Meeting Minutes
Wendy Reid: https://w3c-cg.github.io/atag/docs/ucr/
Ned Zimmerman: Sure. Yeah. I mean, in general, we were discussing — so Wendy, do you have a link to the draft use cases that you published before last meeting that you could just drop into the chat?
Great, thank you. yeah, we were just talking through this, and
discussing different pieces of feedback that folks had to it. I think one really interesting discussion was around.
where the line is between creation and modification, and ways that we could reduce potential overlap between those use cases or make them a little clearer.
I think also there was some really good discussion around.
Charles Hall: Evaluation and validation
Wendy Reid: I can. There you go.
Miriam Fukushima: Yeah, we also discussed the, sorry if my mic is crap today, I'm at a different place. So we also discussed responsibility and how to integrate properly on how authoring tools should
Ned Zimmerman: And I'm trying to think if there was any other major discussion points here. I think Jutta brought up the point that this doesn't really —.
Miriam Fukushima: like show who's responsible or take feedback and then forward it to the right places and how to kind of phrase this responsibility that it gets to the right places because obviously.
If there's a suit of authoring tools that uses different stack
Ned Zimmerman: I'm also recalling there was another interesting discussion around formats that
At a low level are not.
do not provide accessibility information. And so while if the target is the web, I think this came up in the context of CAD. And if CAD in and of itself can convey meaningful accessibility information, I don't think we had anyone on the call who was sure about that.
I'm certainly not sure about it anyway. But then we were kind of talking about this as a similar.
instance to, you know, if you're an authoring tool, you're working with a format that may be published to the web that.
itself has accessibility limitations or barriers inherent in the file format, where that boundary of responsibility lies between the authoring tool and the format maintainer, whoever that might be. So it was a bit of a side conversation, but an interesting one, because I think it similarly relates to.
Earlier conversations that we'd had about.
Authoring tools that integrate large language models that aren't created by the creator of the authoring tool and how that boundary of responsibility lies between the authoring tool and the maintainer of the large language model and the trainer of the large language model where
Large language models may not be trained on accessible patterns and content and structures. And then if you integrate a third party large language model in your authoring tool, you inherit the accessibility limitations of that model. So I thought that was also an interesting discussion that came up.
And around the CAD format and other.
Charles Hall: The tool can be web based (like Word in a browser) and the output can be web based (like a user agent can parse a.doc file).
We don’t know if CAD can do either. Or if it uses MATHML
Wendy Reid: Amazing.
Sounds like a really
Ned Zimmerman: Yeah, I think that's actually thanks, Charles. The Word document example was a good one where like
Miriam Fukushima: @Hidde de Vries I was in the Webinar for EN 301 549 yesterday and your part was targeting authoring tools, so maybe we should also discuss here on how this reflects on ATAG?
Mike Gifford (CivicActions):👍
Ned Zimmerman: authoring interfaces in the web for non-web form
Wendy Reid: Yeah, Word. I was having another discussion in another venue about Word as well, because Word or like DocX.
Miriam Fukushima: *day before yesterday
Wendy Reid: is a really interesting case of like
something that's, technically non-interoperable But is also
Very well supported in multiple places.
And it's like pseudo-interoperable
And I imagine there's probably other file formats that are a bit like that.
and the appearance of accessibility.
interoperability.
Hedda, do you want to talk about the webinar for EN 301 549?
Hidde de Vries: Yeah, sure. I was just typing a reply, but I can do it out loud. Maybe not.
Yeah, so yesterday we did a webinar, explaining and
There were six of us, and each of us had one requirement from that specification that we.
It's deeper, and mine was, the one on, on authoring, creation.
Charles Hall: .doc is exposed to accessibility APIs by user agents – but likely not the same as html
Hidde de Vries: I'm trying to see if I can get slides with accessible content creation. And it's basically trying to shoehorn a little.
into one requirement, because it says you need to enable the production of.
performs to blah, blah, blah. Basically means site content of production of accessible content.
So that's all of it. Basically how to use it.
So we discussed this in a big group and tried to come up with examples. But I feel like ATAG is already much better than this one requirement in the end.
And I don't know if we can learn much from that requirement in EN, possibly the other way around,
Borrow more from from,
but, yeah, maybe see Miriam's got her hand up.
Miriam Fukushima: Yeah, what I was just wondering yesterday is, or a day before yesterday, I think it was a day before yesterday, that if we
have this mentioned in the EN and ATAG already covered covers it like more in detail and we had these discussions here and the update of ATAG will be better than the mention of.
the phrase like in EN.
Mike Gifford (CivicActions): Drupal & AI is an interesting example.
https://www.drupal.org/about/ai/initiatives/blog/empowering-creators-and-governing-agents-the-next-phase-of-the-drupal-ai-initiative
https://www.drupal.org/project/ai_context
https://www.drupal.org/about/ai/initiatives
Miriam Fukushima: I was just wondering how this interacts with each other. Will this just stand next to each other? Will EN be some kind of legal ground where, we can, First of all, I think EN then should also reference the,
the parts in ATAG that correspond to this, but also, how does that legally change, or should it just stand next to each other, and how do we then make sure that if we update ATAG, the EN is updated, or.
kind of like the interaction between those two things.
I was just wondering how this is gonna go.
Hidde de Vries: Yeah, it's a really good question. That is tricky and not tricky as well because it only gets updated when the European Commission is asking for an update.
And they did that with the Web Accessibility Directive and with the European Accessibility Act.
And they'll do it again in the next week.
asking for another, version of the N. but if they do, I think it would be interesting to
There's,
Yeah, better. Maybe by, by actually making or making
One requirement to learn or compare based on what we're learning in this group. I think that would be.
And,
Yeah, I'll be maybe that's a group we shouldn't,
Pay attention to that, in the case that we can
with ourselves in a way that can help them understand what we're doing in ATAG and what sort of requirements.
I'll go out there.
Miriam Fukushima: Yeah, because, from I mean, it's a good requirement in the EN, and it's good that at least something's in there, but, from a usage point of ATAG that we are trying to improve.
Miriam Fukushima: We should really have some mention then at least what parts.
are in the EN, and to what extent, kind of make a clear line, okay, from here to here, is the mention in EN, and that will be, or can be, legally binding.
And then the question is, is there any, like
pathway to making whole ATAG, required in the way WCAG is, or, like
kind of line that out, because I think if it's just next to each other, it will confuse more than anything, and then people are okay, but I only need to look at what is in EN, and don't have to look at ATAG, or people looking at ATAG and wondering why is it mentioned in EN as well, if it's not legally binding.
Or to really clear this up, I think it's very important.
Charles Hall: There are some W3C policy considerations in how we cite other standards
Mike Gifford (CivicActions): I just put some links in the chat. So I wanted to go off and talk a little bit about that, just
Drupal's an interesting instance because it was one of the first CMSs that actually adopted ATAG 2.0. But I think that the AI initiative in Drupal and some of the stuff that's happening within Drupal as a content creation tool.
I think might be useful to try and help at least shed some light in terms of what.
what some of the challenges are with AI, and and I think that the I think that it's I think that the only way to deal with AI is to talk about it in generalities, and to talk about it in terms of things to look for things to address in a general sense when applying AI, because there's.
in most of these tools, you're going to be able to pick and choose from whatever AI provider you want to choose, and they will change from week to week. So, we're not going to be able to have a
A clear sense of what an AI is evaluating against a particular model is not going to be all that useful because of the change that the changes that they're under. But I just wanted to at least provide some context of
of how AI is being played out within the CMS.
Hidde de Vries: Yeah, super brief response, to, Miriam's point, making ATAG legally required.
In places like Europe, that would be AN for Europe.
And no matter how it works there, the standard that permission of conformity, so it is voluntary.
But the one that people end up using, so if there's two ATAG in the way to make it legal, confusion between the two because we're different.
Standards organizations and,
Making arguments and the kind of that.
Yeah, making that less is fairly tricky.
Yeah, because we're around the stars, and
And they only think we're using,
Who over kind of.
But yeah, that's,
That's tricky.
Wendy Reid: Thank you.
Miriam Fukushima: Yeah, then I think we should at least note down that it is mentioned in EN and like at the specific parts and reference back to that and maybe Heather can transport that back to the working group.
on his side, that they referenced the then updated parts in ATAG.
Just so that people are not wondering, okay, why do, both exist next to each other, and is one, more recent than the other, but that, okay, it's kind of
They know of each other and play off each other and
They kind of,
Yeah. Regarding legality, we have then to see on how it's interpreted.
Jutta Treviranus: Yeah, I wanted to comment further on Mike's point regarding AI and authoring and the general nature of it. I think, yes, we can't be techno-specific, but we can be quite specific regarding the functionality that is needed.
so, which is part of my comment last, week, that, can we articulate what is the additional either functionality or requirements that are needed, given that AI is now in this space? So, listing within those.
use cases or functional lists of functions, things that that need to occur. And and yes, I mean to some extent standards and regulations act as.
Hidde de Vries: slides of my presentation yesterday https://noti.st/hdv/B8DRJ8/understanding-5-10-2-accessible-content-creation (the results we got to have quite a bit orf overlap with the UCR)
Jutta Treviranus: prompts, not prompts or ways of initiating functionality that may not have been there. And given how quickly AI is changing, there is a greater opportunity to shape things than there might have been if things were more slow moving.
Wendy Reid: Why don't we transition then nicely into, I guess, the point about the draft right now, not having — I was actually really struggling with this as I was working on it because I was oh, yeah, I should be mentioning AI. And then I was I don't know how to fix this.
I was having a hard time thinking of ways to
comfortably fit it, or, I don't know, naturally fit it in, because a lot of it is
like
It's the same use case, it's just but using AI.
Which I guess could be the way to do it. It's just, you know
Three little extra words.
Jutta Treviranus: Well, what's new? What wasn't? It's adding that the possibilities both in terms of creating accessible content or the spirit of ATAG or the ways in which it's done, what are the affordances for the.
the users, the authors, etc.
Miriam Fukushima: I think for most of the points in ATAG we had that we can just, edit, or don't even have to edit as an extra mention.
But I think everything that regards the UI, I think we should add another, extra
sub point that discusses how AI can be part of a user interface because it's not just a, an element like a button, but, the whole interaction feed can be part of a user interface.
Wendy Reid: We also don’t have an introduction yet, and I feel like this will be mentioned there
Miriam Fukushima: including its output.
Charles Hall: I think the context that I think is relevant to this conversation.
in the document is that AI can be applied to any part of any of the steps of any of these processes from any of the actors.
But the
The challenge is framing it in a way that.
The human involved in using it is what we care about.
It's not what the AI specifically intakes or outputs. It's the ability for the human author that's using it to use it accessibly.
Hidde de Vries: Well, what I'll try and do is read this and see
It's like if it would break if you would do anything with AI and when I just try to do and it feels to me.
Maintenance in there.
could be done with AI or not with AI, but it's kind of
So maybe we should look for any bits where we're writing it in a way that
Is it possible to reason about it in an AI? Or is everything here basically compatible?
thinking about it in an AI context. I think we're actually I think we're,
What we've got here is
compatible with doing it with AI, and it's kind of powerful to have it not mention AI so specifically, because if we get.
I mean, tomorrow, it would still be kind of compatible with that. so yeah, it feels like it doesn't break usage
It isn't actively incompatible with.
And maybe that's sufficient here.
And I didn't know we do mention generative AI and LLMs in,
in 1.2, which is, I guess, where I would expect it to.
Miriam Fukushima: Yeah,
I think for, when we had the sessions where we went through the,
single points in ATAG. We also had
where we wanted to change things, either if it was because of AI, or also because the things needed to be updated in other ways.
And for the most part, we concluded that we don't need to specifically mention AI.
just update the general,
phrasing, and for the parts where we wanted to do that, I think we noted that down.
and, I think really the two parts where we discussed having maybe, specifically mentioned were for once in,
In the user interface, because it's a significant
Change to how, it's seen, or, how user interfaces are seen.
And the second part was in documentation and user interface, where we also discussed that now with AI and all the subscription.
Like
features that, we wanted to specifically mention that users need to be informed beforehand, before, costs or anything occur, because that is a, kind of new threat, and especially people that are vulnerable to, cognitive.
vulnerable could be exploited if they are not like warned.
On time, for costs, or for how many tokens something uses, or whatever.
Jutta Treviranus: Yeah, some other areas that we discussed include, the conversational component of, negotiating the content. So, as were before.
the prompting or the assistance that was provided would be a single act, most likely, but the interaction with an AI chatbot or the AI system.
role of AI in the authoring process becomes a much more interactive.
complex, and changing,
function, etc. And I think Miriam and others gave several examples that were quite good that showed just how this is a change in the authoring process. Then the other piece is.
the incursion of AI, or the interaction between the AI and the author into what was previously user-agent territory. And I think that's something that we should probably discuss and resolve in some way, where the.
The AI and the author, are both
constructing authoring interfaces, but also.
user interfaces, for the the content that is or the what is being authored.
Miriam Fukushima: I think in those cases it really needs a separate point where it's discussed so that the awareness is there and also that people wanting to apply ATAG can't say, okay, this is not in our hands, this is up to AI or something.
Yeah, that's just how the chat interface is. It's part of the authoring tool and therefore the ways to use the chat interface or get to the output of the interface are also part of the authoring tools.
UI, and same goes for what, Jutta said, and, also the feedback and the subscription parts. Those are things that kind of need a special focus, because they are not now kind of new features or new.
dangers. But the other things are, as Hida said, the phrasing is so general that it doesn't need to be specifically said.
And for those, I think we also said, OK, that's why we did all the use cases and the surrounding material to ATAG.
where people can dive deeper into, okay, what does it actually mean, what are some examples, to kind of understand ATAG better, but it doesn't need to be part of the ATAG phrasing itself.
Wendy Reid: Okay,
Yeah, I was thinking too, probably the area with the most considerations is around the authoring tool itself.
Not as much in the content, still in the content, but not as much in the content.
Because a lot of the considerations are around the chat interface, and how it produces, and
And, like what was mentioned earlier around tokens and warning and.
and keeping the user informed of what is happening.
I need more coffee this morning. I'm not awake yet. The other area that.
I wanted
I'm just going back to see Ned mentioned it so.
It's in my head.
Oh, the line between creation and modification. There we go. Is that the part?
It was difficult to, like
think about the difference between creation and modification. I do think they are separate, but articulating how they are separate. I think it's also all right if there is some overlap, but
I'd like others thoughts too.
And what we can do to.
Make this even clearer.
Charles Hall: In a process, creation occurs once and modification occurs indefinitely
Wendy Reid: I agree, Charles. Yeah. Modification — I mean, especially on the web platform, you can edit something forever.
Hidde de Vries: except on twitter
Charles Hall, Abhinav Kannan, Wendy Reid:😆
Wendy Reid: I think I differentiated the sections by putting a lot more focus in the editing case on the preservation.
of accessibility features that were initially created.
or
Or ensuring that
Hidde de Vries: (love the new social media that come with editing post capabilities)
Mike Gifford (CivicActions):👍
Wendy Reid: Making the content accessible.
was emphasized because I think there's probably a fairly large editing case or modification case where it's taking a piece of content that is not accessible and making it accessible.
And I don't know what others think about
how to better differentiate these two.
Abhinav Kannan: So, are we
Are we only looking at
the specific definitions
behind
Differentiating creation and modification.
Or are we also looking at?
The integration of AI into these. Into these 2.
At this point. So first, I will, I will just looking at the definitions first.
Between these two.
Modification and creation.
Charles Hall: Definitions / glossary is something else we said last week would be needed
Wendy Reid: Modification, and yeah, we're separating those out. I mean, AI is a part of it too, but
Abhinav Kannan: Yeah.
Yeah, I think Charles's definition is
Wendy Reid: Yes. I had this in my head as I was going through. I thought about even marking up the words that need to have definitions. I didn't get that far, but yes, there will absolutely be definitions.
Glossary section.
Charles Hall: Yeah, I think one important thing for us is only defining things that aren't defined already in other standards, like the glossary of WCAG, for example.
If it's already there, we don't need to say anything.
Wendy Reid: Yeah, if it's already defined elsewhere, or I'll just, steal definitions from
Places is already defined.
If we
Yeah, okay.
Think about difference between creator and maintainer, and how we need to, further refine that, because
I want to make sure it's, clear.
Miriam Fukushima: Replying to "Definitions / glossary is something else we said l":
we started on this as well on one tab. and linking existing definitions would also be useful.
Wendy Reid: There's also no introduction for the document right now. I kind of intentionally didn't write it yet because I figured I'd wait till it's much more complete before trying to write an introduction.
Charles?
Charles Hall: I don't have a
solution for parsing that line between creation and modification yet, but I did notice that.
Some of the things that are
in one apply to the other and vice versa. So one of the things that we should
Pay particular attention to is.
minimizing the overlap so that we're not
Duplicating anything in two different sections just because the rule changed, or the step of the process changed.
like this, 223 exporting or saving content. I don't see why that can't also apply to creation.
It's something I don't have to modify it in order to publish it. I can just make it once.
But then in that.
exporting or saving content. I have a question.
we have
Able to save or export content in multiple accessible formats. I think that phrase, multiple accessible formats, needs to be unpacked quite a bit.
Because I'm not clear on
what formats we mean by saying it that way.
Wendy Reid: It probably needs to be fixed too because it's maybe better to phrase it as one or more accessible formats.
Because some tools are only ever going to be able to produce one format. Some tools will be able to produce multiple.
And really when.
At least one format has to be accessible, and if it's if there's inaccessible formats, you need to warn the user about what the risks are.
I don't know about moving this section, though.
I kind of also took modification, not just as, editing, but also as
Transforming it out of the workspace into its final form.
And the final form can be one thing, but it can be multiple things.
Charles Hall: Then maybe we should specifically use the word transform in.
where we say
Modification.
What is this?
Yeah, it just says
Cover the modification of existing content.
So.
What you're suggesting is
saving and exporting.
requires that creation to exist.
But it doesn't necessarily mean it's being edited.
So it's not really content modification, it's content transformation.
In that case.
So we just need to unpack the word modification in the opening sentence, and then that fits to still stay there.
Wendy Reid: I can add transformation, yeah.
Easy fix.
so
Where it's at now, I also think there's probably missing cases. I tried to move over as many of them as possible, but I also
More wanted to show the format, and
And where and what this could look like before getting too deep into is this complete or not?
So, if the format is okay, or comfortable with how it's structured, then
It becomes, okay, what's missing? What do we need to add?
AI, obviously, so mentions of AI.
Is one of them. Is there anything else?
Charles Hall: Yeah, format wise, I mentioned last week, I'm a big fan of the numbered format, but there's a glitch in the ordered list sub lists where it doesn't follow the.
the standard W3C convention of then being like
2.2.1.1.
So every sublist is just like one through three instead of carrying on the parent numerical sequence.
But I understand how that happened because the list isn't in the opening paragraph.
Wendy Reid: It also so this the the lists under each section.
so to make something a two-dot, to give it the numbered.
Because this is all automatic. It all happens automatically. They have to be headings.
In their own sections.
So I could do that, I thought about doing that, but I thought that that might be a little heavy, because then our table of contents is going to become
incredibly dense.
Charles Hall: Right.
Wendy Reid: I and so I used ordered lists instead for the points within a section.
And did think about linking them. I just haven't linked them.
Charles Hall: Yeah.
Yeah, I
I see the dilemma.
The challenge, though, is how, as a convention, how do we cite.
one of those
Ordered lists, sub-items.
Wendy Reid: I can add links to them.
And IDs, and so that making them referenceable.
I just hadn't done that yet.
Sambhavi Chandrashekar: Jutta,
You will be at the Canadian AI Standardization Public Forum in Montréal on October 28 alongside the international ISO/IEC JTC1/SC42 plenary. Is the ATAG 3.0 work discussed in these forums?
Wendy Reid: I mean, right now, even you can say 2.1.3 dot you know, 2.1.3.2, or
And it'll it'll, like
logically, people will be able to find it. It's just not a I can't reference it right now with the URL, but it's an easy fix.
Is there anything missing? I think content wise is my bigger question.
Charles Hall: I think we've already discussed everything that I think is missing. An intro, a glossary, how we
unpack some of these things, how we disambiguate.
creation from modification.
Wendy Reid: Alright.
Charles Hall: I can't remember anything else that's missing.
Wendy Reid: -H
All right. I will push some of those changes when I get a chance, probably later today or over the weekend.
With our last bit of time, so.
All right, it looks like our breakout session got accepted for TPAC, so we have a date.
I think it's still
So, draft right now, they'll announce it properly soon,
But, it is on
I was just looking at this like Tuesday. I think it's Tuesday afternoon.
unfortunately during the AC meeting, but that only really affects AC reps, so that's fine.
Sambhavi Chandrashekar: Congrats, Wendy!
Wendy Reid: And you don't have to go to the AC meeting. You should go to the AC meeting. I won't tell people not to go.
But, so we have that scheduled.
And.
I'll share again the
Agenda we should probably finalize
Wendy Reid: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFvbnM_HXhcWeV48g11yrTKqQfK6HkWpqvzAUsgx1UM/edit?tab=t.0
Wendy Reid: There's still some gaps in there.
On topics so.
If there's any
Any topics we want to include?
We do have a scheduled meeting time with Agweg.
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.
But we've got two unclaimed slots on the afternoon of the second day.
Charles Hall: Where is the full calendar?
Abhinav Kannan: What are you hoping we can fill in these slots?
What kind of content? What kind of
Wendy Reid: Topics that would be good to discuss as a group with dedicated time.
I'm trying to find the TPAC schedule.
Oops, that's not what I wanted.
Abhinav Kannan: The Assets Conference is happening.
from 25th to 28th.
So
If we're meeting on the 29th or 30th, we can talk about how we can talk about whether there were any publications at Assets that were relevant.
Charles Hall: Found
https://www.w3.org/calendar/tpac2026/
Abhinav Kannan: For our ongoing discussions here.
Wendy Reid: https://www.w3.org/news-events/tpac/2026/schedule/
Wendy Reid: Sorry, what conference was that?
Abhinav Kannan: The assets conference, the ACM assets.
Wendy Reid: Oh, okay.
Abhinav Kannan: ACM ASSETS '26
Abhinav Kannan: It's the academic conference. It's the leading academic conference on computers and accessibility.
Wendy Reid: Exciting.
Abhinav Kannan: It's in Portugal this year.
Wendy Reid: Ooh, in Porto, very nice.
Mike Gifford (CivicActions): I have to jump off. Hopefully we’ll see some of you at TPAC.
Abhinav Kannan: Yeah.
Wendy Reid: Are you going, or
Abhinav Kannan: I I've my my passport is at the Portuguese embassy, so I hope
Wendy Reid: Oh, no. Fingers crossed.
Abhinav Kannan: I'm hoping I get to go.
I'll represent all of you there, if
Wendy Reid: You there?
Abhinav Kannan: That is that is something I can do.
Wendy Reid: You there? Go ahead.
Jutta Treviranus: Yeah, given that it's a longer period of time where we have —.
we can delve into topics. I wonder whether we want to, and given that we're meeting with AgWeb.
sometime during that period, whether we can discuss the, the boundaries between user agent content and authoring. And, the, the, the more fuzzy scope.
whether it is. That's still a good definition or classification. And.
yeah, the the
how that will then shape the various guidelines.
Wendy Reid: Alright.
I added that just to remind myself more than anything.
Yeah, it'd be really exciting to hear about what happened at the conference. I'm just looking at the schedule for it right now, and it looks like some really cool talks.
any other topics that we want to cover? Or, I mean, it doesn't hurt to have,
Jutta Treviranus: It is also the same time as the ISO SC42 international standards on AI plenary.
Wendy Reid: unclaimed time that we can as we if there's something comes up while we're talking, we can move it there, too. Miriam?
Miriam Fukushima: So we have nothing on the 26th and 28th, correct?
Wendy Reid: Yeah, so we're not — so from the 26 — so our breakout session will be on the 27th.
But it's you know, you don't have to attend if you're not able. It's in
The afternoon, I think it's at —.
what time is it at?
I was trying to remember.
3:30, or I don't know if it actually — yeah, it's at the same time as the AC meeting, so 3:30.
Miriam Fukushima: There was also one for
8:30 or 9:30 on the 27th.
Wendy Reid: Oh, okay, I have to move this. This is the one that we tried to cancel. I don't know why it's still on the schedule.
Miriam Fukushima: Okay.
Wendy Reid: Because I can't go to that meeting, because it overlaps with another meeting I'm in, and I told them about this. we are going to try and meet with APA separately,
I talked to them about it, and then
They're pretty busy, so I think we'll end up meeting after TPAC, which is fine.
But yeah, I gotta see if I can get this one removed from the schedule. They just sent an email about
Changing stuff. So I'll remind them.
Miriam Fukushima: Is there a way to just see
How is scheduled?
Wendy Reid: Yeah, so if you go to your
If you're on the W3C website and you go to my account.
Jutta Treviranus: I’ll be speaking at this in Montreal so will miss parts of the TPAC meetings.
Wendy Reid, Abhinav Kannan:❤️
Wendy Reid: And you go to calendar.
You'll see your calendar, and your calendar will only be populated with.
events that you're registered for. And, so by being a member of a group, you're automatically registered for
the meetings that you're supposed to be a part of, and then anything else
you have to kind of manually, sign up for, if you're not a member of that group. So, the breakout sessions, you would manually, add to your calendar, unless you're, a
Presenter.
Miriam Fukushima: And we get kind of informed where it is.
Wendy Reid: Yeah, they'll,
I think they're still finalizing what rooms things will be in, but actually, it looks like they've already started populating it, so
You'll get information on both the physical location and the virtual location by having it in your calendar.
Alright,
I will get those changes made. I'll get the — and apologies for the delay on the minutes. I will get the two weeks of minutes sent out.
Sambhavi Chandrashekar: Replying to "I’ll be speaking at this in Montreal so will miss ":
That answers my question above!
Wendy Reid: I am thinking that we might not meet next week, just because a bunch of us will probably be either about to travel or traveling already.
Hidde de Vries: thank you!
Wendy Reid: or
Just mentally preparing for a long week of double-time meetings, if you're staying home and attending virtually, because inevitably you always end up doing double the amount of work when you attend a conference virtually.
So, we'll probably not meet next week, which means we will see you at TPAC. I'll probably try and see if I for those attending in person, I'll see if we can arrange, some a dinner or something, or, you know, a chance for us to to get to know each other socially.
Rémi Bétin: Found direct links to TPAC meetings:
Breakout session — 27 October: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/745174a2-a4c0-4991-9542-e936946fa8de/
ATAG CG meeting — 29 October: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/34127390-66a9-465a-8312-87665c60443b/
ATAG CG meeting — 30 October: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e40e840d-0365-4d8a-b4b6-d79eee3fc854/
Wendy Reid: But thank you all for coming and participating, and we will see you again soon.