– DRAFT –
AGWG-2025-10-07

<Chuck> ○ agenda+ WCAG 2 Proposed Changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0010.html

<alastairc> And there was a good advert for the intro-meeting...

<giacomo-petri> can't scribe sorry

Chuck: Housekeeping.. any introductions?

WCAG 2 Proposed Changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0010.html

Chuck: Taking up WCAG 2x issues review. Bruce will cover this in Mike Gower's absence.

bbailey: Please review the list in the email and comment with a thumbs up/down https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0010.html

bbailey: We are releasing a new version of the errata page soon

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/audio-desc-wcag2/

bbailey: we are at more than 2K comments. We are about to hit a milestone where we have 50/50 ratio of open/closed items. Look for a survey on Audio Description soon. We want your opinion on videos that lack a gap in speaking into which to place AD.

alastairc: There are potential updates to WCAG 2 that will use the feedback from the survey and it will inform WCAG 3

julierwe: is there a description of what constitutes "important visual information"?

bbailey: No

GreggVan: When we talk about AD, we are talking about the process of using gaps to add description to materials that lack it. It seems the question comes down to whether or not we fail a video that does not have space for AD

GreggVan: Concerned that the survey may create a bias because it "skips over the real conundrum" of whether or not we fail a video without spaces.

bbailey: We are trying to create a survey that presents the question in a way that presents both sides

alastairc: I'd like people to take the survey as it is, we can discuss it afterwards.

WCAG 3 provisions review (introduction)

Chuck: Moving to WCA3 provisions review. We would like to review the edits that have been done recently

<bbailey> rrsagent/ draft minutes

alastairc: Sharing links and screen. Last week editors and sub-group leads met up to go through the WCAG 3 requirements to normalize the formatting.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vFgaAY7F1lIuQX8z2O4BrXdKC1Y-cfnda8EESct6iho/edit?gid=0#gid=0

alastairc: We now have a new draft: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vFgaAY7F1lIuQX8z2O4BrXdKC1Y-cfnda8EESct6iho/edit?gid=0#gid=0

alastairc: We thought the best way to review this would be to actually use it. Over the next week or two, please test the new draft of the guidelines by using it to test an actual site. Use the notes column in the testing sheet to comment on how it was to use the guideline. We also have a document that has the full text of all the guidelines.

<bbailey> s\rrsagent/ draft minutes\\

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Szzc87DUdZNlDUrjEEhU2HnoYLSIzfpiQbmFSghL5NI/edit?tab=t.0

alastairc: if something in the spreadsheet does not make sense, refer to the large document with all the guideline text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Szzc87DUdZNlDUrjEEhU2HnoYLSIzfpiQbmFSghL5NI/edit?tab=t.0

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to Chuck

alastairc: we will split into the subgroups for each group to review their sections.

kevin: please make a copy of the spreadsheet and save it in the same folder to record your feedback

<kevin> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b8ccocczCONPFokE6y6bAMckMcQMHJqT

GreggVan: are we supposed to have user needs on this spreadsheet?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about opening subgroup rooms

alastairc: Yes, user needs can be found in the guideline tab of the large document with all of the guideline text

kevin: The folder for the copies of the spreadsheet is here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b8ccocczCONPFokE6y6bAMckMcQMHJqT

alastairc: we have also been tagging each requirement with tags like "Functional Performance" , "DAF", "POUR"

alastair: demonstrating the process of creating a copy of the spreadsheet to work from

bbailey: should each subgroup make a copy or EACH person?

alastairc: EACH person, we expect this will take 4 hours but we are also providing some meeting time for this.

GreggVan: It is essential that you add you name to the filename of your copy.

Chuck: if subgroups pick their area first we will get good coverage, but make sure to do the other guidelines as well.

GreggVan: I'm worried that we may have fewer people if people put their names on it because it may be intimidating. You might get more feedback if your don't require names.

<julierawe> Can you please reshare the links? IRC kicked me off

Rachael: The point of this is to look at the wording, to deeply think about the wording. We want everyone, regardless of level of experience to try this.

<alastairc> back

<alastairc> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b8ccocczCONPFokE6y6bAMckMcQMHJqT

<Zakim> Ben_Tillyer, you wanted to add to Gregg's points on files with names attached

Ben_Tillyer: notes that Google drive will attach your name to the edits even if you don't include your name in the filename

GreggVan: people can add their inputs as questions if they are not confident. the most valuable feedback is from those who may have less experience

alastairc: This is a "no dumb questions" scenario. We need to know what bits people don't understand. If you prefer you can send a spreadsheet directly to the chairs for anonymity

<kevin> +