14:43:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:43:25 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/03-ag-irc
14:43:25 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:43:26 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:44:24 <Chuck> agenda?
14:45:06 <alastairc> zakim, clear agenda
14:45:06 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:47:21 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG EM Update
14:48:24 <alastairc> agenda+ Introduce Assertions Discussion https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1A3kRKcBsodmGbW2JRkoU6a_rLSfQCmdUEQWzrgwP2uA/
14:48:46 <alastairc> agenda+ Review of Inputs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cxiE1rfpmYs0fmS1CDyRGq-_-_mTghz7vRlGcAhgWLc/edit?tab=t.88ncy72gp2qe#heading=h.i3dhthm59ysy
14:48:54 <alastairc> agenda+ Subgroup work
14:50:55 <Chuck> agenda?
14:52:19 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
14:57:46 <alastairc> regrets: Frankie
14:57:52 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
14:57:55 <Laura_Carlson> Scribe: Laura_Carlson
14:58:03 <Francis_Storr> present+
14:58:08 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
14:58:11 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:58:18 <GreggVan> present+
14:58:36 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
14:58:47 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
14:59:36 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:59:44 <GreggVan> present+
15:00:40 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:00:45 <ShawnT> present+
15:01:08 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:01:32 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:01:43 <alastairc> TOPIC: Intros and Announcements
15:02:09 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:02:18 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:02:19 <Makoto> present+
15:02:22 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:02:24 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:02:27 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:27 <kenneth> present+
15:02:34 <Rachael> present+
15:02:36 <DJ> DJ has joined #ag
15:02:39 <DJ> present+
15:02:49 <hdv> present+
15:03:03 <Laura_Carlson> AC: Is there's anyone who'd like to introduce themselves?
15:03:19 <todd> todd has joined #ag
15:03:25 <todd> present+
15:03:36 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:03:49 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:03:51 <jtoles> present+
15:03:54 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:03:54 <Laura_Carlson> ...but normally we do run an onboarding session for new starters but didn't today.
15:03:58 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:04:01 <julierawe> present+
15:04:03 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:04:03 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG EM Update -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:04:45 <Chuck> present+ Lori Oakley
15:04:47 <Chuck> present+
15:05:03 <kirkwood> present+
15:05:11 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
15:05:21 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:05:34 <Kimberly> present+
15:05:40 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:05:43 <Laura_Carlson> HV: WCAG EM update. Process for evaluating if websites conformance to WCAG.
15:05:54 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:05:54 <Jen_G> Present+
15:05:57 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:05:57 <Det> Det has joined #ag
15:05:57 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
15:05:57 <BrianE> present+
15:06:01 <hdv> WCAG-EM 2.0 draft: https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-em/
15:06:01 <joryc> present+
15:06:05 <Laura_Carlson> ... It is 11 years old.
15:06:14 <Det> present+
15:06:14 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:06:19 <mbgower> present+
15:06:31 <Laura_Carlson> ... we thought it would be a great time to kind of try and update it and bring it up to date.
15:06:47 <Laura_Carlson> ... some of us have started working on a 2.0 version.
15:07:03 <Laura_Carlson> ... Mostly small maintenance things.
15:07:34 <Laura_Carlson> ...we've gone through all the links, so a lot of those kind of updates trying to make sure the links go to the right place.
15:07:45 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:09:00 <Laura_Carlson> ... my colleague Jay and Steve Faulkner are helping to work on this. Reach out if you would like to join us.
15:09:21 <bruce_bailey> EM == Evaluation Methodology
15:09:34 <hdv> GitHub repo https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-em/
15:09:42 <Laura_Carlson> ... planning to a face to face  7 and 8 July.
15:10:02 <alastairc> q?
15:10:10 <Laura_Carlson> ... use email or slack to contact us.
15:10:27 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:10:32 <Glenda> present+
15:10:34 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:10:37 <Wilco> present+
15:10:43 <LauraTSzivos> LauraTSzivos has joined #ag
15:10:48 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
15:10:51 <Laura_Carlson> ... planning just face to face first.
15:11:40 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:11:40 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Introduce Assertions Discussion https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1A3kRKcBsodmGbW2JRkoU6a_rLSfQCmdUEQWzrgwP2uA/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:12:32 <Laura_Carlson> RM: We have been talking about, um, different things, different solutions to meet requirements, and we want to start making sure we are circling back on those solutions and have answered the questions that are around them that are still outstanding.
15:13:12 <Laura_Carlson> ... There's a slide deck that went in detail from earlier conversations, there's a folder with other work and Subgroup work we did on assertions.
15:13:31 <Laura_Carlson> ... The explainer has the results of some of that in the section on assertions. We've had some GitHub discussions about different questions that are outstanding.
15:14:16 <Laura_Carlson> (Reads definition)
15:14:41 <scott> scott has joined #ag
15:14:53 <scott> present+
15:15:00 <Laura_Carlson> ...we have a number of outstanding questions with assertions.
15:15:15 <GreggVan> q+
15:15:32 <Wilco> q+
15:15:34 <julierawe> Have to jump for mandatory team meeting—hope to rejoin this meeting soon, thanks
15:16:21 <Laura_Carlson> ... The questions for today, so how do we handle assertions that span guidelines, as our subgroups have worked, um, subgroups have come up with assertions that you know, the procedure itself might span multiple guidelines, or have results that apply to multiple guidelines. We need to figure that out.
15:16:56 <Laura_Carlson> ... Some of these we've kind of touched on and answered in previous conversations, but l'd like to make sure we're all on the A good place with that. And finally, should assertions be dated, expire, or be reviewed on a regular basis?
15:17:20 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:17:26 <sarahhorton> present+
15:17:52 <Laura_Carlson> (Goes over examples in slides)
15:19:09 <Laura_Carlson> ... So how do we handle some of these questions? If we go to the next two slides, these are a suggested approach, and this is meant to be An initial suggested approach that we can modify, we can throw out. Um, it is trying to answer some of the questions that have come up in a way that ties it to the work that's been done.
15:19:40 <Laura_Carlson> (Goes over suggested approaches)
15:21:41 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
15:21:44 <Jon_avila> present+
15:22:07 <ChrisLoiselle> q+ can I add feedback on this subject on a specific GitHub issue?
15:22:08 <kenneth> q+
15:22:16 <Laura_Carlson> RM: So, this is an approach, there's obviously many other ways we could divvy this up, but we wanted to bring it to the group and get reactions, thoughts, um, how can we make this better, or do we need to make dramatic changes to it?
15:22:19 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:23:28 <alastairc> q+ on assertions being a tick-box, and the rest is up to the org to define (or their regulator)
15:23:43 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: This seems to be saying that an assertion is something that  WCAG,, says, here are the assertions you can make, and you pick from those. You don't just make up random ones, which is going to be important if you're going to count them.
15:23:46 <Chuck> q+ to say I believe the verification is not for testers, its for the authors of the assertion
15:23:50 <Rachael> q+ to respond to Gregg
15:24:30 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:24:37 <Laura_Carlson> ...You don't just make up random ones, which is going to be important if you're going to count them.
15:24:54 <Laura_Carlson> ... It has a short name, and then it says, you say this, and it...
15:24:54 <Laura_Carlson> And it needs to include this. In other words, you can't say the assertion is this, and then underneath it say that, oh, it needs to include these other things.
15:24:54 <alastairc> ack Wilco
15:25:09 <Laura_Carlson> ... it has to be actually in the assertion itself. Same thing with... about, uh, you know, any requirements on the assertion should be in the assertion, uh, and... You also mentioned, um, internal documentation, best practices.
15:25:30 <alastairc> q+ on how we know assertions are useful
15:25:35 <Laura_Carlson> ... think we need to collapse all the information about the assertion into it, so that It is a statement of what you are asserting, and you're asserting all of the pieces that aren't any additional requirements.
15:25:41 <kirkwood> Feel I ned a real world example to talk to it.  Assertion: a manual review of alternative text is relevant and valid on a monthly basis etc.  Would that be right?
15:25:47 <kirkwood> q+
15:26:04 <Laura_Carlson> ... finally, you use "organization" awhat if I'm an individual?
15:26:26 <alastairc> ack kenneth
15:26:51 <kirkwood> need an example to talk to this
15:27:45 <Laura_Carlson> Wilco: I was really missing the question as... how do you know these assertions are meaningful?
15:27:49 <alastairc> ack ChrisLoiselle
15:27:55 <Glenda> q+
15:28:07 <Laura_Carlson> ... How do you know they're effective? How do you know they can be trusted?
15:28:21 <Laura_Carlson> ... Thing where people make all sorts of claims, but... then the effectiveness becomes... pointless.
15:28:35 <kenneth> s/awhat if I'm an individual?/what if I'm an individual? Perhaps consider a word like "entity" instead of "organization"/
15:28:45 <Laura_Carlson> KF: +1 Gregg and Wilco.
15:29:09 <Laura_Carlson> ... this does feel like it could be a big malicious compliance vector.
15:29:16 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:29:16 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on assertions being a tick-box, and the rest is up to the org to define (or their regulator) and to comment on how we know assertions are useful
15:29:34 <julierawe> present+
15:29:48 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:30:03 <kirkwood> you are “asserting” that you have procedures and that you are following them?
15:30:37 <Wilco> q+
15:30:40 <Laura_Carlson> ...I would want there to be, like, sufficient... There needs to be enough meat to the assertion within the  to basically make it enforceable, I guess, is kind of where I'm going with it.
15:32:00 <Laura_Carlson> CL: If these are going to be published assertions, and then you talk to internal verification.
15:32:01 <Laura_Carlson> That is an internal verification, but can someone publicly look into that, to a degree.
15:32:12 <Jon_avila> I agree with Alistair, for many of the things we would use assertions, it would be difficult to make them another type of requirement.  So if we don't use assertions then we would not have them at all.  We should be careful though to make sure we only use assertions when we can't make them other requirements.
15:32:13 <Laura_Carlson> ... It seems like it's internal to the group making the assertion and not having the ability for someone to verify that externally.
15:32:34 <Laura_Carlson> ... To Greg's point, if you're stating something's either like, in an assertion, but then you're making requirements within that assertion that you know, user testing...
15:33:03 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:33:03 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I believe the verification is not for testers, its for the authors of the assertion
15:33:48 <Laura_Carlson> AC: There are things that are really useful to do for accessibility that aren't covered by the guidelines.
15:33:48 <Laura_Carlson> So, a lot of those are things that we know, and this is going to Wilco's point about How do we know they're sort of useful?
15:33:50 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
15:33:57 <Laura_Carlson> ... design systems, style guides, usability testing.
15:34:05 <sarahhorton> Are the assertions a way to integrate the Accessibility Maturity Model? https://www.w3.org/TR/maturity-model/
15:34:13 <Laura_Carlson> ... these are... required by our government digital services when they do, um, as part of the, sort of, development process and their gateways through.
15:34:13 <Laura_Carlson> Through various things. They are known to be useful for accessibility.
15:34:17 <kirkwood> We all have a different idea of what an assertion is. We need an example. Are you asserting that you are doing it, asserting that you have procedures, or that you are checking it? We need an example.
15:34:22 <Laura_Carlson> ... They are also things that you can't require in a binary guideline in any kind of useful way.
15:34:31 <alastairc> sarahhorton - we could draw things from the matuity model to create assertions.
15:34:43 <Laura_Carlson> ... resounding consensus on you know, if we required organizations to publish publicly this kind of information about what kind of processes they've done in the background.
15:34:45 <alastairc> q?
15:34:47 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:34:47 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond to Gregg
15:35:24 <GreggVan> q+
15:35:26 <mike_beganyi> present+
15:36:08 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: One of the things that I think was motivating the addition of assertions is that  are aspects of accessibility that we know aren't Very measurable with a degree of consistency across the evaluators, we have a sense through industry
15:36:25 <Laura_Carlson> ... there's no really clear or clean way of getting a measure.
15:36:47 <Laura_Carlson> ... That such practices are known to improve accessibility.
15:36:57 <Laura_Carlson> ... That's typically a good thing, whether or not they've done it well, that's not something we can measure, but the measure is that they are claiming to have done this thing.
15:36:59 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
15:37:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Not to ask a duplicative question I've asked earlier, but are assertion statements one in the same of an accessibility statement https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/statements/ ?
15:37:42 <Rachael> q+ to give example in plain language space
15:38:08 <Laura_Carlson> RM: chair hat off, uh, from a personal level, I think because of a lot of the concerns that are raised, my personal preference would be to keep assertions at a supplemental level.
15:38:13 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:38:13 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to give example in plain language space
15:38:36 <alastairc> ack Glenda
15:38:39 <Rachael> q-
15:38:53 <kirkwood> great
15:39:13 <Laura_Carlson> JK: I might be misunderstanding things here, um... But that sounded.... RM was just talking  that you're asserting that you're meeting the guideline?
15:39:31 <bruce_bailey> ACAA Air Carrier Accessibility Act
15:39:34 <kirkwood> +1 to Glenda!!
15:39:59 <Laura_Carlson> RM: so this isn't meeting a guideline, this is conducting a process
15:40:26 <kenneth> q+
15:40:29 <kirkwood> +2 to Glenda  :)
15:40:45 <Laura_Carlson> Glenda: So, I'm very pro-assertions. I think this fills an incredibly important gap.
15:40:45 <bruce_bailey> So great to hear from Glenda that the one ACAA sentence has had such noticeable impact!
15:41:04 <Laura_Carlson> ... I think that these assertions will be so powerfully positive. I think that we must have some assertions at the... I mean, I'm interpreting a foundational level of WCAG 3.
15:42:10 <Laura_Carlson> ... 2 ideas for assertions for usability.
15:42:15 <julierawe> Glenda can you add a link?
15:42:20 <alastairc> ack Wilco
15:42:22 <LauraTSzivos> +1 on copy-pasta
15:42:23 <Laura_Carlson> Glenda will add them.
15:42:34 <alastairc> q+ on how to incorporate assertyions
15:42:44 <Glenda> First example assertion for Usability Testing: Participant-Representation Assertion
15:42:45 <Glenda> * X participants representing at these three functional-need categories
15:42:45 <Glenda> (vision, motor, cognitive/learning) on all critical user journeys of the X App.
15:42:56 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/statements/generator/#create-efforts has organizational measures which could drive this in relation to maturity model and what Glenda mentioned.
15:43:27 <Laura_Carlson> Wilco: I strongly agree with Glenda on the point that having themcomplementary level would not address the equity problem.
15:43:31 <Glenda> Continuous-Usability-Testing Assertion: conduct an accessibility-focused usability test for every major product release or at least once every x timeframe (whichever comes first)
15:43:44 <Rachael> q+ to ask Wilco for clarification
15:43:45 <Laura_Carlson> ... We need to do better on the minimum baseline.
15:43:57 <Chuck> qq+ for a point of order
15:44:40 <Laura_Carlson> ... I think we really do need to know the quality of these things. We need to make sure that these things work
15:45:01 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:45:01 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask Wilco for clarification
15:46:09 <Laura_Carlson> ... I don't know that assertions work. I do think we need to do better at a foundational level.
15:46:15 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:46:15 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to Wilco to discuss a point of order
15:46:18 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:46:24 <Laura_Carlson> ... I don't know that assertion's are a silver bullet solution
15:46:28 <kirkwood> +7
15:46:31 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:47:22 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: The power of having assertions is getting it in front of people.
15:47:36 <Glenda> Yes! Yes! Yes! (to GreggV)
15:47:37 <Jon_avila> I agree with Glenda, the CVAA also required that people with disabilities were consulted during the design of the product or service.
15:47:49 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
15:48:03 <Laura_Carlson> ... The whole purpose of the assertion is to get things in front of people that are not testable.
15:48:18 <Wilco> -1 Gregg, We've seen how well "in the standard, but not required" works from AAA
15:48:39 <Laura_Carlson> ... There shouldn't be any internal verification level.
15:49:30 <Laura_Carlson> ... be better is to say that you followed a style guide and you point to one.
15:49:30 <Laura_Carlson> That is a meaningful style guide.
15:49:39 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say that some assertions COULD be tested -- just not maybe in the way WCAG 2 SC are tested.
15:50:12 <Glenda> Q+
15:50:43 <alastairc> ack kenneth
15:50:47 <kirkwood> examples would be helpful
15:50:52 <Laura_Carlson> ...I would like to see the assertions. Right there in front of you, mixed in with the requirement...
15:51:06 <alastairc> zakim, close queue
15:51:06 <Zakim> ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is closed
15:51:19 <Glenda> Glenda wants to share the HECVAT questions that are having really valuable impact in Higher Ed space:  https://www.educause.edu/higher-education-community-vendor-assessment-toolkit
15:51:25 <Laura_Carlson> KF: appreciative of Glenda's examples.
15:51:39 <Laura_Carlson> ... that clarifies some of what my concerns.
15:51:54 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:51:54 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how to incorporate assertyions
15:51:54 <Wilco> This is the book I mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
15:51:55 <kirkwood> +1 to Ken
15:52:15 <Laura_Carlson> ... Jus need to be careful how we qualify the assertions.
15:52:57 <Laura_Carlson> AC: Not disagreeing with gender's examples. We do need to consider how it relates to different guidelines.
15:53:22 <Chuck> Alastair has closed queue.  We will continue this conversation in the future, but we do need to move on to our other agenda items.  This conversation will be contniued.
15:53:39 <kenneth> s/appreciative of Glenda's examples./appreciative of Glenda's examples and Gregg's remarks around the assertion including specifically what e.g. a style guide needs to cover./
15:53:43 <Chuck> s/contniued/continued/
15:53:54 <Wilco> Are you absolutely sure you want lawyers to get involved in what can and can't be in a style guide?
15:53:57 <Laura_Carlson> ... The other point I wanted to make around the foundational level. got... we've got requirements at Foundational, we've got requirements at supplemental.
15:54:05 <alastairc> ack ChrisLoiselle
15:54:18 <GreggVan> q+ to say that a key benefit of user testing is that it catching things that are not in any requirement or guideline - so we should support things that are not requirment or even section specific
15:54:24 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ need to ensure certain groups are not excluded
15:54:28 <Laura_Carlson> ... You have to do the foundational ones, and then we would... use points or percentages on the supplemental ones.
15:54:37 <alastairc> Sorry, queue closed on this topic for today.
15:54:37 <Laura_Carlson> ... that doesn't mean that the minimum regulatory level is just foundational requirements.
15:54:45 <Laura_Carlson> ... So the minimum regulatory level could be foundational plus certain score or percentage of supplemental and or assertions.
15:55:00 <Laura_Carlson> ... foundational requirements could be quite minimal.
15:55:12 <bruce_bailey> I don't follow how it is likely that supplemental requirements are better measured by percentage than foundational requirements ?
15:55:13 <Rachael> We can continue this conversation at https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-13357126
15:55:13 <Glenda> And here are some recent questions I have had to answer to HigherEd clients wanting to buy my software:
15:55:16 <Glenda> Is your customer support team trained in disability etiquette and effective communication?
15:55:17 <Laura_Carlson> ... But then, at the supplemental and assertions. Some of those could be required.
15:55:40 <GreggVan> Wilco mentioned that we should not rely ONLY on assertions.   AGREE    We should also think of other things.   ONE other thing would be to have Recommendations as well as requirements.  Recommendations do not need to be tested
15:55:53 <GreggVan> s/tested/testable/
15:55:58 <Laura_Carlson> CL: question is just around the end goal of assertions and where they fit in.
15:56:02 <Rachael> Bruce, its measuring the number or percent of supplemental requirements and assertions completed not the percent of pass/fails within a supplemental requirement. Did that answer your question?
15:56:09 <Glenda> How are accessibility issues tracked and remediated?
15:56:24 <alastairc> q?
15:56:27 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
15:56:27 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that some assertions COULD be tested -- just not maybe in the way WCAG 2 SC are tested.
15:56:42 <Laura_Carlson> ... You may need to assert some things that are requirements, and then some may not be requirements.
15:56:51 <Laura_Carlson> ... And where would those fit in if they're not required? Um, and that's where, like, my mind goes to AAA versus AA, and we're... a lot of industry maps back to AA in the current scheme of things.
15:56:57 <alastairc> Wilco - we discussed a lot of things other than pass/fail and assertions, but none were found to be useful, we need a bit more info on the possibilities to know if there is another direction to go.
15:57:11 <Glenda> Do you test with actual users with different disabilities?
15:57:17 <Laura_Carlson> Bruce: I just wanted to point out that That assertions could be testable.
15:57:25 <alastairc> ack Glenda
15:58:32 <Laura_Carlson> Glenda: it's been really fun in the last couple of years is the number of questions I get when clients try to buy our software.
15:58:54 <Laura_Carlson> ... somebody's always adding a new question outside the HECVAT.
15:59:01 <kirkwood> +1 to Glenda
15:59:25 <Laura_Carlson> ... We need to take a step forward here.
15:59:33 <alastairc> The conversation can continue at https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-13357126
15:59:34 <Laura_Carlson> ... And not wait for perfection.
15:59:34 <kirkwood> ACA is already doing it
15:59:54 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:59:54 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Review of Inputs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cxiE1rfpmYs0fmS1CDyRGq-_-_mTghz7vRlGcAhgWLc/edit?tab=t.88ncy72gp2qe#heading=h.i3dhthm59ysy -- taken up [from
15:59:57 <Zakim> ... alastairc]
16:00:00 <alastairc> zakim, open queue
16:00:00 <Zakim> ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is open
16:00:00 <Chuck> q+
16:00:01 <rashmi> rashmi has joined #ag
16:00:04 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:00:15 <hdv> scribe+
16:00:30 <bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cxiE1rfpmYs0fmS1CDyRGq-_-_mTghz7vRlGcAhgWLc/edit?tab=t.88ncy72gp2qe#heading=h.i3dhthm59ysy
16:00:45 <hdv> alastairc: our last item is a review of input requirements
16:00:46 <Chuck> question from Lori that she was unable to ask about assertions:  a policy that editors are required to follow the style guide", who enforces this?
16:01:00 <hdv> alastairc: haven't been through these in a lot of detail… I see Detlev has
16:01:08 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/03-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
16:01:17 <Det> Det has joined #ag
16:01:17 <hdv> alastairc: this is a call for folks to go through this document.
16:01:24 <bruce_bailey> Jenn and Fillipo too !
16:01:28 <Det> present+
16:01:34 <rashmi> present+
16:01:38 <hdv> alastairc: this is a little more generalised version of keyboard requirements, generalised to input methods
16:01:52 <hdv> alastairc: Gregg could you do a 3 minute runthrough?
16:02:21 <hdv> GreggVan: we started with the list given to us. We took every one of those on the list page, went through all user needs for input and found several were not covered by those so we added a couple
16:02:28 <hdv> GreggVan: 2-3 we found out of scope, eg what browsers should do
16:02:35 <bruce_bailey> also HT to Glenda and Giacomo on earlier Keyboard group
16:02:59 <hdv> GreggVan: the Google Doc has an outline
16:03:06 <hdv> GreggVan: there are four major outlined
16:03:27 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
16:03:36 <CarrieH> present+
16:03:37 <hdv> GreggVan: being “input operation”, “keyboard”, ”cognitive/physical effort to use”, “pointer”
16:03:43 <hdv> GreggVan: under each of those we have foundational requirements
16:03:44 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:04:00 <hdv> GreggVan: then we have supplemental requirements, we call them supplemental recommendations
16:04:23 <hdv> GreggVan: good advice, not always things you'd want to do. I recommend we have a category called 'recommendation', sometimes a more extreme version of the one above it
16:04:33 <Rachael> q+ regarding recommendations
16:04:52 <alastairc> q+ Rachael to talk about regarding recommendations
16:04:55 <alastairc> q- rega
16:04:58 <alastairc> q- recom
16:05:17 <hdv> GreggVan: we tried to write these in a final, final form
16:05:29 <Laura_Carlson> s/within the to basically /to basically /
16:05:47 <hdv> GreggVan: we have page/view in a lot of places here; in the old model it was pages, in the new model we tried to get to view. But we couldn't seem to find a definition that works
16:05:59 <hdv> GreggVan: that helped us read the sentence with the word page and the word view
16:06:36 <bruce_bailey> q+ to follow Gregg
16:07:02 <Laura_Carlson> s/about, um, different things/about different things/
16:07:51 <hdv> GreggVan: we also have techniques that say don't do what is said
16:07:56 <Laura_Carlson> s/Um, it is trying /it is trying /
16:08:03 <hdv> GreggVan: we're done with the entire section if people want to review it
16:08:21 <hdv> q?
16:08:38 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:08:38 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to talk about regarding recommendations
16:09:01 <hdv> Rachael: to add a qualifier, we have foundational reqs and @@@ reqs, both are testable statements
16:09:10 <hdv> Rachael: recommendations was a loaded word that we stepped away from
16:09:19 <hdv> GreggVan: in our doc we found most stuff was foundational
16:09:49 <hdv> GreggVan: some things are more AAA-ish in nature. They may be testable but only work for certain types of content not others
16:09:56 <hdv> GreggVan: if you get into supplemental, be careful
16:10:15 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
16:10:15 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to follow Gregg
16:10:45 <Laura_Carlson> s/themcomplementary /them complementary /
16:10:56 <hdv> bruce_bailey: re supplemental reqs / best practices / recommendations… a great example of that is that we want web pages to have a level of usage of keyboard proportionate to someone using a mouse, but not sure how to test that
16:11:13 <Laura_Carlson> s/assertion's are /assertions are /
16:11:29 <hdv> bruce_bailey: I got on queue to half-apologise to someone coming to the doc for the first time… the URL is the right one, it is the main content we are working from, some collapsible accordions etc
16:11:42 <hdv> bruce_bailey: we found that what we have here should make sense for a new person to make comments on
16:12:26 <Laura_Carlson> s/Jus need /We just need /
16:12:33 <hdv> GreggVan: everything useful is in the section called 'master' and sub pages
16:13:23 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cxiE1rfpmYs0fmS1CDyRGq-_-_mTghz7vRlGcAhgWLc/edit?tab=t.88ncy72gp2qe#heading=h.i3dhthm59ysy
16:13:44 <hdv> bruce_bailey: link kind of puts you in middle of the document, there is a TOC above that
16:13:48 <hdv> alastairc: a good point to start reviewing
16:14:11 <Rachael> q+ to ask about accessibility
16:14:12 <hdv> alastairc: if anyone from the sub groups has any general questions you'd like to raise, eg have you gotten stuck on something?
16:14:59 <alastairc> q+ on supplemental vs best practices - testability
16:15:30 <hdv> GreggVan: we have some things under 'supplemental', should we throw them away as they can't be recommendations? or should we create a third category 'best practices' in addition to foundational and supplemental\?
16:15:36 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:15:36 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about accessibility
16:15:51 <hdv> Rachael: i'd add another category called best practices. But when you split them up be thoughtful about foundational vs supplemental
16:16:11 <bruce_bailey> Might we also mark them as exploratory -- hoping to come up with testable metric?
16:16:34 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:16:41 <alastairc> q-
16:16:41 <CarrieH> q+ are the different types of requirements documented somewhere?
16:17:02 <alastairc> q+ CarrieH to ask whether the different types of requirements documented somewhere?
16:17:13 <GreggVan> q+
16:17:13 <hdv> Rachael: the things not really testable fall into best practices. Haven't been focused on best practices,but if you capture them do add them into that category and we can work on those
16:17:18 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
16:18:01 <hdv> bruce_bailey: keyboard accessibility makes sense to be as a supplemental requirement… maybe add as exploratory as we're looking for metric?
16:18:02 <alastairc> ack CarrieH
16:18:02 <Zakim> CarrieH, you wanted to ask whether the different types of requirements documented somewhere?
16:18:10 <Rachael> q+ to ask about accessibility of solutions
16:18:18 <bruce_bailey> i do like it maybe as an assertion
16:18:30 <hdv> CarrieH: do we define somewhere what the different types of requirements are?
16:18:47 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:18:48 <hdv> alastairc: we have, will look
16:19:14 <bruce_bailey> s/i do like it maybe as an assertion/i do like "keyboard-use-fair" maybe as an assertion/
16:19:15 <hdv> GreggVan: can we have the ability to add questions? for instance Bruce's comment… if we really want input, people may not comment
16:19:38 <CarrieH>  because I feel that for folks that aren't on every call, and also people with auditory processing delays, it's good to have this written down somewhere..
16:19:42 <hdv> alastairc: yes can add that explicitly
16:20:16 <hdv> GreggVan: having something be supplemental that can't always be applied but you get credit for doing it… meaning if you have a complex site you'll have a lower rating
16:20:30 <Rachael> q+
16:20:58 <alastairc> Foundational requirement - Must be done or fail. Supplemental - Could be done, improves your score, may not apply to all interfaces. Best practice - may not be testable, or not applicable to a particular interface.
16:21:02 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:21:02 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about accessibility of solutions and to
16:21:36 <Chuck> q+
16:21:40 <alastairc> ack Chuck
16:21:47 <hdv> Rachael: chair-hat off… are you qualifying solutions themselves must be accessible or do we assume every req meets the other reqs?
16:22:20 <hdv> Chuck: I've been presuming in my subgroup that anything we write is presumed to need to meet the other requirements. So yes, that they must be accessible
16:22:21 <bruce_bailey> +1 to chuck, as inputs has done as well
16:22:28 <hdv> alastairc: good point might want to make a note of this
16:22:47 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:22:47 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Subgroup work -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:22:52 <hdv> alastairc: ok… no further questions, let's head to our breakout rooms
16:22:55 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
16:22:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/03-ag-minutes.html alastairc
16:24:41 <ShawnT> present+
16:33:38 <Rachael> The write up for Requirement types are in the explainer at https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-explainer/#requirements-and-methods
17:33:08 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
17:34:55 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:00:51 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
19:30:52 <imirfan> imirfan has joined #ag