13:23:16 RRSAgent has joined #ag 13:23:20 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/08/18-ag-irc 13:23:20 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:23:21 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 13:23:26 present:alastairc 13:23:33 chair:alastairc 13:23:47 regrets: NatT, WendyR, AndrewK 13:47:04 kirkwood has joined #AG 14:33:32 agenda+ Intros & Annoucements 14:33:53 agenda+ WCAG 2 proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JulSep/0083.html 14:34:09 Request to AG to review WCAG2ICT https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/912/ 14:34:15 agenda+ Request to AG to review WCAG2ICT https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/912/ 14:34:31 Scoping WCAG 3 conformance claims https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ymkoo3KKShraLXCEPWwxB9WNmZ97V_0BDdhC34ySQ1Y/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p 14:34:39 agenda+ Scoping WCAG 3 conformance claims https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ymkoo3KKShraLXCEPWwxB9WNmZ97V_0BDdhC34ySQ1Y/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p 14:34:59 agenda+ Can flashing requirements account for zoom? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14AeHLNHxfAIkyuAh4wgR36uSHvQZRLFHo3PkWZhpTK4/edit?usp=sharing 14:35:02 agenda? 14:49:01 Finnberry has joined #ag 14:53:43 PhilDay has joined #ag 14:55:39 agenda? 14:56:07 GreggVan has joined #ag 14:56:43 jkatherman has joined #ag 14:56:52 present+ 14:57:25 present+ 14:57:29 present+ 14:58:06 Charles has joined #ag 14:58:21 present+ 14:58:38 bbailey has joined #ag 14:58:40 Finnberry has joined #ag 14:58:48 Heather has joined #ag 14:58:52 present+ 14:58:57 present+ 14:59:26 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 15:00:08 present+ 15:00:19 present+ 15:00:22 Lia has joined #ag 15:00:25 GN015 has joined #ag 15:00:27 Dirk has joined #ag 15:00:41 scribe+ 15:00:46 LoriO has joined #ag 15:00:48 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:00:48 present+ 15:00:50 JamesH has joined #ag 15:00:54 present+ 15:00:56 present+ 15:01:46 present+ 15:01:57 Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag 15:01:59 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 15:02:03 present+ 15:02:06 present+ 15:02:16 zakim, take up next item 15:02:16 agendum 1 -- Intros & Annoucements -- taken up [from alastairc] 15:02:16 Makoto_U has joined #ag 15:02:27 jtoles has joined #ag 15:02:37 alastairc: Introductions invitation. 15:02:40 present+ 15:02:48 present+ 15:02:54 CClaire has joined #ag 15:02:59 present+ 15:03:08 @Laura miller: Not typically in AGWG, but going with Phil and others. 15:03:15 Helen has joined #ag 15:03:18 alastairc: No other announcements confirmed with others. 15:03:21 zakim, take up next item 15:03:21 agendum 2 -- WCAG 2 proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JulSep/0083.html -- taken up [from alastairc] 15:03:26 present+ 15:03:27 Present+ 15:03:36 present+ 15:03:40 alastairc: Every other week reminder has been sent via email. 15:04:02 Bernardo_Google has joined #ag 15:04:05 present+ 15:04:08 present+ 15:04:36 Patrick_H_Lauke: Nothing controversial worth pointing out. There are two proposed errata. Response deadline is in one week. 15:04:40 scribe? 15:05:01 alastairc: Going to look at 5255 and investigate if that can be backwards compatible. 15:05:09 janina has joined #ag 15:05:18 julierawe has joined #ag 15:05:21 present+ 15:05:24 HaTheo9 has joined #AG 15:05:25 LauraM has joined #ag 15:05:29 zakim, take up next item 15:05:29 agendum 3 -- Request to AG to review WCAG2ICT https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/912/ -- taken up [from alastairc] 15:05:35 Present+ 15:05:36 present+ 15:05:56 AlinaV has joined #ag 15:06:05 present+ 15:06:22 alastairc: Link is in the agenda item, has a big summary. Link to understanding available. This is for all the AAA success criteria in WCAG 2.2 15:06:57 PhilDay: New section for Level AAA. We've tried putting it in with all the other SCs, and ask for comments on those specifically. 15:07:31 ...specifically, if you think if the suggested text is appropriate or not. Pulled out individual issues, and commented on each SC. 15:07:54 ...There's a structural change of having a separate section and the introductory text. 15:07:54 Laura_Carlson has joined #ag 15:08:09 ...there's a diff. We've also got minor changes in the diff too 15:08:23 Daniel: Change log is also available at the bottom of the document. 15:08:31 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:08:34 Gez has joined #AG 15:08:37 ... doesn't include everything, just the substantial changes. 15:08:37 q? 15:08:38 q+ 15:08:46 present+ 15:08:46 ack bbailey 15:09:02 present+ 15:09:13 Stephanie has joined #ag 15:09:15 alastairc: Looks very well-structured thing for people to review. Need at least some of people on this call to take a look. Criteria has been translated through WCAG to ACT, so it's interesting. 15:09:23 Present + 15:09:24 bbailey: What's the timing on the review? 15:09:45 Daniel: This is a republish in the working group notes. Target is 2-4 weeks. 15:10:00 q? 15:10:06 alastairc: Review reminder will continue to be on the AGWG agenda, and we will send out a reminder as well 15:10:11 rayianna has joined #ag 15:10:12 zakim, take up next item 15:10:12 agendum 4 -- Scoping WCAG 3 conformance claims https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ymkoo3KKShraLXCEPWwxB9WNmZ97V_0BDdhC34ySQ1Y/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p -- taken up [from 15:10:15 ... alastairc] 15:10:19 present+ 15:10:39 alastairc: Next topic is a continuation from last week. Talk about how to scope a WCAG 3 conformance claim. 15:10:59 alastairc: Sharing screen using link above. 15:11:05 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:11:10 present+ 15:11:20 Matt_King has joined #ag 15:11:45 ...[slide 2] Introduction. What conformance scopes are allowed, and how should people declare scope? 15:12:10 s/Criteria has been translated through WCAG to ACT/How AAA criteria have been translated through WCAG2ICT/ 15:12:17 ...Ask to please don't use driving laws and analogies in today's meeting, as they don't quite fit, and distract from the topic. Try to think of other examples. 15:12:34 ...[slide 3] Reads slide with terminology. 15:12:58 present+ 15:13:35 ...[slide 4] Reads slide: Bottom up: Page/view/process/path 15:14:02 present+ 15:14:19 ...adding to slide content: WCAG2 provide a normative approach to pick pages to define scope. This was a straighforward way of thinking about tit. 15:14:43 alastairc: [slide 5] Reads slide: What conformance units would be acceptable? 15:14:52 q+ to ask for definition of components 15:14:59 q+ 15:15:07 ack Charles 15:15:08 Charles, you wanted to ask for definition of components 15:15:46 Charles: Do you have working definition or recommendation for what constitutes for a component? Is this a definition of a user interface components, or is this just a part of a page? 15:15:53 https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag3/#dfn-component 15:16:09 Bernardo_Google has joined #ag 15:16:09 ack Matt_King 15:16:10 alastairc: Intended to be parts of a page. We have a definition in wCAG 3 (above). "Grouping of elements for a distinct function" 15:16:10 ‘for function’ implies a control 15:16:23 ...implicitly within a page or view for a distinct function. 15:16:46 Matt_King: My understanding of a traditional conformance claim, you're claiming these are conformant. 15:17:30 ...my question is... I think this is why VPATs and other types of statements have historically said naively used part of a site, not the whole site. 15:18:15 ...should/could be a claim about what conforms and what does NOT conform, so it can be comprehensive of the whole scope. I almost reframed your whole question. 15:18:22 HaTheo2 has joined #AG 15:18:51 alastairc: If we took a top-down product site approach. If we didn't, and we kept conformance to what it has historically been. 15:19:03 would headings be components? could someone say ‘all headings conform in content and level’? 15:19:20 ...There are other avenues too, it is a fairly strict definition. You have to declare a scope and say it conforms or doesn't... 15:19:25 rrsagent, make minutes 15:19:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/18-ag-minutes.html Adam 15:19:35 ...This is the only reliable way of doing that, and you have to test it to say if it does or doesn't. 15:19:38 q? 15:19:45 ...That's a conformance claim and a VPAT isn't a conformance claim. 15:20:05 ...It's not a WCAG conformance claim. 15:20:20 q+ to answer Matt 15:20:26 ack Rachael 15:20:26 Rachael, you wanted to answer Matt 15:20:31 ...if we used a bottom-up approach, it's a question of which components would be acceptable. Assuming pages and views and processes would be. 15:20:38 +1 to Matt_King – a part is a part 15:20:50 It is possible for a component to conform (by itself) but not within the context of a page or site. 15:20:59 Matt_KingIs there a reason a page is listed as part of a product, and all the other things listed are also part of a product... 15:21:19 ..is there any reason why we would have any bias at all towards one kind of part versus any other part? 15:21:31 q+ To ask why VPAT for web product not compatible with WCAG 2.0 conformance model? 15:21:50 ack bbailey 15:21:50 bbailey, you wanted to ask why VPAT for web product not compatible with WCAG 2.0 conformance model? 15:21:55 Rachael: Historically, there was a bias toward page because it had a URL associated with it, and it scoped cleanly. This has changed over time. 15:22:25 alastairc: Paths in the way we've been talking of being essential set of components to complete an activity, but not including the whole page... 15:22:43 ...potentially misleading if people declare paths, but then there are things on the page that are included but could be blockers. 15:22:51 q+ 15:23:00 ...downside to components is if you're testing a component in a component library it might be used on the site differently. 15:23:04 ack GreggVan 15:23:38 bbailey: Surprised by the statement on slide 4 that a VPAT can't be used, or isn't compatible with WCAG 2 conformance. seems like you fill the WCAG section, it's usable. 15:23:54 i/[slide 2] Introduction./[slide 2] 15:23:56 s/...[slide 2] /.../ 15:23:59 rrsagent, make minutes 15:24:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/18-ag-minutes.html Adam 15:24:13 alastaircThe way I've spent it used is they tend to refer to the site holistically, rather than a particular product, but generally don't include a set of URLs. 15:24:35 alastairc: Incredibly skeptical that it would include every possible page. 15:24:36 s/alastaircThe/alastairc The 15:24:44 q+ 15:24:47 s/alastairc The/alastairc: The 15:24:49 ack Matt_King 15:25:05 GreggVan: When they site, that's a URL, When the product is a web product, it does include the URL that it applies to, but doesn't always include an entire domain. 15:25:26 q+ 15:25:30 VPAT/ACR lists WCAG criteria. If somebody fills out those sections with "Supports" for each SC ... that's an (implicit) claim that they're conformant, no? 15:25:36 ...VPATs should never say anything about whether or not they conform. They are carefully structured. They talk about if they support a provision. That support is never really defined. 15:25:44 q+ 15:25:47 ...it's blank, and you can write anything you want into it. 15:25:59 +1 Matt 15:26:16 if youclaim to "support" every provision of WCAG, are you "compliant" with WCAG? 15:26:20 Matt_King I think it would be worth proposing a resolution Any definable part of a product can be used for. 15:26:48 i/alastairc: Sharing screen using link above./Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ymkoo3KKShraLXCEPWwxB9WNmZ97V_0BDdhC34ySQ1Y/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p 15:26:48 q? 15:26:51 Noting that VPAT is shorthand for Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) generated from Voluntary Product Accessibility Template. 15:26:51 rrsagent, make minutes 15:26:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/18-ag-minutes.html Adam 15:26:59 ack GreggVan 15:27:05 ...I think that URLs in today's world are even more obscure, and there are far more obscure things than a path. 15:27:06 q+ to reply to Patrick's IRC comments 15:27:24 ...there are options and hidden things you can defined in a path. This might also be true about components. 15:27:43 ...you can talk instances of components, as opposed to the definition of a component in a design system. 15:28:16 ...This would be my rationale for suggesting that we say a conformance claim could be made for any definable part of a product. 15:28:40 GreggVan: Need to ask ourselves if something is useful and is it dangerous? 15:29:06 q+ 15:29:08 q? 15:29:16 ...First, WCAG does not let you use any URL. if a URL is part of any process, then WCAG says that no URL is part of a process. 15:29:17 Gregg +1 15:29:18 q+ to say that anything has the possibility of not being in scope 15:29:29 ...unless all URLS that are part of the process are conformant. 15:29:33 /me we are trying to avoid analogies 15:29:46 ack giacomo-petri 15:29:49 ...Something to think about is having a path of pages. 15:30:02 stevef has joined #ag 15:30:07 I don't understand that argument because no one is compelling a conformance claim or scrutinizing it in isolation, as it represents the entire product. 15:30:11 present+ 15:30:16 ...If there is a path with key parts left out, people with disabilities cannot access them. 15:30:17 +1 to the point that what is not in scope is as important as what is. 15:30:57 giacomo-petri: I don't understand the problem if someone wants to say there is a specific link to a page, or if product is conformant with WCAG. What is the problem with allowing it? 15:31:15 q+ 15:31:16 q+ 15:31:17 ... Almost all websites are simply non-conformant. No one is calling out conformance for their website. 15:31:22 +1 to Giacamo's point 15:31:50 +1 15:32:03 ...we can provide an informative documentation to help understand how to scope a product, and we recommend to policymakers how they can make determination of what to incdlue in scope. 15:32:11 +1 Giacomo, it seems like a compliance issue not a conformance issue. 15:32:13 +1 to Giacomo. Example: social media professional creates accessible post, not the site. 15:32:14 the building accessibility analogy doesn't stack up: lots of buildings have accessible paths to access areas that also have an inaccessible paths 15:32:31 ...In my opinion we should allow for defining their own conformance, their own scope. Then it would be up for someone else how to judge that statement. 15:32:38 ack alastairc 15:32:38 alastairc, you wanted to reply to Patrick's IRC comments 15:33:06 ...For them to determine if the scope Is meaningful, if it is sufficient. We shouldn't restrict the ability to set and define scope. 15:33:55 alastairc: Originally Patrick said if someone fills out the WCAG criteria sections, the supports reach success criteria, that's an implicit claim that they're conforming to, isn't it? 15:34:25 ...If you claim to support every provision of WCAG, you are compliant with WCAG. That's what you're supposed to think. Conformance has a more strict meaning than the VPAT is trying to get to. 15:34:28 Building analogy is fairly valid 15:34:42 +1 to vpat handwaiving. and if we change conformance, it will wave differently. 15:34:50 ack LoriO 15:34:55 ...If it's partially supports, it's hand waving over conformance. They're intentionally not the same thing as conformance. 15:35:49 ...Trying to give the impression they are not useful. It's not the same thing. People can cherry pick in either case. This is a key to whether a conformance statement is misleading. 15:36:28 ...if people picked pages that missed a key functionality, that should be obvious. This kind of blocker that people would encounter when actually using those pages. 15:37:03 LoriO: Circling back to something else. Giacomo talked about URLs, versus paths versus processes. I think we should get away from the idea of paths and URLs because they change constantly. 15:37:14 ack kevin 15:37:14 kevin, you wanted to say that anything has the possibility of not being in scope 15:37:19 ....people who have worked on the web knows that. Help gets out of date because no one updated it. 15:37:56 alastairc: I think if someone declared a path or a process and it changed, that's going to be an issue. 15:38:14 Kevin: Buiding on what Giacomo said, and response to Gregg's comments... 15:38:41 ...If we are defining the scope as part of conformance and as part of a conformance claim, someone has to be very clear about what the scope of that claim is. 15:38:52 ack GreggVan 15:39:12 ...There's a part of it which does not matter what is and is not out of scope. Ultimately, someone cannot access content, that's scoped and indicated as conforming, they will have recourse. 15:39:52 ... Recourse through different channels around regulation. That is not for us to address. There will be a situation where there is content that falls outside of scope of a confomrnae claim. 15:40:37 q+ 15:40:38 GreggVan: Nothing prevents anyone from claiming any part of a site of meeting a single element of conforming to WCAG requirements. 15:41:00 q+ on why people might want to define paths but not miss content 15:41:05 ...trying to figure out the purpose of when we say "it conforms to WCAG" if it's just a piece. 15:41:24 -1 we are not defining rights of access only a standard as to how to measure accessibility 15:41:34 ...What's the purpose of saying path versus whole page? If the answer is that I don't have to worthy about the rest of the page, there's no reason 15:41:52 ... What's the reason for having a path? You cannot make everything on the page accessible. 15:42:00 q+ also to say that we should make it compatible with disability regs/law 15:42:13 q+ to provide 2 examples: iframes + focused areas of pages because of the purpose of the page 15:42:20 PhilDay has joined #ag 15:42:26 present+ 15:42:29 ...The question comes back to Why are we deciding that people with disabilities don't have access to the rest of the information on the page? 15:43:01 ...The problem is the process not the objective. If there's not exceptions and there's problems, then the process only requires these parts. 15:43:32 ...but as soon as somebody has a problem with the other material/aspects that weren't part of the process, you're going to find that there will be a lot of different definitions. 15:43:42 q+ 15:43:50 WCAG 3 defines two ways to scope content: pages/views and processes. 15:44:02 Matt_King: Trying to answer the question that Gregg just asked. If it was convenient that you did ask that question right then, so what is the purpose? 15:44:55 ...I don't think the purpose of a conformance claim is to ensure that everything that a person needs to do a thing is included in the scope of the claim. 15:45:12 ...The purpose of scoping the claim is not to include things that ensure the scope is comprehensive. 15:45:26 ...The purpose of scoping the claim is just to draw lines around the statement. 15:45:55 ...As a person with a disability, I want those lines drawn very clearly so I can know what you're claiming is conformant, and thus what you're claiming is not conformant, or where you're not conforming. 15:46:00 ack Matt_King 15:46:01 ack giacomo-petri 15:46:01 giacomo-petri, you wanted to provide 2 examples: iframes + focused areas of pages because of the purpose of the page 15:46:25 ...If it turns out that I only get 10% of a process/product as conformant, I want to know what 90% of the process is out of reach. 15:46:26 +1 to Matt. Conformance claims, as I’ve observed them, are meant to demonstrate that efforts have been made to adhere to standards and ensure a product is accessibility. If I were to own a large, dynamic, single-page application(which I have), it would be nearly impossible to make a claim of conformance due to the constant experimentation and 15:46:26 share what I have tested. 15:47:00 ...The conformance claim needs to be clear. We need to enable anybody to claim any specific thing as conformant, and by doing that, you can also say what specific things are not conformant. 15:47:21 +1 to giacomo-petri 15:47:32 ack alastairc 15:47:32 alastairc, you wanted to comment on why people might want to define paths but not miss content and to say that we should make it compatible with disability regs/law 15:47:38 giacomo-petri: Wanted to mention the reason we are scoping components rather than pages because it allows for excluding third party components embedded in a page. 15:48:01 alastairc: Chair hat off. Greg asked why people might want to define paths, and suggested it was because people want to miss bits out. 15:48:18 q+ 15:48:37 ...Defining paths is a way of making it clearer which functionality works better or what doesn't work. It's more granular. 15:49:29 ...The path can be more clearly associated with a function a user can do. Clarity would be a main reason for wanting to do that. It could have guardrails on it. 15:49:48 ack LauraM 15:49:48 ....If you include a path, every bit of content on a page in that path has to also be in a path somewhere. 15:49:54 Proposed Resolution: WCAG 3 should enable conformance claims to be scoped using any clearly definable part of a product. 15:50:06 ...Scoping mechanism bottom up allows you to cherry pick, and it does allow for you to miss things. 15:50:48 ...I kind of agree with Gergg and Kevin in different ways, but I think it's more of a compliance thing as if people don't include content in a conformance claim, and if that causes an issue, it becomes a legal thing. 15:51:15 +1 to Laura's point 15:51:27 q+ given that so few things are 100%, wouldn't a more granular / transparent a claim is, the easier it is to make use of that claim. 15:51:33 q+ to say given that so few things are 100%, wouldn't a more granular / transparent a claim is, the easier it is to make use of that claim. 15:51:36 LauraM: Back to what Kevin said, it's a standard as to how to measure accessibility. I'm wondering if we're conflating conformance to standards with an accessible output, right? 15:51:37 ack GreggVan 15:52:37 ...It goes back to if someone can accomplish a task. There's difference between accessibility testing and conformance testing. Maybe isolate what it is that we're trying to accomplish. 15:53:09 GreggVan: First, The definition of a web page would include everything on a page because it says everything needed to render the page that you draw down. 15:53:45 ...Second, the only reason for path is that it is a consequence. Whenever we're doing these things, you have to watch out for the unintended consequences. 15:54:03 ...There's such things that are done with good intention that then causes huge problems. 15:54:30 q+ about permissions on a page may cause 'untested' components for a conformance claim. 15:55:01 q? 15:55:05 ack me 15:55:05 alastairc, you wanted to say given that so few things are 100%, wouldn't a more granular / transparent a claim is, the easier it is to make use of that claim. 15:55:07 q+ 15:55:28 q+ Heather to say permissions on a page may cause 'untested' components for a conformance claim. 15:55:44 GreggVan: If you said for every time you list a path, and you name everything that was not accessible. If you didn't say that all of those other paths had to conform, and they would need to also be claimed. 15:55:59 scribe+ 15:56:05 ...Why are we going through this elaborate paths kind of thing? I see a huge purpose for it in progress toward conformance. 15:56:18 q+ 15:56:32 ack Heather 15:56:32 Heather, you wanted to say permissions on a page may cause 'untested' components for a conformance claim. 15:56:39 Heather: I think when it comes to paths or pages, I don’t think there’s any one answer 15:56:57 ... even with pages, people that want an all inclusive thing must consider permissions, where the content might vary per user 15:57:08 ... just another factor in considering pages versus paths 15:57:17 q? 15:57:25 ack Matt_King 15:57:32 Proposed Resolution: WCAG 3 should enable conformance claims to be scoped using any clearly definable part of a product. 15:57:56 Heather: For pages, there can be hidden areas with permissions. 15:58:11 q+ to ask for scribe change 15:59:03 Matt_King: I don't think we need to modify the definition of a path, I don't think we should allow for conformance claims for pages. It almost sounds to me like Gregg was arguing that there should only be conformance claims for entire products. 15:59:25 q+ to ask if we finished the deck 15:59:27 ...Like what Heather was saying about pages, and wants to plus one what Giacomo was saying. 15:59:51 ack GreggVan 15:59:54 ...essentially what happens if every page becomes part of some process, therefore every page has to be evaluated. It's really hard to exclude any page on a website. 16:00:33 ...We either say it's for the whole product, or we allow for parts of a product. If we go to parts of a product, which I think is a great way to go, because it's helpful to the world, then we should allow for any part. 16:00:35 a page is a distance i/o server delivery (transaction), therefore has been effective in legal adoption (to keep in mind) 16:01:24 GreggVan: We need to ask if paths make it easier? The answer is absolutely. So we're saying that you can skip half of the provisions and make it easier (for the implementers). 16:01:54 ...The next question is does it make it more accessible? This has met our goal, is to try to create a standard that makes things accessible. 16:02:13 ...I think the definition of paths is excellent. I think its use in progress toward conformance is excellent. 16:02:19 Some of the guidelines/requirements refer to a process. If conformance could be at component level, then those requirements couldn't apply... so it would reduce the value of a conformance claim. 16:02:46 ...It's the reporting that's the problem. Our goal it to make everything accessible to people with disabilities. 16:03:22 AR WE TAKING A 5 MINUTE BREAK 16:03:25 Matt_King: I was saying pages are a part of a product and paths are a part of the product. We must only claim the entire product. 16:03:53 sorry, about the upper case text 16:04:05 Scribe+ 16:04:06 GreggVan: It's hard to figure out where a product beings and ends. You can do it in a logical fashion. 16:04:58 scribe- 16:06:23 The every-10-seconds is very stressful 16:09:26 rayianna has left #ag 16:09:46 q- 16:10:15 all timers are existential dread 16:10:56 ack alas 16:10:56 alastairc, you wanted to ask for scribe change 16:11:01 Detlev has joined #ag 16:11:08 present+ 16:11:57 scribe+ 16:12:04 Jen_G has joined #ag 16:12:16 Present+ 16:13:37 alastairc: Another approach, (slide 6), is a top down approach. Aligns with how conformance works. Need a means to define the edges of the product and declaring what has been tested. 16:14:11 q+ 16:15:00 ...Is it misleading to declare a product conformance without testing comprehensively? Other proposals include having levels of pages. 16:15:04 ack GreggVan 16:15:30 I honestly assumed that the purpose of using paths was to assert a claim and be transparent about the tests conducted and define the claim. 16:15:49 q+ to ask clarifying question 16:15:54 q+ 16:16:43 GreggVan: You do not need to make any claim. People are not forced to make claims. Testing is not part of WCAG and should not be part of WCAG. 16:17:15 * alastairc - is the precursor question how many people (other than on this group) understand the difference between those items in your list? 16:17:29 ...You always sample. But we should not raise sampling because it would confuse most people. 16:18:10 Jennie_Delisi - I don't think so, it was just that even in this group, I doubt many people actually do WCAG 2 conformance statements. I haven't, but I've done loads of audits and accessibiltiy statements, and few VPATS 16:18:12 q? 16:18:15 ack Rachael 16:18:15 Rachael, you wanted to ask clarifying question 16:18:22 ...Should not talk specify testing methods. 16:18:55 q+ 16:19:11 Rachael: What is the practical purpose of conformance in the constraints just stated? Is conformance an internal requirement that we are not actively using. How is it being used? 16:19:26 I have done many, many, ACRs 16:19:41 q+ 16:19:47 LoriO - VPAT based? 16:20:03 giacomo-petri: Who is our conformance intended for? The end user? The author? 16:20:07 have not seen a conformance claim since before 2009 16:20:19 Proposed Resolution: 16:20:21 WCAG 3 should define conformance as a "definable scope" of product parts meets a "set of conformance requirements". 16:20:22 A conformance claim should be defined as a conformance report that covers all parts of a product and states which parts conform and which parts do not. 16:20:44 products i buy (just) do j ‘’… ahem but that is legal talking ;) 16:20:57 q+ 16:21:01 ack giacomo-petri 16:21:06 I have never hear someone willing to claim their product is WCAG conformant(have only heard of VPAT/Statements, SLAs). I feel that is risky as products are complex and constantly moving. I think someone said that an LMS had made the claim a few weeks ago(canvas maybe). Does someone have a copy of that claim 16:21:09 alastairc yes, VPAT based 16:21:12 ack GreggVan 16:21:16 ...Website changes so often. 16:21:22 LoriO - then that isn't a WCAG conformance claim 16:21:41 GreggVan: We are conflating "conformance" with "conformance claim." 16:22:16 I meant, products I buy must make claim (but that is our legal talking) … no one does though 16:22:28 ...We do not require that you make a claim. 16:23:12 q- 16:23:13 .. You don't have to make a claim but if you do, it can't be a misleading claim. 16:23:21 q+ to say that what WCAG 2 had in conformance steered other parts of the industry, which is why people try to get lots of things into conformance 16:23:29 s/../... 16:23:41 ack Matt_King 16:23:52 Proposed Resolution: 16:23:54 WCAG 3 should define conformance as a "definable scope" of "defifinable product parts" meets a "set of conformance requirements". 16:23:56 A conformance claim should be defined as a conformance report that covers all parts of a product and states which parts conform and which parts do not. 16:25:10 conformance claim is legal language 16:26:14 ack alastairc 16:26:14 alastairc, you wanted to say that what WCAG 2 had in conformance steered other parts of the industry, which is why people try to get lots of things into conformance 16:26:37 s/defifinable/definable 16:26:40 agenda? 16:26:46 q+ 16:27:07 q+ to better understand conformance 16:27:10 alastairc: A conformance claim should or must cover all parts of a product 16:27:19 q+ 16:27:26 alastairc i was going to talk to the practical aspects of what the consumers of conformance information want, after doing assessments day in day out for 25 years, I cannot recall any customer asking for a WCAG conformance claim per se, but then i became impatient and signed off zoom 16:28:09 alastairc: It's internal to us, a building block that is needed as part of a standard. 16:28:14 ack GreggVan 16:28:21 q- 16:28:36