See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Wayne
How do I go from topic to topic and how do I keep comments out of the minutes?
<AWK> Chair: AWK
<AWK> +AWK
<AWK> Scribe: Wayne
<Mike_Elledge> +Mike Elledge
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ext_req_comments/
AWK: We have an attendance survey
and it helps project.
... please fill out the survey.
AWK: Have received not additional
comments. Relates to people's concerns that the extensions will
be optional. If we just take out the word optional we are not
representing the document properly.
... If you are working for X-corp it can make it required, but
all w3 documents are optional.
... Leaving it in represents what the document is doing. I have
change my comment because it is desireable because it is
accurate. Would like other peoples comments.
+1
Adam: I like the way David said it. Must discuss discussion. It is not optional if you do not want to conform it is optional. If you want to conform it is not optional. Standing alone optional is too ambiguous.
Greg: Worked early on
accessibility with MS, and has worked on many WGs. Now I can do
it.
... I would vote to accept. Most is my concern giving the term
optional calls out the particular document
AWK: WCAG itself does not refer to itself as optional. Only the conformance claims are optional.
??: Extensions are opti0nal relative to WCAG 2, but not conversely.
josh: We are not trying to hide these are option. We place it in the abstract and moved somewhere else as to how it relates to conformance.
<AWK> Currently in status: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, optional modules that add accessibility guidance to the base of WCAG 2.0."
AWK: This would be the place it would appear. Speaking about approach is better approach. (David)
Laura: Just use it verbatum.
josh: I don't see what else it is adding.
<laura> “for those who claim conformance to them.”
<Joshue108> +1 to davids
insert the words "for those who claim conformance to them..."
+1
<Greg> +1
<laura> +1
<AWK> Quick try at adding: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, optional modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0. Extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them. Conformance to WCAG 2.0 by itself does not mandate conformance to these extension
<AWK> s"
<AWK> this one: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0. Extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them. Conformance to WCAG 2.0 by itself does not mandate conformance to these extensions."
<Kathy> +1
<adam_solomon> Conformance to WCAG 2.0 on its own does not mandate conformance to these extensions."
<laura> +1
+1
<yatil> s/Quick try at adding: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, optional modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0. Extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them. Conformance to WCAG 2.0 by itself does not mandate conformance to
<yatil> these extension//
adam: Inserts an alternative
<marcjohlic> +1
AWK: Are there objections?
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 like
<yatil> +1 – I like it
<Mike_Elledge> +1
like
<Greg> +1
RESOLUTION: We sent this wording to the list.
AWK: We will be talking about and
will continue...
... We may take up UAAG and ATAG issues. There is not too much
to discuss. But we may come back with topics and keep the group
up to date.
MichaelC: We need to make a considered proposal before we discuss it.
AWK: Feel that the draft should mention jQuery. In the live example you can see jQuery. We will not change because jQuery is not essential.
MichealC: Our general practice without adding reason.
MikeE: I think it may be useful when we mention something like jQuery is being used.
AWK: In this case the example is from the open AJAX alliance. They have an example that uses jQuery in the code.
<AWK> ARIA5: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA5.html
??: Our example has jQuery in the code. That was linked, not out code.
MichealC: There is jQuery code but it is not relevant to the technique.
MikeE: For people who are not experts it is important. If it uses jQuery for tasks, it is important to use the reference. It could require a lot of information.
adam: I feel it is not a real world problem to anyone.
<marcjohlic> +1
AWK: My problem is the technique
requires jQuery. This is to display the ARIA. It could give the
wrong impression.
... Based on principle of not making changes when not
necessary. This is more than editorial. How would you like to
handle it.
MichaelC: This person is looking for consistency.
adam: what if that person wants this consistently could they do it.
josh: Should we just suggest that he submit his full changes?
<AWK> "Proposed response for WG: We keep the examples as simple as possible, and JQuery is not critical for the clarification of the important points in the technique, so we are not making a change at this time. Consistency of this type between techniques is good but is not an absolute requirement. If you would like to submit a pull request with specific changes we will consider them."
<marcjohlic> +1
<laura> +1
+1
<jamesn> +1
<Kathy> +1
<Joshue108> +1
<MichaelC> +1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 ok
<Greg> +1
<yatil> +1
<Mike_Elledge> +1
RESOLUTION: We send the wording above to the list for consensus.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/150
RESOLUTION: Pass the wording of the response to the list for consensus.
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/148
AWK: Not all of our UA comments
are correct. They are too old. Josh's comment discusses
changes.
... This is a lot of work, to keep up with all UA.
James: if we are to add comments,
make sure mobiles are missing.
... I am not sure if we only list the supported releases.
MichaelC: Should we make a change or notes for an edit.
josh: anyone with improvements could include them.
<jamesn> i have lost sound
AWK: How would WAI ARIA respond to helping us change the techniques for ARIA technology.
james: They would probably say we have no time. If someone had interest.
MichaelC: We need to note that WCAG cannot maintain this, but other groups do not have similar priority.
josh: The thing is work in
general, but there are problems with details.
... we don't want to create documents that address Firefox X
and Jaws Y.
james: Maybe we should just chop the old versions.
AWK: Our options are: say sorry
cannot do it or ask ARIA WG to do it, or to have some people do
the work to review it.
... The task can be much larger. ... We know there is a depth
we are going to address. How do we do this in general.
mikeE: Maybe we should make a link to some active links that keep track of this, or is it vendor preference?
<laura> Powermapper people: http://www.powermapper.com/company/people/
<laura> Mark Rogers, CEO
MichaelC: We have strayed into a recurrent discussion. The accessibility support DB is supposed to be current. We might look to off source. We shouldn't make a pointer casually. But this is possible. I don't a vender question. We cannot say you must use this. We've given up on keepping up but here are some options.
<MichaelC> 503 on https://www.w3.org/WAI/accessibility-support/
AWK: Does anyone on the call
thinks the update ARIA is in the top 5 of things to do. Does
anyone want to allocate any time.
... My gut is we are not going to do anything about this.
MichaelC: If you want a change please submit a pull request. Get that out there. This is a public forum.
AWK: Can you submit a pull request.
RESOLUTION: Leave this one open.
AWK: I hope people feel encourages, but I am not sure if the know how.
Kathy: Should we get rid of HTML stuff should be a NO answer.
AWK: I there anyone on the call
who can give any time to any issues?
... Could everyone look at the list and take them on.
<David> regrets... I have to teach today.... on lunch now
<Mike_Elledge> bye all!
<Sarah_Swierenga> have a good week. bye
trackbot, draft minutes
<trackbot> Sorry, Wayne, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/present +Kathy// Succeeded: s/Zakir take up item 5// WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/Quick try at adding: "This is a First Public Working Draft of Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. It sets requirements for WCAG 2.0 extensions, optional modules that build on the existing requirements for WCAG 2.0. Extensions are designed to work in harmony with the WCAG 2.0. standard, for those who claim conformance to them. Conformance to WCAG 2.0 by itself does not mandate conformance to Succeeded: s/answere/answer/ Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Default Present: AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Jan, Rakesh, Eric, LisaS, Kathy, David_MacDonald, Joshue108, Srini, EricE, marcjohlic, adam_solomon, Greg_Lowney Present: AWK Josh wayne jon_avila JF Sarah_Swierenga MichaelC Katie Haritos-Shea JamesNurthen Laura Mike Elledge Jan Rakesh Eric LisaS Kathy David_MacDonald Joshue108 Srini EricE marcjohlic adam_solomon Greg_Lowney Wayne Sarah Found Date: 26 Jan 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]