14:55:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:56:03 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/17-ag-irc
14:56:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:56:04 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:56:49 <Rachael> agenda+ Check in on ACT Exercise
14:56:57 <Rachael> agenda+ Top level exceptions (essential, duplicate)
14:57:04 <Rachael> agenda+ Assumption of user agents
14:57:10 <Rachael> agenda+ Accessibility Support Set
14:57:27 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:58:10 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
14:58:48 <alastairc> agenda?
14:59:10 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
14:59:13 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
14:59:21 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
14:59:23 <Heather> present+
14:59:36 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:00:00 <bbailey> present+
15:00:20 <Adam_Page> present+
15:00:57 <kevin> present+
15:01:50 <alastairc> present+
15:01:52 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:01:54 <hdv> present+
15:01:55 <Charles> Charles has joined #ag
15:02:04 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:02:05 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:02:07 <Charles> present+
15:02:15 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:02:15 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:02:15 <jedi> jedi has joined #ag
15:02:15 <hdv> hdv has joined #ag
15:02:15 <JeroenH> JeroenH has joined #ag
15:02:15 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #ag
15:02:15 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:02:15 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:02:15 <bwang> bwang has joined #ag
15:02:15 <alice> alice has joined #ag
15:02:15 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
15:02:22 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+
15:02:24 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:02:24 <Adam_Page> scribe: Adam_Page
15:02:31 <LenB> present+
15:02:36 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:02:41 <AWK> present+
15:02:43 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:02:57 <kevin> agenda?
15:02:59 <tayef> tayef has joined #ag
15:04:02 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:04:02 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
15:04:02 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:04:02 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:04:02 <jedi> jedi has joined #ag
15:04:02 <hdv> hdv has joined #ag
15:04:02 <JeroenH> JeroenH has joined #ag
15:04:02 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #ag
15:04:02 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:04:02 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:04:02 <bwang> bwang has joined #ag
15:04:02 <alice> alice has joined #ag
15:04:03 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:04:14 <alastairc> agenda?
15:04:18 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
15:04:18 <Wilco> present+
15:04:19 <BrianE> present+
15:04:24 <GreggVan> present+
15:04:24 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+
15:04:26 <CClaire> present+
15:04:30 <hdv> present+
15:04:35 <Rachael> present+
15:04:38 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:04:40 <alastairc> TOPIC: Announcements or introductions
15:04:41 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:04:41 <julierawe> present+
15:04:41 <tayef> present+
15:04:44 <Adam_Page> alastairc: any announcements or introductions?
15:04:48 <shadi> present+
15:05:02 <Adam_Page> ... one more week of time differences for non-US participants
15:05:11 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
15:05:14 <scott> scott has joined #ag
15:05:15 <Adam_Page> ... no other announcements from the chairs
15:05:18 <hdv> q+
15:05:24 <scott> present+
15:05:27 <stevekerr> stevekerr has joined #ag
15:05:37 <Adam_Page> alastairc: midpoint on wcag2issues email
15:05:40 <bbailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JanMar/0169.html
15:05:49 <Adam_Page> Patrick_H_Lauke: you’ve all got one week left to review issues that were sent last week
15:05:52 <Adam_Page> ... just a handful this time
15:05:57 <bbailey> WCAG 2 proposed changes (review by 23 March)
15:06:00 <Adam_Page> ... if you have feedback, please share
15:06:02 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:06:06 <Frankie> present+
15:06:06 <Adam_Page> ... before Monday of next week
15:06:09 <stevekerr> present+
15:06:10 <alastairc> q?
15:06:13 <alastairc> ack hdv
15:06:20 <Adam_Page> hdv: quick update on WCAG-EM
15:06:24 <Adam_Page> ... sent out an email a week ago
15:06:34 <Adam_Page> ... looking for feedback as we aim to transition from Draft Note to Note state
15:06:48 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:06:58 <Adam_Page> ... want to make sure we get feedback especially from people who’ve conducted or are involved with evaluations
15:07:00 <jtoles> present+
15:07:03 <Adam_Page> ... we presented about this at CSUN last week
15:07:12 <Adam_Page> ... got great feedback there, which is visible in GitHub comments
15:07:17 <Adam_Page> ... also want feedback from this group
15:07:40 <Adam_Page> ... 1.5 weeks more for this comment period
15:07:40 <Adam_Page> ... after that, we’ll do another call for consensus
15:07:52 <alastairc> q?
15:07:54 <Adam_Page> alastairc: I got about 30% through and have no feedback yet
15:08:00 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:08:00 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Check in on ACT Exercise -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:08:03 <hdv> email requesting feedback: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JanMar/0168.html
15:08:09 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:08:10 <Adam_Page> alastairc: check in on ACT exercise
15:08:17 <Adam_Page> Rachael: just a chance to ask questions
15:08:21 <Adam_Page> ... went over updates last week
15:08:39 <Adam_Page> ... want to see how groups are doing. Any questions or concerns?
15:08:40 <Detlev> q+
15:08:41 <alastairc> Slides from last week: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1klORYoNQq3oDMJLc52q6Qf5gCTIcGHsm2kBbroj7bMM/edit?slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0#slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0
15:08:47 <alastairc> ack Detlev
15:08:48 <Atya> Atya has joined #ag
15:09:05 <LoriO> present+
15:09:05 <Adam_Page> Detlev: doesn’t seem to be clear whether exercise is limited to web stack
15:09:18 <Adam_Page> ... or whether it should cast a wider net. Mobile apps, documents, etc.
15:09:40 <Adam_Page> ... makes a big difference in the approach
15:09:57 <Adam_Page> ... can you clarify?
15:10:09 <Adam_Page> Rachael: will share a slide that relates to this
15:10:25 <Gez> Gez has joined #AG
15:10:30 <Adam_Page> ... structure in WCAG 3 is Guidelines > [ Assertions, Requirements ] > Technology-specific methods
15:10:38 <Adam_Page> ... there will be a method for mobile, a method for documents
15:10:40 <Gez> present+
15:10:43 <Adam_Page> ... which will be technology-specific
15:10:48 <alastairc> Slide 10
15:11:05 <Adam_Page> ... we would like each group to, for each requirement, create one technology-specific ACT style test
15:11:06 <GreggVan> q+
15:11:07 <Adam_Page> ... starting with HTML
15:11:17 <Adam_Page> ... but if you want to do a mobile one, you can
15:11:40 <Adam_Page> ... and then use that to refine the requirement text and procedure text
15:11:40 <Adam_Page> ... with as much specificity as possible
15:11:50 <Adam_Page> ... informed by the exercise
15:12:01 <Adam_Page> ... start on slide 15
15:12:31 <LoriO> can someone share the link to the slides?
15:12:33 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:12:33 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
15:12:33 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:12:33 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:12:33 <jedi> jedi has joined #ag
15:12:33 <hdv> hdv has joined #ag
15:12:33 <JeroenH> JeroenH has joined #ag
15:12:33 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #ag
15:12:33 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:12:33 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:12:33 <bwang> bwang has joined #ag
15:12:33 <alice> alice has joined #ag
15:12:47 <Adam_Page> alastairc: we will focus on more tests than HTML, but we chose HTML to start since it’s familiar
15:13:01 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
15:13:02 <Adam_Page> ... we’re just looking for between 1 and 3
15:13:07 <Adam_Page> ... the aim is to dig into the wording
15:13:10 <Adam_Page> ... the definitions of things
15:13:23 <Heather> present+
15:13:23 <bbailey> q+ to ask about slide 10 -- technology agnostic
15:13:26 <AWK> q+ to ask about rule granularity
15:13:34 <alastairc> ack bb
15:13:34 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask about slide 10 -- technology agnostic
15:13:40 <Adam_Page> ... and use that process to update both the test procedure and the actual requirement itself
15:13:40 <Adam_Page> bbailey: back on slide 10
15:13:48 <Adam_Page> ... where does the test procedure go?
15:13:49 <Heather> q+ to ask about if the list of technologies has been defined
15:13:57 <LoriO> q+
15:14:03 <Adam_Page> alastairc: immediately beneath Requirements (just updated slide)
15:14:05 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:14:10 <LoriO> q-
15:14:56 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: Test Procedure is under Requirement, and then ACT style is under technique
15:15:10 <Adam_Page> ... so you’re looking for two kinds of tests?
15:15:12 <Adam_Page> Rachael: yes
15:15:35 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:15:41 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:16:00 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: Methods are similar to WCAG 2’s techniques
15:16:37 <Rachael> q+
15:16:48 <Adam_Page> alastairc: techniques are the most granular thing
15:17:04 <SydneyColeman> SydneyColeman has joined #ag
15:17:13 <SydneyColeman> present+
15:17:40 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: I think the ACT style tests should be tagged as “sufficient” or “partial”
15:17:59 <Adam_Page> ... to clarify whether it meets the requirement fully or partially
15:18:12 <Rachael> q-
15:18:12 <alastairc> ack AWK
15:18:13 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask about rule granularity
15:18:17 <Adam_Page> alastairc: yes, we’ll need to be clear — where that actually sits, we’re still working on that
15:18:33 <Adam_Page> AWK: I’m working on one around speaker identification in the media section
15:18:42 <alastairc> s/we’ll need to be clear /we’ll need to be clear on partial and sufficient
15:18:42 <Adam_Page> ... the procedure for a lot of that is technology-independent
15:18:54 <Adam_Page> ... because it’s just whether the info about who‘s speaking is present
15:18:56 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:18:58 <Adam_Page> ... in, say, the captions file
15:19:04 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:19:21 <Adam_Page> ... my second question is around granularity
15:19:40 <Adam_Page> ... if we’re talking about the provision of captions
15:20:25 <Adam_Page> alastairc: the test procedure is your top-down “as a user” — what procedure would I use agnostic of technology to determine whether the provision is satisifed
15:20:34 <alastairc> q?
15:20:42 <alastairc> ack Heather
15:20:42 <Zakim> Heather, you wanted to ask about if the list of technologies has been defined
15:20:44 <Adam_Page> ... the ACT rules are much more granular to dig in on exactly what passes and fails
15:21:07 <Adam_Page> Heather: is there a definitive list of technologies published?
15:21:08 <alastairc> q?
15:21:15 <Adam_Page> alastairc: not yet, but that is a topic for later
15:21:20 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:21:20 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Top level exceptions (essential, duplicate) -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:21:43 <Adam_Page> Rachael: please review slides 15 through 19 again
15:22:01 <Adam_Page> Rachael: we’re going to pivot to a top-level topic of “Exceptions”
15:22:04 <Adam_Page> ... touched on this 5 months ago
15:22:07 <Adam_Page> ... got some pushback
15:22:12 <Adam_Page> ... wanted to come back and talk about it in a broader sense
15:22:17 <Adam_Page> ... see where people stand
15:22:22 <Adam_Page> ... will mainly lean on WCAG 2 to start with
15:22:29 <Adam_Page> ... hope to timebox to 30 minutes
15:22:38 <Adam_Page> ... in WCAG 2, we have a few things that apply more or less universally
15:22:44 <Adam_Page> ... like “Conforming Alternate Version”
15:22:57 <Adam_Page> ... (slide 3)
15:23:16 <Adam_Page> ... if you have a CAT, you conform
15:23:40 <Adam_Page> ... do we want to carry this forward in WCAG 3 as a concept
15:23:40 <Adam_Page> ... we also have a concept of “equivalent”
15:23:53 <Adam_Page> ... “equivalent purpose”, “equivalent information”, etc.
15:23:59 <Adam_Page> ... but we also use it as an exception
15:24:01 <Adam_Page> ... in more recent SC
15:24:05 <Adam_Page> ... such as Target Size
15:24:32 <Adam_Page> ... “if the target is available through an equivalent link or control on the same page”, then it’s a valid exception
15:24:33 <GreggVan> q+
15:24:39 <Adam_Page> ... on slide 5
15:24:40 <Detlev> Could someone post the link to the current presentation?
15:24:43 <Adam_Page> ... we also have “essential”
15:24:57 <Adam_Page> ... “if it were removed, it would fundamentally change the content”
15:25:03 <Adam_Page> ... we use it in 2.2.3 around Timing
15:25:09 <alastairc> Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Vov5k9XXlQSy7AtVuBVQvhSMDIOPA0kj69xJoq71BSQ/edit?slide=id.g3d044950233_0_96#slide=id.g3d044950233_0_96
15:25:11 <Adam_Page> ... but often we use it as an exception
15:25:38 <hdv> q+ to comment on a conforming alternate version and 'essential'
15:25:40 <Adam_Page> ... in 1.4.5, “a particular presentation of text is essential”
15:25:40 <Adam_Page> ... path-based gestures
15:25:40 <Adam_Page> ... and so on
15:25:40 <Adam_Page> ... the concept of “essential” exceptions
15:25:45 <Detlev> say access denied?
15:25:47 <Adam_Page> ... question to the group: do we want to carry this forward as well?
15:25:49 <Detlev> says
15:25:59 <Adam_Page> ... also want to touch on “equivalents”
15:26:06 <Adam_Page> ... (slide 6)
15:26:17 <Adam_Page> ... a map can be controlled by click & scroll, but also by accessible buttons by the side
15:26:20 <Adam_Page> ... so our question today
15:26:30 <alastairc> q+ on the examples
15:26:32 <Charles> q+
15:26:36 <Adam_Page> ... do we want to bring these forward to WCAG 3?
15:26:40 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:27:06 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: I worry some things lend themselves to equivalents or exceptions, and some things don’t
15:27:18 <Adam_Page> ... yes, we should explore it as global, but we should go to each individual item to see if it’s necessary
15:27:35 <alastairc> q+ to also say how we've used methods to explain this
15:27:40 <Adam_Page> ... it’s very open to abuse
15:27:42 <Adam_Page> ... for example an artist might try to argue that a particular presentation is essential
15:27:52 <Adam_Page> ... so the word “essential” can be misused
15:27:59 <Adam_Page> ... the “equivalent” I’m also a little worried about
15:28:30 <Adam_Page> ... for example, the Target Size exception could be abused
15:28:40 <Charles> i am thrilled by how many of us first ask ‘how can this be abused?’
15:28:45 <Wilco> q+
15:28:48 <Adam_Page> ... a big Submit button in the conventional place but that fails target size
15:28:53 <alastairc> ack hdv
15:28:53 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to comment on a conforming alternate version and 'essential'
15:28:58 <Adam_Page> hdv: regarding CAT
15:29:06 <Adam_Page> ... I think it would be great to explore that for WCAG 3
15:29:08 <Adam_Page> ... useful concept
15:29:09 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
15:29:13 <Adam_Page> ... we don’t see it a lot
15:29:17 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #ag
15:29:22 <Jon_Avila> present+
15:29:22 <Adam_Page> ... most people make their original version conformant
15:29:50 <Adam_Page> ... we did a survey and discovered not many people have used a CAT, but we still think it’s a useful concept
15:30:23 <Adam_Page> ... regarding “essential”
15:30:28 <bbailey> q?
15:30:28 <Adam_Page> ... think it’s helpful
15:30:37 <Adam_Page> ... sure, it’s prone to abuse, but there are genuine use cases
15:30:40 <Adam_Page> ... makes rules much easier to write
15:31:14 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:31:14 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:31:14 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
15:31:14 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #ag
15:31:14 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:31:14 <jedi> jedi has joined #ag
15:31:14 <hdv> hdv has joined #ag
15:31:14 <JeroenH> JeroenH has joined #ag
15:31:14 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #ag
15:31:14 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #ag
15:31:14 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:31:14 <bwang> bwang has joined #ag
15:31:14 <alice> alice has joined #ag
15:31:15 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:31:21 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:31:21 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the examples and to also say how we've used methods to explain this
15:31:23 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q?
15:31:31 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:31:37 <shadi> q+
15:31:39 <Adam_Page> alastairc: wanted to mention about examples
15:31:39 <Adam_Page> ... for “equivalents”
15:31:45 <Adam_Page> ... when I first started using WCAG 2
15:31:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/17-ag-minutes.html hdv
15:31:55 <Adam_Page> ... I hadn’t really gotten that CAT could be within page
15:32:07 <Adam_Page> ... because it’s written to suggest it’s entirely separate
15:32:17 <Adam_Page> ... but later learned it could be on the same page
15:32:42 <Adam_Page> ... for example a pointer gesture with an equivalent operation
15:33:04 <Adam_Page> ... another example is text embedded in an image, but also included in plain text beneath the image
15:33:15 <Adam_Page> ... for “essential”
15:33:21 <Adam_Page> ... in my subgroup, with flashing and animation
15:33:40 <Adam_Page> ... we’re needing to add an essential exception to everything
15:33:41 <Adam_Page> ... for example, a news conference with lots of flash photography
15:33:44 <Adam_Page> ... it’s unavoidable
15:33:51 <Adam_Page> ... so instead we must warn users about it
15:33:58 <Adam_Page> ... what we have done is add methods for each
15:34:02 <Patrick_H_Lauke> "essential" to me needs to exclude subjective "because the author wanted to do it that way"
15:34:04 <bbailey> +1 that CAV being on-the-same-page is subtle (e.g. mouse-only calendar date picker widget with integrated text-entry option)
15:34:09 <Rachael8> Rachael8 has joined #ag
15:34:11 <alastairc> q?
15:34:13 <Adam_Page> ... and that method outlines what we would and would not consider “essential” for that context
15:34:14 <alastairc> ack Charles
15:34:33 <Adam_Page> Charles: I heard the question as “do we want to bring these 3 concepts forward”
15:34:36 <Patrick_H_Lauke> (had similar discussions around essential exception for orientation ... where "we designed it to only work in landscape" is not a valid essential exception)
15:34:40 <Adam_Page> ... to answer that question, each one has a giant “it depends”
15:34:44 <Adam_Page> ... we’ve just heard a few
15:34:54 <shadi> +1 to it depends
15:35:00 <Patrick_H_Lauke> it depends(tm)
15:35:02 <Adam_Page> ... e.g., the CAV being on the same page
15:35:09 <Adam_Page> s/CAT/CAV/
15:35:40 <Adam_Page> ... to hdv’s comment on the original version being the one that conforms
15:35:40 <Adam_Page> ... if the default is the accessible version
15:35:40 <Adam_Page> ... and the CAV is not
15:35:55 <Adam_Page> ... that’s a concept that’s worth preserving
15:35:58 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/css/C29
15:36:01 <alastairc> q+ on customisation vs the original
15:36:08 <Adam_Page> ... but it defies what we’re currently saying in the definition of CAV
15:36:23 <Adam_Page> ... that’s the concept that I‘m not comfortable persisting
15:36:34 <AWK> You'll never be able to be assured that people arrive at one version or the other
15:36:34 <Adam_Page> alastairc: we can clarify that
15:36:40 <alastairc> ack Wilco
15:36:44 <Adam_Page> Wilco: I like this idea
15:36:47 <Adam_Page> ... a lot of value
15:36:53 <Adam_Page> ... worth exploring how to refine and do a better job
15:37:09 <Adam_Page> ... often, the default is “the right thing”
15:37:40 <Adam_Page> ... another thing that comes to mind is WCAG 2 doesn’t say the CAV needs to be in the same *language*, which is odd to me
15:37:44 <Adam_Page> ... doesn’t say it needs to be in the same format
15:37:47 <Heather> q+ to mention conforming equivalent use case: export functionality of different file types
15:37:49 <Charles> essentially “non-conforming alternate” is acceptable
15:37:57 <Adam_Page> ... for example, a video shouldn’t be permitted as conforming alternate
15:38:22 <Adam_Page> ... games on the web are another interesting case
15:38:24 <AWK> conforming alternate version
15:38:24 <AWK> version that
15:38:24 <AWK> conforms at the designated level, and
15:38:24 <AWK> provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language, and
15:38:25 <Jon_Avila> People sometime want the conforming alternative of an interactive course to be a PDF document.
15:38:46 <alastairc> ack Patrick_H_Lauke
15:39:29 <Jon_Avila> I agree we need an allowance for an alternative.  We also need some allowance for "essential".
15:39:37 <Adam_Page> Patrick_H_Lauke: more important than whether the CAV is on the same page is to have a higher-level statement
15:39:37 <Adam_Page> ... product-wide or site-wide
15:39:39 <bbailey> Definition for CAV does include "in the same human language"
15:39:41 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-conforming-alternate-versions
15:39:43 <Adam_Page> ... a user must be able to get to the same or equivalent content and achieve the same result
15:39:43 <Rachael> q+ to say I would like this to be more visible
15:39:47 <Adam_Page> ... certain functionality that’s provided
15:39:52 <Adam_Page> ... they can get to the same end result
15:40:07 <alastairc> qv?
15:40:09 <Adam_Page> ... then it’s irrelevant whether it’s on exactly the same page or a separate site
15:40:10 <Charles> +1 to achieve the same result
15:40:28 <Adam_Page> ... having a holistic view of the entire thing you’re assessing
15:40:34 <Adam_Page> ... can any kind of user get to the same end result
15:40:38 <Adam_Page> ... rather than being too specific
15:41:03 <Azlan> present+
15:41:31 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:41:39 <Adam_Page> ... must also reconcile that it needs to be “as prominent”, but that gets tricky
15:41:39 <Adam_Page> shadi: agree with Patrick_H_Lauke
15:41:40 <giacomo-petri> +1 to patrick
15:41:54 <Adam_Page> ... CAV came from times when SVG and other technologies weren’t yet available
15:41:58 <AWK> q+
15:42:06 <Adam_Page> ... so you’d have a second page to describe complex information
15:42:34 <Charles> q+
15:42:48 <Adam_Page> ... today we also have “modes of operation”, such as dark mode
15:43:02 <Adam_Page> ... but yes, it depends
15:43:20 <Adam_Page> ... will need deep dives on a case-by-case basis
15:44:07 <Adam_Page> ... in a complex system with components, one thing on its own might not meet requirements, but the *whole* thing collectively might meet requirements
15:44:09 <Patrick_H_Lauke> i did like alastc's earlier take that "essential" should be more along the lines of "unavoidable" (due to technical limitations, or the intrinsic nature of a particular content/functionality/experience)
15:44:18 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:44:18 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on customisation vs the original
15:44:19 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re use case example for employee and supervisor
15:44:23 <Patrick_H_Lauke> +1 to a more generalised "achieving the same result"
15:44:28 <Adam_Page> alastairc: on the customization bit that Charles raised
15:44:36 <Adam_Page> ... noted that the default thing *should* be the accessible one
15:44:51 <Patrick_H_Lauke> "default needs to be accessible" won't fly with content authors though
15:44:53 <alastairc> ack Heather
15:44:53 <Zakim> Heather, you wanted to mention conforming equivalent use case: export functionality of different file types
15:45:10 <Adam_Page> Heather: one use case is exporting payroll data from enterprise software
15:45:15 <Adam_Page> ... there may be 4 or 5 export options
15:45:39 <Adam_Page> ... right now, you only need to make *one* of those accessible
15:45:41 <Adam_Page> ... which one would be the default? is my question
15:45:42 <Patrick_H_Lauke> the whole reason why there might be alternatives/customisations is often that the "default" is the "sexy/fancy/etc" one that marketing/CEOs/designers want to provide
15:45:47 <graham> graham has joined #ag
15:45:53 <Adam_Page> ... and how do you communicate to the user which versions are and are not accessible
15:45:53 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to communication of which version is accessible to user
15:45:56 <Patrick_H_Lauke> and/or the one that works "for the majority of users"
15:45:57 <alastairc> q?
15:45:57 <graham> present+
15:45:59 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:45:59 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say I would like this to be more visible
15:46:02 <Adam_Page> Rachael: chair hat off
15:46:09 <Adam_Page> ... CAV is very powerful in WCAG 2
15:46:11 <Adam_Page> ... and not very visible
15:46:15 <Adam_Page> ... toward the bottom of the document
15:46:26 <Adam_Page> ... I would like to make it more visible
15:46:37 <Adam_Page> ... perhaps there’s a candidate here for an assertion
15:46:41 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
15:46:48 <alastairc> ack AWK
15:46:55 <Adam_Page> AWK: agree with Rachael
15:47:04 <Adam_Page> ... do think it‘s worth reading closely the definition of CAV
15:47:11 <Adam_Page> ... it does in fact say you need to have the same human language
15:47:40 <Adam_Page> ... and a whole section on reaching the conforming version from the non-conforming version, and vice versa
15:47:40 <Adam_Page> ... do think it’s an important concept for us to have
15:47:40 <Adam_Page> ... will always be new technologies
15:47:46 <Adam_Page> ... augmented reality, for example
15:47:52 <Adam_Page> ... we’d probably need a CAV
15:47:54 <shadi> +1
15:47:58 <alastairc> ack Charles
15:48:20 <Wilco>  /me My bad about same language. I stand corrected. Thanks AWK!
15:48:30 <Rachael> Slide deck for March 17 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Vov5k9XXlQSy7AtVuBVQvhSMDIOPA0kj69xJoq71BSQ/edit
15:48:36 <Adam_Page> Charles: prominence is subjective
15:48:40 <Adam_Page> ... for things like equivalent purpose
15:48:40 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:48:42 <Patrick_H_Lauke> yes t'was me
15:48:44 <Adam_Page> ... target size, for example
15:48:57 <Adam_Page> ... 2 components that do the same thing on the same page, 1 meets target size, the other doesn’t
15:48:57 <AWK> @rachael deck not shared
15:49:08 <Adam_Page> ... but the one that fails actually passes because of the other one
15:49:22 <Adam_Page> ... instead, how about a concept of “number of instances”
15:49:40 <Adam_Page> ... that might be a better mark than prominence
15:49:44 <alastairc> q?
15:49:47 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:49:47 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss use case example for employee and supervisor
15:50:06 <Adam_Page> Jennie_Delisi: one use case that we often encounter where we have to discuss this is if an application is used to train truck drivers or snow plow drivers
15:50:17 <Adam_Page> ... but the supervisor is not able to have all their senses employed to do the application
15:50:20 <Adam_Page> ... but they don’t actually do that job
15:50:26 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:50:35 <bbailey> @Wilco -- it's problematic that it is easy to overlook the "same language" requirement (and other details)
15:50:35 <Adam_Page> ... e.g., a supervisor can be blind and not drive a snow plow, but manage snow plow drivers
15:50:48 <Adam_Page> ... if a supervisor has a performance issue that they need to evaluate based on training of snow plow drivers
15:50:52 <stevef> present+
15:51:06 <Adam_Page> ... equivalent use could be in a transcript form, but it might not be equivalent *enough* to determine essential duties
15:51:35 <Charles> so, “to whom is it equivalent?”
15:51:40 <Adam_Page> ... just because the person is not the end user that is imagined, that doesn’t mean that the equivalent use case can be scoped in a similar way
15:51:42 <alastairc> q?
15:51:45 <alastairc> ack Patrick_H_Lauke
15:51:57 <alastairc> zakim, close the queue
15:51:57 <Zakim> ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is closed
15:52:02 <Adam_Page> Patrick_H_Lauke: it could also be this idea of alternatives
15:52:05 <Adam_Page> ... “version” is a bit loaded
15:52:18 <Adam_Page> ... in contrast to the default
15:52:40 <shadi> q+
15:52:52 <Adam_Page> ... the idea that the default should be the one that’s always accessible is idealistic
15:53:18 <Adam_Page> ... but in reality the default often targets the “majority” of users and is optimized for that
15:53:40 <Adam_Page> ... and the alternative is presented for “everyone else”
15:53:54 <Adam_Page> ... instead of “version”, could we riff on the idea of “modality” instead
15:54:01 <Adam_Page> ... different modalities that serve different user needs
15:54:08 <shadi> +1 to exploring concept of "modality"
15:54:08 <imirfan> imirfan has joined #ag
15:54:26 <Adam_Page> ... e.g., things that can adapt to different user needs
15:54:35 <shadi> +1 to adaptability too
15:54:52 <Adam_Page> Rachael: we’ve captured a number of ideas from this discussion
15:54:57 <Adam_Page> ... need to add “modality” to that list
15:54:59 <Adam_Page> ... next steps
15:55:04 <Adam_Page> ... will put these up on GitHub for discussion
15:55:12 <Adam_Page> ... and draft Google Doc for async collaboration
15:55:20 <Adam_Page> ... and then bring back in a few weeks for further discussion
15:55:36 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:55:36 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Assumption of user agents -- taken up [from Rachael]
15:55:40 <Adam_Page> ... set up a subgroup if necessary
15:55:42 <Adam_Page> ... but hope to avoid that, for efficiency
15:55:42 <Adam_Page> ... will send out an email with links
15:55:55 <Adam_Page> alastairc: we’ve discussed this topic a few times
15:56:07 <Adam_Page> ... (slide 9)
15:56:12 <Rachael> q?
15:56:14 <Adam_Page> ... in WCAG 2, we did assume there is a user agent
15:56:26 <Adam_Page> ... things like text spacing
15:56:29 <Adam_Page> ... basically assume a browser
15:56:42 <Adam_Page> ... and that the user could make adjustments to visual text attributes
15:56:56 <Adam_Page> ... but regulators have now applied WCAG 2 in places with do *not* include a user agent
15:57:04 <Adam_Page> ... and WCAG 3 aims to be more widely applicable
15:57:08 <Adam_Page> ... so it’s a widening of scope
15:57:14 <Adam_Page> ... still assuming digital interfaces
15:57:18 <Adam_Page> ... not trying to get into hardwarew
15:57:40 <Adam_Page> s/hardwarew/hardware/
15:57:40 <Adam_Page> ... still assuming a platform underneath, just not assuming a user agent
15:57:42 <Adam_Page> ... that’s the background
15:57:44 <Patrick_H_Lauke> platform: either the user agent (when web content in a browser) or OS (when a native application)
15:57:51 <Adam_Page> ... a few examples
15:57:57 <Adam_Page> ... (slide 10)
15:58:23 <Adam_Page> ... keyboard operable doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a keyboard
15:58:35 <Adam_Page> ... pointer input is another
15:58:38 <AWK> +1 to Patrick's suggestion. User agent is broad enough that it means this anyway "any software that retrieves and presents web content for users"
15:58:44 <Adam_Page> ... hue not relied on
15:59:05 <Adam_Page> ... (slide 11)
15:59:14 <Adam_Page> ... in WCAG 3, we do have requirements currently where user agents are assumed
15:59:19 <Patrick_H_Lauke> AWK problem is "user agent" in W3C web standards parlance is usually "browser"
15:59:21 <Adam_Page> ... default focus indicator, for example
15:59:40 <Adam_Page> ... (slide 12)
15:59:52 <Adam_Page> ... there are some things where it will be straightforward to use “applies when”
16:00:10 <Adam_Page> ... to say “one or more platforms in a11y support set” when there *is* a user agent
16:00:17 <Adam_Page> ... need to think about when there isn’t a user agent
16:00:26 <Patrick_H_Lauke> afraid i need to drop, but i'll throw in a sideway: Point of Sale (POS), or even trying to evaluate actual OSs themselves
16:00:33 <Patrick_H_Lauke> closed systems
16:00:35 <Adam_Page> ... even for this example, we can narrow it down
16:00:41 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has left #ag
16:00:43 <Adam_Page> ... (slide 13)
16:00:44 <hdv> scribe+
16:00:46 <alastairc> q?
16:00:46 <Detlev> Has a working link to the current presentation Benn posted 8I was kicked out of IRC). The last link leads to "access denied"
16:00:47 <AWK> Patrick_H_Lauke sure, and the UA def doesn't address native mobile apps since references "web content"
16:01:19 <Rachael> q+ to speak to Patrick's points
16:01:22 <Charles> q+
16:01:33 <hdv> alastairc: question to the group: think about subgroup's provisions and think about examples of where generalisation is tricky
16:01:47 <hdv> alastairc: or are there requirements missing because we assumed user agents?
16:01:54 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:01:54 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to Patrick's points
16:02:04 <hdv> alastairc: and maybe there are other strategies for generalisations
16:02:05 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:02:30 <bbailey> q+
16:02:32 <hdv> Rachael: Patrick asked about evaluating POS systems
16:02:34 <alastairc> ack Charles
16:03:08 <hdv> Charles: not sure if this came up before, but do we need to update the definition of user agents now that there are “agentic” user agents that apply heuristics differently?
16:03:11 <GreggVan> q+
16:03:14 <alastairc> q+ on agentive user-agents
16:03:22 <bbailey> q+ to mention that evaluating POS requires access to source code
16:03:26 <alastairc> ack bbailey
16:03:26 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention that evaluating POS requires access to source code
16:03:29 <hdv> Charles: for instance if I use a browser based on past behaviour vs based on standards built on standards
16:04:02 <Jon_Avila> It seems like if we want to cover platforms themselves - we'd need to have additional requirements for platform.
16:04:09 <alastairc> q+ on testing without source code accesss
16:04:18 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:04:21 <hdv> bbailey: re evaluating POS… one of the unwritten assumptions in WCAG is that the auditor can do it on the surface… without priviliged access. Are we aiming for the same in WCAG 3?
16:05:06 <hdv> GreggVan: interesting question re user agents… we need to divide accessibility support into two categories: browser support and AT support. Reasons include AT support is trickier, not everyone can afford it and can't always install it on public computers.
16:05:18 <Jon_Avila> For closed functionality - standards such as EN301549 revert to testing speech output, etc. rather than programmatically availability of information.
16:05:38 <hdv> GreggVan: if we divide between browser supported and AT supported, we can solve the problem of the user agent
16:06:03 <bbailey> s/auditor can do it on the surface/auditor can work from source code/
16:06:23 <Frankie> +1 to Greg's point about public computer usage. Forcing users to download AT for accessibility prevents access to a large percentage of disabled folks living in poverty (which is common around the world) who can't afford their own devices.
16:06:25 <hdv> GreggVan: this way, when common, ordinary browsers become smart browsers, fewer requirements will be needed
16:06:27 <alastairc> q/
16:06:28 <alastairc> q?
16:06:30 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:06:30 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on agentive user-agents and to comment on testing without source code accesss
16:06:53 <GreggVan> q+
16:07:03 <Rachael> qq+
16:07:22 <hdv> alastairc: re agentic user agents… I don't think that's a big problem for us. If you're using an agentic user agent, the interface of it matters… but if it is doing things for you that kind of falls out of scope, as the user is no longer interacting, it's the agent doing that interacting
16:07:30 <giacomo-petri> q+ steve_faulkner
16:07:39 <Charles> q+
16:07:44 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:07:44 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to alastairc
16:07:59 <Rachael> q- steve_faulkner
16:08:00 <alastairc> ack steve_
16:08:52 <hdv> steve_faulkner: my concern with Gregg's comment about browser vs AT distinction… where do non-browser UIs go? It sounds more tech agnostic than WCAG 2
16:08:59 <hdv> alastairc: do you mean more tech specific?
16:09:01 <alastairc> q+ on differences between platform, AT and browsers
16:09:31 <hdv> stevekerr: yes, and defining scope to browsers and AT, but that's not the use case we're working towards. WCAG 2 has been used for non web interfaces. So need to account for that and accept that as a reality
16:09:33 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:09:37 <hdv> s/stevekerr/steve_faulkner
16:10:59 <Rachael> q+ to say its less about it being a browser than being freely available
16:11:01 <hdv> GreggVan: tech agnostic is the root requirement… if this is something viewed in a browser and the browser would take care itself… if all of the major browser become intelligent user agents and all have a feature in them that look at any page and mark up all the headings
16:11:07 <hdv> q+ steve_faulkner
16:11:14 <hdv> q- steve_faulkner
16:11:20 <hdv> present+ steve_faulkner
16:11:54 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:12:00 <hdv> GreggVan: but in cases like a kiosk it's not going to be a UA for the user, or a smart browser
16:12:32 <hdv> GreggVan: so it depends on the type of product how much it affects it
16:12:50 <Ben_Tillyer> GreggVan - Are you saying that you can't assume users are using a certain AT because of cost/access, but you want to assume that they are using a certain browser?
16:13:19 <Rachael> q?
16:13:25 <alastairc> ack Charles
16:13:46 <Rachael> q+ steve_faulkner
16:14:36 <hdv> Charles: based on Gregg's suggestion of separating personal and  other agentic AI… trying to think of alastairc's question about what might be tricky to generalise… if an agent is aware of what causes me harm, from learning that behaviour, it would then be capable of removing that harm on my behalf without me having to encounter it
16:14:37 <alastairc> q+
16:14:40 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:14:40 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on differences between platform, AT and browsers and to
16:14:47 <hdv> Charles: should we have to encounter for that?
16:14:59 <hdv> s/encounter/account
16:15:10 <GreggVan> Ben_Tillyer - I  am saying that authors can rely only on things they know the user will have available to them when they
16:15:33 <GreggVan> Ben_Tillyer - I  am saying that authors can rely only on things they know the user will have available to them when they "view" the content/software/app
16:15:40 <hdv> alastairc: our subgroup talked about pseudomotion, animation and flashing etc… a method you can use is a user agent configuration that might prevent flashing, as one example. If that had sufficient support, it would meet that requirement. The requirement is agnostic, but within it there are multiple ways to meet it
16:16:05 <hdv> alastairc: we do have a platform definition… there are some features that are part of the platform
16:16:39 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:16:39 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say its less about it being a browser than being freely available
16:16:40 <hdv> alastairc:  platform AT and browsers are potentially what we need to differentiate
16:17:08 <GreggVan> q+  to say   --  we need to explore the whole stack and talk about functions - not things.    FUnctions will be at all levels
16:17:18 <hdv> Rachael: chair hat off… I think the lines are going to get increasingly blurry between browser, AT, UA settings, etc. Especially when new interfaces come up. So thinking about a different way of categorising will be useful
16:17:31 <hdv> Rachael: I think we need to be less tech specific and better at creating parameters and guidelines
16:17:40 <GreggVan> s /not things/not layers/
16:17:43 <alastairc> ack steve
16:17:46 <scott> q+
16:17:57 <Ben_Tillyer> GreggVan - At what point would you say that an author would 'know' what they would they have access to a certain browser feature? E.g. 'only' 97.25% of browsers in use across the world support SVG, is that high enough? (source: https://caniuse.com/?search=svg)
16:18:01 <Charles> so user agents themselves are becoming technology agnostic
16:18:42 <hdv> steve_faulkner: to follow up from Gregg's initial comment… when talking about kiosks, we still have the situation where the kiosk is usually built as a UI that has all sorts of properties… they tend to make it accessible but also add a screenreader, available to user when they need it
16:19:26 <hdv> steve_faulkner: I am not sure if that is an issue. “JAWS for kiosks” exists… but doesn't have the same functionality, eg buttons not announced as buttons
16:20:06 <hdv> steve_faulkner: even if a 'smart browser' is used, we still need to test things like headings
16:20:44 <hdv> steve_faulkner: we still need to know if it is reliable. Given the issues with LLMs, I'm not very optimistic.
16:21:28 <hdv> alastairc: I don't want to go into the capabilities… but I do want to make sure we're as future proof as we can
16:21:31 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:21:31 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   --  we need to explore the whole stack and talk about functions - not things.    FUnctions will be at all levels
16:22:18 <hdv> GreggVan: what Steve said on testing is key. Whenever support relies on AT or browsers or OS… it doesn't matter, we have to test that it does work.
16:22:40 <hdv> GreggVan: if you test and know AT can reliably do that, the author is off the book. _If_ they can assume the user will have access to the AT
16:23:16 <Charles> “until browsers” was baked into WCAG 1
16:23:45 <hdv> GreggVan: that also handles the case when there is no browser
16:24:22 <alastairc> q?
16:24:32 <hdv> GreggVan: can't rely on something that isn't there
16:25:01 <alastairc> ack scott
16:25:43 <Rachael> +1 to avoiding assuming free AI
16:26:00 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:26:37 <Frankie> +1 to Scott's point. Subscription models are the market and disabled folks are statistically more economically disadvantaged than non-disabled people.
16:26:38 <hdv> scott: re notion that we can't assume people have AT  because it costs money, as a pessimistic individual, I want to say it's also important to note that AI is expensive and may not always be available for free
16:26:44 <GreggVan> q+  to say --   free at and local ai
16:26:44 <hdv> +1 to Scott
16:27:02 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:27:03 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say --   free at and local ai
16:28:02 <kenneth> that's a really heavy assumption that everyone everywhere in the world has access to high-end / new hardware... especially when the price of hardware is skyrocketing _because of_ speculative datacenter building _for AI_
16:28:04 <hdv> GreggVan: if it's local it may be free
16:28:51 <hdv> +1 kenneth
16:29:00 <hdv> alastairc: if there's any thoughts folks have, do let us know, we'll probably talk about this more later
16:29:33 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:29:33 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Accessibility Support Set -- taken up [from Rachael]
16:29:38 <hdv> alastairc: let's move on to the next topic
16:29:57 <Rachael> agenda+ Assertions questions reminder https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit
16:30:41 <hdv> alastairc: one of the key problems we have to consider is, how to evaluators know that the results of an evaluation, or authors of what they authored, correspond with the experience of real people and support of their tools
16:31:06 <hdv> alastairc: in WCAG 2 we have the concept of systems that are widely distributed
16:31:43 <hdv> alastair: in WCAG 3 we've looked at various aspects of this. One is that we can't rely on user agents to always work with any particular feature
16:33:30 <hdv> alastairc: also, capabilities can vary by region, for instance in Japanese vs English screenreaders
16:33:42 <hdv> alastairc: previously we decided support would be at feature level, not general technology level
16:33:54 <Ben_Tillyer> local AI does not mean free AI. Nice paper that's worth a read: https://www.ivanomalavolta.com/files/papers/CAIN_2025.pdf
16:34:08 <hdv> alastairc: at our baseline we want authors to be able to assume that methods we provide are accessibility supported
16:35:43 <hdv> alastairc: example support sets include the one at the UK governmen and axe-core
16:36:15 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:36:18 <GreggVan> q+
16:36:25 <Jen_G> Present+
16:37:18 <hdv> alastairc: the support sets may get defined in a community group, we want this to be an informative document that is updateable
16:37:24 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:37:45 <hdv> GreggVan: we should differentiate between browser and AT support
16:38:03 <hdv> GreggVan: one can apply at provision level, another at the Technique level. Can apply in different places
16:39:02 <alastairc> q+ on closed environments having own support sets
16:39:09 <hdv> GreggVan: I agree that there are differences in features between geographical areas
16:39:25 <kevin> q+
16:39:41 <alastairc> q+ also on having our own support set, wouldn't rely on external org
16:39:50 <hdv> GreggVan: we can't say in our document that 'in order to test this you have to use this informative doc'; so would say we can include when something is a 'common browser'.
16:40:01 <Charles> +1 to characteristics over names
16:40:24 <alastairc> ack alice
16:40:26 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:40:26 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on closed environments having own support sets and to comment on having our own support set, wouldn't rely on external org
16:40:41 <hdv> GreggVan: if we describe characteristics we can avoid product names
16:41:17 <hdv> alastairc: if you are testing something very specific, like a kiosk, you would come up with your own accessibility support set… and probably your own techniques too as we don't have any for that
16:41:18 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:42:08 <GreggVan> +1 to alastairs comment about not just region.    It would be scope of application.    It could be regions -- or if the content is only used within a company - one could rely on anything provided to everyone at that company.
16:42:26 <Charles> so is this default support set more closely resemble the implementation report?
16:42:27 <hdv> kevin: re Gregg's point… my understanding of this is that these are about when a method works, so we're not referring to the methods in a normative sense. we do that in things like Baseline as well, it has a similar challenge as to what we are talking about
16:42:43 <GreggVan> q+
16:42:50 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:42:58 <hdv> alastairc: Baseline do have the advantage that the people working on the browsers are W3C members
16:43:13 <hdv> GreggVan: if we mention it as part of conformance it becomes normative
16:43:23 <alastairc> q+ on normative - informative
16:43:26 <hdv> q+
16:43:54 <hdv> GreggVan: for the simple reason that companies rely on it
16:44:30 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:44:54 <GreggVan> +1
16:45:00 <hdv> alastairc: where we define accessibility supports sets normatively… we can include 'these are the factors' and examples
16:45:03 <Charles> q+
16:45:14 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:45:14 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on normative - informative
16:45:24 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:45:57 <alastairc> ack Charles
16:46:17 <hdv> hdv: you can absolutely give non normative examples to go with normative text, it is not so black and white as GreggVan sketched
16:46:44 <hdv> Charles: what I'm hearing… the conformance requirement is that evaluators have an accessibility support set, but we're not recommending what's in it
16:47:16 <hdv> alastairc: it's less an implementation report in the sense as the ones we provided with WCAG 2.*
16:47:24 <hdv> alastairc: this is more part of the conformance claim process
16:48:25 <hdv>  alastairc next question is: what are our criteria for an accessibility supports set?
16:48:34 <hdv> s/alastairc/alastairc:/
16:48:47 <hdv> alastairc: we need to expand our thinking a bit from before
16:48:53 <hdv> alastairc: and think about what is built into the platforms
16:49:30 <hdv> alastairc: what should we include and why?
16:49:46 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:50:02 <GreggVan> q+
16:50:07 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:50:13 <hdv> GreggVan: cost availability and usage
16:50:45 <alastairc> q+ on cost and platforms
16:50:46 <Charles> q+
16:51:02 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:51:11 <Francis_Storr> q+
16:51:18 <hdv> GreggVan: if nobody uses the AT, you can't rely on it
16:51:52 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:51:54 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:51:54 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on cost and platforms
16:52:08 <Heather> q+ cost definition
16:52:17 <Heather> present+
16:52:25 <Heather> q+
16:52:33 <hdv> alastairc: how do we consider cost given that if you buy a particular computer and it may be installed by default, there's some things built into Android and iOS
16:52:38 <GreggVan> q+
16:52:44 <hdv> alastairc: but then if the device you're buying is more expensive, is that a problem
16:52:48 <hdv> q- cost
16:52:50 <alastairc> ack Charles
16:52:51 <hdv> q- definition
16:53:22 <hdv> Charles: if usage is one of the criteria, what is a reliable source and how do we prove it is a reliable source? For instance, the WebAIM screenreader survey
16:53:24 <alastairc> ack Ben_Tillyer
16:53:49 <alastairc> ack Francis_Storr
16:53:55 <hdv> Ben_Tillyer: we have to be careful with numbers of users and availability… it may exclude folks with a complex or rare disability
16:54:04 <hdv> Francis_Storr: probably want to consider corporate environment as well
16:54:15 <hdv> alastairc: probably a solved problem with our approach
16:54:20 <alastairc> ack Heather
16:54:23 <scott> q+
16:55:00 <hdv> Heather: from the usage perspective… your usage in one part of the world may be different in one part of the world is different than another part of the world
16:55:14 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:55:14 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:55:43 <Charles> and who bears that cost matters
16:55:49 <hdv> GreggVan: even things we think are free or near free can be expensive
16:56:03 <hdv> GreggVan: re availability, we need to think about regions
16:56:52 <hdv> GreggVan: also depends on what users have available, if the library computer only has one browser that can't be changed, other browsers don't matter
16:58:33 <hdv> GreggVan: we have to be careful
16:59:05 <alastairc> ack scott
16:59:41 <hdv> scott: re the topic of usage: availability of AT or features within a user agent that are specifically for people with disabilities, I'd like it if that could be given some weight.
16:59:56 <hdv> scott: there are some features that have been added to different user agents or tools, where primary focus is to help people with disabilities
16:59:57 <Ben_Tillyer> Extra thought: I wouldn't want to support a document that could be used by authors to tell users that they are using the "wrong" software
17:00:08 <hdv> scott: but because there are no usage counts behind them, they aren't considered widely used
17:00:34 <hdv> +1, what's being measured != what's real
17:00:52 <hdv> s/what's real/what really matters/
17:01:06 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
17:01:06 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Assertions questions reminder https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit -- taken up [from Rachael]
17:01:35 <hdv> Rachael: if you were not here last time: we discussed assertions. If you are in a company where you can talk to someone about assertions, we'd love that. we want to make sure they are going to be useful in WCAG 3
17:01:41 <hdv> Rachael: we'll get back to this in April and May again
17:01:51 <hdv> Rachael: reach out to chairs if you have questions
17:01:54 <hdv> alastairc: thank you
17:02:00 <Ben_Tillyer> Thanks all
17:02:01 <hdv> alastairc: we'll come back to these topics at a later call
17:02:28 <giacomo-petri> present+
17:02:47 <alastairc> zakim, end meeting
17:02:47 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Heather, filippo-zorzi, bbailey, Adam_Page, kevin, alastairc, hdv, giacomo-petri, Charles, Patrick_H_Lauke, LenB, AWK, Ben_Tillyer, Wilco,
17:02:50 <Zakim> ... BrianE, GreggVan, CClaire, Rachael, julierawe, tayef, shadi, scott, Frankie, stevekerr, jtoles, LoriO, Gez, Jennie_Delisi, SydneyColeman, Francis_Storr, Jon_Avila, Azlan,
17:02:50 <Zakim> ... graham, stevef, steve_faulkner, Jen_G
17:02:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:02:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/17-ag-minutes.html Zakim
17:02:58 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, alastairc; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:02:58 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag