<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Joshue108> Scribe list https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List0,00

<AWK_> +AWK

<Can_Wang> WebEx password?

<AWK_> Chair: AWK

<AWK_> Scribe: Jon_Avila

<scribe> scribe: jon_avila

* andrew can you mute Rakesh

awk: introduction of some new people on the call

CW: introduction from can_wang

<SteveRep> +Steve Repsher

jeanne: Jeanne has been very active in task forces and now works for TPG and is no longer an invited expert

awk: Also new is Steve Repsher
... just sent out email before the call some information that Michael, Andrew, and Josh sent out -- but it looks like it didn't make it out due to email issues.
... it's around what we are going to do with WCAG moving forward as a result of the meetings at CSUN and other items that Jeanne and John Foliot had

MC: worth re-sending

awk: will point to wiki page

<AWK_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/WCAG_future_proposal

awk: is anyone not in IRC? If people need it I can send it.
... about models moving forward and analysis of information collected.
... looking to propose the following as a direction and to discuss whether the group feels this is a good path forward.
... most positive comments on 2.2 and a cluster on 3.1
... option 1.1 - keep what we have in charter and add normative extensions

<SteveRep> My apologies for not speaking up - was having audio trouble

<davidmacdonald> drop in the url again... thx

awk: option 2.2 is to do a WCAG 2.x and pick a date when we would have it and when TF have SC ready and we would work to make sure they coordinate we would publish a 2.1 that would include SC that include SC from any TF as long as it was ready.
... that might mean one TF has all SC in and other has some or no -- all sorts of possible combinations and the goal is that TF know what the deadline is.
... 3.1 would mean we would consolodate all into a new WCAG to propose to W3C
... We have to do this in the context of a 3 year charter. Not as if we have a 10 year charter
... people seem to agree that normative work should not branch based on separate documents
... TF work is import and we want to get it out to people in a form they can use.
... suggestion to re-charter with permission to have WCAG 2.1 within 2 years. That means we would need to go through public review and address comments and make sure SC from TFs are ready in the 9 to 12 months to make sure it's all working well and fits into the requirements that have to exist
... possible that some SC might not make it into 2.1 or perhaps the items might move into AAA if the technology is not ready yet and at some point they could move into a higher priority level
... TF can produce non-normative notes. If mobile is done and has something is substantial and worth sharing with the web community that can be published as a non-normative note and best practices and that same advice would be what we are considering in 2.1 release
... important that we start on WCAG next planning -- not even sure what the term would even be and possibly include UAAG and ATAG. We would need to recharter before we did a WCAG 2.2.
... we'd need to determine how far out we are from the next WCAG -- what's changed in supprt, would we do a 2.2 or a next major release that we would focus on that.
... plan is to move forward with a 2.1 and then release that follows in timely fashion and that if we can't do major release then we woudl be ready to do a 2.2
... opportunity for people to comment or ask questions?

<alastairc> I'm happy with the proposed approach...

jeanne: interested in the best practices documents -- not sure I've heard a lot about in TF -- is this working group notes or something published through EO working group or W3C site?

awk: threw out idea as a WG note -- might want a w3c site resource -- or perhaps into quick reference guide -- lot of details to decide. Main point is how to get this important work from TF out there.
... lots of room for how that could happen

jeanne: likes idea

mike: Talks about timing, wondering when specific deadlines would be set. Would that be handled when TF complete things?

awk: specific timing is not being set today -- larger question around that. Right now TF should 9 -12 months from now shoudl be able to come up with SC. That is sort of the time frame that would need to be met.
... if a new TF is established in 5 months would only have a short time to address new criteria. We'd need a full year to integrate and have review in order to get approval

<AWK_> Jon: I like the idea of an iterative approach but have concerns about what doesn't get in

<AWK_> ... we want orgs to adopt but it may be difficult for govs to do so if it is only adding some things and not others

<AWK_> ... may cause confusion about what is required and not with multiple versions

<AWK_> ... have heard the conversation shift since starting the TF work. More people saying "we aren't doing this without a formal requirement in WCAG"

Alistair: wondering about the UUAG and ATAG aspects as they have finished up recently -- has anyone considered doing small based campaign updates? For example, how do the WCAG 2.1 updates affect what user agents should be doing?

awk: if we are talking SC for user agents we aren't talking about WCAG 2 line -- we would be talking about a WCAG next -- a major update.
... things we would put in 2.x would be sorts of things that are relatively minor in the larger context.
... some gray area in what is minor and what is not minor - so we have to figure that out. When we talk about major shifts such as authroing tools and user agents that WCAG next category
... In terms of what WCAG next looks like whether it is an omnibus document or collection of smaller documents is up for discussion at this point.
... don't envision taking WCAG, UAAG, and ATAG and pressing them together to get one large document

alistair: if we find something that comes out of WCAG 2.1 and we release it's a user agent things -- like to push something out to a place where people creating user agents see it and address it.

<jeanne> +1 alastair

<AWK_> acl la

awk: we want assistive tech and user agents to repsond accordingly as that makes a huge difference

laura: likes idea -- a little worried about low vision task force as they got started late and wonder if the timeline has been discussed as we are just working on gap analysis now

awk: not sure LVTF will have everything completed but feel comfortable that they will have a good collection of success criteria to provide in that timeframe. There is clearly overlap between different task forces are discussing in terms of needs. So shared work is going happening
... not unagresive but not agressive either -- we are trying to propose something that balances reality and the need for expediency . Make improvements where improvements are sought

<AWK_> acl l

awk: If it takes too long and there are new develoopments then we never accomplish anything

david: probably the way to go and it's the consensus -- the onus is on us to push things through

awk: David you were the one who proposed 3.1

david: have concerns like Jon that we have things coming out and then more the next year that the cycle is too fast for legislation. Not that we should be concerned with legislation.
... from the technology side and providing access to people with disabilities the sooner is better -- so I think we have to balance it and people's voices have been heard.

awk: we will have to think about what the update schedule is - what is that -- every 2 year, every 5 years. There will always be some organization that is updating their policy right before we are done no matter what.
... more rapid candence might provide some benefit to make sure there is not large time span

david: New York City said WCAG 2 or 508 or their replacements -- may be language that others should use

awk: what I propose -- it's on the list -- it showed up -- will include the minutes from this discussion will be included -- we can continue the discussion on the list for this
... at some point we will have a call for consensus. I will send out an update to say where the group is at on the call and we can go from there? Does that work? Any objections?
... Alistair had submitted a poll request here -- I haven't take a look.

Alistair: Patrick also make a pull request but I made an alternative -- what is the next step to have people look at it?

awk: an update that Michael just did may affect this -- related to ability to see proposed changes in github pull request -- for people to see that in conext without reading code. Is this just once it's been accepted?

<MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/wcag/Understanding/conformance.html

MC: document can now be generated automatically and goes to a github pages branch. w3c.github.io/understanding/overview

<MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/wcag/Understanding/Overview.html

MC: Now able to be kept up-to-date with edits from working branch -- only reflecting working branch not other branches people are making proposals in
... In principle it may be possible to have them generated in some location. People can run the generator locally if they want to.

awk: Question -- how comfortable are people reading changes in Github by looking at code?

<AWK_> How comfortable are people reading this: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/184/files?diff=split

alistair: had to make my own HTML version in order to make it easier to read

MC: been on list for a few years to make the source more HTML like -- it is going to be a lot of work -- should we do that now or do that for the 3.0 work?

mike: had some confusion until I saw the pluses and minuses. Had some trouble creting a request -- so sent to Josh instead.

awk: Alistair, in regards to your quesiton about next steps -- it will take people time to review -- we would want to get this on a survey -- send Josh and I a note and send a link and if it's in good shape for a survey we can crete one

<davidmacdonald> I've revised issue 173 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173

Github issues

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

awk: looking at some github issues ---

david: have completed by action for 173

awk: will put on survey for next week then

<marcjohlic> 121 is ready for survey as well

awk: few new github issues that we need people assigned to. Need to ask for volunteers to ask for these. issue 186,

david: will take issue 186 regarding alt on image when role presentation is used

Alistair: will take Issue 185 -- item on section headings from Mike Elledge

awk: issue 183 - date item -- will be assigned to Josh
... unles anyone has any items we should be good to wrap up? Any additional items for today?

marc: Still not able to add labels to issues in github -- we still need to just notify you when ready for survey?

awk: need to send out survey for mobile TF proposed items -- want input

<laura> bye

<Mike_Elledge> bye all

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/UUAG/UAAG/
Found Scribe: Jon_Avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Default Present: AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, John_Kirkpwood, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, John_Kirkwood, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila, marcjohlic
Present: AWK EricE Kathy Laura jeanne KimD alastairc JF Joshue108 John_Kirkpwood SarahH Makoto David_MacDonald Mike_Elledge John_Kirkwood Greg_Lowney kirkwood MichaelC Katie Haritos-Shea patrick_h_lauke Elledge MacDonald Katie_Haritos-Shea wayne jon_avila marcjohlic
Found Date: 10 May 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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