<GreggVan> preseent +

<Jay_Mullen> I can try - for first hour - but I am a noob at it :)

<Rachael> scribe: Jay_Mullen

<Chuck> perfection is NOT expected or required!

thank you

New members

Announcements

<Rachael> Culture Check In Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/culture_check_in

Rachael: Survey to provide comments for Survey on Culture improvements.

<Rachael> December 20th, 27th, Jan 3rd - No meetings

Rachael: No meeting in 3 meetings until Dec 23rd

Initial equity group report (15 minutes)

Rachael: Equity group reminder ... follow up presentation.

<Chuck> Looks like they are there.

Cybele: [Equity Group member Presenter] Starting presentation...

Jennifer: Readout for completion of tasks to date for Equity Group. Some background ---

Long in progress from 2017.

Tpac dicussion proved it is an issue that goes beyond accessibility. It was suggested to be brought up at the W3C level. Courrent focus is on where quity will live and how it should be structured.

<wendyreid> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lMYbFlUVhWSKaEnrzUfpozdXybkL2U8jTgWUKq59zjc/edit?usp=sharing

Wilco: Agenda query - thought was that design would present first. Possible conflict.

Jenifer: approach was brainstorming without constraints...

Current proposals are in the appendix of provided decl

For each propsal - evaluted authority and inlfuence, evaluation review capacity, accountability mechanisms, degree of particiaption and engagement, as well as use case to detemine best path to affect chnage

<bruce_bailey> URL for working document (as mentioned on slide 3) is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Px1Aaf_LrXSJl2L7Hb00n7nMKWXlD4jPjGJiBSSUHpA/edit

Cybele: 4 ideas prospoed. 1st is starting with community group which is important for participation and the ability to expand to inlcude equity seeking participation but we alos realize their can be a tradoeff.

Second type is working again with same functions plus a distrubuted task within working groups. Next is an enhancement to positive working environment workforce and the last is considerations to expand the charter to promote equitable outcomes to accessibility. see points ind eck.

Cybele: See deck for bullet points. Equity Community Group strength and weaknesses presented.

Working gorupd distrubuted taks force - you can still have the same benefits of previous modal but you can also have taskforces within in each working group and members could be part of the larger equity group for W3c which would provide opp to avoid duplication of effort and to spread message - as well collect use cases.

The working group itself would still be integrate dand have capacity for horizontal review.

There is increased complexitiy as a weakness to this model.

Wendy: Positive work environment strneght includes the open participation modal, normative documentation publishing, members have experience with work, and accountabilty and appleas process exists in PWETF
... major weakness is that it is quite small and stretched thin due to size.

support owul dbe neede din increased membership to support model

Wendy: Expanding Charter of WAI strengths - changes to WCAG in short term, becmoes a modal to other working, support equity across W3c and awareness.

Weakensses include Members need to be invited experts.

Jennifer: Next steps: Link to appendix for templates for proposals. need feedback. And relates to tackling use cases as well.
... Checuk, wnedy, and I are working on scheduling the next session for next steps. Cycbele will be taking over for chuck so he can focus on other priorities

<bruce_bailey> Kudos to Cybele and Wendy and JenS for pulling this summary together !!!

(Sorry for spelling)

Rachael: Query: is the work best sutied ot be under the positive environment working group vs Ag

Cybele: Response - initial thought is to have same issue with PWET - use cases split into 2 types and one of the areas of the proposal elements may not end in PWETF. The prcoess to get ther eis still undetermined.

Jennifer: Response, PWE would make sense as i see it as we discussed for equity issues regarding for W3c partiicpation but not for outputs for W3C. should not be in ADWG - should be advisory board to make decision on proper home for process.
... must think about the infrastructure and palnning that goes into the working gorups to avoid a chaotic experience.

<tzviya> +1 to wendyreid from the other chair of PWE

<JenStrickland> +1

<JenStrickland> Will need more folks to help with PWETF

Wendy: As a chair a PWE, PWE should assist but maybe not own since activities impact majority of W3c vs one activiity over another. Real acitvity is scoping to set guidelines for equity or creation of a horizontal review group that would extend passed pWE capabilites - there is still discussion to have, PWE is here to help.

Michael: Just a quick suggestion - great thinking so far with good resources. The propsals could be viewed as additive vs alternaive. So as you think about thing you might want to think about - steer towrds enhanced model down the road.

rachea: Intent is to goanother 4 week - who would it report back to after the 4 week time period

<Cyborg> +1 to that Jen

Jennifer: ADWG shoudl recieve report and then after the 4 weeks, determine new home

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: group will continue to work for another 4 weeks and outbrief AGWG

<Chuck> +1

+1

<tzviya> +1

<MichaelC> +1

<JenStrickland> +1

<Poornima> +1

<laura> +1

<Rachael> -.5

<Azlan> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<ShawnT> +1

Bruce: Holidays may impact the 4 weeks - should be 4 meetings.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: group will continue to work for another 4 meetings and outbrief AGWG

<bruce_bailey> +1 for four more meetings

<wendyreid> +1

<JenStrickland> +1 for four more meetings

RESOLUTION: group will continue to work for another 4 meetings and outbrief AGWG

<ToddL> +1

Issue severity report (30 minute)

Design & IA report (30 minutes)

Marie: For Design presentation: Introductions for design working group.
... Revealing prototype of wireframes in grayscale with no visuallys to be presented. Focus on functionality.

<bruce_bailey> Welcome Marie and Michelle !

Marie: Tasked with to come up with a redeisng for WCAG and the supporting documents. What I have done is to reorg content by grouping info a little differently then done before.
... One entry points to support resources followed by more normative information presented in accordions. Commen content with a different layout.
... Recommending if we could somehow indicate where they are in the table of contents - intent is to use an highlgiht for visual indication.
... Going into how to meet the guidelines. It will be a combination of the method resources and the how to resources.

In order to combine them, a primary navigation was created that includes Get started, User needs, Activity (has a secondary nav with roles - plan, design, develop, edit, test)...

scribe: continuing Primary nav: Examples, Resources, Methods.

Methods alos has a seconday NAV level that displays detail on specific topics like Images and alt text. Includes note on platofrm and tech and dependencies - as well as code samples. Includes Pass/fails, etc.

In test (wihtin Method) - marie is presenting the wireframe content

marie: There is a breadcrumb that would return to main landing.

<Rachael> +1 to this design

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I notice you have "Exceptions" listed in Clear Words. Should that be persistent?

Marie: Mike - query on main page - exceptions under clear words. are you thinking there would be an exception or indicating there would not be an exception for text alternatives or is their an intention to not have them consistent place exceptions indicator in each requirement.

I.e. where a requirement has no exception - shoudl the cotnent marker still exist to show a common structure. Maybe add N/A when none exist vs removin gentire content block.

This is about templating for consistency

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about test under method and at higher level ?

Bruce: Fantastic so far. Question on references to testing - There were 2 locations for "test" - do they go to the same location or are they intended to be different locations.

Marie: Response: Decision was to create 2 entry points because there is a case for test to live under both. But it is inteneded to present same location. There should not be more then 2 entry points to content.

<ShawnT> +1 to Francis_Storr

Francis_Storr: On the main page of the wireframes - everything seems to be in accordions (show/hide) which is currently popular but I find it slightly annoying becaus eit impacts Control-F (and accordion content hidden and not accessible) - looking to a single control for expand all to allow that searching method.

<Ryladog> +1 to Francis

<laura> +1 to Francis

<Ryladog> Expand All

<bruce_bailey> +1 that "find Ctrl-F" needs support please

<ShawnT> I think it should be open by default

<jon_avila> +1 to being able to search entire page.

Marie: Responding to query: I like that option to use expand all / collapse all control at high level of page.

<kirkwood> =!

+1

<JenStrickland> +1 to expand/collapse all

<kirkwood> +1

<KimD> +1 to Francis

Wendy: I was just going to say I wonder if its possible to have almost 2 versions of doc. A well designed user-friendly edition but I think to kind of support the control-F need and naving options - a traditional sepc styles of all content in simple format may be an option. which can facilitate looking for things.

_1

-1 to seperate experience

Marie: Would having expand-all at the very beginning of the document solve for this?

Wendy: It would help.

<JenStrickland> To support SEO, it would be helpful if the default view was expanded so that the spiders have access to all the info. Then, it could be collapsed during navigation.

<kirkwood> +1 to expand all, it is a fairly standard convention (cognitve perspective)

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to straw poll

<Rachael> Strawpoll: Should subcontent such as exceptions 1) persist with not/applicable or 2) not be visible.

1

<JenStrickland> 1

<wendyreid> 2

<mbgower> 1 depending on how many topic areas there are!

<laura> 1

<bruce_bailey> option 1

<ShawnT> 1

<Chuck> 2, but no objections to 1

<GreggVan> +1

<KimD> 1

1 = because it is explicit and clear that it was considered and does not exist

<Poornima> 1 to show either N/A and call out if there is any

<Azlan> 1

<sarahhorton> 1

<Mikayla> 1

<jeanne> 1

<GreggVan> 1

<Rachael> 2

<Raf> 1

<GreggVan> 2

<ToddL> 1

<Francis_Storr> 1

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to speak to the collapse question

<Chuck> 18 1's, 3 2s

Greg: Not applicable - warn people that with 30years of working on this in compliance, anytime N/A is used, it usually taken to skip the whole thing -vs. the single component.
... N?A can cause confusion and may lead a user to beleive entire requirement vs exceptions is N/A

Having issues hearing...

<bruce_bailey> i read option 1 as there always being a placeholder heading -- not necessary "n/a" as placeholder text

<jon_avila> 3 have an option to show it or not.

I am sorry - I could not follow Nima's comments.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say persistence is a 2 edged sword

<Rachael> +1 to potential frustrations

Mike5Matrix: Regarding exceptions - when section ar e limited, not a big deal - but when N/A exist sin section and people ar eopening each individual section only to see a N/A - cpuld be frustrating. Can we work a design that N/A or whatever be commuinicated PRIOR to user taking ana ction to open an accordion.

Mike: But we really need to know how many sections may be N/A within the requirements.

<Rachael> Strawpoll: Should the design use multiple entry points (yes/no)?

<Poornima> 1. Bring out 'Examples' in the main page (as a link or expand/collapse) as it might not technically fall under 'How to meet' and 2. Suggesting to rephrase the word 'Edit' under 'Activity'

<Wilco> Yes

<Rachael> yes

<sarahhorton> no

<wendyreid> Yes

1 - see no harm if limited to 2 entry points

<JenStrickland> yes

yes

<tzviya> yes

<mbgower> it depends :) LOL

<KimD> yes

<bruce_bailey> yes -- but I liked that Marie hoped to keep to two

<ShawnT> yes

<Azlan> yes

<Chuck> yes, no objections to no

<jon_avila> yes

<Poornima> Yes, may be couple

<ToddL> yes

<jeanne> yes, but limit to two or three

Rachael: general support for Yes but with discussion pending for nos

<Chuck> 15 yes, 1 no

<laura> yes, if limited to 2

Sarah: it is related to the content itself in the activities section (reason for No). It is related to what a person doing within a role. So its about people making sure they know where to go to get to tests which will be a critical component for the guideline themselves. It is an information architecture classh as she sees it.

<alastairc> Maybe rename to "QA", and list the tests under each method.

Marie: Would you say that test needs to have a higher hierarchy?

<Ryladog> +1 to Sarah

<kirkwood> yes (if it seeming helps ‘findability’). i gree with IA structure view

sarahhorton: I would love to see all of the content in an ino architecture. I appreciate what you have for WFs but not sure we have broken down the breadth of content and how its structured.

Marie: Maybe I need to build out a few more of these to show the structure more.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to respond to Sarah

jeanne: I wante dot add that complexity that goes into a method vs what is in the top level section is defined by technology. So testing is def a role as QA testers but that level is technology specific. But in methods - it is technology specific.

We need to think about this from how that is a piece of how the info architecture is being strucutre (swith betwene tech agnostic and tech dependent).

<alastairc> It would be good to do a simple tree diagram of the content, e.g. in excel or a mapping tool.

The research has been done but the document has ot be dusted off.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that there may be different forms of test that may be performed by different roles

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest that it start out expanded and have the button at the top say "Simpler Collapsed View" (which then changes to an 'Expanded View' button) -- and

Mike: building on what Jean was saying - there is a qa role but there may be tests completed at different stages that are tech agnostic while others are tech specific. So it just outlining an info architecture which is currently conflicted - but focusing on the division of tech agnostic and tech-specific and the division by a role test and test performed by different roles.

Greg: I am not sure what the relationships is and if we are putting guidelines to what things mean in more then one place - concern for the need for coordination to avoid confusioon due to spread out content.

<Poornima> one suggestion is to add AT information in brief under overview or methods

<Rachael> Strawpoll: Should we have a 1) separate experience where all content is available or 2) an expand all at the beginning 3) Something else

<GreggVan> thx

<Ryladog> 2 or 3

<kirkwood> +1 to expand all

3

<GreggVan> 3 - should start out expanded\

<ShawnT> 3

<JenStrickland> 3 should start expanded

<jeanne> 2

<wendyreid> 1

<Chuck> 2

<Poornima> 2 to expand all

<bruce_bailey> option 2 -- but expand/collapse might need to be sticky / float

<GreggVan> yes

<ShawnT> yes

<tzviya> 3

<mbgower> I think a means of having a consolidated view; but expand all may not be the only answer

<laura> 3 should start expanded

<Francis_Storr> 2

<JenStrickland> yes, it should start expanded by default for SEO spider munching

Rachael: Querying the options for #3 based on "startingf expanded" and other options

<Lauriat> 3 test with users to answer this

<bruce_bailey> agree that starting expanded is probably better

<Francis_Storr> (also: set a preference so it stays open over multiple visits)

<Chuck> +1 to Rachael, this is a large step forward!

<alastairc> +1, good step forward.

No concensus. Rachael offering thnx for the work done and it is a huge step forward and appreciation to the design group for the time and commitment.

<mbgower> Great to see. Thanks!

<Ryladog> Yes, thank you!

Wilco: Design group about to wrap its 8 weeks. Next step is to focus on the visual design (beyond WF) for these pages .

<ToddL> 3, starts expanded.

Wilco: hoping to get an HTML version of the WF in the next week for more feedback. Work to be done asynchronous. Yet to be discussed with chairs.

<ShawnT> Are we planning on having a filter like the How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference): https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?

<mbgower> May want to think about personalization in regard to some of these things.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask about ttechniques

<mbgower> methods

Greg: Where do techniques now exist as they were not represented.

Conversation ot be taken offline

Short answer is that it will be under methods

Issue severity report (30 minute)

Next Topic - issues everity report

Francis_Storr: Presentor

<Francis_Storr> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sGPLtgoGX-j4bneYrWkR5oG7jKdUbNXv2CSDsJ8ZhnI/edit#slide=id.p

Francis_Storr: This was meant to happen a few weeks ago but did not. This would have been mid-point checkin but we on week 8 now so this is a final readout. and propsed next steps

going to go through functional needs, testing models, etc.

<kirkwood> slide access not working?

Francis_Storr: Questions to consider was What to do with non-crtiical issues, how to best assign severyt,, how to incorpoate context / process . task. How will situation where issue sevrity depends on contenxt.

<alastairc> I had to make a copy, which is here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZVeMAeOoTLIzdTNdX11gar71d9isUCfhqIAXsYq-JLo/edit#slide=id.p

Discussed matric inform the designation of functional cateogires - how will severity fit into levels. Examples provided for Bornze / silver - in deck.

Finally would another approach be more effective - for example assigning critical issues after testing is complete.

Answere dsome - but not all.

<Ryladog> Thanks Alastair!

Funtional Needs - continued work from SG1. Used FAST document - quickly realized too much scope for 8 weke and expertise for certain items was limited.

<ShawnT> [Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies (FAST)](https://w3c.github.io/fast/)

So apporach was to look S508 FPC and EN301 549 FPS. Settled on the latter.

It is a slightly larger list with duplication.

Lists out the categories of the FPS for EN 301 549

This apporach defined a more cotnained scope ot approachin SG2

Focused on critical tests building on the WCAG 3 tests...

See deck for clearl guidance for each topic discussed.

next was to consider User Needs b defining how user needs are affected based on FPS

Looked at propsed conformance models from AGWG Oct 2022 meeting.

Focused on concpet of proscriptive requirements.

Example Conformance modal was re-use of wendy's prior model.

Details can be fiound from Option 5 confoirmance model previously discussed.

Further detailing from the base Option 5.

Please see deck for the full readout. Speaker is presenting verbatimcontent.

Regarding proscriptive requirement - we can conside rit as prerequisite - without it provied, ther eis no accessibility regardless of context.

Speaker continues to present verbatim content from deck

<Poornima> I can take scribe for the next hour

Examples inlcude Control labels - method and critical test requirements defined.

Same for Caption and Adaptable views.

I apologize for my horrendous spelling

<Poornima> scribe: Poornima

Francis: continuing presentation, after that will speak to queue
... reading out slide 'Example mapping tests to criticality and functional performance statements'
... there's a lot more in the spreadsheet.. we went down to list of critical tests
... reading out 'Proposed changed to Editors draft'
... reading out 'Next steps: Defining the context'
... looking at different components, user journeys, looking at how different context changes, done a whole bunch of exercise there
... reading out 'Next steps: non-critical issues'
... need to find out 'what is non-critical issues'.. work is being done
... reading out 'Next steps: how best to assign severity'
... WCAG should be defining some of the severity, tools, etc.. need experts, like software developers to decide on some of it
... reading out 'Next steps: other approaches'

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the EN301 549 Functional Needs are not acceptable because the categories are not balanced. All cognitive is grouped in one need and that isn't

Francis: that's the end of my deck, relying on subgroup members to step in as available to answer any question comes up

<jon_avila> What is FAST?

Jeanne: great job, years ago, at the very highest level, disabilities are sensory, motor and cognitive..

<Rachael> FAST: https://w3c.github.io/fast/

Jeanne: the list was not acceptable, I agree the categories were very broad. But i completely reject the list was taken from there to take the equity factors

<Rachael> Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies - (FAST)

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Jeanne's concern for FPC limitations

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say does "context" include technology or is it only functional need?

Francis: oh yeah, there is too much to work through, en-31549 is smaller and usable we could work on, we are not saying we won't do that, FAST is too complicated, but can be worked upon

mbgower: First of all, 1st question is 'this context including technologies or functional needs?
... kind of surprised that 'image required alt text' called out critical issue

Francis: For the 1st question, technology would be part of context
... sarah, do you want to talk through image of text?

Sarah: Yes, the idea is we are working with concept of prescriptive reqs, the context of failure does not influence the test results
... the alternative may be any number of things, but might be not ideal, but might be irrelevant to the task
... thinking of prescriptive, the answer is yes or no
... lack of text alernative prevent user in completing tasks
... this brought this text alternative as critical issue
... regardless of context

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about difference in critical vs. cummulative perspective

Rachel: it's interesting to me, we started talking about critical issues, significantly severe than norm, looks like we are shifting to normal in wcag 2

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask 'How do you handle the issue that things might be critical for cognitive, language, and learning disabilities - that are not critical for others."

Rachel: as there are important for different reasons, is there a shift in thinking about critical or useful things?

Greggvan: Say I'm creating a webpage, or authoring a webpage, how would i test all the context?

Francis: Not sure if I'm 100% correct, users using like a small phone, see every context of use, design, building something, doing usability testing..
... you want to see every single context of use

Greggvan: so, context used to create guideline or confirming testing?

Sarah: with this concept of issue severity, trying to determine is failures of tests in non-conformance regardless of context.. as severity is a component of wcag 2

Greggvan: how do you handle the showstoppers e.g. clear language in cognitive but not showstopper for somebody?

Sarah: that's part of why we are doing this exercise? looking at different functional needs, otherwise, everything ends up being critical /perspective
... no answers for that yet, as more work needs to be done, need more experts

<mbgower> Yep, I second these comments between Gregg and Jon

Jon: similar to Gregg's question, think about context use for conformance...
... prescriptive issue may not be critical

Francis: prescriptive requirements would be critical
... doesn't matter what the context is, if it's on the page and may not be part of user flow, say video present along with flashing going on..

<bruce_bailey> after the discussion (between mbgower and sarahhorton) -- i agree not all missing alt is "critical error"

Francis: if it's there, it's critical

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about prognostication for using FAST

bruce_bailey: 2 comments, i dont think all missing context is critical, FAST breakdown of categories, gone through exercise of wcag 3

Francis: For FAST comment, FAST was big, lot of content, some that we didn't understand

<bruce_bailey> This is the SC to 508 FPC mapping mentioned earlier, which i had a hand in: https://www.section508.gov/content/mapping-wcag-to-fpc/

Francis: yeah, that would be definitely preferable, the problem is understanding things...
... it would be sensible for us to go through the list, and try whatever possible to map the criticality

<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to talk a bit about prescriptive reqs

<bruce_bailey> if the reality that FAST is too big / too much -- i can understand

Francis: it we want to use FAST, someone need to categorize first

Wendy: clarifying on prescriptive reqs, from the work I have done so far, it's only a pass/ fail condition
... there's no nuance, to put that way
... most prescriptive reqs is to like whether or not like yes/no question, there may be nuance after yes/no
... but the base of the prescriptive reqs is pass/fail

Alaistair: thinking historically, wcag 2 considered everything critical
... whether something accepted as prescriptive req, there would be critical.. multiple ways can be integrated, somethings can be critcal or not
... adjectival scoring, build critically to the levels, build granularity

<GreggVan> +1 to alastair's comment on granularity -- how to do that? hmmmmm interesting train of thought

Alaistair: there's a couple of ways, like scoping, understand scope from web point of view

<alastairc> GreggVan - By taking it down a level to the testing.

<jeanne> +1 to alastair and large +1 to the subgroup

* Alastairc: can you pls add your comments if I missed anything here

<GreggVan> Thanks to subgroup

Conformance models discussion (breakout session) https://docs.google.com/document/d/11nYPYXWtUkLMYfM4YMtGKF0W7sdhcnnO28slbm3y4q0/edit#

Rachel: Excellent work across the group

<alastairc> AlastairC: WCAG 2 at AA considered everything critical, even things like a list of bullets that look like bullets but aren't marked up as such. It is taking an average at the guideline level. Whether something was accepted as a WCAG 2 requirement depended on us agreeing that it would generally be 'critical'. There are lots of things not included that don't Group thinks you can be more nouanced if you are more granular, i.e. at the test

<alastairc> level. Could be integrated in multiple ways. Need to work on scoping and context.

Rachel: we talked through different conformance level, take a step back now, model 2 we tried to build to, and then model 5 build on that
... what I want to do today and next week is to step back from the ideas suggested here, talk through which of these having consensus, way to go, either this or that
... understand trade off space, non useful ideas
... we broken different pieces, but today starting to have conversations which of these are way to go, and which of us are not
... sharing screen now
... am on first column 'Structure'
... based on conversation we had, we can eliminate this idea
... the # 1, 'Each method is sufficient for testing the outcome'

<Wilco> +1 Jeanne, I quite like this idea

Jeanne: didn't understand the rationale for removing this? I thought it had lot of support

<jeanne> +1 to have the conversation

Rachel: yeah, that's why having the conversation to understand the preference
... and this convesation may not works for that reason, but we could try to jeanne's note

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say it really depends on whether you break out in the method or in test steps

Alaistairc: didn't understanding the conversation quite clear, for outcome and tests, didn't have content associated with itself, really felt like we need to define underneath the methods what the tests are

mbgower: until we figure out the bottomline, hard to bring out solution.. somewhere we need to have larger goals, that might apply in this context

Wendy: most reqs have baseline required options, some of them are optimized, take image alt text has non-empty name is the baseline

<Rachael> drive folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1X3Paz3WuK4yn09_ZN99P5IFl2-5yn5U9

Wendy: the structure i saw there is a similar idea, but not broken down the way i expected
... the baseline is say someone can not use the site or flow, and optimiztion is improving the experience

Gregg: in this specific implementation, trying to figure out, silver and gold are individual provision levels? or points or scoring problem we talked about?
... part of this is not sure if i achieve gold level, like that..

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to reference Test Reliability work

Rachel: today conversation is not revisiting the proposal, but think of the ideas of whether to go forward or not..

Jeanne: am seeing lot of similarities, test reliability group last year done bunch of work that would be interesting example to look at
... dropping some links in here

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that it sounds to me like we do not have consensus to remove

<jeanne> Changes to Natural Language Outcome https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2022/outcomes/changes-to-natural-language

Chuck: the specific question on the open regardless of how we are landing.. no consensus to remove anything at this point I feel

<jeanne> Method: HTML lang attribute indicates the language of text https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MjmGLfmqcfLgauqg0C3dRZG6KYT2dy5BQ69sz4xet6Q/edit#heading=h.suhwld62yx1t

jon_avila: there will be situations where situations and techniques are partially met for particular reqs

Relationship of Outcomes, Methods, and Test Sets

jon_avila: question is should that be tested under a method..
... in the end, you have to meet all the user needs to meet the outcome

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Chucks comment that last time we did not get to a point of eliminating any of the conformance proposals

ToddL: are we discussing the first example here? or all?

Rachel: I thought it was easy to eliminate based on previous conversation, but we are no where close to that now..
... ideally to discuss the ideas expressing the proposals..

<ToddL> I have a strong objection to badges. If that has anything to do with the conversation.

Wendy: multiple of these proposals, we like having test sets, granularity of tests

<mbgower> +1 to test sets and granularity

Wendy: like a method for whole test set, a method for partial tests

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Support test sets and granularity within testing

<wendyreid> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<mbgower> +1

+1

<jeanne> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<JenStrickland> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Wilco> 0 test sets hasn't been defined as far as I know

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 nice observation about test sets

Rachel: seeing postive support, thanks again Wendy

<GreggVan> yes what exactly is a test set. where is the definition?

<bruce_bailey> (i took liberty to bold in document)

<ToddL> 0 we should have a definition of what test sets are

<mbgower> 'the concept of test sets'

<bruce_bailey> "test set(s)" mentioned in 3 of 5 proposals

Greggvan: we should probably talking about at this point, write the definition, as people may have different interepretations of 'test sets'

Rachel: what other concepts do this group have consensus for other proposals?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about badges ?

<alastairc> I think we setup the two approaches and explore each, coming to a complete set of proposals.

Badges

<Rachael> akc GreggVan

<jeanne> +1 to Gregg's comments for Badges only as an addon above minimum conformance

Greggvan: I had included Badges, if it's above conformance level, it may be hard all the way up to silver or gold, badges above conformance are good, and badges below conformance or not

ToodL: I oppose badges, because people may stick on to the badges for not doing the further work, and just satisfying the bare minimum

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to speak to badges

<Chuck> muted?

jon_avila: say site having a11y icon, unfortunately people use it incorrect way, and some may identify the site has done something for accessibility..

Jeanne: i like to speak in favor of Badges, has the potential of encouraging, agree with others saying no badges for below the conformance

<kirkwood> agree that badges below compliance will be misinterpreted

Jeanne: as we think about how we are going to severity , requeirements, we can use badges to group those, series of steps towards goals

<Rachael> strawpoll: 1) Badges above minimum conformance 2) No badges 3) Something else

Jeanne: it gives us flexibility, don't want to see off the table

<wendyreid> 1

<ToddL> 2

<jon_avila> 1

<alastairc> 1

<Ryladog> 1

<GreggVan> 1

<ShawnT> 1

<jeanne> 1

1

<Wilco> 2

<Azlan> 1

<sarahhorton> 1

<Francis_Storr> 1

<JenStrickland> 2

<bruce_bailey> 1

<Chuck> 1 (continue exploring, not necessarily supporting it)

<kirkwood> 1

<laura> 2

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: If badges, only after minimum conformance

<GreggVan> thanks good meeting

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/PWET/PWETF/
Default Present: Chuck, Rachael, jeanne, Jay_Mullen, Francis_Storr, GreggVan, alastairc, Azlan, tzviya, ShawnT, ToddL, kirkwood, Poornima, Lauriat, sarahhorton, jon_avila, Mikayla, bruce_bailey, Cyborg, JenStrickland, Laura_Carlson, wendyreid, Katie_Haritos-Shea, maryjom, mbgower, Raf
Present: Chuck, Rachael, jeanne, Jay_Mullen, Francis_Storr, GreggVan, alastairc, Azlan, tzviya, ShawnT, ToddL, kirkwood, Poornima, Lauriat, sarahhorton, jon_avila, Mikayla, bruce_bailey, Cyborg, JenStrickland, Laura_Carlson, wendyreid, Katie_Haritos-Shea, maryjom, mbgower, Raf
Found Scribe: Jay_Mullen
Inferring ScribeNick: Jay_Mullen
Found Scribe: Poornima
Inferring ScribeNick: Poornima
Scribes: Jay_Mullen, Poornima
ScribeNicks: Jay_Mullen, Poornima

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: 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.)