<Imelda> +1

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

CSUN face to face

SL: The survey for CSUN F2F had enough people to go forward, the preference was for Monday and Tuesday.
... we will go ahead and get a room to meet for those dates
... we should send out a email to the list

Information architecture

MCr: I set up a document on information architecture and put it out for comments

<Charles> I had to dial in via Skype. WebEx audio not working. Finally on. Sorry.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBk9qG5u5LGJa9pIvou5JsqxnZFiROyeuUN6fmhU3D8/edit#heading=h.ha5990ol4jtn

scribe: I removed the POUR architecture, so we could have a more flexible architecture
... I took out A, AA, AAA
... then I added the tagging engine with the same "chemistry" theme -- Hessite AgTe
... Jeanne set up a document just on the Tagging ideas, which has had a number of comments
... now we are at the stage of refining the ideas based on the comments

Charles: I'm concerned that people could interpret "engine" to mean that the tagging is automated.

MikeCr: I will clarify

Charles: I like removing the numbering

<kirkwood> good work! tagging is very powerful and useful

Shawn: I like removing the number
... it stops the people that reference things by number
... it allows more flexible maintence, since you can add SC and not have to change the numbering system.

Jeanne: WCAG today has a unique short name for each success criterion

MikeCr: Inside a database it could have a unique id, but we wouldn't show that to the public. Maybe it would appear in the API or maybe it would appear in a uRL address.
... the web team in my org is excited about an API so they always have the most up-to-date information. They haven't updated the internal information since 2005 because it is so difficult to scrape the W3C. They have old information.

Jeanne: I hadn't thought about it because W3C is oriented toward "don't fork the standard" but people need to customize information in-house, so we might as well give it to them

MikeCr: The guidelines would be owned by W3C and updated by them, and the methods could be updated by the community.
... this gets over the hurdle of what is stable and standard, and also with the flexibility for future-proofing

Shawn: What is the difference between what we do now with SC and Techniques?

MikeCr: It isn't a big difference, just having the tagging engine to connect them in more flexible ways
... and condensing the information to show the thing you are after.

Jeanne: Another difference is to have broader input on the Methods.

MikeCr: Which does raise the challenge of how to maintain the quality, but it's a good challenge to have.

Shawn: This is exciting stuff.

MikeCr: I'm not attached to the current state. I want people to comment and make it better.

Shawn: A next step would be to set up a mini-prototype using existing WCAG content
... just simulate the tagging engine so that people can see how it could work
... we can take the normative guidelines and generate the one document that is the TR normative document that goes through W3C process.

<LuisG> Jeanne: Very few documents are generated by hand now

<LuisG> ... most are generated

Imelda: Mike, congratulations on a great document. It looks very good.

<kirkwood> +1 to a great coument. I really like the tagging aspect.

+1

<Lauriat> +1

<kirkwood> i meant document. ;)

<KimD> +1

Shawn: Everyone please read and add comments

Tagging

Jeanne: New Tagging Ideas document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nqyIuJ9_goXGHKPa3o9l7pXk-CYzfsEn22HKK3V61C4/edit#heading=h.t2qkc1obqa4y

<LuisG> Jeanne: Threw together a quick document to gather ideas and it took off.

<LuisG> ... I took the things Mike had in his IA document to get people started with it.

<LuisG> ... should we go into detail here?

<LuisG> Shawn: High level and then the details

<LuisG> ... project role maybe by activity instead of role since folks may do different activities despite their role

+1 for Activity instead of role

<LuisG> ... thinking it may make sense to merge activities and project stage

<Cyborg> is there a link to the document being discussed?

<LuisG> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nqyIuJ9_goXGHKPa3o9l7pXk-CYzfsEn22HKK3V61C4/edit#heading=h.t2qkc1obqa4y

<Cyborg> if you go with activity, just important to be consistent about that across all

<LuisG> Charles: I don't think everyone considers "web work" a project. Some of it is "sustain" some of it is "remediation" which wouldn't be a project.

<LuisG> ... want to make sure it's understood in context

<LuisG> mikeCrabb: Our web team is interested in it applying to more than just web so we can send it over to marketing

<LuisG> Charles: Or app, etc.

<Cyborg> yes re: dividing design

<Cyborg> especially if you want to include more usability testing

<LuisG> Jeanne: Cameron also said there could be different kinds of "designer"

<Cyborg> there is an issue with graphics people doing usability testing without any related experience

<LuisG> Shawn: Merged project role and project stage into activity. Added debugging to testing activity...someone trying to make something correct might not look in the "testing" activity, but might look in "debugging" activity.

<Cyborg> is debugging not part of maintenance?

<LuisG> ... for the technology side of things, we could have it by technology but with web/mobile "mobile web" ends up having same overall requirements as the hardware interface.

<LuisG> ... I'm not against having technology, just talking through how we have those two related ideas. Interactions being "I have a mouse/keyboard/monitor" or "I have a touch screen with nothing else"

<LuisG> mikeCrabb: I was thinking of development technology.

<Cyborg> I think the Assistive Technology issue is what type of assistive tech is being used for specific criteria?

<Cyborg> some criteria might apply to some AT and some might apply to others?

<LuisG> ... do we make a distinction between the device and the software?

<LuisG> Shawn: I started with "interactions" because...you may have a small Chromebook running a desktop version of Chrome and next to that you can put a tablet that has a hardware keyboard and it will look the same, but one is running Chrome and another running Android so two completely different interfaces for Google Docs

<LuisG> ... the interactions as far as the hardware goes is the same.

<LuisG> ... we could have keyboard, mouse, touch screen, etc. interactions...VR interactions

<LuisG> mikeCrabb: Should we have an interaction tagging category?

<LuisG> Shawn: I think...so. You could have the same spoken interface with your phone as with some flower pot device.

<LuisG> Jenna: We may eventually need to get to the device level in the methods. The interactions could be different on different devices. I like doing it based on interactions.

<LuisG> Charles: There are hundreds of input devices, and all sorts of screen types

<LuisG> ... I can use a sip/puff with my phone, or switch with laptop, braille device with laptop, etc.

<LuisG> Jemma: If you're using switch, we talk about accessibility of the switch.

<LuisG> ... Jeanne said "we should deal with device eventually." what do you mean by that?

<LuisG> Jeanne: Kind of what Shawn was saying about it becoming fractal. It shouldn't be a part of our architecture.

<LuisG> mikeCrabb: Where is the responsibility of designers/developers to implement this. When does the a11y tree take over?

<LuisG> Shawn: example, the sip and puff or switch...these are things that rely heavily on correct use of semantics and click target size, but the guidelines don't exist for the devices...it's just that the guideline enables that interaction. "A spatial screen with some device interacting with it."

<LuisG> Jeanne: It's an interesting problem. John McNabb brought this up a while ago. We used to say switch devices were covered under keyboard...but actually it doesn't work the same under mobile...they need separate guidance.

<LuisG> ... this is why I like doing it by interaction

<LuisG> Jemma: I think interaction comes first and device second.

<LuisG> Shawn: That's a good way to put it.

<LuisG> ... how does this scale up? It's difficult to articulate what level it should be at. Once we involve the world and rest of the working group...we would need to make it absoluately clear so that it's impossible to misunderstand what level it's at.

<LuisG> ... however, activities and technology platforms that's a little more straight-forward. Want to include something about interactions, but when it comes to tagging, other people not here will contribute to the tagging.

<LuisG> Jemma: Keyboard interaction would be viable since

<LuisG> Shawn: Some of it comes down to where are the boundaries? There are guidelines around game controllers and designing interactions so that it's more accessible.

<kirkwood> Establishing a specificl ane powerful tagging protococl/methodolgy could result in a fantastic end result of Silver.

<LuisG> Shawn: +1 to that

<mikeCrabb> Same! +1

+1

<LuisG> ... going through this exercise can make it more clear for someone coming in

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

Kim: I have developers that want to know: "I want to know everything about headings" or "I want to know everything about page structure" Where would that go?

Shawn: We don't have a category for that.
... I think there is a point where we have to rely on others about it. Like: ARIA can tell you everything you need for a slider. On the platform level, there are accessibility guidelines for Android. We might link to it.

jeanne: I would like that.

MikeCr: That could be done in the tagging engine, we could link to an external resource.

Shawn: The challenge would be for brand-new technologies that don't have robust documentation of how to do accessibility. For example, virtual reality doesn't have robust documentation.

<Charles> I think the tagging should avoid naming UI patterns – even if they only link to external resources. UI patterns are typically the result of trends vs usability and change fairly frequently as a result.

Shawn: we could contact companies who develop platforms and ask them to create documentation than we can reference it. It would prod people into doing the right thing. Increasing the accessibility overall.

<jemma> jemma: Dr.Westine and I am wondering whether we can share GAG and WCAG survey research result with Silver TF

<jemma> jeanne: We are at the different project stage and have multiple meeting agenda items

Jeanne: We have been running over the agendas for each meeting, and we aren't working on content right now. I would really like to address this after we have the architecture and prototypes doen
... I think this would be valuable when we reach the content stage. I think we want to include gaming.

<jemma> jemma: I think it is ok. We just wanted to know whether we can have 5 min time slot during Friday meeting.

<jemma> jemma: we just wanted to give thanks for all the support from Silver TF.

<jemma> we were very appreciative of your support.

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: Charles kirkwood jeanne AngelaAccessForAll mikeCrabb Lauriat Imelda LuisG KimD Jan jemma Shawn Wilco Shari
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne

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: 

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.)