Meeting minutes
<Lisa> scribe list https://
<Lisa> scribe list https://
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> regrets EA
Lisa: Upcoming meetings: Thursday - guidance call. Monday, Tuesday next week - AG conformance marathon.
Lisa: No COGA meeting next week
<Lisa> https://
<julierawe> I went ahead and cancelled the May 11th COGA meeting because we want COGA members to attend the May 11th WCAG 3 conformance meeting.
Lisa: Would we like to have a meeting on Thursday for guidance review?
Len: Huge time commitment, might not be able to commit
Julie: Let's cancel Thursday
*clarification - Cancelling Thursday next week, not this week
<julierawe> I canceled the WCAG 3 review meeting for Thursday May 14th because so many members are planning to attend the two day-long WCAG 3 conformance discussions on May 11th and 12th.
about ag meeting at https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0b959ec0-5014-43d7-a26d-c022a39197c9/
julierawe Jenny - you mentioned 'path'. Was that a user critical path?
Jennie yes- user's critical path was brought up several times and has to be considered as part of the whole site somehow.
Lisa gave an embassy example for passport or contact info. There may be other pages about a notable visit to the embassy over a year ago which are not considered as part of the critical path. The idea is that you can make claims about a critical path and a different conformance claim about the whole site.
… you can do automated testing for low-level site paths but critical paths would also involve expert test or even user testing.
… the idea of paths helps you focus and make broader claims for large amoutns of content but the essential tasks could have a different level of conformance.
… features could also have importance levels. An email feature would need clear conformance on the send button (for example).
kirkwood You can also have a site where 99% is accessible but have one page in a long path that isn't. The paths idea would help surface this.
Lisa I'm a big equity between different communities. For example, I want blockers treated the same way across people with vision impairments and cognitive disabilities. I want these handled as core - regardless of which community the need is coming from.
… For WCAG 2.2, some legislative bodies just pointed to it in their legislation. There is a desire to make sure WCAG 3 is handled the same way.
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to discuss cognitive concerns for conformance model (for those needing to follow)
Jennie I'd like to add to this - when legislators ask for a specific level of conformance some people ask if the legislation should still exist if the level is too har to achieve.
… something that keeps coming up in our conformance conversations is that some of the broader conformance measures should be moved to legislative groups. If we continue with a pass / fail model but a legislative body uses levels of conformance it will be difficult to get people to look at WCAG - which will lilely contain more cognitive support
than other sources.
Lisa I don't think we can get everything for all of our communities. Is the most important thing is core requirements cover all coga needs or is it about achieving the coverage between WCAG and legislation.
… that is all background to the AGWG discussions on May 11 and 12 during US East Coast business day.
<Lisa> next item
julierawe does anyone have a call about why we'd like COGA folks to attend the call next week or how we can help you prepare for the conversation?
… next item
<Jan> I will not be able to attend the meeting next week because of AccessU
<Lisa> close item 1
<Lisa> next item
<julierawe> Link to W3C calendar page for tomorrow's research subgroup call: https://
Lisa For our research call tomorrow we're planning on using it as a working meeting for literary review top up. Using the time to look up key terms on research sites, reviewing a document and then updating our resource database.
… we're thinking we'd do this for a few of our documents that haven't been looked at in the last few years. Goal is to find papers we should review and inlude in future updates. Seemed like a good idea to do this together to help each other make progress and to get on top of the larger effort.
… we will not be meeting on the 12th (due to the AG conformance call). On the 19th we will have a working meeting to process paper issues and get all the feedback into tables in our documents to create a single picture of what needs to be done.
<Lisa> next item
julierawe it looks like we've scheduled 'animation and movement' github issues for this Thursday to make sure we're all on the same page about the wording.
Lisa If people want to review the draft github issues again, please do. We went over text and wording last week but need to talk about a couple of things.
… still need a quick review for Error Handling and we can work out the schedule on Thursday when we meet. We don't have any pre-work for this week's call.
julierawe Jennfier - you have a little more time for your review since we're not going to meet on the 14th .
<Lisa> w3c/
Lisa we have comments on some of the issues we entered.
… our first 3 issues were all on conformance - so it's good that we managed to enter them before the calls next week.
<Lisa> w3c/
julierawe are these general Github issues we entered intended to get on an agenda for an upcoming call?
Lisa I think they should be discussed by the subgroup. It does help if people vote them up or add your thoughts.
julierawe I agree that if a bunch of us thumbs up these items wit will show the support behind them better than just seeing it from one person.
<Lisa> w3c/
<Lisa> w3c/
<Lisa> w3c/
Lisa we should probably keep a list of these somewhere.
<kirkwood> need to jump off