See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 November 2015
<Joshue108> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<AWK> trackbot, draft minutes
<trackbot> Sorry, AWK, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
+ Laura
<AWK> Scribe: Laura
<AWK> Mike will scribe next week!
<AWK> Survey link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2015-10-quickref/
Eric: Would like to open quick
ref for public review. Please review the Quickref and note any
objections for bringing it to a broader audience for a public
review.
... Will be an email with details tommorrow.
AWK: Be on the look out for the survey link.
AWK: Asking people who attended for anythingrelevant.
MichaelC: Only one at TPAC. Not
sure of what would be relevant to this group.
... People are looking for new versions coming down the
pike.
…Coga did a presentation which would need WCAG support.
…some would be best practices.
…Best practices seemed to be a recurring theme.
…APA and the platform group are now in existence.So we will be working with them.
…APA will be making more use of IG.
JOC: Discusses Best practices vs SC.
<Joshue> JOC: It strikes me that best practices may need to become a category or output of the WCAG WG in tandem with any new SCs, guidelines and techniques.
MichaelC: Relevant to us: Developers want to do the wrong thin even if a right thing is available.
JOC: Needs to be relevant and practical.
ME: Asks if need more examples or find info more easily.
MichaelC: Devs want to be able to
copy and paste.
... Hard for Devs to pick the right technique.
<AWK> Next TPAC is in Lisbon Portugal, last week of September 2016
s/ Eric: pick the right technique./pick the right technique./
<Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/cogaextreview/results
AWK: We want to get some initial
comments.
... First Draft. Kind of wrapped up with next survey item
regarding extension requirements.
MichaelC: Survey should have been more of a review thing.
<MichaelC> Potential review questions:
<MichaelC> * Comments on specific candidate SC
<MichaelC> * Comments on specific proposed best practices, issues, etc.
<MichaelC> * How will things fit into potential new WCAG guidelines frameworks
JOC: Agrees. Survey could be structured differently.
<MichaelC> * What constraints continue to impact what COGA stuff can become part of guideilnes
<MichaelC> * What issues with changing levels of SC, given there were particular reasons they landed where they did
<Joshue> LC: Good draft, with good themes.
<Joshue> LC: We need to think about SCs and how to direct the conversation.
AWK: Reviews survey comments.
MichaelC: Need to look at it more granularly and from different angles.
AWK: Need to get a sense of magnitude.
JOC: Think about the structure of review. Should step back from this initial pass.
AWK: Anything we should discuss now?
MichaelC: Might be useful to have a joint meeting with COGA to talk through issues.
AWK: Anyone on the call a COGA participant?
MichaelC: No.
AWK: Chairs will send out an email soon and arrange a joint call.
AWK: Much discussion on list regarding extensions.
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/results
AWK: Discussion seems to be
around testability and SC.
... Reviews survey results. No much new.
<AWK> acl kath
AWK: May not able to require No conflict between extensions.
Kathy: Much is theoretical at this point.
…Preferences and personalization may come into play.
…We should strive for no conflict between extensions. And discuss if they occur.
JOC: Agree. That is reasonable.
<Mike_Elledge> +1
MichaelC: Disagree. If we look into the future it is not practical.
…not a smooth path forward.
…Devs would have to choose between groups.
…Need to not to favor user groups. Need to haromize.
<MichaelC> Allowing conflicts mean we can´t roll extensions into a future version of guidelines, unless we resolve the conflicts at that time or drop something, introducing a backwards compatibility problem
s/ haromize. /harmonize. /
<MichaelC> and it runs us into picking favored user groups, problems for regulators, less harmonization, etc.
<MichaelC> if we truly think conflict is unavoidable, we should make a careful framework for it in a post WCAG 2.0 world that address the considerations
<MichaelC> having conflicting extensions on a WCAG 2.0 base without considering those issues will lead us into a lot of trouble down the road
James: Discusses what is a
conflict.
... Extension to extension conflict will be inevitable.
Kathy: There is even conflict in
the same user group. That is why COGA is working on
personalization.
... We need to define what is a conflict.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to raise issue of W3C acceptance
MichaelC: We need to be forward thinking and realistic as to what the larger community will and won’t accept.
…we can get some pre-shopping around. Get early public review.
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/
… we need to be responible.
AWK: Yes, we can do some of the things Michael explained.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we need to ask express review question
…may be a problem to pin ourselves in.
<jamesn> +1
JOC: We just don’t know at this point what conflicts will occur.
<AWK> AWK wonders if the mobile TF has thought about whether any of the items in the COGA document would be conflicting
…but we have to walk a line.
MichaelC: We don’t know everything yet so maybe we should defer some decisions.
<MichaelC> but I´m still worried about a mindset, if we allow conflicts now we will simply allow them; if we don´t, we´ll try harder to avoid them and reopen the conflict decision only if absolutely necessary
AWK: Need guidance at the outset so we are not reactive. But rather proactive.
JOC: Want to create a roadmap.
Adam: Agree with Kathy.
AWK: Sounds like we should draft
some new language regarding conflict.
... Need to listen to people on the call and on the list.
<Joshue> +1 to sounding good.
<Kathy> +1
Laura: +1
<marcjohlic> +1 agree
AWK: Another question regarded levels.
…Discusses survey results.
Kathy: What do we mean by levels?
AWK: If we had an extension that moved levels form AA to A, There would be no rationale for that extension to have a level.
Kathy: Provides mobile example
using the WCAG model.
... Mobile TF wants to prioritize levels within the
extension.
[Missing what JOC said]
Kathy: Mobile put some things into best practices.
<Joshue> JOC: Its interesting to hear Kathys comments, that she has a strong preference for using levels to signify critical or more important SCs in the mobile TF extension model.
AWK: Need to check with COGA and
low vision TF regarding levels.
... Discuss doc on list.
s/ relevant /relevant /
rsagent, make minutes
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ +K/+ K/ Succeeded: s/ ric: Would/Eric: Would/ Succeeded: s/public review./public review. Please review the Quickref and note any objections for bringing it to a broader audience for a public review./ Succeeded: s/ pic the right technique./Eric: pick the right technique./ FAILED: s/ Eric: pick the right technique./pick the right technique./ Succeeded: s/ Fires Draft/First Draft/ FAILED: s/ haromize. /harmonize. / FAILED: s/ relavant /relevant / Succeeded: s/ Soe we will be/So we will be/ Succeeded: s/ Hard for Devs toEric: pick the right technique./Hard for Devs to pick the right technique./ Succeeded: s/relavant/relevant/ Succeeded: s/ relavant/relevant/ Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Default Present: EricE, Laura, Kenny, Joshue, marcjohlic Present: EricE Laura Kenny Joshue marcjohlic Kathy Found Date: 03 Nov 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/03-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]