<scribe> scribe: mbgower

Announcements

<AWK> +AWK

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Feb_24_subgroups/

Alastair: We have at least one announcement, which is that we've got a couple of sub groups which we are trying to get participation for.
... Chuck has pasted in a link to those.
... Exploring publication approach subgroup; 2. Visible keyboard focus indicator subgroup. The survey includes times, so we can schedule the meetings.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if sub group ~6 week sprints?

<Rachael> 8 weeks

Bruce: is this the 6-week sprint model?

Alastair: I think they are 8 weeks, but yes.

AWK: This is Andrew Kirkpatrick and I'm letting folks know that this is my last week at Adobe, and it means that unless I go for Invited Expert status, it will be my last call. I've been part of the group since 2006.

<kirkwood> wow!! it has been great we will see you soon ;) hee heee

AWK: I'm probably kidding myself that I won't be pursuing Invited Expert status.

Alastair: It's been a pleasure working with you.

AWK: Likewise, with all of you.

<Wilco> Big news. It's been great working with you AWK!

<Jennie_Delisi> * Thank you for all your contributions Andrew!

Alastair: Are you going to any events, like CSUN?

AWK: I am going to CSUN.

Alastair: May be a chance for drinks.

AWK: I am totally open to that.

Review How To Template

<laura> @awk we will miss you! Thank ylou for all you have done for a11y

<Rachael> Subgroup handbook for anyone who hasn't seen it https://docs.google.com/document/d/12O-1BKwlx4iR43GvFzmScejq2xU9V-rehrlxN42st5M/edit#heading=h.gzpoqn1jwaec

Alastair: This is the How to template, which I'm handing over to Kevin.

Kevin: I'm going to share my screen...
... I will try to limit scrolling.
... What we've done in the WCAG 3 repo is, for any pull requests coming through, going forward they'll be presented as PR, and there will be a section from netlify, and it will provide details of a deploy preview.

<kirkwood> can we have a link to what we are seeing on screen?

Kevin: If you click on that link you will go to a preview [He goes through the Motion Get Started section and walks through the content on each section ] You can view each of the sections [User Needs, Activities, etc] There is an index page for the whole section. I will fix a glitch that requires you to go to the root url.

<alastairc> kirkwood - the starting point is here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/25

<alastairc> Then look for the sunglasses emoji...

Kevin: When you access the See more link, it takes you to Get Started. I wanted to introduce you to this. It should allow us to have something that is 'easy on the eye' to review, and is accessible.
... This is an opportunity to review these templates. It's not the last time we'll look at these.

Alastair: For context, when people create a PR, it will automatically happen.
... I popped up the link at 10 minutes past.

Jeanne: I'm not sure where to begin... This is great you got this working! We've changed the template quite a bit... Maybe I should have this conversation with you off line. How did you get it to work?

<kirkwood> not seem same rendoring as was presented

Kevin: This is not something happening in github. It's netlify. It's automatic, so any PR created from now should have this link information and contain a preview for that section. There will be PRs that currently exist that will not have a preview. If you add something to those PRs, it will trigger the process and should trigger a preview.

<alastairc> Kirkwood - If you look for the "deploy" link with the sunglasses, you should get to: https://deploy-preview-25--wcag3.netlify.app/motion-controlled-by-user/

Jeanne: We've changed the template considerably, so I'd rather get the current template working created in 4th quarter.

<kirkwood> THANK YOU alastair!

Kevin: That's something we can work on. It probably just needs an update.
... What we're showing today is that it happens. The templates will get worked on and updated.

Jeanne: Thank you.

Wilco: I can work on that with you Jeanne.

Card Sort Next Steps

Alastair: I'm going to share my screen in light mode. It's a presentation, so there should be no scrolling.
... We are now looking at the categories from a top down perspective.
... We'd like to do a closed card sort. Instead of making up your own categories, your job will be to put the cards into the existing categories.
... On other information architecture tasks I've done before, if we achieve 75% we are doing well. Even 66%.
... [Covers examples 1 and 2]
... There will be no perfect categorization. I identified about 60 cards with obvious overlap.
... [reads out 'Working up an alternative' slide]

<kirkwood> suggestion on naming… “clear purpose: control” , “clear purpose: input”

Alastair: I tried a few things [slide 2 of Working up an alternative]
... That created some updated categories that I think work better ['Alternative' slide]
... But there are still some overlaps.
... I went through an exercise to try to pin this down.
... [Goes through 'Strict interface-area approach']
... What this does is it doesn't have terms that can be mixed up with roles or activites (such as "design"). I was trying to find something that had the least overlap.
... Lastly, I tried assessing from an interaction perspective [reviews Interaction type approach]
... This is closer to the user needs approach. This and the prior one appear to have the least overlap.
... I can't ask folks to say which is better until you go through the activity. But there might be reasons that the Interface works better. There might be reasons that Interaction works better.
... We can try this with card sorting exercises, which should be much faster since you don't have to think up categories -- just put them in which one makes sense.

Jennie: Can you go back to the screen with Understanding component?

[Shows "Interactino type approach"]

Jennie: I'm wondering if you can help me understand the thinking. "Layout" to me is static, not interaction.

<kirkwood> +1 Jennie

Alastair: [Shows a filtered spreadsheet] I was trying to separate the thing you do to support AT, or an understandable layout. There's quite a lot of these.

Jennie: I wonder if the conversation is indicating a third bucket?
... When teachign this, there's a difference between what the user does and what the implementing does can be quite different.

Alastair: I may have missed the third bucket?

<kirkwood> I agree

Jennie: To me, becuase it is static, the user doesn't do anything with the layout or content when it's created. To me, that puts it in the static bucket.

Alastair: To explain, on the left is what came out of the exercise. The middle is... On the right hand side is the categories oriented around, almost disability type, but slightly more abstracted.

<jeanne> +1 to this work and approaching it as a "reduce overlap" approach. Thank you -- this was a lot of work.

Alastair: Probably not well explained, but I'm just trying to find a way of refining this.

AWK: You may have just explained this. You changed from Multimedia Alternative to Media Alternatives. I thought that was a good change.

Alastair: I'm trying to remember why I changed it.

<TheoHale> Would media alternatives include alternatives to images?

<JenStrickland> Would it be possible to put the subheadings for each of these columns on the slide?

<kirkwood> +1

AWK: The reason I would use Media is that it includes multimedia, but also each individual medium.

<Rachael> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/rzb6rMMC/

<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Rachael - great observation

Rachael: If we wanted to make these consistently from the user point of view... I tried a snippet. I'm not sure how well this worked.

<Rachael> Customizing Content, Using AT, Discerning Content, Inputing Content, Using Media, Staying Safe, Understanding Content

<kirkwood> +1 agree on R re: POV

Rachael: Bruce: Thank you for the work. I've done card sorts. You've taken this to a great level, but I also realize I need to learn more.

Alastair: You need the Information Architecture book. I'll try to find the reference.

<kirkwood> interested in link to IA book as basis

Wilco: I'm trying to understand what happened with multimedia and imagery and graphics.

<AWK> That's also why we had "time-based media" in WCAG 2.0, @wilco

Alastair: I'll have another look at that. Essentially I'd say multimedia is a subset of media. If I'm looking at the middle one, animation is not intended to include video.
... It's not about the animation in the video. It's about the alternative you're providing to it.
... Our ultimate test is 'do people put the right cards in the right categories'?

<alastairc> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1491911689?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&_encoding=UTF8&linkCode=gs2&tag=oreilly20-21

Jennie: that was a lot of information presented verbally.
... Would you be able to put the subheadings at the top of each slide?

<Jennie_Delisi> *That was Jenn Strickland

Alastair: I'll try [working on slide 19]. This is probably terrible from an accessibility point of view
... None of them are perfect, but I do think the Interface and Interaction have the least overlap. I was struggling trying to take the first Average column and not have overlaps.

<JenStrickland> JenStrickland — not two no's please. :)

Rachael: It sounds like you want us to try the 2nd and 3rd lists?

<JenStrickland> Autocorrect… not two 'n's, please.

Rachael: My guess is the best way is to try the card sort.

Alastair: I'm recommending to try 2 and 3. If someone has a strong reason, I'd like to know what it is.

<Jennie_Delisi> *Thanks Jen! That was my mistake

<Rachael> scribe+ Rachael

<Rachael> Alastair: The first item, Average, leaned towards what the interface does but many of the categories overlapped. Things like Input agnostic has to do with keyboard and pointer.

<Rachael> ...its a mix of things. There is no one organizing approach

<Rachael> ...Is that helpful?

<Rachael> kirkwood: It sounds like it came out of the fact that there were things that didn't fit into the other two.

<Rachael> alastairc: Good process because it led to the other two

<Rachael> JenStrickland: I'm looking at the content in the 2nd and 3rd columns. There seems to be a lot of relationships between them.

<Rachael> ...the interaction style seems to be a subset of interface

<Rachael> alastairc: Imaging each of these contains all of the outcomes. Items will be split.

<Chuck> scribe+ Chuck

<Rachael> ...Content relating to AT will be mixed in interface vs. being together in the other. Some similar and some very different.

<Rachael> Detlev: From looking at it and seeing where things belong, the average may have some better options. May be the labels. I prefer processes and data entry to Forms, inputs and errors. I feel like I know where things are in the first one. This is a very important juncture.

<Rachael> ...I think its worth doing all three. I'm happy to do at least 2 of these. It's time well spent.

<Rachael> ...it will have huge impact down the line.

<Rachael> alastairc: We have 45 people on the call. If 15 people committed to each one it would be great results. If you can just do 1 or 2, we will have enough results.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to just two for now

<Chuck> Rachael: Just to add, the closed card sort is more accessible to screen readers. We will have a spreadsheet available for these as an alternative.

<Rachael> ...we had less than 20 for the first one.

<Rachael> julierawe: Can you restate what you hope people will do?

<mgifford> 5mins each or 15 minutes each?

<mgifford> How much time is it likely to take?

<Rachael> Alastair: Participate in a card sort.

<Rachael> Bruce: Advocate for 2 only. The first was a lot of work.

<Rachael> Detlev: I think its down to the labeling that make me stumble slightly.

<Rachael> ...policy is confusing. Layout could be visual or programmatic. I'm unsure if both are meant or are they combined.

<Rachael> ...it may all be down to wording. Happy to focus on 2 but concerned about wording.

<scribe> scribe: mbgower

Rachael: I wonder if we want to do a straw poll about doing 2 or 3/

<Chuck> Rachael: Do we want to do a straw poll for doing 2 or 3?

<alastairc> Poll: Which two would you do? Average (1), Interface (2), Interaction (3)

<alastairc> 2,3

<jeanne> 2,3

<Chuck> 2,3

<mike_beganyi> 2, 3

2,3

<Rachael> alastair: Which would you do? Please write in which you'd commit to.

<Glenda> 2,3

<bruce_bailey> both 2 and 3

<Azlan> 2,3

<Rachael> 2,3

<Gez_Lemon> 2, 3

<AWK> 2,3

<graham> 2,3

<Wilco> 2, 3

<julierawe> 3

<JakeAbma> 2,3

<Detlev> ally @mbgower I meant things like page sections, bypass blocks programmatic headings

<giacomo-petri> 2,3

<laura> 1,3

<Frankie> 2 and 3

<Bri> 2,3

<ShawnT> 2,3

<Detlev> 1,2

<DanielHE> 2, 3

<tburtin> 2, 3

Outcome Language https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/49

<Rachael> alastairc: Next Item is outcome language. Discussion in github.

<Chuck> Rachael: For the outcome format, we had a couple of different options that came out of the exercise.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/49#discussioncomment-8455248

<Chuck> Rachael: I put together a summary of the github conversation (link above)

<Chuck> Rachael: Based on conversation in github, there are 3 formats that received support, and we'll start there.

<Chuck> Rachael: They received mostly support.

<Rachael> Technical Statement: Completing steps in a process does not require a cognitive test such as remembering a password or solving a puzzle or calculation.

<Chuck> Rachael: Technical statement (example follows).

<Chuck> Rachael: 6 for, none against.

<Chuck> Rachael: Where/Why statements (example follows)

<Rachael> Where What Why Statements: Abbreviations and Acronymns. Where: All abbreviations and acronyms. What: The meaning of these terms can be expanded. Why: Users with cognitive and learning disabilities have a way to recall the meaning of text.

<Chuck> Rachael: No comments on technical statements, where/what/why had 2 key statements, close to EN 301 549.

<Chuck> Rachael: A suggestion to consider that structure. Another was callout that questions were important to map, but too complex for outcome level, better off at test level.

<Rachael> Requirements Statement: Completing a process shall not require remembering a password, solving a puzzle or calculation, or passing another cognitive test.

<Chuck> Rachael: Requirements Statement.

<Chuck> Rachael: Key comments, strive for plain language. Another was dislike of "Shall"

<Glenda> I worry about this example Technical Statement: “Completing steps in a process does not require a cognitive test such as remembering a password or solving a puzzle or calculation.” because it feels like a concept, but not enough detail for objective test methods.

<Chuck> Rachael: Before straw poll, any questions or clarifications?

<Chuck> Rachael: We are not trying to dive into if these are good examples or not.

<Chuck> Rachael: Any comments on the concepts of the statements?

<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) Technical Statement, 2) Where, What, Why Statement 3) Requirements Statement 4) Other

<Chuck> Rachael: simple straw poll follows.

<Glenda> 2

<Chuck> 1,3,2

<kevin> 1

<Detlev> 1,2,3

<alastairc> 1, 3. I like 2 but think it should be under the outcome level.

<laura> 1

<kirkwood> 1

<JenStrickland> 1, 2

<Azlan> 1,2

<ShawnT> 2,1

<rscano> 1

<Wilco> 1

<JakeAbma> 1

<bruce_bailey> 3,1,2 but okay with all

<sarahhorton> 1

<giacomo-petri> 1

<jeanne> 2, 4

<Alina_V> 1

<Gez_Lemon> 1

<Rachael> 1

<GN015> 1,3

<AWK> 1,3

<marco-sabidussi> 1

<Chuck> Julierawe: Interesting comment on first set of options. User made comment saying what if statement benefits some specific users? Would you prioritize on more benefits, lower on lesser benefits?

<jtoles> 2,3,1

<Chuck> ...just want to float this, it is an interesting question.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer

<Detlev> @jeanne, can you speak about option 4?

<tburtin> 2

<Chuck> Rachael: That was on user statements. User needs and overlaps. I need type statements didn't get as much support, was around that challenge. User need might have different disabilities. Could create very big user need statements.

<Chuck> Rachael: ...move into how to content and not build into statements. It was a good conversation.

<Chuck> Alastair: Option 1 has most support.

<Chuck> Alastair: No resolution required, but agreement.

<Chuck> Bruce: Odd that first several had 6 or seven, last had 3 or 4. Maybe fatigue?

<Chuck> Rachael: Might be that we asked for when they had an opinion, and not in case was in the middle.

<Chuck> Theo: Is it possible to get more time on voting? I'm thinking about this and how it relates to what people are saying?

<Chuck> Alastair: Context is that we need to start working on first outcome in next week or 2, and need to rationalize the outcomes. that doesn't mean it is written in stone.

<Chuck> Alastair: As we work through our first outcome, if we run into issues and think other options would be better, not to late to shift. We will try and give more advance notice.

<Chuck> Alastair: Usually there's several weeks in advance before voting. This was a bit tighter turn-around.

<Chuck> Rachael: Just to add that whatever decision we have, there's 5 business days to raise concerns that may not have been discussed in meeting. If you come up with thoughts and alternatives, we can bring it back next week. There's more space.

<Chuck> Rachael: We are trying to get something to start with.

<Chuck> wilco: Curious, to what extent the one we voted on meets our plain language, and give the subgroup as an exercise to consider and follow.

<Chuck> Alastair: Aware as a requirement, I think it could figure in next discussion on normative.

<kirkwood> +1 to Wilco

<Chuck> Alastair: That's something the subgroup needs to be aware of. Not most obvious for plain language.

<alastairc> Draft Resolution: We will proceed with the "Technical Statement" for our first round of outcome work

<Chuck> +1

<Wilco> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<shadi> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<mike_beganyi> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Detlev> -1

<Gez_Lemon> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Bri> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<ljoakley> +1

<laura> +1

<giacomo-petri> +1

<rscano> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Chuck> Alastair: Detlev?

RESOLUTION: We will proceed with the "Technical Statement" for our first round of outcome work

<Chuck> Detlev: I think this decision making is dizzy. We've discussed months in process, this seems to be very important decisions done in minutes, done with some voting. Not comfortable with this rushed process. Seems rushed.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say we have to make a decision on how to produce a first revision

<Chuck> Alastair: I'd separate out that when we come to publishing content, we'll look at drafts, have 2 weeks on anything. These agreements are about how we get to that point. I think it's appropriate to do quick decisions on how we advance. We can decide to change tact.

<Chuck> Mike: I know there's some issues with analogies. It's like a bunch of people discussing recipies for food. At some point you have to try out a recipe and try out the food.

<Chuck> Mike: We've discussed alter our process, and see where we get at. I understand, but what we are deciding now is what structure we are using for this first sample. Then we can assess sample and discuss the results, and tweak how we make the next one.

<Detlev> OK I don't want to hold things up !

<Chuck> Mike: This is iterative. This is just to get to the first thing that we can evaluate.

<Chuck> Alastair: Card sorting and categorization is weeks long process.

<Chuck> Rachael: This is a multi week process, we are trying to give 3 weeks when concept is brand new. But when talking one week and build on it the following week, this may happen.

<Chuck> Rachael: Key is that github has become our central point to consider. Paying attention to agenda and looking at github so you do have time to consider them. If we talk about everything in meetings, we spend a lot of time in conversation. Github allows us to review and cover things.

<Chuck> Rachael: I think this was one of the cleaner conversations. It's hard when people don't get to engage in github, and it is faster in meeting.

<Chuck> Wilco: Is it worth considering just trying different options with different subgroups? Instead of committing to one first.

<Chuck> Wilco: I think I prefer we try things we are less confident with.

<alastairc> scribe+

<scotto> +1 to wilco's point. i think that's an interesting idea

<TheoHale> +1, to what wilco said, I worry we are spending a lot of time on planning. I agree with the idea that we need to move forward and try things... I just worry that the voting and time spent here might create a bit of rigidity in peoples minds.

<alastairc> Chuck: Let's first see what response we get for the sub-groups, and see what numbers we get.

<Chuck> Alastair: Our first subgroup is doing one outcome.

<Chuck> Alastair: Working that through. It could try variations on it. We need a starting point. Something to tell the subgroup to do.

<Chuck> Alastair: Let's think about it offline. We don't have 6 subgroups in parallel. It's not going to work at this stage, but I do think that is coming up.

Normative conversation https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/50

<Chuck> Alastair: We have a starting point. We can move on to next item.

<Chuck> Alastair: Rachael, can you take this one?

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/50

<Chuck> Rachael: Getting the group initial agreement with our conversations. Sometimes things frame other conversations. This was about normative conversations.

<Chuck> Rachael: The q here was, testing an assertion we heard over the last few weeks. Chairs thought group was at outcome level was normative. Likely one or more levels above and below may be normative.

<Detlev> we don't have Gregg on the call today who had views on that

<Chuck> Rachael: Want to test if this is where the group is at. It seemed to have support (5 people). This would be a good chance to review that assertion, and see if we are ok to move forward. This can be revisited.

<Rachael> Assumption: The outcome level will be normative and that it is likely one or more levels below or above the outcome level (for example tests) may also be normative.

<Chuck> Wilco: I did not engage. Not clear where the testable requirements will be. Is that at outcome, or elsewhere?

<Chuck> Rachael: Below.

<Chuck> Wilco: I do have a concern then.

<Chuck> Alastair: In concept or not knowing details?

<Chuck> Wilco: In concept. Rachael, you are saying that the exact wording that decides what meets requirements is not in normative text?

<Chuck> Rachael: No, saying that outcome level is a testable statement is normative, but there is a level below that could be normative. We have not made a decision for testable level.

<Chuck> Alastair: Chair hat way off...

<Chuck> Alastair: I've had a few assumptions. Outcomes need to be broad. Any outcome which is broad enough to work in that sense cannot be testable across all technologies covered. That's my assumption.

<Chuck> Alastair: We need something below the outcome level, might be technology specific. Reason I have that assumption is that were we tried to be agnostic in WCAG2, that turned into a filter.

<Glenda> I think anything that is normative must have a way to objectively test it (or the assertion requirement)…otherwise we just have mush.

<Chuck> alastairc: if there was some user requirement that didn't have a solution, and we filtered that requirement out, we don't want to do that in wcag3, there needs to be something normative underneath the outcome.

<Chuck> alastairc: that was my assumption. I think we have that tention between plain language and concise testable statements that we can use, maybe platform specific.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say In the current structure, outcomes are technology agnostic and methods are technology specific.

<Chuck> Rachael: That thinking is based on outcome and methods we have written up. methods were technology specific, outcomes were agnostic.

<Chuck> Glenda: I worry about normative language that is not objectively testable or does not list assertion, unless we clearly state that this level outcome is a concept is not testable, see the normative test requirements below.

<Chuck> Glenda: Many times I had someone over interpret WCAG with current words, which is not clearly understandable for objective testing.

<Rachael> Outcomes and methods in current draft as a reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#outcomes-and-methods

<Chuck> alastairc: In WCAG 2 the guidelines agove the sc are normative. You could think of it as outcomes between guidelines and sc. We are adding a testable level.

<Rachael> +1 to clearly documenting it and how wcag 3 should be used, particularly because it will be different from the wcag 2

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say Whitney's solution

<Chuck> Glenda: I think we have to document that. I can see someone saying "not accessible, not perceivable to me", and pointing up to "normative" outcome. Need to clearly state what the assertion requirement is, and if it is at the next level down.

<Chuck> jeanne: In the silver process years ago, we did a year's research, invited 30 industry experts from a variety of fields, including CEO's, this is one of the issues.

<Chuck> jeanne: Whitney (usability expert, does plain language writing for regulatory and legal), said that we have to stop thinking we have to write this in one sentence. That we need to have our normative language be in plain language and have sub-bullets that cover exceptions, technologies.

<Chuck> jeanne: and not to think that we have to boil down into one or two sentences. We start out with something simple and clear, and then someone says "what about...". Whitney says that's where you keep writing all of these things down.

<bruce_bailey> For those who are not familiar, https://www.wqusability.com/biography.html

<Chuck> jeanne: "...in case of this exception do this...". We make this all part of the outcome. I'm afraid that testing is so volitile, changes rapidly. If we write normative tests we can't update, we back ourselves in a corner in keeping wcag3 relevant in the long term.

<Chuck> jeanne: we can do more to make our outcomes clear.

<Chuck> jeanne: plain language, concise or testable. Pick any two. Whitney recommended is to forget about concise. Plain language and testable.

<julierawe> +1 to Jeanne

<Glenda> I want the tech specific testing to be in ACT (non-normative)…but I want the normative outcome to be tech agnostic…and OBJECTIVELY testable

<Chuck> jeanne: eliminate wiggle room, keep it plain language.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the what/when/why

<tburtin> +1 to Jeanne

<Chuck> alastairc: chair hat off. I agree with that. I think there is something in between outcomes and tests. What where why format that was proposed, is something that can be clear and testable.

<Chuck> alastairc: doesn't have to be concise. That would help.

<Chuck> Glenda: very much appreciate what you shared about Whitney. Technology testing would be better in ACT, and look back at our outcome that isn't just a sentence or 2, and it's objectively testable or the assertion.

<Chuck> AWK: I agree as well. I like the idea of not constraining ourselves to a single sentence. We've seen with latest criteria in 2.1 and 2.2 that it's difficult to make it brief.

<Chuck> AWK: I don't think that there's too much resistance. There is concern about complicated criteria. We need plain language and testable.

<jeanne> +1 to including the what where why

<Glenda> +1 to Jeanne’s +1 to include the what where why

<Chuck> AWK: Additional thought... I'm concerned that we don't add volitile to the list as well. In order for guidelines to be adopted in regulation, we will need to have normative aspects be fixed (modules?). The testable aspects can't change whenever we want.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the next step - working on an outcome all the way down

<Chuck> alastairc: sufficiently abstracted from the tests to be stable.

<Chuck> alastairc: chair hat on. Our next step is to work on an outcome all the way down.

<Chuck> alastairc: we are going to have a goup working on it, and this will be one of the challenges that they tackle. Underneath outcome, how that looks. We need to properly work it through.

<Chuck> alastairc: that rounds it out. Leave normative discussion for 5 more business days. After that it will be closed, and we will work it through.

<Chuck> Chuck: no

<Chuck> Rachael: No.

<Chuck> alastairc: Thank you everyone. See you next week.

<Chuck> mbgower: we just sent out another round of wcag 2 modifications, 2 weeks to review, we'll cover what those are next week.

<Chuck> mbgower: folks should see email.

<Chuck> mbgower: first of the erratum that we include in wcag2. We are not handling that through mail, it will be in working group call.

<Detlev> nice working with you Andrew

<bruce_bailey> WCAG 2 Issues email posted to list at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024JanMar/0025.html

<bruce_bailey> REVIEW - WCAG 2 proposed changes (due by February 26)

<bruce_bailey> RSSAgent, draft minutes

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/+regrets//
Succeeded: s/present +/present+ Bri/
Default Present: dj, shadi, Detlev, wendyreid, rscano, kevin, Francis_Storr, ShawnT, JakeAbma, JustineP, bruce_bailey, mgarrish, alastairc, tburtin, Glenda, Laura_Carlson, jon_avila, Ben_Tillyer, giacomo-petri, Bri, dan_bjorge, gpellegrino, AWK, kirkwood, Gez, Jen_G, mike_beganyi, Rachael, mbgower, Frankie, Wolf, jeanne, DanielHE, graham, ashleyfirth, TheoHale, Azlan, Poornima, ljoakley, scotto, julierawe, GreggVan, SabidussiUsablenet, maryjom, regrets, Jennie_Delisi, Gez_Lemon, marco-sabidussi, JenStrickland, sarahhorton, jtoles, mgifford, GN
Present: dj, shadi, Detlev, wendyreid, rscano, kevin, Francis_Storr, ShawnT, JakeAbma, JustineP, bruce_bailey, mgarrish, alastairc, tburtin, Glenda, Laura_Carlson, jon_avila, Ben_Tillyer, giacomo-petri, Bri, dan_bjorge, gpellegrino, AWK, kirkwood, Gez, Jen_G, mike_beganyi, Rachael, mbgower, Frankie, Wolf, jeanne, DanielHE, graham, ashleyfirth, TheoHale, Azlan, Poornima, ljoakley, scotto, julierawe, GreggVan, SabidussiUsablenet, maryjom, regrets, Jennie_Delisi, Gez_Lemon, marco-sabidussi, JenStrickland, sarahhorton, jtoles, mgifford, GN, Frankie Wolf, GN015
Regrets: dj, ToddL, Ben_Tillyer
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)