Meeting minutes
<PhilDay> https://
<LMiller> Scribe Lmiller
<LMiller> Take up next
Announcements
ChrisLoiselle: Announcements?
Bruce_bailey: Retired from USAB
Bruce_Bailey: Still an invited expert and will continue to work on WCAG. Question from Tuesday call. Is WCAG2ICT continuing indefinitely?
Maryjom: Yes. Will continue to handle things that are WCAG2ICT related.
<mitch11> congratulations, Bruce and Gregg!
GreggVan: Has retired from the University. Will still be around.
Phase 2 of WCAG2ICT update – work statement
<maryjom> @bruce and @gregg Thanks for still participating with us in your retirement!
<ChrisLoiselle> w3c/
ChrisLoiselle: At the moment there are no comments or issues on the work statement
Maryjom: spoke with Chuck about CSUN WCAG2ICT talk. AG chairs have the ability to approve. The group can review out of courtesy.
WCAG2ICT Explainer Outline
<maryjom> No comments have been received thus far on the work statement.
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
ChrisLoiselle: We are after the content aligning with WCAG2ICT as a note is.
Do you have action items from reviewing?
Mitch11 - what do we think this means (who works on what?).
In terms of the explainer, showcasing to regulators as a one pager to understand it more (ChrisLoiselle)
Mitch11: other audiences like people who are technical and users. Also document structure, it is TBD what format this will be published (stand alone or part of WCAG2ICT) and where it will live
<bruce_bailey> +1 to mitch comment that people applying WCAG to new ADA reg is an important audience
Abstract status, introduction, background, headings that recap what's in ICT are not needed here
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about an explainer which i thought was a good model for wcag2ict ?
<maryjom> ac, mitch
bruce_bailey: I didn't see any explainers that were a good model for what we are trying to do
ChrisLoiselle: we shared the template . It is more condensing and applying it.
<maryjom> https://
<bruce_bailey> https://
bruce_bailey: the document starts with good explainers (examples of)
<bruce_bailey> See "examples of good explainers"
maryjom: Tuesday's call with AGWG - this is not a traditional explainer for w3c explainers.
maryjom: so we are calling it an "explainer" but it doesn't fit that well.
<bruce_bailey> thanks MaryJo -- it makes more sense to me now
maryjom: basically strips out abstract.
PhilDay: Last time we used google docs, some people had difficulty using them on a screen reader on a mac. Has that been resolved?
ShawnT when we are asking for review it would be a good habit to create a snapshot of the document in word
ChrisLoiselle: Taking a note to email a copy of the doc in Word.
ShawnT: what we did with text to speech group. Used word documents in Google drive.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say The legislative document you're referring to is often called a legislative history or legislative intent. These documents include the various notes, reports, drafts, and records of the legislative process that accompanied the creation of a law. They provide insights into the purpose and intent behind the law, and are commonly used by courts and legal professionals to interpret the legislation.
GreggVan uncomfortable with calling it an explainer document
<Sam> supporting document?
ChrisLoiselle: we have removed the abstract. The document speaks for itself, content and goals.
Usage of the WCAG note is really the goal
PhilDay: I take maryjom's point that we should worry about the writing of it.
Are we wondering about how to use it?
PhilDay: How to use would be a good option.
"How to use" as a title.
GreggVan: I don't think it should be a "how to use" document but a "how to interpret" document
<ChrisLoiselle> Intent vs. testing are interrelated however may benefit by being included in future phases of our group. Goal of WCAG2ICT explainer is the intent of the note
Mitch11: I agree that working on things that are out of scope or beyond our time limitations should not be done. But we might want to focus on our audience, we should explain that we can't
do something that our audience might be interested in
Mitch 11: We should simply say "We know you want this, the task force was not able to do this" or "this note does not do this"
Chris Loiselle: There is a "what wcag2ict does not do" section. It maps to the note. If it differs from that excluded list, we can add to that list.
<LauraM> back
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
<ChrisLoiselle> place comments in the above link if you have any please
@PhilDay did I do that right?
WCAG2ICT Issues/PRs status update
Alignment of subject matter experts (SMEs) with tech stack specific content.
ChrisLoiselle: Would be great if you can self assign sections to add content to the intent document.
How do you want to do this?
Mitch11 - I don't see sections to put names on. I see user needs. There are two audiences, standards writers and end users. Writing something addressing those audiences.
ChrisLoiselle: in terms of the intent document, (not using "explainer" title), intent and usage there could be subheadings for different groups.
Sam: The exercise by fleshing this out will help. These are the pillars.
We can refine this into subtopics
We need to agree on the pillars and then put names against the pillars.
<ChrisLoiselle> Laura: What are the pillars?
<ChrisLoiselle> Sam: The heading level items in document.
Sam: The heading level things. The goals and intent/usage and what WCAG does not do. And Background
<ChrisLoiselle> Laura: What it does not do, that is sizeable in itself.
Mitch11: Good point Sam, we can start without knowing how it will end. I'm happy to put my name against it but don't know where yet.
Mitch11: thinking about what the content should say. Did we address those audience's needs or did we fill in sections under a heading (but we'll get there."
ChrisLoiselle: there are many iterations of the document - things are added and removed. It will be iterative, like anything.
ChrisLoiselle: whatever time you have is beneficial
GreggVan: We should focus on the sections and how to understand and use them and not on audiences.
GreggVan: we should think about the different audiences but we shouldn't break the document up by audience and addressing them specifically.
<mitch11> +1 what Gregg said
ChrisLoiselle: Acknowledging that Mitch11 has been adding content and we can discuss. It is appreciated.
<ChrisLoiselle> o rrsagent, make minutes
<ChrisLoiselle> o Zakim, end meeting