AGWG Teleconference

12 July 2022


alastairc, Azlan, Chuck, Francis_Storr, GreggVan, janina, Jaunita_George_, jeanne, Jen_G, Jennie_, JF, Laura_Carlson, Lauriat, Makoto, maryjom, mbgower, Rachael, sarahhorton, ShawnT, ToddL, Wilco
Gundula, JakeA, Rain, Shawn:
Laura, sarahhorton

Meeting minutes

ac: Any new members?



ac: Any new topics for a future meeting?

… can present to the sivler TF.
… rrsagent, make minutes

WCAG 3 Protocols Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/protocols_exploratory/

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/protocols_exploratory/results#xq2

ac: WCAG 3 Protocols Survey
… 3 parts.1. Editor's Note. 2. proposals 3. informative questions

Editor's Note for protocols

ac: have a draft one.
… and various comments.

gregg: should we talk about one or 2?

<Wilco> +1 to Gregg's point

ac: should apply to both. but would defer to chuck or others.

chuck: not seeing a dependency.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that outside of the name choice, the 2 proposals differ widely

jf: 2 are very different. could be both. may not be an either or.

gregg: would help in understanding.

Preferred starting point

chuck: harmless. less do 2.

ac: question is what do we include in next editors draft.
… could have both in.
… looks like some combination of both.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/protocols_exploratory/?login

ac: Is it possible to add a combination of both. or should they be separate?

<Chuck> Protocols and Assertions Proposal: https://bit.ly/protocols_assertions

ac: (reads comments)

<Chuck> Evaluating Procedures Proposal: https://bit.ly/evaluating_procedures

<Rachael> Protocols presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rpayaGqxZ4qguhWWhuLSPPUU6tew3ODZ/edit#slide=id.p1

<Chuck> Comparison Table: https://bit.ly/compare_the_two

<Chuck> Link to the presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rpayaGqxZ4qguhWWhuLSPPUU6tew3ODZ/edit

wilco: we haven't seen enough to have an informed desision. Would perfer sending it bac to the sub group.
… need text to the working draft.

MC: should be possible to combine them

jg: both have good qualities. Good to incenivise procedures and poicies.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to Wilco

jf: sub group has discussed in depth. One is post production one is pre-production.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to respond to Wilco's suggestion of the sub group crafting single proposal for AGWG review

gregg: both have great potential. should have a 3rd column explaing the differences.
… standards can only refer to ther standards.
… dangerous if it is not defined.

<JF> +1 to Gregg re: Standards

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to disagree with JF characterization of evaluating procedures

gregg: are they serving differnet purposes? Or the same purpose?

mc: room for subjectivity.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to respond to Wilco, and moving to end of queue

mc: details can move around but are gernarlly the same.

chuck: philosophical differences between the 2.
… would be a challenging ask.

jg: would be difficult to be dificult to get consensus on.
… measurements are diffferent.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if looking at differences rather than similarities might be useful

JF: one does not have measurements.
… subjective. can't measure "delesious."
… one is about measurement the other is not.

jg: feeling that a statement in conformence will not be enough.
… can drive a truck though conformance statements and VPATs

gregg: are there examples? Need a minimum of 4 examples.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to clarify similarity and to say next steps, examples

<Jaunita_George_> +1 MichaelC

mc: I have examples. That is a next step.
… I can take an action and work on it.
… I don't see the proposals as different.
… will be harder for public to review 2 propsals.

jf: in epub they have a manefest.

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial draft text for the editor's draft for each proposal, and work on examples.

<Wilco> @alastairc, can we clarify timeline on that?

jf: (gives exampes of protocals)

rm: put them in separately.

<Jaunita_George_> +1

rm: in different areas of the draft.

<Chuck> +1

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to observe that the conversation highlights the philosophical differences, and propose a way forward

ac: anyone work on draft veribage?

jf: sign me up.

chuck: sent back to the group with examples.

jg: each team could meet separately.

ac: makes sense.

gregg: need at least 4 examples.
… for mc, if 2 can be brought together then have 4 example.

wilco: will we need to delay new subgroups?

mc: won't stop me.

mc: can have examples in a couple weeks.

jf: can take another run at it.

ac: need text for the draft.

jf: conformace is a intragal to the proposal.
… educational compontent is key.

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial draft for the editor's draft for each proposal (separately).

ac: would need to present it group in 3 weeks.

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial text for the editor's draft for each proposal (separately).

<Chuck> +1

<JF> * I can have stuff ready for 2 weeks

<Jaunita_George_> +1

<Rachael> +1 to resolution

<Wilco> 0 on resolution

gregg: need examples before coming back to this group.

<jeanne> 0 - not a high priority before TPAC

RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial text for the editor's draft for each proposal (separately).

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to suggest we postpone review of other survey questions

<Jaunita_George_> +1

chuck: lets' skip other survey questions.

WCAG 3 Subgroup participation and handbook https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06/results

ac: most people availabile for sub groups.

Subgroup Interest

ac: good spread.
… scoping was of least interest.

gregg: what is scoping?

ac: wcag 2 scoing was the page.

<AWK> Will the survey be reopened?

rm: this group will explore using SEO intents to define user processes/journeys.

gregg: scope og wcag was not a page. Coiuld be a whole web app.

<Chuck> I have reopened the survey, presently through 7/19

gregg: not sure what SEO means. Need socping defined.

<Rachael> We 4 initially proposed scopes to explore at https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#testing

ac: scopign would allow you to conformbased on the user journey/path.

greg: sounds like point of evaluation.

ac: think of it as scoping for the conformace statement.

wilco: leave survey until the end of the day.

<Azlan> I can join scoping

<AWK> thanks, Chuck

<GreggVan> I am willing to contribute to scoping but cannot do 4 hrs a week on it -- and don't want to do it in lieu of equity

wilco: will depend o meeting times too.

<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_caRiZaTQDmsd2Vq415sz4AIullNse-GeGtohUfg_5M/edit#heading=h.gzpoqn1jwaec

wilco: can go through subgroup hand book.

<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yzR1H0SnNFRELGchb_BJr4Necsrj6xVjDF1n7Tc0kTc/edit#gid=1247745107

wilco: new direction we want to try out.
… subgroups are scoped to 8 weeks.
… more flexible. need 4 approx hours a week.
… groups set up by the chairs.
… need pull request to update the drat at week 8.
… not everything will be merged. That's fine.
… comitment 4 hous/wk. If that doesn't work rach out to the chairs.

Wilco: Week 8 feedback incorporated, presented again to AGWG for final
… exceptions, if group needs more time, can't put in 4 hours, connect with chairs
… reach out, group-ag-plan@w3.org
… facilitator responsibilities, described in doc, e.g., notifying chairs, documenting in wiki
… facilitators may do less writing
… approach, trial, focus on getting content before TPAC

Jennie_: Great doc — add something to speak to Taskforce subgroups, to understand how interfaces

Rachael: Does not influence how subgroups and task forces are current doing, this is separate\

Jennie_: Thanks, recommend, since language is the same, could distinction be added to document?

Wilco: Yes, will work that out

<Rachael> +1 to either different names or adding clarification

GreggVan: Call them AG subgroups?

alastairc: WCAG 3 content subgroups?

Wilco: Will figure out, good point

Moving the charter forward https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_July_22/

alastairc: Previous discussions, have sent to AC for prelim review, no feedback yet
… next step to make sure AG is happy
… reviewing survey results
… 404 issue, updated

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/draft-ag-decision-policy.html

MichaelC: Should be working now

alastairc: [reviews responses]

jeanne: Unclear what was transitional, put in example to clarify, minor edits
… include EO for WCAG 3

alastairc: Good point
… [reviews responses]

GreggVan: Might get people to agree if called candidate
… middle bullet, deliverables

alastairc: Expanded in conformance section, add "candidate", any objections?

<alastairc> Suggested scope update: "Conformance model" to "Candidate conformance model"

alastairc: [reviews responses]
… in 1.2, "by end of next charter", should be "this charter"?

<alastairc> "Any requirement or challenge without a demonstrated solution that has AG WG consensus by the end of the next charter will be excluded from WCAG 3."

MichaelC: Yes, should be "this charter"

alastairc: [reviews responses]
… most people happy, few small changes, standout of negative paragraph
… will take away
… anything else?

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1 to awks rewrite

MichaelC: It's a rewrite of the negative text

alastairc: Looks like good update

Rachael: Silver Friday meeting, starting to capture use cases, lessons learned from categorization exercise
… trying to finish up — 20 more, help appreciated

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m8J2zxoinwPQmLanLMUk_M0U4ttfTUvEkussPKLns-E/edit#heading=h.ej6nktjsuln8

jeanne: Have been working on migration cases for different SCs, talk about usual things, questions, concerns
… several raised, realized should capture them

<Azlan> I have to drop

jeanne: list in doc concerns, have list, when testing new ways to structure, test, categorize, can go to list, test against usual cases
… anyone who worked on any and had concerns, please add to list, will be helpful, put in SC number, name, link to migration doc, short issue description

<jeanne> List of SC

alastairc: Look at migration exercises, quite a few done, a few gaps, docs available where gaps

<jeanne> Folder

alastairc: a few to go, please have a go

MichaelC: Charter survey, but in edits, check they are correct

alastairc: CfC next

Francis_Storr: Proposed redesign, is that going to roll out?

MichaelC: Minor edits with Jeanne and Rachael, rolled out
… redesign, almost there but something's broken, have to figure out
… keep bugging
… CfC on charter, are changes to decision policy part of CfC or separate?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask about decision policy

alastairc: Can do separately, haven't reviewed because of 404, give people change to review
… with diff

MichaelC: Some people wanted to see that before voting on charter

alastairc: Yes decision policy then CfC

Summary of resolutions

  1. The sub-group will draft initial text for the editor's draft for each proposal (separately).
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).


Succeeded: s/3 examples/4 examples/

Succeeded: s/afuture /a future /

Succeeded: s/proproasls /proposals /

Succeeded: s/talke/talk/

Succeeded: s/derer /defer /

Succeeded: s/a either /an either /

Succeeded: s/\][p\][p'//

Maybe present: ac, greg, gregg, jg, MC, MichaelC, rm