13:48:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg-a11y
13:48:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/02-pwg-a11y-irc
13:48:53 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg-a11y
13:49:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pwg-a11y
13:50:06 <Avneesh> zakim, this will be pwg-a11y
13:50:06 <Zakim> ok, Avneesh
13:50:46 <Avneesh> zakim, this is webex 317 985 035
13:50:46 <Zakim> got it, Avneesh
13:57:29 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #pwg-a11y
13:59:26 <mattg> mattg has joined #pwg-a11y
14:00:59 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg-a11y
14:01:06 <laudrain> present+
14:01:15 <mattg> present+
14:02:30 <clapierre> clapierre has joined #pwg-a11y
14:02:40 <Avneesh> present+
14:02:45 <clapierre> present+
14:02:53 <mattg> do we have to call in? I'm not getting any audio options
14:03:31 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg-a11y
14:03:49 <laudrain> i confirm
14:03:50 <Bill_Kasdorf> the meeting number in the invitation isn't working
14:04:16 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg-a11y
14:04:27 <dkaplan3> hi, thanks, rdeltour
14:04:39 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #pwg-a11y
14:04:49 <Avneesh> I am also not able to call in.
14:04:58 <Avneesh> Is ivan on IRC?
14:05:04 <laudrain> no
14:05:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> I've tried the meeting number 317 985 035 a couple of times and it doesn't work
14:05:14 <jasonjgw> jasonjgw has joined #pwg-a11y
14:06:03 <Bill_Kasdorf> not yet
14:06:05 <laudrain> no, the meeting isn’t open
14:06:16 <laudrain> got it
14:06:41 <daniel_weck> daniel_weck has joined #pwg-a11y
14:07:04 <daniel_weck> I am not able to join on WebEx / concall telephone number
14:07:15 <daniel_weck> any tips?
14:07:42 <daniel_weck> Should I use the WebEx app? Or the phone number?
14:07:48 <daniel_weck> What is the password?
14:08:43 <Bill_Kasdorf> just calling the 617 number and entering the meeting number now works
14:10:22 <BenSchroeter> I am in the webex now too. I have to jump at the bottom of the hour.
14:10:58 <daniel_weck> Thank you rdeltour, I'm in
14:11:10 <rdeltour> present+
14:11:21 <tzviya> to join WG: https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/100074/join
14:11:24 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
14:11:32 <tzviya> present+
14:11:35 <tzviya> chair: Avneesh
14:11:55 <clapierre> present+
14:12:27 <dkaplan3> present+
14:13:14 <rdeltour> scribe: Romain
14:13:28 <BenSchroeter> present+
14:13:40 <rdeltour> Topic: WCAG 2.1 status
14:14:04 <rdeltour> mattg: in a nutshell, the metadata issue hasn't come up on the WG's radar
14:14:12 <Avneesh> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/308
14:14:14 <rdeltour> ... Andrew and Joshua are on vacation. it could come up next week
14:14:20 <Avneesh> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/313
14:14:33 <rdeltour> ... the other issue is about reading order. lot's of debate on the tracker
14:14:46 <rdeltour> ... about whether it's general UX or specific to a11y
14:14:57 <George> George has joined #pwg-a11y
14:14:59 <rdeltour> ... it w/b useful for people to take a look at that
14:15:12 <George> present+ George
14:15:27 <rdeltour> ... other proposals, being able to bypass repeated blocks in documents
14:15:39 <rdeltour> ... does it fall under multiple ways? or a new SC?
14:15:50 <rdeltour> ... it's definitely useful for people to look at it and chime in
14:15:56 <Avneesh> q?
14:16:30 <rdeltour> jason: it hasn't been established that content that would comply to WCAG 2.1 would fail to comply to this criteria
14:16:40 <Avneesh> q?
14:16:45 <rdeltour> ... the WG has to make decisions on a large number of proposals before the end of this month
14:17:04 <rdeltour> ... everything that hasn't a very strong rationale wouldn't be in 2.1
14:17:21 <Avneesh> q?
14:17:40 <rdeltour> George: did David suggested that we actively comment in what we're proposing in order to raise the level of its presence in the group?
14:17:42 <rdeltour> Avneesh: ues
14:17:46 <rdeltour> s/ues/yes/
14:17:55 <Avneesh> q?
14:18:14 <rdeltour> jason: the WG would have to make difficult priority decisions, a lot of proposals won't make it in any form
14:18:40 <Avneesh> q?
14:18:46 <rdeltour> ... only a few proposal are possible in a 3 weeks timeframe
14:18:55 <rdeltour> ... it takes some time to go through each proposal and get them address
14:19:18 <tzviya> q+
14:19:25 <rdeltour> Avneesh: what's the opinion about the metadata proposal?
14:19:32 <rdeltour> jaons: some interesting discussion
14:19:39 <rdeltour> s/jaons/jason/
14:19:43 <Avneesh> q?
14:20:01 <rdeltour> ... I proposed that if people want to strenghten that section, they would enhance the provision within WCAG
14:20:16 <clapierre> ack tz
14:20:42 <rdeltour> tzviya: I think the job of this group is not to decide what's a priority for WCAG, but what's a priority for our group
14:21:05 <rdeltour> ... it might sounds obnoxious, but not our problem if they have diffculties to discuss everything
14:21:15 <rdeltour> ... we can work with them to adjust the priorities
14:21:33 <rdeltour> ... there's lot of stuff that people want to put in 2.1, but these are our priorities
14:21:33 <mattg> q+
14:21:46 <rdeltour> ... we know it might get cut, but it's their problem
14:22:02 <rdeltour> Avneesh: the question is if there's some thing we can do to get it in
14:22:04 <Avneesh> q?
14:22:22 <clapierre> ack matt
14:22:29 <rdeltour> George: we have to be there, to make sure that our proposal are still in line, and answer any queestions
14:22:44 <rdeltour> mattg: the metadata proposal is still there
14:22:48 <Avneesh> q?
14:23:04 <rdeltour> ... the other one was more a proposed clarification to the Understanding document, but might be pushed as an SC
14:23:16 <Avneesh> q?
14:23:18 <rdeltour> ... if we want to push it as an SC, we need to clarify it
14:23:48 <rdeltour> ... maybe that's something we need to take offline again, and discuss how much of a priority it is (it = the "reading order" proposal)
14:24:03 <rdeltour> Avneesh: about the metadata, if it can get it in 2.1 it's fine
14:24:09 <tzviya> q+ to suggest sending an email with priorities
14:24:15 <Avneesh> q?
14:24:20 <dkaplan3> q+
14:24:20 <rdeltour> ... about the "reading order" issue, I don't think it makes a lot of difference
14:24:28 <laudrain> +1
14:24:46 <rdeltour> mattg: is it a big enough problem and priority for 2.1?
14:24:50 <laudrain> +1 to metadata in 2.1
14:25:21 <rdeltour> ... metadata is in a better shape for people to discuss it when brought up to the chairs
14:25:34 <rdeltour> tzviya: might be a good idea to send an email to Andrew or Josh
14:25:47 <Avneesh> q?
14:25:53 <rdeltour> ... as far as reading order and packaged concept, it's rather fragile and being stretched
14:25:56 <clapierre> ack tz
14:25:56 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to suggest sending an email with priorities
14:26:05 <rdeltour> ... not sure we can push for it at this point
14:26:18 <rdeltour> ... but we can clarify things about what we need, what we want
14:26:32 <clapierre> ack dk
14:26:33 <Avneesh> q?
14:26:34 <rdeltour> mattg: I've been told trying to change that in 2.1 is too big a change
14:26:46 <Avneesh> q?
14:26:53 <rdeltour> dkaplan: there's only so much 2nd guessing we can do
14:27:12 <rdeltour> ... we can say what are what our priorities, they'll tell us what we can do to help
14:27:25 <Avneesh> q?
14:27:33 <rdeltour> jason: there's some outstanding issue about metadata
14:27:39 <rdeltour> ... it doesn't actually improve a11y
14:28:09 <rdeltour> ... there's view in WCAG that requiring somebody to declare sth about the content raises some objection on the basis of legal requirements
14:28:22 <Avneesh> q?
14:28:31 <rdeltour> ... it WCAG 2.0 they were concerned about organizations having difficulties to be required to declare sth
14:28:41 <tzviya> shouldn't this discussion happen on a WCAG call?
14:28:42 <rdeltour> ... I don't know how much an issue it is now
14:28:50 <Avneesh> q?
14:28:58 <rdeltour> mattg: there's a new proposal we've been making
14:29:07 <rdeltour> ... just proposing adjustment to what's in conformance
14:29:16 <Avneesh> q?
14:29:18 <rdeltour> ... statements on the a11y + additional prose
14:29:36 <rdeltour> ... it's not the original proposal, we came up with a less contentious proposal for 2.1
14:29:54 <Avneesh> q?
14:30:25 <rdeltour> Avneesh: we did this following your comment Jason, maybe you can go through the new proposal and help us getting it through?
14:30:39 <Avneesh> q?
14:30:44 <mattg> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/308
14:30:52 <rdeltour> jason: they'll have to bring it to the chairs, disucss the conformance langugage, then go through a call for consensus
14:30:59 <rdeltour> ... I've not seen the proposal  yet
14:31:15 <rdeltour> Avneesh: I've placed the link to the PR, and will send a link to the proposal
14:31:27 <Avneesh> q?
14:31:37 <mattg> https://github.com/daisy/epub-revision-a11y/wiki/WCAG-Discovery-Metadata-Proposal
14:31:54 <rdeltour> tzivya: officially Katie was the person in charge, but she was offf soe David took it over
14:32:08 <Avneesh> q?
14:32:17 <rdeltour> jason: something you might think is uncontroversial can turn out to be difficult...
14:32:28 <Avneesh> q?
14:32:36 <rdeltour> Avneesh: ok. I'll send an email to the chair to explain them our priorities
14:32:45 <rdeltour> Topic: struture of the a11y requirement document
14:32:52 <clapierre> http://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/
14:33:08 <rdeltour> Avneesh: the gap analysis IG note is not the output of the Publishing WG
14:33:22 <rdeltour> ... so we have to review it and incorporate the reqs in that note in the new WG
14:33:31 <rdeltour> ... we discussed creating a new document in the WG
14:33:35 <rdeltour> ... initially a wiki page
14:33:48 <rdeltour> ... working on the priniciple now, then integrate techniques after
14:34:00 <rdeltour> ... we have to discuss the structure of this document, any input?
14:34:01 <Avneesh> q?
14:34:17 <rdeltour> s/priniciple/principles/
14:34:31 <clapierre> Digital Publishing and Accessibility in W3C Documents
14:34:31 <clapierre> W3C Interest Group Note 03 May 2016
14:34:44 <rdeltour> George: [question about the note]
14:35:08 <rdeltour> Avneesh: we have to create a requirement document that will be used as input to the WG
14:35:17 <rdeltour> tzviya: what are you hoping to accomplish with the note?
14:35:41 <rdeltour> Avneesh: 1. when the PWG specs are developed, the principles identified in this doc will help keep things on track wrt a11y
14:35:57 <rdeltour> ... 2. keep principles aligned when discussing Silver
14:36:41 <rdeltour> Avneesh: the principles should be at one place, then the issue tracker is a floating thing
14:36:44 <dkaplan3> q+
14:36:50 <rdeltour> ... we match the specs with principles
14:36:53 <Avneesh> q?
14:37:07 <rdeltour> tzviya: I would hesitiate to create a document structure before we know what we're documenting
14:37:37 <rdeltour> dkaplan3: you're referencing the doc from last year (IG), are we turning that in a new document for the WG or starting from scratch?
14:37:49 <rdeltour> ... is the goal the same as for the note from last year?
14:38:05 <rdeltour> Avneesh: the note identified what are the gaps, now we need to identify some SCs
14:38:12 <Avneesh> q?
14:38:19 <Avneesh> Q?
14:38:21 <tzviya> ack dk
14:38:26 <clapierre> q+
14:38:35 <rdeltour> dkaplan3: it was just a note, would we be using that list of things we think would need to exist as an input for new SC?
14:38:42 <mattg> q+
14:38:51 <rdeltour> Avneesh: I've gone through the notes many times, some things need clarification
14:39:02 <rdeltour> ... many things come from hard-core specific a11y background
14:39:12 <Avneesh> q?
14:39:13 <rdeltour> ... we need to make it understandable to the general public
14:39:24 <rdeltour> dkaplan3: the EPUB a11y requirements are much more barebones
14:39:53 <rdeltour> ... the a11y reqs and the ntoes are very different
14:40:01 <rdeltour> s/ntoes/note/
14:40:25 <Avneesh> q?
14:40:30 <rdeltour> clapierre: some of the requirements in the note were integrated in the EPUB a11y requirements
14:40:48 <George> q+
14:40:55 <rdeltour> ... as a starting point, we can look at what's currently incorporated in the 1.0 a11y spec
14:41:04 <rdeltour> ... and what still needs to happen
14:41:16 <rdeltour> ... is that what you were thinking about what needs to happen for the SC?
14:41:23 <clapierre> ack clap
14:41:35 <rdeltour> Avneesh: we know that all the reqs can't go to WCAG 2.1, many will go into Silver
14:41:52 <rdeltour> ... people in PWG will be asking why we need to care about these things if it's not in WCAG
14:41:59 <rdeltour> ... so we need to document our reqs
14:42:14 <rdeltour> ... we can reference the IG note and the a11y specification when documenting our reqs
14:42:34 <rdeltour> ... the a11y spec is more concrete, the note was less concrete but more gaps are described
14:42:40 <dkaplan3> q+
14:42:51 <rdeltour> ... the wiki page can be a reference for PWG to follow, and for us for working with WCAG
14:43:07 <rdeltour> mattg: trying to figure out what we want to solve in the PWG
14:43:21 <tzviya> q+ to respond to matt's question
14:43:30 <rdeltour> ... are we trying to ensure that what PWG is doing includes a11y?
14:43:50 <Avneesh> q?
14:43:53 <tzviya> ack m
14:44:00 <rdeltour> ... or start focusing on what our priorities need to be in Web Pub, then only start to focus on how content is produced acccessibly
14:44:09 <tzviya> ack g
14:44:23 <rdeltour> ... it's difficult to say how to produce PWP when we don't know what it is
14:44:46 <rdeltour> George: we want to identify the high level principles and techniques that are going to guide our work
14:44:54 <rdeltour> ... we can then go down to more specific issues
14:45:09 <rdeltour> ... trying to figure out what can be pushed to WCAG, or what fits in the PWG domain
14:45:20 <rdeltour> ... some things will be specific to publishing, other general things
14:45:42 <rdeltour> ... if we have these principles to promote in the PWG, or WCAG work, is that what we think we need?
14:45:50 <rdeltour> Avneesh: yes, that's the main idea
14:46:19 <rdeltour> tzviya: as a chair of the WG, we should discuss issues that affect the PWG
14:47:02 <rdeltour> ... if you're discussing WCAG matters, bringing the concerns of publishing matters, but our goal as a TF is to define a11y for publications
14:47:07 <Bill_Kasdorf> we are a subset of the PWG, not a WG
14:47:18 <Bill_Kasdorf> and not an IG
14:47:25 <rdeltour> Avneesh: absolutely, WCAG is doing its work, we're just discussing issues that are relevant to publishing
14:47:43 <rdeltour> tzviya: we have specs to write. this TF should focus on the concerns about these specs
14:47:45 <Avneesh> q?
14:47:47 <clapierre> ack tz
14:47:47 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to matt's question
14:47:58 <rdeltour> ... we might be looking at too large a scope right now, accomplishing 2 tasks
14:48:13 <rdeltour> ... yes there s/b representatives from this WG to express the concerns of publishing
14:48:31 <rdeltour> ... but the main priority of this TF is not to bring a11y to the Web
14:49:01 <rdeltour> George: do you mean we should be looking at all the existing WCAG work and say these are the chunks that apply to Web Publications and let the WG know?
14:49:10 <rdeltour> tzviya: that's kind of a default assumption
14:49:27 <rdeltour> dkaplan3: there's a bunch of things being conflated
14:49:47 <rdeltour> ... we've talked a long time about should we be writing techniques, etc
14:50:19 <rdeltour> ... we don't need to duplicate any of the core a11y work
14:50:29 <rdeltour> ... technique for adding metadata is a good thing
14:50:59 <rdeltour> ... we need to say "there are some things that we really want to have in our publication but we cant. do we need to write some new SC?"
14:51:05 <jasonjgw> q+
14:51:10 <Avneesh> q?
14:51:17 <tzviya> ack dk
14:51:35 <rdeltour> ... aside from the high level spec (current EPUB a11y spec), are there places that have gaps?
14:51:51 <tzviya> ack j
14:51:52 <rdeltour> ... for the WG that Tzviya defined, that would be our job
14:51:58 <Avneesh> q?
14:52:22 <rdeltour> jason: the WG is developing a new publishing specification. our priority is that all reqs for a11y are included in that specification, that's what the WG is about
14:52:48 <rdeltour> ... if there's liaison needed with WCAG WG to make sure that the specs coming out of this WG
14:53:20 <Avneesh> q?
14:53:24 <rdeltour> ... we can collaborate with both WG to get this things addressed
14:53:49 <rdeltour> Avneesh: I think the common understanding is that we need to focus on the a11y issues that are the current state of WCAG
14:54:06 <rdeltour> ... we also know which are the main areas of publishing which are not covered by the Web a11y
14:54:25 <rdeltour> ... coming to Matt's comment, until PWP get some shape, we can't know what's the structure of these requirements
14:54:43 <rdeltour> ... maybe we can wait with this document, and let the WG come with a FPWD
14:54:56 <clapierre> q+
14:54:58 <mattg> q+
14:55:06 <rdeltour> ... there's also the possibility that Web Pub are close to the web and there's not a lof of new requirements
14:55:15 <rdeltour> ... have I interpreted the group well?
14:55:16 <Avneesh> q?
14:55:22 <tzviya> +1 to what avneesh said
14:55:32 <tzviya> ack cl
14:55:33 <rdeltour> clapierre: I agree with what you said
14:55:45 <rdeltour> ... it's sort of what we did in the a11y TF of the IG
14:55:50 <dkaplan3> q+
14:56:19 <rdeltour> ... our job was to find any issue that could be an a11y issue and discuss in the TF separately
14:56:41 <tzviya> ack m
14:56:41 <rdeltour> ... that's our role here as well, I like the idea of continuing this here
14:56:50 <rdeltour> mattg: yes, generally agree with what Avneesh said
14:57:00 <Avneesh> q?
14:57:10 <rdeltour> ... the nav doc issue that came up several times can be the kind of issue we need to discuss in this group
14:57:25 <rdeltour> ... we can have a position on why it's an a11y issue and why it s/b a priority
14:57:39 <rdeltour> ... maybe we should be building up a list of similar issues
14:57:50 <tzviya> ack dk
14:57:53 <Avneesh> q?
14:57:55 <rdeltour> Avneesh: good. We have to discuss the nav doc in next week's agenda
14:58:16 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #pwg-a11y
14:58:30 <rdeltour> dkaplain: agree with everyone. If we need time, one of the things we can do is develop a list of gaps, and specific things we want to do and turn them to formal requests
14:58:39 <tzviya> q+
14:58:45 <rdeltour> ... we don't need to do the work about why they're important
14:58:47 <jasonjgw> q+
14:58:47 <clapierre> 1+ Deborah
14:58:56 <Avneesh> q?
14:59:00 <rdeltour> ... if we have time to kill while waiting for the whole group, it's a great thing to do
14:59:29 <rdeltour> tzviya: you don't necessarily need to wait for the TF consensus to comment on issues
14:59:46 <rdeltour> ... it's a good idea to form a position, but everybody can form an opinion
14:59:53 <clapierre> ack tz
15:00:03 <rdeltour> ... Avneesh, can you move the minutes into a sub page of the wiki?
15:00:16 <Avneesh> q?
15:00:16 <rdeltour> Avneesh: any final comment?
15:00:53 <rdeltour> jason: some of the a11y requrements can be addressed in the specs under development by the PWG
15:01:15 <rdeltour> ... if there are other things that publication-related software doesn't do, where does that belong?
15:01:24 <dkaplan3> uaag, jasonjgw? Except that's not live, is it?
15:01:33 <rdeltour> ... if it's related to a particular web technology that the PWG want to use
15:02:05 <rdeltour> ... it's difficult at the moment, there's no work on the way to address UA a11y requirements
15:02:42 <rdeltour> ... that might change in Silver
15:02:58 <rdeltour> Avneesh: [closing the meeting]
15:03:13 <clapierre> rrsagent, make logs public
15:03:15 <laudrain> laudrain has left #pwg-a11y
15:03:19 <clapierre> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:03:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/02-pwg-a11y-minutes.html clapierre
15:04:11 <Avneesh> rrsagent, make logs public
15:04:30 <Avneesh> zakim, make minutes
15:04:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', Avneesh
15:04:51 <clapierre> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/02-pwg-a11y-minutes.html clapierre
15:05:16 <Avneesh> rrsagent make minutes
15:05:30 <Avneesh> rrsagent, make minutes
15:05:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/02-pwg-a11y-minutes.html Avneesh
15:06:15 <clapierre> clapierre has left #pwg-a11y
17:20:56 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #pwg-a11y
17:34:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg-a11y
17:41:04 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #pwg-a11y