14:50:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:50:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/06/18-ag-irc
14:50:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:50:53 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:51:03 <alastairc> agenda+ Introduce next steps in subgroups https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-june-24/
14:51:32 <alastairc> agenda+ Continuing the conformance conversation by exploring a baseline structure https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.g2e4b93386d6_0_15
14:51:49 <alastairc> Starting discussion on consolidating outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL-jyZ7CuYb-fms_jTKEe1YTAUZAH0EXkU3yqbRg5f4/edit
14:51:56 <alastairc> agenda?
14:52:08 <alastairc> agenda+ Starting discussion on consolidating outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL-jyZ7CuYb-fms_jTKEe1YTAUZAH0EXkU3yqbRg5f4/edit
14:53:24 <alastairc> regrets: Jeanne, AshleyF
14:56:41 <alastairc> chair: alastairc
14:57:54 <OliverH> OliverH has joined #ag
14:58:25 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
14:58:26 <dj> dj has joined #ag
14:58:31 <dj> present+
14:58:34 <Francis_Storr> present+
14:58:50 <laura> laura has joined #ag
14:59:11 <rscano> present+
14:59:36 <alastairc> present+
15:00:13 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:01:06 <Rachael> present+
15:01:11 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:01:16 <julierawe> present+
15:01:29 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:01:46 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:01:56 <shadi> present+
15:02:00 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:02:05 <JakeAbma> present+
15:02:13 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
15:02:33 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:02:34 <dj> scribe+
15:02:36 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:02:44 <alastairc> TOPIC: Announcements
15:02:55 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:02:55 <Kimberly> present+
15:02:57 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2024/09/TPAC/
15:03:04 <dj> alastairc: TPAC registration is open
15:03:14 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:03:18 <dj> ... if you're attending in-person or virtually, it's cheapest to register now
15:03:38 <Ben_Tillyer> FYI - 2024 has introduced a fee waiver for all invited experts
15:03:46 <DuffJohnson> DuffJohnson has joined #ag
15:03:57 <dj> ... hotel says it's got places held until end of august, but i don't trust that
15:04:02 <dj> ... also flights get more expensive
15:04:05 <fofila> fofila has joined #ag
15:04:08 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:04:21 <sarahhorton> present+
15:04:29 <dj> Chuck: WCAG2ICT
15:04:33 <fofila> present+
15:04:34 <kirkwood> present+
15:04:37 <dj> ... sent out an email last week
15:04:42 <dj> ... substantial changes
15:04:52 <dj> ... we're asking for your review, hoping for CFC starting this thursday
15:05:08 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:05:14 <dj> ... CFC to **publish final version** -- not second draft
15:05:35 <jtoles> present+
15:05:35 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
15:05:37 <dj> present+ MaryJo
15:05:37 <kevin> present+
15:05:44 <mike_beganyi> present+
15:06:21 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
15:06:30 <tburtin> present+
15:06:44 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:06:45 <dj> MaryJo: we have a draft document of mobile
15:06:48 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:06:54 <dj> ... working on a more generic page to link to
15:07:07 <dj> ... more living resource
15:07:11 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:07:17 <dj> present+ FrankieWolf
15:07:21 <Detlev> present+
15:07:58 <GreggVan> present+
15:08:08 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:08:08 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduce next steps in subgroups https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-june-24/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:08:10 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
15:08:16 <Frankie> present+
15:08:31 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:08:36 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:08:50 <dj> alastairc: subgroups survey/agenda coming up
15:09:02 <dj> ... 6 we're hoping to start soon
15:09:54 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:09:57 <dj> Rachael: we'll be building out the subgroups with non-AG members & experts so that we can fill them out and move them along
15:10:31 <dj> alastairc: most of the work will happen in the subgroups, but we'll do some updates in the main meetings as well
15:10:38 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:10:38 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Continuing the conformance conversation by exploring a baseline structure
15:10:40 <Zakim> ... https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.g2e4b93386d6_0_15 -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:10:50 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
15:10:56 <jaunita_george> present+
15:11:31 <dj> ... [starting from where we left off last week at "Resolution" slide]
15:12:36 <dj> ... [reads "what would go into the baseline level" slide]
15:13:36 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if ALT per se proposed to be in baselin?
15:14:07 <GreggVan> q+
15:14:12 <Chuck> ack br
15:14:12 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if ALT per se proposed to be in baselin?
15:14:17 <dj> bruce_bailey: why is alt-text in the baseline?
15:14:28 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
15:14:41 <dj> alastairc: currently, screen-readers need authors to put alt-text in order to provide alternative for image
15:14:47 <MJ> present+
15:14:51 <alastairc> q?
15:14:59 <dj> Rachael: another example is that authors need to encode heading structure
15:15:10 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:15:12 <dj> ... one problem is what's available now vs in 10 years
15:15:14 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:16:38 <alastairc> q+ on not needing to put something up front, it's how the methods work
15:16:42 <dj> GreggVan: i'd suggest that what put an update phrase on the front so that we don't have to keep debating it
15:16:44 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
15:16:48 <dan_bjorge> present+
15:17:09 <dj> ... 2. everything in the plain language guideline fits into that category
15:17:17 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
15:17:19 <dj> ... i think that needs to be more granular
15:17:47 <alastairc> ack me
15:17:47 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on not needing to put something up front, it's how the methods work
15:17:58 <dj> bruce_bailey: i thought that we agreed that author supported is characteristic of the baseline, but not that anything that's author supported is baseline
15:18:06 <GreggVan> q+
15:18:18 <dj> alastairc: to GreggVan's point - i don't think we need anything up front because that's part of the structure
15:18:27 <dj> ... also upcoming examples might make that clearer
15:19:26 <dj> GreggVan: we need separate guidelines for content authors, UA devs, etc
15:19:38 <dj> ... because "you must do this unless the other person did it" isn't workable
15:20:03 <dj> ... they can all be in the same document and separated by chapters if we want, but they need to be separate
15:21:15 <dj> alastairc: ["Possible structure for levels" slide]
15:21:21 <dj> ... one question that came up:
15:21:53 <Graham> Graham has joined #ag
15:21:58 <Graham> present+
15:22:04 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Njhx88F2LhwcElu74Jgynx-cRmLJkQONt9hGBJ9Cm8/edit
15:22:12 <dj> ... when you're looking at a decision tree, it helps to have the primary thing at the top
15:22:28 <dj> ... ["image alternatives" link in that doc]
15:25:01 <dj> ... "[stop]"/"[continue]" turns list of conditions with "AND"/"OR"s into a flow
15:26:53 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:27:26 <dj> ... "Techniques" list with "(foo platform)":
15:27:36 <ljoakley> present+
15:27:42 <mbgower> present+
15:27:42 <dj> ... some methods apply to all, others are platform/region specific
15:27:44 <alastairc> q/
15:27:46 <alastairc> q?
15:27:55 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:28:09 <rscano> rscano has joined #ag
15:28:12 <rscano> present+
15:29:04 <dj> GreggVan: +1 to adding 'add anything else that satisfys this'
15:29:13 <dj> s/satisfys/satisfies
15:29:19 <Roland> Roland has joined #ag
15:29:37 <alastairc> q+ to say that the outcome would include when there is one provided by the software
15:29:43 <Rachael> q+ to suggest "Equivalent ext alternatives are available for images"
15:29:52 <alastairc> q-
15:30:00 <dj> ... 2. if alt-text is no longer needed at one point, then "text alternatives are available to the *user*" doesn't make sense
15:30:31 <dj> ... 3. list item 1.1 says what to do if answer is yes, but doesn't say what to do if answer is no
15:30:40 <alastairc> q+ on assertions at a higher level
15:30:42 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:31:12 <mbgower> q+ to say Unimportant images are marked 'decorative'
15:31:52 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:31:52 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest "Equivalent ext alternatives are available for images"
15:32:12 <mbgower> rrsagent, make minutes
15:32:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/18-ag-minutes.html mbgower
15:32:29 <alastairc> ack me
15:32:29 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on assertions at a higher level
15:32:32 <GreggVan> q+
15:32:52 <dj> Rachael: at one point we discussed say "equivalent text alternatives are available for images" instead of "images have text-alternatives". would that address your concerns GreggVan?
15:33:19 <dj> dj has joined #ag
15:33:32 <alastairc> ack mbgower
15:33:32 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say Unimportant images are marked 'decorative'
15:33:40 <dj> ... also we haven't finalized baseline yet, so we don't need to fret on that part yet
15:34:12 <julierawe> q+ (about agendum 1)
15:34:24 <dj> mbgower: i'd like to suggest an outcome is "unimportant images are marked as decorative"
15:34:27 <julierawe> q+
15:34:27 <alastairc> q+ julierawe
15:34:57 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
15:35:01 <JenStrickland> present+
15:35:08 <dj> ... and "nondecorative images are not marked as decorative"
15:35:30 <avkuo> avkuo has joined #ag
15:35:34 <dj> alastairc: would that be a separate outcome or within image alternatives?
15:35:35 <avkuo> present+
15:36:00 <dj> mbgower: i think they'd be separate because you want to make sure the normative part is the thing that happens
15:36:04 <Ben_Tillyer> Not taken out of the DOM, taken out of the accessibility tree *
15:36:40 <alastairc> q+ to say that the non-decorative fits the current tree, and decorate "equivelent" is null.
15:36:45 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:36:53 <dj> ... i could be convinced otherwise though
15:37:15 <dj> GreggVan: it is listed as a failure but not as a success criteria
15:37:42 <dj> ... under 'the meaning has to be there so if it's mark decorative but isn't actually then you fail'
15:37:54 <laura> +1 to Mike Lots of lazy authors mark content images as decorative. It is too easy to check a "decorative" box in CMSs.
15:38:18 <bruce_bailey> +1 to gregg / mike that informative images being marked up as decorative is a more severe barrier than poor alt quality.
15:38:43 <mbgower> my point is that we should be separating the outcome of 'the alt is equivalent' from 'both decorative and non-decorative images are properly marked up'
15:39:14 <alastairc> q+ to also say that we still need things that need to be true, even if authors don't need to do anything
15:39:29 <alastairc> ack julierawe
15:39:34 <Ben_Tillyer> -1 to Gregg's comment
15:39:45 <dj> julierawe: quick question about the subgroup survey (agenda item #1)
15:39:58 <dj> ... can you confirm it closes on July 18th? that seems late
15:40:21 <dj> ... also when do the 8 weeks start? it says only sign up if you're available 6/8 weeks, but doesn't say when they are
15:40:36 <alastairc> ack me
15:40:36 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that the non-decorative fits the current tree, and decorate "equivelent" is null. and to also say that we still need things that need to be true, even
15:40:39 <Zakim> ... if authors don't need to do anything
15:40:41 <dj> Rachael: i think July 18th was a typo. I'll fix that and then we can circle back at the end of the call
15:41:09 <dj> alastairc: (back to topic) i think nondecorative fits the current tree
15:42:42 <GreggVan> q+
15:42:59 <dj> ... we need to have ways that an outcome can be met by a (user|author) agent so that we can switch them later as that changes over time
15:43:07 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:43:40 <dj> GreggVan: "i think that's wonderful and i think that's marvelous and i think that's clever"
15:43:47 <wendyreid> q+
15:43:52 <dj> ... i agree we need to work out the interface of that
15:44:01 <alastairc> q+ on how to work it normatively
15:44:08 <mbgower> q+ to say that this outcome 'Images have equivalent text' remains highly subjective, and to Bruce's earlier point is VERY difficult to have in a baseline
15:44:12 <Rachael> q+
15:44:29 <Rachael> q+ to say as new technology comes into play it may start being untrue even if it is true
15:44:41 <dj> ... maybe we should also put in rules because we have one even though they won't be true in the future, that way they just fall out in the future
15:44:55 <dj> ... such as "every other word should not be upside down" because that'll always be true
15:45:01 <alastairc> ack wendyreid
15:45:06 <dj> q+
15:46:24 <alastairc> ack me
15:46:24 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how to work it normatively
15:46:26 <dj> wendyreid: we need a way to keep the statements general and neutral while being able to change who they apply to
15:47:51 <dj> alastairc: more specific but still tech-neutral way of saying what outcome is requiring
15:48:00 <GreggVan> q+ to say  "text alternatives are available"  works.   better than currrent  "images have text alternatives"
15:48:05 <dj> ... kind of last-minute edition, but if we can get this into the template that'd be helpful
15:48:14 <alastairc> ack mbgower
15:48:14 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that this outcome 'Images have equivalent text' remains highly subjective, and to Bruce's earlier point is VERY difficult to have in a baseline
15:48:20 <dj> ... our task today is to determine if we can use this template across our subgroups
15:49:08 <dj> mbgower: i think 1.1.1 non-text contrast is an abject failure
15:49:45 <dj> ... why are we measuring the "equivalent text alternative" and putting it in the baseline?
15:49:52 <dj> ... how do you measure that?
15:50:14 <Chuck> q+ to say it's an excellent opportunity to see how this works out as we explore.
15:50:36 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:50:36 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say as new technology comes into play it may start being untrue even if it is true
15:51:03 <dj> Rachael: i think we've broken into two topics:
15:51:16 <dj> ... 1. the content of this usage of the structure
15:51:19 <bruce_bailey> I agree that *equivalent* text alternative is high bar , and maybe more than baseline
15:51:25 <dj> ... 2. whether this structure works
15:51:39 <bruce_bailey> +1 to rachael noting the two divergent topics !
15:51:40 <dj> ... on 1, i think that's a reasonable discussion to have on this content
15:52:38 <kirkwood> per MG, response:  equivalent is rooted in US law regarding equal access
15:52:52 <alastairc> q?
15:52:53 <dj> ... on 2, i think new technology may allow authors to not worry some criteria (ex text alternatives), but also newer technology may still need them (ex focus indicators in VR)
15:53:10 <dj> ... so i think it's important to keep the criteria
15:53:16 <alastairc> ack dj
15:53:48 <Chuck> dj:  This about the content.  GV brought up the topic that some things are true (every other word is not upside down), but that isn't always the case.  We should avoid assumptions.
15:53:49 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:53:49 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  "text alternatives are available"  works.   better than currrent  "images have text alternatives"
15:54:41 <mbgower> Because they are all subjected to that funneled description
15:55:13 <dj> GreggVan: 10 sighted people would describe an image differently, so why are we saying that people who rely on screen readers have to have a more tunneled experience
15:56:04 <mbgower> q+ to say do not confuse "decorative" and "non-decorative" with "important"
15:56:25 <alastairc> Can we keep to the structure discussion please, rather than details of alt-text
15:57:35 <alastairc> q+ on fitering interface, and new scribe
15:57:51 <Rachael> +1 to finding a way to indicate which authors can ignore in certain situations
15:58:42 <dj> ... EN301549 says "if _foo_ is true, you need to follow _bar_ condition" -- maybe we should consider something like this in the structure
15:59:10 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:59:10 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say it's an excellent opportunity to see how this works out as we explore.
15:59:27 <kirkwood> are they available in context?
16:00:09 <GreggVan> +1 to testing with both ends
16:00:27 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:00:27 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose mike_beganyi
16:00:40 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:00:40 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Frankie
16:00:52 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:00:52 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose alastairc
16:00:56 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:00:56 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose shadi
16:01:12 <alastairc> zakim, please pick a scribe
16:01:12 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose julierawe
16:01:33 <alastairc> scribe: julierawe
16:01:49 <alastairc> q?
16:02:02 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:02:02 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say do not confuse "decorative" and "non-decorative" with "important"
16:02:46 <julierawe> 1.1.1 has 6 exceptions and we're filtering out additional outcomes
16:02:59 <julierawe> A more granular outcome lets you get to that more easily and more measurably
16:03:02 <alastairc> s/1.1.1 has 6 exceptions/mbgower: 1.1.1 has 6 exceptions
16:03:12 <julierawe> All our time-based media do not have any qualitative measurement
16:03:51 <alastairc> q?
16:04:02 <julierawe> Mgbower: We already have an existing requirement--is this decorative
16:04:37 <julierawe> mbgower: Having alt text and having it be equivalent are two entirely different things
16:04:38 <kirkwood> “equivalent” is why it has been adopted into legislation
16:04:39 <GreggVan> I thought decorative was ok.    My concern was with the word  "important"
16:04:40 <alastairc> q/
16:04:43 <alastairc> ack me
16:04:43 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on fitering interface, and new scribe
16:04:47 <kirkwood> q+
16:05:14 <julierawe> alastairc Can we reduce things so we don't have a massive list that people can mostly ignore--filtering will be important
16:05:58 <julierawe> alastairc We need granularity of what platform you're on
16:06:08 <alastairc> ack kirkwood
16:06:38 <Graham> q+
16:06:47 <julierawe> John Kirkwood: Concerns when I hear equivalent because that is the meat of agencies adopting these guidelines
16:07:03 <mbgower> That is the equivalent of experience, John
16:07:05 <alastairc> ack Graham
16:07:51 <julierawe> Graham Our first question should be is this provided by the platform? Which platforms can you assume from the start and exit early?
16:08:08 <alastairc> s/Graham Our/Graham: Our
16:08:38 <julierawe> Graham If you're on web browser and all browsers add alt text, then that's a get-out-of-jail card
16:09:11 <julierawe> alastairc For focus indicator, the decision tree is a little bit different
16:10:11 <julierawe> alastairc Also looking at supplement/enhancement
16:10:47 <Graham> q+
16:10:55 <julierawe> alastairc We have test procedure but they need updating
16:11:18 <alastairc> ack Graham
16:11:38 <julierawe> Graham What is completely voice-activated interface that doesn't have focus indicators at all?
16:11:54 <julierawe> Graham That's why I think the first question should be platform-dependent so you can bail out early
16:12:11 <julierawe> alastairc I think at that level, we wouldn't be including this outcome because not keyboard-focused
16:12:19 <julierawe> Graham Where would you bail out?
16:12:34 <julierawe> alastairc If a platform didn't have keyboard input, we might need some kind of filtering
16:12:52 <julierawe> alastairc There is an assumption built into this one that you have a keyboard input
16:13:01 <Graham> q+
16:13:01 <Rachael> q+
16:13:06 <alastairc> ack Graham
16:13:08 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:13:10 <Ben_Tillyer> ATMs/kiosks etc?
16:13:23 <julierawe> Rachael WCAG 2 has that automatic bailout built in. We haven't talked about it for WCAG 3
16:13:36 <julierawe> Rachael It's worth noting for future conversation
16:13:40 <jtoles> q+
16:13:47 <Graham> q+
16:13:56 <julierawe> alastairc Any other refinements people want to see in the structure of the outcome and decision tree?
16:14:01 <alastairc> ack jtoles
16:14:25 <julierawe> jtoles On the decision tree, you're getting to a yes and getting to a stop. I can see scenarios where multiple yes's would be true
16:14:44 <julierawe> jtoles Yes, an important image that is complex but it's also a control.
16:14:55 <julierawe> jtoles So I think you need an outcome where multiple things are true
16:15:10 <julierawe> alastairc We do have "any other image scenario"
16:15:23 <alastairc> ack Graham
16:15:24 <julierawe> alastairc We always need an option where you're in a bizarre situation
16:15:58 <julierawe> Graham We're going for a scoring system in WCAG 3. You have to be able to get those points.
16:16:00 <Rachael> q+
16:16:18 <julierawe> Graham We have to make sure if you say yes on the early one, it also covers image control methods
16:16:22 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:16:36 <julierawe> Rachael I added these questions at the end to capture for future discussions
16:17:08 <julierawe> Rachael The question of when these things are not applicable will tie into scoring. There are different ways we can cut these things. Will get built into conformance conversation.
16:17:54 <julierawe> alastairc Look at example from Adjust color
16:18:13 <julierawe> alastairc It has several outcomes underneath it. Some things may or may not be baseline.
16:18:43 <julierawe> alastairc Not blocking user-agents would be baseline.
16:19:08 <julierawe> alastairc Minimum contrast for authored text would be enhanced
16:19:13 <GN015> In fact, for full-themed applications taking over adjustments by browsers is a nightmare.  I recommend to revisit this point.
16:19:27 <julierawe> alastairc Example-Keyboard only
16:19:37 <julierawe> alastairc No keyboard trap would be baseline
16:20:02 <julierawe> alastairc Keyboard interface interactions are consistent would be an enhancement
16:20:09 <julierawe> alastairc Example - Section labels
16:20:15 <julierawe> alastairc Programmatic would be baseline
16:20:53 <julierawe> alastairc Navigation elements are clearly differentiated  — programmatically would be baseline and visually would be enhancement
16:21:02 <GreggVan> q+
16:21:10 <julierawe> alastairc These are starters for conversation for when we break into smaller groups to work on these
16:21:10 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:21:56 <julierawe> GreggVan Somebody said to me recently that if we have bronze, silver, gold, most likely a lot of regulators will pick the middle one and that's what we'll require
16:22:24 <julierawe> GreggVan If we put what we think is really required in bronze and put things that aren't testable in silver, there may be a lot of pressure to try to go with more than just bronze
16:22:54 <julierawe> GreggVan A natural inclination may be to pick the middle option without knowing much about it
16:23:07 <julierawe> alastairc We have been thinking about putting outcomes in bronze, silver, gold, but that has changed a bit
16:23:20 <julierawe> alastairc We have been breaking down outcomes into baseline and enhanced
16:23:32 <julierawe> alastairc Enhanced could be best practice
16:23:46 <julierawe> alastairc If we had a bronze level of conformance, that may not equal baseline
16:23:55 <GreggVan> q+
16:24:09 <julierawe> alastairc Might be baseline + certain percentage of enhanced
16:24:35 <julierawe> alastairc Terminology question: what should we call the things above baseline?
16:24:40 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:24:55 <julierawe> GreggVan I like "baseline" because it gives the impression this is the bottom of the pile
16:25:14 <sarahhorton> "Meet the prerequisites"
16:25:23 <julierawe> GreggVan You at least have to do the baseline although it also means what has happened before the intervention
16:25:28 <bruce_bailey> q+ to argue against "baseline" being MVP
16:25:34 <julierawe> GreggVan baseline means the minimum
16:25:54 <julierawe> GreggVan There are companies that cannot make or will not make assertions so if you put assertions in any baseline, they will not comply
16:25:55 <dj> q+ to talk about assertions
16:26:12 <julierawe> GreggVan We need to do research to see if this is true--seems to be coming from lawyers
16:26:26 <julierawe> GreggVan If true, then can't be regulared
16:26:42 <kirkwood> the baseline will become a regulatory requirement.  unless under a consent requirement
16:26:48 <julierawe> GreggVan Can people do enhancements without asserting them?
16:27:06 <Graham> q+ unusual idea / qn around levels vs company size
16:27:10 <julierawe> alastairc People are more likely to choose middle level if there is a higher level
16:27:11 <alastairc> q?
16:27:15 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
16:27:15 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to argue against "baseline" being MVP
16:27:15 <Graham> q+ company size vs levels
16:27:19 <julierawe> alastairc You're right that we need to do more research on assertions
16:27:26 <Graham> q+
16:27:37 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:27:37 <julierawe> bruce_bailey I'm much less comfortable with our use of baseline this week than I was last week
16:27:42 <ToddL> present+
16:27:56 <julierawe> bruce_bailey Last week it was about testing and scoring
16:28:08 <julierawe> bruce_bailey Now we're putting in a lot more for what baseline means, we're overloading the term
16:28:09 <Rachael> q+ to ask if we need to revisit what is in the baseline
16:28:26 <GreggVan> q+
16:28:29 <julierawe> bruce_bailey In the federal government, we have baselines and those are the lowest bar
16:28:50 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
16:28:54 <julierawe> bruce_bailey But I'm feeling like this use of baseline is not coherent with what the federal government is doing with baseline
16:29:10 <Rachael> q++
16:29:16 <julierawe> alastairc Our use of baseline is things you have to meet, not part of scoring--you have to meet them to get to the scoring
16:29:17 <Rachael> q-+
16:29:25 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:29:25 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if we need to revisit what is in the baseline
16:29:40 <kevin> q-
16:29:56 <julierawe> Rachael Important for us to come back to this before we finish the definition
16:29:59 <alastairc> ack dj
16:29:59 <Zakim> dj, you wanted to talk about assertions
16:30:12 <julierawe> dj I agree we need to do more research on assertions
16:30:27 <julierawe> dj We need to consider what will happen if we put them in anyway
16:30:50 <julierawe> dj If baseline is not minimum viable product, why not have MVP and enhanced so the first option is viable?
16:31:00 <alastairc> ack Graham
16:31:29 <alastairc> q+ to say that our terminology isn't the same as conformance levels.
16:31:33 <bruce_bailey> fwiw, last week i was understanding "baseline" as "prerequisites for [even starting] with scoring"
16:31:34 <julierawe> Graham The baseline terminology doesn't work for the stuff that is if you fail one of these things, don't bother doing anything else
16:31:50 <julierawe> Graham How far above baseline are we encouraging companies to get?
16:31:58 <dj> q+ to say prevent harm
16:32:06 <julierawe> Graham Can we recommend that certain size businesses need to get to certain score?
16:32:08 <kevin> qq+
16:32:26 <julierawe> Graham A mom-and-pop shop would aim for baseline, but multibillionaire conglomerate should aim higher?
16:32:32 <alastairc> ack kevin
16:32:32 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to Graham
16:32:55 <julierawe> kevin The standard is the standard. If you conform to the standard, then that means something
16:33:24 <julierawe> kevin Different expectations for different size organizations would be moving into regulations, where we do not go
16:33:51 <julierawe> kevin we might include questions for policymakers and regulators to consider, such as 'how applicable do you want to make this to different size organizations?'
16:33:58 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:34:03 <julierawe> kevin we could raise broad questions and the pros and cons associated with that
16:34:17 <julierawe> GreggVan We measure whether something is accessible or not or the degree that it is accessible
16:34:33 <julierawe> GreggVan But who has to be how accessible is a rule or law that we can't make
16:35:04 <julierawe> GreggVan Based on Bruce's comments, I'm convinced we should not use the term 'baseline'
16:35:23 <julierawe> GreggVan A close word is 'base requirements'
16:35:45 <julierawe> GreggVan If we use the word 'core,' people will ask why not part of the core?
16:36:07 <jtoles> q+
16:36:11 <julierawe> GreggVan But you could use base, enhanced, and best practice
16:36:14 <Graham> q+ prerequisites
16:36:25 <julierawe> GreggVan Our conformance levels might be different from these three categories
16:36:35 <Graham> q+ to say prerequisites
16:36:51 <alastairc> ack me
16:36:51 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that our terminology isn't the same as conformance levels.
16:37:04 <Chuck> ack prereq
16:37:14 <julierawe> alastairc Bruce's understanding is correct--these are requirements we're putting in that have to be met before you even get to scoring
16:37:25 <julierawe> alastairc That doesn't mean the conformance levels are the same thing
16:37:53 <julierawe> alastairc We've got different things—we've treated them the same so far, but we have different levels within an outcome
16:38:07 <alastairc> ack dj
16:38:07 <Zakim> dj, you wanted to say prevent harm
16:38:25 <Detlev> q+
16:38:30 <julierawe> dj When you say base, enhanced, and best practice, are you talking about the internal thing—not bronze, silver, gold?
16:38:51 <julierawe> alastairc As the internal thing. You have to do a percentage of the base to meet a conformance level
16:39:17 <julierawe> dj Some things need to be at the first level
16:39:27 <laura> Maybe use the word "prerequisites"?
16:39:47 <julierawe> alastairc Safety concerns should be part of baseline
16:40:02 <julierawe> dj Would that be in addition to percentage system?
16:40:14 <sarahhorton> What ever happened to the idea of critical errors?
16:40:37 <julierawe> alastairc Would be baseline—not part of scoring
16:41:06 <julierawe> dj We should be using language of base, enhanced, best practice instead of bronze, silver, gold
16:41:19 <julierawe> dj Then we can make the first thing the MVP and the other things are cutting edge
16:41:42 <julierawe> dj Most of my concern is repeating the current system where really what you need to do is be AA to be minimally accessible
16:41:56 <alastairc> q?
16:42:01 <alastairc> ack jtoles
16:42:15 <julierawe> alastairc When it was A, AA, AAA, there was an assumption some regions would choose A but it didn't turn out that way
16:42:33 <julierawe> jtoles The baseline is going to be the minimum and anything above that is the scoring
16:42:42 <julierawe> jtoles Score should come in when we're talking about anything over the baseline
16:42:45 <alastairc> ack Graham
16:42:45 <Zakim> Graham, you wanted to say prerequisites
16:43:12 <julierawe> Graham What about preevalation checks? Preevalation criterion?
16:43:38 <julierawe> Graham A term that says there's no point in doing anything else until you meet these "pre" requirements
16:43:44 <julierawe> Detlev It's all getting too complex
16:44:14 <laura> +1 to Graham for "pre"requisites for the essentials.
16:44:27 <alastairc> q
16:44:32 <alastairc> ack Detlev
16:44:33 <wendyreid> q+
16:44:33 <julierawe> Detlev I'd like to have something simpler rather than something complex that people have a hard time understanding
16:44:57 <julierawe> alastairc In order to meet some of the goals, we have to go through some complexity to get to a simple-enough solution
16:45:14 <alastairc> ack wendyreid
16:45:15 <julierawe> alastairc It's taken a while for some things to sink in because it's new, we're exploring a different approach
16:45:17 <kevin> +1 on the idea of going through complexity to get to a simpler end point
16:45:42 <julierawe> wendyreid I agree with Detlev and DJ. We're all trying to create a standard that ensures accessibility on the web
16:45:58 <julierawe> wendyreid We all agree that if you don't meet baseline, then your product is unusable
16:46:14 <julierawe> wendyreid Baseline doesn't need to be easy. But it's a solid foundation.
16:46:35 <julierawe> wendyreid I think we're getting a bit stuck on 3 levels of conformance and additional rewards.
16:47:08 <Rachael> q+
16:47:09 <dj> q+ to say "base" & "enhanced", w/ %@2nd
16:47:10 <julierawe> wendyreid We can create something that creates a very good accessible outcome
16:47:13 <mbgower> adequate versus imporove
16:47:24 <mbgower> s/imporove/improved
16:47:42 <julierawe> wendyreid Do we need additional levels? Organizations that want to do this are going to go above and beyond. Organizations that have to do this are going to find every excuse
16:48:03 <julierawe> wendyreid If the baseline is solid, then we at least have an attempt toward universal experience
16:48:07 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:48:09 <alastairc> q+
16:48:23 <Detlev> +1 to Wendy
16:48:25 <julierawe> Rachael I think we've circled back to important question that we the chairs were aiming to answer last week
16:48:33 <bruce_bailey> q+ to +1 detlev and alastair about complexity -- but subjective / objective might be the threshold for "prerequisites baseline" or not
16:48:57 <julierawe> Rachael We can do with a baseline that is basically bare minimum. What are the things that are absolutely core, like things that break user agents and safety things
16:49:19 <julierawe> Rachael Or we can go with a wider range for that bare minimum, but then we have to decide which things fits that bare minimum
16:49:23 <ToddL> +1 to Wendy as well
16:49:46 <julierawe> Rachael What I heard last week was we are going to go with small baseline of things that are absolutely required. But if we need to switch that, this would be a good time to do that
16:49:51 <Graham> q+
16:49:53 <julierawe> Rachael This is an essential decision
16:50:09 <julierawe> Rachael We need to pick a direction and move forward
16:50:12 <Detlev> I like a broader baseline - a bit like WCAG 2.0... :)
16:50:27 <julierawe> alastairc Options ar small baseline and pick and choose above that or have a bigger baseline?
16:50:34 <bruce_bailey> i would like *smaller* baseline
16:51:05 <julierawe> dj I agree with Wendy and Detlev. I think we should have minimum viable product be the baseline.
16:51:16 <Chuck> q+ to say I have heard is about what to call the concept, but not the concept itself.
16:51:24 <julierawe> dj The core set of requirements be the base and then everything else is enhanceed
16:51:31 <mbgower> I also like the idea of core/baseline, and everything else is enhanced/improved
16:51:44 <julierawe> dj It would give a good place for regulators to cut off at minimum viable.
16:51:46 <alastairc> Poll: 1) Have a small core baseline and the pick n choose above that level, or 2) a larger baseline with smaller set of pick n choose, or 3) Two levels of baseline.
16:51:52 <alastairc> q/
16:51:54 <alastairc> q?
16:51:56 <alastairc> ack jd
16:51:58 <alastairc> ack me
16:52:06 <alastairc> ack dj
16:52:06 <Zakim> dj, you wanted to say "base" & "enhanced", w/ %@2nd
16:52:42 <julierawe> Rachael The challenge we're running into is two concepts: things we're going to require and things that are optional or enhanced in some form. These things don't have to equate to conformance levels, which is a second step.
16:52:42 <mbgower> q+ to say we do have to give some consideration for anticipating regulators
16:52:44 <bruce_bailey> q+ to suggest another option for poll
16:52:58 <dj> q+ to talk about poll
16:53:00 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
16:53:00 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to +1 detlev and alastair about complexity -- but subjective / objective might be the threshold for "prerequisites baseline" or not and to suggest another
16:53:03 <Zakim> ... option for poll
16:53:04 <julierawe> Rachael I don't think we're talk about two baselines. It's either a small set of required things or a larger set of required things
16:53:07 <mbgower> +1
16:53:20 <julierawe> bruce_bailey I want to argue that a small set of required things is not sufficient. It's just getting started.
16:53:52 <julierawe> bruce_bailey I think the baseline could be more like prerequisites, not an MVP
16:54:02 <laura> +1 to Bruce
16:54:06 <alastairc> Poll: 1) Have a small core baseline and the pick n choose above that level, with minimum conformance being more than baseline, or 2) a larger baseline which is minimium conformance with smaller set of pick n choose.
16:54:48 <julierawe> bruce_bailey Prerequisites need to be in place before you consider for MVP
16:55:13 <Graham> can you go to the next slide, that explains it to me
16:55:20 <Chuck> q-
16:55:35 <julierawe> bruce_bailey The difference is with the prerequisites, you probably still have a website that is not accessible. You haven't gotten enough to even get started with talking about the quality of your accessibility
16:56:01 <Chuck> q+ to say I think we agree on the concept just not the best terminology
16:56:11 <julierawe> Graham We're all tripping over what baseline is.
16:56:27 <Chuck> q-
16:56:31 <alastairc> Poll: 1) Have a small core baseline and the pick n choose above that level 2) a larger baseline which is minimum conformance with smaller set of pick n choose. 3) Prerequisites before any scoring
16:56:34 <julierawe> Baseline should be baseline score. If you aren't meeting all of the baseline, you can't go further.
16:56:39 <sarahhorton> You can't score if you don't pass the prerequisites — this was the concept Silver has with critical errors
16:56:43 <ljoakley>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     +1 to Graham
16:56:49 <Detlev> q+
16:56:54 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:56:54 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say we do have to give some consideration for anticipating regulators
16:56:58 <julierawe> Graham I think we're on similar pages but getting tripped up by wording
16:57:01 <GN015> Shouldn't the baseline reflect Level a of WCAG 2.x?
16:57:13 <julierawe> mbgower We have to consider what regulators are going to do with this
16:57:18 <alastairc> GN015 - not necessarily
16:57:39 <julierawe> mbgower If we specify baseline and nothing else, that's probably what regulators will go for
16:57:53 <julierawe> mbgower I think of baseline as stuff that can be checked with the click of a button
16:58:07 <Graham> +1 to Mike
16:58:43 <julierawe> mbgower I don't want to throw away the idea of a quick check
16:58:49 <alastairc> q?
16:58:58 <Detlev> q-
16:58:59 <alastairc> ack Graham
16:59:04 <alastairc> ack dj
16:59:04 <Zakim> dj, you wanted to talk about poll
16:59:21 <julierawe> dj The main question before asking about size of the baseline is what we want the baseline to do.
16:59:33 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
16:59:33 <julierawe> dj Is it just safety concerns?
16:59:51 <julierawe> dj After that, then we can talk about scoring above baseline
17:00:31 <julierawe> Scribe has to leave for 1pm meeting
17:00:38 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
17:00:45 <Kimberly> present+
17:00:59 <julierawe> alastairc Defining the baseline is the harder job
17:01:05 <mbgower> I think auto testing is missing from that baseline list
17:01:06 <bruce_bailey> For comparison, here is what the U.S. federal government is using as a baseline for images https://ictbaseline.access-board.gov/06Images/
17:01:59 <Francis_Storr> present+
17:20:57 <ljoakley> ljoakley has left #ag
17:46:18 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:33:14 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag