– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Still in?

<Chuck> Yes

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

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

Announcements

Maryjom: time difference is all caught up.

maryjom: before we can review draft as a task force we have a bit of work to do.

Maryjom: I opened issues on the last bit of editorial work and clean up on the document.

Chuck: No new information on the horizontal review

Chuck: New IRC client - w3c is aware that there are issues with the new client and they are working the issues. There is an open web page https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BMEOIEzKOSCsdMvOiB62o5qxQtk-mS-XGL6_HRmGodA/edit#heading=h.8hihtwl9wwm2 where you can report issues with IRC client. Or send an email to Kevin White.

Chuck: there are accessibility issues being addressed

Status of remaining work before next publication

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

maryjom: I keep updating this document so that everyone can see what is left to do. A number of things we are surveying once we get the content changes (reflow for example).

maryjom: I have started drafting issues. One issue that we have not completed is issue 4.

maryjom: next week will not have the extra (friday) meeting.

maryjom: will not meet on Monday for the coordination call either.

Maryjom: check your information in the contributors section/acknowledgement section to make sure your affiliation is correct and contact info etc.

Survey results: Proposals for remaining work

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

SC Problematic for Closed – 2.1.1 Keyboard

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/results#xq5

<ChrisLoiselle> I self fund https://www.irccloud.com/ and have had no errors, as an alternative , just listing here for reference sake.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate option 5 for 2.1.1 Keyboard into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as-is.

<loicmn> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<Sam> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

+1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<GreggVan> for mac users oh and PC too -- Textual 7 works great - and continues to work great https://pcmacstore.com/en/app/1262957439/textual-7#google_vignette

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<olivia> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate option 5 for 2.1.1 Keyboard into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as-is.

SC Problematic for Closed Functionality – 4.1.3 Status Messages

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/results#xq6

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate option 5 for 2.1.1 Keyboard into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as-is.

<loicmn> +1

<Sam> +1

+1

<Devanshu> +1

<olivia> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

GreggVan: we should be writing a general statement about closed products instead of these individual statements.

Maryjom: we are giving examples.

GreggVan: as long as it says programmatically determined, we are in good shape

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to suggest that an issue be raised

Chuck: I think this is a big and valid concern. We do have consensus on this issue. Recommendation is to have GreggVan raise the issue.

Laura_Miller: To Gregg, what is the recommended solution? No examples? What would Gregg like to see?

Sam: Since we can’t say N/A, this is the best we can do without using N/A.

Sam: It is not comprehensive but it is better than nothing.

Sam: It would be good to hear GreggVan’s suggestion for cognitive disability.

GreggVan: The solution is to take the section on closed products and describe the issues in the beginning.

GreggVan: List those that will have problems.

GreggVan: Instead of saying it multiple times. Say it at the beginning of the section and do not say it repetitively

Maryjom: I am afraid of undoing everything we have done as well.

Greggvan: I have made this comment 3 times.

Sam: at CSUN there were conversations that lamented the speed at which the w3c releases new standards

<GreggVan> +1\

Sam: there is a real demand for this. I like that GreggVan has mentioned cognitive disabilities but I would not want to redo the helpful and supportive text that is there.

Maryjom: it takes it back to 2013 when it was not explanatory. Created problems with the EN tried to apply it.

Chuck: from what I’m hearing, GreggVan has offered to write up a proposal. The group can respond. Recommendation that we do this on it’s own track. Handle the survey results in front of us now.

Maryjom: back to Status messages.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/results#xq5

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate option 4 for 4.1.3 Status Messages into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as-is

<Sam> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

+1

<loicmn> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<olivia> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate option 4 for 4.1.3 Status Messages into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section, as-is

<ChrisLoiselle> the original resolution for status message said 4

Question 7: Issue 26: Adjustments to 4.1.1 Parsing to address AG WG concerns

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTfinishclosed/results#xq7

Laura_Miller: I don't have answer to Gregg's question of: 4.1.1 was removed from WCAG because browsers do the repair for screen readers. Does something do the repair for screen readers when it is non web or software?

GreggVan: 4.1.1 was removed from WCAG because browsers do the repair for screen readers. Does something do the repair for screen readers when it is non web or software.

Maryjom: I queried a bunch of them and they don’t. They go through the accessibility APIs.

Maryjom: The dom is not open for testing.

GreggVan: The APIs all access the dom not the root code?

Maryjom: as a tester you don’t have access to the code.

GreggVan: what does the API expose?

Maryjom: How can you report against 4.1.1 parsing if you can’t test for it.

GreggVan: Does it expose the DOM in the html of the email? Or does it feed you to the html markup?

GreggVan: and if it gives you html then the 4.1.1 problem is still there.

GreggVan: I just do not have an idea if email programs act like old accessibility tech.

Laura_Miller: Does it matter if there's a text alternative for email?

Laura_Miller: Just responding... is it required if you have a text alternative? Text alternatives can be very comprehensive. You write alt text and provide the links. If you say the "header says this", you are writing the screen reader code for it in the text alternative.

GreggVan: I will take this on and write this question to our list and see what the response is.

dmontalvo: I would be surprised if the screen readers pull in from DOM. What I’ve seen is UIA API.

GreggVan: I am thinking that the way people are building things, we can possibly ignore this. I will raise the question in email and come back only if this is not true.

GreggVan: we can proceed with the language as is

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate adjustments to 4.1.1 Parsing general guidance using option 2 and editing to expand DOM

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Sam> +1

<Devanshu> +1

+1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate adjustments to 4.1.1 Parsing general guidance using option 2 and editing to expand DOM

Question 1: Can a non-web software act as, or have, a conforming alternate version?

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

Maryjom: we did talk about this last week and did not come to a full resolution.

Maryjom: Bruce wants this for regulators. I’m worried this is going beyond our remit.

chuck: I made a comment, I believe that any alterations are going beyond our remit

Laura_Miller: Since Bruce isn't here, he wants that "yes" a non-web software have a conforming alternate version?

Maryjom: He wants us to do some explanation of this. We currently do not provide guidance about what is and what is not an alternate version.

Maryjom: I expressed concern because there may be AI or other things that provide content in a different language (sign language). We didn’t get to it this week. Will resurface next week.