Meeting minutes
Announcements
Mary Jo: Announcements. Mobile Accessibility Task Force is hoping for first public working draft of their document.
Gregg and I have expressed some concerns back in December. It incorporates WCAG2ICT , however extends some requirements.
Chuck and I are talking through WCAG2ICT
w3c/
Gregg: This is my last WCAG2ICT meeting before I retire.
I will be contributing to volunteer. I will post some links regarding AT everywhere.
Happy Retirement!
Mary Jo: Glad you are sticking around, happy retirement, wish you the best!
WCAG2ICT Phase 2 Work Statement
Mary Jo: I've placed the diff in IRC so we can go through it.
Mary Jo: I did some updates to various sections to match what we had listed the scope of work.
Mary Jo: Walks through the Status of Document, Objective, etc. while sharing her screen per the deploy preview link https://
Mary Jo: On status, does anyone have any further feedback?
Daniel: Maybe we change ensure to propose?
Daniel: Not sure we can ensure.
Mary Jo: Rachael asked thus wanted to allude to that.
Daniel: I would use propose content rather than ensure.
Gregg: We can't ensure future AG charters, but we can plan.
<maryjom> The WCAG2ICT Task Force plans that future AG WG charters include further maintenance of this important guidance.
Daniel: I'm good with that edit.
Mary Jo: Moving on to Objective section. I modified last 3 paragraphs to be clearer.
<mitch11> to wordsmith this: Phase 1 of WCAG2ICT also added new content that identifies problematic WCAG success criteria when applied to non-Web ICT
Objective keeps open what the deliverable is per what the key content is.
<mitch11> proposed: Phase 1 of WCAG2ICT also added new content that identifies WCAG success criteria that are problematic when applied to non-Web ICT
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Mitch's edit
<loicmn> +1
?
Gregg: I would like to edit Mitch's proposal. Adding "If applied verbatim" or something like that.
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to highlight minor editorial in first sentence of paragraph 4 of Objective
<Sam> +1 to mich without verbatim
Loic: I have a later edit, I can wait
Mitch: I don't think we have language like verbatim in , as we are looking to apply as written so I don't prefer verbatim.
Sam: Mitch captures the point I wanted to make.
Gregg: We can take out verbatim part out. Mitch is right, we are identifying them. Perhaps "Some non-web ICT".
Mitch: I would be in favor of that.
<maryjom> Phase 1 of WCAG2ICT also added new content that identifies WCAG success criteria that are problematic when applied to some non-web ICT.
<loicmn> +1
Mitch and Gregg agreement on "some".
<ShawnT> +1
<mitch11> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<GreggVan> +1
Loic: First sentence of last paragraph ... "to development content"
<maryjom> First sentence of last paragraph: Editorial change - In addition, the task force would like to develop content to address misunderstandings
Daniel: I defer to Loic as we were reading same thing.
Gregg: Question on guidelines vs. success criteria are we including both?
Mary Jo: We covered thus has old phase plus new phase , so yes to your question.
<mitch11> remove "and" from this bullet: address challenges in Open issues labeled WCAG2ICT (completed in Phase 1); and
<Zakim> mitch, you wanted to say the above
Mary Jo: Now reviewing scope of work.
Mitch: either have "and" everywhere or clean up the semi colon .
Mary Jo: Will edit to remove and everywhere
<maryjom> Clean up the ;and and last period out of the in-scope bullets.
<maryjom> Clean up semicolons too in that list and the out-of-scope list.
Mary Jo: Moving on to approach section.
Removed the liaison part as Chuck no longer attending regularly. We are sending AG our work still.
ShawnT: On "all publicly visible", should we link out to GitHub?
Mary Jo: I think we can provide a link to that, yes.
<Sam> +1 to Shawn comment. maybe the wcag2ict group main page on W3c
w3c/
<ShawnT> .. on github
Daniel: Need to be more clear on what we are referencing.
Mary Jo: Perhaps we remove public comment lists and no longer need a link.
<maryjom> Last paragraph of the approach section remove "through publicly available comment lists" from the first sentence.
Mary Jo: Moving to timeline section.
Mary Jo: Updated phase 1 deliverables what we accomplished , shared the diff file on her screen to showcase updates.
Phase 2, scope of work link not showcasing , shows markdown
<maryjom> Timeline phase 2 - fixe scope of work section link.
Mary Jo: To Daniel, do I need to update otherwise?
Daniel: I made a comment on the PR for the markdown link on phase 2.
Gregg: I want to make sure that the language doesn't exclude fixing something we've done in Phase 1.
<PhilDay> Apologies for my extremely tardy appearance.
Mary Jo: It is included in scope of work section , just didn't want to repeat content
Gregg: Perfect.
Mary Jo: Liaisons section . We are established, so updated that. Participants list is where this information is found.
Communication and Participation sections were unchanged.
Mary Jo: estimated to complete by June 2023 needs to be updated
Chris: https://
<maryjom> Participation section, remove "estimated to complete by June 2023" from the first bullet.
Mitch: Minor edit on Liaisons. "Potentially Others" phrasing may be deleted as not necessary
Mary Jo: That was a remnant of establishment. Perhaps an option on phrasing.
Daniel: Read this as other regulators , etc. So particular to this bullet.
Daniel: Suggests to keep
Mary Jo: Will keep then.
Mary Jo: Facilitation section. To Daniel, can we remove the Liasson to AG WG?
<maryjom> Check with chuck on Facilitation section to maybe remove the bullet "Liaison to AG WG: one of the AG WG co-chairs".
Daniel: Let us discuss with Chuck on removing this from Facilitation section.
editors and patent policy does not change.
Mary Jo: Perhaps we can come to an agreement once the editorials have been updated, that we can send to AG working group.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Once all of the noted edits have been incorporated into the work statement, it is ready to send to the AG WG for review and approval.
<PhilDay> +1
<loicmn> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<mitch11> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<Sam> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: Once all of the noted edits have been incorporated into the work statement, it is ready to send to the AG WG for review and approval.
WCAG2ICT Explainer Outline
Mary Jo: On Explainer , we may not publish this as a document or we may.
What do folks think about adjusting to just provide introduction content through rest of document?
Mary Jo: I'd like to give outline to AG so they can review.
Mitch: I am in favor of making it bare bones vs. drafting and writing at this point.
I'm not sure explainer is write word at moment.
<PhilDay> +1 to potential confusion on the word explainer!
Mitch: This is not like the w3 explainer
Mary Jo: We want to make sure we aren't giving guidance to policy makers.
Mary Jo: I will send a follow up via email to respond
I will send to the list
looking for +1 to send to AGWG
Goal is to be on Tuesday's agenda and then get on with work.
<PhilDay> Thanks all.