Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

13 Dec 2016

See also: IRC log


MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, adam_solomon, Wilco, Laura, Makoto, Mike, Elledge, Glenda, Katie_Haritos-Shea, David-MacDonald, Wayne, jon_avila, MikeGower, lisa


<jeanne> trackbot, end meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 13 December 2016




<AWK> Scribe: Bruce_Bailey

MicaelC: Silver TF meeting FtF during call
... Silver TF says hello

<AWK> +Srini

josh starting meeting

Discussion: SC managers

josh: import issue ht Katie for suggestion

<AWK> Current description: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

josh: chairs have discussed role and how to be effective
... we will go through wiki page

<KimD> +KimD

josh: 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
... in terms of driving discussion, outline is on git hub
... sc manager is central point to identifying issues and blocking items, hopefully reducing noise
... proposals can be merged, closed, etc.
... fresh sc are a possibility, wiki details how chairs think that might develope
... wg members will discuss on call as usual
... once sc manager and chairs feels ready for call for concensus, chairs will have sc on call

AWK: to emphais a couple things
... try to keep active discussion on git hub
... keep the work on git hub, which gives us tracking, linking, pull control, and hooks for publishing
... last week we got a number of volunteers, but we want sc managers to only handle two at a time
... we have long history of tasks not getting sufficient attention
... we want to spread out the work
... 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

Rachael: how to handle overlapping sc?

josh: sc managers coordinate directly with each other
... outcome could be a differerent sc or hand off
... this sort of this is core priority for sc manager

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about only managing 2 at a time

Racheal asks if one person coordinating related sc migh work better

Josh asks that we start with just two at a time, keep attention focus, see how it works

scribe: process is in work in progress, so we will adapt as needed

<AWK> "Ready for WG review" was to indicate the Dec 1 deadline readiness

MikeE: A number of git hub items say "ready to review" are they really ready for WG concensus?

<AWK> The SC manager process is "the WCAG review"

Josh: Ready for review means ready for SC management, and that items are targeted for december pass

Josh, Mike, AWK clarify that ready for review means ready for TF review, not GL review

Green lable means ready for SC managment

AWK will be looking at updating labels

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

AWK nutshell role of SC manager is that we have proposals from TF, but they need to formated for WG review

scribe: there may be additional issues, conflicts with other draft SC.
... SC does not need particular expertise in topic, but they need to read, maybe format a bit more, and put together a pull request
... pull request when SC is in final format and WG group

Adam Solomon:Will comments already be in git hub? (AWK: yes) so does SC manager make edits to proposal?

AWK: SC manager probably should not be editing the proposal but elevating issues and guiding TF lead to make changes in response to issues
... discussion could happen on git hub but also by email if absolutely neccessary. threads on github are prefereable

<David-MacDonald> sorry late.... was on client call...

AWK: sc could restate what they are hear. sc manager empowered to for and manage branch of modifications

<Ryladog> please do that Andrew

<Joshue108> +1 to vid

<Mike_Elledge> +1 to vid

AWK may record video tutorial of this

<KimD> +1 for instructions/info video!

<Glenda> +1 to the idea of AWK documenting how the SC manager can fork and edit the SC they are managing

<Joshue108> In a nut shell - the SC manager will drive the development, the iteration, acceptance, or deletion of a candidate SC.

<laura> Yes. GitHub process tutorial would be helpful.

<David-MacDonald> what are we on?

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
... need fresh eyes sometimes

<laura> david, we are on https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

AWK: one outcome might be that a great idea needs better UA support than we have, so SC might get defered
... TF are resources, but work is in hand of WG, WG makes decision.
... TF members are all WG members, but WG has responsibility and decision making

Josh: WG will ultimated accept or regect (defer)

<Rachael> +1 to SC Managers

Josh: Not hearing any objections to proposed process

<marcjohlic> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Wayne> +1

<Glenda> +1

<Greg> +1

<laura> +1

<Makoto> +1

Josh: please give your plus ones if ready to go forward as outlined

<Mike_Elledge> +1

AWK: Immediate ask is to go look at proposals and sign up for no more than two.
... Un-sign please if you have volunteered for more than two

DM: How we get through with 60 with only two ?

Josh: Just start with two, get those cycled, and sign up for two more.
... goal is have focus

David has volunteered for four, so Josh ask him to unsign for two.

<laura> I will unsign up for the ones that I was the driver on and pick a new 1 or 2.

Laura says she we unsign from the ones she wanted to lead because she is too close to them.

Marc Johlic, AWK, MichaelC check on GitHub assignment.

Intent was for people to be able to self-asign.

Marc and Katie report not being able to make assignment.

AWK and MichaelC will check on that.

Meanwhile, chairs have to make assignments. Send email to Josh and/or Andrew.

New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/


MichaelC reports that Git Hub does *not* allow self-assignment

Update on charter discussion

scribe: so ask AWK and Josh if you want to be SC manager

MikeE also suggest putting your name on in the comments

Josh: Comments fall into a few classes
... five comments asking for Digital Publishers to be included
... other commenters want korean group included
... other commenter for coordination with PF
... many are administrative,

36 responses, 3 formal responses

3 formal objections

chairs are following up

scribe: request for mobile to be more promient
... request for coordination with human factors
... comments that mobile should be primary objective
... chairs feel equally strongly regarding LV and COGA

AWK: there are bunch of issue have likely for easy success,
... but a few core issues that will take longer to resolve
... incubation, and where silver work should be happening will take some effort to resolve

<Wilco> +q

AWK: charter proposal was fairly open
... charter needs to be amended to address needs of WG member goals and addressing formal objections

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note Silver isn´t fully incubation, it´s an up-version, though there are incubator aspects

AWK: AWK asks people to comment on where silver incubation should be happening

<AWK> ACTF = Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework

MichaelC does not feel silver is "incubator" since it is an up version, but understands incubator arguement

ACTF work is also an issue

Katie speaks on supporting ACTF in domain of WG

Katie would rather WG lose Silver thand ACTF, but would like both to stay

Wilco: ACTF has been in a community group for two years
... work has gone through extensive development, ready to be picked up by WG. not much more to be done in community group

AWK: Confirms that community groups have done well, done lots of work, but ready for next phase. Wilco concurs.

MikeE asks for more clarification as to why these two issues are contentious

Josh's read is that there is concern that they need more development before being taken up by GL WG

Josh respects ACTF work, but there is lots of other work going on outside community group.

AWK: Large concern as to what standards work should look like.
... w3c is trying to decide the official policy, it is all an open question right now
... member voting on charter make their possition known through the current charter process
... some people want activies to be 18 months top
... others are comfortable with longer term projects

MikeE summaries well.

Josh: some pressure for WG to lean and mean

David-MacDonald: Feels like Silver group was not open enough to legacy opinion

MichaelC disagrees

DM: emphasis seems to be on research, silver could be a fresh start

<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

Jeanne confirms that there is lots on the plate for Silver. Revolutionary structure, but evolutionary requirements

Jeanne: needs to be based on the research, but not throwing out WCAG 2.0

<AWK> AWK: Jeanne said what I was going to say

DM: WCAG audience is tens of thousands, UAAG is audience of hundreds. How can they be wrapped together?

MC: Silver TF trying not to prejudge, so UAAG and ATAG an open question

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about impacts on incubation and to say don´t want to presuppose the end results

MC: Silver to be based on researh.
... if the work does not happen in GL WG, can WG be comfortable with that?

DM: We need to be focuse on 2.1, we feel pressure to get something in 18 months

63 sc in three weeks will be touch enough

<Wayne> +1

MC and DM agree that DM concern is that Silver in WG should not slow up 2.1 work

Wayne: Silver has not put alot of new things on the table
... needs for LV folks can only be address by talking about UA issues

Jeanne affirm her personal commitment to Silver for LV accessiblity

<jon_avila> agree with wayne

Wayne agrees with David that 2.1 is more immediate priority

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about whether we are creating a new UAAG or not. (we are not)

Josh: Chairs are keenly aware of all the work that needs to be done.

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.
... there are complications related to UA and AT and platforms. Ultimate Silver should make think about how we approach guidelines
... Silver is definately in incubation phase because we are doing a lot of background research. It is a good time to comment if you have concern with direction.

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
... quality of 2.1 more important than fast.

<Ryladog> I agree with Josh

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
... very reasonable to have this considerion in scope for Silver.
... We hope charter discussion will be wrapped up soon.

<Glenda> not sure

<gowerm> not sure

AKW: Hear people saying that WG is comfortable focusing on 2.1 and let Silver be in community group.

<laura> not sure

<Wilco> I'd like to hear Jeanne's position on this

AWK: Do people disagree or are not sure?

<Makoto> not sure

Silver being in a community does NOT relieve any WG time pressures

Katie asks same question about ACTF work?

<Ryladog> ACT should stay as a TF

Josh: Are people okay with ACTF being in a community group?

<Wilco> I think it should be in WCAG WG

<Ryladog> Not OK with moving ACT to Community Group

AWK: ACTF has been in community group, so it seems like it is ready to progress.

Josh: Question is a little different

DM: Feels irreconsible conflict between work and deadlines

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if these should be survey questions

<Joshue108> Bruce: These are serious questions, and should be on a survey.

AWK: WG will be approving charter.
... chairs need to take the temperature
... will not be making these decission on the call today

Josh: Useful to hear peoples opinion
... silver work and actf work are quite differnt
... reality is that wg may need to make choices

New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/


Josh: these will be coming through fast, many sc queued up, ready for discussion once charter is wrapped up

<Joshue108> Closed https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/3

Discussing issue 2, Programmatic notification is provided for each change in content

<Joshue108> Lets talk about this one https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/2

Wayne: Need more time to review comments in github

Josh: In terms of overview, seems pretty possitive. 11 accepts in whole, 8 in principle w/ changes
... We can let wayne manage

AWK ask David to discuss related COGO issue.

David: I added exception to address James' comments and question about COGA 54
... 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?
... number of terms of COGA 54 which may or may not be accepted, but see note 6 about programmatic and visual feedback

<MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/54

David: objective with DM edit is to incorporate some COGA objectives into this SC

Katie: Sees updates might not be initiated by user, so would like issues to remain separate

DM: Argues for overlap, since both are page updates.

Katie argues for keeping separate, because user-initiated action is so discrete.

Josh: Is this a COGA issues, should label be assigned to this item?

<AWK> Wayne and Rachel (SC managers for #2 and #54, respectively) should talk

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say will I add the COGA label to this also?

<AWK> ... and decide if these should be merged

DM: Sees SC as focused on page change, not user action or not.

DM clarifies that he has not seen overlap with LV tf sc.

AWK: Wayne and Rachel should decide if issues should be merged.

AWK and DM discuss example of what would not be covered.

DM: loading content very import, gave a couple example with form changing content of page base on user action

<Iisa> Some one will need to unmute me

<Joshue108> we shall try

AWK: may need a defintion of control. Davids examples are about componenets of page.
... If we can address need without new SC, that is good.

AWK and Josh ask for clear definition of control vs component before revisit

Adam: Are example only for client side interaction.

DM: Had detail about "after page load" in one place, so phrasing may be reused.

<Joshue108> Andrews right, we don't have a definition for control.

Discussion about post back. URL is not changing, so need to be clear about refresh or new infomation

James: Page load currently addressed by 1.3.1. There is visual queue, so just need a technique for clarification

<Wilco> +1 1.3.1 does not involve notifications

DM: Disagress that 1.3.1 explictely fails change in content

Jame: Issue three closed was about issue notification

DM: Notification is on other end of DOM tree, so could be missed.

rrsagen, make minutes

Lisa: requirements around notification are well addressed
... GOCA sc include visual notification in the main modality
... use case might be able to be addressed by notes
... don't want to lose sc, but a couple use cases might be covered by current sc

Josh: please do sign up to manage sc

<Mike_Elledge> Bye all!

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/12/13 17:37:53 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/Johs:/Josh:/
Succeeded: s/concures/concurs/
Succeeded: s/MD:/DM:/
Succeeded: s/larger/more immediate/
Succeeded: s/doing researcher/doing a lot of background research/
Succeeded: s/geing/being/
Succeeded: s/githum/github/
Found Scribe: Bruce_Bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey

WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: Avneesh AWK alastairc mattg Glenda davidmacdonald Joshue marcjohlic Lauriat KathyW Greg_Lowney Laura Makoto Katie_Haritos-Shea MichaelC jeanne Judy lisa_seeman KimD Rachael
New list: MichaelC Jeanne Sarah Lauriat Rachael Bruce_Bailey mattg marcjohlic Greg_Lowney Srini adam_solomon Wilco Laura Makoto KimD Mike Elledge Glenda Katie_Haritos-Shea David-MacDonald Wayne jon_avila MikeGower lisa

Default Present: MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, Srini, adam_solomon, Wilco, Laura, Makoto, KimD, Mike, Elledge, Glenda, Katie_Haritos-Shea, David-MacDonald, Wayne, jon_avila, MikeGower, lisa

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Avneesh, AWK, alastairc, mattg, Glenda, davidmacdonald, Joshue, marcjohlic, Lauriat, KathyW, Greg_Lowney, Laura, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, jeanne, Judy, bruce_bailey)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey

Present: MichaelC Jeanne Sarah Lauriat Rachael Bruce_Bailey mattg marcjohlic Greg_Lowney adam_solomon Wilco Laura Makoto Mike Elledge Glenda Katie_Haritos-Shea David-MacDonald Wayne jon_avila MikeGower lisa
Regrets: Alastair
Found Date: 13 Dec 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]