<AWK> ack

<AWK> JF

<Zakim> MichaelC_CSUN, you wanted to say requirements drive the work, not vice versa and to say progressively greater engagement with tf and progressily more frequent updates

<Zakim> Michael__, you wanted to mention the parallel design and TR methodology

<AWK> ach ryla

<AWK> trackbot, end meeting

<Chuck> Sound just got super quiet.

<Chuck> better now

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

<AWK> +AWK

<AWK> Review of current charter (https://www.w3.org/2017/01/ag-charter)

AWK: We talk about the charter occasionally but it is helpful to look at what we have in it.
... background which sets expectations and context. We can remove certain sections in the background but we need background that explains what we're doing.
... Working group has decided to work on 2.2 as well as Silver.

The question is how do these get mixed into the next charter.

scribe: there are other sections around Scope which is more specific about what the group will do and what we will not do (conformance evaluations and reviews for the web).
... deliverables and milestones that we need to think about. This is the area we want to focus on today.
... What can we reasonably accomplish in the charter period. We would ideally like a 3 year charter to remove the need to recharter sooner but we may need a shorter one.

Michael_C: We may also consider rechartering partway through.

AWK: We have the ACT. We were on schedule for 2.1 but ACT was on schedule for CR but has slowed down. We still may be able to meet it before end of charter period.
... we have other deliverables such as notes, requirements for silver, requirements for WCAG 2.2, techniques and understanding documents.
... we gave the heads up that we would be publishing techniques as a working group note or curated resource.

Michael_C: We may also want to put incubation documents in this category to allow something to go to the req chart but not through the entire req process.
... we want to silver our intent on Silver.

Bruce: Did the August 2018: Requirements for Accessibility Guidelines 3.0 (Note) get published?

Jeanne: It wasn't published as a note but was published as a community group report.

Michael: We technically didn't meet the charter but we did deliver so I doubt that will be an issue. Community group reports were not on the radar when we wrote the charter.

AWK: I don't think the task force or working group feels that it is done.

Jeanne: Remember that the requirements were intended to be a 3 phase approach. We are on track for that plan for the requirements.
... maybe we should at this point publish it as a note.

AWK: That was the original intent. Everything cleaned up.

Bruce: I don't have any complaints. I never tried to forward it to my management or a wider community for review.

AWK: Coordination is the other groups we work with. Some loosely, some tightly. Much of that will be copied and pasted.
... what we typically do is look at those sections and add or remove but these have been stable over a number of charters. Any questions about the current charter?
... Then lets move onto the upcoming charter. We started talking about 2.2 but one question is how Silver fits into the charter. Jeanne is here to give us an update on progress with Silver. We heard from you officially last in October or January so we wanted to get an update.

Jeanne: Slide deck link:

<jeanne> Slide deck for Silver https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/110wGRVixacvzHhchfAMTXd0wbE1LeDQGuYjHytxOhv0/edit#slide=id.g35702e8f77_1_0

<Chuck> We lost audio.

<Chuck> k, thx

<laura> no

<Chuck> We do not.

Jeanne: I am sharing the slide deck in WebEX.

<Chuck> * Thanks Rachael

<laura> yes

<bruce_bailey> shorter slide URL: http://goo.gl/6YKVH2

Jeanne: First off is the silver goals slide. We lead off every Silver presentation with this slide. We want to expand scope, be more inclusive, base process and structure on data, etc. (see slide)
... The plan. Focused on research for 2016. Held a design sprint in March. We expect by 2021 we will have a recommendation that includes the existing WCAG content, some new content particularly from low vision and coga who are proposing new success criteria and we will have some advice for AT, authoring tools, and user agents.

We won't have anything for emerging technologies. We will restrict scope of what will be in Silver.

scribe: Slide 4: Not all the reports but key ones. We did 16 months of research and produced reports on research. etc.
... Slide 5 is our proposed timeline for completion.
... Shaun is currently starting those conversations about how to move current WCAG SC to Silver.
... yesterday we tried to take current SC and move them into plain language. Without much success but lots of lessons learned.
... Regarding plain language, we are taking what the rest of the world considers for plain language and adding key points for standards.

<Chuck> AWK: Mute, there's an echo.

<Chuck> You do not look muted AWK

<Chuck> it's like it's responding to your mouse clicks 15 seconds after.

Ryladog: I can see what Judy gave you the guidance yesterday but unfortunately what it looks like is that Silver is going to be WCAG 2.? in a different format. That is OK but it doesn't help with everything we want it to do.

<Chuck> at this moment you are not muted AWK. But don't fix it now.

Ryladog: It reenforces the fact that we need to jump in and help. There is so much to do. We want a relevant standard, we need to include the world. We need to jump in with both feet.

<Chuck> well crud.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say do members of COGA TF agree with the plain language guidance?

mgower: Do members of COGA agree with plain language?

<Glenda> John Rochford is a plain lang expert from COGA and he is working on silver

Jeanne: We have a number of members of COGA involved in Silver and they are the people taking the lead on plain language.

<mbgower> Great, thank you.

AWK: The short answer is yes.

<Chuck_> So here's our audio issues today: Apparently bandwidth is suffering, and the room can't hear us remote participants clearly. We may want to type our questions. And IN the room, their efforts to mute are occuring in slow motion.l

Jeanne: The one part of going through this proposed timeline, is that we will start on the new work as soon as we go to VR

Ryladog: It is too late.

<Glenda> Isn’t the BBC working on AR/VR right now? Jamie Knight and company.

Ryladog: AR and VR is part of life now. This is not a piece that can wait.
... we need expertise and younger folks in here. We are older. We need young, brilliant input.

<Chuck_> I think AWK is trying a different network. Still no audio for remote.

<Chuck_> No

<Chuck_> I also recommend that when we do get a hot mike, we stop trying to switch mikes while we have bandwidth issues. I find it easier to deal with a far away voice than an echo.

<Cyborg_> is there sound at all?

<Chuck_> No sound

<Chuck_> None.

<Cyborg_> I'm in a solid area and no sound

<Chuck_> Me too.

<Chuck_> In the room they are working the problem. A seen from Apolo 13: "People... work the problem. Let's not make things worse by guessing." Love that quote.

<Chuck_> sound!

<Chuck_> no sound

<Chuck_> lol

<Chuck_> Having watched that movie countless times... the scene is playing in my mind.

<Chuck_> thanks.

<Chuck_> This is good stuff we don't want to miss.

<Chuck_> I hear it's awesome, but not seen it yet.

<laura> yes!

<Cyborg_> is audio back?

<Chuck_> Yes.

<Chuck_> Sent email asking if you hear.

Jeanne: I think what we can include in Silver will depend on how many subject matter experts we can get. We need to scope Silver correctly and continue to scope it so we send it out in a timely basis and update it in a timely basis.
... We will start by prioritizing what we already have.
... moving existing content always takes longer than you think it will.

<Chuck_> Cybele: audio is active. If you aren't hearing you may need to disconnect and reconnect.

Ryladog: That will be a huge thing. Then adding the coga and low vision and speach input.

<laura> yes

<alastairc> Question for Jeanne / Shawn, I won't try and speak, can someone read it please? I'm concerned that the TF/group is going to start writing content for Silver soon, and the conformance model doesn't seem to have been fully finished/agreed. I really like where slide 29 is going. However, if we do X number of guidelines and then 'tweak' the conformance model, they may have to be re-written. It is possible I'm just missing some other work going on that addresses

<alastairc> this, but that is a concern for me at the moment. I'd like to see work on agreeing the conformance model happen before serious content work starts.

David: Looking at the timeline, the discussions we had about working on 2.2 were based on we don't know Silver's timeline. Looking at this timeline, which is 1.5-2 years out, why go to 2?
... I'm confused.
... I'm fine if we can do it but I don't want to work on 2.2 if Silver will come out on its heals.

<alastairc> David - this is the timeline we talked about before: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cK6iDM5QzwyGQK-3L4RBFK7dPGwdPRybqIJMvtOvMSo/edit#gid=0

<AWK> Timeline spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cK6iDM5QzwyGQK-3L4RBFK7dPGwdPRybqIJMvtOvMSo/edit#gid=0

AWK: Just to revisit, I don't think this timeline is different from what we were talkign about. Q4 2021 is 2.5 years out. The spreadsheet above shows what we were looking at before.

If we aim WCAG 2.2 for Oct 2020, then we have a year or more before Silvercomes out.

David: If we are serious about this deadline, it seems like a lot.

<Ryladog> We will need groups in Silver to do all of these things: 1. Move current content, 2. create/move Cognitive Task Force, work on new content, 3.create/move Low Vision Task Force, work on new content, 4. create/move Mobile Task Force, work on new content, 5. create/work on content via Voice UI Task Force, 6. create/work on content via IR/VR Task Force

JF: We currently have a house which is WCAG. We are moving to a new house, which is Silver. They can both be there at the same time.

<Chuck_> JF made my point.

<kirkwood__> +1 to JF

<Chuck_> The moving of the current standards into new framework will give us great experience for the new stuff.

<Chuck_> +1 to JF

JF: Then they can be moved. It is aggressive but I think we can get there. We need to be working on both. Some members can work on one or the other or both. We need to do both. They can operate independently.

Jeanne: And cooperatively.

<kirkwood__> Well articulate JF

<mbgower> Then what does "Develop new Silver content" mean in Q1-Q3 2020 on slide 5?

Jeanne: we will be discussing a way of creating new success criteria. We will need to work on both.

<kirkwood__> +1

Jeanne: I like the idea of this group working on the new work.
... it makes sense that this group should work on the new things.

Mike_Elledge: I was wondering how delineated the shift in perspective was?

<steverep> Terrible feedback...

<Chuck_> bad echo

<Chuck_> awk and mike_elledge are hot mikes.

<Cyborg_> Jeanne is echoing a lot

<Chuck_> one of those two need to mute.

Ryladog: She said that Silver would not work on new stuff. That we will moving all the exisitng accessibility advice into a new structure. It will be a 3.0 but we won't throw away all the great advice developed over 20 years.

<laura> Is there a proposed VR 2.2 SC?

Mike_Elledge: By moving along parralell paths, it does require collaboration but is great.

<AWK> Rachael: For COGA they are working on 2.2 SC and also thinking about how to write it for SIlver

<AWK> I am in favor of 2.2 because adoption delays may mean that we will need to have the 2.x framework for a while.

<Chuck_> Brook's mike is "under water". It's either blocked or it doesn't have good gain. I can somewhat make it out.

<Chuck_> Tolerable (for me), but barely

Brook: I wasn't sure the issues we have to deal with in the next gen may not be able to be handled in the 2.X framework but I am here to help with 2.2. I am concerned with porting content from one framework to another. The content we have from the last 20 years is important. I am concerned about losing content in the porting. I think close coordination with Silver as we make 2.2 so we can identify hurdles and feed that into Silver.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to refer to the question I posted above.

<alastairc> Question for Jeanne / Shawn, I won't try and speak, can someone read it please?

<alastairc> I'm concerned that the TF/group is going to start writing content for Silver soon, and the conformance model doesn't seem to have been fully finished/agreed. I really like where slide 29 is going. However, if we do X number of guidelines and then 'tweak' the conformance model, they may have to be re-written. It is possible I'm just missing some other work going on that addresses this, but that is a concern for me at the moment. I'd like to see work on

<alastairc> agreeing the conformance model happen before serious content work starts.

<jeanne> +1 to Brook. A lot of what is included in the Silver structure came from the lessons of developing 2.1

<alastairc> slide 29 is a demo of the guideline structure

<laura> +1 to alastair

Jeanne: My biggest concern right now is getting the conformance model solid.

It will take the big, deep thinkers on conformance to work on this. Not typically those who join working groups. Silver is working on prioritizing content right now but this afternoon we will work on a project plan. I think we can work on the content while we are still figuring out the conformance. I think we are close but need experts to work out the details.

scribe: My biggest concern is how do we provide a transparent point system.

Rylodog: There are experts in that field.

Jeanne: The group as a whole can start working on content while we get experts to handle the points.

<alastairc> But the way WCAG 2.x SCs are written is massively influenced by the conformance model, that would be the same for Silver.

Jeanne: We had a meeting yesterday with EO and moving content is going to be a difficult job. The plain language experts can focus on that and we'll have simultaneous tracks.

Ryladog: Suggestion. In the end, we will all be working on multiple things. For our new charter, we should say we are moving to the next standard. Have a blast to get people involved in the various groups.

Jeanne: Going back to timeline, moving the WCAG content in 2019 and 2020 is new content. We will have new content but limited in scope and dependent on SME involvement.

The community group is there for SMEs to get them involved.

Ryladog: We can build excitement and get younger people involved.

David: Really hard to write a SC in the current format. I'm not looking forward to working hard to writing SC for 2.2 that will then get migrated to Silver in 6 months. I heard from the group that we wouldn't be ready and I'd rather move the house.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say uncerainty on silver conformance is a reason to do parallel 2.2 and to say I´d like to park detailed questions and finish presentation

Michael: I'd like to hear the rest of Jeanne's presentation and then go through questions so if something will be answered later we don't lose time.

Jeanne: Silver is not a silver bullet. We will not be everything to everybody.

<kirkwood__> +1 to that quote ;)

Slide 11: I will go over the prototype slides. They are not new but worth revisiting. We encourage everyone to contribute in the tool that works for them. Then we consolidate. To see what we are workign on today, go to the Silver Wiki.

scribe: Revolutionary structure, evolutionary content
... small snippets that can be coded and categorized, comprehensive view for W3C Technical Report purposes, different ways to find information, a core of rarely-changing requirements (Guidelines) and changing content (Methods) to meet evolving needs. Idea last week to allow anyone to make suggestions easily.

<mbgower> Slide 15, where does the normative content go?

scribe: We are not losing content, we are restructuring. We will lose some things but we will work hard to keep the essence.
... Guidelines will be general information written in plain language. Methods will be some plain language but with technical information.
... tagging engine and API to allow people to extract information for their own use.
... Slide 16: How WCAG moves to Silver. Principles = Tags.

Current SC and Guidelines will go to Guidelines. The guideline specific SC (Robust for example) become methods.

Michael: Do you mean they are moving in the proposed template or have you settled on that?

Jeanne: Within Silver we have settled on this but it hasn't been voted on within the larger group.
... Please note, that while I sometimes speak as if things are set, I am communicating intent.
... The understanding document will be part of the guidelines or methods will split as appropriate. Understanding for color for example will go to the guidelines but the specific techniques will be moved to Methods. Everything will be tagged by number for those individuals who know the SC by guidelines.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/110wGRVixacvzHhchfAMTXd0wbE1LeDQGuYjHytxOhv0/present?token=AC4w5Vg5vgAGRXLkHd1YnR6iQOukQ3sPug%3A1552402095088&includes_info_params=1&eisi=CJH4tLvs_OACFR5PVAodVugIFw#slide=id.g51ee35a5e3_1_562

Jeanne: One problem we have is that if we go beyond web, we need to go beyond the concept of a page. Everything now is page oriented. How do we change that? We decided to go with the overall project/product.

Then we score for the overall product. Based on the score, they get a bronze, silver, or gold.

<Chuck_> Jeanne is 186281.9 miles away

David: So if defining the product is up to the company, how does a 3rd party come in and define the scope?

Jeanne: They define it. The conformance group is working on this - its not settled.

<mbgower> Can I ask a question on Language of Page?

Jeanne: look at example.

Language of page 3.1.1 becomes “Identify the human language of the environment for assistive technology.”

<mbgower> Why not "Identify the language of the information"?

this supports VR.

We ran an experiment.

<mbgower> There's no need to make it Parts of Langauge and Language of Page. They can both be handled by different methods

Another example: 4.1.1 moves to Methods, because it is markup-specific

scribe: Slide 19. Brainstorming names - this will go beyond web so WCAG 3.0 won't work.

Slide 21: Plain language work and rework by technical experts.

Plain language example 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value is the hardest to learn, teach.

Ryladog: Earlier you said 4.1.2 would be a method not a guideline. If we don't have something normative for the APIs, we have a problem.

Jeanne: I should fix this slide as its a bad example. We should list this as a guideline of "Code this correctly"

Ryladog: Needs to be "code this correctly to work with APIs"

Jeanne: Conformance. One of the things that came out of the AG TPAC meeting is that we have to tease out conformance. We had W3C conformance requirements (older) as well as regulators. In WCAG 2, they combined the two. W3C no longer has the strict set of rules so we have an opportunity to tease this apart. Address regulators concern through score. Address W3C conformance, and prove how this spec relates to real world. If we split these apart, we can come up
... with better solutions.

Michael_C: W3C conformance is not optional but it is easier.

Jeanne: We want to be in a system that rewards people for doing good work and encourages them to do more than the minimum. What we want to address with this system is to help those who want to do more.
... what we still want to work on how accessibility supported fits.
... suggestion to remove accessibility supported from author responsibility.
... Set it up to allow user agents, etc to pull out a list of what they don't do next. Handle accessibility supported that way.

<Chuck_> Audio: AWK and Bruce are both hot, causing an echo.

Jeanne: allows for more than true/false statements. Testing with people with disabilities, task completion testing. We want to remove levels and allow for an overall measure.

Judges ask all the time about levels (A and AA) but this will remove that.

JF: In terms of the point scoring system, we will have to explain to the judge how the scoring system works.

Michael_C: I propose we allow Jeanne finish the presentation and then have a discussion by category.

Jeanne: Conformance Prototype taking an existing piece of WCAG guidance, identify the user need it is testing, then write rules and see how well it supports the user need.

Example: Specified language matches reality will need to be written and be manually tested. Supports VR.

Ryladog: In terms of test rules, can we think about moving outside the browser?

Jeanne: This is all methods so all things we can do. We wanted to test the structure.
... We will have existing guidelines and task based guidelines. We want to have overall guidelines. We have a project of meaningful involvement. How do we encourage people to make an accessibilty statement.
... There will be True/False tests, Automated tests, Usability tests, Evaluation, and Other metrics. We will have clear information about the points and make that available to regulators.

Ryladog: Is there some way to make certain things transparent?

Jeanne: One of the things people talk about is to not allow people to game the system by getting all their points in a single area. People need to take categories of user needs and give points.

Michael_C: Exploration of plain language and how it works, conformance model, test model, strategy of working group.

What categories am I missing?

Glenda: From an evaluation system concern about time.

Break for 15 minutes.

<Glenda> scribe: Glenda

Michael_C: Topics for discussion: 1) Exploration of plain language and how it works, 2) conformance model, 3) test model, 4) how did we get here, 5) strategy of working group.

Question about Plain Language

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I worry about lack of competing prototypes to help the WG make a decision and to ask how plain language is synced up with regulatory requirements

<bruce_bailey> What I heard: 1 Plain Language, 2 Conformance model, 3 Test Methodology / Evaluation, 4 How we got here, 5 Where we are going

david-macdonald: If we are going to make the plain language into normative, I’m wondering about the accuracy. If the detail is in the methods, will the methods need to be normative?

<Chuck_> no sound

<Chuck_> got sound

jeanne: we are proposing that most of the tech detail be in a method. We want to tease apart scoring and conformance. We believe we can have the methods NOT be normative, so they can be up to date. And having the normative in the guideline. We want to focus on the scoring. But conformance will be separate. We will need deep thinking on this.

<Zakim> MichaelC_CSUN, you wanted to ask how plain language is synced up with regulatory requirements

MichaelC_ how do we make plain language requirements meet needs for legal/regulatory.

Jeanne: what the regulators need is plain languange so gov and lawyers can understand what is required. Very clear explaination and intent. So when something goes to court, the intention is clear. They were promoting plain language.

MichaelC_: does anyone have a different experience?

<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask about plain language audiences

david-macdonald: the intent was already available in the Understanding docs.

<alastairc> Noting that pass/fail basically moves to the methods, and that then clashes with some concepts about experts (not seen how they get included) vote up/down methods, which means meeting Silver would be a moving target...

Brooks: Has there been discussion about different audiences for plain language. One audience that will benefit of guidelines/user benefits is Execs in organizations…so they can understand the needs and justify budget. They can’t do that if they don’t understand what is at play. If you write the standard for the developers, they Exec won’t likely understand the need.

Jeanne: Slide 24 is a screenshot of Plain Language Prototype https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/110wGRVixacvzHhchfAMTXd0wbE1LeDQGuYjHytxOhv0/edit#slide=id.g51f8941dd1_0_148

<Chuck_> Lost audio.

<Chuck_> Audio back

Notice the tabs in the Plain Language Prototype: Tab1) Get Started Tab2) Planning Tab3) Design Tab4) Develop Tab5) Test and Audit. So different audiences can find just what they need. Work is still on going on the names of the tabs…and there may be more...

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to plain language / SC length / SC granularity

<Chuck_> AUDIO: David MacDonald's mike is hot with AWK's, we got a bit of an echo.

AWK: I agree with David’s underlying concern about the challenges associated with writing requirements in plain language.
... I expect we will find that the SC will need to be longer or more granular…in order to get them written in plain language.

Jeanne: Yes. It is really hard to move a current SC into Plain Language. There will not be a 1 to 1 relationship of what is in WCAG 2.x today and what will go in Silver. Some things will be split. Some things will come together. It is a challenging project.

<Chuck_> Yes, but David's mike is still on. There's a minor echo.

Wayne: Seems we will need a lot of SMEs to do those translations.

Jeanne: we currently have a team of 8 people in Silver who specialize in Plain Language. When we met with EO yesterday, they are very interested in helping as editors. As we start writing content, I think we will attract more people to contribute (including through the community group).

Wayne: are you going to pair a Plain Language Specialist with a SME to do this?

<johnkirkwood> Plain language is the law in the US https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/plainlanguage/

Jeanne: We are figuring out the strategy today. We may do it iteratively or as a concurrent team.

<bruce_bailey> 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content. [Priority 1]

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to give PL example from WCAG 1.0

<Chuck_> Here's the link: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag-ftf

<Chuck_> AUDIO: None.

<Cyborg_> no audio

<johnkirkwood> not sure how we can say we're not gjoing to do it

bruce_bailey: I think we are conflating “requirement to have a web site be in plain lang” vs “writing the standard in plain lang”.

<Cyborg_> went to bruce and then no sound

<Chuck_> Yes

<Chuck_> VERBATIM!

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-facilitate-comprehension

<AWK> 14.1

bruce_bailey: regulators want the standard in plain language, but it must be measurable. To quote gregg: we write as simple as we possible, but not simplier.

<alastairc> +1 to Bruce, plus need to be careful about moving that problem to the methods, otherwise the 'guidelines' will be like the principles are now.

Jeanne: +1 we need to make sure that as we move to plain language we don’t lose the intent and meaning

<johnkirkwood> alastairc: all gov't agencies must do it. not sure I can explain at length here.

Jeanne: our silver requirement: It must be usable in a regulatory environment. We can use rubrics and mark where pass/fail is. The people who do more, do more, get rewarded for it.

mike_elledge_ I have found the examples from Silver to be very helpful at getting across the intent.

<Chuck_> That's a good mike, he's by a door.

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask a question about something other than plain language, when we get to issues of scope

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to suggest a close review of a "finished" example

AWK: it would be interesting and helpful to take a more complex SC and share that with the AGWG as an update, so we can dig in and see evidence that this will work on more complex things.

Jeanne: yes, I am giving myself an action item to do just that.

<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to say plain language should be based on clearly identified roles.

<bruce_bailey> here is a better overview of the Plain Language Act as a law per se: http://plainlanguage.gov/law

<Wayne> Given the diffeent audiences would appropriate language be better than plain language.

Brooks: When you said pair a Plain Lang Expert + a SME…is the SME an technical a11y expert, or an expert from the audience (execs, designers, lawyers, gov regulator). This will help make sure we are on the mark and help build advocates.

<bruce_bailey> As compared to say, 508, it does not have enforcement or measurement (of plain language), nor one particular agency charged with helping other agencies

<Chuck_> I think the point wasn't that Judges want it and that's why we should do it. I think that was more about how this impacts regulation, and Judges prefer plain speak over lawyer speak.

<Chuck_> AUDIO: Jake and Andrew are hot. horrible echo.

JakeAbma: I heard you talk Judges would like plain lang. I think the designers and developers need that plain lang. We hae a lot of theoretical, it is useful, but we need something concrete to look at. I think it would help to have 5 guidelines out there so we have something concrete (not just theory). Then work on conformance model after we have at least 5 or 10 concrete things to look at.

<Chuck_> thanks AWK

<Chuck_> IT'S HARD!

<Chuck_> And I call him on it EVERY TIME!

Jeanne: That is exactly what they are working on (Silver TF) across the hall today. What will we prioritze.

david-macdonald: suggest doing 3, one simple, one medium and one hard.

Topic 2: Conformance Model

Conformance Model

<Chuck_> Conformance Model, Testing Methodologies and "How we got here"

<Zakim> mike_elledge_, you wanted to say that maybe we should define new conformance before adding new stuff to WCAG 2.2 and to ask for a definition of guidance: same as best practices?

mike_elledge: are the points going to allocated based on severity

jeanne: we had a group that worked on that last fall. They had a number of factors they would evaluate each method by, severity, difficulty…they were experimenting with diff formulas to weight the factors. We were reaching the limit of our experience. We do have the bones of what a point system will look like, but we need to bring in more expertise.

bruce_bailey: what do you mean by severity?

<jon_avila> Severity impacts individuals — flashing is very important to a small group — but very critical for that group.

<Chuck_> Glenda: At Deque we did impact at WCAG 2 pt success criteria, then went back through, doing it on each issue. Default list of issues. One might be "medium" and another "serious". An image missing an alt is serious.

<Chuck_> Glenda: A decorative image missing an alt is less serious.

jeanne: the impact of this type of issue on people with disabilities.

<jon_avila> Noticeabliity of the issue is also a factor

Brooks: severity is an important factor in figuring out conformance…but also very important for managers to be able to fix thing. I was worried when A/AA were going away. This impact factor is important.

Jeanne: In that point system, we give more weight based on barrier/impact.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about slippery slope of serious being number of users effected?

<Chuck_> No audio for David.

<Chuck_> got audio

<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to say severity is an important issue not only to measure conformance, but also to prioritize limited resources

david-macdonald: few comments on testing. if one of our goals is to simplify, the weighting seems more complicated…than the current way of pass/fail. Are we breaking our own goal?

<Ryladog> me thought are that this will be an algorythm

<jon_avila> A+

jeanne: we have very much looked at that, and we anticipate that the points system will not be automatically shown to the average user. But it will be exposed to the regulators.

<Chuck_> It sounds like the allocation of points is the hard part and is done behind the scenes (the hard part is done for the world).

<Chuck_> AUDIO: Three hot mikes.

Jeanne: It is more flexible to address needs of different disability types.

<Chuck_> AUDIO: AWK, Brooks Newton and David MacDonald are hot mikes.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask how to navigate conformance being based on points (rubric) but methods not being normative

Jeanne: the audience that needs it simplier are the people who need to undersatnd the guidleines. The audiance that needs to do the scoring, can use a tool that will make is easy to score for an evaluator.

AWK: guidelines being normative and the methods being non-normative, but the conformance level you reach is based on the non-normative methods. Does that create a problem defining conformance on non-normative.

<jon_avila> Q>

Jeanne: That is the major reason we haven’t said conformance is “done”. We are teasing apart scoring and conformance. I think that will be our answer. We are still working out those details. I share your concern about that.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about slippery slope of serious being number of users effected?

<jon_avila> Anytime we talk about scoring and points people always want to know what they need to fix in order to bring up the score by a certain number of points.

bruce_bailey: question on severity, missing alt text on essential image or decorative image. I’m worried about the slippery slope to consider “number of users effected”.

jeanne: we do not include that as a weighted factor because it is unfair.

Judy: speaking personally, I find David’s question very interesting. I often see audience needs merge. What might lawyers want or not want. Some thing I’ve heard about legal a11y cases, hard in a legal setting to understand the basis. In some jurisdictions a point system might be useful, but in other court settings it may be risky to gauge our conformance model to a particular jurisdiction. A point system might NOT work for some judges. Who knows h[CUT]

is going to play out.

Judy: Important of people with all types of disabilities being able to be involved in all aspects. The point system should not prevent people with some disabilities from getting involved in that scoring system methodology. But coming back to David's original point, regarding a complex scoring system within an overall effort to simplify, this reminds me of decisions during WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 development that came back to haunt us.

<Judy> [Judy: respects all of these individuals for their work, but also notes that they are all primarily US-based lawyers and/or policy makers -- Jeanne can you remind us how much input you got from other countries than the US?]

jeanne: when we had the design sprint a year ago we had two lawyers as part of the team, they were helping with prototyping. And a person from OCR suggested a point system (move to a positive reward system of bronze, silver, gold). But we have not circled back with them to make sure they agree with how we are working on all their ideas. They were not the only ones involved. There were other stakeholder groups represented. We will circle back with them [CUT]

sure all important stakeholder needs are met. Waiting until we have a solid proposal.

jeanne: everything we do, we want people with cognitive disabilities to be able to use it. we have a number of people with cognitive disabilities involved in silver. At the moment it looks complicated because we are still working it out. I believe we will be able to make it as simple as a big addition problem. I’m confidenct this can be solved.

<Zakim> as, you wanted to compliance

<Zakim> mike_elledge_, you wanted to respond to David's comment

mike_elledge: I think we are going to end up with more than 38 things to check. There are going to be tradeoffs. I would hope there is one numerical value that do not depend on how you test it or the audience on that site. Captioning is going to be X, even if it is a site for people who are hard of hearing. It should be constant (no matter the audience).

<Zakim> MarcJohlic, you wanted to ask follow-up on scoring and David's question - how "solid" are the points

JonAvila: problem with scoring is 83% can look good, when it really isn’t good. Or how people game a system to get their score up, but there are still major a11y errors. Is it part of key workflow (is important)? ADA is more about can a user with a disability use this service. Login form is often more important.

MarcJohlic: worry about gaming the system. we captioned it, so we got our 5 points, but the quality of captions is bad.

jeanne: example auto testing gets 1 point, but if you go back and do a cognitive walkthru test you can get 3 points. you could have a user group that tests your alt tex and get 15 points for that because you involved people with disabilities and validated that these people could actually complete the tasks. Give greater rewards for when you do more.

<jon_avila> What if the tests are done only on\ a certain number of pages? For examples, 6 out of 10 pages were reviewed but 4 were not.

Jeanne: reward people for doing the right things. if we only focus on preventing “gaming the system”, we lose. We need to do a good job of not making it simple to game the system.

<jeanne> Jon: We are looking on that, and we need the SME that knows how to do that kind of process determination.

Katie: 1) scoring needs to be attached to the normative. 2) On the scoring algorithm, the score can be calculated in the background. 3) We need an outcome value and qualatative value.

Chuck_ - Oracle has a point system that makes flashing a really, really horrible failure. Even if you pass everything else.

<Chuck_> That answers my q

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it would be good to share back TF/WG concerns about any model with the legal people to see how they respond to those questions

jeanne: we are looking at non-interference SC as being absolutely required as a minimum. thank you for asking this.

<Zakim> Brooks, you wanted to ask about different conformance measurements in certain contexts

AWK: sharing the work you’ve done back with the legal stakeholders…share not just hear is what we are thinking, but also share our concerns/reservations, so they lawyers can think about our concerns too.

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on the weighting system, with an example other than alt text

Brooks: I love the idea of rewarding authors for doing the right thing. Company chose a 3rd party widget that isn’t accessible.

<Chuck_> AUDIO: minor echo, she's in a baseball stadium

<Chuck_> AUDIO: AWK and Makoto are hot mikes.

<jeanne> Brooks, that was what I addressed earlier around accessibility supported - we agree with you that we want to support the content author coding to standards

<Chuck_> AUDIO: Remote AV officer present

Judy: want to comment on weighting the different SC (but use something other than alt text). Example: flashing spinning graphic - I hope this would be weighted as “you do this. you fail.” Is there a way to in streaming video to buffer/control flashing. I like the weighting to help in situations like this.

<Brooks> will content authors get partial points for following a standards-based approach to building a widget, but the widget doesn't perform accessibly because of other factors, such as accessibility support?

jeanne: weighting factors - very, very high weighting for any SC that relates to non-interference (where flashing is exactly that).

Ryladog - you could use a functional performance criteria (fpc) to solve this. Is it going to break it for this user? You may have 83 points, but you fail under fpc. you do this. you fail.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if conforming alternative versions and/or multiple versions been discussed in conformance model?

Jeanne: I like that. And I also like Bruce’s idea for -1000

<Chuck_> AUDIO: bad echo.

bruce-bailey: what about conforming alternate versions and scoring

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to do a time checkj

bruce-bailey: do you get points for having an accessible html version and an accessible pdf verison of the same content.

<Chuck_> Talk fast

<Chuck_> Let's get through what we can. Press on.

<Chuck_> +1 press on

AWK: our plan was to talk charter and silver. But we only have 33 minutes left until lunch. What do we want to do after lunch?

MichaelC: ACT is coming at 1. I propose we continue this Silver discussion at 2pm.

<Chuck_> I'm sold, +1 break for lunch.

<laura> bye. thanks.

<Chuck_> I'll let you know!

<bruce_bailey> scribe:bruce

<JF> scribe?

<bruce_bailey> AWK: Shadi and Mary Jo to talk about ACT

ACT and CR

<Chuck_> bruce assigned himself

<bruce_bailey> scribe:bruce_bailey

<scribe> scribe: bruce_bailey

<JF> scribe?

<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag-ftf

AWK: please past in links, we will try web ex as well

<Chuck_> +1 introduce

Shadi: may be a little bit of recap, do people need intro

yes, then open up floor for questions

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html

ACT Rules Format

dry but will provide clarity as we look at rules

problem is with different people apply tests and ruls

idea is to document how we all test

come to more uniform agreement

even with alt text people have different results

we need common rule format and then decide what we commonly agree upon

then post as best practices

this work not directly intented for people doing evaluations

intended for people developing tools and methodologies

is has been a while since people looked at ACT materials of course, WG busy with other stuff in meantime

see survey, has link to diff

lots of editorial changes but not new features

accessibility requirements section expanded, was very dense

now called mapping

important: rule types

composite and atomic

ex check for keyboard accessibility

tab through links unless explaination ahead of time

so includes check for instruction regarding non-standard keys

composite would be net of atomic rules -- one needs to be true

AWK: clearifies that conclusion is "not fail" as opposed to pass

Shadi: earlier effort included chaining rules, simplified approach with composit and atomic

format is agnotic to version of wcag

accessiblity requirements mapping is key area

written in a broad way. Atomic rule does NOT have to map to SC

Atomic rule could be a precondition, ex. check if image is decorative

next step is to check that is marked up as decorative OR has text equivalent

baseline that failing check is failing SC

follows from checking for failures is much easier than asserting passing

inaplicable can be two things -- might mean pass requirement -- or might need more testing

artifact of how wcag is written

when a rule passes -- MIGHT mean passing SC, but probably means more testing required

additionaly there might be alternative versions

mapping does make this version more complex than last publication.

Goal was also to allow rules to promote best practices, so new struct allows that

One use case was EPUB want non-normative allows for ACT to be applied to guidelines that might not be final when ACT posted

Mappings allow 3rd party to developing there own addition mapping

companies could also develope there own protocols or testing methodology

example might be IBM or Microsoft or DHS Trusted Tested

AWK: Shared rule set that is agreed on, where the authors say they know about WCAG, know about EN 301 549, etc., and they want to have a larger robust process

Shadi: agreed, our effort stops at w3c resources, but we want to be open to those expanded cases

Atomic: input are conditions and what need to check on

composite rules are the combinations of the atomic rules

MaryJo: a composite rule could have multiple different aspects to the test because the atomic rules allow for all the preconditions.

AWK: ask about test being noun v verb in 4.5.1 example 7

Shadi: that is a typo

AWK: editiorial

Shadi asks Andrew to file github issues

<MarcJohlic> Section 4.5.1 - Example 7 - change "Test aspects" to "input aspects"

Shadi: in early version we had input aspects like DOM that might not be enumerated

moved common input aspects into working group note

please review supplemental notes as well

Applicability section updated from procedural approach to "this is what the test applies to" and "this is the expected behavior"

<Chuck_> SQUIREL!

This approach allows AI approaches or squirels /s

for example, this rule applies to all video with audio, what we call "test targets"

applicabiltiy for composite rules are the combination of all the applicability covered by all relevant atomic rules

expectations are what really determines the outcome

eg, an image that is not marked as decorative has an accessible name

applied to each test target, for each test target can have multiple results

reminder that unit of conformance is web page

expectation that some combination of outcomes is true, pass or fail on a high combined level

assumption section is under debate with auto wcag wg

for example captions might not cover all aspects of SC so this is where we put assumptions

potential for rescoping requirement, might have questionable or even misleading assumptions

so need some additional level of review

Accessibility Support is another significate area. Assumption is ARIA roles are supported might be a leap of faith.

Different assumptions about level of support and what AT and User Agents end users have.

Test Cases are example of what we agree on as content that passes and content that fails

The test case might have wider reuse. Very often SC are a lofty, so this code is bad, this code is good is extremely helpful

Change Log, self evident

Glossary is important of course. Capturing what we meand as we go along. Standard Keys is an example.

We also defined term like "inapplicable" which was not important for WCAG but important for ACT

Note on Rule Accuracy not normative but important note we thought

Harmonization another important non-normative discussion.

Demo of some rule.

Auto WCAG group changing name to ACT Rule

<shadi> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/rules.html

Long back-and-forth and interation between comments from community group

we have have some implementations...

<shadi> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/implementations/coverage.html

Right now output limited to JSON but future visualizations possible

main idea is to support CR process and document that we have working examples

If you fail ARIA then you fail 4.1.2, but some argue about that

example of Heading Descriptive is a manual rule

Video having Audio Description is a complex composite rules

<jon_avila> The test for 2.4.6 seems to conflate 1.3.1 and 2.4.6. 2.4.6 applies to visual labels and not programmatic ones

Some of these examples not in the lastest draft, but you see how they follow test cases

DavidMcD: be great to merge these with current techniques

lots of great data and example

MaryJo: Agreed, we want to integrate these test cases into current WCAG support materials

Shadi: I think we already have these in Understanding, but nice to have the polish

<Chuck_> AUDIO: None

<Chuck_> AUDIO: Back

Katie: Please keep these formated so they are scalable as we go to Silver and the different kinds of tests

Shadi: We did that at T/PAC but bad code is bad code so we think this all works

DavidM: created by seems too prominent, should be at end

MaryJo: template is a work in progresss, so these are different examples showing how techniques might be applied

Shadi: currently see steep learning curve to getting involved, so we hope to address that, make it easier for people to contribute
... want development outside of the WG while still allowing WG input

MikeE: Obviously different companies involved happy with process, but is there a sense for how long it will take to get to concensus on test process?

What are long term steps for conitining?

Shadi: That is near future work and with AG. Current rules examples have three working examples. Thumbs Up not from just anyone.

Getting a 3rd tool from Pourtugese (sp) vendor

We have 30 published, by 18 months we want 70

target is agressive, but we have path going forward. We have demonstrated certain level of maturity.

Going forward, idea is to have process where AG WG would say rules X,Y,Z are good.

AWK: Rules are currently non-normative.

MaryJo: What we have are examples.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask about conforming alternate versions

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are there plans to have QA pages/sites that provide clear failures and passes against which vendors can confirm their rules?

AWL/Shadi: ACT on track for normative CR.

<Chuck_> Are you not hearing him?

<Chuck_> I heard him.

<Chuck_> I hear you

<Chuck_> Yes

MikeG: One concern for IBM is when rules are written and run, it seems hard to tell if rule tested what it was meant to capture.

MG: we have to write sample pages to test the sample rules
... are there plans for model test cases we can all test against?

Shadi: Yes, this is work going on in the community group so users can run their tools on the test cases and only the test case

See "test case generator" and "test harness"

Shadi: We have had lots of discussion about tests in the wild, usual concern with multiple testers

Brooks: the way I learn is will be to use test harness, what better way than to go to model test cases?

Shadi: agrees, test cases are real gem. Also is ARIA-AT task force looking at support for AT

Test cases may have other uses, but for now, we need rules.

Shadi: Next action on you. We need feed back before 3/20.

AWK: nine approvals so far, so substantial comment
... Having done this with 2.1, please go through and file issues
... even if editor please submit

We all want CR process to be easy

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT-RF_CR/

Bruce: can we just use survey for editiorial or do we need to use GitHub

<jon_avila> I assume the individual rules that people create are informative rules that are subject to change similar to the techniques we have.

Shadi and MaryJo: please use github if you can

survey is okay

AWK: polls for lingering doubts?
... looks good. Encourage people to (1) give a reading, (2) approve in survey or comment

Shadi: just the spec is the normative CR

DavidM clarifies that easy to add to

DavidM: have major tools makers approved?

Shadi/MaryJo/AWK: yes, deque, level access, site improve, Kathy Eng for Trusted Tester

Shadi: also French and Pourtugease (sp) organization

<jon_avila> To clarify the format doesn't specify interchange or reporting format.

Shadi: bringing on some more tool vendors

Some more watching rather than activively contributing, but want to make sure their tools not excluded

Shadi: seems like sharing is increasing collaborating

DavidM: Betamax vs VHS

group thanks Shadi and MaryJo

AWK: Jeanne will back in 7 min

<Chuck_> We still had test methodologies and "how e got here". We were on Conformance Model.

Silver

AWK: What do we want to talk about silver

<AWK> What's left: Test methodologies, relationship to user needs and conformance How we got here, lessons Strategy for WG, parallel 2.2 or not

Judy: Strategy / Scope question discuss sooner than later please

AWK: polls for additional Silver issues

<Chuck_> AUDIO: none

Katie: please cover issue of 2.2 and how long it takes to test something

<Chuck_> AUDIO: good

AWK: that is 2.2 and not Silver and hopefully we will as that is SC acceptance requirements

JF: would like to cover non-silver topics

MikeCooper: we only got half of Silver discussion agenda

agreed we want to get to 2.2

AWK: we will be ending at 5:00

Judy notes keynote practically is 5:15

MikeE: conference registration cut off is 4:30

<Chuck_> AUDIO: none

<Chuck_> k

Need to be registered for conference to get into keynote

<Chuck_> I'm going to take a break.

Bruce suggests people excuse themselves well before 4:30

AWK: break should cover time

MikeC: Please register yourself for conference at break if you need to do so

<Mike_Elledge> Scribe: Mike_Elledge

Silver scope

awk: categories form before. First will be strategy. Goes w/ one of yersterday's topics.
... Comments?

Judy: Conformance?
... Can yu hear me?

<jon_avila> yes

Silver conformance

<Chuck_> AUDIO: She just went under water

<Chuck_> Did somebody put something on top of the speaker?

judy: talked ot colleague from CA gov't, in concert w/ new legislation. Lawsuits and such...helpful to hear about their system, which doesnt rely onlawsuits: AMPs. Measured performance negotiations. Dialog to help orgs fix sites. Punishments only if you are unable to repair after going through process.

<Chuck_> the mike?

<Chuck_> AUDIO: Improved.

judy: Discussins about onerous approach, W3C said not helpful. Ways to achieve compliance so different. Let's not make law aspects so great in Silver.

dm: Setting deadline for cr, also agreemtns on whether accepting requiremetns doc. Concerned about having 2.2 parallel if silver jsut two years out.

<Chuck_> AUDIO: None

MikeC: maturity of performance and silver schedule are separate.

<Chuck_> AUDIO: Back

md: spend so much time on 2.0 conformance, know how hard it is.

<Chuck_> AUDIO AUDIO: Echo Echo

<Chuck_> Brooks and AWK are live.

<Chuck_> AUDIO: Fine now

md: Understanding that there are changes to w3c process that affect testability. Have ai understood correctly?

<Chuck_> * I can

<Chuck_> how do you do the '*'?

Mc: Never had strict rules for doing conformance, only recos in guidelines. Tried to follow closely in 2.0. This guidelines exist, good to look at, but W3C not pushing as hard on them.
... informal move to...can you prove interoperaility, which has been requirement in past. Groups want more flexibility. Must convince director that you've done that well.

mc. Following that quality assurance framework would lhelp acceptance. Now can convince of another way.

<Judy> [JB: notes that in the case of guidelines, that extends to interoperable and/or independent implementations]

mc: If process gets in way of silver, can try to convince director.

js: Quality assurance rules were helpful when researching multiple ways to measure.

dm: want to make sure that it's in the scope.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that we may be able to have our cake and eat it too

mg: If proposed timeline is a doable timeline, want to echo DMs concern wrt 2.2 schedule.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/110wGRVixacvzHhchfAMTXd0wbE1LeDQGuYjHytxOhv0/edit#slide=id.g35702e8f77_1_0

mg: new silver content first three quaters of 2020, if what consiering for 2.2 can we build that into silver.

awk: If working on 2.2 make SCs in adaptable manner to silver will save cycles.

mg: If slide 5 is accurate, new silver content will be same time as 2.2.

awk: So you mean by cake and eat it too means work only on silver.

mg: 2.2 would be in same format as silver.

<Ryladog> +1

jf: House and furniture. Have to provide testable sttments, incl. plain language.
... still a place for testable statmeent. TF in here for stdized tool tests.
... Different activities, including new testable stateents, like VR/AR.

<mbgower> Key question for me: Is this timeline on Slide 5 realistic?

jf: Silver acitivity will be large. Dont think 2021 date is realistic for Silver.
... Don't want to be negative. Just take a long time. Mayfind that old furntiture in new house won't fit.
... Should make new testable frameworks that work with Silver.

<alastairc> +1 to the staircase analogy, or in non-analogy: Once you've put in the content you find the ways it doesn't fit the structure/conformance, and you have to re-arrange and possibly buy more furnature. I mean, content.

js: I think that fits wellwith what we understand for process for moving wcag content. While making testable statements, techniques, etc. will help move them into Silver. You'll be thinking about silver while working on 2.x
... should keep moving closer together.

judy: How realisitc is timeline. Listeingni to discussion, increasing doubts can meet 4th qtr 2021. If working group not strongly confident on public timeline, it needs to be changed asap.
... Risks of postpoining unrealistic expecations have int'l scope. One nat'l gov't has already built into their stds planning process. Caught that just before passing. Thought that was what was planned. Disclaimers not universally understood.

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on the publicly posted timeline and give an example of the misunderstandings that this is creating.

judy: May have missed others. Unless AGWG including Silver TF are fully confident in the Q4 2021 timeline that is currently posted on the W3C website, this needs to be clarified. It has nearly gotten built into national government standards processes, referencing this Web page. Staff does the cleanup.

<mbgower> Thanks for the perspective, Judy

js: timeline for silver, were discussing tightly scoped version; still are. If have to do braoder version will need more time. Still shoudl do striclty scoped version adn then work on expanced version. Very scheculed interations. Dot releases for Silver. If not, then timeline needs to be changed.

<alastairc> Does 'tightly scoped' mean feature complete compared to WCAG 2.x?

js: I hope we'd be able to keep timeline, but part of this discussion.
... Particularly given katy's comments on scope. Not what we were originally considering.
... VR, other things, I don't know.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask what the constrained scope is anticipated for the new content in SIlver?

awk: I think that my question relates to that constained scope. Do you have clarity on new content that's being considered? I don't.

js: Hard to predict what new things are. Been working off david's list of things that didn't get into 2.1. Things we could get into silver: coga, low vision. Hqve done some coga prototypes, low vision did some too. Have been looking at that list and being able to get it inoto silver for structural rasons.

<Zakim> Mike_Elledge, you wanted to process

<AWK> Mike Elledge: a bit off discussion on timing. Later.

Katie: Thinking along the line of silver as more than authored responsibiity, including atag to exteant possible, a whole new way to do things, including new stuff. What I hread today that wont' be new stuff is shocking. If have TFs for different things would just keep on working. What is the framework, you're constraints are performance requirments, your constraints are your framework. If moving into this other thing, lets join it.

jf: going back to what Judy said, 2 years ago I anticipated 5-7 years. One of complaints about 2.1 was artificial timeline. Some was rickety...
... Don't want to put us into the same place. Publish things when they're ready.
... Need to publixh regularly. Publish when it's ready. we publish what is ready when it's 2.2 time, else the testable statements "wait for the next bus"
... timeline of 2021 is wildly aggressive. Proposing date without knowing what we're doing.
... Let's get the timing right. Better right than specific date.

katie: Agree.

awk: Welcome julianna

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment from the strategy perspective on the Rec track goal & timing.

ju: Developing a11y strategy. Caught with old standard. Timeline is importatnt ot what the CA gov't adopts.

awk: Predictability. make sure that we're confident about silver dates.

Ju: Would put us at disavantage.

<Zakim> Julianna, you wanted to say The government of Canada is currently building an accessibility strategy. Should we suggest people use the most modern standard instead of providing

dm: Accessible canada...looks like we don't hae to do anything for two years!

<AWK> Judy = to

dm: Many critical f2f where critical decisions made. don't feel ready to commit to anything until I know what we're doing.
... what if we jump in to silver, would much rather write guidelines than write to 2.2 if silver coming out right after. What id we write simple guidelines for 3 and push back dates.

mc: Discuss strategy or conformance. Which?

awk: Part of problem is topics overlap so much.

mc: are we ready to discuss strategy?

katie: Yes!

Judy: Need to discuss..

awk: If scope is huge, but we're only part way there, may move to silver at that point.

dm: If silver is defined, can commit. Not there yet.
... Don't care what's there, issue is whether model works. if it falls througou go bo back to 2.2.

<alastairc> Silver stages conceptually: New framework + less content, New framework + same content, new framework + more content.

<alastairc> Transition from WCAG 2.x to Silver could be in the middle one, but probably best to release then and recommend transition for the later one.

awk: Can't make that decision...not chartered for silver until we do charter. whether house is in china or wherever, different builiding codes define conformance model.

dm: If we get ot requiremnts can put in simple model. aim for silver. will know whether conformance model will work.

katie: six montths.

dm: Will have requirements for wcag, can decide if we roll back to next version of wcag, or go to silver.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that I am not clear if Q4 2021 Silver CR will cover all the same accessilbity issues that WCAG 2.0 covers

dm: would rather work on silver than rewrite 2.2 success criteria.

<alastairc> Big assumption that creating silver guidelines will be easier David!

bruce: Current version of wcag?

julianna: Yes

bruce: Rejected that. No way going to anticipate that.

bb: Go back to slide 5...will silver include VR. will it include 2.0 and 2.1?
... If silver is meant to be stable enough to work on performance, but not include 2.0 and 2.1, can live with it. But don't think it will make deadline.

js: Our plan is to move all existing wcag 2.1 material by 2019. While meeting here, silver has been going through perceivable, identifying intents...have been moving ahead. Move all existing material this year. Then have another 6 mos to work on new material.
... Nothing stopping us from working on new mterial this year. Our constraint is SMEs.

bb: Moving over by q4 this year, will have metric for scoring. Not even in draft form yet.

js: we do, but has some holes in it. Have talked about most of it, and things that arent ready. Not a multi-year process--maybe only another month, 3 mos. Should have it done by end of summer. In particular the parts you need to shop it around.
... we have editor's draft based on temiplates from last fall. Put in all conformance we know about. Have a rough version right now. Definitely making progress on it.
... Have subgroups working on aspects of it. Bringing on more ppl. Identifying ppl req for work.

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to eventually, but decently before 4pm, talking about intersecting strategy and scope issues

<JF> +1

<johnkirkwood> lost audio

judy: When I look at issues on table, and difficluty of issues, even given excellent work on silver, and constrained scope, still have concerns about 4q 2021. Given what I hear.
... Have bigger concern on RecTrack version of silver/3.0. Feel like constrained version could be anti-strategic for several reasons.

<Ryladog> ++++1 to Judy on Silver

judy: Three ways anti-straggic: lose oppty to test framework against content and test with rigor when going to std. One is scope of authoring tools and atents, second is emerging techs. Both could help us with silver. May lead to Rec that woudl be even worse. Think going with small set of content that doesn't stretch boundaries would be bad.
... second issues. Public perception of what we're doing. If republishing old content in new framework, transition will be incomprehensible to others except developers.
... OTOH, if show how we would handle new technologies, would help others understand how and why we're doing it. A third reason: when WAI work came under intense scrutiny several years ago, including misrepresentation of the ATAG and UAAG work,, this led to shutting down ATAG and UAAG work w/out being able to promote their work.
... Not leveraging new technologies hurt disabitliy community. If we don't leverage smart capabilities, particularly of user agents, disability community will lose out greatly. In daily discussions inside W3C about emerging technologies, and a11y is missing; people want guidance. Unless we're strategic, accessibility guidance for emerging technologies will be 8 years or more out.
... Can we take advantae of silver learnings, but gets foot going on new techs, reset a date that would include that.

<Zakim> Mike_Elledge, you wanted to say

<jeanne> We are very much in favor in testing Silver with broader scope with UAAG, ATAG and emerging. We are experiementing with that today.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to state that one thing we haven't accounted for in timeline is "stress testing"

me: Can we define conformance for silver before moving on new and emerging tech.

<alastairc> +1 min 1st draft should be full structure and mix of new & old "content"

jf: One of concersn is stress-testing. Say we have silver ready to go, need to take it on road. Don't go to broadway rifht away. What if we stress test and find flaw, that adds 6 mos, will blow our schedule. I think it needs to be thought about.
... Right now silver is a picture in the book, haven't found out who can build it. We have a good blueprint, but haven't started digging the foundation yet.

<Zakim> Michael__, you wanted to talk about structural vs content silver and preference and to mention bureaucratic dangers of fallback plan

<johnkirkwood> +1 to JF

jf: If dm's looking for well-defined thing, then 5 yrs out.

mc: Asking group: heard timeline from js is structure and 2.1 content, if want more, then need longer timeline.
... In earlier convos, ok with structure silver with new content. but now lean toward silver with new content. Otherwise ppl won't see value in it, both w/in and outside wcag group.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that moving all the WCAG 2.1 content over before conformance nailed down is likely to cause major re-drafting.

mc: So should push out timeline and then 2.2 since larger gap to fill.

<Chuck_> Yes

<alastairc> Moving content generally requires re-drafting, not undermining John's point, but even if an item means the same thing, a different structure will cause changes. Happens in every migration project, always underestimated.

<alastairc> Worry that leading with 2.1 content will affect the framework, would rather have mix of content.

<alastairc> We have over 300 'methods', not counting Flash/Silverlight that probably won't be migrated. How many per week could we handle?

<alastairc> - Still not sure:

<alastairc> ○ where 'normative' requirements for testing go, if methods are normative then the voting really won't work.

<alastairc> ○ how task vs page affects the testing process.

<alastairc> how alternative versions affect the testing process.

<alastairc> Would like to get to good structure on the timeline, then add content.

awk: AC concerned about 2021 date even without expanded scope.

<alastairc> We should definitely move some content, a good representative sample for refining the structure & conformance.

<jon_avila> scribe: jon_avila

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that what I'm hearing Judy suggest is that we set a date for Silver that is farther out, but plan for rec track drafts in the next charter (along with a 2.2)

awk: Heard Judy suggesting that by making Silver more comprehensive when it reaches rec. We would need to set a date further out. My interpetation that we are planning for rec draft in next charter and 2.2 and that work is far enough out so there would be a gap to fit 2.2 in. Is that correct?

<Chuck_> It is...

Judy: Was responding with wince to comprehensive - the framework needs to be able to accommodate more comprehensive out of the gate.

<JF> +1 to Judy. Under-promise and over-deliver is generally a good strategy

Judy: sensitive as there have been debates over coverage in 2.1. Be careful about involke a term that we don't measure up to. We would have a solid foot in the door for getting UAAG and ATAG on more than 1 or 2 technology and not just the easy stuff to test framework before we take anything to rec.
... Jeanne had been asking after break about a 8 year timeline -- if we do 2.2 and then finish up challenging questions in Silver and some questions require zeroing in with a constrained version. Then we would run into whole new fleet we would have 7 or 8 down the road before we have a rec. We could lose time longer term if we are trying to save in short term.
... Try to pay attention COGA TF to understand what did not make it in 2.1 and why -- worry about coplexity -- that if we don't get some stuff in 2.2 round we will miss some opportunities.

<jeanne> Silver does intend to include UAAG and ATAG in the first round.

Judy: Assumption is that you may need to do a 2.2 -- but not on super constrained. Do a silver version that takes up some new scope to test framework before we send any of it to rec.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to add that adding UA and AuthTools to WCAG criteria makes it "more comprehensive" than WCAG, even if it isn't "comprehensive" with regard to all accessibility

Judy: just my opinion of one person here and watching WAI for 2 decades.

<alastairc> Has anyone tried adding in ATAG/UAAG criteria into Silver prototypes?

awk: In terms of Silver being more comprehensive than WCAG - was not suggesting not comprehensive to all needs out there. Each future spec will be more comprehensive but not expansive enough. We want to build capacity to go into the future with a new framework.

<jeanne> alastair, yes, we have in the prototypes

<alastairc> Thanks Jeanne. I made a point about that in the survey, Req 8, we didn't get to it yesterday though :-(

Jake: have been listening all day and to your points. What is not clear is what will Silver be in the first release. Does it need to be a standard not overtake but re-place or be mature enough to replace WCAG 2 versions because I was already in queue before Judy and was thinking about extendng recommendation of Silver.

<JakeAbma> https://blog.crisp.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Making-sense-of-MVP-.jpg

Jake: In software -- we can release in half a year -- and if it is flexible and modular -- we can deliver software. We start with skaeboard, then bike, then car. I don't think we can plan a silver out for 8 years.

<Judy> [JB wants to be clear that I am not recommending an 8-year process. I am expressing the concern that unless we are strategic about what we build, that might be likely to happen.]

Jake: Why can't we say by end of this year we will have silver and then build on to it and then add modules and then inject UAAG. Maybe it can replace it in 8 years but we have already by the end of this year.People can comment on it and play with it and not taking WCAG 2.1 completely and put it in there.
... More suggestions on how to fit into that module which is more mature and we can adjust with flaws and steer and it can replace over 8 years. Over the year we will have a new way of looking at it. Get public comment on it before replacing it.
... my first question -- is that possible or to disruptive. In software you woudl be out of building if you say it will take 8 years.

Katie: one response to first question why can't we just iterate. We put it out for public comment and that will have that for Silver. This is not software we can update and patch and have half baked piece. we need a fully basked piece because gov incorporate into civil rights legislation. We want to not get it wrong to the extend we can.

<alastairc> Jake - this is more like creating Bootstrap, where it's going into an ecosystem where people are building on it.

Katie: not only do we need histsoric stuff by also UAAG and ATAG but mroe relevant t hings for people on how do we do this in AR/VR, etc.

<Judy> @Jake - I was not recommending an 8-year process. I do not want an 8-year process. I think that the current plan may accidentally result in an 8-year process. I am hoping for a much shorter process.

katie: Can run 2 tracks for 2.2 and silver -- we don't have enough people -- we would need real draw to bring in people with expertise. We need those people at the table to make it successful

Judy: just commented online. Comment was meant to Jake and not by Jake. Judy was not recomending or want an 8 year process. Was saying the process of 2.2 and constrained and then comprehensive might accidently result in 8 year process and everyone would lose that way.

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask Jake if he's clear that I was not recommending an 8-year process

<JF> +1 to Judy's clarification re: 8 year process concern

Judy: Unless we are comprehensive we might end up with something like an 8 year process and we should through people out of the house if that was software or standards development.

Jake: what is expected for the maturity for the first release. What are the forces and dos and don'ts - you need to have really clear scope of first release. I have not seen exact scope.
... e.g. we will start with a release that contains this or that instead of we would like to do it all at once. I'm not sure what the exact conditions are for delivery.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we have the expertise to include UAAG and ATAG, but what we lack are the SME for emerging tech.

Jeanne: what I wanted to respond. The scope we originally wanted -- not saying this is the way we woudl go - we would include WCAG content and related UA and authoring tool content and we include material that was supposed to go into 2.1 that didn't.
... Many SC had to be left behind for 2.1 -- that was our original scope. Also wanted to include enough of new technologies so we including things -- narrow amount - to test so it could manage emerging tech.

<JF> If Jeanne is saying that Silver V.1 is => WCAG 2.1 then +1

Jeanne: we have been using Voice Assistants. Wanted to make sure what we were designing what was enough for those.

<Judy> [Judy: I'll need to leave probably before I come up in queue again. Michael (Cooper) represents W3C as Team Contact for this group, so he can speak to Jake's question if needed. But with my "WAI Director hat" on, any "Recommendation" level WAI 3.0/Silver must have a strong level of maturity. You can take multiple iterations to get there, using the "Working Draft" process.]

Jeanne: comfortable taking the existing things as ATAG and UAAG are closely related to WCAG. We have experience. Where are we going to get the subject matter experts for the new emerging techs.

<Judy> [Judy: We could probably get a few subject matter experts for a few of the emerging technologies.]

Jeanne: don't have issue pushing out timeline. Alastair said recently that converting materials always take more time than anticipated. Willing to look at it - but don't want to do it without a clear scope. Don't want expectations of a lot more -- what are we going to include. Let's create bulleted list and we can give you are best estimate.
... We would fail with an open ended scope.

Judy: Jeanne addressed Jake's question more comprehensively and what's needed for Silver in regards to maturity. Michael Cooper is WAI contact. For everything that is a recommendation...
... For what is needed for published recommendations - w3c expects something that has a strong maturity level where there is already an established standards and not just taken up by developers here and there. Organizations have taken up in a regulator way. There is room for iterate for years before they go to recommendation.

<Chuck_> WOOHOO!

Judy: Process docs talk about maturity level -- there is a high bar that must be met based on how it is used.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to baked pieces

awk: related to Jake's image of each baked piece. Each piece doesn't need to be for sale and replace 2.2. We are not wanting the sale of WCAG for Silver to be viable. There are 2 things we need on a short term. 1. we need advance accessibility. Right now that is the 2.x line. Also, we need to make sure we have deliverables that we are not counting people taking up in policy-- but we have useful materials for review but not taken up in policy.
... We were trying to create a vehicle to replace a car -- and now we finally have something to replace the car. We need to have small baked pieces that are useful to review. If it's just goo in the oven for 6 years and there is no way to review it then it will be a problem.

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to speak on behalf of W3C regarding spec maturity

MikeElledge: trying to wrap head around how to do agile with Silver. We have to have complete deliver -- our minimally viable product is whole enchalada. Another way to think about it -- Silver is going through an iterative process as it sets up components as it sets up the ranking system.

MikeE: We are talking about doing parallel processes. As it matures we move things over - have we reached consensus on that or are we not getting close?

awk: getting close but have more comments

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to speak about AWK's baked metaphor

JF: One of the things Judy mentioned -- the day we have a fully baked silver cake and Silver is new spec -- there will have to be period of time -- the web and regulators -- we will have to have time when both specs are parallel. In a perfect world Silver and 2.x would be clones in regards to testable statements.
... Not sure we have talked about it -- we have in this group - when we say Silver is done -- there will have to be a period where Silver and 2.1 are used.

BN: Will both be able to live together -- what unanticipated consequences would we have?

awk: Might be like VHS and beta where is not a conflict. If someone makes a commitment to by a player and the movie they want is in the other format. If world moves forward and they say we like more content or we like this better and future development moves in that direction.
... what we want to avoid Beta fish and Beta fish where things actively fight each other.
... If the minute Silver comes out and we say withdrawl 2.2 -- not proposing or suggesting that --that doesn't matter if Canada says we have 2.1 in our law then that's what they have in their process. So even if we don't think it's the best thing there may be places that have them.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to seek agreement on parallel and propose idea for moving forward

awk: Mike asked question about whether we are in agreement. It feels like people are more in agreement. Asking t he question out load to make sure -- Silver is going to take more time in part because there are more things we need to take into account for stress testing and the in the meantime having guidance that is current and still valuable
... If we said it would be 8 years and we said should we do a 2.2 -- I think the answer would be best. Does what you hear now reinforce the decision the working group make to work on 2.2. What we need to do A) clarify scope b) talk about 2.2 and c) consider what we focus on as a working group and ramping up and splitting the core WCAG call maybe at the hour mark.
... would not happen next week -- but we would figure that out over the next months. Interested in thoughts and if your views have changed.

Katie: have a lot of new things that have happened today.

DM: Today I feel the knot in stomach went away. Sad then. I feel like pushing the time line and widing the scope will be better and people will see it as new and not just repacking the same thing. Like the idea from Judy.
... work on 2.2 and merge groups and work together as a happy family.

Katie: With clarified marching orders for Silver and the recommendation to have a combined call and become more of one -- I could solidly be behind a 2.2.
... don't want us to release things that are not right. I hope 2.2 gives us more time and allow us to get more time from COGA that didn't get into 2.1. Don't want several new standards that don't include COGA.

<johnkirkwood> +1

Katie: Make 2.2 have quality over a timeline and include COGA as much and as hard as we can and start being a component of what our new world is going to look like.

<johnkirkwood> I agree!

awk: have and want to continue to think about Silver TF and core working group as one group. We want to make sure -- they have developed much more -- that we want frequent and much more cooperation with that project. Jeanne mentioned they are talking about ramping up. That is different than eveyone show up next Thursday and we'll triple productivity.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we must also consider the Silver Community group is part of AGWG as well. It is an opportunity for AGWG.

Jeanne: wanted to remind AG that we have 3rd group involved -- Silver community group -- which is a permissions issue -- in this work. That is another piece to consider. We can't leave the silver CG behind.

MC: can attend call -- but can't give access to wiki - so we would need to do work in different place and we would need to be careful on patents.

awk: things incubate in community group but then it shifts over and then people need to find ways to join group --

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that if some COGA requirements still don't catch the 2.2 bus, for stability we should at least allow the possibility of a 2.3 if silver hits any snags -

MC: woudl want to find way for the community group to continue to operate and participate.

JF: Also glad to hear thoughts from katie and COGAs participation in the process. We need a consistence publishing schedule that regulators can set their watch to.
... that would be a way to say to groups like COGA that we can get 3 out of 6 items now -- and we will keep working on the rest as we have committement -- take pressure off of them working to the clock. Focus on quality rather than just working to the deadline.

Katie: I see if we have a 2.2 and it doesn't cover COGA then I'm out of here.

<Chuck_> */me AUDIO: OK now

Katie: A regular cadence of quality work might be ok -- 2 or 3 years -- giving an exact date and causes some things to get thrown out is problem.

JF: don't to confuse time to takes to test something with time it takes to create robust testable statement.
... We need to find a balance between quality -- we need to publish sufficient quality.

Katie: don't have to tell them exact dates

<johnkirkwood> audio gone.. its back

Katie: We need to be broad on our arrival dates.

JF: Neither of us is in a position to speak for the AC. I believe I see a need for a metered release schedule.

JohnKirkwood: Had something in my mind for everything we have done with w3c. How we standardize around accessiblity for cognitive disabilities to get a functional structure that works for this community and the aging community. I have seen how things have been moving forward and putting covergence around Silver seem to align for what is needed for cognitivie disaiblities. It's a resource issue and we need to put more resources toward it.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to comment on quantity, quality, and speed

<JF> +1 JK, I propose you be placed in charge of recruitment of additional resources ;-)

BN: with Katie and other folks - we want to make sure quality is there but not be bound by timelines. Wasn't just timeline and abilities. There are things from other groups like HTML spec and markup for things that we want to do. We need that support when the time comes it's there.

<johnkirkwood> Thank you JF, ;)

awk: Some of that effort is going on such as with personalization task force. It's work the WG thinking about what are some of these strategic places that we need coverage. Other activities with APA. Always hard to find the time to do that. There are things around AR/VR and personalization. We don't have a straightforward list.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that the more dependencies to external folks, the more potential of time-slippage...

JF: Just to your comment Brooks. One concern with getting other groups -- the more dependency on those groups can be an issue if they are dragging their feet. there are a lot of factors involved .

awk: Perhaps plan on Jeanne, shawn, Michael need to have a discussion to prepare for a group call.
... Michael will check into community group cooperative work once there is a proposal.

MC: Big worry is patent policy but there are procedures. Jeanne sent to him.

awk: Need to talk about 2.2 process and SC and acceptance criteria documents
... some of that will require discussion around -- ultimately we need to have discussion around our charter of when 2.2 comes out.
... We have far greater agreement that 2.2 is a thing.
... we still need to agree on what that thing is -- may be consensus rather than unanimous thing.

<johnkirkwood> I've got to sign out and leave the office now... to make sure wife still remembers me. ;) Don't have too much fun without me

MC: there will be pressure for a timeline. I am hopeful the pressure will be a solid predictable 2 years. Presssure to not going beyond.

Jeanne: that would allow us 2 years to work on Silver so the next charter period.

MC: that is the question of whether it will be on the rec track or on incubation track.
... If it is on rec track we need more answers of what it would take 3 years.

awk: We could have Silver with working draft and also work on 2.2.

MC: should have an early working draft of Silver as we work on 2.2. Set a frequency and the charter not taking it to rec in 3 years.

Julianna, following status for 2.1 so they are one stage behind and then when we go to rec they can start incorporating that.

DM: Hopeful that maybe we can charter for 3 years. During that time we would work on Silver with drafts and have a 2.2 come out in that time period.

Katie: Only thing I would hope that we commit to -- to extend -- that when we finish 2.2 that we dive into Silver. Not say oh that will go into 2.3 or 2.4 or 2.5. Want us to think about that.

awk: My view on that is it depends on where we are on Silver at that time.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to doing less in 2.2 if we are also engaging with Silver

awk: If we are splitting time and doing 2.2 and working on silver -- there is less that we will get into 2.2. What I am hearing that people want to do more collaboration with Silver. That does have an impact on total time for 2.2
... Challenge with saying we must have this much in 2.2 or it's not good enough. These are competing demands have impact.

MC: Hear you -- if we don't commit that gives us a mental escape hatch -- we need that commitment now -- but if Silver is not on track then we may need to do a 2.3.
... I think silver has been on target all along. We have good hope that Silver will be on target with revised scope. We should commit to 2.2 and then focus on silver -- but we may need to adapt.

Chuck: with regards to 2.2 -- self imposed -- so make it quality bound and time boxed.
... Do we have external pressure to create like 6 new SC?

MC: Some external pressures for content and timeline. Not entirely self imposed -- although they align.

<Rachael> I would like to put into the list for future discussions revisiting whether we can modify existing criteria in 2.2. I realize there is the challenge of backward compatibility but we also have standards # creep. I want to avoid thinking success is increasing numbers

Katie: Always believe in escape hatches -- but prefer we don't talk about 2.3 2.4 2.5 as it's not going to get us to Silver. If we have an escape hatch ok -- but just because something is hard doesn't mean we shoudl not do it.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Rachael point

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask about regular drops

awk: Little things such as value in contrast SC and SC 4.1.1 are examples related to Rachael's comment.

<JF> +1

awk: value of having regular process is that it makes it clear to people who want to get something new in -- so there is going to be another train or boat and that something can get it. And we are less affected by policy makers who say they need something new. We can say if you want something in the 2023 version -- talk to us if you want something and send in expertise.

Katie: We could do that in a Silver framework. we need to get on one boat. We are on 2 boats and we won't be moving forward if we are riding in 2 boats.

awk: keep refresh cadence and keep boats side by side so we make sure there is not a 10 year gap again.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if folks think Silver will be a 1 or done?

katie: would be a 10 year gap from 2.x to 3.

JF: Is anyone operating that Silver will be the solution and we will be finished? One boat is in the shipyward and the other is in the water. We may have to talk about 2.3 if the boat is not ready. The boat is being built now. If there are concerned about speed then we need to put more resources on Silver activity.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that 18 month cycle interesting

JF: we are the resources. We need bring them all into the big tent.

BB: If we do the 18 month cadence we need to consisently demonstrate that. Access Board would have a 2 year length between cycles.

awk: We have a bunch of things to do and I and Alastair will extract. we are not going to meet this Tuesday.. Enjoy CSUN.

<alastairc> Thanks everyone, wish I could have been there.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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|   /me better?||
Succeeded: s/CR>/VR/
Succeeded: s/... going back to thinking about 2.2 I was in favor of 2.2 because of the delay in silver adoption/ I am in favor of 2.2 because adoption delays may mean that we will need to have the 2.x framework for a while./
Succeeded: s/Rachel/Rachael/
Succeeded: s/It can be easy to justify at that time but may come back to haunt us later./But coming back to David's original point, regarding a complex scoring system within an overall effort to simplify, this reminds me of decisions during WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 development that came back to haunt us./
Succeeded: s/Example 4.5.1/Section 4.5.1/
Succeeded: s/Quality assurance rules were helpful when developing conformance./Quality assurance rules were helpful when researching multiple ways to measure./
Succeeded: s/charles.adams@oracle.com//
Succeeded: s/awk: Cake a/awk: So you mean by cake a/
Succeeded: s/ Unless there's current confidence in WG and TF, put it off. /Unless AGWG including Silver TF are fully confident in the Q4 2021 timeline that is currently posted on the W3C website, this needs to be clarified. It has nearly gotten built into national government standards processes, referencing this Web page./
Succeeded: s/We published when 2.2 was ready./we publish what is ready when it's 2.2 time, else the testable statements "wait for the next bus"/
Succeeded: s/2 years ago anticiapted 5-7 years./2 years ago I anticipated 5-7 years./
Succeeded: s/f:f/f2f/
Succeeded: s/May lead to wreck/May lead to Rec/
Succeeded: s/to otehrs except programmers/to others except developers/
Succeeded: s/why new techs and emerging technology came under criticism/when WAI work came under intense scrutiny several years ago, including misrepresentation of the ATAG and UAAG work,/
Succeeded: s/lead to shutting down two working groups/this led to shutting down ATAG and UAAG work/
Succeeded: s/If we don't leverage smart technologiels/If we don't leverage smart capabilities, particularly of user agents,/
Succeeded: s/In the mides of discussions about new techs, and a11y is missing./In daily discussions inside W3C about emerging technologies, and a11y is missing; people want guidance. Unless we're strategic, accessibility guidance for emerging technologies will be 8 years or more out./
Succeeded: s/yet/yes/
Succeeded: s/2 decards/2 decades/
Succeeded: s/[Jake:/@Jake -/
Succeeded: s/process.]/process./
Succeeded: s/If it's just goo in the oven for 6 years./If it's just goo in the oven for 6 years and there is no way to review it then it will be a problem./
Succeeded: s/to not that the/to note that the/
Succeeded: s/charge or recruitment/charge of recruitment/
Default Present: AWK, Cyborg, Chuck, Rachael, jeanne, Lauriat, JF, corbb, JohnRochford, Laura, Brooks, Katie_Haritos-Shea, bruce_bailey, JakeAbma, MarcJohlic, Glenda, Makoto, shari, MichaelC_CSUN, mbgower, Kathy, CharlesHall, kirkwood, Roy, alastairc, LuisG, AngelaAccessForAll, RedRoxProjects, Mike_Elledge
Present: AWK Cyborg Chuck Rachael jeanne Lauriat JF corbb JohnRochford Laura Brooks Katie_Haritos-Shea bruce_bailey JakeAbma MarcJohlic Glenda Makoto shari MichaelC_CSUN mbgower Kathy CharlesHall kirkwood Roy alastairc LuisG AngelaAccessForAll RedRoxProjects Mike_Elledge MichaelC SteveRepsher Chuck_ kirkwood__ JKirkwood johnkirkwood Jemma Jemmaku
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: Glenda
Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda
Found Scribe: bruce
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Found Scribe: Mike_Elledge
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Elledge
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila
Scribes: Rachael, Glenda, bruce, bruce_bailey, Mike_Elledge, jon_avila
ScribeNicks: Rachael, Glenda, bruce_bailey, Mike_Elledge, jon_avila

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 12 Mar 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)