See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2015
<Joshue> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2015
<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<AWK> Scribe: Laura
JOC: Posiitve feeback.
…if you need more time let us know.
AWK: One comment from a reviewer on scope.
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/2015/08/draft-wcag-charter
<Joshue> FYI here is the current diff http://www.w3.org/2015/08/draft-wcag-charter
“Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Edited Recommendation to incorporate editorial errata only (Recommendation);”
“out of Scope: The WG will not publish a revision of WCAG 2.0;”
AWK: a lot of simplified
language. Tried to make it readable.
... we could take out first bullet.
MC: We can either reword it or remove it.
JOC: Concerned it is connected to other things.
… Any objection to removing it?
<Mike_Elledge> +q
MC: If people are comfortable with the intent, we trust the chairs proceeding discussing with Judy etc. We are not doing a WCAG 2.1 or 3.0.
David: Suggests slight change. Can make it harder but not easier.
Mike: Would rewording first bullet delay the process?
<jon_avila> * I agree with Mike
AWK: It could either one way or the other. Could just empower the chairs.
Mike: Better to be more explicit.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to disagree with David's comment as we covered this earlier
<Joshue> Re Davids comment, I think the current text is ok, and prefer it to Davids suggestion.
Wayne: Out scope bullet is clear. It should be reassuring. Maybe we can set a date when editorial work is complete.
JOC: agree.
Jon: Bullet says 2.0 won’t be updated. Recommends what David said and an addendum.
David: Change slightly “Ensure that while extensions may or may not redefine aspects of WCAG 2.0 within the context of the extension, no extension will affect the validity of any WCAG 2.0 claim;”
<AWK> The deliverable for extensions says "Extension specifications to add normative content accessibility requirements to the WCAG 2.0 base for topics identified as priorities according to the Working Group scope (Recommendation);" This doesn't require an extension for digital learning materials
David: add the word “may”
... We may or may not be working on any of the extensions.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we should avoid any changes not reqested by AC commenters (unless they´re changes on the changes)
JOC: yes
MC: Important as we are talking about adjusting the charter we are only looking at charges brought up by the advisory board.
<AWK> "The WG will not publish a revision of WCAG 2.0 other than the identified Edited Recommendation to incorporate Editorial Errata only."
JOC: will propose some text.
<Joshue> The WG will not publish a revision of WCAG 2.0 but may publish a revised recommendation to include editorial errata.
<Joshue> The WG will not publish a revision of WCAG 2.0 but may publish an edited recommendation to include editorial errata.
<Joshue> The WG will not publish a revision of WCAG 2.0 but may publish an edited recommendation with editorial errata.
<Joshue> Apart from including errata, the WG will not publish a revision of WCAG 2.0
<Joshue> The WG will not publish a revision of WCAG 2.0 apart from editorial errata,
<Wayne> +1
AWK: Can editors and chairs work on this?
<Ryladog> +1
laura: +1
<yatil> +1
<Louis> +1
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Kathy> +1
<marcjohlic> +1
<Kenny> +1
RESOLUTION: Working group is not opposed to charter and empower the chairs to settle the wording in 1.2 scope.
<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy
JOC: consensus for the document.
Marc: Will the "Call for Consensus" e-mails be a separate e-mail thread and have a specific Subject line indicator to make them stand out ("[CfC]" or similar)?
AWK: yes. One CFC at a time is good practice.
laura: Will Task force will be following same policy?
JOC: Yes.
<AWK> Perhaps we change "The Call will contain pointers to the relevant discussion." to "The Call be for a single topic and will contain pointers to the relevant discussion."
<Mike_Elledge> +1
laura: +1
<Joshue> [CFC]
<marcjohlic> +1
<Joshue> The Call be for a single topic and will contain pointers to the relevant discussion and the subject will contain [CFC]
<AWK> The Call be for a single topic, will clearly indicate that it is a Call for Consensus, and will contain pointers to the relevant discussion.
<marcjohlic> +1
<Joshue> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<Kathy> +1
<Mike_Elledge> +1
laura: +1
<David> +1
<Wayne> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept new decision policy
<jon_avila> * I have to jump off for another call
<Wayne> I must leave now.
<Joshue> Issue 109: SCR19: This can cover onchange on checkbox / radio besides select controls
<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/109
SCR19: This can cover onchange on checkbox / radio besides select controls
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/109
JOC: reads Adam’s comments
<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/SCR19.html
AWK: Example is not authored at
this point. It is useful as is could be expanded. Worried about
side affects.
... Worries about broadening it.
... If changing it, would strip it down.
MC: Not enough information to approve. Direction is okay.
AWK: We need pull request or wiki page with changes.
RESOLUTION: Leave Open
<Joshue> Issue 108: New draft technique SCR26: Inserting dynamic content into the Document Object Model (DOM) in a manner that preserves meaning and operability
SCR26: Inserting dynamic content into the Document Object Model (DOM) in a manner that preserves meaning and operability.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/108
<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/108
AWK: Recalls reason for keeping separate. Would like input from Marc and Jon.
RESOLUTION: Leave Open
<Joshue> Issues 101 and 101: H65 Combined Github comments
Conflict between glossary definition of label and H65 sufficient technique for 3.3.2
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/101
H65 Technique is Invalid and Abused to Allow Disappearing Placeholders Over Visible Labels
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/100
<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/101
<Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/100
AWK: If the meaning of the control is evident, it should be okay. Maybe update the test procedure.
<Ryladog> +1 t what David said....
David: Maybe require visible by
default or on focus.
... H65 is the only place that gives the green light.
JOC: We don’t want to be perceptive.
David: Worthwhile to look at.
<AWK> Possible #4 for the procedure: Check that the purpose of the control is visually apparent and matches the purpose as indicated by the title attribute.
Katie: Technologies change and we need to address.
RESOLUTION: Leave Open
<Mike_Elledge> Bye all!
<Makoto> Bye!
trackbot, end meeting
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/cam/can/ Succeeded: s/ie H/ie_H/ Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Default Present: EricE, Laura, AWK, Srinivasu_Chakravarthula, Kathy, jon_avila, kenny, adam_solomon, David_MacDonald, Katie, Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, Bruce_Bailey, Josh, Louis, Makoto, MacDonald, Joshue, wayne, marcjohlic Present: EricE Laura AWK Srinivasu_Chakravarthula Kathy jon_avila kenny adam_solomon David_MacDonald Katie Haritos-Shea MichaelC Bruce_Bailey Josh Louis Makoto MacDonald Joshue wayne marcjohlic David Kenny Katie_Haritos-Shea Regrets: Srinivasu Found Date: 15 Sep 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]