I can scribe

<scribe> Scribe: Detlev

Peter: we can use complete transcripts

Janina: Yes, useful, scribing can be more succinct
... will add those techniwues to the Wiki
... to turn transcripts into a file

Peter: will do that after the call

Agenda review and meeting setup; scribe for today

Janina: We have CART since someone will benefit from it
... will be available on next calls too
... will talk about Google docs for SR users
... had a call with Jeann about that befor the call
... for developing principles it is useful to develop questions

Google Doc Process Redux

Janina: Spent some time trying - in some sites it was difficult to work out substitution suggestions, difficult, not very usable on the character level
... also difficult with Braille displays
... also tried other approaches, one from AppleVis about dealing with Google docs
... we should insert comments but avoid substitution/delete markeup since it's difficult for SR users

Peter: process for comments instead of edits to ensure they are processed

Janina: propose comments as we work through principles

Peter: People who missed some work and want to comment they can do that commenting, so we can have a second pass and address them

Jeanne: We should change the place that WCAG 3.0 does nit address any principles, since it's not true

Peter: can't see anything in WCAG 3 saying that the conformance model cannot address principles

Jeanne: Where it say "difficult, if not impossible" - we have addressed all but 2

Rachael: its the edit in the problem statement crossed out

Peter: I see that - but it does not say that the key principles are not upheld by the new conformance model

<bruce_bailey> Problem statement doc:

<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw

Peter: we can address that, or first work through the principles first
... we can indicate the problem stetement later, making sure it is not a WG view (yet)

Jeanne: We are going to publish soon, a lot of attention will go towards that - so should be addressed now

Peter: that is not what the text say - ist just says it may be difficult for large sites to fully conform

Janina: We are for now removing the problem statement for now (return to it later)

Peter: We can remove the link to the Google do from the Substantial Conformance Wiki page
... There si no intent to share this until we are happy
... if public scrutiny is a concern, we can keep it private to the 'anyone can joinÄ Task Force

jeanne: Thats tricky ethically - we try to keep everything public

Janina: Maybe add a disclaimer - this is draft, just taken as proposals for discussion (to be put on principles)

Peter: Add perhaps: "Note: this is a discussion draft that does not reflect the consensus of the SILVER TF"

Janina: Fine

Continue Principles Discussion

Janina: We agreed on principle 1 but some where not around

Peter: IMportant to realise the key principle for Substantial Conformance may become a key principle of WCAG 3 conformance

Janina: SHould be added as note to top of the document

Any objections?

Peter: (reads new note)

Janina: Not hearing objections
... let's review 1. Principle

Peter: (reads 1. principle)
... should also be a key principle of WCAG 3

Janina: Any concerns, may not be the final term

Peter: At bottom of doc the questions (reads the questions)

Janina: Is there agreement on principle 1? Any objections?
... none so far . read on, Peter

Peter: (reads principle 2)
... suggested edit by Bruce to replace website visitors with 'users'

Bruce: no strong feelings either way

Peter: Si let's discuss 2. Principle

Jeanne: Likes subsituting web site visitors - WCAG 3 iis much broader

Rachael: agrees with Jeanne, need to decide on terms (content users or similar)

Janina: intent is to describe the end user in a broad sense
... any agreement on terms

Bryan: align with WCAG 3 abstract - there you have 'users'

<Rachael> In WCAG 3 it looks like we use "web content and applications"

Peter: broader term for website, broader term for web site users needed - go n that now?

Jeanne: Let's park it for now

Peter: anything els on principle 2?

Rachael: like web site visitors but may need definition, may not be that useful

Peter: I think the key principles might not be long-lived - they help us being aligned in solving things

Rachael: If P2 is shortened, do we loose anything?

<Rachael> Substantial Conformance should enable website visitors with disabilities to accomplish what they want on the site with a minimum of difficulty.

Peter: Probably not

<PeterKorn> Detlev: it feels alright (principle 2), but vague ("be reflective of lived experience"). How to make that phrase actionable? Does it really help?

Rachael: It is a basic principle but important - we must not allow may errors that get in the way of users

Janina: It is intended to be a bit fuzzy - applying proximations rather than precision
... that's what the substantive conformance is getting at
... Peter will edit, will come up and be discussed again

Peter: (reads Principles 3)

Janina: Some jargon P0, P1 - should we clear that up

Should be simplified

Peter: Should we highlight for wordsmithing?

Janina: Should we continue?

Bryan: Let's carry on

Agree

Janina: Any other comments on P3?
... Lets move on to 4

Peter (reads principle 4)

Bryan: We talked about the atomic tests in WCAG 3 - is that good to include here?

Peter: Many WCAG 2 criteria need human evaluation and will not scale - so if programmatic can be considered sufficient is contentious, but they should at least be the floor

Jeanne: We should say 'errors', not 'bugs'

Bryan: makes sense

Janina: WCAG thiks in terms of errors niot (software) bugs

Peter: furthe rthoughs? So I edit...

Peter (reads edited version of P3)

Jeanne: add that this is the baseline, the bare minimum - add that?

Peter: questions if when getting to scale looking at entire site and see a minimum of difficulty appears, how does it relate to checks that will not run all the time but allow for issues that later need to be fixed

Peter (has added a question 4 about the role of issues that a programmatic test could have found)

Peter: Add as thing for a definition?

Janina: The only option is atomic (?)=

Bryan: Plain language is a focus of WCAG 3, so would that be helped

jeanne: Replace with automated test

Bruce: agrees

Peter: Hilights as a term to return to

Peter (rereading amended Principle 4)

Peter (reading new question 4)

janina: any objections?
... We have provisional agreement for Principle 4

Peter: Will mark that Key Principles 1-4 have been reviewed by the Task Force
... encourage to comment text
... will vie wthe full transcript and share for merging into Wiki

Janina: Will discuss how to make that part of the regular procedure

Bruce: Anyone can do it, it seems - very slick

Peter: Is any other meetings getting CART service?

janina: not that I know of

Jeanne: We have to request it, not sure what W3C has arranged
... If someone needs it, we will provide it - but a bit of chicken-and-egg situation

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)

Present: PeterKorn bruce_bailey John_Northup sajkaj Detlev Jeanne
Regrets: Sarah
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
WARNING: Could not parse date.  Unknown month name "11": 2020-11-05
Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004"

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.)