IRC log of ag on 2025-11-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

23:41:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ag
23:42:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-irc
23:42:03 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
23:42:04 [Zakim]
Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
23:42:20 [alastairc]
agenda+ AGWG retro
23:48:42 [wendyreid]
wendyreid has joined #ag
23:52:59 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
23:58:03 [jeroen_]
jeroen_ has joined #ag
23:59:18 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #AG
00:00:31 [alastairc]
Oh, well that's now then,
00:00:36 [GreggVan]
GreggVan has joined #ag
00:00:41 [alastairc]
s/Oh, well that's now then, /
00:01:09 [spectranaut_]
spectranaut_ has joined #ag
00:01:34 [gpellegrino]
gpellegrino has joined #ag
00:02:03 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:02:06 [shawn]
shawn has joined #ag
00:02:34 [kevin]
present+
00:02:51 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:03:07 [jeroen_]
present+
00:03:10 [Rachael]
present+
00:03:19 [alastairc]
present+
00:03:34 [alastairc]
RRSAgent, make minutes
00:03:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html alastairc
00:03:44 [Jemma]
Jemma - University of Illinois Chicago - Editor and co facilitator of ARIA Authoring Practice Guide Taskforce
00:04:38 [elguerrero]
present+
00:04:44 [kenneth]
present+
00:04:50 [AWK]
+AWK
00:05:03 [Jemma]
present+ JaeunJemmaKu
00:05:16 [Jemma]
present+
00:07:03 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:07:08 [LenB]
present+
00:07:29 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:07:29 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:07:29 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:07:29 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:07:29 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:07:29 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:08:39 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:08:39 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
00:08:39 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:08:39 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:08:39 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:08:39 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:08:39 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:08:39 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:08:50 [shawn]
present+ Shawn
00:09:42 [alastairc]
Retro document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit?tab=t.i1jh2ls9zb48
00:09:58 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:09:58 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:09:58 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
00:09:58 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:09:58 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:09:58 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:09:58 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:09:58 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:11:08 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:11:08 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:11:08 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:11:08 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:11:08 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
00:11:08 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:11:08 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:11:08 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:11:08 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:11:08 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:11:53 [kevin]
present+ AWK
00:12:11 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
00:12:11 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:12:11 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:12:11 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:12:11 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:12:11 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:12:11 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:12:11 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:12:11 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:12:11 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:12:14 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Last retro: onboarding meetings just before the first meeting of each month, and a lot of subgroup work
00:12:24 [GreggVan]
present+
00:13:12 [GreggVan]
q+
00:13:20 [kevin]
ack GreggVan
00:13:32 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
00:13:32 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:13:32 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:13:32 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:13:32 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:13:32 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:13:32 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:13:32 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:13:32 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:13:32 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:14:40 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
00:14:40 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:14:40 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:14:40 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:14:40 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:14:40 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:14:40 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:14:40 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:14:40 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:14:40 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:14:58 [kevin]
q+
00:15:02 [Rachael]
q+
00:15:05 [kevin]
ack me
00:15:14 [Rachael]
q-
00:15:27 [Rachael]
+1 to subgroup work going well
00:15:54 [Jon_Avila]
Jon_Avila has joined #ag
00:15:54 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
00:15:54 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:15:54 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:15:54 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:15:54 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:15:54 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:15:54 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:15:54 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:15:54 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:15:54 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:15:55 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
00:17:22 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
00:17:22 [Jon_Avila]
Jon_Avila has joined #ag
00:17:22 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
00:17:22 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:17:22 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:17:22 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:17:22 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:17:22 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:17:22 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:17:22 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:17:22 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:17:22 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:17:42 [elguerrero]
alastairc: There is an optimal group size for getting through that type of work, 2 is not enough, 8 is too many, and somewhere in the middle depending on the people in the group
00:18:02 [GreggVan]
q+
00:18:02 [Rachael]
q+
00:18:10 [kevin]
ack GreggVan
00:18:40 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag
00:19:04 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
00:19:04 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Jaunita_Flessas has joined #ag
00:19:04 [ReinaldoFerraz]
ReinaldoFerraz has joined #ag
00:19:04 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
00:19:04 [Jon_Avila]
Jon_Avila has joined #ag
00:19:04 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
00:19:04 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
00:19:04 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:19:04 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #ag
00:19:04 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:19:04 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #ag
00:19:04 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:19:04 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #ag
00:19:08 [LenB]
present+
00:19:09 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: 2.1 and 2.2 took less time but we were just adding a few things, not restructuring. In WCAG 3 we're trying to do things in a new structure than before and expectation is you can do it in a third of the time and it's unrealistic and I worry it will push us to push something out that won't be what needs to be
00:19:23 [ReinaldoFerraz]
present+
00:19:28 [AWK]
+1 to GV comments. That said, the expectation is that we figure out a way to go faster.
00:19:34 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: I think that AI is going to change a lot of things and we need to be paying more attention to what it is that can be done
00:19:46 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: Do things as thoroughly as we need to do.
00:19:48 [alastairc]
q?
00:19:52 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
00:19:56 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:20:10 [elguerrero]
Rachael: One of our goals is to get more outside participation in subgroups with outside expertise and haven't managed to do it as successfully as we'd like
00:20:13 [kevin]
q?
00:20:24 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
00:20:41 [kevin]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
00:20:55 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: Meetings have been in the middle of the night, is there a way to move some meetings for Asia Pacific timezones?
00:20:57 [Makoto_U]
q+
00:21:07 [kevin]
ack Makoto_U
00:21:47 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #ag
00:21:54 [mbgower]
present+
00:21:56 [elguerrero]
Makoto_U: Facilitating a subgroup that has 6 members and I think smaller groups is better to have good conversations, but due to time differences, it has been difficult to have more than 2 or 3 people in our weekly subgroup meetings — we need to pick up the pace but need a better solution
00:22:49 [JJ]
q+ to comment on timezones
00:23:40 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:23:47 [elguerrero]
Ben_Tillyer: Some people who are not vocal are contributing more
00:23:57 [kevin]
ack JJ
00:23:57 [Zakim]
JJ, you wanted to comment on timezones
00:24:15 [elguerrero]
JJ: A11y Task Force, tried to find time that works for most people, very challenging because of different timezones
00:25:00 [elguerrero]
JJ: Try to do some async work but sometimes rotate meetings to accommodate different times
00:25:04 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Definite topic for where we can improve
00:25:12 [shadi]
q+
00:25:21 [LenB]
q+
00:25:23 [kevin]
ack shadi
00:25:47 [mbgower]
rrsagent, make minutes
00:25:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html mbgower
00:26:16 [elguerrero]
shadi: Things that went well: in a recent period there has been focus on conformance (not conformance model), having that broader discussion is very useful and important of WCAG 3 project (not guidelines)
00:26:23 [mbgower]
q+ to say some things that went well
00:26:27 [kevin]
ack LenB
00:26:58 [elguerrero]
LenB: Good to see the notes in documents and spreadsheets, challenge was also in timezones
00:27:09 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:27:23 [elguerrero]
LenB: How can we do thing async, how do we communicate better, and try to increase visibility and transparency
00:27:24 [mgifford2]
Setting alternating time zones is one approach I've tried, but it hasn't yet resulted in many new folks joining. Ultimately, we are all using electronic calendars, so if there is a critical mass of users it should be possible.
00:27:51 [kevin]
q?
00:27:59 [kevin]
ack mbgower
00:27:59 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say some things that went well
00:28:16 [shadi]
q+
00:28:30 [elguerrero]
mbgower: Found it useful in jumping around the different groups, it was easier to get oneself up to speed and get idea of progress of groups
00:28:49 [elguerrero]
mbgower: Keeping scratchpads and documents is really handy
00:28:59 [kevin]
q?
00:29:06 [kevin]
ack shadi
00:29:07 [alastairc]
ack shadi
00:29:19 [elguerrero]
shadi: Amazing work on closing issues in WCAG 2
00:32:17 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Summary: Accommodate meetings for those in Asia-Pacific timezone, difficult to work async but not able to get a lot done because it's difficult to build momentum, enthusiasm and motivation to do things. Splitting things up in areas for each person to work on but easy for it to slip out of mind especially if there's no regular contact
00:32:17 [elguerrero]
with other people.
00:32:26 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Looking for ideas on how to make this timezone aspect easier?
00:32:32 [kevin]
q?
00:32:34 [Rachael]
q+
00:32:42 [kevin]
ack Rachael
00:33:16 [elguerrero]
Rachael: Trying to have subgroups of people in those particular timezones, e.g. Australia, Japan, China, in those areas
00:33:20 [kevin]
q?
00:34:02 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Historically tried running Australian timed alternative AG meeting, but you end up not being able to make decisions if you're trying to cover the same ground in the same meetings
00:34:21 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Some people will not agree with the previous meetings, and there's no central place for decision making
00:34:23 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Believe subgroups would have that same problem
00:35:03 [elguerrero]
alastairc: With subgroups, if you're in a particular timezone there's a restriction of topics that you could be joining in, and if we had a group of people in Australia/Japan (roughly same timezones), your interests might be specific or restricted to what topics can be tackeld
00:35:05 [kevin]
q?
00:35:54 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: Thinking about maybe AG meetings could be done once a month in a different timezone? Not regularly, but if there are more folks joining from those timezones to get more participants in those areas
00:36:39 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:37:04 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: Pacific timezones work well, anything past 12:00pm is 5:00am and Melbourne is 2 hours ahead of Japan —if we plan around 3pm Pacific/6pm Eastern, should be good for those timezones but might not get Europe
00:37:15 [elguerrero]
kevin: What time is that in Europe?
00:37:23 [elguerrero]
JJ: 11, 12, or 1am in the evening
00:37:45 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: Maybe just once a month so European colleagues can have the majority of the meetings and once a month for Asia-Pacific
00:38:31 [alastairc]
q?
00:38:33 [AWK]
When we were attempting to do periodic APACtime-zone meetings it was very hard to have many attendees. I think that unless it is really regular it is hard to get it into people's schedules.
00:38:47 [kevin]
q+
00:38:48 [Ben_Tillyer]
q+
00:38:53 [kevin]
q- later
00:39:02 [kevin]
ack Ben_Tillyer
00:39:03 [elguerrero]
mgifford2: If we take a bit more time to rehash issues to make sure there's enough overlap for people participating, shouldn't we be making better decisions even if it takes longer?
00:39:53 [elguerrero]
Ben_Tillyer: Cycling through timezones would be beneficial, but some can't do 9-5 that interacts with their work of employment during the day.
00:40:07 [alastairc]
q+ on regulatity
00:40:16 [kevin]
ack me
00:40:38 [Fazio]
Fazio has joined #ag
00:40:48 [elguerrero]
kevin: One of the challenges is that if there is a split in meetings, there's a split in decision making but it might be worth a try
00:40:52 [Fazio]
present+
00:40:57 [elguerrero]
mgifford2: Longers meetings aren't necessarily as effective
00:41:00 [mbgower]
q+
00:41:11 [kevin]
ack alastairc
00:41:11 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on regulatity
00:41:22 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Noticed over the years that if you have irregular meetings you tend to lose participation
00:41:37 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:41:42 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Partially because consistency of schedule works for participation of people
00:41:53 [AWK]
+1 to Alastair's point about regularity=attendance. Doesn't solve the problem globally though
00:42:12 [kevin]
ack mbgower
00:42:15 [Rachael]
q+ to explore a 2nd meeting
00:42:31 [elguerrero]
mbgower: Regional basis subgroups don't need to be restricted in topics
00:42:42 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
00:42:57 [elguerrero]
mbgower: Could have subgroups that have multiple topics that smaller groups of people can tackle
00:43:36 [elguerrero]
mbgower: Choose 2-3 topics of interest in that region — could be valuable in terms of work
00:43:44 [kevin]
+1 to the value of having groups in different TZs
00:43:50 [Ben_Tillyer]
Cycling through 2-3 options for the meeting time can definitely be done and kept "regular" and predictable for people. Having the .ics file kept up to date with that should solve some of the challenges (found here: https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/ag/calendar/?tz=UTC&tf=1&past=#export)
00:44:02 [kevin]
q?
00:44:09 [kevin]
ack Rachael
00:44:09 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to explore a 2nd meeting
00:44:31 [elguerrero]
Rachael: Enough work for a second meeting for next few years, what if we did a second meeting that was topic-specific?
00:44:43 [elguerrero]
Rachael: Focus on one for conformance, one for WCAG 3, one focused on guidelines or 2.x
00:45:06 [elguerrero]
Rachael: Decision-making meetings but more narrow to let people have 5 days to review and comment back on decisions made
00:45:14 [kevin]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
00:45:30 [alastairc]
q+ on keeping up, and the "I missed this but..."
00:45:38 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: I like both ideas, having a timezone-specific subgroup because all the work is user-dependent on some ways and would be good to have that expertise on some calls
00:45:41 [GreggVan]
q+
00:45:58 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: If you're working on images/pointers, and have issues that overlap, could be good to have a group that is diverse but same timezone to discuss it
00:46:07 [kevin]
ack alastairc
00:46:07 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on keeping up, and the "I missed this but..."
00:46:57 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Some people come for a few weeks, then come back, and would have missed some bits and need to repeat things a lot and there's a synchronisation problem for those who had been there and will have to go back over things —reasonable that those who were previously not present have questions and want to discuss things again
00:47:08 [alastairc]
ack ack GreggVan
00:47:08 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
00:47:08 [Ben_Tillyer]
+1 to the comments of alastairc. It does feel like I've gone back in time by a year or three sometimes
00:47:31 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: For a lot of our topics, we have a lot of people with expertise in them, any conversations without them on the call would raise discussions that don't get done
00:48:01 [mbgower]
q+ to say I think good documentation of decisions and rationales can make a real difference
00:48:10 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: Tried to groups at 2 different times and people can't get into discussions and back and forth but what might work —we used to have a working session on Tuesday and another one later in the week
00:49:13 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: You have a group where you always have a core that is always present in both meetings — someone working on special topic who won't be there in the main meeting might be a problem but if we can shift them to later in the day so that they can participate in the second of those 2 groups to keep threads going
00:49:14 [alastairc]
q+ on 2 types of work - formative and refining.
00:49:22 [kevin]
+1 to the value of a good core part of groups
00:50:09 [elguerrero]
mbgower: I found in WCAG 2 you'll have a long issue and we've tried to make a synopsis of that issue and added to the thread but there is a summary of what's going on in this topic so that someone can go back and see the basic decisions and background discussion on these topics
00:50:26 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
00:50:27 [elguerrero]
mbgower: Don't know how we solved moving from discussion to issue, don't know if GitHub can handle that but it's a way to handle repetitiveness
00:50:28 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
00:50:28 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say I think good documentation of decisions and rationales can make a real difference
00:50:40 [Fazio]
use copilot
00:50:43 [elguerrero]
mbgower: There's a reasonable ask for a person to do the homework and look at what's been done in between meetings
00:50:59 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
00:51:04 [Ben_Tillyer]
q+
00:51:04 [elguerrero]
mbgower: On the responsibility of the person coming back in and establish where to go for the context of where we are
00:51:05 [Fazio]
we've been discussing how to leverage AI with our git issues
00:51:13 [alastairc]
ack me
00:51:13 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on 2 types of work - formative and refining.
00:51:13 [mgifford2]
Could we use AI to occasionally summarize the threads? It is also possible to edit the initial post (there is track changes) and provide a link to a comment with the AI summary.
00:51:13 [Fazio]
copilot is integrated in git
00:51:14 [shadi]
+1 to mbgower
00:52:03 [mgifford2]
Fazio GitHub right? Not git.
00:52:32 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Might work in some cases but harder for others — we've got 2 kinds of work, e.g. formative work (writing up new things/things that are different) and requires a lot of decisions to happen and you get an assertion or conformance model, but those are difficult to explain/summarise for every single decision; we also have refining work
00:52:32 [elguerrero]
where topics are restrictive, almost self-documenting with the summary in GitHub
00:52:35 [Fazio]
BTW I saw MBGowers response to my conformance level errata issue. I'll respond soon
00:52:39 [elguerrero]
alastairc: Harder to summarise bigger topics
00:52:44 [kevin]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
00:52:44 [alastairc]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
00:52:52 [Fazio]
Or was it Mike Gifford?
00:52:58 [Fazio]
I don't remember
00:53:19 [Fazio]
q+
00:53:27 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: Heard from new folks that there's a lot of information to go through, maybe we could use AI to help summarise to help people onboarded quicker or into discussions quicker
00:53:28 [kevin]
q+ to be the AI naysayer
00:54:06 [Neha2]
Neha2 has joined #ag
00:54:15 [elguerrero]
Ben_Tillyer: Used Gemini on the minutes to tell me what happened in those calls
00:54:28 [elguerrero]
Ben_Tillyer: Personally AI could be used to help keep on top of topics
00:55:21 [elguerrero]
Ben_Tillyer: Can be explored to help get people stay on top of past/current topics
00:55:38 [alastairc]
ack Fazio
00:55:44 [alastairc]
ack ben_
00:56:07 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
00:56:26 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
00:56:27 [elguerrero]
Fazio: Some type of collab bet. Microsoft/Copilot and W3C to work with copilot
00:56:44 [elguerrero]
Fazio: Would help with documentation, comments, issues
00:56:45 [alastairc]
ack kevin
00:56:47 [Zakim]
kevin, you wanted to be the AI naysayer
00:57:07 [Ben_Tillyer]
q+
00:57:18 [GreggVan]
q+
00:57:26 [Ben_Tillyer]
q-
00:57:34 [Ben_Tillyer]
q+
00:57:42 [mgifford2]
This issue of long issues isn't specific to the W3C. We've got the same issues with Drupal Issues. There are going to be a lot others looking at this. Trust, but Verify, always.
00:57:50 [elguerrero]
kevin: When there are subtleties in the arguments being presented which is often the case in the work we do, and we need to be careful if we're making a summary, we'll need to manually check it. Discussions that we've had so far, chairs took actions to summarise up to the point of the discussion and then bring back to the meeting for people to pick
00:57:50 [elguerrero]
up.
00:58:09 [Neha2]
present+
00:58:29 [elguerrero]
mgifford2: They are labour intensive but necessary because it gives the perspective of the whole argument. There's an argument for how to integrate better with AI but I don't think it's a collaboration with a particular partner because we use a number of different tools.
00:58:55 [alastairc]
q?
00:58:55 [elguerrero]
kevin: It's not a straightforward yes/no answer towards using AI
00:58:59 [alastairc]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
00:59:11 [kenneth]
s/mgifford2: They/kevin: They/
00:59:11 [kevin]
s/mgifford2: They/kevin: They/
00:59:17 [shawn]
s/mgifford2: They are labour intensive/kevin: They are labour intensive
00:59:46 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: There's nuance in arguments, and if we check before they're sent to the group, even if there are humans scribing, you're not getting that nuance if you're not in the meeting but also we might want to use AI for more accurate transcription of meetings
00:59:50 [alastairc]
q+ to say verification has to be live, people don't look at it afterwards.
01:00:32 [elguerrero]
Jaunita_Flessas: Might be because people are hestitant to have their information exposed to AI, if this information is already in public on the internet, the models have gotten better over the past few years and copilot is using OpenAI LLM so might be good to revisit
01:00:37 [Fazio]
Nothing is perfect, not even human memory or discussions
01:00:57 [Fazio]
I think theres more positive than negative to incorporating an AI assistant
01:01:02 [kevin]
ack GreggVan
01:01:25 [mgifford2]
+1 Fazio
01:01:41 [JJ]
q+ to ask if live AI scribing to IRC has been tried? Gives option to correct during meeting
01:01:49 [kenneth]
q+
01:02:14 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: We're all talking as if the current minutes are accurate, and I've watched them but a lot of times there are different hallucinations — we should be comparing what AI does to what we have and which is better, not necessarily AI is infallible but what we're currently using is already full of inaccuracies
01:02:15 [Fazio]
JJ its practice to have more loose minutes than verbatim
01:02:27 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: When you're done talking, we can see what the AI wrote and if it's wrong, show people how to make a correction
01:02:39 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: Wouldn't do that to a minute writer
01:03:12 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: We should try it with AI and correct if we want to and see which is better
01:03:12 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Would be super cool to have a running summary of IRC convos too
01:03:26 [elguerrero]
GreggVan: Sometimes people say amazing things and you can't capture them all the time
01:03:39 [elguerrero]
scribe-
01:03:42 [mbgower]
scribe: mbgower
01:03:58 [alastairc]
ack Ben_Tillyer
01:04:16 [JJ]
Fazio - it wouldn’t necessarily be full transcript, could be outputted similarly to human scribed minutes
01:04:21 [mbgower]
Ben: To Kevin, I've been doing work in my day job, demonstrating how much better agentic AI can be than something off the shelf.
01:04:48 [alastairc]
q?
01:04:49 [mbgower]
... General tools can be pretty good at a lot of things. When you make a tool more precise, it can benefit you in a particular environment.
01:04:51 [alastairc]
ack me
01:04:51 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to say verification has to be live, people don't look at it afterwards.
01:05:22 [kevin]
q+ to talk about W£C minute taking
01:05:38 [kevin]
q-
01:05:40 [Fazio]
I may be able to leverage university dollars to prototype something. Helix Opportunity has established a pretty rovust R&D partnership with a major U.S. University for these kinds of purposes
01:05:43 [kevin]
q+ to talk about W3C minute taking
01:05:44 [mbgower]
Alastair: Kevin, may know more about what the w3c is doing with minute taking. We need a summarization of documents, minutes, threads, emails...
01:05:58 [Fazio]
*robust*
01:06:01 [mbgower]
... Then the IRC side is different. I haven't seen a live-scribe, editable tool.
01:06:23 [JJ]
q- covered by Gregg and Alastair
01:06:34 [JJ]
q-
01:06:40 [mbgower]
... I suggest we leave scribing along for now. Kevin can talk to it. Chairs try to summarize, but other tools would be great. Please get in touch.
01:06:42 [alastairc]
ack kenneth
01:06:45 [kevin]
ack kenneth
01:07:28 [mbgower]
Ken: Some of these threads have been wrapped up. Minute-taking is collaborative. People should feel empowered to correct, and scribes should understand not to take that personally.
01:07:34 [alastairc]
Forgot to say - changes need to be within the meeting, otherwise people don't check them.
01:08:00 [mbgower]
... Trying to correct LLM output is more time intensive. It could take more cycles, especially a transcript.
01:09:12 [mbgower]
Kevin: I'm not aware of everything going on. Some groups have tried automatic scribing through Zoom. It didn't quite work. Anytime we try something, we encounter etiquette situations where a human would understand not to record something.
01:09:24 [mbgower]
... Havent' done anything on integration with IRC.
01:09:52 [mbgower]
... Using AI tools for scribing is not there yet. AI as transcription service is solid.
01:10:02 [alastairc]
q?
01:10:06 [alastairc]
ack kevin
01:10:06 [Zakim]
kevin, you wanted to talk about W3C minute taking
01:10:24 [mbgower]
... The third challenge is summarizing the vast quantity of input.
01:10:38 [mgifford2]
Is the history of the IRC for #ag available somewhere? Especially during meetings. It would be interesting to see what comes from that - especially over time.
01:10:38 [mbgower]
... We should be thinking of how to get the most useful AI in each context.
01:11:14 [mbgower]
Alastair: For other challenges we could try to improve, how about subgroup participation or asynchronous work.
01:11:15 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
01:11:30 [kevin]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
01:11:30 [alastairc]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
01:11:40 [mbgower]
Jaunita_Flessas: What helps a little bit is detailed documentation.
01:12:02 [mbgower]
... Instructions help make the task less daunting.
01:12:40 [mbgower]
... That can help veterans as well as new people.
01:12:59 [mbgower]
Alastair: How would we go about creating that?
01:13:32 [mbgower]
Jaunita_Flessas: Let's say we're writing a guideline. If there is a structure we need to follow for a technique or failure, it would be handy to see an example.
01:13:33 [mgifford2]
I also assume that other W3C groups are dealing with similar challenges with time-zones and use of AI. It would be interesting to learn from them as well. Side-rant - I understand the advatages of IRC, but there are lots of disadvantages too. It isn't my messaging platform of choice.
01:13:55 [mbgower]
... Or if the task is an update, a template can be useful. Something that is easily accessible.
01:14:10 [kevin]
q?
01:14:11 [mbgower]
Alastair: I thought we had those. Apparently not enough.
01:14:36 [mbgower]
... It's a shame Giacomo isn't here. Apparently his group worked effectively.
01:14:42 [mbgower]
q+
01:15:02 [alastairc]
scribe+
01:16:03 [alastairc]
mbgower: The WCAG2 task force is async, the meetings is just to get agreement on things. Need to increase the culture of bringing work to the group. The sub-group is the first place people bring work to review.
01:16:09 [alastairc]
... perhaps it could be issue tracking in a sub-group?
01:16:15 [alastairc]
q?
01:16:18 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
01:16:20 [mbgower]
scribe: mbgower
01:16:34 [kevin]
rrsagent, make minutes
01:16:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html kevin
01:17:21 [mbgower]
Alastair: Potentially we could have a big github board of requirements. There are over 200 including assertions.
01:17:39 [mbgower]
... We're potentially getting to the point where that could work soon. Until now things were changing too much.
01:17:42 [mbgower]
q+
01:17:49 [alastairc]
scribe+
01:18:03 [alastairc]
mbgower: Is there a way to make it more granular and have sub-issues.
01:18:25 [alastairc]
shawn: Yes, can have sub-issues. There are some quirks.
01:19:18 [kevin]
s/scribe: mbgower/scribe+ mbgower/
01:19:22 [kevin]
rrsagent, make minutes
01:19:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html kevin
01:19:30 [shawn]
s/There are some quirks./I find them useful. There are some quirks.
01:20:06 [mbgower]
Alastair: So we have a couple of ideas, and about 10 minutes to the break.
01:20:14 [mgifford2]
If folks want to see the sub-sub issue in GitHub https://github.com/mgifford/w3c-tpac-susty-breakout/issues/3
01:20:26 [mbgower]
... The central spreadsheet worked well for some people.
01:20:42 [mgifford2]
I just set that up as I had seen it but not played with it. Feel free to add/edit if you want to play with it.
01:20:59 [mbgower]
... Most of the difficult things were getting people involved, and the time zones.
01:21:04 [mbgower]
q+
01:21:22 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
01:21:28 [kevin]
Scribe: elguerrero, mbgower, alastairc
01:21:32 [kevin]
rrsagent, make minutes
01:21:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html kevin
01:22:06 [GreggVan]
q+
01:22:11 [alastairc]
mbgower: If we could create culture for more experienced people to shut up, and less experienced feel they can jump in more.
01:22:12 [Rachael]
q+ to ask if github helps
01:22:23 [mgifford2]
Talking sticks?
01:23:00 [mbgower]
Alastair: Before I do continue with the queue, I want to encourage people to get on queue to contribute something more.
01:23:11 [mbgower]
... +1s are really helpful to help us understand support.
01:23:16 [denkeni]
denkeni has joined #ag
01:23:20 [Ben_Tillyer]
q+
01:23:23 [mbgower]
... We do have to make some progress.
01:23:24 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:23:44 [mbgower]
Gregg: We need to stop people from getting in line to restate things.
01:24:21 [mbgower]
... But we want to encourage anyone to speak again if they have something new to say.
01:24:43 [Fazio]
I'll call on people and nicely ask them if theyd like to add to the discussion during our maturity model meetings and ask them if they'd like to contribute if I see them being quiet A little harder with the number of AGWG participants though
01:25:01 [mbgower]
... But I do like the idea of establishing pauses; moments of silence. maybe there's a way of having people being able to move to the front of the line, if they don't often get in queue.
01:25:09 [Fazio]
It's the art of meeting management
01:25:32 [Fazio]
Janina does something similar
01:25:35 [mbgower]
... Some people are not interesting in commenting. So they find other channels. We can help create those.
01:25:35 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
01:25:36 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to ask if github helps
01:25:57 [mbgower]
Rachael: We had a similar conversation in another retro.
01:26:08 [mbgower]
... I'm curious whether the githubs threads were successful.
01:26:26 [alastairc]
ack Ben_Tillyer
01:26:40 [mbgower]
alastairc: To expand on that, we have less surveys. Have the github discussions helped?
01:27:18 [mbgower]
Ben_Tillyer: Silence is good sometimes. It's easy to say things that are at the front of your mind. Sometimes, after a bit of reflection, you get into more nuanced thoughts that need to be had.
01:27:30 [GreggVan]
q+
01:27:31 [mbgower]
... Maybe we should have some designated ponderance time.
01:27:38 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:28:07 [mbgower]
GreggVan: Two quick comments. Surveys are a great tool. Everybody gets a chance to talk. But some may comment and some may observe. But it's more of a level playing feild.
01:28:47 [mbgower]
alastairc: The question for the wider groups is whether github discussions and issues were helpful or noisier. Did people appreciate that ability to reply to other's comments?
01:28:54 [AWK]
q+
01:29:00 [alastairc]
ack AWK
01:29:06 [mbgower]
... It didn't help the chairs understand what the consensus might be.
01:29:17 [mbgower]
AWK: The discussions are great, but they never end.
01:29:28 [mbgower]
... It starts to be like a marathon you never signed up for.
01:29:47 [mbgower]
... If you don't pay attention at the right time, things get resolved.
01:30:32 [mbgower]
... Those are things that are nice about the surveys, CFCs and meetings, where there is a deadline.
01:31:07 [mbgower]
kevin: The break is from 10:30 to 11. It's half an hour. Lunch is today at 12:30 until 1:45.
01:31:38 [mbgower]
... There is an afternoon break from 3 to 3:30. It is currently 10:30 JST.
01:32:04 [Tamsin]
Tamsin has joined #ag
01:32:50 [kenneth]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
01:32:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html kenneth
01:45:47 [kenneth]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
01:45:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html kenneth
01:47:15 [kenneth]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
01:47:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html kenneth
02:03:25 [Remi]
Remi has joined #ag
02:03:49 [Ben_Tillyer]
q+
02:04:24 [Neha]
Neha has joined #ag
02:04:31 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
02:04:58 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Present+
02:05:12 [Makoto_U]
present+
02:05:15 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
02:05:28 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
02:05:54 [kevin]
q+
02:05:55 [mbgower]
alastairc: I'm not sure what the external reaction has been, to respond to Ben's question.
02:05:59 [kevin]
ack Ben_Tillyer
02:06:01 [alastairc]
ack Ben_Tillyer
02:06:16 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
02:06:22 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
02:06:24 [mbgower]
Rachael: There seems to be the most excitement around having user centred processes.
02:06:27 [eloisa]
eloisa has joined #ag
02:06:43 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag
02:07:02 [mbgower]
... So I would say the assertion space. After the December time period, it will be more useful, as Alastair said. We are doing one for Knowbility.
02:07:03 [alastairc]
ack kevin
02:07:24 [mbgower]
kevin: We have the potential to piggyback WCAG 3 on a few CSUN topics.
02:07:49 [shawn]
[ Shawn is doing a session at CSUN and plans to include some on WCAG 3 ]
02:07:50 [mbgower]
... I can't think of another specification that is comparable to this.
02:08:12 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
02:08:26 [mbgower]
... We are seeing areas like security and privacy and approaching similar questions.
02:08:30 [ReinaldoFerraz]
ReinaldoFerraz has joined #ag
02:08:43 [mbgower]
s/privacy and approaching/privacy approaching
02:09:08 [mbgower]
alastairc: To summarize, we will look at scheduling meetings at different times.
02:09:28 [mbgower]
... We will try to use surveys or other mechanisms to draw topics to a close.
02:09:53 [Rachael]
q+ to say an action to set deadlines on github discussions
02:09:56 [mbgower]
... We will investiate AI tools for summarizing, separate from minute taking.
02:10:00 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
02:10:00 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to say an action to set deadlines on github discussions
02:10:12 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
re project boards, issues can live in multiple boards (if we're talking github), so you can have best of both worlds to an extent
02:10:16 [mbgower]
... We will consider the best way of organizing across project boards.
02:10:28 [shadi]
q+
02:10:35 [alastairc]
ack shadi
02:10:57 [mbgower]
shadi: Do the chairs and leadership have reflections on what went well and not so well.
02:11:10 [Rachael]
q+
02:11:17 [kevin]
q+
02:11:44 [mbgower]
Rachael: I think some of them came up. At least for me, us creating summaries that people can find. We create them. We need to make them more discoverable.
02:12:19 [mbgower]
... That will allow people to come back in with the background.
02:12:25 [alastairc]
q+
02:12:32 [kevin]
q- later
02:12:50 [mbgower]
... We try new things fairly regularly. I think the maturity level approached helped.
02:13:11 [mbgower]
alastairc: The parallel subgroups worked quite well.
02:13:45 [mbgower]
... It's hard to start a new structure. Hopefully we've got more things in place.
02:14:18 [mbgower]
... The editors' week worked well. We haven't covered that, but dedicated time to try to draw everything together was very useful.
02:14:25 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
02:14:27 [alastairc]
ack me
02:14:44 [alastairc]
ack kevin
02:15:15 [mbgower]
kevin: I would +1 everything said. I think what everyone can do to support the work is for everyone to participate. The collaboration is so important. Make sure your input is in one of those layers.
02:15:35 [Rachael]
+1 to wanting to hear everyone's voice
02:16:03 [mbgower]
... Make sure you respond to surveys. Even if it just to say +1. It helps us understand what the group is thinking. Where the consensus is.
02:16:58 [Rachael]
q+
02:17:18 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
02:17:21 [mbgower]
alastairc: To add something else. When we have subgroup work, making it clear what the output should be. We can't be everywhere, so sessions in the main meeting are the best place to tackle questions that have come up -- especially where they surround how to progress.
02:17:44 [mbgower]
Rachael: We didn't slip anything more than 45 days. We made our targets.
02:18:04 [kevin]
q?
02:18:22 [alastairc]
agenda?
02:18:38 [mbgower]
alastairc: We have an old agenda...
02:18:46 [kevin]
clear agenda
02:18:49 [mbgower]
Kevin: Are you just going to do topics?
02:19:02 [alastairc]
TOPIC: Schedule and future work
02:20:06 [mbgower]
Rachael: We are going to start by going over the next 4 years' schedule.
02:20:06 [alastairc]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lrSm4JSt7vgmXdAJwO0cASqp11EGYoCCR6Ni2OkWBzk/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
02:20:42 [mbgower]
[shares deck]
02:20:51 [mbgower]
[slide 2]
02:21:04 [mbgower]
... We have three key deliverables.
02:21:42 [mbgower]
WCAG 3 normative, the larger set of supporting documentation, and some kind of update to WCAG 2 covering normative updates, but no additional requirements.
02:21:47 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
+1 for wcag 2.x backlog inclusion
02:21:58 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
2.2.1 ;)
02:22:13 [mbgower]
WCAG 2? is just to indicate we do not know what to call this right now.
02:22:43 [mbgower]
[Assumptions slide]
02:23:52 [mbgower]
We continue 2-week charters. The WCAG 2 TF continues, outside the main work.
02:24:04 [GreggVan]
q+
02:24:14 [alastairc]
s/WCAG 2? /WCAG 2.?
02:24:29 [mbgower]
Rachael: We continue to have enough participants to have 5 subgroups
02:25:25 [mbgower]
Gregg: I suggest WCAG 2.2.1 for naming. EN is going up for a vote soon. It would be better to get something out before the vote was done, so the revised version has a chance of adoption.
02:26:06 [mbgower]
... You mentioned you wanted to get one out, but also continue. I encourage you not to do that. Do not continue to do normative changes in waves.
02:26:09 [mbgower]
q+
02:26:17 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
02:26:23 [mbgower]
... That's going to be disruptive and difficult to adopt.
02:26:45 [mbgower]
alastairc: We have scoping changes tomorrow for WCAG 2. Let's not talk about the name yet, please.
02:26:47 [mbgower]
q-
02:26:52 [alastairc]
q?
02:27:07 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
2.2 Alpha Zero Black edition
02:27:19 [mbgower]
Rachael: The intent is to do one normative update. We will talk in more detail tomorrow.
02:27:34 [mbgower]
[Terminology slide]
02:28:15 [mbgower]
[Key Takeaways slide]
02:28:29 [mbgower]
We plan to publish second half of year of 2029.
02:28:54 [GreggVan]
q+
02:29:01 [mbgower]
... The candidate rec would come out two years before that, end of 2027
02:29:31 [mbgower]
... WCAG 2 update would be 2026 for comment, publish second half 2027.
02:29:38 [mbgower]
[Detailed schedule]
02:30:43 [mbgower]
... This table is a 4x4 table, with the three items in columns and the first column providing row headings for each quarter of 2026.
02:31:07 [mbgower]
s/4x4/4x5
02:32:05 [mbgower]
[Detailed schedule 2027 slide]
02:32:50 [mbgower]
[Detailed schedule 2028 slide]
02:33:04 [mbgower]
Rachael: WCAG 3 would be getting a lot of comments.
02:33:30 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag
02:33:51 [mbgower]
[Detailed schedule 2029 slide]
02:34:11 [mbgower]
... We have scheduled in some slip in the second half of the year.
02:34:36 [mbgower]
[Detailed schedule 2030]
02:35:00 [mbgower]
... We would be working on backlog work and the supplemental documentation.
02:35:11 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
02:35:24 [alastairc]
q+
02:35:25 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Looks reasonable to get there within 5 years
02:35:30 [mbgower]
GreggVan: I thought CR just happens before publishing.
02:35:42 [mbgower]
... Maybe I don't understand what Candidate Recommendation mens.
02:35:47 [shadi]
q+
02:36:00 [kevin]
s/mens/means/
02:36:07 [mbgower]
... I worry about the ambition of the schedule
02:36:31 [mbgower]
... I'd rather it be scheduled by the maturity, not the date.
02:37:09 [mbgower]
... I don't people realize how far we have to go. We are not as far along as perceived.
02:37:30 [mbgower]
... We found that the understanding and techniques work informed the normative language.
02:37:41 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
regarding Candidate Recommendation definition https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR
02:37:57 [mbgower]
... We should not be thinking about publishing if we haven't written up what we understand it to me, or the methods to do it.
02:38:08 [alastairc]
ack me
02:38:10 [mbgower]
... I like the plan overall. Those are just the two main considerations.
02:38:47 [AWK]
q+ to speak to the group's ability to focus on two specs which are potentially adopted into regulation.
02:38:49 [alastairc]
scribe+ JJ
02:39:58 [alastairc]
ack shadi
02:40:05 [JJ]
alastairc: getting to refining stage, assuming the content will be mature
02:40:10 [Rachael]
q+ to speak to the methods
02:41:00 [JJ]
shadi: Timeline is ambitious, what are the maturity levels and what is the full WCAG 3 package?
02:41:02 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
q+
02:41:34 [JJ]
… in multi year development, how to sync all materials
02:41:38 [alastairc]
Supplimental docs = informative docs, how-to, methods, tests
02:42:17 [JJ]
… for evaluation, how can we go beyond WCAG-EM
02:42:32 [kevin]
q+ to mention prior and background work on supplemental materials
02:42:46 [JJ]
… evaluation can impact the criteria
02:43:28 [JJ]
… we have learned from WCAG 2 and ACT that we things are tested in practice the requirements can be ambiguous
02:43:57 [mgifford2]
mgifford2 has joined #ag
02:43:57 [alastairc]
q+ on tests being part of it from the start
02:44:02 [alastairc]
ack AWK
02:44:02 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to speak to the group's ability to focus on two specs which are potentially adopted into regulation.
02:44:05 [JJ]
… I would like to see definition of supplemental guidance
02:44:50 [JJ]
AWK: speaking from experience working on silver, WCAG 3 and 2.1 and 2.2…
02:45:19 [JJ]
… people are going to focus on the standard that is closest to what supports their organisation best
02:45:23 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
agree, but ... pragmatically, can't blame organisations for concentrating on the here and now
02:45:28 [JJ]
… the longer development takes the
02:45:31 [mbgower]
q+
02:45:43 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
02:45:43 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to speak to the methods
02:45:43 [mgifford2]
To build on shadi point about ACT rules - the ARRM community group has also found the implementations of WCAG 2 being difficult to understand per role that has some responsibilities for delivering it.
02:45:43 [JJ]
… larger the risk of it not being adopted
02:46:31 [JJ]
Rachael: tests and methods are critical but we should not forget role based guidance eg for designers
02:46:45 [JJ]
… they can feed into requirements
02:46:53 [AWK]
q+
02:47:14 [JJ]
… we will do async reviews
02:47:22 [alastairc]
ack Patrick_H_Lauke
02:48:10 [kevin]
q+ to comment on making things more atomic
02:48:30 [JJ]
Patrick_H_Lauke: commenting on non-normative work, the term “normative” is often not understood by target audience
02:48:31 [AWK]
q+ to respond to Rachael which is that the reason that the WCAG 2.x backlog task force has been able to function independently is because it isn't making normative changes.
02:49:11 [JJ]
… first normative and then understanding is not an option, should be a full package at publication
02:49:18 [shadi]
+1 to defining the "WCAG3 package"
02:49:34 [alastairc]
ack kevin
02:49:35 [Zakim]
kevin, you wanted to mention prior and background work on supplemental materials and to comment on making things more atomic
02:49:39 [mbgower]
q-
02:50:26 [shadi]
q+
02:50:33 [JJ]
kevin: The “WCAG3 package” definition has been worked on, but not finished.
02:50:38 [Rachael]
q+
02:50:49 [JJ]
… in WCAG 2 there are a
02:51:01 [JJ]
… lot of understanding documents
02:51:05 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
expanding on the minuted part: from our experience in WCAG 2.x backlog TF, we saw that a lot of the normative wording is actually opaque/unclear to developers. only once the understanding documents are written do developers actually understand what the normative part of the requirements even means
02:51:50 [JJ]
… one of the steps that helps is to break things down, e.g. one atomic requirement at a time
02:51:55 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
so even when asking developers/the community for review, if the understanding part isn't finished by that point, they may not have the full picture to even be able to comment on it
02:51:55 [shadi]
+1 to granular requirements
02:51:58 [alastairc]
ack me
02:51:58 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on tests being part of it from the start
02:53:14 [JJ]
alastairc: informative/supplemental documentation - understanding and techniques are being pulled to the top
02:53:18 [alastairc]
ack AWK
02:53:18 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to respond to Rachael which is that the reason that the WCAG 2.x backlog task force has been able to function independently is because it isn't making normative
02:53:22 [Zakim]
... changes.
02:53:45 [alastairc]
q+ on the normative changes
02:53:47 [alastairc]
ack shadi
02:53:51 [JJ]
AWK: backlog tf has been working so smoothly due to non-normative changes
02:54:02 [shawn]
[ shawn notes potential confusion between "WCAG 2 Supplemental Guidance" https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2/supplemental/ and WCAG 3 "supplemental content"
02:54:37 [JJ]
shadi: we need to draw the line, and define what is at the core of the necessary documentation
02:54:39 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
(backlog TF would love to make actual normative changes...our hands have been tied on trying to explain things that, on closer inspection, were very difficult to rationalise without logic pretzels)
02:54:59 [shawn]
q+
02:55:03 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
02:55:07 [JJ]
… moving away from supplemental as that could be seen as addendum
02:56:19 [alastairc]
ack me
02:56:19 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on the normative changes
02:56:24 [JJ]
Rachael: what are the TFs going to work on… the supplemental guidance is not on the schedule yet. Focus is on the core.
02:57:06 [JJ]
alastairc: it takes 6 weeks to 6 months to create and then much longer to actually publish
02:57:17 [shawn]
q+ to say https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#background-on-wcag-2 "supplemental guidance"
02:57:27 [alastairc]
ack shawn
02:57:27 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to say https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#background-on-wcag-2 "supplemental guidance"
02:57:49 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
(6 weeks to 6 months ... "string length measurement task force")
02:58:04 [JJ]
shawn: avoid using “supplemental guidance” in WCAG 3 as it has a very specific meaning in WCAG 2
02:58:56 [JJ]
alastairc: we can bring tests and user needs into the requirements
02:59:20 [alastairc]
q?
02:59:29 [shadi]
q+
02:59:34 [alastairc]
ack shadi
02:59:35 [JJ]
… a lot of iteration is needed after reaching the base maturity
03:00:04 [JJ]
shadi: still lost, is there a definition for WCAG 3 package
03:00:15 [shawn]
q+
03:00:32 [JJ]
Rachael: this term is new to me but will be working on defining it
03:00:35 [alastairc]
ack shawn
03:00:58 [GreggVan]
q+
03:01:02 [alastairc]
q+
03:01:14 [JJ]
shawn: how can we get to shared understanding ?
03:01:48 [GreggVan]
q+ to say Understanding, Methods, Tests are the key ones. Where to start and such can follow later.
03:01:57 [Rachael]
q+ to transition us to the next conversation
03:02:02 [JJ]
shadi: we need to map out in more detail what these informative documentations will include and how they relate
03:02:07 [shawn]
s/how can we get to shared understanding/do you have an initial list to share now to get to shared understanding?
03:02:28 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
03:02:28 [Zakim]
GreggVan, you wanted to say Understanding, Methods, Tests are the key ones. Where to start and such can follow later.
03:02:34 [JJ]
… for example what will they achieve
03:03:00 [shadi]
q+ to disagree with Gregg
03:03:00 [JJ]
GreggVan: understanding and tests are key
03:03:24 [JJ]
… other things can come later even though they are important
03:03:30 [alastairc]
ack me
03:04:46 [JJ]
alastairc: these things have been prototyped before. You have informative documents and notes. We explored tagging and filtering.
03:05:16 [JJ]
… we got methods. Tests. User needs. Brief rationales to go with requirements
03:05:16 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
03:05:16 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to transition us to the next conversation
03:05:35 [JJ]
Rachael: Shadi first
03:05:38 [alastairc]
ack shadi
03:05:38 [Zakim]
shadi, you wanted to disagree with Gregg
03:05:41 [alastairc]
q+ Rachael
03:06:15 [JJ]
shadi: we have discussed what is part of core, eg reporting, measuring how well a website performs.
03:06:32 [JJ]
… this would influence how requirements are structured
03:06:59 [JJ]
… when working on WCAG-EM we found a lot of issues but were unable to make changes to WCAG
03:07:37 [JJ]
… Therefore these need to be developed together, staggered or sequenced
03:08:03 [JJ]
alastairc: transitioning to task forces for next charter slide
03:08:36 [JJ]
Rachael: acknowledging the topic, will get back to it later
03:08:56 [shadi]
q+
03:09:10 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
03:09:37 [JJ]
… mentioning the task forces listed on slide
03:10:06 [JJ]
… coga, act, mobile, WCAG backlog, wcag2ict…
03:10:25 [alastairc]
q?
03:10:35 [alastairc]
ack shadi
03:10:40 [JJ]
… policy, usability testing and assertions, low vision, something else?
03:11:24 [GreggVan]
q+
03:11:26 [JJ]
… I’m asking which need to be part of next chapter
03:11:33 [JJ]
charter
03:11:36 [jeroen_]
q+ positive on policy guidance task force
03:11:48 [alastairc]
q+ jeroen_
03:11:52 [alastairc]
q- pos
03:11:55 [Rachael]
q+
03:12:02 [JJ]
shadi: can this be driven by its need and not by names or structures
03:12:23 [JJ]
… how can WCAG 3 be addressed more broadly?
03:12:45 [JJ]
… a (new) group could address this in various forms
03:13:03 [JJ]
… first define needs then structures
03:13:10 [alastairc]
q+ on TFs (generally) having their own deliverables, and needing own email list etc.
03:13:34 [mbgower]
q+ to say I don't think we need WCAG2ICT equivalent
03:13:40 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
03:14:10 [mbgower]
q-
03:14:10 [mbgower]
+1
03:14:36 [JJ]
GreggVan: WCAG2ICT might not be needed, they are very busy already working on AAA guidance (WCAG 2.2)
03:15:00 [shawn]
+1 for topics first (rather than TFs)
03:15:20 [JJ]
… WCAG3ICT, do research where it falls shorts on non web
03:15:55 [JJ]
… re special interest groups VS task force
03:16:22 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
+1 COGA more of a special interest group atm.
03:16:28 [JJ]
… coga has been in the middle of everything
03:16:38 [JJ]
… a tf should do a task and then dissolve
03:16:43 [alastairc]
q/
03:16:52 [shadi]
+1 to scoped TFs
03:16:52 [alastairc]
q?
03:16:52 [alastairc]
ack jeroen_
03:17:01 [GreggVan]
+1
03:17:06 [shawn]
[ Shawn has specific input on Low Vision TF and contrast algorithm, though I think not worth taking time now ]
03:17:22 [JJ]
jeroen_: positive about policy task forces listed
03:17:22 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
03:17:54 [shadi]
q+
03:18:24 [JJ]
Rachael: special interest topics can be important without needing to be a task force
03:18:26 [alastairc]
ack alastairc
03:18:26 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on TFs (generally) having their own deliverables, and needing own email list etc.
03:18:46 [kevin]
q+
03:18:49 [GreggVan]
q+
03:18:53 [JJ]
alastairc: TFs work best when they have a clear deliverable
03:19:11 [shadi]
q-
03:19:19 [JJ]
… I would like MATF to check next WCAG 3 release to identify gaps
03:19:56 [JJ]
… we are building in the “non web” part, wcag3ict might not be needed
03:20:00 [shawn]
q+
03:20:08 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
(as a side note ... i always ready the "2" in WCAG2ICT as meaning "to", as in "how to apply WCAG to ICT". so wouldn't need to be called WCAG3ICT)
03:20:14 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
2Fast2ICT
03:20:24 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
s/ready/read
03:20:30 [alastairc]
ack kevin
03:20:33 [JJ]
… notes can be created by groups to be referenced in WCAG 3
03:21:13 [JJ]
kevin: tf is artificial in terms of processes. No technical reports can be published.
03:21:32 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
kevin: TF is confined to the charter of its parent WG
03:21:36 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
03:21:39 [shadi]
+1 to Kevin
03:21:41 [shadi]
q+
03:21:42 [JJ]
… define what outcomes are and then figure out vehicle for delivering
03:22:06 [JJ]
GreggVan: re COGS
03:22:17 [alastairc]
ack shawn
03:22:28 [JJ]
GreggVan: re COGA not intended to downplay but to make more mainstream
03:22:40 [kevin]
s/GreggVan: re COGS//
03:23:13 [JJ]
shawn: contrast algorithm is still a big issue for low vision TF
03:23:36 [alastairc]
ack shadi
03:23:52 [JJ]
… but that topic can derail the WG processes so we have to be careful how to incorporate
03:24:32 [JJ]
shadi: figure out topics for WCAG 2 and 3.
03:24:47 [JJ]
… AI should also be considered
03:25:02 [JJ]
… what are the lessons learned
03:25:16 [mbgower]
q+
03:25:38 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
AI is such a vague term, that means all sorts of things to people... this would need to be very specifically defined first
03:25:48 [JJ]
… it might not be tf or subgroup, but some way of people getting together to focus on specific topics like AI
03:25:51 [shadi]
+1 to Patrick_H_Lauke
03:25:57 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
03:26:01 [kevin]
+1 to Patrick_H_Lauke
03:26:20 [shawn]
s/contrast algorithm is still a big issue for low vision TF/with low vision hat on, different issues with internationalization, contrast, and other guidance. Based on past experience, we might not want one TF to take all of these.
03:26:31 [JJ]
mbgower: can we touch base with all task forces and let them give feedback
03:27:07 [alastairc]
q?
03:27:13 [JJ]
… what are lessons learned to bring us to the next stage
03:27:26 [Rachael]
q?
03:27:51 [mbgower]
ACT-rules
03:27:55 [JJ]
Rachael: before we move on, can you speak more about testing shadi
03:28:10 [kevin]
q+ to mention ARIA testing discussion... although probably later
03:28:49 [JJ]
shadi: I meant what are the take aways and can we formalise the lessons learned
03:28:49 [alastairc]
ack kevin
03:28:49 [Zakim]
kevin, you wanted to mention ARIA testing discussion... although probably later
03:29:08 [mbgower]
+1 to the aria discussion. There's a session on it this week, right?
03:29:37 [JJ]
kevin: there is ongoing discussion in ARIA about testing, can learn from this. Friday joint meeting
03:30:23 [JJ]
Rachael: ending with summary, lunch break starts
03:30:56 [JJ]
Kevin: helps everyone not to miss lunch location
04:28:47 [shawn]
s/but that topic can derail the WG processes so we have to be careful how to incorporate///
04:45:42 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
04:51:20 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
04:52:12 [alastairc]
q?
04:52:25 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
scribe+
04:53:11 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
04:53:23 [Makoto_U]
present+
04:54:09 [Lisa]
Lisa has joined #ag
04:54:17 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: we talked about policy guidance, brief mention of AI, talked normative + support docs, mobile/epub/kiosks/tv/vr
04:54:17 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag
04:54:22 [Lisa]
present+
04:54:25 [hdv]
present+
04:54:41 [GreggVan]
let me know when you would like the Brief AI explanation
04:54:49 [elguerrero]
elguerrero has joined #ag
04:54:52 [GreggVan]
q+
04:54:57 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: reporting. Anything else that popped up during lunch/powernaps?
04:55:13 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
04:55:36 [shadi]
shadi has joined #ag
04:55:38 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Gregg: did you want me to explain what AI was about? using AI to create smart browsers (agentic) that can automatically identify headers, tables, etc even if content didn't mark them up properly
04:55:54 [shadi]
q+
04:55:59 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Gregg: will also allow progressive descriptions
04:56:05 [hdv]
q+
04:56:09 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Gregg: interrogating browser interactively about images
04:56:29 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Gregg: simplifying language, removing idioms, explaining idioms, etc
04:56:36 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick: so ... magic ...
04:57:00 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Gregg: same with contrast - modifying things dynamically
04:57:02 [Lisa]
Q+
04:57:15 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: think that was not only context for AI
04:58:12 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: agree with you Gregg that a11y features in browser, including those with AI, are important. but wonder if that's level higher - WAI mission, or W3C priorities, maybe separate WG other than AGWG
04:58:23 [GreggVan]
q+
04:58:38 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Jaunita_Flessas has joined #ag
04:58:42 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: think that's beyond the scope of guidelines. the more browsers can do, the less others need to do. understand relationship, but think it's sepaate/beyond scope here
04:58:44 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Present+
04:59:11 [alastairc]
q+ on it being about ensuring that AI (/user-agents) can do something without us having to change the normative guidance. I.e. a review pass of the guidelines.
04:59:11 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: when I raised AI i meant more in authoring sense - writing requirements so that they can be machine-readable. AI for testing purposes.
04:59:19 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
04:59:28 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
04:59:40 [alastairc]
ack shadi
04:59:48 [alastairc]
ack hdv
04:59:51 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: back in the day we had lots of problems with captions for instance. nowadays, it's much more feasible to use "AI" (machine learning) to autogenerate things like captions
05:00:35 [Rachael]
q+ to say that the requirements don't change based on how they are met (ai vs author)
05:00:49 [kenneth]
q+
05:00:50 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Hidde: think future where browser magically fixes things with "AI", sounds like an "accessibility toggle". we need to be careful that we can't rely on it, particularly if working in areas like specification/verification
05:01:01 [alastairc]
ack Lisa
05:01:02 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Hidde: "accessibility dongle"
05:01:02 [hdv]
s/toggle/dongle
05:02:15 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: if AI comes in to do author's job... when AT can work directly with a11y API great, but for cognitive we have a lot of tools that need to do scraping...
05:04:18 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: when tools get it wrong (such as getting words wrong in autogenerated captions/content), this can be annoying for most users, but these mistakes can be really problematic for people with cognitive issues
05:04:54 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: "AI" has potential to be trained for testing for things that are easy to test for
05:05:39 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: what already works well today is reading text in images, pretty reliably
05:06:24 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
05:06:27 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: do we then say "don't use text in images", but rather "make sure to test in all current AIs/UAs"
05:06:36 [Lisa]
present+
05:07:20 [hdv]
q+ to note it will benefit our work if disambiguate specific types of AI
05:08:04 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick: making a requirement "make sure that users can access the text if embedded in an image" and then allowing one sufficient technique/way to pass is to demonstrate that all current (for whatever definition of the word) can reliably find/expose text in image
05:08:24 [Rachael]
q-
05:08:43 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Gregg: +1 to all things mentioned by Shadi/Hidde/Lisa. need to make sure that we don't write guidelines that are out of step with tools/UAs
05:08:53 [alastairc]
ack me
05:08:53 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on it being about ensuring that AI (/user-agents) can do something without us having to change the normative guidance. I.e. a review pass of the
05:08:57 [Zakim]
... guidelines.
05:09:17 [alastairc]
ack kenneth
05:09:33 [shadi]
q+
05:09:47 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Ken: something Hidde said last time spurred common phrase: "remember to prioritise human-first output"
05:10:15 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Ken: core concept/tenet - it's about people. don't want to make mistake to optimise for machines instead of people. keeping that in mind
05:10:16 [alastairc]
ack hdv
05:10:16 [Zakim]
hdv, you wanted to note it will benefit our work if disambiguate specific types of AI
05:10:39 [alastairc]
ack shadi
05:10:43 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Hidde: we also need to disambiguate "AI". LLMs, machine-learning... they are different, do different things, different consequences
05:10:48 [Rachael]
q+
05:11:25 [Lisa]
Q+
05:11:54 [alastairc]
q+ on how to meet aspect & accessibility supported
05:11:56 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: sounds simplistic to say "we can just write guidelines carefully ... then AI does it, and we're done". like, can we obsolete 1.1.1? in a few year's time, we can just remove concept of headings if browsers recognise them automagically. more here to unpack
05:12:05 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
05:12:10 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
05:12:34 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: we covered some of this before. technology-neutral. neutral from person solving them.
05:13:09 [alastairc]
q-
05:13:14 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: still a requirement. and. we can't always assume there is going to BE a browser. the core point of the requirement still needs to exist, even IF some UAs may already meet them automagically
05:13:20 [Lisa]
+1 to rachael
05:13:27 [Lisa]
present+
05:13:59 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: making sure that even if a requirement seems "obsolete" because it's fulfilled automatically. but the requirement still exists for new technologies that may not do that
05:14:05 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
05:14:09 [alastairc]
+1, we don't know how widely available things will be in advance, or across platforms. Therefore we have to /allow/ for UAs to acheive things, but still include them.
05:14:13 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: COGA has document on risks to users FROM AI
05:14:33 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: including mental health and safety
05:14:54 [alastairc]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
05:14:56 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Lisa: need to scope out what's included in COGA group, in AT, ...
05:14:59 [alastairc]
ack Lisa
05:15:21 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Jaunita: getting back to point about getting specs out faster, not just tech agnostic, but fast-tracking updates if technology updates
05:15:39 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Jaunita: without having to go through lengthy w3c process, to keep up with technology
05:15:40 [Rachael]
q+
05:15:43 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
05:16:16 [hdv]
+1 to spending some time on user agents and authoring tools
05:16:23 [shadi]
+1
05:16:24 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: stepping away from AI and back to what topics we need to focus on. do we need to think about user agents and authoring tools. do we need time talking about them?
05:16:28 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
05:16:35 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: essentially a seaparate topic...
05:16:39 [alastairc]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
05:16:40 [JJ]
q+ to reply about user agents
05:17:22 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Jaunita: i think yes. could also ask UAs to do more
05:17:39 [kevin]
q+
05:17:48 [alastairc]
ack JJ
05:17:48 [Zakim]
JJ, you wanted to reply about user agents
05:18:01 [hdv]
q+ to say we don't require but can inspire
05:18:07 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Jaunita: same for authoring tools, requiring them not to create inaccessible content
05:18:21 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick: good luck with that. we've seen low-to-no traction for UAAG and ATAG in the past
05:19:00 [alastairc]
ack kevin
05:19:26 [saku4]
saku4 has joined #ag
05:19:51 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
JJ: going beyond user agent, possible to talk about other deeper aspects (available in say native mobile development, like detecting is AT is running)
05:19:51 [shadi]
q+
05:20:12 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: we can write standards, nobody forces people to follow them...
05:20:37 [sakito]
sakito has joined #ag
05:20:54 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Keving: Patrick mentioned that UAAG and ATAG got no traction at the time. there was no engagement with organisations that these specs applied to. engaging them more, working with them...
05:21:12 [alastairc]
s/Keving: /Kevin:
05:21:24 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: there is work on authoring tools guidelines, working with accessibility standards canada
05:21:49 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: within that there will be much more engagement with authoring tool vendors
05:21:49 [alastairc]
q?
05:21:52 [alastairc]
ack hdv
05:21:52 [Zakim]
hdv, you wanted to say we don't require but can inspire
05:22:36 [shawn]
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Community Group (ATAG CG) https://www.w3.org/community/atag/
05:22:52 [sakito]
Could you please give me the slides URL
05:23:04 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Hidde: user agents are in good position to make positive changes...if they engaged. worked on authoring tool engagement with Shadi at the time
05:23:11 [kevin]
s/Could you please give me the slides URL//
05:23:13 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Hidde: would love to see more of that
05:23:15 [alastairc]
q?
05:23:18 [alastairc]
ack shawn
05:23:27 [sakito]
Thank you very much
05:23:38 [kevin]
s/Thank you very much//
05:24:05 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: from what i'm hearing the answer is yes, more discussion on this topic. also because this group also has authoring guidelines, or rather this is the one monolythic accessibility group - might need to be unpacked
05:24:42 [alastairc]
q+ on accessibility supported complexity
05:24:46 [alastairc]
ack shawn
05:24:47 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: if i had to pick, i'd say authoring tool work would get us more mileage, so not sure about prioritisation on authors
05:24:51 [alastairc]
ack shadi
05:24:53 [shadi]
ack me
05:24:58 [alastairc]
ack alastairc
05:24:58 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on accessibility supported complexity
05:25:49 [shadi]
s/authoring tools work would get us more milage/user agent work would get us more milage
05:25:56 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: accessibility support set is where things like "images in text" comes in.
05:26:14 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: also, if you're testing contrast, should you assume that "increase contrast" is enabled on the platform the user is on
05:26:16 [alastairc]
q?
05:26:18 [kevin]
q+
05:26:23 [alastairc]
ack kevin
05:26:50 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: coming back to Shadi's points - think you said authoring tools when you meant user agents...
05:27:06 [alastairc]
s/where things like "images in text" comes in/where things like "images in text" comes in as a user-agent method might work on one platform but not another.
05:27:29 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: sorry, i meant user agents - i.e. on previous point, resource allocation should prioritise user agents where most impact could happen
05:27:34 [shadi]
q+
05:27:50 [alastairc]
ack shadi
05:27:51 [Rachael]
q+ to say can we wrap up this topic
05:28:09 [mbgower]
q+
05:28:14 [Rachael]
q-
05:28:29 [shawn]
q+
05:28:36 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
05:28:47 [shawn]
q-
05:28:59 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: note that this works really well, until it doesn't work... (relying on user agents to magically fix things)
05:29:44 [shu]
shu has joined #ag
05:29:52 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: (gives example of on mobile, resize text and reflow being almost mutually exclusive - resize means zooming, which leads to bidirectional scrolling failing reflow)
05:30:44 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
q+
05:31:05 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: reflow and resize text ... think there are options there
05:31:10 [frehner]
frehner has joined #ag
05:31:12 [alastairc]
ack Patrick_H_Lauke
05:31:19 [alastairc]
scribe+
05:31:41 [Rachael]
q+ to say can we transition to the next topic
05:32:41 [alastairc]
Patrick_H_Lauke: I agree with idea of UAs doing everything, but worry that that error-correction might not work properly. Agree that if we write guidance to focus on the outcome, e.g. glean heading structure, how it's achieved (author or UA), that should work.
05:32:49 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
05:32:49 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to say can we transition to the next topic
05:32:59 [mbgower]
q+ to say do we ahve a source of truth for correct behaviour?
05:33:05 [shawn]
q+
05:33:09 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: we dove a little deeper in these topics than others. are there other topics?
05:33:25 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
05:33:25 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say do we ahve a source of truth for correct behaviour?
05:34:08 [shawn]
q-
05:34:12 [JJ]
q+ to comment on source of truth for non web
05:34:29 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: do we have established sources of truth? is the accessibility tree the source of truth? is how a UA/AT exposes things the truth? (references our current WCAG 2.x backlog issue about "are empty headings a failure")
05:34:46 [JJ]
+1
05:34:47 [alastairc]
q+ that should be under the requirement level, e.g. methods.
05:34:50 [shawn]
q+ to ask about the WCAG i18n issues, and separating "Low Vision (Color Contrast Algorithm)
05:34:54 [alastairc]
q+ to say that should be under the requirement level, e.g. methods.
05:35:00 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: when we talk about accessibility supported, what does that mean? one browser? two browsers? current AT? what is "current"?
05:35:18 [alastairc]
ack JJ
05:35:18 [Zakim]
JJ, you wanted to comment on source of truth for non web
05:36:11 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
JJ: it's also something we notice in non-web, when you don't have an a11y tree or source code. only source of truth is how things are output by actual AT, but there can be differences (devices, OS versions). same applies for ACT rules
05:36:33 [alastairc]
ack shawn
05:36:33 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to ask about the WCAG i18n issues, and separating "Low Vision (Color Contrast Algorithm)
05:36:37 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
JJ: but also, the more agnostic you make it, the more "fake" it becomes
05:37:03 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: i advocate for fixes happening early instead of late. e.g. authoring tool, rather than leaving it up to browser
05:37:36 [hdv]
+1 to Shawns point of earlier = better, so authoring tool helping get it right at the start rather than user agent fixing afterwards
05:37:40 [shadi]
q+
05:37:49 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: previous slide had possible low vision TF, and contrast algorithm. maybe we can put those as separate issues? do we need WCAG 2 i18n issues?
05:38:03 [alastairc]
ack me
05:38:03 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to say that should be under the requirement level, e.g. methods.
05:38:04 [JJ]
s/fake/vague
05:38:06 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: known issue, there for a while, but not sure if it fits on your list of topics/concerns
05:38:59 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: in general we can't use accessibility tree, as some platforms don't have it. but if you cast mind back to accessibility support set, we agreed that we would have default accessibility support set, which would include the "typical" ones
05:39:19 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: SR, voice input, fairly limited set. other regions/regulators/organisations could create their own sets
05:39:57 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: to say whether something IS available in that particular region's set. game-able, but should be ok...
05:40:03 [alastairc]
q?
05:40:06 [alastairc]
ack shadi
05:40:29 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: some requirements may be satisfied by just one - user agent, authoring tool, etc - and others may be satisfied by multiples
05:40:57 [alastairc]
q/
05:40:58 [alastairc]
q?
05:41:07 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: there are cases where offloading to user agent is only realistic option as there are no author methods available
05:41:53 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: other ideas, let me know. moving to next topic, Accessibility testing working group
05:42:04 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: short topic ...
05:43:19 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: there are variety of efforts for testing - ARIA-AT, ACT, WCAG-EM, accessibility compat... should that all be coordinated/pulled into a working group? doesn't have to be a working group as such?
05:43:30 [Rachael]
q+
05:43:35 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: ARIA WG are looking at this as well, see if we coordinate
05:43:48 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
05:43:49 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: AGWG and ARIA are meeting to discuss this on friday
05:44:02 [shawn]
q+ to ask about two different things?
05:44:25 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Rachael: pro on having separate group - maybe we don't have the time to think about testing; but curious to have folks think about it before friday
05:44:27 [alastairc]
ack shawn
05:44:27 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to ask about two different things?
05:44:36 [JJ]
I can see that also working well non-web testing techniques.
05:45:01 [JJ]
s/well/well for
05:45:12 [shadi]
q+
05:45:18 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: hearing different things, would be good to be clear. one is interoperability - is this thing supported in browsers and AT. the other is testing: ACT rules, WCAG-EM methodologies...
05:45:21 [mbgower]
q+ to say yes, i htink so
05:45:25 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Keving: can I respond? ... yes
05:45:34 [shadi]
q-
05:45:41 [shadi]
+1 to shawn
05:45:43 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: request to use better terminology, two buckets, not lumping together
05:46:31 [shawn]
q+ to say which?
05:46:40 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
05:46:40 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say yes, i htink so
05:46:42 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: this also relates to WPT. the point of this was to try to define buckets, where the boundaries actually are. conformance models etc. only exploratory at this stage. how could it solve problems
05:46:59 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: agree with Kevin. to me interop is different issue. source of truth for me is how to verify
05:47:03 [shadi]
q+
05:47:53 [shawn]
q- later
05:48:03 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: at IBM, we have "if you test it in one place and it passes, that's enough. don't need to test in other places". if we start getting interop/compat issues is that you then have to test again on all possible platforms/UAs
05:48:08 [alastairc]
Remembering that testing contrast with an eye-dropper compared to the source code can be different.
05:48:10 [alastairc]
q?
05:48:41 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
(My name is Earl?)
05:49:13 [alastairc]
q+
05:49:17 [alastairc]
ack shadi
05:49:28 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: ... proprietary systems, maybe Apple need to say what THEIR source of truth is on their platform...
05:49:36 [kevin]
s/(My name is Earl?)//
05:50:22 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shadi: separating out the aspects/overlaps is useful
05:50:27 [alastairc]
ack shawn
05:50:27 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to say which?
05:50:34 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: would be good to do before next meeting
05:50:37 [alastairc]
ack alastairc
05:51:21 [shawn]
q+ to ask where things fit
05:51:26 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: responding to Mike, knowing from platforms what THEIR source of truth is. at requirement level, we need to be agnostic - what does the USER get. but underneath that, we can be more specific "here's a method to achieving this, to test this, on that platform"
05:51:27 [alastairc]
ack shawn
05:51:27 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to ask where things fit
05:52:00 [JJ]
Using automation frameworks you are able to retrieve the accessibility tree on most platforms. Also on web, web drivers go beyond what can be accessed from the normal web sandbox
05:52:07 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: when doing WCAG3, some people said one approach is "write the test first". where would this approach fit?
05:52:32 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: Kevin, what was motivation from other groups?
05:53:16 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: part of motivation is that there are a lot of different threads around a11y testing, and it suggests there overlap/relationship. question over whether or not they should be brought more closely together. exploratory
05:53:33 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Shawn: were they talking about interoperability, or more ACT?
05:53:48 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: both. this is exploratory, just looking at all different testing efforts
05:54:08 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: does this fit together in some way, to help us reach a better testing model
05:54:23 [shawn]
"testing of content meeting success critieria"
05:54:36 [shawn]
q+
05:54:45 [alastairc]
ack shawn
05:54:45 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: are we repeating work? should we bring things together?
05:54:59 [Jaunita_Flessas]
q+
05:55:09 [mbgower]
q+
05:55:13 [JJ]
q+ to have leverage over vendors to expose accessibility properties
05:55:22 [alastairc]
ack Jaunita_Flessas
05:55:56 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Jaunita: when we talk about testing, a lot of people talk about functional testing...
05:55:59 [mbgower]
q-
05:56:32 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Jaunita: a lot of testing places seem to rely on SR testing, contrast testing, nobody looking at code anymore
05:56:39 [alastairc]
ack JJ
05:56:39 [Zakim]
JJ, you wanted to have leverage over vendors to expose accessibility properties
05:57:31 [mbgower]
q+
05:57:44 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
05:58:01 [kevin]
q+
05:58:19 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
JJ: can we do anything about making sure a11y attributes are exposed from shadow dom etc? (sorry, paraphrasing)
05:58:37 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: going back to source of truth. page as presented to user? a11y tree? code underneath?
05:58:41 [alastairc]
q+ on how we acknowledge platform difficulties, we can't dictate how platforms report or progress
05:59:32 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: for end user, it's a failure. who's responsible? more of an issue from compliance perspective
05:59:35 [JJ]
Not require, but at the least, we can suggest?
06:00:37 [JJ]
+1 to Mike
06:00:41 [alastairc]
q-
06:00:46 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Mike: [references the WCAG 2.x backlog heading issue again] an empty heading ... does that fail descriptive headings? even if most AT (apart from VO) don't expose empty headings based on heuristics
06:01:33 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: on JJ's point ... that highlights "who should be doing that". our remit, ARIA's remit, (WHATWG?)
06:01:49 [alastairc]
We will need to acknowledge where platforms don't provide something, or don't provide good access to test something. However, we can't tell platforms what to do, we can only say what the accessibility outcome is.
06:02:04 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Kevin: same with Mike's point ... should AGWG feed into the discussion on how a11y tree is constructed? is it ARIA, or other working group?
06:02:24 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Alastair: coffee
06:19:56 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
06:20:10 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
scribe-
06:21:27 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
mbgower i decided that we just let AI user agents do everything. no more more for authors. [insert george bush "mission accomplished" banner photo]
06:23:32 [Ben_Till1]
Ben_Till1 has joined #ag
06:25:18 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has left #ag
06:26:05 [Ben_Till1]
Ben_Till1 has left #ag
06:26:13 [Ben_Till1]
Ben_Till1 has joined #ag
06:32:58 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
06:33:24 [LenB]
LenB has joined #ag
06:34:13 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
06:34:24 [Ben_Till1]
Ben_Till1 has joined #ag
06:34:25 [Makoto_U]
present+
06:34:35 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
present+
06:34:52 [kenneth]
scribe+
06:35:09 [Rachael]
TOPIC: WC3 Process Discussion
06:35:24 [shadi]
s/WC3/W3C
06:35:31 [kenneth]
hdv: What we're about to do, I'm about to introduce - we intentionally do not ascribe feedback to specific people, we want it to be anonymous
06:35:32 [hdv]
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/
06:36:21 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag
06:36:28 [kenneth]
... taking feedback from as wide a group as possible. We're covering this across WGs at TPAC this year; I'm doing it for this group. Thanks to the chairs for making some time.
06:37:37 [achraf]
achraf has joined #ag
06:38:06 [kenneth]
... I will be taking notes and bringing it back to the AB, our goal is to make parts of the process better for everyone.
06:38:13 [Rachael]
q+
06:38:26 [kevin]
ack me
06:38:27 [kenneth]
scribe-
06:38:32 [hdv]
q?
06:38:36 [kevin]
q+
06:40:03 [hdv]
ack rach
06:40:05 [hdv]
ack kev
06:40:39 [Rachael]
q+ on invited experts
06:41:39 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
"let's feed it to an LLM and make a bot" ... bot immediately goes insane and turns itself off
06:42:34 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
that'd be good ... automating what we do manually here :)
06:43:38 [hdv]
q?
06:44:18 [Lisa]
Lisa has joined #ag
06:44:27 [kevin]
ack Rachael
06:44:27 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to comment on invited experts
06:44:28 [Rachael]
ack Rachael
06:44:46 [JJ]
q+
06:44:50 [kevin]
ack JJ
06:46:19 [Ben_Till1]
q+
06:46:53 [kevin]
ack Ben_Till
06:46:56 [shadi]
q+
06:47:33 [kevin]
ack shadi
06:47:35 [hdv]
ack shadi
06:52:27 [hdv]
q?
06:53:04 [kenneth]
scribe+
06:53:42 [kenneth]
hdv: If you think of more ideas, you can find and talk to an AB member this week (or thereafter). If you're an advisory rep, you can file issues in the ab-@@ repo
06:53:52 [kenneth]
scribe-
06:54:10 [hdv]
s/ab-@@/ab-memberonly (https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/)
06:55:09 [kevin]
TOPIC: Functional Needs
06:55:41 [hdv]
scribe+
06:56:11 [hdv]
Rachael: one suggestion that was made was EN 301 549, the editors group tried to use EN 301 549 without privacy
06:56:34 [hdv]
Rachael: we found there were requirements that concern mental health, complexity of cognitition and motion
06:56:52 [hdv]
Rachael: there were things we were marking that did not have a EN 301 549 functional need associated
06:57:17 [hdv]
Rachael: there is also a functional needs framework that is slightly different from the Digital Accessibility Framework
06:58:16 [hdv]
Rachael: when we look at a larger classification, what we run into is we're used to groups being broken up into several categories, at a slightly different level than cognition that is usually one top level. So there are basically differnet levels of hierarchy
06:58:28 [hdv]
Rachael: if we lose the top level, we lose some of the subtleties
06:59:08 [hdv]
Rachael: if we use sub category level we also lose a lot of nuance. So my question to you all, are there other classification systems that we can lean on?
06:59:53 [Ben_Till1]
Ben_Till1 has joined #ag
07:00:41 [Lisa]
Q+
07:00:52 [hdv]
... so what kind of grouping do we want?
07:01:06 [Lisa]
when we went to https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-user-research/#research-on-cognitive-function
07:01:38 [hdv]
Jaunita_Flessas: aren't there other cognitive accessibility categories not related to executive function?
07:01:46 [Rachael]
ack lisa
07:01:46 [hdv]
Rachael: yes we could have a longer list of some of these
07:01:54 [Lisa]
https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-user-research/#research-on-cognitive-function
07:02:33 [hdv]
Lisa: there years ago when we did user research for COGA… looking at different sources of time we tried to merge them into a single thing, so we had vocab for the different cognitive functions as we talk about cognitive functions rather than disability groups at COGA
07:02:56 [hdv]
Lisa: when the W3C made a first stab to functional needs and we had more
07:02:57 [GreggVan]
q+
07:03:05 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Maybe we need to include occupational therapists and assisitve technology specialists and such in the discussion?
07:03:26 [Jaunita_Flessas]
*assisitve
07:04:04 [Rachael]
ack GreggVan
07:04:04 [hdv]
Lisa: it could be that all problems are from auditory discrimination. It'd be strange to group together people with contrasting skills
07:04:29 [hdv]
GreggVan: I'd like to suggest we don't do any kind of grouping
07:04:51 [hdv]
GreggVan: we should be thinking about tagging. Each requirement can apply to a variety of different groups
07:04:57 [Rachael]
q+
07:05:01 [JJ]
+1 for one to many tagging.
07:05:19 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
I'd be careful that "tagging" will also then need a clearly defined taxonomy/set of tags/labels
07:05:25 [hdv]
GreggVan: we should highlight the many ways in which each of these things helps
07:05:27 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
otherwise it'll just end up a confusing mess
07:05:36 [JJ]
Aligns with setup for testing to only test one requirement at once
07:06:25 [kenneth]
q+
07:06:40 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
and looking at efforts like https://www.section508.gov/develop/mapping-wcag-to-fpc/ ... yes you'll end up with things that literally fall under/get tagged for EVERYTHING
07:06:44 [Rachael]
ack Rachael
07:06:44 [hdv]
Rachael: with the grouping we're talking about here, we aren't talking about 1:1 relationships. What we're talking about is we need a classification system
07:06:51 [Rachael]
ack kenneth
07:07:09 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
07:07:10 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
+1 ken
07:07:15 [GreggVan]
q+
07:07:17 [hdv]
kenneth: to chime in on what Patrick_H_Lauke said… that's on my mind too. We want to make sure we only tag with a specified list of tags
07:07:20 [Rachael]
ack GreggVan
07:07:22 [Lisa]
Q+
07:07:52 [hdv]
GreggVan: instead of tagging with some scheme, should we attach user needs to this instead?
07:07:59 [JJ]
q+ structured tagging allows for multiple views (like WCAG JSON)
07:08:02 [Rachael]
ack Lisa
07:08:10 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
"user needs" are a classification/tag, no? not sure what the difference is here
07:08:30 [JJ]
q+
07:08:34 [kevin]
q+ to say user needs are great but challenge is they are not 'standardised' and not at requirement level... could be though
07:09:02 [hdv]
Lisa: for the Gold level conformance some things address additional user needs for different functional needs. The issue there is when you increase the amount of tags, the notion of 'helps many different kinds of users' is not as helpful as we might think
07:09:10 [GreggVan]
q+
07:09:22 [kevin]
q-
07:10:21 [hdv]
Lisa: when you say x is useful for cognitive accessibility, or 'it doesn't hurt to…' that's not always true in practical sense
07:10:39 [kenneth]
s/We want to make sure we only tag with/The build system will validate against/
07:11:10 [hdv]
Lisa: we want to make sure this is about making it practically useful
07:11:25 [GreggVan]
q-
07:11:36 [hdv]
Lisa: it's very nuanced, we need a strong policy
07:11:47 [Rachael]
ack jj
07:11:59 [GreggVan]
q+
07:12:50 [hdv]
JJ: wanted to comment on the presentation of categories… I noticed WCAG is now available as JSON, really like that, this allows for different views of the standard. Having clearly defined categories like this will open up a lot of possibilities
07:13:04 [Rachael]
ack GreggVan
07:13:04 [hdv]
Rachael: there's a lot of details that have to be worked out
07:13:24 [hdv]
GreggVan: Lisa makes a good point, we need to look at what's practical. We want to build for the future
07:13:59 [hdv]
GreggVan: the other one is, we want to figure out what the big barriers are
07:14:07 [hdv]
GreggVan: some things are helpful, some things are showstoppers
07:14:32 [kevin]
q+
07:15:08 [Rachael]
ack kevin
07:15:21 [GreggVan]
q+
07:15:29 [shadi]
+1 to kevin
07:15:32 [hdv]
kevin: I think there's two ways to look at this… “if you fail to meet a requirement, who is that going to have an impact on”, vs “if you meet a requirement, who is it going to benefit”
07:15:41 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
+1 to Kevin's distinction
07:16:14 [Rachael]
ack GreggVan
07:16:16 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
to me, that underlines the difference here between WCAG being a set of requirements, rather than it being a "manual" of sorts
07:16:16 [hdv]
kevin: so when you do a report, it could include a profile of what impact are the requirements you meet / fail going to have
07:16:24 [hdv]
GreggVan: I'd suggest we do both
07:16:42 [hdv]
GreggVan: both are important
07:17:12 [kevin]
q+
07:17:25 [Lisa]
sounds like rdf
07:17:34 [Lisa]
Q+
07:17:35 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
to me, those are two distinct aims
07:17:37 [shadi]
q+
07:17:43 [Rachael]
ack kevin
07:18:02 [hdv]
kevin: Patrick voiced those are two different things, I don't disagree that we could do both.
07:18:33 [Rachael]
ack Lisa
07:18:36 [hdv]
kevin: is there something different about the groups?
07:19:23 [hdv]
Lisa: we need to say functional need, not disability, as disability names keep changing, they're moving targets, people may not know they have a disability
07:19:24 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
it'll start moving from "accessibility" to "usability" for many situations
07:19:43 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
(the line is already blurry in many cases anyway)
07:19:45 [hdv]
Lisa: there's a language called RDF that allows you to make nuanced statements about something
07:20:07 [hdv]
Lisa: we did that with ARIA before, with OWL
07:20:11 [GreggVan]
q+ to say +1 to functional need. that is what needs to be met. and most people don't know how to translate "disabilities" into functional needs -- or into what they need to do.
07:20:34 [hdv]
Lisa: it will even allow folks to put together their own spec
07:20:44 [Rachael]
q+
07:20:48 [Rachael]
ack shadi
07:20:50 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
RDF is just ... a way to mark something up. like JSON or whatever
07:20:51 [GreggVan]
<GreggVan> q+ to say +1 to functional need or better yet user need. that is what needs to be met. and most people don't know how to translate "disabilities" into functional needs -- or into what they need to do.
07:20:58 [hdv]
shadi: +1
07:21:08 [JJ]
+1 for idea of “forks”
07:21:23 [kevin]
q+
07:21:25 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
RDF or not doesn't answer the fundamental question of why/what exactly we're trying to add metadata for/about
07:21:40 [hdv]
shadi: I do want to emphasise how it helps to express severity of an issue, eg this is a blocker, showstopper
07:21:44 [Rachael]
ack GreggVan
07:21:44 [Zakim]
GreggVan, you wanted to say +1 to functional need. that is what needs to be met. and most people don't know how to translate "disabilities" into functional needs -- or into
07:21:47 [Zakim]
... what they need to do.
07:21:54 [JJ]
But there should also be a “main” spec
07:21:54 [Lisa]
RDF is a form of metadata
07:22:17 [hdv]
GreggVan: +1 to point about functional needs… though 'user need' may be even better, they are more concrete and diverse
07:22:44 [Rachael]
ack Rachael
07:22:44 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
it's a data model/syntax.
07:23:04 [hdv]
Rachael: DAF is a framework from Accessibility Community to help people make a mapping
07:23:13 [hdv]
Rachael: it's the closest thing I could find to what I believe we need
07:23:36 [hdv]
Rachael: would like to ask the group if others know of other frameworks we could potentially use
07:23:46 [hdv]
Rachael: but this one can be used for many to many relationships
07:23:51 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
still need to decide on a specific ontology, categorisation, WHAT you're actually trying to capture in metadata
07:24:03 [Rachael]
ack kevin
07:24:38 [hdv]
kevin: I'd love to translate to 'user need' but not sure how well it would go… would vaguely worry that 'user need' might be more broad and less well defined
07:25:18 [shadi]
q+
07:25:30 [GreggVan]
can you repost the link to the page you are showing?
07:25:33 [hdv]
kevin: regarding the idea of impact… we'd need to think about the impact of failing to meet the requirement vs @@@
07:25:48 [Rachael]
ack shadi
07:25:53 [hdv]
kevin: I also worry we move too much to assessing the impact of the specific design
07:26:03 [hdv]
shadi: in principle I fully agree, shouldn't go down the occurences rabbit hole
07:26:08 [hdv]
kevin: that's the word
07:26:30 [kevin]
s/@@@/rather than failing to meet specific occurrences/
07:26:50 [hdv]
shadi: a nuance… we have a requirement on page title, it talks about describing the purpose or intent of the page
07:26:58 [hdv]
shadi: could that give us another layer of how does it help
07:27:00 [GreggVan]
q+
07:27:25 [kevin]
+1 to exploring that idea of 'intent of the page'
07:27:39 [Rachael]
ack GreggVan
07:27:40 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
q+
07:27:44 [hdv]
shadi: I see all sorts of tools about scoring, could there be something more agreed upon
07:28:13 [Rachael]
ack Patrick_H_Lauke
07:28:17 [hdv]
GreggVan: could a link be posted to the current slide?
07:28:25 [hdv]
Rachael: it will be in the slides after we're done, I'll add it there
07:28:54 [hdv]
Patrick_H_Lauke: the impact of any requirement on a real user is contextual
07:29:24 [Rachael]
link to slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lrSm4JSt7vgmXdAJwO0cASqp11EGYoCCR6Ni2OkWBzk/edit?slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_2_13#slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_2_13
07:29:37 [hdv]
Patrick_H_Lauke: it's dangerous to try and define it too much.
07:29:51 [Rachael]
q?
07:29:53 [shadi]
q+
07:29:57 [Rachael]
ack shadi
07:30:20 [hdv]
shadi: re Patrick…  side wide is almost a second dimension to this
07:30:35 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
s/side wide/site wide
07:30:42 [GreggVan]
THX
07:31:01 [hdv]
Rachael: we'll pick it up again next week
07:31:08 [Rachael]
q?
07:31:10 [hdv]
Rachael: thanks everyone
07:31:31 [hdv]
Rachael: tomorrow we have a breakout session for internationalisation
07:31:48 [kenneth]
https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/TPAC/wcag-non-latin/
07:32:18 [hdv]
Rachael: at 8.30
07:32:33 [Rachael]
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f4b8985a-2604-4cb0-a37a-1e189ac6fe19/
07:32:33 [hdv]
... it's important for WCAG 2 as well as WCAG 3
07:32:38 [hdv]
... here's the link to the event
07:32:40 [kevin]
TOPIC: Preparation for tomorrow
07:33:04 [Rachael]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/4263
07:33:22 [kenneth]
if you needed the breakout issue, it's https://github.com/w3c/tpac2025-breakouts/issues/38
07:33:31 [Rachael]
q?
07:33:32 [kevin]
https://github.com/w3c/tpac2025-breakouts/issues/38
07:33:44 [kevin]
s|https://github.com/w3c/tpac2025-breakouts/issues/38||
07:33:47 [hdv]
shawn: the comments are in the breakout issue
07:36:17 [hdv]
Rachael: any other questions we want to cover before we wrap up?
07:36:19 [Rachael]
q?
07:55:57 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag
08:02:53 [Ben_Till1]
Ben_Till1 has joined #ag
10:04:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ag
10:52:41 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag