15:57:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:57:30 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-irc
15:57:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:57:32 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:58:08 <jeroen> present+
15:58:25 <kevin> Meeting: AGWG/APA Joint Meeting
15:58:28 <Rachael> present+
15:58:39 <alastairc> chair:Chuck
15:58:44 <kevin> RRSagent, make minutes
15:58:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html kevin
15:58:53 <matatk> present+
15:58:53 <alastairc> Meeting: Joint AGWG and APA meeting
15:58:54 <PaulG> PaulG has joined #ag
15:58:58 <PaulG> present+
15:59:04 <kevin> present+
15:59:42 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:59:51 <chrisp> chrisp has joined #AG
16:00:45 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #AG
16:00:54 <Roy> Roy has joined #ag
16:00:56 <alastairc> agenda+ Current Status
16:00:56 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #ag
16:01:03 <alastairc> agenda+ Content maturity and publication approach
16:01:10 <alastairc> agenda+ Discussion: Best ways to engage in work
16:01:19 <shiestyle> present+
16:01:54 <sabidussi_marco> sabidussi_marco has joined #ag
16:02:13 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
16:02:23 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:02:24 <hdv> present+
16:02:24 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14aDIKVA8UOYefJ1cGVcuBePgurDR0wo4oqbq-pBj5Ac/edit#slide=id.g305973ee0d0_0_65
16:02:31 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:02:33 <Fazio> present+
16:02:33 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
16:02:44 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:02:49 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:03:13 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:03:19 <Frankie> present+
16:03:53 <sabidussi_marco> present+
16:04:04 <janina1> janina1 has joined #ag
16:04:11 <janina1> present+
16:04:39 <ljoakley> present+
16:05:01 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #AG
16:05:14 <CharlesL> present+
16:05:19 <MJ> present+
16:05:37 <Roy> present+
16:05:48 <Chuck> q?
16:06:19 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:06:24 <tiffanyburtin> present+
16:06:36 <Lisa> present+
16:06:43 <Lisa> I love Rachaels hat
16:07:08 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 - great hat!
16:07:21 <fbedora> fbedora has joined #ag
16:07:34 <fbedora> present+
16:07:48 <alastairc> q?
16:07:48 <kevin> q?
16:07:53 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:07:56 <Chuck> q?
16:07:57 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:08:03 <kenneth> present+
16:08:18 <Ben_Tillyer|2> Ben_Tillyer|2 has joined #ag
16:08:28 <Ben_Tillyer|2> present+
16:08:36 <alastairc> present+
16:08:44 <alastairc> agenda?
16:09:01 <alastairc> zakim, take up item 11
16:09:01 <Zakim> agendum 11 -- Content maturity and publication approach -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:09:07 <alastairc> zakim, close item 1
16:09:07 <Zakim> agendum 1, 9:00-9:15 Getting Started, closed
16:09:08 <Angela> Angela has joined #ag
16:09:09 <alastairc> zakim, close item 2
16:09:09 <Zakim> I see 11 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:09 <Zakim> 2. 9:15-10:20 Conformance Exercise Wrap Up [from kevin]
16:09:09 <Zakim> agendum 2, 9:15-10:20 Conformance Exercise Wrap Up, closed
16:09:09 <Zakim> I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:09 <Zakim> 3. 10:20-10:45 Snacks [from kevin]
16:09:10 <alastairc> zakim, close item 3
16:09:10 <Zakim> agendum 3, 10:20-10:45 Snacks, closed
16:09:12 <Zakim> I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:12 <Zakim> 4. 10:45-12:20 Conformance Model Discussion Part 1 [from kevin]
16:09:12 <alastairc> zakim, close item 4
16:09:13 <Zakim> agendum 4, 10:45-12:20 Conformance Model Discussion Part 1, closed
16:09:13 <Zakim> I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:13 <Zakim> 5. 12:20-1:30 (13:30) Lunch [from kevin]
16:09:14 <alastairc> zakim, close item 5
16:09:15 <Zakim> agendum 5, 12:20-1:30 (13:30) Lunch, closed
16:09:15 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:15 <Zakim> 6. 1:30 (13:30)-4:00 (16:00) Conformance Model Discussion Part 2 [from kevin]
16:09:16 <alastairc> zakim, close item 6
16:09:17 <Zakim> agendum 6, 1:30 (13:30)-4:00 (16:00) Conformance Model Discussion Part 2, closed
16:09:17 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:17 <Zakim> 7. 4:00 (16:15)-4:30 (16:30) Snacks [from kevin]
16:09:17 <Angela> Present+
16:09:19 <alastairc> zakim, close item 7
16:09:19 <Zakim> agendum 7, 4:00 (16:15)-4:30 (16:30) Snacks, closed
16:09:20 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:20 <Zakim> 8. 4:30 (16:30)-5:15 (17:15) Next Steps [from kevin]
16:09:25 <alastairc> zakim, close item 8
16:09:25 <Zakim> agendum 8, 4:30 (16:30)-5:15 (17:15) Next Steps, closed
16:09:26 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:26 <Zakim> 9. 6:00 Dinner at the Cheesecake Factory’s Patio? [from kevin]
16:09:26 <alastairc> zakim, close item 9
16:09:27 <Zakim> agendum 9, 6:00 Dinner at the Cheesecake Factory’s Patio?, closed
16:09:27 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:09:27 <Zakim> 10. Current Status [from alastairc]
16:09:41 <alastairc> scribe+
16:09:56 <Fazio> q+
16:10:11 <alastairc> Rachael: Talks through slides. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14aDIKVA8UOYefJ1cGVcuBePgurDR0wo4oqbq-pBj5Ac/edit#slide=id.g305973ee0d0_0_60
16:11:28 <Chuck> ack david
16:11:45 <Chuck> ack fazio
16:12:04 <Rachael> q+
16:12:24 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:13:16 <matatk> q+
16:13:25 <Chuck> ack matatk
16:13:35 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
16:14:13 <Chuck> q?
16:15:21 <PaulG> I think the % approach leaves too much "wiggle room" for entities to not fulfill their responsibility while staying in compliance with laws and regulations.
16:15:42 <Sheri_B-H> Sheri_B-H has joined #ag
16:15:49 <Sheri_B-H> present+
16:16:06 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
16:16:25 <alastairc> PaulG - it depends what goes into baseline. If baseline is similar to WCAG 2 AA, then the % becomes a way to score more than baseline. If the baseline is slightly less, it depends what % you define.
16:16:27 <Fazio> using the term maturity levels in your process can be problematic as it may be construed as maturity model applicable somehow
16:16:40 <Rain> present+
16:16:55 <Fazio> q+
16:16:57 <alastairc> Open to other terms, but "maturity" as a term is much wider than models
16:17:07 <Charli> Charli has joined #ag
16:17:14 <Chuck> ack fazio
16:17:26 <PaulG> "status" could work
16:17:35 <hdv> +1 to Fazio's point
16:17:41 <Rachael> q+
16:17:44 <janina1> q+
16:17:46 <kevin> -1
16:18:04 <Ben_Tillyer|2> -1 to David's point
16:18:28 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/maturity-model/
16:18:34 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
16:18:51 <alastairc> The use of "mature" content is very common, including in W3C
16:19:03 <Chuck> ack janina
16:19:19 <kevin> q+ to talk about database
16:19:34 <Fazio> I honestly foresee confusion down the road
16:19:38 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:19:48 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Janina that "mature" or "maturity" cannot be reserved for AMM
16:19:56 <Ben_Tillyer|2> q+
16:20:12 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:20:12 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to talk about database
16:20:38 <kirkwood> present+
16:21:05 <BrianE> Could someone post the link to the slides again? I missed it the first time around
16:21:13 <hdv> q+
16:21:21 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14aDIKVA8UOYefJ1cGVcuBePgurDR0wo4oqbq-pBj5Ac/edit#slide=id.g305973ee0d0_0_75
16:21:25 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:21:46 <bruce_bailey> s/cannot be reserved for AMM/cannot be reserved term for use only in context of AMM
16:21:50 <Ben_Tillyer|2> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#maturity-stages
16:21:53 <Justine> Justine has joined #ag
16:22:02 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:22:17 <Rachael> q+
16:22:33 <Chuck> q+
16:22:44 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:22:44 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:22:44 <maryjom> present+
16:22:53 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:23:27 <kenneth> q+
16:23:41 <Chuck> ack ch
16:23:49 <Chuck> ack kenneth
16:24:20 <Chuck> q?
16:24:24 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#section-status-levels
16:25:32 <Chuck5> Chuck5 has joined #ag
16:25:36 <Chuck5> q?
16:29:08 <Chuck5> q?
16:29:29 <Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel_Wolberger has joined #AG
16:29:36 <Lionel_Wolberger> present+
16:29:39 <Lionel_Wolberger> q?
16:29:48 <Lionel_Wolberger> zakim, who is here?
16:29:48 <Zakim> Present: Makoto, Chuck, Francis_Storr, Glenda, dj, kevin, Jennie_Delisi, alastairc, kirkwood, kenneth, bruce_bailey, giacomo-petri, Ben_Tillyer, tburtin, MJ, julierawe, Sheri_B-H,
16:29:51 <Zakim> ... maryjom, ChrisLoiselle, JJ, Justine, Frankie, MelanieP, Patrick_H_Lauke, Rachael, JenStrickland, Lisa, jon_avila, Shawn(part), shadi, fbedora, GreggVan, Léonie, Rain,
16:29:51 <Zakim> ... wendyreid, (limited, to, 2:00, may, return, before, EOD, depending, on, APA, Maturity, Model, discussion), jaunita_george, shiestyle, chrisp, jeanne, tiffanyburtin, jeroen,
16:29:51 <Zakim> ... matatk, PaulG, hdv, Fazio, sabidussi_marco, janina, ljoakley, CharlesL, Roy, Ben_Tillyer|, Angela, Lionel_Wolberger
16:29:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see Lionel_Wolberger, Chuck5, Francis_Storr, maryjom, Justine, BrianE, Charli, Rain, Sheri_B-H, kirkwood, Angela, Ben_Tillyer|2, giacomo-petri, CharlesL, janina1, Frankie,
16:29:55 <Zakim> ... Jennie_Delisi, MJ, bruce_bailey, Fazio, sabidussi_marco, shiestyle, Roy, Lisa, chrisp, PaulG, RRSAgent, matatk, JackieFei, ljoakley, gpellegrino, GreggVan, shawn7, tink, Zakim,
16:30:00 <Zakim> ... jeroen, kenneth, jcraig, jedi, alastairc, cwilso, ChrisLoiselle, bwang, hdv, Daniel, elguerrero, Rachael, kevin
16:31:08 <fbedora> fbedora has joined #ag
16:32:16 <kirkwood> +1 to Janina
16:32:22 <Chuck5> q?
16:32:41 <JackieFei> present+
16:33:15 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Janina points
16:33:53 <Lionel_Wolberger> +1 from me too
16:35:58 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
16:36:34 <ZoeBijl> ZoeBijl has joined #ag
16:37:21 <Chuck5> q+
16:37:59 <Chuck5> ack Ch
16:38:15 <alastairc> https://deploy-preview-112--wcag3.netlify.app/
16:38:18 <hdv> thanks!
16:38:25 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
16:38:33 <jaunita_george> Present+
16:39:00 <alastairc> This content is automatically generated from this PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112
16:39:46 <bruce_bailey> For the Focus Visible Decision Tree specfically:  https://deploy-preview-112--wcag3.netlify.app/focus-appearance/methods/
16:41:19 <Sheri_B-H> q+
16:41:25 <Lionel_Wolberger> q+
16:41:59 <Chuck5> ack Sheri
16:42:53 <Fazio> sheri is talking psychological flow
16:42:56 <Fazio> +1
16:43:00 <jaunita_george> q+
16:43:03 <Chuck5> ack lion
16:44:58 <CharlesL> q+
16:45:04 <alastairc> q+ on how/whether conformance is part of WCAG vs elsewhere.
16:45:19 <kevin> q+
16:45:26 <alastairc> ack jaunita_george
16:45:40 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
16:45:53 <Chuck> q?
16:45:58 <sabidussi_marco> sabidussi_marco has joined #ag
16:46:07 <Chuck> ack Charles
16:46:08 <Rain> q+
16:46:40 <Chuck> ack ala
16:46:40 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how/whether conformance is part of WCAG vs elsewhere.
16:47:18 <Rachael> q+  to answer number of levels
16:47:33 <hdv> q+
16:47:35 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
16:48:29 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:48:50 <kirkwood> “regulators” will always choose the middle
16:49:12 <alastairc> Hmm, that does argue for more levels then
16:50:07 <Chuck> ack Rain
16:50:31 <Ben_Tillyer|2> +1 my understanding too
16:50:50 <hdv> re choosing middle: didn't regulators also choose AA, because AAA is sometimes impossible to completely meet all criteria at the same itme?
16:50:57 <Jon_avila> Where is the conformance model with the challenge of something minor failing the baseline?
16:50:57 <kirkwood> regulations will say you “need it to be accessible to x community” if it’s “not an undue burden” to the business
16:51:07 <Jon_avila> I agree pre req isn't really a level.
16:51:11 <kenneth> +1 I suspected "level" might've been causing some of the confusion that came up earlier in the week
16:51:25 <kevin> +1 to Rain's point on worrying about what regulators might do
16:51:28 <alastairc> q+ on having to round-robin between content and conformance / structure
16:51:31 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:51:31 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer number of levels
16:51:31 <kirkwood> +1
16:51:44 <bruce_bailey> @kirkwood regulators always picking the middle is not correct in my experience
16:51:54 <kirkwood> +1 to Rain
16:52:09 <Jon_avila> I worry that if we have too many levels people will become complacent with only meeting a minimum level - unless regulators choose a high level.
16:52:43 <Jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:52:50 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
16:52:52 <Sheri_B-H> q+
16:52:57 <Makoto> present+
16:53:14 <Makoto> q+
16:53:26 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:54:11 <CharlesL> q+
16:54:15 <Chuck> ack ala
16:54:15 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on having to round-robin between content and conformance / structure
16:55:26 <Chuck> ack Sheri
16:55:27 <kirkwood> Think we should keep in mind It worked before. Very well in my opinion. Changing it will be a risk. We should think if its worth it.
16:56:13 <Chuck> ack Makoto
16:57:01 <Sheri_B-H> Sheri discussed that we need a good definition of harm.  Everyone agrees flashing causes harm, but what about timeouts, keyboard traps, and financial harm?
16:57:03 <alastairc> Sheri_B-H - We do have a strawman proposal, look through the outcomes sheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nenidaKR6JmqqlETwyIPRCR7x6atFOwNXUMMTFwGHxs/edit?gid=0#gid=0
16:57:03 <Ben_Tillyer|2> +1 to Makoto
16:57:05 <Chuck> ack Char
16:57:23 <Rachael> q+ to answer the % question
16:57:29 <alastairc> q+ to talk about applicability across sectors etc
16:57:37 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:57:37 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer the % question
16:58:23 <Jon_avila> In addition, we would not want folks to not do some of the baseline and do enhanced to get a certain score but not meet the baseline.
16:58:45 <Chuck> ack ala
16:58:45 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about applicability across sectors etc
16:59:00 <Rachael> q+ to go back to coordinating
16:59:03 <Ben_Tillyer|2> Session has 32 minutes left according to the schedule
16:59:16 <kevin> Correct
16:59:37 <Chuck> q?
16:59:42 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:59:42 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to go back to coordinating
16:59:43 <kirkwood> woo hoo!
16:59:56 <kzms2> kzms2 has joined #ag
17:00:08 <Angela> Angela has joined #ag
17:00:56 <Chuck> q?
17:01:07 <CharlesL> q+
17:01:11 <Chuck> ack Charles
17:02:24 <Chuck> q?
17:02:44 <Chuck> q?
17:03:05 <kevin> q+
17:03:12 <Chuck> ack kevin
17:04:26 <Rachael> q+
17:05:04 <CharlesL> Here is a link to Benetech's Global Certification program to help publishers create fully compliant EPUBs. https://bornaccessible.benetech.org/global-certified-accessible/
17:05:34 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:06:52 <Chuck> q?
17:08:11 <Chuck> q+
17:08:18 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:08:37 <Chuck> q?
17:08:55 <Rachael> proposal on coordination: 1. Publish 2. Meet and review publication and key question 3. 1 month to give us feedback
17:10:20 <kirkwood> +1
17:10:24 <Chuck> note:  APA chairs agree with the proposal, and will review on the 9th.
17:11:13 <Chuck> q?
17:11:47 <Rachael> q+
17:12:03 <Chuck> ack RAch
17:12:47 <kirkwood> financial harm
17:13:11 <alastairc> q+ on levels and percentages
17:13:47 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
17:13:59 <Sheri_B-H> q+
17:14:06 <kevin> ack alastairc
17:14:06 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on levels and percentages
17:15:17 <Rachael> q+
17:15:58 <Rachael> q+ to say levels could be based on % divided by functional needs
17:16:42 <kevin> ack Sheri_B-H
17:17:27 <kevin> ack Rachael
17:17:27 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say levels could be based on % divided by functional needs
17:17:28 <kirkwood> q+
17:17:55 <Ben_Tillyer|2> +1 to Rachael
17:17:56 <matatk> q+
17:18:03 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
17:18:09 <sabidussi_marco> sabidussi_marco has joined #ag
17:18:13 <Sheri_B-H> Sheri discussed that not everyone's 70 % would be the same, and the need for a recommendation of how companies report their levels and what amount of detail would be required
17:19:10 <alastairc> q+ to ask whether it's a good idea to give people the mechanisms to separate by group
17:19:31 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re considering performance evaluations
17:19:36 <kevin> Sheri, I worry that that is leaning into the regulator activity a bit too much
17:20:02 <alastairc> ack matatk
17:22:16 <Rachael> q+ to point to links and explainer
17:23:14 <alastairc> matatk - there is a list of decisions we try to keep: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_3_Timeline#Status
17:24:04 <Chuck> ack ala
17:24:05 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask whether it's a good idea to give people the mechanisms to separate by group
17:25:38 <kirkwood> +1 to Alastair
17:25:41 <Chuck> ack Jennie
17:25:41 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss considering performance evaluations
17:26:47 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:26:48 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to point to links and explainer
17:26:56 <janina1> q+f
17:27:05 <janina1> q+
17:27:09 <Chuck> ack f
17:27:24 <alastairc> Jennie_Delisi - did you mean that the employer is testing the potential employee on their knowledge of WCAG?
17:27:33 <matatk> q+
17:27:55 <Jennie_Delisi> alastairc - employers evaluate sometimes on a hired employee's ability to produce accessible content so it meets WCAG.
17:28:04 <alastairc> ah, thanks
17:29:00 <Jennie_Delisi> alastairc - they could also be hired to evaluate based on WCAG or code or design web or apps/software
17:29:03 <Chuck> ack janina
17:29:13 <Francis_Storr> present+
17:30:02 <Chuck> ack mat
17:31:11 <kevin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:31:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html kevin
17:31:21 <kevin> agenda?
17:31:29 <kevin> clear agenda
17:50:59 <JackieFei> JackieFei has joined #ag
17:51:07 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #AG
17:54:45 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #ag
17:56:25 <alastairc> zakim, close meeting
17:56:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close meeting', alastairc
17:56:32 <alastairc> zakim, end meeting
17:56:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Makoto, Chuck, Francis_Storr, Glenda, dj, kevin, Jennie_Delisi, alastairc, kirkwood, kenneth, bruce_bailey, giacomo-petri, Ben_Tillyer,
17:56:35 <Zakim> ... tburtin, MJ, julierawe, Sheri_B-H, maryjom, ChrisLoiselle, JJ, Justine, Frankie, MelanieP, Patrick_H_Lauke, Rachael, JenStrickland, Lisa, jon_avila, Shawn(part), shadi,
17:56:35 <Zakim> ... fbedora, GreggVan, Léonie, Rain, wendyreid, (limited, to, 2:00, may, return, before, EOD, depending, on, APA, Maturity, Model, discussion), jaunita_george, shiestyle, chrisp,
17:56:39 <Zakim> ... jeanne, tiffanyburtin, jeroen, matatk, PaulG, hdv, Fazio, sabidussi_marco, janina, ljoakley, CharlesL, Roy, Ben_Tillyer|, Angela, Lionel_Wolberger, JackieFei
17:56:39 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1
17:56:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html Zakim
17:56:46 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, alastairc; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:56:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:57:16 <alastairc> zakim, start meeting
17:57:23 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
17:57:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
17:57:39 <alastairc> zakim, start meeting
17:57:39 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:57:40 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
17:57:41 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
17:57:51 <maryjom> present+
17:58:07 <alastairc> agenda?
17:58:39 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
17:58:49 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG 3 Current status
17:58:58 <alastairc> agenda+ Content maturity and publication approach
17:59:05 <alastairc> agenda+ Discuss best ways to engage in work
17:59:11 <Francis_Storr> present+
17:59:20 <alastairc> agenda+ Community group intro
17:59:20 <shiestyle> present+
17:59:26 <JackieFei> present+
17:59:29 <alastairc> agenda+ Recruiting
18:00:16 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #ag
18:02:44 <Roy> Roy has joined #ag
18:02:48 <kirkwood> present+
18:02:51 <Rain> present+
18:03:00 <alastairc> Meeting: Joint meeting of AGWG and Internationalization
18:03:01 <sabidussi_marco> sabidussi_marco has joined #ag
18:03:20 <alastairc> chair: Chuck
18:03:24 <Jan> Jan has joined #ag
18:03:34 <alastairc> present+
18:03:43 <Jan> present+
18:03:57 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
18:04:02 <kenneth> present+
18:04:03 <r12a> r12a has joined #ag
18:04:16 <r12a> present+
18:04:24 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
18:04:26 <Frankie> present+
18:04:45 <xfq> xfq has joined #ag
18:05:20 <Sheri_B-H> Sheri_B-H has joined #ag
18:05:31 <Sheri_B-H> present+
18:05:36 <Rachael> present+
18:05:55 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
18:05:59 <julierawe> present+
18:06:34 <xfq> present+
18:06:45 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
18:06:49 <sabidussi_marco> present+
18:06:53 <MJ> present+
18:07:16 <Bert> Bert has joined #ag
18:08:37 <atsushi> atsushi has joined #ag
18:09:51 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
18:10:41 <julierawe> Can you please turn off the autozoom on the main camera?
18:10:48 <Ben_Tillyer|2> Ben_Tillyer|2 has joined #ag
18:10:56 <Ben_Tillyer|2> present+
18:11:09 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
18:11:19 <Makoto> present+
18:11:30 <Russell> Russell has joined #ag
18:11:41 <Russell> present+
18:12:49 <Charli> Charli has joined #ag
18:19:22 <Chuck> q?
18:19:46 <kenneth> slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14aDIKVA8UOYefJ1cGVcuBePgurDR0wo4oqbq-pBj5Ac/edit
18:20:14 <shawn7> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:20:14 <Zakim> Present: maryjom, Francis_Storr, shiestyle, JackieFei, kirkwood, Rain, alastairc, Jan, kenneth, r12a, Frankie, Sheri_B-H, Rachael, julierawe, xfq, sabidussi_marco, MJ,
18:20:17 <Zakim> ... Ben_Tillyer|, Makoto, Russell
18:20:46 <shawn7> present+ Shawn
18:22:35 <Chuck> q?
18:23:07 <tiffanyburtin> present+
18:23:32 <Chuck> present+
18:25:22 <alastairc> q+ to suggest default method of engagement
18:25:31 <Chuck> ack ala
18:25:31 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest default method of engagement
18:25:33 <xfq> q+
18:26:33 <Chuck> ack xfq
18:27:08 <alastairc> q+ on the breadth of scope
18:27:26 <kevin> q+ to say we are quite a way from FPWD
18:27:27 <Chuck> q+
18:27:36 <Chuck> ack Ch
18:27:56 <Chuck> ack ala
18:27:56 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the breadth of scope
18:29:00 <alastairc> https://deploy-preview-112--wcag3.netlify.app/focus-appearance/
18:30:16 <kevin> q-
18:30:22 <Rachael> q+ to ask about marking options likely to need internationalization
18:30:22 <Chuck> q?
18:30:33 <Chuck> ack Rach
18:30:33 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about marking options likely to need internationalization
18:30:56 <Ben_Tillyer|2> @kevin https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/wcag-3-fpwd/
18:31:44 <julierawe> q+
18:31:59 <Chuck> ack Julie
18:32:45 <xfq> q+
18:32:59 <alastairc> q+ to suggest the "Layout" and "Text and wording" sections are probably good places to start in https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag3/
18:33:30 <Chuck> ack xfq
18:33:33 <xfq> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/issues/new?assignees=&labels=REVIEW+REQUESTED%2CSR%2Cpending&projects=&template=request-a-self-review-check.yml&title=Spec_name+2023-mm-dd
18:34:19 <r12a> https://www.w3.org/International/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist
18:34:33 <Chuck> ack ala
18:34:33 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest the "Layout" and "Text and wording" sections are probably good places to start in https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag3/
18:35:14 <r12a> q+
18:35:31 <Chuck> ack r12a
18:36:46 <Chuck> q?
18:37:02 <Rachael> checklist is a link away at https://www.w3.org/International/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist
18:37:38 <Chuck> q?
18:37:44 <kevin> q+
18:38:08 <r12a> https://www.w3.org/International/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist
18:38:38 <Chuck> ack kevin
18:39:04 <Chuck> +1
18:39:07 <Chuck> q?
18:40:02 <Chuck> q+
18:40:04 <Chuck> ack Ch
18:41:20 <r12a> q+
18:41:30 <Rachael> q+
18:41:43 <Chuck> ack Richard
18:42:01 <Chuck> ack r12a
18:42:15 <Justine> Justine has joined #ag
18:42:29 <Chuck> +1
18:42:51 <alastairc> +1, suggest initial review at 'developing' stage for each guideline.
18:42:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
18:42:54 <xfq> +1
18:43:47 <Chuck> q?
18:44:50 <kevin> q?
18:45:40 <kirkwood> +1
18:45:56 <Chuck> q?
18:45:59 <kevin> +1 for try and iterate
18:46:36 <alastairc> I think the first try could be with the next publication, we have 2 guidelines moving to 'developing'
18:46:39 <Jan> This is the process the community group is following to provide initial feedback on WCAG 3 outcomes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yl2YMuqhwmWlOi8XC3EcFCkDTWda01zMo8GhnJrkvTg/edit?usp=sharing
18:46:47 <Chuck> +1 alastair
18:47:40 <Rachael> Proposal: 1. CG and Internationalization WG review outcomes and let AG know which items are likely to need internationalization input 2. AG will send guidelines over when they reach developing for review and feedback 3. We will check in after we get feedback to see if this process is working
18:48:21 <Jan> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yUszRV-VEdoga1OVRgSCrw-XQEZ5Kt6s7PDfieLWh38/edit?usp=sharing
18:49:09 <r12a> q+
18:49:12 <Chuck> q+ to share that the link is not shared
18:52:50 <Chuck> ack Ch
18:52:50 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to share that the link is not shared
18:53:08 <Chuck> ack R12
18:53:23 <Chuck> q?
18:53:30 <Rachael> q+
18:53:39 <Chuck> ack Rach
18:55:44 <julierawe> q+
18:56:18 <Chuck> ack Julie
18:57:17 <Chuck> q?
18:57:29 <r12a> q+
18:57:39 <Makoto> q+
18:57:47 <Chuck> ack r12
18:58:24 <xfq> https://w3c.social/@webi18n
18:58:27 <Chuck> ack mak
18:58:32 <xfq> Mastodon account ^
18:59:40 <Daniel> Present+
19:00:37 <shawn7> Q+
19:00:44 <Chuck> ack shawn
19:00:53 <Chuck> q+ shawn
19:01:03 <shawn7> q-
19:01:13 <Chuck> q?
19:01:14 <shawn7> my comment was too specific :-)
19:01:20 <Chuck> q?
19:01:39 <shawn7> +1 to Makoto
19:01:49 <Rachael> Proposal: 1. CG and Internationalization WG review outcomes and let AG know which items are likely to need internationalization input 2. AG will send guidelines over when they reach developing for review and feedback 3. We will check in after we get feedback to see if this process is working
19:02:01 <Jan> The next community group meeting is on October 9, 2024 at 9:00 EST
19:02:18 <kevin> q+
19:02:25 <alastairc> + AG will incorporate the i18n checklist into our process.
19:02:42 <Rain> q+
19:02:43 <Chuck> ack kevin
19:03:16 <Chuck> ack rain
19:03:18 <Rachael> Proposal: 1. CG and Internationalization WG review outcomes and let AG know which items are likely to need internationalization input 2. AG will incorporate checklist into the working documents  3. AG will send guidelines over when they reach developing for review and feedback 4. We will check in after we get feedback to see if this process is working
19:03:28 <Russell> present-
19:03:59 <Rachael> q+
19:04:02 <Chuck> ack rach
19:04:35 <julierawe> q+
19:04:47 <Chuck> ack julie
19:05:30 <r12a> q+
19:05:59 <Chuck> ack r12a
19:06:36 <julierawe> q+
19:07:33 <kirkwood> link to long checklist?
19:07:45 <shawn7> q+
19:07:47 <Chuck> ack julie
19:07:54 <alastairc> the short checklist, https://www.w3.org/International/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist links to more info
19:08:32 <shawn7> q+ to say 200 sentences not necessarily understandable. CG instead of I18N
19:08:42 <Chuck> ack shawn
19:08:42 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say 200 sentences not necessarily understandable. CG instead of I18N
19:09:48 <Chuck> q?
19:09:51 <Chuck> q+
19:09:54 <Chuck> ack Ch
19:10:46 <r12a> q+
19:10:47 <Rachael> Proposal: 1. AG will incorporate checklist into the working documents  2. AG will send guidelines over when they reach developing for review and feedback 3. We will check in after we get feedback to see if this process is working
19:10:52 <Chuck> ack r12a
19:10:57 <julierawe> Kirkwood: There is no long checklist. The short checklist has links to many longer checklists.
19:11:54 <xfq> +1
19:12:19 <Rachael> 0
19:12:35 <kirkwood> so the CG is doing good work!
19:13:33 <Rachael> Proposal: 1. CG is conducting an early review of checklist for what needs internationalization review. 2. AG will incorporate checklist into the working documents  3. AG will send guidelines over when they reach developing for review and feedback 4. We will check in after we get feedback to see if this process is working
19:13:59 <julierawe> Rachael can we avoid using "checklist" in more than one way?
19:14:02 <julierawe> q+
19:14:06 <Chuck> ack julie
19:14:20 <Rachael> Proposal: 1. CG is conducting an early review of list of outcomes for what needs internationalization review. 2. AG will incorporate checklist into the working documents  3. AG will send guidelines over when they reach developing for review and feedback 4. We will check in after we get feedback to see if this process is working
19:15:05 <xfq> the long checklist is https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/
19:15:11 <julierawe> Thank you
19:15:12 <Chuck> q?
19:16:14 <xfq> xfq has left #ag
20:22:47 <JackieFei> JackieFei has joined #ag
20:55:18 <ZoeBijl> scribe: ZoeBijl
20:55:28 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
20:55:34 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
20:55:37 <ZoeBijl> topic: AGWG Joint Meeting w/ ARIA WG
20:55:49 <Makoto> present+
20:55:55 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
20:55:57 <ZoeBijl> present+
20:56:04 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
20:56:07 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
20:57:04 <shadi> present+
20:57:53 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
20:58:46 <alastairc> agenda?
20:59:04 <Charli> Charli has joined #ag
20:59:10 <ZoeBijl> RRSAgent, make minutes
20:59:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html ZoeBijl
20:59:40 <ZoeBijl> Meeting page: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/8b30448b-de20-4eb1-8cc2-df4547ed4891/
20:59:52 <ZoeBijl> meeting: Joint meeting of AGWG and ARIA WG
21:00:05 <ZoeBijl> RRSAgent, make minutes
21:00:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html ZoeBijl
21:01:18 <alastairc> TOPIC: ARIA & AG Joint meeting
21:01:30 <alastairc> zakim, close item 4
21:01:30 <Zakim> agendum 4, Community group intro, closed
21:01:31 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:01:31 <Zakim> 1. WCAG 3 Current status [from alastairc]
21:01:32 <alastairc> zakim, close item 5
21:01:33 <Zakim> agendum 5, Recruiting, closed
21:01:33 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:01:33 <Zakim> 1. WCAG 3 Current status [from alastairc]
21:01:54 <aardrian> aardrian has joined #ag
21:02:01 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
21:02:05 <aardrian> present+
21:02:06 <maryjom> present+
21:02:14 <giacomo-petri> present+
21:02:23 <ZoeBijl> ??: thanks everyone for joining
21:02:30 <sabidussi_marco> sabidussi_marco has joined #ag
21:02:31 <ZoeBijl> alistair also joins us to present
21:02:34 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_ has joined #ag
21:02:34 <ZoeBijl> i’ll moderate
21:02:37 <sabidussi_marco> present+
21:02:41 <ZoeBijl> it’s not our intent to scribe
21:02:43 <ljoakley> present+
21:02:44 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
21:02:48 <ZoeBijl> but some people have volunteered
21:03:04 <jcraig> present+
21:03:04 <ZoeBijl> are there members that might want to view this later on?
21:03:04 <spectranaut_> present+ valerie_young
21:03:07 <jeroen> Present+
21:03:10 <jkamata> jkamata has joined #ag
21:03:15 <JackieFei> present+
21:03:15 <kevin> s/??:/Chuck:/
21:03:19 <alice> alice has joined #ag
21:03:22 <jkamata> present+
21:03:25 <kevin> present+
21:03:29 <alice> present+
21:03:42 <ZoeBijl> s/alistair/alastair/
21:03:44 <Adam_Page> present+
21:03:47 <kenneth> present+
21:04:20 <ZoeBijl> Chuck: i’m gonna review the agenda
21:04:26 <YusukeSano> YusukeSano has joined #ag
21:04:27 <ZoeBijl> consider if there’s something you want to add
21:04:30 <ZoeBijl> we can discuss it
21:04:41 <ray-schwartz> ray-schwartz has joined #ag
21:04:48 <ZoeBijl> q+ to ask about using the APG more
21:04:58 <ZoeBijl> agenda?
21:04:59 <cyns> cyns has joined #AG
21:05:13 <ZoeBijl> ack me
21:05:13 <Zakim> ZoeBijl, you wanted to ask about using the APG more
21:05:15 <nathan> nathan has joined #ag
21:05:18 <Chuck> ack zo
21:05:21 <Bert> Bert has left #ag
21:05:24 <sarah> sarah has joined #ag
21:05:46 <ZoeBijl> ZoeBijl: Matt King has asked me to ask the group if there’s a way we can use the apg more in this work
21:05:49 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
21:06:06 <ZoeBijl> [introductions happening]
21:06:43 <Daniel> Present+
21:07:34 <cyns> present+
21:07:42 <MJ> present+
21:08:03 <YusukeSano> present+
21:08:36 <MJ> Could we get captions on the Zoom call?
21:08:46 <ZoeBijl> q?
21:11:35 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: where are we now with wcag 3?
21:11:40 <gendler> gendler has joined #AG
21:11:43 <gendler> present+
21:11:49 <ZoeBijl> we are establishing a reasonable publishing cadence of every six months
21:11:57 <ZoeBijl> our goals of this charter are to work on the structure
21:12:10 <ZoeBijl> we should have enough to say our structure is good for them
21:12:16 <ZoeBijl> we should have a good conformance model
21:12:17 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
21:12:30 <ZoeBijl> we should have a good plan for delivering the rest
21:12:41 <ZoeBijl> we’ve fairly settled on the structure now
21:12:51 <ZoeBijl> guidelines are the plain language explenation
21:13:03 <ZoeBijl> the outcomes are similar to the success criteria
21:13:35 <ZoeBijl> assertions
21:13:46 <ZoeBijl> it’s that kind of statement that tells authors that ??
21:13:58 <ZoeBijl> it’s things that are not ?? testable
21:14:09 <ZoeBijl> but more towards the organisational ??
21:14:30 <ZoeBijl> so as i said each outcome is somewhat similar to scs
21:14:33 <ZoeBijl> bit more granular
21:14:44 <ZoeBijl> prerequisit was supposed to be a small subset
21:15:03 <ZoeBijl> Safety Issues, needed for AT to work, likely to prevent task completion even with ideal current AT support.
21:15:24 <ZoeBijl> baseline was supposed to be more than prerequisite
21:15:30 <ZoeBijl> Author provided methods that aren’t currently met by AT, applicable to all sites and products.
21:15:40 <ZoeBijl> enhanced is things above that baseline
21:15:43 <ZoeBijl> Can be met in other ways, or may be domain specific.
21:15:51 <ZoeBijl> bit like triple a
21:16:07 <ZoeBijl> you can meet baseline and there should be more incentive to meet the enhanced guidelines
21:16:13 <ZoeBijl> how does that translate to the conformance models
21:16:25 <ZoeBijl> we’ve had discussions about this
21:16:29 <ZoeBijl> it was fairly clear
21:16:33 <ZoeBijl> everyone had expectations
21:16:46 <ZoeBijl> we might merge the prerequisite and baseline
21:16:59 <ZoeBijl> baseline is sort of a minimum as the name implies
21:17:06 <ZoeBijl> we might want to use more percentage levels
21:17:20 <ZoeBijl> so it could be baseline + percentage of enhanced
21:17:35 <ZoeBijl> there are very ways of getting that ??
21:17:44 <ZoeBijl> you could get people gamifying it
21:17:49 <ZoeBijl> going for easy ones for example
21:17:57 <ZoeBijl> there’s still discussion on that because of that
21:18:05 <ZoeBijl> as we go through publishing
21:18:18 <ZoeBijl> and get review as early as possible
21:18:23 <ZoeBijl> “oh yea, wcag 3, we’re gonna test for that now!”
21:18:31 <ZoeBijl> that’s not the way to go at the moment
21:18:35 <jamesn> q+ to ask how the TPAC discussions might impact the conformance levels
21:18:47 <ZoeBijl> that’s for the sections with placeholder status labels
21:19:04 <ZoeBijl> Maturity levels for the document:
21:19:05 <ZoeBijl> Placeholder - AG has identified we need content but do not yet know what it should look like
21:19:10 <ZoeBijl> Exploratory - AG is exploring one or more possible directions for this content
21:19:15 <ZoeBijl> Developing - AG has high confidence in the direction and some confidence in the details
21:19:19 <ZoeBijl> Refining - AG has high confidence in the direction and moderate confidence in the details
21:19:25 <ZoeBijl> Mature - Content is believed to be ready to become a W3C Recommendation
21:19:36 <ZoeBijl> for review we’ll announce what are the new bits
21:19:40 <cyns> q+
21:19:43 <ZoeBijl> Chuck: let’s pause for comments
21:19:51 <ZoeBijl> jamesn: you were describing the pre-tpac levels
21:19:58 <ZoeBijl> it sounds like you’ve had quite large changes
21:20:07 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: it’ll be difficult to summary
21:20:14 <ZoeBijl> we discussed a lot of different solutions
21:20:17 <janina1> janina1 has joined #ag
21:20:25 <janina1> janina1 has left #ag
21:20:32 <ZoeBijl> soemthing like functional categories
21:20:45 <ZoeBijl> i don’t think it’s going to be a million miles away
21:20:49 <ZoeBijl> from the pass/fail
21:20:55 <ZoeBijl> you’re mostly are going to have outcomes
21:21:02 <ZoeBijl> and some will have the enhanced level
21:21:10 <ZoeBijl> at the moment we have a 183 outcome
21:21:11 <Chuck> q?
21:21:15 <ZoeBijl> s/outcome/outcomes/
21:21:16 <Chuck> ack jamesn
21:21:16 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask how the TPAC discussions might impact the conformance levels
21:21:26 <ZoeBijl> at the moment we try to grapple with as many as we can
21:21:33 <ZoeBijl> which are more specific
21:21:37 <ZoeBijl> which should be assertions
21:21:38 <ZoeBijl> etc
21:21:42 <ZoeBijl> jamesn: so, complicated?
21:21:43 <kirkwood> present+
21:21:49 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: ha, yes
21:21:51 <Chuck> ack cyns
21:21:57 <ZoeBijl> cyns: can things move from one level to another?
21:22:09 <ZoeBijl> like the auto captions on this zoom call are pretty good
21:22:11 <Rain> q+
21:22:13 <ZoeBijl> but they used to be bad
21:22:16 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: yea
21:22:37 <ZoeBijl> so we try to write things so that they can be fulfilled by either author or user agent
21:22:50 <ZoeBijl> the prerequisite we ahev ??
21:23:15 <ZoeBijl> at the baseline we have the focus indicator overwitten by the author, that’s an author responsibility
21:23:27 <ZoeBijl> but if ?? improves it’ll be an author responsibility
21:23:37 <ZoeBijl> cyns: is there a process for documenting these changes?
21:23:46 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: yea we have an accessibility reported section
21:24:07 <ZoeBijl> if you’re going for a high level of conformance there might a requirement for at testing
21:24:15 <Chuck> ack Rain
21:24:23 <ZoeBijl> Rain: this is an intersting thing to investigate
21:24:37 <ZoeBijl> i wonder if it means we also want to include things that specificy how we include ???
21:24:53 <ZoeBijl> if we’re sayingt this needs to be fulfilled
21:25:03 <aardrian> s/how we include ???/how we include backward compatibility
21:25:11 <ZoeBijl> but it’s up to the author to decide if it’s fulfilled by the author or the user agent
21:25:18 <ZoeBijl> so how far back do we ask people to support
21:25:20 <alastairc> More on accessibility supported: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/114
21:25:43 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: that comes into that accessibility reported section
21:25:46 <ZoeBijl> it’s a tricky thing
21:25:54 <cyns> I have suggestions for that discussion, which may be outside the scope of this meeting
21:25:58 <ZoeBijl> but what were getting to as a group is a baseline level of conformance
21:26:04 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
21:26:05 <ZoeBijl> you should be able to rely on the specs
21:26:27 <ZoeBijl> but if you’re a govermental ?? you might want to go a bit further
21:26:38 <aardrian> s/able to rely on the specs/able to rely on the specs or the techniques provided by w3c
21:26:43 <ZoeBijl> we’re trying to build a model that builds up
21:26:50 <Chuck> q?
21:26:55 <ZoeBijl> once you get more advanced you’ll get more responsibility for testing
21:26:56 <aardrian> s/but if you’re a govermental ??/but if you’re a governmental agency
21:27:10 <jcraig> rrsagent, make minute
21:27:10 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minute', jcraig.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:27:11 <ZoeBijl> Chuck: we’ve been discussing the conformance level
21:27:13 <jcraig> rrsagent, make minutes
21:27:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html jcraig
21:27:23 <CurtBellew> CurtBellew has joined #ag
21:27:25 <ZoeBijl> Chuck: ???
21:27:34 <CurtBellew> present+
21:27:34 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: i think that’s a quick overview of what we had last year
21:27:55 <ZoeBijl> as a user i should be able to understand non-text content (alt text)
21:27:57 <Chuck> s/???/We reviewed maturity levels earlier in this session/
21:28:08 <ZoeBijl> when taking this more user needs approach first
21:28:09 <cyns> kevin I'll comment on the issue
21:28:14 <ZoeBijl> what we think we’ll find is gaps
21:28:23 <ZoeBijl> we know what it’s like on the aria side
21:28:24 <ZoeBijl> if you know of a gap
21:28:30 <ZoeBijl> and there’s a new feature of some kind
21:28:35 <ZoeBijl> what’s been your process etc
21:28:45 <ZoeBijl> how much do browsers and at vendors get involved?
21:28:55 <ZoeBijl> how we approach it now is that there may be a user need?
21:29:05 <ZoeBijl> we might be writing an author requirement
21:29:16 <ZoeBijl> but can we feed that through to “here’s a gap” and ??
21:29:24 <spectranaut_> q+ to answer that question if I understand it correctly
21:29:26 <ZoeBijl> if there’s no support, how do we handle that
21:29:38 <Chuck> ack spectra
21:29:38 <Zakim> spectranaut_, you wanted to answer that question if I understand it correctly
21:29:45 <ZoeBijl> spectranaut_: if i understand the question correctly
21:29:50 <ZoeBijl> one question i heard
21:30:01 <ZoeBijl> was how does the aria wg handle new technologies
21:30:04 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: yes
21:30:19 <ZoeBijl> spectranaut_: we have a lot of representatives from different technologies
21:30:23 <ZoeBijl> like at and browser vendors
21:30:26 <ZoeBijl> but also authors
21:30:34 <ZoeBijl> so we figure out how those things align
21:30:39 <ZoeBijl> and how we can support all of them
21:30:44 <ZoeBijl> and that’s difficult
21:31:02 <ZoeBijl> a lot of it comes down to personal relationships and offline conversations
21:31:11 <ZoeBijl> jcraig: it was your process change that i appreciated
21:31:14 <ZoeBijl> ???
21:31:33 <ZoeBijl> spectranaut_: ah yea, we try to be a little bit more strict with tracking these new technologies, having tests, etc
21:31:43 <ZoeBijl> tests that can cover both new aria and at features
21:31:59 <ZoeBijl> there was also a new question of how you can work more with us?
21:32:01 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: yes
21:32:05 <jamesn> q+
21:32:22 <ZoeBijl> is there a mechanism for us to feed these things through?
21:32:27 <ZoeBijl> like if we discover a gap
21:32:28 <Chuck> ack jamesn
21:32:32 <ZoeBijl> what’s the next step?
21:32:33 <jcraig> q+ to mention the new ARIA features don't make it in w/o vendor support, not even to an Editor's draft
21:32:42 <ZoeBijl> jamesn: what do you mean with feature request?
21:32:51 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: if one of the guidelines was able to remove ?? content
21:33:00 <ZoeBijl> that required some content or markup
21:33:14 <ZoeBijl> jamesn: most things like that, we should say it should be a html feature, not an aria feature
21:33:38 <ZoeBijl> we said this year that we want to finish in-progress features. all other work should be in support of html features
21:33:42 <ZoeBijl> and also a big focus on tests
21:33:51 <cyns> q+
21:33:56 <Chuck> q+
21:34:05 <ZoeBijl> unless there’s commitment from at and browsers vendors
21:34:05 <Chuck> ack jcraig
21:34:06 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to mention the new ARIA features don't make it in w/o vendor support, not even to an Editor's draft
21:34:09 <ZoeBijl> jcraig: one addition to that
21:34:16 <ZoeBijl> there used to be that spec editors
21:34:20 <ZoeBijl> early on in html
21:34:27 <ZoeBijl> that authored things in a vacume in a way
21:34:39 <ZoeBijl> there’s been a major shift
21:34:48 <ZoeBijl> to implement what’s specced
21:34:51 <alastairc> q+
21:34:59 <ZoeBijl> aria has made a change due to val’s chairing
21:35:02 <ZoeBijl> that aligns with that
21:35:11 <ZoeBijl> so new features proposed
21:35:16 <ZoeBijl> don’t land in the editors draft
21:35:21 <ZoeBijl> it stays in the pr
21:35:22 <Chuck> q-
21:35:27 <ZoeBijl> it stays in the process
21:35:32 <ZoeBijl> that’s a big change
21:35:48 <ZoeBijl> it’s not just like get two implementations at the end
21:36:00 <Chuck> ack cyn
21:36:01 <ZoeBijl> it doesn’t make it into the draft unless we have implementations and tests etc
21:36:10 <ZoeBijl> cyns: if you have featrures ??? how
21:36:18 <ZoeBijl> ????
21:36:24 <ZoeBijl> for html or a wrapper
21:36:31 <ZoeBijl> jamesn: we’re happy to receive the request
21:36:37 <ZoeBijl> but we probbaly wouldn’t do it
21:36:38 <ZoeBijl> q?
21:36:45 <spectranaut_> q+
21:36:45 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: i was gonna say
21:36:50 <Chuck> ack ala
21:36:51 <ZoeBijl> yes, to james’ last point
21:37:00 <ZoeBijl> happy to hear
21:37:04 <ZoeBijl> and to jcraig’s point
21:37:07 <ZoeBijl> to how things used to be
21:37:11 <cyns> s/???? we can connect you with the people from browsers, at vendors, html, css etc.
21:37:20 <ZoeBijl> yea, we wouldn’t write anything into wcag3
21:37:29 <ZoeBijl> maybe we have tested reader mode
21:37:32 <jcraig> q+ to add on about prioritization of those new features....
21:37:33 <ZoeBijl> and that works well for this case
21:37:40 <ZoeBijl> it’s that more objective testing model?
21:37:51 <ZoeBijl> we might put something in the baseline model
21:37:57 <Chuck> ack spectra
21:38:13 <ZoeBijl> spectranaut_: you can always email the wg
21:38:16 <ZoeBijl> or the chairs
21:38:22 <ZoeBijl> but we just facilitate the meetings
21:38:26 <ZoeBijl> so probably the wg is better
21:38:32 <ZoeBijl> or come and discuss it during a meeting
21:38:37 <aardrian> +1
21:38:41 <Chuck> q?
21:38:46 <ZoeBijl> would be intersted to hear what you need from us to ???
21:38:46 <Chuck> ack jcraig
21:38:46 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to add on about prioritization of those new features....
21:38:50 <ZoeBijl> jcraig: to add onto that
21:38:57 <ZoeBijl> about newer implementation requirements
21:39:05 <ZoeBijl> it doesn’t benefit the web platform as a whole
21:39:14 <ZoeBijl> so there’s loads and loads of good ideas
21:39:29 <ZoeBijl> but if one implementation makes up something new and it doesn’t work for half the web
21:39:35 <alastairc> q+
21:39:50 <ZoeBijl> just because someone has a good idea, if it doesn’t get done immediately, doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea
21:40:10 <spectranaut_> s/so probably the wg is better/so probably making an issue on ARIA and we will schedule a discussion for the working group after that/
21:40:17 <ZoeBijl> but in order for it to reach a threshold you need to have at least three to keep them in sync
21:40:38 <ZoeBijl> [something about web sync?]
21:40:46 <Chuck> ack ala
21:40:51 <ZoeBijl> same type of thing happens all the time
21:41:05 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: yea and we’re sorta passing requirements down to web authors as well
21:41:17 <ZoeBijl> accessibility reported link posted earlier
21:41:41 <ZoeBijl> there might be places where the main at used don’}t have good aria support
21:41:50 <ZoeBijl> or don’t meet new assumptions we’ve had
21:41:58 <kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/114
21:42:02 <ZoeBijl> that’s why we’re almost going for a lowest denominator approach
21:42:02 <Chuck> More on accessibility supported: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/114
21:42:16 <ZoeBijl> but put more testing responsibility with the author(?)
21:42:33 <Chuck> q?
21:42:47 <ZoeBijl> we’re not trying to invent things but it might be that we’re putting author requirements that might be better as user agent requirements?
21:42:53 <jamesn> agenda?
21:43:08 <ZoeBijl> topic: AGWG Next Steps
21:43:16 <ZoeBijl> ??
21:43:23 <ZoeBijl> there are some which ar ebuilt up cummilatively
21:43:30 <ZoeBijl> if you have a conformance statement
21:43:32 <Chuck> TOPIC:  AGWG Next Steps
21:43:43 <jcraig> s/ar ebuilt/are built/
21:43:59 <ZoeBijl> in general we’ll be able to highlight some
21:44:10 <ZoeBijl> if we think there’s something specific you might want to look at
21:44:24 <ZoeBijl> but we’ll be updating things with that maturity levels
21:44:34 <ZoeBijl> six months ago we published a big list of outcomes
21:44:46 <ZoeBijl> ???
21:44:47 <ZoeBijl> that was the main question last time
21:44:56 <ZoeBijl> we will be doing some town hall style kinda sessions
21:45:04 <ZoeBijl> outside of agwg, outside of the w3c
21:45:09 <Chuck> q?
21:45:15 <ZoeBijl> is there something you would like to do in terms of other kind of engagements?
21:45:25 <ZoeBijl> [some heads shaking]
21:45:34 <ZoeBijl> so basically gitgub is fine?
21:45:36 <ljoakley> q_+
21:45:40 <ljoakley> q+
21:45:42 <ZoeBijl> spectranaut_: nothing is left on read in the aria repo
21:45:47 <ZoeBijl> [laughter]
21:45:47 <Chuck> ack ljo
21:46:06 <spectranaut_> q+
21:46:09 <ZoeBijl> lori: what friends say about github, it’s not friendly to people with disabilities
21:46:24 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: it depends which way conversation you’re talking about
21:46:35 <ZoeBijl> when we were doing wcag3 discussions
21:46:41 <jcraig> q+ to ask about Lori's GitHub accessibility question
21:46:42 <ZoeBijl> we do different kinds of outreach
21:46:48 <Chuck> ack spect
21:46:51 <ZoeBijl> this conversationwas more about the two groups
21:47:03 <ZoeBijl> spectranaut_: we do have people with disabilities in our group
21:47:07 <ZoeBijl> people that use at
21:47:13 <ZoeBijl> we also have representatives of github
21:47:15 <Chuck> ack jcr
21:47:15 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to ask about Lori's GitHub accessibility question
21:47:18 <ZoeBijl> so good place to report bugs
21:47:27 <ZoeBijl> jcraig: i was going to say the same thing
21:47:30 <Chuck> q+
21:47:30 <Rain> q+
21:47:32 <jamesn> q+ to add that we also accept feedback by email on the aria spec
21:47:33 <alastairc> q+ on other github things
21:47:36 <cyns> q+ to say we also have video call discussions of issues as needed
21:47:38 <ZoeBijl> we have a good mix of people doing code reviews
21:47:45 <ZoeBijl> not saying there are no issues with github
21:47:56 <ZoeBijl> but it’s better than anything we’ve used before
21:48:08 <Daniel> Q+
21:48:17 <ZoeBijl> and like Val said we have people actively looking at how to improve github in these areas
21:48:36 <ZoeBijl> when i hear people say gh isn’t accessible i challenge them to tell me how it isn’t
21:48:48 <ZoeBijl> there’s some ui patterns that need to be learned
21:48:57 <ZoeBijl> some of it is genuine bugs though that need to be fixed
21:49:10 <ZoeBijl> so there’s a mix between learning new patterns and issues
21:49:33 <ZoeBijl> and like we said there’s github people that want to fix these things in our group
21:49:37 <ljoakley> ZoeBijl, thank you
21:49:51 <Chuck> ack Ch
21:49:54 <ZoeBijl> Chuck: one point is that the accessibility of github is not relevant to this meeting
21:50:11 <ZoeBijl> second is that, and Rain may address this, one of the challenges with github is the cognative load
21:50:16 <ZoeBijl> it can be a complex tool
21:50:16 <Chuck> ack Rain
21:50:21 <ZoeBijl> Rain: yes, thank you
21:50:33 <ZoeBijl> completely udnerstand why communications through github are helpful
21:50:48 <ZoeBijl> unless we found at the cognative tf that github is cognatively inaccessible
21:50:53 <ZoeBijl> finding it hard to find what to look at
21:51:03 <ZoeBijl> being overhwelmed by the number of inputs
21:51:16 <ZoeBijl> or people with limiting working memory finding it had to use
21:51:21 <Daniel> Q-
21:51:33 <ZoeBijl> we’ve worked with agwg through a long process to figure out how we can communicate
21:51:45 <ZoeBijl> it’s important that these communication hosts to allow these flows
21:51:51 <ZoeBijl> it has to be a bit of a seperate club
21:51:56 <jcraig> q?
21:52:02 <ZoeBijl> we can certainly find a way to make that not overhelming
21:52:06 <ZoeBijl> but having those…
21:52:13 <ZoeBijl> i’m a spreadsheet person
21:52:13 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_: thanks for the information, we can work that out for each particularly discussion topic between the two groups
21:52:37 <alastairc> q+ to say that the solutions tend to be how it is used, rather than the tool itself.
21:52:54 <ZoeBijl> Rain: we need to recognise for those people we try to include with cognative disabilities
21:52:59 <Chuck> ack jamesn
21:52:59 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to add that we also accept feedback by email on the aria spec
21:53:01 <ZoeBijl> there’s no perfect solutions
21:53:10 <ZoeBijl> jamesn: i recognise that github can be difficult
21:53:18 <ZoeBijl> for our specs we also allow for emails
21:53:23 <ZoeBijl> we do have a mailinglist
21:53:28 <ZoeBijl> github issues are more trackable
21:53:35 <Rain> q+
21:53:43 <ZoeBijl> we suggest that github is the tool to use if you need to communivate with us
21:53:48 <Chuck> ack ala
21:53:48 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on other github things and to say that the solutions tend to be how it is used, rather than the tool itself.
21:53:50 <ZoeBijl> but we can use different tools if and when it’s needed
21:54:05 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: yea i want to say that it’s not generally the technical interface usability
21:54:17 <ZoeBijl> which is to say that we stuffed everything into github
21:54:29 <ZoeBijl> having it in one place is helpful
21:54:36 <ZoeBijl> but we should make effective use of discussions
21:54:54 <ZoeBijl> going between places also has its downsides
21:55:01 <ZoeBijl> having to keep track of multiple places
21:55:03 <Chuck> ack cyns
21:55:03 <Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say we also have video call discussions of issues as needed
21:55:14 <ZoeBijl> cyns: we use issues to start discussions
21:55:20 <ZoeBijl> if we had weekly calls
21:55:26 <ZoeBijl> or separate meetings
21:55:33 <jcraig> q+ to mention one way an ETSI group uses a GitLab [sic] workflow to auto-file issues... We could probably leverage the GitHub employees in the group to find some form of solution that works for COGA/AGWG members to at least file issues, and not be overlooked.
21:55:35 <ZoeBijl> the discussion doesn’t have to happen in github
21:55:42 <ZoeBijl> but we use it to track the discussion
21:55:51 <Chuck> ack Rain
21:56:01 <ZoeBijl> jamesn: github is more of a tracking thing for some issues more than others
21:56:05 <ZoeBijl> Rain: from coga, to collabortate effectively
21:56:18 <ZoeBijl> if we had a mechanism to regularly check in with eachother
21:56:20 <hdv> present+
21:56:24 <Chuck> ack jcraig
21:56:24 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to mention one way an ETSI group uses a GitLab [sic] workflow to auto-file issues... We could probably leverage the GitHub employees in the group to find some
21:56:24 <jcraig> ack me
21:56:24 <ZoeBijl> i think we can have a succesful communication path
21:56:27 <Zakim> ... form of solution that works for COGA/AGWG members to at least file issues, and not be overlooked.
21:56:35 <ZoeBijl> jcraig: there’s another group that i’m involved in
21:56:45 <ZoeBijl> i acknoledge that any interface can be challenging
21:57:01 <ZoeBijl> i find the volume of email more cognatively challenging that github
21:57:04 <ZoeBijl> there’s a range of things
21:57:23 <ZoeBijl> hopefully the reasonable accessibility of github didn’t come across as dismissive
21:57:29 <ZoeBijl> this is a real issue
21:58:10 <ZoeBijl> [some discussion about the european accessibility guidelines
21:58:12 <ZoeBijl> s/[some discussion about the european accessibility guidelines/[some discussion about the european accessibility guidelines]/
21:58:23 <ZoeBijl> ???
21:58:32 <ZoeBijl> we can come up with some path that works for both of us
21:58:35 <Chuck> q?
21:58:45 <ZoeBijl> perhaps there are ways that we didn’t were possible
21:58:55 <ZoeBijl> alastairc: our goal was to give an overview of wcag3
21:59:00 <ZoeBijl> i think we’ve done that
21:59:23 <spectranaut_> scribe+
21:59:28 <spectranaut_> thanks everyone! good show
21:59:34 <spectranaut_> RRSAgent, make minutes
21:59:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html spectranaut_
22:00:50 <ZoeBijl> zakim, end meeting
22:00:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, Francis_Storr, shiestyle, JackieFei, kirkwood, Rain, alastairc, Jan, kenneth, r12a, Frankie, Sheri_B-H, Rachael, julierawe, xfq,
22:00:53 <Zakim> ... sabidussi_marco, MJ, Ben_Tillyer|, Makoto, Russell, Shawn, tiffanyburtin, Chuck, Daniel, ZoeBijl, shadi, aardrian, giacomo-petri, ljoakley, jcraig, valerie_young, jeroen,
22:00:53 <Zakim> ... jkamata, kevin, alice, Adam_Page, cyns, YusukeSano, gendler, CurtBellew, hdv
22:00:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1
22:00:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html Zakim
22:01:01 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ZoeBijl; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
22:01:01 <ZoeBijl> RRSAgent, make minutes
22:01:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-ag-minutes.html ZoeBijl
22:01:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
22:01:08 <ZoeBijl> RRSAgent, part
22:01:08 <RRSAgent> I see no action items