<alastairc> WCAG 2 issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2024May/0008.html

I can do it

<knights> I can also jump in if needed

<alastairc> scribe: Detlev

<scribe> scribe: Detlev

Introductions and Announcements

Alastair: Introductions?

<Chuck> Welcome Ken Franqueiro!

Ken Franquiero introducing himself

Alastair: any topics for future meetings?

mGower: ChatGPT 4o shows tech is moving fast

<jaunita_george> +1000000

introduce it as point of consideration

Alastair: let's keep it I mind for discussing alt text

WCAG2ICT Review Discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/labels/Please%20Review

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/372

Alastair: Tops is WCAG2ICT review

there were 4 things to review

3.2.6 Consistent Help WCAG2ICT guidance

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/369

Alastair: how to interpret consistent help
... applies almost as is
... no negative comments
... any further comments?

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve issue 369

+1

<PhilDay> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Jennie_Delisi> +1

<knights> +1

<dj> +1

<kevin> +1

<Poornima> +1

<Sam> +1

<Rachael> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Frankie> +1

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve issue 369

<julierawe> IRC kicked me out. Can you please reshare the link to the issues you're discussing?

Accessible Authentication (Minimum) WCAG2ICT guidance

Next is accessible authentication - little change going into WCAG2ICT

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/368

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/368

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve issue 368

<Chuck> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<rscano> +1

<Azlan> +1

<kirkwood> +1

+1

<Makoto> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<Frankie> +1

Chuck: TF Meeting discussed Shadi's suggestion - group resolved not to include it

<GreggVan> +1

Alastair: :you may still copy & paste

Kevin: Will there be a response to Shadi's suggestion?

MaryJo: Will respond

<mitch11> +1

Alastair: :you have 5 days from to day to still change your mind

<kirkwood> no

Gregg: Many people don't have own computer - then password manager doesn't work

Alastair: you need your own phone

<kevin> qq+

<ShawnT> You can log into a web base password manager

Gregg: : It's about people without devices - or shall we assume that users have password managers?

<jspellman> L

<jon_avila> When I log into Chrome with my Google profile I am able to use the saved Google passwords.

<kirkwood> aging person going to library

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to GreggVan

Kevin: There are web-based password managers where you need to log in

Gregg: then we are OK

Alastair: there are other options too
... any minus 1?

Gregg: are there USB solutions?

<kirkwood> usb breaks security protocols

Alastair: the site can offer multiple options - e.g. USB or passkey or copy/paste from text file on USB stick - the author's responsibility is not to block it

RESOLUTION: Approve issue 368

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/364

4.1.1 Parsing WCAG2ICT guidance

Alastair: was Review before - TF took comments and reworked it - difference between 2.2 and older versions with a note - so it now better aligns with the differences in version
... there was a wording update too

MariJo: there is a note in WCAG 2.2 as well, and a different one in the errata...
... need to check - the text seems to be different in 2..0 and 2.1

Alastair: The editor's note will be removed to the references then make to sense

<bruce_bailey> Errata for 2.0, 4.1.1 is at bottom: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/

Alastair: markdown was probably a typo

Phil Day: Markdown is an example of a markup language - change may not be nneeded

<dj> https://commonmark.org/

Alastair: there is reference to LATEX and markdown - but yes, OK

<dmontalvo> +1 to Phil

Dan: yes the reference to markdown is inntentional

Jon: wasn't apparent, thought it might be confusing

Alastair: The examples do make sense - markdown seems alright

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve issue 364, with small amendments for wording on the WCAG errata/note

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Chuck> +1

<mitch11> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<dj> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<laura> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Makoto> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Sam> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<JenStrickland> +1

<Frankie> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<Poornima> +1

<jon_avila> +0

RESOLUTION: Approve issue 364, with small amendments for wording on the WCAG errata/note

<rscano> +1

Alastair: again you have 5 days to add comments o the issue

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/370

Closed functionality

Alastair: : There are definitions, comments one closed functionality, SCs that have difficulties in transposition

MariJo: : was used on page titled (?)

Alastair: any blockers?

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve issue 370

<Sam> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Chuck> +1

<mitch11> +1

+1

<maryjom> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<dj> +1

<kevin> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve issue 370

<rscano> +1

Text alternatives update https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit

Alastair: Tired to pin down best kind of structure for text alternatives - taking a decision tree approach

Thread....

tried to pin down

Alastair: (describing traversal of decision tree)
... how important is image, what ways can alternative be provided, is there text in the image, etc
... Question to group: Looking at that structure does this seem like a reasonable approach?
... In this case, tests are similar for different methods - in others, tests would be different

Wendy: : likes decision tree - wonder if we should bring up higher in the tree what the image is being used for - part of a control?

Bring that up higher is closer to people's intetnions

Alastair: we started that way, gone back and forth on that

MikeGower: Looking at the demos of ChatGPT 4o incorporates decent visual cognition of line graph, did a good job, even when queried. So what should the author's role be in that situation?

<kirkwood> author role - editorial, approval

MikeGower: importance of image is crucial - currently importance comes after telling whether alt is concise - but intent / importance is more importat
... it should be primary consideration for authors' responsibility

<jspellman> Kelly Ford, a blind accessibility expert recently posted on LinkedIn that ChatGPT4 still has a long way to for accuracy.

dj why 4o??

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on relying on ML/AI for meeting outcomes

<kirkwood> +1 an author adds an image with intent

Alastair: logic of decision trees is worth checking so they are more future-proof

a thanks

<kirkwood> ‘important’ is useless

<laura> Image Accessibility Creator By Arizona State University. Uses the GPT-4 vision model provided by OpenAI.

<laura> https://asuo-ai-labs.streamlit.app/Image_Accessibility

<alastairc> and wendyreid

Alastair: got methods in place - but we can't rely one demos, don't know how well distributed they will be, how well they respond to different types of images - so that may become part of a rationale - but not there yet

<JenStrickland> +1 to wendyreid

Wendy: AI is "a" method to achieve the goal - should not get lost in assessments how good it is right now

<kevin> +1 to wendyreid

Alastair: it is good to check that we are not blocking things
... there have been a few comments

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I am not suggestion 'author's don't need to do anything'. I'm suggesting that assessing for importance seems as valid as 'decorotive' as a top level

Alastair: native iOS Android was just included as example

MikeGower: : not suggesting that authors have nothing to do - just pointing out that looking at AI methods is a valid consideration to lead to valid methods
... our language should allow existing technology to be updated
... it is a prime concern of COGA - maybe we should engage with HTML 5 and see what can be added

Bruce: do we have good traction on "informative" as binary decision?

Alastair: currently it differentiates between decorative and everything else

<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce

Bruce: :we need a better language on decorative and informative

Alastair: current question is would it change the understanding of the page if ig was missing

<kirkwood> agree with Bruce

Bruce: img was important to page designer - so not easily binary

Alastair: Dan also asked about img importance
... we got rid of "medium" (sharing screen)
... (talking about screen, editing text)

Jennie: can we map the importance to the way we cover ARIA levels (?)

Alastair: Bruce is saying instead of a brief description, a brief identification and a longer description are provided
... (reading Bruce's further comments)

Bruce: : the methods so far talk about text equivalent but do not cover long description (?)

Alastair: it is in the decision tree - pick one method - they need to be equivalent - an image will need a description various ways of providing that
... you can do more than one, but need one to conform
... branching important for that
... reading longish comment by Dan (sorry)

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to explain

Rachael: user studies show that sometimes image is put in to be explored and al text cannot cover that aspect

Dan: asking about equivalent purpose....

Rachael: when you have exploratory images, the alt text would also need to be exploratory (?)

Alastair: if we combine things, the methods need to be applicable to these scenarios

<kirkwood> surfacing that the author’s intent for placing the image. rather than leaving the user in the dark of the author’s intent. an attestation statement by author could be binary

Alastair: if a method is in the same branch the author could choose either to conform - need to be careful about that
... reads Dan's comment when alt is provided by the platform (say for thumbs don emoji

<Jennie_Delisi> * ARIA similarities to the question of "informative" could be "relevant"? (from the previous discussion raised by bruce_bailey). Not sure if mapping images in this way could support some of the importance of an image conversation.

dj emojis are text

Alastair: emojis may be images or aria-label may override text - shouldn't d that so platform default should come through

<mbgower> +1 "it's more complicated than that"

<jon_avila> I have come many emojis that don't seem to have textual equivalents.

Dan: more complicated - emojis aren't always announced - implementations differ (say NVDA) verbosity level dependent, varies between Screen readers - comes up all the time as consistency problem

Alastair: intent if this brach was things with a default that should not be overridden - maybe take out branch of no and mull over it?
... if image contains text - Dan though it confusing
... this one got orphaned - was intended as addition - but could apply to any of the branches

Dan: should go into the definition of equivalent text alternatives

<rscano> emojii description has a standard, shall require to refer to alternative official text https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/

Alastair: Assertions for siler/gold level - alt following style guide - leading to consistent implementation - should be better kept separate

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change

<bruce_bailey> scribe+

<knights> Sorry slow typing -- but can alternate :)

<laura> Need to drop off the call. Bye.

<bruce_bailey> Alastair: We have a few updated from comments today...

<bruce_bailey> ... Wendy suggested controls first and that was where we started with an earlier iteration. Welcome to others to make proposals.

<alastairc> Alternative: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CIj5LZA5wSySDSg5zqsDUWyX9-CU8tE9ab_fZN8dcKU/edit

<bruce_bailey> ... Rachael had some notes she wanted to share.

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Shift is away from tester perspective, this came out of the evolution of Focus Indicator methods discussion....

<bruce_bailey> ... Suggestion from Wilco for what / when / how -- which didn't seem to work at higher level but does seem to working for metihods.

<bruce_bailey> ... So that is the biggest change here, same content as before but different layout.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Chair hat off, this seems like methods are instance or type -- what is the thing you are giving a alternatives?

<bruce_bailey> ... Methods could be next level after that.

<kirkwood> +1 that was tripping me up to

<mbgower> Remove the word "Method" and consider that way

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Agree per our working definition, but that leaves us with awkward middle level. So we are working through what is the right number of levels.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: I am trying how to get a sense how the tree approach is working.

<bruce_bailey> wendyreid: Looking at this from perspective of person working for guidance. Question is what are you doing with the image on site? Are you conveying information? ...

<bruce_bailey> ... What is designer trying to do? What is purpose of image on the page? If a button, designer knows that from start and will be looking for that in the tree.

<bruce_bailey> ... How can this guide that person?

<bruce_bailey> jaunita_george: From that perspective, does this have to be so explict and normative and closed off? ....

+1 to Wendy's take

<bruce_bailey> We are going to want to add more examples and methods as we go along.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Chair hat off, that is what we tried to do with 2.x Techniques, but that might be different question than normative or not....

<bruce_bailey> ... With model working through for 3, we kind of need the top most level and bottom most level to be normative and testable , and the middle parts informative.

<bruce_bailey> ... We have spent more time with first approach. But are folks feeling comfortable with second approach as well?

<jon_avila> e.g. the hide image would need to be normative

<bruce_bailey> dan_bjorge: Refering to example shared on screen, there are normative parts definitely in the middle.

<wendyreid> +1 the methods can inform the requirements

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: We have normative outcomes, some clearly informative parts, and then some methods which are required.

<bruce_bailey> ... Work with both approaches, looking for feed back.

<mbgower> Thanks for this, Rachael.

<kirkwood> thank you Rachael!

<dan_bjorge> I disagree fundamentally - I think this is more complicated to read than WCAG 2 and that it's especially going to create a ton of complexity for folks that need to simultaneously meet WCAG 2 and 3

<bruce_bailey> John Kirkwood: Does seem simpler (as compared with 2.x).

<dan_bjorge> I continue to maintain that iterating starting from WCAG 2 would be better, but that ship has sailed

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Please think about working with this approach, possibly for years.

WCAG 2 issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2024May/0008.html

<kirkwood> sorry bruce i said doesn’t ;)

<jon_avila> Dan, I was thinking perhaps of some mapping from 3.0 to 2.x for each of the requirements.

<bruce_bailey> ... SC may seem simpler and shorter. But many are very complex in practice.

<bruce_bailey> s/Does seem simpler (as compared with 2.x). /Does NOT seem simpler (as compared with 2.x). /

<bruce_bailey> Mike Gower: These were sent out to listserv about a week ago. Mostly house keeping this time around. Some are just bug which would normally merge with just a note to list rather than bring up on a call...

<bruce_bailey> One item, under Target Size, is really editorial but is in the normative text so want to highlight here....

<bruce_bailey> ... Not changing any interpretation of the SC, but is errata changing a word for clarity and consistency with other phrasing of other SC...

<bruce_bailey> ... That is the most severe of this house keeping. Another example is just removing ALL CAPS.

<alastairc> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1

<bruce_bailey> Just 9 of them, should only take 15 minutes or so. Please do affirmatively add a thumbs up.

<bruce_bailey> We will keep any normative erratta to no more than once a year.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Anything else?

<alastairc> TPAC survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/TPAC_2024/

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: From TPAC survey, we will be reserving a room.

<Rachael> TPAC information: https://www.w3.org/events/tpac/2024/

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: Reminder on 5 business day review of WCAG2ICT items.

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/4.0/4o/
Succeeded: s/MariJo: :Will respond/MaryJo: Will respond/
Succeeded: s/4.0/4o/
Succeeded: s/nit/not/
FAILED: s/Does seem simpler (as compared with 2.x). /Does NOT seem simpler (as compared with 2.x). /
Default Present: dj, alastairc, JakeAbma, Jennie_Delisi, dan_bjorge, bruce_bailey, Azlan, Justine, scotto, mbgower, jtoles, wendyreid, maryjom, ljoakley, Nayan, giacomo-petri, mike_beganyi, jon_avila, Graham, Jen_G, Rachael, kirkwood, Laura_Carlson, Kimberly, Ben_Tillyer, Glenda, ShawnT, julierawe, Francis_Storr, Theo-MSFT, Detlev, hdv, jspellman, rscano, Frankie, kevin, Makoto, knights, Poornima, jaunita_george, Chuck, sarahhorton, AlinaV, kfranqueiro, PhilDay, Sam, mitch, tburtin, sohara, GreggVan, Daniel, JenStrickland, MJ, ashleyfirth, GN
Present: AlinaV, Azlan, Chuck, JakeAbma, Jennie_Delisi, Justine, Rachael, alastairc, bruce_bailey, dan_bjorge, dj, giacomo-petri, jtoles, ljoakley, maryjom, mbgower, sarahhorton, scotto, wendyreid, kfranqueiro, Detlev, PhilDay, Sam, mitch11, kirkwood, julierawe, tburtin, sohara, GreggVan, Glenda, Daniel, JenStrickland, MJ, ashleyfirth, Kimberly, mike_beganyi, knights, GN015
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev

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.)