Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 06 Dec 2016

<AWK> +AWK

<AWK> +Joshue

<davidmacdonald> http://tinyurl.com/jmo9st4

<davidmacdonald> scribe: davidmacdonald

<lisa> hey, can someone ping me the webex password. i cant get in

<lisa> thanks all, got it

Charter discussion and changes

Discussion about charter review period ended Friday, Judy joined us

We can characterize the comments of members but can't give specifics

Total of 22 support, 10 changes, 1 not supported but not Formal obj. One who requires changes ... formal objection

AWK everyone supports the work for 2.1... some comments tallked about prioritizing movbile over low vision and coga

there's a lost wjere we canndiscuss... so we want to discuss with the group here on call and then on list, chairs will use that information to respond in a way the WG supports

Some easy issues

Adding DPIG to charter

<KimD> +KimD

a number of times it cam up and has good wg support, and requests to change to scope, fairly straight forward

big things, important to figure out

Clear support for 2.1 concern that we get it done soon, 18 month timeline

Our current schedule is on track for that

Silver... comments agains it in the WG, against Acessibility testing

One concern for silver about user agent and authoring tools brought up again

issue, incubating outside wg vs inside

another collaboration with ETSI Human Factors group a time line accessibioity for mobile

open for discussion

Katie: aren't u glad knowbioity didn't add to comments, some will be challenge, collaboration wth other groups,

AWK: in what way?

Katie: getting approval from more bodies like government

Joshue: I'm confused by that

Judy: certain requests for liasons and how that happens

<AWK> Charter draft: https://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter

Liasons to/from certain standards bodies.

<AWK> (that is the one that was commented on)

comment for Gregg V. that can happen when you coordinate consensus between two bodies

<laura> Gregg V’s email regarding coordination: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0618.html

Many years of observation, is a valid point. important and worthy goal to have liaisons, but have realistic expectations. We've done that with WCAg2ICT, was extraordinarily complex and carefully managed

Judy: In a few instances WG participants may have supported the charter while in development but when AC review came in did not support... need to be quick and agile, throughout development of anything that will be undergoing formal AC review otherwise takes a lot of cycles to sort out.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss Silver comments

Jeanne: A few things about silver comments. 1) haven't discussed it as TF, waiting for WG discussion. I'm ok without specifically calling out UA and authoring tools, important thing to address, but a more general statement, without the words that draw concerns

<Lauriat> +1

<alastairc> Question: would being in incubation reduce the resource compared to being in the WG?

we're clear on Silver, want tight relationship with WCAg WG, Silver will fail without that .... some advantages to being incubated, can bring in more researchers not presently in WCAGWG, community group provide IP advantages. Not opposed to community group provided we maintain

Lisa: coga and LVTF

AWK: its being discussed whether we agree or not.

<AWK> initial response: The development of Success Criteria for mobile use cases is critically important, but this is also accurate for low-vision and cognitive topics. For each, Task Forces have worked for the past year or more to ensure that proposed success criteria are available and ready to be incorporated into a WCAG 2.1 draft. In addition, important success criteria proposals related to digital publishing have been submitted by the Digital Publishing Interest Group

AWK: we've done a lot of work to ensure we won't be helod back by Digital Pub and COGA and LV

<jeanne> tight relationship with WG.

<AWK> Rest of AWK's response: While the working group understands the strong interest in mobile, the work done to date positions the group well to deliver support for the additional topics as well.

Lisa: id strongly object to prioritizing which disabioity group is more important

Judy: how to look at comments: Jeanne I'm not entirely clear what you mean with removing references to ATAG and UAG

If Silver TF wants to scope in that area then I think it may be better to say that more clearly, but not give impression there can not be any platform discussion

Judy: don't remove it to avoid lightning rod. It's important to unxerstand which comments are strongly held and which they felt they needed to make but not strong re

requirements

Judy: Also I would note that there continue to be misunderstanding, such as UA, the amoutnof support in User agents, still an opportunity to cover some things, for instance some of that scope may be needed for mobile..

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer Judy

<real_Joshue108> -q

Jeanne: want to clarify... we definately want Authoring and UA as part of Silver, going ahead with research. Woupdn't want to remove words to give impression that they are not in the scope... we can work with you to ensure they understand we are not doing UAAG 3 etc.

Joshue: I think I missed what Jeanne was saying... seems to be flexibility at this early stage.

Jeanne: Yes

Joshue: that's a releif ... we can dial those things in...

Jeanne: I'm flexible. I wanted to not put in Authoring tools and UA this summer because its a trigger.

Joshue: let's frame it in as exploratory work
... pushing back COGA is anathema

Wayne: The TFnon COGA and LV aware of what can be done by authors and what can't be done, part of our research can be useful, for intervention at user agent and authoring tool

Its become harder to program solutions because there wasn't... harder problem to fix than 8 years ago.

Mike: Can you elaborate on that wayne

Wayne: with content... foreground images done with CSS bg, very popular now

greying out inactive elemtns acceptable that wouldn't have been if this was in WCAG 2. the longer we wait the longer this authoring mistakes will continue

Alestair: if Silver is in incubation does that reduce rsources

AWK; no staff support, they are not obligated to follo w

3C process

AWK: Not as much support.

Judy: Community groups set up not to have staff, but we can make an exception. Funded time, funding constraints...

Hard evennto use the exception

disclosed in funding page

AWK: Not sure where this leaves us.
... what's the timeline for resolution of charter comments

JUDY: Three formal objections. typically, not just a few emails, its unpredictable, certain things important such as expidicious disposition, need to carefully listen to and consider all comments Maybe not just remove things, balance and weigh them.

May need one on one discussions and mailing list

If you get anninvite ... pay attention to it and join discusssion

W3C mindfull of concernand balancing comments.

hard tobpredict how long... some questions may go to the director and his schedule

awk: how do people feel about that?

<real_Joshue108> ack

im talking

<real_Joshue108> me np

sorry go on... i;ll fgigurte it out

can someone scribe

<AWK> Katie: if we have to do ACTF and Silver to CG's I would prefer not to, but we could

<AWK> ... very opposed to COGA/LV taking lower priority

<real_Joshue108> AWK: What do you mean about a shorter timeline?

<real_Joshue108> KHS: Some are saying 18 months

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

Judy: There may be a possibility that the mobile priority comments are due to some work going on in europe, it's complex, but there is some mobile accessibility work going on in EU, which will intersect. However, clock may not have started on that work yet. The assumptions from charter comments about timing -- we might be able to address those.

<Ryladog> Also opposed to a shorter than 3 year timeline for follow-on versions

Judy: I don't think the comments on LVTF/COGA were negative on those areas, it was just pressure from elsewhere on the mobile side. I hope it is possible to relieve that pressure. It is important to listen to concerns raised, and why people are saying them, and what's the best way.

Wayne: If we proceed with mobile without LV/Cog, we'll have an incomplete standard that's as incomplete as before. We were aiming to fill holes, if we don't address those issues then mobile devices will go down the same path as the current standards.

Josh: Welcome back btw! We don't want to see that happen, there might be some pressure for mobile (positively), but it is still being discussed. Certainly as a group we don't prioritise that way.

<AWK> +1 to KW's comments

<Ryladog> +1

<Judy> [JB Kathy's point is very important and we need to capture this for the dialog with commenters.]

<Wayne> +1 I get it

KathyW: There were three task forces, but when we came up with the SCs, co-ordinating between the groups. Under those labels the SCs don't apply just under that label. Even if we said mobile had to be pushed forward, I would caution that the labels map to those don't cover everything for that label. E.g. some mobile ones came under other labels. Not wise to segment and say we should prioritise mobile, it would be very difficult to do.

David: Was talking with someone about EN 301549, the concern is that there is a lot of pressure to update that for mobile. There's an organisation working on that. It is very 'hot', if they produce mobile guidelines we'll get fragmentation.

<Ryladog> EN301549

David: I've been meeting with Canadian Gov, persuading that they should use WCAG. There is a huge gap with mobile, though, trying to prevent fragmentation.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about managing work

Josh: We just need to get at it!

<real_Joshue108> +1 to MC

MichaelC: I interpreted some of the motivation as a concern about being able to do all three areas at the same time, so they were looking to prioritise. Kathy's comments back up that we need to. In terms of time management, just express that we can do it.

Judy: It is not simply a matter of interest in EU, there was a parliamentary proceeding that mentioned the accessibility standard that mentioned there wasn't enough coverage, so the European Commission was directed to address it was asked to cover it.
... they are very aware that W3C is working on it, and they want to co-ordinate. There is a process in place with timelines. But the timelines are not yet activated, so we believe that there may be some delays, and we have some leeway.

<davidmacdonald> Judy: Parlimentary ... european commission ETSI is addressing it, it is a process, very aware that we are working on it, they may have some delays on their end, but they're very aware of W3C work on mobile accessibility, and want to coordinate with us.. regarding, the issue that there are 68 candidate SC. and timeline, realistic concern.

Judy: for roll-in of LV & Cog, there are many different SCs, and the potential impact on timelines of doing these together, it is fair to look at the commenters concerns. Kathy's point about integration is very valid to raise, but there is a lot of work to move through that much material for a normative standard.

<davidmacdonald> Kathy: Everybody is looking for mobile, and guidelines, we know there is nothing that is stricktly mobile but we need a mobile view ie in quick reference

<Zakim> real_Joshue, you wanted to say we need to message about the work we have done, people are unaware

<davidmacdonald> Joshue: some comments don't see the good work were doing

<Judy> s/Palimentary ... european commission ETSI is address it/The European Commission in turn asked the European Standards Organizations (ESOs) to address it/

<MichaelC> scribe: davidmacdonald