<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2024-10-15

<dj> scribe+

<dj> Chuck: introductions?

<dj> BrianE: Hi, I'm Brian Elton

<dj> ... previously outreach WG, now I'm here after TPAC

<dj> stevef: Steve Faulkner

<dj> ... back again, mostly listening

<dj> Chuck: announcments:

<dj> ... 1. CSUN in March

<dj> ... we are considering the first day of CSUN

<dj> ... we are looking to do an activity for that day as the WG

<stevef> +1 to CSUN day

<alastairc> Already on our agenda page, March 10th https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas#Upcoming

<dj> ... 2. daylight savings

<dj> ... oct 27 - nov 3, there will be a difference between CA/US/EU

<alastairc> This call is affected on the 29th.

<dj> ... conferences will start 1 hour earlier for most Europeans, 1 hour later for Canada and China

<dj> ... 3. most W3C staff will take 21st-25th off this month

<dj> ... they will be less responsive during this time

Discuss what to include for conformance in upcoming publications https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/121

<dj> alastairc: Kevin is also away this week, so it's a two-week period for our staff contact

<Rachael> Link to Summary: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/121#discussioncomment-10947335

<dj> Chuck: 4 options:

<dj> ... 1. required + % of enhanced

<dj> ... quick terminology note: our group has not yet decided on terminology

<dj> ... as I talk through this, I'm going to use some working terminology so we can have these discussions

<dj> ... that doesn't mean it's the final terminology though

<dj> ... 6 +1s for option 1, 3 -1s for

<dj> ... [see Rachael's link for votes]

can we share screen ?

<dj> Rachael: it did seem to us that Hybrid was one of the more popular options by active members

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/121#discussioncomment-10947335

<dj> ... new addition was that you have some sort of baseline, and then modules above it

<dj> ... both seem to be getting support

<dj> ... if we do decide to go that way, we do have enough to write

<dj> ... we wanted to bring it up here if people have thoughts/concerns

<dj> wendyreid: really compelling final suggestion

<dj> ... definitely more to talk about

<dj> ... defining roles/responsibilities by what you do for conformance

<dj> ... for example, depending on your role in the institution and what tools you use, you might not have control over some areas

<dj> ChrisLoiselle: terminology: I don't know if mapping "required/baseline/enhanced" to 2x would help a larger audience

<dj> ... also if you can't meet prereq, how do you meet level 1?

<dj> stevef: my understanding was that the modules are all on the same level, and that they're just separated because they cater to different sets of needs

is WAI or AG going to provide a tool to rank this or this set on market (auditing firms or individual companies) to offer tools that do this?

<dj> ... right now, people completely forget about AAA

<dj> ... my concern is that talking about a baseline will make people ignore the modules

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on levels from Dan and to also mention confusion if we do map terms to WCAG 2.

<alastairc> Regarding the levels option https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/121#discussioncomment-10895335

<dj> alastairc: re: 'maybe the problem is that we have so many levels'

<Laura_Carlson> +1 to Steve

<dj> ... given that we've compressed A&AA into 'baseline', the way we get people to care about anything above that is by making progressing easier

<dj> ... another is percentages

<dj> ... that way you can demonstrate a clear progression

<dj> ... the interesting thing about modules is that they provide a better hook for regulators on a sector-by-sector basis

<dj> ... for example the education sector might have specific media-related modules

<dj> ... if we just had baseline and one extra level, that would just be what we have now

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to comment on options on how to think about sets of enhanced

<dj> ... more levels would allow better progression

<dj> Rachael: [chair hat off]

<dj> ... personally, I don't think the concept of levels that build is the right way, because it just brings us back to a 2x situation

<dj> ... but I do think we need some set that's always required

<dj> ... I like the idea of modules, but not modules by thing (for example the color contrast module)

<dj> ... I'm excited about the idea of modules by functional need, though

<dj> ... especially by sector

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that the concepts are the priority today, less so for the terminology

<dj> ... but personally, all three options have interesting potential that I think we should try before throwing anything out

<alastairc> Regarding people only caring if things are legally required, I somewhat agree (although we have clients who do go beyond the basics), but the point is what is the best hook for more things to be required? Scoring and modules are both a route for that.

<dj> Chuck: quick point of order: today we're mostly focused on structure, not terminology

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to affirm my understanding that scoring is broad term ( i.e., points . % interchangeable )

<dj> ... if we had multiple levels above regulated minimum, that might encourage people to pursue a competitive advantage

<dj> bruce_bailey: very excited about the possibility of a scoring mechanism

<dj> ... whether that's percentage-based, levels, etc

<dj> ... organizations in trouble will definitely pursue the minimum

<dj> ... but I also think many organizations will pursue higher options (provided there is a scoring system)

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on bruce's scoring question and people who go above, and the practicality of writing guidelines.

<dj> ChrisLoiselle: are we going to provide a WCAG-EM-like tool?

<dj> alastairc: re bruce_bailey: we're talking about a baseline pass/fail level, but then what are we going to do with everything after that

<dj> ... trying to build assertions and measurable outcomes into the same tree is very difficult

<dj> ... I think having a decision tree for the baseline and then a flat list of things for everything else is going to help

<dj> ... stevef: i'm still not sure how having a baseline + optional items will be different this time in terms of motivation

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say WAI woudl likely provide something like the EZ checks but market likely will too

<dj> Rachael: going back to the question of WCAG-EM

<dj> ... I would expect industry would do tools

<dj> ... we can do tags though [scribe summary - not decision]

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer Chris in case nobody else answers Chris and to answer Stevef question on potential motivation

<dj> ... as far as motivation goes, having percentages/levels would allow people to do some but not all enhanced criteria and still get credit for what they did

<dj> Chuck: right now you can't claim AAA compliance unless you've done all of them

<dj> ... but that's a bit overbearing

<stevef> Q_

<bruce_bailey> i do not disagree that historically regulators have picked AA not A and not AAA.

<dj> ... if they were segregated out in levels, you could still claim greater conformance than required without doing literally everything

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the motivations for going above baseline, going from all or nothing, to incremental, to product-level conformance, to organisational level.

<dj> alastairc: just a reminder that that's not our assumption; the Silver research showed the all-or-nothing aspect is really offputting

<dj> ... also organizations which do go above and beyond right now can't make any kind of claim because they haven't done everything

<dj> ... other ideas could be a product-level conformance, like a WCAG-EM that's less all-or-nothing

<dj> ... if you have an organizational tag, for example, you can claim a more specific level that might be required by regulations

<bruce_bailey> I think this the conformance challenges document Alastair referred to: https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/

<dj> stevef: are we saying you can do part of the baseline?

<dj> ChrisLoiselle: how to all the intertying alignments work together?

<dj> ... I understand there are a lot of moving parts, but I'm just missing that peice

<stevef> +1 to keeping conformance as simple as possible

<dj> Detlev: I've never heard any requests for meeting above AA, and many organizations already struggle to meet AA

<dj> qq+ to can we get a scribe change? my wrists are bothering me

<Zakim> dj, you wanted to react to Detlev to can we get a scribe change? my wrists are bothering me

<dj> ... I like the idea of modules to keep things together

<scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say if we pursue this we don't lose any time

Chuck: We are still in experimental. We will be able to try this out.
... the work doesn't get lost.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on "part of the baseline" and to also mention differences from previous a/aa/aaa

Chuck: We will have data to validate against and change course.

Alastair: Will percentages be part of baseline? We'd be counting instances and it would be time consuming.
... WCAG 2 style per page per view . Wouldn't directly equate to WCAG 2.

<stevef> alastairc i am not advocating for percentage of baseline

Alastair: baseline roughly equivalent to AA
... requirements are broken apart, i.e. 1.3.1 , headings vs. list. Exact coverage would differ.

DanB: I wanted to express on comments from earlier. Doing accessibility audits and helping teams do their audits. I have never seen full AAA conformance being a selling point. Efforts for user testing is , but product specific.
... we should be worrying about making baseline great

<alastairc> +1 to Dan's comment about how companies go above and beyond, but I think that we should align to that.

<kirkwood> +1

<wendyreid> +1

<Chuck> ChrisLoiselle: When Chuck was talking about "this" and we are still experimental. One of the bulleted options? Or just exploring the required plus levels? All 4 or just one?

<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to talk about the challenge with AAA, +1 to modules

Wendy: +1 to Dan. I do want to implement some AAA but some are impossible to implement.
... think millions of pages and different languages and how to meet that at AAA.
... on modules , empowering people to enable what they can control to have an added benefit. Make it possible for them to be able to go above and beyond.
... how to get recognized for going above and beyond

Detlev: On baseline or core, it is more or less on a and aa, that is a high bar . Difficulty of meeting AA requirements, for example, alternative text leads to an assertion on remedy for a given time.

Assertions within the baseline?

Are they testable?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say the audience for the hooks is the regulators not audit customers

Rachael: On AAA compliance, audience is regulators . If regulators require core baseline plus something, then we'd have the something to talk toward.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that this is one of our requirements

Chuck: On customer interactions, AAA do occur at Oracle.
... AAA is very hard to meet, so maybe if we structured it differently, would we be able to meet.

For publication, all are experimental.

for WCAG3, we are attempting to structure it to have companies to go above and beyond.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on priority of this aspect, and next steps and to also answer Detlev on product-level conformance idea

We need to look in to that requirement.

Alastair: Yes, on priority on terms of work should be on core set of requirements.

On Detlev's question, on large orgs claiming conformance. We did look at core requirements. Instance counting made it complex to track. View by view or page by page is where we ended up. We aren't losing the idea as a whole. Product level conformance statement is something we are looking at.

<Chuck> ChrisLoiselle: Alastair's point on Detlev's point, prerequisites and baseline, baseline may have tangentally related assertions. If they are weighted equally, differently or at all,that would be part of the assert or statement. Who audits the assertions in your requirements, are they one in the same? Are we meant to do that differently? All

<Chuck> those questions come to mind.

<Chuck> ChrisLoiselle: The weight-i-ness vs. the terminology.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that I've heard a lot of discussion and some excitement around the idea of a core set and something above/beside it

<alastairc> Assertions - these aren't really auditable by external parties unless the claiming organisation provided access. The idea is that they are about organisations and their process. They are unlikely to be part of "baseline", which is more around direct requirements of an interface.

Rachael: On core baseline topic, we will work through that all. I have not heard that it is a bad idea to explore it.

<Zakim> kirkwood, you wanted to say we shouldn’t underestimate the success of A, AA, AAA in global adoption and regulation

Rachael: is there another recommendation on what to do on terms of conformance next steps ?

Kirkwood: Don't underestimate the success of A, AA and AA in global adoption and regulation.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we have a proposal/resolution?

?

<Rachael> Draft resolution: We will explore having a baseline set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set enhanced provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon that baseline through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

Chuck: do you have a resolution we can poll?
... let's segregate it out and lets go from there. Levels may be modules.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: We will explore having a baseline set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set enhanced provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon that baseline through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

<bruce_bailey> +1

0

<alastairc> +1, it gives us enough to get on with writing the guidelines

<Chuck> +1

<wendyreid> +1

<LenB> +1

<dj> +1

<BrianE> +1

<filippo-zorzi> +1

<stevef> -1

<Poornima> +1

<Rachael> +1, its a direction to explore with a lot of potential

<kirkwood> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Detlev> +1

<mbgower> +1

<mike_beganyi> +1

<scott> 0

<tiffanyburtin> 0

<jtoles> +1

<dan_bjorge> 0

<Chuck> having a baseline set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set enhanced provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon that baseline through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

<ShawnT> +1

0 on provisions, modules, assertions text use, what have we agreed on per terminology of these

Steve: On terminology around baseline and enhancements , that is why I was on -1 for this.

<kirkwood> agree with objection to ‘baseline’ and ‘enhanced’

Rachael: If we came back to those terms and defined, would you agree on it?

<bruce_bailey> lower case b in "baseline set" is appreciated

<mbgower> Suggest: We will explore having a set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set of provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon that baseline through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

<Rachael> Draft resolution: We will explore having a baseline/core/required/TBD set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set of enhanced/extra/beyond required provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon the required sets through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

Steve: If we were to discuss later , perhaps. Above vs. below and what that means in context.

<kirkwood> agree with Steve

<mbgower> Suggest: We will explore having a set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set of provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon that through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

<stevef> +1 to mbgower

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: We will explore having a set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set of provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon that through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

<stevef> +1

<BrianE> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Laura_Carlson> +1

<wendyreid> +1

<mike_beganyi> +1

<jtoles> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Makoto> +1

<dj> +1

0

<alastairc> +1

<MJ> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<mbgower> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<dan_bjorge> 0

RESOLUTION: We will explore having a set of required provisions that is somewhat comparable to WCAG 2.2 A & AA and a set of provisions and assertions that can be used to build upon that through points, percentages, or predefined sets of provisions (modules).

<scott> 0

<tiffanyburtin> 0

Yes, Chuck.

Technical statement refinement https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JgjDonZEvJMc3_k_R6r3siNexeBjigQsqVxvQRhLEN8/edit?gid=0#gid=0

It was on our last topic.

I shared in the IRC. It was on terms used. Why I voted 0. provisions, modules , definitions, etc.

Alastair: Shares Refine Statements Exercise Google sheet.
... recommendation is to break in to smaller groups , 4 or 5 each. Run through 10-20 of these items.

Chuck: if we are spending 30 minutes on one row, then we are spending too much time on that row. Objective is to do as much as possible. Perfection is not required.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we comming back?

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JgjDonZEvJMc3_k_R6r3siNexeBjigQsqVxvQRhLEN8/edit?gid=0#gid=0

<stevef> where are the rooms?

<MJ> Click on the "Breakout rooms" button in Zoom.

<MJ> We want to confirm: Is our task is to write the current technical statements in plain language?

<Chuck> Chuck: 61-90 made it 2/3.

<Chuck> Rachael: Made it through 2/3.

<Chuck> Alastair made it through 1/3.

<Chuck> Bruce: Made it through middle 10.

<Chuck> DJ: made it through 13.

<Zakim> Graham, you wanted to say this exercise should come later.

<scott> +1 to graham's comment

<Chuck> Graham: Exercise needs shelving. We should review the purpose and understand each one before we wordsmith.

<Chuck> Alastair: That's the point, we send back to the subgroups, we can take these back to the subgroups and they can use the feedback (hopefully as notes).

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/RESOLUTION: We will explore//
Default Present: dj, Rachael, ShawnT, alastairc, Laura_Carlson, stevef, giacomo-petri, tiffanyburtin, wendyreid, ChrisLoiselle, BrianE, bruce_bailey, mike_beganyi, mgarrish, Makoto, scott, filippo-zorzi, julierawe, jtoles, mbgower, Detlev, kirkwood, LenB, Jen_G, Graham, maryjom, MJ
Present: dj, Rachael, ShawnT, alastairc, Laura_Carlson, stevef, giacomo-petri, tiffanyburtin, wendyreid, ChrisLoiselle, BrianE, bruce_bailey, mike_beganyi, mgarrish, Makoto, scott, filippo-zorzi, julierawe, jtoles, mbgower, Detlev, kirkwood, LenB, Jen_G, Graham, maryjom, MJ
Regrets: Kevin White, Jennifer Strickland, Sarah Horton, Francis Storr
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle

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.)