12:51:13 RRSAgent has joined #wcagnext 12:51:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/18-wcagnext-irc 12:51:28 Zakim has joined #wcagnext 12:51:43 meeting: WCAG 2 Next 12:51:49 chair: John 12:52:02 agenda+ Introductions (5 minutes) 12:52:14 agenda+ Level Set (5 minutes) 12:53:04 agenda+ What Models do we think we have? (20 minutes) (worksheet -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models) 12:53:35 agenda+ Readiness states by TF (20 minutes) 12:54:53 agenda+ Socialization & Feedback/Comments (20 minutes) 12:55:04 agenda+ Next Steps (10 minutes) 12:57:20 present+ EricE_IRC_Only 12:58:24 present+ jeanne 13:01:20 JF has joined #wcagnext 13:01:50 AWK has joined #WCAGnext 13:03:50 agenda? 13:06:34 SarahHorton has joined #WCAGnext 13:08:21 Scribe: AWK 13:08:35 Zakim, take up item 1 13:08:35 agendum 1. "Introductions (5 minutes)" taken up [from jeanne] 13:08:40 John Foliot 13:10:59 present+ GreggV, Jason, Katie 13:11:08 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:11:08 Present: EricE_IRC_Only, jeanne, GreggV, Jason, Katie 13:11:28 present+ John. Sarah. AWK 13:12:05 AWK_ has joined #WCAGnext 13:12:29 Gregg Vaderheiden, past co-chair and Trace Center 13:12:39 s/Vaderheiden/Vanderheiden 13:12:58 Katie Haritos-Shea, member of WCAG, Deque 13:13:08 Sarah Horton, new to WCAG group, works for TPG 13:13:23 Jason White, past member and co-chair of WCAG, now at ETS 13:13:29 Zakim, close item 1 13:13:29 agendum 1, Introductions (5 minutes), closed 13:13:30 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 13:13:30 2. Level Set (5 minutes) [from jeanne] 13:13:37 Zakim, take up item 2 13:13:37 Ryladog has joined #wcagnext 13:13:37 agendum 2. "Level Set (5 minutes)" taken up [from jeanne] 13:14:08 JF: Goal to review ideas for next, short-term version of WCAG 13:14:23 JF: 3 TFs so far, work progressing quickly 13:14:32 ... already seeing proposed SC's 13:14:46 ... what to do with that info, how to keep WCAG relevant 13:15:17 ... how to fit into context of WAI 3.0/WAI 2020 or whatever is in the more-distant future 13:16:00 Kim Dirks from Thompson-Reuters joins call. She is an attorney working with the UX team on the policy side of accessibility 13:17:19 JF: there is also authoring tools and user agent working group content that may need to be integrated down the road 13:17:36 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next#Agenda 13:17:57 q+ 13:18:21 JW: seems to be two elements. making sure that SC from TFs are clear and can work together and then creating a normative extension from that content 13:18:42 q+ 13:19:08 KHS: TF's have been not wanting triple-A for SCs 13:19:44 ... we do need to look at two pieces 13:20:04 ... get published as either a 2.1, or 13:20:13 ... as a possible future version 13:21:11 q+ Gregg 13:21:16 ack r 13:21:18 ack me 13:21:38 AK: current charter is for normative extensions to WCAG 2.0 13:21:55 hearing concerns around the extension model 13:22:10 work continues: identify gaps and work happening to address those gaps 13:22:31 q+ to speak to the experience of writing Extensions and the problems we are experiencing. 13:22:50 the question is: what are pros and cons of extensions, what do they look like, etc. 13:23:06 TFs are producing gap analysis and identifying new SC 13:23:15 agenda? 13:23:23 WCAG WG needs to look at thaat work, and how to integrate 13:23:57 AK: we need to look at A, AA, and AAA, and ensure that we get those right (on new SC) 13:24:07 Q+ 13:24:19 AWK: We have received feedback around concerns for the current extension model 13:24:21 ack GR 13:24:32 ... We are pursuing work on extensions still, which includes identifying gaps in WCAG 2.0 and new success criteria to address the gaps 13:24:41 ... We are also evaluating the pros and cons around what the extensions need to look like, whether as single-topic extensions, a "group" extension that combines new content from different TF's, or an update to WCAG 2.0 (WCAG 2.1) 13:24:51 GV: Consensus is critically important 13:25:09 ... level-setting for SC's is difficult 13:25:59 ... in WCAG 2.0 work some people wanted two levels (A=current A+AA and AA=current AAA). This didn't work 13:26:22 <_665> _665 has joined #WCAGnext 13:26:43 ... what can be consensed on is different from what everyone wants in many cases 13:27:17 ... some items worked well for one group but not another, or worked well in some contexts but not all 13:27:43 ... lots of factors 13:28:09 ... we would like to see more requirements in more places, but needed to be careful about losing consensus 13:28:16 Q? 13:28:55 ... we are still looking backward and it is good to hear that this is running parallel with a future major version also 13:29:33 Q+ Jason 13:30:43 JF: On monday Sarah H also wanted to step back to see the big picture. That is important but there is a more immediate need to address the TF content. 13:31:31 ... Mobile work is getting mature. Focusing on touch more than "mobile" 13:31:59 ... this work is to address the gap before the next major update 13:32:15 ... don't see as looking back so much as looking around the current room 13:32:18 ack je 13:32:18 jeanne, you wanted to speak to the experience of writing Extensions and the problems we are experiencing. 13:32:36 JS: perspective of person working on extension 13:32:52 ... more and more convinced that the extension model will fail 13:33:05 ... lots of issues that suggest that we need to look at WCAG 13:33:25 ... for example with hybrid apps (mobile app with HTML core and native wrapper) 13:33:49 ... definition of web content requires http and that can be a problem 13:34:03 ... in touch interface we are dealing with issues of swipe traps 13:34:15 ... AT users can't return to main content or progress 13:34:19 Q+ GreggV 13:34:38 ... should we expand "no kybd trap" to "no navigation trap"? 13:34:53 ... extension model is going to be limiting 13:34:59 ack JF 13:35:09 Ack Jason 13:35:38 Q+ 13:35:43 Ryladog_ has joined #wcagnext 13:35:54 JW: sounds like the process would be better if we could extend but also clarify and consolidate at the same time 13:36:03 ... also interested in long-term view 13:36:20 ... not interested in short-term problems 13:36:48 ... another question to raise: what is the conformance approach going to be for extensions? 13:37:26 ... what if conform to WCAG extensions? how does that work? 13:37:54 ... if we published a revision of WCAG 2.0 (2.1) how would the conformance topic be updated? 13:38:20 ... would impact policies, evaluation tools, etc as well 13:38:40 JF: right, that's the point of the call. lots to figure out 13:39:08 JF: the possibility of daisy-chaining extension conformance claims is a concern 13:40:10 GV: opening WCAG back up = 3-5 years 13:40:21 ... consensus timeframe is very long 13:40:43 q+ 13:41:41 AWK has joined #wcagnext 13:41:46 ... heard talk about putting extensions together into one extension 13:42:04 ... very concerned about opening WCAG back up 13:42:39 ... we might be looking at 1000 comments and it takes a ton of time 13:42:41 Q? 13:42:48 q+ to comment on the WCAG 2 errata, as another layer which is what Gregg is getting to I think 13:42:50 ack GreggV 13:42:50 ... the extension model allows the group to focus 13:43:49 JF: Points raised are in scope 13:43:56 ... need to move forward somehow 13:44:09 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models 13:45:06 ... the notion of extending WCAG is not defined - what does it mean/look like to extend it? 13:45:23 zakim, take up next 13:45:23 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jeanne 13:45:45 zakim, close this item 13:45:45 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jeanne 13:46:09 ... concerns about "WCAG 2.0 + LV Extension" vs "WCAG 2.0 + mobile Extension" vs "WCAG 2.0 + LV and Cognitive extensions" 13:46:57 ... another model is to have a WCAG 2.1 where the delta from 2.0 to 2.1 is the work from one or more task force 13:47:47 ... last model is 2.1 by date - everything that is ready by #/##/2017 is in 2.1, etc (date not significant) 13:48:13 ... the idea is that dates get fixed in the schedule, like we do currently for techniques updates 13:48:22 q? 13:48:28 ack jf 13:48:31 ack awk 13:48:34 Q+ Gregg 13:49:34 jasonjgw has joined #wcagnext 13:50:12 q+ 13:50:42 GV: haven't seen a standard where opening it up for an update doesn't open everything up for reconsideration. Will need to consider 13:51:14 q+ to discuss time-based "publish what can be condensed on" model 13:51:34 GV: re date-driven, two things. 13:52:02 ... consensus standards so can't publish without consensus so the dates can't be guaranteed 13:52:50 ... if there is a 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 then he wouldn't ever work on my site 13:53:22 ... take me to court and the judge would side with my not doing work 13:54:38 ack ry 13:54:38 Ryladog_, you wanted to comment on the WCAG 2 errata, as another layer which is what Gregg is getting to I think 13:55:04 KHS: the thing that we need to figure out is needing to deal with errata from 2.0 13:56:15 AWK: errata version is only editorial errata, shouldn't affect any of this 13:56:19 ack r 13:56:22 ack g 13:56:28 ack gre 13:56:35 Q+ 13:57:16 GV: people tend to do what they are required to do. Makes WCAG 2.2 become a level 3 13:57:38 q+ to address the "required" issue. 13:57:40 Q+ to differentiate between Guidelines and Legal requirements 13:58:12 agenda? 13:58:25 ... very concerned about the need to think about how different versions will or will not motivate site owners 13:59:23 ... want to avoid people feeling like their efforts to update WCAG don't have the desired effect 13:59:35 q+ 13:59:39 ... measure twice, cut once 14:00:07 ... consensus is ridiculously hard 14:01:08 ... full support for the goals, but concerned about process 14:01:10 ack jas 14:01:48 JW: main concern about extensions is that proposals come in at different times and that complicates consolidation efforts 14:02:45 ... if you want really good SC's then doing it on the basis of disability groups or topics won't work unless there can be a consolidated review process 14:03:01 ... the SC's will intersect with each other 14:03:44 ... TF's should create a good draft and then the main WG decides on how they all fit 14:04:04 <_665> q+ 14:04:12 ack AWK 14:04:12 AWK, you wanted to discuss time-based "publish what can be condensed on" model 14:04:59 <_665> (_ is Kim) 14:05:42 +1 to andrews concern 14:05:46 +1 to AWK concerns 14:07:25 Q? 14:07:56 AWK: staged evolution is what we are hoping to achieve. Worried about waiting for the time that all TF's have a finished draft. 14:08:01 ack JF' 14:08:04 ack JF 14:08:04 JF, you wanted to differentiate between Guidelines and Legal requirements 14:08:34 JF: we want to avoid the multi-year process where we respond to comments 14:09:05 ... want to avoid WCAG being the next section 508, with long delay from the time that it is needed vs when it is available 14:09:23 ... WCAG should more closely reflect the situation on the street 14:09:56 ... if there was a WCAG 2.1 in July 2017 (not a real date!) site owners wouldn't necessarily need to meet that 14:10:08 ... they could, and it would be the most current advice 14:10:12 ack je 14:10:12 jeanne, you wanted to address the "required" issue. 14:10:31 Zakim, _ is Kim 14:10:31 sorry, JF, I do not recognize a party named '_' 14:10:55 zakim, _665 is kim 14:10:55 sorry, JF, I do not recognize a party named '_665' 14:11:08 JS: proposing TF's coordinate with WCAG WG so that every time they finish a SC that they send it to the WG and other TFs for review 14:11:17 ... largely handled through surveys 14:11:32 ... allows WG to focus on WCAG next coversation 14:11:52 ... thinks that 2.x work should be in TFs 14:12:00 Q+ 14:12:08 (AWK disagrees) 14:12:25 q+ 14:12:30 JS: concerned that WCAG could spend a lot of time on 2.x when they need to work on longer term 14:12:42 (AWK agrees with that though) 14:12:51 ack sar 14:13:36 SH: wants to respond to assumptions about the broader look at WCAG 14:14:32 Q_ Gregg 14:14:39 Q+ Gregg 14:15:00 <_665> +1 Sarah 14:15:00 ... it can feel frustrating to take a step back and review/plan in a thorough way but it can make the overall effort faster in the end 14:15:27 +1 Sarah for the longterm WCAG next. 14:15:41 Zakim, _665 is Kim 14:15:41 sorry, AWK, I do not recognize a party named '_665' 14:16:06 Q? 14:16:26 zakim, _ is Kim 14:16:26 sorry, jeanne, I do not recognize a party named '_' 14:16:27 ... think that doing so will be helpful 14:16:34 Zakim, 665 is Kim 14:16:34 sorry, AWK, I do not recognize a party named '665' 14:16:40 ack _ 14:17:05 +1 Kim 14:17:18 Kim: we need to identify ways forward and making rules may help 14:17:31 ... don't disrupt TF work 14:17:35 ... keep moving forward 14:17:48 ... provide additional stable guidance 14:18:41 ... model I see is to phase the work. For example, the keyboard trap for mobile mentioned could add into an extension pile 14:19:53 ... might be a way to break ideas into extensions vs 3.0 14:19:59 ack JF 14:20:00 ack jas 14:20:01 ack jas 14:20:30 JW: (AWK missed this first point) 14:21:31 s/(AWK missed this first point)/ agree that the task forces should coordinate with each other 14:21:50 JW: some combination of coordinating among TFs and deciding on a consolidate release 14:22:07 ... conformance model is crucial 14:22:39 ... concerned about opening standard 14:23:10 Jeanne notes that if we get comments on 2.1 that really apply to WCAG 3.0, then those comments can be deferred to WCAG 3. 14:23:30 JF: agree that we need to get moving forward 14:24:29 ... original model is extensions based on TF's and that will create a ghettoization problem 14:24:38 ... need a model that doesn't do that 14:24:57 ... can we do a 2.1, what does it look like, and how can we get there 14:25:21 ... want to stop talking about doing and start doing 14:25:24 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models 14:26:06 ... interested in the short-term goal first 14:26:18 Q? 14:26:20 ... wants to socialize the suggested models 14:26:28 ack g 14:26:51 GV: wants to reinforce sarah's points about deliberate planning 14:27:23 ... time scale for WCAG publishing is different from time scale for regulation 14:28:04 ... to have a WCAG that is "evergreen" will be hard 14:28:44 ... it is illegal to have a regulation that refers to a standard that can be changed 14:29:02 ... need to start getting into the area of getting advice about what should be done 14:29:57 ... W3C doesn't regulate anything, the government makes the regulations 14:30:26 ... gov regs need to reference consensus standards 14:30:35 IMO, WAI should not push for legal adoption of the 2.x, and save that effort for WCAG 3.0-type document 14:31:11 <_665> +1 to jeanne 14:31:11 JF: discussion on how regulation is adopted 14:31:32 s/legal adoption of the /policy requirements of the 14:31:39 wrapping 14:31:40 scribe: jeanne 14:31:45 scribe: JF 14:32:03 Gregg: We don't want to have different rules for different disabilities. 14:32:32 ... Look at timescales, look at Sarah's comments for Goals and Constraints, so we have a larger plan. 14:33:08 JF: We had a valuable and robust discussion on what we are trying to come to grips with. 14:33:43 ... We have the Deque Suite at CSUN at 8:00am on Thursday morning. I encourage people to come to that. 14:34:09 Next Meeting: CSUN - Deque Suite Thursday at 8:00am 14:34:18 rrsagent, make minutes 14:34:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/18-wcagnext-minutes.html jeanne 14:35:04 rrsagent, make logs public