Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<AWK> +AWK

Which SC should be in the pipeline

AWK: has top priorities for COGA pipeline - issues 13 and 14

the theory has been we´d process 3 items / week

but not getting through them, now planning to do 3 items every two weeks

if we can´t clear them in that time frame, drop them down in the queue

because we can´t let outselves get bottlenecked

ls: let´s see how things go this week

think the supplemental guidance option helps us a lot

mc: if you can get things through faster, that´s great, we can take up new items

the new process is about when we decide to remove things from the bottleneck

ls: note last week a LV item took up all of Thursday plus some of Tuesday, want to put in two COGA items this week

awk: probably every TF has felt slighted at some point

which TF would you set aside?

ls: LV because they´ve built up credit IMO

awk: every TF has lost time to others at different points

I think we should just start fresh and do it right on our process

kp: if you think COGA has two that are ready to get through in the time allocated to one, that could be an option

ls: even when things are close the discussion can go on...

ja: I´m not bean counting

I´ll pass over SC when you guys want, and I´ll sit back when you want

we´re happy this week to use the Thursday time just for LVTF while the AG processes other stuff

ls: separating by TF is artificial wrt to user needs

awk: if we do two COGA this week, going forward can we agree it´s one per TF?

mc: we need to be sure people see equivalent focus on the areas, there´s a lot of attention on those areas

ja: LV already triaged out stuff

ls: can we at least put second item into survey?

awk: no, the point is to focus

ls: two weeks per SC means very few even get an opportunity to go through the pipeline

meanwhile I lack data on the issues people might have on ones coming up

I also don´t always know which ones are the ¨easy¨ ones, survey data can help me judge

ls: LV and Mobile have a smaller set

mc: hear the need to focus, and the need for more data

suggest that can be a COGA coord topic, let´s move on with this call

ls: can we get better labels in the surveys so I can find the items?

put the issues numbers in the survey title?

awk: don´t want to make the title unwieldy

let´s put that info in the agenda, where´s it´s easier to search

mc: we should think about how to accomplish this, and come back

awk: this week, we had target size, resize content

previous week we had plain language (minimum), single-key shortcut alternative

do those go out this week for a second week in the two-week process?

for COGA is plain language higher priority than the other two you sent?

ls: no, the plain language one needs to benefit from the supplemental guidance doc

kp: the ones Kathy sent are the top priorities

awk: nothing for LV this cycle, but will get them in next time

Supplemental guidance doc

awk: John Foliot has been pushing this idea for a while

get content from the SC proposals that don´t make it into 2.1, so they are still visible to authors

particularly where there´s an aspect of a proposal that we had to trim, the trimmings can go to the supplemental doc

kp: good idea

<allanj> works for me. laying ground work for silver

as long as it doesn´t become a dumping ground for stuff we just don´t want to deal with

awk: right, think it´s for things the group still thinks is a good idea, but doesn´t know how to test etc.

it would also feed into e.g., Silver where things may be able to become normative in the new framework or after technology changes

it might have research ideas about how to meet identified user needs

mc: think it´s for people who want to go beyond minimum conformance

ls: some of the SC won´t even have been looked at in 2.1 timeframe

others will have not made the cut for various reasons

make sure 2.1 has some basic stuff

and underscore that the supplemental guidance is needed if you really care about a11y

would like to encourage policy makers to recommend it where appropriate

mc: non-normative docs aren´t always suitable for policy, don´t know if we´d recommend

we need ¨hooks¨ in 2.1 for the supplemental guidance so it clearly relates

ls: stuff in the supplement will be non widely applicable, not testable, but still useful in certain circumstances

so think policies can use

awk: for non-normative don´t think we expect policy uptake

if things aren´t testable, policies can´t reference

if things aren´t fully vetted, not sure we want policies to jump on

ls: hmm, think we have different visions

awk: please write down your understanding

ls: did on Tuesday, can resend

<reads from it>

goal should be to make the supplemental guidance as testable as we can

know the WG has concerns about level of testing required etc.

mc: the more energy we put into supplemental guidance, the less quality we assure for 2.1

think we should start a draft of the supplement so we can see how things might fit in in context

kp: right now we have a lot of content that could easily be put in the supplement

as a non-normative document it´s a ¨higher standard¨

and lots of developers want that

will be very useful, even when things haven´t passed the testability bar or whatever

<allanj> nothing to prevent anyone from reading and/or implementing the supplemental document

ls: everyone knows what you meant

awk: don´t think that is true where there are testability concerns

those concerns are in part because of interpretation difficulties

if we push policy adoption of the supplement, it could risk policy adoption of WCAG 2.1

ls: there may be stuff we just didn´t get to

awk: but we don´t know its quality level

mc: we´ve asked for items like that to be at front of queue

ls: we don´t have the data on that because it hasn´t been surveyed

mc: we will come back to that question

ls: let´s not assume now that it´s not usable by policy

awk: are there Notes that are useful for policy?

ls: WCAG2ICT

awk: it´s the closest, but it still isn´t a policy target, it´s interpretive guidance

mc: think it´s fine for policies to recommend looking at the supplemental guidance

but don´t think policies should mandate conformance to supplemental guidance

ls: want a way to measure stuff that is policy-ready

<AWK> MC: I think that by definition that guidance that doesn't make 2.1 isn't policy ready

ls: hasn´t met my needs

mc: *yet*
... don´t think we have the data to advise on policy, let´s get the document going and see how it looks

joc: we need to be practical about what we can do

having the guidance available is helpful, regardless of whether it winds up normative or non-normative

most people find WCAG AA conformance difficult

anything we can do to raise awareness about COGA is valuable

the entire WCAG 2 project does that for a11y

but even if we had twice the bandwidth, think some of the proposals wouldn´t make it through

ls: don´t want this to be an EO doc

and not something to pacify me

joc: definitely not about that

it´s one strand in a complex project

we´re all volunteers, and trying to help

thursday meeting time

deferred, but let´s put top of agenda next week

Joint APA / AG COGA coord

deferred

COGA pubs and comment tracking procedure

deferred

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/awk:/ls:/
Succeeded: s/Jon Avila and John Foliot have/John Foliot has/
Found embedded ScribeOptions:  -final

*** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS ***

Present: janina MichaelC Kim Lisa Jim Josh AWK
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: MichaelC
Inferring Scribes: MichaelC
Found Date: 26 Apr 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-ag-facilitators-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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