15:01:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:01:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/23-ag-irc
15:01:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:01:16 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:01:19 <cwadams> chair:  Chuck
15:01:25 <cwadams> meeting:  AGWG-2024-01-23
15:02:05 <cwadams> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:02:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/23-ag-minutes.html cwadams
15:02:13 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:02:13 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
15:02:13 <cwadams> agenda+ Decision about Publication Approach to WCAG 3
15:02:23 <cwadams> agenda+ WCAG 2 Issue Resolution
15:03:22 <cwadams> regrets: Sarah Horton, Bruce Bailey, Azlan Cuttilan
15:09:52 <cwadams> regrets+ Ben Tillyer
15:55:23 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:56:27 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:56:28 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
15:56:35 <dj> dj has joined #ag
15:56:40 <dj> present+
15:57:28 <rscano__> rscano__ has joined #ag
15:57:30 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:59:24 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:59:29 <shadi> present+
15:59:41 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:59:47 <dj> scribe: dj
15:59:53 <ShawnT> present+
15:59:54 <Rachael> present+
16:00:07 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
16:00:15 <bruce_bailey_> bruce_bailey_ has joined #ag
16:00:34 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:00:36 <JustineP> present+
16:00:40 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
16:00:43 <mike_beganyi> present+
16:00:45 <ashleyfirth> ashleyfirth has joined #ag
16:00:59 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:01:01 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
16:01:04 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:01:12 <jeanne> present+
16:01:18 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:01:21 <DanielHE> DanielHE has joined #ag
16:01:23 <DanielHE> present+
16:01:24 <alastairc> present+
16:01:26 <julierawe> present+
16:01:28 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
16:01:30 <ashleyfirth> present+
16:01:51 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:01:59 <Frankie> present+ Frankie Wolf
16:02:00 <Bri> Bri has joined #ag
16:02:09 <Bri> present+
16:02:12 <rscano__> <rscano> present+
16:02:34 <dj> chuck: introductions?
16:02:46 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:02:48 <mbgower> present+
16:03:00 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
16:03:02 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
16:03:07 <dan_bjorge> present+
16:03:12 <AWK> +AWK
16:03:12 <dj> ... future agenda items/topics to add to future list?
16:03:23 <cwadams> zakim, take up item 1
16:03:23 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Decision about Publication Approach to WCAG 3 -- taken up [from cwadams]
16:03:35 <cwadams> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33*discussioncomment-8173714__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KjoKIuyp9QYUCLKSgiIlX6-q9kCOKPSq2xE9dGXHdW6Ayx0JNTdGEQ17abLAX5gq7dGIQFhUmSjdQTXsPONnFXH2hA$
16:03:47 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
16:03:49 <alastairc> For the minutes: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173714
16:03:55 <corey_h> corey_h has joined #ag
16:04:03 <dj> s/chuck/cwadams
16:04:26 <kirkwood> present+
16:04:27 <dj> cwadams: options regarding once-yearly release of wcag 3 in github discussion
16:04:36 <dj> ... really good discussion there
16:05:00 <dj> ... questions' phrasing might have introduced bias; this process is new to us too
16:05:15 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:05:17 <Jennie> present+
16:05:20 <Jen_G> Present+
16:05:21 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:05:24 <dj> ... we'll be running polls in this meeting to try to correct that
16:05:42 <jeanne_e_c> jeanne_e_c has joined #ag
16:05:44 <dj> ... points:
16:05:48 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
16:05:55 <tburtin> present+
16:05:56 <jeanne_e_c> present+
16:05:57 <dj> ... we can't assume legislators can adopt without working with them
16:05:57 <JakeAbma> present+ JakeAbma
16:06:06 <dj> ... legislators might prefer single relase
16:06:17 <dj> ... waiting too long
16:06:29 <dj> ... needs of regulators vs implementers
16:06:38 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #ag
16:06:39 <alastairc> q+
16:06:40 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:06:42 <wendyreid> present+
16:06:45 <Rachael> q+
16:06:46 <cwadams> ack ala
16:06:46 <Jaunita_George> present+
16:07:01 <Glenda> present+
16:07:02 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:07:39 <dj> alastairc: project plan says 4 years, this question came from "should we have something before then"
16:07:56 <cwadams> ack Rach
16:08:10 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
16:08:17 <dj> Rachael: we know conversation was hard to follow for many people
16:08:22 <ToddL> present+
16:08:24 <dj> ... we're working on addressing that
16:08:27 <Graham> Graham has joined #ag
16:08:30 <Graham> present+
16:08:31 <dj> ... you can also use github via email
16:08:56 <dj> cwadams: anyone who made a point we missed in the summary?
16:09:31 <dj> ... poll time
16:09:39 <dj> ... this question was already in github
16:09:39 <Wilco> q+
16:09:41 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:09:57 <dj> ... if we don't get consensus, then our current approach is the standing decision
16:10:01 <scotto> scotto has joined #ag
16:10:03 <GreggVan> present+
16:10:11 <dj> Wilco: what's considered consensus in this scenario?
16:10:17 <scotto> present+
16:10:58 <GreggVan> q+
16:11:03 <Wilco> q-
16:11:21 <dj> cwadams: hopefully a significant majority
16:11:23 <GreggVan> q-
16:11:30 <dj> ... chairs were discussing this before
16:11:34 <GreggVan> q+
16:11:40 <cwadams> ack Gregg
16:11:40 <dj> ... not sure if that answered your question
16:11:45 <dj> Wilco: yes thank you
16:12:06 <dj> GreggVan: full consensus means everyone can accept it as a compromise
16:12:15 <dj> ... broad consensus means you mostly get that
16:12:19 <Rachael> q+
16:12:26 <dj> ... majority is only 1 more than half, which is a problem
16:12:28 <alastairc> There is a binary decision here (the starting point), but I hope we can get to acceptance with some refinement of the option(s)
16:12:36 <Rachael> Consensus is not a vote. Consensus indicates that a substantial number of individuals in the group support a proposal. The exact number of working group participants supporting a Call for Consensus and any objections are not the only factors in the decision. Although significant support from the active membership is always desirable, consensus means working through objections until they are resolved either through amending the decision or in
16:12:36 <Rachael> rare cases overriding the objection as laid out in Managing Dissent. Objections must have a clear rationale based on the technical merit or with reference to the agreed scope of the work. Moving on usually means a careful approach is taken. For example, not adding something to the documentation.
16:12:40 <dj> ... chairs can call a question if it goes for to long
16:12:44 <Rachael> AG decision policy https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy
16:13:03 <dj> ... is this written down somewhere [see Rachael's message above]
16:13:11 <cwadams> ack Rach
16:13:51 <cwadams> Should WCAG 3  1) continue building on WCAG 3 Outcomes OR 2) switch to starting from WCAG 2.2
16:13:54 <dj> cwadams: first poll question:
16:14:01 <dj> ... "should WCAG 3:
16:14:11 <dj> ... "1. continue on WCAG 3
16:14:18 <dj> ... "2. switch to 2.2"
16:14:20 <GreggVan> 1
16:14:22 <dan_bjorge> 2
16:14:22 <alastairc> 1
16:14:24 <JakeAbma> 2
16:14:24 <Graham> 1
16:14:24 <JustineP> 1
16:14:26 <dj> ... standing decision is option 1
16:14:27 <dj> 1
16:14:27 <Wilco> 2
16:14:28 <Frankie> 1
16:14:29 <Poornima> 1
16:14:31 <wendyreid> 1
16:14:31 <Rachael> 1
16:14:31 <jeanne> 1
16:14:34 <Francis_Storr> 1
16:14:35 <mike_beganyi> 1
16:14:36 <jon_avila> 1
16:14:36 <ShawnT> 1
16:14:37 <ashleyfirth> 1
16:14:37 <tburtin> 1 WCAG 3
16:14:39 <bruce_bailey_> 1
16:14:40 <Jennie> 1
16:14:40 <AWK> 1
16:14:40 <julierawe> 1
16:14:42 <ToddL> 1
16:14:51 <DanielHE> 1
16:15:00 <jeanne_e_c> 1
16:15:12 <rscano> rscano has joined #ag
16:15:24 <Jaunita_George> 1 or 2, there's benefits and drawbacks to each
16:15:28 <Wilco> q+
16:15:28 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:15:31 <dj> cwadams: not a trivial question, so individuals supporting option 2 can voice their reasons now
16:15:31 <Jaunita_George> q+
16:15:32 <Graham> 22 for 1 and 2 for 2
16:15:33 <scotto> q+
16:15:33 <cwadams> ack Wilco
16:15:38 <mbgower> 0, I can work with either
16:15:48 <laura> 0
16:16:09 <dj> Wilco: complete switch to WCAG 3 is tremendous value destruction
16:16:11 <cwadams> q+
16:16:19 <dj> ... new structure isn't proven yet
16:16:24 <JakeAbma> q+
16:16:44 <dj> ... transitioning to new structure will also take much more time and money than nessicary
16:17:12 <dj> ... WCAG 2 isn't all bad; there are areas which need to be updated, but much of it is fine
16:17:13 <Rachael> q+ Scott
16:17:13 <cwadams> ack dan
16:17:22 <Rachael> q- Scott
16:17:23 <AWK> Is this question about using the WCAG 2.x _structure_ or using WCAG 2.x as the starting point, including the SC?
16:17:39 <dj> dan_bjorge: authors and implementors
16:17:58 <dj> ... often look at WCAG because of legal requirements
16:17:58 <Rachael> AWK, about using WCAG 2.x as the starting point (not just the concepts of WCAG 2.x but the actual document)
16:17:58 <alastairc> AWK - starting with WCAG 2.x, then trying to update it to get to the improvements we've been aiming for in WCAG 3
16:18:11 <dj> ... with new versions, authors need to adhere to multiple versions at once
16:18:36 <wendyreid> q+
16:18:43 <dj> ... incremental updates are much easier for that than completely separate versions
16:19:00 <alastairc> q+ to rebut, particularly around structure updates.
16:19:05 <cwadams> ack jau
16:19:08 <AWK> @rachael and @alastairc - and as the question of backward compatibility would be answered next?
16:19:09 <dj> ... "absolutely incredible amount of busy work"
16:19:11 <GreggVan> q+
16:19:21 <dj> Jaunita_George: length of time
16:19:37 <dj> ... will new standards be obsolete by the time we publish them
16:20:08 <dj> ... apple's google glass just came out
16:20:21 <cwadams> ack scott
16:20:21 <dj> ... will new standards tackle new technology in a timely manner?
16:20:23 <jeanne> q+ to talk about the years of research behind the decision to create WCAG3.
16:20:39 <dj> scotto: i wasn't sure what we were voting for
16:21:11 <dj> ... process behind each option wasn't clear so i didn't know which way i wanted to vote
16:21:27 <cwadams> ack cwadams
16:21:29 <dj> ... in current poll
16:21:50 <Rachael> q+ to answer scott's question
16:21:50 <alastairc> Scott, did you see this, and open the comments underneath? https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173714
16:22:10 <dj> cwadams: question to people with concerns:
16:22:27 <dj> ... can you tolerate this, or would you strongly and formally object?
16:22:28 <cwadams> ack Jake
16:23:21 <cwadams> q+ to talk about future retrospectives
16:23:47 <dj> JakeAbma: we must be able to address people's issue before the projected date
16:24:00 <Glenda> +1 to what Jake is saying.
16:24:08 <dj> ... we need an in between for WCAG 2 and 3
16:24:31 <dj> ... we should have started this 8 years ago
16:24:39 <cwadams> ack wendy
16:24:39 <dj> ... now it's too late, so we need an in between
16:24:49 <dj> (scribe note): so far everyone who voted 2 agrees with what Wilco said
16:25:21 <dj> wendyreid: confused by idea that moving to WCAG 3 is destroying WCAG 2
16:25:52 <dj> ... no one here wants to completely throw out WCAG 2 --- there's so much good stuff in there
16:26:03 <dj> ... but its model can't fit everything we want to
16:26:26 <dj> ... there is a way to do this without loosing what we've already done
16:26:31 <dj> ... lot of gaps
16:26:41 <dj> ... lot of things content authors need which don't currently exist
16:27:05 <jeanne> +1 to the delay caused by the back and forth
16:27:07 <cwadams> ack ala
16:27:07 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to rebut, particularly around structure updates.
16:27:22 <Frankie> +1 to Wendy's comments
16:28:04 <dj> alastairc: we started in october
16:28:15 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:28:21 <dj> ... if you look at the project state in the project plan 4 years from now,
16:28:41 <dj> ... i think it would take us longer to do that incrementally than to keep everything in draft
16:29:03 <cwadams> ack gregg
16:29:25 <dj> GreggVan: WCAG 3 started in 1998 when we were working on WCAG 1
16:29:34 <dj> ... because they're they same issues we were trying to address then
16:29:57 <dj> ... the structure of WCAG 2 doesn't allow us to bring forward the things which aren't strictly testable
16:30:32 <dj> ... if there's just some things we want to tweak about 2.x, then do that
16:30:41 <Jennie> q+ re change in who follows WCAG 2
16:30:46 <dj> ... if we want to address the things we couldn't in 2.x, then we need a new structure
16:30:46 <Glenda> q+
16:30:51 <mbgower> q+
16:30:55 <dj> ... 3 will still cover the 2.x content
16:31:27 <dj> ... we need to focus on what the new structure can bring in
16:31:34 <Wilco> q+
16:31:37 <cwadams> ack Jeanne
16:31:37 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about the years of research behind the decision to create WCAG3.
16:31:38 <dj> ... 2.x stuff will come in as outcomes
16:31:52 <dj> jeanne: brief history for new people:
16:32:02 <dj> ... first 2 years of what became WCAG 3 was research
16:32:21 <dj> ... partnered with academics and industry to research the structure of WCAG 2
16:32:52 <dj> ... to say "WCAG 2 is good enough" is insufficient because we have independent research
16:32:58 <dj> ... i can give links if you'd like
16:33:05 <mbgower> q+ to say I'd like to see if we can get agreement on the strategy, first, and then talk about tactics
16:33:15 <dj> q+
16:33:35 <dj> ... there was a lot of work done well before it came to this group
16:33:45 <dj> ... i don't want to see that work thrown away
16:34:02 <cwadams> ack Rach
16:34:02 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer scott's question
16:34:04 <dj> ... it feels like this conversation is starting over
16:34:22 <dj> Rachael: scott: we started with a bunch of options,
16:34:27 <jeanne> Silverr Research Archive -> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Silver_Research_Archive
16:34:37 <cwadams> ack cwadams
16:34:37 <Zakim> cwadams, you wanted to talk about future retrospectives
16:34:39 <dj> ... but this question felt too fundamental to address quickly
16:35:26 <dj> cwadams: we want to develop and review, not speculate
16:35:47 <cwadams> ack Jennie
16:35:47 <Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to discuss change in who follows WCAG 2
16:35:54 <dj> ... for those uncomfortable with any decision, be aware there's time built into schedule to address retrospectives
16:36:21 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:36:32 <dj> Jennie: audience of people following and implementing wcag has significantly changed since WCAG 1
16:36:44 <dj> ... old structure doesn't work for now broader audience
16:36:48 <cwadams> ack Glenda
16:37:28 <dj> Glenda: short term, it's still important to fix 2.x
16:37:30 <Rachael> q+ to clarify the prior decision
16:37:46 <dj> ... long term, reserve 3.0 for when we're ready to redesign structure
16:38:12 <dj> ... and why don't we add Digital Accessibility Authoring Practice Guide right now
16:38:16 <Detlev> present+
16:38:17 <dj> ... living document
16:38:21 <dj> ... like ARIA
16:38:27 <alastairc> q+ on 'fixing' wcag 2.x, and whether we can introduce new things into that structure
16:38:27 <dj> ... informs 2.x and 3.0
16:38:31 <cwadams> ack mgbgower
16:38:55 <mbgower> Introduce new considerations that can be used and adopted in the shortest period of time.
16:39:01 <dj> mbgower: a lot of what we're talking about right now is tactics
16:39:12 <dj> ... it'd be good to also talk about strategy
16:39:24 <Rachael> q-
16:39:59 <cwadams> ack mb
16:39:59 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'd like to see if we can get agreement on the strategy, first, and then talk about tactics
16:39:59 <dj> ... a lot of stuff seems like tactical debates around the same thing
16:40:03 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
16:40:04 <cwadams> ack wilco
16:40:08 <dj> ... we need to agree around overall goal first
16:40:12 <ljoakley> present+
16:40:21 <dj> Wilco: i'm not married to 2.x structure
16:41:17 <dj> ... how do we minimize cost and efforts required of organizations when not starting from 2.x?
16:41:38 <dj> ... how do we keep pace with tech changes
16:41:39 <Rachael> q+
16:41:52 <Rachael> q+ to say that the proposed structure is designed to address tech change
16:41:59 <dj> ... how can we predict what web will be like when we finally get recommendations out
16:42:09 <cwadams> zakim, close queue
16:42:09 <Zakim> ok, cwadams, the speaker queue is closed
16:42:42 <cwadams> ack dj
16:43:07 <cwadams> dj:  Regarding Jeanne's comment about research.  It's important that we talk about it when we discuss.
16:43:18 <Wilco> s/not starting from 2.x/need to conform to both major versions/
16:43:29 <ashleyfirth> q+
16:43:35 <cwadams> dj:  I haven't seen that, and wasn't aware of that.  Maybe review the research and see what it is to inform our decisions.
16:43:48 <alastairc> ack me
16:43:48 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on 'fixing' wcag 2.x, and whether we can introduce new things into that structure
16:43:48 <cwadams> ack ala
16:44:07 <dj> alastairc: in response to Glenda and Michael
16:44:10 <ashleyfirth> That's ok. As someone new, I agree with DJ and would love the chance to read the research and then comment on the discussion.
16:44:50 <dj> ... for example, VR module could be in WCAG 3 as guidance without a conformance modle
16:44:56 <dj> s/modle/model
16:45:08 <dj> ... re: Wilco's question
16:45:20 <Wilco> can I clarify Alastair?
16:45:21 <dj> ... i don't think organizations would have to conform to both at the same time
16:46:03 <mbgower> Sure Alastair, I think new modules is a tactic that can meet the goal I suggested. I'm not sure we have agreement on the goal.
16:46:05 <dj> Wilco: legislators in US/Japan could be on 2.x, Egypt could be on 3.0
16:46:16 <dj> ... so organizations would need to conform to both
16:46:34 <GreggVan> q+
16:46:53 <GreggVan> q+  to talk about adoption in  Europe
16:46:56 <jeanne> THis is not a new question.  We were on WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 for a decade.
16:46:57 <cwadams> ack Rach
16:46:57 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that the proposed structure is designed to address tech change
16:47:05 <dj> alastairc: by publishing guidance early, we could focus on some pressing things first
16:47:20 <dj> Rachael: WCAG 3 structure was design to focus on logical change
16:47:43 <dj> ... its outcome-centered structure can better address issues than 2.x
16:47:53 <dj> ... such as focus visible
16:48:20 <dj> ... clarifiaction: standing decision was that if there was enough interest in taking on 2.x then we could do that,
16:48:25 <dj> ... but there wasn't enough interest
16:48:54 <dj> ... so we decided the way of managing the overlap should be a detailed mapping document to clarify mutual coverage between versions
16:49:07 <cwadams> Draft RESOLUTION:  Continue building on redesign effort (Silver, Outcomes, etc) as the way to create WCAG 3
16:49:18 <dj> cwadams: 0 for tolerate
16:49:22 <dj> ... +1 for support
16:49:22 <jeanne> 1
16:49:24 <julierawe> 1
16:49:24 <alastairc> +1
16:49:24 <wendyreid> +1
16:49:25 <ToddL> 1
16:49:25 <Jen_G> +1
16:49:26 <GreggVan> 1
16:49:26 <Graham> 1
16:49:26 <JakeAbma> 0
16:49:26 <Frankie> +1
16:49:26 <Rachael> +1
16:49:27 <DanielHE> 1
16:49:29 <bruce_bailey_> 1
16:49:29 <mike_beganyi> +1
16:49:30 <ShawnT> 1
16:49:31 <dj> +1
16:49:31 <Francis_Storr> 1
16:49:32 <Wilco> -1
16:49:36 <tburtin> +1
16:49:37 <dj> ... -1 for don't support
16:49:37 <dan_bjorge> -1
16:49:38 <Detlev> 0
16:49:39 <Bri> 0
16:49:40 <kirkwood> 1
16:49:41 <scotto> 0
16:49:41 <Jaunita_George> 1
16:49:47 <jon_avila> +1
16:49:48 <laura> 0
16:49:50 <Poornima> +1
16:49:50 <AWK> 1
16:49:51 <Glenda> 0
16:49:53 <kevin> 1
16:49:58 <ashleyfirth> 0
16:50:01 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:50:11 <Jennie> 0
16:50:12 <mbgower> 0
16:50:13 <ljoakley> 0
16:50:36 <cwadams> RESOLUTION:  Continue building on redesign effort (Silver, Outcomes, etc) as the way to create WCAG 3
16:50:48 <cwadams> Should we publish to final rec track using 1) time boxed approach 2) modules or 3) as an entire document
16:51:00 <dj> Rachael: there are objections
16:51:08 <cwadams> RESOLUTION:  Continue building on redesign effort (Silver, Outcomes, etc) as the way to create WCAG 3 (with objections)
16:51:18 <dj> ... please email chairs with details of technical concerns with your objections
16:51:23 <cwadams> zakim, open queue
16:51:23 <Zakim> ok, cwadams, the speaker queue is open
16:51:32 <alastairc> I think they were: 1. How to minimise the cost and effort of conforming to 2 versions, and How to keep pace with the technological changes.
16:51:33 <dj> ... so we can address them when we go through with this approach
16:51:33 <Jennie> q+
16:51:39 <cwadams> ack Jennie
16:52:02 <dj> Jennie: is there a significant increase in number of 0s between this vote and previous?
16:52:17 <dj> cwadams: +1s increased
16:52:22 <dj> ... 0s increased
16:52:24 <mbgower> 0 was "tolerate"
16:52:25 <alastairc> We didn't have a zero option the first time...
16:52:49 <Jennie> Thank you for clarifying
16:52:49 <dj> ... also more attendance this time
16:53:03 <cwadams> Should we publish to final rec track using 1) time boxed approach 2) modules or 3) as an entire document
16:53:33 <Rachael> q+
16:53:44 <dj> ... adding something that wasn't in github conversation
16:53:49 <cwadams> ack Rach
16:53:54 <dj> ... option 3 is wait until it's all complete
16:53:59 <dj> Rachael: that was the original support
16:54:25 <cwadams> Should we publish to final rec track using 1) time boxed approach 2) modules or 3) as an entire document, 0) unsure
16:54:26 <dj> ... we brought it back for discussion because of concerns brought up about the first two, so we didn't want to remove it
16:54:32 <dj> q+
16:54:37 <cwadams> ack dj
16:54:42 <GreggVan> 3
16:54:48 <cwadams> dj:  Can we vote for 2 approaches at once?
16:55:17 <alastairc> 3 as preference, with 2 if possible, and 1 as drafts...
16:55:20 <wendyreid> 2
16:55:21 <Wilco> q+
16:55:24 <Rachael> 3, 2
16:55:25 <Graham> 2
16:55:25 <Detlev> 0 I have read the thread but I am unable to tell what is best, sorry
16:55:29 <cwadams> ack Wilco
16:55:46 <dj> 2/1
16:56:03 <Bri> 0
16:56:04 <ShawnT> 2
16:56:11 <tburtin> 0 I have read the thread several times and need more information / definitions to tell which is best.
16:56:13 <Glenda> 2
16:56:13 <Frankie> 2
16:56:15 <Jen_G> 2
16:56:24 <JakeAbma> 2
16:56:26 <alastairc> q+
16:56:31 <jeanne> 2, 1, 3
16:56:33 <bruce_bailey_> 2 , 3 , 1
16:56:34 <dj> s/\//,
16:56:36 <cwadams> ack ala
16:56:52 <ToddL> 2/3/1
16:56:56 <dj> alastairc: by default before this question we were going to do option 3
16:57:25 <dan_bjorge> ...none of the above? want to avoid separate documents, but would prefer objective-based approached to time-boxed or all-at-end
16:57:54 <dj> ... other option was time-boxed output
16:58:02 <dan_bjorge> 0
16:58:05 <dj> ... publishing whatever was ready at given time
16:58:16 <ashleyfirth> 2
16:58:17 <Wilco> 0; What Dan said
16:58:25 <rscano> 2
16:58:27 <laura> 2,3
16:58:31 <DanielHE> 2
16:58:38 <dj> cwadams: 2s are majority so far
16:58:50 <dj> ... i see some individuals using 0 as "none of the above"
16:58:53 <dan_bjorge> q+
16:58:56 <Jaunita_George> 2
16:58:58 <cwadams> ack dan
16:59:10 <cwadams> q+ to scribe change
16:59:19 <AWK> The differences seem academic. Even modules are whole documents. Modules can be time-boxed also.
16:59:31 <dj> dan_bjorge: from my understanding, modules imply separate documents
16:59:44 <cwadams> +1 to AWK
16:59:50 <dj> ... and time boxed isn't objective-based
16:59:58 <dj> ... i'd like objective-boxed
17:00:00 <cwadams> q?
17:00:02 <ljoakley> Dan +1
17:00:04 <dj> Dan +1
17:00:10 <Rachael> +1 to adding a milestone based option.
17:00:15 <Wilco> +1
17:00:17 <scotto> +1 dan
17:00:24 <GreggVan> q+
17:00:27 <Jaunita_George> +1
17:00:35 <laura> +1
17:00:41 <dj> Rachael: new poll with Dan's approach?
17:00:42 <cwadams> ack cwa
17:00:42 <Zakim> cwadams, you wanted to scribe change
17:00:43 <alastairc> This was based on the question: How do we get guidance out faster?
17:00:43 <alastairc> Modules would be topical guidance (e.g. guidelines for VR, or an updated keyboard & pointer guidance).
17:00:43 <alastairc> Time boxing was more applicable to starting from WCAG 2.x, but would be for the itterative approach.
17:00:51 <mbgower> time-boxed modules :)
17:00:56 <rscano> +1
17:01:03 <dj> s/Rachael/cwadams: Rachael
17:01:17 <laura> Scribe List https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
17:01:29 <Alina_V> Alina_V has joined #ag
17:01:49 <Poornima> I'll scribe
17:01:54 <Poornima> scribe: Poornima
17:02:05 <Poornima> sure :)
17:02:05 <kevin> s/'ll scribe//
17:02:51 <Poornima> Gregg: excellent document of COGA area.. here's the best guidance we have.. put a +1 on that thought
17:02:53 <cwadams> q+
17:03:07 <cwadams> ack Gregg
17:03:31 <alastairc> q+ to propose a different approach
17:03:33 <Poornima> .. on the Rectrack: am not sure I understand the purpose, maybe we should publish the drafts regularly
17:03:38 <Frankie> +1 to publishing regular drafts
17:03:41 <Glenda> +1 to what Gregg is saying about “COGA Usable” and the concept of a non-versioned living document called “Digital Accessibility Authoring Practice Guide” <<< not a legal requirement but SUPER helpful.
17:03:44 <kevin> s/sure :)//
17:04:05 <wendyreid> q+
17:04:08 <Poornima> but not as a requirements or publishing formal documents as first
17:04:22 <Poornima> ..until it is complete, no one is going to adapt it
17:04:37 <rscano> +1 to publishing regular drafts
17:04:59 <Poornima> ... it's gonna be big haul until it is complete, put modules 3 and 2 both into it..
17:04:59 <cwadams> ack cwadams
17:05:50 <Poornima> chuck: this is one of the valuable decisions, find this as one of the easiest decisions in modules
17:05:57 <cwadams> ack ala
17:05:57 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to propose a different approach
17:06:00 <Poornima> .. acknowledging to Andrew and Gregg
17:07:19 <Poornima> Alaistair: iterative/time-boxed approach was more to the WCAG terms.. turning back to the original que, to put a time aside for the packaging module say keyboard and input, do we put time to packaging
17:07:49 <cwadams> ack wendy
17:08:32 <cwadams> q+ to ask Alistair if we repoll on 2 options?
17:08:43 <kevin> q+ to comment on publishing as Notes and potential consequences
17:08:57 <Poornima> wendy: we are maybe getting little bit hung up on the publishing, update the main document every time, if we are thinking the recommendation process, update wcag rectrack drafts
17:09:17 <alastairc> Could do, options: Do we put in effort to publish stand-alone modules of guidance before the final WCAG 3 is published? +1 / -1 / 0
17:09:35 <cwadams> ack cwadams
17:09:35 <Zakim> cwadams, you wanted to ask Alistair if we repoll on 2 options?
17:09:39 <Poornima> .. instead of waiting for 10 modules to complete, the modular approach can be more doable and work..
17:09:43 <cwadams> ack kevin
17:09:43 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to comment on publishing as Notes and potential consequences
17:10:27 <Poornima> Kevin: if someone wants to write notes in rectrack, that could be problem in tracking
17:10:53 <cwadams> proposed RESOLUTION:  Put in effort to publish stand-alone modules of guidance before the final WCAG 3 is published (+1 / -1 / 0)
17:10:57 <jeanne> Use the CSS model
17:11:08 <Wilco> q+
17:11:20 <Poornima> .. you could create modules in rectrack , say module for accesible VR
17:11:23 <mbgower> +1 to stand-alone modules (REC track)
17:11:36 <cwadams> ack Wilco
17:12:02 <scotto> +1 to wilco's point.  already feeling like i shouldn't be voting right now
17:12:08 <Poornima> wilco: I'm little reluctant to go for this like on the poll, the rectrack to conform modal and guidance, as there is a good difference
17:12:20 <Rachael> q+
17:12:24 <mbgower> q+
17:12:28 <cwadams> ack Rach
17:12:31 <Poornima> .. don't know we could say yes or no to the modules
17:12:43 <mbgower> q-
17:12:47 <Poornima> Rachel: curious for a strawpoll for modules or single document
17:12:48 <Wilco> +1 I like that much better
17:12:59 <mbgower> q+
17:13:07 <cwadams> ack mb
17:13:13 <rscano> +1
17:13:25 <kevin> s/that could be problem in tracking/that could be problem in how patent policy related material is handled/
17:13:43 <alastairc> StrawPoll: 1) Should we explore publishing modules further 2) Should we continue with a single document
17:14:06 <Poornima> mbgower: i really do feel wcag 2.2 is going to sit there and adopt, until  it is completely replaced
17:14:24 <Poornima> StrawPoll: 1) Should we explore publishing modules further 2) Should we continue with a single document
17:14:27 <wendyreid> q+
17:14:28 <julierawe> +1
17:14:30 <jeanne> The US took 10 years to switch from WCAG 1 to WCAG 2, that didn't stop developers from implementing WCAG 2
17:14:34 <cwadams> ack wendy
17:14:36 <Graham> 1
17:14:36 <rscano> +1
17:14:37 <GreggVan> 2
17:14:38 <mbgower> +1
17:14:40 <dj> 2
17:14:42 <Francis_Storr> 1
17:14:44 <alastairc> 1, fine with 2.
17:15:19 <Poornima> 1, and 2 also fine to work in parallel
17:15:23 <cwadams> q+
17:15:24 <Rachael> 2, fine with 1
17:15:26 <jeanne> 1 but fine with 2
17:15:29 <GreggVan> q+
17:15:29 <bruce_bailey_> 1 -- noting that action words have been "explore" and "put in effort" -- but fine with 2
17:15:31 <ToddL> 2/1
17:15:38 <dan_bjorge> 2
17:15:47 <cwadams> ack Ch
17:16:00 <Frankie> 1
17:16:23 <ShawnT> 1
17:16:37 <laura> 2, 1
17:16:42 <alastairc> q+
17:16:43 <Detlev> 0 you have lost me
17:16:49 <cwadams> ack cwa
17:16:51 <cwadams> ack gregg
17:17:20 <Poornima> gregg: modules are seperate great ideas, advantage of making notes, allows us to keep changing or adding
17:17:24 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
17:17:24 <cwadams> 9 ones, 6 twos
17:17:37 <jtoles> present+
17:17:39 <Poornima> .. like this is our word in a short period of time, and keep updating
17:18:14 <cwadams> ack ala
17:18:18 <Poornima> .. i think the question was creating the formal recommendation document, when we really continue to be working on this to move on
17:18:19 <tburtin> 0 perhaps could we have each option written out to think more about?
17:18:32 <Glenda> voting 1 - creating INFORMATIVE useful guidance in useful focused modules (like..let’s do one on VR/AR with what we know TODAY)
17:18:54 <dan_bjorge> q+
17:18:55 <cwadams> 10 ones, 6 twos, 1 zero
17:19:15 <mbgower> The value of a REC is that it can be adopted. The interim releases could be both RECs _and_ other guidance. Gonna have the malleable challenge no matter what.
17:19:25 <Poornima> Alastair: wendy made a good point of how messy it'll take, malleable to change or update
17:19:26 <alastairc> Suggest we (chairs) investigate further, and bring it back
17:19:35 <GreggVan> q+
17:19:40 <cwadams> ack dan
17:19:54 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
17:20:07 <cwadams> +1 to alastair
17:20:21 <Poornima> dan_bjorge: echoing wilco's point, question is are we doing as informative/normative? is the scope going to be outcome/technology based?
17:20:26 <cwadams> ack Gregg
17:20:27 <scotto> agree with dan/wilco.  i'm not sure i'm comfortable voting still, as i wasn't at the beginning
17:20:30 <cwadams> q+
17:20:38 <Jon_avila> Module term in problematic for me for the reasons stated.
17:21:14 <Poornima> gregg: the question of normative is like surely the objection, if you look at wcag 2, say a module on VR, this is going to be recommendation, and get frozen there
17:21:41 <cwadams> Me too!
17:21:43 <alastairc> This was trying to answer the question: What could we put out prior to a full WCAG 3 rec
17:21:56 <Wilco> q+
17:22:00 <cwadams> ack cwadams
17:22:02 <Poornima> .. VR refers to many things, movies, webpages.. if we are talking about informative modules, am happy.. but taking this as a normative, which are recommendations itself that can't be change, then i see this as problem
17:22:04 <Jon_avila> I agree with Gregg
17:22:36 <wendyreid> q+
17:22:48 <Poornima> chuck: am suggesting if the group is comfortable with this proposal on wcag 3
17:23:07 <cwadams> ack Wilco
17:23:11 <Wilco> q-
17:23:15 <cwadams> ack wendy
17:23:28 <Poornima> Alastair: if people are interested, we can bring this back
17:24:05 <Poornima> wendy: we have done a lot of work in planning this out, naming, grouping, but none of them are published.. does the document go out complete or in part?
17:24:07 <Rachael> q+ to say intent right now is to publish in draft quarterly
17:24:42 <cwadams> zakim, close queue
17:24:42 <Zakim> ok, cwadams, the speaker queue is closed
17:24:46 <Poornima> .. we can take an approach if the project lead or chairs to suggest how do we go with this as a draft like focus on one outcome
17:24:49 <Detlev> aside: there seems to be a lot of overlap / redundancy in current outcomes, would not want to see them punished as is...
17:25:07 <Detlev> published not punished
17:25:20 <Poornima> .. one document with all of the outcomes, and segment them as informative modules
17:25:24 <cwadams> ack rach
17:25:24 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say intent right now is to publish in draft quarterly
17:25:43 <Poornima> Rachel: we do publish public drafts quarterly twice
17:26:05 <Poornima> .. there is a question how do we approach to breaking out this? this conversation is all about it
17:26:17 <jeanne> WCAG Research Summary document that was used for the Design Sprint for WCAG3  -> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1POs7orJ4ALB0bq5_vyo4v8RxDcr-5ctwD1noVgpXuJc/edit#slide=id.gc6f73a04f_0_0
17:26:19 <Poornima> chuck: no resolution yet, will bring this back again
17:26:25 <cwadams> zakim, open queue
17:26:25 <Zakim> ok, cwadams, the speaker queue is open
17:26:52 <Poornima> chuck: we are going to discuss wcag 2 topic / proposals
17:26:57 <cwadams> zakim, take up next item
17:26:57 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WCAG 2 Issue Resolution -- taken up [from cwadams]
17:27:15 <cwadams> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024JanMar/0007.html
17:27:58 <Poornima> Alastair: Keyboard 2.1.1
17:28:51 <Poornima> .. basically, it is possible to pause this without going for convention, may not be a good thing
17:29:34 <Poornima> .. doesn't require everything to be able to mouse with a keyboard..
17:30:00 <Poornima> .. next one is 'accessible authentication'.. Issue 3198
17:30:52 <cwadams> q+ to ask about 2.1.1 keyboard when alastair finished
17:31:27 <alastairc> PR for keyboard: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1642/files
17:31:54 <Poornima> chuck: reg. 2.1.1, not sure what the latest proposed version of changes, if you are not following normal conventions, and not haven't bugged i
17:32:07 <mbgower> q+
17:32:07 <cwadams> ack cwadams
17:32:08 <Zakim> cwadams, you wanted to ask about 2.1.1 keyboard when alastair finished
17:32:13 <cwadams> ack mb
17:33:01 <Poornima> mbgower: chuck, that's how normally I would do too, that req exists in 508 , but not wcag.. if we deviate from standards, then we need to document it
17:33:07 <ToddL> ToddL has left #ag
17:33:10 <Glenda> q+
17:33:14 <cwadams> ack Glenda
17:33:23 <Poornima> .. trying to capture recommendations or considerations, there can be .. it's a good point to capture and note here
17:33:46 <cwadams> +1 that's clever!
17:33:48 <mbgower> yep, it's a stretch. :)
17:34:07 <Poornima> Glenda: .. we can file it under 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions
17:34:46 <Poornima> alastair: we are not going to sort of ask of resolutions on this, but highlighting them on the list if any issues, and we can tackle them
17:34:57 <mbgower> q+ to say here's the link to the document I was talking about https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AiI8CSbAJoWp5cicNNd89rYiLkhzc9AmImeY7ERcXZk/edit?usp=sharing
17:35:12 <Poornima> alastair: now discussing 'Pointer gestures'
17:36:02 <Poornima> .. it should not be changing requirements, the descriptions are available already.. just checking if it matches sort of expectations
17:36:07 <cwadams> ack mb
17:36:07 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say here's the link to the document I was talking about https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AiI8CSbAJoWp5cicNNd89rYiLkhzc9AmImeY7ERcXZk/edit?usp=sharing
17:36:34 <Poornima> mbgower: the link to the document is here, to formalize
17:37:14 <Poornima> alastairc: i think we are good to go, if any points to help with this, continue adding
17:38:37 <Poornima> .. sectioning elements, that are updated.. there were questions about why this was added to wcag 2.2, there was a response, feel free to add comments
17:39:38 <alastairc> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1
17:39:53 <Poornima> .. you can follow along this project as in the link posted here
17:40:13 <mbgower> q+
17:40:20 <alastairc> q+ Frankie
17:40:23 <alastairc> q- Frankie
17:40:23 <Poornima> .. any comments, please add. otherwise, this is going to be published by next week
17:40:27 <Francis_Storr> q+
17:40:28 <alastairc> q+ francis
17:40:29 <Rachael> q+
17:40:36 <cwadams> ack mb
17:40:44 <Poornima> mbgower: if anyone has updates on card sorting process, any good feedbacks, share
17:40:47 <alastairc> q- francis
17:40:48 <cwadams> ack fran
17:40:53 <cwadams> ack fran
17:41:01 <kevin> qq+
17:41:18 <Poornima> Frankie: when exactly this is published?
17:41:19 <cwadams> ack kevin
17:41:19 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to fran
17:41:37 <Poornima> kevin: the first thursday of every month I have time for publishing
17:42:07 <Poornima> .. based on materials available, timeframe, techniques and understanding documents that are merged will get published
17:42:11 <cwadams> ack Rach
17:42:21 <alastairc> This is an improvement to the previous.
17:42:30 <Poornima> Rachel: 11 people complete the card sort so far
17:42:53 <Poornima> .. have a schedule to bring back in 2 weeks to talk about the outcomes, agendas and more
17:43:02 <Poornima> .. leaving it open to the 30th jan
17:43:11 <mbgower> https://uxd-library.optimalworkshop.com/optimalsort/062osikf https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fw0-q4_iZPZ44_PmvUbJBH8CtQtxwXEXlJ3jac1T5JY/edit#gid=1073399112
17:43:15 <Poornima> chuck: reaching to the end of the call
17:43:28 <mbgower> that is the card sort and the categories; two different links
17:44:03 <cwadams> rrsagent, make minutes
17:44:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/23-ag-minutes.html cwadams
17:44:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/23-ag-minutes.html kevin
17:44:47 <Poornima> rrsagent, make minutes
17:44:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/23-ag-minutes.html Poornima
17:44:53 <laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
17:44:53 <jtoles> jtoles has left #ag
17:45:04 <Poornima> present+
17:45:11 <Poornima> rrsagent, make minutes
17:45:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/23-ag-minutes.html Poornima
17:45:49 <laura> laura has left #ag
18:02:45 <ljoakley1> ljoakley1 has joined #ag
18:07:40 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
18:19:40 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
18:42:50 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:00:46 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag