– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

<olivia> maryjom: Announcements - Daniel fixed link problem.

<daniel-montalvo> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ will point to the 2013 version (WCAG2ICT 2.0)

<daniel-montalvo> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/ will point to the most updated draft for the 2023 version (WCAG2ICCT 2.2)

<Chuck> +1 to proposal

<PhilDay> +1 to proposal - thanks to Daniel for the hard work

<olivia> daniel-montalvo: Changes rolled out. If no one has concerns, that is how we will proceed..

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to update WCAG 2.2

<olivia> Chuck: Two formal objectives. One to be withdrawn. One in negotiations.

FPWD public comments

<olivia> maryjom: Thank you Phil for sending out initial response. Got a couple of responses to that. Does anyone have any comments?

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#215

<olivia> shadi: Have been reviewing internally. One issue is the reflow issue where we have questions at Amazon.

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#215 (comment)

<maryjom> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2023Aug/0002.html

<maryjom> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2023Aug/0003.html

<olivia> maryjom: There were two response emails. He wrote a blog article and sent to cohort for review. The second comment is substantive and good to make a change on examples. Opened issue to track changes.

<olivia> maryjom: I drafted comments

<olivia> Laura: He is a member of kiosk group Vispero is a member of (KMA). There is an accessibility group within it. We work with them. I left some internal comments to give insight on where he is coming from. He is coming from perspective of kiosk hardware. Helpful for us to realize line of software and hardware, because other people might not.

<olivia> GreggVan: Access Board and Trace working on Kiosks. We should recognize that you cannot make a kiosk accessible without software. If you are just making kiosk hardware, you don't have to meet. Only those who combine with software. When creating guidelines, it is helpful to have hardware and software sections. There is a misunderstanding of this because you have to wait for whole system to meet guidelines.

<LauraBMiller> +1 to Maryjom response

<olivia> maryjom: Comments on response?

<olivia> Mitch11y: The response looks accurate. I wonder if there is any place that makes place to anticipate questions?

<LauraBMiller> +1

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say mic check, and support setting context

<olivia> maryjom: Maybe we can statement from document itself that WCAG2ICT is purely software interpretations. Would that be sufficient?

<olivia> PhilDay: I agree with Mitch's and Mary Jo's suggestions about limitations. Closed Systems will be the most important to Craig.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say what I think we shouldn't say

<olivia> GreggVan: WCAG says nothing about hardware, we only talk about the software part of it. If they want to know what part relates to hardware, you would say nothing - not closed systems. That could cause confusion.

<olivia> Chuck: Concern about broad statements about WCAG. Should concern more on this document.

<olivia> Mike_pluke: Do we have a definition of what we are talking about by "kiosk"?

<olivia> GreggVan: Access Board uses "SSTM"

<GreggVan> +1

<PhilDay> +1 for email approval

<olivia> maryjom: I'll draft up change and send via email to make decision

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia> +1

<loicmn> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask how we can view other questions coming in

<olivia> PhilDay: is there an easy way to view questions as they come in?

<olivia> daniel-montalvo: You can subscribe to that list.

<olivia> daniel-montalvo: I'll send details

Survey results: Review updated proposals for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-number-2/results

<olivia> maryjom: Meaningful sequence, there is a mix of responses. Olivia had a rephrasing.

<olivia> maryjom: Fernanda perfered option 2. Loïc provided rephrasing. Mike supports Loïc's changes. Mary jo noted that we cannot use "must

<olivia> FernandaBonnin: Preferred option 2 because of the "instead" part. Okay with option 3.

<olivia> GreggVan: Changing it to "can" doesn't work for me. Use "Equivalent."

<maryjom> 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Instead, closed functionality software equivalent would be to provide a meaningful reading sequence through auditory output or some other non-visual means that helps users correlate the output with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.

<olivia> Sam: I thought it was fine way it was written - can in there for one solution. Here's one way to do it, or another. Not that it is optional.

<olivia> GreggVan: The can modifies both, but it needs to be this or that.

<Sam> +1 to "would"

<olivia> maryjom: Say "would" instead of "can"?

<olivia> Mike_Pluke: I don't see an issue with Gregg's option 4.

<maryjom> Option 4 – variation on Loïc’s edits 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Instead, closed functionality software would need to provide a meaningful reading sequence through auditory output or some other non-visual means that helps users correlate the output with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.

<maryjom> Option 5 – Gregg’s input 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Instead, a closed functionality software equivalent would be to provide a meaningful reading sequence through auditory output or some other non-visual means that helps users correlate the output with the corresponding information displayed on the screen.

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? Option 4 above or option 5 above?

<FernandaBonnin> Option 5

<PhilDay> 4, but 5 is fine - it's just not quite as consistent with other language in closed functionality SCs

<loicmn> option 5 (I like the idea of "equivalent")

<Mike_Pluke> 5

<mitch11y> 5, not a strong preference

<Sam> 4

<Bryan_Trogdon> 5

<LauraBMiller> 4 or 5

<PhilDay> Having seen the consensus, maybe we should look at using the language of equivalence in other closed functionality SCs!

<Chuck> 5 has the "weight" behind it, but not overwhelming.

<olivia> mitch11y: We agree with Phil's comment on consistency. Maybe will need to take a step back later.

<olivia> greggvan: will have to get that consistency at the end

<GreggVan> +1

<olivia> maryjom: when we are all done, editors can go back

<olivia> maryjom: anyone strongly for 4?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to phrase a different way

<olivia> Chuck: To phrase a slightly different way: for those who had a preference for 4, can you tolerate 5?

<olivia> Sam: 5 is fine

<GreggVan> thx chuck

RESOLUTION: Incorporate option 5 above, as is for 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence. Editors will edit overall Closed functionality section for consistency later and bring those back to the group.

<Sam> +1

<mitch11y> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Sam> I have to drop, thank you eveyone!

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

<olivia> +1

1.4.12 Text Spacing

<olivia> maryjom: Olivia had edits. Lots of comments on Text Spacing. Most people wanted option 2. Fernanda preferred option 1.

<olivia> FernandaBonnin: Liked the call out at the beginning

<olivia> Mike_Pluke: Like change. We shouldn't be distracted if it is done by markup language.

<olivia> maryjom: Option 1 is out. The two options are:

<maryjom> Option 2 – with suggested edits from Loïc and Mary Jo: 1.4.12 Text Spacing—Closed functionality software rarely supports user modification of line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing. In such infrequent cases the Success Criterion applies as noted in the Guidance on Applying Success Criterion 1.4.12 to Non-Web Documents and Software.

<maryjom> ption 3 – with Olivia’s edits: 1.4.12 Text Spacing—In closed functionality software the ability for users to modify line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing is rarely supported. However, if encountered, the Success Criterion applies as noted in the Guidance on Applying Success Criterion 1.4.12 to Non-Web Documents and Software.

<GreggVan> option 3

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

<GreggVan> 3

<loicmn> Option 3

<PhilDay> 3, but 2 is also acceptable

<olivia> Satisfied with option 2 or 3!

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<mitch11y> 3 or 2

<ShawnT> 3

<LauraBMiller> 2or3

<shadi> 3

<FernandaBonnin> 3 or 2

RESOLUTION: Update 1.4.12 Text spacing with option 3 above as-is.

<olivia> maryjom: Time to quit!

<olivia> shadi: Is it only closed functionality?

<olivia> maryjom: We are working on closed functionality section. Yes, we will have to make sure it is consistent.