15:52:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:52:49 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/27-ag-irc
15:52:54 <Rachael> agenda+ introductions & announcements
15:53:14 <Rachael> agenda+ Charter follow up
15:53:18 <GreggVan> present+
15:53:27 <Rachael> agenda+ Definitions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhaesDbhuB8SmOeX05-qfo0nSvdXHugpCJUw8rA9nfI/edit?tab=t.0
15:57:05 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:59:28 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:59:59 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:00:05 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
16:00:21 <LenB> present+
16:00:44 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:00:49 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
16:00:49 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:00:54 <shadi> present+
16:00:57 <ShawnT> present+
16:00:58 <filippo-zorzi> present+
16:01:00 <Heather> present+
16:01:33 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:01:36 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:01:40 <Azlan> present+
16:01:43 <tiffanyburtin> present+
16:01:47 <Heather> scribe+
16:01:48 <alastairc> regrets: Gundula, BruceB
16:01:54 <alastairc> agenda?
16:01:57 <kevin> present+
16:02:01 <hdv> present+
16:02:02 <scott> scott has joined #ag
16:02:04 <kirkwood> present+
16:02:05 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:02:11 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
16:02:12 <scott> present+
16:02:12 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
16:02:15 <julierawe> present+
16:02:16 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:02:20 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:02:23 <joryc> present+
16:02:25 <tayef> tayef has joined #ag
16:02:27 <BrianE> present+
16:02:31 <tayef> present+
16:02:31 <Illai> Illai has joined #ag
16:02:46 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
16:02:52 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:02:53 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:02:53 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- introductions & announcements -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:02:58 <jtoles> present+
16:02:59 <Frankie> present+
16:03:24 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:03:25 <Heather> alastairc: No new introductions
16:03:27 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:03:29 <stevekerr> stevekerr has joined #ag
16:03:49 <stevef> present+
16:03:50 <Daniel> q+ to talk about ACT Rules Format 1.1 AC rep questionnaire
16:03:53 <alastairc> Survey for potential WCAG 3 modules: https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-potential-modules/
16:03:57 <Heather> alastairc: Announcements - survey opening for potential WCAG 3 modules. Link above.
16:04:01 <stevekerr> present+
16:04:13 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:04:45 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:04:47 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
16:04:54 <Rain> present+
16:05:03 <maryjom> present+
16:05:21 <janina> janina has joined #ag
16:05:31 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:05:32 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
16:05:35 <janina> present+
16:05:38 <scott> present+
16:05:41 <Glenda> present+
16:05:46 <janina> zakim, who's here?
16:05:46 <Zakim> Present: GreggVan, LenB, shadi, ShawnT, filippo-zorzi, Heather, Azlan, tiffanyburtin, kevin, hdv, kirkwood, scott, julierawe, Jennie_Delisi, joryc, BrianE, tayef, jtoles, Frankie,
16:05:51 <Zakim> ... giacomo-petri, stevef, stevekerr, Rain, maryjom, janina, Glenda
16:05:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see ljoakley, Glenda, janina, Rain, maryjom, Wilco, stevekerr, giacomo-petri, Frankie, jtoles, Illai, tayef, Jennie_Delisi, BrianE, joryc, julierawe, scott, tiffanyburtin,
16:05:51 <Zakim> ... Azlan, ShawnT, filippo-zorzi, shadi, Heather, LenB, laura, stevef, RRSAgent, Zakim, GreggVan, kirkwood, wendyreid, jedi, tzviya, Tamsin, kevin, Remi, kenneth, jcraig, Daniel,
16:05:52 <Zakim> ... bwang, alice, Rachael, alastairc, JeroenH, hdv, denkeni
16:05:57 <ljoakley> present+
16:05:58 <Heather> alastairc: ... Survey includes usability testing guide for persons with disabilities, second is for another potential set of assertions that are process oriented things, third is to update research for the contrast metric which people could optionally use as another way of fulfilling the contrast criteria.
16:06:14 <Illai> present+
16:06:21 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
16:06:28 <AlinaV> present+
16:06:31 <alastairc> q?
16:06:33 <GreggVan> q+
16:06:41 <Heather> alastairc: ... Let us know if anyone has any ideas about those three topic through the survey.
16:06:44 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:06:47 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:06:50 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
16:06:57 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
16:06:58 <Jen_G> Present+
16:07:01 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:07:10 <Charu> present+
16:07:19 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
16:07:20 <Heather> GreggVan: Would the document that would outline the standard be a different category or the same category as best practices of WCG 3?
16:07:22 <mike_beganyi> present+
16:07:47 <Heather> alastairc: We would draw out and want to publish separately, but thought it would be part of the informative document with WCAG 3.
16:08:11 <Rachael> qq+
16:08:31 <InaT> InaT has joined #ag
16:08:49 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:08:49 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to GreggVan
16:08:56 <hdv> q+
16:09:06 <kevin> q+
16:09:11 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:09:23 <hdv> q-
16:09:25 <Heather> Rachael: Added the policy document to the list for people that are not in the meeting. Greg to add the keyboard accessibility document feedback in the survey.
16:09:48 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
16:09:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/27-ag-minutes.html laura
16:09:51 <hdv> q+
16:09:55 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:10:00 <Heather> Kevin: The policy document is called out as a specific piece of work; unsure if it was one of those things. It would not be part of the normative materials.
16:10:03 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:10:34 <Heather> hdv: To clarify the goal - is it useful to put out this before WCAG 3?
16:10:52 <Heather> alastairc: Yes, it is a deliverable before WCAG 3 is published.
16:11:25 <Heather> hdv: Supports seeing color contrast and keyboard accessibility seem like a good idea in his experience.
16:11:26 <alastairc> q?
16:11:29 <alastairc> ack Daniel
16:11:29 <Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to talk about ACT Rules Format 1.1 AC rep questionnaire
16:11:30 <Daniel> scribe+
16:11:30 <Daniel> Daniel: -> https://www.w3.org/wbs/33280/act-rules-format/ ACT rules Format 1.1 AC questionnaire
16:11:30 <Daniel> ... open until 3 Feb 2026. It asks whether or not AC reps support ACT rules Format 1.1 as a W3C Recommendation.
16:11:30 <Daniel> ... Thanks to all of you who already replied. Please bring this to the attention of your AC representative. We would greatly appreciate if they can reply
16:11:31 <Daniel> ... If you have any questions please contact me or the Chairs
16:11:31 <Daniel> scribe-
16:11:40 <Heather> alastairc: Reinforced feedback to be added to the survey.
16:12:26 <Heather> yes
16:12:32 <Gez> Gez has joined #AG
16:12:50 <Gez> present+
16:13:11 <Rachael> q+ to announce survey on AccessU
16:13:12 <InaT> present+
16:13:24 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:13:24 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to announce survey on AccessU
16:13:40 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/accessu-2026/
16:13:54 <Heather> Rachael: Announcement - AccessU attendance feeler using the survey above.
16:14:20 <julierawe> q+
16:14:25 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:14:27 <alastairc> agenda?
16:14:44 <Heather> alastairc: even if you can't go to AccessU, please respond that you are not able to attend.
16:14:51 <ShawnT> This questionnaire is open for answers until 23:59, UTC on 2026-02-10.
16:14:56 <Rachael> closes February 10th
16:14:57 <Poornima> present+
16:15:00 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:15:06 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:15:06 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Charter follow up -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:15:06 <Detlev> present+
16:15:06 <Heather> julierawe: End date for the AccessU responses?
16:15:14 <Heather> Rachael: February 10
16:15:22 <Heather> alastairc: No other announcements.
16:15:22 <alastairc> Charter updated: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/charter-drafts/agwg-update-2025/2025/ag-wg.html
16:16:26 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:16:26 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Definitions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhaesDbhuB8SmOeX05-qfo0nSvdXHugpCJUw8rA9nfI/edit?tab=t.0 -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:16:27 <Heather> alastairc: Charter follow-up. Updates have been made. Email communications include which things have been updated or not. Conversations are still ongoing on final updates. Once completed, the charter will go through the ACs
16:17:16 <Heather> alastairc: Shift to terminology work, continued from last week. Two parts: First, run through people's comments from last week, and second, get through term definitions that the group didn't get to last week.
16:17:58 <Heather> alastairc: Expect an open discussion because commenters weren't aware of how the definition was being used, what requirement was drawing that definition, and open discussion closes those feedback loops.
16:18:26 <Heather> alastairc: Sharing screen, described zoom options for visibility.
16:19:22 <alastairc> q?
16:19:36 <Heather> alastairc: Since last week, we had a non-alphabetic Writing Systems Edition. For Blocks of Text, a proposed temporary solution to revert back to WCAG 2.2 definition, and there was discussion. Potentially overlaps with some other teams.
16:19:56 <Heather> alastairc: Revert back to definition in WCAG 2.2 for Blocks of Text.
16:20:37 <Makoto_U> Makoto_U has joined #ag
16:20:46 <Makoto_U> present+
16:20:46 <julierawe> q+
16:20:53 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:20:57 <Heather> alastairc: Jeremy asked if we intend to avoid defining terms that are only used in assertions. Response: Not always, it's less important to define if we were to use it in a requirement.
16:21:43 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
16:22:15 <Heather> julierawe: We had some back and forth, and landed on something simpler for Diacritic. Need more clarity around it because it is an unusual term.
16:22:47 <Rachael> +1 to exploring linking to dictionary
16:22:54 <kevin> q+
16:22:55 <ShawnT> Could we add a link to an official definition?
16:23:00 <Heather> alastairc: Agreed, its not a common term, and we don't want to redefine a dictionary term. Propose to have an explanation and a note underneath rather than having a definition.
16:23:43 <hdv> q+
16:23:44 <kevin> q-
16:23:59 <Heather> GreggVan: If you define a term using dictionary definition, that's seems to be acceptable. Just try not to do it a lot. Definitely don't want to change the dictionary definition.
16:24:00 <Atya> Atya has joined #AG
16:24:00 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:24:39 <Heather> hdv: As a non-native speaker, there are a lot of words in WCAG that he needs to look up. Thinks we shouldn't include it if we use the straight up dictionary term.
16:24:52 <GreggVan> q+
16:24:59 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:25:00 <Heather> +1 to hdv
16:25:02 <ShawnT> I know in my system / browsers you can right click and "look up" selected words?
16:25:06 <scott> +1 to hdv
16:25:24 <SydneyColeman> SydneyColeman has joined #ag
16:25:28 <Heather> alastairc: Seems like it would help non-native speakers to include a definition.
16:25:38 <SydneyColeman> present+
16:25:47 <hdv> +1 ShawnT, I use that al ot
16:25:57 <Heather> GreggVan: It would be nice to have a function to link to the definition, and examples would be very helpful.
16:26:03 <Frankie> Plain language guidelines should help in making these decisions as well.
16:26:07 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #ag
16:26:10 <Jon_Avila> present+
16:26:12 <CClaire> present+
16:26:30 <hdv> s/that he needs to look up/that I've had to look up when reading WCAG, and I think that's fine/
16:26:39 <kirkwood> how we are using it since it is not a common word. link to dictionary?
16:26:43 <kirkwood> no
16:26:43 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:26:44 <Heather> alastairc: Julie, does the requirement make sense if you don't know what a diacritic is?
16:26:45 <GreggVan> q+
16:27:14 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
16:27:15 <stevef> Q+
16:27:15 <Heather> julierawe: With the examples of what passes and what fails, and having notes... (dropped)
16:27:42 <kirkwood> good point
16:27:43 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:27:53 <Heather> Jennie_Delisi: Is there a difference in terms of the  need for definitions between IT technical terms vs. non-technical terms?
16:28:06 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:28:08 <scott> an example in context makes a lot of sense.  saves someone from having to help look it up in a list of terms or via a dictionary lookup
16:28:10 <julierawe> present+
16:28:15 <julierawe> (I got kicked out)
16:28:33 <alastairc> q?
16:28:39 <Illai> q+
16:28:47 <GreggVan> +1
16:28:47 <alastairc> ack stevef
16:28:52 <Heather> GreggVan: Teach people to fish, don't give them a fish. In the glossary at the top, why don't we include a note that says we don't have definitions for terms that are in the dictionary.
16:29:23 <Heather> alastairc: Seems like we are going toward something that explains what diacritics are, but don't need it in the glossary.
16:29:41 <Heather> stevef: Why don't we have a link to the word to its dictionary definition?
16:29:58 <alastairc> q?
16:30:17 <GreggVan> s/in the dictionary/ in the dictionary but there are extensions for all browsers that allows you to click on a word and look up its definition if it is not in this glossary/
16:30:18 <alastairc> ack Illai
16:30:19 <kevin> q+
16:30:30 <Heather> alastairc: Inserting links to an exterior source in the document may cause a undesired usability experience.
16:30:30 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
16:31:19 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:31:21 <Heather> Illai: Wherever we can be most explicit about what we mean (we should). Since there are multiple dictionaries, and we are dealing with uncommon words, we don't know for sure that the definition would be identical, and then it opens it up to interpretation.
16:31:27 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
16:31:37 <CarrieH> present+
16:32:35 <SydneyColeman> q
16:32:38 <GreggVan> q+
16:32:56 <Heather> Kevin: Diacritic is explicit in terms of what it is and what it means. He goes back and forth on including examples. For example, providing examples for what an abbreviation is. Supports Greg in that the dictionary needs to match, if it were to be included. Explaining the definition in a note may be the most appropriate.
16:33:02 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:33:21 <Heather> GreggVan: Asking about Julie finishing her thought.
16:33:24 <GreggVan> q+
16:33:51 <kirkwood> we are loooking for a technical solution for an editorial problem. we used rolllover or popup defintiions  without change of state
16:34:03 <Illai> I can help with that on the Hebrew side
16:34:04 <SydneyColeman> q+ found the unmute
16:34:38 <Heather> julierawe: Point is well taken, we need more examples. Right now there's just one example with the absence of diacritics can do. We need to show how different diacritics can make the same letters have a different meaning and pronunciation. We'll make sure we add more examples so that people have a clear idea of what we mean by a diacritic and it
16:34:39 <Heather> may not be necessary to have a glossary definition.
16:34:40 <alastairc> ack SydneyColeman
16:34:56 <Heather> alastairc: Keep the examples underneath the requirement text and keep it brief.
16:34:58 <Illai> Help with diacritics examples. for clarification
16:35:06 <GreggVan> q+ to say   good to cite a dictionary  -- and suggest  Wiktioary
16:35:23 <julierawe> q+
16:35:25 <kevin> q+
16:35:33 <kevin> qq+
16:35:48 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:35:48 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to SydneyColeman
16:36:00 <alastairc> q- kevin
16:36:03 <Heather> SydneyColeman: Question about translation: as we discuss these definitions for the users of WCAG. What do we do for non-English native speakers?
16:36:42 <Heather> Kevin: Translation activities are as follows: Authorized and unauthorized translations of the WCAG specifications.
16:37:16 <alastairc> q?
16:37:35 <Heather> Kevin: ... heavily reliant on volunteer organizations to help with translations. We try to take a proactive approach on this and are thinking about it within the web accessibility initiative.
16:37:58 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:37:58 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   good to cite a dictionary  -- and suggest  Wiktioary
16:38:06 <Heather> SydneyColeman: Should we take into consideration what translators would find to be most productive
16:38:25 <Heather> alastairc: We've been using plain English, clear English in the requirements.
16:38:25 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:38:27 <hdv> q+ to respond to dictionary question
16:38:51 <Heather> GreggVan: Should we cite a specific dictionary?
16:39:23 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:39:23 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to respond to dictionary question
16:39:31 <Heather> julierawe: By the time we are ready to publish WCAG 3, maybe we should include user testing with different groups to ensure they are understood by lots of different folks.
16:39:37 <jkatherman> jkatherman has joined #ag
16:39:46 <jkatherman> present+
16:40:16 <Heather> hdv: For including specific dictionaries, I don't think we need to do that if the term has the same definition in multiple dictionaries. We don't need to make this more complicated than it needs to be.
16:41:17 <Heather> alastairc: Conclusion about diacritic - take out the definition, but Julie's group will include a note with a brief explanation and at least one example.
16:42:11 <Heather> julierawe: Nested clause to be defined without using the phrase dependent clause. Comments added for which changes were made.
16:43:03 <Heather> alastairc: (Scrolling through definitions looking for further points to have a group discussion about).
16:43:36 <Heather> alastairc: Biometric to be defined. Asked for the subgroup to comment on progress of this term
16:43:42 <Rachael> q+
16:43:51 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:43:59 <SydneyColeman> q+
16:44:07 <Heather> Rachael: Thinks that biometrics is used in context of dictionary term.
16:44:35 <Heather> SydneyColeman: It would be easiest to give examples of biometrics, such as facial recognition software, fingerprinting, etc.
16:44:42 <Rachael> From Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biometrics
16:45:05 <Rachael> the measurement and analysis of unique physical or behavioral characteristics (such as fingerprint or voice patterns) especially as a means of verifying personal identity
16:45:11 <Heather> alastairc: Feels like "a turtle on its back" because he's having difficulty typing ;)
16:45:13 <kirkwood> q+
16:45:20 <Rachael> ack SydneyColeman
16:45:22 <Rachael> ack kirkwood
16:46:00 <GreggVan> q+
16:46:02 <Heather> kirkwood: Hesitant to use the dictionary definition for Biometrics because it is a technical authentication.
16:46:11 <Heather> GreggVan: +1 to kirkwood
16:46:11 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:47:01 <SydneyColeman> Fingerprints
16:47:01 <SydneyColeman> Facial features
16:47:01 <SydneyColeman> Voice patterns
16:47:01 <SydneyColeman> Iris or retina patterns
16:47:05 <jtoles> I suggest using "biometric authentication" rather than just biometrics
16:47:09 <Heather> GreggVan: Supports biometrics having its own definition because it's a huge field. There are other things where we use it. There's a camera which can be done on web pages and not just the device.
16:47:30 <Rain> q+
16:47:31 <GreggVan> +1
16:47:55 <Heather> alastairc: John and John Kirkwood support using biometric authentication rather than just biometrics.
16:48:00 <kirkwood> biometric information agree with Rain
16:48:11 <GreggVan> +1    use examples only as examples -- not a definitive list
16:48:55 <Heather> Unknown: worries about limiting it to biometric authentication, or limiting to specific technologies because of advancement of technology capabilities.
16:49:43 <Heather> alastairc: Need to come up with a core definition for "Common Keyboard Navigation Technique." Asked if anyone has a document with this.
16:49:47 <LenB> LenB has joined #AG
16:50:17 <julierawe> For transcript update: The "Unknown" comment about "worries about limiting it to biometric authentication" was from Rain
16:50:26 <kenneth> s/Unknown:/Rain:/
16:50:35 <kirkwood> defining down… allows for “dragging” or drawing
16:50:38 <Heather> alastairc: "Down Event" - for the technical members of the group, wondered if we need to be more specific than 'is pressed'?
16:50:40 <stevekerr> "biometric" (even with its large definition) relies on the criteria to scope it (such as 'biometric authentication'). The definition of 'biometric' used within 'biometric authentication' is still the same, right? I'm not sure if it needs a definition.
16:50:50 <kirkwood> release? no
16:50:54 <GreggVan> Standard Keyboard Navigation & Operation  Keys and Techniques is at  https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/Standard-Keyboard-Navigation-&-Operation-Keys-and-Techniques
16:51:16 <Heather> alastairc: worked out the difference between up event and down event transition action.
16:51:29 <GreggVan> q+
16:51:35 <shadi> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/mousedown_event
16:51:40 <alastairc> ack Rain
16:51:42 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:52:02 <Heather> alastairc: "Essential" - reading comment, do we need 'absolutely'? seems redundant.
16:52:55 <Heather> GreggVan: added link in IRC to W3C GitHub. Need to be consistent with the use of essential, critical, etc. We need to be clear and consistent with their use throughout the specification.
16:53:03 <maryjom> q+
16:53:03 <shadi> q+ to point out https://www.w3.org/TR/uievents/#event-type-mousedown
16:53:36 <alastairc> ack maryjom
16:53:39 <Heather> alastairc: Regarding "Essential" pulled up Bruce Bailey's comment that we need to update how the term is used in the draft.
16:54:06 <Heather> maryjom: Similar to Bruce's comment, we need to make sure the essential definition aligns with 'essential exception' definition
16:54:07 <alastairc> ack shadi
16:54:07 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to point out https://www.w3.org/TR/uievents/#event-type-mousedown
16:54:19 <Heather> alastairc: Agreed with Mary Jo
16:54:44 <Detlev> +1 zo Shadi
16:55:12 <Atya> +1
16:55:24 <Heather> shadi: Found the definition in the UI event specification, was wondering if UI events is directly related to HTML5, and maybe they're a better group to be defining this.
16:55:26 <DuffJohnson> DuffJohnson has joined #ag
16:55:48 <hdv> +1 to shadi
16:56:04 <GreggVan> q+
16:56:04 <kirkwood> it is also defining how WE are using it so it’s not confusing for our audience
16:56:13 <Heather> alastairc: Because we're trying to ensure this definition works across different platforms and not just HTML, ideally we would have something that represents different methods.
16:56:44 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:56:45 <Heather> alastairc: agreed that we need to cross reference, but may need a more general term that isn't as technology-specific.
16:58:35 <Heather> GreggVan: We need to think about that we have things like hover, etc. One definition in all the documents I've ever read, some are more specific and descriptive. We should find a definition that is clear. He doesn't think its an ambiguous term, it's just that different people with different words to say the exact same thing.
16:58:44 <alastairc> "absolutely necessary or required in order to achieve the same result" vs "necessary or required to achieve the same result"
16:58:49 <Heather> alastairc: Inclined to live it as is.
16:58:54 <kirkwood> are we really defining essential?
16:59:00 <Heather> alastairc: correction: inclined to leave it as-is.
16:59:02 <Heather> @all
16:59:14 <Rachael> q+
16:59:19 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:59:24 <Heather> alastairc: Essential (unavoidable): need to use this term in many places.
16:59:25 <julierawe> q+
16:59:37 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:59:41 <Heather> Rachael: Start by exploring a dictionary definition.
16:59:54 <jkatherman> q+
17:00:21 <alastairc> ack jkatherman
17:00:31 <Heather> julierawe: Searching through WCAG 3 draft to see where we use essential. Would it be helpful if we had essential/unavoidable. Try to get beyond a word in the dictionary, and not make people go read our particular definition of a word.
17:00:56 <Heather> JeroenH: Calls out the use of 'absolutely, always, necessary, required'
17:00:57 <alastairc> Essential: always necessary to achieve the same result
17:01:21 <GreggVan> +1  to creating a term or phrase for things and defining it if we want it to have a particular meaning -- rather than redefining a word in english
17:01:46 <julierawe> For transcript update: The callout about removing "or required" was from jkatherman
17:01:50 <Heather> alastairc: (scrolling through WCAG 3 Editor's Draft to see where 'essential' is used). Found 36 matches.
17:01:59 <alastairc> q?
17:02:19 <kenneth> s/JeroenH:/jkatherman:/
17:02:32 <GreggVan> q+
17:02:40 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:02:40 <Heather> alastairc: If no objections to essential (unavoidable) definition, proposed using the shorter definition.
17:03:08 <alastairc> "always necessary to achieve the same result"
17:03:21 <kirkwood> the same result as?
17:04:04 <kirkwood> phrase would be better
17:04:36 <kirkwood> +1 to define our (commonly used) phrase
17:04:38 <alastairc> q+
17:04:43 <julierawe> q+
17:04:53 <Heather> GreggVan: Comment earlier was that we shouldn't take things like essential and redefine them to mean something different, because people might not know it's a special term. He worries about redefining essential and then people argue about it because dictionaries have different definitions for it. We could define a phrase like essential-unavoidable.
17:04:55 <kirkwood> +1 to  defining phrase
17:06:01 <Rachael> q+ to reask why we are moving away from WCAG 2.2?
17:06:22 <kirkwood> essential functionality. s.a. drag and drop ?
17:06:26 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
17:06:28 <alastairc> ack alastairc
17:06:30 <alastairc> ack julierawe
17:06:37 <Heather> alastairc: WCAG uses 'essential' in the context of its application in technology; when the 'purpose' comes into play for a product. Provides a get-out-clause for circumstances without giving a huge loophole. Maybe we could try something like a phrase like "essential to the functionality" that we need to look into.
17:07:13 <GreggVan> q+  to say   essential to outcome =   there is no other way to achieve the outcome
17:07:17 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:07:17 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to reask why we are moving away from WCAG 2.2?
17:07:20 <Heather> julierawe: We often use 'essential' in an exception. Flagging that the word 'same' may be the problem.
17:07:34 <Rachael> scribe+
17:07:37 <laura> +1 to Julie
17:07:42 <janina> commensurate?
17:07:43 <maryjom> +1 to Julie's comment. That's what I had previously tried to express
17:07:59 <Rachael> I think we need a reason to move from WCAG 2.2. 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
17:08:18 <alastairc> q?
17:08:21 <alastairc> q+
17:08:25 <alastairc> GreggVan:
17:08:28 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:08:28 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   essential to outcome =   there is no other way to achieve the outcome
17:08:49 <kirkwood> so thats handling both functionlity and information
17:09:06 <scott> +1 Rachael.   but if it is being changed from wcag 2.x, "essential exception" seems like a reasonable term to move forward with for a new definiton
17:09:13 <Rachael> GreggVan: We can keep that definition but we should create a term that it is a definition for "Essential for outcome" or "essential for functionality"
17:09:16 <alastairc> q?
17:09:24 <Rachael> +1 to new scribe
17:10:42 <alastairc> ack alastairc
17:11:07 <Rachael> alastairc: As to why we are looking at this. From the discussion last week, the WCAG 2 definition is useful but long and not that easy to understand.
17:11:45 <Rachael> ....we were trying to come up with something easier and then add the old one as a note. I think we've reached the end of that conversation for this meeting. Please try this in your requirements and report back via comments.
17:12:11 <Rachael> ...We have image which I think we can leave as the dictionary definition.
17:12:26 <Rachael> ...unless someone has an argument for needing that.
17:13:04 <Rachael> ...The next one we got comments on is Method. I am wondering where this is referenced from. [reads current draft definition]
17:13:08 <ljoakley> q+
17:13:11 <Rachael> ...That seems to work.
17:13:15 <alastairc> ack ljoakley
17:13:25 <Rachael> ljoakley: I would take out the last little piece "and scoring information"
17:13:47 <Rachael> ...didn't we talk about scoring a few weeks ago and decide that we would not be putting scoring into WCAG 3.
17:14:04 <Rachael> alastairc: We agreed we would not have scoring at that level. Accepting comments to see clean version.
17:14:09 <kirkwood> +1 to removing scoring without defining
17:14:50 <Rachael> ljoakley: It sounds a bit awkward. Maybe "including tests"
17:14:59 <Rachael> julierawe: I suggest we end it at requirements and remove tests
17:15:09 <ljoakley> +1 Julie
17:15:21 <Rachael> alastairc: Method is a common word in the text. Whichever subgroup defined that, please see if that meets your requirements.
17:16:02 <Rachael> alastairc: Duff asked why non-embedded is needed in the definition of page? It is copied from WCAG 2. If you read the rest of the definition, it means that it could include contents in an iframe.
17:16:14 <Rachael> Duff: I get it I guess.
17:16:22 <kirkwood> is i frame non-embeded?
17:16:44 <Rachael> kirkwood: Is an iframe embedded or not embedded?
17:16:55 <Rachael> alastairc: An iframe would be an embedded resource.
17:17:14 <Rachael> ...we may be able to cross link that.
17:17:57 <Rachael> alastairc: Do we need to define time limit, time out, or artificial time limit?
17:17:58 <Rachael> q_
17:17:59 <Rachael> q+
17:18:04 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:18:06 <alastairc> scribe+
17:18:19 <alastairc> Rachael: Are the distinctions between them?
17:19:23 <Rachael> Illai: We are still working on definitions.
17:19:39 <Rachael> alastairc: I would suggest we can see if it works without being defined.
17:20:07 <Rachael> ...Support seems like a dictionary definition. I think visually collocated can be left as it is.
17:20:54 <Rachael> ...If anyone has suggestions please get on queueu
17:21:02 <Rachael> s/queueu/queue
17:21:37 <Rachael> ...We don't have comments on infinite scrolling or user orientation.
17:22:07 <Rachael> ...Meaningful blocks of content. We do have a definitions for blocks of content. This is a bit different.
17:22:27 <kirkwood> logical blocks of content ?
17:22:47 <Rachael> ...blocks of text is above. This is blocks of content. If you are looking at a page/view, how do you know what forms part of a meaningful block and what does not?
17:23:56 <Rachael> giacomo-petri: We will discuss this at tomorrow's subgroup. One suggestion is to change the definition to:  a group of related content that represents a distinct topic or function intended to be perceived as a single unit and capable of being programmatically identified.
17:24:17 <Rachael> ...[moves definition to document]
17:24:45 <kirkwood> would we prefer “logical blocks of content” or “related blocks of content”?
17:24:46 <GreggVan> q+
17:25:02 <giacomo-petri> q+
17:25:02 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:25:42 <Rachael> GreggVan: I think you should say "examples of meaningful blocks of content are..." That's definition by list. Adding examples of makes it clearer that there can be more things there.
17:25:48 <CClaire> CClaire has left #ag
17:25:49 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
17:26:22 <kirkwood> q+
17:26:29 <GreggVan> q+
17:26:58 <Rachael> giacomo-petri: If I am typing an email, what is a meaningful block of content? I think we need to review them again. We don't want to label each paragraph but if you have a single question in a dialog you may have a sentence that defines the meaning of the dialogue. I think it needs some refinement. I think in the notes we need to be very precise and convey the meaning.
17:27:01 <alastairc> q+ on circularity and going to best practices
17:27:08 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
17:27:43 <Rachael> kirkwood: I suggest logical blocks of content or related blocks of content.
17:28:11 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:29:02 <Rachael> GreggVan: This is tricky. We need to figure out what we are using this for so the definition fits all the use of the phrase.
17:29:12 <Rachael> ...we don't want to accidentally define something that makes it impossible to use.
17:29:18 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:29:22 <alastairc> ack alastairc
17:29:22 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on circularity and going to best practices
17:29:57 <Rachael> alastairc: I think we've got things like Sections labeled. [reads blocks of content available
17:30:07 <Rachael> s/[reads/reads
17:30:44 <Rachael> ...this reminds me of WCAG 2 when we were trying to define whether a control was visible or not, we gathered examples and asked everyone to say whether it was in scope or not. Very little agreement. It is because it is circular.
17:31:26 <giacomo-petri> q+
17:31:27 <ljoakley> q+
17:31:38 <Rachael> ...when appropriate, put a heading in. I think this is going to be a best practice in order to get out of the circularity of defining a thing which the author has to decide. I suggest we gather a whole lot of interfaces and say what do you think are meaningful blocks of content.
17:31:40 <kenneth> scribe+
17:31:59 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
17:32:08 <kenneth> giacomo-petri: One of the points we tried to address was a user need coming from people with cognitive disabilities
17:32:18 <kenneth> ... people are not able to recognize when there is a change of topic when there are no labels/headings
17:32:54 <kenneth> ... e.g. if you're within the homepage of a website, maybe there's a visually distinguishable header, then a carousel of promotional items, then immediately a bunch of items that are highlighted for some reason without any heading. So you don't really know how to separate sections.
17:33:30 <kenneth> ... while understanding that might be subjective, the idea was to address people with cognitive disabilities' needs trying to group items together by using some kind of labels rather than relying on the design
17:33:38 <alastairc> ack ljoakley
17:33:43 <kenneth> alastairc: It's definitely a valid need; the question is how to objectively test it
17:34:23 <julierawe> q+
17:34:27 <kenneth> ljoakley: Do we need this? Is there something that makes this feasible for an author to do? This is likely to be extremely difficult for some pages and create quite a bit of work for authors.
17:34:28 <alastairc> q+
17:34:32 <alastairc> ack julierawe
17:35:03 <kenneth> julierawe: I'm really rooting for this; I think structure is hugely important for clarity and ease of understanding with writing. Is it this term that we need to define or another term, not quite certain, but I think it is extremely important to do the work here
17:35:13 <kenneth> ... it may not be perfect yet, but structure and layout are hugely important
17:35:15 <alastairc> ack alastairc
17:35:38 <Detlev> it doesn't work in general, for all kinds of things - I believe it is overreach and should be scapped
17:35:43 <ljoakley> q+
17:35:59 <kenneth> alastairc: (chair hat off) Yes, we need something; whether it will be a requirement with an objective definition, I'm not sure. Going to go back to that recommendation of, test it - get some interfaces, test the definition, get people to draw on what the meaning of meaningful content should be
17:36:22 <kirkwood> structured blocks of content?
17:36:29 <alastairc> ack ljoakley
17:36:36 <kenneth> ... if they can't - if it's easier to create a structure than it is to test whether another author's structure is meaningful
17:36:41 <kirkwood> is meaningful the difficult word here?
17:37:14 <kenneth> ljoakley: Thanks Julie for the perspective. I also agree that testing will be extremely difficult for someone just looking at a page trying to figure things out. I'd rather make it a best practice.
17:37:17 <giacomo-petri> q+
17:37:26 <kirkwood> q+
17:38:27 <kenneth> giacomo-petri: One more bit that I missed: in the previous stage, we worked on section labels and created a bunch of test cases both in codepen and in real examples, and we tried to work asynchronously leaving feedback on each
17:38:54 <kenneth> ... we received almost universal feedback aligned on the output from the test. It'd be interesting if we could come up with a more meaningful definition.
17:39:15 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
17:39:16 <kenneth> alastairc: If you've got supporting evidence, that could help a lot with this, we could go back and examine
17:39:18 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
17:39:33 <kenneth> kirkwood: This seems to be talking about structured blocks of content. Is the "meaningful" part what's tripping us up?
17:39:58 <kenneth> alastairc: The tricky part is the requirement is trying to ensure people are structuring blocks of content meaningfully. So how do you define what needs to be structured?
17:40:25 <kenneth> ... Giacomo, are there any others you wanted to get feedback on?
17:40:37 <kenneth> giacomo-petri: I think we can go to the next subgroup. Feel free to add comments, because we need them
17:41:02 <kenneth> alastairc: There are a few comments under User control / prevent harm. Flash was copied in from WCAG 2 I think. Kevin asked whether it's necessary.
17:41:25 <kenneth> ... I'm assuming we do need it, otherwise the closest thing would require navigating to relative luminance
17:41:36 <kevin> q+
17:41:44 <kenneth> ... size and frequency definitions are important, otherwise any kind of animation going back and forth could qualify
17:41:47 <alastairc> ack kevin
17:42:04 <Rachael> q+
17:42:08 <kenneth> Kevin: I don't disagree we need to ensure we've got the metric in there, I just don't know whether the definition of flash is needed, or if we just need the metric. I guess it depends on how it's written, so I'm relaxed about it
17:42:13 <GreggVan> q+
17:42:17 <Rachael> q-
17:42:22 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:42:27 <kenneth> ... i.e. if flashing is the thing that's in the requirement, and then the definition defines the metric
17:42:30 <kenneth> alastairc: Yes, that is the case
17:42:54 <joryc> q+
17:43:10 <kenneth> GreggVan: You can have flashing in content, you just can't have more than 3 flashes within 1 second, and those flashes have to be more than X amount. If it's less than X amount it's okay, if it's fewer than 3 per second it's okay. We don't want something to say you can't have flashing, because you're going to have it.
17:43:16 <kenneth> ... i.e. we shouldn't bury the details in the definition
17:44:00 <kenneth> ... only saying "you can't have flashing" sounds overly restrictive. e.g. you can't have a singular lightning strike in media
17:44:06 <alastairc> ack joryc
17:44:15 <GreggVan> q+
17:44:32 <ShawnT> +1 joryc
17:44:36 <kenneth> joryc: Pushing back on Gregg; seizures are not the only risk. Flashing is also incredibly distracting for people with a variety of cognitive disabilities such as people with ADHD like myself
17:44:45 <Frankie> +1 to Jory's comment. It's also a common migraine trigger or a vestibular event trigger.
17:44:53 <ShawnT> Being able to turn it off
17:44:54 <kenneth> ... taking the flash of lightning example, I would rather people be presented with a means to opt into that rather than seeing it first
17:44:55 <alastairc> don't forget we have other requirements for that.
17:45:08 <Rachael> q+ to say difference between core and supplemental
17:45:11 <kenneth> ... akin to respecting prefers-reduced-motion preferences
17:45:16 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:45:37 <kenneth> GreggVan: In the provision, not just the definition, should say "does not exceed thresholds", because people may not bother reading the definition
17:45:55 <kenneth> ... opening a drop-down repeatedly could exceed the threshold
17:46:09 <kenneth> ... page changes can cause flashes
17:46:41 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:46:41 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say difference between core and supplemental
17:46:44 <kenneth> ... the issue with flashes causing distractions should also be noted, but separately from the seizures topic
17:47:03 <alastairc> q?
17:47:05 <kenneth> Rachael: This does have both a core and supplemental provision, so we should distinguish these two options
17:47:34 <kenneth> alastairc: My subgroup is working on this one, so I will take on that aspect of making the thresholds clearer and include within the body of the provision
17:47:54 <kenneth> alastairc: we also had comments on pseudo motion. RE Kevin, it may be worth taking on one or two of the updates
17:48:18 <kenneth> ... pseudo motion is static comment. There is no "lasts longer than 5 seconds" because the content isn't actually moving, so it's entirely dependent on how long you look at it.
17:48:25 <kenneth> ... maybe we need to update the provision to account for that.
17:48:33 <Frankie> q+
17:48:42 <alastairc> ack Frankie
17:49:09 <kenneth> Frankie: Repeating my message from IRC; if we talk about flashing, we should also talk about vestibular events and migraines, because those are also common and we don't talk about it anywhere.
17:49:27 <Rachael> q+ to say it should go into user needs
17:49:45 <kenneth> ... it falls under the area of "causes harm". If someone falls into a 4-day migraine cycle due to flashes, that's a huge amount of harm. If someone experiences vertigo and then can't drive home, etc.
17:49:50 <joryc> q+ to say we need to state very clearly that we need to respect user preferences around motion
17:49:57 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:49:57 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say it should go into user needs
17:50:02 <kenneth> ... migraines affect a large portion of the population
17:50:19 <kenneth> Rachael: I do think we need to call this out. I don't think it needs a separate call-out, but that it belongs within the user needs of this requirement
17:50:29 <julierawe> +1 to Frankie suggestion to add a note or to add user needs about flashing that cover migraines and other reactions beyond seizers
17:50:30 <kenneth> Frankie: I'm fine with that, thanks
17:50:31 <alastairc> q+ to ask about migrane / vestibular and triggers
17:50:36 <alastairc> ack joryc
17:50:36 <Zakim> joryc, you wanted to say we need to state very clearly that we need to respect user preferences around motion
17:50:56 <kenneth> joryc: I think we need to have a very clear statement (perhaps not here exactly) about requirements to follow user preferences, e.g. CSS media queries around prefers-reduced-motion.
17:51:09 <GreggVan> q+
17:51:10 <Frankie> +1 to Jory's follow-up statement
17:51:12 <kenneth> ... for things like what Frankie is describing, we need to go beyond that for sure, we can't assume prefers-reduced-motion can cover all of that
17:51:15 <alastairc> ack alastairc
17:51:15 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about migrane / vestibular and triggers
17:51:45 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ucdwQdwGCuTPzKXAfF8tTe5RRXsWVFE2bB--6zFRjiQ/edit?tab=t.4ts7mfo3ejq1
17:51:51 <kenneth> alastairc: From what Frankie was saying, it's not in these definitions, but we do have provisions around animation, around animation from movement; of the things you mentioned Frankie, triggers of migraine due to flashing is one I haven't come across before
17:52:07 <kenneth> ... Posting a link about what we're discussing, if you want to join the discussion next Monday, it's something we'll be talking about
17:52:20 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:52:21 <kenneth> ... the difficulty with the vestibular disorder one is how do you define big on the internet
17:52:29 <kenneth> ... any comments you can provide will be useful
17:52:39 <kenneth> GreggVan: All of the things we've mentioned that can cause harms are things we should address.
17:52:58 <alastairc> joryc - we've got methods for CSS preferences, but it needs fleshing out as to when it is sufficient.
17:53:00 <kenneth> ... long ago we decided we weren't going to do provisions in order of what affects the most people, because that'd be a can of worms
17:53:32 <joryc> q+ to say "flashes" from UI elements don't generally repeat
17:53:35 <kenneth> ... we can't outlaw flashing, since that could even preclude page changes. So you need metrics on what constitutes too much flashing, which requires research.
17:54:06 <kenneth> ... RE vestibular disorders, there's been decades of research on how much it takes to trigger.
17:54:27 <alastairc> ack joryc
17:54:27 <Zakim> joryc, you wanted to say "flashes" from UI elements don't generally repeat
17:54:32 <kenneth> ... RE flashes triggering migraines, I hadn't heard about that before either, but we should look for the same kind of research
17:54:49 <kirkwood> FYI “Flashing lights can be a frequent trigger of migraine attacks” https://migrainetrust.org/news/migraine-and-light/
17:55:04 <kevin> q+
17:55:05 <GreggVan> q+
17:55:09 <Frankie> +1 to Jory's elaboration on why this could be a slippery slope
17:55:09 <kenneth> joryc: I don't want to do the slippery-slope argument with drop-down menus, there's a vast difference in that sort of use case. I have first-hand experience seeing migraines happen to people because of flashes.
17:55:13 <alastairc> ack kevin
17:55:26 <graham> graham has joined #ag
17:55:31 <graham> present+
17:55:56 <kenneth> kevin: The slippery-slope argument is absolutely correct. The key factor is the frequency. Then create a standard that highlights it and can be tested against
17:56:09 <Frankie> +1 to Jory and Kevin on frequency being an issue
17:56:31 <kenneth> ... I am wary of putting in guidelines that aren't necessary based upon a clear understanding and rationale for these things; they'll ultimately become untestable or create massive practical problems with implementation of whatever we're trying to do, whether it be a website or app
17:56:38 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:56:47 <kirkwood> NIH.gov https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3571449/
17:56:50 <kenneth> ... I'm essentially re-iterating Gregg's point; what we need to put in are metrics with concrete evidence as much as possible
17:56:58 <kenneth> GreggVan: +1 to Jory's comment and Kevin's concern.
17:57:22 <kenneth> <kenneth> Isn't a drop-down menu user-controlled? Isn't that a distinction?
17:58:18 <joryc> Frequency is very important. Technically everything on our screens is flashing all the time as it redraws the pixels but we just don't notice it :)
17:58:22 <kenneth> GreggVan: Intensity is also part of the equation. With HDR screens, even brighter flashes are possible. So we need to think about the combination of low intensity and high frequency that causes seizures, then also lower-frequency high-intensity flashes, even single flashes.
17:58:28 <alastairc> q?
17:58:51 <kenneth> kirkwood: I put a link in chat about some NIH studies in this area
17:59:14 <kenneth> alastairc: I think we've gotten as far as we can in the time we have. I apologize for not getting down to the Single sense ones today. Thanks for the discussion; we'll be back next week.
17:59:27 <jkatherman> jkatherman has left #ag
17:59:29 <ShawnT> present+
17:59:29 <kenneth> GreggVan: What time is that Monday meeting?
17:59:33 <kenneth> alastairc: starts at the same time as this one
17:59:46 <janina> janina has left #ag
17:59:48 <kenneth> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:59:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/27-ag-minutes.html kenneth
18:03:11 <LenB> LenB has left #ag
18:56:55 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
19:51:08 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
21:25:54 <daniel-mac> daniel-mac has joined #ag
21:44:34 <daniel-mac> daniel-mac has joined #ag