WCAG2ICT

Announcements

MaryJo: Not much for announcements, but we are close to having batch for AGWG
… We expect to get through at least two today.
… Changes from first four SC -- with any changes -- are in the document

Chuck: I hear you saying AGWG will have survey in two weeks ?

maryjom: correct

Project standup (status of your assigned issues)

maryjom: We only have one more SC which needs a proposal, Reflow, and Sam is working on other draft.
… Our group will also want to work on text command line and terminal applications -- but some of that expertise are not regulars on this call...
… relatedly I also want to schedule some conversations around Closed Functionality -- so that is Sam and Phil and Laura in particular.

Sam: Also Olivia.

maryjom: Please look for an email, as I want to try and do that work outside of this meeting time.

Any questions?

SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Text-Spacing-round4/results

maryjom: 8 responses, 1 as-is and 1 change (mitche) with +6 to those edits.

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#62 (comment)

maryjom asks Sam O and others if they are okay with edit?

maryjom: Bruce added comment suggesting Android apps instead of Electron apps.

<PhilDay> +1 to Bruce's suggested clarification on Electron

<FernandaBonnin> +1 to adding a link to Electron

maryjom: We could link to Electron to make it clear that its a proper noun and not misspelling of electronic

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1 for the clarification

<Mike_Pluke> +1 to the clarification

<maryjom> Poll: Do you support Mitchell's edits with a link to Electron?

<LauraBMiller> +1

<olivia-hs> +1

<Sam> +1\

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<mitch11> +1

<maryjom> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate both 1.4.12 Non-text Contrast with the changes indicated in the linked comment above and Mary Jo’s editorial change.

<Chuck> <clap clap>

maryjom: We have been working on this one, so thanks for hanging in there!

SC 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Status-Messages/results

<maryjom> 2.5.2 Survey: • https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT/results

Six replies, 4 as-is and 2 with edits

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#124 (comment)

Mtichell Even's comment about sleep mode.

Sam Ogami expanded, saying other low power modes are covered

<maryjom> Bruce's proposed note: w3c/wcag2ict#124 (comment)

Sam: Bruce's not in GitHub incorporates my edit to Mitchell edit

Bruce proposed: NOTE 1 Functions that emulate a keyboard or numeric keypad key press are considered essential.
 An example of essential functionally for [non-web software] are features for meeting environmental energy usage reequipments (like waking a device from sleep, power saver mode, and low power state).

Maryjo notes another misspelling.

<maryjom> +1 with two additions above. NOTE 1 Functions that emulate a keyboard or numeric keypad key press are considered essential. An example of essential functionality for [non-web software] are features for meeting environmental energy usage requirements (like waking a device from sleep, power saver mode, and low power state).

reading from NOTE 1...

<maryjom> Poll: Do you support Bruce's proposed edits to Note 1?

<Sam> +1

<mitch11> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<olivia-hs> +1 - but wondering if it is "keypress" or "key press"?

<FernandaBonnin> +

Mike_Pluke: Should it not be exampleS are (not singular)

<mitch11> +1 with changing "example" to "examples" (thanks Mike)

olivia-hs: I have always used as single word.

<mitch11> It's "key press" in WCAG

<Mike_Pluke> +1 (with "examples" rather than "an example")

maryjom: We can leave this detail up to editorial pass, but I agree keypress is one word

<maryjom> +1 with two additions above. NOTE 1 Functions that emulate a keyboard or numeric keypad keypress are considered essential. Examples of essential functionality for [non-web software] are features for meeting environmental energy usage requirements (like waking a device from sleep, power saver mode, and low power state).

<Chuck> Bruce: Just note, there were some proposed other edits, but I think we are all on the same page.

bruce notes that edit from mitch11 was more than just the Note

Mary Jo and Sam concure.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Merge 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation into the editor’s draft with the changes Mitchell proposed and Bruce’s update to Note 1 (text above).

<Sam> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<olivia-hs> +1

<mitch11> +!

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<maryjom> +1

<mitch11> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Chuck> survey acknowledged!

RESOLUTION: Merge 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation into the editor’s draft with the changes Mitchell proposed and Bruce’s update to Note 1 (text above).

<Chuck> Resolutionized!

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Status-Messages/results

SC 4.1.3 Status Messages readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft

<LauraBMiller> +1 above

maryjom: Six responses to survey, 4 as-is and 2 with edits

<maryjom> In content implemented using markup languages, or that supports status message notifications, status messages can be programmatically determined through role or properties such that they can be presented to the user by assistive technologies without receiving focus.

maryjom: Fernanda Bonnin asks if note is sufficient and suggested an addition

maryjom: Any comment on that?

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#122 (comment)

maryjom: Mitchell Evan liked Fernanda edit and made minor editorial change

mitch11: Also a change to appendix a for closed functionality. Same edit, but two places.

<maryjom> Poll: Do you support Fernanda’s modification to the SC?

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<olivia-hs> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<Sam> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<maryjom> +1

maryjom: Please do comment if you like.
… this is a change to SC text.

mitch11: Agreed. But I would be willing to publish to community to see if any push-back from AGWG or others. Jon Avilla and others wholly supportive so far.

maryjom: Agreed, non-web software implemented in markup languages is very narrow

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Merge Mary Jo’s proposal with Fernanda’s proposed change and Mitchell’s edits for 4.1.2 Status Messages into the editor’s draft.

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<mitch11> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia-hs> +1

<maryjom> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<Sam> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge Mary Jo’s proposal with Fernanda’s proposed change and Mitchell’s edits for 4.1.2 Status Messages into the editor’s draft.

<GreggVan> +1

<Chuck> +1

<PhilDay> me I think it is still useful to have zakim timer for long-winded speakers!

LauraBMiller: Just wanted to say nice job and express appreciation -- these have been hard work

maryjom: Agreed and also grateful for due diligence

GreggVan: Want to suggest we give ourselves sufficient time for addressing closed functionality since even back during TEITAC the conversation never had enough time...
… I would also express caution about present use of "typically" since that can be red flag.

maryjom: The updated note is broadened, so I think we are addressing better than WCAG2ICT 1.0 and we will continue...
… reminder that I am working to schedule some off-call time for these difficult conversations.

GreggVan: Happy to be included, just mind the time.

maryjom: Yes, we have west coast but also Dublin and Mike Pluke who has voluteered to be included.

SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-non-text-contrast-round3/results

maryjom: We had six respondents, this time a ranking.

Option 1: 2 bullets, 1) Software exception for displays where authors can't change colors and 2) Statement on programmatic testability vs. author's responsibility to test

had 5 rank 1st and 1 rank 2nd

Option 2: 1 bullet, 3rd party testability vs. software writer responsibility

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about how to interpret the results

Option 3: 1 bullet, Give testing guidance

Option 1 also had no "dont want"

maryjom: We had some write-in comments a well

Loic noted in survey I think the best option is the first one, as it separates the two restrictions of closed systems: (1) the the authors cannot change colors and (2) that in some closed systems measuring color contrast is not feasible. In my opinion, no other option does that.

maryjom: I had a longer comment, but we can come back to that.

GreggVan: As phrased, this is a software requirement for hardware.
… also the first bullet confusing to me.

<maryjom> When the appearance of non-text content is determined by the hardware and not modifiable by the software author, the non-web software would meet the exception for this SC. NOTE: Hardware requirements for contrast are out of scope for WCAG2ICT (and this SC), but do exist in other standards' requirements for closed functionality products.

maryjom: I realized that there could be re-writting of this.

MaryJon comment from survey: When the appearance of non-text content is determined by the hardware and not modifiable by the software author, the non-web software would meet the exception for this SC. NOTE: Hardware requirements for contrast are out of scope for WCAG2ICT (and this SC), but do exist in other standards' requirements for closed functionality products.

GreggVan: That edit makes more sense to me, but I thought that was bullet 2

maryjom: bullet 2 is about testability

<Chuck> Bruce: I'd like to ask that we not try to close this one out, even those it's tempting to keep word smithing. I'd like to continue working this in github.

Bruce asks to keep open

GreggVan: This is also closed functionality and we are getting close

maryjom: These are notes for closed functionality. Note is in SURVEY but not yet GitHub

GreggVan: Yes, just asking to get onto GitHub as you say.

<maryjom> 2. When the appearance of non-text content is determined by the hardware and not modifiable by the software author, the non-web software would meet the exception for this SC. NOTE: Hardware requirements for contrast are out of scope for WCAG2ICT (and this SC), but do exist in other standards' requirements for closed functionality products.

Sam: +1 to Mary Jo edit from survey, but also would like to see on GitHub issue

<maryjom> When the color contrast ratio cannot be programmatically measured due to system limitations (e.g. lockdown), precise quantifiable testing of color contrast cannot be performed by a third party. In such cases, either the software author would need to confirm the color combinations used (preferable)

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about the survey (not specific to current topic)

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to check if this is to all go into issue #44

maryjom: Yes, we need to keep discussing this one for sure.

PhilDay: Is Closed Functionality all in issue 44 or is another?

maryjom: Correct, just the one issue, updating appendix, for now.
… But we do need a pass and review on 2.0 SC with implications from closed functionality
… We have these years of experience with WCAG2ICT so want new document to include that insight

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "don't talk about taking picture" just say "may not be able to be precisely tested by 3rd party" and to say "don't talk about taking picture" just say "may not be able to be precisely tested by 3rd party since pictures will not provide accurate contrast measure"

<PhilDay> +1 on pictures not being an accurate measure of contrast unfortunately

GreggVan: Sound like we are leaning towards "or take a picture" but it should be clearer that photograph is not a way to measure contrast in software

<GreggVan> +1

maryjom: People like that thought?

<Mike_Pluke> +1

Sam O: Would prefer removing taking pictures mention.

<BryanTrogdon> +1 on removing taking pictures

<maryjom> Poll: Is everyone OK with adding to adding "and photographs are not sufficient for testing this SC"

<PhilDay> +1 for photos not being sufficient

bruce: I am not sure where "photograph" warning language is ?

<Sam> +1 to MJ photos not sufficient

<olivia-hs> +1

MaryJo: Last week minutes reflect discussion about taking photo of screen

mitch11: Agree, take photographs is not reliable, but some of the phrasing goes to far.

GreggVan: There are testing methods for testing contrast of a display, but one cannot just look at contrast used by software.
… Both EN301549 and 508 have contrast requirements for hardward

<LauraBMiller> My comment was going to be very similar to Mitch11. An alternative would be helpful for those that can't access the software. Picture was used (by me) as a lazy way to

<LauraBMiller> address this

maryjom: Thanks everyone, look for new survey soon, and Sam has one in play as welll