Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

13 Sep 2016

See also: IRC log


Lauriat, marcjohlic, kirkwood, jeanne, Laura, Kathy, Josh
Sarah_Horton, Makoto_Ueki



<Rachael> +Rachael

<KimD> +KimD

<scribe> scribenick: jeanne

TPAC Agenda

<AWK> Proposed agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016

AWK: There will be a way to call in.
... the COGA proposal which is first thing Monday morning at 9:00 will be midnight if you are in California
... on Day 1, we will be looking at proposals from COGA, Mobile and Low Vision. The dPub group will meet with us in the morning.
... We will also look at the WCAG 2.1 requirements document
... Tuesday morning will be planning on Silver
... then Education and Outreach
... Rechartering
... The ACT task force
... success criteria numbering
... soliciting wide review of what we are planning to do - more of a placeholder. It can be used if other items want to run over.


<Joshue108> JS: Silver sub group just sent out a mail.

<AWK> Jeanne: Sent email from the silver subgroup with info that will be presented

<AWK> ...4 proposals to consider

<Joshue108> JS: Theres a lot there, 4 ideas for the group to consider.

<AWK> ... a comparison chart to help understand

<Joshue108> JS: There is an explanitory doc etc, and links to proposals.

<Joshue108> JS: Please have a look before TPAC.

<Joshue108> Yes, great work!

[no objections to the TPAC agenda]

Publication update

AWK: Calling into TPAC can be difficult because of the time shift and it is often hard to hear. Please set your expectations appropriately
... Techniques and Understanding are queued up.

MC: They are in my bottleneck, they cannot happen before TPAC, but I will try to see if I can do anything about it.

AWK: THere are pre-TPAC moritorium issues.

WCAG 2.1 requirements discussion (https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/requirements/)

AWK: Mostly we want to refresh people's memory of this, and get people started thinking about this.
... we did get some feedback. One of the pieces of feedback is that the greatest pressure on the WCAG WG is that we include mobile well.
... the Introduction section [AWK reads]
... even though the document says in the top that mobile is included, we need to make it more explicit.

<AWK> possible: nsure that WCAG 2.1 success criteria support mobile use-cases.

AWK: would people envision a new bullet in the list of 5 bullets, to be sure that WCAG 2.1 includes success criteria that ...

<AWK> possible: Ensure that WCAG 2.1 success criteria support mobile use-cases.

+1 for the longer list of inclusion

KW: I agree. I would also like to see us include something that specifically says Mobile. People are expecting Mobile Accessibility Guidelines, so we need to see how the success criteria applies to mobile.

<Joshue108> https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/requirements/

KW: we need something that explictly says that it includes mobile if we are just calling it WCAG 2.1.

AWK: Would this new bullet do what you are suggesting or part of what you are suggesting?

KW: To put it in the underlying goal.
... not just mobile use cases.

<AWK> Ensure that WCAG 2.1 can be applied to mobile

<Joshue108> -q

KW: More about how it can be applied. So people know how the guidelines can be applied to mobile, low vision, COGA. There is nothing clearly documents that the new success criteria apply to mobile. People would have to read the Understanding document to know it.

<AWK> Ensure that WCAG 2.1 success criteria support mobile use-cases and supporting documentation clarifies the applicability to mobile.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say should the how this is applied to mobile be in the requirements doc?

JO: Should what Kathy is asking be in the Requirements document? Is the language specific?

KW: I think so.

JO: Does it need details of how it applies? I think not.

AWK: I also think not, for the Requirements doc.

JO: If Kathy agrees, I am good.

KW: I am fine with it.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that Ensure that all WCAG 2.1 success criteria are in harmony - would be sufficient

AWK: The part of the document that says "Ensure that all WCAG 2.1 success criteria are in harmony and address the needs of users in multiple domains where possible." I don't think we address this in detail, perhaps because we are not clear about it. Does this new bullet replace that?
... What does it mean?

JO: That the success criteria are harmonized and do not create problems for other success criteria.

AWK: If it means that one success criteria doesn't undermine other success criteria, then that seems rather obvious. We have to create a document that can be implemented.

JO: It's more about the potential disconnect between new technologies and user requirements and older more established sets of user requirements and technologies.
... I didn't define the requirements for harmony.

Rachel: If we do keep it and want to define it, we could use the work we did a few weeks ago on good success criteria.

JO: I was thinking more about conflict between success criteria from COGA and Low Vision

Rachel: Overlap would also be an issue, if we decide to keep this.
... where two success criteria test the same thing.

<AWK> Rachael: Testability and non-overlapping are both important

KW: The overlap is important, because today we can't update the existing success criteria.

AWK: And there is defnitely overlap between existing success criteria.
... we need a requirement "don't make it worse" [joking]
... We are going to let the AC reps know that the rechartering is coming, that is, the change to the charter
... we also need to reach out to other organizations such as the Access Board and EU groups, so that they know about the upcoming work and be able to provide input.
... then we resolve comments and we are off and running
... hopefully, we will ahve a FPWD in February.
... a lot of balls in the year, but for now we are on track.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/09/13 15:44:52 $

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/potential conflict with previous versions./potential disconnect between new technologies and user requirements and older more established sets of user requirements and technologies./
Found ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne
Present: Lauriat marcjohlic kirkwood jeanne Laura Kathy Josh
Regrets: Sarah_Horton Makoto_Ueki

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 13 Sep 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]