14:30:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:30:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/30-ag-irc
14:30:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:30:39 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:30:45 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:30:57 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2024-07-30
14:31:30 <Chuck> agenda+ Subgroup meetings [60 minutes]
14:31:53 <Chuck> agenda+ Assertions Discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106
14:49:17 <Chuck> regrets: Todd Libby, Lori Oakley, DJ Chase
14:57:10 <rscano> rscano has joined #ag
14:58:18 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
14:59:30 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
14:59:36 <tburtin> present+
14:59:36 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
14:59:47 <rscano> Ah ok i Will log in next minutes I am on train hope connection still good train is doing alternative track due fire issues over line
14:59:53 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:00:00 <rscano> present+
15:00:00 <kevin> present+
15:00:23 <JMcSorley> JMcSorley has joined #ag
15:00:47 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:00:47 <JMcSorley> present+
15:00:49 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:00:57 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:00:59 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:01:00 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:01:04 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:01:21 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
15:01:21 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:01:22 <Zakim> 1. Subgroup meetings [from 60 minutes via Chuck]
15:01:22 <Zakim> 2. Assertions Discussion https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106 [from Chuck]
15:01:45 <Chuck> scribe+
15:01:49 <Chuck> scribe+ Chuck
15:01:54 <Rachael> present+
15:02:01 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:02:08 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:02:09 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
15:02:09 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:02:11 <Chuck> Chuck:  Foregoing introductions, just one announcement, then we start the sub-groups.
15:02:12 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:02:14 <Rain> present+
15:02:16 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:02:20 <julierawe> present+
15:02:31 <Azlan> present+
15:02:35 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:02:51 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:02:55 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
15:03:00 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
15:03:02 <Chuck> Kevin:  Just a quick mention.  Internal discussion regarding zoom ai companion.  There are some hidden costs, energy, information, other bits.
15:03:03 <mbgower> present+
15:03:03 <mike_beganyi> present+
15:03:04 <sarahhorton> present+
15:03:12 <Chuck> Kevin:  We have been experimenting with it to see if there is value in using it.
15:03:31 <Chuck> Kevin:  There are a couple of people in AG who tried it, haven't gotten any feedback yet.  I would welcome anything or any comments on that.
15:03:35 <Chuck> Kevin:  Please email me.
15:03:43 <kevin> kevin@w3.org
15:03:44 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
15:03:46 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
15:04:00 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:04:10 <MJ> present+
15:04:13 <Chuck> Ben:  My employer is doing something similar, using the companion and copilot in teams.  I'll try to get you some input.
15:04:17 <Chuck> Kevin:  Thanks!
15:04:18 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask before we split
15:04:28 <kevin> ack ben
15:04:32 <ShawnT> present+
15:04:43 <Chuck> Bruce:  I could not find the document by navigating through the folder that Kevin shared earlier.  I bet others might like that as well.
15:04:48 <Chuck> ack bruce
15:04:48 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask before we split
15:04:56 <kirkwood> present+
15:05:13 <Chuck> zakim, take up first item
15:05:13 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take up first item', Chuck
15:05:14 <marco-sabidussi> marco-sabidussi has joined #ag
15:05:18 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:05:18 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Subgroup meetings -- taken up [from 60 minutes via Chuck]
15:06:06 <julierawe> q+
15:06:08 <Chuck> 		○ Adjust Color: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bwr8ciRGP5W4zvzBQtJObxaUYRxsR5OrpYYpuK4rDyE/edit#heading=h.4fu2rk4qoiti
15:06:08 <Chuck> 		○ Haptic Stimulation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U5DbLdJIyuIJLdLMhn1F_A0NT_D_qe4MO49F_fJ_fEA/edit#heading=h.4fu2rk4qoiti
15:06:08 <Chuck> 		○ Implied Meaning: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P7fOyEPVlqf1aXuJY0SO9LeC-E7EZllg/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
15:06:08 <Chuck> 		○ Keyboard Only: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uE2WCxPmvNopdCbuZQm_-cGyEdxEouRmZ8UUIlyutoU/edit#heading=h.4fu2rk4qoiti
15:06:10 <Chuck> Section Labels:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rHL0Zx4tpNRMztUFXURKn1He74mjRMeDaf330a01FYs/edit#heading=h.4fu2rk4qoiti
15:06:11 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:06:14 <Chuck> ack julie
15:06:19 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:06:30 <Makoto> present+
15:06:39 <Laura_Carlson> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:25:34 <JohnRochford2> JohnRochford2 has joined #AG
15:52:03 <marco-sabidussi> present+
15:59:35 <kirkwood> present+
16:00:55 <JohnRochford2> present+
16:01:29 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:01:29 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jennie_Delisi
16:01:43 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:01:43 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose marco-sabidussi
16:01:52 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:01:52 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Laura_Carlson
16:02:00 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:00 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kirkwood
16:02:05 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:05 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Ben_Tillyer
16:02:15 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:15 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JohnRochford
16:02:24 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:24 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bruce_bailey
16:02:28 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:28 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose marco-sabidussi
16:02:37 <JMcSorley> scribe+ Jan
16:02:42 <Rachael> slide deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/178EHzR7oKYyS7m-V2pZvjCg10kR2XLZ7tK2V-LUh2K8/edit#slide=id.g2ef7be0147b_0_0
16:03:39 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
16:03:48 <LenB> present+
16:04:05 <avon> avon has joined #ag
16:04:10 <avon> present+
16:04:13 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Second-to-last slide (#13) GitHub discussion going on about how to define assertions. We have two definitions on this slide. We need to discuss the two definitions.
16:04:15 <Chuck> q?
16:05:13 <JMcSorley> Gundila(sp): Not sure what the difference if between the two.
16:05:55 <JMcSorley> Rachael: These are just two suggested definitions for "assertion" - we just need to define which one we like better.
16:06:14 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Moving to slide 14 - can we verify or what can we verify for assertions?
16:06:53 <JMcSorley> Rachael: The only verifiable part of an assertion is (1) The assertion has been made (2) The assertion followed the documentation requirements
16:07:00 <Rain> q+
16:07:36 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Some people have suggested there are other ways we can verify assertions. We need to discuss what some of those other ways might be. What other kinds of evidence might we want to ask for?
16:07:49 <Ben_Tillyer2> Ben_Tillyer2 has joined #ag
16:07:52 <Ben_Tillyer2> q+
16:07:54 <Chuck> ack Rain
16:08:45 <JMcSorley> Rain: I am wondering if our documentation requirements could cover things like how old is the assertion - can we verify or include in those documentation requirements to make sure that nothing has changed since the assertion was originally made - we don't want to accept assertions that are no longer relevant.
16:08:49 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:08:55 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Yes - we have dates associated with the assertion.
16:09:25 <Chuck> q+ to talk about ISO 900x
16:09:55 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:09:55 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to talk about ISO 900x
16:09:58 <JMcSorley> Ben: The first concern is the suitability of the person making the assertion - they're knowledge of the topic and whether they are legally allowed to make an assertion on behalf of an organization. The second is whether the assertion is honest - there needs to be some test about whether there's an intent to not be honest.
16:10:35 <JMcSorley> Chuck: Not super familiar with ISO 9000 series, but I believe it supports the validation of documentation, so there may be processes in place already for measuring the quality of an assertion.
16:10:57 <Chuck> q?
16:10:58 <JMcSorley> Chuck: This may mean that this would cover situations where someone is making a false assertion.
16:11:45 <Chuck> q+
16:11:47 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:12:22 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Our documentation requirements can be long and we can include some of these concerns in those requirements. Does anyone object to our previous measure: (1) We can only check that the assertion has been made, (2) The documentation requirements have been followed.
16:12:50 <JMcSorley> Chuck: I don't think starting with these 2 rules backs us into an insurmountable corner - we could start here and go through the exploratory process.
16:12:51 <mbgower> q+
16:12:57 <Chuck> ack mb
16:14:17 <Chuck> q+ to ask Bruce about legal settlement agreements
16:14:32 <JMcSorley> Mike: I am trying to think about how feasible this is. Right now, in WCAG 2, there is nothing about documentation being required. That is handled through VPATs and it's not part of the WCAG process. I am trying to think about how much we want to get into this in the standard and how much overhead we begin to make. If teams want to do this, that is
16:14:33 <JMcSorley> fine, but the degree to which teams want to document something else, might not be something we can manage - how realistic is this?
16:14:34 <kirkwood> reporting on assertion, frequency of reporting is stated, (validity of assertion is cocumented).
16:14:37 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:14:37 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Bruce about legal settlement agreements
16:15:11 <JMcSorley> Chuck: I see the reference to U.S. settlement agreements. @Bruce - is "assertion" something that has meaning in U.S. legal agreements?
16:15:56 <Rachael> q+
16:16:17 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
16:16:19 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:16:30 <JMcSorley> Bruce: I am not a lawyer, I have looked at a few settlement agreements - ADA.gov has a number of these. They don't appear to have "assertions", but the settlement agreements often require things that are similar to what would be captured as assertions. The settlement agreements don't have assertions, but they have non-technical requirements that
16:16:30 <JMcSorley> web site owners might be able to make assertions.
16:17:27 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Perhaps we should invite Lainey or others to come and talk with us about this. Are we asking people to provide assertions on request? What are our thoughts on how we  require this kind of documentation? Is it only in conformance claims?
16:18:52 <Chuck> q+
16:18:58 <JMcSorley> Rachael - on slide 7 - "Documenting and Verifying Assertions (WCAG 3) - WCAG would not necessarily require this - we would have to have the assertion statement, the date of the assertion, date range the procedure is completed, scope of the assertion, contact information on the person - maybe here is where we might want to ask for the person's
16:18:58 <JMcSorley> qualifications, etc.
16:18:59 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:19:37 <Ben_Tillyer2> +1 to Ch
16:19:46 <kevin> q+
16:19:46 <JMcSorley> Chuck: regarding the statement about qualifications about people participating in the assertion - I can see that as an addition to bolster the assertion, but may not be a requirement.
16:19:50 <Chuck> ack Kevin
16:20:03 <kirkwood> assertain made, time period covered, frequency of assertion, publishing (availability) of assertion
16:20:32 <Chuck> q+
16:20:35 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:20:42 <JMcSorley> Kevin: I think some of this might be veering into what a regulation would require and not something that would be a part of the standard - we might want to be clear about which camp and assertion would fall into - standard or regulation
16:21:42 <JMcSorley> Chuck: Like our normative requirements in our current standards, could we not say what our normative documentation requirements are and then regulatory could enhance this? @Kevin - do you think this is already veering into regulation?
16:22:06 <Ben_Tillyer2> +1 to Kevin
16:22:36 <Chuck> q?
16:22:57 <JMcSorley> Kevin: How do we validate the qualifications of an assertion - that might be beyond what we can require as part of the standard - regulators might be able to put in those requirements, but as part of the standard, we might just want to define what an assertion is and be careful not to require qualifications as a rule.
16:23:57 <julierawe> q+
16:24:06 <Rachael> draft straw poll: 1) I am comfortable moving forward with what is in WCAG 3 now 2) We need to change assertions and continue to discuss 3) I do not yet understand assertions enough to make a judgement 4) something else.
16:24:10 <Chuck> ack julie
16:24:26 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:24:32 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
16:25:13 <JMcSorley> Julie: How much control will organizations have over an assertion in terms of the scope of the site?
16:25:21 <JMcSorley> Rachael:  I think it depends on the assertion.
16:25:59 <Ben_Tillyer2> q+
16:26:07 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:26:18 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#assertions_procedures
16:26:32 <JMcSorley> Ben: what will the outcome be of our vote?
16:26:55 <JMcSorley> Rachael: If we vote 1, then we could move forward with drafting assertions
16:27:02 <Chuck> straw poll: 1) I am comfortable moving forward with what is in WCAG 3 now 2) We need to change assertions and continue to discuss 3) I do not yet understand assertions enough to make a judgement 4) something else.
16:27:26 <JMcSorley> 2
16:27:28 <julierawe> q+
16:27:30 <Ben_Tillyer2> 1
16:27:34 <Chuck> ack julie
16:28:14 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
16:28:15 <Chuck> 1
16:28:19 <Chuck> ack Chris
16:28:22 <avon> 1
16:28:23 <JMcSorley> Julie: Are we voting on everything that is in WCAG 3 now?
16:28:26 <Azlan> 1
16:28:31 <filippo-zorzi> 3
16:28:32 <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/conformance/wcag-em/
16:28:56 <kevin> q+
16:29:00 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:29:09 <JMcSorley> Chris: How does documenting and verifying assertions relate to WCAG-EM? Is this part of that model, or are we relying on other types of conformance statements that would be coupled with WCAG-EM
16:29:33 <JMcSorley> Kevin: The EM conformance model would have to be updated to WCAG 3
16:29:38 <Chuck> straw poll: 1) I am comfortable moving forward with what is in WCAG 3 now 2) We need to change assertions and continue to discuss 3) I do not yet understand assertions enough to make a judgement 4) something else.
16:29:38 <ChrisLoiselle> thanks
16:29:49 <Rain> 1
16:30:12 <LenB> 1
16:30:17 <GN015> 3
16:30:20 <Rachael> q+
16:30:23 <tburtin> 1
16:30:24 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:30:25 <giacomo-petri> 3
16:30:28 <ShawnT> 3
16:30:30 <kirkwood> 3
16:30:31 <julierawe> 1
16:30:41 <LenB> LenB has left #ag
16:30:45 <mbgower> 1, It looks like at most slide 7 just adds two subbullets in the first list
16:30:56 <kirkwood> yes
16:31:00 <kevin> 1
16:31:03 <julierawe> yes
16:31:06 <Chuck> +1
16:31:08 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Would it be helpful for us to write and assertion from beginning to end? Would that be a useful next step?
16:31:16 <JMcSorley> +1
16:31:19 <kirkwood> +1
16:31:22 <julierawe> +1
16:31:28 <Laura_Carlson> +1
16:31:30 <mike_beganyi> +1
16:31:32 <JMcSorley> Chuck: In our next call, we could go through the process of writing an assertion.
16:32:02 <JMcSorley> Rachael: Our goal is not to spend our meetings do a lot of working sessions, but this might be helpful for us to do this together. Does anyone object?
16:32:06 <JMcSorley> Chuck: No objections
16:33:11 <kevin> -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bPXaMLCLwPVFEhOULbaT9Ya9l6jrsIamhq3T5LP6zYY/edit?gid=0#gid=0 Subgroup availability working sheet
16:33:13 <JMcSorley> Chuck: Pivoting back to subgroup work. We decided to spend 4 AG sessions, allowing the subgroups to meet during the call. There was a survey of when people could meet outside of AG. What we are expecting now is to have the subgroups find time to meet outside of AG.
16:34:03 <JMcSorley> Kevin: Brief explanation: This is a sheet of all the responses we got of people's availability. That was used to populate the subgroup sheets.
16:34:12 <GN015> q+
16:34:59 <JMcSorley> Kevin: Each sheet should have a list of everyone in the subgroup. Along the top, you have the days of the week with time slots in EST. This is just for you to work out if there's a time slot that works for most people.
16:35:14 <Chuck> ack GN
16:35:42 <JMcSorley> Gondala(sp)?: Is there an automized method to get answers?
16:36:00 <JMcSorley> Kevin: There is not an automated way to do this - it's just a cut and paste process.
16:37:10 <JMcSorley> Chuck: Subgroups will start meeting independently and outside of AG calls. Today we had some people who needed to drop early, so we had to go through our topics more quickly than normal.
16:37:17 <mbgower> q+ to say there is another round of WCAG 2 proposed changes
16:37:22 <Chuck> ack mb
16:37:22 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say there is another round of WCAG 2 proposed changes
16:37:23 <JMcSorley> Chuck: Are there any other questions before we adjourn?
16:37:34 <mbgower> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1
16:37:39 <JMcSorley> Mike: I just wanted to mention that we put out another round of review for WCAG 2x changes:
16:38:05 <mbgower> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1
16:38:59 <JMcSorley> Chuck: You need to be signed into GitHub for the link to work.
16:41:49 <JMcSorley> Mike: This is the WCAG 2x board - has 9-10 columns - look for "Sent for WG approval" - we are looking for more than 4 +1 votes for the most important topics - they are listed in order of importance and will be active for another week for people to vote.
16:42:19 <kirkwood> present+
16:43:30 <kevin> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/ag/participants/
16:44:35 <GN015> present+
16:47:57 <kevin> https://w3c.github.io/sustyweb/
16:53:32 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:55:25 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
16:55:43 <Chuck> rrsagent, make minutes
16:55:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/30-ag-minutes.html Chuck
17:28:48 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
17:43:15 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:01:22 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:03:43 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
18:22:19 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:44:27 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
18:57:32 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
19:17:16 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
19:33:43 <laura> laura has joined #ag
19:39:47 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
19:55:49 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:57:48 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
20:07:25 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
20:18:24 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
20:39:53 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
20:57:23 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
21:19:20 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
21:39:23 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
21:58:25 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
22:19:32 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
22:38:55 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
22:58:45 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
23:19:48 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
23:39:39 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
23:59:55 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag