View source for Write up from TPAC 2018

= AG WG Meeting write up from TPAC 2018 =

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Working Group met at the [https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/ Technical Plenary] (TPAC) 2018 in Lyon, France on the 22nd and 23rd of October 2018. 

Minutes from [https://www.w3.org/2018/10/22-ag-minutes.html Day 1] and [https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-ag-minutes.html Day 2].

== WG Process Update and Improvements ==

=== Decision policy ===

Reviewed some potential updates to the decision policy, [https://alastairc.ac/w3c/decision-policy_2018-10-22.html preview rough draft here].

=== Github usage and editing ===

On the tooling & editing process, the main points were:

[[File:Github workflow.png|thumb]]

* Centralize editing: 
** Anyone can create new text, in any format.
** Send new text to editors to incorporate
* Extend the number of editors, e.g. 3-5 people
** Editors primarily work in HTML/Github.
* Most people only use github for issues 
** Need a better method of preview. raw.githack.com for now, but could be better.
** Need to ensure that people can comment easily on particular text.
* Note that editors and TF facilitators can be different people, with different roles. TFs may wish to reduce the number of authors formats they use and track.

Also, we need to move the collaboration to an earlier point in the process. E.g. the Task Forces (creating SCs) need to have people speaking to the feasibility/testability during SC creation, not as a later stage.

=== Review process ===

[[File:Review-process.png|thumb]]

* The review process would not dramatically change, there needs to be steps for:
** Previewing the new text (SC, technique etc).
** They are commented on in github (creating issues), which might require updates.
** They are commented on by the public, which might shuffle it back to the AG review.
** Once agreed, the change is published.
* Although github is still a requirement, it is only comments on issues that people have to do, there would be no requirement for pull-requests or editing in HTML for most working group participants.

=== Volume of work per month ===

* Suggestion to restrict the work to 3-5 items (e.g. new success criteria) at a time.
** Possibly need a 'fast' and 'slow' track, in case some get stuck or take longer.
** To be decided, but likely to be much less of an issue if there is a WCAG 2.2.
* Editors would update the drafts, and work together to co-ordinate updates in a (hopefully) more regular fashion.

=== Behavior ===

From the feedback, there is a communication gap. It goes in two directions, but seems to be largest when a TF knowledgeable about the user-need tries to progress an SC to the larger group, many of whom are more cognizant of the feasibility & testability issues. 

Two suggestions were made: 

# Everyone should be aware of and follow the [https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct]. It is simple advice, but needed.
# The point about moving the collaboration on SCs earlier in the process should help prevent the same kind of friction in future. That means domain and technical/spec experts both agree on the new content before it is reviewed by the group.

== Silver ==

See the [https://www.w3.org/2018/10/22-ag-minutes.html#item02 Silver discussion in the minutes], along with the [http://goo.gl/XqwaM4 Silver update presentation].

* [https://mikecrabb.github.io/silver_taggingSystemDemo/ Tagging system demo]
* [https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/PlainLanguage2/SectionHeading.html Section heading demo]

== Techniques work ==

The group reviewed the techniques over the two afternoons, and rationalised the list of techniques, and added some as a priority.

The spreadsheet for that was updated during the meetings, the chairs need to find a way to share that in a non-editing mode.

== Task Force updates ==

Discussion is in the [https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-ag-minutes.html#item01 TF update minutes].

Some key points:

* COGA TF very much want to publish the two documents they have been working on, [https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable/ COGA's possibly supplemental guidance overview] and [https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/master/requirements/index.html#introduction Early draft of Design requirements].
* COGA TF recruiting, need subject matter experts and technique/standards experts.
* Question about new TFs for AR/VR, IoT/Voice interfaces - would need volunteers.
* The TFs find it useful to stay ahead of the main working group, rather than overlapping. Would rather be working on the user-requirements and research.

Wilco & Shadi from ACT give an overview of the [https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html rules format draft], see the [https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-ag-minutes.html#item02 discussion]. Draft for approval coming soon.

== Education & Outreach visit ==

Discussion of work that could co-ordinate with EO ([https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-ag-minutes.html#item04 minutes for EO visit]).

* EO have been reviewing WCAG 2.1 understanding docs (the new ones). Will provide the updates for review of 5 docs soon.
* Will continue with others once these have been processed.

== What's next - Supplemental Guidance and Next Normative Work ==

Key points from the [https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-ag-minutes.html#item03 discussion]:

* Everyone agreed that we need to continue working on the techniques for 2.1.
* For a 2.2, there's a balance between meeting more user-needs, and scaring organisations with increased scope of work.
* Unsure how many new SCs would get into the WCAG 2.x framework, many desired requirements may need another approach.

=== Now until January ===

* Finalise process update, establish new editors.
* Supporting docs: 1 technique/criteria per 2.1 SC.
* Supporting docs: Review of new (2.1) understanding docs
* TFs: Gap analysis of the user-needs, what is covered and what's outstanding.
* Gather external input on improvements for "next", 2.2 or silver.
* WCAG2ICT update, survey prior to Christmas.
* Continued engagement on silver about requirements
** Regular updates from the TF
** Individuals to try the conversion, iterate, feedback.

=== After January ===

* Supplementary guidance document(s) - define format / proposed content
* Supplementary guidance (if needed), work on content.