Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

11 Aug 2015

See also: IRC log


Kathy, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, Laura, kenny, David, MacDonald, Mike, Elledge, Katie, Haritos-Shea


<trackbot> Date: 11 August 2015

<AWK> Scribe: Mike_Elledge

Update on charter

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Update on charter

<laura> [DRAFT] Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Charter

<laura> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/draft-wcag-charter

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: 3 formal objections, 6 comments w/ accepting, 29 accepted.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Still some substantial commments, well received. So looking over the comments, may need to extend the Charter for edits. Also possible that it will be approved by Director.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: I have not looked over comments yet. On my list.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Driving. Nothing to add.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Some of the stuff is wanting to see instead of extensions wanting to see WCAG 3.0. How will we address that? Explanation falls on deaf ears.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: These things take time. There are changes to make in a11y stds to accommodate low vision, cognitive, mobile. Still some gaps, have id'd some of them, lot of work done thru task forces.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: If we said major overhaul of WCAG, including mobile and cognitive a huge chunk of work. Only do this every 10 years, so everyone will want to get in and may stagnate.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: A good rationale.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Want to have other normative extensions that can be faster than overhauling WCAG. If we wrap up the extensions into WCAG next, will still take time, but in meantime we'll still have normative extensions that will hellp everyone.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Two paths to the same place. But if we try to update WCAG will take longer, appear nothing being done.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Agree.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Is there list we can review objections.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Member information. Invited experts don't have access.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Do not like the objections.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Objections to WCAG rising up.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Not a lot of people.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: We have Steve F tweeting that shouldn't be a wcag group, should just incorporate a11y into stds. Jared tweets wants to help us change things, seems frustrated no WCAG 3. Maybe stds should go outside of WCAG.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Maybe link to Joe Samurai group.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Why are they talking about that. Should know how hard this is! Could be more constructive.

<laura> can you hear me?

<laura> Thanks Katie.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Some of the objections about WCAG 3.0. The right questions. Doing exploratory work without defining it. What we are doing is valuable. So we need to get everyone involved and support one another.

<Mike_Elledge_> Laura: What are the formal objections.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Can't share the specific contents. Whether extensions were right way to go. Lots of feedback from first round. Ppl didn't want WCAG to do nothing, so extensions was acceptable to most ppl, but not all.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Charter not fully done, needs some work. Appreciate everyone's comments and feedback so far, look forward to more.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Major changes?

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: As chairs along with Michael will respond point by point and talk to commenters to understand what they need. Clarification sufficient? Or more than that? Once we know scope and magnitude will know how to respond.

<Mike_Elledge_> Laura: Anything we can do to help?

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Find more people and companies.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Gregg was very good about picking up phone and talking to ppl about their concerns.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Email can be problematic.

Update on Low Vision Task Force

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Have id'd some co-chairs and facilitators.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: That's it.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: An important topic. As a result looking into what's needed for task force. Interested in having anyone participate who can. Hope to get more ppl not currently involved.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Ppl's time not infinite.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: The companies that are non-profit can join W3C for much less than for-profits. Very reasonable.

<jon_avila> yes, to some degree

<bruce_bailey> Yes, I would like to participate

<Mike_Elledge_> K: I would probably want to be involved, others from Knowbility.

<laura> yes, would probably want to be involved.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: On low vision, would love to review things, but not regular.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Have low vision, techniques, mobile, etc., lot of work to be done. Lots of expertise on phone, but ppl can only do so much.

Progress on Github issues https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Github issues.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Last time walk-through issues list.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: 5 issues not assigned: 107-111.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: SCR19. Update G65. Example not accessible added last night.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Any updates for 106 or earlier?

<laura> 105 is ready for survey

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Looks like there is a bunch.

<laura> As discussed in the July 21 WCAG WG Meeting the proposed text for Issue 105 should be ready for survey.

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/105#issuecomment-123712769

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Would like to ask ppl to try to take a look at the ones assigned to selves. Put a comment when will be able to get to them. So we can have some sense of when.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Reasonable?

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Yes. When looking at them can finish them off. :^)

<Mike_Elledge_> MD: Just have to get more comfortable with Github.

<Mike_Elledge_> ME: What do we do to finish them?

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: If 107, advisory techniques not applicable. If ppl agree, then recommend they be removed. Then set the label to "ready for survey". then survey it. If group agrees, then editor removes techniques associated with criteria.

<laura> I can take Issue 110 but am unable to assign it to myself.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Or may say "fine" we respond. Resolution gives us the direction of where to go, and how will be presented to group.

Status of Understanding / Techniques

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Michael C. might have had something to say. Next week.

Reviving Techniques Task Force

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: General idea is bandwidth. Have done lot of work on receiving and addressing comments, editing techniques, modifying techniques, could spend all our time doing that. There's serious other work to be done.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Mobile,other task forces, core work, extensions set-up and how will work with task forces. How do we continue to get techniques done and progress on the techniques, while we do other things.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Should we revive Techniques task force. Are there ppl who would like only to work on techniques.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Want to revive techniques tf. Bandwidth issues. I don't have time to head up tf. Task forces may be able to do techs themselves. Or a specific tf that can develop more general html5 or aria techniques.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Let us know if you are happy to work on it, or offload to task forces.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Once we get comfortable with github, I think the tf will get bulk of techniques done. On mobile have developed techniques and success criteria. Lot more motivation that way. Seems like a little stale to have a techniques tf.

<Mike_Elledge_> ME: LIke idea of tf providing techniques. Maybe have them vetted at some point by a tech group.

<Mike_Elledge_> KW: Individual tf can provide techniques. Question is how they techs will fit between tfs. Have to be some framework that will put similar techniques together. Making sure that techniques can be reused or not in conflict.

<Mike_Elledge_> KW: if a techniques tf it would address larger picture. Monitoring where things can work betw tfs. Mobile and low vision, for example, will need to moderate betw them. Mobile tf has an update, working on techs and how they relate to things besides mobile.

<Mike_Elledge_> KW: where I see a role for a techniques tf.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Some challenge there when techs from three different directions.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Maybe a central place to put proposed techs and sc. The tf will be coming up with them. Some place where everyone can see them.

<Mike_Elledge_> Lisa: A half hour left. Have arrived!

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: To avoid these collisions some place to put them.

<Ryladog> great idea David!

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: My comment has to do with coordination. Specific technique will be under the content heading.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Addressing the cross-over.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Nexus betw the work and the techniques and groups (such as user agents) see more of a need for defining those areas of convergence. Coordination needed on many levels.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Any other thoughts?

<jon_avila> * ARIA

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Outside of the techs of the mobile, low vision and cognitive, is there a need for other techniques.

<jon_avila> +1 to Kathy

<Mike_Elledge_> KW: Aria for sure, html5 techniques, some things that have come up. Some mobile techs fell out of mobile. New technologies coming out, icon fonts, svg, canvas, some needs of things that could be written and extended.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: If developing extensions along with all the other work being done in tf, where do techniques fall in priority.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say I think there is some routine failure and techniques that have never been documented.

<Mike_Elledge_> MD: Lot of information available about techniques that is being written by others (Steve, Jared, etc.).

<Zakim> Ryladog, you wanted to note that getting more people on the working group should be a big push - as it will help us with some of these pain points

<Mike_Elledge_> bb: Get questions that seem easy to answer, but don't find a specific failure for them. Wonder if some way to make it easier to note them.

<jon_avila> * having a failure for every SC would be helpful

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Need a concerted push to get more ppl from marketing group to help us.

<Mike_Elledge_> Lisa: Want to make sure that cognitive extension won't be limited to techniques. Will be success criteria as well.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Likely sources of techniques coming this year--not all that will be coming out of those groups.

Update on charter

WCAG extensions https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0091.html

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Discussion on WCAG extensions, seems like most has to do with what extensions can and cannot do. Jon, laura, katie involved, worthwhile to bring group up to speed.

<laura> Draft WCAG 2 Extension Principles

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2_Extension_Principles

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: What extensions can and cannot do, wrt core. Where is the discussion at this point.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Three questions?

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Can extesnions modify WCAG 2 SC? Must they be backward compatible? What if they conflict with each other?

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Laura's wiki page aligns with those.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Can they modify WCAG 2?

<Mike_Elledge_> Laura: Extensions MAY alter WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for a given success criterion by increasing normative requirements and success criterion. The applicable extensions MUST define any added conformance terminology.

<Mike_Elledge_> Laura: May increase, but cannot decrease.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: That's the goal. Can make it harder, but not easier. An extension would never lower or dilute WCAG. Can make harder, ie. better.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Play devil's advocate. What if new technology makes something that's a current sc really easy. Now taken care of, want to take off books. What do we do then.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Opposite view that ppl will then want to gut a requirement.

<Mike_Elledge_> Katie: Somewhat uncomfortable about altering WCAG. Might change it from requirements and success criteria to something else.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Along lines of what K said, how we word it in W3C speak. How can we come up with a set of principles that will fly globally, that will let us fill gaps in wcag, possibly override wcag by making it better. Three questions can form the basis of principles.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Thank you for putting this page together, Laura.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: One of things is some situation where user agent has overcome need for SC to go away. We've done pretty well with language in WCAG in covering situation where user agent makes sc obsolete.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that I think wiki page is helpful, but to ask about use of CR

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Channeling Loretta's thoughts. If in U.S. have extension but UK doesn't don't want them to fail because they haven't met cognitive extension.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Would compare this to when ppl complied with WCAG stds. What is a company going to do, we'll add some additional in 508.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Is it possible for extension to exist independent of WCAG.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: I would say no, unless not relevant to technology.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: Many things in mobile reliant on existing. Most won't want to redo WCAG.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Wearables and automotive.

<Mike_Elledge_> DM: unless None of the...

<Mike_Elledge_> bb: Don't mean conformance requrements when talking about conformance. Maybe change to requirements.

<Mike_Elledge_> bb: A lot comes down to a11y supported. Some platforms will get easier.

<Mike_Elledge_> bb: Extension might lessen core techniques.

<Mike_Elledge_> JO: Easier to author or easier to conform?

<Mike_Elledge_> K: If technology itself was the extension.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Trying how to figure out terminology.

<Mike_Elledge_> Bb: Might be able to say tha zoom always supported on this platform, so doesn't apply.

<Mike_Elledge_> Laura: Doesn't make criteria go away, makes it not appy.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Still worry about some of the things that might be modified or improved, think of dense sc like 3.11. Maybe want to unpack that a bit, concerned that wouldn't want to weaken, but may want to replace it with something stronger.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: I don't want to weaken things either, but don't want to make it harder to improve things.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Have to look at consequences of changing sc.

<Mike_Elledge_> Laura: Pull off second bullet point, then.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Not do anything right now. Let's process the language some more.

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: For today, should ask ppl to look it over and discuss next time along with other two.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Anything we have in place for CSUN?

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Shouldn't do there, enough already.

<Mike_Elledge_> K: Maybe in conjuction with marketing push to get more ppl on board.

<David> bye

<Mike_Elledge_> AK: Any other agenda items, comments, talk next week. Look at remaining issues if you have bandwidth.

<laura> bye

<AWK> TRackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/08/11 16:32:25 $

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)

Succeeded: s/involved,./involved./
Succeeded: s/can ypou hear me?/can you hear me?/
Succeeded: s/Laura: Somewhat unco/Katie: Somewhat unco/
Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge

WARNING: 1 scribe lines found (out of 243 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Present: Kathy AWK Bruce_Bailey Laura kenny David MacDonald Mike Elledge Katie Haritos-Shea
Regrets: MichaelC
Found Date: 11 Aug 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]