Meeting minutes
Rachael: Successful day yesterday.
… we have a number of topics for today, hoping to get through them.
<Rachael> Resolutions & Minutes from yesterday https://
Rachael: I want to start off with the first topic
Wrap up Question 3 on usability testing https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conformance-updates-test/results/#xq4
Rachael: we're picking up on question 3
Rachael: we came to a resolution
<Rachael> Resolution from yesterday: For relevant provisions, we will include usability testing in procedures in the informative (understanding type) documents as a means of identifying issues and better meeting the guidelines.
Rachael: we've given ourselves some flexibility
Rachael: we were working on a resolution
Rachael: for a while
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: We will not require specific kind(s) of testing of provisions in the conformance section. Conformance claims continue to be optional in WCAG 3, but we may explore requiring the author describe the means for demonstrating conformance within any claims that they make.
Rachael: now we'll wrap up this subject with this draft resolution
Rachael: this is also an opportnity to wake up
Rachael: do we want any additional changes to this resolution?
<Jennie_Delisi> requiring the author to describe?
<Jennie_Delisi> draft RESOLUTION: We will not require specific kind(s) of testing of provisions in the conformance section. Conformance claims continue to be optional in WCAG 3, but we may explore requiring the author to describe the means for demonstrating conformance within any claims that they make.
GreggVan: are we going to require testing at all?
Jennie_Delisi: will there be challenges for product creators who would require a NDA to demonstrate that to someone considering their tool?
Rachael: I am not sure, but here we're merely allowing ourselves to make it possible
Jennie_Delisi: I bring it up because it is becoming an increasing burden when a group wants to consider which tool is more accessible, i.e. better for the end user
Jennie_Delisi: even if it is a free tool
Jennie_Delisi: it's one of those things that's a consideration for the level of effort
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on where this happens
Jennie_Delisi: can be hard to get that level of documentation
alastairc: my assumption would be that it's not something we cover in the conformance section
alastairc: it may be something where to conform you do X or Y
alastairc: don't think we've done that before in any way, this is exploratory
kevin: I'm not sure if this falls in our remit
kevin: all we can do, in same way as in WCAG 2, that you can make a conformance claim but what happens with that is outside of our control
kevin: nothing we can do about it, all we can do is provide a standard
<GreggVan> We will not require testing of provisions in the conformance section. Conformance claims continue to be optional in WCAG 3, but we may explore requiring the author describe the means for demonstrating conformance within any claims that they make.
kevin: I'm not sure that would fit in the policy guidance
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: We will not require testing of provisions in the conformance section. Conformance claims continue to be optional in WCAG 3, but we may explore requiring the author describe the means for demonstrating conformance within any claims that they make.
<Jennie_Delisi> Agreed - not something which must be added, just a consideration
hdv: +1 kevin, it's outside our remit. They are optional, anything beyond that is remit of regulators.
… beyond that we don't want or need to know.
Rachael: any wording changes?
stevekerr: does it say there are provisions in conformance section that we are not goign to require?
GreggVan: I have a fix for that
<GreggVan> draft RESOLUTION: In the conformance section we will not require testing of provisions. Conformance claims continue to be optional in WCAG 3, but we may explore requiring the author describe the means for demonstrating conformance within any claims that they make.
Lisa: if it is not necessary to do more fixes I think we shouldn't do any
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: In the conformance section we will not require testing of provisions. Conformance claims continue to be optional in WCAG 3, but we may explore requiring the author to describe the means for demonstrating conformance within any claims that they make.
<janina> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Jennie_Delisi> +1
<Makoto_U> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Adam> +1
<CClaire> +1
<hdv> +1
<Rachael> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Heather> +1
<Atya> +1
<julierawe> +1
<Lisa> +1 but I am a bit nervous about this
<jtoles> +1
<jkatherman> +1
<filippo-zorzi> +1
<stevekerr> +1
<JeroenH> +1
RESOLUTION: In the conformance section we will not require testing of provisions. Conformance claims continue to be optional in WCAG 3, but we may explore requiring the author to describe the means for demonstrating conformance within any claims that they make.
GreggVan: if a new hole is found, nothing is cast in stone
GreggVan: we have to do the best we can now to move forward
Question 5 user generated content platforms https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conformance-updates-test/results/#xq8
Rachael: this question is about how we are going to incorporate user generated content
Rachael: by potentially incorporating ATAG-style methods
Rachael: if those are used they could claim partial conformance for that socpe
s/socpe
Rachael: two options that we have: this would be useful for conformance, and this would be useful in supplementary guidance
[ Rachael summaries answers in survey ]
<GreggVan> says "Where users are able to create or upload content, they are able to create or upload content that conforms to these guidelines. NOTE: A separate document provides guideance for things that are used to create content in accessible ways. "
hdv: I voted “not sure where to do this”
… but I think we should use what we learned from ATAG in WCAG
… a new version of ATAG is in development
… but we can still do some things that are ATAG-like in WCAG
… for example, requirements for UI elements that allow people to create content
… like a text box
… we can add requirements that it should be possible for the user to create accessible content
… and supplementary requirements to make that content more accessible
… include checkers, etc.
… since so many people use WCAG, we should incorporate this there
… there might be squishy definitions needed
<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Hidde - reduces cognitive load for those newer to WCAG, supports continuity
hdv: but the notion of this will be very helpful
… will help end users
… to encourage user-generated content be accessible
… LinkedIn, social networks, are good examples
<stevekerr> +1 to hdv
hdv: a lot to be won by including ATAG-style requirements and find ways to make it work
… potentially for conformance since it would deal with the problem that user-generated content is not easy to manage for big sites
… might be reasonable to expect them to do a few basic checks
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "Suggest we have just one provision that says "Where users are able to create or upload content, they are able to create or upload content that conforms to WCAG. NOTE: A separate document provides guideance for things that are used to create content in accessible ways. " and to say "Suggest we have just one provision that says "Where users are able to create or upload content, they are able to create or upload content that conforms to this document. NOTE: A separate document provides guideance for things that are used to create content in accessible ways. " and to say "Suggest we have just one provision that says "Where users are able to create or upload content, they are able to create or upload content that conforms to this document. NOTE1: It is also helpful to provide mechanisms for detecting and repairing accessibility issues in content being created. NOTE2: A separate document provides guideance for things that are used to create content in accessible ways. "
GreggVan: I suggest just one provision in WCAG
GreggVan: having two guidelines that tell you what to do is bad because they';l contradict each other
GreggVan: there are places where you can upload a video but you can't upload captions for it… we could capture that kind of thing in a rquirement around content that allows you to create (or upload) content
GreggVan: it could be a supplemental requirement, but would add it as a note to a requirement
GreggVan: that's probably better for discoverability if people filter
<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Gregg's idea of making sure essential notes come through even when filtering information.
giacomo-petri: looking at this from a company that is making a claim… note that the people making the claim and the end users can be very different groups
giacomo-petri: there might be differences
giacomo-petri: secondly, if I'm building an LMS, and take accessibility seriously, but at the very end, the user picks two colours that don't meet minimum contrast guidelines, but then in the end the content isn't accessible
giacomo-petri: if I'm making a claim that the system allows to make things accessible it should be 100% conformant
giacomo-petri: in some cases it could be author responsibility to raise concerns with the system
giacomo-petri: my 'no' is not a strong no, but I see potential problems
kevin: I'm broadly sympathetic to the challenge of making UGC accessible, but want to say content = content
kevin: to the end user, it doesn't matter who created it
kevin: secondly, I don't know that this is actually an issue… we're not setting out to allow for conformance claim for a whole website, we recognise you can't make a claim for a whole website… so you can make a conformance claim that doesn't include your USG
kevin: you're just not able to say it's conformant
<Rachael> +1 to scope
kevin: we have ATAG and will continue to have ATAG, I don't think we should blur the lines between WCAG and ATAG
kevin: policy makers are cognisant to this issue and sympathetic to the problem it brings
<alastairc> *some* policy makers, so far (and without guidance from us
kevin: this is a polciy choice to be made
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the advantage of having some recognition of UCG based on the provisions.
alastairc: to expand on potential advantages; agree we don't have to say something is conformant while it isn't… but to have a provision around being able to create conformant content might be useful… we can be helpful for providers or regulators if there were some measures around have they done enough to make it work
<shadi> +1 to alastairc
alastairc: things that platform providers can do… could be mentioned in conformance, in like a side badge… to say that they've done what can be done within WCAG, that make it more likely the USG is accessible
<hdv> +1 to alastairc
alastairc: wouldn 't call it conformance, a sort of partial conformance
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say I think methods are a natural part of htis but we need to account for it in conformance
<Makoto_U> +1 to alastairc
Rachael: chair hat off… I do think we have a structure in WCAG 3 that allows us to include ATAG
Rachael: few people know about ATAG, many know about WCAG… there's a benefit for us to put it in in some form
Rachael: based on the requirements and technology there may be different ways to conform
Rachael: personally I think if we combine the scope… scope being authoring tool and not the content within it… I don't have an issue calling that conformance, rather than partial conformance
<shadi> +1 to Rachael (except i think she means conformance instead of compliance)
Rachael: there's a real issue on social media platforms that don't allow it all
Rachael: and several of those should fail, if we're not specifying that we're failing
Rachael: it can be a pointer or within it… I can see ATAG inform WCAG
<Adam> +1 to Rachael
<giacomo-petri> +1 to Rachael
<CClaire> +1 to Rachael
julierawe: building on Rachael's point… wanting to make it possible to create content
julierawe: like providing a warning when contrast is low
Jennie_Delisi: do we need to consider dividing the different types of USC?
Jennie_Delisi: the world of UGC has expanded? eg code repositories that can be picked up by others ot to be used
Jennie_Delisi: if you consider the difference between UGC social media points… who is the content creator and what's their skill level?
<kirkwood> can one have a user-generated website?
shadi: big +1 to what alastairc and Rachael and others said
shadi: I think this can be strong accelerator to promote ATAG
<GreggVan> mechanisms for cuing, detecting and repairing accessibility issues in content being created. NOTE2: There are also guidelines for things that are used to create content in accessible ways that provide additional guidance. "
shadi: I don't think that WCAG can or should replace ATAG fully, but we can pick up what is needed
shadi: Hidde also mentioned that we're in the same organisation that makes ATAG, so we can coordinate with the CG
giacomo-petri: there are two ways to see this… looking at your product and including the UGC in the scope of your page, you're forced to claim partial conformance, because parts are out of your control
giacomo-petri: so when I need to prove conformance I'm not allowed to mark 1.1.1 as passed
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "Kevin pointed out that exceptions for user-generated should be in policy (and our policy doc) and not in WCAG. But we should have something about not preventing users from creating uploading conformant content. SO here is new proposed version "Where users are able to create or upload content, they are not prevented from creating or uploading content that conforms to this document. NOTE1: It is also helpful to provide
GreggVan: Kevin pointed out exceptions
GreggVan: we should have something about not preventing users
<kirkwood> +1 to exceptions being in policy
GreggVan: I think we should defer to the ATAG group
[ Rachael reads out draft resolution ]
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: We will outline policy advice to exempt all content completely outside of author control
kevin: I'm not sure if I can be support guidance that suggests exceptions, that's outside of our remit
<shadi> +1 to kevin
<julierawe> +1 to @kevin
kevin: should outline challenges around user generated content
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: We will include challenges of user generated content in policy documents.
hdv: are we doing this one and then the remaining points?
<Jennie_Delisi> * definition is me
Rachael: we are
shadi: do think keeping it in one actually builds up nicely
shadi: I think we don't want too much detail re what we're addressing in the policy guidance just yet
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: The group will explore: 1) Identifying provisions which could have methods that contribute to ATAG, 2) Creating a provision that calls for creation interfaces to allow for WCAG-conformant content, 3) Having some type of claim of conformance for the editing interface, 4) Outlining policy advice for making use of these aspects, 5) co-ordinating with ATAG CG.
GreggVan: would suggest adding 'and not in WCAG itself' re the previous draft resolution
<stevekerr> +1 to the compound one. I think its easier to understand the full scope.
GreggVan: I see some problems in the compound one, 'explore' isn't meaningful enough
GreggVan: we don't have conformance claims for pieces of a page
<stevekerr> just because we dont have something now doesnt mean we cant have something.
<hdv> +1 stevekerr
GreggVan: not sure if coordinating will help us
Jennie_Delisi: if we use the term user generated content, can we post a definition for it?
Jennie_Delisi: i'm thinking about code repositories for instance
Jennie_Delisi: thinking about social media post vs more complex
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to try this a different way
Rachael: maybe we can try this in a Google Doc
<Rachael> crafting resolutions https://
Rachael: I'll put the draft resolution in a Google Doc, should be available for everyone in the group
alastairc: you can already make a claim on an editing interface
alastairc: there's nothing re which methods you have to use
<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to maybe unstuck
alastairc: nothing points out what kind of interface you're claiming about
hdv: +1 to Jennie_Delisi
… code systems could be part of this
… discussed in ATAG 5 to 10 years ago
… maybe one idea is to call it “authoring tools in the broadest sense"
<shadi> +1 to hdv
hdv: and not go into too much detail; be pragmatic there
<mgifford2> @hdv absolutely. Also, worth noting that there has been a lot of discussion about AI as an authoring tool.
giacomo-petri: does it mean you have to do more because you're allowing content to start from your system? seems something is out your control?
Rachael: how would you rewrite it?
giacomo-petri: my question is if we're adding more requirements now
giacomo-petri: I don't understand the 'type of claim' definition
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on giacomos question
alastairc: the type of claim would be … we provide a UI to create content that is displayed by us… within provisions about content yu would then be committing we've done these methods within those provisions, as they're know to improve accessibility
alastairc: you're claiming for the interface, not the output
alastairc: because people could still do weird things with your interface and that's out of your control
Jennie_Delisi: agree with Hidde that using 'broadest sense' makes sense
<kirkwood> +1 to Jennie
hdv: +1 to Jennie
<Zakim> scribe, you wanted to react to Jennie_Delisi
I will need to leave before 10 as I'm in another meeting.
GreggVan: saying that everything needs to be accessible or conformant is too detailed. We don't want this to be too specific to individual components. Defining individual content is a normative process. We don't want to have it be part of the policy document. It can boil down to 1) creating a provision that allows for the creation or uploading of content does not prevent the creation of content that conforms. 2) include thoughts on issues on
… thoughts on how we are going to enforce them. We do not tell anyone what to do, but we can identify ideas, and express our thoughts and considerations on how they might be implemented.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to reply to gregg
kevin: the idea of the second part of this. Looking at SVG 1.1, one of the classes of products is a conforming SVG generator that always creates conforming documents. What we are seeing here is effectively a class of product which is a content generator, and this content generator conforms when it produces conforming content. That is not a provision but a type of product within conformance. It is stepping into ATAG space, and that may not be the best
… thing we can do with this (he thinks). This is about how to encourage interfaces to create accessible content. Not less important, but needs to be in the right place.
<wendyreid> s/@GreggVan/GreggVan:/
<kevin> s/@GreggVan saying that/GreggVan: saying/
alastairc: GreggVan, you could create a perfectly accessible interface that produces inaccessible content. The content generated may not be accessible, even though the interface is. Within the provisions we have we can enable or encourage accessible content to be generated.
Lisa: One tool that we have, when thinking about conformance claims. Another type of thing, similar to path is a framework. I'm claiming conformance on the framework. That could be a useful piece. Maybe there we could add to the rules of the framework conformance statement that they also need to support ATAG.
<Adam> s/@alastairc/alastairc:/
Lisa: automatic svg conformance is a good thing, may be technically conformant but also unusable. Content should be automatically testable and awful.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to Lisa to suggest approach for scribe
Thanks kevin.
GreggVan: we have provisions about the interface. I'm not saying anything about the interface being used. Anytime there is an interface all of WCAG applies to it. What do you create for upload when you create that interface. Whatever you use to create, you need to be able to allow them to create the accessible content. Is that what you understood it to say.
alastairc: Both UI might be completely accessible, but there is nothing to say that it creates images with alt text or good content. Saying that the interface is accessible doesn't mean that it will be used.
<wendyreid> +1 GreggVan
GreggVan: unless we put all of the things in ATAG. We shouldn't prevent, goes far enough. We don't want to tell poeple that ATAG is the delux version. What you must do is allow users to upload.
<Jon_Avila> I wonder if we should still include accessibility info not lost during conversion in WCAG 3 even though it's ATAG like it could apply to things like video players type things.
Rachael: our goal is to get a general way forward for a sub-group. Not to work out every detail. We don't have agreement on how to integrate, but we do have agreement that we would like to. We don't want to outline how we are going to integrate ATAG. We want to have a resolution to help people explore it. That is the chairing perspective. I do have a draft resolution, I tried to pull pieces from GreggVan and alastairc . And try and get the
… definition from hdv . If we don't like the way forward we can continue to work on it.
giacomo-petri: I'm concerned about the time it will require. You are allowing users to add an image. You need to allow to add an alt text and an empty alt text. You might have a checkbox, mark this image if the image is decorative. But at some point how can you determine objectively if the tool has done the best to ensure what is sufficient. If you have an input, you cannot force a user to enter the information inside. If you include a
… checkbox, not everyone will read the documentation about what a description actually is.
<hdv> +1 wendy, it's very referable still
<alastairc> wendyreid - scenario: you are a platform (such as social media platform), currently anything with UGC is a massive problem, pretty much an auto-fail. How do they demonstrate that they have done what they can?
wendyreid: I am confused as to why we are talking about this in the first place. Don't prevent people to add content, if you do refer folks to ATAG 2.0. There is still a need for ATAG, there is work underway to update ATAG. It seems like it would not the greatest use of AGWG's time. The cross-over between AGWG & ATAG, there is already a lot of overlap. Wouldn't want a sub-group where there is something already being worked on.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that we should be careful to not require too much of simple products. Policy makers can scope applicability of ATAG but harder to spec applicability of a subset of WCAG. and to say that we should be careful to not require too much of simple products. Policy makers can scope applicability of ATAG but harder to spec applicability of a subset of WCAG. ALSO your revision doesn not address the issues posted on it.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer wendy
GreggVan: We need to be careful that we don't think about delux authoring tools and then apply to mom-pop shop, wanting to upload lines for a contest. Not an authoring tool. Not stopping accessibility, then it is more complicated.
… In your rewrite, some types of conformance for pieces of the page. We said it isn't something we are going to do and then it is there as something we want to agree on doing.
Rachael: do we want support from AGWG. No matter how we do it, and it doesn't matter to this discussion. Should we in some discussion point to ATAG. If the view is that ATAG should stand on its own and AGWG should leave it alone.
… The question is how should we point to ATAG. I'd like to bring the conversation back to should we or not. That is what we need to work through
<Jennie_Delisi> * small shops are targeted in some jurisdictions by nuisance law suits
<Jennie_Delisi> * but I agree, broad thoughts at this phase
hdv: Agreed. We wanted to have a couple things. With one or two things that might make content better. Not because ATAG doesn't exist, but that ATAG applies much wider. Having some provisions will help. Help them show up in more places. to GreggVan's point, yes this is harder for mom and pop shops but whether regulators go after them is up to regulators, outside what we worry about; they'll decide how it will apply to small shops. Thinks that some parts of ATAG should be in WCAG. We can keep this small. 1 or two assertions possibly.
<shadi> +1 to hdv
<alastairc> Jennie_Delisi - agree, but think that we need to help with the advice about procurement / responsibiltiy
wendyreid: thanks for the additional. It makes sense. A method to achieve this is to follow ATAG. This is something that the ATAG CG can help with. We are about to do a line by line review. We can look for where there might be ATAG adjacent text in WCAG. That is something we may work on together.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how it relates to conformance
alastairc: Take your advice, and step back from the how. It came up as a conformance thing. One of the platform type places can talk about that. There is no way to represent in confromance the difference. Not saying you would exclude content. Platform is responsible for the interface that users have to create that content. Less around how, but do we agree that there should be some means of claiming for that interface? Separate product type or
… scope to the interface?
<alastairc> agree with applying to "output of..."
GreggVan: first of all hdv you are thinking about Europe and not the USA. If we do not have it in the regulations that mom & pops are exempt, then there will be implications in the USA courts. Regulators do not decide things, like this. Not sure if ATAG has levels, but there should be things that are basic, vs the full load for more complicated interfaces. I had a suggestion to have the output of the interfaces, the way the first bullet says
… is interfaces, that is all of the provisions. Number one bullet makes no sense, the interface on an authoring tool, now it is back. Other concern is having some type of claim for confomrance. We shouldn't introduce that folks can claim conformance of part of their site. Doing that opens it up, the way to handle that is just to put it in the provisions.
<hdv> +1 to Rachael, many points at once is hard to process
<shadi> +1 to Rachael
<wendyreid> +1 Rachael me too
Rachael: I do not agree with the first point. Can we try to focus on one thing at a time. I'm going to move onto queue.
<Jon_Avila> Starting to exempt from small business from certain provisions is a very slippery slope and seems contrary to what was said previously about leaving certain things to rulers vs. the ruler.
stevekerr: There is a distinction. It's captured in the draft resolution (I think). The distinction between whether we are adjusting provisions to include any other tools. the other is how we determine conformance levels. Whether or not we are adding provisions for WCAG 3. To alastairc's point, giving transparency on a platform. What level one should be able to claim conformance to. Seem like two differently scoped things.
<shadi> +1 to Jon_Avila
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond to gregg
<Rachael> Identifying provisions which could have methods that apply to the output of interfaces which allow end users to create or upload content, and creating those methods,
<Adam> +1 to “which relate to authoring tools”
Rachael: I apologize that I am not keeping up. Focusing on the first bullet point. Don't want to sidetrack the queue. If we can focus on the first point. I think this bullet point is no longer correct. I think we are applying to provisions that associate with authoring tools. I don't think we're looking to write provisions about the outcomes, but to authoring tools.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to comment on claim of conformance for interface
kevin: 3rd bullet - claim conformance for interfaces that allow users to upload content. I feel that I am responsible for this as I may have introduced the idea. This isn't about parts of the interface that do or don't conform. It is a class of product for conformance. One class of content is a content generator. There is a class of product that can create content, and we should be clear on that. this class of product can produce content.
Makoto_U: This is a complicated issue. User generated content can be simple or complicated. In either cases user generated content is out of their control even if service providers do their best to make the content accessible. Inaccessible content matters to users, not how it is generated. I came up with 3 levels. Minimum: partial conformance WCAG 2.2. Better level: Authoring tools which allow users to generate WCAG conformant content. Best:
… Providing guidance on how to generate WCAG 3 conformant content. If we need to develop a way to make conformance claim that is not a partial confomrance claim, then we might be able to create the rules. We will have to then create a scheme for the UGC. Want to keep things simple.
Rachael: want to focus on bullet 1.
GreggVan: the problem is the word interface. If we change the word to things, or content or functions. The trouble with the word interface is that the input boxes. This isn't talking about the thing you want to talk about but the interface, which is already covered by our guidelines. Functions, tools, functionality that allow.. Problem is the term interface, not what it does.
Rachael: can we just say provisions relating to ATAG?
<Zakim> stevekerr, you wanted to add a suggestion
GreggVan: No. I don't know. That sounds like coordinating with ATAG. I thought you were trying to do something specific. We're not talking about the accessibility of the buttons/fields, we are talking about the thing you're creating. You can fix it however you wish.
stevekerr: I agree with GreggVan with use of the term functionality.
GreggVan: you can accept the deletion of the output there.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say "authoring input"?
<Rachael> Identifying provisions which could have methods that apply to functionality which allow end users to create or upload content, and creating those methods,
<Rachael> Identifying provisions which could have methods that apply to authoring input
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer jon
Jon_Avila: I'm just trying to understand exactly what we are trying to say. We're trying to see how they should be applied? or are we saying that we are looking for provisions that we could write?
alastairc: the original idea. Within the provisions we have. What provisions would help with the output. Are there provisions under that which would be useful for authoring tool scenario. That would give you a mechinism to say those methods would be needed if you are going to claim a type of conformance.
<Rachael> Identifying provisions which could have methods that apply to authoring input
<wendyreid> +1
<Adam> +1
Rachael: this is a multi-step. Are we comfortable with that wording "Identifying provisions which could have methods that apply to authoring input". Sorry, I'm working in IRC. I'll build as I go.
GreggVan: sometimes hard to find the resolution in all of the notes.
janina: Trying to listen here carefully. Increasingly uncomfortable about where ATAG should be providing guidance. Are we not expecting an uptick in ATAG. AT least we're at risk at giving guidance in the same area that ATAG would have to cover, and that makes me nervous.
<Jon_Avila> +1
Rachael: We've talked about that, about how to work to it or point to it. I've heard support for it. Wanting to capture what that support might look like.
<alastairc> It might be best to start with bullet 3 (for conformance), then 1 & 2 follow as 'how'.
janina: ATAG & UAAG, what belongs where. Do we try to stuff it all in, or how do we resurrect some of these. We're going to take the whole resolution together. I think we have confirmation on bullet one.
that last one needs work
Jon_Avila: the only thing, conversion. Where accessibility can be broken. Transmission too. Wanted to speak to janina's suggestion. So many folks don't know about ATAG. We dont' want to replace ATAG, but wanting to highlight provisions that may be useful. Not replicating it but identifying things that may be useful for those who are not adopting that, even if we do not go further.
Jennie_Delisi: do we need to include this in what we provide to regulators. Pointing to it and ensuring that there are these other elements. I like the way it is going now breaking into specifics.
giacomo-petri: I had to step away. Dividing provisions into what is related to content. If you had an authoring tool that allows you to create a web page. Is there a way to highlight what user generated content is tied to ATAG. Maybe they are all included. If you have an authoring tool that allow to website creation then all provisions apply.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the overlap / non-overlap with ATAG
Rachael: that is a good questions
alastairc: parrtly there is a vein digram about what would be in WCAG and ATAG. Transformation , we don't have a basis for including that (in my mind). WCAG is primarily about interfaces, what happens behind that don't come within our scope. Some things that are part of ATAG that would never be in WCAG3. Whether there is a conformance thing we could call out or identify. Something that allows authoring tool creators to highlight what they
… have done.
Lisa: I just wondering about how circular we are making things. Would we be invalidating ATAG because. Last time I read it, it referenced WCAG. Making content that you can make content that conforms and that the interface conforms. If we double reference it back will we be creating a mess?
Rachael: I think making that determination is part of what we are discussiong.
wendyreid: is this the best use of our time. For what has been a challenging 30 minutes. Can we take this offline and cover other stuff? I think it is important we keep working. WE could debate this forever.
Rachael: we will wrap up.
<alastairc> back in 15
Question 5 user generated content platforms https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conformance-updates-test/results/#xq8
Question 5
alastairc: We were looking at the authoring tools resolution, we're done with the first
<alastairc> "explore an approach to claiming conformance that applies to authoring and uploading functionality,"
alastairc: the second one, [reading]
GreggVan: Number 2 might be controversial, my aqlternative [reading from screen]
… putting something in a conformance claim doesn't have an effect on anything, it also encourages us to open an area I thought we closed, pointing out parts not the whole
… I think that's problematic
… [reading], we'd shift into the provisions, and when you claim conformance, you have claimed conformance to those provisions
alastairc: That's one alternative
giacomo-petri: I disagree with Gregg, if I'm an authoring tool vendor, I want to claim my product is accessible
… I understand for the user it's separate, but as a vendor I want to claim my tool is accessible and I can't control how it is used
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on bullet 2, perhaps take out of conformance and use "ATAG badge" or similar. Could be "class of product", a requirement, an assertion, or a specifically scoped claim.
giacomo-petri: or I've misunderstood Gregg's point
alastairc: Chair hat off, for this bullet, how we deal with conformance, its to do with authoring tools, there's several approaches
… you could have a level of conformance claim, could take it out
… have an ATAG badge
… it could be a class of product, something Kevin proposed
… content generator clas
… it could be a requirement like Gregg suggestion
… it could be an assertion
… relevant to platforms with UGC
… the main thing I want people to agree on is whether we explore one of these options for conformance
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to respond to Gregg
alastairc: I slightly disagree with Gregg's version because provisions need to be added
kevin: I think there's two potential perspectives on this, thinking about Giacomo's point, if I have a tool that creates content, I can make a claim that tool itself is accessible, coforms to WCAG
… what this is talking about is whether I can make a claim that the content produced by my tool is accessible
… class of conformance, my output is accessible from my tool I created
… this thing can create WCAG-conformant content
… it's a specific conformance claim
… the last thing is this is just about exploring this, we need to look at whether there is something here
alastairc: If we agree to it, we can't go back and say we shouldn't have done it
shadi: I think I'm saying something similar to alastairc, I don't think there should be a separate class of conformance or something like that, I think the initial wording proposed meets it
… I'm thinking of something like in the conformance section, we have 5 requirements, an additional requirement might be if you are geenrating or uploading content, it supports the ability to be accessible
… it applies to all products
… if my product is an authoring tool, when I'm providing it, it conforms, does it conform afterwards? Unless there is additional mechanisms to control the content being generated
… you can't control the conformance after creation
… I think it should be part of conformance claims, one potential mechanism
… uses the conformance requirements approach
… no claims on generative content unless its been tested
alastairc: Are you good with the draft resolution
shadi: Yes, the draft produced by the chairs
Jon_Avila: I think what we're saying it's possible to create something that conforms something that adheres to provisions, but can't guarantee
… there's lots of ways to conform, if my product doesn't allow upload of captions but allows open captions, that is a way to conform
<Charles> instead of class of product, it sounds like current state of product or the product does not disallow it’s use to maintain state.
Jon_Avila: there's different arguments to how you meet the standard
alastairc: Lots of details like that to work through. One thing this is not saying is the output of generated content is conformant, just that the platform has done what it can
… just a nuance to be aware of
alastairc: I think Gregg's version is a subset of what we're saying in the original resolution
… I think Kevin's is helpful as well, we can take these away and work on them
… but if we agree this is useful we can proceed
… any comments on point 2
… both alternatives to point 2 are valid, what is the best way to do it
… propose to stick to it as is and look at the other ways when we explore
… bullet 3, wonder if it's needed
… any objections to removing?
alastairc: Any objections to point 4 now 3
… include challenges about UGC in the policy doc
… any objections about coordinating with ATAG CG
Charles: It's not clear to me what the coordination is and what the way forward is
… can we make that more specific?
alastairc: All of this is relevant to ATAG in some form, we'd either be working with them on methods
Charles: Way forward for the whole list
alastairc: Yes, all of the above
<alastairc> Draft RESOLUTION: The group will: 1) identify provisions which could have methods that apply to authoring and uploading functionality, 2) explore an approach to claiming conformance that applies to authoring and uploading functionality, 3) Include challenges about user generated content in the policy document, 4) Coordinate with ATAG CG on the way forward for all of the above.
<wendyreid> +1
<Adam> +1
<Detlev> +1
<shoobe01> +1
<BrianE> +1
<Charles> +1
<hdv> +1
<Gez> +1
<stevekerr> +1
<Monica> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<jkatherman> +1
<Jon_Avila> +1
<Lisa> +1
<Atya> +1
<GreggVan> +0
<janina> +1
<Makoto_U> +1
<maryjom> +1
<kevin> +1
RESOLUTION: The group will: 1) identify provisions which could have methods that apply to authoring and uploading functionality, 2) explore an approach to claiming conformance that applies to authoring and uploading functionality, 3) Include challenges about user generated content in the policy document, 4) Coordinate with ATAG CG on the way forward for all of the above.
alastairc: This will have some work to do, it does give direction
… we do need to note the alternatives
provision levels https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conformance-updates-test/results/#xq9
alastairc: what bullet two could become
Provision Levels
alastairc: We have provision levels increase the accessibility for the user
… some of these are alternatives to each other
… another idea was more levels of conformance
… no idea of how many
… it's hard to find linear progression levels
… progress towards conformance scoring
<CClaire> +1
alastairc: it's not in conformance, that's meeting the requirements, progress is a score that shows how close you are to conformance
… it's not being called conformnce
… levels that are not based on conformance, but it would be a way to give badging or levelling to contribute to conformance
… we've got to "this" level
… quick overview [on screen]
… next proposal, in WCAG 1/2 we have A, AA, AAA
… in WCAG 2 we added cost of difficulty, applicability
… in WCAG 3, we should consider an increase in overall accessibility for the user
… generally good support
… 20 yeses 3 nos
… we had a lot of comments
… trying to pull out the positives and negatives
… [reading comments]
<Lisa> +1 to Rachaels comment
alastairc: general agreement on levels increasing resulting in a better and better user experience
… people assume that based on levels already, that assumption is not wrong
… some concerns about the reality of it, may encourage only a bare minimum
… if the levels are only tied to improved user experience
giacomo-petri: I totally understand and agree with the idea, from the reporting perspective it will be easier to prioritize some things, focusing on user needs and impact
… my concern but if its needed but time consuming, and only needed for the bare minimum, it may deter people from reaching beyond
… if we only analyze based on impact, people may view the minimum already as too difficult
alastairc: [more comments] Cost/difficult of implementation may be a barrier
… enthusiasm for encouraging the best expeirence
… always tension between what is required and what is readily achievable
… too many requirements may be a deterrent
… Gregg not in favour, level should not be the only reason
… Lisa, needs to be about usability and spread evenly across user groups
… I said it can be challenging to determine what improves experience more
shadi: I think one of the comments commonly repeated is the possible cost and prohibitive aspect
… imagine if we had more levels, instead of determining feasibility, to leave that to policy makers
… there is already stuff like undue burden
… we should try to be a measure of how accessible something is
<kirkwood> +1 to ruler
<Lisa> +1 to shardi
shadi: more granular levels, let the regulators decide what the bar is
… encouraging people to go beyond
<JeroenH> +1 to Shadi and possibly more levels
Charles: I found it useful that several comments asked for examples or provided some
<kirkwood> +1 to need for examples
<kevin> The phrase 'how accessible is something' I find troubling because it really should be (in my head) 'how accessible is something to a specific someone'
<Makoto_U> +1 to Shadi
Charles: I'd like to nitpick the phrasing of the question, "should improve the accessibility and expeirence", but I don't think experience is measureable
… example, sign language, if providing it is the provision, that needs to be localized, ASL is diff from BSL or other region
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask that all provisions improve accessibility, how do we determine the amount?
Charles: to be more accessible, the experience could be degraded if they need to select the right option, but we shouldn't measure experience
alastairc: Chair hat off, all of the provisions we have improve accessibility, what I would struggle with is assigning different levels
… however many levels we have, they all imrpove accessibility, how do we determine the amount of improvement
… some obvious blockers, but once you're past those, how do we agree on what the amount
maryjom: Just a comment on policy makers having enough knowledge to know what to require and what not, it's not always the case
<giacomo-petri> +1 to maryjom!
maryjom: while there is stuff there for procurement, they want 100% meeting, it's difficult for me, we want requirements to address more user needs
<Charles> improvement requires examples. perhaps alt text quality and accuracy is an improvement, but each get progressively less objective.
maryjom: we have to face the reality that leaving everything up to policy makers is dangerous
Lisa: To the question of how do we set the levels
<Makoto_U> +1 to maryjom
Lisa: the proposal from COGA was level 1 was essential to be usable if they are going to successfully use the content independently
… without it, they would be likely unable to use the content
… that's level 1
… level 2 was more along the lines of usability due to a disability, things like landmarks, good example where you can use the content without them, but with them, it's better
… level 3 was optimized for usability, it's a pleasant experience
… that was how we defined the three levels
… it's not an exact measure, there's some things that don't fit, things like harm and safety need to be considered
… to Mary Jo's point, we can have examples of policy in the policy section that takes these things into account, scenarios from their perspective
… essential services such as health care
<kevin> -1 to including example policies, we are not policy writers
Lisa: they might have to read through some bullets to get to what is relevant to them, but we can help them
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to respond to alastairc
shadi: Agree with Lisa, it doesn't need to be example policy, but some kind of guidance
<kevin> +1 to guidance and explanation :)
shadi: we don't have to constrain ourselves in thinking about how we currently do it
<kirkwood> plicy makers want to ensure it covers a particular user gr oup as well, by the nature of legislative process
shadi: not a fan of dividing by requirements and percentages
… yesterday we'd agree we'd explore tasks
… level 1 is any functionality provided has at least one path of completion
… next level is multiple paths
… point is, we're being additive
… not just by adding more requirements
… website owners can build up accessibility
… right now from level A to AA, there isn't an additive aspect
shadi: Maybe we can use paths to build up accessibility in multiple levels
… in level 2 there is an expectation of better accessibility
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on improvement and severity both being contextual.
alastairc: Two things. First, I don't understand yet, if we have multiple levels and only focus on improvements to the user experience, the original proposal, both level of improvement and severity of issue are two sides of the same coin
<giacomo-petri> +1 to alastairc!
alastairc: if you're assessing the severity of the issue, it's impossible to do it without considering the context
… if a button lacks a name and it's a submit button on a form its serious, if an image is missing a name in the footer, it's not as serious
… these are rules for everyone, we can't take into account the context
<kirkwood> should be the coverage of user experience. or rather should it be better coverage of functional needs?
alastairc: we have this built into core and supplemental
… beyond what we've already done, how else can we tie it into UX
… we haven't agreed on a mechanism to pick particular paths, might be outside our remit
Lisa: To answer that, if we think of tags on a 1 dimensional level, this provision is required or not, we could also produce a heat map of essential, usable, safety, these kind of tags that identify the severity
… on another dimension you could have functional needs, so for one person it's essential, for another its useful
… the final level or dimension being the context, is it part of a path
… all that increases the level
… all that is possible for us with something like RDF
… you could input the context, and we provide what contributes to that
… back up to the policy, make it searchable
alastairc: For each issue found, you'd consider the issue, it's location, and from that the impact or severity?
Lisa: I would tag each provision with the functional need, the level of need (essential, useful), leading to a quick ref-like experience, you can lookup the criteria that aids that goal
alastairc: For any provision essential to everyone? Not sure what is being added
Lisa: What is being added, we leave it to the policy maker to set the level
… if they feel its too much, they can cut it down or target different needs, or difficulty level
… we only want essential things that are easy to do
wendyreid: I think I see Lisa’s point
… but for this discussion, I wonder if the levels are an opportunity for different organizations to pick areas and context that are more applicable to them than others might be
… so after our baseline level, they can say “I am an e-commerce site, and I will focus on X provisions because they are more applicable to my product”
… so each level after the baseline level shows you’ve done X or % or some level of work has been done
… you have to document what you’ve done
… I do like the idea of being able to let them look at all the requirements and choose the best ones to do right by their users
… and also “what’s the easiest thing to start with?”
… and then discover levels beyond that
… not just “how do I do better?” but “how do I do better _for my context_?”
<shadi> +1 to wendyreid
alastairc: Several discussion points there, but might be drifting from the point
GreggVan: My question is similar to yours, this seems to say one of two things, each level should be better than the previous, that feels obvious, like a ladder
… or its saying the only thing it determines is an improvement to accessibility, but that is a problem because there is often more factors to consider
… we don't want to weigh things against each other as more important for one group or another, but I thought there had to be some reason to post this
alastairc: I'm struggling to work out what the resolution might be here
… one way to propose might be that each increase in level of WCAG3 can only take into account the accessibility of the user
… otherwise in our work in the next year, not sure what we'd do differently
… any suggestions?
<alastairc> draft Poll: When provisions are assigned to levels, we will ignore factors that are not to do with improved accessibility experience.
wendyreid: this may be controversial, but it’s near impossible for us to truly measure quality of experience for the user
… it’s more than just the accessibility, it’s the content, it’s how they’re feeling that day
… and in a lot of ways, accessibility can be similar
<kirkwood> what does an “increase in accessiblity” reall y mean? more optimized, more groups, more functional needs met? user perspective or the technology perspective?
wendyreid: different users may have difference accessible experiences
<kevin> +1 to Wendy's comment 'accessibility depends on the user'
wendyreid: so the org needs a way to demonstrate _the effort_ they’ve put in, which should reflect an improvement in accessibility for the user, but they can’t guarantee
<Charles> -1 to effort of author
<kirkwood> Is a building with a ramp more accessible than an elevator?
GreggVan: This is a whole different thing than what was proposed, it's pretty draconian, we haven't determined what goes into the levels, to say we can't consider anything but improvement in accessibility, we end up with one level
… or we have to score each provision
… related to how important to accessibility each is
… it varies on different contexts
… the type, the combination, I don't see how put us in a box of one level, or a numeric value of one against the other
Lisa: So the proposal from COGA was that it was essential for some user groups, before AI at least, if you didn't have role and state of a control, like a button, it's not mapped to the accessibility API, ATs can't use it
… that is essential, no question they can't use the content
… the next level is similarly usable, that was stuff like landmarks,
… quicker to use, easier to use, equivalent experience to other user groups,
… optimized was level 3, those were the levels we proposed, it didn't depend on someone's perception, but it gave some kind of manageable criteria
… you don't have to give everything a numeric value
… which is why I thought the tags might be good
… then effort levels
… use tags to make policy, if just looking at user needs it's doable
… effort of the organization, depends on how well the team is setup, for some its easier or harder
… start with a low level but make efforts avoiding harder things
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on status-quo version of determination and to also talk to variability on what's essential not being by provision.
shadi: Wendy hit the nail on the head, how do we want the conformance level, what do we want them to represent? And can we document that? How do we define the levels — from user or author perspective, a mix of both? The proposal at the table is really to define it from a user perspective.
alastairc: Still not clear on what this provides beyond what our status quo would be. Historically we have considered impact on the user in the general sense. We also consider how feasible something is, how widely applicable things are, and we go through the consensus process.
alastairc: To Lisa's point, that can be very variable depending on how things are set up.
alastairc: The impact bit is highly variable just on Lisa's example on landmarks. An interface with a complex data-driven thing, had several panels, not frames, and landmarks were necessary for keyboard use. It became unusable without that mechanism. What is essential depends on the context, not just on user but of the interface and content type as well. Hard to set that at the provision level.
alastairc: Narrowing it down not just by provision but by location is interesting — chair hat on, this doesn't feel baked enough for a solid proposal so we can keep debating it but if we can get a consensus on a resolution, if we don't have something positive to put down we will have to move on.
wendyreid: I agree with you, it does not sound like we have a clear cut approach but maybe the next step is to talk about a few possible models — we can all agree on having levels of some kind, something that as you ascend the levels, shows improvement in one aspect or another but there are many ways to approach that.
wendyreid: If the resolution is everything we agree on, that we want levels and levels show that improvement, the next step is sitting down and modelling out what some of those levelling approaches might look like. Once we have more concrete examples, it makes this discussion easier.
<Charles> i want levels. but NOT when abused by authors to do a bare minimum or the incentive is to do less.
GreggVan: I want to remind us all that every provision is potentially the straw that breaks the camel's back — I think we should move on, we all agree we should make higher levels accessible but don't need a resolution on that. Trying to decide what goes in which level is not some formula.
<Makoto_U> +1 to Charles
Lisa: I personally don't want levels, every measure you put at the organisational effort is going to be subjective to the organisation, it's not going to be clear what belongs in what, it's a way of directing it — if you go with any other measure, groups that aren't currently in the flow, we'll have groups left out again at a lower level and what's essential for them will be marked as less important provisions.
Lisa: I don't think we should do that, it could be a discriminatory nature, the connotation of saying this thing that typically isn't essential to anyone is more important than things more important to this group of people and should be done first.
Lisa: It's not a right thing to say, I agree if we can't make it about putting things that are essential for a group of users at the top level, then we shouldn't prioritise this.
alastairc: Argument for a flat structure.
<Charles> the lowest level should not omit any needs.
shadi: I'm wondering if there's 2 potential resolutions there: what Lisa proposed that the base level will have minimum requirements for different cohorts, don't know how to define that, maybe another resolution was what you were saying where we will not define any specific approach for levels and go by case-by-case basis.
alastairc: We did define what would go into our current levels of core and supplemental, anything related to safety, enabled AT to work…
alastairc: The only resolution I can bring this to in the moment is we can go through a review process of our levels once we know how many there are.
<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: The group will review criteria for the levels prior to next draft
alastairc: We can review these minutes and see if we want to make changes, but we had basic criteria for that before.
alastairc: Any suggestions or updates to that?
GreggVan: I suggest you try not to create any rules until you try to assign levels. Trying to create rules before doing them is complicated, we are introducing a whole bunch of additional things that make it complicated.
alastairc: At the end of the day, any updates can go through the consensus process — we can review those rules. Not a strong resolution but can have a look at those before the next draft.
alastairc: People happy to are that? +1 if you do, -1 if not, 0 if you don't care
<Lisa> +1
<hdv> -1
<kevin> -1
<LoriO> +1
<GreggVan> +1 to review - esp if we ask what was done in past
<Adam> +0
<kirkwood> +
<jkatherman> +0
<Charles> 0
<janina> +1
<maryjom> +1
<BrianE> 0
<JeroenH> -1
<Gez> 0
0
<ShawnT> 0
<Makoto_U> 0
<laura> 0
<CClaire> 0
<GreggVan> maybe just pass on this at this point
hdv: I'm not against reviewing it, against deciding we must review it, it's adding work. Maybe in the future, but not commit to doing it before the next draft.
<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: The group will review criteria for the levels in the near future
<wendyreid> +1
<kirkwood> clear purpose of review?
<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: The group will review criteria for which provisions go into which level in the near future
kevin: What are we seeking to achieve by introducing levels of this sort?
kevin: Reviewing the framework not necessarily the specific levels.
<Adam> +1
alastairc: Slightly changed it — does anyone object to the group review criteria for when the provisions go into which level in the near future?
<GreggVan> +1
<Lisa> +1
<BrianE> +1
<kevin> +0.1
<maryjom> +1
<Detlev> +1 seems there is nothing tangible to disagree with...
<hdv> +0.9
<LoriO> +1
alastairc: +1 to the draft resolution I put above (slide 24)
<Makoto_U> +1
<Gez> +1
RESOLUTION: The group will review criteria for which provisions go into which level in the near future
more levels https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conformance-updates-test/results/#xq6
alastairc: WCAG 3 should have a more achievable level below what is currently WCAG 2.2 and more levels above
alastairc: Nat was saying AI is rapidly removing the need for levels or cost analysis, in favour of no levels, allow regulators to define timelines for improvement from one level to another.
alastairc: Could allow regulators to find different speeds for different factors.
alastairc: I think this is going around the sort of granularity arguments that it's sort of creating more notches. Someone is saying WCAG 3 should start at the same level as 2.2 and build, not wanting a level underneath.
… Some spoke of good definitions of levels, or have these levels as the de facto reference point.
alastairc: What belongs to what level continuing in perpetuity, some think it creates more problems for regulators and implementers.
<kirkwood> +1 to more confustion
alastairc: Someone didn't want any levels below WCAG 2.2 and would like levels above.
alastairc: What is the purpose of multiple levels that can't be met towards a conformance score?
alastairc: A score approach is more useful, doesn't create gates that you could get stuck on.
alastairc: The key of this proposal is it is part of conformance and there are more levels.
alastairc: Comparing against score approach which is a percentage or similarly based.
GreggVan: I was originally against multiple levels below AA but the pro to it is — if you're just getting started and trying to move forward, is it helpful to know which ones the WG thinks are the first ones you should work on. That should be in an application note — the type of site you would have would change the order, and so on.
GreggVan: It might be better to do it in an application note so you can have different orders for different kinds of content.
GreggVan: Knowing the pain we went through to get from A to AA, and decide what was just in those two levels was really hard.
GreggVan: What is essential to different groups of people and gonitive provisions, is there anything that is not essential?
giacomo-petri: Following up on levels, also defining supplemental and core requirements, I don't see how we can objectively subdivide the provisions.
giacomo-petri: It allows policy makers to make different decisions — is this against harmonisation? It is not our responsibility but if every policy maker takes different decisions based on different factors, it is difficult to get consistency.
hdv: I am pro-many levels and the reason is at the government, the number 1 thing we hear back from people is that they don't like the binary thing. They struggle to convince bosses to give more money to do a11y work.
<Detlev> +1 to hidde
hdv: Binary is you're conformant or not conformant — they keep struggling to explain t hat, and the reality is that everyone is some percentage towards conformant. It would be helpful to have a way to express where someone is on the road towards conformance.
<wendyreid> +1 hidde
hdv: We would gamify it a bit more, and will help the entities that we look at that are hardly conformant as well as the ones doing almost perfect.
<shadi> +1 to hdv
hdv: Different levels can help, at the moment we only have 3 levels, de factor we only have 1 level — having more levels can make it easier for people to get budget to do a11y work.
hdv: I'd love to see it in WCAG, it would work outside of our use case as well as outside of government context.
hdv: I agree with giacomo-petri and also we should be careful of what the equivalent of AA is today and not require below that in terms of regulation.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how we reduced "core" and to comment on level draw backs
hdv: Maybe we can talk to regulators, bar setting isn't what we do or in our remit, but we can help explain what we intend to be equivalent to AA and the level that we think would be equivalent to a base level of a11y, none of this should lower bars but make it easier to see where you are on the bar.
alastairc: Chair hat off, I have concerns around how we assign levels. (slide 21)
alastairc: We've come to a way of saying what is core and supplemental and it's hard to do on a subjective basis, the closest we got to that was "content is detectable by user agents and AT", "information avoids being conveyed in a single, non-programmatic mechanism", and so on.
alastairc: It gets tricky to try to assign different levels — my broad point is that if we do have lots of levels, and comparing this against scoring, if we centrally define these levels, what happens when people get stuck?
alastairc: What if we put something in level 1, 2, 3 and people can't get past?
alastairc: If you have the incremental rule whether there's a percentage or some form of score you increase, you don't get stuck and there are more things to do.
alastairc: As a yardstick, that seems A) easier for us to do and B) easier thing to work through
<JeroenH> +1 Shadi
shadi: There's a potential of regulators going below what is currently AA, we see a move race upwards rather than downwards. In Europe the requirement is more than just WCAG, EN 301 549 has more requirements to meet the EAA
shadi: They also relate to ATAG and UAG in some sense.
<kirkwood> +1 to Shadi
shadi: Along lines of what hdv was saying, there are more opportunities to go forward more.
shadi: It's important that this is part of conformance because policy makers look to W3C to define these levels and approach how to do it
<Charles> in the US the race is to the bottom
Makoto_U: I've been asked like Can you pick up the minimum set of SC so that we can set the first milestone or get started with accessibility efforts? If we can present lower levels for those who are new to accessibility, it would be great.
Makoto_U: It is okay even if it won't be regarded as conformance level, but the point is I'd like more and more people and organisations to make their first steps towards making things accessible. I'd like to see more digital content improving the quality level of accessibility using WCAG 3.
<Zakim> giacomo-petri, you wanted to say that IMO it can work if we rely on numbers of provisions (no black and white), but not if we consider levels based on user impact (because we don't have metrics to measure as per previous conversation)
<CClaire> +1 to Makoto_U which is similar here
<shadi> +1 to Makoto_U
giacomo-petri: I thought about what hdv said about gamifying and helping people/businesses to let them know they're making progress, but previously we discussed having levels reflecting user impact, if we have more levels how do we determine objectively which level should be assigned to each provision?
giacomo-petri: If we get away from this type of metric, we can make it work. If we rely on number of provisions regardless of impact on user, this might be a way to say they have 10 number of provisions met, therefore I am now AA, I have 15 I am AAA, and so on.
Lisa: Different organisations handle this in different ways. In some places they let product teams ask for exemptions — temporarily — and then it will be on their bug list. That's why they argue it's difficult for them to do right now.
Lisa: We can look at what the critical path is and have a template that propagates.
Lisa: I don't think we should be imposing it, but when we make content usable, we often have patterns such as a Getting Started section, clear language, using familiar words, heading structure, and labels and controls. This helps the user so much.
Lisa: It shortens the work and it's a way of doing it that could be a way to get started, when is it the most important case to use this provision uses here?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on percentages and to also suggest a starting point
alastairc: Where I've seen organisations who do WCAG audits, with various dashboards that they produce, they tend to use percentages, the big decision is, is it best for us to decide level by level which things go in which level? Or is it easier to push that off?
alastairc: With the lawyers, re: WCAG 3, "I'd die if you use percentages" in context to having percentages as a progression score.
<alastairc> Poll: We should have a mechanism to show progress from a low level to a high level (levels or score, in or out of conformance)
<GreggVan> +1
<Adam> +1
<hdv> +1
<JeroenH> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Gez> +1
<LenB> +1
<Dirk> +1
<jkatherman> +1
alastairc: Do most people agree with that?
<Eloisa> +1
<maryjom> +1
<Makoto_U> +1
<CClaire> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<Lisa> 0
<giacomo-petri> +1 to kevin
<kirkwood> 0
kevin: I was one of the ones who didn't agree with it, the problem I see is, in order to demonstrate progress, you have to have multiple audits of the same product, and it is useful for people show progress with one data point.
alastairc: Progress would need more than one data point. Comparison is another thing that would enable it.
<jtoles> 0
Charles: The poll assumes progress is only forward. If we have a mechanism that shows low to high, it should also show high to low.
alastairc: Poor wording on my part, you could show reverse progress.
giacomo-petri: I agree with kevin I think the progress is related to the guidance we provide policy makers because the auditors' claim is against the state of a product in a specific time.
GreggVan: There's nothing we're saying that requires people to do this, we're just saying it enables people to be able to report to their boss their progress. If we don't require it, it doesn't require any data points.
giacomo-petri: My question is right now none of us is reporting a11y as black or white, for us it is the number of SC or evaluated a thousand images and a hundred are failing, so this is the state and you need to fix 900 images and you are at this point to reach conformance. It was never black and white internally.
<kevin> A way to show improvement is good
<kirkwood> Sounds like we’re talking about LOE?
giacomo-petri: When you have to make a claim conformance to WCAG, the levels will help but there are other ways to report progress and other ways to compare the results like the number of issues, etc.
hdv: The number of issues is something, but I do see the # of SC that is the thing we're trying to replace here or that I feel I need a replacement for that because it doesn't seem to be helpful.
LoriO: In response to counting the # of instances where there is a violation, I don't think it's granular enough. If I only have 2, one of them violates flashin, so I don't think a count is useful — we have to have gradation if we're using count in severity.
<kirkwood> #hours
<Lisa> we also have to be very careful about gaming
alastairc: Let's take a step back, we have mechanisms here and I've seen various mechanisms used in reporting like # of issues, # of instances of issues, relate that to average per page or conformance unit — the question is, do we want a mechanism to show that built into conformance where we have to decide the levels or is that better done elsewhere?
… (as a general thing, e.g. reporting not in WCAG 3 at all, or something we add on to conformance)
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on attributes
<kevin> If someone is willing to game the system Lisa, at least it demonstrates they are doing something!
giacomo-petri: Conformance is tricky, it will be adopted by policy makers. Potentially it is not just number of instances over a scope, you evaluate the severity of the issue regardless of the SC that is impacted.
giacomo-petri: There can be a combination of ways to prove your progress, it's difficult to create an objective algorithm that defines that.
giacomo-petri: The progress will also depend on the maturity of the company, there may be areas that require adjustments.
giacomo-petri: The more you are conformant with WCAG, the less progress you have so there should be a way to balance that progress because it depends on where you are in your accessibility program.
alastairc: Progress is lack of barriers.
hdv: To the question on whether there could be something else to performance doing this, I'd like to see this group think about it because this group is equipped with the knowledge about different disabilities and what kind of things we need to avoid.
<alastairc> Poll: We want to embed the progress measure into levels of conformance
hdv: I'm not opposed to conformance within some other doc, but within conformance would probably be best.
<shadi> +1 to hdv
<ShawnT> +1
<hdv> +1
<Adam> +1
<Gez> +1
<Eloisa> +1
<shoobe01> +1
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to poll
<alastairc> -1
<GreggVan> -1
<janina> -1
<Charles> -1
<jtoles> 0
<giacomo-petri> -1, I'd prefer in policy guidance
Lisa: Everyone has come across people gaming the system, internally for some teams, before the first measure they will sabotage something easy to break so they can show they've been trying, and they fix them to get their numbers much better.
Lisa: It seems that it would be hard to do this in a way that isn't going to enable people to just do some of these things to game the system.
<GreggVan> your other draft resolution was better. it said some mechanism. now you changed it to only doing it via conformance. that would mean a lot of levels below conformance. waht does that even mean
<Lisa> -1
<CClaire> +1
<kevin> 0, I think this would make something already difficult (conformance) much harder to do, doing in policy guidance would be great
<LoriO> +1
<janina> -1 Let's show progress in a maturity modeling report, not a WCAG conformance!
<giacomo-petri> +1 to janina
<Makoto_U> -1 it doesn't have to be in conformance. we already have Maturity Model
<maryjom> +1
<Dirk> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Adam> Poll: We want to embed the progress measure into levels of conformance
GreggVan: Concerned that we're limited ourselves to one mechanism.
Adam: The results were split, 10 for, 8 against, 2 abstaining
acl alice
<Adam> Poll: We want to provide guidance for measuring progress, but will not embed it into the conformance model
<Adam> Poll: We want to provide guidance for measuring progress ad regression, but will not embed it into the conformance model
GreggVan: Have a progress towards conformance, to first level, then another to the next level.
… then also have multiple levels.
… the PTC is important, because regulators will pick a level, and the others become less important.
… and we might have problems putting things in levels.
… happy to have levels, but think it will be hard to have many of them.
shadi: Don't think we should be defining according to how easy it is for us. This was only one use case. We'd give regulators option to use timelines, to hit X at one time, and Y at another time.
… for certain services it might be a higher level.
… will allow different kinds of levels, and managing.
… not about measuring levels.
alastairc: I am still struggling with how we would do this
… to propose a next step, how about we commit a subgroup or the conformance subgroup (or part of it) to do a “spike” on this
… to say “here’s how we would divide these into levels”
… I think the act of doing that would be a good learning experience
<hdv> +1 alastairc
GreggVan: Comment about difficulty was side comment, proposal was that: because people expressed concern about one use-case, it's more than that, we combine levels and score.
… everyone agrees more than one.
<shadi> +1 to giacomo-petri
giacomo-petri: In favour of exploring, but not just assigning levels to provisions, but think about number of provisions, other metrics.
q>
shadi: agree with giacomo, other metrics could be paths / tasks / journeys. Not discussed the scoring yet, lets discuss that separately.
GreggVan: Didn't say was agreed, was just proposing it.
… trying to figure out something where we get to consensus.
… how does someone report before they get to conformance.
… if we think there should be no reporting in front of base conformance that's fine, but heard complaints.
… I didn't specify how.
… if we send it off, shouldn't tie their hands.
… want to allow more than all/nothing.
alastairc: can’t speak on behalf of everyone who -1’d
… but my concerns are around how do you assign these things to levels, and does that actually bring benefit
… and the only way to know is to try it
… can we come up with a resolution
draft RESOLUTION: the conformance subgroup will have a “spike” to explore defining conformance levels
draft RESOLUTION: the conformance subgroup will have a “spike” to explore assigning levels to provisions
draft RESOLUTION: the conformance subgroup will have a “spike” to defining conformance levels
<alastairc> +1
GreggVan: that doesn't address the question about base level conformance is binary, until you hit all of it there's no credit.
… just defining levels doesn't address either concern.
alastairc: that’s next on the agenda
… the progression score
… and if we agree to this it won’t exclude us doing the next one
<hdv> +1 (and happy to be in the sub sub group to make a proposal this group can look at)
Rachael: We talked yesterday about having semi/partial conformance, as a stepping stone to conformance.
… we've already seen in WCAG2 having multiple levels just collapses to the highest level chosen. It's not that valuable. Instead of focusing on these levels, why not focus on partial conformance?
draft RESOLUTION: the conformance subgroup will have a “spike” to explore the definition of conformance levels
GreggVan: I think the spike to understand it is good, better than doing it now
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to understand Rachael's propsoa,
alastairc: I wasn’t sure we got to a concrete place on the partial conformance yesterday
… what would that look like?
… if we’ve got partial conformance, the negative of that yesterday was “that’s 99% of everything”
… how do we have a more graduated metric
… and to respond to GreggVan, if we have multiple levels of conformance, each level does conform
… but I think you meant to emphasize the levels chosen by regulators?
<Charles> progress and regression occurs before and between each level
GreggVan: if we had 5 levels of conformance, so for first one you do everything there. If we don't provide a mechanism for talking about progress towards conformance, there's nothing to say. Each person could provide different metrics.
GreggVan: Just something between levels.
<julierawe> Have to drop. Thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful discussion and forward momentum.
Rachael: To clarify, I see a big difference there are levels or ways of declaring things on the way to base conformance, compared to multiple levels.
jyasskin: Sounds like sub-group might need some flexibility here, between levels and progress-toward-conformance. Not an objection, but it might turn out this doesn't work.
draft RESOLUTION: the conformance subgroup will have a “spike” to explore the definition of conformance levels
kevin: I know people mentioned that people want to avoid gaming, but the complexity here, maybe we do want to lean into this?
<GreggVan> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<alastairc> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Rachael> 0
<ShawnT> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<maryjom> +1
<kevin> +1
<kirkwood> 0
<giacomo-petri> +1
<SydneyColeman> +1 but struggling with the word 'spike'
<Makoto_U> +1
<Charles> +1
<CClaire> 0
<LenB> +1
<SydneyColeman> better iMO
draft RESOLUTION: the conformance subgroup will explore the definition of conformance levels
For the minutes: Spike is a short burst of effort to test an idae
<filippo-zorzi> +1
Adam: Resolution passed
<shoobe01> +1
<SydneyColeman> it feels like we have been 'spiking' for awhile in the subgroup
RESOLUTION: the conformance subgroup will have a “spike” to explore the definition of conformance levels
<JeroenH> +1 can help
progress towards conformance https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conformance-updates-test/results/#xq6
Adam: These last two are not conformance ideas. It is some sort of score to show progress towards conformance.
… pretty broad support, 20 on the yes side, 6/10 on the negative side.
[reads comments
shadi: My central argument is about a meaningful measure of accessibility. Whatever the measure is. That meaningful thing is not clear.
<Rachael> +1 that we seem to have consensus on wanting a way to measure/report on partial conformance in some way
shadi: agree we should work towards that, but I think it's saying we'll come up with it, but lets come with the measurable things first.
… there could be multiple measures, paths, levels.
<kirkwood> do we have a meaningful measurement of accessibility? therefore can we have a meaningful measurement of progress?
shadi: basing it on the current all/nothing and measuring towards that, and that's the central issue.
GreggVan: It needs to be clear it's not a a replacement for levels. Not intended to be, not an alternative.
… needs too be some way of measuring between levels.
… it's going to be a stretch from one level to the next. It would be a nice way to show where you are between then.
… is it a nice measure? It's a measure of improvement, but we can't weight every provision. There's no measure of accessibility, only conformance.
… I'm not saying we'd succeed in creating this, but we are exploring it. It solves something that levels does not.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask some questions of the comments, Nat - why legal issue? Shadi - how different from levels? SteveK - reasons for not including?
alastairc: couple questions
… didn’t fully understand Nat’s response
… shadi, you made a point about it not being a meaningful measure of progress
… I’d say the same of levels, so don’t understand how it’s different
… stevekerr thought we shouldn’t handle this is in WCAG. I’d say that ignores a lot of the feedback we’ve gotten
… on GreggVan’s point, on scoring separate from levels, if we have many levels, I’d say let’s not have scoring
<GreggVan> +1 to that comment
alastairc: i.e., the fewer levels you have, the more helpful to have a scoring mechanism
… the weakest part of this proposal is that we haven’t figured out how to make this score
… so perhaps a “spike”
… level, scoring, or levels _and_ scoring
<kirkwood> +1 to concrete
giacomo-petri: I don't think progress as an absolute value doesn't mean much on its own. The problem is that regulation seems to only consider WCAG compliance as the only measure of accessibility. There is no value on progress. Progress should be a metric but it shouldn't be part of our group. We need complimentary methods outside of WCAG. Doesn't belong here.
shadi: This should be part of conformance itself. This is proposing a continuous score. That is a different way of doing conformance.
… why have a rigid conformance? If we decide to go with a continuous score, let's decide that it is the conformance measure.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say I believe we need to take functional needs into account when measuring
<shadi> +1 to Rachael
Rachael: If we go with a conformance measure, must take functional needs into account. It's to hard (easy) to skew it.
… I think there was something floated about a quality document, addition to WCAG-EM, and maybe this goes there.
… (chair hat off)
<Jon_Avila> I agree that progress should take into account paths and impact of issues rather than just pure metrics of provisions.
stevekerr: I wanted to respond to Alastair's comment. I am struggling with understanding what we have for concrete conformance and how we can measure progress to a conformance that we don't have defined.
stevekerr: Reasons for not including this, not sure that this is concrete conformance. How do we measure progress to conformance that isn't defined right now.
… for what's in the question, but % or provisions met, or % of site, I don't know how that will take form.
… could have 5 issues under a criterion, and this wouldn't move the score.\
<shadi> +1 to Jon_Avila
stevekerr: it is a large topic. For what we have written in the question, there is a lot that I don't know how it would take form. We need a more comprehensive way to determining transparency.
… I don't disagree with the importance, but also doesn't account for severity.
<Zakim> jyasskin, you wanted to echo Kevin in saying that # of provisions is already a measure of PTC. Concretely what needs to change in WCAG provision definitions to improve on this?
jyasskin: Regarding measures, there are already ways to track it by counting provisions. Provisions could say this contributes to this functional need and then report against that.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on giacomo-petri's point, where we have advice with the score/leveling. and to say that score isn't conformance, and shouldn't be.
alastairc: from the lawyer who spoke to us said it would not be good to put scoring into conformance for regulatory enforcement. Score would be separate to avoid undermining that process. The less level so you have the more important measures becomes.
… this does need work. How many provisions you pass doesn't correlate with real world accessibility. If you add instances then it adds too much complexity. Likely a middle ground is possible that could be added but needs to be worked out. Others can build on that.
GreggVan: This is nothing to do with continuous score and conformance. This is only measuring between levels. If we have many levels, the need for this goes down.
… I do not think this should be in WCAG. It has nothing to do with normative content. We do it but use the wisdom of the group to do it so it harmonizes. Otherwise everyone creates their own way to make them look good.
… I think it can be segmented so its not just a single score nor one whole area. Finally, the suggestion was made that if we send this down for work that people propose what it would look like - how would it be calculated? Similar with levels. Take the current guidelines and sort them into levels.
… as soon as you do that, you see the difficulty of it,.
<jyasskin> +1 GreggVan
<Rachael> +1 to multilevels doesn't work well (chair hat off)
That comes from trying!
GreggVan: These probably go together in the end.
LoriO: Don't we already have the accessibility maturity model?
<jyasskin> https://
<GreggVan> thank you for link
LoriO: I think we should look at something like the maturity model.
… Make a guide to have people go in and say this is something we can do. For mom and pop shops, they don't have the resources to do everything. Have a guide but that's not normative text,.
… I've been looking at the maturity model and wondering how it could help.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on relation to maturity model
EN 17161
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say that % of provisions/site is not a meaningful measure of progress
alastairc: WE did discuss this yesterday and EN 17161 came up. The basic idea from yesterday was that WCAG shouldn't do that but rather should reference other things. the idea of a top level guide for other audiences is a good idea.
<ShawnT> EN 17161:2019. Design for All - Accessibility following a Design for All approach in products, goods and services - Extending the range of users: https://
shadi: Responding to Jeffery. I don't think counts of provisions is a useful measure because of the way people fix sites. I don't think the current spec or approach helps us develop a score. The question remains what is a meaningful measure?
Detlev: I wanted to add to the question of measuring or scoring in conformance or just a progress score. Counting instances gets complex very quickly. When we work with a limited sample we can measure the impact which is does it effect 1 page, several or the entire site.
GreggVan: I was looking at the maturity model. this particular one is about the maturity of the team and company not the site.
<Rachael> +1 to this being the wrong model for us to use
GreggVan: a wonderful document for teams setting up but not for evaluating site.
jyasskin: Comment on draft resolution. I think the conformance subgroup is the wrong group to draft this score.
I think we need to split two
jyasskin: you want people who think this is a good idea to draft it.
… otherwise you spin.
giacomo-petri: I would like to comment on Gregg's point. They shouldn't say anything about the accessibility but if you combine this, along with WCAG conformance report, and WCAG it does show a way forward.
… a snapshot of a website can change tomorrow.
Rachael: chair hat on
… we have been talking about specific points and next steps
… feel like the group has reached a couple ideas/trends that have potential
<Makoto_U> +1 to giacomo-petri
Rachael: one is having people who support PTC draft what a conformance model would look like for that
… and other is having multiple documents. Conformance is strict, but you have alternatives around it
<jyasskin> +1
Rachael: separate into small teams to draft ideas and bring them back to the main group
… rather than put it back to the conformance subgroup
<alastairc> +1
<Detlev> agree with gregg that mix of opinions on small group is better than just advocates
<SydneyColeman> our subgroup on conformance has had a challenging time with consensus.
GreggVan: A comment on creating a group that just includes advocates...I never create a taskforce with only one way of thinking because you come back with something that won't be accepted. I always seek out the most virulent opponents to work on it. I think the advocates should bring suggestions with details to a subgroup. Reduce back and forth in large group.
alastairc: Normally I would agree with Gregg but I think this is a very specific thing. This is prototyping. We want draft text that does what it says. We have a lot of fodder here between the survey and minutes to call out issues. We can send up terms of reference "These proposals should do X and take into account ..." Then 1-4 people create the draft. Work through %, work through levels.
… its detailed work and having a mix isn't that useful. In the subgroup its helpful having hte wider group weighing in
<shadi> +1 to alastairc
GreggVan: That sounds fine. the subgroup shoudl hold off meeting.
Rachael: I don’t think we’re just talking about a “many levels” approach
… this is the end deliverable of the team we’re talking about assembling
… the reason we could bring it back here is because we have momentum from the past 2 days
… we’ve found that it’s good to have debate in subgroups, and then see things through in the main group
<jyasskin> hdv: This is a discussion of how to "incubate" ideas, which was an AB priority a couple years ago, without a concrete solution. https://
Rachael: so detailed examples that the whole WG can consider while it’s fresh in our mind, then we can come to consensus
… but need to bring this to a close
<jyasskin> +1
<SydneyColeman> can you re-paste the drafted resolution
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer gregg
could we do that separately?
So overall we have 3 groups, levels, PTC, separate docs.
Lisa: Is one of these groups working on the basic conformance level?
alastairc: the previous resolution was defining more levels.
GreggVan: This will go noplace if you don't have a chair to moderate. I could take on that if interested.
Draft RESOLUTION: we will separate into small teams to explore 1) concrete proposals for PTC scoring, 2) multiple levels approach, and 3) multiple documents to augment the conformance model
Adam: talking to resolution.
<shadi> [multiple conformance levels?]
<GreggVan> +1
<Rachael> +1
<giacomo-petri> +1
<LoriO> +1
<Makoto_U> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<alastairc> +1
<maryjom> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<jyasskin> +1
<LenB> +1
<Detlev> +1
<kevin> +1
<Lisa> 0
Adam: Majority of people in zoom.
RESOLUTION: we will separate into small teams to explore 1) concrete proposals for PTC scoring, 2) multiple levels approach, and 3) multiple documents to augment the conformance model
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the last survey topic
External documents https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ilGwFiSUeZe3kLK4NQ3xD6zTkojowQLX338haYYNVNI/edit?tab=t.0
alastairc: The next survey topic depends on the previous one so let's put that back until the other bits come through.
<Lisa> well done !