Meeting minutes
Announcements
Work statement has received no comments from AG WG.
They don't have to approve it - the chairs do that. Chairs have a number of work statements to approve - so will set aside time to get to this tomorrow.
The AG WG chairs suggested we should continue assuming it will be approved.
WCAG2ICT Issues/PRs status update
Few open issues - created by Mitch
Also have a new issue from JJ
<maryjom> https://
New one from JJ: w3c/
w3c/
Would be good to have somebody self-assign to this issue - 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value: clarify that non-web software does not have a user agent
Chris is working on w3c/
w3c/
<maryjom> Issue 580: w3c/
Mary Jo had an earlier issue that listed all the changes w3c/
#607 will be the proposed changes to content
Editors will work through the list and make changes where they are applicable to WCAG2ICT. Editors will then implement the changes
#611 will close soon (AG WG comments)
New one from JJ: https://
Please can somebody take this issue up and propose content?
To recap, we need people to take up #612 and #606
Analysis of potential tech-specific Notes
Items that are in our expanded scope. May need a sub group to complete some analysis and bring back to the wider TF.
Making technology-specific notes - may not be needed for all SCs but could be useful for some. As an example, Mobile TF have developed some for mobile. Analysis should include looking at this to see if we can incorporate.
Mary Jo asked Daniel to help setup a Google Drive space so we can share content in a more accessible manner to just using Google Docs on the web. May need some spreadsheets.
ChrisLoiselle: Mobile TF are using WCAG2ICT template items to help them to update. May be helpful to have somebody from mobile TF to take part as a listener to WCAG2ICT calls so can input and make sure we stay in sync between the 2 groups
maryjom: Single source of truth for interpretation would be best.
Mary Jo / Chris to speak with JJ on this and agree a way to collaborate
Sam also had suggestions on technology specific areas.
Does anyone have interest in helping with this task?
Sam agreed to participate (not currently in IRC)
LauraM: Is this more of a technical area? Unsure whether to participate.
LauraM happy to help if it would be beneficial
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask if we have a list of the likely technologies to be covered
PhilDay: Suggested a draft list of technologies might help people to know if they can participate.
New technologies such as VR / AR. Do WCAG apply? How can they be supported?
<LauraM> have to jump, apologies but message me with your thoughts on how I can contribute.
mitch11: Have looked at possible ways of applying WCAG to XR.
mitch11: What was the context of the question?
Part of the expanded scope is to add any technology-specific notes to existing content.
<ChrisLoiselle> do we want to reach out to editors within https://
mitch11: To avoid scope - it could be modalities of interaction rather than specific technology.
mitch11: Then further distinguish between specific platforms (e.g. Android) vs. content technologies (e.g. development platforms within Windows).
mitch11: Let's try and limit the scope - not take on all possible technologies
ChrisLoiselle: W3C XAUR task force -editors of that working group note may have useful input.
… Or we could look at their documents as a source
XAUR came from APA working group, they have partnered with us in the past to do some analysis.
First step is to read the XAUR document and see if it would help.
Mary Jo to review document
Sam: Areas of high importance. Medical devices. Emergency response software. May be useful to call out
Sam: They are called out in EN 301 549 - including the software that runs on devices like this or informs people.
These devices need to support accessible technology, or offer methods of use that are accessible.
Not sure if we have anyone in the TF who has relevant experience in this area.
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest that an initial list could come from European Accessibility Act
loicmn: Initial list of technologies could come from EAA. Personal computers. Telecoms terminals. Self service terminals. Media terminals
loicmn: Working on product categories is not a good idea -there is a lot of overlap. Should look at what the technology offers, ways it can be used, rather than just the tech (e.g. smartphone can be used as a variety of different products such as e-reader, media terminal, etc.
Mary Jo to email those who volunteered to start the analysis
Analysis of potential normative language changes
<ChrisLoiselle> For reference, we mention Examples of technology that may have closed functionality include but are not limited to and then list out certain items within wcag2ict in that section
This was another expansion of the scope. Only for a few SCs - that either don't apply (e.g. sets of...) or EN does apply, but we didn't.
Technology that can support this SC...
Also need to work on language for CSS pixels - find an alternative verbiage for non-web
mitch11: Like the idea of having a section on that. Not a very long list
Resize text as an example - web applies all the time. Non-web we wouldn't say never apply, but rather it depends for this type of tech
2nd analysis requires going through SCs to see which fall into this category of tweaking normative language
These 2 areas will probably have spreadsheets setup. If you have some thoughts or notes on either area please add them in
Develop WCAG2ICT "Explainer" Content
Work on the explainer
[maryjo opening window to share in zoom]
<maryjom> https://
Mary Jo worked on What WCAG2ICT Does Not Do
https://
Took notes from WCAG2ICT for out of scope, then modified them slightly
Sam: are we talking about how to achieve it?
We are not talking about how to meet
mitch11: There is a distinction between not applying WCAG to hardware. But WCAG does imply the existence of hardware (e.g. keyboard, screen). We do have some language that relates to hardware (e.g. colour contrast is function of screen content, but also the display hardware).
<ChrisLoiselle> We may want to rephrase This document does not comment on hardware aspects of products, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2 is built do not apply to these. As this is currently in the note
Sam: If you can meet 200% with platform AT, or hardware - we won't assume that all the means to meet it are required. Don't always need multiple solutions.
<ChrisLoiselle> also https://
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
You may have an IOT device like a thermostat; you can control it with your phone. Device may not be fully accessible on it's own, but you can operate it with your smartphone - which could be an accessible alternative.
ChrisLoiselle: May want to rephrase "document does not comment on hardware...". Some SCs may include mention of hardware. May just need more context in the note.
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to brevity
Sam: You may be able to meet the intent of some SCs with a combination of hardware and software - is this helpful?
maryjom: We don't comment on combinations of hardware/software to say how you meet.
mitch11 added a bullet: There can be ways of improving accessibility without technically meeting an SC, called “functional performance” in other standards. Example: an adaptive hardware add-on. These can be a great idea but WCAG2ICT only deals with technical conformance.
We may also need to discuss what constitutes an accessible alternative - e.g. is a smartphone an alternative to a thermostat
smartphone not an alternative as defined in WCAG - as it has to be accessed through the inaccessible interface - which may not be possible.
But it could provide a useful alternative / addition / complement in the real world
We shall continue working on these topics in the explainer. Thanks to all who have contributed so far. Feel free to add to the google doc.
Sam: Are people going to CSUN?
<Sam> i am going
Sam, Shadi, Mary Jo are going
Thanks all.
More draft content if you have time - just add your thoughts. Also pickup any open issues.