I can scribe
<scribe> Scribe: Detlev
Peter: we can use complete transcripts
Janina: Yes, useful, scribing can
be more succinct
... will add those techniwues to the Wiki
... to turn transcripts into a file
Peter: will do that after the call
Janina: We have CART since
someone will benefit from it
... will be available on next calls too
... will talk about Google docs for SR users
... had a call with Jeann about that befor the call
... for developing principles it is useful to develop
questions
Janina: Spent some time trying -
in some sites it was difficult to work out substitution
suggestions, difficult, not very usable on the character
level
... also difficult with Braille displays
... also tried other approaches, one from AppleVis about
dealing with Google docs
... we should insert comments but avoid substitution/delete
markeup since it's difficult for SR users
Peter: process for comments instead of edits to ensure they are processed
Janina: propose comments as we work through principles
Peter: People who missed some work and want to comment they can do that commenting, so we can have a second pass and address them
Jeanne: We should change the place that WCAG 3.0 does nit address any principles, since it's not true
Peter: can't see anything in WCAG 3 saying that the conformance model cannot address principles
Jeanne: Where it say "difficult, if not impossible" - we have addressed all but 2
Rachael: its the edit in the problem statement crossed out
Peter: I see that - but it does not say that the key principles are not upheld by the new conformance model
<bruce_bailey> Problem statement doc:
<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw
Peter: we can address that, or
first work through the principles first
... we can indicate the problem stetement later, making sure it
is not a WG view (yet)
Jeanne: We are going to publish soon, a lot of attention will go towards that - so should be addressed now
Peter: that is not what the text say - ist just says it may be difficult for large sites to fully conform
Janina: We are for now removing the problem statement for now (return to it later)
Peter: We can remove the link to
the Google do from the Substantial Conformance Wiki page
... There si no intent to share this until we are happy
... if public scrutiny is a concern, we can keep it private to
the 'anyone can joinÄ Task Force
jeanne: Thats tricky ethically - we try to keep everything public
Janina: Maybe add a disclaimer - this is draft, just taken as proposals for discussion (to be put on principles)
Peter: Add perhaps: "Note: this is a discussion draft that does not reflect the consensus of the SILVER TF"
Janina: Fine
Janina: We agreed on principle 1 but some where not around
Peter: IMportant to realise the key principle for Substantial Conformance may become a key principle of WCAG 3 conformance
Janina: SHould be added as note to top of the document
Any objections?
Peter: (reads new note)
Janina: Not hearing
objections
... let's review 1. Principle
Peter: (reads 1. principle)
... should also be a key principle of WCAG 3
Janina: Any concerns, may not be the final term
Peter: At bottom of doc the questions (reads the questions)
Janina: Is there agreement on
principle 1? Any objections?
... none so far . read on, Peter
Peter: (reads principle 2)
... suggested edit by Bruce to replace website visitors with
'users'
Bruce: no strong feelings either way
Peter: Si let's discuss 2. Principle
Jeanne: Likes subsituting web site visitors - WCAG 3 iis much broader
Rachael: agrees with Jeanne, need to decide on terms (content users or similar)
Janina: intent is to describe the
end user in a broad sense
... any agreement on terms
Bryan: align with WCAG 3 abstract - there you have 'users'
<Rachael> In WCAG 3 it looks like we use "web content and applications"
Peter: broader term for website, broader term for web site users needed - go n that now?
Jeanne: Let's park it for now
Peter: anything els on principle 2?
Rachael: like web site visitors but may need definition, may not be that useful
Peter: I think the key principles might not be long-lived - they help us being aligned in solving things
Rachael: If P2 is shortened, do we loose anything?
<Rachael> Substantial Conformance should enable website visitors with disabilities to accomplish what they want on the site with a minimum of difficulty.
Peter: Probably not
<PeterKorn> Detlev: it feels alright (principle 2), but vague ("be reflective of lived experience"). How to make that phrase actionable? Does it really help?
Rachael: It is a basic principle but important - we must not allow may errors that get in the way of users
Janina: It is intended to be a
bit fuzzy - applying proximations rather than precision
... that's what the substantive conformance is getting at
... Peter will edit, will come up and be discussed again
Peter: (reads Principles 3)
Janina: Some jargon P0, P1 - should we clear that up
Should be simplified
Peter: Should we highlight for wordsmithing?
Janina: Should we continue?
Bryan: Let's carry on
Agree
Janina: Any other comments on
P3?
... Lets move on to 4
Peter (reads principle 4)
Bryan: We talked about the atomic tests in WCAG 3 - is that good to include here?
Peter: Many WCAG 2 criteria need human evaluation and will not scale - so if programmatic can be considered sufficient is contentious, but they should at least be the floor
Jeanne: We should say 'errors', not 'bugs'
Bryan: makes sense
Janina: WCAG thiks in terms of errors niot (software) bugs
Peter: furthe rthoughs? So I edit...
Peter (reads edited version of P3)
Jeanne: add that this is the baseline, the bare minimum - add that?
Peter: questions if when getting to scale looking at entire site and see a minimum of difficulty appears, how does it relate to checks that will not run all the time but allow for issues that later need to be fixed
Peter (has added a question 4 about the role of issues that a programmatic test could have found)
Peter: Add as thing for a definition?
Janina: The only option is atomic (?)=
Bryan: Plain language is a focus of WCAG 3, so would that be helped
jeanne: Replace with automated test
Bruce: agrees
Peter: Hilights as a term to return to
Peter (rereading amended Principle 4)
Peter (reading new question 4)
janina: any objections?
... We have provisional agreement for Principle 4
Peter: Will mark that Key
Principles 1-4 have been reviewed by the Task Force
... encourage to comment text
... will vie wthe full transcript and share for merging into
Wiki
Janina: Will discuss how to make that part of the regular procedure
Bruce: Anyone can do it, it seems - very slick
Peter: Is any other meetings getting CART service?
janina: not that I know of
Jeanne: We have to request it,
not sure what W3C has arranged
... If someone needs it, we will provide it - but a bit of
chicken-and-egg situation
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Present: PeterKorn bruce_bailey John_Northup sajkaj Detlev Jeanne Regrets: Sarah Found Scribe: Detlev Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev WARNING: Could not parse date. Unknown month name "11": 2020-11-05 Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004" WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]