Lauriat: Overall the discussion went really well. Nobody said "we can't do that" it was more "how do we do this?"
... the feedback wasn't too surprising; overall everbody was supportive of what we had fleshed out and confused about what we hadn't
... at this point, just need to start working on some of the other bits
... a closer look to applying points to task-based assessments instead of full page stuff
... we have a couple of points in the document that allude to it but don't go into specifics

<Lauriat> Conformance draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit

Lauriat: we also got an email on the overall WG mailing list

<Lauriat> Comments in the main mailing list: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JanMar/0036.html

Lauriat: some of these we may have walked through, but not worked through all of them

<Lauriat> "3. Perhaps it would be better to separate “content” requirements from “process” or “assurance” requirements, such as the conformance evaluation methods used. In that case, the level of assurance would be reported separately from the points gained in each functional performance category."

<Lauriat> Tagged on Non-Interference in the draft: "Probably including more (single-key shortcuts), we could apply these on the surrounding environment of each step of a given task when doing an assessment of that task, but not apply all of the rest of the tests to that full environment."

Lauriat: We should also think through the exercise of doing an assessment for an application as well as a website.

<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting