– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

Still a number of issues that we are working on - approx 15 issues

About half are not yet assigned or started

Rest have some action - e.g. Daniel's have some PRs that need review.

No other WCAG2ICT announcements.

We are working in Google doc for the proposed changes in response to the open issues.

Survey results: (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results

<maryjom> (Group 1) Review changes due to comments on second public draft

We got through 2 questions last week, as the discussion with Jan Jaap took some time.

maryjom: Question: I have documented the decisions on "sets of" but still have to discuss with lots of people in issues and direct emails. Should we just put this in the wiki?

mitch11: Useful - don't present as "we decided in 2013, and have never touched it" - instead "desktop software still exists, and still has the same constraints"

Mike_Pluke: Also agree that it would be useful

<maryjom> Poll: Is documenting the decisions made in 2013 (and thought through again recently) for handling of "sets of" criteria (5 of them) in the WIKI a good idea? 1) Yes 2) No.

1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> 1

<olivia> 1

<mitch11> 1

<FernandaBonnin> 1

<bruce_bailey> 1

maryjom to take existing content and make wiki page on "sets of". Link will be shared with TF for input and review.

Back to the survey

<maryjom> Link to survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results

We will be skipping around in the survey - do quick things first

Question 6, Issue 431 – 2.5.2: An example has been inserted into a WCAG Note and not listed as a substitution

<maryjom> Issue 431 link: w3c/wcag2ict#431

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.686paq75g6ka

<maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq6

<maryjom> Pull request 454: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/454/files

Survey results. 4 said option 2 ready as is, 1 said option 3 ready as is

Option 2: Move the added example below Note 4, and explain in word substitution

Move the added example out of the WCAG note. Keep issue #414 in mind, which also affects this SC's notes.

Update the word substitution to read:

This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.2, making changes to the notes for non-web documents by replacing “web content” with "content", for non-web software applications by replacing "web content that interprets" with "user agents and other software applications that interpret",

andreplacing "user agent" with "underlying platform software", and adding an example; and for non-web platform software by replacing "web content" with "platform software".

Option 3: Move the added example below all the notes

This has the disadvantage of separating the information about essential exceptions, but it has the advantage of the example not getting inserted in the middle of WCAG content.

Option 2 - cleaned up with deleted text removed

Option 2: Move the added example below Note 4, and explain in word substitution

Move the added example out of the WCAG note. Keep issue #414 in mind, which also affects this SC's notes.

Update the word substitution to read:

This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.2, making changes to the notes for non-web documents by replacing “web content” with "content", for non-web software applications by replacing "web content that interprets" with "user agents and other software applications that interpret",

replacing "user agent" with "underlying platform software", and adding an example; and for non-web platform software by replacing "web content" with "platform software".

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say go with consensus

PhilDay: Happy to go with consensus

bruce_bailey: Think the original writing was semantically correct ,but looked strange. So it would be good to see the fully rendered version.
… example looked like it was part of the original.
… Mary Jo is screen sharing the rendered version from the PR

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Move the example out of the note in SC 2.5.2 as demonstrated by Option 2 in PR 454.

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<Devanshu> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<olivia> +1

RESOLUTION: Move the example out of the note in SC 2.5.2 as demonstrated by Option 2 in PR 454.

Question 4, Issue 419 – Definition of ‘style properties’ needs different word substitution

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.spkm7vty5ouc

ISSUE: w3c/wcag2ict#419

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq4

Survey results. 6 stated option 2 was ready to merge as is, 1 as is with edits

Edit was a minor editorial. e.g. via user agent, platform software, or other software interface settings, user style sheets) becomes e.g. via user agent, platform software, other software interface settings, or user style sheets)

Mary Jo then thought this changed the meaning - so exploring further in the Google doc

2 proposed changes to discuss.

1) getting rid of interface or not (in software interface settings).

2) whether to move or add an OR

mitch11: Note in WCAG does not have any OR - just has a comma

<bruce_bailey> Rendered version (using anchor) from PR 454: https://deploy-preview-454--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-5-2-pointer-cancellation-to-non-web-documents-and-software

mitch11: Just follow WCAG

maryjom: WCAG did have the word interface. Some of the versions we discussed dropped this word

<PhilDay> +1 to option 3 with additional or

<maryjom> POLL: Can we use Option 3, as edited in the Google doc?

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<olivia> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

User styles: Style property values that are set by the user (e.g. via [user agent, platform software, or other software interface settings, or] user style sheets)

RESOLUTION: Update the definition of “user style sheets,” with the modifications as shown in Option 3 in the google doc (copied above in the minutes).

Question 7, Issue 446 – Privacy considerations

<maryjom> Issue 446 link: w3c/wcag2ict#446

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.313sck9d6uae

<maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq7

Survey results were mixed. 2 preferred proposal 2 as is, 3 preferred proposals 2 & 3 as is, 1 preferred proposals 2 & 3 with edits

Proposal 3 included WCAG references on privacy

Clean version of Proposal 2: This Working Group Note does not introduce any new privacy considerations. However, when implementing WCAG 2 success criteria in the context of non-web ICT, information about a user’s accessibility needs or preferences might be exposed; a user could be harmed by disclosure and misuse of that information. It is best

practice to choose implementations that reduce the potential for fingerprinting or other identification and tracking of users, and that the only data collected is data necessary to enable the accessibility features.

Proposal 3: Add a note to proposal 1 or 2 linking to WCAG 2.2 privacy section

NOTE: The WCAG 2 Privacy Considerations section also notes specific success criteria that are identified to have possible implications for privacy that could also exist for non-web ICT.

Proposal 4: Gregg’s edit

This Working Group Note does not introduce any new privacy considerations. However, when implementing WCAG 2 success criteria in the context of non-web ICT, information about a user’s accessibility needs or preferences might be exposed; a user could be harmed by disclosure and misuse of that information. It is best practice to choose

implementations that reduce the potential for fingerprinting or other identification and tracking of users, and that the only data collected is data necessary to enable the accessibility features and the data should not be used for any other purpose.

mitch11: Can accept either with or without Gregg's addition. Would favour Gregg's addition, but without the use the word "should"

Sam: Fine with options. Not sure about adding the last statement - it sounds like an additional requirement.

Sam: Better to add to WCAG if that requirement is needed - rather than only adding for non-web ICT

<olivia> I have to drop for another meeting. Bye all!

mitch11: Still accept either. Disagree that privacy has the same requirements for privacy -non-web has access to more data

bruce_bailey: Agree we shouldn't be fixing problems in WCAG, but we can point out gaps

maryjom: WCAG doesn't cover privacy in requirements

Mike_Pluke: On the other hand - it is about applying to non-web ICT - so risk of exposing more user information that may not be available in web, so extra bit on the end could be useful

PhilDay: Think the extra bit is probably not needed - already implicitly covered in Proposal 2

mitch11: Like the observation that it is already implied

Mike_Pluke: Can accept it too

Now need to consider whether we also add proposal 3 (to the clean version of proposal 2)

<maryjom> POLL: Should we include Proposal 3 in the Privacy Considerations – which points to the WCAG 2.2 Privacy section? +1, 0, -1

0

<mitch11> +1, can accept either

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> 0 had stated to include originally but either way is fine

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

Proposal 3: Add a note to proposal 1 or 2 linking to WCAG 2.2 privacy section

NOTE: The WCAG 2 Privacy Considerations section also notes specific success criteria that are identified to have possible implications for privacy that could also exist for non-web ICT.

<Chuck> 4 +1's, 2 0's

RESOLUTION: Update the Privacy Considerations using Proposal 2 and Proposal 3 as-is.

All stated answer sufficient as is

Question 8, Issue 446 – Proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.3jxen2anaonz

All stated answer sufficient as is

<maryjom> Issue 397 link: w3c/wcag2ict#397

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer issue 446 as proposed in the Google doc, substituting the agreed text changes into the answer where noted.

<PhilDay> +1

<mitch11> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Bryan_Trogdon> +1

Draft answer proposal 1: comment to put in Issue 446

Thank you for your review of the privacy considerations. The WCAG2ICT TF has updated the Privacy considerations in the editor’s draft with the following text:

@@Text of proposal 2 (with potential edits approved by the TF)

** If we also approve proposal 3 add the following**

The task force also added a reference to the WCAG 2 privacy considerations section as we thought it provided additional information that is also pertinent to non-web documents and software. The following text was added for that reference:

@@Text of proposal 3 (possibly with edits)

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<maryjom> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfD_Rxeg72vLZXBuV05BDvlKFCjwy5KZEOeeJSTtfLY/edit#heading=h.3jxen2anaonz

RESOLUTION: Answer issue 446 as proposed in the Google doc, substituting the agreed text changes into the answer where noted.

Question 1, Issue 397 – Key terms: “virtual keyboard” proposed rephrasing of examples

<maryjom> Issue 397 link: w3c/wcag2ict#397

<maryjom> Question link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comments-july/results#xq1

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.c6e0rn523jst

Mixed results. 1 preferred option 1 as is, 1 option 3 as is, 1 option 3 with edits, 2 preferred option 4 as is

Proposals link in Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.bzxhof1q3vxx

Considering options 1, 3, 4

Option 1 would ignore the issue - she asked for the order to be changed

Option 1: Do not change the text. It is clear enough as-is.

NOTE: Speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff, sounds, switches, and codes have all been used by virtual keyboards as input that generates "keystroke" output.

Clean Option 3: Example: Some ways to generate "keystroke" output include virtual keyboards that take input from various sources such as speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff (and other kinds of switches), sounds, morse code, and so on.

Clean option 4: NOTE: Some of the many ways to generate keystroke input include speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff (and other kinds of switches), sounds, morse code, and, of course, keyboards (small, large, physical, on-screen, floating in the air, etc.)

Option 5a: Proposal from Olivia - reword Option 3, put list in alphabetical order

Example: Some common ways to generate "keystroke" output for virtual keyboards include eye-gaze, morse code, sounds, speech, and switches (e.g., sip-and-puff).

Option 5b: Should be input from keyboards -- since that is what the SC is about. So 5a becomes 5b

Example: Some common ways to generate "keystroke" input from virtual keyboards include eye-gaze, morse code, sounds, speech, and switches (e.g., sip-and-puff).

Mike_Pluke: 5a and 5b. 5b is more correct as it refers to input from virtual keyboards

maryjom: Need to match language to definition

https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#virtual-keyboard

The term virtual keyboard, as used in WCAG2ICT, has the meaning below:

virtual keyboard (as used in WCAG2ICT)

any software that acts as a keyboard and generates output that is treated by other software as keystrokes from a keyboard

NOTE

Speech, eye-gaze, sip-and-puff, sounds, switches, and codes have all been used by virtual keyboards as input that generates "keystroke" output.

Mike_Pluke: Agree. We should match the definition

Sam: Do we need to change from the original. Is this better than the original?

maryjom: It was somebody from the COGA task force who said that it read backwards. Their proposal was not usable, but we tried to make changes to address the issue

Sam: Think the original is easier to read than the current proposals with output & input
… Only change would be to say EXAMPLE instead of NOTE

bruce_bailey: Agree to change the word to EXAMPLE, but think we also tend to have the word example in the text in this case

mitch11: Agree with Sam - prefer no change, also agree with Mary Jo that these are not examples of virtual keyboard

<bruce_bailey> i am okay with not making a change

PhilDay: Changing around with examples is possible, but it makes it more difficult to read

<maryjom> poll: Which do you prefer? 1) No change to the note, 2) Option 5a, 3) Option 5b, or something else

1

(Less confusing trying to parse system input/output chains!)

<mitch11> 1

<mitch11> 1 Sam

Sam: 1 (original)

<bruce_bailey> 0

<ChrisLoiselle> 1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

<bruce_bailey> i am okay with all

<Chuck> 6 1's , 1 zero

PhilDay: suggest we include examples of what we tried with changing ordering - it introduced more complications - so we ended up reverting
… In the response to the public comment

RESOLUTION: Issue 397: Make no changes to the note on "virtual keyboard" definition

<bruce_bailey> i volunteer to write proposed response if they that would be helpful

Question 2 - Issue 397 - Review proposed TF answer for a comment in the issue

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6ruxbOKxAU6aWWz9Ac7P8DMi7lrIwXCy5DgvRzQZA4/edit#heading=h.u60z11j99ywv

Thanks to bruce_bailey for volunteering to draft this response - and will include some of the ways that we tried in restating it, but these ended up introducing more complications

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer the issue stating the "virtual keyboard" definition's Note will not be changed and that we tried several iterations to attempt to reword. Provide some examples of what we tried in the anser.

<PhilDay> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> answer not answer *

<Devanshu> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mitch11> +1

<Chuck> Unanimous +1

RESOLUTION: Answer the issue stating the "virtual keyboard" definition's Note will not be changed and that we tried several iterations to attempt to reword. Provide some examples of what we tried in the answer.

Quick question: do we want to restart a Friday session to get other issues picked up and started?

<ChrisLoiselle> I'm available as needed.

Would be 1 hour earlier than the Thursday meeting

<ChrisLoiselle> Need to drop.

Chuck: Not able to attend on Fridays, but happy for others to go ahead.

<Chuck> I must depart.

mitch11: We should choose the ones that actually need work - need to choose carefully

maryjom: Agree with mitch - focus on substantive changes with no proposals currently available

<PhilDay> +1 for tomorrow

<mitch11> +1 tomorrow

<bruce_bailey> i am available

<Mike_Pluke> +1 for tomorrow