IRC log of wcag2ict on 2025-04-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:39:29 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict

13:39:34 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-wcag2ict-irc

13:39:34 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

13:39:35 [Zakim]

Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

13:39:35 [ChrisLoiselle]

zakim, clear agenda

13:39:35 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

13:39:45 [ChrisLoiselle]

chair: Mary Jo Mueller , Chris Loiselle

13:39:52 [ChrisLoiselle]

meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

13:39:58 [ChrisLoiselle]

rrsagent, make minutes

13:40:00 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle

13:40:09 [ChrisLoiselle]

Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes

13:40:09 [Zakim]

ok, ChrisLoiselle

13:40:18 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda+ Announcements

13:40:42 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda+ Placement and naming of WCAG2ICT "Explainer" Content document

13:40:58 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda+ Analysis spreadsheet - SC that could use more extensive language changes

13:41:14 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda+ Continue to review Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile Applications (WCAG2Mobile) . Talk through any issues you've found / provide feedback on review

13:41:28 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda+ WCAG2ICT Open Issue review SC 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) and Assistive Technology enablement on Mobile and Closed Functionality, Assistive Technology and Keyboard Topic

13:41:34 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda?

13:49:18 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda?

13:58:33 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda?

14:00:49 [GreggVan]

GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:39 [bruce_bailey]

bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict

14:01:45 [Daniel]

present+

14:02:24 [bruce_bailey]

present+

14:02:27 [LauraM]

LauraM has joined #WCAG2ICT

14:02:45 [PhilDay]

PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict

14:02:47 [maryjom]

maryjom has joined #wcag2ict

14:02:47 [ChrisLoiselle]

agenda?

14:02:51 [PhilDay]

present+

14:02:51 [maryjom]

present+

14:02:57 [LauraM]

present+

14:03:04 [LauraM]

scribe+ LauraM

14:03:15 [LauraM]

Take up item 1

14:03:24 [Sam]

Sam has joined #wcag2ict

14:03:30 [bruce_bailey]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Agendas#3-april

14:03:30 [Sam]

present+

14:04:33 [LauraM]

zakim, take up next item

14:04:33 [Zakim]

agendum 2 -- Placement and naming of WCAG2ICT "Explainer" Content document -- taken up [from ChrisLoiselle]

14:05:22 [ChrisLoiselle]

https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/

14:06:08 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:06:14 [Daniel]

q+

14:06:26 [PhilDay]

ack bruce_bailey

14:06:34 [LauraM]

Chris: Do we agree on the placement and naming of WCAG2ICT

14:08:04 [GreggVan]

q+

14:08:08 [LauraM]

My call disconnected, back in now. But can someone add daniel and bruce's comment?

14:08:11 [LauraM]

Back in.

14:08:12 [PhilDay]

ack Daniel

14:08:26 [bruce_bailey]

one other choice (which i do not favor) is a TR doc

14:08:29 [PhilDay]

bruce_bailey: Why not add content from explainer into the W3C Overview

14:08:37 [PhilDay]

Daniel: Agreed with bruce_bailey

14:08:54 [bruce_bailey]

option i favor is updating WAI landing page to include what we have in our explainer

14:08:57 [LauraM]

GreggVan: Agreed. If it was a long doc, make it a bullet but it's not that long.

14:08:57 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:09:05 [LauraM]

ack bruce_bailey

14:09:10 [PhilDay]

ack GreggVan

14:10:02 [Daniel]

s/with bruce_bailey/with bruce_bailey. Would be nice to compare these two resource and pick up the best of both to update the Overview page/

14:10:04 [Sam]

might be harder to find within wcag2ict

14:10:24 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Propose to take the current google doc and compare to the WCAG2ICT overview page.

14:10:29 [PhilDay]

Current Google doc "WCAG2ICT explainer": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyei09Viby1bCoZnDLYwY9VWpzRvteK9pqt4v9sWCJE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.wlcptmhola14

14:10:52 [LauraM]

Whether we want to integrate and then deduplicate, what is most efficient way?

14:10:53 [Daniel]

q+

14:10:55 [maryjom]

q+

14:11:00 [LauraM]

Is there a preference on combining and then redlining?

14:11:05 [PhilDay]

ack Daniel

14:11:06 [LauraM]

Ack daniel

14:11:08 [Sam]

keeping it out would also be a self standing support document also does not have the process of updated

14:11:12 [LauraM]

Ack Maryjom

14:11:36 [Sam]

q+

14:11:37 [LauraM]

Maryjom: at first glance this page is quite a bit different from what we have in the google doc.

14:11:47 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to say don't disagree pages are different

14:11:55 [PhilDay]

q+ to say maybe we should poll whether we put explainer in separate page, or merge with current overview and put there, or something else

14:12:05 [LauraM]

Maryjom: so this would be an overhaul and there might have to be merging in of content that we weren't planning of.

14:13:38 [PhilDay]

q?

14:13:46 [LauraM]

Daniel: certainly agree that there is overlap.

14:14:45 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Don't want to circle back and rehash conclusions we already made. For me even doing a side by side would take time.

14:15:06 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: The WCAG2ICT explainer google doc - the decision was to finalize content.

14:15:52 [bruce_bailey]

q?

14:15:53 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: We would not update the google doc.

14:16:02 [LauraM]

ack Sam

14:16:32 [LauraM]

Sam: It was written as a separate stand alone. The intention of the original document was to have an additional supplement.

14:16:49 [LauraM]

Sam: it will still be searchable as a standalone document. Instead of adding it in, keep it as a standalone.

14:16:50 [Daniel]

s/there is overlap./there is not much overlap, but there are things that are smiliar and it would be nice to decide how and where we should be saying them./

14:16:55 [bruce_bailey]

i don't disagree with MaryJo are different

14:16:58 [Sam]

q-

14:17:04 [shadi]

shadi has joined #wcag2ict

14:17:04 [PhilDay]

ack bruce_bailey

14:17:04 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to say don't disagree pages are different

14:17:11 [shadi]

present+

14:17:33 [LauraM]

bruce_bailey: worth doing a poll because there is some disagreement.

14:17:33 [PhilDay]

ack PhilDay

14:17:33 [Zakim]

PhilDay, you wanted to say maybe we should poll whether we put explainer in separate page, or merge with current overview and put there, or something else

14:17:34 [Daniel]

q+

14:17:57 [LauraM]

PhilDay: I think we should poll several options.

14:18:00 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:18:31 [LauraM]

PhilDay: Neither view is helpful and easy to understand. I would rather do a merger or use the content of our explainer and call it an overview.

14:18:47 [PhilDay]

q+

14:19:15 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:19:23 [LauraM]

Daniel: Per Sam's comments, it is more work to merge. We would be starting from scratch with a new document. It would be searchable but not easily found. We would have an overview page, a note, and an explainer.

14:19:35 [LauraM]

Daniel: It would be confusing.

14:19:47 [PhilDay]

ack PhilDay

14:19:48 [LauraM]

ack PhilDay

14:20:27 [LauraM]

PhilDay: To respond to Daniel, I think the content of the current overview is helpful. The term overview is more meaningful than explainer.

14:20:34 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:20:37 [Daniel]

ack me

14:21:01 [LauraM]

PhilDay: Rather took the content in the explainer and put it in a new version of the overview doc.

14:21:13 [LauraM]

Not a separate place for the explainer

14:21:46 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Multiple polls. One to pick the title. One to pick the content. One to pick where the content would live.

14:21:52 [bruce_bailey]

q+

14:22:01 [LauraM]

ack Bruce_bailey

14:22:20 [LauraM]

Bruce_bailey: I don't think we need a title. Explainer is not a helpful title anyway

14:22:47 [Daniel]

+1 to bruce_bailey on the title not needed at this point

14:23:22 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Poll location of the content option 1 quick link of the summary of the overview page (1) or overview page nested as a quick link (2)

14:23:50 [bruce_bailey]

1 to replace current overview page with our explainer content

14:24:13 [PhilDay]

1 to replace current overview page with our explainer content

14:24:13 [GreggVan]

1

14:24:19 [LauraM]

1

14:24:22 [Sam]

2 - quick link on the current overview page

14:24:39 [maryjom]

I can go either way, but know that 2 is much less work.

14:24:56 [ChrisLoiselle]

2, then 1

14:25:21 [Daniel]

I think it'd be worth trying 1, if we are not happy with the result 2 will always be an option

14:25:31 [Daniel]

s/result 2/result, 2/

14:26:44 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: 5 for 1, 3 for 2, 1 undecided.

14:27:07 [LauraM]

q+

14:27:07 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:27:47 [LauraM]

LauraM: is it worth asking the rest of the group?

14:28:21 [LauraM]

Maryjom: we could explore to see how this PR might go because there is a lot of editing to get it to that point.

14:28:31 [LauraM]

Maryjom: do we have access to do the PR.

14:28:47 [LauraM]

Daniel: anyone can do PRs. Will take me a while to find it.

14:29:07 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to suggest email to list asking for what is on current overview page that is missing from our working doc ?

14:29:26 [LauraM]

ack LauraM

14:29:49 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to suggest email to list asking for what is on current overview page that is missing from our working doc ?

14:29:50 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: TBD. Progress made but still open.

14:29:54 [maryjom]

ack bruce_bailey

14:29:54 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest email to list asking for what is on current overview page that is missing from our working doc ? and to suggest email to list asking for what is

14:29:55 [LauraM]

ack Bruce_bailey

14:29:58 [Daniel]

https://github.com/w3c/wai-website/blob/main/pages/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict.md -> Overview page file on GitHub

14:29:58 [Zakim]

... on current overview page that is missing from our working doc ?

14:30:17 [LauraM]

Bruce_Bailey: once we have a PR then we will have a preview and we can ask if we lost anything by going to our content.

14:30:17 [PhilDay]

+1 to bruce_bailey - create PR, then review the proposed content

14:30:52 [bruce_bailey]

q?

14:30:54 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: as editor I could take that action to align

14:30:59 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:31:01 [Daniel]

Daniel: then hit edit this file and create a branch for the PR, either as a fork or on the WAI website repo if we have the permissions

14:31:03 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: revisit next week.

14:31:10 [PhilDay]

agenda?

14:31:22 [LauraM]

zakim, take up next item

14:31:22 [Zakim]

agendum 3 -- Analysis spreadsheet - SC that could use more extensive language changes -- taken up [from ChrisLoiselle]

14:31:27 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:31:46 [ChrisLoiselle]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRGxHxV0mBEI_rvcc2EXS9xcBanQjG6k/edit?gid=1726579776#gid=1726579776

14:32:10 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Google worksheet for analysis of the SC Changes

14:32:28 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Thank you to Maryjom for formatting. Took some time to do, so thank you.

14:33:57 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: within options for B, C, D columns, you can select from the options. Want to go through to determine if there are edits needed, new notes, or changes needed.

14:34:21 [PhilDay]

q+ query on colors (or colours, as per correct spelling!)

14:34:29 [PhilDay]

q- query

14:34:35 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:34:37 [PhilDay]

q+ to query on colors (or colours, as per correct spelling!)

14:34:37 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to thanks for spreadsheet !

14:34:38 [GreggVan]

q+

14:34:48 [LauraM]

ack Bruce_bailey

14:34:48 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to thanks for spreadsheet !

14:35:41 [LauraM]

Maryjom: if it is a WCAG2ICT change, put it in there and bold the text.

14:35:56 [LauraM]

Maryjom: making it clear so that we know what is being proposed.

14:36:01 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:36:14 [LauraM]

ack PhilDay

14:36:14 [Zakim]

PhilDay, you wanted to query on colors (or colours, as per correct spelling!)

14:36:32 [LauraM]

Maryjom: Column F - it would be good if we gathered our thoughts on mobile WCAG to ICT.

14:36:55 [LauraM]

Maryjom: would be nice if we had a task force view of other handling for mobile.

14:38:16 [ChrisLoiselle]

in reference to the worksheet ,review Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile Applications (WCAG2Mobile) - https://w3c.github.io/matf/

14:38:21 [LauraM]

PhilDay: Quick query, color perception - are they all the same status or are they all different status'.

14:38:34 [LauraM]

MaryJom: it is color coded but it is a different answer.

14:39:12 [LauraM]

GreggVan: Can we change the color to make them more distinct?

14:39:19 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:39:26 [LauraM]

Maryjom: Text is different so color is not the only indicator.

14:39:31 [bruce_bailey]

s/if it is a WCAG2ICT change, put it in there and bold the text/if it is potentially a WCAG 2.2 change, put it in column D and bold the text/

14:39:31 [LauraM]

ack GreggVan

14:39:53 [LauraM]

GreggVan: is this the right place to put the changes from 301 549 in the issues?

14:39:59 [LauraM]

Maryjom: yes we can do that.

14:40:42 [bruce_bailey]

rrsagent, draft minutes

14:40:43 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html bruce_bailey

14:41:01 [GreggVan]

FROM

14:41:01 [GreggVan]

Platform software may provide device independent input services to applications that enable operation via such a keyboard interface.

14:41:14 [GreggVan]

TO

14:41:14 [GreggVan]

Platform software may provide a ‘keyboard interface’ that software can read instead of reading the keyboard hardware directly.

14:41:53 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: I would like to just start at the top.

14:41:54 [maryjom]

q+

14:42:10 [LauraM]

GreggVan: I have another one to inject.

14:43:40 [LauraM]

GreggVan: Referencing an email. 2.4.2 page title

14:43:57 [LauraM]

GreggVan: this is impossible to meet for most software and we should change what we have to say that this one

14:44:11 [LauraM]

GreggVan: should not apply to the software

14:44:18 [LauraM]

Sam: we can't say not applies

14:44:28 [LauraM]

GreggVan: In windowing software it would apply to the windows.

14:44:35 [maryjom]

2.4.2 Page Titled. Web pages have titles that describe topic or purpose.

14:44:41 [LauraM]

GreggVan: Windows should be titled.

14:44:59 [bruce_bailey]

Gregg's email to list wrt 2.4.2: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2025Mar/0017.html

14:45:07 [maryjom]

Understanding 2.4.2 says: In cases where the page is a document or a web application, the name of the document or web application would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the page.

14:45:14 [LauraM]

GreggVan: I gave a big long list of software program names

14:45:33 [LauraM]

GreggVan: This one we can not make to look like WCAG2ICT.

14:45:53 [LauraM]

GreggVan: This has been since WCAG2ICT version 1.

14:46:11 [LauraM]

GreggVan: We had avoided it last time because it didn't make sense. We would not want another country to pick it up.

14:46:23 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

14:46:24 [LauraM]

GreggVan: Does anyone else know how to meet this in software title.

14:46:29 [Sam]

q+

14:46:30 [maryjom]

Current note 1: As described in the WCAG intent, the name of a non-web software application or non-web document (e.g. document, media file, etc.) is a sufficient title if it describes the topic or purpose.

14:46:31 [LauraM]

ack Maryjom

14:47:09 [Sam]

q-

14:47:13 [LauraM]

Maryjom: I have posted in what WCAG says. Understanding, back in 2013 we had WCAG make an addition. (above).

14:47:20 [LauraM]

Maryjom: it is in the understanding.

14:47:27 [GreggVan]

q+

14:48:03 [LauraM]

Maryjom: the current note addresses it "if it describes a topic or purpose" because that was an early version of the EN.

14:48:17 [LauraM]

Maryjom: The reason you had it in software was so that you could find your window.

14:48:57 [LauraM]

Maryjom: Got convoluted.

14:49:06 [bruce_bailey]

q+ to say i think application name is sufficient for meeting 2.4.2 for non-web software

14:49:25 [LauraM]

Maryjom: Mobile wants to apply it.

14:49:29 [LauraM]

ack GreggVan

14:49:54 [LauraM]

GreggVan: A) you can't write an exception to a rule in an understanding doc.

14:49:58 [Daniel]

s/Mobile wants to apply it/Mobile wants to apply it for views as well/

14:50:45 [LauraM]

GreggVan: If they wanted an exception it should be in the provision. Also, it's not a law, it's a copyright rule that you can't copyright common descriptive pages.

14:50:58 [LauraM]

GreggVan: I can't name my wheelbarrow, "Wheelbarrow".

14:51:13 [LauraM]

GreggVan: Name of a graphics program can't be "Graphics Program".

14:52:19 [LauraM]

GreggVan: we have this problem, mobile has it kind of right. The reason different web pages have different names is so you know what you have switched to. On mobile there is no place to put it. On mobile you could say the name. We are mostly concerned with screen readers being aware of where you are.

14:52:40 [ChrisLoiselle]

q+

14:52:53 [LauraM]

GreggVan: We can leave it like it is. Except that we are telling people to do something that is impossible to do or telling companies they will fail.

14:53:09 [LauraM]

GreggVan: you can't write an exception in a note or understanding doc. It needs to be in the provision itself.

14:53:53 [LauraM]

GreggVan: I think we could add some sort of a note. We could say that we can't figure out how to make it apply or something.

14:54:08 [LauraM]

ack ChrisLoiselle

14:54:22 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Bringing this up as a main conversation is worthwhile.

14:54:50 [bruce_bailey]

i think application name is sufficient for meeting 2.4.2 for non-web software

14:54:51 [ChrisLoiselle]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRGxHxV0mBEI_rvcc2EXS9xcBanQjG6k/edit?gid=1726579776#gid=1726579776

14:54:53 [LauraM]

ack Bruce_bailey

14:54:53 [Zakim]

bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think application name is sufficient for meeting 2.4.2 for non-web software

14:54:54 [maryjom]

Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes

14:54:56 [Zakim]

ok, maryjom

14:55:17 [LauraM]

Bruce_bailey: I think that it's fine for all of the windows to say the same thing.

14:55:23 [maryjom]

+1 to bruce

14:55:39 [LauraM]

Bruce_bailey: I don't think that there is a problem with what we currently have. But we can clarify it more.

14:55:52 [LauraM]

GreggVan: how does Lotus123 reflect the purpose of the software.

14:56:08 [LauraM]

GreggVan: it says that the name is meant to identify the purpose of the software.

14:56:21 [LauraM]

GreggVan: if we want to say it applies to windows of software we can say that.

14:58:28 [maryjom]

q+

14:58:46 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: Mobile could be more prescriptive on native iOS and what that application is represented within 2.4.2 Page title.

14:59:07 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: To test page title for mobile there are a variety of flavors that need to be looked into further.

14:59:19 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: we need more than 2 minutes. Will add to future topic

14:59:49 [LauraM]

ChrisLoiselle: continue to review this spreadsheet.

14:59:55 [ChrisLoiselle]

q?

15:00:10 [LauraM]

ack Maryjom:

15:00:22 [LauraM]

ack maryjom

15:00:52 [LauraM]

Maryjom: if the EN is not applying this SC and mobile is at an even more granular level, that becomes a divergence.

15:01:04 [ChrisLoiselle]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:01:05 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle

15:01:26 [LauraM]

Have to jump. Sorry

15:01:50 [PhilDay]

rrs, make minutes

15:02:39 [maryjom]

zakim, end meeting

15:02:40 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Daniel, bruce_bailey, PhilDay, maryjom, LauraM, Sam, shadi

15:02:40 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2

15:02:41 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim

15:02:49 [Zakim]

I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye

15:02:49 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wcag2ict

15:13:50 [Daniel]

s|Referencing an email|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2025Mar/0017.html Page titled comments|

15:13:57 [Daniel]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:13:58 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel

17:01:37 [Daniel]

-join ·aria

17:01:52 [Daniel]

zakim, bye

17:01:56 [Daniel]

rrsagent, bye

17:01:56 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items