– DRAFT –
AGWG-2025-04-15

<Deltev> Any introductions?

<Deltev> No announcements....

<Deltev> Chuck: Any items from group?

<Deltev> ...nnone...

WCAG 2.2 issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025AprJun/0000.html

<Deltev> mbgower: (walking though the email with WCAG 2.X reviews

<Deltev> mbgower: Due date extended to 22 April

<Deltev> ...first section on proposed changes

<Deltev> mbgower (runs through content structure of regular email proposing changes and bug fixes and ways to contribute)

<bruce_bailey> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56

<Chuck> http://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1

<bruce_bailey> board requires log in

<Deltev> mbgower: four discussion areas in the Default board (a kanban board of issues)

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#4256

<Deltev> mbgower : explains changes in #4256 (alphabetical listing)

<Deltev> mbgower: as a normative change this has to gone through CFC process

<Deltev> mbgower: more substantive changes are planned for future version changes

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#4122

<Deltev> looking at #4122 now (user inactivity)

<Deltev> ....want to get feedback on this

<Deltev> GreggVan: :sentence broken out as note would have to be art of the definition - it can't be a note, notes cannot alter a definition, just explain it

<Deltev> ...better leave it as part of the definition

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Mike how he wants to receive the feedback.

<Deltev> mbgower: purpose is not to solve it but gather feedback, Gregg please add this info

<Deltev> Chuck: Mike how do you want to receive feedback?

<Deltev> mbgower: best in WCAG issue

<Deltev> ...if there is discussion, the TF will look at how to move forward

<bruce_bailey> listserv email is public-wcag2-issues@w3.org

<Deltev> mbgower: the two are normative changes - the next are substantive, but not normative - Understanding, Techniques, clarify info

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#4212

<Deltev> mbgower: looking at #4212 (labels descriptions) - please comment or give thumbs up or down

<Deltev> mbgower: there seven altogether - you have time till next tuesday

UI-context (ex-views) definition https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/286#discussioncomment-12480952

<Deltev> UI-context / view definition discussion

<Deltev> alastairc: lots of discussion already (showing loaf of bread)

<Deltev> alastairc: working in parallel on term for "smallest possible unit" and "conformance unit"

<Deltev> alastairc: explaining that components have units (like drop-down menu where items have focus)

<Deltev> ...main focus has been User Interface Context / Conformance unit

<Deltev> ...we need something to define whether some issue falls within a conformance unit or not

<Deltev> ...it matter where there are alternative ways to achieve functionality (other target on page) - conforming alternate view

<Deltev> ...process / task will probably a set of conformance units

<Deltev> ...one definition is Content (reading WCAG definition)

<Deltev> ...another is "closely available", e.g. "in current interface or after one control activation"

<kirkwood> could you share the presentation link?

<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pN6zc0YjxY2TmhmrSii0Y5ghzjdNOqMV5F4a_Dfqsyo/edit?tab=t.yyfjn0xes91s#heading=h.9fwyp0lk034n

<Deltev> ...last iteration was (reads latest definition)

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15FRc6dstrCV6brDfA-zL5xH_FRZo6Dr068Cet24TI4U/edit#slide=id.g34c0dee94c2_0_31

<Deltev> ...reading page (URL above)

<Deltev> alastairc: showing example email app with different views

<Deltev> ...moe difficult would be eBay - same header but content is changing)

<Deltev> ...extra navigation on some pages - item page with dedicated controls

<bruce_bailey> Thin / Thick slicing slide is https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15FRc6dstrCV6brDfA-zL5xH_FRZo6Dr068Cet24TI4U/edit#slide=id.g34c0dee94c2_0_37

<Deltev> ...exercise show you can thick-slice or thin-slice it (like treating all pages with same navi as one UI context)

<Deltev> ...thin-slicing interface with specific layout

<Deltev> ...any change where some element comes up this would count as new - probably too extreme because the number gets very high soon

<Deltev> .. we need a happy medium

<Deltev> GreggVan: Ebay examples are clearly three units (despite sharing the same header)

<GN015> I think the location of components which are maintained also belong to the context.

<Deltev> GreggVan: suggest Conformance unit changes view if 50% or more of the page changes

<Deltev> not to measured quantitively when looking at the after state (e.g .when an expansion opens tone of content)

<Deltev> ...tabs may have different content - maybe 50% isn't going to work

<Deltev> GreggVan: if the whole structure changes. in would be a new view - not if something is expanded

<Deltev> hdv: I struggle to map the definition to the practice of audits

<Deltev> ...the report in the Netherlands shows a thick-slice approach would be difficult - thin-slice would be too many

<Deltev> ...you look at it more practically to define a sample that makes sense of the content under test that will be useful for recipients of a report - we can't be too prescriptive, need to keep it flexible

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how to define something without comparing to the other pages/units?

<Deltev> kirkwood: question is could you respond to design if a page completely changes design e.g. to a smaller screen - how does it relate to the slicing issue?

<Deltev> alastairc: we would need a concept like the existing one on page variation the viewport with probably shouldn't play into Conformance units as this would get messy

<GN015> A percentage might not meet user needs, though, as counting does not take into account which elements are in te mental focus of the user.

<hdv> +1 to alastairc's point: easy to 'see' which pages are different, hard to 'define' why it is different

<Deltev> ...its easy to click through a website and define this is really different - the difficulty is defining *why* it is different

<Deltev> ...like "I know what it is when I see it" - you can only do it when comparing pages within a set

<Deltev> ...equivalent issue is important - element needs to be available

<Deltev> ...the second one is a conformance statement - can people declare one for a part of their site?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to point out wcag 2 term is a bit circular

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-change-of-context

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer hidde, being from a company that creates a large number of conformance reports

<bruce_bailey> major changes that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously

<Deltev> bruce_bailey: WCAG defines changes of context in terms that they are problematic

<Deltev> Chuck: speaking as member of Oracle (1000s of conformance reports): finds large slice definition appealing

<alastairc> Bruce - this did start out with "change of context" as the basis, but were trying to make it more objective

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I remember! The 50% suggestion

<bruce_bailey> alastairc -- i agree the direction we are working *is* making it more objective

<Deltev> GN015: i a user is on a page - is dependent on what is above and below, what comes before and after... like pieces above should not change while pieces below can change

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on 50%

<Deltev> Chuck: finding 50% change intriguing - it would pertain to changes the meaning for the user - Gregg was talking about changes before and after

<Deltev> alastairc: 50% of content could change very easily - leaning toward "50% of controls"

<kirkwood> +1 to Alastair

<Deltev> GreggVan: changed min on 50% line in the sand - because content changes may be substantial without changing much of the rest - control might be a better idea - should be very clear - and then run against a set of pages to see whether it works - should be roughly equivalent to page definition in WCAG 2 - the key about "view" is whether or not the

<Deltev> structure has changed

<Deltev> ...like for a blind user experience

<GN015> Among the 50% or less there might be a change above the scrolling area, for example.

<GN015> On the other side, the page might be large showing many search results, so even a change of 90% might not be a change of context.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/286#discussioncomment-12670208

<Deltev> Chuck: Alastair where do we go here?

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pN6zc0YjxY2TmhmrSii0Y5ghzjdNOqMV5F4a_Dfqsyo/edit?tab=t.yyfjn0xes91s#heading=h.9fwyp0lk034n

<Deltev> Alastair :we had a new idea here that's fine - any idea on pinning down this definition to make it more objective - when is a page different enough to become its own conformance unit - not so worried about sampling - can be separate

<Deltev> hdv: would we need a different word fr that too, since now it is based on pages?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about github diff

<Deltev> alastairc: Inn practice it is more separated in terms of components - it there is a methodology based on components, the idea of sampling might change

<Deltev> Chuck: referring to layout flows differences and similarities - could that be a mechanism to determine units because it is isolated from viewport width issues

Review template https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MHJwOWJhGZS4zZYiF9ufNfxTmqFf6bf07vNHAAgfylE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jwan2ys80z90

<Deltev> alastairc: Look at examples (45 mins past)

<Deltev> Chuck: Makoto wondered what the template to be used should be - different groups were tweaking and alternating templates

<Deltev> alastairc: still living doc currently until it settles...

<Deltev> ...Guideline, Requirements from draft; goal what to do, User needs, Foundational Applicability Tree (with some flexibility in the tree)

<Deltev> ...the key work is creating a list of requirements

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGEgRebgj8XfvwU-Fx2kAtd-3Ifl-UkEgyOxT1Xc5UY/edit?tab=t.0

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask alastair to paste the text appearance link into irc

<Deltev> alastairc: Text appearance applicability tree (explains)

<Deltev> ...table of requirements: foundational, supplementary

<Deltev> ...each requirement needs a tech-agnostic but testable statement

<Deltev> GreggVan: Is the new one the yellow one?

<Deltev> Alastair: yes

<Deltev> GreggVan: what's the difference between guideline and goal?

<Deltev> alastairc: started with previous draft guideline...

<Deltev> GreggVan: (discussion on semantic differences of"goal" and "guideline"with alastairc

<Chuck> +1 no objections

<Deltev> GreggVan: put user needs at the top, then guideline and goal...

<Deltev> ...goal is going into understanding doc

<Deltev> ...difference between guideline and requirements

<kirkwood> if gov’t we often used “Purpose”, if useful.

<Deltev> alastairc: was useful for this guideline

<Deltev> GreggVan: what comes first, requirement and test?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about our short term goal

<kirkwood> Guidelines and a purpose statement seems poss missing?

<Deltev> Chuck : Should we alter goals regarding template based on Gregg's feedback?

<Deltev> Keep a smaller group here to discuss template?

<Deltev> GreggVan: no more comments on template - applicability should come after requirement - requirement have to be split into author and UA

<bruce_bailey> input stays here please

<Deltev> new scribe for template??

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to Chuck

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about "out comes"

bruce: What is closest to the outcome?

bruce: You have guideline, goal... we've got this set for most of our requirements, we have a good first draft.

<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y5r2ubojyx4kHOu01HqyC1WLkIPhJibwJigAHwLNwrI/edit?tab=t.345nehok2mye#heading=h.8s3hqqb76mwp

bruce: I'd like to go back to the decision tree refinement document.

alastair: Should I join your breakout room?

<Deltev> will you handle the creation of minutes later on?

bruce: Yes, but to highlight. The decision tree template was very helpful.

bruce: this doesn't follow the template. I'm not sure which should be our focus at this point. There is the guideline but its not in the editors draft. The goal is not there, but not sure where they would go in this.

alastair: The doc you linked to was the decision tree refinement. This I put together is focused on how I translated what I saw in the input document. It's more of a trunk.

alastair: It's a trunk, that's not a problem. The question is where does the other stuff go.

alastair: I only included the guideline because it helps understanding. The key thing at this stage is defining foundational and supplimental requirements.

kirkwood: What is missing, maybe it is goal. I've had this in the court room, what is the purpose statement? That was often the way that people could disentangle what was meant. by having a quick definition.

kirkwood: goal sounds unachievable.

alastair: This was intended to be the informative portion.

julierawe: Can one of the ag chairs join the breakout, we have some questions from the template.

alastair: I think I can.

Gregg: The decision tree won't fly in any other standards group. It's ok for people to use them. When we are all done I will take a task to do a demonstration to show how it can be done without the tree. I will prove to myself if it can or can't, as an alternative.

Alastair: We are holding that out as a fallback.

Gregg: Tree or no tree, that is something we are going to work out, and I volunteer.

Alastair: I went through that before, it looked similar.