Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

03 Nov 2015

See also: IRC log


EricE, Laura, Kenny, Joshue, marcjohlic, Kathy


<trackbot> Date: 03 November 2015

<Joshue108> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<AWK> trackbot, draft minutes

<trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

+ Laura

<AWK> Scribe: Laura

<AWK> Mike will scribe next week!

TPAC Update

Quickref Public Review Approval Survey

<AWK> Survey link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2015-10-quickref/

Eric: Would like to open quick ref for public review. Please review the Quickref and note any objections for bringing it to a broader audience for a public review.
... Will be an email with details tommorrow.

AWK: Be on the look out for the survey link.

TPAC Update

AWK: Asking people who attended for anythingrelevant.

MichaelC: Only one at TPAC. Not sure of what would be relevant to this group.
... People are looking for new versions coming down the pike.

…Coga did a presentation which would need WCAG support.

…some would be best practices.

…Best practices seemed to be a recurring theme.

…APA and the platform group are now in existence.So we will be working with them.

…APA will be making more use of IG.

JOC: Discusses Best practices vs SC.

<Joshue> JOC: It strikes me that best practices may need to become a category or output of the WCAG WG in tandem with any new SCs, guidelines and techniques.

MichaelC: Relevant to us: Developers want to do the wrong thin even if a right thing is available.

JOC: Needs to be relevant and practical.

ME: Asks if need more examples or find info more easily.

MichaelC: Devs want to be able to copy and paste.
... Hard for Devs to pick the right technique.

<AWK> Next TPAC is in Lisbon Portugal, last week of September 2016

s/ Eric: pick the right technique./pick the right technique./

COGA Extension proposal review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/cogaextreview/

<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/cogaextreview/results

AWK: We want to get some initial comments.
... First Draft. Kind of wrapped up with next survey item regarding extension requirements.

MichaelC: Survey should have been more of a review thing.

<MichaelC> Potential review questions:

<MichaelC> * Comments on specific candidate SC

<MichaelC> * Comments on specific proposed best practices, issues, etc.

<MichaelC> * How will things fit into potential new WCAG guidelines frameworks

JOC: Agrees. Survey could be structured differently.

<MichaelC> * What constraints continue to impact what COGA stuff can become part of guideilnes

<MichaelC> * What issues with changing levels of SC, given there were particular reasons they landed where they did

<Joshue> LC: Good draft, with good themes.

<Joshue> LC: We need to think about SCs and how to direct the conversation.

AWK: Reviews survey comments.

MichaelC: Need to look at it more granularly and from different angles.

AWK: Need to get a sense of magnitude.

JOC: Think about the structure of review. Should step back from this initial pass.

AWK: Anything we should discuss now?

MichaelC: Might be useful to have a joint meeting with COGA to talk through issues.

AWK: Anyone on the call a COGA participant?

MichaelC: No.

AWK: Chairs will send out an email soon and arrange a joint call.

Extension Requirements Survey (Update): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/

AWK: Much discussion on list regarding extensions.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/results

AWK: Discussion seems to be around testability and SC.
... Reviews survey results. No much new.

<AWK> acl kath

AWK: May not able to require No conflict between extensions.

Kathy: Much is theoretical at this point.

…Preferences and personalization may come into play.

…We should strive for no conflict between extensions. And discuss if they occur.

JOC: Agree. That is reasonable.

<Mike_Elledge> +1

MichaelC: Disagree. If we look into the future it is not practical.

…not a smooth path forward.

…Devs would have to choose between groups.

…Need to not to favor user groups. Need to haromize.

<MichaelC> Allowing conflicts mean we can´t roll extensions into a future version of guidelines, unless we resolve the conflicts at that time or drop something, introducing a backwards compatibility problem

s/ haromize. /harmonize. /

<MichaelC> and it runs us into picking favored user groups, problems for regulators, less harmonization, etc.

<MichaelC> if we truly think conflict is unavoidable, we should make a careful framework for it in a post WCAG 2.0 world that address the considerations

<MichaelC> having conflicting extensions on a WCAG 2.0 base without considering those issues will lead us into a lot of trouble down the road

James: Discusses what is a conflict.
... Extension to extension conflict will be inevitable.

Kathy: There is even conflict in the same user group. That is why COGA is working on personalization.
... We need to define what is a conflict.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to raise issue of W3C acceptance

MichaelC: We need to be forward thinking and realistic as to what the larger community will and won’t accept.

…we can get some pre-shopping around. Get early public review.

<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

… we need to be responible.

AWK: Yes, we can do some of the things Michael explained.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we need to ask express review question

…may be a problem to pin ourselves in.

<jamesn> +1

JOC: We just don’t know at this point what conflicts will occur.

<AWK> AWK wonders if the mobile TF has thought about whether any of the items in the COGA document would be conflicting

…but we have to walk a line.

MichaelC: We don’t know everything yet so maybe we should defer some decisions.

<MichaelC> but I´m still worried about a mindset, if we allow conflicts now we will simply allow them; if we don´t, we´ll try harder to avoid them and reopen the conflict decision only if absolutely necessary

AWK: Need guidance at the outset so we are not reactive. But rather proactive.

JOC: Want to create a roadmap.

Adam: Agree with Kathy.

AWK: Sounds like we should draft some new language regarding conflict.
... Need to listen to people on the call and on the list.

<Joshue> +1 to sounding good.

<Kathy> +1

Laura: +1

<marcjohlic> +1 agree

AWK: Another question regarded levels.

…Discusses survey results.

Kathy: What do we mean by levels?

AWK: If we had an extension that moved levels form AA to A, There would be no rationale for that extension to have a level.

Kathy: Provides mobile example using the WCAG model.
... Mobile TF wants to prioritize levels within the extension.

[Missing what JOC said]

Kathy: Mobile put some things into best practices.

<Joshue> JOC: Its interesting to hear Kathys comments, that she has a strong preference for using levels to signify critical or more important SCs in the mobile TF extension model.

AWK: Need to check with COGA and low vision TF regarding levels.
... Discuss doc on list.

s/ relevant /relevant /

rsagent, make minutes

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/11/03 17:41:08 $

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/ +K/+ K/
Succeeded: s/ ric: Would/Eric: Would/
Succeeded: s/public review./public review. Please review the Quickref and note any objections for bringing it to a broader audience for a public review./
Succeeded: s/ pic the right technique./Eric: pick the right technique./
FAILED: s/ Eric: pick the right technique./pick the right technique./
Succeeded: s/ Fires Draft/First Draft/
FAILED: s/ haromize. /harmonize. /
FAILED: s/ relavant /relevant /
Succeeded: s/ Soe we will be/So we will be/
Succeeded: s/ Hard for Devs toEric: pick the right technique./Hard for Devs to pick the right technique./
Succeeded: s/relavant/relevant/
Succeeded: s/ relavant/relevant/
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Default Present: EricE, Laura, Kenny, Joshue, marcjohlic
Present: EricE Laura Kenny Joshue marcjohlic Kathy
Found Date: 03 Nov 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-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]