– DRAFT –
AGWG-2023-09-19

Chuck: welcome back. thank you for attending.

Chuck: Any new members?

<Chuck> Welcome Giacomo Petri!

GP: Giacomo Petri. I'm a new member.

<jon_avila> Can we please have a WCAG 2.2 publishing update?

CH: I'm now with Northern Essex

AC: WCAG 2.2 will be coming out soon. Making Progress.
… agreed to I18y changes.

ac: next week or the next

wilco: would like to revisit the charter.

TPAC Wrap Up (Lessons learned, Current Status, Next Steps)

chuck: some issues with breakout rooms.

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oy5Guap5wnMFhp4OPhgGn1ihuHYmksstPqMHMrc_Krg/edit#gid=0

chuck: did numerous exercises
… most groups got to the outcomes.
… lots of progress. Thanks everyone.
… chairs need to formalize next steps.
… we received positive comments. open to all feedback. Reach out to chairs.

chuck: comments on how the sessions were run. Interesting process.
… when week to week we could work in between meetings.
… worked well for brainstorming. But no time to contemplate things.
… content that came out of the sessions. Mike Gower's feedback.

<Chuck> The user needs biased towards anecdotes

MG: user needs based on antidotes.
… good to be more rigorous.
… User needs could be QAed against existing versions.
… Lots of good material left on the cutting room floor.
… should make sure not discarded.

Chuck: lacked research in some cases.
… note that we need to find it.
… That did work well. Lots to be reviewed..
… also need to check overlap.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the research, I found a variety of how it went, depending on the topic.

Chuck: we have alot of things in the scratch pads.

ac: differs by topic
… need to solidify foundation material.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask that we publish the research links so we can get public help in identifying research.

jeanne: variety of approaches by groups.
… like that we kept process flexible.

<Chuck> +1 to showing our work!

jeanne: variety of approaches. Would like to publish the research that we based things on.

<dj> Jeanne++

<Rain> Also +1 to showing our research work!

wilco: we were just scratching the surface. Worried me.
… missed opportunities to meet with other groups. Siloing

<jeanne> +1 for the lost opportunity for TPAC inter-group meetings

gregg: there arre user needs docs.
… they could be cited.

<kirkwood_> +1 to cross group meetings

gregg: have research if there is value.
… lack research if something is there or not.
… some things are known.

chuck: overall process gave us a lot of content for exploratory.
… still a lot to do.
… Exicited. a lot of approaches and diversity.

<GreggVan> Information technology — Accessibility

<GreggVan> considerations for people with

<GreggVan> disabilities —

<GreggVan> Part 1:

<GreggVan> User needs summary

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to mention TR ISO/IEC TR 29138-1

<alastairc> https://www.iso.org/standard/71953.html

gregg: https://www.iso.org/standard/71953.html

<GreggVan> Information technology — Accessibility considerations for people with

<GreggVan> disabilities — Part 1: User needs summary

<GreggVan> Information technology — Accessibility considerations for people with disabilities — Part 1: User needs summary

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if IE re-application requests should have gone out? (sorry to miss queue during 1st agenda item)

bruce: any progress on reapplication for invited experts?

ac: will check with w3c staff.

<jeanne> +1 !!!!

lori: enjoyed working with other people I hadn't met before.

<Zakim> David_Cox, you wanted to ask if there's any new info or a timeline written up on when the AG WG charter restart will happen?

chuck: it was more personable.

David Cox:
… any timeline for charter restart?

chuck: it is in progress. not aware of status page.

ac: previous charter was approved by some groups but may need to go through again.

chuck: a page may be a good idea. Will discuss with chairs.

tburtin: Trying to recover. Took a lot of physical energy.

<alastairc> Current Charter: https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter

<alastairc> Proposed: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html

Wilco: will we revisit a charrter at a new meeting?

ac: haven't heard anything concrete.

wilco: worried that it may not be a realistic charter.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the charter has been approved and post-poned multiple times.

chuck: hearing that we should revisit the charter.

jeanne: charter has been approved but not started.

<Jem> +100 to Jeanne

jeanne: changing at this time could be catastrophic.

<alastairc> Looking at the proposed, the two year 2022-24 timeframe seems appropriate (although it would need to 2023-25), under '1.2 Focus for the charter'

chuck: need to talk to w3c contact about ramifications.

<bruce_bailey> +1

WCAG 2 Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results

Question 1 - Added third line to In brief section for WCAG 2.0 SCs #3356

chuck: Michael has continued to work on the 'in brief' sections for the understanding documents. This update adds the 'why it's important' to the WCAG 2.0 SCs in PR 3356.

ac: rain and gregg had feedback

ag: haven't seen all the feedback yet. Not all my content but EOWG too.

gregg: picked out some for comments and posted them to the list.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the length requirements

mg: I'll put them in as comments.

ac: some would expand length. They are supposed to be brief.

<alastairc> Great - always good to separate 'concerns' from 'considerations'.

rain: sent huge amout of feedback. Small amout of concerns are at the top.
… could be their own topic. focus on ones that need tweeking.

Chuck: mike will review.

ac: may be better to do them individually in the future.

Question 2 - Text Spacing and scoped styles with shadow dom #2495

chuck: In issue 2495 Scott raised that a (relatively) new feature of HTML blocks the user's ability to apply their own styles.

To clarify this aspect Scott created PR 2794.

6 Agree with the update. 3 Agree if it is updated (specify change in the comment).

ac: need explain what shadow root is. Greggs comment more substansive.

Gregg: We can't add an exemption in the understanding document that is not in the provision itself.
… the way to fix this is to point out that the SC says it applies where the technology allows it.
… So it should not say it is exempted. We should instead say that it is not required in this instance because it is not supported by this technology

the tricky bit is that HTML does not support it but the particular implementation blocks it.
… not sure if it a feature or a capabilty.

<alastairc> "then it is not applicable to that portion of content."

wilco: this thing is not possible in shadow dom.
… it has broader implications.
… I don't like this change. Enoucageing authors to use shadow dom.

gregg: what is the reason for toggling it on?

<Wilco> +1 I mentioned this when we worked on this SC :-)

scott: It has been around. It was a purposeful addition to HTML.
… It seems siloed. there are use cases.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask when devs would/should want to use closed ShadowDom?

AC: shaow dom wasn't popular when SC we written.
… It has undermined one of the basic tenants of the web.
… would like to understand more about it.

could implement gregg's suggestion.

wilco: closed shado dom used by browsers. Not sure of use cases other than that.

<mbgower> +1 to say just because something is technically achievable doesn't make it fine to be excepted

wilco: if html element is not accessible wcag doen't need to exempt it.

dj: we have done it wtih standard elements like marquee

<Wilco> oh! And before I forget, you CAN use it if you have sufficient spacing by default

<David_Cox> "don't use this HTML thing" feels more like a technology-specific failure, rather than a piece of WCAG guidance. Perhaps a new failure technique?

dj: nee do be able to chage it with your controls.

<Ben_Tillyer> Thought marquee was obsolete? https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/obsolete.html#the-marquee-element

<bruce_bailey> Could this be re-written as a failure technique?

gregg: may take may edit out. And provide your oun way.

Daniel: it is popular in design systems.
… I'm on the fence.

Dan: worked with poeple that have used design systems.

<bruce_bailey> I am not sure that *every* use of Shadow DOM is a failure -- but Shadow DOM is frequently an a11y barrier.

Scott: Some browers have implemented it.
… have guidance that people should make components in light dom.

<David_Cox> Also gonna note that just because some design systems like using something doesn't make it successfully accessible.

<bri> I can

<bri> I got it!

<bri> bri: scribe

Wilco: clarified on terminology, light, closed, and open shadow dom

Wilco: wants to emphasize that closed shadow dom is the possible challenge

<mbgower> Thanks for the description, Wilco

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change and next steps

Wilco: if you use closed, you are now responsible and have taken it away from the user. ensure you know the responsibility

<mbgower> We should kick it back to the backlog group

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that WCAG is content -- not browser/user agent so we can ignore the question as it relates to browser - but need to pass this issue to WCAG2ICT since they deal with software ALSO treat like images of text?

GreggVan: suggests a subcommittee and takes this offline

GreggVan: the parts about browsers in its code, is not our issue but we should pass that on to ICT

GreggVan: like images with text, we have certain instances you can use it

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on browser features

alastairc: we'll take it back to backlog on Friday

alastairc: agree with Wilco that we need to be clear on which is which

alastairc: if there's a choice between open/closed and open is better, we can make that clearer

alastairc: remembered horizontal doesn't have a WG

alastairc: there is a time we pick up on browser based things

alastairc: ex. author is using native form error checking

Question 3 - Clarity for programmatically determined link context term example #3361

Chuck: moving on to third question. thanks for patience as I update topics

Chuck: scrolling to question 3

Chuck: scott raised 3361

Chuck: using "list" instead of "list item"

Chuck: 10 agreed. no disagreed

Chuck: want to add anything Alastair?

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3362 to address issue 3361

alastairc: no, audio cutting out. be right back

<GreggVan> +1

<dan_bjorge_> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

Chuck: proposed resolution, please +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Raf> +1

<scotto> +1

<giacomo-petri> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Rain> +1

<David_Cox> +1; good catch on list versus list item

<laura> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<kevin> +1

<mbgower> +1

Chuck: variety of +1, no concerns. please raise concerns now

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3362 to address issue 3361

<GN015> +1

Chuck: resolving this

Question 4 - Clarity around a "change initiated by the user" #3226

Chuck: updating topics for question 4

Chuck: scrolling to question 4. 3226

Chuck: 9 agreed. 1 person had a suggestion

Chuck: dan in queue

dan_bjorge_: clarifying the normative text statement

Rain: explains her suggestion comment

<laura> s/Exicited. alot /Excited. We had a lot /

GreggVan: almost every time you log in, it changes controls on a page

GreggVan: thinks changing controls on a page shouldn't be disallowed

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3349 to address issue 3226

GreggVan: thinks they should stick with original language

<mbgower> +1

Chuck: proposed resolution

Rain: sorry for skipping queue. thinks I misunderstood pull request

<alastairc> +1

Chuck: no worries Rain

<laura> +1

<GreggVan> +1

GreggVan: all been there

<Rain> +1

<kevin> +1

<Raf> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

Chuck: any concerns?

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3349 to address issue 3226

Chuck: resolving this

<David_Cox> +1

Chuck: we are at the end of our questions. the rest are saved for next week

alastairc: lets give 15 minutes. please give a look

Chuck: this call is adjourned