Meeting minutes
<Chuck> https://
<Francis_Storr> w3c/
<Jennie_Delisi> *anyone else having trouble getting to the telecom page to get the join link for the meeting?
<Nayan> +present
Chuck: last call of may
<Azlan> Also having a 500 error accessing the url shadi has listed above
Chuck: introductions?
… announcements:
<kirkwood> teleconf info pate issue can’t login
Chuck: 1. AI
… AGWG after hours last week, this is in consideration
… wendyreid said she would reach out to vendors
<wendyreid> w3c/
wendyreid: for automated transcription, we're collecting resources
… we're looking for a vendor to enable us to use automated transcription
… we also want to preserve privacy
… and we have specific needs:
… - needs to be live editable
… needs to be quickly toggleable (off record stuff)
… needs to keep our data controlled
… comment other use-cases in the thread, or email me
Chuck: our group might be a test case
… any questions?
… announcement 2. health & safety for TPAC
… AB wants to find a balance between participant safety and sentiment
… i would suggest talking with your advisory committee member if you're planning to attend and have specific health needs
… there is a desire to be safe, and there are individuals that have their own ideas of what the best policy would be (that's what sentiment means here)
… 3. old branches
<alastairc> w3c/
alastairc: wcag2 repo, there are tons of old branches
… we don't want old branches that won't be merged
… we will remove anything more than 6 months old in a few weeks, so post a comment or update the table if you want yours saved
Chuck: any new topics people would like us to cover in a later meeting?
Introduction to Conformance conversation
<Rachael> conformance link: https://
Rachael: conformance and the decisions around it is one of the most challenging conversations
… we'd like to have 1-2 outcomes for later
… [reads slide 2]
… Guideline structure - structures have emerged from the Focus Visible subgroup and other subgroups
… we need to figure out as a group what we want to do so that future subgroups know what they're doing from the start
sarahhorton: i feel like we haven't been talking about the notion of critical errors anymore, is that still part of conformance?
Rachael: i think that's part of tollerance
Chuck: is that analogous to non-interference in WCAG2
sarahhorton: yeah, and i think there was an idea of not having any critical errors to pass bronze
Rachael: yeah, we will absolutely dive into that as tollerance
… [reads slide 4]
… you must meet all of the outcomes to meet a guideline (that's what the AND relationship means)
… OR means you have multiple ways to meet a requirement
… this is a potential structure
… the percentages are complete estimate placeholders for now
… there's a table of all the proposals
<Rachael> History of proposals: https://
Rachael: jeanne has kept a list of all proposals to date
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: [reads slide 5]
… questions?
… [moves on to reference section]
… i highly encourage you to read the conformance section of WCAG3 if you haven't recently
Chuck: vocabulary page is slide 8
Rachael: they are also linked to from the front page
<Jennie_Delisi> *Really appreciate the glossary, summary, and walk through
Chuck: we are introducing this conversation, and we expect it to take up the next several agendas
<Nayan> does anyone have the WCAG 3 proposal link?
wendyreid: we're hopefully going to land on one model, right?
Rachael: we have two goals:
… 1. come out with initial structure
… 2 (for conformance conversation). come out with two possible directions which we can get public comment on
… we hope to be able to provide test pages and excel sheet models to try out the models
ljoakley: is this slide deck available to us?
Rachael: yes, it's also in the shared folder
<Nayan> we use a specific excel sheet, how can we share what we are doing for conformance?
<Rachael> https://
<alastairc> Nayan - that's probably for WCAG 2.x? In which case it isn't relevent here, we're starting off with a new model
<kirkwood> (needed to request access btw)
<Nayan> our template - - got it
<alastairc> Top level folder that people should have access to: https://
[there are access issues. people are working on it, and the advice is to save the link and it will be fixed later]
agenda+ WCAG2ICT Review Discussion
Chuck: several points, issues, and comments raised in the last week
MaryJoMueller: right after we started that review, we introduced a number of pointed changes
… there have been two rounds of surveys so far
… there were a few open "needs review" issues -- only 4.1.1 Parsing required a change
… i created a pull request for that
<alastairc> w3c/
<maryjom> w3c/
MaryJoMueller: two new issues last week:
… 1. focus not obscured
… floating toolbars and etcetera
… such as in an authoring tool, editing bars
… note to talk about that
… 2. feedback from microsoft on reflow
… reflow specifies specific scroll width/height
… WCAG2ICT covers a wide variety of screens and screen dimensions, so might not be possible
… question is what to do in that situation
… this might need to be addressed as normative changes, which we can't do in WCAG2ICT
Chuck: review clock has been reset
maryjom: sooner the better as well
Refining WCAG 3 structure continued
<TheoHale> Here is that issue in discussion related to WCAG2ICT: w3c/
alastairc: https://
… in Text Alternatives, outcome was image has equivalent text alternative
… there was also a decision tree of methods for conformance
… Focus Appearance was slightly different
… ("focus must be visually indicated")
… the requirements had a slightly different structure
… for all focus indicators, there are certain base requirements:
… - must exist
… - can't be obscured
… - must be percsistent
… [see rest of list]
… then a set of hopefully mutually-exclusive scenarios
… - using default user agent indicator
… - not using default indicator
… - - (specific requirements thereof)
… adjacent contrast needs to work differently depending on the type of indicator you have
<dan_bjorge> +1 to the approach of specific reqs for common types of indicator, much more realistic to test this with tools without having to resort to pixel-picking
alastairc: [various other specific requirements for different types of indicators]
… so slightly different structure from Text Alternatives
… A) decision tree B) list of methods
… [reads questions from github discussion]
<kirkwood> i’m wondering if having a “distinct style” should it not be a “distinct consistent style” (are we assuming this?)
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to acknowledge comments made in irc
Chuck: reads dan_bjorge's and kirkwood's comments
kirkwood: wondering about the style of focus indicator being consistent throughout a site
alastairc: maybe not at bronze -- there are lots of sites w/ different background colors for different places
dj: Following up on John's comments on consistent indicator color and styling. I've seen sites with different backgrounds as a form of indicator.
dj: I want to make sure we address that it is not at bronze.
<Jennie_Delisi> * will there also be something to consider mouse focus in the future?
alastairc: yeah, we will have more opportunity to address this as we continue the conversation
<TheoHale> John Kirkwood comment, I do think having consistency across the site, within the roles, and in shape seems reasonable.
alastairc: one example of this could be 'there is a consistent design applied...'
dan_bjorge: do we need to be consistent about whether methods always need to be AND?
… in WCAG2 we really commonly have different requirements which are listed differently
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to acknowledge Jennie's IRC question.
alastairc: we've got underlying requirements (example: must exist)
… we could either separate those out, or have them repeated in each method
Jennie_Delisi: are we going to include mouse focus indicators?
alastairc: i think that's going to be separate
<alastairc> https://
alastairc: so i'd encourage people to have another look through
… top-level comments can go on the github, document, etc
… then pick your favorite guideline/outcome, and think about how you'd structure that
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to emphasize the aspect of structure
<sarahhorton> The default requirements could be thought of as prerequisites, and not meeting any one those requirements a critical error
Chuck: in this conversation, we've been using Text Alternatives to show examples
… you don't have to use Text Alternatives as your lens; you can pick any other that's appealing to you
dj: Scribe change needed.
alastairc & Chuck: going to ad-hoc exercises now, agenda over
<Graham> bye everypne