Meeting minutes
Scribe list - sign up for a spot today!
<Lauriat> https://
Scribe list - sign up for a spot today!
ShawnL: We have created a scribe list , please sign up for spots when available.
<jeanne> ack
Chuck: The scribe list is something that AGWG does use and helps meetings.
Jeanne: If there are people that can't scribe, you can add your name to the exempt list.
ShawnL: Any questions?
Review of the Tuesday AG WG discussion, plans for drafts & managing work from here
ShawnL: We wanted to review AGWG discussion, plans for drafts and managing work.
… We ended up with agreement to publish a upcoming draft. It will have corrections and minor adjustments.
<jenniferS_> Can hear you very well.
<jenniferS_> JF is super loud.
ShawnL: the publication would not have a lot of new content. We agreed to a milestone based draft as opposed to time based draft. We aim to publish around a conformance model update.
… the other thing is that we can publish editors draft. We can reach out to stakeholders to ask for feedback that relates to them. For example, conformance model , maintainability, regulatory environment, content, etc.
… focus of milestone is on conformance model, but we don't have to stop all other work.
… one thing came up for a request for kind of a broad draft.
<Chuck_> 1. Publish the current work (new guideline plus user generated comment, and explainer and note) in September
Chuck: Pastes in resolution from AGWG
Chuck: includes new content.
ShawnL: thanks for clarifying that.
Chuck: Question is who is doing this work for step 1?
Jeanne: We have 5 separate areas and we are moving them into GitHub as approved, Michael C. will put it to main branch and separate publication branch. I am the tracker of current work and where it is going (into GitHub) etc.
Jeanne: Talks to Error prevention, etc. moving to GitHub. Most is ready to go into GitHub.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about point 1
ShawnL: Any questions on how we will manage work?
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about point 2
Chuck: On step 2, it will be more milestone based, however there will be a time based factor that talks to ACs rules every 6 months. Time is also a factor that we have to address.
ShawnL: Yes. Our work will move forward. It is the communication to AGWG vs. working in a silo.
JF: ShawnL: Our work vs. the working group distinction ?
ShawnL: Working Group of WCAG 2.2 vs. WCAG 3.0 , thanks for raising the issue.
… talks to calls for consensus around milestones.
JF: There was a survey question around merging the two groups . We are a subset of the larger working group.
JF: The AGWG should see the call for consensus.
ShawnL: It was meant as around the different work streams.
Chuck: The next agenda , is to address the results of survey. This was around merging of two groups.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say there is a survey in next call to make a big "we"
<Chuck_> +1 to that
JF: We make a decision sometimes in Silver and then talk to same issue in AGWG . The sooner we can merge the better.
ShawnL: Plus one to that.
<jeanne> +1 to merging the groups
Janina: WCAG 2.2 finishing up is key to allow for merge efforts.
Jeanne: For all groups working on content for next draft, we have not forgotten your work. We are working on how that will be included in next draft. Thanks for your efforts!
WCAG 2.x content migration placeholder guidelines proposal
<Lauriat> https://
ShawnL: Talks to WCAG 2.x migration. A bigger picture view of WCAG 3 and guidance would be helpful. We want to revisit the migration process. And talk to new first step. New first step is to looking at this migration outline.
Go through the different SCs and add in new ones in WCAG 2.2 and go through each group and write a placeholder guideline to include in editor's draft.
We need to distinguish this within the editor's draft as placeholder text.
Going through process , writing that and basing it on user needs and writing outcomes. Continuously building it up.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about integrating Functional Needs work
Jeanne: One the original migration work, we didn't have the functional needs work in place, so the toolbox is expanded . I am excited to look at this in depth.
Are there functional needs that people are interested in that would like to work on this?
ShawnL: Talks to SC of orientation and reflow , we can take that overall intention and take it into a written guideline
We can do the work quickly, its not going in to the edge cases but giving scope as to what we can cover in WCAG 3
Jeanne: I am thinking about how this can be included in WCAG 3 , perhaps we can include all this and include functional needs. We can sketch out the how tos and where we put the functional needs and the user needs.
I think it is worth going through once we have that top level placeholder guidelines.
Jeanne: We can want to make sure it is a migration of WCAG 2.2 and make it clear.
The SC is supposed to be a tag when we move to the database.
<sarahhorton> https://
SarahH: Pastes in Error group guidelines writing document to IRC
Template for Content Creation Process for Migrating WCAG SC (component-based) is name of doc
guidelines came in later in process
I'm wondering how this approach differs. I thought we were not approaching as migration but rather a new way of doing things, design mapped to functional needs.
SarahH: After user needs were defined, we wrote the guideline and look at tests previously written (WCAG 2) helped based of pre-defined tests that were already in place. How is the new step going to work with the other steps?
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer Sarah
Jeanne: I don't want to lose the process. You did a great job of how the process works. Overall problem space and defining user needs is a great approach.
Jeanne: I think we are giving an overview of AGWG and public that this is our plan. The guidelines that we are putting in as placeholders is a topic , not the specifics. If we kept it topic based toward user needs, I don't think we'd lose the process we developed.
I don't want to say this is what you will do, vs. it is filling in the topic with content per our development process.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to build on Jeanne's point with an example.
ShawnL: I also think similarly to what Jeanne said. The second group that comes to mind is the audio only and video only , etc. These do have the user needs defined. Grouped together with similar user needs , SCs were grouped with multiple groups . Talks to limited vision, limited hearing, etc.
ShawnL: challenge is around drafted guideline vs. actual outline , we need to go through process that Sarah talked to to arrive at actually guideline for WCAG 3. Talks to topics , which may be replaced , it is a work in progress.
SarahH: I was wondering if part of issue is around the work you did on the content creation process. The process was worked on prior to me using it. User first approach vs. migration first approach has been shared with AGWG and public . Part of issue is that WCAG 3 is that we are speaking to AGWG that it is a migration where somethings are brand new. Perhaps where the differences are and intention may help.
<JF> +1 to Sarah. For example, I continue to struggle with "Clear Words" in our current draft
<SuzanneTaylor> +1
ShawnL: I hope that we can continue to work on this from a top level approach. I.e. this is how it is different and these are the type of guidelines. I think going through exercise is important to share.
<sajkaj> https://
Janina: Media and SC around 2.x would be a good area to showcase differences. Talks to conformance subgroup conversations. Also talks to user generated media. Talks to Synchronization Accessibility User Requirements and places link
There is a lot of research that was presented in it. Talks to video and audio understanding.
Janina: I would think WCAG 3 would want to pick up work here too. Also raises Time Text group work as well.
Jeanne: I think we need to provide AGWG with this again.
ShawnL: I think we've shaped guidance and guidelines and we can share horizontal breadth of what it is and how to meet it.
JF: I think you raised a good point, it was approved as theory. We need to evaluate if the process is achieving what we want. On clear words, I'm not seeing the real need . The proposed solution may not work in practice.
ShawnL: I don't think it is negative at all, I think it is positive and we need to revisit how we are doing things .
Jeanne: The group that is working on clear words is working with COGA and rethinking the whole thing , so expect changes. They could also use more help with testing experience.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about clear words
JF: To that point, in the heartbeat publication, will be updating that in the publication?
Jeanne: It was the plan, but consuming results of meeting on Tuesday. TBD.
<Zakim> sarahhorton, you wanted to suggest creating an outline of guidelines, outlines, and methods as "framework"
SarahH: I think a framework based off of the spreadsheet may be beneficial. May give the big picture vs. going into tab panels within website. Outline and overview could benefit the structure of framework.
Jeanne: That may be good to be put into explainer.
Janina: Plus 1
ShawnL: Any other comments on approach?
… we hope to keep this high level work minimal with work geared toward actual work to do.
… We'd love to get some things sketched out over the next week. Making suggestions directly in document or write to us directly.
Jeanne: Sounds like a great plan.
<Chuck_> +1 to plan