scribe+

New members and topics

Rachael: Any new topics or introductions?

Announcements

<Rachael> TPAC Registration https://www.w3.org/news-events/w3c-tpac/

Rachael: we have TPAC registration still open, planning to meet on Monday and Tuesday with the group and meetings with other groups Thursday Friday

<Rachael> Github Discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/104

Rachael: GH discussion 104. We would like people to contribute to this issue before we discuss more fully in the meeting

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/104

Rachael: conversation around pre-requisite and baseline level. What is the most fundamental type of requirement? 3 areas: 1) causes safety issues, 2) allow AT to provide support, 3) prevent task completion even with AT support
... what does it mean to allow AT to provide support? Some examples within the discussion linked above.
... [summarizes some of the content within discussion linked bove]

bruce_bailey: Preference for replying? top post? most recent post?

Rachael: general way we try to do it. If it's a new thread you want to start then reply to the top post.

GN015: is it OK if author takes over responsibility to provide better solution than user agent?

Rachael: that's a direction we're going. My understanding of current direction is that we provide next level up recommendation

JMcSorley: What level of knowledge are we expecting authors to have about AT?

Rachael: Great question. Not sure we have specified. Will come back to that.

<Chuck> +1 to capturing that question

JMcSorley: Would be interested in having this discussion. AT is so personalized. Having authors understand this is very valuable.

<DuffJohnson> Does "allow AT to provide support" include providing adequate structure to content?

Rachael: Likewise, haven't fully discussed just yet.

Poornima: "Cause safety issues" includes security?

Rachael: No, personal safety (motion sickness, etc.)

dj: Example, financial harm can be a safety issue. Where are we drawing that line?

Rachael: Not decided yet. Will also come back to this.

New members and topics

<mbgower> I think "harm" from a financial interaction needs to be distinct from physical "harm"

Assertions Introduction https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/178EHzR7oKYyS7m-V2pZvjCg10kR2XLZ7tK2V-LUh2K8/edit#slide=id.p

Rachael: Walking through the slide deck, giving introduction to assertions.
... We are not having this discussion today. We will have the conversation in-depth next week. This is an introduction only.
... Please ask clarifying questions today.
... [begins discussing assertions slide deck linked above]

<kirkwood> “assertion” is a shortened term to mean: an assertion that a procedure has been taken to make something accessible or usable to someone with a disability.

mbgower: Not sure I agree that you can't verify the outcome of an assertion. I think you can't verify the person who has done that, but the outcome is assessible.

kirkwood: Issue with not stating what the full statement is. An assertion that a particular thing is accessible to people with disabilities. It's not optimal that we're not defining assertion in one sentence

Rachael: Assertions are defined on the next slide.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention assertions in settlement agreements

bruce_bailey: Assertions are often included in settlement agreements and other legal documents. There's a direction to consult with members of the disabled population's community groups, etc. Would certainly be verifiable in this case.

Rachael: Can you capture that in GitHub please? Will help with next week's conversation.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106

<kirkwood> +1 a statement that is varifyable that a procedure has been taken to meet accessibility requitment

Rachael: [on slide 3] [provides definition of "Assertion"]

kirkwood: I regard this definition as sufficient after a quick glance.

Rachael: [encourages further commenting within slide deck document itself]

julierawe: For the definition of assertion, what is meant by an "attributable statement of fact"?

Rachael: A person or an organization has to be visibly stating that.
... Some named individual must have attributed it.

<kirkwood> suggestion : “A clear and documented statement from a person or organization about how they develop and maintain content or products to make them more accessible.”

Rachael: [on slide 4] [discusses "Examples from WCAG 3"]
... [on slide 5] [discusses examples from subgroup work]
... [on slide 6] [discusses some procedural topics and how procedure is established and related questions]
... [on slide 7] [need to discuss documenting and verifying assertions]

JohnRochford: Wondering if there is any 3rd party verification of results?

<Chuck> +1 to adding 3rd part review to assertions

Rachael: Will be part of the larger conversation next week
... [on slide 8] [questions about which documentation is required when supporting assertions, proof, etc.]

kirkwood: When we're saying documented, are we saying published? Should we be saying "published"? Curious if just documenting is enough.

Rachael: Will address this during discussions next week, but great question

<kirkwood> “documented” not “published” ? … which are we speaking to

Rachael: [on slide 9] [discussing assertions and conformance]

<ShawnT> kirkwood, I think I remember talk about maybe having it in `metadata` on a page

giacomo-petri: Does this topic slightly overlap with accessibility maturity model idea?

Rachael: It does in the sense that maturity model can be a potential for overlap, given that APA will share with us to determine validity before implemented

shadi: I feel that implementation testing is necessary. I feel that this is very theoretical. Not sure if this is being applied in a cursory way. How will these work in practice.

Rachael: Haven't done any implementation testing yet, but it's a great point.
... [on slide 10] [discusses assertions within the overall structure. Where do they fit?]
... comments welcomed directly in the slide deck
... Please contribute to the GitHub conversation.

subgroup work

Chuck: Need to be in Haptics this week, so cannot attend Keyboard today.
... Gonna run for an hour then come back to this group. Going into smaller groups to look at documents. If you haven't joined, free to join whichever you choose. If you join, please continue within the group for continuity's sake.

<Rachael> Chuck: We will explore whether we can provide additional notice when closing rooms

Rachael: Any questions, observations, updates?

Chuck: Haptics: working on the meaning of a user being able to adjust the haptics. Two concepts: one is adjusting the feedback itself (hot/cold sensation for example), and two: assigning the haptic to an event.

bruce_bailey: Keyboard: Made progress on goals and what to do items. Tried to work on five outcomes and not just one. We have one method mostly if not entirely done. Question to group: distinguishing between what to do and a generic method with plain language. Other outcome to mention is that one of the names "keyboard command" isn't fully

descriptive. "Custom keyboard command" could be better. Keyboard functionality may need to be split out to navigation and user input.

giacomo: Section Labels: Organization and labelling of sections. Site structure, page structure, atomic structure. Grouped decision tree into these levels. Some examples are challenging, such as related grouped items.

Francis_Storr: Non-text Contrast: Reviewing some of the images we've been adding the past couple weeks. Looked at decision tree. Started working on image-related things, static or interactive images. User interface components require separate decision tree, etc. Might mean that we take non-text contrast and split it into two separate things.

<Francis_Storr> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bwr8ciRGP5W4zvzBQtJObxaUYRxsR5OrpYYpuK4rDyE/edit

julierawe: Implied Meaning: Spent time talking about different languages and how to make outcome and method as universal as possible. Method to identify non-literal language. Where do we list the examples of these things (examples of idioms, sarcasm, jokes, etc.)? Could put examples in a wiki. Talked about dialectical differences in identical

words. Could be too challenging for the author to know that a word used means something different in a different dialect. How might we approach such issues in this outcome.

Rachael: Any questions about the process of this subgroup work?

bruce_bailey: I think it's going well. The work goes slowly, reminiscent of task force work in some ways

Chuck: I like the appeal of smaller groups.

julierawe: Is next week last week for dedicated subgroup time?

Rachael: Yes. Subgroup leaders will get e-mail from chairs about coordinating future work.

avon: Want to echo that smaller groups are fun and more personal. Will there be a more structured approach in future? Given that we have only so many weeks, can goals be established so that we know what we're all working towards within short timeframes?

<kirkwood> +1 to Avon

Rachael: Can certainly attempt to. Still learning about this.

bruce_bailey: Want to +1 Avon. Having six to eight weeks' worth of goals would be helpful and figuring out how to proceed optimally after next week.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about sub group handbook?

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_caRiZaTQDmsd2Vq415sz4AIullNse-GeGtohUfg_5M/edit#heading=h.gzpoqn1jwaec

Chuck: Bruce, in your next hour, chairs will provide e-mail with feedback on suggested times for future meetings.

<bruce_bailey> meeting for 8 weeks would have been great

<bruce_bailey> rsragent, draft minutes

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)

Default Present: dj, ShawnT, Rachael, ToddL, Francis_Storr, Chuck, JMcSorley, JohnRochford, kevin, Jennie_Delisi, tburtin, kirkwood, giacomo-petri, Poornima, shadi, Makoto, jtoles, Azlan, MJ, marco-sabidussi, bruce_bailey, Laura_Carlson, Ben_Tillyer, sarahhorton, julierawe, AlinaV, Jen_G, Frankie, Graham, LenB, avon
Present: dj, ShawnT, Rachael, ToddL, Francis_Storr, Chuck, JMcSorley, JohnRochford, kevin, Jennie_Delisi, tburtin, kirkwood, giacomo-petri, Poornima, shadi, Makoto, jtoles, Azlan, MJ, marco-sabidussi, bruce_bailey, Laura_Carlson, Ben_Tillyer, sarahhorton, julierawe, AlinaV, Jen_G, Frankie, Graham, LenB, avon
Regrets: Wendy, Rain
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: mike_beganyi
Inferring Scribes: mike_beganyi

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.)