Meeting minutes
<bruce_bailey> https://
AC: AC: Any new members? Or change of affiliation?
<bruce_bailey> https://
Bruce: List of backlogs
<Rachael> https://
RM: Please register for TPAC. Will be doing a good bit of work.
<bruce_bailey> registration link please
Wendy: Fee is waived for invited experts.
… Also a waiver program is available for others.
Publication sub-group report
<wendyreid> https://
wendy: subgroup running for some time.
… Presentation of different publication options, paths to publication, and recommendations for work mode to support publication.
… scope. Publication relates to when and what we as a Working Group publish to the W3 websites
… 2 places to publish: ‘w3.org/TR space’ and ‘w3.org/WAI’
… R space is where Recommendations and Notes are published
… approach to publication will influence what we focus on as a working group and what we work on going forward.
… What we publish affects not only the working group but also the broader accessibility community, who watch what we do closely.
JG: Problems to explore: How do we demonstrate progress towards deliverables outlined in the Charter?
… How do we receive and encourage more feedback on materials published?
… How do we support the community with future transitions to WCAG 3?
… WCAG 3 Module Approach:
… self-contained set of documents that cover a complete topic (e.g. Forms)
… include all the outcomes, methods, decision tree, techniques, transition guidance, etc
… published across both TR (mostly normative) and WAI (all informative) spaces
… would only be published when it was complete
… Latest guidance can be adopted more quickly
… More focused, digestible content format
… Tackle subject matter in a more specific manner, for a broader audience
… Can focus content on user or industry problems sooner than WCAG3 as a whole
… Difficult to avoid significant overlap between modules
… Publication takes time
… Difficult to break down the whole of WCAG into modules
… Explaining the module may take some time and effort
… Some effort required to ensure consistency across documents
… Potential for confusion about normative vs informative status of documents
… Examples of potential modules Color contrast, Multimedia, Keyboard
… Examples of potential modules:
… Adopt the CSS Working Group Approach
… Similar to modules but each module would be a completely separate /TR space document with separate groups and publication schedules.
… Timed publication with chunked content Approach
… current model.
… By chunked content we simply mean a selection of Outcomes and/or supporting material
… Take a fixed cadence of publication
… Keep focused on particular parts until it reaches ‘mature’ level
… Give people access to latest materials
… Timeline can be clearly presented
… Consistency that helps the community understand what is happening
… Much easier to manage the content
… Status of documents may be unclear
… Recommendation is to continue with our existing approach, timed publication.
… This would allow us to get important parts of the document, like outcomes, methods, and techniques, into a state where we can explore using them in more focused ways.
… Future publication sprints may allow us to create thematically grouped content that we know the community values, such as modules.
… Communications: Important to explain whatever is published to the community
… Will help with understanding - and avoiding or reducing misunderstandings
… Will encourage feedback
Wendy: Visualizing the WCAG 3 Document Ecosystem
… Concentrate on the WCAG 3
(Rec Track Document)
… then build out Outcome explainers, Quick ref, Modules, etc.
… Conclusion - Alternatives that seek to split WCAG 3 run into the problem that there is currently too much risk in maintaining multiple documents when outcomes are still in development.
… suggest that we continue with the current publication method until WCAG 3 is in a state where outcomes are more defined.
… Outcomes will appear in multiple modules, ensuring that they remain consistent would be a challenge in the development phase.
… Communication of progress will be key to avoiding general confusion and encouraging wider feedback.
… We suggest that we implement a new communication plan now.
… Questions for AGWG - How do we want to communicate about WCAG 3 progress to the broader community?
… How can we define a point in the WCAG 3 development process where we can begin working on supplemental documents (i.e. thematic modules, outcome explainers)?
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if working *like* css gives any better hope of ccs picking up a11y
Bruce: would working like CSS group help us or not?
Wendy: I don't think so.
Kevin: Don't think there is any value there.
AC: CSS WG worked through 1, 2, and 3 before adopting their current model.
… What more would we be using in our communications beyond press releases, etc?
<graham> +1 this is similar to what I was going to say Alastair!
<wendyreid> +1 alastairc
AC: We could tag thematic modules in a CMS?
graham: Maybe tag at a SC level?
<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to react to graham
Wendy: that is what we were thinking of.
… we were thinking of tagging abilities. Could be shared outcomes.
graham: Why can't we drop those things whenever we are ready?
RM: Maybe use our maturity model.
<alastairc> Maybe we can do a 'press release' for our members, with key points to get right?
RM: need to be thoughtful in our communications. Whole social media ecosystem.
Gregg: Beautiful.
<alastairc> This is that page: https://
<Rachael> That page from WAI is at https://
Gregg: suggest that we have a page that contains all the contextual info. Then people can link to that page.
… then we have control of the messaging.
<kirkwood> seems feedback page needed with a plain language introduction and status. BTW ai is (curated by w3c) is very good at this
MaryAnn: An FAQ section would be nice regarding thins this the status of color contrast, Bronze-Gold-Silver?
… can we make it more obvious that this is a draft?
<bruce_bailey> to GreggVan point, I have gotten a good deal of utility from EO SLH evergreen landing page: https://
Shadi: Did you talk about Starting from scratch and not doing so?
Wendy: yes. It didn't get us any further ahead.
Shadi: suggest adding that to the report.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on dropping modules before the whole is refined.
<Rachael> +1 to capturing that
AC: Regarding dropping modules - Concern regarding how that would work with the conformance model.
JG: Could have talking points for the communications discussion.
Lori: Need to include a broader audience. Use social media to hit some of the up and coming A11y people.
<wendyreid> https://
Wendy: We did discuss current communication efforts.
<kirkwood> so is this a PR (Public Relations) exercise?
<alastairc> kirkwood - pretty much
Wendy: could add a blog on the WAI site for people to interact with us. Enable comments.
… or other ways to give us feedback in real time.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to address the "Public Relations" angle.
Wendy: people don't understand diffs. Lower the barriers.
Chuck: Could be a way of thinking about public relations.
AC: Thank you. We have a bit of reach between all of us.
Shawn: Maybe we could leverage GitHub's APIs?
AC: Yes. And allow for other feedback.
<Chuck> +1 it's a lot to think about and a lot to manage.
Shadi: Agree with lowering the barrier. Also consider noise to value ratio.
… Also who will be doing the communications work? Caution about how we manage all of this.
AC: Subgroup check-in.
… For each sub-group, review methods/decision tree and review or suggest assertions that could be included.
… Non-text Contrast - Outcome
… https://
… Graphical elements which convey information do not rely only on hue.
… Method list whilst we work on the decision tree:
<alastairc> https://
AC: Discusses method list whilst we work on the decision tree.
… Icons or shapes which convey meaning provide contrast with adjacent color
… Indicators that controls are interactive have contrast.
… Indicators of focus, active, and selected states provide contrast.
… Contrasting lines to delineate areas, including gaps that show background color;
… Minimum thickness of lines in diagrams;
… Using patterns to differentiate as well as color
… Associated labels by location
… Associated labels by using an active legend
… rest in the document.
… Can anyone think of an assertion?
Bruce: that we have done all of these things? Have you run all of this though an advocacy group?
AC: Could be taken in other ways. Could be taken at conformance level.
<kirkwood> we have explored AI methods to address contrast issues
Graham: Have completed user testing. Self Certified.
<Francis_Storr> "
Graham: A check list to make more of a process.
GN: What is the goal of the assertions?
… I'd be careful what to prescribe or not prescribe.
Gree: Some assertions could be global .
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change
Gree: assertions should be thought of as a process
<graham> The more I see assertions "in action", the harder I fall on "they shouldn't exist" side of things as I do not see what benefit they actually afford in relation to "conformance" - assertions seem very much to belong solely in an accessibility policy.
Gree: most advocacy groups can't tell you how to make something accessible.
<Jennie_Delisi> * Internal-only pages may not be able to be tested by an outside group. Want to be sure employees can access.
<kirkwood> is the author transparent on how the tests were done? simply: do they STATE HOW the test was done?
Gree: We need to be careful not only to be thinking of big companies but others with less resources.
FS: Should have something in assertions about timing.
… and also scoping.
<jeanne> Gregg, I think the reason to "pay people" is that we are becoming aware of how people with disabilities are being used as free consultants and that is abusive. We also don't want to increase the problem for PwD that companies expect them to consult for free.
<kirkwood> +1 to Francis
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to Francis_Storr to ask for scribe change
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to Francis_Storr to discuss scribe change
Ben: Targeting toward larger companies, assertions and installing color contrast and simulators. Ability to do so for an assertion.
… in style guides , how the style and guides look on high contrast .
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on visual test, vs guidelines and to discuss scribe change
AlastairC: Visual test vs. guidelines. Baseline outcomes and methods within, we have to make sure feasible to do. Potential gaps . Extra visual inspection method could be useful.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss what we do for contrast is...
Bruce: Pasted on baseline for contrast min. Is that the assertion that you are looking for?
AlastairC: Yes, this is on the path of what we are looking for in terms of valid assertions.
<GN015> Why do we prescribe how the test is performed?
Giacomo: Encounter content that can't fully meet, for example a vision test. Topic of exemptions and exceptions and criteria can't be met.
<bruce_bailey> My potential example in doc, What we do for contrast is follow baseline methodology step 8
<bruce_bailey> https://
Giacomo: the why of why it can't be met.
Graham: We've carried out training for X, Y, Z.
<kirkwood> +1 to training. holds in a court
<GN015> Various countries have their own test instruction. Why should we prescribe which exact test method is to be used? The outcome is the important point.
Gregg: Talk about the regular process and volume.
<graham> kirkwood training holds in court? That surprises me, does it change it from "a company failing" to "employee negligence" type thing at that point?
Gregg: number of organizations to review these assertions or sampling of due to size of company. Make sure assertions are doable.
Rachael: To Giacomo, it is part of any standards we write, the exceptions or exemptions , we can build those in to the detail as we write.
… Chair hat off - Repeating assertions can be consolidated , high level assertions and then outcomes underneath parent. Simply state high level assertion.
<Chuck> ChrisLoiselle: Following this exercise, question: Authors and designers vs. style guide. Within style guide are recommendations on par with what they should be. You can assert that they have them, but are they worth their weight? You can assert that you have them, but does the style guide stand up sufficiently?
Alastair: Organizational guidance off of assertion template was shared in response to Chris' question.
Detlev: How would this assertion fit in to reporting metrics. Some may talk toward alt text, others on contrast. Others talk to user testing. Outcomes are broad and particular. Measures of outcomes is not fully known. High Granularity more points?
… how would you value these assertions in any type of scoring? Needs to be separate from measuring outcomes.
<kirkwood> +1 to DetLev
AlastairC: Outcomes that are less testable would be where assertions may work. People demonstrating progress forward vs. page level / interface level.
… brainstorming ideation exercise here on where to go in future
Julie: Appreciate Rachael's comment on scope. It is very likely that organizations are adding to their style guides. This particular outcome is part of style guide satisfies X.
… different aspects integrated in different days, how do we capture that?
<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Julierawe - need to account for updates to style guides, dates specific content began following a specific version of a style guide
Gregg: Conceptually separate outcomes vs. assertions. No bugs vs. not doing a good job. Outcome must be kept separate conceptually. Measurable assertions should be placed appropriately.
GN: Timeline when features will be reached. Typically companies can't talk to future. Might bring up legal discussions. AG should not drive companies in to legal trouble.
<kirkwood> Used AI to address readability and understanding of information and results are stated with annotation that has been created with AI and reviewed by the author
AlastairC: Assertion is more about procedure in place.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Alastair's question about a focus visible assertion
Rachael: Focus appearance topic may be different than contrast. Could be around granularity of assertion.
Giacomo: Section labels discussion. Outcome is order of content. Attempted to rework decision tree.
… meaningful structure and organization. Additional notes around programmatically available. We then went in to what to do.
<ShawnT> Section labels: https://
Giacomo: We listed user needs, (reads off bulleted list per the above link and sectioned content named user needs).
… Background notes captured topic around visual vs. programmatically differences and grouping.
… may be overlap but also grouping may vary. Decision tree was also started for programmatic structure. The Group definition procedure will be discussed on tomorrow's group call.
… talks to Section title method , which then goes in to headings, semantics.
AlastairC: So headings and landmarks for decision tree related to semantics.
… for the purpose of the exercise, are there things specific to assertions related to section labels or content having a meaningful structure?
<kirkwood> the order is logical ?
Giacomo: One could be ARIA patterns and HTML are being followed. For example, not to trigger fails.
Rachael: Editorial review or plain language review. For example, meaning of content and uniqueness of that type of review.
AlastairC: ARIA patterns aspect relates. The assertion may be that we are following external reference or pattern X for this assertion.
AlastairC: Can anyone talk to haptic stimulation sub group?
MJ: I can't speak to it, but I'm on group.
Wendy: I can try. We spent a lot of time on decision tree. The tree helped refine the method(s). Methods didn't necessarily fit. Refined enhanced methods. Concentrated on haptic feedback, not input.
… we haven't gotten through the hole list. Adjustability discussion on going.
AlastairC: highlights methods on haptic stimulation Google Doc. Talks to OS level.
<GN015> Can someone share the link to the document, please?
AlastairC: any specific assertions relevant to this outcome? Haptic feedback and input can be adjusted and/or turned off?
<alastairc> Haptic stimulation: https://
<GN015> alastairc, thank you!
Usability testing could be relevant .
Giacomo: when building haptic functionality, explaining why you've embedded the haptic feedback to improve experience for all users.
AlastairC: relates to usability aspects but understood what you mean on the why.
<Detlev> I q+
JohnK: Option for user to use haptic vs. sound?
Detlev: We never use haptic feedback , is that a valid assertion?
AlastairC: That would be captured as not applicable perhaps.
Julie: On Implied meeting and figurative language. We are debating on how much to offer. Topics of literal language vs. non literal and providing an explanation.
… would fall under common style guide. How much does our outcome need to help users vs. what is to be covered in an assertion.
AlastairC: Perhaps an AI or assistive technology that could translate on behalf of the user.
Julie: AI on implied meeting topic was explored and John K. shared some great information in our meeting.
Julie: Authors writing in their local language vs. how pages are translated and possible assertion on translation.
GN: Does AI understand implicit meaning and language?
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that this is a simple space to solve with ATs to a user's preferences, especially with AI
AlastairC: would be possible to train to translate .
MikeG: Is the author to be the best person to supply this for every user or is it AT or AI user preference perspective ? People may want these altered in different ways. Is that all on author?
AlastairC: Perhaps usability , pre requisites on platform level
<GN015> Can someone please share the link to the document?
<alastairc> https://
Rachael: On Assertions discussions, discussion 106 topic. GN or Gregg can talk toward the issue if they'd like.
AlastairC: If there is no traditional way to test an outcome, shouldn't we be able to use an assertion?
Subgroup check-in and assertions exercise
Should assertions be available to meet a conformance level? https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106#discussioncomment-10466634
GN: I feel many assertions are prescriptive on how to test. The ability to test. I don't think we should do that. I believe Gregg mentions as well. Assertions may introduce legal issues.
We want to be careful on assertions.
Chuck: Chair hat off, Assertions may be able to use, but not at fundamental level related to Gregg's comment.
Gregg: +1 . Assertions at a fundamental level may not be able to be met legally.
AlastairC: ISO standards and have a similar approach?
<kirkwood> if one makes an assertion on would need to be able to defend an assertion through proof of action
Gregg: I don't know of any standards per se. ISO 9000 includes regular assertions. If you have procedure you have to follow it. Talks to audit process.
<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
AlastairC: does anyone have any different view points?
AlastairC: on issue 106, reads through comments on conformance statements.
AlastairC: Asks Rachael to clarify third party terminology.
Rachael: is it available in an accessibility statement vs. if you have hired a third party and what was the result of that third party's assertions.
<Chuck> voluntary product accessibility template?
Gregg: A central place may be beneficial. Some people put them online, others don't.
<kirkwood> depends on legal team
Gregg: Need to survey large and small company on scope of ability to do so.
AlastairC: Chair hat off. Assertions should be powerful enough to be broad or specific. We wouldn't require published style guide or otherwise internal docs. When differences arise, then company may need to back it up
Kevin: potentially predicable. Regulation and what are we requiring may put other qualifiers on requirement vs. conforming.
<alastairc> https://
Alastair, could you make minutes ? Thanks!