See also: IRC log
<Srinivasu> +Srini
+Rachael
<kirkwood> +Kirkwood
<scribe> scribe: Rachael
<Joshue108> zaki, next item
Update on the charter. As of Friday, we had 18 thumbs up for the charter and 1 outstanding objection. The chairs feel the objection was partly addressed by the language in the charter. The charter will be advanced. Good work and thank you to everyone for their contributions.
This is the next review cycle and it will come back to the group again. We will hopefully get there soon.
AWK: I sent an email about the charter process moving forward. Sometimes it feels like we approve something it goes to the void. The process from here is that over the next month and a half, the charter would be approved. It should be by Dec 16. Over November we will be getting additional feedback from the AC reps.
We may get feedback from W3C management before the Nov. 1 AC meeting. We will be addressing substantive issues as a group. We'd like to address these before Dec 1 when we get the success criteria.
Joshue: Any comments or questions?
David: What is the outstanding objection?
AWK: There was a question about specifying the three year period of time.
Joshue: The formal objection was about the time.
David: Unsure whether the objection was over the time or the risk of items not making it into the next version.
<Srinivasu> Hope you all got to read my comment about time. where I said it should not be too short or it should be too long.
JF: What will happen if we are driving to a deadline and everything is not ready?
Joshue: Let's cross that bridge when we get there. The ACs are weighing in at this point. We are unsure what will happen but we have it at a stable state that we can pass.
pass upstairs.
JF: I don't see us moving forward until we have a clear answer to the question.
<JF> Charter also defines deliverables
Joshue: Is the fundamental question whether we will include all SCs and deviate the timeline?
AWK: Want to distinguish between the charter discussion and timeline discussion. We will have to make decisions. Its possible we may deviate from the timeline becuase things aren't there but there are risks to that. Management is following timelines more closely. There will be other concerns if we vary from the timeline.
<JF> +1 to all that Michael has stated
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we are keeping to the timeline for WCAG 2.1.
AWK: We would have difficulties getting rechartered if we are unable to produce a meaningful standard within the timeline.
<MichaelC> 1+
Sean: We had stated an objective: The objective of the subgroup is to update the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines following a research focused, user-centered design methodology to produce the most effective and flexible outcome.
We did not include a timeline. We are still working that out. Later steps will be informed by research so may vary.
*CAn someome take scribe?
<Joshue108> SL: We settled on a minimum time requirement etc.
<Joshue108> SL: We wanted to include hours of active work.
<Joshue108> SL: Then there is a bit about patent policy.
<Joshue108> SL: Its consise.
<Joshue108> DMD: Thanks for your hard work on this.
<Joshue108> DMD: Great to see movement.
<Joshue108> DMD: It looks like the Silver committee is taking responsibility to write the draft. Should this be te TF doing this, or should the editors draft be done by the WG?
<Joshue108> SL: The writing itself is just outlining the section of the process.
<Joshue108> SL: Link coming.
<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Process_of_Designing_Silver
<Joshue108> DMD: Where does it say the WG will be writing the FPWD?
<Joshue108> MC: I can answer..
<Joshue108> DMD: Its a high bar..
<Joshue108> DMD: the wider group should be writing the draft IMO.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about TF and to talk about participation levels and to talk about locus of work
<marcjohlic> MC: 3 things to talk about
<JF> +1 to establishing a TF
<marcjohlic> MC: Presented as a sub group - but there's no formal W3C procedures. I would like this to become a task force rather than a subgroup. Task Force will provide more structure.
<Joshue108> +1 to Silver group being a TF
<marcjohlic> MC: Would like to work with you on the work statement. Good start, but we can brush it up and take it through a refining and approval process.
*Thank you Joshue. I can take Scribe back.
<marcjohlic> MC: Participation expectations - nice to ask for 8 hours / week - a lot to ask. Typically we try to set a "hope for" level - but participants should not be removed if they don't make the full allotment (however they should still keep up)
<marcjohlic> MC: Another reason for task force is that we would formalize leadership
* Thank you Marc.
<marcjohlic> MC: Talk about where work would happen. TF is a focused work unit w/i the working group. Goal is to go off and do some work. Feel it is appropriate for TF to write initial drafts at an Editor's level
<AWK> +1 to Michael's comments on making a TF (this is part of the silver subgroup plan) and FPWD happening in the TF
<marcjohlic> MC: Working Group approves publications. TF has to get approval from WG to publish anything it produces. As we approach FPWD and it goes through review by WG there may be several edits
<marcjohlic> MC: Staying in close coordination will make that easier.
<marcjohlic> JF: +1 what MC said
<marcjohlic> JF: Don't think everything in the TF needs to be touched on by working group. Don't feel we need to have an 8 hour min from working group members. 2 hours is the current min - if you can do more that's great.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about turning group into TF
<marcjohlic> JF: Smaller groups working cohesively with the larger group is the way to get things done.
<marcjohlic> JOC: What are the mechanics to turning this into a TF
<marcjohlic> MC: TF brings us slightly more structured formality. We could setup separate wikis and such (if we decide to do that). Process of approving is simply the WG saying "we hearby bless this TF"
<marcjohlic> MC: Would like to get the Work Statement fully in line w/ other TF statements - and get that approved by the WG. Could get that done in a 2 week time.
<marcjohlic> SL: With the caveat that Jeanne knows a lot more about process, my primary concern is that we can just keep this moving forward - regardless what we call it - subgroup or TF
<marcjohlic> SL: Welcome any help from MC on getting Work STatement flushed out
<laura> New charter dosen’t have a minimum time requirement for Participants other than the Chairs, Editors, and Test Leads: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter#participation
<marcjohlic> SL: We don't expect folks to track hours - it was more of a level set that we are thinking it will probably take roughly 8 hours a week to be fully committed - to give folks an idea of the time
<marcjohlic> MC: TF tend to get more attention at a chairing level - and typically provide staff contact resources for TFs vs sub group
<marcjohlic> MC: So there would be a bit of a resource bump, but not THAT much over what has been there for the subgroup
<marcjohlic> MC: TF just allows to formalize relationship w/ the WG
<marcjohlic> JOC: Any objections to creating the TF?
<marcjohlic> AWK: Not speaking against it - just clarifying that we're not proposing opening a TF. Just discussing that a TF for the Silver work seems like a good idea
<JF> I'm personally less concerned over *who* is writing the FPWD, and more interested that the larger group reviews and "blesses" what the initial author(s) bring(s) forward
<Mike_Elledge> Need to go. Looks like a good start. Bye!
<marcjohlic> MC: If we're going to go ahead w/ that, I will work w/ group on getting Work STatement finalized - and then come back to the WG for approval.
<marcjohlic> Rachel: Replacing the Silver group or replacing?
<marcjohlic> JOC: Replacing
<marcjohlic> SL: I will be out most of November - back in December
<marcjohlic> SL: Would like to get this wrapped up prior to that
<marcjohlic> MC: We can work offline and get that taken care of
<marcjohlic> JOC: Jeanne still not here - do you think we've covered her concerns / questions? Should we move on for now until Jeanne is here?
<marcjohlic> JOC: Any other comments / questions?
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
<marcjohlic> MC: Assigning Issue 241 to myself - Linkrot
<marcjohlic> JOC: I'll take Issue 240
<marcjohlic> MC: Issue 190 might be a duplicate of Issue 196. Alistair put in a comment saying he put in a pull request in 196 to cover there. Should assign to Alistair
<marcjohlic> MC: Issue 126 - wondering if we can assign this to Jon Avila - looks like he's commented on it
<marcjohlic> AWK: There are a couple that if folks are on the call we might be able to get some guidance on
<marcjohlic> AWK: If we look at the schedule on when we need to produce updates to Techniques and Understanding for March, we may run into problems w/ 2.1. So the we'll have to determine if some of these are important enough to squeeze in during this time.
<marcjohlic> JOC: Made a call on a few of them that were easier - made common sense - so pulled those commits in
<marcjohlic> JOC: Anyone struggling with any that they are assigned to?
<marcjohlic> DMD: Issue 200 - a rounding issue with color contrast tools
<gowerm> Thought I'd mention I'm on the call; I've opened a lot of issues recently, and can answer questions anyone has
<marcjohlic> DMD: Maybe we propose that rounding to the tenth is OK
<marcjohlic> JOC: Could you just wrap up some of the take aways in that thread?
<marcjohlic> DMD: Sure
<marcjohlic> JN: The 4.5 is easier to round up than the 3.1 - for example we'd have to say that 2.5 is sufficient
<marcjohlic> DMD: That is a VERY important point
<marcjohlic> JN: All in the thread - worth reading through. We'd have to restate the SC so that it says: "3.0:1" rather than just 3:1. Rather that's editorial or not...
<marcjohlic> JN: We take a hard line to avoid ambiguity. We say 4.50
<marcjohlic> JF: Is this a spec problem or a tool problem. Spec is pretty clear, but if tools are rounding in the wrong direction then that points to the tool.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask whether or not this is a spec issue or a tool issue?
<marcjohlic> DMD: Want to agree with you, I just want us to say that 4.5: 1 means 4.5:1 - no rounding up
<marcjohlic> WF: From a tool designer's perspective this is more about if you take a scientific approach to this: "how many significant digits do you have"
<marcjohlic> WF: Would be best to go to two digits - because that's where you have these colors
<marcjohlic> JF: I'll say that 3:1 is the same as 3.0:1 or 3.00:1 etc. I'm OK with changing it to 3.0:1 though
<marcjohlic> AWK: Agree w/ Wilco - this is a spec issue that has bearing on what tools do and the level of confidence in the tools. We should address. It won't be fixed in 2.0 - but could get it into 2.1
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask if this means some of the well known tools are inaccurate
<marcjohlic> JOC: I use different tools - does this mean that some of the tools are inaccurate?
<marcjohlic> WF: No, means that there is a small interpretation difference that is allowed by WCAG and we could be more specific if we clean it up in the Understanding
<gowerm> Put in understanding +
<marcjohlic> DMD: Agree - just make a decision if we allow rounding
<marcjohlic> DMD: Think we can resolve it if we all agree if we decide to add the decimal or round
<marcjohlic> JOC: But it can cause real problems if one uses one tool and another uses different
<marcjohlic> AWK: I think the easiest solution is to allow the accepted practices of mathematics to be used and we just state the precision allowed
<marcjohlic> AWK: The way it is now, we put out something using math - and people are making a determination based on that. There's nothing wrong w/ what we have, it's just not what all people think it is. We could make it clearer
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about Errata on this?
<marcjohlic> JF: Could we make a bit of an Errata on this?
<marcjohlic> AWK: We can publish into an Errata document as a separate document but won't get folded into the standard
<Joshue108> me nopp
<AWK> I can volunteer to draft a proposal for an entry into the errata document, for review next week
<Joshue108> ACTION: AWK to volunteer to draft a proposal for an entry into the errata document, for review next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - volunteer to draft a proposal for an entry into the errata document, for review next week [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2016-10-25].
<marcjohlic> JOC: David - can you tidy this up?
<marcjohlic> AWK: I think all of the data is there
<marcjohlic> JOC: I'll assign it to you Andrew
<marcjohlic> JOC: Jeanne has joined - let's circle back to the Silver discussion
<marcjohlic> JS: Think it would be great to change this to TF. I'm fine with that
<marcjohlic> JS: The min time requirement - did you want to hear anything around the rationale for that?
<marcjohlic> MC: Shawn did speak to that
<marcjohlic> MC: Don't really have a history of kicking people out of task forces (could happen - but probably have bigger problems if we do)
<marcjohlic> JOC: OK Good - thanks Jeanne. Shawn gave us a great overview earlier
<Joshue108> 199
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/199
<marcjohlic> DMD: Maybe we change "group of web pages" to "group of documents"
<Joshue108> how about grouped content?
<marcjohlic> AWK: Bypass blocks is also related to this - in terms of having a useful thing that this can point to
<marcjohlic> DMD: This is useful, but under our definition it's just one page
<marcjohlic> AWK: Maybe we just make this Advisory for 2.4.5
<marcjohlic> DMD: I think leaving it in is a good idea - so if we change it to "a set of documents"
<marcjohlic> DMD: Make it Advisory and make a note that by definition that a PDF by URL is one web page
<marcjohlic> JOC: Looks like we could close Issue 144 ?
<marcjohlic> AWK: It could be closed because it has been taking up by LowVis TF - and integrated into 2.1
<laura> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/18-lvtf-minutes.html#item01
<marcjohlic> SL: Where would the proposed change in wording for set of documents go
<laura> The Low Vision Task Force resolved to accept the 2 Icon font techniques.
<Joshue108> thanks Laura - I've closed 144
<laura> Providing an On-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Icon_Font_with_an_On-Screen_Text_Alternative
<marcjohlic> AWK: Instead of pointing to 2.4.5 as Sufficient it would be Advisory
<laura> Using aria-hidden="true" on an icon font that AT should ignore: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_aria-hidden%3Dtrue_on_an_icon_font_that_AT_should_ignore
<marcjohlic> SL: Just wanted to make sure that "set of documents" would not apply to others
<marcjohlic> SL: Content and web pages are generic enough that it can apply to most things whereas "set of documents" is more specific
<Joshue108> Laura - has 96 been taken up by the LVTF?
<Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/96
<marcjohlic> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/MC: Sean/MC: Shawn/ Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Default Present: AWK, MichaelC, Srini, Greg_Lowney, Rachael, Kirkwood, Joshue108, Kathy, Lauriat, marcjohlic, Laura, DavidMacDonald, steverep, JF, Mike, Elledge, jeanne WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, JF, alastairc, Joshue108_, Lauriat, Mike, Elledge, wilco, jeanne, Marc_Johlic, kirkwood, MichaelC, Kathy, Makoto, Laura, Kim_D) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK Present: AWK MichaelC Srini Greg_Lowney Rachael Kirkwood Joshue108 Kathy Lauriat marcjohlic Laura DavidMacDonald steverep JF Mike Elledge jeanne Found Date: 18 Oct 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: awk WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <marcjohlic> JOC: Jeanne has joined - let's circle back to the Silver discussion WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <marcjohlic> JOC: Jeanne has joined - let's circle back to the Silver discussion WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]