16 Nov 2017


JohnRochford, lisa, kirkwood, Jan
E.A._Draffan, mike


<lisa> Let me know if you would like me to add anything else to the agenda

APA support items from John https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2017Nov/0006.html

<lisa> scribe: kirkwood

LS: personalization call is Monday

argh my audio dropped

my audio problem is microphone i think

LS: web authentification, JR anything on that

JR: no but took me 20 hours to wade through

LS: this is a way to conform, do you agree with that?
... you sound ok to me


LS: would you say that managing this conforming to specification meant that actually you have conformed to our SC?

JF: don’t see anything in the documentation that would affect our SC
... in the reverse think we could contribute to this standard/technique whatever they call it

LS: do you think if they use the standard does it conform?

<lisa> https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/

JF: just because they are does it mean it conforms to ours

JR: so Lisa, you are addressing user level of docmentation, of this
... so would not meet our standard

LS: is that clear in our view

JR: anybody folllowing draft documentation will not be following our standard
... have we had any contact with this group?

LS: no but Yanina has
... I could followup with this group

JR: do you think they will follow ours

LS: one of her accepted authentication needs to be defined of accepted

JR: what i did speccifically i listed sedtions of documentation we should address including one about timeouts


JR: don’t think its sufficient to have group alter their methods to meet out SC
... we should contribute content to help people with cognitive disabilites authinticate, it depends what they are open to


JR: whatever we do will take a long time with this group

LS: we can write issues don’t have to respond
... we would like to advocate, we should have a joint APA meeting on web authentication
... yanina would set that up
... should we ask for it or is it not necessary, would it be useful

JR: it would be useful if incorporation of suggestions or get some agreement on SC approve it at least not oppose it
... some criticism has been around security need to get a web security expert, to get agreement or not opposition
... look to see what have to say about our documentation is one way. don’t know what our ask should be

LS: Yanina is excellent at knowing what is realistic to ask for
... not on call this week and probably not next week
... lets try and have a followon call when she is here
... lets as her, on an APA call when have quite a few people from APA on
... I can ask her to help

JAN: I’m here

LS: not really have quorum

<lisa> lost quarom

<lisa> ACTION: lisa to wrote about web athentifcation to rewuire one conformant method

I’m going to have to go

<trackbot> Created ACTION-250 - Wrote about web athentifcation to rewuire one conformant method [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2017-11-23].

LS: we were going to start working on COGA friendly applications

JAN: was very enlightening to sit on AG meetings
... found it very helpful about process
... curious about remaining SC about repsonse to comments
... some discussion about dismissing those without outstanding comments

LS: that was apalling
... there is going to be a call in about an hour with WCAG that will be helpful I think

JAN: just curious if we need to back into github and response to comments. in agenda or be pro active

<lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_countdown,

LS: don’t think so, wikipages should be
... a few things, one is participating in Wiki
... assign someone to respond to all comments
... looking at Wiki and repsonding to comments and then the surveys


LS: understanding sections need to be improved
... look at understanding section for low vision task force they are much better quality, we don’t have them. think having better documents there will really hel[p
... that was one of things thought we should look at

yes Jan, I did find it useful btw

LS: there was a survey from WCAG on the understanding sections

<Jan> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hmoaVU563kTio1EZD5mbNxcc0k924qVdZZwWckcbu0/edit#

<lisa> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/understanding_SC/

LS: undersanding section found survey
... that is the document we wrote, thats not the one
... it will give you links to it in the github and add comments as you want

JAN: followed the link

LS: thats not as good as I thought
... you can see it in rawgit but can’t see it where it is edibale


LS: go to github open branch and there is an understanding section
... we need to alert the list on how to do that

<lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/blob/purpose-of-controls/understanding/21/purpose-of-controls.html

LS: this is a link to one of them and should give you a branch to where you can edit
... JAN do you see how that works?
... I know how it works

yes that would be useful to have direct link

LS: we can think of understanding sections making use case suggestions for cognitive disabilities
... if we look at the understanding sections generally, I intend to do this Sunday or Monday
... probably shouldn’t do at exact same time for changes being lost

JAN: in terms of survey we just need to say this needs to go through

LS: we can say we want changes

JAN: with folowing understanding
... JOhn said he wanted to get purpose of controls to be acceptable, should we reach out to him

LS: I think we should try and reach out

JAN: from document we’ve been working on didn’t get ported into github properly

LS: can add screenshots
... I will reach out to John


JAN: I will reach out to John

LS: how about next week following WCAG survey sending out
... there is a call half hour after this one
... following WCAG surveys and imporoving understanding documents that would be good

JAN: only taking off Thursday and Friday

me too

LS: making easy content document working on it

JAN: after 2.1 working draft is done to focus on understanding document
... getting through final crunch of latest working draft then can bring it up after that

LS: research model on cognitive disabilities something want to move forward on as well
... woring on understanding docment ping on skype so not working on it at same time
... i’ll take controls its the messiest one
... address more issues on next call

sorry not sure how to close minutes and stuff

LS: thanks JAN for your help

take care

<lisa> and thanks John!!

<lisa> and thanks John!!

no prob

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: lisa to wrote about web athentifcation to rewuire one conformant method

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/11/16 15:45:45 $

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 lisa kirkwood Jan
Regrets: E.A._Draffan mike
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

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: lisa

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]