W3C

WAI Coordination

25 May 2016

Attendees

Present
Katie, Haritos-Shea, Kim, Patch, Joshue108, Liam, fesch, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Regrets
Chair
Judy
Scribe
MichaelC, Judy

Contents


<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

<Sharron> sorry can't join, get an invalid password and captcha that does not recognize my text entry. regrest

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspectives/

Confirming scribe and any agenda additions Spreading word on WAI

jb: plan to establish rotating scribe list, anybody who can´t participate?

george, wilco, tzviya, judy

Perspectives

jb: EO finished perspectives videos

WAI-DEV funded by EC

yay EO people <names>

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspectives/

there are thousands of hits

but word still not getting around like we hoped

khs: showed to audience to an audience new to a11y

helpful that they´re short

good quick punch

think that´s the audience

but a lot of WAI audience is people already know a11y

APA Research Questions Task Force -- draft work statement

jb: there is a draft work statement for this

<janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/work-statement

jb: there was shuffling of charters and groups last year

RDWG closed, a focused subset of the work taken up by APA WG

took a while while we sorted out facilitators to help start work

will start recruiting soon

positive response so far

looking for people with interest in research questions

would be great for people to think of people they´d like to steer this direction

also think it might look at existing work

wf: what topics will it tackle?

js: primary job is to guide APA on questions that come up during spec review

a space to focus more on exploring those issues

have a few so far

e.g., CSS has some issues that show up in spec after spec

beyond that, it´s an open field

we could easily brainstorm lots of things

<Joshue108> MC: In five mins we could have more topics than most.

<Joshue108> MC: We will have to do that within the scope of the APA mission.

Potential merger IDPF & W3C

gk: it is now public since May 10

that there is a proposal for IDPF and W3C to merge

https://www.w3.org/2016/05/digpub.html.en

ts: would like to know of any buzz you´ve heard

have heard misunderstandings from people who don´t work within these organizations

working on an article to give an insider perspective

send thoughts to me, george, markus, ivan

jb: heard of architectural concerns

opportunity for constructive engagement

ts: working on that

jb: there´s been great a11y collaboration in that space

gk: a merger would allow some more concentration of some people´s time on a11y

jb: there has been pressure for WAI to pay more attention to ¨verticals¨

which this is an example of

WAI chairs felt were spread thin, but glad for resources this will bring on that vertical

Conformance accessibility testing -- normative layer?

jb: planning in auto-wcag cg

which Wilco chairs

wf: proposal for a task force

to refine a framework to support rules for a11y tools

automated and semi-automated evaluations

framework would help ensure quality and interchangeability of tools

collaborative approach to defining tests

preparing a TF work statement

and figure out deliverables

hope to have proposal ready in a month or so

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_for_W3C

WCAG.next -- proposal

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/WCAG_future_proposal

awk: original charter was to work on extensions

after looking into this in depth

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

and exploring options

various concerns came up

potential for extensions to be adopted separately in different jurisdictions

<mc: and conflicts, and separating user groups>

so new proposal is to have a single set of new SC

expressed as WCAG 2.1

that does it all in one place rather than fragments it

much of the work done by TFs so far can be published in Best Practices docs in the meantime

some of which could also later find themselves in 2.1 or 3.0 guidelines

we´re now getting ready to collect feedback from stakeholders beyond the WCAG WG

jb: sounds like this is a way to help avoid collisions in SC from different TFs

TFshave been struggling with how to get their input to the group

<Judy> scribe: Judy

mc: one problem with the ext model is we didn't know what an ext looked like
... so initially it was more negative than constructive feedback
... we're starting to look at requ's for wcag 2.1
... think we'll be looking for similar format
... including for SC
... and we're glacially starting to work on a 3.0 plan
... think it will help if people can see that, as a landing place, to concretize some advance ideas
... as the groups are exploring best practice approaches as well, for current work on 2.1

<Joshue108> TF co-ordination review meetings are kicking off soon.

<MichaelC> jb: thoughts from TF facilitators?

mc: also we are trying to improve coordiantion with TFs

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

ls: want to know sooner than later the requirements

would like to avoid rewriting too many times

awk: working on it...

coordinating with TF facilitators tomorrow, hope to smooth out some rough edges

joc: what requirements are you looking for?

ls: for SC

mc: think LS means structural requirements, which we haven´t typically documented

ls: actually acceptance critiera

don´t want to [write SC, get rejected]∞

also expectations for how many supporting techniques etc.

ts: in EPub we´re looking at techniques

<AWK> I've not seen any EPUB techniques

that might later get incorporated

some guidleines would help us too

joc: think it will be easier to do 2.1 requirements once the extensions is out of the picture

kp: communication between TFs and we´re working that out

WAI IG -- issues for discussion

jb: some of the heretofore discussed might not be quite ready for IG

Community groups with accessibility topics -- liaison needs?

jb: PF was looking over CGs

what´s happened in APA?

js: look at them less often

because many created but few viable

last looked in March

we wait to see consistent activity for a period before we determine it´s alive

we´re about due for another check

both for new groups, and activity in one´s we want to track

jb: please bring updates to this call

WAI IG -- issues for discussion

khs: when you have something you want input on

e.g., what you were discussing on best practices

let me know

so we can use it for some focus

has happened with HTML bug triage

jb: AC made specific requests to use WAI-IG more proactively

please think of things you´d like to engage with

mc: what would you do with ideas we send your way?

khs: sometimes there are review requests prior to publication

or current activity input requests

you can just send to list as well

would like to put a process in place, so sending to me first is better

jb: TF facilitators, please coordinate with WG chairs as well when sending stuff to Katie

<Joshue108> +1

just by cc is fine, so they can dip in an oar

Task Force activity and coordination Any upcoming announcements,

jb: think we covered that

also FYI on WAI Twitter TPAC travel reminders and questions WAI

Any upcoming announcements?

WAI-ARIA Primer 1.0

WAI-ARIA Practices 1.0

to retire

WAI-ARIA 1.1 Requirements

<Lisa_Seeman> first wd of 1. Coga issue papers 2. gap analysis and road map. 3. proposal for additional semantics

WCAG Edited Rec on the plate

<Lisa_Seeman> and the editors draft of coga for wcag for internal review

jb: PLH says Echidna is much nicer now

https://labs.w3.org/echidna/

WG milestones & participation check-ins Any other business?

defer

Any other business?

none

Next meeting: date, and requested topics

<Rich> Rich: Regrets for 2 weeks from now. I will be on vacation

jb: June 8

regrets from MichaelC

regrets from Wilco

jb: let´s go ahead

advance agenda requests?

please send if so

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/05/25 19:46:26 $