15:46:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:46:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-wai-wcag-irc
15:46:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:46:04 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
15:46:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:46:06 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:46:07 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:46:07 <trackbot> Date: 22 November 2016
15:46:30 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:46:30 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
15:46:34 <AWK> +AWK
15:46:36 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:46:36 <Zakim> Present: AWK
15:46:56 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:46:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
15:47:15 <AWK> rrsagent, set logs public
15:47:55 <AWK> Regrets+ Makoto, Laura
15:48:15 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:48:15 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:48:32 <AWK> agenda+ Charter status and request - Link for Advisory committee reps: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/accessibility-guidelines-2016/results
15:48:44 <AWK> agenda+ Communication follow up
15:48:51 <AWK> agenda+ Holiday schedule
15:49:01 <AWK> agenda+ Silver Task Force update
15:49:14 <AWK> agenda+ Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
15:49:29 <AWK> agenda+ Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
15:49:55 <AWK> Scribe: Srini
15:49:59 <AWK> Chair: AWK
15:53:00 <Srini> Srini has joined #wai-wcag
15:53:49 <Srini> Present+ Srini
15:54:07 <Srini> WebEx link please?
15:54:34 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wai-wcag
15:54:38 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:10 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:36 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:45 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:13 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:50 <Srini> Scribe: Srini
15:59:00 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:59:15 <tzviya> present+ Tzviya
15:59:16 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:02 <Srini> Chair: AWK
16:00:24 <mattg> present+ mattg
16:00:49 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
16:01:22 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:01:29 <DavidMacDonald> DavidMacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:50 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:54 <DavidMacDonald> Present+ DavidMacDonald
16:02:08 <Avneesh> present+ Avneesh
16:02:28 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:43 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
16:02:43 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Charter status and request - Link for Advisory committee reps: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/accessibility-guidelines-2016/results" taken up [from AWK]
16:02:44 <JF> Present+ JF
16:02:53 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #Wai-wcag
16:03:43 <kirkwood> prsent+ kirkwood
16:03:50 <Srini> AWK: Yay! we have scribe for next week too. Request to everyone, please be slow and clear; say your name while you speak.
16:03:55 <kirkwood> present+ kirkwood
16:04:09 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce_bailey
16:04:10 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
16:04:12 <Srini> AWK: more of house keeping
16:04:20 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
16:04:24 <DavidMacDonald> Zakim, who's here
16:04:24 <Zakim> DavidMacDonald, you need to end that query with '?'
16:04:28 <Wilco> present+ Wilco
16:04:28 <Srini> AWK: charter status - out for reveiw.
16:04:43 <DavidMacDonald> Zakim, who's here?
16:04:43 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Srini, alastairc, Tzviya, mattg, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, DavidMacDonald, Avneesh, JF, kirkwood, bruce_bailey, jeanne, Glenda, Wilco
16:04:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see Jon_avila, JF, Avneesh, DavidMacDonald, marcjohlic, tzviya, alastairc, Greg, Joshue108, bruce_bailey, Wilco, Srini, Zakim, RRSAgent, AWK, Glenda, mattg, jeanne,
16:04:45 <Zakim> ... kirkwood, trackbot, yatil, Rossen
16:04:49 <Srini> ... 1.5 weeks. if you are member co, please talk to AC rep
16:04:57 <Srini> ... if you are AP, please do respond
16:05:31 <Srini> ... so far we have good respond this morning 19 responses to survey 13 supporting as is 3 with minimum changes / clarifications
16:05:48 <Srini> ... supports the proposal whetyher or not changes are accepted.
16:06:04 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:04 <Srini> ... if you could help us getting more responses, great.
16:06:11 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
16:06:20 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
16:07:12 <Srini> zakim, next item
16:07:12 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Communication follow up" taken up [from AWK]
16:07:16 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:27 <steverep> present+steverep
16:07:56 <Srini> AWK: just a follow up on communication, in case you have a concern,
16:08:12 <Srini> wai-wcag
16:08:19 <Srini> nope
16:08:36 <Srini> Andrew is lost...
16:08:48 <George> George has joined #wai-wcag
16:08:52 <AWK> brb
16:09:03 <Srini> Joshoue, can we take up next item while he comes back?
16:09:11 <George> present+ George
16:09:14 <Srini> Yay, AWK is back
16:09:57 <Srini> AWK: if you are having trouble taling on the group, please let Chairs know. with direct reason; also you may talk with Michael C
16:10:11 <Srini> ... wanted to make sure about new joinees and existing members.
16:10:18 <Srini> ... any questions?
16:10:25 <KimD> KimD has joined #wai-wcag
16:10:26 <Srini> zakin, next item?
16:10:34 <Srini> zakim, next item?
16:10:34 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Srini.
16:10:50 <Srini> Zakim, next?
16:10:50 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Srini.
16:10:58 <AWK> Zakim, take up next item
16:10:58 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Holiday schedule" taken up [from AWK]
16:11:01 <Srini> Zaki, take next item
16:11:09 <Srini> Zakim, take next item
16:11:09 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take next item', Srini
16:11:25 <Srini> Zakim, take next item
16:11:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take next item', Srini
16:11:41 <jemma_ku> jemma_ku has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:44 <Srini> Zakim, next item
16:11:44 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, Srini
16:11:48 <Wilco> +1
16:11:48 <JF> Dec. 20th: -1
16:11:53 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:11:53 <jeanne> +1 Dec 20
16:11:54 <AWK> +1
16:11:55 <Srini> -1
16:11:57 <alastairc> +1 I think
16:11:58 <Greg> -1
16:12:06 <Glenda> +1
16:12:08 <kirkwood> +1
16:12:13 <jemma_ku> present+ JaEunJemmaKu
16:12:22 <steverep> +1
16:12:22 <Srini> Joshuo: survey is opened until next week for SC
16:12:33 <Kathy> -1
16:12:40 <Srini> ... first one is about AC comments
16:12:58 <DavidMacDonald> This one is closed https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/
16:13:00 <JF> s/Joshuo/Joshue
16:13:16 <Srini> AWK: holiday schedule, our plan week after christamas, if people are not available, please let us know.
16:13:19 <AWK> Are people available Jan 3?
16:13:22 <AWK> +1
16:13:23 <steverep> +1
16:13:24 <Kathy> +1
16:13:24 <DavidMacDonald> +1
16:13:25 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:13:25 <Joshue108> +1
16:13:27 <Srini> +1
16:13:29 <JF> January 3? +1
16:13:30 <marcjohlic> -1 for 12/20 and 1/3
16:13:31 <Greg> +1
16:13:34 <alastairc> +1
16:13:35 <kirkwood> +1
16:13:35 <Wilco> +1
16:13:40 <Srini> AWK: most people are back.
16:13:48 <George> +1
16:13:58 <Srini> Zakim, next item
16:13:58 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Silver Task Force update" taken up [from AWK]
16:14:10 <Srini> AWK: Jean?
16:14:26 <Srini> Jean is going to pitch us on joining TF info on survey
16:14:36 <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7jxkMzK4HbzK0cyyBnkv3cKFJL_ahIwIcbHao7qOZLyDy-w/viewform
16:14:40 <Srini> Jean: thanks, we spoke about it last week, link is here again
16:15:01 <Srini> .. it's a survey form, stakeholders can give input / advice into research
16:15:09 <Srini> we have 32 responses; thanks Laura
16:15:19 <Srini> ... we need more disability organizations in specific
16:15:19 <AWK> s/oining TF info on/oining TF and on sending info on stakeholders into a
16:15:26 <Jim_S> Jim_S has joined #wai-wcag
16:15:28 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:15:40 <Srini> ... international organizations / players , we would like to reach out and provide opportunity.
16:15:42 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:15:55 <Srini> ... please feel free to tell them they can nominate themselves.
16:16:10 <Srini> ... announcing stakeholder forum published
16:16:25 <JF> Q+
16:16:26 <Srini> ... feel free to spread word.
16:16:53 <Srini> ... spent sometime today working on package on info on faculty. we can involve on faculty, graduate and research program. we need more information.
16:17:00 <AWK> ack j
16:17:02 <Srini> ... that's it from silver task force
16:17:20 <Srini> JF: google doc in IRC is survey, is there a place for actual information?
16:17:31 <Srini> Jean: nope. it has only contact info for now
16:17:53 <Srini> JF: I suppose to have 15 people I would recommend
16:18:44 <JF> s/I suppose to have 15 people I would recommend/ It would be helpful to know who has already been added to the list., to avoid dubplication
16:19:05 <Srini> AWK: any other questions?
16:19:33 <Srini> Jean: encourage you to more folks than usual,
16:19:45 <Srini> JF: how about canada?
16:19:48 <Srini> Jean: absolutely
16:19:55 <steverep> q+
16:20:10 <AWK> ack ste
16:20:28 <Srini> Steve: it might be useful to list information if not contact information.
16:20:52 <Srini> Zakim, next item
16:20:52 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results" taken up [from AWK]
16:21:38 <KimD> +KimD
16:21:44 <Srini> AWK: last time we spoke about DPUB one; a11y metadata as one, whether we had addressed or not. identified need for additional information
16:21:59 <Srini> people wanted to added to this initial discussion.
16:22:22 <Srini> ... I think we understand initial idea, practicality, impact on webpages, certain type of contacts,
16:22:24 <DavidMacDonald> q+
16:22:45 <Srini> AWK: including all types of etadata might be requested - REf: github 16
16:22:54 <Ryladog> q+
16:22:56 <AWK> TOPIC: [DPUB] Request to consider inclusion of accessibility metadata
16:23:02 <Srini> David: I don't think we have maturity on that part.
16:23:03 <Avneesh> q+
16:23:20 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
16:23:21 <AWK> ack da
16:23:25 <AWK> ack r
16:23:25 <Srini> can someone please write what David has said?
16:23:47 <JF> Q+
16:23:49 <AWK> David: Concerned about maturity of tools supporting metadata
16:23:53 <alastairc> q+
16:23:57 <AWK> ...may be too early to requrie
16:24:15 <AWK> ack av
16:24:17 <Srini> AWK: that's certianly a concern
16:24:25 <Joshue108> s/require/ require
16:25:03 <Srini> Avneesh: approach we had till now is OK, we were not expecting; idea is to be part of WCAG. it's important piece. For David, it's not mainly about screen reader, for publishers
16:25:13 <AWK> AVneesh: metadata is mostly for search and discovery
16:25:14 <Srini> ... we are working on ePub accessibility checer tooll
16:25:28 <George> q+
16:25:39 <Srini> ... Plans of bookshare, expectation is looking forward to solid implimentation in 6 months
16:25:48 <AWK> ack geo
16:26:10 <Srini> George: I agree it would not be required for all web, but required for digital,
16:26:24 <Srini> ... we may find judicials requirng it.
16:26:34 <AWK> s/required for digital,/required for digital publishing
16:27:08 <Srini> George; part os metadata conforms to ePub a11y discovery and conformance and there are providsions for 3rd part certifications,
16:27:18 <Srini> publications meet base line...
16:27:37 <Srini> .... looking at publisher's content and certified by Benetech
16:27:47 <Ryladog> q+
16:27:53 <Srini> ... discoverable as publications into different distribution formats.
16:28:06 <AWK> ack JF
16:28:16 <AWK> q+ James
16:28:46 <Srini> JF: why now? do we have implimetaers for schema?
16:29:15 <Srini> ... I'm curious we are talking about wcag2.1 and first time we are talking about best practice
16:29:19 <Srini> ... am I wrong?
16:29:26 <Srini> David: it's not on documents
16:29:29 <AWK> s/implimetaers/implementers
16:29:59 <Srini> David: we have all kinds of best practices
16:30:09 <Srini> ... improve visibility on best practices
16:30:18 <Glenda> Techniques could be a way of showing a best practice.
16:30:18 <Srini> AWK: I would agree.
16:31:09 <Srini> ... any metadata requirements that goes 2.1 and/or in tech understanding, may be this is something that answer currently would be NO, we need to figure out
16:31:11 <AWK> ack al
16:31:36 <Srini> Alastair: I think it would be helpful to have defination either package content / collection of web pages.
16:32:07 <George> q+
16:32:14 <Srini> ... would be helpful for AG things like TOC, severla best practices. FEw WCAG requirements benefits.
16:32:20 <Srini> ... in terms of navigation etc.,
16:32:36 <Srini> ... web pages in testing, guidelines apply
16:32:53 <Srini> AWK: is it a guideline / BP?
16:33:12 <AWK> s/AWK: is it a/JF: is it a
16:33:29 <Srini> JF: we need some clarity, if guidelines / BP
16:33:31 <AWK> ack r
16:33:36 <DavidMacDonald> q+
16:33:50 <Srini> Katie: I think we need to know beneficial designation for best practices. Techniques will fall below that
16:33:56 <Srini> ... we need to add that layer.
16:34:08 <AWK> q+ AWK to say that there is not a success criteria proposal on the table today, this is an introductory discussion
16:34:08 <Srini> ... I think we need to reate new components for BP
16:34:15 <KimD> +1 to Katie's BP idea - we need it
16:34:39 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say don't techniques already include best practices?
16:34:44 <JF> Q+ to ask whether Best Practices would be testable and normative, or more aspirational and non-normative?
16:34:55 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #wai-wcag
16:35:05 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
16:35:07 <Srini> ... it might say somethin like a web page. other thing: q: talking about certification, how relevant metadata of benetech?
16:35:13 <Joshue108> q?
16:35:28 <AWK> ack james
16:35:32 <Srini> ack james
16:35:53 <Joshue108> +1
16:35:53 <Srini> James: little scary, i hestitate to anything happen on certicication as requirement of WCAG
16:35:59 <Avneesh> q+
16:36:07 <Srini> anything rellated to certification on wcag
16:36:11 <AWK> ack ge
16:36:34 <Srini> George: I hope we come with dpub plan, wCAG moving forward coing out of IG
16:36:38 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
16:36:48 <tzviya> q+ to talk about the definition of "publication"
16:36:57 <Srini> talk about their plans rather than... we may want to define something that is more inclusive
16:37:20 <Srini> ... not just defination; I expect WG get going 1st or 2nd Q in 2017. based on its approval
16:37:48 <Srini> ... I think certification is more of an option. if publicshers wnat to self certified
16:37:55 <Srini> ... it's not a requirement.
16:37:58 <Wilco> q+
16:38:08 <Srini> ... publishers, they want to see 3rd party certification.
16:38:10 <AWK> s/publicshers wnat/publishers want
16:38:31 <alastairc> We'd need to define something like: Web Page Collection - A collection of web pages or views with a common navigation scheme that the conformance claim can define. Then SCs like consistent navigation & multiple ways can reference that, as could new dPub ones.
16:38:36 <Srini> good, thanks
16:39:12 <AWK> ack d
16:39:20 <Srini> Thanks Andrew for that.
16:40:02 <Srini> David: is there anyone on group, who think it's required or not or we move on to BP option
16:40:20 <gowerm> q+
16:40:23 <Srini> James; it's like AAA SC
16:40:24 <AWK> ack a
16:40:36 <AWK> ack awk
16:40:36 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that there is not a success criteria proposal on the table today, this is an introductory discussion
16:40:38 <Srini> ack a
16:41:19 <steverep> q+
16:41:26 <Srini> AWK: what we may be able to have SC? David question is to see do we require all metadata/some meta data / no metadata
16:41:28 <Ryladog> Wanted to clarify that my suggestion for new Best Practices designation in WCAG 2.1 - it is not really a new layer as it would fall across Principles, Guidelines, and Success Criteria. Techniques would fall under Best Pratcices - ie things that are not reuired, but are a good way to do something..
16:42:00 <Srini> trying to make a discusision oging to simple point whether we need as a requirement or move it to BP
16:42:17 <AWK> ack b
16:42:17 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say don't techniques already include best practices?
16:42:20 <Srini> ack bruce
16:42:30 <AWK> zakim, please close the queue
16:42:30 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is closed
16:42:40 <Srini> AWK, please record that
16:42:49 <Avneesh> q+
16:43:25 <AWK> ack JF
16:43:25 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask whether Best Practices would be testable and normative, or more aspirational and non-normative?
16:44:15 <Srini> JF: first one of Bruce is baout terminology, metadata, in my view is AAA  SC. we need to make a decision, I suggest. I believe BPs are critical,
16:44:21 <Srini> w... we need to focus on SC
16:44:31 <AWK> ack t
16:44:31 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about the definition of "publication"
16:45:11 <Srini> tzyiya, there were number of things we were talking about. DPub, may come in DPUB working group.
16:45:23 <Srini> don't worry about where DPUB goes
16:45:35 <AWK> There can be a best practice for satisfying a normative guideline as well as best practices for satisfying user requirements which have no normative requirement associated with it
16:45:46 <Srini> ... SC / BP, I wanted to offer we can have this in dPub meeting
16:46:00 <AWK> ack wil
16:46:02 <Srini> ... if we want to take this out of WCAG WG , we can
16:46:09 <bruce_bailey> s/first on of Bruce is baout/first plus one to Bruce about
16:46:48 <Srini> Wilco: propective on validation of certification, it seems to me that a big problem there. as long as they don't have transperant process, it's not going reliable
16:46:57 <JF> WCAG on MetaData: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html#understanding-metadata
16:47:00 <Srini> ... requirements of data that validates is difficult.
16:47:34 <AWK> ack gowe
16:48:07 <Srini> Micheal G: if metadataneeds a structure like VPAT.
16:48:38 <Ryladog> Liddy Nevile and I worked on the Appendix C Understanding Metadata section of WCAG
16:48:39 <AWK> ack ste
16:49:06 <Wilco> I think reporting about how accessible content is is difficult at this point. The testing process is often not transparent, and so validating the results is difficult. I want to give a note of causion on putting requirements in without considering how that can be validated
16:49:11 <Srini> Steve: I'm looking into github issue, I don't how how inclusion of metadata directily happens.
16:49:20 <Ryladog> q+
16:49:44 <Srini> ... prepared to have. websites, they consumes that data. I'm speaking as a user, SR / browser exposes, that's information.
16:50:20 <Srini> JF: consuming / resources projects with maps, you can indicate restaurents based on metadata, it's a big topic
16:51:15 <Ryladog> It is also used for finding alternatives, and multiple aalternatives
16:51:21 <Srini> AWK: I guess, there something strange about including metadata, it's achievable, bradly applicable, whehter it supports end users directly or not,
16:51:52 <Srini> ... we should if inerested should join DPUB group and figure out if there will be SC
16:52:15 <Srini> ... that way we gather specific information. impact on users etc.,
16:53:55 <Srini> there was an issue, I just missed last couple of lines from AWK.
16:54:53 <JF> Can we make a "new designation" in WCAG 2.1 and still maintain backward compatibility? Currently we have 4 layers of Guidance: Principles, Guidelines, Success Criteria, Sufficient and Advisory Techniques. Is now the time to be looking at adding a fifth?
16:54:55 <Ryladog> I am thinking about NOT a SC proposal, but rather a few Best Practice proposal for Metadata
16:54:56 <Srini> AWK: it sounds like advisory techniques. if you want to send a proposal, we can look at it.
16:55:20 <JF> +1 to AWK's and James' concerns
16:56:11 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
16:56:21 <steverep> q+
16:56:22 <Srini> Katie: will write a proposal.
16:56:36 <Wilco> I'd be happy to help out on that with Katie
16:56:39 <Srini> Katie: if others are interested to join, please do so.
16:57:07 <Srini> Avneesh: interested from Dpub side
16:57:27 <Srini> Avneesh: one clarification, we may be low hanging fruit, SC, should that be considered too?
16:57:31 <Srini> AWK: I would like to see myself
16:57:35 <Joshue108> +1
16:57:50 <Srini> JF: I think we should look at it even if it is AAA.
16:58:41 <alastairc> The dPub accessibility document I reviewed earlier in the year was on it's way to creating SCs, some easier than others.
16:59:26 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Katie and Wilco to work on a proposal on "best practices" and DPUB to look at a specific success criteria proposal
16:59:40 <Srini> A fw would be joining DPub meeting on Monday.
16:59:53 <AWK> TOPIC: [DPUB] Request to clarify relationship of guidelines to web content-based publications
17:00:12 <Srini> Zakim, next item
17:00:12 <Zakim> agendum 6. "Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results" taken up [from AWK]
17:00:52 <tzviya> DPUB Meeting on Monday 28 Nov12 EST https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DPUB+IG&iso=20161128T12&p1=43
17:01:05 <Srini> AWK: what do do for web based publication. if we have DPUB publication, should we consider as one web page?
17:01:31 <Srini> AWK: there are multiple URLs, not # tag
17:01:48 <Srini> ... it would be seperate pages, land up with 10 page book. or 1000 page.
17:02:06 <Srini> ... how does WCAG look at it?
17:02:14 <AWK> zakim, open the queue
17:02:14 <Zakim> ok, AWK, the speaker queue is open
17:02:15 <bruce_bailey> Just and FYI.  JF mentioned "best practice" used just once in GL.  In Understanding, it is just a dozen time.
17:02:24 <Srini> James: not necessirly, it could be chapter based
17:02:36 <Srini> ... there is common when binding together.
17:02:40 <JF> Q+ To ask, isn't this directly related to the Metadata discussion?
17:03:00 <DavidMacDonald> q+
17:03:31 <AWK> s/James: not necessirly/MattG: not necessarily
17:03:41 <AWK> ack JF
17:03:41 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask, isn't this directly related to the Metadata discussion?
17:04:09 <Srini> JF: isn't to relevant to metadata discussion?
17:04:38 <Joshue108> q?
17:04:59 <tzviya> q+
17:05:14 <Srini> Mattg: Yes, it is; metadata addresssome of these.
17:05:47 <Srini> JF: will it not the discussion more align to silver?
17:06:01 <Avneesh> q+
17:06:18 <Ryladog> q+
17:06:31 <alastairc> I don't think it would be that complex to add a concept of web page collections, some of the current WCAG 2.0 SCs almost need it.
17:06:50 <Joshue108> q+
17:07:02 <Joshue108> q-
17:07:10 <Srini> Can someone continue to scribe please?
17:07:18 <Joshue108> +q to say we do need to start to address this space now
17:07:49 <AWK> ack da
17:07:52 <Srini> Thanks alaister
17:07:54 <alastairc> scribe: alastairc
17:07:56 <AWK> Scibe: Alastair
17:08:21 <alastairc> David: I think we have a definition we could use for publications, which is set of web pages.
17:08:42 <alastairc> ... it took a lot to define the 'web page', with complications around URLs etc.
17:09:14 <tzviya> q-
17:09:19 <AWK> ack av
17:09:20 <alastairc> .. also, with PDF compared to web pages, a PDF became one web page, so we know there are problems with the definition when it comes to sets of documents like dPub, but it is possible.
17:10:00 <JF> Web Page Definition: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-web-page-head
17:10:13 <alastairc> Avneesh: The definition WCAG has for web pages, which has multiple sources, becomes one web page. A publication is an entity that has multiple sources, and has one URL, so we could leverage that.
17:10:44 <AWK> ack ry
17:10:47 <alastairc> ... The existing definition has concept of one URL, but a publication could be offline, but could still build on that concept.
17:11:26 <alastairc> ... also, we should look at the metadata and digital publication issues separately for WCAG. They don't have to be dealt with together, as metadata is new, but sets of web pages has a basis in WCAG.
17:11:49 <Joshue108> ack me
17:11:49 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say we do need to start to address this space now
17:11:50 <AWK> ack j
17:11:50 <DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef  definition of a set of webpages might map to a publication?
17:12:28 <alastairc> Josh: I understand JF's comments, but I don't think it is too late to consider for WCAG 2.1, at least to make some headway for 2.1
17:13:02 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #wai-wcag
17:13:15 <alastairc> AWK: I'm hearing there is some overlap between the issues, but could be separate. WCAG does have the sets of webpages concept that would apply for a dPub that is expanded out into many pages.
17:13:57 <alastairc> ... if you have a book from a single URI it could expand out. There is some redundancy in how it could work in multiple ways.
17:14:08 <alastairc> David: What is the ask from dPub?
17:14:32 <tzviya> q+
17:14:57 <alastairc> Avneesh: we're looking to get the definition that is needed into WCAG, so that some new SCs can be added.
17:15:04 <steverep> Is there an example where WCAG breaks down for a DPUB? I'm not seeing it.
17:15:38 <AWK> ack tz
17:15:40 <AWK> q+
17:15:43 <alastairc> mattg: We saw a number of examples already, we wondering if there is a similar example under 'set of web pages', so it is clear that they fall under scope of WCAG, without changing what exists now.
17:15:47 <DavidMacDonald> q+
17:15:56 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
17:16:29 <jon_avila> WCAG 2.1 must be backwards compatible so we can't change the definition
17:16:45 <alastairc> tzviya: we don't have a strict definition yet, if we could work in publications that are compiled from XYZ, e.g. the packaging link above, there are other concepts of packaging that are gaining interest in W3C, it isn't just for books.
17:17:07 <jon_avila> The same grouping could apply to software screens as well.
17:17:15 <alastairc> ... groupings of "stuff", that individually could be compliant to WCAG need a super-structure.
17:17:29 <alastairc> David: Would you have a single URL for these packages?
17:17:47 <alastairc> tzviya: correct, but we may not need to address that under WCAG.
17:18:04 <alastairc> David: We could probably work with that.
17:18:26 <tzviya> s/address that under WCAG/address offline under WCAG
17:18:34 <jon_avila> Notes are normative
17:18:38 <Joshue108> +1 to backwards compat for definition
17:18:45 <Wilco> +1
17:18:48 <AWK> RESOLUTION: DPUB group to review "set of web pages" and "web page" definitions and suggest changes/additions to clarify
17:18:49 <alastairc> Resolution: DPUB will review definitions of web pages that are backward compatible
17:18:50 <DavidMacDonald> +1
17:18:52 <bruce_bailey> +1 to adding DPUB as example
17:18:54 <mattg> +1
17:19:05 <Ryladog> +1 to adding DPUB as example
17:19:23 <Joshue108> quasi normative status actually
17:19:25 <alastairc> JF: Wanted to correct that notes are not normative.
17:19:53 <alastairc> AWK: lets come back to that, there has been some debate in WCAG, the doc indicates otherwise. Not resolving it here.
17:20:07 <AWK> TOPIC: Review ACT Framework Requirements
17:20:11 <jon_avila> wanted to correct JF's comment that notes aren't normative.
17:20:25 <Joshue108> thanks for you patience Wilco!
17:20:46 <alastairc> AWK: Not as many responses on this, Wilco, have you reviewed, are there specific things to tackle?
17:21:42 <alastairc> Wilco: The comments were clear, there were 2 or 3 bigger things that need clarifying. E.g. Explicitly targeting UAAG/ATAG.
17:22:00 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
17:22:30 <alastairc> ... comment about negative tests, the reason for that is it allows us to break up the problem space. If we can only test certain parts, then we can say certain things haven't been met.
17:22:31 <alastairc> q+
17:22:43 <AWK> ack awk
17:22:46 <AWK> ack da
17:22:52 <AWK> ack ala
17:23:48 <JF> On Notes: "There are few formal requirements to publish a document as a W3C Note, and they have no standing as a recommendation of W3C but are simply documents preserved for historical reference." - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#recs-and-notes
17:25:14 <alastairc> Wilco: initial work will be based on negative testing, but in future, with manual assessment as well positive testing will be possible.
17:25:22 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
17:25:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
17:25:32 <alastairc> AWK: There were some questions on numbering...
17:25:38 <alastairc> Wilco: We'll sort that out.
17:26:37 <alastairc> Wilco: We're trying to get this doc ready for next month (sometime ish), working on a first draft for end of Jan, so we can do public comments for both soon after.
17:26:44 <alastairc> AWK: This is a new year document?
17:26:58 <alastairc> Wilco: Hoping so, 1st draft should be soon after.
17:27:07 <alastairc> Wilco: If anyone has any other feedback, please get in touch.
17:27:30 <jon_avila> I'd like to cover low vision TF issues
17:27:46 <Srini> Happy thanks giving to all.
17:27:57 <AWK> Josh, please finish up!
17:28:05 <AWK> Sorry all
17:28:07 <George> George has left #wai-wcag
17:28:12 <Joshue108> np
17:28:18 <Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting
17:28:18 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:28:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Srini, alastairc, Tzviya, mattg, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, DavidMacDonald, Avneesh, JF, kirkwood, bruce_bailey, jeanne, Glenda, Wilco,
17:28:21 <Zakim> ... Kathy, Joshue108, steverep, George, JaEunJemmaKu, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD, MikeGower
17:28:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:28:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:28:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:28:27 <RRSAgent> I see no action items