Meeting minutes
<ChrisLoiselle> apologies, can
<ChrisLoiselle> apologies can't scribe today.
<ChrisLoiselle> thanks!
Chuck: Scribes get positive attention for their efforts
<kirkwood> (trophy?)
Chuck: I also try to give out scribe trophies
Chuck: Thank you for joining.
… Is there anyone on the call who is new, or has a new role they would like to announce?
… Announcement: holiday break.
… December 10th is the last meeting of the year.
… Next 3 weeks have no meeting
… Subgroups: figure out availability over the holidays
… Our group resumes January 7th
<ljoakley> presnet+
Chuck: Any new topics to add to the new topics list?
<Chuck> agenda, take up item 1
Introduction to FPWD Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile (WCAG2Mobile)(JJ)
Chuck: This is applying WCAG 2.2 to mobile.
… Jan Jaap will be presenting
JJ: I am the new facilitator of the mobile accessibility task force
… Android, iOS, but also addressing the larger mobile space including hybrid apps
… On Github: matf
… Similar set up to WCAG2ICT
… WCAG2Mobile will be our working name
<alastairc> /me oops, no, it's fine w3c/
JJ: (displayed the github information)
… There are files for each success criteria
… Then we add out guidance
… There is a document on the github domain
<JJ> https://
JJ: this is the guidance
… We are getting ready for our first group draft ntoe
… We are still working on our abstract, introduction
… We have comments about our success criteria
… We have reached consensus for some of them
… We are taking the text as written from WCAG2ICT, and when needed adding our own changes and notes
… We are planning to have an expand and collapse
… 1 for WCAG, 1 for WCAT2ICT
… Underneath you have our guidance
… This helps people review the sections of interest to them
… For our draft we have about 17 success criteria with something written.
… We are looking for feedback.
… We are interested in hearing what is missing.
Chuck: Your ask is for group members to review and provide feedback - correct
JJ: Yes. Especially the alignment to WCAG and WCAG2ICT. And if there are issues we should address.
kirkwood: You characterized this as non-web. Is that the terminology?
JJ: No, not in our current workstatement.
<ChrisLoiselle> great work on this. Thanks for your presentation ! I like the alignment where it is applicable.
JJ: I did try to focus on native, but we are considering other types.
kirkwood: Thank you for clarifying.
… This will be a focus from a regulatory perspective.
<JJ> From Work Statement: The objective of the Task Force is to produce informative resources for applying WCAG to Mobile Applications, including but not limited to native mobile apps, mobile web apps, mobile web content, and hybrid apps using web components inside native mobile apps.
JJ: I will put the work statement in chat
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask where the controversial ones might be?
<alastairc> https://
alastairc: From the draft - most of the conversation is happening around the ones which need to vary more.
… There is a tag for large variation. For me - that is where I will start.
JJ: The draft only contains the ones we have reached consensus on.
jj: Yes, most of the discussion is happening in the medium and large variation ones.
Kevin: I think it would be good to have an element of consensus from the group to publish
… because it is the first time
Chuck: Any other questions?
Chuck: JJ - what is your preferred engagement?
… How would you like them to share with the group?
JJ: Ideally in a github issue so we can assign it to someone.
… Or if there is an existing issues, continue with those.
… Otherwise the public email
… Also possible is to use Slack, though this is not preferred.
<alastairc> There is a "feedback" section at the top of the draft: https://
<ChrisLoiselle> could you add the exploratory tag to the SCs in conversation that vary and point to the GitHub in the section?
ChrisLoiselle: In the W3 document .io - there is a reference to github
… and possibly tag exploratory?
… That's a suggestion
JJ: Yes, that is something we can do.
… Normally you would not link to an external website.
… We could place a link to the issue for people to join the discussion if we are allowed to do.
… I think that would help.
Chuck: Any other questions or thoughts?
Discussions of issues with publication
Chuck: Publication: we are working with maximum effort on the next draft of WCAG 3
… We have been making changes on the side.
<Rachael> The most recent version: https://
Alastairc: I will share screen
… This latest version - I will highlight areas of interest
… At the top: there are a set of questions we are asking the public for feedback on
… (reads those questions)
… Most of this we asked for review a few weeks ago, so there have been minor changes
… To images alternatives
… This has the outcome, and the provisions
… The decision tree.
… Most of these direct links should work. They are on the right.
… Some of the definitions have content.
… There are links to the appropriate method.
… Clear meaning is the new one.
… We have a decision tree which works slightly differently than the others.
… If you have a preference, please comment.
<Zakim> Detlev, you wanted to suggest that "Avoid cognitive tasks" and should perhaps still be changed
Detlev: I hope that this one guideline sounds odd where it says "Avoid cognitive tasks"
… Can it still be changed?
ChrisLoiselle: To keep up with terminology
… Are we now using foundational provision instead of requirements?
Alastair: yes. Foundational, supplemental, and assertions.
Rachael: Re name change: most are exploratory, and just placeholders.
<ChrisLoiselle> makes sense, thanks!
Rachael: If there are ones like Detlev called out - we can change those now.
… Pretty easy to change as long as nobody objects.
Julierawe: Looking at the image alternatives section - there is a style guide
… Is that one there as a foundational requirement?
… How is that part of the image alternatives.
GreggVan: We changes from requirements to revisions
<kirkwood> agree “avoid cognitive tasks” doesn’t sound right…. “avoid undue cognitive pressure… or something like that (needs work)
GreggVan: We need a way to tell the requirements from the conditions.
… We don't have a shall vs should
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on style guide
GreggVan: If not to include recommendations - how will we tell the difference between requirements and recommendations
Alastairc: Regarding the style guide - we have assertion next ot it
… Everything under image alternatives
… We have foundational ones, supplemental ones (above the base level of conformance)
… and we have assertions.
… There is also a note saying we are considering recommendations
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer gregg
Alastairc: Not all guidelines will have all of those, but they are the ones we discussed so far.
<Detlev> "2.9.1 Reduce cognitive load" might be an option
Rachael: right now we only use provision in a few places.
… We could replace the first one.
… To address the concern.
GreggVan: That would be great.
<sarahhorton> +1 to changing provisions to requirements
GreggVan: Requirements and recommendation...and avoid ambiguity
… In the keyboard group we have mixed requirements and recommendations
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 for a non technical non W3 member to understand this from non technical plain language standpoint
<alastairc> Chris, sorry, +1 to which bit?
Julierawe: Having assertions listed - I just noticed another set of guidelines with an assertion with a styleguide listed
… Clear meaning will have one as well.
… Will the longterm plan be to have one at the end of every section?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on including non-requirements in decision tree.
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to the use of terms being used appropriately and defined.
Alastair: to answer Julie's question
… We need to get through a few more examples so we can work out if we can have a standardized style guide
… And then will have to discuss how this impacts conformance.
… For now we are including it because it is part of our intended scope
… Gregg was talking about adding the recommendations into the decision tree - I found that hard to do
… if you are trying to use it to get to a pass or fail.
… You would have to stack some of them at the beginning or end, when you already have your pass or fail.
… The tree helps with the pass/fail.
… But if the things that are not foundational - if they are used for scoring.
… They don't work in a tree as such.
… I would be interested to see the keyboard one.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to mention Detlev's suggestion Reduce Cognitive Load
Alastair: But for the ones reviewed so far, I cannot see a way to do that.
Chuck: Detlev made a suggestion of reduce cognitive load
… To update the name of that one.
GreggVan: We cannot really use a direction item
… You can never satisfy that
… You have to have something which is a target.
<kirkwood> minimize
GreggVan: A minimum conformance level.
… Unless it is a recommendation.
<alastairc> "Avoid complex cognitive tasks"?
GreggVan: Then you can reduce, because you don't test a recommendation.
… Re Alastair's comment - there are some recommendations which would come alongside the requirement.
<kirkwood> agree ‘reduce’ is a comparative action
GreggVan: But many are attached to a requirement.
… You must do this, best practice to do that...
… Makes sense to put them there.
… They do not contribute to scoring, but then they are located along with the other information.
… I think they should be together.
… It could be in 2 columns.
<kirkwood> “minimize cognitive load” (?)
<Detlev> My main point was that "Avoid Cognitive Tasks" sounds weird. I am not partial t any there particular name - so if reduce does not work it could be "Low cognitive load"
GreggVan: Then if there are points for the recommendations, but this might be hard to do.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on listing together
GreggVan: This would help get more of the untestable stuff in there.
Alastairc: Onscreen are the list of provisions.
… It is in the listing.
… I think it will be useful once we review the keyboard one to see if there can be alignment.
Julierawe: Will there be a link between the WCAG 3 guidelines and the how-to information living under WAI?
… Will there be an easy way to get between them?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say if and how we want to incorporate recommendations is a future conversation, post this publication
Alastairc: Yes. It is in the "i" area that says "how to meet"
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say Users can complete tasks without needing to memorize nor complete advanced cognitive tasks
Rachael: Re incorporating recommendations - we had decided to postpone it and we will come back to it.
Chuck: There have been conversation around the naming of one of the guidelines
… I want to see if we can decide what that should be.
… Users can complete tasks (continues reading)
<Chuck> No memorization
Chuck: that is one possible title suggested.
DB: I see the yellow and red 4s at the top of the document.
… Are these already being addressed?
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to dan_bjorge
Kevin: They are not programmatic errors.
… They are missing defintions
Rachael: some of those are missing links, and I have been doing some of those fixes while we have been meeting.
Chuck: Back to the title
<Chuck> minimize cognitive load
Chuck: of the one success critieria
<Chuck> No memorization
<Rachael> Detlev also suggested Low Cognitive Load
Chuck: 3 suggestions
Any other suggestions?
GreggVan: I think low works.
<kirkwood> avoid high cognitive load
DB: I think low cognitive load is an improvement.
… But no memorization - 2.9.5 is fairly close.
<Chuck> draft poll: 1) Minimize Cognitive Load, 2) Low Cognitive Load, 3) No Memorization
ljoakley: If we say complete advance cognitive tasks - will that cover the new types of people challenges with puzzle pieces needing to go in the correct place to access the site?
Rachael: This section of guidance has not had a subgroup work on it - it is exploratory
… Conversations around what it will cover does not need to happen or be decided.
… Please watch for when the subgroup happens.
<dan_bjorge> "Avoid cognitive tests"?
<Chuck> poll: 1) Minimize Cognitive Load, 2) Low Cognitive Load, 3) No Memorization
* I am back - thank you
<Chuck> poll: 1) Minimize Cognitive Load, 2) Low Cognitive Load, 3) No Memorization, 4) Avoid cognitive tests
<ljoakley> 4
Kevin: I sense there are a few definitions required for any of these
<Chuck> 4
4, but does that address Detlev's understanding?
<DJ> 1/4
<Azlan> 4
Kevin: this should be considered what best suits your thoughts.
<julierawe> 1
<dan_bjorge> 4 > 2 > 1
<Detlev> There is a subentry "No cognitive tests" already...
<Rachael> 1 (4 is too close to another that it will likely be merged into in the future)
kirkwood: Does "no memorization" cover it?
Chuck: I did not think no memorization covered it.
<ShawnT> 2 or 4
<r_brown> 2.) Low Cognitive Load
Detlev: I think avoid cognitive tests which would cover it, but there is an item beneath which covers this.
… Minimize cognitive load is more general - maybe it covers the spread better.
… I don't have a preference, but the original one is more difficult to understand.
<Frankie> Can someone reshare the options for voting? IRC keeps disconnecting.
Giacomo: The current is very restrictive.
… There is a difference between test and task.
<GN015> 1, 4
Rachael: I agree changing from tasks to tests reduces the scope.
<ToddL> 1
Rachael: Originally there was one agreed upon in 2.2 - no tests, no puzzles.
… This one has a broader scope.
<kirkwood> 1
Rachael: I think there is a different gist to this that the subgroup will need to review.
<Frankie> 1
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest this needs to be tackled by the sub-group
Rachael: I hesitate to remove it
Alastairc: I wonder if we can let it go for the moment, and let the subgroup work on it.
<GN015> so I correct myself to: 1, alternatively keep the original
Alastairc: There is something similar coming which may overlap.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to report on the results of the poll
<Detlev> 1
Chuck: That wasn't a poll option
<Laura_Carlson> 1
Chuck: At this point, 1 is the highest response
<Rachael> Minimize Cognitive Load
Chuck: Let's change the name to Minimize Cognitive Load, knowing it needs to go to a subgroup
I think 1 had a stronger objection than the current option.
GreggVan: That is impossible - I could never meet it
… If this is a requirement, we cannot use that type of vocabulary
… The requirement underneath will be to meet some level.
"Avoid cognitive tests & memorization"
GreggVan: If it is a recommendation, that is fine.
Chuck: Those who supported 1 - do you have objections to the 4th option?
<Rachael> (chair hat off) I object to the 4th option
Chuck: 1 was minimize cognitive load
… 4 was avoid cognitive tests
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if there are any objections to Avoid cognitive tests
GreggVan: cognitive test means you are testing the person.
<Detlev> Alastair's option is better
GreggVan: These are tests for whether it is a human.
<giacomo-petri> I'd like to also propose in the poll to keep it as is for now, waiting for subgroup feedback
<GN015> I prefer the original over Option 4, as 'tasks' is wider than 'tests'
Rachael: I object to changing tests to tasks.
… that is chair hat off.
… This is talking about tasks.
<giacomo-petri> +1 to Rachael
ChrisLoiselle: I feel it is more a subgroup thing
<Rachael> +1 to subgroup work needed.
ChrisLoiselle: as opposed to word smithing here.
<julierawe> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1 subgroup
ChrisLoiselle: There is a lot related to instructions and detailed instructions
<alastairc> +1, leave as is
<kirkwood> “CAPTCHA can test users’ cognitive ability”
<Frankie> +1 to leave as is
<giacomo-petri> +1
<Chuck> +1 to leave as is
Chuck: Then we are talking about leaving it here, knowing the subgroup needs to address it
<Makoto> +1
Chuck: We will leave it as is
<ToddL> +1
Chuck: We will send this out to the group for review
Rachael: I think we are asking people to look at it today and tomorrow.
… If you know of an objection for going to CFC, please raise it.
… Then we will send the CFC tomorrow.
Chuck: Because Thursday is a U.S. holiday.
… Be expecting it to go out.
Communications
Chuck: There are a lot of people on the call who get questions about what is happening with WCAG 3
… We also know people will put out social media posts.
… We appreciate the work to keep the spotlight on the group.
… We have some communications suggestions
… These are things which might be helpful.
… We are moving towards publishing soon.
… Anyone who wants to create an article - start thinking about what you might want to say.
… The W3C will have its own communications as well.
… When considering your communications,
… Please share that it is a draft.
… Point out the maturity levels - that most of the content is still exploratory.
… Include the key questions we want feedback on.
… Consider adding that WCAG 2 remains the standard of record, and will be so for a while.
… We would like you to avoid saying that WCAG 3 is around the corner.
… Also avoid suggesting that people start adopting it.
… Technical point: if images are used in communications to make key points, consider that the alt text doesn't always get moved forward to the next platform.
Alastairc: images also sometimes do not get pulled through.
Chuck: Any questions?
Content Related Definitions (text, image, content, interactive component, etc.)
Chuck: This will be discussed in the future.
<Chuck> https://
Alastairc: I have introduced the topic - thank you to Gundula for responding.
… We need a few more reactions and comments.
… There are a few key ones that tend to get referred to a lot.
… I have suggested a couple of updates to the text one.
… I suggested an update.
… There are a couple of questions like: have you come across issues with the WCAG 2 versions we could solve?
… Would it help if we separated controls from content further?
… Now would be a good time to point out solutions.
… It would be great to have more people review.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to either ask for a scribe change or end scribing
Alastairc: We could work on getting these into the next draft.
Subgroup working sessions
Keyboard feedback
GreggVan: Originally had 5 provisions, went through them and kept repeating ourselves. E.g. user needs and testing.
… looked at putting together into 1.
… came to 9 user-needs / topics, and collapsed them down.
… in the outcome we added a pre-condition, so you can jump out quickly if it doesn't apply
… added a list of requirements underneath.
… the last one is a bit tricky, comparing to other inputs.
… then, in the 'foundational requirements' section, it works through the various requirements [see doc, 2nd tab]
… it incorporates the best practices.
… they are like recommendations, just a different term.
… it means you only have to navigate the page once, rather than going through 5 times.
… any time there is a recommendation, can be slotted into the tree.
… sometimes there's best practice that doesn't slot in, went underneath.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we could schedule this for next week?
GreggVan: so what used to be a bunch of long, repeated things, it collapsed down into one.
… Dan thought it was harder to parse than when separate.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say have you considered "comparable time on task"? and to say that "all elements viewable" is at least awkwardly phrased. Do you mean discoverable? and to say it looks like you also have not specified a need for indication of the current item with focus
mbgower: This seems like a new topic, but three things I noted.
… for the final bullet, the comparison, have you considered a time comparable task.
GreggVan: yes, but also impossible. If there are 700 clickable items, there's no way to make that the same as zipping down with a mouse.
mbgower: "comparable time on task"
… and further down, "all elements viewable", does that mean discoverable?
… finally, in "h", focus not obscured, doesn't have the core requirement of visible focus indicator?
GreggVan: There's no interface that doesn't do that.
Alastairc: We have a separate guideline for focus-appearance.
GreggVan: Does the group support the overall approach
Detlev: I like avoiding the duplication of testing, but some of these items seem to fit elsewhere.
… not sure about one big decision tree.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on approach
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to react to Detlev
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what is the input, and can we treat this as an intro to a conversation next week?
<Chuck> alastair: If the requiremnets and testing work together, that's a good sign that it is working as a single outcome.
<Chuck> alastair: We have something that covers the visual appearance.
Noting that text contrast is now called "Text appearance" https://