Meeting minutes
ACT Reorg
wilco: 2 weeks ago Rachael joined us to talk about wcag 3. seems like for us to be able to do the work that R is asking, we'll have to reorg. I have a proposal - sent in email from daniel ...
<Daniel> Introducing ACT work for WCAG 3 email
wilco: has 3 points. main point: we want to change the task force.
… TF will be solely focused on wcag 3.
… so this TF meeting will be a meeting for liasons to wcag 3 sub-groups.
… they need one of us to be available, to join their calls etc, to get the tests that they've written to be consistent with act rules format.
… and that should be basically everyone in the task force.
… we'll use our biweekly meetings to coordinate that work.
… second part is: current responsibilities of the task force need to move. should go to the community group. so CG takes on maintaining website. rule updates. rule approval process. we have quite a few rules that are proposed , not approved. so CG would be to get rules approved by WG.
… and CG should start thinking in terms of projects. consistently going wrong: so many different initiatives, a lot of things going on at once, we're spread too thin, we don't get the reviews we need. we want to fix this. we can fix this through "projects".
… if you want to work on a thing, propose a "project". one person is a lead. 1-2 doing reviews. we commit until its done. so we have reviewers available.
… so with those things we'll have a more organized CG.
… thoughts?
daniel: I think it's good that, if we find we're not happy with CG putting out content that WG doesn't want to approve, we may need to have a record of approval from the TF that we're happy. could be just a bunch of "plus ones".
jean-yves: responsibility of TF vs. CG means we might need to move people between the two.
… we can handle the w3c rules about joining diff groups. admin detail.
wilco: there could be shifting of leadership too.
kathy: we've mentioned that wcag 3 liasons would need to dedicate several hours per week.
… if you're on the CG right now: note that there is a time commitment. they (AGWG / Rachael?) have suggested a fairly aggressive schedule.
… we may need to temper that.
wilco: we've always had an expectation that TF is available for at least 2 hour per week. that continues.
… giacomo?
giacomo: re: subgroups: in general we're working on refining definitions. some were missing from draft. there are some tests, but they're high-level.
<Daniel> WCAG 3 sub groups
giacomo: there is nothing very robust yet. just a demonstration. not aligned with ACT rule format.
wilco: rachael has asked that the group writes rules in ACT rules format.
… so we're looking for liasons.
wilco: who would be interested in becoming a liason for wcag 3 subgroup?
<Jean-Yves> yes
<Kathy> yes
wilco: (you can say yes or maybe in the chat. might be nice to have a record.)
<Wilco> yes
kathy: as liasons we're not expected to write all of the tests, correct?
wilco: correct.
<giacomo-petri> yes (already in)
wilco: who is NOT interested?
(me: not interested)
shunguo: it's not interest. it's time. my time is very limited.
sasha: also hesitant. due to time.
<suji> +1 I am interested as well, but worried about the time commitment
godwin: I have the time. but I've just started here, getting familiar. familiar with wcag. just not sure what I'm getting myself into (in ACT rules).
<suji> Happy to help when possible, can partner with someone
godwin: having support would help.
wilco: yes. will keep these meetings.
<SHunguo> I am the same, happy to help whenever time is available
wilco: facilitators of TF will act as backups. in case a liason is unavailable for a time stretch.
… next question: do we like this plan that's been proposed?
Helen: act-rules/
shunguo: not an objection, but good to clarify the mission for the two groups. last time (before end of year) I talked with mary jo, who coordinates on wcag 3, and mike gower. seems like wcag 3 is years away. is it a little too early for act rules for wcag 3?
wilco: rachael is better to answer this. thinks it's time.
daniel: are we sure that everyone still has the coordinates for this meeting?
wilco: no. please invite her now.
… my view shunguo is one of the difficulties with wcag 2 is that this (ACT) work started super late. (with wcag 3) by thinking about how you're going to test it, you're going to write better requirements.
… that said, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of ideas get discarded.
… so I'd rather this group think about how to test things right now, rather than after wcag 3 has been written.
kathy: agree. experience with wcag 2 - writing act rules after SCs were finalized - was sub-optimal. so writing act rules at the same time as wcag 3 reqs are being written will be better (than wcag 2 -> act rules was).
wilco: do we want to vote?
<SHunguo> +1
<suji> +1
<Jean-Yves> +1
<giacomo-petri> +1
helen: +1
<Kathy> +1
Helen: +1
<sashanichols> +1
<Daniel> +1
<Wilco> +1
(note helen was "+1" twice by accident.)
wilco: next step is that I will set up a survey for who will be a liason.
… rachael, can we get a list of subgroups?
daniel: I put a link to that earlier in this irc, further up
kathy: the number of subgroups that we have right now: is the idea that this would cover everything? or once the work is done, there will be a new subgroup?
rachael: if something new comes up, it will get assigned to an existing subgroup.
wilco: I think we should start as soon as we can.
… will do a workshop with AG. on feb 10.
… everyone interested should join that.
… can we record that?
rachael: please do.
wilco: time will be the time of regular AG meeting. 11 AM eastern.
rachael: we'll walk through one in the second half of the hour.
… preceded by 30 minute training.
wilco: I like that.
jean-yves: good idea.
<Rachael> Subgroups: Image & Media Alternatives; Text & Wording, Input & Focus; Interactive Components; Errors, Task Completion & Help; User Orientation, Layout, & Structure; User control, Prevent Harm; Sign Language (Not yet drafted); Single Sense & Contrast (missing nontext contrast?)
rachael: pick something easy like the language tag.
jean-yves: currently not seeing any tests in the wcag 3 editor draft.
rachael: will put the PR in right now. should be merged in the next few days.
rachael: suggest we do it as a whole group for the first one. then after that, pick up with the subgroups split.
rachael: I agree it's hard as a big group, but still I think watching the exercise will help.
wilco: giacomo how about you?
giacomo: sure
… re: page title: could be addressed by current act rules. maybe we could work on that one.
<Rachael> Most current PR: https://
wilco: second topic for today is: look at rules format and ask: what about this do we want wcag 3 folks to know?
… because it's (?) been a long process. how can we turn this into something that be done in a week.
helen: re: manual test rules (shared in the zoom chat) could be guidance on where to start.
<Wilco> act-rules/
wilco: instead of having an exhaustive list of examples, try to limit it. eg. one pass, one fail, one inapplicable. to start.
… and if you don't have the html chops, write it out in text.
jean-yves: I agree. to get 200 tests in a year: we'll have to cut some corners.
… and they'll have to be polished after that. and we won't be so thorough in eg. the background section. what's important is to focus on applicability and expectation.
giacomo: question about the scope of the wcag 3.0. just html? eg. page title applies to title element, specific to html. and that's true for the majority of act rules. this is html-specific. so how can we scope a broader set of user agents (and whatever) while keeping the objectivity of our applicability and expectations?
rachael: I would love to get a clear definition of what's good for stage 1, what's good for stage 2.
… giacomo, let's focus on html this year. then ask mobile group later.
giacomo: we have recently seen how the applicability of empty headings is opening up a pandora's box.
jean-yves: question for rachael: what's the end game? tech-specific tests?
… if we have 10 different title tests: one for html, one for pdf, one for word doc. is that acceptable?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer
rachael: we want to start with html and generic.
… there are a few that are specific to immersive environments - we'll need a different approach. but most are html-ish.
… mobile will probably come before pdf.
wilco: pragmatic question for rachael: where do we want these rules to be written? currently we have a markdown process.
rachael: subgroups want to work in google docs to start with.
… will want to move to markdown eventually.
wilco: we should try to figure out how to use existing work for wcag 3. I see no reason why we couldn't work in google docs.
rachael: a subgroup might pick google docs vs. something else based on who's attending.
wilco: sounds like we don't have a way that we can prescribe other than: "here's a template".
rachael: yes. let's get a template, then work towards having a place where we can host all of it.
… I'd like to keep what you all did as much as possible.
wilco: there are some restrictions that we've put into act rules. eg. expectations are AND requirements. writing in that structure limits the way that rules are formatted. then there's composite rules (which use atomic rules). eg. video allows either a transcript or audio description.
… that seems a little complicated to bring to wcag 3 at this stage.
… so I've been wondering what we should do instead.
rachael: when we hit that logical complexity, a question for wcag 3 is: is that requirement too complex? we've been trying to make wcag 3 more granular.
… and the OR will happen more than the AND.
jean-yves: composite rules are mostly a way to break down when one of the atomic rules is used by several composite rules. so maybe we can wait. or if we figure out that we need to revisit the format (to make the default OR not AND). .... maybe it's too early now to make a decision on that.
wilco: do we want to explain this in the workshop?
jean-yves: no
daniel: in the workshop, we should define the work we've done, outreach, and we should cover the rule-writing process including pitfalls.
kathy: I'm wondering, seeing as we have our act rules format 1.1 now, is there anything we should modify for wcag 3?
… and is this the same format that should apply to mobile pdf etc.?
jean-yves: I believe so. most of them. we had some experience back when casper was still here - writing rules for pdf. and it worked.
… mobile might be more difficult.
… it's more tricky to write example. eg. have a pdf document as an example.
… or a mobile apk file.
… one thing we won't need is the accessibility requirements. because it will be obvious that the rule is for wcag 3 req XYZ.
wilco: any other comments?
wilco: my to dos: need to set up a survey. need to figure out what the phase 1 format looks like, along with template.
… I will aim for monday survey out.
(meeting adjourned)