13:52:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
13:52:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/06/25-ag-irc
13:52:41 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:52:42 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
13:52:54 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
13:53:03 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2024-06-25
13:53:11 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
13:53:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/25-ag-minutes.html Chuck
13:53:22 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG2ICT
13:54:45 <Chuck> agenda+ Starting discussion on consolidating outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL-jyZ7CuYb-fms_jTKEe1YTAUZAH0EXkU3yqbRg5f4/edit#heading=h.8n8glns7lrs4
13:55:03 <Chuck> agenda+ Conformance https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.p
13:59:22 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #ag
14:16:22 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
14:16:34 <Chuck> I've joined the call if any of my co-chairs wish to join early and do some strategizing.
14:33:48 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
14:36:01 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
14:57:00 <rscano> rscano has joined #ag
14:57:59 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
14:59:49 <scotto> scotto has joined #ag
15:00:03 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:00:05 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
15:00:30 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
15:00:33 <ShawnT> present +
15:00:36 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:00:50 <Kimberly> present+
15:00:57 <rscano> present+
15:01:04 <maryjom> present+
15:01:34 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:01:39 <MJ> present+
15:01:42 <DuffJohnson> DuffJohnson has joined #ag
15:01:56 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:01:56 <kirkwood> present+
15:01:57 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:02:06 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:02:13 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:02:20 <JakeAbma> present+
15:02:34 <kevin> present+
15:02:37 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
15:02:44 <tburtin> present+
15:02:48 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:02:48 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JakeAbma
15:02:54 <Graham> Graham has joined #ag
15:02:54 <Makoto> present+
15:03:10 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:10 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Detlev
15:03:21 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:03:25 <jtoles> present+
15:03:39 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:39 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jennie_Delisi
15:03:44 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
15:03:48 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:03:53 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:53 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose dj
15:04:02 <sarahhorton> present+
15:04:05 <Poornima> present+
15:04:13 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:04:14 <Chuck> regrets: Ashley Firth, Giacomo Petri. Frankie Wolf
15:04:19 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:04:19 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kirkwood
15:04:20 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:04:22 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:04:26 <mbgower> present+
15:04:33 <mbgower> scribe: mbgower
15:04:46 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:04:53 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:05:04 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:05:12 <mbgower> Chuck: Is there anyone who would like to introduce themselves or new role?
15:05:30 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:05:46 <mbgower> Chuck: A sub-group survey is going about
15:05:48 <Chuck> Subgroups (Questions / support)  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-june-24/
15:05:58 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:06:07 <Gez> Gez has joined #AG
15:06:38 <alastairc> Especially for Adjust Color and Haptic stimulation
15:06:38 <Glenda> present+
15:06:38 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:06:46 <Gez> present+
15:06:49 <mbgower> ... We're looking to start up some subgroups. It is open until July 8, and we encourage you to chime in and pick topics. We may not be able to fit you in in your primary interest; this will really help us do that as best we can.
15:06:51 <scotto> present+
15:07:00 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:07:16 <Justine> Justine has joined #ag
15:07:18 <mbgower> Alastair: We are light on the haptic group
15:07:59 <Rachael> q+
15:08:04 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:08:07 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2024/09/TPAC/registration.html
15:08:11 <jtoles> Can we adjust our choices? I don't think I picked either of those, but I'd be willing to join one if there aren't enough people.
15:08:15 <alastairc> WCAG 2.x issues email for this week: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2024Jun/0009.html
15:08:19 <mbgower> Rachael TPAC is in September. We meet on Monday and Tuesday
15:08:22 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:08:29 <alastairc> jtoles - yes, just adjust the survey
15:08:39 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:08:39 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduce next steps in subgroups https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-june-24/ -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:08:43 <jtoles> Thanks
15:08:48 <Jen_G> Present+
15:08:55 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Publish the WCAG2ICT Draft Note from the Editor's Draft
15:08:56 <mbgower> Chuck: Our first item is WCAG2ICT. Here is what we're hoping to acheive
15:09:03 <dan_bjorge> dan_bjorge has joined #ag
15:09:05 <mbgower> s/acheive/achieve
15:09:07 <dan_bjorge> present+
15:09:49 <mbgower> MaryJo: It will be the editors draft based on existing PRs.
15:09:52 <Graham> present+
15:09:55 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:10:05 <mbgower> ... All of the substantive feedback has been handled in PRs.
15:10:08 <Azlan> present+
15:10:08 <Chuck> q?
15:10:22 <alastairc> present
15:10:25 <alastairc> present+
15:10:31 <mbgower> ... There are a few open issues but they are entirely editorial and can be handled after publication.
15:10:43 <mbgower> ... This should be the penultimate version.
15:10:55 <mbgower> ... We are getting very close to finishing the update to this note.
15:11:21 <mbgower> Chuck: Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to review.
15:11:34 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Publish the WCAG2ICT Draft Note for wide review from the Editor's Draft
15:11:42 <rscano> +1
15:11:44 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:11:47 <kirkwood> +1
15:11:47 <mbgower> +1
15:11:47 <maryjom> +1
15:11:50 <dan_bjorge> +1
15:11:50 <JakeAbma> +1
15:11:51 <Azlan> +1
15:11:51 <kevin> +1
15:11:51 <alastairc> +1
15:11:52 <ShawnT> +1
15:11:52 <laura> +1
15:11:53 <MJ> +1
15:11:54 <sarahhorton> +1
15:11:54 <Jennie_Delisi> +1
15:11:54 <Makoto> +1
15:11:56 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
15:11:58 <Gez> +1
15:12:00 <Francis_Storr> +1
15:12:01 <tburtin> +1
15:12:03 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:12:05 <Jen_G> +1
15:12:06 <Poornima> +1
15:12:17 <Chuck> RESOLUTION: Publish the WCAG2ICT Draft Note for wide review from the Editor's Draft
15:12:17 <Rachael> +1
15:12:46 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:12:46 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Continuing the conformance conversation by exploring a baseline structure
15:12:47 <mbgower> Chuck: The task force can do some celebration
15:12:49 <Zakim> ... https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.g2e4b93386d6_0_15 -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:12:55 <GreggVan> +1
15:12:57 <Chuck> agenda?
15:13:00 <GreggVan> present+
15:13:14 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
15:13:14 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Starting discussion on consolidating outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL-jyZ7CuYb-fms_jTKEe1YTAUZAH0EXkU3yqbRg5f4/edit -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:13:28 <bruce_bailey> Just as point of comparison, "wide review draft" for U.S. ADA web rule was open for 60 days, see: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-15823
15:14:11 <Chuck> agenda?
15:14:23 <bruce_bailey> DOJ final rule is available at:  https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-07758
15:14:25 <mbgower> Rachael: As we've worked through Text Alternatives, and Keyboard Focus Visible, something that has come out is the tree structure seems to be a direction we're going.
15:14:27 <Chuck> zakim, close item 1
15:14:27 <Zakim> agendum 1, Introduce next steps in subgroups https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-june-24/, closed
15:14:29 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:14:29 <Zakim> 2. Continuing the conformance conversation by exploring a baseline structure
15:14:29 <Zakim> ... https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.g2e4b93386d6_0_15 [from alastairc]
15:14:32 <Chuck> zakim, close item 2
15:14:32 <Zakim> agendum 2, Continuing the conformance conversation by exploring a baseline structure
15:14:34 <Zakim> ... https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.g2e4b93386d6_0_15, closed
15:14:34 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:14:34 <Zakim> 3. Starting discussion on consolidating outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL-jyZ7CuYb-fms_jTKEe1YTAUZAH0EXkU3yqbRg5f4/edit [from alastairc]
15:14:47 <mbgower> ... I began grouping the outcomes together.
15:14:50 <Chuck> zakim, close item 3
15:14:50 <Zakim> agendum 3, Starting discussion on consolidating outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL-jyZ7CuYb-fms_jTKEe1YTAUZAH0EXkU3yqbRg5f4/edit, closed
15:14:52 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:14:52 <Zakim> 4. WCAG2ICT [from Chuck]
15:14:59 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 5
15:14:59 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Starting discussion on consolidating outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL-jyZ7CuYb-fms_jTKEe1YTAUZAH0EXkU3yqbRg5f4/edit#heading=h.8n8glns7lrs4 -- taken up
15:15:03 <Zakim> ... [from Chuck]
15:15:03 <mbgower> Some seemed to be inter-related
15:15:22 <mbgower> ... Which related ones should our groups be working on together?
15:16:19 <mbgower> ... This proposed consolidation is the result. I would ask that people look through this. This is an exercise I felt helpful.
15:16:55 <Chuck> q?
15:16:56 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
15:17:03 <ljoakley> present+
15:17:08 <mbgower> ... I'll open a github discussion on this. It would be helpful to have other people's insights. Alternative suggestions are welcome. The sort exercise took about 2 hours if anyone wants to try it themselves.
15:17:43 <mbgower> Chuck: Just to emphasize that this is not a solution. It's an exercise to drive a more thorough conversation.
15:18:00 <mbgower> Rachael: The goal of this is to know what to hand the subgroup as a starting point.
15:18:16 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
15:18:16 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- WCAG2ICT -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:18:21 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 6
15:18:21 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Conformance https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.p -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:19:30 <mbgower> Chuck: Sometimes these conversations can be challenging and difficult.
15:19:46 <mbgower> ... We wish to clarify vocabulary.
15:20:13 <mbgower> Going forward we hope to address issues of pass or fail, and how to motivate people to go beyond basics.
15:20:28 <mbgower> [Shares Terminology screen]
15:21:12 <mbgower> Chuck: This is how we're thinking about these words. "Prerequisite" is a smaller subset and includes safety and AT support.
15:21:50 <mbgower> "Baseline" is a larger subset which is Prereq. plus author provided outcomes not currently met by AT.
15:22:06 <mbgower> "Enhanced" extends the baseline.
15:22:26 <mbgower> [Shares 'How a baseline might work..' slide]
15:22:52 <bruce_bailey> thank you for trying to sort out prerequisites from baseline
15:22:59 <mbgower> Chuck: The key here is that prerequisites must be met
15:23:03 <Graham> q+
15:23:09 <alastairc> q+ on levels vs conformance
15:23:22 <Chuck> ack Grah
15:23:44 <Rachael> q+ to answer graham
15:23:44 <mbgower> Graham: I don't think that level 1 should be on the prereqs. It needs to sit on the 50% enhanced outcomes
15:23:47 <Chuck> ack ala
15:23:47 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on levels vs conformance
15:23:50 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
15:24:21 <mbgower> Rachael: By putting in a prereq, it becomes level 1 whether we label it that way or not.
15:24:41 <Chuck> ack ala
15:24:46 <Chuck> ack rach
15:24:46 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer graham
15:24:49 <mbgower> ... We'd like to stick with this vocab for today, just to help the discussion.
15:24:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:25:16 <jtoles> q+
15:25:22 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
15:25:27 <JenStrickland> present+
15:25:33 <sarahhorton> q+
15:25:40 <mbgower> Alastair: We don't need to use this terminology in the doc, but if you look at the next slide, I think you'll get what we're starting to work with.
15:25:41 <Chuck> ack br
15:25:58 <mbgower> Bruce: Glad to have the discussion; I'm waiting for the next slide.
15:26:00 <Chuck> ack jtoles
15:26:20 <alastairc> Suggest moving onto the next slide soon, before we get stuck...
15:26:35 <Chuck> q+
15:26:36 <mbgower> jtoles: I think we should get away from level 1, 2, 3. It doesn't say what it is. Maybe "minimimu, "optimal", "enhanced"?
15:26:39 <Chuck> ack sarah
15:27:00 <Rachael> q+
15:27:05 <mbgower> sarah: I'm a bit confused by the term "baseline". On the previous slide it seemed like it didn't include prereqs?
15:27:18 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:27:24 <mbgower> ... Is this the same thing happening on the terminology slide?
15:27:46 <mbgower> [Title for slide 29 is updated]
15:27:59 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:28:05 <mbgower> ... I think it would be useful to not label prereqs at level 1
15:28:11 <bruce_bailey> +1 that prerequisites only is level 0 at best
15:28:29 <Chuck> q?
15:28:39 <mbgower> Chuck: Someone had said 'let's get away from levels'. For today we will continue using those terms, but will note that down.
15:29:35 <mbgower> ... There are two columns on slide 29. The percentages are placeholders. They just give us an idea for discussion.
15:29:52 <mbgower> [Shows slide 30 "How levels might work...]
15:30:35 <Graham> q+
15:30:37 <alastairc> q+ to say why you'd choose between prerequisites and baseline plus scoring.
15:30:41 <mbgower> ... In essence, this is how WCAG 2 works.
15:30:46 <Chuck> ack Grah
15:30:52 <mbgower> Graham: On the first column, is there a typo?
15:30:59 <Rachael> q+
15:31:14 <jtoles> q+
15:31:16 <GreggVan> q+
15:31:22 <Chuck> ack ala
15:31:22 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say why you'd choose between prerequisites and baseline plus scoring.
15:31:27 <mbgower> ... Based on the prior slide, the numbers compound, not what is shown.
15:32:00 <mbgower> Alastair: Baseline is all the prerequisites plus more [goes back to slide 28]
15:32:28 <mbgower> ... The reason you look at this difference between the baseline and prereqs is for flexibility.
15:32:32 <Rachael> q-
15:32:59 <mbgower> ... If you are struggling to pass one requirement, you can focus on other outcomes to meet.
15:33:05 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
15:33:06 <Graham> q+
15:33:12 <Chuck> ack jtoles
15:33:16 <kirkwood> so are we balancing other accessibility requirements of different groups against each other?
15:33:39 <mbgower> jtoles: I was confused. Is Level 1, 2, 3 instead of Bronze, SIlver, Gold.
15:33:46 <mbgower> Alastair: These are placeholder names.
15:34:06 <sarahhorton> When we talk about "people" in this context it would be helpful to talk about people affected by accessibility rather than people seeking conformance
15:34:11 <Chuck> q++
15:34:15 <Chuck> ack +
15:34:23 <mbgower> jtoles: I like the baseline not being too difficult to incorporate. So you've met the minimum. You're going to get scored on how high above minimum you go.
15:34:34 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:34:54 <Azlan> q+ to say using baseline is less confusing for me as my expectation of a prerequisite is something you need before you begin
15:34:55 <GreggVan> doubleback
15:35:00 <Chuck> ack Graham
15:35:23 <Rachael> q+ chair hat off benefits of combining some set of requirements with some selecting set
15:35:32 <Rachael> q+ to say chair hat off benefits of combining some set of requirements with some selecting set
15:35:34 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask about having BOTH prerequisites AND baseline
15:35:40 <mbgower> Graham: It could just be me... We have prerequisites. We have a set of criteria that form a baseline. Then we add on more outcomes to get to the levels.
15:36:16 <mbgower> Baseline is analagous to A.
15:36:29 <mbgower> Rachael: These are 4 alternatives
15:36:41 <mbgower> ... We recognize the group has struggled.
15:37:01 <mbgower> ... What we are trying to do is set terminology. The prerequisites are things that must be done.
15:37:31 <ljoakley> q+
15:37:40 <mbgower> ... We're trying to say the prereqs would be a small subset. OR we could go with a baseline, which is the prereqs plus other stuff
15:37:55 <mbgower> ... So we're talking about 2 different things.
15:37:57 <MJ> "outcomes that aren’t currently met by AT": Are these defined anywhere?
15:38:13 <mbgower> ... Then on slides 29 we are looking at some different options.
15:39:00 <mbgower> ... The two columns are two different approaches. On left, the prereqs are the starting level. On the right, you need to do the prereqs and more at the starting level.
15:39:13 <mbgower> ... Slide 30 is 2 more alternatives
15:39:28 <kirkwood> is each prerequisite tied to a specific requirement? (requisite)
15:39:42 <Chuck> q?
15:39:46 <mbgower> ... The column on the right is basically WCAG 2
15:39:53 <Chuck> ack azlan
15:39:53 <Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to say using baseline is less confusing for me as my expectation of a prerequisite is something you need before you begin
15:40:10 <GreggVan> qq+
15:40:11 <mbgower> Azlan: Using baseline is clearer for me.
15:40:32 <mbgower> ... Prerequisites are things you need before you begin.
15:40:46 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:40:46 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to react to Azlan
15:40:46 <JenStrickland> What I'm about to write is an absolute detour to the conversation, so I want to note that and set it aside for another time. The idea of being the safety issues, AT needs, and things that can't be fixed… currently fails to account for some cognitive / trauma considerations that we haven't included in our WCAG criteria to date. It may be something
15:40:46 <JenStrickland> for a subgroup to document in the future, possibly with a couple of COGA members. This isn't entirely a COGA topic, as AGWG currently defines COGA.
15:40:49 <mbgower> ... Because of that, the baseline model is easier to get my head around.
15:41:06 <alastairc> q+ on examples of baseline/prereq/enhanced
15:41:18 <mbgower> Gregg: 3 comments. When we do this we need to keep in mind things that are able to do with or without an assertion.
15:41:35 <kirkwood> baseline > requirements > prerequisites    ?
15:41:40 <mbgower> ... Secondly, I always worry about percentages or scores because people can game it. It's great for enhancements.
15:42:04 <Ben_Tillyer> Do you have a source for the "middle one" line from industry Greg?
15:42:10 <mbgower> ... Industry has pointed out that when you offer 3 choices, policy makers tend to choose the middle one
15:42:26 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:42:26 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say chair hat off benefits of combining some set of requirements with some selecting set
15:42:27 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg, case in point: AA
15:42:31 <mbgower> ... So we just need to be careful that the one that's settled on is achievable.
15:42:54 <alastairc> Ben_Tillyer - see behavioral economics and the buying a breadmaker experiment
15:43:17 <mbgower> Rachael: I'm interested in the second one on slide 29, chair hat off.
15:43:33 <mbgower> ... The group has wanted to have industry-specific requirements
15:43:56 <mbgower> ... Education-centered organizations could create some material that enhance students, as opposed to banking.
15:44:03 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Rachael
15:44:03 <Chuck> q?
15:44:05 <dan_bjorge> q+
15:44:07 <Chuck> ack bru
15:44:07 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about having BOTH prerequisites AND baseline
15:44:10 <mbgower> ... Having the flexibility built in seems like a real pro.
15:44:30 <mbgower> Bruce: I'm with Graham because I don't see a conflict between these.
15:44:36 <mbgower> ... We can have a level 0.
15:45:05 <mbgower> ... ON slide 29, level 1 becomes 0, and up from there.
15:45:07 <Graham> +1 to bruce, this is how I envisaged it.
15:45:09 <dan_bjorge> Very strong -1 to the flexibility being a pro at any level we want the possibility of legislation/policy requiring.
15:45:13 <Chuck> q?
15:45:17 <Chuck> ack lj
15:45:18 <laura> +1 to bruce
15:45:23 <mbgower> ... You don't have to choose between prerequisits and baselines. You can have both.
15:45:33 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
15:45:33 <laura> Prerequisites = 0
15:45:46 <Rachael> q+ to ask about prerequisites and baseline as levels (chair hat of)
15:46:04 <mbgower> Lauri: I would like to see this turn out so that if you don't get these basic things, you do not pass .
15:46:17 <Graham> Another +1 to Lori, this was what I thought the "prerequisites" was for!
15:46:23 <Chuck> ack ala
15:46:23 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on examples of baseline/prereq/enhanced
15:47:11 <mbgower> Alastair: A quick response to Bruce. We could have prereq of a subset. I don't see the point in going down that route. if everything in baseline is required, what does it matter if there's a broken out subset?
15:47:31 <mbgower> [Goes to Consolidation proposal]
15:48:00 <mbgower> Alastair: We went through an exercise to see what outcomes would be in each category for 3.3 Error and identification
15:48:31 <mbgower> [walks through how the SCs are categorized ]
15:48:57 <Chuck> qq+ to change scribe
15:49:10 <Rachael> scribe+
15:49:40 <Rachael> alastairc: Give examples of what might fall into different areas. What is required. What is required but flexible on what to choose.
15:49:56 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:49:56 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to alastairc to change scribe
15:50:01 <Rachael> Chuck: Please volunteer to scribe if you can
15:50:02 <Chuck> ack dan
15:50:08 <Chuck> scribe+
15:51:08 <Rachael> dan_bjorge: I maintain the same concerns that came up the last time we had this discussion. Equitability concerns anytime there is a level that allows the user to pick and choose AND we want that level to be a candidate for adoption as a legal requirement. We should not allow people to pic and choose what outcomes they choose. At least one level must be outcome based.
15:51:24 <Chuck> q+ to ask Dan about ...
15:51:37 <Graham> q+
15:51:39 <Rachael> ...if we think its realistic that they would want to pick a middle level, then I also prefer the middle level only contain requirements
15:51:43 <DuffJohnson> +1 to Lori. This conversation feels confusing because the complex relationship between priority and severity isn't (so far as I can tell) fully acknowledged. As a result this convo often seems to be trying to paper over a "mashup" between these concepts.
15:51:46 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ to ask about terminology
15:51:50 <kirkwood> +1 to Dan
15:51:54 <Rachael> ....the naming is not my concern. It's critical that we have a non% outcome based option.
15:52:06 <GreggVan> bronze silver  gold  platinum
15:52:16 <Poornima> +1 to Dan on pick and choose among outcomes to satisfy different levels
15:52:18 <Chuck> Rachael:  My one concern going back to Graham...  having a prereq level with baseline level, if we don't build in flexibility....
15:52:31 <Chuck> We are essentially building what we already have.
15:52:39 <Rachael> Dan: I agree iwth you and it is good and correct
15:52:49 <alastairc> q+ to ask Dan whether you'd go for a wider baseline, or multiple levels (WCAG 2 style), or something else? Misses the requirements
15:52:51 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:52:54 <Chuck> Dan:  I agree, that is comparible, that is good and correct.
15:52:55 <Rachael> q-
15:52:56 <Chuck> q?
15:52:59 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:52:59 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Dan about ...
15:53:12 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:53:36 <Rachael> Chuck: Question for Dan to answer in queue. You are saying there should be a level that doesn't include any %. The first option on slide 30 has that. Does that particular version address your concerns.
15:53:40 <Chuck> ack Graham
15:53:43 <dan_bjorge> q+ to answer Chuck
15:54:02 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:54:20 <GreggVan> q+
15:54:44 <Rachael> Graham: I get where Dan is coming from. Can someone show me a WCAG AA compliant website?  If we have pass/fail only, it doesn't work. If you use % then you try to meet more in order to guarantee you meet the minimum %
15:54:58 <Chuck> ack Jennie
15:54:58 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask about terminology
15:55:15 <Rachael> ...if it is % based, I can focus on making the pieces that are most important.
15:55:41 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
15:56:00 <Chuck> ack ala
15:56:00 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask Dan whether you'd go for a wider baseline, or multiple levels (WCAG 2 style), or something else? Misses the requirements
15:56:08 <Rachael> Jennie_Delisi: The items that end up in enhanced would be considered extra. We need to make sure that we put in enough in baseline and prerequisite levels to make sure needs aren't missed.
15:57:00 <Rachael> alastairc: Dan would want to go with a WCAG 2 way. A level or two above and an all or nothing approach.  We have to address the pass/fail issue. To be clear, we aren't talking about allowing for a % of items that pass. Its outcome level.
15:57:02 <Rachael> q+
15:57:14 <GreggVan> q+  to say   "ruler and rule"     one image missing alt text does not make a site fail --  it makes that page out of conformance until fixed.   bugs are not  in our remit.   bugs will always exist and should not (and will not) cause anyone to be sued or punished.   If they refuse to make it accessible  -- then and only then is it a faillure - but again that is up to them that make the rules
15:57:15 <Rachael> ... the other requirement is how do we encourage people to go beyond the basics.
15:57:33 <Rachael> ...We also recognize that there are things that are quite core and fundamental.
15:57:37 <kirkwood> nothing enhanced will be accepted by regulators. xcept in cases of specific litigation involving a specific entities
15:57:43 <Chuck> ack bruce
15:57:54 <Rachael> ...that's how we ended up looking at these models.
15:57:54 <scotto> q+
15:58:09 <Rachael> bruce_bailey: Enhanced doesn't hit the right tone.
15:58:50 <Rachael> ...We could have a soft option between levels that includes assertions. So prerequisites, assertions, baseline which is closer to WCAG 2 AA.
15:58:54 <Chuck> qq+ to ask for scribe change
15:59:01 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
15:59:08 <Rachael> ...So you have more objective things before objective items.
15:59:12 <sarahhorton> I can scribe
15:59:19 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:59:19 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to bruce_bailey to ask for scribe change
15:59:25 <sarahhorton> scribe+
15:59:30 <Chuck> ack dan
15:59:30 <Zakim> dan_bjorge, you wanted to answer Chuck
16:00:09 <sarahhorton> dan_bjorge options on 30 better than 29, second one problematic, agrees that WCAG 2, good to have middle option
16:00:20 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:00:34 <sarahhorton> … one to 2 levels not % outcome based
16:01:10 <sarahhorton> dan_bjorge some percentage of elements on page have alt text that meeting criteria, within outcome
16:01:16 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:01:16 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "ruler and rule"     one image missing alt text does not make a site fail --  it makes that page out of conformance until fixed.   bugs are not  in
16:01:19 <Zakim> ... our remit.   bugs will always exist and should not (and will not) cause anyone to be sued or punished.   If they refuse to make it accessible  -- then and only then is it a
16:01:19 <Zakim> ... faillure - but again that is up to them that make the rules
16:01:26 <bruce_bailey> +1 to dan's idea
16:01:57 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Bug when sites have little things wrong, not sued/punished for that
16:02:30 <sarahhorton> … confusion between % provisions, not % pages
16:02:38 <scotto> q-
16:02:40 <alastairc> We had a lot of (negative) feedback about % of instances (e.g. alt text) because it requires counting everything.
16:02:52 <bruce_bailey> s/+1 to dan's idea/+1 to dan's idea about Gold could be about higher quality alt (for example)
16:03:03 <sarahhorton> … start with idea that require testable things, some things testable but not required
16:03:21 <sarahhorton> … only way to have % at 2nd level, have to have things that aren't required
16:03:39 <sarahhorton> … assertions mean you assert it happened, only test is that you did it
16:03:54 <sarahhorton> … testing effect is different from assertion
16:04:06 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:04:08 <sarahhorton> … can we mandate assertions, not established
16:04:16 <dan_bjorge> And folks that need alt text have negative feedback about failing to consider alt text for everything. Making folks count everything is a feature not a bug.
16:04:36 <sarahhorton> Rachael All proposals are similar, hearing support for different approaches
16:04:46 <sarahhorton> … need to pick 2–3 to explore
16:05:15 <DuffJohnson> DuffJohnson has left #ag
16:05:18 <sarahhorton> … chair hat off, if set of requirements providing equitable coverage
16:05:37 <sarahhorton> … what's concern with flexibility next layer up in level?
16:05:48 <Chuck> q?
16:05:51 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:05:51 <GreggVan> q+
16:05:56 <Chuck> q+
16:06:15 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer Companies would like flexibility, progress over perfection
16:06:34 <sarahhorton> … trickier for conformance claims, indicator of what to do next to make more accessible
16:06:39 <alastairc> "Making folks count everything" - was seen as costly, increasing the expense of accessibility for little gain when it is fails that are the problem.
16:06:57 <sarahhorton> … some lean toward different disabilities, skew is inevitable
16:07:06 <Graham> +1
16:07:32 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:07:34 <sarahhorton> … Points about regulator adoption, standard is mindful for them, should focus on users' best interest
16:07:55 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Nothing prevents percentage being required by regulation as long as testable
16:08:14 <sarahhorton> … is assertions can be required legally, standard can include assertions
16:08:43 <sarahhorton> Chuck Looking at baseline and percentages, baseline is equitable
16:09:09 <sarahhorton> … appealing that sectors, e.g., education, based on clientele and users, add outcomes that benefit users
16:09:27 <alastairc> +1, and could gamify somewhat with badges etc.
16:09:30 <GreggVan> s/is assertions/if assertions/
16:09:43 <Chuck> q?
16:09:45 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:09:46 <sarahhorton> … ability to say with understanding of audience, add those more important to users
16:09:49 <Chuck> q?
16:10:15 <alastairc> q+
16:10:23 <Chuck> ack ala
16:10:47 <sarahhorton> Chuck [next slide — Possibility to consider: Aggregate assertion level]
16:11:18 <sarahhorton> alastairc View level conformance, separate question, big company, big website, how to get whole site to conform
16:11:27 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
16:11:47 <sarahhorton> … separate site conference concept with assertions, at product level
16:11:52 <sarahhorton> … could include maturity model
16:12:18 <sarahhorton> … assertions provide confidence in passing core requirements
16:12:25 <sarahhorton> … could have sample-based testing
16:12:43 <sarahhorton> … plain language, design system
16:12:55 <sarahhorton> … things we know help with product accessibility
16:13:08 <sarahhorton> … maturity and assertion based
16:13:32 <Chuck> q+
16:13:33 <sarahhorton> … achieve requirements using another approach to mass testing
16:13:36 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:13:53 <Graham> q+
16:14:12 <sarahhorton> Chuck chair hat off, massive sites, style 1: static content, style 2: third party
16:14:23 <sarahhorton> … should 3rd party be consideration?
16:14:57 <sarahhorton> alastairc Easier to apply to static sites, big site with 3rd party content, could have ways to make more confident
16:15:00 <Chuck> ack Grah
16:15:24 <sarahhorton> Graham Likes it, also apply at components, e.g., tested table component
16:15:39 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:15:46 <sarahhorton> … would also cover site-wide, interesting concept, would pass/fail?
16:15:48 <kirkwood> seems we are attempting to address LOE or burden?
16:16:15 <kirkwood> could that be gamed?
16:16:15 <Chuck> q?
16:16:15 <sarahhorton> alastairc Advanced accessibility statement, saying have done certain things, using components, tested sample of table and passed
16:16:16 <Graham> q+
16:16:18 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:16:25 <GreggVan> q+
16:16:35 <dan_bjorge> I'd be very cautious about "table-based component" type things; I'd say it's much more common for accessibility issues to happen when you integrate the component into a site, rather than issues in the component itself (though both happen of course)
16:16:46 <dan_bjorge> yeah, +1 to what Ben is saying
16:16:53 <sarahhorton> Ben_Tillyer Component libraries, many sites tell people using component library but component themes, variations
16:17:10 <sarahhorton> … could have same component, different instances, different accessibiltiy
16:17:14 <Chuck> q?
16:17:17 <Chuck> ack graham
16:17:31 <alastairc> q+ to agree we would need to be careful, but the point is that the assertions are about people applying a process.
16:17:43 <sarahhorton> Graham Currently in that pickle, 3 awful, 1 not bad, would have to be on-page tested
16:18:06 <sarahhorton> … how to turn into conformance model isn't clear, how often component used, hard to form model
16:18:10 <Chuck> ack gregg
16:18:43 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Talking about comment made earlier or approach, aggregate assertion level?
16:19:49 <sarahhorton> … all the outcomes have to apply throughout, concur with idea that assertions could fill, can't do usability testing on all websites in org
16:19:57 <Chuck> ack ala
16:19:57 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to agree we would need to be careful, but the point is that the assertions are about people applying a process.
16:20:00 <sarahhorton> … works, most assertions would be aggregate assertions
16:20:03 <kirkwood> we did
16:20:33 <sarahhorton> alastairc Separate and additional, baseline + percentage, would be doing that for conformance
16:21:04 <sarahhorton> … this idea is to package up assertions and make sure they are in a pack, all or set based on context
16:21:34 <sarahhorton> … have tested design system, have tested sample (EM methodology for choosing sample)
16:21:49 <sarahhorton> … would have these assertions, not view level (has to be there)
16:21:58 <Chuck> q+ to poll
16:22:13 <sarahhorton> … idea to look toward as addition to help big sites, confident that most of our stuff is accessible
16:22:59 <Graham> q+
16:23:02 <Chuck> Strawpoll: 1) Prerequisite plus % based levels 2) Levels with prerequisite and %  3) Baseline plus % based levels 4) Set levels only 5) Continue discussing possible models
16:23:06 <sarahhorton> Chuck Added labels for models, want to know what group is comfortable trying
16:23:07 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:23:13 <Chuck> ack Grah
16:23:43 <sarahhorton> Graham Couldn't we apply a rule, over X pages do testing on sample of X pages
16:23:55 <sarahhorton> alastairc That could be an assertion
16:24:12 <sarahhorton> … select sample, all pages conform, then report on sample and results
16:24:18 <Chuck> Strawpoll: 1) Prerequisite plus % based levels 2) Levels with prerequisite and %  3) Baseline plus % based levels 4) Set levels only 5) Continue discussing possible models
16:24:23 <JenStrickland> 1
16:25:00 <Rachael> q+
16:25:20 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:25:20 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to poll
16:25:22 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:25:24 <kirkwood> 1
16:25:39 <sarahhorton> Rachael Key point is to pick a few options — 2, to do first pass exploration
16:25:52 <GreggVan> 4 ,  3
16:25:53 <sarahhorton> … try it out, review results
16:25:54 <dan_bjorge> Option 3 (but with 2 levels of non-%-outcomes) > option 4 > option 3  (2 I would object to and 1 is the same as 3 with more confusing naming)
16:26:02 <Ben_Tillyer> any apart from 4
16:26:07 <Graham> 2 - but with guidance "do not do other tests without doing prerequisites" (i.e. move that to "process")
16:26:09 <Azlan> 4, 3
16:26:11 <alastairc> 3, 2, don't think we should use 1, happy to use 4 as comparitor.
16:26:17 <sarahhorton> Chuck Are there favorites to try out
16:26:35 <rscano> 4,3
16:26:35 <Chuck> Strawpoll: 1) Prerequisite plus % based levels 2) Levels with prerequisite and %  3) Baseline plus % based levels 4) Set levels only 5) Continue discussing possible models
16:26:35 <sarahhorton> … put in 1st and 2nd
16:26:39 <Graham> 2,1
16:26:48 <filippo-zorzi> 2
16:26:52 <bruce_bailey> 5 as i am missing difference between (2) and (3)
16:26:53 <sarahhorton> 1
16:27:00 <Rachael> 2 and 3 (4 would be a good competitor)
16:27:12 <rscano> 2
16:27:16 <jtoles> 3, 1
16:27:28 <scotto> 2, 5
16:27:37 <Chuck> 3,4,2
16:27:38 <bruce_bailey> 3, 1
16:27:52 <kirkwood> 3,1
16:27:58 <ShawnT> 3, 1
16:27:58 <laura> 1
16:28:25 <GreggVan> oops   4,3   if all  midlevel are testable
16:28:30 <Rachael> q+
16:28:30 <alastairc> q+ to suggest 2+3 by including labels for prereqs and baseline
16:28:39 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:29:00 <GreggVan> q+
16:29:04 <dan_bjorge> I don't love the format of this strawpoll because I feel 1 and 3 are the same option with marginally different temporary terminology (ie, overrepresented)
16:29:06 <Chuck> ack ala
16:29:06 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest 2+3 by including labels for prereqs and baseline
16:29:12 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:29:32 <sarahhorton> alastairc clarify difference between baseline and prerequisite
16:29:46 <sarahhorton> … could differentiate during the process
16:29:52 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:29:57 <Rachael> +1 to combining as it would potentially save work later.
16:30:17 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Prerequisites base of baseline
16:30:28 <sarahhorton> … not going to have level that's only prerequisites
16:30:31 <Chuck> acl bri
16:30:34 <Chuck> acl bri
16:30:37 <Chuck> ack bru
16:30:52 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey Also don't want only prerequisites, can get consensus because not looking for equity
16:30:59 <Graham> +q to say +1 Alastair, that may also help us nail down what this looks like at scale as we will see how many "baselines" we have and that could drive this decision (i.e. we have 20 prerequisites and 10 baseline vs 20 prerequisites and 40 baseline tell different stories
16:31:00 <Chuck> q?
16:31:03 <Chuck> ack grah
16:31:03 <Zakim> Graham, you wanted to say +1 Alastair, that may also help us nail down what this looks like at scale as we will see how many "baselines" we have and that could drive this decision
16:31:04 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
16:31:05 <sarahhorton> … baseline should be equitable, longer discussion
16:31:06 <Zakim> ... (i.e. we have 20 prerequisites and 10 baseline vs 20 prerequisites and 40 baseline tell different stories
16:31:22 <Francis_Storr> 3, 1, 2
16:31:46 <Chuck> q+
16:31:50 <sarahhorton> Graham Don't need to decide today, go through and label as we go, add them up, will help us see and guide path forward
16:31:52 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:32:03 <GreggVan> q+
16:32:30 <Rachael> q+
16:32:35 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:32:37 <sarahhorton> Chuck Confused by proposal, subgroups would identify what are baseline and prerequisites, refactoring what subgroups do
16:32:42 <alastairc> q+ to suggest 3 (and identify prereqs/baseline) and 5 - two levels + %
16:32:49 <bruce_bailey> q+ to note baseline items might also be scored in quality
16:33:05 <sarahhorton> GreggVan Ones that have to do with AT compatibility, work for all disabilities
16:33:22 <sarahhorton> … labeling great idea, rather than sort out model, look at the pieces
16:33:58 <sarahhorton> … let's label, what do we have, baseline, prerequisites, assertions, higher level, testable
16:34:00 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:34:18 <sarahhorton> Rachael Poll helps with what to do with models
16:34:48 <sarahhorton> … present templates to subgroups next week, good to mark in templates, will add in
16:34:58 <Chuck> ack ala
16:34:58 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest 3 (and identify prereqs/baseline) and 5 - two levels + %
16:35:01 <sarahhorton> … explore these and other possible models
16:35:58 <sarahhorton> alastairc Alternative option worth doing comparisons, choose some models (see 5 above)
16:36:00 <Chuck> ack bru
16:36:00 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note baseline items might also be scored in quality
16:36:12 <alastairc> Dan, does 5 get at what you meant?
16:36:32 <kirkwood> to me a prerequisite is a prerequistie to a requirement. for example on may be that a site has over 3000 pages one must…
16:36:53 <kirkwood> +1 to quality
16:36:54 <Chuck> q?
16:36:58 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey Sorting, might be other dimensions, if outcomes are good for evaluating quality (gold alt text)
16:36:59 <dan_bjorge> Yes, 5 is what I meant (and I think what Gregg also wanted in his strawpoll vote?)
16:37:20 <dan_bjorge> With that 5 in place, my vote would be 5 >> 4 > 3
16:37:21 <sarahhorton> Chuck Enough to move forward?
16:37:40 <Rachael> q+
16:37:40 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:37:40 <sarahhorton> alastairc 3 and 5 to test next
16:37:59 <sarahhorton> Rachael Moving back/forth between conformance and outcomes, both inform each other
16:38:36 <sarahhorton> Chuck End of agenda
16:38:44 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #ag
16:38:50 <ToddL> present+
16:39:02 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:39:18 <rscano> present+
16:39:22 <sarahhorton> Do I need to do anything with the minutes?
16:39:27 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
16:39:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/25-ag-minutes.html alastairc
16:42:39 <bruce_bailey> s/So you have more objective things before objective items./So you have some subjective things before baseline objective items.
16:45:19 <Rachael> Consolidating Outcomes Github Discussion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/101
17:04:55 <laura> laura has left #ag
18:07:55 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
18:44:37 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
20:39:52 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
21:28:56 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag