Meeting minutes
<rashmi> Link [https://
<rashmi> https://
<rashmi> Use color to aid orientation and focus
<Lisa> https://
<kirkwood> ordera: draw attention -> focus -
<kirkwood> too many draw of attention can increase overwhelm and increase cognitive load
AG charter renewal's proposed requirements for WCAG 3
https://
The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG) is getting ready to renew its 2-year charter
This is an important time for COGA to support requirements we like/want and to express concerns about requirements that might make it harder to get our work into WCAG 3
There is a lot of support (thumbs-up) for allowing assertions and conditional requirements—both are important for getting COGA work into WCAG 3
There are concerns about using short names instead of numbers for each requirement in WCAG 3. One reason for doing this is so that users can sort/filter WCAG 3 in different ways.
One reason to keep the numbers is that software and cross language conversations rely on the numbers.
A third requirement—to allow new ideas to start as best practices in WCAG 3—does not have much support.
tiffanyburtin expressed concern that best practices won't be followed. Would prefer to start new ideas as supplemental requirements.
gareth agrees. Best practices are seen as "nice to have."
julierawe There's also room for confusion because WCAG uses "best practices" in a way that is different from the rest of the industry
https://
This requirement is to use tags that would allow users to sort/filter the requirements.
https://
This alternate wording takes out "user-centered statements," which is jargony, and adds a sentence about user needs, which is very important. I added my thumbs-up to the alternate wording.
julierawe added a github comment about the following requirement: https://
julierawe recommends other COGA folks add a thumbs-up to her comment
https://
The proposal to have a smaller set of requirements for smaller organizations does not have a lot of support. Julie added her thumbs-down. https://
Concerns about this proposal: https://
And concerns about the proposed alternate wording for that proposal: https://
julierawe added a thumbs-down to both
Main comment we want to thumbs-down: https://
Alternate wording we want to thumbs-down: https://
julierawe added a comment and encourages COGA folks to add their thumbs-up: https://
The group discussed a draft requirement about 3rd party content: https://
The alternate wording for this draft requirement is also concerning: https://
julierawe added a comment and encourages COGA folks to add their thumbs-up: https://
gareth There needs to be a bigger push here