– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

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

<maryjom> Please update the availability survey, link above.

Zakim , take up agenda item

Announcements

MaryJo: Editors placed placeholders in to the editor's note. Will show progress as we move forward.

I want to move things along to meet deadline for EN update. I'd like to perform an agile stand up , status update on action items you are working on.

<Chuck> Agile Stand-up: Report on progress, report on blockers. Not a detailed update.

This is a quick way for us to update each other on work and if items are being blocked or need help.

MaryJo: I'm coming up on vacation myself, we will talk to scheduling later on.

Mike P: For EN 301, there won't be any update for near future, perhaps year away.

Bruce: I was going to ask same thing.

Michael C: Year from now is not very long in W3C time. Timeline constraints would still apply.

<bruce_bailey_> +1 that year from now is not long

Mike P: Maybe up to two years, work on updates haven't begun formally.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to echo Michael's comments

Chuck: Thanks, Mike. I think we need to set our own deadlines and be ahead of curve.

<Mike_Pluke> +1

Bruce: A year from now was for EN , not for TR, correct?

MaryJo: Correct, we will talk to schedules later on too.

<Chuck> +1

Greg: There is a lot of talent in the room, I think we should go forward on how quickly can we get through this. Talks to 80/20 rule . Speed and diligence is key.

Thorsten: When do you think EN revision would start? When would you need output of this group ? When would you take this input from this group to EN ?

Mike P: Difficult to answer. Based on funding, etc. February possibly regarding issues being sorted out.

I don't think we'd miss the deadline for EN. I think getting this done first would be best before updating rest of EN .

MaryJo: We started in Sept. , it is now Dec., so it is taking some time to get underway. Pace should be stepped up a bit as we move forward.

MaryJo: Any concerns, I'm open to suggestions and change if need be.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to suggest we try the agile update (I can start)

Chuck: Let us give the agile standup a try.

MaryJo: We received answers on the survey.

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

you are quick Chuck!

MaryJo: Last week we agreed that attributes are for personal information. They aren't always fully available.

MaryJo: Fernanda , talks to mobile apps and issue 720, for native apps.

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/720

Fernanda: We talked about it last week. Issue is a bit older, but relevant to review.

Mike P replied to the input purpose survey ,. I think that we could probably handle the "Input Purposes for User Interface Components" issue by adding some wording that indicates that the equivalent.

Mike P: They are very similar entries in each.

Loïc talks to possibly talking to section as parallel to WCAG . Possibly replicating section 7 of WCAG. Also adding to appendix A and adding a standard note.

Gregg: you weren't finished , where you?

MaryJo: No.

Gregg: I will defer to after survey .

MaryJo: Phil agreed, extra guidance for closed systems, which may not expose this info at all.

MaryJo: list of purposes may or may not be fully supported by AT , reads off her comment from survey results.

MaryJo: Open up for discussion.

Gregg: I think we are over reading specificity , doesn't go into purposes. Thinks that we should broadly say these are the purposes. You need to support names and purposes in whatever API you are writing for. If it doesn't exist in platform, AT won't use it.

Closed functionality..., anything to do with AT needs , need to provide the functionality.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to highlight the 2nd bullet of the SC: The content is implemented using technologies with support for identifying the expected meaning for form input data.

Chuck: The first bullet isn't say these are the only ones to use. The second bullet is saying where the API supports it, and it covers mobile already. Second applies to closed, mobile, etc. I don't think another note is necessary but don't see harm in adding one.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey_, you wanted to talk about Trusted Tester as example

Bruce: I agree that Chuck does not need a note. I think others will need more than a boiler plate note that it works.

Gregg: Is this located anywhere?

<Devanshu> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/66

Devanshu: I'm posting a link to the issue.

Note is in the description.

Gregg: User agent sounds like web, not software

Devanshu: User agent is specific to web technologies. I agree. I would point to suggestion that Luic suggested, for example platform software, rather than user agent.

<Chuck> suggestion: Platforms that do not provide attributes that support for identifying the expected meaning for the form input data, are not in scope for this success criterion.

For reference - Note : User agents that do not provide attributes that support for identifying the expected meaning for the form input data, are not in scope for this success criterion.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Identify-input-purpose/results#xQ3

<GreggVan> Note: That for non-web software and non-web documents the support should be for the input purposes supported by the platform and technology being used.

Gregg: references his note , Note: That for non-web software and non-web documents the support should be for the input purposes supported by the platform and technology being used. Is this what we are looking for?

<bruce_bailey_> +1 that GV note is very much in correct direction

MaryJo: Non web software includes platform software

Mike P: It is a bit difficult to parse that. I understand what you are saying. It is basically having support for input purposes and subset .

MaryJo: In non web software, it is includes agents. Seems to be other requirement is needed somewhere.

needs to have infrastructure

MaryJo: Talks to item 2 in survey. Reads results.

Loic had comments and proposed notes, Note 1: Non-web documents that are implemented with technologies that do not support the identification of input purposes are not in scope for this success criterion.

Note 2, Non-web software that runs in platform software that does not support the identification of input purposes is not in scope for this success criterion.

MaryJo: On the issue itself, Jon Avila wants clear indication made to communicate the purpose is acceptable. Indicating email vs. other person's email as an example.

Chuck: Personal information being identified is in scope, however other is out of scope, as it is non personal.

<Devanshu> +1 Chuck

MaryJo: thanks, I agree.

MaryJo: Do you think we should have a note on this SC 1.3.5 identify input purpose?

<maryjom> Poll: Do you think we should have a note on SC 1.3.5 for non-web documents & software?

<Chuck> +1 so inspired by Bruce's comments

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<bruce_bailey_> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<maryjom> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

Gregg: didn't mean to close the issue on GitHub. Devanshu will re-open, no worries.

<Sam> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Zakim> bruce_bailey_, you wanted to talk only a bit more about Jon Avila comment (after straw poll, does not effect note)

MaryJo: we will add a note, at least one.

?

Bruce: Are we doing one pass for non web software and one for another?

Gregg: I think doing both at same time is good.

Bruce: I think we are collecting info the right way.

MaryJo: the intent of the SC is there, then looking at it from documents vs. non web software when doing a review, then looking if thoughts can be summarized together or separated at that point works for me usually. Then looking at closed, or mobile or platform.

Bruce: Great. To Jon Avila, on autocomplete vs. input purpose. The real world problem is on email , email submitting for , i.e. could be personal and may not want to dismiss too quickly.

Gregg: Did you mean it is something he had an issue with?

<Chuck> For some input fields, the type attribute already offers a way to broadly specify the intention of the input field, for example, input type="tel", input type="email", or input type="password". However, these are only very broad categories, describing the type of input, but not necessarily its purpose, especially as it relates to user-specific input fields.

<Chuck> As an example, type="email" indicates that the field is for an e-mail address but does not clarify if the purpose is for entering the user's e-mail address or some other person's e-mail.

Bruce: No, it may be a failure of SC if you are filling out who are you filling out email for ...i.e. autocomplete working as intended but providing incorrect information in workflow.

Gregg: I see. On software document issue, I think we will get into documents that have macros, software looks like docs, docs look like software. I think finding language that fits both will help regarding cross overs, thanks.

MaryJo: Do you think we need two notes?

One for non web software and one for documents?

<bruce_bailey_> +1 to GV comment that document vs software is often not distinct

MaryJo: Do we want Devanshu to make an edit and come back to us on this?

<GreggVan> NOTE: For non-web software and non-web documents that present forms, the equivalent terms for the purposes that are supported in the technologies used for the forms should be used?

<bruce_bailey_> +1 to GV note (as excellent start)

Gregg: I wanted to capture ideas were there. It is purposes, but terms don't have to be the same.

<Chuck> +.9 to GV's version

Mike P: On separate notes and documents , relating to EN 301, we have separate sections on documents and software, so if separate, doesn't matter. It is easier put in twice, but not a reason against it.

<bruce_bailey_> +1 to Mike Pluke experience -- USAB found it compelling to take two passes as well

<FernandaBonnin> * no worries

Devanshu: We will acknowledge both. I though we were referencing it is just a suggestion. Do we want to reference the list of input purposes again?

<GreggVan> NOTE: For non-web software and non-web documents that present forms, the terms for the purposes would be the equivalent terms of the technologies used.

MaryJo: Where platform software is concerned, platforms would have to support ...

Fernanda: What is the specific motivation on separate notes? Perhaps both together until we have exact reasons for having separate notes.

<bruce_bailey_> i agree we do not presently need two (or more) passes on SC

<Chuck> +1 we do not need two at this time

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say NOTE: For non-web software and non-web documents that present forms, the terms for the purposes would be the equivalent terms of the technologies used.

MaryJo: I like the direction of Gregg's.

<Chuck> +.999

Gregg: NOTE: For non-web software and non-web documents that present forms, the terms for the purposes would be the equivalent terms of the technologies used.

<Chuck> +1 one note

<ShawnT> +1

MaryJo: Are we agreement on one note is sufficient?

+1

MaryJo: Devanshu, can you incorporate Gregg's note?

Project scheduling and pace of content completion

Standup for self-assigned work

MaryJo: Talks to project , https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/projects?query=is%3Aopen

I think that is it, Gregg.

<maryjom> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/8

MaryJo: My top 2 are ready for AGWG. Working through Markdown changes and HTML for notes.

Laura: I need to follow up with Bruce.

MaryJo: we can put that back to survey once it is update.

Laura: will follow up and reply.

Fernanda: Text Spacing, changes made. Should have discussion within group.

MaryJo: Ready for task force to review (text spacing).

<Zakim> bruce_bailey_, you wanted to say having more UI difficulty than i expected...

Bruce: I tried to do pull request vs. an issue. I will follow up on how to present.

Gregg: Are their help videos?

MaryJo: On the wiki, yes.

Sam: I'm working through the issue, need to redo . Will have done by end of week.

Sam: does link to definition point to WCAG2ICT or WCAG document?

MaryJo: It depends.

<ShawnT> GreggVan: Video can be found in the Templates for Success Criterion section: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki#templates-for-success-criterion

Gregg and Bruce, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/GitHub-instructions

and video https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki#templates-for-success-criterion

MaryJo: Please sign up and use tag for WCAG 2.1 items.

Chuck and or Mary Jo, I have meeting, need to drop , can you make minutes?

<bruce_bailey_> okay, no meeting next week then