<Judy> agenda order is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
<Chuck> scribe: Chuck
Judy: Next meeting in 2 weeks.
<Judy> JULY 29th 2020
Judy: W3C has been through things
to figure out how to do TPAC. Events team settled on
plan.
... Reading and saying things in input forum to provide
feedback.
... Make sure we know what our group needs are. Judy wants to
push that we'd make it easy for groups to observe other
groups.
JN: The week that groups meet for their own meetings... which week?
Judy: 12-16 OCT.
JN: If we want a group meeting for Aria, when are we meant to do those?
Tzvia: No specified date for
that. The idea is that wg will organize themselves, most groups
will figure it out. If dicated, it would be chaotic.
... Aria may want to meet sept 1, we won't prevent groups from
meeting at same time.
JN: Confused by the fact that plenary week meeting, happening in single hour. Implied that we could meet other times that week, but I heard we shouldn't meet then. I don't understand everything.
Janina: Same confusion.
JN: 12-16 is wg meetings. last week is other meetings, single hour block each day.
Judy: I'm disturbed to hear what
it is now saying, the interpretation. That doesn't sound
realistic.
... Will review. There's usually a lot of things that happen,
plenary presentations, breakout topics... you don't want just
one shot.
... WG meetings, organized joint meetings, and all the hallway
stuff, the real stuff.
... I want to review what they did.
... Anyone else who has looked at this, any other questions you
would like to raise?
Janina: To echo James, plenary and breakouts are all in a single hour...
Judy: When we've done
international meetings, the more we tried to be the shorter
windows we had to play with.
... There are creative ways to get around that...
... Repeating breakout in different timeslot for example.
Tzvia: Your impression... mostly
baked? Or open for raw input?
... I reread, I'm confused again.
Judy: I'll provide input.
Judy: This may be of interest to
all. Years ago there was a variety of wg's were interested in
creating wcig.
... To brew up certain specs. In some cases development is
going quite far. Their reports are much more advanced than
first or interim working draft.
... There's a process discussion, we are trying to look at
horizontal reviews, baking them in.
... APA usually handles on behalf of WAI. AGWG may have
relevant work that APA may be reviewing on their behalf.
... ARIA may be a more direct reviewer, but APA could be
watching to help identify concerns.
... Digital publishing, not sure how that work interstects.
Tzvia: Digital publishing includes the horizontal process, haven't used WCIG.
Judy: Not impacted by html?
Tzvia: Might be, might not know it.
Janina: I ran into one I should run by you all.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to differentiate and generalize wicg issues
MC: Differentiation is that WCIG
was setup as feeder to HTML. Seems to have generalized to
anybody who wants to incubate a spec.
... Not the only incubation option. Any community group can
incubate.
... Working on proposed specs.
George: Matt is involved and
monitoring developments under Silver. Provides input. There are
items in publishing we want to see moved forward.
...
Janina: Might be confusing WCIG and WCAG.
Judy: WCIG is Web Incubator
Community Group. Pipeline into HTML, and close to beginning a
pipeline into other areas.
... WCIG vs WCAG.
... Any revision?
George: Matt's not in WCIG. He's monitoring WCAG/Silver.
Tzvia: I've heard it pronounced as YCG.
Judy: Too close to coordination groups.
Tzvia: Michael, I'd love to
follow up with discussion on incubation.
... Incubation should be a requirement that is not defined
anywhere. Everyone does it differently.
MC: Willing to chat.
Steve: What does "incubation" mean?
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on incubation
Judy: Incubation: very lively
debates at one point that centered around revisions to the art
of consensus, for chartering wg and other types of
groups.
... Some proponents of WCIG model have thought that they got
absolute ...
<tzviya> s/incubation should be/incubation is
Judy: something that can happen
in CGs, or can happen in WGs, in some cases.
... There's been strong rationals that incubation should happen
in chartered groups, WG is one such group.
... Silver becoming WCAG 3.0 is one example. It's getting close
to FPWD (though no dates).
... Main focus is should we... what do we do about drafts that
are from incubation but are more mature, and haven't gotten
horizontal review?
Janina: I've been thinking. It's
a bit of a larger problem. Community groups make draft reports,
but if mature, there's no path to mature.
... Research referenced in challenges doc for example. I think
we've a lightweight way to handle, on how long it stays in
fpwd.
Judy: I'd like to stay with the one we have.
Janina: I saw some very mature
spec work that is being prototyped by google and chrome, and
it's in the incubation group space. Hasn't been reviewed.
... Annotation spec... apparently when Michael looked at it,
it's only half. Take a string and create an id ref. Being
prototyped in chrome. That's pretty mature.
Judy: framing question... there's
a lot of work in formalizing horizontal reviews.
... ...one of key tenants of accessibility is to do it at the
design stage.
... Right now, with some community groups are missing early
reviews and producing some mature specs.
... Late to the game again which is the opposite of what we
have been trying to achieve for accessibility.
... We also have FAST, which has been on a slow brew. We've
been discussing pre-checks on accessibility... what do you
think about sending out FAST to community groups that are
trying to get work ready for rectrack in a wg?
... Or is it not ready for prime time?
Janina: I think it's fine. I
would not want to go too far afield. If we do it with FAST,
internationalization may also have a case to do it.
... We do have a questionairre. Only thing holding up is
survey.
... Decentralized identifers, completed.
Judy: Situation we have is that Philipe doesn't want to tool up for accessibility unless horizontals come along as well.
JN: This isn't something that is
a new discovery. AOM has been going in in WCAG. It doesn't go
through same process. Lot's of incubation won't end up in W3C
specs.
... While we want to look at them, if we put too much paperwork
and checkboxes in people's way, they will go elsewhere. We will
lose visibility.
Judy: That's a point we've heard elsewhere.
George: Thinking of community group around Maf and ... it's in chrome and edge experimental features. Just flagging that as an example of this.
MC: MAF is to have a version by TPAC, don't want to push it on anybody yet.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say targeting good FAST checklist by TPAC
Tzviya: Trying to approach from
different perspectives. Process group is reviewing horizontal
review.
... To clean up the process. I would say, for doing horizontal
reviews for other groups, something like the checklist... I
think that's a better approach.
... Than generic review. You will be more guided in
reviewing.
... Security questionnaire, I didn't know what it was, but I
knew the questions. Same for a lot of people around
Accessibility. A bit of a black hole.
... James comments... they will go off and just do this, yes it
will happen. There is a significant amount of working coming
into W3C, if we know how to handle and maintain, there's a
vested interest in this.
Judy: There's also a memorandum
of understanding, some things they own are part of W3C. They
agreed to take up accessibility feedback.
... May cycle back to W3C. They have stated publicly that they
want to get accessibility better. This review discipline will
be advantagous.
... To focus this more, Janina, when you were asking for this
topic, was there a specific outcome you were hoping for?
Janina: No solution.
Judy: We might be able to do (and
hopefully get some support): If this is a combersome issue and
other groups don't bother, ... may not spend time on it.
... Self review tools may be able to help, great opportunity to
get accessibility into specs early.
... Curious if people agree or disagree with that. That might
inform support we get from PM.
... There's a way to do it granular, may not need all wg's.
Janina: FAST is designed, what's the maturity criteria for when you fill out the fast.
Judy: Becky, do you have some comments to add?
Becky: We look at groups, not
much traction, but could have impact. We have to remember to go
back and look at X month. Would be nice to have some other tool
that did it more automatically.
... There's a lot of them. Needs to have existed for X times,
have regular meetings, published something.
Judy: That's helpful in terms of
several different types of criteria, recency, speed, how full
draft looks, if they used self review list.
... James seemed in agreement?
+1 yes maybe.
<Kathy> +1
<Ryladog> +1
Tzviya: I think very good idea.
I've talked to people about it, and what people want to see W3C
doing. Across the board is ... horizontal review.
... Whatever it is, there is value in bringing in other aspects
of horizontal review. In terms of scaling.
... If it's self assessment, not the same thing as a 3rd party
assessment.
... Becky's criteria could be a step in the right
direction.
... Often you see something living in an individual's github
repo.
Judy: Could be a stage at a time,
like checklist, then depending on content, advancing.
... Could be step by step.
... Groups that use community groups without any intention of
bringing specs, with the hope that they can use a technical
label to look like they went through W3C process. I'd like to
come back to that in an upcoming meeting.
+1 coming back later.
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Functional_Needs_Subgroup
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Functional_Needs_Subgroup
Judy: What this is... the functional needs approach.
MC: I put in starting page.
Silver TF expects to organize Silver by functional outcome, and
there's a sub-group to identify needs.
... I saw relationship with FAST, and want to coordinate.
... Most interesting sub group is expanding functional needs
link.
... Going through any list of user needs. Basically getting
them all in one place. We'll collate. we hope to have a
comprehensive list.
... It would be an evolving document. We would take that, a
slice would potentially be a key component of silver guidelines
structure. Would feed into other things.
... I hope other guidelines would refer to these functional
needs. We have small group, want to keep it small. We want to
get in the same "space".
... Once more mature, we'd like to take it to other
groups.
... Over remainder of this year, will hopefully evolve, don't
know when we can call it "done enough".
Judy: Rachael or Chuck, anything to add or clarify?
Ryladog: Did you look at the work that Liddy Nevel did? From access for all? Metadata on education stuff?
Judy: how long ago? way back?
Ryladog: We used it a lot in the
UI work. It has a list, you can refer to and compare.
... Access For All and Education Standards Org they were
working with.
Judy: Are you aware
Michael?
... There's a lot of back and forth. Not sure if Liddy's
content is in there.
MC: We don't care if it's out dated, just want to gather info. Don't know if it's on our radar, would be happy to add.
George: Access For All is helping
to inform some of the things we are doing in publishing.
... That has fed schema.org metadata.
... Those are the links...
Judy: I'm having a flag go off.
There's stuff that may have come out of discussions a while
back. I think that some of the people were trying to have it
moved.
... May have evolved since last worked on in INS.
... Michael, your most current contact is <@@>
<Ryladog> It is IMS (not INS)
<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility is derived from the work Liddie did
George: I can get you in contact
with some key contacts.
... Haven't talked much, we don't have much of an
intersections.
<Ryladog> me/thanks Tzviya
Judy: There's an updated piece.
Katie, when you commented, I thought from 508 angle. 508
refresh had a bunch of stuff that had "functional..."
... It was a lightning rod, controversial. I want to make sure
Michael, Chuck & Rachael, may take forensics and some
cautions.
Ryladog: Clear that the more we move into IT realm, I just did a thing for a POS company. The needs are cross the entire gamit.
Judy: Katie maybe you can make sure AGWG folk are aware of the background on 508 functional needs.
zakimg take up next item
Judy: Janina, take care of yours?
Janina: Yes.
Rachael: content usable will be ready very soon.
Judy: Are we ok, I saw an update...
Rachael: I think we are covered.
Judy: Steve as well.
<Rachael> scribe: Rachael
Judy: Code of ethics and
professional conduct - close to finalized and announced. I have
been assigned to drive W3C Wide training on this. This will be
coming back around every quarter or so. If you haven't been in
a recent meeting, I want to touch base to make sure you are
familiar with content.
... Jeanne - I want to check in with you. Katie - We need to
discuss the charter and also touch base about this.
Judy: There are two coming up. George or Tzviya?
<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/publ-webinar/
Tzviya: Link above if you didn't receive email from Karen M. This is an overview of hte new structure for the publishing and information from a survey of the publishing industry.
Judy: If you want to cross
coordinate, this would be one way to get a lay of the
land.
... Thank you for your time and work. Talk to you in two
weeks.
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) FAILED: s/incubation should be/incubation is/ Succeeded: s/@@/...something that can happen in CGs, or can happen in WGs, in some cases./ Succeeded: s/living in github/living in an individual's github repo/ Present: tzviya Chuck Judy becky Rachael MichaelC Kathy stevelee__ janina George Katie_Haritos-Shea Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Scribes: Chuck, Rachael ScribeNicks: Chuck, Rachael WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 15 Jul 2020 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]