00:00:53 <maryjom> rain: interesting discussions with different thoughts on how visual disabilities were affected by glass collection - perceived as not blocking. However, went with a lower score.
00:01:13 <maryjom> glenda: When there was disagreement, did you change your personal score but allow the group score to be different?
00:01:49 <maryjom> rain: Some we did change scores and aligned, and some we kept our individual score but agreed on a different combined score.
00:02:53 <maryjom> juanita: When you're a person working alone you might have a different perspective but as a group we benefited from hearing other's score and supporting thoughs. Makes me a better evaluator.
00:03:30 <maryjom> Rachael: Home page, search, and sign-in
00:03:44 <maryjom> Jan Jap: Reads out scores from spreadsheet
00:04:44 <maryjom> Rachael: What problems did you find
00:05:42 <maryjom> Jan Jap: Lots of keyboard navigation issues, carousel had no play, pause hide and the video
00:06:12 <maryjom> patrick: Sometimes quite difficult for specific success criteria to determine with a group of experts whether it is pass/fail
00:06:23 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
00:06:27 <JenStrickland> present+
00:06:41 <maryjom> ...depending on how someone judges good/bad granular scores caused greater variation.
00:06:50 <jaunita_george> q+
00:07:41 <Chuck> ack jau
00:07:46 <Glenda> q+
00:07:57 <maryjom> ... it was ambitious to give us 6 pages to assess. Qualitative gives more differences in how you're judging the score.
00:08:03 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
00:08:20 <alastairc> q+
00:08:22 <Chuck> ack Glenda
00:08:23 <maryjom> juanita Whose opinion do you believe. One person's opinion is different from another - this creates a moving target.
00:08:30 <alastairc> Q+ to say this isn't the proposed WCAG 3 methodology!
00:09:08 <Rain> q+
00:09:27 <maryjom> glenda: we have an issue description library which helps with judging. If we had this type of list, it would help people to judge a web page better.
00:10:04 <Chuck> ack Ben
00:10:06 <maryjom> ... was still using a WCAG perspective on testing. Each issue should have a tie-back to disability
00:11:10 <Chuck> ack ala
00:11:10 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say this isn't the proposed WCAG 3 methodology!
00:11:16 <maryjom> ben: It was difficult to not think about WCAG2 when assessing.  Some things weren't technically covered by WCAG, such as spaces between letters, mixing of fonts.
00:12:03 <Chuck> ack rain
00:12:07 <cyns> cyns has joined #ag
00:12:10 <maryjom> alistair: This is a gut check to test whether we can recognize problems that may not already be covered in WCAG.
00:12:54 <maryjom> rain: rating scales themselves are difficult for some cognitive disabilities, such as dyslexia.
00:13:10 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
00:13:17 <tburtin> +1 Rain
00:13:56 <maryjom> rain: To echo Ben, we were instructed to not use WCAG as the rubric, but it is sometimes hard to detach from that.
00:16:11 <maryjom> rachael: This exercise, though hard to do quickly, really did help us to understand what it feels like using a scale to rate websites and we'll take that feeling to tomorrow's exercise.
00:16:25 <maryjom> Glenda: we didn't get to the other pages
00:16:33 <Rachael> q
00:17:24 <maryjom> Julie: Read out scores for the blog.  Some control should be given for video.
00:18:03 <maryjom> ... intersectional - the page had confusing navigation, especially with zooming pictures
00:18:17 <maryjom> ... physical - unexpected extra tabbing
00:18:42 <maryjom> ... cognitive - confusing to understand where you were. Quite a few cognitive things
00:19:21 <maryjom> ... sensory - uncontrollable zooming.  Discussion on how bad was the uncontrollable zooming.
00:19:55 <maryjom> ... one error message said "congratulations" was confusing
00:20:38 <maryjom> juanita: For speech disability - didn't know if it was voice control/voice input or for a speech disability
00:20:55 <maryjom> Others indicated they also had that confusion.
00:21:12 <maryjom> rachael: Sports page
00:21:27 <maryjom> lori: This was a small page, not too bad, not the worst.
00:21:53 <maryjom> ... focus disappeared sometimes. Focus was there (most of the time)
00:22:05 <maryjom> ... no auditory content - N/A
00:22:19 <maryjom> ... keyboard functions worked ok, not too bad
00:22:36 <maryjom> ...cognitive - you could get lost sometimes when the focus disappeared
00:23:07 <maryjom> ... screen reader - repetitive speaking was annoying, but information was there so not too bad.
00:23:23 <maryjom> ... speech - N/A didn't find any speech input on the page
00:23:43 <maryjom> ...overall this page was scored a 3
00:25:07 <maryjom> ... There are a couple of sub-pages where you can favorite an image. Color contrast was bad. When you clicked on the heart, there was a pop-up and it wasn't well understood what "undo" or "dismiss" would do.
00:25:17 <maryjom> ... Couldn't get the dialog box to reappear.
00:25:36 <maryjom> Julie The dialog would also disappear quickly.
00:27:36 <maryjom> alistair - Volunteer page was not good. We weren't able to figure out how to judge intersectional - combined score from other disabilities to fill that one.
00:28:00 <maryjom> ...sensory some said best and some said worst - not sure why. didn't get
00:28:13 <maryjom> ... Technology we didn't have enough time on
00:28:42 <maryjom> ... Reads through the scores on that page from the spreadsheet
00:29:07 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
00:29:16 <maryjom> rachael We'll pick up on this more tomorrow.
00:29:18 <Chuck> ack ben
00:29:34 <alastairc> q+ to mention that under a WCAG 2 conformance model, all the overall scores would be 6.
00:30:14 <tburtin> q+
00:30:45 <maryjom> ben: Things I didn't consider: 1) If the page was bad for everyone I gave it a score of 1 in my head - because it was bad for everyone. 2) Didn't consider the reason why people would be going to the page - and gave as much time in links in the header and footer as the links to go to the page.
00:31:07 <Chuck> ack ala
00:31:07 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to mention that under a WCAG 2 conformance model, all the overall scores would be 6.
00:31:13 <maryjom> ... Next time would think about the user journey and what would be main path vs. more obscure and judge based on that
00:31:21 <Chuck> ack tbur
00:31:38 <maryjom> alistair under a WCAG 2 conformance model, all the overall scores would be 6.
00:31:55 <alastairc> s/alistair/alastair:
00:32:19 <maryjom> tiffany: had difficulty with the categories, and think category definitions would be helpful.
00:32:34 <JenStrickland> Thank you, tburtin! Great insights!
00:33:02 <maryjom> Rachael: Thanks everyone for their work on this and working through the difficulties in making these quick assessments.
00:33:22 <maryjom> ... We'll use what we learned today in our conformance model discussion tomorrow.
00:35:56 <Chuck> zakim, make minutes
00:35:56 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', Chuck
00:36:12 <alastairc> RRSAgent, make minutes
00:36:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html alastairc
00:36:48 <maryjom> present+
00:36:56 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
00:36:56 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ljoakley, Rachael, Chuck, dj, kirkwood, Lisa, bruce_bailey, Makoto, jeanne, alastairc, ChrisLoiselle, Chrisp, kenneth, hdv, maryjom,
00:36:59 <Zakim> ... Glenda, GreggVan, JenStrickland, LenB, rashmi, tburtin, MelanieP, Ben_Tillyer, jon_avila, jaunita_george, JJ, Jackie, shadi, fbedora, Francis_Storr, Jeroen-Hulscher, Rain,
00:36:59 <Zakim> ... julierawe, Patrick_H_Lauke, Rachel_Yager, jeroen
00:36:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1
00:37:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html Zakim
00:37:06 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
00:37:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
00:37:08 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
00:37:08 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
14:01:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:01:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-irc
14:01:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:01:48 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:01:52 <Chuck> chair:  Rachael
14:02:05 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2024-09-24
14:02:17 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:02:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:04:39 <Chuck> agenda+ 9:00-9:15 Getting Started
14:04:51 <Chuck> agenda+ 9:15-10:20 Conformance Exercise Wrap Up
14:05:00 <Chuck> agenda+ 10:45-12:20 Conformance Model Discussion Part 1
14:05:09 <Chuck> agenda+ 12:20-1:30 (13:30) Lunch
14:05:20 <Chuck> agenda+ 1:30 (13:30)-4:00 (16:00) Conformance Model Discussion Part 2
14:05:34 <Chuck> agenda+ 4:00 (16:15)-4:30 (16:30) Snacks
14:06:13 <Chuck> agenda+ 4:30 (16:30)-5:15 (17:15) Next Steps
14:06:26 <Chuck> agenda+ 6:00 Dinner at the Cheesecake Factory’s Patio?
14:18:04 <dj> dj has joined #ag
14:26:20 <ljoakley> ljoakley has joined #ag
14:47:54 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
14:49:20 <Chuck> agenda?
14:55:06 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:58:38 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:02:04 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
15:07:51 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:25:40 <Chuck> agenda+ 10:20-10:45 Snacks
15:25:44 <Chuck> agenda?
15:26:08 <Chuck> zakim, order 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8
15:26:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'order 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8', Chuck
15:26:10 <Chuck> agenda?
15:26:29 <Chuck> order didn't work
15:26:43 <Chuck> zakim, reorder 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8
15:26:43 <Zakim> I don't understand 'reorder 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8', Chuck
15:27:39 <alastairc> zakim, order 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8
15:27:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'order 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8', alastairc
15:28:12 <alastairc> zakim, order is 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8
15:28:12 <Zakim> sorry, alastairc, I do not recognize a party named 'order'
15:28:29 <alastairc> zakim,  agenda order is 1,2,9,3,4,5,6,7,8
15:28:29 <Zakim> ok, alastairc
15:28:36 <Chuck> agenda?
15:29:05 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
15:33:07 <kevin> clear agenda
15:33:09 <kevin> agenda+ 9:00-9:15 Getting Started
15:33:09 <kevin> agenda+ 9:15-10:20 Conformance Exercise Wrap Up
15:33:09 <kevin> agenda+ 10:20-10:45 Snacks
15:33:09 <kevin> agenda+ 10:45-12:20 Conformance Model Discussion Part 1
15:33:10 <kevin> agenda+ 12:20-1:30 (13:30) Lunch
15:33:10 <kevin> agenda+ 1:30 (13:30)-4:00 (16:00) Conformance Model Discussion Part 2
15:33:10 <kevin> agenda+ 4:00 (16:15)-4:30 (16:30) Snacks
15:33:11 <kevin> agenda+ 4:30 (16:30)-5:15 (17:15) Next Steps
15:33:11 <kevin> agenda+ 6:00 Dinner at the Cheesecake Factory’s Patio?
15:33:13 <kevin> agenda?
15:35:04 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:50:02 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:50:38 <Makoto> present+
15:51:48 <Chuck> present+
15:53:42 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:57:57 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #ag
16:00:16 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:00:28 <Glenda> present+
16:00:37 <dj> dj has joined #ag
16:00:38 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
16:00:40 <dj> present+
16:00:42 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:00:52 <kevin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:00:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html kevin
16:01:07 <kevin> present+
16:01:14 <Chuck> We will begin in a few minutes
16:01:22 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #AG
16:01:24 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:01:28 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:02:37 <JackieFei> JackieFei has joined #ag
16:02:38 <alastairc> Present+
16:03:22 <kirkwood> present+
16:03:37 <kenneth> present+
16:03:54 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:03:56 <Justine> Justine has joined #ag
16:04:24 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #ag
16:05:01 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
16:05:06 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:05:09 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
16:05:25 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:05:39 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:05:56 <Jennie_Delisi> * Just got booted from IRC and re logged in, so probably not the best scribe today
16:06:05 <tburtin> tburtin has joined #ag
16:06:08 <kenneth> scribe+
16:06:11 <tburtin> present+
16:07:11 <kenneth> Chuck: Welcome to Tuesday. Let's talk about yesterday's events. Shortly after yesterday's event one of the chairs did test positive for COVID, we discussed approach and decided that in an abundance of caution, the chairs will present remotely
16:07:26 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
16:07:31 <MJ> present+
16:08:10 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:08:14 <julierawe> present+
16:08:39 <Rachael> q+
16:08:56 <Sheri_B-H> Sheri_B-H has joined #ag
16:08:56 <Jon_avila> Jon_avila has joined #ag
16:08:56 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:08:57 <kenneth> ... Room layout is still mostly the same. Everyone else involved has tested negative. Queueing will need to be more predominantly via IRC
16:09:00 <Sheri_B-H> present+
16:09:25 <alastairc> Just a reminder that any whispering in the room comes across very clearly to the remote participants, we hear you!
16:09:31 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
16:09:37 <kenneth> Rachael: Clarifying, the chairs have already spent a couple of days together, which is why they're considering themselves higher-risk and exercising caution
16:09:43 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:09:46 <maryjom> present+
16:10:20 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
16:10:57 <kenneth> Chuck: Chairs will still come down for snacks/lunch; Rachael and Chuck will not be attending dinner
16:11:02 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
16:11:05 <maryjom> +1. what time is it planned for?
16:11:06 <Glenda> +1
16:11:07 <dj> 0
16:11:11 <kevin> +1
16:11:12 <kenneth> ... call for +1s for who still wishes to attend dinner
16:11:15 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
16:11:16 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag
16:11:17 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:11:19 <JJ> present+
16:11:21 <JJ> +1
16:11:22 <Justine> present+
16:11:22 <MelanieP> +1 for dinner
16:11:27 <Frankie> present+
16:11:28 <MelanieP> present+
16:11:48 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+
16:11:54 <alastairc> present+
16:11:58 <dj> i need to figure out transport to the airport afterwards, but assuming i can +1
16:12:00 <Rachael> present+
16:12:01 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
16:12:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html alastairc
16:12:13 <kenneth> ... will still go to reserve some space but reduce from original expectation
16:12:22 <alastairc> scribe: maryjom
16:12:35 <alastairc> scribe: kenneth
16:13:03 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
16:13:06 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #ag
16:13:09 <JenStrickland> present+
16:13:10 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:13:17 <JenStrickland> +1 for dinner tonight -- finally got in.
16:13:19 <kenneth> Rachael: Starting with some takeaways from yesterday's conformance exercise
16:13:20 <Rachael> slide deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_112
16:13:20 <Lisa> present+
16:13:28 <Lisa> (morning only)
16:14:07 <kenneth> ... One thing that we got out of the notes is that accessibility across all aspects differs. Teams differed as to how they scored, e.g. severity of error to most affected group, location of error
16:14:11 <MJ8> MJ8 has joined #ag
16:14:29 <kenneth> ... the more subjective the exercise, the more variable evaluation seemed to be
16:14:32 <MJ2> MJ2 has joined #ag
16:15:19 <Jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:15:25 <kenneth> ... questions: do percentages matter, how to handle "N/A", focus of core document in WCAG 3
16:15:28 <shawn> shawn has joined #ag
16:15:29 <Sheri_B-H> q+
16:15:36 <Chuck> ack Sheri
16:15:39 <Chrisp> Chrisp has joined #AG
16:15:46 <kenneth> Sheri: I thought the categories weren't granular enough
16:16:02 <kenneth> ... questioning use of "Intersectional" - once you start multiplying, the numbers get too large
16:16:31 <Glenda> q+
16:16:40 <Chuck> ack Glenda
16:16:42 <kenneth> ... need super-clear instructions on what constitutes "worst" / "best"; groups seemed to look at it differently, and it's important to apply the same criteria the same way
16:17:06 <Chuck> q?
16:17:09 <kenneth> Glenda: Reinforcing what Sheri said RE description of best-worst; suggest clearer rating scales
16:17:14 <Lisa> sorry that I missed the afternoon meeting yesterday. but what was the conformance  exerersize?
16:17:17 <kevin> q+
16:17:18 <julierawe> q+
16:17:18 <JenStrickland> q+
16:17:27 <Chuck> ack Julie
16:17:59 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:18:03 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
16:18:05 <kenneth> julierawe: Echoing comments: found intersectional the most challenging, felt like I was guessing and could make an argument that any time you noted a concern under any other column (or 2 coilumns) then does it factor into Intersectional?
16:18:19 <tburtin> q+
16:18:28 <kenneth> Kevin: Ratings scale and groupings were really to get people to start thinking about these things, not like we're actually going to go down that route
16:18:30 <Chuck> ack jens
16:18:44 <shawn> present+ Shawn(part)
16:18:56 <Laura_Carlson> Laura_Carlson has joined #ag
16:19:26 <Ben_Tillyer> @Lisa - check out https://w3c.github.io/wai-conformance-model-test/ and slides 12 onwards on https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g30416ca9379_0_25
16:19:29 <kenneth> JenStrickland: Julie hit on some of what I was going to jump in about - intersectional is great to include to get people to think about it, but including some instruction about it would be helpful, and make sure it notes not only disabilities but other identity characteristics that affect equity of access
16:19:41 <kenneth> ... would be helpful to have a column for comments for each row for people to leave notes
16:19:41 <Chuck> ack tb
16:20:20 <kenneth> tburtin: I really appreciated the Intersectionality because it made me feel included. e.g. I use dark mode, screen readers, font changes, zoom, all at the same time.
16:20:24 <Lisa> q+
16:20:31 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:21:48 <kenneth> Lisa: I wasn't here yesterday afternoon; I feel like intersectionality is necessary to include for it to be meaningful to think about inclusion. e.g. diabetes can cause more than one disability, and often solutions no longer work when dealing with more than one disability at once
16:21:51 <Patrick_H_Lauke> not going to lie, i do worry about an author or auditor being able to account for the huge potential range of factors once we factor in intersectionality
16:22:09 <Jon_avila> Some groups of conflicting needs - something that benefits one group may be problematic for another.
16:22:31 <Chuck> q?
16:22:32 <jeanne> Pat, I think it doesn't become fully practical until we get better authoring tool and browser support
16:22:38 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:22:45 <julierawe> q+
16:22:45 <Chuck> ack Ben
16:22:51 <kenneth> ... It's fine to do things in steps but we haven't necessarily tackled the full space until we tackle intersectionality. Having multiple disabilities e.g. related to aging or diabetes is common
16:23:24 <kenneth> Ben: Although the solutions might not be suitable to people with intersectional disabilities, do you think that there are new problems caused by intersectional disabilities that auditors haven't come across?
16:24:18 <kenneth> Lisa: Yes I do. e.g. in COGA there are a lot of things to do with pronunciation of screen readers, e.g. if numbers are read in a long list, it won't make sense to someone with problems with short-term memory problems, whereas someone who was blind from birth may not have any problem with the same thing
16:24:21 <Jon_avila> One example is being having low vision and being hard of hearing - there are unique needs for display of captions.
16:24:29 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
16:24:37 <fbedora> fbedora has joined #ag
16:25:02 <Charli> Charli has joined #ag
16:25:09 <jeanne2> jeanne2 has joined #ag
16:25:10 <kenneth> ... there's a lot of nuance in where you put commas in between numbers, which can make a big difference. Someone may use text-to-speech from a browser add-on. There are many different things; ideally we should look at all disabilities and also across all combinations. Currently we look at each in subgroups
16:25:25 <Sheri_B-H> q+
16:25:27 <Chuck> ack julie
16:26:18 <Chuck> ack Sheri
16:26:19 <kenneth> julierawe: I think it is important to think about these intersections - I just didn't know how, and felt like I was guessing. Felt like I needed more guidance. Hoping that's something we can clarify to help everyone think about it
16:26:34 <kirkwood> +1 to Julie
16:26:39 <kirkwood> +1 to Julie
16:26:56 <kevin> +1 to Sheri
16:27:04 <julierawe> q+
16:27:07 <kenneth> Sheri: As others alluded to, there's definitely some key intersections where we know that things are different, e.g. deaf/blind being common. I think we need to focus on assistive tech use and not diagnoses, since even within a single diagnosis there can be significant differences
16:27:09 <JenStrickland> q+
16:27:10 <Chuck> ack julie
16:27:15 <Lisa> Q+
16:27:24 <Lisa> +1 to julie
16:27:25 <Sheri_B-H> q+
16:27:30 <Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Julie
16:27:44 <jeanne3> jeanne3 has joined #ag
16:27:46 <kenneth> julierawe: If we just look at AT use, we may be missing folks that don't rely on AT. There can be issues even notwithstanding AT use, e.g. confusing layout
16:27:46 <Jon_avila> Most of the access features I use are not assistive technology - or at least I don't consider them assistive technology.
16:27:51 <shawn> WAI uses  "assistive technology and adaptive strategies"
16:27:55 <Chuck> ack Jen
16:28:19 <jeanne3> +1 to Sheri and Julie - avoid the medical model but include people that don't use AT
16:28:38 <shawn> qq+
16:29:12 <Chuck> ack shawn
16:29:12 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to react to JenStrickland
16:29:13 <kenneth> JenStrickland: Understanding of AT needs to be updated. e.g. I use a mobile browser to access the web in order to limit the amount of stuff coming at me. That can be considered AT. Need to dispel the still-too-prevalent illusion that "if you're not using a screen reader, you're not disabled"
16:29:16 <Sheri_B-H> q-
16:29:20 <tburtin> +1 to JenStrickland Choosing a mobile device over a computer to navigate. I do this too.
16:29:23 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:29:29 <kenneth> Shawn: Clarifying between assistive technologies and adaptive strategies
16:30:02 <Sheri_B-H> +1 to the WAI definition - that was what I was trying to say, but didn't know it had been defined that way
16:30:18 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:30:22 <shawn> s/Clarifying between assistive technologies and adaptive strategies/WAI resources use "assistive technologies and adaptive strategies" to cover these other things
16:30:54 <kenneth> Lisa: We use diagnoses sometimes to start looking in a direction, but then focus on the end result, e.g. impaired short term memory which could stem from one of multiple diagnoses. Diagnoses are not the way to go; function is. It's not all about AT.
16:30:57 <JenStrickland> q+ to bring up symptoms vs diagnosis
16:31:06 <shadi> present+
16:31:29 <kevin> +1 to Lisa's comment on considering functional needs
16:31:32 <kenneth> ... Let's say someone has an impaired short-term memory or a focus disability. They may be employing a variety of browser plugins; what's important to website authors is what not to do, in considering functional needs.
16:31:32 <Chuck> ack JenS
16:31:33 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
16:31:35 <Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to bring up symptoms vs diagnosis
16:31:55 <shadi> rrsagent, pointer?
16:31:55 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-irc#T16-31-55
16:32:34 <kirkwood> +1 to lisa: we should be concerned with “functional needs”
16:32:37 <kenneth> JenStrickland: I had meant to mention, we talk about symptoms rather than diagnoses because people have a range of symptoms that shape their unique experience. Aligning to symptoms may be more helpful/inclusive.
16:32:38 <kirkwood> +1 to lisa: we should be concerned with “functional needs”
16:32:49 <kirkwood> +1 to lisa: we should be concerned with “functional needs”
16:32:49 <Rachael> q+
16:33:06 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:33:11 <Frankie> +1 to Lisa & functional needs
16:33:14 <kenneth> ... I'm very thankful to Tiffany for sharing her experiences. I don't mean to dismiss anyone's identities
16:33:49 <kenneth> Rachael: This has been a really rich conversation that we should discuss in more detail in the future; if it's okay I'd like to move on and parking-lot it
16:33:50 <Jon_avila> Yes, I agree functional needs rather than disability is the way to go as people have different needs in different situations.
16:34:00 <chrisp> chrisp has joined #AG
16:34:07 <tburtin> I would be willing to be a part of that future conversation.
16:34:48 <kirkwood> can we have link to presentation?
16:34:50 <kenneth> ... Reorienting RE the models from yesterday: Baseline plus % based levels; vs. Prerequisite, Baseline, and % of enhanced
16:34:59 <Ben_Tillyer> @kirkwood https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_117
16:35:07 <kirkwood> can we have link to the presentation?
16:35:07 <kirkwood> can we have link to the presentation?
16:35:26 <Chuck> Thanks for providing links, I am limited to two screens, and cannot chase down content :-)
16:36:04 <Chuck> One sharing and one IRC.  I'm use to four screens to support my chairing.
16:36:07 <kenneth> ... editors group has shifted recently; is now chairs + Jeanne + Francis, thanks to everyone who has been / is / will be an editor
16:36:22 <fbedora> present+
16:36:40 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nenidaKR6JmqqlETwyIPRCR7x6atFOwNXUMMTFwGHxs/edit?gid=0#gid=0
16:36:47 <kenneth> ... want to emphasize that what we have is a first pass, it may be throwaway
16:36:58 <Sheri_B-H> Had to request access to the blank sheet, the other one was OK
16:37:28 <kenneth> ... encourage trying the exercise in this sheet out with a page
16:37:52 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
16:38:19 <kenneth> ... Sheet maps guidelines to outcome statements (multiple each)
16:38:49 <kenneth> ... we're not talking about how to divvy these up, that's a process that will take months, we're doing the first exploratory pass
16:39:31 <kenneth> ... each outcome has an assigned level of prerequisite, baseline, or enhanced
16:39:49 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1baN_u6f_yT4PGMMLhlsS8WbP19qGw-x6xLU2TRa0g7I/edit?gid=1565497356#gid=1565497356
16:39:50 <kenneth> ... mark each outcome as pass / fail / not applicable
16:40:17 <kenneth> ... once we did all of that we ran percentages and numbers against all of that
16:40:56 <kenneth> ... grouped 183 outcomes under 52 guidelines; worked out to 30 prereq / 86 baseline / 61 enhanced
16:41:18 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag
16:41:41 <Rachael> slide deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit?usp=sharing
16:41:44 <kevin> q+
16:41:47 <JenStrickland> Requested access
16:41:57 <Chuck> ack Kevin
16:42:02 <MelanieP> The "blank" spreadsheet is not shared
16:42:15 <rashmi> rashmi has joined #ag
16:42:17 <kenneth> Kevin: I have a sneaking suspicion that the blank spreadsheet is not in the W3C space, hence the requests for access
16:42:22 <Chuck> q?
16:42:53 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
16:43:07 <kenneth> Rachael: everyone should have access now
16:43:20 <Lisa> thank u
16:43:38 <kenneth> ... lessons learned:
16:43:42 <kenneth> ... Sometimes the prerequisite is the hardest outcome to meet, e.g. adjust color vs. meet color contrast
16:43:58 <cyns> cyns has joined #ag
16:44:07 <kenneth> ... Some outcomes have challenges to testing (e.g. AI Editable, how can you tell if it was AI-generated)
16:45:07 <kenneth> ... we have task-flow-based items; is reading/browsing the content a "task" or should a task be defined more narrowly e.g. requiring interaction?
16:45:14 <kenneth> ... decision was much easier to use than flat list from testing standpoint
16:45:17 <Lisa> task can be finding information like the email adress or address
16:45:27 <Chuck> q+
16:45:30 <alastairc> q+
16:45:30 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:45:41 <Glenda> What do you mean by, “We need to be clear which outcomes are cross-view?”
16:46:05 <Chuck> ack ala
16:46:10 <kenneth> Chuck: Regarding cross-view, conversation came up yesterday regarding making determinations across multiple web pages
16:46:51 <kenneth> Alastair: The reason the decision tree is useful is you don't need to cognitively understand as many definitions vs. a flat list, helps focus the testing exercise
16:46:55 <Lisa> q+
16:47:05 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:47:30 <alastairc> q+
16:47:47 <Glenda> +1 to what Lisa is saying about “finding info” is a task.  Which may fall into “browsing”.
16:47:49 <kenneth> Lisa: in COGA we've been considering e.g. finding pieces of information that someone might come to the site to look for as "tasks" (i.e. a user's objective in accessing the site)
16:47:56 <Chuck> ack ala
16:48:24 <Lisa> q+
16:48:59 <kenneth> Alastair: I understand what you mean, Lisa; when going through some of the outcomes that we've got that are related to tasks, there is sort of an underlying assumption that they are more complicated. Maybe "task" isn't the best word, but we need some kind of definition that separates e.g. browsing/navigation from following a particular process
16:49:01 <Chuck> ack Lisa
16:49:01 <kirkwood> interaction ?
16:49:22 <Rachael> q+
16:49:54 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:49:57 <kenneth> Lisa: Maybe "process" would be a good word for it? Going back to "task", navigating can be very relevant, e.g. can you get back to the home page, do people get lost? May be underestimating how much browsing/navigating _is_ part of the process
16:50:31 <Chuck> q?
16:50:34 <kenneth> Rachael: "task flow" was the verbage we originally agreed on; can discuss terminology more in depth in future
16:51:43 <kenneth> ... reviewing what breakout groups came up with for different surfaces on the Museum of Broken Things yesterday, vs. what the editors came up with against Outcomes
16:52:45 <kenneth> ... worth noting that we had 19 "I don't know"s for the Technology page
16:52:50 <Sheri_B-H> q+
16:53:28 <kenneth> ... as well as 73 Not Applicable for Technology page
16:53:35 <Chuck> I will process queue once Rachel finishes reviewing the slide
16:53:47 <Chuck> ack Sheri
16:53:50 <kenneth> throwing a direct link to the current slide in case anyone needs it (or in minutes) https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303cecb7e09_0_5
16:54:29 <kenneth> Sheri: We didn't have a good way of representing a single failure vs. things being terrible across the board, e.g. one missing heading level vs. problems spread throughout
16:54:49 <bruce_bailey> +1 to sheri that missing H1 very different than no headings (on a page that needs it)
16:55:33 <JenStrickland> agenda?
16:55:40 <Chuck> q?
16:55:40 <DJ> q+
16:55:44 <Chuck> ack dj
16:56:01 <alastairc> q+
16:56:02 <MJ> Link to the test page? I missed yesterday's session.
16:56:25 <Patrick_H_Lauke> "you can't use it" depends on who the "you" is though, which is the tricky part...
16:56:56 <kenneth> Rachael: Technology page did not pass level 1 on either model. Want to walk through this one example in detail to discuss the percentages
16:57:13 <JenStrickland> List of Breaks in Museum Website: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FIsjQbSftMYohHTno-2VkO2MCX6WDuIkvfMiNUL2ZgY/edit#heading=h.rzcer2wp9owp
16:57:27 <kenneth> ... percentages are given both for excluding and including N/A - as in, "including" counts N/A as passing
16:57:40 <Sheri_B-H> with a motion sensitivity warning for the home page of the test code
16:57:42 <Glenda> q+
16:58:01 <Jon_avila> Regarding not applicable - I think people should be rewarded for not doing certain things like not using flashing content or motion.  If we remove those then other factors have a higher weight.
16:58:05 <julierawe> q+
16:58:14 <Chuck> qq+ to ask for a scribe change
16:58:17 <Jennie_Delisi> q+
16:58:19 <Lisa> is there a link to the actual page
16:58:31 <DJ> q+ to include N/A - UDL
16:58:52 <Lisa> the websites being evaluated
16:59:16 <JenStrickland> Be forewarned that the links lead to dangerous pages:  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit?usp=sharing
16:59:28 <DJ> scribe+
16:59:32 <JenStrickland> The websites are listed on slide 21.
16:59:35 <Chuck> q?
16:59:38 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:59:38 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to DJ to ask for a scribe change
16:59:43 <Chuck> ack ala
16:59:44 <Lisa> thanks
16:59:50 <reinaldoferraz> reinaldoferraz has joined #ag
17:00:03 <kenneth> scribe-
17:00:18 <DJ> alastairc: re DJ: (playing devil's advocate) maybe it should've passed baseline because we didn't give it a 6?
17:00:29 <DJ> q+ to "6 was death"
17:00:55 <DJ> ... how likely is it somebody will be able to get through?
17:01:12 <DJ> ... okay in some areas, not in others
17:01:22 <DJ> ... so is a flat fail good representation in aggregate?
17:01:32 <bruce_bailey> q+ to argue for test site maybe meeting prerequisite
17:01:37 <Chuck> ack Glenda
17:01:38 <DJ> ... maybe baseline instead of prerequisite
17:02:09 <Patrick_H_Lauke> agree with alastc. a flat fail for the site seemed...a bit harsh. as i alluded to before, saying "you can't use it" is a sweeping statement that does not necessarily reflect reality for all users and which tasks they tried to perform
17:02:09 <shadi> q+
17:02:09 <DJ> Glenda: i struggle with what to do with NA as well
17:02:19 <DJ> ... for internal products, i'm harsh
17:02:51 <DJ> ... +2 points for anything that says "supports" or "NA", "partial supports" is 0, "does not support" is -2
17:03:03 <DJ> ... overall score isn't useful because of so many different disability types
17:03:17 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Glenda for partial support being zero
17:03:20 <DJ> ... may be a fail for screen readers, but not a fail for Deaf/HH for example
17:03:32 <Chuck> ack Julie
17:03:39 <DJ> ... individual scores are very desirable
17:04:04 <DJ> julierawe: it seems like the two models have in common is that level 1 is failing the most basic level
17:04:20 <Rachael> q+ to answer julie
17:04:21 <DJ> ... and then the main difference is that one starts with baseline and the other starts with prereq?
17:04:34 <tburtin> +1 Julierawe
17:04:34 <Chuck> ack Jennie
17:04:59 <Sheri_B-H> q+
17:05:02 <ChrisLoiselle> q+ are you expecting small businesses to use these type of models compared to larger business that may or may not have a team or may or may not use a 3rd party auditing firm that could somewhat automate or report against this? Must , should, could vs. baseline, enhanced , pre req , how would an end user outside of accessibility try to implement all this?
17:05:04 <Lisa> +1 to jenny
17:05:12 <julierawe> +1 to Jennie's question
17:05:15 <Lisa> q+
17:05:16 <Chuck> ack DJ
17:05:16 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to include N/A - UDL and to "6 was death"
17:05:18 <DJ> Jennie_Delisi: 'give credit for not using multimedia' - wouldn't that decentivise multimedia (which would decrease accessibility)
17:05:22 <Rachael> qq+
17:05:23 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Jenny
17:05:25 <alastairc> q+ on scoring and avoiding things to get a better score.
17:05:31 <Jon_avila> I agree we need some level of scoring or understanding the impact other than pass or fail at the site level.  Most sites are not 100% conformant on every page yet can vary in accessibility.
17:05:31 <kirkwood> +1 to Jenny
17:05:32 <Jon_avila> q?
17:05:35 <kevin> scribe+
17:05:45 <alastairc> q+ to also say that including NAs means simple sites can't pass.
17:05:52 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:05:52 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer julie
17:05:56 <kevin> dj: I think it is important to include not applicable as this might be needed for accessibility
17:06:05 <DJ> scribe+
17:06:09 <kevin> scribe-
17:06:17 <DJ> Rachael: what multimedia is presenting is the tradeoff space
17:07:18 <DJ> ... if we exclude NA from score, ... we need to have that conversation
17:07:35 <DJ> ... because whether we give credit changes what the percentage looks like, and that's important
17:07:35 <Chuck> ack Bru
17:07:35 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to argue for test site maybe meeting prerequisite
17:07:43 <alastairc> ack Rachael
17:07:43 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to DJ
17:07:56 <DJ> bruce_bailey: i keep thinking of prereq level as non-interference + other things
17:08:10 <Chuck> ack Shadi
17:08:11 <Jon_avila> The differences is that when you don't include not applicable then the other failures have a higher impact on the score as there are less criteria used to calculate the score.
17:08:16 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Bruce. Are you expecting small businesses to use these type of models compared to larger business that may or may not have a team or may or may not use a 3rd party auditing firm that could somewhat automate or report against this? Must , should, could vs. baseline, enhanced , pre req , how would an end user outside of accessibility try to implement all this?
17:08:17 <Rachael> Our definitions of the outcome levels are on slide 15
17:09:18 <Ben_Tillyer> Definition to WCAG2x non-interference https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conf-req5-head
17:09:19 <DJ> shadi: my concern is that the numbers we were showing in these models do not actually reflect the real severity
17:10:03 <alastairc> Shadi - that's a good point on how a conformance statement would be scoped. These figures are aggregate for a particular 'site' (section really in this test case).
17:10:09 <DJ> ... for example, if just one heading doesn't pass, then the whole outcome is nill, so sites with just one erroneous heading are marked just as bad as completely erroneous sites
17:10:12 <stevef> stevef has joined #ag
17:10:18 <DJ> q+ to half %?
17:10:31 <DJ> ... i think there could be an aggregated number that reflects the user expirence
17:10:40 <Chuck> ack Sheri
17:11:02 <bruce_bailey> s/as non-interference + other things/as non-interference (from 2.2) plus a few other things/
17:11:06 <DJ> Sheri_B-H: i have been ordered to remove videos because they made the vpat look worse
17:11:07 <Chuck> q+ to say do we include "not applicable" in the denominator
17:11:32 <Chuck> q?
17:11:34 <Chuck> ack Lisa
17:11:35 <DJ> ... getting credit for NA is just wrong -- people currently do game the system because of that
17:11:54 <JJ> +1 to Sheri's points
17:12:03 <DJ> Lisa: +1 to Sheri
17:12:09 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
17:12:19 <DJ> ... real problem when this type of scoring removes accessibility from the site to increase conformance
17:12:26 <bruce_bailey> +1 to sheri for not giving points to N/A
17:12:32 <DJ> ... there is a way to do multimedia that enhances the existing site
17:12:34 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
17:12:47 <DJ> ... that shouldn't reduce your accessibility
17:12:49 <JenStrickland> q+
17:13:00 <JenStrickland> q-
17:13:27 <DJ> ... to shadi's point - the answer is user testing
17:13:38 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
17:13:42 <JenStrickland> q+ to say if video provides alternative content for content on screen use case, vs video only
17:14:18 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
17:14:21 <DJ> ... another thing is heatmaps based on access frequency
17:14:34 <bruce_bailey> i am in a different environment, but i have concern about a .gov site taking down videos because they don't want to find resources for captioning.
17:14:35 <Chuck> ack ala
17:14:35 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on scoring and avoiding things to get a better score. and to also say that including NAs means simple sites can't pass.
17:14:48 <DJ> alastairc: [slide 32]
17:15:03 <bruce_bailey> s/but i have concern about a/but i have NO concern about a
17:15:10 <DJ> ... i don't think the percentages are going to matter for baseline/prerequisite levels
17:15:28 <kevin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:15:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html kevin
17:15:45 <DJ> ... if we don't look at percentages for baseline as well as enhanced then this is more applicable
17:16:04 <Patrick_H_Lauke> +1 to alastc this was part of the comment i wanted to make
17:16:14 <tburtin> q+ balancing needing the videos/multimedia there for some audiences, but if they are not accessible they can harm others
17:16:14 <DJ> ... also, including NA in score could make a simple site not pass because they don't have forms, for example
17:16:20 <DJ> qq+
17:16:31 <Chuck> ack Dj
17:16:31 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to react to alastairc
17:16:38 <Rachael> q+
17:16:46 <julierawe> q+
17:16:50 <kevin> dj: When we say include is that in the scoring or as passing?
17:17:10 <DJ> ... i think it's resonable to say you need to include multimedia, for example
17:17:15 <tburtin> q+ about videos
17:17:20 <Rachael> Slide 37 may reduce confusion
17:17:34 <Glenda> q+
17:17:36 <DJ> alastairc: include in percentages
17:17:41 <Chuck> ack DJ
17:17:41 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to half %?
17:18:07 <JenStrickland> q+ to ask, do we ask if X (forms / multimedia) exists first? then, if it exists, is it accessible?
17:18:19 <kevin> dj: A few people have mentioned it not accurately reflecting the actual accessibility. User testing is one approach but half points might also be a solution
17:18:28 <Chuck> ack about
17:18:28 <Chuck> ack videos
17:18:41 <kevin> ... I definitely think we should be encouraging inclusion of multi media as it helps accessibility
17:18:54 <DJ> Chuck: point of order:
17:18:57 <Rachael> qq+
17:18:58 <kevin> ... but also forms, encouraging interaction is not a bad thing
17:19:00 <alastairc> But why would a site that doesn't ask any information of users need to add forms in order to conform with WCAG?
17:19:06 <DJ> ... long queue on this topic; we're supposed to take a brake right now
17:19:15 <DJ> ... let's continue after
17:19:15 <alastairc> q?
17:19:23 <DJ> Rachael: [slide 37]
17:19:57 <Sheri_B-H> q+
17:19:57 <Glenda> Consider adding a category for “A11Y Penalty” - to allow for situations where someone is gaming the system…and we can add example like:  removed video instead of captioning it.
17:20:20 <Patrick_H_Lauke> happy to snack
17:20:20 <Jennie_Delisi> * concerns about NA as passes - seems to still reward not including something, unless I am misunderstanding the edits
17:20:33 <Ben_Tillyer> @Glenda   I can't see companies admitting that, if the audit is done on an internal build
17:20:45 <fbedora> fbedora has left #ag
17:20:47 <DJ> Chuck: brake till quarter of
17:21:01 <kevin> s/brake/break
17:22:38 <shiestyle> shiestyle has left #ag
17:24:11 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
17:24:33 <Chuck> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g2f88bba9d66_13_12
17:29:39 <bruce_bailey> +1 to alastairc comment (quarter past hour) that "... i don't think the percentages are going to matter for baseline/prerequisite levels"
17:40:46 <julierawe> Rachael Slide 36 says "Fails to meet baseline" several times. Does this mean "Fails to meet WCAG 2 baseline"?
17:44:42 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
17:45:45 <chrisp> chrisp has joined #AG
17:46:29 <julierawe> Rachael Are all the phrases that appear on the same line as "Level X:" comparisons to WCAG 2? I'm still very confused
17:46:35 <kenneth> julierawe, I expect that means the baseline alluded to in "Baseline plus % based levels"
17:47:37 <kenneth> which...I think would be equivalent to things marked as "prerequisite" in the spreadsheet? assuming that baseline in model 1 = prerequisite in model 2
17:47:59 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
17:48:08 <JenStrickland> q+ to ask: An Enhanced scenario is if video provides alternative content for content on screen. Where as if there is video only and there isn't text on the screen that is baseline (also the reverse of if text only and no video). Do we in the conformance flow, first ask if X (forms / multimedia) exists first? Then, if it exists, is it accessible?
17:48:08 <JenStrickland> That could set the stage to open a set of conformance standards if X exists. The ultimate score output would be the same, but if X exists then an additional bank of possible points is considered into the total. In Baseline a total is 100 for 100%. In Enhanced the total might be 125 for 100%.
17:48:09 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
17:48:19 <JenStrickland> present+
17:48:27 <alastairc> For those not in the hotel, we've had a power cut, not sure when it will be back
17:48:45 <JenStrickland> I'm in the hotel, but using a personal hotspot.
17:50:00 <tburtin6> tburtin6 has joined #ag
17:50:42 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #ag
18:00:33 <julierawe> Hi, folks, while we're waiting for the official meeting to resume, I'm sharing a comment I put in the Github thread about Pull Request to publish first drafts of two WCAG 3 outcomes: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112
18:01:21 <julierawe> I huddled with some COGA members and we had some concerns about the template for the WCAG 3 outcomes, including red bullets and other formatting. Please take a look at our comment when you have a chance, thanks: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112#issuecomment-2364694928
18:02:49 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
18:03:51 <jeanne2> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112#issuecomment-2364694928
18:03:53 <Rachael> We are settling beside the kids slide. There are chairs and lights.
18:04:08 <Rachael> We also have hotspots so if everybody can find it their way here on the fifth floor we could call-in to the zoom meeting
18:04:36 <julierawe> WCAG 3 preview link for those two drafts: https://deploy-preview-112--wcag3.netlify.app/focus-appearance/
18:04:38 <Lisa> lot of people on the zoom call. can you call in?
18:06:29 <alastairc> We are setting up outside, will call in asap
18:10:44 <alastairc> q?
18:11:55 <alastairc> qv?
18:12:11 <Rachael> We have gotten together and will be onlineish in a moment
18:13:34 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
18:13:38 <DJ> DJ has joined #ag
18:13:47 <DJ> present+
18:15:55 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #ag
18:16:52 <jeanne2> q?
18:16:53 <DJ> q?
18:17:00 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
18:17:06 <alastairc> ack Rachael
18:17:06 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to videos
18:17:11 <alastairc> ack chuc
18:17:11 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say do we include "not applicable" in the denominator
18:17:26 <jj> jj has joined #ag
18:17:34 <alastairc> do we have a scribe?
18:17:46 <Makoto> present+
18:18:22 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
18:18:25 <Rachael> scribe+
18:18:38 <jj> We (Shadi, Jaunita, Ben, JJ) are back in the room on 5G
18:18:47 <Rachael> chuck: supposed you have 5 multimedia prereqs and 5 non multimedia. You have no intent to have multimedia
18:18:58 <Rachael> Have you met 5 of 10 or 5 or 5?
18:19:00 <DJ> qq+
18:19:03 <alastairc> jj - can you get the zoom back on?
18:19:11 <alastairc> qv?
18:19:11 <DJ> q-
18:19:29 <DJ> q+ to you should put multimedia on the site (re chuck)
18:19:40 <Rachael> Should there be the action that you are only scoring 50% or do we remove them so you are getting 100% of prerequisits?
18:19:52 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
18:19:56 <Rachael> ...that is how Chuck sees it.
18:20:11 <Rachael> We are passing Jen and Ben as they have not joined us.
18:20:29 <alastairc> ack julierawe
18:21:01 <kenneth> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_153
18:21:06 <Rachael> Julie: When we say fails o meet the baseline for WCAG 2 or WCAG 3?
18:22:05 <kevin> Rachael: at the top of the slide, it is baseline plus prerequisite.
18:22:28 <kevin> julie: So Level 1 is failing
18:23:05 <kevin> .. You could be doing nothing and failing everything and meeting Level 1?
18:23:16 <alastairc> If you fail anything, you fail level 1
18:23:22 <kevin> rachael: No you would be Level 0
18:23:45 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
18:23:59 <ChrisLoiselle> there should be a level 0 , achieving a level 1 reads as you've done something positive to achieve a baseline or plus 1. I think that is what is being raised in the discussion.
18:25:20 <alastairc> q?
18:25:56 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
18:26:10 <kenneth> slide 16 might help RE the question, that's what defines the levels https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303cecb7e09_0_20
18:26:29 <DJ> qq+ to point of order
18:26:44 <Patrick_H_Lauke> is power back in meeting room?
18:28:14 <kenneth> scribe+
18:28:18 <shadi> q+
18:28:44 <alastairc> ack DJ
18:28:44 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to react to julierawe to point of order
18:28:46 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
18:28:52 <kenneth> Rachael: We wrote down percentages for all levels on slide 37 for Technology but maybe that's confusing - if anything fails baseline in the first model, you fail level 1
18:29:05 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #ag
18:30:11 <Jennie_Delisi> With or without prerequisites
18:30:26 <kenneth> ... right now the names are...faulty, so we have Baseline + % based levels, and Prerequisite, Baseline + % of enhanced.
18:30:51 <Rachael> Proposed names: baseline plus, prerequisite plus
18:31:45 <Rachael> glendaL reminded of something in AIR. Ability to adjust score. judges penalty.
18:31:48 <Rachael> q?
18:32:53 <Rachael> Ben: conformance scores. Not the time the audit is done (may be once a year or once a month). Maybe we should also take into account remediation plans.
18:33:08 <kevin> qq+
18:33:14 <Rachael> ...a captionless video that a site never fixes vs. a captionless video that the captions will be prsent next week.
18:33:27 <Rachael> ...in both cases the person doesn't have captions but the impact is less.
18:33:53 <Rachael> Kevin: That maybe us stepping too far into regulator space
18:34:05 <dj> dj has joined #ag
18:34:06 <Rachael> ...not of the standard.
18:34:06 <alastairc> q?
18:34:10 <alastairc> ack kevin
18:34:10 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to DJ
18:34:10 <dj> q+ Glenda
18:34:16 <Lisa> q+
18:34:17 <alastairc> ack ben_
18:34:19 <Rachael> ...could  be an assertion.
18:34:29 <alastairc> ack glenda
18:34:42 <alastairc> ack Rachael
18:34:43 <GreggVan> +1
18:34:52 <GreggVan> present+
18:35:03 <Rachael> Ben: OUtside the conformance model conversation but, if somoene is doing an evaluation against WCAG 3, how small can the scope be? Can it be just on evideo?
18:35:13 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
18:35:13 <Rachael> Will those scores be valid over time?
18:35:19 <alastairc> q?
18:35:21 <kenneth> s/on evideo/one video/
18:35:40 <kenneth> s/That maybe us/That may be us/
18:36:39 <Rachael> Kevin: Scoping levels are there but you could conceivable scope at item.
18:36:53 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
18:37:14 <alastairc> q?
18:37:57 <alastairc> ack sheri
18:38:12 <Patrick_H_Lauke> i'm downstairs at the moment, heading back up. my point for the queue was roughly echoing what alastc said earlier: the discussion on not giving bonus points for NOT doing things like having video, and how that is then worse for certain users. isn't the solution to that then to have requirements that clearly require use of, say, video. rather than blanket penalising sites for not using video/having it n/a, because that woul
18:38:12 <Patrick_H_Lauke> d then ALSO just be gamed ("need to add a video so i get the full score...")
18:38:40 <Rachael> Sheri: 3 things. First DJ made a comment abotu making videos required. An alternate thought would be that W3c is not prescriptive. We don't require pause/stop/hide button rather we require a pause/stop/hire mechanisms. Instead of requiring videos, require multiple presentations.
18:38:58 <Patrick_H_Lauke> +1
18:39:06 <kenneth> s/hire/hide/
18:39:11 <kenneth> s/abotu/about/
18:39:12 <Patrick_H_Lauke> coming up now
18:39:43 <Rachael> ...2. I feel very strongly that you need that we need a way to encourage people doing assessments to do more. Combining prerequisite and baseline reduces htat. You can meet prerequisite and celebrate that. Maybe extend the number of levels to 5.
18:40:09 <alastairc> ack JenStrickland
18:40:09 <Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to say if video provides alternative content for content on screen use case, vs video only and to ask, do we ask if X (forms / multimedia) exists first?
18:40:12 <alastairc> q?
18:40:13 <Zakim> ... then, if it exists, is it accessible? and to ask: An Enhanced scenario is if video provides alternative content for content on screen. Where as if there is video only and there
18:40:13 <Zakim> ... isn't text on the screen that is baseline (also the reverse of if text only and no video). Do we in the conformance flow, first ask if X (forms / multimedia) exists first?
18:40:13 <Zakim> ... Then, if it exists, is it accessible?
18:40:19 <Rachael> 3. Not applicable needs to be removed becuase otherwise people can never meet a level.
18:41:12 <alastairc> ack DJ
18:41:12 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to you should put multimedia on the site (re chuck)
18:42:02 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ use case re administrative site
18:42:07 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re use case
18:42:07 <alastairc> q+ Chuck
18:42:19 <Rachael> DJ: I think we are converging on shared idea. If we want ot require the use of multimedia, whihc I think we should. We shouldn't require use of multimeda but rather include that in teh guidelines. I like what Sheri said about having the multiple levels. Have prerequisite, then baseline and so on, maybe % based levels to encourage people to get to the next levels.
18:42:22 <alastairc> ack patr
18:42:36 <GreggVan> q+
18:43:37 <alastairc> scribe+
18:43:39 <alastairc> Lisa: People have intentionally broken things in order to fix them and show improvement.
18:43:46 <Rachael> Lisa: I think we have to be careful about taking steps that do you have a roadmap and how much have you improved. I've had teams and they purposefully broken features and then they get audit and show improvement to get their release. These kind of points for efforts can turn against you.
18:43:48 <Rachael> ack Lisa
18:44:01 <kenneth> scribe-
18:44:19 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
18:45:42 <dj> q+ shari
18:46:04 <Rachael> ...there was something else about breaking accessibility for cognitive. About not causing people harm that focuses in on mental health. We've seen studies where people's anxiety and self confidence has deteriorated because they feel then can't complete the form becuase its more difficult than it needs to be. When you say content shouldn't harm, seizures are obvious but issues in the cognitive space can cause very real harm.
18:46:36 <tburtin> +1 to all that Lisa is saying. Constantly an issue.
18:46:44 <Rachael> ...dark patterns, I have to ask someone else to help me. Even getting repeatedly locked out - saying they don't do harm is not true. Harms feelings of self worth.
18:47:21 <Rachael> ....what do you mean when you say the lowest.
18:47:29 <Rachael> ack shadi
18:48:26 <Rachael> Shadi: For the baseline, if you miss one thing you miss the entire baseline. What then is different to the WCAG 2 model? Wasn't that one of the core things we were trying to address? What is the differentiation. Bruce was asking if the baseline was only non-interference or more than that? that brings us into the WCAG 2 model. Not what we were attempting to do.
18:48:35 <Rachael> ack Jennie_Delisi
18:48:35 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss use case
18:48:41 <tink> tink has joined #ag
18:49:39 <alastairc> q?
18:49:41 <Rachael> Jennie_Delisi: This may seem humorous because I brought it up, but I don't htink we should require multimedia. We need to put in checks nad balances while reviewing to accoun tfor  different use cases.
18:49:43 <alastairc> ack ChrisLoiselle
18:49:43 <Rachael> ack chu
18:49:51 <JenStrickland> Rather than "dark patterns," "deceptive patterns" for inclusivity.
18:49:54 <dj> q+ shadi
18:49:58 <dj> q- shadi
18:50:05 <Rachael> Chuck: Snacks are here. Help yourself if her.
18:50:22 <Rachael> ...we are now doing poolside AGWG.
18:50:45 <Rachael> q?
18:50:50 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
18:51:01 <tink> present+ Léonie
18:51:16 <Rachael> GreggVan: 3 things. We need to remind ourselves that we are the ruler, not the rule. WE are trying to determine if something is accessible or not.
18:51:28 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #AG
18:52:12 <Rachael> ...How much time someone should have and related ideas is up in policy. If a site has videos and all but 3 are accessible, then all are accessible except for 3. If someone asks if the videos are accessible the answer is no.
18:53:30 <Rachael> ...Similarly, if we ask if hte site is accessible and 1 video is inaccessible then the site is inaccessible.  We don't need to get into that. We just need to figure out what causes something to be accessible or not. We shouldn't get wrapped around whether something is 98% accessible. The parts that are, are. The parts that aren't, aren't.
18:54:09 <kevin> q+
18:54:11 <Rachael> ...If you have 0 vidoes, no videos fail. Think about it as "Do any videos on the site fail?" No, then it passes and you move on.
18:54:28 <dj> q+
18:54:36 <Rachael> ack sha
18:55:14 <Glenda> Q+
18:55:43 <Rachael> Sheri: It helped me crystalize my thoughts. I think that we've tried to assign things into prerequisites and baseline without adequately defining harm. For example, Count down clocks. They are difficult for certain disabilities. Do they count as harm? We need to rethink that.
18:56:01 <Rachael> ack kevin
18:56:40 <Rachael> Kevin: THInking about something gregg said about %. Our current models are looking at % of passes. That causes problems. Let's look at % of failures. It's the failures that matter.
18:56:56 <Rachael> ack di
18:57:00 <Rachael> ack dj
18:57:12 <Rachael> ack glenda
18:57:14 <alastairc> It's not a good idea for me to shout, but regarding kevin's point: That's just a reversal of the percentage, it doesn't change the inclusion (or not) of NAs.
18:57:29 <ljoakley> q+
18:57:54 <Rachael> glenda: How old is that issue? I think by adding hte length of time the issue existed, and andrew suggested dynamic vpats off the JIRA issue queue.
18:58:12 <Rachael> ...I went to a VPAT model but I like the idea.
18:58:29 <Rachael> q?
18:58:36 <Rachael> acl ljc
18:58:44 <Rachael> q+
18:58:50 <Rachael> Lack ljc
18:58:54 <Rachael> ack ljk
18:59:01 <Rachael> ack ljcakley
18:59:08 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
18:59:12 <kevin> Ack ljoa
18:59:14 <Rachael> ack ljoakley
18:59:16 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
18:59:25 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #AG
18:59:58 <kirkwood> +1 to Lori’s example
19:00:03 <Rachael> ljoakley: I have a site where the workflow that all the work goes through and it is inaccessible. Doesnt matter if the rest of the site is accessible. It misses the mark. The people who are doing the work can't get their work done.
19:00:03 <DJ> DJ has joined #ag
19:00:10 <DJ> q+ to % after baseline/prereq
19:00:16 <Lisa> that is why task based user test is best!!!!
19:00:47 <Jennie_Delisi> * have to drop off for the day. Wishing everyone on site light, health, and appropriate amounts of power!
19:01:09 <Lisa> if a wide range of users with a range of AT and functional needs can complete the main tasks the site is good
19:01:18 <Rachael> ack Rachael
19:01:24 <Rachael> ack Ben_Tillyer
19:01:32 <Lisa> +1 to Jennies good wishes!
19:02:10 <Rachael> Ben: Two points. First, the % scoring. If you have two scopes, one for tasks and one for web pages might give you a way around that. Can all people get through teh main purpose of the page vs. how accessible is the site?
19:02:17 <Rachael> ack DJ
19:02:17 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to % after baseline/prereq
19:02:43 <Ben_Tillyer> q+ to talk to the thought I forgot about
19:02:45 <Rachael> DJ: The % would be after baseline or prerequisite so you won't get to the % until after you pass that.
19:02:57 <alastairc> Lisa - I agree that usability testing is good, but we can't use that for everything. It doesn't help people in the early design / dev stage do a quick evaluation against some guidelines.
19:03:43 <Rachael> Ben_Tillyer: In response to Glenda's point, having worked in huge orgs I have seen where scrums have closed tickets and reopened them to get around items.  If we used tickets, we'd have to have requirements around how to use the ticketing system.
19:03:43 <alastairc> Q?
19:03:43 <Rachael> q?
19:03:47 <fbedora> fbedora has joined #ag
19:03:47 <Rachael> ack ben
19:03:47 <Zakim> Ben_Tillyer, you wanted to talk to the thought I forgot about
19:04:04 <DJ> q+
19:04:33 <alastairc> q+ chuck
19:04:36 <kenneth> scribe+
19:04:37 <kenneth> Rachael: Question: we're looking at a model where we have bottom levels where everything is required, then the top levels have percentages, and the details are in how many levels are required vs. percentages. Does that move enough away from the WCAG 2 model to address requirements for WCAG 3?
19:04:37 <DJ> q-
19:04:39 <DJ> q+ shadi
19:05:01 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
19:05:12 <Ben_Tillyer> q+ JJ
19:05:22 <Rachael> Chuck: I think it does get us away from the WCAG 2 model enough. It does have a set that has latitude. I think there the current proposal does that.
19:05:25 <Rachael> ack chu
19:05:26 <Ben_Tillyer> q+ Juanita
19:05:27 <Rachael> ack shad
19:05:32 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #AG
19:05:45 <Rachael> Shadi: I think it depends on what is in the baseline. We don't have a good ruler yet.
19:05:46 <DJ> q+ to prevent harm
19:06:17 <alastairc> q+ charles
19:06:23 <Rachael> ...to measure how much friction there is vs. how much is compounded. The keyboard trap is a complete blocker. If everything is equally important to everyone, we are back to WCAG 2.
19:06:33 <alastairc> ack JJ
19:06:37 <DJ> q+ shadi to point of order
19:06:38 <Rachael> ack JJ
19:06:48 <DJ> q- shadi
19:06:56 <DJ> q+ shari to point of order
19:07:05 <Rachael> JJ: It seems like an improvement to have the baseline and percentages. Without that, one issue can prevent you from continuing.
19:07:12 <tink> q+
19:07:13 <Rachael> q+ to address 3 level issue
19:07:23 <cyns> cyns has joined #ag
19:07:49 <Rachael> ... I am worried about how the baseline is accessible. If the base level is the same, then there is progress to be made there.
19:08:00 <alastairc> ack juan
19:08:21 <GreggVan> q+
19:09:02 <DJ> ack dj
19:09:02 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to prevent harm
19:09:11 <Rachael> Jaunita: I think there is a benefit. Things that are more subjective are part of the % partof the conformance model. I am concerned that everything subjetive ends up there. Because they are more difficult to assess, risk they end up in the %
19:09:43 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
19:09:56 <Rachael> DJ: We had a prevent harm subgroup and we had a large list of items that fell into prevent harm. Anything that can harm someone should be in base level. Also anything that prevents access.
19:10:01 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
19:10:04 <alastairc> ack charl
19:10:57 <Ben_Tillyer> q+ to talk about things that block me
19:11:16 <Rachael> Charles: I am skeptical that the model will help us. We will spend all of our time wrapped around the axil of whether something is in or out of baseline. We spend a number of years getting there. Rather, map the things you can't do or cause harm. Build a large collection of those pathways first. these people cannot solve this problem.
19:11:17 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
19:11:20 <JenStrickland> present+
19:11:22 <JenStrickland> q+
19:11:30 <Rachael> ...these people will actively be harmed.
19:11:45 <tink> Update from the Team - the power cut was caused by an accident outside the hotel, and power should be restored  in the next 15 mins.
19:12:10 <Rachael> ...looking at the way you report that. Its a more detailed view of what's in there. You don't get a pass result. It's more complex but we can have more effective discussions.
19:12:25 <DJ> q+ to not if we decide what baseline means
19:12:49 <kenneth> ... think a lot of the discussion will be spent on what belongs in the baseline vs. not
19:13:26 <kevin> q+
19:13:39 <Rachael> ack tink
19:14:03 <Rachael> Leonie: Agree with chals and Shadi. My question is if I understand there is a baseline required...
19:14:21 <alastairc> To Charles - We do have a rough definition of pre-requisite / baseline / enhanced, which should cut down the arguments there
19:14:26 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uKYENZQpTIAjs7x762kFjC_U7CWY6PLfpl8lO7MABBs/edit#slide=id.g303dcba0dc8_1_0
19:15:19 <Rachael> ...and then we get percentges. Why not enable people to track completion in the baseline too. We want to encourage people to do everything, not get stuck in working on baseline and failing all the stuff on top.
19:15:48 <Ben_Tillyer> q-
19:15:58 <Lisa> I am going to sleep. Goodnight all
19:16:29 <Rachael> goodnigh. Thank you for joining us
19:16:50 <alastairc> Noting there is a big difference between percentages of outcomes, and percentages of *instances*. So far we've been talking about the former.
19:22:03 <fbedora> fbedora has left #ag
19:37:41 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #AG
19:59:02 <kenneth> RRSAgent, make minutes
19:59:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html kenneth
20:00:31 <kenneth> s/goodnigh. Thank you for joining us//
20:00:33 <kenneth> s/axil/axle/
20:06:51 <dj> dj has joined #ag
20:07:09 <DJ> present+
20:09:11 <DJ> could everyone thinking of going to cheescake factory tonight please join #ag-dinner
20:12:27 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
20:13:04 <JackieFei> JackieFei has joined #ag
20:16:55 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
20:22:54 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
20:22:59 <JenStrickland> present+
20:23:23 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
20:23:34 <fbedora> fbedora has joined #ag
20:23:50 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
20:24:05 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
20:28:35 <Charli> Charli has joined #ag
20:28:53 <giacomo-petri8> giacomo-petri8 has joined #ag
20:28:58 <giacomo-petri8> present+
20:29:15 <Rain8> Rain8 has joined #ag
20:29:26 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
20:29:30 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
20:29:41 <fbedora> present+
20:29:49 <maryjom> present+
20:29:50 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
20:29:53 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
20:29:56 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
20:29:59 <Rain> present+
20:30:17 <wendyreid> present+
20:30:22 <Makoto> present+
20:31:05 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag
20:31:13 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
20:31:20 <giacomo-petri> present+
20:31:30 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
20:31:34 <kenneth> present+
20:31:37 <wendyreid> scribe+
20:31:46 <Francis_Storr> present+
20:32:02 <Sheri_B-H> Sheri_B-H has joined #ag
20:32:11 <chrisp> chrisp has joined #AG
20:32:14 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
20:32:22 <wendyreid> Rachael: We had a good conversation online and offline despite challenges
20:32:24 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
20:32:25 <Sheri_B-H> present+ (limited to 2:00, may return before EOD depending on APA Maturity Model discussion)
20:32:29 <wendyreid> ... the chairs touched base and heard two themes
20:32:32 <Chuck> present+
20:32:37 <wendyreid> ... one concept of the ruler vs applying it
20:32:49 <wendyreid> ... the other of separating the guidance and conformance sections
20:32:50 <MelanieP> present+
20:32:54 <GreggVan> q+
20:33:03 <wendyreid> ... release them separately and in different ways
20:33:08 <wendyreid> ... better define levels
20:33:08 <kirkwood> present+
20:33:13 <wendyreid> ... explore perceptions of harm
20:33:20 <wendyreid> ... what prerequisite really should mean
20:33:27 <wendyreid> ... the beauty of TPAC is getting diverse perspectives
20:33:33 <wendyreid> ... is there anything else people want to discusss?
20:33:45 <reinaldoferraz> reinaldoferraz has joined #ag
20:33:45 <wendyreid> ... is everyone comfortable exploring those two topics
20:33:46 <Chuck> +1
20:33:50 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
20:33:55 <DJ> +1
20:34:02 <tiffanyburtin> +1
20:34:05 <wendyreid> +1
20:34:05 <GreggVan> +1
20:34:05 <Sheri_B-H> +1
20:34:06 <Rain> +1
20:34:08 <kirkwood> +1
20:34:09 <giacomo-petri> +1
20:34:13 <JenStrickland> +1
20:34:19 <Makoto> +1
20:34:32 <DJ> q+
20:34:35 <wendyreid> Rachael: Let's talk about the possibility of separating conformance and guidance
20:34:44 <JJ> q+
20:34:50 <wendyreid> ... focus on publishing guidance, aim to take the structure and polish the guidance
20:34:53 <shadi> q+
20:35:04 <wendyreid> ... then create one or more informative documents on how to conform to it
20:35:14 <wendyreid> ... different models or potential ways to conform
20:35:18 <wendyreid> ... there are pros and cons
20:35:35 <wendyreid> ... just to start the conversation, the pros that come to mind include releasing guidance sooner
20:35:46 <wendyreid> ... we feel confident with our guidance, we can work on guidance
20:35:55 <wendyreid> ... other pro is custom conformance recommendations
20:36:01 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
20:36:07 <wendyreid> ... more targeted to different types of websites
20:36:12 <wendyreid> ... cons include reducing normalization
20:36:15 <Chuck> q+ to ask about normalization
20:36:18 <Sheri_B-H> q+
20:36:18 <wendyreid> ... just starting the conversation
20:36:27 <JenStrickland> q-
20:36:45 <Chuck> ack Shari
20:36:45 <Zakim> shari, you wanted to point of order
20:36:48 <Rachael> Q-
20:36:58 <kevin> q- kevin
20:37:09 <wendyreid> Rachael: Before we do answers, are there any questions?
20:37:10 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
20:37:14 <Chuck> ack Gregg
20:37:19 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
20:37:24 <wendyreid> GreggVan: On queue to speak about both what we're talking about and what we're talking about
20:37:30 <wendyreid> ... I think we're confusing conformance with enforcement
20:37:38 <wendyreid> ... we can't have a standard without a conformance model
20:38:02 <wendyreid> ... all the discussed informative topics were enforcement
20:38:02 <wendyreid> ... whether someone has to do something
20:38:02 <Glenda> present+
20:38:13 <jeanne> q+ to say W3C dropped the conformance requirement years ago
20:38:19 <wendyreid> ... on the first item, we need to separate conformance, what does the standard say, when it's accessible or not
20:38:30 <wendyreid> ... enforcement, when something is accessible "enough"
20:38:34 <wendyreid> ... it's a different topic
20:38:47 <wendyreid> ... the description felt like it was conflating them
20:38:50 <jaunita_george> present+
20:38:58 <wendyreid> ... I do agee all the discussions about when it should apply should be seaprate
20:39:15 <wendyreid> ... it's out of our remit, but having a document that describes logical ways to enforce it will be helpful
20:39:18 <Chuck> ack DJ
20:39:18 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to not if we decide what baseline means and to
20:39:26 <wendyreid> DJ: Want to support the idea of separating
20:39:41 <Chuck> ack JJ
20:39:42 <wendyreid> ... as for the risk to normativity, that goes out the window if someone else beats us to this
20:39:51 <kirkwood> +1 to faster
20:39:58 <wendyreid> jj: The baseline and percentages, I was thinking we could use percentages for the baseline
20:40:13 <wendyreid> ... limit is 50%, but can't get past 50% if you haven't completed baseline requirements
20:40:18 <julierawe> q+
20:40:21 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
20:40:33 <wendyreid> ... incentivize companies to meet baseline, they can't cross the line until they meet everything
20:40:45 <Chuck> ack Shadi
20:41:01 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag
20:41:03 <wendyreid> shadi: I think it may reduce normalization is an extreme understatement. We've worked hard to have WCAG 2.x to be an agreed common ground
20:41:16 <wendyreid> ... opening it up with here's some requirements, we'll tell you the bar later
20:41:21 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #ag
20:41:21 <wendyreid> ... it's a dangerous approach to take
20:41:35 <shiestyle> present+
20:41:41 <wendyreid> ... the second perspective is that it's wrong to do for the conformance model to be on its own
20:41:54 <wendyreid> ... the conformance properties are interrelated
20:42:12 <wendyreid> ... thinking about conformance as we construct the requirements helps the requirements
20:42:28 <wendyreid> ... there's a category of things that do not belong in conformance or WCAG, for policy makers
20:42:42 <wendyreid> ... thinking about that in parallel helps us to understand what belongs in conformance
20:42:54 <wendyreid> ... timelines or grace periods, but we should understand
20:43:03 <wendyreid> ... if you don't do these things, they are blockers
20:43:10 <Chuck> q?
20:43:10 <wendyreid> ... defined as part of the standard
20:43:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
20:43:13 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about normalization
20:43:22 <wendyreid> Chuck: I wanted to ask about normalization in this context
20:43:30 <Chuck> ack Sheri
20:43:32 <wendyreid> ... someone mentioned harmonization and that helped my understanding
20:43:49 <wendyreid> Sheri_B-H: One of the pros of separation is to let us do multiple iterations of the first before the second
20:43:58 <wendyreid> ... the con is what happens to people who want to adopt before
20:44:01 <alastairc> q+ to say that if we provide a relatively simple conformance model (like WCAG 2.0), that's what people use.
20:44:13 <DJ> q+ to having criteria will make them easier to organize
20:44:13 <wendyreid> ... or legislation adopting one before the other
20:44:28 <wendyreid> ... custom conformance, if we did that, there's differences between on-prem and cloud
20:44:34 <Chuck> q?
20:44:37 <wendyreid> ... do not benefit users with disabilities
20:44:38 <Chuck> ack Jeanne
20:44:38 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say W3C dropped the conformance requirement years ago
20:44:52 <shawn> shawn has joined #ag
20:44:57 <wendyreid> jeanne: I would like to follow up on Gregg's comment about standards requiring conformance
20:45:11 <wendyreid> ... W3C dropped the requirement for a conformance section, we're still allowed, but no longer required
20:45:18 <Chuck> q?
20:45:22 <wendyreid> ... we don't need to by W3C requirements, that being said
20:45:32 <wendyreid> ... there is a lot to be gained by focusing on guidance vs conformance
20:45:45 <wendyreid> ... our ideas about how to do conformance will be strengthened as we work on guidance
20:46:05 <wendyreid> ... as we've seen this year as we've focused more on guidance have only strengthened our persepctives on conformance
20:46:15 <GreggVan> q+
20:46:33 <wendyreid> ... I'm not sure we should completely separate the two, but I do feel strongly that we focus on the guidance and it helps us make informed decisions
20:46:36 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
20:46:39 <Chuck> ack Julie
20:46:48 <wendyreid> julierawe: I wanted to ask about need for speed
20:46:53 <wendyreid> ... delivering the guidance sooner
20:46:58 <wendyreid> ... someone else might beat us to it
20:47:16 <wendyreid> ... do we know other people are working on a competing standard
20:47:22 <Chuck> ack Patrick
20:47:44 <wendyreid> Patrick_H_Lauke: Just wanted to respond to JJ, about percentages, one of the problems is the categorization of prerequisite and such
20:47:58 <wendyreid> ... it would be nice to treat each at a block of 100% instead of collectively
20:48:18 <wendyreid> ... all things need to be fulfilled, it gets away from the binary pass/fail
20:48:30 <wendyreid> ... the site owner can get a feel for the issues and scope of issues
20:48:37 <Chuck> ack ala
20:48:37 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that if we provide a relatively simple conformance model (like WCAG 2.0), that's what people use.
20:48:38 <Rain> q+
20:48:39 <wendyreid> ... do we need to fix some things or start from scratch
20:48:58 <wendyreid> alastairc: There's a couple of points
20:49:13 <wendyreid> ... in WCAG 2 we have a relatively simple conformance model
20:49:26 <wendyreid> ... following up on it might not change how people use it
20:49:31 <wendyreid> ... it might be good to separate
20:49:38 <wendyreid> ... Shadi said something around the tight integration
20:49:52 <wendyreid> ... I thought that too, but as we started working on the guidelines and outcomes, we have some assumptions in place
20:50:08 <wendyreid> ... we have levels and structure, they are not as closely tied
20:50:09 <shadi> q+ to respond to Alastair
20:50:12 <Makoto> q+
20:50:53 <wendyreid> ... the things we would need to define would be scoping, conformance statements, I have a strong sense that it makes more sense to look at a product or section and the result should be at a higher level
20:50:58 <Chuck> ack DJ
20:50:58 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to having criteria will make them easier to organize
20:51:05 <wendyreid> DJ: To answer Julie's question
20:51:17 <DJ> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gusalexiou/2024/03/27/evinced-proposes-long-overdue-mobile-content-accessibility-guidelines/
20:51:30 <wendyreid> ... the 2030 projection and other a11y organizations and trends in industry
20:51:39 <JenStrickland> And the European Union's accessibility publication.
20:51:49 <wendyreid> ... the G stands for guidelines, we really need to focus on the guidelines part before focusing on conformance
20:51:58 <wendyreid> ... it'll present to us more intuitive ways to organize them
20:52:01 <wendyreid> ... it's not clear yet
20:52:04 <Chuck> q?
20:52:06 <shadi> q+ to respond to DJ
20:52:07 <Chuck> ack Gregg
20:52:15 <Patrick_H_Lauke> (evinced's attempt was more of a PR puff piece, don't think it had any real-world buy-in from any serious players)
20:52:16 <wendyreid> GreggVan: "Beat us to it" don't worry about it
20:52:24 <wendyreid> ... it's so hard to put these things together, so many people try
20:52:29 <DJ> q+ to GreggVan
20:52:37 <wendyreid> ... people have claimed this in the past, it hasn't worked
20:52:52 <wendyreid> ... even just aiming at HTML, it was similar
20:52:56 <Sheri_B-H> G3ICT did their maturity model, but I think both of these examples are much smaller than what we are talking about here
20:53:02 <wendyreid> ... the other standards are based on WCAG
20:53:09 <wendyreid> ... the consensus model, everyone looks to this group
20:53:23 <wendyreid> ... another version would need to clear the same standards we hold to
20:53:44 <wendyreid> ... we're revising EN 301549 to be 2.2 right now
20:53:55 <wendyreid> ... don't focus on worrying about others
20:54:06 <wendyreid> ... for conformance, it is true that not all standards have conformance
20:54:13 <wendyreid> ... anything to do with regulatory needs to
20:54:20 <kevin> Sheri, Level Access and Business Disability Forum have had maturity models for a while
20:54:24 <hiroki> hiroki has joined #ag
20:54:25 <wendyreid> ... most of the W3C is voluntary
20:54:29 <wendyreid> ... people follow or they don't
20:54:38 <wendyreid> ... they fall into a different category
20:54:58 <wendyreid> ... the reason for "Guidelines", it's W3C, we call our docs "Recommendations", everything we do is voluntary
20:55:07 <wendyreid> ... IETF calls theirs RFC "Request for Comment"
20:55:17 <Patrick_H_Lauke> s/treat each at a block of 100%/treat each (prerequsites, baseline, other) as a separate block of 100%
20:55:19 <wendyreid> ... anytime someone talks about percentages I cringe
20:55:31 <wendyreid> ... it's possible to game the percentage models
20:55:43 <alastairc> q+ on percentages, and the difference between % of outcomes and % of instances.
20:56:08 <wendyreid> GreggVan: I make everything shallow, it's possible to game them too easily, it's not clear to user the meaning of them either
20:56:12 <Chuck> ack Rain
20:56:25 <wendyreid> Rain: As much as I love the idea of splitting
20:56:29 <Rachael> q+ to explore about numerous level option or breaking apart by functional need
20:56:34 <wendyreid> ... I love it because it makes our job now easier
20:56:38 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
20:56:52 <wendyreid> ... but I worry about the fact its so hard for the people trying to do this work right now
20:57:00 <julierawe> q+
20:57:00 <wendyreid> ... everyone here, people working in tech to do this work
20:57:12 <wendyreid> ... what do I need to do, what can I prioritize, deprioritize
20:57:18 <wendyreid> ... it's already very complex
20:57:26 <wendyreid> ... splitting it may make it even harder
20:57:35 <wendyreid> ... people need to go to two different spaces
20:57:41 <shadi> +1 to Rain
20:57:47 <wendyreid> ... conversely, we could invent a way to make it easier
20:57:57 <kirkwood> +1 to Rain
20:58:02 <Chuck> ack Shadi
20:58:02 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to respond to Alastair and to respond to DJ
20:58:06 <wendyreid> ... instead of starting from "we need to do this faster", we go from "how do we make this easier to use"
20:58:20 <Patrick_H_Lauke> easy resources to address very complex problems...that's the tension we have
20:58:32 <wendyreid> shadi: Similarly to Gregg's comments, alastairc you're saying that the outcomes is not that interrelated to the conformance percentages
20:58:43 <wendyreid> ... the exercise we have done in the last few days suggests otherwise to me
20:58:48 <wendyreid> ... we've identified issues
20:58:57 <wendyreid> ... I don't agree with this
20:59:21 <kevin> q+ to respond to Shadi
20:59:38 <wendyreid> ... to DJ, if you're concerned about others getting ahead, instead of addressing the hard questions, avoid addressing the hard parts
20:59:41 <Chuck> ack Makoto
20:59:42 <wendyreid> ... kicking it down the road
20:59:44 <kevin> q-
20:59:57 <wendyreid> Makoto: Regarding separating, I would like to point out that it might be a good idea for internationalization
21:00:00 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
21:00:12 <wendyreid> ... it will allow different counties to establish different policies based on their circumstances
21:00:23 <wendyreid> ... ex. Japan doesn't have legal requirements
21:00:38 <wendyreid> ... they may need a different approach than countries that already have conformance
21:00:52 <wendyreid> ... global companies will be required to use the same standards in different ways
21:00:57 <wendyreid> ... pros and cons on this issue
21:00:58 <Chuck> ack DJ
21:00:58 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to GreggVan
21:01:18 <wendyreid> DJ: Wanted to respond to Gregg, my point with g is for guidelines wasn't that it wasn't our place to do conformance
21:01:23 <kevin> q+ to say that it need these could be developed in parallel
21:01:38 <wendyreid> ... if we separate them, it's not helpful to release an initial set without conformance
21:01:50 <wendyreid> ... if we don't release anything, there are challenges there too
21:02:01 <wendyreid> ... it's worth treating them separately but releasing them at the same time
21:02:05 <Rain> q+ to recommend we consider a mini-sprint model
21:02:09 <wendyreid> ... there's a few things we have to do for this work
21:02:11 <Chuck> ack ala
21:02:11 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on percentages, and the difference between % of outcomes and % of instances.
21:02:13 <julierawe> q-
21:02:33 <wendyreid> alastairc: What I was saying is that we have assumptions with outcomes that it has a level and scope
21:02:51 <wendyreid> ... with those constructs in place, you have a bunch of potential conformance models
21:03:22 <wendyreid> ... we aren't thinking of taking out the levels, we have prereq, essential, enhanced
21:03:29 <wendyreid> ... in a guideline we have a hierarchy
21:03:38 <wendyreid> ... some things more important than others
21:03:48 <wendyreid> ... there's a big difference between % of instances
21:03:56 <wendyreid> ... and %s of outcomes passed/failed
21:04:06 <wendyreid> ... no counting in that sense, if it fails the outcome, it fails
21:04:28 <wendyreid> ... one potential approach is to include a very basic conformance model similar to WCAG2, page level
21:04:29 <GreggVan> q+
21:04:31 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
21:05:03 <wendyreid> ... you could do that basic model, but you have a separate document that specifies more recommendations based on size of website or testing regime
21:05:06 <Chuck> ack Rach
21:05:06 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to explore about numerous level option or breaking apart by functional need
21:05:24 <wendyreid> Rachael: Chair hat on, I did want to acknowledge that we're in the exploratory phases here
21:05:29 <wendyreid> ... there are lots of questions
21:05:37 <wendyreid> ... we're rotating between conformance and guidance
21:05:46 <wendyreid> ... the question is whether we split them as deliverables
21:05:55 <Rachael> ack Rachael
21:05:58 <cyns> cyns has joined #ag
21:06:28 <wendyreid> ... chair hat off, one way to think of it differently is more levels
21:06:48 <wendyreid> ... people may think of it like WCAG, do we increase/decrease number of levels
21:07:05 <GreggVan> +1  interesting
21:07:06 <wendyreid> ... use that as a way to change perspective
21:07:25 <wendyreid> ... in the first public working draft, we had it, but we can change our approach
21:07:29 <wendyreid> ... functional levels, etc
21:07:46 <Chuck> ack Ben
21:07:48 <wendyreid> ... I do expect we will continue balancing and whether to separate deliverables
21:08:22 <wendyreid> Ben_Tillyer: Wanted to go back to competing standards, controversial, my goal is to help shape the web into a better place for people with disabilities, if someone else does it, good
21:08:23 <DJ> q+ to my concern is that it won't
21:08:47 <wendyreid> ... if another standard did come out, I would like to think we could embrace that, or bring it into our work
21:08:55 <wendyreid> ... look at our mission statement
21:08:55 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
21:09:07 <jaunita_george> present+
21:09:20 <wendyreid> ... we will have a problem if there is a competition, but I don't think we should be scared of it
21:09:26 <Chuck> ack Kevin
21:09:26 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say that it need these could be developed in parallel
21:09:27 <wendyreid> ... for thebenefit of users
21:09:34 <wendyreid> kevin: Wanted to come back to Shadi's point
21:09:51 <shadi> q+
21:09:54 <wendyreid> ... creating a set of guidelines without the appropriate bar to meet, we can develop them in parallel
21:10:02 <wendyreid> ... the challenge with thinking about this is overloading the outcomes
21:10:17 <wendyreid> ... thinking about things like minimum number of issues, impact on users, we're overloading them on outcome
21:10:35 <wendyreid> ... if we look at it as just the outcome, then looking at impact, location, number of instances
21:10:43 <wendyreid> ... one of the biggest values of splitting
21:10:51 <wendyreid> ... stops us trying to overload or overtthink
21:10:53 <Chuck> ack Rain
21:10:53 <Zakim> Rain, you wanted to recommend we consider a mini-sprint model
21:11:12 <wendyreid> Rain: Whar Kevin just shared is a nice cognitive model towards helping us make the progress we're trying to make
21:11:19 <wendyreid> ... we're getting into circles
21:11:22 <kevin> s/Whar/What
21:11:30 <wendyreid> ... not into a focused set of questions, we can build on a scaffolding
21:11:45 <wendyreid> ... I know there was exploration of models in the past, I am hearing more here
21:12:21 <wendyreid> ... what this has me wondering if we take the conformance questions, regardless of format, plan a mini-sprint, an environment like this,
21:12:38 <wendyreid> ... force people into a smallgroup setting and have those people test out a variety of conformance concepts and see what happens
21:12:45 <wendyreid> ... come back to the group with "here's what we learned"
21:12:54 <Chuck> ack Gregg
21:12:59 <wendyreid> ... looking at this problem in a really focused, time-bound way
21:13:01 <alastairc> Many facets to consider to solve the previous problems: Scope of a conformance statement (views, sections etc); which outcomes fail on which view; whether it  is in an important place on the page; whether you can even test all the views (if you have millions of pages); probably more...
21:13:32 <wendyreid> GreggVan: Interesting thing Rachael said, percent of provisions vs percent of ??? on a site
21:13:45 <wendyreid> ... the idea of having more levels, is interesting
21:13:56 <Rachael> q+
21:13:58 <wendyreid> ... I have a concern with percent of provisions, you'll get people saying "I won't do these"
21:14:09 <wendyreid> ... "I just need to have enough to meet the %"
21:14:25 <Rachael> q-
21:14:27 <wendyreid> ... having levels gets around it, control over what people do less of
21:14:50 <wendyreid> ... I do worry that any of these where people are picking, and we're picking, we'll end up back into "why did this go here?"
21:15:01 <Rachael> We would have to define the levels very very carefully but we likely need to do that anyway
21:15:06 <Rain> q+ to expand more on functional need approach
21:15:19 <wendyreid> ... different groups have different needs, and discussion will focus on differences and trying to decide what goes where
21:15:30 <wendyreid> ... they are all severe to the person experiencing them
21:15:43 <Justine> Justine has joined #ag
21:15:46 <wendyreid> ... harmonization doesn't mean things are identical, we should learn from others
21:15:56 <wendyreid> ... they need to not contradict, but not identical
21:16:05 <wendyreid> ... but I don't see a major competitor to WCAG
21:16:19 <wendyreid> ... in EN 301549, they cite WCAG, but not as one item
21:16:38 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #ag
21:16:39 <wendyreid> ... they put all of the provisions in, they draw the provisions in with the permission of W3C
21:16:47 <wendyreid> ... they pull them in for web, for other types of documents
21:16:53 <wendyreid> ... for web, they are in verbatim
21:16:57 <wendyreid> ... point to our guideliens
21:17:22 <wendyreid> ... % of provisions concerns me, % of assertions does not
21:17:27 <Chuck> ack DJ
21:17:27 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to my concern is that it won't
21:17:28 <wendyreid> ... I can see us in endless discussions about what goes where
21:17:41 <wendyreid> DJ: One last thing about harmonization, I'm not concerned about another org beating us
21:17:46 <wendyreid> ... if it happens, not a bad thing
21:18:01 <wendyreid> ... it's a concern when a respected org creates a bad set of guideliens
21:18:22 <wendyreid> ... we're discussion separating them becuase of the concern relating to weighting things or grouping
21:18:36 <wendyreid> ... that was my understanding
21:18:37 <wendyreid> ... but am I wrong?
21:18:58 <wendyreid> GreggVan: To me my concern that conflating conformance and enforcement
21:19:01 <Chuck> q?
21:19:19 <wendyreid> ... if we're just saying "this is the definition of accessibility", but "this is what is required for regulation"
21:19:33 <wendyreid> ... we shouldn't try to tell them how to write regulations
21:19:33 <Chuck> ack shadi
21:19:40 <wendyreid> shadi: Last last point on harmonization
21:19:49 <wendyreid> ... lesser concern about one org publishing something
21:19:52 <wendyreid> ... vs 15 orgs
21:20:00 <wendyreid> ... different countries with different laws
21:20:07 <wendyreid> ... different states in the US
21:20:34 <wendyreid> ... I wanted to come back to %s, Rachael's idea about function, but I think this shows we're early in the process
21:20:46 <wendyreid> ... if we're working on them in parallel, where's the speed gain
21:20:54 <wendyreid> ... I agree with Rain, this could be tactical
21:20:58 <wendyreid> ... where do we put our focus
21:21:09 <wendyreid> ... at the end of the day, we want to provide something useful
21:21:18 <Rachael> q+ to wrap this conversation
21:21:25 <wendyreid> ... no matter the number of documents, we need to work on them at the same time
21:21:32 <wendyreid> ... I'm not seeing where the speed gain is
21:21:32 <Chuck> ack Rain
21:21:32 <Zakim> Rain, you wanted to expand more on functional need approach
21:21:49 <wendyreid> Rain: I want to go back to Rachael's concept of functional need
21:21:55 <wendyreid> ... where that would fit into levels
21:22:01 <wendyreid> ... for this functional need, are you conforming
21:22:06 <wendyreid> ... it's not levels
21:22:12 <wendyreid> ... it's based on the functional needs
21:22:37 <wendyreid> ... it would have this compounding effect, leading towards shaming people for choosing not to conform to a particular need
21:22:41 <Chuck> ack Rach
21:22:41 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to wrap this conversation
21:22:43 <wendyreid> +1 to functional needs
21:23:03 <kevin> +1 to exploring functional needs as an approach
21:23:16 <wendyreid> Rachael: We've reached a similar point with publication sub-group, the way we are working works, and we can come back to the question of what we publish later
21:23:18 <shadi> +1
21:23:19 <Chuck> +1 to functional needs
21:23:24 <alastairc> The teams I work with want to know: What's wrong, how do I fix it, and how do I prioritise those fixes. I don't think having 10+ categories of requirement helps with that.
21:23:27 <wendyreid> ... I appreciate us taking the time exploring this
21:23:32 <Glenda> + 1 to what Rain just said about listing a11y by functional need.  I totally think this will humanize WCAG and help motivate better behavior.
21:23:33 <SteveF> +1
21:23:42 <wendyreid> ... I see us suggesting the functional needs approach
21:23:51 <wendyreid> ... Sheri suggested levels without %s
21:24:12 <wendyreid> ... the FPWD focused on needs, but it was tied to %s of errors, most of the feedback was the work required
21:24:20 <wendyreid> ... it sounds like we should return to functional needs,
21:24:31 <wendyreid> ... it's not something we can handle today, but for a future meeting
21:24:35 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
21:24:38 <wendyreid> ... do people have thoughts?
21:24:40 <wendyreid> q+
21:24:42 <alastairc> q+
21:24:49 <Glenda> From a buyer/purchasing perspective….I need to know (when buying 3rd party software)…who is going to hit a11y blockers.  What reasonable accommodations do I have to plan for (if there is not accessible version of this type of software available).
21:25:00 <Glenda> q+
21:25:15 <jeanne2> jeanne2 has joined #ag
21:25:51 <Chuck> wendyreid:  Scribing is intense, you are all very smart.  Strong+1 to Functional Needs.  One aspect to Rain's idea, is if we take our outcomes and tie them to functional needs, some outcomes will apply to multiple functional needs.
21:26:41 <Chuck> wendyreid:  You can have a huge lift to the accessibility of your project.  Gamifying for optimum achievement is not a bad thing.  Usability of WCAG...  if we can identify the things that set the bar high for achievement, it almost is self-motivating.
21:26:51 <Chuck> q?
21:26:56 <Chuck> ack wendy
21:27:01 <Patrick_H_Lauke> +1 to the functional need classification/idea
21:27:07 <Chuck> q+ to ask for scribe change
21:27:08 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
21:27:10 <wendyreid> alastairc: Not entirely sure how categorization by functional need to work
21:27:18 <wendyreid> ... most teams want to know what to fix and how
21:27:19 <Chuck> ack ala
21:27:24 <wendyreid> ... prioritize accordingly
21:27:35 <wendyreid> ... A, AA, AAA as priorization
21:27:51 <wendyreid> ... having categories may not be helpful, avoid downloading complexity to the users
21:27:55 <wendyreid> ... of WCAG
21:28:05 <Patrick_H_Lauke> i think the functional need categorisation helps in making an understandable CLAIM about the accessibility of your product
21:28:06 <wendyreid> ... having levels, anything can be games
21:28:21 <wendyreid> ... people won't say "we don't care about [group]
21:28:23 <Chuck> ack Glenda
21:28:27 <wendyreid> ... it's not about that
21:28:40 <wendyreid> Glenda: Want to reinforce what Rain and Wendyt said
21:28:48 <wendyreid> ... when Deque looks at software to procure
21:28:56 <wendyreid> ... I don't look at criteria
21:28:58 <kevin> s/Wendyt/Wendy/
21:29:14 <alastairc> s/A, AA, AAA as priorization/Thus people considered A, AA, AAA as prioritisation, wrongly.
21:29:17 <wendyreid> ... I look at what disability types are impacted, how, are there risks, is this providing a core function to someone's job
21:29:31 <wendyreid> ... as a consumer, this would help and humanize the requirements
21:29:40 <wendyreid> ... if you fail 2.4.11, what does that mean
21:29:42 <jeanne3> jeanne3 has joined #ag
21:29:44 <kevin> q+ to say that functional needs is good but problem of impact and % pages still would exist
21:29:53 <jeanne3> +1 Glenda
21:29:54 <DJ> q+ to don't we have that now though?
21:29:55 <Chuck> ack Ch
21:29:56 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
21:29:59 <wendyreid> ... saying "you are blocking [group]", the impact is profoundly awesome
21:30:21 <Rain> scribe+
21:30:24 <alastairc> Kevin - also still have the problem of differentiating where on the page/task the barrier is.
21:30:27 <Chuck> q?
21:30:30 <Chuck> ack Ben
21:30:54 <Rain> Ben_Tillyer: thank you for putting on record how smart group was, Chuck
21:31:15 <kirkwood> +1 to Glenda
21:31:18 <Rain> ... difference between what an organization is saying about the accessibility of the product than understanding what groups are impacted
21:31:45 <Rain> ... if you as an organization know that you have met the functional needs of a certain group, why not write an assertion that you think you have met the functional needs of that group.
21:32:05 <Rain> ... Then when you are going for higher levels, you can gain points by getting the subset of outcomes for a certain need. This comes back to reporting.
21:32:21 <Chuck> q?
21:32:23 <Chuck> ack Kevin
21:32:23 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say that functional needs is good but problem of impact and % pages still would exist
21:32:25 <Patrick_H_Lauke> i mean the functional criteria are effectively what's (to an extent) in a 508 and/or an EN 301 ... ACR
21:32:29 <Rain> ... If you look at a conformance report, the mature organizations will say what they are aware of and the user groups they are failing. Something to be explored.
21:32:55 <Rain> kevin: functional needs concept is really good, would motivate some companies. Some won't care whatsoever. Don't know if it solves the problem of the number of failures and impact of failures.
21:32:58 <Chuck> ack DJ
21:32:58 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to don't we have that now though?
21:33:03 <Rain> ... the failures are still there.
21:33:06 <jeanne3> q+ to say the original request for functional needs in WCAG3 was requests from companies for it for prioritizations
21:33:17 <Rain> DJ: it is a hepful method to be able to have a report that says you are failing specific people.
21:33:18 <alastairc> +1, we already do that.
21:33:23 <Chuck> q?
21:33:30 <Rain> ... Why should that be in WCAG rather than in the conformance reports themselves?
21:33:31 <wendyreid> q+
21:33:58 <Chuck> ack jeanne
21:33:58 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say the original request for functional needs in WCAG3 was requests from companies for it for prioritizations
21:34:01 <Rain> Glenda: if we delineate that, it harmonizes interpretation. We harmonize it rather than relying on inprepretation of the outside.
21:35:05 <Rain> jeanne3: original Silver TF research surveys with usability specialists, they requested for purposes of prioritization that there be functional need information. When companies are being sued because they have someone with a specific disability that they need to fix the website for a specific person, they need to know exactly what functional needs
21:35:05 <Rain> they need to correct for and prioritize right away.
21:35:21 <Chuck> ack wendy
21:35:22 <Rain> ... A need from original research showed that there is a need for functional analysis.
21:35:41 <Rain> wendyreid: another consideration with conformancy-things is audiences, and the different audiences that will receive the reports.
21:36:01 <Rain> ... As a11y lead of a company, have different hats. Is procurement of product going to meet the needs of the people i'm trying to get the product for.
21:36:21 <Rain> ... I don't care about your score, I care that you are meeting the needs. But when reporting to the government, need to be able to meet the metrics the government is asking for.
21:36:36 <alastairc> I'm not very comfortable with us providing the mechanisms for prioritising some groups over others.
21:36:39 <Rain> ... When putting together reports for customers, I need to be clear about when I'm meeting their needs.
21:36:56 <Chuck> q?
21:37:04 <kevin> +1 for recognising different audience needs
21:37:08 <Rain> ... Don't think we will ever be able to write a model that covers all the needs entirely at the same time, but we still need to be thinking about these and encapulating the ways people are thinkign about this so that we can communicate.
21:37:50 <Rain> Rachael: Hearing earlier today and yesterday, need to talk more about how we are talking about the prerequisite baseline.
21:38:03 <Rain> ... Baseline enhanced, not baseline.
21:38:13 <Ben_Tillyer8> Ben_Tillyer8 has joined #ag
21:38:26 <Rain> ... Need to talk about the different levels of harm, and how we are thinking about task completion.
21:38:48 <Rain> ... Instead of thinking about levels, can we think about how we could categorize groups of success criteria?
21:39:00 <Chuck> q+
21:39:03 <Chuck> ack Ch
21:39:20 <Rain> ... How to distinguish between these needs that will create a more effective way to understand severity.
21:39:53 <Chuck> q?
21:39:57 <Rain> Chuck: really do like the prerequisite level. Just required. Full. Stop. Observing that there are a number of different interpretations of what might be in there, though. Can we set on what is in prerequisite.
21:40:03 <alastairc> q+ with example
21:40:08 <alastairc> q+
21:40:11 <alastairc> q- with
21:40:16 <alastairc> q- exam
21:40:27 <Rain> Rachael: Some people define harm as obvious physical harm. Flashing, seizures, motion that causes other vestibular reactions.
21:40:45 <jeanne3> q+ with foundational outcomes
21:40:50 <Rain> ... Others incorporate emotional harm, sensory harm. If you make it too hard, everything can cause harm.
21:40:57 <Rain> ... How do we encapsulate what is most important?
21:40:58 <Chuck> ack ala
21:41:02 <jeanne3> q+ to say foundational outcomes
21:42:27 <Rain> alastairc: Example of how it might be used in practice. Sharing screen with decision tree for focus appearance. Is the user-agent default agent used (pre-requisite)? Firefox and safari, indicator not very apparent. Baseline, however, is if the default indicator meets contrast across backgrounds.
21:42:43 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
21:42:44 <jeanne3> Research from Bentley University UX department -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r-5zaek3yFOTgDz0v7dzTwK_QUnOpAxTTr22OAonMbg/
21:42:48 <Chuck> ack Jeanne
21:42:48 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say foundational outcomes
21:42:50 <Rain> ... In practice, shouldn't need to move our provisions based on user agents improving if we write the decision trees properly.
21:43:33 <Rain> jeanne: Found comment in research done from university ux department, would like to see us do more foundational outcomes. Basic things that are difficult to remediate, like structure.
21:44:08 <Chuck> q?
21:44:08 <Rain> ... Things organizations should be aware of when designing, that are hard to remediate because you have to redo the entire site.
21:44:18 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
21:44:29 <alastairc> Jeanne - my point was that if we write the methods properly, we won't need to move provisions.
21:44:36 <alastairc> q+
21:44:36 <Rachael> q+ to respond
21:44:43 <Rain> ... Patrick_H_Lauke: Alastair's email -- who decides and documents the decision tree? Otherwise authors will still be on their own.
21:44:44 <alastairc> q-
21:44:56 <alastairc> q+ to say that's in the accessibility supported proposal
21:44:59 <Chuck> ack patrick
21:45:03 <Rain> ... Is that the responsibility of the working group? To maintain a yearly list of the things that you can leave up to the environments?
21:45:05 <Chuck> ack rach
21:45:05 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond
21:45:16 <alastairc> q-
21:45:30 <Rain> Rachael: conversation we are having in the working group, will follow up with Patrick and integrate thoughts into that conversation.
21:45:30 <Chuck> q?
21:45:39 <alastairc> Patrick - see https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/114
21:46:00 <Rain> Chuck: liked seeing us in conference room and misses us!
21:46:14 <Rain> Rachael: categories to discuss include,
21:46:18 <Rain> ... safety and harm
21:46:24 <Rain> ... task completion
21:46:45 <Rain> ... If we have categories independent of the functions, then we can talk about how those fit different categories in a more meaningful way.
21:47:00 <Rain> Chuck: Rachael will start and share a document for us to use
21:47:34 <Rain> Rachael: welcomes others to suggest categories, or how to better define the ones we've talked about
21:47:41 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1apnZ5pBAX_zvFxswaq1VNdGuq9waO43bwVArLpC_yAo/edit#heading=h.i2ap6hkfw1zk
21:47:41 <Chuck> q+
21:47:44 <Chuck> ack Ch
21:48:28 <Rain> Chuck: personal definition of harm, when in doctor's office and asked about pain threshold. Imagine a train track. Can I leave the track? If not, it's a 10. Anything less than that is a lesser level.
21:48:32 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
21:48:52 <Rain> ... if on a site that was causing migraines, could I leave the train track?
21:48:53 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
21:48:56 <wendyreid> q+
21:49:05 <Chuck> ack Ben
21:49:46 <Rain> Ben: Different levels willing to endure based on the task itself. E.g., renewing a passport, there is no alternative. So would be able to cope with a higher level of pain than on a news website, could go to a different website for news.
21:49:47 <Chuck> ack Wendy
21:50:10 <tiffanyburtin> q+
21:50:16 <Rain> wendyreid: Want to think about it in an inverse way. not so much that the website is causing harm or difficult, but rather the risk of me not completing the task.
21:50:27 <shadi> q+
21:50:55 <Rain> ... If I'm put at great discomfort paying power bill, there is a high level of risk if I don't pay my power bill. But if I'm trying to buy shoes, it doesn't really matter if I don't finish the task.
21:50:57 <jeanne3> Audience Feedback on Reimagining Accessibility Guidelines -- comments on the need for a Better Grading System -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zrzm9i9AsNo4_0qZY7GXrYYZy1o399kg_92Lc3wDSdc/edit#heading=h.6lyzc55fn6vp
21:51:01 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
21:51:06 <Chuck> ack tiffany
21:51:09 <Rain> ... Shouldn't have to be put at risk of great harm or safety by doing the tasks that have to be done.
21:51:45 <Glenda> q+
21:52:01 <alastairc> q+ would it help to separate "will cause harm" compared to "could cause harm" and the outcome level, then cumulative harm at the conformance level?
21:52:11 <alastairc> q+ to ask would it help to separate "will cause harm" compared to "could cause harm" and the outcome level, then cumulative harm at the conformance level?
21:52:15 <Rain> tiffanyburtin: often the pain and harm is cumulative or additive. Cognitive load to think through all the different things and tasks that you need to do. Stress of switching between ATs because a site isn't fully compatible, or different extensions based on compatibility and what need to accomplish.
21:52:18 <Chuck> ack shadi
21:52:19 <Ben_Tillyer> spoons!
21:52:43 <Rain> shadi: Different types of content or websites, wondering if that is the place for us to be going? Or is that more about the regulatory bodies?
21:52:48 <Ben_Tillyer> qq+
21:52:48 <tiffanyburtin> Exactly, impact on spoons and also ticket theory!
21:52:59 <Chuck> ack Ben
21:52:59 <Zakim> Ben_Tillyer, you wanted to react to shadi
21:53:03 <Rain> ... Websites are often treated differently if they are commerce or government, etc. Shouldn't be part of the ruler.
21:53:24 <GreggVan> q+
21:53:31 <Chuck> ack Patrick
21:53:34 <Rain> Ben_Tillyer: suggest instead of leaving it up to regulatory bodies to determine harm, should be up to the user. Provision that if we know if the user has reported harm, that has impact on conformance.
21:54:09 <DJ> +1 Patrick_H_Lauke
21:54:36 <Rain> Patrick_H_Lauke: distinction into the three categories remind of priority levels that are used by companies. Such as P1 is may cause seizure and makes a critical task impossible, while P2 is makes it significantly more difficult, and P3 categorized as would improve user experience for certain types of users.
21:54:58 <Rain> ... Has a sense of hierarchy in it, even though we aren't intending hierarchy.
21:55:01 <DJ> q+ to a/aa/aa is not a heirarchy
21:55:08 <Chuck> ack Glenda
21:56:25 <reinaldoferraz> reinaldoferraz has joined #ag
21:56:46 <Rain> Glenda: In work done they have broken down into 4 levels, with 4 at high risk. When had the 4 levels, found that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Had an overwhelming percentage of 4s. Did a reassessment of default impact factor for common issues, and added a top category of a "blocker" and de-escalated a lot of things out of
21:56:46 <Rain> level 4. But stuck with 3 or higher as "you have to fix it or you are at risk" and 4-5 as brutal.
21:57:03 <Rain> ... Causes physical harm, causes an unsafe position that is super serious, are examples.
21:57:15 <Rain> ... For example, if I'm driving and suddenly have a blinding headache.
21:57:56 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
21:58:00 <Chuck> ack ala
21:58:00 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask would it help to separate "will cause harm" compared to "could cause harm" and the outcome level, then cumulative harm at the conformance level?
21:58:05 <DJ> q-
21:58:09 <Rain> ... Not saying the other terrible experiences aren't terrible. Maslow's hierarchy of need, "threatens your existence"
21:58:25 <Rain> alastairc: Might be useful to separate will and could cause harm, and then address cumulative harm.
21:58:34 <JenStrickland> I can't be there right now, as I'm in APA-Equity meeting. Regarding "will cause harm" - I would really like to speak to this, because the impact of harm on individuals can be devastating. Will there be another opportunity to discuss this?
21:58:55 <Rain> ... Often severity of harm is about context. Has to be generalized because we have very little predictive power.
21:58:57 <Chuck> ack Gregg
21:59:06 <Rain> ... Agree that if everything is "red" people can't prioritize
21:59:27 <Rain> GreggVan: when you talk about p1, p2, p3 and injury, these are safety rather than accessibility standards.
21:59:32 <Rain> ... What if it blocks all AT?
21:59:51 <DJ> q+ to things moving over time
21:59:54 <Rain> ... What is blocks today, it may not block tomorrow, because AT is evolving quickly and AI will add confusion.
22:00:21 <Rain> ... Makes it easier to use is a concerning concept, because if you look at cognitive, language, and learning, those are the things that make it easier to use, as well.
22:01:07 <Rain> ... Two kinds of priorities. Which things to do we tackle first. Vs. which ones are important. Order of attack, such as low hanging fruit. If it's something that's really serious and we have no idea how to solve it, we might save it and address the immediately fixable stuff first.
22:01:29 <julierawe> +1 to Gregg comments on the harm of poor navigation and findability
22:01:39 <shadi> q+
22:01:42 <jeanne3> +1 Gregg
22:01:42 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
22:01:43 <Rain> ... Safety, also thinking about the immediate harm, but what about people not being able to use the page causing a family to go hungry? Overall today, not being able to use the internet is a harm. To daily living, wellbeing, integration.
22:01:46 <kevin> +1 to Gregg's comments
22:01:58 <Chuck> ack Ben
22:01:59 <tiffanyburtin> q+ impact to daily living
22:02:08 <Rain> ... Worried about sorting creating shortsightedness where we are losing awareness of the people that aren't top of mind.
22:02:20 <alastairc> To me, tackling that kind of issue (needing access to food) is a regulator thing where they should have higher standard/level to meet.
22:02:39 <alastairc> q+ tiffanyburtin
22:02:46 <alastairc> q- impact
22:02:50 <tiffanyburtin> +1 Gregg comment
22:02:53 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
22:02:58 <Rain> scribe+
22:03:45 <Chuck> If she needs, yes, otherwise I'm going to call it at half past.
22:03:53 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
22:04:02 <Rain> present+
22:04:05 <Rain> scribe+
22:04:28 <kevin> s/If she needs, yes, otherwise I'm going to call it at half past.//
22:05:13 <Patrick_H_Lauke> trying to work out how WCAG could address the problems that Ben is talking about...
22:05:14 <Chuck> q?
22:05:24 <tiffanyburtin> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S9K4i0CAiTHCWXD0_LnpS90E2l9VC_Xs18UmOXhGzaw/edit#heading=h.t3uqwwnk7ffi
22:05:31 <Rain> Ben: considering the complicated interactions when addition or mental health are in consideration, being able to audit or identify risks of things like ads and data aggregation, etc.
22:05:42 <Chuck> ack DJ
22:05:42 <Zakim> DJ, you wanted to things moving over time
22:05:56 <Patrick_H_Lauke> are we trying to solve, through technology/normative guidelines, lots of problems that would fall outside of what authors/auditors CAN address?
22:06:15 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
22:06:16 <wendyreid> q+
22:06:21 <Chuck> ack shadi
22:06:21 <Rain> DJ: Gregg mentioned criteria moving as browsers change. Not sure how that is a problem. If things need to change over time, can we let them change?
22:07:01 <Rain> shadi: Not being able to access food for your children is one thing. Not being able to buy your shoes is another. Different categories. Come to type of content and category of website, but this is outside of the scope of WCAG. Up to the policy makers to decide.
22:07:15 <Chuck> ack tiffany
22:07:22 <Rain> ... What is something that will stop someone being able to carry out the task. What the task is and what that means for someones life is a consideration for a policy maker.
22:07:32 <Patrick_H_Lauke> riffing on what shadi said, that's exactly what EAA does, defining different requirements for different industries
22:08:22 <alastairc> q+ to ask if we could identify outcomes which can be cumulative? Also, we can't answer these questions at the outcome level.
22:08:28 <Rain> tiffanyburtin: Impact and daily harm. Shoe store example, taking away someone's autonomy if they are unable to go out to a shoe store, isn't fair either. So what are the levels of impact to daily life. We are an internet society now. It's giving more freedom to those in the disable community.
22:08:42 <Chuck> ack wendy
22:09:43 <Rain> wendyreid: Tiffany read my mind. There is a valid use case of buying shoes online being an absolute essential function to daily living. The degree of impact is part of regulation. We cannot as WCAG cannot measure that.
22:10:19 <Rain> ... One person may get through this fine, another may not be able to complete it. Impossible for us to be able to quantify or predict that. But a regulator would be able to because they have the context.
22:10:57 <Chuck> ack ala
22:10:57 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if we could identify outcomes which can be cumulative? Also, we can't answer these questions at the outcome level.
22:11:08 <Rain> ... This isn't just about accessibility and the web, it's also about privacy. Like the privacy working group, there is accessibility impact to the failures of other parts of the web to do what they are mean to do. May not be for WCAG, but may be for a privacy or ads standard that we haven't explored.
22:11:26 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
22:11:37 <Ben_Tillyer> rssagent, pointer?
22:11:38 <Rain> alastairc: Curious if we can identify which outcomes could be cumulative? Maybe we can then build that into a conformance model?
22:11:43 <Patrick_H_Lauke> +1 to wendy, having some of the issues covered by other groups like privacy. doesn't all have to fall under AGWG just because "harm"
22:11:43 <tiffanyburtin> Willing to join the conversation on cumulative issues
22:12:07 <Rain> ... Curious if we can identify which kinds of sites might be held to a higher standard than others? For example, EAA picked on banking, commerce, travel and media.
22:12:37 <shadi> +1 to Alastair
22:12:38 <Rain> ... Enable them to have multiple bars. If we have certain sites that need to go above baseline, is there a hook that we can provide to regulators that they can use?
22:12:42 <Chuck> q?
22:12:59 <alastairc> RRSAgent, make minutes
22:13:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html alastairc
22:13:42 <Rain> Rachael: We've captured a couple of points. Fundamental question, each of these categories sits on a continuum. We can place many outcomes on that continuum somewhere. How do we decide where we cut off the line?
22:14:11 <Rain> ... Safety and harm are highly talked about and also has a lot of emotional ties.
22:14:28 <Chuck> q?
22:14:28 <Rain> ... AT support is also a continuum. What are some examples of that and the likelyhood of that being changed?
22:14:57 <alastairc> q+
22:15:12 <Chuck> ack ala
22:15:21 <JenStrickland> q+
22:15:43 <JenStrickland> q-
22:15:57 <Chuck> q?
22:15:59 <Rain> alastairc: Wonder if it's less of an organizational exercise where we pick levels, but rather a thing that each subgroup makes as they go. Easier to do with the decision tree, to help build it up and ask questions together, rather than arbitrarily looking at the flat list.
22:16:27 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
22:16:33 <Chuck> ack Ben
22:16:34 <Rain> Rachael: Task based prioritization is something that came up a lot, and we explored it in the first public working draft. If we define a priority around task based, how do we do that?
22:16:37 <sheri_b-H9> sheri_b-H9 has joined #ag
22:16:49 <Rachael> TOPIC: How to prioritize priority (level) based on tasks
22:17:11 <alastairc> q+ a couple of ideas on conformance including tasks.
22:17:15 <Chuck> ack ala
22:17:17 <Rain> Ben_Tillyer: When the useage of a set of webpages is completely different to author's intention, wouldn't want to leave it soley on the authors to decide what tasks exist. Don't think they would get the full list.
22:17:27 <Glenda> q+
22:17:50 <Rain> alastairc: Slightly disagree. Yes, not really a way to say here are all the tasks. But could allow for people making conformance statements to choose tasks.
22:18:07 <Rain> ... May be some standards within certain industries, such as learning management systems.
22:18:45 <Chuck> q?
22:18:48 <Patrick_H_Lauke> 1) prevents task altogether; 2) makes task difficult to complete for x users
22:18:48 <Chuck> ack Glenda
22:18:50 <Rain> ... But then how do you assess the impact of an instance of an issue. Different instances will have different severities based on context. Up to the conformance statement to say that you would be able to complete a task based on certain expectations.
22:19:50 <Rain> Glenda: favorite way to figure out what the core tasks and functionalities are is to think about disaster planning information security. If the whole system went down, what are the systems they'll bring back up first? Those are the core task flows. For example, log in is down. Or if you are pizza joint, it is order and delivery.
22:19:57 <Chuck> q+
22:20:17 <Patrick_H_Lauke> similar with EAA
22:20:18 <Rain> ... Also reminding of the airline act where there were 7 core tasks, such as review flight availability, check schedule, contact information, call for help, etc.
22:20:20 <Rachael> q+
22:20:30 <Rain> ... So could use this as a relatively straightforward way to get these core tasks.
22:21:01 <Chuck> ack Ch
22:21:15 <Rain> ... And if I'm with a client in front of a judge, would I be able to share that it is not accessible and justify it?
22:21:35 <Chuck> ack Rach
22:21:43 <Rain> Chuck: acknowleding that we just went through that here as a reference. When hotel lost power, first brought up the generator. Then the lights and elevators.
22:22:12 <Rain> Rachael: agree this is useful as a regulator, but harder as a customer. Is someone going to be able to interpret this when they are trying to assess this?
22:22:27 <tiffanyburtin> q+
22:22:28 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
22:22:30 <Rain> ... And how do we know how important it is to an individual?
22:22:44 <Rain> ... Difficult to come up with those kinds of tasks.
22:22:50 <alastairc> q+ on how to use tasks in conformance, e.g. doesn't replace view, but provides prioritisation.
22:23:07 <Chuck> ack tiffany
22:23:09 <Rain> ... Is browsing by itself a task, or not a task. Trying to find important health information is a task. So how do we figure out what a task is?
22:23:55 <Chuck> ack patr
22:23:57 <Rain> tiffanyburtin: Thinking if I'm going to a site where i have to order a specific medication that is specialty, and it is on a PDF that is an image, it won't be part of their core tasks. Not a core task for a large portion of clientele, it's that I need this rare medication.
22:24:55 <Rain> Patrick_H_Lauke: can't preempt every possible user need. There will always be things that go outside of what the site owner finds as the primary purpose of the site. At some point or other, as an auditor, I have to be guided by what the site owner tells me are the primary journeys
22:24:56 <Chuck> ack ala
22:24:56 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how to use tasks in conformance, e.g. doesn't replace view, but provides prioritisation.
22:25:02 <kevin> +1 to Patrick's point about the difficulty of identify every possible task
22:25:41 <kevin> RRSAgent, make minutes
22:25:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html kevin
22:26:17 <Chuck> q?
22:26:28 <Rain> alastairc: If we use tasks in a conformance model, not replacing the standard page based or view based aggregate thing we do. Tiffany's example should be caught if done correctly. What about assistive technology testing that is very focused on the specific test? You only catch the things in that specific task rather than a more whole understanding.
22:27:40 <Chuck> q+ to change scribe and chair
22:27:52 <tiffanyburtin> I fully understand prioritization but it tends to be certain personas that are considered later than others, and it stinks to continually being underserved.
22:27:55 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #ag
22:28:01 <Rain> Rachael: One of our goals is to move the conformance model forward in a useful way. Looked at conformance models that we thought had the most promise. Where is everyone on those? When we look back at the models we were talking about originally - slide 37 - talked about baseline + and prerequisit +
22:28:14 <Chuck> ack Ch
22:28:15 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to change scribe and chair
22:28:16 <Rain> ... Do people feel good about these to explore further, or do we need a full pivot?
22:28:23 <Glenda> Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) first prioritized the 7 core tasks of airline websites.  The 7 core tasks were defined as:  1) Book a Flight, 2) Check In, 3) View Personal Travel Itinerary, 4) View Flight Status,  5) View Flight Schedule, 6) Get Info to be able to Contact Airline, 7) Access Frequent Flyer Account
22:28:30 <Rain> Chuck: Don't think we need a full pivot.
22:28:35 <MJ> scribe+
22:28:49 <Glenda> do we need to recount for dinner tonight?
22:29:03 <GreggVan> q+
22:29:07 <chrisp> chrisp has joined #AG
22:30:03 <Rachael> TOPIC: Next steps on Conformance Model
22:30:23 <kevin> ack GreggVan
22:30:27 <Charli> Charli has joined #ag
22:31:48 <alastairc> q+ to say there is a question about using % for baseline.
22:33:00 <julierawe> q+
22:34:34 <MJ> GreggVan: Everyone is doing Level A and AA. Eliminating the distinction would eliminate people comparing them to WCAG 2.
22:34:46 <alastairc> ack me
22:34:46 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say there is a question about using % for baseline.
22:35:10 <kevin> s/do we need to recount for dinner tonight?//
22:35:41 <GreggVan> q+
22:35:51 <MJ> alastairc: Differences between Baseline and Prerequisite.
22:35:56 <Rachael> q+
22:36:07 <Rachael> ack julierawe
22:36:08 <sheri_b-H> sheri_b-H has joined #ag
22:36:21 <wendyreid> q+
22:36:24 <GreggVan> q-
22:37:02 <MJ> julierawe: Questions on how to meet Levels 2 and 3 for both models.
22:37:19 <GreggVan> q+
22:37:39 <MJ> ... Language about how to fail and "Not applicable" is unclear.
22:37:46 <Rachael> ack Rachael
22:38:38 <MJ> Rachael: Explore the concept of having a baseline. Fuzzy line between baseline and prerequisite.
22:39:30 <Rachael> ack wendyreid
22:40:07 <Rain> +1 to Wendy
22:40:10 <MJ> wendyreid: Prerequisite felt less like a level to achieve
22:40:30 <MJ> ... and more like: Am I even at a place to do this?
22:41:13 <alastairc> q?
22:41:17 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
22:41:21 <MJ> Baseline and prerequisite help people do the basic before doing more complex work.
22:42:00 <Patrick_H_Lauke> ... AI ...
22:42:16 <MJ> GreggVan: 1) You can't do any sorting based on AT.
22:42:43 <MJ> ... In 10-15 years, AT will be able to access even the most inaccessible webpages.
22:43:11 <alastairc> q+
22:43:23 <alastairc> q+ on how AT support would progress.
22:43:51 <MJ> 2) Provisions need to be added to models in order to see how the models will work or not.
22:44:08 <MJ> GreggVan: 2) Provisions need to be added to models in order to see how the models will work or not.
22:44:36 <alastairc> ack me
22:44:36 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how AT support would progress.
22:44:36 <Rachael> ack alastairc
22:45:18 <MJ> alastairc: To Gregg: I don't think we need to move provisions based on AT support changing. If we write the decision tree properly.
22:45:26 <GreggVan> q+
22:46:19 <Patrick_H_Lauke> (e.g. have something like "the structure of this document is exposed to AT users". once AT gets better - thanks to the hovercar/AI coming any minute now - it will be satisfied without author needing to do anything)
22:46:22 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
22:46:31 <MJ> ... If browser improve focus to be dual-color, then we would default to browser-defined focus indicator style
22:47:33 <MJ> GreggVan: I understand Alastair's statement that writing provisions properly will self fulfill as AT get better
22:47:41 <alastairc> q?
22:47:52 <alastairc> q+
22:48:11 <GreggVan> q+
22:48:33 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q+
22:48:34 <MJ> alastairc: 1) Two things have been raised. When we talk about "Not applicable". One thing was counting fails rather than passes.
22:49:19 <MJ> ... But if you exclude "Not applicables", in the Prerequisite+, you'd need to adjust the result to "Less than X%" fails.
22:49:21 <kevin> +1 to my own idea
22:49:41 <MJ> ... I agree that it helps to count fails.
22:49:52 <Patrick_H_Lauke> q-
22:50:02 <Rachael> q?
22:50:07 <alastairc> ack alastairc
22:50:09 <Rachael> ack alastairc
22:50:11 <JenStrickland>  q+
22:50:26 <Patrick_H_Lauke> "I'm Kevin, and I approve this message..."
22:50:42 <JenStrickland> q-
22:51:06 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
22:51:12 <jaunita_george> Present+
22:51:13 <JenStrickland> q+
22:51:47 <alastairc> alastairc: In the enhanced level we could categorise into functional requirements
22:52:01 <julierawe> +1 to being tired :)
22:52:03 <MJ> Rachael: Everyone is tired :)
22:52:06 <alastairc> alastair: But that leads to a spreadsheet exercices rather than discussion.
22:52:47 <kirkwood> present+
22:52:54 <Patrick_H_Lauke> cheesecake factory is a prerequisite
22:53:08 <MelanieP> stay with us!
22:53:49 <chrisp> present+
22:53:59 <JenStrickland> agenda?
22:54:17 <Patrick_H_Lauke> the fun with covid is that...you may not know if you already have it or not / whether you should be at the covid table ;)
22:54:26 <JenStrickland> <3
22:54:38 <Rachael> q?
22:54:41 <alastairc> Patrick_H_Lauke - like sunday night.
22:55:18 <MJ> GreggVan: 1) This is the first time I've seen pass fails. That means we have testable items.
22:55:33 <MJ> Adn I don't understand it, and we can talk about it later.
22:55:34 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
22:55:49 <MJ> ... Conformance was being conflated with enforcement.
22:56:16 <MJ> ...  We don't have to tell them what to do, but we just want to make sure they're aware. We should capture them all.
22:56:28 <MJ> ... We have a lot of wisdom to pass on.
22:56:36 <MJ> ... We can help them understand the consequences.
22:56:40 <kevin> q+
22:56:48 <Rachael> ack GreggVan
22:57:00 <MJ> Rachael: Kevin, could you speak to this?
22:57:25 <MJ> GreggVan: To be clear: We should tell them what to keep in mind.
22:57:29 <shadi> q+
22:58:05 <MJ> JenStrickland: In enhanced, video provides additional content.
22:59:11 <MJ> ... I can't fully follow the slides and would appreciate talking to someone about them.
22:59:13 <JenStrickland> ack JenStrickland
22:59:34 <shadi> q-
22:59:45 <JenStrickland> Here's what I was trying to speak to, trying to make sense. An Enhanced scenario is if video provides alternative content for content on screen.
22:59:45 <JenStrickland> Where as if there is video only and there isn't text on the screen that is baseline (also the reverse of if text only and no video).
22:59:45 <JenStrickland> Do we in the conformance flow, first ask if X (forms / multimedia) exists first?
22:59:45 <JenStrickland> Then, if it exists, is it accessible?
22:59:47 <JenStrickland> That could set the stage to open a set of conformance standards if X exists.
22:59:47 <JenStrickland> The ultimate score output would be the same, but if X exists then an additional bank of possible points is considered into the total.
22:59:47 <JenStrickland> In Baseline a total is 100 for 100%. In Enhanced the total might be 125 for 100%.
22:59:48 <JenStrickland> [Baseline Set of 50 items]
22:59:48 <JenStrickland> [Enhanced Set of 35 items]
22:59:50 <MJ> kevin: Yes, there is scope to explore guidance for policymakers. It's a sensile thing to explore. We don't write regulations and we don't tell regulators what to write
23:00:02 <Rachael> ack kevin
23:00:07 <MJ> ... We are in position to provide guidance to regulators
23:00:47 <kevin> RRSAgent, make minutes
23:00:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-minutes.html kevin
23:02:14 <JackieFei> JackieFei has joined #ag
23:29:12 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
23:30:58 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
23:32:18 <jspellman> jspellman has joined #ag
23:32:37 <jspellman> present+ jeanne
23:33:02 <MJ> MJ has joined #ag
23:34:12 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
23:34:48 <Rain> present+
23:34:53 <JackieFei> JackieFei has joined #ag
23:35:03 <tiffanyburtin> present+
23:35:03 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #ag
23:35:16 <JenStrickland> present+
23:36:18 <MJ> scribe+
23:36:21 <kevin> TOPIC: Wrapup
23:36:34 <dj> dj has joined #ag
23:36:42 <DJ> present+
23:37:27 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
23:37:29 <MJ> Rachel: Image alternatives and keyboard focus appearance are in PR
23:37:31 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
23:37:41 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
23:37:47 <alastairc> PR: for focus-appearance AND alt-text: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112
23:37:48 <MJ> ... subgroups are in process
23:37:59 <alastairc> Preview: https://deploy-preview-112--wcag3.netlify.app/
23:38:00 <julierawe> q+
23:38:21 <MJ> Rachael: We need to start looking at the next set of subgroups
23:38:31 <kirkwood> present+
23:38:44 <DJ> q+
23:38:47 <MJ> ... We can look at topics that are very different or topics that we know very well.
23:38:56 <Rachael> Ack julierawe
23:39:38 <MJ> julierawe: A few of us talked about how the preview link for the PR for focus and text alternatives have some issues around red bullets and numbering
23:39:40 <jspellman> q+ to say we learn a lot from topics that are varied and we know well
23:39:54 <MJ> Rachael: Please add your notes in the Google Doc or github
23:40:10 <MJ> julierawe: It's already in github
23:40:31 <Rachael> Q?
23:40:36 <Rachael> Ack dj
23:40:48 <MJ> DJ: I would love to do related subgroups
23:40:59 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
23:41:13 <MJ> ... Haptics is still in progress
23:41:38 <MJ> jspellman: We've learned a lot from doing topics that we know very well.
23:41:39 <Rain> Rain has joined #ag
23:42:06 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #ag
23:42:08 <MJ> ... I would recommend sticking with topics that we know, that are varied, and give us new perspectives on our structure and conformance.
23:42:21 <JenStrickland> scribe+
23:42:32 <julierawe> q+
23:42:39 <alastairc> ack jspellman
23:42:39 <Zakim> jspellman, you wanted to say we learn a lot from topics that are varied and we know well
23:42:44 <sheri_b-H6> sheri_b-H6 has joined #ag
23:43:13 <DJ> Zakim, agenda?
23:43:13 <Zakim> I see 9 items remaining on the agenda:
23:43:14 <Zakim> 1. 9:00-9:15 Getting Started [from kevin]
23:43:14 <Zakim> 2. 9:15-10:20 Conformance Exercise Wrap Up [from kevin]
23:43:14 <Zakim> 3. 10:20-10:45 Snacks [from kevin]
23:43:14 <Zakim> 4. 10:45-12:20 Conformance Model Discussion Part 1 [from kevin]
23:43:15 <Zakim> 5. 12:20-1:30 (13:30) Lunch [from kevin]
23:43:15 <Zakim> 6. 1:30 (13:30)-4:00 (16:00) Conformance Model Discussion Part 2 [from kevin]
23:43:15 <Zakim> 7. 4:00 (16:15)-4:30 (16:30) Snacks [from kevin]
23:43:15 <Zakim> 8. 4:30 (16:30)-5:15 (17:15) Next Steps [from kevin]
23:43:15 <Zakim> 9. 6:00 Dinner at the Cheesecake Factory’s Patio? [from kevin]
23:43:15 <alastairc> ack julierawe
23:43:17 <Rachael> Ack julierawe
23:43:26 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
23:43:46 <JenStrickland> julierawe One of the things jumping out at me is reduce cognitive barriers. Not unrelated to the implied meaning one. Also interested in the different groupings ladder up to the greater.
23:44:03 <sheri_b-H6> I'm interested in Visual stimulation which I think includes motion?
23:44:06 <JenStrickland> Rachael Anything else that jumps out at folks?
23:44:15 <JenStrickland> … we are on slide 51.
23:44:28 <shadi> RRSAgent, pointer?
23:44:28 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-ag-irc#T23-44-28
23:44:31 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nenidaKR6JmqqlETwyIPRCR7x6atFOwNXUMMTFwGHxs/edit?gid=0#gid=0
23:44:35 <JenStrickland> … if you're interested in what's in each of these they are on the testing sheet.
23:44:49 <Rachael> Q?
23:45:19 <JenStrickland> Rachael The next question is also related to outcomes. We have [missed]
23:45:25 <sheri_b-H6> actually, in checking the spreadsheet I discovered traditional motion is under avoid harm
23:45:44 <sheri_b-H6> which really needs a different name because lots of things cause harm that aren't under Avoid harm
23:45:47 <JenStrickland> We would like to have one of the ones in process go all the way through the process, through all the steps, so we can see how long it takes, and then have an idea of velocity.
23:45:48 <cyns> cyns has joined #ag
23:46:14 <JenStrickland> … there are two trains of thought on what are in PR. We could take image alternatives… with AI still speculative.
23:46:35 <JenStrickland> … or we could take keyboard focus, but then we have to dive into the color contrast algorithms which has pros/cons.
23:46:36 <DJ> q+
23:46:44 <MelanieP> q+
23:46:48 <JenStrickland> … what are your thoughts on what to take forward?
23:46:52 <JenStrickland> ack DJ
23:46:56 <Rachael> Ack DJ
23:47:04 <JenStrickland> @DJ I'd love to sort out color contrast.
23:47:10 <tiffanyburtin> I would at least like to include the different dark mode options.
23:47:21 <Rachael> Ack MelanieP
23:47:24 <alastairc> I'd love to sort out contrast as well, but it requires quite a lot of work...
23:47:39 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
23:47:45 <JenStrickland> MelanieP If you want to use this as an estimate, if we started the clock on a different outcome when we've worked out the kinks of the process. The first ones are going to take longer, so may not be a good measure.
23:48:11 <maryjom> q+
23:48:12 <Rachael> Q?
23:48:14 <alastairc> q+ to say keyboard might be an easier one
23:48:21 <JenStrickland> Rachael if we look at any one of these and look at them from exploratory to developing, we might have more info… because we'll have done more of them.
23:48:23 <Rachael> Ack maryjom
23:48:45 <julierawe> +1 to maryjom
23:49:02 <Rachael> Ack alastairc
23:49:02 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say keyboard might be an easier one
23:49:08 <JenStrickland> MJ I don't know if we should pick one… something we know from WCAG and then something that's completely new to WCAG. The timing may be different, as it's a headspace we haven't been in for a while. It might take more time to develop something we don't completely know.
23:49:20 <DJ> q+
23:49:28 <JenStrickland> alastairc I thought keyboard-only might be an easy one to tackle, give a more reasonable time estimate.
23:49:34 <Rachael> Ack dj
23:49:48 <Rachael> Q+
23:49:56 <JenStrickland> DJ Conversely, if we pick an easy one, then we take longer on the hard ones.
23:50:15 <Rachael> Ack rach
23:50:19 <JenStrickland> Rachael Maybe we do a combo of keyboard-only and color contrast, for easy & unknown.
23:50:21 <tiffanyburtin> q+
23:50:32 <Rachael> Ack tiffanyburtin
23:50:52 <MJ> q+
23:50:54 <JenStrickland> tiffanyburtin I would love to be a part of the discussion of color contrast because I'm impacted by a lot of the dark mode tools.
23:51:03 <Rachael> Ack MJ
23:51:09 <DJ> q+
23:51:14 <alastairc> Proposal - Use Keyboard only and Text contrast as the initial 2 that go through the full process.
23:51:17 <Rachael> Ack DJ
23:51:28 <JJ> JJ has joined #ag
23:51:30 <JenStrickland> AnnMarie - I would like to work on color contrast because we're working on that at Adobe.
23:51:50 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #ag
23:51:55 <MJ> s/AnnMarie/MJ
23:51:56 <alastairc> Draft resolution: Use Keyboard only and Text contrast as the initial 2 that go through the full process.
23:51:57 <Frankie> Frankie has joined #ag
23:52:24 <DJ> +1
23:52:25 <tiffanyburtin> +1
23:52:27 <MJ> +1
23:52:30 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
23:52:33 <JenStrickland> Rachael +1 if you support the draft resolution, -1 if not, 0 if you need more discussion./
23:52:34 <giacomo-petri> 0
23:52:34 <ljoakley> +1
23:52:35 <Patrick_H_Lauke> 0
23:52:35 <Glenda> +1
23:52:35 <julierawe> q+
23:52:35 <JenStrickland> +1
23:52:38 <SteveF> +1
23:52:38 <Rain> +1
23:52:39 <MelanieP> 0
23:52:41 <jspellman> +1
23:52:43 <Rachael> Ack julierawe
23:52:44 <kirkwood> +1
23:53:00 <JenStrickland> julierawe I think these two sound good, but they don't sound like a big departure from WCAG2.
23:53:06 <GreggVan> q+
23:53:28 <JenStrickland> … how much new ground would we be breaking?
23:53:29 <Rachael> Ack GreggVan
23:53:34 <alastairc> q+ on the purpose of these two
23:53:49 <Patrick_H_Lauke> known unknowns and unknown unknowns
23:54:01 <JenStrickland> GreggVan There's an adage that people learn new forms using old forms, etc. So it might be valuable to use something we know and also something new, …
23:54:06 <Rachael> Ack alastairc
23:54:06 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the purpose of these two
23:54:34 <Frankie> +1
23:54:49 <JenStrickland> alastairc I thought the purpose was to… agreeing with GreggVan's original point… how long to go through the process… although color contrast has some difficulties that will take longer.
23:54:56 <sheri_b-H6> Suggests Avoid Deception?
23:55:15 <tiffanyburtin> I'm open to alternative choices
23:55:17 <sheri_b-H6> we all know it, but it isn't yet in WCAG 2.X
23:55:34 <JenStrickland> Rachael There are enough 0s, let's talk about it. I see a proposal for Avoid Deception.
23:55:37 <tiffanyburtin> +1 Sheri
23:55:47 <JenStrickland> … these will be a commitment for time over a foreseeable future.
23:55:53 <Rachael> W?
23:55:56 <Rachael> Q?
23:55:59 <JenStrickland> … Going to next steps…
23:56:12 <JenStrickland> … What we're walking out with, a lot of data on conformance.
23:56:42 <JenStrickland> … next steps is for participants to test out WCAG3, which will still feel ambiguous because the statements are not complete. Make notes.
23:56:50 <JenStrickland> … The exercise is helpful to figure out what we need to do.
23:56:56 <DJ> q+ to others testing
23:57:19 <julierawe> q+
23:57:23 <JenStrickland> … we'll have an exercise where we'll have people sort outcomes by categories proposed… including enhanced.
23:57:26 <DJ> q-
23:57:35 <JenStrickland> … we have an activity to explore conformance levels/models…
23:57:48 <JenStrickland> … an activity for which activities will be cumulative…
23:58:01 <JenStrickland> … probably stuff we wouldn't do until our next charter, a year away.
23:58:04 <Rachael> Ack julierawe
23:59:01 <JenStrickland> julierawe For doing an exercise of sorting the outcomes into categories, want to mention that the internationalism accessibility cg, we don't have a lot to work on because there isn't enough in the one sentence description. There's a bit of barrier to figure out how to sort the list.
23:59:15 <JenStrickland> Rachael Any other next steps to capture?
23:59:19 <tiffanyburtin> +1 support Julie's comment. It can be very challenging to understand
23:59:45 <alastairc> It's a balance of whether we flesh out everything so people have detailed knowledge of it (which will take a lot of time), vs high-level categorisation tasks that help in a broad-brush way
23:59:52 <JenStrickland> Rachael Any last words/thoughts?