Meeting minutes
Announcements
<PhilDay> Link to project board view: https://
<PhilDay> Link to level AAA status table on wiki: https://
<PhilDay> Link to latest editor’s draft: https://
PhilDay: Tamson Ewing (Spelling) reviewed the latest editors draft incorporating the changes from bba11y etc
Editorial – non-web documents and non-web software
PhilDay: Pick any issues to self-assign
PhilDay: Editorial, non-web documents and non-web software needs to be made. LauraM made the changes to the main doc. Needs to search the remaining docs.
LauraM: Have made changes in the main doc. Will now move on to other docs
1.2.9 Audio-only (Live) (Level AAA)
Link to issue: w3c/
Link to PR: w3c/
Text from PR 835:
Applying SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live) to Non-Web Documents
This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web documents because there is no support to include live audio in non-web document technology that exist today.
Where a non-web document technology supports incorporation of live audio-only content, this applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.9.
NOTE
This SC would not apply to "non-web documents" because any non-web technology that was streaming or presenting live audio content would be considered software".
Applying SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live) to Non-Web Software
This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.9.
NOTE
Some ways to satisfy this success criterion would be to provide live captions (also known as subtitles or “subtitles for the hearing impaired") or a text transcript, script, or other text-based alternative.
NOTE
When captions are provided, to satisfy this success criterion, they would have to provide a "synchronized text alternative for both speech and non-speech audio information needed to understand the media content” where non-speech information includes “sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and location”.
NOTE
See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
Content for SC problematic for closed:
1.2.9 Audio-only (Live) (Level AAA) — One of the options available to authors for Success Criterion 1.2.9 is providing a media alternative that is text which, in the absence of connected assistive technology, would need to be made available in different modalities.
PhilDay: We were almost at consensus before so just running through for final approval
bba11y: so we are saying that "this success criteria would not apply"? Are we ok with that?
ACTION: PhilDay to edit PR 835 for consistency of language (may be problematic to apply instead of does not apply)
PhilDay: for consistency sake will change to "This success criteria may be problematic"
GreggVan: Not sure I agree. If I ship an audio file without captions, why is that not a problem?
GreggVan: Because it is "Live" audio. Ok.
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live), incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above
<LauraM> +1
<bba11y> +1
GreggVan: Disagree. A document includes media (so a movie is a document). So if I am offering the media from my site to you, you will run it on a player but you can't show the captions if they are not included in my live stream
GreggVan: We have three products, streaming software, program (document) and player (software/hardware).
GreggVan: My podcasts are not software, they are media which are documents
Problematic note: <div class="note wcag2ict documents">
This SC would not apply to "non-web documents" because any non-web technology that was streaming or presenting live audio content would be considered software".</div>
Suggest we take this line out
GreggVan: So line 76 should be removed.
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live), incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above, including removing NOTE 1 on non-web documents (lines 74 to 76).
GreggVan: Line 71 is not correct either.
Delete 71, 74-76.
PhilDay: Keep 73
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live), incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above, including removing notes 1 & 3 on non-web documents (lines 71, 74 to 76, keep 73).
bba11y: XM radio disappointingly doesn't do this
Add note: live audio players (such as radios) may not currently support displaying captions and it may pose a risk in vehicles so may not be suitable in all cases.
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live), incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above, including removing notes 1 & 3 on non-web documents (lines 71, 74 to 76, keep 73), and adding new note
<bba11y> +1
<LauraM> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: For SC 1.2.9 Audio-Only (Live), incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above, including removing notes 1 & 3 on non-web documents (lines 71, 74 to 76, keep 73), and adding new note
1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced) (Level AAA)
Link to issue: w3c/
Link to PRs: w3c/
PhilDay: Single proposal for today
Text from PR 850:
Applying SC 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced) to Non-Web Documents and Software
This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.6.
NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
Text from PR 851:
1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced) - There are cases where applying this success criterion to non-web software on ICT with closed functionality is problematic:
When the contrast of the content is determined by the hardware and not modifiable by the software author, it may not be possible to meet this success criterion.
NOTE 1
Contrast requirements for hardware are out of scope for WCAG2ICT (and this success criterion).
When the color contrast ratio cannot be programmatically measured due to system limitations (e.g. lockdown), precise quantifiable testing of color contrast cannot be performed by a third party. In such cases, the software author would need to confirm that the color combinations used meet the contrast requirement.
NOTE 2
Photographs (e.g., of a hardware display) are not sufficient for testing that content meets this success criterion. This is because the quality of the lighting, camera, and physical aspects of the hardware display can dramatically affect the ability to capture the content for testing purposes.
Draft content was derived from content for 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)
Note from Gregg: Contrast for emissive rather than for reflective systems
ACTION: PhilDay to draft content then ask Gregg to review
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced), incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above, and additional note on emissive / reflective
<bba11y> ADA standards and 508 for contrast on hardware just requires “light on dark on light”.
<bba11y> +1
<LauraM> +1
<GreggVan> NOTE: C+1ontrast for emissive
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: For 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced), incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown in the meeting minutes above, and additional note on emissive / reflective
emissive or reflective ICT - not content
GreggVan: the content doesn't emit, it's the hardware.
1.4.7 Low or No Background Audio (Level AAA)
Link to issue: w3c/
Text from issue 540:
Applying SC 1.4.7 Low or No Background Audio to Non-Web Documents and Software
This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.7.
<bba11y> +1
<LauraM> +1
DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 1.4.7 Low or No Background Audio, incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, as-is
<LauraM> +1
<bba11y> +1
<GreggVan> +1
RESOLUTION: For 1.4.7 Low or No Background Audio, incorporate Proposal into the editor’s draft, as-is
Issue 852, non-web document definition
<bba11y> Just an FYI: https://
<bba11y> Why isn’t a minimum level of color contrast between characters and the background specified in the Standards?
<bba11y> From USAB guide to chapter 7 on signage.
<bba11y> Color contrast is based on a color’s light reflectance value (LFV), which measures the amount of a light a color reflects or absorbs. It is typically measured using a spectrophotometer. Measuring LFV accurately in the field can be difficult and is impacted by a variety of factors, including sign materials and lighting conditions.
If you distribute using the web, then WCAG applies. If you distribute without using the web, then WCAG2ICT applies
bba11y: where are we putting that guidance? Will it just be a reply or can we use as FAQ or other content.
<Zakim> bba11y, you wanted to suggest not being dependent on close review from AGWG, base on my experience with WCAG2issues
ACTION: PhilDay to add initial comment in issue
Then we will pick up next week if Mitch has more response