– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

@PhilDay - What is the link for the IRC scribe instructions? I'll scribe.

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

zakim take up item 1

Announcements

chuck: reapply for the working group. It's a natural part of the process.

chuck: invited experts will be kicked out until they are reaccepted.

<bruce_bailey> Has new charter now approved?

Chuck: The new charter has been approved. It needs to be activated. Tilt needs to be apprised.

PhilDay: I thought the process was that when all is approved an email will be generated telling us when to start.

Chuck: correct

Maryjom: Get your surveys done

Maryjom: Time change on Sunday. 10 am Eastern time meeting time

Project status and standup

<maryjom> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13/views/2

Maryjom: Project standup. We have a lot in progress and I did check in with the folks signed up for 2.2 success criteria.

Maryjom: Sam is yours ready for review?

Sam: Yes.

Maryjom: All of the in progress success criteria will appear in the next few weeks. There are a few still assigned.

Maryjom: How is the response going for the one Mitch11 is working on.

<Chuck> Laura: It was my intent, but in job transition. I can try to get to it this week, or I'll reach out to you (MJM)

Mitch11: no progress

Maryjom: Anyone that needs help, let's team up to get them done in the next 2 weeks.

Maryjom: I updated the project plan

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Schedule-and-milestones

Maryjom: Need to resolve public comments and push for a new draft for public review by 12th of March.

Sam: No notice about whether or not the topic has been accepted for CSUN.

Survey results: Updated proposal for 4.1.1 Parsing

<maryjom> • https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-parsing-round2/results

Maryjom: Parsing 4.1.1

Maryjom: Updated proposal based on last week's discussion. Will be talking to Kevin about how to handle parsing for 2.2.

<maryjom> Question 1: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-parsing-round2/results#xq2

Maryjom: DOM was repaired.

Gregg: for 2.0 and 2.1 it is not ambiguous. It does not apply to option 2.2 (has been removed).

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say we don't yet know how to address WCAG 2.0 and 2.1, and this should focus strictly on WCAG 2.2

Maryjom: This is about how to handle 2.2. We need to discuss separately how to handle 2.0/2.1

Chuck: This charter is focused on 2.2. At the moment we do not have an appropriate understanding how to address 2.0 and 2.1. But that is not in our charter

<Chuck> +1

<Sam> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate changes to 4.1.1 Parsing guidance as proposed, using Option 2 in the survey, as-is.

+1

<loicmn> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Sam> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mitch11> +1

<olivia> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate changes to 4.1.1 Parsing guidance as proposed, using Option 2 in the survey, as-is.

<maryjom> Regarding non-web documents, specifically PDF: w3c/wcag2ict#241 (comment)

Maryjom: AT does not parse PDF. Maybe this SC should not have been applied to non web documents.

<maryjom> Question 2: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-review-parsing/results#xq3

<maryjom> oDRAFT RESOLUTION: Remove bullet for 4.1.1 Parsing from the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section

<loicmn> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<olivia> +1

<Sam> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<mitch11> +1

<Devanshu> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Remove bullet for 4.1.1 Parsing from the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section

FPWD public comments

Discussion on 1.4.4 Resize Text

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/220

Mitch11: Point 1 is someone's comments - they were not Mitch's points.

Gregg: with regard to WCAG this is correct. WCAG only applies to web. If you want to use WCAG for something else, WCAG2ICT is the guidance.

<maryjom> Point 1: All native apps should be exempted from WCAG

<maryjom> Mitch's proposed response: Proposed response: This was a fair question in 2020 (seven years after the first version of WCAG2ICT). However, the AG Working Group has since made it clear that we won't make such blanket exemptions merely because of the "W" in WCAG. On the contrary, the Working Group's 2022 approval of the WCAG2ICT Task Force Work Statement reaffirms our intention to "describe how WCAG 2.x and its principles, guidelines, and succe[CUT]

<maryjom> ...to non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT)."

Maryjom: alternate response

<maryjom> My alternate proposed response: The application of WCAG to non-web ICT has been done, in practice, since 2017 when the EN 301 549 and Revised 508 Standards adopted it. Those standards used WCAG2ICT to aid in the interpretation of WCAG to non-web documents and software. While there may be instances where the fit isn’t perfect, WCAG2ICT tries to provide guidance, in the form of notes, to further describe how one might apply each success crite[CUT]

<GreggVan> +1

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to point to the date of EN!

<bruce_bailey> +1 and this point is so good i hope it makes it into WCAG2ICT

Loicmn: Date was incorrect. Needs to be updated.

<maryjom> POLL: Which response do you prefer: 1) Mitch's initial response 2) Mary Jo's alternate with date(s) fixed 3) something else.

<mitch11> 2

<loicmn> 2

2

<FernandaBonnin> 2

<PhilDay> 2

<olivia> 2

<bruce_bailey> +1 to two sentences as Gregg states

<maryjom> Add preamble, it is true that WCAG was originally written for Web content. However, ...the application...

<Chuck> It is true that WCAG applies only to web content. However, ...

<loicmn> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Sam> +1

+1

<mitch11> +1

<olivia> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1 adding. Directly

<maryjom> It is true that WCAG applies directly only to web content. However, ...

<GreggVan> +1

<GreggVan> +8 to Chuck's thank you to Mitch

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Respond to point 1 with option 2, as edited above with dates fixed.

<bruce_bailey> +1 thanks to Mitch for slogging through threads

<GreggVan> +1

<Sam> +1

<mitch11> +1 (to the resolution) smile

<olivia> +1

+1

<Devanshu> +1

<loicmn> +1

<PhilDay> +1

RESOLUTION: Respond to point 1 with option 2, as edited above with dates fixed.

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<maryjom> Point 2: Native apps on small screen devices should be exempted from 1.4.4 because the requirement is unclear or not feasible.

<maryjom> Proposed response: Comments in #4 raise valid, important concerns about clarity and feasibility of applying 1.4.4 to non-web ICT, especially as ICT has evolved in the past 10 years. Now that the WCAG2ICT Task Force is active again, we're optimistic that we can respond to the community's points in an improved Working Group Note and achieve consensus on the update.

<maryjom> Mary Jo's proposed edits: Comments in Issue #4 raise valid, important concerns about the clarity and feasibility of applying 1.4.4 to non-web ICT, especially as ICT has evolved in the past 10 years. The WCAG2ICT Task Force is working to respond to the community's points in an improved Working Group Note. We are also active in related WCAG issues on this criterion, as some of the clarifications are also needed in the Web context.

<Chuck> +1

PhilDay: Agree it's a useful thing to do but we have agreed not to set a size in previous discussions.

Chuck: Gregg had mentioned that pinch zoom doesn't work well. 1.4.10 reflow that's correct. 1.4.4 it does work.

<GreggVan> +1. Chuck is correct. I conflated.

Sam: It is still required to support low vision users in other ways.

Mitch11: the things we don't agree on can be punted to other things

I also need to drop, , ,