Meeting minutes
<ChrisLoiselle> Important links, WCAG2ICT "Explainer", https://
<ChrisLoiselle> Analysis spreadsheet , https://
<ChrisLoiselle> WCAG2Mobile, https://
<ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle: Present+
<ChrisLoiselle> Important links, WCAG2ICT "Explainer", https://
<ChrisLoiselle> Analysis spreadsheet , https://
<ChrisLoiselle> WCAG2Mobile, https://
Announcements
<ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Mobile Accessibility Task Force was approved for CfC regarding WCAG2Mobile. We should review to make sure it aligns with WCAG2ICT
Colorado rulemaking on accessible ICT: https://
<ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: CO rule reg making update on self contained systems and AT use
<ChrisLoiselle> MaryJo: Rule on accessible ICT. Rule will be effective as of June 30th. ITI is responding. It does have some issues.
Develop WCAG2ICT "Explainer" Content
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
chris: Went through outline of the document.
<bruce_bailey> looks good to me
<bruce_bailey> +1 i think it is evergreen landing page
mary jo: I think we should link to WCAG2 at a glance since we cover all 3 versions of WCAG
Gregg: I agree
… it's an evergreen page.
Gregg: we haven't covered AAA, yet?
Mary Jo: No, not yet. we can update the document once we finish AAA
chris: continues to go through document sections
… In Intent and Usage section
maryjo: I'll remove the DoJ note reminder.
<bruce_bailey> GreggVan -- i think the idea was to have a sentence or two responsive to the DOJ regulation already published
<bruce_bailey> i agree that there will not be new guidance from DOJ
chris...Let's look at last paragraph of the intent and usage section.
gregg: Should remove the MATF sentence at the end.
… makes this document dated.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to not over promissing
mary jo: Don't object to removing the last sentence.
chris: Who is WCAG2ICT for section
gregg: should add "any" to the last bullet
<bruce_bailey> How pedantic do we want to be about writing "WCAG2ICT Note" (versus "WCAG2ICT")?
chris: "standard developers" and "ICT developers" seem redundant
mary jo: "standard" should be "standard"
bruce: We're not consistent in use of "WCAG2ICT". We should have "Task Force" or "Note" after WCAG2ICT to be clear whenever it is used.
Chris: On What WCAG2ICT Does Not Do section...
Gregg: Need to remove the editor's notes from this section
Mary Jo: Yes, remove that and the names on the section titles.
Chris: Is "note" uppercase or lowercase?
mary Jo: It's a W3C defined term, so capitalized "Note" should be used.
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
chris: Glossary section - analyzed this for what terms and links we should have.
chris: Need to include "functional performance"
gregg: We shouldn't be raising the topic of functional performance.
… it isn't covered as a topic either in this document or in WCAG2ICT.
… I don't think we need a definition of ICT and don't have any new terms that aren't already in WCAG.
chris: ETSI and W3C have different ICT definitions
gregg: Since the definitions are different, we need to eliminate the definition. Since different regulations have different definitions, we don't want to show a preference.
gregg: functional performance is also defined differently and used differently in 508 versus the EN 301 549, so we shouldn't include that.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to removing glossary
chris: Should we remove the glossary?
<GreggVan> +1 remove
chris: we don't have any terms to define at this point.
<PhilDay> +1 to remove
<GreggVan> +1 to remove bullet
<PhilDay> +1 to remove
On functional performance bullet in the section What WCAG2ICT doesn't do...any objections to removing?
Group agreed to remove...
Chris: References section
Gregg: References are usually documents used to create this document. So it's a bit of a misnomer for this list of documents.
mary jo: Should we use "Related documents" instead of "References"?
gregg: That works.
Chris: Looks like we can change that section name and remove the "Informative references" section to clean that up.
… the comment from Mary Jo on the EN version. Which version should we use?
gregg: We should link to the latest published EN 301 549
… then remove "V3.2.1 March 2021" from the EN 301 549 bullet.
mary jo: We should indent the country-specific versions of the EN - those are the country-specific standards.
phil: Concerned about country-specific versions having changed requirements from the EN 301 549.
gregg: Citing these shouldn't have the date. We want these to apply to any particular version of these standards.
phil: Agree, remove the dates on those standards.
gregg: We should also remove 2.2 from WCAG
Group agreed to remove the dates off of the referenced standards.
gregg: Is the formal name "Group Note"?
Mary Jo: yes it is.
Gregg: Bruce made live edits for the group note throughout the document.
bruce: There's one instance of "this document" in a heading that is unclear. Should we remove the heading?
Group...seems reasonable to remove that heading.
gregg: Under "Related Documents" the 5th bullet is referring to our own document as a related document. Isn't there a link earlier to our Group Note? Unless we point back to the original one, we should delete that item.
Group agreed to remove.
Chris: Going through the live editorial changes proposed by Bruce.
… all edits accepted.
Chris: Went through the remaining comments to accept/reject them for final document cleanup.
Chris: Question...where should we publish this explainer.
<GreggVan> 04N07i08c03e12 02w06o04r07k08 03C12h02r06i04s
https://
WCAG2ICT overview page: https://
gregg: Under Summary on this page, we could add "explainer" links right before the guidance - under the text "quick link"
<ChrisLoiselle> Proposal: Vote to place explainer as first bullet in quick links (adding an s to link) on https://
<maryjom> +1
<GreggVan> +1
mary jo: We'll have to continue this conversation next week.