<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2023-07-25

<laura> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<AWK> +AWK

<Detlev> Scribe: Detlev

<laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<dj> present_

Introductions...

<Rachael> Bailey White and Easton Brundage are joining us as observers today from the Library of Congress.

Chuck: any future topics?
... no meeting next week

<dj> scribe: dj

<Detlev> ...followed by two training sessions for the new procedures / processes

<Detlev> ..they will be repeats, attend either

<scribe> scribe: Detlev

<Ben_Tillyer> hurray!

<Daniel_HE> Where is the info for these training sessions?

Chuck: last Thursday 2.2 was published as a proposed recommendation

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention U.S. 508 survey due 8-11

WCAG 3 a new draft was published

<bruce_bailey> From hero on www.Section508.gov -- Government-wide Section 508 Assessment

<bruce_bailey> https://www.section508.gov/manage/section-508-assessment/index.html#key-dates

Bruce: There is a 508 survey wrapping up soon
... public reportig not due till december

Chuck: Any other announcements?
... to Shadis question, yes meetings will resume Aug 22

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer

Rachael: Sending out zoom links for traiinngn

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

<m_gifford> Worth noting that the questions are pretty amazing. Thanks @bruce_bailey for highlighting this. Check out the 105 questions here https://www.section508.gov/manage/section-508-assessment/criteria-01/

Rachael: there is also an agenda page to all events

Guidance for Policy subgroup mid-point presentation (30 Minutes)

<alastairc> If you have your own calendar invite that includes the zoom link, it may not work after this week, keep an eye on the emails.

Presentation by Shadi on guidance for policy makers

<shadi> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aKV1IvHoqlUkJekki2STa6CrS9jiTJfy0bHukbMMXYc/edit#slide=id.g25ae623ede5_0_0

Shadi: Started several weeks ago
... objective was looking at use cases for WCAG 3, review it
... draw conclusions for policy makers
... site product might be ideas for the conformance concept for WCAG 3
... the idea is not to define exceptions from WCA

>g

scribe: Look at the use cases document (link in presentation)
... there are situations where confirming is a challenge, like bugs

<bruce_bailey> s/will quote @mgower/@m_gifford

scribe: other example, company acquiring content and needing time to make it accessible
... so what are conclusions from use cases?
... exploring accessibility beyond conformance considerations
... how can informative guidance along with WCAG help?
... look at all hat more broadly
... conformannce vs. legal compliance
... should not be used interchangeably
... intent is not to write an actual policy
... actual approach via two phases: 1. review use cases, brain storm solutions
... discussion about tech requirement regarding user input, app should check for accessibility - to mitigate third party inaccessibility
... how do you identify issues, remove bugs
... so guidance is just a sketch
... moving from rough outline: background, intro, then focusing on bugs and scope of responsibility
... all still quite rough and up for discussion
... not yet reviewed by AGWG yet

<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14J2ok2hJutcsVfkqn6eoN0nyC9TKVj5vnMjeWzXizl4

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for the link to the outline

scribe: backgrounnd describes the problem
... some on terminology (feasibility of conformance)
... (reading out some content)
... policy makers can pick approaches e.g. regarding bugs

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about "not feasible"

scribe: AGWG has been asked whether the work is worth continuing
... initial response is yes

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to propose next steps

scribe: developing this resource helps define the boundary between policy and technical conformance
... wcag 3 will take some time - a decade until it may be policy - would this doc help current practices until WCAG is completed?

Chuck: will implement a conversational approach to queueing

AWK: thanks Shadi, tremendously useful, we should invest additional time
... critically needed
... no regulation being developed so guidance very valuable

Rachael: My understanding where group was going (difference between conformance / compliance) - concerned about some parts of it, needs a more detailed review

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to clarify if w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-use-cases is place holder or meant to me live ?

Bruce: +1 to Rachael'S concerns
... is there a doc on TR space alreadyß

<shadi> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14J2ok2hJutcsVfkqn6eoN0nyC9TKVj5vnMjeWzXizl4/edit

Shadi: let me past in do link

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to clarify 'policy' and, depending on answer, is there some of this content that could live elsewhere?

Kevin: what do you mean by policy?

<bruce_bailey> From https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/ there is link to "latest published version" in TR space

Shadi: good question - we recognize broad range of policy making context

Kevin: Regulatory policy more problematic space for guidance
... makign an organizational policy is very different
... we have content on making organizational policy so this may fit in with that

Jeanne: interesting work, but premature to judge before we have solid guidelines - too early for that

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to propose next steps

Jeanne: concerned about impact on harmonization - we need other work to do first (substantive)

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Jeanne concern that timing for work is premature

Chuck: on thing I noticed was "not feasible" - could be construed as an endorsement of exemption

<laura> +1 to chuck

<Cyborg> +1 to what Chuck just said - to state challenges rather than conclusions on feasibility

Chuck: perhaps better to state the challenges
... not askingn for the conversation to be concluded
... we could create a GitHub based conversation to review and comment this document

Cybele: some of the division between policy or WCAG prejudges whether there could be options for organizational practices

<laura> +1 to Cybele

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say it would help to have a parallel stream that we occasionally come back to, could be an important escape valve for some guidelines.

Chuck: Shadi - any response jump in

<bruce_bailey> +1 for Chuck and Cybele's concern for feasible versus difficult

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say it is not too early

Alastair: hold agree with Jeanne - we need to write up WCAG 3 - but it could be a good parallel stream to come back to - could be a relief valve for Guidelines that seem difficult to nail down

<Rachael> +1 to finding a way to capture when policy may be a better way to approach an issue

<wendyreid> +1 to Alastair, the normative reqs are the "what", policy dictates "how"

AWK: it's not too early - it is needed today, long ago, around adoptions for guidelines 2, 2.1 3 - we need discussions with policy makers

<m_gifford> I agree with AWK's point here. Not to take away from the work with WCAG 3.

AWK: all websites must meet 2.2 is very hard or impossible to achieve, that is why discussion is needed

<alastairc> If WCAG is the measurment of accessibility, and policy is the motivation for organisations, so organisational policy is how to meet both!

Wilco: chicken and egg problem - we need to work on all of these things - for the next charter we need everything started up so it can be widely reviewed at the end of charter

<m_gifford> There are very few sites that even cover what automated tools can catch, let alone all of the ones that need humans.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention overlap with https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/

<wendyreid> +1 Makoto, would love to see

Makoto: in Japan we had guidelines for organizations regarding conformance, level, assessments - if Japanese guidelines an be of help, I'd be happy

<Cyborg> +1 to Makoto sharing these too thanks

Bruce: Struggling with the conflation between uses cases and policy and conformance chalenges

<laura> +1 to Makoto

<m_gifford> That would be great Makoto. Hopefully you can provide them in English. Thanks!

Shadi: Thanks Makoto, love to look at that work, follow up separately;

<dj> Makoto++

Shadi: as to Bruce's question, this is a different approach, not looking at the conformance model itself, there is no pre-empting

<Cyborg> could still be in WCAG3 conformance if we use organizational practices

Shadi: if there will be a level of severity at the end, it still needs a measure of prioritization in the organization which cannot be part of the guidelines

<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to ask a slightly meta question about order of work for WCAG3

<bruce_bailey> i agree that severity , including risk , are on-going concern

Wendy: Felt like what Jeanne said - we cannot do things sequentially, but there are a lot of open questions, so what is the plan? What is the order of operations, esp. regarding the guidelines?

Chuck: Interesting questions, but question closed

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to speak about this as the policy maker

Tzviya: A lot is missing from implementation npspective, there is no technical debt there

Shadi: The subgroup only had a number of weeks to come up with an outline, so the question is is this worth pursuing or not? Different opinions there

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Tzviya that "implementation guidance" -- as compared to *policy* guidance -- feels correct

<bruce_bailey> s/no technical depth there/no technical debt there

<LoriO> I'm getting a message that the speaker queue is closed, comments here. I believe that this is a very worthwhile document.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about my proposal and allow us to move on

Poornima: Many scenarios aout compliance so this is about policy so implentation approach may be a misnomer

Chuck: Next steps: will be put into Github for continuing discussion
... will propose what the plan for the next weeks will be

Mgower: wondering whether Github is the right place (?)

<mbgower> Thanks to the subgroup for tackling this.

Shadi: Last word big thanks to subgroup participants!

WCAG2ICT Survey Review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Third-content-review-by-AGWG2/

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Third-content-review-by-AGWG2/results

Chuck: not discussed with Mary Jo how to address this

MJ: we have added all the content of SCs, so close to go out for public review soon
... currently processing feedback also in email
... things went pretty well, some SC there was little concern or comments
... some editorial comments on set of web pages and terms, has been incorporated
... comments by Alastair regarding things that haven't been addressed, will follow up on that
... some concerns regarding the includes of the intent from WCAG SCs - this was the decision not keep it that way in April
... some of the links in included content does not work
... added a note that this problem is recognized but not yet fixed

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to propose how I handle this survey

Chuck: going through substantive comments in survey

Question 1 - Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow

Chuck: applying to to non-web / software

<Cyborg> are we now done WCAG 3 or will we be revisiting it in this meeting? time conflict, so need to check, thanks

yes

<Chuck> detlev: General concern, I had an email exchange, there may be situations where this cannot be met, where it would fail. Such that you cannot have reflow in software. If not applicable, would that be a case where it is not included?

<Cyborg> Chuck or someone - please let me know thanks

<alastairc> Cyborg - We'll be getting to the WCAG 3 Error notifiations after this topic

<Cyborg> ok thanks Alastair - also forgot how to send PMs here

<Chuck> ...That applies most of the time. Just wondered if it is taken out because it does not apply, or if there is someway where pre-conditions or EN 301 549... looks at each SC and establishes whether or not it can be appplied.

<Chuck> ...if you cannot meet reflow, it would not apply. It basically begs question whether or not it should be in WCAG2ICT or taken out.

Chuck: Did you come to a conclusion - there are other cases with the same language - the EN handled it differently - cannot be dropped fro WCAG2ICT entirely

<m_gifford> Sorry to have to leave early.

In public comments we could ask for examples

<scotto> +1 to detlev's concerns.

<dj> +1

MJ: asking questions about reflow might be helpful

Alastair: Text sizing might be the alternative to reflow in some contexts

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that didn't EN handle it on their own w/o existing WCAG2ICT excluding?

Alastair: we need scenarios /examples where it is impossible to meet

<alastairc> The EN came out after 2.2 but before WCAG2ICT included 2.1

<jon_avila> I don't agree with removing reflow because it doesn't fit across the board.

Rachael: Needs clarification - whether it is N.A: or failing

<Rachael> When the content technology and platform software restrict users from adjusting the size of an application window or its content.

Rachael: I'm a little concerned about above phrase
... if you can't do it , you are no longer used to do it - seems circular

Chuck: Shall we tweak it before or after review, is the question

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to gathering more data points.

<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<ChrisLoiselle> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

Chuck: On outstanding question, do we want to tweak / wordsmith this before wide review or no?
... what is the tweak / wordsmith to do?

Rachael: I propose whether we meant (to Detlev's) whether it is applicable or not. Then, whether it should be in a secondary bullet or not.

<Rachael> I want to add though that I will not stop wide review personally for either of those.

Chuck: Are these recommendations sufficient enough?

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended SC 1.4.10 Reflow for WCAG2ICT wide review

Chuck: Amending SC 1.4.10 WCAG2ICT not normative text.

<Chuck> +1

MJ: per the updates discussed, correct?

Chuck: Yes.

<alastairc> +1

+1 to the points mentioned.

<dj> -1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> +1

<laura> +1

Chuck: will follow up with DJ after votes come in.

<jon_avila> +1 I will be interested to learn what the wider community things of CSS pixels vs. device independent pixels

<ShawnT> +1

DJ: The amendment is to leave as is ? If technology doesn't support it is a fail?
... I think it should be inapplicable vs. a fail.

<scotto> +1 to DJ

<mbgower> +1

<Makoto> +1

Chuck: There are more plus ones to -1s but will wait for more votes to come in .

<alastairc> There might be a wider conversation to have about whether WCAG 2.x can have 'inapplicable', as the authors say it's only pass/fail...

Chuck: accepting for wide review, but more opportunities to comment as we move forward.

RESOLUTION: Accept amended SC 1.4.10 Reflow for WCAG2ICT wide review

Question 2 - Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast

<Detlev> review feedback will certainly be useful, whatever the outcome, so +1

Chuck: ON 1.4.11 non-text contrast , opens to Detlev.

Detlev: No, that is fine.

MJ: No email conversations as well.

<Chuck> propose RESOLUTION: Accept SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast for WCAG2ICT wide review

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

+1

<laura> +1

<Detlev> +1

<mbgower> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<LoriO> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast for WCAG2ICT wide review

Question 3 - Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures

Chuck: Opens to Detlev on 2.5.1 pointer gestures.

Detlev: Prototyping conversation on PDF readers or documents accepting pointer gestures if scripting is present. I don't have examples, but may be possible

Chuck: Is it an objection to wide review?

Detlev: No.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures for WCAG2ICT wide review

MJ: No other responses objecting .

Chuck: proposes resolution.

<jon_avila> +1

<Chuck> +1

+1

<Detlev> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<dj> +1

<LoriO> +1

Chuck: Anybody have concerns?

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures for WCAG2ICT wide review

<ShawnT> +1

Question 4 - Success Criterion 4.1.3 Status Messages

Chuck: moving on to 4.1.3 status messages.

MJ: Greg had an editorial change. I took care of that fix.

AWK: Question on supports status notifications context outside of web and markup languages. What does it mean in other technologies?

Alastair: iOS and Android have notifications like that.

MJ: Implemented markup languages . We have note if not using markup languages, that status messages have it programmatically exposed. User agent or platform software is how we talk to it.

AWK: We are saying this applies to everything that has ability to have author to have programmatic access? Was that the intent?

MJ: If platform supports, then yes.

Alastair: When I read it, yes, it would.
... the markup language may be problematic. I'm not sure if ePub supports?

DJ: I want to say I support on all platforms vs. the if implemented in markup language.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended SC 4.1.3 Status Messages for WCAG2ICT

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept glossary term "style property" for WCAG2ICT wide review

Chuck: amends proposal to include phrase of wide review.

<laura> +1

<Chuck> +1

+1

<AWK> 0

<Rachael> +1

<dj> +1

<Detlev> +1

<jon_avila> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept glossary term "style property" for WCAG2ICT wide review

<alastairc> +1, would be good to poke some people from various platforms for comment

<scotto> 0

Chuck: Glossary terms is next topic.

Question 5 - Glossary term: style property

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept glossary term "style property" for WCAG2ICT wide review

<dj> +1

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1

+1

<alastairc> +1 (Mary-Jo dealt with some editorial suggestions from me)

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> +1

<scotto> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Makoto> +1

<ShawnT> +1

Chuck: Any concerns?

RESOLUTION: Accept glossary term "style property" for WCAG2ICT wide review

MJ: editorials only and already done.

Question 6 - Glossary terms: "set of Web pages" and associated "set of" terms

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended glossary terms "set of web pages" and associated "set of terms" for WCAG2ICT wide review

<Chuck> +1

<dj> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<scotto> +1

<laura> +1

+1

<Rachael> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended glossary terms "set of web pages" and associated "set of terms" for WCAG2ICT wide review

topic of 2.5.8 target size min

Question 7 - Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)

MJ: question was around on CSS pixel and approximate size conversation
... might be worth including a measurement size.
... recommending density independent pixels. There was concern that it may not be equivalent. I believe Mitch did some testing and there was only slight variation.
... we could ask for input on wide review for density conversation.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) for WCAG2ICT wide review and ask for comments and recommendations

Chuck: We would ask for comments and recommendations in the wide review.
... acknowledging Detlev's comments as well.

<alastairc> Would be good to ask that question in review - are there platforms where the platform-default does not equate to CSS pixels. (Anything which has a browser will probably equate, but closed platforms may not.)

Detlev: My question was from practical perspective, say mobile device and screen shot and equivalent width. In Android , size app is available. Density is close so may be equivalent for more useful for applying WCAG2ICT

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) for WCAG2ICT wide review and ask for comments and recommendations.

<alastairc> +1

<Chuck> +1

+1

<Rachael> +1

<Detlev> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Makoto> +1

Chuck: Any concerns?

RESOLUTION: Accept SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) for WCAG2ICT wide review and ask for comments and recommendations.

<jon_avila> +1

WCAG2ICT Now what?

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Take WCAG2ICT to pre-cfc, followed by CFC

Chuck: We are thinking the pre-CfC would be worthwhile per the above conversations.

+1

<Chuck> +1

<Rachael> +1

<laura> +1

<dj> +1

<maryjom> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Detlev> I not that there have been very few responses to the survey.

<Wilco_> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Rachael> And kudos to the taskforce for getting through a lot of hard work

<AWK> +1

RESOLUTION: Take WCAG2ICT to pre-cfc, followed by CFC

<jon_avila> +1

<ShawnT> +1

Chuck: We can discuss as an aside on participation of surveys.

<Detlev> good

Chuck: We will meet as chairs on the pre-CfC with MJ.

<maryjom> Thanks everyone who did give WCAG2ICT input!

Rachael: Thank you on weighing in on topic within GitHub process. Please email us as chairs if need be.

<laura> Bye. Thanks everyone.

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/Aug 2/Aug 22/
FAILED: s/will quote @mgower/@m_gifford/
Succeeded: s/interchanginngly/interchangeably/
Succeeded: s/coninuing/continuing/
Succeeded: s/technical depth/technical debt/
Succeeded: s/Sviya/Tzviya/
FAILED: s/no technical depth there/no technical debt there/
Succeeded: s/sorry for typos!!!//
Succeeded: s/will follow up on tha/will follow up on that/
Succeeded: s/askingn questons about reflow/asking questions about reflow/
Succeeded: s/fighting with zoom, joining shortly//
Succeeded: s/Does this need to be scribed??//
Default Present: dj, ShawnT, shadi, jeanne, Rachael, Wilco, maryjom, Laura_Carlson, Chuck, alastairc, jon_avila, Makoto, LoriO, mbgower, scotto, JustineP, ToddL, kevin, kirkwood, MichaelC, sarahhorton, Detlev, Jaunita_George, JenStrickland_, bruce_bailey, AWK, Shawn(part), !, Francis_Storr, ChrisLoiselle, GN, David_Middleton, Jason_K, Jennie, Ben_Tillyer, wendyreid, m_gifford, Daniel_HE, DavidMiddleton, Poornima, tzviya, Cyborg, ShaneDittmar, bailey, easton
Present: dj, ShawnT, shadi, jeanne, Rachael, Wilco, maryjom, Laura_Carlson, Chuck, alastairc, jon_avila, Makoto, LoriO, mbgower, scotto, JustineP, ToddL, kevin, kirkwood, MichaelC, sarahhorton, Detlev, Jaunita_George, JenStrickland_, bruce_bailey, AWK, Shawn(part), !, Francis_Storr, ChrisLoiselle, GN, David_Middleton, Jason_K, Jennie, Ben_Tillyer, wendyreid, m_gifford, Daniel_HE, DavidMiddleton, Poornima, tzviya, Cyborg, ShaneDittmar, bailey, easton
Regrets: Gundula Niemann, Sara Horton, Todd Libby, Rain Michaels, Jennifer Strickland, Jaunita
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: dj
Inferring ScribeNick: dj
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle
Scribes: Detlev, dj, ChrisLoiselle
ScribeNicks: Detlev, dj, ChrisLoiselle

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.)