Accessibility Supported Subgroup Meeting - Week 8

06 September 2022


AWK, bruce_bailey, LauraBMiller, Makoto, Poornima

Meeting minutes


Item of discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XxzwsgWZSDh2EDqTag-nYfrqAT3b6Glpu8DGbVpTd9M/edit#heading=h.heyfrhrm28d2

Finalize Pull Request for TPAC

Makoto: This is scheduled to be our final meeting.
… we need to finalize Pull Request (PR) to have text for discussion at TPAC next week.
… has been discussed previously and shared with Chair (no feed back yet)
… I am not confident that draft is in good condition.
… Has anyone read?

All: no

Taking 5 min. to read.

Section 10-2 only.

Poornima: Question about option 5 -- keep AS but limit to documented techniques.

<Makoto> Jon's input. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022JulSep/0354.html

Makoto: That follows from discussion on list. Comment from Jon Avila

Poornima: Another approach would be to be more consistent with providing AS with each wcag3 guideline...
… that idea was suggest last week, but do not see that here.

Makoto: Let me see if I can make more distinction between option 3 and 5
… so option 3 is keep AS but commit to database
… option 4 is subset of option 3 as only commitment is for approved test files
… option 5 reflects idea from Jon Avila, AS limited to AGWG published methods
… I have concern with that approach because non-US products, like PC Talker in Japan, would not be Accessibility Support due to lack of documentation.
… So option 5 might be possible, but will be very diffiult.

Note -- on listserv -- subject line is quote 4th option unquote

AWK: As I understood listserv comment, there are a bunch of things we don't have to worry about, for example ALT or certain ARIA techniques...
… they are well understood and not part of AS conversation...
… risk is for newer technologies, and author created components like a slider.
… as phrased on listserv, almost seems to be more about undocumented methods. But I hear we are in agreement about scope.

Makoto: Also see GreggV comment on list.

<Rachael> +1 to AWK's interpretation

AWK: As written, seems like AS is only of concern when / where documentation is missing.

AWK: Someone has to do a ton of work, for example the database, if they want to use technologies which can work.

Makoto: I think AGWG would be able to document or validate techniques and methods...
… we need web content authors to check and note how compatible is their source code...
… but we need AGWG to agree with those methods and techniques ...
… if AGWG is English, Japanese implementers could translate and follow.
… I think we are on same page.

LauraBMiller: I am looking at listing, and I would note that not all pro and con items are of equal weight...
… listing them out, makes it look like longer list is determinative...
… but not all the cons are weighted equally. Some might be "show stoppers".

Makoto: I am not sure how I have this written up is correct.

Rachael: We are still working on subgroup process and feedback, so working on process for TPAC. I do think it is right direction generally.
… I would like to have middle written up as GitHub issue. The top and bottom I am not sure.
… looking for feedback on proposal.
… or I can create GitHub issue / discussion.

Makoto: This discussion will be continued, and we can keep the pros / cons for next step phase...
… timing is right before TPAC. I would like to follow Rachael suggestions. Thoughts?

<AWK> +1

All concur, no dissent

Makoto: Looking for feedback, I raised six questions. Do we need all? Did I miss one?

LauraBMiller: What is the next step?

Makoto: We are looking for something to go in next public draft of WCAG3.

Bruce: Are these question for TPAC or WCAG3 ?

Makoto: These would be questions to the audience of WCAG3.

Bruce: Also 5/6 questions are about collecting AS data -- but first week we raised idea of dropping AS in wcag3

AWK: Having these questions in PWD implies that AS is staying and that AGWG is asking about means to solicit funding.

Bruce: +1 to AWK

AWK: I had not thought what the result of our work was going to be.

LauraBMiller: I agree that the first question should be if we support AS or not.
… pros and cons need more context
… Are we helping people to decide, or moving past that?

<Poornima> +1 on the decision to be made first

Bruce: agree w/ Laura that we need to discuss AS or not more

Rachael: Recall that we have Exploratory content now, so what we have now fits that model...
… idea is to capture outstanding questions before move to Developing.

Bruce: I think questions/issues for TPAC different than Qs to public in PWD

Rachael: Context is editors draft, not PWD

Makoto: I think we have quite a bit captured here, including the conversation with Wilco last week
… So maybe a little bit different with what we are writing up from our conversations.

Poornima: We have options to bring forward to larger group meetings...
… we have the known issues and several options.

Makoto: I wanted to ask AWK about need to develop global database.

AWK: My comment was on keep AS as-is and there is assertion that to do that, we need global DB...
… but that is not correct since we do not have that now. The global DB is more about option 3

Makoto: Okay, thanks, I understand.

Poornima: Again, my suggestion that wcag3 pay more attention and focus to AS with each Guideline is not included here, and I would like to see that as an option.

Makoto: I am not clear on suggestion to call out AS as 6th option.

<AWK> Poornima - call out the AT support in the normative WCAG content?

Poornima: We need to promote AS as a core issue.

Makoto: Information to product developers?

Poornima: No, I am talking about prose in Guidelines. Example is ALT, why is needed and how AT provides AS for ALT.

Bruce: I typed in an option 6

Makoto: For TPAC, I will keep six options for presentation at TPAC...
… We will keep pros / cons in this doc for hopefully being of use to next iteration.

TPAC Schedule

Makoto: Feed back on known issues can inform TPAC discussion.
… And we have Rachael creating GitHub issue/discussion and moving middle section to exploratory.

Makoto: At TPAC I am presenting for 90 minutes, including some discussion. I will be remote only though. Anyone there in person?

AWK: I will be there in person.

LauraBMiller: remote only

Poornima: remote only

Bruce: I am not attending TPAC.

<Makoto> TPAC https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2022#AG_WG_Meeting_at_TPAC_2022

Makoto: Please review bottom of document, section 10 which is my notes for TPAC.

Makoto thanks everyone for their hard work.

<Rachael> Thank you all for your work on this.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).


Succeeded: s/Avila (sp)/Avila

Succeeded: s/Wildco.../Wilco last week

Maybe present: All, Bruce, Rachael