– DRAFT –
AGWG-2024-08-13

Chuck: As the first exercise of this meeting will be to participate in breakout rooms for a group exercise (first agenda item), this portion of the meeting will not be scribed.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pZU_JxLwwpTotEmoGjGTEd2bn3kOoUwX-RO7q76Cmfo/edit

Chuck: As the first exercise of this meeting will be to participate in breakout rooms for a group exercise (first agenda item), this portion of the meeting will not be scribed.

Rachael: CSUN submissions will open soon. Start thinking about presentations.

Tananda: New to the group.

Assertions Exercise (60 minutes)

Chuck: As the first exercise of this meeting will be to participate in breakout rooms for a group exercise (first agenda item), this portion of the meeting will not be scribed.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FA3UVwpLlkFD9H6rqKT57BGtpPFy_4juMlkxNGl7m5Y/edit#heading=h.ydb0ppi9970j

<kirkwood> +1

<kirkwood> public assertions often an issue

<kirkwood> +1

<kirkwood> legal manages risk

<kirkwood> a style guide that addresses accessibility?

Chuck: reviewing what we came up with in brakeout rooms

alastairc: "there is an organizational style guide that requires text-alternatives, and a policy that authors must follow this style guide"
… maybe quite a lot of WCAG could have this type of assertion?
… documentation: link/PDF of style guide & link/PDF of policy
… testing: internal audit -> ability to make assertion

Chuck: couple of different evolutions of assertion
… didn't want to just focus on style guide -- also training, etc

<bruce_bailey> +1 to statement of fact rather than statement of policy

Chuck: mostly focused on style guide for purpose of document
… we presumed the assertion was company-wide, not product-specific
… include some kind of statement in every published document?
… WCAG 3 suggested assertion template?
… align with maturity model WG?

Rachael: how to enforce assertions?
… public? private sign off? actually point to style guide?
… "internal guidance" instead of "style guide"
… would like job title / group of asserter in assertion
… when was last audit?

<alastairc> Probably a good idea to generalise the 'style guide'

Rachael: who is trained on style guide?
… how is style guide tested?

Chuck: irc chat about using statement of fact over statement of process
… our group went more in direction of statement of process

<Rachael> "We assert that [company] maintains internal guidance (style guide, design system, other documentation) and trains employees on how to use this guidance to ensure images have text alternatives that are clear and relevant"

Chuck: longer discussion needed

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to offer example from M-24-08

<bruce_bailey> https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/ofcio/m-24-08-strengthening-digital-accessibility-and-the-management-of-section-508-of-the-rehabilitation-act/#_ftnref15

<bruce_bailey> M-24-08 requirements for Accessibility Statements

Accessibility supported / Prerequisite level

Proposal in Github discussion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/104#discussioncomment-10313498

<Rachael> Assertions Slide Deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/178EHzR7oKYyS7m-V2pZvjCg10kR2XLZ7tK2V-LUh2K8/edit#slide=id.g2ef7be0147b_0_0

alastairc: [reads top issue]

<Rachael> Conformance Slide deck on prerequisites: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.g2f0d7d2c60e_0_0

alastairc: most basic level is user agent things, baseline level is where that doesn't work and authors do things
… [reads "I'd like to summaries the challenges..." from alastc]
… [reads "Prerequisite" section of next comment]
… it gets more interesting when you get more variability across ATs and regions [reads "Baseline" section]

Rachael: slide >=42 is relevant

Chuck: free vs commercial AT?

alastairc: point of the proposal was to say that we as a group have a set of things we test with and you know tick of methods with those technologies

<jeanne> Some AT is not available in free versions. I don't want us to be too focused on screenreaders.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note that, e.g., Voice Over is not "free"

alastairc: as an author, you just follow the methods provided and then you meet the spec
… as you go up levels, you'd need to test

<alastairc> Computers and phones are not really free either... nothing is, but there isn't an extra cost if you have a disability

bruce_bailey: Voice Over is not free (gratis)

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to echo Jeanne's comments in IRC

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask how we clarify that

<kirkwood> proprietary?

Rachael: maybe "included in price of platform"?
… also how do we say which screen readers are high enough quality?

GreggVan: we need to look at a broader range of AT available
… also "basically free" in US could be horribly expensive in other parts of the world

Ben_Tillyer1: battery drains quicker on phone with voice control on than off, so there are indirect costs as well

<kirkwood> can’t understand

<Ben_Tillyer1> noted, must be using the wrong mic

Ben_Tillyer1: direct costs (price) vs indirect costs (power, data, etc)

Chuck: mentioning names of companies/products directly vs being more ambiguous?

alastairc: leave to others what the set of required technology would be
… UK, for example, requires public sector to test specific ATs
… reader view may not work for users, for example, if text is being protected so it can't be used
… but you could still meet the guideline by providing that yourself
… prereq of motion would be "you respect users' motion preferences", but if you don't, or if you're using a platform that doesn't support that, you'd need a button to set that

Chuck: as time goes on, the burden will shift from the author to UA/platform as technology progresses

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask who takes responsibility

alastairc: technique would be you pass if you use browser default focus indicator, but you need to check when you change background

Rachael: segregate by language? (ex: does this technology support this language group?)
… is it the author's responsibility to know whether the AT works, or the W3C's?
… in some ways, that's what we did with 4.1.1

<bruce_bailey> I really appreciate the focus appearance example.

Chuck: if we were to take that on and be the definitive source for that, that requires additional work for our group
… there's also value in us owning that, but work to

Rachael: we implicitly own that right now --- we don't create standards for stuff that doesn't work, and we deprecated 4.1.1

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/104#discussioncomment-10313498

<Rachael> +1 not a decision point yet

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Rachael that AG already owns this question (per 4.1.1 experience).

<kirkwood> should overlay(s) be in this discussion?

alastairc: overlays are provided by the site, but they're intended to be kind of a user agent

<Ben_Tillyer1> +1 to that

alastairc: i think i would learn towards them being authored content instead of UA

<Graham> +1

<Ben_Tillyer1> The user + browser cannot influence whether the overlay is installed

alastairc: so i don't think it changes the equation

Rachael: agree. also with ai, i don't think we should be considering specific technology yet
… instead, we should be working on a framework that can adapt to changing technology

<Graham> overlays are 100% on the site side, the site owner chooses whether to have them on the site or not. It is only like any third part content.

https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/104#discussioncomment-10313498

Chuck: members please review conversation/proposal for continued discussion later

bruce_bailey: thank you Alastair for teasing out difference between prereq and baseline