See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 31 March 2015
<Kenny> hi
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<scribe> Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
<scribe> ScribeNick: Ryladog
<scribe> Meeting: WCAG Working Group Teleconference
AWK: Two people will not be there, some will be there, many would like to be at TPAC 2015
AWK: Not sure if it will happen at this time
DM: Unlikely that I will attend
AWK: 1 new in GH #86 around keyboard heading navigation. Someone says heading supporting for UA is not existent - who can look into this
DM: I can
<AWK> http://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/page-structure/
AWK: Did you get a chance to
review for technical issues
... Do not worry about the philosophical differences
AWK; We just want to ensure that there is no erroneous info in here
AWK: Loretta and and Mark J. , anyone esle?
KW: I did but I do not have my notes. I will find them
AWK: Any big errors?
KW: A couple of small things in the code I forget but will review my notes
AWK: Mark?
MJ: Om initial pages I see no issue , but I have just started
AWK: Lorreta, you thought it was good
LGR: Yes
AWK: Eric would like to publish
this tutorial - in a skim I did not see anything glaring. I
like the content structure
... Page section content has HTML5 and ARIA role content that
is brought into the mix. I feel personally, with Loretta and my
review that we should have much concern
... I think it is OK, how do others feel?
DM: This look like a best
practices document here...
... where they have the navigation elements
<yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/page-structure/sections/#labeling-sections
<yatil> ^^DavidMacD
DM: Role=navigation, not many sites have just one navigation role. So I think it needs ARIA
<Joshue108> -q
AWK: Should it add some text for multple naav to add ARIA label
DM: Yes, at least we should have
an example
... How important is having a role
... + nav when you have an HTML5 nav with the role of Nav
JO: OK I have the same concener
<Joshue108> How about 'It can be used multiple times on a page, and aria-label can also be used to distinguish them appropriately'.
DM: This will be come the
quintessential way to do things...we have this opportunity here
to do that
... I am just taking a quick look at this time
<Joshue108> It can be used multiple times on a page, and aria-label should be used to distinguish them appropriately'
DM: I do not rea;ly have time to review this, sorry
AWK: I do not think it is Davids
responsibility to reiveiw this
... Can we accept the revies we have
<AWK> CHange to "When the nav element is used multiple times on a page each nav element should be identified" ?
JO: Eric is talking about issues ith IE11 and this nav issues, so we should include that info
AWK: Maybe identify seconday labels
JO: I am not particularly a fan of primary secondary etc
KW: I found my list of review
EE: It is clear that we should use aria-label and we could have some compatability info - as an option
AWK: OK. Kathy
<Kathy> http://w3c.github.io/wai-tutorials/page-structure/headings/
KW: In the headings section - my question is do it with H1, should we say ideally H1 and take out H2
KHS: I agree
+1
DM: I agree
AWK: Maybe we should remove this last senetnce entirely
<Joshue108> +1 to AWK
AWK: Say use the highest heading available
AWK; Is it OK to ask you to do what EO just asked you NOT to do?
EE: Sure. I amthe buffer
AWK: What do we think?
... Changes can happen after it is published
... We may never be able to reach perfection.......:-) Are we
comfortable for WCAG to say this is good enough to go?
... or should we review it and who?
DM: Maybe I can. Eric have you found any browser that supports the Q element? I havent.
JO: We should keep it in for coverage and one day UA should support the specs that have it
AWK: There is benefits for using
it now - even though it might not be supported in SC, but it
will be supported for other users
... Do any SC read the CSS generated content
DM: No
JO: Of course they do
JN: If it is just using the virtual buffer it will not, but other wise it should
DM; But it did not show up in the DOM
DM: But it is not reading it.
JN: But it is in the AAPI
<Mike_Elledge> Trust, but verify!
AWK: David may have some time today
DM: The only thing that stuck out was tis and caption - so I amy have a few
<marcjohlic> +1
<Joshue108> +1 to AWK
AWK: Can we say that we are OK with this progressing towards being published - knoing that Davisd will provide some comment today. Are we commfortable with this?
EE: It is not about Publication today. There is still going to be another round of revieew before publishing
AWK; OK great, I was misinformed
<Loretta> brb
<Mike_Elledge> +1
AWK We provide comments - hopefully other will tale a look at it and provide comments - so that next time Eric asked for publication we will be ready to go
<yatil> 👍
AWK: This is the mail item that
we talk about
... There were several formal objection to WAI charters - with
7 formal objections - as a result there is alot of
scrutiny.
... The consensus is that the world is ready for normative work
in WCAG
... We are not talking about WCAG 3 - but are talking about
shorter documents that are extension documents. The first would
be Mobile Touch
... that would extend WCAG> Perhaps in the future folks
would say "I want to adopt WCAG2 plus X extension"
... so that will free us up to do normative work. Technique and
Understanding docs would be needed for the extensions
... You can see from the charter
... Also in scope is developing the normative extensions in
several areas, we can add them. Badnwidth will be our limiter
here
... LOw Vision needs a more defined affort
... Further ahead further down the road , more 2020, and then
coordinating with other groups in W3C. We still can have task
forces
... Deliverable: Tej Understanding and Techniques
... Editor REq by the end of the year
... We expect alot tto come from Cognitive and Mobile work.
Targeting a Mobile Extension
... New REq by April 2018
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to provide background on the non-web point
MC: I wanted to try to fast track the comments questioning excluding non-web content. I tried to look into the background of this
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/14-wai-wcag-minutes
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/2013/06/04-wai-wcag-minutes
MC: I thought that Judy had asked
us to add this. But I was wrong. It was the WG that wanted to
add this. There were meerting where we talked about this
... Judy wants to not have that limitation as well
... And Loretta agrees now
... So I think we can come to consensus on this quickly to oepn
up that limitation
KW: WHat is the Mobile
scope?
... How will those dates flow together and where they came
from?
MC: We tried to toss some milestones into the air - because we have to have them in the document. We needd to now have those converstaions.
Management likes to have Reqs completed in a charter cycle. Please give us better suggestions
MC: A fPWD dos not have to be super mature to publish. We can sgue for some later daye
KW: We are working on techniques. We have something. As long as the expectation is something. A skeleton. Then that is OK
MC: That is OK. The first draft might have a bifg section that is Requirements
AWK: There is 23 months between
FPWD and CR
... It is a new review process
MC: I think it is better to have multiple WD to get pleny of feedback
AWK: So, we have liaison in here
- the WAI coordination is going to be removed
... Questions, comments, thoughts?
MC: To answer David we left that open on person as to who we would liaise with
DM: OK
AWK: MaryJo has a comment,
MC: I dont know it might be a good comment
AWK: Maybe review the WCAG2ICT
note in light of exstensions
... I worry about having enough time - it should be on th
radar
MC: If we are going to publish the charter wwith some escape langauge. If we think we might updayte WCAG2ICT then we should put in ino tht eRquirmenets with milestones
AWK; We can re-invigorate a Task force to review that
MC: We have to have something in
the charet allowing us to publish it
... It should be listed as the Understanding and Techniques
KHS: I agree...but hate that I do
AWK: What do others thinks?
MC: This is a level of baeocracy that most peoeple dont worry about
AWK: With WCAG 2 being stable. This is just an update - and WCAG 2 WCAG2ICT Extension
MC: Maybe we should put in
updated guidance on HOw do WCAG guidance extend to non-web
items - that might give us some protection
... Last bullet at the end of Item 2 in the Scope section
... Guidance for how WCAG 2.0 extensions could apply to non-web
content if needed
AWK: Where would this go
... A new bullet right before # 3 in the Scope section
MC: I guess as needed is
good
... I think this will give us coverage if needed
<marcjohlic> +1
+1
AWK: Any thoughts or questions?
<Kenny> +1
AWK: This week there is the first
meeting with W3C team and trying to resolve the comments that
were made that resulted in formal objections
... What are the suggestions for WCAG, ATAG, UAAG, etc
... If we can say at that meeting we can say through our
charter that - that we could address all of th formal objection
commenst that came in against WAI
... The most point was WCAG2 is falling behind and think we
need new normative work - we want to satisfy those needs with
our new charter text
... We need to be prepared to say yes, we are willing to do
this
MC: With these changes it would
go for a review with the Advisory Committee which will be more
than a months
... If it goes through - all mmebers will be asked to re-join
the working group. Be prepared for that
... My experience we end up losing important participants
... So please prepare for this with your comapnies
AWK: Are there any objection to this charter?
RESOLUTION: WE will send this Charter to the W3C Advisory Committee for further revie
s/firther revie/further revieww
AWK: It is very exciting. Thank you.
I have that same excitement
AWK: That might cover our
agenda
... Thank you everyone, We ill keep providing updates
... We are not meeting next Thursday - but Teusday wew will at
this time
... There are comments that can be revieiwed etc until we
know
MC: The working group is formally extended until May 18th
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/thpught/thought/ Succeeded: s/secodary/secondary/ Succeeded: s/avaible/available/ Succeeded: s/that e/that we/ Succeeded: s/DI/Di/ Succeeded: s/docuiments/documents/ Succeeded: s/I treid o look/I tried to look/ Succeeded: s/though tthat/thought that/ Succeeded: s/agrrees/agrees/ Succeeded: s/nbetter/better/ Succeeded: s/CM: I giess/MC: I guess/ Succeeded: s/p.B/p. B/ Succeeded: s/Chater/Charter/ Succeeded: s/sned/send/ Succeeded: s/Commitee/Committee/ Succeeded: s/firther/further/ FAILED: s/firther revie/further review/ Succeeded: s/further revie/further review/ Found Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea Found ScribeNick: Ryladog Present: AWK Marc_Johlic Kathy_Wahlbin David_MacDonald Katie_Haritos-Shea EricE Kenny Michael_Cooper Joshue Mike_Elledge marcjohlic David Loretta Kathy MichaelC Joshue108 yatil MarkS Kenny Found Date: 31 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]