– DRAFT –
AG Weekly Teleconference

<Laura_Carlson> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Laura_Carlson> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that individuals speaking should identify themselves for our new scribe.

alastairc: No announcements today

Handling Research

alastairc: First item is Handling Research.

<Rachael> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1grdQPzeKwNc39f8RO8bj9qS-qGSax8sG

Rachael: I've put together a research drive here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1grdQPzeKwNc39f8RO8bj9qS-qGSax8sG
… used to track research needed for WCAG 3. As we move forward we want to identify which items need research and seek help in researching those items

Rachael: in the folder: Excel sheet, instructions, and more
… going through the instructions document. Step one is collecting all the research that can be found, and decide as a subgroup if more is needed
… There will be situations that do not require research.
… Reviewing the template found in the research folder.
… Try to break research questions apart to be as specific as possible
… Once the template is filled out, add an entry to the excel tracking sheet in the research folder.
… This tracking sheet will be shared with universities and other groups who may do research.
… The "Color Contrast Algorithm" document in the research folder is an example of a filled-out template.
… When you get to a point where you need research make sure you mark pull requests correctly. Let chairs know if the research is high priority.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention "research" intimidated me -- but i think it means evidence base

bruce_bailey: does research just mean "evidence based"? vs.. academic research?

Rachael: it needs to be reliable and trustworthy. Not necessarily academic. For example we used corporate research in WCAG 2

alastairc: we enter this process if evidence is missing.

<NatT> Has anyone found any research on animations and the impact on users (positive and negative). I keep having false starts to try and do my own.

Ben_Tillyer: Funcding can be an issue. Research is prioritized based on funding. Can we help pair potential funders with researchers?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Ben

Ben_Tillyer: also: how do we determine what topics need research? Should we use LLMs to scour the web to check for prior research

Rachael: we can add a section for funding. For discovering: will add a section for how to identify research that exists already. Would welcome adding info about LLMs

kevin: interested in how to engage with funding orgs. Can help with that part

<NatT> Do we have documentation on recommended techniques for finding research?

jtoles: will this be public? Wants to make sure that researches can find it.

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to Rachael

Rachael: yes it will be public. Available from wiki

jtoles: will this include AT that does not currently exist, in addition to improving existing AT?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if Color Contrast Algorithm is missing fourth bullet: How much better is APCA as compared to 2.x contrast formula?

Rachael: sometimes this research will identify required AT improvements

bruce_bailey: Most things being researched are academic, with color we are asking "is it better"?

Rachael: APCA will be one of the algos we are testing

alastairc: We want to ID where there are gaps that need filling

todd: are there other algos other than APCA that we want to look at?

alastairc: I think there are other ones, this will be a question in the research.

<alastairc> We'll add to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jYeO9xtaq5jiS_m0QSdo1MDm9th_h8lpsh5SSeXmsSs/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0

NatT: is there a spot in our documentation as to how to best find research? I have a tie-in with animation, has any one found any animation studies?

alastairc: We'll add that to the documentation. I haven't looked at Animation research since WCAG 2.X

Views definition - update from the sub-group https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cBLfSLZLq_mjICN9IKWD4-4PIOxQQzwvdRBWzFBnsyA/edit#slide=id.p alastairc]

alastairc: next item is Views definition, Hidde and the sub group have been working on this.

hdv: The subgroup has been working on defining views.
… reviewing slide deck here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cBLfSLZLq_mjICN9IKWD4-4PIOxQQzwvdRBWzFBnsyA/edit#slide=id.p
… a lot of WCAG is challenging to apply without "pages".
… the subgroup is suggesting using "views" whenever we were using "pages" before
… There are 16:00 SC's that mention "pages" in WCAG 2

<cahall> I need to run to another call, but if able to come back for our small group breakout, I'll come back for that..

hdv: {reading out slides}
… hopefully by using the more generic "views" it will work in more places
… Asked around on Social Media for people's definition of "views" some answers included in slide deck.
… WCAG 3 draft has a definition of "View" (in slide deck)
… considering expanding view definition into more definitions
… reviewing proposed changes to definition in slide deck
… We may potentially define "view", "set of views", and "Subview"
… Slide deck has proposed defintions for these terms
… Showing YouTube as an example of the distinction between View, Set of Views, and Subview
… in the example of Google Docs, the "whole thing" is a set of views. but there were differing opinions on what is a subview or component

hdv: confirming that an entire site is a "set of views"
… reviewing more examples of view/subview/ set of views in slide deck.
… opening up the floor for discussion/questions.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say did you consider simply removing the use of "page" in some situations, rather than altering the term?

mbgower: concerned that scope of the problem is maybe not precisely enough defined. Wondering can we just remove "page" rather than replacing with "view".

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if we need "sub-view" if we already have/need "component" and to also ask if product = set of views, or whether a product can have multiple sections.

<Graham> Thoughts: checkouts - are we now "ACAG" - all content accessibility guidelines, where is our remit and limits of where we cover. Also "views" is still very visually biased, suggesting "user experience" for everything, "user experience unit" for individual "pages", "experience module" for sub-sections of a "page" etc.

alastairc: we have some other definitions in wcag3 that may overlap. Why have both "sub-views" and "components"?

<scott> FWIW, I think it's probably a good idea to incorporate mgower's point as much as possible. whenever possible, let's try to remove being specific about page/view/whatever. and use it more only when absolutely necessary

<Rachael> +1 to needing both set of views and product

<Graham> *content experience instead of user experience, to avoid confusion with current commonly used terms

alastairc: we have "product" and "set of views". I can see a need for a definition of a sub section that is not product-wide. Most of these definitions are useful for scoping a test.

<todd> "viewport" over "screen"

GreggVan: We spent about a year working on "views". Everyone agreed that we need "views" but could not agree on a definition. When we talk abut alternate forms of the same page is that a different view? Commenting on the idea of getting rid of "page". We need a unit of measurement. We can't just get rid of "page". In any web app you have an

infinite number of views that might all be technically the same "page". Is every dynamic change its own view? "Screen" is not useful as a definition because of scrolling and zooming making that variable. For "sub view" I can't see any reason for that, subviews are an expansion of a view or another view. A "set of docs" needs to be for a single

purpose. The most important thing is that we need to keep the idea of a user-controlled user agent. If we removed that we'd lose all of our accessibility assumptions.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about slide 23:00 (google doc with tabs), is that a single webpage (per wcag 2.x definition)

bruce_bailey: (asking about slide 23).. with WCAG 2 understanding of "web page" a Google Doc with all its modals would be a "web page". We need a different word besides "view". There is a historical problem where we worried about "file".

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say component, items, and non static content

Rachael: You had mentioned the distinction between component, sub-component, and item. As we think about sub-view vs view think about things that are static versus dynamic.

<Rachael> +1 to thank you. This is great progress forward.

<NatT> Gotta drop for another call.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Jennie for "below the fold"

Jennie_Delisi: thanks for working on this, this has been a great difficulty before. Thinking about "below the fold". For people with cognitive disabilities it can be useful to know there is a subview. Hopefully there will be a concept of a repeated view, such as a common dialog to make testing efficient. For set of views there are times when a

topic area may be visually distinguished, not sure if this is a subview or set of views. For example a "career" section.

<Chuck> +1 Thank you for all this work

<Graham> +10:00 to that, loads of effort gone in to this!

dan_bjorge: thanks for this work. I don't think that switching to "view" is an improvement over "page". People have very distinct notions of what a "view" is, more variable than understanding of "page". I would be in favor of a change that stays closer to the definition of a page, but maybe drop the definition that it is based on a URI

Graham: We seem to be expanding outwards. The bigger we get the harder it is to define. The term "view" may be insufficient to describe, for example, audio UI.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on "purpose" or "task" in the definition would be, probably better to define "significant difference". Also, we want to be applicable outside of user-agents.

<hdv> [current web page def: “ a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent “]

<dan_bjorge> I disagree. "a non-embedded resource plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent. Example 1: An HTTP resource obtained by visiting a single URI."

alastairc: there was a mention of "purposeful task", I think this may be confusing. It need revision. If you take out the URI aspect of "page" there may be nothing left to define a page or unit of conformance.
… One of the goals is to have a definition that applies in the absence of a user agent,.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to alastair that "unit of conformance" is key

<alastairc> I like PurpleZebras ;-)

<scott> i agree. purple zebra seems to be the way to go

<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to PurpleZebras

<todd> +1 to purple zebra

GreggVan: I suggest "process" over "task" or "purpose". In standards we want to avoid defining a term that people already have a personal definition for. Suggests coining a new word without prior definition.

alastairc: any asks from subgroups?

Sub-group stand-up

bruce_bailey: in "inputs" we are struggling with finding a collection inputs to build a decision tree.

GreggVan: "decision tree" may be wrong name for it, maybe "evaluation tree", or "Techniques tree".

<bruce_bailey> I like "requirements tree"

<bruce_bailey> Inputs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cxiE1rfpmYs0fmS1CDyRGq-_-_mTghz7vRlGcAhgWLc/

alastairc: the tree helps a user know which requirements are applicable to a situation. I will join your subgroup at the start of the meeting.

julierawe: when is the first sprint deadline?

<bruce_bailey> +1 for when THIS sprint is ending

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say let the chairs figure that out outside of this call.

Rachael: different teams started at different points., maybe next week we'll make a call based on where you are during standups.

<julierawe> Can you please reshare the link to the handbook?

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ByDvegN1EpA1rSWXPUAWmX_MGgXJlIgm/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs

Chuck: +1 Rachael. The chairs will figure out what to do about the differing paces.