– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjom: we have some volunteers for editors
… need to discuss process with leadership

MichaelC: no hard and fast rules
… sometimes good to have multiple editors
… helps bridge availability gaps
… and to balance out each other
… this document had several editors
… need to keep track, also to acknowledge

maryjom: will discuss with leadership and update the group

maryjom: hope we can finalize Work Statement today
… let's focus on big issues that must be resolved
… so that we can get closure this meeting

maryjom: I tried an approach with email thread on previous comments

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we have co-facilitator

maryjom: that didn't work very well, we will change that approach

bruce_bailey: is there a co-facilitator from a different sector?

maryjom: no, this position is still open
… but we want to move on

<Judy> [jb: notes that Chuck is acting co-facilitator for now]

maryjom: while trying to recruit for this position

Chuck: my role is only temporary until someone is found
… Judy is actively looking at potential candidates

Judy: yes, working on that, also on geographical diversity

<bruce_bailey> Mary Jo and Chuck doing a great job!

Continue discussion on survey results from the work statement review

<maryjom> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2002_09_wbs_55145_WCAG2ICT-2Dwork-2Dstatement_results&d=DwMFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=O4GqIExuqcdLwnUGEjvgSq08AYAj0SMVYacBFPfUo5Y&m=ZyQJj55-ohhfkVxnP5cFKGr_1dwxJbBbNRWxCGinZERXbr7RnYsq4t4D0uZ6RHIA&s=a3fPzdbRm7IkbK50sHN87gcRWhaSj3YuF4JjeaZSuiQ&e=

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-work-statement/results

Recap and actions from last meeting

Questions 9. Patent Policy section

maryjom: addressed comments

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept Patent policy section.

maryjom: no changes proposed to this section, propose resolution to accept it

<Chuck> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<pday> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<maryjom> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<olivia-hogan-stark> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<AnastasiaLanz> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept Patent policy section.

Question 2. Scope of Work section

maryjom: three themes here
… 1 definition of non-web ICT mentioned in the note but not in the Work Statement
… seems to be consensus to keep the definition

<maryjom> Applying WCAG to hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.

<Rachael> +1 to shadi's suggestion

GreggVan: is there are reason to stick that in the scope?
… will that dictate potential edits later on?

<Chuck> +1 to substituting WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2

GreggVan: things changing while we're working
… rather than tying us from the start

maryjom: there were several suggestions in favor

GreggVan: don't feel strongly, just wondering about the reason
… do we then have to use these exact words in the final?
… don't understand the reasons for that but fine either way

maryjom: don't think it limits us from adjusting later on if we need to
… suggestion to exclude BIOS or such aspects?
… not sure we need to do that here in the scope but need to keep in mind

GreggVan: actually BIOS should not be out of scope
… there are systems where you can adjust the BIOS while the system is starting up
… can't just say BIOS, we need to separate this
… also, might have login before assistive technology is loaded
… not true of the systems today

ThorstenKatzmann: agree we need to work on the wording
… possibly BIOS is not precise enough
… but still think we need recognize there are areas where this is not possible
… we also need to put it in the scope to signal to other parallel efforts

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to speak to the editorial change of WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2

ThorstenKatzmann: we have dependencies back and forth

Chuck: there was a suggestion to change WCAG 2.0 to WCAG 2 or WCAG 2.x
… minor editorial change

maryjom: will include that

<bruce_bailey> +1 for "WCAG 2" versus "WCAG 2.x"

BryanTrogdon: examples would help understand what is in and out of scope

<GreggVan> G+ to say suggest 2.x or WCAG series and not just WCAG 2 because that can be interpreted as 2.0

BryanTrogdon: not suggesting for this particular section but need to understand
… for example, is a thermostat an ICT? if so, what makes it an ICT?

lmiller: asking us to agree now?

BryanTrogdon: yes, would help solidify understanding
… especially what makes something in or out of scope?

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say suggest 2.x or WCAG series and not just WCAG 2 because that can be interpreted as 2.0

GreggVan: should speak specifically about WCAG 2.2
… regarding the definition of ICT, this is regulatory or policy and not for us to say

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to make a general comment on the discussion

GreggVan: gets dangerous to define what is ICT and what isn't
… shouldn't try to limit, just cover it

Judy: WCAG is the starting point
… agree that defining ICT could be an endless task
… and can change according to jurisdiction
… voting on what is and what isn't ICT might not help the group come together

<Zakim> lmiller, you wanted to say definition of ICT

lmiller: so we agree that there is no clear definition for ICT?
… and that we include everything that could be ICT?

Judy: no

lmiller: then we need to define or at least some boundaries

GreggVan: we will need to consider it and scope our wording
… but not define it from the start

<GreggVan> +1 to MJ

<lmiller> +1 to Maryjom

<FernandaBonnin> +1 to MaryJo

maryjom: don't think we can cover all what can and cannot be in scope until we start working

<Chuck> +1 to MaryJo

<bruce_bailey> also +1 to @maryjom that we dont need ict def for work statement

<BryanTrogdon> +1 to MaryJo

<Rachael> +1

pday: agree with the discussion

<BryanTrogdon> +1 to Phil

<lmiller> +1 pday

pday: we need to keep this in mind as we get into the work but not define it upfront

<Zakim> ChrisLoiselle, you wanted to comment on examples

pday: also examples of what we mean for the individual clauses of the document would be helpful

<ChrisLoiselle> https://ictbaseline.access-board.gov/glossary/

ChrisLoiselle: one potential definition

<maryjom> Poll: Do we need to add the out-of-scope statement that I had in the email to the Work statement?

<maryjom> Applying WCAG to hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.

<maryjom> +1 if statement should be added, -1 if not

<GreggVan> -1

<bruce_bailey> +1 or +0

<lmiller> -1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<Rachael> -1

<Chuck> +1 if we adjust the WCAG 2.0

<BryanTrogdon> -1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<lmiller> change to +0

<AnastasiaLanz> +1

<ShawnT> +1

GreggVan: [thinking out loud]

<Chuck> Like Laura, I'm changing mine, but from +1 to 0.

GreggVan: some hardware aspects in which it can apply
… not all apply, that's clear but some may apply

<maryjom> q>

GreggVan: so suggest going on provision level rather than global

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say "user-interface components as individual items" i find awkward

lmiller: does ICT include a screen reader to read the content, and if so do we require a hardware jack or similar?

<Rachael> +1 to Bruce

bruce_bailey: suggest changing as little as possible from last time

<Chuck> +1 to Bruce

bruce_bailey: also find the current wording quite awkward

<Rachael> Rachael: I am mostly concerned with the same phrase as Bruce but I find the entire statement a bit unclear and am concerned about accidentally moving something out of scope that should not be.

maryjom: wording is from the current note

<maryjom> This document does not comment on hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.

maryjom: if we remove it, then we are opening the scope to many more situations

<Rachael> Rachael: I will not object if consensus leans the other way

GreggVan: the question is why put it in the scope?
… we can't add any provisions in this document anyway
… not sure what the concerns are about requiring new things

<maryjom> Poll: Do we need to add the out-of-scope statement that I had in the email to the Work statement?

<Chuck> -1

<Rachael> -1 (but will not object)

<GreggVan> -1

<pday> +1 but will not object if removed

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<lmiller> +0

<FernandaBonnin> +0

<Chuck> Poll: Do we need to add the out-of-scope statement that I had in the email to the Work statement?

<ShawnT> 0

<BryanTrogdon> -1

<bruce_bailey_> -1

bruce_bailey: strong -1

ThorstenKatzmann: think it would be useful to have the statement in that prominent place
… happy to work on the wording if needed

<AnastasiaLanz> -1

Chuck: would you object to keeping it in the note but not add to the Work Statement?

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ and 1.1. Excluded from Scope is where we had this in prior version , which was in the note

<Chuck> We have consensus!

ThorstenKatzmann: fine for me if it is written down

maryjom: so conclusion is what we will not add it to the Work Statement

RESOLUTION: The scope of ICT covered will remain in the note and not in the work statement.

Whether to include AAA requirements

maryjom: general agreement seems to be OK to include but with clear warning

<bruce_bailey_> Sorry to not mention earlier, but 508 definition for ICT is here: https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E103.4

maryjom: and only if time allows us to work on this

<Rachael> +1 to including AAA but prioritizing A and AA

<pday> +1

<bruce_bailey_> We included examples, but as @GreggVan noted -- examples are problematic

<ChrisLoiselle> From Mary Jo's email - The WCAG2ICT document itself could include WCAG’s conformance note:

<ChrisLoiselle> It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.

<GreggVan> +1

pday: concerned about others using this work later on in other contexts

<bruce_bailey_> but better than NOT including examples

pday: and the terms informative and normative are sometimes difficult to distinguish
… so a clear warning is essential

FernandaBonnin: not sure if time will be sufficient to address all AAA requirements

ChrisLoiselle: echoing Fernanda and others
… alignment with A & AA is far more important

maryjom: have seen AAA added to VPAT
… also EN 301 549 has it in a different section
… so can potentially see a similar approach

<GreggVan> +1 to having it be separate

maryjom: where it is clearly distinguished with a warning

<bruce_bailey_> +1 to AAA as separate table (i.e., status quo)

GreggVan: maybe clearly say it will be in a separate section
… because that is raising concerns

<maryjom> Poll: We will keep AAA in scope, keep it separate with WCAG's strong warning, and address later after A and AA are addressed.

<GreggVan> q_

FernandaBonnin: how separate is separate?

<Chuck> I have a hard stop as well.

FernandaBonnin: maybe appendix or such
… needs to be defined

<Rachael> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey_> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<AnastasiaLanz> +1

<olivia-hogan-stark> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Judy> +1

<lmiller> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +0

<Devanshu> +1

RESOLUTION: We will keep AAA in scope, keep it separate with WCAG's strong warning, and address later after A and AA are addressed.

<bruce_bailey_> I think "WCAG's strong waring" is previous WCAG2ICT warning

<Chuck> MaryJo: No more changes for work statement.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Agree to scope statement as ammended.

<GreggVan> +1

<maryjom> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to Scope section with any amendments in the pull request

<bruce_bailey_> +1

<Chuck> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<pday> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<Devanshu> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree to Scope section with any amendments in pull request 2682.

<AnastasiaLanz> thanks