<Rachael> WCAG 2.x Issue Resolution (30 minutes) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2023Dec/0008.html
<laura> Scribe: laura
<dj> sorry for missing the meeting on the 6th
<dj> i misread it as the 9th somehow
RM: Welcome back to AG.
... leadership team meet a few times over break.
RM: Any new members?
... Any new topics?
Gene: I am a new member.
RM: explains IRC
<AWK> +AWK
jean: I am a new member from tpgi.
chuck: I can work with you on the side.
jean: she/her pronouns.
duff: I am new from PDF Association.
Ashley: director for Optopus Energy.
Jake: not new. Not at ING. Am starting own company
<Azlan> Not new but I've moved to an invited expert from community group member. Thanks for all that helped that transition
Mike: I am new. Was introduced
during TPAC .
... 4 or 5 years a11y experience.
<Chuck> Welcome all our new members!
RM: will set up an orientation,
<Rachael> Electronic Literature Organization Unconference January 17th-20th If anyone is interested in participating around accessibility for electronic literature, please let the chairs know.
RM: Invitation to Literature Org Unconferene
<Rachael> Reminder to review the future agenda items at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas#Future_Agenda_Items
RM: Reminder to review the future
agenda page.
... dividing meeting into 2 blocks going forward.
... please review Future Agenda Items
re: requirements sub group is starting up. if interested contact chairs.
<alastairc> Requirements sub-group (currently Shadi, Wilco, Jeanne, Briona, me)
RM: want to touch base on schedule.
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_3_Timeline#Publication_Plan
RM: pub plan is linked.
... we have built in retrospectives to check direction and
pace.
... section on page for Questions for Next Retrospective
... 2023 Q4 Began Requirements Discussion
... and Begin conversation on WCAG 3 core issues in
GitHub
... 2024 Q1 Organize and deduplicate outcomes list
... Publish next exploratory guidelines, user needs and/or
outcomes
... Select and prioritize outcomes for work based on selection
criteria
... Deep dive into a single outcome using writing testable
outcomes process (Rewrite writing testable outcomes must be
done first)Deep dive into a single outcome using writing
testable outcomes process (Rewrite writing testable outcomes
must be done first)
... Begin discussion of WCAG 3 core issues in meetings:
Publication Approach and Evaluating Proposed Conformance
Models
RM: discussion on Github: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-7694390
<Rachael> Option 1: Replace WCAG 2.2 one step at a time with a once a year release with whatever is ready for a new recommendation
RM: Option1: Replace WCAG 2.2 one step at a time with a once a year release with whatever is ready for a new recommendation (Based on process that is TC39 uses for ECMAScript and allowing non-backward compatible changes) (comment on proposed iterative approach)
<Rachael> Option 2: 2. Modular approach that publishes guidance (functional/user needs) without a conformance model, publishing the guidance early and often until both are ready to join up
RM: those 2 had the biggest support.
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results#xq4
rm: want to come at this with
curiosity.
... open conversation.
gregg: for #1 would it replace?
wilco: we start with 2.2. and do
it step by step.
... We can pick a couple of areas to focus on
... whatever is ready gets published. It is incremental and not
backwards compatible.
... have to figure out what is and what isn't breaking changes
in it.
gregg? released as a draft or replacement standard?
wilco: released as a rec.
... all of 2.2
gregg: will have to restructure the whole thing.
wilco: not sure if all has to be restructured the first year.
kevin: Is it reworking SC or W AG 3 outcomes?
wilco: could be either.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask if option 1 means that it is replacing specific success criteria one-for-one or replace it with newer WCAG 3 bits?
kevin: Does option 1 means that it is replacing specific SCs 1-for-1 or replacing it with newer WCAG 3 bits??
<jeanne> +1 to starting from WCAG3 work and match it to 2.2 SC later.
ben: If we use year, when is the
new standard done?
... what would be difficult to achieve in WCAG?
<alastairc> qv?
<GreggVan> (Sorry just got called away)
rm: not need to the +1
wilco: It is more changing WCAG
into a living standard.
... it is more time boxed.
<Duff_Johnson> alastairc: indeed. I was going to ask "will WCAG's scope be (re)considered in v3?" which is more or less your question.
ac: how do we replace underlying
assumptions.
... a lot of guidelines need rewriting.
<mgifford> Thanks @alastairc for mentioning Pages. So not how the web is built today.
ac: the technology aspect
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about how to re-do underlying assumptions, such as page, technology, and responsibility.
ac: user agent, authoring, tool aspect.
wilco: going to need to try.
Could break the problem up.
... need experimentation.
<Zakim> dj, you wanted to answer alastair's question
dj: could focus on pages.
... update definition of pages.
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to respond to DJ
<Graham> does this not all depend on how different mappings are between 2.2 and 3.0 and so we can't make the decision until we know what the SCs for 3.0 look like (for example, if we had 2 SCs in 2.2 that map to 3 SCs in 3.0, we can't do a gradual update until all 3 are completed in the new guidance...and we don't know what that mapping looks like to make a decision yet?
wilco: things don't have to fit
into a 1 year cycle.
... can take several years for proposals to get though.
scott: confuse how it would
work.
... each new year could break changes?
... wondering the impact on orgs.
... is is law on day 1?
<kevin> qq+ to comment on law day 1
wilco: it is a more volute
approach.
... need to minimize the effects.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to scotto to comment on law day 1
wilco: need ways to test.
kevin: not a straight forward as we think.
<jeanne> qq+ to say if we focus on guidance first and conformance last, we avoid the "law on day 1: problem
<maryjom> There are some countries which take up the "current" recommendation
kevin: could reference dated version.
<maryjom> ...my above statement is in answer to Kevin's question. I couldn't add myself to the queue
ashley: how to handle the
optics?
... best way to share ?
<mgifford> It would be useful to have some fictional examples of both how changes would be introduced to WCAG, but also how legislation around this could be included.
wilco: we dropped 411.
lori: concerns with rolling
approach.
... are we thinking of the users? Don't see it to be
workable.
<kirkwood> I have similar concerns to Lori
jeanne: suggestion to focus on
guidance and not conformance first.
... how would this fit with w3c proccess?
detlev: have to be careful so it is understandable for user.
<alastairc> It might be worth separating the rolling updates from the concept of starting from WCAG 2.2.
detlev: mark things from 2.2 that
is being worked on.
... rework a batch at a time and communicate that.
... transtion from pages isn't that urgent.
duff: consideration of scope for 3.0 is a distinctive question. Worthy of a strategy.
shadi: like the idea of time
boxing and breaking things down.
... not sure about publishing at the end of the year?
Poornima: like the approach. Question of structure.
RM: start from user needs.
... then break things apart.
ac: working though functional
needs. Info Arch project.
... some things would be assertions.
chuck: gregg had a question.
mg: my focus this year is on wcag
2. Gaps and language.
... things that need to be addressed. Complimentary work.
rm: TF is focused on clean up.
mg: can't back fill wcag 2.
wilco: not sure how it is different from riding all the way back 3.
ac: we work on guidance
requirements. What things we can do.
... we have worked through migration process.
... could be utilized very quickly.
<bruce_bailey> i like AC bit about "making accessible stuff"
ac: then gets easy to provide
conformance.
... can publish guidance without conformance.
<bruce_bailey> Current WAI guidance fits well with modular approach https://www.w3.org/WAI/design-develop/
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if current WAI guidance fits well with modular approach https://www.w3.org/WAI/design-develop/
bruce: modular approach fits current WAI guidance , which is version neutral , so we might be less worried about what regulators do with guideline
Graham: tidy up 2.2 and then make that the conformance model?
RM: 3.0 needs a completely
different conformance model.
... question is how.
Graham: where would the conformance line be drawn?
<alastairc> Graham - That is the default, but the current question is how to get to the 3.0
Graham: just work on 3.0 and move forward.
RM: Scribe List https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
<ashleyfirth> scribe: ashleyfirth
<laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
<Chuck> thank you Ashley!
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask if there is a fundamental difference between option 1 and option 2
<scotto> i'm struggling with how wcag 3 could be an incremental replacement to 2.x if it's going to have a differnet conformance model.
<jon_avila> I wonder if we could allow people to conform to specific pieces such as versioned outcomes. So allow conformance for smaller pieces even down to the outcome level or method level.
kevin: You could start with 2.2 and fix, or in the same way start with 3 and put it on top. Starting to sound similar
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to outline difference
Alastair: Difference between two options is starting point
alastairc: Work we've been doing
on WCAG 3 is starting with different assumptions from 2.2,
pages, user agent etc. Some are straightforward, some add a lot
of nuance
... On how it would be broken down and published, we'd want to
aim for an equivalent to WCAG 2.2 in scope. Updating after that
point (rolling vs static update) is an unanswered question
Rachael: We will come back to these topics in around two weeks after people have had time to review discussion
maryjom: Introducing WCAG to
ICT
... For outside of a web context, documents aren't parsed by
screen readers, they're instead parsed by a user agent. So any
issues with markup are moot.
... If the markup hasn't been done right, the screen reader
would crash, or you would get accessibility errors.
<AWK> +1 to Mary Jo's reasoning.
<kirkwood> +1
jon_avila: Agrees that this
wasn't intended for software. Thoughts on web is that there are
a lot of extensions that use the DOM to work, rather than
accessing the source
... There could be a situation where DOM structure could still
be useful to assistive technologies
<Wilco> +1 AT absolutely do use the DOM still, even if they also use the a11y API
<alastairc> I like Gregg's suggestion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/266#issuecomment-1856546651 Was that not thought useful?
maryjom: If it's a document that's accessed through a web user agent, it should be treated as web content
<jon_avila> Exactly
dan_bjorge: What are the rules when web tech is used to view a non-web document, such as an electron app to view a PDF?
maryjom: If it's markup used to implement an application, how is the accessibility information exposed?
<AWK> MathML is an XML language so parsing structures are already enforced
dan_bjorge: MathML is an example where an AT reads the DOM directly
jon_avila: An electron app that uses HTML would not be considered web content. This area needs clarity
<dan_bjorge> AWK, MathML implements 4.1.1-relevant language requirements (eg, ID references with rules about references being valid) on top of XML - I don't think it's correct to say "it's XML so it's fine"
dj: What about applications that embed pieces of HTML but aren't written in HTML (RSS reader for example)?
<AWK> That was part of the discussion for SVG re: 4.1.1, @dan_bjorge
maryjom: The difference is if the
accessibility info is being exposed through the a11y API to
screen reader, what technology its ultimately implemented in
doesn't matter
... If there is an additional DOM that the screen reader is
parsing through instead, I'm not aware of it.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to find out if there's a problem with Gregg's suggestion
<alastairc> Gregg's sugestion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/266#issuecomment-1856546651
alastairc: Wondering if GreggVan's suggestion has been considered: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/266#issuecomment-1856546651
maryjom: When the group discussed it, they weren't sure if this situation existed
alastairc: Sounds like it does exist, and feels like a safer option
Ben_Tillyer: When I came across
an Electron or Chromium-based app, JAWS didn't have access to
the DOM, and instead Chrome's accessibility tree.
... Can't speak to other screen readers
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say the charter of WCAG2ICT is to apply current standards to non-web
<laura> s/retospectives /retrospectives /
<dan_bjorge> That is *not* what the 2.0/2.1 errata says
<dan_bjorge> it is conditional
Chuck: the charter of WCAG2 ICT is to apply current standards to non-web
<laura> s/converation./conversation./
dan_bjorge: Are the conditions of the errata met implicitly
<laura> s/an wha isn't /and what isn't /
maryjom: We may need to do a strawpoll
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to check the options?
Chuck: Don't know what the strawpoll would be, alastairc mentioned giving GreggVan's suggestion more thought https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/266#issuecomment-1856546651
<jon_avila> The note for 2.0 and 2.1 only covers HTML and XML
alastairc: Options are to make this note only apply to WCAG 2.2, include GreggVan's note to 2.0-2.2, or to ignore this issue and assume people are WCAG2.2 based
<dan_bjorge> +1, this just for how to apply 2.0/2.1
<Rachael> draft straw poll: 1. Make the note in WCAG 2.2 applicable to 2.2 only 2. Apply Gregg's note to apply logic from WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 to WCAG2ICT 3. Ignore the issue
maryjom: 2.2 has marked it as obsolete, so this it only for 2.0 & 2.1
alastairc: It would make sense to me to at least have some mention under 4.1.1
Rachael: Suggests moving this topic to Github to give people time to think about it and then vote on it
<Chuck> +1
Rachael: Please pay attention to the Github as we need to work async on this between meetings
alastairc: We're trying to move to a Github-oriented process for issue resolution
<bruce_bailey> On listserv: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2023Dec/0008.html
alastairc: Shared screen to share
an email from mbgower that proposed changes to organisation of
issues
... What I'd like to do today is run through the type of thing
that has come up. If anything triggers an alarm bell, please
add comments on why
... Most of these are FYI, bar one
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3559
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3341
<Rachael> wilco: If an understanding or technique document has ACT rule listed, cross check changes
If an understanding or technique doc has ACT rules listed at the bottom, we should cross-reference any changes with those rule(s)
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3024 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/lwf16UMH/image.png
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3024
alastairc: We had an update on focus obscured understanding to add examples
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2515
<bruce_bailey> Noting that Wilco conccured.
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2107
alastairc: Had a re-write on SCR37 as an HTML technique. Had one comment that generated an update to text above
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1792
alastairc: re-title and update of H63, 2 thumbs up no issues
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3566
alastairc: Add explicit mention of SPAs and dynamic changes of title to 2.4.2 understanding. 7 thumbs up
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3356
alastairc: Tweak to 3.3.2
understanding benefits to align with intent. 10 thumbs up no
major changes
... Failure F46 for markup in layout tables that don't take
role presentation or none into account. Some support, but there
may be a better approach
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1517
alastairc: Added third line to in brief section of 2.0 SC's Large PR, generally good reviews
<laura> s/process /process /
<laura> s/transition /transition /
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1826/files
<jon_avila> I thought Mike thought that would be a different pull request.
alastairc: Comment on Reword F23 (issues #1826) from Wilco: important to mention that most browsers use heuristics to mute automatically.
mbgower: Created a new discussion specifically on this topic: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/3623
<Wilco> +1, discuss separately is fine
dan_bjorge: In the interest of being able to move forward on guidance, do we want to do a strawpoll on it?
alastairc: Going to think on that
jon_avila: We were discussing the
volume adjustment language - you could go down to zero which
effectively muted
... Want to avoid language where changing the volume isn't the
same as muting
alastairc: Thinks the changed language covers that
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to Note (as Alastair mentioned at start of this topic) that items sent to AG listserv December 12th, deadline to Thumbs Up (or Down) this Friday.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to check on last item
alastairc: Actions are working through the backlog, answering issues. Progress has been good at the back end of 2023
Rachael: When we send out the
minutes, we're going to include a list of things decided in the
meeting. You have 5 business days to contest them - do this by
adding a thumbs down
... Add a comment if you'd like to make a note but not stop
something moving forward
<Rachael> Evaluation criteria: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/34
<Rachael> ACT Rules: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3616
Rachael: Two issues coming up next week - evaluation criteria for conformance models & ACT rules format - first public working draft. Both links above
Chuck: We have a large amount of new people - thank you for joining!
<Jeanne_she_her> Thank you!
Rachael: Orientation for new members coming soon
<Detlev> +1 for so Manny new folks!
Rachael: Meeting adjourned
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2024_Scribe_Sign_Up_.26_History
<Wilco> Welcome everyone! Also, don't forget to tell all the new folks about how great ACT Task Force is Rachael! Happy to mentor someone too
<mgifford> Thanks everyone!
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/boult/built/ Succeeded: s/bruce_bailey: I can't stay past 1200 ET today. I'll get with you offline to ask about the right way to raise PDF Techniques in this forum...// Succeeded: s/figurre/figure/ Succeeded: s/hanle/handle/ Succeeded: s/wiclo:/wilco:/ Succeeded: s/Laura/Lori/ Succeeded: s/addrressed/addressed/ Succeeded: s/surer how it is ddiffernt/sure how it is different/ Succeeded: s/quidance reequiremts/guidance requirements/ Succeeded: s/confromace/conformance/ Succeeded: s/<Kevin> You could start with/kevin: You could start with/ Succeeded: s/Got it, sorry// Succeeded: s/the sidde/the side/ Succeeded: s/compamy/company/ Succeeded: s/Rqeuirements/Requirements/ Succeeded: s/retospectives /retrospectives / Succeeded: s/converation./conversation./ Succeeded: s/pic a/We can pick a/ Succeeded: s/what is an wha /what is and what / Succeeded: s/restucture the /restructure the / Succeeded: s/resurtureed /restructured / Succeeded: s/stsarting with 2.2 andd rewirrting SCs/Does option 1 means that it is replacing specific SCs 1-for-1 or replacing it with newer WCAG 3 bits?/ Succeeded: s/difficcult /difficult / Succeeded: s/assuptions./assumptions./ Succeeded: s/alot of guildlines /a lot of guidelines / Succeeded: s/modulare appoeach less worrried aout regulators./modular approach fits current WAI guidance , which is version neutral , so we might be less worried about what regulators do with guideline/ FAILED: s/retospectives /retrospectives / FAILED: s/converation./conversation./ FAILED: s/an wha isn't /and what isn't / Succeeded: s/neet to /need to / Succeeded: s/ form pages / from pages / Succeeded: s/appoeach/approach/ Succeeded: s/then brerak /then break / Succeeded: s/ddo./do./ Succeeded: s/tmake/then make/ Succeeded: s/Wilco, could I get a summary of that point please?// Succeeded: s/ s completly/ a completely/ Succeeded: s/is is /is it / Succeeded: s/wuold /would / FAILED: s/proccess /process / Succeeded: s/understandble /understandable / FAILED: s/transtion /transition / Succeeded: s/fuctional /functional / Succeeded: s/migrration/migration/ Succeeded: s/gudiance /gudiance / Succeeded: s/ conformace / conformance / Succeeded: s/ conformace / conformance / Succeeded: s/is is /is / Succeeded: s/proccess/process/ Succeeded: s/I missed the second to last on your list alastairc// Succeeded: s/transtion/transition/ Succeeded: s/gudiance/guidance/ Succeeded: s/conformancce/conformance/ Default Present: Wilco, Rachael, Graham, Chuck, Laura_Carlson, JenStrickland_, dj, shadi, bruce_bailey, alastairc, JustineP, jaunita_george, kevin, JakeAbma, Azlan, maryjom, GreggVan, Makoto, AWK, dan_bjorge, Jennie_Delisi, mike_beganyi, mbgower, Ben_Tillyer, Detlev, Glenda, ashleyfirth, Jeanne_she_her, abbey, jtoles, Duff_Johnson, Frankie, kirkwood, DanielHE, Jen_G, Bri, scotto, giacomo-petri_, mgifford, ljoakley, jeanne, tburtin, Francis_Storr, jon_avila Present: Wilco, Rachael, Graham, Chuck, Laura_Carlson, JenStrickland_, dj, shadi, bruce_bailey, alastairc, JustineP, jaunita_george, kevin, JakeAbma, Azlan, maryjom, GreggVan, Makoto, AWK, dan_bjorge, Jennie_Delisi, mike_beganyi, mbgower, Ben_Tillyer, Detlev, Glenda, ashleyfirth, Jeanne_she_her, abbey, jtoles, Duff_Johnson, Frankie, kirkwood, DanielHE, Jen_G, Bri, scotto, giacomo-petri_, mgifford, ljoakley, jeanne, tburtin, Francis_Storr, jon_avila, ljoakley1 Regrets: Sarah Found Scribe: laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: ashleyfirth Inferring ScribeNick: ashleyfirth Scribes: laura, ashleyfirth ScribeNicks: laura, ashleyfirth WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth 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]
