Meeting minutes
<GreggVan> be there soon -- gregg
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
janina: Agenda for today general discussion, review documents and comments on what to bring to the table on September
, next item
Meta Discussion: TPAC and Beyond
janina: Started to list specific examples, but it is not done. It has been always challenging but we can do it. The more general we can make them more specific. She will post it as an email when it is done.
janina: is refering to Deliverables for TPAC
GreggVan: Is preparing some documents for this.
janina: Let's bring some of them to the table on Tuesday meeting.
janina: Talked to Judy because the teams have so many things going on that we loose track and there are different sensitive issues, some bigger than others. So they will start working on that.
GreggVan: Requires feedback from the group for the content we have on different guidelines advice.
GreggVan: We have things required, research challenges, some policy. I think we should do all four of those. We have 2 parts, guidelines and process. 1 This must be true on the website. 2 This should be truth from who provided the website.
GreggVan: And then I have: In scope and out of scope. Policy requirements should be out of scope.
GreggVan: last thing: testability, objective testing.
janina: Let's document right away Gregg's points
janina: W3C note track (when we publish something as a recommendation and notes, for example maturity model things that are not standards but continue to be published)
janina: Required is a must. Recommended is a may or should. There is a shall in 2919 but can't remember. Policy would be a note.
janina: Deliverables that need W3C approval: Public a registry. Note doesn't need w3c approval but a Statement does. Notes are only the opinion of a w3c group. Because statement would impact all the media.
jan
janina: wants to know about captioning and synchronisation live research from anyone.
<janina> https://
GreggVan: Recaps there are 4 kind of processes: Recommendations, notes, registries and statements.
GreggVan: Will try to write up some ideas. The idea of the document is taking some of the fundamentals and gain consensus.
Wilco: We need to bring along the discussion about splitting the team as there is not consensus about it yet.
shadi: agrees with wilco
shadi: maybe we need to do more work focusing on maybe one of them and try to hammer it out. Just keep discussing until we get to a consensus.
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to react to Wilco
GreggVan: Think there are a lot of things in the use cases listed that are not technical, more like policy. There are repeated content. It doesn't tells you the technical issue. 3 categories should be techincal changes, support documents and policy.
GreggVan: Examples should remain as they are.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to disagree with moving content to policy
jeanne: disagrees to move more into policy as it would make things worse in the application
shadi: fully agrees with the cutting down and group or regroup the examples. Some people perceives we are polishing too much, reducing too much. Let's focus on one example and work on it. Sometimes there are things that belong to policy and some to technical standards and each have their own opinion on these.
GreggVan: We cannot decide what is policy and what is technical, things are policy or technical. We should have 2 separate documents: 1 technical and 2 to recommendations for policy.
GreggVan: We need a separate document that encourages countries to adopt a standard policy as I agree if countries do separate policies it will be chaos.
janina: Until we get down on specific cases we won't figure out if they are technical or policy.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask "what do people think of the idea of a
<shadi> shadi: are there hooks we can build into the technical standards to fit with the policy recommendations we want to write
GreggVan: Shadi, there is no place in wcag 2.2 where they talk about terms to still be conformant. 2nd point: What do people think of the idea of a policy standard.
<shadi> [Section 5.4 in WCAG 2.2]
<Wilco> +1 MJM
maryjom: policy is adopting accessibility standards and that is the problem I see. It has to be in the standard as well some of the conformance part as people in policy doesn't know how subjective WCAG is, and the discussions on considering something accessible or not.
GreggVan: Accessibility is more equiparable to safety than to usability. It is not just a recommendation or a nice thing to do.