14:49:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:49:26 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/07/22-ag-irc
14:49:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:49:27 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:49:33 <alastairc> chair:alastair
14:49:36 <alastairc> chair:alastairc
14:49:39 <alastairc> present+
14:50:40 <alastairc> agenda+ ACT upcoming CFC https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2025Jun/0003.html
14:51:01 <alastairc> agenda+ Assertions https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-13357126
14:51:16 <alastairc> agenda+ Scheduling Tradeoffs https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/343
14:51:27 <alastairc> agenda+ Subgroup work
14:51:33 <alastairc> agenda?
14:58:46 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:01:02 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:01:24 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:01:30 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:01:33 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:01:42 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
15:01:48 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:01:48 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:01:49 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:01:58 <joryc> present+
15:01:59 <tiffanyburtin> present+
15:02:04 <kevin> present+
15:02:08 <Adam_Page> present+
15:02:09 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:02:22 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
15:02:28 <alastairc> TOPIC: Announcements
15:02:36 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
15:02:39 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:02:46 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:02:49 <Daniel> present+
15:02:53 <julierawe> present+
15:03:01 <Azlan> present+
15:03:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: Onboarding session coming up in upcoming weeks. Starts on this call, 30 minutes before this call.
15:03:27 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:03:35 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:03:39 <mbgower> It went out on July 15
15:03:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Do you have link for WCAG 2 change reviews, Michael?
15:03:43 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:03:44 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:03:44 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:03:48 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:03:49 <Chuck> present+
15:03:50 <mbgower> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1
15:03:52 <LenB> present+
15:03:55 <ShawnT> present+
15:03:56 <Kathy> present+
15:04:10 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:04:10 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- ACT upcoming CFC https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2025Jun/0003.html -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:04:11 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: We can tackle questions on those next week if any questions arise.
15:04:12 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:04:22 <kenneth> present+
15:04:37 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:04:42 <Rain> present+
15:04:47 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/603
15:05:04 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:05:17 <Makoto> present+
15:05:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: ACT rules format 1.1 Call for Consensus is coming up. If any comments on changes, please review diff  and suggest updates.
15:05:57 <ChrisLoiselle> Kathy: I'm happy to respond to any questions. Updates to rules format to accommodate known issues. Been a year in progress.
15:05:57 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:06:01 <Daniel> q+
15:06:17 <alastairc> ack Daniel
15:06:37 <Daniel> -> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues?q=state%3Aclosed%20label%3A%22rules%20format%201.1%22 ACT Rules Format 1.1 issues
15:06:50 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: There is a change log as well. Groups attention to format issues that were addressed.
15:07:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: For the publication, is this the pre CfC or are we in official CfC?
15:07:24 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Open for a week and then no new issues, CfC for next week.
15:07:36 <ChrisLoiselle> Daniel: So two weeks out, yes.
15:07:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Yes.
15:08:00 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:08:00 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Assertions https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-13357126 -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:08:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Assertions is up next, Rachael ?
15:08:32 <graham> graham has joined #ag
15:08:35 <graham> present+
15:08:47 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
15:08:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106
15:08:53 <alastairc> Discussion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106
15:08:57 <Jon_avila> present+
15:09:03 <ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/342
15:09:31 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:09:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: I will go over these in a moment. These will be in explainer.
15:09:40 <alastairc> https://deploy-preview-342--wcag3.netlify.app/explainer/
15:10:26 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:10:30 <alastairc> Direct link: https://deploy-preview-342--wcag3.netlify.app/explainer/#assertions
15:10:38 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:10:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Preview in pull request - what does a company do to incorporate assertions outside of a conformance claim?
15:10:43 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:11:08 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:11:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Also discussion around wording of meets .
15:11:18 <jtoles> present+
15:11:32 <Glenda> present+
15:12:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Should we provide a statement generator?  Possible assertions that are properly formatted and relying on WCAG 3
15:12:18 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:12:32 <Chuck> q+
15:12:38 <ChrisLoiselle> are you showcasing anything on screen?
15:12:43 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:13:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Do we want to have a statement generator present or not?
15:13:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I think all my questions were answered.
15:13:16 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:13:28 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:13:38 <GreggVan> q+
15:13:46 <GreggVan> present+
15:14:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Chuck: Question - can a company make an assertion vs. Assertions ? For context, are we talking an official version of an assertion?
15:14:23 <alastairc> q+ on the statement generator, aren't we defining exact text for each?
15:14:24 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: The only thing we test in an assertion is the assertion itself. Was it made or not?
15:15:06 <Rachael5> Rachael5 has joined #ag
15:15:09 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:15:17 <Rachael5> present+
15:15:21 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Company would make up assertions. I would like to suggest two things, W3C makes up the assertions and company can make or not make them. Qualified assertions could be a name.
15:15:59 <Rachael5> q+ to respond to Gregg
15:16:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I could assert something to say something and they may count toward positive accessibility claim. I have 6 assertions but haven't done anything other than make a statement.
15:16:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I think they be in a note vs. in the document. That way new ones can be made and list can be organic and grow.
15:16:39 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:16:48 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:16:50 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:16:51 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:16:51 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the statement generator, aren't we defining exact text for each?
15:17:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: I'm not sure on statement generator. I think we would be defining what assertions are.
15:17:59 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
15:18:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: I haven't thought about the note placement. Granular aspects are tricky. Usability and Style guide. Variations could arise.
15:18:48 <ChrisLoiselle> ... assertions should relate to guidelines. Listed at same level as requirements but have something about how to document internally.
15:18:49 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:18:49 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:18:50 <GreggVan> q+  to say "I am OK putting them in -- I  see the benefit of having them directly in the document - mixed with requirements. Maybe nybrid?
15:18:51 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond to Gregg
15:19:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: statement generator would create a statement from a list from WCAG 3. The ambiguity would be removed.
15:19:24 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:19:24 <alastairc> q+
15:19:34 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:19:34 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "I am OK putting them in -- I  see the benefit of having them directly in the document - mixed with requirements. Maybe nybrid?
15:19:37 <kirkwood> present+
15:20:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Alastair: I think you are right, they would be effective inside the document. Perhaps look at a hybrid solution where they are also able to nominate assertions somehow.
15:20:05 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:20:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I agree with Rachael as well. Clearer term may be assertion formatter vs. generator to assist with formatting.
15:20:50 <alastairc> https://deploy-preview-342--wcag3.netlify.app/explainer/#documenting-assertions
15:21:03 <GreggVan> q+
15:21:43 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:21:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair : Making an assertion as part of conformance claim , this part would be fine. Statement generator outside of a conformance claim would be were that would come in to play.
15:21:44 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:21:45 <Rachael5> q+
15:21:48 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:22:21 <alastairc> q+ to answer graham
15:22:25 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re opportunities to make an assertion a different way
15:22:29 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:22:38 <Wilco> present+
15:22:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: I think companies may make assertions when they can't make claims. We don't want to make them the only way they can make assertions.  Conformance claims are broader in scope than an assertion.
15:22:59 <ChrisLoiselle> Formatter for conformance claim vs. assertion may be a good idea.
15:23:01 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:23:07 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:23:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Sounds like yes, formatter may be beneficial. How do we support organizations around their assertions is a question. That seems to be an accessibility statement.
15:23:54 <ChrisLoiselle> ... how do we add that in to the explainer?
15:23:56 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:23:59 <GreggVan> q+
15:24:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Documenting assertions section would be a great place to start.
15:24:18 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:24:18 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:24:19 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer graham
15:24:53 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Graham , on assertions and what they achieve, is there an example?
15:25:42 <ChrisLoiselle> ... for example, an assertion is on a style guide. The style guide has chapter on alt text. Style guide impacts designers per company policy or process that this should be done.
15:25:42 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:26:04 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:26:04 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss opportunities to make an assertion a different way
15:26:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Could be used to achieve another level, bronze vs. silver.
15:26:46 <graham> q+
15:26:48 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:26:53 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:26:53 <ChrisLoiselle> Jennie: I like the generator idea, however IT governance, it can cause companies not to use it due to legality aspects. State it is an option, but not only way to use assertions.
15:26:54 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:26:58 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:27:10 <Frankie> present+
15:27:10 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:27:14 <alastairc> ack graham
15:27:47 <Jon_avila> I agree with Jenni - adding that the assertion might need to have some specific requirements/elements - but the wording could vary.
15:27:48 <GreggVan> q+  to say  'answer question"
15:28:00 <ChrisLoiselle> Graham: Thanks for the explanation. Bronze is less, Silver has a guide. Then it would be up to text about alt text guideline should be "X". When does it become useful and true or not true?
15:28:01 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:28:04 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:28:04 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  'answer question"
15:28:13 <alastairc> q+
15:28:40 <kevin> q+
15:30:07 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:30:07 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Recommendations or best practice is available. If you want something testable that is good, but if you can't test for it, how do you report it?  Did you make the assertion, yes or no. If you take assertion away, then it is just a good idea. Assertion is a way a credit of doing something.
15:30:08 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:30:55 <Wilco> q+
15:31:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair : It isn't replacing foundational requirements. Assertion is how do you scale that?
15:31:13 <alastairc> ack kevin
15:31:33 <kirkwood> q+
15:31:40 <graham> q+
15:31:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Kevin: Are we going to need a standard for assertion formats?
15:31:52 <Rachael5> +1 to format of an assertion, -1 to separate standard on how to write them. :)
15:31:54 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
15:31:58 <alastairc> q+ on assertion formats, we need to get more down first then formalise
15:32:15 <Kimberly> present+
15:32:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Kevin: If it is a tool that helps users create correctly formatted assertion, that is fine. If it is a tool that supports that assertion has been made, the W3C would not probably support that. Technical time for WAI should be dedicated either way on actual request.
15:32:56 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:33:00 <alastairc> ack Wilco
15:33:58 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: We are talking to organizational standards and process. Design for all standards may be a better place for this. We want to make sure we keep them high level.
15:34:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: High level assertions on do you have a maturity model, do you have a policy, do you follow a process?
15:34:25 <Wilco> https://accessible-eu-centre.ec.europa.eu/content-corner/digital-library/en-171612019-design-all-accessibility-following-design-all-approach-products-goods-and-services_en
15:34:29 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
15:34:45 <Rachael5> q+ to speak to John's points
15:34:45 <GreggVan> q+
15:35:23 <ChrisLoiselle> John K: Assertions on a spec document and how to legally deal with this is a concern. Brings up undue burden conversations.
15:35:24 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:35:24 <alastairc> ack graham
15:36:06 <kirkwood> billions is not an excuse
15:36:14 <ChrisLoiselle> Graham: We put training in place and we have a style guide, why would I get credit for that if nobody follows those? If you have over "X" pages, we recommend "Y".
15:36:33 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:36:33 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on assertion formats, we need to get more down first then formalise
15:36:39 <kirkwood> +1
15:36:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Graham: how many people are on style guide trained and follow and implement it?
15:36:46 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:37:13 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair : I think getting more assertions down to start in on this would help.
15:37:14 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:38:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Assertions should be part of process. Organizations can pick what they want.
15:38:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: ISO standards go in to this in detail , I believe ISO 9000 for example.
15:39:13 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:39:15 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:39:15 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to John's points
15:39:29 <alastairc> Sorry, chair hat off for me on the previous comments.
15:40:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Style guide is one step down. I think using an assistive technology, using a step beyond the standard and get credit for it.
15:41:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: The plain language and usability definitions are pretty bound processes. They don't have repeatable results for standards.
15:41:13 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:41:14 <ChrisLoiselle> ...COGA and usability come in to play.
15:42:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Assertions will be hard to work out. We should still attempt. Examples are welcome and get out of theory.
15:43:00 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: ISO 9000 if you have processes you must actual use them. Audits are done. Assertions power would come in to play and would be backed up.
15:43:30 <kirkwood> specified accountability to processes per Gragg makes sense per ISO
15:43:58 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Percentage of testing, we are wondering outside of ruler vs. rule. Regulators would decide other items.
15:44:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Assertions inside conformance claims? Date of assertion , is it done once and now for eternity or are dates updated?
15:44:54 <alastairc> scribe+
15:45:01 <alastairc> ack ChrisLoiselle
15:45:21 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/maturity-model/
15:45:30 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/
15:45:39 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/statements/generator/#create
15:45:46 <alastairc> ChrisLoiselle: From the github thread, and thinking about the maturity model from W3C, and the COGA-usable note, and the statement generator.
15:46:59 <alastairc> ... then have the ITI VPAT that becomes a conformance report, and the interplay on formating /generating statements, and how that would fit into legal statements. Whether a statement, assertion, whatever, it's just the risk-management on the governance side about whether it's globally applicable, or whether it's optional as it needs to be interpreted per country / regulation.
15:47:48 <alastairc> ... There's a lot of interplay on where we place it and why. It's good in theory, but if it isn't repeatable (apart from testing a statement has been made), but are you committed? If you aren't auditing it, not sure how much benefit there is.
15:47:50 <alastairc> q?
15:48:10 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/342
15:48:17 <alastairc> https://deploy-preview-342--wcag3.netlify.app/explainer/#documenting-assertions
15:48:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: If any further comments , please provide context on the thread.
15:48:44 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:48:59 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:48:59 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Scheduling Tradeoffs https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/343 -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:49:54 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Scheduling approach follow up to survey. If there are any questions to what is being asked, please raise them here and we can clarify.
15:49:55 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:50:37 <ChrisLoiselle> ... High priority content is discussed. Types of publications is then discussed.
15:51:10 <ChrisLoiselle> ... 1) What are we trying to achieve by publishing content?
15:51:25 <ChrisLoiselle> ... 2) what are trade offs of providing high priority content in a note vs. a rec track publication?
15:51:58 <ChrisLoiselle> ... 3) what are they trade offs with frequent smaller rec track publications vs. a larger scoped release?
15:52:07 <ChrisLoiselle> ... does anyone have any questions on these questions?
15:52:08 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:52:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: In the discussion, please place a thumbs up if you agree or respond to comment.
15:52:44 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:52:50 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/343
15:53:14 <julierawe> q+
15:53:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Chuck, do you want to open break out rooms?
15:53:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Julie: What you are asking for feedback on https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/343 - you want to thumb up on comments ?
15:54:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: If you want to publish WCAG update every two year vs. every 4 years, there are pros and cons. What are those pros and cons. In terms of thumbs up, if you agree with someone's comment, you can "like" that comment by thumbs up.
15:54:38 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:54:43 <alastairc> ack julierawe
15:54:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Julie: Timeframe for feedback?
15:54:58 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Before next week if possible?
15:55:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Before next meeting.
15:55:06 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:55:29 <julierawe> q+
15:55:35 <alastairc> ack julierawe
15:56:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Julie: On my subgroup, should we move to other items in pathway now that we have AG editors helping? Or are we refining more?
15:56:23 <kevin> q+
15:56:27 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: If you feel like you are happy to be used in next publication, please move on to next set.
15:56:28 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:56:29 <alastairc> ack kevin
15:57:02 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pulls
15:57:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Kevin: To add to this , sub groups should be happy with PR that was created and correctly reflects work done. Make sure editors are also aware to move in to the editor's draft.
15:57:16 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:57:56 <ChrisLoiselle> Lori: In second question in GitHub, primary content vs. rec track publication , what do you mean ?
15:58:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: At top of discussion , rec track is like TR space , WCAG 2.2 vs. a note, WCAG-EM and use of those notes.
15:58:31 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:59:05 <GreggVan> so
15:59:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Alastair: Join break out rooms please.
15:59:24 <ChrisLoiselle> I need to drop for another call. Apologies. Thanks!
15:59:51 <alastairc> If you need some help please put in here: Could you join us in [sub-group] please Alastair?
15:59:58 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/22-ag-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
16:00:33 <ChrisLoiselle> @Alastair , did you want to send out minutes after the meeting? If not, I can do so. Let me know!
16:20:26 <Chuck> @alastairc do we have a format of putting in the methods in a PR?
16:30:40 <kenneth> methods are informative content, right? the PRs are only content slated for TR space at this point
18:00:41 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
18:09:52 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
19:40:40 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag