<giacomo-petri> can't sorry

<scribe> scribe:bbailey

Announcements & Intros

alastairc: any announcements, change of affiliation ?

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/TPAC_2025/

alastairc: Survey for TPAC in Japan later this year, including virtual attendance. Just a few multiple choice...
... responses are very helpful for logistics like room size.

<alastairc> Scheduling Approach Alternatives https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/322

<alastairc> Assertions discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-13357126

alastairc: We have a couple discussion in the queue, not for today, but next week. Please weigh in on documents.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/286

Rachael: A third survey in the works for Views, but that is not a topic for next week.

Preparing for Q2 Draft https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uCLwAtliFhCeXwS1VIlDiQAi0H_Nik7vFj2G2FsyBaI/edit?usp=sharing

alastairc: Rachael will be screen sharing using Zoom.

<Rachael> slides at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uCLwAtliFhCeXwS1VIlDiQAi0H_Nik7vFj2G2FsyBaI/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p

alastairc: Replying to Jaunita in IRC regarding additional or alternative time slot for THIS meeting, we have tried before without much success.
... alternate meeting tended to not be well attended. Hard for chairs to feel like we have reached consensus. We are open to suggestions.

Rachael: As a group, we are preparing for a 2nd quarter publication of WCAG3...
... we need to be comfortable as to what is exploratory and what is mature, etc. -- We want to capture as much of the Sub Group work as possible...
... we are also using this as an opportunity to plan for Q3 and Q4 work as part of Q2 publication.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Maturity_Labeling_Process

Rachael: We only have a few weeks now to finalize the lableling for each section
... Sub Groups please see "Reaching developing" in the shared google doc.
... in particular, assignment of levels is key activity. Work for the larger AGWG is vetting the sub group work.
... We will keep additional material in the editors draft so we are not losing any work, but need to focus public feed back.
... An example is Color Contrast where the key need is research, not editorial suggestions.
... We are not updating the conformance section with this Q2 publication, that will be focus for later this year.

<kirkwood> which one is more mature?

<alastairc> The Working Draft will include more mature content. The editors draft has everything.

<alastairc> So the working draft content will match the editor's draft, but less of it.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Maturity_Labeling_Process

alastairc: This is consistence with how we have been working, and we will continue to have more mature public draft and our work-in-progress editorials draft.

<kirkwood> yes thank you

Rachael: Replying to kirkwood in IRC, as to what labels are for more mature content.
... We are are still developing assertions which are processes and procedures which improve accessibility, but might not be repeatable or reliably tested.

Next level down is new for WCAG 3, best practices, which are processes we want sub groups to continue discussing. Likely, some BP can become methods.

scribe: BP not in this draft, but subgroups should continue capturing.

Rachael: We have had additional conversation about definition for foundational requirements...
... from start idea was roughly equivalent to 2.x Level AA, but there are some nuances.
... some requirements are blockers, so those are certainly foundational.

Work over next several weeks will include how to elevate supplement requirements, because we know they are so important to accessibility.

Foundational requirements might not apply to all technologies, so we need to careful with describing that aspect well enough when applicable.

GreggVan: Thanks for slides, very helpful. I still think "testable" is perhaps not as clear as needed...
... My other concern is for *might* be a blocker, especially when it comes to yoga.

Rachael: I agree that "blocker" remains a little ambiguous and something which we will be refining.

LoriO: I thought W3C had definition for "blocker" so can we use that?

GreggVan: WCAG 2.x has something about non-interference and colloquially people have talked about "show stopper" but not sure we have definition you are looking for.

giacomo-petri: Our sub group finds our work revisiting and revisiting some topics, seems very difficult to meaningfully progress.

Rachael: Sub groups are doing reasonably well but we may reorient, but this is why we want subgroups to focus on formatting most mature bits.

alastairc: We can de-emphasize research for anything that has analog under WCAG 2.x.

<Wilco> +1 Gaicomo

giacomo-petri: Lists and ordered versus unordered and with respect to ARIA treatment means we keep circling without much resolution.

alastairc: With regards to list, sub group might mark as needs research. Sub groups have the expertise to provide the best guidance possible.

Rachael: Chair will defer to sub group if topic are not able to advance to developing.
... Next steps (next 2 weeks) please find tests. If sub group cannot come up with a test, then that is probably still exploratory.
... Some groups are finding decisions trees useful but some groups stuck. Please clean up decision trees if that looks productive for your subgroup.
... Chairs prefer for sub groups teams to keep working together, since getting new participants up to speed has been difficult, and sub groups at this point have lots of expertise.

alastairc: We will be giving less AG time to sub groups after publication.

<alastairc> scribe+

<alastairc> bbailey: Inputs wants to re-survey people, and the time we've got to meet isn't good.

<Wilco> +1 Bruce, plus people have in the past raised that two-hour meetings are too long

julierawe: Finding time has been an obstacle to progression on our subgroup.

alastairc: Please also update the Pathways spreadsheet.

<Rachael> Pathways spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ecg9qFIUVCUQfAPgNSEZ8MmsCSjbAynK8hbGBU8NrzQ/edit?gid=2035961492#gid=2035961492

<alastairc> Poll: 1) Stick with current group, 2) Would like to switch to another group

alastairc: There is value in having continuity for subgroup membership, but we also want to hear from people who want to switch groups.

<Frankie> 1

<GN015> 1

<Jen_G> 1

<LenB> 1

<giacomo-petri> 1

<Detlev> 1

<Rain> 1

<todd> 1

<jtoles> 1

<Rachael> 1

<Rashmi0> 1

<sarahhorton> 1 I'd like to stay with Inputs but the meeting time doesn't work for me

<GreggVan> 1 til done then switch

<Jaunita_Flessas> 1

<Makoto> 1

<Detlev> ??

<GreggVan> detlev you give good comments so would like to have you in the group as we finish up

<kirkwood> doodle?

<Francis_Storr> https://www.timeanddate.com/

alastairc: Please suggest meeting time coordination tool if you know of one.

Makoto: We need more input from sub group members or maybe others, meetings have not had great attendance

<Detlev> @GreggVan @bbailey it's not time slot issue - I've been focussing on MATF and asynchronous work....

<Detlev> @GreggVan @bbailey will try to attend input SG again

alastairc: For visual appearance, we expand on textual appearance to be more generalized. I would say we are about 50% to mature.

julierawe: We have only completed a handful as require mires. We have shifted to more assertions and have a majority complete from that perspective.

<Rachael> +1 to completing existing work rather than lose it

giacomo-petri: I mentioned earlier that we are shifting to a new approach. Goal for publication is bringing list to mature, because we have gotten so much work done and do not want to loose work.

GreggVan: For inputs we have gotten language for most of fundamental requirements and think we are at mature for those. In response from last week and this week, we are focused on one technique for each...
... and comfortable that requirements sorted as best we can into foundational and supplemental (and assertions)...

<Wilco> In my experience tests are never straight forward

<julierawe> Correction to the minutes: Plain Language started out drafting mainly assertions. We switched to drafting as many requirements as possible and using assertions as needed.

GreggVan: We are having some difficulty that broad techniques are just restating the requirement.

<Wilco> If there are things for ACT to look at I'd be happy to bring it to the group for feedback

alastairc: I think there are methods available in ACT and methods under standing.

<Wilco> first rule of writing tests is write test cases

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/80af7b/proposed/ Keyboard trap ACT rule

Bruce: I had difficulty culling methods from Understanding.

GreggVan: I have question, maybe for wilco, ACT rule states trap in one direction?

alastairc: Sorry, to stick on agendas.

Rashmi0: We are working steady and slowly defining terminologies and considering our work.
... This is help and errors.

todd: For health and safety and interruptions, we are making good progress.

GreggVan: I think this is more for when we get to conformance, but I am seeing inconsistent use of "not applicable"...
... For example, with video, if say "not applicable because view/page does not have video" that can lead to miss reading to tests reporting "not applicable to us" when really its a kind of pass.

alastairc: Anymore questions before going to breakout rooms?

Rachael: If other subgroups need more participation, please reach out to chairs. Makoto mentions this being an issue for his subgroup.

<Laura_Carlson> Need to drop off. Regrets for the second hour. I have a work conflict.

<LTSzivos> I'm a relative new-joiner and have been loathe to just jump in. I'd (and my colleague, Tatiana, who unfortunately couldn't join today) like to be involved. Is there resources to learn more without being disruptive or breaking social norms?

<LoriO> Need to frop due to work meeting conflict

giacomo-petri: I am having issue with "not applicable" being a concern. For example, context could be a children's games focuses on audio cuing. It's not applicable, since out of scope, but not a pass.

<LTSzivos> Also, I've been trying to track down IRC rules, including commands to be involved in the discussions.

GreggVan: We might consider having "essential exception" as a global condition.

<alastairc> Hi LTSzivos, we have a new-starters on-boarding before the first meeting of each month. Also, see https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Onboarding_for_new_group_members

<LTSzivos> Brilliant, Alastair. Appreciated.

kevin WRT to giacomo-petri game example, I would rather that be a fail (with explanation) rather than essential exception.

<GreggVan> great point kevin

<GreggVan> this goes back to ruler and rule

<Rachael> Essential Exception discussion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/55

<kevin> Agree GreggVan

<Rachael> I will add a new summary to discussion

alastairc: We will break to sub groups.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/plant for Q3 and Q4 work as we../plan for Q3 and Q4 work as part of Q2 publication./
Succeeded: s/you give/ detlev you give/
Default Present: alastairc, tiffanyburtin, ChrisLoiselle, Azlan, kevin, mfairchild__, hdv, mbgower, kenneth, Francis_Storr, corey_hinshaw, julierawe, filippo-zorzi, giacomo-petri, ShawnT, bbailey, Makoto, Graham, Roland, JenniferC, wendyreid, Frankie, Jennie_Delisi, Glenda, Chuck, BrianE, maryjom, DJ, Lori, Oakley, kirkwood, Detlev, LenB, Kimberly, GN, GreggVan, Laura_Carlson, bruce_bailey, Rachael, todd, jtoles, Jen_G, joryc, Det, Wilco, scott, sarahhorton, Jon_avila, mike_beganyi, rashmi, CarrieH, LoriO, AlinaV, Jaunita_Flessas, Rain, JenStrickland
Present: alastairc, tiffanyburtin, ChrisLoiselle, Azlan, kevin, mfairchild__, hdv, mbgower, kenneth, Francis_Storr, corey_hinshaw, julierawe, filippo-zorzi, giacomo-petri, ShawnT, bbailey, Makoto, Graham, Roland, JenniferC, wendyreid, Frankie, Jennie_Delisi, Glenda, Chuck, BrianE, maryjom, DJ, Lori, Oakley, kirkwood, Detlev, LenB, Kimberly, GN, GreggVan, Laura_Carlson, bruce_bailey, Rachael, todd, jtoles, Jen_G, joryc, Det, Wilco, scott, sarahhorton, Jon_avila, mike_beganyi, rashmi, CarrieH, LoriO, AlinaV, Jaunita_Flessas, Rain, JenStrickland, Rashmi0, GN015
Found Scribe: bbailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bbailey

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)