AGWG Teleconference -- 20 Sep 2022

<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2022-09-20

<laura> Scribe: Laura

<Ben_Tillyer> present=

<AWK> +AWK

Chuck: no announcements.
... Any new topics?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss OT but ICT announcement

<bruce_bailey> USAB will publish ANPRM on electronic kiosks SSTMs

<Rachael> +1 to that!

bruce: access board will be publishing a new ITC doc tomorrow. Rule making for kiosks, etc.

<Jennie> *Fantastic!

<bruce_bailey> Under ADA

chuck: This relates to our WCAG to ITC work

<Wilco> +1000

<ShawnT> +1

bruce: suggest support for wiki text or markdown for understanding docs.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<alastairc> Useful topic to discuss, we'd need to bring in some of the other barriers as well though.

WCAG 2.2 Implementation check-in

chuck: we will review that.

ac: we went to CR before TPAC.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1avNVZFsbTdc6LjqsXqysTh6n6goijouGk1Eio0lLpsQ/edit

ac: next step is implementation.
... need testers for Funka.se
... interesting to test to AAA and for testing a live site.
... will be testing individual SCs too.
... need testers for individual scs too.
... questions please ask.

<Detlev> presennt+

judy: congratultions too all.
... want to make sure that this works not only in English.

<ShawnT> I can try to push the French with the Canadian Government.

judy: when CR is done want to show a few international examples.

ac: need someone who could test in non-english.

judy: let's take this off-line.

TPAC Recap

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcOWm75D5ocd6gUhfsnSz-XK7lcNKW4EnOiHADTq-fI/edit#heading=h.16vbhay2tm5i

RM: Successful TPAC. I put together a recap document.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcOWm75D5ocd6gUhfsnSz-XK7lcNKW4EnOiHADTq-fI/edit#

<Chuck> me too

RM: have some next steps.

<ToddL> same here

RM: will be setting up some sub groups.
... working on definitions.

<Chuck> ok, intermittent

RM: email chairs with questions.

chuck: unable to attend tpac. How was remote participation?

<Jennie> * Loved the remote participation!

Poornima: no tech issues. Went very well

<alastairc> remote worked well for me, the main issues were my own (my broadband supplier screwing up an upgrade). The room audio was good *as long as* only one person spoke at a time.

todd: couldn't make much of it. Some rooms had permission issues.

Shawn: could have been coga rooms.

shadi: Attended in person and on phone. thought it was really great. good mics and cameras. Good discussions.
... Good chairing.
... encourage another meeting.

<ToddL> My issues were probably me trying to get into the coga meetings

jeanne: amazing good tech by phone. amazing chairing.

<alastairc> It might actually help that the chair is remote, you have to make sure the remote audio is good... not that I'm enthusiastic about that.

jeanne: went well.

<Poornima> Question to Alastairc: I'd like to volunteer for testing. Will go through the google doc you had sent to start with! Any planned deadline for this?

<Rachael> I agree with Alastair that being remote might have had some surprising benefits.

<alastairc> Judy - there was a comment from the in-person attendees that the screens were very far away.

makoto: no issues. cameras sound had no issues. only issue time shift/jet lag.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about CSUN

<Rachael> https://www.csun.edu/cod/general-call-presentations

rm: csun would be next opportunity for meeting.

judy: thanks for this topic.
... The disability community asking for hybrid options. please, please, send feedback in the survey.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to comment on screen

Chuck: added CSUN to new topics.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say added CSUN to new topics

Shadi: 2 screens in the room.
... that was very useful. Some found them too small.

Suzanne: Well organized. Couldn't attend all sessions..

chuck: we planned ahead. Thanks to RM.

<Rachael> Kudos to the whole team. It was almost 8 weeks of pre-meeting planning from everyone

<alastairc> Regarding screens, in future could be a case of room arrangement, or instructions to zoom in on things presented.

Shawn: 1st TPAC. Would have liked to have had more support.
... Would like to try to pull in more newcomers..

Subgroup retrospective

chuck: Subgroup new concept for AGWG..
... set stage. define it. blameless. offer kudos. identify opportunities. gather data. What not Why. Brainstorm ideas.
... focus on picking solutions.
... find quick solutions for smaller issues. then conclude with action items.
... what went well and not so well?

<Rachael> +1 to a google doc

chuck: good to have a google doc.

<alastairc> This is shared to all (for now): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcOWm75D5ocd6gUhfsnSz-XK7lcNKW4EnOiHADTq-fI/edit#heading=h.16vbhay2tm5i

rm: seem progress slows when people join in the middle. need for more guidance on output.

chuck: Encourage participation.
... joining in middle can be difficult.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that in advance planning for big meetings, we need to end the 8 week sprint two weeks before the meeting.

<shadi> +1 to Jeanne

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

jeanne: when planning for big meetings give 2 weeks. Give more space to polish presentations.

<Rachael> hm. I will adjust

<jeanne> +1 for quality of information from the subgroups

rm: impressed with content that we got.

<shadi> +1 to good mechanism to generate outcomes

wilco: only heard chairs speak.
... thoughts from others?

shadi: timing with vacations over the summer was a bit difficult. More planning may help.

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to say I prefer working in subgroups over these meetings

shawn: Prefer working with subgroups.
... bigger meetings a bit overwhelming.

Poornima: people with different skills and various backgrounds may help.

awk: attendance can be a challenge with smaller groups. Slightly larger groups may help.

<Makoto> +1 to AWK

awk: I needed to miss a couple subgoup meetings.
... Common occurrence is that we were down a couple a of people.

todd: attendance is a challenge.
... wish I could get to more.

wilco: participation in our group was also a challenge. Prefer a sub group of at least 5 people.

jaunita: asynchronous helped. A larger group would help. Maybe ask others with specialized skills help to projects.

chuck: Participation seems to be a big challenge.
... increase size to at least 5.

<alastairc> Maybe restrict people to 1 sub-group at a time?

chuck: offer invitations to interested peers.
... working asynchronously.

shadi: advanced planning could help too.

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to suggest differently paced subgroups

Suzanne: Suggest differently paced subgroups.
... a longer sprint. 16 weeks.

wilco: time boxing.
... over 8 weeks could introduce problems.
... Group could go in a direction that the working group doesn’t support.

jennie: intermittent participation.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to offer a timebox suggestion

jennie: list of skill sets.

<alastairc> I like the idea, but understanding the built up context is key, it's hard to bring people in later in the process.

chuck: leave it at 8 weeks but redefine output.
... and leave an opportunity to pursue future work.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say there regular updates were helpful

jeanne: having subgroups report in worked well.
... regular check in is valuable.

<shadi> +1 to jeanne

wilco: people who haven't paricipated. intermintent participation may help?

ac: we had intermintent participation. that can harm progress.

todd: 2 hours is good.
... would like to do 4..

Shadi: facilitators sharing notes helped. 1 on 1's also helped.

<alastairc> Shadi - that's ok, but does add overhead, and wouldn't have worked in our sub-groups case. (Due to people having 2 weeks off each with no overlap)

joweismantel: intermittent work and asynchronous would help.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask leads a question

<shadi> [we had 4 participants, I think optimal size is 5-7]

<AWK> Not a lead but I'd say 8-10

rm: curious for number of people that the leads prefer.

<alastairc> Francis isn't here, but I think it was a group of 6, 5 mostly regular, but attendance of 3-4 most weeks.

<jeanne> Equity had 6 people which felt too much

<Makoto> I'd say more than 5

<bruce_bailey> i agree w/ Shadi/AWK

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to double check Jeanne number?

wilco: What do people think of having the PR at the end of the sprint?

bruce: 6+ too many??

jeanne: went off track with 6 people. 4 was more efficient.

<Poornima> A11y Supported had 5 people, minimum of 8 ppl helps especially when some people not available to attend

chuck: this retrospective doesn't end this.

<alastairc> It feels like ~4 active people is about right, but we need more people/group to get that consistently.

chuck: we will continue to have these discussions.

gregg: try to get people with diverse opinions on subgroups so the can try to come to consensus there before bringing to the full group.

<shadi> +1 to GreggVan

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to scribe change

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

Continue conformance Pros and Cons conversation

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#

Chuck: continuing with pros - cons conversion on conformance, first Racheal then Chuck

<Rachael> Summary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcOWm75D5ocd6gUhfsnSz-XK7lcNKW4EnOiHADTq-fI/edit#

Rachael: We spent some time at TPAC, if you would please take look at slide 3 and 4 which are our summary notes
... At TPAC we reviewed several approaches with conformance, and have an example for each...
... we want to collect pros and cons for now, not arguing one against another for now, just trying to collect pros and cons...
... Please be encouraged to add to Google doc, file is open for editing.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.tisei889p4ek

Rachael: If Google Docs is not a good medium for anyone, please just email chairs or facilitator.

[some technical difficulties]

GreggV: What is status for now? Was there some conclusions report back from TPAC?

GV: The conformance options seem like they might address very different audiences...

<Chuck> rachael, feel free to queue up, I will try and answer

GV: for example regulators and litigation would be different than say Consumer Report style ratings.

Chuck: Document and status is quite open at this point, more like brain storming.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say this is open

Chuck: We are just trying to gather data to start formulating next steps.

Alastair: Not frozen by any means and nothing locked down.

<laura> s/congratulations too all. /congratulations to all on getting to CR /

Alastair: Prefer not to add new options, but there is lots of room otherwise.

<Rachael> +1

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to clarify

Alastair: at TPAC we had 5 min on each section and iterated to next section with those 5 min being offline then come back to group and review in brief.

GreggV: I am still unclear on process and how "frozen" is document.

Rachael: Intent was just to inspire some conversation, it is a starting point.

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to ask if it is possible to add badges to this list, where badges are functional-need-specific higher levels of achievement (along the lines of AAA)

GreggV: Sounds good but please turn track changes on so additions are easier to spot.

<Wilco> Interesting idea

Suzanne: Where are "badges" in these pro - cons list?

Alastair invites Suzanne to add that Badges idea into where it might fit best.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to intro "Severity in context".

Chuck: We will take some time here, but if Google Docs not good for you, please email chairs or lists.

Alastair: I want to mention that issue severity and critical path are not well integrated at this time...

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask if links can be added for definitions of the terms

Alastair: for example, button missing Accessible Name might be trivial some situations and totally blocking in other circumstance.

<alastairc> Some links here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcOWm75D5ocd6gUhfsnSz-XK7lcNKW4EnOiHADTq-fI/edit#heading=h.yf7t17g97puw

GreggV: I am trying to follow link from some defined concepts, but not finding clarity as to what terms mean.

Chuck: So noted, since we do want people to have consistent meaning for these terms.

Rachael clarifies that we will come back and discuss top to bottom as group.

Chuck: Reconvening, q as needed

Chuck reading some pros from Evaluating Severity in Context (Critical Errors)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.tisei889p4ek

GreggV: Last item, for badging higher achivement, is conformance but might be added to other section as well.

Chuck reads cons.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.c5p9zdcegxsb

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that there was a theme of "we already do something similar" in the positives, and the negatives can be dealt with

Alastair: For all, I picked up a theme in the "pros" in that seems like many people already do some kind of prioritization, perhaps informally, but is a common approach.

WRT cons, seems like WCAG EM is an example as how to mitigate.

<Wilco> +1

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to reply

GreggV: We have problem now with, for example complaints for government sites, that authors should not be at broad liberty to define audienc..

for example agency says website on blind services is accessible, so we are good. But consumer says i am blind parent, so i need those sections to be accessible.

Alastair: I think we can mitigate that by layering these different conformance approaches.

Racheal summaries prioritizing by functional needs.

Racheal: One approach is just a tally of the number / kinds of functional needs addressed.

Chuck: Have prioritizing one functional need over another considered?
... One way to define prioritization is just a count. But there could be other approaches to prioritization.
... Please take 5 min to fill in pros / cons to this approach and then we will reconvene.

GreggV requests clarification on functional needs, as some linked resources seem very broad and wordy.

Rachael: Idea is similar to functional performance criteria under 508, so have that framework in mind if it is helpful.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.oo1d2e6sgzx5

<Rachael> Functional needs: https://w3c.github.io/fast/

<laura> s/paricipated. intermintent participation /participated. intermittent participation /

Chuck reads through pros: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.hgxe1vupiiss

Chuck read through cons: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.hgxe1vupiiss

<laura> s/ynconous conous /asynchronous /

Chuck: I will note that I made similar comment in both pros and cons, in that tally approach can be a bias.
... but also help provide motivation for addressing less common functional needs.

GreggV: Prioritizing by function can be categories (blindness/deafness) while some funcitonal need, COGA, prioritization is within the functional needs.

Alastair: Early discussions were crediting the raw number of functional needs.

Rachael: We also looked at a more fractional, decimal point awards, across many functional needs...
... there were also proposal with minimum thresholds for each functional need category.

Alastair: Chair hat off, multiple minimum thresholds in several categories will be very complicated. That said, keeping the metadata associations across FPC will be very valueable.

Rachael: At TPAC we decided not to decide, but to keep options for moving forward with addressing functional performance needs as we can.

<Chuck> +1 to Suzanne's statement about exploring has great value

<Chuck> +1000!

Susanne: Keeping these associations and keep exploring is valueable even if we do not end with a score impact.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that whenever I see cons to an idea -- I often see that at least a bit of it sneaking

Susanne: the dialog is very valueable and teams want to know how and where there work is having an impact.

GreggV: whenever I see cons to an idea -- I often see that at least a bit of it sneaking in where we don't mean to...
... but these discussion are important to keep top of mind so we stay aware of them.

Chuck: I agree with trying to track my own bias, so agree with everything raised in this conversation.

Rachael: Summarizing minimum score, conversation about minimum percentages, minimum points, minimum FP address. So this topic crosses over many of of the other proposals.

Chuck: Break for 5 min typing pros/cons.

Minimum Scores

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.i7aqk5txvgmz

Chuck: We running out of time, so may come back latter.

GreggV: Distiguish between weight and score?

Chuck: We are out of time, so please continue work for next week.

<Chuck> plz queue up now Gregg if you have any questions, I just wanted to make sure your questions are asked when they are scribed.

Rachael: Weighting is any way to determine something has more value than something similar, applies to several scoring approaches.
... Protocols are addtional steps or work or protocols outside of test to allow for credit or conformance claims.

Chuck: Homework assignment to add pros and cons to last two sections of this document.

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

20 Sep 2022

Attendees

Contents

WCAG 2.2 Implementation check-in

TPAC Recap

Subgroup retrospective

Continue conformance Pros and Cons conversation

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output