– DRAFT –
AGWG Teleconference

<Laura_Carlson> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Jennie_Delisi> * I can scribe if needed

Announcements

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Chairs discussed item from TPAC: starting a mentoring or buddy system

<Jennie_Delisi> ...someone with more experience.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...There is a video for new people starting.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Is there anyone interested in helping set up a spreadsheet and matching people?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...If you are interested in becoming a mentor or buddy, please email the chairs.

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AGWGSubgroupParticipation_Oct_24/

<Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Announcement 2 - need volunteers for these subgroups

<Jennie_Delisi> ...This survey is open until end of day today, Boston time.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...When they start: it will be working sessions in this call.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Then there will be times outside of this call.

<Jennie_Delisi> DJ: The subgroup form time?

<Jennie_Delisi> Chuck: Consider it daylight savings time

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Boston time is the way our times are set.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Anyone new who would like to introduce themselves?

Requirements Publication w3c/wcag3#117

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Background: Requirements for WCAG 3 turns into a document to assess how successful WCAG 3 is

<Jennie_Delisi> ...We iterated.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Earlier in the year: issues available on Github related to this document

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Small group reviewed, and made changes to the document. We are in the final stages getting ready for publication.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...People have been reviewing, asking questions.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Changes include editorial information towards the beginning...

<Jennie_Delisi> ...In the requirements section are the pieces which will be used to assess success

<Jennie_Delisi> ...We tried to make them more testable - that WCAG 3 satisfies these requirements.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Comments have been resolved, merged in.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...A few things were left from a thread on the readability section.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...(reads the edits made)

<Jennie_Delisi> ...There is a last minute suggestion

<alastairc> "WCAG 3 is written using the plain language guidance from WCAG 3. The goal is for the widest possible audience to understand WCAG 3

<Jennie_Delisi> ...1 other change made recently is to add the self-validation section, which overlaps

<Jennie_Delisi> ...(reads from the document)

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Should we keep the readability requirement as a separate thing?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Or should we remove it because it is taken care of by the self-validation section?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Questions or comments?

<Jennie_Delisi> Gregg: This is a requirement and listed separately?

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: To me, the self-validation section is the umbrella one, which encompasses the other.

<Jennie_Delisi> Julie: One of the design principles, #5, is plain language.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Connecting plain language requirements to what makes it into WCAG 3 about plain language.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...What if the plain language things are not ready yet?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Is it essential to tie the section about readability to things specifically in WCAG 3 vs general plain language principles?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to the use of plain language before final publication

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I don't think we have to formally meet the requirements until we get close to the final publication.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Also the requirements document will primarily be applied to the normative text.

<Chuck> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Jennie_Delisi> Gregg: Readability is more than plain language. It has to do with structure, order, organization.

<GN015> +1 to Gregg

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I think I would add some of that and leave it in for now.

<Jennie_Delisi> Makoto: I think we should keep the readability section.

<kirkwood> +1 to keeping plain language

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It would help ensure it is more readable and understandable.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...This will help emphasize this.

<Jennie_Delisi> Graham: Does it still need to be in the design principles section?

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I don't think there is a problem to have it in both places.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer

<Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: I think the reason it was set up this way is the design principles are aspirational

<Jennie_Delisi> ...But the requirements are what we use to check.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Testable ones are the ones we hold ourselves to, and is the reason they are divided up this way

<Jennie_Delisi> Graham: Is this an overview because we need to define what plain language looks like?

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: This is "out in the world" - this is an update to it

<Jennie_Delisi> ...But we are iterating as we go through the process.

<Jennie_Delisi> Jeanne: Measurability and testability is the difference between the design principles and the requirements

<Jennie_Delisi> ...More difficult to measure aspects went into the design principles.

<kirkwood> current regs in US: “The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to use plain language when communicating with the public.”

<kirkwood> “

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Readability is critical, and came out in all input about WCAG 3

<alastairc> q/

<Jennie_Delisi> ...That's why it is in the requirements section.

<alastairc> "WCAG 3 is written using the plain language guidance from WCAG 3. The goal is for the widest possible audience to understand WCAG 3."

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: The proposal is to update that language.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...(reads from the document)

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Any objections?

<Rachael> +1

<Jennie_Delisi> ...OK I can make that update, then it goes to CFC

<Jennie_Delisi> Kirkwood: Does that language make sense?

<alastairc> Diff document: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fwcag-3.0-requirements%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-117--wcag3.netlify.app%2Frequirements%2F

<Jennie_Delisi> Chris: Design principles - "based on requirements of WCAG 2.x and build upon those requirements"

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Then in the requirements we say "should"

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Seems like we are mentioning a couple of different terms that are conflated when someone is reading it through

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Regarding scope: if there are any new things people want to suggest - these can be added into Github

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Today we are reviewing these changes.

<Jennie_Delisi> Graham: Can we add a caveat about adding to WCAG 3?

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: In terms of all of them - the requirements are written in present tense

<Jennie_Delisi> ...and that was a deliberate choice

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I think that is a quirk about how this document works.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Otherwise we would have to make minor edits.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Rachael mentions we can add an editor's note to address this.

<Graham> +1 to editors note then, far better idea!

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I did not see any issues with the proposed language.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...The other topic on this: adding something about mental health.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...There is a section in the broad disability support section (reads from the document)

<Jennie_Delisi> ...The proposal is to add

<alastairc> "This approach includes particular attention to people whose needs may better be met with a broad testing strategy, such as people with low vision, limited vision, cognitive and learning disabilities, or mental health disabilities."

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Are we happy to add mental health disabilities to this list?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...This is being worked on in the Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Task Force

<Jennie_Delisi> Laurie: There is nothing in here about people with restricted mobility.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Why wouldn't we add that in?

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Because it was perceived to be well-covered in WCAG 2.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Those included were felt to be more difficult to cover in a WCAG 2 structure.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Otherwise we have to list all disabilities.

<Jennie_Delisi> GN: Are there consequences for adding mental health because it is a complex topic?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...How could we cover it from an accessibility perspective?

<Jennie_Delisi> Chris: Design principles: in the heading, #4 - is that the same topic that Gregg was asking about? It seems circular to me.

<ljoakley> +1 to Chris

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Should I raise an issue about this or is it covered by this conversation?

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: WCAG 2 is supposed to conform to WCAG 3.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Yes, the guidelines document should conform

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about voice control? and to speak to mental health

<Jennie_Delisi> Chris: OK. Thank you

<Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: re mobility - we may want to call out voice control. But I am not sure it fits there.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Regarding mental health: it is hard, and it is something COGA is working on - what can be included.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It is an important area.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...There is enough research to make improvements.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It is a conversation we will be having.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It will only include what we can work in based on research, but this is true of all disabilities.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we discussed mental health when writing the original document and chose not to because of the lack of research at that time

<Jennie_Delisi> Jeanne: History - we wanted to include mental health. When we looked at it in 2018 - we didn't want to tie ourselves to something without sufficient research.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the reason for the section

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: The reason for the section - it used to be called multiple ways to measure

<Jennie_Delisi> ...We are trying to go beyond true false statements.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...The different structure and provisions we are including, like assertions - these are the reasons to include something in this section

<kirkwood> mental health disabilities should be the language used, no?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Along with COGA - it does seem like an area that would benefit from assertions

<Jennie_Delisi> Graham: We don't we move the whole section into the design principles section?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Then it could grow or shrink without it being a requirement?

<Jennie_Delisi> Gregg: 1: Broad disability support is a wonderful section. I think it focuses too much on measuring.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It mentions other ways of measuring, but in the end you need to pass or not pass.

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Even if a sliding scale you need to say where on the scale it passes.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...We are not mentioning all the things we are doing, or not doing.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...We are making a broader range of guidance.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Measuring is measuring.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...2: We have limited and low vision as people not included. I am not sure why we have particular attention to low vision

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I would suggest removing them.

<Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: I strongly think we need the broad disability support section. (Chair hat off)

<Jennie_Delisi> ...The 1st sentence - this is a strong start.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I agree with Gregg's comments related to measurement.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I like cognitive being called out because getting additional support will be a good test.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on keeping it as a requirement

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I think we can simplify it and meet the needs to keep it in this section.

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: (chair hat off) we should keep something like this in.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It needs to be a requirement, not just a design goal.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...The main thing - we are trying to create something with more flexibility - that is the point.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Regarding mental health: maybe it is premature to include it here at the moment.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I don't know that there are different mechanisms needed for mental health that isn't in COGA in general.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I can poll on this.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...If people think we need to reframe the whole section...

<Jennie_Delisi> Bruce: regarding dropping low vision (missed what he said)

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I think people in the low vision task force were frustrated that some requests they had re WCAG 2 did not go in

<Jennie_Delisi> ...That a slightly different approach would enable them to include more provisions

<Jennie_Delisi> Bruce: I agree with Gregg that WCAG 2 does a decent job for low vision, in comparison with the needs of COGA

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I think we would get an objection if we removed that, from people who are not on the call.

<Jennie_Delisi> Gregg: There are people who think low vision / limited vision is something that is an area requiring special attention?

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Not special attention, but had certain requirements which could not fit into the true / false

<Jennie_Delisi> ...There were frustrations around things they could not get into WCAG 2

<Jennie_Delisi> Gregg: There is so much focus on vision, this could draw concerns from other areas

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I would remove "limited vision"

<julierawe> +1 to Gregg on removing one of the mentions of vision

<ChrisLoiselle> perhaps intersectional needs and disabilities and remove the "classes and categories " of disabilities

<Jennie_Delisi> ...There were things for all areas which could not be fit in

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: I will take that as an editorial comment.

<Jennie_Delisi> Jeanne: When we first wrote this - there were task forces being formed for different disability groups

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg, acuity versus the visual field. low/limited. i would keep limited rather than low

<Jennie_Delisi> ...who felt their needs were not getting added into WCAG 2.1

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Low vision had a number of proposals which did not get added into 2.1 because they did not meet the true / false requirements

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I was informed by one of the chairs of the low vision task force that they disbanded because they did not feel it was worth their time to continue trying, and would wait for WCAG 3

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I think it is important to keep it there.

<Laura_Carlson> +1 to Alastair I remember the low vision situation the same. But Wayne and JonA are not here to speak to it.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...If we want to change the order so cognitive goes first in the list, I am fine with that.

<Laura_Carlson> +1 to Jeanne

<Jennie_Delisi> Chris: In IRC I added a possible suggestion

<kirkwood> agree putting with Jeanne

<steveF> +1 to Jeanne

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I can echo Jeanne's point to a degree, and I feel we are trying to include rather than exclude

<Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: I put a suggested alternative in (chair point on)

<kirkwood> +1 to Jeanne

<Chuck> Rachael suggested alternative: WCAG 3 guidance will have a structure, tests, and/or approach that allows for requirements that are not available in WCAG 2.x, such as additional needs of people with cognitive and learning disabilities, intersectional disabilities, and limited vision.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Possibly (reads from her comment)

<Jennie_Delisi> ...This gives us more flexibility, doesn't focus just on the measurement, and uses these as exemplars

<alastairc> WCAG 3 guidance will have a structure, tests, and/or approach that allows for requirements that are not available in WCAG 2.x, such as the additional needs of people with cognitive and learning disabilities, intersectional disabilities, and limited vision.

<julierawe> +1 to Rachael suggestion

<jeanne2> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Graham> simpler suggestion is just adding "such as (but not limited to) ..." in the current setence?

<GreggVan> +1 to Rachael

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: Should we update the broad disability support to the proposal above?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Any suggestions, objections, or comments?

<GreggVan> +1

<tiffanyburtin> Will we be covering intersectionality?

<Jennie_Delisi> Rachael: I added the suggested revision

<Chuck> +1

<Graham> +1

<Jennie_Delisi> ...(not limited to)

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> +1 to Rachale #2

<bruce_bailey> +1

<MJ> +1

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> Draftr RESOLUTION: Accept the suggestion to replace the current "Broad disability support"

<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Laura_Carlson> +1

<DJ> +1

<scott> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Justine> +1

<GN015> I can't see the suggested text.

<GreggVan> +1

<alastairc> WCAG 3 guidance will have a structure, tests, and/or approach that allows for requirements that are not available in

<alastairc> WCAG 2.x, such as (but not limited to) additional needs of people with cognitive and learning disabilities, intersectional disabilities, and limited vision.

<tiffanyburtin> +1

<julierawe> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<jtoles> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept the suggestion to replace the current "Broad disability support"

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: moving to the WCAG 2 issues

WCAG 2.x issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2024Oct/0002.html

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: We are building to a republication

<Jennie_Delisi> ...These are large but minor - lots of editorial things

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Lots of style-guide type things.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...I am highlighting things which are minor but part of the normative text.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...They will be added to the CFC

<Jennie_Delisi> ...The other one, not normative: there was a proposal with discussion about automatic

<Jennie_Delisi> ...there was some back and forth

<Jennie_Delisi> ...If you looked at it 2 weeks ago there have been minor updates.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...If you are concerned about this, please review in the next few days.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It has received several thumbs ups

<Jennie_Delisi> ...We will have a CFC soon.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Any questions or comments?

Breakouts for technical-statement refinements & notes

<Jennie_Delisi> Alastairc: This is a continuation of our work from last week.

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

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Outcomes are now called technical statements.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Are there refinements we can make?

<Jennie_Delisi> ...It is fine not to know what it means or the intent behind it.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...We are usability testing it.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...Notes are given to the subgroups as feedback.

<Jennie_Delisi> ...There might be things that are easy to update.

<ChrisLoiselle> do we have those two links related to the exercise?

<MJ> my group was 151-180

<julierawe> Have to drop, thank you all!

<Chuck> group 61-90 is "complete".

<alastairc> 2 left for us

<alastairc> Need to check 160, 174 etc.