<scribe> scribe: Jennie

Content Usable Status Update https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-05-content-usable/

<Rachael> current draft: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/WD-content-usable-20200327/content-usable/index.html#pattern-use-clear-labels

Rachael: Update - at the AG meeting the conformance challenges document had some issues, and the schedule had to be adjusted to addressed it.
... so now on the agenda for next week.
... Only 1 set of comments back from the survey, 5 responses.
... Everyone is a yes, or yes with the following changes

<Rachael> David M: "...The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that could not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended as advice to help address user needs that may not be met otherwise..."

Rachael: David MacDonald has suggested (pasted above)

<Rachael> Laura: "...The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that could not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended as advice to help address user needs that may not be met otherwise..."

Rachael: This additional sentence has been requested.
... David M has also requested feedback and I will put that in the comments.
... Any thoughts, comments?

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-05-content-usable/results

<Rachael> current draft: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/WD-content-usable-20200327/content-usable/index.html#pattern-use-clear-labels

SC Status https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0

Lisa: can we have a moment to review the previous documents?

Rachael: yes, I will pause

Lisa: Appendix B is not what we agreed.

Rachael: I posted the wrong version

<Rachael> correct version: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-from-ag-meeting-may-2020/content-usable/index.html#

Rachael: I do not believe any changes have been made since last week's COGA meeting.

Lisa: Where do Laura and David M want the sentence added?

Rachael: I believe it is in the Design Guide
... wherever the word "supplement" is used. 4.1

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-from-ag-meeting-may-2020/content-usable/index.html#introduction

Lisa: The Design Guide is not in the table of contents for me

Rachael: It is in mine.

Lisa: that helps. It looks different

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-05-content-usable/results

Rachael: This is the link from the survey (above)
... David M's comments (read by Rachael)

<Rachael> The suggested edits I provided in the previous survey were partially implemented but not substantially. If they were adopted it would have addressed my concerns. However, with only minor adoption of the edits, I remain concerned that this document will be perceived as fully vetted by the working group. During 2.1 these patterns were presented as SCs. The WG determined that they could not be included in the normative standard. So without the edits I

<Rachael> suggested, I believe it may be confusing that we are now presenting these patterns as a "supplement" to WCAG. I'm afraid some jurisdictions will take that as a signal to require them in law and policy. Here's another example:

<Rachael> Current sentence: "...The Objectives and Patterns presented here supplement the Success Criteria presented in the WCAG accessibility guidelines and address those user needs that are not fully met in accessibility guidelines...."

<Rachael> alternative suggestion: "...The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that could not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended as advice to help address user needs that may not be met otherwise..."

Steve: I take his point - it is ambiguous

Lisa: I don't like to say that they could not, I prefer were not, or are not

<Rachael> Lisa's suggested wording: ..The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that were not included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended as advice to help address user needs that may not be met otherwise..."

<Fazio> +1

Lisa: There are things I don't agree with. Intended as advice - I think that is too weak

Rachael: What if we take "as advice" out

Lisa: Maybe we should try and word smith it. I have seen it with ARIA - we put in a sentence to make people happy and it haunted us for years.

<stevelee> I prefer "are not" to "were note" on balance

Lisa: We agree that that were not in WCAG 1 or 2, or the current. Maybe it will be supported in the next specification
... It is intended as advice to address user needs and make sure people

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z52phGcYg1oG1kVWxPZJqKom-Zg6bZJcOhEBBhet_yg/edit#

Rachael: Here's a document (above) where we can word smith, and type directly into this

David F: I agree with Lisa. And saying could not be included in WCAG 2 makes it sound like they are not legitimate success criteria.

scribe: I would agree to change it to were not, instead of could not.
... At 1 point people said it should not be included in case it is interpreted as law, but on the Tuesday call there was opposite discussion about this
... Which one is it?

<Fazio> federal government has a sweeping law too

<Fazio> plain language law https://plainlanguage.gov/law/

Lisa: I have added a draft into the word smithing document:
... The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that were not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended to enable more people with disabilities to use Web content that could not access the content otherwise because of their disability. It addresses user needs that may not be met otherwise.
... It says everything David M wanted it to say, but it also clarifies our intent.

<LisaSeemanKest> The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that were not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended to enable more people with disabilities to use Web content that

Rachael: We have 2 topics on the table: the sentence, and the broader concept of the legal space.
... I would like to time box this so we can get back to the tactical pieces we need to discuss.

Steve: I think we need to remember that the task force does work on behalf of the AG group. When we take the work to the AG group, it is likely they will have comments.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say predictable interpretation, encourage uptake, differentiate from normative guidance

Michael: While we cannot control how people with interpret a document, we need to be sensitive to this. We can't say don't write it into your law or policy, we do need to differentiate it from WCAG.
... We need to ensure it is not confused with normative guidance.

Abi: Within our legal system this would be a low standard. Complaints follow international standards. If we are clear it is guidance, not guidelines, that will be important.
... It is not suitable in every situation, I think if this is added into how it is intended to be used, it will help clarify that not everything is to be used every time.

David F: The US government will pass a law for things the federal government can control. Once they have enough evidence or support, they will pass laws that impact the full country.

scribe: Plain language has not yet translated into the private sector.
... If we can be clear this is not normative, maybe "best practices" would help?

Lisa: I think that would dilute it.

David F: I like what we have done with it, I like Lisa's suggestion.

Lisa: Maybe whatever wording we come up with, we put in an email, and CC those that had an objection (David M and Laura). We can say that this is suggested wording, are you ok with it? We feel it clarifies, but does not undermine its importance.

<Fazio> Do we have to please everyone?

<Rachael> we are a consensus based organization

Lisa: While I agree with most of what Michael said, but let's leave the decision to the law makers and let them decide where and when it needs to be used.

<Fazio> if we still have those 2 objections can't it still pass? That's only 2 people

Lisa: I like Abi's idea, and I'm wondering if we should add the following sentence
... but may not be applicable in every situation

<kirkwood> +1 our job ist to write the guidance. note it should be able to be interpreted by internal policy makers

<Rachael> There is a process for working through that type of situation

Lisa: if we feel we need to clarify the difference, we can.

<Fazio> good point

Lisa: Once we add that sentence we won't be able to take it out

<Abi> +1 but without including an example

<LisaSeemanKest> but may not be applicable for all situations. For example, a web site

Rachael: I really like that point that this isn't always applicable. I would rather log an issue that we work on as an issue, rather than try to address it before wide review.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Steve: Is this removing the blocks?

<EA_> +1 as I have found another sentence that worries me

Rachael: I think it was the word supplement

EA: "The look and behave like what they are...some users will be locked out"

Rachael: Do we need to review this before wide review?

EA: Yes please!

Rachael: Abi, I have pasted it down a bit further for you to do some word smithing on

Lisa: My proposal doesn't address my point fully.
... I like the idea of logging an issue.

Rachael: Straw poll: continue to word smith the original sentence, or log an issue to address this point?

<Rachael> wordsmith or log an issue?

<Rachael> Option 1 Use this revised wording: The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that were not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended to enable more people with disabilities to use Web content that could not access the content otherwise because of their disability. It addresses user needs that may not otherwise be

<Rachael> met.

<Rachael> Option 2: Continue to wordsmith

<Rachael> Option 3: Log an issue

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: How many people are ok with Lisa's wording?

<Fazio> +1

<Rachael> The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that were not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended to enable more people with disabilities to use Web content that could not access the content otherwise because of their disability. It addresses user needs that may not otherwise be met.

Rachael: How many people would like to continue word smithing?

<kirkwood> option 2 enable/include

<Rachael> 1. Go forward and log an issue

Rachael: There is a new revised paragraph, from :39 - that's option 1, and we would log an issue

<Rachael> 2. Continue wordsmithing

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to option 1

Steve: "were not included" is more contentious than "are"

<EA_> It is hard to read at the moment

David F: that's David M's point - it may draw scrutiny of WCAG

<Abi> "that are in addition to the current"

Lisa: I don't mind changing it to "are" but prefer "were"

<Abi> 2

David F: If you use "can't" it makes it sound wrong

<EA_> EA 2

<stevelee> 1

Rachael: I hear 2 votes for option 2

John K: Instead of "enable" make it include more people. "Including a larger..."

Rachael: I hear we need more word smithing.

<Fazio> 0

<Rachael> are

Rachael: Can everyone write "were" or "are"

<Rachael> They are patterns that were not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification...

<Abi> -1

<stevelee> are

<LisaSeemanKest> were

<kirkwood> are

<EA_> It says Objectives and Patterns - then only talks about patterns...

Abi: this needs word smithing.

Jennie (as Jennie): +1 to Abi

<kirkwood> agreed

<EA_> +1

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z52phGcYg1oG1kVWxPZJqKom-Zg6bZJcOhEBBhet_yg/edit#

Rachael: we will continue wordsmithing in the document

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: This sentence goes in the introduction to the Design Guide
... I think we got the Abstract where we need it to be

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to jennie

Jennie (as Jennie): There are times where a supervisor needs to be able to access information, so we need to be very careful on the wording about when it would not apply

Lisa: The intent is to provide additional guidance. It is not just user needs that might not be applicable.
... even for an accountant site, you could have a partner with early stages of dementia that could continue doing their job if this guidance is followed.
... The intent is to provide additional guidance.

Abi: I have put that wording in. My understanding is you have choices today, and you may just not do anything that is relevant to this guidance.
... I have done user testing this week with people having concerns about italics. This is about how do we make it clear that this is the best guidance you should follow, but this is not WCAG, and this will not be enforced.

Rachael: My understanding was similar to Abi's. This particular phrasing can be interpretered differently.

Steve: I find the extra piece problematic. We said it does not replace WCAG, we said that it may not otherwise be met. I think it is clear that they are optional extras, if you like.
... But for users, they are not optional. I think the extra piece confuses things, unless Abi wants to keep it

Abi: I'm happy for it to go if that will help it pass WCAG

<Fazio> Qq+

Lisa: Some policies may need to put this in. There are places where people cannot access without these in place.
... I don't want to present policy makers to feel they can't include it.

John K: This was an issue when dealing with compliance. The objective and patterns were addressed at round tables when creating an online presence. The legal people read the objective sentence and determined if it met, the technical people met the standard part.

scribe: I think the pattern language is how to address it, and will be handed to the technical people.

<Zakim> Fazio, you wanted to react to LisaSeemanKest

David F: The laws are anti-discrimination laws. If an organization is not creating information accessible to people with cognitive disabilities, this does not take this away.

scribe: This document is not official success criteria, but it is a less formal way to help people, and provides evidence.

Rachael: We need a decision. Do we move this to an email, or stay on another 5 minutes?

<EA_> Sadly I have to return to other work.

Rachael: Do we want to take a vote now to add text into the survey or email to David and Laura?

<EA_> Yes

Rachael: EA - can you email me a sentence that was causing issues?

John K: I added the word "resulting" to Abi's

<Rachael> Proposed option 1: The Objectives and resulting Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. Rather, they are intended to address user needs that may not otherwise be met. This guidance is not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification.

<Rachael> Proposed option 2: The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. Rather, they are intended to address user needs that may not otherwise be met intended to provide additional guidance in order to enable more people with disabilities to use Web content. This guidance is not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification.

<kirkwood> resulting?

<stevelee> Option 1

<kirkwood> Opfion 1

Rachael: we can continue to word smith during wide review

<Abi> Option 1

Lisa: I don't agree with option 1
... Because it doesn't say it was our intention to have more people use it

<kirkwood> enable more is missing, think valid

<kirkwood> +1 lisa

Abi: I removed that clause because it needs further work (disabilities, web vs mobile). I don't have time to word smith it

<Rachael> The sentence before this is: This guide provides assistance making websites and applications friendly for people with cognitive and learning disabilities by providing guidance for designs and the design process.

Rachael: Does this change anyone's opionin?

lisa: no

<Abi> "to include more people with disability to use website and applications"

<stevelee> "to allow"

<Rachael> The Objectives and resulting Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. Rather, they are intended to address user needs that may not otherwise be met so that more people with disabilities can use websites and applications. This guidance is not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Abi> +1

<Fazio> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> rsagent, generate minutes

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: Jennie, Rachael, Fazio, kirkwood, stevelee, Abi
Present: Jennie Rachael Fazio kirkwood stevelee Abi
Regrets: John R
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie

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.)