13:58:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:33 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-wcag2ict-irc
13:58:33 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:58:34 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:58:35 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
13:58:36 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:58:47 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller
13:58:54 <maryjom> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:59:04 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
13:59:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
13:59:14 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:59:14 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
13:59:24 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
13:59:32 <maryjom> agenda+ PR to update WCAG2ICT overview page to incorporate our "explainer" content
13:59:39 <maryjom> agenda+ 2.4.2 Page Titled (RE:ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT)
13:59:47 <maryjom> agenda+ 2.1.1 Keyboard Note 1 proposed edits
13:59:55 <maryjom> agenda+ Analysis for SC language changes spreadsheet
14:00:55 <maryjom> regrets: Daniel Montalvo, Mitchell Evan
14:01:06 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:23 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:23 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:01:23 <maryjom> agenda?
14:01:28 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:52 <GreggVan> present+
14:02:09 <maryjom> present
14:02:21 <loicmn> present+
14:04:01 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:11 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:15 <PhilDay> present+
14:04:18 <bruce_bailey> present+
14:04:20 <LauraM> LauraM has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:04:22 <bruce_bailey> q+
14:05:33 <LauraM> present+
14:05:44 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:05:50 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:05:50 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:06:32 <PhilDay> Mobile TF - WCAG4Mobile. Did go through and was approved for 1st public draft, but it isn't going to be out officially on 17th April
14:06:56 <PhilDay> Editor's draft is fairly current - just a few minor changes
14:07:04 <PhilDay> Comments due 30 days after that date
14:07:30 <PhilDay> But we still need to look at it in order to make comments.
14:07:57 <maryjom> Editorial changes to WCAG2Mobile draft: https://github.com/w3c/matf/commit/fd14078052bf23707a0585b75e8b1ece8819a380
14:08:26 <PhilDay> s/WCAG4Mobile/WCAG2Mobile
14:09:21 <PhilDay> Mary Jo gave presentation on WCAG2ICT at ITI accessibility committee meeting. Comment was made by  Rob Haverty (Adobe) on Reflow, which referred to "content". He said this might be confusing.
14:09:27 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/625
14:09:36 <GreggVan> q+
14:09:58 <bruce_bailey> q+ to pitch wcag2 backlog
14:10:03 <PhilDay> Content - some may not think it includes all aspects of the user interface - they might just think it is the document.
14:10:03 <PhilDay> Rob suggested that a change to definition would be useful.
14:10:06 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:10:06 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to pitch wcag2 backlog
14:10:46 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Reflow document was redone - so good to get feedback on it. Understanding reflow has been recently updated.
14:11:19 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:11:23 <PhilDay> This is what reflow states: 1.4.10 Reflow: Content can be presented without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions for:
14:11:51 <PhilDay> GreggVan: saw this issue in EN 301 549 - and changed from "content" to "software". Otherwise some people could assume content was just 3rd party content.
14:11:58 <bruce_bailey> Slightly OT but recently refresh Understanding Reflow guidance:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/reflow.html
14:12:42 <bruce_bailey> s/recently refresh/recently refreshed/
14:12:42 <PhilDay> GreggVan: With reflow you may not expect UI to reflow, but if you changed width, then you would expect responsive layout to accommodate this change.
14:13:09 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Supports the idea of looking at changes.
14:13:38 <PhilDay> Definition from editor's draft: WCAG 2 defines content as:
14:13:38 <PhilDay> information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions
14:13:38 <PhilDay> For non-web content it is necessary to view this a bit more broadly. Within WCAG2ICT, the term “content” is used as follows:
14:13:38 <PhilDay> content (non-web content) (as used in WCAG2ICT)
14:13:40 <PhilDay> information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of [software], including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions
14:13:40 <PhilDay> NOTE
14:13:40 <PhilDay> Non-web content occurs in two places; documents and software. When content occurs in a document, a user agent is needed in order to communicate the content's information and sensory experience to the user. When content occurs in software, a separate user agent isn't needed — the software itself performs that function.
14:13:41 <PhilDay> Within WCAG2ICT wherever “content” or “web content” appears in a success criterion it is replaced with “content” using the definition above.
14:14:20 <PhilDay> This will need somebody to go through each SC to see which uses content, and consider changes. This is tracked in https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/625
14:14:27 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:14:41 <ChrisLoiselle> I went through reflow on https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/4273 per the effort to update the understanding. I think it may be on AG to update terminology and if we deviate, we should update glossary
14:14:57 <bruce_bailey> s/Reflow document was redone/WCAG2 Understanding Reflow document was redone/
14:16:02 <bruce_bailey> FWIW, emails to listserv seem good to me for memorializing -- but not for conversation
14:16:40 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Has sent a few emails with updates from EN that may mean we should make improvements to WCAG2ICT
14:16:58 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Will add these as issues into GitHub
14:18:15 <PhilDay> GreggVan: EN to release version at the end of April.
14:18:28 <maryjom> q?
14:18:33 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:19:04 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Reflow - put a related issue on the updates to understanding: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/4273. If it is a WCAG update - then that could be done by AG
14:19:24 <PhilDay> GreggVan: What is our timeline?
14:19:41 <PhilDay> maryjom: Somewhat open-ended - we are still analysing what we need to change.
14:22:03 <PhilDay> q+
14:22:41 <maryjom> ack phil
14:27:35 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Would be useful to have TF review latest draft of EN to check their interpretation of WCAG2ICT, and ensure we are consistent. (also to check for updates)
14:27:39 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:27:40 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- PR to update WCAG2ICT overview page to incorporate our "explainer" content -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:27:56 <bruce_bailey> +1 that feedback to EN 301 549 from this group is very important!
14:27:58 <maryjom> Link to Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyei09Viby1bCoZnDLYwY9VWpzRvteK9pqt4v9sWCJE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.wlcptmhola14
14:28:12 <maryjom> PR 1197: https://github.com/w3c/wai-website/pull/1197#pullrequestreview-2754045653
14:28:33 <PhilDay> We have a PR that took the content from the "explainer" doc - link above to original Google doc, then Chris took that content and put it into the WCAG2ICT Overview page.
14:28:34 <maryjom> Built page:  https://deploy-preview-1197--wai-website.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/
14:29:27 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:29:34 <PhilDay> Change for group to review & comment on this new page. Do people agree this is what was proposed last week, and are you happy with the results?
14:29:48 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:30:12 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Should I commit these edits? Or wait and submit later.
14:30:25 <bruce_bailey> q+ for one editorial i missed...
14:30:52 <PhilDay> [Mary Jo going through comments on the issue above - minor editorials from Mary Jo & Phil]
14:31:10 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:31:10 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss one editorial i missed...
14:31:23 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Should we make feedback to the PR or to the Google doc?
14:31:39 <PhilDay> maryjom: Proposed changes were to the PR.
14:31:51 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: has another minor editorial change to propose
14:33:14 <PhilDay> [Mary Jo shows the proposed change in context]
14:33:33 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to remove duplicative info
14:34:03 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:34:05 <loicmn> +1
14:34:06 <maryjom> POLL: Are you OK with removing the "scope content"?
14:34:06 <LauraM> +1
14:34:11 <PhilDay> +1
14:34:49 <ChrisLoiselle> I have failed as editor :)
14:36:31 <PhilDay> +1 to add Chirs
14:36:37 <PhilDay> s/Chirs/Chris
14:37:09 <PhilDay> Mary Jo to check with W3C on authors in list
14:37:20 <GreggVan> +1 to prer auth on credit -- to what you and shawn decide
14:37:20 <maryjom> Poll: Are you OK with Mary Jo handling the updates to the contributors and editors for the page?
14:37:26 <PhilDay> +1
14:37:28 <loicmn> +1
14:37:31 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:37:31 <GreggVan> +1
14:37:45 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:38:17 <GreggVan> Poll: OK to republish  as Nov 15?
14:38:20 <GreggVan> +1
14:38:31 <PhilDay> Document says it was written on 15 Nov, but link says a different date. Mary Jo to check with W3C
14:38:43 <PhilDay> +1
14:38:47 <loicmn> +1
14:38:48 <LauraM> +1
14:38:56 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:39:09 <ChrisLoiselle> I believe the footer is where the includes would be per the edit file
14:40:52 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Proposed update to the WCAG2ICT Overview (PR 1197), with the changes to the PR agreed in today’s meeting, can be incorporated into the WAI website.
14:40:55 <PhilDay> maryjom to ask Daniel if AG leaders need to review changes to this page.
14:40:57 <PhilDay> +1
14:40:57 <loicmn> +1
14:41:01 <bruce_bailey> +1
14:41:07 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:41:10 <LauraM> +1
14:41:12 <bruce_bailey> q+ to give more powers
14:41:19 <PhilDay> ack bruce_bailey
14:41:19 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to give more powers
14:41:24 <GreggVan> +1
14:41:30 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Proposed update to the WCAG2ICT Overview (PR 1197), with the changes to the PR agreed in today’s meeting, can be incorporated into the WAI website.
14:41:37 <GreggVan> +1
14:41:55 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:42:01 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:42:22 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Thanks to all who contributed to the Google doc - it was a team effort.
14:42:36 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: to make edits to the PR as discussed above, then commit
14:44:07 <PhilDay> Mary Jo to let the list know when the Overview has been republished.
14:44:10 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:44:10 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 2.4.2 Page Titled (RE:ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT) -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:44:42 <PhilDay> There has been a lengthy discussion in email about page titles, application names and applicability.
14:45:10 <PhilDay> Many application names have somewhat meaningless names, which is how they are identified.
14:45:50 <PhilDay> Discussion also touched on naming the window within the software vs naming the software itself.
14:45:54 <PhilDay> Bruce had made a PR
14:46:02 <GreggVan> q+
14:46:05 <maryjom> Link to email discussion: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2025Apr/subject.html
14:46:19 <maryjom> Pull request #624 from Bruce: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/624
14:46:51 <maryjom> ack gregg
14:47:16 <bruce_bailey> Most recent email to thread (from Gregg) is:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2025Apr/0013.html
14:47:18 <PhilDay> GreggVan: EN 301 549 has avoided using page titles - and couldn't make the WCAG2ICT approach work.
14:47:28 <maryjom> s/avoided/voided/
14:47:29 <PhilDay> GreggVan: So question is whether WCAG2ICT should change?
14:48:40 <PhilDay> Mobile TF - use Views instead, and then give titles for views instead of the software. But definition of view will change (as it is a WCAG3 requirement), and as you add content, this becomes a new view / UI context. So this becomes even more complex
14:49:23 <PhilDay> maryjom: Intent was partly so that a user could identify what application they are switching to (or web page).
14:49:46 <PhilDay> ... As if you have a windowed environment, you can identify which one to switch to.
14:51:05 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if we currently say that 2.4.2 should not apply to software?
14:51:12 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
14:51:12 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we currently say that 2.4.2 should not apply to software?
14:51:16 <PhilDay> For now we could say that this SC should not apply to software.
14:51:42 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Latest suggestion from Gregg was that we shouldn't state that it cannot or should not apply
14:52:28 <PhilDay> GreggVan: We should say that it does not apply. Gregg agrees with this, as does Bruce
14:52:32 <LauraM> q+
14:52:40 <PhilDay> maryjom: Just add a note to explain why it doesn't apply
14:52:46 <PhilDay> (to non-web content)
14:53:58 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Trademark restrictions on descriptive words - which is partly why we have this challenge with meaningful names/titles
14:53:59 <maryjom> POLL: Do you agree that WCAG2ICT should add a note that 2.4.2 Page titled should not apply to non-web software with reasoning that software names used as window titles typically do not describe the topic or purpose?
14:54:09 <PhilDay> +1
14:54:13 <maryjom> q?
14:54:35 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Created a PR.
14:55:10 <PhilDay> maryjom: But there is not an issue on this specific issue, and then incorporate all discussion that occurred on email until now. Then make proposals to content change within that issue.
14:55:15 <maryjom> ack LauraM
14:55:25 <PhilDay> LauraM: I thought that we could not say that something does not apply
14:55:52 <GreggVan> q+
14:56:03 <PhilDay> ... Could say it might be difficult to apply - rather than stating categorically that something does not apply.
14:56:04 <bruce_bailey> If we can say, "this does not apply" -- i think that is great.   But I didn't think we could say that.
14:56:07 <maryjom> q?
14:56:08 <PhilDay> q?
14:56:12 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:56:13 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:56:48 <bruce_bailey> +1 to LauraM concern
14:56:50 <maryjom> We have in our new work statement: Where known, give examples of some Success Criteria which may not be applicable to a particular non-web technology
14:56:53 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Agrees with LauraM. So all we could say is that we found it difficult to apply this to software, or it may be difficult to apply this to software, since the name/title may not be meaningful.
14:57:17 <maryjom> Additional bullet: As needed, suggested changes to success criteria normative language to more clearly align with non-web software and document technologies.
14:57:57 <PhilDay> New work statement does allow us slightly more scope to comment on non-applicability. We can also suggest SC changes where needed.
14:58:30 <PhilDay> Some of these normative changes were discussed in the email conversation.
14:58:58 <bruce_bailey> Who will be opening Issue in Repo?
14:59:24 <PhilDay> maryjom to open issue and include this content in the issue.
14:59:32 <bruce_bailey> I prefer PR
15:00:00 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:00:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:01:11 <PhilDay> Didn't get to keyboard Note 1 edits - is in an issue.
15:01:16 <PhilDay> PR will be created for review.
15:01:29 <PhilDay> ... Is another issue picked up by EN committee
15:01:55 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:02:01 <maryjom> present+
15:02:02 <PhilDay> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:02:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:02:13 <PhilDay> zakim, bye
15:02:13 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been ChrisLoiselle, GreggVan, loicmn, PhilDay, bruce_bailey, LauraM, maryjom
15:02:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:02:22 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:05:30 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:05:30 <RRSAgent> I see no action items