Meeting minutes
<Zakim> mitch, you wanted to say I will be putting my work on hold for the Task Force, given other demands on my time. maryjom we can talk about whether I should resign or just send a longer-term "regrets"?
<bruce_bailey> s/bruce_bailey take up item 1 ?//
Mitch11 standing regrets and will stay on the task force on a "on demand" basis.
Bruce_bailey: hoping mitch can monitor the progress and comment as needed.
Mitch11: I will be on the EN 301 549 updates.
Announcements
Maryjom: WCAG2 Mobile working draft will be published. . . today?
Maryjom: only announcement.
PR to update WCAG2ICT overview page to incorporate our "explainer" content
ChrisLoiselle: Next item, the review of PR 1197 WCAG2ICT overview updates page to incorporate our explainer content.
<ChrisLoiselle> w3c/
<maryjom> PR: https://
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
ChrisLoiselle: Following that is the actual preview of the page. Update - I have this issue in play, it is in draft status. I have been taking feedback from this group and incorporating it into the draft. Feedback from Daniel, maryjom, etc., ongoing conversations about methodology and what we agreed to.
<bruce_bailey> Related to ACL topic before call started: https://
ChrisLoiselle: Open to feedback from the group.
GreggVan: this is replacing our explainer doc?
ChrisLoiselle: Yes.
GreggVan: Looks nice and will be found by AIs
Maryjom: Bring up some of the points brought up by Daniel
Bruce_bailey: daniel is not on the call.
ChrisLoiselle: normative guidance and informative guidance, Daniel wanted to remove.
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
GreggVan: Does not want to remove the links.
Maryjom: Agree, don't want to remove links.
<bruce_bailey> Daniels suggested edits and inline comments also available from conversation thread in PR (and that might be easier to ready than the side-by-side)
<bruce_bailey> https://
GreggVan: Taking issue with "challenges".
GreggVan: Sounds like a euphemism for what we are talking about (explanations etc)
GreggVan: a) we mean both explanations and difficulties. b) according to WCAG working group practice, web is only capitalized when it is not an adjective.
No action.
Daniel also wanted to delete "not all ICT have this concept" specifically the presence of a browser.
Maryjom and ChrisLoiselle: this changes the meaning to something we didn't agree upon.
GreggVan: Not all ICT have user agents for underlying platform (suggested replacement)
ChrisLoiselle: do we want Daniel to comment or approve?
On goals and intent (line 74/75). GreggVan likes Daniel's version
Maryjom: agree. Accept that.
Line 85. Do not accept. Policy makers is more accurate.
bruce_bailey: should we add Lawyers?
GreggVan: No, lawyers should not be invited to use it because it is not normative.
<bruce_bailey> I am satisfied that "litigation" is covered by policy makers.
GreggVan: Keep Policy makers. Don't add regulators. Would also then need to add lawyers.
bruce_bailey same issue on line 89
Copy answer.
Also decline to accept
Line 86
GreggVan: keep a link.
bruce_bailey change the source.
GreggVan: changed mind, let's get rid of the link.
Maryjom: We will not change non-web to non-Web
(partial accept.)
Line 127 - Daniel suggested to remove a few of the links and keep the link to the task for page.
<bruce_bailey> This is the page we are replacing: https://
GreggVan: Agree with that change.
Maryjom: Keeping one link and getting rid of the rest. Agree
And that's all of the changes.
Resolved.
Maryjom: until the next round of comments. Let's commit. I will send an email to Daniel saying we have gone through them all.
2.4.2 Page Titled (RE:ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT)
ChrisLoiselle: EN 301 549 topics. 2.4.2 page title.
ChrisLoiselle: Gregg and Bruce have conversation in GitHub
GreggV: For page title we should say does not apply.
… Unless we get more details with view / page view we are stuck with current glossary
… to have requirement that 90% of software fails is no good
<ChrisLoiselle> Gregg: Page title should not apply . Unless we talk to views and sub context. We can't make a requirement a name of a software indicates what the software is about.
GreggV: and product names do not describe topic or purpose
<ChrisLoiselle> For web app, we don't require it.
GreggV: we don't require web apps to change, only for new URLs
<ChrisLoiselle> Mitch: What do we mean by describe.
mitch11: It comes down to what we mean by "describe" and "describe topic or purpose"
(back).
<ChrisLoiselle> Mitch : A single word can describe the purpose.
mitch11: i think a single word can describe topic
GreggVan: that's not the name of the software.
ChrisLoiselle: For me removing myself from the group and coming in from someone not native to what we are talking about.. . .if you've never used Word, do you know it's an editor?
bruce_bailey: we are restating our same opinions.
bruce_bailey: checked with Kathy Eng on the software baseline. It also sanctions using product name as title in 2.2
<ChrisLoiselle> Bruce: Product name as title would meet 2.4.2
<bruce_bailey> i am all for hand-waving
GreggVan: I don't care what anyone on their own decides, it is contrary to the language. It doesn't matter what someone thinks we have to meet the letter of the regulation.
GreggVan: what you are saying is that no matter what it is, it meets the criteria.
<bruce_bailey> i think TF has two choices, (1) deem product names as sufficient for meeting 2.4.2; or (2) say 2.4.2 is not applicable to non-web software
mitch11: paraphrasing my comment. . .using your example, as an evaluator I would look at the software or webpage and determine if it is related to/about the title (product or service name, geographical place etc). If it is not at all related, described by it, or it's purpose, it would fail.
GreggVan: we are not talking about web pages, we are talking about software. According to you, the name of the software must be the name of the software. Whatever it is.
<ChrisLoiselle> TF has two choices, (1) deem product names as sufficient for meeting 2.4.2; or (2) say 2.4.2 is not applicable to non-web software
GreggVan: that's a silly regulation.
<bruce_bailey> i am okay with "the name of your product must be the name of your product"
ChrisLoiselle: take up next week. Need to establish that the product name is sufficient or that it is not.
<bruce_bailey> i have a draft PR for each of those
<maryjom> We're not saying "the name of your product must be the name of your product" we're saying "the name of your product can be an acceptable title.