AGWG Teleconference -- 02 Dec 2025

<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2025-12-02

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<laura> Scribe: laura

chuck: any introductions?

Tayef: I'm a Senior Experience Designer at Aetna Health.

<LenB> Welcome Tayef!

chuck: any announcements?

<Rain> so happy for you, Chuck, but you will be missed by us!

<Ben_Tillyer> Congrats Chuck!

<LenB> Congrats Chuck!

chuck: I am retiring. I've announced my retirement with Oracle. My ending date is December 31st, and January 1st, I start my new life and adventures.

<GN015> All the best for the new part of your life!

<Jon_Avila> Thank you for all the efforts Chuck!

<julierawe> Congrats, Chuck! We will miss you so much!

<kirkwood> Wow Chuck!!! Cograts. you have been great!!!

<BrianE> Enjoy retirement Chuck! Thanks for all of your hard work!

<Heather> Chuck, your service to accessibility has left a mark on all of us, and made a huge impact on the world.

<kevin> +1 to Heather

<CarrieH> Congrats Chuck

<Jennie_Delisi> Congrats, Chuck! You have made such a difference! Really appreciated learning from you

<Makoto_U> Congrats Chuck! You've been awesome!! We'll miss you!!!

<Poornima> Chuck Congratulations and all the very best to your new beginnings! Thank you for your guidance and We will miss you!!

chuck: the work that we do here on advancing these standards.

is truly beneficial, life-changing, life-altering.

scribe: thank you all.

<alastairc> I was going to chime in, but people have really said it all in IRC already!

<Frankie> Chuck, congratulations on your retirement and best wishes on your adventures! It’s been an absolute pleasure working with you and I’ll miss having you here. Thanks so much for all the work you’ve done and for being a great example of how to lead difficult discussions.

awk: It was a delight to be able to, uh, bring you in as a chair.
... I really appreciate all you've done... best of luck in your retirement.

gregg: thank you for your service. The three of you worked in an amazing way together.

WCAG 2.x Issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0064.html

<bbailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0064.html

ac: Nothing normative, but there are some things that could meaningfully add or alter existing non-normative guidance.
... there's an ARIA 2 as an advisory technique. question. There's a target size technique update.
... thumbs up or thumbs down on the issues.

ACT Rules publication https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/611

chuck: Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.1 to transition to W3C Recommendation

<bbailey> Project board alastairc mentioned for WCAG2-Issues TF: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56 (login required)

chuck: the group had an opportunity to review that email and to go through any concerns, have any conversations and such.

<Daniel> ACT Rules Format 1.1 review issue

chuck: And what we're looking to do now. is move forward, uh, and resolve to publish this.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Publish ACT Rules Format 1.1

dm: The process, the W3C process has changed, so we're transitioning, to be fair.
... between candidate recommendation

<Venkat> Where do we vote?

dm: there's not proposed recommendation anymore.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve ACT Rules format 1.1

<alastairc> I assume this resolution needs to follow up with a CFC anyway? (Kevin?)

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve ACT Rules format 1.1 for publication

dm: Once the group approves, there's team review and approval, and there's AC review and approval.
... So we're not publishing this ourselves, we're actually approving this for publication.

bruce: I didn't notice a Requested date for review or response in the email.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/611

ac: AC: We will need to follow up with the CFC anyway, so what I would suggest is that Consider this the starting gun, if you haven't looked at it.

rm: If we want to do a resolution, we could do one with the acknowledged 5-day period for people who aren't in the meeting to review before we kick off the CFC,

WCAG2ICT

dm: uh, so I'm assuming this would be the announcement that the review deadline will be

December 9th.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/812

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: approve Publication of updated WCAG2ICT

chuck: We only... we can do a 5-day CFC.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve updated WCAG2ICT for publication

ac: It's one week, because it's a working week.

<bbailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0062.html

<GreggVan> +1

<BrianE> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<LenB> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Adam_Page> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Makoto_U> +1

<alastairc> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Rayianna> +1

<LoriO> +1

<Heather> +1

<bbailey> +1

<Frankie> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<AWK> +1

<Poornima> +1

<Rain> +1

<Venkat> +1

<filippo-zorzi> +1

<SydneyColeman> +1

laura +1

<eloisa> +1

<Jen_G> +1

<Priti> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve updated WCAG2ICT for publication

Supplemental / Foundational terminology conversation with survey: Terminology Sets https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/terminology_sets

<bbailey> WCAG2ICT email to list Nov 18, titled "Please review by 2 December: Current editor's draft of WCAG2ICT Group Note"

chuck: We put out a survey, and we've been having a conversation regarding terminology,
... We have been using the terminology "Foundational Requirements" and "Supplemental Requirements and Assertions" to describe the sets of provisions for the upcoming draft.
... There were 5 proposals offered, 4 choices plus an opportunity to provide an alternative.
... what I would like to do is spend a little bit of time talking about the alternatives first.
... I'm looking to focus the conversation just on the terminology, even though there are some people that offered some commentary.

<kirkwood> fundamental supplemental +1

<kirkwood> agree

chuck: (summarizes Gundala's comments)

<bbailey> Set 1 might also be called "beginner"

chuck:

Mary Jo: I was just kind of looking at the definitions of those words.

<kirkwood> Supplemental is often used in environmental regulatory perspective

scribe: offered them up as other possible terms,

<CarrieH> I think I have more issues with the term supplemental due to value judgment which has been mentioned by multiple folks

adam: Foundational and supplemental are totally acceptable to me.
... supplemental does feel like it has a little bit of a value judgment in it.

<Chuck> Fundamental & Supplimental

<Chuck> or Foundational & Supplimental

Ken: I see the point on situational, but I would be I would at least want to flag that that could be misconstrued as having some direct connection to applicability

<alastairc> +1 to Ken, it's a good idea for 'situational', but I don't think it quite lines up with the requirements. Some are just harder, not necessarily applicable in certain situations.

<CarrieH> I sort of like "Essential" instead of Foundational but that may have issues that "Primary/Secondary" would have

jk: I do like supplemental

<bbailey> glad to learn from kirkwood that "supplemental" has strong implications with some regulation

<kirkwood> either foundational or fundamental and supplemental (for 2nd)

<CarrieH> Well would John Smith understand what Foundational and Supplemental mean?

gregg: I agree that situational sounds like if you had situational, you'd have to say what situations they apply to.
... I don't think that there's any way for an author to know.

<Chuck> qq+ to scroll to survey results

gregg: What do you mean by foundational? But, it could be something you build on,.
... Maybe that's it, core.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to GreggVan to scroll to survey results

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on asking people, and showing a summary table

<CarrieH> Perhaps my question to non native English Speakers, how would "Core" be perceived, and is this actually true? Are these the "Core" requirements?

gregg: There's some things you must do, and some of them are optional. To me sounds like it's an effort thing.

chuck: results were fairly balanced for 2, and the others didn't have a lot of.

<CarrieH> If that's true, I would go with using the word "Core" because I feel that word would be better understood (and it's relatively short word compared with Foundational and I'm thinking about cognitive load here)

chuck: goes over the numbers.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention that USAB uses "advisory" and that has worked

<bbailey> https://www.access-board.gov/ada/

bruce: We want a stronger word for 2nd set, but I'll note that a nominally weak word (advisory) hasn't been problematic with ADA regulations for built environment.

For the second set.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to exploring advisory

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on asking people, and showing a summary table

AC: shares a summary.
... Universal and Situational: I would love it if that matched.
... there doesn't seem to be a good name for our second set.

<Poornima> sorry for the delay in responding, I vote for 'Foundational' and 'Advisory'

ac: if the rule requirements, and we're labelling some of them a core, and we just don't label some of the other ones, that might help get around the derogatory-ness of the second label.

<CarrieH> I kind of like "Core Requirements" and "requirements" so what's the criteria for what's not labeled as "core"?

<AWK> +1 to gregg's point on clearly articulating what things mean/are for and then naming them

<kirkwood> instead of secodary sjuggestions: Auxiliary, Dedicated, targeted, Particularized, Focused

<alastairc> -1 to gregg's point, the survey said what they are...

<CarrieH> How about "Mandatory" but legally that's a bad term though :\

<kirkwood> good point about human rights by Gregg!

<alastairc> CarrieH - it was in the survey description

<Jennie_Delisi> Plain language discussions often use must vs should or recommended.

<AWK> We don't have a conformance model. I don't see how we really know what these are for yet.

Gregg: If we go the path of all other standards. We have things that this is the minimum required.

<CarrieH> +1 to what Jennie_Delisi just mentioned

Gregg: And then these are the ones we also recommend that you do
... and then we can have all sorts of additional markings for people who do a certain number of recommended or something.

<alastairc> AWK - we went through the proposed conformance model 2 weeks ago.

Gregg: The base level of the conformance, what's required, needs to be something that is required, period.

<CarrieH> How about Core and Recommended?

<CarrieH> Foundational and Recommended?

<Rain> +1 to bumping Jennie_Delisi's plain language recommendation for discussion and consideration: must / should

Gregg: can be conditional, like we hav then you can't do it, or blah blah blah.

<bbailey> +1 to alastairc idea to have "core" and no label

Gregg: Because then you shift from this being, these are what is required to be accessible to, we want you to spend a certain amount of effort.

on making things acquired, and if you do 80% of these, then that's enough effort for us to give you a check mark.

scribe: this being civil rights accessibility as a duty and into

more of a tax kind of a thing, and that sort of boggles.

My head.

<AWK> the conformance model isn't in the draft yet, is it Rachael?

<GreggVan> add Required and recommended to your chart?

<bbailey> +1 to "building blocks"

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to make a point of order on expressing support through zoom

<AWK> +1 to keeping reactions in IRC

RM: we have a two-pronged approach. The first one is that we are going to put out the content with the conformance model we've got.

and get feedback on the key pieces of that to inform future conformance conversations.

scribe: this is a kind of scoped conversation within those bounds with acknowledging that we will be kicking off a conformance subgroup come January.

<bbailey> ADA regs have a "building blocks" chapter: https://www.access-board.gov/ada/#adaCh3

<bbailey> so +1 to Rachael suggestion of that label

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how things can be required but also scored. Otherwise it's A+AA vs AAA again, which somewhat based on effort.

scribe: chair hat off. I'm a little concerned about not having a label for the second set. It makes it hard to talk about.

JK: Auxiliary, I think, is a good one. There's a human aspect of things, and wanting to tie it to people, dedicated or targeted, or particularized, or focused might be something that we... want to, uh, move it towards

<scott> fwiw - i'm a fan of A / AA / AAA since it removes the gut feelings people have about exactly which words to use...

AC: I had requests from people, not regulators from clients to do...

to do triple, but that's another categorization mechanism of saying these requirements...First, these requirements. Second, these requirements. Third.

<CarrieH> My concern with "Building Blocks" is that it's an idiom

scribe: But we're trying to introduce some graduation so that some kind of scoring can establish improvements more easily.

<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Carrie as for some using non-literal language can be problematic

<kirkwood> that would be helpful for a regulatory perspective btw

<CarrieH> that may not be well understood by literal thinkers, and non native speakers..

<bbailey> FWIW we (USAB) tried to use ADA "building block" concept when we updated 508 regulation, but couldn't figure out how to make that work usefully for ICT.

Greeg: As soon as you talk about building blocks encourages everybody to go make up their own different set of requirements.
... the reason that WCAG is so universally supported.

is because it is universal. there's one, and everybody adopted it.

<kirkwood> Gregg's point is very important

<Ben_Tillyer> Can any written records that I can read through be shared about what GreggVan is talking to?

scribe: But the idea is that the supplemental are, you have the things that are required, that's your minimum, and that's what's required. But if you're going to be in an educational environment, then here's some supplemental ones that you may want to think of as being important to also add.

<alastairc> Possibly minutes from meetings in the 2004-7 era?

<alastairc> The document in the zoom viewer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iqWSeVWN9t-fcJGwc9-u4FJmphEMUZZ-fMsw4fcsAh8/edit?tab=t.0

<Ben_Tillyer> That was my fear, alastairc - I think it would be helpful to compile what we can

gregg: I still think that we ought to be thinking about doing a better job of figuring out how to get things into what's required that we think are really important.

<LenB> Scribe: LenB

<scott> + 12 banana

<bbailey> +1 for banana and earthquake

AWK: as I've listened today I feel like we should be careful about picking words that have a lot of nuance. WCAG is going to be translated and we want a clear translaction. They'll be whatever a conformance model needs them to be. Primary and Secondary might be the easiest to translate and define in the Conformance Model.

<GreggVan> +1 to translation concerns

<CarrieH> Essential and Supportive Requirements, Baseline and Augmenting Requirements, Foundational and Additional Requirements

<kirkwood> respectfully disagree with the need for an implied hierarchy

Chuck: hoping to make a decision by end of this hour. We do have a past resolution of Foundational and Supplemental. That will stand if we don't decide on a different terminology todya.

<CarrieH> I think Additional is already in that table..

<CarrieH> How about Complementary for the second?

alastairc: we have a lot of options, I numbered these to help have a conversation about weeding some of these words.

<bbailey> Ben_Tillyer and anyone else asking about record of WCAG 2.0 discussion around levels is summarized in Understand at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/conformance#levels

<CarrieH> is supportive on that list for the second?

SydneyColeman: trying to establish our flow here. Sounds like we're trying to decide by end of meeting by whittling this list down. Clarifying that our default is Foundational and Supplemental.

<GreggVan> +1 to using Foundational rather than Fundamental

alastairc: I don't recommend Fundamental (persoanlly). I object to universal and situational as they don't align with our work. Must and Should don't fit our RFC standards.

<bbailey> +1 to focussing on terms that people "object" to

alastairc: if we all type in the words we have concerns with or not comfortable with, please enter your numbers in IRC

<alastairc> I don't think we should use 4, 13, 14

<kirkwood> could you point to the list of “these”

<Frankie> I don't recommend fundamental, universal/situational, must/should, required/recommended, or required/focused required.

<maryjom> Prefer NOT to use: 3, 14, 15, 16

<GreggVan> separate the first and second words in your question

SydneyColeman: should we be thinking of parity with other standards and their terminology?

<Rachael> I am concerned about the term fundamental as it has some possible unintended connotations

<Jennie_Delisi> Prefer not to use 4, 6, 13

<SydneyColeman> object to universal and situational

<kirkwood> thx

<Poornima> "object" to Universal / Must / Should / Secondary / Situational / Complementary

<AWK> prefer to not use 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16

<Chuck> prefer not 4, 13, 14, 15

<GreggVan> to THIN the questions in the survey. Remove Fundamental and break first from second term

<BrianE> objections: 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15

<eloisa> Prefer not to use 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16

kevin: interesting question, but EN is largely a lift and shift of WCAG and the EN is drawing on that. Given how other governments and standards have adopted WCAG not sure how we'd align with another standard that didn't build off of ours.

<Rain> Object to 3 and 12

<GreggVan> 4

<LoriO> I vote for 1, the rest I object to

<GreggVan> 6

<Rain> And object to 9 and 11

<julierawe> Just flagging that this is a lot to process in the moment :)

<Jennie_Delisi> Apologies - assumed we were just voting based on column 1

<kevin> Would remove 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14

<Makoto_U> Prefer not to use 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask about concern for "complementary"

<Heather> Eliminate 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16

<julierawe> I prefer not to use 6

<Jennie_Delisi> Chuck - do we need to separately note objections for column 2? Sorry, no mic

<ShawnT> objections: 6, 9, 13, 14, 16

<GreggVan> 13

alastairc: an x on the sheet represents someone having a concern

bbailey: what was the concern complementary?

<GreggVan> 11

<CarrieH> I think having any kind of second wording may be perceived as "optional"

Poornima: it feels 'optional' and amy not be a good pair with foundational

<tayeffarrar0> prefer not to use 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

GreggVan: complimentary had multiple meanings and feels like a yin yang situation. If we try to translation it would likely be a mis-translation.

<CarrieH> I don't have a link to that doc anyways, and good thing he's sharing the screen so we can view the different choices

<Priti> Objections: 8, 9, 10, 11, 13

<Ben_Tillyer> -1 to 6, 7,8,9,10,11, 13, 14

<bbailey> i don't care for 1, 3, 5, 13, 14

<CarrieH> well there's complementary and complimentary are different words with different meanings..

<CarrieH> but I can see how these two words would get mixed up, and that may be confusing

<GN015> 3, 7,8,9,10,11, (Enhanced is fine, but the first group also needs a name), 12,13,14,15

Chuck: reminder that a row without X's only represents that our group doesn't have a concern or objection. Foundation and Supplemental & Core and Supplemental are the only ones without X's.

<bbailey> We need ranked choice voting!

Chuck: Focusing on these top two results. Is there anything new that anyone would like to add about these 2 options?

<SydneyColeman> core = issues with translations potentially

<CarrieH> I prefer "Core" over Foundational for the first set but I think Core may not translate well

<laura> s/ have then / have then /

GreggVan: sometimes the first word poisons the second term. Doing these individually might hv been better. What we are used to can make 'supplemental' a better word than another that actually means the same word.

<CarrieH> Are there more value judgments with Additional vs Supplemental? I think More people would understand "Additional"

<Frankie> I prefer "Core" over "Foundational" because of the defintion--it changes the position of these requirements to being central and essential, rather than the floor.

<SydneyColeman> are we voting now?

<Poornima> Foundational & Supplemental - rhyming and easy to remember :)

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

<Jennie_Delisi> Just noting that in English foundational has 4 syllables and 12 letters; supplemental has 4 syllables and 12 letters.

GreggVan: do all the X's mean "I can't live with this word" or more of a "I like this one better than another". The results have me a little worried that we have voted for our familiarity and not truly thinking about specifically word meanings.

<CarrieH> I think that Foundational as a term is better understood by general population than Supplemental though.

Chuck: We should be using "can accept" and "can't accept" as terms.

<SydneyColeman> great - which two are we voting on?

<laura> s/announcments/announcements/

Chuck: I recognize that the exercise setup may have biased our results.

<Ben_Tillyer> -1 to supplemental and additional meaning the exact same thing in english. Supplemental: make up for a deficiency in the original thing, Additional: more of something already existing

<Chuck> Poll: 1) Foundational, Supplemental 2) Core, Supplemental

<GreggVan> 2

Chuck: Which one do you favor?

<scott> i vote "core" and "banana"

<laura> 2

<BrianE> 2

<Chuck> 2

<Heather> 2

<Rain> 1

<bbailey> 1

<Frankie> 2

<alastairc> 2 (but no objection)

<filippo-zorzi> 2

<Ben_Tillyer> 1

<Jennie_Delisi> 2 with concerns about the length of supplemental

<ShawnT> 2

<Rachael> 2

<Detlev> I don't care which one's chosen

<kevin> 2

<AWK> either

<Poornima> 1

<Chuck> Poll: 1) Foundational, Supplemental 2) Core, Supplemental

<LoriO> 1,2

<Poornima> 1, 2

<atya> 1

<SydneyColeman> 1

<maryjom> either

<scott> 2

<Priti> 2

<CarrieH> 2

<GN015> 2

<kirkwood> 1

<julierawe> 2

<tayeffarrar0> 1, 2

<Azlan> 2

<Makoto_U> either - "core" might be diifficult to find a translation in Japanese

<CarrieH> no, I take that back

@synd

SydneyColeman: a few people have raised the issue of translating 'core'

<alastairc> Hard to say that foundational isn't a problem in another language...

<CarrieH> Neither, to me it's the second word "supplemental" that's a bigger issue for me

<maryjom> I change my vote then to prefer option 1 because translation of the terminology is important.

<Detlev> was "basic" ever considered?

<kirkwood> pls change mine from 1 to 2 (sorry)

Chuck: seeing Makoto's comment, when you say it might be difficult to find a translation is there no equivalent?

<giacomo-petri> same in Italian

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss "can you live with"

Makoto_U: i can accept core, but it might be difficult to find an appropriate translation because of the English meaning. Yes - I am not objecting.

<alastairc> All of these are likely to have translation issues in some language?

Rachael: pointing out that Jaicomo said it might be difficult in Italian.

GreggVan: are you saying Italian doens't have a word for core?

@Jaicomo - we have a word for this, but we don't have words related to conformance.

<kirkwood> google translate for

<kirkwood> core requirements

<kirkwood> requisiti fondamentali

<SydneyColeman> not less efficient but less translatable

bbailey: did I hear that foundational has too many meanings in English?

@Gundula - yes, I've heard a few connotations about charities and I don't like this. German also had a different meaning for foundational.

<Chuck> +1 that any and every word is going to have the same challenge

<kirkwood> google translate handled it just fine

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say aren't all these terms going to be tricky?

Rain: core is a noun while foundational is a characteristiic which might be creating some of the issues.

<bbailey> +1 to using an adjective over noun

<CarrieH> +1 to what Rain just mentioned

<scott> NOT BASIC

<giacomo-petri> #kirkwood "requisiti fondamentali" is exactly "core requirements" that received 8 objections

<julierawe> core can be a noun. it can also be an adjective, which is how we're using it here.

alastairc: I see the internationalization issues here. Hopefully our context would help. I see Deltev's pint about 'basic' but what would the pair word be.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to object to "basic"

<CarrieH> I think words that are used as verbs, nouns, and/or adjectives are problematic with translations

Detlev: maybe additional

<GN015> I like "Basic" and "Additional"

<kirkwood> think core translated well

<scott> i was saying that the opposite of basic would be 'not basic'

<alastairc> Basic has a connotation (in English) that it is simple, easy, which isn't always the case.

<CarrieH> I really like "Additional" as the second one..how about Required and Additional?

<ShawnT> At lease in English to French translation it isn't one to one word translation

Chuck: there are at least 2 votes agains basic. I am agreeing that no matter what we pick will have a translation challenge. I vote we select the ones we have the least objections to and then go to the internationalization team.

<bbailey> I can't think of how (in English) foundational and supplemental could be a noun.

<kirkwood> +1 to Jen

<Chuck> Poll: 1) Foundational, Supplemental 2) Core, Supplemental

Jen_G: as a part time translator I recommend we don't pick base don translation options because we will be very limited in out options.

<SydneyColeman> 1

<Rachael> Either

<bbailey> 1

<Rain> 1

<kirkwood> 2

<GreggVan> 2

<Azlan> 1

<Jen_G> 2

<Chuck> 2

<alastairc> 2, 1

<CarrieH> Neither

<ShawnT> 2, 1

<Heather> 2

<GN015> 2

<kevin> 2

<Makoto_U> either

<LoriO> 2

<tayeffarrar0> 1

<atya> 1

<Frankie> 2

either

<laura> 2, 1

<Detlev> between 1 and 2, I have no preference (preferring basic / additional)

<Priti> 2

<julierawe> 2

<Poornima> 1, 2

<scott> either. but still prefer A / AA / AAA since they are familiar and don't come with the baggage of being "words"

@alistair: it is leaning towards 2

<alastairc> scott - they do come with a lot of baggage though, particularly in a different model

CarrieH: my objection is using the workd supplemental - if you received it by itself would you know what supplemental means?

<Frankie> +1 to Carrie's point

CarrieH: as someone who is a literal thinker, I would need the first word to know what the second word means.

<laura> supplemental could imply optional.

<bbailey> i think Carrie's point argues for "additional" as it is synonym

<SydneyColeman> we have polled twice. is that an official vote?

alastairc: appreciate the point, but not sure if there is anything in this list that could solve that and not non-derogitory.

<CarrieH> that's ok if it's not unanimous

<Frankie> Are there objections to discussing the use of auxiliary, which was mentioned as a word familiar in regulations?

Chuck: as I mentioned in the intro we don't need unanimous voting. The 2's have majority. Putting together a resolution

<Frankie> Advisory is fairly neutral as well and would be less vague than Supplemental.

<alastairc> SydneyColeman - we poll to narrow down, then have a resolution as a statement of what was agreed.

<laura> what about enhanced instead of supplemental?

<kirkwood> i liked auxilliary

<Chuck> Proposed RESOLUTION: Terminology will be "Core" and "Supplemental"

Chuck: there were 7 votes against auxillary and enhanced did as well.

<GreggVan> +1

<alastairc> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Azlan> +1

<SydneyColeman> 0

<Detlev> 0

<AWK> 0

<kevin> +1

<bbailey> 0 as core could be a noun

<Rain> +1

Chuck: +1 if you support, 0 for minor objections, -1 if you outright object

<tayeffarrar0> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Frankie> +1

<Makoto_U> +1

<LoriO> 0

<GN015> +1

<CarrieH> 0

<scott> 0

<laura> +1

<giacomo-petri> 0

<Poornima> 0

RESOLUTION: Terminology will be "Core" and "Supplemental"

<kirkwood> 0

Chuck: this is resolved. Thank you for your patience with this tough conversation.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g3ac58a4431e_0_5#slide=id.g3ac58a4431e_0_5

<CarrieH> Thanks for everyone's patience with this conversation

Rachael: this deck is pretty much pulled from our survey results, lots of conversations about possibilities
... slide 38 has the model we have the most agreement on, there arae editorial notes and questions on the slide
... slide 41 contains the terminology for the middle set

<Detlev> +1 to Gregg here

<bbailey> Set 2 is "supplemental requirements" so they are still required in my reading

GreggVan: this says we have some things in set 1 that are required, and set has some things you can pick from a menu. This feels like a contradiciton in terms to say 'this is the minimum thing you have to do, but you don't have to do them all.' The idea of having optional things in the required set doesn't support how laws based on equity work.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask why weren't live captions in AA then?

alastairc: in 2.2 live captions were made AAA, which represent something needed for someone. Having supplemental items creates a more flexible bar that recognizes that not everyone can do everything. Which has been established in 2.2 but we're being more explicit in 3.0.

<Detlev> I fully agree with Greg here, I find it very confusing to have a pick and choose items in a set of mandatory requirements

<Rachael> qq+

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to Chuck

Chuck: purpose of having Rachael share this today is to show we're still working on this and we recognize that the conversation needs to be more than 13 minutes.

Rachael: the other thing to think about is that we're going to be putting this out for questions. We do need a conformance subgroup to meet for an 8 week period to talk this out based on the feedback we get from the group. They will meet outside of this meeting. If we're missing questions for the public to use we need to know them.

GreggVan: AAA doesn't have the same meaning as calling somthng supplemental here.

<giacomo-petri> just as a reminder Gregg, we now have 130 foundational, 46 supplemental and 27 assertions

Subgroup next steps

<giacomo-petri> core sorry

Rachael: we're taking all of the feedback from the guidelines test exercise and consolidating it into a single location. Easy updates will go into the draft. Complex things will go into the subgroups.
... Subgroups are shifting a bit to setup the work for the next 2 years. We will be working with the ACT group to get a template for testing. Hoping to ckick off these subgroups in January.
... Reach out to chairs if you'd like lead a group.
... we'll put a survery group out soon with the subgroup names and request participation preference. We are attempting to setup a group that will be in US West Coast to support time zone participation.

<kirkwood> +1 to including in survey

GreggVan: will we have a conformance subgroup

alastairc: yes - and it will be a little different than our conten-oriented subgroup
... time zones has been a factor in pariticipation so we are working on ways to resolve those issues for more participation

<GreggVan> 4 min early !?!?!

<alastairc> Is Chuck retiring, or "gregg retiring"?

<kirkwood> I appreciate the “it’s not you it’s me” break up approach ;)

<kirkwood> yes should self identify with new scribes

<julierawe> I need to drop. Thank you all, and special thanks to Chuck!

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

02 Dec 2025

Attendees

Contents

WCAG 2.x Issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0064.html

ACT Rules publication https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/611

WCAG2ICT

Supplemental / Foundational terminology conversation with survey: Terminology Sets https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/terminology_sets

Subgroup next steps

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output