IRC log of wai-wcag on 2016-01-26
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:39:10 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:39:10 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-wai-wcag-irc
- 15:39:12 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:39:14 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
- 15:39:14 [Zakim]
- I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
- 15:39:15 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
- 15:39:15 [trackbot]
- Date: 26 January 2016
- 15:39:27 [Joshue108]
- zakim, agenda?
- 15:39:27 [Zakim]
- I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
- 15:39:28 [Zakim]
- 2. Survey (Items 3-5 only): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/ [from Joshue108]
- 15:39:28 [Zakim]
- 3. Github issues walkthru. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Joshue108]
- 15:39:39 [Joshue108]
- zakim, clear agenda?
- 15:39:39 [Zakim]
- agenda cleared
- 15:41:04 [Wayne]
- Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:41:17 [Joshue108]
- agenda+ • Extension document comment survey [continued / to be short!] (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ext_req_comments/
- 15:41:33 [Joshue108]
- agenda+ • UAAG/ATAG update.
- 15:41:45 [Joshue108]
- agenda+ • Proposed responses to Github issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Jan26_2016/
- 15:41:57 [Joshue108]
- agenda+ • Github issues walkthru. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
- 15:42:04 [Joshue108]
- Chair: AWK
- 15:42:43 [Wayne]
- scribe: Wayne
- 15:52:45 [AWK]
- AWK has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:53:12 [AWK]
- Zakim, agenda?
- 15:53:12 [Zakim]
- I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
- 15:53:13 [Zakim]
- 1. • Extension document comment survey [continued / to be short!] (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ext_req_comments/ [from Joshue108]
- 15:53:13 [Zakim]
- 2. • UAAG/ATAG update. [from Joshue108]
- 15:53:13 [Zakim]
- 3. • Proposed responses to Github issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Jan26_2016/ [from Joshue108]
- 15:53:14 [Zakim]
- 4. • Github issues walkthru. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Joshue108]
- 15:54:30 [Wayne]
- How do I go from topic to topic and how do I keep comments out of the minutes?
- 16:01:16 [AWK]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:01:16 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
- 16:01:33 [AWK]
- Chair: AWK
- 16:01:35 [AWK]
- +AWK
- 16:01:37 [Mike_Elledge]
- Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:02:07 [AWK]
- Scribe: Wayne
- 16:02:41 [Wayne]
- TOPIC:
- 16:03:14 [laura]
- laura has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:04:34 [marcjohlic]
- marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:04:56 [Joshue108]
- present+ Joshue108
- 16:04:57 [Greg]
- Greg has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:05:36 [AWK]
- Agenda+ Survey for attendance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/
- 16:05:54 [Mike_Elledge]
- +Mike Elledge
- 16:06:03 [Wayne]
- TOPIC: Extension document comment survey [continued / to be short!]
- 16:06:18 [Wayne]
- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ext_req_comments/
- 16:06:25 [adam_solomon]
- adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:06:26 [yatil]
- present+ EricE
- 16:07:09 [Sarah_Swierenga]
- Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:07:40 [laura]
- present+ Laura
- 16:08:00 [Wayne]
- present+ Laura
- 16:08:09 [Wayne]
- present+ Wayne
- 16:08:30 [marcjohlic]
- present+ marcjohlic
- 16:08:30 [adam_solomon]
- present+ adam_solomon
- 16:08:38 [Kathy]
- Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:08:40 [Sarah_Swierenga]
- present+ Sarah
- 16:08:41 [Greg]
- present+ Greg_Lowney
- 16:08:44 [Kathy]
- present +Kathy
- 16:08:52 [Kathy]
- present+ Kathy
- 16:09:06 [yatil]
- s/present +Kathy//
- 16:10:04 [AWK]
- Zakir take up item 5
- 16:10:49 [AWK]
- Zakim, take up item 5
- 16:10:49 [Zakim]
- agendum 5. "Survey for attendance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/" taken up [from AWK]
- 16:10:53 [yatil]
- s/Zakir take up item 5//
- 16:11:19 [Wayne]
- AWK: We have an attendance survey and it helps project.
- 16:11:47 [Wayne]
- ... please fill out the survey.
- 16:11:56 [AWK]
- Zakim, close item 5
- 16:11:56 [Zakim]
- agendum 5, Survey for attendance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WhenWCAG/, closed
- 16:11:59 [Zakim]
- I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 16:11:59 [Zakim]
- 1. • Extension document comment survey [continued / to be short!] (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ext_req_comments/ [from Joshue108]
- 16:12:06 [AWK]
- Zakim, next item
- 16:12:06 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "• Extension document comment survey [continued / to be short!] (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ext_req_comments/" taken up [from Joshue108]
- 16:13:39 [Wayne]
- AWK: Have received not additional comments. Relates to people's concerns that the extensions will be optional. If we just take out the word optional we are not representing the document properly.
- 16:14:15 [Wayne]
- ... If you are working for X-corp it can make it required, but all w3 documents are optional.
- 16:14:33 [jamesn]
- jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:14:44 [jamesn]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:14:44 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
- 16:15:49 [Wayne]
- ... Leaving it in represents what the document is doing. I have change my comment because it is desireable because it is accurate. Would like other peoples comments.
- 16:16:06 [Wayne]
- +1
- 16:19:25 [Wayne]
- Adam: I like the way David said it. Must discuss discussion. It is not optional if you do not want to conform it is optional. If you want to conform it is not optional. Standing alone optional is too ambiguous.
- 16:21:22 [Wayne]
- Greg: Worked early on accessibility with MS, and has worked on many WGs. Now I can do it.
- 16:21:27 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 16:22:42 [Wayne]
- ... I would vote to accept. Most is my concern giving the term optional calls out the particular document
- 16:23:03 [AWK]
- zakim, queue?
- 16:23:03 [Zakim]
- I see no one on the speaker queue
- 16:23:16 [Wayne]
- AWK: WCAG itself does not refer to itself as optional. Only the conformance claims are optional.
- 16:23:57 [Joshue108]
- q+
- 16:24:16 [Joshue108]
- ack me
- 16:24:17 [Wayne]
- ??: Extensions are opti0nal relative to WCAG 2, but not conversely.
- 16:25:20 [Wayne]
- josh: We are not trying to hide these are option. We place it in the abstract and moved somewhere else as to how it relates to conformance.
- 16:25:22 [AWK]
- Currently in status: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, optional modules that add accessibility guidance to the base of WCAG 2.0."
- 16:26:28 [laura]
- q+
- 16:26:42 [Joshue108]
- ack laura
- 16:26:46 [Wayne]
- AWK: This would be the place it would appear. Speaking about approach is better approach. (David)
- 16:27:04 [Wayne]
- Laura: Just use it verbatum.
- 16:27:26 [Wayne]
- josh: I don't see what else it is adding.
- 16:27:32 [laura]
- “for those who claim conformance to them.”
- 16:28:00 [Joshue108]
- +1 to davids
- 16:28:10 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 16:28:10 [Wayne]
- insert the words "for those who claim conformance to them..."
- 16:28:19 [Wayne]
- +1
- 16:28:20 [Greg]
- +1
- 16:28:35 [laura]
- +1
- 16:28:45 [AWK]
- Quick try at adding: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, optional modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0. Extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them. Conformance to WCAG 2.0 by itself does not mandate conformance to these extension
- 16:28:48 [AWK]
- s"
- 16:29:34 [AWK]
- this one: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0. Extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them. Conformance to WCAG 2.0 by itself does not mandate conformance to these extensions."
- 16:29:52 [Kathy]
- +1
- 16:29:54 [adam_solomon]
- Conformance to WCAG 2.0 on its own does not mandate conformance to these extensions."
- 16:29:55 [laura]
- +1
- 16:29:58 [Wayne]
- +1
- 16:30:14 [yatil]
- s/Quick try at adding: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, optional modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0. Extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them. Conformance to WCAG 2.0 by itself does not mandate conformance to
- 16:30:14 [yatil]
- these extension//
- 16:30:33 [Wayne]
- adam: Inserts an alternative
- 16:30:48 [yatil]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:30:48 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html yatil
- 16:31:22 [marcjohlic]
- +1
- 16:31:34 [Wayne]
- AWK: Are there objections?
- 16:31:37 [Sarah_Swierenga]
- +1 like
- 16:31:39 [yatil]
- +1 – I like it
- 16:31:46 [Mike_Elledge]
- +1
- 16:31:47 [Wayne]
- like
- 16:31:51 [Greg]
- +1
- 16:32:18 [Wayne]
- RESOLUTION: We sent this wording to the list.
- 16:33:00 [AWK]
- Zakim, close this item
- 16:33:00 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 closed
- 16:33:01 [Zakim]
- I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 16:33:01 [Zakim]
- 2. • UAAG/ATAG update. [from Joshue108]
- 16:33:08 [AWK]
- Zakim, next item
- 16:33:08 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "• UAAG/ATAG update." taken up [from Joshue108]
- 16:33:50 [MichaelC]
- q+
- 16:33:58 [Wayne]
- AWK: We will be talking about and will continue...
- 16:34:27 [MichaelC]
- q-
- 16:35:35 [Wayne]
- ... We may take up UAAG and ATAG issues. There is not too much to discuss. But we may come back with topics and keep the group up to date.
- 16:36:22 [Wayne]
- MichaelC: We need to make a considered proposal before we discuss it.
- 16:36:33 [AWK]
- Zakim, close this item
- 16:36:33 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 16:36:34 [Zakim]
- I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 16:36:34 [Zakim]
- 3. • Proposed responses to Github issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Jan26_2016/ [from Joshue108]
- 16:36:41 [AWK]
- Zakim, next item
- 16:36:41 [Zakim]
- agendum 3. "• Proposed responses to Github issues: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Jan26_2016/" taken up [from Joshue108]
- 16:38:41 [Wayne]
- TOPIC: [Github ISSUE: #151] ARIA5: About jQuery code
- 16:40:07 [Wayne]
- AWK: Feel that the draft should mention jQuery. In the live example you can see jQuery. We will not change because jQuery is not essential.
- 16:40:42 [Wayne]
- MichealC: Our general practice without adding reason.
- 16:41:39 [Wayne]
- MikeE: I think it may be useful when we mention something like jQuery is being used.
- 16:42:20 [Wayne]
- AWK: In this case the example is from the open AJAX alliance. They have an example that uses jQuery in the code.
- 16:42:43 [AWK]
- ARIA5: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA5.html
- 16:42:47 [Wayne]
- ??: Our example has jQuery in the code. That was linked, not out code.
- 16:43:51 [Wayne]
- MichealC: There is jQuery code but it is not relevant to the technique.
- 16:44:33 [jamesn]
- q+
- 16:45:48 [AWK]
- ack j
- 16:45:57 [Joshue108]
- q?
- 16:46:04 [Wayne]
- MikeE: For people who are not experts it is important. If it uses jQuery for tasks, it is important to use the reference. It could require a lot of information.
- 16:46:33 [Wayne]
- adam: I feel it is not a real world problem to anyone.
- 16:47:24 [marcjohlic]
- +1
- 16:47:31 [marcjohlic]
- q+
- 16:47:35 [Wayne]
- AWK: My problem is the technique requires jQuery. This is to display the ARIA. It could give the wrong impression.
- 16:48:33 [Wayne]
- .. Based on principle of not making changes when not necessary. This is more than editorial. How would you like to handle it.
- 16:49:24 [Wayne]
- MichaelC: This person is looking for consistency.
- 16:50:04 [Wayne]
- adam: what if that person wants this consistently could they do it.
- 16:51:06 [Wayne]
- josh: Should we just suggest that he submit his full changes?
- 16:51:24 [AWK]
- "Proposed response for WG: We keep the examples as simple as possible, and JQuery is not critical for the clarification of the important points in the technique, so we are not making a change at this time. Consistency of this type between techniques is good but is not an absolute requirement. If you would like to submit a pull request with specific changes we will consider them."
- 16:51:39 [marcjohlic]
- +1
- 16:51:43 [laura]
- +1
- 16:51:50 [Wayne]
- +1
- 16:52:00 [jamesn]
- +1
- 16:52:03 [Kathy]
- +1
- 16:52:03 [Joshue108]
- +1
- 16:52:07 [MichaelC]
- +1
- 16:52:10 [Sarah_Swierenga]
- +1 ok
- 16:52:15 [Greg]
- +1
- 16:52:27 [yatil]
- +1
- 16:52:30 [Mike_Elledge]
- +1
- 16:52:48 [Wayne]
- RESOLUTION: We send the wording above to the list for consensus.
- 16:53:51 [Wayne]
- TOPIC: Github ISSUE: #150] ARIA4/5: Clarification of a user interface component
- 16:54:34 [AWK]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/150
- 16:55:23 [Wayne]
- RESOLUTION: Pass the wording of the response to the list for consensus.
- 16:56:06 [Wayne]
- TOPIC: [Github ISSUE: #148] WAI-ARIA Technology Notes: Old UA descriptions
- 16:56:17 [AWK]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/148
- 16:57:00 [Wayne]
- AWK: Not all of our UA comments are correct. They are too old. Josh's comment discusses changes.
- 16:57:38 [Wayne]
- AWK: This is a lot of work, to keep up with all UA.
- 16:58:06 [Wayne]
- James: if we are to add comments, make sure mobiles are missing.
- 16:58:44 [Wayne]
- ... I am not sure if we only list the supported releases.
- 16:59:08 [Wayne]
- MichaelC: Should we make a change or notes for an edit.
- 17:00:09 [Wayne]
- josh: anyone with improvements could include them.
- 17:00:20 [jamesn]
- i have lost sound
- 17:00:53 [jamesn]
- jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
- 17:01:18 [Wayne]
- AWK: How would WAI ARIA respond to helping us change the techniques for ARIA technology.
- 17:01:54 [Wayne]
- james: They would probably say we have no time. If someone had interest.
- 17:02:41 [Wayne]
- MichaelC: We need to note that WCAG cannot maintain this, but other groups do not have similar priority.
- 17:03:04 [Mike_Elledge]
- q+
- 17:03:21 [Wayne]
- josh: The thing is work in general, but there are problems with details.
- 17:03:55 [Wayne]
- ... we don't want to create documents that address Firefox X and Jaws Y.
- 17:04:15 [Wayne]
- james: Maybe we should just chop the old versions.
- 17:05:10 [Wayne]
- AWK: Our options are: say sorry cannot do it or ask ARIA WG to do it, or to have some people do the work to review it.
- 17:06:02 [Wayne]
- ... The task can be much larger. ... We know there is a depth we are going to address. How do we do this in general.
- 17:06:28 [MichaelC]
- q+
- 17:06:43 [Joshue108]
- ack marc
- 17:06:49 [Joshue108]
- ack mike
- 17:07:22 [Wayne]
- mikeE: Maybe we should make a link to some active links that keep track of this, or is it vendor preference?
- 17:07:41 [AWK]
- ack mich
- 17:07:52 [Joshue108]
- ack mich
- 17:10:06 [laura]
- Powermapper people: http://www.powermapper.com/company/people/
- 17:10:21 [laura]
- Mark Rogers, CEO
- 17:10:21 [Wayne]
- MichaelC: We have strayed into a recurrent discussion. The accessibility support DB is supposed to be current. We might look to off source. We shouldn't make a pointer casually. But this is possible. I don't a vender question. We cannot say you must use this. We've given up on keepping up but here are some options.
- 17:10:27 [MichaelC]
- 503 on https://www.w3.org/WAI/accessibility-support/
- 17:11:27 [Wayne]
- AWK: Does anyone on the call thinks the update ARIA is in the top 5 of things to do. Does anyone want to allocate any time.
- 17:11:52 [Wayne]
- ... My gut is we are not going to do anything about this.
- 17:13:07 [Wayne]
- MichaelC: If you want a change please submit a pull request. Get that out there. This is a public forum.
- 17:13:26 [Wayne]
- AWK: Can you submit a pull request.
- 17:14:06 [Wayne]
- RESOLUTION: Leave this one open.
- 17:14:19 [AWK]
- Zakim, close this item
- 17:14:19 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 closed
- 17:14:20 [Zakim]
- I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
- 17:14:20 [Zakim]
- 4. • Github issues walkthru. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Joshue108]
- 17:14:23 [AWK]
- Zakim, next item
- 17:14:23 [Zakim]
- agendum 4. "• Github issues walkthru. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues" taken up [from Joshue108]
- 17:16:28 [Wayne]
- AWK: I hope people feel encourages, but I am not sure if the know how.
- 17:20:53 [Wayne]
- Kathy: Should we get rid of HTML stuff should be a NO answere.
- 17:21:07 [Wayne]
- s/answere/answer/
- 17:23:01 [Wayne]
- AWK: I there anyone on the call who can give any time to any issues?
- 17:23:27 [David]
- David has joined #wai-wcag
- 17:23:36 [Wayne]
- AWK: Could everyone look at the list and take them on.
- 17:23:47 [David]
- regrets... I have to teach today.... on lunch now
- 17:24:42 [Mike_Elledge]
- bye all!
- 17:25:00 [Sarah_Swierenga]
- have a good week. bye
- 17:25:05 [Wayne]
- trackbot, draft minutes
- 17:25:05 [trackbot]
- Sorry, Wayne, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
- 17:25:17 [Wayne]
- trackbot, end meeting
- 17:25:17 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 17:25:17 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Jan, Rakesh, Eric,
- 17:25:20 [Zakim]
- ... LisaS, Kathy, David_MacDonald, Joshue108, Srini, EricE, marcjohlic, adam_solomon, Greg_Lowney
- 17:25:25 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 17:25:25 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
- 17:25:26 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 17:25:26 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items