Meeting minutes
https://
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note USAB SSTM under ADA
Bruce: USAB posted ANPRM on SSTM under ADA
Wiki updates
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: I made updates based on conversations from last week
maryjom: more links on home page: work statement, participants list, link to older work David MacDonald drafted...
… I also made my suggested edits to that using track changes...
… neither of these reviewed by AG WG, but my own impression is that these are not controversial...
… I also included some links and references for starting points, for example A versus AAA, to help participants work efficiently.
… feed back welcom.
Questions regarding this meeting's preparation work
<Chuck> +1 I linked
maryjom: Administrative, last week asked people to register for GitHub and link to W3C account.
… that facilitates work. That seems to be progressing.
maryjom: Also you were asked to review Code of Ethics.
Any Qs?
Chuck: Just a comment, that we have new individuals here who some of this might be new for...
… But these are same as W3C generally or AG WG generally.
Sam Ogami: I am having some trouble with links.
<Chuck> I have noted it down, and we will address outside this meeting
Judy and Mary Jo will sort after meeting.
Review survey results from the work statement review
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: Review responses, WS draft is public facing.
<maryjom> Work statement: https://
Mary Jo shares screen for reviewing results.
Questions asked on each section of draft WS.
maryjom: I have incorporated editorial into pull request
maryjom: Several minor editorials, no comments on objectives
… getting into substantive comments for scope.
<Chuck> https://
maryjom: GreggV noted in survey that Understanding updates from last time was valuable
GreggV: I should have recommended that we forward feedback to AGWG
maryjom: Agreed, we would file issues as is the process now. Do we need to change work statement?
GreggV: I think it should be in our list of activities this time.
maryjom: That work was not in WS last time, but we did pick up things.
Judy: Lets go on, and I will make a suggestion if it seems needed.
GreggVan: Agreed we picked up last time.
<Chuck> +1 to performing the task but not listing it specifically in the work statement.
maryjom: My preference would be to keep WS more focused.
<Chuck> I will scribe for Bruce if he wishes to participate in discussion.
maryjom: Bruce asked in the survey if scoping might be for non-web content instead of non-web ICT
maryjom: Other feedback?
GreggVan: Tend to agree about hardware, but is it clear that content includes software?
maryjom: I am a little concerned for edit throughout document
Chuck: I am not sure I understand concern, since it worked out last time.
LauraBMiller: My second point followed up from Bruce's point.
… might we revisit hardware in a second round?
… Do we not want to include is it hardware, is it software, looks like closed systems
… hard to tell where software ends and hardware begins
<BryanTrogdon> +1 - revisit/define what constitutes "non-web technologies" for the purposes of this Note or Statement
LauraBMiller: I feel like it is part of the same question.
FernandaBonnin: Replying to Bruce comment, it might imply we are not addressing software which we definitely can.
<Chuck> Bruce, this conversation has helped me understand.
<Chuck> I don't think you need to define now
SamO: When I hear non-web ICT, I think of all the kinds of ICT so I think it might be better to narrow the scope.
<Chuck> Bruce: For mobile, we cover mobile apps, web pages, we don't cover mobile phones. I think there's the same kind of distinction in WCAG2ICT generally from last time.
<Chuck> Bruce: I forgot that we had a strong statement not covering hardware. This is exactly what we should have, and it's already there. Maybe we should consider where we ended up last time instead of bouncing back and forth between what are software implications vs when it leaks into closed hardware.
<Chuck> Bruce: It's a fine line, we already have the target area on touch screen, that kind of thing. we are close to talking about hardware already. As someone providing clarity in the fed space, it's routine to get questions about applying WCAG like screen contrast to hardware.
<Chuck> Bruce: Even WCAG2ICT provides clarity that you shouldn't do that.
<Chuck> Bruce: there's no reference in hardware section, but it keeps happening. I keep getting questions about that. I don't think it's constructive. If the TF feels we can say something, it may make our work faster, and stronger.
<Chuck> back to you bruce
GreggV: I was thinking it might have some utility, but I have changed my mind because it is a pretty big shift from last time arround.
… the strong statement at the beginning is better than changing the scoping now
… even the software requirements are not clean when they apply or not...
… so the strong statement up front is exactly the best way to address this.
… I do not think we should make this change.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to address Laura's question
GreggV: There are aspects of closed products which we might effect, and some where we do not.
Chuck: This is a general statement about definitions. The more tight the definition, it limits our ability to be comprehensive.
maryjom: To Greggs point, if we change scope, we need to change title.
… As to closed products, we have EN 301 549 applying WCAG to those sort of things, so we should not forclose that possibiltiy.
… This update should address some of those things, so scope should not change.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on software-on-hardware
Judy: Issue is complicated, so we need to figure out.
… statement seems like an exclusion, but balance of document does not read that way...
… standards harmonization is a principle driver for this work, and it is getting more complicated and not less
… there is a concern if AGWG does not address, some other group will step into that gap
… for this thing we say, What are the implications for software on hardware?
… I do not think we should change name of group.
LauraBMiller: My suggestion would be to add a bullet to the scope so we are all clear on terms and scope
maryjom: Please suggest language if you like.
Sam: I agree with not changing title. I would suggest tighter scope at beginning.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say dont change name
Sam: as manufacture, we get questions about applying wcag to hardware
<Chuck> Bruce: I'm happy to have raised this, it's not a slam dunk, we should continue as we were, it worked last time, will probably work this time.
Chuck: I am hearing consensus to leave WS as it. We might want to add to definition.
ThorstenKatzmann: Definitely keep the name, it is well known. We need the text to point to.
… if concern for regulators miss using, we can provide that in guidance.
maryjom: I am not seeing need to change WS at this time.
maryjom: We also had question about AAA. Might it not be in scope for WCAG2ICT? Propose we leave it out.
GreggVan: Last time, the AAA was deferred towards the end, we just ran out of time because there were external driver we were responsive to.
… I think it is appropriate to wait until end to see if we can address AAA or not. So no need to foreclose the possibility now.
… with work done already, might be an easy lift near the end.
<Chuck> Judy, is there a command that stops "warning" about someone who may have stopped talking?
maryjom: I will mention that AAA was in original scope. Q about AAA was raised to AGWG and they recommended including AAA.
… it can be a later priority after other work.
FernandaBonnin: It is not a question if we have time or not, but rather it is important enough to include at the start.
… If we get to end, and have time, how would we communicate that AAA is not a requirement for non-web ICT?
<Chuck> If there is a next person to ack. When a queue ends and a chair continues running call, there's nobody to ack
GreggVan: We are to talk about how it applies, not when or why...
… We should include AAA this time if at all possible, but as before, not say if AAA applies or should not apply.
… So I recommend that we keep in scope, hoping someone volunteers for first draft.
maryjom: I am not confident we have consensus on this point.
… Shadi suggested WCAG2ICT as W3C Statement instead of Note.
… We would not expect WCAG2ICT to be influence EN or 508 with regard to adopting AAA.
Chuck: I am going to suggest an in-group straw poll.
<Chuck> oops, sorry, we skipped dmontalvo
<Chuck> dmontalvo should go next
Judy: I am would like to defer to EN groups because there are many things we would like to do, and focus on what we feel is the most important
dmontalvo: I think.. let's keep it as is, we may do it in the future.
dmontalvo: Doing now would be out of scope. Some individuals have specific needs in the AAA space.
<maryjom> Poll: Should we include AAA in the scope of work?
maryjom: <constructing a poll>
<maryjom> Poll: Should we prioritize A and AA over AAA in the scope of work?
GV: It's a lot of work to include AAA, I think we should not exclude it, and see if we have time to address it after our in scope work.
GV: We have the work on everything up to AAA, the prep work is done.
chuck: Let's think about the question for next meeting, as we only have a few minutes.
<GreggVan> suggesstion -- we poll to "We should not exclude AAA from the scope"
<bruce_bailey> +1 to not exclude AAA from scope
GV: I think we can agree that we not exclude it up front.
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<ShawnT> +1
+1
<Judy> friendly amendment -- but we should prioritize....
<GreggVan> +1
<Anastasia> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<Sam> -1
<FernandaBonnin> -1
<pday_> +1 to Judy's amendment - we should prioritize
<Devanshu> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> -1
<pday_> -1 to original proposal
<bruce_bailey> +0 to admendment -- because WS is okay as-is
<LauraBMiller> -1
<dmontalvo> 0, I do think "priority" should also be defined up front
maryjom: We will continue this conversation and this item next meeting.
maryjom: I'll have homework to offer.
GV: Is it possible to take the 2 documents and do a poll up front for people have questions? It might be that the work you've already done from 20%-80% of work off the table, because hypothetically everybody agrees.
times up.
I've another call.