AGWG Teleconference -- 18 Nov 2025

Announcements

<mbgower> scribe+

Intros and Announcements

<mbgower> alastairc: Is there anyone who would like to introduce themselves?

<mbgower> Priti Rohra: I am chief accessibility officer at Barrier Break

<mbgower> Sydney Coleman: I am joining this group from Google

<mbgower> alastairc: We have a couple more announcements.

<Lisa> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/main/issue-papers/index.html#modules

<mbgower> Lisa: I've got some research modules from COGA (Cognitive Accessibility).

<mbgower> ... We have a couple of new modules to publish as first working drafts. We know there are issues with them, but we'd like some feedback.

<mbgower> ... If there are any showstoppers, we'd like to hear about them. We also have a place for comments for the next working draft.

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/187NtfTTIs_gpq6gL4zcKqLcNs2qyValFRpoGKrvZt6U/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.jtwzd3vbj0fp

<mbgower> ... You can use the github issues or send it to the task force or add to a Google Doc, which I will try to find, especially for feedback that is not urgent

<mbgower> alastairc: The first link has a 'how to comment' section

<mbgower> Lisa: If I've messed up some formatting, I'll fix that tomorrow.

<mbgower> julierawe: How soon do you want to hear back?

<mbgower> Lisa: This week, so we can fix them.

<mbgower> julierawe: One more bit of context. The idea is we want to publish the first draft. Then it will be open for public comments. So we want to find out if there is anything that would prevent us from getting FPWD out.

<mbgower> maryjom: WCAG2ICT has made some more updates to align with En 301 549.

<mbgower> ... Now that the EN is "done done" there should be no need to do further updates. We wanted the AGWG to do review of these changes.

<mbgower> ... I think we will extend for two weeks because of the Thanksgiving holiday. Then we will do a CFC for that version.

<mbgower> ... I will open a space for that momentarily.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to speak about quite period after Mary Jo's update

<mbgower> Chuck: Just to remind everyone that we are in between quiet periods.

<mbgower> ... I believe we have time to go through these changes.

<mbgower> GreggVan: As Mary Jo mentioned, EN 301 549 has now been frozen and sent out for votes. There will not likely be many more changes. Maybe some editorials that may come back from votes.

<mbgower> alastairc: I'm going to share screen for a basic slide show

<Rachael> slides for today: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g3a494676668_1_15#slide=id.g3a494676668_1_15

<mbgower> ... Upcoming meetings... There are couple we're skipping. It's Thanksgiving in the US next week, then we have Christmas, holidays and New Years. We will resume again on January 6.

<mbgower> ... We will have Kevin update the calendar. We're skipping Nov 25, Dec 23 and Dec 30

TPAC recap

<mbgower> alastairc: This is a wrap up meeting after TPAC

<mbgower> ... We're going to do a quick overview and then introduce some topics

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lrSm4JSt7vgmXdAJwO0cASqp11EGYoCCR6Ni2OkWBzk/edit?slide=id.g3a1cac2aeb9_0_99#slide=id.g3a1cac2aeb9_0_99

<mbgower> ... We have a fairly full slide deck from that set of meetings.

<mbgower> ... We did a quick retro on the first day. It was a chance for the group to comment on what has gone well and not so well since our last meeting at CSUN.

<kenneth> first day minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/09-ag-minutes.html

<mbgower> ... In general the subgroups were helpful for getting work done in parallel.

<mbgower> ... There was a discussion on transcripts.

<mbgower> ... We are going to stick with our manual approach for minutes for now.

<mbgower> ... By the end of 2027 we how to get to CR.

<mbgower> ... We then looked at what we hope to focus on for the next charter.

<mbgower> [shows slide 13]

<mbgower> ... "What special focused topics do we need for next charter?"

<mbgower> [shows slide 14]

<mbgower> ... AI was another area of great interest.

<mbgower> ..."What topics for WCAG 3 do we need to focus on?"

<mbgower> ... Technology reviews, reporting, and user agents and authoring tools were discussed

<mbgower> [shows slide 15]

<mbgower> Rachael: We will double check the status of slide 15 and report back next week.

<mbgower> alastairc: I did not manage to stay up late enough for some of the things covered by classification systems.

<mbgower> ... We also had a section on Tuesday afternoon

<mbgower> ...[Shows slide 29]

<kenneth> second day minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-ag-minutes.html

<mbgower> GreggVan: Because there are so many different ways to tag something, since you will have the document well anchored, you might want to create a tool which allows people to add different schemas for tagging.

<mbgower> alastairc: That's something for us to talk to Ken about, since he's our technical person.

<mbgower> ... He's saying that's already being done. I'm going to stop that discussion, since it is a bit of a tangent.

<mbgower> ... [Shows slide 30]

<mbgower> ... "Possible content for informative policy guidelines"

<mbgower> ... That's mainly what was covered on Monday and Tuesday, which were the WG's main days.

<mbgower> ... Is there anything else anyone at TPAC wanted to mention?

<mbgower> ... I think about 50% of the people on today's call were in the meetings.

WCAG 2.next

<mbgower> Makoto_U: I want to talk about Ruby issues and internationalization issues Murata-san shared with us at TPAC.

<inserted> Makoto_U: Ruby can be covered by 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, as long as there is an additional success technique and failure.

<mbgower> ... There might be an issue for success criteria 1.4.12 Text Spacing

<mbgower> ... If there is an issue as raised, we should find a solution. We will have a meeting to discuss with JIS (Japanese national standards) working group, and Murata-san and I will keep you informed.

<mbgower> alastairc: That's a nice segue to our next item.

<kenneth> scribe+

<mbgower> ... [Shows slide 35]

<kenneth> scribe-

<mbgower> ... We had quite a few people from the i18n group

<kenneth> non-latin breakout minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/10-wcag2-non-latin-minutes.html

<mbgower> ... I think one can be covered by 1.3.1 Info & Relationships.

<mbgower> ... The second set of issues is to do with text spacing, visual information, and a few others. Basic any SCs to do with CSS values. Currently they have exemptions, but it means that the SCs are not covering non-Latin languages.

<mbgower> ... The proposal was to use something like a look-up table. We weren't sure that would work.

<mbgower> ... This is a problem that applies to WCAG 3 and 2.

<hdv> scribe+

<hdv> alastairc: there were questions around how we reference values around different scripts, and what are criteria for PWD for those languages and scripts

<hdv> ... these are still open questions, we didn't answer them at TPAC

<hdv> ... it does lead to the question, what's next with WCAG 2

<hdv> ... internationalisation is a big one, eg if normative updates are needed that's a strong goal for a new publication for WCAG 2

<hdv> ... there are also interpretation for different languages that we could make tweaks for

<hdv> ... we didn't get to a solid conclusion on that. Taking a step back, we're looking at our next charter and whether to add a normative update to WCAG 2 to that.

<hdv> ... it should be ok to work out a list of specific things that need improvement re doing an update.

<hdv> ... various options are: (a) updates to Understanding / Techniques, (b) publish a new version of WCAG 2 that doesn't cover new requirements but just ensures internationalisation is taken care off the right way, or (c) publish 'editor notes' now, based on what we would plan to do in WCAG 3

<hdv> ... considerations include, we don't want to take time away from WCAG 3 efforts, but on the other hand want to make sure we address problems

<hdv> AWK: did we get clarity on whether current backlog group could do this work without affecting WCAG 3 timeline?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say my read of the room was that the TF should do a 'triage' of issues

<hdv> alastairc: Kevin could answer that, he's not here now

<hdv> mbgower: people want to assess whether the issues that are @@@ are in fact intractable

<hdv> mbgower: if we have the ok to do that, we can persue that

<hdv> GreggVan: [inaudible]

<hdv> AWK: adding on to Mike's point… agree we want to be careful with what we commit our time to. As Alastair said we want to spend as little time on this as possible, it's distraction from WCAG 3, a good one but still a distraction

<alastairc> qq+ GreggVan

<hdv> AWK: the updates after, say to conformance and additional SCs, would happen after that… but would be building on this version

<hdv> AWK: am worried we take our eye off WCAG 3 focus

<Wilco> +1

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to react to AWK

<kirkwood> +1

<hdv> GreggVan: if we can identify a list, and then figure out if we have the authority to change and put in the charter to do this list; worry about not having bounds on it

<hdv> GreggVan: instead of working on WCAG 3, we could spend forever polishing 2

<hdv> GreggVan: we can look at them and decide if worth doing; but ensure it's not open ended

<Rachael> +1 to keeping it very tightly scoped

+1 to keeping tightly scoped

<hdv> Wilco: I also think it's worth consider downstream costs of it… we need to think carefully about what does it cost us to do it, but also what does it cost the rest of the world when we do somerthing like this. Eg an update to EN 301 549, that may need to happen, is it actually going to happen? What do we need with ISO? Translations?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask guess on timing for making choice

<hdv> Wilco: we could introduce all sorts of problems when making changes like this

<hdv> bruce_bailey: all good questions… I think a couple of years ago we decided not to do WCAG 2.3 for all of those reasons

<hdv> bruce_bailey: my question is, what is your guess would be the timeframe?

<hdv> kenneth: reiterating some points Kevin made during TPAC… while I recognise to a certain extent there's overlap between who works on the backlog TF and WCAG 3… there's specialisation in interest and efforts. Spending time on WCAG 2 doesn't necessarily translate to not being able to spend it on WCAG 3. Partially, may be, but not entirely

<hdv> kenneth: if it's too specific / tunnel vision, what could happen is we write one thing in charter, and then end up committing to something that no longer quite makes sense once our understanding evolves

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on parallel working

<hdv> alastairc: it needs to be carefully picked, choose most important issues out of the list and decide what goes in

+1 to Ken's point that most (not all) active contributors on WCAG2-Issues (aka backlog) are not on this Tuesday and not much active on WCAG3.

<hdv> alastairc: re AWK's point… I would say things are reversed now… primary work in the meetings, incl this one, would be on WCAG 3… Ken mentioned some members of the TF are working in WCAG 3, but not many I think, most focused on the WCAG 2 side. That group closed >500 issues in the last few months, in an average of 10 mins meeting time every other week.

<Rachael> +1 to Woot!

<hdv> alastairc: it would be that TF carrying on, but slightly expanding their scope to give them the option of tackling some things that could be normative

<hdv> +1 alastairc

<hdv> alastairc: chair hat off, re Wilco's point on cost/benefit: would agree the largely hidden cost is how much discussion time could be taken up talking about ambiguities like those around audio description

a/not on this Tuesday and/not on this Tuesday call and/

<hdv> GreggVan: want to echo Wilco's comment… there is no way that EN 301 549 will be updated for at least next many years, if at all

<hdv> GreggVan: for new work to start on EN 301 549 what would be required is a mandate from the European Commission, as well as money to pay for the team and experts

<Detlev> bruce_bailey thanks, will try to pay attention to when that crash happens (mostly some time when I look at the Zoom call rather than the IRC)

<hdv> GreggVan: for example, colour space issues; what's in there now is outdated… doesn't contradict the old, just brings it up to date

<hdv> GreggVan: is there a list of what the items are that need to be fixed?

<Wilco> +1 Gregg. We can document our current thinking of what it should be without changing the normative text

<hdv> GreggVan: would strongly suggest we use the supplementing docs to describe what we mean by existing requirements

<hdv> GreggVan: not sure if this will work like that, haven't seen the list

FWIW, U.S. Section 508 and ADA (building and/or web) are years away from even raising the question of updating those standards.

<hdv> AWK: wanted to respond to Ken's comment… while I agree most people do work in one or the other group, but that changes if we're talking about normative changes. Normative changes will likely engage more people in the WG.

<Jon_Avila> Thank you Andrew.

<hdv> AWK: if changes became normative, I would need to be part of that group

<hdv> kenneth: rings a bell with something that was raised last week… WCAG 2 is not purely subtraction of WCAG 3… changes to WCAG 3 could be because issues raised in WCAG 2

<hdv> kenneth: re is there a list? I believe Mike Gower was referring to doing a full triage of all open issues in order to make that list, so that we can have one that is more definitive

<hdv> kenneth: am worried about the usability of having updated WCAG 2 as well as an additional supplemental document

<mbgower> Yes, as I said in my comment, the TF needs to review the existing issues and discussions to come up with that list

<hdv> kenneth: people would need to read both

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on regulatory updates from WCAG 2.x - unlikely and that's ok

<hdv> alastairc: re the regulatory side… I don't think anyone would be picking up this work anytime soon

<hdv> alastairc: personally would clarify particular things

<hdv> alastairc: the internationalisation aspects could be added in a backwards compatible way

<hdv> alastairc: the questions still need answering. We need to think of what we want a requirement to be and assess it then

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say the motivation for the editors note

<hdv> Rachael: the reason we suggested editor's notes somewhere, that's because we don't think things get updated in regulation, but would give people a way to look at the content

<hdv> Rachael: getting out WCAG 3 is absolutely the priortity. So looked at a middle ground

<Wilco> Put it in the understanding documents?

+1 to alastairc points regarding (1) backwards compatibility, and (2) work is valuable regardless of being adopted by regulators.

<hdv> stevef: what are the interpretation issues re internationalisation?

<hdv> alastairc: there's nothing positive for those other languages that supports readability in those languages

<Chuck> qq+ to ask for a scribe change

<hdv> stevef: and we want to include that for more languages than just Western languages?

<hdv> alastairc: yes

<hdv> stevef: +1 to doing that…

<hdv> stevef: re 'it won't be taken up'… it may still be taken up by people from non Western countries where it has the usability benefits

<hdv> stevef: we know WCAG 3 is going to be a while

<hdv> stevef: if we can improve some aspects of WCAG 2, we should, as that's the guidelines going to be used for at least 5 years. So I think it's worth it

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to stevef to ask for a scribe change

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change

scribe+

<hdv> scribe-

gregg: complexity of document here, there -- could be addressed by annotated version with issues or concerns with previous versions...

<kirkwood> annotated is a good idea and practice w/ gov’t specs

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

gregg: the effected SC could have call-out boxes. For example, this SC has been interpreted differently, or for different color spaces, this formula could be use.

<GreggVan> +1 to giving us a list so we know what we are talking about

<Priti> + 1 to annotated version

Alastair: Rachael asks if backlog TF could generate a list to help inform group decision.

<mbgower> There are 500 issues and almost 200 discussions in github. I am not going to commit to delivering a summary of those in the next couple of weeks.

Alastair: seems a bit abstract at the moment.

<AWK> +1 to Gregg

<Wilco> +1 Gregg. We should know what we're proposing before we put it into the charter

GreggVan: I would like a complete list. Some of the issues raised are very different from one another. We need the the specs.

alastairc: There are several types, not asking for Mike or Bruce to summarize the 500 open issues.

<kenneth> 500 _issues_, not comments

<kenneth> some of the issues have dozens of comments

alastairc: We would need to prioritize the list. We want to figure out how much time is needed -- right now the work is fitting into the time available.

<alastairc> 500 issues, multiply by 20 for comments?

<mbgower> Gregg, some of these issues have over 100 comments.

<kenneth> that's completely untrue

<kenneth> RE just have to look at the issue, not comments

<kenneth> you don't know which ones may grow into a bigger issue

GreggVan: I don't think summarizing the 500 issues is necessary or even the best way to estimate the scale of the issues...

<mbgower> Perhaps someone else on the call would like to volunteer to do that, if they think it is an easy task to do

<LoriO> irc keeps dropping me

GreggVan: I also don't think time-boxing the activity is practical. We have had so many example of a what was thought to be simple 3 min question taking hours.

alastairc: We do have better tools now, bugzilla [scribe shutters] as compared to GitHub.
... So much easier for public and AG members to track.

<Chuck> +1 to prioritizing the issues and fitting those into a limited time.

alastairc: We work down the priorities and those we can't resolve within a reasonable time get postponed. That's the way we have always worked.

LoriO: TF often has to have dialogue with person posting the original question/issue/PR. I think it would be two weeks of work for a person to realistically outline the time needed.

<kenneth> if you want to talk about intractable problems, try juggling a hundred ongoing conversations on open issues/discussions at once

GreggVan: Prior to GitHub we still had the rule review back with individuals/organizations raising issues.
... We are not talking about simple typos, we have a major undertaking.

<alastairc> How to you balance the update-work with the current wasted time?

GreggVan: It is going to have huge impact to the whole world if we don't make this easy. This would be big. We need to know what we are talking about.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask how long to get an initial list together and to say that we don't need the issues solved, just listed

GreggVan: We need to know the pain points.

Rachael: We are repeating concerns, but we do need a list and scoping.
... How many week would TF facilitators needs?

<alastairc> A few issues within that 500, it was just the level of task of going through those in a short time

AWK: I hear critical issues and 500 issues -- so I want smallest possible list

<Rachael> scribe+

<Jon_Avila> I agree with Andrew.

<Rachael> Bruce: The problem with this request to have a list is compounded by the fact that we don't often contemplate the backwards-compatibility issues.

<Rachael> ...Those kinds of things affect the questions of what is on the list. A bit chicken and egg.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say there are about 50 issues that have at least 20 comments. There are about 100 more that have between 10 and 20 comments

<kirkwood> +1 Bruce

mbgower: This is run way issue for me. It will take a lot of time to go through in time before the charter...

<Wilco> -1 Mike. This is too big a decision that it can be left open in the charter

mbgower: part of our TF work could come up with a list, I'm not saying we must do 2.3 or 3.2.1 or whatever -- we need to know if we can make normative changes or that is blocking....
... Audio Description is a good example as people have incompatible understanding -- all in goof faith.

<alastairc> The levels thing is Bruce's idea, I wasn't going to raise that.

GreggVan: Did I really hear that we might go from 3 to 2 levels? I don't agree that the question on Audio Description is debatable. Its clear from the current normative language.
... People saying "AD is not enough" will always be true no matter how much AD is provided...

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to reframe what we need with deference to other chairs

GreggVan: it should come down to original intent which is not ambigous/

<Chuck> +1 we do have more flexibility on the contents of the charter.

Rachael: I believe the charter does give us sufficient flexibility for doing the work to update the charter....
... Even if it is an initial list, how long would you need?

Wilco: I think the flexibility in the charter comes down to what would get approved, not what W3C says...
... What if instead of doing this, since we are working on this contentions points for WCAG3, why not put our time into guiding direction for WCAG3.

<Chuck> +1 To Wilco's idea that we could contemplate guiding people to WCAG 3.

Conformance

kenneth: For that, what we are guiding folks to, we have to be careful since WCAG3 might have some incompatibilities.

alastairc: Switching to WCAG3 oriented conversation.

Rachael: Each time we talk WCAG3 we get caught up in different understanding of terms. I want to clarify that for now, and terms have changed before and are still a little in flux...
... What to refresh everyone on the meaning of the terms we are using for now.

<GreggVan> Functional Needs -- Needs created by limitations that people are experienceing

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g3a494676668_1_5#slide=id.g3a494676668+1_5

Rachael discusses terminology. See slide

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say Functional Needs -- Needs created by limitations that people are experienceing

scribe: none set in stone. Questions?

GreggVan: Instead of "functional need" suggest "limitations"

Rachael: Agree take off physical qualifier.
... Chairs proposing two step approach for moving forward...
... These are questions we have not resolved over the previous several weeks. We need more feedback from the public and regulators.
... Chairs propose a conformance subgroup. Any objections or questions?

GreggVan: So would we put proposal to public?

<AWK> Makes sense to me as a way forward

Rachael: I am asking for initial reactions, and if acceptable then conformance subgroup works on questions for public.

[Rachael outlines proposed conformance option for next draft and questions for comment]

Rachael: Subgroup would explore other options.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Lori

LoriO: Did we decide if we are working on per page, per set of pages, per site?

Rachael: WCAG3 is proposing flexibility for scope of conformance claim.

alastairc: We have not gone much beyond page/view based for now.

GreggVan: I think there is confusion between scope of unit and claim...
... the SC will necessarily be oriented to units of evaluation. Scope of claim is a different question.
... We should not introduce the word "mandatory" if there are going be levels.

<Wilco> +1 Gregg. We don't decide what is and isn't mandatory at all. That's the role of policy makers

<Chuck> +1 Rachael's understanding is same as mine.

Rachael: My take-away from previous discussion was that there should be a collection of "on-ramp" items.

<AWK> Agreed, just a terminology issue

alastairc: I think people just getting hung up on terminology. It just which bits do pages have flexibility and what parts are addressed all the time.

<AWK> e.g., "this set of provisions are mandatory to meet for a conformance claim at level X"

Jon_Avila: I just want to agree that we need to be clear with what we are looking for with feedback.

GreggVan: I don't think we should have an on-ramp as part of conformance. I agree that "supplemental requirements" is confusing. I think we can have "recommendations"...
... for example "keep things as simple as possible"

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if everyone is ok with dropping the last bullet

GreggVan: There is also the translation problem with optional things that you must do.

Rachael: Does any object with dropping last bullet?

<Jon_Avila> We have prereq, core, and foundational - so effectively we do have 3 levels of mandatory.

@awk: I disagree with removing the bullet. It could be vocabulary. Other regulations have multiple different mandatory requirements for different audiences...

<kirkwood> primary

@awk: I think there is value, and had expected, that WCAG3 would have some level of conformer below WCAG2AA. We need some easier requirements for people just getting started.

GreggVan: If you want to have something less than AA, good luck, because there will heavy argument about removing any one of the AA SC.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest Should there be a conformance level lower than Bronze that is lower than WCAG 2 A&AA?

Rachael: Should there be level less than bronze?

<Jon_Avila> I like that we keep lowest conformance at bronze but have different levels in mandatory.

GreggVan: If we ask that question, after yes/no, ask for feedback on which SC can be below bronze?
... Which provisions are candidates for being below Bronze?

alastairc: I think we have the question covered with the way we are approaching this.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say wcag 2 already has 2 levels normally in conformance

alastairc: Does anyone have an objection for publishing this as a draft for getting feed back?

mbgower: That WCAG 2x has multiple levels proves that having a core reduced set is not new.

GreggVan: My concern is with labeling something mandatory and then saying some of those is option.

<kirkwood> avoid mandatory - agree strongly

GreggVan: This seems like a lot for a straw poll.

<kirkwood> i would suggest “primary"

<mbgower> +1 to John's suggestion of "primary"

Zakim: From an environmental engineering perspective -- avoid "mandatory"

<Wilco> Don't go there. ACT spent weeks figuring out an alternative to the term "secondary requirements"

<kirkwood> of course

<alastairc> +1 Wilco

alastairc: if not supplemental, then secondary? How to group ones must do versus set which might be optional?

Rachael: We have really struggle with the term for the buckets.

alastairc: Terminology aside, any objections to the general concept?

<Detlev> The idea of "you have to do some of these ones, and you can pick which ones" is fraught and I think should be abandoned

<GreggVan> +1

<Chuck> +1

Rachael: This is conception. Drafting still in play.

<AWK> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Detlev> 0

alastairc: To detlevs concern, we had agreement previously.

<julierawe> +1

<stevef> +1

<laura> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<LoriO> +1

<Wilco> 0

<kirkwood> +1

<scott> 0

<Jon_Avila> +1

<maryjom> +1

Rachael: We will also be sending out survey for volunteers on subgroup.

Alastair: No seeing objections on call.

<mbgower> Isn't testing missing from this? Is that in Methods?

alastairc: Please see last slide for deliverables "package"...
... We did not get to last items, policy guidance, conformance guidance.

<AWK> closest equiv for conformance guidance is the conformance section also

mbgower: tests should be include

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say should test be in there explicitly

Rachael: How To is for testers.

<mbgower> Thanks for this summary

<julierawe> And +1 to gregg's comment--kudos!

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

18 Nov 2025

Attendees

Contents

Announcements

Intros and Announcements

TPAC recap

WCAG 2.next

Conformance

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output