AGWG Teleconference -- 17 Sep 2024

<scribe> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

Introductions

Sub group check-in

AlastairC: Subgroup check in. Looking on progress updates.

Section Labels: Giacomo ?

Giacomo: I defer to go last.

AlastairC: Haptic stimulation?

MikeG: Not been part of call since last update. DJ has been updating notes on status each meeting.

<mbgower> DJ has been adding good status info at the bottom of the Haptic Stimulation scratchpad https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U5DbLdJIyuIJLdLMhn1F_A0NT_D_qe4MO49F_fJ_fEA/edit?usp=sharing

AlastairC: Nontext contrast. TPAC prep is first. We are working on methods and decision tree.
... Keyboard only?

<mbgower> It looks like there has not been an update for Haptic since our last AGWG call.

Detlev: We were working on decision tree on keyboard only. We were talking about keyboard vs. keyboard trap testing. Screen reader impact of keyboard only? Screen reader on and off?

Reference document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uE2WCxPmvNopdCbuZQm_-cGyEdxEouRmZ8UUIlyutoU

AlastairC: Implied meaning sub group?

JulieR: Last week's AG meeting , we were concentrating on what humans can do. Next meetings will look at what tools can do. Thanks to MikeG and others who worked with us.

Giacomo: On headings subgroup. Proposed order of content outcome . Asynchronously we built out methods. Talked to landmarks and regions.
... approached from abstract and high level. Decision tree becoming more complete. Testing decision tree will come next. Will adjust the tree and methods as needed.

Alastairc: To DJ , do you want to speak on your progress?

<julierawe> preent+

DJ: We finished up the doc, we have the methods and decision tree done. We are researching on harm based threshold. Doesn't seem to be. Safety seems to be covered under what we have defined.

Focus appearance and Text alternatives

AlastairC: shares screen and talks to PR

PR 112

If you've had a look at it, thumbs up or down or looking would be appreciated. Linked through to preview version as well. Would like to know if we are heading in right direction.

<kirkwood> can we have a link to the place to comment?

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112

<kirkwood> perfect

text alternatives is also in preview mode.

any comments on structure or content is welcome. PR has been open for a few weeks.

does anyone have questions or comments?

JulieR: Are you looking for feedback on wording and formatting? I.e. red numbers and a and b's ?

AlastairC: yes, general comments welcome. Wouldn't comment on what is not there.

Would like to merge after TPAC if possible.

Accessibility Supported PR Introduction

Accessibility Supported PR 114 is open

We discussed approach previously.

replaces section placeholder with exploratory comment.

editor's note showcases what we intend.

https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/114

scribe: exceptions may be used. Once editor's note ends, author responsibility would be defined. Baseline conformance is mentioned.

defining accessibility support set is mentioned, as well as methods and techniques at enhanced level.

Graham: Accessibility set is broad, do we want to define that further? Browser and User agent combos list?

AlastairC: Please put in the comment in the PR, we will look in to where we'd place that , either normative or non normative in supporting documentation.

Please review the PR and comment within the next couple of weeks.

WCAG 3 Explainer Introduction

AlastairC: hands off to Rachael on WCAG 3 Explainer.

Rachael: Talks to Google Doc WCAG 3 Explainer

<alastairc> Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWyhQRNdiz3-m5j5kVur8CrYVni5_Gihn6aKCmyukEo/edit#heading=h.6wqltfj7xhk0

Rachael: this document is a combination of different sources.

terminology is defined here and we can use this as a place to talk to it and update if necessary.

<alastairc> "WAI intro" https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/

target audience - we have WCAG 3 , concentrated on a variety of roles, technical in nature. We have a WAI intro for high level . Explainer is in depth.

intended to be a complex document and explaining documents , please take from that perspective.

Needs to be published at same time as WCAG 3 is published.

Rachael talks to Goals section. CfC on requirements document will be coming out soon.

Goals from inclusion came out of Silver. References comments on this topic.

Editor's notes and out of scope sections , please take note. Haven't changed much since we started.

Background and development history , is how we got where we are.

Current process , we are talking about iterative process and marking up document based on where we are on certain areas of effort. Please feel free to add in comments in this section.

WCAG 3 Structure , how we use terms vs. how we originally talked about this. Decision tree around outcomes that talk to methods.

Focus appearance - guideline , then we have decision tree , focus should x, y, z. Those are more SCs those are outcomes that fall under that.

Guidelines , outcomes, methods are described.

Testing outcomes - quantifiable and qualitative tests are what we are using until we decide otherwise.

Example tests and test scope, talks to items, views .

Conditions relate to internationalization work and we will come back to this topic.

Conformance Models section , TPAC work that we will hopefully work and iterate on.

Schedule comes out of publication subgroup work.

Terminology definitions are listed, feel free to comment on these as well. Goal is to get ready for CfC

<alastairc> Doc to review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWyhQRNdiz3-m5j5kVur8CrYVni5_Gihn6aKCmyukEo/edit

<alastairc> Please track changes if you make changes.

Please track changes. We will bring back as PRs to update

DJ: Do we have a clear date on feedback by?

Rachael: In next week or so.

TPAC Retrospective Introduction

<alastairc> The 4 Ps - Positive, Poor, Potential, Progress

Chuck: AG will be participating in a retrospective , to improve the future of what we are doing. We will talk to positive, poor , potential and progress.
... looking to iterate and make positive changes. Want to look at processes and procedures.
... We want to review our approach and direction. Retrospective is the chance for us to challenge where we are heading.

<Rachael> Positive Work Environment https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/

Chuck: Once we get going, we'd have contributions. Please give it some thought ahead of time if you can. If critique , please phrase as something entire group could own and improve on.

<Glenda> what is the timeframe for the retrospective?

Chuck: I'll be saying this again at TPAC.

Rachael: We wanted to talk ahead of time so we could advance the topic and generate conversation.
... Retrospective is set for around 3 hours.
... We will look at model and then see what we can do to improve the model.

All of Tuesday will be on conformance.

Glenda: Was wondering what is timeframe on retrospective ? How far are we coming ? 6 months, a year?

<Chuck> +1 beginning of charter

Rachael: Beginning of charter here.
... More GitHub and async work.

<alastairc> ack +

Rachael: doing retrospective on prior, that would be beneficial.

Chuck: I will add to my notes on that framing.
... This is our first. This would repeat. Our intention would be to repeat this, say at CSUN. Then we compare benefits on what we've achieved.

Gregg: Discussion at TPAC? Then we aren't going to bring up again? Did I misunderstand the brining back to full group?

Chuck: The event itself is constrained.

Gregg: The conformance plan, not the retro.

Rachael: We will write it up and will share on GitHub. We will bring it to October meeting. Hope is to have at a place for CfC. We aren't trying to bypass the process.
... Please do engage if you can.

Gregg: How do I register?

<Rachael> Here is the link https://www.w3.org/2024/09/TPAC/registration.html

You'd want to make sure you register when open again, on 9/23 at moment.

JulieR: On waiver , what do we have to do on waiving the fee? Do we have to waive free?

Rachael: Send the waiver email first, then have that code.

Gregg: Seems like a headcount metric on how many were showing.

Rachael: Feedback would be to keep remote open a bit more next year.

WCAG 2.2 updates

AlastairC: On WCAG 2 issues, there are a couple of items

pre-CfC errata on 2.1 and 2.2 . Wilco did reply on a couple of items.

<GreggVan> can someone confirm the date and times (including time zone) of those dicussions just mentioned for TPAC

WCAG 2.x project GitHub is shared onscreen. Pull 3536

conversation was around pointer gestures vs. pointer input. Mixed up input method with gestures. Wasn't the intent.

Comment on pre-CfC is around Wilco's comment last week.

phrasing around "at a time" was what Wilco was mentioning as wording issues.

Input mechanism text was proposed by Patrick. PR 4070 also highlights this phrasing.

question today is, is this sufficient ?

scribe: we will ping Wilco. Are there any other comments here on this call?

<mbgower> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Detlev> +1

AlastairC: We will incorporate this in to the CfC process and get feedback from Wilco as well.

PR 3038 is the next item, editorial suggestions. Which are linked vs. which are not. The question was around the definition of "text". Images of text SC vs. text.

Wilco, John A. and Dan B. all had comments within the PR. Is the term changed if the term is linked vs. not linked?

This is around whether linking to definition makes a difference. We could resolve this in WCAG3 too. For WCAG 2.x , we may update what people are calling out in this thread in PR 3038

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we need a scribe change

AlastairC: Does anyone have any comments on this topic?

some examples are images of text, 1.4.5 images of text SC.

MikeG: I'm going through these. Approach is existing normative text has existed for many years now. Could you open the file change document?

AlastairC: Shows file text change in PR.

MikeG: ultimately you end up with same situation. If image of text, you'd have to use an alternative to text. Mentions comment on PR that talks to this in detail on issue 5 minutes ago. Not sure what gain is if changing. Can be changed but not sure what improvement is.
... Image of text itself, the existing is linked, then isn't. If it didn't have the text as linked in the first paragraph, then it wouldn't make sense regarding the programatically determinable part of phrasing.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3038/

AlastairC: Please place comments in the PR itself if you have them.
... On substantive list, do you have that MikeG?

MikeG: There is a PR 4040 , which changes definition . We do bring that through a full CfC process.

PR 4021 also marked substantive, as it may be reinterpreted per what we are updating. Added a note on expectation, highlights line 52 on the file diff.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4021

AlastairC: Please review email Mike sent to the list and make comments on PR 4021 if you'd like to comment.
... We are trying to get this ready for October for CfC. Thanks

<GreggVan> say present+

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

17 Sep 2024

Attendees

Contents