Meeting minutes
<ChrisLoiselle> regrets second half of meeting.
<Laura_Carlson> Scribe list: https://
Introductions
Chuck: is there anyone new to the group or with a change of affiliation?
alastairc: emails from me will come from a new address as our ccompany name changed to Gain
Announcements
Chuck: any announcements?
WCAG 2 issues review https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2025May/0001.html
<Graham> present_
<alastairc> https://
alastairc: I'll share my screen
BB: this project board, to see it, will require you to login as it's not public outside our working group
BB: most items on the Sent for WG Approval list are fairly minor and straightforward
BB: we're looking for folks on this call to give a thumbs up or provide a review
BB: we'd love extra eyes on this besides the folks who look at these regularly on Fridays
<alastairc> w3c/
BB: on #4337 we had a request to make a change but we discussed and were not sure how we would include the proposed changes, so we suggested it to be closed and a new PR to be made
BB: on #4349… one example in the note was reversed, Patrick added an example that is actually useful. I'll paste the text into IRC
<alastairc> https://
(proposed change as BB not in IRC: Examples where a particular display orientation may be essential are a bank check, a piano application, slides for a projector or television, or virtual reality content where parts of the image (for instance, a status bar or heads-up display) always remain at a fixed orientation relative to the headset screens (and the user's eyes) regardless of the physical orientation of the headset)
alastairc: there are a few things that have been through this review process, we have changes based on those issues
alastairc: #4370 is about writing the errata before we agree and merge the errata
alastairc: this PR spells out the changes
alastairc: please raise issues before we get to CFC process
kenneth: this is also trying to make sure we include rest of the updates
kenneth: changes to the "Errata Since Current Publication" are specific to the current CFC
alastairc: this is an invitation to check this before we go out to CFC. if we don't get replies we'll go to CFC end of this week or next
Charter kick-off
Chuck: Alastair will go through a slidedeck
Chuck: regarding the charter process
Chuck: we'll use conversational queuing
<Chuck> https://
alastairc: we're going to work on a new Charter, which we'll need towards the fall/winter. We need quite a long timescale, traditionally we start in spring with this to get everyone's input
alastairc: the focus of our 2023 charter was, for the first time as this group, wasn't on WCAG 2
alastairc: we wanted to demonstrate major components of WCAG 3, what's part of it and what's not
alastairc: we also wanted to have decided when WCAG 3 is delivered
alastairc: we also said it would include a preliminary set of guidelines
alastairc: also a representative set of outcomes worked out in details
alastairc: at least one example of each type / category
alastairc: a candidate conformance model
alastairc: and an approach on testing emerging tech
alastairc: no normative guidance for authoring tools, but maybe some informative guidance
alastairc: this was to avoid potential pushback from W3C members who produce UAs or authoring tools
alastairc: we also had a few more items in the charter, things like updating WCAG2ICT, tackling open WCAG 2 issues, secondary research (incl COGA), ACT rules updates and format changes, and updates to informative guidance
alastairc: since then, we've been working on new requirements, we had about 50 last time I checked, in rough versions (GDocs). We also have a draft conformance approach, with options to sort through. Also draft of an accessibilty supported update
alastairc: we've also got draft definitions like page/views/UI contexts
alastairc: we've got draft assertions too, to provide better coverage of disabilities
alastairc: we're also maintaining 'the criteria for criteria'
alastairc: and we have a few months to go, with some work to do. We've got the highest number of attendance that we've had in this group's history
alastairc: just need to be efficient
alastairc: goals for this year: developmental drafts for reqs we agree to include, requirements in 'refining' or 'mature' levels (incl associated informative docs)
alastairc: maybe those about colour contrast and inputs
alastairc: that enables us, given velocity of those two requirements, to find out how long it will take to find out the rest
alastairc: we need also some conformance criteria
alastairc: refine definitions too, especially the ones that concern scoping
alastairc: we should also finalise the structure for requirements and assertions
alastairc: and lastly, create the schedule for WCAG 3. We don't have a final timeline, but part of this charter is to come up with a realistic timeframe
alastairc: now, what we're drafting for the 2025 charter… this is still very much draft
alastairc: we'll take what we had in 2023 and move to the next st eps
alastairc: now is a good time for TF facilitators to think about what you want to achieve in next few years
alastairc: there's also potential for policy work
alastairc: this has been a general intro to what we've done and we want done before end of the year.
alastairc: we are looking for feedback, ideally things that are specific enough to include in the charter, and things that can be defined in time for October
shadi: thank you so much for bringing this discussion to the group
shadi: rechartering can take time, especially with things that are so important as this, and important to take diverse perspectives into account. So I am glad we're opening it early
shadi: I am concerned about our work in the conformance area. In the charter, we say things like we'll define a working conformance system for WCAG 3… that is one of the items outstanding for the next five months
shadi: it will probably take more than five months, even just to get an understanding. The discussion will take several months
shadi: the assessment in these slides is different than the one in the requirement doc, would like us to use those more to measure progress.
<Wilco> +1
shadi: re the next chartering period… this charter was important to focus fully on WCAG 3, for the first time. But I don't think it's a good idea to have a new charter that doesn't have specific deliverables, in ways that tangiablly move accessibility forward
shadi: we should have those to work on, while we continue iteratively on a bunch of things.
<kirkwood> +1
shadi: we can't do all at once
kevin: I'm interested for us as a group to find out more what tangible looks like and explore that a little bit more.
Wilco: in Alastair's presentation I keep hearing the words 'refining' and 'finalising'… but looking at the drafts I don't think we're at that stage yet, the conformance model seems fairly basic, the requirements are not clearly defined yet
Wilco: I think we're very far away from a completed document
Wilco: considering how much time we've put towards it yet
<shadi> From the current Charter: "Solutions will not all be complete at the end of this charter period, but they will be sufficiently mature so that reviewers can understand the intended scope of WCAG 3 as a whole, and will have enough depth to understand how conformance evaluations for WCAG 3 will work" and "In this charter period, AG WG will define a
<shadi> working conformance model for WCAG 3"
<shadi> https://
Wilco: I don't feel particularly strongly what we should focus on, but we should not get in the habit of spending charter after charter delivering drafts. This group has a responsibility to the world to deliver meaningful results
Wilco: I don't think it's ok for another charter where we're delivering drafts
alastairc: just want to check… all work we've been doing since the last draft is in the Google Docs at the moment. We have a shared glossary, about 50 requirements drafted. I just wanted to point out if anyone is just looking at the latest public facing draft, there is a lot stored up that we need to get in the next draft. That could be skewing perspectives
<kirkwood> does that mean we are not publishing often enough?
GreggVan: it takes a long time to create standards, and to do what we're trying to do, is going to take a long time
<kirkwood> +1 to “concrete milestones”
GreggVan: we're trying to do something that hasn't been done before
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to give +1 to Shadi and Wilco concerns but I am okay with development pace
bbailey: +1 to Shadi and Wilco and Gregg. I think we're moving at a pace that could be expected. Only caveat I would have is conformance…
hdv: I'm a little worried, not just about pace, but more on the amount of changes we're planning for.
… We're changing a lot of things at once, might make it harder to get adopted.
… if it's wildly different. Is that something we want to do, or could we stay closer to WCAG 2? Including changes we're looking at.
<bbailey> IMHO, next charter can be confident about having a conformance model -- but maybe not SCORING per se
hdv: also worried we're spending too much time on certain subjects, and they aren't providing tangible benefits.
<Ben_Tillyer> -1 to Hidde, with WCAG 2 already in place, I feel regulators will be happy enough to explore how to adopt WCAG 3 in a sensible timeline
<Wilco> +1
JenStrickland2: there is a concern with how much time all this is taking. But when we think about the humans we're serving, they're waiting. There are people with disabilities who were not traditionally considered
JenStrickland2: I trust that the chairs have thought about this.
<DJ> +1 to jen on us loosing faith
JenStrickland2: but I do think we are losing faith and trust from people who are used to using WCAG. We don't want compromised quality, but we have a responsibility to serve the needs of the people. If what we're trying to create is this huge thing, we need to think about how we can make it work
shadi: it's amazing work by the chairs and the group at large
shadi: but looking at the charter itself, in current charter we don't have success criteria, timeline or breakdown in iterations. This was necessary for the current draft and starting work on WCAG 3, but just worried we'd do the same for the next charter
shadi: we don't have to do it all at once
shadi: we need to focus, in the next months, on what our priorities are and how we can write down a series of milestones
<kirkwood> +1
Glenda: I want do acknowledge how much work has been done. It's very exciting to work with you all, loving the subgroup work. This is a massive undertaking
Glenda: it feels waterfall to me
<JenStrickland2> +1 to Glenda
Glenda: and not fast enough, not agile enough, to meet the needs of people with disabilities
<JenStrickland2> [regarding waterfall v agile]
<kirkwood> cough… cognitive ;)
Glenda: so it would be very helpful to break it up
Glenda: have parts that we can publish without waiting for the whole thing
<maryjom> +1 to Glenda
<kirkwood> +1 to removing scoring
GreggVan: I would suggest removing the word 'scoring' from our list, unless we're talking about feasability of scoring
GreggVan: I also wanted to make a point on AI impact, I think AI will have a massive impact in 5 years. In 10 years, the whole standard might be somewhat obviated and we'd have to start all over again. I suggest we have a separate AI impact subgroup
<ljoakley> I'm already seeing accessibility issues with AI in my applications
<kirkwood> +1 to AI impact
GreggVan: Jennifer, you said we are not fast enough and others are stepping in, what were you referring to?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask Hidde what that would mean, in practce? and to comment on WCAG 2.x experience
alastairc: re filling in gaps for people with disabilities sooner… my question would be what and how?
<mgifford2> Liked GreggVan point. In 2025, how are people going to be learning standards? AI is going to be key to those people who are going to start reading WCAG3.
alastairc: having gone through WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 process, it's been getting harder and harder to fit new requirements in that structure, that's one of the reasons in my mind that we're redoing things to make it more flexible and work better for requirements we have now, but have a mechanism for the future
DJ: I agree with most… I agree with Alastair re considering how standards can fit in regulatory frameworks
DJ: and I agree with Jennifer… I know younger accessibility people who don't pay much attention to WCAG anymore
DJ: the first version of WCAG was very general and not very testable… very useful for the time. But we've moved past a single list of guidelines, it seems. That seems to be the issue now
DJ: I think a list of guidelines works anymore, we need a different structure
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss our meeting time.
<mgifford2> Nice points DJ
Chuck: I've closed the queue, this is not the end of the conversation
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss wide net and then narrow next step
Rachael: when we set out on this path at the beginning of the charter… one thing we decided is to cast a wide net to understand the space to cover in order to narrow it down
Rachael: the wide net was intentional, almost like double diamond in design. Narrowing it down was always part of the down. Next step is to figure out what we want to focus on.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to respond to Gregg on scoring and to "others stepping in"
Rachael: we're not looking at as broad a net as the current draft, next round should be more focused
<alastairc> Rachael mentioned double diamond, if anyone isn't familiar: https://
<mgifford2> Thanks Rachael for that.
<shadi> https://
shadi: to respond to scoring… a report on metrics is from 2012 and that's based on prior words, we've been talking about this for a very long time
shadi: rather than continuing to debate, we should get to some tangible outcome, it's an elephant in the room
shadi: reacting on others stepping in… the word accessibility in the directive is not just using WCAG, it's not just WCAG, it's WCAG plus
shadi: we saw people add/change things in WCAG 1, and we see it now with WCAG 2
<kirkwood> WCAG is a good fo undation to build on
<Ben_Tillyer> shadi isn't that a sign of WCAGs success, not its failures?
<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to respond to alastair
<mgifford2> Was nice to see the EN 301549 standard almost include Dark Mode. Several governments outside of the EU have already adopted this evergreen accessibility standard.
<shadi> Ben_Tillyer, WCAG is definitely an amazing success! but we are starting to see fragmentation and need to keep delivering to avoid that.
hdv: Alastair mentioned about practical next step. Concern on diverging from WCAG2. Wanted to make sure we stay close where we can. If we don't diverge too much, concerned about time needed to incorporate into regulations.
<GreggVan> COMMENT to clarify the record. WAD does not diverge from WCAG and EN 301 549 which implements WAD also uses WCAG exclusively for WEB CONTENT. Biometrics is outside of web and include hardware -- and other examples are also outside of WEB content
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to talk about no good solutions
<GreggVan> a/WEB CONTENT/web content/
<shadi> Gregg, WAD applies biometrics etc to web content!
<kirkwood> we should address accessibility blockers and provide procedures to overcome them
Wilco: there are no perfect options, but worst would be to not ship anything… we could start with a subset
<DJ> wilco++
Wilco: we don't need WCAG 3 to be the thing that everyone thinks of as WCAG 3
Wilco: that can be WCAG 4
<GreggVan> yes - but ibiometrics is much broader and web is a sliver of it -- so not appropriate to list only there
<shadi> +1 to Wilco
Wilco: we need to look at the problems to feasibly solve, and when we can do them
<hdv> +1 to Wilco
julierawe - that's the next topic.
Wilco: until we know what different proposals look like, we can't really have convos about what we do next
WCAG 3 details requirements https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/306
<shadi> Gregg, fact is that EU uses WCAG2+ which is a fragmentation
<Chuck> https://
shadi - wouldn't we have to break out of "web" to solve that?
<GreggVan> EU is using EN 301 549 which uses 2.2 we just updated it
<maryjom> +1 to Wilco
yes but also other things than 2.2 , Gregg
<shadi> alastairc, we also have contrast that applies beyond web, why is that different to biometrics?
<DJ> alastairc: wcag3 is w3c accessibility guidelines, not web content accessibility guidelines :)
bbailey: was looking for clarity on the GH thread. But looks like we want thumbs up on the GH thread
Chuck: thumbs up per topic would be helpful
<Rachael> Each requirement is its own comment. Please thumbs up, thumbs down or eyes (read it but don't have an opinion)
julierawe: a general thing to add… re use of SMART, is this our way to talk about KPIs / break out different elements of KPIs? there were some concerns in COGA re the use of the SMART acronym
<GreggVan> EN 301 549 covers web and ATMs and TVs and operating systems and many non-web technologies so it of course it is broader than wcag But there is no fragmentation if EN 301 549 uses WCAG verbatim which it does
<GreggVan> having additional provisions for other things is not fragmentation - it is augmentation. Fragmentation is when things are different for the same topic.
julierawe: could we potentially use a loose version of that?
Chuck: we'll talk about how we present it
<shadi> @Gregg, look at Annex A.1 for web content please
I don't think we are being strict about that aspect, it's just a way to make sure each is timed, feasible, concrete.
<julierawe> Adding to the notes that COGA's concern is about the specific elements in the SMART acronym, not the name itself
<JenStrickland2> Sorry, I don't have the cognitive spoons for sub-group contribution this week. See ya next week!