– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-cli-terminal-emulator/

maryjom: We have an open survey on closed functionality. Please read and complete - we are short on input right now

maryjom: We also have a new survey on command line interfaces.
… draft survey for AGWG is also prepared if we get through the outstanding surveys and approve all input
… WCAG 2.2 is hopefully going out for proposed recommendation this coming week.

Chuck: Nothing to add - hopefully on WCAG 2.2

Survey results for Notes 3 & 4: Review of Proposals for SC 1.4.10 Reflow

maryjom: Last week we had discussed and did resolution on reflow note 3, but then had some confusion at the end of the meeting due to poorly worded poll. So we are going to redo for clarity

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#x5

<maryjom> Option 1: In such cases, implement and evaluate at the nearest possible equivalent size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.

maryjom: Note 3 - only difference between 2 versions is the last sentence

<maryjom> Option 2: In such cases, reflow is to be considered to the nearest possible equivalent to the size alterations defined in the success criterion.

<maryjom> POLL: 1) Use the note in the Edited Option 1 or 2) Use the note in option 2

<olivia> 1

<loicmn> 1

<FernandaBonnin> 1

<ThorstenKatzmann> 1

1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

<maryjom> Note 3: Certain platforms do not support adjusting viewports to an equivalent of 320 CSS pixels wide or 256 CSS pixels high. Likewise, some platforms have limitations on zooming as high as 400% for the larger measurements of 1280 CSS pixels wide or 1024 CSS pixels high. In such cases, implement and evaluate at the nearest possible equivalent size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 into the editor’s draft, as noted above in the minutes.

maryjom: Next item is Note 4, again for reflow

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow-2nd-round/results#xq6

Consensus from survey was to incorporate note 4 with some editorial changes

<maryjom> Option 1 - original: Note 4: Some software applications may need to provide a mode of operation where reflow is possible. An example is an authoring tool, where content can be viewed in a "print mode" with rulers and/or grids, and can alternately be read as reflowed text content.

<maryjom> Option 2 – as edited (from Mary Jo’s comment): Note 4: Some software applications include a mode of operation where reflow is not possible. An example is a document authoring tool, which includes both a "print preview mode" (without reflow, for users to view the spatial formatting) and a "drafting view mode" where reflow is supported.

<maryjom> Option 3 – another more positive take (only changed first sentence) Note 4: Some software applications provide a mode of operation where reflow is possible, while other modes are unable to reflow. An example is a document authoring tool, which includes both a "print preview mode" (without reflow, for users to view the spatial formatting) and a "drafting view mode" where reflow is supported.

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 - original, 2) Option 2 – as edited, 3) Option 3 – positive take, or 4) Something else

<loicmn> 3

3, but happy with 2 as well

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<ThorstenKatzmann> 3

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<maryjom> 3

<LauraBMiller> 3

<olivia> 3

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 4 option 3 into the editor’s draft, as shown above.

Survey results: Review of "style property" definition

Of 7 respondents, 6 wanted minor editorial changes.

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

<maryjom> Draft pull request: https://wcag2ict.netlify.app/#guidance-when-applying-success-criterion-1-4-12-to-non-web-documents-and-software

Draft pull request shows the changes in context

<maryjom> Poll: Are you happy with the proposed draft, as edited? Yes/No

<loicmn> Yes

<FernandaBonnin> yes

<Mike_Pluke> Yes

Yes

<LauraBMiller> yes

<ThorstenKatzmann> yes

<maryjom> yes

RESOLUTION: Incorporate “style property” draft into the editor’s draft, with the edits, as shown in the PR linked above.

<olivia> yes

Survey results: Review of "set of web pages" definition

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-set-of-web-pages-definition/results

first 2 questions - all accept as is, so these 2 sections are approved.

Question 3 had more mixed results - update to "set of Web pages" in Comments On Definitions.

Gregg had useful comments, including on the insert formatting, resulting in a strange visual appearance that looks like 2 links when it is just 1 link

Mary Jo therefore proposed changes in a draft PR. "set of non-web documents" to improve formatting

<maryjom> Option 1: NOTE For provisions that say "set of web pages" simply substitute "set of non-web documents" and "set of non-web software programs" when applying this to (non-web) documents and software programs respectively

<maryjom> Option 2: NOTE For those success criteria that use the term “set of web pages” explicitly or implicitly (2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4) WCAG2ICT provides specific replacement terms: "set of documents (non-web)" and "set of software programs".

<maryjom> Option 3: NOTE For success criteria that use the term "set of web pages", either explicitly or implicitly (2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4), simply substitute "set of non-web documents" and "set of non-web software programs" when applying this to non-web technologies.

<maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer? 1) Option 1 2) Option 2 or 3) Option 3

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<olivia> 3

<LauraBMiller> 3

<maryjom> 3

3

<loicmn> 2, but can live with 3

<ThorstenKatzmann> 3

loicmn: Option 2 better matches the term in the definitions

maryjom: Option 3 is taken from the verbiage in the SCs, which is different to the definition.

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Option 3, as is into the editor’s draft.

maryjom: Closed functionality survey does not have a lot of responses yet.

Let's look at reflow and target size for discussion

Closed functionality survey

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq12

Focus on these 2 SCs (reflow & target size)

<maryjom> Proposal: 1.4.10 Reflow—Many closed functionality products do not allow users to modify the viewport or change font sizes, so there would be no need to impose a requirement on all closed functionality that content is able to reflow. Additionally, many closed functionality products do not display large chunks of text and only have UI controls. In such cases, two-directional scrolling to access the text and UI controls may be considered essential.

<maryjom> Poll: Are you comfortable adding the 1.4.10 Reflow bullet to the editor's draft? Yes/No

<loicmn> Yes

<LauraBMiller> Yes

<ThorstenKatzmann> yes

Yes

<olivia> Yes

<Mike_Pluke> Yes

<maryjom> RESOLUTION Add the 1.4.10 Reflow bullet to the editor's draft, as-is.

Chuck: Has and under such circumstancesme edits for 1.4.10 reflow

<maryjom> Proposal: 1.4.10 Reflow—Many closed functionality products do not allow users to modify the viewport or change font sizes, thus there would be no need to impose a requirement on all closed functionality that content is able to reflow. Additionally, many closed functionality products do not display large chunks of text and only have UI controls. In such cases, two-directional scrolling to access the text and UI controls may be considered ess[CUT]

<Chuck> +1

+1 to proposal

<loicmn> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

RESOLUTION: Add 1.4.10 Reflow bullet to the closed functionality section, as edited.

<LauraBMiller> +1

Closed functionality survey, Target size (minimum)

Survey is missing 2.5.8 Target size (minimum), but SC does refer to closed functionality.

It appears that we do not currently have a proposal for 2.5.8 Target size (minimum)
… it will have to be worked on and then shared with the group at another time
… If we don't have 2.5.8 Target size in the first public draft, we can always add it later - just add an editors note placeholder to say that it is coming later

<Chuck> +1 on more audience for this issue

Content as is from these PRs - if they are incorporated, are we comfortable taking to AGWG?

<maryjom> POLL: Are you comfortable sending the draft to the AG WG for review once, what we've approved is incorporated? Yes/No

Yes

<olivia> Yes

<FernandaBonnin> yes

<loicmn> Yes

<ThorstenKatzmann> yes

<Mike_Pluke> yes

<Bryan_Trogdon> yes

We will incorporate changes, send to AG WG for review, then after getting input from AG WG, send to taskforce to get agreement on publishing first working draft

Discussion with AG WG sometime around 25th, if they are happy, then soon after we will go out to get approval to publish first working draft
… Please continue with open surveys - we will meet again next week.
… Also please complete the survey on availability if you have not already done this to help with planning