<Chuck> Alastair, I'm in zoom. If you could join early, to strategy the last agenda item.
<laura> Scribe: Laura
AC: Any new members? Or change in org?
MY: New member, Michail Yasonik,from ServiceNow.
<Chuck> Welcome Michail!
AC: Charter Proposal building on last weeks conversation.
RM: We need to recharger in
October.
... discussed last week. Chairs discussed last week and put
together survey.
Gregg: A charter is to enable not
to restrict.
... if want to create docs need to put those into charter.
<Ryladog> +1 to Gregg
Gregg: only need to put in formal docs not working docs.
<janina> +1 to GV
<GreggVan> can someone post the link to the results? I joined after it was posted
<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results
Ac: DM didn't see anything about
a release of WCAG 2. Don't think it would need to go in. David
supported Jake's proposal.
... (Goes through comments)
... Jennie had concerns about schedule. Schedule hasn't been
decided on yet.
... had some small updates.
... Andrew Somers said proposal lacks clarity, and lacks
defined process.
... Andrew Somers is missing context.
... Reads Suzanne Taylor's comments.
SM: details are important in than high level things.
<GreggVan> +1 to Suzanne
SM: Wilco concerned about
timelines.
... he thinks solving new problems should have higher priority
than recreating solutions to problems that are largely solved
already.
... Sarah said Remove “Tentative FPWD of Third Party Content
Module (remove if no draft by May)” and
SH: add 3rd party to outcomes rather than calling it a module that is separate.
<SuzanneT> +1 to Sarah
SH: Gundula said Something else.
Feels it does not make sense to work on the 'WCAG Core Content'
without considering how to apply it to complex / large web
pages and to applications.
... Jake said Something else. The balance after 6 years of
effort right now is not in the favor of concrete proofed
examples to build upon. It seems like a lot of talks are going
in circles and the probably way too broad scope prevent from
making progress.
<Rachael> WCAG 2.x is listed in the proposal under the charter period
SH: Like ATAG, UAAG, Protocols,
Scoring / metrics, Critical Errors etc. where decisions are not
made yet, or any concrete proof / evidence of examples usable
for WCAG 3.
... If we want to continuously improve and deliver with small
iterations on a constant basis we should use all the good we
have right now.
... If it ain't that broke, and it is not, don't try to fix it
by throwing away what you have.
... Building upon the solid work we have seems like a proper
idea to explore more than we have done till now.
<GreggVan> +1 -- we should keep this general -- focus on what we want to achieve NOT on how we will do it
JA: topics from 2 or 3 years are
presented as facts in the proposal. They are not mature. They
may not make it.
... Why are they in there?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to third party content inclusion, which was intended as the methods for ATAG listed in 1b
RM: The proposal is for us not
for the charter.
... purpose of the proposal is to discuss it.
Gregg: Use the word
Explore.
... stick with the language of the charter.
... we need a charge but not be constrained
Shadi: the doc is assuming
solutions.
... say what we want to solve.
<shadi> [particularly third-party content and complex websites as separable]
AC: reads Shadi's comment.
... he thinks we need to tackle the issue of conformance
first.
... Gregg comment was Something else: This looks like we are
creating 4 different documents -- none of which are a
recommendation.
Gregg: We agree to work on WCAG 3
not separate documents.
... give ourselves freedom.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to clarify my comment
Shadi: Looking at timelines and workload.
AC: Janina Agree with the proposal
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to state that Maintaining 2.x is included under the Chartering Period Oct 2022-Oct 2024
AC: Mary Jo commented These
thoughts are a little incomplete, as I hadn't finished
analyzing this early enough. I think a chunked approach,
addressing some of the core issues in WCAG 2.x first would be
best (Jake's approach).
... Conformance needs to be a higher priority. See details in
my answers to the next question.
... noted topics.
<alastairc> - 3rd party content, should that be core?
<alastairc> - Timeline acheiveble
<alastairc> - Including complete / large applications in core.
<alastairc> - Need for multiple documents
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to add a note about the large & complex, etc. bit (if helpful - if not, feel free to remove me from queue)
<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#scope"The guidelines provide guidance for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. This includes large, dynamic, and complex websites. Our intent is to provide guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more."
AC: Timeline is achievable, 3rd party content, should that be core?, Including complete / large applications in core, Need for multiple documents
Shawn: Need to make sure we are not painting us into a corner.
JS: concern not to box ourselves in. More exploring to do.
<janina> https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2021/third-parties
JS: 3rd party is an
example.
... not only are complex sites but businesses too.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to clarify how we intended to break down third party content in the proposal
RM: thinking behind proposal.
Need to include methods that are in scope.
... need to explore 3rd party. A lot of discussion to do.
Chuck: all the concerns are
valid.
... some say too detailed some say not detailed enough.
... is this a good direction is the question.
Gregg: separate into 2 parts. Plan for working on the the charter and the charter itself.
<jaunita_george> +1
Gregg: need permission to work on things. But don't tie your hands by putting details into the charter.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if conformance model for simple small 1st party etc.
Bruce: conformance model not broken out in core content.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to what we can acheive in the next period
Ac: get to a structure that
includes conformance without including details.
... we don't have external baseline, internal baseline.
... internal processes.
... put structure in place and then build on it.
... we should have components and then build on top of
that.
RM: we end up talking around each
other when talking about conformance.
... how to decide something is good enough to conform.
... migration of WCAG 2.
... move conformance question out.
... Need to know if the thing passes or fails.
<GreggVan> q
<bruce_bailey> thanks
<GreggVan> =
Shadi: way this is framed is testing orientated. Shouldn't swing to far either way.
<SuzanneT> +1 on making sure WCAG 3 serves designers and developers in addition to testers
Shadi: make sure WCAG 3 serves designers and developers too.
<Ryladog> +1 to Shadi - for Not kicking Conformance down the road
Shadi: requirements depend on conformance model.
AC: taking this as input.
Gregg: think we are straying from measures of accessibility into policy. We should only be talking about if it is accessible in WCAG.
<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
AC: we had a suggestion to change
course.
... Question was to Use Silver Task Force’s approach or Use
WCAG 2.2
... This is a decision be made before.
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results#xq4
AC: a lot of responses and not a lot of time to go through them.
RM: do not believe we can create
a standard that meets many of the requirements by iterating on
WCAG 2.
... Specifically, I believe Flexible maintenance and
extensibility, Motivation, Readabilty/Usability, and Scope
would be difficult without fundamental changes to how we
approach guidelines.
Jake: we all want to meet the
requirements.
... The balance after 6 years of effort right now is not in the
favor of concrete proofed examples to build upon. It seems like
a lot of talks are going in circles and the probably way too
broad scope prevent from making progress.
... Silver hasn't resolved questions from 5, 6 years.
... If we want to continuously improve and deliver with small
iterations on a constant basis we should use all the good we
have right now.
... If it ain't that broke, and it is not, don't try to fix it
by throwing away what you have.
... Building upon the solid work we have seems like a proper
idea to explore more than we have done till now.
<jaunita_george> +1
<Chuck> Laura, I will temporarily scribe if you need a break.
Jake: we can break open
conformance model. Keep what is good.
... Deliver on time.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change
<mbgower> scribe: mbgower
<Chuck> I will remind you of the 30 minute mark for scribe change.
Ryladog: I think we've proven we can't work on both successfully.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say why I think neither will work
Ryladog: It will take a long time for people to adopt 2.1 and 2.2. We have time. We can't do it with partial focus.
GreggVan: Building off 2.2 won't
work politically or practically. It's like re-architecting a
house. You can't add rooms. You go back to a clean state.
... Silver is built on wishes and desires, but it's not
concrete.
... The result is that in 3 years we will still be spinning our
wheels. We need a third approach.
... One of the best ideas we can pull is the ideas from one and
the content from the other. We need to define what protocols
are. We need to have the hard discussions before we talk
about... I don't want to say provisions.
... We keep kicking the can down the road on critical stumbling
blocks. We need to swallow the big frogs first.
<Wilco> +1 to swallowing big frogs
<JakeAbma> +1 to Gregg
GreggVan: I had great hope
looking at some of the ideas. But I have not seen any progress.
We can't launch a boat with holes in the bottom.
... We need to ask: what are the things we have to answer
first?
<Lauriat> +1 to experiment & data driven answers to these questions and needs
GreggVan: We have to figure out how to crack this. Get beyond 2.x but it's going to be painful.
<laura> +1 to Gregg
Alastair: My question for later is: how different does that look from what we're proposing?
Jaunita: I am concerned about
revisiting the scoring system.
... A good portion -- 70% are not complying. But I think we may
have ended up making it more difficult to follow.
... We need to focus on other areas that make it easier. I'm
not sure what that could be. Training for devs? Working on some
of the specs out there? Working with companies that make
frameworks?
... I wonder if some of these other areas are causing the
issues. If we focus on scoring, we may end up with a small pool
of experts to evaluate. We could be setting orgs up for
failure.
... Many orgs have process for holding 3rd parties accountable.
I'm worried about affecting those.
<SuzanneT> +1 to idea that methods for framework developers (and similar) might be better focus compared with "how to score"
Chuck: This is an observation by
me as a chair. We have agreed in the past to an approach. We
have spent a lot of time talking about how it can't work, and
less time trying to make it work.
... I think we could prove we can talk about how it can't work,
as opposed to trying to address the issues. A lot of time is
spent focusing on "can't".
<alastairc> q
Chuck: There are valid points, but I don't feel like it's been given an opportunity.
<Jem> +1 to Chuck's comment
<Rachael> +1 to Wilco and Chuck
Wilco: What I've seen in the last year or so... We've started work on reliability. We've figured out how to make methods more testable. I do see us making a bunch of progress in these areas.
Chuck: Yes, we have made
progress. I fear if we were to change or shift, that might be
harmed.
... One individual put data together and demonstrated it had
challenges.
<jaunita_george> I guess my question is why are we changing it?
<jaunita_george> From WCAG 2x
Chuck: It just seems there is a general feel that we haven't had progress. We've had more in the last year. We are spending more time talking about changing.
Alastair: have a look at Silver requirements. I'd also look at Mary Jo's comments. Some of those are new to me.
<jaunita_george> s/From WCAG 2x /From WCAG 2.x
<Lauriat> WCAG 3 Requirements, to have that link near-ish the reference to it for easier finding: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/
Alastair: We have a previous
decision we're running under, which is to have a Silver
approach.
... It doesn't look like we have support to change that, but it
doesn't mean we can't consider making changes.
... Does anyone have any strong points that have not been
represented?
GreggVan: The comment was made
'people keep talking how it can't be done'. When someone makes
a proposal and someone points out a problem, it is up to the
proposer to solve.
... The holes existed.
Alastair: We have some people aware of solutions, but that hasn't been communicated to other people. i believe we have a communication problem.
GreggVan: That wasn't the problem proposed. The problem sounded like it was people pointing out problems.
Sarah: We've had a survey on this
in the last year or two.
... We've had surveys on silver versus agwg work. Did we have a
decision on shifting?
Alastair: We had insufficient
support to focus on a 2.3. The ones you are remembering are
more to do with the 2.x line.
... Our intent was to focus on 3 once we had 2.2 at CR.
Rachael: I want to bridge between
what I heard Chuck, Gregg and Wilco say.
... I believe we have the people in the room to solve this.
Stuff has to be torn apart to build a better boat.
<Jem> +1 to Rachael
<GreggVan> +5 to Rachael
Rachael: The conversation Chuck
was pointing out was that we have to address the problems, not
just change directions. We need to as a group solve those
really hard questions.
... We have to stop the conversations on 'it won't work' until
we have proven it can't or cannot work.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say " we can't confuse "we don't yet know if we can do this" " or
<kirkwood> +1 Rachael
GreggVan: I want to reinforce what Rachael said. We can't confuse "we don't know how" with "we can't"
<Chuck> +5 Rachael, +10 Gregg
GreggVan: We should create a
registry of questions that have been raised and not
answered.
... First identify, second document answers, third patch
holes
<Rachael> scribe: Rachael
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
Alastair: We have status level markings for the working draft. Part 1 is status level names.
<alastairc> 1. Status Level Names
alastairc: We have been through
iterations of this already so this is an objections only
please. 7 agree, 1 disagree.
... I am ok with these tiers for document development.
Bruce: I am not disagreeing. I am concerned with these. I feel like they are in the middle of the ones we are currently using in the federal space where we figure out what agencies are doing.
<Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/status-markings/results
Bruce: I think these four statuses as a document oriented make sense. We had fantastic presentatations and these tiers seem inclined to take a life of their own. They are specific to WCAG 3 document development.
alastairc: These are just for document development.
<Jem> https://www.section508.gov/manage/reporting/guidelines-program-maturity/
Bruce: Fine in that context.
alastairc: these are not intended
for maturity model work. This is just to explain what status
parts of the document are in.
... We also have a question about whether it would be used in
other products?
... In answer to
Mary Jo and for the minutes, these are intended for the normative WCAG content. We haven't considered adding it to outcomes, etc. It was just for normative content.
scribe: any objections to these level names?
RESOLUTION: Accept status level names
alastairc: The second question
was what content to add markings to the levels. Very little is
visible by default. From this point on, things that don't
progress in 6 months come out.
... 5 agreed, 1 suggested adjustment.
... Jennie had an editorial comment and suggested adding help
to understand.
<bruce_bailey> Wiki link from survey: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process
<alastairc> q/
alastairc: we can take that on board. Mary agrees then has questions. I will make sure they get passed on and answered.
Gregg: We have definitions for what each level means but no way to show progess.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process
scribe: the definition is what is needed for that "section". If can apply to provisions, then need to reword. Need to work through definitions and wording a bit.
<Chuck> Rachael: We can change segments of text to address this. Just a wording change.
Gregg: It says sections.
... more provision level language is needed. I think its unfair
to people working on it to now know what the criteria are. It
is it the opinion.
+1 to adding clear criteria
scribe: people should know what the criteria are.
<bruce_bailey> i think this is the line Gregg is talking about: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process#Labeling_Documents
alastairc: We can take that on board. The current question is whether we are all OK with setting everything as exploratory. We have a baseline and everything needs to be improved. We had criterion for SC. We will have that as an activity to undertake for WCAG 3.
<alastairc> q/
alastairc: We had support in the survey for accepting the proposal to start everything as exploratory unless is was marked as exploratory. Any objections?
RESOLUTION: Accept the levels assigned to the working draft
alastairc: Also note that we need criterion
<Ryladog> +1 to Bruce
Bruce: Request we come up with a different word than "levels" since we have levels in WCAG 2.
alastairc: That concludes WCAG 3.
We are moving onto WCAG 2.
... Chuck is taking over chairing.
Chuck: This is in regards to Focus appearance. We have a number of questions to go through. The first question is Focus appearance.
alastairc: This is a continuation of the conversation we had in December. The issue was raised again. We are tackling this issue and it would be best to hand to a commentor to summarize.
Chuck: I would like to start with the individuals who are in favor of browser defaults.
Melanie: I want to reframe this a little bit. Its gotten lost. I've been talking about this exception for many months. In December met with the Friday group looking at 2.2 issues. Part of that conversation, is that I'm on one side and others on the other. Trying to come up with a compromise position. Looking at the accessibility feature in Chrome and Edge that was introduced in 2020. Looking at user needs. The first time that WCAG has suggested
an SC that required content authors fix a user agent issue.
scribe: Tried a compromise position that did not get support. I've tried to reframe the question of WCAG going into territory it has not gone before and putting responsibility on the wrong leg of the stool. I've referenced the WAI document that goes into how many players have responsibility: User, user agent, and content author. AGWG only has charter authority for content authors. I believe that is wrong. If we could remove focus from the
accessibilty feature to the more core issue. That is what I'd like to discuss.
Chuck: Queue is building. Want to get through comments.
<GreggVan> +1 to meleony
Wilco: Support Melony. If you write a straight html page you will fail WCAG, which is bizarre to me. You are forced to use CSS. There is also an issue with some PDF viewers on dark backgrounds. Some exception seems to be necessary to me.
Chuck: I am going to shift a bit and go through queue and hten go back for support.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say how is this different from Resize Text?
mbgower: How is this different than resize text? How many authors change resize text. Most user agents handle this now but the wording in WCAG isn't specific. Some user agents can potentially fulfil this and if you are in a situation where you have a browser that can fulfill this. If we put the exception in for user agents, we accomplish nothing for the author. There is no responsbility. There is no exception in resize text so why here?
<bruce_bailey> Github URL cited in survey is: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2201
<mbgower> You are confusing Resize Text with Reflow, Gregg
<Wilco> +1
GreggVan: Couple things. One is that we have talked about including author, content, and user agents in WCAG 3. There will need to be 3 different sections since they are for different audiences. That is a lead in for this. I don't think we should be telling authors that they have to go to extraordinary length for something user agents should do. Resize text ties to horizontal scrolling which is an author controlled item. Because the author
decides that, the provision made it in. If the author controls it, then it should go in. Otherwise, we should not be requiring authors to fix bugs in the browser that is the browser domain.
<MelanieP> +1 to Gregg - Yes, IF the author changes the focus indicator THEN this SC tells you how to do so more accessibly
Ryladog: It is important to know where you are in the content. It is a need. The fact that it is associated with CSS and a browser is not a stop. We are in the position to improve this. The browsers didn't understand that this is helpful until brought to their attention. I think its important that we continue.
<bruce_bailey> 2.4.7 Focus Visible: Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible.
alastairc: Melanie was talking about a small group on Friday. We also discussed on a Tuesday meeting as well and decided to continue. This is not the first time we've asked authors to cover user agents.
It is set up in a way that user agent defaults meet it, then it passes. If the user agents do meet it which help in a constrained environment. I do agree with Wilco to add an exception when the author can't override the focus indicator in PDFs and drop downs where the user agent covers it.
<Chuck> Rachael: Not fully baked thought. Authors need to be integrated. Even if there is a default indicator, authors can change the background. I don't think this is user agent only.
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2225
alastairc: The other point is that it came out of non-text contrast where we were trying to tackle the poor browser defaults. If you think of Safari's indicator in a blue backgrond. Even if the author doesnt' change the focus indicator, changing another aspect makes it invisible.
My comment was chairs hat off.
<bruce_bailey> from pr: Exception: The focus indicator is defined by the user-agent and cannot be adjusted by the author.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Carry on with the SC as it is, provide some guidance that the browsers can fulfill the SC if you test it.
<mbgower> +1 to AlastairC exception wording
chuck: Majority supports carrying on. I want to see where its at,.
<Ryladog> Support what?
<GreggVan> -1
<bruce_bailey> +1
+1 if it includes the exception from PR
<Ryladog> +1
<GreggVan> which browser
<jaunita_george> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<ToddL> +1
Wilco: Does that include the PR for the smaller exception.
<Azlan> +1
<GN015> +1
<mbgower> +1
<GreggVan> ?
Chuck: IT does include the PR
<kirkwood> +1
<MelanieP> -1
<alastairc> +1
<Wilco> -0.5
GreggVan: You said they could test it with the browser? Do we have an official browser?
draft RESOLUTION: Carry on with the SC with the PR from pr: Exception: The focus indicator is defined by the user-agent and cannot be adjusted by the author.
Alastair: the pull request states The focus indicator is defined by the user-agent and cannot be adjusted by the author. What we were saying about the user agent is that you test with, and this comes from accessibility supported, if you are in an environment that uses Edge and you don't design. If all user agents provide good support, then long term it might pass.
Chuck: Giving the ongoing conversation, we can't resolve.
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/theater/rather/ Succeeded: s/New Member /New member, Michail Yasonik,/ Succeeded: s/in service Now/from ServiceNow/ FAILED: s/From WCAG 2x /From WCAG 2.x/ Succeeded: s/not mature. /are not mature. / Succeeded: s/Is is for /The proposal is for / Succeeded: s/acheiveble/ is achievable/ Succeeded: s/backed/baked/ Succeeded: s/Bruce's exception wording/AlastairC exception wording/ Default Present: alastairc, Chuck, Rachael, janina, Laura_Carlson, JemmaKu, shadi, Jen_G, bruce_bailey, ShawnT, jaunita_george, Lauriat, mbgower, MelanieP, myasonik, GreggVan, SuzanneT, Azlan, sarahhorton, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Wilco, Nicaise, kirkwood, KimD, Francis_Storr, JakeAbma, ToddL Present: alastairc, Chuck, Rachael, janina, Laura_Carlson, JemmaKu, shadi, Jen_G, bruce_bailey, ShawnT, jaunita_george, Lauriat, mbgower, MelanieP, myasonik, GreggVan, SuzanneT, Azlan, sarahhorton, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Wilco, Nicaise, kirkwood, KimD, Francis_Storr, JakeAbma, ToddL Regrets: Rain, ToddL, GreggV, JustineP, Detlev Found Scribe: Laura Inferring ScribeNick: laura Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Scribes: Laura, mbgower, Rachael ScribeNicks: laura, mbgower, Rachael WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]