Meeting minutes
<maryjom> present
Announcements
Mobile TF - WCAG2Mobile. Did go through and was approved for 1st public draft, but it isn't going to be out officially on 17th April
Editor's draft is fairly current - just a few minor changes
Comments due 30 days after that date
But we still need to look at it in order to make comments.
<maryjom> Editorial changes to WCAG2Mobile draft: https://
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.
Content - some may not think it includes all aspects of the user interface - they might just think it is the document.
Rob suggested that a change to definition would be useful.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to pitch wcag2 backlog
bruce_bailey: WCAG2 Understanding Reflow document was redone - so good to get feedback on it. Understanding reflow has been recently updated.
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:
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.
<bruce_bailey> Slightly OT but recently refreshed Understanding Reflow guidance: https://
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.
GreggVan: Supports the idea of looking at changes.
Definition from editor's draft: WCAG 2 defines content as:
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
For non-web content it is necessary to view this a bit more broadly. Within WCAG2ICT, the term “content” is used as follows:
content (non-web content) (as used in WCAG2ICT)
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
NOTE
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.
Within WCAG2ICT wherever “content” or “web content” appears in a success criterion it is replaced with “content” using the definition above.
This will need somebody to go through each SC to see which uses content, and consider changes. This is tracked in w3c/
<ChrisLoiselle> I went through reflow on w3c/
<bruce_bailey> FWIW, emails to listserv seem good to me for memorializing -- but not for conversation
GreggVan: Has sent a few emails with updates from EN that may mean we should make improvements to WCAG2ICT
GreggVan: Will add these as issues into GitHub
GreggVan: EN to release version at the end of April.
ChrisLoiselle: Reflow - put a related issue on the updates to understanding: https://
GreggVan: What is our timeline?
maryjom: Somewhat open-ended - we are still analysing what we need to change.
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)
PR to update WCAG2ICT overview page to incorporate our "explainer" content
<bruce_bailey> +1 that feedback to EN 301 549 from this group is very important!
<maryjom> Link to Google doc: https://
<maryjom> PR 1197: https://
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.
<maryjom> Built page: https://
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?
ChrisLoiselle: Should I commit these edits? Or wait and submit later.
[Mary Jo going through comments on the issue above - minor editorials from Mary Jo & Phil]
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss one editorial i missed...
bruce_bailey: Should we make feedback to the PR or to the Google doc?
maryjom: Proposed changes were to the PR.
bruce_bailey: has another minor editorial change to propose
[Mary Jo shows the proposed change in context]
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to remove duplicative info
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<loicmn> +1
<maryjom> POLL: Are you OK with removing the "scope content"?
<LauraM> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> I have failed as editor :)
<PhilDay> +1 to add Chris
Mary Jo to check with W3C on authors in list
<GreggVan> +1 to prer auth on credit -- to what you and shawn decide
<maryjom> Poll: Are you OK with Mary Jo handling the updates to the contributors and editors for the page?
<PhilDay> +1
<loicmn> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<GreggVan> Poll: OK to republish as Nov 15?
<GreggVan> +1
Document says it was written on 15 Nov, but link says a different date. Mary Jo to check with W3C
<PhilDay> +1
<loicmn> +1
<LauraM> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> I believe the footer is where the includes would be per the edit file
<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.
maryjom to ask Daniel if AG leaders need to review changes to this page.
<PhilDay> +1
<loicmn> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<LauraM> +1
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to give more powers
<GreggVan> +1
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.
<GreggVan> +1
ChrisLoiselle: Thanks to all who contributed to the Google doc - it was a team effort.
ChrisLoiselle: to make edits to the PR as discussed above, then commit
Mary Jo to let the list know when the Overview has been republished.
2.4.2 Page Titled (RE:ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT)
There has been a lengthy discussion in email about page titles, application names and applicability.
Many application names have somewhat meaningless names, which is how they are identified.
Discussion also touched on naming the window within the software vs naming the software itself.
Bruce had made a PR
<maryjom> Link to email discussion: https://
<maryjom> Pull request #624 from Bruce: w3c/
<bruce_bailey> Most recent email to thread (from Gregg) is: https://
GreggVan: EN 301 549 has voided using page titles - and couldn't make the WCAG2ICT approach work.
GreggVan: So question is whether WCAG2ICT should change?
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
maryjom: Intent was partly so that a user could identify what application they are switching to (or web page).
… As if you have a windowed environment, you can identify which one to switch to.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we currently say that 2.4.2 should not apply to software?
For now we could say that this SC should not apply to software.
bruce_bailey: Latest suggestion from Gregg was that we shouldn't state that it cannot or should not apply
GreggVan: We should say that it does not apply. Gregg agrees with this, as does Bruce
maryjom: Just add a note to explain why it doesn't apply
(to non-web content)
GreggVan: Trademark restrictions on descriptive words - which is partly why we have this challenge with meaningful names/titles
<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?
<PhilDay> +1
bruce_bailey: Created a PR.
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.
LauraM: I thought that we could not say that something does not apply
… Could say it might be difficult to apply - rather than stating categorically that something does not apply.
<bruce_bailey> If we can say, "this does not apply" -- i think that is great. But I didn't think we could say that.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to LauraM concern
<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
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.
<maryjom> Additional bullet: As needed, suggested changes to success criteria normative language to more clearly align with non-web software and document technologies.
New work statement does allow us slightly more scope to comment on non-applicability. We can also suggest SC changes where needed.
Some of these normative changes were discussed in the email conversation.
<bruce_bailey> Who will be opening Issue in Repo?
maryjom to open issue and include this content in the issue.
<bruce_bailey> I prefer PR
Didn't get to keyboard Note 1 edits - is in an issue.
PR will be created for review.
… Is another issue picked up by EN committee