– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

<PhilDay> Announcements Survey results regarding responses to public comments - Group 1, starting at question 4 - Issue 216 Survey results for public and TF comments Survey results for the Review of 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication notes and SC problematic for closed guidance

Announcements

<olivia> maryjom: With Laura's help, we have pulled together conversations around closed functionality

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

<olivia> maryjom: Have people made progress on self-assigned items?

<olivia> laurabmiller: Reach out if anyone wants me to to chat about an item

<olivia> maryjom: Let me know so I can create surveys. No more open surveys for this week. We are waiting on content for a few things.

Survey results for the Review of 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication notes and SC problematic for closed guidance

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Accessible-auth-round3/results

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1op2IO_LEUr9hafvX1doPkwZ2iV1928o_dKgBVl5UYQk/edit?usp=sharing

SC 3.3.8: Note 3

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Accessible-auth-round3/results#xq4

<olivia> maryjom: 4 said to incorporate as is, Loïc had some edits.

<olivia> maryjom: Any concerns with adding Loïc's text?

<PhilDay> +1 for Loic's proposal

<olivia> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 by adding “If the non-web software is an application” to the beginning of the sentence.

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 by adding “If the non-web software is an application” to the beginning of the sentence.

SC 3.3.8: Note 4

<PhilDay> Updated language should therefore be: Note 3: If the non-web software is an application, passwords used to unlock the underlying platform software are out of scope for this requirement as these are not up to a software application’s author.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Accessible-auth-round3/results#xq5

<olivia> maryjom: All 5 said to incorporate as proposed in google doc

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 3 by adding “If the non-web software is an application” to the beginning of the sentence.

<Sam> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 4 as proposed in the survey.

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<olivia> +1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate Note 4 as proposed in the survey.

<PhilDay> Note 4: See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.

<LauraBMiller> +1

SC 3.3.8: Part 1 - content in SC problematic for closed functionality

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Accessible-auth-round3/results#xq6

<olivia> maryjom: 5 preferred option 2, as is

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1op2IO_LEUr9hafvX1doPkwZ2iV1928o_dKgBVl5UYQk/edit#heading=h.g5mgm937pv8c

<PhilDay> Option 2 (replaces “methods” with “mechanisms” in the text): 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) - There are situations where meeting this success criterion is problematic: ...

<PhilDay> ...

<PhilDay> Systems that are designed for shared use (such as in a public library) or have closed functionality might block mechanisms typically used to assist the user, such as copying authentication information from a password manager. Instead, an alternative authentication method might be helpful, such as an identity card scanner.

<olivia> GreggVan: Methods is better than mechanisms because mechanisms applies to a physical thing.

<olivia> GreggVan: I would go with option 1

<olivia> philday: I disagree, mechanisms is used in the SC

<olivia> GreggVan: Both are used, and it is only in the exceptions

<ChrisLoiselle> For reference, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mechanism#:~:text=%3A%20a%20process%2C%20technique%2C%20or,or%20by%20accident%20Richard%20Bentley

<maryjom> Poll: Use 1) "method" or 2) "mechanism in the language?

<mitch11> 2

<GreggVan> 1 but could live with 2

<PhilDay> 2, but would accept 1

<olivia> 2

<Sam> 2

<mitch11> 2 but can accept 1

<GreggVan> oops on the language

<GreggVan> can accept 2

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate part 1 of the SC problematic for closed functionality for SC 3.3.8 as proposed in Option 2 in the Google doc

<LauraBMiller> 2

<mitch11> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<olivia> +1

<Sam> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<LauraBMiller> =1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#accessible-authentication-minimum

RESOLUTION: Incorporate part 1 of the SC problematic for closed functionality for SC 3.3.8 as proposed in Option 2 in the Google doc

<PhilDay> +1

<PhilDay> Option 2 (replaces “methods” with “mechanisms” in the text): 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) - There are situations where meeting this success criterion is problematic:

<PhilDay> ... Systems that are designed for shared use (such as in a public library) or have closed functionality might block mechanisms typically used to assist the user, such as copying authentication information from a password manager. Instead, an alternative authentication method might be helpful, such as an identity card scanner.

SC 3.3.8: Part 2 - Content in SC problematic for closed functionality

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Accessible-auth-round3/results#xq7

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1op2IO_LEUr9hafvX1doPkwZ2iV1928o_dKgBVl5UYQk/edit#heading=h.l241pv9zuirv

<olivia> maryjom: 1 said as is, 4 said with edits

<PhilDay> +1 to Olivia & Mary Jo's edits

<maryjom> Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may take legal precedence over Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask if we can fix the language

<olivia> GreggVan: Soon as we say "take precedence" people will take advantage of that

<PhilDay> Minor edit to include Gregg's suggestion: Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may be judged to take legal precedence over Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).

<loicmn> +1 to last proposal

<PhilDay> +1 to Gregg's edit

<mitch11> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<olivia> +1

<maryjom> Poll: Are you OK with Gregg's edit? +1, -1 or 0

<mitch11> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<olivia> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Sam> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<PhilDay> Suggested content therefore becomes: Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may be judged to take legal precedence over Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).

RESOLUTION: Incorporate part 2 of the SC problematic for closed functionality for SC 3.3.8 as edited in the text shown in IRC (Phil's entry).

<maryjom> Resolved language: Where standards for banking or security have authentication requirements that are regulated or strictly enforced, those requirements may be judged to take legal precedence over Success Criterion 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).

<mitch11> woo hoo

<GreggVan> √

Survey results regarding responses to public comments - Group 1, starting at question 4 - Issue 216

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Jan-public-responses/results#xq6

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#216

<PhilDay> Option 1 [For non-web documents or software] content [implemented using markup languages or software in a way that supports modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

<PhilDay> Option 2 [For non-web documents or software] content [implemented using markup languages, or that supports modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

<olivia> maryjom: Most liked option 2 as is. Mitch had concerns with language. Gregg had editorial change.

<GreggVan> +1 to mitch

<olivia> mitch11: We don't have to make them the same because WCAG doesn't have them the same. No reason we can't look at them differently.

<PhilDay> Option 2 (attempt to insert Mitch's conditional) [For non-web documents or software] content [implemented using markup languages that supports modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

<olivia> greggvan: It's not just the software, it has to be the platform.

<PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#text-spacing

<PhilDay> Option 2 (attempt to insert Mitch's conditional, with typo corrected) [For non-web documents or software] content [implemented using markup languages that support modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

<olivia> maryjom: This one is for general guidance

<mitch11> I would support Phil's edit

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask if these are listed in the closed functionality section

<olivia> maryjom: to respond to Gregg's question, this is listed.

<PhilDay> Option 3 (attempt to insert Mitch's new broader coverage) [For non-web documents or software] content [that support modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

<olivia> mitch: I noticed that Phil's edit reverts it back to no change.

<olivia> laurabmiller: do we agree that it should be expanded?

<ChrisLoiselle> need to drop, I will review editor responsibilities with Mary Jo and Phil. Great work all!

<olivia> GreggVan: we expanded to beyond mark up languages. If we go there, we are expanding on WCAG.

<maryjom> Poll: Should both SC 4.1.3 Status Messages and 1.4.12 Text Spacing be scoped only to content implemented in markup languages in WCAG2ICT? 1) Yes, 2) No or 3) I don't know

<Sam> 1

<loicmn> 1

<PhilDay> 3. I'm tempted to say 1, so we don't go beyond the scope of WCAG. But, it is nice to give guidance when we can...

<LauraBMiller> 3

<mitch11> 2, if the language allows it. Otherwise it must be 1.

<PhilDay> Now 1!

<GreggVan> 1

<olivia> 1

<PhilDay> Option 2 (attempt to insert Mitch's conditional, with typo corrected) [For non-web documents or software] content [implemented using markup languages that support modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:

<GreggVan> 1 because everything else (programmatic access to status messages) is covered by other SC

<PhilDay> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-4-1-3-status-messages-to-non-web-documents-and-software

<PhilDay> Above link is the "Applying SC 4.1.3" in latest draft

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say Would this proposal work?

<olivia> maryjom: with Parsing we did not expand outside of mark up languages

<olivia> maryjom: with status messages we did. This will be a Friday conversation.