14:33:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:33:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-irc
14:33:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:33:16 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:33:24 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:33:33 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-08-26
14:33:43 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:33:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:33:52 <Chuck> regrets: Chris Loiselle, Giacomo Petri
14:34:02 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.x issues
14:34:13 <Chuck> agenda+ Publication Preparation https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/aug-pub-feedback/
14:34:25 <Chuck> agenda+ Foundational/Supplemental Requirement Level Exercise https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/requirement_levels/
14:47:03 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
14:48:28 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:50:12 <Chuck> regrets+ Tiffany Burton
14:58:49 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:00:46 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:01:01 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:01:01 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:01:10 <JeanneEC> JeanneEC has joined #ag
15:01:21 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:01:21 <JeanneEC> present+
15:01:37 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:01:56 <Adam_Page> present+
15:02:11 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:02:35 <ShawnT> present+
15:03:17 <Adam_Page> scribe: Adam_Page
15:03:22 <alastairc> present+
15:03:27 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
15:03:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.x issues -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:03:34 <kevin> present+
15:03:36 <alastairc> regrets+ Tiffany
15:03:36 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
15:03:37 <Adam_Page> Chuck: welcome, everyone
15:03:40 <Adam_Page> ... some housekeeping first
15:03:47 <Adam_Page> ... first, introductions
15:03:55 <todd> todd has joined #ag
15:03:56 <Adam_Page> ... any new people or new roles?
15:04:02 <todd> present+
15:04:17 <Rachael> present+
15:04:18 <Adam_Page> Chuck: second
15:04:28 <Adam_Page> ... next week, we’ll start call 30 minutes early for onboarding
15:04:31 <Adam_Page> ... feel free to join
15:04:32 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:04:48 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:04:48 <mfairchild> present+
15:04:49 <Adam_Page> ... it’s a quick whirlwind about what we do, how we make decisions
15:04:49 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:04:52 <Adam_Page> Chuck: third
15:04:55 <Adam_Page> ... regarding ACT rules
15:04:58 <Chuck> Summary Element has non-empty accessible name: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/pull/346
15:04:58 <Adam_Page> ... there was a rule proposed
15:05:01 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:05:03 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:05:08 <Adam_Page> ... please review the link above
15:05:08 <stevef> present+
15:05:13 <kirkwood> present+
15:05:14 <alastairc> It's also fine to go to the onboarding if you've been here a while and need a refresher, or just have questions. No dumb questions rule in place...
15:05:22 <Makoto> present+
15:05:32 <Adam_Page> ... there will be a lot of emails going around about this, please review
15:05:41 <Chuck> q?
15:05:49 <Adam_Page> ... if anyone has concerns, please raise them
15:06:02 <Adam_Page> Rachael: reminder that TPAC is coming up
15:06:12 <Adam_Page> Chuck: any new topics?
15:06:21 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
15:06:21 <Adam_Page> ... for future agendas?
15:06:26 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:06:26 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.x issues -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:06:27 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
15:06:28 <mike_beganyi> present+
15:06:30 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:06:36 <Azlan> present+
15:07:04 <alastairc> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56
15:07:04 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:07:05 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:07:07 <julierawe> present+
15:07:15 <Adam_Page> alastairc: if you have a W3C GitHub-connected account, the link above should work
15:07:15 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:07:18 <mbgower> present+
15:07:19 <BrianE> present+
15:07:27 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:07:30 <Charu> present+
15:07:32 <bbailey> present+
15:07:32 <julierawe> Sorry, joined late. Can someone please reshare the link?
15:07:35 <Adam_Page> ... issues sent to the AG group are in the “Sent for WG approval” column
15:07:41 <Adam_Page> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56
15:07:49 <kenneth> present+
15:07:55 <Adam_Page> ... we are looking for a thumbs-up emoji reaction; no need for a formal PR review
15:07:59 <Adam_Page> ... that will count as support
15:08:09 <Adam_Page> ... we’ve got quite a few in this status presently
15:08:19 <Adam_Page> ... most of these are straightforward
15:08:25 <Adam_Page> ... we’d be grateful for a quick look
15:08:32 <bbailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025JulSep/0061.html
15:08:37 <Adam_Page> ... there will be more coming through tomorrow
15:08:47 <Adam_Page> ... if anyone is interested in contributing, please join the Friday call
15:08:53 <bbailey> email on last set
15:08:55 <mbgower> q+
15:09:02 <Gez> Gez has joined #AG
15:09:04 <bbailey> Re: WCAG 2 proposed changes (was review by Aug 18, now Aug 25)
15:09:13 <Chuck> ack mbg
15:09:16 <Gez> present+
15:09:18 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:09:18 <Adam_Page> mbgower: a mail should have gone out yesterday with proposed changes
15:09:21 <Adam_Page> ... for review by Sep 8
15:09:27 <bbailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025JulSep/0089.html
15:09:31 <sarahhorton> present+
15:09:32 <Chuck> ack mb
15:09:40 <bbailey> WCAG 2 proposed changes (review by Sep 8)
15:09:42 <Adam_Page> ... I incorporated everything that had support
15:09:54 <Adam_Page> ... please review within in the next 2 weeks
15:09:57 <Adam_Page> ... pretty light, with the exception of some changes kenneth put through
15:10:04 <Adam_Page> ... but are essentially housecleaning
15:10:11 <Adam_Page> ... each PR has an explanation
15:10:16 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:10:19 <Adam_Page> Chuck: any questions?
15:10:25 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:10:25 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Publication Preparation https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/aug-pub-feedback/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:10:33 <Adam_Page> Chuck: moving on
15:10:41 <Adam_Page> ... publication preparation survey
15:10:44 <Adam_Page> ... going to share my screen
15:11:01 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:11:02 <Ben_Tillyer> agenda?
15:11:09 <Adam_Page> ... our August publication
15:11:12 <Adam_Page> ... earlier in a prior meeting
15:11:18 <Adam_Page> ... we’d discussed ways of reviewing the content
15:11:31 <Adam_Page> ... and then put out this survey asking people to exercise those questions
15:11:45 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:11:54 <Adam_Page> ... to determine whether anything needed revising or removing
15:11:54 <Adam_Page> ... our results are
15:11:54 <Adam_Page> ... very few
15:11:57 <Adam_Page> ... no substantive changes
15:12:19 <Adam_Page> ... so we can use this time to have a quick conversation to confirm and get approval to publish
15:12:24 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:12:26 <Adam_Page> ... any final concerns?
15:12:37 <Chuck> Draft RESOLUTION:  Move the August 2025 WCAG 3 draft to publication.
15:12:48 <Adam_Page> ... here is a resolution for the group
15:12:53 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
15:12:55 <sarahhorton> +1
15:12:56 <Adam_Page> ... please vote
15:12:56 <Rachael> +1
15:12:56 <Chuck> +1
15:12:57 <Adam_Page> +1
15:12:57 <julierawe> +1
15:12:57 <BrianE> +1
15:13:00 <mfairchild> +1
15:13:00 <Gez> +1
15:13:02 <Makoto> +1
15:13:02 <Jennie_Delisi> +1
15:13:02 <kirkwood> +1
15:13:02 <Charu> +1
15:13:02 <Azlan> +1
15:13:03 <alastairc> +1
15:13:03 <bbailey> +1
15:13:04 <GreggVan> +1
15:13:05 <filippo-zorzi> +1
15:13:06 <mike_beganyi> +1
15:13:08 <ShawnT> +1
15:13:09 <Laura_Carlson> +1
15:13:10 <stevef> +1
15:13:11 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:13:11 <kevin> +1
15:13:14 <todd> +1
15:13:14 <mbgower> 0 (been away, haven't reviewed_
15:13:19 <Adam_Page> ... +1 means you support, 0 means you’re ambivalent, -1 means you have a concern
15:13:23 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
15:13:25 <jtoles> +1
15:13:41 <Chuck> RESOLUTION:  Move the August 2025 WCAG 3 draft to publication.
15:13:43 <hdv> +1
15:13:44 <bbailey> q+
15:13:54 <Adam_Page> ... this is the last opportunity for significant concerns
15:14:00 <alastairc> q+
15:14:09 <Adam_Page> bbailey: does a survey response count as a +1?
15:14:19 <alastairc> ack bbailey
15:14:23 <Adam_Page> Chuck: no, the survey was just an opportunity to weigh in with feedback
15:14:52 <scott> scott has joined #ag
15:15:07 <Adam_Page> ... we strongly encourage participation
15:15:17 <Chuck> ack bb
15:15:20 <Chuck> ack ala
15:15:23 <bbailey> +1 to the current survey lite approach
15:15:31 <Rachael> +1
15:15:45 <scott> the survey didnt' make much sense to me as to what should have been done with the survey - or if content should have been made in the github thread?
15:15:54 <Adam_Page> alastairc: a note for the editor’s: we can also include some simple multiple choice options, such as “I’ve reviewed and have no concerns”
15:15:59 <Adam_Page> ... for future surveys
15:16:10 <bbailey> i reviewed and it was great !
15:16:13 <Adam_Page> Chuck: we’ll move to CFC next
15:16:17 <scott> it didn't seem large enough for feedback about the spec. but didn't seem to imply that the github PR was where feedback should be?
15:16:24 <Adam_Page> ... where there will be a final opportunity for people to express support
15:16:28 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:16:28 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Foundational/Supplemental Requirement Level Exercise https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/requirement_levels/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:16:52 <Adam_Page> Chuck: our other survey was to express support for what level certain requirements should be
15:16:57 <alastairc> scott - feedback in either is fine, some people struggle with github (and possibly vice-versa)
15:17:04 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/requirement_levels/results/
15:17:11 <Adam_Page> ... foundational, supplemental, or something else
15:17:16 <Rachael> q+
15:17:22 <Adam_Page> ... there are 7 results
15:17:54 <Adam_Page> ... the first one was for “Captions prerecorded” — everyone agreed it should be Foundational
15:17:59 <Adam_Page> ... if you have thoughts now, please queue up
15:18:01 <scott> alastairc as separate issues, or in the PR linked in the survey email?
15:18:03 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:18:15 <Adam_Page> Rachael: the results of today’s conversation will not affect the current draft, but the next one
15:18:46 <Rachael> q+
15:18:51 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:19:17 <alastairc> We are trying to answer: "Criteria for placing a requirement in foundational or supplemental", and "Is foundational sufficient for base conformance or part of base conformance?"
15:19:35 <Adam_Page> Chuck: next req was “Captions live”
15:19:53 <Adam_Page> ... 3 said Foundational, 2 said Supplemental, 3 said something else
15:20:02 <Adam_Page> ... ripe for debate
15:20:57 <Adam_Page> ... bbailey suggests WCAG 3 need a quality metric for captioning
15:21:03 <Adam_Page> ... would you expand on that?
15:21:07 <Adam_Page> bbailey: I do think it’d be Foundational
15:21:28 <Adam_Page> ... as with audio description, trying to treat this as binary is not working
15:21:28 <alastairc> q+ on taking the "feasibility" as a thing. Also, whether it is best separated from pre-recorded?
15:21:35 <Chuck> ack ala
15:21:35 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on taking the "feasibility" as a thing. Also, whether it is best separated from pre-recorded?
15:22:12 <Adam_Page> alastairc: for this req in particualar, it will help this group to decide how feasible it is with what authors currently have available
15:22:21 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
15:22:32 <Adam_Page> ... would other reqs for pre-recorded versus live be different
15:22:39 <Adam_Page> ... we have a bit more nuance in WCAG 3
15:22:49 <bbailey> contradicting myself just now, maybe since captioning and AD is so variable, then maybe its Supplemental (per our definition of distinction between Foundation/Supplemental).
15:22:56 <graham> graham has joined #ag
15:22:57 <Adam_Page> ... do captions exist? and bbailey suggests the quality metric — would those be different
15:23:02 <graham> present+
15:23:07 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:23:17 <Adam_Page> ... for example, timing/synchronizations also needs to be sensible
15:23:18 <Chuck> ack Ben
15:23:36 <Ben_Tillyer> Apparently so
15:23:37 <Ben_Tillyer> q-
15:24:32 <alastairc> I haven't tried live captioning, beyond what I've seen at events, how easy is it?  And what is the quality difference?
15:24:33 <Adam_Page> Rachael: I believe this should be merged with pre-recorded captions; they’re not that different as far as feasibility
15:24:46 <Adam_Page> ... and then could start doing methods to distinguish
15:25:01 <Adam_Page> ... these should be together as Foundational, and then there could be Supplemental to cover _quality_ of captioning
15:25:05 <Adam_Page> Chuck: I thought of this as Supplemental
15:25:08 <bbailey> +1 to Rachael point
15:25:17 <Adam_Page> ... and should be distinct from pre-recorded
15:25:19 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:25:20 <Adam_Page> ... but not a strong opinion
15:25:38 <Adam_Page> ... I think keeping them separate affords us opportunities to treat them with some level of difference
15:25:52 <bbailey> FCC quality regulation:  https:/​/​www.ecfr.gov/​current/​title-47/​part-79/​section-79.1#p-79.1(j)(2)
15:25:53 <Chuck> q?
15:25:59 <Adam_Page> ... but I am intrigued by Rachael’s proposal
15:26:03 <Ben_Tillyer> Trying to work it out
15:26:06 <bbailey> 47 CFR 79.1(j)(2)
15:26:10 <Ben_Tillyer> Ah, 10 secs!
15:26:12 <jon_avila> Live captions are part of AA today. Moving to supplemental seems to say we no longer believe the previous requirement is achievable.
15:26:12 <bbailey> q+
15:26:18 <Chuck> ack bb
15:26:29 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:26:36 <Adam_Page> bbailey: I posted a link to FCC quality metrics
15:26:36 <jon_avila> Present+
15:26:45 <julierawe> +1 to jon_avila
15:26:48 <Adam_Page> ... my concern is that those are more performance metrics
15:26:51 <Chuck> q+
15:26:54 <Chuck> ack ben
15:27:22 <Adam_Page> Ben_Tillyer: I think pre-recorded and live should be combined
15:27:26 <bbailey> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-79/section-79.1#p-79.1(j)(2)
15:27:30 <Adam_Page> ... one caveat
15:27:38 <Adam_Page> ... there are some corporate environments with digital conferencing
15:27:54 <Adam_Page> ... that use hardware + software combinations where it’s not possible to live caption
15:28:05 <Adam_Page> ... where the audio stream is completely separate from the video stream
15:28:07 <graham> q+
15:28:11 <Adam_Page> ... that could cause undue burden
15:28:25 <jon_avila> I think they should be separate. For better understanding user impact and potential scoring.   More granularity has befits to knowing the impact.
15:28:45 <Adam_Page> ... but for either live or pre-recorded, the traditional tools — Teams, Zoom, etc. — are incredibly good for someone that has a good quality microphone
15:28:50 <Adam_Page> ... good quality internet connection
15:28:58 <Adam_Page> ... and an accent that isn’t too strong
15:29:02 <Chuck> q?
15:29:07 <Adam_Page> ... and that doesn’t change whether it’s live or pre-recorded
15:29:37 <Adam_Page> ... the only benefit in some tools is that pre-recorded can produce slightly higher quality captions
15:29:57 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:29:58 <Adam_Page> ... so I vote combined for presence, separate for quality
15:30:06 <Adam_Page> ... Foundational for presence, Supplemental for quality
15:30:08 <alastairc> +1 to combining them for "presense of", and then separate for quality measures.
15:30:14 <Chuck> ack grah
15:30:19 <bbailey> +1 to merged version as foundational
15:30:34 <Rachael> q+
15:30:50 <Adam_Page> graham: there are subtle differences: music playing in the background, speaker names
15:31:03 <Adam_Page> ... are we structured to merge
15:31:09 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:31:24 <Adam_Page> Rachael: I don’t think there’s anything in our structure that would prevent this
15:31:31 <Chuck> q?
15:31:33 <Adam_Page> q+
15:31:40 <kevin> scribe+
15:31:47 <Chuck> ack Adam
15:31:48 <scott> +1 to foundational for live captions.  don't have a strong opinion on merging pre-recorded and live.
15:32:07 <kevin> Adam_Page: I generally support foundational combined for live and prerecorded and supplemental for quality
15:32:08 <Chuck> q?
15:32:11 <graham> q+
15:32:14 <Chuck> ack grah
15:32:46 <Rachael> +1
15:32:47 <kevin> ... Requiring the presence should characterise some minimally viable quality as well
15:32:55 <kevin> scribe-
15:33:01 <Adam_Page> scribe: Adam_Page
15:33:07 <Adam_Page> graham: we need exceptions to be scoped
15:33:21 <mbgower> q+ to say maybe categorize by features as opposed to accuracy?
15:33:26 <Adam_Page> ... for circumstances where authors don’t have control
15:33:29 <Chuck> ack mb
15:33:29 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say maybe categorize by features as opposed to accuracy?
15:33:41 <Adam_Page> mbgower: thinking about how this is dealt with in 508
15:33:54 <Adam_Page> ... they specify features
15:33:54 <Adam_Page> ... ability to control size
15:33:57 <Adam_Page> ... font characteristics
15:34:05 <Adam_Page> ... quality of the UX more than the quality of the captions themselves
15:34:12 <Adam_Page> ... easier to measure those things in isolation
15:34:19 <Adam_Page> ... the quality of the captions can be so variable
15:34:22 <Adam_Page> ... difficult to quantift
15:34:30 <Adam_Page> s/quantift/quantify/
15:34:32 <Chuck> q+
15:34:43 <GreggVan> q+
15:34:46 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:34:46 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:34:48 <Adam_Page> ... versus changing background color, etc., easier for authors to pull of consistenly
15:35:10 <jon_avila> Latency seems measurable.
15:35:27 <Adam_Page> Chuck: one thing I like about keeping them separate is that we could introduce a quality component to the pre-recorded at a Foundational level that we might not be able to do for live at a Supplemental level
15:35:27 <graham> +1 jon
15:35:31 <Adam_Page> ... don’t know if they mix very well
15:36:01 <Chuck> q?
15:36:04 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:36:15 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: pre-recorded can be done accurately by anyone, it just takes time
15:36:21 <Adam_Page> ... and can also be checked for quality
15:36:29 <Adam_Page> ... live, you don’t have that
15:36:35 <Adam_Page> ... if they’re mumbling or using jargon
15:36:46 <Rachael> q+
15:36:53 <Adam_Page> ... asking for accuracy with pre-recorded should be uncontroversial
15:37:11 <Adam_Page> ... but for live, I don‘t think there’s anything we could really require
15:37:12 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:37:15 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:37:18 <Adam_Page> ... other than as an aspiration
15:37:21 <Adam_Page> ... and it’s very expensive
15:37:30 <Adam_Page> ... with AI, it becomes less expensive, but still defeatable
15:37:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:38:05 <Adam_Page> Rachael: we’re diving into writing new requirements for this particular area
15:38:11 <Ben_Tillyer> q-
15:38:16 <Adam_Page> ... but our goal with this exercise is to think through *how* we will classify these
15:38:17 <mbgower> q+ to say are captions so mainstream that we need to worry less about measuring quality for accessibility per se, and if not, are there specific considerations for accuracy we focus on?
15:38:37 <Adam_Page> ... it sounds like maybe we’ll have 2 Foundational requirements and then many Supplemental
15:38:42 <Chuck> q+ to say the difference in required and supplimental
15:38:48 <Chuck> ack mb
15:38:48 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are captions so mainstream that we need to worry less about measuring quality for accessibility per se, and if not, are there specific considerations for
15:38:51 <Zakim> ... accuracy we focus on?
15:39:07 <Adam_Page> mbgower: are captions fundamentally different in how they are broadly used by the public?
15:39:13 <Adam_Page> ... in that they are widely used by a lot of people
15:39:19 <Adam_Page> ... therefore, accuracy is so much more obvious to everyone
15:39:25 <Adam_Page> ... do we have research
15:39:40 <Adam_Page> ... on how quality affects someone who is Deaf or HoH versus others
15:40:05 <GN015> q+
15:40:22 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
15:40:24 <Adam_Page> ... are there visual cues we could use to signal to users low confidence in a particular word or transcription
15:40:25 <CarrieH> my two cents, why someone may need captions not result of hearing loss? Auditory processing disorder and/or auditory processing lag
15:40:32 <CarrieH> present +
15:40:37 <Adam_Page> ... we did work on this many years ago and the field has changed, but still could be applicable now
15:40:37 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:40:37 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say the difference in required and supplimental
15:40:41 <Ben_Tillyer> I'm already planning out an app that does that on my notepad mbgower...
15:40:47 <Ben_Tillyer> What an ace idea
15:40:48 <Adam_Page> Chuck: bringing this back to Rachael’s point
15:40:58 <Adam_Page> ... we want to think about how we choose Foundational versus Supplemental
15:41:16 <kevin> q+
15:41:17 <Adam_Page> ... for this particular issue, I do see a problem with merging pre-recorded and live
15:41:19 <CarrieH> some people have difficulting digesting verbally or have delays with processing, and captions do help (recordings are better)
15:41:28 <Chuck> ack GN
15:41:37 <GreggVan> q+
15:41:37 <Rachael> note: Key takeaway from this is that feasibility is important in assigning these.
15:41:40 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:41:54 <Adam_Page> GN015: I’ve also been informed by colleagues that the nature of the media matters a lot
15:41:54 <Adam_Page> ... if it’s a movie, quality matters very much
15:42:18 <Adam_Page> ... if it’s a live talk, they say they don’t need punctuation, they can guess what’s been said, etc.
15:42:24 <Chuck> ack kevin
15:42:24 <kirkwood> live and asking questions is a very good point
15:42:31 <Adam_Page> ... pre-recorded and live could have very different quality requirements from a user perspective
15:42:45 <Adam_Page> kevin: bringing this back to how to think about whether something is Foundational or Supplemental
15:42:48 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:42:56 <Adam_Page> ... the fundamental user need here is the same
15:42:57 <LoriO> present+
15:43:13 <Adam_Page> ... someone who needs captions needs captions, whether live or pre-recorded
15:43:25 <Adam_Page> ... that was my mindset in proposing merging the two and classifying them as Fundamental
15:43:31 <kirkwood> very differnt technology, very different level of effort, very different process.
15:43:35 <Adam_Page> ... distinguishing between the 2 is more of a policy choice
15:43:49 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:44:00 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
15:44:08 <CarrieH> present+
15:44:12 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:44:16 <jtoles> present+
15:44:20 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: I think we need to keep them separate
15:44:34 <kirkwood> against merging. +1 to keeping separate
15:44:36 <Adam_Page> ... the user need is the same, yes, but the practicality of the solutions are totally different
15:44:40 <Chuck> ack Ben
15:44:50 <alastairc> q+ to say why not both?
15:44:51 <Adam_Page> Ben_Tillyer: I argue the opposite
15:45:28 <Adam_Page> ... in WCAG 2.X, what I’ve seen is that people see the guideline called “Captions Pre-Recorded”, looked at what needed to be done there, and then didn’t read further
15:45:40 <Adam_Page> ... and wrongly assumed that Live captions were AAA
15:45:54 <Adam_Page> ... we have caused that problem in the past *by* separating them
15:45:55 <Adam_Page> ... combining them solves that problem
15:46:06 <Chuck> q+ to move us to the next requirement
15:46:16 <Adam_Page> ... GreggVan is right about the practicality at this time, but the advancement of LLMs is rapidly changing that
15:46:25 <Chuck> ack ala
15:46:25 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say why not both?
15:46:56 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:46:56 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move us to the next requirement
15:47:00 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:47:19 <Adam_Page> Chuck: important to keep exploring how we will generally choose Foundational versus Supplemental
15:47:38 <Adam_Page> Chuck: moving on to audio description (AD) pre-recorded
15:47:53 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:47:54 <Adam_Page> ... 3 for Foundational, 3 for Supplemental, 1 for other
15:48:35 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/requirement_levels/results/#xq4
15:49:02 <Adam_Page> ... julierawe voted Supplemental because it is very difficult to do with current technology
15:49:09 <julierawe> I'm here but have nothing to add to my comment--unless folks on this call are aware of tools that can help with the problem I stated?
15:49:14 <graham> q+ to say foundational if new method is not "fail / pass" for WCAG as previously discussed, otherwise supplemental
15:49:34 <Ben_Tillyer> q+ to talk about audio descriptions
15:49:42 <bbailey> q+ to mention that i know of no quality metrics
15:49:44 <Chuck> ack graham
15:49:44 <Zakim> graham, you wanted to say foundational if new method is not "fail / pass" for WCAG as previously discussed, otherwise supplemental
15:50:04 <Adam_Page> graham: this is foundational if we’re not going with Pass/Fail
15:50:16 <Adam_Page> ... if we go with Pass/Fail, then this needs to be Supplemental - because it’s too onerous
15:50:19 <Rachael> q+
15:50:38 <Chuck> ack Ben
15:50:38 <Zakim> Ben_Tillyer, you wanted to talk about audio descriptions
15:50:39 <GN015> Julie, I see your point and agree it is a pain.
15:50:43 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
15:50:57 <Laura_Carlson> YouTube supports alternate AD soundtracks, if you have access to multi-language audio, a new feature that YouTube is rolling out.
15:50:57 <Laura_Carlson> https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13338784?sjid=8820022221855012431-NC
15:51:00 <Adam_Page> Ben_Tillyer: re: different versions of videos for AD
15:51:12 <Adam_Page> ... I’ve come across this problem at non-profits with no budget
15:51:21 <Adam_Page> ... sites like YouTube don‘t require you to upload an entirely new video
15:51:23 <alastairc> I think, in reply to Graham, that foundational is binary pass/fail, then supplemental is where people can pick which criteria they use to score more.
15:51:31 <Adam_Page> ... you can do it as an audio track, and it’s presented as a different language
15:51:39 <Adam_Page> ... e.g., “English” versus “English (audio described)”
15:52:26 <Adam_Page> ... however, we decided to produce the videos in such a way that the original audio track already provides the essential information
15:52:29 <graham> Thanks @alastair, in that case this needs to be suplemental as it is not feasible for many organisations.
15:52:31 <Adam_Page> ... and so AD was no longer necessary
15:52:51 <Chuck> ack bb
15:52:51 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention that i know of no quality metrics
15:53:05 <Adam_Page> bbailey: quality of AD is even trickier than captioning
15:53:07 <Adam_Page> ... much more of an art form
15:53:14 <Adam_Page> +1 to bbailey
15:53:19 <bbailey> https://adp.acb.org
15:53:21 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:53:34 <Adam_Page> Rachael: what the group has decided is that all Foundational be required
15:53:38 <Charu> +1 to bbailey
15:53:38 <Adam_Page> ... and some subset of Supplemental
15:53:54 <Adam_Page> ... but haven’t decided how big that Foundational group will be
15:53:55 <Adam_Page> ... the goal today was to talk through the rationale for how we place things
15:53:59 <mbgower> q+ to say the big problem with audio descriptions is the lack of foundational support
15:54:03 <Adam_Page> ... for the next step of deciding
15:54:12 <Adam_Page> ... we also have not decided how Supplemental will be selected
15:54:13 <bbailey> American Council of the Blind Audio Description Project https://adp.acb.org
15:54:23 <Adam_Page> ... chair hat off, I do support AD being in supplemental
15:54:38 <Adam_Page> ... because the impact of descriptive transcripts is bigger; it covers the deaf-blind community as well
15:54:50 <graham> q+
15:54:52 <Adam_Page> ... so Supplemental, but only if descriptive transcripts are Foundational
15:54:56 <Chuck> ack mb
15:54:56 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the big problem with audio descriptions is the lack of foundational support
15:54:57 <Adam_Page> +1 to Rachael
15:55:03 <alastairc> q+ on AD being foundational or supplemental, and it seems to depend on other alternatives.
15:55:25 <Adam_Page> mbgower: the real assessment for providing information on video content is almost entirely reliant on AD right now in WCAG 2.X
15:55:43 <jon_avila> We need something at the foundational level.  It is a huge user need to be synchronized.
15:55:54 <Adam_Page> ... the more foundational requirement is that I can *read* the information in text of what is conveyed in the video
15:56:02 <Adam_Page> ... if you consider feature-length Hollywood videos versus shorts on the Internet
15:56:15 <Adam_Page> ... it’s not that difficult, even for AI perhaps, to describe some visuals usefully
15:56:29 <jon_avila> Ai can create audio descriptions
15:56:38 <Adam_Page> ... we have no requirement for that right now; it’s AD or it’s the kitchen sink
15:56:53 <Rachael> q+
15:57:00 <Rachael> q-
15:57:06 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:57:08 <Adam_Page> ... from a practical perspective, we’ve had no success saying AD is foundational
15:57:10 <jon_avila> Audio descriptions is a current AA requirement
15:57:12 <Chuck> ack grah
15:57:19 <bbailey> +1 that quality text alternative can be preferable / better than AD
15:57:19 <GreggVan> q+
15:57:31 <Chuck> q+ to ask for a scribe change
15:57:31 <jon_avila> Q+
15:57:35 <Adam_Page> graham: the more I think on this, this one would be Supplemental *assuming* we require descriptive transcript
15:57:54 <Adam_Page> ... thinking of a TED talk, with slides on the screen, where describing the slides are a bare minimum
15:57:56 <Adam_Page> ... in that case, AD is supplemental
15:57:56 <alastairc> There is a current requirement (I think foundational) for "A transcript is available whenever audio or visual alternatives are used."
15:58:16 <Chuck> ack ala
15:58:16 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on AD being foundational or supplemental, and it seems to depend on other alternatives.
15:58:19 <Ben_Tillyer> graham - alternative *synchronous* alternative to the AD?
15:58:19 <Adam_Page> ... and AD would possibly be a bad fit for describing the slide content anyhow
15:58:30 <Ben_Tillyer> (e.g. comparing captions to transcripts)
15:58:31 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:58:56 <jon_avila> Seems like there might be a misunderstanding of what audio description is.
15:58:58 <Adam_Page> alastairc: I think where we’re landing is that if there’s another requirement that’s more basic — a sufficient text alternative — then I would support AD being supplemental
15:59:00 <bbailey> +1 that text can also very nicely augment weak AD -- but 2.x SC don't well promote this sort of approach
15:59:33 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:59:33 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change
15:59:43 <jon_avila> Q?
15:59:44 <graham> Ben_Tillyer I think that solve is one of the closest we have currently
16:00:29 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:00:29 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose sarahhorton
16:00:41 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:00:41 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose mbgower
16:01:03 <Adam_Page> thank you, sarahhorton!
16:01:09 <sarahhorton> I'm here!
16:01:16 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:01:22 <alastairc> scribe:sarahhorton
16:01:28 <kenneth> scribe+ sarahhorton
16:01:34 <jon_avila> https://www.viddyscribe.com
16:01:38 <bbailey> s/I'm here!//
16:01:39 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Using AI for pictures, powerful, not for audio
16:02:19 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Audio description is art, not everything on screen is important
16:02:20 <Ben_Tillyer> GreggVan I used Gemini 2.5 Pro to diagnose my car's engine from the sound alone after querying it at the weekend...
16:02:26 <Ben_Tillyer> It's getting better!
16:02:51 <sarahhorton> … have to work within gaps, timing, AI can't yet, maybe someday
16:02:57 <Azlan_> Azlan_ has joined #ag
16:03:03 <sarahhorton> GreggVan have to work within gaps, timing, AI can't yet, maybe someday
16:03:12 <kirkwood> author should approve it though
16:03:31 <Chuck> q?
16:03:34 <Chuck> ack jon
16:03:57 <mbgower> +1 to Jon
16:04:13 <GreggVan> q+
16:04:16 <sarahhorton> kirkwood people are using AI for audio description
16:04:19 <kirkwood> it does hallucinate, though
16:04:36 <Laura_Carlson> +1 to Jon
16:04:46 <sarahhorton> kirkwood Transcript might work in some situations, missing synchronization
16:05:17 <sarahhorton> kirkwood Not filling every pause, not describing every details, essential equivalent is what's needed
16:05:26 <Adam_Page> +1 to jon_avila
16:05:32 <sarahhorton> kirkwood Need some level of equivalence at the foundational level
16:05:36 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to jon_avila
16:05:44 <Chuck> q+ to say that it is ok for us to have different opinions, and that we are exploring how to think about foundational and supplimental
16:06:04 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:06:06 <alastairc> q+ to focus on the scenarios aspect of what Jon said, if we can't say "for each video", then it isn't foundational.
16:06:07 <sarahhorton> Was that Jon Avila, not John Kirkwood? Sorry!
16:06:14 <bbailey> +1 to jon_avila
16:06:36 <kevin> s/kirkwood people/jon_avila: people
16:06:37 <Adam_Page> q+
16:06:53 <kevin> s/kirkwood Transcript/jon_avila: Transcript/
16:07:00 <sarahhorton> GreggVan +1 to comments, need to separate movies and be my eyes when talking about audio description
16:07:07 <kevin> s/kirkwood Not/jon_avila: Not/
16:07:14 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:07:15 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Talking about audio description of movies
16:07:59 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Valuable for everyone, learn more by listening to AD
16:08:02 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Gregg - cognitive supports sometimes via audio description
16:08:04 <Chuck> +1 to putting a pin in this one
16:08:17 <kenneth> s/kirkwood Need/jon_avila: Need/
16:08:17 <bbailey> +1 to everyone here using AD (and captions) whenever you can
16:08:28 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Recommend putting on hold, might have tools upcoming at end of our process
16:08:32 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
16:09:08 <sarahhorton> GreggVan All agree on need, discussing practicality
16:09:17 <Rachael> Q+
16:09:21 <bbailey> +1 to focusing on need versus how easy
16:09:23 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:09:23 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that it is ok for us to have different opinions, and that we are exploring how to think about foundational and supplimental
16:09:47 <GN015> IN fact, I benefit from sign language, though I actually do not understand most signs. IN movies, I have seen sign language interpreters acting, this way the tone of voice is visualized, and it was easier to grasp who is talking.
16:09:56 <sarahhorton> Chuck Strong agreement, expressed in different ways, tasks is to explore what's foundational and supplemental
16:09:56 <Rachael> q-
16:09:58 <GreggVan> +1 to chucks comment
16:10:03 <Chuck> ack ala
16:10:03 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to focus on the scenarios aspect of what Jon said, if we can't say "for each video", then it isn't foundational.
16:10:48 <kirkwood> What if it’s a safety video?
16:10:55 <sarahhorton> alastairc Discuss what's appropriate for different scenarios, need to work out caveats or needs to be supplemental
16:11:08 <Chuck> ack Adam
16:11:10 <sarahhorton> alastairc Pin at level at now or guess about the future
16:11:21 <alastairc> s/alastairc /alastairc:
16:11:30 <kevin> scribe+
16:11:36 <kevin> scribe-
16:11:47 <sarahhorton> Adam_Page +1 audio description foundational, was involved, got a vendor to help, was staggeringly affordable
16:11:48 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:11:58 <Laura_Carlson> +1 to Adam
16:12:00 <kirkwood> Good point Adam
16:12:34 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer Caveats should be type of sync'd audio/video, blanket term included all would include Zoom and everyone's videos
16:13:22 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer Scoping applicability is key, needs to be foundational, people not able to participate in work and life
16:13:25 <Chuck> q?
16:13:27 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
16:13:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html kevin
16:13:35 <kirkwood> of course, Mike. That does not solve ror incorrect information in description causing safety issue (incl death).
16:13:58 <mbgower> +q to say that we actually have a Get Out of Jail Free Card with https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/general/G203
16:14:06 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer Having alternatives to AD, has tried scripts but not always possible, some things are unscripted
16:14:33 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer Foundational, defined scope, defined alternatives, amount of information intended to get through AD
16:14:37 <Chuck> ack mb
16:14:37 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that we actually have a Get Out of Jail Free Card with https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/general/G203
16:14:58 <sarahhorton> mbgower Already talking head video doesn't need AD, no additional information
16:15:01 <bbailey> s/GreggVan /GregVan: /
16:15:20 <kenneth> s/GregVan: /GreggVan: /
16:15:37 <alastairc> We have clients with social-media output and I honestly can't see how they could incorporate audio-desc without it being purely automated.
16:15:38 <GreggVan> q+
16:15:39 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:15:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html bbailey
16:15:50 <sarahhorton> mbgower Working group decided it was okay, explore those edge cases more, insist that's the info that must be there
16:15:54 <Adam_Page> +1 to mbgower to that odd loophole in 2.X
16:16:04 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to mbgower - "air quotes" in a talking head video comes to mind
16:16:12 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:16:34 <Chuck> q+ to introduce comparable keyboard effort
16:16:44 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: What if there is no audio gap, should that pass? If all gaps, pass; if no gaps, pass
16:17:09 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:17:10 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Nothing useful to put in gaps, hard to figure out how no useful information
16:17:13 <LenB> present+
16:17:16 <kevin> -1 to no way to pass if no gaps, pausing can be used to add gaps
16:17:32 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Need clarity to keep from endless discussions
16:17:33 <alastairc> I'm concluding from this one: Feasibility is important, but there are a lot of scenarios and in some cases an alternative to the video might be a better option than AD.
16:17:41 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:17:41 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to introduce comparable keyboard effort
16:17:55 <GreggVan> q+
16:18:40 <bbailey> s/GreggVan Using/GreggVan: Using/
16:18:42 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Comparable keyboard effort, story, used airline website to demo comparable effort, loads of keystrokes
16:19:04 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Audience counted, around 150 keystrokes to get to common item
16:19:12 <bbailey> s/GreggVan Audio/GreggVan: Audio/
16:19:30 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Experience indicates it can be pretty important
16:19:38 <bbailey> s/GreggVan have/GreggVan: have/
16:19:50 <graham> what are you going bbailey? hahaha
16:19:58 <sarahhorton> Sorry you have to clean up after me!
16:19:58 <graham> doing*
16:20:25 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Reads the survey responses (very quickly)
16:20:32 <bbailey> s/what are you going bbailey? hahaha/
16:20:56 <Chuck> q?
16:20:59 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:21:17 <Rachael> Q+
16:21:45 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Anyone who is a keyboard user, want to have session with input group to learn about keyboard users
16:21:50 <bbailey> s/doing*//
16:22:07 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Refer to GreggVan and bbailey
16:22:27 <bbailey> s/Sorry you have to clean up after me!//
16:22:51 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:22:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html bbailey
16:22:58 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: What's comparable? Is 12 keystrokes comparable to 2 mouse clicks? Needs to be reasonable, not comparable
16:23:12 <Ben_Tillyer> PgDwn? :D
16:23:21 <Chuck> +1 to gregg, I see the problems to requiring this be foundational.
16:23:41 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: If required, has to be true of all sites, or all sites except for conditional requirement
16:23:48 <Chuck> This may not be "feasible" to make it foundational.
16:23:55 <alastairc> q+ on it being an assertion, and we should expand it out a bit to involve an optimization process.
16:24:05 <mbgower> q+ to say time on task is a very common measure for UX; it's an obvious way to assess equivalent effort
16:24:07 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: If memorize commands for 1 page, only works on one page
16:24:33 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Not foundational or supplemental, would be best practice because can't figure out comparable
16:24:38 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:24:47 <bbailey> s/GreggVan Talking/GreggVan: Talking/
16:25:00 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Modes are different: one is serial, one is random access
16:25:15 <bbailey> s/GreggVan Valuable/GreggVan: Valuable/
16:25:32 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Would be good to have small foundational set, tie all quality items into modules or grouping in advisory for policy makers
16:25:45 <sarahhorton> Rachael: Can we put things in supplemental that policy makers can use
16:25:55 <Chuck> ack ala
16:25:55 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on it being an assertion, and we should expand it out a bit to involve an optimization process.
16:26:20 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Assertion, not requirement — process
16:26:32 <Chuck> q+ to say this conversation has swayed me to believe this is best left as an assertion
16:26:34 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
16:26:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html kevin
16:26:50 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Certain tasks, drawing, moving things, will take longer with keyboard than direct input method
16:26:59 <GN015> present+
16:27:04 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
16:27:17 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Want to encourage people to think about what would make an interaction more usable using a keyboard
16:27:22 <bbailey> s/mbgower Already/mbgower: Already/
16:27:24 <Chuck> q?
16:27:32 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Get people to try, think about it, as an assertion
16:27:38 <Chuck> ack mbg
16:27:38 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say time on task is a very common measure for UX; it's an obvious way to assess equivalent effort
16:27:57 <kevin> s/Was that Jon Avila, not John Kirkwood? Sorry!//
16:28:03 <sarahhorton> mbgower: If it's an assertion, not foundational, automatically makes it supplemental
16:28:04 <bbailey> s/mbgower Working/mbgower: Working/
16:28:20 <alastairc> We haven't said assertions can't be foundational, but we haven't found one that we thought could/should be foundational yet...
16:28:24 <sarahhorton> mbgower: time on task common measure
16:28:38 <bbailey> s/Adam_Page +1 audio/Adam_Page: +1 audio/
16:28:43 <sarahhorton> mbgower: can list time on task for critical tasks
16:29:09 <bbailey> s/Ben_Tillyer Caveats/Ben_Tillyer: Caveats/
16:29:10 <Chuck> ack mb
16:29:14 <sarahhorton> mbgower: Provide research-based number for time on task
16:29:14 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:29:14 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say this conversation has swayed me to believe this is best left as an assertion
16:29:30 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Makes sense for it to be supplemental
16:29:41 <bbailey> s/Ben_Tillyer Scoping/Ben_Tillyer: Scoping/
16:29:44 <kevin> s/Chuck Strong/Chuck: Strong/
16:29:47 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Moving on to point pressure alternatives
16:30:14 <bbailey> s/Ben_Tillyer Having/Ben_Tillyer: Having/
16:30:16 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Reads survey responses
16:30:42 <bbailey> s/Ben_Tillyer Foundational/Ben_Tillyer: Foundational/
16:30:54 <kevin> s/alastairc Discuss/alastairc: Discuss/
16:31:08 <sarahhorton> Chuck: No disagreement in comments, moving on
16:31:13 <bbailey> s/mbgower Already/mbgower: Already/
16:31:24 <kevin> s/Adam_Page +1/Adam_Page: +1/
16:31:42 <bbailey> s/mbgower Already/mbgower: Already/
16:31:44 <graham> q+
16:31:51 <Chuck> ack Grah
16:32:03 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
16:32:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html kevin
16:32:24 <sarahhorton> graham: Speech alternatives, how are we defining essential, fluffy area, what's essential to functionality
16:32:29 <Chuck> q+
16:32:32 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:32:35 <GreggVan> q+
16:33:08 <LoriO> q+
16:33:17 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:33:17 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
16:33:23 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Case-by-case essential, generic existing definition, drilling down in scope, otherwise not best discussion for today if not related to foundational and supplemental
16:33:39 <Chuck> +1 we have a definition in WCAG 2.
16:34:04 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:34:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html bbailey
16:34:12 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: We use it all over, need to discuss it, pressure for stylus interaction is essential
16:34:37 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Is there an alternate way to accomplish the task, define essential in context
16:34:50 <alastairc> Current definition in WCAG3: https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/#dfn-essential-exception
16:35:02 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Alternative with exceptions when essential lower level, higher level without exceptions
16:35:14 <Chuck> q?
16:35:26 <Chuck> qq+ to say I moved us to speech alternative
16:35:44 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Having extra points when something is essential seems unfair
16:35:46 <bbailey> s/GreggVan +1 to comments/GreggVan: +1 to comments/
16:36:05 <bbailey> s/GreggVan Recommend/GreggVan: Recommend/
16:36:22 <Chuck> ack Chu
16:36:22 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to GreggVan to say I moved us to speech alternative
16:36:56 <sarahhorton> LoriO: Not sure whether foundational or supplemental, title wording is confusing
16:36:57 <GreggVan> q+
16:37:02 <Chuck> ack Lori
16:37:18 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:37:48 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Meant speech isn't only way to achieve any task unless it's required
16:37:49 <graham> q+
16:37:56 <alastairc> q+ on the foundational-ness of alternative inputs
16:38:06 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: For example, sampling voice task
16:38:31 <bbailey> s/GreggVan Recommend putting/GreggVan: Recommend putting/
16:38:45 <sarahhorton> LoriO: Title as written isn't clear
16:38:59 <Chuck> q?
16:39:02 <Chuck> ack grah
16:39:04 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Focus on foundationalness
16:39:33 <sarahhorton> graham: Essential, platform specific, Amazon thing that you talk to, is that included in scope
16:39:34 <GreggVan> q+
16:39:52 <Chuck> ack ala
16:39:52 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the foundational-ness of alternative inputs
16:40:23 <graham> and for clarity I meant Alexa, but did not want to set anyone's device off!
16:40:23 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Not relying on one input method is foundational, expressed in several requirements
16:40:39 <Chuck> q+ to verbalize Rachael's comment
16:40:53 <bbailey> @kevin -- i don't know syntax for correcting where i made mistakes with forward slash
16:41:05 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Whether voice-only devices are in scope, not at the moment, but would want to tell policy makers to look at service as whole
16:41:09 <bbailey> s/@kevin -- i don't know syntax for correcting where i made mistakes with forward slash//
16:41:20 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:41:20 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to verbalize Rachael's comment
16:41:49 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:41:52 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Comments on the language of requirements, add comments to survey and on github
16:42:19 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
16:42:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html kevin
16:42:26 <Chuck> q+ to move us to the next criteria
16:42:27 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: All voice products have rule to control with keyboard
16:43:01 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: When not an alternative, then definition of essential, if can't do this way, can't do task
16:43:48 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Shouldn't be just one way unless keyboard interface; note not keyboard, keystroke data interface because can use different inputs
16:43:50 <alastairc> Regarding keyboard / keyboard interface, agreed, but it's a method of not relying on one input type.
16:44:16 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Do one (keyboard data interface), opens up to others
16:44:18 <Ben_Tillyer> Never heard "keystroke data interface" before and google shows 1 result for that string..
16:44:31 <kevin> s|s/mbgower Already/mbgower: Already/||
16:44:34 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Errors persist
16:44:55 <kevin> s|s/Adam_Page +1/Adam_Page: +1/||
16:45:09 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
16:45:11 <GreggVan> q+
16:45:31 <kevin> s|s/Adam_Page +1/Adam_Page: +1/||
16:45:40 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Reads survey responses
16:45:45 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
16:45:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html kevin
16:45:55 <scott> +1 to supplemental
16:46:20 <Chuck> q?
16:46:24 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:46:24 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move us to the next criteria
16:46:26 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:46:40 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Have as foundational because shouldn't be timing constraints
16:47:18 <alastairc> q+ to ask if an aspect of foundational is "it is mostly covered by something else".
16:47:19 <Chuck> q?
16:47:19 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Exception on timing, real-time events, if error is announced as audio shouldn't repeat,
16:47:19 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:47:23 <Chuck> ack ala
16:47:23 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if an aspect of foundational is "it is mostly covered by something else".
16:47:50 <jon_avila> Seems like it would fall under Audio control in general.
16:48:04 <GreggVan> q+
16:48:10 <Chuck> q+
16:48:21 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Deriving criteria for foundational, if general requirement for timing covers another (errors persist), then subtopic is supplemental?
16:48:23 <Chuck> q+ to move us along to concluding the conversation
16:48:27 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:48:44 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: No, because then it's an exception by putting as supplementary
16:48:55 <alastairc> Ok, so it's the more specific things that should be foundational... or we need to merge things.
16:49:22 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Should only be at another level if exception at first level, add at next level to include it
16:50:09 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Shares Levels Exercise slide
16:50:51 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Today's discussion introduces possible criteria, feasibility, should feasibility be a factor in deciding
16:51:16 <bbailey> zakim, agenda?
16:51:16 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
16:51:17 <Zakim> 3. Foundational/Supplemental Requirement Level Exercise https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/requirement_levels/ [from Chuck]
16:51:23 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Impact, how many beneficiaries, significance of impact
16:51:31 <kevin> -> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MXiAC90NJ6IA1j2HzjAJ5fJRe880hIoX9dxn2undmCU/edit?slide=id.g378a5720bde_1_0#slide=id.g378a5720bde_1_0 Level Exercise
16:51:42 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Testability
16:51:51 <alastairc> q+ to add "universality"
16:51:55 <graham> q+ to say feasability is a critical factor, otherwise we could say "all videos should be transcribed into every language and braille alternative available" as a foundational requirement.
16:51:56 <GreggVan> Q+ to say  feasibility -- is not foundational or not  but whether it is a requirement or not.   Ditto for testability.      EFFORT might be however
16:51:59 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:51:59 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move us along to concluding the conversation
16:52:02 <Chuck> ack ala
16:52:02 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to add "universality"
16:52:21 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Feasibility, not mentioned in WCAG2, embedded in leveling
16:52:57 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
16:53:20 <Chuck> ack grah
16:53:20 <Zakim> graham, you wanted to say feasability is a critical factor, otherwise we could say "all videos should be transcribed into every language and braille alternative available" as a
16:53:23 <Zakim> ... foundational requirement.
16:53:30 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Foundation, need to be universal, good idea to do, if looking across scenarios where not universally beneficial, then not foundational
16:54:08 <sarahhorton> graham: Feasibility important, want to get more people to follow WCAG, putting things at foundational if they're not feasible
16:54:33 <sarahhorton> graham: Future of AI, work on what's feasible with current tech, can see where things are going, but costs
16:54:36 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:54:54 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:54:54 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  feasibility -- is not foundational or not  but whether it is a requirement or not.   Ditto for testability.      EFFORT might be however
16:55:00 <sarahhorton> graham: Fewer blocker, more people will implement
16:55:24 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Should be between any requirement, if not feasible, shouldn't be requirement, did have in WCAG 2
16:55:33 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Had to be technically possible
16:55:50 <alastairc> Hmm, there are lots of things which are possible but not feasible (in general)
16:55:53 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Testability, same thing, can't require if not testable
16:56:22 <Chuck> q+ to say that aren't these then valid criteria, just from the other side of the coin?
16:56:24 <alastairc> I'd thought large effort/cost is part of feasibility?
16:56:25 <sarahhorton> GreggVan: Effort and cost, if really hard to do could put at higher level, get more credit for higher effort
16:56:33 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:56:45 <alastairc> q+ on terminology gap between effort and feasible?
16:57:00 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer: Feasibility, what take into account in determining
16:57:35 <bbailey> This might be lasted version of the WCAG2 requirements for SC that GreggVan was talking about:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements
16:57:40 <GreggVan> Q+  for
16:57:43 <Chuck> zakim, close queue
16:57:43 <Zakim> ok, Chuck, the speaker queue is closed
16:57:45 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer: E.g., framework doesn't support accessibility, can't add to list of exceptions because other platforms exist
16:57:46 <graham> q+ to say "capabilities" should mean chossing the right tech
16:58:14 <GreggVan> s/ for/ greggVan /
16:58:27 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer: One hour of consultancy can be unreachable for some
16:58:32 <bbailey> s/lasted version/last version/
16:58:47 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:58:47 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that aren't these then valid criteria, just from the other side of the coin?
16:59:01 <graham> to address Ben_Tillyer point, as it is a good one, choice of platform to reach accessibility requirements can be a thing in WCAG 3 possibly. So if you chose a tech that didn't allow alt text, BUT there are other techs that do support it on a given platform, it is up to you to pick the right platform?
16:59:05 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer: Focus on user needs in defining supplemental, fundamental
16:59:11 <alastairc> ack me
16:59:11 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on terminology gap between effort and feasible?
16:59:28 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Large effort/cost is part of feasibility
16:59:56 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Take into account in generic and universal sense, let policy makers decide
17:00:08 <GreggVan> got it       ALSO   feasible to  WHO  and for WHAT technology       but authors should not get out of jail because they choose a tech that can't be accessible
17:00:13 <alastairc> RRSAgent make minutes
17:00:23 <Ben_Tillyer> graham - exactly, but what if that framework is only available on a mac, or requires new staff to be hired?
17:00:38 <kenneth> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:00:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html kenneth
17:01:16 <GN015> the choice of platform influences the user experience. We should stick to the user experience, not forbidding or promoting specific technologies. We might point out the influence the technology choice might have on conformance and on costs.
17:01:27 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
17:01:39 <graham> Yeah it would need a lot more thought than i gave it to put some edges on it, but I like the idea of putting the excuse of "but my platform doesn't support it" lower down the conversations!
17:03:30 <kenneth> s/GreggVan +1 to comments,/GreggVan: +1 to comments,/
17:04:06 <kenneth> s/GreggVan Recommend putting/GreggVan: Recommend putting/
17:04:15 <kenneth> s/Chuck Strong/Chuck: Strong/
17:04:16 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
17:04:31 <kenneth> s/alastairc Discuss/alastairc: Discuss/
17:04:45 <kenneth> s/Adam_Page +1 audio/Adam_Page: +1 audio/
17:05:05 <kenneth> s/Ben_Tillyer Caveats/Ben_Tillyer: Caveats/
17:05:18 <kenneth> s/Ben_Tillyer Scoping/Ben_Tillyer: Scoping/
17:05:32 <kenneth> s/Ben_Tillyer Having/Ben_Tillyer: Having/
17:05:43 <kenneth> s/Ben_Tillyer Foundational,/Ben_Tillyer: Foundational,/
17:05:54 <kenneth> s/mbgower Already talking/mbgower: Already talking/
17:06:05 <kenneth> s/mbgower Working group/mbgower: Working group/
17:06:12 <kenneth> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:06:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/26-ag-minutes.html kenneth
17:36:03 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
17:53:19 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
18:01:48 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
18:10:43 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
18:43:03 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
18:59:41 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
19:05:04 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
19:17:16 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
19:50:37 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
20:07:44 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
20:25:30 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
20:31:23 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #ag
20:44:53 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
21:00:53 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
21:36:29 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
22:01:34 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
22:13:15 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:36:08 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
23:08:09 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
23:25:23 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag
23:59:39 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #ag