Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

25 Apr 2017

See also: IRC log


allanj, KimD, jasonjgw, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Laura, JF, Joshue108, Makoto, ChrisLoiselle, Mike, Pluke, Melanie_Philipp, alastairc, Bruce_Bailey, MikeGower, Mike_Elledge, steverep, Wayne, marcjohlic, Glenda, kirkwood, LisaSeeman, jamesn, Pietro
JF, Mike_Elledge



<JF> scribe: JF

<AWK> Need Scribe volunteer for next 3 weeks

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

<ChrisLoiselle> I'll scribe next week

JOC: we'll need a scribefor the next few weeks

3 urgent needs coming up now

<laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<MichaelC> scribe: Mike_Elledge

<alastairc> I can do 9th may

<ChrisLoiselle> I'll scribe the 9th too. so I can get hang of it

<alastairc> I'm happy to go later :-)

Mike Pluke will scribe the 16th.

Chris Loiselle will scribe the 9th.

<ChrisLoiselle> I'll do 2nd and 9th of May.

zakim: first item

zakem, next item

Supplementary documents proposal

Chairs discussing what can be done for SCs that don't make 2.1. What other docs could be made to accomodate.

<AWK> Hat tip to JF for raising and promoting the idea.

JO: Could be supplementary to 2.1. New items for work in the future. Have timeline want to stick with. So need a plan.

AK: Think in general recognize that will meet timeline or include a larger number of SC. Can't do both. Taking longer than expected; hard work. Don't want to lose good ideas from TFs and beyone.
... Need some way to expose it to others as Best practices or for research to make achievable in future as different specs or authoring tools.

JO: Response to add supplementary group.

LS: Sees a complete recommendation on how to make comments useable for mobile, LV, Cognitive, etc. So people who will be able to do it, can.
... Avoiding scenario in the past where didn't provide that info. Even if not fully testable, will be helpful to policy makers and developers. Would avoid best practices as term. Not part of 2.1, but doesn't mean that it isn't valuable.

JO: Just want buy-in from group that it's a good idea.

<LisaSeeman> he way I had put it was that if people want to do whatever they can to include coga (or LV or mobile), they will have clear guidence on how to do that.

<LisaSeeman> That way a policy maker could say follow 2.1 but for critical services you need to add the supplement for coga (and for LV and/or mobile).

<LisaSeeman> For that we need the guidnece to be as clear and testible as we can - even if it is not normative at this point.

Jason: Important to reflect on what goes into WCAG SC, much that is important for devs to be mindful of, would improve a11y, but won't apply to all content, or testable. ie., may not satisfy a particular condition. Also don't know how widespread problem is to meet SCs is to make things accessible. Outreach would help to explain that WCAG is only part of what is necessary.
... I nparticular don't want ppl to only rely on SCs. Must meet spirit as well.
... Such as extensible designs.

JO: Question is supplementary info from Task Forces.

Jason: OK with that, but Outreach and Education group has role as well. Wayne, for example, comment that WCAG is the core but not the limit.

<LisaSeeman> 1+ to michael

MC: My vision is that it is a supplemental doc to 2.1. don't assume that everything remaining can be dumped into it. If we include stuff that didn't make sense or doesn't have relation to 2.1 SC should be left out for further work.

<Joshue108> +1 to Michael

MC: Don't make dropping into supplemental automatic.

JO: Should complement 2.1. Also chance to show good work.

<LisaSeeman> +1 to mike

MP: Favor. Try to express that they are important but why not included. For example, testability. Has potential for upgrading later.

JO: Give us the ability to publish, but take pressure off remaining items that still need work to become normative in .dot release or Silver.

JF: At CSUN, idea of collection of docs. MC a supplemental document. Was thinking that there'd be a collection of docs. Good research from COGA and Low Vision--don't want to lose it. Seems to be strewn around. Let's put it in a W3C note and publish it so it can be found.
... Another case where don't know how to apply to SC in scalable, testable way. Degrees of nuance. Phased release. Want reseach to be published as formal research document.

JO: Introduction of Alex Li from Microsoft

Alexi: Worked on WCAG 2.0, from MS. What is a supplemental doc and how does it qualify.

JO: Non-normative, note type status

MC: Not a formal definition of supplemental guidance: Reco track and note track, that can be almost anything. Many specs supplement their normative, best practices, techniques, etc. This would be supplemental resource.

Alexi: What is the criteria for what would be included.

MC: Whatever we decide

JO: Haven't pinned it down yet, but generally should support 2.1 and provide path for normative.

LS: Thinkgin will free us form decision not to require user testing, big impact on what we can include. Another advantage won't have conflict on messaging; WCAG is fantastic, does everythign. Which it doesn't. Don't want to say that it doesn't, but it doesn't.
... Allows honest messaging for wht it includes, doesn't. So end-users won't be harmed by assumption that 2.1 covers it all. Will make it easier to say "Can you do more?"

<LisaSeeman> +1 to suit

<LisaSeeman> sweet

<LisaSeeman> whatever...

Wayne: Think John's idea of suite is good. One part that talks about SC that need to be modified to be accepted. Another section would address difficulty in explaining accessibility. Address things like technology independence.
... Should be brought out in paper. Agree with idea of doing it. Have good structure.
... Chapters, perhaps

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we can consider using SC type wording, but one advantage of a supplemental doc would be that we´re less constrained by structure, and should take

MC: Don't want to assume we follow same constraints as 2.1. Flexibility. For Silver don't know but hope will be more flexibility. A different sent of constraints. Want to avoid doc proliferation. Reference as prominently as other docs, but don't want supplemental doc for each TF.

<Wayne> +1 to not splintering

MC: Be conservative to proliferation. Also have always said WCAG 2.0 is starting point, not end-all, be-all. Can do more to explain that. But note we have been transparent about it.

<alexli> + 1 that wcag is not the be all and end all

<Joshue108> ME: I think it is great, for two reasons.

<Joshue108> ME: It provides a path for research etc and to become possible SCs.

<Joshue108> ME: It also opens up our process to those not involved.

JO: Positive feedback on the call. Will discuss some more and get back to the group. Heartfelt that ppl feel positive about it. Can be helpful in providing accessible content. Provide guidance and design technologies that may not fit in conformance model.

Suggestion to change SC review schedule to make it easier.

JO: Chairs taling about changing review schedule. Suggest a bi-weekly release of new SCs. More realistic based on current progress.
... Will it be more manageable, or happy with way it is now.

<LisaSeeman> what is the current scedule

JO: Weekly.

JF: Bi weekly, or bi-monthly?

<JF> +1 to every two weeks

JO: Bi-monthly. Every two weeks.

<gowerm> Say every two weeks instead of bi-weekly OR bi-monthly. Both can be confusing.

<Joshue108> Every two weeks..

MC: Aspirationally will do 3 SCs a week. But didn't get there. If can't review and approve by changing soemthing have to move on. Will have to be more dynamic in how we prioritize. Can't beat on three for 8 weeks in a row.

JO: Relies on SC managers as well. Can't hammer out more at detriment of others.

JamesN: Will still have monthly release

MC: Hopefully WG will address all issues in process of approving. When we come to finalization dreaft will definitely be monthly.

<JF> +1 to JamesN

James: Do not believe that public will pay attention to monthly releases. They'll look every 3-4 months.

JO: Don't object to that. Have to be careful not to re-publish. Only things that have been vetted.

<Glenda> +1 to transparency and sticking to the publishing schedule (but I’m flexible)

MC: Not much point, but not much harm. Doens't "cost" much.

JamesN: Want to be sure not looking again at what's been published.

<alastairc> It is a matter of highlighting changes, if we point people to specific things, then it is useful

JO: Want to focus on bi-monthly (every other week: EOW) schedule. Priority is to manage queue for SC. Some get hammered more than others. Not neglect others.
... If no objection then it is a good thing.

AlexLi: Given that there is a particular schedule shouldn[t we focus on likely ones being approved.

JO: An issue we've been working with for awhile. Have SC managers that shepherd process.

AK: lol To Alex and James' points wanted to publixh monthly and tehre might be 5-6 new SC, wanted to make them available for transparency. Prioritizing? Have been doing with TF facilitators. Have been doing that and will continue.

JO: Will get back to you Laura.

<laura> Thanks, Josh.

<jamesn> just want to put on record that if you get no public comments on a draft it doesn't meant no one has any problems with it - it just means no one has read it

JO: Should we put out a survey for consensus.

MC: Don't need for process.

JO: Want to manage the flow but go through more efficiiently.

<LisaSeeman> Q

JO: We will go to every other week for SC discussions.

LS: We might need to re-adjust how we're dealing with 2.1 SC. Ppl work together to decide how to set priorities.

JO: Need some non-COGA ppl to help proritize?

LS: What the pillars are. So we can get them in.

JO: Something we can talk about on the Thursday call.

DM: I will help.

<LisaSeeman> :)

RESOLUTION: Success criteria will be released every two weeks

SC managers and comments - overview of process.

RESOLUTION: Success criteria will be released every two weeks

<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki/WCAG-2.1-Comments-response-process-for-SC-Managers

JO: process for managing comments.
... See wiki for how to address comments. Need to have a common process bec comments don't indicate consensus. All stake holders have to be involved. Make sure that comments that get in do indicate consesnsus.
... If you have comment that represents concensus, but talking to stakeholders, then put to survey. Time-consuming, but important to process.

DM: Very casual process for comments. A good thing. Before a formal response, want to ensure that still can have banter. Back and forth essential. Have adopted SC based on comments. At end is the official response.
... Don't want to inhibit that helped in 2.1. Should inform users of the difference.

JO: Don't want to inhibit. Previous process a bit out-moded, now that have new tools. In terms of process, WG comes back with official response. Maybe times when some comments don't need an official response, or have been dealt with.
... Are we mandated to have official response? Is tehre a way to say they've been considered, but not consensus.

MC: Have to deomonstrate wide review. But not formal trackign to Formal Recommendation. Make sure all comments are addressed. Whether issue is closed, or go further. Can go further and ask commenter if they are satisifeid.
... Only get 20j% response, though, so not sure if helpful. Maybe say "this was commenter's final response."

JO: Leaves open question about dealing with issue back and forth; if it's been dealt with maybe SC manager can just state that.

MC: As far as process goes, we can do that. Wide review draft planned, which is a last call. Commenters may have trouble keeping up; maybe send a wider message asking commenters to take a final look.

JO: Will update on wiki.

Wayne: Need to come up with accessible protocol. Can't find topic line with headings. Have to obey 2.0 with commenting process. I do it with screen reader and enlargement: can't find way around, no headings, no landmarks. Wouldn't pass 2.0.
... Can't navigate like we tell people they should. Persons can't go through 200 messages and find topic message they need. It is possible. If anyone does 2.0 analysis fo this content we'd fail.
... An authoring issues.

<jamesn> s/Jamesn: Need to/Wayne: Need to/

MC: Tool a11y issue. Github interface. Not an oppty for titles for comments. Can't have heading nav that it isn't supported. So know about it and working on it. Mgmt is in Beijing. Will be taking up soon.

<AWK> I think that Wayne is saying that if people put a heading at the start of their comments that a heading is created and is helpful

MC: Won't solve instantly, but don't control github. So have to find different tool. I understand what you're saying.

<Wayne> Can't we use markup to include headings

JO: With due respect to your comments, is a technical issue to the platform.
... ?

<steverep> GitHub itself does do a decent job of marking up headings and landmarks, but the user-generated content can be a problem. I generally jump from comment to comment in a thread using profile graphics. A better markup would be each comment as a list item.

<david-macdonald> I've created a heading in a comment as a test https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/281#issuecomment-297080689

<LisaSeeman> oh!!

<allanj> it would be very helpful.

<marcjohlic> -q

MC: Definitely need to talk about it. Asking ppl to remember to add headings would help.
... Don't think adding heading to every comments is helpful--don't want to overshoot.

DM: Lots of effort if we were going to add them.

JO: Hear what you're saying. Thread is about working group's approach.

<gowerm> Nope AWK. I think a bunch of us got dropped. i also couldn't speak

JO: Can dovetail formal and informal. Not obligated to go through formal process with comments. SC manager can deal with in less formal way.
... Think a bunch of us got dropped.

<david-macdonald> You're dropped wayne

laura: Wondering if this process is just for public or members too.

JO: Is tehre a different weighting?

MC: W3C doesn't define that. If not doing special tracking, probably not a difference. Replying to public comments should be done.

<kirkwood> me neither

Hi all, just lost the link. Is everyone still on?

<david-macdonald> +1 on labelling comments as internal vs public but ALL comments in github.

Can't get back either

<alexli> can't get back in

<kirkwood> can’t get back in

<Joshue108> if you are not calling by computer you wont get in..

<gowerm> connect via computer not the phone

<Joshue108> yeah

Will join webex

<KimD> *I'm unable to reconnect to audio also

<AWK> meeting

<marcjohlic> even dialing in is not working for me - no answer at the dial in numbers

<david-macdonald> phone bridge is down folks... try to get in via computer

<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask who is responsible for adding the public comment tags to public comments

Computer doesn't like the meeting password

<AWK> JN: Who tags comments as member or public comments? Hasn't been always correct?

<alexli> i thought i was the only one having problem with the meeting pw on webex

<AWK> Josh: That may have been me

<AWK> MC: when it comes to formal response tracking member comments are treated as public comments

<laura> bye, wayne

<jasonjgw> No luck either calling the bridge or requesting a call from WebEx.

<AWK> Marc: noticed that a lot of member groups commented in new issues

<AWK> MC: That was the instruction

<AWK> Josh: We will see what can be figured out regarding making review and responding to comments easier.

<kirkwood> back on

Meeting pw is that #+two letters item in the meeting notice?

<kirkwood> and I’m gone

<kirkwood> it hung up

<AWK> Trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Success criteria will be released every two weeks
  2. Success criteria will be released every two weeks
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/04/25 16:23:45 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/scrivbe /scribe/
Succeeded: s/Alister/JamesN/
Succeeded: s/JamesN: Given/AlexLi: Given/
FAILED: s/Jamesn: Need to/Wayne: Need to/
Succeeded: s/JamesN: Can't/Wayne: Can't/
Succeeded: s/JamesN: Need to/Wayne: Need to/
Succeeded: s/JamesN: An authoring issues./Wayne: An authoring issues./
Succeeded: s/642 418 206//
Succeeded: s/+14255387984//
Default Present: allanj, KimD, jasonjgw, AWK, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Laura, JF, Joshue108, Makoto, ChrisLoiselle, Mike, Pluke, Melanie_Philipp, alastairc, Bruce_Bailey, MikeGower, Mike_Elledge, steverep, Wayne, marcjohlic, Glenda, kirkwood, LisaSeeman, jamesn, Pietro
Present: allanj KimD jasonjgw Greg_Lowney MichaelC Laura JF Joshue108 Makoto ChrisLoiselle Mike Pluke Melanie_Philipp alastairc Bruce_Bailey MikeGower Mike_Elledge steverep Wayne marcjohlic Glenda kirkwood LisaSeeman jamesn Pietro
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Scribes: JF, Mike_Elledge
ScribeNicks: JF, Mike_Elledge

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 25 Apr 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-ag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]