15:00:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-wcag2ict-irc
15:00:53 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:00:54 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
15:00:54 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
15:00:54 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:00:58 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller
15:01:04 <PhilDay> present+
15:01:04 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:01:13 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
15:01:13 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
15:01:19 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
15:01:29 <maryjom> agenda+ Survey Results for Level AAA SCs
15:01:39 <maryjom> regrets:  Gregg Vanderheiden, Daniel Montalvo, Loïc Martínez Normand
15:01:43 <maryjom> present+
15:01:49 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:56 <LauraM> present+
15:02:51 <maryjom> regrets:  Daniel Montalvo, Loïc Martínez Normand
15:04:20 <GreggVan> present+
15:04:35 <LauraM> scribe+ LauraM
15:05:14 <GreggVan> q+
15:05:27 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:05:46 <LauraM> zakim, next item
15:05:46 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:06:34 <PhilDay> present+
15:06:50 <LauraM> maryjom: Dmontalvo has created a W3C space for Google Docs
15:06:59 <PhilDay> Link for Google docs: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ad-D32T0NTsc3EqbgJtPp1NBpLRmRtAi
15:07:33 <bbailey1> bbailey1 has joined #wcag2ict
15:07:39 <bbailey1> present+
15:07:39 <LauraM> maryjom: Send Dmontalvo the email you want to use to access that space
15:07:51 <maryjom> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ad-D32T0NTsc3EqbgJtPp1NBpLRmRtAi
15:07:51 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:08:00 <Sam> present+
15:08:26 <LauraM> Maryjom: He will give you access.
15:09:04 <LauraM> q+
15:09:22 <LauraM> maryjom: This will make it easier to see the history.
15:09:31 <maryjom> ack LauraM
15:09:57 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:10:14 <PhilDay> LauraM: Google docs can slow down if you have lots of comments/revisions
15:10:44 <LauraM> scribe+ LauraM
15:10:51 <bbailey1> q+
15:10:55 <LauraM> Maryjom: Docs are not typically big.
15:10:57 <maryjom> ack bbailey1
15:11:03 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:11:13 <LauraM> bbailey1:  access denied message so put in a request for access.
15:11:41 <LauraM> bbailey1: IRC is showing COGA as the room in W3C page for WCAG2ICT
15:12:36 <PhilDay> bbailey1: Incorrect link is in the meeting invite within the WCAG2ICT calendar on W3C
15:12:37 <LauraM> bbailey: Needs to be changed on the W3C page (Maryjom to fix)
15:13:05 <PhilDay> q?
15:13:05 <LauraM> maryjom: W3C meeting invite calendar item has the wrong information for the IRC lin k
15:13:12 <PhilDay> ack Sam
15:13:14 <LauraM> s/lin k/link
15:13:23 <PhilDay> Link for Google docs:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ad-D32T0NTsc3EqbgJtPp1NBpLRmRtAi
15:15:14 <LauraM> maryjom: W3C meeting invite calendar item has the wrong information for the IRC link
15:15:18 <PhilDay> AG WG charter survey link: https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/charter-2026/
15:15:48 <LauraM> maryjom: AGWG is discussing the charter. Should we have a WCAG 2.3 is the current question.
15:16:09 <PhilDay> Above link is closed - apologies
15:16:25 <LauraM> maryjom: Survey results above.
15:16:28 <PhilDay> Link to results of this closed survey: https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/charter-2026/results/
15:16:56 <PhilDay> New charter is at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/charter-drafts/agwg-update-2025/2025/ag-wg.html
15:16:59 <LauraM> maryjom: They will do another round of changes. We can fill out the survey as we are members of the AGWG
15:17:13 <LauraM> q+ sam
15:17:30 <LauraM> ack sam
15:17:30 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:17:47 <LauraM> sam: is the feedback "2.3 is a great idea" or is it individually done.
15:17:53 <LauraM> maryjom: Individually done
15:18:34 <LauraM> maryjom: 2.3 takes resources away from 3.0 and there are processes that are initiated.
15:18:50 <LauraM> maryjom: immediate problems can be fixed.
15:19:34 <LauraM> zakim, next item
15:19:35 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey Results for Level AAA SCs -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:19:49 <maryjom> Link to the survey results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/LevelAAA-group1/results
15:20:18 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:20:20 <LauraM> maryjom: only two/three responses.
15:20:26 <bbailey> present+
15:21:03 <maryjom> TOPIC: (Part 1 of 2) How to add Level AAA Criteria in the WCAG2ICT Note
15:21:14 <maryjom> Link to question 1: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/LevelAAA-group1/results/#xq1
15:21:26 <LauraM> maryjom: going through the survey and results. Survey is still open. Can extend the survey if need be.
15:23:10 <LauraM> maryjom: I did create a pull request. The first proposal is to keep AAA in line with the rest of the comments and guidelines (structure) and that means that caveats on applying AAA success criterion would go elsewhere in the document.
15:23:26 <LauraM> maryjom: We could include it in the introductory material by adding a new section.
15:23:49 <bbailey> q+
15:24:07 <PhilDay> q
15:24:25 <LauraM> ack bbailey
15:24:28 <PhilDay> q+ to say that inline definitions look too much like the other requirements and could be considered to be mandatory
15:24:29 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:24:50 <LauraM> bbailey: So this would not have the words "editors note" when we are done
15:25:17 <LauraM> maryjom: yes. Only while under development are we using placeholder content for an editors note.
15:25:47 <LauraM> bbailey: wants it published with "editors notes"
15:25:58 <LauraM> maryjom: we can publish with a note, just not an "editors note"
15:27:25 <LauraM> maryjom: Proposal 2 is Add a new section. The new section would be "Comments on AAA success criteria" section.
15:28:06 <LauraM> maryjom: I did put in the guidelines and principles so that you can see context of where AAA would belong.
15:28:10 <maryjom> q?
15:28:15 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:28:15 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say that inline definitions look too much like the other requirements and could be considered to be mandatory
15:28:45 <GreggVan> q+
15:28:54 <LauraM> PhilDay: Option 1 with in line definitions would risk people putting the same weight on the recommendations as AA and A
15:29:06 <Sam> +1 to Phil Comment
15:29:06 <LauraM> PhilDay: Prefer Option 2 for that reason.
15:29:10 <maryjom> q?
15:29:13 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:30:12 <LauraM> GreggVan: Agree with Phil. AAA recommendations are complicated. The fact that they are recommendations and not requirements would mean that the explanation to differentiate A, AA, and AAA would be repeated frequently or completely missed.
15:30:49 <PhilDay> q+ to say that Daniel preferred option 1
15:31:10 <LauraM> ack PhilDay
15:31:10 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say that Daniel preferred option 1
15:31:36 <LauraM> PhilDay: Dmontalvo preferred option 1 so we may want to wait to make any decisions to include his feedback and vote.
15:32:19 <LauraM> Maryjom: Dmontalvo's point was that being able to read the SC's in context with other criteria  allows for them to build on each other. You lose that context if it is separated out.
15:32:31 <LauraM> q+
15:32:39 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:33:04 <LauraM> maryjom: people were also concerned with adding blank headings.
15:33:20 <bbailey> q+
15:33:36 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
15:33:38 <maryjom> ack LauraM
15:34:33 <PhilDay> LauraM: Sounds like this is more of a question about how it is to be displayed. If the context is important, is there a way of making AAA distinctly different to the A and AA requirements?
15:34:44 <LauraM> scribe+ lauram
15:34:56 <LauraM> Maryjom: we are limited in how we can mark things up.
15:34:59 <PhilDay> maryjom: We are limited in formatting by W3C scripts and high-level formatting
15:35:26 <LauraM> maryjom: when we are using markdown we are more limited. There are no additional markup options to make it look different and call it out visually.
15:35:50 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:36:49 <LauraM> bbailey: I have gotten a lot of utility from having the AAA SC right next to AA and A.
15:37:30 <maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer, and are you opposed/or feel strongly about your answer? 1) Including the Level AAA SC inline in existing Applying section, 2) having Level AA SC in a separate section, or 3) something else.
15:37:51 <GreggVan> 2
15:37:58 <bbailey> 1 (soft)
15:38:00 <LauraM> 3) both
15:38:07 <GreggVan> 2  not 1
15:38:20 <PhilDay> 2, but could accept 1 if absolutely essential
15:38:25 <Sam> 2
15:39:21 <LauraM> q+
15:39:27 <maryjom> ack LauraM
15:40:00 <PhilDay> LauraM: 2 makes sense, but wonder if people might not look at them at all. Could we show/hide?
15:40:01 <GreggVan> q+
15:40:21 <LauraM> Ack GreggVan
15:40:21 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:40:23 <PhilDay> maryjom: No way of doing show/hide in Markdown
15:40:46 <LauraM> GreggVan: where it would ordinarily occur, could link to the provision in the appendix.
15:41:24 <LauraM> GreggVan: In WCAG they are in line and we just have a big warning at the top.
15:41:34 <LauraM> GreggVan: why would WCAG2ICT be different.
15:42:56 <LauraM> GreggVan: Laws would have A, AA, AAA they wouldn't indicate individual provisions.
15:43:28 <Sam> q+
15:43:37 <LauraM> ack sam
15:43:39 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:43:50 <PhilDay> q+ to say ICT may not be able to implement AAA, and lawmakers should not try and include them
15:43:59 <bbailey> wcag3 public drafts have been using show/hide (summary/details) accordions for a couple years now
15:44:16 <LauraM> Sam: my concern is that there are not the same type of tools available for WCAG2ICT as WCAG.
15:44:28 <LauraM> Sam: I find it to be cluttering.
15:44:53 <GreggVan> q+  to say  "apply as written including the WCAG Caveat that AAA never be required"
15:45:17 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:45:17 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say ICT may not be able to implement AAA, and lawmakers should not try and include them
15:45:18 <LauraM> Sam: I still feel option 2 is better to put them in a special section
15:45:46 <LauraM> PhilDay: I agree with Sam, we need them in a separate section. Most AAA clauses can not be implemented.
15:46:01 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:46:01 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "apply as written including the WCAG Caveat that AAA never be required"
15:46:10 <LauraM> PhilDay: we need to make it easier for Lawmakers to use only the mandatory items not the optional.
15:46:37 <maryjom> q+
15:46:42 <bbailey> Good point that How To Meet is interactive https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/quickref/ -- but that's not TR but WAI space
15:46:53 <LauraM> GreggVan: Caveat would be a link that you could click on.
15:47:09 <bbailey> +1 that regulators will not read closely
15:47:24 <LauraM> GreggVan: People who are creating a new standards are not going to go to the provision level.
15:47:54 <PhilDay> q?
15:47:55 <maryjom> q?
15:48:03 <maryjom> ack maryjom
15:48:36 <PhilDay> maryjom: Non-web ICT may not have the capability to support individual AAA items
15:48:44 <LauraM> Maryjom: (chair hat off) - One of the things I worry about having it in line is that a lot of non web technologies don't have the capabilities to support these recommendations.
15:48:49 <LauraM> ack GreggVan
15:48:50 <maryjom> q?
15:48:59 <Sam> q+
15:49:27 <LauraM> GreggVan: What if we said "This could apply as a recommendation, not a requirement" because it would not be possible in all instances/technologies.
15:49:27 <PhilDay> +1 to changing the wording - this could be apply as a recommendation, but may not be possible...
15:50:01 <bbailey> majority of AAA SC are not applicable to some *web* technologies -- which is why they ended up at AAA
15:50:54 <LauraM> GreggVan: all are good as recommendations. "This can be applied as a recommendation and can be applied only when technology allows".
15:51:27 <LauraM> q?
15:51:50 <LauraM> ack Sam
15:51:50 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:52:24 <GreggVan> q+
15:52:26 <LauraM> Sam: I agree with Gregg. But instead of saying it each time, we can say "these are" and that will make the document less redundant.
15:53:11 <LauraM> Sam: I would really think it would be helpful to put it aside.
15:53:13 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:54:10 <LauraM> GreggVan: +1 Sam's Comment. Call the section "Recommendations" instead of "AAA".  "See recommendations section" would be placed wherever there is a relevant AAA recommendation and would drive folks to the recommendations.
15:54:53 <LauraM> +1 Recommendations
15:56:32 <LauraM> GreggVan: would also avoid having missing numbers.
15:56:49 <PhilDay> I like Gregg's idea of a separate section, but wonder if the terminology might be misleading. We know that a recommendation is optional. But the novice reader might think that recommendations are stronger than "Comments" which is how the requirements section is headed
15:57:12 <maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer, and are you opposed/or feel strongly about your answer? 1) Including the Level AAA SC inline in existing Applying section, 2) having Level AA SC in a separate section, or 3) Blend (pointer in Comments by Guideline with pointer to separate Level AAA with details, or 4) Something else.
15:57:55 <LauraM> +1 to tidying up the language.
15:58:25 <LauraM> GreggVan: "Requirements with Comments" instead of just "comments'
15:58:33 <LauraM> 3 Blend
15:58:50 <PhilDay> 2, then 3
15:59:00 <LauraM> 3 then 2
15:59:03 <Sam> 2
15:59:03 <GreggVan> 3 blend  (fixing requirements title)
15:59:50 <bbailey> +1 to having AAA in heading line
16:00:44 <bbailey> 3 then 1 then 2 (but I am flexible)
16:01:31 <bbailey> s/having Level AA SC in a separate section/having Level AAA SC in a separate section/
16:01:36 <maryjom> s/2) having Level AA/2) having Level AAA/
16:01:43 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
16:02:03 <PhilDay> maryjom will leave the survey open to get more responses, and will add the new option into the survey
16:02:22 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
16:02:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
16:02:37 <bbailey> s/having Level AAAA SC in a separate section/having Level AAA SC in a separate section/
16:03:14 <bbailey> rrsagent, make minutes
16:03:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
16:03:52 <maryjom> s/Level AAAA/Level AAA.
16:03:57 <maryjom> s/Level AAAA/Level AAA/
16:04:04 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
16:04:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
16:07:07 <maryjom> s/2) having Level AAAA SC in a separate section,/2) having Level AAA SC in a separate section,/
16:07:17 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
16:07:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
16:09:16 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
16:09:16 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict