IRC log of ag on 2025-11-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:35:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ag
00:35:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-ag-irc
00:35:47 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
00:35:48 [alastairc]
agenda?
00:35:55 [Zakim]
Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
00:35:57 [alastairc]
agenda+ WCAG 2.x updates
00:36:31 [alastairc]
agenda+ Policy guidance
00:40:20 [Makoto_U]
Makoto_U has joined #ag
00:45:24 [spectranaut_]
spectranaut_ has joined #ag
00:45:27 [Adam_Page]
Adam_Page has joined #ag
00:46:06 [giacomo-petri]
giacomo-petri has joined #ag
00:46:41 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
00:47:30 [shadi]
present+
00:47:33 [kenneth]
present+
00:47:35 [kevin]
present+
00:47:41 [alastairc]
present+
00:47:42 [Rachael]
present+
00:47:44 [giacomo-petri]
present+
00:47:44 [Jem]
scribe: Jaeun_Jemma_Ku
00:47:45 [JJ]
present+
00:47:50 [Makoto_U]
present+
00:47:55 [achraf]
achraf has joined #ag
00:48:04 [AWK]
AWK has joined #ag
00:48:10 [AWK]
+AWK
00:48:22 [Jem]
Topic: WCAG 2.x update
00:48:27 [Jem]
alastairc:
00:48:34 [Jem]
proposed scope of changes
00:48:48 [hdv]
present+
00:49:00 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #ag
00:49:01 [Jem]
1. refining, clarifying, resolving
00:49:14 [Jem]
2. not aiming to cover new requirements
00:49:27 [Rachael]
presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lrSm4JSt7vgmXdAJwO0cASqp11EGYoCCR6Ni2OkWBzk/edit?usp=sharing
00:49:45 [Jem]
it is more of spliting or combining things
00:50:15 [Jem]
3. not diverting current focus
00:50:31 [Ben_Tillyer]
present+
00:51:33 [kevin]
rrsagent, make minutes
00:51:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-ag-minutes.html kevin
00:51:41 [Jem]
..backwards compatiility ..
00:52:02 [ReinaldoFerraz]
ReinaldoFerraz has joined #ag
00:52:04 [kevin]
scribe+ Jem
00:52:25 [alastairc]
q?
00:52:34 [Jem]
..checking the risk of breaking backwards compatibility
00:52:45 [kevin]
s/..checking/... checking/
00:53:05 [mbgower]
q+
00:53:41 [mbgower]
q-
00:53:42 [Jem]
..topic is surrounding the potential of breaking backward compatibilty
00:53:51 [mbgower]
q+
00:53:58 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
00:54:09 [Jem]
s/compatibilty/compatibility/
00:54:53 [kevin]
s/..topic/... topic/
00:54:59 [Jem]
mbgower: if the sc is numbered version, we may not need to worry much about breaking the backward compatibility
00:55:06 [GreggVan]
q+
00:55:13 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
00:55:52 [chrisp]
chrisp has joined #AG
00:55:58 [Jem]
GreggVan: if we make it less stringent, we may not need to worry about breaking backward compatibility
00:56:12 [shawn]
q+ say small benefit and worth reconsidering
00:56:13 [mbgower]
I find some people have completely opposite interpretations of 'backward compatible'
00:56:19 [shawn]
q+ to say small benefit and worth reconsidering
00:57:24 [alastairc]
ack shawn
00:57:24 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to say small benefit and worth reconsidering
00:57:46 [shadi]
q+
00:57:51 [Jem]
group talks about different/various cases of backward and forward compatibility...
00:58:24 [alastairc]
ack shadi
00:58:51 [Jem]
shawn: if there are reasons for backward compatibility, we can do that. if not I can also help with communcating that changes.
00:59:06 [giacomo-petri]
+1 to what Shadi said
00:59:13 [hdv]
q+
00:59:15 [GreggVan]
+1
00:59:16 [AWK]
+1 top SAZ
00:59:23 [AWK]
s/top/to
00:59:24 [GreggVan]
q+
00:59:52 [kevin]
s/+AWK//
00:59:55 [Jem]
shadi: what if each country does adopt the different version of wcag.. if that case, backward compatibility can be matter.
00:59:56 [kevin]
present+ AWK
01:00:15 [Rachael]
q+ to ask if it is only breaking backward compatibility based on interpretation
01:00:26 [Jem]
... sharing the strong reasoning for the backward compatibility.
01:00:39 [Makoto_U]
+1 to Shadi
01:00:39 [alastairc]
ack hdv
01:01:29 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:01:56 [Jem]
hdv: if there is no backward compatibility, when people use different versions like government cases, it could be the problem
01:02:07 [Jem]
without backward compatibility
01:02:10 [Jem]
GreggVan:
01:02:49 [hdv]
s/ it could be the problem/ it adds, on top of the work of making things accessible and usable, it also adds admin workload/
01:03:19 [alastairc]
q+ on the process
01:03:20 [Jem]
the "stronger" sc like 2-2 vs 2-3 or the subset structure of the sc
01:03:43 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
01:03:43 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to ask if it is only breaking backward compatibility based on interpretation
01:04:23 [AWK]
q+
01:04:29 [Jem]
... may solve the backward compatibility problem
01:04:46 [alastairc]
ack me
01:04:46 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on the process
01:05:50 [alastairc]
ack AWK
01:06:15 [Jem]
alastairc: we are trying to find whether this is the useful thing to work on rather than bringing out complete agreement on the backward compatibility topicl
01:06:46 [GreggVan]
what I was saying in breif was --- If 2.3 is always less than 2.2 -- no problem. pass 2.2 and you pass 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. If 2.3 is always more than 2.2 you are safe again 2.3 passes 2.3, 2.2 and 2.1. BUT IF 2.3 is sometimes stronger and sometimes weaker then Passing 2.3 won't pass 2.3 and 2.3 won't pass 2.2 and you get a mess.
01:06:57 [alastairc]
q+
01:07:00 [alastairc]
ack me
01:07:09 [Jem]
awk: it depends on how people understand the concept of backward compatibility. we have to be realistic and stay clear on the interpretation of backward compatibility.
01:07:15 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
01:07:19 [Jem]
... and move on
01:07:19 [GreggVan]
s/breif/brief/
01:07:45 [Jem]
group is looking at the examples for discussion
01:08:18 [Jem]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lrSm4JSt7vgmXdAJwO0cASqp11EGYoCCR6Ni2OkWBzk/edit?slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_1_15#slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_1_15
01:08:24 [Jem]
we are looking at the slide #24
01:09:09 [Jem]
alastairc: is demonstrating the internationalization example - sc1.3 ruby annotations
01:09:12 [kevin]
Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lrSm4JSt7vgmXdAJwO0cASqp11EGYoCCR6Ni2OkWBzk/edit?slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_1_15#slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_1_15
01:09:31 [GreggVan]
q+
01:09:38 [AWK]
q+
01:09:55 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:10:17 [AWK]
+1 to Gregg.
01:10:18 [AWK]
q-
01:10:18 [Jem]
GreggVan: for 1.3 example, we can just add notes because this is the same as 1.3
01:10:30 [Makoto_U]
it was SC 3.1.6 pronunciation
01:10:32 [mbgower]
q+
01:10:38 [Jem]
... this does not need new provision.
01:10:40 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
01:10:43 [kenneth]
s/1.3/1.3.1/
01:10:44 [hdv]
+1 to Gregg
01:10:53 [Ben_Tillyer]
1.3.1 normative text for reference: Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.
01:11:19 [AWK]
What does you mean by default not on, Mike?
01:11:32 [GreggVan]
q+
01:11:52 [AWK]
Who creates the blue text?
01:12:01 [mbgower]
The AT
01:12:05 [Jem]
mbgower: 1.3 requires association with visual presentation and in this case, 1.3 is not enough to explain the accessibility of this example.
01:13:06 [Jem]
GreggVan: it is already exposing the accessible name with programmatically associated relationship
01:13:16 [kevin]
Might be worth looking at Example 2 in H62: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/html/H62#examples
01:13:34 [AWK]
Feels like some part of this issue may be related to how browsers/AT expose or provide information to users.
01:13:40 [kenneth]
(H62 was specifically raised during the session as an existing example of this)
01:13:49 [Jem]
... either it can be author-exposed and or AT can expose it using accessible name. so I don't see the reason to create new criteria
01:13:51 [shadi]
q+ Murata-san
01:14:15 [Jem]
alastairc: this was proposed by the member
01:15:15 [shadi]
ack murata-san
01:15:25 [Jem]
Jemma's suggestion which support AWK's suggestion - why don't we stay on creating the general consensus on the concept of backward compatibility.
01:15:25 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:15:53 [AWK]
My understanding is that the Ruby text is rendered in the tags as Actual text or something like that within the PDF tag structure, and would be programmatically associated.
01:16:41 [AWK]
Page 20, 8.2.5.23 Ruby (Ruby, RB, RT, RP) on https://pdfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Well-Tagged-PDF-WTPDF-1.0.pdf
01:17:22 [Ben_Tillyer]
q?
01:18:51 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
01:19:14 [kenneth]
FWIW one of the slides Alastair was showing from Murata-san's presentation explains that for a long time PDF didn't have a way to progammatically convey ruby
01:19:40 [GreggVan]
q+ to say - this looks like technology specific technique for 1.3.1
01:19:50 [GreggVan]
q-
01:20:05 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
01:20:06 [GreggVan]
+1
01:20:14 [kevin]
[slide 24]
01:20:19 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
present+
01:20:49 [GreggVan]
q+
01:20:56 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
oh, forgot about timing adjustable...another one of my classic hairball issues
01:21:00 [Jem]
https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/YKfq2hI3/
01:21:13 [Jem]
[Cover i18n breakout here]
01:21:13 [Jem]
Contrast algorithm update (perhaps as an alternative method of conformance)
01:21:13 [Jem]
Make decisions about which way certain things should go:
01:21:13 [Jem]
Audio description - Explicitly resolve the “no gaps” issue.
01:21:13 [Jem]
Timing adjustable - Explicitly say 10 instances or 10 times duration (or both)
01:21:14 [Jem]
The “essential” exception seems to be missing from some SC.
01:21:14 [Jem]
Clarify conforming alternative version.
01:21:14 [Jem]
Clean up existing content (next slide)
01:21:57 [Jem]
clean up examples are in the #25 in the https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lrSm4JSt7vgmXdAJwO0cASqp11EGYoCCR6Ni2OkWBzk/edit?slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_1_23#slide=id.g3a1d2fc24ff_1_23
01:22:08 [kevin]
[slide 25]
01:22:36 [Jem]
alastairc:
01:22:39 [Jem]
three topics
01:22:48 [Jem]
...1. internationalization topic
01:22:50 [alastairc]
q?
01:22:55 [Jem]
2. clean up things
01:23:09 [mbgower]
q+ to say user agent exceptions too
01:23:16 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:24:02 [Jem]
GreggVan: we need to lock down rather than having the new version. and let's fix the 2.2. misunderstanding
01:24:36 [kevin]
i/Topic: WCAG 2.x update/scribe+ kevin/
01:24:51 [alastairc]
q+ on getting group understanding
01:24:53 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
if it's unclear/wrong in wcag, it means en 301 549 locked down these unclear/wrong interpretations?
01:24:59 [Jem]
... 1. Ruby case is about 1.3.1 2. regarding the "understanding", we can add the clarification on the concept.
01:25:12 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
can an understanding doc clarify normative wording to the point of changing the meaning of the normative wording? i thought not...
01:25:18 [Jem]
add it the understanding doc.
01:26:14 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
is new contrast algo not also applicable to "old" colour space?
01:26:20 [Jem]
...3. color space editor case - it can be done by just clarifying concept ad providing the sufficient solutions
01:26:33 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
01:26:33 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say user agent exceptions too
01:26:52 [JJ]
+1 to mbgower
01:26:53 [giacomo-petri]
q+
01:27:19 [Jem]
mbgower: it is really important understanding is that somem problems are intractable based on backlog group working experinces.
01:27:35 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
"when we say black, we actually meant red"...
01:27:40 [Jem]
... understading doc is not normative doc
01:27:47 [kevin]
+1 to not having informative materials contradicting normative materials
01:27:53 [GreggVan]
+1 to can't contrdict but didnt hear one of those
01:27:56 [Lisa]
Lisa has joined #ag
01:28:07 [GreggVan]
q+
01:28:14 [shadi]
"we said black but actually we now wish we would have said red"
01:28:32 [alastairc]
ack me
01:28:32 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on getting group understanding
01:28:40 [Jem]
... we will keep having this intractable problems over and over and adding the explicit description would not help much
01:29:09 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
+1 consensus achieving versus deadlock
01:29:54 [giacomo-petri]
q-
01:29:55 [giacomo-petri]
q+
01:30:10 [Jem]
alastairc: time adjustable is just one example and we need to have the consensus on this - people interpret the content in a different way in contrast to it was originally intended.
01:30:29 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:30:47 [AWK]
Consensus doesn't mean 100% unanimity
01:30:57 [Jem]
... it would be hard to get the agreement on and move on like that of AD example
01:31:16 [mbgower]
i don't think it's ambiguously worded at all.
01:31:23 [alastairc]
Less ambigious than interpreted in the reversed (for a partiucular scenario)
01:31:24 [JJ]
normative changes will also benefit WCAG2ICT and WCAG2Mobile
01:31:26 [AWK]
I agree, mbgower
01:31:30 [Jem]
GreggVan: pointing out the ambuguity of the wording and the group can make it clearer.
01:31:58 [Jem]
... I don't hear any contradiction examples.
01:32:17 [alastairc]
q?
01:32:19 [Jem]
... trouble is getting the agreement.
01:32:58 [Jem]
alastairc: it is updating current sc like AD.
01:33:19 [Jem]
GreggVan: we can update understanding doc
01:33:32 [alastairc]
ack giacomo-petri
01:33:50 [Jem]
alastairc: I will ask Mbgowre to think about
01:34:17 [kevin]
s/Mbgowre/Mike and Patrick/
01:34:44 [Jem]
giacomo-petri: we need to split the different needs in different sc..
01:35:07 [Jem]
... we may just need to ask more techniques or add more clarifying languages
01:35:26 [mbgower]
q+ to say can we give the folks on the task force sufficient credit to believe there are challenges and no one on this call is going to solve them in the next 5 minutes.
01:35:31 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
01:35:31 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say can we give the folks on the task force sufficient credit to believe there are challenges and no one on this call is going to solve them in the next 5
01:35:35 [Zakim]
... minutes.
01:35:42 [Jem]
alastairc: I don't see the problem of making more clarifying contents
01:35:59 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
q+
01:36:02 [alastairc]
q+ on perception verses interpretation
01:36:04 [Jem]
mbgower: the big problems is that there is no way we can solve the problems in 5min..
01:36:12 [GreggVan]
q+
01:36:52 [Jem]
... we are looking for the better tactical ability to work on these complex issues
01:36:56 [kenneth]
s/we need to split the different needs in different sc../RE the ruby issue, maybe this can be covered via a combination of needs across multiple SC e.g. 1.3.1 and 1.3.2/
01:36:59 [alastairc]
ack Patrick_H_Lauke
01:37:21 [Jem]
Patrick_H_Lauke: are we arguing about clarity or contradiction?
01:37:46 [Jem]
.. talking about example..
01:38:16 [Jem]
...the current wording does not much wiggle room
01:39:22 [mbgower]
Reflow has been pretty problematic in its normative language. Target size has had some real sticking points.
01:39:38 [Jem]
...working with Giacommo, to come up with mitigated, soomth over, programtic languages to reflect the reality.
01:40:04 [alastairc]
ack alastairc
01:40:04 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on perception verses interpretation
01:40:31 [Jem]
... if the language is not clear like the example of text and image
01:40:59 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
reading the wcag tea leaves / entrails
01:41:07 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:41:23 [Jem]
@alastairc we can make tweaks if that change the outcome or xxx
01:41:30 [alastairc]
it is changes to the normative text
01:41:31 [AWK]
+1 to GV. That is what understanding is for.
01:42:02 [alastairc]
q+
01:42:11 [kevin]
s/@alastairc we/alastairc: we/
01:43:00 [Jem]
GreggVan: is talking about the way for the working group - we should work on xxx
01:43:32 [Jem]
... normative and critical things
01:43:37 [mbgower]
q+ to cover https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2858
01:43:40 [AWK]
A new normative version is by far the less easy path forward. We don't even know if we can get member company agreement on a new charter with a forked approach.
01:43:49 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
clarification WILL diverge from previous one if the same normative wording has been interpreted in two or more different ways
01:44:04 [Jem]
... like working on immediate impact items
01:44:04 [kenneth]
s/the example of text and image/the example of text and image, we sometimes contort ourselves into logical pretzels to stay within the normative wording when attempting to clarify./
01:44:10 [meg6]
meg6 has joined #ag
01:44:15 [alastairc]
ack me
01:44:19 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
take wrong as "too vague that it was being interpreted in wildly different ways"
01:44:23 [JJ]
Given the timeline of WCAG 3, there is still time for WCAG 2.3 to be adopted in legislation
01:45:11 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
so it's semantics to say "so a clarification is not changing the meaning" when the clarification shuts down one interpretation, so for the person that did interpret it the "wrong" way will see it as a normative meaning change
01:45:12 [Rachael]
q+ to ask about editor's notes
01:45:44 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
01:45:44 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to cover https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2858
01:45:53 [Jem]
@alastairc if we don't change the meaning or outcome - ex; sychronized media, we can do the editorial changes
01:46:08 [kevin]
s/@alastairc if/alastairc: if/
01:46:30 [meg01]
meg01 has joined #ag
01:47:06 [alastairc]
ack Rachael
01:47:06 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to ask about editor's notes
01:47:11 [Makoto_U]
q+
01:47:21 [Jem]
@mbgower target size minimun was disagreeed although it is not normative changes
01:47:42 [kevin]
s/@mbgower target/mbgower: target/
01:47:49 [GreggVan]
q+
01:48:01 [alastairc]
ack Makoto_U
01:48:01 [shadi]
q+
01:48:08 [kenneth]
s/was disagreeed although it is not normative changes/got thumbs-downs because it's a class 2 normative change that's not backwards-compatible/
01:48:23 [Jem]
@Rachael will be there be a middeling space we can explore in normative text without changing normative text....
01:48:32 [kenneth]
i/class 2 normative change/mbgower: We have traditionally had a no-fly zone for this sort of thing/
01:48:42 [kevin]
s/@Rachael will/Rachael: will/
01:48:49 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
don't worry Makoto ... i already had the issue/PR in progress when you jumped in
01:49:05 [kenneth]
i/without changing/alastair: That's something we have encountered as a group - if there's anything that involves a normative change, it requires a new WCAG version, and people won't accept anything less/
01:49:12 [kenneth]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
01:49:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-ag-minutes.html kenneth
01:49:37 [Rachael]
s/will be there be a middeling space we can explore in normative text without changing normative text..../Is there a middle space with very specific normative changes, editorial changes, and editor's notes with a .version
01:49:42 [alastairc]
q?
01:49:45 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
01:50:04 [Jem]
@Makoto_U sharing the example of missing clarification and explanation among wg experinces
01:50:14 [alastairc]
q+ on contrast being embedded in normative text
01:50:30 [mbgower]
q+ to say that if anyone thinks it changes the meaning, it becomes a class 3 change
01:50:36 [kenneth]
i/no-fly zone/scribe+ kenneth/
01:50:39 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Jaunita_Flessas has joined #ag
01:50:44 [kevin]
s/@Makoto_U sharing/Makoto_U: sharing/
01:50:53 [Jem]
GreggVan: difference between normative text vs normative meaning
01:51:43 [Jem]
... example of block of text - the wordmanship may be need because the intention/meaning was not changed
01:51:43 [alastairc]
q+ also on the granularity of changes for target size making it different
01:51:52 [giacomo-petri]
q+ to say: in audio description, we are not changing the meaning because the intent is always to provide an audio description, the problem is the scope (someone assume it's within gaps, someone assume if there are no gaps it doesn't apply, which is almost against the intent of the SC)
01:52:00 [kenneth]
s/alastair:/alastairc:/
01:52:03 [AWK]
2.5.8 is different than "block of text". I do agree with that one. But these are different SC and we knew that when we published. not sure why is imperative now.
01:52:32 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Maktoto_U see the proposed PR I already had since 2021 ... https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1790 - your issue just helped rekindle the fire :)
01:53:07 [Jem]
GreggVan: the chages over AD by version in 2.0, 2,1, 2.2
01:53:43 [Jem]
...if we take and reword the sc and make it clear rather than changing the meaning..
01:53:52 [Jem]
... that is the viable thing
01:54:10 [alastairc]
q?
01:54:25 [alastairc]
ack shadi
01:54:34 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
but where is the cutoff of "reverses meaning" versus "clarify the meaning". again, if some normative wording has been interpreted in two wildly different ways, clarifying/collapsing the quantum state of the SC to just mean one of the two ways IS reversing it for people who interpreted it the other way
01:55:48 [Jem]
... shadi responding to Rachel's question - En31549 refer to WCAG 2.2 - with publication date - any version would not be picked up because En31549 is already done.
01:56:06 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
s/En31549/EN 301 549
01:56:49 [JJ]
In software the .1 would be a patch version, and you would expect that version to behave the same except for fixing unintended behaviour (bugs)
01:56:53 [Jem]
...if the change to be reflected in EN 301 549 is working on understanding doc
01:57:31 [hdv]
JJ: good point, and also means backwards compatable
01:57:33 [alastairc]
q?
01:57:37 [alastairc]
ack me
01:57:37 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to comment on contrast being embedded in normative text and to comment on the granularity of changes for target size making it different
01:57:39 [Jem]
...if it normative changes, update or revision, it would not be reflected to EN 301 549
01:57:50 [Jem]
s/it/updated WCAG
01:58:08 [Makoto_U]
+1 to Patrick. Nobody is wrong, everybody is correct. So this situation is not simple ....
01:58:24 [kevin]
https://w3c.github.io/guide/standards-track/republishing#endstate-modification
01:58:52 [kenneth]
s/update or revision, it would not be reflected to EN 301 549/depending on whether the update is a revision or requires a new version, the latter would not automatically be picked up by regulators/
01:58:56 [giacomo-petri]
q-
01:59:20 [GreggVan]
+1 to collapsing the quantum state analogy
01:59:25 [GreggVan]
q+
01:59:47 [alastairc]
ack mbgower
01:59:47 [Zakim]
mbgower, you wanted to say that if anyone thinks it changes the meaning, it becomes a class 3 change
01:59:47 [kevin]
s/> ... shadi responding/shadi: responding/
01:59:49 [mbgower]
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#correction-classes
02:00:02 [kevin]
s/... shadi responding/shadi: responding/
02:00:11 [Jem]
alastairc: shares the different cases for embeded chage in sc, or disagreed some changes in some sc so on. we my need normative update without contradiction.
02:00:42 [alastairc]
zakim, please close the queue
02:00:42 [Zakim]
ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is closed
02:00:44 [JJ]
Why not both? A patch version 2.2.1 and updated understanding docs for 2.2 achieves clearer understanding in two ways.
02:00:45 [kenneth]
s/we my need normative update without contradiction./We get stuck on these because they are perceived as a contradictory normative change to some people./
02:00:50 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
02:01:23 [mbgower]
or come up with a new version
02:01:32 [kevin]
q+ to clarify the range of changes that can be made in place
02:02:08 [mbgower]
But the whole point of what we're trying to do is IMPROVE a problematic SC
02:02:08 [Jem]
@GreggVan; we may need to agree on the "requirement" and walk through the issues very carefully to understand what it means.
02:02:16 [kenneth]
i/we may need to agree/mbgower: It becomes a class 3 normative change as soon as someone disagrees with the interpretation/
02:02:24 [kevin]
s/@GreggVan; we/GreggVan: we/
02:02:27 [Jem]
... what we need to do next is to line up what all the provisions need to be
02:03:10 [Jem]
... official interpretation, editorial changes.. and need to talk about next action items.
02:03:30 [mbgower]
In other words if we're unhappy with the 2 options of interpretation, can we move to something everyone can live with as an updated requirement?
02:04:22 [Ben_Tillyer]
Just done some double checking. EN 301 549 v4.1.1c (2025-09) defines WCAG 2.2 as being available at https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/REC-WCAG22-20241212/ in its normative references. Though it refers to SC 1.2.3 with the link https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#audio-description-or-media-alternative-prerecorded
02:09:53 [kenneth]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
02:09:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-ag-minutes.html kenneth
02:24:56 [Lisa]
Lisa has joined #ag
02:25:08 [shawn]
s/if there are reasons for backward compatibility, we can do that. if not I can also help with communcating that changes./We've always made backwards compatibility a requirement, as there are strong reasons for it. one benefit is if you have to meet WCAG 2.1, you can meet the better WCAG 2.2 and you are covered for WCAG 2.1. OK to reconsider for specific cases.
02:32:38 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
02:33:14 [alastairc]
q?
02:33:19 [alastairc]
zakim, please open queue
02:33:19 [Zakim]
ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is open
02:33:20 [wendyreid]
wendyreid has joined #ag
02:33:35 [makoto_U]
makoto_U has joined #ag
02:33:44 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Present+
02:33:48 [gpellegrino]
gpellegrino has joined #ag
02:34:02 [JJ]
JJ has joined #ag
02:34:08 [makoto_U]
present+
02:34:11 [kenneth]
scribe+
02:34:28 [JJ]
present+
02:35:02 [kenneth]
[Slide 26]
02:35:18 [kenneth]
alastairc: It would be good to arrive at an approach
02:35:32 [kenneth]
... can merge non-normative changes as we have been; can look at what's editorial
02:35:53 [shadi]
q+
02:35:53 [Jaunita_Flessas]
+1
02:35:59 [GreggVan]
q+
02:35:59 [Jaunita_Flessas]
Actually, +1000
02:36:01 [kenneth]
... would we consider normatively changing a few things like collapsing interpretation?
02:36:14 [kenneth]
... each thing would be on a case-by-case basis, but would be OK with publishing that sort of thing in the next charter period?
02:36:18 [JJ]
+1
02:36:29 [giacomo-petri]
giacomo-petri has joined #ag
02:36:46 [kenneth]
shadi: I think it'd be useful to have an exact backlog of these things, not just for example but actually we want to change X, Y, Z, so we can look at the benefit vs. downsides
02:37:06 [alastairc]
ack shadi
02:37:13 [kenneth]
... downsides in terms of efforts drawn away from WCAG 3, potential fragmentation causes (it won't be directly adopted because that ship has sailed)
02:37:28 [alastairc]
q+ do you really want a whole thing in one go?
02:37:32 [alastairc]
q+ to ask do you really want a whole thing in one go?
02:37:37 [alastairc]
ack GreggVan
02:37:41 [kenneth]
... it'd be good to get an assessment of effort before answering that question
02:37:59 [kenneth]
GreggVan: When do you need to know? If it turns out that it's really critical to do this, we don't want the charter to prevent us from doing it.
02:38:01 [AWK]
+1 to SAZ. We need data
02:38:15 [kenneth]
... I don't think people are giving enough weight to the fact that this might be disruptive and not what they want
02:38:21 [shadi]
q+
02:38:32 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
to Shadi's point: for a list of things the WCAG 2.x backlog TF has been working on ... it's all logged/documented here https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56
02:38:44 [kenneth]
... if we have time, I'd like to see this listing of revisions, to see if there are other ways of handling
02:38:50 [kenneth]
... and if there are some left, assess the impact of that
02:39:15 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
from that we can probably make a more authoritative "hit list" of "these are specifically the things that we need to..."
02:39:16 [hdv]
q+
02:39:32 [kenneth]
... for example, with audio descriptions: is this really a problem? Are people being sued? Or is this something that someone has decided we have people in the field interpreting it differently, but it hasn't had sufficient impact to warrant going through the process of addressing it
02:39:51 [giacomo-petri]
q+ to say that sufficient is very subjective
02:39:52 [kenneth]
... we could burn a lot of time on this, and putting out another version raises...we could have hours of discussion on the impact of that.
02:40:10 [kenneth]
... so can we get a list of the identified pain points, and once we have that list, talk about putting something in the next charter?
02:40:15 [kenneth]
... if not, why go through all of the grief that would entail?
02:40:29 [Lisa]
present+
02:40:29 [kenneth]
... when does charter decision have to be made by?
02:40:29 [Ben_Tillyer]
Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
02:40:31 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
for the "is it actually worth it?" point ... I'd much rather spend my energy on that right now, than work on some WCAG 3 that may or may not come into force and be relevant for my day-to-day auditor work in the next decade or so
02:40:46 [kenneth]
kevin: Charter was extended by 6 months from October 31 to April
02:40:49 [giacomo-petri]
q-
02:40:58 [kenneth]
GreggVan: so we have a couple of months to decide
02:41:20 [alastairc]
ack me
02:41:20 [Zakim]
alastairc, you wanted to ask do you really want a whole thing in one go?
02:41:22 [kevin]
q+
02:41:51 [kenneth]
alastairc: Because the TF hasn't had normative updates in scope, those things which have come up have essentially been put to one side, or just get stuck e.g. the timing adjustable one from a while ago
02:42:18 [kenneth]
... so yes, things can come up. We want to be putting a new charter forward by January, ideally; we don't want to use up the entire charter period
02:42:39 [Ben_Tillyer]
q+
02:42:45 [kenneth]
... one thing to consider is the pain and effort experienced by those using WCAG 2 day-to-day - if you're interested, consider joining the 2.x Backlog TF calls on Fridays
02:42:50 [alastairc]
ack shadi
02:43:09 [kenneth]
shadi: I know this is controversial, but honest question: is it worth considering a separate WG for this?
02:43:12 [kenneth]
[Kevin shakes head]
02:43:37 [kenneth]
kevin: in this particular case, that would be counter-productive and probably take more resources
02:43:46 [kenneth]
... one of the concerns raised is that we don't distract too much from the development of WCAG 3
02:44:05 [kenneth]
... I think if we have a separate WG that probably does more of that, because it needs e.g. additional Team resources
02:44:22 [kenneth]
... it creates separation within the group, whereas I think within the Backlog TF they've been effective at working through the issues within there, and not distracting from the WG
02:44:35 [kenneth]
shadi: It seems to me like 2 very separable projects here
02:44:43 [alastairc]
q+ on resources / TF
02:44:51 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
+1 thanks for picking that up alastair. yes, "is it worth fixing this?" disproportionately affects people like myself working at the coal-face actually doing audits day in day out *right now*. and i'm not here trying to find hypothetical holes in WCAG 2.x SCs ... all issues i've raised over the years are things that I encounter in the wild *right now* (either personally, or when providing advice to colleagues/more junior au
02:44:51 [Patrick_H_Lauke]
ditors/when i'm QAing their assessments)
02:45:04 [kenneth]
... I don't know if there's any real discussion happening in the main group, maybe the TF is essentially doing that already
02:45:13 [kenneth]
Kevin: There's more overhead involved in an additional WG
02:45:17 [alastairc]
ack hdv