Meeting minutes
Announcements
Chuck: Onboarding session coming up in upcoming weeks. Starts on this call, 30 minutes before this call.
<mbgower> It went out on July 15
Alastair: Do you have link for WCAG 2 change reviews, Michael?
ACT upcoming CFC https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2025Jun/0003.html
Alastair: We can tackle questions on those next week if any questions arise.
<alastairc> w3c/
Alastair: ACT rules format 1.1 Call for Consensus is coming up. If any comments on changes, please review diff and suggest updates.
Kathy: I'm happy to respond to any questions. Updates to rules format to accommodate known issues. Been a year in progress.
<Daniel> ACT Rules Format 1.1 issues
Daniel: There is a change log as well. Groups attention to format issues that were addressed.
Daniel: For the publication, is this the pre CfC or are we in official CfC?
Alastair: Open for a week and then no new issues, CfC for next week.
Daniel: So two weeks out, yes.
Alastair: Yes.
Assertions https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-13357126
Alastair: Assertions is up next, Rachael ?
Rachael: https://
<alastairc> Discussion: https://
Rachael: I will go over these in a moment. These will be in explainer.
<alastairc> https://
<alastairc> Direct link: https://
Rachael: Preview in pull request - what does a company do to incorporate assertions outside of a conformance claim?
Also discussion around wording of meets .
Rachael: Should we provide a statement generator? Possible assertions that are properly formatted and relying on WCAG 3
are you showcasing anything on screen?
Rachael: Do we want to have a statement generator present or not?
Gregg: I think all my questions were answered.
Chuck: Question - can a company make an assertion vs. Assertions ? For context, are we talking an official version of an assertion?
Rachael: The only thing we test in an assertion is the assertion itself. Was it made or not?
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.
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.
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.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the statement generator, aren't we defining exact text for each?
Alastair: I'm not sure on statement generator. I think we would be defining what assertions are.
Alastair: I haven't thought about the note placement. Granular aspects are tricky. Usability and Style guide. Variations could arise.
… assertions should relate to guidelines. Listed at same level as requirements but have something about how to document internally.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond to Gregg
Rachael: statement generator would create a statement from a list from WCAG 3. The ambiguity would be removed.
<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?
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.
Gregg: I agree with Rachael as well. Clearer term may be assertion formatter vs. generator to assist with formatting.
<alastairc> https://
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.
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.
Formatter for conformance claim vs. assertion may be a good idea.
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.
… how do we add that in to the explainer?
Alastair: Documenting assertions section would be a great place to start.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer graham
Alastair: Graham , on assertions and what they achieve, is there an example?
… 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.
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss opportunities to make an assertion a different way
Alastair: Could be used to achieve another level, bronze vs. silver.
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.
<Jon_avila> I agree with Jenni - adding that the assertion might need to have some specific requirements/elements - but the wording could vary.
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?
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say 'answer question"
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.
Alastair: It isn't replacing foundational requirements. Assertion is how do you scale that?
Kevin: Are we going to need a standard for assertion formats?
<Rachael5> +1 to format of an assertion, -1 to separate standard on how to write them. :)
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.
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.
Wilco: High level assertions on do you have a maturity model, do you have a policy, do you follow a process?
John K: Assertions on a spec document and how to legally deal with this is a concern. Brings up undue burden conversations.
<kirkwood> billions is not an excuse
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".
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on assertion formats, we need to get more down first then formalise
<kirkwood> +1
Graham: how many people are on style guide trained and follow and implement it?
Alastair: I think getting more assertions down to start in on this would help.
Assertions should be part of process. Organizations can pick what they want.
Alastair: ISO standards go in to this in detail , I believe ISO 9000 for example.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to John's points
<alastairc> Sorry, chair hat off for me on the previous comments.
Rachael: Style guide is one step down. I think using an assistive technology, using a step beyond the standard and get credit for it.
Rachael: The plain language and usability definitions are pretty bound processes. They don't have repeatable results for standards.
… COGA and usability come in to play.
Gregg: Assertions will be hard to work out. We should still attempt. Examples are welcome and get out of theory.
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.
<kirkwood> specified accountability to processes per Gragg makes sense per ISO
Gregg: Percentage of testing, we are wondering outside of ruler vs. rule. Regulators would decide other items.
Gregg: Assertions inside conformance claims? Date of assertion , is it done once and now for eternity or are dates updated?
https://
https://
https://
ChrisLoiselle: From the github thread, and thinking about the maturity model from W3C, and the COGA-usable note, and the statement generator.
… 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.
… 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.
https://
Alastair: If any further comments , please provide context on the thread.
Scheduling Tradeoffs https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/343
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.
… High priority content is discussed. Types of publications is then discussed.
… 1) What are we trying to achieve by publishing content?
… 2) what are trade offs of providing high priority content in a note vs. a rec track publication?
… 3) what are they trade offs with frequent smaller rec track publications vs. a larger scoped release?
… does anyone have any questions on these questions?
Alastair: In the discussion, please place a thumbs up if you agree or respond to comment.
https://
Alastair: Chuck, do you want to open break out rooms?
Julie: What you are asking for feedback on https://
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.
Julie: Timeframe for feedback?
Alastair: Before next week if possible?
Before next meeting.
Julie: On my subgroup, should we move to other items in pathway now that we have AG editors helping? Or are we refining more?
Alastair: If you feel like you are happy to be used in next publication, please move on to next set.
https://
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.
Lori: In second question in GitHub, primary content vs. rec track publication , what do you mean ?
Alastair: At top of discussion , rec track is like TR space , WCAG 2.2 vs. a note, WCAG-EM and use of those notes.
<GreggVan> so
Alastair: Join break out rooms please.
I need to drop for another call. Apologies. Thanks!
If you need some help please put in here: Could you join us in [sub-group] please Alastair?