Meeting minutes
ac: Any new members?
<AWK> +AWK
(none)
ac: Any new topics for a future meeting?
(none)
… can present to the sivler TF.
… rrsagent, make minutes
WCAG 3 Protocols Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/protocols_exploratory/
<alastairc> https://
ac: WCAG 3 Protocols Survey
… 3 parts.1. Editor's Note. 2. proposals 3. informative questions
Editor's Note for protocols
ac: have a draft one.
… and various comments.
gregg: should we talk about one or 2?
<Wilco> +1 to Gregg's point
ac: should apply to both. but would defer to chuck or others.
chuck: not seeing a dependency.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that outside of the name choice, the 2 proposals differ widely
jf: 2 are very different. could be both. may not be an either or.
gregg: would help in understanding.
Preferred starting point
chuck: harmless. less do 2.
ac: question is what do we include in next editors draft.
… could have both in.
… looks like some combination of both.
<alastairc> https://
ac: Is it possible to add a combination of both. or should they be separate?
<Chuck> Protocols and Assertions Proposal: https://
ac: (reads comments)
<Chuck> Evaluating Procedures Proposal: https://
<Rachael> Protocols presentation: https://
<Chuck> Comparison Table: https://
<Chuck> Link to the presentation: https://
wilco: we haven't seen enough to have an informed desision. Would perfer sending it bac to the sub group.
… need text to the working draft.
MC: should be possible to combine them
jg: both have good qualities. Good to incenivise procedures and poicies.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to Wilco
jf: sub group has discussed in depth. One is post production one is pre-production.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to respond to Wilco's suggestion of the sub group crafting single proposal for AGWG review
gregg: both have great potential. should have a 3rd column explaing the differences.
… standards can only refer to ther standards.
… dangerous if it is not defined.
<JF> +1 to Gregg re: Standards
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to disagree with JF characterization of evaluating procedures
gregg: are they serving differnet purposes? Or the same purpose?
mc: room for subjectivity.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to respond to Wilco, and moving to end of queue
mc: details can move around but are gernarlly the same.
chuck: philosophical differences between the 2.
… would be a challenging ask.
jg: would be difficult to be dificult to get consensus on.
… measurements are diffferent.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if looking at differences rather than similarities might be useful
JF: one does not have measurements.
… subjective. can't measure "delesious."
… one is about measurement the other is not.
jg: feeling that a statement in conformence will not be enough.
… can drive a truck though conformance statements and VPATs
gregg: are there examples? Need a minimum of 4 examples.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to clarify similarity and to say next steps, examples
<Jaunita_George_> +1 MichaelC
mc: I have examples. That is a next step.
… I can take an action and work on it.
… I don't see the proposals as different.
… will be harder for public to review 2 propsals.
jf: in epub they have a manefest.
<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial draft text for the editor's draft for each proposal, and work on examples.
<Wilco> @alastairc, can we clarify timeline on that?
jf: (gives exampes of protocals)
rm: put them in separately.
<Jaunita_George_> +1
rm: in different areas of the draft.
<Chuck> +1
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to observe that the conversation highlights the philosophical differences, and propose a way forward
ac: anyone work on draft veribage?
jf: sign me up.
chuck: sent back to the group with examples.
jg: each team could meet separately.
ac: makes sense.
gregg: need at least 4 examples.
… for mc, if 2 can be brought together then have 4 example.
wilco: will we need to delay new subgroups?
mc: won't stop me.
mc: can have examples in a couple weeks.
jf: can take another run at it.
ac: need text for the draft.
jf: conformace is a intragal to the proposal.
… educational compontent is key.
<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial draft for the editor's draft for each proposal (separately).
ac: would need to present it group in 3 weeks.
<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial text for the editor's draft for each proposal (separately).
<Chuck> +1
<JF> * I can have stuff ready for 2 weeks
<Jaunita_George_> +1
<Rachael> +1 to resolution
<Wilco> 0 on resolution
gregg: need examples before coming back to this group.
<jeanne> 0 - not a high priority before TPAC
RESOLUTION: The sub-group will draft initial text for the editor's draft for each proposal (separately).
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to suggest we postpone review of other survey questions
<Jaunita_George_> +1
chuck: lets' skip other survey questions.
WCAG 3 Subgroup participation and handbook https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06
<alastairc> https://
ac: most people availabile for sub groups.
Subgroup Interest
ac: good spread.
… scoping was of least interest.
gregg: what is scoping?
ac: wcag 2 scoing was the page.
<AWK> Will the survey be reopened?
rm: this group will explore using SEO intents to define user processes/journeys.
gregg: scope og wcag was not a page. Coiuld be a whole web app.
<Chuck> I have reopened the survey, presently through 7/19
gregg: not sure what SEO means. Need socping defined.
<Rachael> We 4 initially proposed scopes to explore at https://
ac: scopign would allow you to conformbased on the user journey/path.
greg: sounds like point of evaluation.
ac: think of it as scoping for the conformace statement.
wilco: leave survey until the end of the day.
<Azlan> I can join scoping
<AWK> thanks, Chuck
<GreggVan> I am willing to contribute to scoping but cannot do 4 hrs a week on it -- and don't want to do it in lieu of equity
wilco: will depend o meeting times too.
wilco: can go through subgroup hand book.
wilco: new direction we want to try out.
… subgroups are scoped to 8 weeks.
… more flexible. need 4 approx hours a week.
… groups set up by the chairs.
… need pull request to update the drat at week 8.
… not everything will be merged. That's fine.
… comitment 4 hous/wk. If that doesn't work rach out to the chairs.
Wilco: Week 8 feedback incorporated, presented again to AGWG for final
… exceptions, if group needs more time, can't put in 4 hours, connect with chairs
… reach out, group-ag-plan@w3.org
… facilitator responsibilities, described in doc, e.g., notifying chairs, documenting in wiki
… facilitators may do less writing
… approach, trial, focus on getting content before TPAC
Jennie_: Great doc — add something to speak to Taskforce subgroups, to understand how interfaces
Rachael: Does not influence how subgroups and task forces are current doing, this is separate\
Jennie_: Thanks, recommend, since language is the same, could distinction be added to document?
Wilco: Yes, will work that out
<Rachael> +1 to either different names or adding clarification
GreggVan: Call them AG subgroups?
alastairc: WCAG 3 content subgroups?
Wilco: Will figure out, good point
Moving the charter forward https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_July_22/
alastairc: Previous discussions, have sent to AC for prelim review, no feedback yet
… next step to make sure AG is happy
… reviewing survey results
… 404 issue, updated
<alastairc> https://
MichaelC: Should be working now
alastairc: [reviews responses]
jeanne: Unclear what was transitional, put in example to clarify, minor edits
… include EO for WCAG 3
alastairc: Good point
… [reviews responses]
GreggVan: Might get people to agree if called candidate
… middle bullet, deliverables
alastairc: Expanded in conformance section, add "candidate", any objections?
<alastairc> Suggested scope update: "Conformance model" to "Candidate conformance model"
alastairc: [reviews responses]
… in 1.2, "by end of next charter", should be "this charter"?
<alastairc> "Any requirement or challenge without a demonstrated solution that has AG WG consensus by the end of the next charter will be excluded from WCAG 3."
MichaelC: Yes, should be "this charter"
alastairc: [reviews responses]
… most people happy, few small changes, standout of negative paragraph
… will take away
… anything else?
<Chuck> +1
<laura> +1 to awks rewrite
MichaelC: It's a rewrite of the negative text
alastairc: Looks like good update
Rachael: Silver Friday meeting, starting to capture use cases, lessons learned from categorization exercise
… trying to finish up — 20 more, help appreciated
<alastairc> https://
jeanne: Have been working on migration cases for different SCs, talk about usual things, questions, concerns
… several raised, realized should capture them
<Azlan> I have to drop
jeanne: list in doc concerns, have list, when testing new ways to structure, test, categorize, can go to list, test against usual cases
… anyone who worked on any and had concerns, please add to list, will be helpful, put in SC number, name, link to migration doc, short issue description
<jeanne> List of SC
alastairc: Look at migration exercises, quite a few done, a few gaps, docs available where gaps
<jeanne> Folder
alastairc: a few to go, please have a go
MichaelC: Charter survey, but in edits, check they are correct
alastairc: CfC next
Francis_Storr: Proposed redesign, is that going to roll out?
MichaelC: Minor edits with Jeanne and Rachael, rolled out
… redesign, almost there but something's broken, have to figure out
… keep bugging
… CfC on charter, are changes to decision policy part of CfC or separate?
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask about decision policy
alastairc: Can do separately, haven't reviewed because of 404, give people change to review
… with diff
MichaelC: Some people wanted to see that before voting on charter
alastairc: Yes decision policy then CfC