Meeting minutes
What's the agenda?
Chuck: First topic - any agenda items that you want to discuss today in addition to 4?
Wilco: Curious of WCAG 2.2 timeline
timeline of 2.2
Chuck: The calendar had said final in August and first publishing in September.
MichaelC: That would be candidate recommendation in June - we are behind that. Need to talk about test planning. Not sure if we will be able to achieve that over summer. Recommendation date could get pushed off.
MichaelC: Some folks think it's important to do in same calendar year - so by December 2021 would be within 2021.
Wilco: ACT wants to publish ACT rules alongside.
Chuck: want to bring up this schedule in AG call and our ability to adjust to be more realistic. Hope to get a plan to update or new milestone and as a group we can decided that.
last informal meeting, next informal meeting
Chuck: Formal dates yet to be determined but Decemberish.
Rachael: had been putting together an informal call - the call never materialized. Do we want to try and reschedule that?
Chuck: I would like us to try again - it's a matter of coming up with the time?
Kim_patch: I am. It will be a good opportunity to talk about different disabilities.
Chuck: Could try on 10th at same time 11 ET.
Chuck: Could put out a calendar proposal to find if there is enough interest.
Jeanne: unstructed zoom meeting can be unproductive. It was meant to be a substitute for not meeting face to face. I have a of meeting.
Chuck: Attend if you want and not mandatory - voluntary.
Kim_patch: Agree unstructed is not a good use of time. The last one had a subject - to inform each other about the ways we/people with disabilities use computers differently. So there is a subject for that one.
Kim_patch: How folks use tools like Google Docs and Github -people can't picture how other use tools.
Chuck: to send out email making proposal to facilitators group and decided by this Friday based on feedback whether to have call or not? Any other thoughts?
Action: Chuck to send out email proposing next informal semi-structured group call
<trackbot> Error finding 'Chuck'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://
task force update
<ChrisLoiselle> This is what I had from previous meeting on topic : We need to know what the issues are with each of the accessibility of the different tools. Ikt's important to be aware. … so we know over-arching issues and where things clash
ChrisL: Had sent out email to email lists and have received a request to join from a member who is not a w3c member. Invidiaul has interest and is involved in UX.
ChrisL: Have done some vetting of people and how we might communicate the process with an introductory call or people who are interested in joining. Have a set meeting for that type of interest rather than a one-off.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about vetting process
Chuck: First is call for participation. So far not too productivity. Jeanne and I had side conversation about similar things. In terms of formality would they come in as an expert, etc.
ChrisL: Interest is specifically in low vision task for and the person would come as an invited expert and participating regularly that would have a benefit. But not sure from the AG perspective if that is enough to be considered an expert.
Chuck: Pending questions to be asked later.
Wilco: ACT is doing two things (3 ish). Working with Silver with joint meetings. next steps is to figure out how ACT rules can be blended with WCAG 3.
Wilco: 2nd thing - working to merge community group and task force. Get rid of separate community group website and move to AG website and get banner for not fully vetted rules.
Wilco: We still have separate meeting - all community members have open invite to task force meetings.
Jeanne: WCAG 3.0 is getting ready for heartbeat presentation. CFC is out to publish. Need to refocus on what we are putting in August Hearbeat.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say CFC has gone out.
Jeanne: Need to work on getting our work approved by AG to give them more time to think about new idea. Nothing we have tried to get approved by AG this quarter has been approved. Only editorial approvals.
Chuck: Sent out CFC to Silver and AG and bring up in AG call today.
Roy: Team contact for COGA task force. Tried to setup sub group - metal health and others. Find new facilitator for COGA
Kim_patch: Mobile taskforce - starting to write mobile 2.1 SC into the WCAG 3.0 style to see how template works. Kathy is still out. Waiting for her but going on. I have gotten 3 requests to join - especially developers or people that have disabilities. Requests have all been blank.
MichaelC: with some groups there is an email link on a page - Roy can look into it. Information on workstatement may be out of date. We have some online forms that send email from AG - don't think we have one from mobile.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention ¨failure¨ and to talk about sensitivity exploration
MichaelC: Bounce message to Michael and Roy so we can see where message is coming from.
MichaelC: don't take orientation that we fail when group does not approval - reword - don't get in failure headspace. Think about how we word that with folks in our groups.
MichaelC: COGA is starting work on mental health and expecting more sensitivity to language in that group. COGA will lead in language and not get held up on correctness but interact with diversity in our groups.
MicahelC: AG planning call later today about getting work approved.
review action items
Chuck: 1st previous action item - wiki page where all facilitators have editors right. (For MichaelC)
Chuck: Rachael had action item to document issues with Google docs and spreadsheets
<Chuck> https://
Chuck: Coordinate across groups
Chuck: There was a resolution to try wiki out until July and then revisit.
MichaelC: Will get the wiki added to list as action item.
Wilco: Any progress on WCAG to non-web ICT?
Chuck: Actively waiting on Kathy's return. Not forgotten.
Chuck: Chris had mentioned when outside people want to engage with group
ChrisL: Had experience in both Silver TF subgroup and new LVTF and wanted to have roadmap to address moving forward. Is it more on case by case basis how it is evaluated.
ChrisL: Does AG need to approve or does LVTF provide recommendation that is accepted?
Chuck: Chairs are aware that we need to be lightly engaged in process. Defer to Michael on proccess.
MichaelC: If person is interested in TF - approach facilitators - when the facilitators believe that then the chairs will need to accept the application. Then copy MichaelC to submit process - the process is on task force pages. Business development may or may not need to be approved
<Chuck> Jon: What other responses have we gotten?
<Chuck> Chris: That's the only participation email we've had for joining outside of the call.
<Chuck> Chris: At the moment, that individual is the only one who has reached out, and is our only non-member that has interest.
<Chuck> Jon: We need to reach out to people who were previously on it and are eligible. We haven't heard from anyone else.
<Chuck> Chris: From my work with the VC subgroup both Andy and Bruce are part of the sub-group, where we were working on similar issues.
<Chuck> Chris: There's interest from those individuals. If it's async or sync tbd. Main member list of the task force and participation would be key.
<Chuck> Chris: I have 15 people that were on the TF at some point. Reaching out to those individuals is on my tasks.
<Chuck> Chris: Andy S. is one of the main contributors.
<Chuck> Chris: Out of those 15, the chairs, Chuck Alastair Rachael... out of those 15 there are some with default of interest.
<Chuck> Chris: I agree with Jon that more participation is needed.
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
<Chuck> Jon: A lot of those are already involved in other things. In terms of participation outside of silver, does make me wonder. Some of the folks from last time...
<Chuck> Jon: Are not, we don't have... calls were small, Jon Henry, Jim Allen. A few others.