Meeting minutes
Announcements
We are not meeting on 28th November due to US Thanksgiving.
Following week (5th Dec): Mary Jo not present, but Chris will be leading the meeting which will go ahead
We will probably still be refining language in work statement as we need it ready to take to AG WG for approval.
AG WG have us pencilled in for Dec 10th if we are ready in time - they will not meet after this point until January.
Final approval will not happen until Jan anyway
19 & 26 December will not be meeting. Could meet on the 12th December.
<Sam> 2nd week of Jan
We will resume on the 9th January (after the 12th December).
We have 2 weeks to get work done, then stopping for 3 weeks.
<Zakim> dmontalvo, you wanted to talk about the newly updated Note
dmontalvo: Republished the note last week with minor editorials (mostly the link to the older version). That is why the date on the note has updated.
bruce_bailey: Is that noted in change log? dmontalvo: Not currently - may add this in to future revisions for a change log.
maryjom: Could we use the commit history as a basis for this?
But these are not in the document itself.
We should open an issue to add a new section for a change log.
WCAG2ICT work statement update
Results of joint AG WG and WCAG2ICT TF leadership meeting
Daniel, Chris & Daniel met with the 3c chairs & Kevin White to discuss work statement, with particular focus on what was in/out of scope.
Can we remove AAA? What about an explainer? Can we make suggested language changes to make SCs better apply to non-web ICT?
Also can we add exception cases?
Can we work on techniques or best practices?
Above were the main questions/topics for discussion
Reaction was positive. Open and supportive of all the proposals.
We will need to scope what is feasible in a reasonable amount of time - particularly priorities on which to do first.
They have a focus on their charter - we are in the middle of the current 2 year AG WG charter (ends Oct 31st 2025). So we should point out what is feasible within this period, and what might move out to the next charter period.
Also said if we are making language adjustments - if there are general suggestions for WCAG improvements - consider opening issues against WCAG3 to be incorporated into WCAG3.
They did express some concerns.
Little concern about explainer - may look like advice for policy makers. MJ showed the outline to demonstrate how we are avoiding this.
Shadi is working on some similar advice for policy makers, but this is outside of WCAG2ICT TF work.
Also mentioned work of mobile TF - and we should make sure we work in parallel with them.
… especially any language changes should consider them.
There was concern expressed that we are considering removing AAA from our work statement. Rachael expressed that she believes there are some who would be upset by this. Better to express as a lower priority item, rather than stop it. Then if people think it is important to work on AAA, they could join WCAG2ICT to help with this part of the work.
<bruce_bailey> sounds great, you hit everything i might have concern for
Sam: Question. WAI conformance document -think there is something that states AAA not recommended for conformance statements. Would a general statement like this be suitable for us to use as well?
Sam to add link to relevant document
<Sam> example https://
<bruce_bailey> "It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content."
Good news - we can move forward with guidance and better language where we had some challenges .
<Sam> Thank you MJ!
<bruce_bailey> https://
Now means we have more work to do!
Working session: Update the work statement PR
<maryjom> PR 942: https://
<maryjom> Built page with proposed changes incorporated: https://
[Mary Jo opening document and sharing screen]
Objective may need to be updated to reflect that we have included WCAG 2.2, and adjust language "that identifies problematic WCAG provisions"
We will need to include that we will create an Explainer.
… and suggest changes to normative language.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss hand holding
bruce_bailey: question on how to see the deploy page
To find it - use search for WCAG2ICT work statement to get the link within the WAI space.
dmontalvo to add link in the comments
Scope of work. Added mention of the explainer.
bruce_bailey suggested we move line "providing a determination of which SC are applicable..." from out of scope to have a recommendation and make it in scope.
<maryjom> Bruce's suggestion: providing a “recommendation” of which success criteria are applicable to a particular non-web technology
mitch11: OK removing this bullet from out of scope, but not sure if we should add to explicitly in scope -lots of work. Maybe we should just have provide examples of... rather than cover all SCs
… What is most important about this? Provide a complete list, or just give some examples.
Sam: Q to Mitch. Are you concerned that we have to go through all SCs?
<bruce_bailey> +1 to mitch edit
mitch11: If we just state: we will be providing a determination of which SCs are applicable. That sounds like we will need to do ALL.
Sam: Agree with the concern.
Mary Jo suggesting a suitable word change.
<maryjom> where needed, providing a recommendation of which success criteria are (or aren't) applicable to a particular non-web technology; and
where known, give examples of some SCs which may not be applicable to a particular non-web technology; and
<mitch11> +1 to that edit
<bruce_bailey> +1
PhilDay: Also happy with Mary Jo's original.
<maryjom> POLL: Do you support removing bullet on "providing a determination..." from out of scope to add phil's suggested language to the in-scope list?
<mitch11> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<Sam> +1
<ShawnT> +1
RESOLUTION: Remove bullet on "providing a determination..." from out of scope to add phil's suggested language (above in minutes) to the in-scope list.
mitch11: May be useful to have AAA information but may not be critical enough to spend lots of time on.
<Sam> +1 to Phil comment
PhilDay: Change order to reflect any prioritisation - explainer more important than AAA work
AAA after explainer & determination.
Suggestion: remove AAA from bullet 1, but put in own bullet as last item in the in scope list
ShawnT: At a conference - deaf & hard of hearing community - expressed they felt to be 'not important' as they fall into AAA. Be conscious of this.
maryjom: Cognitive also falls into this. Do understand.
<Sam> Agree with ShawnT would that be better in WCAG changing AAA to AA SC.
maryjom: This could be achieved by changing priorities in WCAG3.
Sam: Is WCAG 2.2 the last version, then 3? maryjom: Correct.
Sam: Agree with Shawn's concern
… but better to address in WCAG
ShawnT: Important to still include in low priority, not remove AAA entirely.
mitch11: Like the prioritisation. Mitch had looked at AAA before, but not through the lens of WCAG2ICT. It occurs to me that we could address them in different ways. May not do every AAA SC to the same level of formality / detail.
… May be able to group them together to comment on them.
<mitch11> @PhilDay I plan to "delegate up" to you as my executive sponsor
Mary Jo agrees - does seem to fall into 3 groups.
<maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) remove Level AAA from in-scope, 2) move Level AAA to its own in-scope bullet and put it at the bottom of the list, or 3) something else.
<mitch11> 2
<bruce_bailey> 2
2
<ShawnT> 2
<Sam> 2
RESOLUTION: Move Level AAA to its own in-scope bullet and put it at the bottom of the list
Another potential item to add to in scope bullet: make suggestions for normative language changes that specfically apply to non-web software and documents.
<mitch11> +1
<mitch11> oops I mean
mitch11: Is suggestion to remove from out of scope? Happy to remove from out of scope. And check that we are not promising to do large amounts of work - add suitable caveats
Suggesting potential normative changes where there was very web-centric language in the SC - may be necessary to suggest minor changes to help it to apply to non-web
We would still not be developing a normative standard or any normative requirements - just adding suggestions for some changes.
<mitch11> Remove from out of scope: "proposing changes to WCAG 2.x;"
mitch11: First bullet - proposing changes to WCAG 2.x.
maryjom: We are not changing WCAG 2.x; we are instead changing language in WCAG2ICT where WCAG has very web-centric language to make it explicitly apply to non-web ICT.
maryjom to write up suitable change as per discussion.
Final suggestion from Gregg: documenting where we have made significant decisions on interpretation. (Especially when it was a difficult process). We could do this, but not sure if it should be in the work statement.