Meeting minutes
<Rachael> zakim: start meeting
<MichaelC> I muted the room until the meeting starts
<Lisa> this is axctualy quite cool
<Lisa> joshua, I made a meeting invite. should I add you? it has the zoom link
<AWK> +AWK
<Lisa> i sent an invite to the the interaccess account. is that correct?
<Lisa> I can add anyone who wants to the google callander invite with the zoom link
<Lisa> no problem. It was just simpler for some people to have the info on their callander
Welcome
Rachael: I'll change the scribe at 45 minutes
Rachael: We will be keeping a parking lot space
<Rachael> Parking Lot: https://
AWK: What does that mean?
Rachael: If someone brings up a good point, it gets captured.
AWK: I'll do that.
[chairs and leads from working groups introduce themselves]
<mbgower> s/recongnize/introduce
Review CEPC
Rachael: Monday and Tuesday schedules are set. We may adjust later in week. We won't change time slots, just possibly topics.
<Rachael> https://
<Rachael> Appreciate and accommodate our similarities and differences.
<Rachael> Have empathy when discussing sensitive issues.
<Rachael> Treat everyone with respect.
<Rachael> Be honest, be truthful.
<Rachael> Be aware of how much time is taken up
<Rachael> Be sensitive to language differences. In particular, English is not the primary language of all participants (avoid idiomatic expression), speak slowly
<Rachael> Respect confidentiality and privacy.
Review W3C guidance for hybrid meetings
<Lisa> wq#
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: The above link is health guidance for those attending in person.
Time-boxing conversations and moving conversation forward
Rachael: We will be trying to manage queue between in person and virtual. Talk to each other in breaks.
Rachael: Anyone can write on the parking lot. If others hear a topic, please note it down.
Rachael: I'll need a scribe and parking lot manager for every meeting.
Functional needs https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bQYDKiwv0Fc9HyA6TNzb6paQkQY9OouyH-SbaS2qtd8/edit#slide=id.gc6f73a04f_0_0
MichaelC: I have a slide up
MichaelC: Please queue questions until end
MichaelC: I will update the group and what our progress means for us.
MichaelC: Began as a subgroup of silver. Came up with list of functional needs.
MichaelC: A big topic and applies to more than just web content accessibility guidelines.
MicahelC: Moved to accessible architecture
MichaelC: FAST: Framework for Accessible Specification Technologies
[goes through slide 4 Definitions]
MichaelC: If you are in more than one group and you have needs that are not specific in any one group, we define those as intersectional functional needs
<Rachael> Editor's draft of FAST: https://
MichaelC: I included an intersectional need at the end of the second slide on Functional Needs
MichaelC: we added Personalization and Deceptive patterns to POUR
<Rachael> Link to full matrix: https://
MichaelC: On slide 8 I've made a simplified version of the matrix
MichaelC: Not all functional needs and user needs intersect, but where they do, it is useful information for us.
MichaelC: The worksheet will not show up in the final document, but something derived from it may.
MichaelC: I'm going to circle back to the Vision and visual walk-through (which is to show you in detail how the matrix can work)
MichaelC: We will need a wide review pass to confirm our work.
MichaelC [reviews Open issues and challenges, slide 11]
There are 1500 intersecting rows. I'm not sure we can expect someone to adopt guidelines that has that many points in it.
MichaelC: We have not figured out how AT fits into the model.
MichaelC: This is a long-term vision (not this or next year)
MicahelC: [Reviews Proposed work on slide 12]
MichaelC: Authoring is where AGWG comes in
MichaelC: In the FAST document, all you see right now is headings. We first need to fill that information out.
MichaelC: We have been receiving feedback from groups. We haven't incorporated feedback yet.
MichaelC: The other main thing besides making a more mature list is completing the matrrix
MichaelC: My goal is that these tasks will meet in the middle.
MichaelC: I'd like LIsa to talk about the COGA bit, after I check for clarification questions.
Rachael: Any questions?
<Rachael> Link to coga document: https://
Lisa: We had a look and felt this was really important work.
Lisa: It had started to address COGA but was not rigorously done from our perspective.
Lisa: Where we started was in functional needs. We didn't look at intersectionality.
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: We've made a table from the functional needs list. This took a long time.
Lisa: The 2nd column is what FAST includes. The 3rd column is what we felt was missing.
Lisa: We separated out different types of communication: language, non-language. Then if you were discussing them, what could go under the categories.
Lisa: Learning, we also liked the categories, but thought more could be added.
Lisa: We got a bit lost with memory.
Lisa: for function, we increased the list
Lisa: Mental Health... We've done a good first stab.
Lisa: Cognitive and Sensory, we though we'd remove this and add others
Lisa: We weren't sure what belonged here and what didn't.
Lisa: We proposed a few new buckets: processing, knowledge (related to learning, but could also be new to a culture)
Lisa: Orientation. Where things are in space can be an important functional category
Lisa: Math we broke out. FOr instance discalculia.
Lisa: psychomotor coordination might get move to intersectionality
Lisa: This got reviewed quite a few times. I think it's good for first public draft.
Lisa: I don't think it's embarrassing.
MichaelC: We started with our best knowledge, and experts came in and filled information. It's a great example of what we need.
Lisa: Let's work a bit on how we work together. I think saying 'do we like the categories' is a good first step.
Lisa: The matrix is quite daunting, but reviewing the categories is a good starting point.
Josh: I haven't gone through this in a while, so bear with me.
[discussion on size of document on screen]
<MichaelC> Functional and User needs matrix
Josh: This stuff is hard and daunting. But there is a potential to form a core architecture from user needs
Josh: FAST is a mechanism that can help us come up with some workable
Josh: The Vision and Visual Aspects part of this is the most advanced.
Josh: If we drill down through it, we find some things from wcag. Some are from immersive and other emerging technologies. We've tried to come up with practical needs. But this is just a slice.
Josh: There are a lot of other functional needs. One of the challenges we have is to do in a pratical way. Be aware of the deltas, but not get drawn down too much into a 'rabbit hole'
Josh: It's great this is starting to get reviewed. We need other groups to review and provide input.
Josh: It's exciting work, but it seems a bit meta. Sometimes it is hard to understand where this is supposed to go. Thanks to Michael, Jake, Todd and others who contributed.
MichaelC: We needed to focus on one column and really exercised it. That's where the focus on vision came from.
MichaelC: We can't go through the details of that in this meeting, but that's what we'd like to do.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about the importance of organizing the buckets so that there isn't a negative structural impact on equity
Jeanne: Order of categories is important in terms of equity.
Lisa: The number of PwD lumped together and possibly the majority will have different cognitive needs, and separate categories are not inclusive.
<jeanne> +1 that it is a linchpin
Lisa: I am interested in what the next steps are.
<Jennie> +1
<Jaunita_George> Can we do focus groups to get more info?
Mike: It's a matter of resourcing, and that's why we need more people to be involved.
Mike: Any structural inequity is completely unintentional.
Michael: We have a rough timeline.
Michael: We want content review within next year.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about plans to get engagement on other categories
Jennie: I wonder how global needs will be addressed.
Jennie: Review time while navigating a page, for example.
<Zakim> j, you wanted to ask for publishing timeline
Suzzane: I am chair of a11y for children group. We will look at user and functional needs within the next two months.
<SuzanneTaylor> Ally for Children Meeting Agendas: https://
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to answer publishing and to answer at
Janina: What is the status of our work in terms of publishing a working draft?
Michael: Before publishing, we need at least one sentence for each heading,
<Fazio> +1 to publishing
<Lisa> +1 to publish often
Michael: We do not have a good idea of how to address AT factors. We need a clear separation of AT needs and user needs,
<Rachael> draft strawpoll: Should we 1) conduct wide review now or 2) after the 1-2 sentence descriptions are added, or 3) after the descriptions are added and the coga and accessibility for children are added
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say you said you'd like to go through this document in detail but this isn't time time. What is the plan for that?
<Lisa> 3
<SuzanneTaylor> 3
<kirkwood> 3
Mike G: When is the time we address the document in detail?
<Fazio> 1
<JakeAbma> 1
<Bhoomika> 1
Michael: There will be times during the week for that.
Josh: User Agents, as is AT, are exciting to consider and incorporate as well.
<Lisa> rain was coga co-facilitator until recently
<kirkwood> +1 Rain
<Joshue> JOC: We'll need to flag and come back to this topic of potential harm etc
<Rain> Yes, that is correct
<mbgower> 2-3
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggestion a partial review of top level
Rain: I am concerned the review could reinforce stereotypes and thus cause harm.
<Rain> I'm concerned that without a way to review carefully, there could be accidental harm caused
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to define harm
<Joshue> +1 to Rachael
Michael: There is a harm for getting needs wrong, but there is a greater harm in excluding certain groups. I don't want to cause harm, but I want to publish something.
Wilco: It seems early in our process to discuss publication.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about classification of function
Rachael: There will be a straw poll about publication after our discussion.
<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to partial review
<kirkwood> +1
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to suggest heightened sensitivity to harm should go in an Ed Note
Josh: How do we classify functional needs? To some degree, we need to articulate peoples' functional needs to determine how best to serve them. I am in favor of a partial review before publication.
<jeanne> +1 Janina
<kirkwood> +1 to Janina’s “Well worded editors notes” to enable review
Janina: I am in favor of avoiding harm directly or indirectly, so we could spend a long time considering or we could add brief info to solicit input from the community.
<Joshue> +1 to Judy, that would be useful
Judy: I wonder if it would be useful to do a "hives check," a high-level review.
Lisa: It took COGA a long time to produce the feedback we already have.
Lisa: We would not like it if our feedback would not be included in a publication.
<matatk> WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) - https://
Matthew: Posting this to address being robust.
Lisa: It's good to be aware there have been WHO discussions about disability and health.
<Joshue> +1 to Lisa
Julie: 2 places to which to call attention: emotional health and sensitivities to negative stimuli.
<Rachael> draft strawpoll: Should we 1) conduct wide review now with editors notes ; 2) after the 1-2 sentence descriptions are added with editors notes, or 3) after the descriptions are added and the coga and accessibility for children are added with editor's notes 4) partial review to select groups with editor's notes.
Julie: Acknowledging the need to reword to avoid sterotyping.
<SuzanneTaylor> 4
<JakeAbma> 1
<Lisa> 3 or 4
<Wilco> 3, 4, 2, 1
<jeanne> 3
<AWK> 2, 3, or 4
<kirkwood> who are the “select groups” ?
<SuzanneTaylor> 3 or 4
<Lisa> changing it to 3
<Makoto> 3
<julierawe> 3
<Fazio> 1
Josh: Will this go to groups other than COGA and Children A11y?
<Rain> 3
<kirkwood> 3
<KGH> 3
<Rachael> 3 and/or 4
<Jennifer> 3 or 4
<Judy> 3
<Jennie> 3 or 4
Janina: Anyone at W3C can review.
<mbgower> 3 and/or 4
<kirkwood> Whichever one is most inclusive, is my vote
Janina: We look for specific suggestions.
<scott_h> 1
<janina> +2 because it's time-boxed, and 3 and 4 have no time-boxing proposed
<ShawnT> 3
Michael C: There's support for 3 or 4, not for 1 or 2 groups.
<matatk> 3, 4, 2, 1 (that's an order of preference, same as Wilco I gather :-))
Michael C: Not sure we can publish this calendar year.
David: I am concerned we are being overcautious. We could publish a mitigating statement.
Josh: We want to keep in mind that perfect is the enemy of the good. It is important this work, for example within XR, that requirements for PwD, such as cognitive and mental health, are considered.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say as lisa points out, its' the redundant effort I'm concerned about
<Rachael> +1 to getting coga's work in if its done even if its inclusion is imperfect
Mike G: Is there a way that publishing a first public working draft then an editors' review that incorporates COGA feedback?
<Jem> may be taskforce?
David: We need insight from people outside the W3C.
Michael C: Publishing a TR doc is a formal step the W3C takes, but we may want to set up something else that's reviewable.
Lisa: We should respect the fact that tracking multiple updates may be difficult to people with cognitive disabilities.
<Fazio> I agree with you Lisa
Judy: When there are new comments to respond to, there could be a digest that could be helpful to COGA members.
Michael C: The only reason I wanted to publish is expediency, but I hear that incorporating feedback is more important than expediency.
Test type presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nrW3Uir5RVvwlTlLMgJ6aUEHZoEYpO1f/edit#slide=id.p1
<AWK> +AWK
Shadi: Re-dioing presentation from previous presentation to AG. Introduce subgroup members: Shadi, Rain, Wilco, Michael, and Juanita
… goals: Come up with examples for the different types of tests, Work out if the proposed test types work. Do we need more, do we need any of them combined / changed?, Go over different test types and come up with terms for them that reflect their intent., Develop clearer definitions of each test type
… reads slides from https://
… two test types: Computational (was “Unconditional”) and Qualitative (was “Conditional”)
… Computation doesn't require accessibility expertise. Can be done by QA tester, regardless of automated or not.
… Qualitative requires some level of expertise.
… then we started to think of how these get applies. We came up with 4 types.
… reads slide 5
Slide 6. Prescriptive tests - not distinguishing between the test and the requirement.
Adaptive requirements have in addition to the subjectiveness. There is another axis. External or user specific context that needs to be taken into consideration.
… extensible is something where you can select from multiple valid tests or there is a given way to extend the requirement. The user need is provided and there are some guardrails. There are some standards that do this but we don't know exactly how this will work. Lots needs to be done.
Protocol based requirements. Discussed in protocols subgroup.
… Moves to slide 7
… Slide 7 gives example of prescriptive. In WCAG 2. Slide 8 gives an example of adaptive.
… you as a designer or developer can't determine alone. The information is external to your decision making. Many ideas here on how such data could or could not be collected. Reading level is an example.
… this was removed from WCAG 1. This is still something that accessibility needs to do but we don't know how that fits in.
… slide 9. A computation example is contrast in 3 modes. High contrast mode has a certain level, a different level for normal, a different one for low contrast. An example also might be selecting between WCAG 2 contrast algorithm or what is being suggested for WCAG 3. Or there may be a transitional period
… A qualitative example, for an interface with 3 contrast modes, make the relationship clear between the controls and the content they affect.
… another example would be different requirements for different langauges. In Hebrew, one set of rules. In English, another. In Spanish, another.
… slide 11. Extensible would have information about a procedure.
… Slide 12: A well-established user need, A test method that indicates whether or not user need(s) are met, Evidence that the test was successfully completed
… slide 12. A table to give examples of this.
… For prescriptive, the user needs is normative.
… for extensible, test method the test method would be publicly documented.
… for procedural, the test method would be publicly documented and the evidence would be a test report.
… that is the model. These are really experimental. We had 8 weeks to try to map out. Each of these, except prescriptive which we know pretty well, could be further explored to see how this would work in practice.
… They question for the group is whether this is a direction that is useful.
… Anyone in the subgroup?
<Rachael> Wilco: We need to explore this. We have been figuring out what goes where. Need to think how can we fit it in,
Rachael: COGA next
COGA Proposed Tests for Clear Language https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tve0g7pRufB5iShWwstwrfGdDtbn8YdsHEyN7Coj1vU/edit#slide=id.g1484687d409_0_67
Lisa: Julie will present most of this, thanks for a ton of work.
… With this work, wanted to show that some parts of content-usable could be done as unconditional tests (probably).
… also wanted to show the types of things that could be tested, if we had structured like procedural tests. Then group can use these to see if the test-types do the job. Can you test it?
… e.g. take something hard, e.g. plain language, and give examples / proof-of-concepts.
… see whether these test-types provide the flexibility to include the user-needs that we want to.
… none of these are ready to publish, they will all need defined terms, adjust the scope etc.
… but right now these are to help test the test-types.
Lisa: There are other types of achieving it, e.g. scoring.
… can we deal with some things using scoring or another 'vehicle'.
… try not to be de-railed by the wording. There are a couple of slides that aren't big enough.
… if you have comments on the details, please add to the doc as comments.
… if one of these become a real test, we'll use those to make it better.
… but for now focus on the concepts.
… familiarity is key for people with cog-disabilities.
… handing over to Julie.
julierawe_: we have a few examples of
… procedural tests, but not sure on the terms
… focus on the overall direction of the tests, big picture.
… can skip to slide 11 (Shadi covered the other points).
… looking at clear language and breaking into computational tests.
… (slide 12)
… (describes user-needs, reading from slide)
<Lisa> slides are at https://
julierawe_: the TPAC notes include things like use of Roman Numerals. We were wondering if there were other ways of testing this, is it a prescriptive test?
mbgower: What did you mean by clear language? Aren't roman numerals symbols rather than language?
… what was the intent of this topic?
Lisa: In content usable we have an objective of "clear & understandable content"
… this is a smaller one, but an example of what we have under that objective that could be computational.
janina: There is a CSS spec on this, which Lisa feed back on.
<MichaelC> CSS Counter Styles
julierawe_: There are examples of saying 20th century in french, which then isn't clear about what it means.
janina: An advantage of the W3C is we get reviews by internationalisation, accessibility.
janina: Just want to make sure we don't re-invent the wheel.
Lisa: These are ways to conform.
julierawe_: The idea is that you don't want the confusion of different national date systems, e.g. between british/us/canadian.
julierawe_: This is again about the use of numbers, but falling under 'clear language'.
(slide 15)
julierawe_: certain languages have certain words / vowels / diacritics that mean different things in different places.
<janina> sz w3c
<janina>
julierawe_: some diatiric marks are needed in order to pronounce. Is that computational? Are they there or not seems straightforward.
Lisa: We were thinking about interntionalisation, it's tricky, to make test-cases, what would make adaptive tests where, when talking about plain language, ther eis a need to take on board local advice.
… on the other hand, you have any number of dialects, so many. So we were thinking of keeping a wiki going so you could say: included the symbols and letters necessary to pronounce the words.
… then it would be on a local authority to give examples of how to do it in their dialect.
… I think this is also included because it's a thorny issue, and know we haven't done it right yet.
janina: In a WCAG 3 time frame, you can expect a normative spec for the pronunciation issues. It isn't just an accessibility need, or just a coga need.
… not yet in CR, but should be soon.
<alastairc> Amanda: I'm curious about the hebrew aspect.
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: Let's parking lot this
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about the knowability of the pronaounciation
<Jaunita_George> Alastair: I was curious about how testable this is. Is it possible to know if these words are not pronounced properly?
<alastairc> Fazio: We did some research, when AAC devices were setup to use parents voice, it helped.
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: Yes, it is possible
<alastairc> alastairc: Is it possible to know they are missing automatically?
<alastairc> Lisa: Yes, they are typically missing unless it's for early readers, and you can tell.
<PaulG> an example of "dropped" diacritics in English: https://
<Jaunita_George> PaulG: We can discuss this on Thursday
<kirkwood> I would recommend that this topic is “Translation and Interpretation”
<Jaunita_George> shadi: I am not sure if I understood correctly. To know how things can be pronounced correctly is a little dependent on the context.
<Lisa> very interesting
<Jaunita_George> PaulG: We lack the markup to accommodate it
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: It does exist in Hebrew and Arabic
<Jaunita_George> julierawe_: We're moving to slide 16
<Jaunita_George> ...we have three or four examples of what we would call "procedural test." Not sure we should use this label, but we think we could have organizations submit common word lists.
<Wilco> That sounds like adaptive
<Jaunita_George> ...Is this a procedural test or something else
<Jaunita_George> ...We want to create some flexibility
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: This is really important.
<Jaunita_George> ...context is very important
<Jaunita_George> ...Organizations have machine-assisted translations where there are lists of approved translation, which can be used here
<Lisa> i once wrote a potential spec for this
<Lisa> with al gillman
<alastairc> Jaunita_George: It's a good idea. could also use fluency tests, e.g. elementary levels which use easier words. Then move up in levels of complexity. Could be either procedural or adaptive.
<alastairc> ... or you could rely on an organisation's testing method that is documented and validated. It could be both.
<Jaunita_George> Davidf: We don't want to confuse reading levels with clear words
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: I disagree.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to separate reading level from why it´s what it is
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: You could have a manual/automated test. I get where this is going, just want to use technology in a way that reduces work
<Jaunita_George> MichaelC: Reading level is its own topic
<Jaunita_George> MichaelC: We need to define what we mean by reading level
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: This is about comprehensive
<Jaunita_George> jenniferS_: I'm glad we're parking this
<Jaunita_George> awk: I'm struggling with this. Would you tailor this for different audiences? Is there is benefit to this?
<Jaunita_George> julierawe_: Could you swap in words that are more common and make it easier to access
<Jaunita_George> AWK: It may help, but it may cause a situation where people have to click on a number of words in order to understand the content
<Jaunita_George> julierawe_: We think this is either a procedural test or qualitative. A tester could look at a page of instructions and retest it.
<Jaunita_George> ...On slide 19, we think there's a clear language component to this. We also have a suggestion for scoring for this one
<Jaunita_George> ...We think WCAG 3 could and should provide guidance about how to perform usability testing with people with disabilities
<Jaunita_George> +1 to Julie
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: For the slide before -- you may have a style guide and if you do, then you would need to perform usability testing on content created according to that guide
Test Survey and Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/test-types/results
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: Thank you to both subgroups
<Rachael> https://
<Jaunita_George> ...We don't have time to read through all survey results right now. What are our thoughts about picking up this test type?
<Lisa> would it help if we explained why it is so important
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: I just wanted to add that if something isn't understandable, people will quit. It's important that we solve these problems to help users.
<Jaunita_George> shadi: I was wondering if there is guidance for testing with users?
<Lisa> +1 to shardi
<Jaunita_George> ...maybe we add this to the parking lot
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: I'm going to use this time to work through the survey
<Jaunita_George> julierawe_: I want to raise a question about procedural test types.
<Jaunita_George> ...I think it should be more than an affirmation
<Poornima_> Just an opinion, along with guidance on the testing with users, guidance on creating surveys to ask for the feedback of accessibility of the sites also may help for the organizations
<Lisa> unfortunately coga has other meetings this afternoon. but we would be delighted to join the tabled conversations
<Lisa> maybe on thursday?
<Jaunita_George> MichaelC: The evaluating procedures proposal is more than just affirmation. How it works in practice is still being defined.
<Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George: I agree with Michael and just wanted to point out there are two proposals out there and the evaluating procedures proposal is meant to apply stringent criteria
<Jaunita_George> jenniferS_: We can learn something from other groups
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: *reads survey*
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to respond to Rachael on Methods
<Jaunita_George> Wilco: The reason we didn't go with methods because there's more conversation to be have about how these fit into the structure
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Move content into exploratory with edits from MaryJo and text that clarifies the confusion point from Gundula.
<Jaunita_George> AWK: I support moving this to exploratory because I still have questions
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Wilco> +1
<alastairc> +1
<jeanne> +1
<Poornima_> +1 moving to exploratory
<ShawnT> +1
<AWK> +1 to being exploratory
<tink> +1
<Jaunita_George> MichaelC: I'm in favor of putting it in
<jon_avila_> +1
<Amanda> +1
<Makoto> +1
<maryjom> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<JohnRochford> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Ryladog_> +1
<MichaelC> +1
<Matt_King> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Lisa> +1 to julie . i also dont realy know what we are voting on
<MichaelC> Maturity level process
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: *Explains the difference between exploratory and developing*
<Jaunita_George> Lisa: Have the tests taken the new material into account
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: There's no limitation against what you did
<Jaunita_George> MichaelC: We're working on harmonization -- both Rain and Jaunita were working on this
RESOLUTION: Move content into exploratory with edits from MaryJo and text that clarifies the confusion point from Gundula.
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: We should flesh this out in our working groups later today
<Poornima_> quit+
Rachael: Does anyone object to me recording the presentation?
… I'm going to hold queue until the end of the presentation
… This round's topic is on Equity
<jenniferS> * Thank you, Jeanne, for covering parking lot!
Equity presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1H1UQshlV6MJqPiOYDlus1J-NuoRCP3JFTc74c12NBnI/edit#slide=id.p
Michael: This presentation is not consensus, we haven't developed full consensus
… (reading from slides)
<AWK> +AWK
Michael: Equity as a process is important in how we work. Nothing about us without us is a key component to equity
… We need to consider equity across the spectrum of human diversity.
… For scope we identified three levels.
… The first is equity in impact
… Make sure WCAG 3 reaches all user groups
… It is easy to make a structural decision that make sense in its context, but without considering equity it can create barriers we didn't intend or notice
… The second version is equity in process
… The working group process has to consider.
… Third level is structural equity
… This is equity in the world, such as believes, laws.
… We're not in control of those issues
… Next slide is on equity-centered design.
<Rachael> Link from slide: https://
Michael: Among other things, it's doesn't just stop, it is cyclical.
… There's a link in the slide deck.
… Our group uses what's called participatory design.
<Rachael> Pull Request: https://
Michael: The PR from the subgroup is into the requirements document
… It positions equity as an opportunity. It's also a statement that we care about equity, and it is one of the components of accountability
<Rachael> Equity Framework Wiki Page: https://
Michael: If this approach is accepted by the working group, we may need to spin up work on what an equity centered design may look like for us.
Janina: I think this covered it well
<jeanne> +1 Michael, really good job
Michael: We need to pay attention to power structures or whatever gets in the way of equity.
… I think we can accountable, if we can come up with positively oriented wording I'm more comfortable.
<jenniferS> Two questions that the group lacked the time and accessibility of the sessions that members of the group wanted to raise and were unable to:
Jennifer: We have to have the difficult conversation.
… Sometimes it's saying the awkward thing. These were questions from Cybele
Rachael: I realise this conversation has a lot of sensitivity. I want to ask everyone uses queue
<jenniferS> 1. How is WCAG used by power in ways that negatively impact or exclude end-users with disabilities (such as use of "WCAG compliant") to deny individual and collective accommodations?
<MichaelC> https://
Rachael: If there is something you want to say but don't want to send it in the meeting send it directly to me. I can put it in anonymously
<jenniferS> 2. How do WCAG power structures and processes negatively impact or exclude participants and members with disabilities in their efforts to contribute?
Janina: We have a particular outcome we're trying to achieve. At some point we have to decide we can't do it all.
… We already know some of our inequities. We're not there on gender, racial, participation of the south.
… Yes we can recruit, but I don't know that helps us write WCAG.
… Somewhere there is a balance we need to strike.
Michael: I want to acknowledge the power structure. The chair's leadership try hard to be reasonable.
… I try not to use my power when there isn't a reason, but I'm aware that I'm using that
… One concern I have is how much time can we put into it. Interact authentically, but not take over everything else.
AWK: One interpretation might be that this is a deliberate effort. I want to suggest that while it's possible, I don't believe it's the intent of the working group to exclude anyone in any way.
… But it is certainly true that WCAG is used in a compliance basis.
… People saying their needs aren't in WCAG, that is true, but that is also on policy makers for asking is it the right standards.
… We have to develop a system of having an ongoing evaluation of where you're at. We obviously can't say this is perfection and we'll meet it.
Jennifer: I'd like to suggest, members of the working group go through equity centered practices training, so that members understand how.
… I remember in the discussion it was scary to raise questions, that may be part of why the words maybe weren't great.
… I've done a lot of equity centered practices training, because I come from a non-traditional background, it may help as we do the work to find lenses we want to look at it from.
Rachael: I wanted to bridge a bit. I think when we're creating WCAG 3, we should remain aware that how we structured it can be picked up in a way that's exclusionary
… By creating levels we created a way of excluding without intending to.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to pick up on training
<jenniferS> * Also late to the entry of this, +1 to @Jaunita_George re Invited Expert criteria. That was a great call.
Rachael: When we come to how we score we need to keep in mind the potential ways it could be used.
Michael: We should have training, how is a question. What training, how can it happen in a distributed group.
… Training is part of an equity centered design process
<janina> crpd??
Rachael: There is a conversation on the invited expert process
<jenniferS> Creative Reaction Lab has great design equity trainings that have a range of costs to be affordable.
Jaunita: For invited expert criteria it seems to skew to academia, or folks who already know people in the community group.
<jeanne> I think the timing of our meetings and the tools are more of a barrier. I think most people that apply for Invited Expert are accepted.
Jaunita: It might make sense to have more defined criteria on who can get accepted as an invited expert, make that public, create more of a call for invited experts to come join.
<jenniferS> +1 to Jeanne
Jaunita: From an economic equity standpoint that might increase participation.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say layers of focus
<Rachael> s/CRPD/convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD)
Michael: I agree with all of that. We also need to focus. We control the working group. We don't control the invited experts process in the short term.
… We can make suggestions to the process, but those are longer term tasks. We need to work on what we can work on.
Rachael: I wanted to suggest a subgroup separate from our WCAG 3 activities. That group would start, and from there figure out the appropriate place for it.
… It could then provide review and insight on the process.
… I know we have to have some internal conversations as well.
I wonder if having subgroups that work on WCAG 3, focus on how we figure out equity from WCAG 3 standpoint, and have another group to focus more on process.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest starting with a subgroup
<jenniferS> +1 to @Rachael - indeed, it does go beyond AGWG
Janina: At some point this isn't just a question for AGWG and WCAG 3. It applies to all our work in WAI. We need coordination, consensus and agreement. It applies to everything we do.
… We probably at some point should take that wider viewpoint, which is I think where you're going.
… There's an aspect specific to WCAG 3, but there's also the wider question.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond
<jenniferS> +1
<matatk> +1 to janina this is applicable across all of our work
Rachael: We control what's within AGWG. Starting it out as a subgroup, but giving it a scope to look beyond.
<MichaelC> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
Jennifer: Yes, absolutely.
… I was sitting with a couple folks. I wanted to see diversity in representation. We have this wonderful thing here. Remote participation as well as in person.
… We have IRC, recordings.
… Rachael, thank you so much for surfacing this isn't just AGWG. This is the larger body of the W3C.
… I've tried to recruit, and many people have shared not good stories on trying to participate.
… We can have the grace and humility to hear it as a plea.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say scheduling of meetings could increase participation outside NA
Mike: Amanda and I were talking this morning. Calls were very oriented around North America, we could move some calls.
<Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to clarify that my lunchtime comment about remove participation has improved so much since the Shenzhen "speakerphone in an auditorium" incident
jcraig: I appreciate how much the technologies have improved. Remote participants are much closer.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say AG-specific and general
jcraig: It's improved significantly
Michael: There is a lot of work in W3C equity. I really like how Rachael presented it.
<jenniferS> Maybe soon the technology will even allow us to automagically understand in each of our languages no matter the language spoken.
Michael: Outside the invited expert agreement there are ways we can support participation.
… We exist in a system we won't be able to get equity passed a certain level if we don't address it in the W3C as well.
<alastairc> We have tried running meetings at times for Australia & Japan (timezones), the difficulty is how to get decisions made that include everyone. We can't then ignore the input of the larger group of people, so you have to do everything twice...
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose subgroups that could be located in different time zones and languages.
Jeanne: Very good discussions. One of the ideas we talked about a few years ago, once we get the basic structure, that we could spin up subgroups in different parts of the world, timezones, languages, once we have that basic structure established we could be much more globally inclusive.
Jennifer: There's a resource I'd like to share in IRC, The title needs to be bleeped.
<jenniferS> https://
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Set up a subgroup, separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
<Jaunita_George> +1
Rachael: This would not be the WCAG 3 equity portion.
<jenniferS> Context: "White Supremacy Culture" is common lingo for the characteristics which are relevant in cultural hegemony / colonialism. This resource is not intended to accuse or blame or be disrespectful.
Rachael: This would probably last longer than 8 weeks, but we'd also have equity groups within WCAG 3.
Cybele: Regarding the proposal, the concern I might have, although I support it in principle, is trying to do too many things at once.
… One would include equity in participation. And then there are specifics around especially WCAG 3, like the conformance model.
… Where are the equity barriers and how can those get addressed
Michael: I think those are questions the subgroup should address
<alastairc> Wilco: I'm slightly hesitant to start sub-groups that don't follow the sub-group process. Maybe better as a community group? Don't want to mix the processes.
<shadi> +1
Michael: I think we should call it something else
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group, separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
<Jaunita_George> +1
+1
<jeanne> If we make it a community group we can open the invitation to join more broadly
<jeanne> +1
<KGH> cybel S. Q+ not on the IRC
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group, separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
Rachael: Don't know if this will be a task force or community group
<jeanne> +1
<MichaelC> +1
<jenniferS> +1
<Amanda> +1
<alastairc> Wilco: Would this group report back to AG, or under it's own track?
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
Shadi: Is there any reason not to have this as a community group? That's what they were created for.
+1 to Shadi, this sounds like a CG
<AWK> +1 to open question
Michael: I think we could decide we want a CG, but I'm not sure it's the right forum for equity in WCAG 3.
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
<mbgower> +1
janina: Liking the idea of a Community Group (CG). Reminder that the CEPC (which I'd like to rename COPE) applies there.
… Also happy to sleep on the decision of what type of group.
mbgower: Wording "under AG WG" - does that support CGs?
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Set up a temporary group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
Rachael: That would just be temporary before the final group is set up.
<jenniferS> I was going to suggest "advisory group" but Janina's proposal to sleep on it resonated.
<Jaunita_George> +1
Rachael: (chair hat off) I also support a CG.
<mbgower> +1
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Set up a temporary group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
<AWK> +1
<jeanne> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<jenniferS> +1
<alastairc> +1
<maryjom> +1
<SuzanneTaylor> +1
MichaelC: We may determine a CG is necessary; it may not be sufficient. I think we may need other things due to the way we're structured.
<Amanda> +1
<jenniferS> Please q Cybele
<Lauriat> +1
<Rachael> Cybele: +1 to MichaelC
Cybele: It seems premature to me to assume it must be a CG.
Cybele: I support the resolution (but not CG-specific).
<janina> +0
janina: My +0 because I'm a little scope-leery. Worried about it being too AG WG-specific and also going outside of AG.
MichaelC: I think the layers aren't necessarily competing, but scope is going to be a challenge.
janina: We need a joint conversation somewhere (not a separate one). Worried we're starting down separate tracks.
Rachael: I'll make a note to invite APA.
jenniferS: I hear and empathize with the concerns about time. Agree with janina - understanding the connections with APA.
… Could we apply a "progressive enhancement" philosophy to our work on this?
… Do what we can, and manage the "parking lot" [as has been the process for these meetings].
janina: Convinced we need to do this, but do we need a whole new wheel?
… Could we engage with the CEPC and Process document teams?
… We're part of a larger organization, and these concerns apply to all W3C (not just WAI) groups.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say cross-group convo could be desired
Rachael: Encourage us to put out a wider call for such a group.
MichaelC: Our primary scope is how to make AG more equitable? We definitely have joint mission with APA and other groups.
… To address equity in W3C will reuqire a W3C-wide conversation.
… Not sure if we're the experts on that, but we can take steps that lead to that.
Rachael: I suggest we accept the resolution and move on.
janina: Note that tomorrow in APA's calendar is a meeting about giving guidance to people to give us comments; ACK that GitHub can have barriers for some, and we also have access needs. We're not going to solve it alone; please join!
RESOLUTION: Set up a temporary group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG
Equity Survey and Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-tpac/results
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: There's an Editor's Note that captures the questions the group discussed, plus additions to the requirements doc.
Rachael: Are we comfortable adding this to the requirements document as "exploratory"? This is the first time we're applying our maturity levels here.
… There were two questions in the survey.
… *Reviews feedback from survey*
mbgower: Some of it seemed like meeting minutes going in as exploratory content - propose more structure.
mbgower: (other comments I think were clear)
<jeanne> mbgowr, the group only had 7 weeks and didn't get as far along as we wanted. I agree it needs some more polishing, especially the long list of questions.
Rachael: *Reviewing question 2 of survey*
… https://
MichaelC: I'd be happy to take all the edits people made.
Rachael: *Reviews Poornima's vote and comment*
Rachael: *Reviews mbgower's vote and comment* we'll return to this.
mbgower: Even putting the Equity definition up-front would help.
mbgower: Not opposed; just needs some wordsmithing (i.e. editorial adjustments)
AWK: I support the general principles. Not sure this is ready yet.
… "The WG maintains an equity framework" - this is still new, and not everyone's been introduced to it.
… Is it "pre-exploratory"? Not sure what those steps mean for us in actual use. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the curent state, but obviously it's something we want to explore and work on.
<Rachael> pre-exploratory = placeholder
shadi: I fully support the intent. It seems to be about how we can create a technical standard that represents equity. We need to work on this, but is part of the document the right place?
<jenniferS> q Cybele, please
MichaelC: We should have something in our TR docs affirming a commitment to equity. Whether the content goes there or somewhere else I'm open to discussion.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if we want to apply the maturity levels to the requirements document
<Lauriat> +1 to Rachael
Rachael: (chair hat off) I'm not sure I'm comfortable putting contnet with maturity levels in this document (it would be the first time).
jenniferS: I think the equity subgroup set out to provide guidance so people working on the guidelines could bring more equity to their work. Then it got bigger, but that was the initial goal.
… In another organization I'm part of, we have something like an advisory group that provides governanxe and asks meaningful questions to make sure the work is within design, code engineering, equity best practices.
Cybele: I concur there was a consideration of impact, and having an equity lens to evaluate impact of decisions is a significant component of the need for this work.
… I realise we're talking about things that are very early, and there's hesitation to entrench something early. Some parts are moving slowly; others are moving fast.
… When we draft language around this, we should consider interim measures, to avoid wanting to change something already decided.
… There's a risk of claims of equity without substantial change. We are in a good position to address this challenge, and it calls us to a higher bar, even though it's difficult.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to address maturity level
Cybele: Again, we may need to think about interim measures if it's going to take a long time for language to be developed.
MichaelC: The reaosn for the "exploratory" flag is we're following an existing process, because the language is immature. This conversation is a success, and figuring out what we're going to do next is a success.
… If not now, then soon, we should commit to equity in the document. Either by refining this PR, or having the equity group working on it.
… We need a traceable public commitment to equity.
Rachael: We've applied a process designed for the draft to the requirements. Wilco: do you have any thoughts on that?
jenniferS: +1 with a foot stomp to what MichaelC said: perfeect is the enemy of the good, but what we have is a good beginning. Having the humility and courage to put something out there to say "this is important" and it must be done.
jenniferS: What could be the harm in releasing this?
Wilco: The process of the levels was specifically designed for the drafts. I don't think it works well for the requirements document. I don't think we could just assume it's OK to use it.
… I would pitch it to the group as-is and ask what they think of this as an update.
… If we're close and it needs only editorial work, do it. If not, spin up the group.
Rachael: (chair hat on) The survey was supportive of adding this content as exploratory. We would need to have a vote as a group if we're happy with applying the levels process in this context.
Rachael: The other way we could go would be to not add the levels, then take it away and mature it before adding.
AWK: I wasn't thinking about this being part of the requirements document; this gives me concerns. If I was asked to write requirements, without a way to measure where we are, that would be a problem.
… The content is good, but is there a way we could e.g. associate it with the WG's [web] page, so the commitment is there, and then we can add it when we know enough to do so?
AWK: The concern that I have about the harm is that if we decide we can't measure it/measure it in time, it looks like we've taken it out. We want to include it, and find ways to include it, and hopefully we can iterate quickly
… but we don't know much about where we are now.
shadi: It sounds a bit more affirmative about some ideas that maybe don't have consensus, but it is good and important work. The risk is setting ourselves up to fail.
shadi: Let's check what we can accomplish, and word this a bit better.
<Lauriat> +1 to Michael's point, beat me to it
MichaelC: The equity section that's proposed is not actually a requirement; it's in a section called "opportunities" - it sets up a commitment to work on it, but nothing that forms part of the actual requirements.
<jenniferS> The Editor's Draft Maturity Levels appear to have Placeholder and Exploratory for this purpose.
Rachael: We have two queued discussion points.
… (1) Are we comfortable with using the maturity levels process in the requriements document?
<Jaunita_George> +.5
<janina> +1
<AWK> -1
<Rachael> Strawpoll: Use maturity levels in the requirements document
<Wilco> -1 needs more thought
Rachael: (2) how do we get the content in to the requirements document, given that answer.
<jenniferS> +1
<Jaunita_George> +.5
<alastairc> -1 The requirements doc doesn't really have the structure for maturity levels, I'd rather refine the text and agree it to be put in.
<jeanne> -1
<Amanda> -1
<Makoto> -1
<Lauriat> -1, same comment as alastairc
Rachael: Our next session is an unmoderated working session; just come in (if you like) and work together or individually. We have several parking lot issues to work on; see whom else is interested in working on them.
… One task would be how to re-think the equity content as an Editor's Note, given the -1s above.
<jenniferS> Please note that Janina's +1 was before the strawpoll. ;)
Rachael: There are many other comments in parking.
<jenniferS> Cybele +1
Rachael: Any other business?
<Wilco> Thanks Rachael, and great job chairing
Rachael: Appreciate everyone's respectful contributions. We got through a lot; great discussions!
<Rachael> Can you email them to all the groups?
Minutes for the remaining topics were moved to the 13 Sept 2022 AG WG minutes.