14:09:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:09:53 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/08-ag-irc
14:09:53 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:09:54 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:10:07 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:10:21 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-04-08
14:10:29 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:10:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/08-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:10:38 <Chuck> regrets:  Patrick Lauke, Steve Faulkner, Todd Libby
14:10:40 <Chuck> zakim, clear agenda
14:10:40 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:10:55 <Chuck> agenda+  Items  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/301 and definitions scratchpad
14:11:03 <Chuck> agenda+ Task Flows / Processes https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/294
14:11:08 <Chuck> agenda+ Subgroup work
14:11:22 <kevin> regrets+ Kevin, Hidde
14:25:03 <Chuck> regrets+ Scott O'Hara
14:37:35 <Chuck> regrets+ Alastair Campbell
14:46:25 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
14:49:54 <Chuck> regrets+ Christopher Loiselle
14:53:14 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:57:11 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:58:25 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:00:15 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:00:21 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:00:29 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:00:56 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:00:58 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:02:03 <kenneth> kenneth has joined #ag
15:02:36 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:39 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #ag
15:02:43 <CHall> CHall has joined #ag
15:02:49 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:02:49 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bruce_bailey
15:02:52 <Makoto6> Makoto6 has joined #ag
15:02:53 <CHall> present+
15:02:55 <gpellegrino> present+
15:03:00 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:03:04 <jtoles> present+
15:03:06 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:03:09 <bruce_bailey> scribe+
15:03:09 <Makoto6> present+ Makoto
15:03:10 <kenneth> present+
15:03:12 <joryc> present+
15:03:13 <Rachael> present+
15:03:20 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
15:03:20 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
15:03:24 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
15:03:42 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  House keeping, anyone new to the call?
15:03:55 <Chuck> zakim, take up first item
15:03:55 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take up first item', Chuck
15:03:57 <bruce_bailey> Chuck polls chair and group for announcements
15:04:02 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:04:02 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:04:02 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Items  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/301 and definitions scratchpad -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:04:06 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:04:09 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
15:04:09 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:04:10 <Zakim> 1. Items  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/301 and definitions scratchpad [from Chuck]
15:04:10 <Zakim> 2. Task Flows / Processes https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/294 [from Chuck]
15:04:10 <Zakim> 3. Subgroup work [from Chuck]
15:04:28 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TN5DrA__RZZ4u1Y1TIynlPCiC3nrFAaApTuLRtdPGqM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m2m0skpxxrio
15:04:37 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Start with 301 discussion
15:04:45 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
15:04:48 <bruce_bailey> Rachael shares screen
15:04:49 <MJ> present+
15:05:36 <ashleyfirth> ashleyfirth has joined #ag
15:05:38 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:05:41 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:05:46 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:05:46 <Frankie> present+
15:05:49 <ashleyfirth> present+
15:05:51 <julierawe> present+
15:05:59 <Graham> Graham has joined #ag
15:06:04 <Graham> present+
15:06:09 <bruce_bailey> Where we left off last week, was discussing UI Unit or UI context got us closer to consensus, but we did not conclude conversion.
15:06:13 <mbgower> present+
15:06:17 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:06:36 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  we need something between interactive and static...
15:06:50 <bruce_bailey> Please weigh in on GitHub thread
15:07:32 <bruce_bailey> ... We need something which can be used for things like image or words in a sentence or paragraph...
15:07:45 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:07:52 <sarahhorton> present+
15:07:54 <Chuck> q+
15:07:55 <bruce_bailey> Components test at different granularity.
15:08:00 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:08:23 <bruce_bailey> We also need some backward compatibility with terms and concepts from WCAG 2.
15:08:34 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:08:37 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Are we hoping to finalize terms?
15:08:43 <ShawnT> present+
15:08:43 <Graham> q+ to say, unit examples are very varied in size, is it test / method specific that the word changes
15:08:56 <Chuck> ack Graham
15:08:56 <Zakim> Graham, you wanted to say, unit examples are very varied in size, is it test / method specific that the word changes
15:09:21 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We need shared terminology and only change if needed, but still in the middle of process, and can return to this problem if needed.
15:09:54 <bruce_bailey> Graham:  Could terms change depending on contest?  For example media player has lots of parts to it.
15:10:07 <Chuck> q+
15:10:08 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:10:17 <bruce_bailey> ... I agree we are processing on list of terms.
15:10:18 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:10:38 <Rachael> q+
15:10:45 <Chuck> ack gia
15:10:51 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Media player is good example of content versus UI component and need for nesting.
15:10:55 <Graham> q+ to say, could we add examples within each method / guidance part then perhaps?
15:11:03 <bruce_bailey> [scribe misses Chucks comment]
15:11:28 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
15:11:36 <Chuck> Chuck:  Does this mean that the definition of "unit" depends on the guidance/method/test, and could change when another guidance/method/test is defined?
15:11:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:11:54 <bruce_bailey> giacomo-petri:  Agree that we are on correct track, term like unit will mean something different for menu item for example.
15:11:55 <Jon_avila> Present+
15:11:57 <Chuck> ack Graham
15:11:57 <Zakim> Graham, you wanted to say, could we add examples within each method / guidance part then perhaps?
15:11:59 <Jennie_Delisi> * Each requirement defines unit for that specific requirement.
15:12:28 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I think we can terms defined while having different implications for different methods or contexts.
15:12:47 <Chuck> q?
15:13:00 <Poornima> present+
15:13:14 <bruce_bailey> Graham:  Going word by word in one context makes sense, but that would not make sense for a media player.
15:13:28 <bruce_bailey> [rachael making notes in Google doc]
15:13:56 <Chuck> q+
15:14:00 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:14:02 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We can get something close-ish today, sub groups can start working with new vocabulary.
15:14:30 <Graham> q+ what is then a user interface component (is that a button group for example)?
15:14:47 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Graham mentioned that examples will be very helpful, but are examples part of the working document and intended as part of definition?
15:15:14 <Chuck> q?
15:15:21 <bruce_bailey> Graham:  If we are having flexibility, it gets tricky for subgroup working on things like media player.
15:15:40 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  I agree that examples will help inform our decision.
15:16:22 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  No one else in queue.  So is everyone on call comfortable with working definition for today?
15:16:24 <sarahhorton> Have we looked at Atomic Design for inspiration? https://atomicdesign.bradfrost.com/chapter-2/
15:16:31 <Graham> q+
15:16:43 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  If we have UI Unit do we need Unit?
15:16:51 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say we need part
15:17:12 <Chuck> ack Graham
15:17:21 <bruce_bailey> Graham:  Doe we have have vocabulary to talk about components and buttons?
15:17:26 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
15:17:44 <bruce_bailey> Graham:  Doe we have have vocabulary to talk about components and buttons?
15:17:45 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  We still need to define "part".
15:17:45 <Rachael> q+
15:17:49 <Chuck> ack bru
15:17:49 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say we need part
15:17:54 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:18:17 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:18:33 <Graham> could we not say "element" (as that is pretty universal) for things like buttons. The lowest technology native part essentially and then "unit" becomes smallest testable part in each context?
15:18:43 <GreggVan> q+
15:18:52 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  The smallest testable piece is a button.  In a media player, yes, we need nesting terms.
15:18:52 <Chuck> ack gia
15:20:00 <bruce_bailey> giacomo-petri:  Talking about one of the examples, drop down menus, unit could be entire menu, collection of units within menu column contain, but also one atomic unit in the menu.
15:20:14 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:20:42 <bruce_bailey> ... If intention is to test container, we we need to be able to talk about pieces of the container.
15:21:09 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  The only thing that will be viable is whatever is being tested...
15:21:32 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:21:50 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:21:51 <bruce_bailey> The navigation bar or skip link is going to be part of the page.  All of the parts could be unit.
15:21:59 <Chuck> q?
15:22:03 <Azlan> present+
15:22:05 <Chuck> q?
15:22:16 <Jen_G> Present+
15:22:17 <bruce_bailey> ... Hopeless to say sub unit, sub sub unit, etc.
15:22:36 <Chuck> Poll:  Does the group support continuing forward with development of the terms "Unit" and "Process" found on this definitions scratchpad:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TN5DrA__RZZ4u1Y1TIynlPCiC3nrFAaApTuLRtdPGqM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ti7ji79nncnn
15:22:50 <GreggVan> q+
15:22:50 <Rachael> q+
15:22:56 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:22:57 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:23:01 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Rachel is capturing notes, do we have enough in the doc to let people go forward?
15:23:18 <Detlev> present+
15:23:28 <joryc> q+ to say smallest testable piece of content will always be any tag, right? Should we discuss unit as the scope of a test?
15:23:36 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Lets call it something like evaluation unit or something that is not a plain english word...
15:24:06 <bruce_bailey> ... we could have Evaluation Unit or evalu-unit but it needs to be unique...
15:24:15 <Detlev> q+
15:24:19 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:24:36 <bruce_bailey> ... a button could be both unit and a UI Unit and it will be confusing.
15:24:39 <mbgower> "unit" seems relatively safe to me
15:24:43 <GreggVan> q+
15:24:56 <Chuck> ack jory
15:24:56 <Zakim> joryc, you wanted to say smallest testable piece of content will always be any tag, right? Should we discuss unit as the scope of a test?
15:25:12 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I am okay with trying to use a particular term, and that can be an option for the poll.
15:25:56 <Chuck> q?
15:25:58 <bruce_bailey> joryc:  I struggle a bit with small testable piece of content, maybe the small testable unit for the assertion or test?
15:25:58 <mbgower> +1
15:26:00 <Chuck> ack Detlev
15:26:03 <Rachael> q+
15:26:49 <bruce_bailey> Detlev:  I think it acceptable to use "unit" without any qualifier because the the context will be self explanatory...
15:27:36 <mbgower> q+ to say maybe "against which an assertion can be made"? A unit may still have attributes we would want to inspect, but we would report against a unit (at most)
15:27:37 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:27:38 <sarahhorton> I like the proposal of something like "evaluation unit", which removes ambiguity
15:27:38 <bruce_bailey> ... Rachael had example with media player, it is no problem to talk about audio description even when the concern is the media player.
15:28:01 <bruce_bailey> ... It is not a problem in really life.
15:29:06 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  It is okay to use word in common usage, but we should not use glossary terms which we feel compelled to clarify with our definitions.
15:29:19 <Detlev> @gregg offen, the same lexical term has a range of meanings in different contexts - that is completely normal.
15:29:37 <bruce_bailey> ... We can use standard words, so long as we use standard definition....
15:29:41 <mbgower> q?
15:30:15 <Detlev> ...and there will be several definitions even of 'unit' in a dictionary...
15:30:31 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:30:40 <bruce_bailey> ... With regard to menu example, we call talk about choices in a drop down, and even characters in the words in a drop down choice.
15:30:41 <Laura_Carlson> Merriam-webster definition for "unit": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unit
15:31:09 <bruce_bailey> ... Example should include both menu item and characters in a menu item.
15:31:39 <Detlev> ..so even Webster has more than a handful of definitions depending on context!
15:31:51 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
15:32:00 <AlinaV> present+
15:32:14 <Chuck> q+ to ask for the Poll:  1) Unit, 2) Evaluation unit, 3) User Interface Unit
15:32:19 <Chuck> ack mb
15:32:19 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say maybe "against which an assertion can be made"? A unit may still have attributes we would want to inspect, but we would report against a unit (at most)
15:32:25 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  I think it is okay to use a common term in our glossary, we can make it link (or not) for the TR doc.
15:32:41 <Rachael> q+
15:32:45 <Detlev> q+
15:32:46 <GreggVan> q+    to say    1) if you want to have this adopted in any regulatory   2)   to make editorial comment.  Only the definition should be
15:32:50 <bruce_bailey> mbgower:  I thought we were looking for a term which we don't go below?
15:32:56 <Chuck> Poll:  1) Unit, 2) Evaluation unit, 3) User Interface Unit
15:32:59 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:32:59 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for the Poll:  1) Unit, 2) Evaluation unit, 3) User Interface Unit
15:33:06 <GreggVan> 2
15:33:15 <Francis_Storr> agree with the Mike's "composite" comment for media player. Related: see ARIA's composite role: https://w3c.github.io/aria/#composite
15:33:26 <Graham> 1,2,3
15:33:28 <Chuck> 2, 1, 3
15:33:32 <mbgower> 1
15:33:34 <sarahhorton> 2
15:33:34 <Azlan> 1
15:33:38 <joryc> 2,3,1
15:33:39 <Jennie_Delisi> 1, 2
15:33:40 <Rachael> 0
15:33:40 <Makoto6> 2
15:33:43 <Detlev> 1,3,2
15:33:45 <CHall> 2,1,3
15:33:46 <MJ> 2
15:33:47 <ShawnT> 2,1,3
15:33:48 <filippo-zorzi> 2,1,3
15:33:50 <Francis_Storr> 3,1,2
15:33:51 <Laura_Carlson> 2, 1 ,3
15:33:55 <Francis_Storr> q+
15:33:59 <jtoles> 2, 1, 3
15:34:04 <mbgower> (but I can live with any of them)
15:34:12 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:34:22 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  As chair, I will have trouble with live tally, but looks like 2 is more popular
15:34:48 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I agree that 2 has slight edge.  Any objects to using Evaluation Unit for now?
15:34:53 <CHall> as a literal thinker, I like evaluation unit because it's specific (we're going to test that)
15:34:59 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:35:02 <Chuck> ack Detlev
15:35:33 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:35:33 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    1) if you want to have this adopted in any regulatory   2)   to make editorial comment.  Only the definition should be
15:35:38 <bruce_bailey> Detlev:  +1 to mike, I think it may be more contract to have composite term.
15:36:08 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  For an SDO, we can't use "Unit" as is being proposed.
15:37:03 <bruce_bailey> ...As everything is composite, even button has aspects (for example active/inactive area) which are important
15:37:15 <Chuck> ack Francis
15:37:31 <bruce_bailey> ... Also, important that definition can replace term -- and everything else is a note
15:37:34 <Francis_Storr> https://w3c.github.io/aria/#composite
15:37:53 <Chuck> ack gia
15:38:12 <bruce_bailey> Francis_Storr:  Disagree that concept of composite is problematic, as it works for context.
15:38:30 <GreggVan> q+
15:38:36 <Chuck> q+ to say I think we need to start somewhere to help in the crafting of the guidelines
15:38:46 <mbgower> I was just thinking the same thing, Giacomo. Isn't the thing being assessed determined by the outcome being assessed?
15:38:47 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:39:05 <bruce_bailey> giacomo-petri:  Maybe we can clarify unit within scope of test.  For example an image of text would have different meaning for "unit" but that is okay.
15:39:36 <Chuck> regrets+ Jennifer Strickland
15:40:05 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:40:05 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think we need to start somewhere to help in the crafting of the guidelines
15:40:05 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  +1 to giacomo.  My point is that when we are talking about all of them at once.  Within get the provision, we should not use "evaluation unit".
15:40:24 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:40:32 <LenB> present+
15:40:51 <Chuck> q?
15:40:52 <Rachael> q+
15:40:54 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  CHO we need a term while we are doing drafting.  Maybe once we have drafting mature, we might find we can leave definition out.
15:40:54 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:41:03 <GreggVan> s/"evaluation unit"/"the evaluation unit is xxxx (for this requirement)"
15:41:15 <Chuck> q?
15:41:20 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:41:23 <Chuck> ack gia
15:41:31 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  +1  to chuck.  Do we need Unit if we have Evaluation Unit?
15:41:46 <GreggVan> q+
15:42:11 <bruce_bailey> giacomo-petri:  the part which is conceived by the user as whole is different from what a provision might be referring to...
15:42:43 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:42:59 <bruce_bailey> ...if native HTML, we talking about elements -- and that is meaningful to author -- but not the end user.
15:43:51 <Chuck> q?
15:43:53 <Graham> q+
15:43:56 <Chuck> ack Graham
15:44:10 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  +1 to giacomo-petri -- We cannot reference "perceive by the user" because that is an unknown.  We might write "intended to be perceived as a unit by the user"
15:44:37 <GreggVan> q+
15:44:54 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:45:10 <bruce_bailey> Graham:  Could we scope to technology?  In HTML the smallest unit would be tag or element.  For an audio program it might be different.  For document it might be paragraph.
15:45:17 <Graham> q+
15:45:44 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  What is the purpose for defining the smallest element of a user interface?  Where we use it?
15:46:06 <Chuck> ack Graham
15:46:10 <bruce_bailey> ... We need scope for a provision, but otherwise we don't need "smallest element".
15:46:45 <GreggVan> q+
15:46:52 <bruce_bailey> Graham:  It gives the a ground to for building a a definition which is structured.   For web units build up to be a page.
15:47:05 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:47:24 <bruce_bailey> ... Media player could be a combination of units in a way which make sense to talk about them.
15:47:51 <Francis_Storr> q+
15:48:00 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  1st we are not going to be able to name all of the technologies, because technologies evolve.
15:49:06 <bruce_bailey> ... On a provision, in the provision, we must write what you must do and what you do to it.  The bits and pieces can't be part of that, because it won't make sense as linked defined term.
15:49:24 <Chuck> q+ to summarize
15:49:27 <Chuck> ack Franc
15:50:00 <bruce_bailey> Francis_Storr:  It is good to be talking about what the user is going to perceive as unit, design or intended as unit is important distinction.
15:50:36 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:50:36 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to summarize
15:50:44 <bruce_bailey> ... Going back to media player, consider drag bar or volume control, it makes sense for each of those to be considered as a component for a provision.
15:51:24 <GreggVan> q+  to say  agree  and std practice
15:51:30 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  CHO -- I understand Gregg's concern but I still think we need a term to help with sub group work...
15:51:44 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:51:44 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  agree  and std practice
15:51:46 <bruce_bailey> ... Chairs will flush out examples and come back to group next week.
15:52:18 <Rachael> q+
15:52:47 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  What you propose is fine and is common with SDO work.  Can come back to end and see if terms are not used or not needed because they can be deleted at end...
15:52:48 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:53:07 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  What to poll group on how to move forward.
15:53:27 <GreggVan> +1 to moving on and getting experience using them before further discussion
15:53:33 <Chuck> q+
15:53:41 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:53:50 <bruce_bailey> ...If people are comfortable going forward where we are, we might not need to poll.
15:54:02 <mbgower> +1 to moving on and getting experience using them before further discussion
15:54:23 <Rachael> Option 1) Bring it back for more conversation next week or 2) Continue the discussion on GitHub and bring it back only when needed
15:54:35 <bruce_bailey> chuck:  We either continue on live calls or work continue just in git hub.
15:54:42 <GreggVan> 2
15:54:47 <sarahhorton> 2
15:54:50 <Chuck> 2
15:54:52 <ShawnT> 2
15:54:54 <Jennie_Delisi> 2
15:54:56 <giacomo-petri> 2
15:54:59 <Makoto6> 2
15:55:00 <filippo-zorzi> 2
15:55:01 <Detlev> 2
15:55:07 <Azlan> 2
15:55:07 <Rachael> 2 (chair hat off)
15:55:10 <LenB> 2
15:55:17 <Graham> 1 (just toi be awkward, actually 2)
15:55:19 <Francis_Storr> 1
15:55:24 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  Seeing lots of votes for 2, but please note this only works if people contribute offline
15:55:53 <kenneth> q+
15:55:59 <Chuck> ack kenneth
15:55:59 <bruce_bailey> Francis:  I think bring back to meeting has some utility, but okay with 2.
15:56:24 <GreggVan> q+
15:56:31 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:56:31 <bruce_bailey> kenneth:  One factor is people who have trouble with GitHub or are not on call today.
15:56:55 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  If you sign up on GitHub, replies can be in email.
15:57:16 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say GitHub via email is scrambled.
15:57:39 <bruce_bailey> GreggVan:  Problem is finding issue.
15:57:53 <bruce_bailey> ...find the issue and comment.
15:58:31 <Chuck> bruce_bailey:  Gregg has been an individual who replies via email, but was asked to respond in the discussion.  Using email is aspirational.
15:58:46 <Rachael> q+ to say we can move this to our orientation calls
15:58:57 <Chuck> Gregg:  If you do sign up, you do get an email, and you can use the link and fill out the comment in the discussion.
15:59:00 <Chuck> ack bruce
15:59:00 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say GitHub via email is scrambled.
15:59:05 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:59:05 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we can move this to our orientation calls
15:59:27 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I will add to orientation call.
15:59:45 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  First meeting of the month starts early for anyone looking for orientation.
15:59:49 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
15:59:49 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Subgroup work -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:00:10 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We have another GitHub discussion process.
16:00:19 <mbgower> rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/08-ag-minutes.html mbgower
16:00:26 <Makoto6> q+ to ask co-chairs to let me have an opportunity to ask a question from our subgroup to check consensus as the whole group
16:00:45 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  We will continue discussion on the GitHub issue thread.
16:01:00 <bruce_bailey> ... Still unresolved for view whole view part of view
16:01:13 <kenneth> Process discussion I think is https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/294 ?
16:01:14 <Chuck> ack makoto
16:01:14 <Zakim> Makoto, you wanted to ask co-chairs to let me have an opportunity to ask a question from our subgroup to check consensus as the whole group
16:01:45 <bruce_bailey> Makoto6:  My subgroup is stuck on this and can't go forward without some additional clarification....
16:02:10 <Makoto6> "Method list" section in the Guideline template https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MHJwOWJhGZS4zZYiF9ufNfxTmqFf6bf07vNHAAgfylE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jwan2ys80z90
16:02:36 <bruce_bailey> ... The template is not working for us.  We are trying focus appearance, and even with Alastair helping, we have hit a dead end.
16:02:53 <Makoto6> Text Appearance
16:02:53 <Makoto6> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGEgRebgj8XfvwU-Fx2kAtd-3Ifl-UkEgyOxT1Xc5UY/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.a7wq1eee9ub7
16:03:13 <bruce_bailey> .... it the text appearance template, which we also tried to work from, still has subgroup stuck.
16:03:34 <bruce_bailey> Question can we change the sections and subsections on our own?
16:04:04 <Rachael> q+
16:04:33 <bruce_bailey> ... It would be better for sub groups to follow template , but we need to customize template for our use to keep work.  Subgroup asks for help with that.  Frankie, Laura?
16:04:37 <Chuck> ack Rachael
16:05:02 <Chuck> +1
16:05:16 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Chairs talking about this directly before this meeting.  Does not help you today, use template as you have it.  We will talk more about this next week,
16:05:18 <Laura_Carlson> Thank you.
16:05:22 <mbgower> q+ to say we are in the middle of a WCAG 2 task force review period. It didn't make the agenda, so we will defer for a week.
16:05:39 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/08-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
16:05:48 <bruce_bailey> Chuck:  open
16:05:50 <Chuck> ack mb
16:05:50 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say we are in the middle of a WCAG 2 task force review period. It didn't make the agenda, so we will defer for a week.
16:06:07 <bruce_bailey> s/open/opening rooms/
16:06:28 <bruce_bailey> MikeG wanted to say we are in the middle of a WCAG 2 task force review period. It didn't make the agenda, so we will defer for a week.
16:07:11 <Makoto6> s/Question can we change the sections and subsections on our own?/Our subgroup would like to get clarifications and confirm how to use the Guideline template to move forward
16:30:31 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
16:30:55 <jeroen> jeroen has joined #ag
16:31:01 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #ag
16:31:03 <kzms2> kzms2 has joined #ag
16:31:35 <tink> tink has joined #ag
16:31:46 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
17:00:32 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
17:31:05 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
17:53:29 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:00:18 <kenneth> kenneth has left #ag
18:01:52 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
18:10:10 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:15:23 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:46:51 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
19:15:00 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:21:30 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
19:49:42 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:03:15 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
20:15:46 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
21:15:38 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
22:09:33 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
23:44:25 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag