15:01:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-wcag2ict-irc
15:01:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:01:12 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
15:01:15 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
15:01:16 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:01:16 <Daniel> Daniel has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:29 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller, Phil Day
15:01:39 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:01:48 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
15:01:48 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
15:01:52 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
15:01:55 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:57 <maryjom> agenda+ AG WG WCAG2ICT review comments
15:02:02 <bbailey> present+
15:02:02 <maryjom> agenda+ 1.3.6 Identify Purpose (AAA)
15:02:06 <PhilDay> present+
15:02:07 <maryjom> agenda+ 1.2.8 Media Alternative (AAA)
15:02:09 <loicmn> present+
15:02:13 <Daniel> present+
15:02:16 <maryjom> agenda+ 1.2.9 Audio Only (Live) (AAA)
15:02:22 <maryjom> agenda+ Other Level AAA criteria
15:02:35 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:02:39 <maryjom> present+
15:02:44 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:02:44 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:03:30 <PhilDay> Did start AG WG review of our draft note. They asked for a 2 week review period due to the US holidays
15:03:44 <PhilDay> It will continue until December 2nd 2025
15:03:55 <PhilDay> Keep an eye out for comments on the issue.
15:04:02 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/812
15:04:10 <PhilDay> There are comments from Andrew Kirkpatrick currently
15:04:25 <maryjom> Link to issue 527: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/527
15:04:39 <PhilDay> We answered issue 527 a couple of weeks ago
15:05:01 <PhilDay> There continues to be debate on this issue
15:05:39 <PhilDay> We shall pick this up in 2 weeks time (no call next week)
15:06:14 <PhilDay> Remember. There is no meeting next Thursday. There will be 2 meetings in the first 2 weeks of December, then nothing until January.
15:07:02 <bbailey> +1 to phil
15:07:16 <bbailey> s/+1 to phil//
15:07:37 <PhilDay> First meeting in January will be Thursday 8th January 2026
15:07:59 <PhilDay> Has anyone seen the updated version of EN 301 549?
15:08:49 <PhilDay> There were some changes after v20. Loic can get access to it.
15:08:58 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:08:58 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- AG WG WCAG2ICT review comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:09:17 <PhilDay> First review comment received from Andrew K - on AG WG
15:09:19 <maryjom> Link to Issue 812: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/812
15:09:34 <maryjom> Link to Andrew’s comments: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/812#issuecomment-3549106311
15:10:15 <PhilDay> Comments on audio description SCs (1.2.3, 1.2.5). Suggested a slight edit
15:10:41 <PhilDay> 1.2.3/1.2.5: The current version introduces a new concept "audio-video media" which is undefined. Instead of:
15:10:41 <PhilDay> When audio descriptions are needed, one way to implement them is by providing a second audio track for the audio-video media.
15:10:41 <PhilDay> How about: "When audio descriptions are needed, one way to implement them is by providing a second audio track within the synchronized media." (which is what the SC indicates is the focus of the criteria).
15:11:00 <PhilDay> (first of Andrew's comments)
15:11:36 <PhilDay> [maryjom sharing screen, showing issue 812]
15:11:58 <bbailey> I like all three of AWK edits.
15:12:22 <bbailey> q+
15:12:28 <PhilDay> This first comment makes it match the SC language
15:12:33 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:12:46 <PhilDay> bbailey like the idea - otherwise it implies that you'll have a separate file to do that
15:13:23 <maryjom> POLL: Do you think 1.2.3/1.2.5 should be changed to for is suggested change to use "within the synchronized media"? +1, 0, -1
15:13:29 <loicmn> +1
15:13:31 <PhilDay> +1
15:13:43 <maryjom> s/for/what/
15:13:43 <bbailey> +1 pending double check of "within"
15:13:48 <Daniel> +1
15:14:19 <PhilDay> bbailey: Not sure if "within" is the right adjective. But it is part of the synchronised media
15:14:56 <bbailey> Audio description is provided for all prerecorded video content in synchronized media.
15:14:56 <PhilDay> PhilDay: "as part of the synchronised media"?
15:15:35 <loicmn> I prefer "within"
15:15:43 <bbailey> i'm okay using "within"
15:15:45 <bbailey> +1
15:15:46 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Prefer within.
15:16:02 <PhilDay> Consensus: we will keep "within"
15:16:14 <PhilDay> Next comment from Andrew:
15:16:14 <PhilDay> In Page Titled/2.4.2 the new text refers to a title "attribute". In PDF and in Office documents, the title is a property. I'm not aware of any format apart from HTML/SVG where there is a title attribute, and in these the title that this SC refers to is not delivered via that attribute but via the title element. Suggest removing quotes around
15:16:14 <PhilDay> "Title" everywhere and either using Property instead of attribute.
15:16:31 <bbailey> synchronized media:  audio or video synchronized with another format for presenting information and/or with time-based interactive components...
15:17:23 <bbailey> q+
15:17:27 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:17:28 <PhilDay> Suggestion from Andrew is to use title property instead of "title attribute"
15:17:39 <PhilDay> bbailey: Agree that property is a more generic term than attribute
15:17:57 <maryjom> POLL: Do you think that the text should be changed regarding ‘“Title” property’? 1) Change as Andrew suggests to ‘Title property’, 2) only change ‘attribute’ to ‘property’, 3) only remove quotes from ‘Title’, or 4) leave as-is with no changes.
15:18:24 <PhilDay> 1, then 2, then 4, then 3
15:18:42 <loicmn> 1, then 2
15:18:45 <Daniel> 1
15:18:55 <bbailey> (2) then (1) then (3) then (4)
15:19:05 <bbailey> 1 is fine
15:19:56 <PhilDay> bbailey: Happy to get rid of the quotes - change vote to 1
15:20:17 <PhilDay> 3rd comment from Andrew:
15:20:17 <PhilDay> In Link Purpose/2.4.4 it seems that the TF has expanded the concept of links to all UI controls that behave like links.
15:20:17 <PhilDay> Recommend reverting some of the deleted text and clarifying as follows:
15:20:17 <PhilDay> In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:20:37 <maryjom> Link to Issue 775: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/775
15:20:43 <Daniel> s/(2) then (1)/(1) then (2)/
15:20:47 <PhilDay> We had changed this SC based on input received in issue 775
15:21:01 <PhilDay> As it is sometimes difficult to know what is a link
15:22:00 <PhilDay> Currently in our latest draft we have note 1
15:22:00 <maryjom> Currently in the editor's draft...Note 1: In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link.
15:22:09 <bbailey> Just an FYI, I did a word search through WCAG 2.2 and the word "attribute" only appears in example notes that mention HTML.
15:22:16 <maryjom> In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:26:10 <PhilDay> q+
15:26:18 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:27:06 <loicmn> q+
15:27:10 <maryjom> ack loicmn
15:27:43 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Prefer the shorter version we had before, but understand Andrew's concern about the deletions now meaning that we now include UI controls.
15:28:07 <bbailey> q+ i think we should keep our current wording
15:28:11 <bbailey> q+
15:28:16 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:28:19 <PhilDay> loicmn: Thinks that we should keep our text. A button is not a link - it does not act like one. But think that we are more flexible in our note - it allows for other things
15:29:02 <PhilDay> bbailey: If we include buttons, then we should also include the section about "outside a user control"
15:30:09 <PhilDay> Original text that we had (from start of issue 775):
15:30:09 <PhilDay> Note 1 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:30:09 <PhilDay> In non-web software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface outside a user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:30:48 <PhilDay> Then we made it much shorter in latest editor's draft:
15:30:48 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (ADDED)
15:30:48 <PhilDay> In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link.
15:31:15 <PhilDay> Andrew's proposal is somewhere between the 2:
15:31:15 <PhilDay> Recommend reverting some of the deleted text and clarifying as follows:
15:31:15 <PhilDay> In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:31:56 <Daniel> -> https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html 11 September meeting discussion
15:32:26 <PhilDay> [maryjom now looking through meeting minutes - link from Daniel above shows the discussion]
15:33:50 <PhilDay> bbailey: Andrew's is a bit contradictory - there is no explanation of why OK button is not a link. The original (long) version explained this better
15:34:59 <maryjom> Current editor's draft: In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link.
15:35:35 <maryjom> Andrew's suggested: In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:36:08 <PhilDay> Option 1: our long original
15:36:08 <PhilDay> Note 1 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:36:08 <PhilDay> 15:30 <PhilDay> In non-web software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface outside a user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:36:08 <PhilDay> Option 2: our short current editor's draft
15:36:09 <maryjom> Original text before issue 775: In non-web software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface outside a user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:36:10 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (ADDED)
15:36:10 <PhilDay> In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link.
15:36:10 <PhilDay> Option 3: Andrew's suggestion
15:36:11 <PhilDay> Recommend reverting some of the deleted text and clarifying as follows:
15:36:11 <PhilDay> In non-web documents or software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:36:52 <PhilDay> s/15:30 <PhilDay>//
15:37:24 <maryjom> Poll: which do you prefer? 1) Option 1 - current editor's draft, 2) Option 2 - original pre issue 775, 3) Option 3 - Andrew's edits, or 4) something else.
15:37:32 <loicmn> 2
15:37:37 <loicmn> Sorry 1
15:37:42 <PhilDay> 1, then 2. Not 3. Sorry Andrew!
15:38:07 <bbailey> 1 then 2 then 3
15:38:31 <PhilDay> Consensus: we will leave as is in the editor's draft. This also matches what is in EN 301 549
15:38:59 <bbailey> Previous WCAG2ICT (to 2.0):  In software, a “link” is any text string or image in the user interface outside a user interface control that behaves like a hypertext link. This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.)
15:39:19 <PhilDay> loicmn had to step away - so unable to vote for a few minutes
15:39:29 <Daniel> q+
15:40:05 <PhilDay> Daniel: Guess that Andrew's main concern is whether OK buttons should be included or not. We should comment on this in our reply.
15:40:39 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-20/#navigation-mechanisms-refs
15:40:43 <PhilDay> maryjom: We don't think that an OK button is a link.
15:40:52 <bbailey> q+
15:41:03 <PhilDay> Daniel: Maybe include "An OK button is not a link" in the comment.
15:41:11 <PhilDay> But not add it to the editor's draft
15:41:56 <PhilDay> bbailey: Think this was a deliberate change we made, so we should avoid stepping back.
15:42:22 <PhilDay> However, the latest guidance somewhat reverses what we said in 2013
15:42:24 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: To edit 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 per Andrew's edits, and for 2.4.4, to leave Note 1 as it is in the editor's draft.
15:42:33 <PhilDay> +1
15:42:36 <bbailey> +1
15:44:29 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:44:32 <loicmn> present+
15:44:33 <loicmn> +1
15:44:42 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:44:42 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, PhilDay
15:44:43 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: To edit 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 per Andrew's edits, and for 2.4.4, to leave Note 1 as it is in the editor's draft.
15:44:48 <PhilDay> q?
15:44:54 <maryjom> ack Daniel
15:44:57 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:45:01 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:45:01 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 1.3.6 Identify Purpose (AAA) -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:45:35 <PhilDay> Loic's suggestion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/538#issuecomment-3498868947
15:46:17 <PhilDay> Here is my first proposal. First, the notes to "Applying SC 1.3.6 Identify Purpose to Non-Web Documents and Software":
15:46:17 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (ADDED)
15:46:17 <PhilDay> This success criterion only applies to non-web documents and software that are implemented using markup languages, and that support programmatically exposing the purpose of user interface components, icons and regions.
15:46:17 <PhilDay> NOTE 2 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
15:46:19 <PhilDay> "Content implemented using markup languages" includes parts of software that use markup internally to define a user interface. Examples of markup languages that are used internally to define a software user interface include but are not limited to: HTML (e.g., in Electron applications or iOS application web views), XAML, XML (e.g., in Android
15:46:19 <PhilDay> application layouts), and XUL.
15:46:19 <PhilDay> NOTE 3 (ADDED) (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
15:46:20 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:46:27 <PhilDay> Second, the bullet point in "Problematic for closed":
15:46:27 <PhilDay> 1.3.6 Identify Purpose - Depends upon information in a programmatically determinable form; in the absence of programmatic capabilities, information on the purpose of user interface components, icons and regions need to be specific and be provided to the user in other modalities (e.g. auditory).
15:46:34 <loicmn> q+ to quickly explain approach
15:46:47 <maryjom> ack loicmn
15:46:47 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to quickly explain approach
15:47:26 <PhilDay> loicmn: When I started working on this took previous ideas on markup languages - so it is based on work from other SCs as well
15:47:45 <PhilDay> ... Because 1.3.6 is about content developed using markup languages
15:48:46 <PhilDay> Any comments or concerns?
15:49:05 <PhilDay> Or say if you are not ready to commit
15:49:12 <PhilDay> +1 from me
15:49:35 <bbailey> +1
15:50:31 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6, add the guidance and notes as proposed in issue 1.3.6 by Loic.
15:50:34 <PhilDay> +1
15:50:36 <loicmn> +1
15:50:49 <bbailey> +1
15:50:50 <Daniel> +1
15:50:51 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6, add the guidance and notes as proposed in issue 1.3.6 by Loic.
15:50:56 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:50:56 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- 1.2.8 Media Alternative (AAA) -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:51:40 <PhilDay> maryjom: One quick thing I noticed: how to make things stand out for AAA.
15:51:57 <PhilDay> ... Created a PR to illustrate a slightly new approach to help differentiate AAA issues
15:52:19 <PhilDay> Proposal: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/814
15:52:35 <PhilDay> Either add something to the heading, or notate differently to make them stand out
15:53:19 <PhilDay> Curious to get input on whether we need to help differentiate these?
15:53:26 <Daniel> q+
15:53:30 <maryjom> ack Daniel
15:53:32 <PhilDay> Should heading have (Level AAA) added?
15:53:48 <bbailey> +1 to including "AAA" in headings
15:53:56 <PhilDay> Daniel: We could do this via scripting if needed.
15:54:03 <PhilDay> ... No need to add it manually
15:54:19 <loicmn> +1 to including "AAA" in headings
15:54:23 <PhilDay> maryjom: We do create the heading for Applying SC XXX
15:54:34 <PhilDay> Daniel: was thinking of having it in the main SC heading
15:54:34 <bbailey> I am agnostic about including "Level A" and "Level AA"
15:55:00 <PhilDay> q+ to suggest only adding for the next review cycle, then remove
15:55:18 <bbailey> +1 wrt concern for lengthy ToC
15:55:28 <PhilDay> maryjom: Will add (Levell AAA) and monitor if it makes the ToC too long
15:55:43 <PhilDay> q-
15:55:55 <PhilDay> There were 2 other proposals made - we will pick them up next week.
15:56:12 <PhilDay> s/next week/next meeting (in a fortnight)
15:56:26 <bbailey> fwiw, WCAG 2.2 does NOT include "Level A/AA/AAA" in ToC headings
15:56:52 <PhilDay> If you could review prior to the next meeting - just add comments to the issue
15:57:09 <bbailey> i have not done the work i volunteered for ...
15:57:47 <PhilDay> Next meeting Thursday 4th December
15:58:04 <PhilDay> Then another on December 11th, then break until Thursday January 8th 2026.
15:58:29 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:58:43 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:58:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:58:50 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:59:11 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:59:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bbailey, PhilDay, loicmn, Daniel, maryjom
15:59:13 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:59:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:59:19 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:59:20 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:59:54 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:59:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items