15:29:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:29:25 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/10-ag-irc
15:29:25 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:29:26 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:29:32 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:29:44 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2024-12-10
15:29:51 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:29:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/10-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:30:03 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG2ICT Scope
15:30:12 <Chuck> agenda+ Publishing First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile https://w3c.github.io/matf/
15:30:26 <Chuck> agenda+ Year end wrap and timeline for 2025
15:30:39 <Chuck> agenda+ Subgroup working sessions
15:32:38 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:37:07 <Chuck> agenda
15:37:09 <Chuck> agenda?
15:37:31 <Chuck> zakim, clear agenda
15:37:31 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:37:42 <Chuck> agenda+ Publishing First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile https://w3c.github.io/matf/
15:37:50 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG2ICT Scope
15:37:58 <Chuck> agenda+ Year end wrap and timeline for 2025
15:38:06 <Chuck> agenda+ Subgroup working sessions
15:38:25 <Chuck> regrets:  Tiffany Burtin
15:50:28 <Chuck> regrets+ Jennifer Strickland
15:50:59 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:52:19 <Chuck> regrets+ Kevin White
15:55:06 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:57:02 <DJ> DJ has joined #ag
15:57:12 <DJ> regrets+
15:57:51 <Chuck> stay safe
15:59:47 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag
15:59:50 <JJ> present+
16:00:54 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:01:15 <hdv> present+
16:01:31 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
16:01:32 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:01:35 <ChrisLoiselle> I need to leave at 30 minutes past hour for customer call, apologies
16:01:40 <hdv> scribenick: hdv
16:01:42 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:01:48 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:02:00 <GreggVan> present+
16:02:04 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:02:23 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:02:27 <julierawe> present+
16:02:29 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:02:37 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:02:39 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:02:44 <shadi> present+
16:02:45 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:03:08 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:03:11 <maryjom> present+
16:03:15 <sarahhorton> present+
16:03:27 <hdv> Chuck: welcome to the last AGWG of the year
16:03:40 <hdv> s/AGWG/AGWG meeting
16:03:50 <hdv> Chuck: before the holiday break
16:03:51 <Graham> Graham has joined #ag
16:03:55 <Graham> present+
16:03:58 <hdv> Chuck: next meeting will be 7th of January
16:04:36 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:04:36 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Publishing First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile https://w3c.github.io/matf/ -- taken up
16:04:40 <Zakim> ... [from Chuck]
16:04:50 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:04:51 <hdv> Chuck: this one is about the first public working draft for WCAG2Mobile
16:04:52 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:04:57 <tiffanyburtin> present+
16:05:02 <hdv> Chuck: this is a set of guidelines about applying WCAG to mobile
16:05:27 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
16:05:37 <hdv> JJ: the link shared is the link to the editor's draft, most recently updated yesterday
16:05:45 <hdv> JJ: [shares screen]
16:05:50 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/10-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
16:06:07 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:06:10 <ShawnT> present+
16:06:29 <hdv> JJ: we're on GitHub at https://github.com/w3c/matf/, it has Markdown files for each success criterion that you can look at In the sections folder there are Markdown files for each section, and a plugins folder with custom plugins to extend the Markdown syntax
16:06:52 <kirkwood> present+
16:06:57 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
16:07:09 <hdv> JJ: with the code on GitHub you can test it locally; every time we merge to main it gets published as the editor's draft
16:07:22 <AlinaV> present+
16:07:28 <Chuck> q?
16:07:32 <GreggVan> q+
16:07:39 <hdv> JJ: our goal is to show how WCAG applies to mobile, we're currently focusing on A and AA at the moment
16:07:43 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:07:46 <mbgower> present+
16:07:51 <ljoakley1> ljoakley1 has joined #ag
16:07:58 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:08:01 <ljoakley1> present+
16:08:03 <Justine> Justine has joined #ag
16:08:06 <Chuck> q+ to ask about the calendar
16:08:08 <hdv> JJ: this work is focused on mobile applications, but also includes mobile web pages
16:08:23 <hdv> JJ: the guidance is non-normative, it does not set new requirements, just like WCAG2ICT
16:08:32 <JJ> https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/
16:09:13 <hdv> JJ: it succeeds the previous document that the mobile accessibility task force did, which is about 6 years old
16:09:29 <hdv> JJ: this work is from the new group that started January this year
16:09:32 <Azlan> present+
16:09:38 <hdv> JJ: the goal of this is to become a Working Group Note
16:10:02 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
16:10:13 <hdv> JJ: for each criterion, we first quote WCAG 2.2, then we quote WCAG2ICT and then we add our own guidance
16:10:14 <jtoles> present+
16:10:48 <hdv> JJ: for instance, for WCAG 1.1.1, the guidance from WCAG 2.2 and WCAG2ICT are shown as collapsed accordions
16:11:54 <hdv> JJ: we are working on making a draft first in the Markdown files
16:12:06 <maryjom8> maryjom8 has joined #ag
16:12:48 <kirkwood> [lots of scrolling]
16:12:53 <hdv> JJ: all success criteria are in the document that is open for review now
16:13:05 <hdv> JJ: we may add Guidelines and Principles later too
16:13:14 <Chuck> q?
16:13:19 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:13:21 <maryjom8> q+
16:13:37 <hdv> GreggVan: what's the purpose of this note? in relation to WCAG2ICT?
16:14:07 <hdv> GreggVan: purpose of WCAG2ICT was for applying WCAG outside of web, it seems to me that mobile is a subset of 'outside of web', wouldn't this new document do the same thing? how would it differ?
16:14:13 <scott> scott has joined #ag
16:14:19 <scott> present+
16:14:20 <hdv> GreggVan: and how would people use it differently than WCAG2ICT
16:14:27 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:14:27 <hdv> s/WCAG2ICT/WCAG2ICT?
16:14:45 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:15:03 <hdv> JJ: we're mostly trying to close the gap with iOS and Android, as well as web content inside of native applications. Our intention is also to become a group note, which could potentially be used in legislation, to have a similar status as WCAG2ICT
16:15:24 <hdv> JJ: the goal is to help people make mobile apps more accessible
16:15:27 <kirkwood> How is ‘Mobile’ defined?  so non HTML?
16:15:47 <hdv> GreggVan: it seems to me like we'd end up in a situation where we have two documents with the same purpose, as the purpose of WCAG2ICT was also to cover mobile. Would be a problem if they differ
16:16:02 <hdv> GreggVan: you used the word 'views' in this one, in regulatory terms this would need to be testable
16:16:29 <alastairc> q+ on view
16:16:42 <hdv> GreggVan: ever since WCAG2ICT 1 we have tried to make 'views' work, we spent months, probably like a person year or more, we could never make it work, because it is completely untestable. In software, what is a view? If you move things around etc, at any point in time there is an infinite number of views
16:16:53 <hdv> GreggVan: there is no way to test views, there is no 'set of views' to test
16:17:02 <hdv> GreggVan: it works conceptually but to test is hard
16:17:38 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:17:38 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about the calendar
16:18:00 <hdv> Chuck: what is your expected calendar of events for the  AGWG?
16:18:25 <hdv> JJ: somewhere early 2025 go to CFC for the first public working draft, so that we can involve the public more and get public feedback on the structure we ahve
16:18:28 <hdv> s/ahve/have
16:18:36 <Chuck> ack maryj
16:18:39 <hdv> JJ: then in the next year we'd like to go to Group Note status
16:19:06 <hdv> maryjom: I wanted to echo GreggVan's thoughts. Have had a first look at the document. I am concerned there might be deviations in this that conflict with WCAG2ICT
16:19:23 <hdv> maryjom: I think there needs to be more coordination
16:19:52 <ljoakley1>  maryjom +1 on possible conflicts
16:19:56 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
16:19:58 <hdv> maryjom: the former version of this document didn't become a note… it seemed to look at how various technologies can support the criteria, this seems like a departure from that
16:19:59 <dan_bjorge> present+
16:20:07 <kirkwood> +1
16:20:18 <ashleyfirth> ashleyfirth has joined #ag
16:21:00 <hdv> JJ: it's definitely our goal to align with WCAG2ICT where possible. Difficulty was that we initially wanted to scope it to just native mobile apps, but now we consider web too after feedback
16:21:17 <Chuck> ack ala
16:21:17 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on view
16:21:23 <hdv> JJ: it's hard to align with two sets of guidance at the same time
16:21:38 <hdv> alastairc: re: views, we have a whole subgroup working on that
16:22:04 <hdv> alastairc: it's a difficult problem, but not more difficult than defining things based on a web page. If you would start from scratch now you'd find they are equally difficult ways to define scope
16:22:18 <Chuck> q+ to ask how do you want feeback?
16:22:28 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:22:28 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask how do you want feeback?
16:22:34 <hdv> alastairc: I think it's a good idea to have both the WCAG and WCAG2ICT quotes in the document, it makes sense to me to have guidance for native app technology
16:22:34 <ljoakley1> q+
16:22:42 <hdv> Chuck: how do you want people to provide feedback?
16:23:23 <Chuck> ack lj
16:23:27 <hdv> JJ: you can reach out to me personally via email linked in the document, or you can submit it via GitHub
16:23:40 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:23:56 <hdv> ljoakley1: going forward, what's your process for reconciling between your group's work and AGWG?
16:23:57 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:24:36 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:24:38 <hdv> JJ: the definition of views will be quite important to get right, but there are some other definitions that we may need to alter, we're still working on those
16:24:42 <Detlev> present+
16:24:46 <Detlev> q+
16:24:49 <hdv> JJ: once we have those we'll check with WCAG2ICT and AGWG
16:24:56 <Chuck> zakim, close queue
16:24:56 <Zakim> ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is closed
16:25:01 <Chuck> ack Detlev
16:25:44 <hdv> Detlev: I wanted to say… one approach to entangle this would be for the MATF to keep focus on iOS and Android apps, and not cover mobile web. I don't knnow why that was decided to do, it seems strange as that is also part of WCAG when you look at pages with small viewports
16:25:45 <GreggVan> q+
16:26:13 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:26:24 <kirkwood> +1 to Detlev direction
16:26:25 <Frankie> Present+
16:27:01 <hdv> JJ: mostly related to the charter and the historical focus on web. WCAG2ICT was an exception there, but am not sure what other history there is. I would personally also, like Detlev, prefer to also focus on iOS / Android only, as mobile web already covered in AGWG.
16:27:01 <scott> agree with detlev - i'm not sure i understand why web needs to be handled by this Note.
16:27:03 <GreggVan> suggest that since WCAG covers web and WCAG2ICT is non web -- they might just point out where they DIFFER from WCAG2ICT instead of making all readers have to look at both for differences.
16:27:20 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:27:22 <hdv> Chuck: than you JJ
16:27:27 <hdv> s/than/thank
16:27:39 <Chuck> zakim, open queue
16:27:39 <Zakim> ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is open
16:27:44 <Chuck> zakim, next item
16:27:44 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG2ICT Scope -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:27:51 <alastairc> Yes - please comment soon, rather than waiting for the CFC :-)
16:27:55 <scott> i'm also concerned with the overlap with wcag2ict, and how this new version of the doc looks, it seems that maybe mobile-specific updates to wcag2ict could be made instead?
16:28:28 <hdv> maryjom8: this is not finalised yet within the TF… there are various things we want to update in our task force statement
16:28:36 <hdv> maryjom8: now we're looking at the next phase of work
16:29:01 <Glenda> present+
16:29:02 <hdv> maryjom8: some of our work is parallel to what the MATF is looking at
16:29:09 <JJ> maryjo - I'm still here for a couple more mins ;)
16:29:20 <ChrisLoiselle> need to leave to attend a customer call. Apologies.
16:29:20 <hdv> maryjom8: where WCAG2ICT has been used in policy, there has been some correction in DOJ
16:29:43 <hdv> maryjom8: thought it might be good to have an explainer that explains what is and what isn't covered in WCAG2ICT, so there aren't incorrect assumptions made by readers of the document
16:29:59 <hdv> maryjom8: other changes we were considering, to give examples of some success criteria, which might not be applicable in non web technologies
16:30:04 <kirkwood> +1 to explainer to reduce confusion
16:30:08 <hdv> maryjom8: there are cases where it may not be fully supportable
16:30:43 <JJ> Gregg - one of the benefits of having WCAG and WCAG2ICT guidance in an expand/collapse element is that readers could skip those and just look at differences in our guidance for mobile as you mentioned.
16:31:15 <hdv> maryjom8: we're looking at changes to normative language, where that is adopted to standards that apply WCAG to non web technologies
16:31:19 <Chuck> q+ to ask if there is a written proposal for these changes of scope?
16:31:32 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:31:32 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if there is a written proposal for these changes of scope?
16:31:45 <hdv> Chuck: is this written up anywhere?
16:31:53 <hdv> maryjom8: am working on a pull request
16:32:49 <hdv> Chuck: does anyone have concerns re what we've just heard?
16:32:59 <hdv> Chuck: we'll have opportunity to look at the details later too
16:33:04 <ljoakley1> aleady stated my concerns
16:33:04 <maryjom8> Preliminary PR link: https://github.com/w3c/wai-website/pull/942/files
16:33:40 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:33:40 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Year end wrap and timeline for 2025 -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:34:08 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1tYwmb-s8syk9JWAAsdlsCrPYfBwSy1-_BDZQDNowGjg/edit#slide=id.p
16:34:11 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:34:35 <hdv> [ shares screen with linked presentation ]
16:34:45 <hdv> Rachael: we are working towards the end of the current Charter
16:35:24 <hdv> Rachael: including rewriting existing guidelines, adding guidance to address known gaps in WCAG 2, creating new guidelines for emerging technologies and complex conformance questions, such as third-party content, scoring, accessibility
16:35:39 <hdv> Rachael: we also looked at maturing the proposed approach so that reviews can understand the intended scope
16:35:44 <hdv> s/reviews/reviewers
16:36:19 <hdv> Rachael: so far we've accomplished a number of things, like a list of possible guidance and an approach to provide clear guidance to emerging tech
16:36:52 <hdv> Rachael: we narrowed down the direction for conformance, though it's not final
16:37:03 <hdv> Rachael: we've also explored publication options and for now go with the one doc model
16:37:13 <hdv> Rachael: and we had conversations about challenges
16:37:43 <hdv> Rachael: for Q3 this year, we aimed to publish the exploratory conformance model and WCAG3 explainer, that has slipped, might happen this week, hopefully
16:38:07 <hdv> Rachael: we've also started to address things that came up at TPAC
16:38:16 <hdv> Rachael: looking at history, we've done pretty well sticking to the schedule
16:38:39 <hdv> Rachael: we're making a couple of changes to the schedule
16:39:42 <alastairc> Wiki page of this timeline: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_3_Timeline
16:40:02 <hdv> Rachael: we are proposing a one month extension to the Charter
16:40:12 <hdv> Rachael: we are working as chairs to schedule better and more proactively
16:40:20 <hdv> Rachael: charter convos will start Q2
16:40:35 <hdv> Rachael: we'll also continue discussion of core issues, and plan to publish a list of outomces
16:40:38 <hdv> s/outomces/outcomes
16:40:57 <hdv> Rachael: in Q3 we'll continue the charter process and continue on the 2 maturing outcomes
16:41:48 <hdv> Rachael: with that in mind…we won't get the charter done in October, we want to get the data at the same time as when we're rechartering
16:41:50 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #ag
16:42:01 <Chuck> q?
16:42:03 <hdv> Rachael: any questions re this proposal?
16:42:45 <hdv> Rachael: we have a about 48 guidelines, grouped in the grouping excercise
16:42:51 <mgarrish> present+
16:43:05 <hdv> Rachael: assuming we get everything wrapped up the first week of January, we have 38 guidelines to get to before end of Q2 publication
16:43:20 <hdv> Rachael: we need 4 weeks to get to publication, which gives us 20 weeks to work with
16:43:47 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:44:07 <hdv> Rachael: if we break it down to 5 weeks we'd need ~30 active members in the WG
16:44:13 <Chuck> q+ to say more time would need to be spent on working in order to reduce the periods.
16:44:30 <LenB> present+
16:44:34 <hdv> Rachael: if we break it to 4 week periods with 8 groups working, we'd need 24 active members, we typically have more than that so that seems doable
16:44:43 <hdv> Rachael: we probably want to do 4 week sprint
16:44:47 <hdv> s/sprint/sprints
16:44:51 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:44:51 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say more time would need to be spent on working in order to reduce the periods.
16:45:33 <hdv> Rachael: we would potentially group related outcomes into a 'path', a series of guidelines
16:46:31 <hdv> Rachael: groups that finish early can go to the next guideline in the path
16:46:50 <hdv> Rachael: that might save some time, though we still want to check back within 8 weeks
16:46:56 <ashleyfirth> ashleyfirth has joined #ag
16:46:59 <hdv> Rachael: we want to add invited experts so that we have enough invited experts
16:47:06 <hdv> Rachael: we'd aim each group to meet twice a week
16:47:50 <Chuck> q+ to say we acknowledge that we are asking a lot
16:48:08 <hdv> Rachael: I don't see many other directions we can go if we want to get through this work. But as chairs \we wanted to bring it to you as the group
16:48:12 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:48:12 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we acknowledge that we are asking a lot
16:48:25 <hdv> Rachael: we have the expertise and can bring in invited experts, but we need everyone to put in the efforts
16:48:41 <hdv> Chuck: we know we're asking a lot from the group
16:48:44 <GreggVan> q+
16:48:53 <hdv> Chuck: there will be an opportunity on us to comment on how this is working in the retrospecties
16:49:05 <hdv> s/retrospecties/retrospectives
16:49:13 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:49:30 <hdv> GreggVan: what we're trying to do is monumental
16:49:42 <hdv> GreggVan: with WCAG 3 we're trying to solve problems that we've spent 2 decades trying to solve
16:49:54 <alastairc> q+ on charter to charter timeline
16:50:04 <scott> scott has joined #ag
16:50:15 <Rachael> q+
16:50:29 <alastairc> q-
16:50:33 <Chuck> q+ to say thus far our goals haven't been extremely over aggressive, we've been meeting most of our stated goals
16:50:46 <alastairc> q+ on charter to charter timeline
16:50:48 <hdv> GreggVan: I am worried that we've set an artifical timeline for doing it, and in the process we could fail in two ways. 1, we find we keep running over as goals too ambitious. 2, we're going to decide we need a baby but only have 4 months and take it out too early… meaning we don't take enough time to think it through
16:52:35 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:52:36 <hdv> GreggVan: I appreciate that we need to keep the pressure on… but I do worry about this, it's really hard stuff that we've been trying to do for a very long time
16:52:52 <hdv> Rachael: I want to honour that statement, it's a very valid point. But we've actually mostly stayed on schedule this year
16:53:13 <hdv> Rachael: if we base the timing on the last year, the schedules have been reasonably close, we've not been slipping more than a quarte
16:53:18 <hdv> s/quarte/quarter
16:54:18 <hdv> Rachael: this is about getting to a point that we have reasonable confidence in a direction
16:54:19 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ to ask for clarification of time commit, if trimmed down participation options
16:54:33 <hdv> Rachael: if we find we fail ,we've spent this time wisely as we now have info on why we're failing
16:54:50 <hdv> Rachael: one thing we've learned is that the structure is critical for the rest of the decisions we'd need to make
16:55:27 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:55:27 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say thus far our goals haven't been extremely over aggressive, we've been meeting most of our stated goals
16:55:32 <Chuck> ack ala
16:55:32 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on charter to charter timeline
16:55:46 <hdv> alastairc: going into the end of next year, we should have the top level of all the guidelines done
16:55:59 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:56:03 <hdv> alastairc: we're not trying to create all the informative documents and methods and all those bits, we can have bullet points for each one
16:56:14 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:56:14 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask for clarification of time commit, if trimmed down participation options
16:56:15 <hdv> alastairc: that should make the subgroup working a bit more streamlined
16:56:38 <Rachael> q+ to answer times
16:56:43 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: can we clarify time commitment? is it 2hrs of AGWG weekly of which 1 hr goes to the sub group + a second hour dedicated to the sprint?
16:56:58 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: and question 2: if people cannot commit to that ,can people contribute in a slimmed down fashion?
16:57:02 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:57:02 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer times
16:57:18 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:57:40 <hdv> Rachael: I would expect 4-5 hour commitment per week… 2 for AGWG, 1 for an additional meeting in between, and then 1 for work in between… we've also had great async participation in subgroups previously
16:57:49 <hdv> Rachael: we'd want to aim ~4 people per team
16:57:58 <Chuck> ack dan
16:58:27 <Chuck> q+ to time check and ask for a scribe change
16:58:39 <Rachael> q+ to answer Dan
16:58:43 <hdv> dan_bjorge: what doesn't seem represented in this schedule: most of the subgroups had several areas that were noted as research gaps, there weren't studies to create guidelines based on research / data
16:58:51 <hdv> dan_bjorge: I don't think I'm seeing anything allocated for addressing those gaps
16:59:26 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:59:26 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Dan
16:59:57 <hdv> Rachael: we worked with the research task force to discuss the process… we'd not be doing the research, we'd be identifying it and passing it to a coordinated effort to ask others to get the research together
17:00:16 <hdv> Rachael: so for us, if it was a known research gap, we'd not include it in the first round of WCAG 3
17:00:40 <hdv> Rachael: we've not done the down select yet, but we need everything developing as part of that process
17:00:48 <Chuck> q?
17:00:50 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:00:50 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to time check and ask for a scribe change
17:00:54 <hdv> Rachael: I can try and add that in more explicitly in the schedule
17:01:09 <hdv> dan_bjorge: would be good to clarify when it happens and who is responsible
17:01:23 <hdv> Rachael: will take an action, see also the outcome handbook
17:01:56 <ShawnT> q+ to speak about the text to speech
17:01:58 <alastairc> scribe+
17:02:30 <GreggVan> q+
17:02:34 <Chuck> ack Shawn
17:02:34 <Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to speak about the text to speech
17:02:40 <hdv> q+ to speak about views subgroup
17:02:42 <alastairc> ShawnT: i'm leading text-to-speech, and I'd like to announce we've switched to creating user-needs. Would like people who use text-to-speech to join. We're doing an async approach now.
17:02:55 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:02:56 <alastairc> ... we've reached out to the APA TF to ask for help.
17:03:27 <alastairc> GreggVan: On the text-to-speech, does this have to do with providing T2S, or being compatible?
17:03:29 <ShawnT> q+
17:03:44 <Chuck> ack Shawn
17:03:44 <alastairc> ... is it a matter of software doing it?
17:04:02 <Rachael> q+
17:04:05 <alastairc> ShawnT: We're not sure. As a text-to-speech user I know what I need, but we're not sure about what others need.
17:04:16 <GreggVan> q+
17:04:21 <alastairc> ... the difference between t2s and screenreader is important.
17:04:28 <Chuck> ack hidde
17:04:30 <Chuck> ack hdv
17:04:30 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to speak about views subgroup
17:05:10 <alastairc> hdv: I'm leading the views group. Have a question - if there's one definitin of views, with sub-definitions for different technologies.
17:05:23 <alastairc> ... does that resonate with people? Would that make it easier to apply?
17:05:49 <Chuck> q+
17:05:50 <ShawnT> Link to Text to Speech (Exploratory to Developing) WORD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13NASXgLB6yVtZJqiN-HsD1xOIffOXbe0/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
17:05:51 <alastairc> ... e.g. when trying to evaluate conformance. Or should we have one definition to rule them all?
17:05:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:06:04 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
17:06:32 <alastairc> Rachael: We have a lot of work. If you, in a sub-group think something is covered elsewhere then you can close the sub-group and go elsewhere.
17:06:34 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:06:55 <alastairc> GreggVan: On views, examples are good, make sure you have a devils advocate, someone to question assumptions.
17:07:21 <alastairc> ... e.g. what are the 5 we haven't thought of? Lists are an indicator of trouble.
17:07:43 <alastairc> ... if you don't have them, recruit them, at least for a couple of sessions.
17:07:49 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:08:23 <Glenda> @ShawnT - have y’all tried reaching out to https://makeitfable.com/ to see if they could ask their user base if they want to participate.
17:08:50 <alastairc> ... also, on text-to-speech (t2s). We'll have (soon if not now), the ability to have things read to us by whatever device we're using. So the things we're asking people to do, may not be needed anymore.
17:08:52 <alastairc> q+
17:09:00 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
17:09:05 <alastairc> ... some of the things we're asking for are just not needed anymore.
17:09:25 <alastairc> ... the user-agents are improving quite rapidely.
17:09:37 <Chuck> ack ala
17:10:37 <Chuck> alastairc:  On that point, and Shawn put in critique in IRC.  The idea is that we identify the requirement and we allow user agents to achieve, and if they can't, then we list the requirements for the content author.  I think we have it covered, and we are structuring things that could happen soon or may take a while.
18:09:28 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:15:47 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:25:04 <alastairc> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:25:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/10-ag-minutes.html alastairc
18:25:11 <alastairc> present+
19:02:18 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
19:02:45 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
19:03:55 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
19:19:45 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #ag
19:22:15 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
19:22:19 <Glenda> Glenda has left #ag
19:36:27 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
20:10:13 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
20:26:47 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
20:30:19 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:38:55 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
20:45:59 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
21:11:06 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
21:16:03 <laura> laura has joined #ag
21:45:21 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
22:30:46 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
22:50:21 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
23:12:58 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
23:30:01 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag