AGWG Teleconference -- 12 Dec 2023

<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2023-12-12

<scribe> scribe: dj

Chuck: introductions?
... announcements:
... last AGWG call of 2023
... next meeting as a group january 9th
... 2: WCAG 2 is 15 years old yesterday!

<Jennie> * Applause!

Chuck: one of the more successful standards written
... in regulations, has impact, glad to be involved

Mike5Matrix: minor changes in people's inboxes

New ACT Rules (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/3549)

Chuck: 3: new ACT rules

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/3549

<scribe> ... new process w/ reviews on github ...: +1: reaction if you approve
... only bring them up in calls if there are disagreements that are brought up
... not as much support of this as expected, so refactoring this call
... we're going through the exercises today
... in the future we want participation outside of the calls so we don't have to take up time doing this
... make sure to use the :+1: (thumps up) instead of the up arrow
... thumps up now if you support
... most of these don't have comments and just have support
... "HTML images and no text" has some comments

<Chuck> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2149/files#diff-92587515eaeca8f5e156032c3003c940d71e9033a1bbf3eebe11b72f8b545d96R48

Wilco: are any of these comments blockers?

Chuck: that's what we want to discuss here
... but we hope people get comfortable making those comments in the discussion

Mike5Matrix: if a comment is just a suggestion, it might be useful to say that it's not a blocker in your comment

<Rachael> +1 to adding a statement "Ok to publish." at the top when applicable.

Mike5Matrix: that way we're not waiting on people's responses

Chuck: please thumps up/down now
... also please comment if you thumbs down
... thumbs down w/ comment is a significant blocker

GreggVan: first one might need a little bit of plain language background

Rachael: chair hat off
... if auto refresh delay pauses the auto refresh, how does that work with interruptions?

Wilco: meta refresh tells the browser to refresh after a specific number of seconds regardless of what you're doing

lori: why not just put in the there the html so that people don't have to look this up

Wilco: we want to leave this a bit open so we can get specific testing

dan_bjorge: a more appropriate place for a code sample would be a failure example

Chuck: we would have preferred for people to go through what we just did on the discussion instead of in the call
... since no one raised objections/blockers
... i don't see a lot of :+1: on the page, so please do that
... when we're looking to pass these, we're both looking for blockers and substantive positive agreement from AGWG
... that way we know people reviewed the content and approve it

ljoakley: there isn't enough time to go through all of these in the meeting right now

Chuck: i understand
... we put this out weeks ago so that people had that opportunity
... (respectfully)
... we're aware this is a new process

Rachael: part of this process is that after approval in a meeting we wait 5 days before merging so people have time to do a deeper review

ljoakley: where was this sent out?
... not in my email

Chuck: AGWG agenda lists (future) topics; this one was labelled urgent

<julierawe> Chuck, can you show the email that has the agenda items?

Chuck: these types of things will go out a couple weeks early in the future
... also on the agenda page
... also a third way (see NOTE later)

<dan_bjorge> @julierawe: see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023OctDec/0072.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023OctDec/0074.html

Chuck: so three ways

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

Rachael: agenda page has everything going on for the next few weeks
... this is the best place to go for info
... agenda emails also have a lot of info

<Rachael> link to agendas page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

mbgower: everyone knowing the agenda page lists this is useful

<Chuck> dj: I missed the third way.

<Rachael> publication approach discussion for january 9th: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33

NOTE: third way is an email in the AGWG list (not the agenda email)

<Rachael> Evaluation Criteria for Conformance Models (Jan 16th) https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/34

<kevin> qq+

NOTE2: i thought Mike5Matrix was mbgower; Mike5Matrix scribes are actually from mbgower

GreggVan: i get ~30 emails/day from WCAG, so it is sometimes hard to find them
... i find it helpful when "AGENDA" is in the subject
... could we also have a link in the calling page though?

Chuck: does Wilco have enough feedback for his subgroup to continue?

Wilco: if we don't get thumbsdown in the discussion in the next 5 days we will continue

GreggVan: if there are substantive comments will you keep going or repost it?

Wilco: if there are thumbs down we will wait

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to GreggVan

kevin: i will add a link to agendas in the W3C calendar instance

<shadi> +1 to update W3C calendar!

<GreggVan> +1 to that

kevin: we also won't be doing Telcon anymore hopefully

WCAG2ICT issues (https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Please+Review%22)

Chuck: WCAG2ICT process is the same as above
... if we don't get any substantive negatives we assume it's approved, but not acted upon for 5 days

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/270

Chuck: if there's anything that jumps out at you as a concern, please comment and downvote soon

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/269

maryjom_: we already discussed whether to include intent from WCAG
... we have been keeping it because it helps in the meantime before publishing
... we'll take a look at it later

Chuck: not a blocker at this time?

maryjom_: no

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/268

maryjom_: there was conversation & notes in 2.5.7 (#268)
... we were trying to say applications aren't responsible for dragging because that's the OS's job

Chuck: not a blocker because no thumbs down?

maryjom_: correct

Chuck: note: this particular issue isn't for the whole WCAG2ICT, just this note

mbgower: should people who intend to review this assign themselves to the issues?

<Jaunita_George> +1 to Mike Gower

mbgower: right now we can't tell whether people are intending to review something
... that way maryjom_ could follow up with them

Chuck: that's a good idea; we'll discuss it
... wonderful feedback

<mbgower> I'm just seeing that as we work more asynchronously, we need more 'hooks'

Jennie: is there a way to enable contacting someone to discuss something outside of the github process? some people prefer conversing

Chuck: we will review that as well

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/267

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/266

maryjom_: no comments on #267
... on #266, people say that success criterion should always be capitalized
... i haven't seen that, but is there a style guide?

Chuck: 5 upvotes no downvotes
... we'd like this process to occur asynchronously

<Chuck> dj: Upvotes or thumbs up?

Chuck: i've also noted a few etiquette suggestions from the call