15:08:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:08:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/04-ag-irc
15:08:34 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:08:35 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:08:37 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:08:45 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2025-11-04
15:08:55 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:08:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/04-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:09:10 <Chuck> regrets: Sarah Horton, Chi Darby, Todd Libby, Shawn Thompson
15:09:19 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG3 provisions wrap up
15:09:27 <Chuck> agenda+ Continue conformance conversation
15:17:31 <MURATA> MURATA has joined #ag
15:51:05 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:51:15 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:55:40 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:56:52 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:57:01 <MURATA> present+
15:57:25 <elguerrero> elguerrero has joined #ag
15:57:33 <Rayianna> Rayianna has joined #ag
15:58:24 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:59:37 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:59:37 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:59:53 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:00:05 <stevef> present+ stevef
16:00:14 <Rayianna> present+
16:00:21 <Adam_Page> present+
16:00:55 <Laura_Carlson> Scribe: Laura_Carlson
16:01:26 <Rachael> present+
16:01:37 <Makoto> present+
16:01:43 <elguerrero> present+
16:01:43 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:01:46 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:01:49 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:01:50 <kevin> present+
16:01:53 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:02:13 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: Welcome.
16:02:24 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:02:33 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
16:02:33 <Laura_Carlson> ... Any new members?
16:02:37 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
16:02:40 <AlinaV> present+
16:02:44 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
16:02:45 <GreggVan> present+
16:02:46 <Laura_Carlson> ... Any new roles?
16:03:03 <Chuck> Welcome Makoto!
16:03:03 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
16:03:07 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:03:08 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:03:12 <julierawe> present+
16:03:17 <Azlan> present+
16:03:25 <Rain> present+
16:03:28 <BrianE> present+
16:03:34 <alastairc> present+
16:03:34 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #ag
16:03:38 <Jon_Avila> present+
16:03:47 <bbailey> present+
16:03:47 <Laura_Carlson> MURATA: I am Makoto. I am here as a member of the Information Accessibility Institute.
16:03:49 <Chuck> present+
16:03:56 <Laura_Carlson> ... A startup I founded. My view that my own, I am not representing Daisy.
16:04:02 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:04:11 <Detlev> present+
16:04:17 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:04:24 <alastairc> Welcome Makoto! (We now have two Makoto, MakotoU and MakotoM / Murata)
16:04:28 <tiffanyburtin> present+
16:04:47 <Makoto> q+
16:04:49 <Laura_Carlson> ... will bring a proposal to TPAC.
16:04:52 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
16:05:06 <filippo-zorzi> present+
16:05:30 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:05:30 <Laura_Carlson> Heather Bellis: I'm here representing Oracle.
16:05:49 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:05:54 <wendyreid> present+
16:06:05 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
16:06:11 <Kimberly> present+
16:06:11 <Laura_Carlson> Kevin: ... some of the group have been looking at WCAG EM
16:06:55 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:06:59 <Frankie> present+
16:07:13 <Laura_Carlson> Kevin: That's got to the point where it is ready for a wide. Will send an email.
16:07:22 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
16:07:28 <Chuck> q?
16:07:31 <jtoles> present+
16:07:32 <Chuck> ack Makoto
16:07:57 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:08:08 <Laura_Carlson> Makoto: I'm glad to have Murata-san in this working group.
16:08:13 <shadi> present+
16:08:21 <Illai> Illai has joined #ag
16:08:30 <Illai> present+
16:08:33 <Laura_Carlson> ... Murata-san is an expert on the Japanese typesetting and layout.
16:09:11 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: TPAC is next week.
16:09:19 <alastairc> q+ stevef
16:09:25 <Rachael> If you need more information on TPAC it is at https://www.w3.org/2025/11/TPAC/
16:09:31 <Chuck> q?
16:09:35 <Chuck> ack steve
16:09:45 <Laura_Carlson> ... agenda will be sent out. Usual meeting won't.
16:10:03 <Chuck> q?
16:10:11 <kevin> => https://www.w3.org/2025/11/TPAC/
16:10:14 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:10:14 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG3 provisions wrap up -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:10:26 <Laura_Carlson> Steve: When wll WHAG EM be published?
16:10:32 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:10:37 <kevin> s/WHAG/WCAG/
16:10:47 <mbgower> present+
16:10:54 <Laura_Carlson> Kevin: After TPAC.
16:10:59 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fedqi929qGL2HtGf4GANNkLqakwbM7c0HcFXOmTugX0/edit?gid=0#gid=0
16:11:28 <Laura_Carlson> Ac: not really coming to any conclusion on this. It was more of an update.
16:12:05 <Heather> Heather has joined #AG
16:12:47 <Laura_Carlson> ...Trying to summarize the results.
16:13:19 <Chuck> q+
16:13:33 <Laura_Carlson> ... I'm aggregating everything. Then will go to the sub groups.
16:13:50 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:13:53 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:14:04 <Jen_G> Present+
16:14:10 <AWK> +AWK
16:14:25 <Chuck> q?
16:14:33 <julierawe> q+
16:14:34 <Laura_Carlson> Check: to summarize what I think the next actions are, uh, is after the aggregation. there's going to be feedback for the subgroups on the content that they were working on.
16:14:40 <Chuck> ack julie
16:15:14 <Laura_Carlson> Ac: The changes we're making from this are going to be based on. people's reviews.
16:15:31 <Chuck> q?
16:15:37 <Laura_Carlson> ... give us a couple of weeks.
16:15:54 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 2
16:15:54 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Continue conformance conversation -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:16:11 <Laura_Carlson> ... before the subgroup need to take action.
16:16:25 <Rachael> slide deck https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g39fd5db5083_2_0#slide=id.g39fd5db5083_2_0
16:16:39 <Laura_Carlson> Chuck: updated side deck.
16:17:08 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:17:49 <graham> graham has joined #ag
16:17:53 <graham> present+
16:17:57 <Glenda> present+
16:18:02 <shadi> q+ to talk to charter
16:18:12 <Laura_Carlson> Ac: we do need to deliver a conformance model.
16:18:39 <Laura_Carlson> ... it is as part of our charter.
16:18:49 <Laura_Carlson> ... We're trying to get the next charter sorted by the end of the year.
16:19:03 <Laura_Carlson> ... we don't have to say that's definitively it.
16:19:14 <Laura_Carlson> ... the main thing is demonstrate how accessible something is.
16:19:17 <Chuck> ack Shadi
16:19:17 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk to charter
16:20:15 <kevin> q+
16:20:27 <alastairc> "A candidate conformance mode"
16:20:30 <alastairc> "A candidate conformance model"
16:20:34 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: And my understanding from reading the charter text pretty much the conformance model for WCAG 3.
16:20:36 <Chuck> ack Kevin
16:20:46 <Laura_Carlson> ... readers should get a good idea of what the conformance model of WCAG 3 will look like.
16:21:11 <AWK> "In this charter period, AG WG will define a working conformance model for WCAG 3. If any part of the initial WCAG 3 recommendation will be published as a stand-alone resource, a draft will be made available within this charter period."
16:21:49 <Laura_Carlson> Kevin: the wording in the charter candidate conformance model.
16:21:55 <Chuck> q?
16:22:04 <Laura_Carlson> ... It is a working conformance model.
16:22:36 <kevin> -> https://www.w3.org/2023/11/ag-charter#scope-wcag3-conformance Conformance Model section in AG Charter
16:22:45 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: what I'm saying is, I do think there's a bit of a higher bar.
16:23:05 <Laura_Carlson> AC: we do need something for this draft.
16:24:06 <Laura_Carlson> ... conformance model Doesn’t provide guidance on sampling (reporting)
16:24:20 <Laura_Carlson> ... Doesn’t objectively & normatively define how to scope a claim (reporting methodology)
16:24:37 <Laura_Carlson> ... Doesn’t enforce accessibility or define what is “good enough” (compliance)
16:24:39 <Chuck> q?
16:24:54 <GreggVan> +1  This is excellent and needs to be in a location that it can be easily referred to in  all conformance discussions
16:25:08 <GreggVan> q+
16:25:27 <bbailey> q+ to ask if conformance model can minimally address KSA ?
16:25:35 <MURATA> Since it is already late night here in Japan, and I have an early commitment tomorrow morning,
16:25:35 <MURATA> I would like to stop here for today.  Thank you for your understanding.  Bye now.
16:25:35 <Laura_Carlson> ... Setting levels - Higher bar:
16:25:44 <Laura_Carlson> ... Risks regulators sitting with WCAG 2
16:25:56 <Laura_Carlson> ... Risks regulators excluding particular requirements
16:26:43 <Laura_Carlson> Lower barRisks regulators choosing the lower bar
16:27:24 <Laura_Carlson> ... Variable bar - Risks different regulators landing on different views of compliance, breaking harmonization.
16:27:45 <Laura_Carlson> ... Chairs want to provide the metric and enough levels, but nudge towards a pragmatic level.
16:27:53 <Chuck> q?
16:27:55 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:28:09 <bbailey> s/Since it is already late night here in Japan, and I have an early commitment tomorrow morning,//
16:28:23 <bbailey> s/I would like to stop here for today.  Thank you for your understanding.  Bye now.//
16:28:23 <Rachael> q+ to ask if chairs missed anything on slide 26
16:29:03 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: Slide 27 answers and resolves a lot of discussions, and it's really excellent.
16:29:22 <Laura_Carlson> ...It should be in a place that can be easily referred to.
16:29:45 <Chuck> q?
16:29:47 <Chuck> ack bb
16:29:47 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if conformance model can minimally address KSA ?
16:29:52 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:30:04 <Detlev> present+
16:30:10 <Laura_Carlson> ... If somebody does A, and somebody does AA, there is no problem in harmonization
16:30:14 <Chuck> q?
16:30:20 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:30:20 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if chairs missed anything on slide 26
16:30:21 <Laura_Carlson> ... You simply do AA.
16:30:37 <Chuck> q+ to get clarity on Bruce's question
16:30:38 <shadi> q+
16:30:40 <AWK> q+
16:30:46 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:30:46 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to get clarity on Bruce's question
16:30:50 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
16:30:56 <Laura_Carlson> ... People think that harmonization means that it has to be the same. It doesn't.
16:31:29 <Laura_Carlson> Bruce: it possible for knowledge, skills, and abilities to be mentioned or described?
16:31:34 <GreggVan> q+
16:31:39 <Laura_Carlson> ... as part of WCAG 3?
16:31:47 <LoriO> present+
16:31:51 <Chuck> ack Shadi
16:31:58 <Laura_Carlson> RM: Did we capture everything?
16:32:07 <Laura_Carlson> ... anything missing?
16:32:10 <LoriO> q+
16:32:38 <bbailey> Can specifying knowledge skills abilities be in WCAG3 at all?  If so, can minimal KSA be part of conformance model?
16:33:12 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: I'm not exactly sure what adoptable in regulation means. What does that means in practice?
16:33:12 <alastairc> q+ on being implementable
16:33:40 <Chuck> ack AWK
16:33:47 <Laura_Carlson> ... What that means in practice?
16:34:22 <Rachael> q+ to speak to regulator conversations
16:34:43 <kevin> -1 to a site conforming
16:34:49 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:35:01 <Laura_Carlson> Awk:  I think adoptable into rregulation is something that actually we need to dig into a little bit more.
16:35:02 <Rachael> +1 to scope vs. site conformance
16:36:17 <Laura_Carlson> ...the conformance model needs to work for technically simple and complex sites.
16:36:22 <Laura_Carlson> ...Make sure that there's a way for a site to conform, not just a page.
16:36:34 <Chuck> q+ to explain "simple and complex"
16:36:48 <AWK> GV, I'm not sure where in 2.x currently you see scope to cover a site. Or am I misunderstanding?
16:37:26 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: site conformance is covered under scope.
16:37:49 <Laura_Carlson> ... So, when you make a conformance claim, you just cite the scope of it, and that's how you can do it for a site.
16:38:00 <Chuck> ack Lori
16:38:10 <Laura_Carlson> ...we already have always, always had that.
16:38:18 <kevin> q+ SteveFaulkner
16:38:28 <alastairc> q+ stevef
16:38:34 <alastairc> q- stevef
16:38:44 <Laura_Carlson> ... adoptable into regulation has sort of two meanings. One of them is is that we don't create something that, You can't be cited, for example
16:38:45 <Chuck> ack ala
16:38:45 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on being implementable
16:38:56 <GreggVan> q+
16:39:35 <Laura_Carlson> ... the other that they can't choose, because if you start having countries all creating their own conformance models that is actually even worse
16:40:51 <Laura_Carlson> LO: provide hooks for reporting and regulation. I know we've talked about reporting before but  what was imagined?
16:41:22 <shadi> q+ stevef
16:41:32 <shadi> q- stevef
16:41:37 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:41:37 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to regulator conversations
16:42:13 <Laura_Carlson> Ac: If each requirement has some metadata for which functional needs it's fulfilling, you could create some reporting that says, oh, so this product...
16:42:13 <Laura_Carlson>  s great for these functional needs, but failing on these functional needs.
16:42:22 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:42:22 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to explain "simple and complex"
16:42:26 <alastairc> We have been having (brief) discussions with regulators already, that has informed our approach.
16:42:37 <Laura_Carlson> ... So not something that you would necessarily include in conformance, but it provides a bit more data for people to use in reporting.
16:42:49 <Francis_Storr> @stevef Hey. You have your hand up in Zoom, but queuing is done in IRC :)
16:43:06 <kevin> s/@stevef Hey. You have your hand up in Zoom, but queuing is done in IRC :)//
16:43:40 <Chuck> q?
16:43:44 <Chuck> ack Steve
16:44:00 <Laura_Carlson> RM: we would like to get this conformance model out. Again, part of our charter, get as strong a consensus as we can on it, and put it in front of the public for comment, and also then schedule regulator conversations about it.
16:44:30 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:44:51 <alastairc> One "hook" is A/AA/AAA
16:45:04 <shadi> q+ to disagree on hooks
16:45:06 <Rachael> In the proposal, the functional needs would be hooks
16:45:19 <Laura_Carlson> SM: But this works for Technically, Simple and Complex is initially unclear.
16:45:20 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re cognitive load for implementers and those reviewing their efforts
16:46:13 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: I think Hooks just has to do with
16:46:13 <Laura_Carlson> the guidelines themselves, if you're providing hooks into them.
16:47:10 <Chuck> Chapter 9 of EN 301 549
16:47:11 <alastairc> GreggVan - we are still considering scoring/percentages, so it's worth having that goal.
16:47:27 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: second thing is simple. To handle that for simple sites is you make them conditional.
16:47:43 <Laura_Carlson> ... That makes it very easy for someone doing a simple site where it says, where a site has images, oh, I skipped that one.
16:47:50 <Chuck> ack Shadi
16:47:50 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to disagree on hooks
16:47:52 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:48:17 <Chuck> +1 to keeping it on the radar, as Shadi said.
16:48:56 <GreggVan> q+  ruler and rule
16:49:15 <Chuck> q+ GreggVan to discuss the ruler and the rule
16:49:15 <GreggVan> q+ to say   ruler  not rule
16:49:42 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: On technically simple and complex websites,  I think it would still be helpful for us to keep this on our radar
16:49:51 <Chuck> ack Jennie
16:49:51 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss cognitive load for implementers and those reviewing their efforts
16:51:09 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: I do think we need hooks in the conformance model.
16:51:15 <GreggVan> q+ to say    WCAG is a ruler  (what is accessible)  not  rule (what needs to be accessible or how much of it needs to be accessible or how quickly etc.  Nor how to test a site
16:51:18 <Laura_Carlson> ... We have the concept of accessibility supported, specifically mentioned
16:51:19 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:51:19 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to discuss the ruler and the rule and to say   ruler  not rule and to say    WCAG is a ruler  (what is accessible)  not  rule (what needs to be accessible or
16:51:22 <Zakim> ... how much of it needs to be accessible or how quickly etc.  Nor how to test a site
16:52:06 <shadi> q+
16:52:17 <alastairc> q+ on the flip side of rule/ruler and practical implementation
16:52:30 <Laura_Carlson> Jennie: Wanted address the Hooks comment scoping of large and small sites for complexity,
16:52:30 <Laura_Carlson> I think I was using the term VPAT as a way to discuss the need for those hooks.
16:52:30 <Laura_Carlson> But in some ways, I was really trying to reflect that The more complex we make the scoring for conformance.
16:52:48 <Chuck> ack Shadi
16:52:48 <Laura_Carlson> ... If you think about the cognitive load of someone who has to do the implementation, to ensure they meet conformance, but also those who have to review the results that person is putting in place.
16:53:05 <GreggVan> q+
16:53:38 <AWK> q+ to speak to WCAG vs SOC
16:53:55 <Chuck> ack ala
16:53:55 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the flip side of rule/ruler and practical implementation
16:54:17 <Laura_Carlson> Gregg: Keep in mind that WCAG is meant to be a ruler, not the rules. That is, it tells you if something is accessible or not.
16:54:31 <Laura_Carlson> ... ... It does not tell you what needs to be accessible, i.e., you know, every website, every page, whatever.
16:54:43 <Laura_Carlson> ... It does not tell you when it needs to be accessible.
16:55:07 <Laura_Carlson> ...If it's not accessible, it's not accessible, period. Doesn't matter that it's impossible to make it accessible.
16:55:20 <Chuck> q+ to move us forward in content
16:55:40 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:55:57 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: WCAG doesn't say something is accessible.
16:55:57 <Laura_Carlson>  It defines three levels of conformance.
16:56:19 <Laura_Carlson> Shadi: Why not have more levels, for example, than just 3 arbitrary levels?
16:57:06 <Laura_Carlson> AC:  It's a rule with, kind of, three notches on it, but in practice, one notch.
16:57:20 <Laura_Carlson> ... because of how it's been sort of integrated
16:57:29 <alastairc> s/It's a rule with/It's a ruler with
16:58:30 <Laura_Carlson> Greg: WCAG doesn't determine if something's accessible. You can do everything we cite including AAA, and you still won't be accessible.
16:59:41 <wendyreid> scribe+
16:59:46 <Chuck> ack AWK
16:59:46 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to WCAG vs SOC
17:00:06 <wendyreid> AWK: I'm not going to speak to multiple levels, with WCAG2 we've gotten very lucky with the regulations
17:00:13 <wendyreid> ... I'm not sure we can count on that continuing
17:00:33 <wendyreid> ... we've been lucky with the harmonization, but given that it's difficult to conform to, and most sites do not
17:00:58 <wendyreid> ... what people should consider is whether we look at things like SOC2 security standards, which aligns more with assertions
17:01:14 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
17:01:18 <wendyreid> ... allow for an organization to specify they've done the right things to get to success, even if it's not happening
17:01:19 <Detlev> @chairs - it's the fourth time today that I get disconnected from web irc.w3.org. Will this ever get better? It's a pain.
17:01:36 <wendyreid> ... I'd love for every site to say they can guarantee conformance for all 1million+ page
17:01:43 <bbailey> +1 to AWK that we've gotten lucky with WCAG2
17:01:44 <Laura_Carlson> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/04-ag-minutes.html Laura_Carlson
17:02:12 <Detlev> it happens each time I use the "new" IRC
17:02:14 <wendyreid> Chuck: People are broaching topics we have in slides, so lets move ahead
17:02:39 <wendyreid> Rachael: Something that has come up in conversation, getting really clearly defined levels
17:02:45 <wendyreid> ... the group was trending towards wanting more levels
17:03:13 <Detlev> Thanks, Chuck
17:03:17 <wendyreid> ... three levels, keeping prerequisite the same, avoiding physical harm and basic content
17:03:24 <wendyreid> ... then core, for content, alternatives
17:03:40 <wendyreid> ... supplemental, higher level than core, things like higher contrast targets
17:03:46 <wendyreid> ... more detailed quality checks
17:03:57 <wendyreid> ... different pieces of captions like styling
17:04:11 <wendyreid> ... things that were harder to implement would fall into supplemental
17:04:39 <wendyreid> ... more clearly defined, there are still challenges, if prerequisite and core are required, is it like A and AA, but I hope this does address getting people "into" accessibility
17:04:44 <wendyreid> ... moving forward from there
17:05:25 <wendyreid> ... how that would play out, [visualization], you could report against functional needs, some portion of the supplemental need to be done
17:05:40 <wendyreid> ... identify a set that meet WCAG 2.2 A and AA
17:05:56 <wendyreid> ... do you meet by point, count, or other means, still need to discuss
17:06:02 <wendyreid> ... wanted to bring that back and discuss
17:06:08 <wendyreid> ... pros and cons, where people were on this
17:06:08 <Laura_Carlson> s/barRisks /bar risks /
17:06:08 <Chuck> q?
17:06:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:06:13 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move us forward in content
17:06:25 <Chuck> q+
17:06:29 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
17:06:33 <LenB> present+
17:06:43 <wendyreid> Chuck: Slide that is a visual representation shows levels, bronze, silver, gold
17:06:54 <wendyreid> ... there is also WCAG in there, which could be deemed a level
17:07:00 <wendyreid> ... are we presenting three, or even more?
17:07:08 <wendyreid> ... this could be interpreted as 5
17:07:14 <Laura_Carlson> s/that means in  /that mean in  /
17:07:36 <wendyreid> Rachael: I interpret this as three requirements and provisions, but you need to meet different parts to reach bronze, then more and more to get to silver, gold
17:07:38 <shadi> q+
17:07:38 <kevin> q+
17:07:38 <GreggVan> q+
17:07:40 <Chuck> q?
17:07:42 <wendyreid> ... an acknowledgement of where it would fall
17:07:44 <Chuck> ack ch
17:07:54 <Chuck> ack shadi
17:08:18 <Laura_Carlson> s/rregulation /regulation /
17:08:27 <Rachael> q+
17:08:27 <wendyreid> shadi: In addition to these three levels, is it imaginable, not sure where this lives, maybe conformance or reporting, is it possible to have additional counts/measurements
17:08:43 <alastairc> q+ on picking levels vs scoring
17:08:44 <wendyreid> ... so the overall level is gold/silver/bronze, the conformance, the overall site has x level
17:08:52 <wendyreid> ... but there's way to get more granularity
17:08:56 <graham> q+ to say while i like this, this would need the same number in each category or for us to provide a scoring tool if there are different numbers
17:09:08 <wendyreid> ... how does it perform for those with low vision vs mobility impairments, based on which requirements
17:09:15 <wendyreid> ... since you have options to meet
17:09:20 <wendyreid> ... are all text alternatives equal
17:09:39 <wendyreid> ... functional image vs decorative, I think we need to think about this collectively
17:09:43 <Laura_Carlson> s/is is /is /
17:10:14 <wendyreid> ... have a main level or measure, bronze silver gold, but then additional measures that can be put in a conformance report or declaration, have there been thoughts on that?
17:10:18 <Rachael> q-
17:10:25 <wendyreid> Chuck: We're moving to conversational queueing
17:10:53 <wendyreid> Rachael: A couple things there, by putting the core functional needs to core, it gives the chance to do more detailed reporting
17:11:10 <wendyreid> ... I would love to see it more broken out by need (chair hat off), its more beneficial to see
17:11:41 <wendyreid> ... (chair hat on), we can't control regulators, they could say "core" and that's a risk, but we want to be upfront
17:12:07 <wendyreid> ... we can write the policy doc and encourage the supplemental, there's a benefit in the way we've written requirements to be better defined within groupings
17:12:13 <Chuck> ack Kevin
17:12:47 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:12:51 <wendyreid> kevin: This is a point from a side chat that I want on record, I think we're doing a disservice to those who did all the work on making WCAG2 in regulation if we don't mention it
17:13:14 <Rachael> +1 thank you to those who worked so hard on WCAG 2
17:13:37 <wendyreid> GreggVan: I worry that defining something like prereq as the baseline, and I predict people arguing over what goes into prereq vs core, and we lose time
17:13:38 <Chuck> +1 to those who did work hard on WCAG 2 AND those who did work outside of AGWG to facilitate harmonization
17:13:42 <wendyreid> ... I think we should kill the idea
17:13:45 <wendyreid> q+
17:14:10 <AWK> Agree with Kevin, there was a ton of work by those at W3C and across industry to ensure that WCAG 2.0 AA was adopted into regulation. We are lucky that it worked, but it didn't happy by luck.
17:14:20 <Chuck> qq+ to make a point of order on vernacular
17:14:29 <wendyreid> GreggVan: This looks like it is saying that the fundamental level, I don't think we can define what is core and supplemental without seeing them all, some in supplemental seem core, and vice versa
17:14:51 <wendyreid> ... we're uneven in how we have things categorized, deciding where we draw the lines before we figure everything out
17:15:18 <wendyreid> ... having levels is important, we need to know what the criteria are before declaring them
17:15:21 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
17:15:37 <wendyreid> ... the more we try to have level, the more questions about how to organize them
17:16:16 <wendyreid> Rachael: There will be jockeying, I don't think it will cost us months, but we need to make the decisions, we have to move forward, the key is having clear definitions
17:16:37 <wendyreid> ... they are fairly small, well-defined sets, they are smaller sets than the supplemental
17:16:46 <wendyreid> ... different definition sets since we've been discussing them
17:16:59 <wendyreid> ... because we have a clear set of lines for prereq and core, it's less jockeying
17:17:02 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:17:02 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to GreggVan to make a point of order on vernacular
17:17:33 <Chuck> ack ala
17:17:33 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on picking levels vs scoring
17:17:33 <wendyreid> Chuck: Point of Order, use of vernacular to use judiciously, please avoid using the word "kill" as much as possible, use remove or discard
17:17:44 <GreggVan> noted
17:18:20 <wendyreid> alastairc: I kind of agree with Gregg in a different way, I think prereq and core are well-defined, everything under the core line is necessary, I don't think we need to advertise we have been thinking about those in different ways
17:18:21 <Rachael> q+ chair hat off benefit of prerequisite
17:18:27 <Rayianna> Rayianna has left #ag
17:18:31 <Rachael> q+ to say chair hat off benefit of prerequisite
17:18:50 <wendyreid> ... where I agree with Gregg, if we weren't using scoring/percentages, do these for bronze, silver, gold
17:19:20 <wendyreid> ... where I struggle is how we account for the breadth of digital products, their differing needs, to let people show improvement
17:19:52 <GreggVan> +1 to  not using some of our tagging items externally  like   prereq - and core.   Suggest we rename them   Group A and Group B so they don't take soo much semantic meaning or identity that will be used externally whether we like them to or not
17:19:59 <wendyreid> ... to demonstrate progress, a percentages or scoring model may help, we are going to struggle to set those levels if we're trying to assign things to levels
17:20:01 <Chuck> q?
17:20:04 <Chuck> ack graham
17:20:04 <Zakim> graham, you wanted to say while i like this, this would need the same number in each category or for us to provide a scoring tool if there are different numbers
17:20:41 <wendyreid> graham: The levels stuff, I like the functional needs idea, the only concern is if we want to do that, we'd need to introduce some kind of official scoring tool
17:20:41 <Rachael> +1 to us providing the mapping and a sample tool
17:21:03 <shadi> +1 to an official scoring/reporting methodology
17:21:17 <wendyreid> ... are we thinking flat, a document, or can we do clever things to provide tooling, try running it through this, I love the functional needs, its hard to do on a piece of paper with a pen
17:21:41 <wendyreid> ... are we holding back because we aren't sure about scoring, but if we provide the tool, does it make that discussion easier?
17:22:14 <wendyreid> Rachael: I think us providing a methodology and mapping is necessary, we'd need to have hard conversations, what criteria support what needs
17:22:20 <wendyreid> ... we'd provide those details in this model
17:22:53 <shadi> q+ to ask if this companion methodology will go into next charter; speak about groups related to severity
17:23:01 <wendyreid> ... I think because this is still based on counts, a numeric version, it actually is a fairly simple mathematical point, we can provide the algorithms
17:23:03 <Chuck> scribe+
17:23:43 <Chuck> Wendyreid:  I'm a big prereq booster.  I think it is all about positioning.  We define the conformance model, we get to decide how to describe it and make it understandable and clear to people.
17:24:15 <Chuck> wendyreid:  I see Gregg's arguments, but for me especially, and underlying goal of making this accessible to people in the sense of helping people understand and encouraging improvement, having a level that is "start here..."
17:24:59 <Chuck> wendyreid:  And you meet these requirements, keep going.  There are better levels, you can move on, but this is the start.  In WCAG 2 we throw the entire book.  If we present a progressive model, first meet these, now that you meet these, next step...
17:25:16 <Chuck> wendyreid:  Functional needs contributes as well...  sounds like supplemental will get us there.
17:25:33 <shadi> +1 to Wendy
17:25:35 <Chuck> wendyreid:  This will be much more adoptable and friendly to the end user, tester, auditor....
17:25:38 <Chuck> q?
17:25:42 <Chuck> ack wendy
17:26:01 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:26:01 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say chair hat off benefit of prerequisite
17:26:02 <GreggVan> q+
17:26:07 <wendyreid> Rachael: (chair hat off) I love the concept of prereq, not sure it goes in conformance, but it's a step one, and a natural hook for training and introduction
17:26:28 <Chuck> ack shadi
17:26:28 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask if this companion methodology will go into next charter; speak about groups related to severity
17:26:29 <wendyreid> ... items are tagged, here's the prerequisite sets, from conformance we just have the two groups
17:26:30 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Rachel
17:26:59 <Chuck> +1 to the analogy of the non-interference sc in WCAG 2.
17:27:02 <wendyreid> shadi: Strong agreement with Rachael and Wendy, we have it in WCAG2, we have a set of requirements that impact interference, but we describe it well, it's not more important than this
17:27:22 <graham> q+
17:27:27 <wendyreid> ... maybe these can be labelled even better, it's good to have groups, its a matter of framing and describing,
17:27:43 <wendyreid> ... we need a way to guide, prioritize, implement, help people understand where to start
17:27:58 <alastairc> q+ on whether prerequisites are the best starting point for prioritisation or education
17:28:04 <wendyreid> ... will these items be part of the charter, I worry they get lost in discussions of everything
17:28:34 <wendyreid> Rachael: Short answer yes, we divided things up, but we can go into more details on different tracks we need to work on, the guidance and informative documentation
17:28:44 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:28:50 <wendyreid> ... we want to make sure we don't lose concepts as we build the informative concepts
17:29:20 <wendyreid> GreggVan: alastairc said prereqs are internal, but then we said they can be a starting point, so that's my concern
17:29:36 <wendyreid> ... I think that we are mixing apples and oranges, stick to the minimum set of requirements
17:29:46 <wendyreid> ... where you should start is an education and outreach activity
17:29:57 <wendyreid> ... where you start teaching is not core, but it's the easiest things to understand
17:30:10 <wendyreid> ... it may be different for different sectors
17:30:16 <wendyreid> ... what is most important up front
17:30:23 <wendyreid> ... I think we should just be talking about what the requirements are
17:30:42 <wendyreid> ... starting to tag things as most to least important, its a recipe for trouble
17:31:05 <Chuck> q+ to disagree I think where to start is not the same as what is important
17:31:06 <Chuck> q?
17:31:09 <wendyreid> ... done as a separate activity
17:31:13 <Chuck> ack graham
17:31:45 <wendyreid> graham: It's interesting, what if the things we called prereq, which I think we initally called "safety", what if they weren't success criteria, but the things above them depended on them being done
17:32:09 <wendyreid> graham: You're working on inputs, so the prereq was that it was accessible by keyboard
17:32:34 <Chuck> q?
17:32:36 <Chuck> ack ala
17:32:36 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on whether prerequisites are the best starting point for prioritisation or education
17:32:37 <wendyreid> ... if they were essential items that couldn't be missed
17:32:39 <wendyreid> q+
17:33:04 <wendyreid> alastairc: (chair hat off), to agree and disagree with Gregg, I'm somewhat skeptical, a lot of the time the prereqs are the technical things
17:33:26 <wendyreid> ... it's not often where I start in the lifecycle, they can be the complex things, maybe not a great onramp
17:33:32 <wendyreid> ... need to dig through some of the details
17:33:36 <wendyreid> ... not objecting to it
17:33:46 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:33:46 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to disagree I think where to start is not the same as what is important
17:33:46 <wendyreid> ... it is going to be how things are presented to people
17:34:13 <wendyreid> Chuck: (chair hat also off) Gregg I do disagree, I do not believe it is necessary that we'd need to conflate "begin here" with importance
17:34:44 <wendyreid> ... we can do so in a way, there always needs to be a beginning at the start, we can do so in a way that doesn't import criticality or importance
17:34:47 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:35:29 <Glenda> q+
17:36:19 <Chuck> wendyreid:  When I pushed for prerequesits, there are some things that if you don't have them, you haven't built the website, or cms or whatever, I envision prerequisits as a checklist.  "If you don't have the following, then what follows will be very difficult".  "If your CMS doesn't support text alternatives, you will fail those requirements".
17:36:52 <Chuck> wendyreid:  It is an onramp in the sense...  I think in combination with core it is an easy onramp.  I think that this is a good way to describe to people where to start.
17:37:19 <Chuck> wendyreid:  It's not easy to change cms provider, but if you make the changes, you will be more successful than if you find out later that you don't have this fundamental thing.
17:37:47 <Chuck> wendyreid:  Maybe the functionality, platform, framework, we can head people off by defining a core set of the following on which you can proceed.
17:37:49 <Chuck> q?
17:37:52 <Chuck> ack wendy
17:37:58 <Chuck> ack glenda
17:38:26 <wendyreid> Glenda: It's interesting as I listen to this conversation, I think we've gotten lost between the conformance model and making it easier to read a vpat or get overwhelmed by the number of things to do
17:39:19 <Chuck> q?
17:39:20 <wendyreid> ... I want to go back to AWK's ideas around SOC conformance, adding summaries, looking at sample IT security reports, you either conform or you don't, there's a VPAT moment in this which lists minor issues that maps to VPAT partial
17:39:25 <wendyreid> ... I think AWK is on to something
17:39:27 <Chuck> q?
17:39:52 <GreggVan> q+
17:40:03 <wendyreid> Rachael: Sounds like there is a reporting portion to this, and we should look at security reporting
17:40:03 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
17:40:05 <GreggVan> q-
17:40:14 <Jon_avila> Where to start is sometimes very contextual.  Sometimes when folks don't have support for speech output or keyboard they instead want to focus on things they can control like contrast, color, captions, etc.
17:40:19 <alastairc> q+ on process conformance
17:40:24 <bbailey> +1 to Glenda that in my experience security reports "grade" concerns flagged.
17:40:34 <wendyreid> ... I've heard today that we have pro and cons, and the biggest concern is the division of that bottom level
17:40:48 <wendyreid> ... I'm curious from a straw poll level, are we considering 2 or three segments
17:40:59 <GreggVan> 2
17:41:00 <Jon_avila> When you say 2 or 3 - what are those 2 and 3?
17:41:02 <Chuck> ack ala
17:41:02 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on process conformance
17:41:22 <wendyreid> alastairc: On Glenda and AWK's point, I think we've gone a step towards that with assertions
17:42:08 <wendyreid> ... we've taken these informative pieces, we've taken a step towards that, the security ones (not an expert), I've been through it, as an end user not deeply involved, my recall was that the process gave a set of things to evaluate
17:42:21 <wendyreid> ... but then you decide what is important in your context, I don't know how well that works in accessibility
17:42:26 <shadi> q+
17:42:35 <wendyreid> ... it's very different from looking at a page and is that page accessible
17:42:49 <wendyreid> ... we're very interface oriented with process on top
17:43:29 <wendyreid> ... I could see a direction where we have site or product level conformance extra bit where in addition to the interface sample, we have also applied these processes
17:43:32 <Chuck> ack Shadi
17:44:21 <wendyreid> shadi: Picking up from where Glenda dropped the mic, I like the idea, I can agree to the conformance level, you conform or don't, then the indication of severity of issue, whether that is or is not part
17:44:26 <alastairc> For example, does SOC2 give you details about what makes a secure firewall? Do people report on that?
17:44:38 <wendyreid> ... it's hard to discuss in abstract, need to see how it all works together
17:44:44 <Glenda> q+
17:45:00 <wendyreid> ... need to see the assessment, and reporting, what happens if something is bronze vs silver, how do the pieces fit together?
17:45:08 <Chuck> ack Glenda
17:45:14 <wendyreid> ... difficult to decide without seeing the parts
17:45:22 <Chuck> q+ to discuss the draft strawpoll
17:45:42 <wendyreid> Glenda: In thinking about the fuzziness, partially vs fully support, major vs minor non-conformance, there's nothing guiding what is partial versus full
17:46:00 <wendyreid> ... when we do our own VPATs, I don't get caught up in what is correct, I go with my gut, after looking at the issues
17:46:25 <wendyreid> ... because we have the notes column, I have to say what's wrong, if someone else thinks I under/overplayed it, that can decide it
17:46:34 <wendyreid> ... as long as we have notes, it doesn't matter when people get it wrong
17:47:10 <Chuck> q?
17:47:16 <wendyreid> Glenda: If I can have points, dashboards, where engineers can compete against each other, no partial credit internally
17:47:17 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:47:17 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss the draft strawpoll
17:47:31 <wendyreid> Chuck: There is a draft strawpoll, let's discuss first
17:47:34 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
17:47:43 <wendyreid> ... confusion between 1a and 1b?
17:48:07 <Glenda> @wendyreid - a VPAT is just a form of an Accessibility Conformance Report (that lists all requirements).  So…ACR’s are being used globally from what I’m seeing.
17:48:25 <wendyreid> Rachael: So 1a is the prereq + core based on today's definitions, 1b is the earlier foundational set
17:48:37 <wendyreid> ... each one is a single grouping
17:48:41 <bbailey> q+
17:48:45 <Chuck> ack bb
17:49:09 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
17:49:15 <Jon_avila> I don't understand.
17:49:25 <LoriO4> LoriO4 has joined #ag
17:49:31 <wendyreid> Rachael: In 1a they're combined, 1b is broader
17:49:39 <Glenda> I don’t understand either
17:49:40 <Detlev> I am sorry, I am confused, I don't understand
17:49:44 <Chuck> q?
17:49:44 <wendyreid> ... enough people don't understand that I think this is not well-written, let me think about it
17:50:04 <graham> is 1b not prereq + core + first few (like "bronze" effectively)?
17:50:06 <AWK> Maybe this is a survey question for next week?
17:50:45 <BrianE> +1
17:50:51 <wendyreid> wendyreid: Are we asking if we prefer a prereq+core+supplemental, or core+supplemental
17:51:04 <bbailey> Proposal (slide 2 of 2) [being shared] looks good -- i think that is (2)  ?
17:51:05 <wendyreid> Chuck: AWK is asking if we make this a survey question for next week
17:51:10 <Detlev> Survey -- yes please with clear explanations if the differences...
17:51:24 <GreggVan> 2
17:51:32 <Glenda> 2
17:51:38 <shadi> 1
17:51:39 <wendyreid> 1
17:51:42 <Rachael> Strawpoll: Should we have 1) Prequisite, core, and supplemental 2) Core and supplemental 3) Something else
17:51:44 <wendyreid> 1
17:51:46 <BrianE> 2
17:51:48 <bbailey> q+
17:51:54 <Heather> Heather has joined #AG
17:52:01 <stevef> 2
17:52:06 <graham> 2
17:52:06 <elguerrero> 1
17:52:07 <Rachael> 2
17:52:09 <mbgower> s/prequisite/prerequisite
17:52:09 <alastairc> 2, 1 (preference not too concerned about this aspect)
17:52:17 <filippo-zorzi> 1
17:52:23 <Frankie> 1
17:52:24 <Makoto> 1
17:52:27 <Detlev> wound need to assess what is in each to make a decision
17:52:27 <AWK> 1, leaning
17:52:31 <GreggVan> q+
17:52:34 <LoriO4> 1
17:52:35 <Chuck> ack bb
17:52:36 <Illai> 2
17:52:38 <Adam_Page> 1
17:52:47 <jtoles> 2
17:52:48 <mbgower> no strong feeling
17:53:06 <wendyreid> bbailey: What is being shared on the screen right now
17:53:06 <Laura_Carlson> 1, 2
17:53:26 <wendyreid> alastairc: Both 1 and 2, but in 2, prereq rolls into core
17:53:30 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:54:01 <wendyreid> GreggVan: If core doesn't mean fundamental, we're using supplemental to mean two different things in two different places, core must equal foundational?
17:54:30 <wendyreid> Rachael: None of these terms are final, we're trying to use them well, but it's caused confusion
17:54:33 <Chuck> q+
17:54:35 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:54:44 <wendyreid> GreggVan: This supplemental is different from the supplemental we've been using
17:54:56 <wendyreid> Chuck: I recommend we define the question better and run a survey
17:55:02 <Chuck> q?
17:55:31 <Francis_Storr> present+
17:56:01 <wendyreid> alastairc: Any questions before we send out the survey?
17:56:02 <Jon_avila> 2
18:02:21 <wendyreid> rrsagent, please generate minutes
18:02:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/04-ag-minutes.html wendyreid
18:03:10 <bbailey> q+
18:04:06 <bbailey> q-
19:00:52 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
20:17:06 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
23:54:16 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag