17 Jul 2017

See also: IRC log


JohnRochford, Pietro, kirkwood, Mike_Pluke, MikeGower, janina


<lisa> agenda: this

<lisa> scribe: kirkwood

<lisa> i will ping u

<Pietro> I'm connected only by IRC because I'm travelling by train

first action item what success criteria dealing with

<lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html

not hearing echo

LS: interupitons and successful authenitification
... talkeabout undo and support personalization

<JohnRochford> correction: accessible authentication

LS: the one for next week thinking of putting for confirm important information
... its something feel we can get through

<AWK> That one is https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/33

LS: the other is error prevention
... Andrew said would help put together time to help work onit
... anything else needed to go forward?
... next item
... put link to attachment here in irc

proposed new wording personlization : https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6

<lisa> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2017Jul/0023.html

<lisa> application/octet-stream attachment: Support_Personalization_proposal.docx

<lisa> Personalization Metadata (AAA)For pages that contain user interface components, personalization metadata is used to provide contextual information for content, except where the technologies being used do not support personalization metadata.

Andrew: we have found having conversation on working group calls is difficult. We suggested and Lisa agreed that a few should get together on what issues are and what to accomplish in order to move forward. Ultimately think the vision is in line with what the COGA group wants. As Lisas says not whole lot of disagreement there
... currently you can used some semantics to get some amount of personlization. aira landmark elements, specialized tools can provide a wide vairiety of transformation
... if you have paragraphed content tools should be able to replace complex words or make sentence structure simpler
... there are things possible today but maybe poor toooling
... todo more there are addtional challenges revolve around additional semantics in dradft documsnt tha tmy be farmiliar with if involved with ARIA group
... showing reduction of list of items. we don’t have standardized ways of acccomplishing that
... testability concern
... there is no way you could fail if author needs to demonstrate pass or fail, some concerns about that
... best approach in end four things one look closely at existing crtieria
... wor creating new techniques were existing criteria
... clarification document for current SCs

LS: not taling about changing the wording on the document

Andrew: understanding documents are for people implementing WCAG
... in praticular relations and vaule can do more to dclarify to benefit user with cognintive diwsabioites

LS: information and relationships
... coud you extend it sto say the help page?
... 1.3.1 if you have a link to help text for example
... if available in text need extra support here, but completely conforms 1.3.1.

Andrew: in that specifi exmaple having object type or link type meta data availble would be of benefit. right now you could have tool that would make a good guess by loooking at text. loike in one of your example sitempa could be site nvigation and tooolls could make guesses by programtic association and add a icon for sitempa, home, or suppport, thatw where havein metat adat standardized it would be valuable
... probale a s use case that wouldnt get support
... suggesting AA criteria for three

Andrew suggesting AAA criteria for 3

Andrews: help prepar developers to have SC move up to AAA

Andreew: four thing supplementary doecument

LS: thanks all for helping us try to work this out. i think in line with 3everything we are trying to do. cn see if put in understanding document and everything elso in a supplement
... orignially wanted to be put indraft as roles and taken out and want to ptu it back in
... it got voted out on condition we’d get it back in
... as can see in gap analysis you cn see proposed techniques. and putting it as a preferrred technique woudl help
... don’t think there is any contradiction in saying what we can do in supporting techniques
... we wanted to say contextual information is available and then we sxoped it out to reduce author burden
... we added first bullet point to address Mikes issue we ant relay too much on COGA
... use supporting met adat when availble that cogt thrown out



LS: I do mind that its a AAA
... I think we all agree this is a complex issue. if its down grading to a AA lets get rid of it
... I’d be happy to cut that out if gets it down to AA
... rather its in rather than not in

John: in terms of getting it in not in cards?

LS: roles has been defined as functionlity
... in aria
... I am throwing it back to you
... do you not see it a problem when first proposed lots of kickback
... what has to have contextual information. seems we are ignoring all of Alastair’s feedback

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the group never said first let's solve the problems of the blind

Andrew: seems broader

Andrfew: working group doesn’t solve issues of blind

LS: ARiA group did at the time

Andrew: proposed woridning for meta data AAA

<AWK> Personalization Metadata (AAA): For pages that contain user interface components, personalization metadata is used to provide contextual information for content, except where the technologies being used do not support personalization metadata.

Andrew: I want to get peoples feedback

<AWK> Contextual information definition: Information which provides additional meaning for an object, such as the object’s purpose, level of importance for page comprehension and use, position in a process, relationship to other objects and processes, etc.

Andrew: its quite broad. it would mean applies to all content on the web conforming with AAA
... I think it is in line with what the tadk force has duggested
... main diffenendce is based on feedback, we’re thinking we can get it through at AAA not AA

LS: is ther any addtional information such as relative importance that we can do to get it through at AA

Andrew: AAA is less used than AA no doubt.
... it from working group calls it is less likely

<lisa> Personalization Metadata (AAA)For pages that contain user interface components, personalization metadata is used to provide contextual information for content, except where the technologies being used do not support personalization metadata.

Jan: sorry came in las reading. like meta data very much. We have at least one other big pary in W3C that gets somewhant involved they may want The publishing working group. There are mulitilple stakelholders and need to civer multiple stkahloders

<lisa> janina

<lisa> jan/janina

Jan: good start AA versus AAA doesn’t trouble me as much


Jan: a SC manager interested in personalization wnated to thank you for taking a shot at rewording and want to stress personlaizaton in education and critical in our industry

Andrew: i haven’t done any of that work but have identified existin that support congintive use case

Jan: i’d like to be involved would appreciate to get some people and persopectives from a technical persopecitvie and would be happ to help coordinate

LS: part of ARIA group not WCAG and you are on the list
... this is taling about SC for SCAG


LS: using headers help, knowing a link is a link, or a button is a button. what is missing is the context
... if we downgrade to AAA can boraden the scope

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about stake-in-the-sand and AAA


<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about DPUB meeting this morning

Andrews: the fact that its new will send a message. given goal is to provide a hook at AA can serve reaonably well for that. Hopefully will encourage technology development and in fueture can see to lower conforence level


Andrew: less about enableing access to content more about enabling descrition to integrate meta data into conformance statements. you may be right about 2.1

LS: i see we are broading scop and downgrading to AAA means very few sites will do anything
... any chance move foreward at AA so people actully get content
... think the efffect of helping people on the ground would be negligible

<Jan> +q

LS: it might help move forward suggest three things option 1 best we can do the second go to WCAG with these proposals and here is the difference
... do you chooose it at AAA or AA
... which to you want option 1, option 2 which would be ask WCAG list do they see a way forward at AA

<janina> +

LS: question should we put clear language at AAA
... put in at AAA might be best way to proceedc

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to repeat myself and to say even if AAA doesn´t help many users right away, it moves the needle so we can help more sooner

Jan: WCAG is not sufficient at a minimal level. we have to meet. Having somehting in at AAA , dont see it is worst thing. do like presseing for AA

<EA> Does this mean we can go back to other SCs that failed and try to get them in as AAA?

<lisa> maybe - trying to find that out\

<Jan> +1 to Michael

Miichael: it helps to put a take in the sand if it doesn’t help users right away. not going to issue an opinon on giving up on AA we shoud see values in AA

Janina: content when there isn’t user agent support that bar of AA is possible too low. Don’t think eventially this will bgo to single A

LS: if AAA don’t know if can get funding to get plugins at a deployment level
... market driver the content won’t be there

Janina: if you don’t do this thats single A and that we aren’t talking about it isnt ready

LS: I’d like people to vote
... should we dslide to AA or puch one more time

<EA> I have concerns that our coga users will not be supported in this versions

JR: I’d like to get in at AA

<Jan> I would like to go ahead and discuss the difference between the AA and the AAA with the WCAG group, but not if people think that it would damage our ability to get it in at AAA.


for AA

<EA> +1 for AA

<EA> It is hard but we know that so many are missing out at the moment

<JohnRochford> The +1s are for me saying I think we should push for AA.

LS: see divide between cognitve disability working people and larger group
... if you see no further retriction to get us in at AA thaen we go for AAA. if anyone is uncomfortable with me drafting let me know
... people could please give feedback today

<EA> +1 lisa and happy to read

LS: does anyon abject
... i’ll try and get it out in the next hour
... people can say if they have an objections to that
... we need to mindful of people with cognitive diabilites and no one is going to be completely happy
... can we look through ones that failed Mike?
... is ther any process Andrew and Mike Cooper if we can have a converation

Andrew: happy to look at it and dig into other topeics not prepared at this moment

LS: Andrew if can help move forward
... Andrew Mike thank you and appreciate efforts

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/07/17 17:05:13 $

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)

Present: JohnRochford Pietro kirkwood Mike_Pluke MikeGower janina
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood

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: 17 Jul 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/07/17-coga-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]