<Rachael> scribe: JakeAbma
<AWK> +AWK
RBM: no chairs will be at TPAC
due to circumstances
... First day there will be a diner, reach out to Shawn
Thompson
<bruce_bailey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2022JulSep/0004.html
<bruce_bailey> Link is announce from SLH: Call for Implementations: WCAG 2.2 Candidate Recommendation
RBM: We need sufficient
techniques and documentation for 2.2, we're in the last push to
get WCAG 2.2 out
... For WCAG 3 we're working on working draft to get next draft
out
RBM: Conformance group has some use cases, the issues group is checking for issues, we're trying to get a more nuanced solution
<Rachael> Option 1: Continue to fail all sites if any issue exists (WCAG 2 model)
<Rachael> Option 2: Note that an issue exists but provide an alternate pathway to partial success
<Rachael> Option 3: Include multiples ways for success in these situations
<Rachael> Option 4: Provide exceptions in certain situations where the provider could reference the exception
<Rachael> Option 5: Allow for tolerance of a certain number of failures assuming they are not critical
<Rachael> Option 6: Require a site enumerate its failures and provide details on its remediation plan (to include date and milestones).
RBM: Option 2 seems most preferred
<Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/TPAC22/results#xq3
RBM: (has gone through all issues from results...)
Chuck: would like to hear feedback from Shadi on the differences for policies and conformance, like to see them separate
<alastairc> AWK: When we have conformance model that says everything has to be perfect, that impacts policy. Policy makers rely on us for making decisions on what is acheivable. We don't want different policy people to come to completely different conclusions. If we say that not everything is possible, we need to think that through.
<alastairc> even with WCAG 2.2 there are more things, and there are probably less than 5 sites that fully conform ongoing. That's just reality, so we need to address it somehow.
<jon_avila> Thank you Gregg!
Gregg: does small business need
to do the same? When they are not required, they still have
inaccessible site
... no product meets everything
... we need to separate the two
... no regulation requires to do everything perfect
... policy makers can't define what / how to make it
accessible, that's what we do
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think that the "essential" exceptions cover the situation with the hearing test app.
<laura> +1 to gregg
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that meeting WCAG doesn't necessarily make something accessible
Check: if the purpose will be invalidated, it would be essential
<shadi> [[typing my own statement: when we worked on the use cases in the Conformance Options Subgroup, we also discussed potential things that could help address each situation individually -- which aspects can a technical standard address, which aspects can supplemental guidance address, and which aspects can policies address. There are things that are compliance issues and not for technical standards to address, and vice-versa. W3C does not develop policies[CUT]
<jon_avila> WCAG itself states that it doesn't make content fully accessible.
<Wilco> +1 Thanks for mentioning that Mike. That was bugging me
<shadi> examples of providing guidance for policy makers.]]
MG: we need flexibility in evaluations, WCAG doesn't make something accessible and vice versa, accessible products might not be perfect WCAG conform
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that we might measure accessibility, but need to better align with experience, and provide hooks for policy
RBM: Our aim should be a clear measurement, but it needs to be aligned with experience
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to introduce three words Fundamental alteration Undue Burden and equivalent facilitation
Gregg: they are not in the technical standards, but they are in the top / policy part
<alastairc> But we should probably make it easier to draw conclusions from using WCAG to those terms? E.g. our "essential" exceptions equate to "fundamental alteration".
Gregg: example is when you deliberately create an inaccessible site, if you make it accessible you fundamentally change the product
Shadi: we still need to improve the requirements to match the experience of PWD
<Glenda> RRS agent, make minutes
<Rachael> Option 1: Making certain information public in order to meet some level of conformance
<Rachael> Option 2: Report on a process that was completed
<Rachael> Option 3: Complete a predefined template and include the results in a report
<Rachael> Option 4: Submitting documents for some sort of certification by AG as an acceptable reference
<Rachael> Option 5: No additional documentation
<Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/TPAC22/results#xq4
JAvila: Companies often don't want to report on their process
<Chuck> +1 on no time and no power for AG to own certification
<Jem> https://www.section508.gov/manage/reporting/
JAvila: Need a balance on reporting internal and what organizations want to mention externally
Gregg: would like to see more info on the reporting Bruce was talking about
<mbgower> Question was: "Submitting documents for some sort of certification by AG as an acceptable reference (Example: Submitting a design guide for a particular toolkit to be approved for use by anyone)"
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to check different things - docs for everyone to use vs. specific orgs.
<Rachael> +1 to alastairs interpretation
<bruce_bailey> In survey, I shared twice-annual self-reporting CFO Act (Chief Financial Officer) agencies provide to GSA government-wide 508 program.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask who would fund all the people to do all the work?
<Chuck> +1 to mbgower, UGH!
AC: I understand that as example, a government says 'this is plain language document' that might be useful, if every company can say "check our document if it fits your minimum standard', that would be not preferable
<jon_avila> Very few in my opinion - it has been my experience it has been very difficult to get outside techniques submitted techniques approved.
Shadi: was the technique submission form a succes M Cooper?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that github already supports Alastair's first option.
<bruce_bailey> Here it best .gov web a11y report description: https://www.section508.gov/manage/reporting/
MC: we've had some proposals, but not really substantial succes
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask how we would determine cutoff
<alastairc> mbgower - other examples might be a design guide (e.g. material design) if it was for the purpose of meeting a guideline like Visible Controls
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I can see WAI-Adapt accepting/reviewing stuff or COGA, but am leery of saying this is prudent for the whole AGWG
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc2/results#xq8
AC: if it's in the CR version, will that solve the problem Wilco?
WF: a bit surprised it's in the CR, we did not agree on that
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this is addressing your concern
MG: don't think is changes the intent
<MichaelC> qq+
MG: are we happy with the change?
WF: yes
<Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2534/files
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to react to mbgower
MG: it's clarifying, not changing
MC: it was rushed, trying to control it, seemed it was fine, otherwise we can change it
WF: questioned the process, MC mentioned it had to do with process internally, this should't happen, we took the risk and will check the process again
<Jem> +1 greg
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I'm in support of a process retrospective
<jon_avila> I agree with Gregg+
<kirkwood> +1 to greg
Chuck: let's do retrospective and review well
<mbgower> +1
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2657 as an editorial update
<GreggVan> +1
<Chuck> +1
<SuzanneTaylor> +1
<alastairc> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Rachael> +1
+1
<Jem> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<laura> +1
<AWK> +1
<mbgower> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<Jennie> +1
<Wilco> Abstain, this is moot, the decision was made before the meeting started
<Francis_Storr> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ToddL> +1
<maryjom> +1
<GN015> +0.5
RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2657 as an editorial update
<Rachael> scribe: kirkwood
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2658/files
Rachael: related to an APA
concern, the PR with change is here:
... question is wether you approve or not
Avila: no addtion on my part
<Rachael> "Web pages that will later have additional content added can use a 'statement of partial conformance'."
Alastair: nothing to add
Rachael: reading Bruce’s
comment
... anyone have anthing to say?
... reading Wilco’s comments
Wilco: i’ll wait for Alastairs comment
Alastair: kind of agree with Wilco, APA has been fairly insistent on change, since 2.0 the term ‘some’ is not applicable should be a majority, doesn’t go out of psynch i don’t think
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to wilco and to respond to wilco on the WCAG 2.1 aspect
Wilco: i can live with it without word ‘may’
Gregg: repace may with might?
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Use "Web pages that will later have additional content added can use a 'statement of partial conformance'."
<bruce_bailey> I would note that the new opening sentence is a rewrite, not just delete "sometimes" (which was the early first proposed edit).
Rachael: please let me know if caprtured change
Gregg: fine with me, agree with getting rid of may
Rachael: anyone have changes before vote?
Gregg: it almost sounds like a directive, is that what we are saying?
<alastairc> Bruce - just removing "sometimes" made it difficult grammatically, which is why I suggested slightly more.
<mbgower> "can" seems fine to me. I find this whole change unnecessary, but this is fine.
Gregg: maybe can is the proper word, let me withdraw
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Use "Web pages that will later have additional content added can use a 'statement of partial conformance."
<bruce_bailey> Original sentence: Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional content added to them.
+1
<GreggVan> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Wilco> 0
<ToddL> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<laura> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Chuck> +.5
<mbgower> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<AWK> +1
<alastairc> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<GN015> +1
<bruce_bailey> @alastairc -- it is a nice rewrite.
RESOLUTION: Use "Web pages that will later have additional content added can use a 'statement of partial conformance."
<GN015> By the way: What exactly is a horizontal review?
Alastair: privacy review Wendy had a potential issue and add it to security and privacy, on thread said could be put into understanding
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2659/files
Alastair: update both cussess criteria and understanding or just understanding
<alastairc> Gundula - it is where other parts of W3C (e.g. privacy, internationalisation, APA) review specs.
Rachael: we have 5 supporting and
few something else
... reading Wilco comment
Wilco: seems already in CR
Rachael: reading Jonathan’s comment
<mbgower> 1 to Jon
<bruce_bailey> @Gundala -- Edit came from APA suggestion and one of the active Task Force
Jonathan: potentially could be over used as way of getting out of things without truly being about privacty
Rachael: reading aliatairs comment… about discussing with privacy folks
Racheal: bruce understanding no comment
Rachael: reading her
comments
... reading Mike Gower’s comments
Gower: the whole purpose is to reduce cognitive load have difficulty with privacy comment nailed down, suddenly its having greater pricy issues,, leary of changing
Rashael: reading Jakes comments
Jake: think everything is said, don’t see as an issue dont do anything
Gregg: major point is privacy and
what does it mean, i would concur with not making change
... goes into autopopulation think part of privacy. I’m with
not doing anything in either place as suggested
Alastair: should have done 2 separate PRs
<GN015> @Alastair, @Bruce - thank you!
Alastair: to Gregg’s point, it is a little bit vague. The example given enter information that autopopulation i didn’t understand is slightly vague about pricacy conscious ways
<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) no change and continue to explore updating the understanding 2) update the understanding
<GreggVan> 1
<SuzanneTaylor> 1
<Chuck> 1
<mbgower> 1
<alastairc> 2, can live with 1
<sarahhorton> 1
1
<ShawnT> 1
<bruce_bailey> 1
<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) no addition of privacy language and continue to explore updating the understanding 2) update the understanding
Wilco: not sure, keep current language? need clarifiation
<jon_avila> 1, but 2 is fine.
Wilco: thank you
<joweismantel> 1
<SuzanneTaylor> 1
<Rachael> 1
<mbgower> 1
<maryjom> 1
<ShawnT> 1
<laura> 1
<JakeAbma> 1
<GreggVan> 1 but suggest Option 3 no change to SC or Understanding and not explore future words in understanding for this provision. If needed it should be another SC
<Wilco> I'm really not sure how to vote. Haven't had enough time to think it through
<ToddL> 1
<Francis_Storr> 1
Rachael: leaning towards 1
Wilco: i can live with that
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: no addition of privacy language and continue to explore updating the understanding
<GreggVan> +1
<Chuck> +1
<SuzanneTaylor> +1
+1
<mbgower> +1
<alastairc> +1
<joweismantel> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<laura> +1
<maryjom> +1
RESOLUTION: Use "Web pages that will later have additional content added can use a 'statement of partial conformance."
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2653
Alastair: if there is one control don’t need to apply focus visible, seems odd to have in understanding
GN: nothing to add
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR2653
<Chuck> +1
<alastairc> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Wilco> +1
<laura> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<mbgower> +1
<GN015> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<joweismantel> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<maryjom> +1
+1
<AWK> +1
<ToddL> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR2653
Rachael: continue to improve 2.x content through understanding
Racheal: 5 agreed two non comments
<mbgower> nope
Rachael: reading comments
... Jake subgroup would potentially be good
Jake: we had discussions before about subgroup versus TF seemed like bigger part than just a subgroup propable can tell us
<Chuck> +1 this will take more than six months and requires formal resourcing.
Rachael: TF get more support than a subgroup if especially takes more than 6 months and resources would help is the thinking. a subgroup is to be spun up and close
Andrew: with a TF theres a work statement and a document to talk about how long will go
<Chuck> That's right
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that a TF would enable a mailing list which would be useful for transparency.
Michael: is thie preliminary, would suggest might be worth setting an end date for it. sometime have TF that go for a long period of time
Alatair: with TF we get a mailing list and transparency and archive, gives a place to work that not main AG meeting, end date is a good thing
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask for task force scope -- if for understanding and errata -- ok if for 2.3 then -- need to think hard about that
Gregg: then i think should be a
long term standiong rask force whose charge is errata and
should go for a long time
... don’t see problem being long term thaere may be
understanding tweeks in the future
<alastairc> We can do long term, e.g. 2 years (to match charter), and then renew if needed.
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Start the process of standing up a WCAG 2.2 Taskforce with an end date to match charter and clear statement of work
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Start the process of standing up a WCAG 2.x Taskforce with an end date to match charter and clear statement of work
Michael: our practice has been work statement and then standup TF
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to add to end "which would not include development of a 2.3"
Gregg: thought should add not including development of 2.3 and thats not the intent, if consensus of group
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Agreement for the need for a WCAG 2.x taskfroce. Create a statement of work for a WCAG 2.x Taskforce with an end date to match the charter. This would not include development of a 2.3.
Alastair: we have discusseed a few times that difficult to get new requirments in 2.x struccture
Bruce: don’t think we need to put in 2.3 language its settled news
Gregg: just wanted to make clear
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Group agreement for the need for a WCAG 2.x taskforce. Create a statement of work for a WCAG 2.x Taskforce with an end date to match the charter.
<GreggVan> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Chuck> +1
+1
<sarahhorton> +1
<alastairc> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<laura> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<joweismantel> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<maryjom> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<ToddL> +1
RESOLUTION: Group agreement for the need for a WCAG 2.x taskforce. Create a statement of work for a WCAG 2.x Taskforce with an end date to match the charter.
Rachael: question 6 is meeting times, please put times in survey so we can meet up
Rachael: please take time to do that
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2490/files
Rachael: some updates not
intended to change meeting example is 2.490
... what is the group comfortable with for notification and
participation?
... most voted email group
Alastair: notifying members not in task force this question is trying to get to
Gower: that is fine
<AWK> +1 to Wilco
Wilco: want to add theres potential overlap with ACT. if going to have new process i would try to align processes of 2 task forces
<Chuck> +1
+1
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc2/results#xq12
Rachael: majority seems want an email
Wilco: nothing to add
Gregg: tlaing about posting coments?
Rachael: when editorial for 2.x we are suggesting email to group
<bruce_bailey> From survey:
<bruce_bailey> > Some updates are not intended to change the meaning at all, but to bring the techniques or understanding documents up to date.
Gregg: anything about 2.x should
have addtional header shoud say something lik [2.x
editorial]
... clearly stated in subject and text should be clear
<Wilco> New mailing list would work too
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: An email to the group notifying of change with 1-2 weeks to review depending on the change. Add a WCAG 2.x notation to the subject line and at the beginning of the email.
Racheal: looking for comments
Wilco: let be part of work statement rather than call now
Rachael: then how align?
Wilco: fair needs more documentation thought
<sarahhorton> +1 to Wilco, too specific
Gregg: think chairs should come up with procedure
<bruce_bailey> listserv etiquette for 2.x issues not limited to this task force
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Updating old links and references in 2.x documents need email to the group notifying of change with 1-2 weeks to review depending on the change. Detailed to be determined and documented
Alistair: trying to get feel groups comfort,i would suggest joining TF rather than taking up AG group time. seems survey most people are happy with
<Chuck> draft RESOLUTION: TF will be expected to notify AGWG of changes with sufficient time to review. Communications will be properly tagged in subject line.
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Updating old links and references in 2.x documents need email to the group notifying of change with 1-2 weeks to review depending on the change. Detailed to be determined and documented
Vruce: covering both questions or editorial
Rachael: just first one
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Updating old links and references in 2.x documents need an email to the group notifying of change with 1-2 weeks to review depending on the change. Detailed to be determined and documented.
<sarahhorton> +1 to Chuck's version
<bruce_bailey> rachaels version better
+1
<bruce_bailey> the bit about "Communications will be properly tagged in subject line" is global.
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Editorial updates in 2.x documents need an email to the group notifying of change with enough time to review and comment. Detailed to be determined and documented.
Sarah: seems very specific, intent there will be communication channel between TF and working goup and flagged so not overwhelming
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Editorial updates in 2.x documents need an email to the group notifying of change with enough time to review and comment. Detailed to be determined and documented. Communications will be properly tagged in subject line.
<Wilco> +1
+1
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Editorial updates in 2.x documents need an email to the group notifying of change with enough time to review and comment. Details to be determined and documented.
<Wilco> also +1
Bruce: think communication in subject line is its own thing
<Chuck> +1
<alastairc> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<ToddL> +1
+1
<ShawnT> +1
<JakeAbma> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<joweismantel> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<laura> +1
<GN015> +1
RESOLUTION: Editorial updates in 2.x documents need an email to the group notifying of change with enough time to review and comment. Details to be determined and documented.
Chuck: seems more global need not drill down here at this time
<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1201/files
Rachael: which level (of discussion) are people comfortable with, no one said bring back to meting for approval
Gower: nothing to add
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc2/results#xq15
Rachael: thining email comments are difficult
Alastair: quite likely to do omnibus surveys with sufficient time, if discussion we will probable invite to next meeting to discuss
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Clarifying updates in 2.x documents need an survey to the group with enough time to review and comment. Details to be determined and documented.
Rachael: other comments:?
<Chuck> +1
<ToddL> +1
Rachael: do we need to change before voting?
<ShawnT> +1
<alastairc> +1
<joweismantel> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<maryjom> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
+1
<GreggVan> +1
<laura> +1
<GN015> +1
<MelanieP> +1
RESOLUTION: Clarifying updates in 2.x documents need a survey to the group with enough time to review and comment. Details to be determined and documented.
Alastair: TF timing will be at top, please fill it in to see when would be a good time for the meeting
Rachael: let us know if would
like to add to TF language
... please monitor TPAC information page
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2022#AG_WG_Meeting_at_TPAC_2022
Rachael: to make sure youk’re kepping up, please fill out even if not coming
homework is third heading down
Mike: i’m sad chairs won’t be there in person
have a great week
<Rachael> s/RESOLUTION: Use "Web pages that will later have additional content added can use a 'statement of partial conformance." /RESOLUTION: no addition of privacy language and continue to explore updating the understanding
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2022/09/06-ag-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary
RESOLUTION: no addition of privacy language and continue to explore updating the understanding
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Abstain, this is mute/Abstain, this is moot/ Succeeded: s/bit bague/bit vague/ Succeeded: s/Racheal: wuestion 6/Rachael: question 6/ Succeeded: s/ i would suggest joing TF rather than this time/i would suggest joining TF rather than taking up AG group time/ Succeeded: s/which lefvel are comfortable with, no one bsaid bring/which level (of discussion) are people comfortable with, no one said bring/ FAILED: s/RESOLUTION: Use "Web pages that will later have additional content added can use a 'statement of partial conformance." /RESOLUTION: no addition of privacy language and continue to explore updating the understanding/ Default Present: JakeAbma, alastairc, ShawnT, Rachael, Francis_Storr, StefanS, SuzanneTaylor, jon_avila, MichaelC, Jem, ToddL, bruce_bailey, AWK, Makoto_, shadi, sarahhorton, Wilco, maryjom, Chuck, Lauriat, mbgower, MelanieP, Jennie, kirkwood, GreggVan, Glenda, JustineP, joweismantel, .5, Laura_Carlson, GN Present: JakeAbma, alastairc, ShawnT, Rachael, Francis_Storr, StefanS, SuzanneTaylor, jon_avila, MichaelC, Jem, ToddL, bruce_bailey, AWK, Makoto_, shadi, sarahhorton, Wilco, maryjom, Chuck, Lauriat, mbgower, MelanieP, Jennie, kirkwood, GreggVan, Glenda, JustineP, joweismantel, .5, Laura_Carlson, GN, GN015 Regrets: Jeanne, Nicaise, Nicaise Dogbo Found Scribe: JakeAbma Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma Found Scribe: kirkwood Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood Scribes: JakeAbma, kirkwood ScribeNicks: JakeAbma, kirkwood WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]