Meeting minutes
Announcements
Maryjom: next week, Feb 12th, we will switch to using the google doc space that Daniel created.
Maryjom: future surveys will be there as well.
<maryjom> https://
Maryjom: due to changes in work priorities at IBM for 2026, Maryjom will be stepping down from participating in this task force.
Maryjom: PhilDay will continue as the facilitator and is hoping to get a co-facilitator from this group.
Maryjom: Let Daniel and Phil know if you are interested in that position or an Editor position.
Maryjom: We have accomplished alot with this group. Updated WCAG to ICT note to include WCAG2.1 and 2.2 criteria and republication changes of WCAG.
Maryjom: I will be more active in the AGWG as that is the priority for IBM (WCAG 3)
Maryjom: WIP - there are PRs open and a few level AAA criteria that have been approved but need PRs.
Bbailey: Question about Google Drive, it's the same drive as before.
BBailey: Maryjom has done a great job.
Bbailey: With Maryjom departure, WCAG2ICT should have a firm fixed end date.
BBailey: Need closure on AAA that is left open
Daniel: To Bruce's point, we prefer to give some leeway as to whether or not we complete AAA.
<bbailey> Personally, I have been very surprised and pleased how much editorial feedback WCAG2ICT has given to WCAG2
Maryjom: Or this WG will focus on AAA for this charter people and then will be suspended until WCAG 3 is delivered.
Bbailey: I have been so impressed and surprised about how much we have been able to provide this document. AG is not interested in any developments so we should finish AAA and be done with it.
Level AAA Criteria in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
<maryjom> Link to PR 828: w3c/
maryjom: SC Problematic for Closed Functionality needs to be cleaned up. We did survey this PR (828).
Maryjom: Subsections of A.1 and A.2 help to differentiate A and AA from AAA criteria
Maryjom: Updated introductory content at A.2 Level AAA Criteria
<maryjom> POLL: Can we merge PR #828 with the understanding that the introductory content in the Level AAA subsection of the SC problematic for closed functionality will be surveyed for the next meeting?
<bbailey> Note anchor and anchors to sections underneath
<bbailey> +1
<loicmn> +1
<LauraM> +1
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 828 as-is, with the understanding we will survey the introductory content for next week’s meeting
maryjom: Cannot merge with a PR off of my PR (bbailey proposed changes on the introduction to WCAG2ICT).
Maryjom: Need to survey that separately.
Maryjom: Created PR 832 which had BBailey's changes
<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to ask about AAA not being considered mandatory
Daniel: there is a place that says that AAA is not mandatory. Should say that they are not widely used or something similar.
bbailey: Can you discuss the edits I made in PR 830?
Maryjom: I commented but maybe lost the comment when I closed that item. My comment was about what bbailey added "It is not recommended that WCAG 2 conformance be required..." - we should discuss next week
maryjom: Everything else in there was editorial and did not need to be surveyed.
Maryjom: will be present next week. That will be my last week with the group.
Survey results for Level AAA SCs
<maryjom> Link to the survey results: https://
1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) (Level AAA)
<maryjom> Link to question 4: https://
<maryjom> Link to issue 532: w3c/
<maryjom> Google doc link: https://
LauraM: Table the one that Gregg had interest in.
LauraM: Discuss next week.
LauraM: 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) AAA is the one that Gregg added Proposal 3 to.
Maryjom: Might want to change the time/day of this meeting to make sure there are fewer conflicts.
<maryjom> Link to question 5: https://
<maryjom> Link to issue 538: w3c/
<maryjom> Google doc link: https://
Loicmn: the second version of note one is better because it provides everything that is needed (more complete) and included links.
<maryjom> POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1 – original agreed text, 2) Proposal 2 – Modify Note 1 as edited by Loïc, 3) something else
<bbailey> +1 to referring to intent
maryjom: we will make an editorial change to move the word intent to the commonly used "Intent from understanding"
<loicmn> 2
<bbailey> 2 -- modifying Note to so to refer to intent
2
<Daniel> 2
RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6, incorporate proposed text in proposal 2 as edited in the Google doc by Loïc into the editor’s draft
(Part 2 of 2) 1.3.6 Identify Purpose – definition of “region” (Level AAA)
<maryjom> Link to question 6: https://
<maryjom> Link to Google doc definition of “region”: https://
<bbailey> Noting that I think “per Intent from Understanding” is a little clearer than ”per Understanding SC 1.3.6 Intent”.
<maryjom> POLL: Which proposal do you prefer? 1) Proposal 1 – add “region” to Glossary items that Apply to All Technologies section, 2) Proposal 2 – Modify the note on definition of “region” so it doesn’t talk about HTML, 3) Modify the 1.3.6 SC language to not use “region”, or 4) something else
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say I can accept proposal 3
<loicmn> 3
3
maryjom: I will make a proposal to change the WCAG language (Region).
bbailey: Can we leave an option that we realized the AAA success criteria weren't closely reviewed enough.
Maryjom: The language that makes the most sense for non technology is the word "Section"
bbailey: Agree.
daniel: some mobile platforms use the notion of containers. So we may find ourselves in another bind without a common word that applies.
rrs agent, make minutes