CFC on supplemental doc

AWK: does the supplemental document concept work for the TF's?

Jim: yes

Kim: yes, one document is good

AWK: Lisa?

Lisa: concerned that the COGA TF needs something different than the other TFs

(Lisa's phone cutting in and out badly)

MC: This document could theoretically be referenced by policy-makers, but we wouldn't be encouraging that

Kathy: Policy makers are looking for additional guidance for mobile as well, one document is useful

<allanj> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19CvGpbNn1MecK9iRO7MOhafCaVjIajyV2BjNz2OZZZY/edit#

MC: talking about the structure of a document like that is probably premature

AWK: Is policy-uptake the primary use-case for you Lisa?

Lisa: yes

Mc: we shouldn't be thinking about that as the sole use-case

Lisa: first use-case is to improve accessibility for PWD, then for policy-makers

<allanj> I have looked at the document as things not yet covered and researched. if policy folks want to use it fine. But, they are things to think about and take up in the future.

Kim: if we generally put our information down it will be useful for people.

Kathy: maybe getting ahead of ourselves?
... we don't know what will be in it yet

<allanj> +1 to getting ahead of ourselves

Kathy: or how much from different areas
... in principle it is fine. A single document though.
... we should be looking at what is likely to go in first

<allanj> much of LV stuff will be related to Browser and personalization

Kathy: primary audience is people creating content

<allanj> jim - AG is on a timeline. We can only get so much done. this new document covers what didn't get done and steps for addressing these things in the future.

MC: we need to walk a line. We can use language that might be able to be used in policy.
... seems to be agreement about a single document

<allanj> +1 to pooling to a single document

Lisa: I understand that this shouldn't be a normative document

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we may not have 100% agreement on the shape of the doc yet, but do think there is enough to pool efforts rather than fragment and to talk about policy

Lisa: get that we need to be very careful about wording
... non-normative will be faster
... I've wasted a year working on this
... I want what we make to be used by policy makers
... if we can't say that it should be adopted into policy then I don't want to work on it

AWK: thoughts on whether the supp doc would be used for policy

Lisa: People want to conform to WCAG 2.0, but don't want to conform to COGA ideas
... but in the supplemental document it might be that critical services need to adopt the requirements
... think that it is more an issue of author effort than testability or other concerns
... there needs to have a place where people without expertise can get guidance
... this will never happen in WCAG
... there will be things that are completely testable that won't ever get into WCAG that policy makers need to look at
... this is a growing need that must be addressed

MC: Sounds like we are talking about a single document

Lisa: I can't imagine anyone from COGA wanting to participate in that

<allanj> awk: provide good information. policy creators can use what they want.

<allanj> ... non-normative document. can't have conformance criteria - it won't get out the door. and be delayed.

<allanj> lisa: ok, would you add language to discourage policy makers.

<allanj> awk: no active discouragement. only describe supplemental non-normative document. it is not stand alone.

MC: hope that we can all work together on this document

Kathy: We deferred some items to Silver, can these go into the sup doc?

MC: those would be candidate ideas, yes
... will help get additional exposure/feedback

<Kathy> I have another call

+AWK

+MichaelC

+KathyW

+LisaS

+KimPatch

+allanj

trackbot, end meeting

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/working/wording/
Succeeded: s/.. there needs/... there needs/
Default Present: AWK, MichaelC, KathyW, LisaS, KimPatch, allanj
Present: AWK

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: AWK
Inferring Scribes: AWK

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

Found Date: 24 May 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/05/24-ag-facilitators-minutes.html
People with action items: