– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

MJM: markdown conversion has now been merged
… details to be worked out
… some things missing in the published Editor Draft
… but these changes coming soon

MJM: have new person joining the Task Force
… Loic Martinez-Normand

LMN: work at the University of Madrid
… have been heavily involved in EN 301 549
… and the previous Task Force on WCAG2ICT

<FernandaBonnin_> +1 to have more time to review

AG WG guidance to TF on scope of changes the TF can make

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Draft-discussion/results#xQ1

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-guidelines/results#xQ1

MJM: looked at this before without modifications
… comment from Bruce in the first survey

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/20#issuecomment-1314034069

^^^ comment from Bruce and follow-up from Thorsten
… Laura has been trying to connect with Bruce on this issue

GV: maybe say "not addressed in the original WCAG2ICT"

<Mike_Pluke> +1 to Gregg's proposed addition

MJM: sounds good, adding the word "original" in the text

MJM: comment from Chris

<GreggVan> +1

MJM: be consistent about non-web documents and non-web software

MJM: Loic agreed with comments from Thorsten and Bruce
… and that's it
… just need to incorporate these edits
… nothing seems controversial
… any comments?

PD: small recap of what will happen?

MJM: some people proposed changes, others might be done by Laura

Survey: Draft background section

Survey: Review proposed changes to guidelines

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

MJM: two suggested changes
… Gregg suggesting change to the intent

GV: proposed to the AGWG Chairs
… will be taken up there

MJM: has an issue been opened?

GV: don't know but it will get fixed, and we don't need to worry about it

CA: don't know if issue has been opened, can take that offline
… while this particular instance can be accommodated, we're finalizing WCAG 2.2
… cannot depend on further changes in the future
… need to work with the existing text
… ought not to create dependencies on future changes

GV: suggest we reconsider that decision
… last WCAG2ICT effort found many issues in the Understanding docs
… improves accuracy for everyone
… do not expect many issues
… but these are Notes, not normative documents

SAZ: thought some level of support is in the AGWG Charter

CA: just cannot guarantee, can't depend on it

GV: ah, got it
… that makes sense

MJM: so we'll continue tracking issues and submitting to AGWG
… not depend on that but they may or might not make the changes

LMN: now better understand what AGWG can and cannot do
… in some software context, you might not be able to do anything about GL 2.5
… maybe need to add a note for that

<Chuck> shadi: Minor on summary earlier, maybe one thing to increase chances if we do find an issue, is make a good proposal...

<GreggVan> +1 to including a specific solution with an issue

<Chuck> shadi: The easier it is for AGWG to incorporate a requested change the more likely it is that AGWG can adopt. Make it as easy as possible.

<Chuck> +1

GV: +1 to send issue with solution
… on Loic's point, Guidelines are not required
… so either we don't look at them at all
… they are often broad statements that can't be addressed as such

<maryjom> +1 to Gregg's comment

GV: or we should treat them as big broad statements and not spend too much effort on them

<loicmn> +1 to Gregg's comment

MP: maybe we can scope the applicability to where it definitely applies

MJM: does the EN make any references to the Guidelines?

MP: no, but maybe we can apply the same approach we use in EN 301 549 to scope criteria

GV: suggest we just skip the Guidelines
… if we start scoping and clarifying, it might draw more attention than needed and confuse people

<loicmn> +1 to "skip" Guidelines as proposed by Gregg. We can just say "Guideline n.n applies as written".

<maryjom> Draft Resolution: Incorporate the Guidelines changes as-is and open an issue on the WCAG understanding to address Gregg’s comment.

GV: they are also not applied in practice for web content either

<loicmn> +1 to resolution

<Devanshu> +1

<AnastasiaLanz> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia-hogan-stark> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<maryjom> +1

<FernandaBonnin_> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

+1

<pday> +1

<Sam> +1

<Chuck> 12 +1's, no 0's, no -1's

RESOLUTION: : Incorporate the Guidelines changes as-is and open an issue on the WCAG understanding to address Gregg’s comment.

Survey: Draft background section

<daniel-montalvo> s: Inc/Inc/

Survey: Initial look at draft for 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose

<maryjom> • https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Identify-input-purpose/results

LMN: inconsistencies between the terms listed in both docs
… adding notes in the Annex like we did in EN 301 549

FB: not the same list, just wanted to highlight that
… need to refine the granularity in the note

MJM: maybe also need a section about user interface components

GV: not sure why it doesn't apply to certain types of software
… it seems to apply to web apps for example

DC: agree with Gregg
… both iOS and Android have attributes for names
… it wasn't applicable before but it now applies
… just the list is tricky, might not apply the same to all operating systems

GV: list of purposes not list of names
… so differences among operating systems should be taken care of
… need to match the name corresponding to the purpose

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to note that the standard is currently scoped to personal information.

GV: won't be backwards compatible with older software that didn't have this attribute

CA: this SC is scoped to personal information, not everything in the world
… at the time, autocomplete was most supported
… this is where the list came from

GV: autocomplete was one of the driving forces

<Chuck> +1 it's NOT solely for autocomplete!

GV: but not the only use

DC: agree with Gregg
… iOS and Android both have autocomplete support

CA: definitely not solely focused on autocomplete
… but it was the available mechanism at the time to leverage this functionality

SO: there are other operating systems beyond iOS and Android

MJM: need to continue this conversation next week

<daniel-montalvo> -me has a hard stop too

<Chuck> +1 I understand that in the other case it was NOT normative.

GV: often we said "this would apply if you change word X" but not "if you change the requirement"

MJM: will leave survey open
… will get back to it next week

<olivia-hogan-stark> Thanks for leaving it open!

<AnastasiaLanz> Thanks!