– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

maryjom: one of the links in email was incorrect, for issue 310, it is updated on wiki

Announcements

maryjom: We are working to publication, we do have open action items...
… we need to come some conclusion fairly quickly so our TF can review for editorial and error before getting in front of AG WG.
… We expect feepeople with multiple disabilitiesack from AG, but if things go perfectly, we can publish in May...
… if delayed publishing would be June which runs us up against EN 301 549 publication.

Please be encouraged to work towards consenus and good enough rather than aim for perfection.

Chuck: It is helpful to keep up on surveys, as that helps chairs manage the work.

maryjom: We will have extra working session on Fridays, starting tomorrow.

Friday call will focus on some comment responses.

Laura_M: I propose we be stricter about not re-litigating issues if one misses a meeting.

maryjom: We did continue some discussions since Bruce started a topic but missed a call.

Chuck: Yes, we revisted issue Bruce raised.

Status of remaining work before next publication

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

maryjom: Link updated to current state...
… Table about SC problematic for closed now at bottom, since we have gone through all of those.
… more presenting items at top of document.
… issue 266 on parsing I have emailed.
… look for survey in near future
… other editorial as well. issue 196 on the call today
… also issue 257 , 226, and 4 on resize text...
… tomorrow group will work on drafting responses. The one is an older issue and may not lead to any changes...
… but we want determine potential document changes for sure.

Any questions?

Glossary term "conforming alternate version"

maryjom: We have been talking about this for a few calls now....

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

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

<Zakim> Laura_M, you wanted to say that I added language about this from the DOJ in my response

See link to discussion. Do not have a proposal yet.

Laura: Note that my response included some phrasing from DOJ Title II rule about CAV.

s.phrasir/phrasing/
… that was in my previous survey response.
… link is to web rule
… DOJ said something like CAV should be last resort and only when conformance not technicaly feasible or for legal reasons.

<Laura_M> https://www.ada.gov/assets/pdfs/web-rule.pdf

<maryjom> As WCAG 2.1 defines it, a

<maryjom> conforming alternate version is a separate version of web content that is accessible, up to date,

<maryjom> contains the same information and functionality as the inaccessible web content, and can be

<maryjom> reached in particular ways, such as through a conforming page or an accessibility-supported

<maryjom> mechanism. However, the Department is concerned that WCAG 2.1 could be interpreted to

<maryjom> permit a segregated approach and a worse experience for individuals with disabilities.

maryjom: It is interesting that latched onto the idea that CAV was a full stand-alone page -- when that is not usually the case.
… For a mobile app, the CAV is a setting.

GreggVan: The intent in WCAG was always that it was distinct page...
… different pages address different disabilities would be a problem...
… having the CAV on the same page is not problematic , except some SC (like flashing) could not be addressed on half a page.

maryjom: My thinking is that for software, like a mobile app, its not going to be a separate app -- it will be the same app with different settings.
… As we have talked about before, and this in the thread, for some ICT, there may be different parts.
… together they meet all the requirements. For example Alexa is voice only but for someone HoH or Deaf they can use an app. We know that is working well, so together there is access for everybody..
… so long as it is documented, this should be acceptable, but its not CAV because there i not programmatic linkiing.

Chuck: Taking the conversation up a level, kind of meta, I am concerned this conversation is taking us beyond our work statement...
… We discussed a bit last week, but concern remains.

GreggVan: Our saving grace might be that one does not conform to WCAG2ICT and no one asked us how to meet other standards...
… WCAG does have conformance, but it is a way out to just stick to the workstatment change....
… Example of appliance, consider a line of stove where one model works for someone who is blind and another model works for someone who is deaf, does not make sense to consider one or the other as CAV and does not address DB....
… software settings does not have this problem.

Sam: Hardware would be problematic to assert that just adding tactile stickers makes an appliance accessible. It would not be quite right to say one model with add-ons makes the product conforming.

maryjom: I am working on a poll.

<maryjom> Poll: How do we want to handle "conforming alternate version"? 1) Leave as-is where we don't say anything, 2) Add some notes discussing issues with the broad application to non-web or 3) something else.

<Laura_M> 3

<GreggVan> 1 outside our remit

<Mike_Pluke> 1

maryjom: option 1 is status quo

<olivia> 1

<loicmn> 1

<ChrisLoiselle> 1

<Devanshu> 1

<Sam> 1

Laura_M: I would like us to say something about CAV not being the first choice.

maryjom: Understanding says that

Laura_M: If everyone okay, I am okay.

maryjom: The DOJ statement is contradictory.

GreggV: Clarify 2013 approach please.

<maryjom> what we say today is: The guidance in this document does not use the term “conforming alternate version".

maryjom: So we dont say anything in WCAG2ICT

<maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#applying-conforming-alternate-version-to-non-web-documents-and-software

a/DOJ statement is contradictory./DOJ statement is problematic.

maryjom: Example is wordcloud with word list -- that meets WCAG. DOJ implies the word list would have to be a separate page.

+1

GreggVan: I agree with your examples for CAV

<GreggVan> +1

maryjom: gets complicate with web page being a CAV for a mobile app -- i do not think we want to touch that.

RESOLUTION: Leave the WCAG2ICT guidance on "conforming alternate version" as it is in the current editor's draft ("does not use the term...")

Results of survey on proposed changes to address Issue 196

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-survey-comment-answers/results

part 1

Question 1 - general SC guidance changes to notes regarding issue 145

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-survey-comment-answers/results#xq1

Looking a pull request, 2 ready, 3 prosed edits, 1 not ready.

<maryjom> In pull request: Regulators should consider the applicability of this success criterion to non-web documents and software.

<maryjom> Bruce's suggested change: Regulators should consider if this success criterion is appropriate to apply to non-web documents and software.

maryjom: These are on statements regarding sets of web pages...
… bruce suggested something stronger.

maryjom ask chris to clarify why not ready

Chris: Reading part 1/2/3 seems like we could address larger audience than regulators.
… legal authorities might not be "regulators" could be different term in different countries.

<maryjom> Chris' suggestion: Use "stakeholders or implementors of this note's objectives" rather than "regulators"

GreggV: hould consider whether there are sufficient sets of non-web content or software to warrant applying this SC to them

GreggVan: I am not sure it will always be true that we need to address regulators....
… if we knew we were writting more broadly, we might have written the SC differently.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i though we needed regulators

GreggVan: EN 301 549 has "sets of x" in three places so it is a problem to include success criteria where it is confounding how to apply.

bruce_bailey: Yes all this time I think we needed something for regulators, of course that is who we are writing to. Seeing how some went past the advice in the 2013 guidance, maybe we should address developers to apply 2.1. It really can be just for developers.

bruce_bailey: If you as a developer are asked to do something unfeasible, how does WCAG2ICT support that?

Maryjo: DOJ has turned some of the guidance on its head.

Mike_Pluke: Okay to expand, not only going to be regulators who need this guidance....

<Laura_M> +1 to Mike

Mike_Pluke: just so long as stake holders include regulators.

GreggVan: We might acknowledge that "this is rare" so they know it probably does not apply to them.

GreggVan: We should not say "technically infeasible"...
… if something cannot be done, it just means it wont be accessible...

<maryjom> Current document says: NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.)

GreggVan: technically infeasible might be out by the regulator and the law, so is still inaccessible.

maryjom: Current doc does mention "extremely rare" but people are still tying to apply to separate screen or apps. Thats what was happening, so that was I trying to address with updated guidance.

<Zakim> Laura_M, you wanted to say I wasn’t suggesting that regulators are not “a” audience, just asking if they were the only audience.

maryjom: introduces some vagueness with applicaiton.

Laura_M: I was saying regulators are not in our audience.

<maryjom> proposed text in PR: NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Regulators should consider the

<maryjom> applicability of this success criterion to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context.

sorry bruce, I tried to absorb what you said and I kind of fogged. It's me not you.

Bruce: asks about developer for kiosk software and SC for 400%. They look to WCAG2ICT and what do they do?

<maryjom> proposed text by Chris: NOTE 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Stakeholders or implementors of this

<maryjom> note's objectives should consider the applicability of this success criterion to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context.

Mike_Pluke: The requirement says something should no be applied to screens, but then the regulator says to do that.

GreggVan: I am aligned with mike and agree with approach for settings.
… bruce raised closed product problem for developer and we are not going to provide accessibly requirements for closed product...
… it is gordian knot which AI might help with but WCAG2ICT cannot solve.

maryjom: Working on a poll.

<maryjom> Poll: What do we do with this proposed text for the notes on the SCs regarding "sets of..."? 1) Leave as-is in the document, 2) Use proposed text from the PR, 3) Use Chris' proposed change, or 4) something else.

maryjom: It is interweaved in document, see survey.

<maryjom> Option 1: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.)

<maryjom> Option 2: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Regulators should consider the applicability of this success

<maryjom> criterion to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context.

<maryjom> Option 3: See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.) Stakeholders or implementors of this note's objectives should

<maryjom> consider the applicability of this success criterion to non-web documents and software. See the Interpretation of Web Terminology in a Non-web Context.

<Laura_M> 3

<Sam> 3

<loicmn> 4 - I suggest using the style of writing proposed by Bruce, with the "extension" by Chris

GreggVan: I do not like 3 because it contradicts regulators.

maryjom: Regulators said to look at WCAG2ICT

ChrisLoiselle: I was not ignoring regulators, I was trying to expand scope

GreggVan: If regulators are saying to ask WCAG2ICT, that does complicate things.

maryjom: It has 7 pointer to WCAG2ICT
… our guidance does not address application

GreggVan: We need to think about this more.

maryjom: I will modify survey and ping the list