Meeting minutes
Announcements
New W3C Google doc space Daniel created at: https://
PhilDay: We have moved the google docs to the W3C space
PhilDay: If you need access, email Daniel
o Link to level AAA status table on wiki: https://
o Link to project board view: https://
PhilDay: There are many items left on the table
PhilDay: Look at the items and assign yourself to items and draft content
o Link to level AAA status table on wiki: https://
Question 2 - Adding Level AAA into the introduction section of WCAG2ICT Group Note
• Link to the survey results: https://
• Link to q2: https://
• Link to pull request 832: w3c/
PhilDay: Bruce was doing edits last week, Maryjo and Bruce went through iterations.
PhilDay: Most thought that PR832 was ready to merge.
• Mary Jo reiterated his suggested changes in a suggestion - https://
BBailey: We should do this in two passes, one for minor edits and one that has the diff preview.
bbailey: diff preview of Bruce's latest content: https://
Gregg: Changing from "standards" to "regulations" is inaccurate. EN301 549 is a standard not a regulation. Could use standards and regulations.
<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to say framing rules as testing techniques could help remediate some of the concerns
Suggested change
It is not recommended that WCAG 2 conformance be required as a general policy for all non-web documents and software because it is not possible to satisfy all success criteria for some non-web ICT.
WCAG2ICT is useful as guidance for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software. However, because it is not possible to satisfy all success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that unmodified WCAG 2 success criteria be applied for all non-web documents
and software.
Daniel's suggested edit: WCAG2ICT is useful as guidance for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software. However, because it is not possible to satisfy all success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that unmodified WCAG 2 success criteria be applied
for all non-web documents and software.
Bruce's previous version (put by Mary Jo as a suggestion):
WCAG2ICT is useful as guidance for policy for non-web documents and software and to inform conformance requirements for non-web documents and software. However, because it is not possible to satisfy all success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that unmodified WCAG 2 conformance be required for all non-web
documents and software.
Change from last week - we added a positive framing to the start.
GreggVan: Seems contradictory - useful as guidance for policy, in the first sentence, then 2nd sentence says you should not use it unmodified
PhilDay: What is the proposal. Last week we decided to add a positive framing. How do we flip this to be positive.
Gregg - useful as recommendations, but not applied as requirements
GreggVan: Useful as recommendations but not as requirements.
GreggVan: They are important for people to do when they can and where they can
Bbailey: The assignment was to add a sentence or two about AAA success criteria.
Bbailey: I realized that what I would say would not be different from what I would say about AA and A SCs.
Bbailey: Maybe we could put a sentence in about why they are in a different section.
Daniel's suggested change:
WCAG2ICT is useful as guidance for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software. However, because it is not possible to satisfy all success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that unmodified WCAG 2 success criteria be applied for all non-web documents
and software.
Gregg's edit to Daniel's
WCAG2ICT is useful as recommendations for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software. However, because it is not possible to satisfy all success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that unmodified WCAG 2 success criteria be applied as requirements for
all non-web documents and software.
PhilDay: Let's go after the contentious section and then go back
PR: w3c/
<bbailey> https://
Bruce's softened version:
WCAG2ICT is useful as guidance for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software in addressing accessibility of non-web ICT. However, because it is not possible to satisfy some success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that all WCAG 2 success criteria
be applied without modication to some non-web documents and software.
GreggVan: Don't like this one because it says the same things as before
By swapping non web for web, it's a problem
Bruce + Gregg's changes
WCAG2ICT is useful as recommendations for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software in addressing accessibility of non-web ICT. However, because it is not possible to satisfy some success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that all WCAG 2 success
criteria be applied without modification as requirements to some non-web documents and software.
GreggVan: Everything in our document is a recommendation.
GreggVan: Maybe we should adopt the other changes and then revisit this part
Bbailey: Let's change to Level AAA SC is useful as guidance.
WCAG2ICT Level AAA SC are useful as recommendations for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software in addressing accessibility of non-web ICT. However, because it is not possible to satisfy some success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that all
WCAG 2 success criteria be applied without modification as requirements to some non-web documents and software.
GreggVan: I think the current one, if you change to AAA, still has it's own problem.
Level AAA SC are useful as recommendations for policy makers and other regulators to assess how WCAG 2 can be applied to non-web documents and software in addressing accessibility of non-web ICT. However, because it is not possible to satisfy some success criteria for some non-web ICT, it is not recommended as a general policy that all WCAG 2
success criteria be applied without modification as requirements to some non-web documents and software.
Bbailey: Do we not want the word recommendation twice?
GreggVan: It's the use of the word "recommendation" is in the wrong place in the sentence. And the whole document is a recommendation.
<bbailey> It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content.
<Sam> why dont use optional
<bbailey> It is not recommended that WCAG Level AAA success criteria be required as a general policy for non-web ict because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content.
Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content, Level AAA conformance may not be required as a general policy.
LauraM: Reword the sentence, shorten, and change order to help.
GreggVan: "May not" is not the right word.
<bbailey> Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content, it is not recommended that Level AAA success criteria be required as a general policy.
Sam: Level AAA doesn't apply to some content. Bruce's statement is pretty good. Why do we keep referring back when we can state "don't do this as a requirement".
<GreggVan> It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content.
<bbailey> https://
GreggVan: Bruce's comes close but we are talking about non web not sites, that's one problem with the sentence.
<bbailey> Note 2: It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content.
We are talking about non web ICT.
<bbailey> Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites.
Laura: Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content, it is not recommended that Level AAA success criteria be required as a general policy. (or with entire sites).
<bbailey> Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web ICT.
Sam: Bruce changed it to non web ICT
<bbailey> > Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web content, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web ict.
<LauraM> +1
<Sam> +1
<loicmn> +1
<bbailey> Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web documents and software, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites.
<loicmn> Yes, we use non-web content in WCAG2ICT:https://
GreggVan: ICT should be used in both places
<bbailey> Note 2: It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content.
GreggVan: Non web content in the beginning of the sentence and non web ICT in the end infers there is a difference in the meaning
bbailey: trying to keep consistent with note 2..
Sam: Question for Gregg - if it used non web ICT in both places is that ok?
GreggVan: What does WCAG actually say?
<bbailey> https://
ack \,
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that in WCAG2ICT we have generalized "content"
Loicmn: we do use content in WCAG2ICT as a generalized term so we can use content. We can also use non-web content.
<loicmn> https://
<bbailey> Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web ict, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web documents and software.
GreggVan: Since we are WCAG2ICT we should probably use something consistently such as "ICT" which gets it away from content.
<Sam> +1 to Bruce suggestion
ack \,
<bbailey> ack
<GreggVan> acl \
Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web ict, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web documents and software.
bbailey: Because we are modeling note 2, general and then broader, we should do something similar with our statement is more consistent with the note.
<Sam> vote?
POLL. Are you happy with bbailey's latest as posted by Laura above?
<loicmn> +1
<bbailey> +1
<LauraM> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Sam> +1
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For the introductory paragraph, incorporate the latest content: "Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web ict, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web documents and software."
<bbailey> +1
<Sam> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<loicmn> +1
<LauraM> +1
RESOLUTION: For the introductory paragraph, incorporate the latest content: "Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web ict, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web documents and software."
GreggVan: Editorial - suggest non-web documents and software in both places.
<bbailey> I think we *do* mean two different things
LauraM: referenced 2 different ways in the original WCAG2 NOTE 2 - as they had broad and then specific.
bbailey: We use both terms, non-web ICT includes hardware and other things but for applying, we meant non web documents and software.
GreggVan: Then we need to define them as two different things.
<Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say the original uses two terms - content, web sites - and we should use two. Suggest content, non-web documents and software.
Loicmn: ICT includes hardware. So we should go back to what we had originally
loicmn: suggest we go back to non-web content, and then non-web documents and software.
Revised version: Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web content, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web documents and software."
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to discuss someone to do editorial pass on "non-web ICT"
bbailey happy with Loic's suggestion - if not check non-web ICT elsewhere
Bbailey: Should we create a new issue to make sure we are using non web ICT correctly? PhilDay to check on this.
Sam: I thought the whole reason to keep it that way was to keep it like the original WCAG note. Did we resolve and reopen?
GreggVan: bruce raised the point that non web ICT includes hardware as well.
WCAG provisions do not deal with hardware at all. They do not translate to everything.
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Modify paragraph in introductory section to use "Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web content, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web documents and software."
<bbailey> +1
GreggVan: Where we say non web ICT we should change to content.
<loicmn> +1
<LauraM> +1 to draft resolution
<Sam> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: Modify paragraph in introductory section to use "Because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some non-web content, it is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for non-web documents and software."
ACTION: Check draft's use of non-web ICT
POLL: Are you happy to accept Bruce's other edits in https://
<loicmn> +1 to Bruce's changes
<PhilDay> +1 to Bruce's changes
DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept the remainder of Bruce's edits from PR 238 as discussed above
<loicmn> +1
<bbailey> +1
ACTION: Editorial check for use of "regulation"
ACTION: check where else we use non/web ICT and see if it includes hardware, and see if we can change to non-web content. Create issue
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept the remainder of Bruce's edits from PR 238 as discussed above
o rrsagent, make minutes
o Zakim, end meeting