Meeting minutes
Introductions
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.
announcements
Rachael: Announcement: TPAC, planning on getting together in person on Monday and Tuesday.
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.
hdv: Time zone is Europe, will likely be 9-10a.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask about IRC disconnects?
hdv: Will try to coordinate with Kevin to create a calendar entry. Anyone who would like more information, email him directly.
bbailey: Asked for update on the difficulty we had with IRC last week?
Kevin: Short answer is no. Questions raised are still outstanding, and will continue to poke people for answers.
announcements
Retrospective continuation https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit?tab=t.bzymfqyhn1za#heading=h.je7f0zo52our
<Rachael> group-ag-chairs@w3.org
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
… support.
Rachael: Will come back to Patrick's agenda item later if he joins.
<Detlev7> can you paste the link? (was kicked out of IRC)
<Rachael> Link to retro: https://
Rachael: Start of 5 minute review period; add initials, other comments.
bbailey: Offers to update the WCAG 2 issues if Patrick isn't able to join at the top of the hour.
Rachael: Will come back to potential actions; no initials needed.
Kevin: Send requests for access to me directly.
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.
Rachael: Finding different ways to run large meetings to get broader participation. [refer to sub-bullets in google doc]
Rachael: Opens topic for discussion and comments.
Change meeting management
<Charles> +1 to wendyreid on context framing
<hdv> +1 to wendyreid, would be could to have clear boundaries of what's discussed
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
… discussion. Could help group from traveling in direction that could lead us toward a conclusion.
<kevin> For example, https://
<kevin> Alternative view, https://
<Detlev7> including the conformance discussions of 2020-2025.. :)
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
… what was talked about. Suggests to make the minutes more publicly available to help frame conversation.
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.
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.
<alastairc> What would that be that isn't minutes?
<kevin> List of resolutions: https://
jkatherman: Personally, the most useful information is to see decisions of the past, and they 'why' around that decision.
jkatherman: When we make decisions as a group, we ought to have a decision log to collect these things.
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask about format for recap materials - options
Rachael: Kevin put the link to the decision log at :30
<Charles> +1 to Jennie_Delisi for tagged content
Jennie_Delisi: Wonders if there is automation ways with tagging to enable summaries in HTML to support these efforts as an option.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on what would be included in decision logs
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.
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
… achieve that?
<wendyreid> w3c/
<alastairc> We generally do a presentation to summarise previous work, is there another way?
<alastairc> You mean like this one? https://
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
… topic).
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask which, for example, of those resources had the decision to reformat SC as ACT Rules?
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.
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.
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.
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.
<alastairc> the onboarding email links to: https://
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
… when I can, but haven't seen any job aid or pro tips to feel confident to do it.
<nattarnoff> +1 on documenting rejections
<wendyreid> +1
<laura> Scribe list. You can sign up in advance: https://
<bbailey> 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).
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
… automatically.
<alastairc> Feels harsh if someone makes a suggestion that doesn't get support, and then say "rejected"
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
… have an onboarding buddy or person who they can ask questions to.
<nattarnoff> alastairc "current resolution is not to continue"
<kevin> 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://
<bbailey> +1 to kevin 's point wrt trickiness of documenting decisions NOT to do something!
Rachael: Closing queue after HDV.
<bbailey> fwiw WCAG2ICT meeting resolutions are more granular.
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.
<bbailey> +1 to HDV point
Rachael: Requests for folks to add their initials to support recording more resolutions under Potential Actions of Google Doc.
<Charles> +1 to wendyreid on reasons for -1 votes
<Detlev7> 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
<alastairc> Getting to a resolution takes some form of polling/voting, that always takes time with ~40 people.
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.
Topic sponsors
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.
<Rachael> provision management sheet: https://
<kirkwood> we may want to mandate? a cosponsor?
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
… 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?
bbailey: Asks what the columns mean in the spreadsheet.
Rachael: Offers to stay after to explain the columns.
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?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on current process
Rachael: Yes, that's the question I was asking back, for people to queue up, track them, and have the chairs bring them forward.
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?
<alastairc> They would need to be a regular, and available when there are updates/discussions.
<kevin> +1 to impartial shepards
<kirkwood> madate a co sponsor?
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.
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.
jkatherman: Expresses support having shepherds for different topics.
<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to GreggVan
<Eloisa> +1 GreggVan
<bbailey> +1 to GreggVan
<kevin> +1 to value of chair independence and separate advocate
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.
Rachael: Expresses importance of prepping the materials and bringing the topic; assumes separation of advocacy and presentation of the information.
kirkwood: Think about mandating a co-sponsor.
<kevin> +1000 to Wendy!
<Jennie_Delisi> * topic secretary or historian?
<kirkwood> +1 to Wendy
<jkatherman> +1
<Eloisa> +1 wendyreid
<Wilco> +1 WCAG 3 needs a project manager
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on what topics would these be?
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.
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.
Rachael: An action for people, add your name to / add a topic for people to be a historian.
<kirkwood> +1 to shepard
<Wilco> Rachael, are we going to go over other comments?
WCAG 2 proposed changes (review by 1 June) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0032.html
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.
<ShawnT> no
bbailey: WCAG-2 Issues TF mostly focusses on updating Understanding documents, many changes very lightweight. Short description and direct links in the email..
WCAG 2 proposed changes (review by 1 June) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0032.html
Multiple Document Approach https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1waoa7j0IEwjcSZKGGrKTop-t9P7zNrfH0UaOdN_ufV4/edit?usp=sharing
Rachael: Wilco would you like to comment on this?
<Rachael> Policy notes: https://
Slideset: https://
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
… solve, NOTE: Multidocument Approach document link above.
<Charles> ETSI or Etsy?
Rachael: did I miss anything?
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 issues/
<bbailey> 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
<GN015> Dos anyone know how "EN 17161 Design for all" relates to the process "Universal Design"?
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
<Wilco> +1
GreggVan: I agree with Wilco, two standards working together, WCAG only one used Law, Design for All is very usefull and should work with them to harmonize, two different things used in different ways
Glenda: WCAG outcome success criteria imporant piece of the puzzle, excited to use Design for All as we create assertions
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the directions of info between the two standards
giacomo-petri: Our work is to define the outcomes, Design for All that measure is really valuable, is it better to..state of your product is not the quality of the work, accessibility of work. Can point to other resources, could be something else's group within the W3C, a lot of work requried on our side, already busy with WCAG3, cannot have just
… one metric
alastairc: Wanted to +1 on what Glenda said, if we have a group working on the Design for All, important to feed into the group don't want to overlap with WCAG3 work, there are two ways to go forward
<Rachael> +1 to giving us a way to clearly pull items out WCAG 3 scope
Wilco: We have a coument that already works, embrace for Design for All, might be able to reduce the work, let' work well with a management systems stndard, rather feeling like we are doing this all alone
Francis_Storr: Looking at Design for All, it's a pay for product
Rachael: that's a concern we talked about
<Glenda> I think we should lobby for Design For All standard becoming public!
Rachael: thing to note as a possible problem
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss scope
Rachael: we could lobby to make it public
Jennie_Delisi: want IT staff to be able to access this, can we include IT solutions used for all
Rachael: we could investigate
Rachael: I want to do a straw poll, draft straw pool, trying get more decisions here. This is a yes no question
<Detlev7> 0
<hdv> -1
<kirkwood> 0
<jkatherman> yes
<nattarnoff> I think we need to clarify if they are paid for or not.
<Detlev7> the thing is it is not clear how other standards would compensate for any slack in WCAG
<GreggVan> 0 - we don't use standards - we create them. we can work with them but not sure how we "use" them
kevin: I have some concerns, we point from one of our normative document to another standards document that is behind a paywall, not comfortable, have some reservations
Rachael: put in a suggestion or other working
<nattarnoff> -1
<HaTheo> -1 , I do think we should be cautious about adopting other standards. I do think something like this could be helpful in non-normative guidance, but I am hesitant to adopt/refer.
<Glenda> Yes (but Design for All needs to be public…as in, not behind a paywall)
<graham> -1 -> pointing to absolutely no, aligning with them +1
<Stephanie> 1
<bbailey> FWIW, I will be voting -1 until I have the reference
GreggVan: good work collaboratively, we should two standards? Should both be done?I'm not sure what you arej asking? Not sure what yo mean by refer to them, we should be working collabrativley
<alastairc> yes, useful to both constrain WCAG3 scope and provide ideas for assertions. Assuming it's from the policy advice, and ideally shouldn't be behind a paywall.
<CClaire> 0
Charles: who is the audience of the note?Government only? I still think there's room to account for companies makeing their own policy
<alastairc> So far we've been considering lawmakers/regulators as the main audience.
<Charles> WAI provides policy guidance for both orgs and governments
<alastairc> Charles - I meant for this policy advice note
<kevin> +1 China for example will not be able to reference it
wendyreid: Struggling with, who is the audience for the policy document and looking at the problems we are trying solve, the questins we want th policy document o solve, are we implyong that the policy document that will address these things, are wen ot addressing these in WCAG3? Are we providing additional guidance. We are an international group,
… have to consider other areas of the world. Need to push to have it brought over ISO or other standards.
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss access
Jennie_Delisi: could we consider more discussion at a future date. Make a link to a copy of the material. Apolgies if everyone is more used to the material
Rachael: Yes, wer can get a copy, shifted the straw poll
<Detlev7> agree with concerns Giacomo voices
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "note that EN 301 549 is also an EU standard but is being adopted by many countries anyway. USUALLY they only adopt international standards but evidently they make exceptions. There was an effort to make EN 301 549 international (ISO) but it was decided in the end to not do that.
giacomo-petri: WCAG not sufficient, testing covered in other documents, trying to avoid black and white, may result in policy makers asking for 100% of both
GreggVan: EN 301 549 is an EU standard that is being adopted by many countries anyway
<GreggVan> yes wcag is international
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on potential next steps
<kirkwood> +1 to Hidde
Hidde: as someone working alongside government policy makers, I am t sure about the proposed approach… including various complex other standards might make it more complicated to make a decision, also there's a current Formal Objection at the W3C regarding referring to paid standards, cannot say much more about it than that, but it could be dangerous territory, also for the reason others have mentioned
alastairc: what do we about overlap, plenty of work before publishing, remind policy advise to go with WCAG3 talked about it with lawyers, whatever we can do this could be a useful part of it
Wilco: Giacomo asked how do you avoid WCAG3 becoming black and white, WCAG becomes one of you targets, organizations can measure how they are doing, build a system around accessibility issues. Can set targets how many critical issues, number of issues, instead of 100% compliance can have goals.
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to respond
giacomo-petri: questioning how to ask policy makers to consider only Black and white, policy makers should refer to documents, we might end up with more complicated work.
Wilco: could look at security, organizations leave it up to them, leave it up to lawyers, shows orgs are doing the correct things.
Rachael: need more time to look at this document and think about it, will have a future discussion on this
<alastairc> A reminder that there is a survey open for people who would like to be involved in writing the policy advice. https://
<hdv> +1 this does seem to need different direction based on what conformance model ends up being
wendyreid: feels highly dependent on the conformance model, it comes across as conformance will be pass or fail, how do we convey nuance, we do need to have a bridge between the standard and the people that will enact it into policy, until we know what the stnadard is and how it works, it feels hard to make good decisions
<Wilco> +1 Rachael
Rachael: it always us to simplify the conformance model, I think they interrelate, more comments or thoughts?
<bbailey> s/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/bbailey: 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
<bbailey> top or the very bottom of the Pull Requests.