14:55:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:55:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/28-ag-irc
14:55:27 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:55:28 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:55:29 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
14:56:39 <alastairc> agenda?
14:56:39 <alastairc> zakim, clear agenda
14:56:39 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:57:03 <GreggVan> present+
14:57:15 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG 2 changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0019.html
14:57:32 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG 3 conformance survey https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conf_20_oct_25/?login=
14:57:50 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG3 provisions review continuation
14:58:18 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #ag
14:59:34 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
14:59:34 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
14:59:44 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:00:11 <BBailey> BBailey has joined #ag
15:00:18 <BBailey> present+
15:00:27 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:01:10 <alastairc> present+
15:01:23 <shadi> present+
15:01:25 <hdv> scribe: hdv
15:01:38 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:01:40 <mbgower> present+
15:01:42 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:01:47 <julierawe> present+
15:01:49 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:02:04 <Rayianna> Rayianna has joined #ag
15:02:07 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:02:12 <Rayianna> present+
15:02:22 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:02:59 <hdv> alastairc: does anyone want to (re)introduce themselves, because they're new to the group or changed affiliation?
15:02:59 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #ag
15:02:59 <alastairc> TOPIC: Annoucments and Intros
15:03:01 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:03:08 <Jon_Avila> present+
15:03:19 <hdv> illai: nice to meet you all, I am Illai from Evinced. First time for me to join this meeting, honoured to join this group.
15:03:29 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
15:03:32 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:03:38 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:03:39 <jtoles> present+
15:03:53 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:04:31 <hdv> Chuck: next week is the @@@ Tuesday of the month, we'll run an onboarding meeting 30 mins before the regular meeting, using the same Zoom link as this call
15:04:41 <LoriO> present+
15:04:42 <hdv> s/@@@/first
15:04:45 <Makoto> present+
15:04:50 <BBailey> q+ for ANSI ?
15:04:55 <Illai2> Illai2 has joined #ag
15:04:58 <LoriO> ];
15:04:59 <AWK> +AWK
15:05:01 <BBailey> https://www.w3.org/press-releases/2025/wcag22-iso-pas/
15:05:05 <alastairc> q?
15:05:08 <alastairc> ack BBailey
15:05:08 <Zakim> BBailey, you wanted to discuss ANSI ?
15:05:15 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
15:05:15 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
15:05:18 <hdv> BBailey: some news to share, WCAG 2.2 was adapted as an ISO standard right after our call last week
15:05:18 <elguerrero> present+
15:05:23 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:05:25 <Charu> present+
15:05:33 <AWK> q+
15:05:34 <AlinaV> present+
15:05:39 <alastairc> ack AWK
15:05:41 <Lisa> present+  (may need to leave early)
15:05:43 <kevin> q+
15:05:47 <GreggVan> q+
15:05:49 <hdv> alastairc: this way you can pay for the standard, but it is available free on the W3C website
15:05:50 <Illai2> present+
15:05:54 <hdv> Chuck: I believe it's free on the ISO website?
15:05:56 <alastairc> ack kevin
15:06:00 <BrianE> present+
15:06:11 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:06:22 <hdv> kevin: yes it is free, but they link to WCAG 2… if you go to ISO you don't have to buy it
15:07:00 <hdv> kevin: this is quite a big think, certainly for certain Asian countries, China in particular, who can only use standards from certain standards organisations, ISO being one of them
15:07:12 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:07:21 <kirkwood> Well done!
15:07:59 <BBailey> s/quite a big think/quite a big thing/
15:08:12 <Daniel> q+
15:08:15 <hdv> GreggVan: the strange thing about it, if you go through the front door, it will ask you to pay, but there is link that you can follow that will not charge you… so you have to find the right entry
15:08:27 <Makoto> Japanese national standard (JIS X 8341-3) will be updated by adopting ISO/IEC 40500:2025.
15:08:33 <alastairc> ack Daniel
15:09:06 <hdv> Daniel: will need to follow up with ISO to see what's going on re paid vs not paid link
15:09:14 <BBailey> q+ to ask if CFC on WCAG2 passed?
15:09:24 <alastairc> ack BBailey
15:09:24 <Zakim> BBailey, you wanted to ask if CFC on WCAG2 passed?
15:09:45 <alastairc> agenda?
15:09:58 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:09:58 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2 changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0019.html -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:10:42 <hdv> mbgower: we send these out bi-weekly, and then there's a 2 week window for folks to review
15:10:45 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:10:49 <alastairc> Bi-weekly as in once every two weeks.
15:10:50 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:11:07 <hdv> mbgower: there's different kinds of changes that we list
15:11:32 <hdv> mbgower: 'editorial changes' are intended to be small changes that clarify what's already there, quite often they are style changes
15:11:44 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:11:51 <Rain> present+
15:11:52 <hdv> mbgower: we also have proposed responses to issues, where we don't intend to create a PR. Where we feel it's worth getting input from the WG
15:12:11 <hdv> mbgower: finally we also have bugs that we fix, we implement those and let folks know they have happened, this includes typos
15:12:20 <hdv> mbgower: usually we do batches of about 10-12 issues
15:13:30 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:13:33 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:13:34 <hdv> mbgower: the current review goes until Thursday evening,  you have a few more days to look at it
15:13:48 <alastairc> q?
15:14:22 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:14:22 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 3 conformance survey https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conf_20_oct_25/?login= -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:14:57 <hdv> alastairc: the survey is open and we've received lots of comments
15:15:04 <BBailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conf_20_oct_25/results/
15:15:09 <hdv> alastairc: last week we've been looking at the WCAG 3 conformance model
15:15:18 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:15:28 <Jen_G> Present+
15:15:41 <hdv> alastairc: we distinguish foundational and supplemental, and then assertions, which are slightly different
15:16:29 <GreggVan> q+
15:17:03 <hdv> alastairc: option 1 was to have a basic set of prerequisite requirements, on top of which authors can make claims in gold/silver/bronze categories
15:17:31 <BBailey> s/survey is open/was opened/
15:17:48 <hdv> alastairc: option 2 would be to have many more things in foundational requirements, and then have gold/silver/bronze on top, which would require you to get to a certain percentage for functional needs
15:18:48 <hdv> alastairc: to give you an idea, at the moment roughly half requirements are foundational
15:19:14 <hdv> alastairc: looking at the results, there is not much support for option 1
15:19:22 <hdv> alastairc: there is more support for option 2
15:19:39 <hdv> alastairc: and quite a few comments and ideas for neither option 1 or 2
15:19:45 <hdv> alastairc: one thing to tackle is the percentages aspect
15:20:47 <hdv> alastairc: around TPAC last year we were talking about conformance, and as a group we talked about a certain level of requirements and then a certain level that would be scored or percentage, we didn't decide about the mechanism yet. This would allow people to 'choose' which requirements to apply
15:20:55 <hdv> alastairc: it's not entirely 'pick and choose' but there is a level of flexibility
15:21:07 <hdv> alastairc: this survey was intended to be a refinement of that TPAC discussion
15:21:26 <hdv> alastairc: there were quite a few suggestions around having fixed levels and not having percentages.
15:21:54 <alastairc> q+
15:21:57 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:22:17 <hdv> GreggVan: if somebody meets WCAG and you add one provision, all percentages go down and they fail to meet WCAG
15:22:32 <hdv> GreggVan: you change the denominator if you would… so things that passed would suddenly fail
15:22:32 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
15:22:46 <hdv> GreggVan: so for mathematical reasons you have to take percentages of the table
15:23:10 <alastairc> q+ on the percentages, and the pick and choose.
15:23:27 <AWK> Couldn't we update the percentages when new criteria are added in the future?
15:23:34 <hdv> GreggVan: a simple site may not even involve some things
15:24:04 <hdv> GreggVan: I'm worried some sites will suddenly fail WCAG where previously they passed when we introduce new requirements.
15:24:13 <kirkwood> I echo Greggs concerns
15:24:59 <hdv> alastairc: taking chair hat off… I don't see how using percentages would be different to, say, doing an update to WCAG 2.2… existing sites that met WCAG 2.1 will fail the added 2.2 requirements, that's nothing new
15:25:09 <GreggVan> q+
15:25:18 <hdv> alastairc: I don't really see how that is different from how it currently works… the math would have to be adjusted on that basis anyway
15:25:21 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:25:21 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the percentages, and the pick and choose.
15:25:31 <mbgower> +1 to Alastair; a new version has more requirements, ergo something that passed prior can fail new
15:26:04 <hdv> alastairc: then re 'pick and choose': I see this as the best argument for having some kind of percentages or scoring… currently AAA gets ignored as most regulators pick A + AA. I don't personally have AAA reqs top of mind.
15:26:25 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:26:42 <hdv> alastairc: if people have to bump their percentage up, they will look at more requirements, deciding which one to pick, and be cognizant of the different requirements, which today they wouldn't
15:27:13 <hdv> GreggVan: everything in AAA was only in there because it was not testable or that it was impossible to meet everywhere… 
15:28:06 <Lisa> hugely disagree with what Greg is saying
15:28:07 <hdv> GreggVan: here we're talking about adding options, things you don't have to do, because you add one more they now fail because you're adding the percentage
15:28:23 <hdv> GreggVan: they should fail if you add a requirement, but that's not what you're adding, you're adding one more option
15:28:40 <alastairc> q?
15:28:41 <Chuck> q+ to say I don't think we fail.
15:28:48 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:28:48 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't think we fail.
15:28:52 <kirkwood> “optional requirement” is an oxymoron
15:29:30 <GreggVan> q+
15:29:36 <Lisa> +1 to chuck
15:29:38 <kirkwood> q+
15:29:41 <mbgower> @kirkwood we have optional requirements all over the place; they are inherent in the wording of some SCs.
15:29:42 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:29:48 <hdv> Chuck: I'm not a fan of percentages either, but in their defense… if after 3.0 we publish 3.1, the percentages for 3.0 would still be valid for 3.0, you would not suddenly start failing what you previously passed in 3.0,  your results are still good for that version.
15:30:01 <mbgower> (i.e., meet this requirement by doing one of the following)
15:30:11 <BBailey> From WCAG2 5.2.1 Note 2 on conformance levels:
15:30:12 <BBailey> It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content.
15:30:15 <shadi> q+
15:30:28 <BBailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#cc1
15:30:30 <hdv> GreggVan: but we want people to switch to it. We'd never say when we publish 2.2, that people don't need to switch to it or that they can stick to 2.0
15:30:36 <mbgower> q+
15:30:48 <hdv> alastairc: but it's adding new requirements so the same thing like with WCAG 2 versions
15:30:56 <hdv> GreggVan: but we're not adding new requirements, they're options
15:31:39 <shadi> q-
15:32:56 <hdv> GreggVan: we don't want folks to meet the easiest requirements, we want them to pick the ones with most impact. If we say the optional ones don't need to be tested that makes no sense
15:33:07 <hdv> GreggVan: the percentage does not allow us to put one single AAA item in Bronze
15:33:40 <julierawe> +1 to getting some assertions into the must-do bucket
15:33:45 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
15:33:56 <alastairc> q+ on "less conformance"
15:33:56 <hdv> kirkwood: we wont' get less conformance when we do percentages
15:34:05 <hdv> kirkwood: I'm not sure we can do that
15:34:28 <hdv> kirkwood: it needs to be clearly state what the whole is and what the smaller number is
15:34:34 <hdv> kirkwood: then we can figure out the percentage thing
15:34:37 <alastairc> ack mbgower
15:34:58 <GreggVan> q+
15:35:04 <hdv> mbgower: I'd like to tackle a few things… first, anywhere there's an 'or' in existing requirements there's an optional requirement
15:35:17 <BBailey> q+ to speak to "no one meets WCAG now" camp (if chair still looking for that)...
15:35:23 <alastairc> q-
15:35:30 <alastairc> q+
15:35:49 <hdv> mbgower: we have optional requirements built in to our current requirements. I don't see this WCAG 3 conformance model to be that different
15:36:23 <hdv> mbgower: secondly, if you have a baseline of requirements that are designed to prevent harm, that's good
15:36:44 <kirkwood> Repectfully disagree with Mke: those are not optional requiremen s with an ‘or’ statement: one of two ways to meet a requirement.
15:37:01 <hdv> mbgower: there is obvs a dark side to this, when someone intentionally games it… but this lets people have a mechanism to show improved outcomes
15:37:07 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:37:08 <hdv> mbgower: this is not either/or, there are nuances to this
15:38:00 <hdv> GreggVan: the argument we have optional requirements is not correct we have optional methods
15:38:34 <hdv> GreggVan: we all agree WCAG 3 is going to be better than WCAG 2. The key to making it better is going to come from figuring out how to get things in that we couldn't get into 2.2
15:38:52 <hdv> GreggVan: we need to figure out how to get the untestable ones used in practice
15:39:38 <alastairc> q?
15:39:46 <alastairc> ack BBailey
15:39:46 <Zakim> BBailey, you wanted to speak to "no one meets WCAG now" camp (if chair still looking for that)...
15:40:11 <BBailey> https://www.section508.gov/manage/section-508-assessment/
15:40:40 <alastairc> ack AlinaV
15:40:48 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:40:49 <hdv> BBailey: in the context of US federal government, @@@, so I'm not overly alarmed by percentages
15:41:16 <hdv> alastairc: chair hat on… to take a step back… why we're looking at this in the first place. We had a few requirements where we wanted to encourage people to do more
15:41:25 <GreggVan> q+  to say   % conformance   is different than % required.
15:41:26 <hdv> alastairc: the alternative to percentages is basically that we define the levels
15:41:41 <shadi> s/@@@/assessments based on self-reporting indicate hardly any agency meets the required WCAG 2 Level AA
15:42:24 <hdv> alastairc: how do we get people to keep going, or help them understand. If you aim for AA, the rest doesn't matter… there's no improvement path, you meet it or not. This is what we wanted to tackle with percentages
15:43:13 <hdv> alastairc: this is how we got to the point of having a lot of requirements. We can have more nuance in the requirements too, than we have in WCAG 2. If everyone has to meet everything at the same time, I don't think that's going to be an improvement
15:43:13 <BBailey> s/assessments based on self-reporting indicate hardly any agency meets the required WCAG 2 Level AA/Section 508 requires WCAG 2.AA and close (self) reporting uses percentages despite AA being everywhere all the time/
15:43:18 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:43:18 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   % conformance   is different than % required.
15:43:50 <hdv> GreggVan: Bruce was talking about % towards conformance, but that's different from % that is required.
15:44:12 <alastairc> q+ on what's important (/severity)
15:44:19 <BBailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
15:44:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/28-ag-minutes.html BBailey
15:45:12 <hdv> GreggVan: I'm worried folks will put the things they don't want to do, in the percentage of things they are not going to do, and then just add the things that don't even apply in the percentage they do want to meet.
15:45:20 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
15:46:25 <Lisa> +1 to mike
15:46:28 <BBailey> s/WCAG 2.AA/WCAG 2.0 AA/
15:46:29 <alastairc> q?
15:46:43 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:46:43 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on what's important (/severity)
15:47:30 <hdv> alastairc: on the topic of percentages… there's been a few comments around which reqs are more important than otehrs… if people have been doing the testing exercise that we had going for the last couple of weeks… you can see which ones we had as foundational and supplemental
15:48:16 <hdv> alastairc: hopefully you've seen that… going through the exercise, at the point where we had mostly foundational, I had a certain client in mind when I did this, and thought they met about 50% of requirements, but they actually missed many of the foundational ones.
15:48:28 <kirkwood> +1 to Mike (re: participation)
15:48:43 <hdv> alastairc: all requirements we've got down are important to some in some scenario.
15:49:02 <hdv> alastairc: would anyone who has not yet commented… have thoughts about percentages vs defining levels like A/AA/AA?
15:49:06 <kirkwood> levels
15:49:08 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:49:09 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:49:21 <Rain> +1 to defining levels
15:49:25 <Glenda> present+
15:50:02 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:50:07 <LenB> present+
15:50:07 <hdv> giacomo-petri: not really related to percentages… two important aspects to mention, one is severity… for the same criteria there can be so many different severity, depending on type or purpose of the element
15:50:19 <hdv> giacomo-petri: eg an image that is decorative has very different impact on end user
15:51:08 <alastairc> q?
15:51:11 <hdv> giacomo-petri: secondly, it was mentioned previously that percentages could stop progressing on accessibility… many organisations struggle to catch up on accessibility issues and getting in control of the issue. So it's not just knowledge and progress but also the impossibility to reach conformance for some
15:51:11 <shadi> q+
15:51:12 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
15:51:16 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:51:19 <GreggVan> invalid statement of choices.        it is not   % or  other way to get AAA in  --    % does not get AAA in .        We need to ask "if % wont work - what can we do to get AAA topics into practice since we cant require them.     AND are there some things that are in AAA that we can make testable or practical so they get into requirements
15:51:28 <hdv> shadi: I strongly support what giacomo-petri was saying
15:52:29 <LenB> q+
15:53:21 <AWK> +1 to Shadi
15:53:50 <hdv> shadi: we've done a lot of work on breaking down requirements to more specific ones, like 1.1.1 is now much more granular. Looking at that from the perspective of severity… might there be differences in impact eg between decorative images and lack of captions? Can we try to find something like a treshold, to account for 'things you've missed'
15:53:50 <Rain> +1 to Shadi, the concept of the negative score is very compelling
15:54:06 <alastairc> q?
15:54:31 <hdv> alastairc: we can continue to work on conformance but need something for our next draft and I'd like us to focus on that for this meeting
15:54:45 <GreggVan> q+ to say    suggestions for next draft conformance section
15:54:55 <alastairc> ack LenB
15:55:07 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:55:18 <stevef> present+
15:55:20 <hdv> LenB: I missed the survey deadline yesterday and emailed my comments
15:55:31 <LenB> * Accessible: Prerequisites met + severity score below threshold.
15:55:31 <LenB> * Functionally Inclusive: Accessible + balanced severity coverage across all disability cohorts.
15:55:31 <LenB> * Optimized: Accessible + low severity + inclusion of supplemental features.
15:55:32 <hdv> LenB: the idea of being more granular was intriguing to me.
15:55:49 <hdv> LenB: I've come up with a categorisation I posted above
15:56:00 <hdv> LenB: which kind of corresponds to a severity score
15:56:12 <shadi> +1 to LenB
15:56:44 <alastairc> q+ on how to we (centrally) account for the variety of contexts?
15:56:55 <kirkwood> +1 to Len
15:57:10 <kirkwood> Like his ideas
15:57:35 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:57:35 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    suggestions for next draft conformance section
15:57:36 <hdv> LenB: I am curious about when I do something like procurement… if I had this in front of me, this would help me make decisions better than percentages
15:58:08 <BBailey> +1 to Len B but I think "Accessible" should be foundational set (not prerequisites met)
15:58:34 <shadi> +1 to defining our goals for the conformance model i'm not sure we have that clearly documented and agreed to
15:58:43 <hdv> GreggVan: maybe we can collect ideas and then solicit for each what the pros and cons are
15:59:41 <shadi> q+
15:59:44 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:59:44 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how to we (centrally) account for the variety of contexts?
15:59:44 <kirkwood> Whenever percentages. Explicitly state the numerator and denominator
16:00:09 <Chuck> qq+ to ask for scribe change
16:00:34 <hdv> alastairc: re we define the levels… if we have levels like how LenB proposed, or A/AA/AAA… if regulators agree on a particular level, do the other levels matter?
16:00:39 <kirkwood> q+ to
16:00:53 <shadi> q- to
16:00:55 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:00:55 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to alastairc to ask for scribe change
16:00:56 <shadi> q+ kirkwood
16:01:08 <kirkwood> q+
16:01:17 <Lisa> Q+
16:01:23 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
16:01:23 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AWK
16:01:30 <AWK> Scribe: AWK
16:01:40 <alastairc> ack shadi
16:02:17 <AWK> SAZ: Looking through conformance discussions, not sure we have clarity on goals for conformance model
16:02:32 <AWK> ... Would be a step forward
16:02:36 <BBailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
16:02:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/28-ag-minutes.html BBailey
16:02:57 <AWK> ... on AC's question, what would additional levels bring?
16:03:22 <AWK> .... having something between levels to allow for a progression would bring some benefits for orgs
16:03:49 <AWK> ... or perhaps there are different levels for different sectors
16:03:49 <alastairc> scribe+ hdv
16:04:06 <GreggVan> q+    to say   1)  Bullet list(s) far superior to  explainer text.      Start with GOALs.       2)  Progress isnt making more things skippable.
16:04:11 <AWK> ... more options might give rule makers more options
16:04:17 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
16:04:24 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:04:28 <BBailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
16:04:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/28-ag-minutes.html BBailey
16:04:36 <AWK> Kirkwood: Want to state how well it has worked in the past
16:04:36 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:04:58 <AWK> ... having 3 levels was impt when I had 1000s of sites to deal with
16:05:16 <AWK> ... AAA was aspirational and for a goal
16:05:22 <AWK> ... AA was the legal bar
16:05:33 <AWK> ... A was a stepping stone
16:05:43 <AWK> ... worked well for that progression
16:05:52 <AWK> ... in courts, in policy, etc.
16:06:02 <julierawe> +1 to Kirkwood
16:06:05 <AWK> ... we should build on that
16:06:08 <alastairc> ack Lisa
16:06:36 <AWK> LS: put in a suggestion in the survey and a scratch pad for it
16:06:41 <Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2UyH02Xo0BgQJ6mzz3QGQN8zXmGSQk-pCALQdcNECQ/edit?tab=t.0
16:06:46 <AWK> ... I can summarize now or later
16:07:26 <AWK> ... four buckets - two required
16:07:49 <AWK> ... core which is criteria for basic use by PWD and doing no harm
16:08:11 <AWK> ... can users do the basic action
16:08:49 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:08:49 <AWK> ... we can break up criteria info smaller parts. Decorative text wouldn't be core but alt on a functional image would
16:09:00 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
16:09:08 <AWK> ... then criteria broekn up by functional needs
16:09:23 <AWK> s/broekn/broken
16:09:40 <Ben_Tillyer> That example works until you consider a journalist who requires the alt text of the "faculty photo" in great detail. It's impossible to determine the functional need as everyone visits webpages for different purposes.
16:09:45 <AWK> ... focuses on higher impact items to equalize between disabilities
16:10:14 <AWK> ... meant to be a starting point for discussion
16:10:37 <AWK> AC: Structure is similar to what has been proposed but difference in how items are assigned?
16:10:40 <AWK> LS: Yes
16:10:44 <alastairc> q?
16:10:47 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:10:47 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   1)  Bullet list(s) far superior to  explainer text.      Start with GOALs.       2)  Progress isnt making more things skippable.
16:10:53 <AWK> GV: two comments
16:11:19 <AWK> ... 1. short bulleted list of goals will encourage review and feedback
16:11:29 <alastairc> q+ on "skippable"
16:12:37 <AWK> ... The fact that people aren't fully conforming and making it easier to make more people conform is a false logical approach
16:13:00 <AWK> ... I think that if we find another thing to add, we should add it
16:13:17 <AWK> ... we don't want people to quit working sooner
16:13:32 <AWK> ... people need a clear target for work
16:13:32 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
16:14:01 <AWK> ... Lisa's work looks useful. We need to get more items in
16:14:57 <AWK> ... We should get some number (30%) into browsers to reduce level required by authors
16:15:02 <kirkwood> It is already being done in the browser with ai
16:15:14 <AWK> ... browsers and Gen AI should help and then we can get a shorter list
16:15:15 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:15:15 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on "skippable"
16:15:23 <AWK> AC: two points
16:15:27 <Mbgower> Mbgower has joined #ag
16:15:34 <AWK> ... on AI bit - discussion at TPAC on this
16:15:58 <AWK> ... in meantime we should include req and if AI helps then it is automatically passed.
16:16:25 <AWK> ... also (chair hat off) wanted to mention that if we have a set of things for people to do
16:16:35 <AWK> ... meeting mins across functional needs
16:16:47 <AWK> ... I don't see things in there that are very skippable
16:17:23 <AWK> ... if those types of content are included the % that needs to be done goes up
16:17:38 <AWK> ... I don't see %s as making things skippable or equivalent to AAA
16:17:59 <alastairc> q?
16:18:00 <AWK> ... supplemental is made up of bits of AA, some AAA, process things
16:18:27 <AWK> ... we seem to have one primary decision for the next dfaft
16:18:58 <AWK> ... we can put in a proposal and also share goals and signal that it isn't mature and need feedback
16:19:15 <AWK> ... how to deal with?
16:19:22 <alastairc> Draft Poll: For the next draft do we continue with foundational + percentages (answer "P"), or we define all levels (answer "D")
16:19:37 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:19:43 <GreggVan> q+
16:19:46 <AWK> q+
16:19:53 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
16:20:10 <GN015> I feel we haven't discussed the new suggestions sufficiently to decide this already.
16:20:10 <AWK> Jennie: COGA reviewed info on slides showing categories yesterday
16:20:26 <Mbgower> Mbgower has joined #ag
16:20:31 <AWK> ... if a company wants to compare products to compare accessibility
16:20:41 <AWK> ... each company could be reporting on different things
16:20:50 <AWK> ... may complicate that sort of comparison
16:20:52 <GN015> +1 to Jennie
16:20:55 <kirkwood> +1 to Jennie
16:21:24 <AWK> ... impacts end user experiences ultimately
16:21:38 <alastairc> q+ on conformance vs reporting
16:21:48 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:22:05 <AWK> GV: What about listing goals?
16:22:23 <AWK> AC: little of both. Editing.
16:22:46 <Chuck> Draft Poll: For the next draft do we continue with foundational + percentages (answer "P"), or we define all levels (answer "D")
16:23:15 <alastairc> Draft Poll: For the next draft do we continue with foundational + percentages (answer "P"), or we define all levels (answer "D"), or remove all and list goals + ideas ("G")
16:23:22 <AWK> GV: Suggest third option to share issues and goals
16:23:34 <kirkwood> agree with Goals + pros and cons
16:23:49 <AWK> AWK: Perhaps instead of % we say "foundational + some extra"
16:24:11 <julierawe> q+
16:24:16 <alastairc> ack AWK
16:24:27 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:24:27 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on conformance vs reporting
16:24:51 <graham> graham has joined #ag
16:24:53 <graham> present+
16:24:58 <AWK> AC: Separate what is in core conformance vs what we can enable people to report on
16:25:20 <AWK> ... WCAG 2 conformance is short and concise
16:25:28 <AWK> ... don't want to overcomplicate
16:25:44 <BBailey> +1 to Jennie's concern for comparing accessibility of two products (with products being able to have different sets of criteria) -- but I think that already happens currently with the VPAT model.
16:25:53 <alastairc> q?
16:25:55 <AWK> ... people can do all sorts of reporting
16:25:56 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:26:29 <AWK> Julie: When you say "define all levels" it is just like WCAG 2? No choice, levels explicit?
16:26:36 <AWK> AC: Yes.
16:26:53 <AWK> ... We pick what goes in what level, like in 2.x
16:27:22 <AWK> ... lots of ideas - different sectors might have different levels adopted for examples
16:27:40 <AWK> ... some things we want more flexibility on
16:27:52 <alastairc> q?
16:27:58 <AWK> ...This was a choice we didn't make last year
16:28:07 <AWK> (drumroll)
16:28:19 <BBailey> We made the choice NOT to do that
16:28:35 <alastairc> Draft Poll: For the next draft do we continue with foundational + percentages (answer "P"), or remove all from the draft and list goals + ideas ("G")
16:28:58 <BBailey> We didn't avoid making choice ( i think )
16:29:02 <alastairc> Poll: For the next draft do we continue with foundational + percentages (answer "P"), or remove all from the draft and list goals + ideas ("G")
16:29:02 <GreggVan> G
16:29:02 <kirkwood> G
16:29:06 <Ben_Tillyer> P
16:29:10 <alastairc> P
16:29:11 <stevef> P
16:29:16 <Illai2> P
16:29:18 <hdv> G
16:29:25 <shadi> G
16:29:26 <Chuck> P
16:29:26 <Mbgower> Mbgower has joined #ag
16:29:28 <BBailey> P
16:29:30 <GN015> O - Other: we should discuss the ideas first.
16:29:31 <LenB> G
16:29:32 <AWK> G
16:29:36 <Mbgower> P
16:29:43 <graham> p
16:29:44 <julierawe> G
16:29:53 <Rayianna> P
16:29:54 <Laura_Carlson> G
16:29:58 <Chuck> 8 P, 7 G
16:30:01 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:30:05 <jtoles> G
16:30:20 <Illai2> +1 to GN015
16:30:29 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
16:30:43 <Jon_Avila> G
16:30:50 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
16:30:52 <Chuck> 9 G, 9P
16:30:52 <AWK> GP: In survey we had options 1 and 2
16:30:54 <mike_beganyi> present+
16:30:56 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:31:11 <Chuck> Now:  10G, 9P
16:31:13 <Detlev> present+
16:31:16 <AWK> ... If had to decide it does depend on the percentages
16:31:33 <Chuck> q+ to ask if we can do both?
16:31:38 <alastairc> ack Chuck
16:31:38 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we can do both?
16:31:38 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:31:48 <AWK> Chuck: No consensus.
16:32:02 <AWK> ... Should be do both and get external feedback?
16:32:10 <GreggVan> q+
16:32:15 <Detlev> well, just not include "one or the above" if the choice rests on a prior decision :)
16:32:24 <BBailey> q+ to ask about people with objections ?
16:32:28 <AWK> AC: safest approach is to not do a ton of work until we are more focused
16:32:43 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:32:45 <Detlev> sorry "none of the above"
16:33:15 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
16:33:21 <LoriO> present+
16:33:21 <AWK> GV: "G" includes "P". Here's the goals, P is one option.
16:33:40 <alastairc> q+
16:33:43 <alastairc> ack BBailey
16:33:43 <Zakim> BBailey, you wanted to ask about people with objections ?
16:33:57 <AWK> BB: thought I saw some neither answers?
16:34:18 <AWK> AC: not there yet, need better definitions
16:34:46 <AWK> ... let's spend the next few minutes talking through these options
16:34:52 <AWK> ... to help the chairs
16:35:04 <AWK> ... John Toles, can you share?
16:35:42 <AWK> JT: Feels like the objection to the foundational set is that there are too many items to meet
16:35:56 <AWK> ... need a set of principles to guide what is in foundational
16:36:08 <AWK> ... e.g., no harm
16:36:37 <AWK> ... or things that can be commonly met or supported by browsers
16:36:58 <AWK> ... let the numbers come out of the principles rather than pre-defined
16:37:36 <BBailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#usage
16:37:47 <AWK> BB: I wasn't thinking to use AA/AAA but need a was to help sites getting started on accessibility
16:37:59 <AWK> ... "preliminary prerequisites"
16:38:12 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
16:38:41 <Chuck> AWK:  I think the fundamental concern that I have, I'm worried that the credibility of WCAG is somewhat at risk if we just raise the bar higher and higher.
16:39:01 <Chuck> AWK:  From my experience with sites I've worked on and interacted with, none of them meet all the standards, there are so few sites that do.
16:39:03 <BBailey> +1 for AWK on unilaterally raising the bar higher
16:39:09 <Chuck> AWK:  We should define the highest bar, and the middle.
16:39:22 <kirkwood> +1 to highest & middle
16:39:25 <Lisa> Q+
16:39:39 <Chuck> AWK:  Its problematic for us to say that WCAG 2 AA is basic level, when only 10 sites meet that.  I think we need to have something that represents a broader spread.
16:39:40 <alastairc> q-
16:39:55 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:40:06 <Chuck> AWK:  I feel like the goals of conformance should include that.  As much as I want to say that WCAG is the solution to all accessibility issues, it is very difficult for sites to meet everything.
16:40:14 <BBailey> RRSagent, draft minutes
16:40:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/28-ag-minutes.html BBailey
16:40:24 <alastairc> ack Lisa
16:40:31 <Chuck> AWK:  The web has gotten better, experiences are better.  If sites are not fully conforming, but people are having better experiences, maybe we aren't describing it in the most effective way.
16:40:53 <AWK> LS: Wants to point out that my proposal had 4 levels
16:40:58 <shadi> +1 to AWK
16:41:33 <AWK> ... helps sites move forward incrementally
16:42:11 <AWK> ... after core you move to foundational, etc.
16:42:59 <alastairc> q?
16:43:00 <AWK> ... some items didn't make it into AAA in 2.x because they weren't viewed as widely needed or applicable
16:43:10 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
16:43:33 <AWK> GC: just wanted to say running the GL through a site we know well is very eye opening.
16:44:09 <AWK> ... suggest doing the exercise
16:44:16 <AWK> (Due this week!)
16:44:46 <AWK> GN: Would like at least one level across sites
16:44:53 <AWK> ... "basic" accessibility
16:44:59 <AWK> ... no blockers
16:45:09 <AWK> ... like LS's second level?
16:45:37 <AWK> ... then allows focus on individual user need groups
16:45:49 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:46:04 <AWK> ... sticks to B/S/G in comment but could be different
16:47:01 <AWK> IZ: Talking about scoping instead of leveling
16:47:33 <AWK> ... We see 55 SC's looking at every page is overwhelming to orgs often and they don't look at the most important things some time
16:47:49 <AWK> ... looking at critical paths/flows may be an alternative.
16:48:26 <AWK> ... critical pages have a higher bar, less critical pages have less high a bar
16:48:47 <AWK> ... allows users to complete essential tasks while keeping bare min reqs for other pages
16:48:56 <AWK> ... less overwhelming
16:49:05 <RJE> RJE has joined #ag
16:49:46 <AWK> AC: For context, we have looked at how to do more task-based and user-journey base before
16:49:48 <AWK> q+
16:49:56 <mbgower> q+ to say I'm not hearing as much disagreement as others on this call; more tactical differences towards the same outcome. We ended up breaking down our guidance based on what to prioritize first https://www.ibm.com/able/toolkit/plan/overview/#pace-of-completion
16:50:04 <AWK> ... it is something that we can't figure how to do yet
16:50:55 <AWK> ... how do we get people to consistency choose journeys? There are challenges in matching the variety of options for users
16:51:09 <alastairc> ack AWK
16:52:09 <kirkwood> What is the motivation for changing it?
16:52:33 <Lisa> Q+
16:52:41 <BBailey> +1 to AWK concern
16:52:45 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:52:45 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'm not hearing as much disagreement as others on this call; more tactical differences towards the same outcome. We ended up breaking down our guidance
16:52:48 <Zakim> ... based on what to prioritize first https://www.ibm.com/able/toolkit/plan/overview/#pace-of-completion
16:53:17 <AWK> MG: want to end on optimistic note. Tactical differences.
16:53:41 <AWK> ... added link to IBM toolkit - teams were giving up if they didn't think they could pass
16:54:08 <AWK> ... teams need a toe hold
16:54:09 <kirkwood> +1 to MGower!
16:54:22 <BBailey> +1 to how levels defined in IBM pace of completion
16:54:34 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to MGower
16:54:36 <AWK> ... worry that we will get outpaced by technology
16:54:44 <alastairc> ack Lisa
16:54:52 <GreggVan> +1 to getting outpaced
16:54:55 <GreggVan> q+
16:55:11 <AWK> LS: Want to point out that we aren't policy makers and we lose something when we try
16:55:40 <alastairc> q+ on importance vs effort
16:55:42 <AWK> ... deciding levels gets too close to policy
16:56:01 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:56:20 <mbgower>  /me I forgot to say that it's the level of prescription that I see as a key risk. The more prescriptive we are about what teams MUST do, the less we provide ability for someone to figure out what is most important for their users. For example, here's how we broke down the design guidance by our levels. Someone else's may be different, but we would
16:56:20 <mbgower> end up at the same end goal. https://www.ibm.com/able/toolkit/design/review/
16:56:46 <AWK> ... every consultancy firm I've worked with focused on critical content first. Same with governments in settlements.
16:56:58 <kirkwood> +1 to Lisa
16:57:05 <AWK> ... we shouldn't be defining what gets left out
16:57:12 <Glenda> Here is what AWK said earlier (when we had no scribe):  “I think part of the reason why this is particularly important for us to think about and figure out how to deal with... The regulators don't do that. They pick a level, and so if we don't speak to this, as an issue, um, that is important. Then what we wind up with is something like what we have now, where they say, every pageon the internet needs to meet WCAG 2. The result is we aren't able[CUT]
16:57:12 <Glenda> that. So I think we have an opportunity to try and change that and set a direction. If we do it, then it has a chance of being adopted, and if we rely on policy makers to do that, what we wind up with is a stronger risk of deharmonization.”
16:57:59 <AWK> AC: We are trying to define conformance here but also plan on a doc for policy makers
16:58:10 <AWK> GV: We shouldn't be judging what is important
16:58:13 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:58:24 <alastairc> zakim, close the q
16:58:24 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close the q', alastairc
16:58:25 <AWK> ... all people should be able to access information
16:58:27 <alastairc> zakim, close the queue
16:58:27 <Zakim> ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is closed
16:59:41 <AWK> ... on MG's outpaced comment. Makes me think we shouldn't hurry. shouldn't put out something that will become quickly obsolete
16:59:55 <AWK> ... need to look at what is happening with the technology
17:00:04 <AWK> ... need to survive new stuff
17:00:32 <AWK> s/ um,/
17:01:12 <AWK> ... think about screen readers. We don't require all content be voiced, we focus on interop
17:01:29 <AWK> AC: Chairs and I will work on this
17:01:59 <alastairc> zakim, end meeting
17:01:59 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kirkwood, Adam_Page, Francis_Storr, Laura_Carlson, ShawnT, alastairc, bbailey, shadi, filippo-zorzi, julierawe, Ben_Tillyer, Rachael,
17:02:02 <Zakim> ... kevin, elguerrero, Wilco, Rain, Poornima, BrianE, Jennie_Delisi, Jaunita_Flessas, Jon_Avila, stevef, AWK, Andrew, Jen_G, Kimberly, Detlev, Frankie, LenB, graham, mbgower,
17:02:02 <Zakim> ... LoriO, GN, Eric_hind, Jan, jtoles, CarrieH, GreggVan, Rayianna, giacomo-petri, Makoto, Charu, AlinaV, (may, need, to, leave, early), Illai, Glenda, mike_beganyi
17:02:02 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1
17:02:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/28-ag-minutes.html Zakim
17:02:10 <Chuck> rrsagent, make minutes
17:02:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/28-ag-minutes.html Chuck
17:02:17 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, alastairc; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:02:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:02:17 <GN015> present+
17:26:36 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:18:03 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
21:20:30 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
21:40:47 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag