<AWK> +AWK

<AWK> Scribe: Srini

WebEx link please?

<scribe> Scribe: Srini

<scribe> Chair: AWK

Charter status and request - Link for Advisory committee reps: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/accessibility-guidelines-2016/results

<kirkwood> prsent+ kirkwood

AWK: Yay! we have scribe for next week too. Request to everyone, please be slow and clear; say your name while you speak.
... more of house keeping
... charter status - out for reveiw.
... 1.5 weeks. if you are member co, please talk to AC rep
... if you are AP, please do respond
... so far we have good respond this morning 19 responses to survey 13 supporting as is 3 with minimum changes / clarifications
... supports the proposal whetyher or not changes are accepted.
... if you could help us getting more responses, great.

Communication follow up

AWK: just a follow up on communication, in case you have a concern,

wai-wcag

nope

Andrew is lost...

<AWK> brb

Joshoue, can we take up next item while he comes back?

Yay, AWK is back

AWK: if you are having trouble taling on the group, please let Chairs know. with direct reason; also you may talk with Michael C
... wanted to make sure about new joinees and existing members.
... any questions?

zakin, next item?

Holiday schedule

Zaki, take next item

<Wilco> +1

<JF> Dec. 20th: -1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jeanne> +1 Dec 20

<AWK> +1

-1

<alastairc> +1 I think

<Greg> -1

<Glenda> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<steverep> +1

Joshue: survey is opened until next week for SC

<Kathy> -1

Joshue: first one is about AC comments

<DavidMacDonald> This one is closed https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/

AWK: holiday schedule, our plan week after christamas, if people are not available, please let us know.

<AWK> Are people available Jan 3?

<AWK> +1

<steverep> +1

<Kathy> +1

<DavidMacDonald> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Joshue108> +1

+1

<JF> January 3? +1

<marcjohlic> -1 for 12/20 and 1/3

<Greg> +1

<alastairc> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Wilco> +1

AWK: most people are back.

<George> +1

Silver Task Force update

AWK: Jean?

Jean is going to pitch us on joining TF and on sending info on stakeholders into a survey

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7jxkMzK4HbzK0cyyBnkv3cKFJL_ahIwIcbHao7qOZLyDy-w/viewform

Jean: thanks, we spoke about it last week, link is here again
... it's a survey form, stakeholders can give input / advice into research

we have 32 responses; thanks Laura

scribe: we need more disability organizations in specific
... international organizations / players , we would like to reach out and provide opportunity.
... please feel free to tell them they can nominate themselves.
... announcing stakeholder forum published
... feel free to spread word.
... spent sometime today working on package on info on faculty. we can involve on faculty, graduate and research program. we need more information.
... that's it from silver task force

JF: google doc in IRC is survey, is there a place for actual information?

Jean: nope. it has only contact info for now

JF: It would be helpful to know who has already been added to the list., to avoid dubplication

AWK: any other questions?

Jean: encourage you to more folks than usual,

JF: how about canada?

Jean: absolutely

Steve: it might be useful to list information if not contact information.

Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results

<KimD> +KimD

AWK: last time we spoke about DPUB one; a11y metadata as one, whether we had addressed or not. identified need for additional information

people wanted to added to this initial discussion.

scribe: I think we understand initial idea, practicality, impact on webpages, certain type of contacts,

AWK: including all types of etadata might be requested - REf: github 16

[DPUB] Request to consider inclusion of accessibility metadata

David: I don't think we have maturity on that part.

can someone please write what David has said?

<AWK> David: Concerned about maturity of tools supporting metadata

<AWK> ...may be too early to requrie

AWK: that's certianly a concern

<Joshue108> s/require/ require

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

<AWK> AVneesh: metadata is mostly for search and discovery

Avneesh: we are working on ePub accessibility checer tooll
... Plans of bookshare, expectation is looking forward to solid implimentation in 6 months

George: I agree it would not be required for all web, but required for digital publishing
... we may find judicials requirng it.

George; part os metadata conforms to ePub a11y discovery and conformance and there are providsions for 3rd part certifications,

publications meet base line...

scribe: looking at publisher's content and certified by Benetech
... discoverable as publications into different distribution formats.

JF: why now? do we have implementers for schema?
... I'm curious we are talking about wcag2.1 and first time we are talking about best practice
... am I wrong?

David: it's not on documents
... we have all kinds of best practices
... improve visibility on best practices

<Glenda> Techniques could be a way of showing a best practice.

AWK: I would agree.
... 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

Alastair: I think it would be helpful to have defination either package content / collection of web pages.
... would be helpful for AG things like TOC, severla best practices. FEw WCAG requirements benefits.
... in terms of navigation etc.,
... web pages in testing, guidelines apply

JF: is it a guideline / BP?
... we need some clarity, if guidelines / BP

Katie: I think we need to know beneficial designation for best practices. Techniques will fall below that
... we need to add that layer.
... I think we need to reate new components for BP

<KimD> +1 to Katie's BP idea - we need it

Katie: it might say somethin like a web page. other thing: q: talking about certification, how relevant metadata of benetech?

<Joshue108> +1

James: little scary, i hestitate to anything happen on certicication as requirement of WCAG

anything rellated to certification on wcag

George: I hope we come with dpub plan, wCAG moving forward coing out of IG

talk about their plans rather than... we may want to define something that is more inclusive

scribe: not just defination; I expect WG get going 1st or 2nd Q in 2017. based on its approval
... I think certification is more of an option. if publishers want to self certified
... it's not a requirement.
... publishers, they want to see 3rd party certification.

<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.

good, thanks

Thanks Andrew for that.

David: is there anyone on group, who think it's required or not or we move on to BP option

James; it's like AAA SC

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that there is not a success criteria proposal on the table today, this is an introductory discussion

AWK: what we may be able to have SC? David question is to see do we require all metadata/some meta data / no metadata

<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..

trying to make a discusision oging to simple point whether we need as a requirement or move it to BP

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say don't techniques already include best practices?

AWK, please record that

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask whether Best Practices would be testable and normative, or more aspirational and non-normative?

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,

w... we need to focus on SC

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about the definition of "publication"

tzyiya, there were number of things we were talking about. DPub, may come in DPUB working group.

don't worry about where DPUB goes

<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

scribe: SC / BP, I wanted to offer we can have this in dPub meeting
... if we want to take this out of WCAG WG , we can

<bruce_bailey> s/first on of Bruce is baout/first plus one to Bruce about

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

<JF> WCAG on MetaData: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html#understanding-metadata

Wilco: requirements of data that validates is difficult.

Micheal G: if metadataneeds a structure like VPAT.

<Ryladog> Liddy Nevile and I worked on the Appendix C Understanding Metadata section of WCAG

<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

Steve: I'm looking into github issue, I don't how how inclusion of metadata directily happens.
... prepared to have. websites, they consumes that data. I'm speaking as a user, SR / browser exposes, that's information.

JF: consuming / resources projects with maps, you can indicate restaurents based on metadata, it's a big topic

<Ryladog> It is also used for finding alternatives, and multiple aalternatives

AWK: I guess, there something strange about including metadata, it's achievable, bradly applicable, whehter it supports end users directly or not,
... we should if inerested should join DPUB group and figure out if there will be SC
... that way we gather specific information. impact on users etc.,

there was an issue, I just missed last couple of lines from AWK.

<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?

<Ryladog> I am thinking about NOT a SC proposal, but rather a few Best Practice proposal for Metadata

AWK: it sounds like advisory techniques. if you want to send a proposal, we can look at it.

<JF> +1 to AWK's and James' concerns

Katie: will write a proposal.

<Wilco> I'd be happy to help out on that with Katie

Katie: if others are interested to join, please do so.

Avneesh: interested from Dpub side
... one clarification, we may be low hanging fruit, SC, should that be considered too?

AWK: I would like to see myself

<Joshue108> +1

JF: I think we should look at it even if it is AAA.

<alastairc> The dPub accessibility document I reviewed earlier in the year was on it's way to creating SCs, some easier than others.

RESOLUTION: Katie and Wilco to work on a proposal on "best practices" and DPUB to look at a specific success criteria proposal

A fw would be joining DPub meeting on Monday.

[DPUB] Request to clarify relationship of guidelines to web content-based publications

Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results

<tzviya> DPUB Meeting on Monday 28 Nov12 EST https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DPUB+IG&iso=20161128T12&p1=43

AWK: what do do for web based publication. if we have DPUB publication, should we consider as one web page?
... there are multiple URLs, not # tag
... it would be seperate pages, land up with 10 page book. or 1000 page.
... how does WCAG look at it?

<bruce_bailey> Just and FYI. JF mentioned "best practice" used just once in GL. In Understanding, it is just a dozen time.

MattG: not necessarily, it could be chapter based
... there is common when binding together.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask, isn't this directly related to the Metadata discussion?

JF: isn't to relevant to metadata discussion?

Mattg: Yes, it is; metadata addresssome of these.

JF: will it not the discussion more align to silver?

<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.

Can someone continue to scribe please?

<Joshue108> +q to say we do need to start to address this space now

Thanks alaister

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

<AWK> Scibe: Alastair

David: I think we have a definition we could use for publications, which is set of web pages.
... it took a lot to define the 'web page', with complications around URLs etc.
... 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.

<JF> Web Page Definition: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-web-page-head

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.
... The existing definition has concept of one URL, but a publication could be offline, but could still build on that concept.
... 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.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say we do need to start to address this space now

<DavidMacDonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef definition of a set of webpages might map to a publication?

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

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.
... 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.

David: What is the ask from dPub?

Avneesh: we're looking to get the definition that is needed into WCAG, so that some new SCs can be added.

<steverep> Is there an example where WCAG breaks down for a DPUB? I'm not seeing it.

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.

<jon_avila> WCAG 2.1 must be backwards compatible so we can't change the definition

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.

<jon_avila> The same grouping could apply to software screens as well.

tzviya: groupings of "stuff", that individually could be compliant to WCAG need a super-structure.

David: Would you have a single URL for these packages?

tzviya: correct, but we may not need to address offline under WCAG.

David: We could probably work with that.

<jon_avila> Notes are normative

<Joshue108> +1 to backwards compat for definition

<Wilco> +1

RESOLUTION: DPUB group to review "set of web pages" and "web page" definitions and suggest changes/additions to clarify

RESOLUTION: DPUB will review definitions of web pages that are backward compatible

<DavidMacDonald> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 to adding DPUB as example

<mattg> +1

<Ryladog> +1 to adding DPUB as example

<Joshue108> quasi normative status actually

JF: Wanted to correct that notes are not normative.

AWK: lets come back to that, there has been some debate in WCAG, the doc indicates otherwise. Not resolving it here.

Review ACT Framework Requirements

<jon_avila> wanted to correct JF's comment that notes aren't normative.

<Joshue108> thanks for you patience Wilco!

AWK: Not as many responses on this, Wilco, have you reviewed, are there specific things to tackle?

Wilco: The comments were clear, there were 2 or 3 bigger things that need clarifying. E.g. Explicitly targeting UAAG/ATAG.
... 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.

<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

Wilco: initial work will be based on negative testing, but in future, with manual assessment as well positive testing will be possible.

AWK: There were some questions on numbering...

Wilco: We'll sort that out.
... 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.

AWK: This is a new year document?

Wilco: Hoping so, 1st draft should be soon after.
... If anyone has any other feedback, please get in touch.

<jon_avila> I'd like to cover low vision TF issues

<Srini> Happy thanks giving to all.

<AWK> Josh, please finish up!

<AWK> Sorry all

<Joshue108> np

<Joshue108> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148  of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Joshuo/Joshue/
Succeeded: s/oining TF info on/oining TF and on sending info on stakeholders into a/
Succeeded: 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/
FAILED: s/require/ require/
Succeeded: s/required for digital,/required for digital publishing/
Succeeded: s/implimetaers/implementers/
Succeeded: s/AWK: is it a/JF: is it a/
Succeeded: s/publicshers wnat/publishers want/
FAILED: s/first on of Bruce is baout/first plus one to Bruce about/
Succeeded: s/James: not necessirly/MattG: not necessarily/
Succeeded: s/address that under WCAG/address offline under WCAG/
Found Scribe: Srini
Inferring ScribeNick: Srini
Found Scribe: Srini
Inferring ScribeNick: Srini
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Scribes: Srini, alastairc
ScribeNicks: Srini, alastairc
Default Present: AWK, Srini, alastairc, Tzviya, mattg, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, DavidMacDonald, Avneesh, JF, kirkwood, bruce_bailey, jeanne, Glenda, Wilco, Kathy, Joshue108, steverep, George, JaEunJemmaKu, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD, MikeGower

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: (no, one))
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK

Present: AWK Srini alastairc Tzviya mattg Greg_Lowney marcjohlic DavidMacDonald Avneesh JF kirkwood bruce_bailey jeanne Glenda Wilco Kathy Joshue108 steverep George JaEunJemmaKu Katie_Haritos-Shea MikeGower
Regrets: Makoto Laura
Found Date: 22 Nov 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: