See also: IRC log
<George> George must leave at the top of the hour.
<scribe> scribe: Sharron
Judy: Next meeting is for march 15th rather than during CSUN
Judy: quick intros from all for Jason his first WAICC meeting
Judy: this is follow up to an
item from 2 weeks ago related to the US travel ban.
... take this into account if organizing face to face meetings
and such.
... any questions?
Judy: Janina and Michael your process for picking up these announcements may have made you already aware but this is a courtesy notification. A bit more inof if needed.
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/HTML_5.2
Judy: are you all set for that?
Janina: Yes, I think we are, with Leonie as liaison and our normal process
Michael: and we have an alert to look at it in early March
Judy: Do you have enough people for review, could Katie help with notices for experinced reveiwers to WAI-IG?
Janina: I have some concern about lack of attndence to meetings. Open actions for people who have not been on calls recently, so we do have a bit of an issue.
Judy: How can I help to get
things facilatated, maybe during CSUN? Bounce me the draft and
I will ask katie to post to WAI-IG for help with that
draft.
... agenda timing check
<George> George must drop, bye
Phillipe: When I learned that some of the accessiiblity groups were having trouble with tools, I knew it was my job to fix that.
<Lisa_Seeman> We will have more comments but more are coming: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxhXLpsqIy5p6zZHxlsSvjmhUjFqSFGCgE4eelRJxH8/edit?usp=sharing
<Lisa_Seeman> on tools
Judy: Background is that we have
in the past developed our own tools and were able to bake in
the accessibility. Now that we are more reliant on third party
tools and more people with disabilities in leadership roles, it
has become more of an issue.
... Lisa can you provide some introduction?
Lisa: We had some inital problems
with the wiki and GitHub along with recommendatins for WCAG 2.1
that our tools actually do not conform to. We are trying to
accomodate by having one person (me) do all the pull requests.
Now all comments come to me instead of those who made the
change. Color dependencies, terms and other problems have
created serious barriers to participation.
... there are links to a list of issues. Most people have put
hours into trying to use these tools and documented their
difficulties. IRC, wiki and GitHub have lists associated with
them. Google docs as well.
<Lisa_Seeman> our SC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ACOGA
<Lisa_Seeman> these are the issues and priciples
Katie: I wanted to suggest that
we have a tools orientation training at TPAC for all these
tools.
... more people feel more confortable participating if they get
trained and don't feel stupid.
<Judy> [JB: wonders if a class at TPAC would reach many; maybe mini online orientations]
Lisa: In some cases training will be useful but regardless with these tools, we will still lose people due to accessibility issues.
<Lisa_Seeman> but not that there will be more comments coming.
PLH: Thank you for putting this
together, it is quite useful for me. We can do the TPAC
training but mya not reach everyone and may still nto address
underlying accessiiblity issues.
... there is no requirement to use GitHub although we favor it
quite a bit for the developers in the community. That is likely
to change and I recommend that you use the tools that works
best for your group. Google docs are an option but have
problems of blockage in some countries and lack of archival
ability.
... have been suggestions that we internally replicate the
Google doc function that we could archive and will not be
blocked.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say wysiwyg interfaces to online editing features of wikis and github would help one issue and to say the github fork-and-pull-request and the clone model
Michael: Though W3C does not
require it, it has become a preferred and chosen tool of the
AGWG and we have built processes around it. Dealing with
conflict between needs of WG and needs of TF.
... even if TF chose different tools for its protion, the
integration to the WG process would still remain.
... many will tell you that fork/pull/branch/clone process is
cognitively challenging for all of us and hard to master.
... another challenge I understand is the code edit requirement
and the need for WYSIWYG interface. Not sure how difficult it
might be to get around that. Various methods are tried and we
have also attempted to get the WG become aware and provide
support but there is a disempowerment factor when relying on
external support to the TF.
... the available bandwidth to resolve with the chairs has just
not been there.
Judy: Glad that plh is willing to help and a quick thought is that a few quick intro documents that people can use to be augemented by more in depth and even video based tutorials might help. Can we park the solutions in some place where we can work collectively on solutions - maybe GitHub?
All: Laughter
Judy: If you, plh can suggest a way to proceed and allow Lisa and the TF a way to comment on that?
PLH: Want to begin with the Google doc, get it into a state where we feel it is fairly comprehensive list. Not guarantee to solve everyone of them such as the WYSIWYG editor for GitHub but we can certainly look at what is possible.
Judy: Next meeting is March 15th can you have a plan by then?
PLH: If I have some assurance that teh Google doc is comprehensive.
Lisa: Yes there is urgency around this and so knowing that you are paying attention to it will motivate people to review and be sure it is clear.
Judy: And if anyone has additonal comment, email to the Wai-cc list.
Judy: Welocme comments about managing messaging before CSUN
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask if it´s official FPWD won´t be before CSUN
Michael: If we want to release first public WD, we only have a couple of days.
Andrew: 3 factors: 1. having the WD out on time 2. large number of SCs in it 3. Large number vetted by WG. Seems we can have any 2 of thse but not all three
Judy: I am surprised to hear
there is not a decision yet. Not expecting that this call would
be the place to make that decision. I felt pretty strongly that
messaging would be strong and think the clock has run out for
that. Whether published or not, need strong messaging about
whatever *is* happening.
... is there something we should know about the call this
morning?
Andrew: I talked with Kathy and
Shadi this morning and briefly with Josh. Need to talk with
Josh and Michael together, that's tomorrow morning at 10. will
know more then
... one question that would be good to hear from others is how
to address the challenge of a draft that inlcudes the large
number of SCs proposed by all the TFs and that had been vetted
to be of good quality. How to balance the issue of publishing
only those that are well vetted vs what is "enough"
Judy: There was a related issue in terms of testability balance that was raised by Lisa.
Katie: Andrew asked for thoughts on the balance. My view is that the first thing WCAG has published in years must be of high quality and we much also have the largest number of them in order to get public feedback. Must identify the basic conflicts, the directions we are going and the challenges. Either 1. extend the timeline or 2. put everything in in the current state it is in and identify
what is needed to bring it to the point it needs to be.
Lisa: What a bout an Editor's
Draft where the bar is lower and invite comment with a blanket
editor's note that indicates that further work is needed.
... this would be an early SC so we are kind of meeting the
timeline. May also ask each TF to identify 7 SCs that capture
key issues.
<Ryladog> Correction my view is not to ensure the first thing we publish is of very high quality, if it means leaving out to many of th COGA SC. We *Need* the feedback, expereince and comments with those SC that are most challenging.
Kathy: I agree with Lisa that we need to have more of the SCs in the first working draft. A big concern is that tehre has been a lot of time on some and have not so far gone through any of the mobile ones as a group. Many of the mobile ones relate to 2.1.1 and have said we would not substantially modify that and now that is being reconsidered.
<Ryladog> It should be good quality, but we need to list them most and clearly identify where the SC have issues (not testable, need better definitions, etc) - for the very purpose of gaining feedback. And currentlt the SC has NOT had time to review the SC. My Vote is we need more time
Kathy: we need to balance the time spent and make sure we are spending equal time on SCs proposed by all the TFs. Add things to the Editor's Note for thse things that we need additional feedback
Judy: 'Balance' continues to be mentioned. Signalling factor of balance and a deliberate process is important. Wish you luck with your discussion tomorrow and please let us know if we can help.
Lisa: may I add that I understand how difficult is the job for Andrew and Josh and that they are doing a great job.
<Lisa_Seeman> Is there a planning discusion tomorow that I am ment to be in?
Judy: and the re-chartering process was unexpectedly difficult and took away from the time for the work.
<Lisa_Seeman> ok
Judy: On Roadmap development, the
list will receive a notice about work I am doing to increase
transparency about accessiiblity work across all of w3c.
... regarding EOWG we are starting to think about the next
round since the current charter expires at the end of May. Want
to hear from accessiiblity related TFs and WGs. What you know
aobut the work of EO and what you would like to see. Your
thoughts are welcome.
... hoping for update on RQTF but instead maybe will ask for a
brief summary message to the list, Jason.
... Katie, you and I are overdue for a chat about WAI-IG and
some messaging in advance of CSUN. As well if there are any
other pre-CSUN messages, let's coordiante those as possible.
Any follow on about recruitment for your group, presentations,
any other items for outreach.
... any thing else before we wrap?
Katie: How will the ePub WG will inter-relate with WAI?
<Lisa_Seeman> janina have you asked Alexanda Surkov to fill the gap in APA you metioned last time?
<Lisa_Seeman> You need him in APA
Judy: I have had a planning meeting with them and will have more in the next week and I should have something more specific by our Mrch 15 meeting. Will add to the agenda.
Katie: Hope to something at TPAC.
Judy: Thanks all.
trackbot, end meeting
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
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/waicc// Succeeded: s/Janian/Janina/ Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron Default Present: Joanmarie_Diggs, janina, George, Kathy, Lisa_Seeman, Jim, Judy, Sharron, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Shawn, plh Present: Joanmarie_Diggs janina George Kathy Lisa_Seeman Jim Judy Sharron Katie_Haritos-Shea Shawn plh WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 15 Feb 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-waicc-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]