AGWG Teleconference -- 14 Jun 2022

<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2022-06-14

<laura> Scribe: Laura

Scribe List: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List

Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

Chuck: welcome. will need a scribe for second hour.
... Any new members?

(none)

Chuck: Any new topics?

bruce: inviting guests decision?

<ShawnT> good question Bruce

ac: everyone was happy with it.

<ShawnT> I "think" the next step was a process

chuck: people can propose to chairs.
... have had request for guests to observe.
... think we will be moving forward.

ac: make requests to chairs in advance.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about guest invite from last meeting

gregg: it would be possible for guest to come and speak too.

chuck: nothing in policy. group was supportive.

<alastairc> If people keep coming back, we might need to make them a member or invited expert.

chuck: reminder on how we process the surveys.
... go through responses first.
... then the cue.

TPAC reminder https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/9503

Chuck: TPAC reminder
... TPAC will be held as a hybrid meeting September 12-16, 2022.

<ShawnT> I'll be there!

ac: 2 of the chairs will be attending in person. Main in-person location is Vancouver.

mc: ag will meet the entire week.

<jeanne> Make sure you get refundable reservations in case of COVID border restriction changes

js: APA will be Tuesday and Thursday.

<bruce_bailey> USAB on travel that week

WCAG2ICT https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICTV2/

<Judy> [jb: (the W3C Process document policy on guests is at the following link: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#GeneralMeetings)]

chuck: survey on WCAG2ICT Task Force survey
... will go through results.
... have tried to address concerns.
... 18 approved. 5 approved with adjustments.

bruce: have talked with mary jo
... not sure if bullet is anything ag can moderate. can accept it.

chuck: reads MP's comment
... concerns about past guidance. and some editorial comments.
... reads Mike Pluke's comment.
... reads Rachael's comment

<alastairc> bruce_bailey - I don't think the previous version included AAA SCs, it would be a lot of work to go through and do all of those I think?

GN: I feel it remains unclear whether Level AAA success criteria are in scope.
... If level AAA criteria are not in scope, why?

<mbgower> Tq+ to say here have never been AAA SCs in the WCAG2ICT. I think it was an oversight.

chuck: any other comments?

gregg: history on AAA.
... excluded because not considered for other technologies. and wasn't enough time.
... AAA would have been too time consuming. No reason not to do it.
... a lot of discussion on the 4 items. They don't exist outside of software. No technical reasons for excluding.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to +1 MelanieP comment about not excluding AAA explicitly

<JF> +1

bruce: +1 not preemptively exclude AAA

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say there have never been AAA SCs in the WCAG2ICT; same scope issues as before

<kirkwood> +1 not to preemptively exclude AAA

<bruce_bailey> @MG what "does not exist"

mg: they don't exist right now. We don't have a ton of people and resources.
... leave it loose. Add rationale explaining why.

<bruce_bailey> fwiw -- i agree with AAA being low priority

judy: it was primarily regulatory and time rationale for it not being included before.

mjm: there will be some time limit this go round too.
... focus initially on new SCs and existing interpretations.

<bruce_bailey> i agree with time limit, i am just asking that AAA not be excluded from scope proactively

<JF> +1 to articulating steps in a phased approach

gregg: have it in stages. new provisions, tech changes, check on 4 that apply. then come back around to AAA.

<alastairc> suggested draft RESOLUTION: Remove the bullet on AAA success criteria from 'out of scope' section.

gregg: hate to take AAA off the table. But should be done in stages.

<mbgower> when is 'done'? Are we saying all of that is going to be achieved in this upcoming charter?

chuck: ac suggested a resolution: phased apporach.

<bruce_bailey> WRT four @GreggVan mentioning, see: https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E205.4

<bruce_bailey> EXCEPTION: Non-Web documents shall not be required to conform to the following four WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4 Consistent Identification.

chuck: stumbling block until we approve the TF.

<alastairc> second suggested draft RESOLUTION: Approve creation of task force, then TF can work on requirements doc.

chuck: work statement it in process.

Detlev: important that contains other chapters of EN. Quite a bit of duplication.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: AGWG agrees to CfC the formation of a WCAG2ICT Task Force, TF will continue work on requirements doc for later approval by AGWG

<mbgower> +1 to proposed resolution

<alastairc> We have liaisons listed in the doc already...

gregg: We are close to going beyond our guidelines with trying to tell other standards bodies how to write their standards.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to CfC on TF

gregg: leaving out scope of the charge is tricky

Judy: WCAG work can't go beyond wcag.

<Detlev> quite right EN will be better place to raise this!

Judy: TF itself will have strict constraints.

<maryjom> +1

<janina> +1

<Chuck> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Detlev> +1

<ToddL> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: AGWG agrees to CfC the formation of a WCAG2ICT Task Force, TF will continue work on requirements doc for later approval by AGWG

<jeanne> +1

<Judy> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<alastairc> +1

Laura: +1

<Azlan> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<JF> +1

<GreggVan> +1 but include a Draft of the workstatement

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> Include the work statement in the CFC email

judy: TF can't change works statement on its own. has to bring back to AG

RESOLUTION: AGWG agrees to CfC the formation of a WCAG2ICT Task Force, TF will continue work on requirements doc for later approval by AGWG

WCAG Editor's Draft Filter https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/filter/

chuck: The filter currently hides the placeholder and exploratory content by default. The filter in the editor's draft is causing confusion.
... 4 said Remove the filter
... reads Rachael's comment
... 2 people said Default the filter to showing the content

mg: some people can benefit from the filter

<kirkwood> +1 to Rachael (complexity of discovering filters is an issue)

mg: redesign if we keep it.

<kirkwood> +1 to Jeanne

chuck: reads Jeanne's comment
... reads Gundula's comment

GN: stuggled with it. fine with removing it.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Gundula comment about toggle

chuck: reads Michael Cooper's comment.

<JF> +1 to that idea

mc: adding confusion is a big concern.

chuck: reads Jennifer Delisi's comment.

Jennifer: some people may benefit from it. remove it for now.

bruce: I think I want default to show everything, then prominent button to collapse accordions and hide place holders.

GV: remove the items from the outline on the left as well as the content.
... Make a FIRST ITEM in outline be "Showing/hiding exploratory/(whatever) content" so that it is easier to find and it will appear at top of the outline on the left
... Hide by default. Make it a toggle the does live toggle

<alastairc> It was included in the Section Status Levels section previously.

<Chuck> 3 themes with no support for leaving it as it 1) Start expanded, 2) Remove, 3) various ideas on modifying the behavior

<bruce_bailey> Link from survey for Editors Draft is: https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

GV: could be show by default.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to explain what it was intended to do

ac: remind people the reasoning for it.
... some people cautious. others wanted to get stuff out there.
... maybe we don't need the filter.
... try to keep it simple.

jf: will introduce confusion. would like to see clear indication of status.

mjm: had probems with the filter. make sure anchor links still work.

<JF> I think it is important to seperate the intended goal versus current mechanism

gregg: The filter is part of earlier work for consensus . Decision was to have the filter instead of 2 docs.
... make it so they show by default.

<JF> +1 to Gregg

gregg: fix it so it works.

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to speak about the filter in how to meet WCAG

st: thinking of quick ref.

<maryjom> To clarify, left TOC links worked, but anchor links provided in survey and pasted into browser's URL entry box didn't

<bruce_bailey> +1 to ShawnT suggestion for more QuickRef like

st: making it visible by default. It is good for text to speech users.

<Chuck> 3 themes with no support for leaving it as it 1) Start expanded, 2) Remove, 3) various ideas on modifying the behavior

bruce: not sure what it is supposed to do.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask for screen share demo of button is supposed to do?

mc: screen sharing his screen

<kirkwood> think this is

<bruce_bailey> MC demo is a toggle

<kirkwood> .. unexpected action from a cognitve perspective

<ShawnT> This is what I was talking about for the QuickRef: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/

mc: (MC demo is a toggle
... showing the toggle.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to propose a poll to a) start expanded or b) remove

<Chuck> poll to a) start expanded or b) remove

<Jennie> Would be really helpful to have a list on the page indicating how to notice the change.

<Chuck> a

<alastairc> B by preference, ok with A

<jeanne> 0 - I am fine with either one

<Jaunita_George> 0

<GN015> b

<Detlev> 0

<GreggVan> a

<ShawnT> a

<janina> a

<Makoto> a

<oks> b

<Azlan> a

<MelanieP> A

<Jennie> B until a better option is found

<bruce_bailey> a) start exapanded

<maryjom> a, provided anchor links work.

laura: a

<michael> Either

<iankersey> a

<kirkwood> a: start expanding with exploration of implementation

<JF> A. STRONG -1 to remval

<ShawnT> c - would like more filtering like quick reference: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/

chuck: any objection to starting with expanded. and we will review better options.

<kirkwood> +1 to Jennie

<alastairc> ShawnT - we'd have to work up to that.

jd: concerned about appearing and disappearing.
... need instructions by it.

<ShawnT> alastairc need to start somewhere ;)

jk: agree with jennie.

<bruce_bailey> control button might float to stay on screen (harder to code / make accessible)

jk: it has challenges. state change is problematic.

<kirkwood> sorry

ac: could have a link by the button for the explanation.

jennie: may be unclear with memory challenges how to change it back. Should be reviewed byt coga.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Expand the filter by default, add instructions on operation, continue working on options for later implementation with input from COGA, clearly mark sections to indicate where the content is within the process

<ShawnT> +1

<janina> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Azlan> +1

<alastairc> +1

<michael> +1

<Makoto> +1

<JF> +.75

<MelanieP> +1

<kirkwood> +1 The changing and revealing of state. may become unclear with time/effort key is “knowing what is hidden” at all times.

<GreggVan> +1\

<jeanne> +1

laura: +1

<GreggVan> +1

<maryjom> +1 But need fix for copied anchor link to work

<GN015> -1

jf: question, if everything is expanded and I want it collapsed can there be a way to fo that?

<bruce_bailey> @JF instead of cookie, might bookmark the preferred setting (like QuickRef) in URL

<Detlev> scribe: detlev

Gundula: we should remove the filter, the working draft is not ready and this is an editors draft

RESOLUTION: Expand the filter by default, add instructions on operation, continue working on options for later implementation with input from COGA, clearly mark sections to indicate where the content is within the process

WCAG 3 Pronunciation of text https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/pronounciation_WCAG3/

Chuck: Five questions in survey on pronunciation (reading survey intro)
... 1. Question agree to add as exploratory? 5 agree 4 want something else
... (reading Gundula's comments)
... (reading comments of Oliver Keim)

<alastairc> jeanne - is it worth quickly outlining the difference in approach for outcomes & SCs? I sense that in a couple of responses.

Chuck: (reading comment of Mike Gower)

<laura> s/speaker too/speak too/

<michael> Nope

<GN015> +1 to Michael Gower's comment

Chuck: (reading Makoto's comment<9
... Anyone else wants to comment?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to give responses from Test Reliability meeting this morning

Jeanne: Test reliability group met - has some answers to comments. The language of the outcome statement was not clear
... should only be to author's requirements, not about AT
... (reading changed version)

<JF> * like text to braille output?

<jeanne> "Authors mark up their content so that assistive technologies using text to speech can pronounce blocks of text in their natural language."

Jeanne: important to differentiate between different types of AT
... some f Wilco's comments were already addressed
... also addressing concern about "blocks of text"

Question 1 - Add Changes to Natural Language Outcome as Exploratory

Jeanne: requirement should not apply to any language change for single words which are well understandable, like "Croissant"
... SR users were clear tat they did not want language change for just one word
... there was no research to define the minimum level - blocks of text was easier to define, there is a definition
... includes cells, entries, headings etc - check it out

Gregg: Changes of language may be conflated with pronunciation, content requirements and UA requirements may be conflated here
... block of text is not same as paragraph - should focus on something like one word or phrase that would be defined in a foreign dictionary

<bruce_bailey> Link from survey is: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2022/outcomes/changes-to-natural-language

Gregg: if you define a block of text as something thatÄs longer than something that's defined in a dictionary

JF: To limited is to blocks of text may be wrong, there are complex words that SR users may not know when pronounced incorrectly

<Zakim> michael, you wanted to say be careful with user preference for chunks of text

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about Pronunciation and that this is a narrow outcome

Mike Gower: Caution about drafting language based on user preferences - there can be cases where one word needs mark-up

Jeanne: Test reliability group tries to define more objective outcomes and methods - suggested new definitions of outcomes and methods
... were then asked to provide a real example - that has been done here to work on sample outcome and method, quite narrow, but broader than web to apply it to other environments
... user preferences etc. can be added in the future, but no this aims to be narrow and testable
... this is not meant to be requirement for AT
... reminder that this is exploratory content so people in the testing industry can check whether it is viable
... please approve as exploatoy

exploratory

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to speak to JF comment

Gregg: JF has talked about resume and resumé - both are English s this sis a different issue
... the outcome should be correct natural language pronunciation

<GreggVan> Outcome: Correct Natural Language Pronunciation

Janina: Speaking with APA hat on - as a migration for 2.x to 3 it makes sense, needs to discuss further - author mark-up where it matters is the issue - lang switches is getting really fast, but sensitive that people may not want language change for any single word - need to discuss further

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask alastair did we have the conversation about depth of conversations and changes for proposed exploratory content?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to the process aspect

Chuck: regarding process question, how to move content to exploratory - can you address that, Alastair? Myself supportive. Lets get to teaming issue

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Outcome: Correct Natural Language Pronunciation -- but is this GL or Outcome name?

<michael> Move it into exploratory

Alastair: When things go into exploratory, it's not meant for "production" use - we should just block things that may get misunderstood

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2022/outcomes/changes-to-natural-language

Alastair: the text of the outcome - unless anyone thinks it will create misunderstandings, we should approve it as exploratory
... many comments are basically "approve, but add as an issue"
... apart from naming there seems to be noting that should hold it up

<GreggVan> +1 to handling name first

Chuck: 3. Survey question
... (reads intro to naming)
... (reads Gundula's suggestions)
... (reads Mike Gower's comments)

Mike: this should go in as draft, comment not intended to impede that

Chuck: (reads Makoto's comment)

Makoto: It is about language, not pronunciation

Chuck: (reads Jeanne's comment)

Jeanne: We are flexible about how to bundle outcomes into guidelines, so this should not be nailed down too early
... granularity not yet decided - I don't care how it is named right now - what's important is outcome and method - might change

Chuck: (reads Bruce's comment)
... (reads Gregg's comment)
... people disagree about how important naming it

Gregg: Makoto has said its about language, not pronunciation - so it does not constrain AT, users may decide based on the mark-up
... givng example of own name - so the real meat is 'correct identification' that should be the focus of the outcome, whether correct pronunciation may not be helpful to the user

<Chuck> Correct identification of foreign words

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to check whether we mean the name of the guideline or outcome (have I confused things?)

Alastair: It's a structure question - unclear whether we talk about the name of the outcome or the guideline text above it
... question to Jeanne - what is it coming under?

<Chuck> ack

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose Natural Language of Text

<GreggVan> Guideline : pronunciation of text Outcome: Correct identification of foreign language

<alastairc> Ok, we'll need to create a mechanism for people to find these outcomes then...

Jeanne: there is nothing written yet for pronunciation of text - the approved process is to build content from the user needs up, building outcomes, then method, and finally the guideline as a last step - we should call it "natural language of text", as a handle - not so important right now

<maryjom> +1 to Jeanne's suggestion

<kirkwood> +1 to natural language.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended name and changes to "Natural Language of Text" and add as Exploratory

Jeanne: close o what people were asking for

<ShawnT> +1

<mbgower> +1

<janina> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Chuck> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Jennie> +1

<jeanne> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> +1, but should we update the name of the outcome?

<JakeAbma> +1

<ToddL> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended name and changes to "Natural Language of Text" and add as Exploratory

<laura> +1

Question 2 - Add HTML lang attribute indicates the language of text Method

Chuck: would we update name of the outcome too? (Alastair's qustion)

Alastair: we can move on

<jeanne> Note that the Outcome name has already been changed based on the feedback from the last survey

<alastairc> ok, thanks

Janina: Thorny issue TTS not covered lang is orthographically focused, there will be a meeting with internationalization folks

Chuck: (reads survey question)
... (summarizing results) - any additional comments?

Jeanne: just discussed it - agree with Gundula's and Makoto's concerns - adding the html lang attribute (ref to ACT rules)

<kirkwood> maybe we could meet in NYC on Housten street to discuss?

<janina> Was that lang=en or lang=en-uk?

Gundula: Jeanne addressed block of text vs. pieces of text issue already

Chuck: (reads Oliver's comment)

Oliver: already discussed

<jeanne> I recommend that ShawnT's comment become an issue to be expored with ACT

Shawn Thompson: should it be brought up in the other group - ACR / ACT something about mark up of parent elements (?)

Chuck: (reads Mike Gower's comment)

Mike: not opposed to publishing

Chuck: (reads Makoto's comment)

Makoto: Jeanne has addressed my concerns

Chuck: Any other comments?

<Rachael> +1 to working on it in another time.

<Chuck> q

JF: struggling with original survey - unclear which guideline the falls under - feels like the guideline as superset is almost redundant? Where do we propose to put this?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention i was thinking of audio-only media at one point

Alastair: Chair hat off - how do people get to the outcome without a placeholder heading...

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer alastair and JF

Bruce: was thinking this was meant to cover audio only media at some point - but OK to carry on

Jeanne: We have agree to use the guideline handle "natural language of text", the outcome can come under that

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest an approach

<bruce_bailey> +1 that handle -- Natural Language of Text -- covers the Outcomes and Methods in survey

Rachael: We should add guidelines placeholders in situations like this as placeholder,, then put the content belo as exploratory

<alastairc> That's fine, I think we'll just need a message saying "this guideline hasn't been defined yet, but these are the outcomes it would contain".

<jeanne> +1 to Guideline handle as a Placeholder

Chuck: has it been amended?

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Add amended HTML lang attribute indicates the language of text Method as exploratory

<Chuck> +1

<jeanne> +1

<maryjom> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Makoto> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Jennie> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<iankersey> +1

<janina> +1

<ToddL> +1

RESOLUTION: Add amended HTML lang attribute indicates the language of text Method as exploratory

<mbgower> +1

<laura> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> +1

Question 4 - Pronunciation of Text Outcome

Chuck: (reads topic of Question 4)

Jeanne: this is historic

Chuck 5. Question as well?

Jeanne: yes

Chuck: good, saves time

WCAG 3 Categorization exercise

chuck. time to dive into?

time to give intro, sorry...

Jeanne: we had a doc template for each SC, were collection user needs, functional needs etc to structurally analyze the migration of WCAG 2 criteria
... Silver has continued with that, Makoto did a lot here - so he could introduce it

Makoto: Better next week, when I can show a concrete example and share screen then

<laura> Bye

<alastairc> RRSAgent make minutes

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

14 Jun 2022

Attendees

Contents

TPAC reminder https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/9503

WCAG2ICT https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICTV2/

WCAG Editor's Draft Filter https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/filter/

WCAG 3 Pronunciation of text https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/pronounciation_WCAG3/

Question 1 - Add Changes to Natural Language Outcome as Exploratory

Question 2 - Add HTML lang attribute indicates the language of text Method

Question 4 - Pronunciation of Text Outcome

WCAG 3 Categorization exercise

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output