Meeting minutes
AC: Welcome.
Announcements and Introductions
ac: Any announcements?
… mentoring/buddy system. One person was interested so far. If you would like to be one, please contact the Chairs.
… a CFC is out for errata. One -1 so far. Please respond with your +1 , -1 with reasons, etc.
Mj: For buddy system. Could we announce it to the list?
Kevin: minutes go to the full group.
Julie: dedicated email may be helpful.
ac: Any new members?
<Chuck> Welcome Roldon Brown!
<bruce_bailey> Welcome Roldon !
RB: I'm Rouldon Brown, joined 2 weeks ago. Happy to join you.
<GN015> Welcome Roldon!
<Chuck> re-welcome Laura!
<bruce_bailey> We are so happy to have Laura as a Fed!
LM: I'm Laura Miller. I'm with GSA. Have worked in other capacities too.
<LauraBMiller> Old member, change of affiliation. On the WCAG2ICT working group.
<Chuck> re-welcome Tiffany!
<Zakim> resources, you wanted to discuss new members: https://
TB: Tiffany Burton I'm now an invited expert. Previous work in other capacities.
RM: we do have intro info in our wiki.
Subgroup wrap up briefings
<bruce_bailey> Welcome back Tiffany!
DJ: Haptic Stimulation now calling ourselves Haptic Feedback.
Outcome:
Haptic feedback can be adjusted and/or turned off.
… goal: Users have the ability to adjust or turn off haptic input and output
… (reviews Method decision tree)
… Haptic is not a true alternative
… We are focusing on haptic feedback. Haptic input should be a different subgroup
Jennie: congrats on the sensations of Haptic feedback.
… need to differentiate between styles of haptic feedback and for a specific app?
DJ: we did discuss that.
<Zakim> LauraBMiller, you wanted to say - great work on this. Love the decision tree.
Ac: worth looking into.
LM: great work on this.
AC: next week other subgroups will do exit briefings.
Discuss Explainer w3c/wcag3#116 (comment)
Ac: not too many comments.
… goes over them: w3c/
RM: quantitative/quantifiable is an editorial change.
<kirkwood> +1 to removing somewhat
Kevin: I think quantitative/quantifiable are different.
… don't think they are interchangeable.
RM: Those are the terms we previously agreed on.
… It is not a small change at this point.
<kirkwood> seems wishy washy. agree with Bruce
Bruce: I'm okay with it. But it is different 40 lines down.
Ac: could say comparable.
… but there are a lot of dimensions to it.
JK: I'd get rid of "somewhat"
<bruce_bailey> i am all for additional wiggle room
RM: I would like to keep the wiggle room.
RM: Want to avoid coming back to this in 6 months
Bruce: "somewhat comparable" is fine.
<GN015> basing on comparable concept ?
<alastairc> Suggesting: "An Assertion is another approach to meeting a Guideline. They do not replace Requirements, and not all Guidelines include Assertions."
AC: Detlev thought "Assertions may supplement Requirement to meet a Guideline. Not all Guidelines include Assertions." Was not clear.
Detlev: The sentence feels wobbly. What does "accessibility under guidelines" mean? It's always about accessibility of content?
… May open up claim for things that no one can check.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say Organizations can make an assertion that they followed a procedure as part of a conformance claim .
Detlev: I don't know what the place of assertions are.
RM: would it help to say: Organizations can make an assertion that they followed a procedure as part of a conformance claim ?
Detlev: is an assertion enough? It seems a wooly way. Not verifiable. Not happy with this.
RM: ambiguity is intentional as the group hasn't decided on assertions.
… need to add an editors note.
<sarahhorton> +1 to Detlev
<scott> also +1 to Detlev's concerns. great points
<ChrisLoiselle> I had to step away for a doctor call, I agree with what Detlev was raising but missed some of what he stated on call.
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 Detlev
LC: +1 to Detlev
Ac: An assertion doesn't replace the requirement. Need to explain it better.
Detlev: we should make it clear from the explainer.
Ac: assertions can't replace the requirements
Ac: need to flesh out level of maturity.
<Detlev> alastairc the last point (add or refine) was minor, maybe a bit too terse
Ac: last call for comments on the explainer.
Sarah: I had a comment in the google doc.
… can we be more explicit?
… maybe make it more explicit about ATAG or UAAG and WCAG 3 .
RM: Can't commit to writing ATAG or UAAG
RM: That is fine. But we need to make it clear what we are and aren't doing. How far are we going into that space?
RM: We are walking a fine line.
Kevin: How far we can influence. There is information guidance. But not normative standard on UAs.
<Chuck> +1 to alastair's comment
Discussion of WCAG 3 Guidelines and Requirements https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hc5fwRKZVdWPoEp-HzrCu4TTsXF36sozE45OfcYUnKU/edit?tab=t.0 alastairc]
Ac: Will send out an email with updates and after that do a CFC.
<kirkwood> comparable denotes equivalency. comparable is the ability to be compared. that was my earlier point. (sorry for slow comment)
Ac: (Reads comments)
Ac: Suggestions to alternative for "Users have"
Sarah: not a problem across the board.
… maybe "users can"
Dan: general complaint about "users have"
<kirkwood> +1 to Dan
Dan: it is unclear. All users? 2 users? What is the scope?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to check on the need for a scribe change
Dan asks about "user have" versus technical statements
alastairc: Outcomes are at technical level, next level up is about users
alastairc: statement is to not do the thing or avoid. Why that is a problem?
sarahhorton: seems like two different approaches
sarahhorton from google doc: These seem like very different things, one is prohibiting content so that users don't experience physical harm and one is allowing users to control content that causes them physical harm. Same comment for each use of this construct.
Letting user control is different than avoiding.
… harm is okay so long as user has control?
[alastair word smithing]
sarahhorton: by combining, takes away option to not include them
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on leaving it to the sub-group, as they will be creating trees
<dan_bjorge> +1 to Rachael; I think the original already made "don't include it" the first and most obvious option.
Rachael: Chair hat off, if foundational is control versus avoidance at enhanced seems bad
alastair: As long as these statements include the options, they are going to be broken apart when the subgroups work on them. the question is...
alastair: Does this include the direction we are including....
alastair does it include what we are looking for?
sarahhorton: From process perspective, requirements have one expectation, not an "or".
… will be easier to combine later rather splitting up now.
bruce_bailey: An editorial comment, there should be more consistent phrasing between them.
alastair: In what way?
Bruce: My comment in doc was just editorial -- I feel like they could phrased all the same
<kirkwood> these together look good to me, agree with Dan
Dan: Prefers them combined, and see consistent.
<sarahhorton> They are consistent within the animation/motion category
alastairc: We will keep where we are for now, and pass work along to sub group
<kirkwood> “the system”
[alastair continues going through comments]
<kirkwood> I queston “the system” wording
alastairc: not sure about better formulation
sarahhorton comment in doc of squishy example.
<kirkwood> recommend “users are provided”
alastairc: This gets at why we have settled on Users Have for guidelines.
kirkwood: Users would have the labels. Users would have access to the labels. Features of content are not features of the users.
<kirkwood> +1 to Chuck
Rachael: This the approach which has been the most productive so far.
alastairc thanks Sarah for all the feedback on the doc, so that is why attention is on this call
alastairc: Chair hat off, we are open to different formulations.
kirkwood: Mechanism?
<kirkwood> disagree
Chuck: One goal is for plain language. Mechanism available is not as understandable as Users have....
<Chuck> +1 to Kirkwood's disagreement, I should have added that my chair hat was off.
<sarahhorton> Agree that "Users are provided" is system/author focused and we are aiming for user focused statements
<scott> i'd want to avoid the use of "focus" in that figure/figcaption guideline
alastairc: Please don't get too stuck on wording, as we have a refreshed version publishing soon, and these pages are in the developmental stage.
[at Interactive Component in doc]
<dan_bjorge> "users can see <thing>" is a particularly good example of why I dislike the "users have" sort of language - it makes it clear that we don't always mean "all users", but if we don't mean "all users" consistently, how is someone supposed to interpret where we mean "all" vs "some"?
alastairc: Making more generic, so focus available rather than keyboard focus available.
bruce_bailey: This is one of the things that the subgroup is not getting traction on, what is comparable.
bruce_bailey: We have 2 different user needs.
bruce_bailey: Subgroup has worked on number of keystrokes versus time needed via keyboard versus mouse
alastairc: could add note about under discussion, but that is true with all of them
ChrisLoiselle: APG has done work on custom / not custom / standard / non standard. We should take advantage of that work.
… still working through phrasing in subgroup.
[edit made, subgroup might comeback]
Rachael: We need to settle on quantifiable versu qualifiable
… I think it will settle out
kevin: Suggest chairs have off-line conversation
[explainer google doc]
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Chris
ChrisLoiselle: Please see comments via a Word doc, levels is not at all intuitive
Existing subgroup Work
Rachael: We got the comment, and will do some wordsmithing, but more in next versions.
alastairc: We will not be reconvening.