See also: IRC log
<KimD> +KimD
<MichaelC> scribe: Mike_Elledge
Jeanne: Silver TF has been working on process goals. Use them to select to categorize different options to working group. If WG decides speed is not most important, will give options.
J: All the different things that
would lead to good process for silver. Another best possible
research for best results. Another cost. Trying to categorize
all the things that could be done for good process.
... So want WG to look at them and rank them.
MC: Each goal would be an approach to the process?
J: Yes.
MC: Example: Don't care if 10 years so long as get good process.
J: Want to be reasonable. As braod as possible as is reasonable. Different orientation to each goal. Won't be rigid. Narrowing down on four goals that will be important. But want to know what you think is important.
MC: Wasn't sure how to answer
survey. Thought combination would be appropriate.
... Goal three--Communication
J: Want public presentation.
Go to conferences. Broad audience. When at prototype make them available and provide survey for input.
J; Research, brain-storming, implementation, and another? At each would have option that would give result, oriented to each of approaches.
MC: on the surface, open communication was most important according to survey.
Shawn: All are important. Wanted to make it clear to see what people think are important. May be different ways to structure things so can assure meet objective. Looking for relative importance, not exclusion.
MC: So open communication got all highers. Life cycle got lowest.
J: Will have to discuss more. Did not look at results. Rather talk during group to discuss results and how to interpret. Would not put as much emphasis on that. Still important.
MC: Two people did not know how it would differ from #8, which is milestones.
J: Let's look at the results and
get more comment, then bring results to group in a way that
makes more sense.
... Can discuss to make clear. Life-cycle: so it would be
easier to update over time.
... As technology changed, disabilities becamre more apparent,
etc.
MC: Thought might want to
re-structure based on what presented to chair.
... Describe what they are?
J: #2: Broad communication. Talked about it. Easy and open communication channels. #3: Wanted it to be two-way communication. So input would be easy to do as well.
MC: WCAG process point.
S: #3: is more about methods of communication.
J: #4: Evidence and data. Getting research involved. UX, depth. #5: Maintenance, making updates. #6: Scope. Want silver to be more inclusive of tech and disabilities.
#7: Design and engage stakeholders. Commitment to effort. All user groups of WCAG, including devs, qa, policy makers, a11y consultants, legal firms--make sure all people who use WCAG are involved. Particularly organizations. Expand outreach to rare disabilities so won't be underserved.
J: Last two. #8 Establish clear milestones. Speed and accountability.
MC: Take another look at survey as needed. Any quesitons?
JK: Understand survey much better now. Can answer better.
MC: Extend the survey so more people can answer, or revise questions? or answer later?
J: Not sure re-doing survey is worthwhile.
MC: 7 people have responded. Get more feedback?
A: May help to resend note.
J: Will add paragraphs to explain. Moving quickly. Getting things ready for TPAC.
MC: Wiki?
J: Wiki and Google docs.
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Designing_Silver
S: Google docs more of a sketching place. Publish through wiki.
MC: Other questions.
... Have extended to 8/31.
MC: Updated charter and survey to
collect input. Mine only response. Any thoughts?
... Discussed last week.
... Did not set resolution. But need to tell advisory committee
so not a surprise. Record a resolution, approve draft charter
for review.
JO: Exactly what we hope to do. Also assume silence is agreement. If you have issues add them.
MC: Comments/questions?
J: Last week discussed other deliverables for the Other Deliverables section updates to WCAG and UUAAG. Didn't make it into deliverable.
JO: Updating WCAG is not going to
happen.
... General discussion about authoring tools. Need to
disambiguate UAAG and ATAG. Can't speak to these other
deliverables. Don't know how it would happen. UAAG is
responsible for that.
MC: In terms of general W3C
process, when a document is completed, and WG closes, updates
can be handled by collecting comments, errata, updating
non-normative docs. Team has (presumably) defined a group. If
no group able to respond, then question if WCAG can take it
on.
... Want to separate from WCAG group. As charter for WCAG 2.0
defines updating, Silver will be defined also to include UAAG
and ATAG revisions, without impacting Silver development (?).
If in our scope could do revisions.
... But hopefully not responsible for it, so don't fail
charter.
... Allowed to address, but not obligated.
A: As needed to but not failure if we don't.
MC: If charter doesn't say we can, we won't be able to.
J: UAAG and ATAG members came to last week's meeting, so the possibility exists. Just want to make sure it's possible by the charter.
MC: Those attendees provided input, and hope they would also contribute.
JO: Important that we understand that user agents and authoring tools in Silver may not become part of UAAG and ATAG.
MC: One of my concerns is that WCAG WG not get too loaded up with "stuff". Does anyone object to adding it to charter scope.
<jeanne> +1
<alastairc> +1 would like it in, not obligated
<Lauriat> +1
MC: How many people want UAAG and ATAG maintenance to be added to charter.
<kirkwood> +1
<jeanne> Greg Lowney is not here this week, but spoke very strongly for it last week.
<KimD> +1, would like it in, but not as obligation
<laura> +1 would like it in, not obligated
J: Will have to be looking at browsers wrt internet of things, auto browsers, so shouldn't rule out.
<marcjohlic> +1
<MoeKraft> +1, without obligation
+1, but not obligated.
MC: Does anyone oppose including UAAG and ATAG maintenance?
JN: Don't want to overload it.
MC: Suggest that we take James'
point that we don't overload it. Won't be updates to core,
possibly other items. But will be subject to resources.
... Can't work on docs we dont' own. So need to have
ownership.
J: Don't think we'll be wholesale revision.
JN: More goes in there, more work that's created.
MC: Would not want to have charter fail or lose members over this.
JO: Expectation that there will be revisions?
MC: Notes would not hurt company joining. But specifications become part of WCAG legal structure, i.e., patent issues, might cause issues.
JO: Shouldn't include if it's going to cause problems with WCAG 2.1. Can we find out.
MC: Proposal: Request preliminary review from Advisory Committee. Suggest we put maintenance for support materials in charter, including UAAG and ATAG, within draft and ask if it will cause issues.
JN: Groups closed because of work involved. May just make us thin again.
J: Can we not have a separate charter for Silver? As browsers change have to make revisions.
MC: We have a sticky problem.
Separate charter from WCAG 2.0+?
... One issue: Silver is largely undefined, in incubation
stage. Advisory Committee would not approve going into WG
charter. Maybe a couple of years before it is adequately
defined. If we don't include, won't be able to get into its own
chater. Whould have to be community group.
... Will think that items that don't get into 2.1 will get into
Silver, if not the case will drag down 2.1 effort. Will also
lose synergy if we move it out of WCAG WG.
... Those are my concerns.
<jeanne> +1, we don't want two working groups -- one for 2.1 and 1 for Silver
<alastairc> for me: same people means it should be same charter. I'd still like us to own ATAG/UAAG, without committing to work on them until Silver.
MC: This group is getting spread
thin. Don't want to evolve into Super group, with too many
deliverables.
... Think we may get suggestion to move into community
group.
<AWK> +AWK
MC: Community groups for people
who can do work in W3C but can't publish formal documents. But
not patent implications and no restrictions wrt joining group.
By engaging wider community can get development going that can
lead to formal process.
... Then a WG can be formed or added to CG. CG is more of an
open first step. Worry that there may be fragmentation.
... Can you live with it being in charter, assuming will get
feedback.
JN: Assume we'll get pushback.
<JF> +1 to that
MC: Pushback will help us define.
JO: Also provides documentation of issues.
AK: What is being proposed?
MC: Maintenance of UAAG and ATAG to charter.
AK: ?
MC: Potentially responding to public comments, collecting errata, edited recommendations. Allowed but not required to. Might make changes to support materials, bot not core. concerns: Impact on participation in group, and spreading us too thin.
JF: Doesn't mean ignoring UAAG and ATAG. Needs to be some kind of ownership, so they don't be come useless.
AK: Agree that don't want info to
become outdated, but concerned about bandwidth of our group
taking those on. We are taking on the next stage through
Silver. Effort of UAAG and ATAG will be part of Silver. Don't
mind that we can provided some maintenance, but will ahve to
prioritize along with everything esle we'll be doing.
... Don't think we can do a great deal of maintenance given the
current WG.
MC: But need to have that
option.
... If not included in WCAG charter, then will need to create
new groups to address them. May be less need to maintain since
they're a year old.
JF: Someone has to have ownership, even if they are stable. Don't want them to be filed away.
MC: WCAG being asked to do this bec no one else is available.
<jeanne> +1 to Michael's proposal
MC: Would like to propose they be
put in charter without obligation, with note asking for comment
from Advisory Committee.
... Did not hear that JN was going to raise a major issue, that
he will discuss with Oracle.
... Any objections.
<alastairc> no objection, good plan
RESOLUTION: Inclue ATAG 2.0 and UAAG 2.0 maintenace into charter scope as allowed but not required.
MC: No objections.
RESOLUTION: Working group approval to submit Charter for preliminary review.
MC: Include public input as well.
<jamesn> can we specify that it is just for supporting material with no ability to create a new version
MC: James N has another point...
AWK: We can certainly put that it's out of scope to create new UAAG and ATAG.
MC: A good idea, just want to collect errata and add/revise support materials.
RESOLUTION: New versions of UAAG and ATAG are out of Charter scope.
MC: Anything else on charter?
<steverep> There is a repeated "is to" in the first sentence of the charter
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xq10
MC: Item #1. Consider SMIL. 7 votes...
AK: Ask for unanimous consent? #1 and #5.
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xq5
MC: Any objection on SMIL and
Ruby changes?
... None
AK: Will go through minutes and once they clear will add to github.
RESOLUTION: Items 1 and 5 accepted.
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xpull189
MC: Summary of HTML 5. 7 accepts
and 1 comment.
... Andrew has already changed. Exceptions?
RESOLUTION: Accept item #2.
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xpull175
MC: Andrew has implemented both
items in #3. Exceptions?
... No.
AK: Since this is editorial and non-controversial felt this was appropriate.
RESOLUTION: Accept Item 3
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xIssue182
MC: Item 4. Laura: obsoleted. Alistairs comment?
Objections?
RESOLUTION: Accept item 4
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/August23Misc/results#xq6
MC: Need to add HTML5 link.
AK: Add an HTML5 resources link.
JF: Would put HTML5 at top, since most people use it today.
Adam: Can we have one link instead of 3, since all going to the same document.
AK: yes
MC: See teh word definition. Is it deliberate or should it be description.
<JF> +1 to AWK's plan
AK: Largely terminology. Add in note that helps bridge that gap. If the group agrees, will put changes in pull request and send around for consensus. Need a conceptual yes.
MC: Any objections?
RESOLUTION: Accept item 6 as changed.
MC: Anything else?
JO: No
AK: No
MC: Thanks to everyone for getting through agenda.
<laura> Bye
<MichaelC> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/? section updates/Other Deliverables section updates/ Succeeded: s/JN: We can certainly/AWK: We can certainly/ Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION;/RESOLUTION:/ Succeeded: s/MC: RESOLUTION:/RESOLUTION:/ Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge Default Present: Kathy, AWK, Joshue, David, Makoto, AlastairC, jeanne, Mike_Elledge, SarahHorton, JF, Rachael, KimD, marcjohlic, kirkwood, Laura, katie, GregL, JamesNurthen, Lauriat, MichaelC, John_Kirkwood, Elledge, steverep, Katie_Haritos-Shea, DavidMacDonald, adam_solomon, jon_avila Present: Kathy AWK Joshue David Makoto AlastairC jeanne Mike_Elledge SarahHorton JF Rachael KimD marcjohlic kirkwood Laura katie GregL JamesNurthen Lauriat MichaelC John_Kirkwood Elledge steverep Katie_Haritos-Shea DavidMacDonald adam_solomon jon_avila alastairc Mike Kim Regrets: Makoto_Ueki Sarah_Horton Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016JulSep/0584.html Found Date: 23 Aug 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]