– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

GreggVan: New initiative. Open Source ATAnywhere.org

Looking for more support for the concept that more people need access to assistive technology.

Spread the word.

<bruce_bailey> congrats to Gregg for new initiative ATanywhere.org and newish role with Raising The Floor

mitch11: There's an opportunity to review EN 301 549

<Daniel> Latest EN 301 549 editorial draft

GreggVan: Send questions about the tool

<bruce_bailey> Is EN301549 taking public comment or should feedback be via Gregg or Mitch?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if they are taking comments from the public ?

GreggVan: Drop Mike Pluke a line if you have comments. Now is the time as it is close to completion.

<ChrisLoiselle> https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549 details the comment feature, Bruce

<mitch11> How to participate https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/wikis/home

ChrisLoiselle: You can comment directly in Etsi on the comment pages.

GreggVan: Helpful to say how it can be different.

<bruce_bailey> Thanks!

Mitch11: they did close it for direct submissions for a while but it is reopened

Daniel: Required me to sign in so not sure if that's the policy.

Develop WCAG2ICT "Explainer" Content https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyei09Viby1bCoZnDLYwY9VWpzRvteK9pqt4v9sWCJE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.wlcptmhola14

<ChrisLoiselle> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyei09Viby1bCoZnDLYwY9VWpzRvteK9pqt4v9sWCJE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.wlcptmhola14

ChrisLoiselle: Explainer for W3C WCAG2ICT group note

<mitch11> https://labs.etsi.org/rep/users/sign_in -- "If you don't represent any organization, you can create an Individual Account with your personal email address here."

<bruce_bailey> FWIW, on the GitLabs site, I am getting ‘Please register or sign in to reply’ — I will try registering.

<ChrisLoiselle> LauraM: I have question on WCAG2ICT and what we address on closed vs. open systems. Do we incorporate closed vs. open

ChrisLoiselle: from a general standpoint it is included in the note but if you think it should be included elsewhere we can pursue it.

Mitch11:

Mitch11: asking for clarification

LauraM: just looking to see if it should be mentioned in the explainer.

ChrisLoiselle: Will also need to check through.

GreggVan: We say A and AA but should we also add AAA.

GreggVan: Not just talking about software but talking about ICT.

<Sam> AAA is not completed. still plan to do?

Mitch: Might be better to delete rather than to add.

ChrisLoiselle: I like the content but do not know if it is intro content.

GreggVan: I do not think we have a section about what WCAG2ICT does.

<Sam> +1 to Gregg point

ChrisLoiselle: We can get back to where it should live but the wording should stay.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest ‘Who develops WCAG2ICT’ should be oriented towards laypeople.

<bruce_bailey> Should ‘Who develops WCAG2ICT’ be oriented towards laypeople? It is mostly acronyms at the moment. I will suggest an edit in the Google doc.

bruce_bailey: confirm that we are writing toward laypeople. If so, then we need more than acronyms in the "Who develops" section.

Sam: All of AAA is not completed so do we want to add that here?

Sam: Info from mobile taskforce group was going to be incorporated or addressed.

Sam: do we want to tweak some of the content in here accordingly./

ChrisLoiselle: we had a facilitators meeting with AG taskforce facilitators. Undocumented alignment with having WCAG2ICT be the high level capture of other technologies such as mobile.

Do we need to call out closed systems or leave it out?

<mitch11> 1+

GreggVan: yes, lets add.

1+

<mitch11> 1-

Mitch11: Going a bit far to say we are addressing closed ICT

GreggVan: agree, maybe say "applicability.. ."

<Sam> we note SC where closed systems are problematic

Mitch11: 301-549 added a section on closed (or evolved their existing clauses on closed functionality).

<ChrisLoiselle> w3c/wcag2ict#580

ChrisLoiselle: I went through our files and mapped against what we would change per what we have currently vs 2.2. My action item is to add to the bulleted list.

<ChrisLoiselle> Laura: 508 reference point was listed as the various standard as guidance. Also added alternative Canadian standard.

<ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Informative Ref should be what we are referencing to do our work vs. who should reference our doc.

<ChrisLoiselle> Laura: Section 508 references WCAG which would in turn reference WCAG2ICT .

<bruce_bailey> Oldie but goodie (that Gregg mentioned): https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/htmlgide.htm

<ChrisLoiselle> Question is do all of these refer to WCAG as a standard

<ChrisLoiselle> Greg: EN 301 does.

<ChrisLoiselle> LauraM: do we want to only reference circular referencing WCAG?

<ChrisLoiselle> w3c/wcag2ict#614