<alastairc> Meeting: AGWG CSUN special meeting
<jeanne> scribe+ jeanne
<Chuck_> thx Chris!
<ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
I'll be ready to scribe in 2 minutes. brb
back
<AWK> +AWK
<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/CSUN_2023#Meeting_Information
Alastair: Opens conversation.
Goes over agenda and timeline.
... agenda page has details
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/#expected-behavior
Alastair: please do take in to
consideration the ethics and participation processes
... please use the q plus for questions and time to speak
within conversations
<Cyborg> zoom link please
Alastair: on sandbox link, can
capture conversations around things we want to talk to but are
off main path of topic being covered.
... breaking is available for conversations as needed
<Cyborg> is there a zoom lin?
<Cyborg> link?
<Chuck_> yes, one moment
<jeanne> It's the regular tuesday meeting link
Alastair: pastes in link on conformance options.
<Chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag
<Chuck_> /mit.zoom.us/j/583945521?pwd=TE9HM1BSN1N4Ri9rMHdPU3pVZ0RoQT09//mit.zoom.us/j/583945521?pwd=TE9HM1BSN1N4Ri9rMHdPU3pVZ0RoQT09
Alastair: scope and overall structure , guidelines , outcomes and methods , critical errors were bulleted talking points
<Chuck_> yes, thx Andrew. Realized the mistake after I hit "return"
<Cyborg> got it, thanks
Alastair: conformance from first
public working draft and feedback received , there were 304
GitHub issues received. Mixed responses between passing without
perfection , testing objectives.
... overall structure from current editor's draft , included
assertions as main differences
... guidelines list , 2022 project analyzed wcag 2.2. ,
functional need, scope, test type and outcomes. 23 guidelines
sorted by topic to identify needed expertise
... conformance option 1 , prerequisite , required optimized
(PRO)
... any questions?
... single page summary , covers prerequisites and sectors,
required methods and optimized, which assist with levels , pre
requisite , may or not be automated but will be below
bronze
... then bronze, silver and gold levels
... key concept - prerequisite methods , slide 14 of slide deck
shared covers details on includes, intention , test or
criteria
... sectors , slide 15 , industry specific criteria or
different requirements for different sectors , other sectors
may not follow , i.e. eCommerce vs. Banking vs. Education and
Training
... possible uses outcomes tagged with sectors , methods tagged
and list of recommendations generated.
... example of training materials would be geared toward
videos.
... example 1 , audio or video content example, slide 16 of
slide deck. Details required methods, optimized methods and
pre-requisites pertaining to audio or video
... example 2, non text content, slide 17 of slide deck. Image
having alt attribute, automated checks, required methods if
automated check, results meet requirements, etc.
... not quality check, but point to information.
... optimized methods , silver and gold, is it informative to
user , usage of at least one advanced method for complex image
, i.e. graphs
slide 18 covers evaluation around different methods
scribe: questions or issues for
consideration? Is this model would methods need to be normative
? slide 19 of slide deck.
... does having required methods along with a percentage
address the equity changes? How would tech that does not have a
method or are proprietary be addressed?
... is this simple enough to be acceptabled?
... are sectors required?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to comment on silver and gold levels
Rachael: On slide 18 and 13,
Silver would be all of bronze plus 50 percent of
optimized.
... you might divide methods in to different things or
categories.
... you may get something that is more complex
... slide 13 was original intent
slide 18 was unedited.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask whether there were 'requirements' that aren't in bronze?
Alastair: are there requirements not in bronze?
Wendy: There are no requirements in silver and bronze, only percentage . Bronze being the baseline of experience addressing as many needs as possible.
Goal is to encourage silver and gold.
scribe: bronze is that you've met needs.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask who decides on requirements for sectors
AWK: On sectors, who would decide what is needed for a given sector? How would that deviate from WCAG and how would that be decided for education, or different sectors?
<Ryladog> +1 to AWK
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say sector partnerships, requirements and to say sector issues have confounded genera discussion
AWK: I would want it more straightforward to define main objectives, then have the ability to filter , having 7 WCAG variations may be difficult.
MichaelC: We would need to partner with organizations. Issues related to sectors, specific to sector . Introducing to larger group or core then to sector , needing to understand where these all fit.
<Rachael> +1 to sectors being an optional prioritization recommendation
Wendy: Sectors, it is an assist, i.e. optimize requirements, idea behind sectors is to filter by healthcare, here's a list that we can resource off of accordingly , not silver sector achievement
<Chuck_> +1
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to respond to AWK
Wendy: provides focus on wide ranging topic
Shadi: I agree with everything,
including concerns. One concept is the quick reference guide.
Show me requirements for my segment or profile. Not separate
standards. Difficult to maintain.
... regarding current WCAG, we have requirements specific to
transactions, so specific to personal safety or situational vs.
broad applicability
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if a sector could require less
Shadi: privacy concerns could be a situational example
<jeanne> +1 to using the model of filtering
AWK: All websites need to meet for legal transactions . If we are arranging with different sectors, are we allowing to reduce requirements as well? Canada for example and reducing scope
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest a way of adding sectors
AWK: A lot of positives of AG stating this what you need to do, and let others determine what they want to do and how to filter , etc.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say sector recommendations could be a separate note.
<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Alastair's comment
Alastair: Bronze is universal, but then 50 percent needed to get to silver, within 50 percent you need to do X amount to achieve Silver.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say sectors at bronze and to say requirements for guidance, may include coord with us
Rachael: Sectors come in to play , perhaps a note with recommendations , prioritizing in that way
Michael: I don't thing we would want to have third party orgs writing guidance, but work with them to determine what AG , AGWG would need
<Zakim> mikeGower, you wanted to say I'd like to talk about the overall structure slide 8
MikeG: Structure around slide 8 as a sandlot discussion perhaps
Please speak up for scribe :)
Katie: We can't have sector
specific at any level, should be secondary non normative
document we can point toward.
... whatever your sector is, if you have been sued, what did
regulators recommend? General assistance, i.e. banking and not
just blocking SC, but additionally on commitment financially
also applies.
... sector specific that is normative , we'd need to be very
careful about.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about the rest of the proposal... we are speaking a lot about sectors, how about the rest?
Chuck: there are other parts of
the proposal outside of sectors, we will discuss topics in
general, but wanted to call that out.
... any feedback on rest of proposal ?
Alastair: Guidelines and Outcomes being normative, examples being brought up, allowing non text elements to have one or the following , this is how you should meet this as a high level criteria.
Cyborg: On sectors, what is
important around activity , flipside would be guidelines , if
not included , would be problematic , i.e. for education and
would put students at risk .
... also talks to perceived risk and what is included or not
included. Possibly identification of social impact risks
Katie: If you had a sector that trains pilots , not including content for Blind , we don't want to be limited.
<AWK> Rachael, after Mike Gower's slide 8 comments I would like to discuss methods and normativity
Alastair: Bronze would be baseline , then on top would be on top of baseline.
<alastairc> scribe+ alastairc
<Chuck_> Chris: On Katie's point regarding training pilots. For example, criteria or methods are on color blindness...
<alastairc> scribe- alastairc
<Chuck_> Chris: How that would apply to a sector... may be critical to that sector. That relationship popped into my head.
<Chuck_> scribe+ Chuck
<scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Alastair: Any other feedback?
AWK: I had question on methods and normative or not ?
Rachael: On sandboxing, we can definitely pursue, but go ahead.
AWK: Methods for me are like
techniques, if working group makes those , then percentage of
techniques that are required .
... conformance of silver or gold shifts, if new methods are
created over time , depending on methods, what is made or not
made, would have impact. So that is my concern.
Gregg: Percentages and we have two things. Leave it open, anyone can do anything. Methods, we now are talking to assertions .
<Chuck_> Yep
yes!
scribe: Methods are like techniques. Those were non normative. They were ways of doing outcomes. If we had assertions, if things assert, are those frozen or to be added to?
There are qualitative outcomes vs. quantitative . 50 percent then three more tomorrow, no longer at 50 percent. If a count, we do 12 out of 24, but now later there are 75, I'm not doing well anymore. We need to have a defined set.
scribe: more methods should be easier to do something, rather than moving away from target
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest number of items, no percentage, for silver/gold.
Alastair: Suggest a number of items , x number of optimized things at silver and at gold , for each outcome , we'd have x done to achieve silver or gold.
MikeG: Have we gone in to the abstract to bring up my topic?
Alastair: Yes for now.
MikeG: talks to slide 8,
guidelines , outcome to methods . At top, we have guideline ,
then we have outcomes , many to one , maybe not. Methods, many
to one, maybe not. Guideline and outcome area is a bit soft ,
need to define higher level first.
... talks to captions example, option 1 and required methods
example 1.
... is method normative, is it required? Seems mapping down and
up needs to clarify on abstraction at highest level to
understand.
Wendy: Methods was used , as I was aiming for testability , rather than outcomes. Methods are usually pass or fail in nature. Apologies for confusion.
Gregg: To answer Mike's question,
we have stacked outcomes
... first part of it would be in bronze as a recommendation,
second would be qualitative (assertion) , you must provide it,
then quality of what you have done showcases .
Alastair: Summary is slide 21,
single page summary. Testability should not dictate
level.
... reads bulleted list out from slide 21 on bronze , silver
and gold .
... key concepts, only testable outcomes can be required
... assertions of a procedure or organizational practice are
testable
reads slide 22 and slide 23 bulleted detail on organizational practices and auto-testability .
guidelines should be written so that they gracefully transform, goes into detail on sub bullets on slide 24.
scribe: slide 24 talks to
examples of stacking with quantifiable and qualitative outcomes
, for example contrast and plain language are highlighted
... goes in to detail on pass , better, exemplary for plain
language
slide 25 talks to examples of outcomes with Mixed , quantifiable and qualitative stacking. Covers text equivalents for visual elements. Visual equivalents for audio and audio visual.
slide 26 talks to overall conformance being evaluated , highlighting bronze and silver thresholds
Cyborg: In conformance claims, set of URLS text... that is an answer to John F. raised on is this a page based vs. site based. Bronze is set of URLs, on task completion workflow.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say we will need a scribe change
<Wilco> scribe+
<Wilco> Alastair: ... reading slides
<Wilco> Gregg: One of the slides should have said "Can you do assertions at bronze"
<Wilco> ... That needs exploration. At WCAG 2 companies said lawyers won't let us make claims. Claims had to be optional. You were required to do guidelines, not required to claim you succeeded.
<Chuck_> I do not see captions.
<Wilco> ... That may mean you can't have assertions at bronze because they can't make a statement they've done something
<Wilco> ... You can't have something change levels automatically. That can only happen with a new version of WCAG
<jon_avila> It seems like moving quality of alt text out of bronze into Silver might mean that regulators might need to require some aspects of bronze and silver as a minimum equivalent to WCAG 2.
<jeanne> +1 to Jon Avila. ALso my concern
<Wilco> Gregg: On claiming conformance, you can assess by level, but you can only claim conformance by URL.
<Wilco> ... A URL could be an entire web app, or a single page. That's the only definable thing that makes sense
<Wilco> ... If the URL is part of a process, then the URL is not accessible unless the process that involves it is
<alastairc> q/
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about the "There is no level below Bronze but there can be guidance below bronze." note, maybe an example would help clarify?
<Wilco> Shawn: There's a note, there's no level below bronze but there can be guidance?
<alastairc> Wouldn't be changes within versions, but could change between versions?
<Wilco> Cybele: Gregg mentioned there wouldn't be changes in-between versions. One way we discussed could be in the how-to document
<Wilco> ... We could give a heads-up to organisations that way
<Wilco> ... On assertions in bronze, we don't know the answers to that. We need to check that. VPAT has the support language. Is there a workaround?
<Wilco> ... Don't know if we need to talk about it today
<Wilco> ... There are two ways we talked about assertions. A possibility might be good/better/exemplary.
<Wilco> ... You could have pass/better/best with doing X, doing X following a method, and doing X by some date
<Wilco> ... To the extent there might be patterns of gaming, we could address them in future versions.
<Wilco> .. The goal would be to provide EO with guidance on where to begin that might mimic the how-to formatting with low hanging fruit
<Wilco> ... There would be an onboarding, but it wouldn't be related to the conformance modal.
<Lauriat> qv?
<Wilco> ... We had another suggestion for remediation, and if we're adding organisational practices we could provide templates
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say my concern that by splitting quantifiable and qualitative, Bronze will be lower than WCAG2
<jon_avila> Thank you Jeanne
<Wilco> Jeanne: Because we're splitting quantifyable and quantitative, I'm concerned we have existing criteria in WCAG 2. If we split off qualitative, I fear we end up with a WCAG 3 that's less accessible then WCAG 2
<Zakim> daniel-montalvo, you wanted to ask how "technicalll possible" relates to "accessibility supported"
<Wilco> Daniel: I see the word technically possible, I wonder what the relation with that and accessibility supported is
<Wilco> ... It's not clear to me what the basis of technically possible are. Who decides that? What does AT need to do for that?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to call out assertions as testable
<Wilco> Rachael: I put the technically possible in the sandbox.
<Wilco> ... Chair hat off; Something I liked about this proposal was the concept of testability not dictating level, and that quantifiable and qualitative are of equal importance.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to answer
<Lauriat> +1 to Rachael, those concepts seemed particularly promosing
<Wilco> Gregg: On splitting qualitative / qualitative into levels. Testability does not determine level. All we said was that it's not clear if assertions can be done at bronze.
<Wilco> ... It may not be legally possible, companies may find it invokes legal constraints
<Wilco> ... As Cybele mentioned, we don't know if it's still true. It may now be possible to make assertions at bronze. If so we may have both at bronze.
<jon_avila> 1.1.1 does require equivalent alt text - not just alt text.
<Wilco> ... On technically possible vs AT supported. AT supported is a subset of possible. It has to be something that's generally available, but possible goes broader then just that.
<alastairc> I think that's what Gregg meant by some qualitative provisions being slipped in
<Wilco> ... You can't decide to use an inaccessible technology and claim its impossible. If there is a technology you use it.
<Wilco> Cybele: I share Jeanne's concern. The counter to that is there has been guidance that hasn't made it in. This gives it a place to exist.
<Wilco> ... There are many forms of guidance that may be coming.
<Wilco> ... It's not that qualitative measures are in the second column, it's outcomes. If there is a scalar test, or a rubrics test that's reliable that would be quantifiable.
<Wilco> ... If there is no reliable test, but there's a tool that can create a reliable outcome that could move up to bronze for example
<Wilco> Mike: What this gives us is a means to move things over time. 3.1 would effectively have a higher bar than 3.0.
<Rachael> +1 to building in a way to evolve the guidance naturally and with a way to give a heads up and then increase requirement when feasible
<Wilco> ... What we may have to do is, research based, an alt text needs some number of words. That's quantifiable.
<Wilco> ... A second one could be it has to do with the picture, that's qualitative.
<Chuck_> +1 to the mechanism for evolving, for sandbox: Could the first proposal utilize a similar mechanism? This doesn't seem like it has to be proposal specific.
<Wilco> ... Coming up with those testable things. Qualitative and quantitative in 2.x are mixed in.
<Wilco> ... Under section 13 in the presentation, bugs do not make a site not-conform.
<Wilco> ... What constitutes a timely fashion is not a working group question. That related to accessibility support too.
<Wilco> ... AT support is not in our success criteria. We can provide more guidance to regulators.
<Zakim> Makoto, you wanted to add some to Gregg's comment to answer Daniel's question
<Cyborg> yes Makoto is a bit quiet...
<Wilco> Makoto: I think we need to separate technically possible from accessibility support.
<Wilco> ... If content follows a technical spec, it will be technically possible, but it doesn't always mean usable
<Wilco> ... What guidelines can do is to define what's technically possible, and how it can be achieved. But it's up to user agents / assistive tech whether it works
<Cyborg> can't hear him...
<Chuck_> yes
<Chuck_> Indeed.
<Cyborg> better now
<Wilco> Gregg: If you have something that's not quantifiable, but its testable reliably it should be included
<Wilco> ... I think we may need to change quantifiable to testable.
<Chuck_> +1 sandbox issue.
<Wilco> ... What Mike talked about is not quantifiable, but it is testable. You get a high inter-rater reliability if you ask the alt text has a relationship with what's in the picture
<alastairc> Question for the group - are there any aspects of this approach which you are concerned about?
<Wilco> Gregg: Another idea; what if we had a free tool that you could use that would tell you what good plain text was?
<Wilco> ... On bugs; Whether a small shop had to follow WCAG, that's a policy question, it has nothing to do with us.
<Wilco> ... Judy, before she left warned us to stay in our lane. It might be frowned on if we tell policy makers how to make policy.
<Wilco> ... We should maybe have some place where we could suggest to policy makers what to think about.
<Wilco> ... Lastly, credit to Cybele for making the chart
<Wilco> Cybele: My understanding is that qualitative might rely on subjective review, and when that no longer relies on subjective review it becomes quantifiable.
<Wilco> ... As Mike pointed out there's a mechanism to migrating things towards required with new versions.
<Wilco> ... I think this model encourages, rather than a race to the floor.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to address policy and to say not aware of allergies to policy guidance in W3C and to say DM our policy person
<Wilco> Michael: To my knowledge we can provide policy advice. Daniel may have more to say, he's our policy person.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to speak to policy doc
<AndySomers> +andysomers
<Wilco> Shadi: I know this is internal short-hand, we should not frame it to tell policy makers what to do, or that we're developing policies.
<Wilco> ... I think from a technical perspective it's useful to explain what guidelines do and don't do.
<Wilco> ... For example they don't do things related to the size of organisations.
<Wilco> ... I agree with the concerns, and even internally we should be careful about how we're talking
<Wilco> ... I think it would be very important guidance. We did a lot of work on harmonising the technical level, but not on the policy level.
<Rachael> This would be a good question for when we meet with regulators
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about scoring, in relation to 'counting' everything.
<Wilco> Alastair: My question is if we fall into the counting problem with the percentages.
<Cyborg> for clarification
<Wilco> ... One of the complaints on FPWD was if you do a percentage it takes a lot of time to count everything.
<Wilco> Gregg: When we talk about percentage, it's percentage of outcome, not percentage of elements.
<Wilco> ... If you claim it for a URL, or a set of URL it means everything in that meets it, not some percentage of that.
<Wilco> ... You can't get 75% of all alt text and claim that passes. It's whole outcomes.
<Wilco> Gregg: On policy, I was proposing we come out with two standards. A technical standard, and a policy standard, where we recommend a set of policies.
<Wilco> ... That she said would be too far.
<Wilco> ... The other idea was on bulk. We talked about EO guidelines, if you're brand new, there are things to start with.
<Wilco> ... so that people can have early success.
<Wilco> ... If you've just bought a company with an inaccessible website, the question is where to start? You have to do everything, but what to do first?
<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/
<Wilco> ... If for example you have 1000 documents, the first thing to do might be to give each a title
<Zakim> mikeGower, you wanted to say WCAG2ICT
<Zakim> Cyborg, you wanted to address Alastair's question
<Wilco> Mike: For WCAG2ICT we provide framework examples
<Wilco> Cybele: My understanding is that the point system wouldn't apply to bronze, but you can start getting silver points, but they wouldn't be available until bronze is done.
<Wilco> ... I want to delineate between beginner-level stuff and WCAG work. Can we call it "where to begin" and not "get started" so that "get started" can be about WCAG work.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to q? policy standard
<Wilco> Michael: I think a few years ago a policy document wouldn't have worked. W3C will have different management, and we also have statement documents now. It has the working group authority, but it not a rec
<Wilco> Gregg: No matter how many points, you can't get silver until you have bronze.
<Wilco> ... We never solved the percentage vs points question, and we never solved people gaming it
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say our discussion on "policy" is semi off topic. Sandbox?
<Wilco> Chuck: Policy has come up a few times, I recommend we leave that in sandbox
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to silver points and bronze
<Wilco> AWK: Totally agree with needing Bronze before Silver.
<Wilco> ... It probably won't matter though, because today if you need level AA, you can report all things you do.
<Wilco> ... You get credit for doing work, but most organisations don't care if they're level A. They care what to do according to the policy; Level AA.
<Wilco> ... We don't want to have a standard that requires less, but we also want an achievable standard.
<Cyborg> how long is break?
<Chuck_> 15 minutes
<Ben_Tillyer> Thank you all, I learnt a lot in this session. Unfortunately I will not be here after the break, but look forward to reading the minutes.
<Rachael> Trying.
<Chuck_> no
<Cyborg> hard to hear
<alastairc> scribe+ alastairc
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say we need a new scribe
<alastairc> Rachael: Want to make sure everyone gets a change to contribute, to think.
<AndyS> scribe
<AndyS> scribe+ AndyS
<Detlev> does it not need scribe and colon?
<alastairc> scribe- alastairc
<AndyS> Rachael, what dd people like about proposals
<Detlev> I see
<AndyS> Lucy second is more visible and understandable with the matrix
<AndyS> mchael th prpsals are not ncmpatble
<AndyS> lenard prolem
<AndyS> keyboard
<jeanne> +1 to Sectors, Prerequisites and not requiring perfection
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that I liked the "maliability" of the second proposal, and I liked the "sectors" of the first proposal.
<AndyS> Rachael, we are doing two proposals
<AndyS> MikeG: I like the idea t tackle the fact that a lt f orgs will not meet ronze
<AWK> +1 to Mike Gower's comments on prerequisites for orgs that don't meet bronze
<AndyS> Wilco: I like the testable qualitative at bronze
<mikeGower> +1 to wilco
<AndyS> GreggVan, : do the sectors stereotype the needs?
<AndyS> Wendy: the proposals are complimentary
<Cyborg> i think sector provisions are mostly coming up for Silver level as go-to Silver provisions list for a given sector
<AndyS> Wendy: in large orgs, you get asked for progress, having measures are important
<kirkwood> I am quite wary of the ‘sectors’ (in agreement with Gregg) which i realize we will discuss ‘dislikes’ later.
<AndyS> AWK: option 2 is preferred - there is lots of good things to work with in it
<Cyborg> progress reports - we need to think about internal vs external. i have some concerns about how external progress reports are communicated (transparency good, claims of cherry-picking bad)
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that I like the point of recommending based on actions/type of things was a good point from first session (refinement of sectors)
<Cyborg> why is everyone in room getting quiet again?
<Cyborg> please speak up in room thanks
<AndyS> Rachael, I like the option 2 optimized
<AndyS> GreggVan, : Option 1: I like the prepatory and wrong the way up... pre-cnoformance tracking mechanisms...
<AndyS> s/
<AndyS> Thank you alastair
<Jennie> +1 to Gregg
<Rachael> +1
<AndyS> GreggVan, : instead of sector think activity, i.e. think educational actvit, not sector
<maryjom> +1 to Gregg - good thinking.
<kirkwood> +1 to Greegg about actgivity
<kirkwood> +1 to Greg about activity versus sector
<Chuck_> +1 to Cybele liking the proposal she particpated in writing! I would be concerned if otherwise.
<AWK> Activities are what we do on the web. Why would we break these out in different activity groups rather than require under WCAG 3.0 that all activities need to support our requirements?
<AndyS> Rachael, : what are the major concerns that have t e addressed
<Cyborg> hard to hear
<AWK> also a reporting nightmare.
<kirkwood> +1 to whomever is speaking
<kevin> +1 to challenge of segmentation by sector. Too much overlap and provides opportunity for loop holes
<shadi> +1 to Lucy Greco
<AndyS> Shawn: what target of maturity
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about target maturity, for context
<Cyborg> hard to hear
<Cyborg> can people in room please speak up?
<shadi> +1 to THANK YOU FOR ALL THE PREP
<Chuck_> +1 to all the work everyone did on these proposals! I know a LOT of time and hard work went into both!
<kevin> +1… blank page is a hard starting point. Well done!
<AndyS> MichaelC: prerequisites on conform opn 1: things that are necessary tu are and of not for the author
<jeanne> +1 to MG that we need to start studying these proposals with a variety of guidelines
<AndyS> GreggVan, : word method is used wrong, consider word "outcome"
<AndyS> GreggVan, : author has no control ver the service agent
<AWK> /me same as Shawn here
<AndyS> GreggVan, : bringing in user agents and authors need separate chapters
<AWK> s//me same as Shawn here/
<AndyS> Wendy: sectors are intended as helpful informaton
<Cyborg> +1 to the use of the term path or pathway. This doesn't impact conformance but sequence of getting things done.
<AndyS> Wendy: The dee is t give people the information they will need
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Lauriat
<AndyS> Rachael, : we are working toward exploratory
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say low hanging fruit re pretesting and to say UA work if structured right
<Rachael> +1 to the concept of prerequisites as a starting point as long as its not a "level"
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to respond to how authoring tools and user agents can be incorporated
<AndyS> MichaelC: user agents, Im not are WCAG 3 is the place
<AndyS> Jennie, : In the FPWD example f a method rents toward authoring tools
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask wendy a question
<AndyS> s/ Jeanne, : In the FPWD example of a method rents toward authoring tools
<Rachael> ack q+ to say that prerequisites wasn't defined as automated testing
<AndyS> GreggVan, : we should not confuse easy to test with easy t do
<AndyS> GreggVan, : substitute activity instead of sector,
<GreggVan> +1 to that idea
<GreggVan> +1 to the pathway idea of wendy
<AndyS> Cyborg, : paths--suggested sequence of approach... the who work with a particular activity might develop
<AndyS> Cyborg, : if W3C is not halved what are consequences? one thing is missing out on emerging needs/solutions
<Lauriat> Yep
<Wilco> +1 Shadi
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to conduct a straw poll and to say that prerequisites wasn't defined as automated testing
<Ryladog> +1 to Shadi
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask gregg of examples of automatically testable items that are easy to test but hard to do? (and 4.1.1 doesn't count)
<AndyS> AWK: amazed test s good at getting a percentage f he way there...
<AndyS> s/ AWK: automated test is good at getting a percentage of the way there...
<AndyS> Wendy: difference tween sector and activity is semantic
<AndyS> s/ Wendy: difference between sector and activity is semantic
<AWK> Meant to also say that if this is informative we should make a note and give EOWG a heads up to think about it in the future, especially if this isn't related to conformance
<AndyS> Wendy: other thing is you don't have to stick to one sector
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to do straw poll and then transition to option 2
<Rachael> Strawpoll: 1) Continue to explore sectors as way to prioritize. 2) Continue with concept of recommended priorities but base on “activities” aka at a more granular level 3) Drop idea of recommending prioritization above bronze
<AndyS> Rachael, : draw poll re sectors
<Ryladog> 3
<Detlev> can you repeat 3
<jeanne> 1 or 2
<MichaelC> 1 or 2 (both are saying explore further)
<Sheri_B-H> 2
<Wilco> 3
<Detlev> 3
<shadi_> 3
<AWK> 3 - This feels like EOWG turf
<Chuck_> 1 or 2
<Makoto> 3
<Cyborg> 2
<GreggVan> 2
<kirkwood> 2
<wendyreid> 1, 2
<AndyS> Rachael, : 1 , 2 Connie to explore, 3 is drop sectors
<kathyeng> 2
<AndyS> 3
<Jennie> 3
<Lauriat> 1, 2, 3
<Cyborg> as a pathway list
<shadi_> 3 - I don't think prioritization should be in scope of WCAG
<Rachael> Lucy: 3
<Cyborg> but not about getting more points
<mbgower> 3 I think once at Bronze, then it's up to the author to decide what to do; but we could add in information to applicability in the Outcomes themselves
<maryjom> 3
<Cyborg> you get points anyway but it's a pathway
<AndyS> s/ Rachael, : 1 , 2 continue to explore, 3 is drop sectors
<Rachael> 2
<AndyS> Rachael, : option 2: what are the concerns
<Chuck_> 12 3's, 6 1's, 4 2s
<jon_avila> 2 or 3
<Chuck_> 2 3's, 6 1's, 5 2s
<Chuck_> 12 3's, 6 1's, 4 2s
<AndyS> MichaelC: a lot of guidance and explanation, are are intermixed, should be separated n proposal
<kirkwood> +1 to worries about complexity by Michael
<AndyS> Wilco, : percentages is a difficult thing to deal with
<AndyS> Wilco, : how do you ensure people don't pick the easy stuff
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say the clarity of where qualitative tests live, and whether they can be required.
<Ryladog> to talk about possible 'tool' for percentage
<AndyS> jeanne: more clarities needed on qualitative tests
<jeanne> +1 to equity concerns
<AndyS> s/ jeanne: more clarity needed on qualitative tests
<Rachael> +1 to making sure everything that needs to be required in a single level
<AndyS> GreggVan, : we all hate percentages, but without percentages how do you allow for not forcing everything to be done
<AndyS> GreggVan, : only if we find out that companies can NOT do assertions, then we can not have them in bronze
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that we have limited time left to discuss "structure"
<jon_avila> SC 1.1.1 All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose,
<AndyS> AWK: note the connection between assertions and bugs... is it a bug or a feature request
<jon_avila> I get that all of the time Andrew!
<AndyS> AWK: needs be more discussion if bronze equals WCAG 2 or is less...
<AWK> Scribe: AWK
Cybele: addressing concerns
... complexity of docs
... helpful to hear ppls concerns
... jeanne's concerns about qualitative tests
... tests needs to include qual and quant measures with
testable outcomes
... important to not exclude important measures that are hard
or impossible to test
... stacking is great idea
<jeanne> +1 for making a list of the WCAG2 guidance that is problematic.
Cybele: bundling similar items is
helpful
... last piece
... we perceive silver as an incentivized economy
KHS: if %'s, need tool
... we need a doc that can cover WCAG 2 to WCAG 3 guide.
Lessons learned in 20 years of implementation
<jeanne> The original Silver research has a lot of lessons learned
Wendy: getting stuck on qual/quant bit
<Ryladog> Exactly
Wendy: testable makesmore sense
to me
... qual tests are still testable
... as long as tiers of quality are defined
<GreggVan> q_
Wendy: most excited to explore the matrix model of how things would move in different versions
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to say complexity and which percentages
<Jennie> I'll type - sorry
Shadi: concerned about % getting into policy arena
<Jennie> I have the same concern about complexity for understanding. A, AA, AAA - quite concrete to understand and explain. (part 1)
Shadi: different countries in EU have sign lang and captioning requirements in %
<Jennie> (Part 2): we need to be sure that it is simple to understand and explain. (part 3)
<Jennie> (Part 3): and in terms of stackable, each type of success criteria type of concept may not conform
<Jennie> (part 4) to the ability to be broken into 3 levels of conformance.
Shadi: related to Andrew's comment on accessible sites
<Jennie> (part 5) We need to be sure that however stackable is determined, that needs have a way to get in (end of message)
Shadi: big question about how to target the guidance and to delineate user requirements from policy requirements
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say stacking may add compmlexity to individual guidance but simplify the total
<AndyS> FYI: The WebAim study was largely an example of how automated testing fails
<Jennie> * Rachael - my points are typed above
MC: Could get more sites on the ramp if the ramp grade changed.
Lucy: Really liked option 2, but
the more we discuss the more confusing qual/quant becomes
... we as a group understand that bronze may replace AA, but
people won't think that
<Rachael> Strawpoll: Next step A) Continue with only option 1, B) Continue with only option 2 C) Continue with options 1 and 2 3) Merge option 1 and 2
<wendyreid> D
<Rachael> Strawpoll: Next step A) Continue with only option 1, B) Continue with only option 2 C) Continue with options 1 and 2 D) Merge option 1 and 2
<wendyreid> D
<shadi_> D
B
<Cyborg> C
<Wilco> D
<jeanne> C
<GreggVan> B or D
<MichaelC> C or D
<Ryladog> D
<Cyborg> actually B or C
<Chuck_> D, B
<kathyeng> d
<Detlev> D, and SIMPLIFY - this is much too confusing
<AndyS> C
<MichaelC> (C is less up-front work than D)
<Lauriat> C or D
<Rachael> Lucy: B
<Rachael> D and if fails C
<Makoto> B D
<jon_avila> C or D
<dmontalvo-mac> C or D
<Jennie> C or D
<Sheri_B-H> c or D
RM: shifting to structure topic
<jeanne> we have to test it with real guidance and a variety of real guidance
MG: Slides 8 and 9 deal with structure
RM: Reviewing overall conformance
options deck
... Major change is that assertions are added in slide 9
... as options subgroup work with options, the structure is
becoming challenging
... in option 2 you will notice the test sets get broken down
into pieces that stack
<Chuck_> 0 A's, 5 B's, 9 C's, 9 D's
MG: right now normative is at SC
level
... techniques are informative. Judge on if meet SC
... e.g., does test meet contrast
... outcomes need to multiple in order to let things map
properly
... contrast minimum has 2-3 outcomes in it
... text smaller than 18px, then this...
... text larger... this
... if you think about these as different outcomes then they
would both be required to meet the guideline
... if we break apart 1.1.1 there are a whole lot of
outcomes
<Detlev> a big +1 to Mike for developing this from substantive requirements
MG: we should evaluate how testable each is and categorize
GV: Want to suggest that we say
testable when we mean testable
... there are things that are tested qualitatively and that is
ok
... best to keep similar things grouped
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that user needs as normative is a holdover from the critical errors/equity proposal from FPWD
<Cyborg> testable and qualitative assertions...we mean testable (quantitative and qualitative tests) vs qualitative that we don't yet have tests for but are important for people (some have been raised in COGA and some may arise going forward)
JS: Functional needs being normative is an artifact of original proposal. Should go into "how to"
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest that we may need suboutcomes
RM: Not sure how to solve need for another layer
GV: Guidelines in the past were
informative
... because not directly testable
... idea of subobjectives - you can wind up with a logical
problem
... subobjectives means must do all to meet the objective
<Chuck_> AWK: We need to ... that feels like an editorial question more than anything else. We are going to come up with different configurations. Stack all within a.a.a or a.a.a, a.a.b, a.a.c...
<Chuck_> AWK: I don't know whether or not we need to solve that right now.
<JenStrickland> +1 to AWK
Shadi: one thing that I learned
from WCAG 2 is that the lumping creates testing
challenges
... better as "if text is ___ then this applies"
... we have examples of both in WCAG today
<Rachael> +1 to design issue
GV: yes need to look at how
present these
... "if this then that" is ok, harder if things are in
parallel.
... also allows us to put qual and quant together
<Rachael> straw poll: Which is preferable a) long list of clearer outcomes or b) shorter list of multipart outcomes?
<Cyborg> b
<GreggVan> b
<JenStrickland> a
<shadi_> a
<Sheri_B-H> a
<MichaelC> a+b for a sample set to try them out
<jeanne> we need to try them out and see what works better
<Rachael> straw poll: Which is preferable a) long list of single part outcomes or b) shorter list of multipart outcomes?
<Cyborg> B
<Sheri_B-H> still a
<GreggVan> b)
<wendyreid> would want to see samples :/
Want to see the long list first
<JenStrickland> a
<Sheri_B-H> examples wouldn't change my vote
<Wilco> A, every day, A
<mbgower> a
<Detlev> yes, work from the substantive
<maryjom> +1 to Jeanne I think we need to prove which might work in a practical sense.
<jon_avila> I agree with Shadi - could be longer with structure to make it easier.
<Sheri_B-H> I have another commitment 12-1:30, I will be back then
<Wilco> ACT did a lot of work on this, the answer is A
RM: breaking for lunch soon
<mbgower> +1 to Wilco, the more this is properly normalized, the better it will be
<jeanne> +1 to Wilco
<Makoto> +1 to Wilco
<mbgower> scribe mbgower
<mbgower> Chuck: Chairs thought some may not have had an opportunity to speak. May introduce timer in afternoon, if judged necessary
<MichaelC__> join #ag-chairs
<mbgower> scribe+
<mbgower> Chuck: Chairs thought some may not have had an opportunity to speak. May introduce timer in afternoon, if judged necessary
+AWK
<mbgower> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zW-UubALQOCokCoLnIuQrnGNKLm2uHi36S8yhAojrIE/edit?usp=sharing
<mbgower> Jeanne: This is work done by COGA TF on clear language
<mbgower> Jeanne: Realize opportunity to do evaluation as part of updating documents
<mbgower> Jeanne: Maturity level lets us do high level analysis of existing critiera
<mbgower> s/critera/criteria
<mbgower> Jeanne: Lowest level is placeholders
<mbgower> Jeanne: Next is exploratory
<mbgower> Jeanne: Developing
<mbgower> Jeanne: Refining
<mbgower> Jeanne: Mature
<mbgower> Jeanne https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RxbC8hOB6wvX1EisJzbYezvJXe0rGgDPvgUiBGCUw6Q/edit#slide=id.p
<mbgower> slide deck being reviewed ^
<mbgower> Slide 5 exploratory
<mbgower> Jeanne: Usually no editor's note on placeholder content (slide 4)
<mbgower> Jeanne: We started out with some general instructions (slide 7)
<mbgower> Jeanne: Instructions for placeholder (slide 8)
<mbgower> Jeanne: There are a number of places where functional needs have already been done
<mbgower> Jeanne: We know it is easy to dive into outcomes, but we don't need a lot of detail.
<mbgower> Jeanne: When we get into exploratory we can get into detail, but not at the placeholder stage
<mbgower> Cyb: Does the 3-5 outcomes cut off expansion?
<mbgower> Jeanne: The intention is to keep it high level. We don't want huge lists.
<mbgower> Jeanne: We can adjust to meet needs, but the point was this is a preliminary placeholder, to be worked on in the exploratory stage.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to answer on the number of outcomes for placeholder guidance
<mbgower> Lauriat: It should be a short list to be illustrative and simple to understand. Not comprehensive.
<mbgower> Lauriat: It's okay to expand beyond that.
<Cyborg> just to keep in mind that cognitive use of traditionally sensory-related outcomes may be cut off...so maybe attention to that not being the intention
<mbgower> Jeanne: You can put in as many as you think you must, but keep in mind exhaustive is not necessarily better
<mbgower> Jeanne: I took out "3-5" and adjusted text
<JenStrickland> Would someone please add the link to the deck for Guidelines Writing Process by Maturity Levels - Q1…?
<JenStrickland> Thanks, Chuck!
<mbgower> Jeanne: slide 9 lists good starting resources to do this work
<mbgower> Jeanne: Slide 10 tells you when you know you're done
<mbgower> Jeanne: I have three samples
<mbgower> Jeanne: Placeholder for Audio and Video Alternatives
<mbgower> Jeanne: Slide 14 on Error notifications goes into more detail
<mbgower> Jeanne: This came out of the error subgroup in 2020-21
<mbgower> Jeanne: Continued on slide 15
<mbgower> Jeanne: Slide 15 has a Clear language example
<Jennie> Making content usable
<mbgower> Jeanne: slide 16 clear language outcomes
<mbgower> Gregg: two quick questions
<mbgower> Gregg: The first one said audio and visual alternatives.
<mbgower> Jeanne: This originally started as captions
<mbgower> Gregg: That's not my question.
<mbgower> Gregg: Is it better to put all the captions and audio description material together or separate?
<mbgower> Jeanne: That's going to be up to the group doing this work.
<mbgower> Gregg: Two of needs are Essential and Independence. That should be true for all.
<mbgower> Jeanne: I'll be covering in a few minutes.
<mbgower> Jeanne: On slide 17, we are going to tackle Images and graphics have non-visual alternatives
<mbgower> Jeanne: This is a good strating point for placeholder texts, which can be altered.
<mbgower> Jeanne: Slide 18 is a group exercise
<MichaelC> it actually started in APA, then got taken up in WCAG 3, then moved back to APA
<mbgower> Jeanne: I find it easiest to work from the table of contents
<mbgower> Jeanne: I want to answer Gregg's question on Independence...
<mbgower> Jeanne: Essential...
<mbgower> Gregg: I don't see it in here
<mbgower> Michael: I guess we don't have it in the current version. It probably got merged
<mbgower> Michael: I think it might be under the deceptive patterns.
<mbgower> Jeanne: I didn't realize things have been removed.
<mbgower> Michael: This is part of incorporating feedback from COGA
<Lauriat> Non-visual alternatives placeholder draft (template): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WOZV6SGy4XVoI0SeuFcdKQUkXY441mVrU5vW1LEiaMQ/edit
<Chuck_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WOZV6SGy4XVoI0SeuFcdKQUkXY441mVrU5vW1LEiaMQ/edit
<mbgower> Jeanne: I'd like to show people the work that Makoto did, to save a lot of time.
<mbgower> Jeanne: They did a very thorough examination around non-visual alternatives
<mbgower> Jeanne: We want to focus on the user and produce outcomes and methods that are clear and understandable
<Chuck_> We are now involved in a working session, that does not require scribing.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to add to why we'll stay as one group together
<Chuck_> LOL
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to remind folks of next steps
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note my cardinal rule on terms
<Jennie> Trying to lower the reading level. Here's my attempt (though not beautiful)
<Jennie> Content that conveys meaning through visual characteristics. This may include content in other media. If used, this must convey similar information.
<Rachael> Guideline: Images and graphics have non-visual alternatives
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say alternate version of visual information so that it is perceivable and understandable by those who cannot understand the visual presentation and to
<Jennie> New suggested revision: Content that conveys meaning without using visual characteristics. This may include content in other media. If used, this must convey similar information.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask if we can try and see if its too broad
<JenStrickland> Would this guideline include the motion or sounds of an animation or video?
<Wilco> +1 Mike, I think graphical control is very different from graphical information
<Ryladog> Non-Text Descriptions
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- what is wrong with having a few larger items vs a million little ones
<mbgower> +1 Ryladog for Non-Text Descriptions
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to answer mbgower with how/when this tends to become clearer for when to split things
<mbgower> Okay, thanks Shawn, the results perform a QA check
<Jennie> Suggestions for bullet 3: Content that communicates without using visual characteristics. similar information and meaning. This may include content in other media.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask when the right time ot break out the guideline is (now or at the end?)
<Jennie> (my suggestion has bullets that didn't come through - here's the better version)
<Jennie> Content that communicates (bullet) without using visual characteristics. (bullet)similar information and meaning. This may include content in other media.
<Jennie> +1 to Wilco - also the phrase is really dense/hard to read
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to address Wilco's comment on how "WCAG 2" this is
<Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to ask Would this guideline include the motion or sounds of an animation or video?
<Zakim> shadi_, you wanted to ask about scope of this guideline -- images/graphics only vs any media?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to explore audio
<Rachael> Video and audio have alternatives
<Jennie> *Sorry for the weird formatting! Was pasting after working in Hemingway Editor.
<Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to say that in today's web CSS / SVG animation
<Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to say that in today's web CSS / SVG animation is not quite in the media realm and is referenced as an image generally
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to propose one way to handle this sort of thing
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that animations/motions are a bit of a gap
<jon_avila> I agree equivalent is important.
<Jennie> * Thanks for the editing. The last sub-bullet in the Content that communicates should not be a sub-bullet.
<Jennie> *Thanks Jeanne!
<Chuck_> +1 to jeanne, for purposes of this exercise (to get us familiar with the process), I suggest that we tolerate the content we've developed thus far.
<Rachael> The harm portion is currently under Motion Causes Harm https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsNS1z_WBt3Ey30m-At8V87jYeM65KoWSR7L3SRR3T4/edit#heading=h.u6ipk0uiaujj
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest we move on to Outcomes. We want to get to Exploratory
<jon_avila> It's important for people with low to be able to access alternatives.
<Rachael> apologies, the guideline name was "On-screen flashing or motion does not cause harm"
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest splitting by user need
<Lauriat> +1, the discussion indicates that the group overall seems to have a solid understanding of the goals for placeholder comment
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest moving audio and video out for now
<mbgower> +1 to focus on still images
<Chuck_> +1 to focus on still images
<mbgower> I suggest 'static, non-functional images'
+1 to Michael
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose that this is a good start and we should move on to Exploratory
<Chuck_> <swish...a space ship flies across the screen>
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention research on solutions, not just needs and to suggest RQTF take priorities from WCAG
<jeanne> I added solutions to the template
<jeanne> +1 for moving gestures into image and graphics
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note research gap analysis
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that this helps to identify where more research may be required
<jeanne> +1 to gap analysis when we lack research
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say clear words has issues as well and should we sandbox this?
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that Clear Words subgroup has just restarted. I took their work before it was complete.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say +1 to Mikes comments but maybe Language level is better -- since understanding is more than just words -- and we don't want to trigger a
<Chuck_> +1 to exploring that!
<Lauriat> +1, thank you!
<Jaunita_George> Let’s explore starting a partnership with the internet society: https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/ — I was looking but there isn’t a direct link to the standing group without going through the member login
<Rachael> Preparing to come back and get started.
<Chuck_> thx
<Chuck_> This continues to be a working session, and does not require scribing
<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/fast/#user-needs
<Jennie> Did it change from clear words to non visual alternatives?
<jeanne> We are doing Clear Words. I'll split it into another document tomorrow
<Jennie> Thanks!
<jeanne> NVM, we are doing Non Visual Alternatives
<Jennie> LOL - long day!
<maryjom> What does non-visual alternatives mean?
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say first one is more thorough
<kirkwood> include parallax scrolling affects?
<mbgower> Nice Jennie!
<Ryladog> +1 to Jennie
<JenStrickland> Exactly why I wanted to make sure we considered it, Andy! :)
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that while this isn't how we would end a sub-group session, I think we have enough information to advance to writing tests for this exercise activity.
<Rachael> As a user with a language, processing, or memory impairment, I need explanations of implied or ambiguous information, like body gestures and facial expressions seen in images and animations.
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to ask if we need to see if there is ambiguous information?
<MichaelC> user need: Visual content that provides instruction via symbols and layout is difficult for me to understand, as the symbols do not convey the same meaning to me that they do to others.
<MichaelC> Is the contextual meaning of symbols specified in the alternative content?
<MichaelC> Does alternative content includes a procedural description of instructions present in visual content?
<MichaelC> I need the non-visual alternatives to be in text form
<MichaelC> test: is the non-visual alternatives to be in text form?
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say a11y of the alternative should be covered elsewhere
<Rachael> akc dmontalvo-mac
<Rachael> I need the non-visual alternatives to be in text form (Because it I am deafblind and need to see it in braille and Because it is always too complex and I need to have it translated into simpler language)
<Rachael> ach dmontalvo-mac
<Rachael> I need the non-visual alternatives to be in text form (Because it I am deafblind and need to see it in braille and Because it is always too complex and I need to have it translated into simpler language)
<Rachael> ak Jaunita_george
<Jennie> * Shadi - your idea actually helps make testing easier for some. If it is x type of image, do this. If it is y type of image, do this. Clearer.
<Zakim> shadi_, you wanted to respond to gregg
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say often is it very hard for sighted people to figure out the meaning of the symbol, especially if they have cognitive disabilities
<Jennie> * Save button is a floppy disk, which many have never seen, used...
<Rachael> I close the queue to transition us
<JenStrickland> The magnifying glass on a search input button would include the semantics programmatically that it is a search and a submit button, so the magnifying class would be purely decorative — unless I'm missing something.
<Chuck_> +1
<jeanne> +1 Jen!
<Chuck_> I thought it was 6
<Chuck_> Thank you Rachael for being the in person chair.
<Wilco> It's between 6 and 8, depending on the sprint :-)
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to transition us to next steps
<Chuck_> I have hard stop, and need to go.
HANG ON WE WILL RESTART MEETING
<jeanne> Chuckk, you disconnected everyone
<Cyborg> we got booted
<GreggVan> yep all did
<GreggVan> we are reopening
<Jennie> it's a "feature"?
<Cyborg> link please?
<Chuck_> oh crud
<Rachael> Please add comments to IRC if you are in queue.
<Ryladog> Do we need to reconnect or just you?
<Cyborg> what is link?
<Rachael> We wrapping up. Thank you all !
<Cyborg> is this the end or do we rejoin?
<jeanne> It's essential to develop the guidelines to evaluate the conformance models
<shadi_> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag
<Rachael> This is the end. We officially adjorned.
<Jennie> * Have a good night everyone.
<MichaelC> chair: Alastair, Rachael, Chuck
<MichaelC> chair: Alastair, Rachael, Chuck
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/https://mit.zoom.us/j/583945521?pwd=TE9HM1BSN1N4Ri9rMHdPU3pVZ0RoQT09/ Succeeded: s/requirements not in bronze/are there requirements not in bronze/ Succeeded: s/Andrew: option 2: lots of god things to work with/AWK: option 2 is preferred - there is lots of good things to work with in it/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ Succeeded: s/thank/think/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s//me same as Shawn here/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ Jeanne, : In the FPWD example of a method rents toward authoring tools WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ AWK: automated test is good at getting a percentage of the way there... WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ Wendy: difference between sector and activity is semantic WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ Rachael, : 1 , 2 continue to explore, 3 is drop sectors WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ jeanne: more clarity needed on qualitative tests Succeeded: s/understnd/understand/ Succeeded: s/SLides/Slides/ FAILED: s/critera/criteria/ Succeeded: s/Slide 12/Slide 14/ Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s//me same as Shawn here/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ Jeanne, : In the FPWD example of a method rents toward authoring tools WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ AWK: automated test is good at getting a percentage of the way there... WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ Wendy: difference between sector and activity is semantic WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ Rachael, : 1 , 2 continue to explore, 3 is drop sectors WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ jeanne: more clarity needed on qualitative tests FAILED: s/critera/criteria/ Default Present: Rachael, Chuck_, ChrisLoiselle, alastairc, Jennie, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lauriat, Ben_Tillyer, wendyreid, MichaelC, AWK, jeanne, Makoto, Wilco, Cyborg, kirkwood, julierawe_, kathyeng, mikeGower, Sheri_B-H, GreggVan, jon_avila, Detlev, andysomers, J_Mullen, kevin, mbgower, JenStrickland, maryjom, Jaunita_George Present: Rachael, Chuck_, ChrisLoiselle, alastairc, Jennie, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Lauriat, Ben_Tillyer, wendyreid, MichaelC, AWK, jeanne, Makoto, Wilco, Cyborg, kirkwood, julierawe_, kathyeng, mikeGower, Sheri_B-H, GreggVan, jon_avila, Detlev, andysomers, J_Mullen, kevin, mbgower, JenStrickland, maryjom, Jaunita_George Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle Found Scribe: AWK Inferring ScribeNick: AWK Scribes: ChrisLoiselle, AWK ScribeNicks: ChrisLoiselle, AWK WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]