Meeting minutes
Announcements
Maryjom: CFC is in progress, so far there has been one objection; all of us get those emails. The objection is about the color-contrast calculations which hasn't change for WCAG, the person doesn't want it perpetuated, but we haven't change that text at all
maryjom: the AG chairs will reply, I have given my input
maryjom: Chuck can't make it today but will sync with Chuck to understand impact of this
Survey Results: Review proposal for key term “closed functionality” definition
maryjom: 6 responses to the survey, everyone said to incorporate as-is
<maryjom> • https://
<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate the key term “closed functionality” as proposed.
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<maryjom> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
+1
<PhilDay> +1
<olivia> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<Sam> +2
<Sam> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate the key term “closed functionality” as proposed.
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: on question #2, there was some conversation about the term so added the question for partially closed term. 2 said yes, 4 said no
<maryjom> w3c/
maryjom: survey initially didnt allow to add comments, Loic added a comment in Github
<maryjom> Above is Loïc's comment.
maryjom: Loïc's comment is that the definition already doesn't necessarily say closed to all, so it covers the partially situation and gave an example of a Smart Tv
maryjom: any comment on whether or not partially closed is needed?
maryjom: we agreed that no note is needed
Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
Introduction
Introduction
<maryjom> Option 1 - original While these criteria, as written, are not suitable for closed functionality, most of them can inform and aid development of built-in features needed to make closed functionality products accessible.
<maryjom> Option 2 - edited While these criteria, as written, are not always applicable to closed functionality, most of them can inform and aid development of built-in features needed to make closed functionality products accessible.
<olivia> 2
<maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – original, 2) Option 2 – with edits or 3) Something else
<Mike_Pluke> 2
<Bryan_Trogdon> 2
2
<olivia> 2
<PhilDay> 2
<Devanshu> 2
<Sam> 2
<ChrisLoiselle> 2
<ThorstenKatzmann> 2
RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence, with the edits in Option 2, shown above.
Non-text content
maryjom: 6 as-is, 1 updated, 1 original text
Sam: preferred the original because it was more straightforward without the additional context, I like the simplicity
<maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer: 1) Option 1 – Original, 2) Option 2 – edited or 3) something else
<PhilDay> 2
<mitch11> presen+
<olivia> 2
<Sam> 1
2
<Mike_Pluke> 2
<ThorstenKatzmann> 2
<mitch11> abstain
<Devanshu> 2
mitch11: can live with it
<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence Option 1 as-is, shown above.
<maryjom> Option 2 - Updated version 1.1.1 Non-text Content - Requires text or a text alternative in a programmatically determinable form.
<maryjom> Correction: Draft RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence Option 2 as-is, shown above.
<Sam> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<mitch11> +1
<PhilDay> +1
+1
<olivia> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
RESOLUTION: Use the drafted Introductory sentence Option 2 as-is, shown above.
Audio-only and video-only
maryjom: this also applies to 1.2.3
maryjom: (goes through the responses in the survey)
maryjom: 5 options for changes
<maryjom> One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which necessarily relies on a connected assistive technology to be presented.
<maryjom> Option 1: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which necessarily relies on a connected assistive technology to be presented.
maryjom: option 1 is the original
<maryjom> Option 2 – may rely on connected AT One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text. Presentation of text may rely on a connected assistive technology.
<maryjom> Option 3 – absence of AT: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is providing a media alternative that is text which, in the absence of assistive technology, would need to be available in different modalities.
<maryjom> Option 4 – AT in closed system: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which assistive technology in the closed system can present in different modalities.
<maryjom> Option 5 – accessibility features of closed system: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text—which can then be presented to the users through the accessibility features of the closed system.
mitch11: all say different true things, my expectation would be that since we are in the problematic section, we are saying why this S.C. is problematic, which 2 or 3 (with tweaks) do cover
mitch11: closed systems lack connected assistive technology
Mike_Pluke: would prefer opt 5 over opt 4
PhilDay: if we are stating what we required or recommend, Opt 4 and 5 could be tweaked to talk about the problem or needs on the closed system, rather than assuming that accessibility features are present
maryjom: will erase opt 4 and rename opt 5
<maryjom> o Poll: Which option do you prefer: 1) Option 1 – Original text, 2) Option 2 – may rely on connected AT, 3) Option 3 – absence of AT, 4) Option 4 – a11y features of closed system, or 5) something else
Sam: I like Opt 3 seems more straightfwd to read, might not need the word connected
<Sam> 3
<mitch11> 3
<Mike_Pluke> 3
3
<ThorstenKatzmann> 3
<PhilDay> 5: edit of 4: One of the options available to authors for success criteria 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is that of providing a media alternative that is text - which, in the absence of connected assistive technology, would need to be presented to the users through suitable accessibility features of the closed system.
<Devanshu> 3
<PhilDay> but I would be happy with 3
<olivia> 3
<maryjom> Option 3 – absence of AT: One of the options available to authors for success criterion 1.2.1 (1.2.3) is providing a media alternative that is text which, in the absence of connected assistive technology, would need to be made available in different modalities.
<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 using option 3 above, as-is
<Sam> +1
+1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<mitch11> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<olivia> +1
RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 using option 3 above, as-is
<maryjom> https://
1.3.2 Meaningful sequence
<maryjom> Option 1 – with spelling fixed: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form; a correct reading sequence should be output that helps the user correlate information that is provided auditorily or through some other non-visual means with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
<maryjom> Option 2 – edited 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form; a correct reading sequence should be output that helps the user correlate information that is provided by the accessibility features of the closed system in auditory form or through some other non-visual means with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say "It is recommended that a correct reading sequence be output to help the user"
Sam: suggested removing should be
PhilDay: suggested rewording of opt 2
mitch11: highlighted parts are similar, but concern with using Should and Recomended
maryjom: don't think Recommended is normative. we avoid normative terms like should and must
maryjom: we will have to look at the style guide to find out if its normative, we can check on that
mitch11: without Should, the recommendation could sound like its optional to have a correct reading section
maryjom: for optional, we use Best practice
mitch11: I withdraw my concerns
<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1-with spelling fixed, 2) Option 2 – edited, 3) Option 3 – alternate edit or 4) Something else
<Sam> 3
<mitch11> 1
<olivia> 3
<Mike_Pluke> 3
<PhilDay> 3, but can also live with 2
<mitch11> 1, but I'm okay with any
1
<ChrisLoiselle> 3
maryjom: should we make further edits to incorporate parts of 1 and 3?
<ThorstenKatzmann> 3
mitch11: my concern with opt 3 is that its a lot of words but its accurate
PhilDay: agree with Mitch, I like the content in 3 but feels verbose
Mike_Pluke: drifting back to 1 just for its simplicity
<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1-with spelling fixed, 2) Option 2 – edited, 3) Option 3 – alternate edit or 4) Something else
maryjom: should we poll again?
1
<Mike_Pluke> 1
<PhilDay> 3, but could also live with 1
<olivia> 3
<Devanshu> 1
<ThorstenKatzmann> 3 but ok with 1
<Sam> 3
<mitch11> 1, ok with any
<ChrisLoiselle> 3 per last vote
maryjom: its a split vote. I'll go back and try some edits in 3 so its shorter
PhilDay: if you take out edits recommended its almost the same as 1
maryjom: I'll bring this back next time
1.3.4 Orientation
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: 5 people suggested changes
PhilDay: Loic's edits make sense
Sam: want to understand problem with "some closed functionality"
ChrisLoiselle: its about using qualifiers, some, all, etc. Could we give some examples?
Phil: suggested a change, taking out Some in the sentence.
<ChrisLoiselle> Thanks Sam and Phil.
<maryjom> Option 1: 1.3.4 Orientation—Some closed functionality products have fixed-in-place displays or other limitations to modifying the physical display orientation. See the note in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.3.4 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
<maryjom> Option 2 - edited: 1.3.4 Orientation—Some closed functionality products have fixed-in-place displays or other limitations to modifying the physical display orientation. In these cases, the products are covered under the essential exception and are not required to provide support for orientation changes. See the note in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.3.4 to Non-Web Documents and Software.
<maryjom> Option 3 – alternate edit: 1.3.4 Orientation—Closed functionality products that have fixed-in-place displays or other limitations to modifying the physical display orientation are covered under the essential exception and are not required to provide support for orientation changes. See the note in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 1.3.4 to Non-Web Documents and Software
<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – alternate edits, or 4) something else
<Sam> 3
<mitch11> 3
<ThorstenKatzmann> 3
<PhilDay> 3
3
<ChrisLoiselle> 3
<Mike_Pluke> 3
<olivia> 3
<Devanshu> 3
RESOLUTION: Update 1.3.4 Orientation bullet using Option 3 above
<Sam> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
+1
<mitch11> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<olivia> +1
maryjom: we will continue through this and update the PR with the things we have accepted so far, in case you want to see it in the document in context.
<ChrisLoiselle> great work, need to leave for another meeting. congrats!
maryjom: one more announcement: if the CFC, that completes on Monday, gets accepted, the next steps would be going through the W3C director to approve publishing and once is approved our first working draft can go out on August 15th (barring any major upset)
maryjom: email objection was from this morning, it comes to the AG working group