Meeting minutes
AG charter survey
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: Please advise if not accessible link!
Rachael: This is a progress report on charter discussions; noting possibility of splitting the group between work on 2 and 3
Rachael: Notes there's more work to be done than we can accomplish
Rachael: so we need to make some decisions; reduce workload; or reorganize
Rachael: Notes there's a difference of mindset between 2 and 3
Rachael: The mindset is important; but has implications for policies and procedures as well
Rachael: We have tried to address, but would wish we'd been more successful at that
Rachael: we've drafted some proposals--but these are just drafts!
Rachael: WBS intends to solicit views; 3 charter options; please take the time to consider carefully and respond!
<JF> URLs for those proposals?
<Chuck> https://
<Rachael> https://
shadi: Q on #6; any opportunity to restate?
shadi: Would be happy to paerticipate in both, but my emphasis would be strongly on 3
shadi: Q to ask whether there's a risk that WCAG3 charter might not pass without 2?
Rachael: Believe there are several risks; we should discuss, regardless
Jem: Please make sure people in your groups are aware of this WBS. We need everyone's participation
<Rachael> Two charter links: https://
Jem: Q about reason not to split -- Public might find concurrent work confusing -- because there are two charters?
Rachael: Don't believe public pays attention to charters. Main potential is that two specs in concurrent development
Jem: Eventually, 2 is gone.
Rachael: Proposal is to take address remaining issues in 2; while other group iterates on 3
<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to the creation of the really clean final WCAG 2 version
Jem: Notes I've been working on both; and would really like it down to one
<Chuck> janina: I think i'm not as worried about public perception. We messaged that 3 would take a while and 2 would not be deprecated. Just a year ago we deprecated 1. We haven't worked on 1 since 1998.
<maryjom> +1 Two groups spreads already thin resources to cover development of multiple standards.
<Chuck> janina: We've said all along that people built based on 2 could continue to count on 2. If creating a second group creates another messaging opportunity it will only help public perception, we are trying to be more efficient.
<Chuck> janina: It's not that 2 goes away sooner or 3 takes over faster. It's a feature not a bug.
shadi: One of my worries is that work isn't less unless we reduce some of the work
<Rachael> Splitting as written now actually increases the work
shadi: So, it may help on focus; but not actually on load
<kirkwood> +1 Janina
<Jem> https://
<Jem> we are talking this survey in case you join late.
maryjom: Having two groups definitely stretches limited resources; notes EU reqs coming that add to that load
jf: Is the suggestion here that 2.2 is the end; or that 2.3 is still a possibility?
jf: Notes there are no testable statements for XR
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer
Rachael: There are several approaches that are easier if we split;
Rachael: To date there have not been objections to new notes
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that there are benefits and challenges to either/any approach
Chuck: Notes each approach has pros and cons; there's no perfect proposal
<Jem> written challenges are clear to me as the participant.
Chuck: Notes this has been in discussion among chairs; are now opening to the wider group
<Jem> reasons to split as the challenge
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about decision policies
jeanne: Notes 3 progress has been incremental; ...
jeanne: Good 2 policies to polish and perfect 2 are impeding work on the more expirimental 3;
jeanne: this is an argument for split; because we can have more appropriate procedures and policies for 2 and for 3 -- which will be different
<Chuck> here's the survey: https://
<Rachael> https://
sarahhorton: One thought -- Think 3 is an innovation project
sarahhorton: It's also disruptive and that makes it challenging
sarahhorton: but our current policies and procedures aren't really supporting a disruptive, innovative project
sarahhorton: so i see risks to continue as we have been
sarahhorton: one thing to underscore -- innovation need to be surrounded stakeholders and customers who value the innovation; else no success
<Lauriat> +1 to the need for stakeholder involvement
sarahhorton: so concerned that we make sure charter supports and values methods and directions of 3
sarahhorton: else we continue to fail even though two groups
<jeanne> +1 Sarah!
Makoto: Situation in JP is wondering when 2.2 will go TR; also whether it will become next ISO standard
Makoto: Whom should I ask?
Makoto: Hoping for ISO update to 2.2; because ISO important to JP
Makoto: Would support option which brings 2.2 to TR sooner
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer both
Rachael: We are closing major conversations on 2.2; will still have surveys, but should be closeout work
Rachael: ISO expected to begin soon
<Jem> great news!
Rachael: Notes one motivation is the opportunity for disparate policies; notes current W3C process guidance is more conducive to 3
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to address ISO standard
<Jem> suggestion - can we make more clear about #3The public could find two groups working concurrently to be confusing.?
Chuck: Notes if further questions after Tuesday, suggest Judy; but wait for Tuesday announcement first
<Rachael> I can edit it a bit.
jf: Q re ISO: Do we see 3 moving to ISO?
jeanne: Once finished; but not sooner!
Chuck: Current efforts are specific to 2.2
<Jem> sorry to keep bugging about #The public could find two groups working concurrently on two different accessibility standards to be confusing.
Jem: See edit; looks clearer; suggests 2 and 3 have different strengths; want to make public aware of fundamental differences
Jem: not sure how to rephrase
continuation of Guidelines Breakdown exercise
jeanne: introduces options including focus of 3 groups on 3 aspects
<jeanne> Links to documents: - 2.2.4 Interruptions
<jeanne> <https://
<jeanne> - 3.1.4 Abbreviations
<jeanne> <https://
<jeanne> - 3.2.4 Consistent Identification
<jeanne> <https://
jeanne: invites people to indicate preferred group via Zoom; or inform me ...
jeanne: will regroup here 5 min ahead of the hour
[Full group resumes following breakouts]
jeanne: Asks for reports ...
Rachael: works on guidelines, but finished one; great conversation about how to define units; will write up
Chuck: Focussed on one subguideline using term "tooltip," probably not best term because of possible HTML conflict
<Jem> +1 to JF regarding tool tip
Chuck: discussed other naming options
jf: Landed on "just in time mechanism" as the abstraction
<Jem> tooltip is the widget ARIA APG is still working on via three deep dive meetings.
maryjom: Good discussion for objective testing; would need some protocols; a style guide to define how to identify consistently and would test to that
jeanne: thanks everyone and reminds current WBS and PleASE spread the word and attend next Tuesday's AGWG!