13:11:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:11:17 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-irc
13:11:18 <Zakim> inviting RRSAgent
13:11:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:11:19 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:11:33 <Phil_Day> zakim, clear agenda
13:11:33 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:11:41 <Phil_Day> chair: Phil_Day
13:11:51 <Phil_Day> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:12:03 <Phil_Day> rrsagent, make minutes
13:12:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html Phil_Day
13:12:44 <Phil_Day> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:12:44 <Zakim> ok, Phil_Day
13:12:51 <Phil_Day> agenda+ Announcements
13:12:58 <Phil_Day> agenda+ 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold - PR 794
13:13:05 <Phil_Day> agenda+ 1.3.4 Orientation - PR 780
13:13:12 <Phil_Day> agenda+ 2.4.2 Page Titled - PR 793
13:13:14 <Phil_Day> agenda?
13:31:31 <Phil_Day> present+
13:55:40 <Phil_Day> agenda?
13:56:29 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:05 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:14 <Daniel> present+ Daniel
14:01:11 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:31 <maryjom> present+
14:01:39 <GreggVan> present+
14:01:45 <Mike_Pluke> present+
14:02:41 <Daniel> scribe+
14:02:48 <maryjom> scribe+
14:03:02 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:12 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:03:12 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Phil_Day]
14:03:18 <loicmn> present+
14:03:46 <Daniel> Mike_Pluke: Not much to update really, it's in a frozen state at the moment, only editorial changes
14:03:54 <Daniel> ... List from ETSI and others from GitLab
14:04:04 <Daniel> ... The process for considering other changes is complex
14:04:34 <Daniel> ... By the end of today people are voting no accepting it as-is
14:04:44 <Daniel> ... IF there are further changes there will be another vote
14:06:01 <Daniel> GreggVan: Is any of today's topics more important for you Mike
14:06:36 <Daniel> Mike_Pluke: Page titled is the most controvertial
14:06:45 <maryjom> q?
14:07:02 <Phil_Day> Daniel: Where is the GitLab issue with discussions around page titled?
14:07:20 <Phil_Day> Gregg to add to minutes
14:07:27 <Daniel> GreggVan: I can find the issue and add to minutes
14:07:33 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:07:33 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold - PR 794 -- taken up [from Phil_Day]
14:07:46 <Phil_Day> •	Link to issue 784: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/784
14:07:55 <Phil_Day> •	Link to PR 794: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/794
14:08:07 <GreggVan> \10.2.4.2 in Issue # 685  https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/issues/685
14:08:21 <Phil_Day> <div class="note wcag2ict software">
14:08:21 <Phil_Day> This requirement applies to flashing of content on a screen and flashing of any other type caused by the ICT.</div>
14:08:21 <Phil_Day> <div class="note wcag2ict software">
14:08:21 <Phil_Day> This requirement applies to those visual elements produced by the ICT itself. Content from an external source that is presented through the ICT, is the responsibility of the source. The requirement does not require the ICT to examine or modify such externally supplied content in any way.</div>
14:09:19 <Daniel> q+
14:09:26 <Phil_Day> ack Daniel
14:09:26 <maryjom> ack Daniel
14:09:53 <Phil_Day> Daniel: If we can add more explanatory wording - suggest we mention the use cases as examples
14:10:28 <maryjom> ...the current wording could cause issues in interpretation.
14:10:47 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Catching up on the discussion
14:10:54 <Daniel> GreggVan: I mentioned web because I wanted to talk about the rationale what this is here
14:11:06 <Daniel> ... Same rationale applies if you put it in an email to somebody
14:11:18 <Daniel> ... For players if they play something they don't have control
14:11:34 <Daniel> ... If you sold the player but package it with content, then you are because it's part of your product
14:11:38 <maryjom> q?
14:11:51 <Phil_Day> NOTE 1: <div class="note wcag2ict software">
14:11:52 <Phil_Day> This requirement applies to flashing of content on a screen and flashing of any other type caused by the ICT.</div>
14:12:00 <Daniel> Phil_Day: Let's go with note 1 first that doesn't contain the problematic phrase
14:12:09 <Daniel> ... And then we'll go with note
14:12:14 <Phil_Day> POLL: Should note 1 be added?
14:12:39 <maryjom> +1
14:12:41 <loicmn> +1
14:12:41 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:12:50 <GreggVan> q+
14:12:53 <Phil_Day> ack GreggVan
14:13:11 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: add "both"
14:13:17 <Daniel> Gregg: I'd add the word "both"
14:13:27 <Phil_Day> maryjom: This is the exact language from EN
14:13:27 <Daniel> maryjom: This copy is what is in EN v20
14:13:33 <GreggVan> +1
14:13:46 <BBa11y> BBa11y has joined #wcag2ict
14:13:52 <Daniel> GreggVan: Adding the word both makes it easier to read
14:14:06 <Phil_Day> NOTE 2: <div class="note wcag2ict software">
14:14:06 <Phil_Day> This requirement applies to those visual elements produced by the ICT itself. Content from an external source that is presented through the ICT, is the responsibility of the source. The requirement does not require the ICT to examine or modify such externally supplied content in any way.</div>
14:14:35 <GreggVan> +1
14:14:59 <Daniel> maryjom: Again, exact language than in V20
14:15:01 <Phil_Day> Daniel: Think we need to define what we need by external source
14:15:10 <Phil_Day> ... Adding in examples would help
14:15:11 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:15:33 <Phil_Day> ack Mike_Pluke
14:15:34 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:15:54 <Daniel> Mike_Pluke: All of the EN 301 549 requirmeents apply to the ICT
14:16:23 <Daniel> ... This was motivated by the TV
14:16:58 <GreggVan> q+
14:17:29 <Phil_Day> Daniel: Agree that it is OK in EN, but might need more explanation in WCAG2ICT - we just add more specifics in WCAG2ICT
14:17:39 <Phil_Day> ack GreggVan
14:17:51 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:18:02 <bbailey> present+
14:18:33 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:18:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
14:18:42 <Daniel> GreggVan: Don't understand the question. External to the source is English, meaning is not part of the ICT. That's plain English
14:18:50 <Phil_Day> q?
14:19:34 <Phil_Day> Daniel: Yes - suggest we give an example of "from an external source"
14:20:10 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Problem with adding examples is that they can be taken to be a complete list.
14:20:18 <Daniel> GreggVan: The problem is what we have in the ADA, where if we put exxamples then people may interpret it as those are the only exceptions
14:20:46 <Daniel> ... The web being one of those problematic as the ADA existed from before
14:22:08 <Phil_Day> Daniel: How do you confirm what is external and what is not?
14:22:14 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Still looking for more explanation.
14:22:33 <bbailey> a third-part auditor could not tell internal from external
14:22:36 <Phil_Day> An example of an external source could include 3rd party content that is viewed using ICT (such as video player software on a smart TV). The creators of the ICT itself have no authoring authority or ownership of this content which is wholly controlled/created by the 3rd party.
14:23:20 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
14:23:42 <maryjom> q+
14:23:57 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Still worried that this makes it too specific - the explanatory text could then be used in future complaints.
14:24:03 <Daniel> GreggVan: That language would show up in court becaue it would mean that is what external source means according to the WCAG2ICT That's my concern
14:24:11 <bbailey> so drop the clarification of the example?
14:24:49 <Daniel> ... Putting it down below, instead of putting it in the note, would be fine
14:24:52 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Suggest we could just put the first part - the example
14:25:03 <Phil_Day> ack maryjom
14:25:18 <maryjom> Example: An example of "content from an external source" might include third-party content that is not incorporated or shipped with the ICT. In such cases, the creators of the ICT have no ownership of the content.
14:25:27 <Daniel> maryjom: I wrote up a potential exxample language
14:25:34 <bbailey> I agree that "The creators of the ICT itself have no authoring authority or ownership of this content which is wholly controlled/created by the 3rd party" needs more due consideration.
14:25:45 <GreggVan> q+
14:25:48 <bbailey> q+
14:26:00 <Phil_Day> ack GreggVan
14:26:02 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:26:12 <Daniel> GreggVan: That's not quite an example, that sounds like a definition
14:26:15 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: That's more a definition rather than an example.
14:26:33 <Daniel> ... an example would be televission shows received by the TV or @@@ media players
14:26:38 <bbailey> q-
14:26:42 <Daniel> ... This would imply that ownership is the key
14:27:01 <Daniel> ... If I contract to have a movie as part of my product and I say I don't own the movie, therefore i don't have to do it
14:27:44 <Phil_Day> q?
14:27:52 <Daniel> q+
14:28:00 <maryjom> ack Daniel
14:28:00 <Phil_Day> ack Daniel
14:28:01 <bbailey> +1 to either example, -1 for rational as to why example is an example (i.e., +1 to gregg points)
14:28:19 <Phil_Day> Daniel: May be better to not have it in the note - just add as an example below
14:28:19 <bbailey> q+
14:28:25 <Phil_Day> ack bbailey
14:28:25 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:28:28 <GreggVan> q+
14:28:35 <Daniel> bbailey: I think we have to qualify the example, and it's not a good eample
14:28:42 <Daniel> Phil_Day: Do you have a suggestion?
14:28:49 <Daniel> bbailey: I'd drop the second sentence?
14:28:52 <Phil_Day> q?
14:28:57 <Phil_Day> ack GreggVan
14:29:16 <Daniel> GreggVan: If we add examples that'd be fine.
14:29:40 <GreggVan> Examples include TVs playing broadcast programs and media players that are playing content provided by the user.
14:29:43 <Daniel> ... Examples include TVs playing broadcast programs, and players that are playing content provided by the user
14:30:25 <Phil_Day> Daniel: That would work
14:30:38 <Phil_Day> NOTE 2: <div class="note wcag2ict software">
14:30:38 <Phil_Day> This requirement applies to those visual elements produced by the ICT itself. Content from an external source that is presented through the ICT, is the responsibility of the source. The requirement does not require the ICT to examine or modify such externally supplied content in any way.
14:30:38 <Phil_Day> </div>
14:31:00 <Phil_Day> EXAMPLE:
14:31:00 <Phil_Day> Examples include TVs playing broadcast programs and media players that are playing content provided by the user.
14:31:28 <Phil_Day> POLL: Should note 2 be added as is, with an additional example beneath?
14:31:33 <loicmn> +1
14:31:38 <GreggVan> +1 to note with example
14:31:38 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:31:42 <maryjom> +1
14:31:46 <bbailey> s/drop the second sentence?/drop the second sentence of the example.  If it's a good example, it would not need the qualification./
14:31:48 <bbailey> +1
14:32:08 <Phil_Day> The example should be separate to the note
14:32:39 <Daniel> +1 to note with example
14:32:47 <Phil_Day> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 2.3.1, incorporate the two new notes in PR 784, with edits noted in the meeting minutes
14:33:03 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:33:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
14:33:11 <Phil_Day> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 2.3.1, incorporate the two new notes and 1 new example in PR 784, with edits noted in the meeting minutes
14:33:23 <loicmn> +1
14:33:24 <maryjom> +1
14:33:27 <bbailey> +1
14:33:27 <GreggVan> +1
14:33:27 <Daniel> +1
14:33:27 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:33:35 <Phil_Day> RESOLUTION: For 2.3.1, incorporate the two new notes and 1 new example in PR 784, with edits noted in the meeting minutes
14:33:39 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:33:39 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 1.3.4 Orientation - PR 780 -- taken up [from Phil_Day]
14:34:08 <Phil_Day> <div class="note wcag2ict">
14:34:08 <Phil_Day> Content that is only used on hardware with a fixed display orientation or that has no sensor to detect or change the orientation is covered under the essential exception and does not need to provide support for orientation changes.</div>
14:34:12 <Phil_Day> This is the note that is being removed
14:34:17 <bbailey> s/I think we have to qualify the example, and it's not a good eample/I think that if we have to qualify the example, then it's not a good example./
14:34:56 <Phil_Day> A non-web document that is only used on hardware that supports a single display orientation, or is only displayed on hardware that is physically fixed in one orientation (e.g. a digital building directory) is excluded by the precondition and therefore does not need to provide support for orientation changes.</div>
14:35:05 <Phil_Day> Above is the modified note
14:35:24 <Daniel> See also -> PR 790 https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/790
14:35:24 <Daniel> -> Rich Diff between these two PRshttps://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-780--wcag2ict.netlify.app%2F%23orientation&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-799--wcag2ict.netlify.app#orientation
14:37:04 <Daniel> -> Rich Diff between these two PRs https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-780--wcag2ict.netlify.app%2F%23orientation&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-799--wcag2ict.netlify.app#orientation
14:37:05 <Phil_Day> Daniel's alternative:
14:37:05 <Phil_Day> ###### Applying SC 1.3.4 Orientation to Non-Web Documents
14:37:05 <Phil_Day> This applies directly as written, and as described in [Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.4](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/orientation#intent), when the non-web document is displayed on hardware that is designed to be reoriented in typical use.
14:37:05 <Phil_Day> <div class="example wcag2ict documents">
14:37:07 <Phil_Day> A non-web document that is only used on hardware that supports a single display orientation, or is only displayed on hardware that is physically fixed in one orientation (e.g. a digital building directory) would not be displayed on hardware that is designed to be reoriented in typical use and therefore would not need to provide support for
14:37:07 <Phil_Day> orientation changes.</div>
14:37:36 <maryjom> q+
14:38:12 <Phil_Day> Daniel: If we just copy & paste, we don't follow our own style. Coming back to what we had which is consistent with WCAG2ICT
14:38:14 <bbailey> s/I'd drop the second sentence of the example [the sentence giving a rational as to why the example qualifies].
14:38:22 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:38:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
14:38:31 <maryjom> q?
14:38:44 <Phil_Day> Daniel: we don't have precondition in WCAG2ICT
14:38:49 <GreggVan> q+
14:39:30 <Phil_Day> Daniel: Make it consistent with WCAG2ICT & don't introduce new terms
14:39:33 <Phil_Day> ack maryjom
14:40:03 <Phil_Day> q?
14:40:10 <Daniel> maryjom: +1 to what Daniel just said. He suggested then changes to the example that incorporated what we intended
14:40:17 <GreggVan> q+ to say    replace   "precondition" with  "a limiting conditions (e.g. if x then ....)   that ...
14:40:43 <Daniel> ... We wanted to get rid about "has no sensor", but then we adjusted the language further
14:41:08 <Phil_Day> ack GreggVan
14:41:08 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    replace   "precondition" with  "a limiting conditions (e.g. if x then ....)   that ...
14:41:11 <Daniel> ... Where the known application of the document is it'll never be viewed in multiple orientations. And I think it's pretty well explained in this edited one
14:41:11 <GreggVan> q+ to say    replace   "precondition" with  "a limiting conditions (e.g. if x then ....)   that ...  so it reads      "if a limiting
14:41:27 <Daniel> GreggVan: Precondition comes out of nowhere in this document.
14:41:54 <Daniel> ... We could put the wording from EN at the end
14:42:32 <Daniel> ... In WCAG we have "for this"... Eliminating condition at the front of the provision
14:42:34 <Daniel> q+
14:42:34 <bbailey> s/I'd drop the second sentence of the example. If it's a good example, it would not need the qualification./I'd drop the second sentence of the example, the rational as to why the example IS an example./
14:42:41 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:42:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
14:42:48 <Phil_Day> q?
14:42:51 <Phil_Day> ack GreggVan
14:42:51 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    replace   "precondition" with  "a limiting conditions (e.g. if x then ....)   that ...  so it reads      "if a limiting
14:42:56 <Phil_Day> ack Daniel
14:43:16 <bbailey> +1 for avoiding the word "precondition" in wcag2ict
14:43:18 <GreggVan> q+
14:43:29 <Phil_Day> Daniel: we usually have applies as written, or problematic to apply.
14:43:29 <Phil_Day> I would be comfortable having something like "this applies as written when..."
14:43:32 <Phil_Day> ack GreggVan
14:43:51 <Daniel> GreggVan: I'd suggest we move to the last one
14:43:56 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Would like to propose new text
14:44:33 <Phil_Day> Proposal 1: original 780:
14:44:33 <Phil_Day> A non-web document that is only used on hardware that supports a single display orientation, or is only displayed on hardware that is physically fixed in one orientation (e.g. a digital building directory) is excluded by the precondition and therefore does not need to provide support for orientation changes.</div>
14:45:14 <Phil_Day> Proposal 2: Daniel's modification with Mary Jo's modifications
14:45:14 <Phil_Day> ###### Applying SC 1.3.4 Orientation to Non-Web Software
14:45:14 <Phil_Day> This applies directly as written, and as described in [Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.4](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/orientation#intent), when the non-web software is displayed on hardware that is designed to be reoriented in typical use.
14:45:14 <Phil_Day> <div class="note wcag2ict software">
14:45:16 <Phil_Day> Non-web software that is only used on hardware that supports a single display orientation, or when the software is an application that is displayed only on hardware that is physically fixed in one orientation (e.g. a digital building directory) would not be displayed on hardware that is designed to be reoriented in typical use and therefore would
14:45:16 <Phil_Day> not need to provide support for orientation changes.</div>
14:45:19 <bbailey> s/If it's a good example, it would not need the qualification.//
14:45:25 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:45:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
14:45:58 <Phil_Day> POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) The current PR 780, as-is, 2) PR 780 with Daniel’s proposed changes, or 3) something else.
14:46:17 <GreggVan> 3
14:46:26 <Daniel> 2
14:46:36 <GreggVan> 3  because option 2 is missing critical words
14:46:37 <maryjom> Is this 780 or 799?
14:47:09 <Daniel> GreggVan: EN is saying A but also B. In 79 writing B is thrown away
14:47:14 <bbailey> 2
14:47:29 <Phil_Day> POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) The current PR 780, as-is, 2) PR 799 with Daniel & Mary Jo's changes, or 3) something else
14:48:30 <Phil_Day> From 799 (Daniels) - documents
14:48:30 <Phil_Day> ###### Applying SC 1.3.4 Orientation to Non-Web Documents
14:48:30 <Phil_Day> This applies directly as written, and as described in [Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.4](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/orientation#intent), when the non-web document is displayed on hardware that is designed to be reoriented in typical use.
14:48:30 <Phil_Day> <div class="example wcag2ict documents">
14:48:32 <Phil_Day> A non-web document that is only used on hardware that supports a single display orientation, or is only displayed on hardware that is physically fixed in one orientation (e.g. a digital building directory) would not be displayed on hardware that is designed to be reoriented in typical use and therefore would not need to provide support for
14:48:32 <Phil_Day> orientation changes.</div>
14:48:51 <Phil_Day> q?
14:49:13 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Need to do word substitution - instead of applying as written when something else is true
14:49:45 <bbailey> s|s/I'd drop the second sentence of the example. If it's a good example, it would not need the qualification./I'd drop the second sentence of the example, the rational as to why the example IS an example./||
14:49:50 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:49:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
14:50:36 <Phil_Day> q?
14:51:03 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: working on an alternative wording to add word substitution
14:53:00 <bbailey> my apologies, as I have tried to make minor correction the minutes in one spot, I have only progressively junked them up.  I will stop now.
14:53:33 <bbailey> +1 to moving on
14:53:36 <Phil_Day> Phil_Day: Will need to do this offline
14:53:40 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
14:53:40 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- 2.4.2 Page Titled - PR 793 -- taken up [from Phil_Day]
14:54:02 <Phil_Day> •	Link to issue 627: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/627
14:54:02 <Phil_Day> •	PR 793: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/793
14:54:26 <Phil_Day> Proposal 1: Daniel’s original (9 Oct)
14:54:26 <Phil_Day> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/793#discussion_r2416540605 (red text)
14:54:26 <Phil_Day> ###### Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents
14:54:26 <Phil_Day> This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web documents through simple word substitution because not all document formats provide support for a title attribute, and document titles don't always describe the topic or purpose of the document. File names, as the WCAG 2.2 Understanding document allows, also rarely describe the
14:54:28 <Phil_Day> topic or purpose of the document – especially where the document names are not under the author’s control. However, where the document authoring tool or technology provides the capability to supply a semantic title style or name for a document, when the non-web document utilizes that feature to provide a unique title or name inside of each
14:54:28 <Phil_Day> document, and/or when a meaningful file name can be supplied, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the WCAG 2.2 Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2.
14:54:33 <bbailey> scribe+
14:54:37 <Phil_Day> Proposal 2: Daniel’s modification (3 days ago)
14:54:37 <Phil_Day> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/793#discussion_r2416540605 (green text)
14:54:37 <Phil_Day> ###### Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents
14:54:37 <Phil_Day> This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web documents through simple word substitution because not all document formats provide support for a semantic title style, and document titles don't always describe the topic or purpose of the document. File names, as the WCAG 2.2 Understanding document allows, also rarely describe the
14:54:39 <Phil_Day> topic or purpose of the document – especially where the document names are not under the author’s control. However, where the document authoring tool or technology provides the capability to supply a semantic title style or name for a document, when the non-web document utilizes that feature to provide a unique title or name inside of each
14:54:39 <Phil_Day> document, and/or when a meaningful file name can be supplied, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the WCAG 2.2 Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2. The following criterion is recommended as a substitute for the WCAG language:
14:54:39 <Phil_Day> **2.4.2 Non-web Document Titled:** In non-web documents created using an authoring tool that supports semantic title styles for documents, titles are provided that describe the topic or purpose of the non-web document.
14:54:58 <Phil_Day> Proposal 3: Gregg/Mike/Mary Jo
14:54:58 <Phil_Day> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/793/files
14:54:58 <Phil_Day> ##### page-titled
14:54:58 <Phil_Day> ###### Applying SC 2.4.2 Page Titled to Non-Web Documents
14:54:59 <Phil_Day> This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web documents through simple word substitution because not all document formats provide support for a semantic title style, and document titles don't always describe the topic or purpose of the document. File names, as the WCAG 2.2 Understanding document allows, also rarely describe the
14:54:59 <Phil_Day> topic or purpose of the document – especially where the document names are not under the author’s control. However, where the document authoring tool or technology provides the capability to supply a semantic title style or name for a document, such as page-oriented publishing tools and word processing applications, when the non-web document
14:54:59 <Phil_Day> utilizes the title attribute to provide a unique title or name inside of each document, and/or when a meaningful file name can be supplied, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the WCAG 2.2 Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2. The following criterion is recommended
14:55:00 <Phil_Day> as a substitute for the WCAG language:
14:55:00 <Phil_Day> **2.4.2 Non-web Document Titled:**  Where a non-web document is page-oriented and is implemented in a format that provides a "Title" metadata attribute which is editable using the primary authoring tools for that document format, the non-web document has a title that describes the topic or purpose.
14:55:00 <Phil_Day> <div class="note wcag2ict documents">
14:55:02 <bbailey> Phil_Day:  my notes in google doc which i cannot screen share, so copy paste to IRC.
14:56:03 <bbailey> Phil_Day we have three proposals in pull request with some discussion resulting in proposal three
14:56:33 <bbailey> scribe-
14:57:06 <bbailey> scribe+
14:57:10 <Phil_Day> POLL: Does anyone have any objections to proposal 3. Please vote -1 for an objection
14:57:32 <bbailey> Gregg:  So we can work from Proposal 3.
14:57:55 <Phil_Day> Daniel: "page oriented publishing tools" - what does that have to do with page titled?
14:57:56 <bbailey> Phil_Day:  Yes [screen sharing]
14:58:19 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: something that has pages (unlike movies)
14:58:36 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:59:14 <Phil_Day> q?
14:59:23 <bbailey> scribe-
14:59:40 <Phil_Day> ack Mike_Pluke
15:00:29 <bbailey> +1 for proposal 3 except that, consistent with Gregg's comment, "PRIMARY authoring tool" is too narrow.
15:00:29 <Phil_Day> Mike_Pluke: Page oriented - often has a title that can be used by screen readers - just eliminates graphics files, movie files (which also have title attributes)
15:00:36 <maryjom> q?
15:01:29 <Phil_Day> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/793/commits/8fae33602a197b17a0efd75b0b1ee104fb193683 - link to proposal 3
15:01:29 <bbailey> scribe+
15:01:42 <Phil_Day> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/793/commits/cf401db3519fe7201f9a941f56585548d7bd134c - with added Daniel's editorial change
15:02:20 <bbailey> Daniel:  Where is this phrasing formulation from?
15:02:41 <bbailey> Phil_Day: [pasted ink in irc]
15:02:47 <bbailey> scribe-
15:02:50 <maryjom> s/ink/link/
15:03:58 <Phil_Day> Daniel: When using screen reader - when browsing movies - you do hear the title - the name
15:04:08 <bbailey> q+
15:04:13 <Phil_Day> GreggVan: Name may tell you the title - but not necessarily the purpose of the movie
15:04:18 <maryjom> q?
15:04:46 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
15:04:59 <Phil_Day> ack bbailey
15:05:19 <Phil_Day> bbailey: Don't want to revisit the conversation on authoring names -
15:05:21 <Daniel> bbailey: Name an author give to something qualify is meeting 2.4.2
15:05:22 <Phil_Day> ack Mike_Pluke
15:05:55 <Daniel> Mike_Pluke: If the movie has a title attribute associated then it coudl describe it
15:06:04 <Phil_Day> Mike_Pluke: May be talking about 2 different things - if movie has a title attribute - it may be different to the filename
15:06:09 <Daniel> ... If the sccreeen readesr can read out, should we then limit this to page-oriented?
15:06:26 <Daniel> q+
15:06:34 <Phil_Day> q?
15:06:39 <bbailey> q+
15:06:44 <Phil_Day> q?
15:06:49 <Daniel> GreggVan: If wee require that the title describe topic or purpose we cannot say name is the title
15:06:54 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:06:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html bbailey
15:07:01 <Phil_Day> ack Daniel
15:07:17 <Phil_Day> Daniel - cannot find proposal 3
15:07:36 <Phil_Day> maryjom: The text is in the PR for proposal 3.
15:08:01 <bbailey> s/sccreeen readesr/screen readers/
15:08:08 <Phil_Day> ... It should have been a separate branch, but the text in the PR now includes.
15:08:13 <Phil_Day> maryjom will create Google doc
15:08:19 <Phil_Day> q?
15:08:22 <bbailey> s/wee require/we require/
15:08:32 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:08:32 <Phil_Day> ack bbailey
15:08:49 <Phil_Day> bbailey: Understand your point, but disagree - we've had this conversation many times
15:09:12 <Daniel> q+
15:09:49 <Daniel> q-
15:09:50 <Phil_Day> q?
15:11:59 <Phil_Day> rrsagent, make minutes
15:12:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html Phil_Day
15:12:18 <bbailey> Gregg, I think I may have said I think everybody that disagrees with you understands your point about it being contradictory
15:12:56 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:12:59 <Phil_Day> Zakim, end meeting
15:12:59 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Daniel, PhilDay, loicmn, bbailey, Mike_Pluke, maryjom, Phil_Day, GreggVan
15:13:02 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:13:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:13:09 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Phil_Day; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:13:10 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:13:28 <Phil_Day> o	rrsagent, bye
15:13:35 <Phil_Day> rrsagent, bye
15:13:35 <RRSAgent> I see no action items