W3C

- DRAFT -

Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

08 Nov 2018

Attendees

Present
Kim, Kathy, Jake, Marcjohlic
Regrets
Chair
Kimberly_Patch
Scribe
kim

Contents


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wRAViPfAJ4Ytqc71tGZp6gU07HNd2QQaNgtJsog-D90/edit#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wRAViPfAJ4Ytqc71tGZp6gU07HNd2QQaNgtJsog-D90/edit#gid=124994642

Kathy: a lot of techniques will be done in the working group. Questions to task forces. Right now the idea is concentrate on the things that may be needed for 2.2 so we can evaluate whether or not it makes sense to do a 2.2 or continue with silver. Trying to keep ahead of where the working group is.. That's the task forces focus. Identifying the gap analysis.
... if we do find there are quite a few things we want to do we may want to create a document that have more of the user needs – small screen, touch, user interface. Coga is doing that right now. Things that didn't get in.
... for us a majority of things did get in and other documents we published are still significant. But we may want to do something like cogo is doing.but that was the main decision out of TPAC – gap analysis to see what to do going forward. Also see that we are all working together to really look at framework that silver has put together. important for mobile
... when we move into silver will want to make sure that that framework works for mobile – doesn't have the same challenges we faced for 2.0 2.1 constraints. That some of the work coming up after we complete the gap analysis

Jake: gap analysis, see what's next – Why people may suffer from technical hurdles before deciding whether we do 2.2 or focus on silver. Need to know what's there, but we need to do, when we need to do it. If we need to deliver within a year 2.2.
... need to see what's left – I think we we do now is the best way – figure out what's left and seeing what new success criteria must be out there to help people

Plan to do that

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wRAViPfAJ4Ytqc71tGZp6gU07HNd2QQaNgtJsog-D90/edit#gid=0

Read through published documents – resource tab lines 3 and four (bolded) to see what might be left out still – either new SCs or techniques that fit under existing SCs

Proposals go under the proposals tab – feel free to put entries in before the next meeting

We will pick up on the 15th going through those documents and filling in proposals and also looking back at the other resources

We want to find what we've previously talked about that might be left out, but new proposals are also welcome

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/11/08 17:09:10 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: Kim, Kathy, Jake, Marcjohlic
Present: Kim Kathy Jake Marcjohlic
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: kim
Inferring Scribes: kim

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Found Date: 08 Nov 2018
People with action items: 

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


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report


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]