– DRAFT –
AGWG-2024-09-23

Retro doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit

<Jennie_Delisi> * I can scribe for hour 1 if helpful

<hdv> also happy to scribe today!

<Rachael> whiteboard: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit#heading=h.bbbinvj1vb6j

NB: It's a regular google doc, no inaccessible whiteboards here...

<JenStrickland> Did Chuck 3D print these himself?

<Rachael> yes

Chuck: Been through the housekeeping, will start with the retro in a moment.

(Talks through agenda from the pres: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_6)

Chuck: Starting with the retro. Intending to reflect on the past, improve in future.
… starting in this charter, last Oct, so that is the focus of the retro.
… 4 Ps, positive, poor, potential (improvements), progress (how do we make further progress).
… 2 main things in scope, evaluating the practices procedures, direction, and any other things.
… time is not only challenges and issues, but also constructing ideas for improvement. Important to consider the changes we want to make.
… we want to do these twice a year, so we can review the progress since the last one.

<Rachael> CEPC: https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/

Chuck: In a retro, it is a blameless environment, and remember the CEPC.
… in the past we've spent time thinking about the positives / negatives.

Chuck: The first part is the positives and negatives. We use that later in the brain-storming session, to think about solutions.
… if you think of something in the 1st part that is for the second part, please write it down on the whiteboard.

<JenStrickland> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit#heading=h.bbbinvj1vb6j

<Ben_Tillyer> PPT: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g30416ca9379_0_20

<Glenda> Even after 8 years of work, AGWG hasn’t yet demonstrated that a full rewrite of WCAG 2.x will yield net positive results. A tremendous amount of time is being invested in this rewrite, yet very little has been produced that shows WCAG 3 will even improve on WCAG 2.x, let alone improve enough to warrant the opportunity cost, and the overhead that will come from having to make the switch and maintain conformance to both versions while legislation [CUT]

<Glenda> the world is being updated.

<Glenda> It seems unlikely WCAG 3.0 will be market-ready before 2030. Even that may be optimistic. This incurs a significant opportunity cost. There are various issues that could be tackled much sooner than that, with more targeted and smaller updates to WCAG. Examples include adopting APCA, improvements to focus indicator requirements, requirements around new personalization standards, requirements related to advances in AI, etc. AGWG is essentially telli[CUT]

<Glenda> who need these issues resolved to wait while they are busy re-inventing the wheel.

Glenda: I'm representing Wilco's feedback, which I've pasted in above.

<jaunita_george> +1 to wilco

Glenda: he is worried about pace and opportunity cost.

<Glenda> Huge +1 to what ljoakley just said about “Task forces - we’ve addressed 154 issues (in WCAG 2.x TF), glad we have this task-force, really enjoy working on that.”

<Chuck> ack

PLease start your comment with whether it's positive or negative, my brain capacity can't hold everything in until I work out which it is.

<julierawe> Zoom question: Is everyone online OK with the camera zooming in and out? If anyone is getting motion-sickness, maybe we could set the camera to stick with one wide shot?

<tburtin> +1 To summaries of the meetings. Adding the GitHub thread summaries are appreciated!

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to JenStrickland

<bruce_bailey> Per Rachael ask to focus on current charter and time period...

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2023/11/ag-charter

<kirkwood> can AI be used for a github issue status summary?

<Zakim> tburtin, you wanted to say thank you for the Github Summaries and thank you for reducing movement during meetings

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to github

<JenStrickland> For anyone just joining, the whiteboard: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit#heading=h.bbbinvj1vb6j

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about the earlier observations from Glenda

<Glenda> More input from Wilco: “As time goes on, AGWG is likely going to see increased pressure from the W3C, from its members, from legislators, and the world at large to hurry it up to finish WCAG 3.0. This pressure is inevitably going to hurt the quality of the standard. We’ve seen a similar thing happen in WCAG 2.1, where in order to get it ready for the EU’s Web Accessibility Directive, various parts were rushed to completion. As a result, the[CUT]

<Glenda> of WCAG 2.1 success criteria is noticeably worse than those of WCAG 2.0 and 2.2, making WCAG 2.1 more difficult to test, and making some of the things it requires organizations to invest in of questionable benefit to people with disabilities. For WCAG 3.0 though, the problem won’t be a few rushed criteria, it will be the entire standard that’s rushed.”

<dj> +1

<kevin> There is a lot that we could potentially do to provide some sort of overview page to the GitHub interface

<kirkwood> +1 to Glenda

<dj> +1 Glenda

<JJ> Related Github issue for alphabetically sorting: isaacs/github#895

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to Glenda

<kirkwood> No.

<Chuck> "discression"

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to address ai unless alastair does

kevin: Just to note that we rely on scribes to check the validity of content.

<kirkwood> there are legal issues as well

<kirkwood> +1 have used it as well

<Zakim> question, you wanted to comment on long github threads.

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to AI

<bruce_bailey> +1 that MaryJo management of WCAG2ICT TF via GitHub tools was excellent.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about pacing and feedback

<kirkwood> +1 to DJ

Rachael: How have people found the pace? We're going faster, which is positive and negative in some ways, how have people found it?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to offer a critique on timing

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask a question on long github threads.

<kirkwood> If AI is used it should be clearly stated as such.

<Glenda> If we do use AI summary - we can clearly indicate that this is a Summary provided by AI. Reader be advised :)

<bruce_bailey> +1 to GreggVan that live monitoring of IRC minutes is important.

<dj> s/glaces/glances

Whiteboard doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DxCVBtsbxgOS0mLpoJ4Ur1nU0_MadKzE6q9PGg_MBzE/edit

<Chuck> 5 minutes ago

<Chuck> we haven't resumed yet

<Francis_Storr> Pretty sure Chuck said there'd be snacks at 10:30. Are they being Doordashed to my house or something?

<fbedora1> quit

<Jennie_Delisi> I pulled it off - just wasn't sure if we could include different tooling into the discussion but realized not necessary

<Rachael> Onboarding documentation https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Onboarding_for_working_in_Github

<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to mentorship. I had 2, very helpful

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_3_Timeline

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss historic decisions

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to review actions

Chuck: If we created a sub-group for onboarding, would you be interested in joining?

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<dj> +1 async

<dj> +1 async (--Jeroen)

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to be used as an institutional resource as AG sees fit per context of what is needed.

<JenStrickland> +1 async -- I think we should have "tours of duty" where everyone serves for a spell, to cultivate empathy and connection.

<maryjom> +1 to Kevin - I'd be happy to mentor someone.

kevin: Mentoring might be more valuable, would anyone be able to do that?

<Jennie_Delisi> Suggest signing up to be a mentor for a specific quarter

<kevin> I'd be happy to mentor folks too

Ben_Tillyer: Do we risk people having different experiences / info?

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to Ben_Tillyer

kevin: that is a challenge, needs to be oriented around certain onboarding material
… make the material good, and then the mentors are leaning on that for consistency.

Chuck: Haven't heard about the chunking yet? That sounded actionable.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to "and"

Sheri_B-H: make it a sub-group AND mentors, so the senior / experienced people help with the materials, and they and others can mentor.

Rachael: I think that's brilliant, should be automatable, and keeps reminding people.

Glenda: There's a lot of overhead in matching people etc. You need to designate a time period.

<Sheri_B-H> There are mentorship program tools that help with this

Glenda: need a person co-ordinating, and saying it's there for X months.

kevin: Maybe a buddy system is a better term?
… your onboard buddy, rather than formal mentor.
… also, want to avoid us creating more work when we've got a lot of materials on the topic already.

jaunita_george: If we do that, why not create a one-stop shop of information (accordions etc) to expand on certain topics.

kevin: We have lots, need to make if findable.

<Sheri_B-H> equity

JenStrickland: Could survey with process or PWE, every group in W3C is wildly different, difficult to participate in them. Could we work with one of those groups to establish this?

<Sheri_B-H> Positive Workforce Environment

kevin: It's the herding cats problem.

JenStrickland: there are groups which don't use IRC, so if you ask it's weird, odd gatekeeping experience.
… in PWA we want to help with culture. Want to make it easier for people to contribute.

<JenStrickland> *PWE v PWA. Positive Work Environment v Progressive Web Apps — I'm a huge fan of both!

<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Shadi

does anyone use this page? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to shadi

Rachael: We've been doing that every 3-4 months. We'll be doing that today in the next section. Would be good to know how often we should be doing this?

JJ: Also struggle with the different places things can be. As a TF person often can't edit things.

Chuck: I could improve in terms of when we ask for feedback.

Ben_Tillyer: The feedback surveys used to end a minute before the meeting. Understand the need to do that.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on times for feedback discussion

alastairc: has the two-week intro then decision process helped?

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to alastairc

<Jennie_Delisi> Very helpful, including the COGA review time

Rachael: We did this based on feedback from COGA, we could also frame it differently to see if a bigger overview is needed.

DJ: Yes, that process is helpful.

Chuck: Topic on barriers to people contributing to sub-groups. There was a comment on having a private discussion, which we can also do.
… we've found the sub-groups very useful, want to keep that going.

Rachael: We're going to scaling up, starting with 1, then 4, that's resolving itself.
… we'll be opening the next sub-groups soon.
… given our desire to make the timeline as short as possible, the more we can run at the same time the better that will work.

<jaunita_george> +1

Rachael: need people who can facilitator those. Time zones is an issue, so can group groups into time zones.
… how do we get people ready to lead these groups?

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to respond to the challenge of asynchronous working in subgroups

kevin: Related to a previous topic, how do we do asyn working. So people can dip-in/out. I'd like to dig into a bit more. That will be key. Unless we work out how to deliver that, the sub-groups might not be as effective.

jaunita_george: we could use a ticketing system, pick tasks every 2 weeks and work to completion.
… also, could we have some non-english sub-groups, with someone reporting back in english?

<JenStrickland> +1 to Jaunita's suggestion of subgroups in non-English

Rachael: We used the time in meetings to do sub-group work. Have since been doing decisions in meeting, sub-groups out of meetings.

<kirkwood> +1 to meeting time for subbroups

Sheri_B-H: At work we've been using break out rooms.

<Sheri_B-H> +1 to meeting time for subgroups

<kirkwood> +1 to breakouts

maryjom: I liked the break-outs with the sub-groups, as I couldn't sign up for a particular group.
… I could contribute what I could at the time.

<tburtin> +1 Splitting the meetings to allow time for subgroups

<JenStrickland> +1

ljoakley: I liked having time in the meetings for the sub-groups. It didn't feel like we were making in the separate sub-groups, but in the meeting there was cross-polination which helped resolved things.

<kirkwood> easier for calendering to hold the slot (w/ other time commitments)

<Sheri_B-H> Note: there are accessibility issues for people with hearing loss and subgroups for ASL interpreters and human captioning

<dj> +1 julierawe

julierawe: If you are already committing to a 2 hour meeting, then another meeting, it made it more efficient to do the sub-groups in the meetings.

<kirkwood> +1 to Julie

<tburtin> +1 to Julie Rawe

julierawe: if there were large sub-groups split into more, our experience has been it is a small group working on our sub-group.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to julierawe

Rachael: we want more groups. We've heard than the 3-8 size is good, assuming they can make it. If we get more people in, we can have more groups.

Makoto: It would be great if we can have non-english sub-group, some people don't work well in English but are very passionate.

kirkwood: I think things have been going very well with the zoom breakouts. We should take advantage of this.

<Sheri_B-H> Yes, but if you have two d/Deaf participants and only one interpreter and they are going into different breakout rooms that causes a resource problem

<kirkwood> +1 to Julie

JenStrickland: I have loved having the breakouts in the tuesday meetings. Would like to split the meeting so it's part whole and then split into groups.
… some of our employers don't give it much time.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move on to the "big" topic

JenStrickland: One challenge is FOMO, as I want to work on 3 at once.

<dj> +1 JenStrickland time

<tburtin> +1 to JenStrickland all of us are limited on time unfortunately

<Sheri_B-H> You can only assign one manual captioner, which is the problem I've run into in the past: https://support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&sysparm_article=KB0062490#:~:text=If%20you%20want%20a%20participant,breakout%20session%20with%20closed%20captioning.

Ben_Tillyer: Caution with sub-groups on a particular language, if we had 4 english groups, you'd need 4 non-english sub-groups. Not sure, but don't want people to be isolated.

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to language subgroups

DJ: one solution might be to focus more on async work, then make them hybrid.

Chuck: the big question is on velocity. Currently we are hitting the milestones we have on the project plan.
… the other aspect I'll bring up is that we're gathering data on the velocity.
… when we get those through, we can calculate a velocity. If we ramp up, it brings the time donw.

Rachael: We've got a plan, we're doing the sub-group work. We've got two guidelines ready for the next publication.

<Glenda> Is this the WCAG 3 Timeline / Project Plan? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_3_Timeline

Rachael: but, we haven't taken on end-to-end. If we walk one all the way through, we'll be able to estimate.
… one of the goals of this charter is to create a realistic schedule.

Chuck: So the question is, what would be too long? We've discussed ways of improving the veolicty.

<Makoto> For non-English subgroup, I think it should be a sub-group for a sub-group discussing language related issues such as implied meaning, reflow, color contrast, text spacing, etc. Main language for our group should be English.

Glenda: On this charter period, I'm optimistic. We have been working on this a long time, but I'm seeing the dawn. I want to continue with this plan, see the velocity.

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to how long is too long?

DJ: If other companies start stepping in, that's too long.

alastair: To be fair to previous chairs, when you get to the final stage with finalized normalized language, it takes a Lot of time. Right now we are at a formative stage. We can move alot more quickly in this environment.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on velocity and types of work.

My hope is that we do that and expand out. Get all the guidelines and outcomes to the refining stage. Then timelines become more difficult to predict. I think theres a good chance to get to that point rather quickly

Ben_Tillyer: I know there's pressure from some people / members on timelines. Does the W3C have a view on it?

kevin: The short answer is no. The W3C is the host, it doesn't generally dictate that. There are some provisions about seeing work happening.

Glenda: Regarding other orgs splitting off. I think that danger exists, but I don't know what other orgs would do, e.g. ETSI.

<Ben_Tillyer> ETSI = European Telecommunications Standards Institute

MelanieP: Wtih AC hat on, other working groups send a lot more time at CR getting real world feedback. Going through 2.1 and 2.2, we seemed to rush that through.
… we need to get real-world experience with things.

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to Glenda

DJ: Less concerned about member orgs, but other orgs.

shadi: I don't speak for ETSI. The threat is possible, not aware of any particular proposals. Have seen places like Canada use EN 301 but removing parts.
… this group has come a long way, and there's a lot of harmonisation along the way.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on real world experience and CR

shadi: it's a risk that will increase unless we address certain issues.

alastairc: About real world experience and CR bit. We often have a much different audience than others in W3C. Its a bit more managable compared to the wide audience we have. I agree we need real world experience and testing earlier in the process. I'd like to make sure that we get the experience much sooner than that stage.

We also have the problem that people jump on our work much to early. Not a common problem.

maryjom: Also think we should get implementations really early, to vet the requirements. That can shake out some of these language problems.
… looking at WCAG2ICT, we found some oddities in how things are worded.

<jaunita_george> present_

maryjom: asking those questions earlier on.

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to moving fast

Sheri_B-H: IAAP did their own Maturity model, after ours started. I didn't find out until it's done. If there's money to be made, if you define the standard, we're the only ones qualified to test this standard. The more it overlaps with commercialisation the more likely it is to hapen.

<Ben_Tillyer> Forbes article of Evinced's Mobile Content Accessibility Guidelines: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gusalexiou/2024/03/27/evinced-proposes-long-overdue-mobile-content-accessibility-guidelines/

DJ: In order to avoid other orgs, the solution isn't to move quickly, but to move regularly.
… then industry sees we're making progress, and being thorough.

Ben_Tillyer: Maybe we need to recruit a different sort of member. Someone who doesn't want to be part of the meetings, but a scrutiny committee of our work? E.g. provide them early access, they might jump at it.

<JJ> Ben_Tillyer Illai Zeevi of Evinced is now part of the Mobile Accessibility Task Force - But yes especially in mobile field I see many companies making their own standards

MelanieP: Difference between implementations we do before publication, and then real world testing.
… to soon vs too late, our customers are asking us whether it's ready to go.
… what if we had a "last draft", that's ready to go to CR but now we really want you to look at it.
… we could then say to clients, go for it, and let us know.

Glenda: concept of an implemention proof draft, ready for implementation and feedback.
… e.g. when salesforce wanted to use 2.1 before final, which is really expensive. One of the things we wanted to do got dropped. If we tell them it's for kicking the tires.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to share what I think I'm hearing

Glenda: at that implementation proof draft, with ACT, we find more issues when at the lowest level.

Chuck: two tracks, time & speed track, and other aspect is last-draft

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we've been discussing targeted questions and some kind of town hall conversation for each publication

<Ben_Tillyer> "stable" rather than "final" once comments have slowed down sufficiently?

Rachael: We put out a publication before which we didn't push hard.
… we also have a maturity system so some content will be done long before the whole thing is ready.
… E.g. we take focus-appearance all the way to the end, or a colour contrast chunk that could be mature well before the other areas.

Rain: I wanted to re-inforce this concept, the industry is moving faster than before. Is there a way of saying, WCAG 3 is being built and these bits are ready. Can we push these things out?
… companies think about normative content difererntly.

jaunita_george: Can we push some things out part of wcag 2, normatively.

<Glenda> Don’t take backwards compatibiilty away in the 2.x series….I’m totally cool with breaking backwards compabitiblity at 3.x

<kirkwood> +1

Sheri_B-H: Everyone agrees that diversity of thought is a good thing. But, we are not a diverse group based on restrictions of membership. For beta testers, we need to focus on people who we wish were here but are not.

<Chuck> ala

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on early access and perhaps running webinar for that.

<JJ> +1 Glenda

alastair: Like the idea of final draft. Can we run our own finalization process before we enter the W3C finalization process
… regarding the people who are not here, there is forming the subgroup and getting the experts into it. Then the kind of beta testing, we will be starting an early version.

Maybe we can run a quarterly webinar for the public. Talk to what to test to share out for people who are interested.

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to evince & wcag

dj: We aren't doing everything in public, it's available but you have to know where to look.
… need to be more transparent with industry.
… it takes a lot of effort to do what we're doing, but it might just mean they do it poorly.
… also, could incorporate an open source development model in some ways.

Chuck: We have a last word from Rachael.

Rachael: When we come back we'll be doing a conformance exercise. We're going to facilitate this exercise. Please be back on time.

rssagent, make minutes

Rachael: Trying out a conformance exercise (the 2 conformance models). 1st step is to figure out how good/bad a site is. There is a fake site we will be working with.

Previous conformance conversations pres: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit

Current draft of WCAG 3 https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/

Requirements for WCAG 3: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/

Draft explainer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWyhQRNdiz3-m5j5kVur8CrYVni5_Gihn6aKCmyukEo/edit

Museum of broken things (test site): https://w3c.github.io/wai-conformance-model-test/

Recording sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dv06n-R9rcYEB9d12lXwwss4AJsmW3UtlcNxcSMtdvE/edit?gid=0#gid=0

Rachael: we will test using the “museum of broken things)

Alastair, can you put in the link for the presentation that Rachael has on screen right now?

TPAC 2024: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g30416ca9379_3_108

1:30 (13:30)-4:00 (16:00) Conformance Exercise Pt. 1

From Slide 14 of the TPAC 2024 deck that Rachael is explaining the basic proposed structure: Outcomes are more specific, outcome based, closer to SC

Assertions are clear and documented statement from a person or organization about a procedure.

Outcomes and Assertions link to How To Documents

Methods are technology specific

Gregg: assertion is something you did, or it could be a process of something you do (like a policy)

Rachael: moving to slide 15: Outcome Levels: 1) Prerequistie (small subest) - Safety Issues, Needed for AT to work, likely to prevent task completion even with ideal AT support.

2) Baseline (larger subset) - Author provided methods that aren’t currently met by AT, applicable to all sites and products. 3) Enhanced - Can be met in other ways, or may be domain specific.

DJ: What was the purpose behind A/AA?

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to what was A?

<JenStrickland> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g30416ca9379_3_108

Gregg: Difference between A and AA - in the end, the answer was if there wasn’t a consensus to put it in A, but there was a consensus to put it in AA…

DJ - this is the long version: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.x_Priority_levels_discussion

<Patrick_H_Lauke> w3c/wcag#3889 for the bored

Gregg: Some people believed that only A would be required…so that is why some were pushed to AA.

Gregg: Even the AT we have today CAN do it…it will change over time…so between Prerequisite and Baseline…things would change over time. Need to think about that.

<Patrick_H_Lauke> AI can't infer author intent for many things ... so also won't be a saviour for everything...

Rachael: 2 possible models (slide 13): Model Baseline plus % based levels: Level 1: Baseline (PreReq + Baseline)

Level 2: Baseline + 50% of Enhanced Outcomes

Level 3: Baseline + 90% of Enhanced Outcome

Other possible model: Prerequisite, Baseline & % of enhanced

Level 1: Prerequisite

Level 2: Baseline

Level 3: Prerequisite + Baseline + 50% of Enhanced Outcomes

We could do very different variations where we could go from here

Shadi: What is the definition of percent?

Rachael: It is the amount of criteria met. (and we will need to discuss “not applicable”)

Shadi: We have 85 outcomes (conceptually) - is the scope the page, or the site?

Rachael: The scope of conformance you are claiming.

<Chuck> ack

Chuck: when you saw 50%….it is 50% of the enhanced outcomes

Rachael: In WCAG 3 we have the concept of a conditional test (may only apply in a certain language, or in a certain situation). I18n is working on some of those ideas.

Rachael going over instructions, then break into groups, then do the exercise (instructions start on slide 17) of this deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_30

DJ: sitewide issues? Treat your subsection as if it were an ENTIRE site.

<shadi> ambulatory = physical?

<Zakim> MelanieP, you wanted to ask about ambulatory

Melanie: Ambulatory: can we call it fine motor?

Shadi: combo of visual and auditory? what about visual and motor (which is common)? and other common combos?

<tburtin> Complex Disabilities

<julierawe> +1 to Shadi's comments

Jeanne: I like having visual + auditory where the solutions can be unique.

DJ: Speech and Motor would be a common combo

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to what about aural+motor then?

Alastair: Let’s add an intersectional disabilities categories

Jenn: Intersectional Disabilities create stronger barriers (so you need to consider the compounding impact)

<JJ> Intersectional or Multiple Disabilities. Keep naming consistent with https://www.w3.org/WAI/people-use-web/abilities-barriers/#more-on-diverse-abilities-and-barriers ?

<kirkwood> intersectional: what disabilities are intersecting?

<alastairc> It is a bucket for any that you come across.

Glenda: Recommend Intersectional Disabilities (acknowledging that there are compounding impacts)

<kirkwood> k

Rachael: we will gather data on things that you experts disagree on for later processing

Ben: do you want us to report technical a11y issues (that fail a standard) but don’t have real world impact on disabilities?

Rachael: I want you to rate how accessible YOU think this site (subsection) is for each of these disability types

Rachael: then we will compare our TPAC findings to what the Chairs discovered when they used the WCAG 3.0 model

<alastairc> Presentation has the links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_36

Kenneth: Exercise here is NOT using WCAG 3 models? Yes.

<alastairc> Test side: https://w3c.github.io/wai-conformance-model-test/museum/collections/home/

<alastairc> Reporting sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dv06n-R9rcYEB9d12lXwwss4AJsmW3UtlcNxcSMtdvE/edit?gid=1368641008#gid=1368641008

Rachael: This site has certain areas with accessibility breaks that have flashing, strobing and movement. Doing a demo now. If you have a concern, do not look a the screen now. If you have challenges with issues, do not work on the home screen group.

<Zakim> kenneth, you wanted to spreadsheet

Julie: You don’t want us to leave anything blank?

Rachael: Make your best judgement, then in the group, you can decide amongst yourselves.

DJ: Group score - is it an average? or a consensus?

Rachael: not an average

<JJ> Can I get editing rights for the sheet: [email protected]

<alastairc> shared

Chuck: Exercise got to 4pm (for indivdual work)

<jeroen-hulscher> Could anyone we be so kind to share the slides again, I got disconnected and lost history (will fix this for tomorrow)

<Jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/

<jeroen-hulscher> Thank you, Jeanne :)

<Ben_Tillyer> Example card numbers: https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/testing/test-card-numbers/

Here is a link to the list of intentional breaks. It will not be the full list and we would appreciate it if you list things you found during your review. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FIsjQbSftMYohHTno-2VkO2MCX6WDuIkvfMiNUL2ZgY/edit#heading=h.e776ibgabiog

Rachael: Moving to Group work as described on Slide 24 of this deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_89

Be back at 30 minutes after the hour

Conformance Exercise

4:30 (16:30)-5:30 (17:30) Conformance Exercise Pt. 2

DJ: Read out group's ratings on Gift Shop and checkout from the spreadsheet.

Rachael: what were issue that stood out?

shari: Issues with cookie banners, with notification. Lots of conversations about magnification vs. screen reader

rain: Found that it was hard to pick a score based on a blanket disability. Could have had a more nuanced score if they were broken down within that category.
… scores migrated to a worse score when adding together scores.

DJ: Read out scores for glass collection and t-shirt collection

jen: glass collection run through screen reader - experience was overwhelming.
… should we be evaluating on user experience?

rain: interesting discussions with different thoughts on how visual disabilities were affected by glass collection - perceived as not blocking. However, went with a lower score.

glenda: When there was disagreement, did you change your personal score but allow the group score to be different?

rain: Some we did change scores and aligned, and some we kept our individual score but agreed on a different combined score.

juanita: When you're a person working alone you might have a different perspective but as a group we benefited from hearing other's score and supporting thoughs. Makes me a better evaluator.

Rachael: Home page, search, and sign-in

Jan Jap: Reads out scores from spreadsheet

Rachael: What problems did you find

Jan Jap: Lots of keyboard navigation issues, carousel had no play, pause hide and the video

patrick: Sometimes quite difficult for specific success criteria to determine with a group of experts whether it is pass/fail
… depending on how someone judges good/bad granular scores caused greater variation.
… it was ambitious to give us 6 pages to assess. Qualitative gives more differences in how you're judging the score.

juanita Whose opinion do you believe. One person's opinion is different from another - this creates a moving target.

glenda: we have an issue description library which helps with judging. If we had this type of list, it would help people to judge a web page better.
… was still using a WCAG perspective on testing. Each issue should have a tie-back to disability

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say this isn't the proposed WCAG 3 methodology!

ben: It was difficult to not think about WCAG2 when assessing. Some things weren't technically covered by WCAG, such as spaces between letters, mixing of fonts.

alistair: This is a gut check to test whether we can recognize problems that may not already be covered in WCAG.

rain: rating scales themselves are difficult for some cognitive disabilities, such as dyslexia.

<tburtin> +1 Rain

rain: To echo Ben, we were instructed to not use WCAG as the rubric, but it is sometimes hard to detach from that.

rachael: This exercise, though hard to do quickly, really did help us to understand what it feels like using a scale to rate websites and we'll take that feeling to tomorrow's exercise.

Glenda: we didn't get to the other pages

Julie: Read out scores for the blog. Some control should be given for video.
… intersectional - the page had confusing navigation, especially with zooming pictures
… physical - unexpected extra tabbing
… cognitive - confusing to understand where you were. Quite a few cognitive things
… sensory - uncontrollable zooming. Discussion on how bad was the uncontrollable zooming.
… one error message said "congratulations" was confusing

juanita: For speech disability - didn't know if it was voice control/voice input or for a speech disability

Others indicated they also had that confusion.

rachael: Sports page

lori: This was a small page, not too bad, not the worst.
… focus disappeared sometimes. Focus was there (most of the time)
… no auditory content - N/A
… keyboard functions worked ok, not too bad
… cognitive - you could get lost sometimes when the focus disappeared
… screen reader - repetitive speaking was annoying, but information was there so not too bad.
… speech - N/A didn't find any speech input on the page
… overall this page was scored a 3
… There are a couple of sub-pages where you can favorite an image. Color contrast was bad. When you clicked on the heart, there was a pop-up and it wasn't well understood what "undo" or "dismiss" would do.
… Couldn't get the dialog box to reappear.

Julie The dialog would also disappear quickly.

alistair - Volunteer page was not good. We weren't able to figure out how to judge intersectional - combined score from other disabilities to fill that one.
… sensory some said best and some said worst - not sure why. didn't get
… Technology we didn't have enough time on
… Reads through the scores on that page from the spreadsheet

rachael We'll pick up on this more tomorrow.

ben: Things I didn't consider: 1) If the page was bad for everyone I gave it a score of 1 in my head - because it was bad for everyone. 2) Didn't consider the reason why people would be going to the page - and gave as much time in links in the header and footer as the links to go to the page.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to mention that under a WCAG 2 conformance model, all the overall scores would be 6.

ben: Next time would think about the user journey and what would be main path vs. more obscure and judge based on that

alastair: under a WCAG 2 conformance model, all the overall scores would be 6.

tiffany: had difficulty with the categories, and think category definitions would be helpful.

<JenStrickland> Thank you, tburtin! Great insights!

Rachael: Thanks everyone for their work on this and working through the difficulties in making these quick assessments.
… We'll use what we learned today in our conformance model discussion tomorrow.