<knights> (Eloisa Guerrero) present+
<dj> scribe+
<dj> alastairc: CSUN next week
<dj> ... does anyone know how to join the WhatsApp group?
<dj> Jaunita_George: yes; I'll share the link in chat via /me
<dj> ... add me to WhatsApp and I'll add you to group
<dj> alastairc: announcements?
<dj> Rachael: next week is a working meeting
<dj> alastairc: two high-level topics today, and then next part is working on a document
<dj> ... we'll continue that next week
<dj> ... not a decision-making meeting
<dj> ... https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/54
<dj> ... since we've started, we've mostly been working on outcomes
<dj> ... options:
<dj> ... 1. update editor's draft
<dj> ... (very much a draft in w3c terms; doesn't even need concensus)
<dj> ... 2. update working draft
<dj> ... (public)
<dj> ... we're currently at Placeholder level
<dj> ... 0. not making an update
<dj> ... there is some pressure from W3C to publish something
<dj> ... publishing also allows us to get early feedback from a11y community
<dj> ... [reads github comments]
<dj> ... anyone have any other comments before decision?
<dj> Rachael: clarification: this isn't a decision to publish
<Chuck> dj: You said there is pressure to publish something. What happens if we don't?
<dj> alastairc: the longer you go without publishing, the more W3C management will ask you what you're doing
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we'vd been asked for quarterly
<dj> Rachael: we were being requested to publish quarterly
<dj> ... we set an informal goal of twice a year
<dj> ... that seemed reasonable
<dj> alastairc: we've also had some big tasks to get out of the way
<dj> ... recently working through scratchpad and organizing them
<dj> ... so seems like a good point to publish
<alastairc> Poll: We should update (1) Nothing, (2) The Editor's draft, (3) the Editor's and Working draft (4) The editor's draft and a filtered set of outcomes for the working draft.
<wendyreid> 2
<dj> 2
<Rachael> 4, 3
<Chuck> 4,3
<mike_beganyi> 2, 3
<ljoakley> presetn+
<dj> GreggVan: the working draft is more refined, right?
<dj> alastairc: yes; it is the more public one
<Azlan> 2, 3
<alastairc> 3,4
<dj> GreggVan: isn't the editor's draft updated all the time because that's where we work?
<laura> 4, 3
<dj> alastairc: it hasn't been yet; we've been working on Google Docs mostly
<Frankie> 3
<Chuck> 4 two's, 4 fours, 1 3
<sarahhorton> 4,3
<GreggVan> 4
<Chuck> 4 two's, 6 fours, 1 3
<dj> ... in general from this point we should be mostly working on the editors draft via PRs
<dj> wendyreid: question about option 4:
<dj> ... normally updating the working draft just takes the lasted version of the editor's draft
<dj> ... how would we do a filtered set of outcomes?
<dj> alastairc: we would probably start the editor's draft with the filtered set, then update the working draft, then update the editors draft again
<dj> ... or we could do a separate branch
<dj> Chuck: 4 & 3 are very similar
<dj> alastairc: people who wanted just 2: any specific concerns with working draft?
<dj> wendyreid: i wanted to see the state of the editor's draft first, then discuss
<GreggVan> +1 to that
<Azlan> +1 to @wendyreid
<Jennie_Delisi> +1
<dj> alastairc: that will be a natural part of the process
<dj> wendyreid++
<dj> ... we would go through the editor's draft before we get to the working draft
<dj> ... anyone opposed to that process?
<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: We will bring a PR back to the group for the editors draft, then look at a refined update to the Working Draft.
<dj> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<maryjom> +1
<ljoakley> +1
<Rachael> +1
<knights> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Azlan> +1
<wendyreid> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<ShaneDittmar> +1
<Makoto> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<laura> +1
RESOLUTION: We will bring a PR back to the group for the editors draft, then look at a refined update to the Working Draft.
<scotto> +1
<StefanS> +1
<dj> ... exception for when you cannot achieve something in an accessible way
<dj> ... we were thinking about a way for this to apply across outcomes, rather than saying it each time
<dj> ... [reads comments]
<alastairc> Suggested wording "Where the information conveyed or the functionality provided cannot be achieved in another way that would conform, the 'outcome' does not apply."
<dj> ... some outcomes you don't want to apply (seizures and physical reactions)
<dj> ... but we could also specify those separately (similar to non-interference outcome now)
<dj> GreggVan: strongly apposed.
<dj> ... as soon as you allow that, people will say "well there is no other way"
<jon_avila> I agree with Gregg's comments - I was going to say the same thing.
<dj> ... they could just use (example) Vander Script which does not provide any accessibility functionality, so there is no other way
<dj> ... we use the essential exception in just a few places where we know there will be exceptions (such as financial stuff)
<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
<laura> +1 to Gregg
<dj> ... currently not applicable is better than blanket essential exception
<dj> ... this also gets into policy ---
<dj> ... we're saying that it's okay for some things to be inaccessible
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the technical not being a way out
<dj> alastairc: this is more for scenarios where (for example) scientific graphs or maps need some kind of graduated scale
<dj> ... there are potential alternatives, but you couldn't achieve that functionality in the same way while also meeting color contrast
<dj> ... also retyping a password is essential for security reasons
<dj> kirkwood: i don't fully understand your third point
<dj> ... but i strongly agree with what was said previously by others
<dj> ... i think this is very dangerous
<dj> Rachael: (chair hat off)
<dj> ... i agree this is both potentially challenging, but also provides benefit to plain language
<dj> ... i also think that creating it's own section around the exception has the potential for us to write it in a more specific way to prevent driving a truck through it
<Chuck> +1 we don't have to commit, but I'd like to try
<dj> ... i'd like to at least have the discussion of how we might do it, instead of just saying we can't do it
<alastairc> scribe+
<Chuck> dj: along the line of what Gregg said, this reminds me... ultimately voted in favor of not allowing technologies that don't comply to be considered accessible.
<Chuck> dj: Second thing, there might be a way that we can do it, but I fear that we might just miss the mark when we have the discussions. We could end up pushing something through that can be abused.
<dj> GreggVan: i don't think it's a good idea to pull out exceptions
<dj> ... example: changing Sans script (on a font page)
<dj> ... makes no sense on a page displaying fonts
<dj> ... we need to be able to say it in context
<jon_avila> I agree with Gregg - folks will miss the exceptions if they are somewhere else for this to be readable.
<dj> ... they're not going to look way up above in some other thing
<dj> ... i think details about the exception need to be right there
<dj> ... i also think that helps with plain language because all the relevant info is in one place
<dj> ... 2: if we do this, we need to say that this is a policy issue and we don't have authority
<dj> ... i'm concerned about places where things can be called accessible (because the conform to WCAG) despite not meeting the criteria
<dj> alastairc: i'm sensing some resistance
<kirkwood> +1 to Greggs point… not our place to know/determine when something is not accessible
<dj> ... where it destroys the point of what you're trying to do (fonts example), is that still problematic?
<dj> ... compromise could be: could we start with a standard exception where applicable?
<dj> GreggVan: for a long time, movie makers said adding captions destroyed the intent of their captions because of suspense of disbelief and artistic license
<jon_avila> that's the same thing the writers said when folks who are blind wanted text to speech on ebooks.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to echo what I think Alastair proposed
<dj> ... we fought for years to get past that objection
<dj> Chuck: alastairc I thought you said 'let's create standard some language which doesn't apply, and then see at the end if it's applies to enough criteria to be considered universial'
<dj> ... is that accurate?
<Rachael> +1 to creating a text template for exceptions to help with writing.
<kirkwood> “essential” to whom?
<Rachael> a+
<dj> alastairc: I think so. but with addition that language could very across outcomes
<jon_avila> It seems like this is something can be done at the end after looking at the exceptions to determine if it can be done.
<alastairc> In WCAG 2 we have "unless X is essential", how is this different?
<dj> GreggVan: there is some resistance, but this is obviously important to you. why do you feel that way?
<kirkwood> +1
<dj> Rachael: i still think it's worth talking about creating a standard exception for when it applies
<dj> ... that way subgroups can use the already-written exception when the identify something that needs one, instead of writing one on their own
<dj> ... that feels like a separate, second option
<dj> alastairc: i see three options:
<dj> ... 1. universal essential exception
<dj> ... 2. no standard exception; custom exception per outcome
<dj> ... 3. standardized language for people to start with, and can let us no if it doesn't work for their case
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that we already have that in WCAG 2, how is this different?
<dj> Chuck: GreggVan: what you said about policy changed my mind
<dj> ... alastairc's current proposal isn't counter to that
<jon_avila> It would depend on what the shared language says.
<dj> ... it just gives us a starting point
<dj> alastairc: just to point out, there is a standardized definition of essential in WCAG 2.x
<dj> scotto: i really do appreciate the third option (standardized language that could be applied or adapted)
<dj> ... i get asked all the time what's essential
<jon_avila> The template should also allow for no allowing an essential exception.
<dj> ... i think a standard definition would be really helpful for people
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say instead of standardized langauage perhaps rules
<dj> GreggVan: I agree with the new approach
<dj> ... one suggestion: we talk about guidelines and recommendations instead of using a template
<dj> ... example: "guidelines for writing exceptions" instead of "exception template"
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask why the current WCAG 2 exception is split into two?
<dj> ... that would also lead to simpler language because subgroups wouldn't have to shove their language into a template
<GRAHAM> can we add a thing that says "the first rule of exceptions is that you shouldn't use exceptions" like we do with ARIA though! hehe
<dj> alastairc: sounds like there aren't objections to starting off with language on how to approach exceptions
<alastairc> "if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform "
<dj> ... why does the current WCAG 2.x exception have two haves to it?
<dj> ... https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG33/#dfn-essential
<dj> GreggVan: the reason was: a really good test of whether something is essential is whether taking it off removes the purpose of the page
<dj> ... example: taking of font from font page removes purpose of page
<dj> ... un-illuminated illuminated font doesn't remove purpose of page normally, unless it's an example of what an illuminated page looks like
<kirkwood> removes the meaning of the content
<dj> alastairc: thank you
<dj> ... we could come up with something similar and simplier
<dj> ... any other questions or comments on this topic?
<dj> ... (none)
<GRAHAM> document isnt accessible for me, do i need to request access?
<alastairc> Oops, try again, should be viewable
<dj> Rachael: we've been working on outcomes
<Jaunita_George> When is the working session at CSUN?
<Rachael> Writing Testable Outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sugAtqie_x1XqHDZo1Im7ftDNllWeRV_ty4PULeoTV0/edit#heading=h.xghfays6dhl8
<dj> ... we thought, since we have CSUN next week anyway, why don't we as a group prepare an outcome before hand
<jon_avila> I can access it.
<GRAHAM> all fixed now Alastair, thanks
<dj> ... (please don't edit "Writing Testable WCAG 3.0 Outcomes")
<dj> ... we have a lot of exploratory content
<dj> ... we'd like to develop it further
<dj> ... some steps:
<dj> ... 1. look back at prior work
<dj> ... 2. come up with examples and edge cases
<dj> ... the key is the edge cases
<dj> ... for example: text alternatives edge case might be whether text is decorative
<dj> ... today we're developing test cases and edge cases that can be used to create rough outline of edge outcome (next week)
<Rachael> scratchpad: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1znxw1MZQrWV1pM9G7aQTRRzNkuM3APVdGcdv78WPiso/edit#heading=h.txiccm4cn4nl
<dj> ... chairs are looking at that now and will come back to the group in ~2 weeks
<dj> ... idea that came out of the subgroup: maybe decorative images still need to be presented (user controlled)
<dj> ... - AI alt text needs to be editible
<dj> ... - text alternative needs enough context
* alastairc yep
<dj> ... - image type (photo, icon, etc) indicated
<dj> ... - images have text alternative
<Jennie_Delisi> * Thank you to whoever added the AI editable bullet. That's fantastic.
<dj> ... we're just going to be working on "images have text alternatives"
<jon_avila> What is not-visual mean?
<dj> ... questions?
<alastairc> scribe+ ashleyfirth
<dj> GreggVan: is your intent to add the outcomes at the end of this?
<dj> Rachael: our intent right now is just to work on "images have text alternatives", but i wanted to indicate the other outcomes so they don't get lost
<dj> GreggVan: I meant are we linking to the outcomes from this document, or are we working somewhere else
<dj> ... the document being "writing tests and outcomes"
<dj> Rachael: "writing tests and outcomes" is the instructions
jon_avila: Question: what does "not visual alternatives" mean? Does this include things like sound that are not text?
<dj> gpellegrino: cases where, in books, and image is described by surrounding text, like "in Figure 1, something something something"
<dj> scribe: ashleyfirth
alastairc: Not sure where the non visual part comes from?
jon_avila: A little confused, seems like alternatives we're talking about are not just programmatical? Trying to understand scope
Rachael: A great place to start
is to understand the scope of this. Multimedia is already
broken out (audio, video)
... I think our examples will determine our scope
alastairc: So are we looking for examples and edge cases?
Rachael: Yes. We could work as a group which will be more inclusive but slower, break out and sort them individually, or break into groups
dj: Prefer if we don't all work on the doc at once, creates confusion
GRAHAM: If I run an AI company and create an image, should I need to provide alt text for the images I create?
<jon_avila> Most AI companies create images based on text.
alastairc: Emojis could also be an edge case
dj: Emojis are characters in unicode, so they're always read
<GreggVan> +1
<GRAHAM> Yes @jon_avila, for clarity I mean if I generate 4 images from a prompt as an AI provider, should I have to describe the contents of the image (is it even possible!) as they could all be slightly different even from the same prompt.
<ashleyfirth_> Duff_Johnson_: Is ASCII art an example of what you're describing?
<ashleyfirth_> jon_avila: Not really. Something like Google Docs where text is drawn on the screen rather than programmatically shown
<rscano> at point 5 typo: ACII ART
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: How about something that is AI generated, but generated as both image and audio? Does that count as multimedia?
<ashleyfirth_> dj: Are you referring to special characters?
<ashleyfirth_> jon_avila: No. My understanding is how some things are rendered on a screen appears to be text, but is actually being drawn on the screen as an image
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: Using the doc we're looking at as an example, it's text rendered on a canvas
<dj> special characters (role of text)
<ashleyfirth_> kirkwood: An edge case could be a visual representation between two text fields, such as a red gradient
<ashleyfirth_> GRAHAM: An edge case would be code examples that are shared as images on social media
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: Importantly, the structure of that text within the image wouldn't be represented by alt text, such as headings
<ashleyfirth_> jon_avila: Maps could be another example
<ashleyfirth_> jon_avila: Anything where the view on the screen changes, such as games or moving a map, the new view would need to be described
<kirkwood> examples may be: family tree, process flow diagram
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Did some research a few years ago. Found a big difference between exploratory images and images portraying a set message
<ashleyfirth_> GRAHAM: SVG's that are served via the image tag?
<jon_avila> I was also going to build when you need to explore the image or map ort parts of it.
<ashleyfirth_> scotto: right now, no. if svg is served via an img element it is not expected to be traversed
<ashleyfirth_> GreggVan: Want to make sure we don't suggest anything that assistive technologies won't pay attention to
<ashleyfirth_> GRAHAM: picture element in HTML, you can add multiple images as sources, but can only provide one alt text
<ashleyfirth_> dj: Math can also be served as an image that would hard for alt text
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Another edge case: an image where the description is so long that it needs to be in its own file
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: Are we getting to a point where we could consider this to be a good set of examples
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: I think so
<kirkwood> dynamic images?
<ashleyfirth_> jon_avila: Sprite images could be another, where you're only showing one part of the larger image
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Next step is to draft some assertions that could be used to test each example and edge case
<ashleyfirth_> kirkwood: Dynamic Images or images that change are another example
<ashleyfirth_> Mike5Matrix: We need to define what's an image and what's an animation
<ashleyfirth_> kirkwood: Example I was thinking of is similar to a carousel, which moves when you roll over it on a page
<ashleyfirth_> mbgower: We need to define what's an image and what's an animation
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Now we have these edge cases, should we change the use of the term "image"?
<julierawe_> Is the goal to come up with as many edge cases as possible?
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: How do we define visual content that is mostly static but not a video
<ashleyfirth_> scotto: Variable/dynamic images could be a category/consideration here
<ashleyfirth_> mbgower: We could focus on having "updating imagery" as its own area, separate to general rules on imagery
<ashleyfirth_> mbgower: Also need to add whether imagery is changing on its own, or in response to user interaction
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if also generated images?
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Should we also in these buckets consider generated content, like AI?
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: I don't know if that's a different bucket
<ashleyfirth_> dj: AI is set as a the first item in the list
<scotto> don't think it is a bucket, but absolutely agree it should be called out as a requirement that generated imagery would also need to have generated description as to what was created
<ashleyfirth_> mbgower: Has anyone tried distinguishing between important and unimportant images?
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: We haven't yet. A lot of the types of images we've covered would fall into one of those two categories, but we haven't fully considered that yet
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael:
<kirkwood> sufficient
<Rachael> Rachael read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit
<ashleyfirth_> GRAHAM: All sounds good, but need to check the limits of the boundaries of this
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: The other thing I'm seeing here is that it doesn't cover text not in alt or in the caption
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: With some tweaking it could. Examples that come to mind are if you've got an image without an alt, and the screen reader will instead read out the file name.
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: If an image has a good caption but a null alt attribute, nothing is lost
<rscano> +1
<Chuck> +1 excellent point!
<ashleyfirth_> GRAHAM: Thinking about the earlier example of Math in an image from dj, content could be shown correctly in HTML, so should we be covering the most appropriate approach
<Chuck> +1 adding
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: This is a good point, but takes us quite far into the weeds
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: We welcome the weeds!
<rscano> and for IA generated, need that in alt text this is noticed for inform user that is a machine-generated content. IMHO
<kirkwood> “no meaning is lost” rather than “nothing is lost”
<rscano> oherwise we need to ask to modify HTML for add an attribute ai-gen="true" :joking
<ashleyfirth_> scotto: Generally this would apply in many instances, so we need to encourage people to avoid this type of content within imagery
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Should we add in "should this be an image?" based on different content
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Long descriptions are desired in many instances
<Chuck> +1 leave under 3 (not a strong opinion)
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on not using an image
<ashleyfirth_> mbgower: I think finding out if an image is important is an easier guide (although still tough)
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: Now we're putting all image-related criteria in one place, that might help us create broader rules
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: We could have a method for a content image, and a method for images of text etc.
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Or we could create a single method with multiple paths. It's a question of structure
<ashleyfirth_> GRAHAM: What about a broken image? Is that relevant?
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: We'll add it to the edge cases to explore
<ashleyfirth_> kirkwood: We can't have alt text describing an image that isn't there, as a screen reader user would be receiving different content
<ashleyfirth_> Rachael: Is this a good time to transition out so people can ponder it
<ashleyfirth_> alastairc: Good idea. We'll be carrying on next week with this topic
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/2/2, 3/ Default Present: dj, kirkwood, JakeAbma, Azlan, kevin, Rachael, Chuck, bruce_bailey, Jennie_Delisi, alastairc, wendyreid, mike_beganyi, Francis_Storr, giacomo-petri, JustineP, graham, Makoto, Kimberly, sarahhorton, Gez_Lemon, Detlev, Laura_Carlson, jeanne, Jen_G, scotto, ShawnT, GreggVan, sabidussi, ljoakley, Glenda, mbgower, gpellegrino, jaunita_george, shadi, julierawe, maryjom, jtoles, ashleyfirth, StefanS, ShaneDittmar, Frankie, Wolf, julierawe_, jon_avila, rscano Present: dj, kirkwood, JakeAbma, Azlan, kevin, Rachael, Chuck, bruce_bailey, Jennie_Delisi, alastairc, wendyreid, mike_beganyi, Francis_Storr, giacomo-petri, JustineP, graham, Makoto, Kimberly, sarahhorton, Gez_Lemon, Detlev, Laura_Carlson, jeanne, Jen_G, scotto, ShawnT, GreggVan, sabidussi, ljoakley, Glenda, mbgower, gpellegrino, jaunita_george, shadi, julierawe, maryjom, jtoles, ashleyfirth, StefanS, ShaneDittmar, Frankie, Wolf, julierawe_, jon_avila, rscano, Frankie Wolf Found Scribe: ashleyfirth Inferring ScribeNick: ashleyfirth 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]