Meeting minutes
<bruce_bailey> zaikim, agenda?
<bruce_bailey> CEN meeting in our thoughts!
Announcements
Mary Jo: Welcome back!
<PhilDay> Congratulations Chris!
<bruce_bailey> Thank you Chris!
Announcement, Chris is co-facilitator on this effort.
<PhilDay> Chris: Appreciate the opportunity, looking forward to continuing to work with you all.
Mary Jo: AGWG is starting in on WCAG 3 work, so Chuck is stepping away from this group but still involved.
We will keep him up to date on our task force's efforts.
Mary Jo: Any affiliation changes or job changes?
<bruce_bailey> Congratulations to Laura!
Laura M: I am now at GSA , in government wide accessibility team.
Congrats Laura!!!!!
Larua M: Working on hardware baseline work with Access Board.
Sam: With WCAG 3 moving forward, is there a thought about working more within their vs. WCAG2ICT ?
Or is there a group looking at there as well?
<lbm> (Laura Miller)
Mary Jo: We are a part of that group and will be keeping that in mind , for example for language and interpretations.
… you can attend AGWG as you are a member of this task force.
Let us get in to the work statement that may cover that.
Shadi: WCAG3 timelines are long and may be unpredictable. They are also working on WCAG 2 and WCAG 3. I see that as working within WCAG2ICT as part of that umbrella.
… I think it is helpful for those who want to go above and beyond.
zakim , take up next
Retrospective
Mary Jo: AGWG did a retrospective and I feel it went well.
Mary Jo: Feel free to add in comments and thoughts in to Google Doc. Shared on zoom visually too.
<PhilDay> https://
<maryjom> https://
Mary Jo: Are we wrapping up on the retrospective comments?
Laura: Parking lot definition?
Mary Jo: Side topic , perhaps where we would log on what we couldn't do or would like to do.
Mary Jo: Covers retro comments within the Google Doc. Please see the Google doc for detail https://
<bruce_bailey> FWIW, Google docs now has feature for tabs (similar to spreadsheet). Makes me like docs better!
<ShawnT> +1 bruce_bailey
Mary Jo: On things to work, timeboxing and moving things along is noted as an area to work on. Note on not re-litigating already covered content again and again.
Mary Jo: Late feedback did disrupt flow and progress sometimes.
Bruce: Minus one to Google docs was brought up by Phil.
Phil: that was me noting who said comment. I did find it useful overall but it does have limitations.
Mary Jo: Breakout sessions would be a opportunity to develop content.
ShawnT: I wanted to -1 the Google docs, as it doesn't work with text to speech . Word to read.
<Sam> could we use office 365? is it more accessible?
Daniel: I hear that issue and also appreciate it.
Phil: Could we review alternatives?
ShawnT: I'm lead on text to speech within WCAG 3, I've suggested Word doc in Google drive and update in Word.
ShawnT: Google blocks Apples ability to read.
Mary Jo: I was unaware. Apologies. We will look in to it.
Phil: I think we should investigate
Google and screen reader is also issue. Downloading Google docs and sharing in email before and after call on documents in Word helped in other groups.
Laura: Getting people up to speed on calls they may have missed , not necessarily new people to the group.
Mary Jo: We do our best to avoid re-opening or repeating what we've consensed on.
Mary Jo: Review the wiki and bring back concerns would be helpful. Goal is to move forward and not have feedback at end of our work that we have to re-address.
Mary Jo: Merging will hopefully be more timely to allow for better GitHub review.
Mary Jo: Perhaps we can pull in Mobile Task Force with our efforts as we move forward. Synergies would be there for sure.
Mary Jo: On progress, setting goals, deadlines and outcomes and high level action items is beneficial. Ad hoc sessions did work too.
Mary Jo: having consensed information present during conversation is useful during topic discussions.
Mary Jo: On parking lot comments - Techniques would be beneficial, however would be on a community group path. We aren't chartered to do so in WCAG2ICT
Mary Jo: topic of recommendations was brought forward. We can review with AGWG on that vs. the if applies logic we have been following.
Mary Jo: On out of scope topics, need to find alternatives on this on how to address. Perhaps best practices.
Sam: On formal objections vs. not objecting. If we have a reference to ground rules, that would be beneficial to have.
Mary Jo: On consensus document, AGWG has a resource and we will share with group. (Action item)
Mary Jo: I think we can move away from the retro, any other comments?
Phase 2 of WCAG2ICT update
<bruce_bailey> This is close, WCAG3 oriented: https://
Updating the WCAG2ICT work statement
Mary Jo: Talks to work statement and possible explainer for scope of note.
Mary Jo: Would help policy makers understand scope without reading entire note.
<bruce_bailey> W3C process document: https://
Mary Jo: The explainer is not covered by current work statement.
The explainer would be added to work statement, which would include deliverables within phase 2.
The work statement would then need to go to AGWG review to then make those changes within the work itself.
Part 1 - Proposed updates to the work statement
<maryjom> PR 942: https://
Sam: Can we remove or edit certain parts of it? AAA requirements for example?
Mary Jo: We did previous agreed it would be part of it, however we'd need to discuss that here again if we want to remove AAA from work statement.
Mitchell: Is it possible?
Mary Jo: Not sure if AGWG would agree to that , would need to review.
Mitchell: None of us is required to attend, so we don't necessarily need to attend and contribute
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say we should prioritise the explainer over the AAA SCs
Phil: I would say we should prioritize explainer over the AAAs if we had time to do so. Explainer may be more beneficial.
<Sam> +1 to Phil comments
Mary Jo: I did have the explainer in parallel with the AAA
<PhilDay> https://
Mary Jo: Line 45 was to add in the explainer.
We will have to reference original work statement when referencing 54 and 55 lines on particular non - web tech scope.
Mary Jo: We aren't supposed to offer normative changes.
Mitch: Question on Bruce we might want to say what is applicable.
… if something does have video, if video is not present , whether or not it applies. What do you mean by applicable?
Bruce: I didn't mean in that context.
<Sam> +100 Bruce comment!
Bruce: I think we should keep asking about making practical statements on the usefulness of WCAG2ICT.
Mitch: Pertinent or relevance vs. applicable would be better term perhaps vs. applicable.
<lbm> +1 bruce
Sam: My questions where on what it was not going to do. For example, when they are relevant and how. I think reasoning is justified as beneficial to the larger AGWG group.
Laura: I don't disagree with anything stated, however if things are out of scope we should provide best practice on how vs. gap analysis.
Mary Jo: Question becomes is that more on a community group path.
Mary Jo: The working statement and group was crafted very specifically.
Mary Jo: We can try, however have to come up with that quickly.
Mitch: Gap analysis may be beneficial. We'd need to do that for all, not just phase 2. Listing questions we'd like to solve is a tall ask.
Mary Jo: I wanted to define a set of work that would review that.
Mitch: Would a gap analysis exercise fit in to our charter or work ?
<lbm> Just would add yes, to make notes of Gaps for future reference. Synthesis later if there is interest.
Mary Jo: On work statement changes, please do review it as we will leave open for review.
Mary Jo: Explainer was set off of AGWG W3C Explainer for WCAG 3
We are not giving guidance for policy makers
Mary Jo: I have started a phase 2 milestones and can be shared via email.
We need to get our work approved for AGWG so we can then start in on it.