– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

Mary Jo : WCAG2Mobile has not been published yet. Our task force should weigh in on document.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask status

Bruce: Which version?

Mary Jo: FPWD was approved many weeks ago. Shawn traveling. May be delayed on that front.

Mary Jo: Will monitor and will want to provide feedback and align guidance.

Mary Jo: Number of participants in this group is decreasing. Will reach out for participation in different segments of our industry.

Issue #622: Edit to note in 2.1.1 Keyboard to make it more understandable

<maryjom> Link to Issue 622: w3c/wcag2ict#622

<maryjom> Link to PR 629: w3c/wcag2ict#629

<maryjom> Link to built content in-context: https://deploy-preview-629--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-1-1-keyboard-to-non-web-documents-and-software

Mary Jo: 3 links provided on this issue related to 2.1.1

Gregg: Had to do with platform

Mary Jo: Will bring up PR.
… second sentence changed.

sentence starting with "Platform software may provide "

Bruce: You changed proposal on top line of issue too.

Mary Jo: Any questions?

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept the changes to 2.1.1 Keyboard Note 1, as proposed in PR 629.

<loicmn> +1

I don't hear any negative responses.

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<LauraM> +1

Gregg: paste sentence in to IRC , we can be clear.

<maryjom> Here's the proposed 2nd sentence of Note 1: Platform software may provide a ‘keyboard interface’ that software can read instead of reading any keyboard hardware directly.

<PhilDay> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept the changes to 2.1.1 Keyboard Note 1, as proposed.

Issue #625: Need further clarity in the key term definition of “content (on and off the web)”

<maryjom> Link to Issue 625: w3c/wcag2ict#625

Mary Jo: Question around content.

Need further clarity in the key term definition of "content (on and off the web)"

Mary Jo: I believe this is why EN put in software instead of content. May be difficult for us to do that word replacement or substitution. Mary Jo reads her comment on PR 625 from 2 days ago.

Mary Jo: Sometimes software is user agent, sometimes it is a UI. I don't think we need to change anything in WCAG2ICT

Mike P: Simple question from me. What we have in EN is fine and is compatible with WCAG2ICT. No need to change WCAG2ICT. We tried to not change language where we didn't have to.

Mike P: People outside the domain may not think what we do. It isn't immediate. Not sure.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Mike's point that laypeople have a different idea of "content".

Gregg: Email program. Is content accessible? That would be content within email not necessarily the software itself. If we do want to use content, make a note.

Gregg: Third party note should be included too, to make sure it is understood.

Gregg: I question software for content replacement.

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say we could just add a note to the definition of content

Phil: adding a note to definition of content may be useful in context. Using examples.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Phil for definition elaboration.

Mary Jo: Content includes section could also be where to update this.

<loicmn> +1 to adding a note saying that software UI is content.

Gregg: Content includes... third party content wouldn't include it. Author is not responsible for marking up software program's email.

Phil: Fair point.

Gregg: Software and content use should be separate .

Gregg: Third party and contracting....that is a problem too. Who's responsible for what.

Gregg: Third party should be part of what we do. We should look in to that.

<GreggVan> +1 to Chris's comment

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that EAA does exclude third-party content

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#conformance-partial for reference

Loic: We shouldn't mention it per se.

Loic: UI of software is also content note should be presented somewhere.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say under our defintion of Content we might add a note "NOTE: Content from a third party needs special consideration since sometimes it is under the control of the author (e.g. the contracted it) and sometimes it is completely out of the control of the author (e.g. email in an email client)

Loic: I agree with Gregg's point.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Loic that it is what it is !

Gregg: If we put author generated content, we can make it clearer.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to agree that WCAG2ICT should avoid the term "third party content"

Gregg: Let the 3rd party discussion happen separately.

<bruce_bailey> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state#p-229

Bruce: I agree with current approach. With DOJ rule, has exemption.

Gregg: Added note in IRC.

under our defintion of Content we might add a note "NOTE: Content from a third party needs special consideration since sometimes it may be under the control of the author (e.g. the contracted and therefore may not be considered 3rd part) and sometimes it is completely out of the control of the author (e.g. email in an email client)

Gregg: makes it obvious as to what it is.

<bruce_bailey> DOJ ADA web rule has exemption for third party content, link above to that paragraph in the final rule

q>?

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say under our defintion of Content we might add a note "NOTE: Content from a third party needs special consideration since sometimes it may be under the control of the author (e.g. the contracted and therefore may not be considered 3rd part) and sometimes it is completely out of the control of the author (e.g. email in an email client)

Gregg: I think this would be good to pass to regulator with information on what they'd be thinking about.

<maryjom> Poll: Should we add a note regarding 3rd party content (text that Gregg proposed above)? Yes/no

Bruce: Where is the location of this going to be?

Mary Jo: Would go in definition of content on and off web.

<bruce_bailey> Okay, so the glossary.

<GreggVan> NOTE: Content from a third party needs special consideration since sometimes it may be under the

<GreggVan> control of the author (e.g. contracted and therefore may not be considered 3rd party) and sometimes it is completely out of the control of the author (e.g. email in an email client).

Mary Jo: it is within key terms , not glossary.

<maryjom> Poll: Should we add a note regarding 3rd party content (text that Gregg proposed above)? Yes/no

<bruce_bailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<LauraM> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

parties vs. party

Thanks!

<bruce_bailey> I agree that Key Terms is better location than Glossary!

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Add note to key term "content" regarding 3rd party content as shown in the minutes above.

<loicmn> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<LauraM> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<PhilDay> +1

RESOLUTION: Add note to key term "content" regarding 3rd party content as shown in the minutes above.

<maryjom> Note: The user interface of software is also considered content.

Mary Jo: continues on thread for 625 issue on content on and off the web.

Gregg: The UI is also considered content.

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to suggest NOTE For non-web software, content includes the user interface.

<bruce_bailey> gregg: Note: The user interface is also considered content.

Loic: suggest NOTE For non-web software, content includes the user interface.

Loic: Everything is content for web. So differs a bit for WCAG2ICT and note would help.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Loic's version

<GreggVan> NOTE For non-web software, content also includes the user interface.

<maryjom> NOTE For non-web software, content also includes the user interface.

Loic: Yes.

<maryjom> POLL: Is the note "For non-web software, content also includes the user interface." sufficient to add to address" issue 625?

<bruce_bailey> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<PhilDay> +1

RESOLUTION: Add the note "For non-web software, content also includes the user interface." to the key term "content (on and off the web)"

<bruce_bailey> +1

PR #626 proposed solution to Issue 627: 2.4.2 Page Titled (error)

<maryjom> Issue 627: w3c/wcag2ict#627

<maryjom> Pull request #629 from Bruce: w3c/wcag2ict#629

Mary Jo: Regarding page title. Issue is 627, pull request from Bruce, 629.

Mary Jo: proposal from Bruce is that it should not be applicable.

<bruce_bailey> suggest poll (1) do nothing; (2) explain problem away; (3) say SC is not applicable

Bruce: We won't get wordsmithing complete.

Mike P: There is no definition about what describes a topic or purpose. The name of the software would be a good requirement.

Mary Jo: I might do a poll.

Bruce: That is my other pull request on explaining it away.

<maryjom> POLL: (1) do nothing; (2) explain software name meets; (3) say SC is not applicable (4) Propose alternate requirement better fitting to software window titles.

Gregg: I don't think we can redefine WCAG.

<bruce_bailey> Explain away draft: w3c/wcag2ict#624

Gregg: We can't also say if the title describes the topic or purpose, as that highlights the problem. We can't also say that name defines the purpose.

Gregg: I don't see any other option other than saying this doesn't work. It was meant for web pages, not web apps or software.

<maryjom> suggest poll (1) do nothing; (2) explain problem away; (3) say SC is not applicable

<maryjom> (4) Propose alternate requirement better fitting to software window titles.

Gregg: Windows and software, could apply .

<bruce_bailey> (2) > (3) > (4)

Mary Jo: Switchable windows , program manager.

<bruce_bailey> explain software name meets > explain problem away

<PhilDay> 2 I think!

<GreggVan> 3

Mary Jo: We could say, don't apply it , as it doesn't pertain to it. We could promote a recommendation to creating a requirement that would cover what we are after.

<loicmn> 3 (with explanation why)

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Loic. 3 with what we've found per our research and examples

<Mike_Pluke> 3

Mary Jo: Seems 3 is weighing the most. Please review Bruce's pull request 626 and make language suggestions.

<GreggVan> "This does not apply to non-web software because it was designed to talk about web pages and there is not such construct with non-web software especially mobile and software names are most ofteh abstract ."

<bruce_bailey> https://deploy-preview-626--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#page-titled

Gregg: You can use my IRC note to start next meeting if we are going with 3.

I need to drop for another call, sorry!