Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

23 Aug 2016


See also: IRC log


Kathy, AWK, Joshue, David, Makoto, AlastairC, jeanne, Mike_Elledge, SarahHorton, JF, Rachael, KimD, marcjohlic, kirkwood, Laura, katie, GregL, JamesNurthen, Lauriat, MichaelC, John_Kirkwood, Elledge, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea, DavidMacDonald, adam_solomon, jon_avila, alastairc, Mike, Kim
Makoto_Ueki, Sarah_Horton


<KimD> +KimD

<MichaelC> scribe: Mike_Elledge

Silver process determination goals (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silversurvey2016/)

Jeanne: Silver TF has been working on process goals. Use them to select to categorize different options to working group. If WG decides speed is not most important, will give options.

J: All the different things that would lead to good process for silver. Another best possible research for best results. Another cost. Trying to categorize all the things that could be done for good process.
... So want WG to look at them and rank them.

MC: Each goal would be an approach to the process?

J: Yes.

MC: Example: Don't care if 10 years so long as get good process.

J: Want to be reasonable. As braod as possible as is reasonable. Different orientation to each goal. Won't be rigid. Narrowing down on four goals that will be important. But want to know what you think is important.

MC: Wasn't sure how to answer survey. Thought combination would be appropriate.
... Goal three--Communication

J: Want public presentation.

Go to conferences. Broad audience. When at prototype make them available and provide survey for input.

J; Research, brain-storming, implementation, and another? At each would have option that would give result, oriented to each of approaches.

MC: on the surface, open communication was most important according to survey.

Shawn: All are important. Wanted to make it clear to see what people think are important. May be different ways to structure things so can assure meet objective. Looking for relative importance, not exclusion.

MC: So open communication got all highers. Life cycle got lowest.

J: Will have to discuss more. Did not look at results. Rather talk during group to discuss results and how to interpret. Would not put as much emphasis on that. Still important.

MC: Two people did not know how it would differ from #8, which is milestones.

J: Let's look at the results and get more comment, then bring results to group in a way that makes more sense.
... Can discuss to make clear. Life-cycle: so it would be easier to update over time.
... As technology changed, disabilities becamre more apparent, etc.

MC: Thought might want to re-structure based on what presented to chair.
... Describe what they are?

J: #2: Broad communication. Talked about it. Easy and open communication channels. #3: Wanted it to be two-way communication. So input would be easy to do as well.

MC: WCAG process point.

S: #3: is more about methods of communication.

J: #4: Evidence and data. Getting research involved. UX, depth. #5: Maintenance, making updates. #6: Scope. Want silver to be more inclusive of tech and disabilities.

#7: Design and engage stakeholders. Commitment to effort. All user groups of WCAG, including devs, qa, policy makers, a11y consultants, legal firms--make sure all people who use WCAG are involved. Particularly organizations. Expand outreach to rare disabilities so won't be underserved.

J: Last two. #8 Establish clear milestones. Speed and accountability.

MC: Take another look at survey as needed. Any quesitons?

JK: Understand survey much better now. Can answer better.

MC: Extend the survey so more people can answer, or revise questions? or answer later?

J: Not sure re-doing survey is worthwhile.

MC: 7 people have responded. Get more feedback?

A: May help to resend note.

J: Will add paragraphs to explain. Moving quickly. Getting things ready for TPAC.

MC: Wiki?

J: Wiki and Google docs.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Designing_Silver

S: Google docs more of a sketching place. Publish through wiki.

MC: Other questions.
... Have extended to 8/31.

Updated charter discussion (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2point1Charterdraft/)

MC: Updated charter and survey to collect input. Mine only response. Any thoughts?
... Discussed last week.
... Did not set resolution. But need to tell advisory committee so not a surprise. Record a resolution, approve draft charter for review.

JO: Exactly what we hope to do. Also assume silence is agreement. If you have issues add them.

MC: Comments/questions?

J: Last week discussed other deliverables for the Other Deliverables section updates to WCAG and UUAAG. Didn't make it into deliverable.

JO: Updating WCAG is not going to happen.
... General discussion about authoring tools. Need to disambiguate UAAG and ATAG. Can't speak to these other deliverables. Don't know how it would happen. UAAG is responsible for that.

MC: In terms of general W3C process, when a document is completed, and WG closes, updates can be handled by collecting comments, errata, updating non-normative docs. Team has (presumably) defined a group. If no group able to respond, then question if WCAG can take it on.
... Want to separate from WCAG group. As charter for WCAG 2.0 defines updating, Silver will be defined also to include UAAG and ATAG revisions, without impacting Silver development (?). If in our scope could do revisions.
... But hopefully not responsible for it, so don't fail charter.
... Allowed to address, but not obligated.

A: As needed to but not failure if we don't.

MC: If charter doesn't say we can, we won't be able to.

J: UAAG and ATAG members came to last week's meeting, so the possibility exists. Just want to make sure it's possible by the charter.

MC: Those attendees provided input, and hope they would also contribute.

JO: Important that we understand that user agents and authoring tools in Silver may not become part of UAAG and ATAG.

MC: One of my concerns is that WCAG WG not get too loaded up with "stuff". Does anyone object to adding it to charter scope.

<jeanne> +1

<alastairc> +1 would like it in, not obligated

<Lauriat> +1

MC: How many people want UAAG and ATAG maintenance to be added to charter.

<kirkwood> +1

<jeanne> Greg Lowney is not here this week, but spoke very strongly for it last week.

<KimD> +1, would like it in, but not as obligation

<laura> +1 would like it in, not obligated

J: Will have to be looking at browsers wrt internet of things, auto browsers, so shouldn't rule out.

<marcjohlic> +1

<MoeKraft> +1, without obligation

+1, but not obligated.

MC: Does anyone oppose including UAAG and ATAG maintenance?

JN: Don't want to overload it.

MC: Suggest that we take James' point that we don't overload it. Won't be updates to core, possibly other items. But will be subject to resources.
... Can't work on docs we dont' own. So need to have ownership.

J: Don't think we'll be wholesale revision.

JN: More goes in there, more work that's created.

MC: Would not want to have charter fail or lose members over this.

JO: Expectation that there will be revisions?

MC: Notes would not hurt company joining. But specifications become part of WCAG legal structure, i.e., patent issues, might cause issues.

JO: Shouldn't include if it's going to cause problems with WCAG 2.1. Can we find out.

MC: Proposal: Request preliminary review from Advisory Committee. Suggest we put maintenance for support materials in charter, including UAAG and ATAG, within draft and ask if it will cause issues.

JN: Groups closed because of work involved. May just make us thin again.

J: Can we not have a separate charter for Silver? As browsers change have to make revisions.

MC: We have a sticky problem. Separate charter from WCAG 2.0+?
... One issue: Silver is largely undefined, in incubation stage. Advisory Committee would not approve going into WG charter. Maybe a couple of years before it is adequately defined. If we don't include, won't be able to get into its own chater. Whould have to be community group.
... Will think that items that don't get into 2.1 will get into Silver, if not the case will drag down 2.1 effort. Will also lose synergy if we move it out of WCAG WG.
... Those are my concerns.

<jeanne> +1, we don't want two working groups -- one for 2.1 and 1 for Silver

<alastairc> for me: same people means it should be same charter. I'd still like us to own ATAG/UAAG, without committing to work on them until Silver.

MC: This group is getting spread thin. Don't want to evolve into Super group, with too many deliverables.
... Think we may get suggestion to move into community group.


MC: Community groups for people who can do work in W3C but can't publish formal documents. But not patent implications and no restrictions wrt joining group. By engaging wider community can get development going that can lead to formal process.
... Then a WG can be formed or added to CG. CG is more of an open first step. Worry that there may be fragmentation.
... Can you live with it being in charter, assuming will get feedback.

JN: Assume we'll get pushback.

<JF> +1 to that

MC: Pushback will help us define.

JO: Also provides documentation of issues.

AK: What is being proposed?

MC: Maintenance of UAAG and ATAG to charter.

AK: ?

MC: Potentially responding to public comments, collecting errata, edited recommendations. Allowed but not required to. Might make changes to support materials, bot not core. concerns: Impact on participation in group, and spreading us too thin.

JF: Doesn't mean ignoring UAAG and ATAG. Needs to be some kind of ownership, so they don't be come useless.

AK: Agree that don't want info to become outdated, but concerned about bandwidth of our group taking those on. We are taking on the next stage through Silver. Effort of UAAG and ATAG will be part of Silver. Don't mind that we can provided some maintenance, but will ahve to prioritize along with everything esle we'll be doing.
... Don't think we can do a great deal of maintenance given the current WG.

MC: But need to have that option.
... If not included in WCAG charter, then will need to create new groups to address them. May be less need to maintain since they're a year old.

JF: Someone has to have ownership, even if they are stable. Don't want them to be filed away.

MC: WCAG being asked to do this bec no one else is available.

<jeanne> +1 to Michael's proposal

MC: Would like to propose they be put in charter without obligation, with note asking for comment from Advisory Committee.
... Did not hear that JN was going to raise a major issue, that he will discuss with Oracle.
... Any objections.

<alastairc> no objection, good plan

RESOLUTION: Inclue ATAG 2.0 and UAAG 2.0 maintenace into charter scope as allowed but not required.

MC: No objections.

RESOLUTION: Working group approval to submit Charter for preliminary review.

MC: Include public input as well.

<jamesn> can we specify that it is just for supporting material with no ability to create a new version

MC: James N has another point...

AWK: We can certainly put that it's out of scope to create new UAAG and ATAG.

MC: A good idea, just want to collect errata and add/revise support materials.

RESOLUTION: New versions of UAAG and ATAG are out of Charter scope.

MC: Anything else on charter?

Survey on github issues and pull requests (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/)

<steverep> There is a repeated "is to" in the first sentence of the charter

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xq10

MC: Item #1. Consider SMIL. 7 votes...

AK: Ask for unanimous consent? #1 and #5.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xq5

MC: Any objection on SMIL and Ruby changes?
... None

AK: Will go through minutes and once they clear will add to github.

RESOLUTION: Items 1 and 5 accepted.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xpull189

MC: Summary of HTML 5. 7 accepts and 1 comment.
... Andrew has already changed. Exceptions?

RESOLUTION: Accept item #2.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xpull175

MC: Andrew has implemented both items in #3. Exceptions?
... No.

AK: Since this is editorial and non-controversial felt this was appropriate.

RESOLUTION: Accept Item 3

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xIssue182

MC: Item 4. Laura: obsoleted. Alistairs comment?


RESOLUTION: Accept item 4

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xq6

MC: Need to add HTML5 link.

AK: Add an HTML5 resources link.

JF: Would put HTML5 at top, since most people use it today.

Adam: Can we have one link instead of 3, since all going to the same document.

AK: yes

MC: See teh word definition. Is it deliberate or should it be description.

<JF> +1 to AWK's plan

AK: Largely terminology. Add in note that helps bridge that gap. If the group agrees, will put changes in pull request and send around for consensus. Need a conceptual yes.

MC: Any objections?

RESOLUTION: Accept item 6 as changed.

MC: Anything else?

JO: No

AK: No

MC: Thanks to everyone for getting through agenda.

<laura> Bye

<MichaelC> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Inclue ATAG 2.0 and UAAG 2.0 maintenace into charter scope as allowed but not required.
  2. Working group approval to submit Charter for preliminary review.
  3. New versions of UAAG and ATAG are out of Charter scope.
  4. Items 1 and 5 accepted.
  5. Accept item #2.
  6. Accept Item 3
  7. Accept item 4
  8. Accept item 6 as changed.
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/08/23 16:23:41 $

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/? section updates/Other Deliverables section updates/
Succeeded: s/JN: We can certainly/AWK: We can certainly/
Found embedded ScribeOptions:  -final


Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Default Present: Kathy, AWK, Joshue, David, Makoto, AlastairC, jeanne, Mike_Elledge, SarahHorton, JF, Rachael, KimD, marcjohlic, kirkwood, Laura, katie, GregL, JamesNurthen, Lauriat, MichaelC, John_Kirkwood, Elledge, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea, DavidMacDonald, adam_solomon, jon_avila
Present: Kathy AWK Joshue David Makoto AlastairC jeanne Mike_Elledge SarahHorton JF Rachael KimD marcjohlic kirkwood Laura katie GregL JamesNurthen Lauriat MichaelC John_Kirkwood Elledge steverep Katie_Haritos-Shea DavidMacDonald adam_solomon jon_avila alastairc Mike Kim
Regrets: Makoto_Ueki Sarah_Horton
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016JulSep/0584.html
Found Date: 23 Aug 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-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]