– DRAFT –
AGWG Teleconference

Welcome

<Rachael> Parking Lot: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OprBE6Lqb1iSKx_q-33fC-jH-Xh3YyTYAmeTLyp5j9I/edit#heading=h.p9r4d4ngbqab

<Rachael> Homework Link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BmDMiiGai1-jScOn_KUozGyEd_Kmmnd0tgj1yG5B2yg/edit#slide=id.p

<Rachael> CEPC https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc

rbm: please make sure you´re up to date on the homework

reminder of CEPC

<AWK> +AWK

<Jem> Homework Link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BmDMiiGai1-jScOn_KUozGyEd_Kmmnd0tgj1yG5B2yg/edit#slide=id.p

Summarize Day 1

<Rachael> Functional Needs meeting with APA and COGA

<Rachael> Straw poll indicated a desire to incorporate the coga revisions before going forward

<mbgower> rssagent, make minutes

<Rachael> Discussed need to balance possible harm and repeated work with the need to publish

<Rachael> Discussed test types from subgroup

<Rachael> Reached a resolution to move content into exploratory with edits from MaryJo and text that clarifies the confusion point from Gundula.

<Rachael> 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.

<Rachael> 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.

jku: @@ test type?

rbm: @@ current structure

awk: we are accepting PR?

rbm: yes?

<Jem> do we decide to keep the current test structures?

awk: we didn´t get a chance to talk about the test types

felt a bit rushed in terms of overview, not time for details

weren´t able to use the open session to work on that

rbm: we picked it up as exploratory, but that means there´s more to explore

<alastairc> 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

mg: seemed the scope of WCAG 3 got bigger yesterday

I´d like to circle back to actionable steps

<Rachael> charter: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html

<alastairc> 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.

mc: it´s that the group became aware of how big the scope is ;)

but yes, we need actionable steps

jku: what about action tracking?

mc: no longer using trackbort

rbm: parking lot is for that

rbm: reminder to use queue

Issue severity presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.p

fs: <walking through slides>

Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.g146cf3da9d4_0_0

Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.g146cf3da9d4_0_0

[Slide 3]

<agenda>

how might issue severity influence regulation?

[Slide 4]

<outline>

[Slide 5]

fs: core questions: how do we ensure WCAG 3 reflects lived experience?

<reads list>

[Slide 6]

fs: started with scoring and critical issues, issue severity matrix, etc.

[Slide 7]

fs: prototype, focused mainly on the critical stuff

[Slide 8]

severity assessment mapping to functional needs

then scored severity in the matrix

[Slide 9]

used less detail than the functional needs group has

[Slide 10]

positive: think we can map and rate tests, show impact, could work with scoring

consideration: @@

[Slide 11]

counting and assessing contnt

was an earlier exercise that didn´t pan out

[Slide 12]

post-testing seveerity evaluation

test, then asses degree of barrier

and process once issues identified

[Slide 13]

@@

[Slide 14]

PR has issue severity section as exploratory

questions in ednote

<alastairc> 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.

demonstrated that tests can be categorized by severity

gonna be a lot of work to categorize tests

maybe focus first on critical issues

[Slide 15]

@@

[Slide 16]

example with translates speech method

[Slide 17]

next steps are to document feedback, and figure it out

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask why (slide 12) that it not be a part of Guideline/Methods?

js: on slide 12 said severity not part of methods, but the PR seems to include that

ac: there were 2 approaches

main one was severity assessment (slide 10)

other is alternative but not exclusive

which is impact evaluation based on conformance testing

the PR mainly focuses on the severity assessment

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are we carrying forward imperfections in 2.x with this kind of work?

mg: in 2.x image issues were part of 1.1.1

@@functional assessment

is there a UI component that is not critical?

seems like this is picking up 2.x approach

think the model of different types of images being treated similar isn´t working for us

wf: ACT treats functional images under their function e.g., linnks, buttons

for severity, would one type of test have a fixed severity value?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that impact at the test-level is the key difference from 2.x

ac: guidelines are high level

wanted to set the impact at the test level

which provides more nuance than at guideline level

<ShawnT> Critical Severity worksheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MEdnI4CvrTlq1843MZfWLaIBGmoGXXQPpUOhEY1NgV4/edit?pli=1#gid=412502721

if scope includes task-based, hard to incorporate at the guideline level

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to reframe that to alt text as a way of expressing the severity of name, role, value

sl: re example with alt and name/role/value, this approach seems to work better than others

take a button with a magnifying glass and plus symbol

alt of ¨magnifying glass and plus symbol¨ is ok but not great

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to speak on test level impact

which this reflects

<AWK> +1 to Wilco

wf: without knowing context, hard to give impact analysis

<alastairc> Yes - the lower the level, the easier it is to align to impact. But agree, without context it is not going to completely align.

could make tests very complicated

<Jem> 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.

<jon_avila> I find issues can be very contextual.

<jeanne> +1 to jon avila's comment

sh: we were working from tests developed for WCAG 3

right now we´re focusing on the concept, not the details

the exercise will help surface things that don´t make sense

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the difficulty.

PR tries to show that a given issue isn´t always critical

<Jem> I would like to suggest adding clear concept and scope of "severity" definition as well as its causality regarding the implication.

ac: assessment of severity at test level (fine granularity) is improvement over WCAG 2

not so difficult once it´s set up, we´d build the impact assesments into the tests, then that work is done

context is important

to address that, we need concept of task

to relate to real life impact

for scoring, what do we do with non critical issues?

<AWK> AWK: Is the goal to use severities to establish levels within conformance or to contribute to scoring?

<Jem> may be the definition of "critical failures" is hindering any user goal inclduing tasks? like filling and submitting the form?

awk: is goal to establish levels within conformance, or for overall scoring?

I´m wary of the scoring aspect

if we were to apply this to accessible sites today, how would they score?

probably all have critical errors for instance

<alastairc> From the requirements, we were trying to improve alignment with live-experience, and allow for non-perfect sites to make some sort of claim.

as we develop this, we should have a sense that sites out there do / can meet it

<Zakim> 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 critical; given x, y, z, here's how to rate criticality), the structure of this so far seems very promising

SL: Use of severity gives us the language to express the lived experience for conformance

<Jem> +1 shawn lauriat

SL: also need to work through levels of conformance
… to point of having severity at test level
… wondering if we can reshape slightly

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer AWK, that critical errors should make it easier to pass

SL: image example - adding in "here's how you decide what the severity level is" type decision tree?

JS: want to add that in the way we've been thinking, sev and critical errors should make it easier for them to pass

<Jem> Based on my experience, severity conception has been helping people who didnot have the prior accessibiilty knowledge as well as no deep technical knowledge expertise.

JS: QA dept will catch items in advance

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask Shawn how that would be done, is there an alternative to task/process?

AC: like what SL was saying about having a pre-set impact and a decision process but question is what that is based on

<jeanne> what about the user journey proposal for Alastair Garrison?

Amanda: need to ack that this will be subjective in some way for tester

<alastairc> I don't think that has the granularity for this topic.

<jeanne> +1 Amanda

WF: not sure that the issue of context is actually solvable
… will depend on the tasks the user is performing on a site
… generalizing on that feels impossible and speculative

<Lauriat> +1 to Amanda

WF: also wanted to ask what we are really hoping to get from this
… is this for scoring or finding lived experience?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to answer on scope of "tasks" (or whatever we call them) as used today

SL: building on Amanda's comments
… good testers communicate sev of issues - how blocking, etc
… goal with severity is to make conformance with WCAG better reflective of that
… we can make recommendations on how to make those judgement calls in a better way
… we can use this to help more people understand the impact
… we I get a WCAG bug it doesn't mean anything until view through the user impact analysis

<Zakim> 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 "deal breaker" for the user.

jemma: maybe need to shift focus to higher level of severity
… for example, if you can't submit a form because of validation error info being inaccessible that is a deal breaker

<Zakim> 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

AC: I think that incorp severity in tests is an improvement.
… and then do we investiate a method to use task/context
… we could have a decision tree as SL mentioned

<Jem> s/scoring.ex:mhigh severity is/scoring issue/

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about the user journey proposal that Alistair Garrison may work on. It is promising

<jeanne> Alastair Garrison email

<jeanne> When reading about SEO it is common to see 4 distinct categories of user intent mentioned (but, perhaps not the only ones):

<jeanne> 1) Informational intent: people wanting to find a specific answer to a specific question;

<jeanne> 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;

<jeanne> 3) Transactional intent: people wanting to buy something at that moment;

<jeanne> 4) Commercial investigation: people wanting to gather information about a product they are thinking of buying in the future;

JS: want to remind people about Alistair G's email (above)
… we could evaluate severity via user journey
… might be worth evaluating if this could be done

<alastairc> 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.

<Jem> according to my experience 3) trasactional intent is the high severity issue people easily understand. thanks for the info, @jeanne.

WF: Tests are normative.
… levels wouldn't be normative? Do we want this to be part of the normative spec?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to answer the normative aspect

<mbgower> +1 Wilco, good question to explore

SL: We might want to put that topic into the parking lot

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to frame next steps in discussion

RM: go with AC's context
… decided that we aren't putting exploratory content into req doc

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-tpac/results

RM: support for including it was unanimous but we can't

JS: Question in survey about cumulative errors - don't want to lose that

<ShawnT> +1 to jeanne

<Lauriat> +1

RM: parking lot that?

<alastairc> Good question, hard to do at the test/guideline-level.

<Rachael> Draft Strawpoll: Do we continue to explore incorporating severity assessments at the test level?

RM: straw poll

<mbgower> +1

<Rachael> Strawpoll: Do we continue to explore incorporating severity assessments at the test level?

<Wilco> -.5

<jaunita_george> +1

<Jem> +1

-.5

<Amanda> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Makoto> +.5

<Lauriat> +1

<kirkwood> -.5

<JakeAbma> 0

+1 Ben T

<alastairc> +1

<kevers> +1

<JohnRochford> +1

<laura> +1

<maryjom> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Rachael> Sarah: +1

<Rachael> Rachael: 2 -.5

<Rachael> 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.

<Rachael> ...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.

WF: Agree with most of AWK
… don't mind exploring more

JKirkwood: Echo similar issues in trying to implement at enterprise level
… becomes sooo difficult

MG: thanks subgroup for doing work

+1 Mike
… important work regardless of outcome

<Rachael> +1 Mike, thank you!

<jeanne> +1 thanks to the subgroup

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask based on previous experience were you trying to apply it to all tests?

RM: chair hat off
… question to ppl who used thi

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to mention the focus on critical errors rather than levels.

AC: suggestion that we focus just on critical errors

<jon_avila> How do folks prioritize? Frequency? Critical only vs. non-critical? User journey?

MG: did testing of internal sites for ~6 years
… was interesting (!)

<Jem> I applied severity issue concept fror testing accessibility within University context with IT staff, it worked very well!

MG: people couldn't agree on how to assess severity among two people

<alastairc> jon_avila - at Nomensa we prioritise based on impact to task, but that's applied after you've been through the WCAG audit process.

MG: for just about any SC there is something that is critical for someone
… adding workflow helps illuminate the severity

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to respond to the question

<Wilco> Rachael, can we poll exploring the post-testing approach instead?

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
… given a specific task that the user is trying to accomplish, the test can give you a way to express that severity

<Jem> 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.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that it is easier to identify critical errors and harder to rate severity of lower severity

JS: in the years I did testing, we did consistency when issues were severe

<jaunita_george> +1 to Jeanne

JS: we did by context, whether blocking for personas

<Rachael> DRAFT StrawPoll: Do we continue to explore investigating a method of incorporating task/context in issue severity?

RM: more straw poll

<Rachael> StrawPoll: Do we continue to explore investigating a way of incorporating task/context in issue severity?

<jeanne> +1

<Amanda> +1

<Wilco> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<mbgower> +100

<Lauriat> +1

<Ben_Tillyer_> +1

<kevers> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Makoto> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<alastairc> +1

<laura> +1

<Jem> +1

+1

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> +1

<sarahhorton__> +1+1

JA: are we talking about just for test severity or are we still considering severity in conformance etc?

RM: the latter

<jon_avila> +1

RM: as well as tests

AC: agree that it is worth investigating

<Jem> +1 alaastairc to worth investigation

<JohnRochford_> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Jem> +1

RM: We will continue to pursue both straw poll topics

AC: we might want to either coordinate or merge with scoping - very related

<jeanne> +1 for merging with scoping

<jeanne> Also close coordination with Equity

SH: wanted to add that this work has possible benefits for other work, e.g., for when we are writing content guidelines and outcomes
… often writing who is affected, so the functional and user need analysis needs to happen for that

<Jem> actually I think the severity issue group's work can save other accessibility efforts

<jeanne> +1 Sarah about the importance of functional needs, User needs, and tests in wriitng content

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
… next topic is accessibility supported.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/access-support-tpac/

RM: Back in 30 min

<jon_avila> 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.

Alastair: Continuing from the morning session. Any housekeeping or practical things anyone wants to raise?
… Hearing none.

Makoto: We had five participants, including Rachael.

<AWK> +AWK

Makoto: There is a link to the slides on our wiki page
… We defined two core questions.
… How does accessibility support work in different regions, and should we keep accessibility support in WCAG 3?
… Removing accessibility support could be a possible solution. It would allow us to clarify why accessibility support is important.
… We also decided to go through two steps.
… 1. Document use cases in different situations, 2. discuss pro's and con's to removing

<JohnRochford> Would somebody please post again the link to Makoto's presentation?

<jeanne> accessibility supported presentation ->

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oo7A6B44guvYaBkaFSBVaeSW1qCAglReaYqxSSsksNw/edit#slide=id.p

<JohnRochford> Thank you, Jeanne.

Makoto: One of the conformance requirements is 5.2.4, only accessibility support ways of using technologies are relied upon.
… I'd like to share the historical notes Gregg added to our document.
… These nodes are on the slides.
… The intent was that a later document could be created as guidance, but this never happened.
… We gathered six use cases.
… There is room for discussion on whether overlays are assistive technologies or not.
… Some overlays change the content, others don't. Some might add alt text to images for example.
… Some overlays might create new barriers, while others don't.
… We must be careful to define what the overlay is in terms of accessibility support in WCAG 3.
… Tomorrow there will be a breakout session on overlays.
… AGWG should answer whether overlays are assistive technologies.
… Japan has JIS. It adapted the same criteria as WCAG 2.0.
… In Japam PC talker has been very popular, with an 80% market share. Unfortunately it has less functiolities then JAWS or NVDA.
… For example in supporting less ARIA.
… In Japan accessibility support is essential.
… 2.4.1 Bypass Block allows people more direct access to the primary content of the web page.
… 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
… This meant we needed different techniques to meet the same criterion. WCAG allows us to do this.
… After PC Talker provided heading navigation we don't have to rely on skiplinks anymore.
… The concept of accessibility supported has been essential. It allows WCAG to be the global guideline.
… Japanese companies can use the same guidelines globally. On the other hand it's obvious the concept requires challenges.
… It requires test files to be created and tested in different browsers and assistive technologies.
… Plus technologies change all the time, so we need to keep these up to date.
… The committee has been creating and maintaining test resources since 2010.
… Example 2 is on Adobe PDF.
… We had a list of sufficient techniques for PDF, Flash and Silverlight.
… Accessibility support allows assistive technology vendors to figure out how to support techniques
… The accessibility support database was developed by the W3C.
… Unfortunately the database was not approved, mainly due to scalability issues. It was going to provide a test suite.
… If we had this kind of database where anyone could submit new files and test results it could be powerful for WCAG 3.
… People from different countries can also translate test files into different languages.
… There are many points for consideration. We've reconfirmed the benefits and challenges of accessibility supported.
… I'd like to emphasise internationalisation and innovation.
… Lastly I'd like to ask which direction you'd prefer and why.

<jaunita_george> +1 to #1

Makoto: There are different technologies in different countries.
… If we keep accessibility supported, we came up with 5 options.
… ANother question, which option do you recommend and why?
… 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.
… Option B will be to develop a database. It provides test files based on methods documented by AGWG.
… It allows anyone to submit test files and results.
… It'd also allow translating test files into different langauges.

Option C: Develop at least the test files. This would allow translation.
… A new technology vendor can submit test files for example.

Option D: Limit to documented methods. AGWG will only document methods that are supported.
… That requires AGWG to document what is accessibility supported.
… Option E: Promote issues in each guideline. We added this option last week.
… This might be similar to option A, but this means there's a new section, an accessibility support note that provides information.
… This kind of information promotes accessibility support to authors and vendors.
… 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.

Alastair: I'd like to start with clarification questions if possible.

<Zakim> 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"

Shadi: Great, two questions.
… The discussion on overlays and accessibility support, what is the difference between having the website generate an alt text vs a third-party system.
… The other question, it seems not all categories are mutually exclusive.
… We can create a database, we can create tests, and also curate the database.
… When this particular database was created it was very open. It had very little curation.

<AWK> for Shadi - Overlays may offer magnification or voicing options, which gets closer to being an assistive technology

Makoto: On overlays, it's grey area, whether it's assistive technology or not.
… 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.
… It's essential for us to continue the discussion to decide if overlays are AT or not.
… I think there are so many overlay products out there that are different. We can't say all overlays are this.

Makoto: To decide if something's supported or not, we need to test the method with target browsers like screen readers.
… 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.
… 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.
… If we keep the accessibility supported concept.
… 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.

<Zakim> 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 mutually exclusive and to suggest an overlay / at iew

MichaelC: You gave options for keeping accessibility support, but what are the consequences of not keeping it.

+1, what's the alternative

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.

<Jem> 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.

Makoto: We don't think it's realistic, but it could be a solution.

Michael: Related to the database. We've not made a decision about this, but I feel WCAG must be in a database.
… Accessibility supported is fairly easily an addition to that.
… There exists a web platform tests. It focuses on automated tests but there are ways to not automate.
… That's even incorporated into some specs now. Both of those are options.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask what happens if a region doesn't support something WCAG requires?

<jaunita_george> +1 to MichaelC

Alastair: Chair hat off. If we didn't have the concept of accessibility support, it'd default to whatever methods and tests state.
… If it's in a technique it's fine, if not you're failing. That's not the case though.
… 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?
… If it's not possible to meet an outcome, that seems like a problem.
… A question to others, does the structure of outcomes help the accessibility support

Makoto: It happens all the time. PC Talker has an 80% market share in Japan. We cannot ignore it.

<Jem> The similar case for Korea like that of Japan. - Korean AT, not Jaws nor nvda.

Makoto: In Japan aria-current is not supported. I reached out and gave some information on how NVDA and JAWS supports this attribute.
… There are many cases like that. For example, HTML has no element for tab panels. We have to use ARIA role=tablist / tab.
… If there is no choice, we should use ARIA and wait for support in Japanese screen readers.
… We won't implement tabpanel. We use ARIA in that kind of situation.
… If you can do it with only HTML you should not use ARIA, just use HTML
… If it doesn't work use ARIA, and ask screen readers to support it afterward.

Alastair: So it's not a fail for the author.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say how we benefit from Acc Supported and what gaps happen if missing

Mike: What benefits do we derive from accessibility support as it is right now?
… If we don't support it, what gets through?
… 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.
… 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.
… The keyboard works fine, but something's wrong with AT comes on.
… Another, we say name, role, value, but we don't talk about state.
… We're going to have to plug that state whole.
… Five years ago we weren't talking about voice interaction much, but we're not talking on that in WCAG much.
… You can plug that whole by looking at accessibility supported.
… 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.
… I saw someone comment that there's this ARIA-AT group happening.

<Jem> https://aria-at.w3.org/

Mike: They're working to try to have screen readers to have predictable outcomes

<Jem> Matt King will have a session on Thursday morning at ARIA working group.

Mike: I think most people agree that high contrast is probably assistive technologies, but it's part of the operating system.
… When you think about what's included and what's not, there are all these weird edge cases.
… Sometimes things that pass without AT fail with AT.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to check my understanding of "Keep it limited to documented Methods" option

Shawn: Option 4, keeping it for the references. the methods also to include how to perform the tests
… PC Talker example, define the personas how to use the technique and specific audience.. that makes option d to include as the possibility

AWK: Accessibility supported does not really work well now as expected

AWK: As the technologies are new and more coming like HTML, PDFs, people are coming with new ways to use technologies

<Jem> so should we have a poll first about keeping it or not?

AWK: concerning as we need to figure how to balance out with developers considering techniques for least used assistive technologies like PC Talker
… as content developed in established way, it becomes shared responsibility of how technologies are created and its working with different AT's

Kevin: one part I want to bring up is the Test drivers, like keyboard input
… 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

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to address outcomes

Kevin: test drivers can work

the place where AS fits can be technology neutral

Question 1 about the data base, how the technologies will be documented and used by public?
… 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'

Question 2 is on 'limited amount of assistive technology'

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'

<Jem> The accessibility supported db wiill be the innovative and ideal solution as far as we are commmitted to implement and update it with dedication.

<Zakim> 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?

the AS don't have direct outcome for users, ensuring the programmatic functions

one of the major problem with A11y is not lot of them are not standardized yet
… there are standards for accessible name, ARIA but limited. the recommendation so far is to follow the techniques
… on the PC Talker example, the screen reader is a popular because the training is free and affordable

<Lauriat> +1 to Wilco, same with browsers

<alastairc> +1, that happens in the UK with the RNIB providing training on a SR that wasn't... great.

<alastairc> ack alastairc

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if the question is essentially: What assumptions can the author make at the UA?

Question is 'what assumptions can be made about the other end of interaction like user agent?'
… what tools or assistive technologies can support the assumption even in WCAG 2 there are related constraints

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to challenges of ASDB and also to respond to SL's 4.1.x question

<maryjom> +1 to AWK

there are so many combinations involved with user agents and AT's like Windows with Chrome and JAWS and so many

<alastairc> +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.

<Lauriat> +1

and it involves tremendous amount of data. the database will be adding on more negative and supported examples, but it's a lot
… 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..
… 4.1.3 Status messages is also there now

<Jem> May "negative db reporting" include AT/browser bug reporting system?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to answer alastairc's question on assumptions of UA (and by extension, AT, OS, etc.)

<Wilco_> 4.1.1 was there because before HTML 5, there was no consistent way to handle invalid HTML.

<Wilco_> Screen readers would run their own parser to build a tree, and they'd do it differently from how the browser did.

<Jem> In terms of efficiency, negative db can be more efficient or sharing what each org has with others.

even for the complicated things, we cannot make any assumption. example is hidden in accessibility tree but not in DOM..
… the aria-live is another example has to be tested by different user agents and AT combinations..
… 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
… we can assume to say that 'this is probably going to work', but cannot definitely say that 'this will work'
… +1 to the database
… to see lot of combinations there in the database and its concerns on maintaining

<mbgower> Is there any value on focusing on the accessibility tree ?

<mbgower> What do we do about keyboard support for ATs (SRs specifically)

<Wilco_> +1000 <3 ARIA-AT

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to represent Stefan's comment

+1 to Andrew on new version of AT, browser, etc. Keeping this can be fairly effective but not cover anything

<Jem> there is also resource issue for creating that DB.

<mbgower> I do think it's worthwhile trying to capture in Robust as opposed to in the Conformance 5.x level

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say could we get the accessibility tree into 4 Robust?

<Jem> testingn DB is really a resource intensive project.

is there any value in considering Accessibility tree in Robust part?

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to mbgower

<Jem> I think there is AOM project.

<Lauriat> Seems a good parking lot topic? Happy to talk through the Accessibility Tree things.

<Jem> Accessibility Object Model (AOM)

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..
… 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

<Jem> https://wicg.github.io/aom/spec/

<mbgower> And where does the Shadow DOM fit into all this?

<alastairc> DRAFT Poll: options: 1) Stop working on AS 2) Continue work, create prototype of how it would work

AT's need to standardize to conform, like that idea.. however, if it doesn't work, then it doesn't work..
… 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

<Lauriat> +1 to Wilco on all counts

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..

<alastairc> Poll: 1) Stop working on AS 2) Continue work, create prototype of how it would work

<jaunita_george> 2

<ShawnT> 2

<Rachael> 2

Makoto mentioned 'Japanse people use NvDA as well along with PC Talker..'

<Wilco_> 2

<Amanda_> 2

<Lauriat> 2

<mbgower> 3) explore a standardized acc tree

<alastairc> 2

<kevers> 2

<Ben_Tillyer> 2

<AWK> 2 (like we have a choice!)

<Makoto> 2

<Jem> 2

<maryjom> 2

<mbgower> 2

2

<Francis_Storr> 2

<jaunita_george> B

<Wilco_> preferred and "what I think is realistic" aren't the same...

<mbgower> f) explore capturing in 4 Robust

<Rachael> B, C, E

Alastairc: Asking to comment on the Options A to E?

<Makoto> B or C/E

<Ben_Tillyer> B, even though I doubt it will result in anything

<Francis_Storr> C

<AWK> A, -B, F ("-B" equals failings-only ASDB)

Mike: For option D, Question is if it talks about Methods or Techniques?

<Wilco_> A or E. I think D is politically problematic, I think B and C are great but shouldn't be AGWG's job.

<jaunita_george> have to hop off for a bit

<ShawnT> B for failures,

* AWK, is that F or E?

<mbgower> A, (C is kinda being done by ARIA-AT), F

<Jem> A, B, C, D

<Rachael> Please come back as close to on time as possible for the next conversation

Alastairc: It's time for lunch, don't want to keep everyone from lunch :)

Thanks everyone

<Jem> + E

<Jem> A, B, C, D, E.

<Lauriat> Makoto & team: Happy to help frame the one I proposed in how to test

<Makoto> Lauriat, I'd like to hear more about it. Thanks!

RESOLUTION: Keep working on Accessibility Supported, discuss approach soon.

Great presentation, Makoto!

<Makoto> Thanks for scribing, Poornima!

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p1

Accessibility supported presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oo7A6B44guvYaBkaFSBVaeSW1qCAglReaYqxSSsksNw/edit#slide=id.p

Accessibility, Conformance, & Regulation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p1

Rachael: This is about the concepts, not the word-smithing.

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
… for this presentation, accessibility is referring to accessibility as evaluated per the accessibility guidelines
… is there value of us talking about accessibility independent of the guidelines?

<alastairc> As measured by guidelines

multiple yesses

Adds: "accessibility - independent of guidelines" and "Guideline based accessibility - dependent on guidelines"

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.
… part of the problem is that "inaccessible" is a big word in that instance
… saying an accessible site that doesn't meet the accessibility guidelines is also interesting
… we know that there are very very few sites that meet the accessibility guidelines.

<mbgower> "A site that is accessible to some that...

<mbgower> suggest adding "to some"

<mbgower> A site that is accessible to some that does not meet...

Rachael can you suggest wording you'll be comfortable with?

<AWK> +AWK

<mbgower> A site that is inaccessible to some that does meet...

Wilco_ does illness need to be mentioned alongside disability?
… 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

<AWK> "A site that is accessible to many people may not meet the accessibility guidelines entirely"

<Jem> may we remove two subbullets then?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we need to separate concepts

<alastairc> Suggest Shawn next, I think we need to clarify the audience & intent of this

<Lauriat> +1 to MichaelC

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

<AWK> "A site that meets the accessibility guidelines may be inaccessible to some users"

jaunita_george I wonder if we have any examples in the wild of an inaccessible site but that meets Level AA

<jeanne> There are inaccessible sites that meet WCAG2 published every April Fools, it seems

shadi maybe these are too absolute. possible wording could be "an accessible site that doesn't meet all the accessibility guidelines"
… are we thinking about accessibility as an absolute state or as a continuum?
… something might be a barrier / hurdle and not a showstopper

<jeanne> +1 to "in principle" and move on

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about the audience for this

shawn want to check the audience for this deck

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say just add "to some" or "to many"

mbgower it sounds like we all understand what we're talking about

<alastairc> +1

<mbgower> +1

Rachael adds "accessibility exists on a continuum" to slide
… are we okay with this slide?
… moving on to testing and evaluation
… reads slide
… moving to conformance. reads slide

<Lauriat> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Wilco_> 0 sort of...

<Lauriat> +1, looks good

<alastairc> Created within W3C space?

shadi are there any examples of conformance that aren't compatible with regulation?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted 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

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.
… what we shouldn't do is say "this is what a regulation should be" and then design something around that.

<Rachael> +1 that is what I was trying to say

AWK a VPAT is an example of a conformance claim

MichaelC changed some text in the slide re: conformance is defined by the W3C

<Jem> my understanding is that "confirmance can exist with regulation" first.

Wilco_ are we saying that if we think something is important for accessibility but regulators won't support it, we'd add it anyway?

<Jem> I think "deharmoization" is a good word.

AWK if we design something that specifies things that can't be included, we wind up with deharmonisation between places that take up WCAG.
… we walk a razor's edge on that line trying to decide the right thing to do
… I think that it's something that we always need to keep an eye on

<Lauriat> …hence what we put in the Requirements: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#regulatory-environment

<Jem> to wcag 3 used the word, "broad support" instead of "harmonization"concept.

shadi I agree with Wilco and AWK and am struggling to come up with an example and am worried this might be a hypothetical
… a standard needs normative content that can be conformed to

<Jem> s/to wcag3/regarding WCAG3/

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say need to discuss in requirements and to say regulation limited WCAG2 conforemance

<Jem> may be the second "ideally" can be replaced with "preferrably"?

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

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about WCAG 2.0 and how many countries only implemented parts

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.
… the group decided not to sacrifice accessibility for those regulators

<Ben_Tillyer> (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

<Rachael> 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

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to strawpoll

mbgower has been AAA been used to create aspirational accessibility that doesn't meet regulation?
… I think that's where this is ending up

AWK: I don't think we have a clear definition of what meets AAA criteria.
… Ontario didn't initially include audio description in AODA

<jenniferS_> 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?

<jenniferS_> Vote: 1

shadi I'm getting more and more concerned about putting conformance and regulation as competing things
… some countries have decided not to adopt all of WCAG
… Rachael are you saying that the pole isn't a valid one for the group?

<jeanne> +1 that the conformance model wasn't changed, but individual SC may have been reclassified

<Makoto> +1 to Shadi

Rachael reads jenniferS_' statement in IRC
… is this the trade off between meeting accessibility and regulator needs?

Wilco_ I feel this is creating a false dichotomy here. writing accessibility guidelines that don't get adopted doesn't help anyone

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say conformance doesn´t inherently require the level of testing we did and to say write ¨this is controversial¨

<mbgower> accessibility is tempered by state of the art and the goal of adoption

<shadi> +1 to Wilco

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.
… I think there's room for more flexibility in the conformance model than people think there is

<jeanne> +1 for more flexibility in the conformance model

jenniferS_ we we create products, at the ideation stage everything's on the table. we're looking at what people need
… I think everyone here wants to make things accessible for everyone
… our responsibility as a standards org is to promote accessibility to create more equity
… as we work on WCAG 3's conformance model, we need to find a greater balance in pushing towards that equitable future
… I think that's what we all want

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to jenniferS_

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted 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.

Lauriat I think we're all agreeing here.
… I put in a very verbose reframing into document

<Rachael> +1 to Lauriat's rewording

<jenniferS_> +1 to Lauriat's message ;)

<Ben_Tillyer> Feel the word "partnership" is key here

<jeanne> +1 to SL wording

<jenniferS_> +1 to Ben_Tillyer re "partnership"

<jenniferS_> +1 to @jaunita & showing the How To

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.
… the group on the rights of persons with disabilities would be good to talk to

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest we remove the bullet and move this conversation to parking lot

<Wilco_> +1, very well put AWK

<jeanne> Cost is a bigger factor than technically supported based on history

mbgower I have a feeling that what we're talking about is technical ability—whether it's technically feasible.

<shadi> +1 to mbgower

<MichaelC> +1 to mbgower

<Wilco_> Lack of research is a big one too

<jaunita_george> +1

<jenniferS_> Love the "guiding principles" concept

<mbgower> Yes, lack of research. +1 wilco

<jeanne> Cost of implementation made sign language an AAA

<jenniferS_> * please stay, Jemma!

<Lauriat> +1 on Research, definitely!

<Rachael> DRAFT strawpoll: Accept the revised wording in the slide and put the discussion in parking lot for more conversation in the future

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.

Jennifer: What I find intriguing is what mbgower just said about guiding principles.

jenniferS_: I'd like to explore including that

<jaunita_george> +1

<MichaelC> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<David-Clarke> +1

<alastairc> +1

+1

<Makoto> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Wilco_> +1

<jenniferS_> +1

Rachael: Continuing to slide 6
… W3C is not responsible for regulation, is what it's trying to say

<AWK> 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.

shadi: the third bullet, i would suggest changing "conform" to "comply"

<jaunita_george> +1 to Wilco!!

maryjom: the same bullet should be "who and what"

<shadi> +1 to Wilco

<jeanne> I think Wilco's comment goes elsewhere'

MichaelC: In principle we could coordinate with industry regulators...
… The protocols proposal is all about self regulation

<maryjom> +1 to AWK

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.
… There is difference between policy and regulation (mentions popup when leaving site)

shadi: replace "regulation" with "policy" and add in a bullet saying "policy...
… refer to policy as the umbrella term, that includes regulation, self regulation and contracts

<MichaelC> +1

David-Clarke: I'm more in internationalization than standards.
… They have regulations that they must say they are or are not complying.
… 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.

shadi: That's the bullet below (second to last)

<MichaelC> +1

<David-Clarke> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

Rachael: plus 1 if you are happy with changes made to date

<David-Clarke> +1

<jeanne> +1

maryjom: I think of policy and regulation as two different things.
… policy is how an org wants to work. it may include regulation.

Rachael: I am flexible on terminology, but I'd like us to agree..
… If we can acknowledge we don't agree and intend to address?

<jeanne> I'm with MaryJo. Policy is different from Compliance and I would rather see them separately

maryjom: it gets muddied about what people mean. I understand that. They're just 2 different things.

Rachael: Can we come up with a term that is broader?

AWK: I wanted to ask MaryJo if you view them as complelely separate. I put a comment in the slide

[technical failure]

AWK: What I said is that policy is a super set of regulation. I'm suggesting you can make the slide Policy/regulation

<alastairc> You'd comply with a regulation, but policy is a bit different. The weight / enforcement matters.

<jenniferS_> +1 to alastairc

<Lauriat> +1

<Wilco_> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Makoto> +1

<David-Clarke> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

Rachael moves on to slide 7

Rachael: it seems that we have different assumptions of how these inter-relate
… I'm asking you to think about your own inherent assumptions.

<JohnRochford> Would somebody please post the link to the presentation?

Rachael: On slide 8 accessibility is largely separate
… Is there is an assumption that is different from these 2 slides?

<JohnRochford> tx Andrew

<Zakim> 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 visions we want to actively work toward

Lauriat: I have 3 different interpretations I'm trying to work out. One is the understanding of how things work today.
… That would be the second slide. Or is this asking us about 2 different visions we want to work towards?

AWK: When it says 'conformance' it means WCAG right? What we're specifying in the standard.

<jenniferS_> I think it depends on where one is coming from. Degrees of regulation, conformance, and orgs/communities are different in this area.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to AWK

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.

<alastairc> Policy / Regs could go beyond WCAG, e.g. mandate usability testing or other process things.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to respond to Shawn

<Lauriat> +1 to AWK, looking forward to MichaelC's response

MichaelC: these venn diagrams are not meant to be proposals

<jenniferS_> The Venn diagrams are like temperature checks, right?

MichaelC: We may want to work out a Venn diagram.
… Some people may be from one or the other perspective, but understanding it is impacting understanding is important.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say I still don't understand the visions as represented, possible to get them more explained maybe in words?

<Wilco_> +1 to Shawn. I'm lost on these.

Lauriat: When you're trying to build points from the slides, I don't know what the slides mean. COuld someone explain them?

<Rachael> Link if its helpful: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Hp460oEvI6dkCQJ3XsLDkvrGsnh9Ub8O/edit#slide=id.p7

MichaelC: My interpretation... Vision 1 is we're defining accessibility and conformance. We're not focusing on regulations and policy uptake.
… The second one is yes we're focusing on accessibility, but we are also thinking about policy and may alter accessibility scope to accommodate.

<Zakim> 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 visions we want to actively work toward

MichaelC: We need to have a shared understanding. Did that help?

Lauriat: Maybe.

Lauriat: I feel like we're talking about what happens when things are in conflict. Is taht correct?

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?

Rachael: That is not how I pictured it.

<Lauriat> Well put, Wilco, my understanding of what these represent

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?

<jenniferS_> +1 to slide 10!

<Rachael> +1 to AWK's reframing

<Makoto> +1 to slide 10

<David-Clarke> +1 to slide 10

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.

<Zakim> 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?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say both interpretations seem valid and to comment on slide 10

<Lauriat> +1 to jenniferS_

jenniferS_: is a shared understanding realistic? Or is it a shared perspective?

<mbgower> s/share perspective/shared awareness of perspectives

MichaelC: The former slides were intended to help us see bias.

AWK: I agree there is policy stuff that sits outside of conformance

<jenniferS_> * this conformance stuff is brutal

Rachael: Andrew if you can capture that in slides 10 and 11 -- it's likely in the transcript -- that would be helpful.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

Rachael: I'd like to do some work on this on Thursday or Friday

Rachael: in half an hour you can talk about equity or test types. there are not 2 different rooms

<Rachael> Two topics: Equity and Test Types