Meeting minutes
<ToddLibby> I'm only irc today due to another meeting going on right now
Scribe Francis_Storr
aligning with ACT
JS: ACT is the AGWG subgroup working on accessibility conformance testing. There was a recent conversation on how we can align more closely with them.
JS: they're interested in picking a couple of guidelines and working with a subgroup to go through "the whole thing" to work out how WCAG 3 is set up and for the WCAG "side" to get more info on testing.
<Lauriat> Awesome, all of that sounds great!
JS: they want to invite us to a meeting about this.
JS: are there any subgroups who are interested in this?
<JF> +1 to Janina
<JF> me too!
<Chuck> +1 interested in attending
<ChrisLoiselle> What was the meeting time? +1
<Chuck> 9am ET
<Chuck> Thu
SH: this is good timing as the Errors group is looking for tests at the moment and are looking at Techniques, rules, etc.
SH: Dean from Errors group is working on rules at the moment.
<ChrisLoiselle> Please forward me the invite, I'd like to attend.
JS: will also put out announcement on Tuesday to catch more people's awareness.
CL: this aligns quite well with visual contrast, is interested.
CA: very interested in how ACT would work with structured content, e.g. how many headings are there vs. should there be on a page?
CA: a difference in the amount of headings there should be on a page can make a big difference in the score.
<Lauriat> +1, and I think ACT can help us navigate things like that.
CA: I'm interested in numerous other examples, but structured content is the first one that springs to mind.
JS: going to reach out to new leaders of some subgroups to gauge interest.
<jennifer_strickland> I'm here on the call, if that's helpful.
<JF> https://
JF: Not sure if the ACT rules format can address the concern Chuck rose about number of headings on a page. Takes complex subjects and tries to take it down to a series of true/false questions.
<Chuck> Thanks John!
JST: happy to participate if have the availability.
updates from people working on comments
ST: volunteered to work on comments on the requirements section. Started a Google Doc, will send link around. If anyone wants to help, that would be great.
RB: volunteered to work on the usability of the documents, but haven't started yet as waiting to get some direction on where to start, but should I just dive in?
JS: can meet next week to talk this through.
JS: Michael Cooper suggested starting with the table of contents and create recommendations on what should happen.
<jeanne> Folder for processing comments Google docs <- https://
<RickBoardman> @jeanne - I do not have write access to create a doc in the shared folder
JS: is there anyone else working on responding to a comment?
<Rachael> I plan on doing so but not until late next week
<jeanne> https://
JS: has updated the weekly Issue Processing Report.
JS: added a new line to add a breakdown by document section by GitHub issues.
JS: if people think that individual searches per section would be useful, would be happy to set that up.
JS: earlier today, met with AGWG chairs on how to speed this up.
<jeanne> https://
JS: Alistair recommended the project feature in GitHub to manage the breakdown of topics.
JS: did an experiment in scoring.
JS: will continue to experiment with this and keep us updated.
JS: are there any subgroup issues that are ready to go to survey yet?
CL: working with contrast team on issues, waiting on a reply to an email earlier this week. Will continue to work on that this week.
MC: if you don't have access, send your details to him (Michael Cooper).
<CharlesHall> thanks
SH: for the Errors group, there's one issue. Todd has taken on monitoring issues and will contact Jeanne with some questions.
resume work on AAA and bronze silver gold
JS: let Jeanne know feedback on accessing and keeping up to date with issues.
<jeanne> https://
JS: working on a document for handling options on how to manage AAA criteria.
JS: started looking at the AAA issue as a small piece of the bronze, silver, gold discussion.
JS: for those who haven't seen this before, option 6 is new and edited based on Gregg Vanderheiden’s Response to the FPWD
ST: talks about equivalent facilitation, Section 508, including a new Disney/Pixar technology around a separate app for audio description.
JF: are we saying the only way to get gold is to do something in Silver as well?
ST: I would say so—you'll need to do usability testing, which is currently part of Silver. It would be unlikely to achieve Gold without usability testing.
ST: option 9 is trying to get towards a level of defensibility.
JS: has opened up comments on the folder of documents, so anyone should be able to comment on it. If you seen spam comments, let Jeanne know.
<Lauriat> +1, that seems like a huge benefit for the web platform overall
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask how so?
JSA: working on a specification on how to address and mark up pronunciation. FPWD is likely weeks away.
SL: interested in looking at that specification.
<JF> Pronunciation TF: https://
SL: Chrome now has auto captioning for audio sources. Should have launched yesterday.
<Lauriat> Thanks, JF!
JS: any pros, cons, issues that people want to add to option 6?
CA: early adoption of technologies is something I encourage but also see that it could create its own set of challenges.
JF: the idea with option 7 is that in the world of compliance, legal, is that it's a mashup of A, AA, AAA.
JF: rather than trying to perpetuate A, AA, AAA we know that there are some AAA requirements that could be AA.
JF: the idea with Option 7 is to look at different content types.
JF: there is no process with web-based apps as they don't have content.
JF: Option 7 is an enticement to businesses as the more they do and the more points they get.
JS: are there any other pro / cons comments?
<JF> +1 Suzanne!~
ST: a pro would be that it's more applicable for games.
JS: have a good weekend :)