14:59:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:49 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/12-wcag2ict-irc
14:59:49 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:59:50 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:59:53 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:59:53 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:00:00 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller
15:00:13 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:00:28 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:49 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
15:00:49 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
15:00:57 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
15:01:03 <maryjom> agenda+ Explainer
15:01:08 <maryjom> agenda+ Priority of Level AAA
15:01:17 <maryjom> agenda+ WCAG2ICT Work Statement Update
15:01:24 <maryjom> regrets: Phil Day
15:01:31 <MikeP> MikeP has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:33 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:46 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:01:54 <MikeP> present+
15:01:55 <loicmn> present+
15:01:56 <maryjom> present+
15:02:01 <Laura> present+
15:02:19 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:31 <Laura> scribe: Laura
15:02:39 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
15:02:39 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:02:39 <Laura> Zakim, take up next item
15:02:40 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from maryjom]
15:02:40 <Zakim> 2. Explainer [from maryjom]
15:02:40 <Zakim> 3. Priority of Level AAA [from maryjom]
15:02:40 <Zakim> 4. WCAG2ICT Work Statement Update [from maryjom]
15:02:40 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:03:28 <Laura> scribe Laura
15:04:02 <Laura> Maryjom: not meeting the first week of january. We will begin the second week of January. (the 9th).
15:04:03 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:14 <ShawnT> present+
15:04:52 <Laura> Maryjom: AGWG today published four things. Updated WCAG 3 draft.
15:05:00 <bruce_bailey> Announcement for W3CAG:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024OctDec/0160.html
15:05:50 <Laura> Update to the explainer doc. Updates to 2.1 to 2.2 to include the errata. How does that impact the WCAG2ICT text? We will have to check.
15:06:15 <Laura> scribe+ Laura
15:06:24 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:06:26 <maryjom> q?
15:06:29 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:06:33 <Laura> Maryjom: Check your email for updates from Rachael Bradley
15:06:53 <Laura> Bruce_bailey: Is there any article besides the updates to the listserv?
15:07:12 <Laura> Maryjom: checking the news for an announcement.
15:07:30 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/WAI/news/
15:07:35 <Laura> Bruce_bailey: yes, an update is in the WAI News page
15:07:42 <ChrisLoiselle> regrets: Mitch
15:07:55 <bruce_bailey> Also WAI landing page:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/
15:08:16 <Laura> Maryjom: zakim, next item
15:08:22 <Laura> zakim, next item
15:08:22 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Explainer -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:09:00 <Laura> maryjom: I was concerned that we were revisiting decisions we had already made.
15:09:10 <Laura> Maryjom: first will cover the explainer
15:09:14 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyei09Viby1bCoZnDLYwY9VWpzRvteK9pqt4v9sWCJE/edit?usp=sharing
15:09:37 <GreggVan> present+
15:10:03 <Laura> Maryjom: This is a note on a note so it goes through a less formal publication process.
15:11:06 <Laura> Maryjom: Briefly explain proper uses of ICT. To help developers to understand what criteria do and do not apply.
15:12:39 <loicmn5> loicmn5 has joined #wcag2ict
15:12:50 <loicmn5> present+
15:12:58 <Laura> Maryjom: We need to improve the language through the addition of an explainer.
15:13:00 <maryjom> q?
15:13:04 <GreggVan> q+ to say we need to tweak the appendix A  and
15:13:08 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:13:08 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say we need to tweak the appendix A  and
15:13:36 <Laura> GreggVan: we don't need to revisit all of our decisions but there are a few cases where we have decided we are wrong.
15:14:21 <Laura> GreggVan: Appendix A problematic for closed functionality section, the title should be changed to include the other issues.
15:15:11 <Laura> Maryjom: Had decided to send the explainer as-is. Then were rehashing the decision.
15:15:18 <GreggVan> q+
15:15:19 <Laura> Do we have an explainer or not.
15:15:23 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:15:26 <Laura> Ack GreggVan\
15:15:28 <dmontalvo> q+
15:15:33 <Laura> Ack GreggVan
15:15:36 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:15:56 <maryjom> q+ Sam
15:15:57 <bruce> bruce has joined #wcag2ict
15:16:34 <Laura> GreggVan: Legislative notes are not formal but document the notes of the group so that people know the background but it's too much to put into the law.
15:17:07 <Laura> GreggVan: Would like to have it informally.
15:17:17 <Laura> Meant to be extemporaneous notes.
15:17:36 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
15:18:12 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: Dialogue from last week was about what the explainer was, and how we were going about it. One of the main notes was embedding in the original vs having a separate doc.
15:18:47 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: I agreed that a plain text "this is what we mean by this" would be better served in the note vs in the explainer that directs people elsewhere.
15:19:08 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: explainer is duplicative of our work statement in some cases.
15:20:02 <maryjom> q+
15:20:10 <Laura> ack Dmontalvo
15:20:11 <maryjom> ack dmontalvo
15:20:42 <dmontalvo> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/ > WAI WCAG2ICT Intro page
15:20:48 <Laura> Dmontalvo: Based on the sections that are outlined and the abstract, I said that there are things here we may not need (do we need them). What are we saying in separate places?
15:21:49 <Laura> Dmontalvo: Let's do the exercise of knowing what is said in the pages to figure out what to include elsewhere. I was also worried about the format of the explainer. Whatever we decide it needs to be more informal.
15:21:56 <maryjom> ack sam
15:22:28 <Laura> Sam: I would agree with Maryjom that we agreed to this. It is not duplicative to the document itself. It is short. It allows us to talk about DOJ etc.
15:22:59 <Laura> Sam: I thought that was decided. We just need to make sure there is no overlap (no redundancy?) against the document itself.
15:23:14 <maryjom> ack maryjom
15:23:46 <Laura> maryjom: We were asked by AGWG to have the explainer as part of the information we are sharing.
15:24:03 <bruce> +1 to dmontalvo that WAI intro page might serve as Explainer
15:24:11 <Laura> Maryjom: AGWG was worried that we were getting into the realm beyond scope (telling policy makers what to do/not do).
15:24:57 <bruce> +1 to Sam that addressing DOJ cite is important -- and that is not a good fit to WAI intro page !
15:24:58 <Laura> Maryjom: These are some good thoughts on the explainer as far as what we might put in there.
15:25:03 <Laura> q+
15:25:11 <maryjom> ack Laura
15:25:21 <GreggVan> q+
15:25:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Laura: Is explainer just a tldr or laymen's term document?
15:25:45 <ChrisLoiselle> too long didn't read = tldr
15:26:03 <Laura> maryjom: yes. TLDR.
15:26:25 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:26:51 <Laura> GreggVan: we need to make sure we aren't putting content into it that is only in the explainer.
15:27:08 <Laura> GreggVan: It is for when people get into arguments
15:27:18 <Laura> q+
15:27:26 <ChrisLoiselle> I read https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/ as an explainer , which we could possibly expand a bit for whatever it is "missing"
15:27:35 <ChrisLoiselle> q+ can we vote on that?
15:27:54 <GreggVan> q+
15:28:21 <bruce> +1 to ChrisLoiselle
15:28:21 <Laura> ack laura
15:28:22 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:28:25 <maryjom> q?
15:28:28 <maryjom> ack gre
15:28:36 <Laura> Laura: which is it, an explainer of how we came to our decision or a TLDR
15:29:09 <maryjom> q+
15:29:22 <maryjom> q?
15:29:22 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: Endorse daniel and bruce's contribution
15:29:29 <Laura> ack Maryjom
15:29:41 <Laura> ack GreggVan
15:29:47 <Sam> present+
15:30:10 <Laura> GreggVan: We can't put everything in WCAG2ICT because it's too long
15:30:32 <Laura> GreggVan: Plain Language thing vs explanation for what we mean by . . . .
15:31:01 <Laura> GreggVan: Need for both to capture our notes. That document could be a wiki (notes of what we were thinking) - wiki would need to be preserved.
15:31:16 <maryjom> ack maryjom
15:31:18 <Laura> GreggVan: Published doc about what the purpose is of the doc and a plain language version
15:31:32 <Laura> Maryjom: agrees that there are two different purposes.
15:32:04 <dmontalvo> q+
15:32:31 <ChrisLoiselle> ok. understood. just wanted to offer it up as a possible solution.
15:32:35 <maryjom> q?
15:32:40 <maryjom> ack dm
15:33:09 <Laura> Dmontalvo: I would like to think of the intro pages as "the explainer" as I said earlier in the IRC.
15:34:28 <Laura> Maryjom: Would have to look at the web page and see if the outline matches the google doc.
15:35:20 <MikeP> MikeP has joined #wcag2ict
15:36:20 <maryjom> POLL: Explainer: Should we 1) continue with the outline in the Google Doc. as-is, 2) update the outline in the google doc with outline from the web page? 3) Start with the outline in the web page and add in sections we think need adding? or 4) something else
15:36:39 <dmontalvo> s/as I said earlier/as Bruce said earlier/
15:37:05 <dmontalvo> q+
15:37:14 <maryjom> ack dmontalvo
15:37:58 <bruce> q+
15:38:06 <Laura> ack Bruce
15:38:14 <Laura> Bruce: not sure of the difference between 2 and 3
15:38:53 <ChrisLoiselle> 3 would be taking content from 2 and putting it in the explainer doc we are working on
15:39:26 <Laura> bruce: could also use the outline that is in the explainer explainer doc.
15:39:28 <bruce> https://tag.w3.org/explainers/
15:39:35 <Laura> Maryjom: no.
15:40:12 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: We own the explainer google doc. We can take what the WAI doc has and add it to our google doc.
15:40:16 <Laura> Because we own it.
15:40:17 <GreggVan> q+
15:40:19 <bruce> i agree that the template from the "explainer explainer" is not a good fit
15:40:25 <Laura> +1 chrisloiselle
15:41:29 <Laura> maryjom: want to alleviate AGWG concerns that we are telling policy makers what to do.
15:42:03 <Laura> GreggVan: if this is just an explainer doc (TLDR) in plain language then it shouldn't have more information than we have in our document.
15:42:18 <maryjom> POLL: Explainer: Should we 1) continue with the outline in the Google Doc. as-is, 2) Start with the outline in the google doc and update with pertinent sections from the web page 3) Start with the outline in the web page and add in sections we think need adding? or 4) something else
15:42:29 <Laura> GreggVan: If we are saying how to apply it, we aren't explaining the doc, we are directing people how to use it.
15:43:12 <Laura> GreggVan: If something is complicated, we should have a plain language version or simple form of what you are going to be reading.
15:43:18 <Laura> q+
15:43:31 <ChrisLoiselle> We can explicitly state in the wcag2ict not itself in https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#guidance-in-this-document or in the excluded, that this is NOT for policy holders . I don't see a problem with that
15:43:35 <maryjom> q?
15:43:41 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:43:45 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:43:47 <maryjom> ack Laura
15:43:49 <Laura>  GreggVan: Simple form up front
15:44:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Laura : Plain language vs. tldr , we should choose one or the other or differentiate
15:44:28 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
15:44:50 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: On the WCAG2ICT note we have there is the guidance and then the note.
15:45:12 <Sam> q+
15:45:21 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: Could make sure the note/explainer includes "This is not for you" text to clarify based off the guidance
15:45:24 <Sam> q_
15:45:27 <Sam> q-
15:47:03 <Laura> Maryjom: we aren't getting anywhere. We aren't excluding any particular audiences with this text so policy makers might look to this. For developers, policy makers, etc. Not solvable by removing the audience.
15:47:24 <Laura> Maryjom: We need to agree. Do we need it? And then have to figure out the form it would take?
15:47:52 <Laura> Maryjom: Alternate proposals for the outline should be presented.
15:48:06 <Laura> Maryjom: Then we can analyze and vote on it.
15:48:11 <Laura> Zakim, next item
15:48:11 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Priority of Level AAA -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:48:43 <Laura> Maryjom: Another conversation from last week. In the scope of work (PR on the work statement update) we had talked about priorities.
15:48:43 <maryjom> https://deploy-preview-942--wai-website.netlify.app/about/groups/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement/#scope-of-work
15:48:59 <Laura> Maryjom: We had updated priorities in the scope of work (Bullets 5-8)
15:49:27 <Laura> Maryjom: One of the bullets, the text got merged in (suggested changes that can be incorporated).
15:50:08 <Laura> Maryjom: We removed AAA to the bottom (Not bullet 1).
15:50:30 <Laura> Maryjom: Added in the two bullets based on AGWG leadership to go beyond our previous work statement.
15:50:39 <Laura> Maryjom: So we can expand the scope.
15:52:23 <Laura> Maryjom: Need to update work statement and explainer in order to run off and start working on them.
15:52:58 <Laura> Maryjom: Decided AAA was lower priority. Was there new information that came up last week? Or same priority?
15:53:16 <maryjom> Poll: Do you agree with current draft work statement priorities in the bullets?
15:53:23 <Laura> Yes
15:53:24 <Sam> y
15:53:25 <loicmn5> yes
15:53:26 <bruce> yes
15:53:26 <MikeP> y
15:53:31 <ChrisLoiselle> yes
15:53:36 <Laura> q+
15:53:40 <GreggVan> y but be sure the chairs are comforatable with it
15:53:40 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:53:48 <maryjom> ack Laura
15:55:20 <bruce> q+
15:55:39 <dmontalvo> q+
15:55:45 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
15:56:19 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: Intent was a bulleted list that was being shared so it was unordered and not in the same place in the bulleted scheme. Should we change the unordered list?
15:57:01 <maryjom> ack bruce
15:57:03 <Laura> ChrisLoiselle: It is something I would like to get through. Don't think we say it's the lowest priority. In terms of AG we can declare if needed.
15:57:19 <Laura> Bruce: AAA can be asynchronous from the other work.
15:57:23 <maryjom> ack dmontalvo
15:57:26 <Laura> +1 Chris and Bruce
15:58:02 <Laura> Dmontalvo: Avoid saying it's a low priority, could add "as time permits"
15:58:56 <ChrisLoiselle> If it is a touchy subject those interested can join our group!
15:59:29 <Sam> q+
16:00:07 <maryjom> PR 942: https://github.com/w3c/wai-website/pull/942/files
16:00:25 <Laura> ack Sam
16:00:52 <Laura> Sam: Question, is it my understanding that by the order of operation, first we will see if we need to apply fixes from the latest update
16:01:08 <Laura> Sam: Then fixing up the explainer doc
16:01:41 <Laura> Sam: maybe technology specific examples on a separate track.
16:02:05 <Laura> MaryJoM: mobile accessiblity task force has a draft together and have potential changes for some of the SC's.
16:02:25 <Laura> rragent, draft minutes
16:02:34 <Laura> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html Laura
16:03:12 <loicmn5> loicmn5 has left #wcag2ict
16:09:38 <maryjom> regrets: Mitchell Evan, Phil Day
16:09:45 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
16:09:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bruce_bailey, MikeP, loicmn, maryjom, Laura, ShawnT, GreggVan, Sam
16:09:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:09:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/12-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:09:55 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:09:55 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:10:27 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
16:10:27 <RRSAgent> I see no action items