<alastairc> anyone available to scribe?
<scribe> Scribe: Rachael
Alastair: Michael sent an email but time zone changes are happening over the next few weeks. Some cases are an hour earlier. There is a link in the telecon page what time the meeting will be.
Top priority item is the implementation tools and evaluations. Does anyone have comments or questions? Now to the end of March is the critical time so Michael can write the report. Failing that, bad things happen to the timeline.
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/
kirkwood: The url for evaluations was incorrect. Should I resubmit the whole thing? Is there a way to change it?
Michael: Some people are still using the beta version including hte link above. If you use that tool, that could be the reason.
If you add to beta and check real tool, that could cause it. So double check the link.
kirkwood: I will add it into the tool.
Michael: If anyone runs into problems, email me.
Alastair: This is our top priority.
Anyone not going to CSUN, please consider picking something to evaluate. We need to pick up the pace.
Kirkwood: Michael, I gave you an additional URL. It may be better to use. Is it too late too change it?
Michael: If there have been no evaluations, you can simply edit the implementations.
Alastair: I will be volunteering
a colleague. If anyone else has colleagues who would like to
volunteer, let the chairs know.
... We discussed this on Tuesday. The suggestion was to put
3.2.6 with 1.2 Did anyone have further thoughts?
JF: Everyone is focused on the autocomplete but that is a technique but it isn't the criteria. I can use any kind of metadata as long as it is programatically determinable.
Its like 1.1.1 says you must use alt text. It doesn't. There are multiple techniques. We need to detangle it. Then its clear it should be under 1.3.4
The purpose is to add more metadata to critical components.
CSUN is the deadline for the extension.
The proof of concept tool will show the use of adding more metadata. That isn't the only taxonomy you can uses. the SC is tech agnostic
Autocomplete is the current easiest method but not the only way.
Alastair: Where it came from for me, was I spoke to Coga folks. They are somewhat disappointed in how it helps with personalizatoin. Their preference was for personalization. Leave it where it is.
JF: We know that allowing people to personalize the page is a big win. We have to introduce this somewhere. We trimmed this SC because there are not tools. WE need to avoid chicken and egg problem.
Alastair: Is there anyone onthe call who wants to move 1.3.4?
Having put the question to the people who created the SC and gotten an answer leads me to that side as well.
Are there any comments on 3.2.6?
JF: There hasn't been as much
conversation so we may need to let folks look at them.
... Can we make the change to sever dependency on the html
spec. We may want to put out a CFC?
Alastair: It isn't confusion so much as creating a balance of benefits.
Joshue: We are trying to move to 3.2.6.
Chuck: The change is largely editorial. Focusing on it would be good.
<JF> +1 to splitting the issues vis-a-vis the Github issue
Alastair: I could send a note (a pre CFC) to the list to see if there are adjustments.
mgower: I don't see a massive win in moving them. I am in favor of leaving them.
<Joshue108> +1 to Mike
+1 to Mike as well.
<JF> +1 to Mike
The original vision has changed substantially but where they end up as a principle and guidelines location is not as important as the documents.
Alastair: I will propose putting something out to comment on with status quo.
Alastair: Is there any objection to this comment becoming an official response?
RESOLUTION: 757 will become the official response
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/#wbsq13
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/791
<Joshue108> yup
Alastair: Has anyone had a chance to look through pointer understanding cancelation?
Joshue: I think this is good. There are a few minor edits but it is good to go.
Alastair: Will anyone have a chance to look at understanding documents over the next few days?
Joshue: We need folks to look at these with some vigor. If people have cycles to look through these it would be great.
Rachael: What is the priority?
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Clearing_Understanding/
Alastair: The list in the IRC is the priority.
The five in Andrew's agenda is the top priority for this week.
Alastair: The understanding is useful but the evaluations are needed sooner. We have more time on the understanding.
Some are quite short.
Alastair: The further down the list, more work is needed. Comments are useful.
Is there anything anyone else would like to bring up at this stage?
MikeGower: I was looking through BBC and the examples are straight HTML. It would be good to have examples where the accessible name is incorporated as part of the name.
If anyone has suggestions for sites to be evaluated, please add them.
Please spend the next 20 minutes trying out the evaluation tool. We'll get more questions next week based on that. Thank you!
<alastairc> http://www1.nyc.gov/site/mopd/index.page
<alastairc> trackbot, end meeting
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|https://www.w3.org/2017/11/WCAG21/CR/|https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/| Default Present: Joshue108, JF, alastairc, Rachael, kirkwood, MichaelC, Laura, MikeGower Present: Joshue108 JF alastairc Rachael kirkwood MichaelC Laura MikeGower Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Found Date: 08 Mar 2018 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]