AGWG Teleconference -- 11 Apr 2023

<laura> Scribe: laura

You're welcome, Rachael.

New members and topics

RM: Any new members?
... Any new topics?

CL: Listener Lori Oakley

Lori Oakley: Lead for a section at Oracle.

scribe: ask if you have questions.

Alyssa Priddey: new member. Trying to log into IRC.

Announcements

<Rachael> WCAG 3 Updates to Editor’s Draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/updateEditorDraft23/

RM: new survey on editors draft.
... questions?

<bruce_bailey> New 508 reporting requirements from 2023 Consolidated Appropriations

bruce: 508 reporting requirements from 2023 Consolidated Appropriations

<bruce_bailey> https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617/text

bruce: game has jumped up.

<bruce_bailey> (Sec. 752) This section establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess and improve the accessibility of their electronic and information technology to individuals with disabilities.

<bruce_bailey> 105 questions in ten categories, see spreadsheet or "next" buttons from: https://www.section508.gov/manage/section-508-assessment/criteria-01/

bruce: see the website
... very exciting.

WCAG2ICT Second Content Review Survey

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT-second-content-review-by-AGWG/results

RM: WCAG2ICT Second Content Review Survey
... only 2 comments.
... any concerns?

chuck: take a look at this if you have an opportunity.
... can log issues in github.

<Detlev> chuck: Do you mean non-*web* ICT?

<maryjom> https://GitHub.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues

mg: very useful. commend the group

gregg: for more substitutions, it might cause concern for 508.
... example "supports"
... ask bruce if it leaves access board in a bad position.

bruce: work at access board. no plans to update 508. Everything is on the table.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest moving this to the taskforce as a topic

bruce: open question.

rm: maybe move this to the taskforce

mg: not that new. don't see it as an issue.

<GreggVan> +1 to that

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept WCAG2ICT Content

<jeanne> +1

<maryjom> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<mbgower> +1

laura: +1

<Detlev> +1

<bruce_bailey> +

<Peter_bossley> +1

<Alyssa_Priddy_> +1

<AWK> +1

<shadi> +1

<bruce_bailey> The U.S. quote Unified Agenda unquote is updated twice a year, and can be found here:

<bruce_bailey> The U.S. quote Unified Agenda unquote is updated twice a year

<jon_avila> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept WCAG2ICT Content

Proposal to change Taskforce Authority Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/authority-to-publish-23/results

<AWK> +AWK

<bruce_bailey> https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QA74Mk1N_2pJvFybTZvsrDR3MgrkkK3ubQsO4X_i77s/edit#heading=h.69s0sku4tyn1

rm: we have normative and informative docs .
... docs come back to full working group.
... The Accessibility Guidelines (AG) Chairs propose delegating full authority to publish the documents within their scope to the task force responsible for writing them.

ag: The Accessibility Guidelines (AG) Chairs propose delegating full authority to publish the documents within their scope to the task force responsible for writing them.
... The task force work statement would define the document scope and be approved by AG when a task force is stood up and is review when needed.
... everything would come back to ag.
... want to increase efficiency.
... want to remove ag as a gatekeeper.
... 3 agreed in the survey. 3 Agree with delegating publishing authority to the task forces with changes listed in the comments. 4 Disagree.
... ( reads comments)

awk: where is this a problem presently?

rm: anytime we have a TF survey.

awk: additional questions should be seen as good.

<shadi> +1 to AWK

awk: once 2.2 is done AG will be focusing on 3.0

<Rachael> COGA, Mobile, and WCAG 2 taskforces

awk: don't think this will improve things.

RM: we will still have COGA, Mobile, and WCAG 2 taskforces.

<kirkwood> +1 to Laura

shadi: support basic idea. In the doc it says it goes to the WAI ACT not the AG.
... it is a different process.
... see the reviews as a positive thing.
... TFs may need more perspectives.

Gregg: role of TF is to prepare things for WG.
... to make TFs into a WG is problematic.

<jon_avila> I voted but did not comment, I agree with AWK, Shadi, and Laura.

Gregg: need quality reviews.
... can the participants of the TF attend AG meetings? Is it open?

RM: yes.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss Andrews comments on conflict resolution and to say it has manifested with ACT most recently

chuck: would use consensus process for any conflicts.
... ACT TF is an example of where it was a problem in the AG.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to address the process document

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if wiki talk page or google doc is better place for AI Group Coordination DRAFT procedures ?

chuck: not a unique process.

bruce: where do you want comments?

RM: google doc.

peter: review is a feature not a bug.

<kirkwood> +1 to Bossley’s point

wilco: WCAG2ICT got 2 responses on that survey.
... people trying to fill out the survey without all of the background info.
... it is painful to go through for ACT.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note WG consensus not required to publish WD and to differentiate not blocking from not raising and to say public review also important

MC: started as a CC discussion.
... AG would have a separate process.
... to allow review and collect comments.
... true blockers would be rare.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to speak on comparison with other groups and to speak to bad review(ers)

<jeanne> +1 for more frequent and public review

MC: we have used a higher consensus bar at the expense of public comments.

shadi: we are mixing things.
... wilco's issue. Comparison of working groups. The work we are doing is different than other groups.
... let's be careful.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that part of the role of task forces is to help the main WG understand, and it is challenging.

awk: I hear what wilco is saying. It is part of the TF's work to to help the main WG understand, and it is challenging.
... TFs want to publish things without feedback from AG. That is a concern.

<jon_avila> There seems to be assumption that if we don't comment we haven't read the proposal - I spend much time reading proposals all of the time but generally don't comment unless I think something needs to be changed or adjusted. If I agree I often don't comment. But I am reading.

awk: work to mitigate frustrations.

<Wilco> Nobody has to follow ACT rules either

gregg: Most of W3C does voluntary standards.
... shooting holes in proposals is good.
... in the survey say: read the preamble.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say getting it wrong and accepting corrections is part of the process and to note WG review of WG work is also intensive

MC: it does cost us. we need public review.

<shadi> +1 to more public review

MC: need more broad review

<Rachael> draft Strawpoll: 1) Explore creating some process for delegating publication authority to taskforces 2) Do not explore delegate publication authority to the taskforces

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the process includes feedback from AGWG

<kirkwood> 2

<jaunitageorge1> Can we maybe adopt a peer review process on Github?

<jaunitageorge1> That way folks can give their input and not spend meeting time debating topics or cluttering inboxes with debate?

js: ag is still part of the process. But not a gatekeeper.
... not losing review. Just the gatekeeper part. Painful process.
... this groups is special but it also a group having problem publishing. Need to streamline.
... need to learn from other groups.

<AWK> Success is measured in many different ways...

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if there are any tweaks to the process

js: this proposal does not applies to silver.

chuck: we have lost people and expertise because of ag reviews.
... what could we implement to streamline?
... open to ideas.

gregg: case by case with case more anguish.
... if TF want to be a WG it should charter itself.
... think of Standards as a 5 year process. All groups loose people.

<Chuck> +1 to acknowledge Gregg's concerns with github

<kirkwood> +1 to forcing github being an issue

gregg: forcing things to GitHub will be more problematic.

wilco: we have one TF that does not report to AG.

rm: more than one.

shadi: we have many issues here that we are trying to address.
... explore other ways to streamline process.

<AWK> +1 to Shadi

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to run strawpoll

<Rachael> draft Strawpoll: 1) Explore creating some process for delegating publication authority to taskforces 2) Do not explore delegate publication authority to the taskforces but explore alternatives 3) Do not make any process changes in how the AG works with the taskforces

detlev: Things are getting more fragmented. Hard to get the full picture. Delegating to TFs might increase overall fragmentation of substantive work.

<jeanne> 1

<Peter_bossley> 2

<kirkwood> 1

<Chuck> 1, 2, 3

<AWK> "explore alternatives" = explore process improvements

<AWK> 2

<GreggVan> 2 -- all of the problem are real -- all task forces want to be able to act independently from working groups - but passing off the responsibility and review of the WG is not the answer. Informative docs can very clearly change the interpretation of normative

<Alyssa_Priddy_> 2

<Detlev> 0 - Worried that delegating publication to TFs might increase overall fragmentation of substantive work and make it harder to align things (because WCAG 3 will be one big puzzle where pieces need to fit together)

chuck: we are trying to tackle a lot of issues.

<kirkwood> change my vote: 2

<maryjom> 2, 1, 3

<Rachael> Please hang on in voting.

<Wilco> 1

<bruce_bailey> 1

chuck: this is an ongoing effort.

<Rachael> Strawpoll: 1) Explore creating some process for delegating publication authority to taskforces 2) Explore creating some process for delegating publication authority to taskforces and additional alternatives 3) Do not explore delegate publication authority to the taskforces but explore alternatives 3) Do not make any process changes in how the AG works with the taskforces

<jaunitageorge1> 2

<Chuck> Strawpoll: 1) Explore creating some process for delegating publication authority to taskforces 2) Explore creating some process for delegating publication authority to taskforces and additional alternatives 3) Do not explore delegate publication authority to the taskforces but explore alternatives 4) Do not make any process changes in how the AG works with the taskforces

<AWK> 3

<jaunitageorge1> 2

<Alyssa_Priddy_> 3

<maryjom> 3

<Wilco> 1

<ShawnT> 2

<GreggVan> 3 -- all of the problem are real -- all task forces want to be able to act independently from working groups - but passing off the responsibility and review of the WG is not the answer. Informative docs can very clearly change the interpretation of normative

<Rachael> 2, 1

<jon_avila> 3

<Detlev> can't tell

<Peter_bossley> 3, 4

<Francis_Storr> 3

Laura: 3

<bruce_bailey> 2 1 3 4

<MichaelC> 2,1,3

<kirkwood> 3

<jeanne> 1.2

<sarahhorton> 2, 1, 3

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say Shadi is right, that we are trying to address many different issues that have been raised

<Poornima> 3, 4

<Lauriat> 2 1

<GN015> 3

<jon_avila> I can scribe

<jon_avila> scribe: jon_avila

Chuck: Do see a subtle difference with 1 and 2 as some people while want to delegate - but some say considerate delegate but with other options.

<Chuck> 2

<mbgower> 3,2,1; I'm aware of challenges, but I'm also aware of challenges in the opposite direction

Rachael: Let's close as we are hour mark. If there are other comments on options - have those if needed and we will take feedback back.

<mgifford2_> 1,2 - took a while to figure out where the voting was happening.

Bruce: The context is that these are only informative documents. Larger group could find a contradiction between documents but that is one out of 20.

Rachael: Team will take feedback and vote via email and in meeting with next steps

Subgroup recruitment

<GreggVan> +1 to bruce if 5% of our ruling are not good.....

<Rachael> • Reminder about subgroup survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-april-23/

Rachael, there is a survey open about sub-groups.

Rachael: Signup - we run 6 to 8 subgroups over the next few months. We don't have enough staffing to bring expertise into group. So we need to recruit. We will reach out to fill out this subgroups around guidelines. Bring people in as temporary basis through community group process.
... If you know of people who are experts - send email to AG chairs or ag-plan with that recommendation.

<laura> s/drraft. /draft. /

Gregg: On topic of input - if you could publish or toss comments into the group. If each subgroup had a way to accept comments that would be good.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if any public facing document or listserv email that time commitment

Bruce: is that described on an email list?

Rachael: We are doing 8 week sprint and we consider more.

Bruce: If we could point to something it would be good to refer people to

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to repeat what I think I heard Gregg suggest?

Bruce: looking for something to help me as a recruiter to point people to

<Chuck> jon_avila: If we can post something on listserve, I use that to view the groups. I lost opportunity to join and then couldn't join. It would be good to do more than just discuss it.

<Chuck> Rachael: I'll circle back with you jon.

<Chuck> jon_avila: It didn't seem as clear this time.

<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12O-1BKwlx4iR43GvFzmScejq2xU9V-rehrlxN42st5M/

Wilco: There is the subgroup handbook which provide details and how much time it takes. You need to give permission that work is the W3Cs.

<bruce_bailey> i am also looking for description of near and mid term sprint goals

<kirkwood> +1 SME Subject Matter Expert involvement and community group resources being surfaced more effectively

Detlev: There are many overlaps between requirements - how will that be sorted out if we have different groups.

<Chuck> yes it was Gregg, sorry if I said Bruce.

Gregg: My suggestion to Chuck to have people through ideas over the wall - that includes people who are not part of the working group.

<Chuck> I was definitely asking about Gregg's idea.

<laura> s/suervey/survey/

<kirkwood> I would suggest potentially look at what COGA has been doing with its community group

Gregg: if we have a subgroup doing subgroup - is it possible to bring someone into the working group but not be a full member.

Rachael: The purpose of what we are discussing is with bringing people in from the community group.

Luis: Could not access subgroup link

<bruce_bailey> With the Handbook, the Deliverables / Commitment / Timeline -- are excellent and what I was looking for.

<bruce_bailey> I am also hoping for public facing list of nearterm needs for SME

Rachael: to answer Detlev's questions on tracking - divided up with goal of 8 week sprint is to work from the guideline level to the outcome level - but wanted to work through all of the outcome level for all and take what we learned from that process and then break out into subgroups.

<Detlev> OK, thanks Rachael

<Rachael> q

Other WCAG 2.2 issues survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

<Chuck> Luis, was it the survey you were unable to access? If so, please try again: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-april-23/?login

<laura> s/to /to /

<Luis> It's working now, Chuck. Thanks!

Does anyone have an issue with Moving Focus Visible back to AA?

Rachael: We have a survey - but before that I want to bring up email list topic and we want to make sure everyone had a chance to comment on it. Does anyone have an issue with moving focus visible back to AA

<Rachael> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023AprJun/0013.html https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/85WipMRS/image.png

<Rachael> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023AprJun/0013.html

<Rachael> • https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files

Rachael: If Focus appearance is going to be AAA we don't need Focus Visible at A.
... Are there any concerns with leave it at AA?

Gregg: I want to speak for moving it back. Is there some gotcha

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Moving Focus Visible back to AA

<Peter_bossley> +1

<GreggVan> +1 thanks Wilco

<Chuck> +1

Wilco: this is focus visible we are talking about - it was previously at AA - it had been proposed to move to A - and we are moving it back as it will less work.

<bruce_bailey> 0 because less messy, but belongs at A

<kirkwood> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Alyssa_Priddy_> +1

<mgifford2_> Gotta jump off, but good to learn more about the discussions of the AG.

<Chuck> jon_avila: I just mentioned that we do have SC 1.4.11,which does cover focus....

<Chuck> jon_avila: I agree with Mike that it makes sense to have it at A, but I think it's fine to leave it at AA. Most regs adopt A and AA, so no material difference. A would be appropriate if it wasn't so messy.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Moving Focus Visible back to AA

<mbgower> +1

<laura> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Luis> +1

Mbgower: Should we come up with another AA it would be good to have it at A but less complicated to leave at AA

<jaunitageorge1> +1

<GN015> 0, sorry for it, yet can live with it

<Rachael> +.5

+1 but would be ok with A

<Wilco> +1

<Francis_Storr> 0.5

<mbgower> if we were going to go through a lot for 2.x versions, I'd be advocating leaving it at A

Bruce: The draft resolution didn't change right?

Rachael: no

<Chuck> this is.... RESOLUTION: Moving Focus Visible back to AA

RESOLUTION: Moving Focus Visible back to AA

Add '(Minimum)' to the name of SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication #3087

<Rachael> email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023AprJun/0013.html

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3087

Rachael: next one related to authentication

Mbgower: While it seems great, it's not actually what we do to always follow (minimum) pattern.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Add '(Minimum)' to the name of SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication #3087 to “Accessible Authentication (Minimum)”

Chuck: We have used that naming convention for other standards - that naming is for less and more restrictive

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Raf> +1

<Poornima> +1

<Luis> +1

<laura> +1

<jaunitageorge1> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Peter_bossley> +1

<GreggVan> +1 it also draws attention to the better one

<kirkwood> +1

<Alyssa_Priddy_> 0

<GN015> +1

RESOLUTION: Add '(Minimum)' to the name of SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication #3087 to “Accessible Authentication (Minimum)”

Programmatically Determined example describes outdated direct parsing of markup #3001

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3049/files

<Rachael> Determined in a markup language from elements and attributes that are accessed via the accessibility tree by commonly available assistive technology.

Rachael: The general change here is addressing an issue Wilco rose around programmatically determined. The change is to element and attributes used vs. accessed in tree - wording pasted by Rachael above

Mbgower: The current wording is determined in a markup language that is accessed directly The argument is that they are accessed through user agent. How do we express that.

Rachael: 3 people who agreed with 2.2 only - but ok with errata with slight preference with 2.2

Gregg: Comments - we should not rely just on the accessibility tree when other methods are used commonly

Stefan: had some wording changes by programmatically determinable

Awk: agree it's better as it is in tree rather than how it handled by AT.

Wilco: doesn't seem necessary - language is just wrong. Tree has nodes and properties. AT gathers other things

<mbgower> '... that are surfaced through the user agent'?

<Chuck> jon_avila: I agree with Wilco, and I use AT that accesses the dom. I think there is an inaccurate assumption. This wording is too specific, it's fine to leave as is.

Mbgower: don't have a strong opinion - if we really think the language is wrong we should address - if it's been around for decades should we change it. We could talk about user agent rather than tree.

Bruce: whatever we land on should be done for 2.0 and 2.1 just as 2.2

Rachael: did I miss anyone who had responded to the survey?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I'm persuaded that the language is incorrect.

<mbgower> suggest: Determined in a markup language from elements and attributes are available from the user agent

Chuck: I'm convinced that language is wrong - I'm not sure I like it even if it accurate and I would at least want to see it. There are some technical inaccuracies

<mbgower> oops: Determined in a markup language from elements and attributes that are available from the user agent

<Rachael> strawpoll: 1) Update language in 2.2 with errata 2.1 and 2.0 2) Leave the current language and update understanding 3) something else

<bruce_bailey> please be clear if 2.2 or 2.1 or 2.0 ?

<Wilco> 2

<mbgower> 2

<Chuck> 2

<jaunitageorge1> 2

<JenStrickland> 2

<Rachael> 2

<bruce_bailey> 1

<GreggVan> 2

<mbgower> 2 and maybe 3, changing to the user agent

<bruce_bailey> 1 , okay with 2

<Detlev> I pass on that, can't tell

<GreggVan> 2 or 3 change to 1) remove directly and 2) change to Assistive technology and accessibility features in user agents

mbgower: probably are words accessed directly - or perhaps accessed via the user agent - that could also be mentioned in the understanding document.

<Chuck> 2 has the consensus

Rachael: we do have a preference to understanding document. This would allow us to handle this after CR

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Update the understanding document and bring proposal back to group. for Issue #3001

<Chuck> +1

<Peter_bossley> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

<jaunitageorge1> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<JenStrickland> +1

<Wilco> +1

<mbgower> +.5

RESOLUTION: Update the understanding document and bring proposal back to group. for Issue #3001

Focus obscured understanding updates #3074

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3074/files

mbgower: Addressing 1 of 2 challenge with focus obscured. The first is adding a note that was previously in content but at bottom of intent - just moving it up.
... The other update is adding some additional changes to the understanding document to support that.

Rachael: Does anyone who choose agree want to speak to it before moving to agree with adjustments.
... Bruce's suggestion to use active voice - followed by Detlev's comment on that suggestion.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2751

<mbgower> That will be in a future PR, for context

Melanie: I'm happy with where it came out - some compromise there but satisfied.

Rachael: We have general agreement and no one in queue
... Does anyone have change with change for active voice?

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept #3074 with slight wording changes.

<Detlev> +1

Mbgower: The material Melanie is talking about is in a separate survey - this one is about moving wording and some wording changes.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Wilco> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<mbgower> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<jaunitageorge1> +1

<Rachael> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept #3074 with slight wording changes

Alignment of structure/wording of Target Size SCs #3086

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3097/files

Rachael: Start conversation to discuss differences between SC's related to target size.
... General agreement, 9 people agreed. Wilco had said something else - and that wording changes changed meaning.

<bruce_bailey> +q to ask about implications for AAA target size enhanced

<bruce_bailey> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#target-size-enhanced

Wilco: This was a decision we already made.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about implications for AAA target size enhanced

Rachael: This was an issue that was brought back up

Bruce: I remember that we were not going to revist the 44x44 but that we would come back to discuss inline exception after we worked that out. We have 2 different inline exception definitions.

<bruce_bailey> we have two different definitions for "inline" exception

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3097

<bruce_bailey> +1

Wilco: Not sure why this is changing target size minimum. This looks like most recent agreed language for minimum?

mbgower: for context - this has been sitting around for a while and target size minimum would have to be adopted onto it. This update the currently published target size minimum language. You could be confusing when and where - it's just a grammatical change here.

Wilco: the PR updates both SC. And to what we are changing - we are normatively changing the enhance - so the essential exception is modified and lumps them into equivalent exception. Making it less strict.

<Detlev> Thanks Wilco . did not realize that difference immediately

<Chuck> Thanks Wilco.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Resurvey this with the new wording and addressing the concern raised by Wilco regarding expanding the exception

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Wilco> 0, would prefer no normative change

<mbgower> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<laura> +1

<GN015> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Detlev> +1

RESOLUTION: Resurvey this with the new wording and addressing the concern raised by Wilco regarding expanding the exception

"Very similar" examples are actually "exactly the same" #2692

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if put to survey, be explicit with present

Bruce: please have the phrasing in survey as it's hard to parse the pull requests that get edits

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3131/files

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3131

<Chuck> +1

<Detlev> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<laura> +1

<mbgower> +1

<JenStrickland> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<jaunitageorge1> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3131

<GreggVan> congrats Rachael

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

11 Apr 2023

Attendees

Contents

New members and topics

Announcements

WCAG2ICT Second Content Review Survey

Proposal to change Taskforce Authority Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/authority-to-publish-23/results

Subgroup recruitment

Other WCAG 2.2 issues survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

Does anyone have an issue with Moving Focus Visible back to AA?

Add '(Minimum)' to the name of SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication #3087

Programmatically Determined example describes outdated direct parsing of markup #3001

Focus obscured understanding updates #3074

Alignment of structure/wording of Target Size SCs #3086

"Very similar" examples are actually "exactly the same" #2692

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output