– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Brief discussion about new IRC client. Default theme has poor contrast, "Morning" theme is slightly better, but could be improved. Enable coloured nicknames may also help to switch off (both in settings/appearance).

Announcements

Timezone changes this coming weekend for UK (& continental Europe) so should revert to previous gap.

Chuck: Will we need a horizontal review.

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/#how_to_get_horizontal_review

Horizontal review: document gets reviewed by cross functional team across W3C
… Goes to other working groups for sanity check.

Chuck: There is a checklist that is helpful to go through to prepare prior to any horizontal review. Should help identify areas of concern that we can address ahead of time

<Chuck> https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/checklist.html

More information to come. We do need to do a horizontal review - takes ~30 days.

bruce_bailey: Do we submit what we have for horizontal review, and we work in parallel on the changes to continue working towards 2nd public draft.

Chuck: Heard different answers on that - so to start with we should go through the fast checklist linked above

<bruce_bailey> +1 for our self-review against checklist of course

Chuck will follow up

Status of remaining work before next publication

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

maryjom will add horizontal review work on to the work left list

We are getting close to completion. Survey is out, due this coming Wednesday

Please complete survey in time, and be diligent on any suggested changes (add all necessary detail and context).

Survey is at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/__;!!D5WlZnHMtQ!T-Y-zGgkE5YV-WWt5J-gvGBNmA4QSPyvMbVEo-YC4Wth80jqaS6_3DNRe4aig9rsOsQLRidNq9VC8BhUfA$

Survey is at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/

Issues from Taskforce - one is done, 2 are in survey, we will have to work on answers once we have the content agreed.

We may cover these answers tomorrow

Issue 145: we still need a pull request/draft content completed. Some activity, but need content to review.

Currently assigned to bruce_bailey, Laura_Miller, loic.

Do you need help?

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#145

<bruce_bailey> i must confess to throwing in another wrench and I will offline next week

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to confess to throwing in another wrench and I will offline next week

bruce_bailey: I think regulators really need help, so we should provide any guidance that we can.

<bruce_bailey> I think regulators need help and will screw things up if they are not provide help from wcag2ict tf

maryjom: This was about the sets of clauses - we wanted some general comment about these

It was mentioned that content from Section 508 & EN may be relevant to consider here

Should we just take what is currently proposed and share with group for input?

<bruce_bailey> I provided link in survey and/or issue thread, but example is DOJ CRT NPRM (august) where they cite to 2.1 but WITHOUT saying anything about "sets of software".

GreggVan: Is the suggestion on sets of software - check regulatory requirements ...

maryjom: Yes, that was the proposal as some were getting confused, and EN for example does not apply any of these "sets of" SCs

<bruce_bailey> I am prejudiced, but I think 508 and EN 301 549 did fine. Not so much that NPRM.

GreggVan: Seems to me that I should always check regulations for every SC - so not sure what a general note like this would tell us.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to GreggV that we fish or cut bait

GreggVan: Instead, we should say it applies to "sets of" ... but these are rare...

Or we say that it has not been proven a problem in these cases.

Why we put them on these specific SCs? To address specific questions and comments on these particular SCs

<bruce_bailey> +1 to maryjom

This is currently under survey - so put your responses in the survey so we can move this and other issues on

This particular issue needs draft content to be completed

Correction; this particular issue (145) is not in the survey - we need draft content. If you have ideas please contribute to the conversation in the issue. w3c/wcag2ict#145

Survey results: Proposals for remaining work

Status of remaining work before next publication

[sharing screen showing work left for second public draft]

All but 2 issues are under survey which is good. Please can you work on the remaining issues to help draft content.

There is also an issue on addressing the use of "requires" in some SCs.

FernandaBonnin: for reflow issues - there is another sub group within AGWG working on this, so we might want to wait.

maryjom: We can't just wait for them - maybe discuss with Mike Pluke to see if we can agree a position to get public draft out in time

<bruce_bailey> I don't think wcag2-issues TF will resolve Reflow guidance soon.

Document needs to go out for review as we have made significant changes

bruce_bailey: Reflow discussion in WCAG2 issues & AG is going slowly.

Reflow is a tough issue - we have an approach - give your input in the survey

Survey results: Proposals for remaining work

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/results

q1, issue 196

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/results#xq1

w3c/wcag2ict#196

3 responses: 2 say do not make changes, 1 disagrees saying changes are needed

<ChrisLoiselle> I had answered the survey but it doesn't show my answers, could you refresh the results?

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/310

<maryjom> Bruce's latest comment: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/310#discussioncomment-8933556

Bruce commented on the need for guidance for regulators

bruce_bailey: The link is a proposed rule that DOJ put out in August (just proposed so can change). Not sure how many entities submitted comments. There were lots of comments, but not many about applying to closed systems. It just says we should apply WCAG, without referring to WCAG2ICT or any other considerations.

(Applies to native mobile apps)

maryjom: Also heard that some states are trying to do this (Colorado, California).

Problem is that there is no US standard that does application of WCAG 2.1/2.2 to non
… non-web

Input is needed, but may be out of scope for this TF

<bruce_bailey> Agreed, 508 still being on 2.0 (not 2.1 or 2.2) is also problematic. 508 will NOT be updating anytime soon. It is NOT on the Unified Agenda.

Conforming alternate version - complex number of options

<ChrisLoiselle> Laura: Asked Bruce about 508 and being applied vs. wcag 2.1

<ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: legal min is 2.0 AA . Mentions memo 2223 memo

<ChrisLoiselle> Laura was asking on Kiosk standards and interpretation and requirements around digital accessibility

<ChrisLoiselle> Laura applying to native apps without legal requirements to do so. From WCAG standpoint, industry seems to be ahead of us. Across methodologies / mediums

present

<ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Customers want beyond requirements and non web requirements

[brief interruption while losing IRC]

Laura_Miller: Q for Bruce on 508 and more broadly. 2223 most recent memo. Just clarifying what is meant by digital accessibility. See people apply these to digital apps without any other guidance in place.

<ChrisLoiselle> Phil, you ok to scribe again?

<ChrisLoiselle> My did not drop so I can share notes if need be

<bruce_bailey> In U.S. there is recent instruction from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to federal agencies to use most recent version of WCAG.

What is considered by an accessible alternative version - Mary Jo has listed some examples in the discussion (310)

<bruce_bailey> M-22-33 and M-24-08 -- I will paste in the (long) links to IRC.

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/discussions/310

GreggVan: A better example is the interface to your wifi at home if you have a web based interface; the alternative is a linux command line interface. So command line is not an appropriate conforming alternate version

<bruce_bailey> https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/ofcio/delivering-a-digital-first-public-experience/

<bruce_bailey> From "Follow accessibility standards" bullet...

There has to be a link from the inaccessible version to the accessible version one - so you can find the alternate. We have not really thought of a text-only page - not really an equivalent.

<bruce_bailey> > ...agencies should apply the most current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to websites and web applications, where possible.

Chuck: Example that is less technical. Efficient alternate conforming device. Home device like Alexa -there are apps for Android and iOS in case you cannot hear or execute speech. So this could be considered as an example of an alternate conforming, and does not require lots of technical knowledge.

shadi: There is also tap for input (for those who cannot speak). The point is that not every type of access is accessible to everyone, but in combination they can provide access to the same service. (e.g. speech interface for those who find it useful, but combined with other methods it can help gain access). May not meet the full definition of a

conforming alternate. More a partial mix of multiple methods

GreggVan: Also consider AI. Conversational interfaces that you can talk, type or maybe sign to in order to get information to/from which could be a very helpful alternative

We should ensure we also include this in any writing

ChrisLoiselle: From conforming alternate version, maybe need input from AGWG to list examples there rather than just in WCAG2ICT.

<Chuck> +.5 to Chris

<shadi> +1

maryjom: One of my earlier comments was that current definition was dated and needed updates.

Another example: world clouds, and then link takes you to a list view as an alternative. Not clear from definition if this example also conformed

Please give input in the open survey. Those that have time please join tomorrow.

Tomorrow: will work on issues that do not currently have content drafted for them. 1 hour earlier than today.