14:31:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:31:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/10/25-ag-irc
14:31:29 <Rachael> zakim, start meeting
14:31:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:31:33 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:35:58 <Rachael> Agenda+ WCAG 2.2 retrospective https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22_retro/results
14:37:37 <Rachael> Agenda+ Accessibility Supported Subgroup https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/access-support-subgroup-oct22/results
14:37:48 <Rachael> Agenda+ Subgroup weekly updates (5 minutes or less each)
14:49:19 <Rachael> Agenda+ Review and discuss possible conformance models https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1X3Paz3WuK4yn09_ZN99P5IFl2-5yn5U9
14:50:54 <Rachael> agenda?
14:58:21 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:00:19 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:00:19 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:00:26 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:00:33 <Rachael> regrets: Chuck, Makoto
15:00:36 <jeanne> present+
15:00:39 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:00:57 <Rachael> regrets+ Wendy
15:00:58 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
15:01:31 <jaunita_george> present+
15:01:49 <joweismantel> joweismantel has joined #ag
15:01:55 <joweismantel> present+
15:02:23 <Rachael> Looking for a scribe
15:02:46 <bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
15:02:54 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
15:03:03 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:03:04 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:03:05 <olivia-hogan-stark> olivia-hogan-stark has joined #ag
15:03:07 <JakeAbma> present+
15:03:08 <Rachael> TOPIC: New members and topics
15:03:13 <bruce_bailey> Racheal notes light attendance, could be M-Enabling in DC/VA
15:03:19 <SuzanneTaylor> present+
15:03:31 <bruce_bailey> Rachael calls for introductions, new topics
15:03:36 <Detlev> present+
15:03:55 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
15:04:08 <olivia-hogan-stark> present+
15:04:16 <Raf> present+
15:04:21 <bruce_bailey> Olivia Hogan-Stark:  From NCR, first AG meeting, interested in WCAG2ICT, educator background
15:04:36 <Rachael> TOPIC: Announcements
15:04:54 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:04:54 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
15:04:54 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.2 retrospective https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22_retro/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:04:57 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:04:58 <Regina> Regina has joined #ag
15:04:59 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:05:05 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:05:06 <sarahhorton> present+
15:05:09 <Wilco> present+
15:05:09 <ShawnT> present+
15:05:13 <bruce_bailey> Two questions from Survey
15:05:18 <Rachael> TOPIC: things that went well
15:05:20 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:05:41 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads survey comments, invite comment.
15:06:38 <bruce_bailey> Racheal reads Gundala comment, Gundala not online.
15:06:45 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:06:47 <mbgower> present+
15:07:02 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Bruce's survey comment.  Bruce has no additional comment.
15:07:26 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower and Detleve comments read, no further comments.
15:07:31 <Rachael> q?
15:07:35 <bruce_bailey> Rachael open floor.
15:07:35 <Rachael> TOPIC: Things that could be improved
15:07:54 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:08:14 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:08:17 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Wilco comment.  Process is fine, but we are cutting corners a bit.  Pressure to get to rec...
15:08:28 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:09:03 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Gundala comment, no additional comment.
15:09:21 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Bruce's comment, no follow up
15:09:42 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Michael Gower comment.
15:10:08 <bruce_bailey> MG recommends final push as group.  No addition comment
15:10:27 <Rachael> q?
15:10:38 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Detlev comment and invites further comment.  (Pass)
15:10:49 <mbgower> q+
15:10:54 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:10:59 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Additional comments as to what we might improve as group?
15:11:16 <Rachael> q+
15:11:32 <bruce_bailey> Mike:  I found Wilco comments interesting, but I would be concerned from removing timeline...
15:11:47 <Wilco> q+
15:11:52 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:12:02 <bruce_bailey> ... i would be concerned for due diligence.   I agree feels rushed at end.
15:12:09 <mbgower> +1 to flipping comments from Rachael
15:12:10 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:12:22 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Chair hat off, it was harder than expected to juggle between 3 and 2
15:12:42 <mbgower> s/flipping/juggling
15:12:58 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  I feel like we made decision to meet deadline instead of making the spec as good as it could be...
15:13:33 <Rachael> q?
15:13:34 <bruce_bailey> ... it is not like software where we can just release another version.  If we miss CFC, we should address rather than push on.
15:13:45 <Francis_Storr> q+
15:13:49 <Rachael> ack Francis_Storr
15:13:55 <bruce_bailey> Rachael asks for further feedback on how we might improve.
15:13:57 <Karen> Karen has joined #ag
15:14:15 <bruce_bailey> Francis Storr:  GitHub issue management is a challenge...
15:15:10 <bruce_bailey> ... More dialog that getting closure on edits.  Some are years old.  I tried to close, but with things with typos it would have been so much faster to have PRs rather than issue threads...
15:15:11 <ShawnT> +1 to Francis_Storr github management
15:15:16 <Wilco> +1
15:15:16 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:15:42 <bruce_bailey> ... Now we are getting churn about people asking about old comments or even no-so-old issues...
15:16:05 <bruce_bailey> ... i don't have good solution, but I think we may need more process.
15:16:07 <Rachael> q?
15:16:14 <Rachael> Key areas: Prioritize process over timeline to create high quality spec, Improve github management particularly small fixes, Need more people addressing github, 1 spec at a time
15:16:40 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Hearing some key issues, which I will summarize.  Did I miss any?
15:16:44 <Wilco> q+
15:16:45 <Rachael> , continue culture and conversation facilitation
15:16:50 <Rachael> ack Wilco
15:17:01 <kirkwood> present+
15:17:20 <mbgower> q+ to say we need to take re-chartering time into account
15:17:25 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  More generally, Francis comment on resources available to group.  Understanding documents are an example...
15:17:33 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:17:33 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say we need to take re-chartering time into account
15:17:41 <bruce_bailey> ... there is way more work than we can hope to do with a group of this size.
15:18:11 <bruce_bailey> MikeGower:  I note that the re-charter process pulled attention away from actually doing the work...
15:18:24 <Rachael> q?
15:18:32 <SuzanneTaylor> q+
15:18:38 <Rachael> ack SuzanneTaylor
15:18:40 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
15:18:41 <Francis_Storr> q+
15:18:43 <Lauriat> Present+
15:18:45 <bruce_bailey> ... with an 18 month charter, for next time, we should add padding time to provide opportunity on charter.
15:19:43 <bruce_bailey> Suzanne:  I am new to AGWG group, and from that perspective recent joining these calls, it had seemed to me that there was plenty of people doing the work...
15:19:44 <Rachael> q?
15:19:47 <kirkwood> good point about the optics
15:19:48 <Rachael> ack Francis_Storr
15:20:09 <mbgower> +1 to Suzann's comments on idea of communicating need and opportunity to prospective participants
15:20:28 <bruce_bailey> ... from that perspective it might help to spread the word, at conferences or the like, what is going on and why volunteers are needed.
15:20:51 <ShawnT> the work that WCAG2ICT is doing just that
15:21:10 <bruce_bailey> Francis:  I think many people find GitHub intimidating, so perhaps regular orientations would be helpful
15:21:11 <ShawnT> no we didn't record it
15:21:12 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:21:15 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:22:06 <Rachael> Bruce: Adding to Francis about Github being intimidating. How we work on pull requests is fine but realistically if we want more people to help curate the understanding documnets, we have to have something less learning curve than what WCAG2ICT has been doing.
15:22:54 <Rachael> ...I was disappointed how much harder WCAG2ICT is. I want it easier than what we have. Preview, most writing in mark down. I've had good progress in my office with non-geeks and I don't think we will do that with the current set up
15:22:55 <Rachael> q?
15:22:58 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce’s point
15:23:31 <Rachael> TOPIC: PR to Decision policy
15:23:32 <bruce_bailey> Rachael: Please be encouraged to reach out to chairs with further comments.
15:24:08 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2739/files
15:24:09 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Leadership did have some meetings on this, and we are drafting a PR to decision tree.
15:24:15 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tb04rdRRB5b1oGYwme3Z9EyoLgXhiPhyx6MSN4St0_8/edit
15:24:36 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We also have Google Doc for collecting issues.
15:24:54 <bruce_bailey> We did have some comments on PR
15:25:10 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Wilco comments, no further comment.
15:25:31 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Gundula comment.
15:25:46 <kirkwood> present+
15:25:56 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Bruce and Gregg approved with no comment.
15:26:16 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Mike Gower comment, no further comment.
15:26:28 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:26:34 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Jeanne's comment.
15:26:56 <Rachael> q?
15:26:57 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Gundala edit address my concern.
15:26:59 <GreggVan> Just a note to chairs -- I am at a conference - and have a booth - so will need to jump off call at noon
15:27:25 <bruce_bailey> Rachael reads Laura and Detlev survey comment, no addition al comment.
15:27:47 <Rachael> When a decision is made with objections, the Chairs will provide the opportunity to propose an alternative based on the wording that was decided based on consensus with objections, and have the Working Group review the alternative.
15:28:00 <Rachael> If the Chairs believe that the received objection(s) present substantial new information or if  the Chairs believe there is not a clear consensus in the Working Group, they will reopen the discussion, as detailed in section 3.3.4 of the Process Document (Reopening a Decision When Presented With New Information). A new alternative versionwould be considered substantive new information.
15:28:04 <bruce_bailey> Rachael, hearing no objections to the edits proposed in the survey, I summarize proposal in IRC.
15:28:38 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:28:50 <bruce_bailey> Racheal:  This will update/replace the edit currently in PR...
15:28:55 <GreggVan> +1  with any editorial for readability
15:29:09 <maryjom> present+
15:29:16 <bruce_bailey> ... I feel like the opening leaves some room for improvement.  But any concerns?
15:29:24 <Rachael> When a decision is made with objections, the Chairs will provide the opportunity to propose an alternative based on the wording that was decided based with objections, and have the Working Group review the alternative.
15:29:47 <jaunita_george> +1
15:29:48 <ShawnT> +1
15:29:51 <Detlev> +1
15:29:54 <maryjom> +1
15:29:57 <laura> +1
15:29:57 <Wilco> +1
15:29:58 <GreggVan> +1
15:30:02 <JakeAbma> +1
15:30:03 <GN015> +1
15:30:04 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Any objections to moving forward, pending some light word smithing?
15:30:09 <jeanne> +1
15:30:17 <Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Add PR 2739 with revisions and slight rewording of first sentence
15:30:39 <Raf> +1
15:30:42 <bruce_bailey> Rachael, please vote -1 if concerns
15:30:49 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION: Add PR 2739 with revisions and slight rewording of first sentence
15:31:01 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:31:01 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Accessibility Supported Subgroup https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/access-support-subgroup-oct22/results -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:31:32 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We are looking to stand up a follow-up from the Accessibility Supported Subgroup
15:31:45 <bruce_bailey> ... this was an action item from TPAC.
15:31:50 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:32:02 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:32:10 <Rachael> bruce_bailey: I am willing to consider it in January
15:32:20 <bruce_bailey> Bruce willling to consider, but not now, maybe January
15:32:31 <alastairc> present+
15:32:33 <bruce_bailey> Janita possibility, but later
15:32:41 <Francis_Storr> Also interested but in January
15:32:52 <bruce_bailey> Wilco concures on post-poning at this time.
15:33:08 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:33:08 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Subgroup weekly updates (5 minutes or less each) -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:33:10 <bruce_bailey> Rachael @Makokoto please reach out to chairs
15:33:30 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We have three sub groups at present
15:33:41 <bruce_bailey> .. reportsing?
15:34:07 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Silver subgroup has been working on writing up goals...
15:34:30 <bruce_bailey> ... we have agreed to write up Outcomes as User Needs...
15:34:49 <bruce_bailey> ... Alt Text is first activitiy, and discussions revolve around levels
15:34:52 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:35:06 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  We have not concluded discussiton.
15:35:15 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
15:35:47 <bruce_bailey> Fancais reporting on Issue Severity (2nd iteration of subgroup)
15:36:22 <bruce_bailey> Francais:  We have identified 60 functional needs and related tests
15:37:10 <jeanne> s/we have agreed to write up Outcomes as User Needs.../we were tasked out of TPAC to experiment with writing Outcomes as User Needs. We have agreed on an approach to use the existing WCAG3 sample Guidleines as examples.
15:37:26 <bruce_bailey> Francais:  Working on groupings.  When we met last week, we decided we needed some more information about categories and some of the functional needs.
15:37:58 <jeanne> s/discussions revolve around levels/discussions revolve around level of granularity of the user needs best serves
15:38:15 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
15:38:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/25-ag-minutes.html jeanne
15:38:25 <bruce_bailey> ... I am working with Josh O'Conner to work on the grouping and what some of the functional needs are.
15:38:56 <bruce_bailey> ... some of the functional needs are not in groups, so we are giving those some additional attention.
15:39:26 <Rachael> q?
15:39:38 <bruce_bailey> ... Another important issue is the WCAG3 idea of critical errors, so we want to integrate that work.
15:40:07 <bruce_bailey> Jaunita:  Working on method template for testing.
15:40:19 <Rachael> Test requirements as methods subgroup
15:40:23 <Rachael> q?
15:40:24 <bruce_bailey> Testing requirements method subgroup
15:40:35 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
15:40:35 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review and discuss possible conformance models https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1X3Paz3WuK4yn09_ZN99P5IFl2-5yn5U9 -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:41:05 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Following up on conformance model discussion from last week, we have a couple more.
15:41:13 <Rachael> TOPIC: Option 4
15:41:30 <bruce_bailey> ... link is to Google Drive folder with the several draft option proposals.
15:42:07 <bruce_bailey> Suzanne:  Briefing on Option 4, Left Shift, Badges, Silver is Quality, Gold is More
15:42:49 <bruce_bailey> Suzanne:  Few of the ideas in this proposal are brand new, this option is integrating a few things.
15:43:04 <bruce_bailey> ... lots of ideas from other other conformance modesl
15:43:55 <bruce_bailey> Option 4 draft:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W7g9a5b3gQZ2aPEivl0KJ48K3sMg6eegtMiCwkw-eaU/edit
15:44:48 <bruce_bailey> Accessibility audit SME can review assertions from template, looking at claims from testing methods claimed to follow.
15:45:35 <bruce_bailey> ... We are left-shifting by identifying applicable tests from templates at start of review process
15:46:21 <bruce_bailey> ... each outcome might have several methods which are applicable, but audit looks for those identified by product owner
15:46:42 <bruce_bailey> ... likewise Outcomes are written from perspective of product owner...
15:47:36 <bruce_bailey> ... this allows for feature of site to be identified.  Example is site using audio tones to convey information...
15:48:04 <bruce_bailey> ... that approach is unusual enough that a naive audit might overlook easily.
15:48:45 <bruce_bailey> Suszann:  Bronze is computation test and most straight forward qualitive tests.
15:49:14 <jeanne> q+ to talk about large complex products
15:49:42 <bruce_bailey> Silver is badges for many achievements.  A bronze website would certainly pick up a few, but silver is all or a bunch of the badges
15:50:29 <bruce_bailey> Suzanne:  Gold badges are for innovation.  This means a site could be Bronze but with a couple Gold innovation badges.
15:51:00 <mbgower> q+ to say my concern with the Overall score slide is that almost no one meets the equivalent of bronze now
15:51:08 <Rachael> ack jeanne
15:51:08 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about large complex products
15:51:14 <bruce_bailey> ... idea is that Badges are straightforward as compared to point or accumulated score.
15:51:43 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Many parts of this that I like, especially Gold for innovation is very creative...
15:52:26 <bruce_bailey> ... that said I have some concerns for larger site and the scoring from methods.  A large site will cover the gaumet of just about all possible methods...
15:52:38 <bruce_bailey> ... but I want read proposal more careful.
15:52:39 <Rachael> ack mbgower
15:52:39 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say my concern with the Overall score slide is that almost no one meets the equivalent of bronze now
15:53:03 <bruce_bailey> Suzanne:  Sites can also pursue more conventional path.
15:53:34 <Rachael> q?
15:53:37 <alastairc> q+
15:53:47 <Rachael> ack alastairc
15:53:49 <bruce_bailey> Mike Gower:  It seems complicated, and I like the innovation, but I think the bigger challenge is for sites getting to Bronze, a baseline...
15:54:23 <bruce_bailey> ... so focus on innovation seems like it puts emphasis where it is not needed.
15:55:06 <bruce_bailey> Alastair:  Asking sites to pick methods/outcomes in advance seems like it could limit how sites approach accessibility...
15:55:55 <Rachael> q?
15:55:57 <bruce_bailey> ... I also want to comment on Mike's approach with Bronze being too obtainable, for example with contrast provided by a UA, Bronze becomes too easy a lift....
15:56:18 <mbgower> we totally need a way to let good and great sites and apps differentiate
15:56:22 <bruce_bailey> ... if Silver is more like AA, that might influence regulators to adopt that as minimum.
15:56:23 <Rachael> TOPIC: Option 6
15:56:54 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Reporting on Option 6, taking a little different approach, being a repository of some of the other ideas...
15:57:37 <alastairc> s/Bronze being too obtainable, for example with contrast provided by a UA, Bronze becomes too easy a lift/Bronze not currently being obtainable, but it could be. For example, rely more on UA, e.g. for contrast, Bronze should be relatively attainable, with Silver as the 'standard' level for legislators.
15:57:42 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce regarding AA and policy takeup
15:57:43 <bruce_bailey> ... Option 6 tries to incorporate Options 1-5 while address and integrating from GitHub issues, and discussions from TPAC....
15:58:31 <bruce_bailey> ... recently I pulled in suggestions from Greggs proposal last week, the way he included adjectival ratings and scoring from that, which are responsive to issues raised by FCPWD...
15:58:55 <bruce_bailey> ... I also addressed some issues following protocol group and discussion.
15:59:15 <sarahhorton> scribe: sarahhorton
15:59:43 <sarahhorton> jeanne: option 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gyT0F3ggr0kdFhG-ugmySA49gTQF2B5SPFZuEHd7MQI/edit#heading=h.q7a1p1s14gm5
15:59:53 <sarahhorton> jeanne: user needs as placeholder for outcomes
16:00:12 <bruce_bailey> ED draft with changes in response to issues
16:00:37 <sarahhorton> ... no changes to guideline, conformance, incorporate work of other proposals, protocols
16:00:44 <sarahhorton> ... noting source
16:01:16 <sarahhorton> ... type of tests, tests, added examples, incorporate automation
16:01:50 <sarahhorton> ... knows there are big problems, aim to support automation without sacrificing quality of spec
16:02:00 <sarahhorton> ... will continue to develop with more good ideas
16:02:02 <Rachael> q?
16:02:09 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:02:15 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:02:34 <jeanne> Possible COnformance Models -> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15ZoKbczXw3JIoyDxAxKtBG0sWMKnB6lqAnV4V9xVsoM/edit#slide=id.g165c944dd8c_0_74
16:02:51 <Rachael> q?
16:02:51 <mbgower> q+
16:02:56 <Rachael> acl mbgower
16:03:26 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Automated testing, establishing baseline and beyond, how much excess from baseline anticipate with automated testing
16:04:08 <sarahhorton> jeanne: Challenge with automatable, constantly changing
16:04:51 <sarahhorton> ... can't do automatable level, write what we're doing precisely, as AI improves, can have more qual testing in automated
16:04:56 <mbgower> q+ to say I'm not sure I agree that automated testing is changing that rapidly
16:04:59 <bruce_bailey> s/to Bruce regarding AA and policy takeup/to Alastair regarding AA and policy takeup
16:05:00 <sarahhorton> ... improve how we write things
16:05:02 <Wilco> q+
16:05:12 <sarahhorton> ... integrate more into who, not break apart
16:05:54 <sarahhorton> ... can have goal to make more automatable, directions in AI automation, work toward it
16:06:33 <sarahhorton> ... likes Suzanne's proposal, could put more automatable at Bronze, Silver to do qualitative
16:06:45 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:06:45 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'm not sure I agree that automated testing is changing that rapidly
16:07:09 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Automated can help with baseline, not perception it's changing that much
16:07:38 <sarahhorton> ... people come up with rules, test parts of criteria, make them repeatable, script into engine, not AI, rule implementation
16:07:47 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:08:12 <sarahhorton> Wilco: Whatever testing automatically tech specific, e.g., HTML and PDF varies
16:08:28 <sarahhorton> ... automation is advancing but not that rapidly, some gains
16:08:47 <sarahhorton> ... as technologies evolve, things we can test become more complicated
16:09:01 <sarahhorton> ... could get worse over time, dynamic field
16:09:01 <Rachael> q?
16:09:03 <jeanne> +1
16:09:18 <alastairc> Which goes to Jeanne's point that it's difficult to do a level for that
16:09:38 <mbgower> which isn't to say that a repeatable baseline isn't something to aggressively pursue. I LIKE the idea of an automated baseline
16:09:42 <jeanne> I think it is very dynamic and hopefully advancing
16:10:16 <sarahhorton> Option 5 details: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wBhwYhOs-3T27rftT3IXbpuIdiphYkoQJS9NFUGR870/edit#heading=h.q7a1p1s14gm5
16:10:44 <sarahhorton> Rachael: [reads slide and notes]
16:11:14 <sarahhorton> Option 5 slide: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15ZoKbczXw3JIoyDxAxKtBG0sWMKnB6lqAnV4V9xVsoM/edit#slide=id.g165c944dd8c_1_0
16:13:30 <mbgower> q+ to say I don't see how caption quality can be at bronze
16:13:34 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:13:34 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I don't see how caption quality can be at bronze
16:13:47 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Useful breakdown of examples
16:14:25 <sarahhorton> ... captions are accurate, anytime we're talking about quality difficult to put at bronze, discussion about quality attributes
16:14:49 <sarahhorton> ... captions exist, UA displays them, yes/no can get us to a baseline
16:14:58 <Rachael> q?
16:15:14 <GN015> q+
16:15:20 <Rachael> ack GN
16:15:33 <kirkwood> were the captions writter or verifed by the author? would be a question i’d rather see.
16:15:50 <sarahhorton> GN015: Accuracy, automated caption accuracy 91–92%, could set minimum
16:16:04 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say i do know what 95% accurate caption is
16:16:05 <Rachael> q?
16:16:09 <sarahhorton> ... higher level comes with closer review and higher rating
16:16:12 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:16:12 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i do know what 95% accurate caption is
16:16:14 <kirkwood> q+
16:16:38 <Wilco> q+
16:16:42 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey: Don't know what 95% accurate is, FCC has usable approaches
16:16:45 <Rachael> ack kirkwood
16:17:17 <sarahhorton> kirkwood: re captions and alternative text, part of editorial process, author writes captions, verifies content owner
16:17:35 <mbgower> q+
16:17:41 <sarahhorton> ... automation can be fairly accurate, but author provided more accurate
16:17:49 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:18:20 <sarahhorton> Wilco: Interesting on captioning, orgs have guidelines, wonder whether WCAG should have guidelines, instead treat as protocol
16:18:25 <jaunita_george> +1'
16:18:33 <sarahhorton> ... you decide standard and follow those
16:18:38 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:18:46 <bruce_bailey> FCC closed caption rules (adjectival):  https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/closed-captioning-television
16:19:06 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Lot of videos without captions, some with captions but player doesn't display them
16:19:24 <sarahhorton> ... requirements about caption button
16:19:47 <sarahhorton> ... reviewing automated, accuracy, qualitative discussion, exceed bronze
16:20:07 <sarahhorton> ... whether protocols, manual reviews, get extra for that
16:20:13 <Rachael> q+ to shift conversation
16:20:23 <Rachael> ack Rachael
16:20:23 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to shift conversation
16:20:47 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Value in captions but don't what to go too far into any examples, instead talk about conformance options
16:20:56 <sarahhorton> ... overlap, interplay, combinations
16:21:05 <sarahhorton> ... which to explore, how to move forward
16:21:24 <sarahhorton> ... tension, number of people, time
16:21:35 <sarahhorton> ... see where people stand on options
16:21:49 <mbgower> q+
16:21:57 <sarahhorton> ... if clear direction, go with it; if all over, have another discussion later
16:21:58 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:22:27 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15ZoKbczXw3JIoyDxAxKtBG0sWMKnB6lqAnV4V9xVsoM/edit#slide=id.g165c944dd8c_3_0
16:22:29 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Slide shown with caption example, make sure it's in the doc
16:22:46 <sarahhorton> Rachael: All proposal in slides
16:22:49 <Rachael> q?
16:22:55 <sarahhorton> a/proposal/proposals
16:23:07 <sarahhorton> s/proposal/proposals
16:23:44 <sarahhorton> Rachael: [walks through concepts using slides]
16:27:04 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Clear?
16:27:05 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:27:20 <Wilco> +1 I don't think I can do this on the fly
16:27:24 <jaunita_george> +1
16:27:26 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
16:27:28 <joweismantel> +1
16:27:29 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey: Need to do offline in survey, look at them, rank them, good to discuss but hard to do live
16:27:57 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Set up survey, pick and prioritize and different ways of combining
16:28:01 <Wilco> q+
16:28:04 <mbgower> q+ to say this is a chicken and egg problem
16:28:32 <sarahhorton> ... set up in Google drive, started process of putting into steps
16:28:34 <bruce_bailey> q-
16:28:59 <sarahhorton> ... evaluating conformance models worksheet
16:29:21 <sarahhorton> ... will break out different approaches and talk through pros/cons
16:29:32 <mbgower> q-
16:29:34 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iCLpvuDbulZLGLflaxUjFtlOMeRvlDZBwrIQf82Sy_c/edit#gid=0
16:29:45 <sarahhorton> ... come from survey with obvious way forward, otherwise go through breakout step-by-step
16:29:49 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:30:06 <sarahhorton> Wilco: Other criteria to consider maybe
16:30:08 <Rachael> TOPIC: Evaluation criteria
16:30:28 <Rachael> q+
16:30:29 <mbgower> +1 to look at upgrades to 2.x criteria
16:30:34 <sarahhorton> ... updating standard is a struggle, can we build flexibility into standard
16:30:57 <sarahhorton> ... rollout, WCAG3 looks like a decade to completion, should conformance allow rollout in stages
16:31:03 <Rachael> ack Raf
16:31:07 <Rachael> ack Rachael
16:31:08 <sarahhorton> ... not sure things to look at but idea
16:31:22 <sarahhorton> Rachael: related criteria to updating
16:31:29 <mbgower> q+
16:31:30 <sarahhorton> ... staging, will add
16:31:41 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:31:57 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Thanks for sharing spreadsheet, useful to see stages
16:32:34 <sarahhorton> ... was idea to use 2.x to new conformance model, take existing criteria and put into new Silver model
16:32:34 <bruce_bailey> yes, +1 thanks for all the thoughtful work that has already gone into these options!
16:32:50 <Wilco> Suggestion: Is there a migration path from WCAG 2 to the new conformance model?
16:32:54 <sarahhorton> ... work on criteria with different ways of reporting, assessing
16:33:28 <mbgower> q+
16:33:36 <sarahhorton> Rachael: migration path, next step after this, captured in charter
16:33:37 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:34:11 <sarahhorton> mbgower: see trying to address in stages, chicken/egg, until take criteria hard to assess without applying
16:34:25 <Rachael> q+
16:34:30 <sarahhorton> ... work with familiar things makes it easier to prove it
16:34:32 <GreggVan> q+
16:35:05 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Stages meant to do, basic things, stage 2 would need guidelines/outcomes/methods, stage 3 would have to be far along
16:35:18 <sarahhorton> ... or take WCAG 2.2. and apply it
16:35:30 <Rachael> ack Rachael
16:35:32 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
16:35:32 <sarahhorton> ... meant to be way to stage moving forward
16:35:56 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Good to list path as criteria
16:36:23 <sarahhorton> ... looking at things without criteria, ideas work on some SCs but not others
16:37:00 <sarahhorton> ... not practice to do with everything but useful to identify spectrum of SCs, different, most challenging, ask authors to show implementation
16:37:06 <mbgower> I would be happy to take part in coming up with a list that forms a cross-section of WCAG 2.x criteria
16:37:21 <Rachael> q?
16:37:23 <alastairc> That is where the current ones in the FPWD came from.
16:37:25 <sarahhorton> ... gives way to see what authors mean, gives authors chance to try out
16:38:00 <Rachael> q?
16:38:03 <sarahhorton> Rachael: FPWD includes that type of examples
16:38:12 <sarahhorton> ... other criteria?
16:38:21 <Wilco> q+
16:38:25 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:38:42 <sarahhorton> Wilco: Plans for addressing open WCAG 2.2. issues
16:38:44 <bruce_bailey> q+ to brainstorm for 5 min
16:38:46 <mbgower> can you repeat that question, wilco?
16:39:02 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey: Dimensions to rate options
16:39:54 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yLYeNcybGxRu43KdrVUcOCL6iXsy6-gxl9-lbyr90dI/edit#slide=id.p
16:40:29 <sarahhorton> Rachael: [reads criteria]
16:41:00 <bruce_bailey> Listed dimensions are very good!
16:41:09 <mbgower> which slide are you reading?
16:41:22 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iCLpvuDbulZLGLflaxUjFtlOMeRvlDZBwrIQf82Sy_c/edit#gid=0
16:41:31 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:41:35 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:41:35 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to brainstorm for 5 min and to
16:41:47 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey: Rephrase as positives
16:42:06 <SuzanneTaylor> q+ to suggest "Does the guidance motivate *more* organization to work toward minimal accessibility/requirements?"
16:42:25 <Rachael> ack SuzanneTaylor
16:42:25 <Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to suggest "Does the guidance motivate *more* organization to work toward minimal accessibility/requirements?"
16:42:48 <sarahhorton> SuzanneTaylor: Motivating *more* organizations
16:43:04 <Rachael> q?
16:43:07 <mbgower> q+
16:43:18 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:43:49 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Is there one about motivating people to tackle accessibility, do accessibility
16:43:57 <kirkwood> Is the approach clear and understandable?
16:43:58 <sarahhorton> ... can infer but
16:44:46 <Rachael> q?
16:46:10 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Row 3 and 15, difference?
16:46:20 <sarahhorton> Rachael: How to make more clear
16:46:33 <Rachael> Does it use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included?
16:47:14 <Rachael> q?
16:47:26 <bruce_bailey> +1 to MG to split into two
16:47:29 <Rachael> Does the approach expand the number of functional needs addressed
16:47:42 <sarahhorton> mbgower: One is expand functional needs addressed
16:47:48 <Rachael> Does it expand beyond strict pass/fail testing?
16:47:55 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Expand ways of evaluating?
16:48:00 <kirkwood> present equivalent alternate ways to pass? of access?
16:48:24 <mbgower> q+
16:48:51 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Some suggestions are solutions but criteria written as outcomes, equivalent is way of achieving
16:49:13 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:49:21 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:49:45 <Rachael> Strawpoll: Is everyone ok with replacing ways to measure with expand number of functional needs and equity questions?
16:49:46 <kirkwood> +1
16:50:00 <ShawnT> +1
16:50:01 <joweismantel> +1
16:50:04 <Wilco> +1
16:50:04 <mbgower> +1
16:50:07 <bruce_bailey> +1 to expand functional needs
16:50:07 <Rachael> akc bruce_bailey
16:50:09 <sarahhorton> +1
16:50:14 <jaunita_george> +1
16:50:24 <Detlev> -1 difficult to understand...
16:50:38 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey: Might be too soon to give up on other part, accessibility on continuum, going beyond pass/fail
16:51:04 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Yes, drop specific solution of going beyond, instead focus on result
16:51:42 <sarahhorton> Detlev: Wordy, jargony, number of categories is complex concept
16:51:56 <sarahhorton> ... different ways of measuring seems fine
16:52:07 <mbgower> +1
16:52:12 <jaunita_george> +1
16:52:14 <Wilco> +1
16:52:27 <mbgower> q+
16:52:49 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Add note about not expanding measurements
16:53:11 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
16:53:17 <bruce_bailey> q-
16:53:17 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:53:39 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Using same question about wording on row 4, written as solution, difficult to parse
16:54:11 <Rachael> Can the model be updated quickly  and easily to support emerging technologies and interactions?
16:54:27 <sarahhorton> +1
16:55:10 <Rachael> TOPIC:  What is the plan for addressing open comments from CR on WCAG 2.2?
16:55:15 <Seirdy> expanding beyond strict pass/fail could be esp. useful for color contrast, as there's a difference between e.g. body text and superscripts. A partial pass could meet contrast ratios for e.g. only body text. the experimental version of SAPC-APCA explores this more deeply.
16:55:52 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Trying to get implementation testing done this week, still waiting to hear back, then transform Friday meeting into TF, work through issues
16:56:04 <mbgower> I wonder if "is the proposed conformance model realistic" is potentially useful?
16:56:23 <sarahhorton> ... haven't tackled prioritization, immediate deadlines first priority, then group topics and work through backlog
16:56:45 <Wilco> q+
16:56:53 <sarahhorton> ... survey about managing notifications to group, got good results, will follow that process, hasn't started yet
16:56:57 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:57:23 <sarahhorton> Wilco: Thought would be for maintenance, not for resolving comments on CR, will AG discuss feedback on CR
16:57:45 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Any changes will come back to AG, triage will be in taskforce
16:57:48 <mbgower> q+
16:57:51 <Rachael> ack mbgower
16:58:05 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:58:29 <Wilco> q+
16:58:37 <Rachael> ack Wilco
16:58:40 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Being realistic, propose amazing AI that does everything, approach isn't realistic
16:58:48 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Added criteria
16:58:57 <Rachael> q+
16:59:01 <kirkwood> +1 realistic or “achievable”
16:59:02 <sarahhorton> Wilco: Will AG approve Taskforce?
16:59:13 <Rachael> ack Rachael
16:59:30 <mbgower> thanks for all this work!!
16:59:43 <kirkwood> present+
17:00:06 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Trying to aim for 2–3 to dig into
17:00:46 <sarahhorton> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/25-ag-minutes.html sarahhorton
17:24:14 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
17:58:47 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
18:43:52 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag