14:20:05 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 14:20:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-wai-wcag-irc 14:20:07 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:20:09 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:20:09 ok, trackbot 14:20:10 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:20:10 Date: 04 October 2016 14:20:15 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:20:15 Present: AWK, JF, steverep, marcjohlic, Joshue108, Mike, Elledge, GregL, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, jon_avila, Laura, David, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Rachael, Lauriat, Kathy, 14:20:18 ... JamesNurthen, Joshue108_, mhakkinen, alastairc, Laura_Carlson, Shawn, David-macdonald, Charles_LaPierre, Avneesh_Singh, George_Kerscher, Shawn(for_part), SarahHorton, 14:20:18 ... Greg_Lowney, Makoto, Wilco, moekraft 14:20:41 present+ 14:20:43 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:20:43 Present: AWK, JF, steverep, marcjohlic, Joshue108, Mike, Elledge, GregL, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, jon_avila, Laura, David, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Rachael, Lauriat, Kathy, 14:20:46 ... JamesNurthen, Joshue108_, mhakkinen, alastairc, Laura_Carlson, Shawn, David-macdonald, Charles_LaPierre, Avneesh_Singh, George_Kerscher, Shawn(for_part), SarahHorton, 14:20:46 ... Greg_Lowney, Makoto, Wilco, moekraft, AWK_ 14:20:58 Present AWK 14:21:00 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:21:00 Present: AWK, JF, steverep, marcjohlic, Joshue108, Mike, Elledge, GregL, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, jon_avila, Laura, David, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Rachael, Lauriat, Kathy, 14:21:03 ... JamesNurthen, Joshue108_, mhakkinen, alastairc, Laura_Carlson, Shawn, David-macdonald, Charles_LaPierre, Avneesh_Singh, George_Kerscher, Shawn(for_part), SarahHorton, 14:21:03 ... Greg_Lowney, Makoto, Wilco, moekraft, AWK_ 14:21:22 Zakim, clear attendees 14:21:22 I don't understand 'clear attendees', AWK_ 14:25:37 zakim, bye 14:25:37 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been AWK, JF, steverep, marcjohlic, Joshue108, Mike, Elledge, GregL, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, jon_avila, Laura, David, MacDonald, 14:25:37 Zakim has left #wai-wcag 14:25:40 ... Katie_Haritos-Shea, Rachael, Lauriat, Kathy, JamesNurthen, Joshue108_, mhakkinen, alastairc, Laura_Carlson, Shawn, David-macdonald, Charles_LaPierre, Avneesh_Singh, 14:25:40 ... George_Kerscher, Shawn(for_part), SarahHorton, Greg_Lowney, Makoto, Wilco, moekraft, AWK_ 14:25:57 Zakim has joined #wai-wcag 14:26:04 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:26:04 Present: (no one) 14:26:10 +AWK 14:27:30 zakim, agenda? 14:27:30 I see nothing on the agenda 14:28:00 agenda+ CSUN update 14:29:13 AWK has joined #wai-wcag 14:29:20 zakim, agenda? 14:29:20 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 14:29:21 1. CSUN update [from AWK_] 14:29:34 agenda+ Silver update (heads up for next week) 14:29:40 agenda+ Updated charter for WG review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/results 14:49:48 Greg has joined #wai-wcag 14:50:24 Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag 14:50:49 trackbot, start meeting 14:50:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:50:53 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:50:53 ok, trackbot 14:50:54 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:50:54 Date: 04 October 2016 14:51:00 zakim, agenda? 14:51:00 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 14:51:01 1. CSUN update [from AWK_] 14:51:01 2. Silver update (heads up for next week) [from AWK] 14:51:01 3. Updated charter for WG review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/results [from AWK] 14:51:39 Chair: Joshue 14:51:53 Scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List 14:52:31 steverep has joined #wai-wcag 14:53:27 Srini has joined #wai-wcag 14:57:11 s/scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List/ Scribe - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List 14:58:30 +Srini 14:59:15 Wilco has joined #wai-wcag 14:59:24 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:24 Present: AWK, Srini 14:59:25 Present+ Greg_Lowney 14:59:26 present+ Joshue108 14:59:27 +kirkwood 14:59:29 present+ jeanne 14:59:31 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:31 Present: AWK, Srini, Greg_Lowney, Joshue108, kirkwood, jeanne 15:00:53 laura has joined #wai-wcag 15:01:01 Makoto has joined #wai-wcag 15:02:05 present+ Wilco 15:02:19 KimD has joined #wai-wcag 15:02:28 scribe: Wilco 15:02:39 alastairc has joined #wai-wcag 15:02:51 present+ alastairc 15:02:57 Lauriat has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:05 Present+ Lauriat 15:03:19 marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:37 Rachael has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:45 josh: welcome 15:03:53 MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:58 zakim, next item 15:03:58 agendum 1. "CSUN update" taken up [from AWK_] 15:04:09 present+ marcjohlic 15:04:17 Present+ Makoto 15:04:22 present+ Laura 15:04:23 present+ Rachael 15:04:31 awk: Brief CSUN update. There are papers being put in 15:04:46 ... we are putting one in for 2.1 and one for Silver, also one for ACT TF, and maybe more 15:04:47 present+steverep 15:05:02 I have submitted an abstract titled "Accessibility strategy for Existing, current and future products" let's see. 15:05:09 ... we'll have good rep there if they are accepted. CSUN is the 27th of Feb, to March 2 15:05:32 ... Just confirm things are going on 15:05:52 Judy_alt has joined #wai-wcag 15:05:55 josh: Should be good, lot of things going in. 15:06:01 +KimD 15:06:08 zakim, next item 15:06:08 agendum 2. "Silver update (heads up for next week)" taken up [from AWK] 15:06:23 JF has joined #wai-wcag 15:06:32 Present+ JF 15:06:56 present+ 15:07:05 awk: Jean, Sawn and I talked this morning. There is a list of goals. We may want to look at a TF work statement 15:07:27 ... we'll spend some time on it next meeting. You'll have something after Friday this week 15:07:31 q? 15:07:48 s/Sawn/Shawn 15:07:51 zakim, next item 15:07:51 agendum 3. "Updated charter for WG review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/results" taken up [from AWK] 15:07:57 present+ Judy 15:08:07 https://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter 15:08:15 http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2016%2F08%2Fdraft-wcag-charter&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2016%2F09%2Fdraft-wcag-charter 15:08:17 josh: I asked for comments on the charter updated here 15:08:51 ... We worked in lots of comments. There is an update here. If you haven't given feedback, please do so 15:08:51 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/ 15:09:16 awk: There is a diff version people can look at 15:09:43 ... the key changes are that this looks at WCAG work as a 2 year charter, rather then 3 15:10:02 ... we've spoken with people in AC who feel charters should be 2 years or less. 15:10:12 q+ 15:10:23 ... although the W3C membership as a whole doesn't necesarilly agree 15:10:51 ... We're just calling it web content accessibility working group 15:10:53 Apologize, but can one of you brief me if there is any specific changes that I need to keep in mind? Re: new charter 15:11:02 ... main deliverables are WCAG 2.1 and ACT document 15:11:26 ... this has to be varified with Wilco and Shadi, if that 2 years is achievable or can be candidate rec 15:11:30 Thanks Josh 15:11:42 thought I missed out something if it was last week. 15:11:44 Q+ 15:11:51 ... Silver and WCAG 2.2 are outside the charter because they are outside the 2 years 15:12:01 q+ 15:12:33 ... We need to think about if we need to express this kind of continuity 15:12:56 ... if we had this we'd need to put a first draft of silver in 15:12:58 q+ to discuss gregs continuing the work of UA WG or AT WG 15:13:12 ack ju 15:13:12 ack Judy 15:13:25 Judy: I was interested in the updated charter and discussion 15:13:56 ... I had been looking at the 2 year time. I think the perspective of all charters should be 2 years. This is advocated by some AC members 15:14:17 ... but this group should look at all considerations of timing. Should propose the charter that you feel fits together for all the work 15:14:49 ... There are a few factors to look at. One is the overhead of chartering itself. It takes resources and introduces unpredictability in the planning 15:15:07 ... if you know the directions you need to go then it may be better to scope that work out. 15:15:17 ... if the work shift there is still the option to ammend to scope 15:15:41 ... I was impressed with the Silver discussion at TPAC. There is a lot of momentum there. 15:16:02 ... Maybe having the ability to work on a first working draft would be a good way to keep the momentum. 15:16:34 q? 15:16:37 ... To allow exploring work in parallel with 2.1, rather then to push a first public draft of silver back a few years 15:17:08 ... Other UAAG / ATAG aspects you may risk losing the ability to carry that work forward 15:17:27 ack JF 15:17:56 JF: Talking to AC reps I heard that we could certainly show an intent to update on a fixed time line 15:18:19 ... we can telegraph that it is the intent to update Accessibility guidance, without commiting to a deliverable 15:18:33 ... this would keep the momentum going. It would be implied in the charter. 15:18:46 ack wilco 15:19:02 WF: The question came up about how this relates to ACT.. 15:19:12 s/I think the perspective of all charters should be 2 years. This is advocates by some AC members/I think that the perspective that all charters should be 2 years may be advocated by some AC members, but may not reflect current W3C process/ 15:19:14 WF: I don't think we can get ACT done in two years. 15:19:21 WF: CR may be possible. 15:19:24 ack me 15:19:24 Joshue, you wanted to discuss gregs continuing the work of UA WG or AT WG 15:20:12 Josh: In response to Gregg about UAAG, ATAG. We decided not to mention it explicitly. We're concerned that our work gets bogged down within the charter work 15:20:35 q? 15:20:35 q+ to agree that Silver FPWD should be included in this charter 15:20:36 q+ 15:20:37 q+ 15:20:41 ... We also need to work on Silver on user agent / authoring tools. But we have to think of this work independend of those groups. They don't exist anymore 15:21:10 Greg: Could it not be in a way that we mention it is in those areas? 15:21:42 +1 to Josh 15:21:48 Josh: Calling it requirements for accessibility guidelines can be included within that. But I'm concerned about how we define the scope 15:22:20 ... how is it funded, who manages it. We don't want 2.1 work to get bogged down in this. So we do a light touch on this. We want it to give us room for certain things 15:22:46 ... not to say that work is not important, but we need to get this out the door. So no references to things that aren't essential 15:23:09 Greg: is the draft charter tying our hands, so we can't do any updates to non-normative documents of UUAG / ATAG? 15:23:13 q+ 15:23:18 Josh: So who would do and fund that work? 15:23:36 Greg: I know there are still people who did the original work 15:23:40 q? 15:24:07 MC: Should be enabled to do it by the charter, but not be obligated to do it 15:24:16 q- 15:24:33 q+ to say that I believe that the charter already enables non-normative work on UAAG/ATAG if we were able 15:24:35 Josh: My concern is how that would be worded. I'm happy to have these things implied 15:24:53 ... I see the UAAG stuff vital for the future of Silver. 15:24:58 ack jeanne 15:24:58 jeanne, you wanted to agree that Silver FPWD should be included in this charter 15:25:26 ack awk 15:25:26 AWK, you wanted to say that I believe that the charter already enables non-normative work on UAAG/ATAG if we were able 15:25:27 JS: I agree I want a FPWD mentioned, so we can work on it without recharter 15:25:28 q+ to say we can add a bullet to the other deliverables 15:25:39 q+ to say can´t have normative project in the other deliverables 15:25:53 AWK: We can work on these non-normative documents 15:26:10 ... does that mean a 3 year charter, or stay with 2? 15:26:13 Q+ 15:26:51 JS: For a 2 year charter it should be an option. The requirements document is great, but maybe leading to a working draft 15:26:53 David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag 15:27:01 ack jud 15:27:08 present+ David_MacDonald 15:27:30 Judy: Chairs are looking for a strong focus on 2.1 so they are confident that work moves forward. 15:28:14 ... maybe it's possible to do that while other things are evolving. To leave room, but write the charter to worry about not going all the way on things that aren't core priority 15:28:28 ... I'm interested in the question of the momentum about Silver, to leave room for that 15:28:46 ... It needs the benefit of the strong community here 15:29:18 ... There may be ways to leave space for that work. 15:29:40 ... I think maybe things could be learned from that, that could be key input for Silver 15:29:55 q? 15:29:59 ack mic 15:29:59 MichaelC, you wanted to say we can add a bullet to the other deliverables and to say can´t have normative project in the other deliverables 15:30:25 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 15:30:32 MC: The other deliverable section allows us to do non-normative work. We can add a bullet to make it more explicit 15:30:38 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:30:42 .. as long as we don't phrase it as a requirement 15:30:43 q+ to mention the milestones exploration aspect -- meant to mention that 15:30:56 ... I think not having a FPWD for Silver doesn't stop us not working on it 15:31:10 ... Along with requirements we have to work on an editor's draft 15:31:25 ... It's probably wise for the 2 year charter not to go to FPWD 15:31:54 q? 15:32:01 ... It's a bit of a challange to run it past AC. As an informal deliverable we'd have much more to show. We could do a FPWD right away on the next charter 15:32:13 ... on the 3 year charter I would want to have a FPWD in it 15:32:24 ... but that would be more challenging to get passed AC 15:32:33 q+ 15:33:18 Greg: I hadn't quite read it that way. What I was talking about is minor updates. If you say it incorporates both, I would be fine with that 15:33:29 ... maybe show it can be changed 15:34:05 s/to do that while/to make sure that that is the focus/ 15:34:09 Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag 15:34:10 ack JF 15:34:12 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:34:46 JF: MC summarized what I was going to say. There is no decision made on the charter length. I think shorter charter, but that's not officially decided 15:35:55 ... if we show an intent going forward beyond two years. We don't need it all in the existing charter. If we can accurately show what we are doing the length shows where we plan to be 15:36:08 ack judy 15:36:08 Judy, you wanted to mention the milestones exploration aspect -- meant to mention that 15:37:15 JC: In developing a new charter, we should look at milestones. 15:37:38 Ryladog__ has joined #wai-wcag 15:37:40 ... With the W3C Reorg will have responsibility over the milestones. MC will come back on this. 15:37:53 ... It is hard to predict things about where charter length will go. 15:38:51 ... The community group proposal got pushed back. The wind can blow in one direction but it ends up in another direction based on use cases and experiences. 15:39:49 test 15:39:55 ... Also responding to Greg. It sounds you want to update UAAG / ATAG work. Changes to those documents might not go through the charter 15:39:57 test 15:40:31 q? 15:40:33 ... If specif updates for UAAG or ATAG would put the charter at risk of getting accepted 15:40:37 I was actually talking only about non-normative documents, not updating UAAG or ATAG themselves. 15:40:51 bbailey has joined #wai-wcag 15:40:52 ... if we don't include anything, there is other risk with momentum and getting that scope back 15:41:09 Josh: Greg commented specific about non-normative documents 15:41:09 Okay, back from radio silence... 15:41:09 ack ryla 15:42:38 Q+ to ask about proof of "freaking"... 15:42:39 q+ 15:42:40 Katie: When the world hears about 2.1 they would freak. If we also give the information that there will be a new standard every 2 years 15:42:41 q+ to talk about AWK's conversation on a 2.1 15:43:14 q+ to ask about the 'have to update' every 2 years - could it be on a need to basis? 15:43:36 ... we'll lose credibility with government. It makes perfect sense to do 2 year updates. It would not be realistic to have a standard that is in laws around the world updated every 2 years 15:43:41 s/to worry/so as not to worry/ 15:44:20 ... we can update HTML, CSS, ARIA without the issues you'd get for WCAG. We need to not scare governments. Our bar needs to be an excellent spec. This is not an agile format 15:44:32 AWK to talk about the purpose of the charter review period is to gather additional feedback from stakeholders 15:44:43 .... We have to look at that carefully. I don't know that we should put any timeframe as to how often we have a new WCAG 15:44:45 q+ to speak in favor of 2 year publication schedule. 15:44:54 s/JC: In developing a new charter/JB: In developing a new charter/ 15:45:26 ... The standards we are building are taken into a world of trust. We have to take into account the requirements organizations have. 15:45:59 ... so yes agile is important, but the outcome has to consider the requirements, not just of our members, but being able to give them something that is good. 15:46:02 q+ to also speak to the "have to update" question 15:46:25 ... I believe in the next 5 years laws and regulations can move more quickly. But that is not the case today 15:46:59 ... we need to do a really good job, not to bypass and say we'll do it 2 years from now 15:47:29 Josh: I think we need to separate those two things 15:48:15 Katie: I think it is really important the success criteria are testable, which means success criteria will drop off 15:48:19 ack jf 15:48:19 JF, you wanted to ask about proof of "freaking"... 15:48:40 JF: You mention governments freaking out. I'd like to see evidence of that 15:49:13 .. that concern was articulated early on. But that wasn't what I heard. As long as there was a clear plan they could work with that 15:49:44 ... Stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on our process. But I don't want to work on the assumption governments can't move quickly 15:50:16 q? 15:50:22 Speaking personally, *I* am freaking out... 15:50:24 ... When we worked on the numbering, we had feedback from the regulatory world. The worksheet in the wiki shows that legislators do that kind of work 15:50:57 ack bb 15:51:12 ... I would rather get the criteria out to developers than worry about the governments 15:51:44 Bruce: I have to see that I am freaking out. I'll talk about it soon 15:52:22 ... I was always able to say, the WG isn't chartert to work on 2.1. Those are not normative. We are very close to getting 508 update out 15:52:50 ack awk 15:52:50 AWK, you wanted to talk about AWK's conversation on a 2.1 15:52:51 ... we talked about how we are transmitting the materials. We are trying to move fast enough, so I'm begging for 2 months before this becomes a policy 15:53:32 Josh: is it that 2.1, or any change at all shakes the tree, what is alarming about the work? 15:53:35 q+ 15:54:24 Bruce: Things do need to change. But having a dated version of 2.0 is a complication in the 508 making 15:54:29 ... why throw a spanner in the works 15:54:45 q+ to speak to existence of different countries, jurisdictions, w3c international, etc 15:54:50 ack awk 15:54:52 q+ 15:54:55 ... in two months we'll know where if it will be out before the election or if it will be delayed 15:55:35 AWK: my management found this fine. I expect you'll have the same 15:56:02 ... this is what we need to get away from, the 'just two more months, just another year'. We need to keep current, put out the best guidance 15:56:03 2.1 is NOT the issue or problem. It is having a new standard coming every two years 15:56:07 q+ to say that AWK is almost certainly right 15:56:25 Q+ to point to the Japanese experience (adopting the ISO standard), or the UK experience ("Most current guidance") 15:56:34 ... it will work out well for some, not well for others. But "not well" is not a horrible things. 15:56:59 ... it is inevidable. We should not make our timeline fit with what policymakers are doing. We can't control their timeline 15:57:00 +1 (LOUDLY) 15:57:27 ack me 15:57:27 Joshue, you wanted to ask about the 'have to update' every 2 years - could it be on a need to basis? 15:58:26 s/my management found this fine/I spoke with Access Board management and the idea of a WCAG 2.1 was well-received 15:58:34 josh: Sympathy for Bruce's position. Andrew is right. We're not going to run off without consensus. We have work to do, and we do want to progress 15:59:02 q+ 15:59:07 ... I'm not a fan of the 2 year thing. I have questions, like Katie. Does WCAG fit with an agile model. I think some does, some doesn't 15:59:19 ... it comes down to the nature of accessibility. 15:59:39 ... I'm hearing a need, a lot of people think this is the best way to go 15:59:49 q- 15:59:54 ack jeanne 15:59:54 jeanne, you wanted to speak in favor of 2 year publication schedule. 16:00:45 I agree with more frequent updates, just noe evry two years 16:00:47 JS: I think we need to set an expectation of more frequent updates. This is essential to many, so they know they can count on the W3C to update the standard to changing technology 16:01:02 s/noe evry/not every 16:01:32 ... I was put off by the implication that an increase in release does not mean a decrease in quality 16:02:01 ... The dot releases are not to address what was forgotten, they are to keep us up to date with changing technology 16:02:18 ... I suspect the cognative SC will be better addressed in Silver 16:02:55 ... I Thought COGA brought very good work, but they have been put down for various reasons. I think the problem is in the structure of WCAG 16:02:57 q+ to say that the criteria for adoption in 2.1 of COGA SC are set by WCAG 2.0 and wont change 16:03:14 ... I think this will be better addressed in Silver. It will have a more inclusive structure than WCAG 2.0 16:03:37 ack judy 16:03:37 Judy, you wanted to also speak to the "have to update" question and to speak to existence of different countries, jurisdictions, w3c international, etc 16:03:39 ... everything that we can include for 2.1 we should. But what doesn't fit well, we should have an agressive timeline for silver, to include that work 16:04:13 JB: It sounds like updates will need to be done very carefully 16:04:49 ... I think Josh's comments are important about the 2 year cycle. The intent of WCAG 2 had been to develop something that was as stable as possible 16:05:20 ... it may be that evolving WCAG 2 could be some agile some stable. The more clearly we can articulate that and message that the better we'll do 16:05:58 ... We did a huge amount in the past to promote standards harmonization. If this group comes with a clear vision of a stable evolution, we can help promote awareness of that 16:06:38 ... Coga in particular we'll need to pay attention to. There were some reservations by Lisa about the 2.1. 16:06:57 To question about, if we could put a paper together suggesting legislators point to the latest version: TLDR answer is no, not for U.S. Federal government. 16:07:09 q? 16:07:11 ... Maybe the group should help for other mechanismes, possibly expansions. If the group doesn't have Silver in this charter there may be risk to lose that work 16:07:38 ... if we keep Silver craft in scope, you could maybe follow the path Jeanne is saying 16:08:23 ... As for Bruce's comments. The W3C has to be careful about requests from a particular country, but is trying to understand the challanges. 16:08:53 ... It may be important for how clear we are about what the 2.1 work will be. That's not something that is likely to be done in the near future 16:08:58 q/ 16:09:01 q? 16:09:13 ... It is helpful to hear the feedback and concern. 16:09:17 ack ryla 16:10:20 Katie: I didn't mean to say the task force isn't doing a great job. It is. I'm talking about a complete standard. i believe in regular updates. But I'm saying 2 years is not realistic 16:10:34 ... If someone needs to say a timeframe, I would say more a 4 or 5 years 16:10:53 ... the way I'm teaching WCAG is that normative doesn't change. What changes is techniques and understanding documents 16:11:28 ...Make best practices part of the next standards. You can have updates that can be understood by governments. This charter should not say updates every 2 years. 16:11:53 ... that will make using this standard in laws hard. This is different from other standards by the W3C. 16:12:48 ack bruce 16:12:51 ack bb 16:12:51 bbailey, you wanted to say that AWK is almost certainly right 16:12:52 I disagree. We have a responsible to people with disabilities to keep our guidelines updated to changing technologies. IMO, ultimately, those are the most important group we are responsible to. 16:13:22 [JB: notes that given that different countries and jurisdictions have different approaches, w3c needs to be aware of uptake issues in many different settings, and look across all of that.] 16:13:38 Bruce: Updating 2 years for a standard, even ICT standards are slower then that. I think agile is horrible for accessibility 16:13:46 q+ 16:14:08 ... it doesn't seem compatible. The 6 month change of techniques is excellent. But WCAG's stability has been important 16:14:11 q+ to say that each government wouldn't be expected to adopt each update of WCAG 16:14:13 +q 16:14:25 -q 16:14:27 +1 16:14:51 q+ to say the ¨Background¨ section of the charter should not be in the final version, it´s too detailed for a charter. I think we should signal the intent to do biennial guidelines but not commit to it formally yet, we need to evaluate over the next two years whether we´ll be ready for another revision then. 16:15:06 ... the extension approach was brilliant. I think it will be okay to do 2.1 in the charter, and yes I've asked for 2 more months for 2 years 16:15:27 q+ 16:15:52 ... The US government doesn't reference a specific version. That doesn't happen in federal. The state government might be more comfortable with that 16:15:57 ack JF 16:15:57 JF, you wanted to point to the Japanese experience (adopting the ISO standard), or the UK experience ("Most current guidance") 16:16:48 The U.S. government needs to reference a specific dated version. 16:16:51 JF: I want to point out that there are other experiences. Moving to 2.1 Makoto pointed out that Japan pointed to the ISO. He didn't see a major issue 16:17:18 q+ 16:17:19 ... the UK point to the most current guidance. That may not work for the US. 2.0 stays table. There are still countries that point to WCAG 1 16:18:16 ... our primary concerns are not governments but people with disabilities. Failing to release that because we want to wait for another government is troubling 16:18:31 ... one of the comments I heard was that WCAG was already very US-centric 16:19:08 q+ to confirm Johns comment that government citation will be to dated version 16:19:16 ... I want the a11y standard to address the needs of users, if it works with government that's great, but they are second in line behind the users 16:19:18 Ryladog has joined #WAI-WCAG 16:19:18 q+ 16:19:19 ack dav 16:19:40 q+ to say +1 to users first but note it´s been government policies that gave us the weight 16:19:49 ack me 16:19:49 Joshue, you wanted to say that the criteria for adoption in 2.1 of COGA SC are set by WCAG 2.0 and wont change 16:19:52 Updates on what we do can be handled by new Techiques 16:19:53 urrgh talking 16:20:20 Josh: Regarding Coga. the criteria for adoption are set by WCAG 2.0. 16:20:33 Present+ MoeKraft 16:20:50 ... Noone in the group is trying to make it difficult. We want this work to succeed. We are totally behind it. But we can't relax the criteria with which WCAG 2.0 works 16:21:02 s/Silver craft/Silver craft/ 16:21:04 But we could put the extra effort into helping COGA 16:21:20 ... maybe Coga work is a better fit for Silver, because we'll make sure 2.1 will have substantial things for coga 16:21:28 q+ to say coga has always heard ¨next time¨ and we have to be sensitive to that, but also need to be realistic 16:21:55 ... We are helping coga as much as we can 16:22:20 zakim, close queue 16:22:20 ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed 16:22:36 David: WCAG 1 had a technology specific focus. We couldn't keep up with technology. SC being technology independend gave stability 16:23:17 ... in the long term people would require keyboard access. We could keep our research up to date, deal with all the complexity 16:23:39 ... I agree that a 2 year cycle is reasonable. Agile is great for some development, but for standard it's not the right way to go 16:23:47 s/possibly expansions/possibly also extensions, in addition to 2.1 roll-in for now, for the portion that can't currently make the 2.1 success criteria threshold./ 16:23:56 ... i can see a 4 to 5 years. 8 years is too long. But by 6 years people get antsy 16:24:20 ack mich 16:24:20 MichaelC, you wanted to say the ¨Background¨ section of the charter should not be in the final version, it´s too detailed for a charter. I think we should signal the intent to 16:24:23 ... do biennial guidelines but not commit to it formally yet, we need to evaluate over the next two years whether we´ll be ready for another revision then. and to say +1 to users 16:24:23 ... first but note it´s been government policies that gave us the weight and to say coga has always heard ¨next time¨ and we have to be sensitive to that, but also need to be 16:24:23 ... realistic 16:24:45 It is in two section 16:25:12 MC: I believe the background section should be moved to another resource, it shouldn't stay. We should signal an intent to commit every 2 years. But we can't commit to it 16:25:29 ...I think we should give the right signals around that. 16:25:47 It is also here: 2. 3.1 Normative Specifications - Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 - change the SECOND PARAGRAPH to this: The Working Group intends to produce regular updates for WCAG guidelines, starting with WCAG 2.1. 16:25:55 ... About users vs government. The guidelines should serve users, but it has been government policies that give WCAG the extra weight. 16:26:27 fyi: Regarding law, September 22, 2016, U.S. representatives Phil Roe (R-TN) and Joe Courtney (D-CT) introduced the Accessible Instructional Materials in Higher Education (AIM-HE) Act into U.S. Congress: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6122/text 16:26:29 ... About Coga I'm concerned about telling them again that we can't address certain things now. Ask them to wait another cycle 16:27:01 Josh: That's not what we are trying to do. WCAG 2.0 defines the rules, in Silver we can define other ways 16:27:07 ack awk 16:27:07 AWK, you wanted to say that each government wouldn't be expected to adopt each update of WCAG 16:27:08 ack awk 16:27:14 MC: We didn't intend, but it could be perceived like that 16:27:22 The Act's primary goal is producing voluntary guidelines 16:27:23 https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2016/9/accessible-instructional-materials-bill-introduced 16:27:47 AWK: I wouldn't expect a government to update based on every update of WCAG 16:28:18 ... If US government timing worked out with 2.2, I wouldn't expect a 2.3. But to keep current with technology, that would be the reason for 2.3 16:28:43 ack judy 16:28:44 ... We aren't seeing governments catch up. Some still reference 1.0 16:28:48 zakim, close the queue 16:28:48 ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed 16:29:25 JB: A few people commented about primary stakeholders. The accessibility work is a multi-stakeholder proposition. The end ures are people with disabilities 16:29:44 s/ures/users 16:30:28 ... in terms of timing, silver may be able to help address things in more depth, but my understanding is that the group has been talking about three main areas 16:30:55 ... I think the maturity testing is going to be important to keep realistic focus on what you can do shorter term to help these areas 16:30:57 ack ste 16:31:25 bruce: federal standards can update quickly. 16:31:28 ack bb 16:31:28 bbailey, you wanted to confirm Johns comment that government citation will be to dated version 16:32:07 [JB: Judy self-corrects her comment above -- the users also include organizations, businesses, gov'ts, etc] 16:32:43 SR: I agree that this is multi-stakeholder. But the users are prime. Until legislation begins to address the private sector as well, I think its silly to keep going on about it. 16:33:11 [JB notes that in some countries, the private sector is already addressing this.] 16:33:36 +++++ Wilco 16:33:44 Regarding extensions - Spec fragmentation, very difficult conformance model, cherry picking of extensions by authors..etc 16:34:25 Josh: about extensions. The potential for fragmentation is high. The conformance modal was difficult, as well as cherry picking 16:34:39 ... coga requirement under 2.1 makes much more sense, that could lead to a weak specification 16:35:15 laura has left #wai-wcag 16:35:21 RSSAgent, make minutes 16:35:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:35:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html Joshue108 16:42:14 trackbot, end meeting 16:42:14 Zakim, list attendees 16:42:14 As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Srini, Greg_Lowney, Joshue108, kirkwood, jeanne, Wilco, alastairc, Lauriat, marcjohlic, Makoto, Laura, Rachael, steverep, KimD, JF, 16:42:17 ... MichaelC, Judy, David_MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MoeKraft 16:42:22 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:42:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot 16:42:23 RRSAgent, bye 16:42:23 I see no action items