14:29:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:29:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-ag-irc
14:29:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:29:38 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:29:40 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:29:47 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-10-21
14:29:59 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:30:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:30:12 <Chuck> regrets: Sarah Horton, Azlan Cuttilan, Giacomo Petri, Todd Libby, Makoto Ueki, Gregg Vanderheiden
14:30:35 <Chuck> agenda+ Reminder about upcoming time changes
14:30:44 <Chuck> agenda+  WCAG 2.x Issues
14:30:55 <Chuck> agenda+  WCAG 2 Audio-description next steps
14:31:04 <Chuck> agenda+ Introduce survey on conformance
14:31:12 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG3 provisions review continuation
14:45:16 <Chuck> regrets+ Hidde de Vries
14:57:40 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
14:57:43 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
14:59:04 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
14:59:32 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:00:21 <kirkwood> present+
15:00:23 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:00:34 <Adam_Page> present+
15:00:36 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:00:56 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:01:08 <Adam_Page> scribe: Adam_Page
15:01:09 <ShawnT> present+
15:01:15 <alastairc> present+
15:01:16 <bbailey> present+
15:01:20 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:01:21 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:01:33 <shadi> present+
15:01:47 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:02:35 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:02:41 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
15:02:43 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:02:48 <julierawe> present+
15:02:49 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:03:15 <Andrew> Andrew has joined #ag
15:03:17 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
15:03:17 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Reminder about upcoming time changes -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:03:20 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:03:23 <Adam_Page> Chuck: introductions
15:03:26 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:03:34 <Adam_Page> ... anyone new to the group? any new roles to introduce?
15:03:46 <Rachael> present+
15:03:51 <kevin> present+
15:03:54 <Adam_Page> Andrew: hi, I’m new to the group this year but have been a member in the past for many years
15:03:58 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:03:58 <elguerrero> present+
15:04:01 <Adam_Page> ... formerly Adobe, now Evinced
15:04:07 <Rain6> Rain6 has joined #ag
15:04:09 <Laura_Carlson> Welcome back!
15:04:10 <Adam_Page> ... I and others from Evinced will be participating
15:04:11 <Wilco> present+
15:04:20 <Adam_Page> Chuck: Andrew was also a prior chair
15:04:24 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
15:04:27 <Adam_Page> ... anyone else?
15:04:43 <Adam_Page> ... any announcements?
15:04:52 <Charu> present +
15:04:52 <kirkwood> welcome back!
15:04:53 <Laura_Carlson> W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 Approved as ISO/IEC International Standard
15:04:53 <Laura_Carlson> https://www.w3.org/press-releases/2025/wcag22-iso-pas/
15:04:54 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:04:59 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:04:59 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Reminder about upcoming time changes -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:05:07 <Rain> present+
15:05:16 <Chuck> 		Most European clocks will move back 1 hr on Sunday, 26 October 2025.
15:05:16 <Chuck> Most of the US/Canada clocks will move back 1 hr a week later, on Sunday, 2 November 2025.
15:05:22 <Adam_Page> Chuck: reminder about the time change
15:05:22 <Adam_Page> ... pasting in an email
15:05:25 <Adam_Page> ... this is an explanation
15:05:27 <Chuck> 		Between October 26 and November 2, the time difference between Canada/US and Europe will be 1 hour less than it currently is. This means that during that week, teleconferences scheduled according to the US/Canada clock will start *one hour earlier* in local time for most Europeans.
15:05:28 <bbailey> zakim, agenda?
15:05:28 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:05:29 <Zakim> 1. Reminder about upcoming time changes [from Chuck]
15:05:29 <Zakim> 2. WCAG 2.x Issues [from Chuck]
15:05:29 <Zakim> 3. WCAG 2 Audio-description next steps [from Chuck]
15:05:29 <Zakim> 4. Introduce survey on conformance [from Chuck]
15:05:29 <Zakim> 5. WCAG3 provisions review continuation [from Chuck]
15:05:35 <Chuck> 		China, Japan, and Russia do not observe DST, which means the time difference between these areas and Europe/US/Canada will be one hour more than it currently is.
15:05:43 <Chuck> 		Please share this information with your groups, as it may affect teleconference schedules. If you are unsure about the scheduled time of any teleconference, please confirm the time arrangements with your meeting host.
15:05:52 <Adam_Page> ... the main challenge is that not all nations are doing the time change at the same time
15:05:53 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
15:06:01 <Adam_Page> ... so a bit of a discrepancy between times over the next few weeks
15:06:08 <Adam_Page> ... US is in Nov, other nations are doing a bit earlier
15:06:21 <Adam_Page> ... please monitor your calendar and look for time shifts
15:06:22 <alastairc> If your calendar has the meetings set in Boston time, it will auto-update. (The W3C one works like that if you subscribe there.)
15:06:29 <Adam_Page> ... any questions?
15:06:31 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 2
15:06:31 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 2.x Issues -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:06:38 <Adam_Page> Chuck: WCAG 2 issues
15:06:41 <Poornima> present+
15:06:44 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:06:46 <Adam_Page> ... this is not regarding audio description (AD)
15:06:52 <mbgower> q+
15:06:59 <Adam_Page> ... other than that, anyone from the task force want to speak on this?
15:07:00 <Chuck> ack mb
15:07:10 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:07:16 <bbailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0019.html
15:07:56 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:07:56 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Reminder about upcoming time changes -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:08:01 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
15:08:01 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 2 Audio-description next steps -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:08:08 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:08:16 <Venkat> Venkat has joined #ag
15:08:20 <BrianE> present+
15:08:25 <Adam_Page> Chuck: there is a robust description of next steps for AD
15:08:32 <Adam_Page> ... I will share my screen
15:08:43 <Adam_Page> ... here are the survey results
15:08:47 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/audio-desc-wcag2/results/
15:08:53 <mbgower> q+ to say the survey is open until the end of today
15:08:55 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:08:57 <Adam_Page> ... the issue is that there are differences of interpretation
15:09:03 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:09:15 <Adam_Page> ... among members of AGWG and folks who participated int the creation of the standard
15:09:37 <Adam_Page> ... the survey described a scenario and then asked whether it would or would not pass
15:10:03 <Adam_Page> ... the scenario was: a video with important visual information contains no descriptions of that info in the audio track or as a text alternative and there are no pauses in which to fit AD
15:10:19 <bbailey> Scenario: A video with important visual information contains no description of that information in the audio track or as a text alternative. There are no pauses in the dialogue/narration in which to fit any audio descriptions.
15:10:22 <Adam_Page> ... the questions: does this pass or fail 1.2.3? does this pass or fail 1.2.5
15:10:37 <Adam_Page> ... 6 said it passes 1.2.3, 15 said it fails 1.2.3
15:10:43 <Adam_Page> ... I was amongst those who voted that it fails
15:10:59 <alastairc> q+
15:11:01 <GN015> I see 17 answer which say it fails. So, at least 2 answers were added very recently.
15:11:12 <Chuck> ack mb
15:11:12 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the survey is open until the end of today
15:11:18 <Adam_Page> mbgower: I wanted to mention that the survey is still open, closes at midnight tonight
15:11:25 <Adam_Page> ... 2 new answers since the screen share
15:11:31 <Adam_Page> ... so please continue responding
15:11:33 <Chuck> ack ala
15:11:44 <Jaunita_Flessas> Jaunita_Flessas has joined #ag
15:11:50 <Jaunita_Flessas> present+
15:11:52 <Adam_Page> alastairc: I don’t care which way we interpret as long as we come to agreement
15:11:58 <mbgower> q+ to say I can summarize if you like
15:12:07 <Adam_Page> ... the understanding at the time it was written: if there are no gaps, it’s not possible to add AD, therefore it passes
15:12:17 <Adam_Page> ... my question would be where do we go from here
15:12:26 <Adam_Page> ... reasonable people can interpret it in 2 different ways; not good
15:12:35 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
15:12:44 <CarrieH> present +
15:12:48 <Adam_Page> ... I don’t know that we will get agreement on the current; don’t know that we can pass an errata to make this clearer
15:12:54 <mbgower> q?
15:12:57 <Adam_Page> ... but interested to know what we would put into a next version
15:13:05 <Chuck> q+
15:13:08 <Adam_Page> ... if we were to do a small update, what would that look like
15:13:21 <Adam_Page> ... my comment in the survey proposes an option
15:13:32 <Chuck> ack mb
15:13:32 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I can summarize if you like
15:14:20 <Adam_Page> mbgower: the way the W3 process works, the wording between changes is if a change happens to normative language and anyone on the WG thinks it changes interpretation, it’s a “class 3”
15:14:25 <Adam_Page> ... my gut says anything we try to do normatively to clarify this will get us to “class 3” which will kick us down to the next release
15:14:35 <Adam_Page> ... the more interesting question is what happens if we try to put in a non-normative note
15:14:36 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#revising-rec
15:14:43 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#correction-classes
15:14:43 <Adam_Page> ... I presume we’ll have strong protests on either side
15:14:56 <Adam_Page> ... the survey confirms what we expected: a severe difference of interpretation
15:15:02 <Adam_Page> ... what is a path forward that everyone can live with?
15:15:17 <Chuck> q?
15:15:18 <Adam_Page> ... I do not believe that we can write a non-normative note that will satisfy everyone
15:15:18 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:15:18 <Andrew> q+
15:15:29 <Adam_Page> Chuck: chair hat off
15:15:33 <Adam_Page> ... when this topic was introduced to the group
15:15:48 <Adam_Page> ... there was a concern that the scenario might have been written in a manner that favors failure
15:16:20 <Adam_Page> ... when I took the survey, I could see that point but simultaneously felt the scenario is *not* a corner case
15:16:22 <Adam_Page> ... in my world, I encounter many videos like this
15:16:22 <mbgower> q+ to say that there are millions of TikTok videos appearing daily that fit this scenario
15:16:29 <Adam_Page> ... this is a reasonable scenario
15:16:37 <Adam_Page> ... I am a textualist
15:17:05 <Adam_Page> ... just going on the normative text, I concluded that both 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 fail
15:17:19 <Adam_Page> ... I do understand and appreciate that there are a lot of references to the Understanding doc
15:17:28 <Adam_Page> ... but I isolate myself only to the normative text
15:17:34 <Adam_Page> ... which looks very plain
15:17:41 <Chuck> q?
15:17:45 <Chuck> ack Andrew
15:17:56 <Laura_Carlson> +1 to Chuck
15:17:56 <Adam_Page> Andrew: I have spoken out on this issue
15:17:58 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #ag
15:18:02 <Jon_Avila> present+
15:18:07 <Adam_Page> ... and I agree with Chuck about the text
15:18:19 <Jon_Avila> A key point is the definition of audio description
15:18:20 <Adam_Page> ... and disagree on how it’s read
15:18:36 <Adam_Page> ... want to make sure that people are differentiating: the question is not what we want the text to say, but what was its intent when it was written
15:18:55 <Chuck> q+ to ask what is the challenge we are trying to solve?
15:18:57 <Adam_Page> ... despite prevalence of these videos online today
15:19:04 <Adam_Page> ... when the SC was crafted, this was the intent
15:19:04 <bbailey> q+ to mention both camps point to only the TR space doc as literally supporting their position
15:19:18 <Adam_Page> ... which is why the SC for Extended AD was AAA
15:19:25 <Adam_Page> ... made clear in the notes of the definition of AD
15:19:30 <Adam_Page> ... which I think was the error
15:19:51 <Adam_Page> ... everyone who has responded *wants* the right thing
15:19:59 <Chuck> +1 everyone wants the best outcome for the users
15:20:02 <Adam_Page> ... but that’s a different question than what the WG intended
15:20:10 <kevin> q+
15:20:10 <Chuck> q?
15:20:13 <Chuck> ack mb
15:20:13 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that there are millions of TikTok videos appearing daily that fit this scenario
15:20:33 <Adam_Page> mbgower: there are millions of TikTok videos coming out everyday that are designed to never have a pause
15:20:49 <alastairc> q+ on intent of writing vs how people read it now (not just what they want now).
15:20:50 <Adam_Page> ... so the argument that there aren’t any videos without pauses is invalid
15:20:59 <Adam_Page> ... when it comes down to it, the normative text is what we have to go on
15:21:09 <Adam_Page> ... and the normative text today say those videos fail
15:21:16 <julierawe> +1 to mbgower comment about many videos not having any pauses.
15:21:28 <kevin> +1 to what Mike is saying
15:21:31 <Laura_Carlson> +1 to Mike
15:21:34 <Adam_Page> ... just because we have a AAA requirement doesn’t mean you can’t use extended AD with the AA
15:21:40 <Adam_Page> ... so you can meet the AA with a video that has no pauses
15:21:44 <Adam_Page> ... so we have to be super careful
15:21:49 <Adam_Page> ... we must provide more guidance
15:22:10 <Chuck> q?
15:22:12 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:22:12 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what is the challenge we are trying to solve?
15:22:13 <bbailey> -1 to mbgower that the normative text passes the type of TickTock videos referred to.
15:22:40 <Adam_Page> Chuck: I’m acknowledging that there are substantial differences in interpretation
15:22:46 <Adam_Page> ... but what are we trying to solve
15:23:03 <Adam_Page> ... are we agreeing that this is technically the correct outcome, but not the desired?
15:23:10 <Adam_Page> ... and we want to change the normative text?
15:23:17 <Adam_Page> ... I agree with Mike that it clearly fails the plain language
15:23:35 <Chuck> q?
15:23:36 <Adam_Page> ... but if these are resulting in undesired outcome, then I can shift my thinking
15:23:38 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:23:38 <Chuck> ack bbailey
15:23:38 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention both camps point to only the TR space doc as literally supporting their position
15:23:41 <Andrew> Note 2 for the definition of audio description does clarify that gaps are needed for audio description and points to 1.2.7 : Note 2
15:23:41 <Andrew> In standard audio description, narration is added during existing pauses in dialogue. (See also extended audio description.)
15:23:51 <stevef> present+
15:23:56 <Adam_Page> bbailey: just want to reinforce that both camps point to the normative language
15:23:59 <GN015> Should we agree that a video fails which does not have sufficient pauses for audio description and can succees only by providing a text alternative, a change to the Understanding might do.
15:23:59 <Adam_Page> ... that’s the heart of the matter
15:24:04 <Andrew> +AWK
15:24:07 <Adam_Page> ... we don’t do things by voting
15:24:13 <Chuck> q?
15:24:15 <Chuck> ack kevin
15:24:16 <Andrew> present+
15:24:20 <Adam_Page> ... but I agree that we need to do something
15:24:22 <GN015> q+
15:24:28 <Adam_Page> kevin: I’m not keen on fixing this in the Understanding doc
15:24:38 <Adam_Page> ... because there is evident confusion within the normative language
15:24:43 <bbailey> +1 to NOT fixing in Understanding
15:24:47 <Adam_Page> ... we do have an upcoming opportunity to look at normative changes
15:24:50 <Adam_Page> ... particularly around internationalization
15:24:57 <Adam_Page> ... this is an opportune moment
15:25:02 <Adam_Page> ... writing it in line with *what the intent was*
15:25:19 <Chuck> ack ala
15:25:19 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on intent of writing vs how people read it now (not just what they want now).
15:25:32 <Adam_Page> ... not keen on accepting an interpretation of the original intent if the plain normative language doesn’t support it
15:25:37 <bbailey> s/+1 to NOT fixing in Understanding/+1 to NOT fixing via Understanding/
15:25:42 <Adam_Page> alastairc: I think next steps are to get some proposals on the table
15:25:50 <Adam_Page> ... my proposal will be to do 2 things:
15:25:58 <Chuck> q+ to ask if we want the scenario to fail?
15:26:41 <Adam_Page> ... 1) errata for the current one — if there are no gaps, then it’s not suitable for AD, see the AAA version
15:26:48 <bbailey> +1 to addressing (one way or the other) via errata
15:26:55 <Adam_Page> ... 2) an adjustment of 1.2.3 — if there are no gaps, then you must have a text transcript
15:26:56 <Wilco> strong -1 to Alastair's proposal
15:26:59 <Venkat> Venkat has joined #ag
15:27:02 <Adam_Page> ... that would go into the next version of the WCAG series
15:27:12 <Adam_Page> ... if you have an alternative proposal, please write it up
15:27:12 <Chuck> q?
15:27:16 <Chuck> ack GN
15:27:22 <Adam_Page> GN015: I want to suggest the same as alastairc
15:27:24 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:27:24 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we want the scenario to fail?
15:27:30 <Andrew> q+ to ask if we can create a new SC in the WCAG 2.next?
15:27:40 <Adam_Page> Chuck: I agree with bbailey
15:27:53 <Adam_Page> ... I have an interpretation when I read the normative text, but others come to the complete opposite conclusion
15:28:00 <Adam_Page> ... so in that case, I don’t know what to propose to fix
15:28:11 <alastairc> q+ on which direction
15:28:19 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:28:27 <bbailey> +1 to Chuck, that yes, strict textualists come to different conclusion!
15:28:33 <Adam_Page> ... is it our intent or was it the original intent that it *should* pass? or that it *should* fail?
15:28:39 <Jen_G> Present+
15:28:41 <Chuck> q?
15:28:44 <Chuck> ack andrew
15:28:44 <Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to ask if we can create a new SC in the WCAG 2.next?
15:28:45 <Adam_Page> ... which is best and most appropriate for our users
15:28:56 <Adam_Page> Andrew: to alastairc’s point, if there’s a next version of WCAG 2.X
15:29:09 <Adam_Page> ... is it on the table to solve this with a new SC that speaks to the specific case to clarify that point?
15:29:19 <Chuck> q?
15:29:19 <bbailey> q+ to say that "original intent" is not something to vote upon
15:29:21 <Chuck> ack ala
15:29:21 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on which direction
15:29:22 <Adam_Page> ... or are we only talking about shifting language within the existing SC and/or definitions
15:29:35 <Adam_Page> alastairc: we haven’t had a big group discussion about this
15:29:50 <Adam_Page> ... we were cooling on the idea of a new 2.X because it was so difficult to get new SC into that series
15:29:53 <Adam_Page> ... and backwards compatibility
15:30:06 <Adam_Page> ... so I think in this case, if it were tightening the requirements it would be straightforward
15:30:20 <Adam_Page> ... to reply to Chuck
15:30:47 <Adam_Page> ... my understanding is that the original intent is that because of the definition of AD, it would pass 1.2.5 and therefore it would pass 1.2.3
15:30:48 <Chuck> q?
15:30:49 <shadi> q+
15:30:52 <Chuck> ack bb
15:30:52 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say that "original intent" is not something to vote upon
15:30:54 <Adam_Page> bbailey: +1 to alastairc
15:30:59 <Adam_Page> ... that was the original intent
15:31:05 <shadi> q-
15:31:22 <alastairc> proposals please!
15:31:25 <Adam_Page> Chuck: our next steps are to craft proposals
15:31:34 <shadi> +1 to Alastair, I have the same recollection of the intent at the time
15:31:37 <Adam_Page> ... please submit some
15:31:47 <Adam_Page> ... alastairc, anything else to wrap up?
15:31:54 <Adam_Page> alastairc: proposals, please 🙏
15:31:55 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
15:31:58 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:31:58 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Reminder about upcoming time changes -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:32:00 <Kimberly> present+
15:32:03 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 4
15:32:03 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Introduce survey on conformance -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:32:20 <Adam_Page> Chuck: I’ll stop sharing
15:32:20 <Adam_Page> ... Rachael, will you lead?
15:32:23 <Adam_Page> Rachael: yes
15:32:51 <Adam_Page> ... this conversation is a follow-up
15:32:52 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:32:57 <Detlev> present+
15:33:16 <Adam_Page> ... we had a previous conversation around a conformance proposal
15:33:24 <Adam_Page> ... and conversations from past few months
15:33:29 <Adam_Page> ... wanted to pull out a point of confusion
15:33:36 <Adam_Page> ... and make sure people are on the same page, even if we don’t agree
15:33:46 <Adam_Page> ... for this proposal, there were 3 sizes of mandatory provisions
15:34:01 <kirkwood> can share presentation link?
15:34:01 <Adam_Page> ... provisions means the collection of requirements
15:34:07 <Adam_Page> ... the whole bucket of things people might test
15:34:19 <Adam_Page> ... from mandatory, we’re talking about requirements that MUST be done
15:34:24 <Adam_Page> ... there is complexity around terminology
15:34:38 <Adam_Page> ... we know we need work on these terms, but the deck is consistent with itself
15:34:50 <Adam_Page> ... one possible scoping is prerequisite set
15:34:51 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:34:57 <Frankie> present+
15:35:01 <Adam_Page> ... a very tiny set of provisions that are essentially no physical harm
15:35:06 <Adam_Page> ... and ensuring things are detectable
15:35:08 <Adam_Page> ... the second
15:35:13 <Adam_Page> ... scoped to WCAG 2 A & AA
15:35:24 <Adam_Page> ... we have pretty much thrown this out because it doesn’t solve equity issues
15:35:30 <Adam_Page> ... and doesn’t necessarily make sense
15:35:39 <Adam_Page> ... third option is foundational set
15:35:47 <Adam_Page> ... A & AA plus additional similar requirements
15:35:52 <Chuck> q?
15:35:53 <Wilco> q+
15:35:57 <Adam_Page> ... does everyone understand terminology?
15:36:03 <Chuck> ack Wilco
15:36:20 <Adam_Page> Wilco: could you speak slightly more about “detectable”?
15:36:27 <Venkat> Venkat has joined #ag
15:36:30 <CarrieH> Adam_Page that was my question
15:36:34 <Adam_Page> Rachael: images with content can be detected, text content, programmatically “there”
15:36:38 <Adam_Page> ... so that AT can hook into it
15:36:45 <Chuck> q?
15:37:04 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g39bba20ca27_0_0#slide=id.g39bba20ca27_0_0
15:37:21 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:37:21 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
15:37:25 <LenB> present+
15:37:33 <Adam_Page> ... option 1 has 2 bins: small prerequisite set and large supplemental/assertion set
15:37:49 <Adam_Page> ... because optional set is larger, higher percentage levels for bronze/silver/gold
15:37:55 <graham> graham has joined #ag
15:37:59 <Adam_Page> ... something like 70% to 80% before Bronze
15:38:00 <graham> present+
15:38:04 <Adam_Page> ... as a comparison point with other options
15:38:20 <Adam_Page> ... there are risks of content being less accessible than using WCAG 2.2
15:38:27 <Adam_Page> ... it does provide authors more flexibility
15:38:34 <Adam_Page> ... may make auditing more complex because there is a larger potential set
15:38:51 <Adam_Page> ... but there may be less work because of easier tests
15:38:54 <Andrew> @alistair probably the same but very rarely used.
15:38:59 <Adam_Page> ... provides a more apparent, longer ladder of improvement
15:39:08 <Adam_Page> ... see improvement over time
15:39:16 <alastairc> @Andrew huh, I was under the impression it was more of a categorisation thing.
15:39:17 <Adam_Page> ... draft rules pulled together based on this concept
15:39:34 <Adam_Page> ... prerequisite set would be: detectable (haven’t hidden something deliberately)
15:39:42 <Adam_Page> ... info conveyed by a single means (e.g., color alone)
15:40:01 <Adam_Page> ... e.g., if the AT can’t handle it
15:40:20 <Adam_Page> ... functionality relying on a single mechanism
15:40:20 <Adam_Page> ... and then it doesn’t cause physical harm (e.g., flashing)
15:40:27 <Andrew> @alistair in US I would guess that bin is most commonly preceded by "recycling"
15:40:28 <Adam_Page> ... there would be about 21 prerequisites in the set
15:40:33 <Adam_Page> ... that would leave us 171 supplemental
15:40:43 <Adam_Page> ... WCAG 2 A& AA not included in the prereq set
15:40:54 <Chuck> q?
15:41:00 <Adam_Page> ... more detailed quality checks
15:41:08 <Adam_Page> ... things that are harder to define or implement
15:41:16 <Adam_Page> ... stiil wiggle room of complexity
15:41:27 <Adam_Page> ... option 2
15:41:33 <Adam_Page> ... Foundational and Supplemental/Assertions
15:41:49 <Adam_Page> ... there was a lot of concern about WCAG 2.2 requirements not being in the mandatory set
15:42:00 <Adam_Page> ... in this option, much larger Foundational set
15:42:20 <Adam_Page> ... and low percentage levels for B/S/G — e.g., 10 to 20% to get to Bronze
15:42:20 <Adam_Page> ... pros and cons
15:42:31 <Adam_Page> ... A & AA would be part of the foundational set; reduces risk of a less accessible result
15:42:38 <Adam_Page> ... less flexibility for authors though
15:42:44 <Adam_Page> ... may make auditing less complex
15:42:48 <Adam_Page> ... because the mandatory set is larger
15:42:56 <Adam_Page> ... but also more work because you have to test more
15:43:03 <Adam_Page> ... shorter ladder for improvement
15:43:09 <Adam_Page> ... draft rules
15:43:18 <Adam_Page> ... for categorization
15:43:26 <shadi> q+ to ask about the concern of lower levels than AA
15:43:29 <Adam_Page> ... foundational would be about 120, supplemental would be about 51
15:44:00 <Adam_Page> ... supplemental would include higher level reqs, like target size
15:44:20 <Adam_Page> ... things that go beyond existence and clarify what is “good”
15:44:20 <Adam_Page> ... things harder to implement, such as ASL interpreting
15:44:34 <Adam_Page> ... things that aren’t always applicable
15:44:49 <Adam_Page> ... this is meant to start our conversation today
15:44:52 <Chuck> q?
15:44:55 <Adam_Page> ... any clarifying questions?
15:45:00 <Chuck> ack shadi
15:45:00 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about the concern of lower levels than AA
15:45:04 <alastairc> q+ on "bin", and point about remembering AAA items
15:45:08 <Adam_Page> shadi: thank you
15:45:28 <Adam_Page> ... what is the concern around having levels lower than AA?
15:45:48 <Adam_Page> ... regulations currently point to AA, but we still have A
15:45:54 <Adam_Page> ... imagine we had 5 levels
15:45:58 <Adam_Page> ... and only level 3 was comparable to AA
15:46:03 <Adam_Page> ... with 2 levels below
15:46:07 <Adam_Page> ... why would that be a concern?
15:46:24 <Adam_Page> ... it could be an on-ramp for certain sectors
15:46:39 <Adam_Page> ... for policy makers
15:46:46 <Chuck> q?
15:47:10 <alastairc> q+ also on pro/con for flexibility, e.g. multimedia content in education
15:47:12 <Adam_Page> Rachael: the concern was about losing requirements
15:47:20 <Adam_Page> ... we’ve pushed on this 2 different times
15:47:37 <Adam_Page> ... and there was strong — but not unanimous — consensus of not wanting to go below level A and AA
15:47:37 <Jon_Avila> I think it's about the naming - Level A is fine - but calling Level A foundational could send the wrong signal if both A and AA were essential foundational.
15:47:51 <bbailey> q+
15:47:55 <shadi> +1 to Jon
15:47:58 <Adam_Page> ... I think we need to have that discussion again
15:48:20 <Adam_Page> ... the second time we brought it back was around AD
15:48:21 <Adam_Page> ... and there was a very strong pushback that we can’t *lose* something that’s in 2
15:48:37 <Adam_Page> ... whatever we drop, we need to remember there will be a group that cares
15:48:43 <Adam_Page> shadi: what does it mean to “drop”?
15:48:48 <Adam_Page> Rachael: to move it out of mandatory set
15:48:58 <bbailey> q+ to observe that this draft rules for requirement categorization fits well to "foundational" and "supplemental"
15:49:09 <shadi> q+ to ask what "mandatory" means
15:49:21 <Chuck> ack ala
15:49:21 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on "bin", and point about remembering AAA items and to comment on pro/con for flexibility, e.g. multimedia content in education
15:49:36 <Adam_Page> alastairc: when you talk about binning, is that categorization or a discarding?
15:49:57 <Adam_Page> Rachael: categorization
15:50:35 <Adam_Page> alastairc: on shadi’s point, chair hat off, one thing I’ve noticed is that in WCAG 2 AA when someone mentions a AAA SC, I usually have to look it up
15:50:41 <Adam_Page> ... because i use them so rarely
15:50:53 <Adam_Page> ... always have to remind myself of the exact wording
15:51:00 <graham> q+
15:51:06 <Adam_Page> ... one of the advantages of less foundational and you get to choose which supplemental to do
15:51:19 <Adam_Page> ... is that it requires people to *read* them all
15:51:28 <Adam_Page> ... so that they can choose which they will try to satisfy
15:51:33 <Adam_Page> ... I feel that’s a big advantage
15:52:20 <Adam_Page> ... but on the con side, if you’ve got a larger group of requirements, then people may choose to leave things out that are quite important for their use cases
15:52:26 <Adam_Page> ... there are ways to get around that
15:52:48 <Adam_Page> ... we could say in our policy documentation things like “if it’s educational, then this set of supplementary provisions are required...”
15:52:55 <Adam_Page> ... flexibility gives people more of a ladder
15:53:01 <Adam_Page> ... working your way up a percentage
15:53:08 <Chuck> ack bb
15:53:08 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to observe that this draft rules for requirement categorization fits well to "foundational" and "supplemental"
15:53:30 <Adam_Page> bbailey: what I like about this grouping is that the foundational category has a name
15:53:34 <Chuck> ack shadi
15:53:34 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask what "mandatory" means
15:53:49 <Adam_Page> shadi: I’m still lost on what it means for something to be “mandatory”
15:53:55 <Rachael> madatory = required to get to bronze
15:54:00 <Adam_Page> ... in WCAG 2, we have 3 levels — there is no “mandatory”
15:54:19 <Adam_Page> ... policy makers decide
15:54:23 <Rachael> q+ to respond to shadi
15:54:33 <Adam_Page> ... in the past, some laws have required that *home* pages be AAA
15:54:54 <Adam_Page> ... “mandatory” is decided by the policy and we have provided the levels to help them make that decision
15:55:40 <Adam_Page> Rachael: talking in the context of this proposed conformance model
15:56:01 <Adam_Page> ... mandatory is what’s required to get to bronze
15:56:20 <Adam_Page> ... *compliance* for policy is a different set
15:56:20 <Adam_Page> ... within this proposed conformance model, that set would have to be done
15:56:30 <Adam_Page> ... versus the other, where some percentage would need to be done
15:56:33 <Chuck> q+ to ask for a scribe change
15:56:38 <Adam_Page> ... this model seemed to have the most momentum
15:57:11 <alastairc> q+ to share slides from the CSUN pres
15:57:17 <Chuck> ack graham
15:57:18 <Rachael> q-
15:57:27 <Adam_Page> graham: what if we just went away with levels
15:57:44 <Chuck> ack ch
15:57:44 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change
15:57:49 <Adam_Page> ... and clearly identify which are for safety
15:57:50 <Chuck> 2 minutes to scribe change
15:58:00 <Chuck> q+ to ask for scribe change
15:58:02 <Adam_Page> ... most companies get to AA and then stop
15:58:05 <kevin> q+
15:58:17 <Chuck> ack ala
15:58:17 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to share slides from the CSUN pres
15:58:22 <Adam_Page> ... “these are all the things you should do” and let someone else decide what’s mandatory
15:58:23 <Jon_Avila> Would folks trust the lawmakers to know and interpret which individual criteria to require?
15:58:23 <shadi> q+
15:58:39 <Adam_Page> alastairc: when we talk about mandatory
15:58:46 <Adam_Page> ... if you’ve got the foundational, you have to do all of those no matter what
15:58:48 <Adam_Page> ... to conform
15:58:59 <Adam_Page> ... and then we’ve got set of supplemental assertions
15:59:19 <Adam_Page> ... you could set foundational at prerequisite level
15:59:30 <Adam_Page> ... but then you’ve got higher proportion of things people can pick & choose
15:59:36 <graham> "Would folks trust the lawmakers to know and interpret which individual criteria to require?" - I meant purely "120 out of all 171" - lawmakers are not required to know which are most important, just how far they want to draw the line.
15:59:37 <Adam_Page> ... not changing the level; changing the flexibility
15:59:41 <Chuck> ack Chuck
15:59:41 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
15:59:50 <kirkwood> if it is mandatory, is it a foundational requirement?
16:00:24 <shadi> q-
16:00:25 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:00:28 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:00:28 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Francis_Storr
16:00:44 <mbgower> present+
16:00:44 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:00:44 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Francis_Storr
16:00:51 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:00:51 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jon_Avila
16:01:08 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:01:08 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose julierawe
16:01:14 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
16:01:21 <julierawe> q+
16:01:38 <julierawe> scribe+
16:01:42 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:01:47 <alastairc> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:01:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-ag-minutes.html alastairc
16:02:22 <shadi> +1 to Kevin
16:02:23 <Jon_Avila> +1 to Kevin
16:02:24 <Chuck> q?
16:02:26 <shadi> q+
16:02:28 <julierawe> kevin I would like to offload the challenge of conformance models to policymakers, but we open up the debate to different laws globally, which will make harmonization tricky
16:02:29 <Chuck> ack julie
16:02:29 <graham> q+ to say same principle but we set the number then
16:02:31 <Chuck> scribe+
16:02:46 <shadi> q-
16:02:48 <alastairc> graham - that's essentially what we are doing, setting the % number
16:02:55 <Rachael> q+
16:02:59 <graham> q-
16:03:00 <Chuck> julierawe:  I wanted to ask, as we are looking at slide 19, the draft rules has the foundational, 120, 51, where might assertions fall in this, could there  be foundational assertions?
16:03:01 <Chuck> q?
16:03:04 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:03:27 <Jon_Avila> we've discussed this and Gregg has indicated that some organizations may not be able to make assertions and thus we can't make them foundational.
16:03:30 <julierawe> Rachael The last time we talked about this, the group was thinking no, assertions could not be foundational.
16:03:43 <julierawe> Rachael I think there could be a benefit to having some foundational assertions
16:04:11 <julierawe> Rachael Example: If I assert that I have done a plain language review, then it could trade off the plain language requirement.
16:04:34 <Chuck> q?
16:04:38 <graham> q+
16:04:41 <Chuck> ack grah
16:04:44 <julierawe> Rachael If an assertion is "I conducted representative sampling,"...that could be a trade-off in the foundational space. But it's not something we've talked about in AG meetings.
16:05:17 <julierawe> graham What if we stop trying to worry about the total scores and we base on company size? You pass all the ones applicable to your company size.
16:05:22 <Rachael> q+
16:05:35 <julierawe> graham: This would put the onus on larger companies.
16:05:39 <kevin> s/Rachael If/Rachael: If
16:05:54 <kevin> s/graham What/graham: What
16:05:59 <Chuck> q?
16:06:02 <Chuck> ack Rachael
16:06:36 <Chuck> q?
16:06:41 <julierawe> Rachael: We could make recommendations to policymakers on whether/how to factor in company size.
16:07:23 <julierawe> graham: My thought was things like audio descriptions. If we base it on company size and let jurisdictions decide, then we could do applicability based on whether it's reasonable in terms of time and budget.
16:07:28 <Jon_Avila> Should small businesses not have to put in ramps or accessible bathrooms?
16:07:32 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:07:46 <Chuck> q?
16:07:46 <Rachael> q+
16:07:49 <Chuck> q+
16:07:50 <Detlev> Unfortunately have to be AFK for 20 mins
16:07:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:07:59 <Jon_Avila> Laws like EAA already exempt micro-enterprises.
16:08:01 <julierawe> graham: Jurisdictions could decide whether to exclude rather than include.
16:08:25 <julierawe> Rachael: How will this affect harmonization?
16:08:31 <alastairc> q+ on difficulty of assessing size and reasonableness, and ruler not rule.
16:08:34 <graham> q+
16:08:53 <julierawe> Rachael: What happens if we start seeing real differences between jurisdictions? How does that affect companies?
16:09:06 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:09:07 <Wilco> +1 Rachael, consistency in what's required is critical
16:09:15 <julierawe> Rachael: How will this affect the more complicated requirements if we don't have them categorized in the same way?
16:09:56 <julierawe> Chuck: One of the advantages is harmonization so we can say we conform to this set of standards/regulations.
16:10:26 <julierawe> Chuck: If you allow local variability, that may create lack of harmonization. (Chair hat off.)
16:10:26 <Chuck> ack ala
16:10:26 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on difficulty of assessing size and reasonableness, and ruler not rule.
16:11:33 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:11:36 <shadi> +1 to Alastair -- reasonableness is for policy makers to define
16:11:44 <kirkwood> ruler not rule  !!
16:11:50 <julierawe> alastairc: (Chair hat off.) I don't see this working. Gave universities with small budget as an example.
16:11:53 <Chuck> ack grah
16:12:33 <bbailey> q+ to mention that historically regulators have made implement dates and details based on size of organizations or other criteria
16:12:39 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: All valid points. If we say these are all the things you must do, then it becomes on the onus of an individual country to decide if something is strenuous or not feasible.
16:13:10 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: I think we'd end up harmonious anyway. Why not make it all essentially AAA and leave it up to arguing why didn't you do a thing?
16:13:10 <shadi> q+
16:13:12 <Jon_Avila> Some high revenue companies only have a small number of employees.
16:13:53 <alastairc> graham - it's not one scale, it's multiple scales...
16:14:02 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: For size of company, all we have to decide is is this a reasonably straightforward thing to accomplish? For small company. Is this more difficult but very important, that's for medium companies. Hardest for biggest companies.
16:14:10 <Rachael> q+
16:14:16 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: It feels like a way to not have to do a lot of mental gymnastics.
16:14:26 <Chuck> ack ben
16:14:27 <Rachael> q+ to say that I think as the experts we should take on the hard lift
16:14:31 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: It would be a way to see not applicable or do it.
16:14:56 <julierawe> Scribe issue: I thought Ben was speaking earlier. Not sure who was speaking them
16:15:27 <alastairc> julierawe - I think that was graham, I'll adjust, you carry on
16:15:57 <alastairc> s/Ben_Tillyer: All valid points/graham: All valid points
16:16:12 <alastairc> s/Ben_Tillyer: I think/graham: I think
16:16:12 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: If no legislation in your local country, you would be overwhelmed and would have no idea where to start.
16:16:30 <alastairc> s/Ben_Tillyer: For size of company/graham: For size of company
16:17:00 <alastairc> s/Ben_Tillyer: It feels like/graham: It feels like
16:17:20 <alastairc> s/Ben_Tillyer: It would be/graham: It would be
16:17:22 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: When Alastair mentioned there are universities with small IT teams and millions of web pages, no one is forcing anyone to have that web presence.
16:17:44 <alastairc> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:17:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-ag-minutes.html alastairc
16:18:02 <Chuck> q?
16:18:05 <Chuck> ack bb
16:18:05 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention that historically regulators have made implement dates and details based on size of organizations or other criteria
16:18:13 <julierawe> Ben_Tillyer: At universities, the conversation isn't whether the content is accessible. It's is the content even needed? Should we keep maintaining millions of web pages?
16:18:22 <bbailey> historically regulators have made implement dates and details based on size of organizations or other criteria
16:18:56 <Chuck> ack shadi
16:18:58 <julierawe> bbailey: I agree with staying away from size of organization
16:19:29 <julierawe> shadi: I'm not a fan of percentages. I think they can be very tricky.
16:19:41 <kirkwood> +1 to not agreeing with percentages
16:20:09 <Chuck> q+ to state my understanding of what percentages means in this context
16:20:30 <julierawe> shadi: What can we do to not call too much attention to minor issues, such as no alt text for something non-essential.
16:21:00 <kevin> q+ to comment on the challenge of bug failures
16:21:10 <Andrew> Q+ to ask if conformance is still based on pages
16:21:15 <alastairc> q+ on balancing realistic in what fails, and realistic in testing.
16:21:16 <julierawe> shadi: Are there ways to try to be realistic?
16:21:19 <Chuck> q?
16:21:21 <alastairc> Andrew - pages / views
16:21:31 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:21:31 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that I think as the experts we should take on the hard lift
16:21:56 <bbailey> +1 to Shadi that binary aspect of SC (all SC, all pages, all the time) has not prevented wide adoption of WCAG2x
16:21:58 <julierawe> Rachael: Regarding percentages, they can be tricky but I personally don't see how we avoid using them. They are important for COGA.
16:22:24 <julierawe> Rachael: The other proposals we've looked at without percentages just keep creating complexity when we try to think about equity across groups.
16:22:48 <julierawe> Rachael: We haven't talked about having no levels at all before, so I'm glad we talked about it today.
16:23:07 <julierawe> Rachael: I would prefer we keep the hardest lift in this group. Very smart people to be having these discussions.
16:23:15 <Wilco> +1 We need to make that decision. Nobody will do a better job of it than this group
16:23:33 <julierawe> Rachael: If we push those decisions to others, they will have different levels of expertise. I don't think it's the right decision for us.
16:23:36 <kirkwood> +1
16:23:46 <Ben_Tillyer>  /me make sure that thing about how great we are is minuted, I have my annual review at work tomorrow...
16:23:51 <julierawe> Rachael: We want to survey to see where the group is.
16:23:53 <bbailey> +1 to Wilco, that this group are the right people to make these sort of decisions
16:24:18 <Ben_Tillyer> s/ /me make sure that thing about how great we are is minuted, I have my annual review at work tomorrow...//
16:24:22 <julierawe> Rachael: We have explored different conformance models. None of them are perfect. But we need to pick one for our next draft so we can get public feedback.
16:24:29 <kevin> q?
16:24:49 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:24:49 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to state my understanding of what percentages means in this context
16:24:57 <julierawe> Rachael: I would like to hear from a survey perspective how people are feeling about foundational vs prerequesites and other items discussed earlier in this call..
16:25:00 <LoriO> present+
16:25:03 <LoriO> q+
16:25:26 <alastairc> Chuck - instance vs requirement? Scoring could be either
16:25:54 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:25:54 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to comment on the challenge of bug failures
16:26:04 <mbgower> +1 to how Chuck is differentiating between 'pick a number of these reqs' and 'meet the req a percentage of the time'
16:27:14 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:27:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-ag-minutes.html bbailey
16:27:21 <julierawe> Chuck: I have less anxiety about a company getting to choose how many so you can achieve your conformance level.
16:27:27 <shadi> thanks, Chuck
16:27:29 <Chuck> q?
16:27:32 <Chuck> ack andrew
16:27:32 <Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to ask if conformance is still based on pages
16:28:34 <julierawe> kevin: In response to Shadi, I get the challenge of bugs. It would be failing a requirement. I don't know how we could build into conformance a failure rationale that would pass. That's something policymakers would need to think about.
16:29:06 <julierawe> Andrew: I asked and Alastair answered if this conformance model is still a page-based model.
16:29:29 <julierawe> Andrew: People tend to report on a series of pages or workflows.
16:30:04 <julierawe> Andrew: Part of where this gets particularly difficult is that at a site level, there are very few sites that meet WCAG 2.2 or even 2.0 AA.
16:30:17 <julierawe> Andrew: How do we craft a conformance model that works in the real world?
16:30:25 <mbgower> +1 to AWK, there's a difference between assessing a page and reporting the conformance of a site? WCAG has not covered reporting until now
16:30:26 <bbailey> s/me make sure that thing about how great we are is minuted, I have my annual review at work tomorrow//
16:30:30 <Chuck> ack ala
16:30:30 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on balancing realistic in what fails, and realistic in testing.
16:30:41 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:30:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-ag-minutes.html bbailey
16:30:48 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:31:06 <julierawe> alastairc: There are some mechanisms, assertions that can be more widespread. There's also policy guidance we can add.
16:32:13 <julierawe> alastairc: In response to Shadi, we have looked at task-based assessement before. But how do you define what tasks should be covered? Hard to scale that consistently over different types of interfaces.
16:32:18 <shadi> q+
16:32:24 <Chuck> ack Lori
16:32:28 <julierawe> alastairc: We couldn't see a way to make it work.
16:33:30 <julierawe> LoriO: I want to go back to the diagram alastairc showed. We have this basic set of safety concerns. You can call them prerequisites or call them something else. But if we have one component on the page that fails, you fail.
16:33:43 <julierawe> LoriO: Most people look at things for a site. They aren't looking for a component on this one page.
16:34:19 <julierawe> LoriO: It just seems very complicated to try to reduce everything down to a set of numbers when I can build an accessible web page that no one can use.
16:34:28 <julierawe> LoriO: I'm not sure the percentages are the right way to go.
16:34:39 <Chuck> ack shadi
16:34:40 <julierawe> LoriO: If we aren't using percentages, what else could we use?
16:35:15 <julierawe> shadi: In response to kevin and alastairc, I understand policymakes need to think about what is acceptable or not.
16:35:32 <kevin> +1 to providing guidance on how to address these issues
16:35:37 <alastairc> q+ on policy guidance for sampling / scoring.
16:35:41 <julierawe> shadi: I see the point about providing supporting documents for policymakers.
16:35:44 <kevin> s/policymakes/policy makers/
16:36:00 <julierawe> shadi: Certain guidelines have more impact than others.
16:36:07 <GN015> I propose to use severity levels of issues found. Are there barriers, hurdles, limitations? How many? (One barrier makes the page unusable, the number might be different for hurdles and limitations) This can then be extended to sites, sets of pages, applications, ...
16:36:29 <julierawe> shadi: Now that we're breaking guidelines into smaller units, we can also say more about the impact of each requirement.
16:36:45 <julierawe> shadi: These things need to be built into the normative part so we can build on them for the reporting aspect.
16:36:53 <Chuck> q?
16:36:54 <kirkwood> A percentage means we have a numerator and a denominator. What are they? If so, let’s precisely define them.
16:36:56 <Chuck> ack ala
16:36:56 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on policy guidance for sampling / scoring.
16:37:06 <Rachael> q+ to speak to severity.
16:37:20 <julierawe> alastairc: What do we have in our conformance model and what guidance do we have for people implementing our conformance model.
16:37:33 <julierawe> alastairc: It will be helpful to keep as simple as possible.
16:38:15 <julierawe> alastairc: You say you meet all of the foundational and you specify which supplementals you are meeting.
16:38:34 <julierawe> alastairc: We could do a reference document saying these are the kinds of pages you should include.
16:38:46 <Chuck> ack rach
16:38:46 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to severity.
16:38:50 <julierawe> alastairc: If we try to build any of that into the normative text, that would get very complicated very quickly.
16:39:05 <shadi> I only meant build in hooks, not the full details
16:39:05 <Detlev> I am fine for percentages to score requirements that are difficult to pin down to PASS/FAIL. I am strongly against picking a percentage out of the total set of normative guidelines, because that is bound to leave very severe gaps.
16:39:08 <kirkwood> asserting that one meets? or asserting that there is a process to meet?
16:39:09 <julierawe> Rachael: Regarding severity, we have tried several times over the past years to try to build in severity.
16:39:29 <julierawe> Rachael: It is so context-dependent, such as the alt text for a decorative image versus for a button.
16:39:32 <alastairc> Shadi - yes, we have considered tagging, e.g. these are important for education.
16:39:41 <julierawe> Rachael: It's hard to write out as a conformance model.
16:39:54 <Chuck> q?
16:39:55 <julierawe> Rachael: We could include a note that this is an area we want to explore.
16:40:06 <julierawe> Rachael: We have not been successful in trying to write it out.
16:40:20 <alastairc> Core issue with severity - the type of issue (without context) does not correlate with the severity.
16:40:28 <julierawe> Rachael: The chairs are tasked to move this group forward. We want to get a draft out in December.
16:40:40 <julierawe> Rachael: We are aiming for a developing draft. Not ready for refining.
16:41:12 <julierawe> Rachael: We want to put out a survey about the conformance models discussed today or if others have suggestions on a different way to do it, with as many details as possible.
16:41:42 <julierawe> Rachael: If people are suggesting a model we discussed but could not resolve, please include why/how you think those previously discussed issues could be resolved in a different way.
16:41:52 <Ben_Tillyer> Thanks all!
16:41:56 <julierawe> q+
16:42:10 <Chuck> julierawe:  Just wondering for this survey, how long do we have to respond?
16:42:26 <Chuck> rachael:  COB next monday.
16:42:45 <Chuck> Julierawe:  That's a tight turnaround for Coga, can we extend?
16:42:54 <julierawe> Rachael: We need survey responses by close of business next Monday so we can discuss at Tuesday's AG meeting.
16:43:08 <Chuck> Rachael:  Thrashing is also an issue that was raised, and we are trying to stay on this topic to shape next week's conversation.
16:43:11 <julierawe> Rachael: We aren't making a final decision. This is about shaping next week's conversation.
16:43:17 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:43:17 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Chuck
16:43:19 <Chuck> q?
16:43:22 <Chuck> ack julei
16:43:23 <julierawe> q-
16:43:28 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 5
16:43:28 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- WCAG3 provisions review continuation -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:43:53 <julierawe> Chuck: We've been going through exercise of having subgroups review latest draft of WCAG 3.
16:44:22 <julierawe> Chuck: The exercise involved thinking about a specific site and whether it would pass or fail the WCAG 3 provisions.
16:44:23 <GN015> present+
16:44:37 <GN015> Can you please share the link to the survey?
16:44:59 <julierawe> Chuck: Subgroups were also invited to identify any concerns or changes needed to the draft,
16:45:11 <julierawe> Rachael: I will update and send out the survey.
16:45:44 <julierawe> Chuck: For those who have been doing this WCAG 3 exercise, does anyone have any thoughts or comments on the exercise?
16:45:50 <Chuck> q?
16:45:50 <alastairc> The main folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b8ccocczCONPFokE6y6bAMckMcQMHJqT?ths=true
16:45:59 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:46:02 <graham> q+
16:46:24 <Chuck> ack graham
16:46:25 <julierawe> Chuck: Individuals should make a copy of the main spreadsheet and append your name to the end of your copy.
16:46:50 <alastairc> q+
16:46:53 <julierawe> graham: What are we doing about the assertions?
16:46:55 <Chuck> ack ala
16:47:34 <julierawe> alastairc: For each assertion, I thought is the company doing this now? Or is this something we almost do and the assertion wouldn't be too much of a stretch, I'd say pass.
16:47:40 <alastairc> Instructions for the task: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0013.html
16:47:43 <Rachael> q+
16:47:52 <julierawe> alastairc: If the assertion is about something the organization had never considered, I'd say fail.
16:48:15 <alastairc> Again, the main thing isn't the pass/fail, it is whether the provisions are understandable, feasible, etc.
16:48:35 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:48:45 <julierawe> Chuck: I tried to be forgiving but reasonable.
16:48:56 <Chuck> q?
16:49:02 <julierawe> Rachael: Reminder that the main purpose is are the requirements and assertions understandable.
16:49:26 <julierawe> alastairc: We're going to take everyone's notes column and put into a big sheet that has everyone's comments about a particular row.
16:49:34 <julierawe> alastairc: This is usability testing of the provisions.
16:49:39 <Francis_Storr> Whoops. I had to step away for a few minutes to deal with a thing and got nominated for scribing. Twice, by the looks of it. Sorry about that (the stepping away, not the being nominated)
16:50:01 <Detlev> q+
16:50:18 <Chuck> ack detlev
16:50:53 <alastairc> Instructions for the task: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0013.html
16:50:53 <julierawe> Instructions for the task: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0013.html
16:51:23 <julierawe> q+
16:51:31 <alastairc> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:51:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-ag-minutes.html alastairc
16:51:39 <Chuck> ack julie
16:53:19 <Rachael> The survey is at https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conf_20_oct_25/
16:53:23 <julierawe> New deadline to complete the WCAG 3 exercise is next Friday, not this past Friday.
16:56:40 <Chuck> folder:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b8ccocczCONPFokE6y6bAMckMcQMHJqT