15:45:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:45:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-irc
15:45:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:45:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
15:45:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:45:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:45:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:45:24 <trackbot> Date: 15 November 2016
15:45:43 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue
15:45:57 <Joshue108> agenda+ [Continue with items 2-4] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/
15:46:33 <Joshue108> agenda+ Working group review of ACT Framework Requirements + DPUB request for input from WCAG working group ttps://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/
15:46:48 <Joshue108> zakim, drop item 2
15:46:48 <Zakim> agendum 2, Working group review of ACT Framework Requirements + DPUB request for input from WCAG working group ttps://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/,
15:46:51 <Zakim> ... dropped
15:47:15 <Joshue108> agenda+ Working group review of ACT Framework Requirements + DPUB request https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/
15:47:25 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:47:25 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:47:26 <Zakim> 1. [Continue with items 2-4] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/ [from Joshue108]
15:47:26 <Zakim> 3. Working group review of ACT Framework Requirements + DPUB request https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/ [from Joshue108]
15:47:37 <Joshue108> agenda+ CFCs, commenting and participation.
15:49:27 <mattg> mattg has joined #wai-wcag
15:50:34 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:53:38 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:53:47 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #WAI-WCAG
15:55:48 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:26 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:56 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:23 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:59:29 <Srini> Srini has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:11 <Kim> Kim has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:35 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:50 <tzviya> present+ Tzviya
16:00:59 <mattg> present+ mattg
16:01:12 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:12 <Zakim> Present: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg
16:01:14 <SarahHorton> present+ Sarah
16:01:15 <AWK> +AWK
16:01:25 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
16:01:28 <AWK> regrets+ Moe_Kraft, KathyW
16:01:38 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:45 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
16:01:45 <Srini> Srini has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:45 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:01:46 <Zakim> 1. [Continue with items 2-4] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/ [from Joshue108]
16:01:46 <Zakim> 3. Working group review of ACT Framework Requirements + DPUB request https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/ [from Joshue108]
16:01:46 <Zakim> 4. CFCs, commenting and participation. [from Joshue108]
16:01:52 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
16:02:04 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:06 <Srini> Srini+
16:02:10 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:12 <gowerm> Mike Gower+1
16:02:15 <DavidMacDonald> DavidMacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:17 <Srini> Can someone please ping WebEx URL?
16:02:25 <bbailey> +Bruce_Bailey
16:02:26 <steverep> present+steverep
16:02:26 <DavidMacDonald> test
16:02:28 <Srini> it's not showing up on IRC
16:02:29 <AWK> agenda+ Silver TF announcements
16:02:40 <DavidMacDonald> Present +DavidMacDonald
16:02:44 <bbailey> present +Bruce_Bailey
16:02:48 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:48 <Zakim> Present: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep
16:02:59 <Kim> +Kim
16:03:02 <Srini> Present +Srini
16:03:06 <DavidMacDonald> Present+ DavidMacDonald
16:03:14 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
16:03:15 <kirkwood> +kirkwood
16:03:19 <DavidMacDonald> zakim, who's here?
16:03:19 <Zakim> Present: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Kim, DavidMacDonald, alastairc, kirkwood
16:03:21 <Srini> Present+ Srini
16:03:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see DavidMacDonald, steverep, gowerm, Srini, Mike_Elledge, AWK, Kim, Greg, SarahHorton, tzviya, kirkwood, alastairc, laura, mattg, Zakim, RRSAgent, bbailey, Makoto,
16:03:21 <Zakim> ... jeanne, trackbot, yatil-away, MichaelC, Rossen
16:03:32 <laura> present+ Laura
16:03:37 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:40 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:43 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
16:03:50 <bbailey> zakim, i am Bruce_Bailey
16:03:50 <Zakim> sorry, bbailey, I do not see a party named 'Bruce_Bailey'
16:03:52 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
16:03:56 <Srini> can someone please ping WebEx link?
16:03:58 <AWK> +Mike_Gower
16:03:58 <Wilco> present+ Wilco
16:04:04 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
16:04:04 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:04:05 <Zakim> 1. [Continue with items 2-4] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/ [from Joshue108]
16:04:05 <Zakim> 3. Working group review of ACT Framework Requirements + DPUB request https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/ [from Joshue108]
16:04:05 <Zakim> 4. CFCs, commenting and participation. [from Joshue108]
16:04:05 <Zakim> 5. Silver TF announcements [from AWK]
16:04:18 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:20 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:30 <JF> Present+ JF
16:04:32 <Mike_Elledge> AK: When signing in, don't put space between + and
16:04:35 <bbailey> @me how do i tell zakim bbailey is Bruce_Bailey?
16:04:54 <Srini> Present+Srini
16:04:54 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, take up next item
16:04:54 <Zakim> agendum 1. "[Continue with items 2-4] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:04:57 <bbailey> nick=Bruce_Bailey
16:05:07 <clapierre> clapierre has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:13 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:13 <Srini> can someone help me with WebEx link pease?
16:05:17 <AWK> s/don't put space between + and/don't put space between your names
16:05:19 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:05:31 <clapierre> present+ Charles_LaPierre
16:05:33 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:05:35 <Makoto> Srini, WebEx link: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m064eab3e5485b640231a7fe56dc4785c
16:05:45 <JF> zakim, who is here?
16:05:45 <Zakim> Present: jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Kim, DavidMacDonald, alastairc, kirkwood, Srini, Laura, Makoto, Joshue108,
16:05:50 <Zakim> ... Mike_Gower, Wilco, JF, jon_avila, Charles_LaPierre, marcjohlic
16:05:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see jon_avila, clapierre, JF, marcjohlic, Joshue108, Wilco, DavidMacDonald, steverep, gowerm, Srini, Mike_Elledge, AWK, Kim, Greg, SarahHorton, tzviya, kirkwood,
16:05:50 <Zakim> ... alastairc, laura, mattg, Zakim, RRSAgent, bbailey, Makoto, jeanne, trackbot, yatil-away, MichaelC, Rossen
16:05:55 <Mike_Elledge> jo: couple of items from last week.
16:06:09 <Joshue108> TOPIC: Moving ARIA2 technique from 3.3.3 and putting in 3.3.2; adding ARIA21 to 3.3.3 #246
16:06:18 <Srini> Thanks
16:06:22 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/246
16:06:49 <jemma> jemma has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:19 <Mike_Elledge> jo:  Two issues. One part agreed, other not.
16:08:10 <Mike_Elledge> Jo:. First part seems okay. move aria2 from 3.3.3 to 3.3.2. But not add aria21 to 3.3.3. Seems general consensus.
16:08:47 <Mike_Elledge> awk: thx.
16:08:56 <DavidMacDonald> +1 to Jon... both
16:08:56 <Joshue108> q?
16:09:12 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/results#xpull189
16:09:23 <Mike_Elledge> jo:  Move aria2 from 3.3.3 to 3.3.2
16:09:31 <Joshue108> +1 moving ARIA2 technique 3.3.3 to 3.3.2
16:09:55 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:09:56 <marcjohlic> +1 on moving ARIA2 from 3.3.3 to 3.3.2
16:10:09 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
16:10:13 <Srini> q+
16:10:40 <AWK> q+ to say that the reason that this was not fully agreed on (I think) is that ARIA-required doesn't necessarily result in a visual label
16:11:10 <MichaelC> present+
16:11:16 <gowerm> q+
16:11:17 <Mike_Elledge> jf: to say not valide on 3.3.3 an incomplete truth. primarily req'd on the label or instruction, but...should apply 3.3.2. But as technique not incorrect to have on 3.3.3 as well.
16:11:21 <Joshue108> ack srini
16:11:42 <bbailey> q+ to ask if the advisory vs sufficient question was resolved last week?
16:11:46 <Mike_Elledge> Srini: Agree
16:11:49 <AWK> ack AWK
16:11:49 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the reason that this was not fully agreed on (I think) is that ARIA-required doesn't necessarily result in a visual label
16:11:52 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:12:01 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:12:18 <JF> Q+
16:12:24 <Srini> Andrew, you have a great point.
16:12:49 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:12:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:12:59 <Mike_Elledge> AK: just putting aria required doesn't meake a visual change. have to include visual change, where 3.3.2 would come into play. Wld not coutn as label or instruction.
16:13:08 <jemma> present+ JaEunJemmaKu
16:13:21 <Mike_Elledge> jo: html5 required atribute discussion last week.
16:13:32 <JF> ack JF
16:13:32 <Mike_Elledge> jo: Advisory technique
16:13:37 <Joshue108> ack gowerm
16:14:15 <Mike_Elledge> ma: 3.3.2 as advisory technique. it is reinforcing the visual with arai
16:14:34 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wai-wcag
16:14:39 <Joshue108> ack bruce
16:14:50 <Rachael> present+ Rachael
16:14:58 <AWK> q+ to say that if ARIA2 is just reinforcing the visual for 3.3.2 then that is the reason that it should not be in there.
16:15:02 <Mike_Elledge> bb: Mike c just resolved issue, as additional technique
16:15:20 <Mike_Elledge> jo: useful in 3.3.3.
16:15:41 <Srini> JO, HOW WOULD THAT BE?
16:15:42 <Joshue108> ack bbail
16:15:42 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if the advisory vs sufficient question was resolved last week?
16:15:46 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:15:46 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that if ARIA2 is just reinforcing the visual for 3.3.2 then that is the reason that it should not be in there.
16:15:48 <Srini> sorry for caps
16:16:40 <Mike_Elledge> jf: discussion around aria-required, visual indication. already different how present themselves to user. don't know if muddying the water with that.
16:17:32 <Joshue108> q?
16:17:45 <Mike_Elledge> aK: Aria required doesn't result in visual affect, then not sure why we'd put it in 3.3.2. If there is an html5 visual requirement would support adding it to 3.3.2.
16:18:17 <Mike_Elledge> ak: then a question of accessibility support. If something done productively with visual would meet 3.3.2.
16:19:19 <steverep> Can the default browser behavior be undone with CSS?
16:19:32 <Mike_Elledge> jf: aria will only result in visual element if you put it there. only get feedback when error and get response when you have screen reader.
16:19:52 <Mike_Elledge> jf: labels and instructions require you to input.
16:20:06 <Srini> Even if aria2 doesn't provide visual effect, it can still be relevant to 3.3.2 and not 3.3.3
16:20:08 <Mike_Elledge> ak: if does show visual, then 3.3.2, otherwise not.
16:20:12 <Ryladog> +1 to Andrew comment, it must be visual to support 3.3.2
16:20:54 <Mike_Elledge> jo: sufficient technique, advisory technique in some cases. but have to be careful.
16:21:14 <Mike_Elledge> jo: Live with advisory technique?
16:21:29 <AWK> I don't support ARIA2 as advisory for 3.3.2
16:21:33 <jon_avila> q+
16:21:41 <Mike_Elledge> ma: yes. but not an advisory in 3.3.3. 3.3.3 is an error suggestion so should be instructions. looking for consistency.
16:21:50 <Joshue108> ack jon
16:22:12 <Mike_Elledge> ja: use this technique and use this technique. Combine them.
16:22:36 <Ryladog> q+
16:22:38 <Mike_Elledge> jo: put this in as a sufficient technique if you do as "and"?
16:22:55 <Mike_Elledge> ja: as an example, under 3.3.2 say "and the following".
16:23:01 <Mike_Elledge> jf: more accurate
16:23:31 <jon_avila> q?
16:23:31 <AWK> ack r
16:24:34 <jon_avila> q+
16:24:37 <AWK> +1 to Katie's comment
16:24:52 <Mike_Elledge> katie: whether advisory of sufficient rationale should be the same. advisory not suppored as much. if not sufficient, then not advisory. not a fan of "plus".
16:24:56 <Joshue108> q?
16:25:00 <Mike_Elledge> jo: not as robust.
16:25:00 <Joshue108> ack jon
16:25:04 <AWK> ack jon
16:25:51 <Mike_Elledge> ja: reason why has to be sufficient. if allows you to meet on condition can't rely on it. if advisory may be part of the solution. Understand people may not understand that have to combine, but we do note it.
16:26:18 <AWK> Criteria for Advisory Techniques: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-advisory-head
16:26:28 <Mike_Elledge> jo: could add aria or html as part of sufficient techniques.
16:26:36 <Joshue108> q?
16:26:54 <AWK> q+ to make a suggestion
16:26:59 <AWK> ack AWK
16:26:59 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to make a suggestion
16:27:01 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:27:07 <Mike_Elledge> jo: do boolean technique as sufficient w/ reference to arai or html as advisory technique.
16:27:45 <Mike_Elledge> ak: to clear this issue, not move to 3.3.2. if someone puts together proposal for "and" we can consider it then.
16:27:46 <Joshue108> q?
16:28:01 <Mike_Elledge> ak: work can take place outside of call.
16:28:06 <Mike_Elledge> ma: will do it.
16:28:37 <Joshue108> ACTION: MikeGower to come up with suggested Boolean Technique for 3.3.2
16:28:37 <trackbot> Error finding 'MikeGower'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
16:28:59 <Joshue108> ACTION: gowerm to come up with suggested Boolean Technique for 3.3.2
16:28:59 <trackbot> Error finding 'gowerm'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
16:29:03 <Mike_Elledge> me: ma is mg.
16:29:25 <Joshue108> TOPIC: Making G53 more generic to meet 2.4.4 #242
16:29:42 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/242
16:30:19 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/results#xpull175
16:30:28 <Mike_Elledge>  mg: before we move. aria21 to 3.3.3. will incorporate for feedback.
16:30:34 <Mike_Elledge> jo: easier if they are separate.
16:31:00 <Mike_Elledge> jo: slight name change for G53 to more generic.
16:31:13 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Mike to work on updates to Issue 246 in a new issue
16:31:27 <Joshue108> agenda+ Silver Stakeholder Submission form
16:31:29 <AWK> s/Mike to work/Mike Gower to work
16:32:12 <jamesn> q+
16:32:16 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G53
16:32:22 <Mike_Elledge> mg: ibm checklist trying to take general techniques. 2.4.4 does not have a general idea for linking. odd situation where g53 talks about linking text with preceding sentence. Wanted to capture programmit aspect.
16:32:40 <Joshue108> ack james
16:33:38 <jon_avila> Agree with James.  We have a technique for each way we allow.
16:33:40 <jon_avila> q+
16:33:43 <Mike_Elledge> jn: not in favor. things allowed in link context are constrained. can't just say programmatic. have to be specific. in other situations are specific.
16:33:57 <Mike_Elledge> jo: need for specificity.
16:34:02 <Mike_Elledge> jn: yes
16:34:06 <AWK> +1 to James's comment
16:34:08 <Joshue108> q?
16:34:11 <gowerm> q+
16:34:14 <Joshue108> ack jon
16:34:30 <Joshue108> ack gow
16:34:34 <jon_avila> q?
16:34:40 <Mike_Elledge> ja: have a technique elsewhere. agree with james.
16:35:23 <Mike_Elledge> mg: does have a list of specific technologies. just want to put clarity on #8.
16:35:30 <Mike_Elledge> jo: don't see.
16:36:08 <Mike_Elledge> mg: sufficient techs in 2.4.4. Eight is listed there.General technique then techniques that support it are common.
16:36:16 <DavidMacDonald> q+
16:36:24 <Mike_Elledge> jo: struggling to see net gain. sounds like makes sense.
16:36:25 <AWK> q+
16:36:33 <AWK> ack da
16:37:30 <Joshue108> but that's because it uses a virtual cursor
16:37:34 <Mike_Elledge> dm: context on when came up with it. struggling around link text in link lists, without context in jaws. john slatin found could read paragraph if focus remains on link. can move to link list, grab focus. nobody ever does it in my experience.
16:37:55 <Mike_Elledge> dm: enclosing in sentence doesn't really solve this. hope to fix for 2.1
16:37:55 <gowerm> q+
16:37:57 <AWK> ack AWK
16:38:01 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:38:55 <Mike_Elledge> ak: mg said that in list of links #6 is enclosing sentence, #8 is programmatically determined. Should we be putting #6...
16:39:31 <Mike_Elledge> mg: actually a paragraph tag. sentence is not programmatically determinable with current tech.
16:39:42 <jon_avila> I would be fine with moving g53 down to item 8
16:39:47 <Mike_Elledge> jo: depends on AT. virtual cursor to walk the dom.
16:39:48 <AWK> Propose leaving it as it is.
16:40:00 <JF> +1 to AWK
16:40:00 <Mike_Elledge> jo: struggling to see net gain.
16:40:07 <Mike_Elledge> ak: leave as it is.
16:40:48 <Mike_Elledge> ak: to david's point can address it in 2.1. Not sure there is a net gain. feels a little weird.
16:41:05 <Mike_Elledge> jo: leave with the weird unless net gain.
16:41:06 <Joshue108> q?
16:41:13 <Joshue108> ack gower
16:41:18 <AWK> s/address it in 2.1/address it in 2.1 or silver
16:41:56 <AWK> It is hard to have a general technique that covers programmatically determined since programmatic determination varies by technology
16:42:09 <Mike_Elledge> gm: in terms of net gain is clarity. move g53 under #8. Wanted example of determinable. trying to meet this sc. no way to point to meeting the sc.
16:42:14 <jamesn> q+
16:42:21 <AWK> s/covers programmatically determined/covers programmatically determined link text
16:42:23 <AWK> ack j
16:42:24 <Mike_Elledge> jo; would be helpful in 2.1. for now let's leave it.
16:42:27 <Joshue108> ack james
16:42:36 <Mike_Elledge> jn: if not addressing it, won't reopen it.
16:42:42 <Mike_Elledge> jo: objections for not making change?
16:42:51 <Mike_Elledge> jo: none. will just leave this one.
16:43:04 <Mike_Elledge> dm: dont' have to use techniques to meet sc.
16:43:23 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Not accept changes in Issue 242
16:43:26 <JF> +1 to David - Techniques are always just guidance
16:43:42 <Joshue108> TOPIC: Include H90 as a technique for 1.3.1 Info and Relationships #240
16:43:46 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, take up next item
16:43:46 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Working group review of ACT Framework Requirements + DPUB request https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:43:52 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/240
16:44:12 <Mike_Elledge> mg: had a whole list to bring up for IBM checklist.
16:44:53 <Mike_Elledge> jo: consensus is that it is already covered in 1.3.1.
16:45:52 <Mike_Elledge> jf: question is whether h90 is covered in 1.3.2. It's backward. already covered, but not how the choices in survey were presented.
16:46:03 <Mike_Elledge> jo: do you want to add h90 in 1.3.1
16:46:12 <Mike_Elledge> jf: Sure, but already covered.
16:46:37 <Mike_Elledge> jo: i was one who dragged in 3.3.2. no need to add?
16:46:38 <AWK> The question is - "should H90 be listed as a sufficient technique for 1.3.1?"
16:46:41 <jon_avila> No because it alone it is not sufficient just like ARIA 2
16:46:42 <Joshue108> q?
16:47:23 <AWK> q+
16:47:32 <jamesn> q+
16:47:46 <Mike_Elledge> mg: purpose to make presentaitons programmatically determinable, if you use symbol then have to have it inside the legend tag to be pd. people with visual issues asterisk will be between label and input, so not pd.
16:47:58 <JF> Q+ to refute Marc's claim: <label for="input" aria-required="true">Name</label>*
16:48:36 <Mike_Elledge> gm: if someone fails to do this would fail.
16:48:56 <Mike_Elledge> alastair: have to convey it programmatically in other ways.
16:49:05 <jon_avila> q?
16:49:05 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:49:09 <jamesn> ack me
16:49:37 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H44.html
16:50:33 <Mike_Elledge> ak: mike brought up h44, compaer it to h90. h90 is 3.3.2, h44 is 3.3.1. very similar. big difference is procedure more beefed up, takes you through the steps. can see the argument for sufficient for 1.3.1 but only if it's beefed up?
16:50:37 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:50:37 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to refute Marc's claim: <label for="input" aria-required="true">Name</label>*
16:51:06 <Mike_Elledge> jf: want to reiterate what JN said. put asterisk inside the label, so meeting requirement.
16:51:06 <jon_avila> q+
16:51:08 <jon_avila> q?
16:51:45 <Mike_Elledge> jf: often will say required="true" in aria, works better.
16:51:46 <Joshue108> ack jon
16:52:24 <jamesn> (also the trend is away from putting asterisks on required fields - and to label optional fields instead in some way - not asterisks of course)
16:52:40 <Mike_Elledge> ja: when took survey hard to understand what we were respondign to. in past person putting issue put in proposed response. would be helpful if proposal were clearer.
16:53:00 <Mike_Elledge> jo: would you like h90 as a technique for 3.3.1.
16:53:14 <Mike_Elledge> ja: would have to make it more robust.
16:53:22 <Mike_Elledge> jo: mg would you like to work on it?
16:53:37 <Mike_Elledge> ak: not being punitive... :^)
16:53:55 <Mike_Elledge> jo: does anyone want to take it on.
16:54:11 <Mike_Elledge> mg; would take on h44
16:54:21 <Mike_Elledge> ak: comgning h90 into h44?
16:54:25 <Mike_Elledge> mg: yes
16:54:37 <jon_avila> recommend not to combine h44 and h90
16:54:39 <Mike_Elledge> mg: will go back to look at it.
16:55:25 <Mike_Elledge> RESOLUTION: to keep #240 open
16:56:08 <Mike_Elledge> Zakim, next item
16:56:08 <Zakim> agendum 4. "CFCs, commenting and participation." taken up [from Joshue108]
16:56:22 <AWK> zakim, agenda
16:56:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', AWK
16:56:24 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
16:56:24 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:56:25 <Zakim> 4. CFCs, commenting and participation. [from Joshue108]
16:56:25 <Zakim> 5. Silver TF announcements [from AWK]
16:56:25 <Zakim> 6. Silver Stakeholder Submission form [from Joshue108]
16:56:30 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, previous item
16:56:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'previous item', Mike_Elledge
16:56:32 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
16:56:32 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:56:33 <Zakim> 4. CFCs, commenting and participation. [from Joshue108]
16:56:33 <Zakim> 5. Silver TF announcements [from AWK]
16:56:33 <Zakim> 6. Silver Stakeholder Submission form [from Joshue108]
16:57:06 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, take up item 6
16:57:06 <Zakim> agendum 6. "Silver Stakeholder Submission form" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:57:14 <jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0434.html
16:57:30 <AWK> Submission form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7jxkMzK4HbzK0cyyBnkv3cKFJL_ahIwIcbHao7qOZLyDy-w/viewform
16:57:31 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: email to wcag list about stakeholder form for silver.
16:57:48 <clapierre> clapierre has left #wai-wcag
16:57:59 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: one of key things is identifying large group who will be stakeholders (for first phase: research).
16:58:46 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: ppl who outside of wcag, who are thought leaders, developers, etc. who use silver and are influential in how industry going. wanted to invite members of wcag, then general public for suggestions.
16:59:50 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: stakeholders not joining task force. TF will reach out to them for guidance and advice. send surveys to htem, interview, ask to keep record how using wcag, meeting in december to put together all these names adn their role in industry.
17:00:13 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: stakeholder map. a balanced group of people who will cover all aspects of how ppl use silver now and in future.
17:00:30 <Mike_Elledge> jo: what do you need from the group? just an update?
17:00:36 <jeanne> Form <- https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7jxkMzK4HbzK0cyyBnkv3cKFJL_ahIwIcbHao7qOZLyDy-w/viewform
17:00:46 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: want group to suggest stakeholders. here's the form!
17:00:49 <Joshue108> q?
17:01:20 <Mike_Elledge> ak: if ppl know ppl who are developers, etc. concerened with a11y fill out list so we have broad outreach.
17:01:49 <bbailey> q+ to ask if I should prompt contacts at DOJ, DOT, etc.
17:02:12 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: Thx to laura. Need disability organizations. Want to reach out beyond WAI. rare disabilities, ppl who we haven't reached out to before. As well as existing.
17:02:24 <Mike_Elledge> jo: okay with going out to lists?
17:02:42 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: wait a week so we can provide context (what silver is).
17:02:50 <Mike_Elledge> jo: get people's attention.
17:03:01 <Joshue108> q?
17:03:24 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: will put in effort this week. want feedback--take a test drive. hopefully will send link out to group, distribute it broadly.
17:03:25 <Joshue108> ack bb
17:03:25 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if I should prompt contacts at DOJ, DOT, etc.
17:03:40 <Mike_Elledge> bb: if you want to hear from federal ppl.
17:03:42 <Makoto> q+
17:03:47 <Joshue108> zakim, q?
17:03:47 <Zakim> I see Makoto on the speaker queue
17:03:57 <JF> Q+
17:04:01 <Joshue108> ack makoto
17:04:03 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: absolutley. have policy makers as term.
17:04:23 <Mike_Elledge> makoto: chairman, so should I distribute to committe?
17:04:43 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: Yes would suggest oen or two ppl Can be organizaitons, doesn't have to be ppl.
17:04:49 <Mike_Elledge> Makoto: will do.
17:05:00 <bbailey> q+ to say form is not well suited to organization
17:05:09 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: international organizations. don't want to be us-centric
17:05:32 <AWK> Korean group = NIA
17:05:49 <Joshue108> ack jf
17:05:54 <Mike_Elledge> jemma: should include NIA.
17:06:26 <Mike_Elledge> bb: tried to fill out for access board. didn't work well for organization, seems best for individuals.
17:06:38 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: name field should be name or organization.
17:06:40 <Joshue108> q?
17:06:52 <Mike_Elledge> ak: form does not have any required fields.
17:07:12 <Mike_Elledge> ak: silver group would still need info.
17:07:23 <AWK> ack bb
17:07:23 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say form is not well suited to organization
17:07:32 <Mike_Elledge> jeanne: could put name of organization and person for contact.
17:07:37 <Joshue108> q?
17:07:55 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
17:07:55 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
17:07:56 <Zakim> 4. CFCs, commenting and participation. [from Joshue108]
17:07:56 <Zakim> 5. Silver TF announcements [from AWK]
17:07:56 <Zakim> 6. Silver Stakeholder Submission form [from Joshue108]
17:08:10 <Mike_Elledge> jf: reiterate what jeanne said, international is important. Jonathan hassel from UK, for example. need international feedback.
17:08:11 <Joshue108> agenda+ ACT stuff and DPUB
17:08:15 <Mike_Elledge> jo: moving on
17:08:27 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, take up item 7
17:08:27 <Zakim> agendum 7. "ACT stuff and DPUB" taken up [from Joshue108]
17:08:31 <Makoto_> Makoto_ has joined #wai-wcag
17:08:44 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/
17:08:52 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
17:09:12 <Mike_Elledge> jo: will have to resurvey. May not met needs of dpub working group.
17:09:32 <Mike_Elledge> jo: frame what you need from us.
17:09:43 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/16
17:09:59 <Joshue108> Request to consider inclusion of accessibility metadata
17:10:10 <jemma> In terms of stakeholder group in Korea, NIA(National Information Society Agency (NIA), http://eng.nia.or.kr/english/eng_nia.asp) will be interested in the work.
17:10:43 <tzviya> DPUB IG published a note mentioning metadata as well: https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/#discoverability
17:10:50 <jemma> my link is about stakeholder submission form agenda.
17:10:56 <Mike_Elledge> mattg: meta data has com to the fore in dpub. from IMS access for all metadata. for the WWW. as we're developing our own accessibility content. need to allow discovery in bookstores.
17:11:02 <Ryladog> q+
17:11:28 <DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted
17:11:29 <Mike_Elledge> mg: is this valuable? should bit be guidance for accessibility metadata? don't have strong opionion of hwo to integreate with wcag.
17:11:32 <AWK> q+
17:12:53 <JF> Q+
17:13:02 <Mike_Elledge> tzvia: coming from many areas, assessments, digital pub interest group. wld be appreciated win web community to discover what is accessible. if website has captioning, if there is flashing content, for example.
17:13:06 <Joshue108> ack ryla
17:14:08 <tzviya> s/tzvia/tzviya
17:14:20 <Mike_Elledge> katie: an extension we tried to get into 2.0. dublin core. need an expanded version for content accessibility, component accessibility. May be hard to handle for 2.1, but need to identify accessibility or alternative content that is accessible.
17:14:28 <Joshue108> ack awk
17:14:33 <Mike_Elledge> katie: now have support in pub community.
17:16:04 <Mike_Elledge> ak: agree. tremendous utility in having available. My question is what actually exists in tooling. concern that put in "must use metadata" would apply to all web content. have to either scope it down. conforming alternative may have to include what it includes that is different.
17:16:11 <Mike_Elledge> ak: may be silver or 2.1.
17:16:17 <DavidMacDonald> q+
17:16:19 <laura> If it is for conformance, would ACT TF be involved?
17:16:23 <tzviya> q+ to ask if best practices would be preferred over requirement
17:16:41 <alastairc> q+
17:16:51 <AWK> ack next
17:16:51 <Mike_Elledge> jo: my concersn are similar. dpub may be special use cases. how content is defined or packaged. does dpubl require special consideration.
17:16:55 <Joshue108> ack jf
17:18:05 <Mike_Elledge> jf: touched on it. maturity of tools. are we seeing a strong push to meet reality rather than aspiration. all for metadata, but make a sc seems too soon. not aware of tools taht are supporting a11y metadata.
17:18:42 <Mike_Elledge> mattg: search engines are picking up on it. can do a custom serach on google.
17:18:53 <AWK> ack next
17:18:59 <Mike_Elledge> jf: if ppl not doing it or if difficult to do, question whether it should be mandated.
17:20:02 <Mike_Elledge> dm: was at tpac and there was an issue filed back in the day about metadata. something we've wanted to do for some time. 5 months ago revisited issue. don't really know what schema it is, or what is being done.
17:20:42 <Mike_Elledge> dm: should survey the field, see what is going on...actually agree with jf, which is remarkable...
17:21:09 <Mike_Elledge> dm: see if there's anything in next two years, otherwise silver in 4 years.
17:21:09 <Joshue108> ack tzviya
17:21:09 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if best practices would be preferred over requirement
17:22:16 <Mike_Elledge> tzviya: schema dot 2 is being used by search engines. don't need a requirement for dpub, best practice would be fine. expect to write in next year, will have examples.
17:22:39 <Joshue108> ack alast
17:22:46 <Mike_Elledge> tzviya: would love to see as best practice. all done in github. would appreciate having input.
17:23:54 <Joshue108> q?
17:23:55 <Mike_Elledge> alistar: will have to look at pwa, can include some techniques.
17:24:34 <Ryladog> q+
17:24:38 <Wilco> q+
17:24:52 <Mike_Elledge> jo: packaged content. before moving forward dpub would like wcag to help, reach out to matt and tzviya. don't want to push entirely down the road. cases we can start to look at now.
17:24:53 <AWK> q+
17:25:04 <Joshue108> ack ryla
17:25:42 <AWK> q+ to set context for the DPUB requests for the WCAG people
17:26:01 <Joshue108> ack wilc
17:26:02 <Mike_Elledge> katie: shold implement waht we talked about. work as wll as can ibpf (?). start the best practices component in 2.1.
17:26:11 <tzviya> s/ibpf/idpf
17:26:22 <Mike_Elledge> wilco: also looking at evaluations, sounds very similar.
17:26:42 <Mike_Elledge> jo: encourage everyone to talk off line.
17:26:43 <Ryladog> As well as supporting our new Consortium partner IDPF
17:27:02 <Mike_Elledge> jo: can you come back next week?
17:27:05 <Joshue108> ack awk
17:27:05 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to set context for the DPUB requests for the WCAG people
17:27:07 <Mike_Elledge> t: yes.
17:27:15 <Joshue108> zakim, close q
17:27:15 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close q', Joshue108
17:27:22 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
17:27:22 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
17:27:52 <DavidMacDonald> Can the DPUB folks pop emails to the list so we can contact you etc...
17:28:00 <Mike_Elledge> ak: just wanted to set context that these items for dpub we are in position should be evaluating whether they should be in 2.1 or not. may say yes, or deal with techniqus or understanding chagnes.
17:28:14 <Mike_Elledge> ak: at the point where we are making these decisions.
17:29:09 <Mike_Elledge> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:29:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html Mike_Elledge
17:29:10 <Rachael> Have a good week.
17:29:21 <Mike_Elledge> bye all
17:29:22 <laura> bye.
17:29:26 <Joshue108> rrsagent, list attendees
17:29:26 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'list attendees', Joshue108.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:29:40 <Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting
17:29:40 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:29:40 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jeanne, Tzviya, mattg, Sarah, AWK, Greg_Lowney, Mike, Elledge, Bruce_Bailey, steverep, Kim, DavidMacDonald, alastairc, kirkwood, Srini,
17:29:44 <Zakim> ... Laura, Makoto, Joshue108, Mike_Gower, Wilco, JF, jon_avila, Charles_LaPierre, marcjohlic, Katie, Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, JaEunJemmaKu, Rachael
17:29:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:29:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:29:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:29:49 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-actions.rdf :
17:29:49 <RRSAgent> ACTION: MikeGower to come up with suggested Boolean Technique for 3.3.2 [1]
17:29:49 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-irc#T16-28-37
17:29:49 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gowerm to come up with suggested Boolean Technique for 3.3.2 [2]
17:29:49 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-wai-wcag-irc#T16-28-59
17:29:55 <alastairc> @tzviya thanks, just wanted to chip in that there were parallels, and we will need to consider it soon.