Meeting minutes
Announcements
GreggVan: EN 301 549 - last few changes are in to the latest version.
… Mike P will retire from any standards bodies on January 2026.
Section 12.3 has been removed in the latest draft
… (the contentious part was a requirement to list all the ways that you did not meet - which was overly onerous)
Daniel: If this (12.3) requirement remains deleted - it may come back as there is a requirement in EAA for product information
maryjom: Let's move onto WCAG2ICT
maryjom: Next steps for WCAG2ICT - once we agree these last few minor things.
… TF review the diff file, then call for consensus, then would be sent to Accessibility Guidelines working group to review & then publish
TF will have 5 working days to review, then it will be sent to AG WG
Daniel: TPAC is on 2nd week of Nov, Thanksgiving is on 4th week of Nov, so we may be able to get it published 3rd week of Nov
bbailey: AG WG thinks they will get WCAG3 next version out before the end of the year as well
maryjom: found some extra issues that will be discussed later today
2.4.2 Page Titled
<bbailey> Thank you Phil!
<maryjom> Link to comment: w3c/
Daniel had a comment in the CfC
[maryjom sharing screen - displaying above link]
Last week we discussed page oriented, and removed from this phrase from one part of the verbiage, but it remains in the preamble.
Daniel proposed either a minor edit to remove this phrase, or rewrite to remove the examples entirely
GreggVan: The reason it was included originally was to get us away from movies and pictures. Deleting could be a problem
… If page oriented is not the right term, then we should replace with a better term
Full text from Daniel's comments:
When re-reviewing this for approval I still found an occurrence of "page-oriented", which I assumed we agreed to remove completely from all WCAG2ICT prose.
At a minimum, I would suggest:
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, [...]
And ideally, to make this cohesive with the below word substitution, I would suggest:
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, [...]
<Daniel> We have also "where the document authoring tool or technology provides the capability to supply a title or name for a document"
Problematic sentence from the current PR:
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.
Daniel: 2nd suggestion might have gone too far - so happy to drop this and just suggest we remove "page oriented" as it doesn't really help - we already exclude movies and images.
GreggVan: Just remove the "such as..." phrase
<bbailey> +1 to removing "such as" phrase
Suggested change from Gregg & Daniel:
However, where the document authoring tool or technology provides the capability to supply a title or name for a document, 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.
Latest edit from Gregg: However, where the document authoring tool or technology provides the capability to supply a title or name for a document, and 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.
Gregg: could stay as when.
However, where the document authoring tool or technology provides the capability to supply a title or name for a document, 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.
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC 2.4.2, remove "such as page-oriented publishing tools and word processing applications," from the introductory text, and merge PR 793 into the editor's draft
<Daniel> +1
<Phil_Day> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<bbailey> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Phil_Day> +1
<bbailey> +1
<Daniel> +1
RESOLUTION: For SC 2.4.2, remove "such as page-oriented publishing tools and word processing applications," from the introductory text, and merge PR 793 into the editor's draft
2.4.4 Link Purpose
<maryjom> Link to Issue 790: w3c/
<maryjom> Link to editor’s draft section on 2.4.4 Link Purpose: https://
We talked about this but never documented a decision
<GreggVan> +1
bbailey: Think we talked about it 2 weeks ago
bbailey: My recollection was that we were not going to make changes.
<bbailey> Minutes: https://
GreggVan: Make note "non web documents or software..." instead of the rather ambiguous "content"
… Then remove the tag and it works for both non-web software and non-web documents
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 2.4.4 change "non-web software" to "non-web documents or software" and remove the “for non-web software” notation from Note 1
<Phil_Day> +1
<bbailey> +1
<Daniel> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: For 2.4.4 change "non-web software" to "non-web documents or software" and remove the “for non-web software” notation from Note 1
Issue #527 – Is 3-finger zoom AT?
ISSUE: w3c/
<maryjom> Link to issue 527: w3c/
Lots of discussion on this one in the past, but never documented a decision
Original issue talked about 3-finger zoom, then pinch zoom
Daniel: May warrant input from the mobile task force
maryjom: Suggest we don't close this issue in this version
maryjom: Recollection was that the same problem occurs in WCAG - and therefore it should be fixed in WCAG as you have the same problem in web browsers
GreggVan: Need to ensure that 1 finger fall back is possible, and that pinch is not the only way of achieving zoom
… At least on iPhone - pinch zoom is not the only way of achieving this
GreggVan: There is a problem with the definition of "assistive technology" - a screen reader is AT, but is it still AT if it is built-in? It gets confusing. What we are really talking about is without having to add 3rd party AT
… But this should also be fixed in WCAG
Phil_Day: Suggest we add a note to the issue to say that we are not going to address this in the current draft of WCAG2ICT.
<Zakim> Phil_Day, you wanted to suggest we add something to the issue
GreggVan: Suggest we mention "we are not addressing sufficient techniques, we are talking about the rules"
Daniel: Propose that we transfer this to the WCAG repository.
(WCAG 2.2 backlog)
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Answer issue 527 as drafted in the comment during our meeting
<Phil_Day> +1
<bbailey> +1
<Daniel> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: Answer issue 527 as drafted in the comment during our meeting
Level AAA Criteria
We have 12 minutes left - so will just get started on AAA
This will happen after we publish - proposed changes will be held in PRs
<maryjom> Link to issue 791: w3c/
This is a master issue to track all AAA SCs
… along with the questions to be answered by the TF
This master issue contains links to the individual issues that propose content for each SC
If you agree with the proposal, leave it a thumbs up.
If you think that notes need to be added, don't add thumbs up - just add a comment containing the proposed additional note.
(We may need to do this for closed functionality for example)
Any concerns about this approach?
maryjom: Will try and get all PRs in and completed
… CfC hopefully to be completed by next Thursday
maryjom: Will warn AG WG that this is coming
bbailey: Have been adding WCAG 2.2 issues to the agenda as well.
maryjom: Be on the lookout for the email call for consensus
Thanks all