Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 07 May 2013

<trackbot> Date: 07 May 2013

<scribe> scribe:Loretta

Judy: Providing background on rechartering.; for recommendation track work, charters are reviewed by W3C management.

Charter

Judy: Activities (like the two Activities under WAI) have a maximum 3 year cycle. So the working group's charter can go for a maximum of 3 years.
... WCAG 2.0 is stable; the implementation support materials that the WG has been developing is important work, and hopefully will be continuing.
... At the same time, with new cochairs and with the passage of time, it is important to look ahead for what may be important to do for future versions of WCAG.
... But the WG hasn't discussed this at all.
... So the situation is that for process reasons, the WG needs a new charter. And you should be exploring what might be needed for the future.
... But based on discussion with Andrew and Josh, the WG has not had the discussions and is not ready to say that a new version might be needed, and on what timeframe.
... There is a huge demand for mobile accessibility, and lots of people don't understnad that WCAG 2.0 also applies to mobile.
... There may be cognitive requirements, etc.
... There may be a need for minor version in a couple of years, or a major version farther out, but there clearly needs to be requirements discussion before timelines could be proposed.
... So the charter should include requirements work. if the requirements discussion leads to a timeline for rec track work, the charter can be updated.
... But a few cautions: WCAG 2 has had a lot of impact. It has been taken up in a lot of settings.
... If there is any change that might be pending, it could throw uncertainty into those uses.
... Exploratory discussions do not imply that there will be a new version soon.
... It is important to emphasize that WCAG 2.0 is stable, and will continue to be stable for the forseeable future.
... Michael, Andrew, and Josh have been doing some draft charter work, but this is *draft* and it is important that

<MichaelC> Draft WCAG charter

Judy: everyone understand that everything is still up for discussion.
... People pay attention to even exploratory discussion, so it was important to get this explanation out.
... We need to get a draft WCAG charter in the next few weeks.
... so probably all that should be included is requirements discussion while the WG engages in a larger investigation.

Peter: Do we need a 3 year charter, or would it make sense to make a charter for a shorter duration?

Judy: You don't need a charter that spans the next several years. There is no requirement. You could publish a charter for W3C management and advisory review that is a 1 year charter.
... If there were't other important working going on, like the ongoing Understanding and Tec hniques updates, this might be a good idea.

<MichaelC> Last week´s survey results on charter thoughts

Judy: But a 1 year charter might send the message that those documents wouldn't be updated after that 1 year; therefore, I would recommend a different approach, based on what I'm seeing -- proposing a 3-year charter to continue existing work, and to explore requirements for potential future work..

<AWK> James - DRAFT charter is at http://www.w3.org/2013/04/draft-wcag-charter

However, if the WG produces a 3 year charter, and discovers that there is rec work that falls in that timeframe, the charter could be updated.

Gregg: Rec track work takes 10 times as long as you could imagine, and it will take a long time to get through the rec track process for even limited changes.
... To reinforce what Judy had to say about uncertainty, there are people who would like to see major changes of all types, and once you start discussing opening things up, you will hear from a wide variety of people.
... One reason to have a standard is because it is stable, and if things look uncertain, there is a reluctance to adopt.
... We have seen groups decide to stop and wait because of anticipated changes.

s/looking ahead towards/exploring what might be needed for/

David: here in Canada, almost 5 years after the standard, people are just starting to realize there is a standard they should meet.
... WCAG is still new to people here and just starting to learn what it means.
... People ask me whether WCAG 3 is coming.
... I agree with Gregg that stability is important. Their adoption depended on stability.

Josh: WCAG 2.0 is stable and will be stable.

Andrew: I'm hearing similar things as David about stability. At the same time, we hear from people about issues with WCAG.
... There are things to talk about. I don't know what the answer is - a minor update, or something farther out.
... We need to do our investigative due diligance.
... The main thing coming out of this charter is that we have a lot of work to do supporting the existing standard, but also need to cast an eye towards the future.

Judy: In talking with people, be careful to clearly represent the status of where the discussion is. very exploratory, just about requirements.
... remember to remind people that WCAG 2.0 is stable and will be for the foreseeable future.
... Even the requirements discussion will take quite a bit of time, and any emerging from that discussion will take even longer,

Josh: Agree with Judy. Particularly as we manage the transition to new chairs.

David: suggest including in charter that there will be no revision of WCAG 2.0.

Michael: We are not talking about revising WCAG 2.0. The requirements discussion would be about potential successors.
... Even republishing to address errata is out of scope of this charter (and also seems to introduce other problems).

Peter: with the draft that is being considered, is there any barrier to continuing to collect and publish errata?

Michael: it is called out under Scope 1.a - maintain errata.
... they don't have normative impact, and so far we have only document editorial errata.

Judy: Collecting and logging errata is a normal part of W3C process.

Review of charter

Mission section is required.

Paragraph enabling Task Forces, since they can be useful, but only operate under the working group.

Success Criteria section identifies how to evaluate whether the group is being successful.

The Out of Scope section identifies things that the group will not be taking on.

If there were Rec work, Milestones would include timeline of the milestones for that work.

participation is usually boilerplate, but there is an expected level of participation. Towards the bottom, things get more and more boilerplate.

Make sure the charter and scope sections seem appropriate.

Peter: where do the existing task forces and their deliverable go?

Judy: in charters, it is not typical to call out specific task forces, since the charters are usually a longer span than most task forces.
... For example, the WCAG2ICT is likely to be concluded before even a short charter timeframe would be concluded..
... Generally, the task force structure is good to have on a fluid basis.

Michael: I would be reluctant to call out specific task forces, but the scope allows us to form task forces.
... In Other Deliverables, "less formal publications" is the hook for task force deliverables.

Peter: I'm also thinking about the Evaluation Task Force.

(Discussion of what might be added, where, to cover task forces in the charter).

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that for a future task force with the goals of WCAG2ICT we'd justify that under meeting the goals of supporting WCAG implementation

<Joshue108> +q

Judy: Current task force wording is pulled pretty directly from the W3C process document.

[Walkthrough of the current draft]

<korn> +1

Judy asks how the group feels about requirements gathering.

Positive responses...

<Joshue108> LGR: This is the right time to be thinking about these issues.

Gregg: The future is coming at us pretty fast.

Draft charter will be put out for survey, for discussion next week.

Peter: clarification about Loretta's remarks on 2ICT about referencing the task force. Was this the general sense of the WG?

<Joshue108> LGR: I saw Judys reply and agreed with it.

Peter: a search for the word "task force" shows that it is riddled with it.

<Joshue108> LGR: Also Michaels comment about writing in the third person is good.

<Joshue108> LGR: I think the empahsis on the outcome rather than the process is important.

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

07 May 2013

Attendees

Contents

Charter

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output