Skip to content

2024‐04‐19

Bruce Bailey edited this page Apr 19, 2024 · 15 revisions

DRAFT Meeting minutes April 10th 2024

Attending (11): Michael Gower, Alastair Campbell, Bruce Bailey, Patrick Lauke, Avon Kuo, Francis Storr, Giacomo Petri, Gundula Neiman, Mike Gifford, Dan Bjorge, Marco Sabidussi, Lori Oakley..

Review Process document

Mike provided overview of updates to TF process and [Closing issues directly] (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/wiki/WCAG-2-Task-Force-process#closing-issues-directly) in particular. Feedback welcome. Bias is towards closing items and facilitators want TF members to be empowered, while retaining tracking, visibility, and quality assurance.

Behavior of project board favors linking PRs but we have issues which are Response only. If you see an issue which can be closed, please see Process for suggested phrasing.

Discussed Errata changes. Errata can be editorial or substantive, and three classes of changes. We are mostly focused on informative documents which are not required through CFC process.

Some interested in republishing TR track documents yearly. To date, only republished doc is 2.1 in September 2023.

On call, TF did not have consensus on "It follows, then, that editorial errata (everything on the first row) can and should be immediately incorporated into the standard without an updated version date."

Historically, AG chairs minimize CFC so non-substantive errata can get bundled.

Reflow discussion

Scottt has lead with a draft and asks to postpone.

Review ‘For discussion’ items

We have a dozen items for approval by AG, due 4/29. Focus next week will use For Discussion column for feedback from AG.

Aligned WCAG 2.2 with WCAG 2.1 - 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced) Understanding Doc (missing examples) #3638 good feedback and Giacomo will follow up with DetLev

Update ARIA12 #3734 benefited from feedback but has changed enough Moved to In Discussion

Review ‘Drafted’ items (30 min), either:

3778

move back to In progress, with more work to do

move to Ready for approval, if there is general agreement the issue is sufficiently resolved

leave in Drafted, if discussion was not concluded satisfactorily

(Mark input purposes list as non-normative #3778)[https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3778]j will require CFC regardless. WCAG 2.0 has Glossary explicitly labeled as an Appendix but also normative. WCAG 2.1 (and 2.2) has a different pattern, dropping the word appendices, but using appendix style formatting for A, B, C.

Could be two changes, easier lift to put "appendix" in front of B Acknowledgments and C References.

Review issues closed

Review ‘To do’.

Time permitting, items of interest to participants, including open discussions.


Please be encouraged to assign yourself to Drafted item, and be prepared to walk group through the PR or proposed reply on a Friday call.

For discussion column review

  • Update Input Purposes list to remove transaction-amount #3539 came up on Tuesday 4/9 AG WG call. No disagree about this being errata, but so might be subject to additional process review.
    • Mike pointed out that 2.0 has Glossary labeled as an Appendix, but then notes Glossary as Normative.
    • Alastair will be discussing with Kevin how to regain Appendix formatting.
  • Merge pr3381 and pr3738 #3757 also highlighted on AG WG call. Not controversial, but many files involved and so few "thumbs up". TF members are asked to spot check!

Drafted column review

Moved to Ready for approval

Left in drafted

Open discussion