review timeline and outstanding items for the August heartbeat
jeanne: Notes there's an impact on all subgroups working on outcomes, so will discuss ...
jeanne: Example ACT format at above link
jeanne: Would like existing methods moved to the new format for the 4th Quarter draft slated for December
jeanne: Notes some technical issues about where on w3.org things can be published, which impinges somewhat on what's where
jeanne: Notes new Description TAB; a Background Tab; i.e. reorg of Tabs
jeanne: We're using more ACT where we can
jeanne: Notes a method specific glossary tab for terms used in that method which is nonnormative; but there's still the main glossary for the overall doc
jeanne: helps when we need more specific definitions to explain methods; provides more flexibility
jeanne: looking at whether we can use the accordian design
jeanne: balancing needs of experts and newbies
jeanne: So, new tools for groups working on guidelines ...
jeanne: ACT will be helping -- so we're not on our own to get this done right
jeanne: we now have applicability and expectations rather than expected test results in order to support more unique testing situations
<SuzanneTaylor> janina: is it okay that we are using "glossary" to label two different things
<JenniferS> +1 to Janina's point
<SuzanneTaylor> jeanne: let us know if think of a good alternative
jf: Also have glossary concern -- worried about nonnormative?
jeanne: where we can, we will use normative glossary; the only nonnormative are specific terms specific to a particular method
jf: But that's my concern, a mix of normative and nonnormative definitions itself could be concerning
jf: especially if normative and nonnormative are intermixed in a particular location
jeanne: will it matter?
<JenniferS> +1 to JF. I had a helluva time with design leads, project managers, product owners, dev leads with this type of detail difference.
jf: concerned that people will trip over that and take away the normative expectation
jeanne: certainly something to think about
<SuzanneTaylor> janina: perhaps "terms of interest in this method" might totally avoid that kind of clash
<SuzanneTaylor> janina: but should not deep dive today
jeanne: Notes we can discuss, and it's for December in any case
jf: will log a github issue
jeanne: rather likes "local terms"
jeanne: though perhaps not good "plain lang"
sarahhorton: question about this new struct; understood our CfC was on struct; but am seeing different content
sarahhorton: are we changing content to meet the new structures as well?
jeanne: Yes, broadly speaking
sarahhorton: Had not thought that impact of CfC would be change of content
sarahhorton: Had thought discussions were more superficial ...
sarahhorton: Notes ACT will be helping get it right
<JF> Glossary Terms in Methods (Normative versus Non-Normative) #545: https://
sarahhorton: So what's the plan moving forward?
jeanne: that each subgroup take time on revising into this format and republishing methods in a future draft; realize this is a big job and we will need ACT's technical help
sarahhorton: also have concerns about a11y of content
jeanne: Notes the very technical explanations are a small audience; but an important audience
jeanne: Another way to consider is our testing could be our plain lang of what we're explicating more fully
sarahhorton: Suggests we go after one by way of example and getting accustomed as a good first step
jeanne: yes, very much agree
<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to polishing one first, so that everyone is not polishing in different ways/directions
jeanne: thought we had example for decorative in github, but not seeing right now; will check
Makoto: Seeing new pieces in work I previously did but unsure where it came from; would like traceability
jeanne: Came from ACT and ACT rules for decorative images
jeanne: Notes we're working to arrange a joint meeting with ACT and Makoto's group to get coordinated
jeanne: Asks Francis ...
jeanne: Who's todo list?
Francis_Storr: in email discussion somewhere
jeanne: moving forward
jeanNotes errors back on AGWG for 17th, so needs to be ready next Thursday for WBS
sarahhorton: Ready now
sarahhorton: Michael has merged the PR; just one outstanding heading issue
sarahhorton: We'll not be doing more revision
jeanne: next Explainer Note; have actions and will return to AGWG
jeanne: Notes also User Generated revisions following this week's review
jeanne: Also will have Text Alternatives with new methods
jeanne: Asks when might be ready for AGWG?
Makoto: will take a couple more weeks
jeanne: Hmmm, may miss 3rd quarter WD, but let's still try to get it in ...
jeanne: if goes to AGWG on 24th, would probably be last chance for 3rd quarter; might that work
Makoto: will try
Makoto: we're close to the final version
jeanne: also thought that you were close
jeanne: Let's set 18th as target
jeanne: Notes also AGWG on 10th has proposal from JF that could be adopted for 4th Quarter draft -- new material presentation on the 10th
jeanne: Also Maturity, Visual Contrast, XR, several others for 4th
jeanne: notes Silver page for TPAC; it's a wiki; please annotate
jeanne: Looks at current TPAC meeting thoughts ...
jeanne: Notes Method Template Breakout aimed at groups outside AGWG that might want to write methods
jeanne: Please annotate or send me email
TPAC Inclusion fund
jeanne: Notes there's funding available to increase inclusion and participation for people who might otherwise not be able to attend
jeanne: Applications open to August 15th
WCAG3 Update presentation?
Updates to the User Generated Content proposal
<JenniferS> Janina: we went through the survey responses, made attempt to clarify & simplify our language
<JenniferS> Janina: there's an incorrect link in the first questions, #2. it will be fixed soon.
<JenniferS> Janina: hopefully this is simpler language, responded to issues that were raised, and esp on how we described text alternatives expectations.
<JenniferS> Janina: hope language is simpler, helps folks with providing better text alternatives.
<JenniferS> Janina: there was an objection to things received by mail as user-generated content.
<JenniferS> Janina: a US state govt that is required to post things received by other than online, and so we pointed to that use case to explain changes involved.
<JenniferS> Janina: hopefully this clarifies who is creating user-generated content.
<JenniferS> Janina: user-generated is not only about text alternatives, this is only one example of how it applies.
<JenniferS> Janina: there will be other method implications for the guidelines. Text alternatives is an example of the kinds of things you can expect in other guidelines.
<JenniferS> Janina: that's the overview. Should we go into more specific details? there's a list at the top of what we looked at and tried to change, that hopefully captures those changes.
<jeanne> Definition <- https://
WCAG3 Update presentation?
jeanne: First question, is this a good idea? There are quite a few people who have joined AGWG since our FPWD was published; these could use an intro to WCAG3
jeanne: Many WBS answers appear to have a loack of comprehension of what's different about WCAG3
jeanne: Suggest we can do it for our AGWG group first; then repeat as a Breakout during TPAC
<sarahhorton> Good idea!
jeanne: Probably need to do this regularly
jeanne: Reminds about open WBS all to get 3rd Quarter WD ready to publish
jeanne: Very important over the next 3 weeks to get a good WD through CfC