– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

MJ: Please make sure your calendar is up-to-date, there are changes in time due to Daylight Savings
… U.S. is a week later doing that, so the 2 November will be an hour earlier in Europe

MJ: We have work on the headings changes, that's already in a PR and I'll merge it after the meeting
… I also fixed the script
… Not surveys yet for next week, we may not have time for some agenda this week so we'll discuss next week
… Please complete surveys by Wednesday so that I have time to review answers and better steer the discussion

Chuck: The actions are occurring for us to recharter, we are doing the work to switch over, it is imminent, but the milestones need to complete

MJ: We have a month to get rejoin if you work for a Member or reapplied to
… For those Invited Experts you'll have to reapply

Phil: How does one find out if the company has a AC rep and who that person is??

Daniel: Let's take that offline

Bryan: You may want to check with Scott Baker, Phil

FPWD public comments

MJ: Please consider taking some of these up

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#230

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#225

MJ: I can give you a link to those.
… I've created a new tag so that we can see what is completed and what is left
… The issue on Pause, stop, hide, I've answered but I am not going to close it, question is if it applies to all content or just information

MJ: For those who have already taken issues, is there any discussion you want to have in this meeting before you can draft an answer?

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#226

Laura: Spoke to Mitch about it. The thing she's asking is not agreed by most of us it seems. It's 226

MJ: This is a consisten handling as to what we did in the original Note

Laura: Mitch comments are that if these changes need to happen, that shoul be at a policy level

Laura: My next step would be to write a comment that says what we've discussed. This is not how we handle that, we generally fail it, and there are other exceptions

MJ: Please put "Draft Response" in the comment so that we can review and discuss
… Then put a tag on it that it is ready for Task Force review

Mitch: I assigned myself two issues. ONe of them is wordsmithing, I'll have time in the next week to write a sentence
… For 230 I put that in the ready for discussion category and wrote my oppinion there
… If someone wants to pick it up from there, I'm fine with that

MJ: I'll also put comments on issues that others have started

Survey on Draft Responses

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-FPWD-comment-responses/results

MJ: There were only two responses.
… The proposed response to the second comment was about adding the word "user", and also she added another question
… We are changing the language of the SC. That's why I thought this required another response to help her understand the rationale

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#231 (comment)

MJ: The applicability of this SC ws stated clearly in the intent, that is why we added "support modification [...]"
… It is possible to state the applicability in a note,it would be good to know other's oppinion

Sam: I'd double check that we are not overscoping WCAG

Chuck: I try my best to represent how AGWG would review this, but I am not the voice of consensus. I did not see concerns on this one it still stays in our lane. You may see concerns, interested in knowing where you think there are concerns

[[The group looks at the full guidance]]

Sam: Question is if it supports user modification. Then we mention other "modifications". That's where I see the issue. That may be possible but, is it overscoping it?

MJ: She first asked to add "users", and then followed up saying why that would be an issue if we are changing the language

<Chuck> ....no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

Mitch: In the normative text I don't see mentions to "user modification" It says: content implemented using markup languages [...], it does not say they're modifiable
… I don't think we are expanding scope, just clarifying why it applies

Chuck: The nway I read this, the ormative text does not include or exclude what or who can modify the setting

Sam: Thank you Mitch and Chuck, I'd withdraw my concern, maybe then "user" narrows it?
… We should probably not do that either

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#231 (comment)

MJ: That was the original response. There are two questions here. The first we approved last week.
… She was wanting to know the intention behind the change to the original language
… Now I am not sure how we should change this response based on that

Sam: I think the same response is right, but still I feel it narrows the scope

<Chuck> +1

MJ: I wanted to justify why we modified the text and also eiterate the reason why we don't want to add user

Chuck: Agree with Sam that by including "user" we may be getting outside our boundaries

MJ: If I add something about reiterating, would that be satisfactory or more changes are needed?

Mitch: I think it says the right thing. Maybe first "modification supported" could be different

<Chuck> we could modify this if we wanted, but I think this sufficiently states the case.

Mitch: Nice to have though, not feeling strongly

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize response, with edits to improve first sentence repetitive "modification supported" and reiterate why "user" should not be added..

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize response to #231, with edits to improve first sentence repetitive "modification supported" and reiterate why "user" should not be added..

<mitch11> +1

<loicmn> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<olivia> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Finalize response to #231, with edits to improve first sentence repetitive "modification supported" and reiterate why "user" should not be added.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-FPWD-comment-responses/results#xq3

<maryjom> Draft response link: w3c/wcag2ict#224 (comment)

MJ: There is a comment on the intent section in question 3. Only two responses. I have a draft response which is quite lengthy

MJ: I am saying that we are including the INtent because it helps us reviewing and working on the SC. It adds a lot to the document
… Having collapsible sections is typically not done in the standards
… The document is not dynamically including the intent, it is static
… My point is potentially to leave it now while we are reviewing but probably think aboutg removing the intent at a later phase

Sam: When you mean going back, is it for an updated 2.2?

MJ: We had made a decision that we wanted the intent in the document
… This is reopening that discussion again

Sam: I was confused as I thought we'd leave the ones we currently have but remove the latter 2.2 that we add
… They're based off of a point in time when this WCAG2ICT was made

<Chuck> dmontalvo: I also currently... this is stale, we should have a way to populate the json file with whatever changes are made. The rationale for the scripts is to create a github action that pulls the intents and converts to json this doc is using.

<Chuck> dmontalvo: It won't be stale when this becomes a note.

Daniel: Ideally we'll create a GitHub action that pulls changes from the WCAG repositories directly so it no longer is stale

<Sam> +1 to good now

<LauraBMiller> +1

MJ: Is this enough of an answer?

<maryjom> POLL: Does the response to Issue 224 on the including the intent need changes? 1) Yes, 2) No

<Sam> 1

<olivia> 1

<loicmn> 1

<Sam> sorry 2

Mitch: I'd like to vote Yes, but as a procedural thing, we are saying that we contemplate doing something before we finilized. Should we open another issue or leave this open?

MJ: As we are kicking the can down the road I think we should open an issue

Mitch: That's my suggestions

<loicmn> sorry (also) 2 (response does not need changes)

<mitch11> 2, need a link to new issue

<LauraBMiller> 2

<mitch11> 1, need a link to a new issue

<Chuck> dmontalvo: Let's be careful with the wording, we don't want to commit to something specific and then can't decide otherwise.

Daniel: I would be careful with the wording of this new issue

MJ: Just saying that we will re-evaluate if and how we should include the intent

Daniel: I would agree with that wording

MJ: Then I can refer to that from here

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Finalize response to issue 224, with the addition of a reference to a new issue we open committing to re-evaluate inclusion of intent.

<mitch11> +1

<Sam> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<olivia> +1

<loicmn> +1

RESOLUTION: Finalize response to issue 224, with the addition of a reference to a new issue we open committing to re-evaluate inclusion of intent.

Remainder of Survey results: Closed functionality (new definition, 2.4.5)

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-round2/results#xq3

<maryjom> Question 3 link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-round2/results#xq3

MJ: We got to question 3

Definition of “menu-driven interface

MJ: Requested change was to drop "easy to use" from the definition

Phil: I wonder how "simple" will play then in here

<maryjom> Poll: Do you like the definition of “menu-driven interface”? 1) Yes, as-is, 2) With “easy-to-use” removed, 3) Remove "easy-to-use" and "simple" or 4) Something else

<Sam> 3

<FernandaBonnin> 3

<loicmn> 3

<olivia> 3

<mitch11> 3

<PhilDay> 3

<LauraBMiller> 3

RESOLUTION: Incorporate “menu-driven interface” definition, removing “easy-to-use” and "simple".

2.4.5 Multiple Ways

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-round2/results#xq4

MJ: The only comment was potentially breaking the first sentence into pieces. I[ll poll that

<maryjom> Poll: Should we incorporate the bullet for Multiple Ways 1) as-is, 2) With edits to split first sentence, or 3) Something else

<loicmn> 2

<Sam> 2

<PhilDay> 2, but happy with 1 as well

<mitch11> 2, or happy with 1

<olivia> 2

<LauraBMiller> 2

RESOLUTION: Incorporate closed functionality bullet for 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, splitting first sentence as shown Olivia's survey comments.