See also: IRC log
Welcome to this Information Session for the WCAG2ICT Task Force.
We will be going around to introduce who is here shortly.
We are opening up and linking to an additional room on the phone bridge as there are some people who weren't expected;
we'll sort this out before the next call.
In this call we will discuss people and participation; process and collaboration tools; and introduce the starter documents.
For now let's go around introducing who is here.
Judy Brewer, Director of WAI, Boston
Bruce Bailey, US Access Board, Washington DC
Loic Martinez, Technical University of Madrid, Spain
Jane Vincent, AT lead, U Michigan Ann Arbor
Mike Pluke, Vice-Chair HF Committee for ETSI, leading M-376
Gregg Vanderheiden, Co-Chair WCAG WG, TEITAC, Trace, Madison
John Lee, RIM, M-376, Toronto
Mary Jo Mueller, IBM, Austin
Duff Johnson, NetCentric
Janina Sajka, Chair Linux Open Accessibility; Chair WAI-PFWG, Washington DC
Andrew Kirkpatrick, Adobe, WCAG, TEITAC
Alex Li, Microsoft, WCAG WG, TEITAC
Peter Korn, Oracle, WCAG WG, TEITAC
Al Hoffman, Homeland Security
Shadi Abou-Zahra, WAI, M-376, Europe
Kiran_Karja, Adobe Accessibility, London
Michael Cooper, WAI, WCAG WG
jb:The charge to the Task Force is to perform a technical review of how WCAG 2 maps to non-Web ICT
and produce an informative (non-normative) document
it is not in our scope to make statements about whether WCAG 2 *should* apply to those technologies
that is prerogative of other organizations, including regulatory bodies
also not going to change WCAG 2.0 itself
the goal is to have a circulatable draft in the next few months
want a lot of continuity from one discussion to the next
impacts participation, and is a reason for high time commitment
time commitment applies to individuals, not organizations shared among multiple individuals
we would prefer a single person from an organization be the direct participant, and any others serve just as offline backup, commenters, etc.
We've been looking for people who have extensive knowledge of the development of WCAG 2
or who have participated in US and European discussions of takeup of WCAG 2
people with both those sets of experience particularly helpful
jb: Many here have worked with W3C, but some haven't, so want to describe as applied to task force
W3C areas of work happen under Activities
in a specific Working Group that is defined by a charter
the charter is carefully prepared and reviewed by the hundreds of W3C Member organizations
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) is one of these
(WCAG WG charter is linked from TF Work Statement)
W3C WGs have ability to create Task Forces (TF) under it to work on items specifically relevant to its charter
W3C/WAI was specifically asked for help on the question of applicability of WCAG to non-Web ICT
this task force was formed to respond to that, with a carefully defined work statement
any outputs of the group must be approved by the sponsoring WG
i.e., WCAG has to approve and publish documents, those are not published by the TF directly
so the work we do is governed by W3C process, as enabled by the WCAG WG
one aspect of W3C process is the Patent Policy that enables royalty-free information sharing
to join the TF, you join the WCAG WG
which requires acceptance of the patent policy requirement
after you join the WG, you flag your interest in the TF
There are two ways to join a WG
1) Via Membership; 2) as Invited Expert
majority of people in this call are from W3C Member organizations
your Advisory Committee representative can nominate you
we can tell you if you don't know who that is
Invited Expert process is for people from organizations that do not have resources to be W3C Member
but have perspective that is particularly relevant to the work
we may have to have a discussion with you about your knowledge and affiliations
Your participation in this TF is for the expected limited lifetime of the TF
but welcome this being an entry to participation in other areas
some may find early on that other areas of work are more relevant
Keep in mind that you are a participant in the TF, not someone who speaks on behalf of it
Also be clear that the TF is not involved in regulatory work
please defer to facilitators and staff with respect to representations of the work
Andi Snow-Weaver, Mike Pluke, Judy Brewer, Michael Cooper
Thanks to people who helped get this going
Peter Korn, Gregg Vanderheiden, Andi Snow-Weaver
al: Are there people invited who are not in this call?
jb: Yes, some who couldn't attend at this time
think I've heard from everyone one way or the other, who was invited
but don't have a collated list yet
some people are here via forwards
expect a few people in next week or two besides those on this call
but expect to begin working together early next week
there will be a bit of flux initially but want a stable group to form, moving ahead
pk: In addition to expertise in WCAG and familiarity with regulatory aspects
familiarity in applying accessibility frameworks, making applications and documents accessible would be very welcome
jb: Note we haven't sent a general call for participation
TFs normally draw their membership from the WG directly
potential interest might be higher than for a typical TF, but we need to stay focused
please don't send invites around generally; instead, bring suggested members to our attention
mp: the above requirements are met by many of the people already here
jb: Task Force Work Statement
is now a stable document
will update the liaison and leadership sections.
In Approach section
looking at applicability of WCAG SC to non-Web ICT
will produce a W3C Working Group Note
which is an informative document, is *not* a formal standard
may do some work in sub-teams of the Task Force
which report to the TF (which in turn reports to WCAG WG)
all drafts will be publicly visible
with multiple mechanisms for comments
responses to comments prepared by the TF
use TF as a dialog opportunity, then WG approves work
in as quick as possible of a timeline
Timeline section is known to be aggressive
expect the short- and medium-term milestones to be defined in early work of the TF
work in Europe and US means we need a draft asap
and a reasonably complete outline by July
Communication has multiple means
expect twice-weekly meetings at first
mailing list publicly archived and available for discussion
TF has a sub-page http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/
that will be the home base for finding things out about Task Force news
will set up an action tracker and opinion survey tool
before meetings there will often be surveys to collect input before the meeting
you may be in the position of preparing things for comment
we find it good for people to put proposals out for discussion and collect feedback on the list and in Web-Based Survey (WBS)
so there will be homework...
On the TF home page
announcements at the top
meeting information
teleconferences have a US number or use SIP, a form of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP)
we use Internet Relay Chat (IRC) for chat and minute-taking
links to help on SIP and IRC available
will need help scribing (taking minutes)
don't expect face-to-face meetings, though possible that could change
may have people join calls using interpreters / captions / relay services
which means we need to be careful of communication, not talking over each other, etc.
will add a references section
will have links to drafts
initial drafts in a Google site
jb: Status of drafts?
gv: there is one document, have incorporated input from others received so far
bb: why using Google sites instead of wiki?
jb: let's come back in a minute, when GV introduces
MC, please inform about tools
<overview of mailing lists and infractructure available from the TF home page>
jb: We are going to start with some default meeting times
and then check how it's working
we are bridging continents
and have an editorial team with constraints
so our starter times are:
Tuesdays and Fridays at 10:00 am U.S. Eastern (14:00 UTC while North America in Daylight Savings Time)
jb: Gregg Vanderheiden is one of the co-chairs of the WCAG WG
Loretta Guarino Reid is the other
gv: the survey (WBS) tool is used as a natural part of our meetings
think of it as a pre-staging of our weekly meeting
bring up items for discussion
and queue comments and feedback in advance
so meeting goes more quickly
ensures people have reviewed materials in advance
and gives chance to review each others' comments and prepare response
al: duration of calls?
jb: 90 minutes each
gv: we looked at a number of tools for document drafting
W3C wiki is not WYSIWYG
requires learning a text format
Google docs is easier to work with
there have been a lot of accessibility improvements
there are a bunch of pages available
each has ability to attach comments
it's publicly viewable, but not publicly editable
each item we cover is a separate page
so can attach documents and comments on just that topic
important to separate opinions of individuals from task force statements
so each page has a clear division
there is a section that has the consensus-based content
and a following section that has anything else
right now not much in the consensus area because we haven't started the process yet
we are copying in the Intent section from Understanding WCAG20
there is a section for contributions
jb: we'll work out practices for ensuring content appears in the right places
and will migrate content to W3C reasonably soon
gv: note the tool does track who makes what edit
jb: summary of content so far?
gv: right now we have an outline of what the document might look like
some proposed frontmatter and introductory text
each Principle, Guidelines, and Success Criterion from WCAG has a reflection in this document
with the consensus content, proposals, and issues / comments / questions / answers / discussion etc.
There are links in glossary to some items, may need expansion
jb: note this was an extremely introductory session
al: Will meetings have agenda?
jb: yes, though first meeting agenda will be shortly before
bb: I have a document that compares WCAG language, TEITAC, and ANPRM language
want to upload, don't want to email
jb: send to Gregg, Judy, MichaelC, we'll sort out where it seems best
mp: we have a draft document as well, that explores some of the issues
it could serve as input to the work of this TF
jb: the early input is extremely valuable
means there's a lot everyone will need to review
al: is the M376 content in the Google site?
gv: no, we can link to it but didn't want to copy over
jb: ok, we're about done
will follow up on various things