Meeting minutes
Next AG Charter https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YE80blscusKv0EQUyMSd8ui1mM5by9WPPqvr94cJGFg/edit#
Michael: Charter expires in October, we'll need a new charter by then
… We'll need to have it reviewed by the advisory committee. We'll need to leave time for review, so we'll need it by June.
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: We have a proposal this week, with a compromise on how to break things down.
… The focus will be on WCAG core content next charter
… Wilco raised the question if any TFs have TR work for charter.
<Rachael> wilco: ACT taskforce is considering doing an update to the ACT rules format. I don't fully know whether we are going to have the right people. The editors from the last version - none are available. Need new editors. Discussed in the group and the taskforce thinks its a good idea. I haven't started looking. We need to know if we are chartered to do so.
Rachael: Are there other groups who may have documents?
Shawn: The cognitive accessibility objectives and design patterns are being integrated in the WAI website.
… The low vision TF is working on supplemental guidance. Don't know if that needs to be in the charter.
Rain: We hope to produce work towards 2026, we're hoping for the next version of content usable.
… We're hoping to formally publish papers that are in a review state.
… We hope to get that work where it needs to be.
Rachael: Sounds like 1 rec-track doc for ACT, the others are notes
Kim: We have 3 new members coming on. People's focus on research. We've been identifying mobile features, and looking at underlying research.
… It's sort of hard to get new members, do you get members then figure out what to do, or vice versa.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about COGA Statements and "standards"
Shawn: On COGA, the current work statement has more than notes, I think it says a W3C Statement, and a testing standard
Rain: I believe that's under discussion with APA and AG chairs. That language will probably be changed. It's worth noting we might produce a formal statement, but that may be descoped slightly
Rachael: I think it'll shift. I don't think we charter to make a statement, we make a note and ask W3C to make it a statement.
Michael: Charter is mainly for rec-track work. Other stuff would be under other deliverables section.
… We might list individual ones if we have them, but can create other ones.
<shawn> +1 to list Notes track documents on charter. also +1 to considering publishing elsewhere rather than /TR/
Michael: I'm not aware of any procedures for statements. I don't think in the next 2 years we're likely to get anywhere with a statement. I don't think we'd charter for it, even if we want to head that way.
Rachael: How would we roll this work into the charter.
Michael: In the scope section we should indicate it's in. The AC would say if the scope is focused enough.
<shawn> [ Shawn notes EOWG doesn't to Rec track, and AC picks on EOWG charter plenty. ]
Rachael: It's good to know what TFs are going to do.
Michael: We need a general description of scope and deliverables. I don't think we want to go into too much detail.
Shawn; Agreement that what the TFs want to publish needs to be in the charter
Michael: I think it'd be helpful for TFs to send us a list of what they're planning to do, We won't use that but can compile
ACTION: Task force leads to send chairs a sentence or two of scope for the next two years and a list of deliverables with short descriptions
<trackbot> Error finding 'Task'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://
Shawn: I'll work with Jon on that for LVTF
… We'll need it by next month. Ideally 2 weeks
Rachael: I'll check in in 2 weeks
<shawn> s/ ... We'll need it / Rachael: We'll need it
Discussion: As we move into WCAG 3 and the new charter period, do we want to maintain our current task force structure?
Rachael: Looking at that we're moving into a more WCAG 3 focus, does the TF structure we have now make sense
… Do we have what we need, do we have gaps.
Shawn: LVTF big issue is having enough of the right people. Even some that we have, while useful they're not strong in all areas we need strength in.
Rachael: If we don't have the people it doesn't make sense.
<Rachael> Wilco: The current structure is focused on going from 2.0 to 2.1. Mobile, Low vision, and coga were identified as having certain gaps. That same structure may not make sense going into WCAG 3. I think there's something to be said about grouping related expertise. An AT or screen reader task force may need to be considered. Possibly others covering broad areas.
Rachael: I think there's value at looking at functional needs and working out where gaps are.
… Don't have a group thinking about intersectional needs, or speech related disabilities as well.
… The question is how many TFs can we maintain.
Kim: Intersectional needs is kind of what we're trying to do. There is some cross disciplinary stuff that's very important.
… I also think that speech is really not represented well. That's something that should be flagged at, is there something to work on here.
Rachael: Do you feel it makes sense to bring mobile forward, is there mobile-centered work enough.
Kim: I think yes. We don't even know what features we have in mobile. The task at the moment is to map out what's in mobile, and why it matters to accessibility
… It's an odd task force, but it works well in terms of research, making sure there aren't gaps in understanding how people use it
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to mention idea on sub-groups on topics. overlap with mobile, LV, COGA
Shawn: Comment on intersectionality rang a bell. Working on supplemental guidance, we see significant overlap with mobile and COGA.
… Thinking high level, it would be interesting to consider a model where there are informal subgroups that focus on specific topics.
e.g., sub-group for a proposed requirement, then representatives from different "groups" (COGA, LV, mobile, other) can work on the topics that are most relative to them
<shawn> s/ LV sees significant overlap with mobile and COGA.
Kim: I like that idea. I think it's important good efficient communication exists between subgroups.
Rachael: We tried that with the sheet, but that did not work. I think this meeting is the best handshake.
Rain: I think the mobile TF is exceptionally important, but all the other TFs should intersect more with mobile.
… I struggle with the differentiation between web and mobile. It's an old model. At this point mobile experience is where the majority of people engage with the web.
… The way the world uses technology, especially in emerging markets, it's mostly mobile.
Steve: That's such a good point, even excluding mobile native apps, there are so many apps that now use HTML. A lot of apps are web based.
… So many people's experience is mobile first, or only ever mobile
<Rachael> Wilco: Slightly different perspective - should that type of research fall under APA?
<Rachael> ...if we are going to continue to have taskforces and make sure that we don't focus on certain areas to exclusion of others. If noone represents deaf and low hearing, it wont' get the attention it needs.
<Rachael> ...I personally advocate for broad scoped taskforces.
<stevelee> +1
Michael: +1 to broad scope idea
<shawn> fyi, Research Questions Task Force (RQTF) https://
Michael: The research TF agenda is pretty full up. I agree on principle we should have a centralised place.
… Some of the AG task forces do research needed for their area. A model would be to bring that to the APA research, but don't know if that's the easiest path.
Rachael: The research has to be done for the guidelines. I support keeping guideline related research within focused task forces.
… It sounds like what we should do is look at functional needs and find what isn't covered.
… I'll take that idea back and get a reaction from the other chairs. It sounds important.
Shawn: With my WAI outreach coordinator hat on. One of the questions we get asked a lot is, what is the research basis for your guidelines.
… Perhaps that is a reasonto keep that under the guidelines group.
Kim: When we were looking for new people I was lucky to have two researchers. Having someone join who knows research, I didn't realise how important this would be. I'll +1 to what you said.
… We should maybe seek more people for TFs who are familiar with research.
Discussion: Most groups need more active, contributing participants. How do we recruit? Reaching outside of AG? Managing invited experts?
Rachael: We've established everyone needs more people. At the same time, the AG processes have made it challenging, if someone goes in and it doesn't go well it is difficult to remove them.
… With all of that in mind, how do we do this. What are thoughts on recruiting in general, and then transitioning people in. It's a big learning curve.
Michael: These issues for AG are real. Perhaps some of what we could do is to get research TF people to send people over.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about ways to preview people? also, probationary IE
Shawn: From EO, one thing is better ways to preview people. We had several people express interest at first, and we weren't really clear on how to give people a chance to prove they'd be good participants.
… We'd kind of done it in EO, but not super successfully.
… The other thing we've done is have a probationary invited expert status. That has been useful. We've had even in the last year one of two go in, and one or two that did not work out.
<Rain_> +1 without calling it "probationary" -- maybe "please join us for this period of time and task"
<Rachael> Wilco: Would help to have a central person who coordinates recruiting and onboarding and then helps set people in the right taskforces, etc. The ACT community group, every time we talk in public we ask for volunteers.
<shawn> +1 to not "probationary" -- I can't remember how we worded it - I can check. +1 to "please join us for this [short] period of time and task"
Rain: The COGA community group, 1 person has become a full member. We have community group members participating in our research. It's helping and making people aware.
Rachael: Three ideas, centralised person onboarding, second a community group, third a probationary period
Kim: About the probationary period. You might have a person who does not have a lot of time join temporarily.
… I agree it takes enough time, recruiting people, the idea of introductions would be great. The community group sounds like its going well. It's yet another thing.
… It seems like community groups might help, but I wonder how bad it is to have two groups, and how confusing it is.
… Maybe even having the community group page talk about, if there's some notice on the CG page.
Rachael: It sounds like it might be good to talk about community groups on the next meeting.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask overhead of CG (LVTF barely has enough bandwidth to handle TF) and to say though maybe people who don't quality as IEs?
ACTION: talk about community groups (share knowledge) at next meeting
<trackbot> Error finding 'talk'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://
Shawn: the overhead of a community group. LVTF barely has enough participants for the TF. Not sure how we'd support a community group.
… We've had a few people who didn't quality for invited expert. That makes me wonder about community groups, that would be a good way to get those people involved.
… My understanding from ACT, most of the work happens in the community group.
<Kim_patch> (+1 to saying join us to help with this task rather than probationary period)
Shawn: If we have a lot of people who'd participate, do we shift all the work into a community group.
Kim: One of the people who recently joined our TF, they made a comment on the mobile accessibility of the invited expert form
… That's a small thing, but it gave her pause. I wonder about things like that.
… If there's something that's not accessible, it was a little embracing.
Kim: I'll ask for details and forward them to Michael.
<Rain_> +1 we've had to do a lot of hand holding to engage people in the cognitive community group because of login requirements
Michael: When new tools are developed, the systems people are under strict instructions to make sure things are reviewed.
… There isn't any regression testing happening.
Rachael: Maybe WAI requesting an accessibility review?
Michael: Judy has tried to protect our work by saying it's not our job to check other group's work. But that does mean there isn't someone who's job it is.
… At least when we encounter issues they should get filed.
<shawn> "
<shawn> I hit a technical problem with W3C's site
<shawn> Please, write to sysreq@w3.org with a precise description of your technical problem.
<shawn> "
<shawn> -- https://
Shawn: When you find a website problem, write to sysreq.
… You're welcome to send a bug report directly to sysreq.
Kim: What do they want, and is there a form?
<shawn> what info to provide: https://
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: We have two important questionairs, about the charter and about the approach to WCAG 3
… We've also reworked the working draft so that sections show the maturity level
<shawn> includes sample e-mails https://
Shawn: There is some guidance on what information to provide, and a sample e-mail.
Kim: I think a form would help
Shawn: Why not submit to sysreq to create a form to submit a sysreq? :-)?
… It gets logged, any request to that e-mail becomes an open issue.
… They're pretty good at getting back.