19:29:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #waicc
19:29:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-waicc-irc
19:29:22 <Judy> trackbot, start meeting
19:29:22 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
19:29:56 <janina> janina has joined #waicc
19:30:16 <Judy> agenda?
19:30:50 <Judy> agenda+ Confirming scribe and any agenda additions
19:30:50 <Judy> agenda+ AG WG charter <https://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter> out for review by W3C Advisory Committee, comments due by 2 Dec, please advise your AC rep
19:30:50 <Judy> agenda+ Symposium on ICT accessibility testing <http://ictaccessibilitytesting.org/>
19:30:51 <Judy> agenda+ WH event on accessibility of Internet/Web of things
19:30:51 <Judy> agenda+ Upcoming publications & messaging; discussion topics for WAI IG
19:30:52 <Judy> agenda+ Participation needs, community group or workshop liaisons?
19:30:54 <Judy> agenda+ Upcoming publications, cross-reviews, and messaging
19:30:56 <Judy> agenda+ Any other business?
19:30:58 <Judy> agenda+ Next meeting: Nov 23 or Dec 7, topic requests
19:31:12 <Judy> present+ Judy
19:31:17 <Judy> present+ Katie
19:31:44 <Judy> present+ Janina
19:31:49 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #waicc
19:31:52 <Judy> present+ Michael
19:32:04 <Judy> agenda+ Update on WTAG
19:32:16 <Ryladog_> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
19:32:35 <janina> scribe: janina
19:33:18 <janina> regrets: George, Jim, Andrew
19:34:23 <janina> zakim, next item
19:34:23 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Confirming scribe and any agenda additions" taken up [from Judy]
19:34:36 <Judy> agenda?
19:35:00 <janina> jb: Currently under AC review
19:35:21 <janina> jb: Requesting that chairs inform their WGs
19:35:58 <janina> jb: Key is to get WG members to get their AC rep advised about this, and offer any assistance
19:37:06 <janina> mc: We're getting responses, mostly groups we ordinarily work with
19:37:17 <janina> mc: Have a request to add Dpub liaison
19:37:42 <janina> jb: You're expecting to handle the requests during review
19:37:47 <janina> mc: Yes, to the extent possible
19:38:26 <janina> jb: With respect to the Korean request, suggesting generic language with an "including ..." statement
19:38:42 <janina> mc: Draft text would be helpful
19:38:44 <janina> jb: OK
19:41:08 <janina> jb: Would be good to have robust participation in this review
19:41:11 <janina> zakim, next item
19:41:11 <Zakim> agendum 2. "AG WG charter <https://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter> out for review by W3C Advisory Committee, comments due by 2 Dec, please advise your AC rep" taken up
19:41:14 <Zakim> ... [from Judy]
19:41:48 <janina> jb: Symposium on ICT testing last week. I attended with Shadi
19:42:04 <janina> jb: We hope to get some work going on this
19:42:26 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
19:42:26 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Symposium on ICT accessibility testing <http://ictaccessibilitytesting.org/>" taken up [from Judy]
19:43:00 <janina> jb: Good participation, and great to see the interest in this area, including on research on accessibility testing
19:43:41 <liam> present+
19:43:52 <shadi> present+
19:44:07 <janina> jb: Recommend people note this conference for future involvement
19:44:40 <janina> jb: Suggesting a WAI-IG followup on this
19:44:45 <Judy> agenda?
19:44:46 <janina> khs: Yes
19:44:52 <janina> zakim, next item
19:44:52 <Zakim> agendum 4. "WH event on accessibility of Internet/Web of things" taken up [from Judy]
19:45:39 <janina> shadi: Attended White House a11y event
19:45:54 <janina> shadi: Focussed on panels -- so not much interaction
19:46:05 <janina> shadi: Good speaker/panelist lineup
19:46:29 <janina> shadi: IoT, medication, at and prosthetics, etc
19:46:37 <janina> shadi: IoT main item
19:46:56 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/blog/2016/11/white-house-disability-inclusive-technology-summit/
19:47:32 <janina> shadi: Noting that we're working on it, concerned we will have interoperability with at
19:48:00 <janina> lisa: Can you provide link? Noting FCC is also active in IoT
19:48:11 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #waicc
19:48:14 <janina> shadi: Yes, it was mentioned we might need new guidelines
19:49:08 <janina> shadi: Was noted that not every component would need to be accessible on its own, but the ecostructure must be
19:50:05 <janina> jb: Wanted to bring this up on the cc call because it touches all WAI work
19:50:24 <janina> jb: We particularly need help compiling use cases -- user scenarios
19:51:32 <janina> jb: Again suggesting a topic on WAI-IG hlpefully to lead to a IoT user scenarios discussion
19:52:17 <janina> ls: Would like to do some use cases for cognitive, but unavailable until next month
19:52:29 <janina> ls: Will be important to coordinate with the FCC
19:52:47 <janina> jb: Noting that Karen Pelz-Straus from the FCC was there
19:53:21 <janina> zakim, next item
19:53:21 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Upcoming publications & messaging; discussion topics for WAI IG" taken up [from Judy]
19:53:52 <janina> jb: Believe we have a note from Dpub ...
19:54:48 <janina> jb: Notes note from Tzviya re ARIA-Dpub and corresponding AAM on track
19:55:04 <janina> mc: We also have blog post ready, but only when we actually publish
19:55:33 <janina> mc: Rich is away through the month, so approval may be delayed
19:56:05 <Kim> Kim has joined #waicc
19:56:57 <janina> jb: Any topics that should go to WAI-IG?
19:57:19 <Kim> Present+ Kim
19:57:36 <janina> khs: Have had questions why the timeline based WCAG work, rather than a completed spec
19:58:00 <shadi> q+
19:58:13 <Joshue108> q+
19:58:49 <janina> khs: Perhaps a discussion of how W3C specs, especially WAI specs move forward would be a way to go about it
19:58:58 <MichaelC> q+
19:59:23 <janina> jb: Notes this has been previously discussed with W3 management
19:59:33 <MichaelC> q+ to say Charles´ message was analyziing how quickly you *could* do a spec under Process, not how fast you *have to* do a spec
20:00:03 <janina> jb: Notes this is on Chairs list
20:00:12 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about WCAG timelines
20:00:31 <MichaelC> q+ to say and their rationale
20:00:38 <shadi> q- later
20:01:16 <Joshue108> ack me
20:01:20 <Judy> q?
20:01:22 <janina> jb: Notes that there's been a lot of discussion, but clarity still seems elusive
20:02:15 <janina> josh: Notes that question has been responded to
20:02:39 <janina> josh: Not sure that widening discussion about this may not be useful at this time
20:03:18 <janina> josh: Notes that frequently updated techniques and understanding docs should be keeping guidance up to date
20:03:49 <Judy> q?
20:03:56 <janina> josh: Seems until 2.1 is out, and we have a better idea of what 3.0 will be, seems this would not help
20:03:58 <MichaelC> ack me
20:03:58 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say Charles´ message was analyziing how quickly you *could* do a spec under Process, not how fast you *have to* do a spec and to talk about WCAG timelines
20:04:01 <Zakim> ... and to say and their rationale
20:04:41 <janina> mc: Notes CNM's message was an analysis of what the process allows for timelines
20:05:33 <Ryladog_> q+
20:05:33 <janina> mc: There are many reasons building up for updated guidelines, which is a major reason behind 2.1
20:06:00 <janina> mc: Notes the parallel effort to outline a 3.0 for the longer view
20:06:31 <janina> mc: Key point is that we won't know what follows 2.1 until we finish 2.1
20:06:45 <janina> mc: We're trying to define timelines we can meet
20:07:16 <janina> shadi: Agree with not saying a11y standards are different, and also agree with sticking to timelines
20:07:31 <Judy> s/Notes that there's been a lot of discussion, but clarity still seems elusive/The need some stability in accessibility guidelines has been raised several times./
20:08:11 <janina> shadi: Having a commitment to regular releases seems a bit different than sticking to a particular timeline
20:08:21 <Joshue108> q+ to talk about personal preferences for WCAG.x
20:08:21 <janina> shadi: Does any WG have a regular release commitment?
20:08:24 <Judy> q+
20:08:49 <shadi> ack me
20:09:07 <janina> jb: Concept came from HTML, and has evolved since
20:09:37 <MichaelC> q+
20:09:54 <MichaelC> q+ to say I also disagree with every 2 years, or every 3 years
20:10:03 <janina> khs: Very disappointed to hear we're not focussed on making a spec complete before moving forward with it
20:10:16 <MichaelC> q+ to say there is no way WCAG 2.1 could cover everything we want and done anytime soon; that´s why we have Silver
20:10:22 <janina> khs: Seems uptake will be more difficult that way with regulators
20:11:14 <MichaelC> ack me
20:11:14 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I also disagree with every 2 years, or every 3 years and to say there is no way WCAG 2.1 could cover everything we want and done anytime soon; that´s
20:11:17 <Zakim> ... why we have Silver
20:11:49 <janina> mc: I personally agree with the timeline concerns expressed
20:12:14 <Joshue108> +1 to MC
20:12:15 <janina> mc: On the other hand, everything we know we need to address--we can't do it all in any near horizon timeframe
20:13:06 <janina> mc: Wording in charter doesn't bind us to specific post 2.1 other than the Silver planning
20:13:06 <Judy> "The Working Group intends to produce updated guidance for accessibility on a regular interval of approximately three years, starting with WCAG 2.1. Depending on the outcome of the requirements development for the next major update to WCAG, it may be necessary to pursue further dot-releases of WCAG until the major release is ready to be completed in time for a scheduled release date."
20:13:18 <Judy> q+
20:13:25 <Judy> ack R
20:13:46 <Joshue108> ack me
20:13:46 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about personal preferences for WCAG.x
20:16:00 <janina> josh: It may not be the best, but there are reasons we decided to go this way, and we hope it helps keep our spec relevant
20:16:46 <Judy> q?
20:17:00 <Judy> agenda?
20:17:07 <janina> josh: Believe taking up the output from COGA and Mobile TFs will give us lots of substance in 2.1
20:17:19 <shadi> q+
20:19:09 <shadi> ack me
20:19:10 <janina> shadi: Just not convinced that the timeline approach will our quality
20:19:33 <janina> ls: +1 to discomfort with timelines
20:19:40 <Joshue108> s/ Just not convinced that the timeline approach will our quality/ Just not convinced that the timeline approach will improve our quality
20:20:51 <janina> zakim, next item
20:20:51 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, janina
20:20:59 <janina> q?
20:21:01 <Judy> ack s
20:21:04 <Judy> ack j
20:21:10 <janina> zakim, next item
20:21:10 <Zakim> agendum 6. "Participation needs, community group or workshop liaisons?" taken up [from Judy]
20:21:34 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
20:21:34 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
20:21:35 <Zakim> 6. Participation needs, community group or workshop liaisons? [from Judy]
20:21:35 <Zakim> 7. Upcoming publications, cross-reviews, and messaging [from Judy]
20:21:35 <Zakim> 8. Any other business? [from Judy]
20:21:35 <Zakim> 9. Next meeting: Nov 23 or Dec 7, topic requests [from Judy]
20:21:35 <Zakim> 10. Update on WTAG [from Judy]
20:22:06 <Joshue108> JS: We are short staffed.
20:22:15 <janina> jb: Noting the APA is preparing a recruiting message
20:22:33 <janina> mc: RQTF also struggling with membership--a nominal level so far
20:23:00 <janina> mc: Also CSS TF, mainly because we haven't identified a Co-Facilitator
20:23:23 <Joshue108> JS: That is disappointing after all the effort.
20:23:55 <Joshue108> q?
20:24:01 <janina> mc: Noting that Silver TF is small
20:24:07 <janina> jb: Wondering if too small?
20:24:13 <Joshue108> It wont be small for long
20:24:27 <janina> mc: Expecting close coordination with main group
20:24:48 <janina> mc: Idea is a group of people who are able to devote focus to the work
20:25:04 <janina> josh: Don't believe it will be small for long
20:25:32 <Judy> s/too small?/too small? Need more diverse perspectives?/
20:26:06 <janina> zakim, next item
20:26:06 <Zakim> agendum 7. "Upcoming publications, cross-reviews, and messaging" taken up [from Judy]
20:27:33 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
20:28:17 <Judy> agenda?
20:28:43 <janina> zakim, take up item 10
20:28:43 <Zakim> agendum 10. "Update on WTAG" taken up [from Judy]
20:29:36 <MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/checklist.html
20:29:42 <janina> mc: Largely an APA effort--mostly me
20:29:58 <janina> mc: Currently a checklist to share with W3C groups doing specs
20:31:06 <janina> mc: Still an APA topic, maybe not yet ready for wider review
20:31:19 <janina> jb: Wondering about other WAI groups' feedback
20:31:45 <janina> mc: May need to be a second step, because we're now commited to an early v 1.0
20:32:23 <janina> mc: Had previously thought we'd do the WTAG and then a questionairre, but now the q is first
20:32:31 <janina> jb: Believe wider review would be helpful
20:33:16 <janina> jb: At least a "hives" review at this point
20:34:06 <Judy> agenda?
20:34:39 <janina> zakim, take up item 9
20:34:39 <Zakim> agendum 9. "Next meeting: Nov 23 or Dec 7, topic requests" taken up [from Judy]
20:35:42 <janina> jb: Notes the 23rd date iis the day ahead of a major U.S. holliday
20:35:47 <janina> jb: Are people available?
20:35:48 <MichaelC> MC not available
20:35:50 <janina> ls: Yes
20:35:54 <janina> janina: Probably not
20:35:55 <Judy> Please indicate availability for Nov 23?
20:36:05 <shadi> [SAZ available]
20:36:53 <Judy> And for Dec 7th?
20:37:00 <janina> janina: Yes
20:37:04 <shadi> [SAZ available]
20:37:04 <MichaelC> MC available
20:37:14 <Kim> not 23, yes 7
20:37:38 <Judy> chair: Judy
20:38:02 <Judy> meeting: WAI Coordination Call
20:38:29 <Judy> present?
20:38:43 <Judy> zakim, who's here?
20:38:43 <Zakim> Present: Judy, Katie, Janina, Michael, Katie_Haritos-Shea, liam, shadi, Kim, Joshue108
20:38:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see Kim, janina, RRSAgent, Zakim, liam, Judy, shadi, MichaelC, trackbot
21:09:20 <Judy> rrsagent, make log public
21:09:28 <Judy> rrsagent, make minutes
21:09:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-waicc-minutes.html Judy
21:10:25 <Judy> regrets: Tzviya, Kim
21:10:46 <Judy> regrets: Charles