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

<scribe> Scribe: Laura

New Task Force Exchange

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

JOC: New hub for TF work

AC: Where is the SC map?

JOC: we don’t have a map. They are scattered now. They will end up on this page.

<kirkwood> + kirkwood

<JF> LV: http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html

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

LVTF: Gap

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

https://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/WC-UA-alignment.html

JF: listed 3 URLS

Faciliators will update that page

AC: Should we be reviewing them?

JOC: Yes.
... SC don’t need Techniques.

SC Numbering proposals team/work.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering

JOC: Suggestion to have a team look at this.

JF: Go to that URL.

<Joshue108> q

<allanj-lurking> LVTF: SC in development, changes weekly. https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues

JF: Concern regarding Policy numbering.
... Kim has provided guidiance.

Legislative approach: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering#Legislative_approach_.28or_.E2.80.9Cwhen_to_try_and_assign_numbers.E2.80.9D.29

JF: Should read Legislative approach.

<MichaelC> -1 to making a binding discussion yet, before we´ve even seen the set of SC we´re likely to need to incorporate

JOC: good feedback.

AC: We were leaning toward #2

<davidmacdonald> +1 to Alastair

JOC: Model 2 less likely to break stuff.

<Ryladog> I am also leaning towards model 2

JF: May want to rework some of the exixting SC. Kim’s would accommodate that.
... minimise impact to legislation.

JOC: seems to be most robust.
... would like to walk though models.

MC: may be premature for formal decisions.

JOC: no decisions now. We are just discussing.
... Let’s look at model.
... (Model 1) 4 tier numbering
... Pros: Can keep and view the basic structure of the numbering in WCAG.
... Cons: Four layers seems a bit inelegant, and may confuse newcomers
... There may be a feeling that the forth level is kind of a second class citizen
... In statutes and regulations, adding another level of numbers generally indicates that the new section

JF: Seems like a partial solution.
... maybe a subsection.

Greg: May have impact on tools.

JF: not a major show stopper.

JOC: (Model 2) Add a new section to the end of each existing Guideline that will have new SCs
... Put all the new SCs at the end of their respective Guidelines

<Greg> Tools that track, reference, or mirror the standards may have the assumption that each level has a consistent meaning, and that all items of the same meaning will have the same syntactic level. That is, all GL would have two fields, while all SC have three. Adding a fourth level would require changes to those tools.

JOC: Wonder about mapping.

MC: There is an implicit mapping

JF: Filtering could address levels.

MC: No expicit mapping.

JOC: nubering seems arbitrary.

JF: that’s the point.
... filtering will solve the issue.
... like’s that everything new is added to the bottom

JOC: Pros There are advantages to sticking with 3 levels of numbers.

<scribe> new Success Criteria numerically as part of an expanding list allows for easier identification of new SC

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Cons - have some new AA SCs which come AFTER the AAA SCs from 2.0
... may be a tendency to disregard the new SCs that appear AFTER the AAA's
... We do not want that.

<scribe> … new SCs should not be disregarded

DM: This is my preferred one.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that anecdotally people outside the WG do not realize that they are organized by level.

<JF> +1 to Jeanne

JS: Asked around about this. No one new about levels.

<davidmacdonald> +1 to Jeanne

JS: Changing numbering would be a problem.
... thought that they were in the order developed. Did not want renumbering.

<Ryladog> lost connectivity, comming back

<Ryladog> back

Katie: Think we should document.

<Greg> If items are not in numeric order, readers would have to use a software Search function to find a specific SC, and those who are reading on paper could have great difficulty. It may also trick readers into thinking an SC doesn’t exist, when they can’t find it where they expect it to be.

Greg: Don’t greatly dislike #3

<alastairc> +1 to Jeanne's comment: people don't tend to remember/recognise multiple layers of categorisation. The principle categorisation is by POUR, secondary categorisation is less (not?) important.

Greg: may need to use a search function.
... a lot of people don’t think ordering important.

<Ryladog> Think we should document in model 2 under Cons that "We understand that most accessibility assessment reports today are delivered as a document of some kind - but we feel filtering will be able to address this when moved to automated systems"

Rachael: benefit in knowing what is a new SC
... advantave to #1

<MichaelC> +1 to identifying new SC as 2.1, regardless of the numbering scheme chosen

<MichaelC> ARIA 1.1 does that

MC: would be complementary.

Katie: add an identifier.

JF: We look at the levels. Webdevs don’t do the severity levels.

<Makoto> I prefer Model2 as it doesn't change the existing numbering. In Japan, we will keep using WCAG 2.0 until WCAG 2.1 will be approved as ISO standard. But global companies maybe use both. So I don't want renumbering.

JOC: Model 4) Introduce a level marker to SC numbers
... would change things dramatically.
... Causes a renumbering of all the SC from WCAG 2.0
... Model 5) Renumber all the SC
... Not practical.

MC: Wouldn’t discard this model.
... could do a mapping.
... has a precendent and has value.
... SC have both handles and ID’s
... numbers don’t mean much.

JOC: Model 6) Remove SC numbers altogether

<jeanne> I could see removing numbers in Silver, but I would be opposed to removing numbers in 2.1

JF: I don’t like it. Not backwards comatable.

MC: numbering is just a label.
... Think we should consider it.

Greg: Removing numbering potentially difficult for international and non-English communication that use localized handles

MC: IDs are English centic.

JF: Would be alot of work to change all support materials that include numbers.
... we have attached importance to numbers.

<Joshue108> Some take aways are 1* Model 2 is popular 2* If there was an identifier for new SCs this would be helpful 3* There may be value in renumbering all together, this is not off the table.

Success Criteria acceptance criteria.

Thanks to all who have contributed.

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria

JOC: Walk though.
... 7 items.
... Success criteria are testable.
... Success criteria describe the specific condition required to meet the criteria

Success criteria must apply across technologies

scribe: Ensure that the conformance requirements are written as simply as possible.
... Success criteria will utilize the WCAG 2.0 A/AA/AAA level structure
... Success criteria need to be as broad as possible
... Success criteria must be applicable to all content, unless specific exceptions are included

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say these are overall requirements for SC, but think we need more specific acceptance criteria about how SC should be structured, how wordy, use of bullets,

scribe: Are these coherent?

MC: these are overall requirements for SC, but think we need more specific acceptance criteria about how SC should be structured, how wordy, use of bullets, notes and if they´re normative, etc.
... Not sure if notes are normative.

JOC: can you flesh these our in the Wiki.

MC: Yes.

JF: Maybe some SC may have to be tech dependant.

<Ryladog> Success criteria need to be as broad as possible, but specific enough not to become a 'catch-all' for any given requirement.

Katie: suggestion for #6.
... will update Wiki.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask how we want to handle definition changes.

JS: How to handle defiinition changes? ie points to pixels

JOC: Good question. We will have to think about it.

<Joshue108> ACTION: On Josh to discussion need for definition changes in WCAG at editors meet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'On'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: On Josh to discussion need for definition changes in WCAG at editors meet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Error finding 'On'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.

<Joshue108> ACTION: Joshue to discuss need for definition changes in WCAG at editors meet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Discuss need for definition changes in wcag at editors meet. [on Joshue O Connor - due 2016-07-12].

<davidmacdonald> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#guidelines

<Joshue108> ACTION: Josh and AWK to work out a way to deal with definition changes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - And awk to work out a way to deal with definition changes. [on Joshue O Connor - due 2016-07-12].

DM: Notes are normative.

JOC: Maybe they shouldn’t be.

<Joshue108> JOC: Should these notes be normative at all?

MC: Notes are normative. But some confusion.
... need to look at it.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say I'd also like to see a definition of what "Content" actually means

MC: Would like to propose no notes.

JF: What does “content” actually mean?

<davidmacdonald> content (Web content)

<davidmacdonald> information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions

MC: we need to disscuss it.

JOC: Silver discussion.

DM: we have a definition of content.

MC: SC’s may change.

JF: Will need to call it out.

JOC: They could well change.
... as long as we don’t reduce requirements.

MC: many won’t change.

JOC: We should address needs.
... numbering is secondary.

Submitting new SCs (non-group)

JOC: How do we make it easier for people?

JF: Suggest a form.

JOC: Let’s think about it.

DM: doesn’t seem to be a huge interest in using previous forms form outside folks.

MC: process may be difficult. We should be open to SC from outside WCAG.

JOC: maybe Github.

<Joshue108> thanks Laura for scribing!

Youre welcome, Josh

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)

Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Default Present: JF, steverep, alastairc, kirkwood, Laura, marcjohlic, Kathy, Joshue108, MichaelC, KimD, jeanne, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jon_avila, Makoto, Rachael, Greg_Lowney, Sarah_Swierenga, Davidmacdonald, adam_solomon
Present: JF steverep alastairc kirkwood Laura marcjohlic Kathy Joshue108 MichaelC KimD jeanne Katie_Haritos-Shea jon_avila Makoto Rachael Greg_Lowney Sarah_Swierenga Davidmacdonald adam_solomon
Found Date: 05 Jul 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html

WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: on josh to discussion need for definition changes in wcag at editors meet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: on josh to discussion need for definition changes in wcag at editors meet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

People with action items: awk josh joshue

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