Meeting minutes
time change reminder
Janina: for AGWG, we are scheduled for 30 min, and to start 2nd.
Example Scenarios for WCAG Conformance
Janina: Q to group: would we prefer to be first?
… hearing no objections, we will go as preferred: we will be 2nd on AGWG agenda, starting at noon ET.
time change reminder
Janina: don't be late next week, friends in Europe!
Review draft responses to issues
Example Scenarios for WCAG Conformance
<shadi> https://
Janina: want to share a slide deck
Janina: will present this deck to the group.
… we've collected everything we've been working on into a collection of situations of challenges
… for each, these might be best addressed in standards, some in exolanatory material, some in policy guidance
… we are seeking feedback on the scenarios, on the idea of addressing them in one of three buckets
… specific language in each bucket, for each scenario, is still a work in progress
… want feedback on scenarios we may have missed, and welcome your contributions, joining us, etc.
<shadi is projecting slides & takes us through them>
shadi: purpose is to develop a shared understanding of challenges to conformance, and outline potential approaches to help mitigate them.
… outlines potential approaches to help mitigage, through technical standards, by accompanyin gtechnical guidance, and policies related to adoption of WCAG
… Note that WAI doesn't develop policies, but it does offer guidance on WCAG adoption
… think of these on a spectrum: some mitigations may be more on the technical side, some more on policy guidance; most will have components of both
… EARLY draft for discussion; nothing set in stone. Please don't get hung up on wording - in cases we don't have consensus on exact language
… not trying to be exhaustive. Looking for feedback: situations we missed? considerations to add?
… Welcome all comments / suggestions / active contributions!
… one situation: bugs & other oversight issues occur. E.g., lots of content authors contributing @ same time; extremely dynamic / complex content
… in this situation, policy guidance might speak to expected digilgence to fixing bugs [potentially with different priorities like pandemic alerts that need to be fixed much more quickly]
… another situation: large volumes of content accumulating too rapidly. E.g., user generated content coming too fast to check, especially checked by humans
… another example: automatically generated content like cameras streaming live content
… related situation: making large volumes of content fully confrming immediately may not be achievable. E.g., just after an acquisition
… other examples: when requierments have changed (and time needed to adapt to the new); when specialists are needed & not yet hired;
… another situation: content provider doesn't own / directly control content; e.g., CMS; another a portal aggregating content from other sources
… another scenario: content provider has dependencies on other services; e.g., a 3rd party payment service, embedding social media channel; CMS [Peter errror using CMS in previous example]
… further scenario: limitations in providing same level of conformance for live vs. archived; e.g., captions live vs. later when they can be cleaned up
… further scenario: limitations in some types of content; e.g., we limited support for a11y in some technologies; sensory experiences not easily translated; lack of support in AT
… another scenario: content rarely used if ever; e.g., outdated content rarely used ("archived content"), or current content rarely use
… another scenario: content is experimental for all users, including PwDs; e.g., ongoing research & development of a11y features pulbished for wide feedback
… e.g., demo product with limited functionality
… penultimate scenario: not all requirements always applicable to all content; e.g., a11y provided for a known liimted set of users, or a11y tailored to known technology used
… final scenario: small business face unique challenges; e.g., limited expertise or limited resources
<shadi> https://
shadi: final slide: thanks & link & info on leadership behind this work
<Chuck> 20ish minutes
janina: took about 26 minutes
(actually, realizes less, becuase we had administivia)
<jeanne> +1 to Peter - short bullet summary of the example
<Chuck> I think it's Janina
<Chuck> We hear everyone
Janina - you maybe lost connectivity
<Chuck> we hear you too
Chuck: re: Peter's suggestion changing summary bullets to examples, thinks 50:50. Advantages & disadvantages.
… current approach appeals to me; what we hae here is satisfactory, if not awesome.
… we have discussed, but never enumerated, these challenges. Make clear perhaps to AGWG that the new is the enumeration
shadi: but also about making the enumerated list more clear?
Chuck: happy with attention slide
<Chuck> Peter: That's a good summary, the other thing that's new is the idea of buckets. I wouldn't stop and say what's new is enumeration. The idea that there are 3 places to address them at varying degrees.
jeanne: didn't like starting with bugs
Peter: noted we discussed this @ end of yesterday, after Jeanne left
Shadi: in this group with new folks, what to folks think about where we start?
Janina: if we keep bugs, maybe we say "obviously existance of errors shouldn't change technical standard, but should be addressed for policy"
Suzanne: joined at half hour, so missed some. But feels bugs is such a clear fact, and so very compelling thing to start with.
<shadi calling on people>
MaryJo: yesterday argued for bugs first. Feeling unchanged
Chuck: wants to understand Jeanne's concerns. Either leading with most interesting one & grabbing audience; or end with it as strong close.
Jeanne: when presenting to AGWG, would like to be in a situation where they nod heads early on "yup, that's a problem"
<Lauriat> +1 to jeanne on that one
Peter: suggests if we keep 1st, we say less and just that "everything has bugs, needs to be dealt with"; else penultimate
shadi: still seems more support for bugs first, but will look at phrasing it more naturally & say less.
… being first, explaning buckets seems good to do (with first one)
<Chuck> +1 support current
Review draft responses to issues
jeanne: draft responses to issues: status?
Janina: haven't been able to draft a response
Issue 307
<jeanne> https://
<jeanne> Draft response: We discussed your idea in our meeting of 18 March 2022 and agreed with your ideas, but we thought that we had it covered in Design Principles 4, 5, and 10. It is possible you overlooked it since there are a lot of Design Principles and your would need to see it in total. We discussed rewriting the design principle, but decided that since it is a minor clarification change, we
<jeanne> would rather spend our time working on WCAG3 itself, rather than refining the wording of the Requirements document. Please let us know if you strongly disagree by filing another issue and referring to this one.\
jeanne: discussed last Friday.
<reads draft response>
Chuck: agrees language could be touched up a bit
<janina> +1 to Chuck
<https: //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tetchy>
<Chuck> I learned a new word!
jeanne: invites group to edit / wordsmith
… any other responses ready?
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note that I think I do, but forget how to find it
Shawn: thought there were some he'd done related to scoping, but not finding.
<jeanne> https://
<janina> +1 to moving forward! No objection here
jeanne: please look at list of editorial items related to requirements (e.g. "add word THE"), and see if we can pass them as a group
… for next time.
<jenniferS_> +1
Shawn: +1 to that approach.
jeanne: please join on Tuesday