14:00:49 RRSAgent has joined #atag 14:00:54 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/16-atag-irc 14:00:54 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:00:55 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), wendyreid 14:00:56 meeting: ATAG CG Meeting 14:01:05 date: 2026-01-16 14:01:08 chair: wendyreid 14:02:13 Charles has joined #atag 14:02:24 present+ 14:02:30 present+ 14:02:31 present+ 14:02:42 BF has joined #ATAG 14:02:43 Liskovoi has joined #atag 14:02:44 Miriam7 has joined #atag 14:02:49 Lupe has joined #atag 14:03:13 simonrjones has joined #atag 14:03:39 nedzimmerman has joined #atag 14:03:46 scribe+ mgifford 14:04:17 Simon Jones & Charles Hall in attendance too 14:04:49 Topic: Numbering in document - https://github.com/w3c-cg/atag/issues/22 14:05:11 wendyreid gave introductions and started with an outline of how the document has been restructured. 14:06:22 Moving it over to Respect, the numbering is done by RespectJS so there is a renumbering. hdv had suggested that we could either keep headings as is or move to Respect 14:06:42 mgifford2 suggested that for maintenance that it would be easier to move to RespectJS numbrering 14:07:28 wendyreid noted that that we can start with 1, as Respect has problems with things starting with A/B 14:08:56 mgifford2 move from A to 1 & B to 2 isn't that big a deal. Charles suggested that the same in chat 14:09:19 Miriam7 suggested that it would be easier for adoption if we kept it the same as possible. 14:10:06 Topic: Use Cases 14:10:13 Charles asked for the current respec link 14:10:17 https://w3c-cg.github.io/atag/docs/index.html 14:10:39 https://github.com/w3c-cg/atag/wiki/Use-Cases-for-Authoring-Tools 14:12:33 wendyreid set up a wiki and restructured them. This was a first attempt to pull these together, organized by stakeholder groups. Content creators (or handlers), consumers of content, maintainers of content (for each of these there is a mirrored content consumer) 14:12:46 Saif has joined #atag 14:13:44 Miriam7 liked the structure. Last time we talked about why WCAG is more adopted by ATAG. With ATAG there are layers, developers who create the tool. Tool outputs things that poeple can use. 14:17:07 wendyreid & Miriam7 there is both the content itself and how that is created (like for creating the PDF), then there are the tools that uploaded and are managed in a LMS. These in turn can be taken and re-used in other tools. We have the use case of the teacher or the consumer of the output. Mashing up the use cases (because there are so many loops) is a problem. We need to focus in on a specific example. 14:17:44 Charles based on this loop and the conflation, can we talk about workflows and touch points for defining these use cases? 14:18:36 simonrjones Like the role-type stuff for roles. Who is the one who decides. Makes it compliant. Accessible tag/UA type document as part of creating this. 14:18:40 Charles has joined #atag 14:18:51 present+ 14:18:57 browser crashed 14:19:05 a good authoring tool can also discourage authors from using pdfs. 14:19:27 Charles people still want to have in a PDF. But general agreement. 14:19:36 a workflow can involve {n} actors with {n} touchpoints 14:20:55 wendyreid we do have these kinds of loops.. Developers use VSCode you can create code that creates WordPress, but then there are developers who use VSCode. Same with PDFs. There is loops inside the groups 14:22:14 wendyreid there are content creation platforms. Do we need to create a whole workflow. Can we focus on one tool and highlight how it can be recursive? Focus on one tool. Example if we take WordPress, yes there are the developers. Disregard the developers. Then there are the person who use wordpress. 14:22:56 Miriam7 creators of the tools, users of the tools , users of the output of the tool 14:23:47 actors include but not limited to: tool creator; tool instance developer; tool instance admin; author who inputs; editor; 14:24:00 mgifford2 raised issues of the requirement of WCAG having an implementation (or more than one actually). For 14:24:16 mgifford2 for ATAG 2.0, Drupal was one. 14:25:10 Lupe: talked about the administrators (publishers) talking about managing it within an admin area 14:25:34 Charles: within a large CMS an administrator is the one who distributes rights for what people can do. 14:26:25 Saif: giving the customer a role. Assign courses and track progress. A customer admin. 14:26:33 mgifford2: clarified that this was more for a platform 14:27:43 https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/ZMODPc8w/ 14:28:18 Lisa also wrote "I’ve often heard them referred to as content managers, though that might not include everyone you mean by handlers" 14:28:42 wendyreid: Creator can be human or AI, the user could also be human or AI. 14:28:45 Are we discussing the use cases here: https://github.com/w3c-cg/atag/discussions/15 ? Or is there another document/site we are looking at? 14:29:33 Charles: Stakeholder, who owns the process, not who benefits from it. Prefers the term "Actor" 14:30:35 Miriam7: don't need to be limited to one diagram. ATAG is more difficult than WCAG. 14:31:35 wendyreid: WCAG is more linear than ATAG. Starting with my tool to create a document. Writing a document in MS Word. Write, save, share. Someone downloads it. It doesn't have alt text and it loops. Using different tools and use cases. 14:31:47 Liskovoi has joined #atag 14:31:48 Looks like we are discussing this page, thank you: https://github.com/w3c-cg/atag/wiki/Use-Cases-for-Authoring-Tools 14:32:10 Charles: Another topic that is adjacent to these is document history and auto save the content without an easil available version history 14:32:54 mgifford2: WCAG might be being over simplified, WCAG is what you see or what is rendered on the screen, but there are always systems in the background, there are templates, code, the DOM 14:33:14 ... there are a lot of things happening in the background that get simplified to "what appears to the user" 14:34:15 Might be good to include conversational UI (voice assistant) guidelines 14:34:50 Miriam7: Agree with mgifford2 . Authoring tool clashes. Presenting it visually, going from end of an authoring tool. Life cycle can be recursive. First task is to understand what you are working on right now. Underlying principles (contrast) span from there. How they are proceeding from there. How to have the user of ATAG define their role, and what they are working on to make the application simpler. 14:35:05 sometimes an authoring tool provides rendered output during the authoring workflow (such as a preview), the output is covered by WCAG. 14:35:53 nedzimmerman: Charles comment reminded Ned of the collaborative tools. Content review, commenting. If someone is editing something, it can't be also edited by someone else. 14:36:40 wendyreid: collaborative editing is becoming more common. More tools are trying to add it. AI use case, you can do collaborative editing there too. Do you need to differentiate who is doing what. 14:37:27 wendyreid: if I am consuming.. The handling case, I am consuming the content but also need to interact with it. 14:38:26 Charles: rendered output during the authoring process is not the same as rendered product that is the same that author would be interacting with. The rendered output for the author is not going to be percieved the same as if it were for a general user 14:39:14 nedzimmerman: will the content itself be accessible. Trying to piece this in. You may not be seeing the content in the form that the editor would see. If the content procuded by an authoring tool fails WCAG then ATAG fails. 14:40:09 mgifford2: Want to push on that thought, the backend interface should be evaluated in the same way as the front end interface, even though it's temporary 14:41:55 Shivaji: What mgifford2 was saying. For VSCode if the developer is creating code in there. It might be there for their consumption, but the tool itself should give enough cues that the developer knows that this is not WCAG compliant. Even while they are creating the code it should be WCAG compliant. 14:42:20 i agree with mgifford2 that the WCAG ruleset applies to temporary rendered output. but my point was that it would not be evaluated the same as final published and rendered output for the end user. the only evaluation possible is automated which leaves a gap. 14:43:14 Miriam7: if we have the 3 categories, creator, user of the tool, user of the output. If the output of itself might produce another use case. Not directly the content itself 14:43:39 simonrjones: mentioned preview as a use case. 14:44:22 wendyreid: the interface needs to be accessible and the content it produces needs to be accessible, and needs to be able to communicated or have its shortcomings communicated even though the content may take different forms. 14:45:01 wendyreid: WCAG tends to deal with the rendered final output, not the parts. With us we have to recognize that there are layers behind the rendered output, and these too need to be accessible, although it may look different. 14:46:30 Miriam7: if the content that is output can format content, the formatted content needs to be. If the output is code that can made. The code itself doesn't need to be accessible, but if the code makes headlines, etc on a page. 14:46:50 Miriam7: different types of format. Those that format content and those that are content 14:47:57 mgifford2: Are we talking about web tools, or beyond the web? 14:48:34 wendyreid: Github has browser based, built into the editor, version of VS code. No longer a second piece of software. 14:49:56 wendyreid even in something really complicated, like an IDE, the underlying principles still apply. I need to know what I am looking at, what things are, position, how to navigate, information needs to be preserved and presented. What that information is is more complicated than a sentence in a paragraph. 14:50:10 wendyreid: everything is content 14:50:41 Charles: points us back to needing to update some glossary elements. The meaning of content in WCAG is everything, including the code. 14:51:18 vscode.dev was mentioned in Zoom by nedzimmerman 14:52:25 Lisa: what are the expectations of the author. Want rely that the tool won't let me create an inaccessible too. Then there are those who want it possible, but no to force folks to. No guardrails. 14:53:41 i like the idea of having all of the above: instruction documentation outside of the tool; contextual instruction inside the tool; prompts, nudges, and reminders; and forced requirements for things like attribute values. 14:53:46 Shivaji: what lisa was referring to. FB is implementing something there. If you upload an image it does provide alt text. Gives you the option to edit it before uploading it. 14:54:15 Liskovoi has joined #atag 14:54:15 clippy for accessibility 14:54:16 wendyreid: may come down to user preference. 14:55:13 mgifford2: AI is making the guardrails more complicated, the approach with Drupal a decade ago was to have them by default, people could override them, but they were defaults at the system level. 14:55:26 ... people are much less likely to turn something off than turn it on 14:56:30 wendyreid: FB Metaproject thing. Give me the text and have me edit right away. 14:57:37 Sambhavi: We should list tools that adopt good practices. TinyMCE. Add, it won't let you add unless you click "this image is decorative". You can always get around it if you want to. 14:58:24 Sambhavi: as we are going through this, the 3 part framework is amazing. Can we list the good and bad. They don't use AI now. 14:59:03 mgifford2: Part of this is to allow friction for authors, removing/adding, I wanted to highlight the interface, the W3C doesn't generally mention specific products, that's a concern 14:59:20 ... can we at least mention open source products, there's been pushback 14:59:29 ... Drupal has similar features 15:00:01 Lisa: We can look at an existing tool and describe what it does 15:01:01 wendyreid: part of this is that these documents are built for years. Things like test suits. We can't mention it in the main document can mention it anywhere else. Even in informal documentation. Supplimental documentation. 15:01:22 Charles: for every document there is an implmentation report that includes the tools that pass. 15:01:50 scribe+ 15:01:57 RRSAgent, please make minutes 15:01:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/16-atag-minutes.html wendyreid 15:02:18 Miriam7 has left #atag 15:03:40 present+ Charles, simonrjones, Liskovoi, Lupe, nedzimmerman, Saif, shivaji, sambhavi, Miriam 15:03:43 RRSAgent, please make minutes 15:03:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/16-atag-minutes.html wendyreid