IRC log of ag on 2025-05-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

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