– DRAFT –
Clear Language/WCAG 3 Coordination Subgroup

<rashmi> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CeqiSy3tVDoeBzCG8LpkyFT1fvugGk86JuT6NvfSiAA/edit#heading=h.25ug0gct5wb0 color pattern draaft

<rashmi> Lisa explaining new pattern name: Use color to aid orientation and focus

<JMcSorley> Here's the link to contrast minimum: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#contrast-minimum

<JMcSorley> Should we also reference use of color so people are getting it reinforced that color alone should not be used to convey meaning ... 1.4.1? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#use-of-color

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CeqiSy3tVDoeBzCG8LpkyFT1fvugGk86JuT6NvfSiAA/edit#heading=h.1kru9t5f0fpj

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CeqiSy3tVDoeBzCG8LpkyFT1fvugGk86JuT6NvfSiAA/edit#heading=h.25ug0gct5wb0

<rashmi> Here's the link to contrast minimum .4.3 : https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#contrast-minimum

<rashmi> 1.4.1 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#use-of-color

<JMcSorley> Contrast enhanced: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#contrast-enhanced

<JMcSorley> 1.4.11 - non-text contrast: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#non-text-contrast

<JMcSorley> I have to drop for another meeting.

<lisa> https://raw.githack.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fcoga%2Fblob%2Fissue-papers-v2%2Fissue-papers%2FConversational-Voice-Systems.html

<JohnRochford> Julie, the Zakim Tamer.

How AG's April 2024 list of WCAG 3 outcomes affects COGA

<Chuck> +1

Julie mentioned that coga has a list running about the issues found with using the new IRC channel.

John mentioned that he could not see the text when it is enlarged as one panel covers the script.

<julierawe> COGA issues with the new IRC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sIErFDJMl1vpjZXmfaNksl1QE2H-Px1MGMBexZmkRAQ/edit#heading=h.fy9hj3qnvrwd

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12EFn13Ey7ZQ2huEjqd65FwjMuIxv9ZSW8li8Xh5po80/edit#heading=h.plwxn5j260ri

Julie is going to bring everyone up to speed with what is happening with the list of outcomes with WCAG3

All the subgroups that were coming out with outcomes and how they grouped and where they are organised - AG has come up with guidance as to how they will be placed. The main group where the plain language outcomes are to be found is under text and wording

The rest of the sections have a sprinkling of coga outcomes in each - Julia is happy with the way outcome alternatives have been provided.

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XA5X9f9G5vmKJ7BiC7GCf8nWaCjnKGcSYrFd9ImWxc8/edit?pli=1#heading=h.kegwsvy23m5o

<kirkwood> Draft Guidelines and Outcomes Alternatives https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XA5X9f9G5vmKJ7BiC7GCf8nWaCjnKGcSYrFd9ImWxc8/edit?pli=1#heading=h.l86m24tnln43

Twelve groups of outcomes and besides text and language there are other groups that have clear language outcomes but not as many.

AG are looking for feedback about these groupings... are any missing or incorrect - where should things live, avoiding duplicates and being aware that we can still add more outcomes. Can be overwhelming to read all the comments in the margins. Julie is interested about the gaps that we might find... anything missing.

At the moment the organisation is the important point.

<Chuck> mostly removing duplicates

John asked why are there some outcomes crossed out - Julie said these are probably duplicates or is the outcome really needed.

Some crossed out outcomes are ones that have a new replacement.

Julie has clarified this in her April update for coga

<Chuck> +1 this is not the last opportunity.

There have also been some changes to the language and this is not the last chance to make changes. There is time to make more decisions and at the moment it is questions that about the groupings... Julie asked... Do they make sense? Add comments to the GitHub thread

<julierawe> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/60#discussioncomment-9132933

Julie mapped the clear language outcomes to the new AG list and the only one missing is avoiding double negatives.

People tend to react to the requirement to avoid double negatives due the use different languages and meanings etc but Julie feels it could be slipped into 'unecessary words and phrases' - could this be a place where the avoid double negatives when thinking about a positive.

John asked why this woudd be accepted if it was just moved to another section as opposed to having it as its own outcome?

Julie felt this might be linked to the way this has been phrased - its not that it is banned but perhaps just not explained in an acceptable way.

Chuck cannot recall why AG made such a decision so he is going to ask what was the reason this outcome was possibly one they did not want to have in place as a separate outcome.

John suggested that Julie provides the exact outcome wording that explains the issue - perhaps a refined version that will be placed in the Content Usable update

<julierawe> Refined version we drafted last summer: “Double negatives: Don’t use double negatives to express a positive unless it is standard usage for that language or dialect.”

<Chuck> Chuck acknowledges owning the action item

John also added that we would need to know why this refined version is not acceptable

<Chuck> Chuck will review if it was purposefully, and if so, why.

If the refined version is turned down when AG revisit it

AG version of single idea for a paragraph has been slightly changed - to single idea to a segment of text

Layout also has a section link outcome - but AG has changed it from short sentences - now more fussy about section lengths.

The second half of the list of outcomes has what Julie feels is an accurate set of groupings

John Kirkwood felt that the risk statement does not fit with text and wording.

Chuck explained that this is referring when terms and conditions are provided for use of the website - this could be spread to something that is a risk such as some obligations that impact the user beyone use of the website

Julie explained that the wording in this example needs to be in clear language.

John K said that makes sense

John R said not legal language will be simplified but perhaps there could be a plain language summary at the top of the terms and conditions to make the content understandable

Julie was concerned that pehaps the word 'risks' is the problem with the group word.

Chuck said that 'risks' was used as a broader term that was decided upon so that it could cover more than just terms and conditions.

John R gave the example of 'risk statement' as possibly be better so that it is understood as an outcome that would be better understood.

<Chuck> +1

Julie to add a comment to GitHub that it should be a 'risk statement'

<kirkwood> +1

EA +1

Several outcomes from clear language are on layout. Julie feels these are correctly grouped.

Other changes - Multi-step process - orientating the user - AG feels this is a duplicate of the visual view current location - providing context - helping the user know where they are in terms of place as well as time?

John K added the need for where you are in terms of context.

Julie will add a comment in GitHub and we need to do a 'thumbs up' to the comments. Julie will send us an email with links

Tiffany also mentioned the word aggregate - in the multi-step process

Julie and Tiffany discussed the type of wording that might help - need to provide context visually and programmatically and mention time constraints.

Julie confirmed that the multi-step outcome must not be crossed out of the process but thought about in a slightly different way