Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 04 Oct 2016

<AWK_> Present AWK

<AWK_> +AWK

<Joshue108> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 04 October 2016

<Joshue108> Scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Joshue108> s/scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List/ Scribe - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Srini> +Srini

<kirkwood> +kirkwood

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

josh: welcome

CSUN update

awk: Brief CSUN update. There are papers being put in
... we are putting one in for 2.1 and one for Silver, also one for ACT TF, and maybe more

<Srini> I have submitted an abstract titled "Accessibility strategy for Existing, current and future products" let's see.

awk: we'll have good rep there if they are accepted. CSUN is the 27th of Feb, to March 2
... Just confirm things are going on

josh: Should be good, lot of things going in.

<KimD> +KimD

Silver update (heads up for next week)

awk: Jean, Shawn and I talked this morning. There is a list of goals. We may want to look at a TF work statement
... we'll spend some time on it next meeting. You'll have something after Friday this week

Updated charter for WG review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/results

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter

<Joshue108> http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2016%2F08%2Fdraft-wcag-charter&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2016%2F09%2Fdraft-wcag-charter

josh: I asked for comments on the charter updated here
... We worked in lots of comments. There is an update here. If you haven't given feedback, please do so

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/

awk: There is a diff version people can look at
... the key changes are that this looks at WCAG work as a 2 year charter, rather then 3
... we've spoken with people in AC who feel charters should be 2 years or less.
... although the W3C membership as a whole doesn't necesarilly agree
... We're just calling it web content accessibility working group

<Srini> Apologize, but can one of you brief me if there is any specific changes that I need to keep in mind? Re: new charter

awk: main deliverables are WCAG 2.1 and ACT document
... this has to be varified with Wilco and Shadi, if that 2 years is achievable or can be candidate rec

<Srini> Thanks Josh

<Srini> thought I missed out something if it was last week.

awk: Silver and WCAG 2.2 are outside the charter because they are outside the 2 years
... We need to think about if we need to express this kind of continuity
... if we had this we'd need to put a first draft of silver in

Judy: I was interested in the updated charter and discussion
... I had been looking at the 2 year time. I think the perspective of all charters should be 2 years. This is advocated by some AC members
... but this group should look at all considerations of timing. Should propose the charter that you feel fits together for all the work
... There are a few factors to look at. One is the overhead of chartering itself. It takes resources and introduces unpredictability in the planning
... if you know the directions you need to go then it may be better to scope that work out.
... if the work shift there is still the option to ammend to scope
... I was impressed with the Silver discussion at TPAC. There is a lot of momentum there.
... Maybe having the ability to work on a first working draft would be a good way to keep the momentum.
... To allow exploring work in parallel with 2.1, rather then to push a first public draft of silver back a few years
... Other UAAG / ATAG aspects you may risk losing the ability to carry that work forward

JF: Talking to AC reps I heard that we could certainly show an intent to update on a fixed time line
... we can telegraph that it is the intent to update Accessibility guidance, without commiting to a deliverable
... this would keep the momentum going. It would be implied in the charter.

<Joshue108> WF: The question came up about how this relates to ACT..

<Judy_alt> s/I think the perspective of all charters should be 2 years. This is advocates by some AC members/I think that the perspective that all charters should be 2 years may be advocated by some AC members, but may not reflect current W3C process/

<Joshue108> WF: I don't think we can get ACT done in two years.

<Joshue108> WF: CR may be possible.

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to discuss gregs continuing the work of UA WG or AT WG

Josh: In response to Gregg about UAAG, ATAG. We decided not to mention it explicitly. We're concerned that our work gets bogged down within the charter work
... We also need to work on Silver on user agent / authoring tools. But we have to think of this work independend of those groups. They don't exist anymore

Greg: Could it not be in a way that we mention it is in those areas?

<JF> +1 to Josh

Josh: Calling it requirements for accessibility guidelines can be included within that. But I'm concerned about how we define the scope
... how is it funded, who manages it. We don't want 2.1 work to get bogged down in this. So we do a light touch on this. We want it to give us room for certain things
... not to say that work is not important, but we need to get this out the door. So no references to things that aren't essential

Greg: is the draft charter tying our hands, so we can't do any updates to non-normative documents of UUAG / ATAG?

Josh: So who would do and fund that work?

Greg: I know there are still people who did the original work

MC: Should be enabled to do it by the charter, but not be obligated to do it

Josh: My concern is how that would be worded. I'm happy to have these things implied
... I see the UAAG stuff vital for the future of Silver.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to agree that Silver FPWD should be included in this charter

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that I believe that the charter already enables non-normative work on UAAG/ATAG if we were able

JS: I agree I want a FPWD mentioned, so we can work on it without recharter

AWK: We can work on these non-normative documents
... does that mean a 3 year charter, or stay with 2?

JS: For a 2 year charter it should be an option. The requirements document is great, but maybe leading to a working draft

Judy: Chairs are looking for a strong focus on 2.1 so they are confident that work moves forward.
... maybe it's possible to make sure that that is the focus other things are evolving. To leave room, but write the charter so as not to worry about not going all the way on things that aren't core priority
... I'm interested in the question of the momentum about Silver, to leave room for that
... It needs the benefit of the strong community here
... There may be ways to leave space for that work.
... I think maybe things could be learned from that, that could be key input for Silver

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we can add a bullet to the other deliverables and to say can´t have normative project in the other deliverables

MC: The other deliverable section allows us to do non-normative work. We can add a bullet to make it more explicit
... as long as we don't phrase it as a requirement
... I think not having a FPWD for Silver doesn't stop us not working on it
... Along with requirements we have to work on an editor's draft
... It's probably wise for the 2 year charter not to go to FPWD
... It's a bit of a challange to run it past AC. As an informal deliverable we'd have much more to show. We could do a FPWD right away on the next charter
... on the 3 year charter I would want to have a FPWD in it
... but that would be more challenging to get passed AC

Greg: I hadn't quite read it that way. What I was talking about is minor updates. If you say it incorporates both, I would be fine with that
... maybe show it can be changed

JF: MC summarized what I was going to say. There is no decision made on the charter length. I think shorter charter, but that's not officially decided
... if we show an intent going forward beyond two years. We don't need it all in the existing charter. If we can accurately show what we are doing the length shows where we plan to be

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to mention the milestones exploration aspect -- meant to mention that

JB: In developing a new charter, we should look at milestones.
... With the W3C Reorg will have responsibility over the milestones. MC will come back on this.
... It is hard to predict things about where charter length will go.
... The community group proposal got pushed back. The wind can blow in one direction but it ends up in another direction based on use cases and experiences.

<Ryladog__> test

JB: Also responding to Greg. It sounds you want to update UAAG / ATAG work. Changes to those documents might not go through the charter

<Ryladog_> test

JB: If specif updates for UAAG or ATAG would put the charter at risk of getting accepted

<Greg> I was actually talking only about non-normative documents, not updating UAAG or ATAG themselves.

JB: if we don't include anything, there is other risk with momentum and getting that scope back

Josh: Greg commented specific about non-normative documents

<bbailey> Okay, back from radio silence...

Katie: When the world hears about 2.1 they would freak. If we also give the information that there will be a new standard every 2 years
... we'll lose credibility with government. It makes perfect sense to do 2 year updates. It would not be realistic to have a standard that is in laws around the world updated every 2 years
... we can update HTML, CSS, ARIA without the issues you'd get for WCAG. We need to not scare governments. Our bar needs to be an excellent spec. This is not an agile format

<AWK> AWK to talk about the purpose of the charter review period is to gather additional feedback from stakeholders

Katie: We have to look at that carefully. I don't know that we should put any timeframe as to how often we have a new WCAG
... The standards we are building are taken into a world of trust. We have to take into account the requirements organizations have.
... so yes agile is important, but the outcome has to consider the requirements, not just of our members, but being able to give them something that is good.
... I believe in the next 5 years laws and regulations can move more quickly. But that is not the case today
... we need to do a really good job, not to bypass and say we'll do it 2 years from now

Josh: I think we need to separate those two things

Katie: I think it is really important the success criteria are testable, which means success criteria will drop off

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about proof of "freaking"...

JF: You mention governments freaking out. I'd like to see evidence of that
... that concern was articulated early on. But that wasn't what I heard. As long as there was a clear plan they could work with that
... Stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on our process. But I don't want to work on the assumption governments can't move quickly

<bbailey> Speaking personally, *I* am freaking out...

JF: When we worked on the numbering, we had feedback from the regulatory world. The worksheet in the wiki shows that legislators do that kind of work
... I would rather get the criteria out to developers than worry about the governments

Bruce: I have to see that I am freaking out. I'll talk about it soon
... I was always able to say, the WG isn't chartert to work on 2.1. Those are not normative. We are very close to getting 508 update out

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about AWK's conversation on a 2.1

Bruce: we talked about how we are transmitting the materials. We are trying to move fast enough, so I'm begging for 2 months before this becomes a policy

Josh: is it that 2.1, or any change at all shakes the tree, what is alarming about the work?

Bruce: Things do need to change. But having a dated version of 2.0 is a complication in the 508 making
... why throw a spanner in the works
... in two months we'll know where if it will be out before the election or if it will be delayed

AWK: I spoke with Access Board management and the idea of a WCAG 2.1 was well-received. I expect you'll have the same
... this is what we need to get away from, the 'just two more months, just another year'. We need to keep current, put out the best guidance

<Ryladog_> 2.1 is NOT the issue or problem. It is having a new standard coming every two years

AWK: it will work out well for some, not well for others. But "not well" is not a horrible things.
... it is inevidable. We should not make our timeline fit with what policymakers are doing. We can't control their timeline

<JF> +1 (LOUDLY)

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about the 'have to update' every 2 years - could it be on a need to basis?

josh: Sympathy for Bruce's position. Andrew is right. We're not going to run off without consensus. We have work to do, and we do want to progress
... I'm not a fan of the 2 year thing. I have questions, like Katie. Does WCAG fit with an agile model. I think some does, some doesn't
... it comes down to the nature of accessibility.
... I'm hearing a need, a lot of people think this is the best way to go

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to speak in favor of 2 year publication schedule.

<Ryladog_> I agree with more frequent updates, just not every two years

JS: I think we need to set an expectation of more frequent updates. This is essential to many, so they know they can count on the W3C to update the standard to changing technology
... I was put off by the implication that an increase in release does not mean a decrease in quality
... The dot releases are not to address what was forgotten, they are to keep us up to date with changing technology
... I suspect the cognative SC will be better addressed in Silver
... I Thought COGA brought very good work, but they have been put down for various reasons. I think the problem is in the structure of WCAG
... I think this will be better addressed in Silver. It will have a more inclusive structure than WCAG 2.0

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to also speak to the "have to update" question and to speak to existence of different countries, jurisdictions, w3c international, etc

JS: everything that we can include for 2.1 we should. But what doesn't fit well, we should have an agressive timeline for silver, to include that work

JB: It sounds like updates will need to be done very carefully
... I think Josh's comments are important about the 2 year cycle. The intent of WCAG 2 had been to develop something that was as stable as possible
... it may be that evolving WCAG 2 could be some agile some stable. The more clearly we can articulate that and message that the better we'll do
... We did a huge amount in the past to promote standards harmonization. If this group comes with a clear vision of a stable evolution, we can help promote awareness of that
... Coga in particular we'll need to pay attention to. There were some reservations by Lisa about the 2.1.

<bbailey> To question about, if we could put a paper together suggesting legislators point to the latest version: TLDR answer is no, not for U.S. Federal government.

JB: Maybe the group should help for other mechanismes, possibly also extensions, in addition to 2.1 roll-in for now, for the portion that can't currently make the 2.1 success criteria threshold.. If the group doesn't have Silver in this charter there may be risk to lose that work
... if we keep Silver craft in scope, you could maybe follow the path Jeanne is saying
... As for Bruce's comments. The W3C has to be careful about requests from a particular country, but is trying to understand the challanges.
... It may be important for how clear we are about what the 2.1 work will be. That's not something that is likely to be done in the near future

<Joshue108> q/

JB: It is helpful to hear the feedback and concern.

Katie: I didn't mean to say the task force isn't doing a great job. It is. I'm talking about a complete standard. i believe in regular updates. But I'm saying 2 years is not realistic
... If someone needs to say a timeframe, I would say more a 4 or 5 years
... the way I'm teaching WCAG is that normative doesn't change. What changes is techniques and understanding documents
... Make best practices part of the next standards. You can have updates that can be understood by governments. This charter should not say updates every 2 years.
... that will make using this standard in laws hard. This is different from other standards by the W3C.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say that AWK is almost certainly right

<jeanne> I disagree. We have a responsible to people with disabilities to keep our guidelines updated to changing technologies. IMO, ultimately, those are the most important group we are responsible to.

<Judy> [JB: notes that given that different countries and jurisdictions have different approaches, w3c needs to be aware of uptake issues in many different settings, and look across all of that.]

Bruce: Updating 2 years for a standard, even ICT standards are slower then that. I think agile is horrible for accessibility
... it doesn't seem compatible. The 6 month change of techniques is excellent. But WCAG's stability has been important

-q

scribe: the extension approach was brilliant. I think it will be okay to do 2.1 in the charter, and yes I've asked for 2 more months for 2 years
... The US government doesn't reference a specific version. That doesn't happen in federal. The state government might be more comfortable with that

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to point to the Japanese experience (adopting the ISO standard), or the UK experience ("Most current guidance")

<bbailey> The U.S. government needs to reference a specific dated version.

JF: I want to point out that there are other experiences. Moving to 2.1 Makoto pointed out that Japan pointed to the ISO. He didn't see a major issue
... the UK point to the most current guidance. That may not work for the US. 2.0 stays table. There are still countries that point to WCAG 1
... our primary concerns are not governments but people with disabilities. Failing to release that because we want to wait for another government is troubling
... one of the comments I heard was that WCAG was already very US-centric
... I want the a11y standard to address the needs of users, if it works with government that's great, but they are second in line behind the users

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that the criteria for adoption in 2.1 of COGA SC are set by WCAG 2.0 and wont change

<Ryladog> Updates on what we do can be handled by new Techiques

<David_MacDonald> urrgh talking

Josh: Regarding Coga. the criteria for adoption are set by WCAG 2.0.
... Noone in the group is trying to make it difficult. We want this work to succeed. We are totally behind it. But we can't relax the criteria with which WCAG 2.0 works

<Ryladog> But we could put the extra effort into helping COGA

Josh: maybe Coga work is a better fit for Silver, because we'll make sure 2.1 will have substantial things for coga
... We are helping coga as much as we can

David: WCAG 1 had a technology specific focus. We couldn't keep up with technology. SC being technology independend gave stability
... in the long term people would require keyboard access. We could keep our research up to date, deal with all the complexity
... I agree that a 2 year cycle is reasonable. Agile is great for some development, but for standard it's not the right way to go
... i can see a 4 to 5 years. 8 years is too long. But by 6 years people get antsy

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say the ¨Background¨ section of the charter should not be in the final version, it´s too detailed for a charter. I think we should signal the intent to

<Ryladog> It is in two section

MC: I believe the background section should be moved to another resource, it shouldn't stay. We should signal an intent to commit every 2 years. But we can't commit to it
... I think we should give the right signals around that.

<Ryladog> It is also here: 2. 3.1 Normative Specifications - Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 - change the SECOND PARAGRAPH to this: The Working Group intends to produce regular updates for WCAG guidelines, starting with WCAG 2.1.

MC: About users vs government. The guidelines should serve users, but it has been government policies that give WCAG the extra weight.

<laura> fyi: Regarding law, September 22, 2016, U.S. representatives Phil Roe (R-TN) and Joe Courtney (D-CT) introduced the Accessible Instructional Materials in Higher Education (AIM-HE) Act into U.S. Congress: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6122/text

MC: About Coga I'm concerned about telling them again that we can't address certain things now. Ask them to wait another cycle

Josh: That's not what we are trying to do. WCAG 2.0 defines the rules, in Silver we can define other ways

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that each government wouldn't be expected to adopt each update of WCAG

MC: We didn't intend, but it could be perceived like that

<laura> The Act's primary goal is producing voluntary guidelines

<laura> https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2016/9/accessible-instructional-materials-bill-introduced

AWK: I wouldn't expect a government to update based on every update of WCAG
... If US government timing worked out with 2.2, I wouldn't expect a 2.3. But to keep current with technology, that would be the reason for 2.3
... We aren't seeing governments catch up. Some still reference 1.0

JB: A few people commented about primary stakeholders. The accessibility work is a multi-stakeholder proposition. The end users are people with disabilities
... in terms of timing, silver may be able to help address things in more depth, but my understanding is that the group has been talking about three main areas
... I think the maturity testing is going to be important to keep realistic focus on what you can do shorter term to help these areas

bruce: federal standards can update quickly.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to confirm Johns comment that government citation will be to dated version

<Judy> [JB: Judy self-corrects her comment above -- the users also include organizations, businesses, gov'ts, etc]

SR: I agree that this is multi-stakeholder. But the users are prime. Until legislation begins to address the private sector as well, I think its silly to keep going on about it.

<Judy> [JB notes that in some countries, the private sector is already addressing this.]

<Judy> +++++ Wilco

<Joshue108> Regarding extensions - Spec fragmentation, very difficult conformance model, cherry picking of extensions by authors..etc

Josh: about extensions. The potential for fragmentation is high. The conformance modal was difficult, as well as cherry picking
... coga requirement under 2.1 makes much more sense, that could lead to a weak specification

RSSAgent, make minutes

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

04 Oct 2016

Attendees

Contents

CSUN update

Silver update (heads up for next week)

Updated charter for WG review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/results

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output