14:11:12 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:11:16 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/27-ag-irc 14:11:16 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:11:17 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:11:35 zakim, start meeting 14:11:35 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:11:36 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:11:45 chair: Chuck 14:11:51 meeting: AGWG-2025-05-27 14:12:01 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:12:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/27-ag-minutes.html Chuck 14:12:14 agenda+ WCAG 2 issues review https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2025May/0008.html 14:12:27 agenda+ Subgroup Reviews - Text appearance https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGEgRebgj8XfvwU-Fx2kAtd-3Ifl-UkEgyOxT1Xc5UY/edit?tab=t.0 14:12:43 agenda+ Assertions Requirement Discussion 14:13:07 agenda+ Subgroup work 14:28:35 regrets: Todd Libby 14:51:10 present+ 14:51:19 regrets+ BenT 14:51:34 GreggVan has joined #ag 14:53:15 regrets+ Jeanne Spellman 14:58:25 shadi has joined #ag 14:59:18 tiffanyburtin has joined #ag 14:59:22 present+ 15:00:16 present+ 15:00:26 GN015 has joined #ag 15:00:41 present+ 15:00:56 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:01:07 present+ 15:01:17 corey_hinshaw has joined #ag 15:01:18 present+ 15:01:38 mbgower has joined #ag 15:01:44 present+ 15:01:53 wendyreid has joined #ag 15:01:54 Laura_Carlson has joined #ag 15:01:56 present+ 15:02:00 present+ 15:02:01 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 15:02:09 present+ 15:02:17 present+ 15:02:33 julierawe has joined #ag 15:02:36 present+ 15:02:49 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 15:02:52 kirkwood has joined #ag 15:03:13 present+ 15:03:21 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 15:03:26 present+ 15:03:41 present+ 15:03:41 bbailey has joined #ag 15:03:42 zakim, who is on the call? 15:03:42 Present: alastairc, tiffanyburtin, ChrisLoiselle, Azlan, kevin, mfairchild__, hdv, mbgower, kenneth, Francis_Storr, corey_hinshaw, julierawe, filippo-zorzi, giacomo-petri, ShawnT 15:03:47 present+ 15:04:09 zakim, pick a scribe 15:04:09 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose giacomo-petri 15:04:12 Makoto has joined #ag 15:04:21 zakim, pick a scribe 15:04:21 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose hdv 15:04:27 lol 15:04:27 zakim, pick a scribe 15:04:27 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tiffanyburtin 15:04:31 q+ to ask if wbirc different than usual ? 15:04:43 BrianE has joined #ag 15:04:47 zakim, pick a scribe 15:04:47 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose corey_hinshaw 15:05:01 ack bbailey 15:05:01 bbailey, you wanted to ask if wbirc different than usual ? 15:05:12 apologies, I am not in a position to scrtibe today. 15:05:16 zakim, pick a scribe 15:05:16 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose giacomo-petri 15:05:18 zakim, pick a scribe 15:05:18 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Francis_Storr 15:05:30 Roland has joined #ag 15:05:37 scribe: Francis_Storr 15:05:37 JenniferC has joined #ag 15:05:40 s/apologies, I am not in a position to scrtibe today.// 15:06:10 present+ 15:06:24 q+ 15:06:35 Graham has joined #ag 15:06:38 present+ 15:06:46 ack Azlan 15:06:47 Glenda has joined #ag 15:06:53 present+ 15:07:13 zakim, take up item 1 15:07:13 agendum 1 -- WCAG 2 issues review https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2025May/0008.html -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:07:18 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1 15:07:43 present+ 15:07:48 present+ 15:08:21 joryc has joined #ag 15:08:38 mbgower : the 5th column on the 2.2 backlog board has several items in it that were sent to the group last week 15:08:57 ... the focus of most of the relate to time-based media 15:09:08 ... there's a proposed new technique 15:09:11 Frankie has joined #ag 15:09:24 present+ 15:09:26 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:09:30 present+ 15:09:32 ... that's the largest change, the rest are quite straight forward 15:09:38 present+ 15:09:40 present+ 15:09:45 zakim, agenda ? 15:09:45 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 15:09:46 1. WCAG 2 issues review https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2025May/0008.html [from Chuck] 15:09:46 2. Subgroup Reviews - Text appearance https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGEgRebgj8XfvwU-Fx2kAtd-3Ifl-UkEgyOxT1Xc5UY/edit?tab=t.0 [from Chuck] 15:09:46 3. Assertions Requirement Discussion [from Chuck] 15:09:46 4. Subgroup work [from Chuck] 15:10:09 present+ 15:10:13 email in list URL in agenda for today 15:10:20 ... they're fairly straight forward. we're midway through the review cycle, so please review and leave comments 15:10:27 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1 15:10:52 zakim, take up next item 15:10:52 agendum 2 -- Subgroup Reviews - Text appearance https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGEgRebgj8XfvwU-Fx2kAtd-3Ifl-UkEgyOxT1Xc5UY/edit?tab=t.0 -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:11:06 maryjom has joined #ag 15:11:12 present+ 15:11:57 alastairc : sharing the text appearance document. this is our first review of a new set of draft reqs for wcag 3 15:12:50 ... we have goals and user needs. we need to spend more time on the user needs—what's there at the moment is a starting point 15:13:08 ... the requirements have changed a bit from the initial draft 15:13:26 s/email in list URL in agenda for today/see agenda email for today, for URL to archived email with list of WCAG2 issues for AGWG review/ 15:13:40 ... we have readable blocks of text and adjustable blocks of text as requirements. they take a fairly similar approach 15:14:09 ... [reads the req for readable blocks of text] 15:14:33 ... this immediately hits internationalization issues for different languages and writing styles 15:15:12 q+ 15:15:18 ... line-heights of less than 1 creates overlapping text. 15:15:43 ... where we've struggled is that it's very difficult to find this info in other languages if you don't speak that language 15:16:09 ... there's a slightly different scoping for readable text style. 15:16:49 DJ has joined #ag 15:16:50 ... this currently includes the basics needed to create readable text. includes placeholder values for minimum text size 15:16:54 present+ 15:16:59 q+ to say is a single line heading intentionally excluded? And what happens when a heading resizes to become multi-line? 15:17:03 ack kirk 15:17:43 q+ to mbgower 15:17:57 kirkwood I was looking at full justification and "rivers" and whether that's been looked at 15:17:58 qq+ 15:18:14 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:18:17 alastairc : there's some content on that 15:18:26 ack DJ 15:18:26 DJ, you wanted to react to kirkwood 15:18:39 kirkwood left aligned, full justification is mixing up terms 15:18:42 q- DJ 15:19:05 q+ 15:19:12 ack mb 15:19:12 mbgower, you wanted to say is a single line heading intentionally excluded? And what happens when a heading resizes to become multi-line? 15:19:28 DJ there are levels based on left aligned, fully justified. 15:19:54 left justified, right justified, fully justified. center justified. was referring to rivers of fully justified. just wanted to see where that landed. all good 15:20:07 I thought left-aligned, ragged right is left-justified? fully justified is adding white space? 15:20:14 q+ 15:20:22 alastairc we didn't want 2-3 words in a nav item to be included in this 15:20:48 mbgower what happens if text resizes and changes to a block of text? 15:21:00 ack bb 15:21:39 bbailey wants clarification of left justification 15:21:40 ack Gregg 15:21:49 q+ 15:22:43 ShawnT_ has joined #ag 15:22:45 GreggVan instead of using dashes, use the word "to" so it doesn't look like a minus sign 15:23:43 present+ Lori Oakley 15:23:57 [GreggVan and DJ work on clarifying content] 15:24:08 q+ 15:24:30 ack shadi 15:24:34 q+ 15:24:35 shadi I seem to recall in other discussions that there are particular aspects of Japanese to look at. 15:25:27 I can dive into the details for Japanese if needed. 15:25:38 q- 15:25:43 ack wendy 15:25:57 alastairc based on some work coga did with internationalization, we should include other languages in the documentation. we do need to fill content out. we might need to add content for Chinese and Russian. We don't have people in the group that can do that. 15:26:15 q+ to mention Roy 15:26:29 wendyreid if you are familiar with, or know people who are familiar with, these languages, please get in touch. 15:26:36 fyi +Urdu to list 15:26:37 ack Gregg 15:26:43 ShawnT - will this account for French accents having enough visual space, or should that be added somehow? 15:27:13 GreggVan suggests clarifying "1em" 15:27:14 ack kevin 15:27:14 kevin, you wanted to mention Roy 15:27:14 Frankie has joined #ag 15:27:24 Is "justified" the same thing as "left justified with default character spacing" ragged right hand margin or "fully justified" (.i.e., left justified with whitespace added to keep right justification"? 15:27:30 q+ 15:27:34 I just realised that we want it between 1em and paragraph-separation height, the in-between in the good area! 15:27:44 q+ to ask that we discuss the applicability trees 15:27:57 kevin in terms of Chinese, reach out to Roy at W3C who should be able to assist with that. 15:28:23 +1 to justification to avoid me reopening that again :-) 15:28:34 q+ to ask about guidance for future languages 15:28:41 ack bb 15:28:41 ... there have been calls to include other other languages, but I'd caution that. We should use the five "guardrail" languages and be very clear as to why those have been chosen. 15:29:09 ack Rach 15:29:09 Rachael, you wanted to ask about guidance for future languages 15:29:14 bbailey I still don't know what this document means by "justification" 15:29:23 q+ to run through the other requirements before the tree bit 15:29:36 Rachael have you explored other languages? 15:30:25 ack ala 15:30:25 alastairc, you wanted to run through the other requirements before the tree bit 15:30:39 DJ we've talked about maintaining a wiki for that. we'd use the guardrail language and tell people to use the most relevant one and adapt it. for example: for Japanese, use the Chinese guardrail language and adapt it. 15:30:51 i think there may be some tension between formal typography terms and terms commonly used in lay person word processing applications 15:31:00 s/DJ we've/DJ: We've/ 15:31:01 present+ 15:32:21 alastairc [talks through text adjustment content] 15:32:26 s/Rachael have/Rachael: Have/ 15:32:45 ack Ch 15:32:45 Chuck, you wanted to ask that we discuss the applicability trees 15:32:51 s/alastairc [talks/alastairc: [talks/ 15:33:18 ... applicability tree: not all subgroups will use an applicability tree, but we found it helpful 15:33:42 s/Is "justified" the same thing as "left justified with default character spacing" ragged right hand margin or "fully justified" (.i.e., left justified with whitespace added to keep right justification"? /Is "justified" the same thing as "left justified with default character spacing and ragged right hand margin" or "fully justified" (i.e., left 15:33:42 justified with whitespace added for right justification)?/ 15:34:50 ... 15:35:23 DJ - for future. French has accents which should be considered for spacing. Checked with ShawnT and he thinks in font spacing possibly 15:35:37 ... talks through the foundational applicability tree for text appearance 15:35:53 q+ 15:36:05 q+ 15:36:05 ... we will have a PR for text appearance shortly 15:36:09 q+ to talk about other applicability trees 15:36:18 ack julie 15:36:23 zakim, close queue 15:36:23 ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is closed 15:36:42 julierawe my question is: if the author meets the minimum reqs but doesn't allow the user to adjust the text, would they still fail? 15:37:01 alastairc yes, that's correct. these minimums are easy to reach 15:37:02 ack Gregg 15:37:15 FWIW, I very much appreciate the Foundational Applicability Tree, and think it can work as model for Inputs. 15:37:34 GreggVan I find the tree incomprehensible. 15:37:44 ShawnT_ has joined #ag 15:37:50 q+ to say i liked applicabilty tree 15:37:55 I have to hop off but will rejoin at 12pm ET, thanks! 15:37:57 .... I find this really almost impossible to read 15:38:40 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:38:44 ... you need to remember that not everyone is an engineer, so logic trees don't make sense to a lot of people 15:38:49 I too, share Greggs concerns 15:39:02 ... handling logic trees is a talent 15:39:14 q? 15:40:16 that explains why I can't find her in the list… 15:40:32 q+ 15:40:41 For each word on every page/view in the scope of conformance ??? 15:41:02 can someone post the google doc in IRC? I just have some comments 15:41:14 Chuck there are a number of challenges we have with applicability trees. 15:41:17 The alternative is that each requirement is very repetitive. For example, 15:41:39 I think inputs will be skipping Applicability Tree for now. 15:41:39 ... focus on the foundational and supplemental requirements. those are the most important parts of our next deliverables 15:41:42 (in this case), where the adjustable blocks of text has 3 different statements at the start 15:41:50 present+ 15:41:51 zakim, take up next item 15:41:51 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Chuck 15:41:54 ack Ch 15:41:54 Chuck, you wanted to talk about other applicability trees 15:41:55 zakim, take up next item 15:41:55 agendum 3 -- Assertions Requirement Discussion -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:42:01 ... if you're struggling with applicability trees, move on for now. 15:42:14 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XbYJJUiq9Ju5pZ1oeMUrjjYxBo_3vFT5CRrkJn2qXrU/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p 15:42:48 Rachael we're continuing the conversation about SMART requirements 15:43:04 ... we're looking at the purpose of requirements 15:43:30 ... and the name and format to meet purpose and if there's enough time, assertion requirements 15:44:03 ... there are meant to create more detailed criteria for checking progress than the reqs doc 15:44:17 ... and to confirm + document the direction wcag3 is going 15:44:29 q? 15:44:33 zakim, open queue 15:44:33 ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is open 15:44:40 ... they're not detailed documentation of each solution 15:45:02 s/Rachael/Rachael: 15:45:14 ... what should we call these? 15:45:22 q+ 15:45:25 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:45:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/27-ag-minutes.html alastairc 15:45:51 s/GreggVan/GreggVan: 15:46:13 smart requirements, goals, objectives, criteria for success, criteria for requirements, details requirements? 15:46:41 GreggVan: I don't think we should use SMART as that's already defined and we can't change that. 15:47:21 +1 Criteria for Recommendations or Assertions 15:47:41 Criteria for guidelines? 15:47:43 I would avoid ‘requirments’ 15:48:01 ... we should use requirements for one thing and one thing only. 15:48:08 q+ 15:48:12 ack Greg 15:48:17 ack DJ 15:48:17 ... we should have "criteria" or "checkpoints" or something else 15:48:17 +1 to Gregg 15:48:48 DJ : I'm not really sure what part of the double diamond we're in at the moment. 15:48:59 recommended POLL: Do we call these 1) SMART requirements, 2) Goals, 3) Objectives, 4) Criterias for success, 5) Criteria for requirements, 6) Detailed Requirements 15:49:01 Rachael : I'd like to come back to that next week 15:49:01 reference for those who don't know what that is: https://www.thefountaininstitute.com/blog/what-is-the-double-diamond-design-process 15:49:20 +1 for chatting again double diamond 15:49:31 ... we did research 15:49:33 I would have said the 2nd stage, refining https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/ 15:50:01 yeah but which part of it? 15:50:01 Detlev has joined #ag 15:50:02 ... for a charter conversation, we should write down where we are 15:50:04 q+ 15:50:06 ack Ch 15:50:11 present+ 15:50:24 What is the double diamond? 15:50:36 Suggestion for poll, replace 5 with: Criteria for guidelines. 15:50:39 Chuck : we've had some people who have critiqued "requirements" 15:50:39 q+ 15:50:46 ack ala 15:51:01 Thanks! 15:51:14 suggested POLL: Do we call these 1) SMART requirements, 2) Goals, 3) Objectives, 4) Criterias for success, 5) Criteria for guidelines, 6) Detailed Requirements 15:52:09 q+ 15:52:16 +1 15:52:37 "requirements for requirements" is what we are reflecting on, and terminology we have historically been using (i.e., already published in TR space) and chairs have done good job with shepherding WG with that 15:52:40 q+ 15:52:46 suggested POLL: Do we call these 1) SMART requirements, 2) Smart Goals, 3) Goals, 4) Objectives, 5) Criterias for success, 6) Criteria for guidelines, 7) Detailed Requirements, 8) Criteria for WCAG 3 15:52:47 Rachael : some of these criteria apply 15:52:48 LenB has joined #ag 15:52:48 ack Rach 15:52:55 ack wendy 15:52:55 present+ 15:52:55 It is meta (in the old sense) 15:53:12 wendyreid : I'm trying to wrap my head around this 15:53:19 -1 for poll as propossed 15:53:28 In WCAG2 it was "Criteria for Success Criteria" 15:53:29 q+ 15:53:36 Criteria 15:53:57 ... assertions are things we want and encourage people to do, but some of the suggestions don't capture this 15:54:04 ... smart goals are business things that go into performance reviews 15:54:16 s/wendyreid :/wendyreid: 15:54:16 ... we should have a name that is more positive 15:54:32 ack Gregg 15:54:33 +1000 I think the definition is really unclear 15:54:36 s/Rachael :/Rachael: 15:54:45 Criteria for Recommendations 15:54:52 GreggVan: what was just described is a recommendation not an assertion. 15:54:55 q? 15:55:20 q+ 15:55:20 +1 to alastairc that with WCAG2 it was "Criteria for Success Criteria" (and something we occasionally hung up upon) 15:55:46 Internally, we call the accessibility best practices that are good ideas but not required "Accessibility Ideals" 15:55:46 ack Rach 15:55:56 ... requirements and recommendations are the 2 main things 15:56:05 Rachael: we're all talking about 2 different things 15:56:27 can you provide link to that page? 15:56:55 https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/ 15:56:58 ... [talks through WCAG 3 requirements from the current site] 15:57:17 https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#broad-disability-support 15:57:31 ... for Broad Disability Support, we have some smart requirements 15:57:57 and those were approved at previous meetings 15:58:06 q+ to do a time and agenda check 15:58:48 Requirements (for WCAG 3). I would recommend an of/for statement after the title word for clarity. It may seem clunky but it’s clearer. 15:59:06 scribe+ 15:59:24 q? 15:59:26 ack Ch 15:59:26 Chuck, you wanted to do a time and agenda check 15:59:43 clearer 15:59:43 q+ 15:59:46 ack Ch 16:00:26 Rachael: They are more detailed explainations of how we meet the requirements in the requirements doc. 16:00:35 Chuck: So it's what we name these "things" 16:00:50 suggested POLL: Do we call these 1) SMART requirements, 2) Smart Goals, 3) Goals, 4) Objectives, 5) Criterias for success, 6) Criteria for guidelines, 7) Detailed Requirements, 8) Criteria for WCAG 3 16:00:59 Criteria for Recommendations? 16:01:02 approved intent? 16:01:06 2 16:01:07 7 is nice! 16:01:08 How about: "Requirement checkpoint" 16:01:14 q+ 16:01:17 7 16:01:18 q+ 16:01:32 ack bb 16:01:45 bbailey: how complete should the right hand column should be? 16:02:10 right hand column is not complete 16:02:11 suggested POLL: Do we call these 1) SMART requirements, 2) Smart Goals, 3) Goals, 4) Objectives, 5) Criterias for success, 6) Criteria for guidelines, 7) Detailed Requirements, 8) Criteria for WCAG 3, 9) Criteria for Recommendations, 10) Requirement checkpoint 16:02:33 Rachael: We need to have this "meta" conversation, agree name and format. Then go through the actual content and agree those. 16:02:48 ack kevin 16:02:51 ... It's not complete, trying to get there. 16:03:28 kevin: need to communicate what we mean, without confusing with other (linked) terms. 16:03:37 ... success for this requirement 16:03:45 s/Criterias/Criteria 16:03:51 qq+ 16:04:00 POLL: Do we call these 1) SMART requirements, 2) Smart Goals, 3) Goals, 4) Objectives, 5) Criteria for success, 6) Criteria for guidelines, 7) Detailed Requirements, 8) Criteria for WCAG 3, 9) Criteria for Recommendations, 10) Requirement checkpoint 16:04:05 q+ 16:04:09 ack DJ 16:04:09 DJ, you wanted to react to kevin 16:04:13 DJ: There are many options, can we do run-off polling? 16:04:18 q+ 16:04:24 ack julie 16:04:32 julierawe: Do we definately need another name? 16:04:34 q+ 16:04:56 q+ to eliminate some options 16:05:02 q+ to say I think it is just "some things we are doing to check work on requirements" 16:05:06 ack Ch 16:05:10 ack Rach 16:05:41 Rachael: This goes into our charter, not WCAG3. It's for us to know we're doing what we said we'll do. It's not as public a thing. 16:05:52 ack ala 16:05:52 alastairc, you wanted to eliminate some options 16:06:00 I vote "requirement details" as then it is generic enough. is that 11? 16:06:10 9,6 16:06:33 +1 to success methods 16:06:36 q+ 16:06:40 qq+ 16:06:57 ack Ch 16:07:04 ack Ch 16:07:04 Chuck, you wanted to react to alastairc 16:07:05 alastairc: Get rid of 1-4 16:07:07 why eliminating terms some people might like? 16:07:11 ack bb 16:07:11 bbailey, you wanted to say I think it is just "some things we are doing to check work on requirements" 16:07:32 "wcag3 requirement techniques"? 16:07:35 q? 16:07:41 +1 16:07:45 bbailey: These all sound complete and thorough, it implies if we do these we are done. Like the success methods suggestions we implies we are not complete. 16:07:46 I was in queue 16:08:04 7 , 6 16:08:07 ack Ch 16:08:41 Kimberly has joined #ag 16:09:19 POLL: Do we call these 1) Criteria for success, 2) Criteria for guidelines, 3) Detailed Requirements, 4) Criteria for WCAG 3, 5) Criteria for Recommendations, 6) Requirement checkpoint 7) success methods 16:09:42 "meta methods" 16:09:46 7, 4, 3, 2, 1 16:09:50 7,6 16:09:51 POLL: Do we call these 1) Criteria for success, 2) Criteria for guidelines, 3) Detailed Requirements, 4) Criteria for WCAG3 5) Criteria for Recommendations, 6) Requirement checkpoint 7) success methods 8 16:10:02 6,7 16:10:11 1 16:10:12 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 16:10:13 6, 7, 5 -1 to the others 16:10:13