14:55:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:55:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-irc
14:55:34 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:55:34 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:55:35 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:55:44 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
14:55:44 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:55:44 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
14:55:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:56:21 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:56:21 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
14:56:21 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
14:56:21 <PhilDay> agenda+ Editorial – non-web documents and non-web software
14:56:21 <PhilDay> agenda+ Question 4 - 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded)
14:56:22 <PhilDay> agenda+ Question 5 -  (Part 1 of 2) 1.3.6 Identify Purpose
14:56:22 <PhilDay> agenda+ Question 6 - (Part 2 of 2) 1.3.6 Identify Purpose
14:56:35 <PhilDay> regrets: Bruce Bailey, Laura Miller
14:57:52 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:58:00 <PhilDay> present+
15:02:49 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:03:02 <loicmn> present+
15:03:25 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:51 <Daniel> present+
15:05:03 <Sam> present+
15:05:29 <Daniel> scribe+ Light sccribing today  as we're a small group
15:05:33 <Daniel> scribe-
15:05:33 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:05:44 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:05:44 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
15:06:01 <PhilDay> Link to project board view: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13
15:06:07 <Daniel> q+
15:06:10 <PhilDay> Link to level AAA status table on wiki: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Adding-Level-AAA-%E2%80%90-status-table
15:06:12 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
15:06:24 <PhilDay> •	Daylight saving: US & Canada change to daylight savings on Sunday 8th March. Europe & UK do not until Sunday 29th March
15:06:32 <PhilDay> For those in Europe, meeting is 1 hour before
15:06:46 <Sam> going to CSUN next week
15:06:58 <Daniel> scribe+ Time shift -- For us in Europe and UK the meeting will be an hour before for the next three weeks
15:07:35 <PhilDay> loicmn: cannot make meetings until Europe moves to daylight savings
15:07:38 <Daniel> scribe+
15:07:44 <PhilDay> ACTION: PhilDay to cancel next week's meeting
15:07:51 <Daniel> Canceling next week's meeting due to CSUN
15:08:02 <Daniel> scribe-
15:08:04 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:08:04 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Editorial – non-web documents and non-web software -- taken up [from PhilDay]
15:08:33 <PhilDay> PR on this: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/845
15:08:37 <Daniel> q+
15:08:41 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
15:09:01 <Daniel> acck me
15:09:05 <PhilDay> Daniel: Problem with doing this separately - we just need to modify the anchors after content has changed
15:09:13 <PhilDay> Zakim, next item
15:09:13 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Question 4 - 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
15:09:22 <PhilDay> Link to q4: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-take-two/results/#xq4
15:09:22 <PhilDay> Link to Google doc with proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqDIF29q2SgjaHNquVd0f0spmxzDGvwdMnRsIwVJF8A/edit?usp=sharing
15:09:51 <PhilDay> Discussion last week – proposals 3 & 4 were preferred, with 3 being the only one that everyone would accept
15:11:14 <PhilDay> GreggVan: getting extra emails so may not see messages from GitHub. Send email directly to him for contact
15:11:36 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Gregg’s proposed language from survey – clean – all suggestions accepted
15:11:36 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.6.
15:11:36 <PhilDay> NOTE 1:   Today, there are not enough sign language interpreters world-wide to handle content generated in a single day making it logistically impossible to require for all content. However, emerging technologies will fairly soon allow translation from text or speech to sign language directly - at which time those who want sign language could use
15:11:36 <PhilDay> such a translator in the same way people who are blind use a screen reader.   This would give people who need sign language presentation the same or superior access that screen reader users have to all web content. However, until the latter occurs, providing sign language interpretations is immensely helpful for native sign language users -
15:11:38 <PhilDay> especially for any public service content.
15:11:38 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:11:38 <PhilDay> Some pre-programmed interactions (e.g., a game or VR) are considered “synchronized media” because the audio is timed to correspond with specific visual information..
15:11:39 <PhilDay> Note 3 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:11:39 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:11:46 <PhilDay> Proposal 4: Taking Daniel’s comments from the survey to adjust Note 1 - clean – all suggestions accepted
15:11:46 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.6.
15:11:46 <PhilDay> Note 1 (Added)
15:11:46 <PhilDay> With current technologies, specialized human intervention is needed to produce high enough quality sign language interpretation that would satisfy this requirement. This causes limitations on the amount of media content that can be provided with sign language interpretation. However, providing sign language interpretation is immensely helpful for
15:11:48 <PhilDay> native sign language users - especially for any public service content.
15:11:48 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:11:48 <PhilDay> Some pre-programmed interactions (e.g., a game or VR) are considered “synchronized media” because the audio is timed to correspond with specific visual information.
15:11:49 <PhilDay> Note 3 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:11:49 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:12:39 <PhilDay> Daniel: concern that note built on the premise that there will be tech in the future that can automatically translate.
15:13:06 <PhilDay> ... Had concerns that we cannot be certain that it will happen. We could say "if there is technology in the future, ...."
15:13:26 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Still believes AI technology will be ready for sign language interpretation.
15:14:40 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Has slightly modified proposal 3 to address Daniel's concerns
15:16:03 <PhilDay> ACTION: PhilDay to circulate how to copy & paste clean version from Google docs
15:16:15 <PhilDay> Revised version of proposal 3:
15:16:15 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Gregg’s proposed language from survey
15:16:15 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.6.
15:16:15 <PhilDay> NOTE 1:   Today, there are not enough sign language interpreters world-wide to handle content generated in a single day making it logistically impossible to require for all content. However, emerging technologies will fairly soon allow translation from text or speech to sign language directly - at which time those who want sign language could use
15:16:17 <PhilDay> such a translator in the same way people who are blind use a screen reader.   This would give people who need sign language presentation the same or superior access that screen reader users have to all web content. However, until the latter occurs, providing sign language interpretations is immensely helpful for native sign language users -
15:16:17 <PhilDay> especially for any public service content.  As always, authors should not rely on this until it is commonly available at a quality accepted by the signing community.
15:16:17 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:16:18 <PhilDay> Some pre-programmed interactions (e.g., a game or VR) are considered “synchronized media” because the audio is timed to correspond with specific visual information..
15:16:18 <PhilDay> Note 3 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:16:18 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:16:39 <PhilDay> •	POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 3, as-is; 2) Proposal 3, with latest edits; 3) Proposal 4, as-is; 4) Something else.
15:16:44 <PhilDay> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Proposal 3, as-is; 2) Proposal 3, with latest edits; 3) Proposal 4, as-is; 4) Something else.
15:17:42 <loicmn> 2
15:17:59 <GreggVan> 2
15:18:35 <PhilDay> Daniel: more editorial work needed -basic premise is good, but it needs polishing
15:18:44 <Daniel> Daniel: OK but needs editorial changes
15:19:51 <PhilDay> GreggVan: suggest we accept if all are happy with the premise - and then editors can tweak the language.
15:20:00 <PhilDay> Daniel: would accept
15:20:51 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: accept edited proposal 3 above, with editors to make further editorial improvements as they see fit
15:20:56 <loicmn> +1
15:21:05 <Daniel> +1
15:21:07 <GreggVan> +1
15:21:28 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: accept edited proposal 3 above, with editors to make further editorial improvements as they see fit
15:22:02 <PhilDay> ACTION: PhilDay to create PR based on this, and assign Gregg and Daniel as reviewers
15:22:11 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:22:11 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Question 5 -  (Part 1 of 2) 1.3.6 Identify Purpose -- taken up [from PhilDay]
15:22:44 <PhilDay> Link to q5: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-take-two/results/#xq5
15:22:44 <PhilDay> Link to Google doc, proposal 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nfStYHN0GnFa1_dpsM1Ot7lbe46QkFAg5Qqu9U0KQ7U/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.x61pq5pnaygi
15:23:14 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:23:44 <PhilDay> •	Majority preferred proposal 3. There was some discussion last week about taking proposal 3 but removing or modifying one or both notes, but no consensus was reached.
15:24:09 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Modify the 1.3.6 SC language to not use “region”
15:24:09 <PhilDay> Make a suggested change to the SC language to not use “region” and instead use the term “section”.
15:24:09 <PhilDay> Applying 1.3.6 Identify Purpose to Non-Web Documents and Software
15:24:09 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.6, replacing “regions” with “sections” because non-web documents and software often do not have a semantic equivalent to a “region” as it is defined by WCAG 2.
15:24:11 <PhilDay> With this substitution, it would read:
15:24:11 <PhilDay> In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of user interface components, icons, and sections can be programmatically determined.
15:24:11 <PhilDay> Note 1 (Added)
15:24:12 <PhilDay> A section may consist of one or more paragraphs and include graphics, tables, lists and sub-sections.
15:24:12 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:24:12 <PhilDay> This success criterion only applies to non-web documents and software that are implemented using markup languages, that support programmatically exposing the purpose of user interface components, icons and sections, and that the user agent or platform software can extract and present that purpose to users using different modalities, as explained in
15:24:13 <GreggVan> q+
15:24:13 <PhilDay> the Intent from Understanding 1.3.6 Identify Purpose.
15:24:13 <PhilDay> Changes to definitions sections
15:24:13 <PhilDay> “Section” is defined in WCAG 2.2 as:
15:24:14 <PhilDay> section
15:24:14 <PhilDay> a self-contained portion of written content that deals with one or more related topics or thoughts
15:24:14 <PhilDay> In the Comments on Definitions in WCAG 2 Glossary section, make the following changes:
15:24:15 <PhilDay> Remove “region” from the WCAG2ICT section Glossary Items Used only in AAA Success Criteria. This term will only be mentioned in WCAG2ICT in the word replacement language in the guidance for SC 1.3.6, not in the glossary sections.
15:24:16 <PhilDay> Move “section” from the Glossary Items Used only in AAA Success Criteria section to the WCAG2ICT section Glossary Items that Apply to All Technologies.
15:24:30 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Modify the 1.3.6 SC language to not use “region” (just body text)
15:24:30 <PhilDay> Make a suggested change to the SC language to not use “region” and instead use the term “section”.
15:24:30 <PhilDay> Applying 1.3.6 Identify Purpose to Non-Web Documents and Software
15:24:30 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.6, replacing “regions” with “sections” because non-web documents and software often do not have a semantic equivalent to a “region” as it is defined by WCAG 2.
15:24:32 <PhilDay> With this substitution, it would read:
15:24:32 <PhilDay> In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of user interface components, icons, and sections can be programmatically determined.
15:24:32 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:25:04 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Suggests sections should be "visually identifiable sections"
15:25:48 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Would like to remove this recommendation entirely from WCAG
15:26:29 <loicmn> q+ to say we it might be better to come back to region
15:26:47 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Not agree that sections is better than regions
15:26:53 <PhilDay> q?
15:27:08 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
15:27:08 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say we it might be better to come back to region
15:27:36 <PhilDay> loicmn: Think that we might be better using region, and then finesse the definition of region so it works outside the web domain
15:27:45 <GreggVan> q+
15:28:11 <PhilDay> ... problem was that notes for region had examples that were specific to HTML
15:28:50 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:29:56 <PhilDay> GreggVan: "self-contained portion" is undefined
15:31:17 <PhilDay> POLL: Which do you prefer in the body of the 1.3.6? 1) Region; 2) Section; 3) Something else
15:31:17 <loicmn> q+ to say that we might go to the HTML definition of section
15:31:39 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
15:31:39 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that we might go to the HTML definition of section
15:31:44 <Daniel> q+
15:32:22 <loicmn> "A section, in this context, is a thematic grouping of content, typically with a heading."
15:32:30 <PhilDay> loicmn: what WCAG defines as a region, is similar to the HTML definition of a section.
15:32:31 <loicmn> https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/sections.html
15:33:27 <PhilDay> loicmn: Seems to be an underlying problem with WCAG, but we may be able to use the words from HTML section definition to help us define a region.
15:33:30 <PhilDay> q?
15:33:40 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
15:33:42 <GreggVan> q+
15:34:37 <PhilDay> Daniel: Bruce commented that the change we requested on WCAG has been submitted - but it is a long way from happening. We already proposed a change to this wording. Going back again on this would be problematic.
15:34:56 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:35:05 <Daniel> -> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/538#issuecomment-3967765849 Bruce comment to note that WCAG 2 backlog approved changing the term
15:37:15 <PhilDay> POLL: Which term do you prefer to use in the body of 1.3.6? 1) Region; 2) Section; 3) Something else
15:37:26 <Sam> 2
15:37:37 <Sam> q+
15:38:34 <PhilDay> ack Sam
15:38:55 <PhilDay> Sam: Are we trying to fix WCAG? Suggest we should not try and fix that.
15:39:13 <GreggVan> q+
15:39:30 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:39:52 <PhilDay> GreggVan: agree with Sam. We are not here to fix WCAG.
15:40:14 <PhilDay> ... maybe better to not try and fix something that is broken
15:40:27 <PhilDay> changing region to section may not help.
15:40:36 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:41:09 <PhilDay> q?
15:41:24 <PhilDay> q+
15:41:24 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
15:41:34 <Daniel> scribe+
15:41:59 <PhilDay> q?
15:42:01 <GreggVan> q+
15:42:04 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:42:31 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Suggest we leave as is (with region), then add a note about non-web documents and non-web software
15:42:59 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Add a comment that if it is important, it may need to apply more widely than just to markup languages.
15:43:38 <PhilDay> Proposal: Leave text using "region", and then just add a note to comment on non-web context. Do you agree with this?
15:43:45 <Sam> +1
15:43:51 <loicmn> +1
15:43:56 <GreggVan> +1
15:44:00 <Daniel> +1
15:44:27 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:44:27 <PhilDay> This success criterion only applies to non-web documents and software that are implemented using markup languages, that support programmatically exposing the purpose of user interface components, icons and sections, and that the user agent or platform software can extract and present that purpose to users using different modalities, as explained in
15:44:27 <PhilDay> the Intent from Understanding 1.3.6 Identify Purpose.
15:45:37 <Sam> This success criterion only applies to all non-web documents and software, that support programmatically exposing the purpose of user interface components, icons and sections, and that the user agent or platform software can extract and present that purpose to users using different modalities, as explained in
15:45:51 <Sam> q+
15:45:55 <GreggVan> NOTE:  The WCAG2ICT working group notes that the term region is not objectively defined enough to be a requirement rather than a recommendation.
15:47:00 <GreggVan> Also as a recommendation it is not clear why it is limited to markup langauages
15:47:27 <PhilDay> q?
15:47:32 <PhilDay> ack Sam
15:48:38 <loicmn> q+ To say yes to Sam but refer to best practice
15:48:45 <PhilDay> Proposal 4: Revert to region, add note to give non-web context
15:48:45 <PhilDay> Applying 1.3.6 Identify Purpose to Non-Web Documents and Software
15:48:45 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.6,.
15:48:45 <PhilDay> In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of user interface components, icons, and regions can be programmatically determined.
15:48:47 <PhilDay> NOTE 1:
15:48:47 <PhilDay> This success criterion only applies to all non-web documents and software, that support programmatically exposing the purpose of user interface components, icons and sections, and that the user agent or platform software can extract and present that purpose to users using different modalities, as explained in the Intent from Understanding 1.3.6
15:48:47 <PhilDay> Identify Purpose.
15:50:02 <PhilDay> q?
15:50:05 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
15:50:05 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say yes to Sam but refer to best practice
15:50:10 <GreggVan> q+
15:51:07 <PhilDay> loicmn: We cannot remove markup language from the SC. The only thing we can do is add a note that it only applies in these cases.
15:51:07 <PhilDay> Then add another note to say if it is not a markup language but the rest applies then you should do this as best practice
15:51:14 <PhilDay> q?
15:51:16 <Sam> q+
15:51:21 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:51:28 <PhilDay> ack Sam
15:52:06 <PhilDay> Sam: thought it was OK to remove from the note - just not in the SC iteself
15:52:12 <Sam> q-
15:52:17 <PhilDay> s/iteself/itself
15:53:05 <GreggVan> The WCAG2ICT working group also notes that as a Level AAA provision which is essentially a recommendation, this need not be limited to markup languages.  If being considered for a requirement then the term "section" (or region if that was considered as a substitute) would need to have an objective definition rather than its current ambiguous definition.
15:53:11 <GreggVan> q+
15:53:20 <PhilDay> loicmn: Adding a 2nd note that talks about best practice - although not required if there is no markup language, if all other parameters exist, it is best practice to provide the ability to identify purpose
15:53:22 <PhilDay> q?
15:53:32 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:53:55 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Applies as written, substituting web... with non-web documents and non-web software.
15:54:22 <Sam> +1 to Gregg
15:54:36 <loicmn> +1
15:54:52 <PhilDay> +1 from Daniel
15:54:53 <GreggVan> +1
15:55:02 <Daniel> +1
15:55:09 <PhilDay> Proposal 4: Revert to region, add note to give non-web context
15:55:09 <PhilDay> Applying 1.3.6 Identify Purpose to Non-Web Documents and Software
15:55:09 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.6,.
15:55:09 <PhilDay> In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of user interface components, icons, and regions can be programmatically determined.
15:55:11 <PhilDay> NOTE 1 (GREGG)
15:55:11 <PhilDay> The WCAG2ICT working group also notes that as a Level AAA provision which is essentially a recommendation, this need not be limited to markup languages.  If being considered for a requirement then the term "section" (or region if that was considered as a substitute) would need to have an objective definition rather than its current ambiguous
15:55:11 <PhilDay> definition.
15:55:32 <PhilDay> ACTION: PhilDay to add relevant word substitution to SC 1.3.6 body text.
15:56:02 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6 Identify Purpose, use edited version of proposal 4 above with new NOTE 1
15:56:28 <PhilDay> q?
15:57:09 <loicmn> +1
15:57:11 <Sam> +1
15:57:16 <GreggVan> +1
15:57:31 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 1.3.6 Identify Purpose, use edited version of proposal 4 above with new NOTE 1
15:57:39 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
15:58:25 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:58:27 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
15:58:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:58:41 <GreggVan> preent+
15:58:45 <GreggVan> present+
15:59:05 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
15:59:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:59:26 <PhilDay> zakim, end meeting
15:59:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, loicmn, Daniel, Sam, GreggVan
15:59:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:59:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:59:37 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:59:37 <PhilDay> rrsagent, bye
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PhilDay to cancel next week's meeting [1]
15:59:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-irc#T15-07-44
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PhilDay to circulate how to copy & paste clean version from Google docs [2]
15:59:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-irc#T15-16-03
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PhilDay to create PR based on this, and assign Gregg and Daniel as reviewers [3]
15:59:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-irc#T15-22-02
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PhilDay to add relevant word substitution to SC 1.3.6 body text. [4]
15:59:37 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-wcag2ict-irc#T15-55-32
15:59:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict