14:53:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:53:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/10-ag-irc
14:53:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:53:08 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:53:46 <alastairc> agenda?
14:54:19 <alastairc> agenda+ Assertions discussion https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
14:54:43 <alastairc> agenda+ Updates to ACT exercise https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1klORYoNQq3oDMJLc52q6Qf5gCTIcGHsm2kBbroj7bMM/edit?slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0#slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0
14:54:57 <alastairc> agenda+ Continued subgroup work
15:00:43 <ginader> ginader has joined #ag
15:00:49 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
15:01:09 <alastairc> agenda?
15:01:15 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:01:19 <alastairc> TOPIC: Intros and Announcements
15:01:45 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
15:01:49 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:02:04 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:02:09 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:02:34 <CClaire> present+
15:02:35 <tayef> tayef has joined #ag
15:03:00 <Heather> present+
15:03:09 <Charles> Charles has joined #ag
15:03:14 <Heather> scribe+
15:03:21 <Charles> present+
15:03:25 <kevin> present+
15:03:30 <tayef> present+
15:03:43 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:03:47 <julierawe> present+
15:03:54 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:03:57 <Charu> Charu has joined #ag
15:04:15 <kirkwood> present+
15:04:21 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:04:27 <Charu> present+
15:04:28 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:04:34 <Heather> alastairc: announcement - time zone changed in US; invites are based in Boston. Meeting time will be an hour earlier for a short period for some.
15:04:35 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:04:36 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:04:36 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Assertions discussion https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:04:36 <BrianE> present+
15:04:40 <Helen> Helen has joined #ag
15:04:45 <shadi> present+
15:04:49 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:04:50 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:04:55 <Helen> Present+
15:04:55 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:05:00 <stevef> present+
15:05:38 <chrisg> chrisg has joined #ag
15:06:27 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:07:09 <ShawnT> present+
15:07:42 <Heather> alastairc: Assertion discussion - assertion is a formal claim of fact attributed to a personal organization. WCAG 3.0 includes usability testing, style guides, process, and practice-oriented things. Information required for someone when they're making a claim is minimal. There has been questions around if organizations would be happy (willing) to
15:07:42 <Heather> do this. Assertions are similar to an accessibility conformance statement; asserting what does and doesn't conform. The question for today is "Would your organization and all the organizations that you work with be happy to include assertions in your ACR within an accessibility statement? If if not, why not?"
15:07:45 <chrisg> Present+
15:07:58 <kirkwood> No. It would no longer be a specification requirement.
15:08:29 <Heather> alastairc: Can you take the presentation and ask your legal team, or your clients, to find out what the status of this would be?
15:09:01 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:09:19 <LoriO> present+
15:09:48 <kirkwood> that assertion reads more like a requirment
15:10:15 <Heather> alastairc: example shown will start with requirements, and then the assertion. [Refer to slides shared]. Media assertion (part 1 and part 2)
15:11:09 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:11:21 <Jen_G> Present+
15:12:12 <jtoles> present+
15:12:18 <Heather> alastairc: Clear language requirement assertion example provided. Information in the claim in minimal, recommended internal documentation is a copy of the policy, or a proportion of authors who have completed the training, and a copy of the style guide, if any, where clear language review has been defined.
15:12:44 <kirkwood> Legally: Requirements are what the system must do, while Assertions are what we assume or verify to be true at a specific point in time.
15:13:14 <Heather> LoriO: Doesn't support this, any type of reporting would not put a huge burden on the group that has to do the reporting. The other part is that when you say title role or organization making the assertion. But I doubt that our legal department would be in favor of having specific organization within the company.
15:13:49 <Heather> alastairc: How does this differ than an organization publishing an ACR?
15:14:00 <Rachael> q+
15:14:14 <kirkwood> +1 to Lori
15:14:18 <kirkwood> q+
15:14:24 <Heather> LoriO: Internal documentation for bookkeeping, people shift around all the time, and the maintenance around this would be quite burdensome.
15:15:19 <shadi> q+
15:15:20 <Charles> q+ (2 different questions)
15:15:36 <alastairc> q+ Charles to ask 2 different questions
15:15:43 <Rachael> q-
15:15:54 <Heather> Rachael: Asking for thoughts or follow up today, the thought for how a large company would be able to create this today. How could you take this partial language?
15:16:34 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
15:16:45 <GN015> +1 to Lori
15:16:47 <Heather> LoriO: Talking about clear language assertion, our language in the ACR may have clear language. Does not see the value for these assertions.
15:17:55 <Heather> kirkwood: +1 to Lori, legally, the requirements were always put into the ACR requirements, or what a system must do.
15:18:14 <alastairc> scribe+ kirkwood
15:18:22 <Rachael> scribe+
15:18:22 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:18:23 <Heather> scribe--
15:18:25 <Heather> scribe-
15:19:00 <alastairc> q+ on voluntary assertions
15:20:01 <kirkwood> Shadi: assertions create requirments to create a conformance claim which would be an issue. ACR makes ense with a specific product but difficult with websites. if no central entitiy for company might not be possible. scope around defined web site needed as well.
15:20:22 <alastairc> ack Charles
15:20:22 <Zakim> Charles, you wanted to ask 2 different questions
15:20:22 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re division vs author training
15:20:31 <kirkwood> … cntral entity, and requirment to make public statement of some sort
15:21:09 <kirkwood> Charles: the format of info needed to be included publically specific to ACR? or howeber organization chooses? what suggesting?
15:21:46 <kirkwood> … Date of assertion, are we opening door for abuse. keep date current regardless of content
15:21:48 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:21:48 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on voluntary assertions
15:22:06 <scott> scott has joined #ag
15:22:14 <scott> present+
15:22:46 <kirkwood> AC: on date aspect, thinking behind that. WCAG assertion for exmample. It mkes sense in some cases.
15:23:12 <shadi> q+
15:23:43 <kirkwood> … on requiment if you are making conformance than these are thinking what yo need to do. if content meets and process meets these are good to do thats why we were including them
15:23:45 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:23:45 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss division vs author training
15:25:05 <kirkwood> Jennie: movement in US of clasification of data in differnet naes around roles, shift in identification on public page. legal says certian info on public page gives opportunity to make request date aurthor training could flag for government not do that
15:25:38 <kirkwood> … not wanting to hold individual reaponsible not organization
15:25:43 <GN015> q+
15:25:53 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:26:29 <alastairc> ack GN
15:26:29 <kirkwood> Shadi: info to be included publically should be info in conformance claim, is that correct?
15:26:43 <kirkwood> AC: yes
15:26:56 <kirkwood> Gundula: may not be connected at all
15:27:03 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:27:21 <kirkwood> … question to recommend colletion of data that may not be connected
15:27:30 <kirkwood> Lori: thats GDPR
15:27:30 <Azlan> present+
15:27:40 <Rachael> q+ to suggest breaking apart the conversation a bit
15:27:47 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:27:47 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest breaking apart the conversation a bit
15:27:48 <kirkwood> AC: my company doe it
15:28:03 <kirkwood> Gundula: it’s not vissible outside HR
15:28:46 <kirkwood> RM: it’s created a lot of concerns it seems. lets froam and talk about ACR
15:29:10 <LoriO> q+
15:29:27 <alastairc> ack LoriO
15:29:28 <kirkwood> AC: co making assertion, wether and how to have part of call level
15:29:42 <kirkwood> Lori: aren’t we already doing with ACRs?
15:29:53 <kirkwood> … name, date, publishing is all standard
15:29:59 <Rachael> q+ to answer Lori
15:30:09 <kirkwood> … concerned about increasing workload
15:30:29 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:30:29 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Lori
15:30:30 <kirkwood> … what value does it really give to users, what more than we have
15:30:55 <Charles> thought on ‘what value to user’. to me this seems similar to the iOS accessibility nutrition labels.
15:31:02 <kirkwood> RM: yes if assertions part of ACR, this is not about ACR, this is a procedulre you assert you did.
15:31:32 <kirkwood> RM: provide credit for procedure or prlocess
15:31:42 <kirkwood> prlocess/process
15:32:07 <kirkwood> … wouldn’t have to provide a date done separtely somhow
15:32:40 <shadi> q+
15:32:40 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:32:47 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:32:58 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:33:07 <kirkwood> AC: not just that bit extra, requirement things arn’t really objectively testable. putting into process is best way for recognizing this to be done
15:33:21 <kirkwood> Shadi: wonder if these are best examples to get done
15:33:46 <julierawe> q+
15:34:17 <kirkwood> … clear language example and media could be put into list too. this could also that these might not be best examples
15:34:37 <alastairc> ack julierawe
15:34:41 <kevin> q+
15:34:47 <kirkwood> Shadi: think this from COGA  needs maybe clear language could be best path
15:34:47 <kevin> q-
15:35:42 <shadi> q+
15:36:02 <kirkwood> Julie: registry might not be best, objective and relable test such as registry. exmaple of short paragraph in frnch versus other language. active passive difficult to make objectively testable.
15:36:23 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
15:36:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/10-ag-minutes.html laura
15:36:31 <kirkwood> … its more about process rather than objectively tesable
15:37:15 <kirkwood> Shadi: not sure might raise more concerns for me. having trained athors how to improve end user if not able to define it. plain language, clear language simple language differnet languages
15:37:28 <Rachael> q+
15:37:32 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:37:59 <kirkwood> … wondering if this is really been tested and mecoginism for training authors but haven’t shown improvement
15:38:02 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:38:03 <Heather> q+
15:39:26 <alastairc> q+ on gaming
15:39:59 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re contract
15:40:02 <kirkwood> RM: maybe we need to step backwards to assertions. meant to address situation of not immedialy verifiable. big ones, plain languagek, user testing, assistive techmology testing. Paticularly using registry but only thing can be that assertion was properly formatted. is it doable at core level. i’m hearing concerns
15:40:07 <alastairc> ack Heather
15:41:01 <kirkwood> HB: we tie oursleves it ITI think we have to decide where appear and what process is or testing criteria, if we could would we be willing to share if reqeusted
15:41:31 <kirkwood> … what attorneys need, coprotate and product. lot of differnt areas. as lori said its a heavy lift
15:41:47 <julierawe> q+
15:42:03 <kirkwood> … is it possible yes but what do we gain
15:42:04 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:42:04 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on gaming
15:43:04 <kirkwood> AC: about gaming following alt text style guide but failed requirments it would be obvios not following
15:43:56 <kirkwood> .. other aspect whats the benefit, while running accessibility training i do pause cognitive section. use simple plain language
15:44:08 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:44:08 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss contract
15:44:15 <kirkwood> … if chooosing be process by rewuirment
15:45:33 <shadi> q+
15:45:40 <alastairc> ack julierawe
15:45:45 <kirkwood> Jennis: i think they can be used together. having an asssertion atleast they are asserting that they are doing something. hafving that assertion present could idnetify one company’s reproting standardazid way. it is something thaaat realizaing COGA patterns i do support asserttions in a way legal doesn’t say they can’t be used
15:46:30 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:46:40 <kirkwood> JR: in cognitive area hope we can make assertions more comfortable for org to cover more cognitive territory in WCAG 3
15:47:04 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ to respond to Shadi
15:47:09 <kirkwood> Shadi: with one company asserts one and another assets another, doesn’t create confusion
15:47:14 <Heather> alastairc: We use ITI's VPAT templates: https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat
15:47:36 <alastairc> Oh, right, that is the VPAT template, sorry, forgot the org name
15:47:50 <alastairc> In which case, the assertions would appear in the same way as requirements.
15:47:55 <kirkwood> Jennie: many orgs will have a doc review process. if 2 companies assert same, each would have a process. upto the org
15:48:16 <alastairc> q?
15:48:17 <kirkwood> … some orgs would investigate more throughly than others
15:48:19 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:48:19 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to respond to Shadi
15:49:01 <kirkwood> AC: other end of procurement, one dies clear language another doesn’t
15:49:53 <Rachael> q+ to suggest an additional question
15:49:54 <ShawnT> Can we have the exact text we could share with our organizations?
15:49:59 <kirkwood> AD: homework can people to whomever signs off on accessiblity reports or legal with a couple of examples would make assertion. in conformance claims.
15:50:27 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re PDAA
15:50:35 <kirkwood> RM: would having info about recommended internal question. date to it would be good to know?
15:50:36 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:50:36 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest an additional question
15:50:45 <GN015> q+
15:51:22 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:51:22 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss PDAA
15:51:24 <kirkwood> AC question was added to slide deck
15:51:24 <Jennie_Delisi> PDAA: https://mn.gov/mnit/about-mnit/accessibility/pdaa-faq-companies-and-vendors.jsp
15:51:37 <Jennie_Delisi> Policy Driven Adoption for Accessibility
15:51:55 <kirkwood> Jennie: added plicy driven concept to suuplement what is in VPAT
15:52:12 <alastairc> ack GN
15:52:14 <kirkwood> s/plcy/policy
15:52:58 <kirkwood> Gundula: legal who reqweusts the test, who perfoms, don’t feel in postion to ask question, timeframe no less than 4 weeks
15:53:19 <kirkwood> AC: don’t know who
15:53:38 <kirkwood> Gundulu: to ask legal not person to contact legal
15:53:42 <kirkwood> q+
15:54:19 <kirkwood> AC: who whould we target?
15:54:42 <Rachael> q+
15:54:44 <ShawnT> I have a lot of organizations... (government departments).
15:54:52 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
15:55:09 <Rachael> kirkwood: The person to target is the digital accessibility director. It's often done in organizations, particularly if they were sued.
15:55:22 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:55:38 <kirkwood> RM: very valuable
15:55:56 <kirkwood> JK: the person to Asd is the Digital Accesibilty Director
15:55:56 <Charu> +1
15:56:00 <Charles> q+
15:56:02 <BrianE> +1
15:56:09 <alastairc> ack Charles
15:56:12 <kirkwood> RM: valuable convo to have if willing
15:56:22 <GN015> +1 to more information
15:56:50 <Rachael> +1 to that clarification
15:56:52 <kirkwood> Charles: inrtro of what assertions are and timeframe woud be preferred
15:57:05 <shadi> +1 to more information and complete examples
15:57:17 <kirkwood> AC: deadling for how doing assetions is couple of years but don’t wnat to was teim if a dead end
15:57:31 <alastairc> q?
15:57:39 <kirkwood> AC: examples are nearly complete but can add intro material
15:57:52 <shadi> q+
15:58:05 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:58:59 <kirkwood> examples are referring to WCAG 3 but many people can’t expect them to read 3 first just put in one to have discussion
15:59:17 <kirkwood> AC: they are copied out of wcag 3 for that purpose
15:59:34 <kirkwood> RM: we will add more context
15:59:39 <Rachael> q+
15:59:47 <Rachael> q-
15:59:51 <Heather> scribe+
16:00:11 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:00:15 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:00:15 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Updates to ACT exercise https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1klORYoNQq3oDMJLc52q6Qf5gCTIcGHsm2kBbroj7bMM/edit?slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0#slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0 --
16:00:18 <Zakim> ... taken up [from alastairc]
16:00:55 <Heather> Rachael: Questions came out of the ACT exercise. Tried to get to the point where we can clarify items for the whole group. The deck used before has been updated and hopefully answered questions.
16:02:28 <Heather> Rachael: When we talk about ACT Rules and procedures, they come at testing from a different point of view. A lot of the testing is the result from the user's point of view; whereas the ACT rule focuses on the content of the criteria. Generally, we need both; a clear, sufficient technology agnostic test, and we need ACT rules. both of those clarify
16:02:28 <Heather> and support requirements. ACT Rules are technology specific.
16:03:07 <ShawnT> present+
16:03:21 <Heather> Rachael: Test procedures are technology-agnostic, so they are covering not just a piece of the content. [Updates to the exercise are covered via slides]
16:05:13 <Heather> Rachael: Asking to draft 1-2 rules for each requirement (not 'all'). Procedures need to have the same level of clarity as ACT rules. They should be written in a way that is clear to everyone what passes and what fails. Next is to figure out what definition of done is, so that we can define the next two-year period for the upcoming charter. ACT
16:05:13 <Heather> rules are valuable for clarifying this work.
16:05:18 <alastairc> q?
16:06:50 <Heather> Rachael: ACT rules does not aim for sufficiency. Slide shows a 'Test procedure format (DRAFT)' to talk about the test. The test procedure is for 'each' instance of whatever is being tested. Showing a format that is being used consistently. Feedback from the group as people are working on it is welcome.
16:06:59 <alastairc> q?
16:07:24 <Heather> Rachael: Did this help clarify the questions we had last week? No one on queue.
16:07:47 <Heather> alastairc: This is the third or fourth week of going through this. Hopefully this has helped.
16:09:43 <Heather> alastairc: We have space and time for subgroup work now. Will open up the breakout rooms. Due to CSUN, attendance to this meeting is low. If you end up in a room by yourself, you can disconnect. If you need help, stick around, and Kevin can help direct you. In the bottom of zoom, there's a windows icon (or under the 'more' icon), there's a breakout
16:09:43 <Heather> room, choose the one you are a member of.
16:09:49 <Heather> scribe-
16:10:04 <alastairc> zakim, end meeting
16:10:04 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been filippo-zorzi, CClaire, Heather, Charles, kevin, tayef, julierawe, kirkwood, Charu, Laura_Carlson, BrianE, shadi, Helen, Jennie_Delisi,
16:10:07 <Zakim> ... stevef, ShawnT, chrisg, LoriO, Jen_G, jtoles, scott, Azlan, Francis_Storr
16:10:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:10:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/10-ag-minutes.html Zakim
16:10:14 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, alastairc; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:10:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
16:20:19 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:20:27 <Detlev> present+
16:20:49 <Detlev> I'm missing the correct link to the call...
16:21:32 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
16:21:46 <Ben_Tillyer> Detlev https://w3c.zoom.us/j/84711689311?pwd=enlmM0lveWZtd1JYT3VNS0ZyL3lxZz09
16:22:02 <GN015> present+