Meeting minutes
Announcements
Announcements. Slightly related. EN 301 549 - new draft has been issued in GitLab
https://
GreggVan: There is also an Excel tool to help you to filter different provisions
Allows you to filter out any non-applicable provisions
<GreggVan> https://
Gregg also has dated clean versions to help comparisons with what has changed in the latest EN drafts.
Gregg to post details on what has changed in the last month in EN 301 549.
Phase 2 of WCAG2ICT update
WCAG2ICT work statement
https://
Last week we did a retrospective - and one thought was to widen our existing guidance first, before we get into AAA. Consider alternative language to help SCs to apply in a better way
Also add best practices, or other technologies that cannot support an SC
maryjom asked AG WG chairs on what our rules of engagement are on broadening application of SCs. Still exploring what might be possible
maryjom Meeting with chairs of AG WG and W3C reps on Monday to discuss further
<ChrisLoiselle> WCAG2ICT Retrospective Document https://
Regardless of that - we can continue to work on an explainer - so we need to develop the outline of this for AG WG to review direction.
Sam: Is this meeting open to TF members, or is it just for facilitators?
maryjom: Keep it to facilitators for now - then feedback to the TF
Sam: There were others who expressed input - Bruce - may help to provide examples
Part 2 – Proposed outline for the WCAG2ICT explainer
<maryjom> Link to Explainer outline in Google docs: https://
Mary Jo started an outline, Chris has started to propose content.
TF to review
Based on the WCAG3 explainer from AG WG - took that and adjusted for our work
GreggVan: WCAG has an explainer, but no link from WCAG to the explainer. Having a link from WCAG2ICT to our explainer would be useful
maryjom: Yes this is the intent. Would be available from WCAG2ICT, and from our task force pages as well
Abstract, status of document sections.
Then Introduction, Background & Development History
Then set Goals
Much of this can be taken from existing WCAG2ICT note.
Main section: Intent and Usage of the WCAG2ICT Note.
To clarify what it does and does not contain.
Explain that we do not give techniques, we don't explicitly state what an SC applies to.
Also commenting on what is out of scope for WCAG2ICT
Sam: Clarification. Would DOJ references address intent and usage, or just given as an example?
maryjom: Looks like they expect WCAG2ICT to state whether an SC applies to a given technology, but this is beyond our scope
GreggVan: Canada used to have a tool - that told you what applied, and what didn't. However, it was often wrong. Need the tool to be a subtractive tool - and only removes it if the SC has a pre-condition, and the technology does not meet this pre-condition.
Difficult to filter any further than these pre-conditions - as you then have to make assumptions about how a technology works; and this could change in the future.
maryjom: Should we define exceptions for SCs - if DOJ is using WCAG for native mobile apps - and pointing to WCAG2ICT for applicability?
Sam: EN is European. There is some difference between that and the US - there is room for investigation on applicability and what we can do to help
shadi: To get out of this issue. Background section of WCAG2ICT - we mention other standards like EN 301 549. Maybe make it more explicit in the explainer.
… If looking for normative language - refer to EN 301 549, don't read further in WCAG2ICT
GreggVan: EN 301 549 is being used by Europe, Australia, Canada and elsewhere
GreggVan: There were discussions about making it an ISO standard - but this made it more difficult to update, so kept it as an EN.
shadi: 3 standards orgs couldnt' agree
WCAG2.2 has been submitted as an ISO standard
Sam: It is not an international standard. It is copied but modified by these other countries that have 'adopted' it.
… There is divergence in the versions of the EN 301 549 in the other countries
EN 301 549 also used in Kenya, India, and Canada.
Any other thoughts on this outline for the explainer?
It will be referenced in updates to the work statement so AG WG can review our proposed work.
Then AG WG can review & approve our phase 2 work.
<Sam> +1 to outline
<ChrisLoiselle> Phil: Technical language is part of this note. Perhaps explaining what "normative" means in plain English.
maryjom: Could ask COGA task force for input - if it uses too much jargon, can we summarise instead?
GreggVan: On the topic. Why are we calling it an explainer rather than an understanding document? Is explainer brief, and understanding goes through clause by clause?
… Understanding are difficult to do - takes lots of time - but is very useful to explain the wording, and how we came to that conclusion / wording.
Text might be modified to consider technology that might not be able to implement something.
… Understanding doc would be useful
… John Slayton. Huge advocate of plain language. Spent many hours with Gregg to try and improve WCAG. The plainer the language - the more ambiguous it gets
… If the Explainer is in plain language - it could help, then use the full note to help with ambiguity.
<Sam> +1
Are we ready to go with the outline in the current form?
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<Sam> +1
<maryjom> POLL: Is the proposed WCAG2ICT Explainer outline sufficient to send to the AG WG for review?
Yes
<GreggVan> yes
<Sam> yes
<ChrisLoiselle> yes
<shadi> yes
RESOLUTION: The proposed WCAG2ICT Explainer outline is ready to send to the AG WG for review, as-is.
maryjom has already opened issues in GitHub - so we could start to work on these issues.
GreggVan: When talking to other leaders, ask if it is within our remit to do an Understanding WCAG2ICT document. Not just an explainer of what it is about, but goes through each SC and gives the background as to how we came to that conclusion.
<ChrisLoiselle> Oh man Phil!
GreggVan: Something like Legislative Notes - this was part of the decision, worth recording for posterity
We will not be meeting on Thanksgiving. We will meet next week.
Trying to get work statement in a form that can be reviewed by AG WG before end of the year.
Other topic that was raised last week - Google docs don't work very well for screen reader users on a Mac.
Using Google Drive with Microsoft Word might work better for screen readers, but can break formatting
<ChrisLoiselle> Phil: Is there a way of co-editing a wiki?
maryjom: GitHub wiki - multiple editors overwrite other changes. So not suitable
<ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Saving on GitHub wiki overrides and it is not a collaborative tool.
maryjom will keep us up to date on the Monday meeting.
Prioritise next week what is in scope for round 2
<GreggVan> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
If you want the comparison docs, email Gregg.
> rrsagent, make minutes