Re: SURVEY and AGENDA - AGWG Meeting April 7th 2026

Thanks, Alastair. I will only be able to attend the first 30 minutes
tomorrow, but I wanted to share some concerns I've heard from Googlers re:
the first agenda item, 'revisit assertions
<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p>
'.

This is also in this issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/issues/634

Slide number for each feedback piece:

   - 2: It would be helpful to understand how/if assertions would be part
   of the conformance model as it would change how we think about them
   - 2-3: It's unclear if assertions are pre-defined or open ended. For
   example, if we want to include something unique to Google, would this be
   possible or we can only assert from a list?
   - 4: Having Assertions and "Core assertions" meaning different things is
   confusing, I'd have assertions always being optional/extra; and something
   like "requirements" or "foundational expectations" as what's needed for
   minimum conformance level
   - 6: Is this a requirement or an assertion? Are we changing the
   terminology from success criteria to Core requirement assertion? WHY all
   the name changes?
   - 6-11: I think an assertion could be a simple statement for the entire
   product, and leave detailed conformance data for the requirements,
   otherwise ACRs would be massive and not very meaningful for complex
   products. The examples are also too focused on Content.
   - 6-9: Google would prefer to keep this simple and point to user
   documentation. For media features, instead of all of those bullets on slide
   11, we could have something like "<link to help center page>YouTube
   provides captions capabilities and rich customizations options. </link>"..
   - 10-11: Very US focused. Google would prefer having a high level
   statement "we use consistent and clear language guidance in our development
   process, and have robust localization processes to ensure consistency
   across languages".
   - In answering the quesstions on 13: It really depends on what the
   assertions are, how required and granular they need to be. We would need
   clarity on how assertions are used in the conformance model.




Sydney Coleman (she/her)

Products For All



On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 5:14 AM Alastair Campbell <
alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com> wrote:

> The AGWG will be meeting on Tuesday, 7th April 2026 at 11.00 AM Eastern US
> (Length: up to 2 hours).
>
> *Agenda*
>
>    - Revisit assertions
>    <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p>
>     (reminder: If you work for a company that makes accessibility
>    statements / conformance claims, please use the presentation to ask someone
>    internally the questions in the presentation. Previous minutes
>    <https://www.w3.org/2026/03/10-ag-minutes.html#8e70>.)
>
>    - Conforming alternate Versions - GitHub
>    <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/623> discussion 623
>    <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/623>
>
>    - Revisit accessibility support sets - Github
>    <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/621>discussion
>    <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/621> 621
>    <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/621>
>
> *Survey*
> Not due for this meeting, there is a provision review survey
> <https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-provision-survey-02/> open for the
> next 3 weeks.
> Please reply with regrets to group-ag-chairs@w3.org (only) if you would
> normally attend this meeting.
>
> Meeting call-in and zoom information is at this non-public page:
> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/eb4027b6-a6ee-4628-bc05-d23963779f08/#next
>
> IRC: https://webirc.w3.org/ channel #ag
> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *alastairc.uk <https://alastairc.uk/>* / *www.thisisgain.com
> <http://www.nomensa.com/>*
>
>
>