Meeting minutes
<rscano> Ah ok i Will log in next minutes I am on train hope connection still good train is doing alternative track due fire issues over line
Chuck: Foregoing introductions, just one announcement, then we start the sub-groups.
Kevin: Just a quick mention. Internal discussion regarding zoom ai companion. There are some hidden costs, energy, information, other bits.
Kevin: We have been experimenting with it to see if there is value in using it.
Kevin: There are a couple of people in AG who tried it, haven't gotten any feedback yet. I would welcome anything or any comments on that.
Kevin: Please email me.
<kevin> [email protected]
Ben: My employer is doing something similar, using the companion and copilot in teams. I'll try to get you some input.
Kevin: Thanks!
Bruce: I could not find the document by navigating through the folder that Kevin shared earlier. I bet others might like that as well.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask before we split
Subgroup meetings
○ Adjust Color: https://
○ Haptic Stimulation: https://
○ Implied Meaning: https://
○ Keyboard Only: https://
Section Labels: https://
<Rachael> slide deck: https://
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Second-to-last slide (#13) GitHub discussion going on about how to define assertions. We have two definitions on this slide. We need to discuss the two definitions.
<JMcSorley> Gundila(sp): Not sure what the difference if between the two.
<JMcSorley> Rachael: These are just two suggested definitions for "assertion" - we just need to define which one we like better.
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Moving to slide 14 - can we verify or what can we verify for assertions?
<JMcSorley> Rachael: The only verifiable part of an assertion is (1) The assertion has been made (2) The assertion followed the documentation requirements
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Some people have suggested there are other ways we can verify assertions. We need to discuss what some of those other ways might be. What other kinds of evidence might we want to ask for?
<JMcSorley> Rain: I am wondering if our documentation requirements could cover things like how old is the assertion - can we verify or include in those documentation requirements to make sure that nothing has changed since the assertion was originally made - we don't want to accept assertions that are no longer relevant.
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Yes - we have dates associated with the assertion.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to talk about ISO 900x
<JMcSorley> Ben: The first concern is the suitability of the person making the assertion - they're knowledge of the topic and whether they are legally allowed to make an assertion on behalf of an organization. The second is whether the assertion is honest - there needs to be some test about whether there's an intent to not be honest.
<JMcSorley> Chuck: Not super familiar with ISO 9000 series, but I believe it supports the validation of documentation, so there may be processes in place already for measuring the quality of an assertion.
<JMcSorley> Chuck: This may mean that this would cover situations where someone is making a false assertion.
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Our documentation requirements can be long and we can include some of these concerns in those requirements. Does anyone object to our previous measure: (1) We can only check that the assertion has been made, (2) The documentation requirements have been followed.
<JMcSorley> Chuck: I don't think starting with these 2 rules backs us into an insurmountable corner - we could start here and go through the exploratory process.
<JMcSorley> Mike: I am trying to think about how feasible this is. Right now, in WCAG 2, there is nothing about documentation being required. That is handled through VPATs and it's not part of the WCAG process. I am trying to think about how much we want to get into this in the standard and how much overhead we begin to make. If teams want to do this, that is
<JMcSorley> fine, but the degree to which teams want to document something else, might not be something we can manage - how realistic is this?
<kirkwood> reporting on assertion, frequency of reporting is stated, (validity of assertion is cocumented).
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Bruce about legal settlement agreements
<JMcSorley> Chuck: I see the reference to U.S. settlement agreements. @Bruce - is "assertion" something that has meaning in U.S. legal agreements?
<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
<JMcSorley> Bruce: I am not a lawyer, I have looked at a few settlement agreements - ADA.gov has a number of these. They don't appear to have "assertions", but the settlement agreements often require things that are similar to what would be captured as assertions. The settlement agreements don't have assertions, but they have non-technical requirements that
<JMcSorley> web site owners might be able to make assertions.
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Perhaps we should invite Lainey or others to come and talk with us about this. Are we asking people to provide assertions on request? What are our thoughts on how we require this kind of documentation? Is it only in conformance claims?
<JMcSorley> Rachael - on slide 7 - "Documenting and Verifying Assertions (WCAG 3) - WCAG would not necessarily require this - we would have to have the assertion statement, the date of the assertion, date range the procedure is completed, scope of the assertion, contact information on the person - maybe here is where we might want to ask for the person's
<JMcSorley> qualifications, etc.
<Ben_Tillyer2> +1 to Ch
<JMcSorley> Chuck: regarding the statement about qualifications about people participating in the assertion - I can see that as an addition to bolster the assertion, but may not be a requirement.
<kirkwood> assertain made, time period covered, frequency of assertion, publishing (availability) of assertion
<JMcSorley> Kevin: I think some of this might be veering into what a regulation would require and not something that would be a part of the standard - we might want to be clear about which camp and assertion would fall into - standard or regulation
<JMcSorley> Chuck: Like our normative requirements in our current standards, could we not say what our normative documentation requirements are and then regulatory could enhance this? @Kevin - do you think this is already veering into regulation?
<Ben_Tillyer2> +1 to Kevin
<JMcSorley> Kevin: How do we validate the qualifications of an assertion - that might be beyond what we can require as part of the standard - regulators might be able to put in those requirements, but as part of the standard, we might just want to define what an assertion is and be careful not to require qualifications as a rule.
<Rachael> draft straw poll: 1) I am comfortable moving forward with what is in WCAG 3 now 2) We need to change assertions and continue to discuss 3) I do not yet understand assertions enough to make a judgement 4) something else.
<JMcSorley> Julie: How much control will organizations have over an assertion in terms of the scope of the site?
<JMcSorley> Rachael: I think it depends on the assertion.
<Rachael> https://
<JMcSorley> Ben: what will the outcome be of our vote?
<JMcSorley> Rachael: If we vote 1, then we could move forward with drafting assertions
straw poll: 1) I am comfortable moving forward with what is in WCAG 3 now 2) We need to change assertions and continue to discuss 3) I do not yet understand assertions enough to make a judgement 4) something else.
<JMcSorley> 2
<Ben_Tillyer2> 1
1
<avon> 1
<JMcSorley> Julie: Are we voting on everything that is in WCAG 3 now?
<Azlan> 1
<filippo-zorzi> 3
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
<JMcSorley> Chris: How does documenting and verifying assertions relate to WCAG-EM? Is this part of that model, or are we relying on other types of conformance statements that would be coupled with WCAG-EM
<JMcSorley> Kevin: The EM conformance model would have to be updated to WCAG 3
straw poll: 1) I am comfortable moving forward with what is in WCAG 3 now 2) We need to change assertions and continue to discuss 3) I do not yet understand assertions enough to make a judgement 4) something else.
<ChrisLoiselle> thanks
<Rain> 1
<LenB> 1
<GN015> 3
<tburtin> 1
<giacomo-petri> 3
<ShawnT> 3
<kirkwood> 3
<julierawe> 1
<mbgower> 1, It looks like at most slide 7 just adds two subbullets in the first list
<kirkwood> yes
<kevin> 1
<julierawe> yes
<Chuck> +1
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Would it be helpful for us to write and assertion from beginning to end? Would that be a useful next step?
<JMcSorley> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<julierawe> +1
<Laura_Carlson> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<JMcSorley> Chuck: In our next call, we could go through the process of writing an assertion.
<JMcSorley> Rachael: Our goal is not to spend our meetings do a lot of working sessions, but this might be helpful for us to do this together. Does anyone object?
<JMcSorley> Chuck: No objections
<kevin> Subgroup availability working sheet
<JMcSorley> Chuck: Pivoting back to subgroup work. We decided to spend 4 AG sessions, allowing the subgroups to meet during the call. There was a survey of when people could meet outside of AG. What we are expecting now is to have the subgroups find time to meet outside of AG.
<JMcSorley> Kevin: Brief explanation: This is a sheet of all the responses we got of people's availability. That was used to populate the subgroup sheets.
<JMcSorley> Kevin: Each sheet should have a list of everyone in the subgroup. Along the top, you have the days of the week with time slots in EST. This is just for you to work out if there's a time slot that works for most people.
<JMcSorley> Gondala(sp)?: Is there an automized method to get answers?
<JMcSorley> Kevin: There is not an automated way to do this - it's just a cut and paste process.
<JMcSorley> Chuck: Subgroups will start meeting independently and outside of AG calls. Today we had some people who needed to drop early, so we had to go through our topics more quickly than normal.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say there is another round of WCAG 2 proposed changes
<JMcSorley> Chuck: Are there any other questions before we adjourn?
<mbgower> https://
<JMcSorley> Mike: I just wanted to mention that we put out another round of review for WCAG 2x changes:
<mbgower> https://
<JMcSorley> Chuck: You need to be signed into GitHub for the link to work.
<JMcSorley> Mike: This is the WCAG 2x board - has 9-10 columns - look for "Sent for WG approval" - we are looking for more than 4 +1 votes for the most important topics - they are listed in order of importance and will be active for another week for people to vote.
<kevin> https://
<kevin> https://