<AWK> +AWK

<AWK> agenda 4 is SC requirements discussion https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria

<Rachael> I can scribe if noone else would like to do so.

<AWK> +Greg_Lowney

<scribe> Scribe: David

TPAC Registration closes September 2: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC

AWK coming to last reminder for TPAC

ACT TF Proposal https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement

AWk enough interest expressed for concept to pursue

Separate question. is there enough resources... there are people already working on it

AWK chairs feel we should support it.

<AWK> ACT = Accessibility Conformance Testing

Wilco: ACTS automated testing proposals, figure out what would make for good test rules and use those as a rallying point, brought into a single repository...

SHadi: includes semi automated and other types of human tesign

Mike-E: defined rules for automated and semi automated... wondering if we collide with existing tools, is it an issue and how to mitigate ot

<KimD> +KimD

Wico: It can be an issue... that is why we want to do this work... tools have disparity of results... want to come together to get an approach that tool devs can agree on

s/wico/Wilco

Mike: Is there interest by developers

Wilco: Deque, IBM, SSB, Site Improve and others are on board

Mike: What skill sets are you looking for?

Wilco: Knowing WCAG and and working on tools, QA people

Judy: Thanks to Wilco and Shadi, part of work would be under a new charter, yes?

AWK: Need figure out deliverables...
... Ability to deliver, is dependant on people coming into the group from the community group

Judy: There are a few orgs that can
... some orgs cannot easily participate on community group but can be under a WCAG group...

AWK: Assuming group agrees.

Michael: We can probably put it in our space quickly before the CFC

Judy: Sounds doable, there would be an approval timeframe... want to ensure we can maintain enthusiasm from contributing orgs during this transition time.

AWK: Are we comfortable with concept and work statement

AWK if so we can proceed

<LisaSeeman> i can not access the link

AWK anyone uncomfortable... (silence=agreement)

<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/(Proposed)_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_(ACT)_Task_Force_Work_Statement

RESOLUTION: Working group approves work statement and TF Proposal for the ACT task force

<alastairc> @LisaSeeman I think you have to take the quote mark off the end.

Steve: are we going endorse or evaluate any tool for accuracy with our agreed set of tests

AWK: Not likely

Shadi: AAc doesn

<alastairc> @Judy - it is clear, I only said that as earlier there was talk about the automated rules being first up in terms of work, helping to standardise rule set.

W3C doesn't make assertions on tools or browser etc...

Shadi: Tool makers can say what tools they are following, as a self declarations

Wilco: A lot of doscussion about writing test that can prove a tool is implemented properly. Likely will be a suite of tools to run agaonst tools to ensure they've implemented our recommendations

Take up item 4

<agarrison> dropping off

AWK: WCAG 2.1 SC requirements... almost at agreement.

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

Acceptance criteria for proposals

Want to ensure proposals are consistent

AWK: Idea is to have simple format, and guidelines in a template

Lisa: We are close but would like clarifications innthe draft. Concerned this is the intent, written, but people may forget, and time wasted pulling up minutes etc... evidence can be a link to the evidence...
... Lots of work for evidence, if it helps 6 different disabilities
... Let's add links, or anecdotal evidence... the ones where we rely on anecdotal are self evident such as exposing a user's information
... Desciption of how it can be tested is a lot of work, not aware it would be required for FWD
... Concerned we can't get that in time
... Would like a clause "time permitting"

AWK: Ameded #5 may be a link to a seoarate resource
... Regarding evidence... that is where WG will be engaged... SCs with rock solid evidence that specific users, changes discussiona nd makes it easier... if its anectotal, then it's still evidence, but is harder and longer and more discussion... people will want to learn about the issue and ask many questions
... I'm not inclined to say what kind of evidence they submit... but we'll need some sort of evidence that WG can consider

Lisa: Worried... first round ... don't want us to discriminate towards issues with less research or evidence for cognitive disabilities.

AWK: Wondering what those who were in WCAG think? there was some sort of evidence...

LISA: Burden of evidence is similar to 2.0
... WCAG 2 ... a person showed us on a computer and we accepted it... just seeing that it works...

Katie: Whatever you have here, is associated with evidence, associated with the resource, can be hidden, but we need a trail of evidence...

LISA: Do not expose information where it can do them harm... its anecdotal... my dad got dementia and people tried to sell him stuff...
... Should write a summary of the evidence... we're on the same side... when less evidence, is when its completely obvious...

Katie: When presenting the SC, we would want someone on COGA available to answer questions...

LISA: Yes that would meet our need...

AWk: What's the proposal?

Katie: We want someone available to answer questions from WG about evidence

AWK: If a proposal doesn't have the benfits etc... then we don

if there are no benefits listed or evidence, we don't have a proposal, we have an idea.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to disagree with gruelling time constraints

AWK: perhaps have incomplete proposals have "at risk"

Michael: Don't think time frame is unreasonable... there are hundreds of pages of work.

<Ryladog_> +1 to must have option for "at risk" status

LISA: COGA is a category, its a huge area, not like low vision... etc... very complex huge fields, covers as much variety and people as WCAG... first draft, we were not asked for this new information 2

<AWK> David: couple of things

<AWK> ... my preference is to get more req from PWD

<AWK> ...

<AWK> ... in WCAG 2.0 we wanted to provide more req for cognitive but the information wasn't available at the time

<AWK> ... my hope is that more is testable now, more research now

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to accept Lisa´s broad scope for cognitive definition, but we´re not boiling the ocean in WCAG 2.1, we´re doing what we can with what´s in front of us and

David: WCAG 2 did what we could... Cognitive research was low, the field was huge and many issues were not testable. Hopefully there is more research now...

Michael: I feel I could write the requirements and testability in a couple of afternoons...

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we are looking to get to a FPWD in February

AWK: December deadline is for FPWD early in the year to get feedback from public for a 2.1 in first quater of 2018

Lisa: Let's say that research and testing can be described in a few sentences... explicitly in the SC requirements.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask Lisa what problems she is concerned about down the line

Lisa: Want to ensure we have a change to address concerns... a conversation rather than a sharp cutting off of the proposal.

<Kathy> go ahead

s/chance/chance

AWK: This is a checklist, getting it on the agenda to consider rather than accepting it on WCAg

Kathy: Do we want to suggest what level it is at ... and indicate if there are new guidelines... if there are new techniques for existing SC, how does that fit in...

AWK: If its a new technique just do what we are doing now
... Just put it in "what principle or guideline does it fall under"

<KimD> +1 to checklist is good

AWK: Anyone object to sending checklist of proposals.

Greg Lowney: Suggest we can add optional examples if they have them under #9 ..."User examples beneficial but not required"

RESOLUTION: Checklist for proposals for new SC approved

Success Criteria Requirements

LISA: Object to the word "reasonable".
... change "common format" to "readily available"...

<Ryladog_> +1

Have Success Techniques which demonstrate that each Success Criterion is implementable, using readily available formats, user agents, and assistive technologies.

RESOLUTION: Acepted SC requirements

Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines

<LisaSeeman> Are short in length. However brevity should not at the expense of clarity or testability. Minimize the use of lists to where they make the success criteria easier to follow. Lists can be used to prevent the creation of multiple, similar, success criteria. When using lists, numbered lists are preferred to more easily allow referencing specific items Avoid the use of "notes" unless it makes the success criteria easier to follow (Notes are regarde[CUT]

s/Acepted,Accepted

d s/Accepted/Accepted

<LisaSeeman> Are short in length. However brevity should not at the expense of clarity or testability.

<LisaSeeman> Minimize the use of lists to where they make the success criteria easier to follow. Lists can be used to prevent the creation of multiple, similar, success criteria.

+1

<MoeKraft> I like the change +1

<alastairc> Einstein's: as short as possible but no shorter?

<MoeKraft> : )

<Mike_Elledge> +1

AWK: concerned about irony of a guideline about short SCs being long...

Rachel: Make the clarification to "ensure that the SC ..."

LISA: Concerned people on the call will not understand...

<KimD> What about "1. Are concise and clear"

<MoeKraft> +1

<alastairc> +/-1, don't mind.

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Mike_Elledge> Bye all

AWk not quite there on this Best Practice section .... we'll end the call and come back to it next time

<AWK> Trackbot, end meeting

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/iterest/interest/
Succeeded: s/cjair/chairs/
FAILED: s/wico/Wilco/
Succeeded: s/cannagree/can agree/
Succeeded: s/Deqaue/Deque/
Succeeded: s/proposal/Proposal for the ACT task force/
Succeeded: s/disabiloties/disabilities/
Succeeded: s/butnwe/but we/
FAILED: s/chance/change/
Succeeded: s/change/chance/
Succeeded: s/tSC/SC/
Succeeded: s/of/or/
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/Acepted,Accepted
Succeeded: s/Acepted/Accepted/
Succeeded: s/not shorter/no shorter/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: davidmacdonald
Found Scribe: David
Default Present: AWK, JF, Joshue108, Rachael, Makoto, Lauriat, Kathy, Laura, Greg_Lowney, lisa, adam_solomon, marcjohlic, KimD, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, jeanne, moekraft, Mike_Elledge, Lisa_seeman, alastairc, jon_avila, shadi, steverep, Davidmacdonald, Wayne, Judy, Elledge, kirkwood, Sarah_Swierenga, agarrison, SarahHorton, MacDonald
Present: AWK JF Joshue108 Rachael Makoto Lauriat Kathy Laura Greg_Lowney lisa adam_solomon marcjohlic KimD Katie_Haritos-Shea MichaelC jeanne moekraft Mike_Elledge Lisa_seeman alastairc jon_avila shadi steverep Davidmacdonald Wayne Judy Elledge kirkwood Sarah_Swierenga agarrison SarahHorton MacDonald David
Regrets: Laura_Carlson Shawn_Lauriat Wayne
Found Date: 09 Aug 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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