– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

I shall scribe.

Announcements

MaryJo: Work for week is the agenda for this meeting.

No other announcements other than we are getting in all the changes we are working on.

2 week process. 1 for review, 1 for CfC that follows

We will name what was changed or added.

PR Proposal approvals

<Daniel> Editorial tweaks

Daniel: Potential change in paragraphs on regulations that make use of WCAG2ICT. We'd need to cover that prior.

MaryJo: Please make any comments if you have any. We are close on that and may get incorporated soon.

Issue 736: 1.4.12 - Should software-only parts of Note 2 be split into a separate note?

<maryjom> Link to issue 736: w3c/wcag2ict#736

MaryJo: Proposal 2 splits non-web software vs. non-web documents.

Gregg: Split it for non-web documents and non-web software?

MaryJo: Yes.

MaryJo: What do you think?

<bbailey> I like it.

Mike: I like it.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 from Chris

<maryjom> • DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.12, incorporate proposal 2 from Issue 736 into the editor’s draft, as-is

<bbailey> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: For 1.4.12, incorporate proposal 2 from Issue 736 into the editor’s draft, as-is

Issue 740: 2.1.1 Keyboard - Should we add a precondition scoping this SC?

<maryjom> Link to issue 740: w3c/wcag2ict#740

<maryjom> Link to PR 744: w3c/wcag2ict#744

MaryJo: Mike came up with idea on device independent keyboard interface services are.

MaryJo: I had added to precondition in preview 744.

I proposed different proposals in the preview

Mike: The second sentence may not be necessary but helps with understanding.

Gregg: last sentence helps with misunderstanding. Was there a reason why to remove second sentence?

MaryJo: An onscreen keyboard wouldn't be using a device independent.

Bruce: I am in favor on mentioning on screen keyboards. Perhaps it has its own note?

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to what is discussed on proposal 2 for me!

Gregg: If we split it off, do we talk to it being based on language of provision?

Gregg: I.e. explain the why.

<bbailey> I agree the sentence needs a bit of wordsmithing when it is a stand-alone note.

<GreggVan> Inclusion of an on-screen keyboard can be done as well but does not meet this requirement since it does not allow for the use of keyboard alternatives where as support of input from the device-independent keyboard interface service does.

Wordsmithing on PUll 744 is shared and Gregg includes his proposal in IRC

<bbailey> looks good

<Mike_Pluke> good for me too

MaryJo: commits 744 proposal 2 edit.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 2.1.1, incorporate Proposal 2 as edited in PR 744 during the meeting

<GreggVan> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bbailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: For 2.1.1, incorporate Proposal 2 as edited in PR 744 during the meeting

Issue 704: 1.4.4 Resize Text: EN 301 549 did not incorporate our updated notes

<maryjom> Link to issue 704: w3c/wcag2ict#704

<maryjom> Link to the Google doc with proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VN1LQG_iI6ySWSc-XBgfE6d_aHQRUy_CjMGktPdFenM/edit?usp=sharing

MaryJo: First thing to do is adjustments to SC language

Gregg: In note 2, we should say something about loss of functionality.

MaryJo: I want to make decisions on all 4 parts.

Gregg: I am suggesting proposal edit to proposal 2.

Gregg: I see how you are referencing it in the first part of setence.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, incorporate Proposal 2, allowing for some text resized less than 200% when text resizing is provided by the platform

<bbailey> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

MaryJo: Parallel to web content is text contrast.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, incorporate Proposal 2, allowing for some text resized less than 200% when text resizing is provided by the platform

MaryJo: next conversation is on decision 2.

MaryJo: If removed software players

Gregg: Are you talking to the software you are applying to?

<bbailey> The old note is really only applicable to non-web documents, so I am for keeping it since we now have split sets of notes.

Mike: I would remove second software and talk to viewers or editors

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say and to say "has to be more than "are players" it has to be all players that this might be played on -- or all popular viewers.

<bbailey> So to answer highlighted question, if added back in, it only applies to non-web documents.

Gregg: Says if there are editors or viewers with 200 percent feature. If we are reading this , it would say that if 200 percent in all browsers, it would meet.
… for web content, maybe state this is automatically met. What are we trying to say on the note? Off the web, it is not automatically met due to not using a browser.

How would an author know if it is? Maybe major platforms provide...

MaryJo: Should we have the note or not?

Gregg: depends on OS, does every single app need this?

Gregg: Software, we can talk about platform. For documents , it would be different. Viewed by any platform.

Gregg: If document only works for platform, then it would work for that viewer...

MaryJo: Any other edits?

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, re-introduce Note 1, as edited in the Google doc proposal 3.

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<bbailey> +1

Gregg: what is the if content will not work with zoom?

MaryJo: We had talked to PDF and zooming capabilities.

Gregg: add in that zoom feature.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 as edited

<GreggVan> +1 to 3

<bbailey> +1 again

RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, re-introduce Note 1, as edited in the Google doc proposal 3.

<Mike_Pluke> +1 again

Decision 3 is being discussed.

<GreggVan> +1 to proposal 2

MaryJo: May not be designated as accessibility features. So removed accessibility from the phrasing.

<Mike_Pluke> +1 ro proposal 2

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, Keep Note 1 from the 2024 WCAG2ICT Proposal 2 from the Google doc, as-is

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bbailey> +1

RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, Keep Note 1 from the 2024 WCAG2ICT Proposal 2 from the Google doc, as-is

Decision 4 is up next.

MaryJo: Now that we changed SC language, is this still needed?

<GreggVan> In such cases, authors would ONLY need to support text scaling to the extent provided by user settings in the platform, without losing content or functionality, to satisfy this success criterion.

<GreggVan> +1

Bruce: I thought this was addressed per first edit.

MaryJo: Exactly, do we still need it?

Gregg: I think we should first sentence to old note. First note that we edited is accurate. I think first half is a useful introduction to the other note.

Gregg: The note we passed in decision 2.

MaryJo: This decision 4 is for non web software

Bruce: that makes sense, thanks.

Gregg: Note for non-web software and note for non-web documents.

<bbailey> very nice

MaryJo: Are we happy with proposal 2?

Gregg: Just labeling notes one applying to non web documents and one to non web software

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, Keep the 2024 WCAG2ICT note 2 with changes noted in Proposal 2 from the Google doc

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bbailey> +1

RESOLUTION: For 1.4.4, Keep the 2024 WCAG2ICT note 2 with changes noted in Proposal 2 from the Google doc

MaryJo: We can take a look for proposed changes for regulations section.

Bruce: On editorial PR on 737, I put something in the PR.

Talks to line 48 proposed vs. current

Bruce: WCAG is limited to web content. Talks to limitation.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Bruce

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

MaryJo: I will update PR 737 per Bruce's proposal per the plus ones on the subject

Gregg: On the question on regulation application, is there anything else on that?

MaryJo: It is the PR 737 that Bruce just proposed on.

Gregg: Ok.

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate PR 737 into the editor's draft with Bruce's update from the meeting.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bbailey> +!

<bbailey> +1

<bbailey> +1!

RESOLUTION: Incorporate PR 737 into the editor's draft with Bruce's update from the meeting.

Bruce really liked that one!

<GreggVan> +1 !!!!!

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Once all PRs have been incorporated, we agree to submit the WCAG2ICT editor's draft to the AG WG for review and approval to publish.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<bbailey> +1

<GreggVan> +1 !!!!

<Mike_Pluke> +1

RESOLUTION: Once all PRs have been incorporated, we agree to submit the WCAG2ICT editor's draft to the AG WG for review and approval to publish.

<bbailey> We still have AAA SC?

MaryJo: For harmonization with EN , we are good.

MaryJo: Yes, we still have AAA and other work items , yes.