audio connection doesn’t seem to be working in WebEx

<Srini> +Srini

<AWK> Scribe: Laura

Charter status update

AWK: Right now it is proceeding well.
... 8 votes accespt as is. 1 making suggestions. 0 objections.
... let your AC rep know they shoud give thier comments.

<AWK> AC Reps: https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList

<Ryladog_> There is no audio

AWK: link is member login
... any questions?

Charter edit re: DPUB

none.

AWK: one comment suggesting link to DPub

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter

AWK: in section 4.1 Groups that we coordinate with
... oversight that we didn’t add DPub link.

<Kim_D> +KimD

<MichaelC> proposed liaison statement: Digital Publishing Interest Group: Coordinate on accessibility guidelines that impact digital publishing.

AWK: people on list agreed to add.
... Any comments?

<gowerm> add in +1

<alastairc> +1

<jeanne> +1 to add

<Kim_D> +1 to add

+1

<jemma> +1 to add

<marcjohlic> +1

<Greg> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<David_MacDonald> +1

<Srini> +1

<Joshue108> +1

<Jan> +1

<Ryladog_> +1

scribe: no coodintion listed with SVG group. They work more with APA grou.

Katie: Agree. Are we working with SCs or techniques?

AWK: either

Katie: do we want to add that?

<Joshue108> +1 to MC

MC: open ened. Want to make athe least changes as possible aas this is in review.
... any changes can cause issues,
... increases risks to change things.

Katie: okay.

AWK: info in charter will allow DPub requirements.
... we are not limited.

RESOLUTION: Add to Charter: "Digital Publishing Interest Group: Coordinate on accessibility guidelines that impact digital publishing."

MC: will make change in a future version.
... will be a formal response later

CFC Responses

AWK: we had some dissucion on editors call.

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

AWK: folks should look at the WCAG WG Decision Policy.
... we have a Call for Consensus process.
... a consensus call not a call for changes.
... +1 means you can live with it.
... if you can’t live with it, it needs to be new information.
... don’t rehash old discussion on a CFC.

Katie: could we have a pre CFC?

<gowerm> pre-CFC+ the call and the survey

<gowerm> sorry = the call and survey

<Joshue108> not mad about pre-CFC idea

AWK: worry about a pre pre CFC.

<Joshue108> +1 to MikeGower

AWK: would be additional overhead for a pre CFC.

Katie: How do people know when they need to say something?

AC: we have minutes. and resolutions

AWK: If we have new information we can consider it.

Josh: pre CFC is the discussion.
... we have calls and lists.
... we have multiple ways.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say resolutions in minutes are resolutions of the people present in that call, not resolutions / decisions of the WG

Josh: don’t want pre-CFCs due to overhead. Keep it lean. +1 or -1.

MC: Resolutions in meetings are not the decision.

Katie: Don’t want to add more work. But want to be sure that the people on email are heard.

AWK: We had discussion on list, on call, in telco.

<Joshue108> Thanks Katie - all mail and input is parsed by the chairs (as much as humanly possible) and taken into consideration by us.

AWK: Folks should participate in the veuues.
... and constructively engage.

Katie: whatever we need to do. Point out resolutions, or whatever.

<Joshue108> -q

AWK: David can speak for himself if he was ignored.

DM: Text was updated per his suggestion.
... language was negotiated.

Katie: Formal Objection was from me.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that is not true all input was considered

DM: Did appreciate change.

Josh: Takes objection. Chairs worked as openly as possible.

JA: Head MC say the call the Resolution is not the decision.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say there is a difference between ignoring and disagreeing

JA: If miss call no time to discuss.

MC: difference between ignoring and disagreeing.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say call input should take into account list discussion

MC: Regarding timing: CFC should happen after discussions.
... should pay attention to list input.
... need to keep things moving too.

AWK: varies from situation to situation.
... Chairs discretion when discussion is ready for CFC.
... we will improve. It is not easy.

Katie: Think is was a thorny issue. Have respectfor chairs.
... everyone should be heard before CFC.

Josh: jon, why do you think you were missing things?

JA: Survey went out late. The discussion Tuesday. CFC Wed. Not time for input.
... not sufficient time for decisions.
... political process. Has had calls to have him change his mind on topics.

Katie: Disturbing to be strong armed. We need to address that.

DM: I’ve had those types of calls too.

Survey of GitHub items for review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20161025/results (#'s 1-4)

<AWK> Correct survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/GithubIssuesNov12016/results

Consider language changes in Sufficient Techniques section of 1.3.2 SC for item 1 #243

<gowerm> k

<jon_avila> I have to jump off the call for another call -- I have put my responses in the survey. My main comment is that it is not clear what the proposal is -- we need to clearly indicate what our proposed response is to the commenter;.

MG: I renamed this issue "Consider language changes in Sufficient Techniques section of 1.3.2 SC for item 1”. not sure why the original issue title -- which is inaccurate of what I'm proposing -- is still showing up as the issue name. proposal is to alter the SC language appended to the technique, NOT the technique title.

AWK: We have tools to test.

MG: It talks about a conditional situation.

MC: History is from tables.

<David_MacDonald> +1

AWK: Don’t hvae to do any one certain technique. Variety of sufficient techniques.

Don’t have to do G57

scribe: Does that make since?

MG: most content does not rely on meaningful sequence.

<Greg> The reference to G57 mischaracterizes G57's actual meaning.

GL: G57 misrepresents things

<Greg> I don't think that is appropriate, and should be corrected since it's purely editorial text.

Josh: lots of variable that can affect things.
... maybe change title
... interesting points being raised.

AWK: Not sure why we have distinction between 1 and 2 in the tech list.

MD: It has to affect the meaning.
... not concerned about it.

Katie: not concerned either.

AWK: 1.3.2 is based on the page.

<Joshue108> Do we have a definition of meaningful sequence?

DM: Could have said it better.

<gowerm> just remove the word "all" from #1

AWK: anyone want to take an action to clarify?

MG: 132 is a conditional situation.

<Joshue108> -q

<Joshue108> +q there is a difference between meaningful content and meaningful sequence

<Joshue108> +q to say there is a difference between meaningful content and meaningful sequence

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say there is a difference between meaningful content and meaningful sequence

Josh: difference between meaningful content and meaningful sequence.

<kirkwood> this may be a COGA issue?

Josh: maybe we need to distinguish that.
... I’ll look into it.

<Joshue108> ACTION: Josh to look at meaningful sequence may need an update [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-332 - Look at meaningful sequence may need an update [on Joshue O Connor - due 2016-11-15].

RESOLUTION: Leave open.

Moving ARIA2 technique from 3.3.3 and putting in 3.3.2; adding ARIA21 to 3.3.3

<gowerm> I'm fine with only first part of request

1: Accept as proposed. 6: Accept with the following changes. 4: Do not accept.

MG: Okay with not adding ARIA21 to 3.3.3.

<jamesn> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/minimize-error-cues.html

James: okay with moving ARIA2 from 3.3.3. to 3.3.2

<David_MacDonald> +1

MC: required fields is good for 3.3.2, but I don't think it is sufficient on its own, so I think it can only be advisory. You still need labels.

<Joshue108> no

AWK: Does Aria-reqiured have visual labels?

Someone: no

AWK: May be the reason this is not in 332.

MC: HTML5 has a required attribute that may have visual impact.

MG: we don’t have a HTML required tech

Josh: support for ARIA ones may be better.

RESOLUTION: Leave open. Take up next time.

<gowerm> Thanks

<Jim> Thanks

s/shoud give thier comments. /should give thier comments. /

s/no coodintion listed with SVG group. They work more with APA grou /AWK: no coordination listed with SVG group. They work more with APA group. /

s/venues /venues /

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/ not about that idea/not mad about pre-CFC idea/
Succeeded: s/123 is based/1.3.2 is based/
Succeeded: s/responce/response/
Succeeded: s/tRegarding /Regarding /
FAILED: s/shoud give thier comments. /should give thier comments. /
FAILED: s/no coodintion listed with SVG group. They work more with APA grou /AWK: no coordination listed with SVG group. They work more with APA group. /
Succeeded: s/disussion /discussion /
FAILED: s/veuues /venues /
Succeeded: s/beween /between /
Succeeded: s/resprect /respect/
Succeeded: s/veuues/venues/
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Default Present: AWK, jeanne, Joshue108, Greg_Lowney, Srini, marcjohlic, JaeunJemmaKu, jon_avila, Mike, Gower, Laura, Katie_Haritos-Shea, KimD, MichaelC, kirkwood, MoeKraft, alastairc

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK, marcjohlic, JaEunJemma, Kathy, Kim_D, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Rachael, Greg_Lowney, DavidMacDonald, Lauriat, jeanne, Laura, Joshue108, bbailey, Mike_Gower, JF)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ AWK

Present: AWK jeanne Joshue108 Greg_Lowney marcjohlic JaeunJemmaKu jon_avila Mike Gower Laura Katie_Haritos-Shea MichaelC kirkwood MoeKraft alastairc
Regrets: John_Foliot Rachael Bruce Makoto KathyW Mike_Elledge
Found Date: 08 Nov 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: josh

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