Meeting minutes
Julie to clear the speaker cue
WCAG 3 conformance survey
<julierawe> https://
Survey about wcag 3 conformance models
we are debating 2 right now
<julierawe> Slides 15-23 are especially helpful
Rachael to cover context about conformance model 15-23 are especially helpful
On slide deck starting with Types of provisions
outlining the terminology
<julierawe> Slide 4 explains the types of possible provisions—foundational, supplemental, assertions, and best practices. One possible alternative to "foundational requirements" is the term "prerequisites."
<julierawe> Jennie_Delisi: We're looking at Slide 7 of this deck: https://
<Jennie_Delisi> Thank you Julie!
slide 7 levels of conformance Bronze, Silver and Gold
Slide 22 is a visual representative of the Comparison options.
Julie: one thing helpful, darkblue bin is no choice - requires all requirements. Light blue areas, some choice meaning the organisation get the choose but would requires some equity.
Bin = Foundational Requirements
<julierawe> EA: We're looking at Slide 23 in this deck: https://
<EA> Thank you so much - apologies for being late.
<kirkwood> +1 to Lisa
Lisa: Could we end up with people doing a bronze % but the submit being inaccessible ?
<kirkwood> Is that a yes/no to Lisa. I’m curious too
Racheal: relates back to the model slide 22.
<kirkwood> {above was my question} think the submit example is a good one
<kirkwood> we got caught legally by that one
<Rachael> https://
^^^ acknowledged your response John
Julie: group to think about. marked as foundational part of the plain language group. We have tried to add as many things into this from COGA. Do you see there being a battle of foundational vs supplimental in the future?
(if we go with option 2)
Racheal: foresees battles for both.
Racheal reframes "battles" to "guidance"
Lisa steps in for Racheal
Lisa points out bias to screen readers as likely to go into as foundational compared to COGA, this is her concern.
<julierawe> Lisa Is your fear that Option 2 will be worse for COGA than Option 1?
<julierawe> I agree with Lisa that Option 1 seems like it will be easier/less hard to decide what counts as prerequisites rather than years-long battle with Option 2 to decide what counts as Foundational
I agree also with Lisa / Julie
<julierawe> Rachael do you see Option 1 as being better for COGA than Option 2?
Julie to Racheal? If option1 better than option2?
*is
<kirkwood> aAdditionall are we concerned that the term supplemental will mean that it doesn’t need to be done. Correct? Is it supplemental for all categories of disability? Nothing supplemental will be adopted in legal regs. Outside of specific category/type of disability law suits. Feel bad, especially for the aging in this, then.
Racheal: predicts 2 years to completion
<julierawe> kirkwood: "Supplemental" as a term is likely to change. You must do some percentage of "supplemental" to reach even the lowest conformance level.
No final decision on conformance models
Julie: "Supplemental" likely to change
Racheal: We can't write the laws but we can build in flexibility and recommend.
Charli: comments that she thinks this is about framing or how we frame this...
<EA> +1 to what Charlie is saying
<kirkwood> Based on experience, (as a former regulator) concerned about adoption into regs (+ policy & procedures)? Having written them it doesn’t seem possible for me at this point…just trying to vision it at this point. Just don’t want to eliminate that possibility. But do appreciate the effort.
<gareth> +1 charli
<kirkwood> Plain language is in NYS Law
<kirkwood> and Federal Requirements
<kirkwood> Federal plain language requires clarity in documents related to government benefits, taxes, and requirements, whereas New York's law focuses on specific areas like consumer contracts and agency communication for its diverse population.
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss cognitive load for training large orgs
<kirkwood> +1 to Jennie
Jennie: Share some of groups concerns.. i think the user in both senarios would be options 2 due to cognitive load - easier for training - multiple vendors reporting would be similar.
<Charli> +1 to Jennie
<kirkwood> Works will with meeting the law
<julierawe> I am asking Rachael to walk us through the possible responses to the conformance survey, which must be submitted by the end of today: https://
<kirkwood> Well said, Jennie
<Rachael> Survey: https://
December draft
<Jennie_Delisi> Thank you for having this discussion today, Lisa, Julie, Rachel - really helpful to prepare to vote.
<kirkwood> Can i ask what Jennie’s concerns are with option 2?
<kirkwood> (even though she picked it)
<kirkwood> yes!
<kirkwood> thank you
<julierawe> Use the "Comments" box to express your concerns about specific aspects of Option 1 or 2
Thank you Racheal
<kirkwood> This has been very very good to get a better understanding (of the thoughts behind the survey). Thanks Rachael!
<Rachael> Thank you all for taking the time!
<EA> Yes the term supplemental tends to mean it is an extra.... thank you so much for explaining it all.
<kirkwood> Thank you Rachael and all