14:53:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:53:33 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/07-ag-irc
14:53:33 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:53:34 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:53:35 <alastairc> agenda?
14:53:42 <alastairc> zakim, clear agenda
14:53:42 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:54:02 <alastairc> agenda+ Revisit assertions https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
14:54:14 <alastairc> agenda+ Conforming alternate versions https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/623
14:54:22 <alastairc> Revisit accessibility support sets https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/621
14:58:35 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
14:59:07 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
14:59:40 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:00:32 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
15:00:35 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:00:44 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:00:48 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:00:49 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:00:50 <shadi> present+
15:00:52 <CClaire> present+
15:01:10 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:01:10 <Charles> Charles has joined #ag
15:01:13 <hdv> scribe+
15:01:16 <alastairc> regrets: MakotoU, ShawnT
15:01:17 <bbailey> present+
15:01:20 <Charles> present+
15:01:20 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:01:21 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:01:25 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:01:30 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:01:35 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:01:54 <Adam_Page> present+
15:01:58 <SydneyColeman> SydneyColeman has joined #ag
15:02:01 <SydneyColeman> present+
15:02:03 <BrianE> present+
15:02:20 <Anton> Anton has joined #ag
15:02:31 <tayef> tayef has joined #ag
15:02:40 <tayef> present+
15:02:45 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
15:02:53 <hdv> alastairc: would anyone like to introduce themselves? or update their affiliations?
15:03:00 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:03:00 <GN015> present+
15:03:02 <AlinaV> present+
15:03:04 <alastairc> TOPIC: Annoucements & introdutions
15:03:14 <hdv> Monica: this is Monica, I'm new to the group and joining from Oracle
15:03:17 <kevin> present+
15:03:24 <Jaunita_Flessas> Jaunita_Flessas has joined #ag
15:03:25 <joryc> present+
15:03:26 <hdv> alastairc: great, we have had many great participants from Oracle in the past
15:03:30 <hdv> present+
15:03:32 <Jaunita_Flessas> Present+
15:03:38 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:03:50 <hdv> Anton: hi, I'm Anton, I work for SAP!
15:03:51 <jtoles> present+
15:04:01 <hdv> alastairc: if things don't work feel free to comment in Zoom chat and someone will help
15:04:06 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:04:06 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Revisit assertions https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:04:41 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:04:49 <kevin> Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
15:04:57 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:05:04 <Rachael> q+
15:05:07 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:05:09 <hdv> alastairc: so… assertions are a new concept to WCAG 3. We want to test their feasability in practice, testing with organisations who would be on the sharp end of using these
15:05:23 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:05:38 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:05:42 <julierawe> present+
15:05:43 <kirkwood> present+
15:05:44 <Rachael> q-
15:05:56 <hdv> alastairc: my summary of what an assertion is: it's something you've done, usually concerns process behind the scenes, rather than things that concern content of the website (like all requirements in WCAG 2 are)
15:06:23 <scott> scott has joined #ag
15:06:43 <scott> present+
15:07:17 <Rachael> present+
15:07:26 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #AG
15:07:35 <LoriO> present+
15:07:42 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:08:19 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:08:20 <hdv> alastairc: so an example of an assertion is a statement on what you looked for when building a video player
15:08:30 <stevef> present+
15:08:45 <sarahhorton> present+
15:08:57 <kirkwood> sorry my fault could you reshare link?
15:09:24 <hdv> alastairc: comparing to supports/partially supports/does not support, with an assertion you include certain specified information
15:09:43 <kirkwood> thx
15:09:54 <hdv> alastairc: we also specify 'informative supporting documentation', we recommend it but don't require it and it is definitely not required in the performance statement
15:10:08 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:10:12 <AWK> present+
15:10:42 <hdv> alastairc: the part that would be public would be the date of implementation, date of claim and some other bits
15:11:00 <hdv> alastairc: the possible internal documentation would be recommended but not be required
15:11:01 <GreggVan> q+
15:11:42 <hdv> alastairc: what we're trying to do here is find out if your organisation would want to include this information, and whether they would want to use assertions
15:11:48 <hdv> GreggVan: great question
15:11:58 <janina> janina has joined #ag
15:12:05 <janina> present+
15:12:23 <Gez> Gez has joined #AG
15:12:30 <hdv> GreggVan: we could describe the informative/supporting documentation as 'things you might include'
15:12:33 <bbailey> q+ to ask if section508.gov accessibility statement is sufficiently shaped like a conformance claim ?
15:12:41 <Gez> present+
15:12:46 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:12:48 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:12:53 <Frankie> present+
15:13:03 <hdv> GreggVan: this way would be less risk that regulators start to require the 'recommendations'
15:13:30 <erinevans> erinevans has joined #ag
15:13:43 <erinevans> present+
15:14:25 <hdv> alastairc: there is an update since last time. We'd like people to go through the questions, only had a couple so far
15:15:16 <GreggVan> q+
15:15:19 <AWK> q+
15:15:20 <Charles> +1 to careful use of ‘recommendations’ as ‘suggestions’ since it already means a TR document status.
15:15:55 <hdv> alastairc: last week the conformance subgroup met with a lawyer recently who has a lot of experience in accessibility cases (prosecution side). We had a long conversation on assertions. From her point of view she said it'd be preferable to have outcome based requirements. I asked if the concept of assertions raised alarm bells, it did not for her, but something lawyers don't like is assertions _about_ outcomes. She wasn't sure if it sohuld be part of
15:15:55 <hdv> basic conformance.
15:16:12 <hdv> alastairc: if there was a legal process that sort of information could come into play but in the court process
15:16:14 <hdv> q+
15:16:14 <bbailey> Are U.S. .gov accessibility statements sufficiently shaped like a conformance claim?
15:16:20 <alastairc> ack bbailey
15:16:20 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if section508.gov accessibility statement is sufficiently shaped like a conformance claim ?
15:16:34 <bbailey> https://www.section508.gov/website-policies/#accessibility-policy
15:16:42 <hdv> bbailey: I'm curious if Section 508 are sufficiently shaped like conformance claims?
15:16:54 <hdv> alastairc: not sure yet
15:16:59 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:17:25 <hdv> GreggVan: the lawyer we spoke to is a strong disability lawyer
15:17:44 <hdv> GreggVan: when you said no alarm bells re user needs in the cognitive space, wasn't this about assertions in the cognitive space?
15:17:52 <shadi> q+
15:18:13 <Monica> Monica has joined #AG
15:18:48 <hdv> GreggVan: when we asked her 'what level' we didn't get a clear answer back. This questionnaire you're putting out is a great idea
15:19:06 <hdv> GreggVan: re public… once they're in the court, if they have been documenting, they have to produce it
15:19:39 <Charles> documentation is subject to discovery. there is now legal precedent where AI conversations are also subject to discovery.
15:20:04 <hdv> GreggVan: lawyers hate documentation when going to court
15:20:10 <alastairc> ack AWK
15:21:04 <shadi> q-
15:21:20 <hdv> AWK: a general comment… when we're talking with people about assertions, I'm struggling with some of the examples. Eg on slide 7, are we making an assertion that we provide a video player? that seems testible and more suitable for a requirement; is this instead of or in addition to?
15:22:20 <hdv> alastairc: there are better examples
15:23:09 <alastairc> ack hdv
15:23:13 <alastairc> scribe+
15:23:36 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to hdv
15:23:44 <Rachael> +1 to this being one of many conversations so we encourage everyone to reach out to your contacts as well
15:24:03 <alastairc> hdv: Love that we've talked to one. But, don't want to fall into trap of using law/lawyers from one region. Would encourage people here to find people from their region to talk to.
15:24:04 <Anton> present+
15:24:08 <alastairc> scribe-
15:24:12 <AWK> Completely agree with Hidde. And we get value from talking with attorneys. Suggest more ppl to speak with!
15:24:14 <alastairc> q?
15:24:26 <hdv> alastairc: thanks for those questions
15:24:36 <Frankie> +1 to hdv
15:24:48 <shadi> +1 to hdv
15:25:01 <hdv> alastairc: let's talk about some of the responses we got, we anonymised them
15:25:21 <bbailey> s/sorry my fault could you reshare link?//
15:25:44 <hdv> alastairc: we talked to a travel sector company, they would not publish their statements as they worried it would make them a target
15:26:17 <hdv> alastairc: to them, assertions seem easier to meet, as they're not dependent on the website. The person I spoke to had more influence on the organisation than on the website
15:27:03 <scott> q+
15:27:05 <bbailey> q+
15:27:14 <hdv> alastairc: we can improve examples, if there are any questions do let us know
15:27:23 <hdv> alastairc: first meeting of next month we'll get back to this
15:27:37 <alastairc>  ack scott
15:28:09 <hdv> scott: I would appreciate making some of the updates you just talked about… speaking to people internally about this… reading through this presentation I'm not sure what about assertions would be required and what would not be.
15:28:24 <hdv> scott: it is confusing to me, and people who were looking at it with me were confused by it.
15:28:26 <shadi> +1
15:29:10 <hdv> scott: eg in the clear language one, the first bullet says to meet the requirement, the other bullets have more requirements but it is unclear if they are then _also_ required, or if they are some sort of optional
15:29:19 <hdv> alastairc: we'll try and clarify that
15:29:29 <alastairc> ack bbailey
15:29:41 <Glenda> present+
15:29:43 <hdv> bbailey: I took the plain language assertion to be an example, not the expectation
15:30:25 <Atya> Atya has joined #AG
15:30:26 <alastairc> q?
15:30:32 <hdv> alastairc: good feedback, we'll need to make some of this clearer.
15:30:44 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:30:44 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Conforming alternate versions https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/623 -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:32:09 <hdv> Rachael: we had a conversation around which requirements had equivalence in WCAG 3 and what would happen
15:32:31 <hdv> Rachael: main question was: if we did something global with alternative versions and equivalence, what would happen?
15:32:40 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:32:42 <usrjordi> usrjordi has joined #ag
15:32:48 <hdv> Rachael: Gregg said conforming alternative version should work the exact same as in WCAG 2
15:32:49 <GreggVan> q+
15:32:58 <hdv> Rachael: Patrick said there are other approaches worth looking at
15:33:07 <LoriO> present+
15:33:43 <hdv> Rachael: including thinking about different modalities
15:34:50 <Monica> present+
15:34:56 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:36:10 <Rachael> q+ to say how does this play with AI?
15:36:29 <hdv> GreggVan: we can't have three URLs for different versions for differnet target groups and have them all be equally primary
15:36:36 <hdv> GreggVan: there's always one primary
15:36:40 <alastairc> q+ on examples of different modalities that can fall foul of SCs.
15:36:50 <hdv> GreggVan: re mobile… if you're on a phone it will serve you the phone version
15:37:13 <hdv> GreggVan: if it's auto-determined they all are primary
15:37:25 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:37:25 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say how does this play with AI?
15:37:38 <hdv> Rachael: I think we have different examples of versions we need to talk about
15:37:52 <hdv> Rachael: if I have a website and the website is not accessible, I link to an alternative that is accessible
15:38:13 <GreggVan> q+
15:38:15 <hdv> Rachael: that's different from the multimedia example where there's audio description
15:38:21 <hdv> Rachael: but we have to future proof this
15:38:48 <hdv> Rachael: if we get a website but when browsers include enough AI you can customise different versions, is that considered a conforming alternate version?
15:39:00 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:39:00 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on examples of different modalities that can fall foul of SCs.
15:39:13 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:39:51 <GN015> q+ to say compliance should not rely on AI
15:40:02 <Charles> note: equivalent and alternate are different concepts. and equivalent has different meanings in WCAG 2.x (at least information and purpose)
15:40:12 <hdv> alastairc: chair hat off… in some areas I've noticed it being difficult, re regulators misunderstanding how WCAG 2 intended this. Something often discussed is images of text, like a banner with text in.
15:40:48 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:40:48 <hdv> alastairc: on a video site, there's these horizontally scrolling cards with arrows on either side… but then have to choose implementing if users should use the arrows
15:41:04 <joryc1> joryc1 has joined #ag
15:41:04 <AWK> similar for a site with an embedded video and a "(Audio described version of welcome video)" link
15:41:59 <alastairc> q?
15:42:01 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:42:20 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:42:24 <hdv> GreggVan: nobody ever conceived of the conforming alternative to be plain text
15:42:39 <stevef> present+
15:42:51 <AWK> sure they did! That's why we have Plain text techniques...
15:43:50 <hdv> GreggVan: there's nothing wrong with an optimised version
15:44:04 <alastairc> q+ on an approach about achieving the same thing, rather than making a part of the interface accessible when that's not the best way.
15:44:13 <hdv> GreggVan: once all browsers are smart browsers the author doesn't need to do the work
15:44:35 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:45:49 <hdv> q+ to mention web page scope
15:46:02 <alastairc> Gregg - I meant https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#images-of-text not alt-text
15:46:19 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
15:46:32 <hdv> qq+
15:46:43 <Rachael> scribe+
15:46:48 <alastairc> ack hdv
15:46:48 <Zakim> hdv, you wanted to react to GreggVan
15:47:05 <GreggVan> q+
15:47:11 <Rachael> hdv: conforming alternative versions in WCAG are scoped to web pages. Why are we talking about specific components and parts of images?
15:47:14 <GN015> Gregg mentioned a standard keyboard document. Can you add a link to it?
15:47:16 <Rachael> alastairc: Because they fail in that context
15:47:29 <Rachael> hdv: In our government, we talk about them failing as part of a page.
15:47:35 <hdv> q-
15:47:39 <alastairc> ack GN015
15:47:44 <alastairc> ack gn
15:47:44 <Zakim> GN, you wanted to say compliance should not rely on AI
15:47:50 <Rachael> q+ to respond to GB
15:48:17 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:48:17 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on an approach about achieving the same thing, rather than making a part of the interface accessible when that's not the best way.
15:48:22 <hdv> GN015: re “smart browsers”: authors cannot know what an AI will do, and also users may not be able to use AI, be it because they don't want to or work for an organisation where they're not allowed to
15:48:25 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:48:25 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to GB. Adoption of a self-rectifying smart browser by 100% of a user base is not happening
15:48:25 <Rachael> q-
15:48:37 <hdv> +1 to GN015
15:48:45 <Frankie> +1 to GN015
15:48:55 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:49:17 <hdv> alastairc: I wonder if we can have a more general approach
15:49:20 <Rachael> q+ to respond to GN
15:49:36 <hdv> alastairc: it can be unusable in some UIs to try and make a certain part of the UI accessible but having another way for someone achieving that seems reasonable
15:49:50 <Jennie_Delisi> Ensure we address the challenge for those who teach (not just in education) or need to use vocabulary about what is onscreen for shared understanding
15:49:51 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:49:56 <hdv> alastairc: we don't want loopholes or make it possible for it to be gamed, but if there's no accessible way of doing something that seems like a reasonable approach
15:50:15 <AWK> q+ to comment on small CAV's like videos with description
15:50:33 <joryc1> I agree with  GNO15 and also would say unless there is a User Agents MUST provide automated Alt text in the HTML spec we couldn't rely on that and while I do think there will eventuaally not be many browsers that don't heavily leverage AI, but that seems pretty far off.
15:50:58 <hdv> Jennie_Delisi: I agree with you Alastair. There is also a challenge for those who teach and need to use vocabulary to support what they're teaching… like there's a link style that is a button on a screen, to support someone without vision can understand
15:51:04 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:51:28 <hdv> GreggVan: good point Alastair. We need to separate discussion between alternate pages and components on a page
15:52:49 <hdv> GreggVan: re having a global alternate component rule… good to keep them separate, but the concept of something that is global and catches what we didn't think of, we create a specific alternate component
15:52:57 <hdv> GreggVan: have to make it very clear what counts
15:53:41 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:53:51 <hdv> GreggVan: all browsers today are 'smart browsers'
15:54:37 <alastairc> q/
15:54:38 <alastairc> q?
15:54:40 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:54:40 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond to GN
15:55:19 <alastairc> ack AWK
15:55:19 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to comment on small CAV's like videos with description
15:55:21 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:55:22 <hdv> Rachael: as we write this, we're writing for 20 years from now, not just today's use cases, we have to keep that in mind
15:55:39 <Charles> note: the understanding conformance document clarifies why conforming alternate version was based on page conformance is “For a variety of reasons, it may not be possible to modify some content on a web page.” the intent does not seem to be replacing a whole page – just parts.
15:55:58 <hdv> but the understanding doc isn't the norm
15:56:25 <Charles> agree. but the assumption was part of the page failed.
15:56:34 <hdv> AWK: 'whole page' is what we have now. If you have a chart and link to another page that provides a table with the chart's data, that's part of the original page… we don't really have a term to talk about those things
15:56:34 <Rachael> q+ to straw poll
15:56:55 <hdv> AWK: it makes sense to bundle some of those concepts together
15:57:04 <GreggVan> q+ to say +1  to  AWK  comments.   and that would be handled by the conforming alternative components/elements
15:57:10 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:57:10 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to straw poll
15:57:16 <bbailey> +1 to AWK concern that CAV are overlooked, despite being referenced by 5.2.2
15:57:24 <Rachael> draft straw poll:  For conforming alternative version should we 1) start from the WCAG 2 approach with the conforming alternative version as a fallback and equivalents on a provision by provision basis or 2) stand up a subgroup to explore a new approach with more flexibility?
15:57:29 <Wilco> q+
15:57:41 <Charles> 2
15:57:44 <hdv> Rachael: I'd like to propose this poll
15:57:57 <kirkwood> 2
15:58:03 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:58:03 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say +1  to  AWK  comments.   and that would be handled by the conforming alternative components/elements
15:58:17 <hdv> q+
15:58:31 <bbailey> q+ wrt poll
15:58:51 <alastairc> q+ bbailey on the poll
15:58:53 <hdv> GreggVan: I think we should separate conforming alternative page from conforming alternate component
15:58:56 <alastairc> q- wrt
15:59:01 <alastairc> q- poll
15:59:06 <bbailey> ack wrt
15:59:11 <bbailey> ack poll
15:59:16 <GN015> q+
15:59:21 <bbailey> q?
15:59:37 <shadi> q+
16:00:05 <LoriO> hdv +1
16:00:26 <alastairc> ack Wilco
16:00:34 <kirkwood> adjacent?
16:00:51 <hdv> Wilco: it strikes me as silly to make distinction between alternate page or something else
16:00:57 <scott> +1 to wilco's comment
16:01:01 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Wilco, need to think about the user journey more broadly
16:01:05 <Glenda> +1 to what Wilco just said
16:01:08 <alastairc> ack hdv
16:01:15 <alastairc> scribe+
16:01:26 <alastairc> hdv: Can re-use what's in WCAG2, but refine it.
16:01:38 <alastairc> ... what we should change is the page to page/view
16:01:53 <Rachael> qq+ to change scribe
16:02:01 <alastairc> ... don't want to make it part of components, hard to define.
16:02:14 <GreggVan> q+    +1  to  alternate conforming components being on or off the page - -same thing.     Do do that for specific things and we should do for glogballhy
16:02:17 <Rachael> q-
16:02:34 <alastairc> q+ GreggVan
16:02:38 <alastairc> q- +1
16:03:03 <GreggVan> q+  to say  +1  to  alternate conforming components being on or off the page - -same thing.     Do do that for specific things and we should do for globally     but don't confuse with alt conf pages.
16:03:09 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:03:09 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Anton
16:03:17 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:03:17 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LoriO
16:03:33 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:03:33 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LoriO
16:03:35 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:03:35 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose hdv
16:03:38 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:03:38 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose InaT
16:03:54 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:03:54 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose CClaire
16:04:05 <LoriO> sorry Alistair, I'm having audio problems
16:04:09 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:04:09 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Frankie
16:04:13 <CClaire> Sorry can't do it today
16:04:21 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:04:21 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Adam_Page
16:04:25 <bbailey> s/sorry Alistair, I'm having audio problems//
16:04:32 <Adam_Page> scribe+
16:04:37 <alastairc> q?
16:04:41 <alastairc> ack bbailey
16:04:41 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to comment on the poll
16:04:45 <Adam_Page> bbailey: on the poll
16:04:55 <Adam_Page> ... my main concern is we need a whole new term other than CAV
16:05:06 <Adam_Page> ... I think WCAG 2’s model is great
16:05:09 <Adam_Page> ... but want to change the name
16:05:31 <alastairc> ack GN
16:05:40 <Adam_Page> GN015: we have 2 alternatives
16:05:48 <Adam_Page> ... 1 is equivalent on same page, like text alternative for image
16:05:59 <Adam_Page> ... 2 might be something bigger
16:06:08 <Adam_Page> ... legacy technology that cannot be made accessbile
16:06:17 <Adam_Page> ... we used to have this concept in WCAG 2
16:06:18 <alastairc> ack shadi
16:06:30 <Adam_Page> shadi: I’m not hearing an overall approach
16:06:37 <Adam_Page> ... my suggestion is splitting decision
16:06:39 <alastairc> q+ to ask whether we can agree that we need a draft of CAV + another within-page
16:06:42 <Adam_Page> ... let‘s get cracking on a subgroup
16:06:43 <bbailey> +1 to draft poll as most recently proposed
16:06:49 <Adam_Page> ... new alternate for components
16:06:58 <Rachael> q+ to say that would be what a subgroup would do
16:07:01 <Adam_Page> ... and then see if it fits in to CAV, or replaces it, or...
16:07:08 <Adam_Page> ... we’re jumping the gun by trying to make this decision now
16:07:17 <imirfan> imirfan has joined #ag
16:07:25 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:07:25 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  +1  to  alternate conforming components being on or off the page - -same thing.     Do do that for specific things and we should do for globally
16:07:26 <Adam_Page> alastairc: I’ll take that as a positive signal for #3
16:07:28 <Zakim> ... but don't confuse with alt conf pages.
16:07:33 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: +1 to shadi
16:07:43 <Adam_Page> ... the problem we’re trying to solve is conforming alternate _part of page_
16:07:51 <Adam_Page> ... we’ll talk about element, component, etc., huge discussions around that
16:07:55 <Adam_Page> ... could be a whole part of the page
16:08:24 <Adam_Page> ... should be separate from CAV for the whole page
16:08:42 <Adam_Page> ... for the _part of page_, there should be no difference whether it’s _on_ the page, or it’s linked from the page
16:08:48 <Adam_Page> ... we already say that in some provisions
16:09:00 <Adam_Page> ... but you can’t say that for the CAV for the whole page
16:09:04 <Adam_Page> ... it is by definition a separate page
16:09:07 <Adam_Page> ... don’t confuse them
16:09:22 <Adam_Page> ... but good idea to stand up subgroup to look at conforming alternate _part of page_
16:09:23 <bbailey> FWIW, I'm not convince that CAV "part of the page" is the main stumbling block
16:09:32 <alastairc> q>?
16:09:33 <alastairc> q?
16:09:34 <Charles> q+
16:09:36 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:09:36 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask whether we can agree that we need a draft of CAV + another within-page
16:09:45 <Adam_Page> alastairc: it sounds like we’re generally agreeing on the approach needed
16:09:58 <Adam_Page> ... to update WCAG 2 version and try and draft in something that’s kind of within page
16:10:00 <Adam_Page> ... chair hat off
16:10:14 <Adam_Page> ... having something about being able to achieve the same goals from the same starting point
16:10:25 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:10:25 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that would be what a subgroup would do
16:10:25 <Adam_Page> ... we have something, but it needs to be overhauled for understandability
16:10:32 <Adam_Page> Rachael: another way to think of this straw poll
16:10:43 <Adam_Page> ... do we feel WCAG2 is solid enough without redrafting?
16:10:49 <Adam_Page> ... or do we need more exploration
16:10:50 <GN015> q+ to ask whether 'modes' come closer to what is meant by alternative version
16:10:56 <Adam_Page> ... and today’s discussion suggests we need more exploration
16:11:19 <Adam_Page> alastairc: if anyone is interested, please get in touch with the chairs: group-ag-chairs@w3.org
16:11:19 <alastairc> ack Charles
16:11:34 <Adam_Page> Charles: I understand the point of view of differentiating between page and component
16:11:40 <Adam_Page> ... but what confuses me about that differentiation
16:11:45 <Adam_Page> ... is the draft of the scope of conformance
16:11:49 <Adam_Page> ... the scope can be pages and view
16:11:51 <Adam_Page> ... and processes
16:11:51 <hdv> my 2cts are the WCAG 2 approach is solid enough (updating to modern age by updating page def), based on how we use it as a monitor/regulator
16:11:55 <Wilco> q+
16:12:13 <Adam_Page> ... so should there be conforming alternate page and conforming alternate process?
16:12:26 <hdv> (but am happy for others to go and explore better options / improvements)
16:12:39 <Adam_Page> alastairc: part of it is the “within page” aspect
16:12:44 <Adam_Page> ... avoiding the term “component” for now
16:12:49 <Wilco> q-
16:12:54 <Adam_Page> ... alternatives within the same view
16:12:58 <alastairc> ack gn
16:12:58 <Zakim> GN, you wanted to ask whether 'modes' come closer to what is meant by alternative version
16:13:02 <Adam_Page> ... but as AWK pointed out, kind of already covered by WCAG 2, but could be clearer
16:13:33 <Adam_Page> GN015: high contrast mode is an example
16:13:44 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
16:13:46 <shadi> +1 to exploring something along the lines of "mode of operation"
16:13:47 <Adam_Page> ... or in a support call, where sign language is provided as an alternative
16:13:58 <Adam_Page> ... does that come close to “alternative version”?
16:14:01 <Adam_Page> alastairc: good point
16:14:11 <Adam_Page> ... could be at same URL, but also kind of a personalization thing
16:14:16 <Adam_Page> ... so yes, we also need to consider that
16:14:28 <alastairc> q?
16:14:28 <Adam_Page> ... not the same as the scenarios we’ve discussed, but should be included
16:14:31 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:14:36 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
16:14:38 <Adam_Page> Jennie_Delisi: related
16:14:44 <Rachael> q+ to wrap up
16:14:47 <Adam_Page> ... one issue I’ve seen is where there _is_ an alternate version
16:15:07 <Adam_Page> ... sometimes when you copy & paste from that alternate into the “main” area where people are interacting, it doesn’t paste well
16:15:10 <GreggVan> q+
16:15:11 <Adam_Page> ... it has been problematic
16:15:13 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:15:13 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to wrap up
16:15:18 <Adam_Page> Rachael: wrapping this up
16:15:24 <Adam_Page> ... let‘s move to subgroup and then bring back to the main group
16:15:28 <alastairc> Anyone interested in joining that group?
16:15:30 <Adam_Page> ... thank you all for the conversation
16:15:32 <shadi> q+ steveF
16:15:49 <Adam_Page> ... please let us know if you’re interested
16:15:57 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:16:02 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: question for Jennie_Delisi
16:16:13 <Adam_Page> ... want to carry your idea into the subgroup
16:16:22 <shadi> q- steve
16:17:11 <Adam_Page> Jennie_Delisi: if we had someone using a high-contrast version in a collaboration tool, when they copied & pasted, the past was wrong, so they couldn’t participate
16:17:52 <Adam_Page> alastairc: can move on to last topic
16:17:55 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
16:17:55 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, alastairc
16:17:58 <bbailey> s/the past was wrong/the paste was wrong/
16:17:59 <alastairc> agenda?
16:18:13 <alastairc> TOPIC: Revisit accessibility support sets https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/621
16:18:28 <Adam_Page> back on a11y support sets
16:18:33 <Adam_Page> ... back on a11y support sets
16:18:57 <Adam_Page> alastairc: in GitHub discussion
16:19:10 <Adam_Page> ... a11y support sets is a mechanism to try to make explicit what we need to test with when creating methods
16:19:23 <Adam_Page> ... methods should work, basically, with a11y support sets we define
16:19:28 <Adam_Page> ... we can’t talk about specific products
16:19:37 <Adam_Page> ... so need to define in a way that leads you to the right answer
16:19:46 <Adam_Page> ... in last meeting, there was concern with straw man text I’d proposed
16:20:09 <Adam_Page> ... support set _per platform_ was suggested
16:20:46 <Adam_Page> ... still need to find balance between “meeting the standards” and “does it work for the user”
16:20:57 <Adam_Page> ... different voices in the group supporting each perspective
16:21:09 <Adam_Page> ... need to be careful to accommodate AT that work differently by design
16:21:23 <GreggVan> q+
16:21:24 <Adam_Page> ... e.g., VoiceOver ignoring lists when bullet styles have been removed
16:21:34 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:21:38 <Adam_Page> ... also need to define when “it works” is sufficient
16:21:44 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: cost is also a factor
16:21:55 <Adam_Page> ... the most popular one might also be the most expensive one; out of reach
16:22:09 <Adam_Page> ... free or built-in should be considered
16:22:23 <Adam_Page> ... also, some people don‘t have their own computer
16:22:33 <Adam_Page> ... they have to use one at the library, for example
16:22:41 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Gregg
16:22:41 <Adam_Page> ... and they can’t install anything there
16:22:48 <Adam_Page> ... so their only choice is to use what’s built in
16:22:55 <alastairc> q?
16:22:56 <Jennie_Delisi> (re cost_
16:22:59 <Adam_Page> ... otherwise we’re excluding people
16:23:07 <Adam_Page> alastairc: agreed, I’ve updated the discussion
16:23:16 <Adam_Page> ... defining cost is tricky
16:23:16 <AWK> q+
16:23:26 <Adam_Page> ... if you’re buying the AT alone, it’s clear
16:23:32 <alastairc> ack AWK
16:23:34 <Adam_Page> ... but if you’re buying a phone or other device, how do you calculate
16:23:44 <Adam_Page> AWK: in the past, we’ve considered cost
16:23:56 <Adam_Page> ... don’t think we’ve ever considered mandating built-in support
16:24:00 <Adam_Page> ... and that’s scary
16:24:06 <Adam_Page> ... especially because of the differences that exist
16:24:08 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:24:26 <GreggVan> q+
16:24:34 <alastairc> ack Ben_Tillyer
16:24:50 <Adam_Page> ... the built-in solution could be worse than another one
16:25:05 <Adam_Page> Ben_Tillyer: someone could take your product and put it on a closed technology platform
16:25:16 <Adam_Page> ... can’t control the environment
16:25:19 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re freeware and security
16:25:32 <Adam_Page> alastairc: as in the website you’re making?
16:25:36 <kirkwood> Cannot depend on proprietary technology?
16:25:45 <Adam_Page> Ben_Tillyer: if you’re buying third party equipment and they have their own list of AT they support
16:26:02 <alastairc> q+
16:26:04 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:26:17 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: thinking about AWK’s concern about bulit-in
16:26:26 <alastairc> q-
16:26:30 <Adam_Page> ... pro: if they rely on it being there, what if it’s not there?
16:26:57 <Adam_Page> ... on the other hand, if you’re going to rely on AT to solve the problem, then you need to be able to rely that it’s actually going to be there
16:27:05 <alastairc> q+ on the balance between meeting standards (e.g. html), working for the user, how that impacts requirements.
16:27:09 <Adam_Page> ... if they can afford it, if they have their own computer
16:27:33 <Adam_Page> ... the fact that it may not be the “best” experience, that’s not an issue
16:27:41 <Adam_Page> ... we’re not saying you have to have the best experience to meet WCAG
16:27:48 <Adam_Page> ... just that you have minimum accessibility
16:27:52 <Adam_Page> ... access to the information is good enough
16:27:59 <Adam_Page> ... but I‘m sympathetic to the wariness
16:28:25 <AWK> So if narrator didn't support aria attributes the way that NVDA does... you can only use the features that Narrator supports
16:28:49 <Adam_Page> ... I’m spending a lot of time in communities that don’t have their own AT
16:28:52 <alastairc> ack Jennie_Delisi
16:28:52 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss freeware and security
16:29:05 <Adam_Page> Jennie_Delisi: I agree with GreggVan in that having an option to test with a free AT is important
16:29:15 <Adam_Page> ... but also don‘t want to _require_ orgs to test with those ATs
16:29:32 <Adam_Page> ... because from a cybersecurity perspective, some orgs may not be able to install
16:29:43 <Adam_Page> ... need to recognize that both might be needed in certain circumstances
16:29:45 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:29:45 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the balance between meeting standards (e.g. html), working for the user, how that impacts requirements.
16:30:08 <Adam_Page> alastairc: on the topic of what AT supports what
16:30:21 <Adam_Page> ... we’ve got a balance of “meeting the standards”; that’s your job as an author
16:30:25 <Adam_Page> ... the rest is up to the user agent
16:30:42 <Adam_Page> ... last time I tested Narrator, it failed on some fairly basic things, although that was a while ago
16:31:08 <Adam_Page> ... but imagining a situation where the quality of the built-in AT is well below what we‘re used to
16:31:20 <Adam_Page> ... it suggests we almost need to write a loophole or lower requirement
16:31:34 <Adam_Page> ... for example, if something doesn’t support heading structures, or something similarly basic
16:31:53 <Adam_Page> ... then we almost need to tackle it as an accessibility support set issue, and not include that AT
16:32:11 <Adam_Page> ... either we don’t include certain AT that aren’t up to the general standard, or we have to lower the requirements
16:32:14 <Rachael> q+
16:32:18 <Adam_Page> ... acknowledging that this is somewhat provocative
16:32:20 <shadi> q+
16:32:20 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:32:25 <AWK> q+
16:32:57 <alastairc> ack shadi
16:32:59 <Ben_Tillyer> Think what I was trying to say was - web products that are designed to be sold with a view to be installed or delivered by other people (e.g. a museum wayfinding software expected to be put on a tablet in a museum), do we need to be concerned that the vendor can't be certain that the implementer/purchaser is actually able to use the supported set
16:32:59 <Ben_Tillyer> of AT that was tested by the vendor.
16:33:02 <Adam_Page> shadi: might be a tangent
16:33:10 <Adam_Page> ... but there have been several attempts by w3c staff and other groups
16:33:14 <Adam_Page> ... to have an a11y support database
16:33:17 <Adam_Page> ... and it never really worked
16:33:23 <Adam_Page> ... because there were too many combinations
16:33:29 <Adam_Page> ... just wondering in the era of AI
16:33:36 <Adam_Page> ... how many of these tests might be automatable
16:33:56 <hdv> see also Lola's accessibility compatibility data project: https://github.com/lolaslab/accessibility-compat-data
16:34:31 <alastairc> q?
16:34:34 <alastairc> ack AWK
16:34:52 <Adam_Page> AWK: is that you volunteering, shadi? ;-)
16:35:01 <Adam_Page> ... but yes, we really wanted to know all this during WCAG 2.1
16:35:03 <bbailey> +1 for shadi being voluntold
16:35:03 <Adam_Page> ... whatever we decide
16:35:23 <Adam_Page> ... we may need to accept that people are going to have to work around doing the best they can
16:35:27 <Adam_Page> ... a very hard problem to solve
16:35:53 <alastairc> q+
16:35:53 <Adam_Page> ... have we actually had substantial problems in the last 20 years?
16:35:58 <Adam_Page> ... if so, then let’s examine those?
16:36:03 <Adam_Page> ... rather than just update something
16:36:13 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:36:14 <kirkwood> a problem statement would help
16:36:46 <Adam_Page> alastairc: big i18n issues in terms of techniques we’ve provided not being supported in other regions
16:36:49 <Adam_Page> ... and they’ve had to work around that
16:36:59 <Adam_Page> s/i18n/internationalization/
16:37:11 <Adam_Page> ... basically trying to make “what is a11y supported” clearer and more explicit
16:37:17 <Adam_Page> ... and give people the freedom to choose different ones
16:37:19 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:37:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/07-ag-minutes.html bbailey
16:37:38 <Rachael> Previous slides are at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Vov5k9XXlQSy7AtVuBVQvhSMDIOPA0kj69xJoq71BSQ/edit?slide=id.g3d044950233_0_0#slide=id.g3d044950233_0_0
16:37:48 <alastairc> q/
16:37:49 <alastairc> q?
16:37:59 <Rachael> Key problem for any cross-platform accessibility guidelines:  How does an author know that meeting a guideline will work in practice with user-agents that are used by real people?
16:38:10 <Adam_Page> ... in terms of next steps
16:38:14 <Adam_Page> ... we need an updated draft
16:38:18 <Adam_Page> ... I can try to take in the conversation so far
16:38:24 <Adam_Page> ... it’s more than 1 AT per platform
16:38:27 <kevin> zakim, who is on the call?
16:38:27 <Zakim> Present: shadi, alastairc, kevin, Jon_Avila, ShawnT, Patrick_H_Lauke, JeroenH, CClaire, Adam_Page, filippo-zorzi, Rachael, Charles, janina, Jennie_Delisi, Ben_Tillyer, Makoto_U,
16:38:30 <Adam_Page> ... more than one support set per platform
16:38:31 <Zakim> ... bbailey, chrisg, jtoles, Laura_Carlson, Glenda, giacomo-petri, Francis_Storr, tayef, AWK, LenB, stevef, hdv, Gez, scott, Jen_G, jkatherman, Detlev, GN, InaT, GreggVan,
16:38:31 <Zakim> ... stevekerr, SydneyColeman, BrianE, AlinaV, joryc, Jaunita_Flessas, julierawe, kirkwood, LoriO, sarahhorton, Frankie, erinevans, Anton, Monica
16:38:34 <Adam_Page> ... which might make it clearer
16:38:49 <Adam_Page> ... haven’t really got any better guidance on the balance between “meeting the standard” and “does it work for the user”
16:38:59 <Adam_Page> ... but in terms of how we select the things we test with
16:39:04 <Adam_Page> ... our default a11y support set
16:39:08 <Adam_Page> ... I’ll try an update
16:39:10 <GreggVan> q+
16:39:34 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:39:38 <Adam_Page> ... I’ll update the strawperson text
16:39:53 <bbailey> s/<kirkwood> thx//
16:40:02 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: you should add bullet: built-in AT for those who rely on public access computers
16:40:03 <GN015> q+
16:40:03 <bbailey> s/thx//
16:40:21 <LoriO> q+
16:40:28 <alastairc> ack GN
16:40:36 <Adam_Page> GN015: does it make sense to give qualification rules?
16:40:39 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 gn
16:40:46 <Adam_Page> ... like what a screen reader must be able to do?
16:40:56 <GreggVan> q+
16:40:56 <Adam_Page> ... does it make sense to have a qualification
16:41:01 <Adam_Page> alastairc: that’s an interesting idea
16:41:17 <Adam_Page> LoriO: +1 to GreggVan
16:41:31 <Adam_Page> ... we all need to remember that the disabled population not just in the US but around the world are some of the least served
16:41:39 <Adam_Page> ... having to use a public computer is a big issue
16:41:43 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:41:49 <kirkwood> +1 to public computer
16:41:52 <Adam_Page> ... many are unemployed, don‘t have reliable transporation
16:41:54 <scott> sometimes a perceived AT "cannot" is more of an AT "purposefully will not"
16:41:57 <Adam_Page> ... so we must make it easy for them to access
16:42:03 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:42:04 <bbailey> s/GNO15/GN015/
16:42:07 <alastairc> ack LoriO
16:42:20 <Adam_Page> GreggVan: the fact that you can’t get a hierarchical list of titles
16:42:24 <Adam_Page> ... that’s usability; not accessibility
16:42:34 <Frankie> +1 to Gregg and Lori's point. Reminder that many governments require abject poverty for disabled folks to access disability benefits.
16:42:38 <Adam_Page> ... we shouldn’t be requiring those as the base
16:42:39 <Charles> note: accessibility supported applies to more than screen readers and their features
16:42:51 <Adam_Page> ... we have no control over the AT; we can’t put requirements on them
16:43:17 <bbailey> s|q/||
16:43:29 <Adam_Page> ... authors can’t be forced to scratch off the screen readers that don’t support features because some regions _only_ have ATs that don’t have those features
16:43:47 <Adam_Page> ... must define the bare minimum for things to be accessible
16:44:01 <alastairc> q?
16:44:07 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:44:11 <Adam_Page> alastairc: any final thoughts?
16:44:14 <alastairc> ack giacomo-petri
16:44:20 <Adam_Page> giacomo-petri: I think the minimum bottom line is quite tricky
16:44:26 <Adam_Page> ... we have a lot of requirements that ask much more than that
16:44:37 <Adam_Page> ... I’m thinking about my All Steps Listed provisions
16:44:39 <bbailey> s|q>?||
16:44:45 <Adam_Page> ... which I’m considering moving to an assertion
16:44:48 <Adam_Page> ... depends on user needs
16:44:54 <Adam_Page> ... not easy to define this “minimum” level
16:45:17 <Adam_Page> alastairc: I‘ll take this away and create an updated draft
16:45:40 <Adam_Page> Rachael: we’ll send out a survey for conforming alternate versions
16:45:40 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:45:47 <Adam_Page> alastairc: alright, we can adjourn
16:45:51 <Adam_Page> ... thank you, everyone
16:45:55 <Adam_Page> zakim, end meeting
16:45:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been shadi, alastairc, kevin, Jon_Avila, ShawnT, Patrick_H_Lauke, JeroenH, CClaire, Adam_Page, filippo-zorzi, Rachael, Charles, janina,
16:45:58 <Zakim> ... Jennie_Delisi, Ben_Tillyer, Makoto_U, bbailey, chrisg, jtoles, Laura_Carlson, Glenda, giacomo-petri, Francis_Storr, tayef, AWK, LenB, stevef, hdv, Gez, scott, Jen_G,
16:45:58 <Zakim> ... jkatherman, Detlev, GN, InaT, GreggVan, stevekerr, SydneyColeman, BrianE, AlinaV, joryc, Jaunita_Flessas, julierawe, kirkwood, LoriO, sarahhorton, Frankie, erinevans, Anton,
16:45:58 <Zakim> ... Monica
16:45:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:45:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/07-ag-minutes.html Zakim
16:46:06 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Adam_Page; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:46:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
16:46:29 <GreggVan> present+
16:46:38 <Anton> Anton has left #ag
16:46:40 <GreggVan> oops  too lage
16:46:58 <GreggVan> (that a combination of too late and lagging
16:57:26 <CClaire> CClaire has left #ag