15:19:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:19:26 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/14-ag-irc
15:19:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:19:27 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:19:35 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:19:43 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-01-14
15:19:52 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:19:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/14-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:20:08 <Chuck> agenda+ Introduce updated WCAG2ICT work statement
15:20:17 <Chuck> agenda+ CSUN Planning update
15:20:24 <Chuck> agenda+ Onboarding discussion
15:20:40 <Chuck> agenda+ Review Handbook updates with exercise
15:20:52 <Chuck> agenda+ Subgroup working sessions
15:22:26 <Chuck> regrets:  Sarah Horton
15:48:55 <alastairc> present+
15:50:09 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:55:27 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:57:45 <DJ> DJ has joined #ag
15:57:49 <DJ> present+
15:59:53 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:59:59 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:00:01 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
16:00:13 <ljoakley> present+
16:00:49 <hdv> present+
16:00:51 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
16:00:53 <ShawnT> present+
16:00:58 <hdv> scribe: hdv
16:01:14 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:01:15 <kevin> present+
16:01:15 <Tananda> Tananda has joined #ag
16:01:20 <ToddL> present+
16:01:22 <filippo-zorzi> present+
16:01:28 <Tananda> present+
16:01:40 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
16:01:50 <hdv> agenda?
16:02:09 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
16:02:23 <hdv> Zakim, take up next item please
16:02:23 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduce updated WCAG2ICT work statement -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:02:26 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
16:02:29 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
16:02:30 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
16:02:33 <kirkwood> present+
16:02:38 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:02:39 <jtoles> present+
16:02:40 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:02:42 <Azlan_> Azlan_ has joined #ag
16:02:44 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:02:47 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:02:49 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:02:52 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:03:01 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
16:03:06 <hdv> GreggVan: I retired as of 2 days ago
16:03:14 <Rain> present+
16:03:15 <kirkwood> congrats!
16:03:19 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
16:03:27 <maryjom> present+
16:03:33 <MJ> present+
16:03:43 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
16:03:44 <hdv> Chuck: we have a list of topics for future agenda, in case anyone has
16:03:45 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:03:45 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduce updated WCAG2ICT work statement -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:03:47 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:03:47 <dan_bjorge> present+
16:03:51 <Rachael> present+
16:03:54 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:04:00 <Azlan_> present+
16:04:02 <Frankie> present+
16:04:09 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:04:17 <hdv> Chuck: we'll be introducing WCAG2ICT work statement today, maryjom can you introduce  it?
16:04:30 <hdv> maryjom: I have opened an issue for tracking the AG WG review of our proposed updates to the work statement
16:04:33 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/611
16:04:34 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
16:04:41 <dmontalvo> present- dmontalvo
16:04:50 <Chuck> present+
16:04:52 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
16:05:12 <hdv> maryjom: we updated the work statement to provide more details re phase 2 of our WCAG2ICT note update, we want to do additional work to the note
16:05:15 <JoeLamyman> JoeLamyman has joined #ag
16:05:25 <nina> nina has joined #ag
16:05:39 <JoeLamyman> present+
16:05:40 <hdv> maryjom: we want to keep the note maintained over time, eg keep it up to date with WCAG and our current thoughts on applying WCAG to non web
16:05:45 <nina> present+
16:06:01 <hdv> maryjom: we want to make sure we have the latest and greatest advice for how that's interpreted
16:06:22 <hdv> s/that's/things like non web ICT and documents are
16:06:29 <hdv> Chuck: thanks maryjom
16:06:31 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:06:31 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- CSUN Planning update -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:06:54 <hdv> Chuck: chairs have been discussing what we should do with the one day we'll have to meet, the Monday
16:06:55 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:07:00 <julierawe> present+
16:07:10 <hdv> Chuck: what we think will happen: we'll meet the entire Monday, probably 9ish to 4ish
16:07:22 <hdv> Chuck: morning session likely continues discussion from TPAC
16:07:54 <hdv> Chuck: afternoon session we want to do something that best uses the folks that can attend, we're thinking conformance now… if there's a volunteer who can set up and plan an evening dinner that would be great
16:08:09 <Chuck> q?
16:08:10 <hdv> Chuck: any questions re CSUN planning?
16:08:18 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:08:18 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Onboarding discussion -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:08:19 <Jennie_Delisi> Possible remote option?
16:08:20 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:08:25 <hdv> stevefaulkner: do we have a room?
16:08:34 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:08:43 <hdv> Chuck: not yet
16:08:46 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
16:08:46 <hdv> kevin: it's on my list
16:08:50 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:08:57 <hdv> present+ stevefaulkner
16:08:58 <BrianE> present+
16:09:01 <Jennie_Delisi> q-
16:09:14 <Glenda> present+
16:09:49 <hdv> Chuck: we have ~3-5 new members per month… we're thinking to start 30 mins earlier one meeting a month, we're looking for a volunteer to lead that session
16:09:57 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:09:58 <Gez> Gez has joined #ag
16:09:58 <hdv> Chuck: to help with onboarding
16:10:04 <hdv> Chuck: first couple of sessions the chairs will join
16:10:09 <Detlev> present+
16:10:11 <Gez> present+
16:10:21 <MJ> q+
16:10:29 <Chuck> ack MJ
16:10:50 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:10:58 <hdv> MJ: I'm interested in leading some of the onboarding sessions… but not the first one so I can see how it goes
16:11:10 <Jen_G> Present+
16:11:11 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
16:11:14 <hdv> Chuck: think it would be fine for a chair to do the first one
16:11:14 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:11:14 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review Handbook updates with exercise -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:11:18 <jaunita_george> Present+
16:12:01 <hdv> alastairc: for context… updating the subgroup handbook, guidance for all of the subgroups, in terms of taking the early draft of a particular guideline we've been working on and getting it ready for our next publication
16:12:16 <hdv> alastairc: one specific bit of it … that is tricky… getting together for the basic requirements and decision tree
16:13:06 <hdv> alastairc [shares screen]
16:13:35 <hdv> alastairc: what we're trying to do with the decision tree is make it clear which requirements apply in a certain scenario… also for user agents. Which is something that varies per platform and over times
16:13:38 <hdv> s/times/time
16:13:50 <hdv> alastairc: potentially different technologies have different requirements and capabilities
16:14:04 <hdv> alastairc: we're looking for this to guide people in what requirements to fulfill
16:14:22 <robu01> robu01 has joined #ag
16:14:29 <hdv> alastairc: [switches to 'clear meaning' tab in document]
16:14:37 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
16:14:47 <stevef> present+
16:14:59 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
16:15:02 <Chuck> q?
16:15:08 <hdv> alastairc: we start with a scope, 'for each … in …' , then we describe when to continue or stop
16:15:23 <hdv> alastairc: all this is dependent on the accessibility supports set
16:15:48 <hdv> s/all this/programmatic determinability
16:16:09 <hdv> alastairc: early feedback we got is that there isn't enough content for foundational requirements to have clear pass or fail
16:16:48 <hdv> alastairc: what we're trying to do with the foundational testing section… to have enough in there so that you can normatively test what's in the foundational requirements
16:17:06 <hdv> alastairc: 'focus appearance' is fairly different, has easier decision tree, just two steps
16:17:29 <kirkwood> can you share link to the decision tree refinement?
16:17:32 <hdv> alastairc: in the 'foundational testing' section for this one, we provide a summary
16:17:42 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y5r2ubojyx4kHOu01HqyC1WLkIPhJibwJigAHwLNwrI/edit
16:18:02 <hdv> alastairc: the foundational testing section is in this case longer than the decision tree
16:19:38 <hdv> alastairc: I've drafted doing this with the keyboard subgroup work too
16:19:45 <jspellman> jspellman has joined #ag
16:20:23 <hdv> alastairc: each of the requirements in that new session, it's a 'continue', each would need to be met
16:20:52 <hdv> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y5r2ubojyx4kHOu01HqyC1WLkIPhJibwJigAHwLNwrI/edit
16:21:01 <bruce_bailey> Looks great, addresses the recent conundrum keyboard subgroup was trying to work through!
16:21:20 <DJ> q+ stevef
16:21:36 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1obzGKEp9802Z8_IoDRIYEwZ5mvwRtYyiGYW_eXGGSFQ/edit?tab=t.0
16:21:53 <hdv> alastairc: please create your own copy and spend about 10 mins filling that in
16:22:26 <Chuck> q?
16:22:35 <Chuck> ack steve
16:22:52 <hdv> stevef: re the keyboard one you joined… it didn't seem to mention moving between views
16:23:32 <hdv> alastairc: for the new definition of view that would pages, would probably the first one
16:23:45 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:23:52 <alastairc> Word document version: http://alastairc.uk/tmp/Human%20language%20decusion%20tree%20example.docx
16:24:02 <Chuck> ack gia
16:24:43 <hdv> giacomo-petri: we use the same structure for labels …the link to the methodology that is presented, it should be a bool, yes or no. A sequence is not correct, I think
16:24:43 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:24:54 <Kimberly> present+
16:24:58 <hdv> giacomo-petri: potentially the link to the methodology should be before the yes/no
16:25:03 <stevef> have to step away for 10 mins to finish cooking daughter's food
16:25:07 <Akash-shukla> Akash-shukla has joined #ag
16:26:31 <hdv> giacomo-petri: if we're going in 'yes', we assume we are passing? but shouldn't the test be before the condition / yes/no?
16:26:49 <hdv> alastairc: the intent was to say 'yes, and', eg 'as part of that yes,  it needs to do X, Y or Z'
16:27:05 <hdv> alastairc: the goal was to get people in the right branch, to know if the req applies or not
16:27:14 <GreggVan> q+
16:27:40 <Chuck> q?
16:28:17 <Chuck> q?
16:28:18 <hdv>  alastairc the question in the decision tree is to get you in the right place, the answer within that would potentially tell you which requirement is needed. So the 'yes' doesn't mean 'pass', it's just 'yes this is the scenario you're in'
16:28:21 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:28:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Hi, had to drop this meeting for another customer facing call. Apologies. Great work as always.
16:28:37 <GN015> q+
16:28:37 <hdv> GreggVan: this seems to try and make everything flat/linear… think it doesn't work.
16:29:02 <hdv> GreggVan: either you have to do A, or you have to do B. Sometimes one of those branches itself has requirements
16:29:11 <hdv> GreggVan: sometimes we have to do one or the other, sometimes both.
16:29:57 <Jon_avila> I agree sometimes, if you stop then you don't find other failures. We almost need a yes and continue
16:30:06 <alastairc> q+ to answer Gregg, where it isn't always A or B.
16:30:45 <hdv> GreggVan: if this is a decision tree, it should be organised so that it makes sense… we shoul figure out all the different ways one can fail
16:30:52 <Chuck> ack GN
16:31:28 <Chuck> ack ala
16:31:28 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer Gregg, where it isn't always A or B.
16:31:40 <hdv> GN: @@@
16:31:52 <hdv> alastairc: there's more options that one of the following
16:32:03 <hdv> GN: but then exactly one has to be true?
16:32:45 <hdv> alastairc: whether something is true, in some cases, could depend on the accessibility support set, or if it 's not good enough you may have to go to the next step
16:32:59 <GreggVan> q+
16:33:03 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:33:46 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:33:47 <hdv> GreggVan: as a hypothetical example… if three things all need to be true. The way to do it would be to say 'the following three things need to be true'
16:33:54 <shadi> present+
16:34:08 <jspellman> present+
16:34:18 <hdv> GreggVan: then each step, you'd say 'if this is true…' and to say underneath the steps 'if any fail, you don't pass', or something like that.
16:35:24 <hdv> GreggVan: we should avoid the suggestion people could stop testing as soon if one specific item is not met
16:35:25 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:36:04 <hdv> GreggVan: then my second point is, we probably need hierarchy and one question at the top in the case that there are tests depending on whether one variable is true or false
16:36:13 <hdv> GreggVan: to avoid having the same question upside down
16:37:59 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:38:01 <alastairc> q+
16:38:43 <Chuck> ack ala
16:38:54 <hdv> bentillyer: I don't agree with the notion that folks wouldn't read the whole decision tree once they failed one it em, I certainly would
16:39:10 <Chuck> q+
16:39:12 <hdv> alastairc: I do agree we could probably make it clearer
16:39:35 <hdv> alastairc: the tricky bit for the text alternatives… we kind of have three scenarios
16:39:53 <GreggVan> q+
16:39:58 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:40:00 <hdv> alastairc: some on the author, some on the user agent… GreggVan are you saying step 3 would be indented after step 2?
16:40:11 <hdv> Chuck: I think Ben and Gregg can be simultaneously right
16:40:20 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:40:54 <hdv> GreggVan: 'fail' could be read as 'don't continue'
16:41:42 <hdv> GreggVan: the other two choices are subsets of the first questions, not separate questions
16:42:01 <Chuck> q?
16:42:27 <alastairc> q+
16:42:35 <ljoakley> q+
16:43:01 <Chuck> ack ala
16:43:08 <hdv> alastairc: I'll slightly modify the exercise
16:43:22 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1obzGKEp9802Z8_IoDRIYEwZ5mvwRtYyiGYW_eXGGSFQ/edit?tab=t.0
16:43:52 <hdv>  alastairc: for anyone who is not sure, probably stick with the original. As an alternative, you can take one of these and put it in your copy and refit it
16:44:03 <Chuck> ack ljo
16:44:46 <hdv> lori: I got a bit confused with everybody's comments… everyone who works with computers knows how to read a flow chart… I thought that's what we were trying to get to with the decision trees
16:45:04 <hdv> GreggVan: me too, but not visual
16:45:16 <hdv> s/lori/ljoakley
16:45:42 <GreggVan> q+  to ask quick question
16:45:43 <hdv> alastairc: one of the difficulties is with providing UA support and allowing that to be an optional branch
16:46:00 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:46:00 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask quick question
16:46:17 <Chuck> q+ to check our remaining time
16:47:11 <hdv> GreggVan: I think part of the issue is we're treating it as a static page, we might be able to only show the parts of the tree that are relevant
16:47:26 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:47:26 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to check our remaining time
16:48:04 <alastairc> Template: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1obzGKEp9802Z8_IoDRIYEwZ5mvwRtYyiGYW_eXGGSFQ/edit?tab=t.0
16:48:20 <alastairc> Examples: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y5r2ubojyx4kHOu01HqyC1WLkIPhJibwJigAHwLNwrI/edit?tab=t.3ia49ubv8hjo
16:48:43 <Chuck> q?
16:50:51 <alastairc> Also, has anyone spotted the deliberate difference between Focus Appearance and Clear meaning, and which did you find easier/better?
16:52:13 <DJ> I find the Clear Meaning decision tree clearer/easier
16:52:39 <CHall> CHall has joined #ag
16:52:52 <alastairc> So having the extra step is easier than combining it? Interesting
16:53:35 <alastairc> Template: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1obzGKEp9802Z8_IoDRIYEwZ5mvwRtYyiGYW_eXGGSFQ/edit?tab=t.0
16:53:35 <alastairc> Examples: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y5r2ubojyx4kHOu01HqyC1WLkIPhJibwJigAHwLNwrI/edit?tab=t.3ia49ubv8hjo
16:53:51 <DJ> I think of it less as an extra step and more of a separated question with two branches
16:54:18 <DJ> Like the structure of a choose your own adventure story
16:54:38 <Chuck> q?
16:55:36 <hdv> agreed with DJ
16:55:45 <hdv> alastairc: did anyone get far enough to share?
16:56:21 <hdv> GreggVan: [shares screen]
16:58:33 <Jennie_Delisi> Gregg is on mute but may be trying to speak
17:00:07 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
17:00:07 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Subgroup working sessions -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:00:49 <bruce_bailey> q+
17:01:01 <Chuck> ack bruce
17:01:14 <Chuck> bruce:  Keyboard subgroup would like to work from where Alastair got.
17:01:22 <Chuck> alastair:  I suggest bringing over to your doc.
17:58:47 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
17:58:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/14-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
18:01:05 <alastairc> Oops, sorry everyone, we lost our host.
18:18:58 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
18:25:28 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:27:13 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:53:39 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
19:00:30 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
19:03:16 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
19:36:33 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:44:58 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
21:03:04 <ljoakley> ljoakley has left #ag
21:53:05 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
21:56:07 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:51:23 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag