See also: IRC log
<Lisa_Seeman> I will need to leave early
<Judy> agenda is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
<Kim> Judy: next meeting date is April 12
<Kim> Judy: comments for the first draft are due on Friday
<Kim> Judy: checking if there are groups or taskforces on this call that are planning comments and haven't commented – includes groups that may have been focusing on single issues but also want to look generally
<Kim> Judy: how is comment flow?
<Kim> Andrew: about 30
<Kim> Andrew: most are discrete, some are clusters. Alex is Microsoft conduit
<Kim> Judy: anyone else update on comments?
<Kim> Judy: syncing between groups is what's most important
<AWK> I won't
<Kim> Judy: just a quick check – anyone here attending the meeting in Beijing. There's a good chance that there will be some side meetings the day right after. There's also a remote participation option for those potentially interested and if you're able to stay awake
<Kim> Katie: I was going to go, had to cancel. Discussed having a different timeline. Going to try to attend remotely
<Kim> Judy: want to make people aware that at least as working group you are able to participate in the advisory committee meeting – there's sort of a blanket invitation, may not apply to task force people
<Lisa_Seeman> do we know were and when tpac will be
<Kim> Judy: are any of the group starting to think ahead about TPAC 2017 in terms of your groups meetings. Figure out whether your group wants to take advantage of the infrastructure provided for face-to-face meetings
<Kim> Janina: haven't talked about it yet, but very likely
<Kim> Andrew: it will be a prime time for a face-to-face meeting
<janina> In this hotel:
<janina> http://sanfranciscoairport.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html
<Kim> Judy: November 6-10
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/participate/eventscal
<Kim> Judy: glad people are thinking about that already. There will be a formal request for input on that shortly. Broader calendar of upcoming W3C meetings here
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask about Task Force or CG meetings?
<Kim> Judy: as far as I know not a change from last time but I'm happy to check
<shadi> [[ACT TF would also like to meet at TPAC]]
<Kim> Jeanne: I think it would be an interesting idea to have more of the people that are participating in Silver from outside of the WCAG working group be able to have a meeting. Not sure how many would be able to actually go
<Kim> Katie: we hope to be starting a new community group on accessible web payments for creating the power payment accessibility user requirement. There's a possibility would want to meet together with some people from the web payments working group. We would need a whole day and we might not even need a half-day, maybe a couple of hours how do we go about that?
<Kim> Judy: related to the question Jeanne asked – some reservations about a community group getting a full meeting space before working group meeting especially charter thing
<Kim> Katie: don't want to compete
<Kim> Andrew: last year an hour or two for community group
<Kim> Judy: traveling, shortness of time and community groups getting space was an issue. Also possible to find other space in the area
<Kim> Jeanne: I will put it on the agenda for Friday's meeting, and will email with sense of group interest and for how long
<Kim> Shadi: the ACT task force will want to meet at TPAC
<Kim> Judy: single day or half-day would be helpful?
<Kim> Shadi: didn't get to that level of detail but assume 2 day. A day at the least
<Kim> Judy: the education outreach folks are off having a meeting about their charter. I wanted to just mention since those discussions have to move ahead and this group won't be meeting again for three weeks I wanted to mention some of the thoughts that were in the mix.
<Kim> Judy: the current charter ends at the end of May. The group has no interest in ending. Looking at requesting a several month extension to wrap up some of the things that are very actively being worked on in their existing charter. At the same time advance notice they are welcoming input into their next charter.
<Kim> Judy: extension notice won't go out for a couple of weeks, some things may be wrapped up by then. In particular a few different kinds of questions they may be revisiting. Might include things like what about if EO were to do more vetting of materials that were produced by other groups. Tutorials others produce, work more closely with other technical groups. I wanted to ask if you think there...
<Kim> ...are other questions that should be on the advance notice and early feedback list
<Judy> order is 5, 6, 7, 8
<Judy> agenda order is 5, 6, 7, 8
<Ryladog> Asks if other think the W3C should be providing resources to meet WCAG?
<Kim> Judy: the accessibility field was at zero when we were starting. We need to look for ways to find the appropriate spot where we can make a contribution from W3C. For instance in the curriculum area we are exploring some new possibilities on cosponsoring some different training opportunities that aren't exclusive. Would also provide an opening to draw more people in that in no way conflicts...
<Kim> ...with some of the deeper and more customized trainings that some of the large training organizations are getting their revenue from
<Kim> Judy: for instance in the area of training we hope to take an approach where there is some baseline material that different organizations can come in as providers on even – a way to showcase what they have.
<Kim> Judy: with tutorials were trying to pick topics that are already well covered in the field and fill in some of the gaps. Also in some cases we are hearing fairly clearly from member organizations or the public that they really want there to be a certain level of interpretive and educational material that is well vetted. What if under the future charter there's more space for vetting material...
<Kim> ...that has been developed by other organizations. Those are the kinds of approaches we are trying to take to address those concerns.
<Kim> Judy: also discussions with organizations. The alternative would be to do no educational material at W3C.
<Kim> Katie: what would be helpful is as new techniques arise being able to add those to EO's work. People will need less guidance, I don't think don't need more. I don't think the need will go away, it seems against the open web not to provide. It doesn't mean someone can provide something richer and branded in all that
<Kim> Lisa: if we have resources on each topic it can look like a curriculum but we can say this is external content – is not a responsibility but it might be useful.
<Kim> Lisa: EO – we would very much like for them to make some basic educational resources on disabilities and the impact success criteria has on them – I'd be very happy to make that with them. I think that's extremely necessary because you've got this whole new thing where we are making recommendations. People will look at it – why is it needed. You can see where someone is describing the...
<Kim> ...problems they have had. I think there's a real need for this new material also for the low-vision task force for people may just not be aware that screen readers aren't the solution for everyone.
<Kim> Judy: is any of what you meant around the idea where there are certain areas where WAI hasn't been as active where it might be useful for us to put out some basic information such as the low-vision to help educate people who are already active on accessibility to get more with the program on what we are doing
<Kim> Lisa: exactly. And to get some empathy – that's also helpful
<Ryladog> I completely agree with Judy on this...
<Kim> Judy: just from our perspective of working on disability issues for decades saying something unfold in a predictable way of people being very oriented to certain types of disability and just the nature of some of it being different, keep tripping on it. As with cognitive discussions eight years ago we are probably going to have to do this thoughtfully across the whole organization
<Ryladog> yes, Jeanne, I see OE important in Silver work too
<Kim> Jeanne: we'd be looking for closer alignment and support from EO as evaluate different models. If they want to put that in the charter that would be very helpful to us
<Kim> Judy: my goal is for you and everyone else I have multiple opportunities to get ideas in. Send a message to them, they should be gathering requests. Multiple ways
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about Silver and EO in 2018-19
<Kim> Judy: some background – for years EO had to do a lot to back up WCAG 2.0 on development. We had always wanted them to do more for more groups. it may be that many people on this call have an assumption that it primarily supports what is now AGWG
<Kim> Katie: 2.0 or 2.1 but also perhaps ACT – anything that is coming– anything that we are working on EO can be useful in providing plain language information for people and additional ways of understanding
<Kim> Judy: specific suggestion for them?
<Kim> Judy: roadmap development – this is a little bit of a side effect or consequence of reorg. Things that WAI has been doing for years and evolving for years. More close-knit group, some common understanding, managing a lot of things, but that hasn't been clear to W3C or public. I want that that me more clear – leveraged accessibility work integrated through whole organization.
<Kim> Judy: one of the ways that W3C is approaching that kind of need these days is by building and publishing roadmaps
<Kim> Judy: if this is clear it will be easier for people to interact with and comment on it
<Kim> Judy: potential roadmap elements – an assemblage of five or six or seven discrete roadmaps with intersections. Probably using a tool that one or two team members have been developing.
<Judy> Potential roadmap elements:
<Judy> - timely accessibility reviews of w3c specifications
<Judy> - develop of accessibility specs and apis
<Judy> - promoting testing and implementation
<Judy> - education, training, outreach
<Judy> - ensuring an accessible environment to work in, including tools
<Kim> Judy: first cut at potential roadmap elements. Looking for feedback and what do you think is missing. Assumption is each would be built up with what we are currently working on and what's on our planning list and funding and support list and maybe WishList
<Kim> Judy: each encompass a lot of things – timely accessibility reviews includes checklist and would support that piece of work
<Judy> - development of accessibility guidelines and supporting resources
<Kim> Judy: more more I'm thinking that another area may be ensuring an accessible environment to work in including tooling
<Judy> - research
<Kim> Lisa: the research aspect is missing, as is identifying – with the task force did, looking at emerging technologies and increasing the users we are addressing and creating roadmaps there. I think the other thing that isn't coming across is roadmapping a solution. That in itself is a roadmap item to create.
<Judy> - roadmapping and building of solutions [?]
<Kim> Lisa: example aria emerging technology research and understood where the areas are, create a roadmap on how we can sell this moving forward and then went ahead and did it
<Kim> Lisa: research group – we don't want to underplay that role
<Kim> Katie: agreeing with accessibility of tools that W3C itself uses – just plus oneing that
<Kim> Judy: research should have been included
<Kim> Judy: development of specs and APIs – starting with assumption that mainstream anything we can but patches or bridges might be needed. See that as being driven by well harmonized architectural discussion. Underthe reorg there is an architectural function. Roadmapping solutions, what do you think about that as a subpart of developing specs and APIs – that's sort of our last resort in a way,...
<Kim> ...when not under regular architecture
<Kim> Lisa: it can address – why do we want to push it as a subcategory? certainly researching and creating that roadmap even if it doesn't need a new API could mean a new technique. Might or might not all be covered but might be some new curves. Useful to map out the problem spaces – make sure they aren't forgotten
<Kim> Judy: different picture – may be more useful as strategic activity that we capture separately
<Kim> Shadi: even in mainstream technologies or emerging technologies – map out priorities – aria example is a good one eventually this ended up mostly in mainstream. I'm thinking web of things – currently more on the research side but eventually we want to get it more on the impacting and emerging technology which is not really API development but influencing the technology itself more than...
<Kim> ...just...
<Kim> ...having a requirements list. I don't know exactly how to categorize that but I think there is something there between guideline and accessibility feature development
<Judy> scribe: Judy
kim: I think that research and users (to ensure that users get their voice in early) on web is important
<Kim> Judy: mapping roadmap areas
<shadi> ACT Rules Format 1.0 https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html
<Kim> Shadi: we hope to be publishing the first working draft of ACT rules. likely to publish next week
<Kim> Shadi: help people contemplate the test rules. Over 44 automated test rules. We do expect that organizations will contribute other rules and slowly we can start building a repository. This is the first step in several to have a common format that everybody can contribute their rules. Eventually we are looking at semi automated and manual test rules. We do want to look at how topics like...
<Kim> ...mobile accessibility for instance – relates to new success criteria to help prove their accessibility. Lots of buzzwords in machine learning to improve automation and testing. This is just the format for now
<Kim> Judy: separate announcement?
<Kim> Shadi: trying to get people more interested and involved. Agood idea to work with Katie on that
<Kim> Katie: comment on first public working draft.
<Kim> Katie: editors draft or first public working draft?
<Kim> Katie: would people respond if they know there's one coming all the time?
<Kim> scribe: Kim
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/thinking/syncing/ Succeeded: s/research/research and users (to ensure that users get their voice in early)/ Default Present: janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jeanne, MichaelC, richardschwerdtfeger, Kim Present: janina Joanmarie_Diggs Rich_Schwerdtfeger Katie_Haritos-Shea jeanne MichaelC richardschwerdtfeger Kim Lisa Judy Andrew Found Scribe: Judy Inferring ScribeNick: Judy Found Scribe: Kim Inferring ScribeNick: Kim Scribes: Judy, Kim ScribeNicks: Judy, Kim WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 29 Mar 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-waicc-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]