Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

21 Jun 2016

See also: IRC log


AWK, Rachael, KimD, Lauriat, marcjohlic, jeanne, steverep, Makoto, Laura, Kathy, JF, DavidMacdonald, MichaelC, Greg_Lowney, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue108
Kathy_Wahlbin, Kathy



<Rachael> +Rachael

<KimD> +KimD

<Lauriat> +Lauriat

<marcjohlic> +marcjohlic

<AWK> Scribe: Kathy_Wahlbin

<Kathy> scribe: Kathy

<SarahHorton> +SarahHorton

AWK: there will be a meeting next week but checking for the beginning of July
... Please fill out the attendance survey


Marc: Initially filled it out but added to it.

AWK: it is a rolling survey

TPAC Registration reminder (https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/)

AWK: TPAC coming up in Septemver

<JF> Registered and hotel booked - working on flights today :)

AWK: we will be busy talking about success criteria and the charter
... it will be a good one to go to

WCAG Techniques and Understanding review coming this week. Focus for the months ahead.

<AWK> Timeline for Techniques and understanding: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Timelines

AWK: we will be sending out a review this week. The schedule is every 6 months. The end of June we need an update approved. There are changes in techniques. We are ready for public review. Comments will be addressed in the July/August timeframe
... Publish Sept 8
... Will be send to the list, so be on the lookout for it
... Change of focus. We have been doing a lot on the calls but it has been backwards facing - processing comments. In order to get WCAG 2.1 done and WCAG next, we need to increase our focus on this
... while we will get comments and questions, chairs and Michael feel that we need to put our priorities on future work
... 90% new work, 10% old work

Marc: wanted to check in on timeframe for WCAG 2.1

<jeanne> \o/ for facing forward!!! :D

AWK: probably 2 year timeframe

<AWK> WCAG 2.1: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1

<davidmacdonald> \o/ for facing forward!!!

AWK: we would like to get it done faster

<JF> +1 to a quicker timeline

AWK: June 2018 is the target

John: WCAG 2.0 was released in Dec and woudl be good to echo the date 9 years later
... Good way to start for the new year and it would benefit us all

AWK: there will be a lot of time approvals
... I have never done this so we need to figure this out and what is normal timing

<davidmacdonald> It was 9 years for WCAG1.0 1999 to Dec 2008 release of 2.0, so we have the 9yr WCAG 2 to 2.1 june 2017

Michael: timeline for first working draft and candidate document (the cycle). The number of working drafts depends. We are trying to keep the number of working drafts down with the taskforces having a deadline. Wider review may have major concerns to be addressed and several cycles. We would want to 3 other working drafts and spaced 1 month apart. Target for CR is being reached then we decide if we keep everything in there

<davidmacdonald> +1

Katie: I think we need to be careful about hard deadline, target dates are good but concerned about sharing dates wider

John: it is a year and half away and taskforces have done a lot of research; with the reviews it would take use to 2017 date

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say timelines are important to keep focus, but also should be realistic

John: would like to keep the fire under our feet

Michael: timelines are important but we need to be realistic but aggressive enough to keep us focus

<davidmacdonald> +1

AWK: remember working on WCAG 2 and a lot of people were frustrated that it was taking a long time. Would like a realistic timeline and pushing for when we want it but a date that we can meet. If we can't agree on a feature then we remove it. Certain things may not make it to 2.1

John: personally would like to publish early and often. Companies have moved to agile. We should have target dates but leave the door open for other milestones. Biggest concern is that it is 2 years away

Michael: if we can develop something that we can publish then we can move forward. We are talking about a formal document. We will need to understand the process takes time and in W3C time it is realistic

John: but there are companies developing now that need this.

Michael: we can publish working drafts after we recharter
... recharter is targeted for early 2017

AWK: we will show the most aggressive schedule we could have. There are certain steps that have to be done and we need realistic timelines
... we have a lot of stakeholders

<AWK> Kathy: agree with aggressive timelines

<AWK> ... everyone needs to provide feedback

<AWK> ... not everyone on the call provided feedback on the mobile survey

<AWK> ... if people are committed then we can move faster

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask about the rechartering

John: if the amount of feedback coming back, then we can adjust the dates.

Jeanne: wanted to talk about the rechartering schedule

Michael: recharter done by Dec 2016
... then we can publish working drafts in early 2017

Jeanne: would like to see more in WCAG 3 in the rechartering
... concerned that we rechart this year and then having to recharter again for WCAG 3 we are pushing it too far out and would like people to start on this in parallel

Michael: glad that there is interest in working in parallel

AWK: would like to see if we can push up the date for rechartering. If it is Dec then we have WCAG 2.1 in the middle
... what we do next depends on the parallel work that can go on.
... the content will fall out from the taskforces
... the more we can done sooner the easier it will be aggressive schedule for WCAG 3

Sarah: what are we waiting for?

AWK: we are getting started but we had focus on other things. Now we are officially switching focus
... we will have a few more weeks setting up 2.1 and then starting on 3.0

Sarah: it is not a waterfall situation, we can get going on it

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about starting up an internal Task Force to start this activity

Josh: reiterate what Andrew said, we need to realistic. Things that are not perfect from the taskforces will be pushed to a later version so we will stick to the deadlines

John: to follow along with Sarah and Jeanne are suggesting. Should we start a taskforce to start on this?

Michael: if there is sufficient interest then we should do this

David: for success criterion that are not developed in a taskforce, how can we get these considered for the group
... what is the pathway for creation of success criteria
... do we need a taskforce to look at things like dynamic contnet

AWK: the next thing we will be talking about this

David: concerned about success criteria that does not have a home

Michael: realistically whatever the source the success criteria comes from, there will be a process for reviewing it. The chairs will handle them fairly but the public comments need an advocate
... someone in the working group can be an advocate. Without an advocate, it is hard for the conversation to progress

<davidmacdonald> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1

John: I understand what David was saying, the biggest gap is there is not one place for all new proposed success criteria
... all proposed success criteria should be added to the list no matter of the source
... doesn't think that this will be an issue

David: so we don't need a taskforce for new success criteria

John: yes I think so
... there is overhead with taskforce so lets keep that to a minimum

AWK: agree, we don't need another taskforce but we need advocate for it
... we will have a mechanism to submit success criteria

<SarahHorton> Yay!!

AWK: one final comment on WCAG 3.0 - we are in agreement and we will start it soon. We need some time to get it framed. I am on vacation for 2 weeks so we need to wait a few weeks

Success Criteria acceptance criteria (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq2)

AWK: we have a survey for the proposed success criteria acceptance criteria. David did a lot of work on this.
... we would like to discuss this on the group

David: the 8th item is from Loretta - it is important that the author can determine that they met it, without the end user. The underlying principle is not describing the end user

AWK: how does that differ from the others

David: close similarity
... affirmative condition and make sure that it is not described in the end user perspective

AWK: not a user based requirement

David: not from the point of view from the end user. We look at this from the problem we are trying to solve and put it into authoring perspective

AWK: Greg, you asked about what is affirmative condition.
... you are right some of them are written in the absence or negative

Greg: should not prohibit what we already do

David: success criteria can have negative words

<davidmacdonald> Success Criteria don't have negative action words telling the author what to do, like "don't", "should not", "Avoid" etc. nor do they have brackets or quotes in the testable statements. However, in some Success Criteria, the elements of the content "do not" have certain characteristics. (See 1.3.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 4.1.1)

David: we don't have "author don't do this"

it is on the content

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we should minimize edits to existing WCAG 2.0 SC

Michael: as design principle we should not change existing SC

<JF> +1 to not changing the text (it will mess with backward compat)

Michael: enters in more confusion if we did this
... in 3.0 we should look at this

AWK: that does get into the issue with the numbering
... people are familiar with the numbering

John: I know that at least one instance that the existing success criteria where we want to go from AAA to AA

<AWK> Greg, how about "Success criteria describe the specific condition required to meet the criteria, not the method to reach the condition."?

John: there are some areas that we want to address gaps like color contrast on icons

Michael: we should revisit this later
... easier to figure out when we have something

John: given the timeline this is more urgent

<Greg> Andrew, that would be fine and avoid the contradiction.

Michael: we need something in the first working draft

David: what if we propose to have 4th level

John: I would +1 it as a working example
... I don't alot of possibilities

David: since we are not rewording SC and not renumbering and can't have AA after AAA

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say what if we introduce letters to make them clearly differentiated?

AWK: table these details on the numbering for now

John: can we set a time when we will think about this?

<Joshue108> +1 to that

AWK: if we want to have a few people think about this and list options
... questions about "must apply to all content".

<JF> +1 to MUST< SHOULD MAY (RFC 2119)

AWK: Kim mentions that language should be direct
... Michael mentions that we need to define testability

Michael: need to think about "applies across technologies"

<davidmacdonald> gregorian format

AWK: my interpretation is that SC is not applicable to each portion of a webpage but are applicable to web page as a whole
... media ones apply but may not be on every pag
... this is good. We are not approving but this gives us some direction

<Greg> I also felt this one was a bit overly broad, as few things apply to ALL technologies. Even terms like “link text” have implicit dependency on aspects common to many, but not all W3C technologies. However, many SC can be interpreted as having implicit scoping.

AWK: we will tweak on the WIKI
... is appears that people think we are pretty close on this

<Sarah_Swierenga> it's fine

<KimD> +1 to "we are close"

Guidance for TF’s and others submitting new SC (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21Reqs/results#xq3)

<jeanne> +1 to "we are close"

AWK: here is a list of things that need to be offered to WCAG WG
... not worth developing a process for new guidelines
... the form will need to accomodate for new guidelines
... goal is to provide enough information for them to make decisions

David: we need to define new terms

AWK: we should add item for new terms are identified

David: in the new SC I am proposing has "change of context" is a common term but how we are using is so we need to define it
... we may add new glossary terms

<AWK> MC: recommended to COGA that they link to terms more.

<AWK> ... helps make compact SCs

<AWK> ... we have made it so that the definition could we dropped into the SC (replacing the word)

<jeanne> +1 for definition

<AWK> ... and have the SC still make sense

<Sarah_Swierenga> bye everyone

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/06/21 16:32:28 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Found Scribe: Kathy_Wahlbin
Found Scribe: Kathy
Inferring ScribeNick: Kathy
Scribes: Kathy_Wahlbin, Kathy
Default Present: AWK, Rachael, KimD, Lauriat, marcjohlic, jeanne, steverep, Makoto, Laura, Kathy, SarahHorton, JF, DavidMacdonald, MichaelC, Greg_Lowney, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue108, allanj
Present: AWK Rachael KimD Lauriat marcjohlic jeanne steverep Makoto Laura Kathy JF DavidMacdonald MichaelC Greg_Lowney Katie_Haritos-Shea Joshue108
Regrets: James
Found Date: 21 Jun 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]