15:48:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:48:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/10-ag-irc
15:48:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:48:12 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:48:15 <alastairc> agenda+ Subgroup updates
15:48:49 <alastairc> agenda+ ACT workshop https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17IPpA7IvvlI-MPeVdwepawr4OobBV0aV/edit?slide=id.p1#slide=id.p1
15:48:58 <alastairc> present: alastairc
15:49:09 <alastairc> regrets: AWK, JennieD, AdamP
15:49:14 <alastairc> chair: alastairc
15:52:24 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:57:31 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:00:15 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
16:00:29 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
16:01:04 <tayef> tayef has joined #ag
16:01:05 <janina> janina has joined #ag
16:01:12 <janina> present+
16:01:15 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:01:16 <hdv> q+
16:01:16 <CClaire> present+
16:01:17 <hdv> q-
16:01:21 <hdv> present+
16:01:22 <ShawnT> present+
16:01:22 <Jean-Yves> Jean-Yves has joined #ag
16:01:24 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:01:28 <Rachael> present+
16:01:29 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:01:30 <janina> zakim, who's here?
16:01:30 <Zakim> Present: alastairc, janina, CClaire, hdv, ShawnT, Rachael, giacomo-petri
16:01:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see giacomo-petri, Jean-Yves, ShawnT, janina, tayef, CClaire, bbailey, GreggVan, Ben_Tillyer, RRSAgent, kirkwood, Daniel, wendyreid, Zakim, jedi, tzviya, Tamsin, kevin,
16:01:33 <Zakim> ... Remi, kenneth, jcraig, Daniel_, bwang, alice, Rachael, alastairc, JeroenH, hdv, denkeni
16:01:34 <bbailey> present+
16:01:34 <Jean-Yves> present+
16:01:43 <Ben_Tillyer> regrets+ Ben_Tillyer
16:01:57 <jkatherman> jkatherman has joined #ag
16:01:59 <tayef> present+
16:02:02 <GreggVan> present+
16:02:03 <jkatherman> present+
16:02:04 <JeroenH> present+
16:02:18 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
16:02:18 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:02:28 <alastairc> TOPIC: Intros and Annoucements
16:02:29 <Azlan> present+
16:02:31 <kevin> present+
16:02:34 <SydneyColeman> SydneyColeman has joined #ag
16:02:34 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
16:02:40 <SydneyColeman> present+
16:02:40 <Heather> present+
16:02:43 <Kathy> present+
16:02:46 <Heather> scribe+
16:02:48 <Makoto_U> Makoto_U has joined #ag
16:02:51 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:02:55 <julierawe> present+
16:02:59 <Makoto_U> present+
16:03:11 <alastairc> Update to proposed charter: https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/2025/ag-wg.html
16:03:14 <Heather> alastairc: announcement - there was an update to the proposed charter. link above.
16:03:15 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:03:33 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:03:34 <CarrieH> CarrieH has joined #ag
16:03:50 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:03:50 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Subgroup updates -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:03:52 <GreggVan> q+
16:03:57 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
16:04:03 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:04:07 <jtoles> present+
16:04:09 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
16:04:09 <CarrieH> present+
16:04:28 <Heather> GreggVan: Purpose is to publish a candidate recommendation. Can you explain what a candidate recommendation shapshot is?
16:04:31 <Rayianna> Rayianna has joined #ag
16:04:31 <kevin> q+
16:04:36 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:04:37 <Rayianna> present+
16:04:39 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:04:58 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:05:03 <LenB> present+
16:05:11 <GreggVan> q+
16:05:42 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:05:43 <Heather> Kevin: First stage is a candidate review shapshot and it's the stage on from a working draft. The next stage is then candidate recommendation draft.
16:06:06 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
16:06:10 <Wilco> +1 Gregg, this is very confusing
16:06:19 <BrianE> present+
16:06:24 <InaT> InaT has joined #ag
16:06:25 <kenneth> s/shapshot/snapshot/g
16:06:32 <Charu> present+
16:06:33 <bbailey> Here's a candidate recommendation snapshot for WCAG 2.2:  https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/CR-WCAG22-20220906/
16:06:37 <Heather> GreggVan: Asks for clarity between the three different stages for charter publication.
16:06:38 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:06:45 <InaT> present+
16:06:45 <maryjom> present+
16:06:53 <kirkwood> present+
16:07:16 <alastairc> q/
16:07:17 <alastairc> q?
16:07:46 <hdv> more info on different types on the recommendation track can be found in the Process: https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#rec-track
16:07:48 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:07:54 <bbailey> From that 2.2 snapshot:  "A Candidate Recommendation Snapshot has received wide review, is intended to gather implementation experience, and has commitments from Working Group members to royalty-free licensing for implementations."
16:08:13 <Detlev> present+
16:08:22 <Heather> Kevin: Candidate recommendation snapshots and drafts are two variations of a candidate recommendation. Multiple versions of these may be published and have multiple layers of feedback. Draft means its ready for a wider community review and feedback.
16:08:33 <alastairc> Also worth noting that there is no "PR" stage anymore, so there are likely to be more CR drafts.
16:08:33 <hdv> (capital-P Process is what manages what different types of docs exist at W3C)
16:08:52 <julierawe> brb
16:08:55 <Heather> GreggVan: Needing more clarity on timing.
16:09:09 <bbailey> Here's the PR:  https://www.w3.org/news/2022/w3c-invites-implementations-of-wcag-2-2/
16:09:25 <bbailey> (Press Release, not pull request)
16:09:41 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #ag
16:09:41 <Heather> GreggVan: Goal is to have formal recommendation for WCAG 3 in the next 2 years.
16:09:49 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
16:09:53 <Heather> Kevin: yes, for wide, community review.
16:09:54 <julierawe> i'm back
16:10:26 <Heather> alastairc: It's expected that there are more candidate review documents within charters.
16:10:29 <bbailey> q+ to mention we did this for WCAG 2.2 -- if not other AG docs
16:10:34 <hdv> q+ to say what's in charter matches what's in process
16:10:38 <GreggVan> q+
16:10:46 <alastairc> ack bbailey
16:10:46 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention we did this for WCAG 2.2 -- if not other AG docs
16:11:06 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:11:06 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to say what's in charter matches what's in process
16:11:11 <Heather> bbailey: Process has been followed before with 'snapshot' - included links above.
16:12:20 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
16:12:29 <LoriO> present+
16:12:38 <Heather> GreggVan: What are the consequences, if any, of us failing to get to a candidate document in 2 years? Are we setting ourselves up for failure since there's so much left to do?
16:12:45 <hdv> q+
16:12:47 <alastairc> q+ alastairc
16:12:53 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:13:07 <sashanichols> sashanichols has joined #ag
16:13:35 <Heather> Kevin: Consequence isn't clearly defined within the process. Will follow up. There are approaches to that interns of extending the charter to address the deliverables, or accepting where you are at the time. May be a reason to re-charter.
16:13:39 <graham> graham has joined #ag
16:13:44 <graham> present+
16:14:09 <Wilco> +100 Gregg
16:14:50 <Heather> GreggVan: Concern is that we may set something that's way less than what we can reasonably achieve, and people might be mad at us because we aren't moving forward. Concerned about the reputation of the group. WCAG 3 is so important and he wants it to be a solid published recommendation.
16:14:51 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:15:03 <bbailey> Maybe a comparable snapshot:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/news/2025-08-19/act-rules-format-1.1-CR/
16:15:07 <janina> q+
16:15:32 <Heather> hdv: Dropped the link to the process in IRC. Includes terms, and process may be changed by the W3C Advisory Board.
16:15:35 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:16:03 <hdv> s/may be changed /is maintained continously/
16:16:25 <hdv> s/process/W3C Process (https://www.w3.org/policies/process/)/
16:16:31 <Heather> alastairc: As for the timeline, personal perspective is that WCAG 3 is 80% solid, and the last 20% is where refinement happens. Subgroup updates. One provision per person per subgroup per month will keep us on target.
16:16:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/10-ag-minutes.html hdv
16:16:53 <alastairc> ack janina
16:16:55 <Heather> alastairc: ... chairs continue to monitor progress, and it is a reasonable pace to make the timeline.
16:17:41 <hdv> +1 janina  (CG link: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/)
16:17:43 <Heather> janina: W3C process is defined in the document. There's a community group that people can join where the W3C process is discussed and edits are proposed. Janina is part of this community group.
16:17:56 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
16:18:07 <AlinaV> present+
16:18:11 <Detlev> Note to alastairc: there are lot of less active WG members so that distribution "1 req per person per month" may not work that easily
16:18:16 <Wilco> q+
16:18:24 <imirfan> imirfan has joined #ag
16:18:36 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:18:37 <Heather> alastairc: Clarified that WCAG 3 is moving forward in the defined Advisory Board process.
16:18:55 <Rachael> q+ to say there are two differences we are talking about
16:19:01 <Heather> Wilco: Sounds like a wide review draft, and not necessarily a CR. Why is this not a wide review draft? Why is the goal to go beyond that?
16:19:31 <kevin> q+
16:19:35 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:19:35 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say there are two differences we are talking about
16:19:39 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:19:42 <Heather> Rachael: Members have a different understanding of what a CR is. The schedule is aggressive. We prioritize provisions from WCAG 2.2.
16:20:03 <kevin> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#dfn-wide-review
16:20:55 <alastairc> Detlev - yep, we've got an editor group that is keeping an eye
16:21:08 <alastairc> q?
16:21:13 <scott> scott has joined #ag
16:21:14 <GreggVan> q+  to say   beed better title for 2.6         it kind of looks like
16:21:20 <Heather> Kevin: Replying to Wilco's comment, there's no such thing as a wide review draft, it's not a thing. As for Alistair's comment, yes, it is aggressive timeline, but it's doable. As for Greg's comment, we are always criticized for whatever we do. It is not a specific maturity stage.
16:21:27 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:21:27 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   beed better title for 2.6         it kind of looks like
16:22:34 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:22:34 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- ACT workshop https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17IPpA7IvvlI-MPeVdwepawr4OobBV0aV/edit?slide=id.p1#slide=id.p1 -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:22:36 <Heather> GreggVan: Different topic: Wording for the other activities need clarity.
16:22:42 <alastairc> zakim, take up item 1
16:22:42 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Subgroup updates -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:22:57 <kevin> GreggVan, I will change that for clarity
16:23:05 <Roland> Roland has joined #ag
16:23:14 <hdv> q+
16:23:16 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:23:20 <kevin> q+
16:23:21 <Heather> alastairc: Subgroup updates are next on the agenda. The facilitator for the subgroups are asked to go in queue, and provide a status update. Callout any blockers.
16:23:23 <Makoto_U> q+
16:23:26 <Rachael> q+
16:23:32 <julierawe> q+
16:23:34 <kevin> q+ to update on Sign Language
16:24:56 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:24:58 <Heather> alastairc: For the User Control and Prevent Harm subgroup. Tackling flashing, animation, and progress on updating the core normative text, flushing out the methods, and refining the tests. People came in and provide their lived experience that weren't covered in the current definitions, triggering research needed to define the intensity and speed
16:24:59 <Heather> and frequency. Working through member comments.
16:25:13 <Roland> present+
16:26:04 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
16:26:26 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
16:26:29 <Heather> hdv: For Error Task Completion and Help subgroup. Tackling definitions, shifted to addressing issues that were filed by our group. For example, saving progress when working on the form. No blockers at the moment. Will continue to go through issues.
16:27:06 <hdv> (Oh and forgot to say: if anyone wants to dive into Errors and task completion, my subgroup welcomes new members, do feel free to get in touch / join!)
16:27:06 <Heather> giacomo-petri: For User Orientation, Structure, and Layout. Worked on definitions, and now reviewing issues raised during the draft review.
16:27:13 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:27:13 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to update on Sign Language
16:28:13 <alastairc> ack Makoto_U
16:28:20 <Heather> Kevin: For Sign Language subgroup. Starting from a blank slate. We're dissecting user needs into requirements. We need to do more in terms of providing additional requirements to ensure they're covered. Blocker is that we have no one that uses sign language in our group. Two potential candidates.
16:29:56 <Atya> Atya has joined #ag
16:30:46 <Heather> Makoto_U: For Image and Mediate Alternatives subgroup. We have 38 requirements and assertions in total. Media has 14 requirements and assertions. Reviewing definitions and short names label. Two questions have been raised. Do we need to split some questions into available and equivalent? Addressing specific questions around the dependencies of the
16:30:46 <Heather> requirements to each other for speaker identified, language of speaker, etc.
16:30:50 <alastairc> q?
16:30:53 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:31:03 <kenneth> s/requirements to each/... requirements to each/
16:31:54 <Heather> Rachael: For Single Sense subgroup: Split up member assignments, and outreaching to offline members. Researching and shepherding research to make final decisions.
16:36:16 <alastairc> Francis: We have divided up all the relevant provisions into their guidelines. I asked, as homework, for subgroup members to pick a guideline or two to be responsible for and start work on, but only Adam has started that so far. The subgroup is meeting tomorrow, and I’ll re-emphasize that there is an expectation of asynchronous work between subgroup meetings.
16:36:17 <Heather> julierawe: Text and Wording Subgroup. Drafting, revising, and replacing definitions for terms. Working to understanding terms. Provided feedback to the AG chairs on the proposed definition of 'content' and inconsistencies throughout WCAG 3 in the way glossary terms are used in multi-word phrases that include the word 'content.' Beyond definitions,
16:36:17 <Heather> changes to provision types from core to supplemental based on the Oct WCAG 3 exercise, January survey, and comments from AG meetings for 3 requirements. Added GitHub issues to consider more provision-type changes. Also started internationalization work, and took over the text appearance section from another subgroup and are developing a plan to
16:36:17 <Heather> research metrics and which languages are included. Need time to ramp up that work and get the language metrics. Sub group members are not native speakers of those languages. Members are starting to claim individual provisions and getting that ramped up. Goal is to do asynchronous work to keep moving forward.
16:36:31 <kenneth> s/changes to provision types/... changes to provision types/
16:36:37 <kenneth> s/research metrics and/... research metrics and/
16:36:59 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:36:59 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, alastairc
16:37:03 <alastairc> q?
16:37:04 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:37:06 <Heather> alastairc: Input and Focus Group. Divided up the provisions and for members to pick a guideline they are responsible for, and work asynchronously.
16:37:09 <alastairc> zakim, take up item 2
16:37:09 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- ACT workshop https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17IPpA7IvvlI-MPeVdwepawr4OobBV0aV/edit?slide=id.p1#slide=id.p1 -- taken up [from alastairc]
16:37:31 <Heather> alastairc: ACT workshop handed to Jean-Yves.
16:37:35 <Heather> Jean-Yves
16:38:18 <Heather> Kevin: Recording this session so that people not present. Encourage people to raise questions in IRC. Starting recording.
16:38:19 <julierawe> Thank you for recording the ACT workshop!
16:40:10 <kevin> s/not present/not present can view the material/
16:40:20 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Introduced himself. Works at Site Improve in Denmark. Met some of members physically, and also active on Slack, and GitHub by the name of Jean77. Work at Site Improve in accessibility testing for 6.5 years. Knows how accessible name is computed, but not if it is descriptive or not.
16:40:41 <kevin> s/Jean77/Jym77
16:40:56 <Heather> Jean-Yves: ...Format definition.
16:41:15 <kevin> Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17IPpA7IvvlI-MPeVdwepawr4OobBV0aV/edit?slide=id.p1#slide=id.p1
16:41:21 <kevin> scribe+
16:41:27 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Important bits: Applicability, expectations, examples, and definitions.
16:41:40 <kevin> [Slide 5]
16:41:51 <kevin> [Slide 6]
16:42:40 <kevin> [Slide 7]
16:42:58 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Example: Image has name applicability and exception.
16:43:33 <julierawe> q+
16:44:15 <julierawe> Does ACT require that exceptions be included as part of applicability? We split them apart
16:44:51 <Heather> julierawe: Split apart 'applies when' and 'except when' - is this the correct format?
16:45:31 <Heather> Jean-Yves: format doesn't have this currently. it's a matter of presentation. we felt it wasn't needed. it's a matter of style of where it is put in the rule.
16:45:37 <Wilco> +1 "except when" fits perfectly well within applicability
16:45:47 <Heather> julierawe: Added this approach to be clear.
16:46:27 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Could have some presentation trick if it's very clear that we have a list of exceptions as the last part of the applicability, not in a separate section.
16:46:33 <alastairc> q?
16:46:36 <alastairc> ack julierawe
16:46:39 <kevin> [Slide 8]
16:46:48 <Heather> alastairc: Test will be more specific than the normative, so not worried about a difference at this stage.
16:47:52 <kevin> [Slide 9]
16:47:56 <kevin> [Slide 10]
16:48:29 <kevin> [Slide 11]
16:49:40 <Heather> Jean-Yves: ACT rules main principles: unambiguous. Example of title, doesn't tell what a title is. When we write a rule, we have to resolve the ambiguity
16:49:44 <kevin> [Slide 12]
16:51:48 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Secondary principles: avoid subjectivity when possible, keep rules simple and atomic. The rest of the rule must be clear. Be objective and unambiguous. For simple and atomic, split into smaller requirements, avoid a rule being required by another rules. Avoid multi-level logic.
16:51:54 <kevin> [Slide 13]
16:54:19 <kevin> [Slide 14]
16:54:19 <Heather> Jean-Yves: ACT Rules Limitations. First limitation is the focus on Web technologies, and later for mobile app, PDF, Word, etc. Definitions are different, techniques are different. Second limitation is that rules are not test procedures, so they don't tell you how to reach the conclusion, they just focus on the outcome. Describe what it means to
16:54:19 <Heather> pass the rule but it doesn't provide how you test (such as manual testers). Last, the rule is to detect failure, not for 'passing.'
16:55:55 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Rules can get very technical. Walked through an example of how something could become technical very quickly.
16:55:59 <kevin> [Slide 15]
16:56:09 <kevin> [Slide 16]
16:57:05 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Examples are part of a rule. Checked to verify their implementation. Testing technique types (manual, etc), agreement among examples.
16:57:11 <kevin> [Slide 17]
16:57:42 <kevin> [Slide 18]
16:58:26 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Testers can implement the rules. Vendors can send an implementation report. Shows they showcase that we are correctly following what is happening. Half a dozen tools are shown to show there is consistency on a specific rule and there is consensus.
16:58:28 <kevin> [Slide 19]
16:59:22 <Heather> @Jean-Yves: Backed by Examples. Results would provide an expected example. When we get to discussing if something needs to be changed or not in the rule, we have a very concrete and precise test case.
16:59:46 <kevin> s/@Jean-Yves/Jean-Yves/
16:59:49 <kevin> [Slide 20]
16:59:59 <kevin> [Slide 21]
17:01:19 <Heather> Jean-Yves: WCAG 3 work in practice. Work organization. It is the subgroup's responsibility to write the rule. The liaison will meet regularly with the group to answer questions during subgroup meetings. Format changes are possible, but changing it is complex.
17:01:29 <kevin> [Slide 22]
17:01:45 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
17:01:54 <Francis_Storr> present+
17:03:19 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Work focus. Only write rules for web technologies. There's a rule template to get things going. Suggest starting with authoring examples. Usually there are at least 2-3 examples for each rule. Full definitions can take a lot of time. Timeline is ambitious.
17:03:23 <kevin> [Slide 23]
17:04:31 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
17:04:46 <Jen_G> Present+
17:05:03 <Heather> Jean-Yves: Re-use existing work. Look at existing rules and existing definitions. Use the specifications in your definitions. When you write, use the specification to simplify the complex rules.
17:05:10 <kevin> [Slide 24]
17:05:28 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
17:05:28 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tayef
17:05:36 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
17:05:36 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Charu
17:05:48 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
17:05:48 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kevin
17:05:53 <alastairc> zakim, pick a scribe
17:05:53 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jtoles
17:06:25 <Daniel> scribe+
17:06:28 <Heather> scribe-
17:06:45 <LoriO> q+
17:06:53 <Daniel> alastairc: Rachael asks is there's a generic version for these requirements?
17:07:28 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: No, but we may be able to specify upon technologies, otherwise we are at the risk of being quite ambiguous
17:08:12 <Daniel> ... The important bit is for it to be unambiguous, if we can be unambiguous without bein tech-specific that's fine
17:08:16 <alastairc> ack LoriO
17:08:42 <Daniel> laura: If ACT is putting together the testing, why do we have a separate tests in WCAG 3?
17:09:01 <kenneth> q+
17:09:08 <kenneth> s/laura:/LoriO:/
17:09:53 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: Understanding documents came first. ACT was born to harmonize the tests, we need something more precise than current understanding documents
17:09:54 <kenneth> present+
17:10:38 <GreggVan> q+
17:10:47 <Daniel> alastairc: Both groups are in coordination
17:11:08 <alastairc> ack kenneth
17:11:09 <Daniel> ... In WCAG 3 wwe are defining top-level requirements, ACT has more granular tests, we're working our process
17:11:49 <Daniel> kenneth: In WCAG 2 (informative docs) we use mappings from ACT at the bottom of each SC understanding page. Not ssure if we'll be doing this for WCAG 3
17:11:57 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:12:14 <Daniel> alastairc: That's for you and Kevin to discuss
17:12:57 <Daniel> GreggVan: Would appreciate more guidance when we receive review requests from ACT, especially the ones at the edge
17:13:10 <Wilco> +1 good tip Gregg. Will keep that in mind
17:13:54 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: If there's a conflict between ACT Rules and WCAG 2, WCAG wins. There shouldn't be any conflicts. When something's not clear enough for us we do raise issues to WCAG
17:14:24 <Daniel> ... For WCAG 3 that might change a bit as my understanding is for the rules to be at the very core of the requirements
17:14:26 <alastairc> This is an example of where ACT has raised an issue to get clarification: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/4655
17:14:30 <alastairc> q?
17:14:45 <kevin> [Slide 25]
17:14:51 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: Difficulties we've encountered:
17:15:07 <Daniel> ... Assumptions -- usually a way to park some of the complicated edge-cases
17:15:21 <Daniel> ... A lot of nested "if" clauses may warrant an assumptions section
17:16:04 <Daniel> ... Two examples of assumptions are in the page language with exceptions for when the page language is set by http headers
17:16:10 <GreggVan> q+
17:16:40 <Wilco> Importantly, we know setting language through HTTP headers does not work
17:16:49 <Daniel> ... Another one on the title when it's not specified for the email subject in HTML
17:17:00 <alastairc> q+ on how accessibility supported intersects with this...
17:17:08 <Daniel> ... Consider using assumptions but don't use them if they are really part of the rule
17:17:26 <Wilco> q+ to respond to Gregg
17:17:27 <Daniel> GreggVan: 5% is about a billion pages
17:17:41 <Daniel> ... I am worried that there shouldn't be any assumptions
17:17:54 <Daniel> ... If you identify assumptions we should put them under "except" conditions
17:18:08 <Daniel> ... WCAG says: when this is true, you apply the rule
17:18:26 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: Fair point.
17:18:49 <Daniel> ... It is a matter of what we can test (talking as an automated test tool vendor)
17:19:24 <Daniel> ... Sometimes we just have acccess to the crowled pages
17:19:32 <alastairc> q-
17:19:36 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:20:03 <Daniel> ... We can put them in an "except-if" clause, but it's very difficult to ddescribe all the cases, for example, all the headers that exist
17:20:15 <Daniel> ... Some things are very difficult to express as part of the rules
17:20:39 <Rayianna> Rayianna has left #ag
17:20:50 <Daniel> ... In this case we are going to say that the page doesn't have a lang attribute, which is accurate, even if it has an http header defining the language
17:20:50 <Wilco> q-
17:21:09 <Wilco> q+ let me try then
17:21:34 <alastairc> q?
17:21:57 <Daniel> Wilco: It comes down to things that we rarely see in practice
17:22:20 <Daniel> ... More a theoretical issue
17:22:21 <julierawe> q+ about existing ACT rules — I'd like to ask this as soon as Jean-Yves finishes going over the last few slides.
17:22:31 <GreggVan> q+
17:22:36 <alastairc> q+ julierawe
17:22:59 <julierawe> q+ about existing ACT rules. I want to ask my question as soon as Jean-Yves finishes going over the last few slides.
17:23:00 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
17:23:22 <Daniel> GreggVan: We're talking about the things we can automatically test
17:23:50 <Daniel> ... Assumptions would be the things you need to manually check
17:24:11 <julierawe> q+ to ask Jean-Yves about existing ACT rules
17:24:21 <Daniel> ... We should figure out which ones to use in WCAG 3, I think preconditions are a better approach
17:24:49 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: Pretty much, few rules use assumptions, the goal is to be able to minimize their use
17:25:22 <kevin> [Slide 26]
17:25:49 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: Number of examples -- when there are few examples sometimes it means it can be ambiguous
17:26:37 <Daniel> ... We often add examples to record decisions (for instance empty headings) when we reach a conclusion we'll be adding examples to the relevant rule to illustrate
17:27:08 <Daniel> ... If you use too many exxamples then the rules may become unreadable
17:27:12 <alastairc> q+ to ask where the listing is, as each sub-group can find already-written rules that might be applicable...
17:27:23 <Daniel> ... It is a difficult balance, I think we need to decide on a case by case basis
17:27:36 <kevin> [Slide 27]
17:27:42 <Daniel> ... We may go with fewer examples for now as this project's got aggressive timelines
17:28:06 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: Rule don't distinguish between testing procedures (manual, automated or semi-automated)
17:28:13 <Daniel> ... But we do distinguish internally
17:28:27 <Daniel> ... So far we haven't been good at writing manual testing rules
17:28:55 <Daniel> ... With the level of expertise in the group it's been easier to focus on the technical part
17:29:02 <kevin> [Slide 28]
17:29:30 <alastairc> q+ to also mention "accessibility support sets"
17:29:31 <Daniel> ... Issues to keep up with evolving specifications -- example is combo box specs for ARIA
17:29:44 <Daniel> ... ARIA 1.2 is REC, but people are already using and implementing bits of 1.3
17:30:01 <Daniel> ... With HTML is more difficult, as it is a Living spec
17:30:34 <Daniel> ... We tend to signal the date when something is included to try to keep track of spec updates
17:30:45 <kevin> [Slide 29]
17:30:48 <kevin> [Slide 30]
17:31:05 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: Rules must be unambiguous, it can be difficult not to get into fine details
17:31:27 <Daniel> ... We need to know fairly fast the scope of the rule, definition, description, examples, expectations etc
17:31:36 <Daniel> ... Your ACT liaison will help
17:31:43 <julierawe> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/
17:31:43 <alastairc> ack julierawe
17:31:43 <Zakim> julierawe, you wanted to ask Jean-Yves about existing ACT rules
17:32:03 <Daniel> julierawe: I just pasted the link of the existing rules into IRC
17:32:29 <Daniel> ... There's 87 rule, 34 are approved, 35 are proposed, 15 are beyond WCAG, and there's a group for WAI-ARIA
17:33:16 <Daniel> ... This is all related to WCAG 2. A large number are still in the proposoed phase, and some aspects in WCAG 2 don't appear to be represented. Whic is the pace at which ACT has been working in WCAG 2? How do you see this translating into the WCAG 3 work?
17:33:56 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: ACAT has been working quitte slowly in the last couple of years. We were quite active in the 2019-2022 range, because of EC funds
17:34:14 <Daniel> ... We are now in a maintenance mode. For WCAG 3 we hope we can have new people and move faster
17:34:46 <Daniel> ... Not sure though about how fast we will be
17:35:23 <Daniel> ... The goal has neve been to stop at that point, it's just we are shifting to WCAG 3
17:35:48 <Daniel> ... For WCAG 2, we also want to change the approval process a little bit to make the process smoother
17:35:56 <alastairc> ack alastairc
17:35:56 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask where the listing is, as each sub-group can find already-written rules that might be applicable... and to also mention "accessibility support sets"
17:36:22 <Daniel> ... Implementations are a concern, our process asks for three implementations
17:36:38 <Daniel> alastairc: I just pasted some links for people to get started
17:37:21 <Daniel> ... So far they've been quite technical. A lot of sub groups may be using the format and focusing more on manual testing, maybe a little bit more generic. If that doesn't fit the format, we may want a different type of format
17:37:37 <Daniel> ... In WCAG 3 we have accessibility support sets
17:37:51 <Daniel> ... These would include most common ATs, browsers, etc
17:38:07 <Daniel> ... If we are proposing a method, it should work with the AT and user agents in that accessibility support sets
17:38:22 <Daniel> ... Do you think this impacts ACT rules?
17:39:20 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: We have the accessibility support concept, but it's different. It's more focused on whether some AT/browser combinations don't work in the expected behavior
17:39:52 <Daniel> ... We try to avoid putting exxamples that target this very problem, as these would throw different results depending on the combination used
17:40:42 <Daniel> ... Probably there needs to be more exhaustive documentation
17:41:12 <Daniel> ... To you point, I don't think this goes against our rules, it could make it even easier to write rules as we better scope the scenarios via accessibility support sets
17:41:38 <Daniel> alastairc: As a next steps, I'd propose that each sub groups takes this on at their next meeting
17:41:46 <Daniel> ... Will there be weekly sub group calls?
17:41:57 <Daniel> Jean-Yves: I think they'll be joining the meetings when they're needed
17:42:12 <Daniel> s/Will there be/Will liaisons be joining/
17:43:11 <Daniel> Wilco: Liaisons ans sub group leads will have to coordinate on when it would be worth for ACT liaissons to participate. Relevant intros would also be worthy
17:43:34 <Daniel> alastairc: Sounds good. Next probably three weeks that's going to be key
17:44:13 <bbailey> q+ to ask about template
17:44:18 <alastairc> ack bbailey
17:44:18 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask about template
17:44:25 <janina> q+
17:44:29 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JKjZOeFgNgwLLlNCxQMd5TgNkmetG7pNHF824xggH34/edit?tab=t.5ps3fi1qo2eh#heading=h.allk2i0wr14
17:44:35 <Daniel> ... We'll try to support that. We may use part of this very meeting in three weeks time to see how things are going
17:44:36 <alastairc> Templte ^
17:44:50 <Wilco> q+
17:44:58 <alastairc> ack Wilco
17:45:16 <Daniel> Wilco: We are going to look at that document in ACT this week, it may change
17:45:18 <alastairc> ack janina
17:45:29 <Francis_Storr> q+
17:45:38 <janina> Wanted to ask about recording availability
17:45:43 <Wilco> Thank you Jean-Yves for the presentation
17:45:47 <Francis_Storr> q-
17:45:52 <Daniel> janina: Recording availability?
17:45:58 <bbailey> that great -- i didn't realize we were already using ACT rule format outline !
17:46:07 <Daniel> alastairc: Kevin's going to put this in our google doc area and will send the link
17:46:28 <Daniel> Francis_Storr: Would be nice to get the link today for the sub group meetings tomorrow morning
17:46:39 <kirkwood> present+
17:46:45 <Daniel> present+
17:46:50 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:46:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/10-ag-minutes.html Daniel
17:47:00 <julierawe> q+
17:47:00 <alastairc> ack julierawe
17:47:08 <Daniel> julierawe: How soon can you send the recording?
17:47:22 <Daniel> kevin: I'll try to get it as soon as possible
17:47:30 <julierawe> Thank you kevin
17:47:37 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
17:47:47 <ShawnT> present+
17:47:48 <giacomo-petri> present+
17:47:51 <Daniel> ... No captions but we do have minutes, hopefully that fsuffies
17:47:53 <sashanichols> present+
17:48:05 <Daniel> rrsagen ,draft minutes
17:48:05 <jkatherman> jkatherman has left #ag
17:48:27 <kevin> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:48:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/10-ag-minutes.html kevin
17:49:28 <kenneth> s/rrsagen ,draft minutes//
17:49:37 <kenneth> s/fsuffies/suffices/
17:49:55 <kenneth> s/pass the rule but/... pass the rule but/
17:50:34 <kenneth> s/and frequency./... and frequency./
17:51:49 <kenneth> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:51:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/10-ag-minutes.html kenneth
18:01:51 <CClaire> CClaire has left #ag
19:17:11 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag