17:10:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag-facilitators
17:10:49 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/03-ag-facilitators-irc
17:10:49 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:10:50 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Chuck4
17:10:53 <Chuck4> chair:  Chuck
17:11:04 <Chuck4> meeting:  AGF-2025-02-03
17:11:13 <Chuck4> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:11:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/03-ag-facilitators-minutes.html Chuck4
17:11:25 <Chuck4> zakim, clear agenda
17:11:25 <Zakim> agenda cleared
17:11:33 <Chuck4> agenda+ Task Force Updates
17:11:40 <Chuck4> agenda+ Discuss MATF work statement
17:30:53 <Lisa0> Lisa0 has joined #ag-facilitators
17:31:43 <alastairc> scribe:alastairc
17:31:44 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag-facilitators
17:31:52 <maryjom> present+
17:32:12 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag-facilitators
17:32:17 <alastairc> Chuck4: Announcement, we have president's day in 2 weeks, so won't have a call then.
17:32:20 <Chuck4> zakim, take up item 1
17:32:20 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Task Force Updates -- taken up [from Chuck4]
17:32:34 <alastairc> Chuck4: Brief updates please.
17:32:36 <JJ> present+
17:33:03 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag-facilitators
17:33:05 <alastairc> maryjom: We're starting to kick off phase 2. Work statement was a approved. Starting on explainer, may be separate or nott.
17:33:07 <mbgower> present+
17:33:12 <alastairc> s/nott/not
17:33:37 <alastairc> ... Also working on our expanded scope.
17:34:12 <alastairc> Lisa0: Working on next drafts of Making Content Usage, and issue papers.
17:34:26 <alastairc> Will get new issue papers in about a month, or at least start the 1st working draft.
17:34:47 <alastairc> ... Next version of making content usage will be an editor's draft, in a very different structure.
17:35:01 <alastairc> ... want to get feedback before people start crying (??)
17:35:19 <alastairc> ... early feedback should be more managable.
17:35:54 <alastairc> mbgower: Should that be a stated goal? No weeping.
17:36:15 <alastairc> ... also working on process. trying to make sure we can overcome the sticky issue of when something is an errata.
17:36:24 <alastairc> ... think we're close, will see what people think.
17:36:55 <alastairc> .... Also, some misalignment of 2.1 and 2.2, which Ken has been doing a lot of work on. Improving the publication process.
17:37:48 <alastairc> kevin: Nothing from W3C at the moment.
17:38:16 <alastairc> JJ: Been working on finalising the content for the FPWD, have 2 PRs open for 10 new SCs.
17:38:22 <alastairc> ... plus updaing the intro, background etc.
17:38:36 <alastairc> ... for next meeting we'll have some comments, hopefully resolved soon.
17:38:47 <alastairc> ... then 3rd PR for some key terms and glossary.
17:38:53 <alastairc> ... then ready for CFC.
17:38:58 <bruce_bailey4> bruce_bailey4 has joined #ag-facilitators
17:39:04 <alastairc> .... Also working on W3C website, for TF pages.
17:39:08 <bruce_bailey4> present+
17:39:25 <alastairc> ... Also working on the timeline, and working out what is realistic.
17:39:32 <alastairc> Chuck4: Any cross-TF questions?
17:39:35 <Chuck4> zakim, take up next item
17:39:35 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Discuss MATF work statement -- taken up [from Chuck4]
17:39:35 <alastairc> ... nope
17:40:06 <alastairc> Chuck4: The MAFT workstatement, wanted a quick conversation about them in general.
17:40:47 <alastairc> ... MAFT is being asked to do various activities, which will result in an updated workstatement. The WCAG2ICT team is monitoring, we don't want conflicting info.
17:41:15 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
17:41:22 <alastairc> ... then there's the W3C perspective, where they are asking for content from the TF. For example, W3C asked for examples to go into the statement.
17:41:32 <alastairc> .... whereas WCAG2ICT doesn't provide specific examples yet.
17:41:38 <bruce_bailey4> q+ Example?
17:41:52 <bruce_bailey4> q+
17:41:57 <alastairc> Chuck4: Was that accurate Kevin?
17:42:01 <bruce_bailey4> q- Examples?
17:42:15 <bruce_bailey4> ack
17:42:42 <bruce_bailey4> q- Example?
17:42:43 <JJ> q+ to ask about mobile web content to be considered in MATF or in AG WG
17:43:00 <alastairc> kevin: The challenge we've seen is that where WCAG is being used to assess appliations. The docs for that are very old, need updating. Challenge is that people are looking for practical info, but also, where is the line drawn between web page / web app / hybrid app / native app makes it hard to pin down.
17:43:18 <alastairc> ... fine line there, where we have to keep to our scope but also provide useful info for developers.
17:43:20 <Chuck4> ack Bruce
17:43:28 <bruce_bailey4> How deep is "examples?"
17:43:39 <alastairc> bruce_bailey4: What's the examples part?
17:43:58 <alastairc> ... Is that from WCAG 2 to MAFT to WCAG2ICT?
17:44:28 <alastairc> kevin: I need to think about where that  would cause problems?
17:44:56 <alastairc> bruce_bailey4: It might not make sense for all the examples to align, e.g. WCAG2ICT examples might not apply elsewhere.
17:44:57 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
17:45:14 <alastairc> kevin: want to avoid WCAG2ICT saying one thing, and mobile guidance saying something different.
17:45:27 <alastairc> ... but ok to explore within the mobile area.
17:45:48 <Chuck4> ack JJ
17:45:48 <Zakim> JJ, you wanted to ask about mobile web content to be considered in MATF or in AG WG
17:45:58 <mbgower> q+ to say that MAFT should not extend beyond the web portion of an implementation; that is the domain of WCAG2ICT
17:46:25 <alastairc> JJ: Agree with those views, need to align with WCAG2ICT. Difficult because WCAG2ICT is non-web, and MAFT is both non-web and web.
17:47:11 <alastairc> ... if we can drop the mobile web part, and focus on native / hybrid / web views, then we could align with WCAG2ICT, as it would be a sub-set.
17:47:30 <Chuck4> ack Chris
17:47:35 <alastairc> ... however, if we have web in scope, I haven't seen anything that hasn't been covered by the AG already.
17:48:04 <alastairc> ChrisLoiselle: On the examples, not sure if you were thinking of things like the ARIA-authoring guide?
17:48:14 <alastairc> q+ on where the examples were being asked for?
17:48:23 <Chuck4> q+ to say I mentioned examples, but the conversation need not be exclusively about examples
17:48:39 <alastairc> JJ: we could include some technique-style examples, but focused more on the understanding docs at the moment.
17:48:41 <Chuck4> scribe+ Chuck4
17:48:57 <Chuck4> ack mbg
17:48:57 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that MAFT should not extend beyond the web portion of an implementation; that is the domain of WCAG2ICT
17:49:26 <kevin> q+ to respond to mbgower
17:49:40 <Lisa0> Q+
17:49:54 <alastairc> mbgower: Gut reaction that as soon as MAFT isn't covering web it's out of scope of the working group. Is one group going to be the source of truth? It seems like WCAG2ICT would be the main source, then MAFT is a sub-set.
17:50:00 <Chuck4> ack ala
17:50:00 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on where the examples were being asked for?
17:50:03 <JJ> q+ to respond to alignment with WCAG2ICT
17:50:21 <Chuck4> alastairc:  When examples were mentioned in the first place, is that to put into the work statement, or adding to the work statement produced?
17:50:27 <Chuck4> ack Ch
17:50:27 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I mentioned examples, but the conversation need not be exclusively about examples
17:50:41 <maryjom> q+
17:50:48 <Chuck4> ack kevin
17:50:48 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to respond to mbgower
17:51:19 <alastairc> kevin: Responding to Mike, if we drop mobile-web, is it part of AG, or even W3C?
17:51:33 <mbgower> Given we have a wcag2ict TF, we arguably have some skin in this non-web game already
17:51:39 <JJ> q+ to respond to mobile web content - still considered inside mobile apps (but not in mobile web browser)
17:52:06 <alastairc> ... that's a challenge JJ and I have spoken about.  We know there's a need for centralized guidance, but does it need to be here? But does leave open hybrid and web-embedded technology.
17:52:27 <alastairc> ... It's just about applying the same guidance in different ways.
17:52:28 <Chuck4> ack Lisa
17:53:14 <alastairc> Lisa0: A spanner in the works? COGA has often been sidelined, in WCAG 2.0, which is why WCAG 3 is really trying to be more inclusive. How does that overlap with COGA?
17:53:30 <alastairc> ... when we work with APA we push COGA user-needs there.
17:53:34 <alastairc> ... we'll have that problem here.
17:53:35 <Chuck4> ack maryj
17:53:51 <Chuck4> ack jj
17:53:51 <Zakim> JJ, you wanted to respond to alignment with WCAG2ICT and to respond to mobile web content - still considered inside mobile apps (but not in mobile web browser)
17:53:55 <Chuck4> q+ Maryo
17:53:58 <Chuck4> ack m
17:54:09 <Chuck4> q+ maryjom
17:54:37 <alastairc> JJ: alignment with WCAG2ICT - agree important, and think MAFT should be a sub-set of WCAG2ICT.
17:55:10 <alastairc> ... agree we should include web-content inside native apps. There's interest in our group to do this.
17:55:12 <Chuck4> q+ to say I think we still have some ambiguity
17:55:25 <Chuck4> ack maryj
17:56:38 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 one where to capture it
17:56:43 <alastairc> maryjom: Discussing with leadership of WCAG2ICT, now that we have a more expanded scope (adding tech specific info). Can that be incorporated into WCAG2ICT? How best to call it out. I.e. single source of interpretation part, then MAFT could focus on what's supportable in the mobile space.
17:56:54 <alastairc> ... should be some good synergy between the groups.
17:56:55 <Chuck4> ack Ch
17:56:55 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think we still have some ambiguity
17:57:09 <alastairc> q+ to say mobile interest is large
17:57:10 <JJ> q+ to respond to maryjom: yes we should :)
17:57:59 <alastairc> Chuck4: Workstatement is updated, and keven was talking about "the dance", where we allow some latitude but still say it's web... I'll look at the workstatement and still riding the line.
17:58:20 <Chuck4> q?
17:58:27 <alastairc> kevin: We've got the workstatement, just need to integrate the new timeline.
17:58:34 <Chuck4> ack jj
17:58:34 <Zakim> JJ, you wanted to respond to maryjom: yes we should :)
17:58:46 <alastairc> JJ: Agree we should work together on aligning our work.
17:59:13 <alastairc> ... if you have more flexibility, we could put more notes in the understanding document, e.g. with a section for mobile.
17:59:44 <Chuck4> alastairc:  I think the number of people searching for mobile is quite large.  I don't know how many are seeking specifically wcag2ict.
17:59:59 <Chuck4> present+
17:59:59 <kevin> present+_
18:00:02 <kevin> present+
18:00:03 <maryjom> preesent+
18:00:07 <alastairc> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:00:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/03-ag-facilitators-minutes.html alastairc
18:00:14 <maryjom> present+
18:00:27 <kevin> s/present+_//