IRC log of wai-wcag on 2016-12-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:28:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:28:33 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-irc
14:28:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:28:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:28:38 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:28:38 [trackbot]
Date: 13 December 2016
14:28:38 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:28:58 [jeanne]
trackbot, end meeting
14:28:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
14:28:58 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Avneesh, AWK, alastairc, mattg, Glenda, davidmacdonald, Joshue, marcjohlic, Lauriat, KathyW, Greg_Lowney, Laura, Makoto,
14:29:01 [Zakim]
... Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, jeanne, Judy, lisa_seeman, KimD, Rachael
14:29:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:29:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
14:29:07 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
14:29:07 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
15:32:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:32:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-irc
15:32:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:32:14 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:32:14 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:32:14 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:32:14 [trackbot]
Date: 13 December 2016
15:32:23 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
15:32:23 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:32:24 [Zakim]
2. Survey of new SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from AWK]
15:32:37 [Joshue108]
zakim, clear agenda
15:32:37 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:34:30 [Joshue108]
agenda+ Discussion: SC managers
15:34:39 [Joshue108]
agenda+ Update on charter discussion
15:34:53 [Joshue108]
agenda+ New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/
15:35:02 [Joshue108]
Chair: Joshue
15:48:30 [AWK]
AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:48:38 [AWK]
Zakim, agenda?
15:48:38 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:48:39 [Zakim]
1. Discussion: SC managers [from Joshue108]
15:48:39 [Zakim]
2. Update on charter discussion [from Joshue108]
15:48:39 [Zakim]
3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
15:51:14 [laura]
laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:52:37 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #wai-wcag
15:54:48 [AWK]
+WK
15:54:51 [AWK]
-WK
15:54:53 [AWK]
+AWK
15:55:37 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:10 [mattg]
mattg has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:58 [Rachael]
Rachael has joined #wai-wcag
15:57:55 [Lauriat_]
Present+ Lauriat
15:58:02 [Rachael]
present+ Rachael
15:58:11 [AWK]
Scribe: Bruce_Bailey
15:58:34 [Joshue108]
Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:50 [Joshue108]
present+ Joshue108
15:58:52 [MichaelC]
present+ MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, AWK
15:59:05 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
15:59:05 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:59:06 [Zakim]
1. Discussion: SC managers [from Joshue108]
15:59:06 [Zakim]
2. Update on charter discussion [from Joshue108]
15:59:06 [Zakim]
3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
15:59:08 [Greg]
Greg has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:09 [AWK]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:59:09 [Zakim]
Present: Avneesh, AWK, alastairc, mattg, Glenda, davidmacdonald, Joshue, marcjohlic, Lauriat, KathyW, Greg_Lowney, Laura, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, jeanne, Judy,
15:59:12 [Zakim]
... lisa_seeman, KimD, Rachael, Joshue108, Sarah
15:59:28 [bruce_bailey]
present+ bruce_bailey
15:59:47 [AWK]
present: AWK
15:59:50 [AWK]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:59:50 [Zakim]
Present: AWK
15:59:55 [marcjohlic]
marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:12 [SarahHorton]
SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:17 [AWK]
present: MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey
16:00:35 [mattg]
present+ mattg
16:00:37 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:39 [bruce_bailey]
MicaelC:Silver TF meeting FtF during call
16:00:49 [bruce_bailey]
...Silver TF says hello
16:00:51 [AWK]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:00:51 [Zakim]
Present: MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg
16:01:01 [marcjohlic]
present+ marcjohlic
16:01:33 [adam_solomon]
adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:40 [Greg]
present+ Greg_Lowney
16:01:52 [AWK]
+Srini
16:01:58 [adam_solomon]
present+ adam_solomon
16:01:59 [Wilco]
present+ Wilco
16:02:03 [laura]
present+ Laura
16:02:10 [Makoto]
present+ Makoto
16:02:40 [bruce_bailey]
josh starting meeting
16:03:17 [bruce_bailey]
zakim, next item
16:03:17 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Discussion: SC managers" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:03:27 [AWK]
Regrets+ Alastair
16:03:49 [bruce_bailey]
josh: import issue ht Katie for suggestion
16:03:51 [AWK]
Current description: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
16:04:04 [bruce_bailey]
..chairs have discussed role and how to be effective
16:04:29 [bruce_bailey]
..we will go through wiki page
16:04:39 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:43 [MoeKraft]
MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:50 [KimD]
KimD has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:02 [KimD]
+KimD
16:05:22 [bruce_bailey]
..idea is looking for provision acceptance, not final. SC manager role is help WG members understand challenges, issues, concern, and drive SC on git hub
16:06:10 [bruce_bailey]
..in terms of driving discussion, outline is on git hub
16:06:11 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:06:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:06:42 [bruce_bailey]
..sc manager is central point to identifying issues and blocking items, hopefully reducing noise
16:06:55 [bruce_bailey]
..proposals can be merged, closed, etc.
16:07:01 [Joshue108]
q?
16:07:06 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:12 [Glenda]
Glenda has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:18 [Mike_Elledge]
Present+ Mike Elledge
16:07:20 [bruce_bailey]
..fresh sc are a possibility, wiki details how chairs think that might develope
16:07:39 [bruce_bailey]
..wg members will discuss on call as usual
16:07:49 [Joshue108]
q?
16:07:53 [AWK]
q+
16:08:03 [Joshue108]
ack awk
16:08:09 [bruce_bailey]
..once sc manager and chairs feels ready for call for concensus, chairs will have sc on call
16:08:22 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: to emphais a couple things
16:08:41 [bruce_bailey]
.. try to keep active discussion on git hub
16:09:21 [bruce_bailey]
.. keep the work on git hub, which gives us tracking, linking, pull control, and hooks for publishing
16:09:52 [bruce_bailey]
.. last week we got a number of volunteers, but we want sc managers to only handle two at a time
16:10:10 [bruce_bailey]
.. we have long history of tasks not getting sufficient attention
16:10:11 [Rachael]
q+
16:10:16 [bruce_bailey]
.. we want to spread out the work
16:10:20 [Joshue108]
q+ to talk about only managing 2 at a time
16:10:50 [Mike_Elledge]
q+
16:10:59 [Joshue108]
ack rach
16:11:00 [bruce_bailey]
.. we have 16 signed up by 6 people, but two people signed up for five. Chairs will be asking SC leads to only do two at a time
16:11:25 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: how to handle overlapping sc?
16:11:42 [bruce_bailey]
josh: sc managers coordinate directly with each other
16:11:57 [bruce_bailey]
.. outcome could be a differerent sc or hand off
16:12:08 [Glenda]
Present+ Glenda
16:12:21 [bruce_bailey]
.. this sort of this is core priority for sc manager
16:12:28 [Joshue108]
ack Josh
16:12:28 [Zakim]
Joshue, you wanted to talk about only managing 2 at a time
16:12:46 [bruce_bailey]
Racheal asks if one person coordinating related sc migh work better
16:13:11 [bruce_bailey]
Josh asks that we start with just two at a time, keep attention focus, see how it works
16:13:22 [Joshue108]
ack mike
16:13:33 [bruce_bailey]
.. process is in work in progress, so we will adapt as needed
16:14:00 [AWK]
"Ready for WG review" was to indicate the Dec 1 deadline readiness
16:14:14 [bruce_bailey]
MikeE: A number of git hub items say "ready to review" are they really ready for WG concensus?
16:14:32 [AWK]
The SC manager process is "the WCAG review"
16:14:47 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Ready for review means ready for SC management, and that items are targeted for december pass
16:15:07 [Joshue108]
q?
16:15:34 [adam_solomon]
q+
16:15:47 [bruce_bailey]
Josh, Mike, AWK clarify that ready for review means ready for TF review, not GL review
16:16:18 [bruce_bailey]
Green lable means ready for SC managment
16:16:19 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:16:27 [bruce_bailey]
AWK will be looking at updating labels
16:16:40 [Ryladog]
Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:16:46 [Wayne]
Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
16:16:47 [AWK]
ack adam
16:16:49 [Joshue108]
ack adam
16:17:00 [AWK]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
16:17:43 [bruce_bailey]
AWK nutshell role of SC manager is that we have proposals from TF, but they need to formated for WG review
16:18:02 [bruce_bailey]
..there may be additional issues, conflicts with other draft SC.
16:18:35 [bruce_bailey]
..SC does not need particular expertise in topic, but they need to read, maybe format a bit more, and put together a pull request
16:18:59 [bruce_bailey]
..pull request when SC is in final format and WG group
16:19:48 [bruce_bailey]
Adam Solomon:Will comments already be in git hub? (AWK: yes) so does SC manager make edits to proposal?
16:20:47 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: SC manager probably should not be editing the proposal but elevating issues and guiding TF lead to make changes in response to issues
16:21:24 [David-MacDonald]
David-MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
16:21:25 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: discussion could happen on git hub but also by email if absolutely neccessary. threads on github are prefereable
16:21:39 [David-MacDonald]
sorry late.... was on client call...
16:21:53 [David-MacDonald]
Present+ David-MacDonald
16:22:10 [bruce_bailey]
.. sc could restate what they are hear. sc manager empowered to for and manage branch of modifications
16:22:14 [Ryladog]
please do that Andrew
16:22:26 [Joshue108]
+1 to vid
16:22:29 [Mike_Elledge]
+1 to vid
16:22:30 [bruce_bailey]
AWK may record video tutorial of this
16:22:31 [Wayne]
Present+ Wayne
16:22:36 [Joshue108]
q?
16:22:41 [KimD]
+1 for instructions/info video!
16:22:48 [Glenda]
+1 to the idea of AWK documenting how the SC manager can fork and edit the SC they are managing
16:22:52 [Joshue108]
In a nut shell - the SC manager will drive the development, the iteration, acceptance, or deletion of a candidate SC.
16:23:00 [laura]
Yes. GitHub process tutorial would be helpful.
16:23:28 [Joshue108]
q?
16:24:08 [David-MacDonald]
what are we on?
16:24:13 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: some proposal have been driven by one or two people, so main reason for sc manager is to have at least more person vested in proposal
16:24:25 [Jim_Smith]
Jim_Smith has joined #wai-wcag
16:24:33 [bruce_bailey]
..need fresh eyes sometimes
16:25:01 [laura]
david, we are on https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
16:25:09 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: one outcome might be that a great idea needs better UA support than we have, so SC might get defered
16:25:31 [bruce_bailey]
.. TF are resources, but work is in hand of WG, WG makes decision.
16:25:53 [bruce_bailey]
.. TF members are all WG members, but WG has responsibility and decision making
16:26:10 [Joshue108]
q?
16:26:15 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: WG will ultimated accept or regect (defer)
16:26:33 [Rachael]
+1 to SC Managers
16:26:36 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Not hearing any objections to proposed process
16:26:44 [marcjohlic]
+1
16:26:45 [Ryladog]
+1
16:26:48 [Wayne]
+1
16:26:48 [Glenda]
+1
16:26:50 [Greg]
+1
16:26:50 [laura]
+1
16:26:51 [Makoto]
+1
16:26:57 [jon_avila]
jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:27:03 [bruce_bailey]
Johs: please give your plus ones if ready to go forward as outlined
16:27:14 [Joshue108]
q?
16:27:14 [Mike_Elledge]
+1
16:27:17 [AWK]
q+
16:27:19 [jon_avila]
present+jon_avila
16:27:22 [Joshue108]
ack awk
16:27:24 [AWK]
ack AWK
16:27:28 [bruce_bailey]
s/Johs:/Josh:
16:27:54 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: Immediate ask is to go look at proposals and sign up for no more than two.
16:28:20 [bruce_bailey]
.. Un-sign please if you have volunteered for more than two
16:28:41 [laura]
laura has joined #wai-wcag
16:28:49 [bruce_bailey]
DM: How we get through with 60 with only two ?
16:29:17 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Just start with two, get those cycled, and sign up for two more.
16:29:36 [bruce_bailey]
.. goal is have focus
16:30:04 [bruce_bailey]
David has volunteered for four, so Josh ask him to unsign for two.
16:30:14 [laura]
I will unsign up for the ones that I was the driver on and pick a new 1 or 2.
16:30:29 [marcjohlic]
q+
16:30:34 [AWK]
ack m
16:30:35 [bruce_bailey]
Laura says she we unsign from the ones she wanted to lead because she is too close to them.
16:30:36 [Joshue108]
ack marc
16:31:31 [bruce_bailey]
Marc Johlic, AWK, MichaelC check on GitHub assignment.
16:31:43 [bruce_bailey]
Intent was for people to be able to self-asign.
16:31:49 [Joshue108]
q?
16:31:54 [laura]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html laura
16:31:56 [bruce_bailey]
Marc and Katie report not being able to make assignment.
16:32:25 [bruce_bailey]
AWK and MichaelC will check on that.
16:32:49 [Joshue108]
q?
16:32:53 [bruce_bailey]
Meanwhile, chairs have to make assignments. Send email to Josh and/or Andrew.
16:33:00 [bruce_bailey]
Zakim, next item
16:33:00 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:33:20 [Joshue108]
zakim, agenda?
16:33:20 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
16:33:21 [Zakim]
3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
16:33:34 [Joshue108]
agenda+ Charter
16:33:39 [Joshue108]
zakim, next item
16:33:39 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, Joshue108
16:33:40 [bruce_bailey]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
16:34:08 [bruce_bailey]
MichaelC reports that Git Hub does *not* allow self-assignment
16:34:35 [Joshue108]
TOPIC: Update on charter discussion
16:34:39 [bruce_bailey]
.. so ask AWK and Josh if you want to be SC manager
16:34:56 [bruce_bailey]
MikeE also suggest putting your name on in the comments
16:35:24 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Comments fall into a few classes
16:35:44 [bruce_bailey]
..five comments asking for Digital Publishers to be included
16:36:01 [bruce_bailey]
..other commenters want korean group included
16:36:12 [bruce_bailey]
..other commenter for coordination with PF
16:36:25 [bruce_bailey]
.. many are administrative,
16:36:35 [bruce_bailey]
36 responses, 3 formal responses
16:36:43 [bruce_bailey]
3 formal objections
16:36:54 [bruce_bailey]
chairs are following up
16:37:13 [bruce_bailey]
..request for mobile to be more promient
16:37:25 [bruce_bailey]
..request for coordination with human factors
16:37:44 [bruce_bailey]
.. comments that mobile should be primary objective
16:37:59 [Joshue108]
q?
16:38:00 [bruce_bailey]
.. chairs feel equally strongly regarding LV and COGA
16:38:55 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: there are bunch of issue have likely for easy success,
16:39:09 [bruce_bailey]
.. but a few core issues that will take longer to resolve
16:39:36 [bruce_bailey]
.. incubation, and where silver work should be happening will take some effort to resolve
16:39:42 [MichaelC]
q+
16:39:42 [Wilco]
+q
16:39:49 [Ryladog]
q+
16:40:01 [bruce_bailey]
.. charter proposal was fairly open
16:40:11 [MichaelC]
q+ to note Silver isn´t fully incubation, it´s an up-version, though there are incubator aspects
16:40:21 [Mike_Elledge]
q+
16:40:32 [bruce_bailey]
.. charter needs to be amended to address needs of WG member goals and addressing formal objections
16:40:48 [Joshue108]
ack mich
16:40:48 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to note Silver isn´t fully incubation, it´s an up-version, though there are incubator aspects
16:41:02 [bruce_bailey]
.. AWK asks people to comment on where silver incubation should be happening
16:41:16 [AWK]
ACTF = Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework
16:41:42 [bruce_bailey]
MichaelC does not feel silver is "incubator" since it is an up version, but understands incubator arguement
16:41:47 [Joshue108]
ack ryla
16:41:48 [David-MacDonald]
q+
16:42:07 [bruce_bailey]
ACTF work is also an issue
16:42:24 [bruce_bailey]
Katie speaks on supporting ACTF in domain of WG
16:42:47 [bruce_bailey]
Katie would rather WG lose Silver thand ACTF, but would like both to stay
16:42:57 [Joshue108]
ack wilco
16:43:29 [bruce_bailey]
Wilco: ACTF has been in a community group for two years
16:44:10 [bruce_bailey]
.. work has gone through extensive development, ready to be picked up by WG. not much more to be done in community group
16:44:38 [Joshue108]
ack mike
16:44:47 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: Confirms that community groups have done well, done lots of work, but ready for next phase. Wilco concures.
16:45:06 [AWK]
s/concures/concurs
16:45:15 [bruce_bailey]
MikeE asks for more clarification as to why these two issues are contentious
16:45:48 [bruce_bailey]
Josh's read is that there is concern that they need more development before being taken up by GL WG
16:46:42 [bruce_bailey]
Josh respects ACTF work, but there is lots of other work going on outside community group.
16:47:10 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: Large concern as to what standards work should look like.
16:47:37 [bruce_bailey]
.. w3c is trying to decide the official policy, it is all an open question right now
16:47:51 [Joshue108]
q?
16:48:04 [bruce_bailey]
.. member voting on charter make their possition known through the current charter process
16:48:26 [bruce_bailey]
.. some people want activies to be 18 months top
16:48:44 [bruce_bailey]
.. others are comfortable with longer term projects
16:49:13 [bruce_bailey]
MikeE summaries well.
16:49:17 [Joshue108]
ack Dav
16:49:35 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: some pressure for WG to lean and mean
16:50:43 [bruce_bailey]
David-MacDonald: Feels like Silver group was not open enough to legacy opinion
16:51:05 [bruce_bailey]
MichaelC disagrees
16:51:45 [AWK]
q+ to talk about "wiping the slate clean"
16:51:53 [bruce_bailey]
DM: emphasis seems to be on research, silver could be a fresh start
16:52:21 [Ryladog]
FYI....My position, as AC Rep for Knowbility is, "one size does'nt fit all" for time boxing all new specs to 18 months (or less) is NOT a good idea, especially as it relates to spec taken up in laws around the world
16:52:39 [bruce_bailey]
Jeanne confirms that there is lots on the plate for Silver. Revolutionary structure, but evolutionary requirements
16:53:00 [AWK]
q- as Jeanne said what I was going to say
16:53:01 [bruce_bailey]
Jeanne: needs to be based on the research, but not throwing out WCAG 2.0
16:53:04 [AWK]
q-
16:53:14 [AWK]
AWK: Jeanne said what I was going to say
16:53:28 [MichaelC]
q+ to talk about impacts on incubation
16:53:58 [MichaelC]
q+ to say don´t want to presuppose the end results
16:53:58 [bruce_bailey]
MD: WCAG audience is tens of thousands, UAAG is audience of hundreds. How can they be wrapped together?
16:54:09 [Wayne]
q+
16:54:18 [AWK]
q+ to talk about whether we are creating a new UAAG or not. (we are not)
16:54:18 [bruce_bailey]
s/MD:/DM:
16:55:05 [bruce_bailey]
MC: Silver TF trying not to prejudge, so UAAG and ATAG an open question
16:55:14 [MichaelC]
ack me
16:55:14 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to talk about impacts on incubation and to say don´t want to presuppose the end results
16:55:27 [Joshue108]
q?
16:55:29 [bruce_bailey]
.. Silver to be based on researh.
16:55:53 [bruce_bailey]
.. if the work does not happen in GL WG, can WG be comfortable with that?
16:56:18 [gowerm]
gowerm has joined #wai-wcag
16:56:37 [bruce_bailey]
DM: We need to be focuse on 2.1, we feel pressure to get something in 18 months
16:56:53 [bruce_bailey]
63 sc in three weeks will be touch enough
16:57:02 [Ryladog]
q+
16:57:07 [Wayne]
+1
16:57:27 [Joshue108]
ack way
16:57:35 [bruce_bailey]
MC and DM agree that DM concern is that Silver in WG should not slow up 2.1 work
16:58:06 [gowerm]
present+ MikeGower
16:58:13 [bruce_bailey]
Wayne: Silver has not put alot of new things on the table
16:58:40 [bruce_bailey]
.. needs for LV folks can only be address by talking about UA issues
16:58:59 [bruce_bailey]
Jeanne affirm her personal commitment to Silver for LV accessiblity
16:59:00 [jon_avila]
agree with wayne
16:59:50 [bruce_bailey]
Wayne agrees with David that 2.1 is larger priority
17:00:08 [bruce_bailey]
s/larger/more immediate/
17:00:17 [Joshue108]
ack awk
17:00:17 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to talk about whether we are creating a new UAAG or not. (we are not)
17:00:36 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Chairs are keenly aware of all the work that needs to be done.
17:01:32 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: Agrees that alot of the comments on the charter were around UAAG/ATAAG issues. There may be other ways to get to the same endpoint.
17:02:07 [Joshue108]
q?
17:02:13 [bruce_bailey]
..there are complications related to UA and AT and platforms. Ultimate Silver should make think about how we approach guidelines
17:02:43 [Joshue108]
ack ryla
17:02:47 [bruce_bailey]
.. Silver is definately in incubation phase because we are doing researcher. It is a good time to comment if you have concern with direction.
17:03:22 [AWK]
s/doing researcher/doing a lot of background research
17:04:24 [bruce_bailey]
Katie: If the charter dicussion is going to delay our work on 2.1, that itself conflicts with getting 2.1 work completed in the timeline we are being asked to meet
17:04:56 [bruce_bailey]
.. quality of 2.1 more important than fast.
17:05:43 [Ryladog]
I agree with Josh
17:05:51 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: We are not working on UAAG or ATAG, but Silver is taking big look at what UA and AT can do to unburden the content authors
17:05:59 [Joshue108]
q?
17:06:13 [bruce_bailey]
.. very reasonable to have this considerion in scope for Silver.
17:06:27 [bruce_bailey]
..We hope charter discussion will be wrapped up soon.
17:07:06 [Glenda]
not sure
17:07:10 [gowerm]
not sure
17:07:10 [bruce_bailey]
AKW: Hear people saying that WG is comfortable focusing on 2.1 and let Silver be in community group.
17:07:12 [Mike_Elledge]
q+
17:07:20 [laura]
not sure
17:07:23 [Wilco]
I'd like to hear Jeanne's position on this
17:07:24 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: Do people disagree or are not sure?
17:07:26 [Makoto]
not sure
17:07:28 [Joshue108]
ack mike
17:07:42 [Jim_Smith]
Jim_Smith has joined #wai-wcag
17:07:59 [bruce_bailey]
Silver being in a community does NOT relieve any WG time pressures
17:08:45 [bruce_bailey]
Katie asks same question about ACTF work?
17:09:10 [Ryladog]
ACT should stay as a TF
17:09:16 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Are people okay with ACTF geing in a community group?
17:09:20 [Wilco]
I think it should be in WCAG WG
17:09:40 [Ryladog]
Not OK with moving ACT to Community Group
17:09:43 [bruce_bailey]
s/geing/being/
17:10:11 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: ACTF has been in community group, so it seems like it is ready to progress.
17:10:33 [David-MacDonald]
q+
17:10:40 [bruce_bailey]
q+ to ask if these should be survey questions
17:10:57 [Joshue108]
ack david
17:10:58 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Question is a little different
17:12:07 [bruce_bailey]
DM: Feels irreconsible conflict between work and deadlines
17:12:13 [Joshue108]
ack bruce
17:12:13 [Zakim]
bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if these should be survey questions
17:12:32 [Joshue108]
Bruce: These are serious questions, and should be on a survey.
17:12:54 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: WG will be approving charter.
17:13:06 [bruce_bailey]
.. chairs need to take the temperature
17:13:24 [bruce_bailey]
.. will not be making these decission on the call today
17:13:40 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Useful to hear peoples opinion
17:14:08 [bruce_bailey]
.. silver work and actf work are quite differnt
17:14:30 [bruce_bailey]
.. reality is that wg may need to make choices
17:14:49 [AWK]
Zakim, agenda?
17:14:49 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
17:14:50 [Zakim]
3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
17:14:50 [Zakim]
4. Charter [from Joshue108]
17:15:04 [bruce_bailey]
zakim, take up item 3
17:15:04 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/" taken up [from Joshue108]
17:15:20 [bruce_bailey]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
17:16:02 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: these will be coming through fast, many sc queued up, ready for discussion once charter is wrapped up
17:16:03 [Joshue108]
Closed https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/3
17:16:30 [bruce_bailey]
Discussing issue 2, Programmatic notification is provided for each change in content
17:16:33 [Joshue108]
Lets talk about this one https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/2
17:17:25 [bruce_bailey]
Wayne: Need more time to review comments in githum
17:17:39 [bruce_bailey]
s/githum/github/
17:18:15 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: In terms of overview, seems pretty possitive. 11 accepts in whole, 8 in principle w/ changes
17:18:47 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: We can let wayne manage
17:18:55 [Joshue108]
q?
17:19:05 [bruce_bailey]
AWK ask David to discuss related COGO issue.
17:19:25 [bruce_bailey]
David: I added exception to address James' comments and question about COGA 54
17:20:00 [bruce_bailey]
.. this question is about programatic notification, e.g. notification from shopping cart. Something changed on the page, how does the LV or blind user know?
17:20:45 [Ryladog]
q+
17:20:48 [Joshue108]
q+ to say will I add the COGA label to this also?
17:20:49 [bruce_bailey]
.. number of terms of COGA 54 which may or may not be accepted, but see note 6 about programmatic and visual feedback
17:21:07 [MoeKraft]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/54
17:21:16 [Joshue108]
ack ry
17:21:32 [bruce_bailey]
.. objective with DM edit is to incorporate some COGA objectives into this SC
17:22:08 [bruce_bailey]
Katie: Sees updates might not be initiated by user, so would like issues to remain separate
17:22:42 [bruce_bailey]
DM: Argues for overlap, since both are page updates.
17:23:20 [bruce_bailey]
Katie argues for keeping separate, because user-initiated action is so discrete.
17:23:27 [AWK]
q+
17:23:36 [adam_solomon]
q+
17:24:01 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: Is this a COGA issues, should label be assigned to this item?
17:24:15 [AWK]
Wayne and Rachel (SC managers for #2 and #54, respectively) should talk
17:24:34 [Joshue108]
ack me
17:24:34 [Zakim]
Joshue, you wanted to say will I add the COGA label to this also?
17:24:36 [AWK]
... and decide if these should be merged
17:24:38 [bruce_bailey]
DM: Sees SC as focused on page change, not user action or not.
17:25:07 [Joshue108]
ack awk
17:25:19 [bruce_bailey]
DM clarifies that he has not seen overlap with LV tf sc.
17:25:57 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: Wayne and Rachel should decide if issues should be merged.
17:26:52 [bruce_bailey]
AWK and DM discuss example of what would not be covered.
17:27:02 [Iisa]
Iisa has joined #wai-wcag
17:27:15 [gowerm]
q+
17:27:23 [Iisa]
Q+
17:27:45 [bruce_bailey]
DM: loading content very import, gave a couple example with form changing content of page base on user action
17:27:57 [Joshue108]
zakim, close queue
17:27:57 [Zakim]
ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
17:28:07 [Iisa]
Some one will need to unmute me
17:28:27 [Joshue108]
we shall try
17:28:30 [Iisa]
Q+
17:28:35 [bruce_bailey]
AWK: may need a defintion of control. Davids examples are about componenets of page.
17:28:52 [bruce_bailey]
.. If we can address need without new SC, that is good.
17:29:03 [Iisa]
Present+ lisa
17:29:13 [Joshue108]
ack adam
17:29:24 [bruce_bailey]
AWK and Josh ask for clear definition of control vs component before revisit
17:30:08 [bruce_bailey]
Adam: Are example only for client side interaction.
17:30:24 [jamesn]
q+
17:30:40 [bruce_bailey]
DM: Had detail about "after page load" in one place, so phrasing may be reused.
17:30:59 [Joshue108]
Andrews right, we don't have a definition for control.
17:31:11 [Joshue108]
ack gow
17:31:20 [bruce_bailey]
Discussion about post back. URL is not changing, so need to be clear about refresh or new infomation
17:32:09 [AWK]
ack I
17:32:10 [bruce_bailey]
James: Page load currently addressed by 1.3.1. There is visual queue, so just need a technique for clarification
17:32:34 [Wilco]
+1 1.3.1 does not involve notifications
17:32:48 [bruce_bailey]
DM: Disagress that 1.3.1 explictely fails change in content
17:33:09 [bruce_bailey]
Jame: Issue three closed was about issue notification
17:33:25 [laura]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:33:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html laura
17:33:48 [bruce_bailey]
DM: Notification is on other end of DOM tree, so could be missed.
17:34:07 [bruce_bailey]
rrsagen, make minutes
17:34:15 [bruce_bailey]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:34:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html bruce_bailey
17:35:15 [bruce_bailey]
Lisa: requirements around notification are well addressed
17:35:45 [bruce_bailey]
.. GOCA sc include visual notification in the main modality
17:36:01 [bruce_bailey]
.. use case might be able to be addressed by notes
17:36:28 [bruce_bailey]
.. don't want to lose sc, but a couple use cases might be covered by current sc
17:36:53 [bruce_bailey]
Josh: please do sign up to manage sc
17:36:56 [Mike_Elledge]
Bye all!
17:37:10 [bruce_bailey]
trackbot, end meeting
17:37:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:37:10 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, Srini, adam_solomon, Wilco, Laura, Makoto, KimD,
17:37:13 [Zakim]
... Mike, Elledge, Glenda, Katie_Haritos-Shea, David-MacDonald, Wayne, jon_avila, MikeGower, lisa
17:37:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:37:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:37:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:37:19 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
17:37:22 [AWK]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:37:22 [Zakim]
Present: MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, Srini, adam_solomon, Wilco, Laura, Makoto, KimD, Mike, Elledge, Glenda,