W3C

– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

24 October 2025

Attendees

Present
Daniel, Mike_Pluke, Phil_Day
Regrets
Bruce_Bailey
Chair
Mary Jo Mueller
Scribe
Phil_Day

Meeting minutes

2.4.2 Page Titled

[Mary Jo sharing screen - displaying Google doc on 2.4.2 page titled]

Mike's comments after proposal 2 were regarding proposal 2. He then added longer comments after proposal 3

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFOc8cip3tKbH35XsxwYpZXxycLMhVgblbabg5V4UCY/edit?tab=t.0

Daniel made a comment - instead of using "such as", use "examples of ... include, but are not limited to"

Suggest we use this in page titled and in the orientation PR that was done recently.

We may need to debate whether we limit this to page oriented, then we can decide which examples to use

Question: should we limit page titled to textual or page oriented documents/software only? Or should we have it more general

Mike_Pluke: Wrote comments after Daniel's comments - arguing that we should not restrict the application.

<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that I think that we should not restrict

loicmn

loicmn: Don't think we need textual / page oriented. We agreed to restrict yesterday to things that have a title attribute or a way to edit it within the commonly used tool.

Example: JPG can have a title attribute - and can be done by authors - so why would we restrict it? And an image file will probably fail other accessibility requirements - so we don't need to explicit here.

Mike_Pluke: My comments were on Gregg's example of a folder of photos. The authoring tool - e.g. camera app - doesn't include title - so this type of example would be excluded

maryjom: Content management systems - another example - you often cannot change the filename or title, so again could be excluded as the common authoring tool does not support it.

Mike_Pluke: Think that Gregg's concern on folder of photos was not an issue.

Daniel: Even if you have photos with titles, and some AT can read it out aloud - there is no standardised way of doing this across platforms and systems. So even if we say programmatically determined - this would be excluded as there is no common way of adding the title that is standardised

<maryjom> POLL: Do you agree that we can remove "textual" or "page-oriented" from the text?

<Phil_Day> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Daniel> +1

[Mary Jo editing proposal 3 to remove textual / page oriented]

What about the use of metadata, title attribute, title style?

Do we need the word metadata?

<maryjom> POLL: Can we remove "metadata" and only refer to "Title" attribute?

<Phil_Day> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<loicmn> +1

Daniel also happy with removal of the word metadata

Note - changed primary to common to match the earlier text

Current NOTE

NOTE: The “Title” attribute is specified as "editable through that document format’s common editing tools" so that authors can view and edit the Title without requiring specialized or external metadata utilities. The word “common" is included to exclude specialty tools not usually used for editing particular document types. The phrase

“page oriented” excludes movie, image, sound and other files that qualify as non-web documents but not intended to be covered by this requirement because AT does not generally access and expose title attributes for these document types even if present.

Can we remove the last sentence?

<maryjom> POLL: Can we remove the last sentence of the Note regarding "page oriented" examples?

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<loicmn> +1

<Phil_Day> +1

<Daniel> +1

Mike_Pluke: Will take whatever we have today to add to the EN

Outcome of this can be put into a draft PR - and then Gregg can be invited to give comment - noting that this was the direction taken by the smaller group on Friday in the extra meeting.

maryjom to follow up with Gregg separately to invite input

Proposal 3: Gregg et al variation

- latest edit from today

<maryjom> “Common authoring tools" are the most popular or typical tools used for editing a particular document type.

Daniel: most typical?

<maryjom> “Common authoring tools" are the most typical tools used for editing a particular document type.

“Common authoring tools" are the most readily available tools used for editing a particular document type.

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 programmatically determinable ”Title” attribute, and document titles don't always describe the topic or purpose of the document. File names, as the WCAG 2 Understanding document

allows, also rarely describe the 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 title or name for a document, such as page-oriented publishing tools and word processing applications, when the

non-web document 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 Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2. The following criterion

is recommended as a substitute for the WCAG language:

2.4.2 Non-web Document Titled: Where a non-web document is implemented in a format that provides a programmatically determinable "Title" attribute and is editable using common authoring tools for that document format, the non-web document has a title that describes the name, topic, or purpose.

NOTE: The “Title” attribute is specified as "editable through that document format’s common editing tools" so that authors can view and edit the Title without requiring specialized or external metadata utilities. “Common authoring tools" are the most readily available tools used for editing a particular document type.

Daniel: are we putting in a word substitution - think we should as we say that it applies.

maryjom: There is no web terminology - so what word substitution would we do?

maryjom: We are replacing the whole SC - rather than just substituting words

<Daniel> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#page-titled

Daniel: If we are replacing the whole thing - we should make it clearer
… And we should reword to match WCAG2ICT syntax (e.g. don't start "Where a non-web document", but instead "This applies as written when ...")

maryjom: Pointed to the previous paragraph "This success criterion is problematic to apply ..."

Daniel: There seems to be a bit of disconnect between first paragraph and 2nd.

maryjom: Last sentence: "The following criterion is recommended as a substitute for the WCAG language:"

<Zakim> Phil_Day, you wanted to note a slight change to note

Changed common editing tools to common authoring tools

NOTE: The “Title” attribute is specified as "editable through that document format’s common authoring tools"

<maryjom> POLL: Should we incorporate this guidance on applying 2.4.2 to non-web documents? 1) yes, as-is, 2) yes, with changes, 3) no, more work is needed

1

<loicmn> 1

<Mike_Pluke> 1

Latest version of proposal 3:

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 programmatically determinable ”Title” attribute, and document titles don't always describe the topic or purpose of the document. File names, as the WCAG 2 Understanding document

allows, also rarely describe the 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 title or name for a document, such as page-oriented publishing tools and word processing applications, when the

non-web document 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 Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2. The following criterion

is recommended as a substitute for the WCAG language:

2.4.2 Non-web Document Titled: Where a non-web document is implemented in a format that provides a programmatically determinable "Title" attribute and is editable using common authoring tools for that document format, the non-web document has a title that describes the name, topic, or purpose.

NOTE: The “Title” attribute is specified as "editable through that document format’s common authoring tools" so that authors can view and edit the Title without requiring specialized or external metadata utilities. “Common authoring tools" are the most readily available tools used for editing a particular document type.

<Daniel> 1

Comparing latest non-web document titled vs software

Proposed change for consistency:

2.4.2 Non-web Document Titled: In non-web documents implemented in a format that provides a programmatically determinable "Title" attribute and is editable using common authoring tools for that document format, the non-web document has a title that describes the name, topic, or purpose.

to match non-web software

Now may wish to change the ending of software to match the latest changes for non-web documents (programmatically determinable "Title" attribute ... has a title that describes the name, topic, or purpose.)

2.4.2 Non-web Software Titled: In non-web software implemented on a platform that provides a programmatically determinable “Title” attribute for windows or screens, the non-web software provides titles that describe the name, topic or purpose of each window or screen.

Daniel: change provide to supports

Also change that for non-web documents

Now these are more consistent with each other (documents and software)

Mike_Pluke: Question. Was there a proposal for adding a NOTE for non-web software?
… Don't see a need for additional notes - just wanted to check

maryjom: There was no note for non-web software

[Mary Jo just checking the pull request]

<maryjom> POLL: Do you support the adjustments to the language for non-web software and non-web documents for consistency?

<loicmn> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<Daniel> +1

<Phil_Day> +1

Latest edits :

2.4.2 Non-web Software Titled: In non-web software implemented on a platform that supports “Title” attributes for windows or screens, the non-web software provides titles that describe the name, topic or purpose of each window or screen.

2.4.2 Non-web Document Titled: In non-web documents implemented in a format that supports a programmatically determinable "Title" attribute that is editable using common authoring tools for that document format, the non-web document has a title that describes the name, topic, or purpose.

maryjom: Will create a pull request and send to everyone - will call Gregg to get his input, then do a call for consensus

Well done everyone - we have reached consensus on a difficult SC

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 246 (Wed Oct 1 15:02:24 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/softwaare/software

Succeeded: s/attributes/attribute/

Maybe present: Example, loicmn, maryjom, NOTE, Question

All speakers: Daniel, Example, loicmn, maryjom, Mike_Pluke, NOTE, Question

Active on IRC: Daniel, loicmn, maryjom, Mike_Pluke, Phil_Day