Create 2025-10-09.md

Author: AlexDawsonUK

minutes/2025-10-09.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# Sustainable Web IG Minutes 2025 2025-10-09
+
+**Attendees:** Ines Akrap (Chair), Tim Frick (Chair), Alexander Dawson (Editor), Jennifer Strickland, Shane Herath, Susannah Hill, Rose Newell, Ryan Sholin, Eloisa Guerrero, Sarah Zama, Siddhesh Wagle, Crystal Preston-Watson, Andrea Davanzo
+
+## Recording
+
+We won’t record this meeting.
+
+## Agenda + Notes
+
+1. Introductions & [Code of Conduct](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/)
+
+2. **Questions/comments** from the last meeting.
+
+3. **Topics of discussion**
+
+- **Alex:** [Horizontal review](https://www.w3.org/guide/documentreview/) in progress - updates to share?<br>
+  **Jen note:** We are working through the **self review** for the horizontal review.
+   - Checklists
+      - [Internationalization](https://www.w3.org/International/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist) completed by Mike and Rose. Sub issues created but these may be out of scope for the IG. Creating an i18n section of the considerations section may resolve flagging related concerns but the need for this is questioned by the i18n spec.
+      - [FAST Checklist](https://w3c.github.io/fast/checklist.html) for accessibility. Jen completed the review [in this GitHub issue](https://github.com/w3c/sustainableweb-wsg/issues/157). Also, created a potential template for APA to use to bring to APA on Wednesday’s meeting (Update: raised with APA and it turns out that they already have something like that in process, so I closed the issue.). One issue, "It is possible to make navigation order correspond to the visual presentation." The reading order is different from the WCAG page, but I’d like someone else to check. Other issues were related to the little doohickey in the left corner, which I’ll file with the right group, since Alex gave me the issue.
+      - [Privacy and security](https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/) and [fingerprinting](https://www.w3.org/TR/fingerprinting-guidance/) begun by Andrea and Morgan, to be published as a list (checklist or Q&A as best fits the format). A [template has been produced](https://github.com/w3c/sustainableweb-wsg/issues/162) by Alex. See [this Slack thread for details](https://w3ccommunity.slack.com/archives/C02JETQAQG4/p1759887482168939).
+         - If interested in helping out, reach out to Andrea or Morgan or in Slack
+      - **Jen:** Did FAST test for accessibility, this is out of scope of review but there is a discrepancy in the experience about how our page reads versus the WCAG page reads. Left review notes and how to replicate it. I hope someone can replicate what I saw using a screen reader— some things are confusing and disorienting. This is out of scope of our part of review but it would be in the broader templates/tooling we’re providing. There’s a reading order issue different from how WCAG reads.
+      - **Alex:** Self-review in general– Mike and Jen have two different approaches but not sure which is the correct approach. Jen’s approach is looking at the document and reviewing it in general – e.g. brought up points that were directed at the respec, how dark mode is in terms of accessibility whereas Mike is looking at the content and how it is interpreted by the reader. He hasn’t looked at the context of how the document is structured or how things are physically structured. Not sure which is the correct approach whether we’re meant to look at the semantics or the interpretation of the actual content of the specification because they’re 2 different things. [missed the rest of the conversation]
+   - Feedback/progress from members
+- **Alex:** Specification work
+   - Continuous publishing is up and running
+      - **Alex:** Whenever we publish something to the repository and PRs get merged/synchronised by GitHub pages, as we now have a W3C URL, we’ll have it synchronised with GitHub Actions and sent seamlessly to the W3C url. Whenever we have an update it will cascade to all the different places they need to be in.
+   - Bug fixes (Please raise issues!)
+      - **Alex:** If there are any gaps in specifications, things we feel should be added in there, or SC that need to be clarified, it’s a good time to start adding those issues to the Issue system. Improving the specs to make our work the most well-rounded and improved and cohesive to get to our December final date and we want to make sure it’s as solid as it can be.
+   - Ongoing gap analysis
+      - **Tim:** We talked about suggestions of emerging technology guidelines and some generative AI, continuing to identify what is missing and even though we might not get to it by the time we publish in April, we want to make sure everything is covered and check off those lists as we can.
+      - **Rose:** There’s a gap I noticed during localisation review – minification – we do not have anything expressing caution on minification. They can strip away a11y features or strip away things that can cause problems for screen readers and in localisation. We should change the language and add precaution.
+      - **Rose:** Best practice would also be to validate post-minification if you do all of your user testing of the code and minified later, all the a11y testing is out of the window.
+      - **Tim:** Please keep going through guidelines and bring up any issues in GitHub.
+   - **Metrics:** Feel free to join regular meetings (DM Alex for Zoom details)
+- **Jen - UX:** A number of items are being worked on:
+   - The team is moving the Mural discussion into [GitHub issues](https://github.com/w3c/sustainableweb-wsg/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Ataskforce-ux) in order to wrap up any changes. Thank you to Andrew and Sorca for helping Jen put them into GH. We still have more to do.
+   - Also, in Friday’s working session, Rose will lead a discussion on the gaps identified.
+   - Jen has a sub-category idea to present, but can’t make Friday’s meeting due to an urgent eye appointment, so shared it in the [sustainability-ux channel](https://w3ccommunity.slack.com/archives/C048J3X9CFK).
+   - **Alex:** If we were to go with sub-categorisation we can re-order/shuffle things around to make it more logical.
+- **TPAC:**
+   - The Web Machine Learning Working Group is reviewing WSG at TPAC.
+      - **Tim:** Meeting is set up at TPAC.
+   - Reminder of [TPAC schedule ideas](https://github.com/w3c/sustainableweb-ig/issues/93).
+      - **Alex:** If anyone has thoughts on what to cover during our slot in TPAC, we’re in the stage of putting together what to cover and sliding things into the schedule.
+      - **Tim:** For those who have never been to TPAC, what is the expectation around what you should present versus what the group might want us to cover.
+      - **Jen:** Been both remotely and in person – what we did with AGWG, web performance, CSS, is continued work of our regular times. Sometimes we’d have longer working sessions at AGWG– they’d extend it to the whole day with lunch break to try to move things forward. You could choose something to focus on during TPAC to try to get it done, and the wonderful part is meeting with other teams, which is the primary difference during TPAC. Helps to build collaborative relationships.
+      - **Alex:** Next year it will be in Dublin.
+      - **Tim:** I know there will be a meeting with the performance group, and trying to set up meetings with other groups for collaboration and overlaps versus what each group needs to focus on. The web machine learning group will specifically review the WSG at TPAC to identify potential gaps.
+      - **Alex:** They’re covering AI and extended an invitation to them to join our meetings.
+      - **Jen:** Should probably take into consideration the timezones during TPAC.
+      - **Alex:** Midnight to morning for all EU people.
+      - **Tim:** Gap analysis, sub-categorisation, and more to talk about in our short window before we publish in April, so if folks could give their thoughts on what to tackle first. We want to set our  guidelines up for when they publish in April so we can get an extended charter, beyond 2026.
+         - **Alex:** Roadmap between now and April – what is realistic between now and then. There are a lot of things we’d like to get done, and we only have a couple of months left until December so we need to get what we need to get done. They’re likely going to come up with a whole load of stuff that they want us to fix or deal with. Potentially we should be ready to deal with anything that comes our way from that. If there’s anything that’s going to take a great deal of time, especially in terms of implementation, or what else we can do when it comes to rechartering, which would allow us to put to users and get their feedback and have focus groups. Things we could do in the next round based on other people’s mentions such as ATAG, UAAG, be able to extend the specification to be inclusive of tooling and user agents as additional material within the specifications so that we can take that to W3C for rechartering.
+            - Nice list of ideas that could justify rechartering.
+         - **Alex:** Easy wins and things to look at to make a more well-rounded specification, those are the things we should probably focus most on. How stuff is structured and we can look into that in more detail but the glaring errors and omissions could potentially harm implementation in the short term.
+      - **Tim:** If anyone identifies those gaps and sees them, everyone is encouraged to add issues in GitHub.
+      - **Rose:** VSCode has a refactoring tool with AI, and I'm wondering if we should be covering more than minification because when I refactor things, it removes security features in particular and thinking about what else would be minified. AI is very bad at security so I am wondering if that is a gap not necessarily now but in 1 year, 3 years.
+         - **Alex:** I don’t think we have anything on script refactoring, can take a look in there.
+         - **Tim:** We’ve talked about reducing technical debt in the past, whether that’s turned into a SC, but it’s come up in previous conversations and a great identification of a gap.
+      - **Jen:** Chairs and Tzviya had a meeting with someone – project review
+         - **Tim:** W3C Team Review, the biggest takeaway is focus first on getting a really really good standard which kind of backs up everything that we’re talking about today, publish it as a a note and once we get a new charter, we can start working on the other things that Alex already has in his list.
+         - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mDp2Ao_FaurV4GCVkoYFz2NtgYhmeRAjYLKvqMAIEbk/edit?tab=t.0
+      - **Sid:** Is there a guideline about inactive scripts?
+         - **Rose:** There’s one in web dev. The minification is only about that, but the idea of pruning comes up a lot. It doesn’t cover at a server level, and that’s the only thing that hasn’t been covered.
+         - **Sid:** The scripts are loading page-wise, and if a certain page doesn’t require that script, it is still loaded – is there a guideline that says don’t load such scripts if they are not used on a page?
+            - **Tim:** Don’t know it’s necessarily written like that, but there’s a lot of content on avoiding unnecessary elements. I don’t recall seeing something in that particular use case.
+            - **Alex:** There’s one about modularisation, breaking stuff into smaller segments and only loading when required.
+            - **Jen:** And removing unnecessary code. Using the web performance techniques of deferring and lazy loading would be approaches to take in the web dev spec.
+- Ongoing awareness raising
+- **Andrea:** Question about horizontal review – on how to organise?
+   - **Alex:** Conversation on Slack with Morgan. To help with the security/privacy review,I’ve created an issue in GitHub, created a template so you can go through the questions and fill them in as yes/no questions.
+- **Rose:** Regarding the refactoring, there’s another big gap– vibe coding. Does that go in processes? Can’t condemn AI-assisted coding but using that to generate code is not necessarily going to be sustainable where you don’t even look at what you’re creating and you’re not meant to look at the code itself. We have used automation wisely, so that can be extended. We didn’t cover refactoring, it’s essentially the same sustainability issue that could come up. There could be a sustainability impact that it might work but if you don’t look at the code, it’s not going to be sustainable.
+   - **Sid:** Comes under hosting infrastructure and systems but automation is nowhere in web dev, so maybe we can talk about some sort of SC.
+   - **Alex:** AI refactoring tools is another level of automation, so we’d need to provide additional material to existing SC. You also get refactoring done by pre- and post-processors to code, but we’re more focused on the creation-side of things but we could potentially add a SC regarding tooling and pre-/post-processes and automated tooling that would cover the mechanics of AI.
+   - **Jen:** Leadership at W3C is working on adding to the COC around negligence such as using those tools without due diligence to make sure you’ve checked it and not AI/work slop. We could add/say that if you use automated tooling it is up to you to do due diligence and minify and avoid redundancy.
+   - **Tim:** https://www.mightybytes.com/responsible-ai-policy/
+   - **Alex:** We have covered in 5.2.2, we’ll replace the wording that currently covers AI, it needs to be ethically sourced, and sort of general coverage. We also have coverage on third parties, we may potentially cover using various guidelines and SC such as third parties, due diligence around suppliers, AI that will be relabeled from Responsible Emerging Technologies. AI is definitely a third-party thing and not something you host yourself.
+4. **Community + News**
+
+   - None
+
+5. [****Open Issues****](https://github.com/w3c/sustainableweb-ig/issues) **(**[****Kanban****](https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/198)**)** [****WSG****](https://github.com/w3c/sustainableweb-wsg)
+
+   - None
+
+6. **Other discussion/questions**
+
+   - None