14:25:51 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:25:56 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/05/26-ag-irc 14:25:56 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:25:57 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:26:37 agenda? 14:28:24 agenda+ Introductions 14:28:28 agenda+ announcements 14:28:49 agenda+ Retrospective continuation https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit?tab=t.bzymfqyhn1za#heading=h.je7f0zo52our 14:29:48 kirkwood has joined #ag 14:35:59 agenda+ Multiple Document Approach https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1waoa7j0IEwjcSZKGGrKTop-t9P7zNrfH0UaOdN_ufV4/edit?usp=sharing 14:36:32 agenda+ WCAG 2 proposed changes (review by 1 June) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0032.html 14:36:54 zakim, agenda order 1, 2, 5, 3, 4 14:36:54 ok, Rachael 14:41:19 agenda? 14:41:49 Regrets: Brian, Makoto 14:56:36 ShawnT has joined #ag 14:56:49 present+ 14:57:30 present+ 14:57:34 present+ 14:57:37 present+ 14:57:40 rrsagent, make minutes 14:57:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/26-ag-minutes.html kevin 14:57:48 GN015 has joined #ag 14:59:16 HaTheo has joined #ag 14:59:18 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 14:59:20 present+ 14:59:25 sam-estoesta has joined #ag 14:59:26 present+ 14:59:33 wendyreid has joined #ag 14:59:33 present+ 14:59:44 present+ 14:59:50 erinevans has joined #ag 14:59:55 present+ 15:00:04 Charles has joined #ag 15:00:27 present+ 15:00:27 present+ 15:00:29 shadi has joined #ag 15:00:34 present+ 15:00:37 present+ 15:00:41 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:00:42 Dirk has joined #ag 15:00:48 present+ 15:00:51 present+ 15:00:51 present+ 15:00:56 Heather has joined #ag 15:01:04 present+ 15:01:07 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 15:01:21 AWK has joined #ag 15:01:30 LoriO has joined #ag 15:01:33 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 15:01:33 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:01:37 present+ 15:01:39 present+ 15:01:39 present+ 15:01:54 julierawe has joined #ag 15:01:58 present+ 15:02:17 present+ 15:02:17 LenB has joined #ag 15:02:25 present+ 15:02:36 Wilco has joined #ag 15:02:54 nattarnoff has joined #ag 15:03:03 zakim, take up item 1 15:03:03 agendum 1 -- Introductions -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:03:22 scribe+ 15:03:23 Detlev has joined #ag 15:03:25 bbailey has joined #ag 15:03:39 present+ 15:03:40 present+ 15:04:38 jtoles has joined #ag 15:04:48 @Stephanie-Lee Steer: New member, Associate Director of Digital Accessibility Procurement at University of Southern California; originally from Australia where I was the head of accessibility for the state of New South Wales. 15:04:48 present+ 15:05:03 s/@Stephanie-Lee Steer/Stephanie-Lee Steer/ 15:05:07 zakim, take up item 2 15:05:07 agendum 2 -- announcements -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:05:16 jkatherman has joined #ag 15:05:22 q+ 15:05:27 q+ to ask about IRC disconnects? 15:05:29 present+ 15:05:34 ack hdv 15:05:35 janina has joined #ag 15:05:40 Rachael: Announcement: TPAC, planning on getting together in person on Monday and Tuesday. 15:05:42 present+ 15:06:32 joryc has joined #ag 15:06:41 hdv: Planning on Friday to hold a face-to-face meeting with people working on WCAG evaluation methodology. We will use Friday to prepare for publication. Also, myself and Steve Faulkner are presenting about both WCAG 3 and WCAG Cham at the Dutch National Accessibility Conference this week. 15:06:44 Stephanie has joined #ag 15:07:01 present+ 15:07:18 hdv: Time zone is Europe, will likely be 9-10a. 15:07:20 CClaire has joined #ag 15:07:36 Present+ 15:07:53 SydneyColeman has joined #ag 15:07:54 ack bbailey 15:07:54 bbailey, you wanted to ask about IRC disconnects? 15:07:59 hdv: Will try to coordinate with Kevin to create a calendar entry. Anyone who would like more information, email him directly. 15:08:03 Gez has joined #AG 15:08:03 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 15:08:10 present+ 15:08:13 present+ 15:08:14 present_ 15:08:16 bbailey: Asked for update on the difficulty we had with IRC last week? 15:08:18 present+ 15:08:25 Jon_Avila has joined #ag 15:08:25 s/present_/ 15:08:41 Kevin: Short answer is no. Questions raised are still outstanding, and will continue to poke people for answers. 15:08:43 q? 15:08:46 present+ 15:08:56 laura has joined #ag 15:09:00 zakim, take up item 2 15:09:00 agendum 2 -- announcements -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:09:06 zakim, take up item 3 15:09:06 agendum 3 -- Retrospective continuation https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit?tab=t.bzymfqyhn1za#heading=h.je7f0zo52our -- taken up 15:09:09 ... [from Rachael] 15:09:32 chrisg has joined #ag 15:10:01 joryc has joined #ag 15:10:57 agenda? 15:11:04 Detlev7 has joined #ag 15:11:09 group-ag-chairs@w3.org 15:11:11 Rachael: Retrospective discussion last week was good. Will take 30 minutes today to wrap this up. Reminder that retrospectives are done every 6 months. Wants to choose a few things to focus on these next 6 months. Asking for everyone to take 5 minutes to read the retrospective (link above), add your initials if there is anything that you'd like to 15:11:11 support. 15:11:36 Monica has joined #AG 15:11:39 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:11:41 present+ 15:11:45 Rachael: Will come back to Patrick's agenda item later if he joins. 15:11:48 present+ 15:11:51 can you paste the link? (was kicked out of IRC) 15:11:58 HaTheo has joined #AG 15:12:01 Link to retro: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit?tab=t.bzymfqyhn1za 15:12:02 maryjom has joined #ag 15:12:16 q+ 15:12:26 Rachael: Start of 5 minute review period; add initials, other comments. 15:12:27 ack bbailey 15:12:34 present+ 15:13:11 bbailey: Offers to update the WCAG 2 issues if Patrick isn't able to join at the top of the hour. 15:16:06 Rachael: Will come back to potential actions; no initials needed. 15:17:07 Kevin: Send requests for access to me directly. 15:20:40 joryc has joined #ag 15:21:50 Thnx! 15:22:20 Rachael: Next step is to pull trending and supported items and to ensure chairs understand what is involved in it. Chairs will read all comments, and appreciate all the feedback. Want to discuss those with a feeling of weight. 15:22:21 s/Thnx!// 15:23:05 Rachael: Finding different ways to run large meetings to get broader participation. [refer to sub-bullets in google doc] 15:23:32 Rachael: Opens topic for discussion and comments. 15:23:35 q+ 15:23:37 q+ 15:23:50 TOPIC: Change meeting management 15:24:24 ack wendyreid 15:26:03 +1 to wendyreid on context framing 15:26:14 +1 to wendyreid, would be could to have clear boundaries of what's discussed 15:26:16 ack Ben_Tillyer 15:26:27 wendyreid: Thinks the biggest thing that could help is better framing when we launch into an issue. The current framing is agenda and associated links to a survey or GitHub. When something is a fairly long discussion point, it's a lot of content, and it's presented very broadly. Suggests providing a summary to frame the discussion to help focus the 15:26:27 discussion. Could help group from traveling in direction that could lead us toward a conclusion. 15:27:29 q+ 15:27:32 For example, https://www.w3.org/WAI/about/groups/agwg/minutes/topics/ but with some curation? 15:27:44 s/discussion./... discussion./ 15:27:57 Alternative view, https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes/ag,wai-wcag/?num=200 15:28:03 including the conformance discussions of 2020-2025.. :) 15:28:04 q+ 15:28:10 ack Rachael 15:28:12 Ben_Tillyer: Agrees with Wendy's comment. Also thinks we are underutilizing the minutes that we take and could take time to read and refine them, and making sure they are accurate. There's a lot of decisions and historical context that provides framing. Would provide people the dates/times of the last time a topic has been previously discussed, and 15:28:12 what was talked about. Suggests to make the minutes more publicly available to help frame conversation. 15:28:28 s/what was/... what was/ 15:28:40 present+ 15:28:56 able to respond? 15:29:03 q? 15:29:13 Rachael: From a chair perspective, there are times we do this, and times we don't. Assuming we would give 5-6 business days to do the pre-reading, and there's a commitment on both ends to prepare to do the work and be ready to have a conversation. Curious how you would want us to handle members that have not doe the pre-reading. 15:29:24 q+ to ask about format for recap materials - options 15:29:37 Ben_Tillyer: There's a lot of work that needs to go into this setup. But feels that this may save the chairs time later. 15:29:39 ack jkatherman 15:29:42 What would that be that isn't minutes? 15:30:14 List of resolutions: https://www.w3.org/WAI/about/groups/agwg/minutes/resolutions/ 15:30:25 jkatherman: Personally, the most useful information is to see decisions of the past, and they 'why' around that decision. 15:30:28 q+ 15:30:48 jkatherman: When we make decisions as a group, we ought to have a decision log to collect these things. 15:30:50 ack Jennie_Delisi 15:30:50 Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask about format for recap materials - options 15:30:52 q+ on what would be included in decision logs 15:31:07 Rachael: Kevin put the link to the decision log at :30 15:31:16 q+ 15:31:43 +1 to Jennie_Delisi for tagged content 15:31:44 Jennie_Delisi: Wonders if there is automation ways with tagging to enable summaries in HTML to support these efforts as an option. 15:31:49 ack alastairc 15:31:49 alastairc, you wanted to comment on what would be included in decision logs 15:32:10 Glenda has joined #ag 15:32:17 q+ 15:32:20 SydneyColeman has joined #ag 15:32:44 present+ 15:32:52 ack kevin 15:32:57 alastairc: Trying to understand what effort this would take. Doesn't know what is missing from the current process. Could be conformance, or a particular requirement, etc. Not sure what we would include that wouldn't just be a link back to the minutes or something that we've already published. 15:34:10 q+ to ask which, for example, of those resources had the decision to reformat SC as ACT Rules? 15:34:50 ack wendyreid 15:34:56 Kevin: Didn't want to come on and explain the links. Scribing captures the discussion and the history. The minutes are prepared for HTML versioning, and we check for accessibility. We pull out resolutions and topics and then link to a resolution or topic and the background. The question is is there something else we need to do, and how might we 15:34:56 achieve that? 15:35:11 https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/3000#issuecomment-4509122629 15:35:58 We generally do a presentation to summarise previous work, is there another way? 15:36:56 You mean like this one? https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/Conformance-Proposals-2018-to-present 15:36:58 scott has joined #ag 15:37:01 wendyreid: Thinks some of this can be automated; within W3C there is existing GitHub that will post things to minutes. [Charles Hall thumbs up in zoom]. With all of the sources, I want to find the way to all the web pages and their related topics. If you jump in years later, or if there's someone new, there could be a subtopic page on (pick a 15:37:01 topic). 15:37:04 q? 15:37:29 ack bbailey 15:37:29 bbailey, you wanted to ask which, for example, of those resources had the decision to reformat SC as ACT Rules? 15:37:30 Rachael: For people who have joined in the last four months, would love to hear what you didn't get and wish you had when you started. 15:37:33 s/topic)./... topic)./ 15:37:40 present+ 15:38:34 bbailey: Example I missed was where we decided to use to try and rewrite our requirements following the ACT Rule format because I missed a meeting; I guess it was buried in the middle of the minutes someplace. 15:38:43 q+ , ARIA started doing an onboarding meeting every month recently 15:38:44 q? 15:39:04 sorry lost my window 15:39:06 q+ HaTheo 15:39:09 Nattarnoff2 has joined #ag 15:39:13 Rachael: What I'm hearing is that formal resolutions, what would help is to have links to some of the editorial or process decisions we're making, and to share those with everyone. 15:39:13 ack HaTheo 15:39:19 q+ 15:39:23 q+ 15:39:53 Stephanie has joined #ag 15:40:17 HaTheo: One thing that might be helpful is (knows that Aria recently started this) have an onboarding meeting they run monthly. Go through etiquette and rituals that you go through before actually jumping into a meeting. 15:40:18 ack jkatherman 15:41:14 q+ 15:41:35 the onboarding email links to: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page which links to scribing, decisions, minutes etc. 15:42:13 jkatherman: As a fairly new member, I wasn't aware of the page with the resolutions. There are details that we make regularly that aren't captured here. Some of the topics are hard to decipher, and aren't grouped. Can't see trends across meetings so that I get all the context across meetings and historically. Another point: I would love to scribe 15:42:13 when I can, but haven't seen any job aid or pro tips to feel confident to do it. 15:42:18 ack kevin 15:43:07 +1 on documenting rejections 15:43:13 +1 15:43:26 s/when I can/... when I can/ 15:43:30 Scribe list. You cant sign up in advance: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List 15:43:34 q+ 15:43:36 To be clear, I am okay with the decision to rewrite requirements using the ACT Rules Format. I am just using that as an example of an important detail that would (1) be easy to miss from the minutes, and (2) hard to find latter on (and gets harder to find as more time goes on). 15:43:39 ack sam 15:43:44 Kevin: It's interesting - the mechanic of meetings is that we make decisions and aren't 'resolutions' - we don't actually capture to 'not' do something. We need to reframe those appropriately. One problem is that we don't capture known resolutions, things that we've rejected as resolutions, and two, we don't have a mechanism to do this 15:43:44 automatically. 15:43:48 Feels harsh if someone makes a suggestion that doesn't get support, and then say "rejected" 15:44:12 s/cant /can / 15:45:34 q+ 15:45:49 zakim, close queue 15:45:49 ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is closed 15:45:51 sam-estoesta: For the topic of 'meeting norms,' I sit on other boards or working groups or task forces, it would be helpful to understand the minutes in the context of the 'rules' of the meeting. Would be comfortable scribing now that she has scribed in a subgroup. Most of us have partnerships where others from our organization; could be helpful to 15:45:52 have an onboarding buddy or person who they can ask questions to. 15:45:56 alastairc "current resolution is not to continue" 15:45:57 Resolving issues within the WG aims to seek consensus. This is documented in the Process document - not something to read all of unless you are very enthusiastic! https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#Consensus 15:46:01 ack hdv 15:46:03 +1 to kevin 's point wrt trickiness of documenting decisions NOT to do something! 15:46:06 Rachael: Closing queue after HDV. 15:47:14 fwiw WCAG2ICT meeting resolutions are more granular. 15:47:25 hdv: Hearing some comments makes me feel maybe we should try to do more resolutions; feels political, but maybe it'll make it easier to find things, including decisions to not do something. Some groups in W3C used a lot of resolutions regardless of the outcome to make resolutions easier, or resolving easier. 15:47:30 +1 to HDV point 15:47:36 ack wendyreid 15:48:04 Rachael: Requests for folks to add their initials to support recording more resolutions under Potential Actions of Google Doc. 15:49:20 +1 to wendyreid on reasons for -1 votes 15:49:24 hdv agree a more structured process with decisions is useful - but you'd then have to keep track that resolutions don't conflict with earlier ones, which will be difficult to manage 15:49:32 Getting to a resolution takes some form of polling/voting, that always takes time with ~40 people. 15:49:40 wendyreid: There is trickiness around recording rejection. We aren't rejecting a person, we aren't resolving on rejection; it might be that a resolution doesn't pass, and we should be keeping track of a comments for -1 votes. Perhaps we just need to reframe this topic, and then start up a new discussion to address the point that's been raised. 15:49:40 Topic: Topic sponsors 15:49:42 q+ 15:49:48 q+ 15:50:03 q+ 15:50:38 Rachael: Thank you for the comments. We will work to support all the suggestions best. Switching topics to sponsoring ideas (like a bill has in Congress). We have a provision management sheet which outlines all he work that's going on. 15:50:43 provision management sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V7u1tjVsxL9NgN9ySoUtt0gmYReXSs0Y9Bc_R2RByzg/edit?gid=0#gid=0 15:51:31 q+ to ask about a couple columns? 15:51:58 zakim, open queue 15:51:58 ok, Rachael, the speaker queue is open 15:52:01 q+ to ask about a couple columns? 15:52:13 q+ 15:52:13 q- 15:52:16 we may want to mandate? a cosponsor? 15:52:23 Rachael: Please don't change things that you aren't shepherding. Conceptually, we have a 'shephard' for each topic. There are columns for each steps to close it out for WCAG 3. The concept is there. The question is are people interested in picking sponsorship or having people sponsor larger topics like a particular conformance model or particular 15:52:23 subsection of the policy document or other areas like that? Do you think a sponsor would be helpful in different areas, and what would that look like? 15:52:23 graham has joined #ag 15:52:29 ack GreggVan 15:52:34 bbailey: Asks what the columns mean in the spreadsheet. 15:52:34 present+ 15:52:44 Rachael: Offers to stay after to explain the columns. 15:53:36 GreggVan: What about issues that aren't a whole provision? What about global issues? There are 229 provisions. We've talked about breaking single provisions into multiple provisions? How would you put that on an agenda? 15:53:46 q+ on current process 15:53:51 ack alastairc 15:53:51 alastairc, you wanted to comment on current process 15:54:05 q+ 15:54:09 Rachael: Yes, that's the question I was asking back, for people to queue up, track them, and have the chairs bring them forward. 15:54:46 q+ 15:54:59 ack Ben_Tillyer 15:55:21 alastairc: Yes, we have a list of broad topics. There's a Buch of other topics that's in a spreadsheet and we generally try to bring those up in GitHub, etc to gain comments for. So rather than the editors juggling these, it could be on a particular members' shoulders, what would that look like? 15:55:26 They would need to be a regular, and available when there are updates/discussions. 15:55:54 +1 to impartial shepards 15:55:56 madate a co sponsor? 15:55:59 Ben_Tillyer: Having a shepherd is a good idea, however, there is a risk that a person may have a strong view, and we need the shepherd to be neutral. 15:56:02 present- 15:56:10 ack jkatherman 15:56:12 q+ 15:56:28 q+ 15:56:35 Rachael: Comments that from WCAG 2.1 experience, there were many topics that didn't make it because it didn't get phased forward. You need to have someone to push it at the speed it needs. 15:56:36 ack GreggVan 15:56:52 jkatherman: Expresses support having shepherds for different topics. 15:57:05 +1 to Gregg 15:57:11 +1 to GreggVan 15:57:21 +1 GreggVan 15:57:33 +1 to GreggVan 15:57:34 q+ 15:57:51 +1 to value of chair independence and separate advocate 15:57:58 GreggVan: Both sides are really key here. Need an advocate to keep a topic from falling by the wayside. Chairs have done a exceptional job in terms of your ability to separate your views from your chairing, and not everyone that has your views. 15:57:58 ack kirkwood 15:58:26 q+ on what topics would these be? 15:58:36 Rachael: Expresses importance of prepping the materials and bringing the topic; assumes separation of advocacy and presentation of the information. 15:58:48 ack wendyreid 15:58:57 kirkwood: Think about mandating a co-sponsor. 15:59:20 +1000 to Wendy! 15:59:28 * topic secretary or historian? 15:59:43 +1 to Wendy 15:59:45 +1 15:59:51 +1 wendyreid 16:00:24 +1 WCAG 3 needs a project manager 16:00:33 ack alastairc 16:00:33 alastairc, you wanted to comment on what topics would these be? 16:00:48 wendyreid: Wonders if we are hung up on the phrase sponsor, wants to ensure that there is a responsibility of capturing the discussion, (could be more than one person), it could be a shared role. This is more of a secretarial position. Not having an opinion about it, just making sure it's easy to find everything in one place. 16:01:02 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yzR1H0SnNFRELGchb_BJr4Necsrj6xVjDF1n7Tc0kTc/edit?gid=1247745107#gid=1247745107 16:01:44 alastairc: Confused as to what this would be. We have sponsors on the provisions. For the other topics that tend to come up. Put a section at the bottom of the retro for topics that people would want to sponsor to be a historian of. 16:02:08 Rachael: An action for people, add your name to / add a topic for people to be a historian. 16:02:10 +1 to shepard 16:02:31 Rachael, are we going to go over other comments? 16:02:33 zakim, take up item 5 16:02:33 agendum 5 -- WCAG 2 proposed changes (review by 1 June) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0032.html -- taken up [from Rachael] 16:02:43 Rachael: Encourages people to continue to reread this list, add comments, and notes, Chairs will go through this in detail over the next few weeks. 16:02:49 scribe- 16:03:30 zakim, pick a scribe 16:03:30 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ShawnT 16:03:39 no 16:03:40 zakim, pick a scribe 16:03:40 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jon_Avila 16:03:52 s/no// 16:03:57 zakim, pick a scribe 16:03:57 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose nattarnoff 16:04:12 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:12 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Laura_Carlson 16:04:20 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:20 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ShawnT 16:04:23 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:23 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose julierawe 16:04:39 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:39 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Heather 16:04:41 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:41 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jkatherman 16:04:52 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:52 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose julierawe 16:04:54 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:55 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Heather 16:04:57 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:57 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AWK 16:05:08 zakim, pick a scribe 16:05:08 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose nattarnoff 16:05:08 HaTheo has joined #AG 16:05:10 zakim, pick a scribe 16:05:10 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose janina 16:05:10 I have to run out in 15 unfortunately 16:05:22 zakim, pick a scribe 16:05:22 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LoriO 16:05:30 s/I have to run out in 15 unfortunately// 16:06:06 scribe+ LoriO 16:06:07 present+ 16:08:31 Bruce Bailey: updating proposed changes, mostly non substantive changes, links are available, asking for eleven items to look at, shouldn't take more than a minute each, quic summary at the top or the bottom. 16:08:45 zakim, take up item 5 16:08:45 agendum 5 -- WCAG 2 proposed changes (review by 1 June) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0032.html -- taken up [from Rachael] 16:08:55 zakim, take up item 4 16:08:55 agendum 4 -- Multiple Document Approach https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1waoa7j0IEwjcSZKGGrKTop-t9P7zNrfH0UaOdN_ufV4/edit?usp=sharing -- taken up [from Rachael] 16:09:23 Rachael: Wilco would you like to comment on this? 16:09:23 rrsagent, make minutes 16:09:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/26-ag-minutes.html kevin 16:10:50 s/Bruce Bailey:/bbailey:/ 16:10:50 Policy notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BuZOGxddoZbPRmPB-CoNVfqSCiD0Cm3oaGeDQ3yJRI4/edit?tab=t.7v4fbak4pwa7#heading=h.lszmh82qg0ga 16:12:42 Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1waoa7j0IEwjcSZKGGrKTop-t9P7zNrfH0UaOdN_ufV4/edit?slide=id.g3e39398a1a1_0_0#slide=id.g3e39398a1a1_0_0 16:12:58 [Slide 4] 16:13:21 Rachael: work on the concept that needed more discussion, a few people got together for a multiple document approach, multiple ideas by small teams, more holistic discussion, touch problem areas, policy and links to slides above. Contains 3rd party items, archival content, sampling, libraries, small organizations. What problems are we trying to 16:13:21 solve, NOTE: Multidocument Approach document link above. 16:13:33 kevin: thanks! 16:15:04 s/kevin: thanks!// 16:15:04 [Slide 5] 16:16:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:16:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/26-ag-minutes.html bbailey 16:16:13 [Slide 6] 16:16:16 ETSI or Etsy? 16:16:42 [slide 6] 16:17:07 rrsagent, make minutes 16:17:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/26-ag-minutes.html kevin 16:17:23 Jen_G has joined #ag 16:17:33 Present+ 16:17:39 [slide 7] 16:17:40 s/[Slide 6]// 16:18:20 q+ 16:18:41 [Slide 8] 16:20:18 kevin:thx 16:20:46 Rachael: did I miss anything> 16:20:49 s/kevin:thx// 16:21:41 q+ 16:22:03 Wilco: assertions are really limited, no processes no forward looking, Design for All and WCAG can fit together really well, we need to look to a management system to address bigger issuses 16:22:19 q+ 16:22:26 s/issuses/issues// 16:22:29 ack kevin 16:22:47 s/updating proposed changes, mostly non substantive changes, links are available, asking for eleven items to look at, shouldn't take more than a minute each, quic summary at the top or the bottom/WCAG-2 Issues TF mostly focusses on updating Understanding documents, many changes very lightweight. Short description and direct links in the email. 16:22:47 This time we are asking for eleven items to look at, and each shouldn't take more than a minute each. Usually there is a quick summary at the very top or the very bottom of the Pull Requests 16:23:03 Dos anyone know how "EN 17161 Design for all" relates to the process "Universal Design"? 16:23:03 ack GreggVan 16:23:05 q+ 16:23:15 kevin:Have some hives about industry best practice what we could point to, we are vendor neutral, need to be very careful how we suggest item in the suggested way 16:24:14 i/Rachael: did I miss anything/[Slide 9]/ 16:24:19