Meeting minutes
bruce: gave a presentation yesterday. Expect significant feedback on the second call. Jeanne will talk to 508 coordinators in June.
weekly issue report
<jeanne> https://
Jeanne: Want to give an update on processing comments on FPWD.
… Lot of comments came in on Friday. Had 176 issues in GH, 16 e-mail that need to be copied into GH. Switched the report to ease search. 133 comments need triage.
… Need to schedule discuss at meeting with Shawn.
Visual contrast sub-group in Silver & Low Vision Task Forces
<bruce_bailey> This is the group I spoke to: https://
<bruce_bailey> This the presentation I used: https://
<bruce_bailey> My thanks to Jeanne for her help.
Chuck: Discussing getting LVTF ramped up again with AG leadership. Decided the best course would be for the contrast subgroup to report to both Silver and to LVTF.
Janina: Because of conv whether APA keeps COGA or not, I think APA has an interest in communication with LV.
… Want to have better lines of communication.
… Point 2 is we're doing show and tell, week from tomorrow. Opening invitation for people to show up.
… Media queries 5, low vision. We can clarify tomorrow.
<joconnor> https://
Next Wednesday Noon, Boston. Invitation goes out later this week.
<JF> From Gottfried's email: "Niklas Schildhauer, a student of mobile media at Stuttgart Media University, in his bachelor thesis has looked into the new “user preference media features”, as proposed for Media Queries Level 5. He examined how these and other candidates for media features, as proposed by the W3C APA working group, could be used to enable user interface personalisation on the web and how web users can benefit from this."
Rachael: Want to broaden the conversation, the proposal on the table is that we want subgroups to report both to Silver and the related TF.
Janina: overall AGWG interest especially for WCAG 3, but also APA as we're developing new technologies.
<bruce_bailey> +1 that next week is busy
Chuck: Want to remind everyone that next week is virtual CSUN and virtual axe-con, and there will be quite some activity on that.
<jeanne> +1 for scheduling
<KimD> +1 very busy next week
+1 to postpone
Wilco: Would it make sense for conformance groups to connect to ACT?
Jeanne: Would think the testing end interacts with ACT. Need to figure out how to integrate with ACT more closely. Put on the agenda for next Tuesday.
John: Wonder where the discussion on new TFs and emerging tech will happen?
Jeanne: Have a subgroup to work on XR
Shawn: Think John means in a broader sense.
John: As we gaze on other tech, and that Silver was intended to be more flexible that way, requirements that are technology specific may not be relevant to web.
Janina: XR work is about to wrap up. APA has interfaced with the XR subgroup in Silver some time ago.
<JF> XR is but one example however, there are other emergent technologies that may be under our purview.
<ToddLibby> When will the XR subgroup be meeting next? I'd like to join and sit in. Thanks.
Jeanne: Will add to the agenda to talk about how we're going to integrate new guidelines. Have several requests for new guidelines so far.
<mikecrabb> @Todd - hopefully soon (end of the month at the latest). Teaching for me is super close to winding up and I'll be able to spend more time on WCAG things soon
John: Glad to hear LV restarts. There is going to be a need for this kind of tooling.
<JF> acvk me
Shawn: Agree, we need to figure that out.
<ToddLibby> Thank you, @Mike
Chuck: Don't think we have an answer, but we'll discuss in the leadership team.
Michael: Hope we can use more async tools for this. Scheduling things is challenging.
… One of the challenges of XR is it's hard to tell where content stops and UAs start.
<JF> @Michael, understood.
<JF> An example of 'potentially' another area of enquiry and potential 'Requirements': https://
Suzanne: There's a11y for children CG. Wonder if there's anything we can do to reactivate that, get it involved in WCAG 3.
<Lauriat> +1 to JF, we have a lot of areas like that, and I very much want to ensure we can support and incorporate those at scale (both for writing and for those trying to reference)
Suzanne: Captions is a great example. Doesn't make sense for prereaders.
… Wonder how we can get it started up, if anyone has suggestions of how to refuel a group like that?
<Lauriat> Thank you for bringing that up, Suzanne!
Janina: APA is tasked with monitoring CG activity. Generally, require people who want to talk about that. There are a lot of proposed / formed groups. Only a small percentage do much.
Jeanne: Proposing write an e-mail to the list, writing a paper is helpful.
Suzanne: Think there is a lot of interest. Should be able to get it moving.
A call for triage volunteers
Jeanne: Great to have so many comments. The hard part is that we're behind on triaging. Numbers are still going up. There is a lot of work, we need help.
… Most of the leadership team is in crunch time right now. I'm the only one doing this.
… Chuck and I worked to streamline the process. Need a few people who can help read through each issue and classify it. Identify which ones are for sub groups.
<JustineP> I've been working in a similar capacity for COGA and happy to help here. My mic has stopped working.
todd: Would be happy to help where I can.
<laura> I could help to classify issues.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we can wait quite a bit for reponses
bruce: wanted to ask 1. I don't think we need to respond to most of these. Until we get close to a second draft it may not be necessary to try to answer these questions.
… Accessboard is starting work on autonomous vehicles. Wanted to share the guidance we got on how to moderate that forum.
<bruce_bailey> Responses to Use
<bruce_bailey> • Thank the poster for participating/contributing.
bruce: will e-mail the list.
Jeanne: I think many of these issues need at least some kind of resolution for the next draft. Don't think we can postpone them beyond the next draft. Only some of them can be in a future draft.
laura: I could help too
<Jan> Please invite Jan McSorley as well
Bronze, Silver, Gold & A, AA, and AAA
Bonus Topic - Daylight Savings
Chuck: In a few weeks, US goes to summer time. Think Michael Cooper will do something to the wiki pages. Wanted everyone to be aware that the second Sunday from now we'll spring ahead.
<Chuck> https://
Jeanne: What Michael has done is if you go to the link on the page for the meeting, on the day of the meeting, you'll get the correct time in your timezone. If you do it the week before you will not get the correct time.
… It's a bit constraint, but if you check it on the day of, or the day before you'll get the right time
Michael: I'll try to make the link more visible, and will try to make it day-sensitive as well.
Bronze, Silver, Gold & A, AA, and AAA
Jeanne: Pick up from Friday. In particular we were discussing how to handle AAA success criteria.
<jeanne> https://
<Chuck> wilco: Let's discuss what AAA was intended to be, may not be necessary.
<Chuck> wilco: My recollection is that AAA was focused on special needs.
<Chuck> wilco: I wonder if that needs to be on the same scale or if it can be side guidance.
<Chuck> jeanne: one of the issues that we looked at and we need to address is a disproportional amount regarding people with cognitive issues, their guidance ended up in AAA.
<bruce_bailey> I think AAA is mostly about requirements that are not feasible for some technology some of the time
<Chuck> jeanne: We need to figure out how to incorporate coga guidance into mainstream. I don't have a solution, just expressing the need that we need to discuss.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to disagree with Wilco's characterization of AAA
Bruce: I think AAA represents requirements that are not feasible for some technologies.
Bruce: From that perspective, having AAA things in Silver is a no-brainer. If it's not applicable, you don't use it.
Jeanne: Because we're normalising without the non-applicables, we should be able to address some of this.
… We were starting to list out how we want / or if we want to move that guidance into WCAG 3.
… On Friday we talked about the different ways the subgroups handled AAA. Document has options I came up with.
… First option was to migrate AAA into bronze, giving higher points to AAA levels / critical errors as appropriate for that guideline.
… Second option is to eliminate AAA guidance. Would not recommend.
Option 3: Migrate AAA into bronze, give higher point for AAA, but don't have critical errors. Leaning towards that personally.
… Includes the guidance in the mainstream. Wouldn't penalise organisations that haven't done them yet. People would get bonus for following AAA, but not have a penalty.
… Options 4 and 5 are where test results contribute to a silver level. Option 4 we move it to silver level.
<bruce_bailey> Here is the analysis I did on what characterizes AAA vs AA vs A:
<bruce_bailey> https://
<bruce_bailey> Never vetted by AG WG.
<bruce_bailey> Note in particular the columns for Invisible and All Content
<Rachael> Option 5: Provide separate points for AAA than for A/AA and assign Bronze, Silver, Gold based on # points (similar to #4 but different points approach)
<Lauriat> -1 to a 1-to-1 mapping to points
<JF> +1 to Option 5
Rachael: Option 5, similar to number 4, total points contribute to gold.
Chuck: Wonder if we could take AAA, have it follow our guideline approach, and with that content look at the options and see how well it fits.
Jeanne: Would recommend we take a WCAG 2 AAA that is COGA related and test it against these options, see what it looks like.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say I think it depends on the SC. Some make sense to just add to how we score test results (contrast) and others make sense to include as different tests (timeouts, etc.).
Shawn: Don't think we can have a blanket rule for how to handle AAA. SCs are AAA for different reasons.
<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to can't have a blanket rule for all AAA SCs
Shawn: Contrast and captions are different contexts. Other AAA SCs are there because they are difficult, such as timeout and target size.
… Think we should revisit that on the scale. Captions for instance, it is far easier to caption videos now than it was 10 years ago.
<johnkirkwood> very good points Shawn. many differnt reasons for AAA. Technology, burden, feasability, current tech, scalability etc.
<Rachael> Suggest thinking about AAA with "criteria that goes beyond a requirement all parties can agree on but is strongly recommended best practice"
Rachael: Fully agree with Shawn. Think instead of thinking about AAA now, I think we should think of it as strongly recommended best practices. We should also have a plan for if something moves out of best practice when it is technologically doable.
Shawn: We want to have guidance that go beyond those that the authors are responsible, and adjust the test scoring / methods over time as technology evolves.
<KimD> +1 to SL's broader approach
Jeanne: Also have AAAs that are hard to measure, as opposed to technologically hard. Need to figure out how to address those.
<jennifer_strickland> +1 bruce I thought I imagined that. :)
John: Shawn mentioned it is easier for captions. Adding captions has been easier. The real question is in the quality that may be measured and factored into the quality. Would like to see us measure contrast on a scale.
<Andy> And even for human created captions, there are those that are done "live on the fly" and those done as a post , non real time means....
John: Is it unreasonable to have AI captions that are 85% accurate, but they improve on color contrast.
<Andy> And even for human created captions, there are those that are done "live on the fly" and those done as a post , non real time means....
Jeanne: Have guidance, we want to know how it gets included. Its continuing an idea that we left of stratifying the individual guidelines.
<Chuck> wilco: Worth remembering that we can still change how the scoring is done. First draft is done, was a bit rushed. We could approach this in other ways, need not restrict ourselves.
<Chuck> wilco: to current proposed model.
<Chuck> jeanne: depends on what level you mean for "redo" scoring. Took 2 years to get here, and it's pretty good. Working out the details is expected. High level, don't want to throw that out.
<Chuck> jeanne: what level do we change?
<Chuck> wilco: We SHOULD continue to work on the scoring model. The scoring model is too far removed from how accessibility is done in practice. Adds a lot of work.
<jennifer_strickland> +1 to Wilco Fiers
<Chuck> Shawn: We want to validate (or invalidate) and verify as we get more tests.
<JustineP> +1 to Wilco's point
<jennifer_strickland> +1 to validating with more tests, and would recommend user interviews to better understand our audience, if this is something we can do.
Jake: Would like to support what Wilco said. Have my own doubts on the way we approach silver / gold. If it's feasible. The feedback backs up the idea, if we might want to change the approach more than we have now.
<jennifer_strickland> +1 to JakeAbma. Conversations I've had with lay users reveal confusion and concern. I worry it will dilute trust of WCAG.
<Rachael> https://
Jeanne: Jake, did you add your ideas to the document?
<SuzanneTaylor> https://