Meeting minutes
<ChrisLoiselle> Can only stay for 30 minutes as have conflicting customer call.
Chuck: Hello everyone and welcome
… introductions, anyone new or with a new affiliation/role?
Melanie: Hi, Melanie Philipp, I formerly presented Deque, now with USAA as an invited expert
Jem: Hi, I have missed you all for a year, I work for University of Illinois, I co-facilitate the ARIA authoring group, and I'm an AC rep
Chuck: Welcome back!
Chuck: Announcements
… a couple of weeks ago we discussed hosting an onboarding call before the AGWG call
… we are going to have the first one next week, first meeting of Feb
… we'll send out an announcement, 30min before the AGWG call
… MJ has agreed to run it, but asked for a chair to help facilitate
<DJ> MJ and I are cohosting
<Chuck> https://
Chuck: we are working on that
… I pasted a link in IRC for our training materials
… I've hosted and recorded an onboarding session in the past, content and recording is in the link as well
… any questions?
kevin: Related to IRC dropping
… systeam worked out what was going on
… we have a solution which we will try
… will kick in starting thursday, related to our cloudflare services
… if folks who have issues, pay attention after thursday, let systeam know
Chuck: Good news, looking forward to it
kevin: Sorry its taken so long
bruce_bailey: Just checking that we're keeping the new client?
kevin: Yes, this is specifically related to the lounge, there are other clients out there that handle the drops more effectively
… like IRCCloud
… the lounge makes it difficult, so it's not ideal
Assertions and Best Practices https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/120#discussioncomment-11854616
Chuck: Starting with the agenda, first item, to discuss recommendations and best practices
… will be sharing my screen, let me know if there are any issues
… first thing I'd like to do is review a summary of the conversation in this issue
… go through some exemplars
… Rachael did a summary on Jan 16
… Gregg proposed recommendations, Shawn suggested Best Practices since recommendations is loaded, Jon suggested "Advisory Techniques"
… we've had a rich conversation about assertions
… differences between supplemental requirements, assertions, and best practices
… some people offered feedback
Chuck: [continued reading off page]
… Chris offered an analogy
https://
Chuck: based on basketball
… Alastair also provided some examples
… alt text requirement, non-decorative images require alt
… best practice, images part of a wrapper have no alt
… further discussion of supplemental requirements
… these are examples that were part of the online discussion
… any clarifications or comments?
Chuck: Any questions?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how this relates to conformance
Chuck: bruce_bailey I know you provided a lot of questions
alastairc: Just wanted to relate this to the conformance discussions at TPAC
… foundational requirements in a decision tree
… we've also got supplemental requirements, objectively testable, but part of scoring
… meet foundational, and then add those to meet high levels of conformance
… where I see best practices fitting in, you don't want it part of scoring, they're highly dependent on context
… the example I gave was "in this specific scenario", but it would not be universally applicable
… the difference with assertions is that they are more process-based
… it's not something that a random third-party could confirm
… it's tied to the conformance, we'd not be using bestp ractices for scoring
<roldon_b> Hello, please excuse this late entry about this topic. However, I feel that “Best Practice” is something that is clearly based in evidence or an industry standard which can provide a benchmark. While a recommendation is a suggestion, if it isn’t suggesting evidence and what can be seen as a benchmark, it can’t have the title of “Best
<roldon_b> Practice”.
Chuck: Raises a question for me
… best practices, where would they live? I don't think they belong in the decision tree
alastairc: The things we have been putting in the decision tree are things applicable to the scenario, they are all required, just helps form the scenario
… but since we committed to a scoring mechanism for supplemental requirements, they can't go in the tree, it could be in a flat list outside of the tree
Chuck: What we're looking to decide here is whether we should include best practices
… I haven't seen any objections
<wendyreid7> +1 to best practices
Chuck: Does anyone have any concerns about best practices
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about best practices and the decision tree
Rachael: I don't have a concern, I think we should include them, I am struggling with where they sit, they feel more method level than requirement lelve
… and potentially better handled by assertions
jtoles: I don't have any concerns, I think they should be included, I work with people in education, they take it as "things you should be doing", whereas we understand it as "above and beyond"
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest we ask sub-groups to gather / mark things as best practices, see where they fit
jtoles: it can be a point of confusion between people in accessibility vs outside of it
<bruce_bailey> +1 to John Toles
alastairc: I would suggest we allow for sub-groups to mark things as best practices and see where they fit
<Rachael> +1 to Alastair's suggestion
alastairc: I'm fairly sure that we have had things we've discussed where we like it but it's not a requirement, but noting them down, we can work out where they might fit
… potential for them to highly context-specific
… on the terminology, I'd like to call them recommendations, but Shawn is right, it's a loaded term
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention USAB "best practices" webinar series
alastairc: if anyone has a suggestion that doesn't clash, I'd love to hear it
bruce_bailey: +1 to jtoles' comment
Chuck: Another term is "advisory technique"
… lots of options, but they can be used for other purposes
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to address terminology
<Zakim> DJ, you wanted to frame of reference
DJ: Sticking to one term as a frame of reference, but we have 2 definitions right now
… we should first decide what we are talking about as a frame of reference
ChrisLoiselle: What comes to mind is word soup, we have "recommendation" as in the document, but outside of W3C, when I'm thinking about best practice is the method to do something
… the method to accomplish a goal
… if we're in WCAG3 and we have the ability to reset where we're going
… to DJ's point, understanding terms and how they are used, pinpointing how we want to use terms
… there's still a blur to the applicability of each and what you can use contextually
alastairc: I think in this group, anything that improves accessibility that we can ask people to do will be a requirement
… these things are required but you don't have to do all of them, and these things are recommended
… thats the term I get stuck on
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on terminology, we're differentiating from 'requirements'.
alastairc: for the moment as the people working on the content, there is this other bucket we can put things in
wendyreid: we might define best practices differently from others, but i think we all have the same intentions
… we want people to make things as accessible as possible
<Jennie_Delisi> I asked AI to give some options which differentiate between those which are requirements. Some options suggested included: situational recommendations, context-specific suggestions, recommended approaches, context-based recommendations
wendyreid: by putting these in the document, we give people the tools to do that without requiring specific solutions
… i think having all that information in one place will be extremely helpful
kevin: A few thoughts
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to mention explainer and doesn't need to be fixed in stone?
kevin: we don't necessarily need to carve a term in stone, we can agree to use best practice for now
… the key part mentioned in a few comments, being clear about our definitions in our explainer/introduction
… we can define how we use the term
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss point of order
<Zakim> DJ, you wanted to different term
Chuck: point of order, chairs I am working on a resolution for this conversation since we're approaching consensus
DJ: I agree with everyone, fully in favour of including this, I'd like to propose "suggested techniques" in order to avoid terms with other meanings
<ChrisLoiselle> Need to leave for a customer call. I will follow the minutes.
DJ: not requiring this solution, but accommodates other terms
jtoles: We should definitely include best practice, and even use the term, we just need to clearly define it in the document to avoid confusion
… a technique we have as a best practice, then trying to find another name, for example, controls should have text labels, but if not, here's some other things you can do that are acceptable
<Frankie> +1 to providing a plain text glossary item for "best practice" or whatever our selected term will be
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: We agree to allow for "best practices", sub-groups will collect things that fit the approach, and we will review those in a future meeting
Chuck: reads resolution
<wendyreid> +1
<DJ> -1
<hdv> +1
kevin: Point of order, do we want to add in something about reviewing the terminology
<Detlev> +0 abstain
<ShawnT> +1
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: We agree to allow for "best practices", sub-groups will collect things that fit the approach, and we will review those and the terminology in a future meeting
<Rachael> +1
<alastairc> +1, First thing will be - update to the sub-group handbook & template
<Laura_Carlson> +1
<DJ> +1
<julierawe> +1
<Rain> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Makoto> +1
<Jennie_Delisi> +1
<Chuck> +1
<kevin> +1
<AlinaV> +1
<Frankie> +1
<hdv> +1
<jtoles> +1
<wendyreid8> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1\
Chuck: Any objections?
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Azlan> +1
RESOLUTION: We agree to allow for "best practices", sub-groups will collect things that fit the approach, and we will review those and the terminology in a future meeting
Follow Up on Paths
Chuck: Follow up on paths
… a funny thing happened on our way to running the subgroups last week
… my group didn't have enough participation
… people came back to the main room asking for materials to help define all the paths
… in between last week and this week, we've updated the handbook
… and we have provided a link to a document that has some related content regarding the requirements
<Chuck> https://
Chuck: first thing I would like to do is add the link to the handbook
… spreadsheet and handbook link is in IRC
… Rachael, you were updating the handbook, anything to cover?
Rachael: I'm not quite done, so expect more edits
… we've added more structure
… links to places you need to get to
… hopefully this will be clearer
… getting started is the hardest part, pulling the data you have, where to start, and moving forward
… do recommend grabbing a chair if you have questions
Chuck: Want to highlight this link to the spreadsheet
… Kevin put together this pathways doc
… link to the requirements that helps guide the subgroup in defining and clarifying the requirement
… most common question
… I will ask for anyone participating in subgroups if they have any other questions you'd like to ask now
… anything we haven't addressed?
julierawe: One question about pathways, I was looking at this this morning
… it was looking like things have moved to different paths?
… for example, things that were in organization and structure are now in plain language
Rachael: The organization of the pathways is not the organization of the document
… mix of things like expertise needed, number of guidelines that are interrelated and connected
… like grouping together COGA-related guidelines
… trying to keep the same amount of guidelines in the paths
Chuck: Did that answer your question?
julierawe: Still processing
Chuck: Wanted to add to that, this was an organizational exercise to try and focus our resources and knowledge
… it does not necessarily represents the organization of the document, but an educated guess on the best groups of guidelines to tackle
… as a subgroup does the work is free to create content or recommendations to address in other pathways or guidelines
… our best guess on how to start this task
Chuck: Any other questions?
… we might be able to start subgroups early!
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on update from sub-groups
alastairc: So groups can prepare, from next week, we'll do a little update from each sub-group as to where you are in terms of status
… so we can call keep tabs
… also to check for overlap
<Detlev> we had an input meeting last week!
<bruce_bailey> Yes, Keyboard subgroup transitioned to Inputs starting last week
<alastairc> Detlev - in the tuesday meeting
<alastairc> Detlev - in the tuesday meeting?
<Detlev> yes
<alastairc> Hmm, I don't have access, that probably isn't in the right folder?
<Rachael> See https://
<Francis_Storr> chuck - I think your subgroup spreadsheet is an out of date duplicate. If you look at the Group Members tab of the Pathways For WCAG 3 document, you can more up to date info: https://