23:21:02 RRSAgent has joined #ag 23:21:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-ag-irc 23:21:04 RRSAgent, make logs public 23:21:07 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 23:21:07 Date: 18 September 2019 23:21:11 RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight 23:21:17 Present: AWK 23:26:33 Fazio has joined #ag 23:27:33 Fazio_ has joined #ag 23:34:42 FYI: We are working on audio issues. Can't get in room audio to work. 23:35:00 ZAkim, agenda? 23:35:00 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 23:35:01 4. WCAG 2.2 SC initial reviews https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22reviews/ [from AWK] 23:35:06 Zakim, clear agenda 23:35:06 agenda cleared 23:35:11 present+ 23:35:14 scribe: Chuck 23:35:37 AWK: Test 23:35:38 agenda+ AGWG Group dynamics and expectation setting 23:35:47 present+ JohnRochford 23:35:55 Makoto has joined #ag 23:35:58 agenda+ Silver topics 23:36:08 present+ 23:36:16 present+ 23:36:20 agenda+ Finalise last WCAG 2.1 technique 23:36:39 agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Work 23:36:40 present+ 23:36:49 agneda? 23:36:52 agenda? 23:36:55 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2019 23:40:52 jamesn has joined #ag 23:42:56 JakeAbma has joined #ag 23:43:27 Ryladog has joined #ag 23:43:46 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 23:44:10 present+ JakeAbma 23:44:22 AWK: Start 15 minutes before top of hour 23:44:29 present+ 23:45:16 Present+ 23:46:06 AWK: All set? 23:46:17 achraf has joined #ag 23:46:30 AWK: Welcome! Seen many at silver meetings. Now we transition to AGWG meeting. Time will be spent on silver. 23:46:34 AWK: Review of agenda... 23:46:38 present+ 23:46:51 AWK: Time on group dynamics and expectations, then silver. Somewhere there will be a break. 23:47:16 AWK: Within silver a bunch of topics, talking about the migration of existing content, assessing conformance models, pros and cons. 23:47:22 AWK: Silver made progress on mon and tue. 23:47:34 Shawn: I've some updated links to share. 23:47:57 AWK: Some members will go address questions on our charter, and speak with some other members. There will be some chair shuffling. 23:48:30 AWK: One last WCAG 2.1 technique to discuss for a full set of techniques for A and AA SC. 23:48:36 AWK: for 1.3.5. 23:48:49 AWK: We'll spend time on that, and shift into WCAG 2.2 which will finish the day. 23:48:56 AWK: That's the main focus for tomorrow as well. 23:49:33 AWK: 2.2 will be big focus. When charter is approved, we have a year to get 2.2 out the door. That includes wd, crs, techniques, etc. Lots of work to do. 23:49:40 AWK: Any questions? 23:50:14 Jake: Agenda of 2.2... in 2.1 first we made normative text, then techniques. Will we do that for 2.2? 23:50:26 nicaise has joined #ag 23:50:26 AWK: First bullet in 2.2 for agenda is reviewing process. In more detail. 23:50:38 AWK: We need to spend some time on group expectations. 23:50:56 AWK: Can we go around the room in 90 seconds and say who we are and company or invited expert. 23:51:02 Nicaise, MS 23:51:05 MC W3C 23:51:10 David invited expert 23:51:26 23:51:49 23:52:11 DavidClarke_ has joined #ag 23:52:11 Present+ 23:52:12 David Fazio Invited Expert 23:52:15 ReinaldoFerraz has joined #ag 23:52:21 present+ 23:52:25 AWK: Jake scribes after Chuck 23:52:27 AWK: then Katie 23:52:30 present+ 23:52:38 AWK: one more scribe... John 23:52:40 present+ Laura 23:52:52 David Clarke, Invited Expert I18n, observing 23:52:54 Nicaise: How does one put themselves in the q. 23:53:06 mbgower has joined #ag 23:53:08 AWK: q plus is the way. Good to add text related to question. 23:53:15 present+ 23:53:15 present+ JohnRochford 23:53:48 AWK: Need to discuss group expectations. Entering the new phase of work where we are very focused on 2.2 spec. If we learned anything, its now we get into difficult conversations. 23:53:58 AWK: specific language, user needs, get a spec done, it's difficult. 23:54:10 audio is great for me on Webex. Dialin didn’t work though. 23:54:16 AWK: Anyone working on WCAG 2.1 would not say they got everything perfectly the way they want. 23:54:24 AWK: 2.2 will be the same as well. There will need to be compromises. 23:54:33 Present+ 23:54:41 AWK: What's important is that we are all on the same page on how we get there. Talking about some of the behavior and working norms we expect. 23:55:10 AWK: This crosses W3C. At Chair lunch this was half of the agenda. Dispute resolution, make working progress smoother, better, more inclusive. 23:55:28 AWK: We want to do that. Everyone wants to do that. But we want a conversation with everyone, highlight some resources we have at W3C 23:55:33 AWK: We can level set around that point. 23:55:59 AWK: Some of the things we think about... starting points for norms. Without making a long list, we have 5 things that we are putting forward as the norms. 23:56:14 AWK: To see if anything should change or add. 23:56:40 Chuck: can you paste in these five bullets? 23:56:42 Yes. Audio is fine. 23:56:54 1) Assume positive intentions from others. 23:57:03 2) Treat others with respect you expect to be treated with. 23:57:08 3) Take an inquiry stance. 23:57:11 Order of operations Map WCAG to Silver structure For each guideline-level grouping, identify user needs Identify tests to validate meeting user needs Write methods to meet the tests Write the top-level guideline to communicate what the methods provide 23:57:20 4) Ground statements in evidence. 23:57:25 5) Hear all voices. 23:57:44 AWK: This is something for when discussions are difficult, it's hard to remember. 23:57:48 Ah, sorry Chuck. I did not see you were already adding the bullets when I pasted them in. 23:57:57 AWK: for #2, very standard, but bears mentioning. 23:58:21 AWK: #3, in group discussions, people get into reaction mode when someone says something and people strongly want to react against it ... "that's wrong!" 23:58:51 AWK: The point of this one is that it's important to in working with other people, if someone says that something should work a specific way, we want to encourage questions to detemine the basis for that perspective. 23:59:18 AWK: To get at the underlying point and understand the viewpoint. And questions help to analyze the point in a reflective manner. 23:59:36 AWK: Much more welcoming. As opposed to digging in heels. 00:00:02 AWK: It can turn into a situation where 12 people say one thing and 2 say another... we've determined consensus, but 2 people haven't had enough inquiry. 00:00:19 AWK: Grounding statements in evidence is critical as well. 00:00:51 AWK: No good examples, but we can say "this should work a way" or "this does work a way", make sure you are clear about it... Version of JAWS you use may make it work that way. 00:01:17 AWK: But does that work in other permutations? We need to look at all the evidence. I think that making sure we are being deliberate will be valuable. 00:01:40 AWK: Hearing all voices, which means listening to all perspectives. As a chair (can be hard to remember) is actively get more people involved. 00:02:04 AWK: There are times when it's Alastair and Katie and David (as an example), I think that as a chair I can get other voices to participate. 00:02:18 AWK: To get positive affirmation or hear other perspectives. 00:02:35 AWK: As we are looking at first public working drafts as crs, we are looking for voices outside of wg. 00:03:02 q+ 00:03:08 AWK: That's our list. 5 starting points. What do people think, do they resonate? Anything else? Should we modify these? How do we handle these things? 00:03:24 AWK: We'll have contentious conversations, and the goal is to have a consensus. 00:03:29 AWK: Any thoughts? 00:03:33 ack ry 00:03:59 Katie: Not limited to this wg, the instances I was involved in where I mis-behaved, I reacted to my perception of bullying. I like that we want to hear other voices. 00:04:26 Katie: Because of bullying, other voices weren't speaking up, and they didn't want to engage in that. It's important to try and counter that. I did not succeed before. I like these goals. 00:04:36 Appreciative Inquiry is a good technique 00:04:49 q+ 00:04:57 ack david 00:05:03 Yes ("I hear you"), and? 00:05:08 Joshue108 has joined #ag 00:05:25 David: When I've been in other wg as well as my one, one of the things is that I've seen in the past (but not in recent years) people divide on personal lines. 00:05:34 Makoto has joined #ag 00:05:55 David: katie and I may disagree... if I am not careful, I may get into a state where I disagree with her in the future because I disagree with her now. It's important to not get in that mindset. 00:06:18 David: Whatever the discussion point is, they get compartmentalized, and it's not based on an individual. 00:06:21 q? 00:06:29 David: It's just to be aware of it and keep yourself out of individualizing it. 00:06:51 Michael: Any suggestions? You are suggesting self awareness. Any idea on how to steer people? 00:07:16 David: Let's say I automatically object to Katie, and someone says to me.. "last week didn't you agree with her, why disagree now?" It's a good gentle approach. 00:07:20 KimD has joined #ag 00:07:23 Present+ 00:07:30 David: The other is to call it out: "WHY do you think Katie is wrong?" 00:07:35 q+ 00:07:54 AWK: There's valid in having evidence. I may disagree with someone that I feel is always wrong... when a point is structured around data... 00:08:14 AWK: That can be broken down much more, it makes it harder for me to keep that wall and resistance up against those points. 00:08:29 AWK: I can work on pieces I agree with and the pieces I don't. That's very valuable. 00:08:31 ack jo 00:09:07 John: As a person who is legally blind, I don't have the advantage of detecting upset people via non-verbal queues. I wonder if it's ok that if I think it's happening, if I ask an open question? What should I do? 00:09:19 Alastair: Everyone over a teleconference (no visual queues) 00:09:48 Michael: some people with social challenges may not be able to interpret tone of voice or facial expressions. 00:09:52 q- 00:10:09 q+ to offer my approach to what John raised. 00:10:11 David: Everyone is difference, take a moment to breath, realize that we are all here for the same reason. Take a moment and have an open conversation. 00:10:28 John: Doesn't address my question. What should I do, what should happen, how can I be helped? 00:10:32 ack sh 00:10:38 ack la 00:10:38 Lauriat, you wanted to offer my approach to what John raised. 00:11:00 Shawn: My approach to that, I try to do pre-emptively if I see someone else struggling. If I think that I've come across poorly, I'll take a breath and ask how that person thinks I sounded. 00:11:31 Shawn: I can correct that if necessary. Again based on facts. If someone's upset it may be because you came across wrong. If you start off with checking that. 00:11:58 Shawn: Flip side... if I am upset because of what someone said, I'll try and mirror the statement back, rephrase, the words may not mean the same thing to them. 00:12:03 q+ 00:12:05 Shawn: That will bring up the disconnect. 00:12:30 John: Is there anything we as a group to help people who can't detect that? 00:13:10 Shawn: Someone prompts "John you may be coming across wrong"... stop things from continuing off the cliff, and get everyone back on the same page. 00:13:15 Shawn: There are other possibilities. 00:13:49 Mike Gower: I count on the chairs on remote calls to provide the visual equivalence. Seeing blank faces, etc. To understand what's going on in the room. 00:14:10 Katie: A lot of our meetings are digitally and on the phone, lots of people aren't seeing visual queues. It helps to verbalize. 00:14:25 Katie: The ability to determine from a tone of voice if someone is upset is another area of sense. 00:14:35 laura has joined #ag 00:14:37 AWK: I think that ... David... 00:14:38 q 00:14:40 ack da 00:14:40 q? 00:15:00 David: Agree with ... the idea of Chair intervening if char is in position to observe. One reason people do get upset is because people misunderstand. 00:15:35 David: Simple misunderstandings, one thing that happened a while ago was a relatively contentious motion. Someone said "should we table it", and q was "Do you REALLY want to?" 00:15:53 jeanne has joined #ag 00:16:08 rrsagent, make minutes 00:16:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-ag-minutes.html jeanne 00:16:10 David: People got upset. The concept was to put asside for future discussion. UK/Brittish was that we were going to vote on it. The identical words in the same language could cause misunderstanding. 00:16:48 David: the "Please can you rephrase it" will often sort out those difficulties. Equally if you aren't sure if someone is upset, say "I'm sorry if I upset you", or "are you happy with..." 00:17:05 David: Trying to keep communication open. Be aware that some people in wg aren't working in their best language. 00:17:39 AWK: Yes paying attention to tone of conversation that Alastair and I strive to do, as does Michael. I don't think people should need to wait for us to notice that things are strained. 00:18:12 AWK: I suggest that people should be confortable raising issue themselves. Ask some of those questions. For me if Alastair is away or I'm away... Chair is very loaded. 00:18:51 AWK: I can't guarantee I'll catch every instance, sometimes issues bubble up. There's no doubt that we'll check every specific meaning. "Do you mean stop or vote"? 00:19:14 AWK: We'll progress one step or 2 steps beyond where we prefered we stopped. I think that as long as we can identify take a step back, take a breath... 00:19:55 AWK: "Did you actually mean this?" Or "This is what I think I'm hearing you say". Hopefully has smoother progress. Maybe we've got 5 minutes to get things done, maybe we shouldn't be pressured into finishing. 00:20:03 q? 00:20:25 Alastair: Sometimes we try and summarize where a discussion has gotten to, which helps to determine if we understood properly. 00:20:32 AWK: Any other points? 00:21:02 Nicaise: Some information can be very sensitive. If we put too much burden on the speaker over expressing their views, that can put burden on speaker. 00:21:15 Nicaise: Where frank and open conversation is needed, I prepare myself. 00:21:39 Jemma_ has joined #ag 00:21:44 AWK: There's a balance to that. If you assume that someone has a positive intention, you can ask question to clarify, and maintain the positive view of intentions. You can get down to the facts. 00:22:12 AWK: IT's pretty common in human interactions that you react to that. This exercise in part is to slow down the reaction, and think about things before reacting. 00:22:52 laura has joined #ag 00:22:54 AWK: If that ... I think that in my mind some of that is interpreted as "I should not be as sensitive..." and I think it's about being more analytical and probing, to determine if I'm justified in being upset or if I misunderstood something. 00:23:00 AWK: All in agreement? 00:23:16 q? 00:23:56 AWK: Anything that you feel we can better do to support the practice of these things? I know there are times when I haven't done the things I need to do as well as I could. 00:24:14 AWK: What other types of support people Alastair, I (AWK) and Michael can do. 00:24:38 Shawn: Logistics... are these slides being shown in webex. 00:24:53 Chuck: They are in twice. 00:24:54 q? 00:24:55 q+ 00:24:59 ack r 00:25:31 Katie: I would say that my frustration came a couple of times because I felt unheard. If we could take about it with all 3 of you together if someone has an issue. 00:25:59 AWK: Absolutely. We'll talk about W3C's documents, there's a process document for formal objections. I think we are talking about avoiding that. 00:26:30 AWK: We want poeple to feel comfortable asking questions of eachother. If that doesn't work, talking to us chairs.. If it's about myself or Alastair, we'll be receptive about taking about ourselves. 00:26:41 q+ 00:26:48 AWK: If that doesn't work, talking with the other two chairs about the subject is perfectly fine. 00:26:54 ack m 00:26:57 Katie: Thinking about you 2 and Michael. 00:27:25 Michael: I'm hearing suggestions for listening to others, and when expressing yourself making sure you are heard accurately. If you feel you aren't being heard. 00:27:47 present+ JaEunJemmaKu 00:27:52 Michael: Say that you feel you aren't being heard. If that doesn't work, that's when the frustration starts building. We could build a cycle of self feeding tention. 00:28:14 Michael: That might be the time to send an IRC message stating that you feel you aren't being heard. 00:28:38 q+ to mention checking with others, depending on comfort levels. 00:28:43 Michael: May make a private suggestion on how to phrase. If that doesn't work, then come to us. A set of escalating tasks. As much as possible do them at the base level. 00:28:58 Michael: Learn to express and learn to listen, and have these other escalated options available. 00:29:25 Alastair: Whoever... if all three of us are on the call, and the 2 that aren't chairing, can receive messages and react. Or after the meeting we can discuss. 00:29:33 Alastair: That does happen now. 00:30:03 AWK: I would encourage people to bring things up BEFORE reaching boiling point. Makes it smoother. 00:30:27 AWK: Why the conversation is important because we are heading into a time of pressure... deadline is coming, don't have time to worry about feelings, but takes longer if we don't. 00:30:36 AWK: Won't result in high quality. 00:31:21 AWK: Any other thoughts? 00:31:28 q? 00:31:33 ack la 00:31:33 Lauriat, you wanted to mention checking with others, depending on comfort levels. 00:31:55 Shawn: Another response to that and a q. The response is for situations where someone feels upset, coming to a chair or Michael can feel like escalating, and may not be sure that's what you want to do... 00:32:35 Shawn: If I'm in that situation, I'll do a sanity check with a peer. Ask for their advice and perceptions. Sometimes maybe I'll be informed that I took it the wrong way, or I'll be instructed to advance to Michael. 00:32:52 Shawn: Sometimes people who are upset don't want to prolong the experience. 00:33:24 Shawn: katie, you felt that you were bullied. Having the person who feels bullied be responsible for bringing that up sometimes doesn't work. How do WE handle those cases? 00:33:42 Rachael has joined #ag 00:33:49 AWK: Someone who feels that they are feeling bullied, we encourage them to talk to us, we want to help. In the group, we've worked together often enough. 00:33:49 q+ 00:34:06 AWK: We can and should be advocates for eachother. The chairs need to pay attention to people being engaged. 00:34:37 AWK: That's another piece. Similarly, I mentioned a while ago, hearing all voices, actively probing among the group so that if the conversation is dominated by some people, bring in other people... 00:35:01 The open door policy of just being able to have a matter of fact conversation about how you're feeling about what's going on in the group with Michael, or a Chair, without it being an escalation I think goes along way 00:35:09 AWK: So the person who feels bullied has voices in their support, but making sure if someone goes quiet we can actively engage them and pull them back in and make sure they understand their opinions are valued. 00:35:37 AWK: If someone is feeling bullied, someone has to notice. Either the person, chairs, staff contact, or others in the group. All should feel empowered to raise concerns. 00:35:57 Many times people just need time too vent. Actually psych studies have identified an exact number of minutes a person needs to vent when feeling upset to deescalate situations 00:36:01 AWK: Alastair could be shutting down Chuck, shouting and yelling... does that... are there other things we should be doing? 00:36:22 Shawn: Open question. To bring up things you can talk through, and to raise the point that it is all of our responsibility. 00:36:32 Shawn: To try and stop them going south. 00:36:48 +1 on the sanity check 00:36:56 Michael: Sanity check is a good thing. Sometimes it can be someone you trust who is like minded, sometimes it can be someone who isn't like minded. 00:37:27 Michael: Bullying is a tough issue... because sometimes leadership may be the source. If you don't feel comfortable coming to us, sanity checking is helpfull.. 00:37:30 JohnRochford has left #ag 00:37:32 present+ 00:38:04 Michael: We may not notice, it could be viewed as a simple disagreement rather than bullying. Having someone else speak on your behalf COULD be an option. 00:38:17 present+ 00:38:34 Michael: If that doesn't feel like an option, there are escalation paths besides us 3. You can go to Judy or Phillip. You should use them if you feel you can't use the lower ones. 00:38:53 AWK: Some W3 resources: Code of conduct. 00:38:54 https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc 00:39:11 AWK: 00:39:22 New version: https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/ 00:39:43 AWK: The new version in development digs in much more to additional details around types of unacceptable behavior. Whether or not it's offensive comments, threats of violance... 00:39:51 AWK: Fortunately we've never faced that. 00:40:21 AWK: There's much more in here on details, micro-aggressions, talking over, feigning suprise at lack of knowledge. Lots of detail. It's not finalized. 00:40:39 AWK: We have not fully digested it. It's a valuable tool for the W3C. All WG need to navigate. 00:41:00 AWK: Also link to process document. Progression of a spec to rec, contacts, formal objections, etc. 00:41:10 AWK: Any additonal comments? We can stop and move on. 00:41:59 rrsagemt, make minutes 00:42:00 JohnRochford has joined #ag 00:42:18 scribe: JakeAbma 00:42:33 s/ rrsagemt, make minutes// 00:42:37 zakim, take up item 2 00:42:37 agendum 2. "Silver topics" taken up [from AWK] 00:42:47 rrsagent, make minutes 00:42:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-ag-minutes.html jeanne 00:42:55 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit 00:44:09 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2019#Thursday.2C_19_September_2019 00:44:27 Wiki page with the links we're about to look at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2019#Thursday.2C_19_September_2019 00:44:36 Project Plan Needs working doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zFgVcDUMSOrZ5nnGRocs2pZYkqOhwdyMU_Z62_CedbQ/edit 00:44:54 SL: 4 things to talk through 00:45:28 SL: starting with Silver Project Plan Needs 00:45:59 SL: how can we get SIlver and the overall working group working on SIlver in near future 00:46:31 SL: we'll make more projects with some people working on it with expertice 00:46:42 circ-user-8nvLo has joined #ag 00:47:09 SL: starting with Explainer doc for on-boarding, etc. 00:47:24 kirkwood has joined #AG 00:48:26 circ-user-6e7w9 has joined #ag 00:48:42 SL: we need to know the bar for what to write, after that we can start picking up work we feel comfortable with in whatever way we chose to work 00:49:28 SL: we need to prepare for spring 2020 when much more people will start working on SIlver 00:49:33 q? 00:50:34 ack m 00:50:58 SL: we need people with managements experience for project plans and keeping it up to date 00:52:34 SL: we do different things in parallel, next to content we split up to work on a conformance model which is very rough at the moment 00:53:49 q? 00:54:07 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals 00:54:21 SL: continue with How to evaluate Conformance Proposals 00:55:06 SL: conformance models are complicated, in order to asses there are different dimensions on how they might work 00:55:30 SL: we look at how the conformance model works against requirements 00:56:23 SL: some are directly related, like Requirement 3.1 Multiple ways to measure 00:56:52 SL: other are more indirectly, like Requirement 3.5 Readability/Usability 00:57:26 SL: Requirement 3.1 Multiple ways to measure 00:57:32 Requirement 3.1 Multiple ways to measure: All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. 00:57:45 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.1_Multiple_ways_to_measure) 00:59:09 SL: we'll Check that the conformance model serves more needs of people with disabilities 00:59:35 SL: in two ways as proposed, 1. Testing with proposed Success Criteria from Low Vision, Coga, and Mobile Task Forces 00:59:48 SL: the other: Stakeholder interviews with Low Vision, Coga, and Mobile Task Forces, and other stakeholders 01:02:07 SL: does this conformance make it easier or more difficult to get SC in, we need to check that it will not be more difficult than with the current model 01:02:13 Deferred items from WCAG Github: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3ADeferred 01:02:19 SL: that would be bad if we make it more difficult 01:02:48 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3AWCAG.next+ 01:03:15 AWK: searching for deferred issues / SC in Github to be used for checking 01:03:45 SL: next, Requirement 3.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility 01:03:47 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.2_Flexible_maintenance_and_extensibility) 01:03:51 3.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility: Create a maintenance and extensibility model for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities using emerging technologies and interactions. The process of developing the guidance includes experts in the technology. 01:04:05 +q 01:04:50 SL: we want to Pick at least 2 emerging technologies 01:04:56 how would you define "emerging" technology? 01:05:03 ack je 01:05:26 Jemma: how do you define emerging technologies 01:06:24 SL: Good question, difficult to answer, but most likely technologies NOT present in WCAG right now, like AR / VR etc. 01:07:24 SL: we must be clear that we don't include emerging technologies which might not be there after a while, like 1 / 2 years, we must be careful to right guidance for them 01:08:53 SL: we might also look at full desktop touch etc. So same underlying technologies but different uses of them 01:10:51 SL: we've been talking about removal or editing of possible guidance, how does this work out with a possible point system, conformance etc. 01:11:19 SL: next, Creation & Platform: Stakeholder interviews with SMEs in the area of that emerging technology 01:12:04 SL: most of the WG members know web very well, but we might need to add people for other expertice 01:12:17 SL: SME = subject matter experts 01:13:10 q? 01:13:11 +q 01:13:20 David: have you had some discussions with member companies? 01:13:25 SL: not yet 01:14:07 q? 01:14:23 Katie: does gaming fit? 01:14:44 ack je 01:14:58 SL: yes, gaming can fit 01:15:26 my questions is about the relationship with Flexibility and the voice of stakeholders. 01:17:02 Jemma: Stakeholder interviews are involved, how do we find the people that don't know, get them involved? 01:17:29 SL: my view is the following list, to get them involved 01:17:38 q+ 01:17:38 Stakeholder map, for those interested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/128vPnCweXN9t4JBG7-AOeBhT-KquaWXcCsi3H-f8u94/preview 01:19:09 SL: of course we need to set the line somewhere, still working on the correct approach 01:19:23 q+ to say can be part 01:19:48 Katie: we got to do something outside of the English language 01:19:51 ack da 01:19:55 ack fa 01:20:11 Katie: they might have other AT, ways of interacting etc. 01:20:25 q+ to say regarding emerging technology, do we have good definitions of what constitutes 'web'? Do we have a handle on how to delineate what parts of an online game like, say Overwatch, are covered by AG? 01:20:59 David: we need to engage not only the dominant players 01:21:05 q+ 01:21:11 DavidF talks through national & international rehabilitation agencies that could be source of stakeholders. 01:21:29 ack ac 01:21:29 achraf, you wanted to say can be part 01:22:36 SL: we made the stakeholder map to see how it maps and we we can bring to researchers 01:23:02 SL: so we can map out the space and helps in our search 01:23:04 ack m 01:23:04 mbgower, you wanted to say regarding emerging technology, do we have good definitions of what constitutes 'web'? Do we have a handle on how to delineate what parts of an online 01:23:05 ack mb 01:23:07 ... game like, say Overwatch, are covered by AG? 01:23:31 MG: do we have a handle on how we constitute "web"? 01:23:34 SL: No 01:23:57 AWK: we'll talk about this in combination with the charter, together with AC 01:24:21 q? 01:24:22 SL: it's complicated , the chairs will figure it out! 01:24:27 ack da 01:25:13 DC: there's a translation WG, please reach out if you need help 01:25:51 s/translation WG/internationalization WG/ 01:26:03 DC: in the internationalisation WG we have lots of contacts willing to help out 01:26:06 for example, Korea has KWCAG to localize WCAG to Korean context. 01:27:55 Katie: take into account also the cultural aspects 01:28:18 q? 01:29:14 +1 Katie's suggestoin 01:29:26 s/suggestoin/suggestion 01:31:36 Katie suggested to have a meeting with international stakeholders if Silver TF project time line allows. 01:40:19 rrsagent, make minutes 01:40:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-ag-minutes.html laura 01:40:53 Makoto has joined #ag 01:48:19 AWK_ has joined #ag 01:54:00 Scribe: Ryladog 01:54:49 Jeanne: What is a good idea? 01:55:05 Requirement 3.4 Technology Neutral 01:55:07 Requirement 3.4 Technology Neutral: Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if specific technical advice doesn't yet exist. 01:55:14 Having and an Internationale Accessibility AT Users for input into silver 01:55:21 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.4_Technology_Neutral) 01:55:22 DavidClarke has joined #ag 01:55:48 present+ 01:55:54 Fazio has joined #ag 01:55:57 Requirement: Technology Neutral 3,4 01:56:44 SL: Tech Neutral has the same braeking out, for emerging tech 01:57:13 ...for the CM we want tomake sure that this deosnt prohibit this. The CM affects this 01:57:48 AWK:I think with in WCAG this is individual SC 01:57:55 ReinaldoFerraz has joined #ag 01:58:08 present+ 01:58:25 SL: We can talk about Language of environment rather than page (as in 3.3.1) 01:58:32 SL: Other tests? 01:58:51 Nicaise: Emerging ? what does that mean 01:59:43 SL: In the past it meant keyboard UIs, and now we have many like touch UI models. Emerging UI could be platform or content 02:00:31 AWK: MS Game system uses gestures as a UI, and it might be the only way. That interaction type we haent really dealt with 02:00:41 Requirement 3.5 Readability/Usability: The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of plain language, structure, and design. 02:00:44 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/How_to_evaluate_Conformance_Proposals#Requirement_3.5_Readability.2FUsability) 02:01:26 SL: in the context oftest CM, this is largely making sure that wedont make the GL incomprehensible 02:01:50 ...we have tests in here checking against the style guide 02:02:09 Take the 4 existing success criteria and 3+ new guidance proposals (from Test of 3.4 Technology Neutral), and check against our style guide to see whether we can still meet it. Stakeholder interviews with Cognitive Task Force, plain language experts, translation (non-native English speaker) experts. 02:02:12 q? 02:02:32 Jake: Is there a plan B if the plain language/readability part doesn't work? 02:02:41 SL: I have tagged David for i18n 02:03:00 JA: Understandable by a non-tect audeince. 02:03:53 SL: Have top level which is tech nurtral, and have the paltform specific guidance that would have to include wording that was specifc in that technology 02:04:32