14:05:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:05:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/05-ag-irc
14:05:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:05:12 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:05:14 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:05:24 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-08-05
14:05:33 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:05:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/05-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:05:50 <Chuck> regrets: Bruce Bailey, Todd Libby
14:06:02 <Chuck> agenda+ Schedule Check-in:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dbxHHLFQW_y6BABEUrrtDfLnLCiT2QycYvViNAkQ8Gk/edit?tab=t.0
14:06:18 <Chuck> agenda+ Conformance - how to scope a claim
14:06:21 <Chuck> agenda+ subgroup-planning https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/Path_Participation_25b/
14:43:39 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
14:57:43 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
14:57:43 <Laura_Carlson> Scribe: Laura_Carlson
14:58:19 <Rachael> present+
14:58:26 <Chuck> present+
14:59:25 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
14:59:37 <tiffanyburtin> Present+
15:00:24 <kevin> present+
15:00:33 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:00:44 <Adam_Page> present+
15:00:49 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:00:57 <shadi> present+
15:01:38 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:01:40 <ChrisLoiselle> regrets top of hour
15:01:51 <ChrisLoiselle> present +
15:01:56 <shawn> shawn has joined #ag
15:02:11 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:02:16 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:02:21 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:02:22 <shawn> present+
15:02:26 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:02:26 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:02:29 <hdv> present+
15:02:30 <Azlan> present+
15:02:32 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:02:39 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:02:43 <maryjom> present+
15:02:51 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:02:59 <LTSzivos> LTSzivos has joined #ag
15:03:00 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
15:03:16 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: Welcome everyone.
15:03:18 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
15:03:25 <GreggVan> present+
15:03:30 <Kimberly> present+
15:03:35 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
15:03:36 <maryjom> present+
15:03:41 <AlinaV> present+
15:03:48 <joryc> present+
15:04:05 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:04:13 <mbgower> present+
15:04:14 <Laura_Carlson> ... Any New member? (None)
15:04:43 <Chuck> WCAG2ICT Update Pre-CFC:  Issue 750: AG WG Review: WCAG2ICT update to align with EN 301 549
15:04:48 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750
15:05:11 <LTSzivos> present+
15:05:11 <Laura_Carlson> ... opportunity is the first meeting of any given month, and we'll present 30 minutes of onboarding.
15:05:11 <Laura_Carlson> ... If there's anybody interested in attending, you are certainly welcome to join.
15:05:32 <Laura_Carlson> ... Review for WCAG to ICT, an updated.
15:06:02 <Laura_Carlson> ... please revise the issue and lookout for an email.
15:06:57 <Laura_Carlson> Mary jo: that. Basically the changes that we're making right now is to make an alignment between the EN301549 standard that's being worked on for the European Accessibility Act.
15:07:02 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
15:07:19 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:07:22 <CarrieH> present+
15:07:28 <Makoto> present+
15:08:14 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:08:23 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: chairs and staff contact requested a charter extension.
15:08:23 <Detlev> present+
15:08:23 <Rachael> q+
15:08:31 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:08:31 <Laura_Carlson> ... we were granted it. So, our current charter has been formally extended.
15:08:50 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:08:53 <LoriO> q+
15:08:58 <Chuck> ack Lori
15:09:09 <Chuck> q+
15:09:17 <kevin> q+
15:09:18 <Laura_Carlson> RM: This is just that extension that we had previously discussed.
15:09:25 <kevin> q-
15:09:33 <LoriO> yes,
15:09:36 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
15:10:01 <Laura_Carlson> LO: why do they want it every 6 months?
15:10:07 <Chuck> zakim, take up first item
15:10:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take up first item', Chuck
15:10:08 <Charu> present +
15:10:12 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:10:12 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Schedule Check-in:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dbxHHLFQW_y6BABEUrrtDfLnLCiT2QycYvViNAkQ8Gk/edit?tab=t.0 -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:10:14 <Chuck> q?
15:10:16 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:10:35 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:10:40 <Laura_Carlson> ... the extension we were granted was 6 months, because whenever they grant an extension, that is the minimum.
15:10:46 <Laura_Carlson> ... But whenever a charter is finalized, it's for a period of 2 years.
15:11:24 <Jaunita_Flessas> Jaunita_Flessas has joined #Ag
15:11:24 <Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dbxHHLFQW_y6BABEUrrtDfLnLCiT2QycYvViNAkQ8Gk/edit?tab=t.0
15:11:31 <Rachael> This is the formal timeline: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_3_Timeline
15:11:40 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: I''ll share mu screen for a schedule check-in
15:11:43 <Jaunita_Flessas> Present+
15:11:45 <Rachael> The document Chuck is reviewing is a more detailed schedule for the next two Quarters
15:12:32 <Laura_Carlson> (Check goes over the AGWG 2025 Q3 and Q4 Schedule document)
15:13:02 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:13:11 <Jen_G> Present+
15:13:13 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:13:16 <Laura_Carlson> s/Check goes/Chuck goes/
15:13:16 <Rain> present+
15:13:23 <kenneth> present+
15:13:26 <Rachael> Subgroup participation survey is at https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/Path_Participation_25b/
15:14:28 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: These are topics that we intend to, uh, discuss. We will begin these today.
15:15:43 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:15:49 <Laura_Carlson> If anybody does want to review these and have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the chairs.
15:16:13 <Laura_Carlson> ... please review these.
15:16:15 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:16:15 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Conformance - how to scope a claim -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:17:02 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/Path_Participation_25b/
15:17:11 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
15:18:04 <Roland> Roland has joined #ag
15:18:13 <shadi> q+
15:18:21 <Laura_Carlson> RM: This plan for our discussions.
15:18:22 <Chuck> ack Shadi
15:19:15 <GreggVan> q+
15:19:16 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: Question #7 I would like to propose something else.
15:19:26 <kevin> q+
15:19:30 <hdv> +1 to shadi
15:19:37 <Laura_Carlson> ... what does conformance at different levels mean?
15:20:06 <Laura_Carlson> RM: I would like to keep the 100% in if we can, just to be clear for people.
15:20:07 <Chuck> qq+
15:20:22 <Laura_Carlson> ... as it it triggers other conversations.
15:20:39 <GreggVan> q-
15:20:48 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:20:48 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to shadi
15:20:54 <GreggVan> q+
15:20:55 <Laura_Carlson> ... we will focus on point #1 today.
15:20:56 <Chuck> ack kevin
15:21:52 <Laura_Carlson> Kevin: Question 7 regarding something at less than 100% conformance -  we could probably remove that.
15:21:55 <Jaunita_Flessas> Jaunita_Flessas has joined #Ag
15:22:11 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:22:21 <Roland> present+
15:22:27 <Laura_Carlson> RM: I don't necessarily know we want to spend our time in this meeting refining this list.
15:22:56 <Laura_Carlson> ... If you have concerns about the wording, or suggestions on alternative wording or sub-questions, just add comments here or email chairs.
15:23:41 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: requirement applicability for conformance is really important.
15:23:43 <Rachael> q?
15:24:16 <Laura_Carlson> ... What do you make the claim against? Do you say, for the whole site? And how do you know? Because how can you make the claim, since if you're a large corporation, overnight.
15:24:25 <Laura_Carlson> ... There have now been added at least 1,000 pages to some of these major sites.
15:25:25 <Laura_Carlson> RM: Terminology (on slide #4)
15:26:49 <Laura_Carlson> ...(Reviews each one for a shared vocabulary)
15:27:30 <Laura_Carlson> ... big question from our point of view, is what is our minimal unit of conformance? So in WCAG 2, as Greg mentioned, it's the page.
15:27:44 <GreggVan> q+
15:27:54 <Chuck> q+
15:28:45 <Laura_Carlson> ... Conformance units  could be potentially be components, pages, views, processes.
15:28:56 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EBXAhAM0y2r37hdPhRP5h67CW6fOvKuerWIAV5ulu9o/edit?usp=sharing
15:28:58 <Laura_Carlson> ... component is the big question.
15:29:10 <Laura_Carlson> ... Right now, we have conformance scope. It includes views, pages, and processes.
15:29:15 <shadi> q+
15:29:24 <Chuck> ack ch
15:29:27 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:30:45 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: I think you should say the conformance unit is page, set of pages, & process.
15:30:53 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has left #ag
15:31:02 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:31:12 <Chuck> ack shadi
15:31:43 <hdv> q+
15:31:45 <Rachael> q+
15:32:04 <Chuck> ack hdv
15:32:07 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: Second comment is evaluation. Are those are the conformance unit or the evaluation unit? And I'm not sure whichever one it is.
15:32:16 <GreggVan> q+
15:32:31 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:32:58 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:33:04 <shadi> q+ to clarify my comment
15:33:07 <LenB> present+
15:33:10 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: just wondering, would it always be a note, or  a rec?
15:33:12 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:33:16 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:33:41 <Laura_Carlson> Hv: I think it makes sense to leave that open.
15:34:02 <Laura_Carlson> RM: this is probably a note. specifically for the policymakers section.
15:34:26 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:34:35 <sarahhorton> present+
15:34:37 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: Don't want to have testing methods be normative.
15:35:59 <Laura_Carlson> ... We are not charged with setting rules by which regulators and legislators have to act.
15:36:04 <Chuck> ack shadi
15:36:04 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to clarify my comment
15:36:38 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: I did not mean to imply any of these notes in particular should become Rec.
15:37:14 <Chuck> ack giac
15:37:55 <Rachael> q+
15:38:11 <Chuck> q+ to discuss minimal unit of conformance
15:38:20 <Laura_Carlson> GP: Shadi's  idea very interesting.
15:38:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:39:19 <GreggVan> q+
15:39:30 <Laura_Carlson> ... Having a perfect website is quite impossible.
15:39:32 <Chuck> qq- Chuck
15:39:36 <GreggVan> q-
15:39:46 <Chuck> q+ to discuss minimal unit of conformance
15:40:13 <GreggVan> q+
15:40:33 <Laura_Carlson> RM: WE have at least in all the drafts we have been circulating amongst our group discussing writing a note to policymakers.
15:40:45 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:40:45 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss minimal unit of conformance
15:41:15 <Laura_Carlson> RM: what do we think in WCAG 3 as our minimal unit of conformance?
15:41:29 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:41:52 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Chuck discussing the need for the ability for libraries to indicate widgets conform or don't, or at which level
15:42:15 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:42:21 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: I'm intrigued by the minimal unit of conformance being a component.
15:43:10 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: we're talking about the minimum level of conformance. What is the term that you're going to use in one of our requirements?
15:43:10 <Chuck> q?
15:43:48 <Laura_Carlson> ... I think that what you're claiming is what you're claiming, and I don't think that we're going to write a requirement that says you must do this thing for the entire scope of your claim.
15:44:08 <giacomo-petri> q-
15:44:43 <Rachael> q+
15:44:53 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ to address Gregg's last point
15:44:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:44:56 <Laura_Carlson> ...It seems a little bit redundant to say, I'm claiming that for these pages, I'm following your rules.
15:44:56 <Laura_Carlson> One of which is that I follow this one particular rule for the whole claim.
15:45:19 <GreggVan> q+
15:45:50 <Chuck> ack Jennie
15:45:50 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to address Gregg's last point
15:46:04 <Laura_Carlson> ... RM: I see Greggs's  point about it being an evaluation, but we also have to scope the conformance statement itself. I think a question that ties to this is, could you declare conformance against a component?
15:47:02 <Chuck> q+ to say minimum isn't exclusive
15:47:06 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:47:09 <Laura_Carlson> Jenny: to address Greg's last point, I actually found that very intriguing, because I'm wondering if, in the main bullet 2, if we need another sub-bullet that clarifies the concept that Some requirements could have
15:47:09 <Laura_Carlson> the need to be evaluated at that smallest unit, But also, at a larger unit.
15:48:37 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: Yes, can you claim conformance against a component if this  if the requirement says that the component needs to do this.
15:50:11 <Laura_Carlson> ...In WCAG 2.x  we said, we didn't put process in any of the individual items.
15:50:16 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:50:30 <Rain> q+
15:50:48 <maryjom> q+
15:51:02 <Laura_Carlson> ... The unit of conformance is not going to be elements or things, so it's going to be units of evaluation.
15:51:04 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:51:09 <Laura_Carlson> ... But the unit of conformance has to be something meaningful. Like a page, or a process.
15:51:16 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
15:51:17 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:51:34 <ChrisLoiselle> I had been on queue , I'm not now, not sure why
15:51:37 <Jen_G> Present+
15:51:40 <GreggVan> q+
15:51:53 <Rachael> q+  to talk in forms of conformance and compliance instead of accessibility
15:52:01 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: If you have a perfectly accessible application, except for one bug on the login page. How accessible is your application? Well, if nobody can log in, not very.
15:52:04 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has left #ag
15:52:10 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:52:13 <Chuck> ack Rain
15:52:18 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:52:18 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say minimum isn't exclusive
15:52:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Hi, I was on queue and was removed.
15:52:40 <ChrisLoiselle> I will just post my comment below, as I have to drop at 12 pm ET.
15:53:20 <Chuck> qq+ Chris
15:53:51 <ChrisLoiselle> On slide 5, if you are referencing conformance , where and when does page templates come in to play? Component vs. process or view? What makes a page template a workflow? Is the workflow then conforming and not conforming?
15:54:06 <Chuck> qq+ Chuck to make a point of order
15:54:29 <maryjom> +1 to Rain.
15:54:39 <ChrisLoiselle> A transactional template could be a workflow and a process, however is made up of components, thus would someone take a component and approve then vs. within a scope of a page , view or process.
15:54:41 <sarahhorton> +1 to Rain
15:54:49 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:54:56 <Frankie> present+
15:55:01 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:55:01 <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to react to Chuck
15:55:07 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:55:07 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to Chuck to make a point of order
15:55:12 <Jaunita_Flessas> Jaunita_Flessas has joined #Ag
15:55:16 <Laura_Carlson> Rain: think we need to be really careful that about anything that we do in our in our testing. At the end of the day, the flow is the most important thing.
15:55:16 <Laura_Carlson> But we need to recognize that the people who are using this are also going to need to apply it on some cases, at very granular levels.
15:56:08 <Chuck> q+ to ask about Chris's point
15:56:12 <Chuck> ack maryj
15:56:15 <hdv> q+
15:56:54 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:57:13 <Laura_Carlson> Chris: You have a component that might be part of a design system. And then you have what I consider authoring tool type of systems where you have page templates, or Screen-type templates that are using components. So whether or not somebody's  validating the conformance within that flow versus the component.
15:57:28 <Charu> +1 to component libraries
15:58:18 <Laura_Carlson> Mary Jo: We do conformance by component as well. You know, you don't do a final conformance over the whole thing until it's used in a page. Conformance is useful on a smaller level as well.
15:58:19 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:58:19 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to talk in forms of conformance and compliance instead of accessibility
15:58:22 <ChrisLoiselle> someone could use a component within a flow, however "break" the component if not coded per spec, so they could conform by using it as intended, but within their page template if they don't author it correctly, could cause the template or workflow not to conform , i.e. images used in a template don't have alt even though they should and you are allowed to author it but don't.
15:58:49 <sarahhorton> +1 to Rachael
15:59:04 <ChrisLoiselle> need to drop for another project call, apologies.
15:59:19 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: We do want to be able to have some way of describing  components,. And I'm not sure how to say what it is, but it's really important.
15:59:47 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:59:47 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about Chris's point
15:59:56 <GreggVan> q+
16:00:20 <Rachael> qq+ to say scribe change
16:00:49 <Rain> +1 conforming at the component level only applies to the component in its component form
16:00:54 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #ag
16:00:55 <Laura_Carlson> RM: I guess going to the point that was made from a scoping standpoint. If the scope is a component I don't personally see why we couldn't say it conforms.
16:01:18 <Laura_Carlson> Scribe change?
16:01:25 <SteveF> present+
16:01:33 <SteveF> q+
16:02:05 <Rachael> q-
16:02:07 <GreggVan> q+ to say we should perhaps add a term  "component level conformant"    conforms to all requirements that apply to component or lower level requirements for present contents and will not break conformance if what you add to it or include it in is conformant.
16:02:12 <LTSzivos> The easiest example of accessible component versus page template could be misusing form elements to create a change of context without forewarning the user. The component is accessible; the template is not.
16:02:24 <sarahhorton> I have to drop, sorry!
16:02:32 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:02:36 <Laura_Carlson> Chris: so you have a component library, that component library has templates, and those templates are made of components. You do your first blush of conformance on the components, and the components themselves are accessible.
16:02:36 <Laura_Carlson> To the extent they can be.
16:02:55 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:55 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Laura_Carlson
16:03:05 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:03:05 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose maryjom
16:03:13 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:03:21 <maryjom> scribe+ maryjom
16:03:48 <LTSzivos> Is there documentation on how to scribe for those who may be willing to try but are loathe to do so because of their inexperience/lack of knowledge?
16:04:13 <maryjom> Chuck Using linear queueing at this point. If you have a response, queue in to offer a response.
16:04:15 <Chuck> q?
16:04:18 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:05:02 <maryjom> s/Chuck Using/Chuck: Using/
16:05:31 <Chuck> q+ to ask about hdv's point
16:05:58 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/05-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
16:06:18 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:06:24 <maryjom> Hidde: Because of customizability, component conformance not meaningful. The components can affect one another, and is rarely where accessibility happens.
16:06:24 <GreggVan> q+ to say we should perhaps add a term  "component level conformant"    conforms to all requirements that apply to component or lower level requirements for the present contents and setting and will not break conformance if what you add to it, adjust it to, or include it in is conformant.
16:06:32 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:06:32 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about hdv's point
16:06:51 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:06:51 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say we should perhaps add a term  "component level conformant"    conforms to all requirements that apply to component or lower level requirements for
16:06:54 <Zakim> ... present contents and will not break conformance if what you add to it or include it in is conformant. and to say we should perhaps add a term  "component level conformant"
16:06:54 <Zakim> ... conforms to all requirements that apply to component or lower level requirements for the present contents and setting and will not break conformance if what you add to it,
16:06:54 <Zakim> ... adjust it to, or include it in is conformant.
16:07:24 <maryjom> Hidde: useful in understanding if accessibility was considered in development of the components, but nothing beyond that.
16:07:27 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re low code, no code options libraries may want to include multiple levels
16:08:08 <Chuck> ack Steve
16:08:10 <maryjom> gregg: Perhaps we should have a term  "component level conformant".  It would mean it  conforms to all requirements that apply to component or lower level requirements for the present contents and setting and will not break conformance if what you add to it, adjust it to, or include it in is conformant.
16:08:15 <joryc> q+ to say there is no such thing as a conformant component.
16:08:49 <hdv> q+ to mention stakeholder expectations that will come when teams say 'built in' / 'accessibility ready'
16:09:33 <Laura_Carlson> s/Any New member? /Any new members? /
16:09:46 <maryjom> steve: From a practical standpoint, we have customers that ask for the component library to be tested. We can test for that and provide an ACR to indicate that the library has been tested and is conformant. It doesn't mean that when the library is used, the content using it is automatically conformant.
16:09:51 <Chuck> q+ to say in Oracle I advocate for our library authors doing validation.
16:09:55 <Chuck> ack gia
16:11:21 <maryjom> giacomo-petri: We need to understand the applicability of the requirements to the components. For the heading requirements, a component would naturally conform because they don't need or use headings. It doesn't mean the final page using the component would be accessible.
16:11:37 <Laura_Carlson> s/I''ll share mu /I'll share my /
16:11:41 <Rachael> q+ to ask if we moved forward with some type of component level conformance should we include a statement about pages
16:11:49 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:11:49 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say in Oracle I advocate for our library authors doing validation.
16:11:57 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:11:57 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss low code, no code options libraries may want to include multiple levels
16:12:32 <maryjom> ...is it possible to say something is excluded from the conformance. For example, if I have something that is inaccessible (3rd party) can I scope that out in some circumstances since I may not have a choice in using it, but I also cannot fix the inaccessibility of that content.
16:12:33 <Laura_Carlson> s/to, uh, /to /
16:13:06 <Chuck> ack joryc
16:13:06 <Zakim> joryc, you wanted to say there is no such thing as a conformant component.
16:13:07 <GreggVan> q+
16:13:11 <maryjom> Jennie: In a low/no code tool, a user would need to know if the components are accessible.
16:13:32 <Laura_Carlson> s/it it triggers/it triggers/
16:13:58 <Chuck> q+ to say I advocate for our library content authors doing some validation.
16:14:08 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:14:08 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to mention stakeholder expectations that will come when teams say 'built in' / 'accessibility ready'
16:14:12 <Laura_Carlson> s/could be potentially be components/could potentially be components/
16:14:14 <maryjom> jory: Don't think there is a "conformant component" Labels or color changes could break the accessibility. We could only talk about that internally that a component was designed with accessibility in mind.
16:15:11 <GreggVan> q+ to say "  add to my previous definition  a note that says "best practice is to also include guidance on maintaining conformance when content or adjustments are made to the component"
16:15:44 <Laura_Carlson> s/Greggs's /Gregg's /
16:16:05 <maryjom> hidde: Agree that you can't say more than a component was designed with accessibility in mind, perhaps "accessibility-ready" or something like that could help consumers of component libraries understand and find libraries. Don't want consumers of libraries to assume accessibility comes without any additional work when using accessible components.
16:16:23 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:16:23 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if we moved forward with some type of component level conformance should we include a statement about pages
16:16:26 <GreggVan> q+ to say "  add to my previous definition  a note that says "best practice is to also include guidance on maintaining conformance when content or adjustments are made to the component - and a note on "use of this component does not ensure conformance of larger unit that uses this component"
16:16:27 <SteveF> q+
16:17:07 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:17:07 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "  add to my previous definition  a note that says "best practice is to also include guidance on maintaining conformance when content or adjustments are
16:17:10 <Zakim> ... made to the component" and to say "  add to my previous definition  a note that says "best practice is to also include guidance on maintaining conformance when content or
16:17:10 <Zakim> ... adjustments are made to the component - and a note on "use of this component does not ensure conformance of larger unit that uses this component"
16:17:34 <maryjom> Rachael: If we made components conformant, should we add a statement in the conformance section that simply says that conformant components don't necessarily lead to conformant pages.
16:17:50 <hdv> s/perhaps "accessibility-ready" or something like that could help consumers of component libraries understand and find libraries/stakeholders, from what I've seen, will love to hear conformant components exist, but it's a big risk for a11y if we allow for that kind of statement./
16:17:58 <mbgower> q+ to say that you can report on a component that is alone on its page (or whatever context)
16:18:11 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:18:11 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I advocate for our library content authors doing some validation.
16:18:59 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:19:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/05-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
16:19:07 <maryjom> GreggVan A component library that is conformant could state that this doesn't guarantee conformance in the resulting pages using the components.
16:20:01 <Chuck> ack Steve
16:20:15 <hdv> q+ to respond to chuck's question if there is any things people could test on component level
16:20:22 <maryjom> Chuck: Have had that problem with our component libraries. There is benefit though in saying that the components have been built to support accessibility, but you still have to test where they are used to ensure the end result is still accessible.
16:21:22 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:21:42 <Rachael> draft poll: 1) allow conformance for components 2) add an accessibility ready approach for components to evaluation methodology 3) neither 4) other [add approach]
16:21:54 <maryjom> steve: If I'm testing a component in the library and test it for what is relevant to that, I could say this component is conformant. However, when used in the wild it can be used in an inaccessible way - and that would be an issue that gets tested/reported.
16:22:14 <Chuck> q+ to announce Rachael's poll
16:22:26 <GreggVan> Rachael -- did you mean "conformant ready" ?
16:22:43 <maryjom> ...If you start out with a component that supports an accessible name and keyboard accessibiity it is a good thing to know and a better starting point than something that you don't even know its status.
16:22:48 <Chuck> ack mb
16:22:48 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that you can report on a component that is alone on its page (or whatever context)
16:23:48 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:23:48 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to respond to chuck's question if there is any things people could test on component level
16:24:01 <maryjom> mike: You could report on a component that is alone on its page. You could mark it as compliant but don't think conformance makes sense on a component level.
16:25:18 <maryjom> hidde: There is a list of things you could test on every component and you could retest it when it has different iterations, versions, and customizations. You could also notate that when certain aspects are changed, you'd need to retest.
16:25:35 <kevin> q+
16:25:38 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:25:45 <Chuck> ack gia
16:26:02 <maryjom> ...If you could have the ability to explain all of that, its ok but if not it wouldn't make sense to have conformance for components.
16:26:07 <GreggVan> @rachael  add option to poll.   x) not have conformance at component level but create a special term for labelling components that are meet applicable requirements as they currently and if used properly help to build conformant content
16:26:31 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Giacomo!
16:26:55 <shadi> q+
16:27:03 <GreggVan> q+
16:27:21 <Chuck> poll: 1) allow conformance for components 2) add an accessibility ready approach for components to evaluation methodology 3) neither 4) other [add approach], 5) not have conformance at component level but create a special term for labelling components that are meet applicable requirements as they currently and if used properly help to build
16:27:21 <Chuck> conformant content
16:27:22 <maryjom> giacomo-petri: If I make the effort to make a component accessible, I'd want to claim I worked on accessibility and that it meets the requirements. I may have to make statements that if certain aspects are changed, then you'd need to retest. Doesn't see a problem with component-level conformance.
16:27:37 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:27:37 <Chuck> ack
16:27:40 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:27:40 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to announce Rachael's poll
16:27:48 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:27:49 <shadi> 5 (which is also 3 & 4)
16:28:14 <mbgower> 4 how about adding a 'library' unit?
16:28:19 <GreggVan> 5
16:28:20 <LoriO0> LoriO0 has joined #ag
16:28:27 <hdv> 1+ to Giacomo's that people who make components want to claim conformance, but it's not the same 'conformance' as a page, not the same meaningfulness.
16:28:39 <Chuck> q?
16:28:41 <Chuck> q+
16:28:44 <Chuck> ack shadi
16:28:46 <maryjom> kevin: Understand the perspective that component-level conformance can be problematic but if we don't do something, the accessibility community will do it instead - in some ad hoc fashion. I think we need at least some commentary on that.
16:29:13 <hdv> 5
16:29:36 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:29:41 <maryjom> shadi: Agrees with Kevin and Hidde's points. Can we develop something to address that - even for WCAG as it exists today. It could be in a Note and not necessarily WCAG 3.
16:29:43 <Rain> 1 - but make it clear that the conformance only applies to the component individually in its default state, not how it is used in a larger context. As Kevin noted, if we don't have a way to do that, industry will have to get creative.
16:30:21 <hdv> +1 to Shadi that a doc to address this is helpful, would love to help write it and feel we have more folks in this group that could make an effective / clear doc around this
16:31:14 <Rachael> q+ to ask about not applicable
16:31:24 <Chuck> +1 to Gregg and encouraging component content authors to do some testing
16:31:27 <SteveF> we don't need a component conformance unit, it is like saying we need a unit for a HTML page with only a heading and a paragraph of text
16:31:31 <maryjom> GreggVan: Suggestion 5 in the poll attempts to do this. This isn't a requirement, but a reporting issue. It would be useful to have some special information. Maybe not saying "conforming with WCAG" but define some way to make some level of claim. We have to have some way of encouraging development tools, templates, and component developers to do
16:31:31 <maryjom> the work.
16:31:43 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:31:48 <Rachael> q-
16:32:22 <maryjom> Chuck: The poll had some flaws and not many responses to it.
16:32:44 <maryjom> Rachael: I'll create a modified poll.
16:32:48 <Chuck> q?
16:33:34 <maryjom> Chuck: One more item in the deck we need to get to once the poll is reposted by Rachael.
16:34:09 <Rachael> poll: How to handle components: 1) components can conform via WCAG  2) Components can do something slightly different than conformance in WCAG   3) Conformance can do something slightly different than conformance in a Evaluation Note 4) other
16:34:42 <shadi> 3
16:34:43 <GreggVan> 2
16:34:50 <maryjom> Rachael: introduces the poll.
16:35:13 <hdv> 3, where we need to make sure 'slightly different' is written in a way that doesn't provide an escape hatch
16:35:23 <mbgower> q+
16:35:36 <Chuck> ack mbg
16:35:55 <maryjom> Rachael: We would need to work out the details, but the poll explores where the conformance is and how it is documented.
16:36:07 <Rachael> poll: How to handle components: 1) components can conform via WCAG  2) Components can do something slightly different than conformance in WCAG   3) Conformance can do something slightly different than conformance in a Evaluation Note 4) Conformance at a library level 5) other
16:36:17 <Chuck> q+ to ask m
16:36:27 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:36:27 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask m
16:36:32 <GreggVan> q+ to say      4 - because it will have more encouragement to tool/component makers if it is formal and not some side note.    HOWEVER   Notes have the ability to change and help us develop the idea
16:36:56 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:36:58 <shadi> q+
16:37:26 <Chuck> +1 authoring tools
16:37:28 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:37:28 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say      4 - because it will have more encouragement to tool/component makers if it is formal and not some side note.    HOWEVER   Notes have the ability to
16:37:31 <Zakim> ... change and help us develop the idea
16:37:46 <maryjom> mbgower: Currently conformance is on an author created page that is served. This is about certifying elements they're creating to sites. Maybe this is an authoring tools thing.
16:38:27 <shadi> q-
16:38:48 <Rachael> q+
16:39:10 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:39:12 <maryjom> GreggVan: Modifying conformance is a big leap and would take a while to develop. Could more quickly address this in a Note that develops ideas on how a component library might document the work they've done to make components capable of conforming.
16:39:49 <maryjom> Rachael: If we did something like that, would we also want to put it in as "developing" content with an editor's note tying it to a Task Force effort that is working on a Note.
16:39:55 <GreggVan> q+ to say   "experimental or exploratory"
16:39:58 <hdv> q+
16:40:00 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:40:00 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "experimental or exploratory"
16:40:03 <shadi> q+
16:40:11 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
16:40:11 <maryjom> gregg: Would prefer it be "exploratory".
16:40:17 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:40:28 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:41:11 <Chuck> ack shadi
16:41:22 <maryjom> hidde: Heard a lot of voices that this level of conformance wouldn't be meaningful so hesitant to call it exploratory or developmental. But does think a Note could be useful to address it for now.
16:41:52 <giacomo-petri> q-
16:41:56 <Rachael> q+
16:42:00 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:42:05 <maryjom> shadi: Clarifying that this might be a separate Note. A little concerned about adding complexity to WCAG 3 and would prefer it be worked on outside of WCAG 3.
16:42:13 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:42:24 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:42:28 <Chuck> ack gia
16:42:32 <maryjom> rachael: Let's add the concept of a separate note to the poll
16:43:14 <Rachael> poll: How to handle components: 1) components can conform via WCAG  2) Components can do something slightly different than conformance in WCAG   3) Conformance can do something slightly different than conformance in a Evaluation Note 4) Conformance at a library level 5) Create a separate note about component accessibility 6) other
16:43:30 <hdv> q+ to respond to giacomo-petri's q to recommend component producers to create example pages for conformance claims
16:43:33 <Chuck> 5
16:43:48 <Chuck> qq+
16:43:54 <shadi> 5 or 3
16:44:11 <maryjom> giacomo-petri: If I am not able to determine if my component or product is conformant or not. If I ask for a VPAT, you can see more granularly what requirements are fully met or not. It might be interesting to know which requirements can or cannot be applied at a component level.
16:44:20 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:44:20 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to giacomo-petri
16:44:24 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:44:24 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to respond to giacomo-petri's q to recommend component producers to create example pages for conformance claims
16:44:56 <Rachael> 3 (chair hat off)
16:45:12 <kevin> 5 or 3
16:45:19 <GreggVan> 3 and 5   which seem to be about the same     we can visit wcag version later
16:45:25 <Chuck> q?
16:45:26 <maryjom> hidde: Giacomo makes a good point that someone creating components wants to be able to say something about conformance. It would be good for them to provide a page that demonstrates appropriate use of their components in making a conformant page.
16:45:42 <hdv> 5
16:45:51 <Rachael> q+
16:45:53 <maryjom> Chuck: Regarding the poll, most votes are 3 and 5
16:45:59 <Chuck> poll: How to handle components: 1) components can conform via WCAG  2) Components can do something slightly different than conformance in WCAG   3) Conformance can do something slightly different than conformance in a Evaluation Note 4) Conformance at a library level 5) Create a separate note about component accessibility 6) other
16:46:03 <maryjom> Gregg: What is the difference between 3 and 5?
16:46:14 <Detlev> I don't understand the options well enough to pick one.. but probably 3
16:46:47 <Chuck> q+
16:46:49 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:47:12 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:47:23 <Rachael> q-
16:47:24 <GreggVan> 5
16:47:31 <LenB> 5
16:47:34 <elguerrero> 5
16:47:36 <Azlan> 5
16:47:36 <maryjom> Rachael: It's a level of effort difference. 3) conformance can do something different and is already a part of a note we are committed to writing. 5 is standing up an additional group to develop a note on its own.
16:47:38 <Frankie> 5
16:47:55 <Rachael> q+ to ask question
16:48:00 <maryjom> Chuck: Poll results: 5 is the most popular option.
16:48:00 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:48:00 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask question
16:48:30 <GreggVan> q+
16:48:30 <shadi> q+
16:48:40 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:48:53 <maryjom> Rachael: When we have something that hooks that go into WCAG, we need the hooks that go into it.  Should sub-groups be looking at the requirements list they're working on to determine applicability at a component level.
16:49:51 <Chuck> ack Shadi
16:50:16 <maryjom> GreggVan: The separate TF should be the one to go through everything to see if the requirements make sense to apply to components. The working group and its sub-groups should focus on the requirements development.
16:50:42 <Chuck> q?
16:50:59 <maryjom> shadi Maybe a community group should do the work. It's a step away from the main focus of WCAG 3 work and don't want resources diverted on a side project.
16:51:32 <maryjom> Rachael: For next week we want to clarify the difference between conformance and reporting.
16:51:52 <shadi> s/do the work/incubate the idea
16:52:11 <maryjom> ...does slide 6 cover the points about these two topics?  Please add comments.  We'll discuss this next week.
16:52:54 <maryjom> ...Goes through the points currently in the slide on "conformance" and "reporting (compliance)".  The goal is to clarify the vocabulary.
16:53:00 <shadi> q+
16:53:03 <Chuck> ack shadi
16:53:42 <maryjom> Shadi: Bullet before last - in "reporting" on the slide could map to different levels of accessibility
16:53:56 <maryjom> Chuck: Rachael made some tweaks to that.
16:53:57 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:53:57 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- subgroup-planning https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/Path_Participation_25b/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:54:59 <maryjom> Chuck: We are looking to continue the sub-group work. We put out a survey on which groups you would prefer to join and which is your secondary choice. Not much response - only 6 respondents.
16:55:42 <maryjom> ...please fill in the survey. If you have an interest in a particular group whether you're currently in that group or want to move to another you've got to indicate that in the survey.
16:56:13 <maryjom> ...please put your interest in IRC right now if you know or else complete the survey.
16:56:21 <CarrieH> I responded
16:56:52 <Frankie> I thought many of us already responded that we were not changing groups?
16:57:03 <maryjom> Rachael: Encouraging everyone to join a sub-group. It's critical to getting WCAG 3 work done. You can contribute more and get to know others better.
16:57:07 <Azlan> Do these subgroups have meetings already scheduled? If so can times be shared?
16:57:42 <maryjom> Rachael: If you responded that you want to stay in the group you were in, that's fine.
16:57:56 <Rachael> q+
16:58:10 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:58:13 <maryjom> Chuck: Sub-groups did have a schedule that the groups had. Will need to find that and send it out again.
16:58:22 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:58:42 <Frankie> Image & Media Alternatives & Controls meets at 5pm Pacific on Thursdays.
16:58:48 <maryjom> Rachael: Some groups have flexibility to change their times. We don't have time in the AG WG meetings to do sub-group work as we work through conformance topics.
16:58:52 <elguerrero> elguerrero has left #ag
16:58:55 <LenB> Plain Language, Consistency & Familiarity is open to considering new time slot.
16:59:00 <Jen_G> I'm interested in staying with the inputs group. Apologies for not completing the survey.
16:59:00 <LenB> LenB has left #ag
16:59:01 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
16:59:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/05-ag-minutes.html maryjom
18:02:17 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
18:35:45 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
21:40:31 <shawn7> shawn7 has joined #ag