14:51:17 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:51:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/19-ag-irc 14:51:19 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:51:19 Zakim has joined #ag 14:51:21 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:51:21 Date: 19 September 2017 14:51:23 zakim, who is on th phone? 14:51:23 I don't understand your question, AWK. 14:51:26 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:51:26 Present: (no one) 14:51:29 +AWK 14:51:30 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:51:30 Present: AWK 14:51:35 zakim, agenda? 14:51:36 I see nothing on the agenda 14:51:46 agneda+ Thursday meetings 14:52:17 agenda+ Survey on SC ordering: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_sort_order/results 14:52:21 JakeAbma has joined #ag 14:52:25 agenda+ Merging SC 14:52:31 present+ JakeAbma 14:52:37 agenda+ Understanding document tracking sheet and signups: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC 14:52:47 agenda+ Resolving comments: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/labels/AGWG%20Work%20item 14:53:04 agenda+ Thursday meetings 14:53:13 Zakim, agenda order is 5,1,2,3,4 14:53:13 ok, AWK 14:53:18 Zakim, agenda order is 5,1,2,3,4Chair: AWK 14:53:18 I don't understand 'agenda order is 5,1,2,3,4Chair: AWK', AWK 14:53:23 Chair: AWK 14:55:49 Greg has joined #ag 14:56:48 bruce_bailey has joined #ag 14:58:19 Glenda has joined #ag 14:59:00 can someone privately pass me the password??? (I’m supposed to scribe!) 14:59:01 interaccess has joined #ag 14:59:11 trackbot, start meeting 14:59:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:59:17 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:59:17 Date: 19 September 2017 14:59:24 MelanieP has joined #ag 14:59:27 Brooks_Newton has joined #ag 14:59:42 zakim, agenda? 14:59:42 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 14:59:43 5. Thursday meetings [from AWK] 14:59:43 1. Survey on SC ordering: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_sort_order/results [from AWK] 14:59:43 2. Merging SC [from AWK] 14:59:43 3. Understanding document tracking sheet and signups: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC [from AWK] 14:59:44 4. Resolving comments: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/labels/AGWG%20Work%20item [from AWK] 14:59:46 Conference info for today: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag 15:00:11 marcjohlic has joined #ag 15:00:11 present+ 15:00:22 present+ Joshue108 15:00:25 present+ Brooks 15:00:39 MichaelC has changed the topic to: AG WG telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag 15:01:08 kirkwood has joined #ag 15:01:14 Detlev has joined #ag 15:01:22 present+ 15:01:24 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:24 Present: AWK, JakeAbma, jasonjgw, Joshue108, Brooks, MichaelC 15:01:51 I can't see a link to the Webex call on the page referenced in the invitation 15:01:57 david-macdonald has joined #ag 15:02:10 KimD has joined #ag 15:02:12 Present+ david-macdonald 15:02:12 Present+ 15:02:18 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:02:27 present+ 15:02:45 present+ david-macdonald 15:03:09 I can’t joined either. 15:03:11 present+ Melanie_Philipp 15:03:26 present+ Glenda 15:03:31 when I call up default webex and enter the meetuing number I get the message "Call doesn't exist or is over" 15:03:34 Scribe: Glenda 15:04:20 I see the link in the IRC header but the page that is brought up does not have a Webex link in it 15:04:35 present+ 15:04:43 Mike_Pluke has joined #ag 15:05:04 michael sent an email just now with diffrent call in instuctions\ 15:05:14 you need to dial in :( 15:05:19 present+ bruce_bailey 15:05:44 present+ 15:07:02 Netherlands https://test.medinfo.bayer. 15:07:28 Netherlands 08000235009 15:08:14 steverep has joined #ag 15:08:22 present+steverep 15:08:26 present+ Laura 15:08:29 agenda? 15:08:35 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List 15:08:48 Kathy has joined #ag 15:08:58 present+ Kathy 15:08:59 AWK: please volunteer to scribe. 15:09:05 zakim, first item 15:09:05 I don't understand 'first item', Glenda 15:09:17 zakim, take up first item 15:09:17 I don't understand 'take up first item', Glenda 15:09:30 zakim, next item 15:09:30 agendum 5. "Thursday meetings" taken up [from AWK] 15:10:14 AWK: We are restarting Thursday mtgs for 1.5 hours. More opportunities to scribe on Thursdays. We need a scribe as soon as this Thursday. 15:11:57 jamesn has joined #ag 15:12:09 AWK: Our regular WebEx mtg got cancelled an hour ago. So today we had to have a quick switch over to an Adobe bridget. We should be back on WebEx this Thursday. Sorry for the challenges at the last minute. 15:12:27 thanks for getting the meeting off the ground with the last minuet changes 15:12:48 http://www.intercall.com/adobe/ gives a not found. 15:12:55 AWK: reminder TPAC. Book your hotels and flights quickly. 15:12:56 What is the URL? 15:13:14 zakim, next item 15:13:14 agendum 1. "Survey on SC ordering: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_sort_order/results" taken up [from AWK] 15:14:07 david2 has joined #ag 15:15:16 Go here to get the new bridge for today: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag 15:15:43 q+ 15:16:05 @jamesn you need to dial in 15:18:11 jnurthen has joined #ag 15:18:51 Jason: I agree with Michael that the numbers are an artifact of order listed in new version. No promise for stability. Might as well happen this time around. 15:19:17 jnurthen has joined #ag 15:20:41 Steve: I agree with Jason that the numbers are an artifact. I do like Laura’s idea of making them id numbers with characters. We owe it to the readers to explain how we are numbering and why. 15:20:46 Kathy_ has joined #ag 15:21:20 q? 15:21:37 tinyurl.com/jmo9st4 15:21:41 Brooks: Is it wrong to want it all? I appreciate the spirited debate on both sides. Frankly, I prefer a categorization scheme that both keeps the SC numerical ordering correct and like SC levels together. In some way, we'll need to adjust our approach to how we label SC a bit. I'm no expert in versioning labels, though. So, I'll defer to others on specifics. 15:22:02 rrsagent, make minutes 15:22:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/19-ag-minutes.html Glenda 15:22:05 http://tinyurl.com/jmo9st4 15:22:11 q+ to affirm that we agree that keeping the SC numbers stable is essential 15:22:22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning 15:22:40 q+ to ask about four digit numbering in some cases 15:22:56 q+ 15:23:28 Brooks: append with a letter to get it located in the correct place. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning 15:24:32 Laura: I like the idea of prioritizing the short handles and de-emphasizing the numbers. More flexible. Put unique identifiers at the end fo the SC (de-emphasize the unique numbers) 15:25:03 Pietro has joined #ag 15:25:07 ack da 15:25:18 Present+ 15:26:04 David: I want to get the best of both worlds if possible. Compromise if we treat AAA differently. Propose that AAA Success Criteria don't have the same level of association and entrenchment. If 8 of the 25 AAA SCs were renumbered, our ordering problems would be solved. 15:26:37 David: Proposed Numbering Scheme - http://davidmacd.com/test/proposed-numbering-scheme.html 15:28:11 David: the WCAG numbers should make sense based on an outline structure. 15:28:57 David: Steve really captured it when he said “if you change it to an id instead of an outline. it has always been just an outline." 15:29:14 Detlev_ has joined #ag 15:29:29 present+ 15:29:32 present+ Detlev 15:30:16 Marc: Sounds to me a lot of other people reference by short name. But I’m used to referencing by number. That is why I was leaning towards a numerical order. I like David MacDonald’s idea. 15:30:25 ack bruce 15:30:26 bruce_bailey, you wanted to affirm that we agree that keeping the SC numbers stable is essential and to ask about four digit numbering in some cases 15:31:16 Bruce: In WCAG 2.1 you could keep them together based on priority (not numerical order). 15:31:29 present+ 15:31:42 Bruce: have we had a call for consensus on preserving the number and names? 15:31:52 q+ 15:32:12 Bruce: preserving number and names from WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2.1 is a high priority. 15:33:20 gowerm has joined #ag 15:33:23 Bruce: I want to keep the same short names and keep the same numbers on A and AA. AAA don’t need to stay the same. Or we could go to a 4 digit scheme. 15:33:25 present+ MikeGower 15:33:47 q+ 15:33:51 q+ to say we shouldn´t disenfranchise AAA by saying ¨ok to renumber them but not others¨, nor should we assume if people have problems with renumbering they don´t include AAA 15:33:56 agree that David's suggestion would probably be the best solution 15:33:57 Bruce: 1.3.1 is such a kitchen sink. It needs to be broken down and having a 4 digit scheme would help us do that too. 15:34:35 AWK: But that is creating new SC. Not in scope for WCAG 2.1. 15:34:58 Isn't there enough work to do without taking apart 1.3.1?? 15:35:14 Bruce: Maybe would could break down 1.3.1 in WCAG 2.2 or another future release. 15:35:34 Rachael has joined #ag 15:35:43 Michael: I prefer sorting and renumbering everything to make sense for the spec itself as a standalone, but think I won't win that. 15:37:43 q+ to note numbers are auto-generated 15:37:53 Kim: I think we need to do both. Keep levels together, keep numbers and names. Need to think outside the box. We can look at patterns to how we ammend laws by adding a 4 digit scheme. 15:38:00 q+ to say varying number pattern implies hierarchy that doesn´t exist 15:38:20 ack james 15:38:38 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering#Non-Specific_Feedback 15:39:05 jnurthen: do not support renumbering any current SC. will cause immense confusion. If we are going to renumber, we need to use a number scheme that isn’t currently use in WCAG 2.0. 15:39:36 q+ to ask what problems people anticipate if the levels are not together in WCAG 2.1 15:39:42 ack jn 15:39:55 ack josh 15:40:00 jnurthen: vote for no changes in current SC numbers 15:41:01 ack gower 15:41:11 *We should also take into account the possibility of a WCAG 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 15:41:14 Joshue: be careful about how this will impact us if we go to WCAG 2.2. I like David’s idea that we don’t have to be as careful with AAA. 15:41:33 James makes good point about (potentially) for example 1.4.6 being AA under 2.1 but AAA under 2.0. 15:42:26 I thought I liked David’s proposal, but James’ observation has caused me to change my mind. 15:42:36 gowerm: we are going to have problems making everyone happy. from usability perspective, people new to learning WCAG benefit from a logical sequence. We should find out how many tools are referencing AAA numbers? 15:42:53 gowerm: I think David’s propoals is the most elegant solution. 15:43:25 Refresh survey results - votes have changed... 15:43:28 ack mic 15:43:28 MichaelC, you wanted to say we shouldn´t disenfranchise AAA by saying ¨ok to renumber them but not others¨, nor should we assume if people have problems with renumbering they 15:43:31 ... don´t include AAA and to note numbers are auto-generated and to say varying number pattern implies hierarchy that doesn´t exist 15:43:43 q+ to say David’s proposal will not work 15:45:09 MichaelC: very reluctant to introduce a new numbering scheme for WCAG 2.1 15:45:21 ack AWK 15:45:21 AWK, you wanted to ask what problems people anticipate if the levels are not together in WCAG 2.1 15:45:29 q+ 15:46:52 AWK: I’m not convinced about the need to keep the levels together. We can have a quick reference tool to filter for levels. 15:47:24 ack bruce 15:47:24 bruce_bailey, you wanted to say David’s proposal will not work 15:47:26 AWK: I prefer keeping the SC in numerical order 15:48:14 Bruce: people will refer to just the numbers. When people look it up, and get to the wrong version, they are looking at the wrong requirement. It will cause collisions and confusion. 15:48:15 Section 508 will not be updating just because 2.1 is finalized. 15:49:06 bruce: numbers and short names need to be stable. 15:49:06 q? 15:49:11 ack det 15:49:15 *+1 - I totally agree with you Bruce 15:49:59 detlev: i’ve changed my mind during the call. the arguments are quite convincing. Do not change any current SC to a new number. 15:50:04 +1 to preserving current 2.0 Success Criteria numbers 15:50:07 +1 to numbering being more important than levels for A/AA 15:50:29 q? 15:50:36 detlev: just add the new SC at the end, with new numbers that have not been used before (no confusion or collisions) 15:50:55 +1 to preserving current 2.0 numbers 15:51:05 +1 to numbering being more important than levels for A/AA 15:51:08 I agree with Bruce 15:51:45 afree with Bruce as well 15:51:55 afreee/agree 15:52:23 q+ 15:52:40 ack gow 15:52:46 -1 to changing numbers of any existing SCs in 2.0 for 2.1 15:53:07 Michael is right it would send a bad message to change the AAA numbers 15:53:10 q+ to reply to mikeg 15:53:23 ack bru 15:53:23 bruce_bailey, you wanted to reply to mikeg 15:53:24 gowerm: AAA has a different level of scrutiny. I’m not persuaded that changes to AAA will cause significant problems. 15:53:38 q+ 15:54:07 Germany requires 2.4.8 location (the only AAA criterion) 15:54:10 Bruce: problem is peopel will go to the source documents and look up 1.4.6 in 2.1 but the end up in WCAG 2.0 and they look up the wrong information. 15:54:16 q+ to say we don´t have universal data about usage of guidelines, and can´t assume there aren´t users impacted by changes that concern us for higher levels 15:54:26 q+ 15:54:32 ack bro 15:55:09 Brooks: preserve the 2.0 SC numbering. Not changing any of them, including AAA. Maintain the trust of stakeholders who have bought in to WCAG 2.0. 15:55:37 @ Shadi - no that is a BITV-Test invention which has recently been taken out... 15:55:38 ack mich 15:55:38 MichaelC, you wanted to say we don´t have universal data about usage of guidelines, and can´t assume there aren´t users impacted by changes that concern us for higher levels 15:56:32 q- 15:56:50 q+ 15:56:54 MichaelC: Will changing numbering of AAA cause problems? We don’t have universal information on how these SC are used. Great deal of concern about changing the numbering. Presumed promise of AAA numbering should be equally respected (as no change in numbering for A and AA). Let’s be consistent. 15:57:05 ack r 15:57:28 Rachel: Some people use a few AAA, so changes in the numbering would cause issues 15:57:41 vote in review has changed again a bit 15:57:44 q+ 15:58:25 ack da 15:58:33 AWK: challenging decision. I hear stronger concerns about changing numbering. Less concern over loosing grouping of levels (A/AA/AAA). Is that what y’all are hearing too? 15:58:45 agree - hearing more concern with changing numbering than grouping 15:58:54 JOC: That sounded about right to me. 15:59:25 JOC: but potentially worry about perception of AAA usage, if we do renumber. 16:00:08 q? 16:00:20 +1 take a draft with the numbering preserved and see what happens 16:00:22 David: We are not going to get consensus. Let’s not vote anything off the island. Let’s pick a direction and continue to look for an elegant solution in the future. 16:00:23 q- 16:00:24 q+ to ask why this has been approached from the direction of needing consensus to change rather than not change, and to make sure we are considering the value we are portraying with the new criteria 16:00:54 +1 agreeing that AWK is hearing the same thing I’m hearing. Preference for not changing numbers between WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 16:01:23 +1 for not changing the numbers from WCAG 2.0 to 2.1 16:01:34 *Thanks David for taking a stab with a fresh approach 16:01:35 ack steve 16:01:35 steverep, you wanted to ask why this has been approached from the direction of needing consensus to change rather than not change, and to make sure we are considering the value we 16:01:38 ... are portraying with the new criteria 16:01:39 AWK: We can make a decision and request more feedback. We can revisit the decision if needed. 16:02:09 just got thoughn off the call 16:02:38 Steve: Is there a reason why we’ve landed on tacking everything on? I’m concerned how this portrays WCAG 2.1 versus 2.0. 16:03:04 q+ 16:03:17 ack AWK 16:03:28 MichaelC: order of WCAG 2.1 currently was to drop them at the end of logical place where they belong. Now is the first time we are consideirng order changing. 16:04:04 AWK: I disagree, I think that adding them at the end was the least objectionable. And we knew we would revisit. We defered dealing with the question deeply until now. 16:05:01 straw poll - keep numbers in order (new sc at the end): +1, mix the numbers to keep levels together: +2 16:05:13 +3 16:05:13 +1 16:05:15 +1 16:05:17 +1 16:05:17 +3 16:05:18 +1 to keeping order and tack new ones to end 16:05:23 +3 to keep both 16:05:25 +3 16:05:27 +1 (and have a tool for sorting by a different order) 16:05:27 +1 16:05:37 +3 16:05:43 +1 16:06:00 +1 (which really means keeping existing numbers as IDs) 16:06:04 +1 for keeping numbers but not sure the new SC have to be at end 16:06:19 +1 16:06:19 +1 16:06:19 +1 to always keep old numbers constant 16:06:34 +3 16:06:46 +q to ask would rearranging AAA help with this? 16:06:49 q+ 16:07:08 I'm OK with SC's not being grouped by level 16:07:21 ack kim 16:07:24 james: can kim give us her ideas 16:08:38 Kim: I think all we really need to do is decide - 1) do we want the number be the same 2) do we want to group them by level 9and abandon the numbers0 3) do we want to keep both - the numbers stay the same and the order is grouped by level…we can do this with legal ammendment patterns 16:09:35 Kim: numbers for the new SC will likely be in a different format. For example if we bring something in that belongs between two current SC…it will need a new dot digit. 16:09:47 q+ 16:09:54 q+ 16:10:04 Wouldn't adding the 4th digit / decimal give them impression of the new SC being directly tied to the existing SC? 16:10:07 More than three levels really get messy - and convey the impression that the inserted ones are sub-criteria 16:10:14 +1 to Kim 16:10:15 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering#Non-Specific_Feedback 16:10:27 +1 to Detlev 16:10:53 ack josh 16:10:53 Joshue, you wanted to ask would rearranging AAA help with this? 16:11:17 Kim’s examples are at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering#Non-Specific_Feedback 16:11:51 Preface all new ones with 'N' ? (for new)? 16:11:59 Joshue: AAA is not in legislation. So having a different option for AAA seems like it would not be a problem. 16:12:06 Have we put to bed the AAA thing? 16:12:06 +1 to Kim. We are sooner or later going to have to remove an SC or breakup an existing one (or elaborate on it). Going to a 4 digit level for new ones is not a massive problem. 16:12:08 yes! 16:12:26 If we could move AAA to make a coherent ordering system I'm in favour of that. 16:12:52 AWK: let’s be consistent with AAA. MichaelC has good points on this. 16:12:54 ok 16:12:56 np 16:13:01 q+ 16:13:05 ack glenda 16:13:32 +1 to MichaelC's reluctance to discriminate against AAA SCs 16:14:06 Glenda: when doing a lot of coding - the 4th digit might have a default of "00" to allow room to add items in 16:14:31 Glenda: could we proposed a 4th dot for each SC…and come up with a reasonable default .0050 for all WCAG 2.0 and the 2.1 can slide in where they need to bew. 16:14:31 I could live with that Text alternatives 1.1.1.0 16:14:36 *Yes, we need to set up a scheme now to make potential 2.x updates work! 16:14:45 q+ 16:15:07 Glenda: Don’t allow anything to be closer than 20 points 16:15:12 ack kathy 16:15:36 Focus Visible 2.4.7.0 16:16:26 Kathy: I’m not opposed to adding new digits to exisiting SC. We do need to be careful if we left 1.3.1 as a SC…and added a 1.3.1.1 ….that would give a mistaken sub relationship. That would be bad. So all SC would need to have a meaningful number in the new dot number to show relationships. 16:16:26 q+ 16:16:35 ack jason 16:16:38 *I propose adding a note to explain the scheme - Kathy has a valid point 16:17:34 +1 Jason 16:18:03 jason: don’t agree with Michael’s concern about AAA. The fact that they are at AAA does that already. But to stabelize A and AA is meaningful based on the number of legal requirements that only refer to A/AA. I think we should hae more flexibility on how we handle AAA. 16:18:27 +1 to better architecting for silver 16:18:30 regrets+ jon_avila, JF, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Denis_Boudreau, Crystal_Jones, Mike_Elledge, Chris_McMeeking 16:18:38 jason: decouple the numbering with a short character code for gropuing. Maybe we have to wait until silver. 16:18:52 q? 16:19:21 AWK: short character code - could you clarify? 16:20:14 Seems to be an extension of the outline to ID proposals, just with a different ID idea 16:20:39 Jason: you could assign two letters to each SC in the document. non-numerical. not in any order. try to make it based on short name. Very brief stable identifier. Decouple the number ordering. Move stable way of identifying SC by something other than numbering. 16:20:44 q+ to mention that, by design, wcag 1.0 checkpoint numbers are not confusable with wcag 2.0 sc 16:20:46 q- 16:21:15 ack Det 16:21:17 Yes. Prioritizing the short handles and de-emphasize the numbers. 16:21:20 +1 to what Bruce just said. WCAG 1.0 SC numbers cannot be confused with WCAG 2.0 and that is GOOD! 16:22:32 Detlev: agree with Katie that adding 4th level of numbering can be confusing and show heirarchy relationships. Jason’s idea would be better considered in silver. I think we should just add them at the end for now. And let Silver reshuffle. 16:22:37 ack Bruce 16:22:37 bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention that, by design, wcag 1.0 checkpoint numbers are not confusable with wcag 2.0 sc 16:22:43 +1 to Detlev 16:22:57 Bruce: by design, wcag 1.0 checkpoint numbers are not confusable with wcag 2.0 sc 16:23:33 q? 16:23:37 Bruce: we could add .0000 to any current SC (then there would be no confusion on relationshiop/heirarchy) 16:23:39 q+ 16:23:41 q+ 16:24:04 *I think the question is whether we want to keep numbers, levels, or both from 2.0 16:24:12 ack da 16:24:59 *Then after that, we can look at some options for how to do that. There are a number of patterns (please see https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering#Non-Specific_Feedback) 16:25:20 David: pivot off my previous proposal, and jump on the idea of the 4th digit. Bruce just made a REALLY important point. Just looking at the numbers you can immediately tell what version you know which version is in play. 16:25:24 people WILL imply hierarchy even if we don't intend that! 16:26:31 ack mar 16:26:32 But detlev, if 1.3.1 becomes 1.3.1.0050 and something that needs to go after that becomes 1.3.1.0075, that will not be implied. 16:26:38 q? 16:26:46 Well the conformance level makes it crystasl clear they are NOT second-class add-ons 16:27:11 q? 16:27:12 Rather than adding a decimal, I was suggesting adding zeros to the last number 16:27:42 Marc: throw away numbers completely now! 16:28:13 If the ID scheme changes too much, adoption of 2.1 will be slower 16:28:45 AWK: like Laura’s suggestion, push 2.0 numbers to the end, and create smart short names. 16:28:53 q+ to say I don't believe we should change existing numbers. Having been through projects where numbering changed over time, it introduced a huge amount of confusion because of obsolete and ambiguous references. I also worry that emphasizing natural language handles is more difficult in multilingual/translated contexts, so unchanging, unique ID codes will remain extremely useful, even if the... 16:28:54 ...numbers were not originally meant to function that way. (Personally, I try to always refer to SC by both ID and handle, e.g. 1.2.2 "Captions (Prerecorded)".) That said, maintaining numerical order in the document doesn't seem as important because placeholder cross-references to new, moved, or deleted SC can be included in the document as locations where people are likely to look for them. 16:29:29 AWK: Ask for a couple of people to volunteer to put together some models for us to review, much like David MacDonald did. 16:30:14 q+ 16:30:18 Kim: beyond what I already put together in that wiki? 16:30:36 AWK: this is good, but we need to see it applied ot WCAG 2.1 - example of how it would look 16:31:05 david-macdonald_ has joined #ag 16:31:17 q+ 16:31:33 AWK: respond to more of the concerns in this call. Have an exmaple of de-emphasizing numbers and adding short-names for each. Have a mock-up 16:31:46 I'm willing to do that for what i suggested 16:32:00 AWK: the wiki is close to the mark, but needs a bit more 16:32:07 q+ 16:32:30 ack greg 16:32:30 Greg, you wanted to say I don't believe we should change existing numbers. Having been through projects where numbering changed over time, it introduced a huge amount of confusion 16:32:33 ... because of obsolete and ambiguous references. I also worry that emphasizing natural language handles is more difficult in multilingual/translated contexts, so unchanging, 16:32:33 ... unique ID codes will remain extremely useful, even if the... 16:32:58 My current works as a model without SCs http://tinyurl.com/jmo9st4 16:33:19 Greg: do you want to defer this to another day/mtg 16:33:28 I will work on fleshing out my examples 16:33:42 gower: anything other than these 4 points to consider: I heard several desirable things given: 1) a way to identify the new 2.1 SCs, 2) a need to scale later, 3) a need to preserve existing numbering, 4) a desire to group by level. Are there others? 16:34:05 AWK: Kathy wants to make sure we don’t implicitly introduce parent child relationsihps. 16:34:29 *thx Mike 16:34:37 Greg: Need to keep direct identifiers that do not require mapping from WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2.1 16:35:00 +1 to keeping a numerical id that can suffer translation 16:35:10 q+ I'll work on an ID model in a branch 16:36:05 Marc is willing to create a brief model of what I suggested - dropping numbers altogether 16:36:17 and I'll beef up my examples 16:36:18 David: volunteers to help gower, steverep create a model 16:36:27 RESOLUTION: leaving open 16:36:44 zakim, next item 16:36:44 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Glenda 16:36:53 ack d 16:36:53 If I have time, I will try and past something into the current wiki page 16:36:56 ack ja 16:36:57 s/do not require mapping from WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2.1/are not translated between natural languages/ 16:36:59 ack g 16:37:04 zakim, next item 16:37:04 agendum 2. "Merging SC" taken up [from AWK] 16:37:56 q+ 16:38:59 ack jas 16:39:01 AWK: discussed last week. substantial issues related to merging SC. better to move forward with all new SC being listed as separate. No merging at this time. We hae a few that are kind of close. But we think we should not merge anything at this time. Seem reasonable? 16:39:56 jason: talking about merging and identifer - my two character code idea would solve all of this. 16:41:17 q+ 16:41:22 ack glenda 16:41:31 Glenda: No merging 16:41:49 q? 16:42:27 q+ to ask if we can discuss this on a case by case basis instead 16:42:47 ack s 16:42:47 steverep, you wanted to ask if we can discuss this on a case by case basis instead 16:42:49 q+ 16:42:58 Steve: take this down a level to discuss what we need to merge. 16:43:37 Glenda - but Steve, for people who need to comply with WCAG 2.0 versus WCAG 2.1…any merging causes a problem. End of story. Don’t merge now. Merge in silver. 16:43:51 q+ 16:43:58 ack kim 16:44:16 KimD: what do we mean by merge? 16:44:41 AWK: means changing an existing SC from WCAG 2.0. So that SC would be different in WCAG 2.0 than it is in WCAG 2.1. 16:45:02