<trackbot> Date: 16 July 2013

<Joshue> Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ARIATechs_June21_2013/results

<MichaelC> scribe: korn

WCAG review of 'Using aria-describedby' technique

<David> Programmatically associated http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html

<AWK> The aria-describedby attribute provides a way to programmatically associate text that is on the page with an object such as an image.

Agreement to drop the sentence: "This is called a "programmatic association" in WCAG 2."

RESOLUTION: Drop the sentence "This is called a "programmatic association" in WCAG 2." from "Using aria-describedby" technique

<Loretta> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/ARIA

<AWK> Suggest: Using ARIA Describedby to provide descriptions of objects that can be read by assistive technology

RESOLUTION: Change the title of this technique to "Using ARIA Describedby to provide descriptions of objects"

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it seems like we might want a user agent note about this

<David> http://wet-boew.github.io/wet-boew/demos/datepicker/datepicker-eng.html no role= application

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to suggest that Example 5 seems sufficiently complex and require extra explanation that perhaps we should remove it and then structure a different technique around

<AWK> Proposal: Remove Example 5 and suggest the ARIA TF create a separate technique for describedby with role=application

<Loretta> We need a technique "providing keyboard access to widgets implemented with role=application.

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

RESOLUTION: Remove Example 5 and suggest the ARIA TF create a separate technique for describedby with role=application

<David> separately

RESOLUTION: accept as amended

<Joshue> Scribe: Joshue

Instituational Memory https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20120716_im/results

<AWK> On this call we covered the first item on this survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ARIATechs_June21_2013/results). Will address other items next week.

MC: The idea of this exercise, its that it is apparent that there was a lot of discussion on getting WCAG to the way it is.
... Due to turnover of people etc we have a lot of info that has been lost, many things need to be preserved.
... We therefore try to collect some of this knowledge before it disappears.
... Much of the detailed discussion isn't available partially due to WG scribing style.
... Theres a lot of info in peoples heads so we want to collect that as best we can. This is experimental, we don't know what will be effective.
... If we can collect the groups memories then this will be useful.
... This is an attemp to walk through the guidelines in an organised manner, this survey just asks 'What do you remember about x?'
... We are open to other ideas about how to do this, and if it's useful.
... We propose to limit discussion to a max of 30 mins per week. It may take a few months to get through but will help with future requirements gathering.
... Not many have filled in the survey - what do people think about this?

AWK: I like the idea of doing this incrementally...

MC: Does anyone think this isn't a good use of time?

DMacD: Time is limited..

MC: Does anyone else share this thought?

LGR: I think it's a good idea, but if we spend a lot of time on it - I'd be concerned spending too much time on it.
... Where would it live?

MC: We could create a wiwi?
... zakim, mute me
... People at least passively think it could be valuable..
... Does anyone thing this is a top priority?
... Should it be last priority behing all the other stuff we are doing?
... Sounds like a soft support of a limited investigation of Inst Memory.
... Are there better ways to do this? Any other ideas?

LGR: One question would be if we can target people who were around?

MC: What questions should we ask?

LGR: Should we contact people like Andi, Alex Li, John from MicroS etc

MC: Should we just ping them, and ask them what they think? We could structure survey permissions etc..
... We could schedule calls and interview people..

LGR: Sounds more resource intensive..

MC: We should spend some time on this, reach out, ask them how they would like to participate etc..

<AWK> ok

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

JN: maybe ask the current WG members what questions they have to pose to people who were around

<AWK> James: What if we asked the working group to generate questions as prompts for WG to gather reponses?

Chairs and staff contact will try a wiki version of this collection process and run by group next week

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Topic WCAG review of 'Using aria-describedby' technique/Topic: WCAG review of 'Using aria-describedby' technique/
Succeeded: s/regrets: Bruce_Bailey, Kathy_Wahlbin/regrets: Bruce_Bailey, Kathy_Wahlbin, Cherie/
Succeeded: s|ScribeNick: Peter Korn|Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ARIATechs_June21_2013/results|
Succeeded: s/Scribe Peter_Korn//
Succeeded: s/scribeNick: korn/scribe: korn/
Found Scribe: korn
Inferring ScribeNick: korn
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Found Scribe: Joshue
Inferring ScribeNick: Joshue
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Scribes: korn, MichaelC, Joshue
ScribeNicks: korn, MichaelC, Joshue
Default Present: Joshue, Michael_Cooper, AWK, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, +1.650.506.aaaa, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, James_Nurthen
Present: Joshue Michael_Cooper AWK Loretta_Guarino_Reid +1.650.506.aaaa Peter_Korn David_MacDonald James_Nurthen
Regrets: Bruce_Bailey Kathy_Wahlbin Cherie
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013JulSep/0018.html
Found Date: 16 Jul 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/07/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.