– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Scribe-list-&-instructions#instructions

present_

zakim take up item 1

Announcements

Maryjom: Starting to work on WCAG 2.2 Success Criteria

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22WCAG+2.2%22+no%3Aassignee

Maryjom: please sign up for open items. We have 10 new comments to the working draft to discuss. Need volunteers.

<maryjom> Link to FPWD comments: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AFPWD

<bruce_bailey> Woot!

<ShawnT> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2

<ShawnT> W3C Recommendation 05 October 2023 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

Chuck: announcement that WCAG 2.2 is a public recommendation. Announced via email but not up on the website.

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

<bruce_bailey> Also, SLH email to listserv: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2023OctDec/0000.html

<GreggVan> AH here it is -- 2.2 as final with todays date https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

maryjom: Looking to keep things moving forward more quickly and will do so by using surveys

FPWD public comments

<Chuck> LauraBMiller: If there is a simple suggested replacement, do we need to discuss it? Do I incorporate it? What's the proper next step? There's a suggestion for a minor alternative. Would I draft it with that suggestion and bring to this group for approval?

<Chuck> maryjom: Draft a response. If you feel we need a discussion before we push it, then we would bring here. And maybe an initial discussion to determine the temperature of the group.

public comment on 2.2.2 pause stop hide

<maryjom> Issue on 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide: w3c/wcag2ict#232

GreggVan: no such thing as a normative note. Notes are informative.

Maryjom: intent says that it applies to all content.

<mitch11> I agree with the proposed response

Maryjom: our note does not extend anything. It covers all content, not just informative content.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Chuck for a stronger statement

Chuck: I support this but would like to make it more firm. "Note does not expand the scope".

<loicmn> +1 to Chuck proposed change.

<Chuck> recommendation: Note 5 does not expand the scope beyond what is said...

<bruce_bailey> not too late for WCAG 2.0 erratta !

<Chuck> Alastair will be happy to drive AGWG through working an issue on this topic :-)

<maryjom> We'll open a WCAG issue on the verbiage "information", adjust the response per Chuck's suggestion, and add reference to the WCAG issue to the response.

<Chuck> a self serving +1 :-)

<loicmn> +1

<Sam> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<mitch11> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

+1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Devanshu> +1

RESOLUTION: For Issue 232 - open a WCAG issue on the verbiage "information", adjust the response per Chuck's suggestion, and add reference to the WCAG issue to the response.

public comment on 1.4.12 Text Spacing

<maryjom> Link to issue #231: w3c/wcag2ict#231

Public comments asks to add the word "user" for clarification. PhilDay response points out the reasons that "user" will be restrictive. Maryjom response was to say that WCAG is the one that is unclear.

GreggVan: If we think the understanding doc is unclear, we have made suggestions to change the "understanding doc".

mitch11: I'd like to add "user" if we can, and if not, I like GreggVan's suggestion

Chuck: withholding his point at this time so as not to derail.

GreggVan: I would leave the word user out. Unless we define it more broadly.

Maryjom: Overlays should be considered as well.

<Sam> no

Maryjom: are there modifications to the draft response.

GreggVan: There could be operating settings that modify . .

GreggVan: Suggested language "this would narrow it from the original intent"

<maryjom> Add: This would narrow the original intent somewhat. There may be other things other than a user that could change the presentation (e.g. Operating system, AI, or user agent automated changes)

mitch11: no objection. Note 2 explains that what we are talking about is the user modification, not the developer modification. Point out that we've answered the commenters question in that note.

<GreggVan> +1 to that

mitch11: along with the note added by Maryjom above.

<maryjom> Mention Note 2's first sentence, add the addition in IRC above to the response and send.

<loicmn> +1

+1

greggvan: we should not narrow using the note.

maryjom: is this another note to add?

GreggVan: no

maryjom: is it ok that we don't mention the second sentence?

Mitch11: yes. accepted with the comment in IRC

<maryjom> Send response with the addition in IRC above labeled "Add" and send.

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Sam> +1

<olivia> +1

+1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

RESOLUTION: Send response with the addition in IRC above labeled "Add" and send.

Announcements

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

<maryjom> Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-redundant-entry/results

Maryjom: Redundant entry survey question had unanimous agreement

<maryjom> o RESOLUTION: No bullet needed for 3.3.7 Redundant Entry in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.

<Sam> +1

<loicmn> +1

+1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<mitch11> +1

RESOLUTION: No bullet needed for 3.3.7 Redundant Entry in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.

<maryjom> POLL: 1) Prefer to have the word substitution 2) Prefer not to have the word substitution.

<mitch11> 2

<loicmn> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

<GreggVan> 2

<Devanshu> 2

<FernandaBonnin> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

<Sam> 2

<maryjom> 2

<ShawnT> 2

2

<olivia> 2

RESOLUTION: Incorporate 3.3.7 Redundant Entry, using the alternate proposal in the survey, as-is (no word substitution).

mitch11: can we reach agreement on the comments

<ShawnT> w3c/wcag2ict#230

Maryjom: comments from issues page. 2.6 software.

Maryjom: asking about desktop application, word online - is that a web app or software or what does that count as.

greggvan: This is why I think that the Access Board was wise to apply WCAG to all of these things. Web apps are software.

GreggVan: the point of this exercise is that it doesn't matter which one you are talking about. WCAG applies.

Sam: I don't think we need to get into this conversation and should not name products. "We make general reference to word processing and spreadsheets in other locations".

<GreggVan> +1 to staying generic

LauraBMiller: is she asking if it applies to web and exe or is she saying we need to clarify that it applies to both.

Sam: she's asking to add specific listings as a note.

Maryjom: do the notes we have in WCAG2ICT apply to what she's testing?

Mitch11: there is room for improvement and I'm not certain we need to but we need to define non-web better.

+1 mitch11's comment

<bruce_bailey> +1 for defining "non-web"

Bruce_bailey: Access Board didn't define non web

<bruce_bailey> With 508, USAB passed on trying to define "non web"