15:49:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:49:30 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/20-ag-irc
15:49:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:49:31 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:49:34 <alastairc> chair:alastairc
15:53:10 <alastairc> regrets: JeroenH
15:53:13 <alastairc> present: alastairc
15:53:40 <alastairc> agenda+ WCAG 2.x updates https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JanMar/0015.html
15:53:51 <alastairc> agenda+ Subgroup updates
15:54:03 <alastairc> agenda+ Definitions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhaesDbhuB8SmOeX05-qfo0nSvdXHugpCJUw8rA9nfI/edit?tab=t.0
15:57:45 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:59:30 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:59:38 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
15:59:42 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:00:08 <bbailey> present+
16:00:18 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
16:00:25 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+
16:00:31 <CClaire> present+
16:00:33 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:00:42 <DuffJohnson> DuffJohnson has joined #ag
16:00:59 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:01:06 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:01:12 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
16:01:15 <hdv> present+
16:01:25 <hdv> scribe+
16:01:25 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:01:33 <Azlan> present+
16:01:38 <filippo-zorzi> present+
16:01:46 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:01:52 <ShawnT> present+
16:01:52 <tayef> tayef has joined #ag
16:01:58 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
16:02:24 <Kimberly> present+
16:02:24 <BrianE> present+
16:02:33 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:02:36 <julierawe> present+
16:02:36 <stevekerr> stevekerr has joined #ag
16:03:15 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
16:03:19 <kevin> present+
16:03:22 <Rayianna> Rayianna has joined #ag
16:03:23 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:03:25 <stevef> present+
16:03:28 <Rayianna> present+
16:03:29 <hdv> alastairc: welcome all
16:03:32 <stevekerr> present+
16:03:35 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:03:39 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:03:51 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #ag
16:03:55 <Jon_Avila> present+
16:03:57 <tayef> present+
16:04:18 <hdv> alastairc: does anyone want to (re)introduce themselves or announce anything?
16:04:28 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:04:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.x updates https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JanMar/0015.html -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:04:51 <kirkwood> present+
16:04:55 <hdv> alastairc: I'd like to welcome Patrick_H_Lauke , who has taken over facilitation of the WCAG 2.x TF
16:05:07 <hdv> alastairc: anything you wanted to highlight, Patrick_H_Lauke ?
16:05:16 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
16:05:18 <hdv> Patrick_H_Lauke: just a reminder for anyone who hasn't had a chance yet to have a glance over that email
16:05:23 <Rain> present+
16:05:24 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
16:05:38 <Heather> present+
16:05:51 <GreggVan> present+
16:06:14 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:06:17 <jkatherman> jkatherman has joined #ag
16:06:22 <AWK> When did the email go out?
16:06:25 <hdv> Patrick_H_Lauke: we're getting ready to line up the next batch and will let you know about it soon
16:06:31 <jkatherman> present+
16:06:36 <hdv> alastairc: the email is linked in the agenda item
16:06:40 <hdv> Patrick_H_Lauke: 12th of January
16:06:41 <Rachael> present+
16:07:07 <alastairc> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1
16:07:20 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:07:31 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
16:07:32 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:07:33 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:07:33 <hdv> alastairc: this board shows all issues that were in the email
16:07:37 <Detlev> present+
16:07:43 <CarrieH> present+
16:07:48 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
16:07:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/20-ag-minutes.html laura
16:08:15 <hdv> alastairc: the list in the email is probably the best start, rather than the project board
16:08:28 <hdv> Patrick_H_Lauke: also everyone feel free to join our call, it's on Fridays
16:08:34 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:08:34 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Subgroup updates -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:08:44 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
16:08:48 <ljoakley> present+
16:09:03 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
16:09:27 <Jen_g> Jen_g has joined #ag
16:09:32 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:09:39 <hdv> alastairc: in the user control group, we're still looking for more participants, our group has things like no flashing and adaption type requriements
16:09:39 <Jen_g> Present+
16:09:49 <hdv> alastairc: we've been extending out tests and methods for those
16:09:57 <Rachael> q+ to go next
16:10:11 <julierawe> q+
16:10:11 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:10:12 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to go next
16:10:22 <kevin> q+ to feedback on Sign Language
16:10:40 <Makoto_U> Makoto_U has joined #ag
16:10:46 <hdv> Rachael: I'm leading the 'single sense' group right now, still in need of a co-lead. We've focused on definitions so far, which we'll talk about more later
16:10:46 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:10:53 <Illai> Illai has joined #ag
16:11:05 <Makoto_U> present+
16:11:05 <Illai> present+
16:11:08 <hdv> q+ to report on Errors, task completion group
16:11:35 <hdv> julierawe: in our group we have sufficient people who speak English. We're still looking for speakers of Mandarin and Hindi
16:11:47 <Makoto_U> q+ to report on Image and Media alternatives subgroup
16:11:49 <hdv> julierawe: no major blockers, a lot to crank through
16:11:49 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:11:49 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to feedback on Sign Language
16:12:11 <hdv> kevin: I'm leading the sign language work… at the moment we're looking to validate user needs
16:12:33 <hdv> kevin: we have 2 people but neitehr of us use sign language
16:12:45 <janina> janina has joined #ag
16:12:48 <janina> present+
16:12:50 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:12:50 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to report on Errors, task completion group
16:12:51 <alastairc> scribe+
16:13:02 <Charu> present+
16:13:07 <julierawe> Addition to Text and Wording update: We're also looking for speakers of Russian and Arabic.
16:13:23 <alastairc> hdv: Errors, task completion & help - talked about a specific requirement: error notifications.
16:13:51 <alastairc> ... looked at the wcag2 version, how useful it is, looking at other sources, and see if there are larger issues.
16:14:04 <alastairc> ... also looked at definitions.
16:14:09 <alastairc> q?
16:14:12 <alastairc> ack Makoto_U
16:14:12 <Zakim> Makoto_U, you wanted to report on Image and Media alternatives subgroup
16:14:13 <alastairc> scribe-
16:14:34 <hdv> Makoto_U: our group meets weekly before the AGWG call, we just had the week 2 meeting today, we're discussing definitions of 'available' and 'equivalent'
16:14:38 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:14:41 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
16:15:29 <hdv> Makoto_U: we identified some issues that we must tackle in the next few weeks. our discussion has been passionate and active so far
16:16:26 <hdv> Francis_Storr: in our subgroup we started going through the feedback that came in, started to address it in the requirements
16:16:47 <hdv> Francis_Storr: everything going ok
16:17:06 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
16:17:26 <Atya> Atya has joined #AG
16:17:30 <hdv> giacomo-petri: in our subgroup we are still looking for a co-lead. We're currently looking at definitions and have drafted most of them now
16:17:58 <hdv> giacomo-petri: our next step is to complete the definitions from exploratory
16:18:06 <hdv> giacomo-petri: and we're starting to identify the issues in GitHub
16:18:16 <hdv> alastairc: thank you. Any other questions or comments about our subgroup work
16:18:23 <hdv> s/work/work?
16:18:42 <hdv> alastairc: is everyone happy, or do people still want to join any of the groups?
16:18:54 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
16:18:55 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:18:55 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Definitions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhaesDbhuB8SmOeX05-qfo0nSvdXHugpCJUw8rA9nfI/edit?tab=t.0 -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:19:01 <hdv> alastairc: also feel free to email the chairs if you don't want to say it here
16:19:25 <jtoles> present+
16:19:31 <hdv> alastairc: we got the Definitions doc ready. I would like to suggest we run through quite a few of them in this meeting
16:19:55 <hdv> alastairc: I'll say, here's this definition… I'll skip the ones taken from WCAG 2
16:20:17 <hdv> alastairc: then let's focus on the ones that have issues associated with them. A couple of people also commented in the document
16:22:21 <scott> scott has joined #ag
16:22:29 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:22:30 <scott> present+
16:22:35 <LenB> present_
16:22:38 <LenB> present+
16:22:44 <GreggVan> q+
16:22:48 <hdv> alastairc: the proposal for 'Blocks of text' (*reads out*) is slightly different from WCAG 2. I suppose 'logograms' helps to internationalise
16:22:55 <AWK> Are we creating requirements in v3 that require blocks of text to be defined?
16:22:56 <Rain> q+
16:23:13 <julierawe> q+
16:23:17 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:23:23 <Patrick_H_Lauke> is there an actual definition of "logogram"? not something many may be familiar
16:23:38 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
16:23:43 <CarrieH> agree with what Patrick_H_Lauke is saying here, this isn't a common word
16:23:48 <CarrieH> I have no idea what it means
16:23:52 <AWK> q+ Are we creating requirements in v3 that require blocks of text to be defined? Perhaps we should avoid doing so..
16:24:00 <GN015> what is a logogram? My native speaker colleagues doesn't know th term, either. So, should it be used as a part of a defining phrase?
16:24:04 <hdv> GreggVan: this definition isn't useful as in the current way this could mean entire documents. I have no idea what it means
16:24:10 <CarrieH> and this could be problematic for literal thinkers and individuals whose primary language isn't English
16:24:15 <joryc> q+
16:24:23 <AWK> q+ to say Are we creating requirements in v3 that require blocks of text to be defined? Perhaps we should avoid doing so..
16:24:45 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #ag
16:24:46 <GN015> +1 to Carrie (she refers to my question on logogram)
16:24:54 <alastairc> ack Rain
16:24:59 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
16:25:04 <GN015> q+
16:25:13 <Patrick_H_Lauke> agree with greggVH that this definition doesn't define the start/end point of what counts as a "block"
16:25:15 <alastairc> AWK - the requirements using this are in the draft https://deploy-preview-414--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#glossary
16:25:40 <Rachael> qq+ to ask how best to capture the feedback
16:25:51 <hdv> Rain: visual blocks of text has more to do with how things are placed together
16:26:00 <hdv> Rain: rather than what's intended to be read together
16:26:12 <hdv> Rain: that will need some solid visual examples to go with it
16:26:49 <bbailey> FWIW, currently "block of text" is "more than one sentence of text" https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-blocks-of-text
16:26:52 <Patrick_H_Lauke> beyond "code" semantics would also be ... logically if things do belong together or not
16:26:59 <hdv> Rain: semantically, when you're writing code, a block could be anything from a section to a paragraph to a list item
16:27:03 <hdv> Rain: there's a scope challenge
16:27:12 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:27:12 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to Rain to ask how best to capture the feedback
16:27:26 <hdv> Rachael: process question… how are we capturing the feedback we're getting? is each subgroup capturing this?
16:27:40 <hdv> alastairc: I was intending to summarise it next to each item
16:28:04 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:28:23 <bbailey> I also had to look up "logogram" which "Linguistics. a symbol that represents an entire word directly rather than representing a speech sound, such as a Chinese character."
16:28:29 <bbailey> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/logogram
16:28:36 <hdv> julierawe: re logograms… they are one 'picture' that describes a word, like in CJK languages
16:28:55 <Patrick_H_Lauke> sure - my question was more "is that definition readily available for somebody reading the spec"
16:29:04 <kirkwood> does a block of text need a “bounding box” to be a “block”  Thus, would point to having “space” around it?
16:29:45 <SydneyColeman> SydneyColeman has joined #ag
16:29:46 <bbailey> s/look up "logogram" which/"look up "logogram" which is/
16:29:54 <SydneyColeman> present
16:30:16 <hdv> alastairc: for some definitions it will be useful to see them in context… you can find this in the spec preview in the list of definitions, each definition shows where it is used
16:30:27 <kirkwood> often addressed in a style guide
16:30:29 <alastairc> q/
16:30:30 <hdv> q+ to ask if checked with CSS
16:30:30 <alastairc> q?
16:30:33 <alastairc> ack joryc
16:31:26 <hdv> joryc: Rain hit a lot of points I wanted to make… wanted to say, there's three versions of 'block of text'; the code base one, visual blocks of text and blocks that are a complete idea
16:31:37 <hdv> joryc: depending on which requirement is referencing this, we may mean a different thing
16:32:02 <hdv> joryc: we need to be clear about which it is
16:32:05 <alastairc> ack AWK
16:32:05 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say Are we creating requirements in v3 that require blocks of text to be defined? Perhaps we should avoid doing so..
16:32:57 <hdv> AWK: I see we have 3 criteria in WCAG 3 that use 'blocks of text', I wonder if this term is problematic enough that we maybe should not use it. In some cases it may be easier not to have a definition at all
16:33:01 <kirkwood> +1 to not using it
16:33:44 <hdv> alastairc: then we a way to differentiate wrapping from non wrapping text… which isn't the distinction exactly either, but conceptually what I mean
16:33:54 <alastairc> ack GN
16:34:31 <hdv> GN015: coming back to the term 'logogram'… it's a kind of character that represents a word. I think we don't need the word 'logogram' as we already talk about words
16:34:40 <hdv> alastairc: what about languages that don't use words?
16:34:40 <kirkwood> +1 to removing logogram
16:34:51 <hdv> GN015: a word is not defined as a sequence of letters
16:35:01 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has left #ag
16:35:05 <bbailey> +1 to AWK to avoid "block of text" -- and thanks for reminder that we avoided term in developing 2.1 !
16:35:07 <hdv> GN015: it exists in all languages incl Chinese and sing language
16:35:22 <alastairc> q?
16:35:25 <CarrieH> +1 to removing logogram. Also language doesn't equal words, there are people in this world that are "non-speakers" that use AAC devices..
16:35:26 <hdv> s/sing/sign
16:35:37 <alastairc> ack hd
16:35:37 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to ask if checked with CSS
16:36:46 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ if we need to consult grammar specialists, like speech and language pathologists
16:36:49 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:36:58 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
16:37:09 <kenneth> scribe+
16:37:10 <kenneth> hdv: Even in Mandarin, a set of characters could be a "word". Would love to hear from some CJK speakers here. I would be +1 to removing "logogram". We might find something of interest in the DOM and CSS specifications RE how to finesse "blocks of text".
16:37:11 <kenneth> scribe-
16:37:12 <CarrieH> More about what AAC devices are/what they do... https://lingraphica.com/aac-devices/what-is-an-aac-device/
16:37:30 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: wondering, do we consider like speech and language pathologists, it would be nice to align with standard definitions for things like sentences
16:37:44 <GreggVan> +1    Kanji  are jus differet characters.   words in japan can be made up of both kanji and hiragana
16:37:55 <bbailey> Per Hidde, also:  https://drafts.csswg.org/css-display-3/#block
16:37:59 <Makoto_U> +1 to removing logogram (at least for Japanese)
16:38:27 <hdv> alastairc: a lot of this is about how text flows, not sure if getting in semantics of language will help too much
16:38:27 <alastairc> q?
16:38:29 <GreggVan> q+
16:38:49 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:38:59 <hdv> GreggVan: wanted to read out loud Makoto_'s comment '+1 to removing logogram (at least for Japanese)'
16:39:13 <hdv> alastairc: ok, the next one is 'body text: text comprising the main portion of a document'
16:39:20 <kenneth> s/Makoto_'s/Makoto_U's/
16:39:29 <hdv> q+
16:39:39 <kenneth> scribe+
16:40:04 <GreggVan> q+
16:40:06 <kenneth> hdv: +1 to your point; I think there are too many interfaces that WCAG applies to, or is going to apply to, that have different sets of what body text could mean, or does not have body text, so it seems to me that is not a helpful distinction to make.
16:40:09 <kenneth> scribe-
16:40:22 <kenneth> present+
16:40:25 <hdv> alastairc: I'm not sure about body text, as there are too many different kinds of interfaces
16:40:32 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:40:38 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:40:52 <Rachael> scribe+
16:40:55 <julierawe> q+
16:41:14 <hdv> GreggVan: I don't think we should have 'body of text' as something to make rules about
16:41:27 <hdv> GreggVan: like, can we say that is the only part that's important on the page?
16:41:46 <Jon_Avila> q+
16:41:53 <hdv> GreggVan: I have seen things like 'this should be in the same font size as the body text'… so basically it's used as a reference point for what some other thing should be
16:42:12 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:42:51 <hdv> julierawe: this is about text related requirements… there may be a way we can avoid the text 'body text' altogether
16:43:07 <hdv> julierawe: we were just reusing what was there and can look at alternatives
16:43:25 <hdv> alastairc: I think one I saw was about text sizing, eg thing could be relative to the body text rather than starting point
16:43:28 <alastairc> ack Jon_Avila
16:44:28 <hdv> Jon_Avila: I think blocks of text and body text could be useful in other places like text contreast
16:44:48 <hdv> alastairc: if it was needed could it refer to platform body text?
16:45:21 <hdv> alastairc: ok, next up is 'clear language'
16:45:35 <julierawe> We can remove "quickly"
16:45:37 <hdv> alastairc: one issue could be that it relies on quickly doing something
16:45:39 <hdv> q+
16:45:41 <GreggVan> q+
16:45:48 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:46:08 <Rachael> hdv: We discussed it in our subgroup. Our consensus is that "clearly" isn't helpful...
16:46:26 <Rachael> because it isn't helpful. I think this is the same with this phrase as well.
16:46:30 <julierawe> q+
16:46:41 <GN015> q+
16:46:43 <Rachael> ...Its hard to measure but still a goal to strive for. The word "clear" can be really tricky.
16:46:44 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:46:48 <kirkwood> maybe plain language definition: clear, concise communication designed for readers to quickly find, understand, and use information easily, avoiding jargon, complex words, and convoluted sentences
16:46:56 <Rachael> s/because/...because
16:47:14 <hdv> GreggVan: there shouldn't be definitions for things already in the dictionary. 'clear language' is a phrase so that's fine
16:47:22 <hdv> GreggVan: because definitions are normative, they have to be objective
16:47:27 <Bryan_Trogdon> q+
16:47:42 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
16:47:48 <hdv> GreggVan: so the definition has to use objective terms.
16:47:59 <Heather> q+
16:48:38 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:48:45 <hdv> GreggVan: this is a critical requirement, but we're wrapping our head around the treshold of it being objective… if we aren't going to use it normatively we don't need to put it in the list
16:48:55 <graham> graham has joined #ag
16:48:58 <graham> present+
16:49:21 <hdv> julierawe: the history from Silver days… the reason why 'clear language' has been used for a while, it's similar to 'plain language', but we needed an alternative term as some countries have laws around plain language
16:49:44 <hdv> alastairc: do you know if it is used by any requirements?
16:49:54 <hdv> julierawe: it's currently a section heading and used in an assertion
16:50:06 <Rachael> +1 to "clear language" being deliberately chosen to avoid overlap with ISO and legal requirements. For WCAG 3 we may be able to reassess that
16:50:17 <alastairc> ack GN
16:50:23 <hdv> alastairc: the way it's used at the moment I'm not sure we need a definition
16:50:32 <kirkwood> yes it is
16:50:39 <hdv> GN015: I seem to remember that it is defined under reading level in school years
16:50:49 <julierawe> q+ for gundula
16:50:53 <kirkwood> in the US. plainlanguage.gov
16:51:02 <GreggVan> q+
16:51:06 <julierawe> q- for gundula
16:51:06 <hdv> GN015: so 'clear language' could avoid the legal implication
16:51:09 <Rachael> q+ to ask if we want to maintain that distinction
16:51:23 <alastairc> ack Bryan_Trogdon
16:51:33 <hdv> alastairc: and there's a thing that it doesn't have to be 'plain' it just has to be 'clear'
16:51:41 <GreggVan> q-
16:51:47 <hdv> Bryan_Trogdon: our understanding how we look at it through the @@@ scale… it's a way you can test and evaluate that
16:51:50 <julierawe> q+
16:52:01 <hdv> Bryan_Trogdon: 'plain' feels actionable and how you interpret it
16:52:17 <hdv> s/how you/'clear' more how/
16:52:28 <alastairc> ack Heather
16:52:30 <kevin> +1 to being removed based on current use
16:52:34 <hdv> s/'clear' more how/'clear' more how you/
16:52:47 <Rachael> q-
16:52:56 <hdv> Heather: we probably want to get to the spirit of what we mean by plain language
16:53:10 <hdv> Heather: then the requirements under the heading are what becomes testable
16:53:11 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:53:21 <janina> zakim, who's here?
16:53:21 <Zakim> Present: alastairc, bbailey, Patrick_H_Lauke, CClaire, Jennie_Delisi, hdv, Azlan, filippo-zorzi, ShawnT, Kimberly, BrianE, julierawe, kevin, stevef, Rayianna, stevekerr,
16:53:24 <Zakim> ... giacomo-petri, Jon_Avila, tayef, kirkwood, Rain, Heather, GreggVan, jkatherman, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Detlev, CarrieH, ljoakley, Francis_Storr, Jen_g, Makoto_U, Illai,
16:53:24 <Zakim> ... janina, Charu, Ben_Tillyer, jtoles, scott, LenB, Bryan_Trogdon, kenneth, graham
16:53:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see graham, Heather, SydneyColeman, Bryan_Trogdon, joryc, LenB, scott, jtoles, Atya, CClaire, Ben_Tillyer, janina, Illai, Makoto_U, Jen_g, Charu, ljoakley, CarrieH, laura,
16:53:28 <Zakim> ... jkatherman, AWK, Rain, Jon_Avila, giacomo-petri, GN015, Rayianna, stevef, stevekerr, julierawe, BrianE, tayef, ShawnT, Azlan, filippo-zorzi, Jennie_Delisi, DuffJohnson,
16:53:28 <Zakim> ... Kimberly, Francis_Storr, bbailey, GreggVan, RRSAgent, Zakim, jedi, kirkwood, tzviya, Tamsin, kevin, Remi, kenneth, jcraig, Daniel, bwang, alice, Rachael, alastairc, JeroenH,
16:53:28 <Zakim> ... hdv, denkeni
16:53:45 <hdv> julierawe: a couple of folks were comparing it on reading level… I remember people had concerns about reading levels internationally, as it is different in different countries
16:53:52 <alastairc> q?
16:54:44 <hdv> alastairc: ok, next one is 'complex numerical information'
16:54:59 <hdv> alastairc: this seems to be a relative rather than an objective definition
16:55:04 <julierawe> q+
16:55:15 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:56:07 <hdv> julierawe: I believe this one is at exploratory because we're going to figure out more
16:56:08 <kenneth> corroborating Julie, it's used in numerical alternatives available which is exploratory
16:56:11 <hdv> alastairc: i'll leave it there
16:56:56 <hdv> alastairc: then 'content'
16:57:10 <hdv> alastairc: why did you delete the later part of the definition?
16:57:20 <hdv> DuffJohnson: to disambiguate it from markup
16:57:39 <hdv> q+
16:57:43 <hdv> alastairc: that seems to make it very wide
16:57:53 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:58:13 <Rachael> hdv: I am worried if we separate content and markup and content means something different than what it meant in WCAG 2.
16:58:26 <Rachael> ...I am afraid it will confuse people moving between versions.
16:58:38 <Rachael> ...I wonder if that is helpful or not.
16:58:39 <alastairc> q?
16:58:53 <kevin> +1 to Hidde's point
16:59:21 <hdv> DuffJohnson: the subject of empty markup  and whether that's conforming… in other to conduct that debate one has to distinguish between content and markup
16:59:34 <hdv> DuffJohnson: in my space, PDF, we need to distinguish this
16:59:42 <jkatherman> q+
17:00:05 <alastairc> ack jkatherman
17:00:30 <hdv> jkatherman: content and markup aren't the same and not disambiguating them isn't helpful
17:00:40 <hdv> jkatherman: I think separating them is helpful
17:00:46 <hdv> q+
17:01:09 <Jon_Avila> In WCAG 2.2 the definition says "including markup" so even today it's not limited to something created by markup.
17:01:14 <alastairc> ack hdv
17:01:22 <Rachael> hdv: I want to note that content and markup are not the same.
17:01:28 <Rachael> q+ scribe change
17:01:31 <scott> does wcag really need to define what markup is though?
17:01:35 <bbailey> +1 to AC to keep "by an interface" at the very least
17:01:38 <Rachael> q- scribe
17:01:53 <Rachael> ...there are practical consequences but I think we need to keep the definition the same,.
17:01:57 <Rachael> q- change
17:02:01 <Rachael> q+ to say scribe change
17:02:07 <Rachael> q-
17:02:13 <hdv> scribe-
17:02:34 <janina> Is it helpful to say 'content is what's rendered'?
17:02:40 <joryc> scribe+
17:02:42 <kevin> q+ to comment on separating markup and technology agnostic requirements
17:03:03 <alastairc> ack kevin
17:03:03 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to comment on separating markup and technology agnostic requirements
17:03:04 <hdv> s/that while I agree academically that content and markup are not the same/
17:03:17 <alastairc> q+
17:03:39 <hdv> s/that content and markup are not the same/that while I agree academically that content and markup are not the same/
17:03:54 <joryc> kevin: re Heather's point. In assertions we may need a disassociation from markup as an idea to keep things tech agnostic.
17:04:11 <Jon_Avila> I think the key is "communicated to the user" and "information and sensory experience".
17:04:15 <alastairc> ack me
17:04:23 <jkatherman> q+
17:05:43 <alastairc> ack jkatherman
17:05:49 <joryc> alastairc: I think it better we can keep our definitions tech agnostic, where we can. There will be some assertions that will need to be a bit more specific about things like markup, but for general discussions of content as a concept we can be agnostic
17:06:14 <GreggVan> q+
17:06:57 <Rachael> jkatherman: The markup isn't so much what we are worried about so much as the distinctioin.
17:07:01 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:07:04 <joryc> jkatherman: we are not as worried about the markup in text and wording, more the content itself. When we talk to users we see different roles for content writer vs engineer. This distinction between content and markup better aligns with users
17:07:22 <Rachael> ...when we talk with users there are diffierent roles for each.
17:07:32 <GN015> q+ to say that in the past the term 'author' used to be used to refer to the responsible(s) of the content including its technical representation including markup
17:08:22 <alastairc> ack GN
17:08:22 <Zakim> GN, you wanted to say that in the past the term 'author' used to be used to refer to the responsible(s) of the content including its technical representation including markup
17:08:36 <joryc> GreggVan: My concern is that things like submit buttons and such (i.e. things that don't carry a sensory experience) I think we should clarify that with "Sensory experience and interactions to conveyed"
17:09:14 <Jon_Avila> I agree to include interaction.
17:09:18 <joryc> GN: Historically we have included the text, and interactions. I like the suggestion of referring to an "interaction"
17:09:18 <GreggVan> q+
17:09:41 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:09:46 <bbailey> q?
17:09:55 <joryc> alastairc: we still run the risk of confusion for those moving from WCAG 2 to 3.
17:10:19 <ljoakley> q+
17:10:37 <DuffJohnson> +1 to Gregg. We are in the WCAG context, so don't need "by an interface", IMO.
17:10:44 <bbailey> q+ to ask if "includes code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation" can be a note?
17:10:49 <joryc> GreggVan: We might want to delete "by an interface" in favor of something like "by a page" to avoid questions of what is an interface.
17:11:38 <joryc> alastairc: is it clear we are discussing something digital just from the context of it being WCAG?
17:11:56 <DuffJohnson> I'm not sure than an "interaction" is also "content"...
17:12:23 <joryc> GreggVan: Yes, I think so. I don't think we need the word "interface", we can just discuss content
17:12:32 <stevekerr> q+
17:12:55 <joryc> alastairc: the way we use content encompasses "everything" including interactive elements.
17:13:01 <alastairc> ack ljoakley
17:13:13 <joryc> DuffJohnson: I agree with the current edits
17:13:58 <GreggVan> q+
17:14:08 <GreggVan> +1
17:14:11 <Rachael> q+
17:14:11 <kirkwood> “interactions” is misused in this definition
17:14:13 <janina> q+
17:14:14 <Jon_Avila> Sensory experience includes the audio and other experience
17:14:18 <joryc> ljoakley: content is not interaction itself. Content does not actuate itself. I don't think including interactions and sensory interactions as "content". I don't like this defintion.
17:15:09 <joryc> alastairc: we need a term for "everything on the page"
17:15:36 <kirkwood> interactions is not correct
17:15:37 <joryc> ljoakley: I'd like to not carry the WCAG 2 defintion into 3. We need simplicity.
17:15:41 <bbailey> Can "includes code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation" can be a note?
17:15:41 <alastairc> ack bbailey
17:15:41 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if "includes code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation" can be a note?
17:16:23 <alastairc> ack stevekerr
17:16:30 <joryc> bbailey: we can include a note saying that we are not changing the big picture idea
17:17:22 <DuffJohnson> Content: information to be conveyed to the user (even simpler, per Lori).
17:17:22 <GreggVan> q+   that which conveys information, sensory experience, and interaction to the user    OR
17:17:23 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:17:26 <joryc> stevekerr: Are we already covering the idea of "everything" in the idea of web app or page, rather than needing "content"
17:18:12 <Jennie_Delisi> Content: information and experiences for use by humans.
17:18:50 <joryc> GreggVan: We are missing the noun here. Should it be "that which conveys information"?
17:19:03 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:19:28 <hdv> +1 Rachael
17:19:58 <kirkwood> +1 to “interactive elements” or i”nteractive components.”
17:20:11 <stevekerr> q+
17:20:12 <alastairc> q?
17:20:12 <joryc> Rachael: I think information and sensory experiences are the noun. Content is the thing contained by something else. Is there a different term from "content" that allows us to get away from the WCAG 2/3 conflict
17:20:18 <alastairc> ack janina
17:20:27 <kirkwood> +1
17:20:28 <kirkwood> Rachel
17:20:36 <Jon_Avila> information, sensory experience and interaction conveyed to the user
17:21:46 <joryc> janina: Let's keep it simple. It may not be useful to worry about interactive vs. not. Its about what the content creator is trying to convey. It is what is rendered, not the rendering mechanism.
17:22:03 <alastairc> ack stevekerr
17:23:11 <joryc> stevekerr: I'm wondering if we need to mention "decorative" content. WCAG 2 calls-out sensory experiences and decorative content.
17:23:46 <DuffJohnson> +1 to stevekerr. Perhaps consider 2 definitions, one for "substantive content" and the other for "decorative content"...
17:23:50 <hdv> q+
17:24:46 <Jon_Avila> for use by human may cause issues - does that mean not processed by machines like assistive technology.
17:24:48 <alastairc> ack hdv
17:24:58 <joryc> alastairc: If we are splitting between informational vs decorative content we will note that 1/3 of all SC's reference content
17:25:14 <scott> q+
17:25:17 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
17:25:20 <janina> +1 to Hidda that lm can consume content
17:25:22 <alastairc> ack q+
17:25:23 <joryc> hdv: why limit content to what human's experieince, what about LLM's consuming content?
17:25:26 <alastairc> ack scott
17:25:37 <alastairc> q+ on the humans bit
17:26:05 <kirkwood> some of the cognitive accessibility protocols are to use technoloogy to simplify thus “humans” would be an issue
17:26:09 <GreggVan> q+
17:26:17 <kirkwood> q+
17:26:21 <joryc> scott: I want to remind folks about the conversation about content from the 2.2. updates. The LLM doesn't pull the interface items.
17:26:54 <joryc> q+
17:27:31 <joryc> scott: are we removing a defintion of markup? Isn't there already a understood defintion?
17:27:45 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
17:27:47 <bbailey> Wilco's reference to Understanding Reflow which teases content from web page:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html#intent
17:28:03 <joryc> alastairc: we only need to define markup if its used normatively and in a way that might be different from the defintion.
17:28:47 <joryc> Jennie_Delisi: Ultimately humans experience all this content, as distinguished from computer to computer conversaiton.
17:28:50 <alastairc> q?
17:28:52 <alastairc> ack me
17:28:52 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the humans bit
17:29:02 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:29:21 <bbailey> s/which teases content from web page/which distinguishes (text) content from web page/
17:29:52 <kirkwood> q-
17:29:56 <joryc> GreggVan: +1 to removing "the user" so we don't have to define who the user is. We can talk about conveying information to the user agent which will eventually be communicated to the user.]
17:30:13 <alastairc> ack joryc
17:31:23 <Rachael> joryc: I want to bring up training LLMs. They are consuming what interactions are available. Turn interactions into intent.
17:31:35 <Rachael> ...LLMs do consume interactions as intent
17:31:37 <scott> i was using the LLM as an example - but my point was that people don't commonly think of the globally repeating parts of a page (its interface / navigations, etc) as the "content" of the page
17:31:41 <Rachael> q+
17:31:44 <GreggVan> +1  and it is robots that feed LLMs and the robots do indeed interact
17:31:47 <GreggVan> q+
17:31:50 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:32:02 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:32:05 <Jon_Avila> What if it isn't provided by the author - but by something else.
17:33:02 <joryc> GreggVan: We can define user in a wide variety of ways, but we get in trouble re-defining things. If we want to change the meaning we should add an additional modifier to "user".
17:33:34 <joryc> GreggVan: Conetent may not actuall be from the author, it can be third party content.
17:33:55 <julierawe> q+
17:33:59 <kirkwood> end-user  is term we sometimes used in gov’t
17:34:02 <alastairc> ack julierawe
17:34:47 <kirkwood> (tech dept)
17:34:48 <alastairc> q+
17:34:52 <joryc> julitrawe: our subgroup has noticed that there are some requirements that use "text content" as a way to be more specific. We need to define that clearly. This may be helpful.
17:34:58 <joryc> q+
17:35:08 <Rayianna> Rayianna has left #ag
17:35:34 <alastairc> ack alastairc
17:35:54 <alastairc> ack joryc
17:36:52 <Jon_Avila> Experience is just as important as information
17:36:57 <joryc> alastairc: I think we have gotten as far as we can on this. Can subgroups review instances of use of the idea of "content" and see if it would work. Report back on where it does work or not work.
17:37:27 <bbailey> Per julierawe , further down in the document , Text content: text and formatting including semantic or hierarchical structure that communicates a shared understanding of the overall content and meaning
17:37:29 <Rachael> joryc: We are talking about information.  when we talk abotu content are we really talking about units of information?
17:37:31 <joryc> joryc: I suggest using "information" vs content. Not all content is information. All information is content.
17:37:40 <janina> Seems music is content, but not information
17:38:00 <joryc> Music is definitely information!
17:38:24 <janina> Something to discuss someday!
17:39:01 <bbailey> From https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-essential essential: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
17:39:04 <joryc> If I hear a Gb5 I get information in the form of tension that it wants to resolve to a C
17:39:51 <joryc> alastair: the requirement should have the exception written into it.
17:40:08 <GN015> q+ to point out a typo
17:40:08 <bbailey> q+
17:40:13 <alastairc> "there is no way to carry out the function without doing it this way or fundamentally changing the functionality."
17:40:17 <alastairc> ack gn
17:40:17 <Zakim> GN, you wanted to point out a typo
17:40:38 <alastairc> ack bbailey
17:41:04 <GreggVan> q+
17:41:12 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:41:13 <joryc> brucebailey: in 508 we have similar terms to "essential"
17:42:25 <joryc> GreggVan: "Fundamentally change" the functionality could just mean adding lots more content. We need to define "essential" somewhere.
17:42:40 <joryc> alastairc: this will be the place it is defined.
17:43:11 <kirkwood> wait… should we not be redefining vocabulary words as we said before?
17:43:18 <joryc> GreggVan: Let's keep "unavoidable" in there as an alternative to consider.
17:43:57 <bbailey> 508 (and ADA) has concept of "fundamental alteration" , which is a an example of "essential" : https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E202.6
17:44:07 <Rachael> q+
17:44:13 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:44:34 <hdv> +1 Rachael
17:44:36 <hdv> q+
17:44:53 <alastairc> ack hdv
17:44:55 <joryc> Rachael: If it has to be an adverb maybe "critical to carrying out..."
17:45:32 <kirkwood> “essential function”?  not using complete sentences in a defintion is a no no
17:45:47 <joryc> hdv: I prefer "essential" to "unavoidable" to avoid confusion from WCAG 2 to 3.
17:45:54 <GreggVan> q+ to say  absolutely necessary or required in order to provide the same functionality
17:45:54 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
17:45:54 <AWK> unable to be changed without fundamentally changing the functionality?
17:46:29 <Rain> q+ to clarify that it is about the purpose of the functionality
17:46:34 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:46:34 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  absolutely necessary or required in order to provide the same functionality
17:46:35 <kirkwood> q+
17:46:47 <joryc> alastairc: in WCAG 2 it is usually in the content of "unless the thing is essential"
17:47:10 <joryc> GreggVan: What about "absolutely necessary or required in order to provide the same functionality"
17:47:32 <bbailey> q+ to ask for concern with wcag2 definition for essential ?
17:47:54 <alastairc> ack Rain
17:47:54 <Zakim> Rain, you wanted to clarify that it is about the purpose of the functionality
17:47:57 <kevin> q+ to say that it isn't necessarily the case that it has to provide the same functionality
17:48:40 <Jon_Avila> if removed would alter the essence of the content or functionality.
17:48:49 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
17:49:00 <joryc> Rain: Functionality... people often understand it as the interaction themselves, but we are using it in terms of ensuring that the purpose of the UI is met.
17:49:01 <ljoakley> +1 Rain
17:49:24 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
17:49:37 <GreggVan> q+ to say   "absolutely necessary or required in order to achieve the same result"
17:49:56 <joryc> kirkwood: Can we agree to use complete sentences?
17:50:01 <bbailey> What is concern with wcag2 definition for essential?  I get that it is weird for a definition to be a test.
17:50:01 <alastairc> ack bbailey
17:50:01 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask for concern with wcag2 definition for essential ?
17:50:29 <joryc> bbailey: I feel like "essential" works as a test.
17:51:19 <alastairc> ack kevin
17:51:19 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say that it isn't necessarily the case that it has to provide the same functionality
17:52:00 <bbailey> thank you julierawe for "drag and drop" example
17:52:09 <alastairc> q?
17:52:11 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:52:11 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "absolutely necessary or required in order to achieve the same result"
17:52:26 <joryc> kevin: the use of "essential" is saying that there it is essential to the function, it can't be replicated another way.
17:53:43 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
17:53:58 <alastairc> q?
17:54:00 <joryc> GreggVan: 1) definitions should not be sentences, they should be a phrase that can be substituted for the word being defined. 2) Essential means that its not possible to replicate in another way 3) This is a good opportunity for a note of clarification
17:54:19 <bbailey> same result as what?
17:54:55 <joryc> alastairc: I think most groups have used essential, please check how you have used it and if it needs to use the new essential definition.
17:55:36 <joryc> alastairc: In response to Bruce asking "same result as what"... it depends on the context
17:56:05 <joryc> alastairc: please take a look at other group's definitions and add comments
17:56:13 <julierawe> q+
17:56:14 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhaesDbhuB8SmOeX05-qfo0nSvdXHugpCJUw8rA9nfI/edit?tab=t.0
17:56:16 <alastairc> ack julierawe
17:56:41 <kirkwood> Greggs number 3) The sentence is a a good opportunity for a note clarification
17:57:06 <joryc> alastairc: The doc to review is https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhaesDbhuB8SmOeX05-qfo0nSvdXHugpCJUw8rA9nfI/edit?tab=t.0
17:57:28 <joryc> alastairc: let's get comments in before the next meeting so we have time to resolve them
17:57:39 <alastairc> WCAG 3 preview: https://deploy-preview-414--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#ref-for-dfn-essential-exception-1
17:58:27 <joryc> alastairc: We need to make sure things are marked as exploration or developing in a way that reflects their state
17:58:42 <GN015> present+
17:58:47 <LenB> LenB has left #ag
17:58:48 <ShawnT> present+
17:58:49 <joryc> present+
17:58:56 <giacomo-petri> present+
17:59:23 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:59:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/20-ag-minutes.html bbailey
17:59:30 <alastairc> zakim, end meeting
17:59:30 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been alastairc, bbailey, Patrick_H_Lauke, CClaire, Jennie_Delisi, hdv, Azlan, filippo-zorzi, ShawnT, Kimberly, BrianE, julierawe, kevin, stevef,
17:59:30 <Zakim> ... Rayianna, stevekerr, giacomo-petri, Jon_Avila, tayef, kirkwood, Rain, Heather, GreggVan, jkatherman, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Detlev, CarrieH, ljoakley, Francis_Storr, Jen_g,
17:59:30 <Zakim> ... Makoto_U, Illai, janina, Charu, Ben_Tillyer, jtoles, scott, LenB, Bryan_Trogdon, kenneth, graham, GN, joryc
17:59:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:59:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/20-ag-minutes.html Zakim
17:59:37 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, alastairc; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:59:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
18:59:32 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
19:26:40 <ljoakley> ljoakley has left #ag