Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

05 Dec 2017


AWK, JimA, Laura, Jake, KimD, Greg_Lowney, marcjohlic, Wilco, SteveRepsher, MichaelC, Mike_Pluke, lisa, Brooks, Makoto, Glenda, JakeAbma, alastairc, chriscm, kirkwood, Detlev, jasonjgw, MikeGower, david-macdonald
EA, JF, David_MacDonald, Mike_Pluke
Laura, Jim, jallan


<laura> Scribe: Laura

<lisa> I might leave early

Status of CFC’s and WD publication

awk: we have had lots of people responding
... each survey has a deadline on it.
... some surveys went longer because of extended discussion.
... seems like typical approach is it put SC in with old language if necessary
... any questions?

ME: not sure what we will be discussing on calls.

awak: not talking about any SCs today. Usually on agenda.

awk: people should respond to surveys.
... chairs and MC will be working on getting editors draft out.
... we are woring in a constrained timeframe. And will meet timeframe discussed.

brooks: what is the next stage?

awk: we have a wide review working draft.
... it is the last call WD

<Glenda> Here is the documented process steps for going from Working Draft to Candidate Rec, to Proposed Rec, to W3C Final Rec https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#recs-and-notes

awk: if we include SCs that we haven’t talk about will need to mark then at risk.
... we will be recieving comments and trying to reslove them.
... will need concensus on all SCs.
... comments and feedback will be another factor.
... we need to keep up on comments and make improvemnets on SCs.

brooks: we still have a chance to change SC language?

awk: SC language may change. If it is ratdcal then may be

MC: we can change SCs. but if we lose consuensus that is a problem.
... not publishing another draft after this week. so that could be a problem.
... need to be conscious of constraints.

detlev: status of rawgit?
... looks recent but dated. What is the process?

awk: could be a problem if surveys don’t have up to date content.

<MichaelC> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/... is the content that has been approved for merge, and is generally the same as what´s at https://w3c.github/io/wcag21/guidelines/

awk: used closest to consenesus text in surveys where needed.

<MichaelC> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/<something else>/... is a feature branch where the content should be up to date *for that feature* but other content could be old

detlev: is there another version that is up to date?

<AWK_> http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html - current editor's draft

MC: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/... has been approved.
... same as at https://w3c.github/io/wcag21/guidelines/

awk: in the master there are alot of variations. easy to get confused.

MC: get knows what is out of date and will drop it out.

lisa: confused. do we need consensus on at risk before CR?

awk: need consensus on at risk before CR. we are that point now.
... we could but pessimistic.

MC: we need consensus on the document.
... can “use at risk”
... and say “if there is a problem and here is what we will do.”
... will need to use at risk. can’t add features after CR.

lisa: What is the cost of returning to CR?

MC: 2 months. and we don’t have that time.

Detlev: Understanding links are not going to the right docs.

Understanding Document Work

<AWK_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

awk: understanding content may not be merged.
... we have changes the names on some SC. Will need to sync them.
... https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC has not been updated yet.
... it has links to eveything. need to update.
... all of the task forces have not reviewed them all yet.
... we need to review them.
... work our way down the list.

Marc: should I use the same branch to update?
... Orientation had some comments

awk: intrgrate into the branch and we can do the pull request.
... make sure undersaatning doc reflects the latest SC language.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk git proces

MC: use orientation brach
... then merge.
... if you have proposals make a new branch.

awk: we can sync when needed.

MC: alayws synch your branch.

awk: do’t worry about it if you are working online.

<alastairc> Lisa: I can help, I'll have a bit more time from next week.

lisa: can we have one person working with coga undertanding docs?
... coga Understanding docs may be below standard of other TF’s
... big learning curve.

awk: may be easier to find several people to work on individual docs.

lisa: maybe work together.

<AWK_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

awk: work our way down through the table.
... Purpose of Controls

<Detlev> can't see the way to merge master into my SC branch but here and now may not be the time to discuss this...

awk: Jake was working on it.

jake: made a 1st and 2nd proposal.
... then replaced by lisa’s version.
... maybe lisa have more info. She overrode some of the previous text.

<chriscm> I can't understand what Lisa is saying.

lisa: plan to work with jake?
... made original doc.
... coga redid it. And made another merge.
... wanted to put in a table.

chris: jake and I worked on it. Coga had google docsthat were verbose.
... pulled what was needed and reviewed.
... people were happy with it,
... not aware what happened after TPAC.

lisa: I wasn’t happy with it.

<chriscm> I can barely understand what Lisa's saying...

lisa: was confusing. so rewote it.
... need to qwork together.

awk: additional work to be done.

mc: reviewing past email.

<chriscm> +1

mc: better process to make a new branch.

lisa: agree. Thanks for the efforts make.

Chris: onus not on them. onus is on lisa.
... work together.

awk: becuase of the volume of work we need to make extra efforst to reach out to each other.
... don't assume. ping the facilitators.

lisa: it is outside what I am able to do.

jake: good first attempt but didn’t followup. Need to work with lisa.

<chriscm> If we keep the comments on the same pull requests in question, the information scatter should be less of a problem.

jake: need to pick it up. no hard feeelings.

awk: Contextual Information
... chiris is working on it.
... zoom content. Jim is working on it.

<chriscm> @Lisa: You should be able to prioritize Git Notifications for Pull requests/files you care more about. I can show you how to set this up.

jim: has been editied post tpac. will create techniques.

awk: will need to merge contrast ones since we merged the SCs.

glenda: we have made updates. 95 percent there.

awk: which one is the correct one for the SC?

<AWK_> Graphics contrast: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/graphics-contrast/understanding/21/graphics-contrast.html

<AWK_> UIC Contrast merging into that one

<Glenda> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/graphics-contrast/understanding/21/graphics-contrast.html

glenda: we are using graphics contrast.

<jallan> scribe: Jim

<jallan> scribe: jallan

awk: Adapting Text

lc: updated as 1130 am today

<scribe> ... new name "text spacing"

awk: content on hover...

sr: almost up to date. SC wording review

awk: time outs
... updated Oct. will check in with Alex for status
... animation from interactions
... in template phase. AC is editor
... interruptions minimum

mg: no editing since TPAC. waiting for discussion.

awk: ready for some review.
... accessible authentication
... JohnR is editor. has some content. will follow up
... character key, will follow up with Kim. has some content
... accessible name
... looks thin. will follow up with Kim
... pointer accessible.

detlev: it is a draft. needs good review. merged guidelines. needs updating. still 1 open issue, not sure if it will be addressed in Understanding - long press and double click.
... up to group as what changes are needed.

awk: guideline level is higher. accidential activation needs clear explanation in Understanding
... target size, check with KW about currency
... pointer gestures
... some things change - definition. need to ensure consistency
... device sensors
... has content, but changed alot. will follow up
... accidental activation & change of content
... both need some work
... can have more people editing
... just go to wiki and add name
... if you want to engage in, please do. collaborate.
... will update https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC
... at some point will rename branches to reflect current SC handle
... will be in contact with editors

<Detlev> I can draft Guideline 2.6 Additional Sensor Input

awk: when CFCs clear (next 4 hours) make changes (titles MATCH), etc.
... put in placeholder info @@ some stuff to explain xyz @@
... will lets chairs know about gaps
... will send links about resolved issues. will need to clarify comments in Understanding docs.
... will point folks to understanding to reflect things we said we would do in comment responses

<AWK_> Implementation follow up issues: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Implementation+Follow-up%22+

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask about sensors guideline

awk: there are 20 issues outstanding

<Detlev> I just put myself up for that!

sr: guideline for additional sensor input has no understanding and no text in draft

awk: detlev will handle additional sensor

sr: will guideline be in the draft

awk: yes

sr: there is no text there. only placeholder

awk: guideline text can be added in a branch off master

<MichaelC> guideline text is in https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/blob/master/guidelines/index.html

awk: see /guidelines/index.htm

<MichaelC> make a branch to work on that

awk: that's where we are for Understanding. need to focus on this. had a survey, but never got to it.
... please review existing comments.
... hope that by next week w have 'good' understanding, even with placeholder text. very helpful for reviewer and public.

me: will work on animations with alastair

mike ellege

josh: call schedule?
... thursday?

awk: focused on Understanding. get group agreement on one or more Understandings on Thursday.

josh: what's process?

awk: some IDed today as ready. will send out a list
... ping MC, AWK, and Josh if your Understanding is ready

<marcjohlic> +1 notice there are several comments suggesting the same thing in the survey

<marcjohlic> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Identify_common_purposes_CFC/results

<KimD> +1 to marking at risk

mg: should concurrent be makred at risk?

josh: defer to MC, we are working on details

MC: opinion. current stage, happy with SC wording. List marked with ATRISK, not the SC.

<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to ask whether, if the list for Identify Purpose is too contentious, we have the option of falling back on referencing external specs instead. I really would

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say there has never been a solid list; there's nothing to fall back on

gl: if no concensus on list, do we revert to previous work. rather that than dropping SC

mg: no vetted list for fall back wording. some may not be implementable

<Greg> If the list for Identify Purpose is too contentious, I'd like to see us fall back on referencing the list defined by the external specs of the technology that the content is using to expose the information (e.g. HTML5 autocomplete).

awk: thinks can be marked at risk, even without our saying so. can add 'editors note' about feedback, interest, more things, less things

<marcjohlic> +1 to Greg

awk: even if we don't, may get comments about what needs to be removed or added.

<Greg> (Personally, I'd prefer the tech-defined approach to our current one of providing a single normative list.)

awk: make mark some as At Risk during comment period, before CR.

mc: need to note that list is not final

awk: gl - we don't have an external link to refer to. many items on list are from html autofill list. need to determine if we want to reference list directly. getting technology dependent even with scope.

gl: advantage to using technology spec.
... if we refer to specific technology, they can use that rather than a lowest common denominator.

<gowerm> All these comments are in line with some of the concerns I've been trying to state

<kirkwood> +1 to Greg

gl: this is similar to expose role SC. everyone thinks they can test the role SC, but have issues with autofill SC testing

awk: roles is a small set. autofill is a larger (very large) set. concerned about not having a definitive list
... believe that is the reasoning

<KimD> +1 to Greg

<gowerm> A definitive list of preferred terms without vetted synonyms is going to be problematic to interpret, etc

gl: prefer list to eliminating SC
... how many +1 do we need to create a fall back SC without a normative list. is it worth it/

<Glenda> I think we should focus on creating just 1 list. That is best use of our time.

<Glenda> -1 to creating a fall back list at this time.

mc: SC without normative list is difficult. check in january, other things to focus on currently

jw: nothing to prevent wrriting a proposal for fallback
... issue - don't want to recreate 1.3.1, and 4.1.2 fuzziness.

<Mike_Pluke> -1 to creating a fall back list at this time.

jw: no good way to balance SC and technology and what needs to done and verified.
... this drives having a normative list. perhaps Silver will have guidance for changing technology and markup, etc.

awk: more work needed on this one. working group has discussed a bunch. need to work on list and make sure we are comfortable with it.
... list or no list is a different discussion.
... have broad (not complete) agreement on normative list

bn: confused about voting on the list. I am not comfortable with the current list of control types.
... not comfortable with list of specific control types. too prescriptive. like context of controls, general controls.

<Glenda> I think this is a misunderstanding of how this list will be used.

bn: then in understanding and techniques point to other normative lists

<Glenda> This list has way more flexibility

<KimD> +1 to Brooks

mc: my view similar to yours. accepted list as a way to move forward

<Glenda> This is A list

bn: can't live with list. voted 3rd option.

awk: will be discussing further.
... last thing ....
... with previous draft some public comments that turned into long discussions. difficult to parse and formulate a response.
... will be have additional guidance about comments. to make it easier to formulate a response from the WG.
... anything else??
... ending call early (gasp)

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/12/05 17:53:09 $

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)

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: MikeGower, JF, Joshue108, alex, MichaelC, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, Greg_Lowney, Makoto, Brooks, AWK, marcjohlic, Laura, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kathy, SteveRepsher, alastairc)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK, JimA, Laura, Jake

Present: AWK JimA Laura Jake KimD Greg_Lowney marcjohlic Wilco SteveRepsher MichaelC Mike_Pluke lisa Brooks Makoto Glenda JakeAbma alastairc chriscm kirkwood Detlev jasonjgw MikeGower david-macdonald
Regrets: EA JF David_MacDonald Mike_Pluke
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: Jim
Found Scribe: jallan
Inferring ScribeNick: jallan
Scribes: Laura, Jim, jallan
ScribeNicks: laura, jallan

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 05 Dec 2017
People with action items: 

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]