<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/
jb: plan to establish rotating scribe list, anybody who can´t participate?
george, wilco, tzviya, judy
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
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.
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
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
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
jb: some of the heretofore discussed might not be quite ready for IG
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
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
jb: think we covered that
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
defer
none
<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