– DRAFT –
AGWG Teleconference

Introductions and Annoucements

Ac: announcement

<Chuck> Welcome Chiara!

<mbgower> Welcome!

Chiara De Martin Fondazione: I'm a new member.
… Looking forward to working with everyone.

<Chuck> Chuck: Chiara De Martin introductions

Taskforce Process Overview

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/wiki/WCAG-2-Task-Force-process

ac: Standing up WCAG 2 taskforce force.
… It is a bit different.
… the will have their own process.
… will work through WCAG 2 issues.
… moving away from surveys.
… Issues or Pull Requests (PRs) are raised. Someone takes on issue/PR as an assignment.
… When drafted, the Task Force reviews it.
… When agreed, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group review it.

<alastairc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023OctDec/0069.html

ac: 2 weeks to respond.
… If approved by both, it is merged / closed.
… If either stage is not approved, it goes back to drafting.
… because we have so many issues we will categorize them.
… Normative: Errata, which would be escalated to the chairs and go through a CFC process.
…

Substantive: Changes that meaningfully add or alter existing guidance. New techniques, new sections in documents, concepts being added or emphasized.
… Editorial: Improvements that are not intended to alter interpretation. Re-phrasing that clearly does not change meaning, but aims to improve readability or understanding of informative documents.
… Bug fix: Trivial editorial corrections (e.g., typos, spelling, subject-verb agreement, punctuation), style consistency, code syntax corrections, broken links, etc. will be reported in the PR, but the work will be done as the errors are found.
… Proposed response: Draft comment on issue that does not result in a change to non-normative content or interpretation.
… Trying to move away from surveys.

Gregg: Is this for wcag 2 or 3?

AC: wcag 2 TF.

Gregg: normative changes don't come to group?
… concern about anything normative that isn't brought up in meetings.
… not worried about informative docs.
… Moving to GitHub concerns me.
… congress has a thing called consent decree.

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

Gregg: we should think about having something similar.

Mike: anything normative will have a lot of discussion.
… except when it is a typo or link not working.
… don't think those need to go through full group.

wilco: I have similar worries as Gregg.

<kirkwood> +1 to Wilco

wilco: Important to have visibility on this.
… different mailing list concerns me.

<mbgower> It goes to the working group AND task force mailing lists, to clarify Wilco

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say there would be SOME announcement in a meeting

wilco: I like gregg's idea of having an agenda item for it.

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg’s congressional methodology

chuck: mirrors process for other groups. This was decided on a while ago.
… It will always be an agenda item.

<kirkwood> Suggestion: Time to speak on an agenda may need to be time boxed?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on gregg's point, and how attention is drawn to normative updates

chuck: We will bring it up in a meeting. Aways. Only question of how much time.

ac: focusing in normative. Don't anticipate doing much of that.

<mbgower> 20+

ac: We have a Substantive category. Do see how this is different than having a survey.
… how do we make progress through 600 issues without overwhelming everyone.
… want to focus on ones this feedback. Can bring normative changes to group.

Gregg: typo is not normative. That's okay. It's editorial.
… Huge difference between tech standard and regulatory standard.
… pulling the normative out is a good idea.

<jeanne> -1 that we are special and can ignore W3C Working Group processes

Gregg: have a clear subject line.

<alastairc> The email subject line is currently: "WCAG 2.x TF changes and proposed changes"

Gregg: make sure subject line is clear on email.

<julierawe> +1 to Gregg on wanting clear actionable subject lines (preferably include the survey deadline)

<jeanne> +1 to good subject lines.

Gregg: unless it is complicated abstract them.

wilco: Separate email list for WCAG 2 or not?

ac: will send to the main list but discussions on TF list.
… as long as people are looking at these and giving thumbs up do we need to bring it to meeting? Open to suggestions.

wilco: Important to have baseline requirement for +1's.

ac: That's a good point.

mc: we have that already in the process.

<kirkwood> think we should use Gregg’s congressional analogy. each one needs to be time-boxed properly in a meeting

mc: 2 dozen issues each week. Would take a lot of time on calls. Question if we want to do that.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask what would make this stand-out or be understood for what it is.

ac: please have a look at last Tuesday's email.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we will announce in meetings

chuck: significant items will be called attention to. Example WCAG to ICT.

<mbgower> For normative changes, if/when they occur, we can to put them specifically on the WG agenda.

Gregg: Extreme gratitude to TF.
… only normative needs to be brought up. If titles are descriptive that's good.

JK: Gregg had good comments. It is a time keeping issue. Should use the congress example.
… Just need procedures.

ac: Suggestion is for people to try it out. Reply to the email if it is not.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/wiki/WCAG-2-Task-Force-process

<kirkwood> subject line of the email is important.

<alastairc> WCAG 2.x TF changes and proposed changes

ac: We have an example in place. Please reply to that email.

TPAC Subgroup Work

<kirkwood> “PROPOSED CHANGE:” (?)

<alastairc> Keyboard Support

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbIHra88rxtHbeBE9cqenCMYcv26ODiOonPLRdt7OHU/edit

<alastairc> Pointer Support

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y9ihiYAgLfR83Cu6phRuPTcBr3N9Kr_uFD9cGuxpsgc/edit

<alastairc> Provide Help

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vRFmF6JmftMSXAH6vapz319WWX5phs1dSrPRlcEbgz8/edit

<laura> s/anaolgy /analogy /

chuck: need another week

ac: refined a couple outomes.
… worked on 2 new outcomes. Got as far as we can. Need research.

rm: pretty much done. Don't need to meet again.