14:00:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:40 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-wcag2ict-irc
14:00:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:00:41 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:00:45 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:00:45 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:00:51 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller
14:01:00 <LauraM> LauraM has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:02 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
14:01:11 <LauraM> present+
14:01:28 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:01:28 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:01:44 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
14:01:47 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:49 <maryjom> agenda+ Survey results: Review proposed updates to 2.4.2 Page Titled
14:01:55 <maryjom> agenda+ Analysis for SC language changes
14:02:00 <maryjom> regrets: Loïc
14:02:07 <bbailey> present+
14:03:13 <LauraM> scribe+ LauraM
14:03:44 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:48 <PhilDay> present+
14:03:52 <maryjom> regrets+ Sam
14:03:58 <maryjom> present+
14:04:00 <GreggVan> Present+
14:04:03 <PhilDay> agenda?
14:04:12 <ChrisLoiselle> regrets+Mitch
14:04:16 <LauraM> zakim, next item
14:04:16 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:04:17 <Daniel> present+ Daniel
14:04:41 <LauraM> maryjom: announcements, we must be mindful that WCAG to mobile has their document out for review.
14:04:48 <LauraM> maryjom: deadline?
14:05:10 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/news/2025/draft-note-for-review-guidance-on-applying-wcag-2-2-to-mobile-applications-wcag2mobile/
14:05:17 <maryjom> link to WCAG2mobile - https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2mobile-22/
14:05:52 <LauraM> maryjom: will send an email with the due date for comments.
14:07:06 <LauraM> maryjom: We may want to coordinate and discuss. We may want to incorporate some of their content into WCAG2ICT so that our documents harmonize.
14:07:48 <LauraM> maryjom: AG working group is working on the charter that will last for two years. WCAG2ICT is listed in their task for work.
14:08:30 <LauraM> s/task for/task force
14:08:43 <bbailey> q+ for Q back to wcag2mobile
14:08:45 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:08:45 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to discuss Q back to wcag2mobile
14:08:47 <LauraM> maryjom: look at their minutes if you are interested in that.
14:09:34 <LauraM> maryjom: yes intent to open issues on WCAG2Mobile. add your name and comment in that cell with any issues that are raised and you support.
14:09:58 <LauraM> bbailey: easier to comment on an existing issue.
14:10:12 <LauraM> maryjom: adding items to the spreadsheet to see where there is agreement.
14:10:54 <LauraM> maryjom: usually a 30 day review period for a working draft.
14:11:09 <LauraM> Daniel: it will usually be extended.
14:11:30 <LauraM> maryjom: there is no announced due date for comments but typically 30 or 60 days.
14:12:07 <LauraM> GreggVan: where is the spreadsheet you are referencing for comments?
14:12:10 <maryjom> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRGxHxV0mBEI_rvcc2EXS9xcBanQjG6k/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102514231055078432542&rtpof=true&sd=true
14:12:36 <bbailey> q+ ask pause on SS for mobile?
14:13:21 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:13:43 <LauraM> bbailey: I was hoping we would focus on wcag2mobile github not the spreadsheet.
14:13:47 <LauraM> maryjom: this is just a placeholder.
14:14:25 <LauraM> GreggVan: this will make our comments internal so that we post an issue publicly when we reach agreement for the most part.
14:14:40 <LauraM> maryjom: do your initial read and include your comments.
14:15:02 <bbailey> q+
14:15:04 <LauraM> maryjom: they have only done the first 15 criteria (or so). There are a number of open issues while they discuss what will go in moving forward.
14:15:15 <LauraM> maryjom: staging success criteria as they get them completed.
14:16:10 <LauraM> maryjom: we have one person who would like to join.
14:16:25 <LauraM> maryjom: Jennifer. She is in a subgroup that meets at the same time as this meeting.
14:16:38 <LauraM> bbailey: the subgroups should be ending soon.
14:16:49 <LauraM> GreggVan: they would probably open it back up at the same time.
14:17:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Q+
14:17:33 <LauraM> bbailey: for the next 30 days, I would suggest using their repo more than our spreadsheet.
14:17:49 <LauraM> GreggVan: I thought we agreed to put the information in the spreadsheet to coordinate.
14:17:53 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:18:12 <LauraM> bbailey: if there is significant dialogue or controversy, we should put it in wcag2mobile public response.
14:18:52 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:18:52 <LauraM> GreggVan: make comments on spreadsheet and then move to repo
14:19:24 <LauraM> ChrisLoiselle: if it is easier to create an issue in WCAG2ICT repo and than move it to WCAG2Mobile.
14:19:31 <GreggVan> q+
14:19:50 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:20:32 <LauraM> GreggVan: we also have EN 301 549 and we can double check there with the language they are using. So we maybe should be adding that to the same spreadsheet.
14:20:45 <LauraM> q+
14:21:18 <LauraM> GreggVan: through the EN there won't be much in the WCAG, it would be non web software/non web document.
14:21:50 <LauraM> GreggVan: add two columns one for software and one  for documents.
14:22:20 <LauraM> Maryjom: do we need to add a column for closed functionality?
14:22:29 <LauraM> GreggVan: I guess if we want to comment about that.
14:22:41 <LauraM> GreggVan: there is not a one to one match up.
14:22:59 <LauraM> q?
14:23:26 <LauraM> Maryjom: doing an analysis already.
14:23:55 <maryjom> ack LauraM
14:24:05 <GreggVan> q+
14:24:25 <PhilDay> LauraM: Are there other standards that we should be including in our analysis?
14:24:43 <LauraM> Maryjom: any standards that apply wcag
14:25:23 <bbailey> EN301549 and WCAG2mobile are most time sensitive
14:26:06 <LauraM> Maryjom: they wanted to adjust language to make it clearer so we are incorporating.
14:26:21 <bbailey> We have picked up some things from EN301549 and wcag2mobile
14:26:51 <LauraM> GreggVan: we have several members on both teams.
14:27:40 <LauraM> EN301549 is the standard, WCAG2ICT is trying to provide advice to the standard.
14:27:44 <bbailey> s/We have picked up/WCAG2ICT has picked up
14:28:34 <LauraM> q+
14:28:40 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:29:09 <LauraM> GreggVan: Trying to coordinate across both sides.
14:30:19 <LauraM> GreggVan: there is no requirement for WCAG to change but in the  end it is best to align.
14:30:45 <LauraM> Maryjom: we had similar discussions previously as well. Trying to harmonize all of these things.
14:31:22 <maryjom> ack LauraM
14:31:52 <bbailey> Gregg:  Harmonization means no conflicts, not necessarily identical
14:32:58 <LauraM> maryjom: please look at the mobile document and the EN if you have time and look at the notes in columns in the spreadsheet and quickly add your thoughts.
14:33:34 <LauraM> zakim, next item
14:33:34 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: Review proposed updates to 2.4.2 Page Titled -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:33:49 <maryjom> Survey results link: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/
14:34:17 <maryjom> TOPIC: Question 1 - Formatting: Use of headings vs. parenthetic statements
14:34:32 <maryjom> Link to Q1 results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/#xq1
14:35:43 <bbailey> my regrets for not getting to survey, i have read results and concur with votes
14:36:52 <GreggVan> Proposal 1 - PR 626 shows the different guidance for documents vs. software using the headings "Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents" and "Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Software". In contrast, Proposal 2 - PR 633 shows the different guidance using parenthetic statements "(for non-web documents)" and "(for non-web software)".
14:36:52 <GreggVan> Note: Proposal 2 is consistent with they way we have notated differing document vs. software guidance in the current WCAG2ICT Note. This can be changed throughout the document provided such a formatting change is preferred by the Task Force.
14:36:52 <GreggVan> Which formatting do you prefer?
14:37:14 <maryjom> Proposal 1: https://deploy-preview-626--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-4-2-page-titled-to-non-web-documents
14:37:22 <GreggVan> 1. Formatting: Use of headings vs. parenthetic statements
14:37:24 <maryjom> Proposal 2: https://deploy-preview-633--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-4-2-page-titled-to-non-web-documents-and-software
14:37:59 <LauraM> Maryjom: first proposal shows word replacements and guidance in different headings.
14:38:37 <LauraM> Maryjom: the way we traditional have been doing it is proposal 2 for comparison. Parenthetic non web documents/non web software instead of additional headings.
14:38:55 <bbailey> q+ to remind why i had problem
14:39:00 <LauraM> maryjom: so far everyone prefers the existing formatting.
14:39:08 <PhilDay> I prefer the formatting using headings, rather than parenthetic
14:39:26 <LauraM> GreggVan: I would bold because I didn't notice the brackets.
14:39:33 <PhilDay> q?
14:39:40 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:39:40 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to remind why i had problem
14:40:37 <LauraM> bbailey: subheadings was lukewarm at best. Proposal 2 still has the separation between non web software and non web document so the separation is more elegant.
14:40:47 <LauraM> maryjom: the parenthetic?
14:40:57 <LauraM> bbailey: yes, but more than that. There is more separation.
14:41:11 <GreggVan> q+
14:41:18 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:41:19 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:41:19 <LauraM> bbailey: you did the same thing I was trying to do without resorting to a subheading.
14:41:37 <LauraM> GreggVan: add  space for formatting. And bold
14:41:42 <LauraM> Maryjom: yes, we can do that.
14:41:59 <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Bruce as that was my interpretation and how I responded to survey , or hoped to per my answers !
14:42:17 <Daniel> q+
14:42:26 <maryjom> ack Daniel
14:42:40 <PhilDay> q+ to say that headings were clear, but we could also achieve it with bold text and more whitespace
14:42:42 <Daniel> ack me
14:42:43 <bbailey> q+
14:42:45 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:42:45 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say that headings were clear, but we could also achieve it with bold text and more whitespace
14:42:48 <bbailey> https://deploy-preview-633--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#applying-sc-2-4-1-bypass-blocks-to-non-web-documents-and-software
14:43:01 <LauraM> Philday: I prefer the headings because I thought they were clearer but we can achieve a similar effect with formatting.
14:43:17 <LauraM> maryjom: it will cause the editors less trouble if we use formatting not headers.
14:43:32 <Daniel> ack me
14:43:46 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:44:09 <LauraM> bbailey: disagree with saying that bypass blocks is similar to what you've done.
14:44:31 <maryjom> q?
14:45:22 <LauraM> Daniel: we may want to take the extra work if we are going to do this in several places.
14:46:18 <bbailey> from conversation, now i think headings is better !
14:46:25 <LauraM> Maryjom: I'm on the fence.
14:46:37 <LauraM> Maryjom: both ways are pretty clear.
14:46:44 <LauraM> Will poll.
14:46:49 <LauraM> Headings or parenthetic
14:47:03 <Daniel> ack me
14:47:26 <maryjom> Poll: Should we use headings to denote separate non-web document vs. software guidance? 1) Headings or 2) parenthetic "(non-web document/software)"
14:47:33 <PhilDay> 1, but also accept 2
14:47:38 <bbailey> (1)
14:47:53 <ChrisLoiselle> 0 - removing bias of being editor , answered 2 in survey
14:47:59 <Daniel> +1 to headings if we are splitting several SCs now
14:48:30 <GreggVan> 2
14:49:14 <LauraM> GreggVan: heading levels are almost visually identical so I can't differentiate.
14:50:31 <LauraM> maryjom: can't modify the spacing around the headings or the headings formatting at all.
14:50:48 <LauraM> GreggVan: if you can get consensus on format one that is fine with me.
14:51:12 <bbailey> q+
14:51:23 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:51:37 <LauraM> bbailey: assuming only having the headings when it is necessary to do so.
14:51:51 <LauraM> maryjom: we will need to go through the rest of the documents to see if there are other locations where this is needed.
14:52:02 <LauraM> maryjom: bypass blocks would be an example.
14:52:19 <LauraM> bbailey: we would not have subheadings when there is no separate guidance.
14:52:23 <PhilDay> bbailey: Don't create subheadings when the same guidance applies to documents and software
14:52:34 <LauraM> maryjom: where we have non web software and non web documents, we may have to split those out.
14:52:40 <LauraM> maryjom: that will come in a PR.
14:53:28 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Use headings to denote non-web document vs. non-web software guidance where it makes it clearer - including for 2.4.2.
14:53:52 <LauraM> zakim, next item
14:53:52 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Analysis for SC language changes -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:54:16 <GreggVan> 3. (Question 1 of 3) Non-web software - introductory info (before the SC language)
14:54:16 <GreggVan> There are a few differences between the proposed text for non-web software in the two proposals. We'll cover these in 3 questions. For this first question, compare the language used to indicate this SC shouldn't be applied as written.
14:54:16 <GreggVan> Proposal 1 does not provide a detailed explanation of why this is problematic - keeps it simple.
14:54:16 <GreggVan> This should not be applied directly as written to non-web software. For software, direct application of 2.4.2 Page Titled is problematic. The following criterion is recommended as a substitute:
14:54:18 <GreggVan> Proposal 2 provides a more detailed explanation.
14:54:18 <GreggVan> This does not apply directly to non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software. However, where the platform supports a programmatic title or name for a software window or screen, when a software application utilizes that feature to provide a unique title or name for each window or screen, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would
14:54:18 <GreggVan>  address the user needs identified in the Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2
14:54:18 <GreggVan> Which approach do you prefer?
14:54:48 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 2
14:54:48 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: Review proposed updates to 2.4.2 Page Titled -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:54:51 <bbailey> q?
14:55:05 <maryjom>  TOPIC: (Question 1 of 3) Non-web software - introductory info (before the SC language)
14:58:11 <maryjom> Poll: Which approach do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1 as-is, 2) Proposal 2 as-is), 3) Proposal 1 with changes, or 4) Proposal 2 with changes?
14:58:17 <LauraM> 1
14:58:36 <PhilDay> 2, but would also accept 1
14:58:51 <bbailey> 1 but would accept others
14:58:52 <GreggVan> 2
14:58:52 <Daniel> Happy with two except "does not" should be "should not"
15:00:01 <GreggVan> q+
15:00:09 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:00:16 <LauraM> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-wcag2ict-minutes.html LauraM
15:00:28 <bbailey> i prefer "does not apply" rather than "should not be allied"
15:01:13 <LauraM> zakim, bye
15:01:13 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, bruce, loicmn, GreggVan, Mike_Pluke, bbailey, LauraM, maryjom, Daniel
15:01:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:01:31 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:01:40 <maryjom> rrsagent,bye
15:01:40 <RRSAgent> I see no action items