Meeting minutes
Introductions and Announcements
alastairc: Anyone new who would like to introduce themselves?
… any news?
Subgroup check-in
alastairc: Sub group check ins, for 4 weeks we were using this meeting for sub group meetings
… and now have separate meetings
… each lead has hopefuly set up time to continue working
… subgroups were [list]
… could the faciliatators get on queue to give us an update
… and next week we'll have some output to share for focus appearance
… no news yet on non-text contrast, just catching up
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss voice interaction
Rachael: Voice interaction, one step behind the others, I will be reaching out to those who are interested, it is going into the exploratory phase
… if you want to join, please let me know
<Zakim> giacomo-petri, you wanted to discuss section labels
giacomo-petri: Section labels, several of us have been on vacation
… we plan to hold a meeting on wednesday at 9
… option to extend to fridays if needed
… jsut an update, we have spent considerable time establishing the foundation for labelling the sections without discussing the labels themselves
… we wanted to start with the reasoning for sectioning, but it has gotten complex, so we've lost sight a bit
… we'll discuss this week assumptions to help us proceed with the topic
… define assumptions, develop glossary, and declare topics we won't get to at this time
alastairc: Let us know if you need any support!
giacomo-petri: thank you
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to report on keyboard only
bruce_bailey: Reporting for keyboard accessibility
… we're meeting wednesdays at 11 if anyone wants to join
… we have a collection of outcomes that are all related
… comparable effort, consistent interaction, keyboard only, keyboard trap
… we mapped user needs to each outcome
… lots of overlap for each
… the next meetings will be focusing on methods and decision trees
… we have a good one for keyboard command one, rename to custom keyboard command, and we decided on the last call to avoid defining content
… I'll add a link to our google doc
<bruce_bailey> https://
<Zakim> Makoto, you wanted to discuss implied meaning
<Makoto> Latest draft of "Implied meaning"
Makoto: I am taking over while Julie is on vacation
… discussing and documenting two methods
… we'll do the decision tree once those are documented
… discussion has been good so far
… if anyone else has anything to share, please go ahead
<Zakim> dj, you wanted to talk about haptic stimulation
GreggVan: Bruce, what was the name and time?
bruce_bailey: Keyboard, wednesday 11am boston time
GreggVan: Do you have the link?
bruce_bailey: It's in the google doc
<dj> https://
dj: We don't yet have a time for the meeting, but I'll share how things have gone so far.
… it's been productive, but once we have something scheduled we'll have some progress.
alastairc: I think that is everything, outside of publications
kevin: We are close to having a final presentation on the options, we're nearly there.
alastairc: We'll pencil it in for a future agenda.
… trying to get these wrapped up before TPAC
… have outcomes, decision tree, methods, and hopefully some content ready for publication by end of year
bruce_bailey: Apologies, I was mistaken about having zoom links in the google doc, I'll post them here
WCAG 3 Requirements updates
alastairc: Next topic is WCAG 3 Requirements updates
… this went around last week
… going to give an introduction for anyone who missed it
<kirkwood> presemt+
alastairc: going to talk it throguh
[shares screen]
… first file we shared is a diff of what has changed in this revision
… mostly editorial changes, I would start from the introduction
GreggVan: Question, you said mostly editorial, but there's a big section crossed out
alastairc: We removed some old boilerplate stuff
… we had one issue about the testability of the requirements
… we had a subgroup working on it
… we have come up with some updates to the design principles
… we had one as a principle not a requirement, to include links to instructional videos and content
… we will link to these things but we're not necessarily doing work on those things
… changes to requirements to make them more objective
… the requirements become the exit criteria when WCAG 3 is published
… some of them were a little fuzzy, we've tried to make them more criteria
… [reads example]
… familiar to people in subgroups
… it is an update when its all bundled together, we'll need a call for consensus
<GreggVan> can you provide a link to the page you are looking at
alastairc: these are all essentially things that are addressing issues raised by people
<alastairc> w3c/
alastairc: links to everything are in the pull request
alastairc: If everyone is happy, please give it a thumbs up in GitHub, or provide comment
… we'll leave it open for a week
… I was expecting more comments
… going to move on to the WCAG 2 bits
… please review and comment now, it helps the process a lot
GreggVan: In here when you say that "include multiple means of measurement" does that mean different ways to measure that give different results?
… how can it be objective and give different results?
… how do you know which one is correct?
… or one process for measurement?
alastairc: In an outcome, everything would be summarized into a pass/fail
… but in this, we could have different measures within it
… particularly with assertions
… it might need to meet a threshold
<Rachael> and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false success criteria, verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring
GreggVan: I've figured out what I wanted to say, I'll add a comment
Rachael: I found a nit, I think we need to adjust the text
… pasted what I wanted above
<Chuck> +1
Rachael: don't want to trap ourselves in a measurement method.
Documenting "Good Enough" for defaults
kirkwood: A question, I see a reference to plain language here
… linking to a definition page
… do we have consensus on using the US gov definition of plain language?
<kirkwood> https://
alastairc: In requirements for WCAG 3, whatever the WCAG 3 requirement for plain language is, it will be applied to WCAG 3
… make it circular
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: Moving to discussion 109, link in chat
… i wanted to talk through it
… take a step back, we're trying to do things this way so everyone has an opportunity to review and comment
… following on a previous conversation, how would we document Sufficient
… suggested methods for user stack
… browsers, AT, etc, only suggested, but when met, authors would not need to do additional work to meet the outcome
… right now in WCAG 2 we've done it implicitly, but never pulled out exactly when the stack is sufficient
… because we are building a standard that is meant to live a long time in a time when tech is changing rapidly, we need something new tech can look at for guidance
… we need to support the stack and the author
… if we proceed in that direction, we need to document what is sufficient
… comments got a little sidetracked on what is included in each, the question is "if I am an author, how do I know when in WCAG 3 the user stack is provided the functionality?"
… I provided one example. the AT interoperability done by ARIA
… we could model ourselves on that
… and provide some additional rules on that
… free, near free, provided in the operating system
… tables where people could reference where they could rely on the user stack
… or if this isn't something W3C/WAI shouldn't do, all up for discussion
… please contribute!
<bruce_bailey> FWIW, information about federal Plain Writing Act which John Kirkwood referred to. https://
alastairc: It's not meant to be a complete list, the "internet pipes" are a dividing line
… how do we know what would be enough for an author to rely on the stack
… any questions?
<alastairc> https://
<GreggVan> "Mulitple means of measurement" sounds like two ways to measure the same thing. Suggest the following change to fix this but preserve the intended meaning. (Note: assertions are also true/false - there is or isnt an assertion so I changed true/false to "true/false performance or outcome" to make it clear.
<GreggVan> change
<GreggVan> >WCAG 3.0 can include **_multiple_** means of measurement, in addition to true/false statements, allowing inclusion of more accessibility guidance.
<GreggVan> to
<GreggVan> >WCAG 3.0 can include guidance (provisions) that use **different** means of evaluation beyond just true/false performance or outcome statements, allowing the inclusion of more accessibility guidance.
GreggVan: Wanted to share this, get input from the group. This is what I wanted to add to the PR.
… [reading what is pasted above]
… didn't want to trip up anything regarding the use of the word outcome
… assertions are still a true/false test
… I wanted to have eyes on this before it goes in
alastairc: For everyone else, this goes back to the WCAG 3 requirements
… can you put this in GH?
GreggVan: Already done! Just wanted more eyes on it
<Chuck> +1 looks good to me at first viewing, may have more comments in the discussion.
alastairc: Switching context back to sufficient coverage
… going to move on to the WCAG 2 updates
… last agenda item
WCAG 2.2 issue review
alastairc: Michael Gower sent around the issue review
… we had a couple of substantive items
… update to the character keys shortcuts understanding
… focus for this was to clarify "character keys" and not what keys are being pressed at the same time
… clarifying that it's what is sending through a character
<alastairc> w3c/
alastairc: it's more substantive in that it is changing the understanding document
… please give a thumbs up or comment!
… one of the other substantive one, G65 for breadcrumb trail
<alastairc> w3c/
alastairc: it needed to acknowledge that the current location could be a hyperlink, but isn't mentioned currently
… please thumbsup or comment
… the other one with less discussion
… F94, the test procedure talked about text resized to 200% vs the language saying "up to" 200%, bringing the text into alignment
… encourage people to test to at least 200%
<alastairc> https://
alastairc: the test procedure needs to be closer aligned to the success criteria
… there were a few others, mostly bug fixes
… please take a look
<bruce_bailey> Please thumbs up on 3986 if you are comfortable with it.
alastairc: any questions or comments on the WCAG2 side of things?
alastairc: Rachael, can we look at the project plan?
Rachael: Yes!
WCAG 3 project plan
[sharing new screen]
Rachael: Wanted to talk about where we are and the new schedule
… we've stuck to it
<alastairc> https://
Rachael: where are we now?
… We have gotten to Q32024, we have started the items in Q2's list, we haven't written a list of assertions, we need to continue that conversation
… we have worked through the contributors format for WCAG3 and will be updated
… moving into Q3, we want to have a retrospective at TPAC
… people back in Jan/Feb, people were wondering what we were doign
… it was hard to tell then how our pace was
… we want to do retros every 6 months, assess how we are doing speed-wise
… that is on the schedule for Q3
<Chuck> +1 on sending additional information
Rachael: we have 2 publications we would like to get out
… suspect we will slip into Q4
… we want to update the conformance section with 2 models
… prepped, working on a test website set to show testable examples
… bring that together at TPAC and talk through how well the different models work
… we want to put an explainer including a best guess on our release plan
… publications sup group will report on that
… we will see all the pieces come together.
… goal for the month after TPAC
… still working through the Core Issues
… retro is where we can discuss process on that
… as we move into the end of the year
… more outcomes, discussion of core issues, and review and address public comments.
… does anyone feel we're missing anything or have any comments?
alastairc: Looks like we're pretty much on track, it's a relief!
… if people don't have questions, I'd like to catch up some time with my subgroup
… perhaps we can split into subgroups at this point?
<alastairc> non-text contrast
[putting together breakout rooms]
alastairc: Who else would like to meet? We have non-text contrast, keyboard only
<alastairc> Keyboard Only
<alastairc> Haptic
dj: Haptics?
<Rachael> Section labels
<Rachael> Implied Meaning is the last one I believe
bruce_bailey: How much are we web-oriented still?
Rachael: Anything about platforms won't be required.
Detlev: Is it intended to be browser-specific, or should the decision tree focus on a particular platform.
RRSAgent make minutes