Meeting minutes
Reminder about upcoming time changes
Chuck: introductions
… anyone new to the group? any new roles to introduce?
Andrew: hi, I’m new to the group this year but have been a member in the past for many years
… formerly Adobe, now Evinced
<Laura_Carlson> Welcome back!
Andrew: I and others from Evinced will be participating
Chuck: Andrew was also a prior chair
… anyone else?
… any announcements?
<kirkwood> welcome back!
<Laura_Carlson> W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 Approved as ISO/IEC International Standard
<Laura_Carlson> https://
Reminder about upcoming time changes
<Chuck> Most European clocks will move back 1 hr on Sunday, 26 October 2025.
<Chuck> Most of the US/Canada clocks will move back 1 hr a week later, on Sunday, 2 November 2025.
Chuck: reminder about the time change
… pasting in an email
… this is an explanation
<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.
<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.
<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.
Chuck: the main challenge is that not all nations are doing the time change at the same time
… so a bit of a discrepancy between times over the next few weeks
… US is in Nov, other nations are doing a bit earlier
… please monitor your calendar and look for time shifts
<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.)
Chuck: any questions?
WCAG 2.x Issues
Chuck: WCAG 2 issues
… this is not regarding audio description (AD)
… other than that, anyone from the task force want to speak on this?
<bbailey> https://
Reminder about upcoming time changes
WCAG 2 Audio-description next steps
Chuck: there is a robust description of next steps for AD
… I will share my screen
… here are the survey results
<bbailey> https://
Chuck: the issue is that there are differences of interpretation
… among members of AGWG and folks who participated int the creation of the standard
… the survey described a scenario and then asked whether it would or would not pass
… 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
<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.
Chuck: the questions: does this pass or fail 1.2.3? does this pass or fail 1.2.5
… 6 said it passes 1.2.3, 15 said it fails 1.2.3
… I was amongst those who voted that it fails
<GN015> I see 17 answer which say it fails. So, at least 2 answers were added very recently.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the survey is open until the end of today
mbgower: I wanted to mention that the survey is still open, closes at midnight tonight
… 2 new answers since the screen share
… so please continue responding
alastairc: I don’t care which way we interpret as long as we come to agreement
… the understanding at the time it was written: if there are no gaps, it’s not possible to add AD, therefore it passes
… my question would be where do we go from here
… reasonable people can interpret it in 2 different ways; not good
… 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
… but interested to know what we would put into a next version
… if we were to do a small update, what would that look like
… my comment in the survey proposes an option
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I can summarize if you like
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”
… 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
… the more interesting question is what happens if we try to put in a non-normative note
<bbailey> https://
<bbailey> https://
mbgower: I presume we’ll have strong protests on either side
… the survey confirms what we expected: a severe difference of interpretation
… what is a path forward that everyone can live with?
… I do not believe that we can write a non-normative note that will satisfy everyone
Chuck: chair hat off
… when this topic was introduced to the group
… there was a concern that the scenario might have been written in a manner that favors failure
… when I took the survey, I could see that point but simultaneously felt the scenario is *not* a corner case
… in my world, I encounter many videos like this
… this is a reasonable scenario
… I am a textualist
… just going on the normative text, I concluded that both 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 fail
… I do understand and appreciate that there are a lot of references to the Understanding doc
… but I isolate myself only to the normative text
… which looks very plain
<Laura_Carlson> +1 to Chuck
Andrew: I have spoken out on this issue
… and I agree with Chuck about the text
<Jon_Avila> A key point is the definition of audio description
Andrew: and disagree on how it’s read
… 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
… despite prevalence of these videos online today
… when the SC was crafted, this was the intent
… which is why the SC for Extended AD was AAA
… made clear in the notes of the definition of AD
… which I think was the error
… everyone who has responded *wants* the right thing
<Chuck> +1 everyone wants the best outcome for the users
Andrew: but that’s a different question than what the WG intended
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that there are millions of TikTok videos appearing daily that fit this scenario
mbgower: there are millions of TikTok videos coming out everyday that are designed to never have a pause
… so the argument that there aren’t any videos without pauses is invalid
… when it comes down to it, the normative text is what we have to go on
… and the normative text today say those videos fail
<julierawe> +1 to mbgower comment about many videos not having any pauses.
<kevin> +1 to what Mike is saying
<Laura_Carlson> +1 to Mike
mbgower: just because we have a AAA requirement doesn’t mean you can’t use extended AD with the AA
… so you can meet the AA with a video that has no pauses
… so we have to be super careful
… we must provide more guidance
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what is the challenge we are trying to solve?
<bbailey> -1 to mbgower that the normative text passes the type of TickTock videos referred to.
Chuck: I’m acknowledging that there are substantial differences in interpretation
… but what are we trying to solve
… are we agreeing that this is technically the correct outcome, but not the desired?
… and we want to change the normative text?
… I agree with Mike that it clearly fails the plain language
… but if these are resulting in undesired outcome, then I can shift my thinking
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention both camps point to only the TR space doc as literally supporting their position
<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
<Andrew> In standard audio description, narration is added during existing pauses in dialogue. (See also extended audio description.)
bbailey: just want to reinforce that both camps point to the normative language
<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.
bbailey: that’s the heart of the matter
<Andrew> +AWK
bbailey: we don’t do things by voting
… but I agree that we need to do something
kevin: I’m not keen on fixing this in the Understanding doc
… because there is evident confusion within the normative language
<bbailey> +1 to NOT fixing via Understanding
kevin: we do have an upcoming opportunity to look at normative changes
… particularly around internationalization
… this is an opportune moment
… writing it in line with *what the intent was*
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on intent of writing vs how people read it now (not just what they want now).
kevin: not keen on accepting an interpretation of the original intent if the plain normative language doesn’t support it
alastairc: I think next steps are to get some proposals on the table
… my proposal will be to do 2 things:
… 1) errata for the current one — if there are no gaps, then it’s not suitable for AD, see the AAA version
<bbailey> +1 to addressing (one way or the other) via errata
alastairc: 2) an adjustment of 1.2.3 — if there are no gaps, then you must have a text transcript
<Wilco> strong -1 to Alastair's proposal
alastairc: that would go into the next version of the WCAG series
… if you have an alternative proposal, please write it up
GN015: I want to suggest the same as alastairc
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we want the scenario to fail?
Chuck: I agree with bbailey
… I have an interpretation when I read the normative text, but others come to the complete opposite conclusion
… so in that case, I don’t know what to propose to fix
<bbailey> +1 to Chuck, that yes, strict textualists come to different conclusion!
Chuck: is it our intent or was it the original intent that it *should* pass? or that it *should* fail?
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to ask if we can create a new SC in the WCAG 2.next?
Chuck: which is best and most appropriate for our users
Andrew: to alastairc’s point, if there’s a next version of WCAG 2.X
… is it on the table to solve this with a new SC that speaks to the specific case to clarify that point?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on which direction
Andrew: or are we only talking about shifting language within the existing SC and/or definitions
alastairc: we haven’t had a big group discussion about this
… we were cooling on the idea of a new 2.X because it was so difficult to get new SC into that series
… and backwards compatibility
… so I think in this case, if it were tightening the requirements it would be straightforward
… to reply to Chuck
… 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
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say that "original intent" is not something to vote upon
bbailey: +1 to alastairc
… that was the original intent
<alastairc> proposals please!
Chuck: our next steps are to craft proposals
<shadi> +1 to Alastair, I have the same recollection of the intent at the time
Chuck: please submit some
… alastairc, anything else to wrap up?
alastairc: proposals, please 🙏
Reminder about upcoming time changes
Introduce survey on conformance
Chuck: I’ll stop sharing
… Rachael, will you lead?
Rachael: yes
… this conversation is a follow-up
… we had a previous conversation around a conformance proposal
… and conversations from past few months
… wanted to pull out a point of confusion
… and make sure people are on the same page, even if we don’t agree
… for this proposal, there were 3 sizes of mandatory provisions
<kirkwood> can share presentation link?
Rachael: provisions means the collection of requirements
… the whole bucket of things people might test
… from mandatory, we’re talking about requirements that MUST be done
… there is complexity around terminology
… we know we need work on these terms, but the deck is consistent with itself
… one possible scoping is prerequisite set
… a very tiny set of provisions that are essentially no physical harm
… and ensuring things are detectable
… the second
… scoped to WCAG 2 A & AA
… we have pretty much thrown this out because it doesn’t solve equity issues
… and doesn’t necessarily make sense
… third option is foundational set
… A & AA plus additional similar requirements
… does everyone understand terminology?
Wilco: could you speak slightly more about “detectable”?
<CarrieH> Adam_Page that was my question
Rachael: images with content can be detected, text content, programmatically “there”
… so that AT can hook into it
Rachael: option 1 has 2 bins: small prerequisite set and large supplemental/assertion set
… because optional set is larger, higher percentage levels for bronze/silver/gold
… something like 70% to 80% before Bronze
… as a comparison point with other options
… there are risks of content being less accessible than using WCAG 2.2
… it does provide authors more flexibility
… may make auditing more complex because there is a larger potential set
… but there may be less work because of easier tests
<Andrew> @alistair probably the same but very rarely used.
Rachael: provides a more apparent, longer ladder of improvement
… see improvement over time
<alastairc> @Andrew huh, I was under the impression it was more of a categorisation thing.
Rachael: draft rules pulled together based on this concept
… prerequisite set would be: detectable (haven’t hidden something deliberately)
… info conveyed by a single means (e.g., color alone)
… e.g., if the AT can’t handle it
… functionality relying on a single mechanism
… and then it doesn’t cause physical harm (e.g., flashing)
<Andrew> @alistair in US I would guess that bin is most commonly preceded by "recycling"
Rachael: there would be about 21 prerequisites in the set
… that would leave us 171 supplemental
… WCAG 2 A& AA not included in the prereq set
… more detailed quality checks
… things that are harder to define or implement
… stiil wiggle room of complexity
… option 2
… Foundational and Supplemental/Assertions
… there was a lot of concern about WCAG 2.2 requirements not being in the mandatory set
… in this option, much larger Foundational set
… and low percentage levels for B/S/G — e.g., 10 to 20% to get to Bronze
… pros and cons
… A & AA would be part of the foundational set; reduces risk of a less accessible result
… less flexibility for authors though
… may make auditing less complex
… because the mandatory set is larger
… but also more work because you have to test more
… shorter ladder for improvement
… draft rules
… for categorization
… foundational would be about 120, supplemental would be about 51
… supplemental would include higher level reqs, like target size
… things that go beyond existence and clarify what is “good”
… things harder to implement, such as ASL interpreting
… things that aren’t always applicable
… this is meant to start our conversation today
… any clarifying questions?
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about the concern of lower levels than AA
shadi: thank you
… what is the concern around having levels lower than AA?
… regulations currently point to AA, but we still have A
… imagine we had 5 levels
… and only level 3 was comparable to AA
… with 2 levels below
… why would that be a concern?
… it could be an on-ramp for certain sectors
… for policy makers
Rachael: the concern was about losing requirements
… we’ve pushed on this 2 different times
… and there was strong — but not unanimous — consensus of not wanting to go below level A and AA
<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.
<shadi> +1 to Jon
Rachael: I think we need to have that discussion again
… the second time we brought it back was around AD
… and there was a very strong pushback that we can’t *lose* something that’s in 2
… whatever we drop, we need to remember there will be a group that cares
shadi: what does it mean to “drop”?
Rachael: to move it out of mandatory set
<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
alastairc: when you talk about binning, is that categorization or a discarding?
Rachael: categorization
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
… because i use them so rarely
… always have to remind myself of the exact wording
… one of the advantages of less foundational and you get to choose which supplemental to do
… is that it requires people to *read* them all
… so that they can choose which they will try to satisfy
… I feel that’s a big advantage
… 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
… there are ways to get around that
… we could say in our policy documentation things like “if it’s educational, then this set of supplementary provisions are required...”
… flexibility gives people more of a ladder
… working your way up a percentage
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to observe that this draft rules for requirement categorization fits well to "foundational" and "supplemental"
bbailey: what I like about this grouping is that the foundational category has a name
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask what "mandatory" means
shadi: I’m still lost on what it means for something to be “mandatory”
<Rachael> madatory = required to get to bronze
shadi: in WCAG 2, we have 3 levels — there is no “mandatory”
… policy makers decide
… in the past, some laws have required that *home* pages be AAA
… “mandatory” is decided by the policy and we have provided the levels to help them make that decision
Rachael: talking in the context of this proposed conformance model
… mandatory is what’s required to get to bronze
… *compliance* for policy is a different set
… within this proposed conformance model, that set would have to be done
… versus the other, where some percentage would need to be done
… this model seemed to have the most momentum
graham: what if we just went away with levels
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change
graham: and clearly identify which are for safety
<Chuck> 2 minutes to scribe change
graham: most companies get to AA and then stop
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to share slides from the CSUN pres
graham: “these are all the things you should do” and let someone else decide what’s mandatory
<Jon_Avila> Would folks trust the lawmakers to know and interpret which individual criteria to require?
alastairc: when we talk about mandatory
… if you’ve got the foundational, you have to do all of those no matter what
… to conform
… and then we’ve got set of supplemental assertions
… you could set foundational at prerequisite level
… but then you’ve got higher proportion of things people can pick & choose
<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.
alastairc: not changing the level; changing the flexibility
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
<kirkwood> if it is mandatory, is it a foundational requirement?
<shadi> +1 to Kevin
<Jon_Avila> +1 to Kevin
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
<alastairc> graham - that's essentially what we are doing, setting the % number
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?
<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.
Rachael The last time we talked about this, the group was thinking no, assertions could not be foundational.
Rachael I think there could be a benefit to having some foundational assertions
Rachael Example: If I assert that I have done a plain language review, then it could trade off the plain language requirement.
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.
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.
graham: This would put the onus on larger companies.
Rachael: We could make recommendations to policymakers on whether/how to factor in company size.
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.
<Jon_Avila> Should small businesses not have to put in ramps or accessible bathrooms?
<Detlev> Unfortunately have to be AFK for 20 mins
<Jon_Avila> Laws like EAA already exempt micro-enterprises.
graham: Jurisdictions could decide whether to exclude rather than include.
Rachael: How will this affect harmonization?
Rachael: What happens if we start seeing real differences between jurisdictions? How does that affect companies?
<Wilco> +1 Rachael, consistency in what's required is critical
Rachael: How will this affect the more complicated requirements if we don't have them categorized in the same way?
Chuck: One of the advantages is harmonization so we can say we conform to this set of standards/regulations.
Chuck: If you allow local variability, that may create lack of harmonization. (Chair hat off.)
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on difficulty of assessing size and reasonableness, and ruler not rule.
<shadi> +1 to Alastair -- reasonableness is for policy makers to define
<kirkwood> ruler not rule !!
alastairc: (Chair hat off.) I don't see this working. Gave universities with small budget as an example.
graham: 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.
graham: 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?
<Jon_Avila> Some high revenue companies only have a small number of employees.
<alastairc> graham - it's not one scale, it's multiple scales...
graham: 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.
graham: It feels like a way to not have to do a lot of mental gymnastics.
graham: It would be a way to see not applicable or do it.
Scribe issue: I thought Ben was speaking earlier. Not sure who was speaking them
<alastairc> julierawe - I think that was graham, I'll adjust, you carry on
Ben_Tillyer: If no legislation in your local country, you would be overwhelmed and would have no idea where to start.
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.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention that historically regulators have made implement dates and details based on size of organizations or other criteria
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?
<bbailey> historically regulators have made implement dates and details based on size of organizations or other criteria
bbailey: I agree with staying away from size of organization
shadi: I'm not a fan of percentages. I think they can be very tricky.
<kirkwood> +1 to not agreeing with percentages
shadi: What can we do to not call too much attention to minor issues, such as no alt text for something non-essential.
shadi: Are there ways to try to be realistic?
<alastairc> Andrew - pages / views
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that I think as the experts we should take on the hard lift
<bbailey> +1 to Shadi that binary aspect of SC (all SC, all pages, all the time) has not prevented wide adoption of WCAG2x
Rachael: Regarding percentages, they can be tricky but I personally don't see how we avoid using them. They are important for COGA.
Rachael: The other proposals we've looked at without percentages just keep creating complexity when we try to think about equity across groups.
Rachael: We haven't talked about having no levels at all before, so I'm glad we talked about it today.
Rachael: I would prefer we keep the hardest lift in this group. Very smart people to be having these discussions.
<Wilco> +1 We need to make that decision. Nobody will do a better job of it than this group
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.
<kirkwood> +1
<Ben_Tillyer> /me make sure that thing about how great we are is minuted, I have my annual review at work tomorrow...
Rachael: We want to survey to see where the group is.
<bbailey> +1.../to Wilco, that this group are the right people to make these sort of decisions
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.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to state my understanding of what percentages means in this context
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..
<alastairc> Chuck - instance vs requirement? Scoring could be either
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to comment on the challenge of bug failures
<mbgower> +1 to how Chuck is differentiating between 'pick a number of these reqs' and 'meet the req a percentage of the time'
Chuck: I have less anxiety about a company getting to choose how many so you can achieve your conformance level.
<shadi> thanks, Chuck
<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to ask if conformance is still based on pages
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.
Andrew: I asked and Alastair answered if this conformance model is still a page-based model.
Andrew: People tend to report on a series of pages or workflows.
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.
Andrew: How do we craft a conformance model that works in the real world?
<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
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on balancing realistic in what fails, and realistic in testing.
alastairc: There are some mechanisms, assertions that can be more widespread. There's also policy guidance we can add.
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.
alastairc: We couldn't see a way to make it work.
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.
LoriO: Most people look at things for a site. They aren't looking for a component on this one page.
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.
LoriO: I'm not sure the percentages are the right way to go.
LoriO: If we aren't using percentages, what else could we use?
shadi: In response to kevin and alastairc, I understand policy makers need to think about what is acceptable or not.
<kevin> +1 to providing guidance on how to address these issues
shadi: I see the point about providing supporting documents for policymakers.
shadi: Certain guidelines have more impact than others.
<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, ...
shadi: Now that we're breaking guidelines into smaller units, we can also say more about the impact of each requirement.
shadi: These things need to be built into the normative part so we can build on them for the reporting aspect.
<kirkwood> A percentage means we have a numerator and a denominator. What are they? If so, let’s precisely define them.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on policy guidance for sampling / scoring.
alastairc: What do we have in our conformance model and what guidance do we have for people implementing our conformance model.
alastairc: It will be helpful to keep as simple as possible.
alastairc: You say you meet all of the foundational and you specify which supplementals you are meeting.
alastairc: We could do a reference document saying these are the kinds of pages you should include.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to severity.
alastairc: If we try to build any of that into the normative text, that would get very complicated very quickly.
<shadi> I only meant build in hooks, not the full details
<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.
<kirkwood> asserting that one meets? or asserting that there is a process to meet?
Rachael: Regarding severity, we have tried several times over the past years to try to build in severity.
Rachael: It is so context-dependent, such as the alt text for a decorative image versus for a button.
<alastairc> Shadi - yes, we have considered tagging, e.g. these are important for education.
Rachael: It's hard to write out as a conformance model.
Rachael: We could include a note that this is an area we want to explore.
Rachael: We have not been successful in trying to write it out.
<alastairc> Core issue with severity - the type of issue (without context) does not correlate with the severity.
Rachael: The chairs are tasked to move this group forward. We want to get a draft out in December.
Rachael: We are aiming for a developing draft. Not ready for refining.
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.
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.
<Ben_Tillyer> Thanks all!
julierawe: Just wondering for this survey, how long do we have to respond?
rachael: COB next monday.
Julierawe: That's a tight turnaround for Coga, can we extend?
Rachael: We need survey responses by close of business next Monday so we can discuss at Tuesday's AG meeting.
Rachael: Thrashing is also an issue that was raised, and we are trying to stay on this topic to shape next week's conversation.
Rachael: We aren't making a final decision. This is about shaping next week's conversation.
WCAG3 provisions review continuation
Chuck: We've been going through exercise of having subgroups review latest draft of WCAG 3.
Chuck: The exercise involved thinking about a specific site and whether it would pass or fail the WCAG 3 provisions.
<GN015> Can you please share the link to the survey?
Chuck: Subgroups were also invited to identify any concerns or changes needed to the draft,
Rachael: I will update and send out the survey.
Chuck: For those who have been doing this WCAG 3 exercise, does anyone have any thoughts or comments on the exercise?
<alastairc> The main folder: https://
Chuck: Individuals should make a copy of the main spreadsheet and append your name to the end of your copy.
graham: What are we doing about the assertions?
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.
<alastairc> Instructions for the task: https://
alastairc: If the assertion is about something the organization had never considered, I'd say fail.
<alastairc> Again, the main thing isn't the pass/fail, it is whether the provisions are understandable, feasible, etc.
Chuck: I tried to be forgiving but reasonable.
Rachael: Reminder that the main purpose is are the requirements and assertions understandable.
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.
alastairc: This is usability testing of the provisions.
<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)
<alastairc> Instructions for the task: https://
Instructions for the task: https://