ShawnL: Talks to joint session targeting and outreach.
ShawnL: Have we done any outreach to immersive captions or any other groups?
Jeanne: I know COGA would like to talk to us, clear words group is working with COGA. Not sure if other things are needed to discuss with COGA. Anyone else?
ShawnL: I think it would be a good point to reach out to COGA to see where they are and talk to points they want to cover.
ShawnL: Action item to follow up with Rain on COGA topics.
Jeanne: Epub , APA is meeting with Epub and invites us to attend.
ShawnL: I know they have the Epub guidelines, not sure if they plan on rolling that entirely in.
Janina: I don't think it is too early to cover these type of subjects or topics.
Janina: I think it may be useful and talk to how much time we spend on topic. There are a lot of registries, published in various places. W3 is not contemplating being a registry ...
… Talks to pronunciation, etc.
Jeanne: This sounds specific
Janina: Yes, it is . Silver perhaps is interested in registries portion but perhaps not pronunciation
Jeanne: Who are the contacts?
Janina: Charles and DeVonish. If you wanted to write them and Cc me that would be great.. Deadline is late September . Benefit is to lock up early to get timeframes set.
Jeanne: I will let him know .
Janina: If they prefer, we can meet in a longer meeting if makes sense to APA, Epub , etc.
Janina: EO and glossary WAI topic is also a topic of discussion.
Jeanne: I put it on agenda for EO
Jeanne: We have three topics for APA, component libraries, third party and protocols.
Janina: APA is expected to meet with Silver during TPAC during the two weeks, just not currently in the planning page.
Jeanne: Is Suzanne on call? Topic related to immersive captions ...
Jeanne: The XR group was working toward that but they aren't active .
Janina: Is JoshO on call? We just publisehed.
ShawnL: I think we should email them as they aren't on call.
Jeanne: Do we have anything on internationalization ?
Janina: We are hoping to resolve before TPAC. It relates to personalization to a degree
Jeanne: On browser testing rules, I think we should have a discussion with them.
Jeanne: Is Wilco on call?
Jeanne: Follow up with Wilco will be needed on browser testing.
Jeanne: On breakout sessions, method template, on writing for wcag 3, one is an intro to wcag 3 and latest updates and a maturity model introduction is also a topic .
Jeanne: Talks to bottom of page wiki page on reference points for TPAC, etc.
Approach to Publishing WCAG 3 survey
ShawnL: Talks to survey on approach and process. We have conversation with chairs with what question 1 on survey outlines.
Question 1 was around issues and proposed solutions
So instead of quarterly public working drafts, we would do the work within editor's drafts
ShawnL: We want to hear your feedback , i.e. agree or agree with feedback, or you can disagree , etc.
Second question is other issues unaccounted for
Janina: The survey pretty well describes the difficulties we are coming across.
The changes are massive. I'm not sure the solution is good as is. It is trying to redefine the role of an editor's draft and how it currently functions. I think updating editor's drafts is a very good idea. Understanding working drafts are drafts
We need to find a way to have those be acceptable on a more regular basis for working drafts. Going to a new definition of what an editor's draft is would add more trouble than it solves across W3C
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that there is a difference between an Editor Draft and a Heartbeat publication
<jeanne> I want to note that Editor's Drafts can be published everyday
JF: there is a difference between an editor's draft and heartbeat publication. Editor's draft could be updated daily, if applicable. Heartbeat is more hardened. Editor's are most current. When we had a different publishing system, they may have been more beneficial.
<jeanne> Do not edit my comment, JF. I meant what I said.
Chuck: Conversation is on the next AGWG call, I think each person could add tweaks that we could add to or remove from the topic in general. It is not that these were introduced recently , but they came to forefront last week.
Jeanne: I disagree with JF. I think the W3C has made it easier to publish working drafts . We have the ability to publish a working draft. W3C has encouraged through their own tools to publish more often.
AIRA in HTML has been publishing 4 to 6 a month. API , published 28 times. A lot of groups publish very often.
Jeanne: AC, Advisory Boards , all want more frequent publications. We can look at updating editors drafts but also do it with publications , doesn't have to be once a year. Not direction of modern W3C
Jeanne: I don't think we should stop frequent publishing.
Janina: I searched for the term in process and don't see Heartbeat. There is a role for updated working drafts . They may or may not be on a heartbeat cadence.
Janina: We should also explore consensus and not unanimous agreement.
<JF> Respectfully: Revising a Working Draft A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group. If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification, a Working Group should publish a revised Working Draft, whose status section should indicate reasons for the lack of change. (source: htt[CUT]
What is behind it all, is what we want a working draft to show.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Janina to share link to that process doc.
<JF> source: https://
Chuck: can you point to the process document?
Jeanne: reads AWK's section 6.26 section.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to reframe this discussion to help folks in this group understand the space so we can have this conversation on Tuesday
ShawnL: Can we timebox rest of conversation for 10 minutes as AGWG is talking to this on Tuesday.
Is there anyone on call that has questions on what the problem is that we are trying to solve?
ShawnL: Any item preventing anyone from responding to survey?
Rachael: It indicates we are trying to work through the process and that an editor's note is not able to handle the issue in entirety.
<Lauriat> Bringing the survey link back, please fill it out for Tuesday's discussion! https://
Alt Text update
ShawnL: Two hour discussion with AGWG on Tuesday will review this very topic.
<Makoto> Images - WAI Tutorial https://
Makota: On alt text update , we are done with phase 1 . For the 4 types of images, we had methods in first public working draft. We reviewed WCAG 2.1 documents and added examples.
<Makoto> We updated these 4 methods https://
We now have updated version of methods (pastes link).
We are done with the methods.
<Makoto> Alt Text Subgroup - Silver Wiki https://
We've also built techniques for these . We used Google docs for our work. I think Jeanne is working on providing these in HTML5 templates. I will update our subgroups wiki with these documents.
In phase 2, we will add more examples and add, edit and modify to the future version of the working draft.
<Makoto> An Alt Decision Tree https://
The alt text guideline has seven methods on different types of images. It is not straightforward as to how to determine of which types of images . We used alt decision tree as a gateway of seven methods it would be helpful to use this , I'm not sure how to incorporate this into guideline structure of wcag 3
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss scheduling when Makoto is finished.
Jeanne: I want to apologize that we aren't able to discuss alt text changes on Tuesday of next week.
Jeanne: it is still possible to get this into the next publication.
I think the decision tree is a great idea.
On redesign of outcomes , that is a great reference to work from.
As currently constructed, it could be in outcomes as it stands right now.
ShawnL: Also helps with ACT relationships
Jeanne: Issues topic - JF talked to the fact that issues that we are closing should tie to updates to wcag 3 .
Jeanne: if you could email me with closed issues, that would be helpful. Also, I am asking for helpful on management of issues within Silver. Open to help on managing it within Github.
JF: What would task be exactly?
Jeanne: Identify issues that are ready to close . Responses are ready to show to working group and associate it with editors draft. Making a follow up note to understand there is a change that is ready to be looked at.
Janina: On conformance, I will help with those items. Will point to user generated and outcomes , etc.
Jeanne: I.e. Yes, this is addressing this this issue , see comment number for detail and include it in draft possibly.
JF: I believe what we could through outstanding issues and then streamline them into buckets.
Jeanne: That is done already in a variety of ways.
JF: I don't want to leave this to one person. I think it is a useful . Can we talk to it offline ? I can help facilitate on specific tasks.
Jeanne: Yes, I will review concrete tasks and will follow up.
Jennifer S: I can help as well within GitHub in any way. I need a checklist of do this vs. non concrete action items.
Jeanne: I'll follow up.
rrsagent , make minutes
Action: notes JF and JenniferS volunteered to help once I have a list of concrete tasks