– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

<dmontalvo> testing

Announcements

Maryjom: There is an open Survey for AG working group. Closes tomorrow night.

Maryjom: Last bit that we put under Survey for AG working group.

Maryjom: Discussion of results on Tuesday.

How long do you give folks to review?

Dmontalvo: one week

Maryjom: After we agree to submit they will have the opportunity to improve. We are getting very close to our public working draft.

Maryjom: thank you.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention 2.2 is now Proposed Recomendation

Bruce_bailey: plus one on the "thanks". As a first call on the working draft, we not sure that we should expect much feedback from the public.

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/news/2023/web-content-accessibility-guidelines-wcag-2-2-is-a-w3c-proposed-recommendation/

Maryjom: Chuck is joining in a bit. WCAG 2.2 is publishing later today.

mitch11: Just to clarify, we first send to AG for review, then after that it becomes a public working draft.

maryjom: First CFC to send to AG working group (make sure we have checked it through)

cwadams present+

Cwadams: Minimum of 5 days of review (business days).

PhilDay: Hasn't done more on the target size minimum update.

Maryjom: Open a new issue if you have updates, do not add to the old one.

Survey results: Review draft updates to Text / Command line / Terminal Emulator sections

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

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-cli-terminal-emulator/results#xq2

Maryjom: Mixed input to this first item. Editorials and Substantive or Small edits as well.

<maryjom> o Option 1: Historically, assistive technologies developed alongside text applications, and several of these use a variety of analysis and scripting techniques to make text applications accessible. o Option 2 - edited: Historically, assistive technologies developed alongside text applications, making it possible for text applications to be accessible.

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

2

<mitch11> 2

<ThorstenKatzmann> 2

<ChrisLoiselle> 2

<loicmn> 1, can accept 2

<Sam> 2

<Bryan_Trogdon> 2

<PhilDay> 2

<maryjom> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

<ShawnT> 2

Mitch11: Great thing that there are GUIs and users that will want to use the accessible GUI version not the text version. But this seems to say that the GUI version is sufficient.

<maryjom> Substantive edits #1: o Option 1: With the exception of closed environments, assistive technology support in today's text applications differs markedly from that provided users in earlier days. The most marked difference is that there's likely less need to make a text-only version of an application accessible to AT, because there's almost certainly a GUI version which already supports the accessibility tree or platform accessibility API, and [CUT]

Mike_pluke: Share reservations that it sounds wrong

<maryjom> line version which is highly comparable to the GUI version (such as that provided by Emacs).

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to agree with Mitch

<mitch11> LauraBMiller: do we need to explicitly say the opposite?

LauraBMiller: Is removing this content sufficient to imply that a text version is required?

<bruce_bailey> @laura -- i did not read proposal to require command line version

Mitch11: This would not be specific to text line applications.

<bruce_bailey> +1 that availability of web version is not relevant

Sam: I don't see a problem with option 1. Deleting it implicates that every interface has to be accessible.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss an option 3

bruce_bailey: I like keeping something from option 1. Needs more wordsmithing \

Maryjom: What kind of wordsmithing?

PhilDay: Coming down on the view that if we are going to say there might be a case for "if you have multiple versions of an application atleast one must be accessible". Wonder if we just delete it.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for maybe noting about multiple versions possibly available

<Sam> +1 to Phil comment

Mitch11: Leave it up to you to manage time. We can create an issue and handle it later. Delete this from here.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for issue so we don't loose this topic even it does make into FCPWD

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2, 3) Remove now, Make an issue to develop a more generic statement somewhere else or 4) Something else

<bruce_bailey> s/ +1 for issue so we don't loose this topic even it does make into FCPW/ +1 for issue so we don't loose this topic even it does not make into FCPW

LauraBMiller: need to add information that states that the accessible version must be kept up to date.

<loicmn> 3

<bruce_bailey> 3

3

<Sam> 3

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<ThorstenKatzmann> 3

<PhilDay> 1, and see what AG WG / public say about it. Although I could live with 3

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<mitch11> 3

<ShawnT> 3

<mitch11> changing my answer: what Phil said, plus an issue

<bruce_bailey> @phil -- i do not think we should count on AGWG to look at this any closer than we are !

PhilDay: remove it and create an issue. Find a place to put it in a more generic statement. Add that the accessible version must be updated.

Mitch11: back to 3

<ChrisLoiselle> on potential alternative version and wording https://section508coordinators.github.io/TrustedTester/alternate.html is worth a read

<maryjom> o Option 1: This helps users be more efficient and requires AT do nothing special beyond its core accessibility features.

<maryjom> o Option 2 – edited: This helps users be more efficient and places no new requirements on assistive technologies.

<Mike_Pluke> 2

1

<maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer? 1) Original 2) edited 3) something else

<loicmn> 2

<PhilDay> 2

1

<Mike_Pluke> 2

<ThorstenKatzmann> 2

<mitch11> 2

<Sam> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

2 is fine

<maryjom> o Option 1: Output options will generally include an option to write machine readable structured output (such as json) in addition to continuing reliance on still powerful, and widely used input/out redirection and piping options. In these scenarios the AT user is only relying on options used by anyone who finds the CLI environment compelling.

<maryjom> o Option 2 - edited: Output options generally include machine-readable structured text formats (such as JSON), in addition to the still powerful and widely used options of input/output redirection and piping. In these scenarios the assistive technology user can make use of the same range of output options as anyone else who finds the CLI environment compelling.

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

<mitch11> 2

<loicmn> 2

<PhilDay> 2

<ShawnT> 2

<ThorstenKatzmann> 2

<maryjom> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

2

<Sam> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

<maryjom> Suggestion to remove sentence: Though these types of applications predate the Web, there has been a resurgence in text-based application interfaces, and WCAG can be applied to them.

mitch11: just didn't belong there.

<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Leave as-is. 2) Remove above sentence.

<mitch11> 2

<loicmn> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

<ThorstenKatzmann> 2

2

<PhilDay> 2

<Sam> 2

<ShawnT> 2

<maryjom> 2

<maryjom> • Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the introductory Text / CLI / Terminal Emulator content into the editor’s draft, with the edits the polls above indicate.

Mitch11: plus another edit.

<maryjom> There was one more edit suggested by the survey: Small edit to add “to”

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the introductory Text / CLI / Terminal Emulator content into the editor’s draft, with the edits and polls results above indicate.

<mitch11> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

+1

<Sam> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the introductory Text / CLI / Terminal Emulator content into the editor’s draft, with the edits and polls results above indicate.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-cli-terminal-emulator/results#xq3

Mitch11: proposed this goes out as is but that we incorporate/capture this suggested change for later.

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the Background on Text / CLI / Terminal Emulators as-is into the editor’s draft, and capture proposed edits in Mitch’s GitHub content for a later update.

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the Background on Text / CLI / Terminal Emulators updates as-is into the editor’s draft, and capture proposed edits in Mitch’s GitHub content for a later update.

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ThorstenKatzmann> +1

+1

<PhilDay> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the Background on Text / CLI / Terminal Emulators updates as-is into the editor’s draft, and capture proposed edits in Mitch’s GitHub content for a later update.

<Sam> +1

Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

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

<maryjom> o Proposals for several SC were answered accepted as-is. Those are: 1.1.1 Non-text Content, 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose, 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum), 2.4.2 Page Titled, 2.4.6 Pointer Cancellation, 2.4.5 Motion Actuation, 3.1.2 Language of Parts, 4.1.1 Parsing, and 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed updates for the above list of SC as-is

<loicmn> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask keep open

Bruce_bailey: please reopen the survey except the ones we might clear.