IRC log of wcag2ict on 2025-08-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:03:39 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-irc
14:03:44 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:03:45 [Zakim]
Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:03:45 [maryjom]
zakim, clear agenda
14:03:45 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:03:50 [maryjom]
chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:04:01 [maryjom]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:04:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
14:04:09 [maryjom]
agenda+ Announcements
14:04:28 [maryjom]
agenda+ Comments for WCAG2Mobile
14:06:47 [PhilDay]
PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:06:54 [PhilDay]
present+
14:06:59 [PhilDay]
scribe+ PhilDay
14:07:44 [PhilDay]
zakim, next item
14:07:44 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:08:36 [PhilDay]
In CfC with AGWG on latest draft. Meant to end on Tuesday 19th at 5pm
14:08:47 [PhilDay]
Seen mostly +1s of support
14:09:11 [bbailey]
present+
14:09:19 [LauraM]
LauraM has joined #wcag2ict
14:09:22 [PhilDay]
1 comment added to issues from John A to review issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750
14:09:23 [LauraM]
present+
14:09:28 [PhilDay]
https://github.com/mraccess77
14:09:41 [maryjom]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3186015764
14:09:47 [PhilDay]
s/https://github.com/mraccess77/https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3186015764
14:10:11 [PhilDay]
No thumbs down to block it - but was concerned about the changes proposed in resize text
14:10:37 [PhilDay]
Looks like it will go ahead and publish
14:10:54 [PhilDay]
But we may wish to respond to the comment later in the call
14:12:11 [PhilDay]
PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:12:18 [PhilDay]
present+
14:12:22 [PhilDay]
scribe+ PhilDay
14:12:44 [PhilDay]
Daniel & Mike P also aware of some minor editorial changes that were made.
14:12:56 [PhilDay]
Publication likely to be on 21st August
14:14:00 [maryjom]
scribe+
14:14:12 [PhilDay]
PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:14:16 [PhilDay]
present+
14:14:21 [PhilDay]
scribe+ PhilDay
14:14:40 [bbailey]
q+ to ask about checklist doc
14:14:42 [PhilDay]
Hope to publish Tuesday/Thursday next week
14:14:48 [maryjom]
ack bbailey
14:14:48 [Zakim]
bbailey, you wanted to ask about checklist doc
14:14:56 [PhilDay]
bbailey: Is the checklist document public facing?
14:15:09 [PhilDay]
... to list the changes made
14:15:41 [PhilDay]
... The document that Mary Jo did to list the changes for Mike to see for EN
14:16:01 [PhilDay]
So it should be available via ETSI GitLab
14:17:12 [PhilDay]
Mary Jo just did a comparison between our notes and our new changes to WCAG2ICT. Mary Jo can send a copy if requested
14:17:29 [PhilDay]
s/our notes/EN 301 549 notes
14:18:20 [PhilDay]
We will have 1 week to review the latest draft of EN
14:18:51 [PhilDay]
We will not have a meeting next week - 21st August
14:19:06 [PhilDay]
We will resume on 28th August
14:20:10 [PhilDay]
PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:20:23 [PhilDay]
present+
14:20:23 [PhilDay]
scribe+ PhilDay
14:21:00 [maryjom]
regrets: Chris Loiselle
14:21:07 [PhilDay]
zakim, next item
14:21:07 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Comments for WCAG2Mobile -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:23:11 [maryjom]
agenda+ AG WG comment on WCAG2ICT Review issue
14:23:13 [PhilDay]
agenda?
14:23:18 [PhilDay]
zakim, take up item 3
14:23:18 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- AG WG comment on WCAG2ICT Review issue -- taken up [from maryjom]
14:23:23 [maryjom]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3185970316
14:23:31 [PhilDay]
2 comments were added
14:24:05 [PhilDay]
1 comment on 1.4.10, and another on 1.4.4
14:24:20 [PhilDay]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3185970316
14:24:26 [PhilDay]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3186015764
14:25:52 [PhilDay]
Text of the comment for ease of reference: For SC 1.4.10 Note 5 - this doesn't seem to align with the updates to the understanding document for SC 1.4.10 which interpret content blocks at 320 rather than the viewport as a whole. For example, a 3 column document could pass even if a document viewer didn't support 320 CSS pixels because each block of
14:25:52 [PhilDay]
text was less than 320 CSS pixels wide.
14:26:22 [maryjom]
NOTE 5 reads: The intent section refers to the ability for content to reflow (for vertical scrolling content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels, or for horizontal scrolling content at a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels) when user agent zooming is used to scale content or when the viewport changes in width. For non-web software, this means
14:26:22 [maryjom]
that when users scale content, adjust the size of a window, dialog, or other resizable content area, or change the screen resolution, the content will reflow without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions; or that the application works with platform features that meet this success criterion.
14:26:43 [bbailey]
Recently refreshed Understanding Reflow: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html
14:28:26 [PhilDay]
Understanding SC 1.4.10 was recently refreshed.
14:28:39 [PhilDay]
Bruce worked on it - there were substantive changes (many of the examples)
14:32:05 [bbailey]
Note 1: 320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport width of 1280 CSS pixels wide at 400% zoom. For web content which is designed to scroll horizontally (e.g., with vertical text), 256 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport height of 1024 CSS pixels at 400% zoom.
14:32:38 [PhilDay]
Current SC 1.4.10 NOTE 5
14:32:38 [PhilDay]
NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS)
14:32:38 [PhilDay]
As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents where the underlying user agent or platform software can present content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content.
14:32:38 [PhilDay]
When the underlying user agent or platform software does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to people with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:32:40 [PhilDay]
Proposed change:
14:32:40 [PhilDay]
NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS)
14:32:40 [PhilDay]
As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents where the underlying user agent or platform software can present blocks of content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content.
14:32:41 [PhilDay]
When the underlying user agent or platform software does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to people with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:33:25 [PhilDay]
https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#reflow
14:33:41 [PhilDay]
Above list is the current editor's draft
14:33:45 [PhilDay]
s/list/link
14:34:34 [PhilDay]
Proposed change:
14:34:34 [PhilDay]
NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS)
14:34:34 [PhilDay]
As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents where the underlying user agent or platform software can present blocks of content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content. The updated understanding document gives
14:34:34 [PhilDay]
examples of how this reflow should work.
14:34:36 [PhilDay]
When the underlying user agent or platform software does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to people with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:36:42 [PhilDay]
Proposed change:
14:36:42 [PhilDay]
NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS)
14:36:42 [PhilDay]
As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents where the underlying user agent or platform software can present content (or blocks of content) at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content. The updated understanding document
14:36:42 [PhilDay]
gives examples of how this reflow should work.
14:36:44 [PhilDay]
When the underlying user agent or platform software does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to people with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:37:43 [PhilDay]
GreggVan: Does not agree that adding blocks of content is helpful - sounds like you only need to reflow a portion of the page
14:37:49 [bbailey]
The phrase "blocks of content" is not used under the intent section: 320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport width of 1280 CSS pixels wide at 400% zoom. For web content which is designed to scroll horizontally (e.g., with vertical text), 256 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport height of 1024 CSS pixels at 400% zoom.
14:38:00 [PhilDay]
... if we do use it, then we will need to define what we mean by it
14:38:11 [bbailey]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html#intent
14:38:40 [bbailey]
s/the intent section: 320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport width of 1280 CSS pixels wide at 400% zoom. For web content which is designed to scroll horizontally (e.g., with vertical text), 256 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport height of 1024 CSS pixels at 400% zoom./the intent section: /
14:38:59 [PhilDay]
Proposal reverting to content, but keeping ref to new understanding:
14:38:59 [PhilDay]
NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS)
14:38:59 [PhilDay]
As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents where the underlying user agent or platform software can present content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content. The updated understanding document gives examples of how
14:38:59 [PhilDay]
this reflow should work.
14:39:01 [PhilDay]
When the underlying user agent or platform software does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to people with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
14:42:20 [PhilDay]
2nd paragraph in NOTE 5 needs to be removed as it is better covered in NOTE 8
14:42:56 [PhilDay]
NEW NOTE 5
14:42:57 [PhilDay]
Revised NOTE 5 removing erroneous 2nd paragraph:
14:42:57 [PhilDay]
NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS)
14:42:57 [PhilDay]
As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents where the underlying user agent or platform software can present content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content. The updated understanding document gives examples of how
14:42:57 [PhilDay]
this reflow should work.
14:43:24 [bbailey]
q+
14:43:48 [PhilDay]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html#content-that-can-benefit-from-two-dimensional-layout-for-meaning-or-functionality
14:43:48 [bbailey]
q+ to agree that middle paragraph note 8 does not belong
14:47:05 [PhilDay]
ack bbailey
14:47:05 [Zakim]
bbailey, you wanted to agree that middle paragraph note 8 does not belong
14:47:06 [maryjom]
ack bbailey
14:47:26 [PhilDay]
Thinks that 2nd paragraph works OK in NOTE 5, but not in NOTE 8
14:47:33 [PhilDay]
q+
14:47:56 [PhilDay]
ack PhilDay
14:48:32 [PhilDay]
PhilDay: Clarify that NOTE 5 is for non-web documents, and NOTE 8 for non-web software - so additional paragraph is needed for both (or removed from both)
14:49:11 [PhilDay]
GreggVan: Thinks it should be removed from both NOTE 5 and NOTE 8
14:51:31 [PhilDay]
Discussion on whether systems that have less than 320 pixels are still a problem...
14:53:40 [PhilDay]
Test
14:53:41 [maryjom]
ejbdccuuklgujrfufnvbcvutiegjbcfurcukiktficfc
14:53:48 [PhilDay]
s/Test/
14:53:53 [maryjom]
s/ejbdccuuklgujrfufnvbcvutiegjbcfurcukiktficfc//
14:54:56 [PhilDay]
Products with very small displays like smartwatches and fitness bands - closed systems, probably out of scope for this, and will wrap / reflow anyway once zoomed
14:56:29 [bailey]
bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:56:39 [PhilDay]
These notes already existed - the only change was to split them out for non-web documents and non-web software
14:57:39 [bailey]
In current wcag2ict: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-1-4-10-reflow-to-non-web-documents-and-software
14:58:11 [PhilDay4]
PhilDay4 has joined #wcag2ict
14:58:22 [PhilDay4]
present+
14:58:30 [PhilDay4]
scribe+ PhilDay4
14:58:43 [PhilDay4]
PhilDay4: Worried about removing these paragraphs.
14:59:15 [PhilDay4]
maryjom: reiterated that the content has not changed, the only thing that changed was to separate the note into 2 separate notes applying to non-web documents and non-web software.
14:59:56 [PhilDay4]
GreggVan: Understands that, but still feels that these notes are not good and need changing (specifically the 2nd paragraph): When the underlying user agent or platform software does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to people with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the
14:59:56 [PhilDay4]
nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.
15:03:13 [bailey]
In November 2024 WCAG2ICT, this appears as not 7
15:03:23 [bailey]
Note 7 is only for software
15:03:41 [bailey]
s/this appears as not 7/this appears as note 7/
15:03:43 [PhilDay4]
Looking through the meeting minutes, reflow was covered in many meetings: https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=wcag2ict&num=3000
15:04:24 [bailey]
q+
15:04:35 [bailey]
Gregg is Note 7 bad here: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#applying-sc-1-4-10-reflow-to-non-web-documents-and-software
15:04:47 [maryjom]
ack bbailey
15:05:05 [PhilDay4]
Bailey: NOTE 7 in 2024 version - had NOTE 7 with this content
15:06:07 [PhilDay4]
GreggVan: thinks that NOTE 7 in Nov 2024 publication was wrong
15:08:25 [PhilDay4]
Discussion about whether the content from the old NOTE 7 should also be applied to non-web documents
15:09:22 [PhilDay4]
NOTE 7 should have only referred to non-web software and therefore should not have split into documents and software.
15:09:38 [PhilDay4]
NOTE 5 for non
15:09:49 [PhilDay4]
NOTE 5 for non-web documents should be removed
15:10:04 [PhilDay4]
NOTE 8 for non-web software should remove the reference to non-web documents
15:10:56 [PhilDay4]
1.4.10. Remove NOTE 5. NOTE 8 to remain.
15:11:35 [PhilDay4]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3185970316
15:11:37 [bailey]
I will try and make a PR after this call
15:12:04 [PhilDay4]
RRSagent, draft minutes
15:12:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay4
15:14:05 [PhilDay4]
zakim, bye
15:14:05 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, bbailey, LauraM
15:14:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:16:51 [maryjom]
present+ GreggVan, maryjom
15:17:08 [maryjom]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:17:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:17:19 [maryjom]
rrsagent, bye
15:17:19 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items