Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

12 Jul 2016

See also: IRC log


AWK, Josh, KimD, alastairc, Makoto, Lauriat, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lisa_Seeman, kirkwood, MichaelC, Kathy, JF, marcjohlic, Mike_Elledge, steverep, Laura, jeanne, MoeKraft, Rakesh
Katie, Ryladog, Katie Haritos-Shea, Alastair, Ryladog_


<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/July_2016_SC/

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


<LisaSeeman> can somone ping me the meeting password again

<LisaSeeman> sorry

<KimD> +KimD

<LisaSeeman> present lisa

<AWK> Scribe: Katie

<AWK> Scribe: Ryladog

<kirkwood> +kirkwood

<scribe> Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea

Questions on acceptance requirements for Success Criteria.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/July_2016_SC/results

JO: An exersize on the acceptance requirements for Success Criteria
... I asked the group to look at the acceptance requirements, not many have answered

MC; There are 5

LS: I think when you look at this bare in mind that it may not be possible to put it in a simple statement. When they fill out this questionnaire not wordy.
... Would you still leave it out? Practically that might not work
... Current SC are long.

1. Acceptance requirements for Success Criteria - Overview

JO: It will need to fit the purpoase. Good point Lisa, please add to the survey your comments

<davidmacdonald> SC 1.1.1 in WCAG 2 is 241 words

MC: My comments are these are general starucres for the SC. I do not mean them to be rules, but more guidelines

<AWK> +1 to what Michael said

MC: I did not say we should forbid bullets

<davidmacdonald> can someone drop in link again

JO: This really an information gathering exersize

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/July_2016_SC/results

LS: Its meant to be acceptance criteria - if it doesn't fulfill this it will not be accepted. They should be guides

<Joshue108> -q

<Ryladog_> LS: We have worked very hard to make them testable - so thay are long

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say these are acceptance requirements, not acceptance criteria.

<Ryladog_> ScribeNick: Ryladog

<Ryladog_> JO: Just be clear these are acceptance requirements for our SC

<Ryladog_> JO: Dont worry too much if something needs to be long

<Ryladog_> JO: Dont get too caught up in that

<Ryladog_> JO: we want to help TF to aim for how to write them

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that a binary rule can still be based on subjective measures, e.g. "SC needs to be as simple as possible"

<Ryladog_> AWK: I agree with what Lisa is saying, but, they are at some level subjective. This is providing us some guidance

<Joshue108> +1 to AWK

<JF> +1 to AWK

<Ryladog_> AWK: Is it testable? is easier than, is this simple?

<Joshue108> I would be more concerned about SC being proven to be testable, rather than concern over how terse or verbose they are.

<Ryladog_> AWK: It has to testable. We also want them wrtten as simply as possible. I would disagree with saying SC can never have bullets

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I would say that the ¨requirements¨ are the black and white stuff; the acceptance criteria are guidance from the WG about what it´s looking for

<Ryladog_> AWK: Its not always simple, even if it is written as simply as possible

<Ryladog_> MC: The block/white is what we are calling Requirements. The acceptance criteria are guidance from the WG. WE should use the word Criteria to differentiate it

<Ryladog_> MC: Have

<Ryladog_> ing that bar help to trigger that question. Sometimes yes it needs to be that long...

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to express concerns about being too presecriptive (patterns)

<Ryladog_> JF: Lisa said something about being extremely prescriptive. I am concerned about specific pattern needing to be met. I am all about functional requirments

<davidmacdonald> 11 of our current SCs have bullets or numbers

<davidmacdonald> in WCAG 2

<Ryladog_> Thanks David

<Ryladog_> JO: Is this useful?

<davidmacdonald> 13 of our current SCs have notes in WCAG 2

<Ryladog_> LS: Yes I like the idea it being clear that testable is must. Something we had originally - we had a summary of each one. It had themes. Have a simple language sentence in brackets with each one.

<Ryladog_> LS: So that would be one way

<Ryladog_> JO: I like that, it is a good idea. A factoid

<Ryladog_> 4. How much should SCs be 'self contained' and verbose or can we move concepts to 'definitions' page for full context?

<Ryladog_> JO: I want to talk about this....MC said he prefers self contained SC

<Ryladog_> JO: Principle for 2.0. Kim said it is a balancing act.

<AWK> YEs, definitions must be normative

<JF> +1 to mcooper

<Ryladog_> MC: Yes they should be yes

<Ryladog_> JO: It is a balancing act. We would like to keep the overall structure of 2.0

<davidmacdonald> There are 81 definitions of terms in WCAG 2

<Ryladog_> 5. Should an SC use bullets? If so, how many?

<Ryladog_> AWK: There should be no more than 6 bullets

<Ryladog_> AWK: If a SC can be short, great. But no ban on bullets

<Joshue108> KHS: David said there are 11 with bullets.

<Ryladog_> JF: When we are prescriptive we get in troible

<Ryladog_> MC: Guidance is useful though

<Ryladog_> JO: Wahtever is required is what we need to do

<Ryladog_> LS: Use of definitions help you use SC

<Ryladog_> LS: Dont add mechanism that could confuse, it is simple

<Ryladog_> LS: Defined term enable you to use a simpler language

<Ryladog_> KHS: Good point

<Ryladog_> JO: AWK Notes are Normative - so should 2.1 but have as few notes as possible

<Ryladog_> AWK: A note is like a bullet

<Ryladog_> AWK: In the spirit of keeping in simple and short

<Ryladog_> JO: I think we are not going to get away from Notes

<Ryladog_> MC: If there is a temptation - look at, is this note really needed

<Ryladog_> LS: It is similar comment to last time. They add a clarity for a special case

<Ryladog_> AWK: I agree with Lisa and others. If we had a definition we could get rid of some of the notes

<Ryladog_> AWK: Definitions will help us reduce notes

<Ryladog_> JO: a certain amount of brevity

<davidmacdonald> I have Greggs comments on simplicity vs complextiy in a table here https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/What_are_Success_Criteria,_and_how_to_write_them

<Ryladog_> 7. What guidance can we provide about constructing a single SC, or dividing the content up into multiple SC?

<Ryladog_> 7. What guidance can we provide about constructing a single SC, or dividing the content up into multiple SC?

<MoeKraft> I think we skipped a question

<MoeKraft> #7 about splitting SC

<lisaSeeman> what do you meen by a topic?


AWK: I find this a vey difficlt balance

I.3.1 would be doing the opposite of what MC just said

AWK: 1.3.1 is just overlaoded to bits

<AWK> Agree re: 1.1.1 being overloaded also

<lisaSeeman> our wiki :https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page

<lisaSeeman> issue papers: https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/index.html

<alastairc> e.g. cntl-cmd-r on Mac

<lisaSeeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/

<lisaSeeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html

TF presentations 'show and tell' - COGA to walk the group through current work.

<scribe> Scribe: Alastair

<alastairc> Lisa: Posted links to various COGA resources. E.g. issue papers includes a lot of the important things, e.g. voice systems, security etc.

<alastairc> Lisa: There is the 1st draft of the roadmap. The gap analysis is good for overview of what we've found so far. The roadmap (2.4) is a table of user-needs, and how they are addressed. Good to see how each is addressed. Getting to publication will take a while, so please take a look at the current version.

<lisaSeeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/table.html

<alastairc> Lisa: this area is how things are addressed across the board. Lets you see why each SC is needed. If there is a better way to address it, great, but gives you an insight into the thought process.

<alastairc> Lisa: the guidance column is for techniques. Otherwise people might not understand how it fits together, why things are not addressed currently.

<alastairc> JO: Suggest changing "Guidance for content" to techniques / guidance.

<lisaSeeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html

<lisaSeeman> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WCAG/Coga_SC

<alastairc> Lisa: There is a wiki for comments so that we can look them over and respond.

<alastairc> Lisa: Copied over the SC full text into the wiki, which will age. However, people need to look at the full text before commenting. Unfortunately people comment on the proposal without having read the bullets or the full text. Therefore copied that over.

<alastairc> Lisa: Have added to the TF exchange what we've been doing.

<alastairc> JO: Please keep in touch with the other TFs, e.g. looking for links between SCs, avoiding duplication, aligning.

<alastairc> Lisa: worth knowing I'm on Skype whenever I'm at my desk, if anyone would like to discuss it please ping me, I find that the easiest way.

<jnurthen> scribe:Ryladog_

<alastairc> David: For the full text, is it possible to pull in the full text from / to the wiki?

<alastairc> Lisa: Once you change the text the internal links change. Also, if there's only a link, think people won't use it.

<alastairc> David: Might have to copy paste when changes are made?

Silver sub group

<alastairc> JO: Having a conversation about Silver, and one of the options is a sub-group to work on the requirements, and take it on. What we need to do with silver. Want to discuss: is it a good idea, are people interested.

<jeanne> +1 to start Silver work

<alastairc> JO: Would like the planning to start firming up. Big, important project. We've been caught up in 2.1 but need to keep eyes on Silver. Any comments now?

<SarahHorton> +1 to a Silver sub group

<alastairc> AWK: Lot of work to do to figure out a (possible) major change to WCAG. Big impacts of combining ATAG/UAAG. Lot of work to do to figure out the options, pitfalls, benefits. That effort needs to keep close to the 2.1 work, as some new SC will get moved to Silver if we can't do them in 2.1.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we could do advance planning, user interviews, etc.

<alastairc> JO: A co-ordination piece needed between 2.1 & Silver. Need to identify things that can't get done in 2.1. Important that people interested in Silver can tackle those things.

<alastairc> Jeanne: At this stage we could do things we don't normally get to do, e.g. talk to audiences and work out how to change things from a usability point of view.

<alastairc> JO: Does that mean gathering user requirements?

<alastairc> Jeanne: The informal group looking at 2.1 thought about an exercise looking at the wider issues. However, at the time we were focused on what 2.1 became. Now we can do the advanced planning for Silver. Partly user-requirements, but more about the brain-storming before we have a deadline.

<Mike_Elledge> +1 to talking to WCAG users for input

<alastairc> JO: Also need to work out what 2.0 & 2.1 haven't been able to address, the broadest user-requirements that are effective for different audiences, but as light as possible (if possible!)

<alastairc> JO: don't want a huge thing based on combined WCAG/UAAG/ATAG.

<alastairc> Jeanne: Want to talk to people who have ideas about this.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask steps

<alastairc> MichaelC: Are we agreeing to a sub-group? What's the structure.

<AWK> We need to define the goals of the sub-group

<alastairc> JO: Have a couple of people interested, so in principle we should go for it. Anyone else interested on the call?

<alastairc> People interested: MichaelC, Shawn.

<alastairc> JO: Chairs would also be involved. Want there to be practical outcomes, e.g. what form the spec would take. There's the list as well, anyone on the list can volunteer.

<alastairc> MichaelC: If Jeanne could write down some initial thoughts/ideas (e.g. on the wiki) then people can contribute from there.

<jeanne> +1 for recording and starting to write up thoughts.

<alastairc> Sarah: There are a few ways to move forward, but what we talked about before was a lean & mean sub-group that brings forward proposals for the larger group to respond to. initially, that would be how we go about conceptualising what silver might be. (proposals for proposals)

<AWK> My #1 questions for Silver are: 1) What problems/opportunities are created by the possibility of combining user agent and content guidelines and 2) How can we re-think conformance (especially accessibility support)?

<alastairc> MichaelC: Proposals for proposals sounds like a good start.

<alastairc> AWK: Several issues in WCAG to deal with, e.g. conformance, combining UA & content guidelines.

<alastairc> JO: Have a sense it's a good idea to continue with this. Several people can put some ideas down soon. Lets do it.

<alastairc> JO: Any objections? None heard.

<Kathy> I am interested in helping but have limited time right now

<SarahHorton> And Shawn

RESOLUTION: silver sub group is initiated

<SarahHorton> Woohoo!

<KimD> Excellent!

<alastairc> JO: Please start, let us know if there's anything we can help with.

<Lauriat> P.S. I view "\o/" as applause in ASL.

<rakesh> I have joined on phone : Rakesh

<MoeKraft> bye

<laura> bye

<SarahHorton> Bye!

<Mike_Elledge> bye all!

<alastairc> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. silver sub group is initiated
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/07/12 16:26:43 $

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)

Succeeded: s/Guod/Guid/
Succeeded: s/get ride/get rid/
Succeeded: s/Sean/Shawn/
Found Scribe: Katie
Found Scribe: Ryladog
Inferring ScribeNick: Ryladog
Found Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
Found ScribeNick: Ryladog
Found Scribe: Alastair
Found Scribe: Ryladog_
Scribes: Katie, Ryladog, Katie Haritos-Shea, Alastair, Ryladog_
Default Present: JF, steverep, alastairc, kirkwood, Laura, marcjohlic, Kathy, Joshue108, MichaelC, KimD, jeanne, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila, Makoto, Rachael, Greg_Lowney, Sarah_Swierenga, Davidmacdonald, adam_solomon, AWK, Lauriat, Lisa, Seeman, Lisa_Seeman, Mike_Elledge, MoeKraft, SarahHorton, JamesNurthen

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, Josh, alastairc, Makoto, lisa, Lauriat)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, Josh, KimD, alastairc, Makoto, Lauriat

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, Josh, KimD, alastairc, Makoto, Lauriat, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lisa_Seeman, MichaelC, Kathy, JF, Davidmacdonald, marcjohlic)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, Josh, KimD, alastairc, Makoto, Lauriat, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lisa_Seeman, kirkwood, MichaelC, Kathy, JF, marcjohlic

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, Josh, KimD, alastairc, Makoto, Lauriat, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lisa_Seeman, kirkwood, MichaelC, Kathy, JF, marcjohlic, Mike_Elledge, steverep, Laura, jeanne, MoeKraft, SarahHorton, JamesNurthen)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, Josh, KimD, alastairc, Makoto, Lauriat, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lisa_Seeman, kirkwood, MichaelC, Kathy, JF, marcjohlic, Mike_Elledge, steverep, Laura, jeanne, MoeKraft

Present: AWK Josh KimD alastairc Makoto Lauriat Katie_Haritos-Shea Lisa_Seeman kirkwood MichaelC Kathy JF marcjohlic Mike_Elledge steverep Laura jeanne MoeKraft Rakesh
Found Date: 12 Jul 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]