Meeting minutes
Chuck: Welcome.
… Any new members?
… Any new roles?
<Chuck> Welcome Makoto!
MURATA: I am Makoto. I am here as a member of the Information Accessibility Institute.
… A startup I founded. My view that my own, I am not representing Daisy.
<alastairc> Welcome Makoto! (We now have two Makoto, MakotoU and MakotoM / Murata)
MURATA: will bring a proposal to TPAC.
Heather Bellis: I'm here representing Oracle.
Kevin: ... some of the group have been looking at WCAG EM
Kevin: That's got to the point where it is ready for a wide. Will send an email.
Makoto: I'm glad to have Murata-san in this working group.
… Murata-san is an expert on the Japanese typesetting and layout.
Chuck: TPAC is next week.
<Rachael> If you need more information on TPAC it is at https://
Chuck: agenda will be sent out. Usual meeting won't.
<kevin> => https://
WCAG3 provisions wrap up
Steve: When wll WCAG EM be published?
Kevin: After TPAC.
<alastairc> https://
Ac: not really coming to any conclusion on this. It was more of an update.
… Trying to summarize the results.
… I'm aggregating everything. Then will go to the sub groups.
<AWK> +AWK
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.
Ac: The changes we're making from this are going to be based on. people's reviews.
… give us a couple of weeks.
Continue conformance conversation
Ac: before the subgroup need to take action.
<Rachael> slide deck https://
Chuck: updated side deck.
Ac: we do need to deliver a conformance model.
… it is as part of our charter.
… We're trying to get the next charter sorted by the end of the year.
… we don't have to say that's definitively it.
… the main thing is demonstrate how accessible something is.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk to charter
<alastairc> "A candidate conformance mode"
<alastairc> "A candidate conformance model"
Shadi: And my understanding from reading the charter text pretty much the conformance model for WCAG 3.
… readers should get a good idea of what the conformance model of WCAG 3 will look like.
<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."
Kevin: the wording in the charter candidate conformance model.
… It is a working conformance model.
<kevin> Conformance Model section in AG Charter
Shadi: what I'm saying is, I do think there's a bit of a higher bar.
AC: we do need something for this draft.
… conformance model Doesn’t provide guidance on sampling (reporting)
… Doesn’t objectively & normatively define how to scope a claim (reporting methodology)
… Doesn’t enforce accessibility or define what is “good enough” (compliance)
<GreggVan> +1 This is excellent and needs to be in a location that it can be easily referred to in all conformance discussions
AC: Setting levels - Higher bar:
… Risks regulators sitting with WCAG 2
… Risks regulators excluding particular requirements
Lower bar risks regulators choosing the lower bar
… Variable bar - Risks different regulators landing on different views of compliance, breaking harmonization.
… Chairs want to provide the metric and enough levels, but nudge towards a pragmatic level.
Gregg: Slide 27 answers and resolves a lot of discussions, and it's really excellent.
… It should be in a place that can be easily referred to.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if conformance model can minimally address KSA ?
Gregg: If somebody does A, and somebody does AA, there is no problem in harmonization
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if chairs missed anything on slide 26
Gregg: You simply do AA.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to get clarity on Bruce's question
Gregg: People think that harmonization means that it has to be the same. It doesn't.
Bruce: it possible for knowledge, skills, and abilities to be mentioned or described?
… as part of WCAG 3?
RM: Did we capture everything?
… anything missing?
<bbailey> Can specifying knowledge skills abilities be in WCAG3 at all? If so, can minimal KSA be part of conformance model?
Shadi: I'm not exactly sure what adoptable in regulation means. What does that means in practice?
… What that means in practice?
<kevin> -1 to a site conforming
Awk: I think adoptable into regulation is something that actually we need to dig into a little bit more.
<Rachael> +1 to scope vs. site conformance
Awk: the conformance model needs to work for technically simple and complex sites.
… Make sure that there's a way for a site to conform, not just a page.
<AWK> GV, I'm not sure where in 2.x currently you see scope to cover a site. Or am I misunderstanding?
Gregg: site conformance is covered under scope.
… 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.
… we already have always, always had that.
… adoptable into regulation has sort of two meanings. One of them is that we don't create something that, You can't be cited, for example
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on being implementable
Gregg: the other that they can't choose, because if you start having countries all creating their own conformance models that is actually even worse
LO: provide hooks for reporting and regulation. I know we've talked about reporting before but what was imagined?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to regulator conversations
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...
s great for these functional needs, but failing on these functional needs.
… So not something that you would necessarily include in conformance, but it provides a bit more data for people to use in reporting.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to explain "simple and complex"
<alastairc> We have been having (brief) discussions with regulators already, that has informed our approach.
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.
<alastairc> One "hook" is A/AA/AAA
<Rachael> In the proposal, the functional needs would be hooks
SM: But this works for Technically, Simple and Complex is initially unclear.
Gregg: I think Hooks just has to do with
the guidelines themselves, if you're providing hooks into them.
<Chuck> Chapter 9 of EN 301 549
<alastairc> GreggVan - we are still considering scoring/percentages, so it's worth having that goal.
Gregg: second thing is simple. To handle that for simple sites is you make them conditional.
… That makes it very easy for someone doing a simple site where it says, where a site has images, oh, I skipped that one.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to disagree on hooks
<Chuck> +1 to keeping it on the radar, as Shadi said.
Shadi: On technically simple and complex websites, I think it would still be helpful for us to keep this on our radar
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss cognitive load for implementers and those reviewing their efforts
Shadi: I do think we need hooks in the conformance model.
… We have the concept of accessibility supported, specifically mentioned
<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 how much of it needs to be accessible or how quickly etc. Nor how to test a site
Jennie: Wanted address the Hooks comment scoping of large and small sites for complexity,
I think I was using the term VPAT as a way to discuss the need for those hooks.
But in some ways, I was really trying to reflect that The more complex we make the scoring for conformance.
… 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.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the flip side of rule/ruler and practical implementation
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.
… ... It does not tell you what needs to be accessible, i.e., you know, every website, every page, whatever.
… It does not tell you when it needs to be accessible.
… If it's not accessible, it's not accessible, period. Doesn't matter that it's impossible to make it accessible.
Shadi: WCAG doesn't say something is accessible.
It defines three levels of conformance.
Shadi: Why not have more levels, for example, than just 3 arbitrary levels?
AC: It's a ruler with, kind of, three notches on it, but in practice, one notch.
… because of how it's been sort of integrated
Greg: WCAG doesn't determine if something's accessible. You can do everything we cite including AAA, and you still won't be accessible.
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to speak to WCAG vs SOC
AWK: I'm not going to speak to multiple levels, with WCAG2 we've gotten very lucky with the regulations
… I'm not sure we can count on that continuing
… we've been lucky with the harmonization, but given that it's difficult to conform to, and most sites do not
… what people should consider is whether we look at things like SOC2 security standards, which aligns more with assertions
… allow for an organization to specify they've done the right things to get to success, even if it's not happening
<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.
AWK: I'd love for every site to say they can guarantee conformance for all 1million+ page
<bbailey> +1 to AWK that we've gotten lucky with WCAG2
<Detlev> it happens each time I use the "new" IRC
Chuck: People are broaching topics we have in slides, so lets move ahead
Rachael: Something that has come up in conversation, getting really clearly defined levels
… the group was trending towards wanting more levels
<Detlev> Thanks, Chuck
Rachael: three levels, keeping prerequisite the same, avoiding physical harm and basic content
… then core, for content, alternatives
… supplemental, higher level than core, things like higher contrast targets
… more detailed quality checks
… different pieces of captions like styling
… things that were harder to implement would fall into supplemental
… 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
… moving forward from there
… how that would play out, [visualization], you could report against functional needs, some portion of the supplemental need to be done
… identify a set that meet WCAG 2.2 A and AA
… do you meet by point, count, or other means, still need to discuss
… wanted to bring that back and discuss
… pros and cons, where people were on this
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move us forward in content
Chuck: Slide that is a visual representation shows levels, bronze, silver, gold
… there is also WCAG in there, which could be deemed a level
… are we presenting three, or even more?
… this could be interpreted as 5
<Laura_Carlson> s/that means in /that mean in /
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
… an acknowledgement of where it would fall
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
… so the overall level is gold/silver/bronze, the conformance, the overall site has x level
… but there's way to get more granularity
… how does it perform for those with low vision vs mobility impairments, based on which requirements
… since you have options to meet
… are all text alternatives equal
… functional image vs decorative, I think we need to think about this collectively
… 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?
Chuck: We're moving to conversational queueing
Rachael: A couple things there, by putting the core functional needs to core, it gives the chance to do more detailed reporting
… I would love to see it more broken out by need (chair hat off), its more beneficial to see
… (chair hat on), we can't control regulators, they could say "core" and that's a risk, but we want to be upfront
… 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
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
<Rachael> +1 thank you to those who worked so hard on WCAG 2
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
<Chuck> +1 to those who did work hard on WCAG 2 AND those who did work outside of AGWG to facilitate harmonization
GreggVan: I think we should kill the idea
<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.
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
… we're uneven in how we have things categorized, deciding where we draw the lines before we figure everything out
… having levels is important, we need to know what the criteria are before declaring them
… the more we try to have level, the more questions about how to organize them
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
… they are fairly small, well-defined sets, they are smaller sets than the supplemental
… different definition sets since we've been discussing them
… because we have a clear set of lines for prereq and core, it's less jockeying
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to GreggVan to make a point of order on vernacular
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on picking levels vs scoring
Chuck: Point of Order, use of vernacular to use judiciously, please avoid using the word "kill" as much as possible, use remove or discard
<GreggVan> noted
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
… where I agree with Gregg, if we weren't using scoring/percentages, do these for bronze, silver, gold
… where I struggle is how we account for the breadth of digital products, their differing needs, to let people show improvement
<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
alastairc: 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
<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
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
<Rachael> +1 to us providing the mapping and a sample tool
<shadi> +1 to an official scoring/reporting methodology
graham: 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
… are we holding back because we aren't sure about scoring, but if we provide the tool, does it make that discussion easier?
Rachael: I think us providing a methodology and mapping is necessary, we'd need to have hard conversations, what criteria support what needs
… we'd provide those details in this model
… 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
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.
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..."
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...
wendyreid: Functional needs contributes as well... sounds like supplemental will get us there.
<shadi> +1 to Wendy
wendyreid: This will be much more adoptable and friendly to the end user, tester, auditor....
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say chair hat off benefit of prerequisite
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
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask if this companion methodology will go into next charter; speak about groups related to severity
Rachael: items are tagged, here's the prerequisite sets, from conformance we just have the two groups
<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Rachel
<Chuck> +1 to the analogy of the non-interference sc in WCAG 2.
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
… maybe these can be labelled even better, it's good to have groups, its a matter of framing and describing,
… we need a way to guide, prioritize, implement, help people understand where to start
… will these items be part of the charter, I worry they get lost in discussions of everything
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
… we want to make sure we don't lose concepts as we build the informative concepts
GreggVan: alastairc said prereqs are internal, but then we said they can be a starting point, so that's my concern
… I think that we are mixing apples and oranges, stick to the minimum set of requirements
… where you should start is an education and outreach activity
… where you start teaching is not core, but it's the easiest things to understand
… it may be different for different sectors
… what is most important up front
… I think we should just be talking about what the requirements are
… starting to tag things as most to least important, its a recipe for trouble
… done as a separate activity
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
graham: You're working on inputs, so the prereq was that it was accessible by keyboard
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on whether prerequisites are the best starting point for prioritisation or education
graham: if they were essential items that couldn't be missed
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
… it's not often where I start in the lifecycle, they can be the complex things, maybe not a great onramp
… need to dig through some of the details
… not objecting to it
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to disagree I think where to start is not the same as what is important
alastairc: it is going to be how things are presented to people
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
… 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
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".
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.
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.
wendyreid: Maybe the functionality, platform, framework, we can head people off by defining a core set of the following on which you can proceed.
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
… 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
… I think AWK is on to something
Rachael: Sounds like there is a reporting portion to this, and we should look at security reporting
<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.
<bbailey> +1 to Glenda that in my experience security reports "grade" concerns flagged.
Rachael: I've heard today that we have pro and cons, and the biggest concern is the division of that bottom level
… I'm curious from a straw poll level, are we considering 2 or three segments
<GreggVan> 2
<Jon_avila> When you say 2 or 3 - what are those 2 and 3?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on process conformance
alastairc: On Glenda and AWK's point, I think we've gone a step towards that with assertions
… 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
… but then you decide what is important in your context, I don't know how well that works in accessibility
… it's very different from looking at a page and is that page accessible
… we're very interface oriented with process on top
… 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
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
<alastairc> For example, does SOC2 give you details about what makes a secure firewall? Do people report on that?
shadi: it's hard to discuss in abstract, need to see how it all works together
… need to see the assessment, and reporting, what happens if something is bronze vs silver, how do the pieces fit together?
… difficult to decide without seeing the parts
Glenda: In thinking about the fuzziness, partially vs fully support, major vs minor non-conformance, there's nothing guiding what is partial versus full
… 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
… 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
… as long as we have notes, it doesn't matter when people get it wrong
Glenda: If I can have points, dashboards, where engineers can compete against each other, no partial credit internally
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss the draft strawpoll
Chuck: There is a draft strawpoll, let's discuss first
… confusion between 1a and 1b?
<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.
Rachael: So 1a is the prereq + core based on today's definitions, 1b is the earlier foundational set
… each one is a single grouping
<Jon_avila> I don't understand.
Rachael: In 1a they're combined, 1b is broader
<Glenda> I don’t understand either
<Detlev> I am sorry, I am confused, I don't understand
Rachael: enough people don't understand that I think this is not well-written, let me think about it
<graham> is 1b not prereq + core + first few (like "bronze" effectively)?
<AWK> Maybe this is a survey question for next week?
<BrianE> +1
wendyreid: Are we asking if we prefer a prereq+core+supplemental, or core+supplemental
<bbailey> Proposal (slide 2 of 2) [being shared] looks good -- i think that is (2) ?
Chuck: AWK is asking if we make this a survey question for next week
<Detlev> Survey -- yes please with clear explanations if the differences...
<GreggVan> 2
<Glenda> 2
<shadi> 1
1
<Rachael> Strawpoll: Should we have 1) Prequisite, core, and supplemental 2) Core and supplemental 3) Something else
1
<BrianE> 2
<stevef> 2
<graham> 2
<elguerrero> 1
<Rachael> 2
<mbgower> s/prequisite/prerequisite
<alastairc> 2, 1 (preference not too concerned about this aspect)
<filippo-zorzi> 1
<Frankie> 1
<Makoto> 1
<Detlev> wound need to assess what is in each to make a decision
<AWK> 1, leaning
<LoriO4> 1
<Illai> 2
<Adam_Page> 1
<jtoles> 2
<mbgower> no strong feeling
bbailey: What is being shared on the screen right now
1, 2
alastairc: Both 1 and 2, but in 2, prereq rolls into core
GreggVan: If core doesn't mean fundamental, we're using supplemental to mean two different things in two different places, core must equal foundational?
Rachael: None of these terms are final, we're trying to use them well, but it's caused confusion
GreggVan: This supplemental is different from the supplemental we've been using
Chuck: I recommend we define the question better and run a survey
alastairc: Any questions before we send out the survey?
<Jon_avila> 2