– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

Mary Jo: Approvals are being incorporated to editor's draft to avoid merge conflicts.

Mary Jo: PRs to manage language and consistency to EN

Daniel: The publication rules had a bug , thanks Mary Jo for bringing this up. Bug has been corrected and there is no "draft" in the published note.

Review of pull requests

Mary Jo: I will make some topics in IRC to map out the PRs we are speaking about.

Adjustments to 1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.2.2 and 2.3.1 for consistency and getting rid of "must"

Mary Jo: Variations were present in both places. We can look at 681 and 683

https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issue/683

w3c/wcag2ict#681

<maryjom> Proposal 1 is PR 681: w3c/wcag2ict#681

<maryjom> Proposal 2 is PR 682: w3c/wcag2ict#682

Mary Jo: Will share files changed on Zoom.

Shares screen of PR 681

Bruce: Why replace must vs. normative must?

Mary Jo: Notes is not normative.

Gregg: We can say why we are replacing to avoid confusion later.

recommendation to add change "must" to "the normative term must"

<bbailey> i like "replacing the normative term "must" with..."

Mary Jo: for PR 682 , phrasing is around it would be necessary for

Mary Jo: Shares 1.4.2 , suggestion replacing "word" with "normative term"

Bruce: Question would be around would be necessary to vs. the other phrasing?

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1, 2) Proposal 2, 3) No preference, 4) Something else

Mary Jo: Yes, shares word doc on screen , difference is would need to vs. it would be necessary for

Mary Jo: Proposals are shown in Word in Zoom for differences vs. IRC.

<maryjom> PROPOSAL 1

<maryjom> Since any [part of a non-web document or software] that does not meet this success criterion can interfere with a user's ability to use the [whole document or software], all content [in the document or software] (whether or not it is used to meet other success criteria) [would need to] meet this success criterion.

<bbailey> 2 > 1 but either is okay

<maryjom> Proposal 2

<maryjom> Since any [part of a non-web document or software] that does not meet this success criterion can interfere with a user's ability to use the [whole document or software], [it would be necessary for] all content [in the document or software] (whether or not it is used to meet other success criteria) [to] meet this success criterion.

<GreggVan> 2

<loicmn> 1, can accept 2

<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to comment on the "would"

Daniel: Question on word use of would.

Gregg: Talks to applicability of would, wouldn't be normative per se.

Daniel: It is saying it is necessary vs. would be.

<bbailey> +1 to Daniel, I prefer "it is necessary" over "it would be necessary"

Gregg: is necessary vs. would , could be stated as fact vs. would not stating fact.

<bbailey> Proposal 1 could be "needs to" instead of "would need to"

Daniel: I think we should be straightforward as we can.

Gregg: Would be is more a note. Is could be read as a statement of need.

Daniel: If rest of group is happy, I can live with it.

Bruce: It ended up in WCAG2 . Not using would makes it stronger.

Gregg: is read as active vs. passive tense.

<maryjom> Poll: Which do you prefer? 1) it is necessary for 2) it would be necessary for

Mary Jo: Voting leans to proposal 2

<GreggVan> 2

Gregg: 2 reads more as statement of fact to me.

<bbailey> loicmn liked would over necessary, so close to 50/50

<loicmn> 2

<Daniel> 1

<bbailey> okay

1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.3.1 ?

RESOLUTION: To replace "must" with "it would be necessary for" in SCs 1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.3.1

Mary Jo: Also will have word replacement language for normative must phrasing change.

RESOLUTION: Word replacement language use proposal 2 changing "word "must"" to "normative term "must"".

PR 683 - further changes to make the notes the same

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/683/files

Mary Jo: Shares pull 683 on Zoom. talks to diffs within the pull.

Mary Jo: consistency updates.

<bbailey> thank you for these !

<GreggVan> +1

Mary Jo: very small edits but wanted to propose so we can be consistent

Gregg: Editorial updates and consistent.

<loicmn> +1 thanks Mary Jo for that consistency work!

<bbailey> I thought I had recently spotted instances in the 2013 WCAG2ICT where the word substitution wasn't 100% rigidly applied.

<bbailey> Thanks!

Mary Jo: I will submit to EN for sure.

Mary Jo: On page title, we are holding off on that.

Mary Jo: Showcases PR 687 for consistent navigation
… editorials and word replacements.

<GreggVan> +1

<maryjom> Poll: Do you approve the changes in PR 687 for SC 3.2.3?

<bbailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<loicmn> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

RESOLUTION: Update SC 3.2.3 with changes from PR 687.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask if help for off line "thumbs up" ?

Bruce: Did we want to ping the list for thumbs up or not?

Mary Jo: I don't believe we'd get any other responses.

https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/managing-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github/setting-up-notifications/configuring-notifications

Gregg: https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/managing-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github/setting-up-notifications/configuring-notifications would help out.

PR 688 edits to make "closed functionality" uses more consistent per issue 614.

Gregg: That seems to be very consistent.

Loic: I also like it.

q>

Gregg: Software is ICT.
… is or includes in EN 301 , but also software itself is not closed. Think it works both ways.

Bruce: ICT with closed functionality vs. software on ICT with closed functionality .

Gregg: Software is ICT

Mary Jo: On line 47, we weren't talking about platforms .

Bruce: I just wanted to highlight it on how I read it.

Mary Jo: Very few cases where software is in there.

Mary Jo: Could state "other software on ICT".

Gregg: List is incomplete so do we include? Could cut this list out of middle to remove partial list

Gregg: Looks like closed functionality is only the last item? Do we cover all requirements ? Maybe including A., B. , C. for three specific things vs. possibility of misreading our intent.

Bruce: I think the middle example can be made to match the other two.

Bruce: I think second can be made to match. Avoiding the phrase of software on. Then it reads well.

Bruce: That helps with terms being close but not identical.

Mary Jo: Software on ICT showing on line 8.

Gregg: You are trying to be specific in this instance. Applying only software.

Mary Jo: reviews line 15 and 16 on PR 688 regarding ICT with closed functionality.

Gregg: Headphone jack for example, but if not there, then nothing in software to add it back.

Mary Jo and Gregg: Meaningful sequence , editing to remove software on

Bruce: Line 19 and non web software on ICT is great

Mary Jo: Good on keeping that there.

<bbailey> +1 as previous "software" should be "non-web software" -- if it were kept

Line 26 and line 28, keep as proposed.

Line 38 , do we keep software or add non web software ?

Gregg: Web software on closed functionality wouldn't make much sense. Non-web would.

<bbailey> deleting "software on" is better than adding "non-web" before "software"

Mary Jo: Let us make a note to check non-web software for consistency

Mary Jo: Good for making the non-web software change for editing purposes.

Gregg: Yes, differs from web content.

Mary Jo: I will continue to identify EN verbiage edits

<maryjom> zaki, end meeting