Meeting minutes
Announcements
<PhilDay> Make sure you have read/write access to the new W3C Google doc space Daniel created at: https://
Phil: Everyone please check your access to Google doc space in W3C where we continue our work
<PhilDay> o Link to charter: https://
<PhilDay> o Early discussion of this draft charter in this public forum: w3c/
<PhilDay> o Link to this week’s survey results: https://
phil: There isn't a survey, but there is an open discussion of the AG WG charter in the survey. Links can be found above in the minutes.
Gregg: ATIA is next week if anyone will be there. Also open position of program manager at Raising the Floor.
Survey Results for Level AAA SCs
Question 7: (Part 1 of 2) How to add Level AAA Criteria in the WCAG2ICT Note
<PhilDay> • Link to the survey results: https://
<PhilDay> • Link to question 7 results (which replaced question 1): https://
<PhilDay> • Link to original question 1 (which only had proposals 1&2): https://
Phil: Question 7 replaced Question 1 and had 3 proposals in it
Phil: We only have 2 survey responses for this question. One prefers proposal 2 and one prefers proposal 3.
<PhilDay> Proposal 1:Add a new sub-section to the Group Note's Introduction content called Comments by Guideline and Success Criterion which would contain any overarching caveats of applying Level AAA criteria to non-web contexts. Guidance for individual Level AAA criteria would added to the existing Comments by Guideline and Success Criterion section. You
<PhilDay> can view the code details in PR 826. Note that 1.2.6 Sign Language is an example where we have an editor's note as a placeholder for content to be developed and 1.2.7 is an example of an AAA SC with guidance which has a note that links to the introductory section.
<PhilDay> Proposal 2:Add a new section Comments on Level AAA Success Criteria where the introductory content contains the caveats of applying Level AAA success criteria, the principles and guideline names (but not the text content of them) are provided for context, and the Level AAA success criteria guidance is added. You can view the code details in PR 813.
<PhilDay> Proposal 3: A blend of 1 and 2 due to the 15 Jan. meeting discussion. Level AAA detailed individual SC guidance is in a separate section (like proposal 2) but instead called Recommendations for Level AAA Success Criteria. In addition, there is a brief note and link to the AAA section for each Level AAA SC in the former "Comments by Guideline and
<PhilDay> Success Criterion" section (Now renamed "Requirements with Comments by Guideline and Success Criterion"). View the code details in PR 827.
<PhilDay> Or shorter version.
<PhilDay> Proposal 1: AAA inline with others
<PhilDay> Proposal 2: AAA in separate section.
<PhilDay> Proposal 3: mix of 2 approaches - have links inline with A and AA, and then have separate section
<PhilDay> Proposal 1: w3c/
<PhilDay> Proposal 2: w3c/
<PhilDay> Proposal 3: w3c/
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to discuss recommendations vs guidelines
gregg: prefers proposal 3
bruce: Likes the general idea that we refer to Levels A and AA are as requirements and refer to Level AAA as recommendations. But prefers "Comments on Level AAA" for the AAA section.
<bbailey> We should be writing "Comments on requirements by Guideline and Success Criteria"
sam: Still likes option 2 of having its own separate section for AAA. Makes it cleaner.
<bbailey> Not "Requirements with comments"
gregg: If you do Option 2, then you'll be having numbering and you skip over numbering all over the place - gaps in numbers.
… if you have something (a stub with the title) in place, then you can have all of the WCAG numbers with nothing missing.
… Then you can have the full WCAG in the main list of all WCAG criteria with links to the Level AAA in the separate section.
<PhilDay> POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1 – inline, 2) Proposal 2 – Separate section, 3) something else
<GreggVan> 3
<PhilDay> • POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1 – inline, 2) Proposal 2 – Separate section, 3) Mix – links in line, full details in separate section
<GreggVan> 3
<PhilDay> POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1 – inline, 2) Proposal 2 – Separate section, 3) Mix – links in line, full details in separate section
<PhilDay> 3 or 2
<bbailey> 3 > 2 > 1
<PhilDay> Sam: 2
sam votes 2
3 or 2 - no preference
gregg: Directed at Sam...Why didn't you like option 3?
<PhilDay> Sam: prefer to not even have placeholder title & link inline
<PhilDay> Sam: 3 is better than 1, so willing to accept 3. However, still prefer 2
Sam: still prefers option 2, but can go with 3
<PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Implement proposal 3 as described above
<PhilDay> +1
<maryjom> +1
<bbailey> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<PhilDay> Sam: +1 verbally
RESOLUTION: Implement proposal 3 as described above
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask tangential question about heading names and levels
bruce: Looks like A, AA, AAA is part of the heading. Levels aren't part of WCAG.
<bbailey> Are A / AA / AAA part of the actual heading ?
gregg: Thinks that adding Levels to all of the headings would be a good thing.
<bbailey> I agree with keeping ToC cleaner -- so not have Level there EXCEPT for AAA is okay.
maryjom: We can manually add levels to the "Applying" sections, but it requires scripting to change the rest. Caveat is that added text makes TOC items wrap lines
<PhilDay> Gregg & Bruce - happy to go either way.
Gregg: Leave it to the editors' discretion.
(Part 2 of 2) How to add Level AAA Criteria to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
<PhilDay> • Link to question 2: https://
<bbailey> Anything that diverges from WCAG 2.2 formatting makes me wary.
phil: Similar question whether Level AAA are integrated into the list or have a separate list.
phil: Goes over survey answers. 3 people said keep in same list, 2 said to have in a separate list or sub-section
<PhilDay> Gregg: Keep them in 1 section as it makes it easier to find the closed functionality
gregg: Want all of them listed in the closed section, but could be that we have 2 lists in that section and separate out the Level AAA from the original list of Level A and AAA
<PhilDay> Gregg: May be helpful to add some preamble that AAA may not apply
maryjom: If we keep in the same list, then we will have to differentiate them clearly.
But if you want to find conformance vs recommendation it may be helpful to have a separate list within the same section.
bbailey: Flexible with this - happy to have separate list in same section
Sam: also happy with this
Phil: Seems we've all come to consensus on this
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Keep in single closed functionality section, but have 2 lists (first for A & AA, 2nd for AAA only). Also insert some preamble that explains that AAA are not mandatory.
<bbailey> +1
<maryjom> +1
<Sam> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: Keep in single closed functionality section, but have 2 lists (first for A & AA, 2nd for AAA only). Also insert some preamble that explains that AAA are not mandatory.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to discuss another tangent about survey
bruce: I only thought the very last question was changed. so I missed this question
bbailey: Missed the updates on some questions.
1.2.8 Media Alternative (Prerecorded) (Level AAA)
Link to question 3: https://
• Link to issue 534: w3c/
PhilDay: 2 preferred proposal 2 as written, 2 proposal 3 as written, 2 proposal 3 with edits
… Gregg proposed edits to note 2. There was a preference overall for proposal 3.
Google doc for proposals: https://
Gregg: if computer is generating content, why would it not also add captions at the same time?
<Sam> OK with option 3
GreggVan: We are defining prerecorded as content that is not computer generated. But think that generated content should be subject to this requirement since it would know what it was generating.
<bbailey> I understand how I missed some of the changed survey questions. I had forgotten about the "survey changed" (1/15) email by the time the agenda posted (1/21) and that's when I revisited survey. That's on me.
[maryjom editing Google doc]
[changes being accepted so we can read the clean version]
Latest version of proposal 3
Proposal 3: Incorporate Issue 534 additional comments
This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.8.
Note 1 (Added)
As described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.8, this success criterion is concerned with providing an accessible alternative to time-based media such as audio visual material. This accessible alternative could be in text form, may provide a running description, and could read something like a book.
When audio visual media is redundant to other forms of information (such as in text and as audio guidance) , the intent of this Success Criterion would be satisfied.
Note 2 (Added)
Prerecorded media is defined as information that is not live and is not computer generated. Media content that is not considered live includes content generated on-demand, such as by generative AI.
Note 3 (Added) (for non-web software)
See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
gregg: Need to add that if it is generated, it should have a media alternative.
Gregg: we need to differentiate between computer generated offline and computer generated real-time
gregg: we need to clarify that this is "computer generated in real time" because there are entire movies that are computer generated.
maryjom: Author may not know
GreggVan: Author doesn't but computer program should know
GreggVan: The author could ask the AI to also generate audio descriptions at the same time.
<bbailey> https://
<bbailey> information captured from a real-world event and transmitted to the receiver with no more than a broadcast delay
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to note this follows from narrow definition of "live" in WCAG2
bbailey: Definition of live in WCAG is more narrow than people would intuitively guess which is why we have this note
… a chatGPT session isn't what we would consider live.
GreggVan: We should state that computer generated is not considered live.
GreggVan: Suggest we remove "and is not computer generated".
bbailey: We were trying to bring in what is stated in WCAG's definition of live.
<bbailey> https://
<bbailey> information that is not live
GreggVan: Second sentence in the note - we need to modify that as well.
Sam: computer generated is not considered live. Leave out the rest.
sam: This note was there to be helpful, not to exclude it. Either get rid of note altogether, or say computer generated is not considered "live.
GreggVan: Suggested text in Google doc
Prerecorded media is defined as information that is not live. Media content that is generated by a computer on-demand, such as by generative AI is not considered live.
Proposal above should replace note 2
Original note 2: Note 2 (Added)
Prerecorded media is defined as information that is not live and is not computer generated. Media content that is not considered live includes content generated on-demand, such as by generative AI.
gregg: new note below would replace the previously proposed note 2
New Note 2 (Gregg): Prerecorded media is defined as information that is not live. Media content that is generated by a computer on-demand, such as by generative AI is not considered live.
POLL: Do you prefer original Note 2 (A) or new note 2 (B)?
<GreggVan> B
<bbailey> New note 2 (B)
B
<Sam> B
B
DRAFT RESOLUTION: replace note 2 with new note 2 (Gregg) as documented above
Gregg: Propose adding definition of live inline to help with context
gregg: we should include the definition of "live" because it has to be a "real world event".
<bbailey> It's weird to have the (somewhat useless) definition for prerecorded and not the definition for live.
PhilDay: There is a link to the definition in the note.
Further edit to note 2: Prerecorded media is defined as information that is not live. Live: information captured from a real-world event and transmitted to the receiver with no more than a broadcast delay. Media content that is generated by a computer on-demand, such as by generative AI, is not considered live.
Prerecorded is defined as information that is not live. Live is defined as information captured from a real-world event and transmitted to the receiver with no more than a broadcast delay. Media content that is generated by a computer on-demand, such as by generative AI, is not considered live.
(latest edits as discussed)
Latest Note 2 with all edits: Prerecorded is defined as information that is not live. Live is defined as information captured from a real-world event and transmitted to the receiver with no more than a broadcast delay. Therefore media content that is generated by a computer on-demand, such as by generative AI, is not considered live.
(Group is wordsmithing...)
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept proposal 3 with edits to note 2 as documented above
<bbailey> +1
<maryjom> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<bbailey> https://
<Sam> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept proposal 3 with edits to note 2 as documented above
bbailey: Thinks this is another typo in WCAG - should use the word content instead of information?
bbailey: The word "information" should not be in the definitions. It should be "content", but that is in the WCAG definitions.
o rrsagent, make minutes
GreggVan: We should comment on the WCAG 3 definitions