Intros and Announcements

<laura> Scribe: Laura_Carlson

<alastairc> scribe: laura

Sribe: laura

<scribe> scribe: laura

ac: Any new members or change of affiliation?

(none)

ac: Any announcements?

Publication CFC update

ac: good to sign up early for TPAC if you are attending.
... only +1s to Publication CFC

<shadi> congratulations!

ac: any questions?

(none)

Conformance - Summary of foundational / supplemental

scribe: last week, we spoke about what should. Go into foundational requirements, and what you're going to supplemental requirements,
... if we are requiring something of all websites, it needs to be applicable.

To all websites. Unless we have a condition built into that requirement.

scribe: Reasonable effort is always going to be hard to define
... Foundational:

Equivalent text alternatives are available for images that convey content

scribe: Supplemental: Enhanced features that allow users to interact with captions are available.

Gregg: would be good to add extra comments on the bottom of slides.
... Was having a fairly minimal set number of foundational requirements.
... Minimal foundational approach and then we have a More comparable to WCAG 2.x A & AA approach
... one of the goals today.is to take the temperature of the group on whether people have a preference for this.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if duplicates are typo ? and to

Gregg: comments, thoughts on should have a kind of smaller or larger set of Foundational requirements, and if so, why?

Bruce: Are we also considering anything between those two?

ac: ... you'd have to do all of the foundational, and then the minimal foundational approach like I've got on screen at the moment. Wouldn't have as many things in foundational. But you would have to do more things at the supplemental to meet bronze.

gregg: You have captions pre-recorded and captioned live both as supplemental, I would have thought captions pre-recorded would have been foundational, since

you have nothing at all for

a solution.

ac: these are just examples. And I think there is some logic behind it,

<Charu> +1 to include keyboard access in Foundational

gregg: It would have made sense if captions. That would make much sense, but no captions at all in foundational. that's a little confusing.

glenda: Supplemental sounds so weak. I would replace that with level requirements. Gold, silver, bronze.

<bbailey> Apologies, what is the question before the group?

<kirkwood> +1 to Glenda's point to not using the term 'supplemental'

ac: the question before the group is: Looking at this minimal approach, where you have a smaller set of foundational Purely must pass all of those foundational requirements. Versus a larger set of must pass all the foundational requirements. What are the pros and cons of each of those?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to these examples

shadi: Is decisive for whether, to me, it's foundational or supplemental. But it's also the impact of that.

rm: The two different options we have in front of you have both actually been talked about by the group and proposed, so we haven't varied from things that we have talked about previously.
... certainly the second one is closer to WCAG 2 as it is now.

<bbailey> Rachael thank you for omitting captions from first grouping example!

rm: we picked audio descriptions because often we feel like those are very hard.
... So, the question we're trying to ask here, and have intentionally picked examples to promote, is what are the benefits of the smaller approach, and what are the benefits of the larger approach?

Graham: it's the question for today not different to what we've just asked?
... Instead of should we go minimal, foundational, or large foundational? Should it not be what should be in foundational?
... to me, it's obviously anything that's safety.

<Jon_avila> There is a possibility that regulators will choose to just go with foundational thus making foundational as the minimum bar below bronze.

ac: To keep it quite narrow or to add exceptions to it. there's various ways where you can kind of narrow a requirement.
... So that it definitely goes into foundational, or you can widen it, and it would then have to be moved into supplemental.

<shadi> depends *which* video is missing captions, in my opinion

GP: I think I like the flexibility of the minimum approach.
... But on the other hand, I strongly believe that this potentially may exclude someone from accessing a specific information or a specific website or application.

Ben: initially, I cued to say I was a fan of the.

Lesser amount of foundational requirements, and the bigger.

scribe: However, I think that if you are creating a set of requirements that could somehow be gamed.

<Ben_Tillyer> To Gregg: Is that because level A just wasn't up to the task?

<kirkwood> every country and state and municpality

gregg: We have to have something, and You want everybody to get behind it, and you want people to not just pull their hair out, we can't say that we're going to make it so that regulators can have flexibility

And each decide for themselves which ones they want to put in their in their minimum set.

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg good point "ruler not fule"

scribe: We should just say whether a video is or isn't accessible, and if you have 98% that are accessible, and 2% that aren't then you should say that you have 98% that are accessible and 2 that aren't.

<kirkwood> let us get rid of the "supplemental" term

scribe: We shouldn't say, these are accessible when two of them clearly are not, so let's stick with being the ruler. And leave the rule of

to others.

scribe: but we need to have something consistent, or it's not going to be adopted.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to Glenda and to respond to shadi - we can't adjust level based on instance, only requirement, and how to score by instance. and to respond to Jon,

Poornima: this foundational and supplemental sounds like must-haves and nice-to-haves for supplemental, right. And having the minimal foundation approach definitely being flexible. B
... We are just stepping a little backward from the current requirement.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to give a pro to first approach

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to AAA vs select-a-criteria

<GreggVan> +1 to comment about AAA being ignored -- but reducing accessibility is not the only way to do that

<Ben_Tillyer> comparison

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that there ARE jurisdictions that do not pick exactly WCAG AA

Poornima: AAA gets almost universally ignored. I say that with regret, and as a practitioner, there's some good stuff in there.
... But how do we get people to not ignore that?

Bruce: I want to encourage this minimal foundational approach as well. It's such an emotional reaction to captions being characterized as supplemental.
... t's just the words we've got to work with now, and the fact that the groupings are flexible, these are just labels is kind of the concept of how we approach it

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to addressing N/A vs pass

<Chuck> +1 to seeing more people not understanding how to implement accessibility and less people trying to knowingly and falsely claim being accessible

<ShawnT> +1

MG: There are already jurisdictions that are not following exactly WCAG.
... I feel like we quite often get ourselves twisted all over the place, trying to avoid nefarious motivation by people to somehow claim accessibility without achieving it
... Somebody will always find loopholes, so that's their motivation, but I'm just not seeing massive evidence of that

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to more notches

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "one more thing. If our new base is less than WCAG2 AA then we are making things less accessible (required) moving from 2 to 3. I thought WCAG3

Shadi: I wasn't necessarily getting at counting instances, because that gets into all kinds of gaming.
... right now, WCAG as great as it is, we are trying to satisfy requirements, rather than to satisfy user needs in terms of what is the actual user experience in practice.
... for the ruler and the rule analogy - to have a better ruler with more notches and more consistent notches along the way so we can say, how accessible something is.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on term supplemental and to respond to shadi - how to detect severity of instance in a universal way

gregg: if our new base is less than WCAG AA, then that means that you can pass WCAG 3, with things that are less accessible than WCAG 2. I don't think that that is going to fly.
... I thought that WCAG 3

was about making sure how to get things included.

<bbailey> I agree, no one would consider a house habitable with only with the foundation. No one would mistake a foundation for a house. Which is why I think the minimal foundational approach works!

gregg: I think there are better ways. And other ways that we've talked about, of getting people to look at the going beyond the basics.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if we are stuck on the word, would it be helpful to take a timebound few minutes to discuss alternative terms?

<LoriO> haivng netowrk isues, trying to get in q for seomtime

gregg: The idea that foundational means, like, foundation in a house. would mean that we are equivalently saying that a house is habitable If you only build the foundation.
... and that's not true. There isn't a single city, country, state, anything That says that you can declare a house habitable. If you only build the foundation you have to say what the minimum things are.
... It doesn't say what the shapes are, but it says you have to have them. And so, our foundational should be the minimum habitable house.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change

<Poornima> scribe+

LO: I'm not saying that everything has to be like what we would say Level 3 But foundational should include all of the requirements that would allow me to use that page.

And get that work done.

<kirkwood> I liked Glenda's suggestion in beginning of conversation

<Poornima> Todd: are we just ok with 2 levels - foundational and supplemental?

<Poornima> alastair: the difference is between about how we are dealing with conformance levels.

<Jon_avila> I'm not sure words like foundational and supplemental or similar will provide what we want - I think may need to stick to "levels" or similar.

<bbailey> I think both slides showed four benchmark levels ?

<Poornima> Todd: Is there a room to expand on primary, secondary, or changing the terms like expanding in numbers

<Poornima> ... not hyperfocusing on only 2, but expanding on more numbers

<Poornima> alastair: currently showing 2 levels, example bronze is level 2, levels are one thing and categories is another thing

<Poornima> Todd: like core, primary, secondary, to expand on..

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say personally i think the minimal approach works well if we pair it with modules

<Poornima> alastair: we will take that feedback to think on.

<bbailey> Even "core" is too positive sounding

<Poornima> Rachael: one aspect of this discussion is like having a minimal set criteria, and having an education module. we will come back to this conversation to discuss more

<kirkwood> modules could be to do with functionality, thought too. A shopping cart module. or other

<Poornima> Gregg: this industry wants to follow this rule, and other industry follows other.. we shouldn't be getting into that category..

<Jon_avila> EN301549 also has a clause for video players

<Poornima> ... with the modules, where content have multimedia, follow these otherwise skip those..

<Poornima> ... that's a much better way of doing with the modules...

<Poornima> ... what could be the alternate words e.g. 'minimal approach'?

<Poornima> Gregg: try name them like less targeting...

<kirkwood> "elements" (which are used in building ADA rules)

<kirkwood> a possible suggestion

<Poornima> alastair: scoring is based on whether a requirement is met

<bbailey> With the Minimal Foundational Approach we need worse sounding words instead of "foundation"...

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on task vs requirement

<Poornima> alastairc: foundation is a set of requirements or scope of conformance , broze level is the minimum regulatory level (means certain number of supplemental along with foundational)...

<bbailey> ...prerequisites, pre-core, training wheel level, initiate level, lesser base line

<kirkwood> so is this equivalent to minimum regulatory WCAG 2.1AA?

<Poornima> ... if we have something like audio description, putting this as supplemental more relevant to AA in wcag 2

<Poornima> .... if I couldn't do something on the page, then it should be foundational - not being able to interact with keyboard is a blocker - there should be some kind of process to get this ...

<kirkwood> we don't need ot

<Poornima> ... to capture as modules

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to try some different words for "foundational"

<kirkwood> ot/to

<Poornima> Bruce: the word 'foundation' is much too strong...

<kevin> Suggestion: Minimum/Advanced

<Poornima> ... we need to have right label to understand the difference of 'being accessible' or 'enough'

<Rachael> Suggestions: "getting started" and "making progress"

<kirkwood> +1 to Glenda

<bbailey> i think "minimum" is too strong

<Jon_avila> I agree with Bruce!

<Poornima> Glenda: in user words 'supplemental' is undermining even the word 'requirement' is placed after it...

<alastairc> Required requirements?

<Ben_Tillyer> Could "supplemental" be called "foundational"? :o

<GreggVan> Starter items is fine for beginners to start with -- but this is and EO (education - outreach) document -- not part of a standard as to what is accessible. Maybe an apendix

<Poornima> ... each one of those is like 'foundation requirement bronze', 'foundational requirement silver'...

<bbailey> freshmen level

<kirkwood> in practice aren't 2.1AA are foundational requirements?

<Poornima> Gregg: comparing with wcag 2, bronze level is minimum as wcag 2 aa...

<bbailey> preschool level

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about additional process piece

<Poornima> ... we shouldn't structure against like where we began, this is an educational approach to refer to as the standard to what helps to make accessible

<Ben_Tillyer> -1 to most of Gregg's points. Just one comment for now: Just as some 2.x AA criteria are missing from WCAG3 doesn't automatically make it LESS accessible, as it could have more valid ways to make things accessible in it.

<Jon_avila> I think we are almost talking about layers in some way - core, layer 1, layer 2, etc.

<Poornima> Shadi: it's more of evaluation methodology, like if this is a blocker.. I think to deciding on impact kind of aspect, like impact to the issue.. what is the thought about the additional process?

<todd> Suggestion: "Essential requirement", "Extended requirement" e.g., "Essential bronze requirement" or "Extended Silver requirement"

<Poornima> alastairc: its like a prioritization exercise, you have everything in terms of reporting, and it's like an extension building on top of it

<Poornima> ... the other thing is 'how not applicable' works?

<Poornima> ... showing the slide now

<todd> I am not sure how "core" makes something seem "too positive" however. I've lost where that was in the chat.

<Poornima> alastairc: 'not applicable' is essentially like a 'pass

<Poornima> ... 'not applicable' as equal to 'success' or 'pass'...

<Rachael> reminder that this is No flashing not Avoid flashing

<Poornima> ... showing the slide 'Example - supplemental requirements and assertions'

<Poornima> ... showing the slide 'Not applicable affect on scoring'

<Poornima> Rachel: we haven't made the decision between modules, points.. we will discuss this later..

<Jon_avila> You should get credit for not using Flashing content - if not applicable is used then you aren't rewarded for that - instead all of the other criteria being worth more.

<Poornima> ... we picked simple scoring just to illustrate the challenges, assuming doing just a pass or fail, if we don't give the credit for doing things right, like there is no flashing, the impact is rated and passing

<Poornima> Jon: if we don't credit, like less items being scored, i think that's problematic. i agree that something are not applicable, i still support hybrid approach, regardless of whether there's present or not

<giacomo-petri> +1 to Gregg

<Poornima> Gregg: NA should count as 1, otherwise we are not counting accessibility measurments...

<Poornima> ... otherwise this is like punishing simple sites, other hand with complex sites, they get a really high score and others get a low score

<Poornima> ... in terms of accessibility, if we don't put it on there, still there's a point..

<Poornima> ... with the seo, optimizing sites, the accessibility score instantly shoot up

<Zakim> Ben_Tillyer, you wanted to ask what happens if everything is NA

<Poornima> Ben: say you reach for the foundation 'yes' and 'no'... when I was looking at the table, the key thing is 'points or %', we need to put how many success criteria have been tested..

<Poornima> ... 5 out of 5 is 100%

<Poornima> ... points for NA, would want to propose is 5 out of 5 is 100% .. clear to say 'something has been tested and made accessible'..

<Rachael> +1 to the benefit of % and the possibilities of the approach Ben points to

<Poornima> giacomo: I agree with Gregg for scoring NA items, if we have images, is it still best or NA?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on effort and NA, and effort increasing with other effort (e.g. adding media)

<Poornima> ... potentially there are simple sites e.g. that provides guidance that will score very low if scoring '0' for NA items

<Poornima> alastairc: from the feedback so far, to consider the small sites..

<Poornima> ... when including new types of content, making sure the content is accessible.. not sure just having the score of '1' for NA is applicable

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to suggest 0.90001 for NA

<Poornima> ... i'm leaning to hybrid models of 0 or 1 for NA, or take out from the scoring entirely

<Poornima> Glenda: I definitely think we need points for NA...

<Poornima> ... have been measuring quality for my sites, thinking little sub-centered..

<Poornima> ... everything needs to be scored.. NA gets 1, Passes gets 1...

<Zakim> Ben_Tillyer, you wanted to talk a bit more about flashing

<Poornima> Ben: for flashing example, NAs as 1, there's no flashing on the site, sometimes testing companies might mark as NA if they are not testing it...

<Poornima> Gregg: measuring the efforts, we just need to be thinking about measuring efforts or how wcag is making it accessible

<Zakim> giacomo-petri, you wanted to say that it's hard to compare states of the same site with differnet content over time and to

<Poornima> Giacomo: potentially if the website is changing over time, there will be no comparable metrics or numbers to measure

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on not including useful content at a cost and to comment on also talking about WCAG scoring != accessibility

<bbailey> minimal basement approach

<Poornima> ... 55 criteria, if we use 0 for NA in hybrid approach, potentially sometime 45 or 55 based on say images are present or taken away from the site

<Poornima> alastairc: adding certain types of content can proportionally increase the effort to make it accessible...

<Poornima> ... yes we want to take measure to make it accessible

<Poornima> ... public facing sites are pretty good, other hand for some sites, instance is key to the tasks and failing the blockers..

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask if people use accessibility metrics or if they are more interested in finding problems... out of curiosity

<Poornima> ... we can set this up in a way to encourage people and do the most effective things

<shadi> +1 to kevin

<kirkwood> The WCAG "Score" by number is not severity. don't like that premise

<bbailey> +1 to alastairc that passing more (but not all) SC can be less accessible than passing fewer (but more important SC)

<Poornima> Kevin: generally interested on findings problems and reporting.. is it like more towards reporting accessibility issues or measuring accessibility?

<Glenda> If we use AI to map the failures into barriers by dissability type, we will get an a11y nutrition label that can accompany the “overall score”…so even if you only fail one thing (keyboard)…you might have a decent overall score…but the nutrition label would show the keyboard problem is hurting blind, and motor.

<shadi> +1 to Glenda

<Poornima> Gregg: should never say that passing a certain % is good enough, because they skipped fundamental items..

<Poornima> ... because there could be blockers that could be skipped with only the certain %

<Poornima> ... we need to stick up with the things that are really important to make it accessible...

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

<Poornima> ... list down the items that are show stoppers, example the cognitive issues are mostly in the 'usability' column not necessarily in 'show stoppers...

<bbailey> My understanding is that WCAG3 scoring is not locked into percentage scoring.

<bbailey> I very much dislike how most WCAG2 scoring is presented as a percentage.

<kirkwood> exactly. Glenda. "The score is cute"

<Poornima> Glenda: when i was reviewing the 3rd party softwares, i need to know which disability types has which needs from the software... stuck with reasonable accomodation.. scoring is cute, but not super helpful..

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to agree with Gregg with example

<bbailey> +1 to "score is cute"

<Poornima> chuck: agree with everybody on scoring... say one bug on the 'login' site is a blocker...

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on adding an assertion, or a WCAG-EM style process for prioritisation and to also say that, we all realise that scoring by requirement !=

<Glenda> +1 tp what Chuck is saying…1 fail can be a brickwall blocker

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to add to Glenda

<Poornima> alastairc: reg. the discussion with Shadi, prioritization exercise. scoring by requirement is not same as analyzing the instance, may be we need to reframe this

<Poornima> ... the reason for having this exercise, scoring is to do more right thing..

<Poornima> ... its not comparing to say this product is better than other

<Poornima> Shadi: on Chuck's example, that can be solved by weighted scoring...

<bbailey> +1 to shadi that nutrition label or appliances labels avoid percentage -- while allowing comparison

<Poornima> ... I understand that was very helpful explanation, but still it would be helpful to both encourage people and have rewards for making it accessible

<GreggVan> presenr+

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/qustions/questions/
Succeeded: s/ l've / like I've /
Succeeded: s/Um, the /The /
Succeeded: s/can.say/can say/
Default Present: AlastairC, Chuck, Francis_Storr, Laura_Carlson, Adam_Page, bbailey, todd, mfairchild, mbgower, kevin, shadi, hdv, Kimberly, Rachael, Charu, ShawnT, BrianE, Glenda, jtoles, Makoto, Ben_Tillyer, graham, giacomo-petri, Poornima, kirkwood, Jon_avila, CarrieH, LenB, Frankie, filippo-zorzi, LoriO, GreggVan
Present: AlastairC, Chuck, Francis_Storr, Laura_Carlson, Adam_Page, bbailey, todd, mfairchild, mbgower, kevin, shadi, hdv, Kimberly, Rachael, Charu, ShawnT, BrianE, Glenda, jtoles, Makoto, Ben_Tillyer, graham, giacomo-petri, Poornima, kirkwood, Jon_avila, CarrieH, LenB, Frankie, filippo-zorzi, LoriO, GreggVan
Regrets: ChrisLoiselle, TiffanyB, Azlan, JennieD, SarahH
Found Scribe: Laura_Carlson
Found Scribe: laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Scribes: Laura_Carlson, laura

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)