14:54:43 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:54:48 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/21-ag-irc 14:54:48 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:54:49 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:55:40 agenda+ Announcements and Intros 14:56:17 agenda+ WCAG2 proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0005.html 14:56:28 agenda+ Mobile taskforce update 14:57:07 agenda+ Continue Scope of WCAG 3 Conversation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BkgIVS8ODwokDPXJd91ChHfN7-WuaZdGcvK3Ru-hc_Y/edit?slide=id.g3d665925735_0_10#slide=id.g3d665925735_0_10 14:59:10 present+ 14:59:20 JJ has joined #ag 14:59:32 Charles has joined #ag 14:59:36 present: Rachael, alastairc 14:59:41 chair: alastairc 14:59:42 Heather has joined #ag 14:59:44 erinevans has joined #ag 14:59:47 present+ 15:00:26 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:00:27 CClaire has joined #ag 15:00:29 present+ 15:00:30 Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag 15:00:38 present+ 15:00:44 present+ 15:00:44 present+ 15:00:50 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 15:01:02 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:01:24 eloisa has joined #ag 15:01:37 present+ 15:01:40 present+ 15:01:45 present+ 15:01:48 LenB has joined #ag 15:01:53 present+ 15:02:21 present+ 15:02:26 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 15:02:31 present+ 15:02:37 zakim, take up next item 15:02:37 agendum 1 -- Announcements and Intros -- taken up [from alastairc] 15:02:44 present+ 15:02:48 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:02:52 BrianE has joined #ag 15:02:54 present+ 15:03:07 jkatherman has joined #ag 15:03:10 present+ 15:03:12 present+ 15:03:27 Wilco has joined #ag 15:03:39 scribe+ 15:03:40 WCAG 3 Provision Review https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-provision-survey-02/ 15:03:44 Jon_Avila has joined #ag 15:03:50 present+ 15:04:22 Rachael: Announcements - look at what other subgroups are doing. Open until April 27th. Please take time to do so. Asking for collaboration asynchronously. 15:04:28 https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/virtual-meetup/ 15:04:52 tayef has joined #ag 15:05:06 Monica has joined #AG 15:05:20 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 15:05:39 q+ 15:05:40 Rachael: Holding a two-day virtual meeting, May 11-12. Looking for a six-hour commitment for each day. Please fill out the survey above. Goals: Retrospective. Conformance subgroup out brief, and make notable progress on conformance model, and to make decisions for the June publication and to write an outline for our policy document. Please make 15:05:40 time during those two days. 15:05:47 present+ 15:05:47 present+ 15:05:50 joryc has joined #ag 15:05:52 Makoto_U has joined #ag 15:06:00 Wilco: Asks for status of the charter 15:06:04 bbailey has joined #ag 15:06:07 present+ 15:06:11 ack Wilco 15:06:20 present+ 15:06:24 q? 15:06:24 q+ re questionnaire 15:06:44 shadi has joined #ag 15:06:49 Rachael: Kevin is on vacation. Most of it is ready to go and is moving forward. Expectation is to ask for an extension. Will provide a better answer next week when Kevin is back. 15:06:51 q? 15:06:53 present+ 15:06:54 ack Jennie_Delisi 15:06:54 Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss questionnaire 15:07:02 present+ 15:07:12 Jennie_Delisi: In the survey, the times are listed in a specific day. 15:07:16 RRSAgent, pointer? 15:07:16 See https://www.w3.org/2026/04/21-ag-irc#T15-07-16 15:07:26 Rachael: Will modify the survey so it is more clear. 15:07:43 zakim, take up next item 15:07:43 agendum 2 -- WCAG2 proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0005.html -- taken up [from alastairc] 15:08:26 q+ 15:08:44 InaT has joined #ag 15:08:54 ack GreggVan 15:09:01 Patrick_H_Lauke: One of two weeks have past for the items in the working group for approval. Round is light (3 items). Barring any negative feedback, the changes will be merged. There's a list of proposed changes that will go into errata, which will go through pre-CFC and then CFC process. 15:09:18 GreggVan: Asks if there is a survey, or just do you just want a response in an email? 15:09:27 q+ 15:09:42 ack Charles 15:09:45 Patrick_H_Lauke: Please add comments in GitHub. 15:10:21 q+ 15:10:23 jtoles has joined #ag 15:10:30 Frankie has joined #ag 15:10:34 present+ 15:10:35 present+ 15:10:42 Charles: US Dept of Justice has issued an interim final rule and is invite public comment on ADA Title II. In the public comment, I would like to provide a piece of clarity about the changes to WCAG 2 being only informative or errata. Is there preferred language for these types of changes? 15:11:26 ack Jon_Avila 15:11:33 alastairc: Understanding is when errata is agreed, it gets added to the document, and to be considered to be the latest version of WCAG 2. Yes, it's the best term. 15:12:24 probably the first time i heard somebody claim that WCAG is ... "dynamic" ... ;) 15:12:41 +1 to Jonathan. this was my point. we need language to help dismiss the concern of dynamic changes. 15:12:59 Jon_Avila: ADA Title Rulemaking, referred to the 2018 version of WIC 2.1, which is set in stone, and isn't changing. The interim final rule was that WCAG was dynamic, was untenable, and changing. there's a misunderstanding around how the updates work, and when the referenced version with a particular date is referenced, that is fixed. Encourages 15:12:59 people to read the document to understand what other future implications there could be. 15:13:07 zakim, take up next item 15:13:07 agendum 3 -- Mobile taskforce update -- taken up [from alastairc] 15:13:10 alastairc: Look for the URL to be posted in IRC. 15:13:30 alastairc: Update from Mobile Task Force. 15:13:34 Gez has joined #AG 15:13:42 present+ 15:14:06 WCAG2Mobile presentation slides: https://janjaap.com/tpac2025 15:14:59 JJ: (Jan Japp) Quick intro - live in the Netherlands. Company Abra works on mobile accessibility. Been on task force for ~4 years. Want to review what the task force has been doing. This is the same deck from TPAC from November last year. 15:15:14 SydneyColeman has joined #ag 15:15:29 julierawe has joined #ag 15:15:32 present+ 15:15:36 JJ: [Refer to slide 1-2 content posted above]. 15:17:12 JJ: [slide 4] Narrative of slide contents; screenshot of initial publication in February 2015. 15:18:15 not going to lie, i'm still not a fan of "mobile" as a moniker... 15:18:35 I know, but it's such a common / industry term 15:18:53 Can someone please reshare the link to this slide deck? (Apologies for joining the meeting a bit late!) 15:19:04 "web on small screen + primarily touch interface, native apps, hybrid apps" 15:19:22 the first part should not even need to exist... 15:19:37 previous topic – URL for the ADA Title II Interim Final Rule where commenting is open: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/20/2026-07663/extension-of-compliance-dates-for-nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web 15:19:42 JJ: [slide 5] Last official publication was May 6, 2025. New guidance is called WCAG2Mobile. Structure is almost identical at level A and AA. There is informative guidance on how to interpret certain success criteria for mobile applications. Common question is what is the difference between WCAG2ICT and Mobile Apps. We focus ons on not only the web 15:19:42 part, but the non-web part. There are native, hybrid, and cross-platform apps. We will have the web implementation plus the non-web interpretation and additional guidance. 15:21:41 JJ: [Slide 6] Spend a lot of time on definitions on the draft released on November 2025. Things get confusing on mobile, because of the definition of scoping the page, screen, or view. Additional challenges to make a definition that works for both web and non-web at the same time. We replace "web page" with "page" and have a lot of discussion about 15:21:41 other definitions, like "user agent." Time was spent on definitions and the 'layers' come in. Spent a lot of time on these definitions. 15:22:24 q+ 15:22:26 Anton has joined #ag 15:22:49 JJ: [slide 7] Working on second draft; have the feedback we need, and are processing feedback. Have 11 definitions to complete. Target is to have it ready by the second quarter. 15:22:57 q+ 15:23:50 JJ: [slide 8] Group note expected end of 2026. 16 success to complete. Want to get some more feedback from AG; fine-tune definitions and some of the guidance. Likely will be early 2027 before we have a fully published, group note. 15:23:52 ack GreggVan 15:23:54 LoriO has joined #ag 15:23:59 present+ 15:24:07 GreggVan: What is the definition of 'mobile'? Is it phones, tablets, laptops? 15:24:20 present+ 15:24:20 "mobile" is an unfortunate historic term ... 15:24:31 q+ 15:24:45 laura has joined #ag 15:25:12 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:25:21 "unfortunate historic term" covers a lot of what we discuss 15:25:29 JJ: Good question, there is an open issue for this. It is tricky. What differentiates the requirements is the ability to use touch. Attributes are portable, and maybe have touch as a primary input. 15:26:10 touch, small screen, orientation/motion sensors, ... 15:26:11 present+ 15:26:46 GreggVan: The mobile task force is formed because there was something needed. If it's just touch, shouldn't it be renamed the 'touch-based task force'? What is different from the WCAG and WCAG2ICT task force to make Mobile Task Force unique? Needs clarity on the scope to help evaluate the rules. 15:27:22 Detlev has joined #ag 15:27:30 present+ 15:27:38 q+ 15:27:55 JJ: Feels that definitions are a really big part of this. Android, iOS, and non-web are big scoping questions. 15:27:58 ack Patrick_H_Lauke 15:28:04 https://w3c.github.io/matf/ 15:28:18 ^ latest draft of the MAFT note 15:30:50 Patrick_H_Lauke: Was involved in the original Mobile Task Force, and brought up renaming it. The name is slightly vague. Wanted to ask about the 'native' aspect - when talking about native apps, companies are applying WCAG. Thinks that 'native' is probably more the axis where I would make the differentiation. I would strongly welcome seeing what 15:30:50 specific advice was given for that scenario, and rolling that directly into the understanding documents for WCAG 2.2; and not having another specific specification. Would rather see them rolled into WCAG 2.2 'proper' through the WCAG 2 Task Force. It would remove the ambiguity from the WCAG 2 mobile plate. 15:31:08 jtoles6 has joined #ag 15:31:21 alastairc: To clarify, it would be useful to gather the web-oriented bits and the mobile bits to incorporate into the understanding documents. 15:31:44 s/the web-oriented bits and the mobile bits/the web-oriented bits withi mobile 15:31:59 Patrick_H_Lauke: Correct. There should be a way to integrate this guidance into WCAG 2.2 15:32:00 ack alastairc 15:32:02 q+ 15:32:08 LenB has joined #ag 15:33:08 ack Detlev 15:33:11 alastairc: Wanted to respond to Gregg's point about the definitions. Mobile is such a common industry term, but we can't call it the "WCAG to iOS/Android" because we just can't name things like that. 15:33:57 need to bail, but would be happy to flesh this out further - i.e. collaboration between WCAG2Mobile and WCAG 2 Backlog TF, moving web-specific advice to WCAG 2.2 proper 15:34:14 Glenda has joined #ag 15:34:40 Patrick_H_Lauke has left #ag 15:35:32 Detlev: The bulk of the discussions in the mobile accessibility task force is all about Android and iOS at the moment so it's quite clear there is a moral problem of an initial commitment to cover both mobile, web on mobile devices, and native mobile. Which is a problem because in practice I think there has been very little discussion on web stuff 15:35:32 on mobile devices, and I totally agree with Patrick. The second point is that I'm wary of deviating from WCAG2ICT, and would like to keep that deviation to a minimum, or avoid it altogether. 15:35:47 I agree with Detlev. 15:37:58 mobile lacks a consensus based definition. native operating systems are very different than web. so i don’t understand the difference between 2ICT and 2Mobile. 15:38:32 q+ 15:38:32 q/ 15:38:34 q? 15:39:27 JJ: They are keeping a close eye on that and staying aligned. We don't want to deviate there, but we are seeing some feedback. It could help to bring some of that back to WCAG2, maybe some of it can be used in WCAG 3. Findings could potentially be used to WCAG2ICT. One of the issues we saw is related to pages. there is also the 'set of software 15:39:28 programs.' When we look back at ICT definitions, there is overlap that can't contradict and bringing it back into WCAG2ICT because it could solve a lot of (definition) problems. We mostly have guidance for the native components, so we haven't found much need yet to provide additional guidance for the mobile we part. See the need to comment on the 15:39:28 native part. 15:39:39 ack GreggVan 15:39:58 graham has joined #ag 15:40:02 present+ 15:40:06 alastairc: It would be good to eep track of any advice coming from Task Force Mobile that does conflict with WCAG2ICT. I don't know if there is much yet, but keep an eye on that. 15:41:37 Indeed, ideally MATF guidance should not contradict, but specify and fill gaps. I think that a WCAG2Mobile document can (also) serve these purposes. 15:43:11 present+ 15:43:47 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:44:14 present+ 15:44:58 Web apps and mobile apps do have some screen specific titles. 15:45:20 GreggVan: There is guidance for non-web, which as WCAG2ICT. The question is what is the guidance for mobile? It's going to contradict some things in WCAG, and that's not good for anyone. Shouldn't try to create its own document, because there's the risk of contradicting guidance. Mobile should help shape and advise. If the language is not exactly 15:45:20 the same, then which one is the industry supposed to follow? You talked about page, we've been trying for a long time to come up with a definition for a page outside of the web page. We're talking about 'views' now, and would like to hear about any wisdom there. There's another issue of 'set of web pages' came about because people would use a set 15:45:20 of web pages, like an app. And they were meant to work together. A set of web pages can also mean an 'app.' The title was meant to help someone when they were dropping in on totally different URLs. And they don't need to know what it was about. An entire web app only has one title. These things aren't mysteries if you think back to where they came 15:45:20 from, and you think of what their equivalent in a web app would be, they just fall away. 15:45:39 I disagree with Gregg on the screen titles. 15:45:40 GreggVan: Examples for why it was a problem, aren't a problem if you think about them. 15:45:56 yes there are 15:46:25 alastairc: Specific titles can be assigned per view. 15:46:27 q? 15:46:43 EN301549 exempts app titles because they need to be copyrighted, etc. 15:46:47 ack Detlev 15:46:56 GreggVan: Understanding is that they can't. The point is that the examples don't counter what Patric and Detlev were advocating, and I agree. 15:47:45 +1 15:47:52 +1 to Detlev. ‘mobile web’ is just web. 15:48:00 Detlev: Returning to the original problem of mixing native mobile apps and mobile web. There seems to be an agreement that it's not a good choice, and that mobile web belongs to WCAG, and not into the Mobile Task Force. Does it make sense to get some kind of group consensus that we should change that and Mae the Mobile Task Force entirely on native 15:48:00 mobile apps. 15:48:33 alastairc: Can you describe the focus on what the group has been looking at so far, because my understanding is that it's primarily on native. 15:49:54 JJ: Yes, it is primarily native [gives examples]. Examples include title, non-text content. Is the absence of these attributes a platform defect or at the developer level? 15:50:22 Detlev: The question is can we get rid of 'Mobile Web' - can we have a decision on excluding it? Can we have a decision on excluding it? 15:50:46 The task force work statement: https://www.w3.org/WAI/about/groups/task-forces/matf/work-statement/ 15:51:27 q? 15:51:43 JJ: Most of the participants on the task force are mobile app developers, not web app developers or web site developers. A lot of them would encourage this idea of only focusing on the native. There is this new addition that web views need to be tested. It's been the native interpretations that have been problematic. 15:52:09 alastairc: Put the work statement into IRC. Will catch up with Kevin when he's back. 15:52:53 zakim, take up next item 15:52:53 agendum 4 -- Continue Scope of WCAG 3 Conversation 15:52:53 JJ: If you have any additional feedback, please send me an email or ping me anywhere. You can find my email on the Mobile Accessibility Task Force page. Happy to receive any feedback or ideas. let's keep in touch. 15:52:54 ... https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BkgIVS8ODwokDPXJd91ChHfN7-WuaZdGcvK3Ru-hc_Y/edit?slide=id.g3d665925735_0_10#slide=id.g3d665925735_0_10 -- taken up [from alastairc] 15:53:02 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BkgIVS8ODwokDPXJd91ChHfN7-WuaZdGcvK3Ru-hc_Y/edit?slide=id.g3d665925735_0_5#slide=id.g3d665925735_0_5 15:53:59 scribe+ 15:54:00 My e-mail address: janjaap@abra.ai or MATF group: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org 15:54:34 alastairc: Scoping of WCAG 3, in what the group's focus is. (see slides in link above). In terms of the problem we're trying to solve. 15:55:21 alastairc: Some of the blurring occurs in native applications where html content is within them as part of an application. TV boxes may be written in HTML or have both. 15:55:42 ....It's hard to make these generalizations. There was a good discussion in GitHub about platforms. 15:55:48 scribe- 15:56:08 ...some of the key things from that are on slide 7. n 15:56:25 s/.n/. 15:57:09 ...Is it within a browser? Is it not within a browser but on a platform? Is the platform provider separate from the author. We also have closed systems like kiosks which may or may not take advantage of a platform. 15:57:25 https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/scope_exercise/ 15:57:35 ...these are some of the characteristics from that discussion. We are now going to do an interactive survey. 15:57:50 If you can open the link above, we've got these as a starting point. 15:58:16 ....would anyone like to make recommendations for changes in this exercise? Are any categories not clear? 15:58:37 maryjom has joined #ag 15:58:44 scribe+ detlev 15:59:01 q+ 15:59:08 ack graham 15:59:30 Graham: confused by APIs 15:59:54 graham: understand it means excluding APIs 15:59:55 q+ 16:00:02 ack shadi 16:00:08 q+ re docs viewed within a browser 16:00:29 q+ 16:00:58 shadi: When reading the survey, there's a difference between writing specifically for a technology or for other contexts and excluding other contexts 16:01:09 …originally web was primary content 16:01:35 q+ 16:01:39 …later it was made more broadly applicable without addressing specific technolgies 16:01:41 LenB has joined #ag 16:01:59 …should we write specifically, or take care nit to exclude them 16:02:16 q+ 16:02:30 ack Jennie_Delisi 16:02:30 Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss docs viewed within a browser 16:02:32 alastairc: question os are we able to apply it - hardware for example is not possible 16:03:28 Jennie_Delisi: Are. we intending bewteen docs seen in software client and in the web? Most people don't know it is not the same, they expect the same functionality in the browser 16:03:33 q+ to answer Jennie 16:03:40 alastairc: good question... 16:03:42 ack Rachael 16:03:42 Rachael, you wanted to answer Jennie 16:04:03 Rachael: We have pulled it out into separate thing because the context was different 16:04:03 ack Jon_Avila 16:05:18 q+ 16:05:26 q+ 16:05:39 Jen_G has joined #ag 16:05:54 Model Context Protocol 16:05:54 Present+ 16:05:55 Jon_Avila: Same question about pub content - are assistive technologies a separate point? Two thing MCP service is going to be assistive technology and a consumer of content - and a11y features can be consumed by these technologies 16:06:03 MCP model context protocols 16:06:12 https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/getting-started/intro 16:06:33 ack graham 16:06:38 Jon_Avila: Technologies may act on behalf of PwD 16:06:41 q+ to say I agree with Jonathan and how we should expand to meet AI 16:07:10 graham: Are we excluding agents - but if any output of them is also excluded? Will that nit need to be covered? 16:07:20 q+ to focus on "authored" things 16:07:28 …do we cover that? Worrisome area 16:07:34 ack Wilco 16:08:10 Wilco: need clarification why we are opening a scope discussion? We are so far into the standard that it seems this should have been set already 16:08:36 alastairc: We need to define what informative things we commit to be doing in the next phase 16:08:59 q+ 16:08:59 ack Charles 16:09:01 Rachael: it is an iterative process, we need to narrow down questions as part of the process 16:09:04 present- 16:09:32 Charles: The same distinction of PDF inside/outside the UA applies to XR 16:09:56 ack Heather 16:09:57 ...if we are separating PDF we need to do the same to XR 16:10:47 +1 for "should apply to" versus "could apply to" 16:10:59 q+ 16:11:28 ack joryc 16:11:28 joryc, you wanted to say I agree with Jonathan and how we should expand to meet AI 16:11:36 Heather: Other groups look at the guidelines and decide what they can or cannot do - we should limit that because technology will broaden and stakeholders need to decide what applies - it could be applied in parts even to hardware 16:12:16 +1 to joryc that this list cannot be evergreen 16:12:33 joryc: A lot of change is happening UA will talk to UA - we cannot nail down a lot of things because it will make WCAG 3 irrelevant by the time it is published 16:12:54 q+ to speak to Jory's point 16:13:11 That's a good point - an auto generated experience for a user could be a conforming alternative version. 16:13:13 discussions like about what is a page seem a bit irrelevant - the focus should be digital communication in general so it can be applied to a million things that will appear 16:13:15 ack alastairc 16:13:15 alastairc, you wanted to focus on "authored" things 16:13:32 Thant was joryc 16:14:09 alastairc: Questions is what is it people are authoring - links to a11y support issue 16:14:26 One way to look at it - If PDF is delivered via uri it is often considered web - if it's delivered another way not via uri it's not web. 16:14:30 …there is mite stability in what people are authoring 16:14:42 q+ 16:14:52 ack Wilco 16:15:04 …like set top boxes or authoring mobile apps or kiosks this are the differentiators 16:15:31 opinion: the scope of the guideline can be different than the scope of methods within it. 16:15:36 ack bbailey 16:15:46 Wilco: Not sure if this is ever going to be done if we extend the scope that much - set top boxes or kiosks are not in the spec (charter?) 16:16:07 q+ to say I agree with Wilco's concerns but also think we need to get this right 16:16:35 bbailey: Even for desktop software WCAG does not cover it all, there are additional things to be done 16:18:02 Rachael: Step back - this is not a comprehensive list . it will change rapidly. It should help us understand what we are talking about. Lines have blurred so much between web and the rest. The exercise should bring us mire clarity what we are covering since that will impact on the way we write out recommendations 16:18:33 ack Rachael 16:18:33 Rachael, you wanted to speak to Jory's point 16:18:39 ack graham 16:18:41 …exercise should help us understand boundaries better 16:19:12 graham: Are we treating AI as authors? Fundamental question... 16:19:25 ack joryc 16:19:25 joryc, you wanted to say I agree with Wilco's concerns but also think we need to get this right 16:19:40 alastairc: it is an umbrella term that be have to break down more - AI as producer, consumer 16:21:37 joryc: We need to keep in mind that these things are authored. Agree with Wilco's concern about scope creep - but we need to open out mind as to what interfaces ae and what we may cover - we are at a point at where we talk about transfer across multiple forms appatatuses, user interfaces so that goes back to properly structuring information to 16:21:38 ensure digital a11y 16:21:45 q+ 16:21:55 +1 16:22:00 ack GreggVan 16:22:09 …I don't want to see WCAG swept under the rug because it doesn't match technology once it comes out 16:23:10 GreggVan: we convey information in many ways, not necessarily in a structured format . we cannot impose on the world restrictions on how things are structured - the world will push back and do it differently 16:23:18 q? 16:23:24 shadi has joined #ag 16:23:41 alastairc: (looking at survey results) 16:23:57 could we have the scope of the guideline be digital content and the scope of methods be any (not all) from this list? 16:24:29 …nine responders; all said web content no one said hardware - (look at the results yourself...) 16:24:43 q+ 16:24:59 https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/scope_exercise/ 16:25:00 …some said OSs, surprising; others said assistive technology, but that wouldn't worek 16:25:01 I didn't realize. 16:25:08 Assistive technologies will have Web UI's in many cases 16:25:10 ack GreggVan 16:25:17 Rachael: We should give people a few minutes to di the survey... 16:25:21 alastairc: OK 16:27:05 GreggVan: Operating systems: there is the pumping ant the interface. the second needs to be accessible like anything else. As to AT: the reason not to include it generally is that it is tuned to specific functional requirements: but some are focused on one particular disability so they may nit be possible to use for people with multiple 16:27:05 disabilities 16:27:30 …should not require AT to be accessible to all but encourage it 16:27:50 alastairc: OS has its own apps, as it were 16:28:16 q+ 16:28:25 alastairc: The main things people expect to be covered is web content, doc, and apps 16:28:33 q- 16:28:56 q+ 16:28:59 Rachael: Any argument about including some stuff? Is there consensus? 16:28:59 ack GreggVan 16:29:35 GreggVan: we should have should and nit shall for AT 16:30:39 …recommend people read EN 301 549 to see how the guidelines have been massaged to apply to non-web stuff (dos, software) - WCAG 3 may recreate EN which would make making the next version of EN easy :) 16:31:22 q+ 16:31:28 ack Wilco 16:31:29 …with closed systems, you have to involve hardware; and it is still missing cognitive aspects, so we need to look what else we are taking on to serve people's needs 16:31:50 q+ 16:31:54 Wilco: agree with Gregg need to break this down and do it incrementally 16:31:54 ack Rachael 16:31:58 q- 16:32:01 +1 to Gregg and Wilco 16:32:06 q+ 16:32:46 q= 16:32:50 q+ 16:33:18 ack alastairc 16:33:19 +1 to making it easier to adapt WCAG3 to non-web -- but don't try to actually do it 16:33:29 alastairc: There os a difference between taking everything on and being technology neutral- the WCAG2ICT work is helpful for that - we should orient around what digital interfaces people working with platforms create - that gives us our scope. so it would be bigger, but not include the hardware part 16:35:52 kirkwood_ has joined #AG 16:35:57 ack Rachael 16:36:08 Rachael: original structure was the requirement and then tech-specific methods. So if we want to include things like kiosks we could say on a high level things like images need alternatives, but that does not need to flesh it out for all technologies. we could focus on some core ones first and then write additional methods / techniques for other 16:36:08 environments later. It still has an impact on phrasing the guidelines to make it flexible enough to be used that way 16:36:20 q+ to sat All of the above if they are done over the web using web technologies. As soon as you move off the web -- all sorts of things need to be added and considered. It will add years to WCAG3 completion. maybe get WCAG3 out the door and as tech neutral as possible -- and then come out with ACAG that covers all technology 16:36:54 LenB has joined #ag 16:37:03 alastairc: 2 aspect: review if top-level req work across platforms, 2. what should we start with, like web /native XR 16:37:40 ...XR would be something that would push the requirements, ensure that requirements are future-proof 16:37:41 ack GreggVan 16:37:41 GreggVan, you wanted to sat All of the above if they are done over the web using web technologies. As soon as you move off the web -- all sorts of things need to be added 16:37:44 ... and considered. It will add years to WCAG3 completion. maybe get WCAG3 out the door and as tech neutral as possible -- and then come out with ACAG that covers all 16:37:44 ... technology 16:38:13 q+ 16:38:32 GreggVan: Moving beyond web focus to all technology would take years, should come later 16:38:32 q+ to ask why drop PDF and word processing docs ? 16:38:58 q+ 16:39:10 ack alastairc 16:39:13 ack bbailey 16:39:13 bbailey, you wanted to ask why drop PDF and word processing docs ? 16:39:16 alastairc: EN 301 459 has been through that process - builds exceptions, application cases etc, but could we not take a leaf from that 16:39:47 bbailey: question why PDF is dropped from the list (?) 16:40:11 ack GreggVan 16:40:33 alastairc: The original GitHub missed it because the application of req to web and documents were reasonably similar 16:40:57 present+ 16:41:24 GreggVan: can be changed to "anything that can be rendered in modern web browsers" that should be out scope - what id downloaded installed outside the UA, should be out of scope 16:41:48 our scope not out scope (avboce) 16:42:15 q+ to say the web is more than HTML-based UI, for examples shouldn't CLI's follow a11y best practices? 16:42:29 GreggVan: you cannot get into closed functionality you automatically get into hardware, telecommunications etc. 16:42:40 q+ 16:43:13 ack joryc 16:43:13 joryc, you wanted to say the web is more than HTML-based UI, for examples shouldn't CLI's follow a11y best practices? 16:43:15 …would need bigger team, other competencies, will add a lot of time - look at EN 301 549 to get an idea how complex it gets 16:43:34 q+ 16:44:02 Web includes WebGL, Canvas, SVG, MathML, WebXR, etc. 16:44:34 joryc: Limiting scope to web would defeat the purpose of the new standard - what we need to look at is communicating digital content and the principles behind it - hardware is easy to scope out. 16:45:25 q+ 16:45:51 ack Rachael 16:45:53 …if we consider all artifacts of the web, new UA, all these things are going to matter - limiting things to web-based narrows it down too much - the should focus on digital communications 16:46:29 q- 16:46:49 I include things transmitted using web protocols when I say web. 16:47:11 hmm, ok, I think of web as http(s) and rendering in a browser. 16:47:32 ack GreggVan 16:47:33 Rachael: Read through EN many other standards - I see nothing that pushes us into the hardware aspects, I do nit see that at all. There are things that we don't want to cover, like emergency comms. Mut many things an be tackled with exceptions. Start with web, but give us the scope to move forward. 16:47:42 ftp is a web technology for example 16:48:54 HTTP is not the only web protocol. This is well established 16:49:02 GreggVan: never said we are limited to HTML - web includes PDF - internet is. much broader, like IoT. 16:49:32 …I was talking about "anythings that works on the web" 16:49:47