Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 15 Mar 2016

<AWK_> Scribe: jon_Avila

Future guidelines work discussion

QuickRef Survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2016quickrefapproval/results)

awk: looking to publish by CSUN the updates to quickref
... looks like between EO and WCAG have approved with some minor comments about link to previous version

yatil: older version will be in a date space, each one will point to the other with a box at top right. Old will be available -- but not sure how long

awk: Short and most publicized link will go to new one - there will be a link to the old one. We would only hopefully focus on updating new one.

david: got good reports yesterday when he was teaching
... question about CPATCHA being being first

erice: may be a bug he can take care of

david: do others like cross out of tags?

awk: Kim also commented on that as it could be confusing for some

erice: contrast was too low on other states -- so cross out was compromise. Open for discussion in future

david: wonder if we can give Eric editorial freedom to change things without going through formal process

awk: Any other thoughts?
... Any objections to approve the publication of the new How to meet resource?

david: applause for Eric

<laura> Thanks Eric. Great work.

awk: still need to go through WCAG CFC process. Would imagine it would go through well. Will send out after this call. Should then be closed by 12:35 on Thursday

RESOLUTION: Approve publication of WCAG quickref

michaelC: Plan to announce quickref on Thursday with some other materials for WCAG.

awk: Lisa not here at moment to talk about COGA updates. Possibly due to time change
... sent out another survey for attendance to TPAC

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGTPAC2016/

TPAC survey

<AWK_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGTPAC2016/

awk: trying to get additional information about what we are going to do at TPAC
... will send around to task forces as well. We will likely need some joint time together

kathy: important to know if we are doing things for the task force. The sooner we know that is important

awk: might be too soon to have a lot of content to talk about at CSUN. But come TPAC there should be a lot of material to target and meet together to finish that off if it is not already completed

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to mention CSUN

jf: was some discussion Monday about CSUN about what we are planning to do and share that at CSUN
... group met on Monday and plan to meet again Friday to talk about future of guidelines. Sent out info on lists
... based on where we were on Friday would look at doing something at CSUN to share thought process and get feedback. Still committed to reporting to group on April 5

awk: to wrap up TPAC, any other questions?

CSUN

awk: regarding CSUN. No official CSUN meeting. No call next week as people are out and traveling. But as far as work you, Sarah, Alistair, and others are invovled with that sounds great. Won't be at CSUN until Wednesday evening
... no official room or anything

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next

jf: just pasted wiki page where we are collecting work
... could setup space at Deque or TPG. Try to earmark specific time. Involve everyone to get into discussion. Doesn't have to be constrained to time or timeframe

awk: any questions?
... question that came up to Judy as email called it a workshop about a new version. We need to clarify what it is and future development and making proposals for consideration

jf: can work on draft email to share with awk and then share more widely

awk: Lisa just joined

COGA update

Lisa: came before for first working draft roadmap, links to references, and it had been suggested that try to bring those documents to draft together,
... We have some edited version of gap analysis and roadmap document and points to wiki page with latest version of papers. Running into CSUN time and some editorial work to be done. Not yet ready to come back to the group
... hoping in next two weeks documents will be ready to come back to WCAG WG and then later for issues papers for publications. So don't want to delay all papers for some that aren't ready
... Working on large tables to point back to dependent documents. Apologize for the delay

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/index.html

lisa: some items that have not made it onto list

awk: anything you Lisa need from us?

lisa: we want to meet at TPAC
... will need meeting room so we can talk to different groups

awk: Do think we will have a need for the main working group to discuss the new and existing success criteria. There seems like a lot of value in a substantial chunk of time to meet jointly with WCAG

<AWK_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGTPAC2016/

awk: Does COGA need it's own space for portion of time and then join WCAG for portion of time

lisa: would like time as TF to work around tricky issues. We could meet at ends and then meet with other groups in middle

<Joshue> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 15 March 2016

MichaelC: COGA is sponsored by two working groups -- space is allocated to working groups. May then request 4 days of rooms and then allocate between WG and TFs

awk: will email with TF chairs around that
... Thank you Lisa for your update

Timelines planning

awk: timelines planning. Really and update about conversations that we were having. (Michael, Josh, and myself) and trying to figure out possible implications of different options such as WCAG 2.1, etc. 3.0, etc.
... and to include errata. Thinking that we could decide to go with 2.1 route. Would be possible but agressive to have solid draft in 9 months.
... and at the same time having requirements for a 3.0 around that same time. That's basically around the end of the year.
... that means we would need first draft of requirements in 3 months from now

<JF> ak JF

should look at edited recommendation before that -- edited req in June -- send out for public review prior to that.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask Andrew how this discussion and the workshop work we are doing now integrate?

awk: seems agressive. Seems like there is a lot of work and parallel work. Also meets rechartering WCAG in a year and getting these done in the process. Nothing decided or determined. Just in the spirit of being aware we wanted to update you.
... think about some of possible things that might come up from JF's work so we can anticipate that.

jf: sounds like three things, WCAG 2.1, 3.0, and potential rechartering. Do those need to be linked. Can we start working on first and thoughts on second so that when the old charter expires the new charter can be handled.

Katie: there is also errata, etc. and other things
... can we start working on those now without recharter?

michaelC: we don't have to recharter to do exploratory work. Current charter does not expire for 2.5 years. Getting signals that we should recharter sooner.

lisa: How does this affect extensions

<Ryladog> I am on this task force/group

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG

awk: part of the plan is that all of the work the TF are doing will be integrated -- how it will be integrated is what we will be discussion. For example, some would be at 2.1 level and some at a 3.0 level

lisa: put in link of WCAG proposal that they are updating.

michaelc: extensions inform what we are looking at

awk: more specifically we need the delta - what is missing at a fine grain level

michaelC: would like to see us publish extension. One way is to try to publish extensions.

josh: +1 to michaelC as we chartered to do that and that would help us understand. We would like to see something sooner than later. No pressure for perfect things -- but we want to see candidates

<Kathy> https://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/

jf: at risk of sounding like a broken record. Can we get clear definition of extension. See people producing extension and it includes techniques and success criteria.

josh: Yes, that's it, it extensions the reach of WCAG

jf: not seen how we will deal with conflicts

<David> An extension is a list of Guidelines, success criteria, techniques, and best practices that go beyond the requirements of WCAG 2

josh: if we produce the candidates then we can see the conflicts and measure the conflict and proposals

jf: all I can say with respect that we are getting cart in front of horse. Asking people to publish SC

josh: Yes, let's publish draft. Until we put them forth we can't see conflicts

jf: when I hear publish I hear taking it to rec

josh: that is premature

<Wayne> Wayne-

<David> An extension is a list of Guidelines, success criteria, techniques, and best practices that go beyond the requirements of WCAG 2

david: like to propose a def of an extension. A list of guidesline, SC, techniques, and BP that go beyond the requirements of WCAG 2

<AWK_> Disagree

awk: disagree with that
... extensions are normative, so it would not include techniques and best practices, it would be success criteria and how they fit into the guidelines.

<Ryladog> +1 SCs and new GLs

awk: new guidelines and new SC and conformance details

david: don't disagree with that -- in WCAG we also have non-normative resources that we would need

awk: the extension is the normative documents, the techniques would be separate resources that support

david: no disagreement there

jf: just heard Josh saying we wouldn't go to rec so they are not normative

<Ryladog> in the end, the will be

jf: is the goal to define normative language. If they are experiments we can't say they are normative.

michaelC: we are allowed to publish rec track documents that could be abandoned. It allows and to some point requires us to publish on the rec track

awk: primary fruits of TF are to find out where the items fit into WCAG 2.1, WCAG 3 or somewhere else. WE need to find where the requirements slot into
... if we can't get approval for 2.1 then we have to look for extensions because it is the best available route.
... if we can get approval for 2.1 then we have made our case to others that we need it and those additions would be routed through that channel instead.

jf: hearing all kinds of contradictions. Sometimes need to let the group do the good work. Love seeing the proposed SC language
... concerned about user specific criteria
... that has not gone through WCAG WG to evaluate how it works for other users.
... let's talk at CSUN and present on April 5th and continue discussion

awk: not willing to tell people to stop before we figure things out. We want them to continue.

jf: support that statement -- don't want to stop forward movement

katie: most SC are aimed at user group.

Jon_avila: Disagree that SC are based on a user group. Many apply across groups

wayne: when we run into conflict we need to allow for adjustment -- conflict means we have to have solve problem to structure data so we can meet different user's needs

lisa: if you are meeting and relevant to extension could you do it on a day that I work and send me an invite

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next

jf: we met on Monday, we will met at 9am Friday Boston time.

<Lisa_Seeman> my voice is gone

<Lisa_Seeman> there is also a clock change

<Lisa_Seeman> so it might be 4

Github issues

<AWK_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues

awk: need people to jump in and sign up
... Have one on table captions submitted by Sailesh
... Any volunteers? Anyone who loves tables?
... 149 is around ARIA 7 and ARIA 9 and other user agent support
... do we need to update the accessibility support info for all of these techniques
... who feels passionately, should we let that go for a while, or solicite outside assistance

josh: could ask responder to provide suggestions

david: never intended to be gate keepers of accessibility support database. We thought someone was going to take this one and the database never rally happened. It's not really our role.
... recommend doing boilerplate across AT support section to indicate that you need to do your own testing.

awk: assigned to Josh so you can provide response and then we need to settle proposal with working group

josh: asked him to provide some suggestions to group. Not sure we have the bandwidth to do at the AT database project

awk: 131 C7 - change needed in CSS code. Kathy had commented about providing code for visually hiding content.

* people must be on mute

<Joshue> it does

<Wayne> assign me.

awk: got a bunch that are ready for survey. Some are thorny issues and may require a lot of work to fix something
... a solution might be document it now but we can't deal with it now but will deal with it in the future.

<Srini> Enjoy CSUN those of you going.

<Srini> Sadly I won't be there this time

awk: see some people at CSUN. JF are organizing a meeting for Friday and we will talk after CSUN at normal time

<AWK_> thanks Alistair

JF: Won't be changing time - we will put out meetings. Trying best o keep open and public.

<AWK_> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

15 Mar 2016

Attendees

Contents