– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

chrisloiselle: Scribe

<PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Scribe-list-&-instructions

Announcements

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

Mary Jo: On work left to do before draft, I want to make sure where SC closed functionality drafts are
… character key shortcuts looks like it is up for review

Will check with Sam to view futher.

There are three others , so we could group those together for next week , that would be great.

Focus visible looks like it is ready for discussion per Phil.

The week after, name, role value, info and relationships and link purpose would be on agenda

Other remaining work, we are drafting content on reflow. We need to review AG working group content comment too

survey will be generated.

Chuck: I will have time off two weeks from today, just letting people know.

Bruce: Friday , there is a group working on WCAG issues, and reflow is the topic this week. Opening that up to whoever would like to attend.

Mary Jo: Reflow conversation would be good to join and will inform us. That is after the WCAG2ICT extra call?

<bruce_bailey> Conversation tomorrow is on Reflowhttps://www.w3.org/events/meetings/12f8250b-23af-4dc1-b25c-6285873846ce/20240119T110000/

Daniel: I think this is after

Mary Jo: Four public comments left, we are working on them all. 6 problematic SCs that we are grouping, then we can prepare for publication.

Mary Jo: Daniel , I'll follow up with you on the questions I have for publication.

Survey results - Review of proposed responses to public comments - Group 2, starting with question 2

<bruce_bailey> s/Conversation tomorrow is on Reflow https/WCAG2-issues conversation tomorrow is on Reflow. Meeting info is https:

Issue 145 – Add info/content on the WCAG exemptions in regulatory work

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-group2/results#xq2

Mary Jo: We talked to this at end of meeting last week. Do we add info on WCAG exemptions.

Most thought it was helpful.

Any concerns here? Bruce, you mentioned different word substitution.

Mary Jo: Are you comfortable with going with how it is currently handled?

Bruce: Yes.

<bruce_bailey> +1 with direction

Gregg: What is the purpose for doing that? Things do change. This document would stand for a long time, a decade. Other people using our document conversations may not be useful. Talks to reasoning behind why we are entering this , in this way.

Gregg: We don't want to date the document. Is there a reason to do this ?

Mary Jo: There are questions , say on mobile apps as a set of software programs and we are applying this SC. The counter would be why are they doing that.

Gregg: How people use it vs. regulatory, they shouldn't be coming to us to figure out how to use it, that would be on access board in U.S. vs. the note.

<bruce_bailey> All for 508 questions going to Access Board: 508@access-board.gov

Mary Jo: As of x date, or x version, that is what we are chartered.

Gregg: It is on the mission vs. what we need to do and not dating the document. Document stands up over time and just wanted to bring that up on mission.

Shadi: This should be captured , we are providing guidance. I see people turning to this that it is definitive guidance. Goal is to not create confusion on when to use it and when things apply.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that isnt that the job of the Access Board

Gregg: I think this is the job of the access board . The advice could be giving different advice from different orgs.

Shadi: If we are causing confusion, we should clear up what we can.

I think supporting this would help people. Perhaps pointing people to the legal side elsewhere.

Mitch: I don't think the proposal is a general change, I think it was toward the criteria raised in the questionairre , isn't that what we are talking about?

Mitch: On the scope , that is the poll we are discussing rather than as a whole?

Mary Jo: Yes.

Gregg: What you discussed is fine. Us talking about what other people are doing is not something we would want to follow through on.

Mary Jo: How about , look to the latest EN, or 508, as applied in regulatory spaces?

Gregg: Yes, adding to that , perhaps Canadian as well.

<Chuck> chris: There use to be tracking on how different countries interpreted WCAG or even had their own. Maybe incorporating that, such as Japan. There is a resource, or use to be.

<Chuck> chris: Not endorsing it, but referencing it.

<Chuck> gregg: Be careful, that's a dated reference.

Gregg: May be dated but worth reviewing

Sam: Could we say look at your local jurisdictions, but look at these two and leave it at that?

<bruce_bailey> This is one WAI resource: https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/org-policies/

<bruce_bailey> Developing Organizational Policies on Web Accessibility

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/

Mary Jo: To poll the question raised.

<bruce_bailey> Web Accessibility Laws & Policies

<maryjom> Poll: Take the direction that we generically say to look to regulatory standards that apply WCAG to see exactly if and how this SC is applied.

<loicmn> +1

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<shadi> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<olivia> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> -1, can accept +1

Mitch: Not particularly concerned.

Issue 243 – Revisit TF decision on inclusion of WCAG intent sections

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-group2/results#xq3

Mary Jo: Looks like agreement for most part.

We did get feedback from working group that it made it a bit confusing and long for intents. In our survey, we supported keeping it in final document. Vote was 4-2.

Daniel: Regarding the summary and details according view, we could do that if we wanted to to hide and then open the details of that section.

ShawnT: I am not a fan of accordions for items that should be deemed as important. Finding via control F or otherwise may be hard to do with keyboard shorcuts.

Mary Jo: Each SC has the intent link. The location may not be easy to find.

Daniel: I don't think you'd be able to search a hidden element only when it is exposed.

<ShawnT> There are attributes you can add but I think it only works in Chrome

Mary Jo: We could have a version with intent included , like 2013 including it and then the collapsible sections.

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask what the format would be

Phil: I am not adverse to including it.

Mary Jo: WCAG text then applying.

Mitch: I can accept what we've talked to in the range we are covering. If people don't understand the content , it would be harder to read. Strongly encourage not having or having them collapsed. I will accept whatever outcome.

<loicmn> +1 to Mitch's usability concerns

MikeP: Not including them is my vote. I find it difficult on finding what I want.

<PhilDay> +1 to Mitch's comment

Bruce: No objections. If not including it, it should be updated in next publication, not the end.

<ShawnT> <details>: The Details disclosure element - HTML: HyperText Markup Language | MDN https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/details

<maryjom> Poll: Should we include the Intent in the final document? 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes but in collapsed sections.

<loicmn> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

<mitch11_> 3 or 2, can accept 1

<PhilDay> 2, then 3

<bruce_bailey> 3 1 2

2, 1 ...comments made here changed my mind :)

<olivia> 2

<ShawnT> 2, 1

<Chuck> 6 twos

<ShawnT> definitely not 3

<Sam> 2

<Devanshu> 2

<Chuck> 8 twos

<maryjom> Poll: Should we include the Intent in the next public draft of the document? 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes but in collapsed sections.

Mary Jo: Not including seems to be the vote.

<Mike_Pluke> 2

2

<olivia> 2

<mitch11_> 2 or 3

<loicmn> 2, but can accept 1 (useful during the work)

<shadi> 2

<PhilDay> 2, but consider adding more links to Intent

<GreggVan> 2

<ShawnT> 2

Phil: I think right now we have in single place, but perhaps at start of SC overall and then on problematic as well?

<bruce_bailey> 2

Mary Jo: I think on the problematic for sure.

Phil: Comments by SCs, I was thinking there. It needs to be edited anyways.

Mary Jo: We'd need to review that while updating the document. Perhaps as a PR.

Bruce: If we want have the intent as working doc, that is fine. If for public, that should be clear if it is being removed , for public draft.

Mary Jo: It will be removed on this upcoming document, as the vote favored that.

RESOLUTION: We will remove including the Understanding Intent sections starting with the next public draft.

Survey results - Review of 1.4.12 Text Spacing and Images of Text proposals

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-spacing-and-images/results

1.4.12 Text Spacing – Guidance on applying, introductory paragraph

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-spacing-and-images/results#xq1

Option 2 had four respondents.

<PhilDay> Google doc containing more detail of proposed content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_tw8vvXEESl2ybOCWw59psPq7so1oNj4LSghU0hgCZM/edit#heading=h.rhdieytk2d1n

Mary Jo: I wanted to make sure all were ok with this language.

<PhilDay> Option 1: Current Editor’s draft text: This applies directly as written and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.12 (also provided below) replacing "In content implemented using markup languages" with "For non-web documents or software content implemented using markup languages" and replacing "that support " with "in a way that supports modification of".

<PhilDay> Option 2: PROPOSED CHANGE to introductory paragraph: This applies directly as written and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.12 (also provided below).

What we are doing with text spacing, the mark up language , language. We wanted to have it stand without word substitutions. Wanted to align these.

Any comments?

Mary Jo: Will hold resolution until next part is done.
… not implementing any word substitutions.

Any comments?

<PhilDay> Option 3: Proposed change - have NO word substitutions or insertions (Since the SC applies as written, all of the SC text would be deleted from the document. We would instead add a note to cover the caveat that this would only apply when the markup language supports user modification of these text style properties listed in this SC. See proposed text for NOTE 3 below.)

(3 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - Review new proposed Note 3

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-spacing-and-images/results#xq3

Mary Jo: Now we will move on to the notes. For the notes, there were two that said we can incorporate as is. Two wanted edits.

Mary Jo: Mike, did you have difficulty with this at all?

MikeP: Happy with it.

<PhilDay> Option 3: (Mary Jo’s take). This Success Criteria only applies to non-web documents and software that are implemented using markup languages that support these text spacing properties, and allow the user to modify these text spacing properties.

Mary Jo: Adding note 3 , as is.

<PhilDay> Note 3, Option 2: New note proposal This Success Criteria only applies to non-web software and documents that are implemented using markup languages and allow the user to modify these text spacing properties.

<maryjom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change draft to have no word substitutions on the SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing.

Gregg: Criterion vs. criteria on plural. and "allow", needs an "s" , to allows.

<PhilDay> NOTE 3. Option 2: New note proposal. This Success Criterion only applies to non-web software and documents that are implemented using markup languages and allows the user to modify these text spacing properties.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<loicmn> +1

<mitch11_> +1

<shadi> +1

+1 to poll.

<Devanshu> +1

RESOLUTION: Change draft to have no word substitutions on the SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing.

<GreggVan> +1 (yep you got the corrections right)

<PhilDay> +1

<olivia> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

Mitch: on wording, allow vs. allows? Software and document would be allow?

<PhilDay> NOTE 3. Option 2: New note proposal. (Mitch correction) This Success Criterion only applies to non-web software and documents that are implemented using markup languages and allow the user to modify these text spacing properties.

Gregg: Yes, actually, should be allow.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Include Note 3, for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing as edited in the minutes above.

+1

<loicmn> +1

<olivia> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<Sam> +1

<mitch11_> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<shadi> +1

<ShawnT> +1

RESOLUTION: Include Note 3, for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing as edited in the minutes above.

(4 of 4) 1.4.12 Text Spacing - SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section

Mary Jo: SC problematic for text spacing

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-text-spacing-and-images/results#xq4

three votes for as is. One for comments on it.

<maryjom> SC 1.4.12 was not on the list to be changed in this section, do you agree it needs no changes? If you think it does need changes, make your proposal in the Google doc section for 1.4.12 content for SC Problematic for Closed Functionality

Bruce: Added a placeholder for option 3 per his comment in results.

https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/5ujc49sj/

<bruce_bailey> 1.4.12 Text Spacing — In closed functionality software the ability for users to modify line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing is rarely supported. Regardless, the Success Criterion applies as written and as noted in the Applying SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing to Non-Web Documents and Software.

<maryjom> Original: 1.4.12 Text Spacing — In closed functionality software the ability for users to modify line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing is rarely supported. However, if encountered, the Success Criterion applies as noted in the Applying SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing to Non-Web Documents and Software.

Bruce: Yes, trivial edit.

Mary Jo: Two edits.

Bruce: As written, which is main goal of note.

<maryjom> Poll: Which version of the note do you prefer: 1) Original or 2) Bruce's or 3) something else?

Gregg: Little changes but substantial difference. Wording is much better.

<PhilDay> 2, but happy with 1

<loicmn> 2

<GreggVan> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

<olivia> 2

<Devanshu> 2

<Mike_Pluke> 2

2 , edits are ok.

<shadi> 2

<ShawnT> 2

RESOLUTION: Update the SC Problematic for Closed for SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing, as edited by Bruce above.

<mitch11_> 2 or 1

<PhilDay> Option 2: proposed changes 1.4.12 Text Spacing — In closed functionality software the ability for users to modify line, paragraph, letter, or word spacing is rarely supported. Regardless, the Success Criterion applies as written and as noted in the Applying SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing to Non-Web Documents and Software.

Mary Jo: We will get to the remaining next week.