<scribe> scribe:Brooks

Status

awk: All CfCs are out right now. Many of them seem to be doing well, except for Target Size.
... Last CfC closes late on Friday night.
... All CfCs are coming from Andrew and Subject that starts with subject:cfc and are all marked as important
... If we don't come to consensus on something, it is out of WCAG 2.1
... We are tackling complex issues, so it makes sense that it has taken a lot of effort to come to consensus.

Understanding documents

awk: Once we know what the final form of the cfc's are, we are going to work those into the Understanding documents
... we would like to have an updated version of the Understanding docs that can go out at the same time as the CR doc
... hopefully, that distribution of both documents will happen next Thursday

the Understanding documents aren't going to be perfect for now, but we would like to send them out with improvements that we have, along with CR

exit criteria changes

<AWK_> http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/Jan_2018_CR/guidelines/#exit-criteria

awk: the working group has received input about things we can't do with our exit criteria.
... the main thing is that we can't do is to reduce the number of sites that we are reviewing
... want to discuss the requirements for number of sites with the working group

katie: Who is W3C, in terms of setting requirements for number of sites?

awk: Judy, Philippe (sp?), Ralph

<AWK_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/

<MichaelC> WCAG 2.0 Exit Criteria

awk: we are now asking for twice as many sites at AA than we were at 2.0

MichealC: Any single A will be covered by AA

<alastairc> It says 'sites', but we test pages, how many pages from each site would be tested?

MichealC: If we wanted to split it up the way it was, we would likely not get pushback

Katie: I think it would be easier with 4 at A and 4 at AA

awk: It's a greater amount of work to do 8 at AA, than it would be to do 4 at A and 4 at AA. We can loop back with Judy and Phillipe about that.
... to Alastair's question, conformance claims for web sites should contain a minimum of 5 pages
... does anyone remember what happened in WCAG 2.0, in terms of scope of pages?

MichealC: It did come up on a call yesterday, about whether or not we should include large sites in WCAG 2.1 review. Decided that it would take too long to include large sites in testing. Sub-sets of large sites would be hellpful, though.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/#/

Shadi: The evaluation methodology isn't normative, but it is helpful. There is also a report tool that goes along with that, which will help consistency in documenting the testing outcomes.

awk: We will check in with W3C management around this question - we will try to get the breakdown between A, AA and AAA back to where they were in WCAG 2.0.

MichealC: I think we can get it back to 4A, 4AA, and 2AAA

<alastairc> I'd recommend we *do* test some large sites, but are able to pick a sample of X pages (e.g. 5, 10 pages) to test. That helps say that large systems can produce accessible pages, even if not all pages are accessible.

schedule going forward

awk: we are going to be pulling together everything that was accepted from cfc's, we will pull everything together on github, and issue another cfc for whether or not we are ready to go out to CR or not with WCAG 2.1 spec
... assuming we are, we can issue that transition request.

MichaelC: transition request goes out to director, publication review is another process

awk: we need to be shifting our focus more to making sure that we have the Understanding docs into a final form, with focus more focus on the techniques

MichaelC: Don't publish the date before we are ready.

front matter

<MichaelC> Introduction rewording

awk: MichaelC has reorganized the content up at the top of the WCAG document. It's editorial content, including changing of heading orders and some language
... the rawgit version is available now

<AWK_> http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/intro-edits/guidelines/index.html

CSUN

awk: our plan is to meet at CSUN - we still have to find a location, though.
... we are looking at options for securing space to meet. If there are member companies who are willing to sponsor room space, that would be great. If not, we'll keep looking.

<alastairc> I've question about sharing out the understanding doc work, when there's a suitable time.

awk: we need to make sure that we are spreading the work out on Understanding documents.

<alastairc> Maybe we could have a week of contributions, and a week of swapping around for review?

awk: For some who haven't worked on SCs, we would love to have their help on Understanding docs.

Katie: When will we know what appears to have made it into 2.1? What about EO group assistance on Understanding docs?

awk: We'll know what is in when cfc's are complete

MichealC: Shadi says the EO group is ready to work on Understanding docs.

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to discuss cfc 650/655/695/771 on Hover or Focus

Shadi: 6 or 7 people signed up from the EO group to help with the editing on the Understanding documents. We need to figure out the right timing and who to work with on that.

MikeG: I want a better understanding of what actions we need to take about language changes for SCs.
... Content on hover or focus is of specific concern. Just need to understand what are the expected responses to cfc's this late in the game?

<gowerm> Here is the CFC language: "Where receiving and removing pointer hover or keyboard focus triggers additional content to become visible and hidden, respectively, the following are true:"

awk: If we can't reach consensus, the SC is out of 2.1. Consensus doesn't mean that its unanimous. Be judicious with -1 votes, but use them if you feel they are warranted.
... If a SC goes into CR, we are allowed to make SC language changes - but those changes have to be editorial. We can't make substantive changes.

Katie: What happens to the public comments that were made after the deadline?

awk: The W3C managment said to include comments made on January 12 for responses from the working group.

JamesN: Recent changes in deadline definitions may have led to confusion on the part of submitters

MichaelC: We will make the deadline language clearer moving forward

awk: thanks and congratulations on everyone's hard work to get to this point.

<AWK_> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/are going/aren't going/
Succeeded: s/Filipe/Philippe/
Default Present: AWK, Greg_Lowney, JimA, Laura, Steve, MichaelC, SteveRepsher, alastairc, Alex, marcjohlic, shadi, Katie, Haritos-Shea, kirkwood, KimD, MikeGower
Present: AWK Greg_Lowney JimA Laura Steve MichaelC SteveRepsher alastairc Alex marcjohlic shadi Katie Haritos-Shea kirkwood KimD MikeGower
Found Scribe: Brooks
Inferring ScribeNick: Brooks

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 18 Jan 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)