Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

07 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, Joshue108, Detelv, Alex, shadi


<Joshue108> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 07 December 2017

<Alex> The webex info does not seem to work for me

<Alex> does anybody have the valid dial-in info for today?

<Joshue108> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md222811081e24ba7da9d428c5b5516e3

<Joshue108> s/

<Joshue108> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md222811081e24ba7da9d428c5b5516e3/

<Alex> thank you

scribe Glenda

<MichaelC> scribe: Glenda

Status of CFC’s and WD publication

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions

See decisions recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions to see what Andrew has merged and why.

<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/

Look at Editor’s draft as of Dec 7, 2017 in this location https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/

Did we mean to leave WCAG 2.0 editors on this 2.1 draft?

MC: Yep. That is intentional. Leaving for historic reference.

When will this draft been published?

MC: Plans to go out today. Dec 7, 2017
... I have it ready to go. The SC that have been documented as “passed” are in this document. https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/

<Detlev> Are we able to include the new text for Guideline 2.6?

MC: Look at “About this draft” I’m updated it. See this note:


Most success criteria in this draft are complete, but some are still under discussion. Those success criteria are marked with editorial notes with pointers to ongoing discussion. If you have an interest in the final form of the success criteria, we encourage you to track the discussion and check the editors' draft for changes, and submit comments quickly if you have concerns about changes underway. The Candidate Recommendation will include the final form of these

success criteria, though they will be marked as "at risk" due to the lack of review opportunity from this current draft.

MC: See new note about Common Purpose here: https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/#commonpurposes

including notes that this list is still in flux

Detlev: I’ve drafted text for Guideline 2.6 (can this go in now)?

MC: the guideline text is normative…so we should wait for a CFC. I’m on the fence. But we need to have a CFC.

Detlev: not editorial. Needs a CFC.

MC: Agree. Unfortunate. Here we are.

Joshue: Stick with what we’ve got.

MC: We can do this edit and have it in Candidate Rec. But not for this Dec & draft

Understanding Document Work

<Joshue108> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/1098.html

Joshue: Whatever WG members have been working on understanding, they can be pushed into master branch and be updated today. We are moving understanding out of TR space. So, WG can publish corrections immediately.
... We are planning to have CFCs for these documents in January….but for now, we will let them go out as is. Whatever is in the branch for updating these Understanding documents…will go in for this version of the draft.

<chriscm> Sorry all, another meeting. Dropping early.

Joshue: Do we want to do a single bulk CFC for all understanding docs, or individual CFCs for each understanding doc?

+1 from Goodwitch to publish what we’ve got for Dec 7

Detlev: a survey for each understanding doc (so we can comment constructively). Lumping all understanding into one approval…would not likely be effective.

<laura> +1 publish what we’ve got for Dec 7. Then survey in January.

MC: CFCs in January for Understanding - We are not doing CFC for understanding at this time for Dec 7 publication.

Shadi: My question is for down the line, I have an action item to support this group on improving the Understanding documents to make them more readable and understandable. How do you envision this “understability” / “readability” be handled?

Joshue: Let’s take this up after we get Dec 7th version published.

MC: let’s go ahead with what we have right now for Understanding. Do CFCs for each Understanding in January 23rd.

After Jan 23rd, I expect us to be focused on techniques. And EO can do more editorial passes on the Understanding docs (about 3 months to do that editorial pass).

+1 to MC’s suggestion :)

<shadi> +1

<laura> +1

<Joshue108> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say it is hard to know what the current Understanding docs are, or what the state of them are.

Joshue: Does the group say “publish what is there in understanding?”

gowerm: hard to know the state of understanding docs are

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

MC: AWK has a wiki page with pointers to the understanding docs.

<gowerm> So all the current ones must be linked to from there

This is the page that has the official editing location for each Understanding document https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

Joshue: Can we get agreement to publish what we have here https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

<Joshue108> Glenda: Whats a reasonable timeframe to make some edits?

<Joshue108> MC: I'd like to merge asap, but understanding content can be updated at anypoint

Glenda: so understanding conent is NOT in TR anymore. So updates are easier to make?

MC: Yes.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/

MC: Understanding 2.1 has never been published in a TR directory.

<david-macdonald> sorry... its ok

<laura> happy to publish

Joshue: do youi want to walk thru? or publish what is there.

<david-macdonald> +1

Goodwitch - publish what is there

Alex - on some of the CFC there are some comments, I don’t see what happens with any “I cannot live with”?

Alex - it is not all unanimous

MC: there are times where we acknowledge that we don’t have unanimous consensus, but we can still move forward (documenting any disgreement).
... if you have a personal problem with anything, please let us know right now so we can discuss.

Alex - device sensor - significant challenge with the text.

“Changed Device Sensors to Motion Actuation, restructured, and removed term for device sensor. “

Goodwitch: current text is here https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/#motion-actuation

<Greg> Alex, as long as the author does not list VR systems in their compliance claim, this is not a problem, is it?

MC: do file an issue on this Alex (so we can address this after the Dec 7 draft is published)

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say concerned that there should be some basic level of vigor to ensure the Understanding doc reflects the current SC language. Otherwise, does it not confuse

<Alex> not, greg, it is a problem

gowerm - if an understanding doc is based on old SC text, we should remove it.

<gowerm> can we ask the TFs to do it?

MC: I’m not prepared to read all the content and make sure it has all the right content. That is what the tracking page is for. Each Understanding doc has a manager as documented here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

So…each Understanding manager is responsible

<gowerm> Okay, so the person with their name down is responsible. Got it.

MC: and we can correct anything in Understanding quickly if something needs it

Joshue - are we ready to go with this publication. No objections?

<david-macdonald> what is the official status of the new published doc

Joshue: want to thank everyone! so much work behind the scenes. A lot of dedication. And experience. Proud to be a part of this whole process.

<david-macdonald> what is it

+1 to publish this Working Draft

<david-macdonald> Working Draft (Wide Review) Used to be called last call .... OK I get it...

This Dec 7 pub would be considered the Wide Review Working Draft. It is a working draft we especially want attention on.

Special wide announcements to be forwarded far and wide

Joshue: Any objection to publishing?
... No objections.

RESOLUTION: Publish Dec 7 Wide Review Working Draft and Understanding

<david-macdonald> yah!!

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Publish Dec 7 Wide Review Working Draft and Understanding
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/12/07 17:20:45 $

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)

WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/
Default 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, Joshue108, Detelv, Alex, shadi
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 Joshue108 Detelv Alex shadi
Found Scribe: Glenda
Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda

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

Found Date: 07 Dec 2017
People with action items: 

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]