– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

maryjom: Apologies for late agenda

Announcements

maryjom: I am process of taking inventory of WCAG2ICT left...

there is a lot, but I think we can conclude timely...

In surveys, please propose responses and complete early...
… if early, I have been able to incorporated edits into most recent PRs.

maryjom: At out last meeting, 12/14, there was some openess to having a second weekly call.

<olivia> I could do Friday

What is folks availablility Wed or Friday?

<dmontalvo> I could do Friday, not Wednesday.

<Bryan_Trogdon> Friday works for me.

Chuck: Friday better

<Mike_Pluke> Friday is OK, Wednesday at this time out for me.

<Chuck> Friday 9am ET is available

<shadi> Friday works for me

maryjom: It might be a subgroup working on some issues between weeks and grist for surveys.

maryjom: I feel like I am a gating factor at this point, but I need some more input.

maryjom: i will set up something for the hour before, fri 9:00 to 10:00 Eastern
… we have to get content in if we are to publish in March
… will be short term, maybe just January.

I think we have good handle on remaining content, but need some more live calls.

Chuck clarifies, we will even try for tomorrow.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss other announcement

<Chuck> bruce_bailey: Mention for feds, some stuff between holidays, guidance from OMB for federal agencies.

<Chuck> bruce_bailey: GSA published reporting for conformance across govt.

<Chuck> bruce_bailey: I will paste in the links.

Project status and standup

maryjom: I have been going through list of issues, assessing status of item in progress...
… before vacation I was looking particularly for public comments which might be surveyed.

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

maryjom: there are a couple surveys open, due 2/11, but reply asap
… 2nd one following up on closed functionality, so i lpulled in those changes

<maryjom> survey: closed functionality - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results

maryjom: other thing is survey on Consistent Help, that is almost done.

maryjom: keep look out for that, I will send out email

maryjom: there are also a couple surveys which have been completed, but we have not discussed on a call...
… will get to some of those today.

maryjom: The other status item is a few folks working on changes from feedback survey. 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum)...
… few folks were working on note, and I have reached out to refresh that deliverable.

maryjom: We have also previously dicussed 2.5.8 Target Size minimum...
… a couple people were going to take another look at CSS pixel.

maryjom: Another item in progress is the AGWG review. I wanted to update on status, as deadline was extended a week.
… We did get a couple down votes on 4.1.1 Parsing....
… this will be coming befor AGWG on 1/9 tuesday, please attend that portion of the call if you can...
… Concern is around how we provide guidance around 2.0 and 2.1 -- 2.2 specific guidance is okay.
… I am not sure there is anymore we can do, since if markup is wrong, barrier will surface from other SC fails.

maryjom: For Dragging Movements, there was also conversation which was significant. I will consolidate the responses and choices around user agents in survey proposal.
… Hopefully this will address all issues from AG review...
… We do have public comments needing response, which is my priority for Friday meetings.

Bruce asks about Closed Functionality survey

<maryjom> Open survey on closed functionality: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-more-to-review/

maryjom: Not seeing anyone on call with open issues assigned other than Mike, but I do think we will be consensing on those.

maryjom: I would love to have proposed answers to public comments.

maryjom: We cannot publish again without closing those.

maryjom ask chuck about Public Comments with responses. Do I need to contact person?

Chuck: The answer which you have provide with the @ is sufficient.

maryjom: That is helpful, since hard to track duplicative via email.

chuck: Some feedback is anonymous, so there is no other option.

maryjom: not seeing replies on GitHub

<Chuck> bruce_bailey: I was going to say, I just engaged with someone this morning. Q came from github. If she gets back to me, my idea is to ask her to close the issue.

<ShawnT> +1 to bruce_bailey

Chuck: We can close, and not dependent of person opening issue to close...

<ShawnT> ask them to close it, give them a time frame, if not closed after X days close it for them

Chuck: our main responsibility is to the working group. But we do want to satisfy the person raising the question.

maryjom: I am having people respond to issues which the original question has a satisfactory answer.

maryjom: Issues turning into discussion thread results not being able to close.

maryjom: I did try and reply on issue to this minor conflict.

Chuck: Not only do we have right to keep threads scoped, it is also our responsibility to do so.

<Chuck> bruce_bailey: I was going to suggest that you can turn issues into discussions and they can be more free flowing.

maryjom: Yes, I have asked OP to that effect.

maryjom: Original thread really went off topic from orignal question raised in issue.

maryjom: Any other concerns?

maryjom: We will start tomorrow morning with new replies to public comments.

Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results

Maryjo: Skipping to 4, since we already covered 3 at the top of the call.

maryjom: This is the closed survey on Closed Functionality, but we had not discussed.

Pointer Cancellation: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq1

7 respondants, 6 okay with as-is. Mitch had an alternative, as he would prefer to remove.

maryjom: I don't have objections to restating as Mitch suggests.

<maryjom> Option 1: Proposed draft as-is 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation—There are cases in closed functionality software where there are essential features that would meet the exception to this success criterion. Examples include features for meeting environmental energy usage requirements (like waking a device from sleep, power saver mode, and low power state).

<maryjom> Option 2: 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation—As noted in the section [Applying SC 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation to Non-Web Documents and Software], examples of 'essential' functionality are features for meeting environmental energy usage requirements (like waking a device from sleep, power saver mode, and low power state).

<maryjom> Which do you prefer? Option 1 or Option 2? or something else?

<Mike_Pluke> option 2

<olivia> Option 2

<Bryan_Trogdon> 2

<Devanshu> 2

<ShawnT> 2

<Chuck> bruce_bailey: There is only one example, not multiple examples.

Mary Jo check current draft...

RESOLUTION: Incorporate 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation option 2, as above as-is, into the SC problematic for Closed Functionality section

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq2

Language of Page, 3.1.1

7 respondants, 3 as-is

<maryjom> Option 1: Updated version: 3.1.1 Language of Page—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Self-voicing is already required for closed functionality software to support, with the correct pronunciation of language(s) supported by the software.

<maryjom> Option 2: Loic's edit: 3.1.1 Language of Page—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Accessible systems with closed functionality are required to provide speech output and to use the correct pronunciation of language(s) supported by the software.

<maryjom> Option 3: Mitch's proposed update: Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, this criterion does not apply.

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? Option 1, 2 or 3, or something else?

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<ShawnT> 3

<Devanshu> 3

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<olivia> 3

RESOLUTION: Incorporate 3.1.1 Language of Page bullet using Option 3 as-is into the SC problematic for closed functionality section.

<maryjom> Language of parts question - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq3

7 responses, 1 as is. 5 for option 2 or option 2 with edits.

maryjom: Bruce prefered option 1, but with an edit and was okay with option 2...

<maryjom> Option 1: Proposed update, as-is 3.1.2 Language of Parts—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Support for correct pronunciation of other languages embedded in other content would require alternate means to produce correct pronunciation and can be difficult for closed functionality software to support.

Mitch had a succinct edit, which migh also be applicable to 3.1.1

<maryjom> Option 2: With suggested edits 3.1.2 Language of Parts—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, this criterion does not apply.

<maryjom> Option 3: 3.1.2 Language of Parts—Requires language information in a programmatically determinable form intended to drive correct pronunciation. Where another mechanism achieves correct pronunciation for closed functionality, such as self-voicing, the intent of this success criterion would be met.

Maryjo: I think option 3 incorporates survey feedback. Poll please.

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? Option 1, 2, or 3, or something else?

<Mike_Pluke> 3

<ShawnT> 3

<Devanshu> 3

<Bryan_Trogdon> 3

<olivia> 3

maryjom: I also propose we update note for 3.1.1, but take that up after this one.

RESOLUTION: Incorporate 3.1.2 Language of Parts bullet using Option 3 as-is into the SC problematic for closed functionality section.

maryjom: I also want to poll updating previous resolution.

<maryjom> Poll: Do you agree to change the last phrase for SC 3.1.1 above from "this criterion does not apply" to "the intent of this success criterion would be met". Yes or no.

<ShawnT> yes

<Mike_Pluke> Yes

<olivia> yes

RESOLUTION: update the text for 3.1.1 bullet to replace the phrase "this criterion does not apply" to "the intent of this success criterion would be met".

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq4

3.2.3 Consistent Navigation AND 3.2.4 Consistent Identification

7 replies, 4 and 3

Do we keep bullets or not?

<maryjom> Poll: Do we keep bullets in for SC's that have the "sets of" in the SC Problematic for Closed FUnctionality? Yes or no

<olivia> Remove bullets if only one option, keep if more than one

Bruce: Plug for 508 report i mentioned at top of call: https://www.section508.gov/manage/section-508-assessment/2023/

Olivia: I think bullets might need some editorial

maryjom: There are four SC which present use bullets.
… will address tomorrow