14:59:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:59:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-wcag2ict-irc
14:59:44 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:59:45 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:59:48 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:59:48 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:59:55 <maryjom> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller
15:00:10 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:14 <maryjom> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html maryjom
15:00:24 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:00:24 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
15:00:24 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
15:00:32 <maryjom> agenda+ Announcements
15:00:40 <maryjom> agenda+ Survey Results for Level AAA SCs
15:01:04 <loicmn> present+
15:01:10 <PhilDay> present+
15:01:28 <LauraM> present+
15:01:35 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:04 <PhilDay> agenda?
15:03:11 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:03:11 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:03:35 <bbailey7> bbailey7 has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:43 <bbailey7> present+
15:04:00 <PhilDay> maryjom: AG WG still working on charter.
15:04:33 <PhilDay> Most were informative, colour contrast might be normative
15:05:00 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Flash & seizure - discussion at last AG WG. Flashing is a bigger issue than just for people who have seizures.
15:05:39 <PhilDay> ... Also with higher contrast HDR - you can create a very bright flash which is even more problematic.
15:05:55 <PhilDay> Just a single flash could cause issues
15:06:21 <bbailey7> q+ to mention possible AG misunderstanding of WCAG2ICT work
15:06:28 <PhilDay> Also another option for another module could be multi-media
15:06:57 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Flashing can occur in an interface - can be more subtle and still cause problems.
15:07:04 <PhilDay> q?
15:07:15 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:07:15 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to mention possible AG misunderstanding of WCAG2ICT work
15:07:41 <PhilDay> bbailey7: Wanted to mention on recent Tuesday call - asked if WCAG2ICT was working on WCAG 2.3 - there was some confusion
15:08:05 <PhilDay> maryjom: Charter is not clear - doesn't say exactly what WCAG2ICT are doing this time - language was the same
15:09:08 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Assuming WCAG3 will apply more broadly than web. When there is a WCAG3 - it will try and keep in mind lessons from WCAG2ICT, but there will probably still need to be WCAG3ICT.
15:09:18 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:09:18 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey Results for Level AAA SCs -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:09:37 <maryjom> present+
15:09:37 <PhilDay> Survey on level AAA: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/LevelAAA-group1/
15:09:46 <PhilDay> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/LevelAAA-group1/results
15:09:50 <GreggVan> present+
15:10:01 <bbailey7> +1 that wcag2ict work has significantly informed wcag2-issues TF and WCAG3 development
15:10:11 <maryjom> TOPIC: Updated PR for adding AAA criteria
15:10:19 <PhilDay> maryjom: Just recap on last week. Mary Jo created the PRs as discussed last week.
15:10:38 <maryjom> Link to PR 827: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/827
15:10:40 <GreggVan> q+
15:10:52 <PhilDay> First one was for adding PR for adding AAA criteria
15:11:07 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:11:16 <PhilDay> GreggVan: clarifying what the PR included.
15:11:25 <maryjom> https://deploy-preview-827--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#comments-on-requirements-by-guideline-and-success-criterion
15:11:43 <PhilDay> maryjom: We decided on proposal 3 - separate section, but links in the main section to keep the context
15:12:13 <PhilDay> maryjom: Did change the title of the Comments by Guideline & SC. Now Comments on Requirements by Guideline & SC.
15:12:42 <bbailey7> thank you for filling out more AAA material -- that makes it much easier to understand implication of the direction we're going
15:13:07 <PhilDay> If you don't like the heading names, please raise it today so we can discuss
15:13:37 <PhilDay> [maryjom sharing screen - displaying PR 827 netlify preview]
15:14:49 <PhilDay> Have included (level AAA) in the heading as it is not included in the text
15:15:56 <bbailey7> q+ that heading should be *comments* on, not *recommendations* for ?
15:16:03 <PhilDay> Currently have included the titles for the structure (e.g. guidelines) to give context for each AAA criteria
15:16:23 <PhilDay> ack bbailey7
15:16:35 <PhilDay> bbailey7: Thought the heading name was to be comments on, not recommendations for
15:16:40 <GreggVan> q+
15:16:40 <PhilDay> q+
15:16:42 <maryjom> ack bailey
15:16:47 <maryjom> q?
15:16:55 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:17:04 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Is it going to be this spaced out in the final - there is a lot of white space?
15:17:18 <PhilDay> maryjom: This is driven by the W3C template.
15:17:32 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:18:34 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Thought we should call AAA section "Comments on recommendations ...." to keep consistency
15:18:47 <PhilDay> maryjom: Or we could do "Comments on AAA"
15:19:10 <PhilDay> GreggVan: What if top one says "Comments on A and AA" and bottom is "Comments on AAA"
15:19:12 <PhilDay> q+
15:20:36 <maryjom> q?
15:20:40 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:21:02 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Or could have "Comments on Requirements"
15:21:18 <PhilDay> maryjom: Since original ICT we had Comments by Guideline & SC
15:22:12 <bbailey7> q+ to say its awkward because the whole document is a recommendation
15:22:29 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:22:29 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say its awkward because the whole document is a recommendation
15:23:17 <PhilDay> bbailey7: Uncomfortable with recommendation in the heading - as WCAG2ICT is just a recommendation.
15:23:17 <PhilDay> We can refer to A & AA as requirements, AAA as recommendations.
15:23:17 <PhilDay> Think it should be comments on level AAA
15:23:30 <PhilDay> bbailey7: Just don't like "recommendation" in heading for AAA
15:23:58 <PhilDay> maryjom: Also W3C has a specific meaning for recommendation so we should avoid overloading that word.
15:24:23 <PhilDay> Consensus: Comments on level A & AA SC / Comments on Level AAA SC.
15:24:47 <bbailey7> q+
15:25:05 <maryjom> ack bbailey
15:25:09 <PhilDay> bbailey7: Likes having the heading be the same as the previous publication.
15:25:29 <PhilDay> q+ to ask if previous publication covered AAA
15:26:24 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Suggest we go with a first pass of title into the document and then move on to cover content
15:26:27 <PhilDay> q-
15:27:02 <PhilDay> There is another PR - covering how AAA appears in closed
15:27:22 <PhilDay> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/828
15:27:44 <maryjom> Sc problematic for closed: https://deploy-preview-828--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#success-criteria-problematic-for-closed-functionality
15:28:20 <PhilDay> [maryjom sharing screen to show SC problematic for closed with new AAA placeholder content]
15:29:18 <PhilDay> It might help to have a sub-heading - to call out level A & AA. Then AAA is more consistent
15:29:26 <PhilDay> And easier to navigate between the 2 sub-sections
15:29:34 <PhilDay> Introductory text has been proposed as well
15:29:55 <maryjom> q?
15:30:56 <PhilDay> bbailey7: Think "this is especially true for non-web content" in the preamble. Language needs to be tweaked to make it strong enough - AAA in non-web - likely to not work. Closed is even worse
15:31:23 <PhilDay> GreggVan: True for systems without a user agent. Especially true for closed systems
15:32:15 <PhilDay> GreggVan: assistive technology, browser, and/or platform support
15:32:29 <PhilDay> or mention that platform support includes browsers
15:32:50 <PhilDay> maryjom: Will add a sub-heading for level A & AA to make navigation easier
15:33:04 <PhilDay> +1 for sub-heading
15:33:24 <PhilDay> Then will put this out for survey so we can modify on language if we need
15:33:40 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:33:48 <loicmn> present+
15:33:50 <maryjom> TOPIC: 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) (Level AAA)
15:33:56 <maryjom> •	Link to question 4: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/LevelAAA-group1/results/#xq4
15:34:06 <maryjom> Link to issue 532: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/532
15:34:26 <PhilDay> 2 proposals for this - that were in the Google doc
15:34:37 <maryjom> Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DZvxp9qYCv0QyEtcdiLQk6BX9aA5Rw553R6Wim8DkYs/edit?usp=sharing
15:35:26 <PhilDay> 2 people preferred proposal 2, 1 preferred proposal 1. Gregg had some suggested chagnes
15:36:03 <PhilDay> GreggVan: edited his note - modify "on the planet" to "worldwide"
15:36:23 <PhilDay> ... It will also go away with automated sign language
15:37:22 <PhilDay> If you need a 'sign language reader' then it should be a similar thought process to how we handle other AT (like screen readers).
15:37:42 <maryjom> Gregg's proposed Note 1: Note 1 (Added)
15:37:42 <maryjom> With current technologies, providing sign language for all synchronized media is a labor-intensive and there are not enough sign language interpreters worldwide to handle content generated in a single day making it technically impossible to require for all content. Developing technologies will fairly soon allow translation from text or speech to
15:37:42 <maryjom> sign language directly - at which time those who want sign language could use such a translator like people who are blind use a screen reader which they select or is built into platforms they use to view web content. However until the latter occurs, providing sign language interpretations is immensely helpful for native sign language users
15:37:42 <maryjom> especially for any public service content.
15:37:57 <maryjom> q?
15:38:24 <PhilDay> Gregg's comments were to replace the notes in proposal 2
15:38:55 <PhilDay> costly is not a good reason for putting something in AAA, so we need to change this langauge
15:39:04 <PhilDay> s/langauge/language
15:39:36 <LauraM> q+
15:40:12 <PhilDay> maryjom: May not be feasible due to lack of sign language interpreters or some other practical considerations
15:40:15 <maryjom> ack LauraM
15:40:15 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
15:41:11 <PhilDay> LauraM: Question I would have - is reason that sign language is not as critical - not just because it is not feasible - but there are alternatives that are more reasonable accommodation than the massive infrastructure needed for sign language interpretation.
15:41:43 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Problem - if you are native in sign language may not read English - it is a foreign language to them.
15:42:17 <PhilDay> LauraM: When we talk about accommodations that are not feasible - would this fit in that category?
15:43:49 <PhilDay> ... Reason that it is not a A or AA requirement - it is difficult to do until systems exist that can automate sign language interpretation.
15:46:57 <PhilDay> q?
15:47:20 <PhilDay> maryjom: Made some changes to the proposed text, took some of Gregg's content, shortened it, and put it into proposal 2
15:47:43 <bbailey7> q+
15:48:15 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:48:16 <PhilDay> bbailey7: Do we have to say why it is infeasible? We could just say it is presently infeasible.
15:48:22 <Sam> present +
15:48:32 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Think it helps to explain why
15:48:41 <maryjom> With current technologies, providing sign language for all synchronized media is a labor-intensive process. In the absence of reliable automated methods to produce sign language interpretation, it is not technically feasible to require for all audio content to have sign language interpretation, especially where non-web documents and software that
15:48:41 <maryjom> have a large amount of audio content.
15:49:26 <Sam> q+
15:49:33 <bbailey7> q-
15:51:27 <maryjom> q?
15:51:31 <maryjom> ack sam
15:51:55 <PhilDay> Sam: Just drop first sentence, don't say anything about labor intensive
15:52:03 <GreggVan> q+
15:52:08 <PhilDay> Not technically feasible at this time.
15:52:20 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:52:37 <PhilDay> GreggVan: We can say the same thing for lots of other SCs - there are no automated tools for other things as well
15:53:41 <PhilDay> GreggVan: might be helpful to compare with screen readers
15:54:45 <PhilDay> Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DZvxp9qYCv0QyEtcdiLQk6BX9aA5Rw553R6Wim8DkYs/edit?usp=sharing
15:55:28 <bbailey7> +1 to not feasibly logistically
15:56:31 <bbailey7> Or technically infeasible because the logistics necessary to implement are not possible with current technology?
15:57:42 <PhilDay> [multiple edits happening in google doc]
16:00:45 <PhilDay> New edits are now in the document as proposal 3
16:01:08 <PhilDay> maryjom will send out a survey
16:01:14 <PhilDay> Thanks all
16:01:28 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
16:02:10 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
16:02:24 <PhilDay> zakim, bye
16:02:24 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been loicmn, PhilDay, LauraM, bbailey, maryjom, GreggVan
16:02:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:03:18 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
16:03:18 <RRSAgent> I see no action items