15:43:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:43:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-wai-wcag-irc
15:43:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:43:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:43:32 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:43:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:43:33 <trackbot> Date: 23 February 2016
15:43:52 <AWK> Chair: AWK
15:44:04 <AWK> agenda+  Techniques and Understanding Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Feb2016TandU/results
15:44:19 <AWK> agenda+ Low Vision TF update (Jim Allan/AWK)
15:44:30 <AWK> agenda+ WCAG2FAQ review request: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html (volunteers needed)
15:44:49 <AWK> agenda+ Extension document issues (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20160223/results, list discussion on 2.2)
15:45:02 <AWK> agenda+ Dpub review (http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/)
15:45:12 <AWK> agenda+ QuickRef update (Eric)
15:47:31 <AWK> Zakim, the agenda order is 6, 1-5
15:47:31 <Zakim> ok, AWK
15:47:37 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:47:37 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:47:38 <Zakim> 6. QuickRef update (Eric) [from AWK]
15:47:38 <Zakim> 1. Techniques and Understanding Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Feb2016TandU/results [from AWK]
15:47:38 <Zakim> 2. Low Vision TF update (Jim Allan/AWK) [from AWK]
15:47:39 <Zakim> 3. WCAG2FAQ review request: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html (volunteers needed) [from AWK]
15:47:39 <Zakim> 4. Extension document issues (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20160223/results, list discussion on 2.2) [from AWK]
15:47:39 <Zakim> 5. Dpub review (http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/) [from AWK]
15:54:21 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:25 <_665> _665 has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:13 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:28 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:48 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:54 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:28 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:09 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:17 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:19 <JF> Present+ JF
16:03:29 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:03:37 <JF> agenda?
16:03:41 <laura> present+ Laura
16:03:48 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:49 <AWK> +AWK
16:03:52 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
16:03:54 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:03:58 <alastairc> present+ AlastairC
16:04:30 <yatil> present+ EricE
16:04:58 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
16:05:10 <Jan> Jan has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> present+ Sarah_Swierenga
16:05:53 <SarahHorton_> SarahHorton_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:34 <SarahHorton_> SarahHorton_ has left #wai-wcag
16:07:21 <SarahHorton_> SarahHorton_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:37 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Introduction of Rikash
16:07:59 <AWK> s/Rikash/Rakesh
16:08:30 <Mike_Elledge> Rikash: Working on Deque India team. 8 years accessibility. Have written ally blogs.
16:08:32 <_665> Present + Kim Dirks
16:08:46 <JF> s/Rikash/Rakesh
16:08:54 <Mike_Elledge> Rakesh: Thank you John for helping me join.
16:08:57 <AWK> Zakim, list attendees
16:08:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Michael_Cooper, Alastair_Campbell, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kim_Dirks, Laura_Carlson, Lisa_Seeman,
16:09:01 <Zakim> ... Mike_Elledge, Moe_Kraft, Rakesh_Paladugula, Sarah_Horton, Wayne_Dick, MoeKraft, David, AWK, marcjohlic, JamesNurthen, JF, Joshue108, jon_avila, AlastairC, EricE, Elledge,
16:09:01 <Zakim> ... Sarah_Swierenga
16:09:02 <laura> Welcome, Rakesh!
16:09:12 <allanj> present +JimAllan
16:09:35 <Mike_Elledge> Rakesh: Blog: www.maxability.co.in
16:10:29 <AWK> Zakim, next item
16:10:29 <Zakim> agendum 6. "QuickRef update (Eric)" taken up [from AWK]
16:10:33 <Mike_Elledge> zakim
16:10:41 <yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize
16:10:58 <Srini> Srini has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:16 <rakesh> rakesh has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:19 <Srini> Srini+
16:11:25 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:33 <AWK> Zakim, list attendees
16:11:33 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Michael_Cooper, Alastair_Campbell, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kim_Dirks, Laura_Carlson, Lisa_Seeman,
16:11:36 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:37 <Zakim> ... Mike_Elledge, Moe_Kraft, Rakesh_Paladugula, Sarah_Horton, Wayne_Dick, MoeKraft, David, AWK, marcjohlic, JamesNurthen, JF, Joshue108, jon_avila, AlastairC, EricE, Elledge,
16:11:37 <Zakim> ... Sarah_Swierenga
16:11:47 <Srini> Rakesh's blog is http://maxability.co.in
16:11:47 <AWK> +Srini
16:12:02 <Mike_Elledge> Eric: Quick update. QuickRef. Another UI (see link above) revision, checkboxes for activities referenced with relevant text. Now getting into final version. Please take a look and let me
16:12:16 <JF> Q+
16:12:30 <AWK> ack j
16:12:34 <Mike_Elledge> Eric: know if anything is missing in Techniques. Almost ready for final approval.
16:12:50 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Eric, what is the timeline for release?
16:13:05 <Mike_Elledge> Eric: This is the ally space, want to have ready for CSUN.
16:14:09 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Comments so far that is much better than before, but take a look. Hopefully can get it approved for CSUN.
16:14:18 <Joshue108> q?
16:14:26 <Mike_Elledge> Zakim, close item 1
16:14:26 <Zakim> agendum 1, Techniques and Understanding Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Feb2016TandU/results, closed
16:14:28 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:14:28 <Zakim> 6. QuickRef update (Eric) [from AWK]
16:14:42 <Mike_Elledge> Zakim, next item
16:14:42 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Low Vision TF update (Jim Allan/AWK)" taken up [from AWK]
16:15:01 <JF> agenda+ Techniques and Understanding Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Feb2016TandU/results, closed
16:15:21 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Low vision task force. Jim Allan?
16:16:09 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Jt task force betw uag and wcag, now just wcag. First public working draft. Grinding through process. Will be out soon. Open items being worked on. Legibility, readability, etc.
16:17:03 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Seems narrowly focus, see if can bring in more issues. Will continue working on User Requirements, then SCs. Applaud Cognitive task force and Mobile efforts and will watch
16:17:54 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Will have separate documents with research, rather than TR process. Many things user requirements that relate to user settings, somewhat different than what WCAG may be used to.
16:18:13 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Things that browsers should be doing to give users control over their environment.
16:18:54 <laura> http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html
16:19:34 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Process of LV task force is very deliberate, separating out the pieces. 1) user requirements, 2) identifying difference between WCAG and user needs (50 found, 33 addressed in WCAG),
16:20:06 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: then 3) identifying SC to meet those needs. Currently at 1) and working on draft
16:20:36 <JF> Q+
16:20:38 <Mike_Elledge> JA: May do difference check with WCAG to see what's there. When get set will move forward.
16:20:45 <AWK> ack j
16:21:32 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Difference (delta) with UAG. UAG has had tepid response from mfrs. If they don't respond, are you looking at alternatives?
16:21:52 <AWK> s/UAG/UAAG
16:22:19 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Not yet. But as a community thing don't want authors to modify their interfaces in 000's of ways. The browser folks need to step up.
16:22:32 <Mike_Elledge> JF: If they dont', maybe create a library?
16:23:25 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Extension set was hopeful, but then Firefox changed and extensions went away. Hope Google will continue to add ally extensions. A good idea. Maybe a universal extension language wld help.
16:24:35 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Will next see first public working draft for Low Vision group. Will tell group.
16:24:44 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Hope to have it by CSUN.
16:25:10 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, next item
16:25:10 <Zakim> agendum 3. "WCAG2FAQ review request: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html (volunteers needed)" taken up [from AWK]
16:25:34 <yatil> agenda?
16:25:47 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, take up item 7
16:25:47 <Zakim> agendum 7. "Techniques and Understanding Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Feb2016TandU/results, closed" taken up [from JF]
16:26:39 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: 7 approves, no disapproves. Mark had comment. Typo item.
16:27:10 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: It should say jan 6, 2015. Will check with MC and ask him to update.
16:27:28 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Any other comments or thoughts?
16:27:50 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Any objections to publishing?
16:28:20 <Mike_Elledge> RESOLUTION: Working group approves Techniques and Understanding document.
16:28:49 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Will go out for final review and then after two days will be published.
16:29:21 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Have built in more time to schedule so will be in time for CSUN. To preserve MC sanity.
16:29:42 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Will be sent out for Call for Consensus.
16:29:50 <AWK> zakim, close item 7
16:29:50 <Zakim> agendum 7, Techniques and Understanding Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Feb2016TandU/results, closed, closed
16:29:52 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:29:52 <Zakim> 3. WCAG2FAQ review request: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html (volunteers needed) [from AWK]
16:29:52 <Mike_Elledge> Zakim, take up item 3
16:29:53 <Zakim> agendum 3. "WCAG2FAQ review request: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html (volunteers needed)" taken up [from AWK]
16:30:29 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: If you haven't seen page, there is a WCAG FAQ. July 2013 was last update.
16:31:22 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:31:35 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Not our first priority, but if anyone wants to make comments or review please do. Revise or add information or clarify, please volunteer, or give informal feedback.
16:31:50 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Would like to have more up to date.
16:32:10 <Joshue108> q?
16:32:21 <Mike_Elledge> MK: Was curious where to send comments. Public Working Group address?
16:32:41 <MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016JanMar/0181.html
16:32:44 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Yes. Believe MC sent email out about it. Thursday, Feb 18th.
16:32:57 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:33:17 <Mike_Elledge> Zakim, next item
16:33:17 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Dpub review (http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/)" taken up [from AWK]
16:33:18 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:33:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:34:25 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Call for review. Digital Pub group has done work, digital ally and wants feedback from working group on Github. Would like to have couple of people to review.
16:34:44 <MoeKraft> q+
16:34:52 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Not worried about massive problems, but always good to look it over.
16:35:00 <AWK> ack moe
16:35:26 <Mike_Elledge> MK: Getting a 404 error. Extra set of quotes?
16:35:36 <AWK> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/
16:35:46 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Good URL is above.
16:35:53 <laura> Wayne’s dPub Reccommendations: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/163 and related email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016JanMar/0240.html
16:35:59 <MoeKraft> thanks
16:36:10 <Mike_Elledge> JN: Different clients do different things, can cause problems.
16:36:41 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Any takers?
16:37:10 <Mike_Elledge> JF: What to do with footnotes, is one issue. David was working on that...
16:37:37 <Joshue108> Footnotes extension notes from Shane McCarron and David McD http://shane.spec-ops.io/notes/
16:37:41 <Srini> What's the expected timeline for this?
16:37:51 <Joshue108> Davids discussion paper http://davidmacd.com/blog/html51-footnotes.html
16:37:51 <Joshue108> 
16:38:07 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Alistar and Mike Elledge volunteered to look it over.
16:38:14 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Timeline?
16:38:36 <Mike_Elledge> JO: No real timeline. Just heads up.
16:38:39 <Srini> Thanks...
16:38:45 <Mike_Elledge> JF: They're anxiously eager.
16:38:52 <MoeKraft> q+
16:39:08 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Be brutally honest.
16:39:33 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Any review is better than none.
16:39:53 <AWK> ack m
16:39:53 <Joshue108> ack mo
16:40:15 <Mike_Elledge> MK: Wayne has put feedback in Github. How do you want feedback?
16:40:55 <JF> +1 to the fact that feedback is more valuable than how it is delivered
16:41:06 <Joshue108> public-digipub@w3.org
16:41:26 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Up to whomever looks at it. If email is easier we will forward to them. If put in Github pls send follow-up note to rest of group. See dpub email address above.
16:41:37 <Mike_Elledge> Zakim, next item
16:41:37 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, Mike_Elledge
16:41:47 <AWK> Zakim, agenda
16:41:47 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', AWK
16:41:49 <JF> agenda?
16:41:50 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
16:41:51 <Zakim> I see nothing remaining on the agenda
16:41:52 <jamesn> zakim, agenda?
16:41:52 <Zakim> I see nothing remaining on the agenda
16:42:18 <Mike_Elledge> Zakim, take up item 4
16:42:18 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Extension document issues (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20160223/results, list discussion on 2.2)" taken up [from AWK]
16:42:24 <AWK> agenda+ Extension document issues (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20160223/results, list discussion on 2.2)
16:42:31 <AWK> zakim, next item
16:42:31 <Zakim> agendum 4 was just opened, AWK
16:43:48 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Survey with some results. Comments from Gregg. Some responses back. Accept responses as written (6). Some of concern from Gregg that doc is not aware of things that it should be.
16:44:38 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: While worthwhile concern, can provide messaging outside of doc itself. Lots of Wcag that needs to be reviewed wrt to this, but don't need to put in document itself.
16:44:52 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Any objections to accepting responses as offered?
16:44:58 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Okay.
16:45:08 <Mike_Elledge> RESOLUTION: Accepted as proposed.
16:45:51 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Current discussion with respect to 2.2. New thread started up. But want to get to point where we can publish Requirements doc.
16:46:00 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Struggling with 2.2.
16:46:09 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-ext-req/#ensure-that-web-pages-which-conform-to-wcag-2.0-with-an-extension-also-conform-to-wcag-2.0-on-its-own
16:46:51 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about confounding issues
16:47:17 <alastairc> q+ wondering how you modify without undermining.
16:47:22 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Thought we were in agreement, that specs may add SC, modify existing SC, may also change level of SC from A to AA, but not AA To A.
16:47:31 <alastairc> q+
16:47:42 <JF> Q+
16:47:43 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Must be same or higher level.
16:48:14 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Struggling on how to number, interplay of multiple extensions. Need agreement and clarity.
16:48:21 <Joshue108> ack mic
16:48:21 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about confounding issues
16:48:56 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Think discussion has confounded issues. Would like to separate them. Numbering is separate from how WCAG reqs can be modified.
16:49:51 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Adopt a rule not to modify by saying how to reword it. Instead say "same as it is, ratehr than" so it's a wording change. May help to accommodate multiple extensions.
16:50:19 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Don't want to revise core. Also discussion got hung up on numbering. Will go back to that later.
16:50:21 <AWK> ack al
16:50:21 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about numbering
16:51:06 <JF> The text in question is this:
16:51:06 <AWK> ack j
16:51:06 <Mike_Elledge> AC: If page conforms to wCAg 2 how can it be modified. Additional by don't see how it can modify them.
16:51:08 <JF> An existing success criterion may change in priority from a lower level to a higher level, but not the other way around. For example, a Level A Success Criteria cannot move to Level AA. A new success criterion may be added. Existing success criterion may be modified, but the resulting change must still satisfy WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
16:52:42 <Mike_Elledge> JF:  Lower level to higher level: +1, may be added: +1, but problem may be modifying SC. If it is modified it is a new SC. If can use it as dividing line, 3rd point becomes moot.
16:53:00 <AWK> ack mi
16:53:00 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about numbering
16:53:01 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Alistar summed it up well. Either one or the other.
16:53:28 <Joshue108> q?
16:53:29 <MichaelC> q+
16:54:31 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Thought experiment. Primary example ahs been changing contrast ratio. First 4.5:1, then follow extension to 3:1. An extra cognitive step in what I need to do. Simpler to declare conformance is 3:1.
16:55:01 <Joshue108> +q to talk about modification of SCs really being a new SC
16:55:17 <AWK> s/3:1/5:1
16:55:26 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Already have examples wehre new SC follows that has stricter requirement. Minimum contrast (AA), then stricter criteria (AAA). Same with text.
16:55:29 <MichaelC> ack me
16:56:19 <JF> Q+
16:56:44 <Joshue108> I also dont think they should map too explicitly to any TF either. I've concerns about that.
16:56:45 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Numbering: First, do not think we should number extension same as SC. Extension SC should be in own scheme to avoid confusion. Each extension needs handle, like COGA 1.1.
16:57:01 <JF> Q+ to strongly disagree with Michael's suggestion
16:57:14 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Can explore both options of changing SC and adding new SC if approach it that way.
16:57:24 <AWK> ack joshue
16:57:24 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about modification of SCs really being a new SC
16:57:36 <AWK> q+
16:57:41 <yatil> s/COGA 1.1./COGA 1.1.1/
16:58:31 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Disagree with that. Already have hard time getting ppl to do AAA. So having COGA, Mobile, LV in separate docs will lead to mess.
16:58:46 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Sounds like objection to Extension, ratehr than numbering scheme.
16:59:20 <MichaelC> q+ to say how HTML extensions differ from WCAG extensions
16:59:57 <Joshue108> ack me
17:00:03 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Are we going to say WCAG + mobile + LV + COGA, how will anyone follow that? Opposed to keeping them in separate docs. Especially since wcag wants to promote universal design.
17:01:12 <jon_avila> When the mobile TF note used different numbering from the WCAG guidelines numbers there was much confusion.  So I'd recommend at very least putting the relevant SC into the existing guidelines, 1,2,3,4, etc.
17:01:27 <Mike_Elledge> JO: John hear what you're saying. But to address first things first. UD is aspirational, and requires wading in the mud. Devil is in the details. Implementing this in the world, extensions is kind of an experiment.
17:01:58 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Exploratory. Hope will lead to a great WCAG Next. Have concerns about terra levels?
17:02:07 <MichaelC> q+ to say concerns about extension ghettoization are about whether to have extensions, not how to have them
17:02:37 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Maybe modification needs clarification. Some extensions could modify current WCAG SC, so should be new SC.
17:02:47 <JF> ack JF
17:02:47 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to strongly disagree with Michael's suggestion
17:02:57 <AWK> ack me
17:03:03 <Joshue108> ack awk
17:03:22 <AWK> ack mi
17:03:22 <MichaelC> ack me
17:03:22 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say how HTML extensions differ from WCAG extensions and to say concerns about extension ghettoization are about whether to have extensions, not how to have
17:03:25 <Zakim> ... them
17:04:11 <Mike_Elledge> MC: 2 pts. First, thml attribute. One key difference is that you can create extensions in HTML5. WCAG does not say that. So have to have conformance plus extension.
17:04:17 <JF> Q+
17:04:21 <Joshue108> q+ regarding the attribute that dare not speak its name that was related more to validation requirements
17:04:22 <AWK> q+ to say that there are other numbering possibilities that are not specific to disability groups or even to individual TFs
17:04:33 <Joshue108> q+ to say regarding the attribute that dare not speak its name that was related more to validation requirements
17:04:41 <AWK> s/thml/HTML
17:04:50 <Joshue108> q-
17:05:02 <yatil> q+ to say either WCAG 2.0 or WCAG 2.0 with all extensions – WCAG 2.0E
17:05:08 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Also lots of policy that can't disturb. Therefore extensions have to be optional. Ghetto-ization is a concern. Possible that there will be cherry-picking. For some a way toget things out there, for others
17:05:27 <AWK> ack jf
17:05:28 <Mike_Elledge> MC: ghetto-ization. Want to separate conversations.
17:06:13 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Aware of politics of disturbing WCAG 2.0 But if bringing forward SC criteria, which is what we're talking about; new or fine-tune to make things better. WCAG 2.0 seems like an
17:07:22 <AWK> ack me
17:07:22 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that there are other numbering possibilities that are not specific to disability groups or even to individual TFs
17:07:23 <MichaelC> q+ to explore monolithic revision-extension vs piecemeal extension plus version update
17:07:26 <Mike_Elledge> JF: impenetrable document. If SC comes forward and we're in agreement, goes into extension document that's part of WCAG 2.0, so there is one document, and not different ones from groups.
17:07:39 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
17:08:06 <Joshue108> q+ to say I don't understand why its a disaster the TFs are working from the basis of user needs
17:08:17 <JF> +1 to the concern around forking
17:08:23 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: There is concern about how things are numbered. JF concern is most impactful about daily use of documents. Linear growth as opposed to forking specs through ppls option to conform to one
17:08:34 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: extension or another.
17:09:06 <JF> Q+
17:09:07 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Are there problems with that. Effectively a WCAG 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 or something different?
17:09:22 <Joshue108> q+ what form the extensions take may not be explicitly mapped to TFs. They will ideally be generic especially when there is overlap
17:09:24 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Like the idea, but want to make sure it isn't problematic.
17:09:24 <yatil> ack me
17:09:24 <Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say either WCAG 2.0 or WCAG 2.0 with all extensions – WCAG 2.0E
17:09:30 <Joshue108> q+ to say  what form the extensions take may not be explicitly mapped to TFs. They will ideally be generic especially when there is overlap
17:10:11 <Joshue108> q+ to say people do cheery pick already WCAG AAA anyone?
17:10:29 <Mike_Elledge> Eric: Share John's concerns. Don't want cherrypicking. Conform to all extensions, or none. Like one document suggestion. Another possibility to re-release WCAG 2.0, similar to HTML5,
17:10:37 <MichaelC> q+ to say cannot change WCAG 2.0; can only do a version update
17:10:41 <MichaelC> ack me
17:10:41 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to explore monolithic revision-extension vs piecemeal extension plus version update and to say cannot change WCAG 2.0; can only do a version update
17:10:50 <Mike_Elledge> Eric: so ppl can conform to one or other.
17:11:48 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Cannot release WCAG 2.0 with extension clause. Only can release new WCAG 2.0. Would thrown W3C processes into sea. Maybe preferable to release new WCAG, but that's what it is.
17:13:01 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Want specific groups to be able to get new advice quickly. Also talking about WCAG 2.1 that includes them. Have to look at combined extension. Publish individually or combined. Doesn't seem
17:13:06 <Joshue108> ack me
17:13:06 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say I don't understand why its a disaster the TFs are working from the basis of user needs and to say  what form the extensions take may not be explicitly
17:13:09 <Zakim> ... mapped to TFs. They will ideally be generic especially when there is overlap and to say people do cheery pick already WCAG AAA anyone?
17:13:19 <Mike_Elledge> MC: much difference to me. But may have impact on timing.
17:14:24 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Don't understand why it's disaster to address user needs. Want to find mapping between groups, but may apply to more than one task force. More generic the extensions the better.
17:14:42 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Ppl already cherry pick already.
17:14:44 <AWK> ack jf
17:14:50 <Joshue108> q?
17:14:53 <jon_avila> q?
17:16:11 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Whether one document or individual publications. From conformance standpoint, referring to one document is easier. When company comes to us, want to be able to say "Conform to WCAG 2.0". Think everyone is looking for us to move toward 2.1.
17:16:31 <SarahHorton> +1
17:16:43 <Joshue108> q+
17:16:53 <MichaelC> q+ to say I don' t personally differentiate between "1" and "more than 1"
17:17:03 <Joshue108> ack me
17:17:22 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Tech changes, things overlooked in 2.0. Until ready to publish 2.1, why not release updates? Can be in conformance to either. Conformance referencing is difficult with multiple docs.
17:17:50 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Great to be able to say 2.1. Reality is it won't go any faster.
17:18:05 <Mike_Elledge> JF: If we don't start working on it will wind up with another 508.
17:18:20 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Are working on it. Incremental changes don't go fast.
17:19:06 <Mike_Elledge> JF: May get some conflicting guidance. Color contrast ratio to 5:1. Then LV task force said, no, need to allow to be less contrast.
17:19:24 <MichaelC> q+ to poll how many people are concerned about extension proliferation
17:19:49 <Mike_Elledge> JF: So okay with TF coming forward with different extensions, then this task force's respons to sort through it.
17:20:01 <Mike_Elledge> JO: How different from now?
17:20:17 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Ghetto-ization from particular task force docs.
17:20:42 <AWK> ack mich
17:20:42 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I don' t personally differentiate between "1" and "more than 1" and to poll how many people are concerned about extension proliferation
17:20:43 <Mike_Elledge> JO: But haven't decided that. Need to generalize extensions.
17:21:38 <JF> Q+ to say that the problem is with conformance reporting
17:21:38 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Don't see diff betw 1 and more than 1. Single monolithic extension doesn't make logical sense. If want to do one extension, should do 2.1. If want to do incrementally, have to have multicple extensions.
17:22:09 <Jan> q+
17:22:29 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Either will have some conflict, or say extensions not working for us. Want to have more input from ppl on call. Thought we had agreed to idea of extensions.
17:22:38 <AWK> ack jan
17:23:01 <Greg> q+
17:23:06 <alastairc> q+
17:23:06 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Think we should keep going with extensions. An experimentation effort. Get that have to be careful with numbering. But focused efforts is a good idea.
17:23:07 <Srini> If we agree to go with extensions, we need to make sure we don't call them "optional" that would be ddangerous
17:23:40 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
17:23:42 <Mike_Elledge> JF: MC think I Answered why concerend with 1 vs. more than 1. Conformance reporting.
17:24:02 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Once say Wcag plus extensions is just as complex.
17:24:12 <Jan> JR: Think we should keep going with extensions. An experimentation effort. Get that have to be careful with numbering. But focused efforts is a good idea.
17:24:21 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Simpler to say "WCAG plus extensions".
17:24:34 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Rather than daisy-chaining.
17:24:42 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Real world problem.
17:25:40 <JF> ack JF
17:25:40 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that the problem is with conformance reporting
17:25:45 <Mike_Elledge> Greg: Whether extensions are right way to go. Depends on what you want extensions to be. Three approaches: 1) udpate doc for new technologies, 2) make corrections and 3) address needs of specific populations.
17:25:48 <AWK> ack g
17:26:43 <Mike_Elledge> Greg: Example: Document explicitly for ppl who are blind. They are fundamentally different. How to define extension depends on how want them to be used.
17:27:02 <SarahHorton> q+
17:27:05 <Mike_Elledge> Greg: Maybe we're ahead of ourselves in trying how to define how they will be used.
17:27:30 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Have a problem with that approach.
17:28:01 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Can see how a problem if it is Coga vs. LV, less problem with Mobile. Don't want wcag for different ppl.
17:28:30 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Everyone is having a hard time figuring this out and we're experts. How do we expect others to deal iwth it.
17:28:35 <AWK> zakim, close queue
17:28:35 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed
17:28:58 <Mike_Elledge> JO: I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. How we do this will need to be addressed.
17:29:21 <Greg> To clarify what I was saying, it might be ahead of ourselves in trying to define framework for extensions without a clear understanding of what types of extensions we want to support. Of the three potential types of extensions I listed, we have to decide which of those, or others, we do or don't want to support. That can help narrow the scope and complexity of the extensions framework.
17:29:24 <JF> +1 to training issues as well
17:29:35 <Mike_Elledge> Alistar: Also have concerns if got to point of Conformance reporting with Wcag plus. Don't have problem with user-centered groups.
17:29:54 <Joshue108> q?
17:30:04 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Packaging is important.
17:30:04 <Joshue108> ack al
17:30:43 <Joshue108> +1 to Sarah
17:30:53 <JF> +1 to Sarah
17:31:33 <Mike_Elledge> Sarah: Agree with concerns with extensions being identified with particular disabilities. Task forces makes sense. Also agree with JF that document can be used to address particular issues. Extensions may be problematic term. How about Expansions?
17:31:52 <jon_avila> q?
17:32:03 <Joshue108> ack sar
17:33:07 <Mike_Elledge> AWK: Most of points we're talking about can go in different directions. Need to find a way to finalize requirmenbts document. Continue to discuss on list. Josh and I will talk about it. Continue discussion on list.
17:33:39 <Mike_Elledge> trackbot end meeting.
17:33:39 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:33:39 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Michael_Cooper, Alastair_Campbell, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kim_Dirks, Laura_Carlson, Lisa_Seeman,
17:33:42 <Zakim> ... Mike_Elledge, Moe_Kraft, Rakesh_Paladugula, Sarah_Horton, Wayne_Dick, MoeKraft, David, AWK, marcjohlic, JamesNurthen, JF, Joshue108, jon_avila, AlastairC, EricE, Elledge,
17:33:42 <Zakim> ... Sarah_Swierenga, Srini
17:33:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:33:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:33:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:33:48 <RRSAgent> I see no action items