Meeting minutes
reminder: AGWG- Silver joint meeting 29 April
jeanne: Reminder of joint meeting next Thursday 29 April
<jeanne> https://
jeanne: Note the agenda with references to advance reading
Timeline and deadlines for May heartbeat Working Draft (WD)
jeanne: Reminder also for May ?WCAG3 heartbeat publication
jeanne: Not many changes and not a wide review draft. Showing progress, mainly
jeanne: Requesting everyone/group with content; PR by 30 April, else Google doc (or other) by 28 April
jeanne: WBS throughout first weeks of May; looking to pub mid-late May
jeanne: Whatever misses this draft should be targeted for August heartbeat
PeterKorn: Is there yet an outline of what to expect new in August?
jeanne: Shortly in today's call ...
ACT -Silver Joint meeting - 14 & 21 May
jeanne: Announcing joint meetings with ACT mid-late May; two 3 hour meetings
<jeanne> https://
jeanne: 14 and 21 May
jeanne: No agenda yet; but wiki setup
Subgroup checkin - what will be in the May WD? Reminder to update participant lists
jeanne: Looking for updates -- and please be sure to update participant list on the subgroup wikis! Needed to create acknowledgements page in heartbeat
jeanne: Ping me for help if needed
<Fazio> I'll email you for maturity model
<Fazio> Maturity Model is ready for May!
<jeanne> https://
jeanne: In subgroup reports interested in what's in the May heartbeat and what planned for the August heartbeat
jeanne: Notes there're milestone drafts for May, August, and December heartbeats--though too early to specify for December
jeanne: Example Clear Words has issues for May and August
PeterKorn: Noting expectation that Conformance Options will be raising topics that should get discussion in the TF, hpefully beginning the 29th and phps decide then on target heartbeats?
PeterKorn: Will involve fair amount of discussion at least in Silver if not also in AGWG
jeanne: Agree
jeanne: Asks whether any specific for the group to know?
PeterKorn: Notes March report with challenges and use cases that could be handled with writing guidelines; so eager to work with relevant teams
PeterKorn: Second set are first report on use cases not yet encompassed in WCAG3; so a report on things to discuss
jeanne: Asks whether people should read both March and April for joint calls on the 29th
PeterKorn: Suggest focus on April as it's the initial "what's missing" conversation
PeterKorn: Also requests people not dive into our Google doc
Captions
SuzanneTaylor: Notes XR meeting off line; look for email from Mike Crab
SuzanneTaylor: Have written an initial draft and a bit different in methods
SuzanneTaylor: assumes people author with a11y in mind from the start
SuzanneTaylor: e.g. buiding a game
<SuzanneTaylor> https://
<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to mention XR Subgroup's request for feedback on initial draft of a Method related to XR subtitles
jeanne: Is this ready for feedback from wider W3C?
SuzanneTaylor: Yes, please, noting Judy is planning to invite Captions CG
jeanne: Will followup
Maturity Modeling
Fazio: Will have something ready for May
Fazio: Including "proof points" designed to help indicate an organization is doing x, y, etc
Fazio: Believe we have good structure with alternative methods
Conformance Architecture Testing
Francis_Storr: Not content for publication, but testing what we do publish
<JF> Testing based on this: https://
jeanne: Excellent to have more testers!
jeanne: Would like to touch base on how to present on the 29th most usefully
Structured Content
jennifer_strickland: Are taking Errors group doc and structuring and match, trying to match priorities
jennifer_strickland: Now have ability to add self to github issues
jeanne: Nothing for May, right?
jennifer_strickland: Yes, we're still trying to grok what we're doing
jennifer_strickland: Wonders if a buddy for new groups would help the process run more smoothly
jeanne: Would like to be more available to you--thanks for stepping into something pretty messy
jeanne: Expect your issues will be August
jeanne: Has the group looked at github assigned issues
jennifer_strickland: Yes
jennifer_strickland: Notes the auto inform from github when I assign myself to an issue--should help
jeanne: And, if you like, invite me to a mtg
jennifer_strickland: Should our regular mtg go on a calendar somewhere?
<PeterKorn> ::-)
jeanne: Notes the new jennifer_strickland Notes draft from Peter and comment from Janina on social vs medical
jeanne: Perhaps by Wednesday?
jennifer_strickland: Better for August
jennifer_strickland: Notes I just started at Mitre
[congratulations all around to JS!}
<jennifer_strickland> Thanks to all!
Errors
dh: Expect to be good for May;
jeanne: In order to put it in as a method, need to have guideline and outcome
dh: Yes, we do have
jeanne: By Wednesday?
dh: Yes
Clear Words
jeanne: Notes group has been working on all assigned github; have 4 PR ready
jeanne: Another already scheduled for August because more complex
<Fazio> I missed our last meeting
review Options 1,2,3,5
<Fazio> but Im in functional needs
jeanne: Circling back to older options review to check we're consistent in how we're doing it now
<jeanne> https://
jeanne: We never did pros and cons when we started reviewing these--as we did with the later ones
jeanne: Notes these feed into Suzanne's doc and we will cover on the 29th
Option #1
jeanne: FPWD plus original notions for S/g
jeanne: giving higher points for current AAA folded in
jeanne: some may have critical errors; but mainly giving higher points
jeanne: Recalls current bar is 3.5 in each overall category; but might it be too high?
jeanne: Became apparent 3.5 will be too high if we incorporate more of AAA
<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to ask whether the higher points might allow you to skip a level A guideline
jennifer_strickland: Worries someone might take advantage by spending time on one of these AAA and not enough on more basic requirements
<Fazio> Dreaming here: would be great to have WCAG score plus a Maturity score
<Fazio> could be like Bronze has to also level 1 maturity or the maturity level is completely separate and doesn't effect medalling
jeanne: We may choose to change how we handle? At guideline level?
jennifer_strickland: Not following
jennifer_strickland: Sounds like a risk
<jennifer_strickland> Those comments above are attributed to Suzanne
<Fazio> I heard back from my ITU about whether metals make sense too
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if 3.5 is too high, or whether 4 is too low...
jf: Suggests 4 is too low, not 3.5 too high
jeanne: say more
jf: Don't understand why 4 is highest
jf: how do we chose 4? Maybe we need more room between 0 and max
<JF> lichert
<Fazio> likert
jeanne: Original reasoning was standardlickert scale
<Fazio> yeah
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what is the practical impact of higher points
Chuck: Also believe 0-4 was aligned with an adjectival mapping
Chuck: Also, don't know what "more points" would mean
<PeterKorn> There is an infinite amount of space between 3.5 and 4. 3.51, 3.511, etc.
<JF> +1 Peter, but we don't appear to be taking advantage of that
<Chuck> janina: going back to AAA going into the medals, higher medals, I'm worried. In one instance I'm aware of, wearing my APA hat, at least one is a requirement more than a solution.
<Chuck> janina: We have a gap analysis. None of the solutions will work across all environments. TTS.
<JF> and, to me, more troubling is that 0 - 3.49999999999999999999999999999 = FAIL
<Chuck> janina: Not always the case that AAA is worked in and not required.
jeanne: Noting that next draft will define that we round to first decimal only
<JF> revise: 0 - 3.499 = FAIL
jeanne: Addressing Janina's concern
jeanne: Silver is most amorphous, probably; bronze should be snapshot in time
jeanne: Could include user and usability testing, user design considerations
jeanne: Want to avoid unintended consequences where testing goes to the end of the process
jeanne: Would be ways for organizations that wanted to do more to indicate over time how they're doing that
jeanne: Notes Maturity Model currently slated for G
<Fazio> to that end our MM focus is on driving ICT accessibility
jeanne: Need to make sure that sites continue to remain accessible; that's Maturity Model
jeanne: Note also that B required for S or G
jeanne: It's progressive
Fazio: Hoping to drive dashboards and snapshot views of how orgs are doing on building in a11y
jeanne: Also small business?
Fazio: Yes, absolutely; haven't worked out the socring yet, but absolutely
<jeanne> skipping back to JF comment 3.44 would fail. Greater than 3.45 would round up to 3.5
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say there's some passion and enthusiasm for reviewing these
Chuck: We do seem inspired to discuss these in greater detail, and that's good
jeanne: Option 2 has some AAA in B
jeanne: Option 3 a variation on 2
jeanne: AT and/or UX testing
jeanne: Notes Option 5 very different
jeanne: Will take this up in another call, phps Tuesday and definitely Thursday
jeanne: Point based at outcome, not adjectival