14:15:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:15:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/12-ag-irc
14:15:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:15:51 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:15:53 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:16:00 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-08-12
14:16:08 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:16:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/12-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:16:26 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG2ICT Review CFC:  https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fwcag2ict-22%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag2ict%2F
14:16:34 <Chuck> agena?
14:16:37 <Chuck> agenda?
14:16:50 <Chuck> zakim, clear agenda
14:16:50 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:16:57 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG2ICT Review CFC:  https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fwcag2ict-22%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag2ict%2F
14:17:06 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.x issues
14:20:49 <Rachael> Ways of Asserting Conformance https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MXiAC90NJ6IA1j2HzjAJ5fJRe880hIoX9dxn2undmCU/edit?slide=id.g34514bbb5f4_0_12#slide=id.g34514bbb5f4_0_12
14:23:56 <Rachael> regrets+ Mike G, Bruce B, Todd L
14:37:41 <Chuck> regrets+ Patrick Lauke, Jennifer Strickland
14:40:45 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
14:41:33 <Chuck> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025JulSep/0061.html
14:52:03 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:52:18 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:58:46 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
14:59:50 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:00:24 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:00:40 <Adam_Page> present+
15:00:41 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:00:42 <elguerrero> present+
15:01:15 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:01:29 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:02:12 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:02:23 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:02:24 <hdv> present+
15:02:30 <elguerrero> I can scribe :)
15:02:35 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:02:48 <elguerrero> Eloisa :)
15:02:52 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:03:08 <maryjom> present+
15:03:20 <elguerrero> scribe+
15:03:39 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:03:40 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:03:46 <LoriO> present+
15:04:03 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:04:11 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:04:11 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:04:15 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:04:28 <Makoto> present+
15:04:29 <kenneth> present+
15:04:30 <elguerrero> Chuck: Announcements — had an idea of educating the group about intersectional disabilities. We have not yet been able to do these presentations yet, but remains something we intend to do.
15:04:38 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
15:05:00 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:05:10 <LTSzivos> LTSzivos has joined #ag
15:05:11 <elguerrero> Chuck: Second announcement — some bots or AI agents have been joining the AGWG to record meetings — they are out of policy and we have been removing them.
15:05:12 <stevef> present+
15:05:15 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
15:05:19 <LTSzivos> present+
15:05:35 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
15:05:40 <AlinaV> present+
15:05:49 <elguerrero> Chuck: If anyone uses bots for accommodation, please let us know so we can set something up for you.
15:05:53 <Charu> present+
15:06:01 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:06:22 <Rachael> present+
15:07:17 <elguerrero> Chuck: Third announcement — we have 2 styles of queueing, conversational allows back and forth between presenter and person in queue and then move on; when it gets too long, we do linear queueing — make your point as briefly as possible and move on and allow anybody to participate in the conversation. If someone's point is running too long, I
15:07:18 <elguerrero> may interject/cut them short — goal is that everyone who wants to participate / join the conversation is able to.
15:07:28 <Gez> Gez has joined #AG
15:07:28 <julierawe> Chuck Can AG subgroups agree to use Zoom's AI companion to take notes of meetings that the subgroup leader will clean up before distributing? Our subgroup has been experimenting with this...
15:07:44 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:07:50 <shadi> present+
15:07:51 <julierawe> present+
15:07:58 <Gez> present+
15:08:11 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:08:11 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG2ICT Review CFC:  https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fwcag2ict-22%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag2ict%2F -- taken up
15:08:14 <julierawe> q+
15:08:15 <Zakim> ... [from Chuck]
15:08:22 <Chuck> ack julie
15:08:46 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:08:46 <elguerrero> julierawe: About the bots — can AG subgroups use Zoom AI companion to take notes?
15:09:20 <Chuck> qq+
15:09:21 <Ben_Tillyer> q-
15:09:22 <Rachael> at+
15:09:25 <elguerrero> kevin: We haven't switched on AI assistant for everything but as long as everyone in the meeting is fine with it, it's okay.
15:09:26 <Rachael> q+
15:09:26 <Ben_Tillyer> I'll email instead
15:09:31 <julierawe> Thank you
15:09:33 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:09:33 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to julierawe
15:09:37 <elguerrero> kevin: Good practice to check that it is okay with everyone first.
15:09:51 <Jennie_Delisi> Some government agencies as well.
15:10:09 <elguerrero> Chuck: Some organisations do not allow to participate in such situations; if you have a member of an organisation that has those restrictions, please check with them first.
15:10:11 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:10:35 <elguerrero> Rachael: Additional announcement — Julie has taken on role for co-facilitator for coga along with Lisa.
15:10:39 <Jennie_Delisi> * Julie rocks!
15:11:00 <LoriO> Go Julie!!
15:11:05 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:11:08 <LoriO> Go Julie!!
15:11:14 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:11:21 <kenneth> this is great, Julie is great
15:11:22 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:11:38 <Laura_Carlson> Congratulations, Julie!
15:11:38 <elguerrero> Chuck: Last week we announced the pre-CFC, it is an opportunity to try to address any major changes before we do the formal CFC.
15:11:48 <elguerrero> Chuck: We're trying to resolve any objections, and today we hope to go to CFC.
15:12:33 <elguerrero> maryjom: During this week, our TF took a close look and there were a few editorial things to get into the document before publishing. The list of them will be added to the bottom of the review issue with links to what actually changed. Hopefully nothing controversial.
15:12:47 <kenneth> s/pre-CFC/pre-CFC for WCAG2ICT Group Note/
15:12:55 <elguerrero> Chuck: Plan to send out the CFC today and give it a 5-day review period before it can be published. We encourage everyone to review.
15:13:12 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:13:12 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 2.x issues -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:13:24 <Chuck> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025JulSep/0061.html
15:13:43 <elguerrero> Chuck: Alistair or Michael usually review those issues for us, but they are not here today.
15:14:12 <elguerrero> Chuck: We will refer you to the email sent out by Bruce Bailey regarding updates proposed in the WCAG 2.x issues, and encourage you to review.
15:14:18 <kenneth> (the email indicates the review feedback window by a week)
15:14:33 <kenneth> s/by/is extended by/
15:14:34 <elguerrero> Chuck: Some of them are normative, mostly editorial. All of them should have your review.
15:14:44 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:14:44 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, Chuck
15:14:49 <Chuck> q?
15:14:51 <Chuck> agenda?
15:15:09 <Chuck> agenda+ Conformance - Ways of Asserting Conformance https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MXiAC90NJ6IA1j2HzjAJ5fJRe880hIoX9dxn2undmCU/edit?slide=id.g34514bbb5f4_0_12#slide=id.g34514bbb5f4_0_12
15:15:12 <Rain> present+
15:15:17 <kevin> present+
15:15:18 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:15:18 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Conformance - Ways of Asserting Conformance
15:15:19 <Zakim> ... https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MXiAC90NJ6IA1j2HzjAJ5fJRe880hIoX9dxn2undmCU/edit?slide=id.g34514bbb5f4_0_12#slide=id.g34514bbb5f4_0_12 -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:15:55 <elguerrero> Rachael: Presenting her screen to show her slides.
15:16:09 <GreggVan> q+
15:16:15 <graham> graham has joined #ag
15:16:18 <elguerrero> Rachael: Today we are doing Ways of asserting conformance.
15:16:49 <graham> present+
15:17:04 <elguerrero> Rachael: Summary of last week's meeting in the slides — please take a look and add comments.
15:17:31 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:17:38 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:17:54 <elguerrero> GreggVan: Are we talking about claiming or assertions of conformance?
15:18:02 <Azlan> present+
15:18:06 <elguerrero> Rachael: We are talking about what we talk about when we talk about conformance.
15:18:35 <elguerrero> Rachael: Amends the title of the slide to "Ways of assertin (stating, discussing) conformance"
15:18:55 <elguerrero> Rachael: We would like to have a shared understanding of conformance and compliance.
15:19:15 <elguerrero> Rachael: Conformance, compliance, reporting — what are we talking about?
15:19:45 <elguerrero> Rachael: Conformance — satisfying all the requirements of the guidelines.
15:19:51 <Chuck> q?
15:19:55 <GreggVan> q+
15:19:58 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:20:16 <elguerrero> GreggVan: We have requirements and guidelines — are you talking about the requirements listed under the guidelines?
15:20:19 <hdv> q+ to say progress
15:20:31 <elguerrero> Rachael: Yes (amends slide for definition of conformance)
15:20:51 <Chuck> ack hdv
15:20:51 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to say progress
15:21:14 <elguerrero> hdv: Would reporting make sense to talk about progress?
15:21:24 <GreggVan> q+
15:21:35 <elguerrero> hdv: Instead of mentioning what the state is, how are you improving?
15:21:52 <elguerrero> Rachael: Next slide is reporting.
15:21:54 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:22:11 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:22:12 <Rain> +1 to the conformance definition
15:22:16 <Frankie> present+
15:22:21 <elguerrero> GreggVan: The law/regulations require reporting against but we shouldn't make it a conformance claim to report progress because progress will change all the time.
15:22:34 <hdv> s/progress?/progress, as 'making more accessible' is what the EU Web Accessibility Directive requires/
15:23:06 <LoriO> q+
15:23:10 <elguerrero> Rachael: Reporting — accessibility conformance report of how close to conforming a thing is, or how something is conforming.
15:23:16 <Chuck> ack Lorio
15:23:31 <GreggVan> q+
15:23:36 <elguerrero> LoriO: "How close" — who will define this? This is different for everyone.
15:23:37 <kevin> q+
15:23:44 <Rain> q+
15:23:59 <elguerrero> Rachael: In VPAT, we say partially supports or supports… it depends on the reporting structure.
15:24:10 <elguerrero> Rachael: When we talk about reporting, it's just to define what we're talking about.
15:24:17 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:24:28 <elguerrero> GreggVan: A report could tell you how you're progressing.
15:24:40 <hdv> +1 to Gregg, that helps address my concern too!
15:24:50 <hdv> (re: 'or progressing')
15:25:03 <Chuck> ack kevin
15:25:07 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:25:38 <jtoles> present+
15:25:39 <elguerrero> kevin: A big thing about who determines how "close" means, it's determined by rulemakers wherever you are in the world and which legislative framework to comply with.
15:26:03 <Rachael> q+ to ask if the () addresses Loris point
15:26:08 <Chuck> ack rain
15:26:37 <elguerrero> Rain: "How close" feels subjective and maybe a language tweak "The state of conformance" or "how conformant a thing is" — remove "how close".
15:26:46 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:26:46 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if the () addresses Loris point
15:27:14 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
15:27:47 <elguerrero> Rachael: Compliance — how well something satisfies regulation or policy; relates to laws, regulations, and policy; providing hooks for compliance within our scope.
15:28:04 <elguerrero> Rachael: Exception for online maps and mapping services.
15:28:06 <Chuck> q+
15:28:08 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:28:11 <Chuck> q+ Gregg
15:28:27 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:28:29 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:28:36 <sarahhorton> present+
15:28:51 <LoriO> q+
15:28:53 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:28:56 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:29:00 <elguerrero> GreggVan: "Or procurement" — add to the statement.
15:29:05 <Jen_G> Present+
15:29:23 <Ben_Tillyer> q-
15:29:23 <JobA> JobA has joined #ag
15:29:24 <elguerrero> GreggVan: Online mapping as exception — would this be in the standard or in the use of the standard document?
15:29:34 <JobA> I’m hesitant to list exceptions.
15:29:52 <elguerrero> Rachael: None of these are intended to be within the standard — just clarify what each of these things are, and what the general big examples are.
15:29:54 <Chuck> ack lorio
15:29:56 <Jen_G> Present+
15:30:08 <JobA> That isn’t in en301 but EAA ?
15:30:09 <Chuck> q+ to answer Lori
15:30:31 <Rain> +1 to Lori. Procurement is part of a process that will use compliance as a factor.
15:30:32 <JobA> What about policy rather than procurement ?
15:30:32 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:30:32 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer Lori
15:30:36 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ procurement or contract?
15:30:38 <elguerrero> LoriO: Under Compliance, I don't think "procurement" is what we're looking for in compliance — if you start talking about, you're looking at a customer looking at a product. Will be different for every product — I don't think procurement should be in that statement.
15:30:52 <elguerrero> Chuck: There are procurement requirements put on public sector such as in Section 508.
15:31:05 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
15:31:08 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:31:09 <GreggVan> q+
15:31:16 <elguerrero> Chuck: There may be another way of expressing it, but EN301549 (?) has a lot of procurement-related requirements in there as well
15:31:31 <elguerrero> LoriO: Wouldn't you say "procurement requirements" instead?
15:31:33 <hdv> q+ to say comply with law vs conform to standard
15:31:39 <Chuck> ack Jennie
15:31:51 <sarahhorton> +1, wouldn't procurement be a type of regulation or policy?
15:32:02 <elguerrero> Jennie_Delisi: There are procurement and contract requirements.
15:32:05 <JobA> I think folks are getting the standard and directives and laws crossed.
15:32:24 <GreggVan> q+ to say "other contract or procuement requirements"
15:32:36 <elguerrero> Jennie_Delisi: Not sure if it's also procurement policies that maybe covers that — this is still important in terms of ensuring this area is hammered out well. I don't have the specific language.
15:32:36 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:32:39 <Chuck> ack Ben
15:33:22 <elguerrero> Ben_Tillyer: Section 508 is part of an act, and the act is law, so it's covered when we say "law or policy" — could add words like "regulations" or "company requirements", etc.
15:33:26 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:33:26 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "other contract or procuement requirements"
15:34:22 <Frankie> Why not just "other requirements"? That is inclusive of company and legal methods.
15:34:26 <elguerrero> GreggVan: We have places that are not covered by 508 that want to be accessible and require this in their procurement and purchase contract. Can be required by law, regulation, or for any other reason, bound by contracts.
15:34:50 <Chuck> ack hdv
15:34:50 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to say comply with law vs conform to standard
15:35:36 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to hdv
15:35:37 <elguerrero> hdv: Conforming is something you do with a standard, and compliance is something you do with a law. We're making it confusing by making it longer, so agree with GreggVan, use "regulation policy" or "contract requirements" could cover it.
15:35:42 <Chuck> ack Chris
15:35:44 <shadi> +1
15:36:06 <Chuck> q+
15:36:16 <elguerrero> ChrisLoiselle: Are we highlighting ITI, VPAT, ACR, or a WCAG EM Report would be another example for reporting.
15:36:17 <w3> w3 has joined #ag
15:36:45 <elguerrero> ChrisLoiselle: For me, a report is a statement in time of when this statement was made, versus a progressing which would be continuous.
15:37:05 <Chuck> q?
15:37:19 <Rachael> q+
15:37:39 <elguerrero> Chuck: With these 3 terms, we're trying to come up with an understanding for our benefit/ frame of reference for us all.
15:37:51 <Rachael> poll: 1) procurement requirements 2) law 3) other contract or procurement requirements 4) other
15:38:11 <LoriO> 1
15:38:38 <GreggVan> 3
15:38:49 <Ben_Tillyer> 2
15:38:53 <hdv> 3
15:38:55 <elguerrero> 3
15:39:00 <Jennie_Delisi> 3
15:39:01 <LoriO> 3
15:39:02 <Azlan> 3
15:39:04 <Rain> 3
15:39:04 <Charu> 3
15:39:07 <sarahhorton> 3
15:39:08 <Makoto> 3
15:39:09 <shadi> 3
15:39:10 <Frankie> 2
15:39:13 <joryc> 3
15:39:14 <LTSzivos> 3
15:39:19 <Laura_Carlson> 3
15:39:25 <Gez> 3
15:39:41 <GreggVan> q+
15:39:45 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:39:48 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:39:51 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:39:52 <Rachael> q+
15:40:05 <elguerrero> GreggVan: "Law" should be before regulation, shouldn't be at the end.
15:40:19 <Frankie> +1 to law being the first item in the list
15:40:43 <Charu> +1 to Law being first
15:40:48 <elguerrero> Rachael: Are we comfortable with "how well something satisfies law, regulation, policy, or other contract or procurement requirements"
15:40:50 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:41:09 <Frankie> "How well something meets legal or other requirements" to get rid of the loaded verb "satisfies"
15:41:38 <Frankie> "Satisfies" feels problematic for globalization of the definition
15:42:07 <elguerrero> Rachael: "reporting is active and ongoing, a report is a static result of reporting"
15:43:09 <Chuck> q?
15:43:15 <elguerrero> Rachael: In Compliance, change "satisfies" to "meets"
15:43:49 <elguerrero> Rachael: "How well something meets law, regulation, policy, or other contract or procurement requirements"
15:44:07 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:44:11 <Chuck> ack Chris
15:45:12 <elguerrero> ChrisLoiselle: Is the use of requirements similar or different in terms of how you're listing them — when reading altogether, might cause confusion to someone?
15:45:14 <Jennie_Delisi> * Suggest adding quotes maybe? "procurement requirements"
15:45:54 <Jennie_Delisi> * to support defining it as a term...but still not sure
15:46:05 <Ben_Tillyer> Suggestion as a "2" voter: conformity with statutory and institutional requirements
15:46:15 <elguerrero> Rachael: To keep them clear, we can add contract requirements or procurement requirements so that each type of requirement is specific.
15:46:53 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:46:59 <GreggVan> q+
15:46:59 <Chuck> ack Ben
15:47:03 <Rachael> q+ to suggest new bullet
15:47:11 <Rain> q+
15:47:19 <elguerrero> Ben_Tillyer: Wanted to cover everything that a government can put on you, or a company could put on you.
15:47:19 <jtoles> Suggestion: "or other requirements (such as for procurement or contracts).
15:47:55 <elguerrero> Ben_Tillyer: Too much focus on procurement over development.
15:48:04 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:49:02 <elguerrero> GreggVan: Remove "other" — "how well something meets law, regulation, policy, contract, or procurement requirements"
15:49:05 <Frankie> +1 to what Gregg just said
15:49:20 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:49:20 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest new bullet
15:49:34 <GreggVan> +1
15:49:52 <GreggVan> q+
15:50:11 <GreggVan> q_
15:50:12 <elguerrero> Rachael: In Compliance, we could add "associated with statutory or institutional requirements"
15:50:17 <GreggVan> q-
15:50:24 <Chuck> ack Rain
15:50:44 <elguerrero> Rain: Law, regulation, and policy cover contract and procurement requirements.
15:50:45 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Rain, what I was originally saying
15:50:59 <hdv> +1
15:51:00 <GreggVan> q+
15:51:02 <Frankie> +1 to what Rain said
15:51:07 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:51:09 <sarahhorton> +1 to Rain
15:51:45 <Rain> But in that example from Gregg, is that "compliance?"
15:51:48 <Ben_Tillyer> Sounds like a personal policy (a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual.)
15:51:53 <Rachael> q+
15:51:59 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:52:07 <GreggVan> +1
15:52:29 <Chuck> q+
15:52:31 <kevin> q+
15:52:42 <GreggVan> q+
15:52:43 <elguerrero> Rachael: Does Compliance also include "when an organisation or individual sets a set of requirements that reference a technical standard."
15:52:56 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
15:53:01 <Chuck> ack kevin
15:53:48 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:53:51 <Laura_Carlson> +1 to Kevin
15:53:51 <elguerrero> kevin: We conform to the standard, we comply with a law, or a policy, and that policy could be government or internal or your own, but the distinction I'd make is you can conform against a standard but you comply with a policy, regulation, or law.
15:53:52 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:53:59 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:54:22 <elguerrero> Chuck: Contractual or procurement requirements in US are civil, not criminal or legal, matter, therefore distinct enough to merit their own mention in here
15:54:27 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:54:37 <Chuck> q+ ChrisLoiselle
15:54:38 <Rachael> q+ to suggest we take 5 more minutes on this
15:54:40 <Chuck> ack Chuck
15:54:46 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:55:06 <elguerrero> GreggVan: We can set our own internal policies, but not others.
15:55:08 <Chuck> ack Jennie
15:55:41 <GreggVan> +1
15:55:48 <Chuck> +1
15:55:52 <Chuck> ack Chris
15:55:57 <elguerrero> Jennie_Delisi: Example, I live in a state with a digital accessibility law, and the agency I work for has apolicy related to a level of accessibility, a project could specify requirements in their contract for a tool. that goes above and beyond the law and the policy because of that use case.
15:56:12 <Frankie> +1 to Jennie's point
15:56:20 <Laura_Carlson> +1 to Jennie
15:56:33 <GreggVan> jennie  -- really well stated.
15:56:53 <elguerrero> Chuck: Any objections to what is written at the moment in the slide for purposes of common understanding?
15:56:57 <GreggVan> q+
15:56:58 <elguerrero> (No objections)
15:57:03 <Chuck> ack rach
15:57:03 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest we take 5 more minutes on this
15:57:05 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:57:15 <elguerrero> GreggVan: "What is hooks for compliance"?
15:57:51 <elguerrero> Rachael: Part of what we're designing has to support someone in compliance using it, what hooks means is if we want people to be able to report on levels, there has to be something that regulators can point to in the technical standard to be able to make some of these decisions.
15:58:05 <elguerrero> Rachael: Next slide, "How do people assert / report on conformance or compliance"
15:58:25 <hdv> q+
15:58:30 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:58:30 <Chuck> ack hdv
15:58:30 <elguerrero> Rachael: What are other ways that people report on the state of their product?
15:59:00 <Chuck> q+ to ask for scribe change
15:59:00 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:59:01 <elguerrero> hdv: For WCAG EM Report Tool — add "or similar"; many companies have their own WCAG EM report tools that may or may not be similar to it
15:59:05 <Chuck> ack ben
15:59:13 <Ben_Tillyer> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/conformance-logos/
15:59:16 <elguerrero> Ben_Tillyer: Badges on websites
15:59:17 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:59:24 <hdv> scribe: hdv
15:59:28 <elguerrero> scribe-
15:59:30 <Chuck> ack ch
15:59:30 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
15:59:32 <Chuck> q?
15:59:34 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
15:59:41 <GreggVan> q+
15:59:42 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:00:07 <hdv> ChrisLoiselle: on slide 9, not sure if ATAG Report Tool would be folded into this?
16:00:11 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:00:11 <Chuck> q?
16:00:13 <hdv> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/atag/report-tool/)
16:00:14 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:00:38 <ChrisLoiselle> request for proposals
16:01:26 <Chuck> q?
16:01:30 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:01:33 <hdv> GreggVan: another thing you'd report on would be on a purchase contract / RFP checklist, where folks report how they meet the accessibility requirements
16:01:49 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:01:59 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: comes down to the size and maturity of the reporting company, as well as size an complexity of the tool. Very small companies might not be so formal
16:02:13 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:02:30 <Rachael> q+ to ask Jennie where those statements are made
16:03:02 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: in monitoring tools, automated tools and dashboard people may find accessibility scores. Similar tools are built into CI/CD pipelines.
16:03:22 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:03:22 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask Jennie where those statements are made
16:03:46 <hdv> Rachael: question to Jennie, when you do that kind of narrative statement, where would you do it, where do you encounter those?
16:04:25 <Chuck> q+ to ask if "Public narrative statement" would suffice
16:04:51 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: the governance process we use for validating conformance for something that is procured or required, we take something that we need to capture in a formal way. Eg posted on a website, or emailed. We have documentation somebody could use later. It has to be a communication that can be kept, compliance has to be auditable in some scenarios so we may have to produce what we use to valide compliance
16:05:16 <Chuck> ack ch
16:05:16 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if "Public narrative statement" would suffice
16:05:17 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:05:22 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:05:23 <hdv> Chuck: it is static and somebody could be held to account for that communication
16:05:47 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: an example would be an AT company that has not had to produce a VPAT in the past… they may not have something on their website, in that case an email would be sufficient
16:05:49 <Chuck> q?
16:06:12 <hdv> Rachael: next slide… what things could people report against in WCAG 3?
16:06:46 <hdv> Rachael: this is talking about possibilities, not decided yet which parts of this will go to normative docs. I captured progress from the earlier convo. My goal would be to be pretty open about this list and brainstorm possibilities here
16:06:52 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
16:06:53 <Chuck> q+
16:06:53 <GreggVan> q+
16:06:57 <Chuck> ack Chr
16:06:58 <hdv> Rachael: what different things are possible for reporting against?
16:07:12 <hdv> ChrisLoiselle: would this be where you captur the convo around assertions in reporting? vs conforming?
16:07:17 <hdv> s/captur/capture
16:07:20 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:07:38 <hdv> Chuck: the bullet 'functional needs supported', to me that is somewhat different but has a relation to the first bullet number
16:07:45 <hdv> Chuck: there is a hybrid for two of those
16:07:53 <Chuck> q?
16:07:57 <hdv> Chuck: ah if it represents level achieved that's fine
16:07:57 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:07:59 <Rachael> q+
16:08:25 <hdv> GreggVan: date of report, eg archival vs active
16:08:54 <hdv> GreggVan: if you acquire a company and then you have a billion videos, there is no way yoou could make them accessible in a day
16:09:02 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:09:17 <hdv> Rachael: so functional needs reporting would be based on conditions passed or failed
16:09:26 <hdv> Rachael: if we wanted to map them, we could map them to provisions
16:09:27 <GreggVan> q+
16:09:38 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:09:44 <hdv> Rachael: it's the next step abstraction from disability supported
16:10:06 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:10:17 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:10:26 <hdv> GreggVan: let's say I have a site for people who are deaf, I may put sign language in place even if not required. In such cases you may report you've gone above and beyond in that area
16:10:35 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: what about error density?
16:10:47 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: and scope of testing?
16:10:55 <GreggVan> q+
16:10:56 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: and the level of risk associated with their error density?
16:11:02 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: or org impact?
16:11:21 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: am also thinking back to what we have to do in public sector bodies: we need to include a roadmap
16:11:22 <GreggVan> q+  to say   remediation poilicy or timeline
16:11:26 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: and what about AT compat?
16:11:31 <Chuck> q?
16:11:33 <hdv> Ben++
16:11:34 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:11:34 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   remediation poilicy or timeline
16:11:39 <Jennie_Delisi> Version as part of their report? Along with date.
16:11:40 <elguerrero> Ben_Tillyer++
16:11:48 <hdv> GreggVan: remediation policy or timeline
16:11:52 <Chuck> q?
16:11:57 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:11:58 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:12:01 <Chuck> ack gia
16:12:08 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to giacomo
16:12:14 <hdv> giacomo-petri: responsibilites, eg which team is responsible to address or remediate
16:12:21 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:12:28 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: I think it's important to note the version that was tested
16:12:36 <hdv> q+ to talk version of report and reported
16:12:44 <shadi> q+
16:12:45 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
16:12:53 <Chuck> ack hdv
16:12:53 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to talk version of report and reported
16:13:18 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:13:24 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 to HDV - e.g. using an older VPAT changes things
16:13:28 <Chuck> hdv:  Regarding version, in version of WCAG EM, we are thinking of including test version.
16:13:30 <GreggVan> tools used
16:13:39 <GreggVan> q+  tools used
16:13:45 <Chuck> ack shadi
16:13:58 <hdv> hdv: so the version of the test carried out, vs the version of the product being tested
16:14:03 <hdv> hdv: as people may test again
16:14:11 <hdv> hdv: this also helps with progress
16:14:16 <GreggVan> ack tools
16:14:28 <GreggVan> q+ to say  "tools used"
16:14:33 <GreggVan> ack used
16:14:43 <Ben_Tillyer> Accessibility adjacent info?
16:14:47 <hdv> shadi: I'm thinking about EU energy consumption scores, labels from A to E… in that report, depending on the product, it provides certain aspects, like for washing machines, how loud it is or how many clothes it takes
16:15:33 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to classification
16:15:36 <elguerrero> Who the stakeholders are?
16:15:37 <GreggVan> q+ to say    1)  Tools used    and  2)  Challenges
16:16:00 <elguerrero> Limitations of software/tooling
16:16:12 <hdv> shadi: also important to think about who am I reporting to. Eg on a technical basis to authorities, or am I reporting to an end user and want to explain the features
16:16:16 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:16:36 <hdv> shadi: thirdly… reporting on the alternatives could be helpful. Eg 'if you switch on this mode, the site has larger text'. That could be a type of reporting too
16:16:38 <Chuck> ack gia
16:17:13 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to this idea
16:17:23 <hdv> giacomo-petri: we could consider subdividing things people could report, based on who is reporting. Eg a third party / contractor, where somebody is asking me to validate… there are things I can validate and others that I cannot.
16:17:29 <GreggVan> q+  to say       1)  Tools or organizations used    and  2)  Challenges
16:17:48 <elguerrero> giacomo++
16:17:49 <hdv> giacomo-petri: I also wonder if we should define what methodologies you used to validate the requirements, eg manual, semi automated, automated
16:17:54 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:17:54 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "tools used" and to say    1)  Tools used    and  2)  Challenges and to say       1)  Tools or organizations used    and  2)  Challenges
16:18:09 <hdv> GreggVan: in addition to methodologies, also tools used
16:18:32 <hdv> GreggVan: challenges could be interesting to add too… may not change whether you conform or not, but would still be helpful to include in a report
16:18:40 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:19:09 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: qualifications of the author … eg I'd rather read the report from someone on this call than my plumber
16:19:19 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re AI
16:19:24 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: another one: was AI used to generate the report or some other method
16:19:24 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:19:24 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss AI
16:19:26 <Frankie> +1 to Ben's point re AI
16:19:56 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Jennie's concerns
16:19:58 <elguerrero> +1 Jennie
16:20:06 <Chuck> q?
16:20:10 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: I agree re the AI point. I want to caution how it gets written, because at this time there is AI baked in at so many different levels. there is AI-assist vs outright AI written etc. Can be very hard to describe and that's difficult from a compliance standpoint
16:20:18 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:20:23 <Chuck> ack gia
16:20:52 <hdv> giacomo-petri: just one more point re AI… potentially a service I used uses AI, but I don't know what or how. The answer may be 'unknown'
16:20:59 <Chuck> q?
16:21:31 <hdv> Rachael: next steps… we'd like to put this in a table and start thinking about it
16:21:35 <hdv> Rachael: and where to use it
16:22:35 <Chuck> q?
16:22:42 <hdv>  Rachael: I tried to capture today's convo in the slide, do people miss anything from our conversation?
16:23:31 <hdv> scrbie-
16:23:33 <hdv> scribe-
16:23:42 <hdv> s/scrbie-//
16:23:51 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
16:23:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/12-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
16:25:10 <Ben_Tillyer> I'm happy to lurk (and chat) in the lobby if you want to go to editors room and feel like I can be trusted :D
16:29:25 <elguerrero> elguerrero has left #ag
16:32:30 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:32:39 <Kimberly> present+
16:59:52 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
18:03:12 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
19:46:58 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag