Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjom: Dmontalvo has created a W3C space for Google Docs
<PhilDay> Link for Google docs: https://
maryjom: Send Dmontalvo the email you want to use to access that space
<maryjom> https://
Maryjom: He will give you access.
maryjom: This will make it easier to see the history.
LauraM: Google docs can slow down if you have lots of comments/revisions
Maryjom: Docs are not typically big.
bbailey1: access denied message so put in a request for access.
bbailey1: IRC is showing COGA as the room in W3C page for WCAG2ICT
bbailey1: Incorrect link is in the meeting invite within the WCAG2ICT calendar on W3C
bbailey: Needs to be changed on the W3C page (Maryjom to fix)
maryjom: W3C meeting invite calendar item has the wrong information for the IRC link
Link for Google docs: https://
maryjom: W3C meeting invite calendar item has the wrong information for the IRC link
AG WG charter survey link: https://
maryjom: AGWG is discussing the charter. Should we have a WCAG 2.3 is the current question.
Above link is closed - apologies
maryjom: Survey results above.
Link to results of this closed survey: https://
New charter is at https://
maryjom: They will do another round of changes. We can fill out the survey as we are members of the AGWG
sam: is the feedback "2.3 is a great idea" or is it individually done.
maryjom: Individually done
maryjom: 2.3 takes resources away from 3.0 and there are processes that are initiated.
maryjom: immediate problems can be fixed.
Survey Results for Level AAA SCs
<maryjom> Link to the survey results: https://
maryjom: only two/three responses.
(Part 1 of 2) How to add Level AAA Criteria in the WCAG2ICT Note
<maryjom> Link to question 1: https://
maryjom: going through the survey and results. Survey is still open. Can extend the survey if need be.
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.
maryjom: We could include it in the introductory material by adding a new section.
bbailey: So this would not have the words "editors note" when we are done
maryjom: yes. Only while under development are we using placeholder content for an editors note.
bbailey: wants it published with "editors notes"
maryjom: we can publish with a note, just not an "editors note"
maryjom: Proposal 2 is Add a new section. The new section would be "Comments on AAA success criteria" section.
maryjom: I did put in the guidelines and principles so that you can see context of where AAA would belong.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say that inline definitions look too much like the other requirements and could be considered to be mandatory
PhilDay: Option 1 with in line definitions would risk people putting the same weight on the recommendations as AA and A
<Sam> +1 to Phil Comment
PhilDay: Prefer Option 2 for that reason.
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.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say that Daniel preferred option 1
PhilDay: Dmontalvo preferred option 1 so we may want to wait to make any decisions to include his feedback and vote.
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.
maryjom: people were also concerned with adding blank headings.
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?
Maryjom: we are limited in how we can mark things up.
maryjom: We are limited in formatting by W3C scripts and high-level formatting
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.
bbailey: I have gotten a lot of utility from having the AAA SC right next to AA and A.
<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.
<GreggVan> 2
<bbailey> 1 (soft)
3) both
<GreggVan> 2 not 1
2, but could accept 1 if absolutely essential
<Sam> 2
LauraM: 2 makes sense, but wonder if people might not look at them at all. Could we show/hide?
maryjom: No way of doing show/hide in Markdown
GreggVan: where it would ordinarily occur, could link to the provision in the appendix.
GreggVan: In WCAG they are in line and we just have a big warning at the top.
GreggVan: why would WCAG2ICT be different.
GreggVan: Laws would have A, AA, AAA they wouldn't indicate individual provisions.
<bbailey> wcag3 public drafts have been using show/hide (summary/details) accordions for a couple years now
Sam: my concern is that there are not the same type of tools available for WCAG2ICT as WCAG.
Sam: I find it to be cluttering.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say ICT may not be able to implement AAA, and lawmakers should not try and include them
Sam: I still feel option 2 is better to put them in a special section
PhilDay: I agree with Sam, we need them in a separate section. Most AAA clauses can not be implemented.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "apply as written including the WCAG Caveat that AAA never be required"
PhilDay: we need to make it easier for Lawmakers to use only the mandatory items not the optional.
<bbailey> Good point that How To Meet is interactive https://
GreggVan: Caveat would be a link that you could click on.
<bbailey> +1 that regulators will not read closely
GreggVan: People who are creating a new standards are not going to go to the provision level.
maryjom: Non-web ICT may not have the capability to support individual AAA items
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.
GreggVan: What if we said "This could apply as a recommendation, not a requirement" because it would not be possible in all instances/technologies.
<PhilDay> +1 to changing the wording - this could be apply as a recommendation, but may not be possible...
<bbailey> majority of AAA SC are not applicable to some *web* technologies -- which is why they ended up at AAA
GreggVan: all are good as recommendations. "This can be applied as a recommendation and can be applied only when technology allows".
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.
Sam: I would really think it would be helpful to put it aside.
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.
<LauraM> +1 Recommendations
GreggVan: would also avoid having missing numbers.
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
<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 AAA 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.
<LauraM> +1 to tidying up the language.
GreggVan: "Requirements with Comments" instead of just "comments'
3 Blend
2, then 3
3 then 2
<Sam> 2
<GreggVan> 3 blend (fixing requirements title)
<bbailey> +1 to having AAA in heading line
<bbailey> 3 then 1 then 2 (but I am flexible)
maryjom will leave the survey open to get more responses, and will add the new option into the survey
<maryjom> s/Level AAAA/Level AAA.
<maryjom> s/Level AAAA/Level AAA/
<maryjom> s/2) having Level AAAA SC in a separate section,/2) having Level AAA SC in a separate section,/