Meeting minutes
<maryjom> genda+ Announcements
FPWD public comments
announcements
maryjom: WCAG 2.2 coming soon?
Chuck: Yes. It will probably be published soon...
… internationalization objections is solved....
Chuck: It seems to be on track.
maryjom: Will the publication of WCAG 2.2 make the new charter to start?
Chuck: Yes, in principle. There are some pending issues, however.
<bruce_bailey> Current charter has expiry
maryjom: The new charter will make all of us to "re-join" the working groups, including WCAG2ICT
dmontalvo: Yes.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer what I suspect Bruce's question will be
bruce_bailey: Isn't the current charter expiring?
dmontalvo: Yes, in October 31st
<Zakim> unrelated, you wanted to charter
dmontalvo: WCAG 2.1 has been updated, including the note on 4.1.1 becoming obsolete
LauraBMiller: explains activity on Kiosk accessibility and analysis of implications of WCAG
LauraBMiller: Lots of confusion about how to apply some WCAG sucess criteria
<bruce_bailey> +1 to Laura's concern for people naively applying wcag to self-service kiosks.
LauraBMiller: Some issues related to using automatic tools that don't work for kiosks
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to talk about the details of what's needed for wcag 2.2
maryjom: This is why we are dealing with closed functionality in WCAG2ICT
mitch11: It is similar to issues while testing accessibility on TVs
mitch11: There is a lot of literature about testing mobile apps, that could be used to other systems
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think that this is the right "first" forum, and there are other "forums" to include
Chuck: This is a right forum for this issue, Laura, as WCAG2ICT has a stake in this.
Chuck: WCAG2ICT should solve these issues. We need good dissemination to make sure people know.
Mike_Pluke: Yes we need to communicate that using automatic tools on closed functionality is not a good approach.
Mike_Pluke: I'm interested in literature for mobile apps. Mitch?
mitch11: Will take an action on this
Beginning work on 2.2
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: Now that 2.2 is very close to publication, we need to retake issues associated with 2.2
maryjom: welcomes anyone interested in taking some of these issues
Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
FPWD public comments
maryjom: There were 3 responses to our response.
<maryjom> Response thread on further comments from Craig: https://
maryjom: none of them containg anything about WCAG2ICT draft.
maryjom: Thinks we don't need to reply. Any views?
LauraBMiller: It's better not to reply to stop the thread
<maryjom> Poll: Do you think any of these require a further response? Answer Yes or no.
GreggVan: agrees with LauraBMiller
bruce_bailey: also agrees
No
<LauraBMiller> no
<FernandaBonnin> no
<ShawnT> no
<Chuck> No, but...
<bruce_bailey> no
<olivia> No
<GreggVan> no
<Sam> no
<mitch11> no
<Mike_Pluke> no
Chuck: agrees to not reply, but maybe it would be better a short reply saying that we have replied all the WCAG2ICT issues
GreggVan: Proposes a short thank for your comments and directing them to provide specific comments on WCAG2ICT
maryjom: Not sure what to say exactly
GreggVan: These new emails are not about the guidelines, but about other companies
mitch11: Concerned that any reply from is not needed
<Chuck> +1, we can interpret that as "done"
LauraBMiller: Given the content of the last emails, I still think it is better not to reply
<Chuck> +1, it is time to stop and move on
Sam: our response solves the initial comments. No need to further reply comments on companies
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: Additional email in response to Mary Jo’s email on 7 Sept. need no further response.
Survey Results: Review draft updates to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: Apologies, I could not deal with new survey
maryjom: We continue with the current survey results
2.4.1 Bypass blocks
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: Goes through the replies
maryjom: Summarizes some issues written in the replies. There are some edit proposal, one open idea about blocks inside software. And mitch11 suggest to omit 2.4.1 from the list
GreggVan: Explains what was discussed in the past WCAG2ICT about "views" instead of "set of software"
GreggVan: In general no need in software, but kiosks are page-based. Maybe something could be useful
GreggVan: This type of software acts as a set of pages
mitch11: Agrees that there are page-like software apps. But keeps his proposal of omiting 2.4.1 from the closed functionality list
mitch11: We are repeating the original but with a slightly different wording. This is confusing
Sam: WCAG2ICT cannot modify WCAG, but 2.4.1 seems to be problematic for closed functionality
GreggVan: The problem is not WCAG, but how we interpreted "page" as the full software.
GreggVan: And that made more difficult to deal with "set of pages"
GreggVan: Maybe we could fix it better now, talking about software that is page-based
GreggVan: Maybe a solution is to include a sentence about page-based software in the note on best practice for 2.4.1
mitch11: Are you referring to closed functionalty or all WCAG2ICT?
GreggVan: I'm referring to all places where "set of" is used.
GreggVan: 2.4.1 is relevant if there are blocks of conten (a menu) that cannot be bypassed
maryjom: We do have a best practice note about that in 2.4.1.
bruce_bailey: I don't think that WCAG2ICT was wrong, but difficult to apply to kiosks
<maryjom> https://
Mike_Pluke: whitin WCAG2ICT the current solution is the best approach. Outside (EN 301 549) other solutions could be defined.
GreggVan: I we want to really change WCAG2ICT in this page=software it has to be due to big problems. So it is probably better to just add a sentence in the best practice note
… about software that is page-based
maryjom: mitch11 are you suggesting to just copy the note in 2.4.1?
mitch11: not anymore. Will accept the note
maryjom: shows the edits made
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- this is no more a problem for closed - so nothing in closed?
GreggVan: it seems that there is nothing special for closed products. We might omit 2.4.1 from the list
maryjom: Agrees but the subgroup working on closed functionality thought that it was important to have it in the list for people who could first look at the closed functionality list
GreggVan: Disagrees. The list is about special problems for closed functionality. It is not a list of all the SC that apply to closed functionality...
… if there is no additional problem or guidance for closed products it is better to omit 2.4.1
maryjom: set of software seems to be almost impossible in closed products
<mitch11> See "Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.4.5 to Non-Web Documents and Software" above.
<Zakim> mitch, you wanted to propose:
<maryjom> Option 1 – original: 2.4.5 Multiple Ways—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this SC replaces "sets of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which is extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. There are a number of notes in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.4.5 to Non-Web Documents and Software that are applicable to closed functionality software.
<maryjom> Option 2 - edited: 2.4.5 Multiple Ways—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this Success Criterion replaces "set of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which are extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. There are a number of notes in the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.4.5 to Non-Web Documents and Software that are applicable to closed functionality software.
<maryjom> Option 3 – Omit this bullet
mitch11: Can agree with the note to make sure that it is somehow problematic for closed products
<maryjom> Option 1 – as proposed: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this SC replaces "sets of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which is extremely rare - especially for Closed functionality software. However, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within software is generally considered best practice.
<maryjom> Option 2 – with edits incorporated: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this success criterion replaces "sets of Web pages" with "set of software programs" which are extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. However, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within software is generally considered best practice.
<maryjom> Option 3 – Omit bullet
<maryjom> Option 2 – with edits incorporated: 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks—The WCAG2ICT interpretation of this success criterion replaces "sets of Web pages" with "sets of software programs" which are extremely rare - especially for closed functionality software. However, being able to bypass blocks of content that are repeated within software is generally considered best practice.
loicmn: minor edit to "sets of software programs"
<maryjom> o Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 – as proposed, 2) Option 2 – Edits incorporated, 3) Option 3 - remove bullet or 4) Something else
<Sam> 2
<GreggVan> 2
<Mike_Pluke> 2
<mitch11> 4: A simple cross-reference up to the section above, not attempting a rewrite of it
<ShawnT> 2
2
<olivia> 2
RESOLUTION: Update 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks bullet using Option 2 as shown in the minutes.
<Sam> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
+1
<ShawnT> +1
<Mike_Pluke> +1
<Sam> Thank you MJ!
rssagent, draft minutes