Meeting minutes
<Ben> Joining early to say that I am going to be late to the call today. Will be monitoring IRC though
Introductions and new topics
RM: anyone new?
… Any new topics?
… possibility of a subgroup on processes.
Mobile Taskforce needs new members
RM: Mobile Taskforce needs more members.
… coordinating with silver to live SCs
<Chuck> Michael Cooper, can you turn on transcripts?
CSUN meeting (survey, 5 minutes) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/csun_2022/results
Rm: CSUN survey.
… in person in march.
… Do we want to meet?
… reads results of survey.
<JF> +1 to chuck
Chuck: level of uncertainty regarding covid.
<kirkwood> +1
<KimD> +1
<KimD> (I would only attend virtually)
<Nicaise> +1
<sajkaj> +1 to December re-eval
chuck and Jean: reevaluate in December
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: probably no, reevaluate in December
<Chuck> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<jaunita_george> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Nicaise> +1
Laura: +1
<MarcJohlic> +1
<sajkaj> +1
<Alistair_Garrison> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<KimD> +1
<alastairc> +1
<Azlan> +1
<JF> +1
Resolution: probably no, reevaluate in December
Alternative scoring approach (30 minutes) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAQSPv1bGuUAlhO41rPkkfrlijF2uzmF/view?usp=sharing
Rm: John has a presentation on an alternative method.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask permission to record this presentation
Rm: this will set the stage.
… would like to record the session. Any objections?
… (none)
<AWK> +AWK
Jf: a lot of material here.
<Rachael> Please keep to clarifying questions only today.
Jf: it is a model. To test assumptions.
… is it a teaching resource or a way to measure?
… cheery picked comments from comments.
… unambiguous mechanism.
… needs to expand the scope beyond web to include apps, documents, authoring, user agents, wearables, kiosks, IoT, VR, etc. and be inclusive of more disabilities.
… Proposal: Base scoring on Functional Categories
… we have 14 categories.
… Adopting the 14 Functional Categories
… don't want to leave anyone behind.
… uses SCs.
… uses weighted approach
… uses ATAG and UAAG
… Focusing on User Needs this way also makes adding UAAG and ATAG requirements easier to integrate into WCAG 3
… uses unit tests from ACT.
… proposal open for discussion.
… example Section Headers: not all platforms support hierarchy levels – is that evaluated as a separate test that only gets called-for in specific profiles(*)?
… first part of proposal relies on ACT tests.
… Return to Principles.
… Continuing to include the 4 Principles of WCAG 2.x.
… ensures a level of equity based on user needs, not the number of requirements and tests created by User Categories
… wants to remove subjectivity
… By focusing on User Needs and Functional Categories, subsequently ‘normalized’ by the 4 WCAG Principles, I propose a scoring framework that seeks to be equitable for all users.
… Treat each Principle as an equal part of a total conformance
… (gives examples)
… accrue points and get a percent.
… The proposal sees each Principle worth 20% of the Total Score, regardless of how many tests are performed per Principle.
… Different content types will have different Profiles, based upon which tests are applicable to the content being evaluated
… don't want to leave anyone behind.
… comments around Measuring the Unmeasurable.
… measuring usability is unmeasurable.
… protocols and assertions.
… Loosely based on the ISO 9000 Family of Quality Management concept.
… they are protocols.
2 examples.
… COGA's doc and plain language.
… based on outcomes. Both are subject.
… measure plain language is very difficult. Same with COGA's doc.
… need a system for rewards.
… The FINAL 20% of any score is derived by adopting Protocols
… we can work with the numbers.
… “Common Protocols" and “Custom Protocols”
… The proposal sees two types of Protocols, based upon ‘authority’ and WCAG vetting.
<sajkaj> Where I live there's an auto dealer who advertises on local TV/Radio that they're ISO9001 conformant
“Common Protocols” have more value, and contribute more to the final score.
… “Custom Protocols” can be integrated into a scoring scheme as required, with the provision that the protocol itself is publicly accessible (public accountability).
… Since the W3C would have no control or influence over Custom Protocols, they deliver less value to the final score.
… could retire external protocols.
… Moodle has there own protocol.
… Custom Protocols MUST be publicly posted and available for review.
… want to use EARL.
… EARL = Evaluation and Reporting Language
… EARL provides the technical means of achieving that public accountability.
… EARL can also be used to define and declare which views are in scope for any report created, adding additional accountability and transparency.
… not measuring user flows.
… focus on individual views.
… This proposal no longer requires counting instances of failures, and rather returns to pass/fail reporting at the view level.
… Each view is instead evaluated separately, and ‘view scores’ are only added together at the end of the evaluation process.
… Simplifies the math.
… can't measure usability.
… have to take it on faith.
… proposed scoring mechanism returns the focus to conforming to measurable requirements and does not attempt to measure or evaluate usability as a conformance metric.
… usability concern is instead addressed via the Protocols reporting.
… (Gives examples)
… proposal suggests: Bronze = no less than 70%, Silver = no less than 80%, and Gold = no less than 90%,
… questions?
<Fazio> thank you JF
<Fazio> I like that content usable has more points
<Fazio> it is more important
<Jaunita_George> It would be neat if we could offer a tool that automatically adds scores as folks complete testing and comes up with a final score
<Jaunita_George> +1 to JF
<Jaunita_George> Great proposal
GN: how do the protocols and principles connect?
… don't want to leave anyone behind.
… have to capture the majority of users.
… need a wholistic approach.
… maybe they numbers are wrong. Need to discuss.
… we have e currencies.
… Reward folks for protocols.
… demonstration of intent. Want to see that folks are trying.
<Fazio> I think I like it
<alastairc> Close enough. You have to follow through as well.
GN: numbers can be adjusted.
… we have unit tests. Some applicable to some types of content but not others.
… example XR .
… functional categories... certain things are more important than others.
… numbers based on unit tests.
… not applicable to all categories.
… (Gives example)
<Jaunita_George> Question: Should Robust be weighted the same?
<Fazio> kinda makes sense
<Fazio> very interesting proposal
<Fazio> I like the holistic approach
Wilco: Like the direction. Could save a lot of problems. Why additive scoring?
… could have tradeoffs.
Jf: could fine tune.
<Rachael> We will dig into the tradoff of additive versus other options in a future meeting
Jf: get rewarded for doing the right thing.
… matter of perception.
… gives more of a positive spin.
Ja: How do you handle critical failures?
… if critical failure is across all views. It would fail.
<sarahhorton> +1 to Jon Avila, concerned that severity is not part of proposal
Ja: don't want to make it too complex.
<jon_avila> we've ran numbers on something similar and everything scored pretty high and fails got drowned out.
Ja: could do som thing with weighting.
<Fazio> I like scoring the principles bc it's almost like scoring disability categories
Ja: critical failures are rare. They spill into usability as well.
DM: counting passes or failures?
Jf: passes.
<alastairc> So would not having a video meet the requirement for having captions? Does that depend on the guideline wording?
Jf: evaluating 20 pages.
Dm: have to document each pass?
Jf: miss one alt text you fail.
dm: want to explore this more.
Scribe change?
<Rachael> yup
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
Gundala: does this proposal have A, AA, AAA
JF: No its based on unit tests.
<GN015> sorry, I have to drop for another meeting
<Chuck> Thank you John for your hard work!
<Fazio> good work JF
JF: Some would like equal scores, I say weighted ...
<Alistair_Garrison> I also have to drop - meeting conflict.
JF: in closing ... some said links has formatting off, should be able to download it, send me a line and I can send you deck.
<JF> want a copy of the deck? em,ail john@foliot.ca
User Generated Content (survey, 20 minutes) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/user-generated-/results
Rachel: I'll start with question #2
User Generated Content (a new subsection of conformance)
<Rachael> https://
Can we move User Generated content to section 3
Laura: (from survey) pasted
<Rachael> proposed change: all of the following must be indicated alongside the User Generated Content or in an Accessibility Statement published on the site or product":
<Rachael> And add a link to the accessibility statement
<Rachael> david-macdonald: If its a should, they won't do it. It would need to be a Must
<Chuck> Rachael, do you want me to scribe for DM so you can focus on running call? Happy to do so.
Janina: No objection to "MUST" a little concerned if situation where content is pointing out ... want to insure too much repetition, but agree it should be easy to find.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the amended User Generated Content section to CFC for addition in the next update of WCAG 3.
Janina: don't want too many links to the same statement. (for every comnent.
<jon_avila> Seems like a link on the page in a consistent location. I would not want it in every single post.
<jon_avila> yes
Janina: don;t want it if there are 2 or 3 per page. We could recommend it in the footer
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the amended User Generated Content section to CFC for addition in the next update of WCAG 3.
Alastair: +1 Janina, should be on the page but not too prescriptive about where it goes...
<jeanne> If accessibility issues are identified, or if the website author wants to proactively address potential accessibility issues that might arise from User Generated Content, then all of the following must be indicated alongside the User Generated Content or in an Accessibility Statement published on the site or product that is linked from the view or page:
<jeanne> If accessibility issues are identified, or if the website author wants to proactively address potential accessibility issues that might arise from User Generated Content, then all of the following must be indicated alongside the User Generated Content or in an Accessibility Statement published on the site or product that is linked from the view or page in a consistent location:
<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Move the amended User Generated Content section (change should to must and add a requirement to provide the accessibility statement in a consistent location ) to CFC for addition in the next update of WCAG 3.
<Chuck> +1
<JF> "...in an Accessibility Statement published on the site..." (EARL to the rescue?)
<jeanne> +1
<sajkaj> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<JF> +1
<Ben> +1
<Azlan> +1
<Nicaise> +1
<laura> +1
<OliverK> +1
<mbgower> +1
+0
<Detlev> +1
Glossary Definition of User Generated Content
Resolution: Move the amended User Generated Content section to CFC for addition in the next update of WCAG 3.
LAURA: I think we need to ensure the employees are NOT excluded.
<Rachael> current text: Use of the same user interface as an authoring tool for publication of content by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) acting on behalf of the publisher does not make that content User Generated Content.
PLIVER: would like to clean up the current text
RAIN: Can live with but we think that site owners could be "users" by creating WIX etc. platforms.
<alastairc> Suggested revision: If agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) happen to use the same interface for publishing content, that does not make that content User Generated Content.
<Rachael> proposed addition: "The publisher in this definition is the owner of the website providing content, not the owner of a paid platform used for website creation and hosting."
<mbgower> Content created by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) is not considered User Generated Content, even if using the same interface for publishing content.
Janina: we need at some point define all the roles ... there may be those providing content... more definitions and consistent use of terms, we are a little loose about author , publisher, platform, and legal... in US ...
<mbgower> ...even if the same interface is used for publishing the content.
<kirkwood> +1 to Janina
<Chuck> dm: Usually we go to the public when we have a fair amount of uniformity and agreement. We don't generally go public with things before that.
<Chuck> dm: This is such an important issue, we are very concerned about people falling through the cracks. Even in courts "earlier drafts said this..."
<Chuck> dm: I think it's better if we get it fairly right and then go public.
<Chuck> back to you dm
<mbgower> Content created by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) is not considered User Generated Content, even if the agents use same interface to publish. .
<alastairc> +1 to Michael's last updated text, do you agree @OliverK ?
<mbgower> Okay, Rachael, how about: Content created by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) is not considered User Generated Content, even if the agents use the same interface to publish.
Jeanne: I would like to see public comment. We don't want a waterfall... I would like iterative (sort of AGILE) ... want to get idea out and we will get back use cases.
<Chuck> +1 mbgower's wording
<laura> +1 mbgower's wording
<jeanne> +1 Chuck
Chuck: Csn we include a note; future versions will create comprehensive definitions of roles
Proposal 1: fix last sentence
<Rachael> Proposed new wording: Content created by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) is not considered User Generated Content, even if the agents use the same interface to publish.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we can include new wording AND include a note
Chuck: would like note AND changes
<Chuck> +1 to new wording
<laura> +1
<jeanne> +1 to mgower wording
<Ben> +1
<Azlan> +1
<OliverK> +1
<mbgower> +1 my writing degree pays off once more :)
0
<Rachael> Proposed addition: "The publisher in this definition is the owner of the website providing content, not the owner of a paid platform used for website creation and hosting."
<Jaunita_George> +1
<alastairc> +1
<Detlev> +1
+1
<Rachael> +1
<jeanne> +1
<JF> +1
<OliverK> +1
<Azlan> +1
<laura> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Chuck> dm: maybe state 'website creation tool'
<Rachael> proposed ammendment: The publisher in this definition is the owner of the website providing content, not the owner of a paid platform used for website creation.
Resolution: Accept: The publisher in this definition is the owner of the website providing content, not the owner of a paid platform used for website creation.
<Rachael> proposed editor's note: "Future work on the glossary will better define terms such as publisher, content author, etc."
Janina: Hapoy to have this accepted. We have extra text to address editor's note: including the content as a whole, more rigorous about the tem=rms makes sense to me.
<OliverK> +1
<sajkaj> +1
<Azlan> +1
<jeanne> +1
+1
<laura> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept sending amended glossary definition with editors note to CFC for inclusion in the next version of WCAG 3
<Ben> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Chuck> +1
<sajkaj> +1
<OliverK> +1
<jeanne> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<laura> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Azlan> +1
+1
<Detlev> +1
Resolution: Accept sending amended glossary definition with editors note to CFC for inclusion in the next version of WCAG 3
New example of an outcome: Text alternative for user generated content
Jeanne: We have 3 levels for content in WCAG 3: COntent: high level plain language, 2 outcomes: testable statements: 3 Methods technical what to do:
This is a oroposal to provide an outcome for User Generated content: would get public feedback.
That we shpuld not have specific normative language for authoring tools. This could be a way to see... there is an ATAG method... but its a spcific a=example of what we could do.
Sarah: concerned not being able to see it in context in the editors draft. Structure, what's being called an outcome seems to be a method for achieving the outcome that text alternatives are available.
It was hard to image that this as an outcome would end up in a draft. There is one one method associated with the proposed outcome, so I got taggled understanding how this as an outcome fits framewoord=k for WCAG 3, important because outcomes are normative methods are not.
Janina: that is the nub of problem. It depends on the platform, try to get a usable text alternative from the user. can user just use alt="dijcneieh" filler... how do we encourage a good results.
<JF> +1 to janina
Some users will bypass it., this is another reason for AI being pulled... but its early days for that
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention reviewable views
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about non-HTML products
Michael: review is difficult (format hard to understand) building airplane while its flying.,, will move to CMS soon which will help
Jeanne: Part of athe reason for outv=come vs method, because methods are tech specific.
Didn't want platforms that don't use HTML to bypass. In the outcome, we can reauire it without a specific technology.
it changes outcome d]template but we'll be changing that anyway.
Oliver: editorial change
Gundalina was editorial also.
Laura: Sarah articulated my concerns
<Rachael> option 1: move it forward with an editorial note option 2: not move it forward option 3: move it forward after another round of updates
<sajkaj> option 1
<OliverK> 1
<Detlev> 1
<Ben> 1
<Jaunita_George> 1
<Chuck> option 3, ok with option 1
<Azlan> 1
<jeanne> 1
<sarahhorton> 2 I think it needs more work
<laura> 2
<Wilco> 2
<Regina> 1
<mbgower> are 2 and 3 exclusive?
0 should we define and decide whether we are doing waterfall or iteratve relases
<mbgower> k, thanks
Wilco: vastly different from existing Outcomes. Needs more work to fit in. will create more confusion than attract good feedback
David: There was an important concept about waterfall.
<Chuck> dm: There's an important concept Jeanne spoke about regarding "waterfall", vs putting it out there when it's a bit of a mess and get public feedback.
David: It requires an intentional discussion because it is an intentional philosophy
<Wilco> +1
David: We should have a robust discussion and see what the groups thinks.
<Chuck> dm: It's a very different philosophy, might be good, but I don't know. I think there are a number of issues and we need a robust discussion and make an intentional decision about our method of work.
<david-macdonald> That's ok I'll take it back
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I even spoke about it in the lightning presentation
<david-macdonald> Rachel: we need to have this discussion
<david-macdonald> Chuck: need to discuss waterfall vs iterative
Editor’s Note about Approach (discussion, 20 minutes)
<Rachael> https://
<Chuck> it is iterative, but in my lightning preso I did use 'Agile'
<Chuck> dm: If we go out to public before we have uniformity, I think it's not waterfall. That's a mischaracterization. When you think about a web dev environment, you are putting out your site piece by piece.
<Rachael> +1 to your distinction
<Chuck> dm: There's general agreement that it needs to be baked before it gets put out, and not "let's see what the public says".
<Chuck> dm: I'd like to see more agreement, kind of based on the culture, how WCAG group and Silver group have worked. I'd like to see us meld a bit more before we go out with stuff. Worth the effort.
<Chuck> dm: Especially if WCAG team isn't understanding the 'heart'. And may take us some time to see the benefits.
RACHEL: Agree with distinction... perhaps leverage notes, to help audience know we don't have consensus on something.
<Wilco> +1
WILCO: I'm reluctant to go public without general agreement. many peopke looking at these documents. Not clear what we think is good to go, whcih things are solid
<jeanne> contribute
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I have also received a lot of feedback from people who appreciate being able to give feedback and
<Chuck> to be continued...
Jeanne: I've received feedback that they like being able to look over our shoulders.