Meeting minutes
<rashmi> content usable V2 edits https://
<lisa> next item
<rashmi> content usable V2 edits https://
<lisa> next item
<lisa> next item
<julierawe> https://
<B_Monteleone> https://
The goal of the card-sorting exercise is to suggest more logical subsections to use in the "Text and wording" section of WCAG 3
Rain I'm not sure if the card-sorting tool is accessible to users with screen readers
Rain Also have option to use spreadsheet instead of card-sorting tool
<Rain> Study address: https://
Rain Enter your email address—any address will work
Rain Password is coga (all lowercase) but
Rain The intro explains the purpose of the exercise and also includes link to the spreadsheet if you prefer to do the card-sort in a spreadsheet instead of in this tool
Rain The tool shows the 20 or so outcome cards on the left
Rain The right side of the tool shows dark boxes with the existing categories that the AG chairs have proposed as subsections
Rain You can drag an outcome into a bucket
julierawe2 We can create new buckets like "Straightforward writing"
Rain You can drag an outcome to an empty bucket and then you can name that new category
Rain You can leave other buckets empty
Rain The other card-sorting option is this spreadsheet
<Rain> Sheet version: https://
Rain If you use the sheet, I will put it into the other card-sorting tool so we can look at everyone's suggestions together
Rain If using the spreadsheet, choose a tab that says "[Replace with your name]" and rename it with your name
Rain The top 12 rows are the categories—the first six are AG's suggestions. There are also rows so you can suggest new categories.
Rain Drag an outcome row up the category you want it to be in
julierawe2 So dragging up the rows won't erase the categories?
Rain No, it won't get erased
Rain It's only 20 outcomes
JohnRochford I most likely won't be able to do either of these methods. I will try the spreadsheet method first
Rain Tiffany suggested just putting in your notes about which category you would use for each outcome
kirkwood The language of the sections does not seem logical
kirkwood I would like to see "Clear content," "Clear structure"
kirkwood I don't understand Risk Statements or Text appearance and smeantics
<kirkwood> clear visual appearance
JohnRochford Do we want to do this feedback by person? Do we want to do it as a group?
Rain When you have something this complicated, we're each going to come with very different perspectives
Rain If we do all the work as a group, people will not put forward their ideas, which might spart a more creative solution
Rain If we start individually, then we can look for patterns or trends within the group
Rain We can talk about approaches we hadn't considered and also note when everyone tended to do the same thing versus everyone did it differently
JohnRochford That makes sense
JohnRochford I think I'm going to struggle with the task because of the inaccessibility
JohnRochford Maybe I could do it with someone else like Jan or John K or Julie
Jan I'm happy to set up a time when we can do it together
kirkwood I would love to be able to do it, but I really cannot categorize things
kirkwood I could throw everything into one or the other
<Jan> +1 to JohnK's concern about the names of the buckets - bad data in / bad data out.
Rain It's set up as hybrid. If we want to start with a blank slate, we would need a different link
Rain It's hybrid meaning those existing categories are there but you can also add your own
julierawe2 Is it too hard to ignore the existing buckets? Or it helpful to see the existing suggestions as we think about new ones to create?
kirkwood There's so much overlap here
Rain I am in the middle of creating a simple google doc that you can use as well
julierawe2 It would be OK to say you only think there should be 3 buckets
tburtin It would be helpful to know the intent behind the existing buckets
Jan I agree with Kirkwood's concerns. I think the categories are too granular.
Jan I wonder why AG created so many different categories.
Jan If we leave open for everyone to create lots of new categories, I'm not entirely sure this will be a good use of our time.
<kirkwood> +1 to Jan
Jan I'm a fan of what John K just say: "Clear language," "Clear structure," "Clear visual presentation," the end.
<kirkwood> +1 to Jan
<Rain> Google doc version (make a copy): https://
Rain Make a copy of the document, review the patterns listed, think about how you would categorize them, and then move the outcomes into those categories
Rain And then share with Rain and Julie
Rain This is very much about the brainstorming of what those categories should be.
<kirkwood> I’d put numbers in ‘language’
julierawe2 Is everyone comfortable spending 1 hour working on this indvidually before we come back together?
LenB Yes
<Jan> +1 to spending an hour on sorting before the next meeting
Rain I'm happy with everyone skipping the spreadsheet and card-sort tool and instead everyone can use the google doc version
<Rain> Google Doc version (simplest): https://
Tiffany and Len will use the spreadsheet
JohnRochford I can't get to that link
<Rain> Google Doc version (simplest): https://
Can use any of the 3 methods. I will share out deadline for early Septmeber
Skip this item
https://
kirkwood How would you characterize what the controversy is?
julierawe2 What should WCAG 3 require authors to do versus not blocking AT from doing?
tburtin I wasn't seeing in the github link. I didn't immediately see AI—are you saying an AI aspect of AT?
julierawe2 My sense is people are using "AI" as a subset of "AT"
tburtin I'm very concerned about AI—we're getting there, but we're not there yet
Jan5 I want to +1 what Tiffany and John K said about AI is not necessarily able to generate meaningful context. This could be very harmful, particularly in very high-stakes setting.
Jan5 I've seen where auto-generated alt text can work well in math where you have structured meaning, such as a certain type of graph with a certain type of name.
Jan5 But even when it does a pretty good job, the only person who knows the meaning and intent is the author.
Jan5 We need to be careful about not putting too much faith into what AI can do.
<kirkwood> +1 to “intent and meaning of author” needs to be taken into account
Thank you, Rain, for creating the different card-sorting options!