<AWK> +AWK

<scribe> scribe:alastairc

<gowerm> scribe gowerm

<gowerm> scribe: alastairc

Issue 773

AWK: One issue not dealt with in the survey, not difficult, but needs discussion.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> fyi i need to leave in an hour for the aria call

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/860/files

Issue location: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/773

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/860/files?diff=split

AWK: The normative change is adding "to", so "is available to abort the function before completion or *to* undo the function after completion"

<AWK> Response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/773#issuecomment-380853211

AWK: other changes are in the understanding. I wrote a short response, saying what we're doing.

<Ryladog> goo

<Ryladog> good

<marcjohlic> +1 to changes and to the response in #773

gowerm: There's a way of reading in to think the second part is another option, adding the "to" clarifies that.

<kirkwood> +1

Chuck: Sold, I like it.

Greg: I had another comment on the understanding, shall I send an email about that?

AWK: Yes, that's fine. Just need to get the normative stuff done today.

RESOLUTION: Accept response to 773 as proposed

SC reorg

AWK: email to the list with what seemed to be the latest https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018AprJun/0282.html
... To sum up what's changed (that hasn't been CFCed already) - moving orientation to 1.3.4, to keep the identify purpose SCs together.
... then more substantial change in the 2.x operable section.
... grouping them all under 2.5 "Input modalities" (or input methods).
... they all relate to input, and there's a desciption for that.

<Ryladog> I think it looks fine

AWK: Then 2.6 is removed. Unfortunately the online version got flattened, your email client would be easier to read.

gowerm: Last plee for charater key shortcuts to go under keyboard.
... (reads paragraph linked above)

<Ryladog> I agree with Mike

<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say I like it, but https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/keyboard-operation.html

<marcjohlic> Agree about moving Character Key Shortcuts because if we look at it from the AUTHOR'S pov - they are the ones that will have to do something "keyboard" related - not voice related - to make this work.

Jason: Agree with Mike's comments. Can live with either way. Can also live with anything not being done that isn't editorial.

<Zakim> Greg, you wanted to say I object to Character Shortcuts being under Speech

<marcjohlic> And I can live with it, if it can't move.. but prefer that it did move to Keyboard

AWK: We need an acceptance that allows that, in case the director doesn't agree it is editorial.

<Ryladog> there is no speech Input section

<gowerm> +1 to Greg. It affects me, and I don't regularly use speech.

<gowerm> As Katie points out, there is no "speech" section, so it is not as big an issue anymore

<marcjohlic> +1 to Greg's comments

Greg: object to putting it under keyboard, as it's for any technology that uses many inputs (on screen keyboards, voice, etc.)

<Ryladog> I prefer keyboard

<marcjohlic> I also prefer moving it to keyboard

<gowerm> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<marcjohlic> +1

<Greg> +1 to put it under Keyboard

<Chuck> -1

<jon_avila> +1

<jasonjgw> +1

<laura> +1

<gowerm> Thanks for allowing us to take the time to take a stab at this exercise!

AWK: Can live with either way, might reduce questions where people assume it is about keyboard, but need to make very clear in the understanding.

<Ryladog> Yeah!!

AWK: any objection to acceptaing as ammended, i.e. what is in email, with character key shortcuts moving to keyboard.

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal with ammendment to move character key shortcuts to 2.1

<gowerm> No objection

AWK: Any objection to resolve that if these changes are too much by the director, we can leave the SC in the current place?

<Ryladog> no objection

<Glenda> no objection

<Chuck> +1

<marcjohlic> no objection

<gowerm> Agree with Jason's qualification: what we can get away with :)

Katie: what number would shortcuts be?

AWK: 2.1.4, after the AAA ones.

RESOLUTION: Working group approves leaving some or all of the SC in place if there are deemed to be too many changes by the director for the transition.

Edits to Intro

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/compare/intro-dits-coga3?expand=1

AWK: Had a meeting with COGA TF & W3C management, this is what comes out of that meeting.

Rendered version: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/intro-dits-coga3/guidelines/#abstract

AWK: The second sentence (in the diff)

<AWK> Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations; but will not address every user need for people with these disabilities.

AWK: That's the new version (from the abstract), separating out learning & cog limitations. In all cases we say it doesn't address 100% of user needs.
... further down in the background, there's a new paragraph inserted, based on the on-list discussion.

<AWK> Although these guidelines cover many important issues, they cannot address the needs of every individual and every type, degree, and combination of disabilities. Significant challenges remain in addressing cognitive, language and learning disabilities while ensuring that success criteria are consistently testable and implementable in all web pages across diverse languages and cultures.

<AWK> Work will carry on in this area as research continues to inform practice and technologies mature in the marketplace. We encourage authors to refer to our supplemental guidance on <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag#suppliment">improving the user experience for people with learning and cognitive disabilities

<AWK> WCAG 2.1 was initiated with the goal to improve accessibility guidance for three major groups: users with cognitive or learning disabilities, users with low vision, and users with disabilities on mobile devices. Many ways to meet these needs were proposed and evaluated, and a set of these were refined by the Working Group. Structural requirements inherited from WCAG 2.0, clarity and impact of proposals, and timeline led to the final set of success criteria included

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> and maybe call the link improving inclusion for people with learning and cognitive disabilities.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> sorry. . we should lose: Work will carry on in this area as research continues to inform practice and as technologies mature.

<david-macdonald> present =david-macdonald

<AWK> WCAG 2.1 was initiated with the goal to improve accessibility guidance for three major groups: users with cognitive or learning disabilities, users with low vision, and users with disabilities on mobile devices. Many ways to meet these needs were proposed and evaluated, and a set of these were refined by the Working Group. Structural requirements inherited from WCAG 2.0, clarity and impact of proposals, and timeline led to the final set of success criteria included

<AWK> in this version. The Working Group considers that WCAG 2.1 incrementally advances web content accessibility guidance for all these areas, but underscores that not all user needs are met by these guidelines.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Although these guidelines cover a wide range of issues, they are not able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees, and combinations of disability. We encourage authors to refer to our supplemental guidance on inclusion for people with learning and cognitive disabilities.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> and skip the long exrta pargrafe

Lisa: Thought we could loose the long paragraph, and use this shorter one.
... prefer inclusion or accessibility, rather than usability, for the link.

David: If we as a group didn't think the issue with testability (and others aspects), that is why they weren't included. I would not like to lose that aspect, it undermines the group when there was a huge willinglness to find solutions.

<KimD> +1 to David - they weren't included for reasons.

<Ryladog> +1 to Lisa

<jon_avila> could we say that there was not consensus?

Lisa: there was no consensus on that position, the COGA TF felt things were addressed but still didn't go in.

<gowerm> Just say we weren't able to get consensus on testability, implementable or blah blah

AWK: There were reasons, how about we include in the list something about timelines. That was for all TFs. None of these are a disparigement on the ideas, but some things weren't accepted because they weren't viewed as testable. Some were about implementable, and some fell to the time contraints.

Lisa: If you feel the need to say something, but it's a slippery slope to say that in the abstract / intro.

Chuck: I'm confused about the use of 'consensus', I thought it meant that when there were difficulties it mean there was consensus that it couldn't go in.

<Glenda> +1 to saying we didn’t reach consensus

David: True to say we couldn't find consensus on those aspects.

Katie: Consensus in the past meant 'you couldn't live with it', but here there were lots of things where consensus didn't happen.
... lot of history here, but saying that consensus wasn't there is true to say.

<AWK> Significant challenges in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including reaching consensus on whether additional criteria were consistently testable and implementable in all web pages across diverse languages and cultures.

<jon_avila> There were low vision things that the LVTF wanted that did not get in. So if we are calling out COGA needs why not say the same thing for low vision?

AWK: for another call. Can we live with (the above text)?

<KimD> Can't we go with a general acknowledgement that there were more proposed SCs than made it to 2.1 for a variety of reasons?

Lisa: Not sure if we want to say the consensus thing, somewhat ugly, do we want to say that in the spec? If other people do, then ok. Jon was asking about a LV link, I'm fine with that.

AWK: It's the same link that can go to that place, would be a matter of changing the link tetxt.

Lisa: Prefer if they are separate, but can live with either way.

AWK: We're stuck on that sentence starting 'significant challenges'?

Katie: Althought LV didn't get everything in either, there were decisions early on about things being testable that were part of cognitive SCs, but they didn't receive the same treatment as LV & mobile.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> but there is not agreement on that point\

AWK: Don't think working group would agree that there was bias, many people would say the proposals had problems with implementability/testability, there are real challenges there. Dont' want to dig into that now, but don't want to ignore it either.

David: Is there a sentence such as: Diffiuculty making SC for cognitive/learning disabilities, but there are external docs for those which don't have the same requirements. So we say that these requirements from COGA didn't have to go through that process.

Lisa: we thought we had reached them all.

Chuck: Question really, from the 30,000 view, what should it accomplish?

Lisa: There are better standards for people with COGA issues, they aren't in WCAG even at AAA. There are people who want to include things for COGA people.

<AWK> Proposal: Significant challenges in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG.

AWK: How about (the above text).

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> I am good with it

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> so long aas it then has the link

<AWK> Significant challenges were encountered in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG.

<AWK> Significant challenges in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability and implementability of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG.

<AWK> Significant challenges in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including the timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability and implementability of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> http://easy-to-read.eu/european-standards/ is an example of a standard used by thousands of sites

<Zakim> KimD, you wanted to ask if this isn't true for ALL working groups input?

AWK: Any objections?

<AWK> Officially asking people to stay on the call 10 minutes past the hour

Kim: I know COGA issues have been under-addressed, but everyone had to let go of a lot of proposals. Having something very general is ok, it's a stringent process, see the other things here.

<Ryladog> I cant either

<david-macdonald> http://easy-to-read.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EN_Information_for_all.pdf There is very little there that is testable, implementable and has difficulty internationalization. Its good advice, but not something that can withstand lawsuits.

<Ryladog> Can you past again?

<Ryladog> paste

Significant challenges in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including the timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability and implementability of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG. We encourage authors to refer to our supplemental guidance on <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag#suppliment">improving inclusion for people with

learning and cognitive disabilities</a>.

<AWK> Significant challenges in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability and implementability of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG.

<gowerm> Lisa, do you really think the stuff in the European standard is testable? e.g., 'Do not use difficult words'.

<AWK> Significant challenges were encountered in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability and implementability of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG.

<Ryladog> agree to add i18n

<AWK> Significant challenges were encountered in defining additional criteria to address cognitive, language and learning disabilities, including a short timeline for development as well as challenges in reaching consensus on testability, implementability, and international considerations of proposals. Work will carry on in this area in future versions of WCAG.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> mike, that is why we changed it to a refrenced vocablary which is 100% testable

RESOLUTION: Accept changes to introduction as ammended

AWK: One other issue in survey, 755 about 1.3.4/5 being confused. Survey was unanimous

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/755#issuecomment-379778493

<Joshue108> Gotta drop.. Thanks all for your hard work.

AWK: Changing 'identify purpose' to 'identify input purpose'

RESIOLUTION: Accepted response to 755 as proposed

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CloseCRIssues/results

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdvancetoProposedRecommendation/results

<AWK> This is a Call for Consensus to advance WCAG 2.1 to Proposed Recommendation. A few tasks related to the transition are not quite complete but we expect them to be by the time the CfC closes, and to stay on timeline we are running the CfC in parallel. These along with key review points are described below. The Editors' Draft which includes the content proposed to be published as a Proposed Recommendation is available at: https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/

<AWK> Document 8 AA and 2 AAA implementations in the implementation report https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/implementation-report/ (3 more AA needed at time the CfC was sent) Address and close all public comments filed on the CR https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+label%3A%22CR+Comment%22

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> arai are asking me to join . is that ok?

AWK: This is about moving to the next step, with some items running in parallel.

David: Wasn't there some discussion about the structure?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> need to see the draft to aprove it

David: the link seems to have the old stuff?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> also can we have more then 48 hour to review?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> (friday and sataday are not work days and I am not home)

AWK: Asking for approval to transition, contingent on the open CFCs passing. Including the intro, re-org, and implementations.
... What do people think?

David: sounds good.

<david-macdonald> +1

<laura> +1

AWK: Anyone feel it's not ready, with the current area of caveats...

<Glenda> +1

<AWK> Any objection to approving transition to PR, contingent on the open CFCs passing for issues, intro, re-org, and implementation reporting.

no objection, +1

<Chuck> no objection, +1

No objections expressed

<jon_avila> no objection

RESOLUTION: Move to PR with contingencies

AWK: We do need reviewers on some things. Josh is doing LF legal, Alastair the PDF doc.
... Thanks everyone, almost there. Understanding and techniques will be the next focus.

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/shortcuts should go/shortcuts to go/
Succeeded: s/2.4.1/2.1.4/
Succeeded: s/Do not use difficult words/e.g., 'Do not use difficult words'/
Default Present: AWK, gowerm, Greg, alastairc, shadi, Alex, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Glenda, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, kirkwood, marcjohlic, jasonjgw, jon_avila, Laura, KimD
Present: AWK gowerm Greg alastairc shadi Alex Katie_Haritos-Shea Glenda LisaSeemanKestenbaum kirkwood marcjohlic jasonjgw jon_avila Laura KimD 1 david-macdonald
Regrets: jallan
Found Scribe: alastairc
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Found Date: 12 Apr 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.)