin, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Cooper
Present: AWK Laura_Carlson Makoto David_MacDonald Kenny cstrobbe Marc_Johlic Michael_Cooper MoeKraft Loretta Kathy_Wahlbin Katie_Haritos-Shea Cooper
Regrets: Jonathan_Avila Eric_Eggert Alan Alan_Smith Eric_Eggert._Joshue
Found Date: 05 May 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]