Meeting minutes
<ChrisLoiselle> regrets, DanielMontalvo, PhilDay
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
Announcements
ChrisLoiselle: Regrets from MaryJo and Phil. Announcements?
Phase 2 of WCAG2ICT update - work statement
ChrisLoiselle: For December 5th, looking at the work statement and pull request 942. Looking at WAI Deploy preview as well. https://
ChrisLoiselle: Task Force work statement. Phase 1 completed, phase 2 in process.
Scope of work is in line. Timeline is accurate.
Do we want to update the bulleted list? Phase 2 is listed with AAA prior to the explainer.
GreggVan: Nothing stops us from going back to adjust if we find something in AAA that requires editing work already done.
Entire thing is editorial.
Because it's a note.
ChrisLoiselle: as far as revisiting things we've already made decisions on, I would like to avoid that.
GreggVan: 301 549 is using this document so it may turn up something we want to look at.
Mitch11: fine with what Gregg said. Process questions about edits that may take place later (substantive) I would be curious what review that would trigger.
ChrisLoiselle: using the word "Editorial" should go into the process. Following the process that is already in place.
GreggVan: we need to make sure that we don't box ourselves out because we limited scope.
If we made a mistake, we need to be able to fix it.
ChrisLoiselle: updating the note is iterative. Before we get to publishing the updated note, we need to make sure we are not contradicting other statements.
ChrisLoiselle: order of level AAA vs explainer - does it need to change? They are unordered.
<ChrisLoiselle> Laura: It is a question on who is working on what work.
ChrisLoiselle: is AAA a subgroup bringing it back?
Do we want to split the meeting?
How is it applicable to the members of the group to move it forward.
Do we need more people in the group to move it forward?
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note Gregg did a pass on AAA
GreggVan: It is on the wiki help page.
Bruce_bailey: a few of us could spin off to work on it.
GreggVan: using what I wrote up, we can work from that more quickly.
<bruce_bailey> Yes, I will take a review.
<bruce_bailey> See list on wiki home page https://
<bruce_bailey> https://
LauraM: Bruce, Gregg, Mike, and I are the only ones that are fairly invested in AAA at this point.
GreggVan: some are looking at it for 301.549
ChrisLoiselle: For an action item, if we meet on the 12th, in between now and then we can add it to the work for the week (to familiarize ourselves with Gregg's work on this).
MikeP: EN 301 549 has a table listing the AAA requirements, so there is no place to put an interpretation on how it should be applied to software.
We only have the AAA for web. We don't list it for documents and software.
At the moment, there would be no place for that.
Mike will not participate (retiring).
ChrisLoiselle: If anyone has questions, email the group or raise the issue.
Explainer for WCAG2ICT - Google Doc
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
ChrisLoiselle: This is the google doc we are working up.
ChrisLoiselle: Edits updated from the 21st outside of the meeting minutes, I may have missed.
We can walk through from the top down.
In terms of the abstract it's a one liner. Do we need to get more detailed?
<ChrisLoiselle> Laura: We can go back to abstract after the document is completed.
<loicmn> +1 to go back to abstract after document is completed
ChrisLoiselle: Status of Document is the next section.
Do we need to detail the word "explainer"
<bruce_bailey> +1 for going back to abstract at end
ChrisLoiselle: There is a comment about the legal blurb (this document was produced by. . . .). MaryJo said that it required.
DMontalvo: no the process is not updated. We will probably have to update this process as well.
DMontalvo: will double check.
Bruce_bailey not sure what additional information the explainer will address
GreggVan: I agree with bruce. This is a note, to me. Having a note on a note doesn't make sense.
GreggVan: I don't think we need a note on this note.
ChrisLoiselle: High level, the explainer is following the WCAG3AG route.
If we need to explain the note with a note, let's update the first note to be more clear rather than add a separate note to explain.
Dmontalvo: With maryjo not being here today, we should probably check with her. But what are the requirements and limitations
ACTION: Check with MaryJo on the necessity of the Explainer note on a WCAG2ICT Note.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we have model other than WCAG3 How To Meet ?
Bruce_Bailey we don't have another explainer done, correct?
ChrisLoiselle: WCAG 3.0 is my first knowledge of the explainer being used in context like that.
<mitch11> https://
Mitch11: I did a search on explainer. What I found was a WC3 Explainer. The Explainer Explainer.
Keep it informal and just be helpful.
<bruce_bailey> WIP wcag 3 expainer (i.e. How To Meet): https://
<bruce_bailey> +1 for explainer explainer
Mitch11: I think there is value in a start here page.
ChrisLoiselle: A technical note (the overarching issue) is how to make it non technical.
In the explainer.
<dmontalvo> Is an Overview of WCAG2ICT on the WAI website, some of these ideas could go on this page as well
Mitch11: a couple examples were concise, not non-technical. "TLDR"
ChrisLoiselle: from a user standpoint, there is the criteria and what it means.
ChrisLoiselle: That may be something less formal (or less technical) but more layperson's term.
<bruce_bailey> None of the "Good Examples" seem lay person friendly !
<bruce_bailey> https://
Level AAA Success Criteria
Availability for December 12th meeting?
ChrisLoiselle: Who is available for December 12.
GreggVan: I may be out on jury duty
LauraM: is here.
<Sam> I am here next week
<bruce_bailey> i am available
<ShawnT> I'm available
<loicmn> I am also available
dmontalvo: I am here.
<mikep> I am here
We have a quorum to meet next week.
The chairs are looking to have a topic to discuss our work statement. Can we report on that Tuesday?
ChrisLoiselle: Maryjo and I will attend and provide the update.
Any objections?
<LauraM> +1 to discussing the statement
<LauraM> +1
<dmontalvo> AG Calendar
ChrisLoiselle: we will bring that forward to the AG call next week.
ChrisLoiselle: Any other open items we want to discuss?
No questions.
<Sam> Thank you
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Laura!!!