Meeting minutes
Announcements
maryjom: Work has started in the review of EN 301 549 for the European Accessibility Act
Mike_Pluke: Yes. But not really the first working item, but a preparatory meeting of the team
<bruce_bailey> +1 to having Mike involved with both activities !
maryjom: pull request for target size has been created. Will review it later.
maryjom: sub-groups meetings. Closed functionality has met yesterday (not all could attend) and prepared useful input for the TF
maryjom: text-command line group will convene tomorrow. They will be discussing the possibility of adding a list of SC criteria related to that topic.
Mike_Pluke: When will closed functionality be proposed? Interested due to EN update.
maryjom: worried that EN takes non reviews TF content.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to Mikes concern for Closed Functionality
Mike_Pluke: EN group interested in see the direction of the ideas, rather than the specific content.
maryjom: the discussion of the closed functionality group is creating interesting topics that migh not be notes for any specific SC
bruce_bailey: asking clarification of difference between closed functionality and command line
maryjom: they are two different groups
<bruce_bailey> +1 that it is a lot of work !
Project standup and planning
maryjom: asks Daniel about document formatting
dmontalvo: no news yet
maryjom: there has been an email sent today
dmontalvo: is about formatting of "inserted" content.
maryjom: Has gone through the issues. Picture is good so far. Some issues that were not part of the original WCAG2ICT note
maryjom: These could be interesting for today meeting.
bruce_bailey: suggests to follow the approach of WCAG 3 - publish what we've got making clear that some issues (closed functionality, command-line) are not finished
Chuck: agrees to look at these topics is we cannot work on the CSS pixel definition survey
maryjom: To finish WCAG 2.1 SC we need Reflow (and CSS definition) plus closed-functionality and command-line. Could we publish before these parts (CF and CL)?
Chuck: as the TF decides
Survey results: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review
maryjom: survey was sent late. No responses before today's meeting. Will be discussed next week
<maryjom> https://
bruce_bailey: asks about the availability of surveys and which ones we need to answer for next week
maryjom: the CSS pixel definition (ready and open) and Reflow (has to be prepared)
CSS pixel definition
Issue triage discussions
<maryjom> w3c/
maryjom: There are several issues. First one issue 77
maryjom: There has been a request to include in TF the supplements, specifically the one on cognitive and learning disabilities.
maryjom: her first answer is that this is out of scope for the TF. What does the group think?
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say AAA are in scope
bruce_bailey: This time we will work on AAA?
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: Yes. But this is a supplemental guidance (linked)
<maryjom> https://
mitch11: First, A and AA do have some cognitive. Question: does WCAG non-normative content refers to COGA
maryjom: It does in the section on "layers of guidance"
Chuck: yes, there is a reference... but not a "hard reference". It seems clearly not normative. His interpretation is that "advisory" is out of scope for TF
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i understood our work to consider Understanding
bruce_bailey: In our work we are considering content from "understanding", but any other guidance seems out of scope
maryjom: We are just taking input from "intent" to make sure the word substitutions meet the original intent.
<bruce_bailey> i agree that word substitutions might not work throughout all of Understanding
mitch11: confused about us focusing on "normative parts of WCAG" in a non-normative document?
Chuck: yes. Our scope is to deal with normative content of WCAG to create our note.
mitch11: suggest it might fit in introductory text or other sections (as a pointer to additional guidance).
ChrisLoiselle: is there anything prohibiting us to take content from COGA in our results?
<ChrisLoiselle> more if COGA wanted to point to WCAG2ICT, they could if they wanted to, per their context
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
maryjom: not sure about the content inside COGA
dmontalvo: Not sure about the possibility of adding content from COGA (bad sound quality)
<ChrisLoiselle> If COGA wanted to add this to https://
Chuck: Not here to put rules. Suggests to do it on an item by item case. To use if we agree to
FernandaBonnin: not for or against adding. But then we should consider other additional guidance
maryjom: agrees. Adding one additional source would require us to add more
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest that reply to Lisa could mention we have every expectation of address AAA sc with the present activity.
maryjom: Will see if there is a place to add a reference to COGA, but we are not developing techniques?
<dmontalvo> Cannot fix my mic uality fo today. Will speak to this later via email.
bruce_bailey: would recommend us to answer that this time we are dealing with AAA, meaning there will be more congnitive-related content.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that there is nothing preventing content authors from themselves referencing WCAG2ICT from within their supplementary content
ChrisLoiselle: COGA has business considerations that might be interesting to think. Maybe they could do them the reference to WCAG2ICT.
Chuck: Agrees. COGA could link to WCAG2ICT. Might be more useful that way.
Issue 145 Add info/content on the WCAG exemptions in regulatory work
<maryjom> w3c/
<Chuck> +1 to Bruces idea of answering Lisa regarding our AAA expectations.
maryjom: New issue. 145 on adding information of the WCAG exemptions in regulatory (section 508, EN 301 549).
maryjom: Examples are SC dealing with "set of" documents and software
<bruce_bailey> https://
maryjom: we could add in WCAG2ICT a reference back to those
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention 508 preamble discussed WCAG2ICT
bruce_bailey: section 508 points to WCAG2ICT in its preamble.
mitch11: there is some wording in the prior WCAG2ICT that "implies" exceptions. And then regulation took from there
mitch11: whatever we do it will not have a real impact
Mike_Pluke: explains why EN ommited these SC as they were not sufficiently defined to enable testing.
Chuck: doesn't see us to make big changes to the language we already used in these SC.
<bruce_bailey> FWIW, i like "omitted" better than "exempted"
maryjom: The issue is about if we want to recognise why regulation ommited those and maybe WCAG2ICT could do the same
<bruce_bailey> i heard MJ say "does not make sense to apply" which i agree with
<Chuck> +1
<shadi> +1
mitch11: we could ask Sam to ellaborate on that topic
<bruce_bailey> +1 to voluntarying someone not online
<bruce_bailey> at my office, we use "voluntold"
<maryjom> poll: Ask Sam to draft the change in content for the exempted criteria
<ChrisLoiselle> :)
<Mike_Pluke> +1 to bruce :-)
<mitch11> +1
<Chuck> +1
+1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<olivia> +1
<btrogdon> +1
<shadi> +1
<maryjom> +1
Issue 54 Making the WCAG2ICT approach to the four "set of Web pages" SCs acceptable
<maryjom> w3c/
maryjom: new topic. Issue 54.
<maryjom> all comments thus far summarized into comment: w3c/
maryjom: explains the topic proposed by Mike, to rething WCAG approach to the "set of" SC
Mike_Pluke: worried about important accessibility isssues related to these SC that could be lost if EN or 508 ommits them
<Chuck> +1 to Mike's observations
Mike_Pluke: even if knowing that WCAG does not refer to the "within a page" equivalents issues
<Mike_Pluke> +1 to that
mitch11: some SC )3.2.4) make a lot of sense in non-web documents and software. We need to look at them
maryjom: 3.2.4 makes sense in a single document. Others such as bypass blocks (2.4.1) not so much.
maryjom: suggests that Mike ellaborates on the SC that are more relevant from the "set of" list
Chuck: agrees this in our scope. We need to define priority for that.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to double check that we have more liberty this time around to assert "does not apply" ?
loicmn: Doesn't think we can improve on these SC without modifying WCAG to cover "in a page"
<bruce_bailey> literal wording in charter did not change much
bruce_bailey: maybe we can be more specific this time and we can identify "does not apply"?
<bruce_bailey> +1 to loic
<shadi> +1 to Mike
<bruce_bailey> +1 to mike
Mike_Pluke: his suggestion to remove "set of " in WCAG2ICT... but it migh imply that we say that WCAG is missing something