– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjom: new content incorportated into editor's draft

maryjom: some issues with the pull request. Might happen in the future.

maryjom: AG has reviewed the editor's draft with no major comments

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention U.S. gov 508 survey

<bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/news/2023/04/10/the-u-s-office-of-management-and-budget-updates-criteria-and-instructions-for-government-wide-section-508-reporting/

bruce_bailey: there is an open suvery on US gov 508

maryjom: this means increased focus on accessibility?

bruce_bailey: seems so

bruce_bailey: one issue raised in AG meeting was a comparison between US approach vs. EN approach to deal with WCAG

Mike_Pluke: EN review work for European Accessibility Act is starting soon

Mike_Pluke: will make WCAG2ICT work more relevant

maryjom: Agrees!

maryjom: Still issues with markdown processing. Working with W3C people. Might need to come back to HTML editing.

<Zakim> LauraBMiller, you wanted to discuss bruce, is there a link to the survey?

LauraBMiller: link to the US survey? Is it public?

bruce_bailey: the survey instrument is not ready and will not be public. But the questions are public themselves.

Sam Ogami: not affiliated anymore with HP. Will continue as independent expert.

WCAG 2.2 Status

maryjom: reviews the status of the project items and progress

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

maryjom: We got results of survey for 1.4.10 will be discussed next week

maryjom: about 2.5.1 (Sam)?

Sam Ogami: languages proposed. Open for survey.

maryjom: there is work in progress for problematic for closed functionality. Will be discussed today

<bruce_bailey> Expanding on my comment on previous topic, from Tuesday reporting to AG, I wanted to mention that U.S. Incorporation By Reference was a bit complicated. See E205.4.1 and E207.2.1 at https://www.access-board.gov/ict/

maryjom: to see how much work there is and how to handle it

maryjom: a separate work is starting to discuss how to deal with text/command-line/terminal applications

<bruce_bailey> please invite me to that conversation

maryjom: suggests everyone to take a look to the todo list and take on issues they can

<maryjom> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/2

shadi: asks for pointers to the todo items

maryjom: items are in priority order

maryjom: the top items are the first we need to work on

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say order looks good to me

Project standup and planning for WCAG 2.2 SC

Chuck: summarizes the current process for WCAG 2.2. The process needed to be restarted based on received comments

<bruce_bailey> +1 that delay follows from a FEATURE of the process

Chuck: this implies some delay in the process

<mitch11_> what is CFC?

<Chuck> Call for Consensus

Chuck: replies to Bruce - yes July is the new goal

Chuck: explains the process that needs consensus from a wider group. And then a new candidate recommendation will be published

Discussion on SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

maryjom: explains the approach and work done in the annex of SC problematic for closed functionality

maryjom: there has been input as some SC have been processed

maryjom: asks if the closed functionality proposals need to be separated from the SC proposals

maryjom: asks for thoughts

<Chuck> process: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/

<daniel-montalvo> Loic: We identified this one needs to provide appropriate content to this closing functionality, I think this is an appropriate way to deal wih it

<LauraBMiller> +1 phil

PhilDay: agrees current approach, but will need a check to make sure we are not missing issues for closed functionality

maryjom: are you asking for a revision after SC are processed?

PhilDay: yes, to make sure we are not missing relevant content

Sam: agrees with the current approach

LauraBMiller: it could be helpful to have the check proposed by PhilDay as an accionable item

<mitch11_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement#scope

<maryjom> Wiki page on notes beyond scope: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Success-Criteria-notes-beyond-scope-of-WCAG2ICT

mitch11_: looking at WCAG2ICT scope of work, says we need to agree on what we are doing
… and what problematic means

<bruce_bailey> +1 to mitch11_ that *problematic* has different implications for different SC

Mike_Pluke: there are common features in the "problematic" for closed functionality, that depends on the testers
… might need to be clarified as part of the definition of "problematic"
… including both the "old" and the "new" success criteria

maryjom: expects this revision of the "problematic for closed functionality" will be part of our work
… to reflect on what has been learned in these years

maryjom: reads out the beginning of the closed functionality section

<maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality

maryjom: we might want to expand this explanation

<maryjom> Poll: Should we look back at WCAG 2.0 criteria to see if additional notes are needed?

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<maryjom> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<olivia-hs> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<GreggVan> +1 but don't forget AAA as well

<Chuck> 0 - as chair liaison I do not wish to influence the group

<GreggVan> good point

mitch11_: does our scope allow us to go back at WCAG 2.0?

<Chuck> I don't think a resolution is needed for this. But it would show up in meeting minutes.

<bruce_bailey> My understanding is that 2.0 SC are still in scope for our work.

maryjom: thinks we must improve WCAG2ICT and that includes WCAG 2.0

<bruce_bailey> First iteration of WCAG2ICT never got to AAA 2.0 SC

Chuck: don't see it is a challenge for scope

<mitch11_> > The work of the task force includes: Determining how to apply each of the *new* WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.2 (hereafter called “WCAG 2.x") guidelines and Levels A, AA, and AAA success criteria to non-Web ICT; this includes provision of additional details for application to closed product software and where applying individual criteria might be difficult and why; and

GreggVan: we don't need to explicitly talk about WCAG 2.0, as 2.2 includes all in 2.0.

mitch11_: Agrees that WCAG 2.x includes WCAG 2.0. But our scope is about the "new" 2.1 content
… we need to be sure we can work on the "not new" content

<maryjom> clarification of challenges of applying particular WCAG 2.x success criteria to non-web ICT, including closed product software

maryjom: thinks that the bullet copied above enables us to work on everything for closed functionality

Mike_Pluke: it would be negligent not to update the part of closed functionality we know we can improve

GreggVan: we can agree on re-visit everything related to closed functionality to keep consistency

<Mike_Pluke> +1 to Gregg's view

GreggVan: but we should not look back at the "core" of the SC that was already done in the WCAG2ICT for WCAG 2.0

<Chuck> from AGWG

mitch11_: maryjom copy of the scope text solves his question.
… and does not see any limitation to work on closed functionality for all SC

<Chuck> clarification of challenges of applying particular WCAG 2.x success criteria to non-web ICT, including closed product software; and

Chuck: the "clarification" paragraph implies that "closed functionality" is not restricted to the "new" SC
… but we could check with AG to be sure

<Chuck> could be, I'm no lawyer, I only pretend to be one sometimes

<Chuck> I will go to AGWG

GreggVan: agrees, but it makes sense to recheck with AG.

<maryjom> Objective: WCAG2ICT also plans to add new content that identifies problematic WCAG provisions when applied to non-Web ICT.

<Chuck> Yes, I interpret that as allowing this.

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement

maryjom: the objective seems to include all WCAG 2.x content

daniel-montalvo: suggests that our main effort is to deal with "new in 2.x"

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we are parsing, I'll go through the necessary

daniel-montalvo: and later we could recheck the "old"

Chuck: suggests that the do a formal check with AG to be sure

<GreggVan> +1 to brude

<GreggVan> +1 to bruce

bruce_bailey: interprets that the words allow us to deal with "not new", but not against checking with AG

<Chuck> I agree with Bruce, but I didn't want to take group time debating, I'll still go to chairs and get their views.

<Chuck> Chuck (me) has the action.

<Chuck> How much action would a Chair Chuck chuck....

<bruce_bailey> I have no issue with going back to AG, but work statement reads "work of the task force includes" -- so we are not limited by what follows.

<Chuck> +1 to Bruce

maryjom: asking the AG will not delay our process as we still have work to do on 2.1

<bruce_bailey> ... unless "Explicitly out of scope" bullets apply.

<GreggVan> I think the discussion on this in the AG will be much less than then discussion here about going to the AG. As long as it is clear that we are well on our way and will complete 2.1 and 2.2 before we go back to 2.0 stuff there will be a question about doing AAA before we redo 2.0 thing. (I am not talking about Closed products which has to look at all)

<GreggVan> I think the discussion on this in the AG will be much less than then discussion here about going to the AG. As long as it is clear that we are well on our way and will complete 2.1 and 2.2 before we go back to 2.0 stuff there will be a question about doing AAA before we redo 2.0 things. (I am not talking about Closed products which has to look at all)

<bruce_bailey> +1 to GreggV prediction that the discussion on this in the AG will be much less than then discussion here about going to the AG !

maryjom: asks for the possibility of "logical groups" of items

<Chuck> LOL

mitch11_: likes the general approach of the EN of classifying "closed to" specific types of assistive products

<maryjom> GreggVan:

GreggVan: warning that programmatically determinable is not only about speech output

<Chuck> hard stop, will need to go eminently.

GreggVan: it applies to all types of assistive technologies
… restricting to specific AT is too restrictive

<PhilDay> Hard stop - got to drop I'm afraid.

maryjom: but we might need to clarify different ways of closing functionality

GreggVan: Disagrees. "Closed functionality" is closed to any AT.

maryjom: will have a discussion group on this

<mitch11_> I agree with Gregg's excellent point about closed not just to screen readers, thanks Gregg for that