14:29:47 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:29:52 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/07/14-ag-irc 14:29:52 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:29:53 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:30:01 chair: Rachael 14:30:06 agenda? 14:30:15 agenda+ Introductions 14:30:23 agenda+ Announcements 14:30:37 agenda+ Review Topics for Discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/WCAG-3-Topics-for-Discussion 14:34:15 agenda+ Paths https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BUg8Zagkyq7DgmM62erF1eJz-EQhDX69Ad4yxu2QP58/edit?usp=sharing 14:36:57 agenda+ WCAG 2 Proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0048.html 14:38:56 zakim, clear agenda 14:38:56 agenda cleared 14:39:05 agenda+ Introductions 14:39:13 agenda+ Announcements 14:39:31 agenda+ WCAG 2 proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0048.html 14:47:58 agenda+ Review WCAG 3 Topics for Discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/WCAG-3-Topics-for-Discussion/ 14:48:01 agenda? 14:48:40 agenda+ Paths https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BUg8Zagkyq7DgmM62erF1eJz-EQhDX69Ad4yxu2QP58/edit?usp=sharing 14:49:07 regrets: Martijn, Bruce, Laura 14:57:33 present+ 14:57:36 LoriO has joined #ag 14:57:50 present+ 15:00:16 present+ 15:00:20 CClaire has joined #ag 15:00:28 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:00:28 Helen has joined #ag 15:00:30 present+ 15:00:34 present+ 15:00:36 Present+ 15:00:43 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:00:47 present+ 15:00:53 present+ 15:01:01 Charles has joined #ag 15:01:23 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 15:01:27 present+ 15:01:34 Heather has joined #ag 15:01:36 AWK has joined #ag 15:01:39 present+ 15:01:43 present+ 15:01:54 present+ 15:02:00 present+ 15:02:06 scribe+ 15:02:11 present+ 15:02:17 LenB has joined #ag 15:02:21 present_ 15:02:24 Dirk has joined #ag 15:02:25 present+ 15:02:35 AlinaV has joined #ag 15:02:36 AshleeF has joined #ag 15:02:40 present+ 15:02:40 thelounge6 has joined #ag 15:02:40 Makoto_U has joined #ag 15:02:40 present+ 15:02:43 present+ 15:02:45 present+ 15:02:47 present+ 15:02:49 present+ 15:02:49 present+ 15:02:58 thelounge6 has left #ag 15:03:00 present+ 15:03:07 zakim, take up item 1 15:03:07 agendum 1 -- Introductions -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:03:41 JamesHarrington has joined #ag 15:03:46 present+ 15:03:50 Rachael: Asks for new folks or those with a new role to provide an introduction; no takers. 15:03:53 zakim, take up item 2 15:03:53 agendum 2 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:04:16 Atya has joined #AG 15:04:20 present+ 15:04:23 WCAG EM published as consensus opinion. Decision at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions#2026 15:04:31 Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag 15:04:32 jtoles has joined #ag 15:04:35 thanks everyone for your support! 15:04:36 Rachael: WCAG EM closed on July 10. Will be published as consensus decision. 15:04:39 present+ 15:04:40 present+ 15:04:49 LoriO has joined #ag 15:04:57 Document Breakdown Survey https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-document-breakdown/ 15:04:59 q+ to ask about survey 15:05:02 Probably best not to +1 after a CFC closes, we might send out another and overlap gets confusing... 15:05:06 just dropped again 15:05:06 Rachael: Announcement 2 - Survey has been put out based on last 4-6 weeks of conversation; link above. 15:05:09 present+ 15:05:16 Stephanie has joined #ag 15:05:17 julierawe has joined #ag 15:05:20 present+ 15:05:27 present+ 15:05:34 ...survey is focused on the conformance section only. 15:05:40 bbailey has joined #ag 15:05:45 q- 15:05:48 present+ 15:06:00 ...survey will be closed to viewing others' comments to try to avoid 'group think.' All comments will be opened up after the survey is closed. 15:06:07 jkatherman has joined #ag 15:06:22 imirfan has joined #ag 15:06:33 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 15:06:36 present+ 15:06:39 Lia has joined #ag 15:06:39 ...in each question, there's an option for 'I've read it, and have no comment.' This ensures people reads and considers the question, and 'no opinion' can be captured. 15:07:03 q+ to suggest a "I don't feel like I am adequately up to speed to form an opinion" 15:07:15 ack awk 15:07:15 AWK, you wanted to suggest a "I don't feel like I am adequately up to speed to form an opinion" 15:08:06 AWK: Survey questions assume that people have seen that people known and understand the questions; is there a way to address this? 15:08:16 present+ 15:08:33 Rachael: Understands the comment of wanting to get up to speed before answering survey; will take back. 15:08:34 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:08:34 Sam-Estoesta has joined #ag 15:08:36 +1 to Andrew 15:08:38 present+ 15:08:40 present+ 15:08:56 Rachael: Feel free to use the comments field as well in the survey 15:08:57 chrisg has joined #ag 15:09:10 TPAC https://www.w3.org/news-events/tpac/2026/ 15:09:33 Rachael: TPAC is open. Group meeting scheduled on Monday and Tuesday; joint meeting on Thursday/Friday. Link above; please try to join in person or remotely. 15:09:40 zakim, take up item 3 15:09:40 agendum 3 -- WCAG 2 proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0048.html -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:09:56 Rachael: Turns over to Patrick for the next item 15:10:35 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JulSep/0038.html 15:10:42 Patrick_H_Lauke: List of proposed changes that are in the backlog of the task force are up now. This starts the two-week window, and is open for comments. 15:10:57 zakim, take up item 4 15:10:57 agendum 4 -- Review WCAG 3 Topics for Discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/WCAG-3-Topics-for-Discussion/ -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:11:00 Jen_G has joined #ag 15:11:03 Rachael: Thanks for the highlight, we'll have another announcement next week. 15:11:07 Poornima has joined #ag 15:11:14 Present+ 15:11:24 Rachael: List of different topics for discussion is linked above. 15:12:08 Rachael: [shares screen] In GitHub, there's a WCAG 3 Topics for Discussion. It now complete and in an accessible format. 15:12:32 ...meant to be a management tool. Placeholders for GitHub Discussions, Surveys, Minutes. 15:12:38 Guest12 has joined #AG 15:12:51 ...Please take time to review to the topics to ensure the list is complete. 15:13:03 Stephanie has joined #ag 15:13:13 Matt_King has joined #ag 15:13:29 ...For sub-questions (such as "What conformance model will we use?") that will be pulled out. 15:13:30 HaTheo has joined #AG 15:13:36 present+ 15:13:39 present+ 15:13:41 ...please email the chairs feedback. Any immediate comments? 15:13:55 zakim, take up item 5 15:13:55 agendum 5 -- Paths https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BUg8Zagkyq7DgmM62erF1eJz-EQhDX69Ad4yxu2QP58/edit?usp=sharing -- taken up [from Rachael] 15:14:02 ...(no comments) 15:14:15 present+ 15:14:33 alastairc: WCAG 3 Paths Update. [showing deck] 15:14:55 ...this is a subgroup with Andrew, Shadi, Matt King, Wendy, Jarun. 15:15:06 s/Jarun/Jeroen 15:15:26 ...[Shows slides, reviews content] 15:15:27 GlendaSims has joined #ag 15:16:35 ...[Terms slide]. Discussed but didn't settle on the terms. 15:16:35 present+ 15:16:38 Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BUg8Zagkyq7DgmM62erF1eJz-EQhDX69Ad4yxu2QP58/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p 15:16:42 [slide 4] 15:17:02 rrsagent, make minutes 15:17:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/14-ag-minutes.html Adam 15:17:12 opinion: each term in the list has a unique meaning in experience and service design. 15:17:15 q+ 15:17:15 ...For the sake of the discussion, we'll use 'paths.' "Flows" may clash with an English term and how people use them in their own org. 15:17:25 [slide 5] 15:17:43 ...Not conclusive, but overall direction is out lined on Slide 5 15:18:12 ...[reads slide] 15:18:18 as an aside, i like what i'm hearing in this paths presentation so far... 15:19:39 ..."same interface, different content" problem is multiple pages and a template (such as Slack thread), and there's lots of different content 15:20:00 [slide 6] 15:20:01 q? 15:20:15 ...there are a few mental models/approaches that people assumed that paths were. 15:20:39 ...examples have been done in the background to see how we would break these down into parts. 15:21:00 q+ I'm new to the group but wondering there was a discussion to use a user focused term like use case or user journey to represent something we expect people to be able to do 15:21:06 q+ to clarify if ‘series of’ means ‘specific sequence of’ 15:21:06 paths > "user journeys" to an extent? 15:21:12 q+ "I'm new to the group but wondering there was a discussion to use a user focused term like use case or user journey to represent something we expect people to be able to do" 15:21:17 ...open question for the subgroup and this group, does this add anything useful to conformance? 15:21:38 q+ 'wondering if there was a discussion to use a user focused term like use case or user journey to represent something we expect people to be able to do' 15:21:39 [slide 7] 15:21:44 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:21:50 ...from my point of view, you'd still list a series of URS, but you'd have a slightly different way to report it. It doesn't change conformnace 15:22:00 ...[reads slide] 15:22:35 q? 15:22:41 q+ Lia 15:22:52 [slide 8] 15:23:31 ...[describes screenshot of chat], reviews the example on the slide. 15:24:12 ...This view included about 15 different paths. 15:24:15 q+ to ask about consistency 15:25:08 ...[shows slide Content site example]. Reviews content on Content Site Example 15:25:20 Jon_avila has joined #ag 15:25:27 present+ 15:25:53 ...There is guidance available for people to define this. 15:26:03 [slide 10] 15:26:07 Does a path consist of a change of context? meaning “in digital accessibility, a change of context is a major shift in a webpage that can disorient users reliant on assistive technology. Under World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) accessibility guidelines, it covers unexpected changes to the focus, viewport, user agent, or page content that alter the meaning of the page.” 15:26:11 q+ 15:26:12 ...There are advantages and disadvantages to this [reads slide content] 15:27:11 [slide 11] 15:27:20 ...[reads slide] 15:27:59 q? 15:28:06 ...asks for queue 15:28:07 +1 Good approach 15:28:12 ack GreggVan 15:28:42 GreggVan: 1) I think paths is a great thing for progress toward conformance, and guidance on where to start. But it doesn't work in conformance unless the sum of all the paths equals all the content 15:29:07 ...2) The process is different than paths. Process requires that you include additional pages. Paths says that you can exclude information on the pages. 15:29:25 ...3) I didn't understand the different URLs, but it doesn't really change things much 15:29:35 q+ 15:30:11 ...4) I don't understand what the justification could be that says that people with disabilities don't need access to all the info on the pages. You can't conform without being able to read/do everything nt he pages. 15:30:25 q+ to disagree with Gregg (e.g., design system review of atomic components) 15:30:38 the target/subject of a conformance claim would still need to be "the whole thing" 15:30:39 alastairc: Responding to Gregg. The way the subgroup discussed it was that it would need to cover all content. 15:30:46 q+ 15:30:50 major benefit: gives a focus on context for user 15:30:56 q+ to comment on Gregg and Alastair's comments 15:30:58 ack Charles 15:30:58 Charles, you wanted to clarify if ‘series of’ means ‘specific sequence of’ 15:31:09 s/of a conformance claim/of a conformance claim as a whole 15:31:09 ...difference is the granularity of the thing you're commenting on conformance on. the guidance is for the how people can prioritize things. 15:31:35 Charles: For the vocabulary challenge. There are terms that have established meanings. 15:31:58 ...it's not clear to me when we say a series of things that's intended to be synonymous with a specific sequence. 15:32:09 shadi has joined #ag 15:32:14 present+ 15:32:16 ...There may be many paths, like adding an address in a checkout sequence. 15:32:36 ...is the intention to identify a sequence of steps, or all the steps of the sequence that may be involved? 15:32:42 q- 15:33:09 alastairc: If you have optional bits of a path, you would cover those on the 'branches' within that. 15:33:37 opportunity to address the major issue of context and consistency for the first time, great COGA benefit 15:33:51 ...each variation would be called out, along with the starting point, the end point, and any branches. Aim for complete coverage from a paths point of view. 15:34:02 ...how to break that down is up to you in your scenario. 15:34:11 Charles: If the path can diverge, is it a different path? 15:34:17 ack Lia 15:34:20 q+ to ask for clarification/restatement on what "granular approach" means 15:34:22 alastairc: You have a choice, but it's important to have coverage. 15:34:50 Lia: If we consider any user-focused term like 'use case' or 'user journey' - I feel its basically the same. 15:35:05 ...some products might be very complete, and might have dynamite user interfaces. 15:35:27 +1 15:35:28 ...What elements might vary depending on what stage of the interaction the user might be, or how the user profile preferences? 15:35:42 ...I do agree that users with disabilities need to have access to every single thing the same way. 15:35:49 I'd assume a single path can include its various variations/iterations 15:35:59 ...but in working at a big company, I understand the level of effort and cost of fully verifying conformance for every interaction. 15:36:36 ...if we want to make a call that we want to optimize people with disabilities can fully complete the journey, assessing every single element and component may not be fully feasible. 15:36:47 e.g. "this path in light mode, this path in dark mode" all as part of the single path 15:36:49 some of these terms mean the steps the user took versus the ones we think they should take to complete the action. 15:36:57 alastairc: In terms of coverage, I don't think it changes the amount of work to show that the interface is accessible. 15:37:11 ...the proposal really just changes for the reporting to be granular. 15:37:50 Matt_King: When you have different variations in possible states for the functionality, you can change the nature of the UI, and therefore change the nature of the accessibility. 15:37:58 the whole variation aspect is actually WHY this sort of approach is better than "page"/"url" approach 15:38:02 ah, snap 15:38:08 ...you can get the amount of evaluation coverage in the scope that you want, because it's explicit. 15:38:27 q+ 15:38:39 ...one of the challenges that we faced with pages/views was that just listing all the different things that can change on a page/view or defining the scope is difficult in dynamic apps. 15:38:45 ack Rachael 15:38:45 Rachael, you wanted to ask about consistency 15:39:09 ...but you can have a flow that is as specific and has a clear purpose, and those various kinds of conditions and states are represented by the name of the flow. 15:39:37 to rachael's point: is "consistency" needed? to me a path-based breakdown is a utility for the customer/person doing it 15:39:37 Rachael: Chair hat off. 1) If you did exercise in the subgroup how consistent were the results on how people identified paths. 15:39:58 ...2) If there are problems on the component level, how are those tracked? 15:40:27 alastairc: In terms of consistency between people, we had one attempt each and it wasn't consistent, but that was without instruction or prep. 15:40:30 q+ to make quick note about consistency 15:40:39 Screen reader users and other users might need to navigate in different ways which require them to go through inaccessible page content to reach the path. So, I agree that anything on the page in a path would need to be covered. 15:40:41 q? 15:40:49 q- 15:40:51 q+ 15:41:04 ..In terms of the things outside of paths that could be problems, the general idea is that everything needs to be included in the path. 15:41:12 ...so that that thing should fail in a path somewhere. 15:41:32 ...For non-interference ones, we need to check how they're phrased because they should be a fail. 15:41:55 Matt_King: For every single flow, evaluators would provide an assessment outcome for every single WCAG checkpoint. 15:42:12 ack kirkwood 15:42:15 Keyboard users still need to navigate to the path elements 15:42:27 ... All conformance defects were defined in terms of something, and how it could impact the user's ability to complete the path. 15:42:29 q- 15:42:48 kirkwood: How would we handle a change of context through a path? 15:43:06 q+ to ask if paths would be used primarily for areas not covered in other criterion 15:43:22 Matt_King: May need to look a the definition to fully meet that concern. 15:43:51 ...in practice, teams would define the flows, which have a clear beginning and end of an activity. 15:43:51 ack GreggVan 15:44:31 GreggVan: Seems like the goal of this was to be able to report just the paths instead of the whole page or the whole site. 15:44:50 q+ to note a real example encountered of when a path is interrupted by an issue in another path 15:45:00 ...If everything needs to be covered, what is the advantage of doing it by paths versus by the page. 15:45:19 q+ to comment on Gregg's comment - page to page reporting, such as focus order. 15:45:45 q+ 15:45:46 ack lia 15:45:54 ...Why would we do the different types of reporting. 15:46:22 Lia: I'd love to learn how you're thinking about how this would change how people think about conformance and what they're implementing or prioritizing in the product. 15:46:39 ...I feel there is a benefit of using paths instead of pages for us, esp because our products are complex. 15:46:44 I agree paths would be good for single page apps 15:47:06 ...I appreciate it as someone who also reviews VPATs and ACRs frequently, more specifically on what exactly was assessed is better. 15:47:17 q+ to respond to Gregg and Lia 15:47:19 ...what do you think is the relationship with conformance, when we think about reporting with paths? 15:47:48 Matt_King: I think the question is trying to compare some other unit of analysis? 15:47:57 ack alastairc 15:47:57 alastairc, you wanted to respond to Gregg and Lia 15:48:11 alastairc: Question seems to be "How would this change how people think about it?" 15:48:24 ...It's a different way of setting up the testing and reporting on it. 15:48:47 ack Patrick_H_Lauke 15:48:47 Patrick_H_Lauke, you wanted to make quick note about consistency 15:48:53 q- 15:48:56 ...it doesn't change or improve the problem of the same interface. It would be a more granular way of setting up testing and reporting on that. 15:49:38 Patrick_H_Lauke: Riffing on a point that you had Rachael. This whole idea of breaking things down in paths is more of a utility for the customer or assessment person that things will be covered. 15:49:45 q? 15:50:01 q+ to respond to gregg 15:50:01 q+ 15:50:06 ...From an auditor's point of view, it's clearer to an auditor to say that they are going to start and end somewhere. 15:50:23 ...In the end, the subject of a conformance claim is still the overall product. 15:50:28 q+ 15:50:49 ...To Gregg's Point, why aren't we just doing pages? I think it's because it's a convenience for the the customer and the auditor. 15:51:33 ...it's much easier to define, particularly pages. It makes more sense to me to break it down, a page can be absolutely everything. A page can be a collection of anything. 15:52:09 ack Jennie_Delisi 15:52:09 Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask if paths would be used primarily for areas not covered in other criterion 15:52:16 ...If in the end you break it down for your convince you break it down by elements, components, or paths, it serves different audiences and purposes. 15:53:43 Jennie_Delisi: Hears three different scopes: 1) Criterion overall. Which criterion are applicable to the paths. 15:53:48 ...2) Severity of failure: Is the path related to the classification of the severity? 15:54:05 ...3) Is there scoping related to all the elements in the path, have we tested these things/ 15:54:11 my understanding is that paths represent the difference between (which) pages and whole domains versus the difference between (which) parts of (which) pages. path = these specific 10 pages conform versus this domain conforms. 15:54:36 alastairc: If you're testing a path, we're talking about a unit of conformance; creating a set of paths should include all the content. 15:54:50 ...when testing a path, criterion should still fail. 15:55:06 ...it's not a mechanism of prioritizing paths. It's something that could come later. 15:55:24 ack AshleeF 15:55:24 AshleeF, you wanted to note a real example encountered of when a path is interrupted by an issue in another path 15:55:27 q? 15:55:30 ...on the last question was on all the elements in a product, we test these things in path. 15:55:42 q+ to say "Paths are fine as supplemental information but ALL conformance claims must include "All content on all pages(at all URLS) in the conformance claim conform to the requirements in WCAG 3 for level X" The claim can ALSO include any paths information - or none - and be a valid conformance claim. 15:55:47 ...you still want coverage in the same way. Difference would be that paths in this granular approach 15:56:16 q+ to say "Paths are fine as supplemental information but ALL conformance claims must include "All content on all pages(at all URLS) in the conformance claim conform to the requirements in WCAG 3 for level X" The claim can ALSO include any paths information - or none - and be a valid conformance claim. But no claim can be made that does not include that sentence. 15:56:16 AshleeF: 1) As a software engineer, when doing unit testing, it can be easy to get tunnel vision. 15:56:23 qq+ for scribe change 15:57:00 2) Real example where I've come across something like this was when they were observing a user on a web app. It had all kinds of drop downs and pop-ups. 15:57:43 ...there was lots of complexity, example of needing to get into forms mode, and the user complete the task. 15:58:21 q? 15:58:21 ...3) Wants to add a potential idea for the concept of defining paths. In terms of reporting, that may be part of the documentation. 15:58:26 ack rachael 15:58:26 Rachael, you wanted to react to AshleeF to discuss scribe change 15:58:29 ...can the user reach the path? 15:58:43 Rachael: Scribe change 15:59:06 zakim, pick a scribe 15:59:06 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kirkwood 15:59:23 zakim, pick a scribe 15:59:23 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose GreggVan 15:59:39 zakim, pick a scribe 15:59:39 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose wendyreid 15:59:51 (i need to drop - not doing it to avoid scribing, to be clear) 15:59:53 Patrick_H_Lauke has left #ag 15:59:54 zakim, pick a scribe 15:59:54 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JamesHarrington 16:00:04 Detlev has joined #ag 16:00:23 sadly have to drop soon. sorry 16:00:23 zakim, pick a scribe 16:00:23 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose wendyreid 16:00:25 scribe- 16:00:27 scribe: Helen 16:00:29 present+ 16:00:37 q? 16:00:51 ack Heather 16:00:51 Heather, you wanted to comment on Gregg's comment - page to page reporting, such as focus order. 16:01:05 Heather: A few comments about testing and reporting methodology 16:01:17 graham has joined #ag 16:01:22 present+ 16:01:33 ... when it comes to testing for the criteria, is it sometimes requires it to be done on page to page to page 16:02:02 ... Like on searches, so paths are important for these and cannot be independent. 16:02:14 +1 to change in focus order 16:02:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/14-ag-minutes.html Jon_avila 16:02:52 ... I am a fan of paths as help with users and possible litigation, was it prioritised right? 16:03:08 q? 16:03:10 ack alastairc 16:03:10 alastairc, you wanted to respond to gregg 16:03:19 ... It helps users to understand the critical paths and to prioritise fixes 16:03:21 q? 16:03:49 Alastair: I wanted to respond to Gregg, but it was a while ago. 16:04:06 +1 to idea that testing methodology varies when by page or by steps of a process. 16:04:59 ... To Heather, we were aware of this type of objection and we wanted to include guardrails where it matches the WCAG 2.0 page conformance unless required to be path based. 16:05:56 ... Communication internally and externally is important to the paths for user facing features and given that most sites are partially compliant, having path based versus page based will be easier for others to understand 16:06:03 q+ 16:06:14 ack Matt_King 16:06:16 ... Also why do you dislike this proposal as we are trying to work on it and flesh it out 16:06:19 q+ 16:06:43 Matt: Alastair said most of what I wanted to say on the page being conformant. 16:07:02 JamesHarrington has left #ag 16:07:13 q+ 16:07:25 ... if you are in State A that is non-conformant and working to State B that is getting towards conformance, it helps the users know where the focus is going 16:07:53 I agree reporting on paths could be very useful even if the page as a whole was not fully conformant. 16:08:14 Granular paths is something that helps break down the perception of all or nothing in WCAG 2 16:08:15 ... using path-based scenarios helps on identifying the direction to focus. 16:08:25 q? 16:08:51 ... depending on the severity of the defect it helps on the fixing. 16:09:07 ack GreggVan 16:09:07 GreggVan, you wanted to say "Paths are fine as supplemental information but ALL conformance claims must include "All content on all pages(at all URLS) in the conformance claim 16:09:10 ... conform to the requirements in WCAG 3 for level X" The claim can ALSO include any paths information - or none - and be a valid conformance claim. and to say "Paths are fine 16:09:10 ... as supplemental information but ALL conformance claims must include "All content on all pages(at all URLS) in the conformance claim conform to the requirements in WCAG 3 for 16:09:14 ... level X" The claim can ALSO include any paths information - or none - and be a valid conformance claim. But no claim can be made that does not include that sentence. 16:09:26 +1 on prioritizing based on components in common and critical paths 16:09:35 oops acked myself 16:09:42 I want to clarify the points I spoke on a few minutes ago. 16:09:42 1) As a software engineer, one thing that this makes me think of is when we are doing unit testing, it can be really easy to get tunnel vision. So this is related to paths that can interrupt the testing of other paths, possibly because there's some accessibility issue in the first one. 16:09:42 2) I wanted to note is a real example where I've come across something like this So this was an observability web app. It was very dense in the Ul elements: drop downs, pop-ups, filtering, graphs, etc. What happened is a blind NVDA screen reader user needed to reach content in the middle of a page, they came across an ARIA widget that was 16:09:42 unintentionally coded as form element, and that forced the screen reader into forms mode. It disoriented the user and they element also trapped page focus/cursor. 16:09:43 ... part of what AshleeF mentioned with tunnel vision, part of getting to the start of the flow is helpful for the teams on how to fix and address it. 16:09:44 3) One idea related to testing and/or reporting methodologies - make sure that the path is actually reachable, so making that part of the test or analysis or assessment of testing a path is can you even reach the path? 16:09:58 +1 to idea that path to a path is a new path. 16:10:17 q? 16:10:35 present+ 16:10:50 s/oops acked myself// 16:10:50 Gregg: Paths are fine as supplemental information but ALL conformance claims must include "All content on all pages(at all URLS) in the conformance claim 16:11:16 ... so you cannot make a claim just about paths 16:11:34 q+ to ask why it has to be pages, why can't paths be claimable? 16:11:46 q- 16:12:13 q+ to add regulator perspective on what paths are good for 16:12:19 ... helpful information about what conforms but information on all pages of what meets and how or do not, as getting into paths will become a Trojan horse 16:12:31 ack jkatherman 16:12:48