14:32:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:32:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/17-ag-irc
14:32:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:32:38 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:32:43 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:32:51 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-06-17
14:33:00 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:33:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/17-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:33:11 <Chuck> regrets: Sarah Horton, Jamie Herrera
14:33:23 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2 issues  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025AprJun/0050.html
14:33:32 <Chuck> agenda+ Scheduling Approach Alternatives  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/322
14:33:45 <Chuck> agenda+ Assertions discussion  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-13357126
14:33:56 <Chuck> agenda+ Subgroup work
14:58:34 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
14:58:48 <tiffanyburtin> present+
15:00:30 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:00:39 <Wilco> present+
15:00:54 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:00:58 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:01:26 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:01:29 <mbgower> present+
15:01:32 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:01:38 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:01:45 <bbailey> present+
15:01:49 <shadi> present+
15:02:19 <Rain5> Rain5 has joined #ag
15:02:24 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:02:38 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
15:02:42 <Rain5> Rain5 has left #ag
15:02:45 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:02:46 <kevin> present+
15:02:46 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:02:48 <julierawe> present+
15:02:51 <LTSzivos> LTSzivos has joined #ag
15:02:52 <AlinaV> present+
15:02:54 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:03:07 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:03:13 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:13 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose julierawe
15:03:14 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:03:22 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:03:22 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:22 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tiffanyburtin
15:03:24 <alastairc> present+
15:03:33 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:33 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tiffanyburtin
15:03:39 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:39 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kevin
15:03:40 <mbgower> scribe: mbgower
15:03:56 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:03:59 <BrianE> present+
15:04:01 <Rain> present+
15:04:11 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:04:13 <kenneth> present+
15:04:17 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:04:18 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:04:31 <Chuck> Welcome Meagan!
15:04:42 <Roland> Roland has joined #ag
15:04:46 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:04:53 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #ag
15:04:54 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:04:59 <Jon_Avila> present+
15:05:11 <Roland> present+
15:05:16 <Azlan> present+
15:05:33 <Makoto> present+
15:05:33 <Rachael> present+
15:05:34 <todd> todd has joined #ag
15:05:35 <Rachael> scribe+
15:05:38 <LTSzivos> present +
15:05:40 <todd> present+
15:05:40 <mbgower> Meagan Griffin from TPGI introduced herself.
15:05:52 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:06:14 <maryjom> present+
15:06:21 <kenneth> s/Griffin/Griffith/
15:06:24 <ShawnT> present+
15:06:24 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:06:25 <mbgower> Chuck: We will be starting the first call of each month 30 minutes early to provide an introduction of what we do.
15:06:27 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:06:28 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:06:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2 issues  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025AprJun/0050.html -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:06:47 <Chuck> q?
15:06:48 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:06:51 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:07:09 <Rachael> mbgower: Mike here. I am a cofacilitator of the WCAG 2 taskforce. We tend to have a publishing of suggested changing on a biweekly basis.
15:07:23 <Meagan> Meagan has joined #ag
15:07:34 <Rachael> ...we got out synch last time. We released last Friday and close this Friday. This is the midperiod announcement to the group.
15:07:52 <bbailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/wiki/WCAG-2-Task-Force-process#Overview
15:08:05 <Rachael> ...most are editorial but 4930 is a change to audio description.
15:08:46 <Rachael> ...I'm showing a series of columns on a project board. Please open each that are ready for approval. Add a comment, a thumbs up, or if you have a strong objection to it give it a thumbs down.
15:09:07 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:09:14 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
15:09:16 <kenneth> s/ready for approval/sent for WG approval/
15:09:21 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:09:24 <Rachael> ...We also have a CFC coming. We tend to queue anything that we have that will be a normative change. Or an informative change that will be in the specification itself. I am scrolling slowly to the right.
15:09:30 <Poornima> present+
15:09:52 <bbailey> Project board that mbgower is screen sharing is at:  https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56
15:10:08 <Glenda> present+
15:10:09 <Rachael> ...I've moved things to the right where there is a column that says errata for quarterly refresh. That was a bit ambitious as this is the half year mark. These are potential errata. These need to go through call for consensus because they are changing the actual spec.
15:10:16 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
15:10:29 <mfairchild> present+
15:10:35 <Rachael> ....these have gone through previous review in our 2 week process but are getting ready. 4370 lists all the errata in a consumable form.
15:10:49 <Tananda> Tananda has joined #ag
15:10:54 <Tananda> +present
15:11:02 <Rachael> There are previews to let you see what the file looks like in 4370. We published last in December. This will be updates to that.
15:11:17 <Rachael> I believe the CFC process is 1 week.
15:11:21 <Chuck> q?
15:11:24 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
15:11:30 <Rachael> alastairc: 4 working days but we can give it a week.
15:11:33 <CarrieH> present +
15:11:35 <bbailey> PR for new errata:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4370
15:11:37 <Rachael> mbgower: You can go in and comment.
15:11:43 <Rachael> Chuck: If you questions, please q+
15:11:49 <Rachael> ...onto next topic.
15:11:49 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:11:49 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Scheduling Approach Alternatives  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/322 -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:11:50 <mbgower> scribe:mbgower
15:12:14 <Rachael> slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vwD1uJOB1mpduOJ3wdCnEovW5tRZolIVgIJC0FGXwOQ/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
15:12:34 <Rachael> Schedule in a document form for download/viewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OWW2yn3QMbtiSwuQhCqlU34gr-GLCGiM/edit
15:12:50 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:13:01 <Frankie> present+
15:13:10 <kirkwood> present+
15:13:14 <mbgower> Rachael: Wilco, are you comfortable talking to option 3?
15:13:18 <mbgower> Wilco: Yes
15:13:34 <mbgower> [Chuck shares Scheduling Approach Alternatives presentation]
15:13:51 <alastairc> The previous thread: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/322
15:14:03 <mbgower> Rachael: We are approaching a new chartering period. Part of deciding a charter is deciding next steps.
15:14:28 <mbgower> ... The purpose of this is to start a conversation on that chartering period, with the goal of informing the charter.
15:14:48 <mbgower> ... We have 3 proposals and schedules that have been proposed. I saw a fourth proposed just before the meeting.
15:15:19 <mbgower> ... We have a concept of an iterative approach, with two approaches.
15:15:34 <mbgower> ... We have an incremental approach with one option under it.
15:15:40 <alastairc> Itterative from our current work,  in a WCAG3 context.
15:15:55 <mbgower> Wilco: The idea is to release incrementally, instead of trying to get everything to a mature state first.
15:16:07 <mbgower> This would focus on the most impactful ones first.
15:16:31 <mbgower> Rachael: The third approach takes a hybrid of those.
15:16:38 <mbgower> Chuck: Is that the fourth approach?
15:16:49 <GreggVan> q+
15:16:56 <mbgower> Rachael: That's the third approach. Gunduala suggested a fourth just before the call.
15:17:41 <mbgower> Rachael: Regardless of the schedule choice, we can add notes to the charter for high impact areas. Assertions, the colour contrast formula, etc.
15:18:15 <mbgower> ... Options 1 and 2 involve updating WCAG 2 so it is not backward compatible.
15:18:32 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:18:57 <mbgower> Gregg: I'm looking at the link that shows the options, and your picture, and they don't seem to match
15:19:19 <mbgower> ... I was just trying to jibe your description.
15:19:24 <CarrieH> I think it's having Option 1 and 2 as one option is confusing..
15:19:33 <mbgower> [Goes back to slide 2]
15:19:44 <alastairc> Option 1 and 2 start from our current WCAG3 work. Option 3 starts from WCAG22.
15:20:18 <mbgower> Rachael: Option 1 and 2 are interative; option 3 is incremental.
15:20:22 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
15:20:23 <alastairc> Also, hybrid would take a lot more people-hours.
15:20:27 <JenStrickland> present+
15:20:39 <mbgower> Gregg: So "hybrid" is not an option, but an acknowledgement that there could be one.
15:20:52 <mbgower> [Slide 5]
15:21:14 <mbgower> Rachael: I'll go over the approach starting point for options 1 and 2
15:21:20 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:21:30 <LoriO> present+
15:21:32 <mbgower> ... We start from where we are in WCAG 3 now.
15:21:50 <mbgower> ... Option 1 focuses on getting as much as possible done in stages; it's continuing what we do now.
15:22:25 <mbgower> ... It prioritizes getting the normative first.
15:23:04 <mbgower> Option 2 focuses on the WCAG 2-like material.
15:23:20 <mbgower> ... It would provide an ability for publich feedback.
15:23:54 <mbgower> Wilco: For option 3, we're taking the most promising things and incorporating them into 2.2, in a 2.3 or 3.0.
15:24:18 <mbgower> ... We can deprecate old parts and add new sections of the new content.
15:24:42 <mbgower> Rachael: Phase 1 runs from 2025-2027.
15:25:03 <mbgower> ... During that next charter period, option 1 woudl focus on foundational requirements.
15:26:08 <mbgower> ... We would create inforamtive documentation and aim at a working draft.
15:26:19 <mbgower> ... Supplemental is set aside for 2 years.
15:26:55 <mbgower> In option 2, would include the foundational and supplemental requirements and assertions comparable to WCAG 2.2 AAA.
15:27:10 <mbgower> ... This would focus on a smaller scope, less far.
15:27:57 <mbgower> Wilco: With option 3, the plan is to get to a publishing Rec by the end of the charter. Other things can be moved forward, but that would be the focus. Prioritize items and get them to publication.
15:27:58 <GreggVan> q+
15:27:58 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:28:20 <mbgower> Rachael: Then we have the next charter after that (2027-2029).
15:28:24 <Chuck> I will go through queue after Rachael and Wilco complete the schedule comparision.
15:28:35 <mbgower> [slide 7]
15:29:15 <mbgower> ... Option 1 is leaning more towards the 2.1. We did a broad swath of items, put out the normtative text, and then built the understanding documents.
15:29:31 <mbgower> ...Option 2 is more like 2.2, where we built all the material, information and normative and put it out together.
15:30:11 <mbgower> Wilco: Option 3 is incremental. You take the areas you think you can have the most impact in the charter time.
15:30:19 <mbgower> [slide 8]
15:31:11 <mbgower> Rachael: Phase 3 would be one year for supplemental requirements, and one year for informative documentation
15:31:11 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:31:49 <mbgower> ... Option 2 would include best practices and additinal requirements and assertions based on research and technical support
15:31:51 <LenB> present+
15:32:26 <mbgower> Wilco: Option 3. Same as before. Replace 2.2 incrementally.
15:33:05 <mbgower> Rachael: I wanted to mention that Gundula suggested a fourth option which involved options 1 and 2 without basing on WCAG 2.2.
15:33:22 <mbgower> Gundula: It would bring it to maturity topic by topic.
15:33:31 <mbgower> [slide 9]
15:33:43 <Chuck> I will process queue after the diagram is explained.
15:33:45 <mbgower> Alastair: This isn't new information. I drew from the table to outline what a timeline looks like.
15:34:41 <mbgower> ... The narrower set of requirements is in the middle row -- similar to WCAG 2 AAA.
15:35:13 <mbgower> ... You get to an equivalent quicker in a different format, then you're adding more to that.
15:35:13 <shadi> q+
15:35:35 <mbgower> ... The third option, you are picking up what you can and publishing.
15:35:38 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:35:51 <mbgower> Gregg: We need to think about why we're doing this.
15:36:24 <mbgower> ... Option 3.... In order to do what we couldnt' do with WCAG 2, we can't just add stuff on. It needs to be restructured.
15:36:49 <mbgower> ... I would like to see the list of items that are so critical that we didn't do them in 2.2 but we have to do them before we finish 3.
15:37:49 <mbgower> We want to plant a tree and have it be full grown, so we're going to plant a whole bunch of seeds.
15:38:49 <mbgower> Publishing in drafts so people can watch it, comment on it.... Whenever it gets to the point that that draft is more complete than what we have in 2 point whatever, that's when we publish.
15:39:14 <mbgower> ... This is going to be massively disruptive. So it has to be better than 2 to the point that it is worth the disruption.
15:39:40 <kenneth> s/We want to plant/... We want to plant/
15:39:45 <kenneth> s/Publishing in drafts/... Publishing in drafts/
15:39:46 <mbgower> ... In the third option, it is going to change many times. That's not how regulation works.
15:40:17 <Rachael> qq+
15:40:25 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:40:26 <mbgower> ... Getting three out the door which aren't ready for prime time makes us feel better, but I think we're losing track of what we're trying to do.
15:40:36 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:40:36 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to GreggVan
15:40:54 <mbgower> Rachael: I wanted to ask for clarifying questions, before we hop into pros and cons and debate.
15:40:59 <julierawe> +1 to Gregg's comments to focus on getting new version done that is very different/disrputive rather than incrementally publishing small changes to WCAG 2.2
15:41:16 <mbgower> Chuck: We want people to feel they have a good understanding of them. That's what we want to hear about in this session.
15:41:18 <Chuck> ack Shadi
15:41:40 <mbgower> Shadi: That makes a lot of sense. I agree with Gregg that the next version needs to be a major change and disruption.
15:42:06 <mbgower> ... I don't think the WCAG currently relects the lived experience. I really like Gundula's idea.
15:42:11 <Rain> +1 to both Gregg and Shadi - technology is changing fundamentally now and our work needs to follow suit
15:42:30 <Wilco> q+
15:42:36 <mbgower> ... I think it may be a misrepresentation to say you can change WCAG 2. That would make it WCAG 3.
15:43:06 <mbgower> ... I think the starting point problems is that we don't have an existing starting point for options 1 and 2.
15:43:23 <Chuck> q+ to say where we are starting from with WCAG 3 broad and narrow
15:43:27 <mbgower> ... I don't have confidence that any of these dates will hold. We don't have a good history of making a 2-year cycle.
15:43:55 <mbgower> ... I'm concerned to wait 2 charters plus delays before we have anything.
15:44:03 <alastairc> q+ on difference between formative and iterative. Plus splitting group focus.
15:44:05 <mbgower> ... I like Gundula's idea.
15:44:30 <mbgower> ... Right now I don't feel things are ready enough for WCAG 3.
15:44:49 <Chuck> ack Wilco
15:44:59 <mbgower> ... The technology and landscape will have changed in 2 or 3 charters.
15:46:01 <mbgower> Wilco: I don't care about Option 3 specifically. I was asked to present. I just want us to be able to delivery results faster. The only way I see that happening is to take a more incremental approach. We can't wait 10 years. 6+...
15:46:05 <GreggVan> q+
15:46:23 <mbgower> ... EN is updated regularly. These things can be updated.
15:46:33 <alastairc> ack me
15:46:33 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on difference between formative and iterative. Plus splitting group focus.
15:46:48 <mbgower> Alastair: I'm taking a step back from the exact options.
15:47:21 <mbgower> ... Is the work we're doing information or iterative. We're starting options 1 and 2 from where we are and everything is in flux.
15:48:20 <mbgower> ... in iterative, we've got well-known normative text. Iterating on that means you have to cross-check. Conceputally, when you take off bite-size pieces, you're adding w3c overhead.
15:48:51 <mbgower> ... On the hybrid option... I don't think I totally understood Gundula's point, but I do know if you split the group, it slows things down.
15:49:21 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:49:21 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say where we are starting from with WCAG 3 broad and narrow
15:49:22 <mbgower> ... The silver group took a lot of time getting up. This last 2 years we had a plan, and we are within a month of that plan.
15:49:41 <mbgower> chuck: I'm on queue for a point Shadi made which I may have misunderstood.
15:50:26 <mbgower> ... You took me back to slide 5 and said "we are starting over". From my point of view, we are continuing to build. Did I miss the point?
15:50:26 <shadi> q+
15:50:29 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:51:36 <CarrieH> Question about Gundula's suggestion - what do you mean by topic by topic? Would you propose that everyone works on the same topic until that's done, and then move to the next topic? Is that how this would be implemented?
15:51:43 <CarrieH> q+
15:52:11 <mbgower> Gregg: There's an argument that EN301549 is being adopted internationally and is updated every 2 years; a bunch of money was allocated for both WCAG 2.x and ADA to incorporate.
15:52:17 <alastairc> I assume the "new ADA" is the EAA?
15:52:27 <mbgower> ... There is no expectation to see an update in the near future.
15:52:44 <Wilco> Thank you Gregg. I didn't mean to suggest 301 549 is on a regular release cycle. My only point is that the 5th version is being released in 10 years
15:53:05 <mbgower> ... If we came up with a whole new standard, Europe might decide to pay the standards body, but don't expect that it's going to happen just because we release something.
15:53:31 <mbgower> ... Until it is done and complete, there's not going to be anything for people to adopt.
15:53:58 <mbgower> ... It doesn't have to be a final standard for people to start referring to it.
15:54:15 <mbgower> ... I just don't want people to think that the publication of partial standards will be adopted.
15:54:25 <julierawe> +1 to Gregg's comments about the value of publishing working drafts
15:54:40 <mbgower> Chuck: I'm going to skip Shadi to go to a clarifying question.
15:54:44 <Chuck> ack Carrie
15:55:03 <mbgower> Carrie: This is to Gundula's proposal. Are you proposing that everyone focuses on a singled topic at a time?
15:55:13 <mbgower> Chuck: I'll let Gundula respond.
15:55:46 <Chuck> ack Shadi
15:55:47 <mbgower> Gundual: Requesting the whole WG to focus on a single topic does not seem fruitful. But we already have several topics being worked on. My idea was to complete those topics.
15:56:10 <mbgower> Shadi: I wanted to react to Gregg's comment. Policy makers are important but no the only stakeholders.
15:56:31 <mbgower> An iterative update is not a "partial" standard. It is an interative release.
15:56:50 <Rachael> q+ to ask Shadi how we would update teh conformance model without updating the structure
15:57:00 <mbgower> Shadi: WCAG 2.2 is a published document that exists. WCAG 3 is not at the same level to be compared with.
15:57:28 <Chuck> qq+ to change scribes
15:57:32 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:57:32 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask Shadi how we would update teh conformance model without updating the structure
15:57:59 <alastairc> Question - is updating the conformance model to be "more realistic" something that should be part of WCAG, or should it be a separate note to do with sampling and policy?
15:58:26 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:58:26 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to shadi to change scribes
15:58:36 <kenneth> scribe+
15:58:45 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
15:58:55 <JenStrickland> present+
15:59:01 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:59:08 <kenneth> Rachael: While we don't have a fully-fleshed out conformance model, we are on schedule to have a conformance model by the end of this charter period.
15:59:20 <Chuck> q+ to talk about time
15:59:22 <mbgower> q+
15:59:24 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:59:24 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to talk about time
15:59:25 <kenneth> ... I don't understand how we update the conformance model from 2.2 without changing the structure of the whole document, so I would love to hear more thoughts on that
15:59:32 <shadi> q+ to respond to Rachael
15:59:49 <Chuck> ack mb
15:59:50 <kenneth> Chuck: Time check, it's the top of the hour, I will allow this discussion to continue for 10 more minutes
16:00:34 <kenneth> mbgower: Looking for clarification: my understanding is we'd be publishing an updated version of the spec every 2 years; that's kind of what already happened with 2.2, maybe a bit longer
16:00:56 <rashmi> rashmi has joined #ag
16:00:58 <kenneth> ... some bodies have adopted 2.2; US 508 hasn't
16:01:03 <Chuck> ack shadi
16:01:03 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to respond to Rachael
16:01:11 <GreggVan> q+
16:01:14 <kenneth> ... wondering why Gregg thinks option 3 is non-viable
16:01:30 <alastairc> q+ on conformance modal
16:01:54 <kenneth> Shadi: To the question of whether a conformance model be a separate note to do with sampling and policy: I don't know. The purpose of a charter period is to examine these questions. My understanding was our goal is to have a workable/implementable conformance model
16:02:04 <Chuck> +1 to help!
16:02:10 <kenneth> ... if you believe this will be accomplished within the next 6 months then I'm all ears and willing to help where possible.
16:02:32 <rashmi> present+
16:02:35 <kenneth> ... but figuring out exactly what the conformance model should look like... this is why I'm not very confident on future plans, because at least to this date the conformance model question has not been adequately addressed.
16:02:44 <Chuck> q?
16:02:44 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:02:46 <kenneth> ... maybe you have all the plans and are ready to figure that out, but I have a big question mark there.
16:03:21 <Wilco> q+
16:03:25 <kenneth> Gregg: Mike asked why I asked option 3 was not operable. I think you can do option 3 as a 2.3, because that's what it is, taking 2.2 and adding some things to it.
16:03:37 <kenneth> ... You can't use 2.2 as the basis of WCAG 3, because it requires a complete restructuring/reorganization, defining new terms, introducing new elements, etc.
16:04:03 <kenneth> ... updating 2.2 and releasing 2.3 won't truly advance our work on 3 (though it does advance it in some aspects)
16:04:06 <mbgower> q+ to say has there been a serious contemplation of 'migrating' 2.2 to the new format? Nothing changed, but a 'translation' release to the new model?
16:04:29 <kenneth> ... RE conformance model: the updated conformance model requires that we have the new structure. We could finish the new conformance model, but it still won't be usable until we finish WCAG 3; like having a nailgun with no nails.
16:04:37 <Wilco> q-
16:04:45 <kenneth> ... you can't use the WCAG 3 conformance model against WCAG 2.2, because it doesn't have the new elements.
16:05:04 <Chuck> q+ Wilco to speak after Mike
16:05:30 <kenneth> ... Last comment: I'm a little worried that the conformance model that you're looking for Shadi is not the one that's going to be adopted? i.e. "we're expecting the conformance model to look like this" - might be holding out for a model that is not viable for an accessibility standard, but rather working within a company
16:05:34 <Chuck> ack ala
16:05:34 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on conformance modal
16:05:37 <kirkwood> An AI aanlysis: The Iterative approach allows for ongoing development and compatibility.
16:05:38 <kirkwood> The Incremental approach can make specific, targeted changes to WCAG 2.2.
16:05:39 <kirkwood> The Hybrid approach combines iterative development with updates to WCAG 2.
16:05:40 <kirkwood> Weaknesses include the complexity of each approach and possible backward compatibility issues.
16:05:41 <kirkwood> Threats involve potential delays in the charter and meeting target schedules.
16:05:59 <kenneth> Alastair: To Shadi's point RE conformance model: we've been cycling back and forth looking at conformance model, structural questions, will be returning to conformance model and related questions.
16:06:12 <Chuck> zakim, close queue
16:06:12 <Zakim> ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is closed
16:06:24 <kenneth> ... last time we were focused on it mostly in terms of eliminating options. We've got requirements that are foundational, others that could be useful for scoring or percentages...
16:06:30 <kenneth> ... we decided not to do instance-based counting
16:06:34 <Chuck> Wilco will have the last word for today, but the conversation will continue!
16:07:22 <kenneth> ... When we were looking at options to "make it more realistic", it really got stuck into whether we're creating the measure for accessibility (the "ruler"); it's not up to us to create the "rule", but need to come up with some combination of policy and EM
16:07:37 <kenneth> ... the problem with baking that into a general conformance model is you risk it becoming inapplicable to some other size of organization/individual
16:07:51 <kenneth> ... I would say we've made progress on the conformance model
16:08:16 <Chuck> q?
16:08:17 <kenneth> ... RE Gregg: I expect some assumption in option 3 that it's aiming to progress in the direction of WCAG 3, in that it would be a non-backwards-compatible version of WCAG 2
16:08:22 <Chuck> ack mb
16:08:22 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say has there been a serious contemplation of 'migrating' 2.2 to the new format? Nothing changed, but a 'translation' release to the new model?
16:08:28 <kenneth> Chuck: I've closed queue; 2 more individuals in it
16:08:58 <kenneth> mbgower: I'm going to throw out an idea and explain why. I wonder if there's been any consideration of doing a "sideways" charter?
16:09:04 <alastairc> mbgower - Yes and no, we've been breaking down the requirements more, so they don't translate that easily.
16:09:21 <kenneth> ... where instead of only driving forward WCAG 3, we kind of attempt to replicate WCAG 2 AA into the new ecosystem of how we imagine WCAG 3 going.
16:09:49 <kenneth> ... there's already a whole set of terminology and stuff; we migrate/translate the existing SCs into the new format
16:09:52 <Chuck> Members can participate in the conversation on github:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/322
16:10:05 <kenneth> ... there's a translation/iteration, where folks can have the same baseline they understand already, but in the new format
16:10:39 <kenneth> ... otherwise we're taking a whole lot of new stuff and introducing it in a new model, which is a lot of new information at once, a massive radical change, and will be very hard for people to migrate to
16:11:04 <kenneth> ... we're going to have some kind of migration plan for people to understand how to get from A to B anyway, and I wonder if there's any value in us effectively having to undergo that migration plan
16:11:22 <kenneth> ... you'd have the high-level categories in WCAG 3, with some things within it that map to things in WCAG 2
16:11:41 <kenneth> ... you'd be able to vet the new model against existing standards; you'd find holes where you find things didn't map properly
16:12:00 <bbailey> +1 for after next WCAG3 pub to see what 2.2 looks like if naive copy/paste into the 3 template
16:12:10 <Rachael> q+
16:12:11 <kenneth> ... I call it "sideways" because if you go sideways like that, from some people's perspective it might look like no work is being done, but it can be a way to continue pushing WCAG 3 forward
16:12:20 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/322
16:12:26 <Chuck> ack Wilco
16:12:26 <Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to speak after Mike
16:13:00 <kenneth> WIlco: I want to caution against thinking too narrowly; we can do whatever we want. If we really want assertions in WCAG 2, we can add assertions to WCAG 2. If we want a new conformance model, we can do that. If we want a new structure, we can do that.
16:13:14 <kenneth> ... we may need to make it a 3.0 instead of a 2.3 because people will get confused.
16:13:31 <kenneth> ... agreeing w/ Mike that the larger we make this change the harder it will be for organizations to adopt.
16:13:49 <kenneth> ... incremental can make adoption faster as well as authoring
16:13:54 <alastairc> Wilco - we have to define what we're going to do though, we need someone to define that work properly.
16:14:00 <kenneth> ... we can do a hybrid in various ways; doesn't have to be a 2.3 or 3.0 model
16:14:09 <kirkwood> there is a benefit of “publish early and often”
16:14:42 <kenneth> Chuck: Please continue to contribute to the discussion thread that I've posted in IRC. We can pick up from the threads in the github discussion in future calls.
16:14:42 <GreggVan> +1 to Mike with the additional thought that in moving the 2.2 language to 3 we can easily add the new mature bits of 3 added at the same time.   But that looked a lot like Model 1 with multiple releases - which we would always do.  We just need to be sure that the first release is at least as complete as 2.2
16:14:51 <kenneth> Chuck: Transitioning to subgroup work
16:15:08 <kenneth> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:15:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/17-ag-minutes.html kenneth
16:15:20 <bbailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
16:15:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/17-ag-minutes.html bbailey
16:15:56 <GN015> present+
16:16:36 <kenneth> s/Gundual/Gundula/
16:16:50 <kenneth> s/Gunduala/Gundula/
16:18:08 <kenneth> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:18:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/17-ag-minutes.html kenneth
16:19:42 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:19:49 <Kimberly> present+
16:37:43 <Graham> Graham has joined #ag
16:38:49 <Graham> present+
17:44:41 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
18:55:01 <LenB> LenB has left #ag
20:21:37 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag