– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

Maryjom: making progress. CFC passed

Next step is to go to W3C director.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about the image issue raised

chuck: it would be beneficial to correct the image issue.

Chuck: publish with the image issues because it doesn't impact the meaning of the document

Bruce_bailey: would that mean adding a line of text in the document?

chuck: trying not to edit the document. Would be an outside issue that we address elsewhere.

<bruce_bailey> i have no heartburn about FCPWD having some bugs

chuck: will advance today.

Maryjom: WCAG 2.2 is on target?

Chuck: one formal objection was raised. There is a plan laid out but there is nothing definite yet.

Maryjom: Must resolve Internationalization issue. Old issue. Not sure what they/we/you all will decide to do about that.

maryjom: transition period when AGWG starts with new charter there are no members. Need members to be readded.

Maryjom: Be on top of resubmitting

<Chuck> IE's will also need to re-apply

<maryjom> Reapply link: https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/ag/instructions/

Bruce_Bailey: charter has to get renewed regardless of 2.2 getting published.

LauraBMiller: what is the timing for readding

Chuck: will go out soon. Has not gone out yet.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say one of the many moving parts and complications.

chuck: Many moving parts that impact the charter (if 2.2 is passed or not, determines if it's in the new charter).

Maryjom: by the time the charter is put in place, you'll have a month.

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

TOPIC

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

1.3.5 Identifying purpose

Maryjom: working on identifying input purpose.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq9

Mitch11: preferred the original version in survey. The updated version adds "text labels need to be specific and be provided to the user in other modalities."

Mitch11: withdraw my initial complaint but still believe that the initial version is better because text labels are not mentioned.

Mitch11: I didn't realize text labels were an alternative to programmatic purpose.

Mike_Pluke: what other way of identifying input purpose would there be?

Mitch11: closed systems can use HTML.

Maryjom: if there is no programmatic way to identify purpose, you'd have to use text labels or do so in another way.

Maryjom: We could make an edit to the updated version.

<maryjom> 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form; in the absence of programmatic capabilities, text labels need to be specific and be provided to the user in other modalities (e.g. auditory).

maryjom: what do others think

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#input-purposes

<bruce_bailey> Is there an analog in SW and documents?

<bruce_bailey> thank you mitch for clarification !

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say Android does as well

<maryjom> Poll: Update 1.3.5 bullet as edited above? 1) Yes, 2) No, or 3) Something else

<olivia> 1

<mitch11> 1

<FernandaBonnin> 1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

<bruce_bailey> 1

<Bryan_Trogdon> 1

<Devanshu> 1

<ChrisLoiselle> 1

RESOLUTION: Update 1.3.5 bullet as edited above

<mitch11> +1

1.4.2 Audio Control

maryjom: results of survey include people wanting "Something else" and Maryjom provided suggested content that included a reference Non interfering audio.

maryjom: shouldn't apply it because there is an existing requirement.

maryjom: that conflicts.

Maryjom: Sam also provided feedback (grammatical).

Maryjom: Mitch11 also provided feedback about the content "there is no AT", products can have built in AT

chuck: our charter and mandate is to build off the WCAG requirements not the EN requirements.

Chuck: if there is a conflict with EN that's not our problem.

Chuck: but we should be mindful of it because our mission is strictly WCAG related.

Mike_Pluke: We wrote 5.3.1.10 before considering applying WCAG 2 ICT.

Mike_Pluke: what we had in mind was public walk up systems with speech output.

Mike_Pluke: This was independent of WCAG but I'm proposing a separate section on closed functionality to the EN discussion (for public access terminals).

Maryjom: Satisfying 5.3.1.10 would satisfy WCAG criteria but the other way around is not the case.

Mitch11: Despite my proposal, I don't think we need to link off to other standards.

Mitch11: What prevents the criterium from being applied?

<maryjom> o Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1-as proposed or 2) Option 2 – with Loïc’s edits 3) Option 3 – refer to EN’s requirement, 4) Remove bullet, or 5) Something else

<mitch11> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

<FernandaBonnin> 2

2

<ChrisLoiselle> 2

<olivia> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

RESOLUTION: Update 1.4.2 Audio Control bullet using Option 2 above

TOPIC 1.4.3 Contrast and 1.4.11

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/wcag2ict-sc-problematic-for-closed/results#xq11

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss mitch' edit

<ChrisLoiselle> ouch.

Mike_Pluke: the reason we didn't put a contrast was the difficulty measuring it.

<bruce_bailey> U.S. regulatory landscape is in flux with DOJ NPRM

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – as proposed, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – may not be possible to meet, or 4) Something else

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<olivia> 3

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<mitch11> 3

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – as proposed, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – may not be possible to meet, 4) Option 4 - use option 3 and remove 508 reference, or 4) Something else

<bruce_bailey> 3

<bruce_bailey> darn 4

Mitch11: referencing standards but not specifying which standards could be frustrating

<bruce_bailey> intro can mention other standards

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – as proposed, 2) Option 2 – with edits, 3) Option 3 – may not be possible to meet, 4) Option 4 - use option 3 and remove reference to other standards, or 5) Something else

<mitch11> 4

<FernandaBonnin> 4

<Mike_Pluke> 4

<olivia> 4

<bruce_bailey> 4

<ChrisLoiselle> 4 , in that we'd remove reference.

<maryjom> Option 3 minus reference to other standards – may not be possible to meet, remove reference to EN 301 549: When the contrast of the content is determined by the hardware and not modifiable by the software author, it may not be possible to meet this Success Criterion. NOTE Hardware requirements for contrast are out of scope for WCAG2ICT (and this Success Criterion).

Chris represents Oracle, but from AGWG Chair experience, I am a proponent of 4.

RESOLUTION: Update 1.4.3 and 1.4.11 bullets using text posted above