– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjom: Have heard that EN 301 549 process has changed - for comments

<bbailey> Happy Juneteenth!

maryjom: Now have to submit via the JTB form rather than on GitLab

maryjom: Asked what the deadlines are for comments for EN 301 549

Mike_Pluke: 26th June
… 1 week today

Mike_Pluke: Works both ways (the process change). Visibility to comments and responses to them through the JTB system is probably better, although GitLab would still work.

Mike_Pluke: Put comments in the JTB forms.
… good to duplicate existing comments from GitLab into the form - so all information is in 1 place

GreggVan: 2 suggestions. Provide suggestions, don't just raise issues without a solution.
… If it does relate to a GitLab issue, then include the reference to the GitLab issue as well in the JTB form

We are late in the process, and very few people to work on it (TF is disolved). So always add suggestions on any issue or problem raised.

maryjom: If there are any challenges with WCAG2ICT work - then EN team should feel free to bring it to Mary Jo to then raise with the WCAG2ICT Task Force and make sure we catch it quickly.

<bbailey> +1 for "source" over "horse's mouth"

PR Proposal approvals

First one is not actually a PR

Issue 620 – Closed functionality

w3c/wcag2ict#620 (comment)

<maryjom> Link to issue 620: w3c/wcag2ict#620

<maryjom> Link to proposed answer: w3c/wcag2ict#620 (comment)

We had talked about this a few months ago, but never created a formal answer.

So Mary Jo proposed an answer that needs reviewing.

Proposed answer: DRAFT TF ANSWER (not approved yet):

Assistive technology (AT) is a defined term with guidance in the form of word replacements in WCAG2ICT. In the definition there are several examples provided of different assistive technologies. Closed functionality is any functionality that prevents users from attaching, installing or using that variety of assistive technology. An alternative

keyboard is only one form of AT. Some ICT is closed to some types of AT but not others, and would have closed functionality that may require some alternate way for users to access and use the ICT because that form of AT cannot be installed.

maryjom: Any discussion needed?

<bbailey> +1 and i just added thumbs up on github

<PhilDay> +1 from me

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 620, use the proposed answer, as-is

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

GreggVan: questions "... that variety of assistive technology" - limited only to those technologies listed as examples in the definition of AT.

GreggVan's proposal: Assistive technology (AT) is a defined term with guidance in the form of word replacements in WCAG2ICT. In the definition there are several examples provided of different assistive technologies. Closed functionality is any functionality that prevents users from attaching, installing or using assistive technology. An alternative

keyboard is only one form of AT. Some ICT is closed to some types of AT but not others, and would have closed functionality that may require some alternate way for users to access and use the ICT because that form of AT cannot be installed.

(remove "that variety of")

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 620, use the proposed answer, as-is

<loicmn> +1

<PhilDay> +1

<bbailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 620, use the proposed answer, as-is

Issue 696 - 2.2.2 Pause, stop, hide: Note 5 should provide the full info about the WCAG 2.2 Intent section

<maryjom> Link to issue 696: w3c/wcag2ict#696

<maryjom> Link to PR 697: w3c/wcag2ict#697

Additional text from PR: While the success criterion uses the term “information”, the WCAG 2 Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.2 makes it clear that this is to be applied to all content. Any content, whether informative or decorative, that is updated automatically, blinks, or moves may create an accessibility barrier.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to suggest avoiding word "informative"

bbailey: May be confusing using the word "informative" - it is somewhat similar to "normative" - so it may be better to avoid the word "informative"
… informational or decorative

GreggVan: whether decorative or not

GreggVan: "even if just decorative, "

Mike_Pluke: Not sure that the change is needed, but also happy with the fix

Proposed change: While the success criterion uses the term “information”, the WCAG 2 Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.2 makes it clear that this is to be applied to all content. Any [content](#content-on-and-off-the-web), even if just decorative, that is

updated automatically, blinks, or moves may create an accessibility barrier.</div>

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 620, use the proposed answer, as-is

<PhilDay> +1

<loicmn> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bbailey> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 686, merge PR 697, as-is

<loicmn> +1

Error in the reference in the resolution above -should refer to 697

<PhilDay> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bbailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 686, merge PR 697, as-is

Issue 618 - [Editorial issues (mostly consistency) within the WCAG2ICT language

<maryjom> Link to issue 618: w3c/wcag2ict#618

<maryjom> Link to PR 689: w3c/wcag2ict#689

Minor editorial changes. Changed to use "satisfy" this SC rather than "meet" this SC.

Added links where missing, minor typos
… Also removed applications from "software applications that interpret" - just says software

Consistently added in non-web for software

Changed comply with to "satisfy"

bbailey: should be link to "accessibility services of platform software"

maryjom: Fixes in PR

bbailey has another item to work on

bbailey: word substitution on software - one of the first few
… wondered if we needed to add non-web to software

Mary Jo checking in the PR

Bruce's suggestion was correct - we need to add "non-web" to "software that interprets"

maryjom: Adjusting PR

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 618, merge PR 689, as-is

<PhilDay0> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

bruce: +1 as dropped from IRC

<bbailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 618, merge PR 689, as-is

Issue 605 - Name, Role, Value: clarify that non-web software does not have a user agent

<maryjom> Link to issue 605: w3c/wcag2ict#605

<maryjom> Link to PR 632: w3c/wcag2ict#632

Word replacement for "user agent"

###### Applying SC 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value to Non-Web Documents and Software

This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 4.1.2, replacing “user agents, including assistive technologies", with “assistive technologies and accessibility features of software” and the note with: “This success

criterion is primarily for software developers who develop or use custom user interface components. For example, standard user interface components on most accessibility-supported platforms already meet this success criterion when used according to specification.”

With this substitution, it would read:

**4.1.2 Name, Role, Value:** For all [user interface components](#dfn-user-interface-components) (including but not limited to: form elements, links and components generated by scripts), the [name](#dfn-name) and [role](#dfn-role) can be [programmatically determined](#dfn-programmatically-determinable); states, properties, and values that can be

set by the user can be [programmatically set](#dfn-programmatically-set); and notification of changes to these items is available to <INS>[[assistive technologies](#dfn-assistive-technologies) and accessibility features of [software](#software)]</INS>.

<div class="note">

PhilDay0: question if the link should go to "accessibility services" but this goes to "accessibility services of platform software" which we did not have in the text

bbailey: Question on the verbiage of the word substitution

should state that NOTE 1 is changed / replaced / edited
… Main concern - NOTE 1 should state that it is added
… or modified

bbailey: more important to add the parenthetical description (MODIFIED) is added to NOTE 1 rather than to update the description.

Daniel: Will have to have a closer look at this. At the moment we just do it for "added" not for modified.

bbailey to open new issue to cover this

Daniel to see what can be done on PR 632

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 605, merge PR 632, as-is

<PhilDay0> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<bbailey> +1

bruce: +1 (dropped from IRC)

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 605, merge PR 632, as-is

Issue 606 - Revise word substitution in glossary "target"

<maryjom> Link to issue 606: w3c/wcag2ict#606

<maryjom> Link to PR 698: w3c/wcag2ict#698

Glossary definition, target, change word substitution.

## dfn-targets

##### Applying “target” to Non-Web Documents and Software

This applies directly as written and as described in the WCAG 2 glossary, replacing “page” with “content”.

With this substitution, it would read:

@@ -615,7 +615,7 @@ region of the display that will accept a pointer action, such as the interactive

<div class="note">

If two or more targets are overlapping, the overlapping area should not be included in the measurement of the target size, except when the overlapping targets perform the same action or open the same <INS>**[[content](#content-on-and-off-the-web)]**</INS>.</div></DD></DL>

Replacing page with content

Instead of non-web document or content presented by software

<bbailey> i could go either way

PhilDay0: Slight preference for the original

GreggVan: content is clearly defined - so should be OK
… But changing "page" (unit of conformance) to "content" (sub unit of conformance) is a bit confusing

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 606, merge PR 698, as-is

<loicmn> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bbailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<PhilDay0> +1

RESOLUTION: To resolve issue 606, merge PR 698, as-is

<bbailey> Added Changed notes would benefit from parenthetical #699

There are a small number of additional changes that could help with EN 301 549 so will try and get these done of next week.

<bbailey> w3c/wcag2ict#699