14:28:09 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:28:14 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/07/28-ag-irc 14:28:14 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:28:15 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:28:18 chair: Adam 14:28:21 present: Adam 14:28:56 agenda+ Introductions 14:29:01 agenda+ Announcements 14:29:06 agenda? 14:29:43 zakim, clear agenda 14:29:43 agenda cleared 14:29:50 agenda? 14:29:52 agenda+ Introductions 14:29:55 agenda+ Announcements 14:30:21 agenda+ Do we want to meet at CSUN 2027? 14:30:58 agenda+ WCAG 3 document breakdown (continued) — https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-document-breakdown/results/ 14:31:22 agenda+ Can flashing requirements account for zoom? — https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14AeHLNHxfAIkyuAh4wgR36uSHvQZRLFHo3PkWZhpTK4/edit?usp=sharing 14:31:24 agenda? 14:58:48 rrsagent, make minutes 14:58:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/28-ag-minutes.html kevin 14:58:57 present+ 14:59:00 MartijnHoutepen has joined #ag 14:59:00 Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag 14:59:01 Heather has joined #ag 14:59:09 present+ 14:59:27 wendyreid has joined #ag 14:59:42 Charles has joined #ag 15:00:01 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 15:00:13 present+ 15:00:20 present+ 15:00:21 nattarnoff has joined #ag 15:00:37 present+ 15:00:52 HaTheo has joined #AG 15:01:07 present+ 15:01:08 bbailey has joined #ag 15:01:16 present+ 15:01:20 present+ 15:01:31 present+ 15:01:39 present+ 15:01:40 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List 15:02:14 scribe+ 15:02:17 scribes get super powers and lots of karma points for each hour they scribe! 15:02:18 present+ 15:02:39 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 15:02:41 CClaire has joined #ag 15:02:43 s/scribes get super powers and lots of karma points for each hour they scribe!// 15:02:46 present+ 15:02:50 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 15:02:55 present+ 15:02:55 present+ 15:03:04 rayianna has joined #ag 15:03:04 Stephanie has joined #ag 15:03:08 present+ 15:03:25 present+ 15:03:26 zakim, start meeting 15:03:26 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:03:28 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 15:03:32 zakim, next item 15:03:32 agendum 1 -- Introductions -- taken up [from Adam] 15:03:41 q+ 15:03:49 shadi has joined #ag 15:03:50 q? 15:03:54 ack MartijnHoutepen 15:03:58 BrianE has joined #ag 15:04:00 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:04:01 present+ 15:04:05 present+ 15:04:17 present+ 15:04:20 q? 15:04:25 laura has joined #ag 15:04:46 LoriO has joined #ag 15:04:48 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:04:51 present+ 15:05:01 present+ 15:05:23 jtoles has joined #ag 15:05:37 present+ 15:05:49 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:05:52 Matt_King has joined #ag 15:05:56 present+ 15:06:02 Bernardo has joined #ag 15:06:05 q? 15:06:09 present+ 15:06:10 zakim, next item 15:06:10 agendum 2 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Adam] 15:06:17 Just saying hi 15:06:25 present+ 15:06:40 Adam: Quick announcement that next August 4th there is a group onboarding session 30 mins prior to the meeting 15:06:44 s/Just saying hi// 15:06:49 LenB has joined #ag 15:06:59 present+ 15:07:00 Ashlee has joined #ag 15:07:17 +1 break 15:07:24 present+ 15:07:28 Makoto_U has joined #ag 15:07:29 +1 break thank you!! 15:07:34 Adam: Today we are introducing a process change in our meetings; taking a 5-minute break at the halfway point. Expanding that so folks can rest and recharge. 15:07:38 present+ 15:08:29 Gez has joined #AG 15:08:40 present+ 15:08:56 kevin: Editors have been putting together their PRs for the provisions that you've all been working on. We're meeting on Friday to pull all unmerged issues and pile them in. Hopefully get the latest version available for CFC for the group then out to another draft publication. This isn't going to be massive, we're trying to update selective bits and getting informative materials out there. 15:09:11 q? 15:09:25 kevin: If anyone has questions about this, please give us a shout! 15:09:27 q? 15:09:31 zakim, next item 15:09:31 agendum 3 -- Do we want to meet at CSUN 2027? -- taken up [from Adam] 15:09:33 LiaGoogle has joined #ag 15:09:39 present+ 15:10:08 Zam has joined #ag 15:10:23 Adam: CSUN is at Anaheim, thinking of arranging a face-to-face at the event, looking to survey options that are most attractive 15:10:37 … if you have thoughts if you'd like to meet at CSUN 2027! 15:10:39 q+ 15:10:43 +1 15:10:44 ack hdv 15:10:44 Hybrid option? 15:10:44 +1 15:10:52 We usually have a Google Booth in there! 15:10:54 graham has joined #ag 15:11:01 present+ 15:11:08 0 to in-person meeting. unable. 15:11:28 q? 15:11:35 +1 15:11:43 Wilco has joined #ag 15:11:43 hdv: If we are meeting I would probably go to a different event, going there would mean preparing something so curious if folks are going and interested in planning something; would love to see this happen in Europe but seems CSUN is a place many people go to already 15:11:45 Intend on going, not locked in. 15:11:48 present+ 15:11:49 +1 if hybrid option is available. 15:11:52 q+ 15:11:55 q+ 15:12:07 q 15:12:08 ack Rachael 15:12:19 q+ 15:12:29 +1 to hybrid 15:12:32 ack GreggVan 15:12:33 Rachael: Typically we hold hybrid on the Monday before in California time, not Eastern Time 15:12:42 … that is an option if you are interested in joining hybrid 15:12:46 -1 personally. CSUN is a long week already. 15:12:55 q+ 15:13:30 GreggVan: I think about our members who can't meet face-to-face, and want to weigh the benefits versus keeping participation fully open 15:13:40 julierawe has joined #ag 15:13:44 present+ 15:13:55 ack Ben_Tillyer 15:14:10 GreggVan: if there is some way for us to replicate face-to-face online that won't require members who can't get the travel money 15:14:41 (noting that a lot of folks outside of the US will be loathe (?) to travel to the US ... currently) 15:15:03 Ben_Tillyer: Haven't been to CSUN because of distance, we should be mindful of what sort of work goes on there, and the decisions are not being made without the full cohort of AGWG; also happy to host one outside the conference 15:15:12 … there's TechShare Pro happening in London in November 15:15:13 ack hdv 15:15:22 present+ 15:15:47 present+ 15:15:51 hdv: I like face-to-face for these types of group, it will helpl us spend a longer amount of time on one subject; to have a whole day talking about something can be helpful from experience from other groups 15:16:16 q+ to say understood about the US can we get suggestions 15:16:40 q? 15:16:45 hdv: I prefer it to be outside of the US and many may have difficulty joining/travelling there; maybe we can look at Asia that has W3C locations or Europe at the Netherlands with the Dutch government or Canada 15:16:50 As an American without a current passport I support hdv's recommendation of a non-USA location. 15:17:09 q+ 15:17:11 conference often makes it easier for folks who need to justify their travel/work absence 15:17:11 +1 Hdv, dedicated meeting, not tagged onto an already busy week 15:17:13 +1 to not at a conference 15:17:15 question to chairs/kevin: what do the other groups do re: f2f cadence? 15:17:25 hdv: would love it to not be a conference; advantage of face-to-face 15:17:27 ack Rachael 15:17:27 Rachael, you wanted to say understood about the US can we get suggestions 15:18:42 ack GreggVan 15:18:47 Rachael: we will schedule all-day sessions that are completely virtual over the next year, but CSUN is out; we need a location in spring — the advantage of conferences is people can get funding to go, if we want outside of conferences, maybe we can look at separate funding opportunities for people who can't get funding to do a WCAG-specific travel option; we're looking for 6 months out from TPAC in spring, reach out to chairs if you have 15:18:47 locations to offer 15:18:59 s/locations to offer/... locations to offer/ 15:19:02 I can check into that Ben... I suspect it 'varies' 15:19:30 q+ 15:19:44 q+ 15:19:45 note: funding is not the only restriction to travel. 15:20:04 GreggVan: in WCAG 2 we had face-to-face, it was useful but when they're not done as part of the conference it can be a small number of people who can get funding to do it; if we can't figure out how to do it in a 2- or 3-day virtual meeting, so we don't restrict others with less resources 15:20:31 ack wendyreid 15:20:37 imirfan has joined #ag 15:21:41 GreggVan one major factor for in-person is sensory memory. if senses are not overstimulated, the sensory input improves the working memory and memory mapping of new information for many people. 15:21:44 q? 15:21:50 wendyreid: There are no accessibility conferences in the first half of the year that aren't based in the US — CSUN, XSU… — one thing to consider is teaming up with IAAP since they have a chapter in Canada and in Europe, maybe suggest to them to co-organise an event as an excuse to get everyone together at the same place at the same time 15:21:57 ack Matt_King 15:22:21 present+ 15:22:25 in 2018 15:22:49 yes it was on site, but it had a dedicated conference room with the other ones 15:22:55 the design studio we did 2018 was very useful 15:23:07 s/XSU/Access U/ 15:23:21 Matt_King: Several tradeoffs: one day only and distracted by the rest of the conference — the Silver Task Force did two days consecutively off-site from CSUN — being offsite in a dedicated space and spread across two days did a good job; CSUN is a juggernaut that it ends up competing with it 15:23:29 q+ 15:23:29 in 2018 I presented but that was the only reason I was able to attend. 15:23:30 q? 15:23:34 ack Rachael 15:23:52 zakim, next item 15:23:52 agendum 4 -- WCAG 3 document breakdown (continued) — https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-document-breakdown/results/ -- taken up [from Adam] 15:24:00 I am not sure, but is it necessary to be the accessibility event? Or we could try something like MWC, Computex, etc.? 15:24:02 Adam: Chairs will review the minutes and weigh the options spoken of today 15:24:29 Adam: Resuming our WCAG 3 document breakdown discussion from last week; picking up from conformance concept of severity 15:24:38 slide: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1l9VWE8GQNqJpPTNsfmPQudSUgQx-Oiis31N8OCD914k/edit?slide=id.g3f5cb4ac4bd_0_70#slide=id.g3f5cb4ac4bd_0_70 15:24:55 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:24:59 slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1l9VWE8GQNqJpPTNsfmPQudSUgQx-Oiis31N8OCD914k/edit?slide=id.g3f5cb4ac4bd_0_70#slide=id.g3f5cb4ac4bd_0_70 15:25:03 [slide 2] 15:25:28 Rachael: This is the analysis of our breakdown; slides are not decisions only stimulate thought and looked at majority answers that fell into majority and which fell into least objections. I want to acknowledge that neither of those are the same as a consensus. 15:25:34 [slide 3] 15:25:42 rrsagent, make minutes 15:25:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/28-ag-minutes.html Adam 15:26:10 q+ 15:26:28 Rachael: It provides us a direction of next conversations, we'll go through the details today; majority of people were leaning for scoring to go in informative documents, the fewest objections were leaning towards putting something in about levels and conformance 15:27:04 Rachael: From a progress towards conformance and partial conformance; people seem to want it in conformance and had the fewest objectios 15:27:09 q? 15:27:38 ack GreggVan 15:27:47 Rachael: This is not the same as consensus but shows some ways to think about building a proposal to come back to the group 15:28:17 GreggVan: Progress toward conformance is all about scoring so it's weird that we have scoring and informative and progress in conformance. Partial conformance is a contradiction, no such thing. 15:28:51 Rachael: Partial conformance was changed to Progress towards conformance — you could also have levels and progress towards conformance-based on levels and not scoring 15:29:23 GreggVan: They're progress towards higher levels of conformance, once we make that normative, it stops to create a better measure for it 15:29:27 q? 15:30:20 Rachael: Start with Severity — 1 person said it must be in conformance, 8 it should, 9 it should not but should be informative, 3 it must not and 2 felt it should not be there 15:30:38 https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-document-breakdown/results/#xseverity 15:30:41 … there's a general spread around severity can be simplified to almost automatic inter-rater reliability be below 80% 15:31:36 q+ to clarify severity definition 15:31:39 … severity conformance is needed for someone's work, and their understanding of what blocks someone might be wrong, I'd rather people focus on making content accessible to as many as possible rather than focusing on a few accumulations and applying it across the site 15:32:39 … many commented on severity and conformance, and some saying not to have it normative but containing informative documentation 15:33:10 … conformance alone does not always provide enough information to differentiate products with different levels of impacts on users 15:34:00 ack Charles 15:34:00 Charles, you wanted to clarify severity definition 15:34:06 … we have a group of people who feel strongly that there is a lot of value in prioritising content and fixes based on severity and they are leaning towards putting that in conformance, the o ther side of the equation is so subjective 15:34:20 scotto has joined #ag 15:34:31 Charles: I agree some of them need definitions and are difficult to measure; did severity intend to mean severity of harm? 15:34:47 it is impossible to define 15:34:48 Rachael: We've defined severity in a number of different ways; can we find one that is objective enough to use it? 15:35:01 Charles: I don't have an opinion and can't have an answer to this question unless we have that definition 15:35:06 q? 15:35:09 q+ 15:35:12 q+ 15:35:13 ack Wilco 15:35:19 agree with Charles 15:35:36 q+ 15:35:45 ack GreggVan 15:35:49 Wilco: What it comes down to is what problem are we trying to solve with these? I wish there was more clarity behind it; hard to see if this is a good idea to address with this potential solution 15:35:49 +1 to Wilco 15:36:34 GreggVan: I think severity is important but like other important factors, it's subjective and individual. If we define it as amount of harm, define harm? Is it harm or inconvenience or barrier or hindrance? 15:36:38 if severity means severity of harm, the best i can imagine is: death; completely blocked; and is difficult. and even that is still subjective and may favor some functional needs over others. 15:36:49 q+ 15:36:53 severity of effort? seems like we are talking about. if it’s inaccessible, it’s inaccessible. period 15:36:55 GreggVan: If you can't keep up, get a job, those are harms as well 15:37:06 +1 to Gregg 15:37:33 q+ 15:37:46 q+ 15:38:14 q+ to severity as part of specific criteria vs overall 15:38:16 ack Rachael 15:38:17 … we'll have to face this a lot. If we want to figure out how to do and figure out how to do with WCAG 3; we have to figure out how to get them into being practiced in other ways. Let's see what we can do with what's important. 15:38:26 it will be impossible (?) to make this objective, as by definition "harm" and how it affects people is extremely subjective 15:38:27 +1 to GreggVan on different types of harm 15:39:33 Rachael: Conformance Subgroup had come to the point where the group thinks that stepping back out of the conformance conversation and approaching from the perspective of surrounding materials to better think of the purpose and coming back to conformance as a way to talk about this — the purpose of severity is to be able to prioritise fixes and address the issue that we've brought up in partial conformance and stages toward complete conformance 15:39:36 q+ 15:39:53 ack Matt_King 15:40:02 Rachael: We're trying to deeply understant each of these areas, the concerns, stances, and how people think about them and bring it back to the Conformance subgroup. 15:40:05 q- 15:40:11 s/understant/understand 15:42:05 Matt_King: The problems with this by itself, on its own severity and separate from dependencies, even defining the purpose of using it — what Rachael said about figuring out the problems and looking at what is the most useful purpose of severity, until we have that defined, it's hard to have an opinion about whether or not it should be part of conformance or measuring conformance because you're further from conformance if you have 3 failures 15:42:05 of the exact same provision and they all inflict different levels of harm however we define that. If you fix the one that removes the least harm, you didn't come closer to conformance in a meaningful way in the user's point of view. 15:42:06 ack Ben_Tillyer 15:42:13 +1 to what Charles, Wilco, Gregg etc. have said. but, I also feel like Severity is contextual and important for organizations, regulators etc. to define. I would be in favor of a common definition if it's helpful, but I worry about applying it as it feels hard to do in a general way. 15:43:10 the original WCAG 1.0 had a concept of severity/impact when it devised its Priority 1 / Priority 2 / Priority 3 and the matching A / AA / AAA conformance level https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#priorities ... however, WCAG 2.x handwaved what A / AA / AAA actually mean (there was a circular logic discussion not long ago about how the A/AA/AAA don't indicate a hierarchy/priority, and that the only meaning was "the WG decided to place this[CUT] 15:43:10 e A, AA, or AAA bucket ... but (supposedly) without defining what the bucket is/represent, which frankly I find hard to believe...) 15:43:36 Ben_Tillyer: I think it's an impossible task to define the words we're discussing to apply to all users on all digital interactions for every type of digital application, but maybe it's less impossible for owners who want to claim conformance to understand the potential levels that accessibility bugs might cause to end users with disabilities after having those conversations with these users; is there something we can do to discover, define, and 15:43:36 measure the potential harm in their smaller digital world. 15:43:43 ack giacomo-petri 15:43:44 +1 to Ben 15:44:19 q+ 15:44:41 giacomo-petri: Severity is critical however because since it cannot be objectively defined, I think it shouldn't be part of normative conformance. I see audits covering the same scope and producing different results; severity might help in linearising the results — instead of adding all those parameters (informative or normative), what if we require a performance audit and define a conformance audit 15:44:54 severity of the issue that creates non conformance or WCAG guidelines. Harm is a legal term. (in Disability rights) think we should stay away from it 15:44:59 prioritizing as an approach to remediate conformance failures seems to be about harm to the organization and is very different than severity of harm to users. 15:45:26 q+ 15:45:27 ack Jennie_Delisi 15:45:27 +1 to parameters to ACR / audit 15:45:28 Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to severity as part of specific criteria vs overall 15:45:32 giacomo-petri: … not necessarily prescribe a specific formula or testing methodology — we could potentially define what constitutes a conformance audit and define the minimum parameters such as scoring severity not necessarily defined by WCAG, but are parameters that if you evaluate against WCAG, you have to consider them otherwise you are not meeting the conformance audit definition. 15:45:38 (related to my previous point about the circular discussion ... this is what i was thinking of https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3889) 15:45:55 q+ 15:45:57 Will this decision impact the ability for us to apply specifics related to severity within individual criteria? For example things which impact large financial actions - or emergency communications impacting life and death? 15:46:09 ack hdv 15:46:35 Jennie_Delisi: Can we talk at the criteria level — will this decision impact how we apply specifics related to severity within individual criteria? If elements on a page impact a large financial decision or emergency communications impacting life and death, are those going to be impacted if the group says severity only belongs in the informative documentation. 15:46:51 q+ 15:46:59 severity based on what Hidde? 15:47:21 q+ 15:47:31 LOE? Harm? IT infrastructure? personnel? 15:47:33 +1 most auditors / companies I worked with/for do include some concept of severity when reporting to their customers, to help them prioritise fixes 15:47:54 hdv is that use of severity in reporting about prioritizing remediation? or used some other way? 15:47:55 +1 Patrick_H_Lauke 15:47:56 q+ 15:48:12 ack GreggVan 15:48:15 Sam-estoesta has joined #ag 15:48:21 present+ 15:48:21 hdv: I've always added severity levels to my accessibility reports, those are only internally consistent and I'd use a different skill in different projects because a lot of severity depends on the project — it's hard to come up with one system that works for every single digital product so maybe our severity guidance should be how to build your own severity system for your product or project. Have guardrails or guidance that impact severity 15:48:21 or could take into account when deciding severity and let people specify their own severity levels. It is more useful and possible to make a list of things that people can take into account when they make their own. 15:48:22 (but make it clear that "you still need to fix everything, but here's the big showstoppers that if you only have limited time/budget you should tackle first) 15:48:25 +1 to hdv to provide guidance on severity instead of prescribing 15:48:56 q+ 15:49:12 (need to drop,sorry) 15:49:15 Patrick_H_Lauke has left #ag 15:49:29 +1 to the idea of Giacomo early of defining a conformance audit and establishing a clear/standard methodology for conducting it. 15:49:31 Think we should ditch severity. It is either accessible or not. That is hard enough given all types of disabilities. 15:49:46 ack kirkwood__ 15:49:49 q+ 15:49:52 GreggVan: It was mentioned that we would require a conformance audit as part of conformance — if they had a published one, we've always not required reporting as part of conformance; asking people to not only conform but to tell them whether they did or didn't is something that goes beyond what we want to try to do. Stay away from requiring people to claim conformance. 15:50:30 ack Bernardo 15:50:31 +1 15:50:32 q- 15:50:36 kirkwood__: I think we should completely ditch severity — we cannot judge by level of effort , disability group, given all our knowledge and disabilities out there. 15:50:55 s/or could take into account/... or could take into account/ 15:50:58 q+ to suggest we move forward to the next topic 15:51:37 q+ to respond to Gregg: I'm not saying that people need to publish or report the results, but to validate WCAG conformance you have to perform a conformance audit in some way; otherwise, you have no way of knowing your level of conformance, and when conducting that audit, you have to consider the relevant conformance parameters 15:51:55 q? 15:51:58 Bernardo: I think we shouldn't require conformance reporting and they can go and their own audit. For the baseline conformance level that everyone should aim for at a minimum, I don't think severity is a productive criteria or part of the discussion for anyone involved. Main suggestion is to remove severity from the baseline conformance level. 15:52:00 ack MartijnHoutepen 15:52:02 ack Matt_King 15:52:02 +1 to Bernado 15:52:20 s/Bernado/Bernardo 15:53:01 +100 to Matt_King 15:53:21 +1 to Matt 15:53:56 +1 to Matt 15:53:56 ack giacomo-petri 15:53:56 giacomo-petri, you wanted to respond to Gregg: I'm not saying that people need to publish or report the results, but to validate WCAG conformance you have to perform a conformance 15:53:56 Matt_King: I'd like to encourage broader thinking in this space; want to make sure we remain open-minded. In my research I have found that there are output standards in security and medicine and safety, like software security, where having an evaluation conformance part of the standard and many of these have objective definitions of things like severity that I don't think are completely out of reach for us. It's hard to talk about severity out 15:53:56 of context of reporting; we need the definitions and then judge them. 15:53:59 ... audit in some way; otherwise, you have no way of knowing your level of conformance, and when conducting that audit, you have to consider the relevant conformance parameters 15:54:00 What problem are we trying to solve? 15:54:07 +1 to Matt, was why I was using "more impossible" and "less impossible" 15:54:13 +1 to Matt 15:54:21 s/of context of reporting/... of context of reporting/ 15:54:36 We should have a solid definition for "severity" nevertheless 15:54:47 +1 to Matt, particularly I think it'd be great to see and consider formal definitions out there 15:54:48 +1 to giacomo-petri 15:54:48 ack Rachael 15:54:48 Rachael, you wanted to suggest we move forward to the next topic 15:54:52 giacomo-petri: Wasn't saying to require generating output/reports, just that if you want to validate your product against WCAG, you have to consider severity, scoring, whatever we decide should be included — when you perform audits, you take care of those parameters. 15:55:18 if severity intends to mean severity of harm to a user, it is theoretically possible to create a somewhat objective matrix with type of harm; degree of harm; duration of harm; and functional need harmed. but then if used in conformance would dramatically complicate the model. if severity intends to mean a prioritization scheme for remediation, then 15:55:19 that is clearly policy suggestions. 15:55:30 scribe- 15:57:41 could we have a slide or other visual queue in zoom that we're on a break? (in case people join now and cant sync the irc history) 15:58:05 s/queue/cue 16:00:25 scribe+ 16:01:18 Adam: Handing it to Rachael for Reporting discussion 16:01:48 https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-document-breakdown/results/#xreport 16:02:06 Rachael: Referencing (5) Reporting Requirements survey results via link above. 16:04:04 Is Rachael reading from the survey results just linked, or something else? I'm having a hard time following what's being said. 16:04:47 q? 16:05:12 q+ to ask about regional reporting requirements 16:05:29 ack Charles 16:05:29 Charles, you wanted to ask about regional reporting requirements 16:05:33 Rachael: Asks for any additional comments to capture to understand where everyone is standing. 16:05:57 Charles: My understanding of the law is that there are various jurisdictions of the world that have reporting requirements. 16:05:58 q+ to ask for clarity on what's being read aloud 16:06:03 Q+ 16:06:14 ack Ashlee 16:06:14 Ashlee, you wanted to ask for clarity on what's being read aloud 16:06:20 ... If we required reporting or a specific format of reporting would it dramatically inflate the amount of work that occurs in those jurisdictions? 16:06:42 Document of notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jSqAVJpr_fw02hoeL4U0Xcm5-1sH4lMy5mxesmz0vXk/edit?tab=t.0 16:06:55 It is required in some legal jurisdictions in the US 16:06:56 Ashlee: Struggling with following the read out of the responses. Please provide the link (above). 16:06:58 q? 16:07:19 Rachael: Not sure what the access restrictions are. If you can't get to it, there is the link. 16:07:22 Q+ reporting requirements 16:07:30 ack hdv 16:07:39 kirkwood: In response to Charles, there are some states that require it in the U.S. 16:07:45 q? 16:08:05 q+ Sam-estoesta to talk about reporting, requirements 16:08:13 ack reporting 16:08:14 hdv: Also in Europe, there are reporting requirements in the Netherlands. It's even required to follow a specific format. 16:08:21 ack requirements 16:08:28 +1 16:08:28 ack Sam-estoesta 16:08:28 Sam-estoesta, you wanted to talk about reporting, requirements 16:08:33 UK public sector bodies must follow this format: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/model-accessibility-statement 16:08:41 uniformity would take time 16:08:43 ...a WCAG evaluation methodology may be one way to try to make that reporting format uniform. It could make it easier for regulators who want the same thing 16:08:48 Regulators would be happy if you made it easier ;) 16:09:08 Sam-estoesta: Correct. Adding to John's comments. There are state and federal reporting requirements. 16:09:11 for the record / those curious: our document requiring specific reporting formats and methodology is called 'Model toegankelijkheidsverklaring' 16:09:31 q+ 16:09:48 ...Also, if you think about Candada and parts of Europe, public sector or government-identified organizations, should we be thinking about what they are currently positioning. 16:09:54 Laws change due to new bills put forward by disability groups too 16:10:02 s/Candada/Canada/ 16:10:16 ack Bernardo 16:10:18 ...We're more likely to get adoption and widespread use across those public entities. 16:10:40 Adam: reminder to use q+ to and q+ ask then add a note. 16:11:06 Bernardo: I agree we need to provide everyone guidelines on showing evidence of conformance and associate reporting to conformance level. 16:11:20 q? 16:11:25 ...maybe associate the requirements for a few upper levels of conformance and keep lower level of conformance optional. 16:11:44 Showing different ways to report on conformance 16:11:46 ...this is quite demanded for public services or private companies that provide services to the public service and public organizations. 16:11:57 ...or guide them on how to show a demonstration of conformance for the guidelines. 16:12:05 Having the google doc is very helpful! Thank you Rachael 16:12:09 There is quite a bit that is publicly available from these regulatory bodies; I wonder how much we could source from these bodies and then look for overlap 16:12:17 q+ 16:12:24 Adam: Seems like the discussion is certainly reinforcing the analysis. 16:12:33 Rachael: Queue is complete, moving forward. 16:12:41 q+ to ask where the note-taking is happening? 16:13:09 q- 16:13:23 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jSqAVJpr_fw02hoeL4U0Xcm5-1sH4lMy5mxesmz0vXk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.j2sj5gwbtzq6 16:13:42 Rachael: Reading from notes above, under heading "Reporting Requirements" 16:15:34 q+ 16:15:40 q+ 16:15:42 q? 16:15:43 q+ 16:15:48 Rachael: Asks for further comments to be added, or commentary on survey results. 16:16:06