<Chuck> +1 to glenda
<AWK> +AWK
<AWK> Chair: AlastairC
<laura> Scribe: Laura
<AWK> Proposed Rec is out: https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-WCAG21-20180424/
<JF> yay!!!
AC: We are in PR
... all according to plan.
... SCs are in.
MC: The main purpose of Proposed Recommendation is to measure support from the W3C Membership for the specification.
If you work for a W3C Member organization, please help ensure your Advisory Committee representative submits a vote.
scribe: not much formal work for
WG at this time.
... we will see how that goes.
... work on understanding docs.
awk: make sure to educate your AC
rep.
... ton to do in understanding and technique docs.
... contact the chairs if you don’t know what to do.
chuck: where are the lists?
MC: on the group home page
<AWK> Regarding AC responses: The deadline for responses is: 22 May 2018.
<AWK> (responses for WCAG 2.1, that is)
ac: Advisory Committee representatives are reviewing the main spec.
mc: CFC for understanding docs in
mid may.
... happy to do an update on understanding if wanted.
jf: concerend about understnding
for Understnding Common Purpose
... needs a major overhaul.
<JF> current Understanding: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/identify-purpose.html
ac: can strip it down and rework.
MC: I plan on doing an editorial pass.
<Glenda> When do we tap EO, I think they volunteered to do some editorial review of Understanding docs???
jf: lots to do. Open questions. Will work with the chairs.
<AWK> Yes, EO is on board for that
ac: at CSUN we had a sprint.
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/community/silver/draft-final-report-of-silver/
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/community/silver/2018/04/23/suggestions-of-silver-design-sprint/
SL: number of participants.
... reviewed research and problem statements.
... brainstormed.
... we have many ideas.
... “How Might We” (HMW) ideas
... prototyping and ideas.
... for the suggestions, they are things we need to look
into..
JS: we wnat to write silver in
plan language.
... add more claritly.
... database all the things.
... help people find the information.
... want to help beginners with a separate page.
<david-macdonald> I would suggest writing a non-normative plain language version, if we loose precision in the plain language version
sl: Conformance Model: want to
including guidance that meets the needs of people with
disabilities, but is not conducive to a pass/fail test.
... have a point and ranking system.
... get away from pass/fail.
... remove Accessibility Supported
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say please clarify testability vs measurability
awk: difference between testability and measurability?
JS: came from research
sources.
... came from COGA SC difficult to test
... can’t be tested but can be measured.
... could include user testing, rubrics
<AWK> An example of measurability would be great
JS: more ways to evaluate.
sl: also looking at passing
conformance but not being usable.
... example: convoluted keyboard shortcuts.
... alex: there are things that are measureable but not pass
fail.
... .seems you are talking about subjectivity
... focused on usabilty testing not user testing with
people
... other methodologies.
alex: the measurability is not measurable.
jf: interested in idea of bronze, silver, gold. and legal input.
JS: hasn’t been worked on yet.
But I have been thinking about it a lot.
... could go to a point system.
... encourage more desirable behaviors.
... if pass 2.1 automatic bronze.
... then more points added for doing more work e.g. uability
testing.
... we don’t have a lot of details on this yet.
... but could be used in a regulatory environment
sl: bronze, silver, gold idea came from LEEDS building certification.
MG: we already have alot of subjectivity.
sl: would be a blend of things.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we shouldn't deep dive on this now - we want to share these resources and then queue up a more structured discussion in the coming weeks
awk: shouln’t deep dive too much.
alex: sounds like trying to blend
2 types of standards.
... wcag and management testing.
... performance of management system is not looking for an
outcome. but contiuous improvement.
... will be quite a challenge.
<jon_avila> A similar challenge is that conformance statements are only a snapshot in time -- this type of system process evaluation would help ensure a products conformance over time
lisa: interesting idea. More
flexible.
... wcag dosen’t get feedback and data from pwd
... we have failed to do that.
... this would give us flexibility.
... we have space here to add data and best practices.
... we are going to have to change or become obsolete.
Jean: maintenance section. With a
core section.
... change to include community group
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-understanding-documents#List_of_understanding_docs
<alastairc> TOPIC 1.3.5
ac: Quite a few have understanding documents have been reviewed.
JF: ref to links need to be added
or removed.
... concerned with version control.
ac: we will take help in anyway
you can give it.
... can use a second reviewer.
... any takers?
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> fyi I did also have a quick read over.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> i was happy with it
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> (quickly....)
<Glenda> I can do it…to I qualify?
detlev: I can give it a try.
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-understanding-documents#List_of_understanding_docs
<Glenda> Which one do y’all want me to review (by name…since the SC numbers are changing)?
jf: want to do a proposed rewrite.
lisa: I did a rewrite of both of those.
<alastairc> Current version in the branch: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/identify-purpose/understanding/21/identify-purpose.html
mc: would have only deleted a branch if it was merged.
jf: heavy reliance on proposed technology that doesn’t exist yet.
<jallan> scribe: jallan
<laura> …need to focus on what can be done today.
ac: review SC, build on intent gradually. needs a bit of overhaul
<laura> jim: did an update.
Jim: created a branch https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/edit/reflow-comments-jallan/understanding/21/reflow.html
<laura> scribe change?
<laura> thanks.
detlev: FAQ section. how should we add Persona section?
<laura> Scribe: jallan
ac: Reflow, owns the unusual
structure.
... asks editors for thoughts on FAQ section
mc: rather than questions. just add subsections
detlev: should I reshape to remove FAQ yet maintain content. Like the content in the FAQ.
glenda: should focus on is Understanding Doc understandable. people reading are thinking in questions.
mc: FAQ should be a separate resource. Understanding should be more uniform
awk: FAQ exist when regular presentation of information fails. hope that we write the other info so FAQs not needed.
ac: recommend to detlev to
integrate faq into intents etc.
... add jallan edits before faq integration
... detlev will wait a day
ac: good idea if everyone adds them
gs: they are short and add lots of clarity. Where should they go in the U. document
<Glenda> Text spacing added a sub heading for Persona Quote
<Glenda> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/text-spacing/understanding/21/text-spacing.html
<Glenda> I added Persona Quote under “Benefits”
laura: glenda created them a few months ago.
<Glenda> See my “persona quotes” for all 12 of the A/AA SC that have made it to Proposed Rec https://www.deque.com/blog/wcag-2-1-what-is-next-for-accessibility-guidelines/
<Glenda> Y’all might want to edit out my sassiness.
awk: we talked about personas a
while back. group was in favor. would be good for all SC
including 2.0 ones
... should do 2.1 then fill the 2.0 shortly there after.
glenda: perhaps me and ShawnH could quickly create them. will reach out
gower: should do 2.1 first. editorial comments on placement -- intent vs benefits
glenda: perhaps defer till after talk with shawnh
<laura> Persona thread from last January: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JanMar/thread.html#msg1057
<AWK> you're proposing an SC language change?
gower: hope to make the SC immediately understandable
ac: yes. How and why of SC should be up front
<gowerm> https://www.ibm.com/blogs/age-and-ability/2018/02/08/simplifying-new-wcag-2-1-guidelines/
ac: general agreement for including Personas. Priority on 2.1 personas
<Zakim> gowerm, you wanted to say why does it have to cover all the 2.0s immediately?
lisa: made comments on understanding non text contrast, and others. talk now.
ac: yes ok to comment.
lisa: tried to restate sc to make sense to folks with cognitive impairments.
ac: should be able to track comment inclusion in understanding
jake: good points on persona,
FAQ, and simplification.
... these are a lot of reading for a lot of people. Not sure if
we add additional content (simplification). not sure we are
solving the problem of making things more readable.
... not sure what the problem is. are these additions going to
make the content more understandable.
... like these inclusions. do we need them all?
glenda: not including persona randomly. persona statements will be consistent.
<laura> s/concerend about understnding for Understnding Common Purpose/concerned about understanding for Understanding Common Purpose/
glenda: SC language is very
specific and precise and hard to understand.
... believe that persona statements provide good simple
language equivalent for SC
ac: need more techiques
ac: anyone interested in reviewing the comments to update understanding.
gower: I will review
ac: non-text appears to be done.
laura: will update with Lisa's comments. no objections to date.
kw: discussed with Kim.... thought edits we good. coordinate on updates.
gower: steveR is busy, no
updates
... david can you review.
david: will review
<laura> s/shouln't deep dive too much./shouldn’t deep dive too much./
ac: lisa and johnk would review.
lisa: content is good, needs editorial review
<kirkwood> I’m reviewing editorial I will do
<kirkwood> second review would be good
<kirkwood> I can hear yes
ac: need another review of timeouts.
<laura> s/wcag dosen’t get feedback and data from pwd/wcag doesn't get feedback and data from people with disabilites/
marc: still a bit of tweaking needed.
ac: tag 788 to make sure it pops in right place
jake: tweaked a bit. needs
another set of eyes on tweaks.
... pull request 873
mc: prefer pull requests after
solid review rather than piecemeal. Pull request should go into
designated location, before merge to Master
... discussion of branches
david: status changes.
mc: only Understanding modified.
working branches get merged to Master.
... some branch problems. discusses branch issues and what is
correct
ac: watch for included files that
have been merged in. Understanding doc has a branch. do pull
request to understanding branch. then eventually merge to
master.
... copy understanding to temp folder, switch branch to
understanding, create new file and copy from temp, then merge
in understanding branch
mc: doesn't guarantee that you won't overwrite other's edits. tread lightly.
ac: comments welcome in understanding threads. let others edit
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pulls/873
<jemma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pulls
^^^ list of current pull requests
<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/873
<jemma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pulls
ac: greg has done a review.
greg: followed MC instructions to
post current doc. extensive rewrite. added new example and
guideline reference.
... tried to rationalize why it is A rather than AA
... invite other reviews
... explain why we need this when we have keyboard. tried to
write justification.
detlev: +1 to rewrite.
<Greg> Agree that is an error in the glossary entry.
detlev: definition needs work - path based gestures needs to be resolved
alex: need to go through the 'essential' definition also.
greg: single pointer is not about
gestures. glossary entry should only be about single pointer
not mention gestures.
... not sure if we can update the glossary.
<jemma> greg's point makes sense.
greg: also a comment from lisa. it was unclear to me.
ac: want to continue reviewing U. status
ac: steveR not able to review. anyone else???
gower: will review
gower: added pull request
chuck: is reviewing. changes are up in github
<jemma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/800
chuck: added comments. 878 failing to merge
<KimD> *@JF - agree!
ac: will review. also chuck will you review and comment gower's pull
<Greg> Re pointer gestures, as I mentioned I don't think it's easy to justify the SC saying, essentially, you don't have to make things operable by pointer, but if you do they MUST be operable with a single pointer and without gestures, regardless of whether it is accessible through other means (e.g. keyboard commands). In some cases this could discourage providing pointer methods when they can't...
<Greg> ...be made simple, and we don't want to discourage that.
<jemma> this is the branch, https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/tree/concurrent-input-mechanisms
ac: MC perhaps we need more step by step directions for pull requests
ac: gower has reviewed. David included Bruce's changes also
david: status is up to date. pulls are correct
mc: Chuck merged your pull request to current branch. will merge with master shortly.
ac: reviewed status this hour.
Well done.
... making progress. Half are done.
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-understanding-documents#List_of_understanding_docs
Things to do. Look at table ^^^ for what needs to be done.
ac: comment in github issue for
things that need further review
... questions?
... get major edits done first. then chairs will add
personas
<alastairc> 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/from lead certification/from LEEDS building certification/ Succeeded: s/Persona thread form last january:/Persona thread from last January:/ Succeeded: s/We ar in PR/We are in PR/ Succeeded: s/understanding and techique docs/understanding and technique docs/ Succeeded: s/are reviwing the main spec./are reviewing the main spec./ Succeeded: s/an update on undertanding if wanted/an update on understanding if wanted/ FAILED: s/concerend about understnding for Understnding Common Purpose/concerned about understanding for Understanding Common Purpose/ Succeeded: s/reviewed research.and problem statements./reviewed research and problem statements./ Succeeded: s/teastability and measurability/testability and measurability/ Succeeded: s/teasted but can be measured./tested but can be measured./ Succeeded: s/example: convoluted kd shortcuts./example: convoluted keyboard shortcuts./ Succeeded: s/focued on usabilty testing not user testing with people/focused on usabilty testing not user testing with people/ Succeeded: s/alot of details on this yet./a lot of details on this yet./ FAILED: s/shouln't deep dive too much./shouldn’t deep dive too much./ FAILED: s/wcag dosen’t get feedback and data from pwd/wcag doesn't get feedback and data from people with disabilites/ Succeeded: s/flexiblity/flexibility/ Succeeded: s/brance/branch/ Succeeded: s/Label in place/target-size/ Succeeded: s/they are things/there are things/ Succeeded: s/created a branch/Jim: created a branch/ Default Present: Mike_Elledge, Laura, JF, JakeAbma, alastairc, Glenda, AWK, Lauriat, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Detlev, jeanne, KimD, Brooks, jon_avila, Kathy, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Alex_, david-macdonald, marcjohlic, gowerm, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, jallan, JaEunJemmaKu Present: Mike_Elledge Laura JF JakeAbma alastairc Glenda AWK Lauriat Greg_Lowney kirkwood MichaelC Detlev jeanne KimD Brooks jon_avila Kathy Katie_Haritos-Shea Alex_ david-macdonald marcjohlic gowerm LisaSeemanKestenbaum jallan JaEunJemmaKu Regrets: EA_Draffan Jake_Abma Bruce_Bailey Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: jallan Inferring ScribeNick: jallan Found Scribe: jallan Inferring ScribeNick: jallan Scribes: Laura, jallan ScribeNicks: laura, jallan Found Date: 24 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]