Meeting minutes
<julierawe> Survey link (can only be accessed by AG members): https://
Discuss the AG survey that closes tonight at 7:59pm Boston time
<julierawe> https://
julierawe Are there any questions in the survey that COGA participants should really pay attention to?
Lisa My focus has been to improve better COGA inclusion in a more practical world. People with huge sites can't really read every word to ensure they are meeting the plain language requirements. A different model is going to be needed.
… Scoping can be based on tasks, paths, sections, etc. The effort can be based on how essential the content is or how severe the consquences could be if the site were not acessible. It should be possible to scope certain pages of a site as critical to be accessible, while other parts may not be as accessible.
… I like all the concepts in the modeling. I liked the functional needs being part of WCAG 3, I'm not sure if it needs to be normative or informative documentation.
Rachael I agree about the functional needs. There is a difference between 'this is important but should it be part of the normative documents?'
<julierawe> +1 to Rachael comment about the difference between conformance versus compliance. What should be part of the normative doc versus somewhere else, such as in policy guidance
Rachael: the 3rd and 4th options express that something is important and could go into the informative documents.
Lisa: The way the questions are worded was a little confusing. Looking at the Scoring question, I didn't get the option I really wanted. I wanted 'this must be part of informative documents and would be happy to see it as normative.'
Rachael: We tried to write an option like but ended up with so many variations that it became unmanageable. The 'may' option is keeping the question open for the next conversation.
<julierawe> :)
Lisa: Part of the scoring section is to show that you're maturing the accessibility of your site. I could have two answers here - should be part of the normative conformance and that it shouldn't be part of the normative.
julierawe: I feel like it should be part of either type of documentation, but I am not sure what.
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: re: More Levels - it is important to have these levels. I'm voting that its part of normative. I think they give more options for site authors in identifying critical content on their site and to make sure that those secttions are accessible.
julierawe: I'm trying to separate conformance from compliance. Thinking of 5 levels - are we getting into guidance we're giving policy makers to determine what levels are OK for their regluations.
Lisa: WCAG 2.2 has the levels identified in the requirements. If we didn't do this in the normative document things could get chaotic having them documented somewhere else. If it were prominent I wouldn't object.
Rachael: It's worth reading the pros and cons link in the survey. If we have more than 2 levels people will naturally collapse them like they do today.
julierawe: when you say 2 levels are you referring to core and supplemental?
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to ask about the concern that nothing passes
Rachael: Some variation of those two, yes. The idea of only 1 level has options.
Jennie: There is a concern from leadership at organization that if nothing passes how do things improve?
Rachael: The partial conformance converation is another model (as opposed to the multiple levels) we're voting on.
Lisa: These essential tasks have been tested and they conform. The rest of the site may not conform.
Rachael: If you select something with a 'may' option please add a comment to help clarify and describe your thoughts.
Lisa: Partial conformance allows authors to ignore or not address site sections that will be rarely used / cost prohibitive / a really big effort. It's more pragmatic than requiring full conformance.
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: this idea will help organizations to add content and provide more value to more people without the burden of making sure that all previous sections are fully conformant. People can make partial claims and also provide mechanisms for readers / users to request accessible content if needed.
Lisa: I really like the idea of severity. It allows authors to focus on critical content and paths. Spending a huge amount of time on content that isn't very important for their users. Being able to mark something as severe provides a way for everyone to see where to put their work efforts.
julierawe: I worry that many or most of the COGA provisions will have their own battles in an organization to be paid attention to. Is it possible to get to an objective measurement for the COGA provisions to that they are not relegated?
Rachael: We need clear definitions for severity and we'll need COGA TF really engaged to make sure that severity is identified accurately.
… I haven't seen severity clearly and well-defined, yet.
Lisa: Severity is more about the context of the content and not the provision itself. A submit button in a task is more important than one in the team area.
<julierawe> +1 to Jennie
Jennie: The variety of ways companies define severity is very real today. The health and safety, financial, emergency and other types of site will need a single definition of severity. This will be very important to get right.
Lisa: walked through other survey questions quickly and didn't have strong opinions.
Jennie: SOmething that might help COGA concepts is poiinting to another standard could bolster our provisions.
Lisa: Good point, I am wondering if we could point to Making Content Usable (for example).
Rachael: I like the idea of other standards alongside WCAG.
Lisa: #11 is about functional needs and is about what we (COGA) is fighting for.
julierawe: pointed out the levels of scoring metric ensuring a spread of needs - super important
Lisa: #12 task flows - these could help organizations focus on the right place to spend their time and efforts.
Lisa: this can make an organization's efforts more containable and could increase quality of important sections.
julierawe: is there anything essential that should be on our radar?
@Rahc
Rachael: keep in mind the distinction between conformance and compliance and where things should go (normative or informative).
julierawe: Be mindful that it closes at 8ET tonight.
<Jennie> * Have to drop - have a good week
<julierawe> tiffanyburtin, please give this a read: https://
We talked about the research call and other calls happening this week.
ACTION: item: julierawe will cancel tomorrow's COGA coordination call with Lisa and Rachael.
ACTION: item: LenB will chair tomorrow's research subgroup meeting.
ACTION: item: julierawe will chair Thursday's COGA review of WCAG 3.
<julierawe> Thank you for scribing, LenB!