Meeting Minutes
Wendy ReidI wanted to start today with a very brief
chat about chairing this group, because, we're still in the midst of getting things ready to submit the
charter review for the working group, and I'll be chairing the working group, hopefully not alone for long, but,
that would be my role. And unfortunately, I also already chair another working group. And so two working groups and a community group,
and the other things that I do is too many things.
I would like to plant the seed in people's minds about possibly stepping up to chair this group, and also the other group, if you're interested in that, too. But in this case.
you'd work really closely. the plan is for the working group and the community group to work really closely together, and,
but definitely need, someone to take the reins, or multiple people should, having just one chair is never, the ideal scenario. It's always better to have more than one.
just because people go on vacations, and people need support, and, you know, just nice to have someone to bounce ideas off of.
so,
put the, I'm not asking anyone to step up right this minute, but definitely put the idea in your head and roll it around a bit. CG chairing is also, if it's ever been something you're interested in, it's definitely, an easy entry point.
and good way to get experience, so,
And you'll have lots of support.
You too. So.
Just roll that around in your minds.
Jutta TreviranusOr or if you think of anyone else that might also be interested.
Wendy ReidYes.
Definitely. If you know anyone who's, you think would do a great job as a chair, both either of this group or the other group, let us know.
because, yeah, we're definitely looking for more chair candidates, and,
There's lots of good people out there. It's just sometimes it's hard to find them.
With that, let's get into the fun part of today's meeting.
So, the topic for today, now that we have done our review of ATAG 2 and gone through all of the requirements.
The next phase of things is to actually move into talking about use cases and requirements.
The fun stuff. so I've created, just for the sake of collaboration, I've created a Google Doc, just because it's a little bit easier for everyone to collaborate in those.
Wendy Reidhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1--4RetwmMJwNmO10lFZM77iTmWUpNhfdQWSbUsH2_T4/edit?usp=sharing
Wendy ReidAnd what I thought for today would be, this is just like an opportunity for us to brainstorm and, you know.
Don't get too caught up on formatting or whether a use case is legitimate or not.
this is, an opportunity to think big and then, and think about all the different possible use cases or user scenarios or requirements. And, we can take the big list and narrow it down to,
Or focus it down to what, what it needs to be.
but at least this first go is really about, you know.
thinking big, and then we can look at, consolidating. I have included in a separate tab in this document, the ones that we've already gathered from the discussion thread, that we started a couple months ago.
So, I put them in separate for now, just so that, people didn't get distracted or too focused on these, but they are there if you wanna,
Look at them as well, and when we, when we do the more consolidation, we'll probably pull them all together.
Jutta Treviranustrying to deal with, especially in many of the committees, etc. Is this process of prioritization or majority rules sort of selection of what are the the most important things, or etc.
So everything that that is somewhat reductive of the the goals is that.
that, of course, causes this.
us to leave out the individuals that probably need whatever we're working on the most. And so I've been emphasizing that in situations like this, that really what we need to fix.
figure out is how to be the most adaptable and flexible, as opposed to specifics. So, you were saying start big, and I think one of the,
One of the biggest goals that I try to encourage is how do we be as flexible and adaptable as we possibly can, rather than picking very specific things.
And that's, I think, one of the points that I'm going to make with the Google Foundation as well, because they've been going through a prioritization exercise. And the issue there, of course, is that every time you.
go through that exercise. It's the people that,
tend to be the tiny minorities that have the greatest barriers are the ones that are then left out, because there's no scale, there's no impact in numbers, etc. And given the goals of Wei, I'm wondering whether there's a way to.
I mean, we've done that in Way as well, obviously. A lot of the,
resulting specifications and guidelines have.
embedded in them this type of framing. So I wonder if there's a way to not,
Like, how do we, how would, how do we do something different that is not using those metrics or those criteria?
Wendy ReidWhat that sparks for me is,
So, and I believe in EN 301 549 and in WCAG 3, they've introduced these concepts of, the functional user needs, and, so, the very first section is, like.
Why am I blanking on the phrasing? But, you know, users with who have vision needs must be able to use the products. And I wonder if like kind of a similar thing, you know, obviously we can.
Jutta TreviranusRight. Exactly. Yeah.
Wendy Reidco-opt those completely, but also,
I wonder if there's almost these, highest order use cases. users must be able to create documents, which sounds like,
And then, of course, then you drill down into what does that exactly mean? Users must be able to edit documents, users must be able to check accessibility.
Jutta TreviranusRight. So we did an alternative to what is in the EN 301 549 as part of the AODA phase two, where rather than it beginning with a deficit, we began it with a function.
So if you're, if this is the function, then this is what needs to, I can put a link in the chat to that. and that, yeah, that, that's,
That's a great strategy.
Because the, the FARs, or the, functional accessibility requirements in the EN begin with if someone's blind, if someone's etc. but rather than beginning with the deficit, what we did was we started with the, what is the function that is required? And, so, and that also frames it in such a way that, I mean, those are intended as guidance for the developers, and so the developers are beginning somewhere where they understand.
I'm providing this, therefore, if I'm providing this, I need to make sure that this is part of that.
Lisa Liskovoihttps://www.ontario.ca/page/review-information-and-communications-standards-2020-final-recommendations-report#section-5
Wendy ReidThere we go.
Or visual notes of presentation are provided, auditory, or speech. Yeah, starting with the affordance instead of the,
Instead of the impairment, basically.
Lisa LiskovoiFor comparison, this is how the EN 301 549 frames requirements: https://accessible.canada.ca/standards-and-technical-guides/standards-and-technical-guides-database/can-asc-en-301-5492024-accessibility-requirements-ict-products-and-services-en-301-5492021-idt/4-functional-performance
Jutta TreviranusCan I ask one question? Have we, I mean, there's some larger, questions to respond to as well as a community group, and that is, is our definition of what is accessibility largely driven by the web content accessibility guidelines, or.
And,
if so,
I mean, is there,
Yeah. Is there a possibility of —.
extending that or expanding that.
Or is it, are we completely and utterly tied to exactly what is defined as an accessible web page by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines?
Wendy ReidI'm going to say yes and no, I think.
Jutta TreviranusOkay.
Wendy ReidBecause I think there's,
Basically, the line is because essentially what we would be doing, like any other, like the prior version, we would be referring to WCAG as our reference point.
But I don't think there's a limit on us in the sense.
Like as long as anything beyond it we recommend is not like a contradiction of it then it's okay. Like I think we can, we can do, we can do and say more. We just can't contradict it.
Because then that creates friction in implementation.
Jutta TreviranusRight.
Of course, yeah.
But there are additional possible affordances if, since we're looking at AI as well, and there, yeah, and there's the opportunity for, uh.
Well, there's the whole spectrum of techno-specific requirements versus.
personal, personalization of some sort, right? So, user,
or post-authoring,
or opportunities for post-authoring adaptation, et cetera.
Lisa LiskovoiI can propose 2 pretty literal ways that we've addressed this in some of the other standards that I've worked on when when we are referencing WCAG, but want people to go beyond it. And one is to say at minimum meeting WCAG with the assumption that we're we're talking about WCAG.
plus other things. And another way that we've done it is, say accessible, assuming kind of WCAG and usable by people with disabilities. So that again, we're extending the definition into not just accessibility, but also usability.
I don't know if people have thoughts on that.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarSorry, Sam here. WCAG+, certainly, because ARIA and HTML.
5, and those things also come in. You have accessibility. The main point I wanted to ask about is the first point about the tool itself should be accessible is fully covered under WCAG. Like, if we have a Brightspace, I mean, HTML editor, under WCAG, it has to be usable by people with disabilities.
So what is special about ATAG? It is the essential criterion here, I agree, but how does this overlap with the WCAG?
Wendy ReidInterestingly, in the AG meeting this week, we ended up talking quite a bit about ATAG because we had a whole conversation about, what to do about user-generated and third-party content.
And ATAG, that's where ATAG, I think, comes into the most concern, because if you are a web, say you are a website that,
is an authoring tool or has an authoring tool platform.
You know, where is the line between where WCAG ends and ATAG starts?
I do think, like,
We, it's like,
It's a very fuzzy line that we will have to define better, especially I think now with AI, because I think the AI line even makes it sometimes a bit fuzzier.
but it was interesting to discuss,
what the implications are. Because there was a discussion, some people in WCAG 3 were saying, well, user-generated content, we now have tools that can make it even easier for user-generated content to be accessible, so should we say more about it in WCAG 3?
And,
I and others piped up to be well, no, this is still very much in the realm of ATAG, and I think that the extent that WCAG should go to is saying, in cases of authoring tools or user-generated content, look to ATAG.
conform to ATAG.
And to the requirements of this, you know, the functional requirements of WCAG, because there's some things that are defined in WCAG that we lean on.
But there is some tension there, I think, between the two documents.
Jutta TreviranusWell, so to further to Sam's point, the ATAG first part, first part of ATAG about the accessibility of the interface, of course, at the time that ATAG 2.0 was created, many of the authoring tools were not web-based.
apps. Right? But in addition to addressing things that are not web apps, and therefore it isn't. There wasn't a requirement for the systems or the authoring environments to be, compliant to WCAG. There's also specific authoring, tasks that are not covered by WCAG, like.
the opportunity for you to have one view as an author versus one view as the default rendering, etc. So the, it was intended to address, and of course, at the time, the attitude was that the primary thing.
about accessibility was that people with disabilities had to be have were viewed as consumers as opposed to developers and producers of content. So to make that point that it's all roles, and especially.
That.
If you have a disability, you should be able to be a producer and a developer of content as well. But I think what still is relevant at this point, now that most authoring environments are.
web systems as well, or tend to be web applications, is, is that, those special functions that happen when you're an author.
But I also think it is a valid point to make that authoring itself should be accessible.
Wendy ReidEverything is a web app now 😄
Abhinav Kannan:😂
Sambhavi ChandrashekarThis is interesting, Jutta, because I like the creator view and the consumer view previously.
In our learning management system, we had the classic.
system where instructor had a different view, and the learner had a different view. But since a few years we have the new content experience where both have identical. I didn't think it had such a philosophical underpinning to it.
Now that you talk about this, I understand it much better, or I can give new meaning to what has been done.
And the other thing I wanted to talk about is between WCAG and ATAG.
Going by the function.
ATAG has more cognitive,
aspects to it, that usually WCAG compliance or conformance is looked upon as compatibility with assistive technologies. In most cases, very few people test for cognitive. We've been testing for quite a few years. Very few people test for cognitive accessibility.
But,
In the case of authoring, it's so much cognitive that even the process.
Has a lot.
That we need to take care of.
I mean, understanding we need to take care of, although ATAG 2 had perceivable operable understanding robust.
Jutta TreviranusGood.
And that's where this whole idea of what was called prompting, which we need to rethink now that prompting has been appropriated by AI. The idea was to guide, educate.
support, scaffold the author in creating something that was accessible, which.
thereby giving cognitive support for the creation of accessible content.
Did we ever come up with an alternative term for it?
Wendy ReidOh, no. We're gonna have to, it's on our list of,definitions to work out.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarAnd recently, sorry, Wendy, just one more point. Like Canada School called us for a meeting. I'm just putting in the chat a link they found on the Accessibility Standards Canada site Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 3.0 - CAN/ASC-6.3 - ASC's page. And they panicked and they said, is this going to be necessary under the ICT regulation in Canada? Are you doing this report? The ATAG.
So, I see the 6.3 is announced over there, Jutta.
Jutta TreviranusYep.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarBut it's, not populated at all, it's just a blank page.
So this is the.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, so this is, so what needs to happen in terms of the Standards Canada process is they need to announce an activity so that other, specifications and standards bodies can say, no, we are, we're already doing this.
Or this is redundant. And so you need to, in order to actually get SCC approval to engage in the development of a standard, you need to go through this process. It's like a new work item proposal in ISO, et cetera.
So that it is published, or publicly published, so that other standards groups can say, we should either work together, or, this is already done, or this is within our purview.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarSo, in my conversation with them yesterday, whatever I said, I'm going to say over here and ask, seek your concurrence. I said that.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarATAG is not,
referred to in regulations, like WCAG, so it will not be,
a requirement for compliance. Is that correct?
Jutta TreviranusNo, that's not. So ATAG is referenced in quite a number of different regulatory documents.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarIn the ICT regulation, it's not, right?
And the EN301549 is what is,
Jutta TreviranusYou mean in,
Yeah, there are components of ATAG that are in there.
But, and with the, the, next version, the new version, or the refresh, or whatever it's called at the moment, there will, there's even more, but, the,
likely, the ATAG will move towards a regulatory standard in Canada. Just because, I mean, it makes a lot of sense, because, I mean, think of the Canadian government, they have the government organization how much money they're currently spending in repair and evaluation. it, it makes sort of, fiscal sense, it makes, to prevent barriers rather than trying to repair them. So there's, there's a huge argument for moving this into a regulation.
Wendy ReidChapter 11.7 is all about authoring tools
Wendy ReidOf EN 301 549
Wendy Reid*11.8 sorry
Wendy ReidReplying to "*11.8 sorry":
https://accessible.canada.ca/standards-and-technical-guides/standards-and-technical-guides-database/can-asc-en-301-5492024-accessibility-requirements-ict-products-and-services-en-301-5492021-idt/11-software#s11.8
Sambhavi ChandrashekarAnd unless it goes into a regulation, it will not become as strong as WCAG, I think. I'm not sure. And should it be named as such in a regulation, or should different clauses from it be included? How does it happen? Can we identify that this is ATAG? In a regulation.
Jutta TreviranusWell, it'll be, that will depend upon the regulator. So,
if you look at 508, the rehab 508, there are, they've picked specific parts of ATAG, similarly to the EN, but,
That's been done with WCAG as well. There are definitely regulations that point to portions of WCAG.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarSo, in our WCAG ACR itself, we,
put notes in those sections, which are related to content creation under ATAG, although it's, we don't do a separate report for,
So probably that's how it will be coming in, I guess.
Wendy ReidIt's going to depend on the regulator, but that's like a detail that we're far off from.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, and that's not up to us. It is up to the regulator.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarYeah, and it's also for the people whom this will impact, right? The people who will have to implement this and the people who'll have to report on that.
Wendy ReidWe can only make recommendations.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, and of course.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarWindows, I mean.
we needn't be an authoring tool company. We could be an LMS company with some components having authoring capability. In 2017.
when we created the first ATAG report, we had only one HTML editor, then now we have a media editor, we have an interactive.
content creation editor, and then we have,
an AI automatic AI technique.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, so part of our compliance statement will be a definition of what is an authoring tool.
Wendy ReidYeah, thank you.
Something else that came up in the kind of ATAG/WCAG conversation that I thought was,
Interesting. And I put it in as kind of a very specific use case because we were talking about user-generated content.
there was some desire to say, oh, user-generated content should be a normative part of WCAG conformance.
and essentially like almost making it mandatory that user generated content be accessible. And I realized that that is one of those things that sounds really good on paper until you think about the actual implementation, because.
and I, maybe this is just my publishing background, there's a lot of cases where you actually almost intentionally want to make something.
I don't want to say intentionally inaccessible, but by making something intentionally accessible for one person or a group of people, you are also intentionally making it inaccessible for another group of people.
Jutta Treviranusinaccessible.
There's also illustrative examples of accessibility barriers that you might want to produce. Yeah, the way we navigated that was that you had to, support someone in, I mean, so there's still the, there's always the author choice to do something that isn't accessible, but that it's easiest and fastest, and you have adequate instruction, and it's possible to make everything accessible.
Of course, at the time that ATAG 2 was being developed, it was, the big discussion was in social media, and at what point is the authoring tool developer still responsible for the.
the content or the, I mean, that was also the WCAG debate. So yeah.
Sorry, Wendy, I think I may have cut you off, I didn't intend.
Miriam FukushimaI, just a heads up, I might just disappear, suddenly when my internet cuts out. yeah, but, I also have in my work field, the, the case that, uh.
authors of content also, just for arts reasons, or some literature reasons, want content a certain way, and it's transparent to users. For example, we had an art piece that depicted text. But the text was kind of just parts of letters, and.
It was about psychology and whatnot, but, in that case,
that if the authoring tool still marks it, and just to clarify why this wouldn't be accessible, and then leave it up to the author to see if there is maybe still an alternative. For example, we just described it completely as a alternative text that wasn't visible was just linked. So you don't get any spoilers or anything, but you can, if you don't understand it, or need extra interpretation or help, or can't see it, or whatever.
There is a way to access the information otherwise.
Lisa LiskovoiSo I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the way that I was thinking about it was there's a difference between the authoring tool and what the capabilities of the tool are versus what the author is actually creating and where we want to give flexibility and choice.
is for the actual author as a human being, and where we want to be more strict and say, okay, the tool has to be able to do this. It's, on the tool level.
Because then the author can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't have the option of creating fully accessible content to the degree that that's possible if they have the desire to do so.
Jutta TreviranusWell, more than if they have the desire to do so, but also to make it easiest and to also encourage and provide necessary instruction and support for it, so that the.
accessible way of producing something is actually the first thing that you see. Frequently, what had been happening in tools is, in order to try, well, first of all, many of the tools at the time.
didn't, made it impossible to create accessible content. And then, and if you had the desire to, you would have to spend a lot more,
time searching for the necessary.
functions in order to make it accessible. So the idea was that the default experience encouraged creation of accessible stuff.
Wendy ReidYeah, I tried to phrase this, and I'm happy to,
get guidance on, how to do this better, but I, I think we want, we want to enshrine some concept of, like.
and maybe it's authors, that the author or the creator of the content, or the, because, well,
Whoever is working directly with the content.
at a particular moment has complete control.
but is also given all the guidance and information needed to make the right decisions.
Because we, like, I think, one of the challenges now is, obviously, you know, 10 years ago, it was that a lot of tools just simply did not have these features.
Where we're at today is that a lot of tools have these features, or, you know, obviously, with AI, they can implement these features.
But,
Users are still not given guidance. If they don't know the feature is there, they may not use it. If it's not put up in front of them, and in some cases, I think it's not explained why this might be a good idea.
or why you might want to do it, or why we're asking you to do it, they'll ignore it or skip over it entirely, because it's well, I don't understand what alt text does for me, or I don't understand what heading structure does for me.
And so we now are in a place where it's well, no, we have that knowledge. The tools have the ability to do this.
But there might be like Miriam, like your example, like.
You might consciously want your content to not do certain things for artistic reasons, for, you know, personal preferences, whatever, but you should at least be given the,
given the tools and the knowledge to make those decisions consciously.
Jacob WoodAccessible options should be the default, even if someone chooses to override them.
Wendy Reid, Ned Zimmerman, Lisa Liskovoi, Abhinav Kannan:💯
Miriam Fukushimaso maybe we just add, to make informed decisions?
And I have another point. I don't know if that was said already, but, How was it?
Yeah, I would add creation, editing, review, and documenting features, because those also need to be.
accessible. Like, if the documentation is not accessible.
That's also a point.
Wendy ReidAre we missing any of these, like, I like the idea of, having these kind of, highest level.
I'm sure we'll come up with a better terminology for this, like the high order user and authoring tool requirements.
Go ahead, Tim.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarCould there be something specific to translation here?
I'm just wondering.
In an authoring tool, if it allows translation.
Then it brings in another culture.
Again, the alt text will have to be generated.
Beyond that, would there be some thing?
That impacts accessibility.
This is not,
Generation.
I'm not sure.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, I think that is something that's quite important.
and extends beyond, I mean, I think it's something that's been ignored by Wei to a large extent, but shouldn't be.
Wendy ReidTrying to think of how to frame this.
Jutta TreviranusAnd of course, it goes beyond.
minority languages to also languages related to accessibility, right?
Various forms of sign, symbol languages, symbol sets et cetera.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarLike some terms are very specific. What we call as a person with a disability here in India, it's differently abled.
I mean, sorry, I'm transgressing and going somewhere else.
How about progressive disclosure of.
Features, or,
even,
Making it easier to,
make things accessible.
Through education within the tool.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, that's part of that, what we had under,
prompting or support, like, the default being the accessible mode. But further to your language, um.
And the authoring environment should allow for.
someone to be able to include scripts that are not the dominant scripts.
non-phonetic languages, symbolic languages, et cetera, all of, I mean, that's something to consider that is part of accessibility.
And that extends then to the various font types, but also to symbols.
And I think Miriam and Israel have,
Miriam FukushimaYeah, maybe we could formulate it a bit more general in that authoring tools must expose their texts and labels to.
To the outside, so that,
Translation,
software, or,
Yeah, like, preference software, whatever, plugins that change the font or the,
the size, or whatever can access the authoring tool like.
Because I'm I'm thinking, that not every tool needs.
a translation in itself, if I know I do my, tool for a very local market, and then it's a huge overhead to,
Have translations in there.
But, if I still expose the text, that it can be marked, that it can be accessed from the outside, then anyone who uses the tool, in theory, can.
still translate it if they want to.
it's, of course, it's not that nice then, maybe, and not baked in, but I think it's too much to ask to,
set the,
translation directly in the authoring tool. But.
and you also can't provide for any preferences, so by opening up those things, you can still allow people to use plugins, to use other software, to use, even installed software, or through Windows, or whatever other operating system.
to access the authoring tool.
Israel CefrinYeah. So on that note of Sambhavi just mentioned about disclosure accessibility features. I am the guy that add a lot of things about accessibility metadata because for my working field here and I think that adding accessibility metadata.
for documents, and for the content itself could help to disclosure the features to the content. Creation accessibility. Metadata is a requirement from the EN. 309, in Chapter 12, about disclosure, information about the feature and functionalities for accessibility.
So, maybe these metadata could be applied not for only two documents uploaded, but the content creation itself as language, for example. So, which language these content is available, or any other feature for accessibility for people with disabilities, for example.
Sambhavi ChandrashekarGoing beyond translation, I'm thinking of localization. Do we think in those terms? What we do with the LMS is we provide.
the ability to use local terms in some cases.
In the tool itself.
We were talking about translating content, but what if the tool is sold internationally?
It's localized to different.
languages and cultures.
some of the terms, I mean, I don't know, it might be relevant, might not be relevant, but this is one thing we do. Allow,
the users to,
change some of the ways and change some of the terms used on the tool itself.
We can just drop it. Maybe if it comes later on as something relevant, we can pick it up again.
Miriam FukushimaYeah, maybe just as a sentence that authoring tools must document all their features.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, I think that some of these things we're saying right now are, point to the adaptability of the system, which I think is,
what we should, I mean, we have the opportunity to prioritize as well. So, to Sam Avi's point of the translatability of the interface, of the tool interface, there.
providing mechanisms whereby that can be localized, but also personalized, I think is, is,
potentially going into that realm of allowing for adaptability, flexibility, and personal customization or tailorability.
one, case example of what we did with the A-Tutor, and I, I think this points as well to, this idea of not.
picking via impact or scale or those sorts of things. So A-Tutor was a learning management system we created at the IDRC in order to bring into effect the 508 requirements regarding learning management systems.
and accessibility. At the time, all of the existing LMSs had agreed that they would, collectively not adhere to it, so that there wouldn't be, the,
There wouldn't be the requirement of the 508 requirements for LMSs, and so what we did was we created an open source tool that would meet all of the 508 requirements so that the 508 requirements came into effect in that domain.
And one of the things we,
we're wondering about is how many languages should we support, given that it was a, we, being in Canada, we needed to support French. Were we going to support Spanish as well? Because the intent was for 508, but then we thought, well.
rather than picking something based upon only impact and numbers, why don't we think about how to make the entire system adaptable? So we created this translation, um.
function whereby you only needed, we separated all text within the interface from,
the, any of the code, so that somebody who, who simply could use a word processor could take the text and provide the translation, and the requirement was simply that you needed one translator, two reviewers, and then you could, uh.
we would take the code and you could create a translated localized version of it. And that, of course, I mean, rather than trying to base it upon priority in terms of impact and numbers, it resulted in.
a LMS that, for quite some time, had the largest number of seats globally, especially in, in non-English countries. so it's, it's that adaptability, I think, that,
is both beneficial and likely will support.
Yeah, great. In the end, it has a far bigger impact than if we try to prioritize based upon.
sort of dominant features that are required.
Wendy ReidAll right. We only have a couple minutes left.
People are welcome, by the way, people are welcome to work on this between meetings. We'll continue this discussion next week, so if something comes to mind, you know, feel free to,
To pop it in.
I do kind of like the idea of,
Especially with these higher, highest order needs.
It might also help us to, organize the use cases according to those, users to be able to author content, and then here are the use cases, like.
Use cases related to authoring, here are the use cases related to editing, here are the use cases,
and that might also help us, like.
Focus in on the most essential.
requirements.
So I might do some reorganization of this document ahead of next week, but feel free to put stuff in.
I'll probably just, make a copy of it and do it so it's not messing with anyone editing it.
Israel.
Israel Cefrinyeah, just something else that came to my mind here is that when you have, uh.
an authoring tool, we are adding content text, anything, but sometimes the output is another format.
Some systems they provide like PDF or XML or something like that. So I know how to frame that, but how to ensure that the output is also accessible. So I don't know how to frame that, but there's a lot of systems that we created content.
Writing in a type setting and you have formats to output.
So I know it's part of authoring tools or just for the final front end, but it came from the back end. So it came from the authoring tool. So to ensure that the final product is also accessible, not just a page, but if the system provide a PDF or.
Abhinav KannanReally like the use cases being written up -- so relatable.
Israel CefrinAdd a pub, or something like that.
Jutta TreviranusYeah, that was part of the conversion work.
Israel CefrinYep.
So, in being part of the conversion, is part of the authoring tool, or,
Jutta TreviranusYeah. Okay.
Israel CefrinOkay.
So I I just don't know how to frame that.
Lisa LiskovoiI think you can find that in guideline B.1.2, ensure accessibility information is preserved.
Lisa Liskovoihttps://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20150924/#gl_b12
Abhinav KannanYeah, preserved and across document formats.
Israel CefrinYeah.
I like this preserve because including accessibility metadata in the final document as well.
Wendy ReidYeah, the metadata is important.
This makes me wonder if,
So one of the things that we work on in the publishing activity is accessibility metadata. I don't know if there's other accessibility metadata standards.
Outside of the publishing one? I assume there is. It's in schema. But it's not technically a spec. And we've talked about this for a while of well, it's partially a spec, partially not. And I wonder if that comes up as oh, we probably should make that a spec.
Probably should,
finalize some of that.
Israel CefrinI've been working a while with the metadata itself, with providers for open access and open knowledge. And accessibility metadata is a huge gap for people how to preserve because people don't even know how to use that.
So, maybe, documentation about that could provide more, encouragement to people to start to use that for their documents? So maybe that's the chance.
Wendy Reidhttps://www.w3.org/community/reports/publishingcg/CG-FINAL-a11y-display-guidelines-20251222/
Israel Cefrin:👍
Wendy ReidShare a link because I'm wondering if you — do you need something like this?
I'll put a link in the chat.
We'll talk about metadata more, too. I'm sure it's going to come up a lot.
All right,
We'll wrap up things here. Thanks, everyone, for participating in all of the excellent discussion. We will meet again next week.