Meeting minutes
Standup
Wilco: More for the WCAG 3 liaisons
Kathy: It is going ok, Text and wording are looking at if we should have a text is selectable rule and some others to work out if we need a rule or more than one rule for it post a survey response after checking with Alistair
Wilco: Any topics from that?
Kathy: No we didn't discuss any updates
Sage: I went to the meeting the week before that and Wilco joined. It went ok? And I have been wondering if it is responsible to continue? As my attention is not fully available... Should I take a step back?
… any thoughts or questions on that?
Wilco: Is this due to the group or your personal thoughts? Send Rachael a message as I can back you up as needed.
Sage: Are you sure? I will reach out and let you know.
Godwin: We can also use the slack group to help you?
Sage: Are we in charge of that? Letting them know?
Godwin: I added my group and will post
Jean-Yves: I also am the liaison for that group (Single sense and contrast) but not crossed paths with Sage as have similar participation issues.
Sage: I did see you once... But we co-ordinated without realising it!
Jean-Yves: I can attend more regularly as needed.
helen: sign language hasn't started yet
… image and media alt decision about transcript not required to be visible has been re-raised
… user control is going fine, answering lots of questions, refer to doc
… 2 of the 3 groups are going fine
… in AG meeting we had ASL interpreters
adam: sign language subgroup has formed
helen: will remind kevin to invite me
… ACT template for wcag3 is missing sections
… template for rules is more intuitive
@helen, take back scribing?
Giacomo: Recently not much attendance in the meeting
Giacomo: Recently not much attendance in the meeting
… discussed the internal processes but not much progress
Godwin: Scattered attendance, but moving forward
… Some folks are finding it hard, and needs rewriting them and its moving forward but participation is limited
ACT glossary page
Wilco: A couple of weeks ago we discussed having a glossary page with more examples of definitions, but is in the glossary page that was created but not maintained.
Godwin: It is on my personal site.
<Remi> https://
Remi: Here is the link ^
Wilco: Concerns were raised as why do we need it?
Remi: One aspect we need to add is who is it intended for?
… We can add a use case or list them before we point to possible solutions?
Wilco: They are meant to be for implementors to ensure accuracy
Remi: It also seems to be a different term per rule page
… what if we focus on proposed versus approved content and how people can use the information
… a proposed rule might have an updated one that the current glossary page uses these and the approved ones are not matching
Wilco: It is annoying but theoretically possible to have two definitions in rules
Remi: It can be the approved versus proposed of the same rule where the definition is different.
Helen: We could list the 2 versions of proposed versus accepted definitions?
Wilco: Sometimes we have multiple definitions so we cannot list them all
… we need an easy way to navigate them all especially for the AGWG people.
… We are already confusing them far too much...
Daniel: AGWG could still review the random system we have now, but we should have a unified and easier way for others to consume this?
Wilco: It is about an easy place to find them.
<Daniel> Updating WAI website resources
Daniel: It is a difficult path but the thing is we have a workflow we must follow for any changed ^
… We need it documented and great we are discussing it
Remi: I have 2 questions
… I missed why the CG site is not maintained anymore? And I do not understand the use case for AGWG on a case by case basis?
Wilco: We killed the CG site so it is on the WAI website as the best place to get people to look at it. All the essential items are there except for GitHub instructions. The only item we could not port over is the definitions list.
… as why AG needs the list, is because they are writing rules in their subgroups and using the old rules to help them author more and add more as they are not using GitHub but GoogleDocs
Jean-Yves: I keep pointing them to a definition we have and it can be useful to help.
Helen: I keep pointing them to the rules!
Remi: So the extra context is creating the immediate thought of having internal tools to search the pages. The WAI site is for broad audiences and not for inner workings.
… One thing I am strongly deciding on is we should not include it in the WAI site navigation, if not intended for general consumption.
… not including it in easy to find in the WAI site so the rules do not point to the glossary.
… to avoid confusion
<Daniel> q[[
Wilco: We do need to add some instructions on how to use it
Daniel: We are self contained for most but it is self explanatory
Kathy: My group was already comfortable in using it all of it.
… there are possible interested audiences in helping the wider World in knowing what we mean in the rules
Helen: Shouldn't we include it in the main glossary already?
Jean-Yves: I agree we need a disclaimer as the rules might have differing versions or meanings. It needs to be linked for somewhere?
… We need to have a single page somewhere or some menu entry to clarify the variations.
Daniel: We are hiding it as no specific way to track the definition used.
… we are agreeing upon not including it in the main navigation, but we need to have it somewhere so not a word of mouth page.
Wilco: It is a really useful page but I find it interesting to use in my work...
… it goes beyond the rule writing and who would use it?
… I want it in the navigation
Remi: Thanks for the feedback, but we need to get the WAI team to provide the next steps and recommendations
… it would just contain the proposed latest definitions, but cannot have a versioned glossary as a huge effort. Not helping the primary audience.
… We need to reduce the confusion
Wilco: We are overstating the issue of approved versus proposed.
<Wilco> +1 we should mske sure it's clear that definitions in approved rules may differ
Helen: You assumed too much there - we need to stop the inferences and the reason for the rules is to stop that
Kathy: We need to update the definitions to be consistent in new pull requests to address multiple versions.
Daniel: We need to focus on people do not have a problem including it in the navigation, but the issue Remi identified is the proposed versus approved differences.
… we need to know the variations that occur before we decide on how to address it.
Wilco: We have no issue with having it somewhere?
… it should be in the same level as all rules.
Remi: That increases my concern
… you go to the approved version of the rule to have a different definition and why I do not think it is obvious.
… having that in the main navigation - I understand that it's important for some CG participants.
Godwin: I understand the confusion, but we should have something at the top of the page of what it is for... issues we could come across to mitigate the problem.
<Wilco> +1 we can explain the page and what it has at the top
Godwin: I am not seeing too many big risks if we move it as it is
Giacomo: No additions to add
Adam: No concerns either
Kathy: Remi can you provide the examples you found of the issues you mention?
Remi: I can provide it
Wilco: I agree we need a note at the top
<remi> The exception in the definition of "focusable" was updated on November 2024. See https://
Daniel: I don't think the WAI team will be comfortable with
… we have a lot of terms in a single page could cause usability issues as might to be too long
… we acknowledge the group but we need to talk to the WAI team internally as well before we take action
Godwin: I agree with every point made and decide on a short term fix. Can we live with it without causing harm?