04 Apr 2019


Jennie, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, JohnRochford, MichaelC, janina, kirkwood
alastairc, Jennie


TPAC planning

<alastairc> scribe:alastairc

Lisa is going, not sure many others are.

MichaelC: Should we request space for the group?

Lisa: I'll ask today, see if anyone is likely to be there.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: Jennie

Process for busy people https://github.com/w3c/wg-effectiveness/blob/master/process.md


TPAC is in Japan this year. Is anyone able to go?

<JohnRochford> I plan to go to TPAC.

David intends to go.

<janina> APA will be meeting Monday & Tuesday at TPAC

Lisa: small working group session?

<JohnRochford> +1 to small working session at TPAC

WCAG 2.2 requirements & process is open: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22process2/

Michael: to request a room we need a confirmation of a meeting.

Lisa: is 3 people enough?

Michael: no, 3 might be hard to justify a meeting.

Lisa: I can write a note to the WCAG list, and see if anyone else is interested in joining.

<JohnRochford> I am going to be in the Silver meetings.

Michael: it may be difficult to get participation due to other meetings.

<JohnRochford> But I would break from Silver to participate in COGA.

Lisa: I will write to Glenda and Alistair to see if they will be attending, are interested.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22process2/

Lisa: Alastair wrote to the list about the questionaire at the link Lisa added into the IRC channel above.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements

Lisa: 3 questions regarding WCAG 2.2. Most of us can vote.
... if no objections, these will be the rules.
... If you find it too complicated, you can just write that.

Consider Avoid creating a requirement for something that is already required by an existing Success Criterion.

Discussion was about the above quote.

Lisa: There is also a process document - does anyone want to review this?
... there is also a link about those that are proposed.
... did some get missed out?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0

Lisa: we can also comment on that. Comments need to be in by Tuesday so they are recorded.
... if you have problems with doing this, just write that you are finding it too complicated to Alastair or others.
... is that ok?


Group expressed difficulty with audio quality of the call.

Lisa - you are very very quiet



<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> is this better

Lisa we can hear you but it is really quiet


EA: it seems as if we are coming to this without enough background information.

Michael: I have been having trouble discussing the thread of the call.

EA: we are talking about the survey regarding WCAG 2.2

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> say that we need more time

Michael: I think it is better to vote than not to vote.
... process thing for the acceptance criteria. The group is trying to adopt acceptance criteria that will have less problems for the group but still meet requirements.
... it is better to raise any worries you have in the survey than to not comment because you are afraid you lack context.
... the question about more time would be appropriate for the chairs, but my guess would be no.
... this has been in the works for a long time. I would suggest asking the chairs.
... I don't believe we can hold up the process any longer.

Lisa: if we request a call with one of the chairs to collect our comments, would that be reasonable?

<EA> I think the queries are more around sentences such as "There are also SC that are important enough that they are Level A, even though they are neither ‘easy’ nor ‘invisible’" I am not sure I understand this statement

Michael: Maybe? Based on availability.

Lisa: I think we can at least ask that.

Michael: I strongly recommend filling out the survey anyways by the deadline.
... if we are not able to schedule a call with the chairs, things could go away.
... if we can arrange a call with a chair as well, that would be great.

Lisa: put in any concerns that you have.
... I also see the list of success criteria doesn't include all of our suggestions, so that is a real problem for us.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0

Michael: which list are you looking at?

Lisa: if you look at the process, then it has the success criteria
... it is missing the ones from the face to face.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> why were or others were excluded

Michael: I can't answer that question. I assume that they were forwarded.

Lisa: They were given to Alastair.

Michael: I can't speak for Alastair.
... we are not approving the potential list of SCs, we are approving the process.

EA: it isn't about the process, it is that I don't understand the sentences being used.

Michael: If you don't understand what you are being asked to agree to, then you should say so.
... there is always room for editorial improvement.

Lisa +1

Michael: be specific about what you don't understand.

Racheal: the document I commented: I think we need to have a conversation on whether we can comment on the SC. This needs to happen up front.

Lisa: if no more comments, we can move on to the next item.

next steps gap analisis, our space in the w3c and tracking items

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> zakim take up item 2

Lisa: goal is to get them out the door as quickly as possible with a decent quality.
... table at the top of the document - I think we have finished?
... How are your design reviews coming?

David: was I assigned a design review yet?

lisa: at the top of the table you are down for 2 or 3. Your name is in the table. On the call you said you were on top of the process.

David: Should I have received an email?

lisa: open the link, go to the table.
... I'm sorry about the mix up.

EA: I had 3, then when Steve and I looked at them there were no queries.
... Steve went on and redesigned how they were set out.

David: whenever I go to a new tab, my audio is dropping from my WebEx.

lisa: I'm checking in with EA.

EA: the only one we both commented on was about Clear Words.
... the debate is on the number of words. I had put my comments in the previous document.
... we left it as it was because there were no comments.
... this is not in the current document.
... I did the other ones.
... I still feel concerned about the Clear Words one.
... the issue of word number was never dealt with in the past

Lisa: I think this should be discussed on a call

EA: That's correct - that is why Steve and I left it.
... I think this was one John was working on.

Lisa: I will put this as an issue.

EA: yes
... agreed. It is not an editorial thing, but needs to be debated.

<kirkwood> sorry I lost audio

Jennie: I can commit to completing 2 more by April 12.

lisa: I will put Jennie down for one by John K. Verify that it has all the information - that's the main thing.

<kirkwood> which one?

Lisa: I will also put Jennie down for the one "making steps clear" but it is not ready yet.

Jennie: that is fine.

Rachael: I will send Jennie an email when I am done editing making steps clear.

Lisa: I will put Rachael's name down on another one.

Rachael: that's fine.

Lisa: we will take Rachael's name off of the one we cannot find.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> john kirkwood, did you fimnish the reviews?

Lisa will follow up with Jamie regarding his open items, and connect with John K.

Lisa: anyone else able to do more reviews?
... If anyone else finishes theirs and can do more, please volunteer to do so.
... there is some other missing content, such as the introduction to each theme.
... we will need to decide if we can publish without the introductions.
... or, is this something you would like to write now?
... I will assume that everyone is busy with the action items they have now.
... the next item we need to work on is the gap analysis.
... I think it would be good to address the tracking of actions before we do this.
... Michael has offered to give a quick orientation call for Jennie and David on the W3C process.
... how we interact with other groups is important.

Michael: the call with Jennie and David would be more focused on liasoning with the working group.
... this is very specific to this purpose. If you would like to do another thing for the task force than we can do this in addition to this other call.

Lisa: there are other pieces I would like to add around this liasoning piece.

Process for busy people https://github.com/w3c/wg-effectiveness/blob/master/process.md

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://github.com/w3c/wg-effectiveness/blob/master/process.md

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: 2019/04/04 15:02:58 $

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)

Present: Jennie LisaSeemanKestenbaum JohnRochford MichaelC janina kirkwood
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie
Scribes: alastairc, Jennie
ScribeNicks: alastairc, Jennie

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

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

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: 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]