– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjom: please do the surveys early to help preparing the meetings
… Early replies help advancing the work

maryjom: Starting next week will check standup to look at progress of the TF work

maryjom: This weekend the time changes in some countries, not in the US.
… the November 2nd meeting will be a different time for the countries that have changed time
… It will be one our sooner in those countries.

maryjom: New AG charter is coming soon (Oct 31st). People who are in companies need to ask their representatives to "get into" AG.
… Those individual experts need to contact Daniel for that process.

Chuck: we should receive an email when the new charter is active. Please contact your AC representative to prepare the process.
… for any question contact Daniel.

bruce_bailey: when is this hapenning?

Chuck: it is coming. A few W3C milestones are required first.

LauraBMiller: changing company (out of TPGi), but will be able to keep working in this TF through the support of TPGi

maryjom: please be in contact with Daniel to handle the transition

<LauraBMiller> @bruce_bailey yes. laura.miller@ssa.gov

Survey results: Proposed changes to definitions

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-add-definitions/results

maryjom: shows the survey results.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for “satisfies a success criterion” as-is.

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<olivia> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<Sam> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<maryjom> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for “satisfies a success criterion” as-is.

bruce_bailey: asks when the definition of "satisfies a SC" appeared in WCAG

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “conformance” as-is.

maryjom: It was in WCAG 2.0. But not in 2013 WCAG2ICT because we did not use the term.

+1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<olivia> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<maryjom> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Sam> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “conformance” as-is.

maryjom: last term is "structure" with some replies asking for an editorial correction.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “structure”, with edit to remove “user”.

+1

<Sam> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia> +1

<PhilDay> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed changes for definition of “structure”, with edit to remove “user”.

FPWD public comments

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+-label%3A%22TF+answer+completed%22

maryjom: Explains that issues related to public comments have the "public comment" label
… and there are two without "owner". Asks for volunteers to deal with these two public comments
… please assign yourself

<bruce_bailey> I think I will be able to write something for reflow this week

From survey: Issue 226 – Technologies that don’t support an SC

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-3/results#xq2

maryjom: 5 responses (2 as-is, 3 editorial changes)

<maryjom> Proposed response to 226 with all suggest edits:

<maryjom> In other similar instances, we have handled such criteria by failing the application and leaving exceptions to outside policies/laws to address. It is largely believed that allowing for "cannot be applied" would provide opportunities to disregard this criterion too broadly.

maryjom: has applied all editorial changes in her survey reply

PhilDay: maybe we could add some reference to "not applicable" in the definition of "satisfies a success criterion"

maryjom: Yes, it is in fact in the next survey question "comments on conformance"

issue 219 "not applicable" is a pass

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-3/results#xq3

<maryjom> Pull request link: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/247/files

maryjom: has taken up Bruce's proposal of linking to definition of satisfies a success criterion

<bruce_bailey> We are not saying anything new. I agree the question is recurrent regardless.

bruce_bailey: clarification to make sure that it was already explained in WCAG2ICT.

maryjom: shows the pull request

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed change for “not applicable” into the Comments on Conformance section, as edited in PR 247.

+1

<Devanshu> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<LauraBMiller_> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposed change for “not applicable” into the Comments on Conformance section, as edited in PR 247.

maryjom: back to issue 226

<LauraBMiller_> +1

<maryjom> Proposed response to 226 is: In other similar instances, we have handled such criteria by failing the application and leaving exceptions to outside policies/laws to address. It is largely believed that allowing for "cannot be applied" would provide opportunities to disregard this criterion too broadly.

<maryjom> POLL: Should we refer to Conformance update in this response?

<PhilDay> +1 to incorporating Conformance updates and then refer in response

LauraBMiller_: wants to clarify what the response would be

maryjom: this will appear in the conformance section once the PR are accepted by PhilDay
… and then this content can be mentioned in responses

maryjom: seems the best approach to point to WCAG2ICT updated content

<olivia> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1 to incorporating Conformance updates and then refer in response

<Sam> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<LauraBMiller_> +1

RESOLUTION: Finalize response to Issue 226 with the edits proposed in the survey and adding a reference to the update to the Comments on Conformance section.

Software issue 230

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#230

maryjom: Explains that Mealine has asked for examples to the (non-web) definition of software

<bruce_bailey> Word online is not "software" -- it is a web application

<bruce_bailey> it is web content

<bruce_bailey> PDFs are web content

bruce_bailey: explains the decisions on the 508 refresh to clarify that "documents" and "software" are non-web

maryjom: some documents can also be software. Like the example from Mitch (.docx with VBA code)

<bruce_bailey> For 508, we use: Software Programs, procedures, rules, and related data and documentation that direct the use and operation of ICT and instruct it to perform a given task or function. Software includes, but is not limited to, applications, non-Web software, and platform software.

<bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#E103.4

maryjom: ... sometimes the line is unclear

Mike_Pluke: In EN 301 549 we followed the same "negative" definition of non-web

maryjom: we need to look at our definition of (non-web) software. And compare to 508, EN. And see if we need to change or give examples

Mike_Pluke: mobile applications are a combination of web and non-web, but it is not so important as the requirements are basically the same

<bruce_bailey> So many times in 508 technical assistance we have had to say "mobile apps are software".

maryjom: do we need examples in the definition?

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to agree that we need examples

maryjom: So we need examples that need to be provided

Survey results: 4.1.1 Parsing

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

maryjom: Loic's suggests not to refer to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. But feels it is necessary because of some countries relying on WCAG 2.0
… 2013 WCAG2ICT cannot be kept as-is because the interpretation of 4.1.1 has changed

Chuck: In WCAG 2.0 we added errata for 4.1.1. Could we have an errata for 2013 WCAG2ICT?

maryjom: I don't know the answer. In any case there is the gap of 2.1, that has no WCAG2ICT

Chuck: There is no WCAG2ICT that referenced 2.1, so it is tricky. Will think on that.

Chuck: for this particular document it is not harm to only deal with 2.2, while we think about 2.0 and 2.1

maryjom: If we focus on WCAG 2.2, then we could just remove 4.1.1

<maryjom> Comment from JAWS-test w3c/wcag2ict#241 (comment)

maryjom: explains comment in the issue that asks to investigate other markup languages

<Chuck> +1 it doesn't matter

maryjom: does AT access other markup languages?

bruce_bailey: but WCAG 2.1 new note seems to be just examples

Chuck: 4.1.1 is very "HTML-centric". In any case thinks that for WCAG2ICT 2.2 it doesn't matter

<bruce_bailey> I agree it does not matter.

<Chuck> it is removed.

Sam: as 4.1.1 is out of WCAG 2.2, then WCAG2ICT (new) should not deal with it

<Chuck> FYI, it is "removed"

+1 to maryjom last reply in 241

<Chuck> hard stop also

maryjom: as there is no parsing (4.1.1) requirement in WCAG 2.2, then there is nothing that WCAG2ICT should interpret

<bruce_bailey> I agree the 2.0 errata is not exactly the same as being removed

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/

Mike_Pluke: in EN 301 549 no decision has been taken yet... but it will probably be dropped

<bruce_bailey> > This criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML.

maryjom: seems we agree to focus on WCAG 2.2, so no info on 4.1.1

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say change should to can

<bruce_bailey> +1 for WCAG2ICT using 2.2 perspective only

Chuck: comment on the last sentence "EN and 508 should take that up". Suggests different less strong wording

maryjom: modifies the comment

maryjom: Please take a look at the Resize discussion and participate before next meeting

maryjom: And there will be surveys