Text and Wording Meeting Minutes Jan 14, Week 4

Thanks for joining and working through a lot of topics in just an hour.


 Attendees: Carrie Hall, Jeremy Katherman, John Toles, Julie Rawe, Len Beasley, Steven Hoober

IRC Meeting Minutes<https://www.w3.org/2026/01/28-wcag3-text-wording-minutes.html>

Next Steps

  *   URGENT Definition > Content: We will discuss over email and align by end of day Friday on if our uses of “content” need the markup aspects. Julie will start this email thread.

  *   URGENT Definitions: Please review and raise any major issues for definitions in our section by end of day Friday. Julie will send an email with more details about this item.

  *   New Github issue: Over the next couple of weeks Jeremy will take the lead on writing the GitHub issue asking AGWG to support the varied point of views of our WCAG audience and the language we use to support them.

  *   Definition > Blocks of Text: During February, Len to take lead with Jeremy as a partner to develop a rationale for a definition.

  *   Definition > Diacritic: Julie will update so "diacritic" is explained in a note.

  *   Definition > Nested clauses: Julie will add a note to nested clauses similar to the one in common words.

Summary

  *   Definitions

     *   Understandable by designers, etc? Should we file a GitHub issue?

        *   Perspectives of different roles has been one of our topics. We should be considering them in the GitHub issue about the wording used in WCAG.

        *   Decision: Yes.

        *   Next step: Jeremy will take the lead on writing the GitHub issue.

     *   “Blocks of content” volunteer needed for February work

        *   We have a temporary solution, to stick with the WCAG 2 definition. Who in our subgroup can spend time looking at what CMSes are doing (WordPress 'block editor,' Sanity 'portable text,' Drupal 'blocks,' etc)? Can these help us come up with a better definition of “blocks of text”?

        *   Volunteer need:

           *   how are CMS defining blocks of text to help us define a block of content?

           *   Need someone to dig into this and think about a recommendation so that we can begin talking about this by end of February.

           *   Could get together with the other subgroups where the definition appears to get feedback and collaborate outside of scheduled AG calls (where there is so much going on already).

           *   Len to take lead with Jeremy as a partner.

        *   Concerns about our definition ranged from the definition itself to creating other definitions (ex: visual blocks of content, programmatic blocks of text) to cover topics outside of the definition we proposed.

           *   Do we need a definition to support a term’s WCAG context? Is it already available in a dictionary?

           *   Does it have a WCAG 2 definition that already works?

           *   Then we need a compelling rationale for updating / writing the definition.

     *   “Diacritic”: Update on discussion at January 27th AG meeting

        *   On the call, the AG chairs suggest adding the following definition as a note in the requirement:

           *   Note: Diacritics may appear above, below, within, or between letters or characters.

        *   Next step: Julie will update so "diacritic" is explained in a note.

     *   “Technical information”: Any objections to removing this term?

        *   In the exception for nested clauses requirement we referenced ‘technical information’

        *   A lot of people started asking about specific types (ex: medical and astrophysical) for specific audiences.

        *   By the time we reference all types of technical information the exception would be so large that it becomes impossible to test or enforce and losing any meaning.

        *   Need further discussion on situations where trying to simplify technical information makes it more confusing. This was one of the reasons we included the exception.

        *   Are we OK with removing ‘technical information’ from the nested clause requirement?

           *   Decision: Yes, we can remove technical information from the nested clause requirement.

        *   Are we OK with moving the nested clause requirement to supplemental requirement?

           *   Decision: Yes, the nested clause requirement can be a supplemental requirement.

        *   Next step: Add note to nested clauses similar to the one in common words.

     *   “Content:” All subgroups to discuss and report back at Feb 3rd AG meeting

        *   WCAG2 definition:

           *   Content: information, sensory experience and interactions conveyed

        *   Action: sub-groups, please check if your uses of “content” need the markup aspects?

        *   Our subgroup needs to have a point of view for this very quickly.

        *   Are we good discussing this over email to get to a consensus?

           *   Yes. Please watch your inboxes for this conversation.

        *   Next step: Subgroup will discuss over email and align by end of day Friday

     *   Other definitions in our section: Any major concerns? Raise by EOD Friday

        *   The pre-CFC will be discussed on Tuesday. We need to know all the concerns to make sure we’re working towards ‘good enough to publish.’

  *   GitHub issues

     *   John T reviewed them and took notes. More to come after subgroup chairs talk about ways for us to work and track things.

Agenda items we ran out of time for

  *   Definitions > Contextual model for definitions? (To consider after this working draft is published?)

  *   Other goals for this sprint






--

Len Beasley, CPACC, (He, Him)
Domain Expert, Accessibility & Inclusive Design
W3C Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, COGA Task Force

918 630 5419
Colorado (MT)
[Aetna]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email or telephone and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments.

 NOTICE TO RECIPIENT OF INFORMATION:
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately.  

This e-mail may also contain protected health information (PHI) with information about sensitive medical conditions, including, but not limited to, treatment for substance use disorders, behavioral health, HIV/AIDS, or pregnancy. This type of information may be protected by various federal and/or state laws which prohibit any further disclosure without the express written consent of the person to whom it pertains or as otherwise permitted by law. Any unauthorized further disclosure may be considered a violation of federal and/or state law. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information may NOT be sufficient consent for release of this type of information.

Thank you. Aetna