– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjo: any announcements?

maryjom: we are trying a few different tactics...
… github discussion board , now trying google doc
… maybe towards end of meeting we might be feeing better about one mechanism over the other...
… google doc did collect additional feedback , but harder for facilitator to digest

Other announcement is to look at surveys for next week

3 items in survey from friday discussion

please comment sooner than later

<maryjom> Due 31 Jan.: Survey on public comment responses - group 1 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/

<maryjom> Due 31 Jan.: Survey on update to 2.4.8 Target Size (Minimum) and new draft for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-miscellaneous-changes/

Finally, work that is left

<maryjom> Work left for 2nd public draft - https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Work-left-for-second-public-draft

maryjom: I have wiki doc since GitHub has been tricky for tracking all the work items
… please take a look , 9 work items left.
… we are at risk of not making our deliverable targets since we are doing a lot of editing.
… i ask that if proposals are acceptable we can address granular editorial and word smithing later.
… a couple issues seemed to answered , but conversations (in github) still keep being added to.

mitch11: Google doc did work for me, so in lieu of GitHub issue or discussion, I want to suggest more of that...
… much easier than surveys, especially when we do not have fleshed out proposals

Mike_Pluke: Please dont let me be blocker, i will let know by email if i have objections or concerns.

maryjom: I will still use some surveys but maybe not so quickly to survey for some remaining items so we can work faster

Discussion on 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value bullet for SC problematic for closed functionality

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/302

maryjom: Discussion on N R V started at 302

<maryjom> Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wNs7-XobyZiBBnSH-85nLg6FXTK4okTdzHOLE_Jp4kw/edit?usp=sharing

[maryjom sharing GD on screen]

Daniel: please email myself or MaryJo if you cannot get into document.

maryjom: I think I have anyone with link as commenter, so that should be less of problem.

maryjom: There is a lot of commentary.
… GV though option one too simple.
… we have had new options 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 this week.
… also some comments in doc
… comments also correspond to edits , but some comments are just comments.

maryjom: Option 5 from Mitch adds to explaination that other mechanism would be needed for functionality

Sam: My comment was mostly about trying to keep note shorter

maryjom: In reading, does anyone have particular edits to call out?

mitch11: I already offered a version which is good...
… i think i saw two themes emerging...

1 -- can any closed meet ?

2 -- does presence of AT allow SC to be met?

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say prefer 5 with changes, 6, or 7

Phil: I liked 5/6/7 some tweaks. agree with mitch on larger point
… my view is can get to "accessible " because of closed architecture

<Chuck> bruce: I thought of this today, I'm wondering if we should go back a step and say something about WCAG + WCAG2ICT even under the best case scenario might not be enough to be certain that non-web software is accessible.

<Chuck> Bruce: If we make that statement, I think it's easier to address products with closed functionality.

maryjo: i think some of the bullets did get to that

Mitch asks bruce to clarify

<Chuck> Bruce: WCAG + WCAG2ICT, our charge is adopting WCAG for non web ICT. Mostly it is a word substitution exercise. Even if you have non web software where it is perfectly reasonable to apply WCAG with word substition to non web software, that non web software may be conforming, but there may still be issues that are not well addressed.

<Chuck> Bruce: For example the expectation of the platform, the platform has sticky keys for example, it doesn't matter if that sticky keys isn't available for example, but that's not the software's problem.

<Chuck> Bruce: You can apply WCAG, but you can't be certain of the full accessibility of that non web software. Because you can't be confident in the most straight forward cases, of course products with closed functionality are ... even less about accessibility.

<Chuck> Bruce: Mobile apps are a good example of this. Their non web software, but even a WCAG conforming mobile app may still have accessibility issues if you are only looking at WCAG.

<Chuck> Bruce: I agree that this is outside the scope of this document, but if we agree with this, we have been challenged because of this larger meta issue that WCAG and WCAG2ICT isn't a complete set of things to address accessibility.

<Chuck> Bruce: I don't think you can separate closed from the fact that there is a gap.

sam: i agree with Bruce but I always thought it was assumed that wcag2ict was in context of 508 and EN 301 549
… our task is apply WCAG to non-web software and that is way I have been approaching this work

Sam: Getting back to options, a very short one, 4.1.2 is exposing information so requirement would come from other requirements

mitch11: I agree that WCAG does not ensure accessibility but 4.1.2 is almost the opposite of Bruce's point...
… ICT does not mean normative language of 4.1.2 but could still be accessible.
… the first thing we think of closed is something like screen reader and text to speech...
… no matter a products built-in text to speech, that still does not satisfy 4.1.2

Mike_Pluke: Someone could pick up WCAG2ICT and do meet everything and even when the every SC is met, closed or not, there could be accessibility barriers.

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#:~:text=WCAG%202.2%20success%20criteria%20are,is%20provided%20in%20separate%20documents.

Sam: I think we are making problem bigger than it needs to be. Even with web content somethings are not exposed to DOM

<Chuck> ...but will not address every user need for people with these disabilities. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often make Web content more usable to users in general.

Sam: I don't know of regulations were it only WCAG2ICT which is used for assessing accesibilty

maryjom: I think in closed functionality preamble we have some discussion about that.

maryjom: Back to Mitch's question: Can any closed product meet 4.1.2 as written?
… seems like not, by definition of closed

Chuck: WCAG 2.2 includes mention that it does not address everyones needs. There is already a disclaimer.

<Sam> +1 to Chuck statement

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask if we can say not applicable

PhilDay: On that point, we might add to introduction, but we don't want to undersell importance and utility of wcag2ict either
… if platform does not support 4.1.2 there still could be speech engine for example

maryjom: So any of these options close to that?

PhilDay: Reinforce intent of 4.1.2 is a way to address this.

<Sam> +1

maryjom: Could ther be built-in AT, per my Option 7 ?
… There could be some kinds of AT, e.g. coga, despite name / role / value not being met.

Sam: Could we have straw poll about meeting intent of SC?

<maryjom> Poll: Which option do you prefer. Options 1-7 from the Google doc or 8) something else.

<Sam> 7

7, then 6, then 5, then 1

<shadi> 7

<Mike_Pluke> 5

<mitch11> 5

<Bryan_Trogdon> 7

<maryjom> Option 7 - Mary Jo (an edit of option 6 which was derived from option 1) 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Where another mechanism provides equivalent information and operation, such as built-in assistive technology, the software would meet the intent of this success criterion."

<maryjom> Option 5 - Mitchell’s proposal, “help meet the intent” 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Where this is not possible, providing equivalent information and operation through another mechanism, such as functions built into the software that behave like assistive technology, would help meet the intent of this success criterion."

maryjo: anyone speak against 7 ?

mitch11: People will read this and look for pass/fail -- but see intent -- and think 4.1.2 is met

mitch: "meet the intent" seems very much like "meet"

Mike_Pluke: See what you mean, could be "help to meet"

PhilDay: Nice to know what helps, but better to know what needs to be done

PhilDay: We use "meet the intent" elsewhere

maryjom: built-in text-to-speech does not do anything for voice input control

sam: I agree with phil, in that having softer language might preclude developers for doing what is needed for accessiblity

mitch11: Since moving to concensus, i want to be careful with this note...
… like 508 says hardware and EN 301 549 just says see requirement for closed functionality

Chuck: There is requirements under 508 for software paragraph 502 under software
… section is analogous to 4.1.2

https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#502-interoperability-assistive-technology

Mike: current EN draft proposes to add a good bit more about 4.1.2 for software

maryjom: Current EN version just has "does not have to meet" and it is proposed to add requirments for closed functionality

shadi: I have been following conversation about helping but at present I think longish note is counterproductive.

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to suggest poll on "help meet the intent" or "meet the intent"

<maryjom> Poll: Include 1) "help to meet the intent" or 1) "meet the intent"

PhilDay: It would be helpful to know if there is consensus for "meet the intent" versus "help meet the intent"

<maryjom> Poll: Include 1) "help to meet the intent" or 2) "meet the intent"

<Sam> 2

2, but 1 is acceptable

<Chuck> bruce: I'm wondering if we can't keep working on it, and come up with another word besides "help". "Works to ensure", something that's longer and correct, but not overlooked as a "pass".

"May meet the intent"

<shadi> prefer 2 but can go with 1 too

<Mike_Pluke> 1, but 2 is acceptable

<mitch11> sorry, I'm still 1

maryjom: Not coming up with something quickly, so will need to resurvey and keep working

Sam: Can we eliminate some of the choice?

<Chuck> +1 to Sam's suggestion

PhilDay: Is *may* meet intent soft enough but not too soft

mitch11: My preference for 5 is for help to meet, so I am okay with that.

Sam: I see some significant conflicts between 5 and 7

maryjom: I am not seeing consensus either

<Chuck> Poll: +1 or -1 to support option 7 with the acknowledgement that "help" needs additional discusion

<shadi> +1

<mitch11> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Sam> +1

+1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

maryjom: Okay we will go forward from option 7

maryjom: We did not get to rest of agenda , please look at those from agenda
… possibilly we might resolve between meetings
… other big issues have been hanging

maryjo: Call tomorrow morning please join if you can