14:03:39 RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict 14:03:44 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-irc 14:03:44 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:03:45 Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference 14:03:45 zakim, clear agenda 14:03:45 agenda cleared 14:03:50 chair: Mary Jo Mueller 14:04:01 rrsagent, make minutes 14:04:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 14:04:09 agenda+ Announcements 14:04:28 agenda+ Comments for WCAG2Mobile 14:06:47 PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict 14:06:54 present+ 14:06:59 scribe+ PhilDay 14:07:44 zakim, next item 14:07:44 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:08:36 In CfC with AGWG on latest draft. Meant to end on Tuesday 19th at 5pm 14:08:47 Seen mostly +1s of support 14:09:11 present+ 14:09:19 LauraM has joined #wcag2ict 14:09:22 1 comment added to issues from John A to review issue https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750 14:09:23 present+ 14:09:28 https://github.com/mraccess77 14:09:41 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3186015764 14:09:47 s/https://github.com/mraccess77/https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3186015764 14:10:11 No thumbs down to block it - but was concerned about the changes proposed in resize text 14:10:37 Looks like it will go ahead and publish 14:10:54 But we may wish to respond to the comment later in the call 14:12:11 PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict 14:12:18 present+ 14:12:22 scribe+ PhilDay 14:12:44 Daniel & Mike P also aware of some minor editorial changes that were made. 14:12:56 Publication likely to be on 21st August 14:14:00 scribe+ 14:14:12 PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict 14:14:16 present+ 14:14:21 scribe+ PhilDay 14:14:40 q+ to ask about checklist doc 14:14:42 Hope to publish Tuesday/Thursday next week 14:14:48 ack bbailey 14:14:48 bbailey, you wanted to ask about checklist doc 14:14:56 bbailey: Is the checklist document public facing? 14:15:09 ... to list the changes made 14:15:41 ... The document that Mary Jo did to list the changes for Mike to see for EN 14:16:01 So it should be available via ETSI GitLab 14:17:12 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 s/our notes/EN 301 549 notes 14:18:20 We will have 1 week to review the latest draft of EN 14:18:51 We will not have a meeting next week - 21st August 14:19:06 We will resume on 28th August 14:20:10 PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict 14:20:23 present+ 14:20:23 scribe+ PhilDay 14:21:00 regrets: Chris Loiselle 14:21:07 zakim, next item 14:21:07 agendum 2 -- Comments for WCAG2Mobile -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:23:11 agenda+ AG WG comment on WCAG2ICT Review issue 14:23:13 agenda? 14:23:18 zakim, take up item 3 14:23:18 agendum 3 -- AG WG comment on WCAG2ICT Review issue -- taken up [from maryjom] 14:23:23 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3185970316 14:23:31 2 comments were added 14:24:05 1 comment on 1.4.10, and another on 1.4.4 14:24:20 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3185970316 14:24:26 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3186015764 14:25:52 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 text was less than 320 CSS pixels wide. 14:26:22 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 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 Recently refreshed Understanding Reflow: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html 14:28:26 Understanding SC 1.4.10 was recently refreshed. 14:28:39 Bruce worked on it - there were substantive changes (many of the examples) 14:32:05 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 Current SC 1.4.10 NOTE 5 14:32:38 NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS) 14:32:38 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 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 Proposed change: 14:32:40 NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS) 14:32:40 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 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 https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#reflow 14:33:41 Above list is the current editor's draft 14:33:45 s/list/link 14:34:34 Proposed change: 14:34:34 NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS) 14:34:34 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 examples of how this reflow should work. 14:34:36 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 Proposed change: 14:36:42 NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS) 14:36:42 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 gives examples of how this reflow should work. 14:36:44 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 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 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 ... if we do use it, then we will need to define what we mean by it 14:38:11 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html#intent 14:38:40 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 Proposal reverting to content, but keeping ref to new understanding: 14:38:59 NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS) 14:38:59 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 this reflow should work. 14:39:01 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 2nd paragraph in NOTE 5 needs to be removed as it is better covered in NOTE 8 14:42:56 NEW NOTE 5 14:42:57 Revised NOTE 5 removing erroneous 2nd paragraph: 14:42:57 NOTE 5 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS) 14:42:57 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 this reflow should work. 14:43:24 q+ 14:43:48 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html#content-that-can-benefit-from-two-dimensional-layout-for-meaning-or-functionality 14:43:48 q+ to agree that middle paragraph note 8 does not belong 14:47:05 ack bbailey 14:47:05 bbailey, you wanted to agree that middle paragraph note 8 does not belong 14:47:06 ack bbailey 14:47:26 Thinks that 2nd paragraph works OK in NOTE 5, but not in NOTE 8 14:47:33 q+ 14:47:56 ack PhilDay 14:48:32 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 GreggVan: Thinks it should be removed from both NOTE 5 and NOTE 8 14:51:31 Discussion on whether systems that have less than 320 pixels are still a problem... 14:53:40 Test 14:53:41 ejbdccuuklgujrfufnvbcvutiegjbcfurcukiktficfc 14:53:48 s/Test/ 14:53:53 s/ejbdccuuklgujrfufnvbcvutiegjbcfurcukiktficfc// 14:54:56 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 has joined #wcag2ict 14:56:39 These notes already existed - the only change was to split them out for non-web documents and non-web software 14:57:39 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 has joined #wcag2ict 14:58:22 present+ 14:58:30 scribe+ PhilDay4 14:58:43 PhilDay4: Worried about removing these paragraphs. 14:59:15 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 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 nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies. 15:03:13 In November 2024 WCAG2ICT, this appears as not 7 15:03:23 Note 7 is only for software 15:03:41 s/this appears as not 7/this appears as note 7/ 15:03:43 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 q+ 15:04:35 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 ack bbailey 15:05:05 Bailey: NOTE 7 in 2024 version - had NOTE 7 with this content 15:06:07 GreggVan: thinks that NOTE 7 in Nov 2024 publication was wrong 15:08:25 Discussion about whether the content from the old NOTE 7 should also be applied to non-web documents 15:09:22 NOTE 7 should have only referred to non-web software and therefore should not have split into documents and software. 15:09:38 NOTE 5 for non 15:09:49 NOTE 5 for non-web documents should be removed 15:10:04 NOTE 8 for non-web software should remove the reference to non-web documents 15:10:56 1.4.10. Remove NOTE 5. NOTE 8 to remain. 15:11:35 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/750#issuecomment-3185970316 15:11:37 I will try and make a PR after this call 15:12:04 RRSagent, draft minutes 15:12:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay4 15:14:05 zakim, bye 15:14:05 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, bbailey, LauraM 15:14:05 Zakim has left #wcag2ict 15:16:51 present+ GreggVan, maryjom 15:17:08 rrsagent, make minutes 15:17:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom 15:17:19 rrsagent, bye 15:17:19 I see no action items