Meeting minutes
<maryjom> https://
<LauraM> Thanks!
Announcements
Note that the W3C calendar showed (erroneously) that the meeting today was cancelled. Daniel is going to look into the issue.
Daniel: I extended the meeting until end of 2026, but the cancellation for last week seems to have been carried forward
maryjom: Already created a new set of meetings for 2026, and let the old set of meetings expire at the end of 2025
Meeting next week, then break, then back from 8th January 2026
bba11y: What is the URL for viewing the version that is going through CfC?
<Daniel> https://
The diff from the August 2025 Group Note publication can be found here: https://
The latest editor's draft can be found here: https://
<maryjom> w3c/
<maryjom> w3c/
Bruce's changes to audio description didn't show up in the latest editor's draft
bba11y: Changes that were proposed are not in the latest editor's draft
<bba11y> Audio descriptions (also called "video descriptions", "descriptive narration", and "described videos") add descriptive information of important visual information needed to understand the video content
Note repeats the words "description" - editorial change. However, it hasn't been picked up.
Daniel: Suggest we just create a new PR for this - and then investigate why these changes didn't get incorporated from PR 810 despite being merged.
<bba11y> "descriptions" is 5x and "information of important visual information" remains.
Daniel to take changes from 810 and ensure they are incorporated - if necessary create a new PR
GreggVan: Would be worth emailing AG WG if we make a change at this stage - just so all know that we have made a minor editorial to pickup a missed merge.
bba11y: There have been other editorial changes since CfC
maryjom: There were 2 editorial changes (based on AWK's input) - these were made and added to the public announcement. We just didn't notice that this change from Bruce hadn't been incorporated.
Discussion about whether to send another email to AG WG since Nov 20th - bba11y suggests we might not need to send a separate email.
Daniel: Nov 20th was a pre-CfC version. CfC version was from this Tuesday - which should have had all the changes, but missed the merge from 810.
GreggVan: Put it out now, so those who have voted know and can change if needed.
ACTION: Daniel to check how this happened, and then implement changes as per 810.
CfC ends this coming Tuesday, after which we hope to publish this coming week before the end of the year
GreggVan: EN 301 549 update - going out. All of the changes that were trying to catchup on missing changes (including 12.3) were turned down. So had to stay as was for JTB version (which had changes missing). Still has the phrase all documentation needs to include a complete list of all the things that don't meet - this is impractical, but it still
remains in the document. This version goes out for country vote by national standards bodies.
<bba11y> That's unfortunate that some of our last minute feedback didn't get incorporated into EN 301 549.
GreggVan: Still has to be accepted by the EC before it is ratified as a harmonised standard. Mike was worried that it might require another round of voting. Mike is retiring soon, and the position for a new rapporteur is open.
<loicmn> EN 301 549 is in CEN, CENELEC and ETSI votes. For CEN/CENELEC (public enquiry) it is national bodies (BSI, DIN, AENOR...) who vote and comment.
GreggVan did talk with EDF on this issue - and suggested that the comment that this phrase should be removed.
<bba11y> I would note that DOJ ADA Title II web rule publishing with clear errors does not seem to be a real world problem.
<Zakim> bba11y, you wanted to note that DOJ ADA Title II web rule publishing with clear errors does not seem to be a real world problem.
<bba11y> (1) DOJ cited to the wrong date-certain version of WCAG 2.1. (2) They made an incoherent tweak the conformance model regarding Conforming Alternative Versions.
bba11y: Note - DOJ ADA Title II web rule publishing with clear errors does not seem to be a real world problem. public comments were received, but ignored.
maryjom: EN 301 549 - nobody is going to report all issues - it's not practical
GreggVan: May do this by adding a link pointing to your public facing statement (e.g. ACR) rather than publishing all non-conformances
<Zakim> LauraM, you wanted to say about upcoming deadline for April 2026 DOJ ADA Title II
<bba11y> Their response (in preamble) to those two raised issues made no sense.
<bba11y> On the plus side, they reference WCAG2ICT directly, so that is a win.
LauraM: DoJ Title II publishing starts to take effect for users with 50,000 plus users in April 2026.
… Starting to be enforced for those with larger user bodies this year, and lower user bodies next year. WCAG 2.1.
Means ADA has updated (WCAG 2.1) whereas Section 508 couldn't change - so reference the old.
Smaller ones - enforcement date April 2027.
1.3.6 Identify Purpose (AAA) - Definition of "region"
<maryjom> w3c/
Last week we approved the content for this SC.
However, maryjom noticed that there is a definition associated with this requirement (def of region)
<maryjom> region
<maryjom> perceivable, programmatically determined section of content
<maryjom> NOTE
<maryjom> In HTML, any area designated with a landmark role would be a region.
GreggVan: Says for example... By having only 1 example and having it as HTML - it's not very helpful.
<bba11y> I agree that 1.3.6 didn't get the careful review it deserved -- because it was AAA.
GreggVan: If we could think of other examples to add, I think it would be helpful. However, the whole concept of a region is rather vague
<maryjom> bruce's comment: w3c/
bba11y: Agree with Gregg - swap out region for section. 1.3.6 is scoped to markup languages so makes it less problematic, but it is important to not use the word region.
maryjom: Suggest WCAG2ICT replace region with section as a word replacement.
bba11y: Because it is restricted to markup languages, don't think we need another example.
Any suggestions on improvements to WCAG3 -open an issue on that.
bba11y will file an issue
User need - have it programmatically determined so AT can refactor the information to be more useful to the user.
<Zakim> bba11y, you wanted to request an IRC action for myself?
<bba11y> May I have an IRC action for myself?
ACTION: bba11y to raise an issue on definition of "region" as referenced in SC 1.3.6 identify purpose
Daniel: Relying on AI to determine things programmatically is rather premature - you can get different results with the same prompt. I would be cautious with this assumption.
GreggVan: WCAG 2.2.1 or 2.3 - they are trying to make normative errata to 2.2 - there is a discussion about making it 2.2.1 or 2.3 - which would not be backwards compatible with other WCAG 2.x
GreggVan: Comment was very soon AI will be doing these things. 2-3 years time should be more reliable.
… But AI needs to be proven to be reliable.
<bba11y> WCAG2-Issues task force has identified at least one Class 3 change, so there is concern for publishing that as just an erratum.
Recap. Proposal is to change the word "regions" to "sections", then need to have a definition for sections.
bba11y: Section is in the glossary
Definition for section also needs work - is not very specific
GreggVan: Anything that we do, we should start by noting that this is restricted to markup languages.
… then say we suggest it is something that is used to visually and programmatically distinct / semantically mark up as a distinct unit of the product (a section)
<maryjom> PR 817: https://
<Zakim> bba11y, you wanted to ask didn't we already flag this for 2.4.10 ?
bba11y thought we had already talked about this for 2.4.10
GreggVan: We are going to have lots of discussions like this - AAA items don't have to be testable as they are not required. They are recommendations only. Then it is OK that is vague - it is just advice.
… We also have to be careful that we don't have people looking at WCAG2ICT and forget that AAA are not requirements.
We should be explicit - these are not testable requirements
<bba11y> +1 to Gregg's point that WCAG2ICT needs strong note wrt AAA in general.
<Zakim> bba11y, you wanted to suggest for now, we just give ourselves an open issue?
This needs to be worked on.
We also need a better way to identify AAA - maybe as a separate section, or in an appendix.
Then we can also add a preamble to that appendix.
<loicmn> +1 to put AAA success criteria in an appendix
maryjom: to come up with a proposal for this AAA appendix
Daniel: it will cause issues for the code, so may need script updates
GreggVan: May be more acceptable to some if a section, not an appendix.
Daniel: It will have an impact. Not comfortable with it in an appendix. They are the same level in WCAG. Maybe in a separate section, but not putting them in an appendix - sounds rather dismissive. Separate sections is acceptable.
<bba11y> Link to editors draft on AAA glossary terms: https://
GreggVan: +1 to Daniel's suggestion of making it a separate section rather than an appendix.
We should quote the preamble from WCAG (that they are not to be used as testable requirements)
<bba11y> I've not put my finger on where WCAG2ICT highlights "for content implemented in markup languages"
If you have any other changes for SC 1.3.6 please add it to the issue
GreggVan: As it's a recommendation, I'm not sure we need to do word substitutions. We will have this sort of challenge with other AAAs.
bba11y: Has volunteered to work on a preamble for AAA
Currently we cannot merge any changes until the CFC is finished.
We will continue with our discussion on AAA next week.
GreggVan: Is there a reason we don't just pick all the easy ones - and put them in a survey so we can clear lots of them before getting into the difficult issues.
maryjom: There were not many "easy" issues unfortunately.
<bba11y> I agree that most "easy wins" were not so easy.
<Zakim> bba11y, you wanted to say that i don't want to be to lean too much on these being AAA
bba11y, still want to give AAA careful consideration. There may be technologies that it cannot apply, but still worth considering each SC