15:07:26 RRSAgent has joined #ag 15:07:26 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-irc 15:08:37 Joshue has joined #ag 15:08:50 Lisa has joined #ag 15:10:25 Agenda+ Welcome 15:10:31 Agenda+ Review CEPC 15:10:42 Agenda+ Review W3C guidance for hybrid meetings 15:10:52 Agenda+ Time-boxing conversations and moving conversation forward 15:11:08 Agenda+ Functional needs https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bQYDKiwv0Fc9HyA6TNzb6paQkQY9OouyH-SbaS2qtd8/edit#slide=id.gc6f73a04f_0_0 15:11:30 agenda? 15:11:34 zakim: start meeting 15:12:25 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:12:25 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 15:12:29 meeting: AGWG TPAC Monday 8:30 15:13:57 Jaunita_George has joined #ag 15:14:11 Ryladog_ has joined #ag 15:15:52 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea_HOME 15:15:59 I muted the room until the meeting starts 15:18:25 this is axctualy quite cool 15:19:13 present+ 15:19:39 mbgower has joined #ag 15:19:40 present+ 15:19:46 present+ 15:20:51 AWK has joined #ag 15:20:56 joshua, I made a meeting invite. should I add you? it has the zoom link 15:21:09 +AWK 15:22:39 present+ Shawn(part) 15:22:46 i sent an invite to the the interaccess account. is that correct? 15:22:54 present+ 15:23:35 present+ 15:23:44 jeanne has joined #ag 15:23:51 present+ 15:24:05 present+ 15:24:19 JohnRochford has joined #ag 15:24:24 present+ 15:26:30 I can add anyone who wants to the google callander invite with the zoom link 15:26:42 Jennie has joined #ag 15:27:18 JustineP has joined #ag 15:28:12 jon_avila has joined #ag 15:28:21 present+jon_avila 15:28:32 present+ 15:29:43 present+ 15:29:46 JakeAbma has joined #ag 15:29:55 present+ 15:30:11 agenda+ 15:30:24 Makoto has joined #ag 15:30:25 agenda? 15:30:29 no problem. It was just simpler for some people to have the info on their callander 15:30:31 Lauriat has joined #ag 15:30:33 zakim, take up item 15:30:33 I don't understand 'take up item', Rachael 15:30:35 Present+ 15:30:38 present+ 15:30:39 present+ 15:30:40 present+ 15:30:44 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 15:30:52 present+ 15:30:55 present+ 15:31:09 zakim, next item 15:31:09 agendum 1 -- Welcome -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:31:11 Rain has joined #ag 15:31:24 present+ 15:31:37 scribe: mbgower 15:31:48 Fazio has joined #ag 15:31:57 present+ 15:32:04 Rachael: I'll change the scribe at 45 minutes 15:32:13 jasonjgw has joined #ag 15:32:18 Rachael: We will be keeping a parking lot space 15:32:22 scott_h has joined #ag 15:32:34 Parking Lot: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OprBE6Lqb1iSKx_q-33fC-jH-Xh3YyTYAmeTLyp5j9I/edit 15:32:41 AWK: What does that mean? 15:32:52 present+ 15:32:54 Rachael: If someone brings up a good point, it gets captured. 15:33:06 AWK: I'll do that. 15:33:12 kevers has joined #ag 15:33:13 q+ 15:33:17 q+ 15:33:25 present+ 15:33:27 [Individuals in room recognize themselves] 15:33:28 present+ 15:33:31 q? 15:33:33 present+ 15:33:37 s/recongnize/introduce 15:33:42 julierawe has joined #ag 15:33:46 present+ 15:33:46 s/recognize/introduce 15:34:12 ack scott_h 15:34:25 ack Lisa 15:35:08 s/Individuals in room/editors from working groups 15:35:14 shadi has joined #ag 15:35:25 s/editors/chairs and leads 15:35:39 present+ 15:35:41 present+ 15:35:53 q? 15:35:56 zakim, take up next item 15:35:56 agendum 2 -- Review CEPC -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:35:58 Rachael: Monday and Tuesday schedules are set. We may adjust later in week. We won't change time slots, just possibly topics. 15:36:03 https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc 15:36:17 Appreciate and accommodate our similarities and differences. 15:36:24 Have empathy when discussing sensitive issues. 15:36:29 Treat everyone with respect. 15:36:34 Be honest, be truthful. 15:36:38 Be aware of how much time is taken up 15:36:54 Be sensitive to language differences. In particular, English is not the primary language of all participants (avoid idiomatic expression), speak slowly 15:36:59 Respect confidentiality and privacy. 15:37:09 q? 15:37:16 zakim, take up next item 15:37:16 agendum 3 -- Review W3C guidance for hybrid meetings -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:37:18 wq# 15:37:22 q+ 15:37:29 ack lisa 15:38:16 https://www.w3.org/2022/09/TPAC/health.html 15:38:48 Rachael: The above link is health guidance for those attending in person. 15:39:25 zakim, take up next item 15:39:25 agendum 4 -- Time-boxing conversations and moving conversation forward -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:39:46 matatk has joined #ag 15:40:08 Rachael: We will be trying to manage queue between in person and virtual. Talk to each other in breaks. 15:40:14 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OprBE6Lqb1iSKx_q-33fC-jH-Xh3YyTYAmeTLyp5j9I/edit#heading=h.kxzbj6ojs8x5 15:40:17 present+ 15:40:38 Rachael: Anyone can write on the parking lot. If others hear a topic, please note it down. 15:40:52 Rachael: I'll need a scribe and parking lot manager for every meeting. 15:40:57 zakim, take up next item 15:40:57 agendum 5 -- Functional needs https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bQYDKiwv0Fc9HyA6TNzb6paQkQY9OouyH-SbaS2qtd8/edit#slide=id.gc6f73a04f_0_0 -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:41:18 MichaelC: I have a slide up 15:41:33 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:41:38 MichaelC: Please queue questions until end 15:41:51 present+ 15:41:56 MichaelC: I will update the group and what our progress means for us. 15:42:24 MichaelC: Began as a subgroup of silver. Came up with list of functional needs. 15:42:48 MichaelC: A big topic and applies to more than just web content accessibility guidelines. 15:42:56 MicahelC: Moved to accessible architecture 15:43:31 MichaelC: FAST: Framework for Accessible Specific Technologies 15:43:48 s/Specific/Specification 15:44:36 [goes through slide 4 Definitions] 15:45:28 MichaelC: If you are in more than one group and you have needs that are not specific in any one group, we define those as intersectional functional needs 15:45:31 Editor's draft of FAST: https://w3c.github.io/fast/ 15:46:52 MichaelC: I included an intersectional need at the end of the second slide on Functional Needs 15:47:19 MichaelC: we added Personalization and Deceptive patterns to POUR 15:47:47 Link to full matrix: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit#gid=752043294 15:47:50 MichaelC: On slide 8 I've made a simplified version of the matrix 15:49:02 MichaelC: Not all functional needs and user needs intersect, but where they do, it is useful information for us. 15:49:42 MichaelC: The worksheet will not show up in the final document, but something derived from it may. 15:50:14 MichaelC: I'm going to circle back to the Vision and visual walk-through (which is to show you in detail how the matrix can work) 15:51:12 MichaelC: We will need a wide review pass to confirm our work. 15:51:47 MichaelC [reviews Open issues and challenges, slide 11] 15:52:19 There are 1500 intersecting rows. I'm not sure we can expect someone to adopt guidelines that has that many points in it. 15:52:55 MichaelC: We have not figured out how AT fits into the model. 15:53:09 MichaelC: This is a long-term vision (not this or next year) 15:53:51 MicahelC: [Reviews Proposed work on slide 12] 15:54:06 MichaelC: Authoring is where AGWG comes in 15:54:55 MichaelC: In the FAST document, all you see right now is headings. We first need to fill that information out. 15:55:27 MichaelC: We have been receiving feedback from groups. We haven't incorporated feedback yet. 15:55:39 janina has joined #ag 15:55:51 present+ 15:56:07 MichaelC: The other main thing besides making a more mature list is completing the matrrix 15:56:27 MichaelC: My goal is that these tasks will meet in the middle. 15:56:39 q? 15:56:45 MichaelC: I'd like LIsa to talk about the COGA bit, after I check for clarification questions. 15:56:49 Rachael: Any questions? 15:57:42 Link to coga document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ndRziXRfnyAgDaL8ctByQagDdM36H8QxV44lO3u8zgc/edit# 15:57:52 Lisa: We had a look and felt this was really important work. 15:58:09 Lisa: It had started to address COGA but was not rigorously done from our perspective. 15:58:25 Lisa: Where we started was in functional needs. We didn't look at intersectionality. 15:58:41 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ndRziXRfnyAgDaL8ctByQagDdM36H8QxV44lO3u8zgc/edit# 15:59:09 Lisa: We've made a table from the functional needs list. This took a long time. 15:59:54 Lisa: The 2nd column is what FAST includes. The 3rd column is what we felt was missing. 16:00:38 Lisa: We separated out different types of communication: language, non-language. Then if you were discussing them, what could go under the categories. 16:00:51 risako has left #ag 16:00:55 Lisa: Learning, we also liked the categories, but thought more could be added. 16:01:03 Lisa: We got a bit lost with memory. 16:01:44 Lisa: for function, we increased the list 16:01:56 Lisa: Mental Health... We've done a good first stab. 16:02:16 Lisa: Cognitive and Sensory, we though we'd remove this and add others 16:02:32 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag 16:02:47 Lisa: We weren't sure what belonged here and what didn't. 16:03:27 Lisa: We proposed a few new buckets: processing, knowledge (related to learning, but could also be new to a culture) 16:04:09 Lisa: Orientation. Where things are in space can be an important functional category 16:04:26 Lisa: Math we broke out. FOr instance discalculia. 16:04:51 Lisa: psychomotor coordination might get move to intersectionality 16:05:02 q? 16:05:25 Lisa: This got reviewed quite a few times. I think it's good for first public draft. 16:05:32 Lisa: I don't think it's embarrassing. 16:05:32 q+ to talk about the importance of organizing the buckets so that there isn't a negative structural impact on equity 16:05:57 MichaelC: We started with our best knowledge, and experts came in and filled information. It's a great example of what we need. 16:06:25 Lisa: Let's work a bit on how we work together. I think saying 'do we like the categories' is a good first step. 16:06:43 Lisa: The matrix is quite daunting, but reviewing the categories is a good starting point. 16:07:23 Josh: I haven't gone through this in a while, so bear with me. 16:08:01 [discussion on size of document on screen] 16:08:10 -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit#gid=752043294 Functional and User needs matrix 16:08:34 Josh: This stuff is hard and daunting. But there is a potential to form a core architecture from user needs 16:09:03 Josh: FAST is a mechanism that can help us come up with some workable 16:09:23 Josh: The Vision and Visual Aspects part of this is the most advanced. 16:10:14 Josh: If we drill down through it, we find some things from wcag. Some are from immersive and other emerging technologies. We've tried to come up with practical needs. But this is just a slice. 16:11:10 Josh: There are a lot of other functional needs. One of the challenges we have is to do in a pratical way. Be aware of the deltas, but not get drawn down too much into a 'rabbit hole' 16:11:31 Josh: It's great this is starting to get reviewed. We need other groups to review and provide input. 16:12:03 Josh: It's exciting work, but it seems a bit meta. Sometimes it is hard to understand where this is supposed to go. Thanks to Michael, Jake, Todd and others who contributed. 16:12:34 MichaelC: We needed to focus on one column and really exercised it. That's where the focus on vision came from. 16:12:49 q+ 16:12:51 MichaelC: We can't go through the details of that in this meeting, but that's what we'd like to do. 16:13:38 scribe: JohnRochford 16:13:46 q? 16:13:48 ack jeanne 16:13:48 jeanne, you wanted to talk about the importance of organizing the buckets so that there isn't a negative structural impact on equity 16:14:47 Jeanne: Order of categories is important in terms of equity. 16:14:57 ack Lisa 16:14:57 +q 16:15:38 PaulG has joined #ag 16:15:59 present+ 16:16:38 Lisa: The number of PwD lumped together and possibly the majority will have different cognitive needs, and separate categories are not inclusive. 16:17:30 +1 that it is a linchpin 16:17:37 ack me 16:17:38 ack Joshue 16:17:40 Lisa: I am interested in what the next steps are. 16:17:50 q+ 16:17:57 Bhoomika has joined #ag 16:18:16 +1 16:18:19 Can we do focus groups to get more info? 16:18:21 q+ to ask about plans to get engagement on other categories 16:18:26 Mike: It's a matter of resourcing, and that's why we need more people to be involved. 16:18:32 q+ 16:18:45 ack MichaelC 16:18:52 Jem has joined #ag 16:18:58 Mike: Any structural inequity is completely unintentional. 16:19:31 :present+ 16:19:42 Michael: We have a rough timeline. 16:19:58 Michael: We want content review within next year. 16:20:06 present+ 16:20:12 ack Rachael 16:20:12 Rachael, you wanted to ask about plans to get engagement on other categories 16:20:20 s/:present+/present+/ 16:21:29 q? 16:21:31 q+ 16:21:58 ack Jennie 16:22:06 q+j to ask for publishing timeline 16:22:19 Jennifer has joined #ag 16:22:27 Jennie: I wonder how global needs will be addressed. 16:22:53 Jennie: Review time while navigating a page, for example. 16:22:56 q+ 16:23:22 ack SuzanneTaylor 16:23:54 ack j 16:23:54 j, you wanted to ask for publishing timeline 16:24:08 Suzzane: I am chair of a11y for children group. We will look at user and functional needs within the next two months. 16:24:21 q+ to answer publishing 16:24:24 Ally for Children Meeting Agendas: https://www.w3.org/community/accessibility4children/wiki/Meeting_Agendas#Meeting_27:_September_15.2C_2022 16:24:24 q+ to answer at 16:24:44 ack MichaelC 16:24:44 MichaelC, you wanted to answer publishing and to answer at 16:24:50 Janina: What is the status of our work in terms of publishing a working draft? 16:25:35 Michael: Before publishing, we need at least one sentence for each heading, 16:25:51 +1 to publishing 16:25:56 +1 to publish often 16:26:26 q+ to say you said you'd like to go through this document in detail but this isn't time time. What is the plan for that? 16:26:39 Michael: We do not have a good idea of how to address AT factors. We need a clear separation of AT needs and user needs, 16:26:40 draft strawpoll: Should we 1) conduct wide review now or 2) after the 1-2 sentence descriptions are added, or 3) after the descriptions are added and the coga and accessibility for children are added 16:27:00 ack mbgower 16:27:00 mbgower, you wanted to say you said you'd like to go through this document in detail but this isn't time time. What is the plan for that? 16:27:02 3 16:27:06 3 16:27:10 q+ 16:27:11 3 16:27:13 q+ 16:27:16 q+ 16:27:20 q+ to suggestion a partial review of top level 16:27:25 ack me 16:27:26 Mike G: When is the time we address the document in detail? 16:27:32 q? 16:27:33 1 16:27:35 1 16:27:48 1 16:27:53 Michael: There will be times during the week for that. 16:28:02 ack me 16:28:02 ack Joshue 16:28:35 ack Rain 16:28:38 Amanda has joined #ag 16:28:49 Josh: User Agents, as is AT, are exciting to consider and incorporate as well. 16:29:39 q+ to define harm 16:30:03 rain was coga co-facilitator until recently 16:30:10 +1 Rain 16:30:12 q+ 16:30:17 JOC: We'll need to flag and come back to this topic of potential harm etc 16:30:25 Yes, that is correct 16:30:25 2-3 16:30:26 q+ to talk about classification of function 16:30:28 ack Rachael 16:30:28 Rachael, you wanted to suggestion a partial review of top level 16:30:36 Rain: I am concerned the review could reinforce stereotypes and thus cause harm. 16:30:47 I'm concerned that without a way to review carefully, there could be accidental harm caused 16:30:52 ack MichaelC 16:30:52 MichaelC, you wanted to define harm 16:30:54 ack me 16:31:05 +1 to Rachael 16:31:41 ack Wilco 16:31:48 Michael: There is a harm for getting needs wrong, but there is a greater harm in excluding certain groups. I don't want to cause harm, but I want to publish something. 16:31:54 q+ to suggest heightened sensitivity to harm should go in an Ed Note 16:31:55 q+ 16:32:12 Wilco: It seems early in our process to discuss publication. 16:32:22 ack Joshue 16:32:22 Joshue, you wanted to talk about classification of function 16:32:29 jeff has joined #ag 16:32:34 ack me 16:32:42 present+ 16:32:48 Rachael: There will be a straw poll about publication after our discussion. 16:32:56 +1 to partial review 16:33:50 +1 16:34:01 ack janina 16:34:01 janina, you wanted to suggest heightened sensitivity to harm should go in an Ed Note 16:34:06 Josh: How do we classify functional needs? To some degree, we need to articulate peoples' functional needs to determine how best to serve them. I am in favor of a partial review before publication. 16:34:59 ack MichaelC 16:35:00 q+ 16:35:02 ack me 16:35:03 q+ 16:35:04 +1 Janina 16:35:15 q+ 16:35:17 +1 to Janina’s “Well worded editors notes” to enable review 16:35:20 Janina: I am in favor of avoiding harm directly or indirectly, so we could spend a long time considering or we could add brief info to solicit input from the community. 16:35:31 ack Judy 16:36:53 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:36:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html Jem 16:36:58 ack Lisa 16:37:06 +1 to Judy, that would be useful 16:37:16 Judy: I wonder if it would be useful to do a "hives check," a high-level review. 16:37:58 Lisa: It took COGA a long time to produce the feedback we already have. 16:38:51 mbgower has joined #ag 16:38:53 Lisa: We would not like it if our feedback would not be included in a publication. 16:38:54 q? 16:39:11 ack matatk 16:39:15 jon_avila_ has joined #ag 16:40:09 WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) - https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health 16:40:33 Matthew: Posting this to address being robust. 16:40:35 ack me 16:40:35 q+ 16:40:36 q? 16:40:37 q+ 16:40:39 ack Lisa 16:42:02 ack julierawe 16:42:02 Lisa: It's good to be aware there have been WHO discussions about disability and health. 16:42:06 +1 to Lisa 16:42:55 Julie: 2 places to which to call attention: emotional health and sensitivities to negative stimuli. 16:43:14 draft strawpoll: Should we 1) conduct wide review now with editors notes ; 2) after the 1-2 sentence descriptions are added with editors notes, or 3) after the descriptions are added and the coga and accessibility for children are added with editor's notes 4) partial review to select groups with editor's notes. 16:43:20 q? 16:43:28 Julie: Acknowledging the need to reword to avoid sterotyping. 16:43:48 4 16:43:53 q+ 16:43:56 ack mbgower 16:43:58 1 16:43:59 3 or 4 16:44:09 3, 4, 2, 1 16:44:21 3 16:44:22 2, 3, or 4 16:44:22 who are the “select groups” ? 16:44:25 3 or 4 16:44:27 changing it to 3 16:44:29 3 16:44:34 3 16:44:37 1 16:44:45 Josh: Will this go to groups other than COGA and Children A11y? 16:44:48 3 16:44:50 3 16:44:51 3 16:44:53 3 and/or 4 16:45:02 3 or 4 16:45:04 3 16:45:06 3 or 4 16:45:31 Janina: Anyone at W3C can review. 16:45:33 3 and/or 4 16:45:42 Whichever one is most inclusive, is my vote 16:45:56 q+ 16:46:01 Janina: We look for specific suggestions. 16:46:01 1 16:46:11 +2 because it's time-boxed, and 3 and 4 have no time-boxing proposed 16:46:15 3 16:46:16 q? 16:46:19 ack MichaelC 16:46:51 Michael C: There's support for 3 or 4, not for 1 or 2 groups. 16:46:53 3, 4, 2, 1 (that's an order of preference, same as Wilco I gather :-)) 16:47:05 Michael C: Not sure we can publish this calendar year. 16:47:26 q? 16:48:14 +q 16:48:27 q+ to say as lisa points out, its' the redundant effort I'm concerned about 16:48:36 ack me 16:48:40 ack Joshue 16:48:40 David: I am concerned we are being overcautious. We could publish a mitigating statement. 16:49:07 Q+ 16:51:01 Josh: We want to keep in mind that perfect is the enemy of the good. It is important this work, for example within XR, that requirements for PwD, such as cognitive and mental health, are considered. 16:51:17 ack mbgower 16:51:17 mbgower, you wanted to say as lisa points out, its' the redundant effort I'm concerned about 16:52:12 +1 to getting coga's work in if its done even if its inclusion is imperfect 16:52:24 q+ 16:52:32 Mike G: Is there a way that publishing a first public working draft then an editors' review that incorporates COGA feedback? 16:52:39 ack Fazio 16:52:40 may be taskforce? 16:53:07 q+ 16:53:07 David: We need insight from people outside the W3C. 16:53:13 ack MichaelC 16:54:16 ack janina 16:54:35 Michael C: Publishing a TR doc is a formal step the W3C takes, but we may want to set up something else that's reviewable. 16:54:49 q+ 16:55:06 ack Lisa 16:56:10 q+ 16:56:29 Lisa: We should respect the fact that tracking multiple updates may be difficult to people with cognitive disabilities. 16:56:29 q+ 16:56:34 ack Judy 16:56:42 I agree with you Lisa 16:57:37 Judy: When there are new comments to respond to, there could be a digest that could be helpful to COGA members. 16:57:45 ack me 16:57:45 ack MichaelC 16:58:50 Poornima_ has joined #ag 16:59:04 Michael C: The only reason I wanted to publish is expediency, but I hear that incorporating feedback is more important than expediency. 17:00:44 jasonjgw has left #ag 17:03:10 q? 17:03:48 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 17:04:28 agenda? 17:04:33 mbgower has joined #ag 17:04:33 zakim, close item 5 17:04:34 agendum 5, Functional needs https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bQYDKiwv0Fc9HyA6TNzb6paQkQY9OouyH-SbaS2qtd8/edit#slide=id.gc6f73a04f_0_0, closed 17:04:35 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 17:05:04 agenda+ Test type presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nrW3Uir5RVvwlTlLMgJ6aUEHZoEYpO1f/edit#slide=id.p1 17:05:32 agenda+ COGA Proposed Tests for Clear Language https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tve0g7pRufB5iShWwstwrfGdDtbn8YdsHEyN7Coj1vU/edit#slide=id.g1484687d409_0_67 17:05:51 agenda+ Test Survey and Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/test-types/results 17:29:22 mbgower has joined #ag 17:31:13 zakim, take up next item 17:31:13 agendum 6 -- Test type presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nrW3Uir5RVvwlTlLMgJ6aUEHZoEYpO1f/edit#slide=id.p1 -- taken up [from Rachael] 17:31:25 present+ 17:33:01 +AWK 17:33:27 rrsagent, make minutes 17:33:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html jcraig 17:33:44 present+ 17:33:53 scribe: Rachael 17:34:21 present+ AWK 17:34:25 rrsagent, make minutes 17:34:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html jcraig 17:34:33 Present+ 17:35:02 Shadi: Re-dioing presentation from previous presentation to AG. Introduce subgroup members: Shadi, Rain, Wilco, Michael, and Juanita 17:35:41 ...goals: Come up with examples for the different types of tests, Work out if the proposed test types work. Do we need more, do we need any of them combined / changed?, Go over different test types and come up with terms for them that reflect their intent., Develop clearer definitions of each test type 17:36:01 ...reads slides from https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nrW3Uir5RVvwlTlLMgJ6aUEHZoEYpO1f/edit#slide=id.p3 17:36:52 jeff has joined #ag 17:37:23 ...two test types: Computational (was “Unconditional”) and Qualitative (was “Conditional”) 17:38:00 ...Computation doesn't require accessibility expertise. Can be done by QA tester, regardless of automated or not. 17:38:25 ...Qualitative requires some level of expertise. 17:38:38 ...then we started to think of how these get applies. We came up with 4 types. 17:38:57 ...reads slide 5 17:39:09 ShawnT has joined #ag 17:40:02 Slide 6. Prescriptive tests - not distinguishing between the test and the requirement. 17:40:05 julierawe_ has joined #ag 17:40:16 matatk has joined #ag 17:40:34 Adaptive requirements have in addition to the subjectiveness. There is another axis. External or user specific context that needs to be taken into consideration. 17:40:44 jenniferS_ has joined #ag 17:41:07 present+ 17:41:14 Wilco has joined #ag 17:41:20 ...extensible is something where you can select from multiple valid tests or there is a given way to extend the requirement. The user need is provided and there are some guardrails. There are some standards that do this but we don't know exactly how this will work. Lots needs to be done. 17:41:43 Protocol based requirements. Discussed in protocols subgroup. 17:41:51 ...Moves to slide 7 17:42:26 Holli has joined #AG 17:42:31 ...Slide 7 gives example of prescriptive. In WCAG 2. Slide 8 gives an example of adaptive. 17:42:36 matatk has joined #ag 17:43:17 ...you as a designer or developer can't determine alone. The information is external to your decision making. Many ideas here on how such data could or could not be collected. Reading level is an example. 17:43:42 ...this was removed from WCAG 1. This is still something that accessibility needs to do but we don't know how that fits in. 17:44:38 ...slide 9. A computation example is contrast in 3 modes. High contrast mode has a certain level, a different level for normal, a different one for low contrast. An example also might be selecting between WCAG 2 contrast algorithm or what is being suggested for WCAG 3. Or there may be a transitional period 17:45:19 ...A qualitative example, for an interface with 3 contrast modes, make the relationship clear between the controls and the content they affect. 17:45:55 ...another example would be different requirements for different langauges. In Hebrew, one set of rules. In English, another. In Spanish, another. 17:46:26 ...slide 10. Extensible would have information about a procedure. 17:46:48 s/...slide 10. Ex/...slide 11. Ex 17:47:01 q+ 17:47:05 q- 17:47:10 ....Slide 12: A well-established user need, A test method that indicates whether or not user need(s) are met, Evidence that the test was successfully completed 17:47:28 ...slide 12. A table to give examples of this. 17:47:30 maryjom has joined #ag 17:48:19 ...For prescriptive, the user needs is normative. 17:48:50 ..for extensible, test method the test method would be publicly documented. 17:49:14 ...for procedural, the test method would be publicly documented and the evidence would be a test report. 17:49:50 ...that is the model. These are really experimental. We had 8 weeks to try to map out. Each of these, except prescriptive which we know pretty well, could be further explored to see how this would work in practice. 17:50:08 ...They question for the group is whether this is a direction that is useful. 17:50:10 q+ 17:50:17 ...Anyone in the subgroup? 17:50:27 ack Wilco 17:50:41 Lisa has joined #ag 17:51:12 q+ 17:51:15 q+ 17:51:21 q- 17:51:25 scribe:alastairc 17:51:28 Wilco: We need to explore this. We have been figuring out what goes where. Need to think how can we fit it in, 17:51:32 q- 17:51:54 Rachael: COGA next 17:52:07 agenda? 17:52:15 zakim, close item 6 17:52:15 agendum 6, Test type presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nrW3Uir5RVvwlTlLMgJ6aUEHZoEYpO1f/edit#slide=id.p1, closed 17:52:17 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:52:17 7. COGA Proposed Tests for Clear Language https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tve0g7pRufB5iShWwstwrfGdDtbn8YdsHEyN7Coj1vU/edit#slide=id.g1484687d409_0_67 [from Rachael] 17:52:18 zakim, take up item 7 17:52:19 agendum 7 -- COGA Proposed Tests for Clear Language https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tve0g7pRufB5iShWwstwrfGdDtbn8YdsHEyN7Coj1vU/edit#slide=id.g1484687d409_0_67 -- taken up 17:52:19 ... [from Rachael] 17:52:37 Lisa: Julie will present most of this, thanks for a ton of work. 17:53:01 ... With this work, wanted to show that some parts of content-usable could be done as unconditional tests (probably). 17:53:32 ... also wanted to show the types of things that could be tested, if we had structured like procedural tests. Then group can use these to see if the test-types do the job. Can you test it? 17:53:53 ... e.g. take something hard, e.g. plain language, and give examples / proof-of-concepts. 17:54:11 ... see whether these test-types provide the flexibility to include the user-needs that we want to. 17:54:30 ... none of these are ready to publish, they will all need defined terms, adjust the scope etc. 17:54:47 ... but right now these are to help test the test-types. 17:55:40 Lisa: There are other types of achieving it, e.g. scoring. 17:55:59 ... can we deal with some things using scoring or another 'vehicle'. 17:56:31 ... try not to be de-railed by the wording. There are a couple of slides that aren't big enough. 17:56:43 ... if you have comments on the details, please add to the doc as comments. 17:56:55 ... if one of these become a real test, we'll use those to make it better. 17:57:02 ... but for now focus on the concepts. 17:57:22 ... familiarity is key for people with cog-disabilities. 17:57:28 ... handing over to Julie. 17:57:48 julierawe_: we have a few examples of 17:57:59 ... procedural tests, but not sure on the terms 17:58:20 ... focus on the overall direction of the tests, big picture. 17:58:38 ... can skip to slide 11 (Shadi covered the other points). 17:59:10 ... looking at clear language and breaking into computational tests. 17:59:20 ... (slide 12) 17:59:45 ... (describes user-needs, reading from slide) 18:00:23 slides are at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tve0g7pRufB5iShWwstwrfGdDtbn8YdsHEyN7Coj1vU/edit#slide=id.g1484687d409_0_45 18:00:54 ... the TPAC notes include things like use of Roman Numerals. We were wondering if there were other ways of testing this, is it a prescriptive test? 18:01:01 q+ 18:01:07 ack mbgower 18:01:15 Amanda has joined #ag 18:01:47 mbgower: What did you mean by clear language? Aren't roman numerals symbols rather than language? 18:02:02 ... what was the intent of this topic? 18:02:24 Lisa: In content usable we have an objective of "clear & understandable content" 18:02:37 q? 18:02:42 ... this is a smaller one, but an example of what we have under that objective that could be computational. 18:02:47 ack janina 18:03:10 janina: There is a CSS spec on this, which Lisa feed back on. 18:03:45 q? 18:04:05 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-counter-styles-3/ CSS Counter Styles 18:04:13 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag 18:04:48 julierawe_: There are examples of saying 20th century in french, which then isn't clear about what it means. 18:05:31 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OprBE6Lqb1iSKx_q-33fC-jH-Xh3YyTYAmeTLyp5j9I/edit#heading=h.kxzbj6ojs8x5 18:05:39 janina: An advantage of the W3C is we get reviews by internationalisation, accessibility. 18:05:50 q? 18:06:11 janina: Just want to make sure we don't re-invent the wheel. 18:06:18 Lisa: These are ways to conform. 18:06:20 Rossen_ has joined #ag 18:07:09 julierawe_: The idea is that you don't want the confusion of different national date systems, e.g. between british/us/candadian. 18:07:22 s/candadian/canadian 18:07:48 julierawe_: This is again about the use of numbers, but falling under 'clear language'. 18:07:59 (slide 15) 18:07:59 rrsagent, list attendees 18:07:59 I'm logging. I don't understand 'list attendees', jon_avila_. Try /msg RRSAgent help 18:08:16 irfan_ali_ has joined #ag 18:08:22 present+ 18:08:25 zakim, list attendees 18:08:25 As of this point the attendees have been Katie_Haritos-Shea_HOME, Joshue, Rachael, mbgower, AWK, Shawn(part), Lisa, Jaunita_George, jeanne, KGH, JohnRochford, jon_avila, Jennie, 18:08:26 present+ 18:08:28 ... JustineP, JakeAbma, Lauriat, Makoto, Judy, MichaelC, kirkwood, Francis_Storr, Rain, Fazio, scott_h, alastairc, jasonjgw, kevers, julierawe, shadi, Wilco, matatk, ShawnT, 18:08:28 ... janina, PaulG, SuzanneTaylor, jeff, jcraig, Jennifer, jenniferS_ 18:08:56 present+ 18:09:06 q+ 18:09:09 q+ 18:09:12 julierawe_: certain languages have certain words / vowels / diacritics that mean different things in different places. 18:09:16 sz w3c 18:09:31  18:10:16 ... some diatiric marks are needed in order to pronounce. Is that computational? Are they there or not seems straightforward. 18:10:24 q+ 18:10:31 PaulG has joined #ag 18:10:35 present+ 18:10:36 q+ Janina 18:10:43 q? 18:10:46 ack Lisa 18:11:25 Lisa: We were thinking about interntionalisation, it's tricky, to make test-cases, what would make adaptive tests where, when talking about plain language, ther eis a need to take on board local advice. 18:12:07 ... on the other hand, you have any number of dialects, so many. So we were thinking of keeping a wiki going so you could say: included the symbols and letters necessary to pronounce the words. 18:12:23 ... then it would be on a local authority to give examples of how to do it in their dialect. 18:12:27 q+ about pronunciations including i18n 18:12:46 ... I think this is also included because it's a thorny issue, and know we haven't done it right yet. 18:13:11 ack janina 18:13:43 janina: In a WCAG 3 time frame, you can expect a normative spec for the pronunciation issues. It isn't just an accessibility need, or just a coga need. 18:13:53 q? 18:13:53 Matt_King has joined #ag 18:14:15 q+ david 18:14:17 q+ DavidF 18:14:19 ... not yet in CR, but should be soon. 18:14:21 Fazio has joined #ag 18:14:27 q- DavidF 18:14:31 Scribe: Jaunita 18:14:33 Amanda: I'm curious about the hebrew aspect. 18:14:33 ack Amanda 18:14:36 present+ 18:14:45 q+ to ask about the knowability of the pronaounciation 18:14:46 ack davi 18:14:52 Rachael: Let's parking lot this 18:14:57 present+ 18:15:14 ack alastairc 18:15:14 alastairc, you wanted to ask about the knowability of the pronaounciation 18:15:44 Alastair: I was curious about how testable this is. Is it possible to know if these words are not pronounced properly? 18:16:10 Fazio: We did some research, when AAC devices were setup to use parents voice, it helped. 18:16:11 Lisa: Yes, it is possible 18:16:19 q? 18:16:22 alastairc: Is it possible to know they are missing automatically? 18:16:23 q+ 18:16:27 q+ 18:16:54 Lisa: Yes, they are typically missing unless it's for early readers, and you can tell. 18:17:25 an example of "dropped" diacritics in English: https://www.hawaii.edu/offices/communications/standards/hawaiian-language-considerations/ 18:17:50 PaulG: We can discuss this on Thursday 18:17:54 ack shadi 18:18:40 I would recommend that this topic is “Translation and Interpretation” 18:18:42 ack PaulG 18:18:44 shadi: I am not sure if I understood correctly. To know how things can be pronounced correctly is a little dependent on the context. 18:19:03 very interesting 18:19:36 PaulG: We lack the markup to accommodate it 18:19:48 Lisa: It does exist in Hebrew and Arabic 18:20:23 q+ 18:20:25 julierawe_: We're moving to slide 16 18:21:33 ...we have three or four examples of what we would call "procedural test." Not sure we should use this label, but we think we could have organizations submit common word lists. 18:21:52 present+ Léonie (tink) 18:21:59 That sounds like adaptive 18:22:01 ...Is this a procedural test or something else 18:22:30 ...We want to create some flexibility 18:22:36 q+ 18:22:43 ack Lisa 18:22:43 q+ 18:23:12 Lisa: This is really important. 18:23:45 ...context is very important 18:24:33 q? 18:24:40 ...Organizations have machine-assisted translations where there are lists of approved translation, which can be used here 18:24:42 ack janina 18:25:46 q? 18:25:46 i once wrote a potential spec for this 18:25:54 with al gillman 18:25:57 ack Jaunita_George 18:26:23 Q+ 18:26:53 Jaunita_George: It's a good idea. could also use fluency tests, e.g. elementary levels which use easier words. Then move up in levels of complexity. Could be either procedural or adaptive. 18:27:05 rrsagent, make minutes 18:27:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html irfan_ali_ 18:27:12 ... or you could rely on an organisation's testing method that is documented and validated. It could be both. 18:27:13 ack Fazio 18:27:44 q+ 18:28:02 Davidf: We don't want to confuse reading levels with clear words 18:28:16 q+ to separate reading level from why it´s what it is 18:28:38 Lisa: I disagree. 18:28:52 ack mbgower 18:29:23 Rossen_ has joined #ag 18:30:01 ack MichaelC 18:30:01 MichaelC, you wanted to separate reading level from why it´s what it is 18:30:07 mbgower: You could have a manual/automated test. I get where this is going, just want to use technology in a way that reduces work 18:30:24 q? 18:30:31 q+ 18:30:33 MichaelC: Reading level is its own topic 18:30:53 q+ 18:31:03 MichaelC: We need to define what we mean by reading level 18:31:13 Lisa: This is about comprehensive 18:31:33 ack jenniferS_ 18:31:58 jenniferS_: I'm glad we're parking this 18:32:00 ack AWK 18:33:00 awk: I'm struggling with this. Would you tailor this for different audiences? Is there is benefit to this? 18:33:07 q+ to encourage thought experiment 18:34:32 julierawe_: Could you swap in words that are more common and make it easier to access 18:34:48 q+ to say that's where an AT comes in (or even a browser extension). IBM had a content clarify built over 6 years ago that demonstrated this 18:35:22 zakim, close queue 18:35:22 ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is closed 18:35:28 q+ 18:35:52 q? 18:35:58 q- 18:36:12 q- 18:36:19 q? 18:36:23 AWK: It may help, but it may cause a situation where people have to click on a number of words in order to understand the content 18:37:44 julierawe_: We think this is either a procedural test or qualitative. A tester could look at a page of instructions and retest it. 18:39:40 ...On slide 19, we think there's a clear language component to this. We also have a suggestion for scoring for this one 18:40:05 q+ 18:40:38 ...We think WCAG 3 could and should provide guidance about how to perform usability testing with people with disabilities 18:40:42 +1 to Julie 18:40:57 q+ 18:41:38 Lisa: For the slide before -- you may have a style guide and if you do, then you would need to perform usability testing on content created according to that guide 18:42:45 zakim, take up next item 18:42:45 agendum 8 -- Test Survey and Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/test-types/results -- taken up [from Rachael] 18:43:06 Rachael: Thank you to both subgroups 18:43:39 zakim, open queue 18:43:39 ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is open 18:43:45 https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/657/files 18:43:50 ...We don't have time to read through all survey results right now. What are our thoughts about picking up this test type? 18:44:44 would it help if we explained why it is so important 18:44:50 q+ 18:44:55 ack Lisa 18:46:32 Lisa: I just wanted to add that if something isn't understandable, people will quit. It's important that we solve these problems to help users. 18:46:41 q? 18:47:05 shadi: I was wondering if there is guidance for testing with users? 18:47:14 +1 to shardi 18:47:20 ...maybe we add this to the parking lot 18:47:25 q+ 18:47:31 Rachael: I'm going to use this time to work through the survey 18:47:32 ack julierawe_ 18:47:46 q+ 18:48:05 julierawe_: I want to raise a question about procedural test types. 18:48:07 q+ 18:48:09 jojifx has joined #ag 18:48:19 ack MichaelC 18:48:26 ...I think it should be more than an affirmation 18:48:52 q+ 18:49:04 ack Jaunita_George 18:49:11 Just an opinion, along with guidance on the testing with users, guidance on creating surveys to ask for the feedback of accessibility of the sites also may help for the organizations 18:49:12 q- 18:49:52 q? 18:50:07 unfortunately coga has other meetings this afternoon. but we would be delighted to join the tabled conversations 18:50:20 maybe on thursday? 18:50:37 MichaelC: The evaluating procedures proposal is more than just affirmation. How it works in practice is still being defined. 18:51:23 Jaunita_George: I agree with Michael and just wanted to point out there are two proposals out there and the evaluating procedures proposal is meant to apply stringent criteria 18:51:46 jenniferS_: We can learn something from other groups 18:52:03 Rachael: *reads survey* 18:53:20 q+ to respond to Rachael on Methods 18:54:33 ack Wilco 18:54:33 Wilco, you wanted to respond to Rachael on Methods 18:54:52 q+ 18:55:05 ack AWK 18:55:08 Wilco: The reason we didn't go with methods because there's more conversation to be have about how these fit into the structure 18:56:01 draft RESOLUTION: Move content into exploratory with edits from MaryJo and text that clarifies the confusion point from Gundula. 18:56:07 AWK: I support moving this to exploratory because I still have questions 18:56:19 +1 18:56:25 +1 18:56:28 +1 18:56:47 +1 18:56:48 +1 moving to exploratory 18:56:48 +1 18:56:55 +1 to being exploratory 18:56:57 +1 18:56:58 JohnRochford has joined #ag 18:56:58 MichaelC: I'm in favor of putting it in 18:56:59 +1 18:57:02 +1 18:57:02 +1 18:57:02 +1 18:57:03 +1 18:57:05 +1 18:57:05 +1 18:57:09 +1 18:57:10 +1 18:57:14 +1 18:57:23 +1 18:57:45 +1 to julie . i also dont realy know what we are voting on 18:58:06 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BmDMiiGai1-jScOn_KUozGyEd_Kmmnd0tgj1yG5B2yg/edit#slide=id.g148664d92d2_0_148 18:58:06 -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G-h2JHIFZtQklMMmRaoZYEjJeX1WcVaRBafNUmQk7NQ/edit#heading=h.glvnntq7rbt8 Maturity level process 18:58:14 q+ 18:58:20 ack Lisa 18:58:22 Rachael: *Explains the difference between exploratory and developing* 18:58:54 Lisa: Have the tests taken the new material into account 18:58:56 q+ 18:59:31 ack MichaelC 18:59:35 Rachael: There's no limitation against what you did 19:00:11 MichaelC: We're working on harmonization -- both Rain and Jaunita were working on this 19:00:21 RESOLUTION: Move content into exploratory with edits from MaryJo and text that clarifies the confusion point from Gundula. 19:00:48 Rachael: We should flesh this out in our working groups later today 19:01:12 quit+ 19:03:56 mbgower has joined #ag 19:09:45 matatk has joined #ag 19:20:56 matatk has joined #ag 19:23:14 mbgower has joined #ag 19:39:54 matatk has joined #ag 19:47:10 laura has joined #ag 19:52:55 MichaelC has joined #ag 19:53:54 agenda? 19:54:01 zakim, close item 8 19:54:01 agendum 8, Test Survey and Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/test-types/results, closed 19:54:03 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 19:54:18 agenda+ Equity presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1H1UQshlV6MJqPiOYDlus1J-NuoRCP3JFTc74c12NBnI/edit#slide=id.p 19:54:37 agenda+ Equity Survey and Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-tpac/results 19:59:52 Amanda has joined #ag 20:09:04 jenniferS has joined #ag 20:09:10 present+ 20:09:30 scribe: Wilco 20:09:55 Rachael: Does anyone object to me recording the presentation? 20:10:35 JakeAbma has joined #Ag 20:10:59 present+ 20:11:16 ... I'm going to hold queue until the end of the presentation 20:11:18 Bhoomika has joined #ag 20:11:39 ... This round's topic is on Equity 20:11:41 * Thank you, Jeanne, for covering parking lot! 20:11:41 Amanda has joined #ag 20:11:56 zakim, take up next item 20:11:56 agendum 9 -- Equity presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1H1UQshlV6MJqPiOYDlus1J-NuoRCP3JFTc74c12NBnI/edit#slide=id.p -- taken up [from Rachael] 20:11:58 maryjom has joined #ag 20:12:25 Michael: This presentation is not consensus, we haven't developed full consensus 20:13:05 ...(reading from slides) 20:13:10 +AWK 20:13:41 mbgower has joined #ag 20:13:56 ... Equity as a process is important in how we work. Nothing about us without us is a key component to equity 20:14:01 matatk has joined #ag 20:14:09 present+ Laura_Carlson 20:14:14 ... We need to consider equity across the spectrum of human diversity. 20:14:33 ... For scope we identified three levels. 20:14:42 .... The first is equity in impact 20:14:54 ... Make sure WCAG 3 reaches all user groups 20:15:28 Matt_King has joined #ag 20:15:31 ... It is easy to make a structural decision that make sense in its context, but without considering equity it can create barriers we didn't intend or notice 20:15:43 ... The second version is equity in process 20:16:04 ... The working group process has to consider. 20:16:13 ... Third level is structural equity 20:16:37 ... This is equity in the world, such as believes, laws. 20:16:48 ... We're not in control of those issues 20:17:13 ... Next slide is on equity-centered design. 20:17:58 Link from slide: https://www.intentionalfutures.com/public/ecd-booklet.pdf 20:18:05 mbgower has joined #ag 20:18:10 ... Among other things, it's doesn't just stop, it is cyclical. 20:18:22 ... There's a link in the slide deck. 20:18:31 ... Our group uses what's called participatory design. 20:18:45 Pull Request: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/equity-proposal/requirements/index.html#equity 20:18:49 ... The PR from the subgroup is into the requirements document 20:19:22 ... It positions equity as an opportunity. It's also a statement that we care about equity, and it is one of the components of accountability 20:19:35 Equity Framework Wiki Page: https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Equity-Framework 20:20:25 ... If this approach is accepted by the working group, we may need to spin up work on what an equity centered design may look like for us. 20:20:51 Janina: I think this covered it well 20:20:52 +1 Michael, really good job 20:21:19 mbgower has joined #ag 20:21:41 q+ 20:22:22 ack MichaelC 20:22:23 ack me 20:22:39 Michael: We need to pay attention to power structures or whatever gets in the way of equity. 20:23:06 kirkwood has joined #ag 20:23:07 ... I think we can accountable, if we can come up with positively oriented wording I'm more comfortable. 20:23:21 Two questions that the group lacked the time and accessibility of the sessions that members of the group wanted to raise and were unable to: 20:23:24 q? 20:23:54 Holli_ has joined #AG 20:24:03 q+ 20:24:10 Jennifer: We have to have the difficult conversation. 20:24:36 q+ 20:24:38 ... Sometimes it's saying the awkward thing. These were questions from Cybele 20:25:00 Rachael: I realise this conversation has a lot of sensitivity. I want to ask everyone uses queue 20:25:08 shadi has joined #ag 20:25:18 1. How is WCAG used by power in ways that negatively impact or exclude end-users with disabilities (such as use of "WCAG compliant") to deny individual and collective accommodations? 20:25:29 https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ 20:25:34 ... If there is something you want to say but don't want to send it in the meeting send it directly to me. I can put it in anonymously 20:25:47 2. How do WCAG power structures and processes negatively impact or exclude participants and members with disabilities in their efforts to contribute? 20:25:51 ShawnT has joined #ag 20:25:55 q+ 20:25:58 laura has joined #ag 20:26:01 q? 20:26:07 ack janina 20:26:20 KGH has joined #ag 20:26:34 Janina: We have a particular outcome we're trying to achieve. At some point we have to decide we can't do it all. 20:26:56 ... We already know some of our inequities. We're not there on gender, racial, participation of the south. 20:27:16 ... Yes we can recruit, but I don't know that helps us write WCAG. 20:27:54 ... Somewhere there is a balance we need to strike. 20:27:57 ack MichaelC 20:28:17 Michael: I want to acknowledge the power structure. The chair's leadership try hard to be reasonable. 20:28:46 ... I try not to use my power when there isn't a reason, but I'm aware that I'm using that 20:29:14 ... One concern I have is how much time can we put into it. Interact authentically, but not take over everything else. 20:29:14 q+ 20:29:19 ack AWK 20:29:56 AWK: One interpretation might be that this is a deliberate effort. I want to suggest that while it's possible, I don't believe it's the intent of the working group to exclude anyone in any way. 20:30:09 ... But it is certainly true that WCAG is used in a compliance basis. 20:30:34 q+ 20:30:40 ... People saying their needs aren't in WCAG, that is true, but that is also on policy makers for asking is it the right standards. 20:31:09 ... We have to develop a system of having an ongoing evaluation of where you're at. We obviously can't say this is perfection and we'll meet it. 20:31:11 ack jenniferS 20:31:38 q+ 20:31:44 Jennifer: I'd like to suggest, members of the working group go through equity centered practices training, so that members understand how. 20:31:46 q+ to respond to AWK that I would like to write a standard that policymakers want to adopt. Improving equity is an important part of that. 20:31:47 q+ to pick up on training 20:32:03 ... I remember in the discussion it was scary to raise questions, that may be part of why the words maybe weren't great. 20:32:05 q+ 20:32:16 q- 20:32:35 ... I've done a lot of equity centered practices training, because I come from a non-traditional background, it may help as we do the work to find lenses we want to look at it from. 20:32:53 ack Rachael 20:33:24 Rachael: I wanted to bridge a bit. I think when we're creating WCAG 3, we should remain aware that how we structured it can be picked up in a way that's exclusionary 20:33:30 q- 20:33:43 ... By creating levels we created a way of excluding without intending to. 20:34:00 ack MichaelC 20:34:01 MichaelC, you wanted to pick up on training 20:34:03 * Also late to the entry of this, +1 to @Jaunita_George re Invited Expert criteria. That was a great call. 20:34:03 ... When we come to how we score we need to keep in mind the potential ways it could be used. 20:34:41 Michael: We should have training, how is a question. What training, how can it happen in a distributed group. 20:34:52 ... Training is part of an equity centered design process 20:34:52 q? 20:35:02 crpd?? 20:35:17 Rachael: There is a conversation on the invited expert process 20:35:20 Creative Reaction Lab has great design equity trainings that have a range of costs to be affordable. 20:35:50 Jaunita: For invited expert criteria it seems to skew to academia, or folks who already know people in the community group. 20:35:58 q+ to say layers of focus 20:36:24 I think the timing of our meetings and the tools are more of a barrier. I think most people that apply for Invited Expert are accepted. 20:36:29 ... It might make sense to have more defined criteria on who can get accepted as an invited expert, make that public, create more of a call for invited experts to come join. 20:36:42 +1 to Jeanne 20:36:46 ... From an economic equity standpoint that might increase participation. 20:36:50 ack MichaelC 20:36:50 MichaelC, you wanted to say layers of focus 20:37:13 s/CRPD/convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) 20:37:18 Michael: I agree with all of that. We also need to focus. We control the working group. We don't control the invited experts process in the short term. 20:37:40 q+ to suggest starting with a subgroup 20:37:42 ... We can make suggestions to the process, but those are longer term tasks. We need to work on what we can work on. 20:38:17 q+ 20:38:24 Rachael: I wanted to suggest a subgroup separate from our WCAG 3 activities. That group would start, and from there figure out the appropriate place for it. 20:38:36 ... It could then provide review and insight on the process. 20:38:45 ... I know we have to have some internal conversations as well. 20:39:17 I wonder if having subgroups that work on WCAG 3, focus on how we figure out equity from WCAG 3 standpoint, and have another group to focus more on process. 20:39:18 ack Rachael 20:39:18 Rachael, you wanted to suggest starting with a subgroup 20:39:20 ack janina 20:39:43 +1 to @Rachael - indeed, it does go beyond AGWG 20:39:57 Janina: At some point this isn't just a question for AGWG and WCAG 3. It applies to all our work in WAI. We need coordination, consensus and agreement. It applies to everything we do. 20:40:18 ... We probably at some point should take that wider viewpoint, which is I think where you're going. 20:40:21 q+ to respond 20:40:32 q? 20:40:33 ... There's an aspect specific to WCAG 3, but there's also the wider question. 20:40:43 ack Rachael 20:40:43 Rachael, you wanted to respond 20:40:46 +1 20:40:47 +1 to janina this is applicable across all of our work 20:41:10 Rachael: We control what's within AGWG. Starting it out as a subgroup, but giving it a scope to look beyond. 20:41:13 +1 20:41:27 +1 20:41:28 q+ 20:41:31 q+ to say scheduling of meetings could increase participation outside NA 20:41:41 Jennifer: Yes, absolutely. 20:42:28 .... I was sitting with a couple folks. I wanted to see diversity in representation. We have this wonderful thing here. Remote participation as well as in person. 20:42:44 ... We have IRC, recordings. 20:43:08 q+ 20:43:10 ack jenniferS 20:43:23 ... Rachael, thank you so much for surfacing this isn't just AGWG. This is the larger body of the W3C. 20:43:48 ... I've tried to recruit, and many people have shared not good stories on trying to participate. 20:44:07 ... We can have the grace and humility to hear it as a plea. 20:44:29 q+ to clarify that my lunchtime comment about remove participation has improved so much since the Shenzhen "speakerphone in an auditorium" incident 20:44:38 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag 20:44:51 ack mbgower 20:44:51 mbgower, you wanted to say scheduling of meetings could increase participation outside NA 20:44:51 q+ to say AG-specific and general 20:45:27 Mike: Amanda and I were talking this morning. Calls were very oriented around North America, we could move some calls. 20:45:30 ack jcraig 20:45:30 jcraig, you wanted to clarify that my lunchtime comment about remove participation has improved so much since the Shenzhen "speakerphone in an auditorium" incident 20:45:48 q+ to propose subgroups that could be located in different time zones and languages. 20:46:07 Craig: I appreciate how much the technologies have improved. Remote participants are much closer. 20:46:12 ack MichaelC 20:46:12 MichaelC, you wanted to say AG-specific and general 20:46:15 ... It's improved significantly 20:46:36 Michael: There is a lot of work in W3C equity. I really like how Rachael presented it. 20:46:43 Maybe soon the technology will even allow us to automagically understand in each of our languages no matter the language spoken. 20:46:49 ... Outside the invited expert agreement there are ways we can support participation. 20:47:13 ... We exist in a system we won't be able to get equity passed a certain level if we don't address it in the W3C as well. 20:47:17 q? 20:47:22 q+ 20:47:26 We have tried running meetings at times for Australia & Japan (timezones), the difficulty is how to get decisions made that include everyone. We can't then ignore the input of the larger group of people, so you have to do everything twice... 20:47:27 s/Craig: /jcraig: / 20:47:27 ack jeanne 20:47:27 jeanne, you wanted to propose subgroups that could be located in different time zones and languages. 20:48:11 ack jenniferS 20:48:14 Jeanne: Very good discussions. One of the ideas we talked about a few years ago, once we get the basic structure, that we could spin up subgroups in different parts of the world, timezones, languages, once we have that basic structure established we could be much more globally inclusive. 20:48:55 Jennifer: There's a resource I'd like to share in IRC, The title needs to be bleeped. 20:50:14 https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/characteristics.html 20:50:24 q? 20:50:30 draft RESOLUTION: Set up a subgroup, separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 20:50:45 +1 20:50:47 q+ 20:50:48 q+ 20:50:50 ack Wilco 20:50:55 q- 20:51:10 Rachael: This would not be the WCAG 3 equity portion. 20:51:28 Context: "White Supremacy Culture" is common lingo for the characteristics which are relevant in cultural hegemony / colonialism. This resource is not intended to accuse or blame or be disrespectful. 20:51:41 ... This would probably last longer than 8 weeks, but we'd also have equity groups within WCAG 3. 20:51:49 q+ Cybele 20:51:56 CharlesL has joined #ag 20:51:58 ack cyb 20:52:07 present+ 20:52:31 Cybele: Regarding the proposal, the concern I might have, although I support it in principle, is trying to do too many things at once. 20:53:19 ... One would include equity in participation. And then there are specifics around especially WCAG 3, like the conformance model. 20:53:51 q 20:53:54 ... Where are the equity barriers and how can those get addressed 20:54:05 Michael: I think those are questions the subgroup should address 20:54:05 q+ 20:54:09 ack Wilco 20:54:22 q+ 20:54:50 ack MichaelC 20:54:53 Wilco: I'm slightly hesitant to start sub-groups that don't follow the sub-group process. Maybe better as a community group? Don't want to mix the processes. 20:54:58 +1 20:55:08 Michael: I think we should call it something else 20:55:19 draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group, separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 20:55:23 +1 20:55:25 +1 20:55:27 If we make it a community group we can open the invitation to join more broadly 20:55:35 q? 20:55:37 +1 20:55:41 cybel S. Q+ not on the IRC 20:56:15 draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group, separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 20:56:16 Rachael: Don't know if this will be a task force or community group 20:56:23 +1 20:56:24 +1 20:56:30 +1 20:56:31 q+ 20:56:31 +1 20:56:38 ack Wilco 20:56:51 Wilco: Would this group report back to AG, or under it's own track? 20:57:03 q+ 20:57:06 draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decision and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 20:57:19 q+ 20:57:24 Shadi: Is there any reason not to have this as a community group? That's what they were created for. 20:57:24 ack shadi 20:57:31 +1 to Shadi, this sounds like a CG 20:57:35 ack MichaelC 20:57:47 +1 to open question 20:57:54 q+ 20:57:56 Michael: I think we could decide we want a CG, but I'm not sure it's the right forum for equity in WCAG 3. 20:57:58 q+ 20:58:02 draft RESOLUTION: Set up a group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 20:58:34 +1 20:58:37 SCribe: AWK 20:59:04 q? 20:59:07 scribe: matatk 20:59:13 ack janina 20:59:44 janina: Liking the idea of a Community Group (CG). Reminder that the CEPC (which I'd like to rename COPE) applies there. 20:59:54 q+ 20:59:57 q- 20:59:59 ... Also happy to sleep on the decision of what type of group. 21:00:07 ack mbgower 21:00:24 mbgower: Wording "under AG WG" - does that support CGs? 21:00:29 draft RESOLUTION: Set up a temporary group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 21:00:33 Rachael: That would just be temporary before the final group is set up. 21:00:37 q? 21:00:49 I was going to suggest "advisory group" but Janina's proposal to sleep on it resonated. 21:00:54 +1 21:00:59 Rachael: (chair hat off) I also support a CG. 21:00:59 +1 21:01:07 q+ 21:01:07 draft RESOLUTION: Set up a temporary group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 21:01:08 +1 21:01:11 +1 21:01:13 +1 21:01:13 +1 21:01:14 +1 21:01:15 ack MichaelC 21:01:16 +1 21:01:16 +1 21:01:20 +1 21:01:32 +1 21:01:45 MichaelC: We may determine a CG is necessary; it may not be sufficient. I think we may need other things due to the way we're structured. 21:01:46 +1 21:01:47 Please q Cybele 21:01:59 +1 21:02:03 Cybele: +1 to MichaelC 21:02:27 Cybele: It seems premature to me to assume it must be a CG. 21:02:39 Cybele: I support the resolution (but not CG-specific). 21:03:10 +0 21:03:45 jeff has joined #ag 21:03:48 janina: My +0 because I'm a little scope-leery. Worried about it being too AG WG-specific and also going outside of AG. 21:03:52 q+ 21:04:02 ack MichaelC 21:04:06 ack me 21:04:12 q+ 21:04:28 MichaelC: I think the layers aren't necessarily competing, but scope is going to be a challenge. 21:04:46 janina: We need a joint conversation somewhere (not a separate one). Worried we're starting down separate tracks. 21:04:52 ack jenniferS 21:04:53 Rachael: I'll make a note to invite APA. 21:05:04 q+ to say cross-group convo could be desired 21:05:27 CharlesL1 has joined #ag 21:05:46 jenniferS: I hear and empathize with the concerns about time. Agree with janina - understanding the connections with APA. 21:06:07 ... Could we apply a "progressive enhancement" philosophy to our work on this? 21:06:26 ... Do what we can, and manage the "parking lot" [as has been the process for these meetings]. 21:06:35 janina: Convinced we need to do this, but do we need a whole new wheel? 21:06:46 ... Could we engage with the CEPC and Process document teams? 21:07:09 ... We're part of a larger organization, and these concerns apply to all W3C (not just WAI) groups. 21:07:21 ack MichaelC 21:07:21 MichaelC, you wanted to say cross-group convo could be desired 21:07:28 Rachael: Encourage us to put out a wider call for such a group. 21:07:52 MichaelC: Our primary scope is how to make AG more equitable? We definitely have joint mission with APA and other groups. 21:08:04 ... To address equity in W3C will reuqire a W3C-wide conversation. 21:08:10 q? 21:08:16 ... Not sure if we're the experts on that, but we can take steps that lead to that. 21:08:40 Rachael: I suggest we accept the resolution and move on. 21:09:28 janina: Note that tomorrow in APA's calendar is a meeting about giving guidance to people to give us comments; ACK that GitHub can have barriers for some, and we also have access needs. We're not going to solve it alone; please join! 21:09:33 RESOLUTION: Set up a temporary group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG 21:09:36 zakim, take up next item 21:09:36 agendum 10 -- Equity Survey and Discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-tpac/results -- taken up [from Rachael] 21:10:06 https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files 21:10:44 Rachael: There's an Editor's Note that captures the questions the group discussed, plus additions to the requirements doc. 21:11:15 Rachael: Are we comfortable adding this to the requirements document as "exploratory"? This is the first time we're applying our maturity levels here. 21:11:18 q+ 21:11:26 ... There were two questions in the survey. 21:11:36 ... *Reviews feedback from survey* 21:12:00 mbgower: Some of it seemed like meeting minutes going in as exploratory content - propose more structure. 21:12:41 mbgower: (other comments I think were clear) 21:12:46 mbgowr, the group only had 7 weeks and didn't get as far along as we wanted. I agree it needs some more polishing, especially the long list of questions. 21:13:08 Rachael: *Reviewing question 2 of survey* 21:13:18 q? 21:13:22 ack MichaelC 21:13:43 ... https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-tpac/results#xq11 21:13:58 MichaelC: I'd be happy to take all the edits people made. 21:14:35 Rachael: *Reviews Poornima's vote and comment* 21:14:43 q+ 21:14:56 q+ 21:15:05 Rachael: *Reviews mbgower's vote and comment* we'll return to this. 21:15:17 mbgower: Even putting the Equity definition up-front would help. 21:15:40 mbgower: Not opposed; just needs some wordsmithing (i.e. editorial adjustments) 21:15:41 ack AWK 21:16:13 AWK: I support the general principles. Not sure this is ready yet. 21:16:31 ... "The WG maintains an equity framework" - this is still new, and not everyone's been introduced to it. 21:16:51 q+ 21:17:02 ack shadi 21:17:14 ... Is it "pre-exploratory"? Not sure what those steps mean for us in actual use. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the curent state, but obviously it's something we want to explore and work on. 21:17:25 q+ to ask if we want to apply the maturity levels to the requirements document 21:17:33 q+ 21:17:36 pre-exploratory = placeholder 21:18:05 ack MichaelC 21:18:42 shadi: I fully support the intent. It seems to be about how we can create a technical standard that represents equity. We need to work on this, but is part of the document the right place? 21:18:48 q Cybele, please 21:19:10 q+ Cybele 21:19:11 MichaelC: We should have something in our TR docs affirming a commitment to equity. Whether the content goes there or somewhere else I'm open to discussion. 21:19:16 ack Rachael 21:19:16 Rachael, you wanted to ask if we want to apply the maturity levels to the requirements document 21:19:42 ack jenniferS 21:19:48 +1 to Rachael 21:19:53 Rachael: (chair hat off) I'm not sure I'm comfortable putting contnet with maturity levels in this document (it would be the first time). 21:19:56 q+ to address maturity level 21:19:59 jeff has joined #ag 21:20:35 jenniferS: I think the equity subgroup set out to provide guidance so people working on the guidelines could bring more equity to their work. Then it got bigger, but that was the initial goal. 21:21:21 ... In another organization I'm part of, we have something like an advisory group that provides governanxe and asks meaningful questions to make sure the work is within design, code engineering, equity best practices. 21:21:31 ack cyb 21:22:12 Cybele: I concur there was a consideration of impact, and having an equity lens to evaluate impact of decisions is a significant component of the need for this work. 21:22:38 ... I realise we're talking about things that are very early, and there's hesitation to entrench something early. Some parts are moving slowly; others are moving fast. 21:23:09 ... When we draft language around this, we should consider interim measures, to avoid wanting to change something already decided. 21:23:53 ... There's a risk of claims of equity without substantial change. We are in a good position to address this challenge, and it calls us to a higher bar, even though it's difficult. 21:24:01 ack MichaelC 21:24:01 MichaelC, you wanted to address maturity level 21:24:11 ... Again, we may need to think about interim measures if it's going to take a long time for language to be developed. 21:24:53 MichaelC: The reaosn for the "exploratory" flag is we're following an existing process, because the language is immature. This conversation is a success, and figuring out what we're going to do next is a success. 21:25:08 q+ 21:25:19 ... If not now, then soon, we should commit to equity in the document. Either by refining this PR, or having the equity group working on it. 21:25:31 ... We need a traceable public commitment to equity. 21:25:41 q+ 21:25:52 ack jenniferS 21:25:54 Rachael: We've applied a process designed for the draft to the requirements. Wilco: do you have any thoughts on that? 21:26:18 q+ 21:26:37 q+ 21:26:42 jenniferS: +1 with a foot stomp to what MichaelC said: perfeect is the enemy of the good, but what we have is a good beginning. Having the humility and courage to put something out there to say "this is important" and it must be done. 21:26:53 jenniferS: What could be the harm in releasing this? 21:26:57 ack Wilco 21:27:13 q+ 21:27:28 Wilco: The process of the levels was specifically designed for the drafts. I don't think it works well for the requirements document. I don't think we could just assume it's OK to use it. 21:27:42 ... I would pitch it to the group as-is and ask what they think of this as an update. 21:27:52 ack Rachael 21:27:55 ... If we're close and it needs only editorial work, do it. If not, spin up the group. 21:28:29 Rachael: (chair hat on) The survey was supportive of adding this content as exploratory. We would need to have a vote as a group if we're happy wiht applying the levels process in this context. 21:28:37 s/wiht/with/ 21:28:57 Rachael: The other way we could go would be to not add the levels, then take it away and mature it before adding 21:28:58 ack AWK 21:29:04 s/before adding/before adding./ 21:29:23 q+ 21:29:32 AWK: I wasn't thinking about this being part of the requirements document; this gives me concerns. If I was asked to write requirements, without a way to measure where we are, that would be a problem. 21:29:41 q+ to say the section isn´t in the requirements section 21:29:57 ... The content is good, but is there a way we could e.g. associate it with the WG's [web] page, so the commitment is there, and then we can add it when we know enough to do so? 21:30:06 zakim, close queue 21:30:06 ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is closed 21:31:08 ack shadi 21:31:08 AWK: The concern that I have about the harm is that if we decide we can't measure it/measure it in time, it looks like we've taken it out. We want to include it, and find ways to include it, and hopefully we can iterate quickly 21:31:09 q+ 21:31:21 ... but we don't know much about where we are now. 21:31:58 shadi: It sounds a bit more affirmative about some ideas that maybe don't have consensus, but it is good and important work. The risk is setting ourselves up to fail. 21:32:14 shadi: Let's check what we can accomplish, and word this a bit better. 21:32:36 +1 to Michael's point, beat me to it 21:32:47 MichaelC: The equity section that's proposed is not actually a requirement; it's in a section called "opportunities" - it sets up a commitment to work on it, but nothing that forms part of the actual requirements. 21:33:00 The Editor's Draft Maturity Levels appear to have Placeholder and Exploratory for this purpose. 21:33:10 Rachael: We have two queued discussion points. 21:33:27 ... (1) Are we comfortable with using the maturity levels process in the requriements document? 21:33:29 +.5 21:33:35 +1 21:33:38 -1 21:33:40 Strawpoll: Use maturity levels in the requirements document 21:33:41 -1 needs more thought 21:33:44 ... (2) how do we get the content in to the requirements document, given that answer. 21:33:49 +1 21:33:49 +.5 21:33:54 -1 The requirements doc doesn't really have the structure for maturity levels, I'd rather refine the text and agree it to be put in. 21:33:58 -1 21:34:01 -1 21:34:04 -1 21:34:21 -1, same comment as alastairc 21:34:40 Rachael: Our next session is an unmoderated working session; just come in (if you like) and work together or individually. We have several parking lot issues to work on; see whom else is interested in working on them. 21:35:03 ... One task would be how to re-think the equity content as an Editor's Note, given the -1s above. 21:35:04 Please note that Janina's +1 was before the strawpoll. ;) 21:35:07 ... There are many other comments in parking. 21:35:38 Cybele +1 21:35:50 Rachael: Any other business? 21:36:27 Thanks Rachael, and great job chairing 21:36:32 Rachael: Appreciate everyone's respectful contributions. We got through a lot; great discussions! 21:37:03 rrsagent, make minutes 21:37:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html jeanne 21:37:06 Rrsagent, make logs world 21:37:22 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:37:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html Rachael 21:37:51 zakim, end meeting 21:37:51 As of this point the attendees have been Katie_Haritos-Shea_HOME, Joshue, Rachael, mbgower, AWK, Shawn(part), Lisa, Jaunita_George, jeanne, KGH, JohnRochford, jon_avila, Jennie, 21:37:54 ... JustineP, JakeAbma, Lauriat, Makoto, Judy, MichaelC, kirkwood, Francis_Storr, Rain, Fazio, scott_h, alastairc, jasonjgw, kevers, julierawe, shadi, Wilco, matatk, ShawnT, 21:37:54 ... janina, PaulG, SuzanneTaylor, jeff, jcraig, Jennifer, jenniferS_, irfan_ali_, maryjom, Matt_King, Léonie, (tink), jenniferS, Laura_Carlson, CharlesL, .5 21:37:54 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1 21:37:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html Zakim 21:37:58 I am happy to have been of service, Rachael; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 21:38:01 Zakim has left #ag 21:38:13 Can you email them to all the groups? 21:50:33 ShawnT has joined #ag 21:50:55 ShawnT has joined #ag 22:02:35 shadi has joined #ag 22:03:16 ShawnT has joined #ag 22:14:02 matatk has joined #ag 22:16:23 mbgower has joined #ag 22:19:39 Matt_King has joined #ag 22:48:08 mbgower has joined #ag 22:48:56 jeff has joined #ag 23:09:17 mbgower has joined #ag 23:27:22 mbgower has joined #ag 23:37:05 kirkwood has joined #ag 23:53:15 mbgower has joined #ag 03:04:23 Judy has joined #ag 08:03:06 stevelee has joined #ag 08:29:47 Mike5Matrix has joined #ag 10:46:57 stevelee has joined #ag 11:12:47 laura has joined #ag 11:30:13 kirkwood has joined #ag 11:54:44 mbgower has joined #ag 11:56:55 jeanne has joined #ag 12:54:33 MichaelC has joined #ag 13:08:40 mbgower has joined #ag 13:10:15 mbgower has joined #ag 13:11:48 Judy has joined #ag 13:18:11 shawn has joined #ag 13:21:40 jeanne2 has joined #ag 13:30:17 kirkwood has joined #ag 13:32:22 kirkwood has joined #ag 14:01:53 shawn has joined #ag 14:19:53 mbgower has joined #ag 14:21:12 mbgower has joined #ag 14:21:32 kirkwood has joined #ag 14:21:43 mbgower has joined #ag 14:48:28 ShawnT has joined #ag 14:54:11 ShawnT has joined #ag 14:56:30 MichaelC has joined #ag 15:10:20 agenda? 15:10:26 Zakim has joined #ag 15:10:39 zakim, start meeting 15:10:39 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:10:40 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 15:11:38 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 15:11:56 rrsagent, make log world https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/thMzI8Te/image.png 15:12:03 rrsagent, make log world 15:12:31 Regina has joined #ag 15:12:43 agenda+ Welcome 15:12:51 agenda+ Summarize Day 1 15:13:51 MichaelC has joined #ag 15:14:06 agenda+ Issue severity presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.p 15:14:31 agenda+ Issue severity survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-tpac/results 15:15:02 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 15:15:09 present+ 15:15:16 mbgower has joined #ag 15:15:17 agenda? 15:15:26 janina has left #ag 15:16:43 shadi has joined #ag 15:21:18 Wilco has joined #ag 15:22:16 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:27:51 sarahhorton has joined #ag 15:29:40 present+ 15:30:00 present+ 15:30:06 Amanda has joined #ag 15:30:17 present+ 15:30:18 present+ 15:30:27 scribe+ 15:30:33 zakim, next item 15:30:33 agendum 1 -- Welcome -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:30:54 present+ 15:31:09 present+ 15:31:11 spectranaut has joined #ag 15:31:14 Makoto has joined #ag 15:31:21 present+ 15:31:23 present+ 15:31:28 Jem has joined #ag 15:31:29 Parking Lot: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OprBE6Lqb1iSKx_q-33fC-jH-Xh3YyTYAmeTLyp5j9I/edit#heading=h.p9r4d4ngbqab 15:31:29 present+ valerie_young 15:31:38 present+ 15:31:48 Homework Link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BmDMiiGai1-jScOn_KUozGyEd_Kmmnd0tgj1yG5B2yg/edit#slide=id.p 15:32:08 CEPC https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc 15:32:13 rbm: please make sure you´re up to date on the homework 15:32:17 reminder of CEPC 15:32:29 laura has joined #ag 15:32:33 JohnRochford has joined #ag 15:32:36 present+ 15:32:40 AWK has joined #ag 15:32:46 Lauriat has joined #ag 15:32:50 maryjom has joined #ag 15:32:54 Present+ 15:33:00 +AWK 15:33:04 present+ 15:33:05 Homework Link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BmDMiiGai1-jScOn_KUozGyEd_Kmmnd0tgj1yG5B2yg/edit#slide=id.p 15:33:14 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:33:28 zakim, take up next item 15:33:28 agendum 2 -- Summarize Day 1 -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:33:39 Functional Needs meeting with APA and COGA 15:33:40 zakim, next item 15:33:40 agendum 2 was just opened, MichaelC 15:33:44 mbgower has joined #ag 15:33:57 Straw poll indicated a desire to incorporate the coga revisions before going forward 15:33:58 rssagent, make minutes 15:34:09 Discussed need to balance possible harm and repeated work with the need to publish 15:34:09 zakim, make minutes 15:34:09 I don't understand 'make minutes', mbgower 15:34:23 Discussed test types from subgroup 15:34:32 rrsagent, make minutes 15:34:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html alastairc 15:34:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html MichaelC 15:34:43 Reached a resolution to move content into exploratory with edits from MaryJo and text that clarifies the confusion point from Gundula. 15:35:06 Discussed Equity. Reached a resolution to Set up a temporary group under AGWG but separate from WCAG 3, to provide objective evaluation of wcag 3 equity decisions and also look into what type of group/process is needed to improve equity within AGWG and in a broader scope outside of AG. 15:35:24 Discussed the PR and got guidance from the group to avoid using the maturity levels in the requirements document. Will bring back a proposed revision on Thursday. 15:36:05 MichaelC__ has joined #ag 15:36:11 q+ 15:36:11 scribe+ 15:36:13 q+ 15:36:24 jku: @@ test type? 15:36:29 rbm: @@ current structure 15:36:35 awk: we are accepting PR? 15:36:40 rbm: yes? 15:36:43 do we decide to keep the current test structures? 15:36:46 jon_avila has joined #ag 15:36:52 awk: we didn´t get a chance to talk about the test types 15:36:54 present+jon_avila 15:37:35 felt a bit rushed in terms of overview, not time for details 15:37:47 weren´t able to use the open session to work on that 15:38:05 rbm: we picked it up as exploratory, but that means there´s more to explore 15:38:09 q? 15:38:13 ack a 15:38:23 ack mbgower 15:38:42 We agreed to 'move it to exploratory', which in general means accept the PR at that level. https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes#t07 15:38:46 mg: seemed the scope of WCAG 3 got bigger yesterday 15:38:52 q+ 15:39:09 ah has joined #ag 15:39:16 I´d like to circle back to actionable steps 15:39:21 ack MichaelC__ 15:39:29 charter: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html 15:39:54 MichaelC__: I'd say that the scope didn't get bigger, but the group became aware of the scope. That's a goal of this week. But yes, need actionable steps. 15:39:54 mc: it´s that the group became aware of how big the scope is ;) 15:40:01 but yes, we need actionable steps 15:40:48 jku: what about action tracking? 15:40:54 mc: no longer using trackbort 15:41:00 rbm: parking lot is for that 15:41:13 rbm: reminder to use queue 15:41:25 zakim, take up next item 15:41:25 agendum 3 -- Issue severity presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.p -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:41:31 agenda? 15:42:14 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:43:06 present+ 15:43:07 fs: 15:43:24 Ben_Tillyer has joined #Ag 15:43:26 Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.g146cf3da9d4_0_0 15:43:38 Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.g146cf3da9d4_0_0 15:43:40 Present+ 15:43:43 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag 15:43:44 [slide 3] 15:44:09 15:44:27 how might issue severity influence regulation? 15:44:30 [slide 4] 15:44:50 15:44:53 [slide 5] 15:45:26 fs: core questions: how do we ensure WCAG 3 reflects lived experience? 15:45:41 15:45:54 [slide 6] 15:46:11 fs: started with scoring and critical issues, issue severity matrix, etc. 15:46:14 [slide 7] 15:46:55 fs: prototype, focused mainly on the critical stuff 15:46:59 [slide 8] 15:47:06 severity assessment mapping to functional needs 15:47:49 then scored severity in the matrix 15:47:53 [slide 9] 15:48:10 used less detail than the functional needs group has 15:48:13 [slide 10] 15:48:43 positive: think we can map and rate tests, show impact, could work with scoring 15:49:02 consideration: @@ 15:49:05 [slide 11] 15:49:12 counting and assessing contnt 15:49:54 was an earlier exercise that didn´t pan out 15:49:58 [slide 12] 15:50:10 post-testing seveerity evaluation 15:50:22 Holli has joined #AG 15:50:23 test, then asses degree of barrier 15:50:57 and process once issues identified 15:51:01 [slide 13] 15:51:48 @@ 15:51:50 [slide 14] 15:52:07 PR has issue severity section as exploratory 15:52:16 questions in ednote 15:52:22 Note that the PR (and most of the sub-groups work) was on the 1st approach, where you define the severity at the test level. 15:52:49 demonstrated that tests can be categorized by severity 15:53:12 Ben_Tillyer_ has joined #Ag 15:53:21 gonna be a lot of work to categorize tests 15:53:24 q+ to ask why (slide 12) that it not be a part of Guideline/Methods? 15:53:28 maybe focus first on critical issues 15:53:55 [slide 15] 15:54:26 @@ 15:54:31 [slide 16] 15:54:51 example with translates speech method 15:55:00 [slide 17] 15:55:08 next steps are to document feedback, and figure it out 15:55:18 q? 15:55:27 ack jeanne 15:55:28 jeanne, you wanted to ask why (slide 12) that it not be a part of Guideline/Methods? 15:55:44 q+ 15:55:57 js: on slide 12 said severity not part of methods, but the PR seems to include that 15:56:11 q+ to say are we carrying forward imperfections in 2.x with this kind of work? 15:56:13 ack alastairc 15:56:18 ac: there were 2 approaches 15:56:29 main one was severity assessment (slide 10) 15:57:07 q+ 15:57:09 other is alternative but not exclusive 15:57:25 which is impact evaluation based on conformance testing 15:57:34 the PR mainly focuses on the severity assessment 15:57:41 ack mbgower 15:57:41 mbgower, you wanted to say are we carrying forward imperfections in 2.x with this kind of work? 15:58:19 mg: in 2.x image issues were part of 1.1.1 15:58:21 q+ to say that impact at the test-level is the key difference from 2.x 15:58:28 @@functional assessment 15:58:42 is there a UI component that is not critical? 15:59:16 seems like this is picking up 2.x approach 15:59:35 think the model of different types of images being treated similar isn´t working for us 15:59:54 q+ to reframe that to alt text as a way of expressing the severity of name, role, value 16:00:09 laura has joined #ag 16:00:18 ack Wilco 16:00:54 wf: ACT treats functional images under their function e.g., linnks, buttons 16:01:23 for severity, would one type of test have a fixed severity value? 16:01:24 jaunita_george has joined #ag 16:01:27 Present+ 16:01:33 ack alastairc 16:01:33 alastairc, you wanted to say that impact at the test-level is the key difference from 2.x 16:01:38 JakeAbma has joined #ag 16:01:39 kevers has joined #ag 16:01:41 present+ 16:01:50 present+ 16:02:09 ac: guidelines are high level 16:02:38 q+ to speak on test level impact 16:02:41 wanted to set the impact at the test level 16:03:38 which provides more nuance than at guideline level 16:04:08 Critical Severity worksheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MEdnI4CvrTlq1843MZfWLaIBGmoGXXQPpUOhEY1NgV4/edit?pli=1#gid=412502721 16:04:09 present+ 16:04:47 if scope includes task-based, hard to incorporate at the guideline level 16:04:49 ack Lauriat 16:04:49 Lauriat, you wanted to reframe that to alt text as a way of expressing the severity of name, role, value 16:04:51 jvanulde_ has joined #ag 16:05:05 present+ 16:05:33 sl: re example with alt and name/role/value, this approach seems to work better than others 16:05:47 sarahhorton has joined #ag 16:06:03 take a button with a magnifying glass and plus symbol 16:06:16 q+ 16:06:22 alt of ¨magnifying glass and plus symbol¨ is ok but not great 16:06:42 ack Wilco 16:06:42 Wilco, you wanted to speak on test level impact 16:06:44 which this reflects 16:07:12 jamesn has joined #ag 16:07:34 +1 to Wilco 16:07:35 wf: without knowing context, hard to give impact analysis 16:07:38 Yes - the lower the level, the easier it is to align to impact. But agree, without context it is not going to completely align. 16:07:43 could make tests very complicated 16:07:57 q+ on the difficulty. 16:08:15 My question is similar to Mike's - "How do you differentiate critical from non-critical failures?": for an example, we teach missing alt text as the "deal breaker" aka high severeity issue. but that is not necessarily connected with high impact to the task itself. Shawn Lauriat's case helps to answer to my question but it will takes lots of effort. 16:08:16 ack sarahhorton 16:08:24 I find issues can be very contextual. 16:08:29 q+ 16:08:45 +1 to jon avila's comment 16:09:05 sh: we were working from tests developed for WCAG 3 16:09:46 right now we´re focusing on the concept, not the details 16:10:08 the exercise will help surface things that don´t make sense 16:11:30 ack alastairc 16:11:30 alastairc, you wanted to comment on the difficulty. 16:11:33 PR tries to show that a given issue isn´t always critical 16:11:34 q+ to see if we can reframe this from us defining severity to us essentially guiding others through how to make the call of severity (rather than if x, y, z then critical; given x, y, z, here's how to rate criticality), the structure of this so far seems very promising 16:11:57 I would like to suggest adding clear concept and scope of "severity" definition as well as its causality regarding the implication. 16:12:07 ac: assessment of severity at test level (fine granularity) is improvement over WCAG 2 16:12:29 not so difficult once it´s set up, we´d build the impact assesments into the tests, then that work is done 16:12:46 context is important 16:12:56 to address that, we need concept of task 16:13:11 to relate to real life impact 16:13:29 for scoring, what do we do with non critical issues? 16:13:50 q? 16:13:56 AWK: Is the goal to use severities to establish levels within conformance or to contribute to scoring? 16:13:56 ack AWK 16:14:00 may be the definition of "critical failures" is hindering any user goal inclduing tasks? like filling and submitting the form? 16:14:18 awk: is goal to establish levels within conformance, or for overall scoring? 16:14:38 I´m wary of the scoring aspect 16:15:00 if we were to apply this to accessible sites today, how would they score? 16:15:08 probably all have critical errors for instance 16:15:16 q+ to answer AWK, that critical errors should make it easier to pass 16:15:36 From the requirements, we were trying to improve alignment with live-experience, and allow for non-perfect sites to make some sort of claim. 16:15:38 as we develop this, we should have a sense that sites out there do / can meet it 16:15:47 ack Lauriat 16:15:47 Lauriat, you wanted to see if we can reframe this from us defining severity to us essentially guiding others through how to make the call of severity (rather than if x, y, z then 16:15:50 Scribe: AWK 16:15:51 ... critical; given x, y, z, here's how to rate criticality), the structure of this so far seems very promising 16:15:56 scribe- 16:16:18 SL: Use of severity gives us the language to express the lived experience for conformance 16:16:19 +1 shawn lauriat 16:16:41 ... also need to work through levels of conformance 16:16:54 ... to point of having severity at test level 16:17:16 ... wondering if we can reshape slightly 16:17:52 ack jeanne 16:17:52 jeanne, you wanted to answer AWK, that critical errors should make it easier to pass 16:17:53 .... image example - adding in "here's how you decide what the severity level is" type decision tree? 16:18:17 q+ to ask Shawn how that would be done, is there an alternative to task/process? 16:18:18 JS: want to add that in the way we've been thinking, sev and critical errors should make it easier for them to pass 16:18:39 Based on my expericen, severity conception has been helping people who didnot have the prior accessibiilty knowledge as well as deep technical expertise. 16:18:56 q+ 16:18:59 ... QA dept will catch items in advance 16:19:00 s/expericen/experience/ 16:19:17 q+ 16:19:30 ack alastairc 16:19:30 alastairc, you wanted to ask Shawn how that would be done, is there an alternative to task/process? 16:19:35 s/deep technical/no deep technical knowledge/ 16:20:03 ... like what SL was saying about having a pre-set impact and a decision process but question is what that is based on 16:20:28 Lisa_ has joined #ag 16:20:36 s/... like/AC: like 16:20:41 ack Amanda 16:20:54 what about the user journey proposal for Alastair Garrison? 16:21:08 Amanda: need to ack that this will be subjective in some way for tester 16:21:18 I don't think that has the granularity for this topic. 16:21:49 ack Wilco 16:21:52 +1 Amanda 16:21:58 q+ to answer on scope of "tasks" (or whatever we call them) as used today 16:22:09 WF: not sure that the issue of context is actually solvable 16:22:32 ... will depend on the tasks the user is performing on a site 16:22:44 ... generalizing on that feels impossible and speculative 16:22:54 q? 16:22:54 +1 to Amanda 16:23:07 ... also wanted to ask what we are really hoping to get from this 16:23:17 +q to suggest to shift the focus to more higher/high impact level of failure - user cannot submit the form - high severity rather than scoring.ex:m high severity is "deal breaker" for the user. 16:23:20 q+ to say we've two decisions 1) Do we incorporate severity in tests? 2) Do we investigate a method of including task/context 16:23:22 ... is this for scoring or finding lived experience? 16:23:35 ack Lauriat 16:23:35 Lauriat, you wanted to answer on scope of "tasks" (or whatever we call them) as used today 16:23:58 SL: building on Amanda's comments 16:24:17 ... good testers communicate sev of issues - how blocking, etc 16:24:35 ... goal with severity is to make conformance with WCAG better reflective of that 16:25:00 ... we can make recommendations on how to make those judgement calls in a better way 16:25:37 ... we can use this to help more people understand the impact 16:27:02 ... we I get a WCAG bug it doesn't mean anything until view through the user impact analysis 16:27:03 q+ to talk about the user journey proposal that Alistair Garrison may work on. It is promising 16:27:36 q+ to frame next steps in discussion 16:27:41 ack Jem 16:27:41 Jem, you wanted to suggest to shift the focus to more higher/high impact level of failure - user cannot submit the form - high severity rather than scoring.ex:m high severity is 16:27:45 ... "deal breaker" for the user. 16:28:02 jemma: maybe need to shift focus to higher level of severity 16:28:34 ... for example, if you can't submit a form because of validation error info being inaccessible that is a deal breaker 16:28:49 ack alastairc 16:28:49 alastairc, you wanted to say we've two decisions 1) Do we incorporate severity in tests? 2) Do we investigate a method of including task/context 16:29:52 AC: I think that incorp severity in tests is an improvement. 16:29:55 q+ 16:30:12 ... and then do we investiate a method to use task/context 16:30:54 ... we could have a decision tree as SL mentioned 16:31:00 s/scoring.ex:mhigh severity is/scoring issue/ 16:31:06 ack jeanne 16:31:06 jeanne, you wanted to talk about the user journey proposal that Alistair Garrison may work on. It is promising 16:31:11 Alastair Garrison email -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022AprJun/0224.html 16:31:26 When reading about SEO it is common to see 4 distinct categories of user intent mentioned (but, perhaps not the only ones): 16:31:26 1) Informational intent: people wanting to find a specific answer to a specific question; 16:31:26 2) Navigational intent: people using a site to get to another site, or using a search facility within a site to get to another site area; 16:31:26 3) Transactional intent: people wanting to buy something at that moment; 16:31:26 4) Commercial investigation: people wanting to gather information about a product they are thinking of buying in the future; 16:31:28 JS: want to remind people about Alistair G's email (above) 16:32:30 ... we could evaluate severity via user journey 16:32:46 ... might be worth evaluative if this could be done 16:32:47 I think that's useful informative content, could provide a framework, but I think people making claims need to define what tasks are important / in-scope. 16:32:51 ack Wilco 16:32:58 s/evaluative/evaluating 16:33:11 according to my experience 3) trasactional intent is the high severity issue people easily understand. thanks for the info, @jeanne. 16:33:15 WF: Tests are normative. 16:33:24 q+ to answer the normative aspect 16:33:45 ... levels wouldn't be normative? Do we want this to be part of the normative spec? 16:34:03 ack Lauriat 16:34:03 Lauriat, you wanted to answer the normative aspect 16:34:16 +1 Wilco, good question to explore 16:34:29 SL: We might want to put that topic into the parking lot 16:34:47 ack Rachael 16:34:47 Rachael, you wanted to frame next steps in discussion 16:34:56 RM: go with AC's context 16:35:26 ... decided that we aren't putting exploratory content into req doc 16:35:45 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-tpac/results 16:36:02 ... support for including it was unanimous but we can't 16:36:15 q+ 16:36:19 ack jeanne 16:36:46 JS: Question in survey about cumulative errors - don't want to lose that 16:36:47 +1 to jeanne 16:36:50 +1 16:36:53 RM: parking lot that? 16:36:56 Good question, hard to do at the test/guideline-level. 16:37:07 Draft Strawpoll: Do we continue to explore incorporating severity assessments at the test level? 16:37:09 ... straw poll 16:37:18 +1 16:37:28 Strawpoll: Do we continue to explore incorporating severity assessments at the test level? 16:37:28 -.5 16:37:32 +1 16:37:33 +1 16:37:43 -.5 16:37:46 +1 16:37:54 +1 16:37:57 +1 16:37:58 +1 16:37:59 +.5 16:38:01 +1 16:38:02 -.5 16:38:03 0 16:38:10 +1 Ben T 16:38:14 +1 16:38:14 +1 16:38:15 +1 16:38:20 +1 16:38:24 +1 16:38:31 +1 16:38:40 Sarah: +1 16:39:18 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 16:39:35 Rachael: 2 -.5 16:40:26 AWK: Concerns Wilco was raising. At Adobe, we use severity. We at first tried to assign severity to test level. It didn't work because of the context needed. Some are clearer. Video without captions is high severity issue. 16:41:04 Ben_Tillyer_ has joined #ag 16:41:06 ...Unlikely it is going to change on contextual analysis. Other issues are not quite clear. I do not really object to further discussion. I think we should explore it further but I am pessimistic as to whether it will work out. If we learn in the process, great. 16:41:21 WF: AGree with most of AWK 16:41:34 ... don't mind exploring more 16:41:40 s/AGree/Agree 16:41:44 q+ 16:42:18 q+ to ask based on previous experience were you trying to apply it to all tests? 16:42:19 JKirkwood: Echo similar issues in trying to implement at enterprise level 16:42:34 ... becomes sooo difficult 16:42:35 q+ to mention the focus on critical errors rather than levels. 16:42:49 ack mbgower 16:42:57 MG: thanks subgroup for doing work 16:43:02 +1 Mike 16:43:09 +1 Mike, thank you! 16:43:14 +1 thanks to the subgroup 16:43:16 ack Rachael 16:43:17 Rachael, you wanted to ask based on previous experience were you trying to apply it to all tests? 16:43:18 ... important work regardless of outcome 16:43:25 RM: chair hat off 16:43:40 q+ 16:43:41 q+ to respond to the question 16:43:44 ... question to ppl who used thi 16:43:46 ack alastairc 16:43:47 alastairc, you wanted to mention the focus on critical errors rather than levels. 16:44:14 AC: suggestion that we focus just on critical errors 16:44:27 How do folks prioritize? Frequency? Critical only vs. non-critical? User journey? 16:44:36 ack mbgower 16:44:50 MG: did testing of internal sites for ~6 years 16:44:56 ... was interesting (!) 16:45:09 I applied severity issue concept fror testing accessibility within University context with IT staff, it worked very well! 16:45:14 ... people couldn't agree on how to assess severity among two people 16:45:20 sarahhorton_ has joined #ag 16:45:25 jon_avila - at Nomensa we prioritise based on impact to task, but that's applied after you've been through the WCAG audit process. 16:45:52 ... for just about any SC there is something that is critical for someone 16:45:54 q+ to say that it is easier to identify critical errors and harder to rate severity of lower severity 16:46:07 ... adding workflow helps illuminate the severity 16:46:08 zakim, close queue 16:46:08 ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is closed 16:46:25 sarahhorton__ has joined #ag 16:46:33 ack Lauriat 16:46:33 Lauriat, you wanted to respond to the question 16:46:39 q? 16:47:02 Rachael, can we poll exploring the post-testing approach instead? 16:47:11 SL: think that combining AWK and MG comments - when we try to assign severity at test level is X level severity it isn't consistent 16:47:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html MichaelC 16:47:38 ... given a specific task that the user is trying to accomplish, the test can give you a way to express that severity 16:47:39 answer to Jon avila - we prioritize on critical issues on user journey with department IT people who do not have accessibilty evaluation resources. frequency is something that accessibilty QA can fix with prioriitization. 16:48:16 ack jeanne 16:48:16 jeanne, you wanted to say that it is easier to identify critical errors and harder to rate severity of lower severity 16:48:36 JS: in the years I did testing, we did consistency when issues were severe 16:48:38 +1 to Jeanne 16:48:50 ... we did by context, whether blocking for personas 16:48:57 DRAFT StrawPoll: Do we continue to explore investigating a method of incorporating task/context in issue severity? 16:49:00 RM: more straw poll 16:49:16 q+ 16:49:40 StrawPoll: Do we continue to explore investigating a way of incorporating task/context in issue severity? 16:49:45 q+ 16:49:53 zakim, open queue 16:49:53 ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is open 16:49:54 +1 16:49:56 +1 16:49:56 +1 16:49:57 +1 16:49:58 +100 16:49:58 +1 16:49:59 +1 16:50:03 q+ 16:50:03 +1 16:50:03 +1 16:50:03 +1 16:50:04 +1 16:50:05 +1 16:50:06 +1 16:50:09 +1 16:50:09 +1 16:50:10 +1 16:50:12 +1 16:50:14 +1 16:50:32 +1+1 16:50:34 q+ 16:50:41 ack jon_avila 16:50:45 ack jo 16:50:46 ack jon_avila 16:51:21 JA: are we talking about just for task severity or are we still considering severity in conformance etc? 16:51:24 ack alastairc 16:51:27 RM: the latter 16:51:35 +1 16:51:41 ... as well as tests 16:51:53 s/task severity/test severity 16:52:07 AC: agree that it is worth investigating 16:52:19 +1 alaastairc to worth investigation 16:52:28 JohnRochford_ has joined #ag 16:52:28 +1 16:52:32 +1 16:52:41 +1 16:52:46 q+ 16:52:47 RM: We will continue to pursue both straw poll topics 16:52:52 ack alastairc 16:53:15 AC: we might want to either coordinate or merge with scoping - very related 16:53:15 +1 for merging with scoping 16:53:23 q+ 16:53:27 Also close coordination with Equity 16:53:28 ack sarahhorton__ 16:54:03 SH: wanted to add that this work has possible benefits for other work, e.g., for when we are writing content guidelines and outcomes 16:54:28 .... often writing who is affected, so the functional and user need analysis needs to happen for that 16:54:39 actually I think this work can save other accessibility efforts 16:54:41 q? 16:54:53 +1 Sarah about the importance of functional needs, User needs, and tests in wriitng content 16:55:14 rrsagent, make minutes 16:55:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html jeanne 16:55:47 RM: thx all. also keep in mind that we've tried the subgroup process for WCAG 3.0 - please keep in mind what you think worked well or not 16:55:50 s/this work/ the severity issue group's work/ 16:56:01 .... next topic is accessibility supported. 16:56:01 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/access-support-tpac/ 16:56:21 RM: Back in 30 min 16:56:58 What's helpful is to map functional and user needs to techniques and tests - but I think trying to score severity based on them other than requiring support for all will run into equity issues. 16:57:08 agenda? 16:57:13 zakim, close item 3 16:57:13 agendum 3, Issue severity presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.p, closed 16:57:15 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 16:57:15 4. Issue severity survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-tpac/results [from Rachael] 16:57:18 zakim, close item 4 16:57:18 agendum 4, Issue severity survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-tpac/results, closed 16:57:21 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 16:57:43 agenda+ Accessibility supported presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oo7A6B44guvYaBkaFSBVaeSW1qCAglReaYqxSSsksNw/edit#slide=id.p 16:58:07 agenda+ accessibility supported survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/access-support-tpac/results 17:08:41 stevelee has joined #ag 17:09:43 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 17:09:47 present+ 17:13:22 mbgower has joined #ag 17:18:55 maryjom has joined #ag 17:27:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:27:41 Present: Francis_Storr, MichaelC, jeanne, ShawnT, mbgower, Rachael, Wilco, Makoto, Amanda, valerie_young, sarahhorton, JohnRochford, Lauriat, AWK, maryjom, Laura_Carlson, 17:27:45 ... jon_avila, Jem, Ben_Tillyer, jaunita_george, JakeAbma, kevers, SuzanneTaylor, jvanulde_ 17:27:47 present+ 17:28:34 Wilco_ has joined #ag 17:30:15 Present+ 17:30:51 mbgower has joined #ag 17:31:09 ShawnT has joined #ag 17:31:10 Present+ 17:31:53 maryjom has joined #ag 17:32:22 Scribe: Wilco 17:33:05 Alastair: Continuing from the morning session. Any housekeeping or practical things anyone wants to raise? 17:33:08 ... Hearing none. 17:33:56 Makoto: We had five participants, including Rachael. 17:34:04 +AWK 17:34:07 ... There is a link to the slides on our wiki page 17:34:20 ... We defined two core questions. 17:34:38 ... How does accessibility support work in different regions, and should we keep accessibility support in WCAG 3? 17:34:39 shadi has joined #ag 17:35:24 ... Removing accessibility support could be a possible solution. It would allow us to clarify why accessibility support is important. 17:35:25 JohnRochford has joined #ag 17:35:30 present+ 17:35:38 ... We also decided to go through two steps. 17:35:59 ... 1. Document use cases in different situations, 2. discuss pro's and con's to removing 17:36:09 Would somebody please post again the link to Makoto's presentation? 17:36:11 accessibility supported presentation -> 17:36:17 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oo7A6B44guvYaBkaFSBVaeSW1qCAglReaYqxSSsksNw/edit#slide=id.p 17:36:18 present+ 17:36:48 Thank you, Jeanne. 17:37:07 ... One of the conformance requirements is 5.2.4, only accessibility support ways of using technologies are relied upon. 17:37:59 ... I'd like to share the historical notes Gregg added to our document. 17:38:22 ... These nodes are on the slides. 17:38:41 ... The intent was that a later document could be created as guidance, but this never happened. 17:39:16 ... We gathered six use cases. 17:39:45 ... There is room for discussion on whether overlays are assistive technologies or not. 17:40:06 ... Some overlays change the content, others don't. Some might add alt text to images for example. 17:40:07 q+ to mention overlay breakout 17:40:22 ... Some overlays might create new barriers, while others don't. 17:40:36 ... We must be careful to define what the overlay is in terms of accessibility support in WCAG 3. 17:40:56 q- 17:41:23 ... Tomorrow there will be a breakout session on overlays. 17:41:33 ... AGWG should answer whether overlays are assistive technologies. 17:41:55 ... Japan has JIS. It adapted the same criteria as WCAG 2.0. 17:42:02 q+ 17:42:32 ... In Japam PC talker has been very popular, with an 80% market share. Unfortunately it has less functiolities then JAWS or NVDA. 17:42:44 ... For example in supporting less ARIA. 17:42:48 q+ to ask if overlay discussion in this context might be a tangent 17:42:58 ... In Japan accessibility support is essential. 17:43:16 ... 2.4.1 Bypass Block allows people more direct access to the primary content of the web page. 17:43:56 ... At the time JIS adopted WCAG, PC Talker had not provided heading navigation, so we can not rely on HTML heading markup. We needed a skiplink on every web page to meet Bypass block 17:44:14 ... This meant we needed different techniques to meet the same criterion. WCAG allows us to do this. 17:44:39 ... After PC Talker provided heading navigation we don't have to rely on skiplinks anymore. 17:44:58 ... The concept of accessibility supported has been essential. It allows WCAG to be the global guideline. 17:45:17 ... Japanese companies can use the same guidelines globally. On the other hand it's obvious the concept requires challenges. 17:45:34 ... It requires test files to be created and tested in different browsers and assistive technologies. 17:45:50 ... Plus technologies change all the time, so we need to keep these up to date. 17:46:23 ... The committee has been creating and maintaining test resources since 2010. 17:46:33 ... Example 2 is on Adobe PDF. 17:46:41 Amanda_ has joined #ag 17:46:56 ... We had a list of sufficient techniques for PDF, Flash and Silverlight. 17:47:21 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 17:47:25 ... Accessibility support allows assistive technology vendors to figure out how to support techniques 17:47:55 ... The accessibility support database was developed by the W3C. 17:48:19 ... Unfortunately the database was not approved, mainly due to scalability issues. It was going to provide a test suite. 17:48:39 ... If we had this kind of database where anyone could submit new files and test results it could be powerful for WCAG 3. 17:48:50 ... People from different countries can also translate test files into different languages. 17:49:23 ... There are many points for consideration. We've reconfirmed the benefits and challenges of accessibility supported. 17:49:47 Holli has joined #ag 17:49:51 ... I'd like to emphasise internationalisation and innovation. 17:50:16 .... Lastly I'd like to ask which direction you'd prefer and why. 17:50:40 q? 17:50:40 q+ to ask what it would mean not to retain a11y support 17:50:40 +1 to #1 17:50:42 ... There are different technologies in different countries. 17:50:50 qv? 17:50:50 ... If we keep accessibility supported, we came up with 5 options. 17:51:01 ... ANother question, which option do you recommend and why? 17:51:26 q+ to say integrate db with wcag cms 17:51:27 maryjom has joined #ag 17:51:36 ... Option A: Keep as is, we'd face the same issues as WCAG 2, for example some methods may not be supported, so an organisation needs to determine support by themselves. 17:51:52 q+ to mention wpt 17:51:53 ... Option B will be to develop a database. It provides test files based on methods documented by AGWG. 17:51:57 Amanda has joined #ag 17:52:05 ... It allows anyone to submit test files and results. 17:52:17 ... It'd also allow translating test files into different langauges. 17:52:40 Option C: Develop at least the test files. This would allow translation. 17:52:59 Poornima_ has joined #ag 17:53:00 ... A new technology vendor can submit test files for example. 17:53:01 q+ to ask what happens if a region doesn't support something WCAG requires? 17:53:03 present+ 17:53:08 present+ 17:53:10 q+ to say the ¨keep¨ options don´t seem mutually exclusive 17:53:26 q+ to ask for clarification on "develop DB" vs "maintain DB" 17:53:27 Option D: Limit to documented methods. AGWG will only document methods that are supported. 17:53:44 ... That requires AGWG to document what is accessibility supported. 17:54:05 ... Option E: Promote issues in each guideline. We added this option last week. 17:54:36 ... This might be similar to option A, but this means there's a new section, an accessibility support note that provides information. 17:55:04 ... This kind of information promotes accessibility support to authors and vendors. 17:55:19 Amanda_ has joined #ag 17:55:29 ... We need to decide if we'll keep the concept, or not. If we keep it we need to figure out what's the best option for WCAG 3. 17:55:53 Alastair: I'd like to start with clarification questions if possible. 17:55:55 ack shadi 17:55:55 shadi, you wanted to ask if overlay discussion in this context might be a tangent and to ask for clarification on "develop DB" vs "maintain DB" 17:56:07 Shadi: Great, two questions. 17:56:32 ... The discussion on overlays and accessibility support, what is the difference between having the website generate an alt text vs a third-party system. 17:57:08 ... The other question, it seems not all categories are mutually exclusive. 17:57:24 ... We can create a database, we can create tests, and also curate the database. 17:57:40 ... When this particular database was created it was very open. It had very little curation. 17:57:43 for Shadi - Overlays may offer magnification or voicing options, which gets closer to being an assistive technology 17:57:48 q+ to ask about the definition of "overlay" for this discussion to differentiate it from AT: AT that the site or application provides? 17:58:20 Makoto: On overlays, it's grey area, whether it's assistive technology or not. 17:58:22 q+ 17:58:47 q+ to suggest an overlay / at iew 17:59:10 ... accessibility support is about mainly assistive technologies. In Japan some people say overlays are assistive tech, others disagree. There is no official judgement whether it is AT or not. 17:59:28 ... It's essential for us to continue the discussion to decide if overlays are AT or not. 17:59:49 q+ 17:59:53 ... I think there are so many overlay products out there that are different. We can't say all overlays are this. 18:00:05 q? 18:00:09 q- 18:00:14 q- 18:00:25 q- 18:00:40 q+ to say how we benefit from Acc Supported and what gaps happen if missing 18:00:43 Makoto: To decide if something's supported or not, we need to test the method with target browsers like screen readers. 18:01:02 q? 18:01:16 ... For doing that we need test files, but it's not realistic to ask every website owner to create test files themselves, and test them with different browsers / assistive technologies. 18:01:42 ... A database is an ideal solution to reduce the burden on everybody. If we had official test files that would be very helpful and useful. 18:01:51 ... If we keep the accessibility supported concept. 18:02:00 maryjom has joined #ag 18:02:02 q+ to check my understanding of "Keep it limited to documented Methods" option 18:02:20 ... If we could have a database or test suite it would be helpful. It'll allow WCAG 3 to be adopted in a wider range of situations. 18:02:25 ack MichaelC 18:02:25 MichaelC, you wanted to ask what it would mean not to retain a11y support and to say integrate db with wcag cms and to mention wpt and to say the ¨keep¨ options don´t seem 18:02:29 ... mutually exclusive and to suggest an overlay / at iew 18:02:47 MichaelC: You gave options for keeping accessibility support, but what are the consequences of not keeping it. 18:02:53 +1, what's the alternative 18:03:40 ack me 18:03:43 Makoto: One option would be to introduce the methods which are considered supported. I don't think it's realistic, methods must be compatibel with assistive technologies. 18:03:43 There is ARIA AT project by Matt King, co-chair of ARIA APG, which test ARIA APG examples with three AT, Jaws, NVDA and Voiceover. It is a lot of coordination and resource required project. It makes sense what happened to accessibility supported DB. 18:04:01 ... We don't think it's realistic, but it could be a solution. 18:04:12 q+ 18:04:27 Michael: Related to the database. We've not made a decision about this, but I feel WCAG must be in a database. 18:04:43 ... Accessibility supported is fairly easily an addition to that. 18:05:06 ... There exists a web platform tests. It focuses on automated tests but there are ways to not automate. 18:05:19 ... That's even incorporated into some specs now. Both of those are options. 18:05:23 ack alastairc 18:05:23 alastairc, you wanted to ask what happens if a region doesn't support something WCAG requires? 18:05:34 +1 to MichaelC 18:05:51 Alastair: Chair hat off. If we didn't have the concept of accessibility support, it'd default to whatever methods and tests state. 18:06:03 ... If it's in a technique it's fine, if not you're failing. That's not the case though. 18:06:28 ... What would happen if you had a skip link, but there are some component that required ARIA that wasn't supported, could you not use that kind of component and be accessible? 18:06:41 q+ 18:06:43 ... If it's not possible to meet an outcome, that seems like a problem. 18:07:21 ... A question to others, does the structure of outcomes help the accessibility support 18:07:49 Makoto: It happens all the time. PC Talker has an 80% market share in Japan. We cannot ignore it. 18:08:00 q+ to address outcomes 18:08:13 The similar case for Korea like that of Japan. - Korean AT, not Jaws nor nvda. 18:08:26 ... In Japan aria-current is not supported. I reached out and gave some information on how NVDA and JAWS supports this attribute. 18:09:10 ... There are many cases like that. For example, HTML has no element for tab panels. We have to use ARIA role=tablist / tab. 18:09:20 q? 18:09:31 ... If there is no choice, we should use ARIA and wait for support in Japanese screen readers. 18:09:52 ... We won't implement tabpanel. We use ARIA in that kind of situation. 18:10:05 ... If you can do it with only HTML you should not use ARIA, just use HTML 18:10:22 ... If it doesn't work use ARIA, and ask screen readers to support it afterward. 18:10:34 Alastair: So it's not a fail for the author. 18:10:35 q+ 18:10:37 ack mbgower 18:10:37 mbgower, you wanted to say how we benefit from Acc Supported and what gaps happen if missing 18:10:56 MichaelC has joined #ag 18:10:58 Mike: What benefits do we derive from accessibility support as it is right now? 18:11:03 ... If we don't support it, what gets through? 18:11:33 ... IBM essentially made up its own SC on accessibility support. It has been valuable to people who can't figure out why something isn't working. 18:12:19 ... What tends to happen; ARIA doesn't pass on keyboard, what can happen is you specified the tabs properly, but the screen reader user's expectation isn't supported by the keyboard on the site. 18:12:29 ... The keyboard works fine, but something's wrong with AT comes on. 18:12:42 ... Another, we say name, role, value, but we don't talk about state. 18:12:59 ... We're going to have to plug that state whole. 18:13:18 mbgower has joined #ag 18:13:25 ... Five years ago we weren't talking about voice interaction much, but we're not talking on that in WCAG much. 18:13:38 ... You can plug that whole by looking at accessibility supported. 18:14:04 .. As for what you do when assistive technologies isn't supported. Even aria-live, which has been around for a long time you cannot really rely on. 18:14:20 ... I saw someone comment that there's this ARIA-AT group happening. 18:14:26 https://aria-at.w3.org/ 18:14:40 ... They're working to try to have screen readers to have predictable outcomes 18:14:45 Matt will have a session on Thursday morning at ARIA working group. 18:14:53 s/Matt/Matt King 18:15:23 ... I think most people agree that high contrast is probably assistive technologies, but it's part of the operating system. 18:15:27 qv? 18:15:42 ... When you think about what's included and what's not, there are all these weird edge cases. 18:16:12 ... Sometimes things that pass without AT fail with AT. 18:17:19 scribe: Poornima_ 18:17:53 q? 18:18:30 q? 18:18:34 ack Lauriat 18:18:34 Lauriat, you wanted to check my understanding of "Keep it limited to documented Methods" option 18:20:05 Shawn: Option 4, keeping it for the references. the methods also to include how to perform the tests 18:21:02 q? 18:21:08 ... PC Talker example, define the personas how to use the technique and specific audience.. that makes option d to include as the possibility 18:21:10 ack AWK 18:22:26 Kevers: Accessibility supported does not really work well now as expected 18:23:01 s/Kevers:/AWK: 18:23:42 AWK: As the technologies are new and more coming like HTML, PDFs, people are coming with new ways to use technologies 18:24:22 so should we have a poll first about keeping it or not? 18:24:39 ... concerning as we need to figure how to balance out with developers considering techniques for least used assistive technologies like PC Talker 18:24:40 q+ to ask a historical question on the Robust SCs: I get the impression that these exist as sort of proxies for support Accessibility Supported? 18:25:28 ... as content developed in established way, it becomes shared responsibility of how technologies are created and its working with different AT's 18:25:34 q? 18:25:48 ack kevers 18:26:25 Kevin: one part I want to bring up is the Test drivers, like keyboard input 18:27:26 q+ 18:27:27 .. can we extend this to see the accessibility requirements are met with this AS? It helps the screen reader vendor themselves have an idea how the 18:27:29 ack Rachael 18:27:29 Rachael, you wanted to address outcomes 18:27:36 ... test drivers can work 18:27:39 q+ to ask if the question is essentially: What assumptions can the author make at the UA? 18:28:12 ack Ben_Tillyer 18:28:19 the place where AS fits can be technology neutral 18:29:28 Question 1 about the data base, how the technologies will be documented and used by public? 18:29:43 q+ 18:30:15 ... Makoto answered to Question 1 'for now the database is unapproved, still need to figure out the ways to document and what kind of database it'll take' 18:30:58 Question 2 is on 'limited amount of assistive technology' 18:31:28 Makoto answered to Question 2 'the example is Intranet where it needs to support only JAWS which will be sufficient for only limited group of users' 18:31:30 q? 18:31:41 The accessibility supported db wiill be the innovative and ideal solution as far as we are commmitted to implement and update it with dedication. 18:31:44 ack Lauriat 18:31:44 Lauriat, you wanted to ask a historical question on the Robust SCs: I get the impression that these exist as sort of proxies for support Accessibility Supported? 18:32:40 ack Wilco_ 18:32:45 the AS don't have direct outcome for users, ensuring the programmatic functions 18:33:14 q+ to speak to challenges of ASDB and also to respond to SL's 4.1.x question 18:33:14 one of the major problem with A11y is not lot of them are not standardized yet 18:33:27 +1 to Wilco, same with browsers 18:33:59 ... there are standards for accessible name, ARIA but limited. the recommendation so far is to follow the techniques 18:34:54 +1, that happens in the UK with the RNIB providing training on a SR that wasn't... great. 18:35:02 ... on the PC Talker example, the screen reader is a popular because the training is free and affordable 18:35:20 q? 18:35:23 ack alastairc 18:35:23 alastairc, you wanted to ask if the question is essentially: What assumptions can the author make at the UA? 18:36:06 ShawnT has joined #ag 18:36:10 q+ to answer alastairc's question on assumptions of UA (and by extension, AT, OS, etc.) 18:36:17 Question is 'what assumptions can be made about the other end of interaction like user agent?' 18:36:31 Amanda has joined #ag 18:36:59 ack AWK 18:36:59 AWK, you wanted to speak to challenges of ASDB and also to respond to SL's 4.1.x question 18:37:29 ... what tools or assistive technologies can support the assumption even in WCAG 2 there are related constraints 18:38:16 q+ 18:38:33 +1 to AWK 18:38:41 there are so many combinations involved with user agents and AT's like Windows with Chrome and JAWS and so many 18:38:56 +1, I remember a post-TPAC (or CSUN) session trying to setup a DB of AT support, it quickly became 1000s to millions of combinations. 18:39:09 +1 18:39:23 and it involves tremendous amount of data. the database will be adding on more negative and supported examples, but it's a lot 18:40:16 May "negative db reporting" include AT/browser bug reporting system? 18:40:40 ... responding to Shawn, 4.1.2 does have direct impact on users, but 4.1.1. Parsing does not have direct impacts as it mostly target the markup.. 18:40:42 q? 18:40:46 agenda? 18:40:53 ack Lauriat 18:40:54 Lauriat, you wanted to answer alastairc's question on assumptions of UA (and by extension, AT, OS, etc.) 18:40:56 ... 4.1.3 Status messages is also there now 18:41:01 4.1.1 was there because before HTML 5, there was no consistent way to handle invalid HTML. 18:41:30 Screen readers would run their own parser to build a tree, and they'd do it differently from how the browser did. 18:41:40 In terms of efficiency, negative db can be more efficient or sharing each org has with others. 18:42:04 q+ to represent Stefan's comment 18:42:09 even for the complicated things, we cannot make any assumption. example is hidden in accessibility tree but not in DOM.. 18:42:11 s/sharing each org/sharing what each org/ 18:42:25 Is there any value on focusing on the accessibility tree ? 18:43:03 ... the aria-live is another example has to be tested by different user agents and AT combinations.. 18:43:37 What do we do about keyboard support for ATs (SRs specifically) 18:44:19 ... though the content hidden in acc tree yet it gets focused, there are still many bugs being reported on how it works with user agents and ATs 18:44:51 ... we can assume to say that 'this is probably going to work', but cannot definitely say that 'this will work' 18:45:02 ... +1 to the database 18:45:09 q? 18:45:11 ack shadi 18:45:18 Amanda_ has joined #ag 18:45:41 ... to see lot of combinations there in the database and its concerns on maintaining 18:45:56 +1000 <3 ARIA-AT 18:46:51 ack alastairc 18:46:51 alastairc, you wanted to represent Stefan's comment 18:47:05 +1 to Andrew on new version of AT, browser, etc. Keeping this can be fairly effective but not cover anything 18:47:07 there is also resource issue for creating that DB. 18:47:32 I do think it's worthwhile trying to capture in Robust as opposed to in the Conformance 5.x level 18:48:02 q+ to say could we get the accessibility tree into 4 Robust? 18:48:03 q+ 18:48:10 ack mbgower 18:48:10 mbgower, you wanted to say could we get the accessibility tree into 4 Robust? 18:48:32 testingn DB is really a resource intensive project. 18:48:41 is there any value in considering Accessibility tree in Robust part? 18:48:53 +1 to mbgower 18:48:56 I think there is AOM project. 18:49:00 Seems a good parking lot topic? Happy to talk through the Accessibility Tree things. 18:49:05 q+ 18:49:07 ack AWK 18:49:20 Accessibility Object Model (AOM) 18:49:47 In response to Mike, part of me loves the idea.. there's a bridge that the developers take it half and AT's make it half.. 18:49:51 https://wicg.github.io/aom/spec/ 18:50:24 And where does the Shadow DOM fit into all this? 18:50:48 ... potentially the same thing, for sites to be able to WCAG scale, the risk is users have to jump over the bridge to find AT's or product fails to conform to WCAG 18:51:13 q+ 18:51:18 DRAFT Poll: options: 1) Stop working on AS 2) Continue work, create prototype of how it would work 18:51:33 ack Wilco_ 18:52:18 AT's need to standardize to conform, like that idea.. however, if it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.. 18:53:12 ... lot of work going on Accessibility tree things, because A11y tree are not standardized, too soon to know the standards of it.. AT's also deviate A11y tree things 18:53:19 +1 to Wilco on all counts 18:53:36 ack Amanda_ 18:54:46 q? 18:54:50 Amanda: the part of the whole conversation is about the needs of different use of AT's... in India, people use more Android than iOS.. 18:55:30 ack Makoto_ 18:55:32 Poll: 1) Stop working on AS 2) Continue work, create prototype of how it would work 18:55:48 2 18:55:51 2 18:55:56 2 18:55:57 Makoto mentioned 'Japanse people use NvDA as well along with PC Talker..' 18:55:57 2 18:56:01 2 18:56:01 2 18:56:03 3) explore a standardized acc tree 18:56:03 2 18:56:05 2 18:56:05 2 18:56:06 2 (like we have a choice!) 18:56:06 2 18:56:11 2 18:56:14 2 18:56:16 2 18:56:19 2 18:56:20 2 18:57:16 B 18:57:21 preferred and "what I think is realistic" aren't the same... 18:57:23 f) explore capturing in 4 Robust 18:57:30 B, C, E 18:57:34 Alastairc: Asking to comment on the Options A to E? 18:57:47 B or C/E 18:58:02 q+ 18:58:04 B, even though I doubt it will result in anything 18:58:05 C 18:58:05 ack mbgower 18:58:33 A, -B, F ("-B" equals failings-only ASDB) 18:58:40 Mike: For option D, Question is if it talks about Methods or Techniques? 18:58:46 +q B include Resource commitment. 18:58:48 q+ 18:58:58 A or E. I think D is politically problematic, I think B and C are great but shouldn't be AGWG's job. 18:59:21 have to hop off for a bit 18:59:21 B for failures, 18:59:33 * AWK, is that F or E? 18:59:34 A, (C is kinda being done by ARIA-AT), F 19:00:19 A, B, C, D 19:00:38 Please come back as close to on time as possible for the next conversation 19:00:43 Alastairc: It's time for lunch, don't want to keep everyone from lunch :) 19:00:48 Thanks everyone 19:00:49 RRSAgent, make minutes 19:00:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html alastairc 19:00:57 + E 19:01:18 A, B, C, D, E. 19:01:31 Makoto & team: Happy to help frame the one I proposed in how to test 19:01:56 mbgower has joined #ag 19:02:17 Lauriat, I'd like to hear more about it. Thanks! 19:02:23 RESOLUTION: Keep working on Accessibility Supported, discuss approach soon. 19:02:49 Great presentation, Makoto! 19:03:14 Thanks for scribing, Poornima! 19:05:04 MichaelC has joined #ag 19:10:26 JudyB has joined #ag 19:25:08 MichaelC has joined #ag 19:33:38 shawn has joined #ag 19:58:10 MichaelC has joined #ag 19:59:18 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 19:59:45 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p1 20:02:50 mbgower has joined #ag 20:03:51 kirkwood has joined #ag 20:04:05 Present+ 20:05:08 agenda+ Accessibility, Conformance, & Regulation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p1 20:05:16 zakim, take up next item 20:05:16 agendum 5 -- Accessibility supported presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oo7A6B44guvYaBkaFSBVaeSW1qCAglReaYqxSSsksNw/edit#slide=id.p -- taken up [from Rachael] 20:05:21 zakim, close item 5 20:05:21 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Rachael 20:05:32 q? 20:05:38 q- alastairc 20:05:45 zakim, close item 5 20:05:45 agendum 5, Accessibility supported presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oo7A6B44guvYaBkaFSBVaeSW1qCAglReaYqxSSsksNw/edit#slide=id.p, closed 20:05:48 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:05:48 6. accessibility supported survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/access-support-tpac/results [from Rachael] 20:05:56 zakim, close item 6 20:05:56 agendum 6, accessibility supported survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/access-support-tpac/results, closed 20:05:58 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 20:05:58 7. Accessibility, Conformance, & Regulation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p1 [from Rachael] 20:06:06 zakim, take up item 7 20:06:06 agendum 7 -- Accessibility, Conformance, & Regulation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p1 -- taken up [from Rachael] 20:06:16 Holli has joined #ag 20:08:52 scribe:alastairc 20:09:10 Rachael: This is about the concepts, not the word-smithing. 20:09:12 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 20:09:56 scribe: Francis_Storr 20:10:02 scribe: Francis_Storr 20:11:31 Rachael I'm going to walk through the categories. If there are things that need adding or things that people disagree with, we can deal with that 20:12:16 q+ 20:12:17 q+ 20:12:17 q+ 20:12:23 ... for this presentation, accessibility is referring to accessibility as evaluated per the accessibility guidelines 20:12:26 ack MichaelC 20:13:07 ... is there value of us talking about accessibility independent of the guidelines? 20:13:23 As measured by guidelines 20:13:24 multiple yesses 20:14:11 ack AWK 20:14:13 Adds: "accessibility - independent of guidelines" and "Guideline based accessibility - dependent on guidelines" 20:14:43 q+ 20:14:58 q+ to say we need to separate concepts 20:15:06 AWK I'm a little uncomfortable with the bullets on an accessible site and an inaccessible site. Difficult to put those out there without additional qualification. 20:15:07 "A site that is accessible to some that... 20:15:23 ... part of the problem is that "inaccessible" is a big word in that instance 20:15:27 suggest adding "to some" 20:15:50 ... saying an accessible site that doesn't meet the accessibility guidelines is also interesting 20:16:04 ... we know that there are very very few sites that meet the accessibility guidelines. 20:16:08 A site that is accessible to some that does not meet... 20:16:15 maryjom has joined #ag 20:16:16 q+ 20:16:17 ack Wilco_ 20:16:23 Rachael can you suggest wording you'll be comfortable with? 20:16:25 shadi has joined #ag 20:16:33 +AWK 20:16:38 An site that is inaccessible to some that does meet... 20:16:51 Wilco_ does illness need to be mentioned alongside disability? 20:16:55 s/An site/A site 20:16:55 q? 20:16:58 q+ 20:17:23 "A site that is accessible to many people may not meet the accessibility guidelines entirely" 20:17:24 may we remove two subbullets then? 20:17:34 q+ to ask about the audience for this 20:17:39 ... I am not sure there is such a thing as an accessible site. I like to think of accessibility more as a spectrum and it doesn't feel like boiling it down to boolean accessible/inaccessible doesn't work for me 20:17:40 ack MichaelC 20:17:40 MichaelC, you wanted to say we need to separate concepts 20:18:10 Suggest Shawn next, I think we need to clarify the audience & intent of this 20:18:28 +1 to MichaelC 20:18:30 MichaelC I see these bullets as not trying to describe the real world. What we're trying to get to is that accessibility exists without guidelines and standards 20:18:35 ack jaunita_george 20:18:49 q+ 20:18:58 "A site that meets the accessibility guidelines may be inaccessible to some users" 20:19:00 q+ to say just add "to some" or "to many" 20:19:07 jaunita_george I wonder if we have any examples in the wild of an inaccessible site but that meets Level AA 20:19:09 ack shadi 20:19:22 There are inaccessible sites that meet WCAG2 published every April Fools, it seems 20:19:45 shadi maybe these are too absolute. possible wording could be "an accessible site that doesn't meet all the accessibility guidelines" 20:19:59 q+ 20:20:01 +1 to "in principle" and move on 20:20:21 ... are we thinking about accessibility as an absolute state or as a continuum? 20:20:33 ack Lauriat 20:20:33 Lauriat, you wanted to ask about the audience for this 20:20:44 ... something might be a barrier / hurdle and not a showstopper 20:21:00 ShawnT has joined #ag 20:21:11 shawn want to check the audience for this deck 20:21:14 ack mbgower 20:21:14 mbgower, you wanted to say just add "to some" or "to many" 20:21:34 ack Rachael 20:21:49 mbgower it sounds like we all understand what we're talking about 20:22:07 +1 20:22:09 +1 20:22:19 Rachael adds "accessibility exists on a continuum" to slide 20:22:30 +1 20:22:33 +1 20:22:33 ... are we okay with this slide? 20:22:38 0 sort of... 20:22:47 ... moving on to testing and evaluation 20:23:34 ... reads slide 20:23:41 +1, looks good 20:23:59 ... moving to conformance. reads slide 20:24:20 q+ 20:24:24 ack MichaelC 20:24:37 kirkwood has joined #ag 20:24:55 q+ 20:25:11 q+ 20:25:46 Created within W3C space? 20:26:03 q+ to ask whether our requirement around the regulatory environment can help speak to the concern MichaelC raised: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#regulatory-environment 20:26:20 ack Wilco_ 20:26:21 q+ 20:27:10 ack shadi 20:27:34 shadi are there any examples of conformance that aren't compatible with regulation? 20:28:14 ack Lauriat 20:28:14 Lauriat, you wanted to ask whether our requirement around the regulatory environment can help speak to the concern MichaelC raised: 20:28:16 ... https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#regulatory-environment 20:28:53 kirkwood has joined #ag 20:28:58 shawn in my understanding, this is trying to say that we should try to create the best guidance we can to help people make things accessible. 20:29:03 q+ 20:29:07 +1 that is what I was trying to say 20:29:12 jenniferS_ has joined #ag 20:29:13 ack AWK 20:29:35 ... what we shouldn't do is say "this is what a regulation should be" and then design something around that. 20:29:38 q+ 20:29:55 AWK a VPAT is an example of a conformance claim 20:30:19 ack MichaelC 20:30:45 q+ 20:30:48 ack Wilco_ 20:30:50 MichaelC changed some text in the slide re: conformance is defined by the W3C 20:31:00 q+ 20:31:11 ack AWK 20:31:16 q+ 20:31:24 my understanding is that "confirmance can exist with regulation" first. 20:31:35 Wilco_ are we saying that if we think something is important for accessibility but regulators won't support it, we'd add it anyway? 20:32:28 I think "deharmoization" is a good word. 20:32:33 AWK if we design something that specifies things that can't be included, we wind up with deharmonisation between places that take up WCAG. 20:32:49 …hence what we put in the Requirements: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#regulatory-environment 20:32:52 q+ to strawpoll 20:32:53 ... we walk a razor's edge on that line trying to decide the right thing to do 20:33:04 q+ to talk about WCAG 2.0 and how many countries only implemented parts 20:33:07 q+ to say need to discuss in requirements 20:33:15 jamesn has joined #ag 20:33:28 ack shadi 20:33:35 ... I think that it's something that we always need to keep an eye on 20:33:52 present+ 20:33:58 to wcag 3 used the word, "broad support" instead of "harmonization"concept. 20:33:58 shadi I agree with Wilco and AWK and am struggling to come up with an example and am worried this might be a hypothetical 20:34:09 q+ 20:34:14 q+ to say regulation limited WCAG2 conforemance 20:34:28 ... a standard needs normative content that can be conformed to 20:34:32 s/to wcag3/regarding WCAG3/ 20:34:39 ack MichaelC 20:34:39 MichaelC, you wanted to say need to discuss in requirements and to say regulation limited WCAG2 conforemance 20:34:45 q+ 20:35:20 may be the second "ideally" can be replaced with "preferrably"? 20:35:47 MichaelC this is an abstract point that conformance and regulation are completely separate spaces. I do think WCAG 2 was limited by what regulars were telling us 20:36:22 ack jeanne 20:36:22 jeanne, you wanted to talk about WCAG 2.0 and how many countries only implemented parts 20:37:02 jeanne when WCAG 2.0 was completed, Judy went around the world talking about the importance of harmonization. A number of countries didn't want to take the whole spec for reasons such as captioning being too expensive. 20:37:06 q+ 20:37:20 (Example) AODA (Ontario) : Exceptions There are only two (2) WCAG standards that organizations do not need to follow. These two exceptions are: - Live captions - Pre-recorded audio descriptions 20:37:35 ... the group decided not to sacrifice accessibility for those regulators 20:37:38 DRAFT straw poll: 1) Accessibility should weigh more heavily than regulation, 2) Regulation should weigh more heavily than accessibility, 3) Regulation and Accessibility should weigh evenly 20:37:42 ack Rachael 20:37:42 Rachael, you wanted to strawpoll 20:37:44 ack mbgower 20:38:12 q+ 20:38:15 mbgower has been AAA been used to create aspirational accessibility that doesn't meet regulation? 20:38:31 ack AWK 20:38:37 ... I think that's where this is ending up 20:39:04 MichaelC I don't think we have a clear definition of what meets AAA criteria. 20:39:35 ... Ontario didn't initially include audio description in AODA 20:40:01 s/MichaelC I/AWK: I/ 20:40:32 Apologies for being a broken record here, but where would equity fall in the question re the straw poll on conformance? As regulators currently lean towards inequitable systems due to historical actions. Would WCAG3 aim for redesigning for greater equity / justice? 20:40:33 ack shadi 20:40:40 Vote: 1 20:40:59 shadi I'm getting more and more concerned about putting conformance and regulation as competing things 20:41:47 q+ 20:41:49 ... some countries have decided not to adopt all of WCAG 20:42:03 q+ to say conformance doesn´t inherently require the level of testing we did 20:42:12 ... Rachael are you saying that the pole isn't a valid one for the group? 20:42:19 +1 that the conformance model wasn't changed, but individual SC may have been reclassified 20:42:26 +1 to Shadi 20:42:47 q+ to say write ¨this is controversial¨ 20:43:04 Rachael reads jenniferS_' statement in IRC 20:43:13 q+ 20:43:21 q+ to suggest reframing (too verbose): Standards conformance and regulation serve two different (though overlapping) needs and come from two (though sometimes overlapping) groups. Those groups work in partnership to support each other in our respective spaces toward our goals which should ideally align perfectly, with neither sacrificing their own goal to support the other. 20:43:33 q+ 20:43:35 ... is this the trade off between meeting accessibility and regulator needs? 20:43:53 ack Wilco_ 20:44:34 q+ to suggest we remove the bullet and move this conversation to parking lot 20:44:34 Wilco_ I feel this is creating a false dichotomy here. writing accessibility guidelines that don't get adopted doesn't help anyone 20:45:01 ack MichaelC 20:45:01 MichaelC, you wanted to say conformance doesn´t inherently require the level of testing we did and to say write ¨this is controversial¨ 20:45:03 accessibility is tempered by state of the art and the goal of adoption 20:45:09 +1 to Wilco 20:45:51 MichaelC I hear a lot of people want the controversial bullet gone but I feel it captures an important point and needs to be discussed but later. 20:45:59 ack jenniferS_ 20:46:14 ... I think there's room for more flexibility in the conformance model than people think there is 20:46:14 +1 for more flexibility in the conformance model 20:46:44 jenniferS_ we we create products, at the ideation stage everything's on the table. we're looking at what people need 20:47:35 ... I think everyone here wants to make things accessible for everyone 20:47:46 +1 to jenniferS_ 20:47:53 ... our responsibility as a standards org is to promote accessibility to create more equity 20:48:10 David-Clarke has joined #ag 20:48:15 q+ 20:48:25 present+ 20:48:25 ... as we work on WCAG 3's conformance model, we need to find a greater balance in pushing towards that equitable future 20:48:41 ... I think that's what we all want 20:48:46 ack Lauriat 20:48:46 Lauriat, you wanted to suggest reframing (too verbose): Standards conformance and regulation serve two different (though overlapping) needs and come from two (though sometimes 20:48:49 ... overlapping) groups. Those groups work in partnership to support each other in our respective spaces toward our goals which should ideally align perfectly, with neither 20:48:49 ... sacrificing their own goal to support the other. 20:49:18 Lauriat I think we're all agreeing here. 20:49:27 +1 to Lauriat's rewording 20:50:05 +1 to Lauriat's message ;) 20:50:07 ... I put in a very verbose reframing into document 20:50:18 Feel the word "partnership" is key here 20:50:21 ack jaunita_george 20:50:36 +1 to SL wording 20:50:40 +1 to Ben_Tillyer re "partnership" 20:51:16 +1 to @jaunita & showing the How To 20:51:18 q+ to say agwg is not q+ to say our goal is to improve accessibility, but we have to temper direction by assessing what the current technical state of the art is 20:51:35 jaunita_george I do agree that it's not mutually exclusive. If we can show that it's possible to conform to the standard, we'll have a much better chance of it getting adopted. 20:52:01 q+ to say agwg is not q+ to say our goal is to improve accessibility, but we have to temper direction by assessing what the current technical state of the art is and what 20:52:03 ack Rachael 20:52:03 Rachael, you wanted to suggest we remove the bullet and move this conversation to parking lot 20:52:07 ... the group on the rights of persons with disabilities would be good to talk to 20:52:09 q- 20:52:47 q+ 20:52:47 ack AWK 20:52:53 ack AWK 20:53:05 q? 20:54:12 q+ 20:54:33 +1, very well put AWK 20:54:46 ack mbgower 20:55:33 Cost is a bigger factor than technically supported based on history 20:55:38 mbgower I have a feeling that what we're talking about is technical ability—whether it's technically feasible. 20:55:43 +1 to mbgower 20:55:45 +1 to mbgower 20:55:51 Lack of research is a big one too 20:55:53 +1 20:56:07 Love the "guiding principles" concept 20:56:10 Yes, lack of research. +1 wilco 20:56:38 Cost of implementation made sign language an AAA 20:56:40 * please stay, Jemma! 20:56:50 +1 on Research, definitely! 20:57:17 scribe: mbgower 20:57:29 ack jenniferS_ 20:58:22 DRAFT strawpoll: Accept the revised wording in the slide and put the discussion in parking lot for more conversation in the future 20:58:28 Jennifer: I'm a designer. I see by default how things could be better. So I'm always focusing on what didn't work before. 20:58:53 Jennifer: What I find intriguing is what mbgower just said about guiding principles. 20:59:18 jenniferS_: I'd like to explore including that 20:59:19 +1 20:59:23 +1 20:59:25 +1 20:59:26 +1 20:59:28 +1 20:59:30 +1 20:59:34 +1 20:59:34 +1 20:59:34 +1 20:59:39 +1 21:00:17 Rachael: Continuing to slide 6 21:00:42 q+ 21:00:49 ... W3C is not responsible for regulation, is what it's trying to say 21:01:06 ack shadi 21:01:09 AWK point from ~1:54pm: believe that the progress toward equity will occur over time, so just as WCAG 2.0 made progress toward a more equitable state, WCAG 3.0 will as well, but we need to understand that we won't reach the ideal end state in one hop. We can strive for that but there are multiple factors that impact this. 21:01:27 q+ 21:01:28 shadi: the third bullet, i would suggest changing "conform" to "comply" 21:01:37 ack maryjom 21:01:44 q+ 21:01:56 ack Wilco_ 21:02:03 q+ to ask about conform and comply? 21:02:11 +1 to Wilco!! 21:02:12 maryjom: the same bullet should be "who and what" 21:02:14 q+ 21:02:15 q- 21:02:22 ack MichaelC 21:02:24 q+ 21:02:24 +1 to Wilco 21:02:34 I think Wilco's comment goes elsewhere' 21:03:19 q+ we can advise but not legislate 21:03:21 MichaelC: In principle we could coordinate with industry regulators... 21:03:30 q? 21:03:33 q+ 21:03:34 q+ 21:03:39 ack AWK 21:03:40 ... The protocols proposal is all about self regulation 21:03:57 +1 to AWK 21:04:13 AWK: I think when you say "regulation" I think it is legal. It is regulation by some authority with consequences if you don't. I wonder if we should add in policy. 21:04:54 ack shadi 21:05:01 ... There is difference between policy and regulation (mentions popup when leaving site) 21:05:23 shadi: replace "regulation" with "policy" and add in a bullet saying "policy... 21:05:51 ... refer to policy as the umbrella term, that includes regulation, self regulation and contracts 21:05:53 q? 21:05:56 +1 21:06:18 ack David-Clarke 21:06:38 David-Clarke: I'm more in internationalization than standards. 21:06:51 ... They have regulations that they must say they are or are not complying. 21:07:30 ... I see WCAG in whatever form as advisory in practical terms, which others can then enforce. So we are advising on policy, rather than writing policy. 21:07:55 shadi: That's the bullet below (second to last) 21:08:20 q+ 21:08:22 +1 21:08:25 +1 21:08:37 +1 21:08:40 Rachael: plus 1 if you are happy with changes made to date 21:09:47 ack me 21:10:03 q+ 21:10:14 ack maryjom 21:10:15 +1 21:10:19 +1 21:10:43 maryjom: I think of policy and regulation as two different things. 21:11:03 ... policy is how an org wants to work. it may include regulation. 21:11:31 Rachael: I am flexible on terminology, but I'd like us to agree.. 21:12:09 ... If we can acknowledge we don't agree and intend to address? 21:12:32 q+ 21:12:40 I'm with MaryJo. Policy is different from Compliance and I would rather see them separately 21:12:56 ack Rachael 21:13:02 maryjom: it gets muddied about what people mean. I understand that. They're just 2 different things. 21:13:03 q+ 21:13:11 Rachael: Can we come up with a term that is broader? 21:13:37 ack AWK 21:13:58 AWK: I wanted to ask MaryJo if you view them as complelely separate. I put a comment in the slide 21:15:06 [technical failure] 21:15:45 AWK: What I said is that policy is a super set of regulation. I'm suggesting you can make the slide Policy/regulation 21:16:05 You'd comply with a regulation, but policy is a bit different. The weight / enforcement matters. 21:16:24 +1 to alastairc 21:16:35 +1 21:16:38 +1 21:16:39 +1 21:16:40 +1 21:16:41 +1 21:16:41 +1 21:16:44 +1 21:16:44 +1 21:16:44 q? 21:16:49 JohnRochford has joined #ag 21:16:51 present+ 21:17:01 Rachael moves on to slide 7 21:17:16 q+ to ask whether the "Vision" comparisons mean to ask how we prioritize when making difficult balance decisions (matching earlier rewording), rather than ideal visions we want to actively work toward 21:17:23 Rachael: it seems that we have different assumptions of how these inter-relate 21:17:35 ... I'm asking you to think about your own inherent assumptions. 21:17:51 Would somebody please post the link to the presentation? 21:17:57 q+ 21:18:04 ... On slide 8 accessibility is largely separate 21:18:23 ... Is there is an assumption that is different from these 2 slides? 21:18:25 tx Andrew 21:18:26 ack Lauriat 21:18:26 Lauriat, you wanted to ask whether the "Vision" comparisons mean to ask how we prioritize when making difficult balance decisions (matching earlier rewording), rather than ideal 21:18:30 ... visions we want to actively work toward 21:18:54 Lauriat: I have 3 different interpretations I'm trying to work out. One is the understanding of how things work today. 21:19:01 q+ 21:19:25 ... That would be the second slide. Or is this asking us about 2 different visions we want to work towards? 21:19:33 q+ to respond to Shawn 21:19:59 ack AWK 21:20:26 AWK: When it says 'conformance' it means WCAG right? What we're specifying in the standard. 21:20:34 I think it depends on where one is coming from. Degrees of regulation, conformance, and orgs/communities are different in this area. 21:21:00 +1 to AWK 21:21:09 AWK: The vision I have is that there is a big green circle that is accessibility. Then the question is how much do policy or regulations overlap with each other. 21:21:18 Policy / Regs could go beyond WCAG, e.g. mandate usability testing or other process things. 21:21:18 ack MichaelC 21:21:18 MichaelC, you wanted to respond to Shawn 21:21:24 +1 to AWK, looking forward to MichaelC's response 21:21:36 MichaelC: these venn diagrams are not meant to be proposals 21:21:46 The Venn diagrams are like temperature checks, right? 21:21:51 ... We may want to work out a Venn diagram. 21:22:13 q+ 21:22:20 ack Rachael 21:22:24 q+ to say I still don't understand the visions as represented, possible to get them more explained maybe in words? 21:22:25 ... Some people may be from one or the other perspective, but understanding it is impacting understanding is important. 21:22:42 ack Lauriat 21:22:42 Lauriat, you wanted to say I still don't understand the visions as represented, possible to get them more explained maybe in words? 21:23:08 q+ 21:23:09 +1 to Shawn. I'm lost on these. 21:23:14 ack MichaelC 21:23:15 Lauriat: When you're trying to build points from the slides, I don't know what the slides mean. COuld someone explain them? 21:23:27 ack MichaelC 21:23:32 Link if its helpful: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p7 21:23:50 MichaelC: My interpretation... Vision 1 is we're defining accessibility and conformance. We're not focusing on regulations and policy uptake. 21:24:21 q+ to re-ask whether the "Vision" comparisons mean to ask how we prioritize when making difficult balance decisions (matching earlier rewording), rather than ideal visions we want to actively work toward 21:24:31 ... The second one is yes we're focusing on accessibility, but we are also thinking about policy and may alter accessibility scope to accommodate. 21:24:39 ack Lauriat 21:24:40 Lauriat, you wanted to re-ask whether the "Vision" comparisons mean to ask how we prioritize when making difficult balance decisions (matching earlier rewording), rather than ideal 21:24:40 ... visions we want to actively work toward 21:24:45 .... We need to have a shared understanding. Did that help? 21:24:50 Lauriat: Maybe. 21:24:58 q+ 21:25:01 q+ 21:25:09 ack Wilco_ 21:25:15 Lauriat: I feel like we're talking about what happens when things are in conflict. Is taht correct? 21:25:46 q+ to ask if a shared understanding is realistic for a global community? Would an awareness of the spectrum of perspectives be more what we need? 21:25:59 q? 21:26:01 Wilco_: in my own words. when we're writing accessibility requirements, do we skew to favour broader adoption or broader inclusion? Is that the question? 21:26:14 q+ 21:26:19 Rachael: That is not how I pictured it. 21:26:21 Well put, Wilco, my understanding of what these represent 21:26:23 ack AWK 21:26:34 q+ to say both interpretations seem valid 21:27:27 Awk: ON slide 10, this is how I'm interpreting it. Are we making conformance as close to accessibility or (on slide 11) are we constraining to what is adoptable? 21:27:29 +1 to slide 10! 21:27:30 +1 to AWK's reframing 21:27:35 +1 to slide 10 21:27:54 q? 21:28:02 +1 to slide 10 21:28:11 q+ to comment on slide 10 21:28:31 AWK: If we are doing the former, I think we put things at risk. We need to figure out how much we can push policy makers and find technologies to support. 21:28:55 ack jenniferS_ 21:28:55 jenniferS_, you wanted to ask if a shared understanding is realistic for a global community? Would an awareness of the spectrum of perspectives be more what we need? 21:29:21 ack MichaelC 21:29:21 MichaelC, you wanted to say both interpretations seem valid and to comment on slide 10 21:29:25 +1 to jenniferS_ 21:29:25 jenniferS_: is a shared understanding realistic? Or is it a shared perspective? 21:29:50 s/share perspective/shared awareness of perspectives 21:30:32 MichaelC: The former slides were intended to help us see bias. 21:30:41 q+ 21:30:53 zakim, close queue 21:30:53 ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is closed 21:30:56 ack awk 21:31:38 AWK: I agree there is policy stuff that sits outside of conformance 21:32:12 * this conformance stuff is brutal 21:32:24 Rachael: Andrew if you can capture that in slides 10 and 11 -- it's likely in the transcript -- that would be helpful. 21:32:28 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios 21:33:09 Rachael: I'd like to do some work on this on Thursday or Friday 21:33:27 Rachael: in half an hour you can talk about equity or test types. there are 2 different rooms 21:34:18 Two topics: Equity and Test Types 21:35:17 s/there are/there are not 21:35:41 rrsagent, make minutes 21:35:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html jeanne 21:35:45 rrsagent, make minutes 21:35:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html MichaelC 21:35:55 zakim, end meeting 21:35:55 As of this point the attendees have been Francis_Storr, MichaelC, jeanne, ShawnT, mbgower, Rachael, Wilco, Makoto, Amanda, valerie_young, sarahhorton, JohnRochford, Lauriat, AWK, 21:35:58 ... maryjom, Laura_Carlson, jon_avila, Jem, Ben_Tillyer, jaunita_george, JakeAbma, kevers, SuzanneTaylor, jvanulde_, .5, alastairc, shadi, kirkwood, Poornima_, E, jenniferS_, 21:35:58 ... David-Clarke 21:35:58 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1 21:35:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html Zakim 21:36:00 I am happy to have been of service, Rachael; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 21:36:05 Zakim has left #ag 21:36:40 chair: Rachael 21:36:45 rrsagent, make minutes 21:36:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/12-ag-minutes.html MichaelC 21:36:47 rrsagent, bye 21:36:47 I see no action items