Meeting minutes
WCAG 2 issues review https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2025May/0008.html
<mbgower> https://
mbgower: the 5th column on the 2.2 backlog board has several items in it that were sent to the group last week
… the focus of most of the relate to time-based media
… there's a proposed new technique
… that's the largest change, the rest are quite straight forward
<bbailey> see agenda email for today, for URL to archived email with list of WCAG2 issues for AGWG review
mbgower: they're fairly straight forward. we're midway through the review cycle, so please review and leave comments
Subgroup Reviews - Text appearance https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGEgRebgj8XfvwU-Fx2kAtd-3Ifl-UkEgyOxT1Xc5UY/edit?tab=t.0
alastairc: sharing the text appearance document. this is our first review of a new set of draft reqs for wcag 3
… 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
… the requirements have changed a bit from the initial draft
… we have readable blocks of text and adjustable blocks of text as requirements. they take a fairly similar approach
… [reads the req for readable blocks of text]
… this immediately hits internationalization issues for different languages and writing styles
… line-heights of less than 1 creates overlapping text.
… where we've struggled is that it's very difficult to find this info in other languages if you don't speak that language
… there's a slightly different scoping for readable text style.
… this currently includes the basics needed to create readable text. includes placeholder values for minimum text size
kirkwood: I was looking at full justification and "rivers" and whether that's been looked at
alastairc: there's some content on that
<Zakim> DJ, you wanted to react to kirkwood
kirkwood: left aligned, full justification is mixing up terms
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is a single line heading intentionally excluded? And what happens when a heading resizes to become multi-line?
DJ: there are levels based on left aligned, fully justified.
<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
<bbailey> I thought left-aligned, ragged right is left-justified? fully justified is adding white space?
alastairc: we didn't want 2-3 words in a nav item to be included in this
mbgower: what happens if text resizes and changes to a block of text?
bbailey: [wants clarification of left justification]
GreggVan: instead of using dashes, use the word "to" so it doesn't look like a minus sign
[GreggVan and DJ work on clarifying content]
shadi: I seem to recall in other discussions that there are particular aspects of Japanese to look at.
<Makoto> I can dive into the details for Japanese if needed.
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.
wendyreid: if you are familiar with, or know people who are familiar with, these languages, please get in touch.
<kirkwood> fyi +Urdu to list
<Jennie_Delisi> ShawnT - will this account for French accents having enough visual space, or should that be added somehow?
GreggVan: [suggests clarifying "1em"]
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to mention Roy
<bbailey> Is "justified" the same thing as "left justified with default character spacing and ragged right hand margin" or "fully justified" (i.e., left justified with whitespace added for right justification)?
<alastairc> I just realised that we want it between 1em and paragraph-separation height, the in-between in the good area!
kevin: in terms of Chinese, reach out to Roy at W3C (ran@w3.org) who should be able to assist with that.
<shadi> +1 to justification to avoid me reopening that again :-)
kevin: 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.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about guidance for future languages
bbailey: I still don't know what this document means by "justification"
Rachael: Have you explored other languages?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to run through the other requirements before the tree bit
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.
<bbailey> i think there may be some tension between formal typography terms and terms commonly used in lay person word processing applications
alastairc: [talks through text adjustment content]
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask that we discuss the applicability trees
alastairc: applicability tree: not all subgroups will use an applicability tree, but we found it helpful
<Jennie_Delisi> DJ - for future. French has accents which should be considered for spacing. Checked with ShawnT and he thinks in font spacing possibly
alastairc: [talks through the foundational applicability tree for text appearance]
… we will have a PR for text appearance shortly
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?
alastairc: yes, that's correct. these minimums are easy to reach
<bbailey> FWIW, I very much appreciate the Foundational Applicability Tree, and think it can work as model for Inputs.
GreggVan: I find the tree incomprehensible.
<julierawe> I have to hop off but will rejoin at 12pm ET, thanks!
GreggVan: I find this really almost impossible to read
… you need to remember that not everyone is an engineer, so logic trees don't make sense to a lot of people
<kirkwood> I too, share Greggs concerns
GreggVan: handling logic trees is a talent
<bbailey> For each word on every page/view in the scope of conformance ???
<ChrisLoiselle> can someone post the google doc in IRC? I just have some comments
Chuck: there are a number of challenges we have with applicability trees.
<alastairc> The alternative is that each requirement is very repetitive. For example,
<bbailey> I think inputs will be skipping Applicability Tree for now.
Chuck: focus on the foundational and supplemental requirements. those are the most important parts of our next deliverables
<alastairc> (in this case), where the adjustable blocks of text has 3 different statements at the start
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to talk about other applicability trees
Chuck: if you're struggling with applicability trees, move on for now.
Assertions Requirement Discussion
Rachael: we're continuing the conversation about SMART requirements
… we're looking at the purpose of requirements
… and the name and format to meet purpose and if there's enough time, assertion requirements
… there are meant to create more detailed criteria for checking progress than the reqs doc
… and to confirm + document the direction wcag3 is going
… they're not detailed documentation of each solution
… what should we call these?
… smart requirements, goals, objectives, criteria for success, criteria for requirements, details requirements?
GreggVan: I don't think we should use SMART as that's already defined and we can't change that.
<kirkwood> +1 Criteria for Recommendations or Assertions
<alastairc> Criteria for guidelines?
<kirkwood> I would avoid ‘requirments’
GreggVan: we should use requirements for one thing and one thing only.
… we should have "criteria" or "checkpoints" or something else
<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
DJ: I'm not really sure what part of the double diamond we're in at the moment.
<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
Rachael: I'd like to come back to that next week
<DJ> reference for those who don't know what that is: https://
<bbailey> +1 for chatting again double diamond
Rachael: we did research
<alastairc> I would have said the 2nd stage, refining https://
<DJ> yeah but which part of it?
Rachael: for a charter conversation, we should write down where we are
<Detlev> What is the double diamond?
<alastairc> Suggestion for poll, replace 5 with: Criteria for guidelines.
Chuck: we've had some people who have critiqued "requirements"
<Detlev> Thanks!
<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
<kirkwood> +1
<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
<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
Rachael: some of these criteria apply
<alastairc> It is meta (in the old sense)
wendyreid: I'm trying to wrap my head around this
<bbailey> -1 for poll as propossed
<alastairc> In WCAG2 it was "Criteria for Success Criteria"
<kirkwood> Criteria
wendyreid: assertions are things we want and encourage people to do, but some of the suggestions don't capture this
… smart goals are business things that go into performance reviews
… we should have a name that is more positive
<wendyreid> +1000 I think the definition is really unclear
<kirkwood> Criteria for Recommendations
GreggVan: what was just described is a recommendation not an assertion.
<bbailey> +1 to alastairc that with WCAG2 it was "Criteria for Success Criteria" (and something we occasionally hung up upon)
<corey_hinshaw> Internally, we call the accessibility best practices that are good ideas but not required "Accessibility Ideals"
GreggVan: requirements and recommendations are the 2 main things
Rachael: we're all talking about 2 different things
<GreggVan> can you provide link to that page?
<alastairc> https://
Rachael: [talks through WCAG 3 requirements from the current site]
<Chuck> https://
Rachael: for Broad Disability Support, we have some smart requirements
… and those were approved at previous meetings
<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.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to do a time and agenda check
<kirkwood> clearer
Rachael: They are more detailed explainations of how we meet the requirements in the requirements doc.
Chuck: So it's what we name these "things"
<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
<kirkwood> Criteria for Recommendations?
<Detlev> approved intent?
<DJ> 2
<julierawe> 7 is nice!
<Laura_Carlson> How about: "Requirement checkpoint"
<Graham> 7
bbailey: how complete should the right hand column should be?
<bbailey> right hand column is not complete
<Chuck> suggested 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
Rachael: We need to have this "meta" conversation, agree name and format. Then go through the actual content and agree those.
… It's not complete, trying to get there.
kevin: need to communicate what we mean, without confusing with other (linked) terms.
… success for this requirement
<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
<Zakim> DJ, you wanted to react to kevin
DJ: There are many options, can we do run-off polling?
julierawe: Do we definately need another name?
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.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to eliminate some options
<Graham> I vote "requirement details" as then it is generic enough. is that 11?
<kirkwood> 9,6
<bbailey> +1 to success methods
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to alastairc
alastairc: Get rid of 1-4
<GN015> why eliminating terms some people might like?
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say I think it is just "some things we are doing to check work on requirements"
<DJ> "wcag3 requirement techniques"?
<kirkwood> +1
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.
<ChrisLoiselle> I was in queue
<bbailey> 7 , 6
<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
<DJ> "meta methods"
<alastairc> 7, 4, 3, 2, 1
<kirkwood> 7,6
<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
<Laura_Carlson> 6,7
<kevin> 1
<bbailey> 6, 7, 5 -1 to the others
<hdv> 7, 4, 2
<GN015> goals
<Chuck> 6, 7
<Detlev> I side with whatever comes out top - no peference
<corey_hinshaw> 7, 6
<DJ> -1
<Rachael> 7, 1, 4
<julierawe> 3
<joryc> 7
<ShawnT> 3, 4, 7
<Makoto> 3, 6
<GN015> all terms mixup with terms used inside WCAG
<ChrisLoiselle> 0
<tiffanyburtin> 7 or 3
<Jennie_Delisi> not sure
<LenB> 3, 4, 2
<bbailey> all terms mixup with terms used inside WCAG is impossible to avoid
<maryjom> 1
<tiffanyburtin> 7) success methods or 3) Detailed Requirements
<DJ> bbailey: no it isn't?
<kirkwood> 7
<DJ> -1
<bbailey> 7 seems like least collisions
<julierawe> +1 to DJ
<maryjom> +1 to what DJ said
<corey_hinshaw> "Objectives" might be another option
<kirkwood> do we need an of/for statement?
<alastairc> It's only for us though, and there are only so many synonyms to "requirement"!