Meeting minutes
<jeanne> scribe list
Jeanne: please sign up to scribe if you can
… we will set up rotating list
<JenniferS> That's awesome! Thank you, Jeanne!
Jeanne: put your name in exempt list or email jeanne
jeanne: adjusting agenda to add error work
resuming work on Errors
<jeanne> Schedule
Jeanne: Sarah asks if we can take up work on errors, pls see schedule
… also available from wiki page
… we do not have content migration scheduled until Q3 2022
<sarahhorton> https://
Jeanne: so it comes down to group members to think about what you would like to see first out of the gate
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to my personal perspective
Jeanne: many items are planned to be marked as "exploratory"
Rachael: Not as chair, but we need a few groups to pick up the work to see how it all goes
… do not do a ton of content because, while critical, it will be iterative and a learning process
… embrace process of change
<Rachael> and that was my personal perspective (no chair hat)
Rachael: critical, but labor intensive and may be painful or frustrating
JF: Q, per spreadsheet, squares with black X are activity?
Rachael: Yes.
<Rachael> Chair hat on - I am in the process of reworking/cleaning the schedule up so there will be a cleaner version in two weeks. We will review at the joint meeting.
Jennifer: My group (headings) will not be an early volunteer...
… we are still struggling with our work flow
… it is all good, greater empathy, just timing is bad for us to be early with this activity
… headings has been early prototype with earlier drafts, but not this time
Jeanne asks Sarah about Errors group
Sarah: The idea of iterating, going back to the drawing board a few times, is not orthogonal to our work
… i do agree that Errors could be a good candidate for this activity
ToddL agrees with SarahHorton
Jeanne and Sarah are looking for additional leadership and activity for Errors group.
Sarah: Errors is looking for a chair, and this is good timing for stepping in.
Jeanne agrees and can solicite AGWG.
ToddL tentatively volunteers.
Jeanne will still ping the list, because more active contribute is welcome in any case.
Issue 503
Jeanne: Rachael and I have had some conversation about how we might incorporated elements from ATAG and UAAG....
… idea is that we need elements from player/browers
… first is video player and captioniong
… 2nd was authoring tools support
… we did get feedback from first call public working draft
<jeanne> https://
Jeanne: just one issue for now, but it is quite detailed (from IBM)
[Jeanne reads]
We support the incorporation of ATAG and UAAG methods, provided the applicability to user agent vs authoring tool vs author is crisp and clear. This helps provide a bigger picture of how all of the accessibility pieces fit together, so a reader can get an understanding of how all of the parts need to be in place for the accessibility to work properly. However, in the current examples it isn’t clear what aspects of the requirements a[CUT]
However, in the current examples it isn’t clear what aspects of the requirements are the responsibility of content/application owner vs. browser/user agent owners.
Flattening the hierarchy of Levels (A, AA, AAA) into single set of requirements is contradictory to previous WCAG 2.x conformance level guidance that says: “It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.
Jeanne: Only the first bullet point is captioning
… we will edit this issue
<JenniferS> Propose (if possible) an edit to the phrase above: because it is not possible — at this point in time, with the existing technology — to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content
Janina: It seems to me that this has a straight forward implementation, we add labels to IDs.
… doc would be more functional.
Jeanne: (to jennifer) not addressing AAA issue at this point.
Shadi: Though request was for GL content -- not a feature of the doc itself
Jeanne: We may have limitation on scope.
<jeanne> Method for ATAG in FPWD
MichaelC: We are up for re-charter, so we can put that on the table.
Shadi: Was the question about marking requirment for UA or AT -- I understood concept for Silver was to combine some of these concempts...
We know there is a user need -- and sometimes that is content and sometimes this is UA
Janina: Context is methods, so focus on ID and Lables is appropropriate
<JenniferS> +1 to Janina — great points and clarity
Janina: by the time we get to CR, API may have a practical implimentation.
Jeanne: The charge is how either the content or UA or AT might support the user need, so it could be clear at the end.
bruce_bailey: Asking for clarification? Please check what I captured
jeanne: Looks good
<bruce_bailey> [scribe asks for double check of notes]
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if this is a key question that should be brought to AG as part of this topic for discussion
Shadi thanks Janina for the clarification.
Rachael: With the subgroups i am leading, i have been making efforts to keep tracking on core questions and process.
Racheal: Core question is when something needs to happen -- is that UA or content ?
Jeanne: Another core question is what needs to be in our charter.
… are there other core questions for itegrating atag and uaag ?
Sarah: Another core question is that there will be times where multiple methods are applicable (e.g. decorative image within AT) then I need to evaluate more than one thing...
… for example with a tweet -- there might be text alternative edititable -- but is the alt text there?
<SuzanneTaylor> another core question might be: "Are we willing to commit to writing each method to target just one of Content, UA or AT?" (This might assist in keeping the language of the methods themselves clear and simple. In addition to helping with the 'crispness' requested in this issue.)
Sarah: Janina gave the example with flashing. If the UA prevents flashing -- is that meeting the requirment?
Janina: My example was a little different. Another example is audio play audio setting in UA works on one site, but not another.
… users use multple devices, so how can they tell? The mere existance of a plug in may not be sufficient.
Suzanne: Are we willing to re-write methods for the for the different context?
<janina> +1 from me, too
Suzanne: That can be very helpful for the content providers, but may be redundant on our end as we write methods.
<jeanne> https://
Michael Cooper endorses that approach from a structural perspective.
Jeanne: We had though we were clear that method was specific to AT but IBM did not read it that way...
… we also had similar example with alternative text.
[see link]
Jeanne: Does group agree with aproach of revisiting each method for AT and UA?
Janina: agreed that this makes sense from a database approach
<Chuck_> +11111111
MichaelC: the approach works for the CMS we anticipate deploying -- but not ready yet
Chuck and MC agree that this approach is not merely aspirations.
<Rachael> learning how to learn
Rachael: Please includes pros/cons with proposals, supporting artifacts, etc.
… again, we do not have clarity for what this looks like at end.
Jeanne: Be flexible.
Core Questions, Discussion, Proposed Solution
… as we continue, we can make this more robust
[Rachael and Chuck concure with approach]
Jeanne: We may take this up next week.
Children's Accessibility
Jeanne: Guest presentation
<jeanne> presentation next week on Children's Accessibility Community Group
Next Joint Tuesday Meetings
Rachae: Not set in stone, but plan for next joint meeting (w AGWG) in first hour...
<SuzanneTaylor> Accessibility for Children Community Group - Suzanne Taylor and Maud Stiernet will present
Rachae: weeks after will be more oriented towards 2.2 work
… if silver folks can plan to stay longer for those calls please
<Chuck_> s /2.2/3.0/
Jeanne: see you next tuesday or next friday!
s /scribe: bruce/scribe: bruce_bailey/