14:26:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:26:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/07/07-ag-irc
14:26:08 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:26:09 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:26:10 <Adam> chair: Adam
14:26:20 <Adam> present: Adam
14:26:38 <Adam> agenda+ Announcements
14:26:47 <Adam> agenda+ WCAG 2 proposed changes — https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0048.html
14:26:52 <Adam> agenda+ WCAG 3 document breakdown
14:27:04 <Adam> agenda+ Can flashing requirements account for zoom? — https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/issues/631
14:27:06 <Adam> agenda?
14:51:26 <Dirk> Dirk has joined #ag
14:51:45 <Dirk> present+
14:57:08 <alastairc> present+
14:57:21 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:57:43 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:57:55 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
14:58:28 <laura> Scribe: laura
14:59:31 <AshleeF> AshleeF has joined #ag
14:59:51 <Charles> Charles has joined #ag
15:00:06 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
15:00:18 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:00:19 <thelounge> thelounge has joined #ag
15:00:19 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
15:00:23 <Heather> present+
15:00:29 <Adam> agenda?
15:00:33 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
15:00:50 <Lia> Lia has joined #ag
15:00:54 <Charles> present+
15:00:58 <erinevans> erinevans has joined #ag
15:00:59 <Lia> present+
15:01:02 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+
15:01:07 <erinevans> present+
15:01:29 <bbailey> present+
15:01:39 <AshleeF> present+
15:01:44 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:02:31 <jkatherman> jkatherman has joined #ag
15:02:44 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:02:49 <wendyreid> present+
15:02:49 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:02:50 <wendyreid> scribe+
15:02:50 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:02:51 <anton> anton has joined #ag
15:02:52 <hdv> wendy++
15:02:55 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:03:04 <hdv> present+
15:03:06 <wendyreid> Adam: Let's get started...
15:03:09 <LenB> present+
15:03:10 <ShawnT> present+
15:03:12 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:03:25 <AWK> present+
15:03:28 <wendyreid> Adam: Introductions/new roles?
15:03:33 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:03:34 <Lia> q+
15:03:38 <Adam> ack Lia
15:03:42 <joryc> joryc has joined #ag
15:03:58 <wendyreid> Lia: Hi I'm Lia from Google, Sydney is moving to a new role, so I'm covering for her in the meantime
15:04:01 <Adam> q?
15:04:01 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #ag
15:04:04 <wendyreid> Adam: Welcome!
15:04:06 <JeroenH> present+
15:04:08 <Adam> zakim, next item
15:04:08 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Adam]
15:04:12 <Matt_King> present+
15:04:17 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:04:19 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:04:21 <wendyreid> Adam: At least one announcement from Kevin
15:04:24 <jtoles> present+
15:04:27 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:04:29 <wendyreid> kevin: Quick update on the charter
15:04:37 <Detlev> present+
15:04:46 <wendyreid> ... ac review closed on the 2nd, we had support from 27 member orgs and FOs from 6
15:04:52 <wendyreid> ... within the support there were a few changes
15:04:53 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:04:53 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
15:04:58 <julierawe> present+
15:05:03 <CClaire> present+
15:05:19 <wendyreid> ... the next steps in the process are to first start the process of setting up a council on the assumption of the possibility of the FOs need resolution
15:05:31 <HaTheo> HaTheo has joined #Ag
15:05:36 <wendyreid> ... we do that because it takes a while to setup a council, better to do and not need it
15:05:37 <HaTheo> present+
15:05:39 <Makoto_U> Makoto_U has joined #ag
15:05:48 <Makoto_U> present+
15:05:56 <wendyreid> ... in parallel to council setup, team will discuss the FOs with the objectors and look at options for addressing them
15:06:15 <wendyreid> ... ideally we will address them without council, councils are a challenging place to take things to
15:06:22 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:06:28 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:06:37 <wendyreid> ... they don't have the full context, and decisions are final
15:06:40 <wendyreid> ... but it's a possibility
15:06:54 <Rachael> present+
15:07:05 <wendyreid> ... this doesn't stop the work, we're still progressing with the development of core materials, we may need an extension while we address the objections
15:07:05 <SydneyColeman> SydneyColeman has joined #ag
15:07:09 <kirkwood> present+
15:07:14 <SydneyColeman> present+
15:07:29 <wendyreid> ... if there are issues that come up during the process, we'll bring them back to the work
15:07:35 <wendyreid> ... if there are any questions, let us know!
15:07:39 <Adam> q?
15:07:46 <Adam> zakim, next item
15:07:46 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 2 proposed changes — https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0048.html -- taken up [from Adam]
15:07:51 <kevin> present+
15:08:02 <Stephanie> Stephanie has joined #ag
15:08:02 <wendyreid> Adam: Patrick, WCAG 2 proposed changes?
15:08:17 <wendyreid> Patrick_H_Lauke: My usual, we're one week in, we have another week to go, sent an email to the list with 5 issues to review
15:08:33 <wendyreid> ... less meaty than previous rounds, fairly straightforward non-normative changes
15:08:41 <wendyreid> ... please take time this week to review if you haven't yet
15:08:47 <wendyreid> ... would be good to get feedback
15:08:58 <Adam> q?
15:09:01 <wendyreid> Adam: There is a URL in the email linked abve
15:09:04 <Adam> zakim, next item
15:09:04 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 3 document breakdown -- taken up [from Adam]
15:09:04 <Stephanie> present+
15:09:06 <wendyreid> s/abve/above
15:09:31 <wendyreid> Adam: Big topic today, discuss the document breakdown of WCAG3, what are the locations where we can put aspects of WCAG and conformance
15:09:32 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:09:39 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:09:58 <SydneyColeman> deck please
15:10:00 <SydneyColeman> link
15:10:17 <Adam> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FthP-HsAcnGZ_PxGHLKjUPUI01jYWK45n8ZRjDuX96A/edit?usp=sharing
15:10:20 <SydneyColeman> thx
15:10:30 <wendyreid> alastairc: For this, we're introducing a topic, where should parts of conformance sit in documents
15:10:33 <Adam> slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FthP-HsAcnGZ_PxGHLKjUPUI01jYWK45n8ZRjDuX96A/edit?usp=sharing
15:10:40 <wendyreid> ... we'll discuss options and locations
15:10:48 <wendyreid> [slide 2]
15:10:59 <Adam> rrsagent, make minutes
15:11:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/07-ag-minutes.html Adam
15:11:19 <wendyreid> alastairc: For WCAG 2 we had the provisions, understanding documents, and techniques
15:11:34 <wendyreid> ... we had the conformance model, levels of conformance, and recommendations
15:11:51 <wendyreid> ... in 2014 we added the Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM)
15:12:05 <wendyreid> ... guidance for people doing scoping, testing, evaluations
15:12:17 <Adam> [slide 5]
15:12:46 <wendyreid> ... good aspects to maintain or improve are suitability of a default standard, application
15:12:51 <Adam> [slide 6]
15:13:33 <wendyreid> ... problems to solve, improving support for disability needs, emerging technologies, clarity of provisions, support for less testable user needs, maintenance over time
15:13:37 <wendyreid> ... on ramp for beginners
15:13:50 <wendyreid> ... recognition of sites are partially conformant
15:13:50 <AWK> q+ to say that since conformance is binary that this would be more accurate as "noncomformant"
15:13:58 <wendyreid> ... the binary nature of the conformance results of WCAG2
15:14:00 <Adam> [slide 7]
15:14:25 <wendyreid> ... conformance is about satisfying all the requirements listed, 100% against technical requirements
15:14:33 <wendyreid> ... conformance =/= accessibility
15:15:01 <wendyreid> ... compliance is something to be careful about, how well something meets law, regulation, etc
15:15:18 <wendyreid> ... it is useful for us to provide hooks to compliance in our documentation
15:15:31 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:15:35 <wendyreid> ... lawmakers can add exceptions, or reasonable efforts, all around the world
15:15:43 <wendyreid> ... and additional requirements added
15:15:49 <Adam> [slide 8]
15:15:51 <wendyreid> ... our remit is conformance
15:16:06 <wendyreid> ... possible locations/structure
15:16:08 <Adam> [slide 9]
15:16:36 <wendyreid> ... WCAG 3 proposed, we intend to have policy and evaluation methodology included in conformance
15:16:53 <wendyreid> ... informative materials, and additional modules like assertions or color contrast
15:16:57 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:17:02 <wendyreid> ... wcag 2 to 3 mapping
15:17:15 <Jen_G> Present+
15:17:20 <wendyreid> ... in the setup of the survey we are putting together, the questions are where can we put these features and guidance
15:17:25 <Adam> [slide 10]
15:17:31 <wendyreid> ... two categories of location, normative and informative
15:17:41 <wendyreid> ... normative is the thing regulators and people look at to meet
15:18:09 <Adam> q?
15:18:13 <stevef> present+
15:18:15 <wendyreid> ... informative is how-to materials, guidance, methodologies, process standards (i.e. design for all)
15:18:20 <wendyreid> ... outside of the normative area
15:18:23 <Adam> [slide 11]
15:18:34 <wendyreid> ... anything normative is required for every entity claiming conformance
15:18:38 <GlendaSims> GlendaSims has joined #ag
15:18:44 <wendyreid> ... anything informative can be ignored
15:19:13 <wendyreid> ... informative documents could be used by regulators, their uptake depends on an org's motivations or incentives
15:19:18 <Adam> ack AWK
15:19:18 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that since conformance is binary that this would be more accurate as "noncomformant"
15:19:23 <GlendaSims> present+
15:19:44 <wendyreid> AWK: Wanted to clarify, back on slide 2, new issue is vast majority of sites are partially conformant, I think this softens the concern
15:20:12 <wendyreid> ... pretty much every site is partially conformant without doing anything, the vast majority are non-conformant, which we're trying to address
15:20:12 <hdv> q+
15:20:20 <GlendaSims> q+
15:20:33 <wendyreid> alastairc: depends on framing, sites that do nothing, or have major issues, the issue is that its not granular
15:20:43 <wendyreid> ... we didn't have ways to add nuance
15:20:50 <GreggVan> q+
15:21:15 <wendyreid> AWK: In WCAG 2 partial conformance was mostly related to outside content, we think about it more now because of the VPAT template, not WCAG itself
15:21:17 <Adam> ack hdv
15:21:20 <wendyreid> alastairc: Showing a need for it
15:21:22 <wendyreid> AWK: Yes
15:21:51 <kevin> q+ shadi
15:21:53 <alastairc> q+ shadi
15:21:59 <wendyreid> hdv: The framing made sense to me, in NL, we see sites who are conformant and partially so, there are people making sites that actually conform, the framing was good
15:22:00 <Adam> ack GlendaSims
15:22:01 <AWK> Can you share an example Hidde?
15:22:10 <kirkwood> I am concerned about the word economy issue. in professional or technical writing, be careful with this specific omission. When you drop "with the guidelines", we  run into a grammatical issue: the standalone noun "conformance" (or "conformity") requires a preposition like with or to to act as a proper target.If removing words accidentally breaks your syntax or muddies the meaning, the removed phrase is considered a necessary component. It should[CUT]
15:22:11 <kirkwood> clear here.
15:22:50 <wendyreid> GlendaSims: I wanted to report that it's so rare for me to see a trustworthy VPAT with supports all the way down, I have run across it in course management systems
15:23:06 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:23:09 <bbailey> To AWK point about "partial conformance" and WCAG 2.x:  https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#conformance-partial
15:23:12 <wendyreid> ... as much as I think perfect is impossible, there is movement, though I still think it's impossible
15:23:28 <wendyreid> GreggVan: I think we need to refocus our thinking, if we think of traffic laws
15:23:36 <wendyreid> ... rarely do people follow all laws perfectly
15:23:50 <wendyreid> ... we don't say you only need to conform to 80% of laws
15:23:51 <AWK> @jeroenh yes
15:24:03 <wendyreid> ... the question is whether you're "off" enough to take to task for it
15:24:13 <alastairc> q?
15:24:16 <wendyreid> ... is there a point of comparison between you and another produc
15:24:24 <wendyreid> ... progress to conformance offers comparison
15:24:26 <kevin> agenda?
15:24:28 <GlendaSims> Here is the link to the ACR/VPAT for the Canvas LMS that Conforms with WCAG (and was done by WebAim) https://trust.instructure.com/d/canvas-lms-vpat/vjkWM6
15:24:37 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
15:24:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/07-ag-minutes.html kevin
15:24:45 <wendyreid> ... "if I don't conform something bad will happen" what will happen?
15:25:00 <wendyreid> ... the fact that things can't be 100% done, so what, there are people that follow all the laws, the rest of us do what we can
15:25:00 <kirkwood> q+
15:25:04 <GlendaSims> q+
15:25:16 <Patrick_H_Lauke> normatively define "egregious"
15:25:18 <wendyreid> ... I think we ought to be not getting too wound up, but we need comparisons
15:25:26 <alastairc> ack Shadi
15:25:27 <Adam> ack shadi
15:25:44 <wendyreid> shadi: Wanted to speak to the framing, the binary nature of WCAG is well documented
15:26:01 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #AG
15:26:04 <wendyreid> ... the lack of granularity, it's a long-standing issue
15:26:23 <LoriO> present+
15:26:29 <Adam> q?
15:26:34 <wendyreid> ... partially-conformant comes from the WAD, no idea yet how much it moves to EAA, it's evidence that people need something between nothing and everything
15:26:41 <wendyreid> alastairc: This is a bit of a tangent
15:26:47 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
15:26:48 <Adam> ack kirkwood
15:27:11 <wendyreid> kirkwood: Just want to make sure we're using the right language, when we say conformance we mean specifically with the guidelines
15:27:12 <Rachael> +1 that conformance is conformance with the guidelines
15:27:21 <wendyreid> ... need to be specific
15:27:24 <Patrick_H_Lauke> +1 rather thanconformance with laws
15:27:48 <wendyreid> alastairc: Two themes, from standards POV, conformance has a meaning, but we also need nuance and granularity
15:27:56 <wendyreid> kirkwood: Conformance with "what"
15:28:03 <Adam> ack GlendaSims
15:28:03 <wendyreid> alastairc: We need something under conformance
15:28:04 <alastairc> ack GlendaSims
15:28:16 <Charles> silver research also showed the need for something between 0 and 100. but that requires something outside of conformance versus partial conformance.
15:28:26 <SydneyColeman> conformance with xyz ; compliance with law
15:28:49 <LoriO> q+
15:28:50 <giacomo-petri> +1 to Glenda
15:28:54 <Adam> ack LoriO
15:28:55 <wendyreid> GlendaSims: Wanted to add, it's really important for W3C to have a document that is non-normative that explains what we know to be true, demands of perfect conformance when we all know that's impossible, we need to express that nuance to lawmakers
15:29:01 <Makoto_U> +1 to Glenda
15:29:02 <Stephanie> +1 to Glenda
15:29:08 <erinevans> +1 to Glenda
15:29:19 <kevin> q+
15:29:30 <wendyreid> LoriO: Several meetings ago, I brought up the idea of a document to address this, Rachael put this on her list of things to look into, are we doing that or is this a distraction?
15:29:43 <wendyreid> alastairc: What was the topic?
15:30:00 <wendyreid> LoriO: What Glenda was talking about, an introduction to WCAG for regulators and enforcers of the guidelines
15:30:05 <wendyreid> alastairc: The policy guidance?
15:30:42 <wendyreid> LoriO: Trying to remember the wording for the policy guidance and coming up blank, my point is to avoid what Glenda describes, something simple for non-accessibility people to understand
15:30:48 <Adam> q?
15:30:55 <Adam> ack kevin
15:30:56 <wendyreid> Rachael: It is on our list, this is not the moment to discuss
15:31:02 <janina> janina has joined #ag
15:31:06 <janina> present+
15:31:16 <wendyreid> kevin: Just want to be careful, it's not for W3C to tell lawmakers what to do
15:31:39 <GlendaSims> We are not telling lawmakers what to do.  We are helping lawmakers understand how to reasonably use the WCAG standard.
15:31:43 <wendyreid> ... we do have an opportunity to clarify and explain how a standard can be used, and what to consider when creating regulation
15:31:43 <JeroenH> q+
15:31:54 <wendyreid> ... we can't stop them from taking a hard and fast approach though
15:32:01 <wendyreid> ... we won't encourage it
15:32:27 <wendyreid> ... we have to recognize the role we play as providers of advice
15:32:28 <Adam> ack JeroenH
15:32:38 <wendyreid> JeroenH: I agree we should not tell lawmakers what to do
15:32:54 <wendyreid> ... but if we could provide a framework for harmonization globally
15:33:03 <wendyreid> ... enhancing harmonization would be good
15:33:15 <wendyreid> alastairc: Small tangent, we'll have the work on the policy document
15:33:29 <wendyreid> ... subgroup or TF
15:33:29 <Adam> [slide 12]
15:33:29 <wendyreid> ... coming back to today
15:33:36 <Adam> [slide 13]
15:33:51 <wendyreid> ... for the options, consider what we've discussed already, levels and so on
15:34:00 <wendyreid> ... ask for clarification if needed
15:34:06 <wendyreid> ... building towards a survey
15:34:13 <Adam> [slide 14]
15:34:23 <wendyreid> ... for scoring, progress to conformance score, pros and cons
15:34:42 <wendyreid> ... the idea was to create a score for sites that are not fully compliant
15:35:00 <wendyreid> ... wouldn't be a perfect "how accessible is this" score, but a measure of distance from conformance
15:35:18 <wendyreid> ... we'd need to demonstrate how to work out the score
15:35:27 <LoriO> Kevin +1
15:36:13 <wendyreid> ... for each option we have what it would look like in conformance, it would also be in the informative docs
15:36:21 <wendyreid> ... or what if we put it in the informative docs only
15:36:43 <wendyreid> ... EM could outline how to show partial conformance with a granular score
15:36:53 <wendyreid> ... for policy could be a way to differentiate documents
15:36:56 <Charles> q+
15:37:01 <Matt_King> q+
15:37:02 <wendyreid> s/documents/products/
15:37:10 <Adam> ack Charles
15:37:14 <wendyreid> ... do you understand this, do you think this is reasonable
15:37:20 <wendyreid> Charles: I'm not sure I understand what this means
15:37:23 <GreggVan> q+
15:37:40 <wendyreid> ... my understanding of the progress to conformance was about what an org might say in an accessibility statement vs conformance claim
15:37:52 <wendyreid> ... not making a conformance claim, but a statement of progress towards conformance
15:38:08 <wendyreid> ... scoring in the context of conformance is how you get from silver to gold
15:38:12 <Monica> Monica has joined #AG
15:38:27 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has left #ag
15:38:32 <wendyreid> alastairc: You're correct, it was presented recently as an informative addition, but on this topic, we could also put this in the core conformance model
15:38:53 <wendyreid> ... you're also right, if it's in conformance, it could be x% for bronze, y% for silver, etc
15:39:04 <wendyreid> ... the question is whether it should be normative or informative
15:39:19 <wendyreid> Charles: I understand your confidence in answering my question, but it's not how I read this
15:39:31 <wendyreid> ... it says "progress towards conformance" not the "score within conformance"
15:39:39 <wendyreid> alastairc: Same concept, two uses of it
15:39:47 <wendyreid> Rachael: We can edit the slide to make it clear
15:39:48 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:39:58 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
15:40:13 <wendyreid> Matt_King: If I understand this option, it is about the specific progress to conformance proposal that has been made
15:40:23 <Monica> present+
15:40:32 <kirkwood> This is strange to me as the laws will continue to say it needs to be done. These standards would no longer be useful for regulators to measure as a standard to ensure it is done (accessible). Or am I wrong?
15:40:37 <wendyreid> ... or is it possible to make this more generic such that we could be talking about progress scoring but different from the current proposal
15:41:06 <wendyreid> alastairc: I'm hoping we can deal with it at a higher level, not an exact proposal, if we had scoring as a method, would it be normative or informative
15:41:09 <Adam> q?
15:41:14 <AshleeF> q+ Is Scoring the option, or are the two bullet points on the Scoring slide the options?
15:41:28 <wendyreid> Matt_King: If we could make that really clear that we're not taking a survey on the concept not the specific idea
15:41:42 <AshleeF> q+
15:41:53 <wendyreid> ... one of the challenges, if that scoring were conceived in a different way, then it might not have the same regulatory downsides, could even be a positive
15:42:04 <wendyreid> ... to make WCAG more like other output standards with regulations
15:42:19 <wendyreid> ... the pros and cons are based on the current concept of scoring but not relevant to all scoring concepts
15:42:28 <AshleeF> q-
15:42:28 <wendyreid> alastairc: We'd need a proposal to reference
15:42:36 <Rachael> q+ to speak to goal of today
15:42:45 <wendyreid> Matt_King: I'm working on something, maybe the survey is too soon and we need more proposals are on the table?
15:42:48 <AshleeF> Thank you @Adam!
15:42:52 <wendyreid> ... or do the survey now, or again later
15:42:55 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:42:56 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:43:03 <wendyreid> alastairc: We can come back if there is a new proposal
15:43:25 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re level of effort to find for those less familiar
15:43:39 <wendyreid> GreggVan: I think we can make this easier to say "scoring - conformance or separate"
15:43:49 <wendyreid> ... otherwise reading the body of it is confusing
15:44:22 <wendyreid> ... clearer there are two options
15:44:37 <wendyreid> ... getting rid of partial conformance, well...
15:44:42 <wendyreid> alastairc: We'll get to that
15:44:51 <wendyreid> GreggVan: Partial conformance is also partial non-conformance
15:45:03 <wendyreid> ... you're trying to confuse people into thinking you're conforming
15:45:30 <wendyreid> GreggVan: trying to show comparisons of quality
15:45:51 <wendyreid> alastairc: For each of these, we have in conformance, or in informative documents only
15:45:55 <Adam> q?
15:46:01 <wendyreid> ... that's the basic premise for each question
15:46:02 <LoriO> q+
15:46:02 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:46:03 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to goal of today
15:46:20 <hdv> q+
15:46:27 <wendyreid> Rachael: Wanted to step back chair hat on, goal of the exercise is with all the discussion, can we agree on what should and should not be in conformance
15:46:36 <wendyreid> ... the goal is not to discuss these in great detail
15:46:44 <GreggVan> q+
15:46:49 <wendyreid> ... we can discuss them later, what goes in conformance, what is informative
15:46:56 <wendyreid> ... don't need to discuss each example
15:47:01 <Adam> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:47:01 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss level of effort to find for those less familiar
15:47:39 <Rachael> q+ to answer Jennie
15:47:49 <wendyreid> Jennie_Delisi: If option 1, it's in a single document, and for 2, including in the conformance section, if they only use one document, that's where the information would be, right?
15:47:52 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:47:52 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Jennie
15:47:55 <wendyreid> alastairc: I wouldn't characterise it that way
15:48:25 <Matt_King> q+
15:48:28 <wendyreid> Rachael: We have sections of the document we can use other than conformance, by putting something in that section, we're saying specifically that it is necessary for conformance, putting it elsewhere means something else
15:48:41 <wendyreid> ... if it's informative but needs to be in the document, we can deal with that editorially
15:48:48 <Adam> ack LoriO
15:48:54 <wendyreid> alastairc: There's bigger impacts whether it's normative or informative
15:49:27 <wendyreid> LoriO: When we say policy guidance differentiating products, if you have a product that is a number of applications, each could have different conformance
15:49:36 <wendyreid> ... what was the intent of using products
15:49:46 <wendyreid> alastairc: Umbrella term for what people are making claims about
15:50:04 <wendyreid> ... we've been using it as an umbrella term, it's whatever policy makers require people to do
15:50:13 <wendyreid> ... or what people making a claim want to include in their scope
15:50:27 <wendyreid> ... as we discussed earlier, if two things aren't conforming, how do you compare them?
15:50:27 <Adam> ack hdv
15:50:39 <Rachael> Scope section of the explainer https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-explainer/#scope that includes products
15:50:39 <bbailey> q+ to ask if "show partial conformance" is the same as "show progress towards conformance" ?
15:50:40 <Heather> what about the term 'digital interface' instead of websites/product?
15:50:44 <wendyreid> hdv: Great question regarding products, I don't love the word but it's helpful as shorthand
15:51:29 <wendyreid> ... to speak to informative or not, NL gov't monitors many sites, one thing we look for is whether people are communicating on status, people want to see their progress, I want to see it too
15:51:39 <wendyreid> ... what I don't want to see the bar lowered to where their progress is
15:51:50 <wendyreid> ... I'd love to see a path towards something informative, not part of real conformance
15:51:55 <wendyreid> ... see it in EM
15:52:06 <wendyreid> alastairc: Put these into the survey, this is helpful
15:52:17 <wendyreid> hdv: Sorry, thought we were answering here too
15:52:29 <Matt_King> q?
15:52:32 <bbailey> q-
15:52:33 <wendyreid> alastairc: We're asking about the options to make sure they are clear, before the survey
15:52:38 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:52:41 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:53:30 <wendyreid> GreggVan: We have the guidelines and the supplementary documents, within the guidelines we have normative and informative, the concern people will miss things is fair, but we can put informative content in the main document, but only stuff that doesn't change often
15:53:43 <wendyreid> ... we don't have to stuff things into conformance to get them into the guidelines themselves
15:53:45 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:53:46 <alastairc> ack Matt_King
15:54:01 <wendyreid> Matt_King: I'm wondering if this is  a way to simplify the question
15:54:33 <bbailey> q+ to say i am not see hard conflict between options
15:54:47 <GreggVan> q+
15:54:59 <wendyreid> ... in response to Jennie, is this simply a choice between not requiring or requiring measurement of progress
15:55:22 <wendyreid> alastairc: Yes, exactly, you're either required or here is a way to measure yourself
15:55:47 <wendyreid> Matt_King: If we want a dictated WCAG-way to present information and transparency, put it in normative, but if not make it informative
15:56:12 <wendyreid> alastairc: Need to consider the range of entities needing to calculate scores or apply these methods
15:56:16 <alastairc> q+ shadi
15:56:21 <wendyreid> Matt_King: Depends on the implementation details of the progress score
15:56:35 <Adam> ack bbailey
15:56:35 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say i am not see hard conflict between options
15:56:36 <wendyreid> ... if you had to do this, it's just part of the process
15:57:02 <Adam> q?
15:57:20 <wendyreid> bbailey: You could have "use WCAG EM" in normative, or it's just informative
15:57:35 <wendyreid> alastairc: The difference is whether you're required to do a score or an optional thing
15:57:50 <Charles> the ‘or’ in the question makes it difficult to respond to – as it omits the option for both or a split.
15:57:54 <wendyreid> bbailey: There could be requirement to work out a score, but not mentioning how
15:58:00 <wendyreid> Matt_King: It could be a different spec
15:58:16 <GreggVan> q+
15:58:20 <wendyreid> ... if its normative, it can refer to other documents
15:58:23 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:58:27 <wendyreid> alastairc: Key difference is normative or not
15:58:52 <wendyreid> GreggVan: You can't refer to anything outside the document in a normative fashion unless it's a normative document
15:59:01 <kirkwood> Progress measurement depends on so many factors. LOE, business priorities. Even within a company, it’s very difficult.  Different web accessibility businesses do it in different ways
15:59:04 <Adam> ack Shadi
15:59:10 <wendyreid> ... it needs to be referred to at the same date
15:59:39 <wendyreid> shadi: I think we're confusing required and optional, normative and informative, things can be informative in a normative document, optional in a normative document
15:59:45 <Rachael> q+ to suggest an alternative
15:59:53 <GreggVan> q+
15:59:58 <hdv> +1 shadi
16:00:01 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:00:01 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest an alternative
16:00:01 <wendyreid> ... you don't have to do everything, required and optional vs normative and informative, need to keep language clear
16:00:20 <wendyreid> Rachael: Would it be clearer if we used more specific language on the areas we're discussing?
16:00:24 <kirkwood> seems clearer
16:00:26 <hdv> q+
16:00:54 <laura> I need to drop too. Thanks.
16:00:57 <Heather> scribe+
16:01:00 <Adam> q?
16:01:09 <bbailey> s/I need to drop too. Thanks.//
16:01:18 <kirkwood> seemed clearer to me actually
16:01:42 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:01:44 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:01:44 <Heather> alastairc: not sure it would make it clearer. Let's keep conformant section normative.
16:02:07 <HaTheo> HaTheo has joined #AG
16:02:17 <Heather> GreggVan: Using informative in two different ways is confusing. Suggests distinct normative and informative, and then having 'Notes'
16:02:39 <Heather> ...let's be careful because we may have confusion.
16:02:57 <Heather> ...When required, you need to say what you mean by 'required' everything that's normative is 'required'
16:03:15 <Matt_King> q?
16:03:23 <Matt_King> q+
16:03:24 <Heather> ...policies and regulations define 'requirements.'
16:03:28 <kirkwood> required to meet specific guideline
16:03:29 <hdv> q-
16:03:44 <Heather> ...standards are standards; requirements of standards are a different definition.
16:04:02 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:04:20 <Adam> q+ shadi
16:04:21 <Heather> ...this document needs to be full of requirements, best practices, and things people should do, but not necessarily required for conformance.
16:04:24 <alastairc> ack Matt_King
16:04:25 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:04:57 <GreggVan> q+
16:05:01 <Heather> Matt_King: understanding is that requirements are 'must' statements. Requirement for conformance is not the only thing we're talking about in a compliance sense.
16:05:14 <GreggVan> -
16:05:17 <GreggVan> q-
16:05:26 <Heather> alastairc: Redirect back on topic
16:05:27 <Adam> ack Ben_Tillyer
16:05:34 <GreggVan> q+
16:05:57 <Heather> Ben_Tillyer: Does it need to be an either/or? If different levels of conformance, is there a chance you'd be required to do scoring for a higher level of conformance but no in lower levels?
16:06:25 <Heather> alastairc: If something was in conformance section, we would describe how to do that in the evaluation methodology and giving recommendations in policy guidance.
16:06:38 <Adam> q?
16:06:55 <Adam> ack shadi
16:06:59 <Heather> ...Need to decide if something is in normative conformance - this is the primary question.
16:07:08 <alastairc> ack Shad
16:07:19 <Heather> ...comes down to what we think we would recommend at the regulatory level, and whether scoring would go towards that.
16:07:42 <Heather> @shadi: I think we're strictly speaking about requirements for conformance, nothing else.
16:07:48 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:07:48 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:08:23 <Heather> GreggVan: Things that are normative are required for conformance. Things that are should or recommendations are never normative.
16:08:29 <Adam> q?
16:09:08 <Heather> stevef: Disagrees with Gregg. Something that has normative requirements... is it the RFC that outlines these things?
16:09:26 <Heather> ...Things like must, should, may, may not are all normative keywords.
16:09:43 <Adam> [slide 15]
16:10:06 <Heather> alastairc: Moving onto levels. [reading slide]
16:10:44 <Heather> ...question here is around whether we think we could or should include levels in conformance.
16:10:59 <Heather> ...people could claim at a particular level.
16:11:09 <Heather> ...or leave it as one group
16:11:19 <LoriO> q+
16:11:33 <Heather> ...benefits is to be able to show progress on an on-ramp, or even being above regulatory levels.
16:12:02 <Adam> ack LoriO
16:12:03 <Heather> ...al provisions could be put into levels, could be something in the informative documents.
16:12:23 <Heather> ...Question is does it go into normative conformance, or is it an informative thing.
16:12:45 <GreggVan> q+
16:12:53 <Heather> LoriO: How would all of this apply to ACRs? Would this require companies to do two different documents?
16:13:20 <kevin> q+
16:13:25 <stevef> GreggVan here is the RFC that is normatively referenced by many specs https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119 including wcag2 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#references
16:13:31 <Heather> alastairc: If fast-forwarding to 2030, we assume we have released WCAG 3, your ACRs would be in WCAG 2 format. If we changed how things work, it would need to take on a different format.
16:13:41 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:13:49 <Heather> alastairc: Provisions would already be different, so the document would also be different.
16:14:16 <Heather> GreggVan: Lori just asked about documentation. In WCAG 2, we don't require any documentation to make a conformance claim to conform.
16:14:34 <Heather> ...we aren't requiring any type of document to conform - is that correct?
16:14:52 <Heather> alastairc: I took Lori's question because WCAG doesn't produce ACRs.
16:14:53 <stevef> q+
16:14:55 <Adam> ack kevin
16:15:15 <Adam> ack stevef
16:15:16 <Heather> ...we have optional conformance claims, there are other organizations that do require ACRs and they would probably need to update their format if everything is different in WCAG 3.
16:15:34 <Heather> Kevin: ACR is not a product or a requirement from any W3C specification. It's completely external
16:16:12 <Heather> stevef: Remembered a former point. From my experience dealing with customers, some form of documentation is ACRs cover WCAG, and it seems to be a conformance document
16:16:40 <Heather> ...separate to W3C it's a document that says how a product supports standards. I don't see why we aren't looking toward that methodology.
16:16:47 <bbailey> q+ to give +1 to use "partial non-conformance" versus "partial conformance"
16:16:55 <Heather> alastairc: The question would be which option.
16:17:12 <Heather> ...we put all this stuff into conformance, an ACR based on WCAG would have to change to adapt to that
16:17:21 <Heather> ....we don't do anything
16:17:45 <Heather> ...you don't put it in conformance, you have scoring into informative documents, and it influences people create ACRs.
16:18:02 <kevin> q+ to respomd to Steve
16:18:03 <Heather> stevef: It doesn't seem to be a big thing from most customers.
16:18:23 <Heather> alastairc: Things like VPATs and EAA accessibility statements are drawn from WCAG; based on it.
16:18:42 <Heather> stevef: How can we make things as simple as possible as far as the scoring is concerned.
16:18:54 <Adam> ack bbailey
16:18:54 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to give +1 to use "partial non-conformance" versus "partial conformance"
16:19:06 <Heather> ...Another thing. This third policy guidance could be recommended to as a way of doing things.
16:19:07 <bbailey> ...for sites claiming partial non-conformance
16:19:37 <Heather> bbailey: +1 to Andrew's point that partial compliance statements were different with WCAG 2.
16:19:43 <Adam> q?
16:19:52 <AshleeF> q+ In the future survey will there be a way to write general objections to these topics?
16:20:00 <Heather> ...I'd like to encourage us to try to normalize that language, that partial non-conformance is really what we're talking about.
16:20:03 <AshleeF> q+ In the future survey will there be a way to write general objections to these topics
16:20:10 <Adam> ack kevin
16:20:10 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to respomd to Steve
16:20:11 <kirkwood> agree with Bruce
16:20:17 <Heather> alastairc: Non-partial conformance versus partial conformance seems to be the same thing.
16:20:25 <alastairc> q+ AshleeF to say In the future survey will there be a way to write general objections to these topics
16:20:44 <Heather> bbailey; Because those two points avoid confusion with what partial conformance meant with WCAG 2, and to reinforce the idea that it's non-conforming.
16:21:15 <Heather> Kevin: Thinking about Steve's comment, things like VPAT/ACRs - they deviate from record of conformance to WCAG is that they are more of a record.
16:21:41 <Charles> the V in vpat is voluntary.
16:21:45 <alastairc> ack AshleeF
16:21:45 <Zakim> AshleeF, you wanted to say In the future survey will there be a way to write general objections to these topics
16:21:48 <Heather> ...A record of compliance to a regulation. Those are two different things. In actual fact, what's more important as far as the regulator is concerned is what's actual required for compiance
16:22:20 <bbailey> s/point that partial compliance statements/point that partial conformance statements/
16:22:24 <Heather> ... How people report against that, maybe it's a source of why people are not asking for conformance reports, or WCAG conformance reports.
16:22:31 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:22:38 <julierawe> present+
16:22:56 <Heather> AshleeF: In general in the future survey, will there be a way to write general objections to these topics, or do we assume that these things are all going to be included?
16:23:16 <Adam> q?
16:23:20 <Heather> alastairc: Good question. We'll have a comment for each one I suspect. The rationale is more important than the objection itself.
16:23:23 <Adam> [slide 16]
16:23:36 <Heather> alastairc: Partial conformance [reads slide]
16:24:14 <GreggVan> q+ to say    levels or partial conformance are =  levels of conformance
16:24:56 <kirkwood> regulation example:  Partially conformant means that some parts of the content do not fully conform to this accessibility standard. https://www.nyc.gov/site/doi/contact/doi-office-accessibility.page
16:25:03 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:25:03 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    levels or partial conformance are =  levels of conformance
16:25:10 <Heather> GreggVan: If you have defined levels of partial conformance, they are levels of conformance
16:25:34 <Heather> ...If you meet everything in that level, then you conform to that level. I don't understand what you mean by levels of partial conformance.
16:26:07 <kirkwood> q+
16:26:11 <Adam> ack kirkwood
16:26:11 <Matt_King> q+
16:26:18 <Heather> alastairc: Good point. The thinking is that if a regulator is asking for WCAG 2 AA and you were meeting A, that's not full compliance?
16:26:37 <Heather> ...Is that a better way of terming it? You might have a conformance level on the way to full compliance. This one is harder to define.
16:26:52 <Heather> kirkwood: Link put in above as a reference point.
16:27:07 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:27:16 <Heather> alastairc: (references wording in link)
16:27:47 <Heather> Matt_King: wondering if this should be in the same survey as the first two questions, because it seems redundant with the idea towards conformance
16:27:57 <Heather> ...seems like another way to say the same thing, and I'm confused about that.
16:28:05 <Adam> [slide 17]
16:28:14 <Heather> alastairc: might remove this one unless we think of a way to differentiate it better.
16:28:21 <Heather> alastairc: Moving on to Severity
16:29:30 <Heather> alastairc: requires some work, we haven't had success yet. It's very complicated to do.
16:29:47 <Heather> ...it's hard to think of clear cases, and hard to know what to do with the gray areas in-between those clear cases.
16:29:55 <GlendaSims> Q?
16:30:01 <GlendaSims> q+
16:30:12 <GlendaSims> q-
16:30:30 <Heather> ...[modifies slide content]
16:30:52 <Heather> ...case of something if this is something we want to bake into conformance or better deal with it in the informative section?
16:31:09 <Adam> q?
16:31:21 <Heather> ...if you do audits,  you probably already do this. Is this something you want baked into the WCAG conformance model. Any questions?
16:31:22 <Adam> [slide 18]
16:31:33 <Heather> alastairc: Moving onto Reporting requirements [reads slide]
16:31:43 <GreggVan> q+
16:32:24 <Heather> ...What information could be included in the reports. Various levels of asks based on the type of doc.
16:32:26 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:32:39 <Heather> GreggVan: In WCAG 2, we don't require that you report, but if you report, there are requirements.
16:32:51 <Heather> ...In your document, you said it would increase the information required for a conformance claim.
16:33:21 <Adam> [slide 19]
16:33:24 <Heather> alastairc: We're not trying to suddenly require conformance claims. We would add more to what you would have to put into it, if we built in reporting requirements into conformance
16:33:36 <Heather> alastairc: Moving to Exceptions [reads slide]
16:34:38 <Heather> ...[modifies slide text]
16:35:52 <Adam> q?
16:35:57 <Heather> ...think of it as EAA excluded large archives of PDF content before a certain date.
16:36:42 <Heather> Matt_King: Is this the purview of WCAG or of regulatory compliance. The regulators may provide exceptions; what kind of exceptions would WCAG conformance care about?
16:37:11 <Heather> alastairc: That's the question we're trying to get feedback on. Trying to think of any previous examples - can anyone else think of those as well from previous conversations?
16:37:33 <Heather> ...For example, you have more than one product team and need a design system. It's not something we've traditionally done.
16:38:01 <Heather> Matt_King: It doesn't feel any different. there are "Ifs" everywhere
16:38:42 <Heather> alastairc: those "ifs" are based on what is there in the content. For example, if there's a human language available. The question is whether we should also include external factors that wouldn't be apparent form the content.
16:38:55 <bbailey> Just for comparison, exceptions from  recent U.S. ADA web rule 28 CFR § 35.201  https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part-35/subpart-H/section-35.201
16:39:00 <julierawe> +1 to Matt_King comment about working out exceptions provision by provision
16:39:01 <Adam> q?
16:39:12 <Heather> Matt_King: Should we litigate that within the context of that specific provision?
16:39:32 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ to ask to include the example in the survey
16:39:34 <Heather> alastairc: I think this one does, I hope it's answered consistently by provision authors.
16:39:47 <Adam> ack Jennie_Delisi
16:39:47 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask to include the example in the survey
16:40:18 <Heather> Jennie_Delisi: For those who might not remember those examples when we go to complete the survey, would it be possible to link where it was discussed, or a brief example to hep us understand it in context?
16:40:18 <Adam> [slide 20]
16:40:22 <Heather> alastairc: Added note
16:40:33 <Heather> alastairc: Moving onto Sampling methodology [reads slide]
16:42:09 <AshleeF> AshleeF has left #ag
16:42:10 <Heather> alastairc: Moving to 3rd part content (procured) [reading slide]
16:42:11 <Adam> [slide 21]
16:42:50 <Adam> [slide 22]
16:42:51 <bbailey> q+
16:42:55 <Adam> ack bbailey
16:43:16 <Heather> bbailey: This isn't the way I think of third party content. You're deliberately contracting out or deciding to use some open source stuff.
16:43:22 <GreggVan> q+
16:43:34 <GreggVan> q-
16:43:35 <GlendaSims> q+
16:43:45 <Heather> alastairc: is that user-generated content?
16:43:49 <Heather> bbailey: Yes, thanks.
16:43:54 <Adam> ack GlendaSims
16:44:04 <GreggVan> q+
16:44:10 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:44:11 <Heather> GlendaSims: For clarification, perhaps put 'third-party vendor content'?
16:44:13 <Heather> @gergg
16:44:35 <Heather> GreggVan: I don't understand the statement "Allow for a specific statement"
16:45:15 <Heather> alastairc: You probably read the original. In WCAG 2, you're making a conformance claim, and you've got third party content. You have the option to either work it out or just make a statement of partial conformance.
16:45:34 <Heather> GreggVan: I have a problem with the term for partial conformance.
16:45:45 <Matt_King> q+
16:45:46 <Rachael> q+ to suggest that we keep partially conform and discuss this later
16:46:07 <Heather> alastairc: What would be a good term for the fact of products are not totally conformant, but are working toward it?
16:46:27 <kirkwood> Partial non-conformance is correct
16:46:27 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:46:37 <alastairc> ack Matt_King
16:46:38 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:46:38 <Heather> GreggVan: It's 'progress toward conformance.' There should be statements of statement of partial non-conformance, because partial conformance doesn't make any sense.
16:46:44 <Matt_King> q_
16:46:47 <Matt_King> q-
16:46:50 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:46:50 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest that we keep partially conform and discuss this later
16:47:09 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
16:47:14 <Heather> Rachael: Suggests that we keep partial conformance, acknowledging that it's an imperfect erm, and added it for discussion. Tabling it for now.
16:47:15 <Adam> ack giacomo-petri
16:47:24 <Charles> opinion: conformance statement and accessibility statement are different. progress toward conformance is not part of a conformance claim or statement. they can be part of an accessibility statement.
16:47:42 <Rachael> s/for discussion/for discussion. we can review the list of to discuss next week/
16:47:49 <Heather> giacomo-petri: Question about third party vendor content, relevant to align on the meeting. You may have a third-party vendor content that was commissioned to a development agency to build my website.
16:48:21 <kevin> q+
16:48:26 <Adam> ack kevin
16:48:28 <Heather> ...Think of Shopify, they may provide a template for checkout, where you have limited ability to edit the content, depending on the business model. How would that be classified?
16:48:45 <kirkwood> 3rd party implies different or divided ownership and control
16:48:55 <GlendaSims> q+
16:49:18 <Heather> Kevin: The Web Accessibility Directive talked about content that you have no control over. One could argue that you have control over the choice of using a third party vendor.
16:49:50 <kirkwood> it is a legal distinction
16:49:54 <Heather> ...Whereas if content that you do not control (example is a counsel received an inaccessible PDF of plans from an architect). This is an example of the distinction.
16:49:58 <Adam> ack GlendaSims
16:50:17 <bbailey> (c) Content posted by a third party.  Content posted by a third party, unless the third party is posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the public entity.
16:50:34 <LoriO> q+
16:50:40 <Heather> GlendaSims: Digging up the third-party vendor content definition from ADA Title II. It's both third-party software that you buy and any one that you hire to build software for you.
16:50:49 <kirkwood> build/write/design/host
16:50:50 <Adam> ack LoriO
16:51:14 <bbailey> 28 28 CFR § 35.201 (c)
16:51:19 <Heather> LoriO: Question: When we're talking about third party content, are we also including Open Source material? There's no vendor involved, and you can either use it or not use it.
16:51:23 <Adam> s/[slide 22]//
16:51:29 <kirkwood> open sorce isn’t owned
16:51:29 <Charles> +1 to LoriO vendor means sold
16:51:31 <Matt_King> q+
16:51:37 <Adam> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:51:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/07-ag-minutes.html Adam
16:51:45 <Adam> q?
16:51:49 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:51:50 <Heather> alastairc: The distinction Kevin raised around control is more apt, because it's less about paying, it's whether you can change the accessibility of it.
16:52:01 <Heather> ...we'll try to more closely define that better.
16:52:41 <Heather> Matt_King: Clarification on Kevin's comment. Trying to think of a situation where the product owner doesn't have some level of control.
16:52:43 <GlendaSims> Here is the reference for User Generated content...which gives you a definition of 3rd Party Vendor/Paid content that IS NOT an EXCEPTION https://www.ada.gov/resources/small-entity-compliance-guide/#3-content-posted-by-a-third-party-where-the-third-party-is-not-posting-due-to-contractual-licensing-or-other-arrangements-with-a-state-or-local-government
16:53:03 <GreggVan> Q+
16:53:12 <Heather> ...services, APIs, doesn't seem like control is not the defining factor. Don't want to get into litigating how we answer in the survey.
16:53:35 <GlendaSims> And even better: https://www.ada.gov/resources/small-entity-compliance-guide/#web-content-and-mobile-apps-that-state-and-local-governments-provide-through-contractors-or-vendors
16:53:42 <Heather> alastairc: We anticipated it would be things that are embedded into your site. There will be certain parts that are imported. We'll try to define that.
16:53:43 <Adam> q?
16:53:47 <Adam> [slide 22]
16:53:52 <GreggVan> q-
16:53:53 <Charles> a youtube video would be both. third party player. user generated video.
16:54:03 <Heather> alastairc: Moving onto User generated content [reads slide]
16:54:18 <GreggVan> q+
16:54:26 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:54:48 <Heather> GreggVan: I think we should drop 'partial' and say if you make it 'possible for users to generate conforming content.'
16:54:57 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:55:10 <Heather> ...whatever they produce, then your site conforms. it has nothing to do with you.
16:55:12 <Heather> q+
16:55:19 <wendyreid> q+ to make an overall comment
16:55:41 <Adam> ack Ben_Tillyer
16:55:47 <Adam> scribe+
16:56:00 <GlendaSims> q+
16:56:33 <Heather> Ben_Tillyer: Responding to Gregg's point, we need to careful with this. Take SharePoint for example, you should be able to ask for documentation on how to make content conformant.
16:56:53 <Adam> ack Heather
16:56:58 <Adam> Heather: +1 to Ben_Tillyer
16:57:30 <Adam> ... adding to that, when you think about documentation, “is it possible to do it” or another option could be “is it _required_ to do it”
16:57:46 <Heather> wendyreid: Looks like the survey size is quite large.
16:57:49 <Adam> q?
16:57:57 <GlendaSims> -q
16:57:59 <Adam> ack wendyreid
16:57:59 <Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to make an overall comment
16:58:01 <Adam> ack GlendaSims
16:58:01 <Heather> alastairc: We only have a few left. It should be straight forward we hope.
16:58:09 <Ben_Tillyer> more straightforward for the people that attended the call only...
16:58:12 <Adam> [slide 23]
16:58:17 <Adam> scribe-
16:58:22 <Heather> alastairc: Moving onto Other standards alongside WCAG [reads slide]
16:58:46 <Adam> [slide 24]
16:59:07 <Heather> alastairc: Moving onto Functional needs slides [reads slide]
16:59:43 <Adam> [slide 25]
16:59:53 <Heather> alastairc: Moved onto Task flows [reads slide]
17:01:01 <Adam> [slide 26]
17:01:17 <Charles> Charles has left #ag
17:01:18 <Heather> alastairc: Moved onto Other topics for consideration [summarizes slide]
17:01:33 <Heather> alastairc: The topics on this slide will not be included on the survey
17:01:33 <Adam> [slide 27]
17:01:48 <Ben_Tillyer> Thanks all
17:01:56 <Heather> Thanks all
17:01:59 <Heather> scribe-
17:02:00 <CClaire> Thanks all
17:02:04 <janina> janina has left #ag
17:02:21 <Adam> zakim, end meeting
17:02:21 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Adam, Dirk, alastairc, Laura_Carlson, Heather, Charles, Lia, Patrick_H_Lauke, erinevans, bbailey, AshleeF, wendyreid, giacomo-petri, hdv,
17:02:24 <Zakim> ... LenB, ShawnT, AWK, JeroenH, Matt_King, filippo-zorzi, jtoles, Detlev, julierawe, CClaire, HaTheo, Makoto_U, Jennie_Delisi, Rachael, kirkwood, SydneyColeman, kevin, Stephanie,
17:02:24 <Zakim> ... Francis_Storr, Jen_G, stevef, GlendaSims, LoriO, janina, Monica
17:02:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:02:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/07-ag-minutes.html Zakim
17:02:32 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Adam; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:02:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:18:17 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:33:58 <jkatherman> jkatherman has left #ag
19:43:06 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag