<interaccess> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 05 September 2017

I can do it

<scribe> scribe: Detlev

<alastairc> I can do the 26th.

Device Sensors and next publication

AWK: Introductons to new people: Brooks & Roy

Roy: new staff at W3C in China

Brooks: Introduced himself last week
... Joined Thomson Reuters

AWK: CfC device sensors still going for 49 mins
... Deadline extended due to public holidays - so far one objection
... went through prior CfC and was rejected - now attempt to find new consensus, revisit it soon
... concern in editors' note that there is concern about scope

<AWK> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/device-sensors_ISSUE-67/guidelines/sc/21/device-sensors.html

steverep: Does not count his response as objection - more a question

AWK: great
... Be clear in your response to CfC - object using -1 and explain why - make it unambiguous
... after this CfC we will be assembling last PWD prior to TPAC
... will be looking at additional feedback
... Michael, any sense of time frame?

MichaelC: should be next week - main blocker after closing CfCs is preparing wider message - draft should go out within next week, or less

AWK: questions?

TPAC

<JF> +1

<KimD> +1 attending

<david-macdonald> +1

<Glenda> +1

<MichaelC> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Roy> +1

<shadi> +1

AWK: If you are going to TPAC put in a +1

<Brooks_Newton> +1

<Greg> -1

<bruce_bailey> tpac: +1

-1

<Makoto> +1

<Joshue108> -1

<allanj> -1

<laura> 0

<JakeAbma> -1

<Alex> +1 but only first 2 days

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<jasonjgw> +1

<Mike_Pluke> Mpluke -1

<MelanieP> -1

<AWK> +1

AWK: 15+ people definitely attending
... people can also attend remotely (but that is challenging)

<Mike_Elledge> -1

AWK: By that time we should have comments at hand and more clarity what needs to be discussed / changed
... working through comments and issues with SCs, Techniques etc - agenda not yet fixed
... does the group have any particular expectations what should be done?

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/

MichaelC: If you intend to go please register at the TPAC page

AWK: Get a hotel room if you haven't got one yet

David: Would like mergers or associating new SCs with existing ones

AWK: so you want to figure out which of the new SCs are candidates tfor mergers, form strategy?

David: yes

<MichaelC> AG WG TPAC meeting page

AWK: Big issue to address with WCAG 2.1 - [what is modified / merged and what are new SC]

David: third possibility: changing requirements without reducing requirements of 2.0 (?)
... We should discuss whether we can change existing SCs without changing the requirements of WCAG 2.0 SCs

AWK: Some things might be straightforward - e.g. set new contrast criteria (hypothetical example)

David: another example: focus visible with a requirement for the amount of contrast

AWK: more comments?
... Nov 6 and 7 will be days for WG meetings
... Recommends staying around longer, other interesting stuff

Resolving outstanding comments

AWK: outstanding comments 188 open issues - often comments about first PWD - have looked at many of them already, many have been overcome by events.
... some didn't making into the PWD, deferred to 2.2
... in other cases, changes to SC text have removed the cause for comment
... how shall we handle that in an initial 'scrub' - would like not doing an individual CfC for each one of them
... for others that remain we will have a more formal comment process
... are people OK with that?

<Glenda> +1 to initial scrub on non-controversial done by leads handling directly :)

+1

<laura> +1

<allanj> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<marcjohlic> +1

<Greg> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

steverep: some of the comments on a couple of SCs like hover/focus do no longer match - shall we ask them to rephrase comment?

AWK: When nature of comment does not apply anymore due to changes we can reply "thanks for comment, things have changed, your concern has been handled or no longer applies", then point to latest version and close comment
... It will be helpful to start afresh - close it and point to new version
... question?
... intention is to go through comments, have a set that will be retained, requires research for defining responses
... then also addressing Understanding docs

<Glenda> zakim make minutes

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask how we want to handle public comments on SC that have changed significantly

Tracking sheet and signups: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

AWK: people should look at the tracking sheet - has the set of accepted 2.1 SCs for next PWD
... has conformance level, links to edit and view understanding comment, and cells for TF reviews
... you can indicate in column " People working on this (use GitHub user name if possible)" when you want to work on one of them

<david-macdonald> What's the status on "Undo"

AWK: some people are more familiar with writing Understanding stuff rather than Techniques
... Regarding Undo, decision was made on WF call that no consensus was reached
... Talk to you TF facilitators when you want to be involved - in some cases content from Github has be broufght over already

Kathy: Do we need to work on the new guideline 2.5.X as well?

AWK: There is understanding content on the Guideline level

MichaelC: confirms that

AWK: Will be high level - will set up branches for that
... there is also Understanding text for conformance requirements

<Glenda> RSAgent, make logs public

MichaelC: Hasn't set up branch because it was unclear whether new guideline would be kept

Kathy; That applies to esp. 2.7 Speech

Michael: Hesitant to set up new branches before decision has been made

<Greg> Sorry, must leave early.

AWK: Guideline 2.7 doubts - the SC names (like Accessible name) have changed, it no longer exclusively fits under speech

Kathy: explains shift of SC focus, could fit elsewhere

AWK: assumption is that we need a CfC to move SC "Accesssible name" out of... to somewhere else

<david-macdonald> 2.7.1

AWK: could be put under Principle 4 Operable together with name role value

<david-macdonald> +1

AWK: there may be reasons to put it somewhere else as well - we need to find consensus
... any other questions?

gowerm: Happy to be told where to put in effort

AWK: First pass is being done by the task forces - initial draft of Understanding text was part of the initial SC proposal - in some cases it is still close, in others it is wildly off because SC text changed substantially - so the task forces should go through SCs and check if Understanding text is still appropriate

alastairc: How are we going to tackle version control - if one works on th etext, should someone else create a fork wit ha merge request or how else should we work?

AWK: would prepare creation of a fork that could be merged (or not)
... someone else might work differently (email comms)

<alastairc> So basically: contact the person assigned and sort out with them...?

AWK: Up to individuals to work out best way to co-operate
... once things get back from TFs all work will be done in github
... COGA will do work in google docs

MichaelC: People working on particuar branch decide how to do it - if you create a new branch name it clearl y(your name in it) and delete it if it is no longer needed

AWK: question?

<steverep> 30 minutes to fix device sensors? :)

AWK: agenda is covered - any other business you want to discuss?

David: decide about device sensors?
... only objection has been qualified (i.e. it is no objection)

AWK: looks like SC Device sensors would be passing without objections - one min left
... we can talk about it - but may not be the best use of time right now

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/67#issuecomment-325716721

David: would prefer to work out with the language (see link above)

AWK: no friendly amendments right now - some responses lukewarm, but will go through as accepted

David: thinks amended language is cleare and will create less pushback

<steverep> +1 to David, obviously

AWK: concern that Steve's, Mark's, Jason's are also ou there - we do not have the basis for a new unified proposal

David: We can reach out to them to find a consensual version

MichaelC: process remark: Change to wording will require new consenus process which would take some days which delays publication and review process - the point of the next two months is to do the tweaking - recommends to go with current consensus, then clean up after publication

Jason: Don't delay publication for changes - we need a process to collect and address comments
... very complex, will keep us busy til Candidate Recommendation

MichaelC: Hope to have more suggestions next Tuesday

AWK: any other items?

:)

<Mike_Elledge> bye all!

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/AWC:/AWK:/
Succeeded: s/Hole/Hope/

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, KimD, JakeAbma, Joshue108, JF, shawn, shadi, MichaelC, MikeGower, Laura, Detlev, Mike_Pluke, Makoto, Melanie_Philipp, Katie_Haritos-Shea, marcjohlic, Kathy)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK

Present: AWK KimD steverep allanj Brooks_Newton Detlev shadi jasonjgw JakeAbma Laura alastairc Glenda Mike Elledge JF Roy Mike_Pluke Greg_Lowney Melanie_Philipp Joshue108 bruce-bailey david-macdonald MikeGower jon_avila Kathy
Regrets: Chris_Loiselle Denis_Boudreau Pietro_Cirrincione
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Date: 05 Sep 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/09/05-ag-minutes.html
People with action items: