RE: Minutes of teleconference on WCAG Next Workshop 14 March 2016

Thanks Jeanne! You rock!!



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:50 AM
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>; Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Cc: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Minutes of teleconference on WCAG Next Workshop 14 March 2016

Minutes (HTML):
https://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html

Text of minutes:

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        WCAG 2 Next Steps Workshop

14 Mar 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Katie, Haritos-Shea, John, Sarah, Alastair, jeanne

    Regrets
    Chair
           John

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Design Process
          2. [5]Constraints
          3. [6]Audience (topic order is incorrect - Audience discussion is after the Design Process)
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

Design Process

    <Sarah gives introduction to Design process>

    <Ryladog> Wiki page:
    [9]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next

       [9] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next

    Sarah: Establish an approach that begins from an open-minded
    way of thinking, and move forward.

    <Ryladog> David MacDonald's visualizations from the previous
    extension plan:
    [10]http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integ
    ration-into-WCAG.html

      [10] http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integration-into-WCAG.html

    Sarah: start with Divergent Thinking, which is coming up with
    tons of ideas, then they can be evaluated.
    ... today's focus is on defining the problem space.
    ... the next session could be generating ideas
    ... then making choices of what solutions to pursue at the CSUN
    meeting and creating prototypes.

    John: <reviews schedule of meetings> and present ideas to WCAG
    WG on April 5

    Sarah: We have the opportunity to consider WCAG broadly
    ... we all do design all the time
    ... we are building an extension on WCAG, we have the
    opportunity to identify what we can adapt and provide
    additional functionality.
    ... we are talking about the scope
    ... I have nothing specific in mind. I am here to sort things
    out.

    Katie: What we are trying to do is figure out how to put the
    extension work into WCAG, and now we can look at what we can do
    to change WCAG. If you look at what the task forces are doing,
    they are adding Guidelines
    ... I think we can modify the current work. Don't kill the
    existing Principles

    John: We need to add Guidelines and Success Criteria
    ... addding guidelines is ill-defined. The task forces are
    working on Guidelines and success criteria
    ... a problem statement is interoperability
    ... that task forces are coming up with conflicting success
    criteria

    Katie: We have to take that into account, we aren't going to
    fix that in this group.

Audience

    Sarah: We have to keep it in mind.
    ... Can we talk about the audience for these guidelines.

    John: 1. developer who is trying to incorporate new Guidelines
    and success criteria into their work. They want to adopt new
    success criteria into their work patterns.
    ... 2. Conformance officers who need to verify that they are in
    conformance
    ... 3. Toolmakers who make tools for conformance reporting

    Katie: Would we want to change things for these audiences?

    jeanne: 4. companies that make authoring tools
    ... 5. policymakers

    <JF> 5. Policy Makers

    <Ryladog> Katie: For those audiences do we want to change the
    existing Principles, Guidelines and SC numbering? I think not.

    6. accessibility experts and people with disabilities

    Alastair: 7. educators - educate people about the guidelines

    John: training and educators is absolutely a category

    Alastair: Accessibility consultants use it for auditing
    ... we let them know how their sites comply and advises them,
    then audits
    ... accessibility consultants know the guidelines the best next
    to the people who wrote them

    Katie: Quality assurance - make sure the the product match the
    standards

    jeanne: People with disabilities use WCAG mostly for filing
    complaints

    <scribe> ACTION: jeanne to write up a summary of the audience
    discussion for the wiki [recorded in
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01
    ]

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01]

    Katie: I want to focus on what we want to present in April.
    Redesigning the entire WCAG is beyond what I want to do right
    now.

    John: WCAG 2.0 cannot change. Policymakers need WCAG 2.0 to
    stay the same. We are looking to move forward to serve the
    developers, accessibility experts, conformance officers,
    toolmakers, and ...

    Sarah: I want to follow the process to identify audiences,
    identify constraints, @@, models.

    ALastair: We know the final outcome we want -- we need to
    identify the middle part. We are going very wide, and I think
    we need to get to more details, more quickly.

    John: What we have is a collection of napkin sketches on the
    table. What we need to do is look at what we have and identify
    the pros and cons, articulate the weakness and strengths.
    ... we need to keep in mind the users and audiences

    Alastair: Can we brainstorm the problems we are facing between
    now and WCAG next
    ... conflicting success criteria
    ... describing to the world - complicated to WCAG + Extensions
    ... difficult to establish conformance

    jeanne: add a problem, -- the definitions of WCAG are
    inadequete to modern technology -- for example, the definition
    of "web content" can't include hybrid mobile apps because they
    don't use http

    John: We have to build on WCAG, we cannot fork or cause a
    divergence from WCAG 2.0
    ... if we are supporting the toolmakers, the conformance
    experts, the policy makers, then we can't make WCAG 2.0
    obsolete.

    Katie: We have to talk about adding additional extensions to
    WCAG. They have to take into account the success criteria that
    are already there

    Alastair: If we can't fork or diverge from WCAG, then we may
    end up with accessibility requirements

Constraints

    Katie: Low Vision Task Force came up with color contrast
    requirements that are in conflict with WCAG.
    ... possibly adding it as an additional requirement.
    ... maybe we do need to kill the existing requirement, I don't
    have a strong opinion.

    Alastair: I think we have to say that there is another
    potential requirement

    John: Do we make the jump from a WCAG 2.0 to a WCAG 3.0? Or do
    we keep extending WCAG 2.0

    Katie: I think we have to do that.

    John: One of the key divergences that we are looking at right
    now, is that an option that we rethink WCAG based on the same
    Principles, but renumberate or structure differently.

    Katie: Let's up a table of the options
    ... this example of color contrast can be used to frame the
    options

    Alastair: I see WCAG 2.1 following the principles of WCAG 2.0.
    When you look at rewriting WCAG, then we look at WCAG 3.0

    <alastairc> Jeanne: Develop a suite of standards, using
    principles of WCAG as the core, then suite of individual SCs &
    techniques that are smaller and more odular

    <alastairc> Jeanne: WCAG 3 not off the table, but looking at
    different options.

    John: The moment we start building toward a suite of
    requirements, it becomes more complex for the conformance
    officers, and educators.

    Alastair: I would think that then the EU and UA policymakers
    would then be responsible to pick and choose and then they
    would make the one standard

    John: This is some of our history -- the policymakers and
    toolmakers want to have one standard.
    ... let's give them one or more standards, but not building
    things on the fly.

    Alastair: I heard a talk toward policymakers, who want one
    standard, and keep it updated

    John: I think it is an option that we should articulate and
    discuss. I have already identified a "con" for it.
    ... we have been doing this for a while, so we don't want to
    get too far into these models, I think we need to look at the
    constraints.

    Alastair: Constraints

    <summarizes @@@ >

    John: How do we address requirements that may conflict? The
    color contrast issue is the poster child for that.
    ... who is responsible for making those decisions
    ... the issue is that different task forces may come up with
    requirements that conflict. How do we handle it?

    Sarah: I can rewrite the wiki. We can talk about what the world
    will look like if we are successful in achieving the project,
    what the world will look like if we are successful.

    Alastair: We do the work, and people love it ;)

    John: Time to delivery. People have already been complaining
    about how long it has been since they got an update.
    ... one the constraints that we have an a signpost of success
    is how to address this. How do we keep accessbility
    requirements up to date.

    jeanne: The "suite" idea is not an audience-based model where
    people get to pick and choose. This is more of the CSS model -
    where there is a modular approach. This spec applies to Media
    Players, this applies to Web RTC, this applies to Hybrid apps.

    John: This gets really messy really fast.

    Katie: CSS doesn't get tied to civil rights legislation.

    Alastair: I did a project on Mandate 376, there was a high
    level principles, then it broke down into technologies

    Katie: There is overlap, but that is better than underlap

    John: Are you thinking: If there is a touch interface, then
    this applies, otherwise Not Applicable

    <alastairc> The high-level function requirments:
    [12]http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statemen
    ts

      [12] http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statements

    Katie: I think we need to add additional success criteria, and
    say under these circumstances, this applies
    ... you have to write as many instances as possible. And be
    realistic. Not everything will apply to every interface.

    Jeanne: We need a process to add to WCAG for addressing
    disabilities WCAG did not address

    Katie: We also need a model that allows to be more nimble to
    address new technology and devices that are being developed
    ... we want to address WCAG Next with a model of being built on
    for the future.

    Sarah: WCAG doesn't seem to be tied to specific interaction
    types. Preserving that would be a priority.

    Katie: WCAG was written to try to make it technology neutral.
    But we could not anticipate all the future would bring.

    <alastairc> Jeanne: Example, slide-traps in mobile. Would like
    to say 'navigation trap' instead of keyboard trap.

    Katie: What we can do for 2.1.2 is add a new SC for "navigation
    trap" and then a future WCAG 3 or WCAG2020, we could delete the
    older outdated one.
    ... I think we can't kill the requirements that people depend
    on today in a WCAG 2.x -- we can add but we can't subtract.

    Alastair: We could have so many things overriding that it
    becomes messy.

    Katie: Example: increasing font sizes -- people say that
    technology took care of the 200%, so people didn't pay
    attention to it. Then new technology came out that didn't
    handle font resize well.
    ... I think we will see a lot of different approaches coming
    from the task forces.

    Sarah: WHy not do the one word change in the example of
    keyboard -> navigation?

    Katie: I don't think we have the time to do that now/

    John: WCAG 2.0 is hermetically sealed. We can't change that
    without having the time issue of changing WCAG.
    ... I see two different efforts. An incremental approach that
    adds to what we already have and a group working on an entire
    rewrite

    Sarah: Can anything in the WCAG 2.1 change the existing
    requirements.

    John: I think that is a key question that should be publically
    addressed.

    Katie: In 508, the functional requirements were not made
    primary. We should do functional requirements first.

    Alastair: We have a conflict between timely updates and what
    policymakers want to stay the same.

    Katie: You can't change it every 6 months, but you can do it
    every 2 years -- especially if you tell them that it will be
    updated every 2 years.
    ... then we have to organize the process so it can be
    expeditiously updated every 2 years.

    John: I think that six months is too short, but 2 years seems
    too long.
    ... maybe we need a 5 year plan.

    <scribe> ACTION: Katie to add the table of options to the wiki
    [recorded in
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02
    ]

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02]

    JOhn: The long term process has been deferred for too long. I
    think Sarah's process needs to be considered for the longer
    term work.

    Next meeting: Friday Boston 9am 18 March

    John: Record the minutes link in the wiki and send to the WCAG
    mailing list.

    <scribe> Chair: John

    <JF> Next meeting: New Meeting Fri, Mar 18, 2016 8:00 AM - 9:30
    AM Central Daylight Time
    [14]https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/380705429 You can also
    dial in using your phone. United States : +1 (408) 650-3123
    Access Code: 380-705-429

      [14] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/380705429


Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to write up a summary of the audience
    discussion for the wiki [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01
    ]
    [NEW] ACTION: Katie to add the table of options to the wiki
    [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02
    ]

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action01
      [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-wcagnext-minutes.html#action02

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 14 March 2016 15:26:21 UTC