<AWK> Scribe: AWK

Introductions (5 minutes)

John Foliot

<AWK_> Gregg Vanderheiden, past co-chair and Trace Center

<AWK_> Katie Haritos-Shea, member of WCAG, Deque

<AWK_> Sarah Horton, new to WCAG group, works for TPG

<AWK_> Jason White, past member and co-chair of WCAG, now at ETS

Level Set (5 minutes)

<AWK_> JF: Goal to review ideas for next, short-term version of WCAG

<AWK_> JF: 3 TFs so far, work progressing quickly

<AWK_> ... already seeing proposed SC's

<AWK_> ... what to do with that info, how to keep WCAG relevant

<AWK_> ... how to fit into context of WAI 3.0/WAI 2020 or whatever is in the more-distant future

<AWK_> Kim Dirks from Thompson-Reuters joins call. She is an attorney working with the UX team on the policy side of accessibility

<AWK_> JF: there is also authoring tools and user agent working group content that may need to be integrated down the road

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next#Agenda

<AWK_> 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

<AWK_> KHS: TF's have been not wanting triple-A for SCs

<AWK_> ... we do need to look at two pieces

<AWK_> ... get published as either a 2.1, or

<AWK_> ... as a possible future version

<JF> AK: current charter is for normative extensions to WCAG 2.0

<JF> hearing concerns around the extension model

<JF> work continues: identify gaps and work happening to address those gaps

<JF> the question is: what are pros and cons of extensions, what do they look like, etc.

<JF> TFs are producing gap analysis and identifying new SC

<JF> WCAG WG needs to look at thaat work, and how to integrate

<JF> AK: we need to look at A, AA, and AAA, and ensure that we get those right (on new SC)

<AWK_> AWK: We have received feedback around concerns for the current extension model

<AWK_> ... We are pursuing work on extensions still, which includes identifying gaps in WCAG 2.0 and new success criteria to address the gaps

<AWK_> ... 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)

<AWK_> GV: Consensus is critically important

<AWK_> ... level-setting for SC's is difficult

<AWK_> ... in WCAG 2.0 work some people wanted two levels (A=current A+AA and AA=current AAA). This didn't work

<AWK_> ... what can be consensed on is different from what everyone wants in many cases

<AWK_> ... some items worked well for one group but not another, or worked well in some contexts but not all

<AWK_> ... lots of factors

<AWK_> ... we would like to see more requirements in more places, but needed to be careful about losing consensus

<AWK_> ... we are still looking backward and it is good to hear that this is running parallel with a future major version also

<AWK_> 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.

<AWK_> ... Mobile work is getting mature. Focusing on touch more than "mobile"

<AWK_> ... this work is to address the gap before the next major update

<AWK_> ... don't see as looking back so much as looking around the current room

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to speak to the experience of writing Extensions and the problems we are experiencing.

<AWK_> JS: perspective of person working on extension

<AWK_> ... more and more convinced that the extension model will fail

<AWK_> ... lots of issues that suggest that we need to look at WCAG

<AWK_> ... for example with hybrid apps (mobile app with HTML core and native wrapper)

<AWK_> ... definition of web content requires http and that can be a problem

<AWK_> ... in touch interface we are dealing with issues of swipe traps

<AWK_> ... AT users can't return to main content or progress

<AWK_> ... should we expand "no kybd trap" to "no navigation trap"?

<AWK_> ... extension model is going to be limiting

<AWK_> JW: sounds like the process would be better if we could extend but also clarify and consolidate at the same time

<AWK_> ... also interested in long-term view

<AWK_> ... not interested in short-term problems

<AWK_> ... another question to raise: what is the conformance approach going to be for extensions?

<AWK_> ... what if conform to WCAG extensions? how does that work?

<AWK_> ... if we published a revision of WCAG 2.0 (2.1) how would the conformance topic be updated?

<AWK_> ... would impact policies, evaluation tools, etc as well

<AWK_> JF: right, that's the point of the call. lots to figure out

<AWK_> JF: the possibility of daisy-chaining extension conformance claims is a concern

<AWK_> GV: opening WCAG back up = 3-5 years

<AWK_> ... consensus timeframe is very long

scribe: heard talk about putting extensions together into one extension
... very concerned about opening WCAG back up
... we might be looking at 1000 comments and it takes a ton of time
... the extension model allows the group to focus

JF: Points raised are in scope
... need to move forward somehow

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

JF: the notion of extending WCAG is not defined - what does it mean/look like to extend it?
... concerns about "WCAG 2.0 + LV Extension" vs "WCAG 2.0 + mobile Extension" vs "WCAG 2.0 + LV and Cognitive extensions"
... 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
... last model is 2.1 by date - everything that is ready by #/##/2017 is in 2.1, etc (date not significant)
... the idea is that dates get fixed in the schedule, like we do currently for techniques updates

GV: haven't seen a standard where opening it up for an update doesn't open everything up for reconsideration. Will need to consider
... re date-driven, two things.
... consensus standards so can't publish without consensus so the dates can't be guaranteed
... if there is a 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 then he wouldn't ever work on my site
... take me to court and the judge would side with my not doing work

<Zakim> Ryladog_, you wanted to comment on the WCAG 2 errata, as another layer which is what Gregg is getting to I think

KHS: the thing that we need to figure out is needing to deal with errata from 2.0

AWK: errata version is only editorial errata, shouldn't affect any of this

GV: people tend to do what they are required to do. Makes WCAG 2.2 become a level 3
... very concerned about the need to think about how different versions will or will not motivate site owners
... want to avoid people feeling like their efforts to update WCAG don't have the desired effect
... measure twice, cut once
... consensus is ridiculously hard
... full support for the goals, but concerned about process

JW: main concern about extensions is that proposals come in at different times and that complicates consolidation efforts
... 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
... the SC's will intersect with each other
... TF's should create a good draft and then the main WG decides on how they all fit

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to discuss time-based "publish what can be condensed on" model

<_665> (_ is Kim)

<JF> +1 to andrews concern

<jeanne> +1 to AWK concerns

AWK: staged evolution is what we are hoping to achieve. Worried about waiting for the time that all TF's have a finished draft.

ack JF'

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to differentiate between Guidelines and Legal requirements

JF: we want to avoid the multi-year process where we respond to comments
... want to avoid WCAG being the next section 508, with long delay from the time that it is needed vs when it is available
... WCAG should more closely reflect the situation on the street
... if there was a WCAG 2.1 in July 2017 (not a real date!) site owners wouldn't necessarily need to meet that
... they could, and it would be the most current advice

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to address the "required" issue.

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
... largely handled through surveys
... allows WG to focus on WCAG next coversation
... thinks that 2.x work should be in TFs

(AWK disagrees)

JS: concerned that WCAG could spend a lot of time on 2.x when they need to work on longer term

(AWK agrees with that though)

SH: wants to respond to assumptions about the broader look at WCAG

<JF> Q_ Gregg

<_665> +1 Sarah

SH: 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

<jeanne> +1 Sarah for the longterm WCAG next.

SH: think that doing so will be helpful

<jeanne> +1 Kim

Kim: we need to identify ways forward and making rules may help
... don't disrupt TF work
... keep moving forward
... provide additional stable guidance
... model I see is to phase the work. For example, the keyboard trap for mobile mentioned could add into an extension pile
... might be a way to break ideas into extensions vs 3.0

JW: agree that the task forces should coordinate with each other
... some combination of coordinating among TFs and deciding on a consolidate release
... conformance model is crucial
... concerned about opening standard

<jeanne> 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.

JF: agree that we need to get moving forward
... original model is extensions based on TF's and that will create a ghettoization problem
... need a model that doesn't do that
... can we do a 2.1, what does it look like, and how can we get there
... want to stop talking about doing and start doing

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

JF: interested in the short-term goal first
... wants to socialize the suggested models

GV: wants to reinforce sarah's points about deliberate planning
... time scale for WCAG publishing is different from time scale for regulation
... to have a WCAG that is "evergreen" will be hard
... it is illegal to have a regulation that refers to a standard that can be changed
... need to start getting into the area of getting advice about what should be done
... W3C doesn't regulate anything, the government makes the regulations
... gov regs need to reference consensus standards

<jeanne> IMO, WAI should not push for policy requirements of the2.x, and save that effort for WCAG 3.0-type document

<_665> +1 to jeanne

JF: discussion on how regulation is adopted

<JF> wrapping

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

<JF> scribe: JF

<jeanne> Gregg: We don't want to have different rules for different disabilities.

<jeanne> ... Look at timescales, look at Sarah's comments for Goals and Constraints, so we have a larger plan.

<jeanne> JF: We had a valuable and robust discussion on what we are trying to come to grips with.

<jeanne> ... We have the Deque Suite at CSUN at 8:00am on Thursday morning. I encourage people to come to that.

<jeanne> Next Meeting: CSUN - Deque Suite Thursday at 8:00am

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Vaderheiden/Vanderheiden/
Succeeded: s/(AWK missed this first point)/ agree that the task forces should coordinate with each other/
Succeeded: s/legal adoption of the /policy requirements of the/
Found Scribe: AWK
Inferring ScribeNick: AWK
Found Scribe: jeanne
Found Scribe: JF
Scribes: AWK, jeanne, JF
Present: EricE_IRC_Only jeanne GreggV Jason Katie John. Sarah. AWK
Got date from IRC log name: 18 Mar 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/18-wcagnext-minutes.html
People with action items: